<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE TEI.2 PUBLIC "-//TEI P4//DTD Main Document Type//EN"
"http://infomotions.com/sandbox/great-books/etc/dtd/tei2.dtd"
[
<!ENTITY % TEI.XML     'INCLUDE' >
<!ENTITY % TEI.prose   'INCLUDE' >
<!ENTITY % TEI.linking 'INCLUDE' >
<!ENTITY % TEI.figures 'INCLUDE' >
<!ATTLIST xptr   url CDATA #IMPLIED >
<!ATTLIST xref   url CDATA #IMPLIED >
<!ATTLIST figure url CDATA #IMPLIED >
]>
<TEI.2>
  <teiHeader>
    <fileDesc>
      <titleStmt>
        <title>Capital</title>
        <author>
          <name>Marx</name>
        </author>
        <respStmt>
          <resp>converted into TEI-conformant markup by</resp>
          <name>Eric Lease Morgan</name>
        </respStmt>
      </titleStmt>
      <publicationStmt>
        <publisher>Infomotions, Inc.</publisher>
        <address>
          <addrLine>eric_morgan@infomotions.com</addrLine>
        </address>
        <idno>marx-capital-1110</idno>
      </publicationStmt>
      <sourceDesc>
        <bibl>
          <xptr url='http://ia311015.us.archive.org/2/items/capital00marxgoog/capital00marxgoog_djvu.txt' />
        </bibl>
      </sourceDesc>
    </fileDesc>
    <revisionDesc>
      <change>
        <date>TODAY</date>
        <respStmt>
          <name>Eric Lease Morgan</name>
        </respStmt>
        <item>initial TEI framework generated</item>
      </change>
    </revisionDesc>
  </teiHeader>
  <text>
    <front>
      <titlePage>
        <docTitle>
          <titlePart>Capital</titlePart>
        </docTitle>
        <byline>by
        <docAuthor>Marx</docAuthor></byline>
      </titlePage>
    </front>
    <body>
      <p>CAPITAL: A CRITIQUE OF POLITICAL ECONOMY by Karl Marx

 

CONTENTS. 



9MOB 

Edrok&apos;s Nots to tbx FutT Ahisican Editioii, •»«• 7 

AuTHOft&apos;s PuyACis— I. To the First Edition, • • XI 

II. To the Second Edition, « • • 16 

Editor&apos;s Pbo act— To the First English Translation, » • S7 

Edxtqs&apos;s Puvacb — ^To the Fourth German Edition, ••••••*••&lt;&gt; 

PART I. 

COMMODrrns and momst. 

Chaptks I. — Connnodides, . . &apos; 41 

Section 1.— The two Factors of a Commodity; Use Valne and Value (the 

Substance of Value and the Magnitude of Value) &apos;41 

Section 2. — ^The Twofold Character of the Labour embodied in Commodities, 48 

Section 8. — ^The Form of Value, or Exchange Value, 64 

A. Elementary or Accidental Form o Value, 66 

1. The two Poles of the Expression o5 Value: Relative Form and 

Equivalent Form, 66 

The Relative Form of Value, 67 

(a.) The Nattu-e and Import of this Form, 67 

(b.y Quantitative Determination of Relative Value, 61 

8. The Equivalent Form of Value, • • 64 

4. The Elementary Form of Value considered as a Whole, ... 69 

B. Total or Expanded Form of Value, 78 

1. The Expanded Relative Form of Value, 78 

2. The Particular Equivalent Form, 78 

8. Defects of the Total or Expandwd Form of Value, 74 

C. The General Form of Value, 76 

1. The altered Character of the Form of Value 76 

%, The interdependent Development of the Relative Form of Valne, 

and of the Equivalent Form,. • 78 

8. Transition from the General Form to the Money Form 79 

D. The Money Form, 80 

Section 4.— The Fetishism of Commodities and the Secret thereof, 81 

Cbaptbr II.~Ezchange • . • M 

Chaptxr ni.— Money, or the Circulation of Commodities 106 

Secdon L— The Measure of Value 106 

I 81— The Medium of Circulation. 116 

a. The Metamorphosis of Commodities, .116 

6. The Currency of Money 128 

c. Coin, and Symbols of Value 140 

I 8L— Money ! 146 

a. Hoarding, ••••••• 146 

^. Means of Pairment, ••••• 161 

€, Universal Money, ••••• 169 

PART II. 

TBB TRAMSFORMATION OF MORXT IRTO CAPITAI.. 

CBAms IV.^The General Formula for Capita] 168 

Chaptxr v.— Contradicdons in the General Formula of Capital, 178 

Cbaptbr VI.— The Buying and Selling of Labour-Power, 188 

8 



 

I Contents. 

PART IIL 

fas ftOWIC WOI I €9 AMOLUTt 8UIPLir»¥ALUS. 

CBArm VIL— The Labour Process end the Process of produdnf Sorplos- 

Vtliie, 197 

Section 1. — ^The Labour Process or the Production of Use- Value, 197 

Section 8. — ^The Production of Surplus- Value, i07 

Chaftbb VIII.— Constant Capital and Variable Capital, tSl 

CHApm IX.— The Rate of Surplus- Value, SM 

Section L— The Degree of ExploiUtion of Labour-Power, S85 

Section 2. — ^The Representation of the Components of the Value of the Pro- 
duct by corresponding proportional Parts of the Product itMlf, . • . S44 

Section 8.— ^Senior&apos;s &quot; Last Hour,&quot; i48 

Section 4«— Surplus-Produce, S64 

CHApm X.— The Working-Day, i66 

Section !•— The Limits of the WorkingwDay, ; • . . i66 

Section 2, — ^The Greed for Surplus-Labour. Manufacturer and Boyard, • . i69 
Section 8. — Branches of English Industry without Legal Limits to Exploitation, SOS 

Section 4.-&apos;Day and Night Work. The Relay System, S88 

Section C — ^The Struggle for m Normal Working-Day. Compulsory Laws for 
the Extension of the Working-Day from the Middle of the 14th to the 

End of the 17th Century, 890 

Sectioo d^— The Struggle for m Normal Working-Day. Compulsory Limitation 

bj Law of the Working-Time. The English Factory Acts, 1888 to 1864, 804 
Section 7«— The Struggle for a Normal Working-Day. Re-action of the Eng- 
lish Factory Acts on Other Countries, 888 

.CBArm XL— Rate and Mass of Surplus-Value, 881 

PART IV. 

nODUCTIOII or KXLATIVB SUtFLUt-TALOS. 

CRAfTIt Xn.^The Concept of Relative Surplus-Value, 848 

Cbaptbi XXII.— Co-Operation, 868 

Caapth XIV. — Division of Labour and Bianufacture, 808 

Section 1. — ^Twofold Origin of Bianufacture, 808 

Section 8. — ^The Detail Labourer and his Implements, 878 

Section 8. — ^The two Fundamental Forms of Manufacture: Heterogeneous 

Manufacture, Serial Manufacture, 876 

Section 4. — Division of Labour in Manufacture, and Division of Labour in 

Society, 886 

Section 6.— The Capitalistic Character of Manufacture, 896 

CBAPTxa XV. — ^Machinery and Modem Industry, « . 406 

Section 1. — ^The Development of Machinery, 406 

Section 8. — ^The Value transferred by Machinery to the Product, .... 488 
Sectkm 8.— The Proximate Effects of Machinery on the Workman, . . . .480 

a. Appropriation of Supplementary Labour-Power by CapitaL The 

Employment of Women and Children 481 

b. Prolongation of the Working-Day, 440 

c. Intensification of Labour, 447 

Section 4iP-The Factory, 467 

Section 6. — ^The Strife between Workman and Machinery, 400 

Section 0^— The Theory of Qnnpensation as regards ^Jbt Workpeople displaced 

1^ Machinery, « , - - 478 

Section 7. — Repulsion and Attraction of Workpeople by fhe Vactory byste^^ 



Crisea of the CMton Trade, 



 

/ 



Contents. 5 

PAOB 

Seetioo 8. — Revolotioa efFected in Manufacture, Handkraftt* and Domettie 

Industry hy Modem Industry, 60t 

&amp; Overthrow of Co-Operation baaed on Handicraft and on Divi- 

skm of Labour, 60i 

b* Re-action of the Factory System on Manufacture and Domes- 
tic Industries, 604 

e. Modem Manufacture, 60e 

dL Modem Domestic Industry, 509 

«; Passage of Modem Manufacture and Domestic Industry into 
Modem Mechanical Industry. The Hastening of this Revo- 
lution by the Application of the Factory Acts to those In- 
dustries, 614 

Seetioo 9.-— The Factory Acts. Sanitary and Educational Clauses of the same. 

Their general Extension in England, 626 

Section 10. — ^Modern Industry and Agriculture, 66S 

PART V. 

THS ttODUCTfOII 09 ABSOLUTS AND SKLATIVB SUSTLUt-VALUI. 

CHAPm XVI.— Absolute and Relative Surplus- Value, 667 

Cbaftsb XVII. — Changes of Magnitude in the Price of Labour-Power and in 

Surplus- Value, 668 

I. Length of the Working Day and Intensity of Labour constant. Pro- 
ductiveness of Labour variable 660 

TL Working Day constant. Productiveness of Labour constant. Intensity 

of Labor variable, 674 

nL Productiveness and Intensity of Labour constant. Length of the Work- 
ing Day variable, 676 

IV. Simultaneous Variations in the Duration, Productiveness and In- 
tensity of Labour, 678 

&lt;1.) Diminishing Productiveness of Labour with a simultaneous Length- 
ening of the Working Day, 678 

(2.) Increasing Intensity and Productiveness of Labour with simul- 
taneous Shortening of the Working Day, . 680 

CBAvm XVIIL — ^Various Formic for the Rate of Surplus-Value, • ... 688 

PART VL 

WAQBS. 

CBAfnat XIX.-^The Transformation of the Value (and respectively the Price) 

of Labour-Power into Wages, » 686 

Chaptbk XX.— Time-wages 694 

Charbb XXL— Piece-Wages, 602 

CHArxBi XXIL— Nattonal Differences of Wages, 611 

PART VII. 

THB ACCUMX7LATX0N 09 CAPITAL. 

CHAPTtt XXIII.— Simple Reproduction 010 

Ckaptb XXIV. — Conversion of Surplus- Value into Capital 634 

Section L — Capitalist Production on a progressively increasing Scale. Transi- 
tion of the Laws of Property that characterise Production of Com- 
modities into Laws of Capitalist Appropriation, 684 

Section 2. — ^Erroneous Conception, by Political Economy, of Reproduction on 

a progressively increasing Scale, 644 



 

i/ 



\ Contents. 

VMS 

Sectioo 8. — Separation of Siirplii*-Valne into Capital and Revemie. The Ab- 
stinence Theory, 648 

Section 4. — Circumstances that, independently of the proportional Division of 
Surplus-Value into Capital and Revenue, determine the Amotant of Ac- 
cumulation. Degree of Exploitation of Labour-Power. Productivity of 
Labour. Growing Difference in Amount between Capital employed and 
Capital consumed. Magnitude of Capital advanced, 068 

Section 6.— The so-called Labour Fund, 867 

CuAPTBR XXV. — ^The General Law of Capitalist Aoctmiulation, 671 

Section 1. — ^The increased Demand for Labour-Power that accompanies Accumu- 
lation, the Composition of Capital remaining the same 671 

t^ Section 2. — Relative Diminution of the Variable Part of Capital simultaneously 
with the Progress of Accumulation and of the Concentration that ac- 
companies it, 881 

Section 8.— Progressive Production of a Relative Surplus-Population, or Indus- 
trial Reserve Army, 689 

Section 4. — Different Forms of the Relative Surplus-Population. The General 

Law of Capitalistic Accumulation 708 

Section 6. — Illustrations of the General Law of Capitalist Accumulation, . • 711 

a. England from 1846 to 180G 711 

b. The badly paid Strata of the British Industrial Class, • . . 718 

c. The Nomad Population 788 

d. Effect of Crises on the best paid Part of the Working Glass, . 788 

#. The British Agricultural Proletariat, 738 

/• Ireland, 767 

PART VIIL 

THB SO-CALLED PftlMITIVB ACCUMOLanOV* 

CBApm XXVI.— The Secret of Primitive Accumulation, 784 

Chaptbr XXVII. — ^Expropriation of the Agricultural Population from fhe Land, 788 
Chapter XXVIII. — Bloody Legislation against the Expropriated from the End 

of the 16th Century. Forcing down of Wages by Acts of Parliament, . 808 

Chapter XXIX. — Genesis of the Capitalist Farmer, 814 

Chapter XXX. — Reaction of the Agricultural Revolution on Industry. Crea- 
tion of the Home Market for Industrial Capital, 817 

Chapter XXXI. — Genesis of the Industrial Capitalist, 888 

Chapter XXXII. — Historical Tendency of Capitalistic Accumulation, • • . 884 

I^HAPTSR XX^ill.— The Modem Theory of Colonization 838 

Works and Authors quoted in &quot; Capital,&quot; 860 

index. «;.Ai««AAA*«..866 



 

EDITOR&apos;S NOTE TO THE TTRST AMERICAKi 
EDITION. 

The original plan of Marx^ as outlined in his preface to 
the first German edition of Capital, in 1867^ was to divide 
his work into three volumes* Volume I was to contain Book 
I, The Process of Oapitalist Production. Volume II was 
scheduled to comprise both Book II, The Process of Capi- 
talist Circulation, and Book III, The Process of Capitalist 
Production as a Whole^ The work was to close with volume 
III, containing Book IV, A History of Theories of Suiplue- 
Value. 

When Marx proceeded to elaborate his work for publicfi- 
tion, he had the essential portions of all three volumes, with 
a few exceptions, worked out in their main analyses and con- 
clusions, but in a very loose and unfinished fomu Owing to 
ill health, he completed only volume L He died on March 
14, 1883, just when a third German edition of this volume 
was being prepared for the printer. 

Frederick Engels, the intimate friend and co-operator of 
Marx, stepped into the place of his dead comrade and pro- 
ceeded to complete the work. In the course of the elabora- 
tion of volume II it was found that it would be wholly taken 
up with Book II, The Process of Capitalist Circulation. Its 
first German edition did not appear until May, 1885, almost 
18 years after the first volume. 

The publication of the third volume was delayed still 
longer. When the second Gterman edition of volume II ap- 
peared^ in July, 1893, Engels was still working on volume 

7 



 

8 American Editor^s Note. 

IIL It was not until October, 1894, that the first German 
edition of volume III was published, in two separate parts, 
containing the subject matter of what had been originally 
planned as Book III of volume II, and treating of The Capi- 
talist Process of Production as a whole. 

The reasons for the delay in the publication of volumes II 
and III^ and the difficulties encountered in solving the 
problem of elaborating the copious notes of Marx into a fin- 
ished and connected presentation of his theories, have been 
fully explained by Engels in his various prefaces to these two 
volumes. His great modesty led him to belittle his own 
share in this fundamental work. As a matter of fact, a large 
portion of the contents of CapUal is as much a creation of 
Engels as though he had vnritten it independently of Marx. 

Engels intended to issue ihe contents of the manuscripts 
for Book IV, originally planned as volume III, in the form 
of a fourth volume of Capital. But on the 6th of August, 
1895, less than one year after the publication of volume III, 
he followed his co-worker into the grave, still leaving this 
work incompleted. 

However, some years previous to his demise^ and in antici- 
pation of such an eventuality, he had appointed Karl Kautsl^, 
the editor of Die Neue Zeit, the scientific organ of the German 
Socialist Party, as his successor and familiarized him per- 
sonally with the subject matter intended for volume IV of 
this work. The material proved to be so voluminous, that 
Kautsky, instead of making a fourth volume of Capital out 
of it, abandoned the original plan and issued his elaboration 
as a separate work in three volumes under the title Theories of 
Svrplus^alue. 

The first English translation of the first volume of Capital 
was edited by Engels and published in 1886. Marx had in 
the meantime made some changes in the text of the second 



 

American Editor^s Note. 9 

Qerman edition and of the French translation, both of which 
appeared in 1873, and he had intended to superintend per- 
sonally the edition of an English version. But the state of 
his health interfered with this plan. Engels utilised his 
notes and the text of the French edition of 1873 in the prep- 
aration of a third German edition, and this served as a basis 
for the first edition of the English translation. 

Owing to the fact that the title page of this English trans- 
lation (published by Swan Sonnenschein &amp; Oo.) did not dis- 
tinctly specify that this was but volume I; it has often been 
mistaken for the complete work, in spite of the fact that the 
prefaces of Marx and Engels clearly pointed to the actual 
condition of the matter. 

In 1890, four years after the publicaticm of the first Eng- 
lish edition, Engels edited the proofs for a fourth German 
edition of volume I and enlarged it still more after a re- 
peated comparison with the French edition and with manu- 
script notes of Marx. But the Swan Sonnenschein edition 
did not adopt this new version in its subsequent English 
issues. 

This first American edition will be the first complete Eng- 
lish edition of the entire Marxian theories of Capitalist Pro- 
duction. It will contain all three volumes of Capital in full. 
The present volume, I, deals with The Process of Capitalist 
Production in the strict meaning of the term &quot; production.&apos;&apos; 
Volume II will treat of The Process of Capitalist Circulation 
in the strict meaning of the term &quot; circulation.&apos;&apos; Volume 
III will contain the final analysis of The Process of Capitalist 
Production as a Whole, that is of Production and Circulation 
in their mutual interrelations. 

The Theories of 8vrplu»-Value, ^Kautsky&apos;s elaboration of 
the posthumous notes of Marx and Engels, will in due time 
be published in an English translation as a separate woiJL 



 

lO American Editor^s Note. 

TlnB first American edition of yolume I is based on the 
revised fourth German edition. The text of the English 
version of the Swan Sonnenschein edition has been compared 
page for page with this improved German edition, and abont 
ten pages of new text hitherto not rendered in English are 
thus presented to American readers. All the footnotes have 
likewise been revised and brought up to date. 

Eor all further information concerning the technical par- 
ticulars of this work I refer the reader to the prefaces of Marx 
and Engels. 

EfiNBST TTNTXBMANlf. 

Orlando, Ha-, July 18, 1906. 



 

(AUTHOR&apos;S PEEPAOEa 

I,— TO THE FIBST EDITION. 

THE work, the first volume of which I now submit to HiQ 
public, forms the continuation of my &quot;Zur Kritik der 
Politischen Oekonomie&quot; (A Contribution to the Critique of 
Political Economy) published in 1859. The long pause be- 
tween the first part and the continuation is due to an illness 
of many years&apos; duration that again and again interrupted my 
work. 

The substance of that earlier work is summarised in the 
first three chapters of this volume. This is done not merely 
for the sake of connection and completeness. The presentation 
of the subject-matter is improved. As far as circumstances in 
any way permit, many points only hinted at in the earlier 
book are here worked out more fully, whilst, conversely, points 
worked out fully there are only touched upon in this volume. 
The sections on the history of the theories of value and ^f 
money are now, of course, left out altogether. The reader 
of the earlier work will find, however, in the notes to the first 
chapter additional sources of reference relative to the history 
of those theories. 

Every beginning is difficult, holds in all sciences. To 
understand the first chapter, especially the section that con- 
tains the analysis of commodities, will, the efore, present the 
greatest difficulty. That which concern- more especially £he 
analysis of the substance of value and the magnitude of valoo^ 



 

12 Author&apos;s Prefaces. 

I have^ as mudi as it was possible^ popularised.^ The value- 
form, whose fully developed shape is the money-form, is very 
elementary and simple. Nevertheless, the human mind has 
for more than 2000 years sought in vain to get to the bottom 
of it, whilst on the other hand, to the successful analysis of 
much more composite and complex forms, there has been at 
least an approximation. Why ? Because the body, as an or^ 
ganic whole, is more easy of study than are the cells of that 
body. In the analysis of economic forms, moreover, neither 
microscopes nor chemical reagents are of use. The force of 
abstraction must replace both. But in bourgeois society the 
commodity-form of the product of labor — or the value-form 
of the conunodity — ^is the economic cell-form. To the super* 
ficial observer, the analysis of these forms seems to turn upon 
minutiae. It does in fact deal with minutise, but they are of 
the same order as those dealt with in microscopic anatomy. 

With the exception of the section on value-form, therefore^ 
this volume cannot stand accused on the score of difiSculty. I 
pre-suppose, of course^ a reader who is willing to learn some* 
thing new and therefore to think for himself. 

The physicist either observes physical phenomena where 
they occur in their most typical form and most free from 
disturbing influence, or, wherever possible, he makes experi- 
ments under conditions that assure the occurrence of the phe* 

1 This is the more necessary, as even the section of Ferdinand Lassalle^a 
work against Schulze-Delitzsch, in which he profesbes to give &apos;the intel- 
lectual quintessence&quot; of my explanations on these subjects, contains im- 
portant mistakes. If Ferdinand Lassalle has borrowed almost literally 
from my writings, and without any acknowledgment, all the general 
theoretic il propositions in his economic works, e.g,, those on the his- 
torical character of capital, on the connection between the conditions of 
production an &apos;. the mode of production, &amp;c., &amp;c., even to the terminology 
created by me, this may perhaps be due to purposes of propaganda. I 
am here, of course, not speaking of his detailed working out and applica- 
tion of these propositions, with which I have nothing to do. 



 

&apos;Author^s Prefaces. 13 

nomenon in its nonnalily. In this work I Have to examine 
the capitalist mode of production^ and the conditions of pro- 
ducticm and exchange corresponding to that mode. Up to the 
present time^ their classic ground is England* That is the 
reason why England is used as the chief illustration in the 
development of my theoretical ideas. If, however, the Ger- 
man reader shrugs his shoulders at the condition of the Eng- 
lish industrial and agricultural laborers, or in optimist fash- 
ion comforts himself with the thought that in Germany things 
are not nearly so bad, I must plainly tell him, *&apos;De te fabaUh 
narraturl &quot; 

Intrinsically, it is not a question of the higher or lower 
degree of development of the social antagonisms that result 
from the natural laws of capitalist production. It is a ques- 
tion of these laws themselves, of these tendencies working with 
iron necessity towards inevitable results. The country that 
is more developed industrially only shows, to the less de- 
veloped, the image of its own future. 

But apart from this. Where capitalist production is fully 
naturalised among the Gtermans (for instance, in the factories 
proper) the condition of things is much worse than in England, 
because the counterpoise of the Factory Acts is wanting. In 
all other spheres, we, like all the rest of Continental Western 
Europe, suffer not only from the development of capitalist 
production, but also from the incompleteness of that develop- 
ment Alongside of modem evils, a whole series of inherited 
evils oppress us, arising from the passive survival of anti- 
quated modes of production, with their inevitable train of 
social and political anachronisms. We suffer not only from the 
living, but from the dead. Le mart saisit le vifl 

The social statistics of Germany and the rest of Continental 
Western Europe are, in comparison with those of England, 
wretchedly compiled. But they raise the veil just enou^ 



 

14 Author^s Prefaces. 

to let us catch a gUmpse of the Medusa head behind it We 
should be appalled at the state of things at home^ if ^ as in 
England; our govenmients and parliaments appointed period- 
ically commissions of enquiry into economic conditions; if 
these commissions were armed with the same plenary powers 
to get at the truth ; if it was possible to find for this purpose 
men as competent^ as free from partisanship and respect of 
persons as are the English factory-inspectors, her medical re- 
porters on public health, her commissioners of enquiry into 
the exploitation of women and children, into housing and 
food. Perseus wore a magic cap that the monsters he hunted 
down might not see him. We draw the magic cap down over 
eyes and ears as a make-believe that there are no monsters. 
Le ufl not deceive ourselves on this. As in the 18th century, 
the American war of independence sounded the tocsin for the 
European middleclass, so in the 19th century, the American 
civil war sounded it for the European working-class. In Eng- 
land the progress of social disintegration is palpable. When 
it has reached a certain point, it must re-act on the continent 
There it will take a form more brutal or more humane, accord-* 
ing to the degree of development o£ the working-class itself. 
Apart from higher motives, therefore, their own most import 
tant interests dictate to the classes that are for the nonce the 
ruling ones, the removal of all legally removable hindrances 
to the free development of the working-class. For this reason^ 
as well as others, I have given so large a space in this volume 
to the history, the details, and the results of English factory 
legislation. One nation can and should learn from others. 
And even when a society has got upon the right track for the 
discovery of the natural laws of its movement — and it is the 
ultimate aim of this work, to lay bare the economic law of 
motion of modem society — ^it can neither clear by bold leaps, 
nor remove by legal enactments, the obstacles offered by the 



 

Author^s Prefaces. 15 

sucoessive phases of its nonnal development But it can 
shorten and lessen the birth-pangs. 

To prevent possible misunderstanding, a word* I paint the 
capitalist and the landlord in no sense coitlevr de rose. But 
here individuals are dealt with only in so far as they are the 
personifications of economic categories, embodiments of par- 
ticular class-relations and class-interests. My stand-point, 
from which the evolution of the economic formation of society 
is viewed as a process of natural history, can less than any 
other make the individual responsible for relations whose crea- 
ture he socially remains, however much he may subjectively 
raise himself above them. 

In the domain of Political Economy, free scientific enquiry 
meets not merely the same enemies as in all other domains. 
The peculiar nature of the material it deals with, summons as 
foes into the field of battle the most violent, mean and malig- 
nant passions of the human breast, the Furies of private in- 
terest The English Established Church, e.g., will more 
readily pardon an afctack on 38 of its 39 articles than on ^ 
of its income. Now-a-days atheism itself is culpa levis, as 
compared with criticism of existing property relations. Never- 
thuless, there is an unmistakable advance. I refer, e.g., to the 
blui&apos;book published within the last few weeks: &quot; Correspond- 
ence with Her Majesty^s Missions Abroad, regarding Indus- 
trial Questions and Trades&apos; Unions.&apos;^ The representatives of 
the English Crown in foreign countries there declare in so 
many words that in Germany, in France, to be brief, in all 
the civilised states of the European continent^ a radical change 
in the existing relations between capital and labor is as 
evident and inevitable as in England. At the same time, on 
the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, Mr. Wade, vice-president 
of the United States, declared in public meetings that, after 
the abolition of slavery, a radical change of the relations ol 



 

i6 Authof^s Prefaces. 

capital and of property in land is next upon the order of the 
day. These are signs of the times, not to be hidden by purple 
mantles or black cassocks. They do not signify that to-morrow 
a miracle will happen. They show that, within the ruling- 
classes themselves, a foreboding is dawning, that the present 
society is no solid crystal, but an organism capable of diange, 
and is constantly changing. 

The second volume of this work will treat of the process of 
the circulation of capital^ (Book IL), and of the varied forms 
assumed by capital in the course of its development (Book 
III.), the third and last volume (Book IVO&gt; the history of 
the theory. 

Ev^ry opinion based on scientific criticism I welcome. Aa 
to the prejudices of so-called public opinion, to which I have 
never made concessions, now as aforetime the maxim of the 
great Florentine is mine : 

&apos;^Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti.&apos;^ 

KARL MABX. 

LowDow, July 25, 1867. 

H.— TO THE SECOITD EDTTTOIT. 

To the present moment Political Economy, in Germany, is 
a foreign science. Gustav von Giilich in his &quot;Historical de- 
scription of Commerce, Industry,&quot; &amp;c,^ especially in the two 
first volumes published in 1830, has examined at length the 
historical circumstances that prevented, in Germany, the de- 
velopment of the capitalist mode of production, and conse- 
quently the development, in that country, of modem bourgeois 
society. Thus the soil whence Political Economy springs was 

^ On p. 618 the author ekplains what he oomprises under this head. 
2 Geschichtliche Darstellung des Handels, der Gewerbe iind des Acker- 
baus, Ac, von Gustay yon Guich. 6 toIs., Jena, 1830-45. 



 

&apos;Authof^s Prefaces. 17 

wanting. This &apos;^Bcienoe&quot; had to be imported from England 
and France as a ready-made article; its German professors 
remained schoolboys. The theoretical expression of a foreign 
reality was turned^ in their hands, into a collection of dogmas, 
interpreted by them in terms of the petty trading world around 
them, and therefore misinterpreted. The feeling of scientific 
impotence, a feeling ^ot wholly te be repressed, and the uneasy 
consciousness of haviiag to touch a subject in reality foreign to 
them, was but imperfectly concealed, either imder a parade 
of literary and historical erudition, or by an admixture of 
extraneous material^ borrowed from the so-called &quot;KameraP&apos; 
sciences, a medley of smatterings, through whose purgatory 
the hopeless candidate for the German bureaucracy has to pass. 

Since 1848 capitalist production has developed rapidly in 
Germany, and at the present time it is in the full bloom of 
speculation md swindling. But fate is still unpropitious to 
our professional economists. At the time when they were 
able to Jeal with Political Economy in a straightforward 
fashion, modem economic conditions did not actually exist 
in Germany. And as soon as these conditions did come into 
existence, they did so under circumstances that no longer al- 
lowed of their being really and impartially investigated within 
the bounds of the bourgeois horizon. In so far as Political 
Economy remains within that horizon, in so far, i.e., as the 
capitalist regime is looked upon as the absolutely final form 
of social production, instead of as a passing historical phase 
of its evolution. Political Economy can remain a science only 
80 long as the class-struggle is latent or manifests itself only 
in isolated and sporadic phenomena. 

Let us take England. Its political economy belongs to the 
period in which the class-struggle was as yet tmdeveloped. 
Its last great representetive, Ricardo, in the end, consciously 
makes the antagonism of class-interests, of wages and profits, 



 

i8 &apos;Author&apos;s Prefaces. 

of profits and rent^ the starting-point of his inyestigationa^ 
naively taking this antagonism for a social law of nature. 
But by this start the science of bourgeois economy had reached 
the limits beyond which it could not pass. Already in the life- 
time of Ricardo^ and in opposition to hm^ it was met by criti- 
cism^ in the person of Sismondi.^ 

The succeeding period, from 1820 to 1830, was notable in 
England for scientific activity in the domain of Political 
Economy. It was the time as well of the vulgarising and 
extending of Eicardo^s theory, as of the contest of that theory 
with the old schooL Splendid tournaments were held. What 
was done then, is little known to the Continent generally, be- 
cause the polemic is for the most part scattered through articles 
in reviews, occasional literature and pamphlets. The un- 
prejudiced character of this polemic — although the theory of 
Ricardo already serves, in exceptional cases, as a weapon of 
attack upon bourgeois economy — ^is explained by the circum- 
stances of the time. On the one hand, modem industry itself 
was only Just emerging from the age of childhood, as is shown 
by the fact that with the crisis of 1825 it for the first time 
opens the periodic cycle of its modem life. On the other 
hand, the class-struggle between capital and labor is forced 
into the background, politically by the discord between the 
governments and the feudal aristocracy gathered around the 
Holy Alliance on the one hand, and the popular masses, led 
by the bourgeoisie on the other; economically by the quarrel 
between industrial capital and aristocratic landed property — a 
quarrel that in France was concealed by the opposition between 
small and large landed property, and that in England broke 
out openly after the Com Laws. The literature of Political 
Economy in England at this time calls to mind the stormy 
^rward movement in France after Dr. Quesnay&apos;s death, but 
I See m7 work &quot;Critique, &amp;c./&apos; p. 70. 



 

Authof^s Prefaces. 19 

only as a Saint Martin&apos;s summer reminds ns of spring. With 
the year 1830 came the decisive crisis. 

In F!rance and in England the bourgeoisie had conquered 
political power. Thenceforth^ the dafls-struggle, practically 
as well as theoretically, took on more and more outspoken and 
threatening forms. It sounded the knell of scientific bour- 
geois economy. It was thenceforth no longer a question, 
whether this theorem or that was true&gt; but whether it was 
useful to capital or harmful, expedient or inexpedient, polit- 
ically dangerous or not In place of disinterested enquirers, 
there were hired prize-filters; in place of genuine scientific 
research, the bad conscience and the evil intent of apologetia 
Still, even the obtrusive pamphlets with which the Anti-Corn 
Law League, led by the manufacturers Cobden and Bright, 
deluged the world, ha^e a historic interest, if no scientific one^ 
on account of their polemic against the landed aristocra&lt;7. 
But since then the Free Trade legislation, inaugurated by 
Sir Bobert Feel, has deprived vulgar economy of this its last 
sting. 

The Continental revolution of 1848-9 also had its reaction 
in England. Men who still claimed some scientific standing 
and aspired to be something more than mere sophists and syco- 
phants of the ruling-classes, tried to harmonise the Political 
Economy of capital with the claims, no longer to be ignored, 
of the proletariat. Hence a shallow syncretism, of which 
John Stuart Mill is the best representative. It is a declaration 
of bankruptqr by bourgeois economy, an event on which the 
great Russian scholar and critic, N. Tschemyschewsky, has 
thrown the light of a master mind in his &quot;Outlines of Political 
Economy according to MilL*&apos; 

In Germany, therefore, the capitalist mode of production 
«me to a head, after its antagonistic character had already, 
fci France and England, shown itself in a fierce strife of 



 

20 ^uihof^s Prefaces. 

dasses. And meanwliiley moreover, the German proletariat 
had attained a much more clear daaa-consciousness tlian the 
German bourgeoisie. Thus, at the very moment when a hour- 
geois science of political economy seemed at last possible in 
Germany, it had in reality again become impossible. 

Under these circumstances its professors fell into two groups. 
The one set^ prudent, practical business folk, flocked to the 
banner of Bastiat^ the most superficial and therefore the most 
adequate representative of the apologetic of vulgar economy; 
the other, proud of the professorial dignity of their science^ 
followed John Stuart Mill in his attempt to reconcile irrecon^ 
dlables. Just as in the classical time of bourgeois economy, 
80 also in the time of its decline, the Germans remained mere 
fldioolboys, imitators and followers^ petty retailers and hawk- 
ers in the service of the great foreign wholesale concern. 

The peculiar historic development of German society there- 
fore forbids, in that country, all original work in bourgeois 
economy ; but not the criticism of that economy. So far aa 
such criticism represents a class, it can only represent the class 
whose vocation in history is the overthrow of the capitalist 
mode of production and the final abolition of all classes — the 
proletariat 

The learned and unlearned spokesmen of the German bour- 
geoisie tried at first to kill *T3as Kapital&quot; by silence, as they 
had managed to do with my earlier writings. As soon as they 
found that these tactics no longer fitted in with the conditions 
of the time, they wrote, tmder pretence of criticising my book, 
prescriptions &quot;for the tranquillisation of the bourgeois mind.** 
But they found in the workers* press — see, e.g., Joseph Dietss- 
gen&apos;s articles in the ^^olksstaat&quot; — antagonists stronger than 
themselves, to whom (down to this very day) they owe a 
reply.* 

i^e mealy-moiiihed babbtoro of Gennan Tulgar econon^ fell tod oC 



 

&apos;Authof^s Prefaces. 21 

An exceUent RuBsian tranfllation of &quot;Das Kapital*^ appeared 
in the spring of 1872. The edition of 3000 copies is already 
nearly exhausted. As early as 1871, A. Sieber, Professor of 
Political Economy in the University of Kiev, in his work 
&apos;T&gt;avid Ricardo^s Theory of Value and of Capital,&apos;* referred 
to my theory of value, of money and of capital, as in its 
fundamentals a necessary sequel to the teaching of Smith and 
Ricardo. That which astonishes the Western European in 
the reading of this excellent work, is the author&apos;s consistent 
and firm grasp of the purely theoretical position. 

That the method employed in &quot;Das Kapital&quot; has been little 
understood, is shown by the various conceptions, contradictory 
one to another, that have been formed of it^ 

Thus the Paris Revve Positvviste reproaches me in that, on 
the one hand, I treat economics metaphysically, and on the 
other hand — ^imagine I — confine myself to the mere critical 
analysis of actual facts, instead of writing recipes (Comtist 
ones?) for the cook-shops of the future. In answer to the 
reproach in re metaphysics, Professor Sieber has it: &quot;In so 
far as it deals with actual theory, the method of Marx is the 
deductive method of the whole English school, a school whose 
failings and virtues are common to the best theoretic econ- 

the style of my book. No one can feel the literary shortcomings in &quot;Das 
KapitaP more strongly than I myself. Yet I will for the benefit and 
the enjoyment of these gentlemen and their public quote in this connec- 
tion one English and one Russian notice. The &quot;Saturday Review,&quot; al- 
ways hostile to my views, said in its notice of the first edition: &quot;The 
presentation of the subject invests the driest economic questions with a 
certain peculiar charm.&quot; The **St. Petersburg Journal&quot; (Sankt-Peter- 
bnrgskie Viedomosti), in its issue of April 20, 1872, says: &quot;The presen- 
tation of the subject, with the exception of one or two exceptionally spe- 
cial parts, is distinguished by its comprehensibility by the general reader, 
its clearness, and in spite of the scientific intricacy of the subject, by an 
unusual liveliness. In this respect the author in no way resembles 
• • • the majority of German scholars who . • . write their books 
in a language so dry and obscure that the heads of ordinary mortals are 
Mdced biy it.*&quot; 



 

22 Author^s Prefaces. 

omists/* If. Block — ^^&apos;Les theoriciens du socialisme en Alio- 
magne^ Extrait du Journal dea Economistes^ Juillet et Aout 
1872&apos;* — makes the discovery that my method is analytic and 
says: &apos;&apos;Far cet ouvrage M. Marx se classe parmi les esprits 
analytiques les plus 6minents/* German reviews, of course^ 
shriek out at &quot;Hegelian sophistics.&quot; The European Messenger 
of St Petersburg, in an article dealing exclusively with the 
method of &quot;Das KapitaP&apos; (May number, 1872, pp. 427-436), 
finds my method of inquiry severely realistic, but my method 
of presentation, unfortunately, Qerman-dialecticaL It says: 
&quot;At first sight, if the judgment is based on the external fona 
of the presentation of the subject, Marx is the most ideal of 
ideal philosophers, always in the German, i.e., the bad sense 
of the word. But in point of fact he is infinitely more realis- 
tic than all his fore-runners in the work of economic criticism. 
He can in no sense be called an idealist&quot; I cannot answer 
the vmter better than by aid of a few extracts from his own 
criticism, which may interest some of my readers to whom 
the Bussian original is inaccessible. 

After a quotation from the preface to my &quot;Critique of 
Political Economy,&quot; Berlin, 1859, pp. 11-13, where I discuss 
the materialistic basis of my method, the writer goes on: 
&quot;The one thing which is of moment to Marx is to find the law 
of the phenomena with whose investigation he is concerned ; 
and not only is that law of moment to him, which governs 
these phenomena, in so far as they have a definite form and 
mutual connection within a given historical period. Of still 
greater moment to him is the law of their variation, of their 
development, i.e., of their transition from one form into 
another, from one series of connections into a different one. 
This law once discovered, he investigates in detail the effects 
in which it manifests itself in social life. Consequently, Marx 
only troubles himself about one thing; to show, by rigid scien- 



 

Author^ s Prefaces. 23 

tifio investigation^ the necessity of successive determinate 
orders of social conditions, and to establish, as impartially as 
possible, the facts that serve him for fundamental starting 
points. For this it is quite enough, if he proves, at the same 
time, both the necessity of the present order of things, and 
the necessity of another order into &quot;which the first must 
inevitably pass over; and this all the same, whether men 
believe or do not believe it, whether they are conscious or un- 
conscious of it^ Marx treats the social movement as a process 
of natural history, governed by laws not only independent of 
human will, consciousness and intelligence, but rather, on the 
contrary, determining that will, consciousness and intelligence. 
... If in the history of civilisation the conscious element 
plays a part so subordinate, then it is self-evident that a critical 
inquiry whose subject-matter is civilisation, can, less than 
anything else, have for its basis any form of, or any result of, 
consciousness. That is to say, that not the idea, but the 
material phenomenon alone can serve as its starting-point. 
Such an inquiry will confine itself to the confrontation and 
the comparison of a fact, not with ideas, but with another 
fact. For this inquiiy, the one thing of moment is, that both 
facts be investigated as accurately as possible, and that they 
actually form, each with respect to the other, different mo- 
menta of an evolution ; but most important of all is the rigid 
analysis of the series of successions, of the sequences and 
concatenations in which the different stages of such an evolu- 
tion present themselves. But it will be said, the general laws 
of economic life are one and the same, no matter whether 
they are applied to the present or the past This Marx directly 
denies. According to him, such abstract laws do not exist 
On the contrary, in his opinion every historical period has 
laws of its own. ... As soon as society has outlived a given 
period of development, and is passing over from one given 



 

134 Authof^s Prefaces. 

stage to another, it begins to be subject also to other laws. 
In a word, economic life offers us a phenomenon analogous 
to the history of evolution in other branches of biology. The 
old economists misunderstood the nature of economic lawa 
when they likened them to the laws of physics and chemistry. 
A more thorough analysis of phenomena shows that social 
organisms differ among themselves as fundamentally as plants 
or animals. Nay, one and the same phenomenon falls under 
quite different laws in consequence of the different structure 
of those organisms as a whole, of the variations of their 
individual organs, of the different conditions in whidi those 
organs function, &amp;c Marx, e.g., denies that the law of 
population is the same at all times and in all places. He 
asserts, on the contrary, that every stage of development has 
its own law of population. . . . With the varying degree of 
development of productive power, social conditions and tiio 
laws governing them vary too. Whilst Marx sets himself the 
task of following and explaining from this point of view the 
economic system established by the sway of capital, he is 
only formulating, in a strictly scientific manner, the aim that 
every accurate investigation into economic life must have. 
The scientific value of such an inquiry lies in the disclosing 
of the special laws that regulate the origin, existence, develop- 
ment, and death of a given social organism and ita replacement 
by another and higher one. And it is this value that, in point 
of fact, Marx^s book has.&quot; 

Whilst the writer pictures what he takes to be actually my 
method, in this striking and [as far as concerns my own 
application of it] generous way, what else is he picturing but 
the dialectic method ? 

Of course the method of presentation must differ in form 
from that of inquiry. The latter has to appropriate the ma- 
terial in detail, to analyse its different forms of development^ 



 

Authof^s Prefaces. 25 

to traoe otit their inner connection. Only after this work is 
done, can- the actual movement be adequately described. If 
this is dime successfully, if the life of the subject-matter is 
ideaUy reflected as in a mirror, then it may appear as if we had 
before us a mere a priori construction. 

My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegel- 
ian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the life-process of 
the human brain, i.e., the process of thinking, which, under 
the name of ^^the Idea,&quot; he even transforms into an inde- 
pendent subject, is the demiurgos of the real world, and the 
real world is only the external, phenomenal form of &apos;&apos;the 
Idea.&apos;* With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else 
than the material world reflected by the human mind, and 
translated into forms of thought 

The mystifying side of Hegelian dialectic I criticised nearly 
thirty years ago, at a time when it was still the fashion. But 
just as I was working at the first volume of &apos;&apos;Das Kapital,&quot; 
it was the good pleasure of the peevish, arrogant, mediocre 
Ev/yoroiWho now talk large in cultured Germany, to treat 
Hegel in -the same way as the brave Moses Mendelssohn in 
Lessing&apos;s time treated Spinoza, i.e., as a &quot;dead dog.&quot; I there- 
fore openly avowed myself the pupil of that mighty thinker, 
and even here and there, in the chapter on the theory of value, 
coquetted with the modes of expression peculiar to him. The 
mystification which dialectic suffers in HegeFs hands, by no 
means prevents him from being the first to present its general 
form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner. 
With him it is standing on its head. It must be turned right 
side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within 
the mystical shell. 

In its mystified form, dialectic became the fashion in Qer- 
many, because it seemed to transfigure and to glorify the 
existing state of things. In its rational form it is a scandal 



 

26 Author&apos;s Prefaces. 

and abomination to bourgeoisdom and its doctrinaire pro- 
fessors, because it includes in its comprehension and af- 
firmative recognition of the existing state of things^ at the 
same time also, the recognition of the negation of that state, 
of its inevitable breaking up; because it regards every hisr 
torically developed social form as in fluid movement, and 
therefore takes into account its transient nature not less than 
its momentary existence ; because it lets nothing impose upon 
it^ and is in its essence critical and revolutionary. 

The contradictions inherent in the movement of capitalist 
society impress themselves ui)on the practical bourgeois most 
strikingly in the changes of the periodic cycle, through which 
modem industry runs, and whose crowning point is the uni- 
versal crisis. That crisis is once again approaching, although 
as yet but in its preliminary stage ; and by the universality of 
its theatre and the intensity of its action it will drum dialectics 
even into the heads of the mushroom-upstarts of the new^ holy 
Prusso-German empire. 

KAEL MAEX. 

LoNDOir, Jarmary 24^ 1878. 



 

EDITOR&apos;S PREFACE TO THE FIRST ENGLISH 
TRANSLATION. 

fTHHE publication of an English version of &apos;TDas K^pitaF 
-■• needs no apology. On the contrary, an explanation 
might be expected why this English version has been delayed 
until now, seeing that for some years past the theories advo- 
cated in this book have been constantly referred to, attacked 
and defended, interpreted and mis-interpreted, in the period- 
ical press and the current literature of both England and 
America. 

When, soon after the author&apos;s death in 1883, it became 
evident that an English edition of the -work was really re- 
quired, Mr. Samuel Moore, for many years a friend of Marx 
and of the present writer, and than whom, perhaps, no one 
is more conversant with the book itself, consented to undertake 
the translation which the literary executors of Marx were 
anxious to lay before the publia It was understood that I 
should compare the MS. with the original work, and suggest 
such alterations as I might deem advisable. When, by and 
by^ it was found that Mr. Moore&apos;s professional occupations 
prevented him from finishing the translation as quickly as 
we all desired, we gladly accepted Dr. Aveling&apos;s offer to 
undertake a portion of the work; at the same time Mrs. 
Aveling, Marx&apos;s youngest daughter, offered to check the 
quotations and to restore the original text of the numerous 
passages taken from English authors and Bluebooks and trans- 
lated by Marx into German. This has been done throughout^ 
with but a few unavoidable exceptions. 

27 



 

28 Editor&apos;s Preface. 

The foUowiiig portions of the book have been translated bj 
Dr, Aveling: (1) Chapters X (The WoAing Day), and 
XL (Rate and Mass of Surplus- Value) ; (2) Part VL 
(Wages, comprising Chapters XIX. to XXIL); (8) itom 
Chapter XXIY, Section 4 (Circumstances that &amp;0.) to the 
end of the book^ comprising the latter part of Chapter XXIV., 
Chapter XXV.^ and the whole of Part VIIL (Chapters 
XXVL to XXXIIL) ; (4) the two Author&apos;s prefaces. All 
the rest of the book has been done by Mr. Moore. While, 
thus, each of the translators is responsible for his share of the 
work only, I bear a joint responsibility for the whole. 

The third German edition, which has been made the basis 
of our work throughout, was prepared by me, in 1883, with 
ihe assistance of notes left by the author, indicating the 
passages of the second edition to be replaced by designated 
passages, from the French text published in 1873.^ The alter- 
ations thus effected in the text of the second edition generally 
coincided with changes prescribed by Marx in a set of MS. 
instructions for an English translation that was planned, 
about ten years ago^ in America, but abandoned chiefly for 
want of a fit and proper translator. This MS. was placed 
at our disposal by our old friend Mr. F. A. Sorge of Hoboken 
N.J. It designates some further interpolations from the 
French edition ; but, being so many years older than the final 
instructions for the third edition, I did not consider myself 
at liberty to make use of it otherwise than sparingly, and 
chiefly in cases where it helped us over difficulties. In the 
same way, the French text has been referred to in most of 
the difficult passages, as an indicator of what the author him- 
self was prepared to sacrifice wherever something of the full 

i*Te Capital,** par Karl Harz. Traduction de M. J. Roy, enti^re- 
ment revise par Pauteur. Paris. Lach&amp;tre.&quot; This translatioii, especially 
in the latter part of the book, contains considerable alterations in and 
additions to the text of the second German edition* 



 

Editof^s Preface. 29 

import of tlie original had to be sacrificed in llie rendering. 
There is, however, one difficulty we conld not spare the 
reader: the use of certain terms in a sense different from what 
they have, not only in common life, but in ordinary political 
economy. But this was unavoidable. Eveiy new aspect of 
a science involves a revolution in the technical terms of that 
science. This is best shown by chemistry, where the whole 
of the terminology is radically changed about once in twenly 
years, and where you will hardly find a single organic com- 
pound that has not gone through a whole series of different 
names. Political Economy has generally been content to take, 
just as they were, the terms of commercial and industrial lif e^ 
and to operate with them, entirely failing to see that by so 
doings it confined itself within the narrow circle of ideas ex- 
pressed by those terms. Thus, though perfectly aware that 
both profits and rent are but sub-divisions, fragments of that 
unpaid part of the product which the laborer has to supply 
to his employer (its first appropriator, thou^ not its ultimate 
exclusive owner), yet even classical Political Economy never 
went beyond the received notions of profits and rent never ex- 
amined this unpaid part of the product (called by Marx sur- 
plus-product) in its int^rity as a whole, and therefore never 
arrived at a dear comprehension, either of it. origin and 
nature^ or of the laws that regulate the subsequent distribution 
of its valua Similarly all industry, not agricultural or 
handicraft, is indiscriminately comprised in &apos;^he tprm o^ manr.- 
facture, and thereby the distinction is obliterated betwea. 
two great and essentially different periods of economic ) istory : 
the period of manufacture proper, based on the division of 
manual labor, and the period of modem industry based o 
machinery. It is, however, self-evident that . theory whicb 
views modem capitalist production as a mere passing stage in 
the economic history of mankind, must make use of terms 



 

30 Editor^s Preface. 

differeBt from ihose habitaal to writers who look upon thai 
form of production as imperishable and final 

A word respecting the author&apos;s method of quoting may not 
be out of place. In the majority of cases^ the quotations serve, 
in the usual way, as documentary evidence in support of 
assertions made in the text But in many instances, passages 
from economic writers are quoted in order to indicate when, 
where, and by whom a certain proposition was for the first 
time clearly enunciated. This is done in cases where the 
proposition quoted is of importance as being a more or less 
adequate expression of the conditions of social production 
and exchange prevalent at the tim^ and quite irrespective 
of Marx&apos;s recognition, or otherwise, of its general validity. 
These quotations, therefore, supplement the text by a running 
commentary taken from the history of the science. 

Our translation comprises ^e first book of the work only. 
But this first book is in a great measure a whole in itself, 
and has for twenty years ranked as an independent work. 
The second book, edited in German by me, in 1885, is de* 
cidedly incomplete without the third, which cannot be pub* 
lished beforo the end of 1887. When Book III. has been 
brought out in the original German, it will then be soon 
enough to think about preparing an English edition of both. 

*T)as Kapital&apos;* is often called, on the Continent^ &quot;the Bible 
of the working class.&quot; That the conclusions arrived at in 
this work are dr I more and more becoming the fundamental 
principles of the great working dpss movement^ not only in 
Germany and Switzerland, but in ITifmce, in Holland and 
Belgium, in America, and even in Italy and Spain ; that every- 
where the working class more and more recognises, in these 
conclusions, the most adequate expression of its condition and 
of its aspirations, nobody acquainted vrith that movement will 
deny. And in England, too, the theories of Marx, even at this 



 

Editor&apos;s Preface. 31 

momenta exercise a powerful influence upon the socialist movb- 
ment which is spreading in the ranks of ^^cultured&quot; people 
no kss than in those of the working class. But that is not 
all The time is rapidly approaching when a thorough ex- 
amination of England&apos;s economic position will impose itself 
as an irresistible national necessily. The working of the in- 

ff impossible without a constant 
stion, and therefore of markets^ 
Vee trade has exhausted its re- 
ibts this its quondam economic 
•apidly developing, stares Eng- 
Brywhere^ not only in protected, 
and even on this side of the 
ve power increases in a geomet- 
&gt;roceed8 at best in an arithmetic 
of stagnation, prosperity, over- 
recurrent from 1825 to 1867, 
[&gt;urse; but only to land us in the 
nanent and chronic depression. 
Bperity will not come; as often 
eralding symptoms, so often do 
eanwhile, each succeeding winter 
luestion, *^hat to do with the 
mmber of the unemployed keeps 
there is nobody to answer that 
calculate the moment when the 
will take their own fate into 



le Manchester Chamber of Ckmunerce, 
BioD took place on the subject of Free 
the effect that &apos;&apos;having waited in vain 
V the Free Trade example of England, 
now arrived to reconsider that posi- 
«d by a majority of one only, the 
t,— Evening Standard, Nov. 1, 1888. 



 

32 &quot;Editor&apos;s Preface to the Fourth German Edition. 

their own hands. Surely, at such a moment^ the voice on^t 
to be heard of a man whose whole theoiy is the result of a 
life-long study of the economic history and condition of Eng- 
land, and whom that study led to the conclusion that, at least 
in Europe, England is the only country where the inevitable 
social revolution might be effected entirely by peaceful and 
legal means. He certainly never forgot to add that he hardly 
expected the English ruling classes to submit, without a ^&apos;pro* 
slavery rebellion/&apos; to this peaceful and legal revolution. 

FREDEKICK ENGEia 
November 5, 1886. 

sditob&apos;s fbefaos to thb voitbth gbrmaw SDmoif* 

The fourth edition of this work required of me a revision, 
which shotild give to the text and foot notes their final form, 
so far as possible. The following brief hints will indicate 
the way in which I performed this task. 

After referring once more to the French edition and to the 
manuscript notes of Marx, I transferred a few additional pass- 
ages from the French to the German text^ 

I have also placed the long foot note concerning the koine 
workers, on pages 461-67, into the text, just as had already 
been done in the French and English editions. Other small 
changes are merely of a technical nature. 

Furthermore I added a few explanatory notes, especially 
in places where changed historical conditions seemed to require 
it All these additional notes are placed between brackets 
and marked with my initials.^ 

1 These were inserted by me in the English text of the Swan Sonnen- 
•chein edition, and will be found on pages 639, 640-644, 687-689, and 
692 of this .^erican edition. — ^E. U. 

s These were ten new notes, which I inserted in the respective places of 
the Swan Sonnenschein edition. — £. U. 



 

Edito/s Preface to the Fourth German Edition. 33 

A complete revision of the numerous quotations had become 
necessary, because the English edition had been published in 
the mean time. Marx&apos;s youngest daughter, Eleanor, had un- 
dertaken the tedious task of comparing, for this edition, all 
the quotations with the original works, so that the quotationa 
from English authors, which are the overwhelming majority, 
are not retranslated from the German, but taken from the 
original texts. I had to consult the English edition for this 
fourth Gterman edition. In so doing I found many small 
inaccuracies. There were references to wrong pages, due 
either to mistakes in copying, or to accumulated tyi)ographical 
errors of three editions. There were quotation marks, or 
periods indicating omissions, in wrong places, such as would 
easily occur in making copious quotations from notes. Now 
and then I came across a somewhat inappropriate choice of 
terms made in translating. Some passages were taken from 
Marx&apos;s old manuscripts written in Paris, 1843-45, when he 
did not yet understand English and read the works of English 
economists in French translations. This twofold translation 
carried with it a slight change of expression, for instance in 
the case of Steuart, Ure, and others. Now I used the English 
text. Such and similar little inacctirucies and inadvertences 
were corrected. And if this fourth edition is now compared 
with former editions, it will be found that this whole tedious 
process of verification did not change in the least any essential 
statement of this work. There is but one single quotation 
which could not be located, namely that from Richard Jones^ 
in section 3 of chapter XXIV. Marx probably made a mis- 
take in the title of the book. All other quotations retain their 
corroborative power, or even increase it in their present exact 
form. 

lu ibis connection I must revert to an old story. 

I have heard of only one case, in which the genuineness oi 



 

34 Editor^s Preface to the Fourth German Edition. 

a quotation by Marx was questioned. Since this case was 
continued beyond Marx&apos;s deatb^ I cannot well afford to ignore 
it 

The Berlin Concordia, the organ of the Oerman Manufao^ 
turer&apos;s Association, published on March 7, 1872, an anony- 
mous article, entitled : &quot;How Marx Quotes/* In it the writer 
asserted with a superabundant display of moral indignation 
and unparliamentarian expressions that the quotation from 
Gladstone&apos;s budget speech of April 16, 1863, (cited in the 
Inaugural Address of the International Workingmen&apos;s Asso- 
ciation, 1864, and republished in Capital, volume I, chapter 
XXV, section 6 a) was a falsification. It was denied that the 
statement: &quot;This intoxicating augmentation of wealth and 
power . . . entirely confined to classes of property,&quot; was 
contained in the stenographical report of Hansard, which was 
as good as an official report &quot;This statement is not found 
anywhere in Gladstone&apos;s speech. It says just the reverse. 
Marx has formally and materially lied m adding thai sen- 
tence.** 

Marx, who received this issue of the Concordia in May of 
the same year, replied to the anonymous writer in the Volka- 
stoat of June 1. As he did not remember the particular 
newspaper from which he had clipped this report, he con- 
tented himself with pointing out that the same quotation was 
contained in two English papers. Then he quoted the report 
of the Times, according to which Gladstone had said : &quot;That 
is the state of the case as regards the wealth of this country. 
I must say for one, I should look almost with apprehension 
and with pain upon this intoxicating augmentation of wealth 
and power, if it were my belief that it was confined to classes 
who are in easy circumstances. This takes no cognizance at 
all of the condition of the labouring population. The aug- 
mentation I have described and which is founded, I think. 



 

Editor^s Preface to the Fourth German Edition 35 

opon accurate terms^ is an augmentatioii entirely confined to 
classes of property/&apos; 

In other words, Gladstone says here that he would be sorry 
if things were that way, but they are. This intoxicating aug- 
mentation of wealth and power is entirely confined to classes 
of property. And so far as the quaai official Hansard is con- 
cerned, Marx continues : ^&apos;In the subsequent manipulation of 
his speech for publication Mr. Gladstone was wise enough to 
eliminate a passage, which was so compromising in the mouth 
of an English Lord of the Exchequer as that one. By the 
way, this is an established custom in English parliament, and 
not by any means a discovery made by Lasker to cheat BebeL&quot; 

The anonymous writer then became still madder. Pushing 
aside his second-hand sources in his reply in the Concordia, 
July 4, he modestly hints, that it is the &quot;custom&apos;* to quote 
parliamentarian speeches from the official reports; that the 
report of the Times (which contained the added lie) &quot;was 
materially identical&quot; with that of Hansard (which did not 
contain it) ; that the report of the Times even said &quot;just the 
reverse of what that notorious passage of the Inaugural Ad- 
dress implied.&quot; Of course, our anonymous friend keeps still 
about the fact that the report of the Times does not only con- 
tain &quot;just the reverse,&quot; but also &quot;that notorious passage&quot;! 
Nevertheless he feels that he has been nailed down, and that 
only a new trick can save him. Hence he decorates his article, 
foil of &quot;insolent mendacity,&quot; until it bristles with pretfy 
epithets, such as &quot;bad faith,&quot; &quot;dishonesty,&quot; &quot;mendacious as- 
sertion,&quot; &quot;that lying quotation,&quot; &quot;insolent mendacity,&quot; &quot;a 
completely spurious quotation,&quot; &quot;this falsification,&quot; &quot;simply 
infamous,&quot; etc., and he finds himself compelled to shift the 
discussion to another ground, promising &quot;to explain in a sec- 
ond article, what interpretation we [the &quot;veracious&quot; anony- 
mous] place upon the meaning of Gladstone&apos;s words.&quot; As 



 

36 Edito/s Preface to the Fourth German Edition. 

though his individual opinion had anything to do with the 
matter! This second article is published in the Concordia 
of July 11. 

Marx replied once more in the Vollesstaat of August 7, 
quoting also the reports of this passage in the Morning Star 
and Morning Advertiser of April 17, 1863. Both of them 
agree in quoting Gladstone to the effect that he would look 
with apprehension, etc, upon this intoxicating augmentation 
of wealth and power, if it were confined to classes in easy cir- 
cumstances. But this augmentation was entirely confined to 
classes possessed of property. Both of these papers also con- 
tain the &quot;added lie&apos;&apos; word for word. Marx furthermore 
showed, by comparing these three independent^ yet identical 
reports of newspapers, all of them containing the actually 
spoken words of Gladstone, with Hansard&apos;s report, that Glad- 
stone, in keeping with the &quot;established custom,&quot; had &quot;sub- 
sequently eliminated&apos;&apos; this sentence, as Marx had said. And 
Marx closes with the statement, that he has no time for further 
controversy with the anonymous writer. It seems that this 
worthy had gotten all he wanted, for Marx received no more 
issues of the Concordia. 

Thus the matter seemed to be settled. It is true, people 
who were in touch with the university at Cambridge once or 
twice dropped hints as to mysterious rumors about some un- 
speakable literary crime, which Marx was supposed to have 
conMnitted in Capital. But nothing definite could be ascer- 
tained in spite of all inquiries. Suddenly, on November 29, 
1883, eight months after the death of Marx, a letter appeared 
in the Times, dated at Trinity College, Cambridge, and signed 
by Sedley Taylor, in which this mannikin, a dabbler in the 
tamest of cooperative enterprises, at last took occasion to give 
us some light, not only on the gossip of Cambridge, but also 
00 the anonymous of the Concordia. 



 

Editof^s Preface to the Fourth German Edition. 37 

**Wliat seems very queer,&quot; says the mannikin of Trinity 
College, &apos;^is that it remained for professor Brenta/no (then in 
Breslau, now in Strasburg) • • • to lay bare the bad 
faith, whieh had apparently dictated that quotation from 
Gladstone&apos;s speech in the Inaugural Address* Mr. Karl Marx, 
who . . . tried to justify his quotation, had the temerity, 
in the deadly shifts to which Brentano&apos;s masterly attacks 
quickly reduced him^ to claim that Mr. Gladstone tampered 
with the report of his speech in the Times of April 17, 1863, 
before it was published in Hansard, in order to eliminate a 
passage which was, indeed, compromising for the British 
Chancellor of the Exchequer. When Brentano demonstrated 
by a detailed comparison of the texts^ that the reports of the 
Times and of Hansard agreed to the absolute exclusion of the 
meaning, impugned to Gladstone&apos;s words by a craftily isolated 
quotation, Marx retreated under the excuse of having no time.&quot; 

This, then, was the kernel of the walnut I And such was 
the glorious reflex of Brentano&apos;s anonymous campaign, in the 
Concordia, in the cooperative imagination of Cambridge! 
Thus he lay, and thus he handled his blade in his &quot;masterly 
attack,&quot; this Saint George of the Gterman Manufacturers&apos; As- 
sociation, while the fiery dragon Marx quickly expired under 
his feet &quot;in deadly shifts 1&quot; 

However, this Ariostian description of the struggle serves 
only to cover up the shifts of our Saint George. There is no 
longer any mention of &quot;added lies,&quot; of &quot;falsification,&quot; but 
merely of &quot;a craftily isolated quotation.&quot; The whole question 
had been shifted, and Saint George and his Cambridge Enight 
knew very well the reason. 

Eleanor Marx replied in the monthly magazine To-Day, 
February, 1884, because the Times refused to print her state- 
ments. She reduced the discussion to the only point, which 
was in question, namely: Was that sentence a lie added by 



 

38 Editor&apos;s Preface to the Fourth German Edition. 

Marx, or not ? Whereupon Mr. Sedley Taylor retorted : &quot;The 
question whether a certain sentenoe had occurred in Mr. Glad- 
stone&apos;s speech or not&quot; was, in his opinion, &quot;of a very inferior 
importance&quot; in the controversy between Marx and Brentano, 
&quot;compared with the question, whether the quotation had been 
made with the intention of reproducing the meaning of Mr. 
Gladstone or distorting it&quot; And then he admits that the 
report of the Times &quot;contains indeed a contradiction in 
words&quot;; but, interpreting the context correctly, that is, 
in a liberal Gladstonian sense, it is evident what Mr. Gladstone 
intended to say. (To-Day, March, 1884.) The comic thing 
about this retort is that our mannikin of Cambridge now in- 
sists on not quoting this speech from Hansard, as is the 
&quot;custom&quot; according to the anonymous Mr. Brentano, but from 
the report of the Times, which the same Brentano had desig- 
nated as &quot;necessarily bungling.&quot; Of course^ Hansard does 
not contain that fatal sentence I 

It was easy for Eleanor Marx to dissolve this argumentation 
into thin air in the same number of To-Day. Either Mr. 
Taylor had read the controversy of 1872. In that case he had 
now &quot;lied,&quot; not only &quot;adding,&quot; but also &quot;subtracting.&quot; Or, 
he had not read it Then it was his business to keep his 
mouth shut At any rate, it was evident that he did not dare 
for a moment to maintain the charge of his friend Brentano 
to the effect that Marx had &quot;added a lie.&quot; On the contrary, 
it was now claimed, that Marx, instead of adding a lie, had 
suppressed an important sentence. But this same sentence is 
quoted on page 5 of the Inaugural Address, a few lines before 
the alleged &quot;added lie.&quot; And as for the &quot;contradiction&quot; in 
Gladstone&apos;s speech, isn&apos;t it precisely Marx who speaks in 
another foot note of that chapter in Capital of the &quot;continual 
ciying contradictions in Gladstone&apos;s budget speeches of 1863 
and 1864&quot;? Of course, he does not undertake to reconcile 



 

Editor&apos;s Preface to the Fourth German Edition. 39 

ihem by liberal hot air, like Sedley Taylor. And the final 
BnTnming up in Eleanor Marx&apos;s reply is this: &apos;^On the con- 
trarjy Marx has neither suppressed anything essential nor 
added any lies. He rather has restored and rescued from 
oblivion a certain sentence of a Gladstonian speech, which had 
undoabtedly been pronounced, but which somehow found its 
way out of Hansard.&quot; 

This &quot;was enough for Mr. Sedley Taylor. The result of 
this whole professorial gossip during ten years and in two 
great oountries was that no one dared henceforth to question 
Marx&apos;s literary conscientiousness. In the future Mr. Sedley 
Taylor will probably have as little confidence in the literary 
fighting bulletins of Mr. Brentano, as Mr. Brentano in thr 
papal infallibility of Hansard. 

fredeeice: engels. 

Loinx&gt;ir, June 25, 1890. 

(Translated by Ernest IJntermann.) 



 

 

BOOK I. 

CAPITALIST PRODUCTIOI«. 



PARTI. 
COMMODITIES AND MONEY^ 



CHAPTER L 

COMMODITIEa 

WEOnOV !•— THB TWO FAOTOBS OF A OOMMODITT: USS-VALUB 

ANB VAZ«TJS (the SITBSTANCB OF VALUE AND THE 

MAGNirUDB OF VALTJb). 

THE wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode 
of production prevails, presents itself as &quot; an immense 
accumulation of commodities/&apos; ^ its unit being a single com- 
modity. Our investigation must therefore begin with the 
analysis of a commodity. 

A commodity is, in the first place, an object outside us, a 
thing that by its properties satisfies human wants of some sort 
or another. The nature of such wants, whether, for instance, 
they spring from the stomach or from fancy, makes no differ- 

&gt;Karl Mane &quot;A Contributioii to the Critique of Political Economy.&quot; 1859, 
p. 1ft. 

41 



 

42 Capitalist Production. 

enoe.^ Neither are we here conoemed to know how the object 
satisfies these wants^ whether directly as means of subsistence, 
or indirectly as means of production. 

Every useful thing, as iron, paper, &amp;o., may be looked at 
from the two points of view of qualily and quantity. It is 
an assemblage of many properties, and may therefore be of 
use in various ways. To discover the various use of things ia 
the work of history.^ So also is the establishment of socially- 
recognised standards of measure for the quantities of these 
useful objects. The diversity of these measiires has its origin 
partly in the diverse nature of the objects to be measured, 
partly in convention. 

The utility of a thing makes it a use-value.^ But Ibis 
utility is not a thing of air. Being limited by the physical 
properties of the commodity, it has no existence apart from 
that commodity. A conmiodity, suck as iron, com, dr a 
diamond, is therefore, so far as it is a material thing, a us&amp;- 
value, something usefuL This property of a commodity is 
independent of the amount of labour required to appropriate 
its useful qualities. When treating of use-value, we always 
assume to be dealing with definite quantities, such as dozens 
of watches, yards of linen, or tons of iron. The use-values of 
commodities furnish the material for a special study, that 
of the commercial knowledge of commodities.* Use-values 
become a reality only by use or consumption : they also con- 

^&quot;Dedre implies want; it ti the ^&gt;petite of the mind, and as natural as hunger 
to the body. • . • The rreate.: number (of things) have their value from supply- 
ing the wants of the mind.&quot; Nicolas Barbon: &quot;A Discourse on coining the new 
money lighter, in answer to Mr. Locke&apos;s Considerations,&quot; &amp;c London, 1690. p. 
«• 8. 

* &quot;Things have an intrinsick virtue&quot; (this is Barbon&apos;s special term for value in 
use) &apos;Vhich in all places &apos;. .ve the same virtue; as the loadstone to attract iron&quot; 
(L c^ p. 6). The property rrhich the magnet possesses of attracting iron, became 
of use only after by means of that property the polarity of the magnet had been 
discovered. 

&apos;&quot;The natural worth of anything consists in its fitness to supply the necessities^ 
or serve the conveniences of human life.&quot; (John Locke, &quot;Some considerations on 
the consequences of the lowering of interest, 1691,&quot; in Works Edit London, 1777, 
VoL II., p. 28.) In English writers of the 17th century we frequently find &quot;worth&quot; 
in the sense of value in use, and &quot;value&quot; in the sense of exchange value. This 
is quite in accordance with tiie spirit of a language that likes to use a Teutonic 
word for the actual thinsu and a Romance word for its reflexion. 

^in Dourgeois societies tne economical lictio Ivrim. .prevails, that every one^ as a 
buyer, possesses an eneydopaedic knowledge of commocUttes. 



 

Commodities. 43 

stitute the snbstanoe of all wealth, whatever may be the social 
form of that wealth. In the form of society we are about to 
consider, they are, in addition, the material depositories of 
exchange value. 

Exchange value^ at first sight, presents itself as a quantitative 
relation, as the proportion in which values in use of one sort 
are exchanged for those of another sort,^ a relation constantly 
changing with time and place. Hence exchan^ vclue appears 
to be something accidental and purely relative, and conse- 
quently an intrinsic value, i. e., an exchange value that is 
inseparably connected with, inherent in commodities, seems a 
contradiction in terms.^ Let us consider the matter a little 
more closely. 

A given commodity, e. g., a quarter of wheat is exchanged 
for X blacking, y silk, or z gold, &amp;c. — ^in short, for other com- 
modities in the most different proportions. Instead of one 
exchange value, the wheat has, therefore, a great many. But 
since x blacking, y sil^ or z gold, &amp;c., each represent the 
exchange value of one quarter of wheat, x blacking, y silk, 
z gold, &amp;C., must as exchange values be replaceable by each 
other, or equal to each other. Therefore, first: the valid 
exchange values of a given commodity . express something 
equal; secondly, exchange value, generally, is only the mode 
of expression, the phenomenal form, of something contained 
in it, yet distinguishable from it 

Let us take two commodities, e. g., com and iron. The pro- 
portions in which they are exchangeable, whatever those pro- 
portions may be, can always be represented by an equation in 
which a given quantity of com is equated to some quantity of 
iron : e. g., 1 quarter com=x cwt. iron. What does this equa- 
tion tell us? It tells us that in two different things — in 1 
quarter of com and x cwt of iron, there exists in equal quan- 
tities something common to both. The two things must there- 

^ Ta Talenr consiste dans le rapport d&apos;^hange qtti se tronve entre tdle chose et 
telle autre, entre telle meture d&apos;une production, et telle meaure d&apos;une autre.&apos;* (Le 
Trotne: De V Int^r^t SodaL Physiocrates, Ed. Daire. Paris, 1845. P. 889.) 

&apos;&apos;Nothing can have an intrinsick Talue.&quot; (N. Barbon, L c., p. 6); or at Bn^ 
ler laya— 

••The value of a thing 
It Jtitt as much at it will bring.** 



 

44 Capitalist Production. 

fore be equal to a thirds which in itself is neither the one not 
the other. Each of them^ so far as it is exchange value, must 
therefore be reducible to this third. 

A simple geometrical illustration will make this clear. In 
order to calculate and compare the areas of rectilinear figures, 
we decompose them into triangles. But the area of the tri- 
angle itself is expressed by something totally different from its 
visible figure, namely, by half the product of the base into 
the altitude. In the same way the exchange values of com- 
modities must be capable of being expressed in terms of some- 
thing common to them all, of which thing they represent a 
greater or less quantity. 

This common &quot;something^* cannot be either a geometrical, 
a chemical, or any other natural property of commodities. 
Such properties claim our attention only in so far as they 
affect the utility of those commc^lities, make them use-values. 
But the exchange of commodities is evidently an act character- 
ised by a total abstraction from use-value. Then wue use- 
value is just as good as another, provided only it be present in 
suflScient quantity. Or, as old Barbon says, &quot;one sort of 
wares are as good as another, if the values be equaL There is 
no difference or distinction in things of equal value .... 
An hundred pounds&apos; worth of lead or iron, is of as great value 
as one hundred pounds* worth of silver or gold.&apos;* * As use- 
values, commodities are, above all, of different qualities, but as 
exchange values they are merely different quantities, and con- 
sequently do not contain an atom of use-value. 

If then we leave out of consideration the use-value of com- 
, modities, they have only one common property left, that of 
being products of labour. But even the product of labour 
itself has undergone a change in our hands. If we make 
abstraction from its use-value, we make abstraction at the 
same time from the material elements and shapes that make 
the product a use-value ; we see in it no longer a table, a house, 
yam, or any other useful thing. Its existence as a material 
thing is put out of sight Neither can it any longer be re- 
garded as the product of the labour of the joiner, the mason, 

*N. Bartxm, t c |&gt;. 58 and 7. 



 

Comfnadities. 45 

iibe spinnery ov ol any other definite kind of productive 
labour. Along witli the useful qualities of the products them- 
selves, we put out of sight both the useful character of the 
various kinds of labour embodied in them^ and the concrete 
forms of that labour ; there is nothing left but what is common 
to them all; all are reduced to one and the same sort of 
labour, human labour in the abstract 

Let us now consider the residue of each of these products; 
it consists of the same unsubstantial reality in each, a mere 
congelation of homog^eous human labour, of labour-power ex- 
pended withoi !; reprard to the mode of its expenditure. All 
that these things now tell us is, that human labour-power has 
been expended in their production, that human labor is em- 
b^ed in thenu When looked at as crystals of this social 
substance, common to them all, they are — ^Values. 

We have seen that when commodities are exdianged, their 
exdiange value manifests itself as something totally independ- 
ent of their use-value. But if we abstract from their use-value, 
there remains their Value as defined above. Therefore^ the 
common substance that manifests itself in the exchange value 
of commodities, whenever they are exchanged, is their value. 
The prc^ess of our investigation will show that exchange 
value is the only form in * rhicli the value of commodities can 
manifest itself or be ei5)ressed. For the present, however, we 
have to consider the nature of value independently of this, its 
form. 

A use-value&gt; or useful article, therefore, has value only be- 
cause human labour in the abstract has been embodied or ma- 
terialised in it. How, then, is the magnitude of this value to 
be measured ? Plainly, by the quantity of the value-creating 
substance, the labour, contained in the article. The quantity 
of labour, however, is measured by its duration, and labour- 
time in its turn finds its standard in weeks, days, and hours. 

Some people might think that if the value of a commodity 
is determined by the quantity of labour spent on it, the more 
idle and unskilful the labourer, the more valuable would his 
commodity be, because more time would be required in its 
production. The labour, however, that forms the substance of 



 

46 Capitalist Production. 

value, is homogeneous human labour, expenditure of one uni- 
form labour-power. The total labour-power of society, which 
is embodied in the sum total of the values of all commodities 
produced by that society, counts here as one homogeneous mass 
of human labour-power, composed though it be of innumerable 
individual units. Each of these units is the same as any other, 
so far as it has the character of the average labour-power of 
society, and takes effect as such ; that is, so far as it requires for 
producing a commodity, no more time than is needed on an 
average, no more than is socially necessary. The labour-time 
socially necessary is that required to produce an article imder 
the normal conditions of production, and with the average 
degree of skill and intensity prevalent at the time. The intro- 
duction of power looms into England probably reduced by one 
half the labour required to weave a given quantity of yam into 
cloth. The hand-loom weavers, as a matter of fact, continued 
to require the same time as before; but for all that, the pro- 
duct of one hour of their labour represented after the change 
only half an hour&apos;s social labour, and consequently fell to one- 
half its former value. 

We see then that that which determines the magnitude of 
the value of any article is the amount of labour socially neces- 
sary, or the labour-time socially necessary for its production.^ 
Each individual commodity, in this connexion, is to be con- 
sidered as an average sample of its class.^ Commodities, there- 
fore, in which equal quantities of labour are embodied, or 
which can be produced in the same time, have the same value. 
The value of one commodity is to the value of any other, as the 
labour-time necessary for the production of the one is to that 
necessary for the production of the other. &quot;As values, all com- 
modities are only definite masses of congealed labour-time/&apos; • 

&apos;The value of them (the necessaries of life), when they are exchanged the 
one for another, is regulated by the quantity of labour necessarily required, and 
commonly taken in producing them.&quot; (Some Thoughts on the Interest of Money 
in general, and particularly in the Publick Funds, &amp;c^ Lond., p. 86.) This r^ 
markable anonymous work, written in the last century, bears no date. It it 
dear, however, from internal evidence, that it appeared in the reign of Gtorge 
II. about 1789 or 1740. 

* &quot; Toutea lea productions d&apos;un mime genre ne forment proprement qu&apos;une ma8ae» 
dont le prix se determine en gini^al et sant igard aux drconstances particuli^es.* 
&lt;Le Trosne, 1. c. p. 898.) *K. Marx, L c p. 84. 



 

Commodities. 47 

Tho value of a oommodily would therefore remain oonstant, 
if the labour-time required for its production also remained 
constant But the latter changes with every variation in the 
productiveness of labour. This productiveness is determined 
by various circumstances^ amongst others^ by the average 
amount of skill of the workmen^ the state of science, and the 
degree of its practical application, the social organisation of 
production, the extent and capabilities of the means of pro- 
duction, and by physical conditions. For example, the 
same amount of labour in favourable seasons is embodied 
in 8 bushels of com, and in unfavourable, only in four. 
The same labour extracts from rich mines more metal than 
from poor mines. Diamonds are of very rare occurrence on 
the earth^s surface, and hence their discovery costs, on an aver- 
age, a great deal of labour-time. Consequently much labour 
is represented in a small compass. Jacob doubts whether gbld 
has ever been paid for at its full value. This applies still 
more to diamonds. According to Eschwege, the total produce 
of the Brazilian diamond mines for the eighty years, ending 
in 1823, had not realised the price of one-and-a-half years&apos; 
average produce of the sugar and coffee plantations of the 
same country, although the diamonds cost much more labour, 
and therefore represented more value. With richer mines, the 
same quantity of labour would embody itself in more diamonds 
and their value would fall. If we could succeed at a small 
expenditure of labour, in converting carbon into diamonds, 
their value might fall below that of bricks. In general, the 
greater the productiveness of labour, the less is the labour-time 
required for the production of an article^ the less is the amount 
of labour crystallised in that article, and the less is its value ; 
and viseveraS, the less the productiveness of labour, the greater 
is the labour-time required for the production of an article, 
and the greater is its value. The value of a commodity, there- 
fore, varies directly as the quantity, and inversely as the 
productiveness, of the labour incorporated in it. 

A thing can be a use-value, without having value. This is 
the case whenever its utility to man is not due to labour. 
Such are air, virgin soil, natural meadows, &amp;c A thing can 



 

48 Capitalist Production. 

be useful, and the product of human labour, without being a 
commodity. Whoever directly satisfies his wants with the 
produce of his own labour, creates, indeed, use-values, but not 
commodities. In order to produce the latter, he must not only 
produce use-values, but use-values for others, social use-values. 
Lastly, nothing can have value, without being an object of 
utility. If the thing is useless, so is the labour contained in 
it; the labour does not count as labour, and therefore creates 
no value. 

8BCTI0N 2. THU TWOPOIJ&gt; CHARACTEB OP THE lABOUB BM- 

BODIBD IN COMMODITIES. 

At first sight a commodity presented itself to us as a complex 
of two things — ^use-value and exchange-value. Later on, we 
saw also that labour, too, possesses the same two-fold nature ; 
for, so far as it finds expression in value, it does not possess the 
same characteristics that belong to it as a creator of use-values. 
I was the first to point out and to examine critically this two- 
fold nature of the labour contained in commodities. As this 
point is the pivot on which a clear comprehension of political 
economy turns, we must go more into detaiL 

Let us take two commodities such as a coat and 10 yards of 
linen, and let the former be double the value of the latter, so 
that, if 10 yards of linen=W, the coat?=2W. 

The coat is a use-value that satisfies a particular want Its 
existence is the result of a special sort of productive activity, 
the nature of which is determined by its aim, mode of opera- 
tion, subject, means, and result The labour, whose utilily is 
thus represented by the value in use of its product, or which 
manifests itself by making its product a use-value&gt; we call 
useful labour. In this connexion we consider only its useful 
effect. 

As the coat and the linen are two qualitatively different use- 
values, so also are the two forms of labour that produce them, 
tailoring and weaving. Were these two objects not quali- 
tatively different, not produced respectively by labour ol 
different quality, they could not stand to each other in the 



 

Commodities. 49 

relation of oonunodities. Coats are not exchanged for coats, 
one nse-value is not exchanged for another of the same kind. 

To all ike different varieties of values in use there correspond 
as many different kinds of useful labour, classified according tc 
{he order, genus, species, and variety to which they belong in 
the social division of labour. This division of labour is a neces- 
sary eondition for the production of commodities, but it does 
not follow conversely, that the production of commodities is a 
necessary condition for the division of labour. In the primitive 
Indian community there is social division of labour, without 
production of commodities. Or, to take an example nearer 
home, in eveiy factory the labour is divided according to a 
system, but this division is not brought about by the operatives 
mutually exchanging their individual products. Only such 
products can become commodities with regard to each other, as 
result from different kinds of labour, each kind being carried 
on independently and for the account of private individuals. 

To resume, then : In the use-value of each commodity there 
is contained useful labour, %. e., productive activity of a definite 
kind and exercised with a definite aim. Use-values cannot 
confront each other as commodities, unless the useful labour 
embodied in them is qualitatively different in each of them. 
In a community, the produce of which in general takes the 
form of commodities, i. e., in a community of commodity pro- 
ducers, this qualitative difference between the useful forms of 
labour that are carried on independently by individual pro- 
ducers, each on their own account, develops into a complex 
system, a social division of labour. 

Anyhow, whether the coat be worn by the tailor or by his 
customer, in either case it operates as a use-value. Nor is the 
relation between the coat and the labour that produced it 
altered by the circumstance that tailoring may have become a 
special trade, an independent branch of the social division of 
labour. Wherever the want of clothing forced them to it, the 
hmnan race made clothes for thousands of years, without a 
single man becoming a tailor. But coats and linen, like every 
other element of material wealth that is not the spontaneous 
produce of nature, must invariably owe their existence to a 



 

50 Capitalist Production. 

special productive activity, exercised with a definite aim, aB 
activity that appropriates particular nature-given materials to 
particular human wants. So far therefore as labour is a 
creator of use-value, is useful labour, it is a necessary con- 
dition, independent of all forms of society, for the existence of 
the human race; it is an eternal nature-imposed necessity, 
without which there can be no material exchanges between 
man and Nature, and therefore no life. 

The use-values, coat, linen, &amp;c, i. e., the bodies of commodi- 
ties, are combinations of two elements — matter and labour. 
If we take away the useful labour expended upon them, a 
material substratum is always left, which is furnished by 
Nature without the help of man. The latter can work only as 
Nature does, that is by changing the form of matter.^ Nay 
more, in this work of changing the form he is constantly helped 
by natural forces. We see, then, that labour is not the only 
source of material wealth, of use-values produced by labour. 
As William Petty puts it, labour is its father and the earth ita 
mother. 

Let us now pass from the commodity considered as a use* 
value to the value of commodities. 

By our assumption, the coat is worth twice as much as the 
linen. But this is a mere quantitative difference, which for the 
present does not concern us. We bear in mind, however, that 
if the value of the coat is double that of 10 yds. of linen, 20 
yds. of linen must have the same value as one coat. So far 
as they are values, the coat and the linen are things of a like 
substance, objective expressions of essentially identical labour. 
But tailoring and weaving are, qualitatively, different kinds of 
labour. There are, however, states of society in which one and 

^ Tntd i fenomeni ddl&apos; tmiverso* sieno essi prodotti della maoo, dell&apos; uomo, owero 
delle universali leggi della fisica, non ci danno idea di attuale creazione, ma 
unicamente di una modificazione della materia. Accostare e separare sono gli unici 
element! che I&apos;ingegno umano ritrova analizzando Tidea della riproduzione: e tanto ^ 
riproduzione di valore (value in use, although Verri in this passage of his contro- 
versy with the Physiocrats is not himself qtiite certain of the kind of value he it 
speaking of) e di ricchezze se la terra I&apos;aria e I&apos;acqua ne&apos; campi si trasmutino in 
grano, come se colla mano dell&apos; uomo il glutine di un insetto si trasmuti in velluto 
owero alcuni pezzetti di metallo si organizzino a formare una ripetizione.** — 
Fietro Verri. &quot;Meditazioni sulla Economia Politlca&quot; [first printed in 177S] 
Is Custodi&apos;B edition of the Italian Economist^, Parte Modema, t. zr. p. S8. 



 

Commodities. 51 

the same man does tailoring and weaving alternately, in whioh 
case these two forms of labour are mere modifications of the 
labour of the same individual, and not special and fixed func- 
tions of different persons; just as the coat which our tailor 
makes one day, and the trousers which he makes another day, 
imply only a variation in the labour of one and the same indi- 
viduaL Moreover, we see at a glance that, in our capitalist 
society, a given portion of human labour is, in accordance with 
the varying demand, at one time supplied in the form of tailor- 
ing, at another in the form of weaving. This change may 
possibly not take place without friction, but take place it must 
Productive activity, if we leave out of sight its special form, 
viz., the useful character of the labour, is nothing but the ex- 
penditure of human labour-power. Tailoring and weaving, 
though qualitatively different productive activities, are each a 
productive expenditure of human brains, nerves, and muscles, 
and in this sense are human labour. Th^ are but two 
different modes of expending human labour-power. Of course, 
this labour-power, which remains the same under all its modi- 
fications, must have attained a certain pitch of development 
before it can be expended in a multiplicity of modes. But the 
value of a commodity represents human labour in the abstract, 
the expenditure of human labour in general And just as in 
society, a general or a banker plays a great part, but mere 
man, on the other hand, a very shabby part,^ so here with 
mere human labour. It is the expenditure of simple labour- 
power, i.e., of the labour-power which, on an average, apart 
from any special development, exists in the organism of every 
ordinary individual. Simple average labour, it is true, varies 
in character in different countries and at different times, but 
in a particular society it is given. Skilled labour counts only 
as simple labour intensified, or rather, as multiplied simple 
labour, a given quantity of skilled being considered equal to a 
greater quantity of simple labour. Experience shows that this 
reduction is constantly being mada A commodity may be the 
product of the most skilled labour, but its value, by equating 
H to the product of simple imskilled labour, represents a 

^Coni^ Hcgel, Phfloiopliie des Rechts. Berlin, 1840, p. S60 | 100. 



 

52 Capitalist Production. 

definite quantity of the latter labour alone. ^ The different 
proportions in which different sorts of labour are reduced to 
unskilled labour as their standard, are established by a social 
process that goes on behind the backs of the producers, and, 
consequently, appear to be fixed by custom. For simplicity&apos;s 
sake we shall henceforth account every kind of labour to b© 
unskilled, simple labour; by this we do no more than save 
ourselves the trouble of making the reduction. 

Just as, therefore, in viewing the coat and linen as values, 
we abstract from their different use-values, so it is with the 
labour represented by those values : we disregard the difference 
between its useful forms, weaving and tailoring. As the use- 
values, coat and linen, are combinations of special productive 
activities with cloth and yam, while the values, coat and linen, 
are, on the other hand, mere homogeneous congelations of 
indifferentiated labour, so the labour embodied in these latter 
values does not count by virtue of its productive relation to 
cloth and yam, but only as being expenditure of human 
labour-power. Tailoring and weaving are necessary factors in 
the creation of the use-values, coat and linen, precisely because 
these two kinds of labour are of different qualities ; but only 
in so far as abstraction is made from their special qualities, 
only in so far as both possess the same quality of being human 
labour, do tailoring and weaving form the substance of the 
values of the same articles. 

Coats and linen, however, are not merely values, but values 
of definite magnitude, and according to our assumption, the 
coat is worth twice as much as the ten yards of linen. Whence 
this difference in their values ? It is owing to the fact that 
the linen contains only half as much labour as the coat, 
and consequently, that in the production of the latter, labour- 
power must have been expended during twice the time neces- 
sary for the production of the former. 

While, therefore, with reference to use-value, the labour con- 
tained in a commodity counts only qualitatively, with refer- 

*The reader must note that we arc not speaking here of the wages or value 
that the labourer gets for a given labour time, but of the value of the com- 
modity in which that labour time is materialised. Wages is a category that; as 
Jib has no existence at the present stage of otir investigation. 



 

Commodities. 53 

ence to value it counts only quantitatively, and must first be 
reduced to human labour pure and simple. In the former 
case, it is a question of How and What, in the latter of How 
much ? How long a time ? Since the magnitude of the value of 
a commodity represents only the quantity of labour embodied 
in it, it follows that all commodities, when taken in certain 
proportions, must be equal in value. 

If the productive power of all the different sorts of useful 
labour required for the production of a coat remains unchanged, 
the sum of the values of the coat produced increases with 
their number. If one coat represents x days&apos; labour, two 
coats represent 2x days&apos; labour, and so on. But assume that 
the duration of the labour necessary for the production of a 
coat becomes doubled or halved. In the first case, one coat is 
worth as much as two coats were before; in the second case, 
two coats are only worth as much as one was before, although 
in both cases one coat renders the same service as before, and 
the useful labour embodied in it remains of the same quality. 
But the quantity of labour spent on its production has altered. 

An increase in the quantity of use-values is an increase of 
material wealth. With two coats two men can be clothed, 
with one coat only one man. Nevertheless, an increased quan- 
tity of material wealth may correspond to a simultaneous 
fall in the magnitude of its value. This antagonistic move- 
ment has its origin in the two-fold character of labour. 
Productive power has reference, of course, only to labour of 
some useful concrete form ; the efficacy of any special produc- 
tive activity during a given time being dependent on its 
productiveness. Useful labour becomes, therefore, a more or 
less abundant source of products, in proportion to the rise or 
fall of its productiveness. On the other hand, no change in this 
productiveness affects the labour represented by value. Since 
productive power is an attribute of the concrete useful forms 
of labour, of course it can no longer have any bearing on that 
labour, so soon as we make abstraction from those concrete 
useful forms. However then productive power may vary, the 
same labour, exercised during equal periods of time, always 
yields equal amounts of value. But it will yield, during equal 



 

54 Capitalist Production. 

periods of time, different quantities of values in use; more^ if 
the productive power rise, fewer, if it falL The same change 
in productive power, which increases the f ruitfuhiess of labour, 
and, in consequence, the quantity of use-values produced by 
that labour, will diminish the total value of this increased 
quantity of use-values, provided such change shorten the total 
labour-time necessary for their production; and vice versSL 

On the one hand all labour is, speaking physiologically, an 
expenditure of human labour-power, and in its character of 
identical abstract human labour, it creates and forms the value 
of commodities. On the other hand, all labour is the expendi- 
ture of human labour-power in a special form and with a 
definite aim, and in this, its character of concrete useful labour, 
it produces use-values.^ 

BEOTION 3. THB FOBM OF VALT7B OB EXCHANGE VALUE. 

Commodities oome into the world in the shape of use-values, 
articles, or goods, such as iron, linen, com, &amp;c. This is their 
plain, homely, bodily form. They are, however, commodities, 

^ In order to prove that labour alone ia that all-sufficient and real measure^ 
by which at all timea the value of all commodities can be estimated and com- 
pared, Adam Smith sajrs, &quot;Equal quantities of labour must at all times and in all 
places have the same value for the labourer. In his normal state of health, strength 
and activity, and with the average degree of skill that he may possess, he must 
always give up the same portion of his rest, his freedom, and his happiness.&quot; 
(Wealth of Nations, b. I. ch. v.) On the one hand, Adam Smith here (but not 
everywhere) confuses the determination of value by means of the quantity of 
labour expended in the production of commodities, with the determination of the 
values of commodities by means of the value of labour, and seeks in consequence 
to prove that equal quantities of labour have alwa3rs the same value. On tho 
other hand, he has a presentiment, that labour, so far aa it manifests itself in 
the value of commodities, counts only as expenditure of labour power, but he 
treats this expenditure as the mere sacrifice of rest, freedom, and happiness, not as 
the same time the normal activity of living beings. But then, he has the mod&lt; 
em wage-labourer in his eye. Much more aptly, the anonymous predecessor of 
Adam Smith, quoted above in Note *, p. 6, says, &quot;one man has employed him- 
self a week in providing this necessary of life . . . and he that gives him 
some other in exchange, cannot make a better estimate of what is a proper 
equivalent, than by computing what cost him just as much labour and time; 
which in effect ia no more than exchanging one man&apos;s labour in one thing for 
a time certain, for another man&apos;s labour in another thing for the same time.&quot; 
(L c p. 89.) [The English language has the advantage of possessing different 
words for the two aspects of labour here considered. The labour which creates 
Use- Value, and counts qualitatively, is Work, as distinguished from Labour; thai 
which creates Value and counts quantitatively, is Labour as distingiushed froi^ 
Work. — Eo.] 



 

Commodities. 55 

only because they are something twofold, both objects of utUity, 
and, at the same time, depositories of value. They manifest 
themselves therefore as conmiodities^ or have the form of com- 
modities^ only in so far as they have two forms, a physical 
or natural form, and a value form. 

The reality of the value of commodities differs in this respect 
from Dame Quickly, that we don&apos;t know *Vhere to have it&quot; 
The value of commodities is the very opposite of the coarse ma- 
teriality of their substance, not an atom of matter enters into its 
composition. Turn and examine a single commodity, by itself, 
as we wilL Yet in so far as it remains an object of value, it 
seems impossible to grasp it If, however, we bear in mind 
that the value of commodities has a purely social reality, and 
that they acquire this reality only in so far as they are express 
sions or embodiments of one identical social substance, viz., hu- 
man labour, it follows as a matter of course, that value can only 
manifest itself in the social relation of conmiodity to comr 
modify. In fact we started from exchange value, or the 
exchange relation of commodities, in order to get at the value 
that lies hidden behind it We must now return to this form 
under which value first appeared to us. 

Every one knows, if he knows nothing else, that commodities 
have a value form common to them all, and presenting a 
marked contrast with the varied bodily forms of their use- 
values. I mean their money form. Here, however, a task is 
set us, the performance of which has never yet even been at- 
tempted by bourgeois economy, the task of tracing the genesis 
of this money form, of developing the expression of value im- 
plied in the value relation of commodities, from its simplest, 
almost imperceptible outline, to the dazzling money form. By 
doing this we shall, at the same time, solve the riddle presented 
by money. 

The simplest value relation is evidently that of one com- 
modity to some one other commodity of a different kind. 
Hence the relation between the values of two commodities sup- 
plies us with the simplest expression of the value of a single 
commodity. 



 

56 Capitalist Production. 

A. Ehmentaay or Accidental Form of Value. 
X commodity A=y commodity B, or 
X commodity A is worth y commodity R 
20 yards of linen=l coat, or 
20 yards of linen are worth 1 coat. 

1. The two poles of the expression of vaiue : Relative form and 
Equivalent formk 

The whole mystery of the form of value lies hidden in 
this elementary form. Its analysis^ therefore, is our real 
diflSculty. 

Here two different kinds of commodities (in onr example 
the linen and the coat), evidently play two different parts. 
The linen expresses its value in the coat ; the coat serves as the 
material in which that value is expressed. The former plays 
an active, the latter a passive, part The value of the linen is 
represented as relative value, or appears in relative form« 
The coat officiates as equivalent, or appears in equivalent 
form. 

The relative form and the equivalent form are two intimate- 
ly connected, mutually dependent and inseparable elements of 
the expression of value; but, at the same time, are mutually 
exclusive, antagonistic extremes — i.e., poles of the same ex- 
pression. They are allotted respectively to the two different 
commodities brought into relation by liat expression. It is 
not possible to express the value of linen in linen. 20 yards 
of linen =20 yards of linen is no expression of value. On the 
contrary, such an equation merely says that 20 yards of linen 
are notiing else than 20 yards of linen, a definite quantity of 
the use-value linen. The value of the linen can therefore be 
expressed only relatively — i.e., in some other commodity. The 
relative form of the value of the linen pre-supposes, therefore, 
the presence of some other commodity — ^here the coat — ^under 
the form of an equivalent On the other hand, the commodity 
that figures as the equivalent cannot at the same time assume 
the relative form. That second commodity is not the one 
whose value is expressed. Its function is merely to serve as 



 

Commodities. 57 

the material in which the value of the first oommodity ifi ex- 
pressed. 

No doubt, the expression 20 yjirds of linen=l coat, or 20 
yards of linen are worth 1 coat, implies the opposite relation : 1 
coat=20 yards of linen, or 1 coat is worth 20 yards of linen. 
But, in that case, I must reverse the equation, in order to ex- 
press the value of the coat relatively; and, so soon as I do 
that the linen becomes the equivalent instead of the coat. 
A single commodity cannot, therefore, simultaneously assume, 
in the same expression of value, both forms. The very 
polarity of these forms makes them mutually exclusive. 

Whether, then, a commodity assumes the relative form, or 
the opposite equivalent form, depends entirely upon its acci- 
dental position in the expression of value — ^that is, upon 
whether it is the commodity whose value is being expressed or 
the conmoiodity in which value is being expressed. 

2. The Relative form of value. 
(a.) The nature and import of this forrru. 

Li order to discover how the elementary expression of the 
value of a commodity lies hidden in the value relation of two 
commodities, we must, in the first place, consider the latter 
entirely apart from its quantitative aspect. The usual mode of 
procedure is generally the reverse, and in the value relation 
nothing is seen but the proportion between definite quantities 
of two different sorts of commodities that are considered equal 
to each other. It is apt to be forgotten that the magnitudes 
of different things can be compared quantitatively, only when 
those magnitudes are expressed in terms of the same unit It 
is only as expressions of such a unit that they are of the same 
denomination, and therefore commensurable.^ 

Whether 20 yards of linen^=l coat or=20 coats or^x 

^The few economists, amongst whom is S. Bailey, who have occupied themselvet 
with the analysis of the form of value, have been unable to arrive at any result, 
first, because they confuse the form of value with value itself; and second, be- 
cause, under the coarse influence of the practical bourgeois, they exclusively giv&lt;e 
their attention to the quantitative aspect of the question. &quot;The command of quan- 
ity . . . constitutes value.&quot; (&quot;Monqr and its Vidssitndes.&apos;&apos; London* 1887» pb 
IL By &amp; Bailey. 



 

58 Capitalist Production. 

coats — ^ihat is, -whether a given quantity of linen is worfli few 
or many coats, every such statement implies that the linen and 
coats, as magnitudes of value, are expressions of the same unit, 
things of the same kind. Linen=coat is the basis of the 
equation. 

But the two commodities whose identity of quality is thus 
assumed, do not play the same part It is only the value of 
the linen that is expressed. And how ? By its reference to 
the coat as its equivalent, as something that can be exchanged 
for it In this relation the coat is the mode of existence of 
value, is value embodied, for only as such is it the same as the 
linen. On the other hand, the lineups own value comes to the 
front, receives independent expression, for it is only as being 
value that it is comparable with the coat as a thing of equal 
value, or exchangeable with the coat To borrow an illustra- 
tion from chemistry, butyric acid is a different substance from 
propyl formate. Yet both are made up of the same chemical 
substances, carbon (C), hydrogen (H), and oxygen (O), and 
that, too, in like proportions — ^namely, C4H8O2. If now we 
equate butyric acid to propyl formate, then, in the first place^ 
propyl formate would be, in this relation, merely a form ol 
existence of C4H8O2; and in the second place, we should be 
stating that butyric acid also consists of C4H8O2. Therefore, 
by thus equating the two substances, expression would be given 
to their chemical composition, while their different physical 
forms would be neglected. 

If we say that, as values, commodities are mere congelations 
of human labour, we reduce them by our analysis, it is true, to 
the abstraction, value; but we ascribe to this value no form 
apart from their bodily form. It is otherwise in the value 
relation of one commodity to another. Here, the one stands 
forth in its character of value by reason of its relation to the 
other. 

By making the coat the equivalent of the linen, we equate 
the labour embodied in the former to that in the latter. Now, 
it is true that the tailoring, which makes the coat, is concrete 
labour of a different sort from the weaving which makes the 
linen. But the act of equating it to the weaving, reduces the 



 

Commodities. 59 

tailoring to that which is really equal in the two kinds of 
labour, to their common character of human labour. In this 
roundabout way, then, the fact is expressed, that weaving also, 
in so far as it weaves value, has nothing to distinguish it from 
tailoring, and, consequently, is abstract human labour. It is 
the expression of equivalence between different sorts of com- 
modities that alone brings into relief the specific character of 
value-creating labour, and this it does by actually reducing 
the different varieties of labour embodied in the different 
kinds of commodities to their common quality of human labour 
in the abstract^ 

There is, however, something else required beyond the ex- 
pression of the specific character of the labour of which the 
value of the linen consists. Human labour-power in motion, 
or human labour, creates value, but is not itself value. It 
becomes value only in its congealed state, when embodied in 
the form of some object In order to express the value of the 
linen as a congelation of human labour, that value must be 
expressed as having objective existence, as being a something 
materially different from the linen itself, and yet a something 
common to the linen and all other commodities. The problem 
is already solved. 

When occupying the position of equivalent in the equation 
of value, the coat ranks qualitatively as the equal of the linen, 
as something of the same kind, because it is value. In this posi- 
tion it is a thing in which we see nothing but value, or whose 
palpable bodily form represents value. Yet the coat itself, the 
body of the commodity, coat, is a mere use-value. A coat as 
such no more tells us it is value, than does the first piece of 
linen we take hold of. This shows that when placed in value 

*The celebrated Franklin, one of the first economists, after Wm. Petty, who 
saw through the nature of value, sajrs: &quot;Trade in general being nothing else but 
the exchange of labour for labour, the value of all things is . . . most justly 
measured by labour.&quot; (The works of B. Franklin, Ac, edited by Sparks, 
Boston, 1836, Vol. II., p. 267.) Franklin is unconscious that by estimating tha 
value of everything in labour, he makes at)straction from any difference in the 
sorts of labour exchanged, and thus reduces them all to equal human labour. 
But although ignorant of this, yet he says it. He speaks first of &apos;^he one labour,&quot; 
then of &quot;the other labour,&quot; and finally of &quot;labour,&quot; without further qnalifica- 
tioo, as the sabstaoce of the valoe of everything. 



 




60 Capitalist Production. 

relation to the linen, the coat signifies more than when out of 
that relation, just as many a man strutting about in a gorgeous 
uniform counts for more than when in mufti. 

In the production of the coat^ human labour-power, in the 
shape of tailoring, must have been actually expended. Human 
labour is therefore accimiulated in it. In this aspect the coat 
is a depository of value, but though worn to a thread, it does 
not let this fact show through. And as equivalent of the linen 
in the value equation, it exists under this aspect alone, counts 
therefore as embodied value, as a body that is valuer A, for 
instance, cannot be &quot;your majesty&apos;^ to B, unless at the same 
time majesty in B&apos;s eyes assumes the bodily form of A, and, 
what is more^ with every new father of the people, changes its 
features, hair, and many other things besides. 

Hence, in the value equation, in which the coat is the equiva- 
lent of the linen, the coat oflBciates as the form of value. The 
value of the commodity linen is expressed by the bodily form of 
the commodity coat, the value of one by the use-value of the 
other. As a use-value, the linen is something palpably dif- 
ferent from the coat ; as value, it is the same as the coat, and 
now has the appearance of a coat Thus the linen acquires 
a value form different from its physical form. The fact that 
it is value, is made manifest by its equality with the coat, just 
as the sheep ^s nature of a Christian is shown in his resemblance 
to the lAmFof God! 

We see, then, all that our analysis of the value of conmio- 
dities has already told us, is told us by the linen itself, so soon 
as it comes into communication with another conunodity, the 
coat Only it betrays its thoughts in that language with 
which alone it is familiar, the language of commodities. In 
order to tell us that its own value is created by labour in its 
abstract character of human labour, it says that the coat, in so 
far as it is worth as much las the linen, and therefore is value, 
consists of the same labour as the linen. In order to inform 
us that its sublime reality as value is not the same as its buck- 
ram body, it says that value has the appearance of a coat, and 
consequently that so far as the linen is value, it and the coat 
are as like as two peas. We may here remark, that the Ian* 



 

ConmtodiHes. 6z 

goage of oominodities has, besides Hebrew, many other more or 
less correct dialects. The German &quot;werthsein,&quot; to be worth, 
for instance, expresses in a less striking manner than the 
Eomance verbs &quot;valere,&quot; *Sraler,&quot; &quot;valoir,&quot; that the equating of 
commodity B to commodity A, is commodity A&apos;s own mode of 
expressing its value. Paris vaut bien une messe. 

By means, therefore, of the value relation expressed in our 
equation, the bodily form of commodity B becomes the value 
form of commodity A, or the body of commodity B acts as a 
mirror to the value of commodity A.^ By putting itself in re- 
lation with commodity B, ae value in propria personA, as the 
matter of which human labour is made up, the commodity A 
converts the value in use&gt; B, into the substance in which to 
express its, A&apos;s, own value. The value of A, thus expressed in 
the use-value of B, has taken the form of relative value. 

(b.) Quantitative determination of Relative valve. 

Eveiy commodity, whose value it is intended to express, is a 
useful object of given quantity, as 15 bushels of corn, or 100 
lbs. of coffee. And a given quantity of any commodity con- 
tains a definite quantity of human labor. The value-form 
must therefore not only express value generally, but also value 
in definite quantity. Therefore, in the value relation of com- 
modity A to commodity B, of the linen to the coat, not only is 
the latter, as value in general, made the equal in quality of the 
linen, but a definite quantity of coat (1 coat) is made the 
equivalent of a definite quantity (20 yards) of linen. 

The equation, 20 yards of linen=l coat, or 20 yards of linen 
are worth one coat, implies that the same quantity of value- 
substance (congealed labour) is embodied in both; that the 
two commodities have each cost the same amount of labour or 
the same quantity of labour time. But the labour time 
necessary for the production of 20 yards of linen or 1 coat 

^In a sort of way, it is with man as with commodities. Since he comes into 
the world neither with a looking glass in his hand, nor as a Fichtian philosopher, 
to whom &quot;I am I &quot; is sufficient, man first sees and recognises himself in other 
men. Peter only establishes his own identity as a man by first comparing him- 
•df with Paul as being of like kind. And thereby Patil, just as he stands in hit 
Pknltne personality, becomes to Peter the type of the genus homo. 



 

62 Capitalist Production. 

varies with every change in the productiveness of weaving or 
tailoring. We have now to consider the influence of such 
changes on the quantitative aspect of the relative expression of 
value. 

L Let the value of the linen vary/ that of the coat remain- 
ing constant If, say in consequence of the exhaustion of flax- 
growing soil, the labour time necessary for the production of 
the linen be doubled, the value of the linen will also be doubled. 
Instead of the equation, 20 yards of linen=l coat^ we should 
have 20 yards of linen=2 coats, since 1 coat would now con- 
tain only half the labour time embodied in 20 yards of linen. 
If, on the other hand, in consequence, say, of improved looms, 
this labour time be reduced by one half, -ihe value of the linen 
would fall by one half. Consequently, we should have 20 
yards of linen=i coat The relative value of commodity A, 
t.e., its value expressed in commodity B, rises and falls directly 
as the value of A, the value of B being supposed constant 

II. Let the value of the linen remain constant^ while the 
value of the coat varies. If, under these circumstances, in 
consequence, for instance, of a poor crop of wool, the labour 
time necessary for the production of a coat becomes doubled, 
we have instead of 20 yards of linen =1 coat, 20 yards of linen 
=4 coat If, on the other hand, the value of the coat sinks 
by one half, then 20 yards of linen=2 coats. Hence, if the 
value of conmiodity A remain constant, its relative value ex- 
pressed in commodity B rises and falls inversely as the value 
ofB. 

If we compare the different cases in I. and IL, we see that 
the same change of magnitude in relative value may arise from 
totally opposite causes. Thus, the equation, 20 yards of linen 
=1 coat, becomes 20 yards of linen=2 coats, either, because, 
the value of the linen has doubled, or because the value of the 
coat has fallen by one half; and it becomes 20 yards of linen 
=4 coat, either, because the value of the linen has fallen by 
one half, or because the value of the coat has doubled. 

III. Let the quantities of labour time respectively necee- 

^Valtie is here, as occasionally in the preceding pages, used in the sense of 
value determined as to quantity, or of magnitude of value. 



 

Commodities. 63 

Baiy for the production of the linen and the coat vaiy sim- 
ultaneously in the same direction and in the same proportion. 
In this case 20 yards of linen continue equal to 1 coat, however 
much their values may have altered. Their change of value is 
seen as soon as they are compared with a third commodity, 
whose value has remained constant. If the values of all com- 
modities rose or fell simultaneously, and in the same propor- 
tion, their relative values would remain unaltered. Their real 
change of value would appear from the diminished or increased 
quantity of commodities produced in a given time. 

IV. The labour time respectively necessary for the produc- 
tion of the linen and the coat, and therefore the value of these 
commodities may simultaneously vary in the same direction, 
but at unequal rates, or in opposite directions, or in other 
ways. The effect of all these possible different variations, on 
the relative value of a commodity, may be deduced from the 
results of I., II., and III. 

Thus real changes in the magnitude of value are neither 
unequivocally nor exhaustively reflected in their relative 
expression, that is, in the equation expressing the magnitude 
of relative value. The relative value of a commodity may 
vary, although its value remains constant. Its relative value 
may remain constant, although its value varies; and finally, 
simultaneous variations in the magnitude of value and in that 
of its relative expression by no means necessarily correspond 
in amount.^ 



^Thls incongruity b e t w e en the magnitude of value and its relative expression 
has, with customary ingenuity, been exploited by vulgar economists. For example 
— ^&quot;Once admit that A falls, because B, with which it is exchanged, rises, while 
no less labour is bestowed in the meantime on A, and your general principle of 
value falls to the ground. ... If he [Ricardo] allowed that when A rises in 
valtie relatively to B, B falls in value relatively to A, he cut away the ground on 
which he rested his grand proposition, that the value of a commodity is ever de- 
termined by the labour embodied in it; for if a change in the cost of A alters not 
only its own value in relation to B, for which it is exchanged, but also the value 
of B relatively to that of A, though no change has taken place in the quantity 
of labour to produce B, then not only the doctrine falls to the ground which 
asserts that the quantity of labour bestowed on an article regulates its value* 
but also that which affirms the cost of an article to regulate its value.&quot; (J. 
Broadhurst: Political Economy, London, 1842, p. 11 and 14. 

Mr. Broadhurst might just as well say: consider the fractions ^^ ^, .fj^, &amp;c.« 
Ibe number 10 remains unchanged, and yet its proportional magnitude, its magni- 



 

64 Capitalist Production. 

8. The Equivalent form of value. 

We have seen that commodity A (the linen), by expiessilig 
its value in the use-value of a commodity differing in kind 
(the coat), at the same time impresses upon the latter a specific 
form of value, namely that of the equivalent The commodity 
linen manifests its quality of having a value by the fact that 
the coat, without having assumed a value form different from 
its bodily form, is equated to the linen. The fact that the 
latter therefore has a value is expressed by sayiiig that the 
coat is directly exchangeable with it Therefore, when we say 
that a commodity is in the equivalent form, we express the 
fact that it is directly exchangeable with other commodities. 

When one commodity, such as a coai^ serves as the equivalent 
of another, such as linen, and coats consequently acquire the 
characteristic property of being directly exchangeable with 
linen, we are far from knowing in what proportion the two are 
exchangeable. The value of the linen being given in magni- 
tude, that proportion depends on the value of the coat 
Whether the coat serves as the equivalent and the linen as 
relative value, or the linen as the equivalent and the coat as 
relative value, the magnitude of the coat^s value is determined, 
independently of its value form, by the labour time necessary 
for its production. But whenever the coat assumes in the 
equation of value, the position of equivalent, its value acquires 
no quantitative expression; on the contrary, the commodity 
coat now figures only as a definite quantity of some article. 

For instance, 40 yards of linen are worth — what ? 2 coats. 
Because the commodity coat here plays the part of equivalent, 
because the use-value coat, as opposed to the linen, figures as 
an embodiment of value, therefore a definite number of coats 
suflSces to express the definite quantity of value in the linen. 
Two coats may therefore express the quantity of value of 40 
yards of linen, but they can never express the quantity of their 
own value. A superficial observation of this fact, namely, that 

tade relatively to the numbers 20, 60, 100, &amp;c, continually diminishes. There- 
fore the great principle that the magnitude of a whole number, such as 10, is 
&quot;regulated** by the number of times unity is contained in it, falls to the ground. 
— &apos; [The author explains in section 4 of this chapter^ p. 08, note 1, what he uader^ 
Stand* by &quot;Vulgar Economy.&quot; — Ed.] 



 

Commodities. 65 

in the equation of value, the equivalent figures exclusively as 
a simple quantity of some article, of some use-value, has misled 
Bailey, as also many others, both before and after him, into 
seeing, in the expression of value, merely a quantitative rela- 
tion. The truth being, that when a commodity acts as equiva- 
lent, no quantitative determination of its value is expressed. 

The first peculiarity that strikes us, in considering the form 
of the equivalent, is this : use-value becomes the form of mani- 
festation, the phenomenal form of its opposite, value. 

The bodily form of the commodity becomes its value form. 
But, mark well, that this quid pro quo exists in the case of any 
commodity B, only when some other commodity A enters into 
a value relation with it, and then only within the limits of this 
relation. Since no commodity can stand in the relation of 
equivalent to itself, and thus turn its own bodily shape into the 
expression of its own value, every commodity is compelled 
to choose some other commodity for its equivalent, and to ac- 
cept the use-value, that is to say, the bodily shape of that other 
commodity as the form of its own value. 

One of the measures that we apply to commodities as ma- 
terial substances, as use-values, will serve to illustrate this point 
A sugar-loaf being a body, is heavy, and therefore has weight: 
but we can neither see nor touch this weight. We then take 
various pieces of iron, whose weight has been determined 
beforehand. The iron, as iron, is no more the form of manifes- 
tation of weight, than is the sugar-loaf. Nevertheless, in order 
to express the sugar-loaf as so much weight, we put it into a 
weight-relation with the iron. In this relation, the iron 
oflBciates as a body representing nothing but weight. A certain 
quantity of iron therefore serves as the measure of the weight 
of the sugar, and represents, in relation to the sugar-loaf, 
wei^t embodied, the form of manifestation of weight. This 
part is played by the iron only within this relation, into which 
the sugar or any other body, whose weight has to be determined, 
enters with the iron. Were they not both heavy, they could 
not enter into this relation, and the one could therefore not 
serve as the expression of the weight of the other. When we 
throw both into the scales, we see in reality, that as weight 



 

66 Capitcdist Production. 

they are both the same^ and that^ therefore, when taken in 
proper proportions, they have the same weight Just as the 
substance iron, as a measure of weight, represents in relation 
to the sugar-loaf weight alone, so, in our expression of value, 
the material object^ cqat, in relation to the linen, represents 
value alone. 

Here, however, the analogy ceases. The iron, in the expres- 
sion of the weight of the sugar-loaf, represents a natural pro- 
perty common to both bodies, namely their weight; but the coat 
in the expression of value of the linen, represents a non-natural 
property of both, something purely social, namely, their value. 

Since the relative form of value of a commodity — the linen, 
for example — expresses the value of that commodity, as being 
something wholly different from its substance and properties, 
as being, for instance, coat-like, we see that this expression 
itself indicates that some social relation lies at the bottom of 
it. With the equivalent form it is just the contrary. The very 
essence of this form is that the material commodity itself — ^the 
coat — ^just as it is, expresses value, and is endowed with the 
form of value by Nature itself. Of course this holds good only 
so long as the value relation exists, in which the coat stands in 
the position of equivalent to the linen. ^ Since, however, the 
properties of a thing are not the result of its relations to other 
things, but only manifest themselves in such relations, the 
coat seems to be endowed with its equivalent form, its property 
of being directly exchangeable, just as much by Nature as it is 
endowed with the property of being heavy, or the capacity to 
keep us warm. Hence the enigmatical character of the equiva- 
lent form which escapes the notice of the bourgeois political 
economist, until this form, completely developed, confronts him 
in the shape of money. He then seeks to explain away the 
mystical character of gold and silver, by substituting for them 
less dazzling commodities, and by reciting, with ever renewed 
satisfaction, the catalogue of all possible commodities which at 
one time or another have played the part of equivalent He 

^Stich expressions of relations in general, called by Hegel reflex*categories, form 
A very curious class. For instance, one man is king only because other men sUnd 
in the relation of subjects to him. They, on the contrary, imagine that they are 
•ul^ects because he aa king. 



 

Commodities. 67 

has not the least suspicion that the most simple expression of 
value, such as 20 yds. of linen =1 coat, already propounds the 
riddle of the equivalent form for our solution. 

The body of the commodity that serves as the equivalent, 
figures as the materialization of human labour in the abstract 
and is at the same time the product of some specifically useful 
concrete labour. This concrete labour becomes, therefore, the 
medium for expressing abstract human labour. If on the 
one hand the coat ranks as nothing but the embodiment of 
abstract human labour, so, on the other hand, the tailoring 
which is actually embodied in it, counts as nothing but the 
form under which that abstract labour is realised. In the ex- 
pression of value of the linen, the utility of the tailoring con- 
sists, not in making clothes, but in making an object, which we 
at once recognise to be Value, and therefore to be a congelation 
of labour, but of labour indistinguishable from that realised in 
the value of the linen. In order to act as such a mirror of 
value, the labour of tailoring must reflect nothing besides its 
own abstract quality of being human labour generally. 

In tailoring, as well as in weaving, human labour-power is 
expended. Both, therefore, possess the general property of 
being human labour, and may, therefore, in certain cases, such 
as in the production of value, have to be considered under 
this aspect alone. There is nothing mysterious in this. But 
in the expression of value there is a complete turn of the 
tables. For instance, how is the fact to be expressed that 
weaving creates the value of the linen, not by virtue of being 
weaving, as such, but by reason of its general property of being 
human labour? Simply by opposing to weaving that other 
particular form of concrete labour (in this instance tailoring), 
which produces the equivalent of the product of weaving. 
Just as the coat in its bodily form became a direct expression 
of value, so now does tailoring, a concrete form of labour, 
appear as the direct and palpable embodiment of human labour 
generally. 

Hence, the second peculiarity of the equivalent form is, that 
concrete labour becomes the form under which its opposite, 
abstract human labour, manifests itself. 



 

68 Capitalist Production. 

But because this concrete labour, tailoring in our case, ranks 
as, and is directly indentified with, undifferentiated human 
labour, it also ranks as identical with any other sort of labor, 
and therefore with that embodied in linen. Consequently, 
although, like all other commodity-producing labour, it is the 
labour of private individuals, yet, at the same time, it ranks as 
labour directly social in its character. This is the reason why 
it results in a product directly exchangeable with other com- 
modities. We have then a third peculiarity of the Equivalent 
form, namely, that the labour of private individuals takes the 
form of its opposite, labour directly social in its form. 

The two latter peculiarities of the Equivalent form will 
become more intelligible if we go back to the great thinker 
who was the first to analyse so many forms, whether of 
thought, society, or nature, and amongst them also the form of 
value. I mean Aristotle. 

In the first place, he clearly enunciates that the money form 
of commodities is only the further development of the simple 
form of value — t. e., of the expression of the value of one com- 
modity in some other commodity taken at random ; for he says 
6 beds=l . house (xXovu wirrt dyrl obdas^ is not to be 

distinguished from 
6 beds=8o much money. 

(kXlvoi wimt drrl . . . &amp;rov al irbT€ JcX&amp;at) 

He further sees that the value relation which gives rise to 
this expression makes it necessary that the house should quali- 
tatively be made the equal of the bed, and that, without such 
an equalization, these two clearly different things could not 
be compared with each other as commensurable quantities. 
&quot;Exchange,&apos;* he says, &quot;cannot take place without equality, and 
equality not without commensurability*&apos; ( ovi&apos; hr&amp;nfi /t*^ owaiy« 
iFvikiurplwi). Here, however, he comes to a stop, and gives 
up the further analysis of the form of value. &quot;It is, 
however, in reality, impossible (Tj/fA^oJKdXiTtfaSjidSwoTor), that 
such unlike things can be commensurable&apos;* — i. e., qualita- 
tively equal. Such an equalisation can only be something 
foreign to their real nature, consequently only &quot;a make-shiffc 
for practical purposes.&apos;* 



 

Commodities. 69 

Aristofle therefore^ himself^ tells us, what barred the way to 
his further analysis; it was the absence of any concept of 
value. What is that equal something, that common substance, 
which admits of the value of the beds being expressed by a 
house? Such a thing, in truth, cannot exist, says Aristotle. 
And why not? Compared with the beds, the house does re- 
present something equal to them, in so far as it represents what 
is really equal, both in the beds and the house. And that is — 
human labour. 

There was, however, an important fact which prevented 
Aristotle from seeing that, to attribute value to commodities, is 
merely a mode of expressing all labour as equal human labour, 
and consequently as labour of equal quality. Greek society 
was founded upon slavery, and had, therefore, for its natural 
basis, the inequality of men and of their labour powers. The 
secret of the expression of value, namely, that all kinds of 
labour are equal and equivalent, because, and so far as they 
are hxmian labour in general, cannot be deciphered, until the 
notion of human equality has already acquired the fixity of a 
popular prejudice. This, however, is possible only in a society 
in which the great mass of the produce of labour takes the form 
of conmiodities, in which, consequently, the dominant relation 
between man and man, is that of owners of commodities. The 
brilliancy of Aristotle&apos;s genius is shown by this alone, that he 
discovered, in the expression of the value of commodities, a 
relation of equality. The peculiar conditions of the society in 
which he lived, alone prevented him from discovering what&gt; 
&quot;in truth,*&apos; was at the bottom of this equality. 

4. The EUmentary form of value considered as a whde. 

The elementary form of value of a commodity is contained 
in the equation, expressing its value relation to another com- 
modity of a different kind, or in its exchange relation to the 
same. The value of commodity A is qualitatively expressed 
by the fact that commodity B is directly exchangeable with it 
Its value is quantitively expressed by the fact, that a definite 
quantity of B is exchangeable with a definite quantity of A. 
In other words, the value of a commodity obtains independent 



 

70 Capitalist Production. 

and definite expression^ by taking the form of exchange valua 
When, at the beginning of this chapter^ we said, in common 
parlance, that a commodity is both a use-value and an ex- 
change value, we were, accurately speaking, wrong. A com- 
modity is a use-value or object of utility, and a value. It 
manifests itself as this two-fold thing, that it is, as soon as its 
value assumes an independent form — ^viz., the form exchange 
value. It&apos; never assumes this form when isolated, but only 
when placed in a value or exchange relation with another 
commodity of a different kind. When once we know this, 
such a mode of expression does no harm ; it simply serves as an 
abbreviation. 

Our analysis has shown, that the form or expression of the 
value of a commodity originates in the nature of value, and 
not that value and its magnitude originate in the mode of 
their expression as exchange value. This, however, is the 
delusion as well of the mercantilists and their recent revivors. 
Terrier, Ganilh,^ and others, as also of their antipodes, the 
modem bagmen of Free Trade, such as Bastiat The mercan- 
tilists lay special stress on the qualitative aspect of the 
expression of value, and consequently on the equivalent form 
of commodities, which attains its full perfection in money. 
The modem hawkers of Free Trade, who must get rid of their 
article at any price, on the other hand, lay most stress on the 
quantitative aspect of the relative form of value. For them 
there consequently exists neither value, nor magnitude of 
value, anywhere except in its expression by means of the 
exchange relation of commodities, that is, in the daily list of 
prices current MacLeod, who has taken upon himself to 
dress up the confused ideas of Lombard Street in the most 
learned finery, is a successful cross between the superstitious 
mercantilists, and the enlightened Free Trade bagmen. 

A close scrutiny of the expression of the value of A in terms 
of B, contained in the equation expressing the value relation of 
A to B, has shown us that, within that relation, the bodily form 

*F. L. Ferrier, sous-inspccteur dea douanes, &quot;Du gouvemement consider^ 
dans ses rapports avec le commerce/&apos; Paris, 1806; and Charles Ganilh, &quot; Des 
Sytt^es d&apos;Economie politique.&quot; 2nd ed., Paris, 1821. 



 

Commodities. 71 

of A %Qre8 only as a use-value, the bodily form of B only as 
the form or aspect of value. The opposition or contrast 
existing internally in each commodity between use-value and 
value, is, therefore, made evident externally by two com- 
modities being placed in such relation to each other, that the 
conmiodity whose value it is sought to express, figures directly 
as a mere use-value, while the commodity in which that value 
is to be expressed, figures directly as mere exchange value. 
Hence the elementary form of value of a commodity is the 
elementary form in which the contrast contained in that 
commodity, between use-value and value, becomes apparent. 

Every product of labour is, in all states of society, a use- 
value ; but it is only at a definite historical epoch in a society&apos;s 
development that such product becomes a commodity, viz., 
at the epoch ^hen the labour spent on the production of a 
useful article becomes expressed as one of the objective 
qualities of that article, i.e., as its value. It therefore follows 
that the elementary value-form is also the primitive form 
under which a product of labour appears historically as a 
commodity, and that the gradual transformation of such 
products into commodities, proceeds pari passu with the 
development of the value-form. 

We perceive, at first sight, the deficiencies of the elementary 
form of value : it is a mere germ, which must undergo a series 
of metamorphoses before it can ripen into the Price-form. 

The expression of the value of commodity A in terms of any 
other commodity B, merely distinguishes the value from the 
use-value of A, and therefore places A merely in a relation of 
exchange with a single different commodity, B; but it is still 
far from expressing A&apos;s qualitative equality, and quantitative 
proportionality, to all commodities. To the elementary rela- 
tive value-form of a commodity, there corresponds the single 
equivalent form of one other commodity. Thus, in the rela- 
tive expression of value of the linen, the coat assumes the form 
of equivalent, or of being directly exchangeable, only in re- 
lation to a single commodity, the linen. 

Nevertheless, the elementary form of value passes by an easy 
transition into a more complete form. It is true that by means 



 

J2 Capitalist Production. 

of the elementary f orm, the value of a commodity A, beoomes 
expressed in terms of one^ and only one, other commodity* 
But that one may be a commodity of any kind, coat, iron, com, 
or anything else. Therefore, according as A is placed in rela- 
tion with one or the other, we get for one and the same com- 
modity, difiPerent elementary expressions of value.^ The nmn* 
ber of snch possible expressions is limited only by the number 
of the difiPerent kinds of commodities distinct from it. Hie 
isolated expression of A&apos;s value, is therefore convertible into a 
series, prolonged to any length, of the difiPerent elementary ex- 
pressions of that value. 

B. Total or Expanded form of value. 

z Oom. A=u Com. B or =v Com. C or=-w Com. P or=x Conu 

E or=&amp;c. 

(20 yards of linen=l coat or=10 lb tea or=40 lb cofiPee or= 

1 quarter com or =2 ounces gold or=^ ton iron or=&amp;a) 

1. The Expanded Relative form of value. 

The value of a single conmiodity, the linen, for example^ is 
now expressed in terms of numberless other elements of the 
world of commodities. Every other commodity now becomes 
a mirror of the linen&apos;s value.^ It is thus, that for the first time 

^la Homer, for instance, the Talue of an article it expressed in a series of dif* 
fcrent things. IL VII., 472-476. 

&apos;For this reason, we can speak of the coat-ralne of the linen when its valne is 
expressed in coats, or of its corn-value when expressed in com, and so on. 
Every such expression tells ns, that what appears in the use-values, coat, com» 
Ac., is the value of the linen. &quot; The value of any commodity denoting its relation 
in exchange, we may speak of it as . . . com-vdue, cloth-value, according to the 
commodity with which it is compared ; and hence there are a thousand different kinds of 
value, as many kinds of value as there are commodities in existence, and all are 
equally real and equally nominal&quot; (A Critical Dissertation on the Nature, Meas- 
ure and Causes of Value; chiefly in reference to the writings of Mr. Ricardo 
and his followers. By the author of &quot; Essays on the Formation, &amp;c, of Opinp 
ions.** London, 1826, p. SO.j S. Bailey, the author of this anonymous worl^ 
a work which in iu day created much stir in England, fancied that, by thus 
pointing out the various relative expressions of one and the same value, he «^ 
proved the impossibility of any determination of the concept of value. Hoik^ 
ever narrow his own views may have been, yet, that he laid his finger on some 
serious defects in the Ricardian Theory, is proved by the animosity with which 
he was attacked by Ricardo&apos;a followers. See the Wuhninttfr Rfvi4W for example. 



 

Commodities. 73 

tihis Talxie sEowb itself in its true light as a congelation of xmr 
differentiated human labour. For the labour that creates it^ 
now stands expressly revealed, as labour that ranks equally 
with every other sort of human labour, no matter what its 
form, whether tailoring, ploughing, mining, &amp;c. and no matter, 
therefore, whether it is realised in coats, com, iron, or gold. 
The linen, by virtue of the form of ite value, now stands in a 
social relation, no longer with only one other kind of comr 
modity, but with the whole world of commodities. As a 
commodity, it is a citizen of that world. At the same time^ 
the interminable series of value equations implies, that as re- 
gards the value of a commodity, it is a matter of in- 
difference under what particular form, or kind, of use-value it 
appears^ 

In the first form, 20 yds. of linen=l coat, it might for ought 
that otherwise appears be pure accident, that these two com- 
modities are exchangeable in definite quantities. In the second 
form, on the contrary, we perceive at once the background that 
determines, and is essentially different from, this accidental 
appearance. The value of the linen remains unaltered in mag- 
nitude, whether expressed in coats, coffee, or iron, or in num- 
berless different commodities, the property of as many 
different owners. The accidental relation between two in- 
dividual commodity-owners disappears. It becomes plain, that 
it is not the exchange of commodities which regulates the 
magnitude of their value ; but, on the contrary, that it is the 
magnitude of their value which controls their exchange 
proportions. 

2. The parHcvIar Eqyivalent form. 

Each commodity, such as coat, tea, com, iron, &amp;c., figures in 
the expression of value of the linen, as an equivalent, and con- 
sequently as a thing that is value. The bodily form of each 
of these conmiodities figures now as a particular equivalent 
form, one out of many. In the same way the manifold con- 
crete useful kinds of labour^ embodied in these different corn- 



 

74 Capitalist Production. 

moditieSy rank now as so many different forms of the realiea- &apos; 
tion^ or manifestation^ of undifferentiated human labour. 

3. Defects of the Total or Expanded form of value. 

In the first place, the relative expression of value is incom- 
plete because the series representing it is interminable. The 
chain of v^hich each equation of value is a link, is liable at any 
moment to be lengthened by each new kind of commodity that 
comes into existence and furnishes the material for a fresh 
expression of value. In the second place, it is a many- 
coloured mosaic of disparate and independent expressions 
of value. And lastly, if, as must be the case, the relative value 
of each commodity in turn, becomes expressed in this ex- 
panded form, we get for each of them a relative value-form, 
different in every case, and consisting of an interminable 
series of expressions of value. The defects of the expanded 
relative-value form are reflected in ihe corresponding equiva- 
lent form. Since the bodily form of each single commodity is 
one particular equivalent form amongst numberless others, we 
have, on the whole, nothing but fragmentary equivalent forms, 
each excluding the others. In the same way, also, the special, 
concrete, useful kind of labour embodied in each particular 
equivalent, is presented only as a particular kind of labour, 
and therefore not as an exhaustive representative of human 
labour generally. The latter, indeed, gains adequate manifes- 
tation in the totality of its manifold, particular, concrete forms. 
But, in that case, its expression in an infinite series is eve^ 
incomplete and deficient in unity. 

The expanded relative value form is, however, nothing but 
the sum of the elementary relative expressions or equations of 
the first kind, such as 

20 yards of linen=l coat 

20 yards of linen=10 lbs. of tea, etc. 

Each of these implies the corresponding inverted equation^ 
1 coat=20 yards of linen 
10 lbs. of tea=20 yards of linen, etc. 

In fact, when a person exchanges his linen for many other 
oommodities, and thus expresses its value in a series of other 



 

=20 yards of linen 



Commodities. 75 

commodities, it necessarily follows, that the various owners of 
the latter exchange them for the linen, and consequently express 
the value of their various commodities in one and the same 
third commodity, the linen. If then, we reverse the series, 20 
yards of linen=l coat or=10 lbs. of tea, etc., that is to say, 
if we give expression to the converse relation already implied 
in the series, we get, 

C. The Oeneral form of value. 
1 coat 

10 lbs. of tea 
40 lbs. of coffee 

1 quarter of com 

2 ounces of gold 
i a ton of iron 
X com. A., etc 

1. The altered character of the form of value. 

All commodities now express their value (1) in an element- 
ary form, because in a single commodity; (2) with unity, be- 
cause in one and the same commodity. This form of value 
is elementary and the same for all, dierefore generaL 

The forms A and B were fit only to express the value of a 
commodity as something distinct from its use-value or material 
form. 

The first form. A, furnishes such equations as the follow- 
ing: — 1 coatF=20 yards of linen, 10 lbs. of tea=i ton of iron. 
The value of the coat is equated to linen, that of the tea to 
iron. But to be equated to linen, and again to iron, is to be as 
different as are linen and iron. This form, it is plain, occurs 
practically only in the first beginning, when the products of 
labour are converted into commodities by accidental and 
occasional exchanges. 

The second form, B, distinguishes, in a more adequate man- 
ner than the first, the value of a commodity from its use-value ; 
for the value of the coat is there placed in contrast under all 
possible shapes with the bodily form of the coat; it is equated 



 

^ Capitalist Production. 

to linen, to iron, to tea, in short, to everything else, only not to 
itself, the coat. On the other hand, any general expression of 
value common to all is directly excluded ; for, in the equation 
of value of each commodi^, all other commodities now appear 
only under the form of equivalents. The expanded form of 
value comes into actual existence for the first time so soon aa 
a particular product of labour, such as cattle, is no longer 
exceptionally, but habitually, exchanged for various other 
commodities. 

The third and lastly developed form expresses the values of 
the whole world of commodities in terms of a single commodity 
set apart for the purpose, namely, the linen, and thus represents 
to us their values by means of their equality with linen. The 
value of every commodity is now, by being equated to linen, 
not only differentiated from its own use-value, but from all 
other use-values generally, and is, by that very fact, expressed 
as that which is common to all commodities. By this form, 
commodities are, for the first time, effectively brought into 
relation with one another as valuesj^ or made to appear aa 
exchange values. 

The two earlier forms either express the value of each comr 
modify in terms of a single commodity of a different kind, or 
in a series of many such commodities. In both cases, it is, eo 
to say, the special business of each single commodity to find an 
expression for its value, and this it does without the help of 
the others. These others, with respect to the former, play the 
passive parts of equivalents. The general form of value C, 
results from the joint action of the whole world of commodities, 
and from that alone. A commodity can acquire a general ex- 
pression of its value only by all other commodities, simulta- 
neously with it, expressing their values in the same equivalent; 
and every new commodity must follow suit It thus becomes 
evident that, since the existence of commodities as values is 
purely social, this social existence can be expressed by the 
totality of their social relations alone, and consequently 
that the form of their value must be a socially recognised 
form. 

All commodities being equated to linen now appear not only 



 

Commodities. TJ 

as qualitative^&apos; equal as values generally, bat also as values 
whose magnitudes are capable of comparison. By expressing 
the magnitudes of their values in one and the same material, 
the linen, those magnitudes are also compared with each other. 
For instance, 10 lbs. of tea=20 yards of linen, and 40 lbs. of 
cofifee=20 yards of linen. Therefore, 10 lbs. of tea=40 lbs. 
of coffee. In other words, there is contained in 1 lb. of coffee 
only one-f ourih as much substance of value — labour — as is con- 
tained in 1 lb. of tea. 

The general form of relative value, embracing the whole 
world of commodities, converts the single commodily that is 
excluded from the rest, and made to play the part of equivalent 
— ^here the linen — ^into the universal equivalent. T3ie bodily 
form of the linen is now the form assumed in common by the 
value of all commodities; it therefore becomes directly 
exchangeable with all and every of them. The substance 
linen becomes the visible incarnation, the social chrysalis state 
of every kind of human labour. Weaving, which is the labour 
of certain private individuals producing a particular article, 
linen, acquires in consequence a social character, the character 
of equality with all other kinds of labour. The innumerable 
equations of which the general form of value is composed, 
equate in turn the labour embodied in the linen to that em- 
bodied in every other commodity, and they thus convert 
weaving into the general form of manifestation of undiffer- 
entiated human labour. In this manner the labour realised in 
the values of commodities is presented not only under its 
negative aspect, under which abstraction is made from every 
concrete form and useful property of actual work, but 
its own positive nature is made to reveal itself expressly. 
The general value-form is the reduction of all kinds of 
actual labour to their common character of being human 
labour generally, of being the expenditure of human labour 
power. 

The general value form, which represents all products of 
labour as mere congelations of undifferentiated human labour, 
shows by its very structure that it is the social resume of the 
world of commodities. That form consequently makes it 



 

78 Capitalist Production. 

indisputably evident that in the -world of oonunodities the 
character possessed by all labour of being human labour 
constitutes its specific social character. 

2. ITie interdependent development of the Relative form of 
valve, a/nd of the Equivalent form. 

The degree of development of the relative form of value 
corresponds to that of the equivalent form. But we must boar 
in mind that the development of the latter is onlj the expres- 
sion and result of the development of the former. 

The primary or isolated relative form of value of one 
commodity converts some other commodity into an isolated 
equivalent The expanded form of relative value, which is 
the expression of the value of one conmiodity in terms of all 
other commodities, endows those other c(Hnmodities with tiie 
character of particular equivalents differing in kind. And 
lastly, a particular kind of commodity acquires the character of 
universal equivalent, because all other commodities make it the 
material in which they imiformly express their value. 

The antagonism between the relative form of value and the 
equivalent form, the two i)oles of the value form, is developed 
concurrently with that form itself. 

The first form^ 20 yds. of linen=one coat, already contains 
this antagonism, without as yet fixing it. According as we 
read this equation forwards or backwards, the parts played by 
the linen and the coat are different. In the one case the 
relative value of the linen is expressed in the coal^ in the 
other case the relative value of the coat is expressed in the 
linen. In this first form of valuCj therefore, it is difficult to 
grasp the polar contrast 

Form B shows that only one single commodity at a time can 
completely expand its relative value, and that it acquires this 
expanded form only because, and in so far as, all other comr 
modities are, with respect to it, equivalents. Here we cannot 
reverse the equation, as we can the equation 20 yds. of linen= 
1 coat, without altering its general character, and converting 
it from the expanded form of value into the general form of 
value. 



 

Commodities. 79 

Filially, the form C gives to the world of commodities a 
general social relative form of value^ because, and in so far as, 
hereby all commodities, with the exception of one, are excluded 
from the equivalent form. A single commodity, the linen, 
appears therefore to have acquired the character of direct ex- 
changeability with every other commodity because, and in so 
far as, this character is denied to every other commodity.^ 

The commodity that figures as universal equivalent, is, on 
the other hand, excluded from the relative value form. If the 
linen, or any other commodity serving as universal equivalent, 
were, at the same time, to share in the relative form of value, 
it would have to serve as its own equivalent We should then 
have 20 yds. of linen=20 yds. of linen; this tautology ex- 
presses neither value, nor magnitude of value. In order to 
express the relative value of the universal equivalent, we must 
rather reverse the form C. This equivalent has no relative 
form of value in common with other commodities, but its value 
is relatively expressed by a never ending series of other com- 
modities. Thus, the expanded form of relative value, or form 
B, now shows itself as the specific form of relative value for the 
equivalent commodity. 

3. Transition from the Oeneral form of value to the 
Money form. 

The universal equivalent form is a form of value in general. 
It can, therefore, be assumed by any commodity. On the 

^ It b by no means self-e^dent tliat this character of direct and universal ex- 
cliangeability is, so to speak, a polar one, and as intimatelj connected with its 
opposite pole, the absence of direct exchangeabilitj, as the positive pole of the 
magnet is with its negative counterpart. It maj therefore be imagined that all 
commodities can simultaneously have this character impressed upon them, just as 
it can be imagined that all Catholics can be popes together. It is, of course, 
highly desirable in the eyes of the petit bourgeois, for whom the production of 
commodities is the ne plus ultra of human freedom and individual independence. 
Chat the inconveniences resulting from this character of commodities not being 
directly exchangeable, should be removed. Proudhon&apos;s socialism is a working out 
of this Philistine Utopia, a form of socialism which, as I have elsewhere shown, 
does not possess even the merit of originality. Long before his time, the task 
was attempted with much better success by Gray, Bray, and others. But, for all 
that, wisdom of this kind flourishes even now in certain circles under the name 
of &quot;science.&quot; Never has any school played more tricks with the word idcn c e, 
tittn that of Proudhon, for 

&quot;wo Begriffe fehlen 
Da stellt zur rechten Zeit ein Wort sich ein.** 



 

8o Capitalist Producium. 

other hand, if a commodity be found to have aasmned the 
universal equivalent form (form C), this b only because and 
in 80 far as it has been excluded from the rest of all other 
commodities as their equivalent, and that by their own act 
And from the moment that this exclusion becomes finally 
restricted to one particular commodity, from that moment only, 
the general form of relative value of the world of commodities 
obtains real consistence and general social validity. 

The particular commodity, with whose bodily form the 
equivalent form is thus socially identified, now becomes the 
money commodity, or serves as money. It becomes the special 
social function of that commodity, and consequently its social 
monopoly, to play within the world of commodities the part of 
the universal equivalent Amongst the commodities which, in 
form B, figure as particular equivalents of the linen, and in 
form C, express in common their relative values in linen, this 
foremost place has been attained by one in particular — ^namely, 
gold. If, then, in form C we replace the linen by gold, we 
get, 

D. The Money form. 

20 yards of linen = 

1 coat = 

10 lb of tea = 

^ lb of coffee — 

1 qr. of com ^ 

§ a ton of iron = 

X commodity A == 

In passing from form A to form B, and from the latter to 

form C, the changes are fundamental On the other hand, 

there is no difference between forms C and D, except that, in 

the latter, gold has assumed the equivalent form in the place 

of linen. Gold is in form D, what linen was in form — the 

universal equivalent The progress consists in this alone&gt; that 

the character of direct and universal exchangeability — ^in other 

words, that the universal equivalent form — ^has now, by social 

custom, become finally identified with the substance, gold. 



2 ounces of gold. 



 

Commodities. 8i 

Qold is now money with referenoe to all other commodities 
only because it was previously, with reference to them, a 
simple commodity. Like all other commodities, it was also 
capable of serving as an equivalent, either as simple equivalent 
in isolated exchanges, or as particular equivalent by the side 
of others. Gradually it began to serve, within varying limits, 
as universal equivalent. So soon as it monopolises this posi- 
tion in the expression of value for the world of conmiodities, 
it becomes the money commodity, and then, and not till then, 
does form D become distinct from form C, and the general 
form of value become changed into the money form. 

The elementary expression of the relative value of a single 
conmiodily, such as linen, in terms of the commodity, such as 
gold, that plays the part of money, is the price form of that 
commodity. The price form of the linen is therefore 
20 yards of linen=2 ounces of gold, or, if 2 ounces of gold 
when coined are £2, 20 yards of linen=£2. 

The diflBculty in forming a concept of the money form, con- 
sists in clearly comprehending the imiversal equivalent form, 
and as a necessary corollary, the general form of value, form C. 
The latter is deducible from form B, the expanded form of 
value, the essential component element of which, we saw, is 
form A, 20 yards of linen=l coat or x commodity A=y com- 
modity B. The simple conunodity form is therefore the germ 
of the money form. 

Section 4. — The fetishism of commodities aistd the 

SBCEET THEBEOF. 

A commodity appears, at first sight, a very trivial thing, and 
easily understood. Its analysis shows that it is, in reality, a 
very queer thing, abounding in metaphysical subtleties and 
theological niceties. So far as it is a value in use, there is 
nothing mysterious about it, whetiier we consider it from the 
point of view that by its properties it is capable of satisfying 
human wants, or from the point that those properties are the 
product of human labour. It is as clear as noon-day, that man, 
by his industry, changes the forms of the materials furnished 
by nature, in such a way as to make them useful to him. The 



 

83 Capitalist Production. 

form of wood, for instance, is altered, by making a table out 
of it Yet, for all that the table continues to be that common, 
every-day thing, wood. But, so soon as it steps forth as a 
commodity, it is changed into something transcendent. It not 
only stands with its feet on the ground, but, in relation to all 
other commodities, it stands on its head, and evolves out of its 
wooden brain grotesque ideas, far more wonderful than &quot;table- 
turning^* ever was. 

The mystical character of commodities does not originate, 
therefore, in their use-value. Just as little does it proceed 
from the nature of the determining factors of value. For, in 
the first place, however varied the useful kinds of labour, or 
productive activities, may be, it is a physiological fact, that 
they are functions of the human organism^ and that each such 
function, whatever may be its nature or form, is essentially the 
expenditure of human brain, nerves, muscles, &amp;a Secondly, 
with regard to that which forms the ground-work for the quan- 
titative determination of value&gt; namely, the duration of that 
expenditure, or the quantity of labour, it is quite clear that 
there is a palpable difference between its quantity and quality. 
In all states of society, the labour-time that it costs to produce 
the means of subsistence must necessarily be an object of inter- 
est to mankind, though not of equal interest in different stages 
of development^ And lastly, from the moment that men in 
any way work for one another, their labour assumes a social 
form. 

Whence, then, arises the enigmatical character of the product 
of labour, so soon as it assumes the form of commodities! 
Clearly foom this form itself. The equality of all sorts of 
human labour is expressed objectively by their products all 
being equally values ; the measure of the expenditure of labour- 
power by the duration of that expenditure, takes the form of 
the quantity of value of the products of labour; and finally, 
the mutual relations of the producers, within which the social 

&gt; Among tiie andent Germant the unit for measuring land was what could be 
lianrested in a day, and was called Tagwerk, Tagwanne (jumale, or terra jurnalis, 
or diomalis), Mannsmaad, ftc (See G. L. von Maurer Einleitung snr Geachichte 
aer Mark— » ftc Verfassung, M&amp;ichen, I860, p. 120&lt;^0.) 



 

Commodities. 83 

character of fheir labour affirms itself, take the form of a 
social relation between the products. 

A commodity is therefore a mysterious things simply because 
in it the social character of men&apos;s labour appears to them as an 
objective character stamped upon the product of that labour; 
because the relation of the producers to the sum total of their 
own labour is presented to them as a social relation, existing 
not between themselves, but between the products of their 
labour. This is the reason why the products of labour become 
csommodities, social things whose qualities are at the same time 
perceptible and imperceptible by the senses. In the same way 
the light from an object is perceived by us not as the subjective 
excitation of our optic nerve, but as the objective form of 
something outside the eye itself. But, in the act of seeing, 
there is at all events, an actual passage of light from one thing 
to another, from the external object to the eye. There is a 
physical relation between physical things. But it is different 
with commodities. There, the existence of the things qvB 
commodities, and the value relation between the products of 
labour which stamps them as commodities, have absolutely no 
connection with their physical properties and with the material 
relations arising therefrom. There it is a definite social rela- 
tion between men, that assumes, in their eyes, the fantastic 
form of a relation between things. In order, therefore, to find 
an analogy, we must have recourse to the mist-enveloped re- 
gions of the religious world. In that world the productions of 
the human brain appear as independent beings endowed with 
life, and entering into relation both with one another and the 
human race. So it is in the world of commodities with the 
products of men&apos;s hands. This I call the Fetishism which at- 
taches itself to the products of labour, so soon as they are pro- 
duced as commodities, and which is therefore inseparable from 
the production of commodities. 

This Fetishism of commodities has its origin, as the fore- 
going analysis has already shown, in the peculiar social 
dbaracter of the labour that produces them. 

As a general rule, articles of utility become commodities, 
only because they are products of the labour of private individr 



 

84 Capitalist Production. 

uals or grottpe of individuals who carry on their woik inde* 
pendently of each other. The snm total of the labour of all 
these private individuals forms the aggregate labour of society. 
Since the producers do not come into social contact with each 
other until they exchange their products, the specific social 
character of eadi producer&apos;s labour does not show itself except 
in the act of exchange. In other words, the labour of the in- 
dividual asserts itself as a part of the labour of society, only 
by means of the relations which the act of exchange establishes 
directly between the products, and indirectly, through them, 
between the producers. To the latter, therefore, the relations 
connecting the labour of one individual with that of the rest ap- 
pear, not as direct social relations between individuals at work, 
but as what they really are, material relations between persons 
and social relations between things. It is only by being ex- 
changed that the products of labour acquire, as values, one uni- 
form social status, distinct from their varied forms of existence 
as objects of utility. This division of a product into a useful 
thing and a value becomes practically important, only when ex- 
change has acquired such an extension that useful articles are 
produced for the purpose of being exchanged, and their char- 
acter as values has therefore to be taken into account, before- 
hand, during production. Flrom this moment the labour of the 
individual producer acquires socially a two-fold character. 
On the one hand, it must, as a definite useful kind of labour, 
satisfy a definite social want, and thus hold its place as part 
and parcel of the collective labour of all, as a branch of a social 
division of labour that has sprung up spontaneously. On the 
other hand, it can satisfy the manifold wants of the individual 
producer himself, only in so far as the mutual exchangeability 
of all kinds of useful private labour is an established social 
fact, and therefore the private useful labour of each producer 
ranks on an equality with that of all others. The equalization 
of the most different kinds of labour can be the result only of 
an abstraction from their inequalities, or of reducing them to 
their common denominator, viz., expenditure of human labour 
power or human labour in the abstract The two-fold social 
character of the labour of the individual appears to him, wheo 



 

Commodities. 85 

Tefleeted in his brain, only under those forms which are im- 
pressed upon that labour in everyday practice by the exchange 
of products. In this way, the character that his own labour 
possesses of being socially useful takes the form of the condi- 
tion, that the product must be not only useful, but useful for 
others, and the social character that his particular labour has of 
being the equal of all other particular kinds of labour, takes the 
form that all the physically different articles that are the pro- 
ducts of labour, have one common quality, viz, that of having 
▼alue. 

Hence, when we bring the products of our labour into rela- 
tion with each other as values, it is not because we see in these 
articles the material receptacles of homogeneous human labour. 
Quite the contrary; whenever, by an exchange, we equate as 
values our different products, by that very act, we also equate, 
as human labour, the different kinds of labour ex]^nded upon 
thenu We are not aware of this, nevertheless we do it^ 
Value, therefore, does not stalk about with a label describing 
what it is. It is value, rather, that converts every product 
into a social hieroglyphic. Later on, we try to decipher the 
hieroglyphic, to get behind the secret of our own social pro- 
ducts ; :&apos;or to stamp an object of utility as a value, is just as 
much a social product as language. The recent scientific dis- 
covery, that the products of labour, so far as they are values, 
are but material expressions of the human labour spent in 
Iheir production, marks, indeed, an epoch in the history of the 
development of the human race, but, by no means, dissipates 
the mist through which the social character of labour appears 
to us to be an objective character of the products themselves. 
The fact, that in the particular form of production with which 
we are dealing, viz., the production of commodities, the specific 
social character of private labour carried on independently, 
consists in the equality of every kind of that labour, by virtue 
of its being human labour, which character, therefore, assumes 

^Wheo, therefore, Galiani sajri: Valae Is a relation between persons— &quot;La 
Sicchezza ^ una ragione tra due persone,&quot; — ^he ought to have added: a relation be- 
tween persons expressed as a relation between things. (Galiani: Delia Moneta, p, 
asi, V. III. of Custodi&apos;s collection of &quot;Scrittori Classici Italian! di Economla 
ToSlidm.** Parte Modema, Milano, 180S.) 



 

86 Capitalist Production. 

in the product the form of value— this fact appears to the 
producers, notwithstanding the discovery above referred to^ 
to be just as real and final, as the fact, that, after the discovery 
by science of the component gases of air, the atmosphere itself 
remained unaltered. 

What, first of all, practically concerns producers when they 
make an exchange, is the question, how much of some other 
product they get for their own ? in what proportions the pro- 
ducts are exchangeable? When these proportions have, by 
custom, attained a certain stability, they appear to result from 
the nature of the products, so that, for instance, one ton of iron 
and two ounces of gold appear as naturally to be of equal value 
as a pound of gold and a pound of iron in spite of their 
different physical and chemical qualities appear to be of equal 
weight The character of having value, when once impressed 
upon products, obtains fixity only by reason of their acting and 
re-acting upon each other as quantities of value. These 
quantities vary continually, independently of the will, fore- 
sight and action of the producers. To them, their own social 
action takes the form of the action of objects, which rule the 
producers instead of being ruled by them. It requires a fully 
developed production of commodities before, from accumulated 
experience alone, the scientific conviction springs up, that all 
the different kinds of private labour, which aro carried on in* 
dependency of each otiier, and yet as spontaneously developed 
branches of the social division of labour, are continually being 
reduced to the quantitive proportions in which society re- 
quires them. And why? Because, in the midst of all the 
accidental and ever fluctuating exchange-relations between 
the products, the labour-time socially necessary for their pro- 
duction forcibly asserts itself like an over-riding law of nature. 
The law of gravity thus asserts itself when a house falls about 
our ears.* The determination of the magnitude of value by 
labour-time is therefore a secret, hidden under the apparent 

***What are we to think of a law that asserts itself only by periodical revolu- 
tions? It is just nothing but a law of Nature, founded on the want of knowledge of 
those whose action is the subject of it.&quot; (Friedrich Engels: Umrisse m einer 
Kritik der Nationa lokonomie/&apos; in the &apos;*Deutsch-franzdsische Jahrb&amp;cher,&quot; edited l^ 
Arnold Rage and Karl Marx. Paris, 1844. 



 

Commodities. 87 

flnctnations in the relative values of commodities. Its dis- 
covery, while removing all appearance of mere accidentality 
from the determination of the magnitude of the values of 
products, yet in no way alters the mode in which that 
determination takes place. 

Man&apos;s r^ections on the forms of social lif e^and consequently, 
also, his scientific analysis of those forms, take a course directly 
opposite to that of their actual historical development He 
begins, post festum, with the results of the process of develop- 
ment ready to hand before hinL The characters that stamp 
products as commodities,and whose establishment is a necessary 
preliminary to the circulation of commodities, have already 
acquired the stabili^ of natural, self-understood forms of social 
life, before man seeks to decipher, not their historical character, 
for in his eyes they are immutable, but their meaning. Con- 
sequently it was the analysis of the prices of commodities 
that alone led to the determination of the magnitude of value, 
and it was the common expression of all commodities in money 
that alone led to the establishment of their characters as values. 
It is, however, just this tdimate money form of the world of 
commodities that actually conceals, instead of disclosing, the 
social character of private labour, and the social relations 
between the individual producers. When I state that coats or 
boots stand in a relation to linen^ because it is the universal 
incarnation of abstract human labour, the absurdity of the 
statement is self-evident Nevertheless, when the producers of 
coats and boots compare those articles with linen, or, what is 
the same thing with gold or silver, as the universal equivalent, 
they express the relation between their own private labour and 
the collective labour of society in the same absurd form. 

The categories of bourgeois economy consist of such like 
forms. They are forms of thought expressing with social 
validity the conditions and relations of a definite, historically 
determined mode of production, viz., the production of com- 
modities. The whole mystery of commodities, all the magic 
and necromancy that surrounds the products of labour as long 
as they take the form of commodities, vanishes therefore, so 
soon as we come to other forms of production. 



 

88 Capitalist Production. 

Since Bobinson Crusoe&apos;s experiences are a favorite theme 
with political economists/ let us take a look at him on his 
island. Moderate though he be^ yet some few wants he has to 
satisfy, and must therefore do a little useful work of various 
sorts, such as making tools and furniture, taming goats, fish- 
ing and hunting. Of his prayers and the like we take no ac- 
count, since they are a source of pleasure to him, and he looks 
upon them as so much recreation. In spite of the variety of 
his work, he knows that his labour, whatever its form, is but 
the activity of one and the same Eobinson, and consequently, 
that it consists of nothing but different modes of human 
labour. Necessity itself compels him to apportion his time 
accurately between his different kinds of work. Whether one 
kind occupies a greater space in his general activity than an- 
other, depends on the difficulties, greater or less as the case 
may be, to be overcome in attaining the useful effect aimed 
at. This our friend Robinson soon learns by experience, and 
having rescued a watch, ledger, and pen and ink from the 
wreck, commences, like a true-bom Briton, to keep a set of 
books. His stock-book contains a list of the objects of utility 
that belong to him, of the operations necessary for their pro- 
duction ; and lastly, of the labour time that definite quantities 
of those objects have, on an average, cost him. All the rela- 
tions between Robinson and the objects that form this wealth 
of his own creation, are here so simple and clear as to be in- 
telligible without exertion, even to Mr. Sedley Taylor. And 
yet those relations contain all that is essential to the deter- 
mination of value. 

Let us now transport ourselves from Robinson&apos;s island 
bathed in light to the European middle ages shrouded in dark- 
ness. Here, instead of the independent man, we find every- 

^Even Ricardo has his stories 4 la Robinson. &quot;He makes the primitive hunter 
and the primitive fisher straightway* as owners of commodities, exchange fish and 
game in the proportion in which labour-time is incorporated in these exchange 
values. On this occasion he commits the anachronism of making these men applj to 
the calculation, so far as their implements have to be taken into account, the 
annuity tables in current use on the London Exchange in the year 1817. The par- 
allelograms of Mr. Owen&apos; appear to be the only form of society, besides the bour- 
geois form, with which he wat acquainted.&quot; (Karl Marx: &quot;Critique,&quot; fto, 
p. 09-70.) 



 

Commodities. 89 

(me dependent, serfs and lords, vassals and suzerains, lay- 
men and clergy. Personal dependence here characterises the 
social relations of production just as much as it does the other 
spheres of life organized on the basis of that production. But 
for the very reason that personal dependence forms the ground- 
work of society, there is no necessity for labour and its prod- 
ucts to assume a fantastic form different from their reality. 
They take the shape, in the transactions of society, of services 
in idnd and payments in kind. Here the particular and natu- 
ral form of labour, and not, as in a society based on production 
of commodities, its general abstract form is the immediate 
social form of labour. Compulsory labour is just as properly * 
measured by time, as commodity-producing labour ; but every 
serf knows that what he expends in the service of his lord, is 
a definite quantity of his own personal labour-power. The 
tithe to be rendered to the priest is more matter of fact than 
his blessing. No matter, then, what we may think of the 
parts played by the different classes of people themselves in 
this society, the social relations between individuals in the 
performance of their labour, appear at all events as their 
own mutual personal relations, and are not disguised under 
the shape of social relations between the products of labour. 

For an example of labour in common or directly associated 
labour, we have no occasion to go back to that spontaneously 
developed form which we find on the threshold of the history 
of all civilized races.^ We have one close at hand in the 
patriarchal industries of a peasant family, that produces com, 
cattle, yam, linen, and clotiiing for home use. These differ- 
ent articles are, as regards the family, so many products of its 
labour, but as between themselves, they are not commodities. 
The different kinds of labour, such as tillage, cattle tending, 

&apos;&quot;A ridicnlotn presumption has latterly got abroad tliat common property in 
its primitiYe form is specifically a Slavonian, or even exclusively Russian 
form. It is the primitive form that we can prove to have existed amongst 
Romans* Teutons, and Celts, and even to this day we find numerous examples, 
ruins though they be, in India. A more exhaustive study of Asiatic, and 
especially of Indian forms of common property, would show how from the different 
forma of primitive common property, different forms of its dissolution have been 
developed. Thus, for instance, the various original types of Roman and Teutonic 
private property are deducible from different forms of Indian common property,&quot; 
(Karl Marz. &quot;Critique,&quot; &amp;c, p. 20, footnote.) 



 

90 Capitalist Production. 

spinning, weaving and making clothes, which result in the 
various products, are in themselves, and such as they are, 
direct social functions^ because functions of the family, which 
just as much as a society based on the production of commod- 
ities, possesses a spontaneously developed system of division 
of labour. The distribution of the work within the family, 
and the regulation of the labour-time of the several members, 
depend as well upon diflFerences of age and sex as upon nat- 
ural conditions varying with the seasons. The labour-power 
of each individual, by its very nature, operates in this case 
merely as a definite portion of the whole labour-power of the 
family, and therefore, the measure of the expenditure of in- 
dividual labour-power by its duration, appears here by its 
very nature as a social character of their labour. 

Let us now picture to ourselves, by way of change, a com- 
munity of free individuals, carrying on their work with the 
means of production in common, in which the labour-power of 
all the different individuals is consciously applied as the 
combined labour-power of the community. All the charac- 
teristics of Eobinson&apos;s labour are here repeated, but with this 
difference, that they are social, instead of individuaL Every- 
thing produced by him was exclusively the result of his own 
personal labour, and therefore simply an object of use for 
himself. The total product of our community is a social 
product One portion serves as fresh means of production 
and remains sociaL But another portion is consumed by the 
members as means of subsistence. A distribution of this 
portion amongst them is consequently necessary. The mode 
of this distribution will vary with tiie productive organization 
of the conmiunity, and the degree of historical development 
attained by the producers. We will assume, but merely for 
the sake of a parallel with the production of commodities, that 
the share of each individual producer in the means of subsis- 
tence is determined by his labour-time. Labour-time would, 
in that case, play a double part Its apportionment in accord- 
ance with a definite social plan maintains the proper proper^ 
tion between the different kinds of work to be done and the 
various wants of the community. On the other hand, it also 



 

Commodities. 91 

serves as a measure of the portion of the common labour borne 
by each individual and of his share in the part of the total 
product destined for individual consumption. The social re- 
lations of the individual producers, with regard both to their 
labour and to its products, are in this case perfectly simple 
and intelligible, and that with regard not only to production 
but also to distribution. 

The religious world is but the reflex of the real world. And 
for a society based upon the production of commodities, in 
which the producers in general enter into social relations with 
one another by treating their products as commodities and 
values^ whereby they reduce their individual private labour to 
the standard of homogeneous human labour — ^for such a soci- 
ety, Christianity with its cultus of abstract man, more espec- 
ially in its bourgeois developments. Protestantism, Deism, &amp;c., 
18 the most fitting form of religion. In the ancient Asiatic 
and other ancient modes of production, we find that the con- 
version of products into commodities, and therefore the con- 
version of men into producers of commodities, holds a subor- 
dinate place, which, however, increases in importance as the 
primitive communities approach nearer and nearer to their 
dissolution. Trading nations, properly so called, exist in the 
ancient world only in its interstices, like the gods of Epicurus 
in the Intermundia, or like Jews in the pores of Polish soci- 
ety. Those ancient social organisms of production are, as 
compared with bourgeois society, extremely simple and trans- 
parent. But they are founded either on the immature devel- 
opment of man individually, who has not yet severed the um- 
bilical cord that unites him with his fellow men in a primi- 
tive tribal community, or upon direct relations of subjec- 
tion. They can arise and exist only when the development of 
the productive power of labour has not risen beyond a low 
stage, and when, therefore, the social relations within&apos; the 
sphere of material life, between man and man, and between 
man and Nature, are correspondingly narrow. This narrow- 
ness is reflected in the ancient worship of Nature, and in the 
other elements of the popular religions. The religious reflex 
of the real world can, in any case, only then finally vanish. 



 

92 Capitalist Production. 

when the practical relations of everyday life oflFer to man none 
but perfectly intelligible and reasonable relations with re- 
gard to his fellowmen and to nature. 

The life-process of society, which is based on the process of 
material production, does not strip off its mystical veil until it 
is treated as production by freely associated men, and is con- 
sciously regulated by them in accordance with a settled plan. 
This, however, demands for society a certain material ground- 
work or set of conditions of existence which in their turn are 
the spontaneous product of a long and painful process of 
development. 

Political economy has indeed analysed, however incom- 
pletely,* value and its magnitude, and has discovered what 
lies beneath these forms. But it has never once asked the 
question why labour is represented by the value of its product 

&apos;The insufficiency of Ricardo&apos;s analysis of the magnitude of value, and his an- 
alysis is by far the best, will appear from the 8rd and 4th book of this work. As 
regards values in general, it is the weak point of the classical school of political 
economy that it nowhere, expressly and with full consciousness, distinguishes be- 
tween labour, as it appears in the value of a product and the same labour, as it ap&gt; 
pears in the use-value of that product Of course the distinction is practically made 
since this school treats labour, at one time under its quantitative aspect, at another 
under its qualitative aspect. But it has not the least idea, that when the 
difference between variotis kinds of labour is treated as purely quantitative, 
their qualitative unity or equality, and therefore their reduction to abstract human 
labour, is implied. For instance, Ricardo declares that he agrees with Destutt 
de Tracy in this proposition: &quot;As it is certain that our physical and moral 
faculties are alone our original riches, the employment of those faculties, labour 
of some kind, is our only original treasure, and it is always from this employment 
that all those things are creaied, which we call riches. . . . It is certain, too, 
that all those things only represent the labour which has created them, and if they 
have a value, or even two distinct values, they can only derive them from that 
(the value) of the labour from which they emanate.&quot; (Ricardo, The Principles 
of Pol. Econ. 8 Ed. Lond. 1821, p. 834.) We would here only point out that 
Ricardo puts his own more profound interpretation upon the words of Destutt. 
What the latter really says is, that on the one hand all things which constitute 
wealth represent the labour that creates them, but that on the other hand, they 
acquire their *&apos;two different values&quot; (use-value and exchange- value) from &quot;the 
value of labour.&quot; He thus falls into the commonplace error of the vulgar econo- 
mists, who assume the value of one commodity (in this case labour) in order to deter- 
mine t)ie values of the rest. But Ricardo reads him as if he had said, that labour 
(not the value of labour) is embodied both in use-value and exchange-value. 
Nevertheless, Ricardo himself pays so little attention to the two* fold character 
of the labour which has a two-fold embodiment, that he devotes the whole of his 
chapter on &quot; Value and Riches, Their Distinctive Properties,&quot; to a laborious ex- 
amination of the trivialities of a J. B. Say. And at the finish he is quite 
astonished to find that Destutt on the one hand agrees with him as to labour being 
the source of value, and on the other hand with J. B. Say as to the notion of 
value. 



 

Commodities. 93 

and labour time by the magnitude of tHat value.* These f or- 
mulffiy which bear stamped upon them in unmistakable let- 
ters, that they belong to a state of society, in which the process 
of production has the mastery over man, instead of being con- 
trolled by him, such formulae appear to the bourgeois intellect 
to be as much a self-evident necessity imposed by nature as 
productive labour itself. Hence forms of social production 
that preceded the bourgeois form, are treated by the bour- 
geoisie in much the same way as the Fathers of the Church 
treated pre-Christian religions.^ 

^n is one of the chief failings of cUssicsl economy that it has never succeeded, 
by means of its analysis of commodities, and, in particolar, of their yalue, in dis- 
covering that form nnder which value becomes exchange-valae. Even Adam 
Smith and Ricardo, the best representatives of the school, treat the form of value 
as a thing of no importance, as having no connection with the inherent nature 
of commodities. The reason for this is not solely because their attention is en- 
tirely absorbed in the analysis of the magnitude of value. It lies deeper. The 
value form of the product of labour is not only the most abstract, but is also the 
most tmiversal form, taken by the product in bourgeois production, and stamps 
that production as a particular species of social production, and thereby gives 
it its special historical character. If then we treat this mode of production as one 
etem^Iy fixed by nature for every state of society, we necessarily overlook that 
which is the differentia specified of the value-form, and consequently of the 
commodity-form, and of its further developments, money-form, capital-form, ftc 
We conseqtiently find that economists, who are thoroughly agreed as to labour time 
being the measure of the msgnitude of value, have the most strange and con- 
tradictory ideas of money, the perfected form of the general equivalent This 
is seen in a striking manner when they treat of banking, where the common- 
place definitions of money will no longer hold water. Thw led to the rise of 
a restored mercantile system (Ganilh, &amp;c.), which sees in value nothing but a 
social form, or rather the unsubstantial ghost of that form. Once for all I may 
here states that by classical political economy, I understand that economy which, 
since the time of W. Petty, has investigated the real relations of production in 
bourgeois society, in contradistinction to vulgar economy, which deals with appear- 
ances only, ruminates without ceasing on the materials long since provided by 
scientific economy, and there seeks plausible explanations of the most obtrusive 
phenomena, for bourgeois daily use, but for the rest, confines itself to systema- 
tizing in a pedantic way, and proclaiming for everlasting truths, the trite ideas 
held by the self-complacent bourgeoisie with regard to their own world, to them 
the best of all possible worlds. 

&apos;&apos;&apos;The economists have a singular manner of proceeding. There are for them 
only two kinds of institutions, those of art and those of nature. Feudal institu- 
tions are artificial institutions, those of the bourgeoisie are natural institutions. 
In this they resemble the theologians, who also establish two kinds of religion. 
Every religion but their own is an invention of men, while their own religion is 
an emanation from God. . . . Thus there has been history, but there is no 
longer any.&quot; Karl Marx, The Poverty of Philosophy, A Reply to &apos;La Philosophic 
de la Mis^e&apos; by Mr. Proudhon. 1847, p. 100. Truly comical is M. Bastiat, who 
imagines that the ancient Greeks and Romans lived by plunder alone. But when 
people plunder for centuries, there must always be something at hand for them to 
seize: the objects of plunder must be continually reproduced. It would thus appear 



 

94 Capitalist Production. 

To what extent some economists are misled by the Fetishism 
inherent in commodities^ or by the objective appearance of 
the social diaracteristics of labour, is shown, amongst other 
ways, by the dull and tedious quarrel over the part played by 
Nature in the formation of exchange value. Since exchange 
value is a definite social manner of expressing the amount of 
labour bestowed upon an object. Nature has no more to do 
with it, than it has in fixing the course of exdiange. 

The mode of production in which the product takes the 
form of a commodity, or is produced directly for exchange, is 
the most general and most embryonic form of bourgeois pro- 
duction. It therefore makes its appearance at an early date 
in history, though not in the same predominating and charac- 
teristic manner as now-a-days. Hence its Fetish character is 
comparatively easy to be seen through. But when we come 
to more concrete forms, even this appearance of simplicity 
vanishes. Whence arose the illusions of the monetary sys- 
tem ? To it gold and silver, when serving as money, did not 
represent a social relation between producers, but were nat- 

that eren Greeks and Romans had some process of production, consequently, an 
economy, which just as much constituted the material basis of their world, as bour- 
geois economy constitutes that of our modem world. Or perhaps Bastiat means, 
that a mode of production based on slavery is based on a system of plunder. In 
that case he treads on dangerous ground. If a giant thinker like Aristotle erred in 
his appreciation of slave labour, why should a dwarf economist like Bastiat be right 
in his appreciation of wage labour? — I seize this opportunity of shortly answering 
an objection taken by a German paper in America, to my work, &apos;&apos;Critique of 
Political Economy, 1859.&quot; In the estimation of that paper* my view that each 
special mode of production and the social relations corresponding to it, in short, 
that the economic structure of society, is the real basis on which the juridical 
and political superstructure is raised, and to which definite social forms of 
thought correspond; that the mode of production determines the character of the 
social, political, and intellectual life generally, all this is very true for our own 
times, in which material interests preponderate, but not for the middle ages, in 
which Catholicism, nor for Athens and Rome, where politics, reigned supreme. 
In the first place it strikes one as an odd thing for any one to suppose that these 
well-worn phrases about the middle ages and the ancient world are unknown to 
anyone else. This much, however, is clear, that the middle ages could not live 
on Catholicism, nor the ancient world on politics. On the contrary, it is the 
mode in which they gained a livelihood that explains why here politics, and 
there Catholicism, played the chief part. For the rest, it requires but a slight 
acquaintance with the history of the Roman republic, for example, to be 
aware that its secret history is the history of its landed property. On the other 
hand, Don Quixote long ago paid the penalty for wrongly imagining that knight 
errantry was compatible with all economical forma of society. 



 

Commodities. 95 

mal objects with strange social properties. And modem 
economy, which looks down with such disdain on the monetary 
system, does not its superstition come out as clear as noon-day, 
whenever it treats of capital ? How long is it since economy 
discarded the physiocratic illusion^ that rents grow out of the 
soil and not out of society ? 

But not to anticipate, we will content ourselves with yet 
another example relating to the commodity form. Could com- 
modities themselves speak, they would say : Our use-value may 
be a thing that interests men. It is no part of us as objects. 
What, however, does belong to us as objects, is our value. Our 
natural intercourse as commodities proves it. In the eyes of 
each other we are nothing but exchange values. Now listen 
how those commodities speak through the mouth of the econo- 
mist &quot;Value&quot; — {i.e., exchange value) &quot;is a property of things, 
riches&quot; — (i.e., use-value) &quot;of man. Value, in this sense, neces- 
sarily implies exchanges, riches do not&quot;^ &quot;Eiches&quot; (use- 
value) &quot;are the attribute of men, value is the attribute of com- 
modities. A man or a community is rich, a pearl or a dia- 
mond is valuable. . . A pearl or a diamond is valuable&quot; as a 
pearl or diamond.* So far no chemist has ever discovered ex- 
change value either in a pearl or a diamond. The economical 
discoverers of this chemical element, who by-the-bye lay special 
claim to critical acumen, find however that the use-value of 
objects belongs to them independently of their material pro- 
perties, while their value^ on the other hand, forms a part of 
them as objects. What confirms them in this view, is the 
peculiar circumstances that the use-value of objects is realised 
without exchange, by means of a direct relation between the 

&gt; Obserrations on certain ytthaX disputes in PoL Econ., partlcnlarly relating to 
▼alne and to demand and supply. Lond., 1821, p. 16. 

*S. Bailey, L c, p. 165. 

■ The author of ** Observations &quot; and S. Bailey accuse Ricardo of converting ex- 
change value from something relative into something absolute. The opposite is the 
fact. He has explained the apparent relation between objectSf such as diamonds 
and pearls, in which relation they appear as exchange values, and disclosed the 
true relation hidden behind the appearances* namely, their relation to each other 
as mere expressions of human labour. If the followers of Ricardo answer Bailey 
somewhat rudely, and by no means convincingly, the reason is to be sought in 
this, that they were unable to find in Ricardo&apos;s own works any key to the bidden 
relations existing between valne and its form, e xch a n ge value. 



 

96 Capitalist Production. 

objeeto and man^ while, on the other hand, their value is real- 
ised only by exchange, that is, by means of a social process. 
Who faUs here to call to mind our good friend, Dogberry, who 
informs neighbour Seacoal, that, &quot;To be a well-favoured man 
is the gift of fortune; but reading and writing oomes by 
nature.&apos;* 



CHAPTER n. 

BXOHANOBb 



It is plain Ihat commodities cannot go to market and make 
exchanges of their own account We must, therefore^ have 
recourse to their guardians^ who are also their owners. Com- 
modities are things, and therefore without power of resistance 
against man. If they are wanting in docility he can use force ; 
in other words, he can take possession of them.^ In order that 
these objects may enter into relation with each other as com- 
modities, their guardians must place themselves in relation 
to one another, as persons whose will resides in those objects^ 
and must behave in such a way that each does not appropriate 
the commodity of the other, and part with his own, except by 
means of an act done by mutual consent They must, there- 
fore, mutually recognise in each other the right of private 
proprietors. This juridical relation, which thus expresses it 
self in a contract, whether such contract be part of a developed 
legal system or not, is a relation between two wills, and is bat 
the reflex of the real economical relation between the two. Il 
is this economical relation that determines the subject mattei 
comprised in each such juridical act^ The persons exist fox 

*In the 12th century, to renowned for its pietjr* they Included amongst com- 
modities some very delicate things. Thus a French poet of the period enumerates 
amongst the goods to be fund in the market of Landit, not only clothing, shoes, 
leather, agricultural implements, ftc, but also ** femmes folles de leur corps.&quot; 

&apos;Proudhon begins by taking his ideal of justice, of &quot;justice ^temelle,&quot; from the 
juridical relations that correspond to the production of commodities: thereby, 
it may be noted, he proves, to the consolation of all good citizens, thst the 
production of commodities is ca form of production as everlasting as justice. 
Then he turns round and seeks to reform the actual production of commodities, 
and the actual legal system corresponding thereto, in accordance with this ideaL 



 

Exchange. 97 

one anotiieT merely as representatives of, and, therefore, as 
owners of, commodities. In the course of our investigation we 
shall find, in general, that the characters who appear on the 
economic stage are but the personifications of the economical 
relations that exist between them. 

What chiefly distinguishes a commodity from its owner is 
the fact, that it looks upon every other commodity as but the 
form of appearance of its own value. A bom leveller and a 
&lt;^ic, it is always ready to exchange not only soul, but body, 
with any and every other commodity, be the same more repul- 
sive than Maritomes herself. The owner makes up for this 
lack in the commodity of a sense of the concrete, by his own 
five and more senses. His commodity possesses for himself no 
immediate use-value. Otherwise, he would not bring it to the 
market. It has use-value for others; but for himself its only 
direct use-value is that of being a depository of exchange 
value, and consequently, a means of exchange.^ Therefore, 
he makes up his mind to part with it for commodities whose 
value in use is of service to him. All commodities are non-use- 
values for their owners, and use-values for their non-owners. 
Consequently, they must all change hands. But this change 
of hands is what constitutes their exchange, and the latter 
puts them in relation with each other as values, and realises 
them as values. Hence commodities must be realised as values 
before they can be realised as use-values. 

On the other hand, they must show that ihey are use- 
values before they can be realised as values. For the labour 
spent upon them counts effectively, only in so far as it is spent 

What opinion should we have of a chemist* who, instead of studying the actual 
laws of the molecular changes in the composition and decomposition of matter, and 
on that foundation solving definite problems, claimed to regulate the composition 
and decomposition of matter by means of the &quot;eternal ideas,&quot; of &quot;naturaliti** 
and &quot;affinity?&quot; Do we really know any more about &quot;usury,&quot; when we say it 
contradicts &quot;justice ^crnelle,&quot; &quot;6quit6 ^temelle,&quot; &quot;mutuality ^temelle,&quot; and other 
•Sr^t&amp; itemclles&quot; than the fathers of the church did when they said it was incom- 
patible with &quot;grace ftemelle,&quot; &quot;foi ^temelle,&quot; and &quot;la volontd ^temdle de Dieu?&quot; 

* &quot; For two-fold is the use of every object. . . . The one is peculiar to the 
object as such, the other is not, as a sandal which may be worn, and is also ex- 
changeable. Both are uses of the sandal, for even he who exchanges the sandal for 
the money or food he is in want of, malces use of the sandal as a sandaL But not 
in Its natural way. For it has not been made for the sake of being exchanged.&quot; 
(Aristoteles, dc Rep., L L c. 9.) 

G 



 

98 Capitalist Production. 

in a form that is useful for others. Whether that labour is use- 
ful for others and its product consequently capable of satisfying 
the wants of others, can be proved only by the act of exchange. 

Every owner of a commodity wishes to part with it in ex- 
change only for those commodities whose use-value satisfies 
some want of his. Looked at in this way, exchange is for 
him simply a private transaction. On the other hand, he do- 
sires to realise the value of his commodity, to convert it into 
any other suitable commodity of equal value, irrespective of 
whether his own commodity has or has not any use-value for 
the owner of the other. From this point of view, exchange is 
for him a social transaction of a general character. But one 
and the same set of transactions cannot be simultaneously for 
all owners of commodities both exclusively private and ex- 
clusively social and generaL 

Let us look at the matter a little closer. To the owner of a 
commodity, every other commodity is, in regard to his own, a 
particular equivalent, and consequently his own commodity is 
the universal equivalent for all the others. But since this 
applies to every owner, there is, in fact, no commodity acting 
as universal equivalent, and the relative value of commodities 
possesses no general form under which they can be equated as 
values and have the magnitude of their values compared. So 
far, therefore, they do not confront each other as commodities, 
but only as products or use-values. In their difficulties our 
commodity-owners think like Faust: &quot;Im Anfang war die 
That&apos;&apos; They therefore acted and transacted beffore they 
thought. Lastinctively they conform to the laws imposed by 
the nature of commodities. They cannot bring their com- 
modities into relation as values, and therefore as commodities, 
except by comparing them with some one other commodity 
as the universal equivalent That we saw from the analysis 
of a commodity. But a particular commodity cannot become 
the universal equivalent except by a social act The social 
action therefore of all other commodities, sets apart the par- 
ticular commodity in which they all represent their values. 
Thereby the bodily form of this commodity becomes the form 
of the socially recognised universal equivalent To be the 



 

Exchange. 99 

universal equivalent^ becomes, hy ibis social process, the 
specific function of the commodity thus excluded by the rest. 
Thus it becomes — ^money, &quot;Illi unum consilium habent et 
virtutem et potestatem suam bestise tradunt. Et ne quis 
possit emere aut vendere^ nisi qui habet characterem aut 
nomen bestise, aut numerum nominis ejus/&apos; {ApoocUypfie.) 

Money is a crystal formed of necessity in the course of the 
exchanges, whereby different products of labour are practically 
equated to one another and thus by practice converted into 
commodities. The historical progress and extension of ex- 
changes develops the contrast, latent in commodities, between 
use-value and value. The necessity for giving an external 
expression to ibis contrast for the purposes of commercial in- 
tercourse, urges on the establishment of an independent form 
of value, and finds no rest until it is once for all satisfied by 
the differentiation of commodities into commodities and money. 
At the same rate, then, as the conversion of products into 
commodities is being accomplished, so also is the conversion of 
one special commodity into money.^ 

The direct barter of prc^ucts attains the elementary form 
of the relative expression of value in one respect, but not in 
another. That form is x Commodity A=y Conamodity B. 
The form of direct barter is x use-value A=y us^value B.^ 
The articles A and B in this case are not as yet commodities, 
but become so only by the act of barter. The first step made 
by an object of utility towards acquiring exchange-value 
is when it forms a non-use-value for its owner, and that hap- 
pens when it forms a superfluous portion of some article 
required for his immediate wants. Objects in themselves are 
external to man, and consequently alienable by him. In order 
that this alienation may be reciprocal, it is only necessary for 

^From tliit we may fonn an estimate of the shrewdness of the peti^boargeoi8 
sodalism, which* while perpetuating the production of commodities, aims at 
■bcdishing the ** antagonism &quot; between money and commodities, and consequently, 
siaoe money exists only by virtue of this antagonism, at abolishing money itself. 
We might just as well try to retain Catholicism without the Pope. For more 
00 this point see my work, &quot;Critique of Political Economy,&quot; p. 78, ff. 

&apos;So long as, instead of two distinct use-values being exchanged, a chaotic mass 
of articles are offered as the equivalent of a single article, which is often the case 
with savages, even the direct barter of products is in its first infancy. 



 

lOO Capitalist Production. 

men, by a tacit tmderstanding, to treat each other as private 
owners of those alienable objects^ and by implication as inde- 
pendent individuals. But such a state of reciprocal indepen- 
dence has no existence in a primitive society based on pro- 
perly in common^ whether such a society takes the form of a 
patriarchal family, an ancient Indian community, or a Peru- 
vian Inca State. The exchange of commodities, therefore, first 
begins on the boundaries of such communities, at their points 
of contact with other similar communities, or with members of 
the latter. So soon, however, as products once become com- 
modities in the external relations of a community, they also, 
by reaction, become so in its internal intercourse. The pro- 
portions in which they are exchangeable are at first quite a 
matter of chance. What makes them exchangeable is the 
mutual desire of their owners to alienate them. Meantime the 
need for foreign objects of utility gradually establishes itself. 
The constant repetition of exchange makes it a normal social 
act. In the course of time, therefore, some portion at least of 
the products of labour must be produced with a special view 
to exchange. From that moment the distinction becomes 
firmly established between the utility of an object for the pur- 
poses of consumption, and its utility for the purposes of ex- 
change. Its use-value becomes distinguished from its ex- 
change value. On the other hand, the quantitative proportion 
in which the articles are exchangeable, becomes dependent on 
their production itself. Custom stamps them as values with 
definite magnitudes. 

In the direct barter of products, each commodity is directly 
a means of exchange to its owner, and to all other persons an 
equivalent, but that only in so far as it has use-value for them. 
At this stage, therefore, the articles exchanged do not acquire 
a value-form independent of their own use-value, or of the 
individual needs of the exchangers. The necessity for a value- 
form grows with the increasing number and variety of the 
commodities exchanged. The problem and the means of solu- 
tion arise simultaneously. Commodity-owners never equate 
their own commodities to those of others, and exchange them 
on a large scale, without different kinds of commodities belong- 



 

Exchange. lOi 

ing to different owners being exchangeable for, and eqnated as 
values to, one and the same special article. Such lastrmen- 
tioned article, by becoming the equivalent of various other 
commodities, acquires at once, though within narrow limits^ 
the character of a general social equivalent. This character 
comes and goes with the momentary social acts that called it 
into life. In turns and transiently it attaches itself first to this 
and then to that commodity. But with the development of 
exchange it fixes itself firmly and exclusively to particular 
sorts of commodities, and becomes crystallised by assuming the 
money-form. The particular kind of commodity to which it 
sticks is at first a matter of accident Nevertheless there are 
two circumstances whose influence is decisive. The money- 
form attaches itself either to the most important articles of ex- 
change from outside, and these in fact are primitive and nat- 
ural forms in which the exchange-value of home products finds 
expression; or else it attaches itself to the object of utility 
that forms, like cattle, the chief portion of indigenous alienable 
wealth. Nomad races are the first to develop the money-form, 
because all their worldly goods consist of movable objects 
and are therefore directly alienable; and because their mode of 
life, by continually bringing them into contact with foreign 
communities, solicits the exchange of products. Man has often 
made man himself, under the form of slaves, serve as the prim- 
itive material of money, but has never used land for that 
purpose. Such an idea could only spring up in a bourgeois 
society already well developed. It dates from the last third of 
the 17th century, and the first attempt to put it in practice on a 
national scale was made a century afterwards, during the 
French bourgeois revolution. 

In proportion as exchange bursts its local bonds, and the 
value of commodities more and more expands into an embodi- 
ment of human labour in the abstract, in the same proportion 
the character of money attaches itself to commodities that are 
l^ nature fitted to perform the social function of a universal 
equivalent Those commodities are the precious metals. 

The truth of the proposition that, &quot;although gold and silver 
are not by nature money, money is by nature gold and 



 

I02 Capitalist Production. 

silver/* ^ is shown by the fitness of the physical properties of 
these metals for the functions of money.^ Up to this pointy 
however, we are acquainted only with one function of naoney, 
namely, to serve as the form of manifestation of the value of 
commodities, or as the material in whidi the magnitudes of 
their values are socially expressed. An adequate form of 
manifestation of value^ a fit embodiment of abstract, undiffer- 
entiated, and therefore equal human labour, that material 
alone can be whose every sample exhibits the same imiform 
qualities. On the other hand, since the difference between the 
magnitudes of value is purely quantitative, the money com- 
modity must be susceptible of merely quantitative differences, 
must therefore be divisible at will, and equally capable of being 
re-united. Gold and silver possess these properties by nature. 

The use-value of the money commodity becomes twofold. 
In addition to its special use-value as a conmiodity (gold, 
for instance, serving to stop teeth, to form the raw material of 
articles of luxury, &amp;c.), it acquires a formal use-value, origina- 
ting in its specific social function. 

Since all commodities are merely particular equivalents of 
money, the latter being their universal equivalent, they, with 
r^ard to the latter as the universal commodity, play the parts 
of particular commodities.* 

We have seen that the money-form is but the reflex, thrown 
upon one single commodity, of the value relations between all 
the rest That money is a conmiodity * is therefore a new dia- 

^Karl Marx, L c p. 212. &quot;I metallL . . naturalmente moneta,&quot; (Galiaai. 
&quot;Delia moneta&quot; in Custodi&apos;s Collection: Parte Moderna t. iii.). 

&apos;For further details on this subject see in my work cited above, the chapter oo 
** The precious metals.&quot; 

•&quot;II danaro i la merce universale (Verri, L c, p. 10). 

* &quot;Silver and gold themselves (which we may call by the general name of 
bullion), are . . . commodities . . . rising and falling in . . . value. . . Bullion* 
then, may be reckoned to be of higher value where the smaller weight will purchase 
the greatest quantity of the product or manufacture of the coimtrey,&quot; &amp;c (&quot;A 
Discourse of the General Notions of Money, Trade, and Exchange, as they stand 
in relations to each other.&quot; By a Merchant. Lond., 1695, p. 7.) &quot;Silver and 
gold, coined or uncoined, though they are used for a measure of all other things* 
are no less a commodity than wine, oyl, tobacco, cloth, or stuffs.&quot; (&quot; A Discourse 
concerning Trade, and that in particular of the East Indies,&quot; &amp;c. London, 1680, 
p. 2.) &quot;The stock and riches of the kingdom cannot properly be confined to 
money, nor ought gold and silver to be excluded from being merchandize.&quot; (&quot;A 



 

Exchange. 103 

covery only for those who, when they analyse it, start from its 
fully developed shape. The act of exchange gives to the com- 
modity converted into money, not its value, but its specific 
value-form. By confounding these two distinct things some 
writers have been led to hold that the value of gold and silver 
is imaginary.^ The fact that money can, in certain functions, 
be replaced by mere symbols of itself, gave rise to that other 
mistaken notion, that it is itself a mere symboL Nevertheless 
under this error lurked a presentiment that the money-form of 
an object is not an inseparable part of that object, but is simply 
the form under which certain social relations manifest them- 
selves. In this sense every commodity is a symbol, since, in so 
far as it is value, it is only the material envelope of the human 
labour spent upon it* But if it be declared that the social 
diaracters assumed by objects, or the material forms assumed 
by the social qualities of labour under the regime of a definite 
mode of production, are mere symbols, it is in the same breath 
also declared that these characteristics are arbitrary fictions 
sanctioned by the so-called universal consent of mankind This 

Treatise concerning the East India Trade being a most profitable Trade.&quot; Lon- 
don, 1680, Reprint 1696, p. 4.) 

^&quot;L&apos;oro e Targento banno ralore come metalli anteriore all&apos; esser moneta.&quot; 
{Galiani, l.c). Locke says, &quot;The universal consent of mankind gave to silver, on 
account of its qualities which made it suitable for money, an&gt; imaginary value.&quot; 
Law, on the other hand, &quot; How could different nations give an imaginary value 
to any single thing ... or how could this imaginary value have maintained itself?&quot; 
Bat the following shows how little he himself understood about the matter: &quot; Sil&gt; 
ver was exchanged in proportion to the value in use it possessed, consequently in 
proportion to its real value. By its adoption as money it received an additional 
value (une valeur additionelle)&quot; (Jean Law: &quot;Considerations sur le numeraire 
et le commerce&quot; in £. Daire&apos;s Edit, of &quot;Economistes Financiers du XVIIL slide.,&quot; 
p. 470). 

*L* Argent en (des denr^es) est le signe.&quot; (V. de Forbonnais: &quot;Elements du 
Commerce, Nouv. Edit. Leyde, 1776,&quot; t. II., p. 148.) &quot;Commc signe il est attiri 
par les denrdes.&quot; (Lc, p. 155). &quot; L&apos;argent est un signe d&apos;une chose et la 
rcprdsente.&quot; (Montesquieu: &quot;Esprit des Lois,&quot; Oeuvres, Lond. 1767, t. II., p. 2.) 
*T*&apos;argent n&apos;est pas simple signe, car il est lui-meme richesse; il ne represente 
pas les valeurs, il les ^uivaut&quot; (Le Trosne, l.c, p. 010.) &quot;The notion of value 
contemplates the valuable article as a mere symbol; the article counts not for what 
it is, but for what it is worth.&quot; (Hegel, Lc, p. 100.) Lawyers started long 
before economists the idea that money is a mere ssrmbol, and that the value of the 
precious metals is purely imaginary. This they did in the sycophantic service of 
the crowned heads, supporting the right of the latter to debase the coinage, during 
the whole of the middle ages, by the traditions of the Roman Empire and the 
conceptions of money to be found in the Pandects. \ &quot;Qu* aucun puisse ni doive 
faire doute,&quot; says an apt scholar of theirs, Philip of Valois, in a decree of 
lB46f &quot;que &amp; nous et i notre majestd royale n&apos; appartiennent seulement. . . le 



 

I04 Capitalist Production. 

suited the mode of explanation in favour during llie 18th 
century. Unable to account for the origin of the puzzling 
forms assumed by social relatione between man and man, peo- 
ple sought to denude them of their strange appearance by 
ascribing to them a conventional origin. 

It has already been remarked above that the equivalent form 
of a commodity does not imply the determination of the magni- 
tude of its value. Therefore^ although we may be aware that 
gold is money, and consequently directly exchangeable for all 
other commodities, yet that fact by no means tells how much 
10 lbs., for instance, of gold is worA. Money, like every other 
conmiodity, cannot express the magnitude of its value except 
relatively in other commodities. This value is determined by 
the laboup-time required for its production, and is expressed by 
the quantity of any other commodity that costs the same 
amount of labouivtime.^ Such quantitative determination of 
its relative value takes place at the source of its production by 
means of barter. When it steps into circulation as money, its 
value is already given. In the last decades of the 17th cen- 
tury it had already been shown that money is a commodity, 
but this step marks only the infancy of the analysis. The 
diflSculty lies, not in comprehending that money is a commo- 
dity, but in discovering how, why and by what means a com- 
modity becomes money.^ 

mestier» le fait, I&apos;^t, la provision et toute rordonnance dta monnaies, de donner 
td coun, et pour tel prix comme il nous plait et bon nous semble.&quot; It was 
a maxim of the Roman Law that the value of money was fixed by decree of the 
emperor. It was expressly forbidden to treat money as a commodity. &quot; Pecunias 
Tero null! emere fas erit, nam in usu publico constitutas oportet non esse 
mercem.** Some good work on this question has been done by G. F. Pagnini: 
&apos;&apos;Saggio sopra il giusto pregio delle cose, 1751&quot;; Custodi &quot;Parte Modema,&quot; t. 
IL In the second part of his work Pagnini directs his polemics especially against 
the lawjrers. 

^&apos;&apos;If a man can bring to London an ounce of Silver out of the Earth in 
Peru, in the same time that he can produce a bushel of Com, then the one is the 
natural price of the other; now, if by reason of new or more easie mines a man 
can procure two ounces of silver as easily as he formerly did one^ the com wiU 
be as cheap at ten shillings the bushel as it was before at five shillings, caeteris 
paribus.&quot; William Petty: &quot;A Treatise on Taxes and Contributions.&quot; Lond., 1608, 
p. 88. 

&apos; The teamed Professor Roscher, after first informing us that &quot; the false defini- 
tions of money may be divided into two main groups: those which make it more^ 
and those which make it less, than a commodity,&quot; gives us a long and very mixed 
catalogue of works on the nature of money* from which it appears that he baa 



 

Exchange. 105 

We have already seen, from the most elementary expres- 
sion of value, X commodity A=y commodity B, that the object 
in which the magnitude of the value of another object is repre- 
sented, appears to have the equivalent form independently of 
this relation, as a social property given to it by Nature. We 
followed up this false appearance to its final establishment, 
which is complete so soon as the universal equivalent form 
becomes identified with the bodily form of a particular com- 
modity, and thus crystallised into the money-form. What 
appears to happen is, not that gold becomes money, in conse- 
quence of all other commodities expressing their values in it, 
but, on the contrary, that all other commodities universally 
express their values in gold, because it is money. The inter- 
mediate steps of the process vanish in the result and leave no 
trace behind. Commodities find their own value already com- 
pletely represented, without any initiative on their part, in 
another commodity existing in company with them. These 
objects, gold and silver, just as they come out of the bowels of 
the earth, are forthwith the direct incarnation of all human 
labour. Hence the magic of money. In the form of society 
now under consideration, the behaviour of men in the social 
process of production is purely atomic Hence their relations 
to each other in production assume a material character inde- 
pendent of their control and conscious individual action. 
These facts manifest themselves at first by products as a gen- 
eral rule taking the form of commodities. We have seen how 
the progressive development of a society of commodity-pro- 
ducers stamps one privileged commodity with the character of 
money. Hence the riddle presented by money is but the riddle 

not the remotest idea of the real history of the theory; and then he moralises 
thus: &quot; For the rest, it is not to be denied that most of the later economists do not 
bear stifliciently in mind the peculiarities that distinguish money from other com- 
modities&quot; (it is then, after all, either more or less than a commodity I) . . . &quot;So 
far, the semi-mercantilist reaction of Ganilh is not altogether without foundation.&quot; 
OVilhelm Roscher: &quot; Die Grundlagen der Nationaloekonomie/&apos; 8rd Edn., 1868, pp. 
277-210) Morel less! not sufficiently! so far! not altogether! What clearness and 
precision of ideas and language! And such eclectic professorial twaddle is mod&apos; 
cstly baptised by Mr. Roscher, &quot;the anatomico-physiological method&quot; of political 
economy! One discovery however, he must have credit for, namely, that money it 
&quot;a pleasant commodity.&quot; 



 

io6 Capitalist Production. 

presented by oommodities ; only it now strikeB ns in its most 
glaring form. 



CHAPTER IIL 
MONEY, OR THE CIRCULATION OP COMMODITIEa 

SECTION 1. TH£ MEASUIKB OF VALUES. 

Theoughout this work, I assume, for the sake of simplicity, 
gold as the money-commodity. 

The first chief function of money is to supply commodities 
with the material for the expression of their values, or to re- 
present their values as magnitudes of the same denomination, 
qualitatively equal, and quantitatively comparable. It thus 
serves as a universal measure of valine. And only by virtue of 
this function does gold, the equivalent commodity par excel- 
lence, become money. 

It is not money that renders commodities commensurable. 
Just the contrary. It is because all conmiodities, as values, are 
realised human labour, and therefore commensurable, that 
. their values can be measured by one and the same special com- 
modity, and the latter be converted into the common measure 
of their values, i.e., into money. Money as a measure of 
value, is the phenomenal form that must of necessity be as- 
sumed by that measure of value which is immanent in com- 
modities, labour-time.^ 

The expression of the value of a commodity in gold — x 

*The question — Why does not money directly represent labour&gt;time, so that a 
piece of paper may represent, for instance, x hour&apos;s labour, is at bottom the same 
as the question why, given the production of commodities, must products take the 
form of commodities? This is evident, since their taking the form of xommodities 
implies their differentiation into commodities and money. Or, why cannot pri&gt; 
vate labour — labour for the account of private individuals — be treated as its oppo* 
site, immediate social labour? I have elsewhere examined thoroughly the Utopian 
idea of &quot;labour&gt;money*&apos; in a society founded on the production of commodities 
(L c, p. 61, seq.). On this point I will only say further, that Owen&apos;s &quot;labour- 
money,&quot; for instance, is no more &quot;money&quot; than a ticket for the theatre. Owen 
presupposes directly associated labour, a form of production that is entirely in- 
consistent with the production of commodities. The certificate of labour is merely 
evidence of the part taken by the individual in the common labour, and of his 
right to a certain portion of the common produce destined for consumption. But 
it never enters into Owen&apos;s head to presuppose the production of commodities, 
and at the same time, by juggling with money, to try to evade the necessary con- 
ditions of that production. 



 

Money, or the Circulation of Commodities. 107 

commodity A=y money-commodity — ^is its money-form op 
price. A single equation, such as 1 ton of iron=2 ounces of 
gold, now suffices to express the value of the iron in a socially 
valid manner. There is no longer any need for this equation 
to figure as a link in the chain of equations that express the 
values of all other commodities, because the equivalent com- 
modity, gold, now has the character of money. The general 
form of relative value has resumed its original shape of simple 
or isolated relative value. On the other hand, the expanded 
expression of relative value, the endless series of equations, has 
now become the form peculiar to the relative value of the 
money-commodity. The series itself, too, is now given, and 
has social recognition in the prices of actual commodities. We 
have only to read the quotations of a price-list backwards, to 
find the magnitude of the value of money expressed in all sorts 
of commodities. But money itself has no price. In order to 
put it on an equal footing with all other commodities in this 
respect, we should be obliged to equate it to itself as its own 
equivalent. 

The price or money-form of commodities is, like their form 
of value generally, a form quite distinct from their palpable 
bodily form; it is, therefore, a purely ideal or mental fomu 
Although invisible, the value of iron, linen and com has actual 
existence in these very articles : it is ideally made perceptible 
by their equality with gold, a relation that, so to say, exists 
only in their own heads. Their owner must, therefore, lend 
them his tongue, or hang a ticket on them, before their prices 
can be communicated to the outside world. ^ Since the ex- 
pression of the value of commodities in gold is a merely ideal 

* Savages and half-civilised races use the tong differently. Captain Parrj aajf 
of the inhabitants on the west coast of Baffin&apos;s Bay: &quot; In this case Oie refers to 
barter) they licked it (the thing represented to them) twice to their tongues, after 
which they seemed to consider the bargain satisfactorily concluded.&quot; In the same 
way, the Eastern Esquimaux licked the articles they received in exchange. If the 
tongue is thus used in the North as the organ of appropriation, no wonder that, in 
the South, the stomach serves as the organ of accumulated property, and that a 
Kaffir estimates the wealth of a man by the size of his belly. That the Kaffirs 
know what they are about is shown by the following: at the same time that the 
official British Health Report of 1864 disclosed the deficiency of fat-forming food 
among a large part of the working class, a certain Dr. Harvey (not, however, the 
celebrated discoverer of the circulation of the blood), made a good thing by adver- 
tising recipes for reducing the superfluous fat of the bourgeoisie and aristocracy. 



 

io8 Capitalist Production. 

act, we may use for this pnrpoBe imaginaiy or ideal money. 
Every trader knows, that lie is far from having turned his 
goods into money, when he has expressed their value in a price 
or in imaginary money, and that it does not require the least 
bit of real gold, to estimate in that metal millions of pounds&apos; 
worth of goods. When, therefore, money serves as a measure 
of value, it is employed only as imaginary or ideal mon^. 
This circumstance has given rise to the wildest theories.* But, 
although the money that performs the functions of a measure 
of value is only ideal money, price depends entirely upon the 
actual substance that is money. The value, or in other words, 
the quantity of human labour contained in a ton of iron, is 
expressed in imagination by such a quantity of the money- 
commodity as contains the same amount of labour as the iroiL 
According, therefore, as the measure of value is gold, silver, or 
copper, the value of the ton of iron will be expressed by very 
different prices, or will be represented by very different quan- 
tities of those metals respectively. 

If, therefore, two different commodities^ such as gold and 
silver, are simultaneously measures of value, aU commodities 
have two prices — one a gold-price, the other a silver-prica 
These exist quietly side by side, so long as the ratio of the 
value of silver to that of gold remains unchanged, say, at 15 : 1. 
Every change in their ratio disturbs the ratio which exists 
between the gold-prices and the silver-prices of commodities, 
and thus proves, by facts, that a double standard of value is 
inconsistent with the functions of a standard.* 

^See Karl Marx: &apos;&apos;Critique, etc., chapter IL B.* Theories of the Unit of Mea»- 
Qre of Money/&apos; p. 91, ff. 

&apos; &quot; Wherever gold and silver have by law been made to perform the function of 
money or of a measure of value side by side, it has always been tried, but in 
vain, to treat them as one and the same material. To assume that there is an 
invariable ratio between the quantities of gold and silver in which a given quantity 
of labour-time is incorporated, is to assume, in fact, that gold and silver are of 
one and the same material, and that a given mass of the less valuable metal, 
silver, is a constant fraction of a given mass of gold. From the reign of Edward 
III. to the time of George II., the history of money in England consists of one 
long series of perturbations caused by the clashing of the legally fixed ratio be- 
twecn the values of gold and silver, with the fluctuations in their real values. At 
one time gold was too high, at another, silver. The metal that for the time being 
was estimated below its valuer was withdrawn from circulation, melted and ex- 
ported. The ratio between the two metals was then again altered by law, but 
the new nominal ratio soon came into conflict again with the real one. In our own 



 

Money, or the Circulation of Commodities. 109 

Commodities with definite prices present themselves under 
the form : a commodity A^x gold ; b commodity B=z gold ; 
c commodity C^y gold, &amp;c, where a, b, c, represent definite 
quantities of the commodities A, B^ C and z, z, y, definite 
quantities of gold* The values of these commodities are, 
^erefore, changed in imagination into so many different quan- 
tities of gold. Hence, in spite of the confusing variety of 
the commodities themselves, their values become magnitudes 
of the same denomination, gold-magnitudes. They are now 
capable of being compared with each other and measured, and 
the want becomes technically felt of comparing them with 
some fixed quantity of gold as a unit measure. This unit, by 
subsequent division into aliquot parts, becomes itself thje 
standard or scale. Before they become money, gold, silver, 
and copper already possess sudi standard measures in their 
standards of weight, so that^ for example, a pound weight, 
while serving as the unit^ is, on the one hand, divisible into 
ounces, and, on the other, may be combined to make up 
hundredwei^ts.^ It is owing to this that, in all metallic 
currencies, the names given to the standards of money or of 
price were originally taken from the pre-existing names of the 
standards of weight 

As measure of value and as standard of price, money has two 



the slight and transient fall in the value of gold compared with silver, which 
was a consequence of the Indo-Chinese demand for silver, produced on a far 
more extended scale in France the same phenomena, export of silver, and its ex* 
ptilsion from circulation hy gold. During the years 1866, 1856 and 1867, the excess 
in France of gold-imports over gold exports amounted to £41,680,000, while th4 
excess of silver-exports over silver-imports was £14,704,000. In fact, in those 
countries in which both metals are legally measures of value, and therefore both 
legal tender, so that everyone has the option of paying in either metal, the metal 
tlKit rises in value is at a premium, and, like every other commodity, measures its 
price in the over-estimated metal which alone serves in reality as the standard 
oi value. The result of all experience and history with regard to this question is 
simply that, where two commodities perform by law the fimctions of a measure of 
Tslue, in practice one alone maintains that position.&quot; (Karl Marx, L c. pp. 90-01.) 
^The peculiar circumstance, that while the oimce of gold serves in England as 
tfie unit of the standard of money, the pound sterling does not form an aliquot 
part of it, has been explained as follows: &quot;Our coinage was originally adapted 
to the employment of silver only, hence» an ounce of silver can always be divided 
Into a certain adequate number of pieces of coin; but as gold was introduced 
at a later period into a coinage adapted only to silver, an ounce of gold cannot be 
coined into an aliquot number of pieces.&quot; Maclarea* &quot;A Sketch of the History 
of tho Cnneacy.&quot; London» 1868* p. 10. 



 

no Capitalist Production. 

entirely distinct fonotions to perfornu It is the measure 
of value inasmuch, as it is the socially recognised incarnation 
of human labour; it is the standard of price inasmuch as it is 
a fixed -weight of metal. As the measure of value it serves to 
convert the values of all the manifold commodities into prices, 
into imaginary quantities of gold ; as the standard of price it 
measures those quantities of gold. The measure of values 
measures commodities considered as values; the standard of 
price measures, on the contrary, quantities of gold by a unit 
quantity of gold, not the value of one quantity of gold by the 
weight of another. In order to make gold a standard of price, 
a certain weight must be fixed upon as the unit In this case, 
as in all cases of measuring quantities of tlie same denomina- 
tion, the establishment of an xmvarying unit of measure is all- 
important Hence, the less the unit is subject to variation, so 
much the better does the standard of price fulfill its o£Sce. But 
only in so far as it is itself a product of labour, and, therefore, 
potentially variable in value, can gold serve as a measure of 
value.* 

It is, in the first place, quite clear that a change in the value 
of gold does not^ in any way, affect its function as a standard 
of price. No matter how this value varies, the proportions 
between the values of different quantities of the metal remain 
constant However great the fall in its value^ 12 ounces of 
gold still have 12 times the value of 1 ounce; and in prices, 
the only thing considered is the relation between different 
quantities of gold. Since, on the other hand, no rise or fall in 
the value of an ounce of gold can alter its weight, no alteration 
can take place in the weight of its aliquot parts. Thus gold 
always renders the same service as an invariable standard of 
price, however much its value may vary. 

In the second place, a change in the value of gold does not 
interfere with its functions as a measure of value. The 
change affects all commodities simultaneously, and, therefore^ 
cceteryf paribus, leaves their relative values inter se, unaltered^ 

^&apos;^^th English writers the confusioii between measure of value and standard o^ 
price (standard of value) is indescribable. Their functionst as well as tbais aasMfl^ 
are conctantly interchanged. 



 

Money, or the Circulation of Commodities. iii 

although those values are now expressed in higher or lower 
gold-prices. 

Just as when we estimate the value of any commodity by 
a definite quantity of the use-value of some other commodity, 
so in estimating the value of the former in gold, we assume 
nothing more than that the production of a given quantity of 
gold costs, at the given period, a given amount of labour. As 
regards the fluctuations of prices generally, they are subject to 
the laws of elementary relative value investigated in a former 
chapter. 

A general rise in the prices of commodities can result only, 
either from a rise in their values — the value of money remain- 
ing constant — or from a fall in the value of money, the values 
of commodities remaining constant On the other hand, a 
general fall in prices can result only, either from a fall in the 
values of commodities — the value of money remaining con- 
stant — or from a rise in the value of money, the values of 
commodities remaining constant It therefore by no means 
follows, that a rise in the value of money necessarily implies a 
proportional fall in the prices of commodities ; or that a fall in 
the value of money implies a proportional rise in prices. 
Such change of price holds good only in the case of com- 
modities whose value remains constant With those, for ex- 
ample whose value rises, simultaneously with, and propor- 
tionally to, that of money, there is no alteration in price. 
And if their value rise either slower or faster than that of 
money, the fall or rise in their prices will be determined by 
the difference between the change in their value and that of 
money ; and so on. 

Let us now go back to the consideration of the price-form. 

By degrees there arises a discrepancy between the current 
money names of the various weights of the precious metal 
figuring as money, and the actual weights which those names 
originally represented. This discrepancy is the result of his- 
torical causes, among which the chief are: — (1) The im- 
portation of foreign money into an imperfectly developed 
community. This happened in Rome in its early days, where 
gold and silver coins circulated at first as foreign commodities. 



 

1 1 21 Capitalist Production. 

The names of these foreign coins never coincide with those of 
the indigenous weights. (2) As wealth increases^ the less 
precious metal is thrust out by the more precious from its place 
as a measure of value^ copper by silver, silver by gold, however 
much this order of sequence may be in contradiction with 
poetical chronology.^ The word pound, for instance, was the 
money-name given to an actual pound weight of silver. When 
gold replaced silver as a measure of value, the same name was 
applied according to the ratio between the values of silver and 
gold, to perhaps l-15th of a pound of gold. The word poimd, 
as a money-name, thus becomes differentiated from the same 
word as a weight-name.* (3) The debasing of money carried 
on for centuries by kings and princes to such an extent that, of 
the original weights of the coins, nothing in fact remained but 
the names. 

These historical causes convert the separation of the money- 
name from the weight-name into an established habit with the 
community.* Since the standard of money is on the one hand 
purely conventional, and must on the other hand find general 
acceptance, it is in the end regulated by law. A given weight 
of one of the precious metals^ an ounce of gold, for instance, 
becomes oflScially divided into aliquot parts, with legally bo- 
stowed names, such as pound, dollar^ &amp;a These aliquot parts, 
which henceforth serve as units of money, are then sub- 
divided into other aliquot parts with legal names, such as 
shilling, penny, &amp;c.* But, both before and after these 
divisions are made, a definite weight of metal is the standard 
of metallic money. The sole alteration consists in the sub- 
division and denomination. 

* Moreover, it has not general historical validity. 

*It ia thus that the pound sterling in English denotes less than one-third of its 
original weight; the pound Scot, before the union, only l-86th; the French livre, 
l-74th; the Spanish maravedi, less than 1-lOOOth; and the Portuguese rei a still 
smaller fraction. 

* &quot;Le monete le quali oggi sono ideali sono le pii^ antiche d&apos;ogni nazione, e tutte 
furono un tempo reali, e perchi erano reali con esse si contava.&quot; (Galiam: 
Delia moneta, 1. c, p. 153.) 

♦David Urquhart remarks in his &quot;Familiar Words&quot; on the monstrosity (!) 
that now-a-days a pound (sterling), which is the unit of the English standard 
of money, is equal to about a quarter of an ounce of gold. &quot;This is falsify- 
ing a measure, not establishing a standard.&quot; He sees in this &quot; false denomination &quot; 
of the weight of gold, as in evenrthing else, the falsifying band of ctviliaation. 



 

Money, vr the Circulation of Commodities. 113 

The prices, or quantities of gold, into which the values of 
commodities are ideally changed, are therefore now expressed 
in the names of coins, or in the legally valid names of the sub- 
divisions of the gold standard. Hence, instead of saying: A 
quarter of wheat is worth an ounce of gold ; we say, it is worth 
£3 17s. lO^d. In this way commodities express by their prices 
how much they are worth, and money serves as money of 
accoiunt whenever it is a question of fixing the value of an 
article in its money-form.* 

The name of a thing is something distinct fnmi the qualities 
of that thing. I know nothing of a man, by knowing that his 
name is Jacob. In the same way with regard to money, every 
trace of a value-relation disappears in the names pound, dollar, 
franc, ducat, &amp;c. The confusion caused by attributing a hidden 
meaning to these cabalistic signs is all the greater, because 
these money-names express both the values of commodities, 
and, at the same time, aliquot parts of the weight of the metal 
that is the standard of money.&apos; On the other hand, it is 
absolutely necessary that value, in order that it may be distin- 
guished from the varied bodily forms of commodities, should 
assume this material and unmeaning, but, at the same tim^ 
purely social form.* 

*When Anacharsis was asked for what pttrposes the Greeks used money* he re- 
plied, &quot; For reckoning.&quot; (Athen« Deipn. L ^. 49 t. 8. ed Schweighaoser, 1808.)&apos; 

* ** Owing to the fact that money* when serving as the standard of price, appears 
under the same reckoning names as do the prices of commodities, and that 
therefore the stun of £8 17s. lOV^d. may signify on the one hand an ounce weight 
of gold, and on the other, the value of a ton of iron, this reckoning name of money 
has been called its mint-price. Hence there sprang up the extraordinary notion, 
that the value of gold is estimated in its own material, and that, in contra-distinc- 
tion to all other commodities, its price is fixed by the State. It was erroneously 
thought that the giving of reckoning names to definite weights of gold, is the 
same thing as fixing the value of those weights.&quot; (Karl Marx. L c., p. 89.) 

■See &apos;Theories of the Unit of Measure of Money&quot; in &quot;Critique of Political 
Economy,&quot; p. 91, ff. The fantastic notions about raising or lowering the mint- 
price of money by transferring to greater or smaller weights of gold or silver 
the names already legally appropriated to fixed weights of those metals; such no* 
tions, at least in those cases in which they aim, not at clumsy financial operations 
against creditors, both public and private, but at economical quack remedies have 
been so exhaustively treated by Wm. Petty in his &quot; Quantulumcunque concerning 
money: To the Lord Marquis of Halifax, 1682,&quot; that even his immediate followers. 
Sir Dudley North and John Locke, not to mention later ones, could only dilute 
him. &quot; If the wealth of a nation,&quot; he remarks, &quot; could be decupled by a proclama- 
tion, it were strange that such proclamations have not long since been made by our 
Governors.&quot; (L c« p. 86.&gt; 

H 



 

114 Capitalist Production. 

Prioe id tlie money-name of the labour realised in a oommo* 
dity. Hence the expression of the equivalence of a conmiodity 
with the sum of money constituting its price, is a tautology,^ 
just as in general the expression of the relative value of a 
commodity is a statement of the equivalence of two commod- 
ities. But although price, being the exponent of the magni- 
tude of a commodity&apos;s value, is the exponent of its exchange- 
ratio with money, it does not follow that the exponent of this 
exchange-ratio is necessarily the exponent of the magnitude of 
the commodity&apos;s value. Suppose two equal quantities of social- 
ly necessary labour to be respectively represented by 1 quarter 
of wheat and £2 (nearly ^ oz. of gold), £2 is the expression in 
money of the magnitude of the value of the quarter of wheats 
or is its price. If now circumstances allow of this prioe being 
raised to £3, or compel it to be reduced to £1, then altliough 
£1 and £3 may be too small or too great properly to express 
the magnitude of the wheat&apos;s value, nevertheless they are its 
prices, for they are, in the first place, the form imder which its 
value appears, i.e., money; and in the second place, the ex- 
ponents of its exchange-ratio with money. If the oonditiona 
of production, in other words, if the productive power of 
labour remain constant, the same amount of social labour-time 
must, both before and after the change in price, be expended in 
the reproduction of a quarter of wheat This circumstance de- 
pends, neither on the will of the wheat producer, nor on that 
of the owners of other commodities. 

Magnitude of value expresses a relation of social production, 
it expresses the connection that necessarily exists between a 
certain article and the portion of the total labour-time of society 
required to produce it. As soon as magnitude of value is con- 
verted into price, the above necessary relation takes the shape 
of a more or less accidental exchange-ratio between a single 
commodity and another, the money-commodity. But this ex- 
change-ratio may express either the real magnitude of that 
commodity&apos;s value, or the quantity of gold deviating from that 
value, for which, according to circumstances, it may be parted 

* &quot; Ou bien, il faut consentir i dire qu&apos;one valeur d&apos;un million en argent vaut 
plus qn&apos;une valeur 6gale en marchandises.&apos;* (Le Trosne 1. c. p. 919), which 
■motints to saying, &quot;qu&apos;une valeur vaut plus qu&apos;une valeur ^gak.&quot; 



 

Money, or the Circulation of Commodities, 115 

with. The possibility, therefore, of quantitative incongruity 
between price and magnitude of value, or the deviation of the 
former from the latter, is inherent in the price-form itself. 
This is no defect, but, on the contrary, admirably adapts the 
price-form to a mode of production -whose inherent laws impose 
themselves only as the mean of apparently lawless irregulari- 
ties that compensate one another. 

The price-form, however, is not only compatible with the 
possibility of a quantitative incongruity between magnitude 
of value and price, i.e,, between the former and its expression 
in money, but it may also conceal a qualitative inconsistency, so 
much so, that^ although money is nothing but the value-form of 
commodities, price ceases altogether to express value. Objects 
that in themselves are no commodities, such as conscience, 
honour, &amp;c., are capable of being offered for sale by their hold- 
ers, and of thus acquiring, through their price, the form of com- 
modities. Hence an object may have a price without having 
value. The price in that case is imaginary, like certain quan- 
tities in mathematics. On the other hand, the imaginary price- 
form may sometimes conceal either a direct or indirect real 
value-relation; for instance, the price of uncultivated land, 
which is without value, because no human labour has been in- 
corporated in it 

Price, like relative value in general, expresses the value of 
a commodity {e.g., a ton of iron), by stating that a given quan- 
tity of the equivalent {e.g., an ounce of gold), is directly ex- 
changeable for iron. But it by no means states the converse, 
that iron is directly exchangeable for gold. In order, there- 
fore, that a commodity may in practice act effectively as ex- 
change value, it must quit its bodily shape^ must transform it- 
self from mere imaginary into real gold, although to the com- 
modity such transubstantiation may be more diflScult than to 
the Hegelian &quot;concept,&quot; the transition from &quot;necessity&quot; to 
&quot;freedom,&quot; or to a lobster the casting of his shell, or to Saint 
Jerome the putting off of the old Adam.^ Though a conamod- 

^ Jerome had to wrestle hard, not only in his youth with the hodil) flesh, as if 
shown by his fight in the desert with the handsome women of his imagination, but 
also in his old age with the spiritual flesh. &quot; I thought/&apos; he says, &quot; I was in the 
tpbit before the Judge of the Universe.&quot; &quot;Who art thou?&quot; asked a voice. &quot;I am 



 

Ii6 Capitalist Production. 

ity may, side by side with its actual form (iron, for in- 
stance), take in our imagination the form of gold, yet it cannot 
at one and the same time actually be both iron and gold. To 
fix its price, it suffices to equate it to gold in imagination. But 
to enable it to render to its owner the service of a universal 
equivalent, it must be actually replaced by gold. If the owner 
of the iron were to go to the owner of some other commodity 
offered for exchange, and were to refer him to the price of the 
iron as proof that it was already money, he would get the same 
answer as St Peter gave in heaven to Dante, when the latter 
recited the creed — 

&apos;&apos;Assai bene ^ trascorsa 
D&apos;esta moneta gift la lega el peso. 
Ma dinimi se tu lliai nella toa bona.&quot; 

A price therefore implies both that a commodity is exchange- 
able for money, and also that it must be so exchanged. On 
the other hand, gold serves as an ideal measure of value, only 
because it has already, in the process of exchange, established 
itself as the money-commodity. Under the ideal measure of 
values there lurks the hard cash. 

SBCnON 2. TBOB MEBIUM OP CIBCULATION. 

o. The Metamorphosis of Commodities. 

We saw in a former chapter that the exchange of commodi- 
ties implies contradictoiy and mutually exclusive conditiona. 
The differentiation of conunodities into commodities and 
money does not sweep away these inconsistencies, but develops 
a modus vvvendi, a form in which they can exist side by side. 
This is generally the way in which real contradictions are 
reconciled. For instance, it is a contradiction to depict one 
body as constantly falling towards another, and as, at the 
same time^ constantly flying away from it. The ellipse is a 
form of motion whici, while allowing this contradiction to go 
on, at the same time reconciles it. 

In so far as exchange is a process, by which commodities are 

transferred from hands in which they are non-use-values, to 

a Christian.&quot; &quot;Thou Ikt^&quot; thundered back the great Judge, &quot;thoo art nought hi# 
a Ciceronian.&quot; 



 

Money, or the Circulation of Commodities. 117 

hands in which they become use-values, it is a social circula- 
tion of matter. The product of one form of useful labour 
replaces that of another. When once a commodity has found 
a resting-place, where it can serve as a use-value, it falls out 
of the sphere of exchange into that of consumption. But the 
former sphere alone interests us at present We have, there- 
fore, now to consider exchange from a formal point of view ; to 
investigate the change of form or metamorphosis of commodi- 
ties which effectuates the social circulation of matter. 

The comprehension of this change of form is, as a rule, very 
imperfect The cause of this imperfection is, apart from indisr 
tinct notions of value itself, that every change of form in a 
commodity results from the exchange of two commodities, an 
ordinary one and the money-commodity. If we keep in view the 
material fact alone that a commodity has been exchanged for gold 
we overlook the very thing that we ought to observe — ^namely, 
what has happened to the form of the commodity. We overlook 
the facts that gold, when a mere commodity, is not money, and 
that when other commodities express their prices in gold, this 
gold is but the money-form of those commodities themselves. 

Commodities, first of all, enter into the process of exchange 
just as they are. The process then differentiates them into 
commodities and money, and thus produces an external oppo- 
sition corresponding to the internal opposition inherent in 
them, as being at once use-values and values. Commodities as 
use-values now stand opposed to money as exchange value. 
On the other hand, both opposing sides are commodities, 
unities of use-value and value. But this unity of differences 
manifests itself at two opposite poles, and at each pole in an 
opposite way. Being poles they are as necessarily opposite as 
they are connected. On the one side of the equation we have 
an ordinary commodity, which is in reality a use-value. Its 
value is expressed only ideally in its price, by which it is 
equated to its opponent, the gold, as to the rerl embodiment 
of its value. On the other hand, the gold, m its metallic 
reality ranks as the embodiment of value, as money. Grold, 
as gold, is exchange value itself. As to its use-value, that has 
only an ideal existence, represented by the series of expresh 



 

ii8 Capitalist Production. 

sions of relative value in which it stands face to face with all 
other commodities^ the sum of whose uses makes up the sum 
of the various uses of gold. These antagonistic forms of com- 
modities are the real forms in which the process of their 
exchange moves and takes place. 

Let us now accompany the owner of some commodity — say, 
our old friend the weaver of linen — ^to the scene of action, the 
market His 20 yards of linen has a definite price, £2. He 
exchanges it for the £2, and then, like a man of the good old 
stamp that he is, he parts with the £2 for a family Bible of the 
same price. The linen, which in his eyes is a mere commodity, 
a depository of value, he alienates in exchange for gold, which 
is the lineups value-form, and this form he again parts with for 
another commodity, the Bible, which is destined to enter his 
house as an object of utility and of edification to its inmates. 
The exchange becomes an accomplished fact by two metamor- 
phoses of opposite yet supplementary character — ^the conversion 
of the commodity into money, and the re-conversion of the 
money into a commodity.^ The two phases of this metamor- 
phosis are both of them distinct transactions of the weaver — 
selling, or the exchange of the commodity for money ; buying, 
or the exchange of the money for a commodity ; and, the unity 
of the two acts, selling in order to buy. 

The result of the whole transaction, as regards the weaver, 
is this, that instead of being in possession of the linen, he now 
has the Bible; instead of his original commodity, he now 
possesses another of the same value but of different utility. 
In like manner he procures his other means of subsistence and 
means of production. From his point of view, the whole pro- 
cess effectuates nothing more than the exchange of the product 
of his labour for the product of some one else&apos;s, nothing more 
than an exchange of products. 

The exchange of commodities is therefore accompanied by 
the following changes in their form. 

1** ix M roO ...... rvp^ dkvraiidfiwBai wdwra^ ^^Ir,^ &apos;HpdjcXfcTOf, koI w9p 

6,Tdirrww,&amp;eirep xpvffoO xpi(/iaraircUxpirfidrb»F xpvvbt.^ (F. Lassalle: Die Philosophie 
Heraklcitos dcs Dunkdn. Berlin. 1845. Vol. I, p. 222.) Lassalle, m his note oo 
this passage, p. 224, n. 8, erroneously makes gold a mere symbol of value. 



 

Money, or the Circulation of Commodities. 119 

Commodily — ^Money — Conunodity. 

^M C. 

The result of the whole process is ; so far as concerns the 
objects themselves; C — C, the exchange of one commodity for 
another, the circulation of materialised social labour* When 
this result is attained, the process is at an end* 

C — M. First metamorphom, or sale. 

The leap taken by value from the body of the commodity, 
into the body of the gold, is^ as I have elsewhere called it, the 
salto mortale of the commodily. If it falls short, then, al- 
though the commodity itself is not harmed, its owner decidedly 
is. The social division of labour causes his labour to be as one- 
sided as his wants are many-sided. This is precisely the reason 
why the product of his labour serves him solely as exchange 
value. But it cannot acquire the properties of a socially recog- 
nised universal equivalent, except by being converted into 
money. That money, however, is in some one else&apos;s pocket In 
order to entice the money out of that pocket, our friend&apos;s com- 
modity must, above all things, be a use-value to the owner of the 
money. For this, it is necessary that the labour expended upon 
it, be of a kind that is socially useful, of a kind that constitutes 
a branch of the social division of labour. But division of labour 
is a system of production which has grown up spontaneously 
and continues to grow behind the backs of the producers. The 
commodity to be exchanged may possibly be the product of 
some new kind of labour, that pretends to satisfy newly arisen 
requirements, or even to give rise itself to new requirements. A 
particular operation, though yesterday, perhaps, forming one 
out of the many operations conducted by one producer in creat- 
ing a given commodity, may to-day separate itself from this 
connection, may establish itself as an independent branch of 
labour and send its incomplete product to market as an inde- 
pendent commodity. The circumstances may or may not be ripe 
for such a separation. To-day the product satisfies a social 
want To-morrow the article may, either altogether or partial- 
ly, be superseded by some other appropriate product Moreover, 
although our weaver&apos;s labour may be a recognised branch of 



 

120 Capitalist Production. 

the social division of labour, yet tkat f&amp;ct :s by no metii^d stiffir 
oient to guarantee the utility of his 20 yaidc* of liuen. If the 
community&apos;s want of linen, and such a want has a limit like 
every other want, should already be saturated by the products 
of rival weavers, our friend&apos;s product is superfluous, redimdant, 
and consequently useless. Although people do not look a gift^ 
horse in the mouth, our friend does not frequent the market for 
the purpose of making presents. But suppose his product turn 
out a real use-value, and thereby attracts money ? The question 
arises, how much will it attract ? No doubt the answer is al- 
ready anticipated in the price of the article, in the exponent of 
the magnitude of its value. We leave out of consideration here 
any accidental miscalculatiooa of value by our friend, a mistake 
that is soon rectified in the market We suppose him to have 
spent on his product only that amount of labour-time that is on 
an average socially necessary The price then, is merely the 
money-name of the quantity of social labour realised in his 
commodity. But without the leave, and behind the back, of our 
weaver, the old fashioned mode of weaving undergoes a change. 
The labour-time that yesterday was without doubt socially nec- 
essary to the production of a yard of linen, ceases to be so to- 
day, a fact which the owner of the money is only too eager to 
prove from the prices quoted by our friend&apos;s competitors. Un- 
luckily for him, weavers are not few and far between. Lastly, 
suppose that every piece of linen in the market contains no 
more labour-time than is socially necessary. In spite of this, 
all these pieces taken as a whole, may have had superfluous 
labour-time spent upon them. If the market cannot stomach 
the whole quantity at the normal price of 2 shillings a yard, 
this proves that too great a portion of the total labour of the 
community has been expended in the form of weaving. The 
effect is the same as if each individual weaver had expended 
more labour-time upon his particular product than is socially 
necessary. Here we may say, with the Gterman proverb: 
caught together, hung together. All the linen in the market 
counts but as one article of commerce, of which each piece is 
only an aliquot part. And as a matter of fact, the value also of 
each single yard is but the materialised form of the same def- 



 

Money, or the Circulation of Commodities. 121 

inite and socially fixed quantity of homogeneous human labour. 

We see then, commodities are in love with money, but ^^the 
course of true love never did run smooth.&quot; The quantitative 
division of labour is brought about in exactly the same spon- 
taneous and accidental manner as its qualitative division. The 
owners of commodities therefore find out, that the same divi* 
sion of labour that turns them into independent private pro- 
ducers, also frees the social process of production and the 
relations of the individual producers to each other within that 
process, from all dependence on the will of those producers, 
and that the seeming mutual independence of the individuals 
is supplemented by a system of general and mutual dependence 
through or by means of the products. 

The division of labour converts the product of labour into a 
commodity, and thereby makes necessary its further conversion 
into money. At the same time it also makes the accomplish- 
ment of this tran^-substantiation quite accidentaL Here, how- 
ever, we are only concerned with the phenomenon in its 
int^ity, and we therefore assume its progress to be normal 
Moreover, if the conversion take place at all, that is, if the 
commodity be not absolutely unsaleable, its metamorphosis 
does take place although the price realised may be abnormally 
above or below the value. 

The seller has his commodity replaced by gold, the buyer 
has his gold replaced by a commodity. The fact which here 
stares us in the face is, that a commodity and gold, 20 yards 
of linen and £2, have changed hands and places, in other word% 
that they have been exchanged. But for what is the com- 
modity exchanged ? For the shape assumed by its own value, 
for the universal equivalent. And for what is the gold 
exchanged? For a particular form of its own use-value. 
Why does gold take the form of money face to face with the 
linen? Because the linen&apos;s price of £2, its denomination in 
money, has already equated the linen to gold in its character 
of money. A commodity strips off its original commodity-form 
on being alienated, i,e.^ on the instant its use-value actually 
attracts the gold, that before existed only ideally in its price. 
The realisation of a commodity&apos;s price, or of its ideal value- 



 

122 Capitalist Production. 

form, is therefore at the same time the realisation of the ideal 
use-value of money; the conversion of a commodity into 
money, is the simultaneous conversion of money into a com- 
modity. The apparently single process is in reality a double 
one. From the pole of the commodity owner it is a sale, from 
the opposite pole of the money owner, it is a purchase. In 
other words, a sale is a purchase, C — ^M is also M — C.* 

Up to this point we have considered men in only one econom- 
ical capacity, that of owners of commodities, a capacity in 
which they appropriate the produce of the labour of others, by 
alienating that of their own labour. Hence, for one commodity 
owner to meet with another who has money, it is necessary, 
either, that the product of the labour of the latter person, the 
buyer, should be in itself money, should be gold, the material 
of which money consists, or that his product should already 
have changed its skin and have stripped off its original form 
of a useful object In order that it may play the part of 
money, gold must of course enter the market at some point or 
other. This point is to be found at the source of production 
of the metal, at which place gold is bartered, as the immediate 
product of labour, for some other product of equal value. 
From that moment it always represents the realised price of 
some commodity.^ Apart from its exchange for other com- 
modities at the source of its production, gold, in whose-so-ever 
hands it may be, is the transformed shape of some commodity 
alienated by its owner ; it is the product of a sale or of the first 
metamorphosis C — ^M.* Grold, as we saw, became ideal money, 
or a measure of values, in consequence of all commodities 
measuring their values by it, and thus contrasting it ideally 
with their natural shape as useful objects, and making it the 
shape of their value. It became real money, by the general 
alienation of commodities, by actually changing places with 
their natural forms as useful objects, and thus becoming in 

*&quot;Toute vcnte est achat •* (Dr. Quesnay: &quot;Dialognes but le Commerce et les 
Travaux des Artisans.*&apos; Physiocrates ed. Daire I. Partie, Paris, 1846, p. 170), or 
as Quesnay in his &quot;Maximes g6n6rales&quot; puts it, &quot;Vendre est acheter.&quot; 

&apos;&quot;Le prix d&apos;tme marchandise ne pouvant etre pay6 que par le prix d&apos;une autre 
marchandise.&apos;&apos; (Mercier de la Riviere: &quot;L&apos;Ordre natural et essentiel des sod^tis 
politiques.&quot; Physiocrates, ed. Daire II. Partie, p. 564.) 

• &quot;Pour avoir cet argent, il faut avoir vendu,&quot; 1. c, p. 648. 



 

Money, or the Circulation of Commodities. 123 

leali^ the embodiment of their values* When they assume this 
money-shape, commodities strip off every trace of their natural 
use-value, and of the particular kind of labour to which they 
owe their creation, in order to transform themselves into the 
uniform, socially recognised incarnation of homogeneous hu- 
man labour. We cannot tell from the mere look of a piece of 
money, for what particular commodity it has been exchanged. 
Under their money-form all commodities look alike. Hence, 
money may be dirt, although dirt is not money. We will 
assume that the two gold pieces, in consideration of which our 
weaver has parted with his linen, dre the metamorphosed shape 
of a quarter of wheat The sale of the linen, C — ^M, is at the 
same time its purchase, M — C. But the sale is the first act of 
a process that ends with a transaction of an opposite nature, 
namely, the purchase of a Bible ; the purchase of the linen, on 
the other hand, ends a movement that began with a transac- 
tion of an opposite nature, namely, with the sale of the wheat. 
C — ^M (linen — money), which is the first phase of C — ^M — 
(linen — ^money — ^Bible), is also M — C (money — linen), the 
last phase of another movement C — M — C (wheat — ^money — 
linen). The first metamorphosis of one conamodity, its trans- 
formation from a commodity into money, is therefore also in- 
variably the second metamorphosis of some other commodity, 
the retransformation of the latter from money into a com- 
modity.^ 

M — C, or purchase. The second and concluding metamor- 
phosis of a commodity. 

Because money is the metamorphosed shape of all other 
commodities, the result of their general alienation, for this 
reason it is alienable itself without restriction or condition. 
It reads all prices backwards, and thus, so to say, depicts itself 
in the bodies of all other commodities, which offer to it the 
material for the realisation of its own use-value. At the same 
time the prices, wooing glances cast at money by conamodities, 

*As before remarked, the actual producer of gold or silver forms an exception. 
He exchanges bis product directly for another commodity, without having first sold 
It. 



 

124 Capitalist Production. 

define the liniits of its convertibility, by pointing to its quan- 
tity. Since every commodity, on becoming money, disappears 
as a commodity, it is impossible to tell from the money itself, 
how it got into the hands of its possessor, or what article has 
been changed into it. Non olet, from whatever source it may 
come. Bepresenting on the one hand a sold commodity, it 
represents on the other hand a commodity to be bought^ 

M — C, a purchase, is, at the same time, C — ^M, a sale; the 
concluding metamorphosis of one commodity is the first meta- 
morphosis of another. With regard to our weaver, the life of 
his commodity ends with the Bible, into which he has recon- 
verted his £2. But suppose the seller of the Bible turns the £2 
set free by the weaver into brandy. M — C, the concluding 
phase of C — M—C (linen, money, Bible), is also C — ^M, the 
first phase of C — ^M — C (Bible, money, brandy). The pro- 
ducer of a particular commodity has that one article alone to 
offer ; this he sells very often in large quantities, but his many 
and variouB wants compel him to split up the price realised, the 
srmi of money set free, into numerous purchases. Hence a sale 
leads to many purchases of various articles. The concluding 
metamorphosis of a commodity thus constitutes an aggregation 
of first metamorphoses of various other commodities. 

If we now consider the completed metamorphosis of a com* 
modity, as a whole, it appears in the first place, that it is made 
up of two opposite and complementary movements, — ^M and 
M — C. These two antithetical transmutations of a commodity 
are brought about by two antithetical social acts on the part 
of the owner, and these acts in their turn stamp the character 
of the economical parts played by him. As the person who 
makes a sale, he is a seller; as the person who makes a pur- 
chase, he is a buyer. But just as, upon every such transmu- 
tation of a commodity, its two forms, commodity-form and 
money-form, exist simultaneously but at opposite poles, so 
every seller has a buyer opposed to him, and every buyer a 
seller. While one particular commodity is going through its 

^&quot;Si Targent repr^nte» dans nos mains, les choset que nous pouvons d^sirer 
d*acheter, il y repr^sente aussi les choses que nous avons vendues pour cet argent.** 
(Merder de la RiTi^re L e.) 



 

Money, or the Circulo4ion of Commodities. 125 

two transmutations in succession, from a commodity into 
money and from m^ney into another conmiodity, the owner of 
the commodity changes in succession his part from that of 
seller to that of buyer. These characters of seller and buyer 
are therefore not permanent, but attach themselves in turns to 
the various persons engaged in the circulation of commodities. 

The complete metamorphosis of a commodity, in its simplest 
form, implies four extremes^ and three dramatis persome. 
First, a conmiodity comes face to face with money ; the latter 
is the form taken by the value of the former, and exists in all 
its hard reality, in the pocket of the buyer. A commodity- 
owner is thus brought into contact with a possessor of money. 
So soon, now, as the commodity has been changed into 
money, the money becomes its transient equivalent-form, the 
use-value of which equivalent-form is to be found in the 
bodies of other commodities. Money, the final term of the 
first transmutation, is at the same time the starting point for 
the second. The person who is a seller in the first transac- 
tion thus becomes a buyer in the second, in which a third 
commodity-owner appears on the scene as a seller.^ 

The two phases, each inverse to the other, that make up the 
metamorphosis of a commodity constitute together a circular 
movement, a circuit: commodity-form, stripping off of this 
form, and return to the commodity-form. No doubt, the comr 
modity appears here under two different aspects. At the start- 
ing point it is not a use-value to its owner; at the finishing 
point it is. So, too, the money appears in the first phase as a 
solid crystal of value, a crystal into which the commodity 
eagerly solidifies, and in the second, dissolves into the mere 
transient equivalent-form destined to be replaced by a use- 
value. 

The two metamorphoses constituting the circuit are at the 
eame time two inverse partial metamorphoses of two other 
commodities. One and the same commodity, the linen, opens 
the series of its own metamorphoses, and completes the meta- 
morphosis of another (the wheat). In the first phase or sale, 

^&quot;n 7 a done . . . quatre termes et trois contrsctants, dont rtin Intervient deux 
Idit.&quot; (Le Trome L c. p. 909.) 



 

126 Capitalist Production. 

the linen plays these two parts in its own person* Bnt, then, 
changed into gold, it completes its own second and final meta- 
morphosis, and helps at the same time to accomplish the first 
metamorphosis of a third commodity. Hence the circuit made 
Dy one commodity in the course of its metamorphoses is inextri- 
cably mixed up with the circuits of other commodities. The 
total of all the different circuits constitutes the circulation of 
commodities. 

The circulation of commodities differs from the direct ex- 
change of products (barter), not only in form, but in substance. 
Only consider the course of events. The weaver has, as a 
matter of fact, exchanged his linen for a Bible, his own com- 
modity for that of some one else. But this is true only so far 
as he himself is concerned. The seller of the Bible, who pre- 
fers something to warm his inside, no more thought of exchang- 
ing his Bible for linen than our weaver knew that wheat had 
been exchanged for his linen. B&apos;s commodity replaces that of 
A, but A and B do not mutually exchange those commodities. 
It may, of course, happen that A and B make simultaneous 
purchases, the one from the other ; but such exceptional trans- 
actions are by no means the necessary result of the general con- 
ditions of the circulation of commodities. We see here, on 
the one hand, how the exchange of commodities breaks through 
all local and personal bounds inseparable from direct barter, 
and develops the circulation of the products of social labor; 
and on the other hand, how it develops a whole network of so- 
cial relations spontaneous in their growth and entirely beyond 
the control of the actors. It is only because the farmer has 
sold his wheat that the weaver is enabled to sell his linen, only 
because the weaver has sold his linen that our Hotspur is 
enabled to sell his Bible, and only because the latter has sold 
the water of everlasting life that the distiller is enabled to sell 
his eau-de-vie, and so on. 

The process of circulation, therefore, does not&gt; like direct 
barter of products, become extinguished upon the use values 
changing places and hands. The money does not vanish on 
dropping out of the circuit of the metamorphosis of a given 
commodity. It is constantly being precipitated into nevr 



 

Money, or the Circulation of Commodities. 127 

places in the arena of circulation vacated by other commodities. 
In the complete metamorphosis of the linen^ for example, linen 
— ^money — ^Bible, the linen first falls out of circulation, and 
money steps into its place. Then the Bible falls out of circula- 
tion, and again money takes its place. When one commodity 
replaces another, the money commodity always sticks to the 
hands of some third person.^ Circulation sweats money from 
every pore. 

Nothing can be more childish than the dogma, that because 
every sale is a purchase, and every purchase a sale, therefore 
the circulation of commodities necessarily implies an equili- 
brium of sales and purchases. If this means that the number 
of actual sales is equal to the number of purchases, it is mere 
tautology. But its real purport is to prove that every seller 
brings his buyer to market with him. Nothing of the kind. 
The sale and the purchase constitute one identical act, an 
exchange between a commodity-owner and an owner of money, 
between two persons as opposed to each other as the two poles 
of a magnet They form two distinct acts, of polar and oppo- 
site characters, when performed by one single person. Hence 
the identity of sale and purchase implies that the commodity 
is useless, if, on being thrown into the alchemistical retort of 
circulation, it does not come out again in the shape of money ; 
if, in other words, it cannot be sold by its owner, and there- 
fore be bought by the owner of the money That identity fur- 
ther implies that the exchange, if it does take place, constitutes 
a period of rest, an interval, long or short, in the life of the 
commodity. Since the first metamorphosis of a commodity is 
at once a sale and a purchase, it is also an independent process 
in itself. The purchaser has the commodity, the seller has the 
money, i.e., a commodity ready to go into circulation at any 
time. No one can sell unless some one else purchases. But 
no one is forthwith bound to purchase, because he has just sold. 
Circulation bursts through all restrictions as to time, place, 
and individuals, imposed by direct barter, and this it effects by 
splitting up, into the antithesis of a sale and a purchase, the 

* Self-evident as this may be, it is nevertheless for the most part unobserved bf 
polttks! economists* and especially by the &quot; Freetrader Vulgaris.&quot; 



 

128 Capitalist Production. 

direct identity that in barter does exist between the alienation 
of one&apos;s own and the acquisition of some other man&apos;s product 
To say that these two independent and antithetical acts have 
an intrinsic unity, are essentially one, is the same as to say 
that this intrinsic oneness expresses itself in an external 
antithesis. If the interval in time between the two comple- 
mentary phases of the complete metamorphosis of a conmiodity 
becomes too great, if the split between the sale and the purchase 
becomes too pronounced, the intimate connexion between them, 
their oneness, asserts itself by producing — a crisis. The 
antithesis, use-value and value ; the contradictions that private 
labour is bound to manifest itself as direct social labour, that a 
particularized concrete kind of labour has to pass for abstract 
human labour; the contradiction between the personification 
of objects and the representation of persons by things ; all these 
antitheses and contradictions, which are immanent in com- 
modities, assert themselves, and develop their modes of motion, 
in the antithetical phases of the metamorphosis of a commod- 
ity. These modes therefore imply the possibility, and no more 
than the possibility, of crisis. The conversion of this mere 
possibility into a reality is the result of a long series of rela- 
tions, that^ from our present standpoint of simple circulation, 
have as yet no existence.^ 

b. The cvrrency ^ of money. 

The chaijge of form, C — ^M — C, by which the circulation of 
the material products of labour is brought about, requires that 

* See my observations on James Mill in &quot;Critique, &amp;c/&apos; p. 123-&gt;125. With regard 
to this subject, we may notice two methods characteristic of apologetic economy. 
The first is the identification of the circulation of commodities with the direct bar^ 
ter of products, by simple abstraction from their points of difference; the second is» 
the attempt to explain away the contradictions of capitalist production, by reducing^ 
the relations between the persons engaged in that mode of production, to the simple 
relations arising out of the circulation of commodities. Th«t production and circula* 
tion of commoditi^ are, however, phenomena that occur to a greater or less extent 
in modes of production the most diverse. If we are acquainted with nothing but 
the abstract categories of circulation, which are common to all these modes of pro- 
duction, we cannot possibly know anything of the specific points of difference of 
those modes, nor pronounce any judgment upon them. In no science is such a big 
fuss made with commonplace truisms as in political economy. For instance, J. B. 
Say sets himself up as a judge of crises, because, forsooth, he knows tbat a com- 
modity is a product. 

* Translator&apos;s note. — This word as here used in its original significatioo of tbtt 



 

Money, or the Circulation of Commodities. 129 

a given value in the shape of a commodity shall begin the pro* 
cesSy and shall^ also in the shape of a commodity^ end it. The 
movement of the commodity is therefore a circuit On the 
other hand^ the form of this movement precludes a circuit from 
being made by the money. The result is not the return of the 
money, but its continued removal further and further away 
from its starting-point So long as the seller sticks fast to his 
money, -which is the transformed shape of his commodity, that 
commodity is still in the first phase of its metamorphosis, and 
has completed only half its course. But so soon as he com- 
pletes the process, so soon as he supplements his sale by a pur- 
chase, the money again leaves the hands of its possessor. It 
is true that if the -weaver, after buying the Bible, sells mora 
linen, money comes back into his hands. But this return is not 
owing to the circulation of the first 20 yards of linen ; that cir- 
culation resulted in the money getting into the hands of the 
seller of the Bible. The return of money into the hands of the 
weaver is brought about only by the renewal or repetition of 
the process of circulation with a fresh commodity, which 
renewed process ends with the same result as its predecessor 
did. Hence the movement directly imparted to money by the 
circulation of commodities takes the form of a constant motion 
away from its starting pointy of course from the hands of one 
commodity owner into those of another. This course consti- 
tutes its currency (cours de la monnaie). 

The currency of money is the constant and monotonous re- 
petition of the same process. The commodity is always in the 
hands of the seller ; the money, as a means of purchase, always 
in the hands of the buyer. And money serves as a means of 
purchase by realising the price of the commodity. This reali- 
sation transfers the commodity from the seller to the buyer, 
and removes the money from the hands of the buyer into those 
of the seller, where it again goes through the same process with 
another commodity TTiat this one-sided character of the 
moneys motion arises out of the two-sided character of the 
commodity&apos;s motion, i^ a circumstance that is veiled over. 

coarse or track pursued t&gt;y money as It changes from band to band* a course which 
cssentialiy differs from circulation. 

1 



 

130 Capitalist Production. 

The very nature of the circulation of commodities b^ets the op- 
posite appearance. The first metamorphosis of a commodity is 
visibly, not only the money&apos;s movement, but also that of the 
commodity itself; in the second metamorphosis, on the con* 
trary, the movement appears to us as the movement of the 
money alone. In the first phase of its circulation the com- 
modity changes place -with the money. Thereupon the com- 
modity, under its aspect of a useful object, falls out of 
circulation into consumption.^ In its stead -we have its value- 
ehape — the money. It then goes through the second phase of 
its circulation, not imder its own natural shape, but under the 
shape of money. The continuity of the movement is therefore 
kept up by the money alone, and the same movement that as 
r^ards the commodity consists of two processes of an anti- 
thetical character, is, when considered as the movement of 
the money, always one and the same process, a continued 
change of places with ever fresh commodities. Hence the 
result brought about by the circulation of commodities, namely, 
the replacing of one commodity by another, takes the appear- 
ance of having been effected not by means of the change of 
form of the commodities, but rather by the money acting as a 
medium of circulation, by an action that circulates commodi- 
ties, to all appearance motionless in themselves, and transfers 
them from hands in which they are non-use-values, to hands in 
which they are use-values ; and that in a direction constantly 
opposed to the direction of the money. The latter is con- 
tinually withdrawing commodities from circulation and step- 
ping into their places, and in this way continually moving 
further and further from its starting-point Hence, althou^ 
the movement of the money is merely the expression of 
the circulation of commodities, yet the contrary appears to be 
the actual fact, and the circulation of commodities seems to be 
the result of the movement of the money.* 

^ Eren when the commodity is sold orer and OTcr again, a phenomenon that at 
present has no existence for us, it faHs, when definitely sold for the last time, out 
of the sphere of circulation into that of consumption, - where it serves either sk 
means of subsistence or means of production. 

&apos; &quot; n (Targent) n&apos;a d&apos;autre mouvement que odid qui lid est imprim^ par lea pfO&gt; 
doctioas.&apos;* (Le Trosnc Lcp. 886.) 



 

Money, or the Circulation of Commodities. 131! 

Again^ money functions as a means of circulation, only 
because in it the values of commodities have independent 
reality. Hence its movement, as the medium of circulation, is, 
in fact, merely the movement of commodities while changing 
their forms. This fact must therefore make itself plainly vis- 
ible in the currency of money. The twofold change of form in 
a commodity is reflected in the twice repeated change of place 
of the same piece of money during the complete metamorphosis 
of a commodity, and in its constantly repeated change of place, 
as metamorphosis follows metamorphosis, and each becomes 
interlaced with the others. 

The linen, for instance, first of all exchanges its commodity- 
form for its money-form. The last term of its first metamor- 
phosis (C — ^M), or the money-form, is the first term of its final 
metamorphosis (M — C), of its re-conversion into a useful 
commodity, the Bible. But each of these changes of form is 
accomplished by an exchange between commodity and money, 
1^ their reciprocal displacement. The same pieces of coin, in 
the first act, changed places with the linen, in the second, with 
the Bible. They are displaced twice. The first metamorpho- 
sis puts them into the weaver^s pocket, the second draws them 
out of it. The two inverse changes undergone by the same 
commodity are reflected in the displacement, twice repeated, 
but in opposite directions, of the same pieces of coin. 

If, on the contrary, only one phase of the metamorphosis is 
gone through, if there are only sales or only purchases, then a 
given piece of money changes its place only once. Its second 
change corresponds to and expresses the second metamorphosis 
of the commodity, its re-conversion from money into another 
conmiodity intended for use. It is a matter of course, that all 
this is applicable to the simple circulation of commodities 
alone, the only form that we are now considering. 

Every commodity, when it first steps into circulation, and 
undergoes its first change of form, does so only to fall out of 
circulation again and to be replaced by other commodities. 
Money, on the contrary, as the medium of circulation, keeps 
continuallj &apos;within the sphere of circulation, and moves about 



 

132 Capitalist Production. 

in it The question therefore arises^ how much mon^ this 
sphere constantly absorbs ? 

In a given country there take place every day at the same 
time, but in different localities, numerous one-sided metamor- 
phoses of commodities, or, in other words, numerous sales and 
numerous purchases. The commodities are equated before- 
hand in imagination, by their prices, to definite quantities of 
money. And since, in the form of circulation now under con- 
sideration, money and commodities always come bodily face to 
face, one at the positive pole of purchase, the other at the 
negative pole of sale, it is clear that the amount of the means 
of circulation required, is determined beforehand by the sum of 
the prices of all these commodities. As a matter of fact, the 
money in reality represents the quantity or sum of gold ideally 
expressed beforehand by the sum of the prices of the com- 
modities. The equality of these two smns is therefore self- 
evident We know, however, that&gt; the values of commodities 
remaining constant^ their prices vary with the value of gold 
(the material of money), rising in proportion as it falls, and 
falling in proportion as it rises. Now if, in consequence of 
such a rise or fall in the value of gold, the sum of the prices of 
commodities fall or rise, the quantity of money in currency 
must fall or rise to the same extent Tlie diange in the 
quantity of the circulating medium is, in this case, it is tru^ 
caused by money itself, yet not in virtue of its function 
as a medium of circulation, but of its function as a measure of 
value. First, the price of the commodities varies inversely 
as the value of the money, and then the quantity of the 
medium of circulation varies directly as the price of the 
commodities. Exactly the same thing would happen if, for 
instance, instead of the value of gold falling, gold were re- 
placed by silver as the measure of value, or if, instead of the 
&quot;value of silver rising, gold were to thrust silver out from being 
the measure of value. In the one case, more silver would be 
current than gold was before; in the other case, less gold 
would be current than silver was before. In each case the 
value of the material of money, i.e., the value of the com- 
Aiodity that serves as the measure of value, would have under- 



 

•Money, or the Circulation of Commodities. 133 

gone a change^ and therefore, so, too, would the prices of com* 
modities which express their values in money, and so, too, 
would the quantity of money current whose function it is to 
realise those prices. We have already seen, that the sphere of 
circulation has an opening through which gold (or the material 
of money generally) enters into it as a commodity with a given 
value. Hence, when money enters on its functions as a 
measure of value, when it expresses prices, its value is already 
determined. If now its value fall, this fact is first evidenced 
by a change in the prices of those commodities that are 
directly bartered for the precious metals at the sources of 
their production. The greater part of all other commodities, 
especially in the imperfectly developed stages of civil society, 
will continue for a long time to be estimated by the former 
antiquated and illusory value of the measure of value. 
Nevertheless, one commodity infects another through their 
common value-relation, so that their prices, expressed in gold 
or in silver, gradually settle down into the proportions deter- 
mined by their comparative values, until finally the values of 
all commodities are estimated in terms of the new value of the 
metal that constitutes money. This process is accompanied by 
the continued increase in the quantity of the precious metals, 
an increase caused by their streaming in to replace the articles 
directly bartered for them at their sources of production. In 
proportion therefore as commodities in general acquire their 
true prices, in proportion as their values become estimated 
according to the fallen value of the precious metal, in the 
same proportion the quantity of that metal necessary for realise 
ing those new prices is provided beforehand. A one-sided 
observation of the results that followed upon the discovery of 
fresh supplies of gold and silver, led some economists in the 
17th, and particularly in the 18th century, to the false con- 
clusion, that the prices of commodities had gone up in conse- 
quence of the increased quantity of gold and silver serving as 
means of circulation. Henceforth we shall consider the value 
of gold to be given, as, in fact, it is momentarily whenever we 
estimate the price of a conunodity. 

On this supposition then, the quantity of the medium of 



 

134 Capitalist Production. 

circulation is determined by the sum of the pricee that have to 
be realised. If now we further suppose the price of each com- 
modity to be given, the sum of the prices clearly depends on 
the mass of commodities in circulation. It requires but little 
racking of brains to comprehend that if one quarter of wheat 
cost £2, 100 quarters will cost £200, 200 quarters £400, and 
60 on, that consequently the quantity of money that changes 
place with the wheat^ when sold, must increase with the quan- 
tity of that wheat 

If the mass of commodities remain constant, the quantity of 
circulating money varies with the fluctuations in the prices of 
those commodities. It increases and diminishes because the 
sum of the prices increases or diminishes in consequence of the 
change of price. To produce this effect, it is by no means 
requisite that the prices of all commodities should rise or fall 
simultaneously. A rise or a fall in the prices of a number of 
leading articles, is sufficient in the one case to increase, in the 
other to diminish, the sum of the prices of all commodities, 
and, therefore, to put more or less money in circulation. 
Whether the change in the price correspond to an actual 
change of value in the commodities, or whether it be the result 
of mere fluctuations in market prices, the effect on the quan- 
tity of the medium of circulation remains the same. 

Suppose the following articles to be sold or partially meta- 
morphosed simultaneously in different localities: say, one 
quarter of wheat, 20 yards of linen, one Bible, and 4 gallons of 
brandy. If the price of each article be £2, and the sum of the 
prices to be realised be consequently £8, it follows that £8 in 
money must go into circulation. If, on the other hand, these 
same articles are links in the following chain of metamor- 
phoses: 1 quarter of wheat — £2 — 20 yards of linen — £2 — 1 
Bible — £2 — 4 gallons of brandy — £2, a chain that is already 
well-known to us, in that case the £2 cause the different com- 
modities to circulate one after the other, and after realizing 
their prices successively, and therefore the sum of those prices, 
£8, they come to rest at last in the pocket of the distiller. 
The £2 thus make four moves. This repeated change of place 
of the same pieces of money corresponds to the double change 



 

Money, or the Circulation of Commodities. 135 

in form of the commodities, to their motion in opposite direc- 
tions through two stages of circulation, and to the interlacing 
of the metamorphoses of different commodities.^ These anti- 
thetic and complementary phases, of which the process of met- 
amorphosis consists, are gone through, not simultaneously, but 
successively. Time is therefore required for the completion of 
the series. Hence the velocity of the currency of money is 
measured by the number of moves made by a given piece of 
money in a given time. Suppose the circulation of the 4 ar- 
ticles takes a day. The sum of the prices to be realised in the 
day is £8, the number of moves of the two pieces of money is 
four, and the quantity of money circulating is £2. Hence, for 
a given interval of time during the process of circulation, we 
have the following relation : the quantity of money functioning 
as the circulating medium is equal to the sum of the prices of 
the commodities divided by the number of moves made by coins 
of the same denomination. This law holds generally. 

The total circulation of commodities in a given country 
during a given period is made up on the one hand of numerous 
isolated and simultaneous partial metamorphoses, sales which 
are at the same time purchases, inr which each coin changes its 
place only once, or makes only one move ; on the other hand, 
of numerous distinct series of metamorphoses partly running 
side by side, and partly coalescing with each other, in each of 
which series each coin makes a number of moves, the number 
being greater or less according to circumstances. The total 
number of moves made by all the circulating coins of one 
denomination being given, we can arrive at the average num» 
ber of moves made by a single coin of that denomination, or at 
the average velocity of the currency of money. The quantity 
of money thrown into the circulation at the b^inning of each 
day is of course determined by the sum of the prices of all the 
commodities circulating simultaneously side by side. But once 
in circulation, coins are, so to say, made responsible for one 
another. If the one increase its velocity, the other either 

^&apos;&apos;O font let productions qui le O&apos;argent) mcttent en mouyement et le font 
cbculer ... La c^XinXk de son mouvement (sc de Targent) suppl6e &amp; sa quantity 
Lonqu*!! en est besoin, il ne fait que glisser d&apos;une main dans Tautre sans s&apos;arretor 
on instant.&quot; (Le Trosne L c. pp. 916, 91ft.) 



 

136 Capitalist Production. 

retards its own, or altogether falls out of circulation ; for the 
circulation can absorb only such a quantity of gold as when 
multiplied by the mean number of moves made by one single 
coin or element, is equal to the sum of the prices to be real- 
ised. Hence if the number of moves made by the separate 
pieces increase, the total number of those pieces in circulation 
diminishes. If the number of the moves diminish, the total 
number of pieces increases. Since the quantity of money cap- 
able of being absorbed by the circulation is given for a given 
mean velocity of currency, all that is necessary in order to ab- 
stract a given number of sovereigns from the circulation is to 
throw the same number of one-pound notes into it, a trick well 
known to all bankers. 

Just as the currency of money, generally considered, is but 
a reflex of the circulation of commodities, or of the antithetical 
metamorphoses they undergo, so, too, the velocity of that cur- 
rency reflects the rapidity with which commodities change 
their forms, the continued interlacing of one series of meta- 
morphoses with another, the hurried social interchange of 
matter, the rapid disappearance of commodities from the 
sphere of circulation, and the equally rapid substitution of 
fresh ones in their places. Hence, in the velocity of the cur- 
rency we have the fluent unity of the antithetical and com- 
plementary phases, the unity of the conversion of the useful 
aspect of commodities into their value-aspect, and their re-con- 
version from the latter aspect to the former, or the unity of the 
two processes of sale and purchase. On the other hand, the 
retardation of the currency reflects the separation of these two 
processes into isolated antithetical phases, reflects the stagna- 
tion in the change of form, and therefore, in the social inter- 
change of matter. The circulation itself, of course, gives no 
clue to the origin of this stagnation ; it merely puts in evidence 
the phenomenon itself. The general public, who, simultane- 
ously, with the retardation of the currency, see money appear 
and disappear less frequently at the periphery of circulation, 
naturally attribute this retardation to a quantitive deficiencr^ 
in the circulating medium.^. 

&apos;Money being • . • the common mearare of baying and selling, erery body wlio 



 

Money, or the Circulation of Commodities. t^f 

The total quantity of money functioning during a given 
period as the circulating medium; is determined, on the one 
hand; by the sum of the prices of the circulating commodities^ 
and on the other hand, by the rapidity -with which the anti- 
thetical phases of the metamorphoses follow one another. On 
this rapidity depends what proportion of the sum of the prices 
can, on the average, be realised by each single coin. But the 
sum of the prices of the circulating commodities depends on 
the quantity, as well as on the prices, of the commodities. 
These three factors, however, state of prices, quantity of circu- 
lating ooDMnodities, and velocity of money-currency, are all 
variable. Hence, the sum of the prices to be realised, and 
consequently the quantity of the circulating medium depend- 
ing on that sum, will vary with the nimierous variations of 
these three factors in combination. Of these variations we 
shall consider those alone that have been the most important 
in the history of prices. 

While prices remain constant, the quantity of the circulatr 
ing medium may increase owing to the number of circulating 
commodities increasing, or to the velocity of currency decreas- 
ing, or to a combination of the two. On the other hand the 

hath anjrthing to sell, and cannot procure chapmen for it, is presently apt to think* 
that want of money in the kingdom, or country, is the cause why his goods do not 
go off; and so, want of money is the common cry; which is a great mistake. . . 
What do these people want, who cry out for money? . . . The farmer complains 
... he thinks that were more money in the country, he should have a price for his 
goods. Then it seems money is not his want, hut a price for his com and cattd, 
which he would sell, but cannot. • . Why cannot he get a price? . . . (1) Either 
there is too much com and cattel in the country, so that most who come to market 
have need of selling, as he hath, and few of buying; or (2) There wants the usual 
vent abroad hy transportation. . . ; or (3) The consumption fails, as when men* 
fay reauon of poverty, do not spend so much in their houses as formerly they did; 
wherefore it is not the increase of specific money, which would at all advance the 
farmer&apos;s goods, but the removal of any of these three causes, which do truly keep 
down the market. . . . The merchant and shopkeeper want money in the same 
manner, that is, they want a vent for the goods they deal in, by reason that the 
markets fail&quot; ... [A nation] &quot;never thrives better, than when riches are tost 
from hand to hand.&quot; (Sir Dudley North: &quot; Discourses upon Trade,&quot; Lond. 1691, 
pp. 11-15, passim.) Herrensch wand&apos;s fanciful notions amount merely to this, that 
the antagonism, which has its origin in the nature of commodities, and is repro- 
duced in their circulation, can be removed by increasing the circulating medium. 
But if, on the one hand, it is a popular delusion to ascribe stagnation in production 
and circulation to insufficiency of the circulating medium, it by no means follows^ 
en the other hand, that an actual paucity of the medium in consequence, e.g., of 
Iwngling legislative intcrfereoce with the regulation of currency, may not give rife 
to each stagnation. 



 

138 Capitalist Production. 

qnantily of the circulating medium may decrease wiiH a 
decreasing number of commodities, or with an increasing 
rapidity of their circulation. 

With a general rise in the prices of commodities, the quan- 
tity of the circulating medium will remain constant, provided 
the number of commodities in the circulation decrease propor- 
tionally to the increase in their prices, or provided the velocity 
of currency increase at the same rate as prices rise, the numben 
of commodities in circulation remaining constant The quanr 
tity of the circulating medium may decrease, owing to the num- 
ber of commodities decreasing more rapidly ; or to the veloc- 
ity of currency increasing more rapidly, than prices rise. 

With a general fall in the prices of commodities, the quantity 
of the «irculating medium will remain constant, provided the 
number of commodities increase proportionately to their fall in 
price, or provided the velocity of currency decrease in the same 
proportion. The quantity of the circulating medium will 
increase, provided the number of commodities increase quicker, 
or the rapidity of circulation decrease quicker, than the prices 
fall. 

The variations of the different factors may mutually compen- 
sate each other, so that notwithstanding their continued in- 
stability, the sum of the prices to be realised and the quantity 
of money in circulation remains constant; consequently, we 
find, especially if we take long periods into consideration, that 
the deviations from the average level, of the quantity of money 
current in any country, are much smaller than we should at 
first sight expect, apart of course from excessive perturbations 
periodically arising from industrial and commercial crises, or, 
less frequently, from fluctuations in the value of money. 

The law, that the quantity of the circulating medium is 
determined by the sum of the prices of the commodities 
circulating, and the average velocity of currency^ may also be 

^&quot; There is a certain measure and proportion of money requisite to drive the 
trade of a nation, more or less than which wotild prejudice the same. Just as there 
Is a certain proportion of farthings necessary in a small retail trade, to change sil- 
ver money, and to even such reckonings as cannot be adjusted with the smallest 
•ilver pieces. • • . Now, as the proportion of the number of farthings requisite 
kk commerce is to be taken from the number of people* the frequency of their 



 

Money, or the Circulation of Commodities. 139 

stated as follows : given the sum of the values of commodities, 
and the average rapidity of their metamorphoses, the quantity 
of precious metal current as money depends on the value of 
that precious metal. The erroneous opinion that it is, on the 
contrary, prices that are determined by the quantity of the 
circulating medium, and that the latter depends on the 
quantity of the precious metals in a country ;^ this opinion was 
based by those who first beheld it^ on the absurd hypothesis that 
commodities are without a price, and money without a value, 
when they first enter into circulation, and that, once in the 
circulation, an aliquot part of the medley of commodities is 
exchanged for an aliquot part of the heap of precious metals.^ 

exchanges: as also, and principally, from the yalue of the smallest sflver pieces of 
money; so in like manner, the proportion of money [gold and silver specie] reqais* 
ite in our trade, is to be likewise taken from the frequency of commutations, and 
from the bigness of the payments.&quot; (William Petty. &quot;A Treatise on Taxes and 
Contributions.&quot; Lond. 1662, p. 17.) The Theory of Hume was defended against 
the attacks of J. Steuart and others, by A. Young, in his *** Political Arithmetic,&quot; 
Lond. 1774, in which work there is a special chapter entitled &quot; Prices depend on 
quantity of money,&quot; at p. 112, sqq. I have suted in &quot;Critique, &amp;c.,&quot; p. 282: 
*&apos; He (Adam Smith) passes over without remark the question as to the quantity 
of coin in circulation, and treats money quite wrongly as a mere commodity.&quot; 
This statement applies only in so far as Adam Smith, ex officio, treats of money. 
Now and then, however, as in his criticism of the earlier systems of political 
economy, he takes the right view. &quot; The quantity of coin in every country is 
regulated by the value of the commodities which are to be circulated by it . . • 
The value of the goods annually bought and sold in any country requires a certain 
quantity of money to circulate and distribute them to their proper consumers, and 
can give employment to no more. The channel of circulation necessarily draws to 
itself a sum sufficient to fill it, and never admits any more.&quot; C* Wealth of Na- 
tions.&quot; Bk. IV., ch. I.) In like manner, ex officio, he opens his work with an 
apotheosis on the division of labour. Afterwards, in the last book which treats 
of the sources of public revenue, he occasionally repeats the denimciations of the 
division of labour made by his teacher, A. Ferguson. 

^ &quot;The prices of things will certainly rise in every nation, as the gold and silver 
increase amongst the people; and consequently, where the gold and silver de- 
crease in any nation, the prices of all things must fall proportionably to such 
decrease of money.&quot; (Jacob Vanderlint: &quot;Money answers all Things.&quot; Lond. 
1784, p. 6.) A careful comparison of this book with Hume&apos;s &quot;Essays,&quot; proves 
to my mind without doubt that Hume was acquainted with and made use of Van- 
derlint&apos;s work, which is certainly an important one. The opinion that prices are 
determined by the quantity of the circulating medium, was also held by Barbon 
and other much earlier writers. &quot; No inconvenience,&quot; says Vanderlint, &quot; can arise 
by an unrestrained trade, but very great advantage; since, if the cash of the na- 
tion be decreased by it, which prohibitions are designed to prevent, those nations 
that get the cash will certainly find everything advance in price, as the cash in- 
creases amongst them. And . . . our manufactures, and everything else, will 
soon become so moderate as to ttim the balance of trade in our Hvowr, and 
thereby fetch the money back again.&quot; (L c, pp. 43, 44.) 

* That the price of oich single kind of commodity forma part of the sum of tht 



 

140 Capitalist Production. 

e. Coin and symbols of value. 

That money takes the shape of coin, springs from its function 
as the circulating medium. The weight of gold represented in 
imagination by the prices or money-names of commodities, 
must confront those commodities, within the circulation, in 
the shape of coins or pieces of gold of a given denomination. 
Coining, like the establishment of a standard of prices, is the 
business of the State. The different national uniforms worn 
at home by gold and silver as coins, and doffed again in the 
market of the world, indicate the separation between the 
internal or national spheres of the circulation of commodities, 
and their universal sphere. 

The only difference, therefore, between coin and bullion, is 
one of shape, and gold can at any time pass from one form to 

prices of all the commodities in circulation, is a self-evident proposition. But liow 
use-Tslues, which are incommensurable with regard to each other, are to be ex- 
changed, en masse, for the total sum of gold and stiver in a country, is quite 
incomprehensible. If we start from the notion that all commodities together form 
one single commodity, of which each is but an aliquot part, we get the following 
beautiful result: The total commodity ■■ x cwt of gold; commodity Aasan aliquot 
part of the total commodity —the same aliquot part of x cwt. of gold. This is 
stated in all seriousness by Montesquieu: &quot; Si Ton compare la masse de Tor et do 
I&apos;argent qui est dans le monde avec la somme des marchandises qui y sont, il est 
certain que chaque denrde ou marchandise, en particulier, pourra 6tre compart &amp; 
une certaine portion de le masse enti^re. Supposons qu&apos;il n&apos;y ait qu&apos;une seule 
denr^ ou marchandise dans le monde, ou qu&apos;il n&apos;y ait qu*une seule qui s&apos;ach^e, 
ct qu&apos;elle se divise comme I&apos;argent: Cette partie de cette marchandise repondrs 
4 une partie de la masse de I&apos;argent; la moiti6 du total de I&apos;une a la moitie da 
total d^ I&apos;autre, &amp;c. • . . I&apos;^tablissement du prix des choses depend toujours 
fondamentalement de la raison du total des choses au total des signes.&quot; (Montes- 
quieu Let III., pp. 122, 18.) As to the further development of this theory 
by Ricardo and his disciples, James BiiU, Lord Overstone, and others, see 
&quot;Critique of Political Economy,&quot; pp. 286, £F. John Stuart Mill, with his usual 
eclectic logic, understands how to hold at the same time the view of his father, 
James Mill, and the opposite view. On a comparison of the text of his compen- 
dium, &quot;Principles of PoL Econ.,&quot; with his preface to the first edition, in which 
preface he announces himself as the Adam Smith of his day — we do not know 
whether to admire more the simplicity of the man, or that of the public, who took 
him, in good faith, for the Adam Smith he announced himself to be, although 
he bears about as much resemblance to Adam Smith as say General Williams, of 
Kara, to the Duke of Wellington. The original researches of Mr. J. S. Mill, which 
are neither extensive nor profound, in the domain of political economy, will be 
found mustered in rank and file in his little work, &quot; Some Unsettled Questions of 
Political Economy,&quot; which appeared in IBii, Locke asserts point blank the con- 
nexion between the absence of value in gold and silver, and the determination of 
their values by quantity alone, &quot;Mankind having consented to put an imaginary 
value upon gold and silver . . . the intrinsik value, regarded in these metals. 
is nothing but the quantity.&quot; (&quot;Some considerations,&quot; ftc, 1691, Works Ed. 1777* 
VOL II., p. 15.) 



 

Money, or tHe Circulation of Commodities. 141 

iEe other.^ But no sooner does coin leave the mint^ than it 
immediately finds itself on the high-road to the melting pot 
During their currency, coins wear away, some more, others 
less. Name and substance, nominal wei^t and real weighty 
begin their process of separation. Coins of the same denom- 
ination become different in value, because they are different in 
weight The weight of gold fixed upon as the standard of 
prices, deviates from the weight that serves as the circulating 
medium, and the latter thereby ceases any longer to be a real 
equivalent of the commodities whose prices it realises. The 
history of coinage during the middle ages and down into the 
18th century, records the ever renewed confusion arising from 
this cause. The natural tendency of circulation to convert 
coins into a mere semblance of what they profess to be, into a 
symbol of the weight of metal they are officially supposed to 
contain, is recognised by modem legislation, which fixes the 
loss of weight sufficient to demonetise a gold coin, or to make 
it no longer legal tender. 

The fact that the currenc^^ of coins itself effects a separation 
between their nominal and their real weight, creating a dis- 
tinction between them as mere pieces of metal on the one hand, 
and as coins with a definite function on the other — ^this fact 
implies the latent possibility of replacing metallic coins by 
tokens of some other material, by symbols serving the same 
purposes as coins. The practical difficulties in the way of 
coining extremely minute quantities of gold or silver, and the 
circumstance that at first the less precious metal is used as a 
measure of value instead of the more precious, copper instead 

*It lies, of coarse, entirely beyond my purpose to take into consideration such 
details as the seigniorage on minting. I will, however, cite for the benefit of the 
romantic sycophant, Adam Muller, who admires the &quot;generous liberality&quot; with 
which the English Government coins gratuitously, the following opinion of Sir 
Dodley North: &quot;Silver and gold, like other commodities, have their ebbings and 
flowings. Upon the arrival of quantities from Spain ... it is carried into tiie 
Tower, and coined. Not long after there will come a demand for bullion to be 
exported again. If there is none, but all happens to be in coin, what then? Mdt 
it down again; there&apos;s no loss in it, for the coining costs the owner nothing. Thus 
tfie nation has been abused, and made to pay for the twisting of straw for asset 
to cat. If the merchant were made to pay the price of the coinage, he would 
not have sent his silver to the Tower without consideration; and coined money 
would always keep a value above uncoined silver.&quot; (North, 1. c, p. 18.) North 
W9B Umielf one of the foremost merchants in the reign of Chartet XL 



 

142 Capitalist Production. 

of silver, sflver iiiBtead of gold, and that the less precions 
circulates as money until dethroned by the more precious — all 
these facts explain the parts historically played by silver and 
copper tokens as substitutes for gold coins. Silver and copper 
tokens take the place of gold in those regions of the circulation 
where coins pass from hand to hand most rapidly, and are sub- 
ject to the maximum amount of wear and tear. This occurs 
&quot;where sales and purchases on a very small scale are continually 
happening. In order to prevent these satellites from establish- 
ing themselves permanently in the place of gold, positive 
enactments determine the extent to which they must be com- 
pulsorily received as payment instead of gold. The particular 
tracks pursued by the different species of coin in currency, run 
naturally into each other. The tokens keep company with 
gold, to pay fractional parts of the smallest gold coin ; gold is, 
on the one hand, constantly pouring into retail circulation, and 
on the other hand is as constantly being thrown out again by 
being changed into tokens.^ 

The weight of metal in the silver and copper tokens is 
arbitrarily fixed by law. When in currency, they wear away 
even more rapidly than gold coins. Hence their functions 
are totally independent of their weight, and consequently of all 
value. The function of gold as coin becomes completely inde- 
pendent of the metallic value of that gold. Therefore things 
that are relatively vdthout value, such as paper notes, can 
serve as coins in its place. This purely symbolic character is 
to a certain extent masked in metal tokens. In paper money 
it stands out plainly. In fact, ce n&apos;est one le premier pas qui 
coflte. 

We allude here only to inconvertible paper money issued by 

&apos;If sdver never exceed what is wanted for the smaller payments, it cannot be 
collected in sufficient quantities for the larger payments . • . the use oi gold in 
the main payments necessarily implies also its use in the retail trade: those who 
have gold coin o£Fering them for small purchases, and receiving with the com- 
modity purchased a balance of silver in return; by which means the surplus of 
silver that would otherwbe encumber the retail dealer, is drawn off and dis- 
persed into general circulation. But if there is as much silver as will transact 
the small payments independent of gold, the retail trader must then receive silver 
for small purchases; and it must of necessity accumulate in his hands.&quot; (David 
Buchanan. &apos;&apos; Inquiry into the Taxation and Commercial Policy of Great BritBtn.*^ 
Edinburgh, 1844, pp. 848, S49.) 



 

Money, or the Circulation of Commodities. 143 

the State and having compulsory circulation. It has its 
immediate origin in the metallic currency. Money based upon 
credit implies on the other hand conditions, which from our 
standpoint of the simple circulation of commodities, are as yet 
totally unknown to us. But we may affirm this much, that 
just as true paper money takes its rise in the function of money 
as the circulating medium, so money based upon credit takes 
root spontaneously in the function of money as the means of 
payment* 

The State puts in circulation bits of paper on which their 
various denominations, say £1, £5, &amp;c., are printed. In so far 
as they actually take the place of gold to the same amount, 
their movement is subject to the laws that regulate the currency 
of money itself. A law peculiar to the circulation of paper 
money can spring up only from the proportion in which that 
paper money represents gold. Such a law exists; stated 
simply, it is as follows: the issue of paper money must not 
exceed in amount the gold (or silver as the case may be) which 
would actually circulate if not replaced by symbols. Now the 
quantity of gold which the circulation can absorb, constantly 
fluctuates about a given level. Still, the mass of the circulat- 
ing medium in a given country never sinks below a certain 
minimum easily ascertained by actual experience. The fact 
that this minimum mass continually undergoes changes in its 
constituent parts, or that the pieces of gold of which it consists 
are being constantly replaced by fresh ones, causes of course no 
change either in its amount or in the continuity of its circula- 

»The mandarin Wan-mao-in, the Chinese Chancellor of the Exchequer, took it 
into his head one day to lay before the Son of Heaven a proposal that secretly 
aimed at converting the assignats of the empire into convertible bank notes. The 
assignats Committee, in its report of April, 1854, gives him a severe snub- 
bing. Whether he also received the traditional drubbing with bamboos is not 
stated. The concluding part of the report is as follows: — &quot;The Committee has 
carefully examined his proposal and finds that it is entirely in favour of the 
merchants, and that no advantage will result to the crown.&quot; (Arbeiten dor 
Kaiserlich Russischen Gesandtschaft zu Peking Qber China. Aus dem Russischen 
Ton Dr. K. Abel und F. A. Mecklenburg. Erster Band. Berlin, 1858, pp. 47, 69.) 
In his evidence before the Committee of the House of Lords on the Bank Acts, a 
g u y eii » w of the Bank of England says with regard to the abrasion of gold coins dur- 
Inf afrrcBCji &quot;Every year a fresh class of sovereigns becomes too light. The class 
whkb one year passes with full weight, loses enough by wear and tear to draw ths 
icilct mext jcax against it.&quot; (House of Lords&apos; Committee, 1848, n. 429.) 



 

144 Capitalist Production. 

tion. It can therefore be replaced by paper flymbols. If, on 
the other hand, all the conduits of circulation were to-day filled 
with paper money to the full extent of their capacity for 
absorbing money, they might to-morrow be overflowing in 
consequence of a fluctuation in the circulation of commodities. 
There would no longer be any standard. If the paper money 
exceed its proper limit, which is the amount of gold coins of 
the like denomination that can actually be current, it would, 
apart from the danger of falling into general disrepute, re- 
present only that quantity of gold, which, in accordance with 
the laws of the circulation of commodities, is required, and is 
alone capable of being represented by paper. If the quantity 
of paper money issued be double what it ought to be, then, as 
a matter of fact^ £1 would be the money-name not of J of an 
ounce, but of -J of an ounce of gold. The effect would be the 
same as if an alteration had taken place in the function of gold 
as a standard of prices. Tliose values that were previously 
expressed by the price of £1 would now be expressed by the 
price of £2. 

Paper-money is a token representing gold or money. The 
relation between it and the values of commodities is this, that 
the latter are ideally expressed in the same quantities of gold 
that are symbolically represented by the paper. Only in 00 
far as paper-money represents gold, which like all other com- 
modities has value, is it a symbol of value.* 

Finally, some one may ask why gold is capable of being 
replaced by tokens that have no value? But, as we have 
already seen, it is capable of being so replaced only in so far 
as it functions exclusively as coin, or as the circulating 

^The following pauage from FulUrton shows the want of clearness on the part 
of even the best writers on money, in their comprehension of its various funo* 
tions: &quot; That, as far as concerns our domestic exchanges, all the monetary fun^ 
tions which are usually performed by gold and silver coins, may be performed as 
effectually by a circulation of inconvertible notes, having no value but that 
factitious and conventional value they derive from the law, is a fact which admits, 
I conceive, of no denial. Value of this description may be made to answer all the 
purposes of intrinsic value, and supersede even the necessity for a standard, prcH 
vided only the quantity of issues be kept under due limitation.&quot; (Fullarton: 
&quot;Regulation of Currencies,&quot; London, p. 210.) Because the commodity that 
serves as money is capable of being replaced in circulation by mere symbols of 
value, therefore its functions as a measure of value and a standard of prioea 9x9 
declared to be superfluous. 



 

Money, or the Circulation of Commodities. 145 

medium, and as nothing else, ^ow, money has other functions 
besides this one, and the isolated function of serving as the 
mere circulating medium is not necessarily the only one 
attached to gold coin, although this is the case with those 
abraded coins that continue to circulate. Each piece of money 
is a mere coin, or means of circulation, only so long as it ac- 
tually circulates. But this is just the case with that minimum 
mass of gold, which is capable of being replaced by paper- 
money. That mass remains constantly within the sphere of 
circulation, continually functions as a circulating medium, and 
exists exclusively for that purpose. Its movement therefore 
represents nothing but the continued alternation of the inverse 
phases of the metamorphosis C — ^M— O, phases in which com- 
modities confront their value-forms, only to disappear again 
immediately. The independent existence of the exchange 
value of a commodity is here a transient apparition, by means 
of which the commodity is immediately replaced by another 
oonmiodily. Hence, in this process which continually makes 
money pass from hand to hand, the mere symbolical existence 
of money suffices. Its functional existence absorbs, so to say, 
its material existence. Being a transient and objective reflex 
of the prices of commodities, it serves only as a symbol of itself, 
and is therefore capable of being replaced by a token.* One 
thing is, however, requisite ; this token must have an objective 
social validity of its own, and this the paper symbol acquires 
by its forced currency. This compulsory action of the 
State can take effect only within that inner sphere of circula- 
tion which is co-terminous with the territories of the com- 
munity, but it is also only within that sphere that money 
completely responds to its function of being the circulating 
medium, or becomes coin. 

^From the fact that gold and dhrer, so te as they tie coins, or exclusively 
serve as the medium of circulation, become mere tokens of themselves, Nicholas 
Barbon deduces the right of Governments &quot; to raise money/&apos; that is, to give to the 
weight of silver that is called a shilling the name of a greater weight, such as a 
crown; and so to pay creditors shillings, instead of crowns. &quot;Money does wear 
and grow lighter by often telling over ... It is the denomination and cur- 
rency of the money that men regard in bargaining, and not the quantity of silver 
. . . Tis the public authority upon the metal that makes it monqr.&quot; (N* 
B«rboii» L &amp;» pp. &amp;9, 80, 86.) 

J 



 

146 Capitalist Production. 

SECTION 3. MONEY. 

The oommodity that functions as a measure of value, and, 
either in its own person or by a representative, as the medium 
of circulation, is money. Gold (or silver) is therefore money. 
It functions as money, on the one hand, when it has to be 
present in its own golden person. It is then the money-com- 
modity, neither merely ideal, as in its function of a measure 
of value, nor capable of being represented, as in its function of 
circulating medium. On the other hand, it also functions as 
money, when by virtue of its function, whether that function 
be performed in person or by representative, it congeals into the 
sole form of value, the only adequate form of existence of 
exchange-value, in opposition to use-value, represented by all 
other coDMnodities, 

01. Hoarding. 

The continual movement in circuits of the two antithetical 
metamorphoses of commodities, or the never ceasing alternation 
of sale and purchase, is reflected in the restless currency of 
money, or in the function that money performs of a perpetuum 
mobile of circulation. But so soon as the series of metamor- 
phoses is interrupted, so soon as sales are not supplemented by 
subsequent purchases, money ceases to be mobilised ; it is trans- 
formed, as Boisguillebert says, from &quot;meuble&quot; into &quot;im- 
meuble,&quot; from movable into immovable, from coin into 
money. 

With the very earliest development of the circulation of 
commodities, there is also developed the necessity, and the 
passionate desire, to hold fast the product of the first metamor- 
phosis. This product is the transformed shape of the com- 
modity, or its gold-chrysalis.^ Commodities are thus sold not 
for the purpose of buying others, but in order to replace their 
commodity-form by their money-form. From being the mere 
means of effecting the circulation of commodities, this change 
of form becomes the end and aim. The changed form of the 
commodity is thus prevented from functioning as its uncondi- 

&gt;&quot;Une richesse en argent n&apos;est que . • . richesse en productions, convertkf 
en argent.&quot; (Mercier de la Riviere, L c.) &quot;Une valeur en productions n&apos;9 
fait que changer de forme.&quot; (Id., p. 486.) 



 

Money, or the Circulation of Commodities. 147 

tdonally alienable form, or as its merely transient money-form. 
The money becomes petrified into a hoard, and the seller 
becomes a hoarder of money. 

In the early stages of the circulation of commodities, it is 
the surplus use-values alone that are converted into money. 
Gold and silver thus become of themselves social expressions 
for superfluity of wealth. This naive form of hoarding be- 
comes perpetuated in those communities in which the tra- 
ditional mode of production is carried on for the supply of a 
fixed and limited circle of home wants. It is thus with the 
people of Asia, and particularly of the East Indies. Vander- 
lint, who fancies that the prices of commodities in a country 
are determined by the quantity of gold and silver to be found 
in it, asks himself why Indian commodities are so cheap. An- 
swer : Because the Hindoos bury their money. From 1602 to 
1734, he remarks, they buried 150 millions of pounds sterling 
of silver, which originally came from America to Europe.* 
In the 10 years from 1856 to 1866, England exported to India 
and China £120,000,000 in silver, which had been received in 
exchange for Australian gold. Most of the silver exported to 
China makes its way to India, 

As the production of commodities further develops, every 
producer of commodities is compelled to make sure of the 
nexus rerum or the social pledge.^ His wants are constantly 
making themselves felt, and necessitate the continual purchase 
of other people&apos;s commodities, while the production and sale of 
his own goods require time, and depend upon circumstances. 
In order then to be able to buy without selling, he must have 
sold previously without buying. This operation, conducted 
on a general scale, appears to imply a contradiction. But the 
precious metals at the sources of their production are directly 
exchanged for other commodities. And here we have sales 
(by the owners of commodities) without purchases (by the 
owners of gold or silver.)* And subsequent sales, by other 

^ &quot; &apos;Tis by this practice they keep all their goods and manufactures at 8»ch lv9f 
rates.&quot; (Vanderlint, 1. c, p. 96.) 

&apos;Money ... is a pledge.&quot; (John Sellers: &quot;Essays about the Poor, Manu^a^^ 
tnrers. Trade, Plantations, and Immorality/&apos; Lond., 1699, p. 18.) 

*A purchase, in a &quot;categorical&quot; sense, implies that gold and silTer are already 
tbe oonverted form of commodities, or the product of a sale. 



 

148 Capitalist Production. 

/roduoers, nnfollowed by purchases, merely bring about Hie 
distribution of the newly produced precious metals among all 
the owners of commodities. In this way, all along the line of 
exchange, hoards of gold and silver of varied extent are ac- 
cumulated. With the possibility of holding and storing up 
exchange value in the shape of a particular commodity, arises 
also the greed for gold. Along with the extension of circula- 
tion, increases the power of money, that absolutely social form 
of wealth ever ready for use. &quot;Gold is a wonderful thing I 
.Whoever possesses it is lord of all he wants. By means of 
gold one can even get souls into Paradise.&apos;&apos; (Columbus in his 
letter from Jamaica, 1503.) Since gold does not disclose what 
has been transformed into it, everything, commodity or not&gt; 
is convertible into gold. Everything becomes saleable and 
buyable* The circulation becomes the great social retort into 
which everything is thrown, to come out again as a gold- 
crystal. Not even are the bones of saints, and still less are 
more delicate res sacrosanctse extra commercium hominum 
able to withstand this alchemy.* Just as every qualitative 
difference between conmiodities is extinguished in money, so 
money, on its side, like the radical leveller that it is, doee 
away with all distinctions.* But money itself is a commodity, 

1 Henry in., most Christiaii king of France, robbed cloisters of their relics, and 
tamed them into money. It is well known what part the despoiling of the 
Delphic Temple, by the Phodans, played in the history of Greece. Temples with 
the ancients served as the dwellings of the gods of commodities. They wers 
&quot;sacred banks.&quot; With the Phcenicians, a trading people par excellence, money was 
the transmuted shape of everything. It was, therefore, quite in order that the 
virgins, who, at the feast of the Goddess of Love, gave themselves iip to ttnuig€rf» 
offer to the goddess the piece of money they received. 
•&quot;Gold, yellow, glittering, precious gold! 

Thus much of this, will make black white; foul, fair; 
Wrong right; base, noble; old, yotmg; coward, valiant* 

• • • What this, yon gods? Why, this 
Will lug your priests and servants from your sides; 
Pluck stout men&apos;s pillows from below their heads; 
This yellow slave 

Will Imit and break religions; bless the accurs&apos;d; 
Hake the hoar leprosy ador&apos;d; place thieves. 
And give them title, knee and approbation. 
With senators on the bench; this is it. 
That makes the wappen&apos;d widow wed again: 

• « . • • Come damned earth, 
jXbcw eommon whore of mankind.&quot; 

(Shakespeare: Timon of Athens.&gt; 



 

Money, or the Circulation of Commodities. 149 

an external object^ capable of becoming the private property 
of any individuaL Thus social power becomes the private 
power of private persons. The ancients therefore denounced 
money as subversive of the economical and moral order of 
things.* Modem society, which soon after its birth, pulled 
Plutus by the hair of his head from the bowels of the earth,* 
greets gold as its Holy Grail, as the glittering incarnation of 
the very principle of its own life. 

A commodity, in its capacity of a use-value, satisfies a 
particular want, and is a particular element of material wealth* 
But the value of a commodity measures the degree of its 
attraction for all other elements of material wealth, and there- 
fore measures the social wealth of its owner. To a barbarian 
ovimer of commodities, and even to a West-European peasant, 
value is the same as value-form, and therefore, to him the 
increase in his hoard of gold and silver is an increase in value. 
It is true that the value of money varies, at one time in con- 
sequence of a variation in its own value, at another, in 
consequence of a change in the value of commodities. But 
this, on the one hand, does not prevent 200 ounces of gold from 
still containing more value than 100 ounces, nor, on the other 
hand, does it hinder the actual metallic form of this article 
from continuing to be the universal equivalent form of all other 
commodities, and the immediate social incarnation of all 
human labour. The desire after hoarding is in its very nature 
unsatiable. In its qualitative aspect, or formally considered, 
money has no bounds to its efficacy, i.e., it is the universal re- 
presentative of material wealth, because it is directly convert- 
ible into any other commodity. But, at the same time, every 
actual sum of money is limited in amount, and therefore, as a 

* •• OM^r 7Ap itp$pibvoia&apos;i9 ohw Apyvpot 
Kcucbp p6fuSfia tplkuffre toOto koI wSKmA 
Uofidti, rdd&quot;* dydpas ^plffTfj^lw d6fAUP, 
T6d&apos; ixSidda-icei mU TapdKSdffatt ^p4vat 
HfniOTits irp6f airxfi^ dpSpf&amp;rois ^x^^ 
Kal xavT^ fpyov dvffffdpetav elSivat. 

(Sophocles, Antigone.) 
s ** ^TSKwllifdaiit rijit rXiOFc{(as drdtciy in rQv iwxC^9 rij^ 79* ^^^^ rbw JSMrmva.&quot; 
iAthen. Deipnoe.) 



 

150 Capitalist Production. 

means of purchasing, has only a limited efficacy. This anta^ 
onism between the quantitive limits of money and its qualita- 
tive boundlessness, continually acts as a spur to the hoarder in 
his Sisyphus-like labour of accumulating. It is with him as it 
is with a conqueror who sees in every new country annexed, 
only a new boundary. 

In order that gold may be held as money, and made to form 
a hoard, it must be prevented from circulating, or from trans- 
forming itself into a means of enjoyment. The hoarder, 
therefore, makes a sacrifice of the lusts of the flesh to his gold 
fetish. He acts in earnest up to the Gk)spel of abstention. On 
the other hand, he can withdraw from circulation no more than 
what he has thrown into it in the shape of commodities. The 
more he produces, the more he is able to selL Hard work, 
saving, and avarice, are, therefore, his three cardinal virtues, 
and to sell much and buy little the sum of his political 
economy.* 

By the side of the gross form of a hoard, we find also its 
sesthetic form in the possession of gold and silver articles. 
This grows with the wealth of civil society. &quot; Soyons riches ou 
paraissons riches&quot; (Diderot). In this way there is created, 
on the one hand, a constantly extending market for gold and 
silver, unconnected with their functions as money, and, on the 
other hand, a latent source of supply, to which recourse is had 
principally in times of crisis and social disturbance. 

Hoarding serves various purposes in the economy of the 
metallic circulation. Its first function arises out of the con- 
ditions to which the currency of gold and silver coins is sub- 
ject We have seen how, along with the continual fluctuations 
in the extent and rapidity of the circulation of commodities 
and in their prices, the quantity of money current unceasingly 
ebbs and flows. This mass must, therefore, be capable of ex- 
pansion and contraction. At one time money must be attracted 
in order to act as circulating coin, at another, circulating coin 
must be repelled in order to act again as more or less stagnant 

^&quot;AccrcBcere quanto piJi si pa6 il numero de&apos; yenditor! d&apos;ogni meroe, dlminnere 
quanto pi{t si pu6 il numero dei corapratori, questi sono i cardial sul qctali tl 
raggirano tutte le operazioni di economia politica.&quot; (Verri, 1. c p. 58.) 



 

Money, or the Circulation of Commodities. 151 

money. In order that the mass of money, actually current, 
may constantly saturate the absorbing power of the circulation, 
it is necessary that ifae quantity of gold and silver in a country 
be greater than the quantity required to function as coia 
This condition is fulfilled by money taking the form of hoards. 
These reserves serve as conduits for the supply or withdrawal 
of money to or from the circulation, which in this way never 
overflows its banks.* 

6. Means of PoAfmeni. 

In the simple form of the circulation of commodities hither- 
to considered, we found a given value always presented to us in 
a double shape, as a commodity at one pole, as money at the 
opposite pole. The owners of commodities came therefore into 
contact as the respective representatives of what were already 
equivalents. But with the development of circulation, condi- 
tions arise under which the alienation of commodities becomes 
separated, by an interval of time, from the realisation of their 
prices. It will be suflScient to indicate the most simple of 
these conditions. One sort of article requires a longer, an- 
other a shorter time for its production. Again, the production 
of different commodities depends on different seasons of the 
year. One sort of commodity may be bom on its own market 
place, another has to make a long journey to market. Commod- 
ity-owner No. 1, may therefore be ready to sell, before No. 2 is 
ready to buy. When the same transactions are continually 
repeated between the same persons, the conditions of sale are 

* &quot;There is required for carrying on the trade of the nation a determinate sum of 
specifick money, which varies, and is sometimes more, sometimes less, as the cir- 
camstanccs we are in require. . • . This ehhing and flowing of money supplies 
and accommodates itself, without any aid of Politicians. • . . The buckets 
work alternately; when money is scarce, bullion is coined; when bullion is scarce, 
money is melted.*&apos; (Sir D. North, L c. Postscript, p. 8.) John Stuart Mill, who 
for a long time was an official of the East India Company, confirms the fact that 
in India silver ornaments still continue to perform directly the functions of a 
board. The silver ornaments are brought out and coined when there is a high 
rate of interest, and go back again when the rate of interest falls. (J. S. Mill&apos;s 
Evidence. ** Reports on Bank Acts,&quot; 1867, 2084.) According to a Parliamentary 
doctmient of 1864, on the gold and silver import and export of India, the im- 
port of gold and silver in 1868 exceeded the export by £19,867,764. During the 
8 years immediately preceding 1864, the excess of imports over exports of the 
preciotis metals amounted to £109,652,917. During this century far more than 
£200,000,000 haa been coined in India. 



 

152 Capitalist Production. 

regulated in accordance with the conditions of produc1a&lt;m« 
On the other hand, the use of a given commodity, of a house, 
for instance, is sold (in common parlance, let) for a definite 
period. Here, it is only at the end of the term that the buyer 
has actually received the use-value of the commodity. He 
therefore buys it before he pays for it. The vendor sells an 
existing commodity, the purchaser buys as the mere represen- 
tative of money, or rather of future money. The vendor be- 
comes a creditor, the purchaser becomes a debtor. Since the 
metamorphosis of commodities, or the development of their 
value-form, appears here under a new aspect, money also ac- 
quires a fresh function ; it becomes the means of payment 

The character of creditor, or of debtor, results here from the 
simple circulation. The change in the form of that circula- 
tion stamps buyer and seller with this new die. At first, there- 
fore, these new parts are just as transient and alternating as 
those of seller and buyer, and are in turns played by the same 
actors. But the opposition is not nearly so pleasant, and is far 
more capable of crystallization.^ The same characters can, 
however, be assumed independently of the circulation of com- 
modities. The class-struggles of the ancient world took the 
form chiefly of a contest between debtors and creditors, which 
in Rome ended in the ruin of the plebeian debtors. They 
were displaced by slaves. In the middle-ages the contest 
ended with the ruin of the feudal debtors, who lost their po- 
litical power together with the economical basis on which it 
was established. Nevertheless, the money relation of debtor 
and creditor that existed at these two periods reflected only the 
deeper-lying antagonism between the general economical con- 
ditions of existence of the classes in question. 

Let us return to the circulation of commodities. The ap- 
pearance of the two equivalents, commodities and money, at 
the two poles of the process of sale, has ceased to be simulta- 
neous. The money functions now, first as a measure of value 

^The following shows the debtor and creditor relations existing between English 
traders at the beginning of the 18th century. &quot; Such a spirit of cruelty reigns 
here in England among the men of trade, that is not to be met with in any other 
society of men, nor in any other kingdom of the world.&quot; (&quot;An Essay on Credit 
and the Bankrupt Act.&quot; Lond., 1707, p. 2.) 



 

Money, or the Circulation of Commodities. 153 

in the determination of the price of the commodity sold ; the 
price fised by the contract measures the obligation of the 
debtor, or the sum of money that he has to pay at a fixed 
date. Secondly, it serves as an ideal means of purchase. Al- 
though existing only in the promise of the buyer to pay, it 
causes the commodity to change hands. It is not before the 
day fixed for payment that the means of payment actually 
steps into circulation, leaves the hand of the buyer for that of 
the seller. The circulating medium was transformed into a 
hoard, because the process stopped short after the first phase, 
because the converted shape of the commodity, viz., the money, 
was withdrawn from circulation. The means of payment 
enters the circulation, but only after the commodity has left 
it. The money is no longer the means that brings about the 
process. It only brings it to a close, by stepping in as the 
absolute form of existence of exchange value, or as the uni- 
versal commodity. The seller turned his commodity into 
money, in order thereby to satisfy some want; the hoarder did 
the same in order to keep his commodity in its money-shape, 
and the debtor in order to be able to pay; if he do not pay, 
his goods will be sold by the sheriff. The value-form of com- 
modities, money, is therefore now the end and aim of a sale, 
and that owing to a social necessity springing out of the 
process of circulation itself. 

The buyer converts money back into commodities before he 
has turned commodities into money: in other words, he 
achieves the second metamorphosis of commodities before the 
first The seller&apos;s commodity circulates, and realises its price, 
but only in the shape of a legal claim upon money. It is con- 
verted into a use-value before it has been converted into 
money. The completion of its first metamorphosis follows 
only at a later period.* 

^ It wHl be seen from the following quotation from my book which appeared in 
1869, why I take no notice in the text of an opposite form: &quot;Contrariwise, in the 
process M — C, the money can be alienated as a real means of purchase, and in 
that way, the price of the commodity can be realised before the use-value of the 
money is realised and the commodity actually delivered. This occurs constantly 
onder the every-day form of pre-payments. And it is under this form, that the 
English government purchases opium from the ryots of India. • • • In these cases^ 
however, the money always acts as a means of purchase. ... Of course capital 



 

154 Capitalist Production. 

The obligations falling due within a given period, repre- 
sent the sum of the prices of the commodities, the sale ol which 
gave rise to those obligations. The quantity of gold ne-essary 
to realise this sum, depends, in the first instance, on the rapid- 
ity of currency of the means of payment. That quantity is 
conditioned by two circumstances : first the relations between 
debtors and creditors form a sort of chain, in such a way that 
A, when he receives money from his debtor B, straightway 
hands it over to C his creditor, and so on; the second cir- 
cumstance is the length of the intervals between the different 
due-days of the obligations. The continuous chain of pay- 
ments, or retarded first metamorphoses, is essentially different 
from that interlacing of the series of metamorphoses which 
we considered on a former page. By the currency of the 
circulating medium, the connexion between buyers and sellers, 
is not merely expressed. This connexion is originated by, 
and exists in, the circulation alone. Contrariwise, the move- 
ment of the means of payment expresses a social relation that 
was in existence long before. 

The fact that a number of sales take place simultaneously, 
and side by side, limits the extent to which coin can be re- 
placed by the rapidity of currency. On the other hand, this 
fact is a new lever in economising the means of payment. In 
proportion as payments are concentrated at one spot, special 
institutions and methods are developed for their liquidation. 
Such in the middle ages were the virements at Lyons. The 
debts due to A from B^ to B from C, to C from A, and so on, 
have only to be confronted with each other, in order to annul 
each other to a certain extent like positive and negative quan- 
tities. There thus remains only a single balance to pay. The 
greater the amount of the payments concentrated, the less is 
this balance relatively to that amount, and the less is the mass 
of the means of payment in circulation. 

The function of money as the means of payment implies a 
contradiction without a terminus medius. In so far as the 

also is advanced in the shape of money. . . . This point of view, however, 
does not fall within the horizon of simple circulation. (&quot;Critique,** &amp;c» pp. 
188. 



 

Money, or the Circulation of Commodities. 155 

payments balance one another^ money functions only ideally 
as money of account^ as a measure of value. In so far as ac- 
tual payments have to be made, money does not serve as a 
circulating medium, as a mere transient agent in the inter- 
change of products, but as the individual incarnation of social 
labour, as the independent form of existence of exchange value, 
as the universal commodity. This contradiction comes to a 
head in those phases of industrial and commercial crises which 
are known as monetary crises.* Such a crisis occurs only 
where the ever-lengthening chain of payments, and an artificial 
system of settling them, has been fully developed. Whenever 
there is a general and extensive disturbance of this mechanism, 
no matter what its cause, money becomes suddenly and imme- 
diately transformed, from its merely ideal shape of money of 
account, into hard cash. Profane commodities can no longer 
replace it» The use-value of commodities becomes value- 
less, and their value vanishes in the presence of its own 
independent form. On the eve of the crisis, the bourgeois, 
with the self-sufficiency that springs from intoxicat- 
ing prosperity, declares money to be a vain imagination. 
Commodities alone are money. But now the cry is every- 
where : money alone is a commodity ! As the hart pants after 
fresh water, so pants his soul after money, the only wealth.^ 
In a crisis, the antithesis between commodities and their value- 
form, money, becomes heightened into an absolute contradic- 
tion. Hence, in such events, the form under which money 
appears is of no importance. The money famine continues, 

^The monetary crisis referred to in the text, being a phase of every crisis, must 
be clearly distinguished from that particular form of crisis, which also is called a 
monetary crisis, but which may be produced by itself as an independent phenomenon 
in such a way as to react only indirectly on industry and commerce. The pivot of 
these crises is to be found in moneyed capital, and their sphere of direct action is 
therefore the sphere of that capital, viz., banking, the stock exchange, and finance. 

*&quot;The sudden reversion from a system of credit to a system of hard cash heaps 
theoretical fright on top of the practical panic; and the dealers by whose agency 
circulation is affected, shudder before the impenetrable mystery in which their own 
economical relations are involved&quot; (Karl Marx, L c p. 198). &quot;The poor stand still, 
because the rich have no money to employ them, though they have the same land 
and hands to provide victuals and clothes, as ever they had; . . . which is the 
true Riches of a Nation, and not the money.&quot; (John Bellers: &apos;Troposals for raising 
a (&gt;&gt;tlege of Industry.&quot; Lond. 1695. p. 8.) 



 

IS6 Capitalist Production. 

whether payments have to be made in gold or in credit money 
such as bank notes. ^ 

If we now consider the sum total of the money current dur- 
ing a given period, we shall find that, given the rapidity of 
currency of the circulating medium and of the means of pay- 
ment, it is equal to the sum of the prices to be realised, plus 
the sum of the payments falling due, minus the payments that 
balance each other, minus finally the nimiber of circuits in 
which the same piece of coin serves in turn as means of 
circulation anj of payment Hence, even when prices, rapid- 
ity of currency, and the extent of the economy in payments^ 
are given, the quantity of money current and the mass of com- 
modities circulating during a given period, such as a day, no 
longer correspond. Money that represents commodities long 
withdrawn from circulation, continues to be current Com- 
modities circulate, whose equivalent in money will not appear 
on the scene till some future day. Moreover, the debts con- 
tracted each day, and the payments falling due on the same 
day, are quite incommensurable quantities.^ 

Credit-money springs directly out of the function of money 
as a means of payment. Certificates of the debts owing for 
the purchased commodities circulate for the purpose of trans- 

*The following sliows how such times ire exploited by the &quot;amis du commerce.** 
&apos;&apos;On one occasion (1889) an old grasping banker (in the city) in his private room 
raised the lid of the desk he sat over, and displayed to a friend rolls of banknotes, 
saying with intense glee there were £600,000 of them, they were held to make 
money tight, and would all be let out after three o&apos;clock on the same day.&quot; (&quot;The 
Theory of Exchanges. The Bank Charter Act of 1844.&quot; Lond. 1864. p. 81.) The 
Observer, a semi-official government organ, contained the following paragraph on 
24th April, 1864: &quot;Some very curious rumours are current of the means which 
have been resorted to in order to create a scarcity of Banknotes. .... Ques- 
tionable as it would seem, to suppose that any trick of the kind would be adopted, 
the report has been so universal that it really deserves mention.&quot; 

■ &quot;The amount of purchases or contracts entered upon during the course of any 
given day, will not affect the quantity of money afloat on that particular day, but, 
in the vast majority of cases, will resolve themselves into multifarious drafts upon 
the quantity of money which may be afloat at subsequent dates more or less distant. 
.... The bills granted or credits opened, to-day, need have no resemblance 
whatever, either in quantity, amount, or duration, to those granted or entered upon 
to-morrow or next day; nay, many of to-day&apos;s bills, and credits, when due, fall in 
with a mass of liabilities whose origins traverse a range of antecedent dates alto* 
gether indefinite, bills at 12, 6, 8 months or 1 often aggregating together to swell 
the common liabilities of one particular day. ...&quot; (&quot;The Currency Theory 
Reviewed: a letter to the Scottish people.&quot; By a Banker in England. Edinburglv 
1846, ppb 29, 89 passim.) 



 

Money, or the Circulation of Commodities. 15^ 

{erring those debts to others. On the other hand^ to the same 
extent as the system of credit is extended, so is the function 
of money as a means of payment. In that character it takes 
various forms peculiar to itself under which it makes itself at 
home in the sphere of great commercial transactions. (Sold 
and silver coin, on the other hand^ are mostly relegated to the 
sj^ere of retail trade.* 

When the production of conmiodities has sufficiently ex- 
tended itself, money begins to serve as the means of payment 
beyond the sphere of the circulation of commodities. It be- 
comes the conmiodity that is the universal subject-matter of 
all contracts.^ Bents, taxes, and such like payments are 
transformed from payments in kind into money payments. 
To what extent this transformation depends upon the general 
conditions of production, is shown, to take one example, by 
the fact that the Boman Empire twice failed in its attempt to 
levy all contributions in money. The unspeakable misery of 
the French agricultural population under Louis XIV., a mis- 
cry so eloquently denounced by Boisguillebert, Marshal, Van- 
ban, and others, was due not only to the weight of the taxes, 
but also to the conversion of taxes in kind into money taxes.&apos; 

^At an example of how little ready money la required in true commercial operai- 
tions, I give below a statement by one of the largest London bouses of its yearly 
receipta and payments. Its transactions during the year 1866, extending to many 
mllions of pounds sterling, are here reduced to the scale of one million. 



Rbcbxtts. 




Patmbnts. 




Banker^ and Merchants&apos; 




Bills payable after date. 


£808,674 


BOls payable after date. 


£688,596 


Cheques on London Bankers, 


668,678 






Bank of England Notes, • 


88,748 


payable on demand. 


867,716 


Gold 


9,487 


Country Notes, . - - 


9,627 


Silver and Copper, • 


1,484 


Bank of England Notes^ 


68,664 






Gold - - • 


88,089 






Silver and Copper, 


1,486 






Poat OflScc Orders, • 


988 


Total, 




Total, - £1,000.000 


£1,000,000 



•Tleport from the Select Committee on the Bank Acts, July. 1868.&quot; p. Ixxi. 

* &quot;The course of trade being thus turned, from exchanging of goods for goods, or 
delivering and taking, to selling and paying, all the bargains • . • are now 
aUted upon the foot of m price in money.&quot; &quot;An Essay upon Publick Credit&quot; 
Srd Ed. Lond., 1710, p. 8.) 

*&quot;L&apos;argent. • . est devenn le bonrrean de toutes choses.&quot; Finance Is the 
&apos;^Iambic, qui a fait ivaporer une quantity effroyable de biena et de denr^es poor 



 

158 Capitalist Production. 

In Asia, on the other hand, the fact that state taxes are chiefly 
composed of rents payable in kind, depends on conditions of 
production that are reproduced with the regularity of natural 
phenomena. And this mode of payment tends in its turn to 
maintain the ancient form of production. It is one of the 
secrets of the conservation of the Ottoman Empire. If the 
foreign trade, forced upon Japan by Europeans, should lead 
to the substitution of money rents for rents in kind, it will bo 
all up with the exemplary agriculture of that country. The 
narrow economical conditions under which that agriculture is 
carried on, will be swept away. 

In every country, certain days of the year become by habit 
recognised settling days for various large and recurrent pay- 
ments. These dates depend, apart from other revolutions in 
the wheel of reproduction, on conditions closely connected with 
the seasons. They also regulate the dates for payments that 
have no direct connexion with the circulation of commodities 
such as taxes, rents, and so on. The quantity of money re- 
quisite to make the payments, falling due on those dates all 
over the country, causes periodical, though merely superficial, 
perturbations in the economy of the medium of payment^ 

From the law of the rapidity of currency of the means of 
payment, it follows that the quantity of the means of pay- 
ment required for all periodical payments, whatever their 
source, is in inverse proportion to the length of their periods.* 

faire ce fatal pr^is.&quot; &quot;L&apos;argent d^lare la guerre &amp; tout le genre humain.&quot; (Bob 
guUIebert: &apos;&apos;Dissertation sur la nature des richeases, de I&apos;argent et des tributs.&apos;&apos; 
Edit. Daire. Economistes financiers. Paris, 1843, t. i., pp. 413, 419, 417.) 

^&quot;On Whitsuntide, 1824,** says Mr. Craig before the Commons&apos; Committee of 
1826, &quot;there was such an immense demand for notes upon the banks of Edinburgh, 
that by 11 o&apos;clock they had not a note left in their custody. They sent round to all 
the different banks to borrow, but could not get them, and many of the transac 
tions were adjusted by slips of paper only; yet by three o&apos;clock the whole of the 
notes were returned into the banks from which they had issued 1 It was a mere 
transfer from hand to hand.&quot; Although the average effective circulation of bank- 
notes in Scotland is less than three millions sterling, yet on certain pay days in the 
year, every single note in the possession of the bankers, amounting in the whole to 
about £7,000,000, is called into activity. On these occasions the notes have a 
single and specific function to perform, and so soon as they have performed it, they 
flow back into the various banks from which they issued. (See John Fullarton, 
&quot;Regulation of Currencies.&quot; Lond: 1844, p. 85 note.) In explanation it should be 
stated, that in Scotland, at the date of Fullarton&apos;s work, notes and not cheques were 
used to withdraw deposits. 

*To the question. &quot;If there were occasion to raise 4P millMms p.a., whether th» 



 

Money, or the Circulation of Commodities. 159 

The development of money into a medium of payment 
makes it necessary to accumulate money against the dates 
fixed for the payment of the sums owing. While hoarding, 
as a distinct mode of acquiring riches, vanishes with the prog- 
ress of civil society, the formation of reserves of the means of 
payment grows with that progress. 

c. Universal Money. 

When money leaves the home sphere of circulation, it strips 
off the local garbs which it there assumes, of a standard of 
prices, of coin, of tokens, and of a symbol of value, and re- 
turns to its original form of bullion. In the trade between the 
markets of the world^ the value of commodities is expressed so 
as to be universally recognised. Hence their independent 
value-form also, in these cases, confronts them under the shape 
of universal money. It is only in the markets of the world 
that money acquires to the full extent the character of the 
oomimodity whose bodily form is also the inmiediate social in- 
carnation of human labour in the abstract Its real mode of 
exist^ce in this sphere adequately corresponds to its ideal 
concept 

Within the sphere of home circulation, there can be but one 
commodity which, by serving as a measure of value, becomes 
money. In the markets of the world a double measure of 
value holds sway, gold and silver.^ 



6 minions (gold) . . • would suffice for such revolutions and circulations 
thereof, as trade requires,&quot; Petty replies in his usual masterly manner, &quot;I answer 
yes: for the expense being 40 millions, if the revolutions were in such short circles, 
Tiz.* weekly, as happens among poor artizans and labourers, who receive and pay 
every Saturday, then J J parts of 1 million of money would answer these ends; but 
if the circles be quarterly, according to our custom of paying rent, and gathering 
taxes* then 10 millions were requisite. Wherefore, supposing payments in general 
to be of a mixed circle between one week and 18, then add 10 millions to |ft» 
the half of which will be 6 H, so as if we have 6^ millions we have enough. 
(William Petty: &quot;Political Anatomy of Ireland.&quot; 1672. Edit: Lond. 1691, pp. 
18, 14.) 

^ Hence the absurdity of every law prescribing that the banks of a country shall 
form reserves of that precious metal alone which circulates at home. The &quot;pleasant 
difficulties&quot; thus self-created by the Bank of England, are well known. On the 
subject of the great epochs in the history of the changes in the relative value of gold 
and silver, see Karl Marx, 1. e. p. 216 sq. Sir Robert Peel, by his Bank Act of 
1844, sought to tide over the difficulty, by allowing the Bank of England to issue 
notes against silver bullion, on condition that the reserve of silver should never ex- 
ceed more than one-fourth of the reserve of gold. The value of silver being for 



 

i6o Capitalist Production. 

Money of the world serves as the universal medium of pay- 
ment, as the universal means of purchasing, and as the uni- 
versally recognised embodiment of all wealth. Its function 
as a means of payment in the settling of international balances 
is its chief one. Hence the watchword of the mercantilists, 
balance of trade.^ Grold and silver serve as international 

that purpose estimated at its price in the London market — Note to the 4th German 
edition. — We find ourselves once more in a period of a marked change in the relatiye 
values of gold and silver. About 26 years ago the ratio of gold to silver was 16.5 to 
If now it is about 22 to 1» and silver is continually falling against gold. This is 
essentially a result of a revolution in the process* : of pr duction of these two metals. 
Formerly gold was obtained almost exclusively by washing alluvial strata containing 
gold, the products of cisintegration of gold-carrying rocks. But now this method 
is no longer sufficient and has been crowded to the rear by the mining of quartz 
layers containing gold, a . tod formerly consi d as secondary, although well 
known even to the ancients (Diodorus, III, li-14). On the other hand, immense 
new silver deposits were discovered in th; American Rocky Mountains, and these 
as well as the Mexican sliver mines opened u.^ 1/ means of railroads, which per&gt; 
mitted the influx of modem machinery and fuel and thereby reduced the cost and 
increased the output of silver mining. But there is a great difference in the way 
in which both metals occur in the ce beds. The gold is generally solid, but scat- 
tered in minute particles through 1 .c quartz layers. The whole diggings must 
therefore be crushed and the gold washed out or extracted by means of quicksilver. 
Frequently one millic j grams of quartz do not contain more than 1 to 8 grams of 
gold, and rarely more than 80 to 60 grams. Silver, on the other hand, is rarely 
found in the pure state, but it occurs in some ores which are easily separated from 
the dross and contain as much as 40 to 90% of silver. Or smaller quantities of it 
are found in ores like copper, lead, etc, which are themselves worth mining. This 
alone is sufficient to show that the work of producing gold has rather increased, 
while that of producing silver has certainly decreased, and this quite naturally ex- 
plains the fall in the value of silver. This fall in value would express itself in a 
still greater fall of price, if the price of silver were not held up even now by arti- 
ficial means. The silver deposits of America, however, have been made accessible 
only to a small extent, and there is, consequently, every prospect of a continued fall 
In the value of silver. This must be further promoted by the relative decrease of 
the demand for silver for articles of use and luxury, its displacement by plated 
wares, aluminum, etc. Judge, then, of the utopianism of the bimetallist illusion that 
a forced international quotation could raise silver to its old value of 16.6 to 1. The 
chances are rather that silver will lose more and more of its character as money on 
the world market F. E. 

*The opponents, themselves, of the mercantile system, a system which consid- 
ered the settlement of surplus trade balances in gold and silver as the aim of inter- 
national trade, entirely misconceived the functions of money of the world. I have 
shown by the example of Ricardo in what way their false conception of the laws 
that regulate the quantity of the circulating medium, is reflected in their equally 
false conception of the international movement in the precious metak 0* c pp. 160 
sq.). His erroneous dogma: &quot;An unfavourable balance of trade never arises but 
from a redundant currency. . . . The exportation of the coin is caused by its 
cheapness, and is not the effect, but the cause of an unfavourable balance,&quot; already 
occurs in Barbon: &quot;The Balance of Trade, if there be one, is not the cause of 
sending away the money out of a nation; but that proceeds from the difference of 
the value of bullion in every country.&quot; (N. Barbon; L c. pp. 69, 60.) MacCul- 
loch in &quot;the Literature of Political Economy, a dasdfied catalogue. Load. ISiS*** 



 

Money, or the Circulation of Commodities. i6i 

means of purchasing chiefly and necessarily in those periods 
when the customary equilibrium in the interchange of products 
between different nations is suddenly disturbed. And lastly, 
it serves as the universally recognised embodiment of social 
wealth, whenever the question is not c^ buyinr or paying, but 
of transferring wealth from one cotmtry to another, and when- 
ever this transference in the form of commodities is rendered 
impossible, either by special conjunctures in the markets, or 
by the purpose itself that is intended.^ 

Just as every country needs a reserve of money for its home 
circulation, so, too, it requires one for external circulation in 
the markets of the world. The functions of hoards, therefore, 
arise in part out of the function of money, as the medium of 
the home circulation and home payments, and in part out 
of its function of money of the world.^ For this latter func- 
tion, the genuine money-commodity, actual gold and silver, is 
necessary. On that account, Sir James Steuart, in order to 
distinguish them from their purely local substitutes, calls gold 
and silver &quot;money of the world.&apos;&apos; 

The current of the stream of gold and silver is a double one. 
On the one hand, it spreads itself from its sources over all the 
markets of the world, in order to become absorbed, to various 
extents, into the different national spheres of circulation, to 
fill the conduits of currency, to replace abraded gold and silver 

praises Barbon for this anticipation, but prudently passes oyer the naWe forms. In 
which Barbon clothes the absurd suppositoin on which the &quot;currency principle&quot; is 
based. The absence of real criticism and even of honesty, in that catalogue, cul- 
minates in the sections devoted to the history of the theory of money; the reason 
is that MacCuUoch in this part of the work is flattering Lord Overstone whom he 
calls &quot;fecile princeps argentariorum.*&apos; 

^ For instance, in subsidies, money loans for canying on wars or for enabling 
banks to resume cash payments, &amp;c., it is the money form, and no other, of value 
that may be wanted. 

&apos;I would desire. Indeed, no more convincing evidence of the competency of the 
machinery of the hoards in specie-paying countries to perform every necessary office 
of international adjustment, without any sensible aid from the general circulation, 
than the facility with which France, when but just recovering from the shock of a 
destructive foreign invasion, completed within the space of 27 months the payment 
of her forced contribution of nearly 20 millions to the allied powers, and a con- 
siderable proportion of the stun in specie, without any perceptible contraction or 
de ra ngement of her domestic currency, or even any alarming fluctuation of her 
exchanges.&quot; (Fullarton, L c, p. 184.) — Note to the 4th German edition. — A stUl 
more convincing illustration is given by the ease with which the same France, In 
1S71 to 1873, was sble to pay off in 80 months a war indemnity ten times larger, 
and to a comiderablc eictent also in metal money. F. E. 

K 



 

l62 Capitalist Production. 

coins, to supply the material of articles of luxury, and to 
petrify into hoards.^ This first current is started by the 
countries that exchange their labour, realise in commodities, 
for the labour embodied in the precious metals by gold and 
silver-producing countries. On the other hand, there is a con- 
tinual flowing backwards and forward:^ of gold and silver be- 
tween the dijBFerent national spheres of circulation, a current 
whose motion depends on the ceaseless fluctuations in the 
course of exchange.* 

Countries in which the bourgeois form of production is de- 
veloped to a certain extent, limit the hoards concentrated in 
the strong rooms of the banks to the minimum required for 
the proper performance of their peculiar functions.^ When- 
ever these hoards are strikingly above their average level, it 
is, with some exceptions, an indication of stagnation in the 
circulation of commodities, of an interruption in the even flow 
of their metamorphoses.* 

^&apos;&apos;L&apos;argent se partage entre Ics nations relativement au besoin qu&apos;eUes en ont. 
. . . ^tant toujours attir6 par lea productions.&quot; (Le Trosne L a, p. 916.) &quot;The 
mines which are continually giving gold and silver, do give sufficient to supply 
such a needful balance to every nation.&quot; (J. Vanderlint, 1. c, p. 40.) 

* &quot;Exchanges rise and fall every week, and at some particular times in the yeaf 
run high against a nation, and at other times run as high on the contrary.&quot; (N. 
Barbon, L c, p. 89.) 

* These various functions are liable to come into dangerous conflict with one an* 
other whenever gold and silver have also to serve as a fund for the conversion of 
bank-notes. 

*&quot;What money is more than of absolute necessity for a Home Trade, is dead 
stock . • . and brings no profit to that country it&apos;s kept in, but as it is trans- 
ported in trade, as well as imported.&quot; (John Bellers, Essays, p. 12.) &quot;What if w» 
have too much coin ? We may melt down the heaviest and turn it into the splendour 
of plate, vessels or utensils of gold or silver; or send it out as a commodity, where 
the same is wanted or desired; or let it out at interest, where interest is high.&quot; 
(W. Petty: &quot;Quantulumcunque,&quot; p. 89.) &quot;Money is but the fat of the Body 
Politick, whereof too much doth as often hinder its agility, as too little makes it 
sick .... as fat lubricates the motion of the muscles, feeds in want of 
victuals, fills up the uneven cavities, and beautifies the body; so doth money in th« 
state quicken its action, feeds from abroad in time of dearth at home; evens ac- 
counts . . and beautifies the whole; altho more especially the partictilar 
that have it in plenty.&quot; &lt;W. Petty. &quot;Political Anatomy of Ireland,&quot; p. li.) 



 

PARTIL 

THE TRANSFORMATION OP MONEY INTO 
CAPITAL. 



CHAPTEB IV. 

THB OENEBAL FOBMUUL FOB OAFITAL. 

Thb circulation of commodities is the starting point of capital 
The production of commodities, their circulation, and that 
more developed form of iheir circulation called commerce, 
these form the historical groundwork from which it rises. 
The modem history of capital dates from the creation in the 
16th century of a world-embracing commerce and a world- 
embracing market 

If we abstract from the material substance of the circula- 
tion of commodities, that is, from the exchange of the various 
use-values, and consider only the economic forms produced by 
this process of circulation, we find its final result to be money: 
this final product of the circulation of commodities is the first 
form in which capital appears. 

As a matter of history, capital, as opposed to landed prop- 
erty, invariably takes the form at first of money ; it appears as 
moneyed wealth, as the capital of the merchant and of the 
usurer.* But we have no need to refer to the origin of capi- 
tal in order to discover that the first form of appearance of 
capital is money. We can see it daily under our very eyes. 

^ The cootrast between the power, based on the personal relations of dominion and 
•enritode, that is conferred by landed property, and the impersonal power that is 
siTen by money, is well expressed by the two French proverbs, &apos;&apos;Nulle terre sans 
•eisnear/&apos; and &quot;l/argent n&apos;m pas de maltre.&quot; 

163 



 

164 Capitalist Production. 

All new capital; to commence with, comes on the stage, that is, 
on the market, whether of commodities, labour, or money, even 
in our days, in the shape of money that by a definite procesa 
has to be transformed into capital. 

The first distinction we notice between money that is money 
only, and money that is capital, is nothing more than a differ- 
ence in their form of circulation. 

The simplest form of the circulation of commodities is C — 
M — C, the transformation of commodities into money, and the 
change of the money back again into commodities ; or selling 
in order to buy. But alongside of this form we find another 
specifically different form: M — C — M, the transformation of 
money into commodities, and the change of commodities back 
again into money; or buying in order to sell. Money that 
circulates in the latter manner is thereby transformed into, 
becomes capital, and is already potentially capitaL 

Now let us examine the circuit M — O — ^M a little closer. 
It consists, like the other, of two antithetical phases. In the 
first phase, M — C, or the purchase, the money is changed into 
a commodity. In the second phase, C — ^M, or the sale, the 
commodity is changed back again into money. The combina- 
tion of these two phases constitutes the single movement 
whereby money is exchanged for a commodity and the same 
commodity is again exchanged for money; whereby a com- 
modity is bought in order to be sold, or, neglecting the dis- 
tinction in form between buying and selling, whereby a 
commodity is bought with money, and then money is bought 
with a commodity.* The result, in which the phases of the 
process vanish, is the exchange of money for money, M — ^M. 
If I purchase 2000 lbs. of cotton for £100, and resell the 2000 
lbs. of cotton for £110, I have, in fact, exchanged £100 for 
£110, money for money. 

Now it is evident that the circuit M — C — ^M would be ab- 
surd and without meaning if the intention were to exchange 
by this means two equal sums of money, £100 for £100. The 

*&quot;Ayec de I&apos;argent on ach^e des marchandises, et avec des marchandises on 
«cb^te de Targent.&quot; (Mercier de la Raviere: &quot;L&apos;ordre nattirel et «8tentiel det 
iod^^s politiques,&quot; p. 648.) 



 

The General Formula for Capital. 165 

miser&apos;s plan would be far simpler and surer ; he stic^ to his 
£100 instead of exposing it to the dangers of circulation. And 
yet, whether the merchant who has paid £100 for his cotton 
sells it for £110, or lets it go for £100, or even £50, his money 
has, at all events, gone through a characteristic and original 
movement, quite different in kind from that which it goes 
through in the hands of the peasant who sells com, and with 
the money thus set free buys clothes. We have therefore to 
examine first the distinguishing characteristics of the forms of 
the circuits M. — C — M and C — ^M — C, and in doing this the 
real difference that imderlies the mere difference of form will 
reveal itself. 

Let us see, in the first place, what the two forms have in 
common. 

Both circuits are resolvable into the same two antithetical 
phases, C — ^M, a sale, and M — C, a purchase. In each of 
these phases the same material elements — a commodity, and 
money, and the srme economical dramatis personse, a buyer 
and a seller — confront one another. Each circuit is the unity 
of the same two antithetical phases, and in each case this unity 
is brought about by the intervention of three contracting par- 
ties, of whom one only sells, another only buys, while the third 
both buys and sells. 

What, however, first and foremost distinguishes the circuit 
C — ^M — C from the circuit M — C — ^M, is the inverted order of 
succession of the two phases. The simple circulation of com- 
modities begins with a sale and ends with a purchase, while 
the circulation of money as capital begins with a purchase 
and ends with a sale. In the one case both the starting- 
point and the goal are commodities, in the other they are 
money. In the first form the movement is brought about 
by the intervention of money, in the second by that of a 
commodity. 

In the circulation C — M. — C, the money is in the end con- 
verted into a commodity, that serves as a use-value ; it is spent 
once for all. In the inverted form, M — C — ^M, on the con- 
trary, the buyer lays out money in order that, as a seller, he 
may recover money. By the purchase of his conmiodity he 



 

i66 Capitalist Production. 

throws money into circulation, in order to withdraw it again 
by the sale of the same commodity. He lets the money go, 
but only with the sly intention of getting it back again. The 
money, therefore, is not spent, it is merely advanced.^ 

In the circuit C — M — C, the same piece of money changes 
its place twice. The seller gets it from the buyer and pays it 
away to another seller. The complete circulation, which be- 
gins with the receipt, concludes with the payment, of money 
for commodities. It is the very contrary in the circuit M — 
— M. Here it is not the piece of money that changes its 
place twice, but the conmiodity. The buyer takes it from the 
hands of the seller and passes it into the hands of another 
buyer. Just as in the simple circulation of commodities the 
double change of place of the same piece of money effects its 
passage from one hand into another, so here the double change 
of place of the same commodity brings about the reflux of the 
money to its point of departure. 

Such reflux is not dependent on the commodity being sold 
for more than was paid for it. This circumstance influences 
only the amount of the money that comes back. The reflux 
itself takes place, so soon as the purchased commodity is re- 
sold, in other words, so soon as the circuit M — C — ^M is com* 
pleted. We have here, therefore, a palpable difference be- 
tween the circulation of money as capital, and its circulation 
as mere money. 

The circuit — ^M — C comes completely to an end, so soon 
as the money brought in by the sale of one commodity is 
abstracted again by the purchase of another. 

If, nevertheless, there follows a reflux of money to its start- 
ing point, this can only happen through a renewal or repeti- 
tion of the operation. If I sell a quarter of com for £3, and 
with this £3 buy clothes, the money, so far as I am concerned, 
is spent and done with. It belongs to the clothes merchant 
If I now sell a second quarter of com, money indeed flows 
back to me, not however as a sequel to the flrst transaction, 

^&quot;Wheii a thing U bought in order to be told tgain, the turn employed b called 
money advanced; when it ia bought not to be 8old» it may be aaid to be expended.*&apos;-— 
(James Steuart: &quot;Works,&quot; ftc. Edited by Gen. Sir James Steuart, his son. Lond* 

• OAK \r T _ ai*4 \ 



1806. V. I., p. 874.) 



 

The General Formula for Capital. 167 

but in consequence of its repetition. The money again leaves 
me, so soon as I complete thi&amp; second transaction by a fresh 
purchase. Therefore, in the circuit C — ^M — C, the expendi- 
ture of money has nothing to do with its reflux. On the other 
hand, in M — C — ^M, the reflux cf the money is conditioned by 
the very mode of its expenditure. Without this reflux, the 
operation fails, or the process is interrupted and incomplete, 
owing to the absence of its complementary and final phase, the 
sale. 

The circuit C — ^M — starts with one commodity, and 
finishes with another, which falls out of circulation and into 
consumption. Consumption, the satisfaction of wants, in one 
word, use-value* is its end and aim. The circuit M — C — ^M, 
on the contrary, commences with money and ends with money. 
Its leading motive, and the goal that attracts it, is therefore 
mere exchange value. 

In the simple circulation of commodities, the two extremes 
of the circuit have the same economic form. They are both 
commodities, and commodities of equal value. But they are 
also use-values differing in their qualities, as, for example, 
com and clothes. The exchange of products, of the different 
materials in which the labour of society is embodied, forms 
here the basis of the movement It is otherwise in the cir- 
culation M — C — ^M, which at first sight appears purposeless, 
because tautological. Both extremes have the same economic 
form. They are both money, and therefore are not qualita- 
tively different use-values; for money is but the converted 
form of commodities, in which their particular use-values 
vanish. To exchange £100 for cotton, and then this same 
cotton again for £100, is merely a roundabout way of ex- 
changing money for money, the same for the same, and ap- 
pears to be an operation just as purposeless as it is absurd.^ 

* &quot;On n&apos;^hange pas de fargent contre de Targent,&quot; says Merder de la Riviire to 
the Mercantiliats (1. c, p. 486). In a work, which, ex profcsso, treats of &quot;trade** 
and &quot;speculation,&quot; occurs the following: &quot;All trade consists in the exchange of 
things of different kinds; and the advantage&quot; (to the merchant?) &quot;arises out of this 
difference. To exchange a pound of bread against a pound of bread .... 
would be attended with no advantage; .... Hence trade is advantageously 
contrasted with gambling, which consists in a mere exchange of money for money.&apos;* 
(Th. Corbet, &quot;An Inquiry into the Causes and Modes of the Wealth of Individuals^ 



 

l68 Capitalist Production. 

One sum of money is distinguishable from another only by its 
amount The character and tendency of the process M — C 
— ^M, is therefore not due to any qualitative difference be- 
tween its extremes, both being money, but solely to their 
quantitative difference. More money is withdrawn from cir- 
culation at the finish than was thrown into it at the start 
The cotton that was bought for £100 is perhaps resold for 
£100+£10 or £110. The exact form of this process is there- 
fore M — — M&apos;, where 1£&apos;=M+ A M=the original sum ad- 
vanced, plus an increment This increment or excess over the 
original value I call &quot;surplus-value.&apos;&apos; The value originally 
advanced, therefore, not only remains intact while in circula- 
tion, but adds to itself a surplus-value or expands itsel£ It is 
this movement that converts it into capitaL 

Of course it is also possible, that in — ^M — 0, the two 
extremes C — C, say com and clothes, may represent different 
quantities of value. The farmer may sell his com above its 
value, or may buy the clothes at less than their value. He 
may, on the other hand, ^T)e done&quot; by the clothes merchant 
Yet, in the form of circulation now under consideration, sudi 
differences in value are purely accidentaL The fact that the 
com and the clothes are equivalents, does not deprive the pro- 
cess of all meaning, as it does in M — C — ^M. The equivalence 
of their values is rather a necessary condition to its normal 
course. 

The repetition or renewal of the act of selling in order to 
buy, is kept within bounds by the very object it aims at^ 
namely, consumption or the satisfaction of definite wants, an 

or the principles of Trade and Speculation explained.&quot; London, 1841, p. 6.) Al&gt; 
though Corbet does not see that M — ^M, the exchange of money for money, is the 
characteristic form of circulation, not only of merchants* capital but of all capital, 
yet at least he acknowledges that this form is common to gambling and to one spe- 
cies of trade, viz., speculation: but then comes MacCuUoch and makes out, that to 
buy in order to sell, is to speculate, and thus the difference between Speculation and 
Trade Tanishes. &quot;Every transaction in which an individual buys produce in order 
to sell it again, is, in fact, a speculation.&quot; (MacCulloch: &quot;A Dictionary PracticaO, 
&amp;c., of Commerce.&quot; Lond., 1847, p. 1068.) With much more naivet^, Pinto^ tlie 
Pindar of the Amsterdam Stock Exchange^ remarks, &quot;Le commerce est un jeu: 
(taken from Locke) et ce n&apos;est pas avec des gueux qu&apos;on pent gagner. Si Ton gag- 
nait long-temps en tout avec tons, 11 faudrait rendre de bon accord les plus grandes 
parties du profit pour recommencer le Jen.&quot; (Pinto: &apos;^raiti de la Circnlatioa et da 
Cr^t&quot; Amsterdam, 1771, p. Ml.) 



 

The General Formula for Capital. 169 

aim that lies altogether outside the sphere of circulation. But 
when we buy in order to sell, we, on the contrary, b^in and 
end with the same thing, money, exchange-value ; and thereby 
the movement becomes interminable. No doubt^ M becomes 
M+aM, £100 become £110. But when viewed in their 
qualitative aspect alone, £110 are the same as £100, namely 
money; and considered quantitatively, £110 is, like £100, a 
sum of definite and limited value. If now, the £110 be spent 
as money, they cease to play their part They are no longer 
capital Withdrawn from circulation, they become petrified 
into a hoard, and though they remained in that state till 
doomsday, not a single farthing would accrue to them. I^ 
then, the expansion of value is once aimed at, there is just the 
same inducement to augment the value of the £110 as that of 
the £100 ; for both are but limited expressions for exchange- 
value, and therefore both have the same vocation to approach, 
by quantitative increase, as near as possible to absolute wealth. 
Momentarily, indeed, the value originally advanced, the £100 
is distinguishable from the surplus value of £10 that is an- 
nexed to it during circulation; but the distinction vanishes 
immediately. At the end of the process we do not receive 
with one hand the original £100, and with the other, the 
turplus-value of £10. We simply get a value of £110, which 
is in exactly the same condition and fitness for commencing 
llie expanding process, as the original £100 was. Money ends 
the movement only to begin it again.^ Therefore, the final 
result of every separate circuity in which a purchase and con- 
sequent sale are completed, forms of itself the starting point 
of a new circuit The simple circulation of commodities — 
celling in order to buy — is a means of carrying out a purpose 
Tinconnected with circulation, namely, the appropriation of 
use-values, the satisfaction of wants. The circulation of 
money as capital is, on the contrary, an end in itself, for the 
expansion of value takes place only within this constantly 

^ &apos;&apos;Capital is divisible . • • • into the original capital and the profit the incre- 
ment to the capita] . • • • although in practice this profit is immediately turned 
Into capital, and set in motion with the originaL&quot; (F. Engels, &quot;Umrisse ru einer 
Kritik der Nationalokonomie, in: Deutsch-Franzosische Jahrbucher, herausgegebep 
^on Anwld Rogo wad Karl Marx.&quot; Paris, 1844, p. 90.} 



 

170 Capitalist Production. 

renewed movement. The circulation of capital has therefore 
no limits,^ Thus the conscious representative of this move^ 
menty the possessor of money becomes a capitalist His per- 
son, or rather his pocket, is the point from which the money 
starts and to which it returns. The expansion of value^ 
which is the objective basis or main-spring of the circulation 
M — C — ^M, becomes his subjective aim, and it is only in so far 
a^ the appropriation of ever more and more wealth in the ab- 
stract becomes the sole motive of his operations, that he f uno- 
tions as a capitalist^ that is, as capital personified and en- 
dowed with consciousness and a wilL Use-values must there- 
fore never be looked upon as the real aim of the capitalist;^ 
neither must the profit on any single transaction* The restless 
never^nding process of profit-making alone is what he aims 

* Aristotle opposes (Economic to Chrematistic He starts from the former. So 
far as it is the art of gaining a livelihood, it is limited to procuring those articles 
that are necessary to existence, and useful either to a household or the sti^te. &quot;True 
wealth (6 dXi|^ii&gt;6f vXoOrot) consists of such yalues in use; for the quantity of pos- 
sessions of this kind, capable of making life pleasant, is not unlimited. There is» 
howerer, a second mode of acquiring things, to which we may by preference and 
with correctntts give the name of Chrematistic, and in this case, there appear to be 
no limits to riches and possessions. Trade ( ^ jcanjXur^ is literally retail trade, and 
Aristotle takes this kind because in it values in use predominate) does not in its 
nature belong to Chrematistic, for here the exchange has reference only to what is 
necessary to themselves (the buyer or seller).&quot; Therefore, as he goes on to show, 
the original form of trade was barter, but with the extension of the latter, there 
arose the necessity for money. On the discovery of money, barter of necessity de- 
veloped into fcanyXud^ into trading in commodities* and this again, in opposition to 
its original tendency, grew into Chrematistic into the art of maldng money. Now 
.Chrematistic is distinguishable from (Economic in this way, that &quot;in the case of 
Chrematistic circulation is the source of riches {iroirfTUcif %/&gt;i7^rwr • . • . di^ 
Xfntf^TVP dtafioMjs), And it appears to revolve about money, for money is the be- 
ginning and end of this kind of exchange (rh ydp wS/ufffta orocxe&amp;r jrcU wipas t^ 
dXXayQ* iaTlw)» Therefore also riches, such as Chrematistic strives for, are un- 
limited. Just as every art that is not a means to an end, but an end in itself, has 
no limit to its aims, because it seeks constantly to approach nearer and nearer to 
that end, while those arts that pursue means to an end, are not boundless, since 
the goal itself imposes a limit upon them, so with Chrematistic, there are no bounds 
to its aims, these aims being absolute wealth. (Economic not Chrematistic has a 
limit .... the object of the former is something different from money, of the 
latter the augmentation of money .... By confounding these two forms, which 
overlap each other, some people have been led to look upon the preservation and 
increase of money ad infinitum as the end and aim of (Economic** (Aristotles De 
Rep. edit Bekker. lib. I. c 8, 9. passim.&gt; 

&apos;&quot;(Commodities Oiere used in the sense of use-values) are not the terminating 
object of the trading capitalist, money is his terminating object.&apos;* (TIl Chalnienw 
Oa PdL EcoQ. &amp;C.9 Sad Ed, Oasgow* 188S, p. 165» 16«.) 



 

The General Formula for Capital. 171 

sL^ This boundless greed after riches, this passionate chase 
after exchange-value,^ is common to the capitalist and the 
miser; but while the miser is merely a capitalist gone mad, 
the capitalist is a rational miser. The never-ending aug- 
mentation of exchange-value, which the miser strives after, by 
seeking to save ^ his money from circulation, is attained by the 
more acute capitalist^ l^r constantly throwing it afresh into 
circulation.* 

The independent fomi, i e*, the money-form, which the 
value of commodities assumes in the case of simple circulation, 
serves only one purposie, namely, their exchange, and vanishes 
in the final result of the movement. On the other hand, in 
the circulation M — — ^M, both the money and the commodity 
represent only different modes of existence of value itself, the 
money its general mode, and the commodity its particular, or, 
80 to say, disguised mode.* It is constantly changing from 
one form to the other without thereby becoming lost, and thus 
assumes an automatically active character. If now we take 
in turn each of the two different forms which self-expanding 
value successively assumes in the course of its life, we then 
arrive at these two propositions : Capital is money : Capital 
is commodities.^ In truth, however, value is here the active 
factor in a process, in which, while constantly assuming the 
form in turn of money and commodities, it at the same time 
changes in magnitude, differentiates itself by throwing off 
surplus-value from itself; the original value, in other words, 

^*ni mercante non conta quasi per niente n Iticro fatto, ma mira aempre al 
futnro.** (A. Genovesi, Lezloni di Economia Ciyile 1766), Custodi&apos;s edit of Italian 
Economista. Parte Modema t. xiii. p.- 139.) 

*&quot;The inextingtushable passion for gain, the auri sacra fames, will alwajrs lead 
capitalists.&quot; (MacCnlloch: &quot;The principles of Polit Econ.&quot; London, 1880, p. 
170.) This view, of course, does not prevent the same MacCulloch and others of his 
Iddnej, when in theoretical difficulties, such, for example, as the question of over- 
production* from transforming the same capitalist into a moral citizen, whose sole 
concern is for nse-values, and who even developes an insatiable hunger for boots, 
hats, eggs, calico» and other extremely familiar sorts of use-values. 

*2c&amp;fc(y is a characteristic Greek expression for hoarding. So in Eag^h to save 
has the same two meanings: sauver and ^pargner. 

^&quot;Questo infinite che le cose non hanno in progresso, hanno In giro.** (Galiani) 

• &apos;H&gt; n&apos;est pas la mati^e qui fait le capital, mais la valeur de ces matiirea.&quot; (J. 
B. Say: •&apos;Traits de TEcon. Polit.&quot; 84me. id. Paris, 1817, t. 1., p. 42a) 

* &quot;Currency (1) employed in producing articles ... is capital.&quot; (MacLeod: 
&quot;The Theory and Practice of Banking.&quot; London, 1866, v. 1., ch. L, p. 66.) 
&quot;Ca^tal is commodities.&quot; (James Mill: &quot;Elements of PoL Econ.&quot; Lond., 1881, p. 74.) 



 

172 Capitalist Production. 

expands spontaneously. For the movement, in the course of 
which it adds surplus value, is its own movement, its expan- 
sion, therefore, is automatic expansion. Because it is value, 
it has acquired the occult quality of being able to add value 
to itself. It brings forth living offspring, or, at the least, lays 
golden eggs. 

Value, therefore, being the active factor in such a process, 
and assuming at one time the form of money, at another that 
of conunodities, but through all these changes preserving itself 
and expanding, it requires some independent form, by means 
of which its identity may at any time be established. And 
this form it possesses only in the shape of money. It is under 
the form of money that value begins and ends, and begins 
again, every act of its own spontaneous generation. It began 
by being £100, it is now £110, and so on. But the money 
itself is only one of the two forms of value. Unless it takes 
the form of some commodity, it does not become capital 
There is here no antagonism, as in the case of hoarding, be- 
tween the money and commodities. The capitalist knows that 
all commodities, however scurvy they may look, or however 
badly they may smell, are in faith and in truth money, in- 
wardly circumcised Jews, and what is more, a wonderful 
means whereby out of money to make more money. 

In simple circulation, C — ^M — C, the value of commodities 
attained at the most a form independent of their use-values, 
i. e., the form of money ; but that same value now in the cir- 
culation M — C — ^M, or the circulation of capital, suddenly 
presents itself as an independent substance, endowed with a 
motion of its own, passing through a life-process of its own, 
in which money and commodities are mere forms which it 
assumes and casts off in turn. Nay, more: instead of simply 
representing the relations of commodities, it enters now, so to 
say, into private relations with itself. It differentiates itself 
as original value from itself as surplus-value; as the father 
differentiates himself from himself qufi the son, yet both are 
one and of one age : for only by the surplus value of £10 does 
the £100 originally advanced become capital, and so soon as 
this takes place, so soon as the souj and by the son, the father, 



 

Contradictions in the Formula of Capital. 173 

18 begotten^ so soon does their difference vanish^ and they again 
become one^ £110. 

Value therefore now becomes value in process^ money in 
process, and, as such, capitaL It comes out of circulation, 
enters into it again, preserves and multiplies itself within its 
circuit, comes back out of it with etxpanded bulk, and begins 
the same round ever afresh.* M— &apos;M&apos;, money which begets 
money, such is the description of Capital from the mouths 
of its first interpreters, the Mercantilists. 

Buying in order to sell, or, more accurately, buying in order 
to sell dearer, M — C — ^M&apos;, appears aertainly to be a form 
peculiar to one kind of capital alone, namely, merchants&apos; 
capitaL But industrial capital too is money, that is changed 
into commodities, and by the sale of these commodities, is re- 
converted into more money. The events that take place out- 
side the sphere of circulation, in the interval between the buy- 
ing and selling, do not affect the form of this movement 
Lastly, in the case of interestrbearing capital, the circulation 
M — C — M&apos; appears abridged. We have its result without the 
intermediate stage, in the form M — ^M&apos;, &quot;en style lapidaire&quot; 
so to say, money that is worth more money, value that is 
greater than itself. 

M — C — ^M&apos; is therefore in reality the general formula of 
capital as it appears prima facie within the sphere of circula- 
tion. 



CHAPTER V. 

&apos;OOWTBADICTIONS UH THE GEITBRAX FOBMTJUL OF OAPTFAI-. 

The form which circulation takes when money becomes cap- 
ital, is opposed to all the laws we have hitherto investigated 
bearing on the nature of commodities, value and money, and 
even of circulation itself. What distinguishes this form from 
that of the simple circulation of commodities, is the inverted 

* Capital: &quot;portion fructlfiante de la ricbesse acctuntil^ • . . valenr pennanente» 
tmltipliante.&apos;* (Siamondi: &apos;^ooveanx prindpea de I&apos;^coo. poUt./&apos; t. L* p. 88, 80.) 



 

174 Capitalist Production. 

order of succession of the two antithetical processes, sale and 
purchase. How can this purely formal distinction between 
these processes change their character as it were by magic ? 

But that is not all. This inversion has no existence for two 
out of the three persons who transact business together. As 
capitalist, I buy commodities from A and sell them again to B, 
but as a simple owner of commodities, I sell them to B and 
then purchase fresh ones from A. A and B see no difference 
between the two sets of transactions. They are merely buyers 
or sellers. And I on each occasion meet them as a mere owner 
of either money or commodities, as a buyer or a seller, and, 
what is more, in both sets of transactions, I am opposed to A 
only as a buyer and to B only as a seller, to the one only as 
money, to the other only as commodities, and to neither of 
them as capital or a capitalist, or as representative of anything 
that is more than money or commodities, or that can produce 
any effect beyond what money and commodities can. For me 
the purchase from A and the sale to B are part of a series. 
But the connexion between the two acts exists for me alone. 
A does not trouble himself about my transaction with B, nor 
does B about my business with A. And if I offered to explain 
to them the meritorious nature of my action in inverting the 
order of succession, they would probably point out to me that 
I was mistaken as to that order of succession, and that the 
whole transaction, instead of beginning with a purchase and 
ending with a sale, began, on the contrary, with a sale and was 
concluded with a purchase. In truth, my first act, the pur- 
chase, was from the standpoint of A, a sale, and my second act, 
the sale, was from the standpoint of B, a purchase. Not con- 
tent with that, A and B would declare that the whole series 
was superfluous and nothing but Hokus Pokus; that for the 
future B would buy direct from A, and A sell direct to B. 
Thus the whole transaction would be reduced to a single act 
forming an isolated, non-complemented phase in the ordinary 
circulation of commodities, a mere sale from A&apos;s point of view, 
and from B&apos;s, a mere purchase. The inversion, therefore, of 
the order of succession, does not take us outside the sphere of 
the simple circulation of commodities, and we must rather 



 

Contradictions in the Formula of Capital. 175 

look, whether there is in this simple circulation anything per- 
mitting an expansion of the value that enters into circulation, 
and, consequently, a creation of surplus-value. 

Let us take the process of circulation in a form under which 
it presents itself as a simple and direct exchange of com- 
modities. This is always the case when two owners of com- 
modities buy from each other, and on the settling day the 
amounts mutually owing are equal and cancel each other. 
The money in this case is money of account and serves to ex- 
press the value of the commodities by their prices, but is not, 
itself, in the shape of hard cash, confronted with them. So 
far as regards use-values, it is clear that both parties may gain 
some advantage. Both part with goods that, as use-values, are 
of no service to them, and receive others that they can make 
use of. And there may also be a further gain. A, who sells 
wine and buys com, possibly produces more wine, with given 
labour time, than farmer B could, and B, on the other hand, 
more com than wine-grower A could. A, therefore, may get, 
for the same exchange value^ more com, and B more wine, 
than each would respectively get without any exchange by pro- 
ducing his own com and wine. With reference, therefore, to 
use-value, there is good groimd for saying that &quot;exchange is a 
transaction by which both sides gain.^&apos; ^ It is otherwise with 
exchange value. &quot;A man who has plenty of wine and no com 
treats with a man who has plenty of com and no wine ; an ex- 
change takes place between them of com to the value of 60, 
for wine of the same value. This act produces no increase of 
exchange value either for the one or the other; for each of 
them already possessed, before the exchange, a value equal 
to that which he acquired by means of that operation.&quot; ^ The 
result is not altered by introducing money, as a medium of cir- 
culation, between the commodities, and making the sale and 
the purchase two distinct acts.^ The value of a commodity is 

*&quot;L*6cIumge est une transaction admirable dans laquelle lea deux contractanta 
gagnent— toujoura (1)&quot; (Destutt de Tracy: &quot;Trait* de la Volont* ct dc sea efifeta.** 
Paris, 1826, p. 68.) This work appeared afterwarda aa &quot;Trait* de VEoon. Polit. 

* &quot;Mercier de la Ri^^re,&quot; 1. c p. 644. 

&apos; &quot;Que fune de cea deux yaleura soit argent* on qu&apos;eUes soient toutes deux mar- 
^}^^Aim^ usuelles, rien de plus indifferent en sou&quot; (Merder de la Riviire.** 
L c p. 648.) 



 

176 Capitalist Production. 

expressed in its price before it goes into circolation, and is 
therefore a precedent condition of circulation, not its resulU* 
Abstractedly considered, that is, apart from circumstances 
not immediately flowing from the laws of the simple circula- 
tion of commodities, there is in an exchange nothing (if we 
except the replacing of one use-value by another) but a 
metamorphosis, a mere change in the form of the commodity. 
The same exchange value, i.e., the same quantity of incor- 
porated social labour, remains throughout in the hands of the 
owner of the commodity first in the shape of his own com- 
modity, then in the form of the money for which he exchanged 
it, and lastly, in the shape of the commodity he buys with that 
money. This change of form does not imply a change in the 
magnitude of the value. But the change, which the value of 
the commodity undergoes in this process, is limited to a change 
in its money form. This form exists first as the price of the 
commodity offered for sale, then as an actual sum of money, 
which, however, was already expressed in the price, and lastly, 
as the price of an equivalent commodity. This change of 
form no more implies, taken alone, a change in the quantity 
of value, than does the change of a £5 note into sovereigns, 
half sovereigns and shillings. So far therefore as the circula- 
tion of commodities effects a change in the form alone of their 
values, and is free from disturbing influences, it must be the 
exchange of equivalents. little as Vulgar-Economy knows 
about the nature of value, yet whenever it wishes to consider 
the phenomena of circulation in their purity, it assumes that 
supply and demand are equal, which amounts to this, Hhat their 
effect is niL If therefore, as regards the use-values ex- 
changed, botii buyer and seller may possibly gain something, 
this is not the case as regards the exchange values. Here we 
must rather say, &apos;^here equality exists there can be no gain.&quot;* 
It is true, commodities may be sold at prices deviating from 
their values, but these deviations are to be considered as in- 

^&apos;&apos;Ce ne sont pas les contractants qui prononcent tnr Taleor; eile est diridte 
•▼ant la convention.&quot; (&quot;Lc Trosne,&quot; p. «06.) 

•*&apos;Dove h egualiti non i lucre&quot; (Galiani, &quot;DtSU Moneta in Custodi* Patt* 
liodema,&quot; t ir. p. 844.) 



 

Contradictions in the Formula of Capital. 177 

fractions of the laws of the exchange of commodites/ which 
in its normal state is an exchange of equivalents^ consequently^ 
no method for increasing value.* 

HencCy we see that behind all attempts to represent the 
circulation of commodities as a source of surplus-value, there 
lurks a quid pro quo, a mixing up of use-value and exchange 
value. For instance, Condillac says : &quot;It is not true that on 
an exchange of commodities we give value for value. On the 
contrary, each of the two contracting parties in every case, 
gives a less for a greater value. ... If we really exchanged 
equal values, neither party could make a profit And jet, 
they both gain, or ought to gain. Why? The value of a 
thing consists solely in its relation to our wants. What is 
more to the one is less to the other, and vice versi. ... It 
is not to be assumed that we offer for sale articles required for 
our own consumption. . . . We wish to part with a use- 
less thing, in order to get one that we need ; we want to give 
less for more. ... It was natural to think that, in an ex- 
change, value was given for value, whenever each of the ar- 
ticles exchanged was of equal value with the same quantity 
of gold. . . . But there is another point to be considered in 
our calculation. The question is, whether we both exchange 
something superfluous for something necessary.&apos;&apos;* We see in 
this passage, how Condillac not only confuses use-value with 
exchange value, but in a really childish manner assumes, that 
in a society, in which the production of commodities is well 
developed, each producer produces his own means of subsis- 
tence, and throws into circulation only the excess over his own 
requirements.* Still, Condillac&apos;s argument is frequently used 

^ &quot;L^change devient dtevantageux pour I&apos;tine det parties, lorsque quelque chose 
^trang^e vient diminuer ou ocag^er le prix; alors I&apos;^galit^ est bless^e, mais la 
Usion proc^de de cette cause et non de Tdchange.&quot; (&quot;Le Trosne,&quot; 1. c p. 904.) 

* &quot;L&apos;^change est de sa nature un contrat d&apos;^galiti qui se fait de valeur pour valeur 
^gale. n n&apos;est done pas nn moyen de s&apos;enrichir, puisque Ton donne autant que Ton 
««oit.&quot; (&quot;Le Trosne,&quot; 1. c p. 908.) 

* Condillac: &quot;Le Commerce et le Ctouremement&quot; (1776). Edit. Daire et Molinari 
in the &quot;Melanges d&apos;Econ. Polit.&quot; Paris, 1847, p. 267. etc. 

^Le Trosne, therefore, answers his friend Condillac with justice as follows: &quot;Dana 
tme . . . soci6t6 formic il n&apos;y a pas de surabondant en aucun genre.&quot; At the 
tame time, in a bantering way, he remarks: &quot;If both the persons who exchange re- 
c^ve more to an equal amount, and part with less to an equal amoimt, they both get 
the saifte.&quot; It as because Condillac has not the remotest idea of the nature of 

L 



 

1/8 Capitalist Production. 

by modem economists, more especially when the point is to 
show, that the exchange of commodities in its developed form, 
commerce, is productive of surplus-value. For instance, 
^&apos;Commerce .... adds value to products, for the same prod- 
ucts in the hands of consumers, are worth more than in the 
hands of producers, and it may strictly be considered an act of 
production.&quot;^ But commodities are not paid for twice over, 
once on account of their use-value, and again on accoxmt of 
their value. And though the use-value of a commodity is 
more servicable to the buyer than to the seller, its money form 
is more serviceable to the seller. Would he otherwise sell it ? 
We might therefore just as well say that the buyer performs 
&quot;strictly an act of production,&quot; by converting stockings, for 
example, into money. 

If commodities, or commodities and money, of equal ex- 
change-value, and consequently equivalents, are exchanged, it 
is plain that no one abstracts more value from, than he throws 
into, circulation. There is no creation of surplus-value. 
And, in its normal form, the circulation of commodities de- 
mands the exchange of equivalents. But in actual practice, 
the process does not retain its normal form. Let us, there- 
fore, assume an exchange of non-equivalents. 

In any case the market for conmiodities is only frequented 
by owners of commodities, and the power which these persons 
exercise over each other, is no other than the power of their 
commodities. The material variety of these commodities is the 
material incentive to the act of exchange, and makes buyers 
and sellers mutually dependent, because none of tham possesses 
the object of his own wants, and each holds in his hand the 
object of another&apos;s wants. Besides these material differences 
of their use-values, there is only one other difference between 
commodities, namely, that between their bodily form and the 
form into which they are converted by sale, the difference be- 

exchange value that he has been chosen by Herr Professor Wilhelm Roscher as m 
proper person to answer for the soundness of his own childish notions. See 
Roscher&apos;s &quot;Die Grundlagen der Nationalokomonie, Dritte Auflage/* 1858. 

^S. P. Newman: &quot;Elements of Polat Econ.&quot; Andoyer and New Yorl^ 199W 
p. 176. 



 

Contradictions in the Formula of Capital. 179 

tween commodities and money. And consequently the owners 
of commodities are distinguishable only as sellers, those who 
own ct)mmodities, and buyers, those who own money. 

Suppose then, that by some inexplicable privilege, the seller 
is enabled to sell his commodities above their value, what is 
worth 100 for 110, in which case the price is nominally raised 
10%. The seller therefore pockets a surplus value of 10. 
But after he has sold he becomes a buyer. A third owner of 
commodities comes to him now as seller, who in this capacity 
also enjoys the privilege of selling his commodities 10% too 
dear. Our friend gained 10 as a seller only to lose it again as 
a buyer.* The nett result is, that all owners of commodities 
sell their goods to one another at 10% above their value, which 
comes precisely to the same as if they sold them at their true 
value. Such a general and nominal rise of prices has the 
same effect as if the values had been expressed in weight of 
silver instead of in weight of gold. The nominal prices of 
commodities would rise, but the real relation between their 
values would remain unchanged. 

Let us make the opposite assumption, that the buyer has 
the privilege of purchasing commodities under their value. 
In this case it is no longer necessary to bear in mind that he 
in his turn wU become a seller. He was so before he became 
buyer; he had already lost 10% in selling before he gained 
10% as buyer.* Everything is just as it was. 

The creation of surplus-value, and therefore the conversion 
of money into capital, can consequently be explained neither 
on the assumption that commodities are sold above their value, 
nor that they are bought below their value.^ 

* •*By the atigmentation of the nominal value of the produce . . . sellers not en- 
riched • . . since what they gain as sellers, they precisely expend in the quality of 
buyers.&quot; (&quot;The Essential Principles of the Wealth of Nations,&quot; &amp;c., London, 1797, 
p. 66.) 

&apos; &quot;Si Ton est forc6 de donner pour 18 lirres une quantity de telle production qui 
en valait 24, lorsqu*on employera ce meme argent i achcter, on aura ^galement pour 
18 L ce que Ton payait 24.&quot; (&quot;Le Trosne,&quot; 1. c. p. 897.) 

• &quot;Chaque vcndeur ne pent done parvenir A rench6rir habituellement ses marchan- 
dlses, qu&apos;en se soumettant aussi k payer habituellement plus cher les marchandises 
des autres vendeurs; et par la meme raison, chaque consommateur ne pent payer 
habituellement moins cher ce qu&apos;il achate, qu&apos;en se soumettant aussi a une diminu- 
tion semblable tur le prix des choses qu il vend.&quot; (Merder de la Ravi^re,&quot; 1. c. pb 
166.) 



 

i8o Capitalist Production. 

The problem is in no way simplified by introducing irrele- 
vant matters after the manner of Col. Torrens: &quot;Effectual 
demand consists in the power and inclination ( !), on the part 
of consumers, to give for commodities, either by immediate or 
circuitous barter, some greater portion of . . . capital than 
their production costs/&apos; ^ In relation to circulation, producers 
and consumers meet only as buyers and sellers. To assert 
that the surplus-value acquired by the producer has its origin 
in the fact that consumers pay for commodities more than their 
value, is only to say in other words: The owner of commod- 
ities possesses, as a seller, the privilege of selling too dear. 
The seller has himself produced the commodities or represents 
their producer, but the buyer has to no less extent produced 
the commodities represented by his money, or represents their 
producer. The distinction between ihem is, that one buys and 
the other sells. The fact that the owner of the commodities, 
under the designation of producer, sells them over their value, 
and under the designation of consumer, pays too much for 
them, does not carry us a single step further.^ 

To be consistent therefore, the upholders of the delusion that 
surplus-value has its origin in a nominal rise of prices or in 
the privilege which the seller has of selling too dear, must 
assume the existence of a class that only buys and does not sell, 
Le., only consumes and does not produca The existence of 
such a class is inexplicable from the standpoint we have so far 
reached, viz., that of simple circulation. But let us anticipate. 
The money with which such a class is constantly making pur- 
chases, must constantly flow into their pockets, without any 
exchange, gratis, by might or right, from the pockets of the 
commodity-owners themselves. To sell commodities above 
their value to such a class, is only to crib back again a part 
of the money previously given to it*^ The towns of Asia 

iR. Torrens: &quot;An Essay on the Production of Wealth.&quot; London, 1881, p. 840. 

&apos;&quot;TEe idea of profits being paid by the consumers, is, assuredly, very absurd. 
Who are the consumers?&quot; (G. Ramsay: &quot;An Essay on the Distribution of Wealth.** 
Edinburgh, 1386, p. 183.) 

*&quot;When a man is in want of a demand, does Mr. Malthus recommend him to 
pay some other person to take off his goods?&quot; is a question put by an angry disciple 
of Ricardo to Malthus, who, like his disciple. Parson Chalmers, economically glori* 
fies this dasa of simple buyers or consumers. (See &quot;An Inqtiiry into those princi- 



 

Contradictions in the Formula of Capital. 181. 

Minor thus paid a yearly money tribute to ancient Borne. 
With this money Eome purchased from them commodities^ and 
purchased them too dear. The provincials cheated the Bo- 
mans^ and thus got back from their conquerors, in the course 
of trade, a portion of the tribute. Yet, for all that^ the con- 
quered were the really cheated. Their goods were still paid 
for with their own money. That is not the way to get rich or 
to create surplus-value. 

Let us therefore keep within the bounds of exchange where 
sellers are also buyers, and buyers, sellers. Our difficulty may 
perhaps have arisen from treating the actors as personifications 
instead of as individuals. 

A may be clever enough to get the advantage of B or C 
without their being able to retaliate. A sells wine worth £40 
to B, and obtains from him in exchange com to the value of 
£50. A has converted his £40 info £50, has made more money 
out of less, and has converted his commodities into capital. 
Let us examine this a little more closely. Before the exchange 
we had £40 worth of wine in the hands of A, and £50 worth 
of com in those of B, a total value of £90. After the exchange 
we have still the same total value of £90. The value in cir- 
culation has not increased by one iota, it is only distributed 
differently between A and B. What is a loss of value to B 
is surplus-value to A ; what is &quot;minus&apos;^ to one is &quot;plus^^ to the 
other. The same change would have taken place, if A, with- 
out the formality of an exchange^ had directly stolen the £10 
from B. The sum of the values in circulation can clearly not 
be augmented by any change in their distribution, any more 
than the quantity of the precious metals in a coimtry by a 
Jew selling a Queen Ann&apos;s farthing for a guinea. The cap- 
italist class, as a whole, in any country, cannot over-reach 
themselvee.^ 

Turn and twist then as we may, the fact remains unaltered. 

pkt respecting the Nature of Demand and the necessity of Consumption, lately ad- 
vocated by Mr. Malthus,&quot; &amp;c. Lond., 1821, p. 65.) 

^Destutt de Tracy, although, or perhaps because, he was a member of the Insti- 
tute, held the opposite yiew. He says, industrial capitalists make profits because 
&apos;Hhey all sell for more than it has cost to produce. And to whom do they sell? 
In the fint inttanoe to one another.&quot; (1. c, p. 880.) 



 

1 82 Capitalist Production. 

If equivalents are exchanged, no surplus-value results, and if 
non-equivalents are exchanged, still no surplus-value.^ Cir- 
culation, or the exchange of commodities, begets no value.^ 

The reason is now therefore plain why, in analysing the 
standard form of capital, the form under which it determines 
the economical organisation of modem society, we entirely 
left out of consideration its most popular, and, so to say, ante- 
diluvian forms, merchants&apos; capital and money-lenders&apos; capitaL 

The circuit M — C — ^M&apos;, buying in order to sell dearer, is 
seen most clearly in genuine merchants&apos; capitaL But the 
movement takes place entirely within the sphere of circulation. 
Since, however, it is impossible, by circulation alone, to ac- 
count for the conversion of money into capital, for the forma- 
tion of surplus-value, it would appear, that merchants&apos; capital 
is an impossibility, so long as equivalents are exchanged f that, 
therefore, it can only have its origin in the twofold advantage 
gained, over both the selling and the buying produdefrs, by the 
merchant who parasitically shoves himself in between thenu 
It is in this sense that Franklin says, &quot;war is robbery, com- 
merce is generally cheating.&quot;* If the transformation of 
merchants&apos; money into capital is to be explained otherwise 
than by the producers being simply cheated, a long series of 
intermediate steps would be necessary, which, at present, when 

^&quot;L&apos;^change qui se fait de deux vmleurs iga\ta n&apos;augmente ni ne diminue la 
masse dcs vaieurs subsistantes dans la society. L&apos;^change de deux &quot;valeurs in^galea 
• • . ne change rien non plus i la somme det vaieurs sociales, bien qu&apos;il ajoute 
&amp; la fortune de Tun ce pu&apos;il ote de la fortune de Tautre.&quot; J. B. Say, 1. c. t. L, 
pp. 844, 845.) Say, not in the least troubled as to the consequences of this state- 
ment* borrows it, almost word for word, from the Physiocrats. The following example 
will shew how Monsieur Say turned to account the writings- of the Physiotrats, in 
his day quite forgotten, for the purpose of expanding the &quot;valtie** oiF his &apos;pwpi; His 
most celebrated saying, &quot;On n&apos;achete des produits qu&apos;avec des produit?&quot; (1, c, t II., 
p. 438) runs as follows in the original physiocratic Work: &quot;Les prpductiQns n^ se 
paient qu&apos;avcc des productions.&quot; (&quot;Le Trosne,&quot; L c.,&apos;p. 899.) 

&apos; &quot;Exchange confers no value at all upon products.&quot; (F. Wayland: &quot;The Ele- 
ments of Political Economy.&quot; Boston, 1853, p. 168.) 

&apos;Under the rule of invariable equivalents commerce would be impossible. (G. 
Opdyke: &quot;A Treatise on Polit Economy.&quot; New York, 1851, p. 66-09.) &quot;The dif- 
ference between real value and exchange-value is bas^d upon this fact, namely, that 
the value of a thing is different from the socalled equivalent given for it in trade, 
i.e., that this equivalent is no equivalent.&quot; (F. Engels, 1. c. p. 96.) 

* Benjamin Franklin: Works, Vol. II. edit. Sparks in &quot;Positions to be examined 
concerning National Wealth,&quot; p. 870. 



 

Contradictions in the Formtda of Capital. 183 

the simple circulation of commoditieB forms our only assump- 
tion, are entirely wanting. 

What we have said with reference to merchants&apos; capital, 
applies still more to money-lenders&apos; capital. In merchants&apos; 
capital, the two extremes, the money that is thro^&apos;^n upon the 
market, and the augmented money tiiat is withdrawn from the 
market, aro at least connected by a purchase and a sale, in 
other words by the movement of the circulation. In money- 
lenders&apos; capital the form M — C — ^M&apos; is reduced to the two ex- 
tremes without a mean, M — ^M&apos;, money exchangea f&apos;^r more 
money, a form that is incompatible with the nature of money, 
and therefore remains inexplicable from the standpoint of the 
circulation of commodities. Hence Aristotle: &quot;since chrema- 
tistic is a double science, one part belonging to commerce, the 
other Id economic, the latter being necessary and praiseworthy, 
the former based on circulation and with justice disapproved 
(for it is not based on Nature, but on mutual cheating), there- 
fore the usurer is most rightly hated, because money itself is 
the source of his gain, and is not used for the purposes for 
which it was invented. For it originated for the exchange of 
commodities, but interest makes out of money, more money. 
Hence its name ( tAcos interest and offspring). For the be- 
gotten are like those who beget them. But interest is money 
of money, so that of all modes of making a living, this is the 
most contrary to nature.&quot; ^ 

In the course of our investigation, we shall find that both 
merchants&apos; capital and interest-bearing capital are derivative 
forms, and at the same time it will become clear, why these 
two forms appear in the course of history before the modem 
standard form of capitaL 

We have shown that surplus-value cannot be created by 
circulation, and, therefore, that in its formation, something 
must take place in the background, which is not apparent in 
the circulation itself.^ But can surplus-value possibly origin- 
ate anywhere else than in circulation, which is the sum total 

*AriftotIe, 1. c c 10. 

&apos;Profit, in the usual condition of the market, is not made by exchanging; Had 
It not existed before, neither could it after that transaction.&quot; (Ramsay, 1. c., p. 
1B4.) 



 

1 84 Capitalist Production. 

of all the mutual relations of commodity-owners, as far as they 
are determined by their commodities? Apart from circula- 
tion, the commodity-owner is in relation only with his own 
conamodity. So far as regards value, that relation is 
limited to this, that the commodity contains a quantity of his 
labour, that quantity being measured by a definite social 
standard. This quantity is expressed by the value of the 
commodity, and since the value is reckoned in money of ac- 
count^ this quantity is also expressed by the price, which we 
will suppose to be £10. But his labour is not represented both 
by the value of the commodity, and by a surplus over that 
value, not by a price of 10 that is also a price of 11, not by a 
value that is greater than itself. The commodity owner can, 
by his labour, create value, but not self -expanding value. He 
can increase the value of his commodity, by adding fresh 
labour, and therefore more value to the value in hand, by mak- 
ing, for instance, leather into boots. The same material has 
now more value, because it contains a greater quantity of 
labour. The boots have therefore more value than the leather, 
but the value of the leather remains what it was ; it has not 
expanded itself, has not, during the making of the boots, an- 
nexed surplus value. It is therefore impossible that outside 
the sphere of circulation, a producer of commodities can, with- 
out coming into contact with other commodity owners, ex- 
pand value, and consequently convert money or commodities 
into capital. 

It is therefore impossible for capital to be produced by cir- 
culation, and it is equally impossible for it to originate apart 
from circulation. It must have its origin both in circulation 
and yet not in circulation. 

We have, therefore, got a double result 

The conversion of money into capital has to be explained on 
the basis of the laws that regulate the exchange of commod- 
ities, in such a way that the starting point is the exchange of 
equivalents.^ Our friend. Moneybags, who as yet is only an 

^From the foregoing investigation, the reader will see that this statement only 
means that the formation of capital must be possible even though the price and value 
of a commodity be the same; for its formation cannot be attributed to any deviation 
of the one from the other. If prices actually differ from values, we must, first of 



 

The Buying and Selling of Labour-Power. 185 

embiyo capitalist^ must buy Ids oommodities at their value, 
must sell them at their value^ and yet at the end of the pro- 
cess must withdraw more value from circulation than he threw 
into it at starting. His development into a full-grown capi- 
talist must take plaoe^ both within the sphere of circulation 
and without it Th^ are the conditions of the problem. 
Hie Bhodus&gt; hie saltat 



CHAPTER VL 

THB BTTTHrO Ain&gt; SBLLINO OF IiAB0TJB-P0W]IB» 

Thb change of value that occurs in the case of money intended 
to be converted into capital, cannot take place in the money 
itself since in its function of means of purchase and of pay- 
ment, it does no more than realise the price of the commodity 
it buys or pays for; and, as hard cash, it is value petrified, 
never varying.^ Just as little can it originate in the second 
act of circulation, the rensale of the commodity, which does 
no more than transform the article from its bodily form back 
again into its money-form. The change must, therefore, take 
place in the commodity bought by the first act, M — C, but not 
in its value^ for equivalents are exchanged, and the commodity 
18 paid for at its fuft value. We are, therefore, forced to the 

tM, reduce the former to the latter, in other words treat the di£Fereiice as accidental 
in order that the phenomena may he observed in their purity, and our obsemttions 
not interfered with by disturbing circumstances that have nothing to do with the 
fMnocess in question. We know, moreover, that this reduction is no mere scientific 
process. The continual oscillation in prices, their rising and falling, compensate each 
other, and reduce themselves to an average price, which is their hidden regulator. It 
forms the guiding star of the merchant or the manufacturer in every undertaking 
that requires time. He knows that when a long period of time is taken, commodities 
are sold neither over nor under, but at their average price.&apos; If therefore he thought 
about the matter at all, he would formulate the problem of the formation of capiul 
as follows: How can we account for the origin of capital on the supposition that 
prices are regulated by the average price, ue., ultimately by the value of the com- 
modities? I say &quot;ultimately,&quot; because average prices do not directly coincide with 
tiie values of commodities, as Adam Smith, Ricardo, and others believe. 

^&quot;In the form of money. • . capital is productive of no profit.&quot; (Ricardo: 
Trina of PoL Econ.&quot; p. 267.) 



 

l86 Capitalist Production. 

conclusion that the change originates in the use-value^ a^ aach, 
of the commodity, i.e., in its consumption. In order to be able 
to extract value from the consumption of a commodity, our 
friend, Moneybags, must be so lucky as to find, within the 
sphere of circulation, in the market, a commodity, whose uso- 
value possesses the peculiar property of being a source of 
value, whose actual consumption, therefore, is itself an em- 
bodiment of labour, and, consequently, a creation of value. 
The possessor of money does find on the market such a special 
commodity in capacity for labour or labour-power. 

By labour-power or capacity for labour is to be understood 
the aggregate of those mental and physical capabilities exist- 
ing in a human being, which he exercises whenever he produces 
a use-value of any description. 

But in order that our owner of money may be able to find 
labour-power offered for sale as a commodity, various condi- 
tions must first be fulfilled. The exchange of commodities of 
itself implies no other relations of dei)endence than those which 
result from its own nature. On this assumption, labour-power 
can appear upon the market as a commodity only if, and so 
far as, its possessor, the individual whose labour-power it is, 
offers it for sale, or sells it, as a commodity. In order that ho 
may be able to do this^ he must have it at his disposal, must 
be the untrammelled owner of his capacity for labour, i.e., of 
his person.* He and the owner of money meet in the market, 
and deal with each other as on the basis of equal rights, with 
this difference alone, that one is buyer, the other seller; both, 
therefore, equal in the eyes of the law. The continuance of 
this relation demands that the owner of the labour-power 
should sell it only for a definite period, for if he were to sell it 
rump and stump, once for all, he would be selling himself, 
converting himself from a free man into a slave, from an 
owner of a commodity into a commodity. He must constantly 
look upon his labour-power as his own property, his own com- 
modity, and this he can only do by placing it at the disposal of 

^ In encyclopaedias of classical antiquities we find such nonsense as this — that in 
the ancient world capital was fully developed, &quot;except that the free labourer and a 
system of credit was wanting/&apos; Mommsen also, in his &quot;History of Rome,&quot; commits^ 
in this respect, one blunder after another. 



 

The Buying and Selling of Lahour-Power. 187 

the buyer temporarily, for a definite period of time. By this 
means alone can he avoid renouncing his rights of ownership 
over it»^ 

The second essential condition to the owner of money find- 
ing labour-power in the market as a commodity is this — ^that 
the labourer instead of being in the position to sell com- 
modities in which his labour is incorporated, must be obliged 
to offer for sale as a commodity that very labour-power, which 
exists only in his living sel£ 

In order that a man may be able to sell commodities other 
than labour-power, he must of course have the means of 
production, as raw material, implements, &amp;c. No boots can 
be made without leather. He requires also the means of sub- 
sistence. Nobody — not even &quot;a musician of the future&apos;* 
can live upon future products, or upon use-values in an un- 
finished state ; and ever since the first moment of his appear- 
ance on the world&apos;s stage, man always has been, and must still 
be a consumer, both before and while he is producing. In a 
society where all products assume the form of commodities, 
these commodities must be sold after they have been produced ; 
it is only after their sale that they can serve in satisfying the 
requirements of their producer. The time necessary for their 
sale is superadded to that necessary for their production. 

For the conversion of his money into capital, therefore, the 
owner of money must meet in the market with the free 
labourer, free in the double sense, that as a free man he can 

* Hence legislation in varions cottntries fixes a maximom for labonr-contracts. 
Wherever free labour is the rule, the laws regulate the mode of terminating this con* 
tract. In some States, particularly in Mexico (before the American Civil War, also 
in the territories taken from Mexico, and also as a matter of fact, in the Danubian 
provinces till the revolution affected by Kusa), slavery is hidden under the form of 
peonage. By means of advances, repayable in labour, which are handed down 
from generation to generation, not only the individual labourer, but his family, 
become, de facto, the property of other persons and their families. Juarez abolished 
peonage. The so-called Emperor Maximilian re-established it by a decree, which, in 
the House of Representatives at Washington, was aptly denotmced as a decree for 
the re-introduction of slavery into Mexico. &quot;I may make over to another the use, 
for a limited time, of my particular bodily and mental aptitudes and capabilities; 
b ec a use, in consequence of this restriction, they are impressed with a character of 
alienation with regard to me as a whole. But by the alienation of all my labour- 
time and the whole of my work, I should be converting the substance itself, in other 
words, my general activity and reality, my person, into the property of Another.&quot; 
(Hegel, &apos;^Pbilosophie des Rechts.&quot; Berlin, 1840, p. 104 | 67.) 



 

i88 Capitalist Production. 

dispose of his labour-power as his own commodity^ and that on 
the other hand he has no other commodity for sale^ is short 
of eveiything necessary for the realisation of his labour- 
power. 

The question why this free labourer confronts him in the 
market^ has no interest for the owner of money, who regards 
the labour market as a branch of the general market for com- 
modities. And for the present it interests us just as little. 
We cling to the fact theoretically, as he does practically. One 
thing, however, is clear — ^nature- does not produce on the one 
side owners of money or commodities, and on the other men 
possessing nothing but their own labour-power. This relation 
has no natural basis, neither is its socal basis one that is 
common to all historical periods. It is Jeariy th result of a 
past historial development, the product of many economical 
revolutions, of the extinction of a whole series of older forms 
of social production. 

So, too, the economical categories, abeady iscussed by us&gt; 
bear the stamp of history. Definite historical conditions are 
necessary that a product may become a commodity. It must 
not be produced as the immediate means of subsi ^tence of the 
producer himself. Had we gone further, and inquired under 
what circumstances all, or even the majority of produ * take 
the form of commodities, we should have found that this » ji 
only happen with production of a very specific kind, capitalist 
production. Such an inquiry, however, would have been 
foreign to the analysis of commodities. Production and cir- 
culation of commodities can take place, although the great 
mass of the objects produced are intended for the immediate 
requirements of their producers, are not turned into commodi- 
ties, and consequently social production is not yet by a long 
-way dominated in its length and breadth by exchange-value, 
the appearance of products as commodities presupposed such a 
development of the social division of labour, that the separation 
of use-value from exchange-value, a separation which first 
begins with barter, must already have been completed. But 
such a degree of development is common to many forms of 
society, which in other respects present the most varying 



 

The Buying and Selling of Labour-Power. 189 

historical features. On the other hand, if we consider money, 
its existence implies a definite stage in the exchange of com- 
modities. The particular functions of money which it per- 
forms, either as the mere equivalent of commodities, or as 
means of circulation, or means of payment, as hoard or as 
universal money, point, according to the extent and relative 
preponderance of the one function or the other, to very differ- 
ent stages in the process of social production. Yet we know 
by experience that a circulation of commodities relatively 
primitive, suffices for the production of all these forms. 
Otherwise with capital. The historical conditions of its ex- 
istence are by no means giv«i with the mere circulation of 
money and commodities. It can spring into life, only when 
the owner of the means of production and subsistence meets in 
the market with the free labourer selling his labour-power. 
And this one historical condition comprises a world&apos;s history. 
Capital therefore, announces from its first appearance a new 
epoch in the process of social production.^ 

We must now examine more closely this peculiar commodity, 
labour-power. Like all others it has a value.^ How is that 
value determined t 

The value of labour-power is determined, as in the case of 
every other commodity, by the labour-time necessary for the 
production, and consequently also the reproduction, of this 
special article. So far as it has value, it represents no more 
than a definite quantity of the average labour of society 
incorporated in iL Labour-power exists only as a capacity, or 
power of the living individual Its production consequently 
presupposes his existence. Given the individual, the produc- 
tion of labour-power consists in his reproduction of himself or 
his maintenance. For his maintenance he requires a given 
quantity of the means of subsistence. Therefore the labour- 
time requisite for the production of labour-power reduces itself 

^The capitalist epoch is therefore characterised by this* that labour-power takes 
In the eyes of the labourer himself the form of a commodity which is his proRerty; 
his labour consequently becomes wage labour. On the other hand, it is only ^rom 
this moment that the produce of labour universally becomes a commodity. 

* &quot;The value or worth of a man, is as of all other things his price — ^that is to say, 
•o much as would be given for the use of his power.&quot; (Th. Hobbes: &apos;Tcviathan&quot; 
la Works* Ed. Molesworth. Lond. 1880^4, v. iii., p. 76.) 



 

190 Capitalist Production. 

to that necessary for the production of those means of snb- 
sistence; in other words, the value of labour-power is the 
value of the means of subsistence necessary for the mainte- 
nance of the labourer. Labour-power, however, becomes a 
reality only by its exercise; it sets itself in action only by 
working. But thereby a definite quantity of human muscle, 
nerve, brain, &amp;c., is wasted, and these require to be restored. 
This increased expenditure demands a larger income.^ If the 
owner of labour-power works to-day, to-morrow he must again 
be able to repeat the same process in the same conditions as 
regards health and strength. His means of subsistence must 
therefore be sufficient to maintain him in his normal state as 
a labouring individual. His natural wants, such as food, 
clolhing, fuel, and housing, vary according to the climatic and 
other physical conditions of his country. On the other hand, 
the number and extent of his so-called necessary wants, as also 
the modes of satisfying them, are themselves the product of 
historical development, and depend therefore to a great extent 
on the degree of civilisation of a country, more particularly 
on the conditions under which, and consequently on the habits 
and degree of comfort in which, the class of free labourers has 
been formed.^ In contradistinction therefore to the case of 
other commodities, there enters into the determination of the 
value of labour-power a historical and moral element Never- 
theless, in a given country, at a given period, the average 
quantity of the means of subsistence necessary for the labourer 
is practically known. 

The owner of labour-power is mortal. If then his appear- 
ance in the market is to be continuous, and the continuous con- 
version of money into capital assumes this, the seller of labour- 
power must perpetuate himself, &quot;in the way that every living 
individual perpetuates himself, by procreation.^^^ The labour- 
power withdrawn from the market by wear and tear and 
death, must be continually replaced by, at the very least, an 

^ Hence the Roman Villicns, as overlooker of the agricultural slaves, received 
&quot;more meagre fare than working slaves, because his work was lighter/&apos; (Th. 
Mommsen, Rom. Geschichte. 1856, p. 810.) 

&apos;Compare W. H. Thornton: &quot;Overpopulation and its Remedy,&quot; Lend., 184ft. 

•Petty. 



 

The Buying and Selling of Labour-Power. 191 

equal amount of fresh labour-power. Hence the sum of the 
means of subsistence necessary for the production of labour- 
power must include the means necessary for the labourer&apos;s 
substitutes, i.e., his children, in order that this race of peculiar 
commodity-owners may perpetuate its appearance in the 
market^ 

In order to modify the human organism, so that it may ac- 
quire skill and handiness in a given branch of industry, and 
become labour-power of a special kind, a special education or 
training is requisite, and this, on its part, costs an equivalent 
in commodities of a greater or less amount This amount 
varies according to the more or less complicated character of 
the labour-power. The expenses of this education (excessive- 
ly small in the case of ordinary labour-power), enter pro tanto 
into the total value spent in its production. 

The value of labour-power resolves itself into the value of a 
definite quantity of the means of subsistence. It therefore 
varies with the value of these means or with the quantity of 
labour requisite for their production. 

Some of the means of subsistence, such as food and fuel, are 
consumed daily, and a fresh supply must be provided daily. 
Others such as clothes and furniture last for longer periods 
and require to be replaced only at longer intervals. One 
article must be bought or paid for daily, another weekly, 
another quarterly, and so on. But in whatever way the sum 
total of these outlays may be spread over the year, ihey must 
be covered by the average income, taking one day with an- 
other. If the total of the commodities required daily for the 
production of labour-power=A, and those required weekly 
=B, and those required quarterly=C, and so on, the daily 
average of these commodities=2^^±5^=^2±^. Suppose that in 
this mass of commodities requisite for the average day there 
are embodied 6 hours of social labour, then there is incor- 

^Ita (latxxxr&apos;s) natural ivioe. . . • consists in such a quantity of necessaries 
and comforts of life, as, from the nature of the climate, and the habits of the coun« 
trft are necessary to support the labourer, and to enable him to rear such a family 
as may preserve, in the market, an undiminished supply of labour.&quot; (R. Torrens: 
&quot;An Essay on the external Corn Trade.&quot; Lond., 1815, p. 63.) The word labour is 
liera used incorrectly for labour-power. 



 

192 Capitalist Production. 

porated daily in labour-power half a day&apos;s average social 
labour, in other words, half a day&apos;s labour is requisite for the 
daily production of labour-power. This quantity of labour 
forms the value of a day&apos;s labour-power or the value of the 
labour-power daily reproduced. If half a day&apos;s average social 
labour is incorporated in three shillings, then three shillings 
is the price corresponding to the value of a day&apos;s labour-power. 
If its owner therefore offers it for sale at three shillings a 
day, its selling price is equal to its value, and according to our 
supposition, our friend Moneybags, who is intent upon con- 
verting his three shillings into capital, pays this value. 

The minimum limit of the value of labour-power is deter- 
mined by the value of the commodities, without the daily 
supply of which the labourer cannot renew his vital energy, 
consequently by the value of those means of subsistence that 
are physically indispensable. If the price of labour-power 
fall to this minimum, it falls below its value, since under such 
circumstances it can be maintained and developed only in a 
crippled state. But the value of every commodity is deter- 
mined by the labour-time requisite to turn it out so as to be of 
normal quality. 

It is a very cheap sort of sentim^itality which declares this 
method of determining the value of labour-power, a method 
prescribed by the very nature of the case, to be a brutal 
method, and which wails with Rossi that, &quot;To comprehend 
capacity for labour (puissance de travail) at the same time 
that we make abstraction from the means of subsistence of the 
labourers during the process of production, is to comprehend a 
phantom (etre de raison). When we speak of labour, or 
capacity for labour, we speak at the same time of the labourer 
and his means of subsistence, of labourer and wages.&quot;^ When 
we speak of capacity for labour, we do not speak of labour, any 
more than when we speak of capacity for digestion, we speak 
of digestion. The latter process requires something more than 
a good stomach. When we speak of capacity for labour we do 
not abstract from the necessary means of subsistence. On the 
contrary, their value is expressed in its value. If his capacity 

&gt; RossL rCours d&apos;Econ. PolU: &quot;Brvcuiki, 1848» p. 870. 



 

The Buying and Selling of Lxtbour-Power. 193 

for labour remains unsold^ the labourer derives no benefit f rotn 
ity but rather he will feel it to be a cruel nature-imposed 
necessity that this capacity has cost for its production a de- 
finite amount of the means of subsistence and that it will con- 
tinue to do so for its reproduction. He will then agree with 
Sismondi : ^^that capacity for labour. • • • is nothing unless it 
b sold.&quot;^ 

One consequence of the peculiar nature of labour-power as 
a commodity is, that its use-value does not, on the conclusion 
of this contract between the buyer and seller, immediately pass 
into the hands of the former. Its value, like that of every 
other commodity, is already fixed before it goes into circula- 
tion, since a definite quantity of social labour has been spent 
upon it; but its use-value consists in the subsequent exercise of 
its force. The alienation of labour-power and its actual ap- 
propriation by the buyer, its employment as a use-value, are 
separated by an interval of time. But in those cases in which 
the formal alienation by sale of the use-value of a commodity, 
is not simultaneous with its actual delivery to the buyer, the 
money of the latter usually functions as means of payment-* 
In every country in which the capitalist mode of production 
reigns, it is the custom not to pay for labour-power before it 
has been exercised for the period fixed by the contract^ as for 
example, the end of each week. In all cases, therefore, the 
use-value of the labour-power is advanced to the capitalist: the 
labourer allows the buyer to consume it before he receives pay- 
ment of the price ; he everywhere gives credit to the capitalist 
That this credit is no mere fiction, is shown not only by the 
occasional loss of wages on the bankruptcy of the capitalist,* 
but also by a series of more enduring consequences.* Never- 

» Sismondi: &quot;Noiiv. Princ etc,&quot; t I. p. 118. 

» All labottr is paid after it has ceased.&quot; (&quot;An inquiry into those Principles re- 
specting the nature of Demand,&quot; &amp;c, p. 104.) **Lt credit commercial a du com- 
mencer au moment oh Tourrier, premier artisan de la production, a pu, au moyen de 
scs Economies, attendre le salaire de son travail jusqu, 4 la fin de la semaine, de la 
qninzaine, du mois^ du trimestre, &amp;c (Ch. Ganilh: &quot;Des Syst^es de I&apos;Econ. Polit.&quot; 
Ume. edit. Paris, 1821, t. L p. 160.&gt; 

•&apos;&apos;L&apos;ouvrier prcte son Industrie,&quot; but adds Storch slyly: he **ri8k8 nothing&quot; 
except &quot;de perdre son salaire • • . • L&apos;ouvrier ne transmet rien de materiel.&quot; 
(Storch: &quot;Cours d&apos;Econ. Polit. Econ.&quot; P^ersbourg, 1815. t. 11., p. 87.) 

4 One rpimplft. In London there are two sorts of bakers^ the &quot;full priced*&quot; who 

U 



 

194 Capitalist Production. 

theless, whether money serves as a means of purchase or as a 
means of payment^ this makes no alteration in the nature of 
the exchange of commodities. The price of the labour-power 
is fixed by the contract, although it is not realised till later, 
like the rent of a house. The labour-power is sold, although 
it is only paid for at a later period. It will, therefore, be 
useful, for a clear comprehension of the relation of the parties, 
to assume provisionally, that the possessor of labour-power, on 
the occasion of each sale, immediately receives the price 
stipulated to be paid for it 

We now know how the value paid by the purchaser to the 

•ell bread at iU full value, and the &quot;andenellera,&quot; who sell it under ita value. The 
latter class comprises more than three&gt;fourths of the total number of bakers, (p. 
zxxii in the Report of H. S. Tremenheere, commissioner to examine into &quot;the griev- 
ances complained of by the journeymen bakers,&quot; &amp;c, Lond. 1862.) The undersellers* 
almost without exception, sell bread adulterated with alum, soap, pearl ashes, chalk, 
Derbyshire stone-dust, and such like agreeable nourishing and wholesome ingredi- 
ents. (See the above cited blue book, as also the report of &quot;the committee of 
1866 on the adulteration of bread,&quot; and Dr. Hassall&apos;s &quot;Adulterations detected,&quot; 
8d Ed. Lond. 1802.) Sir John Gordon stated before the committee of 1866, that &quot;in 
consequence of these adulterations, the poor man, who lives on two pounds of 
bread a day, does not now get one fourth part of nourishing matter, let alone the 
deleterious effects on his health.&quot; Tremenheere states (L c. p. xlviii), as the rcm- 
son, why a very large part of the working class, although weU aware of this adul- 
teration, nevertheless accept the alum, stone-dust, &amp;c., as part of their purchase: 
that it is for them &quot;a matter of necessity to take from their baker or from the 
chandler&apos;s shop, such bread as they choose to supply.&quot; As they are not paid their 
wages before the end of the week, they in their turn are unable &quot;to pay for the 
bread consumed by their families, during the week, before the end of the week,&quot; 
and Tremenheere adds on the evidence of witnesses, &quot;it is notorious that bread com- 
posed of those mixtures, is made expressly for sale in this manner.&quot; In many 
English and still more Scotch agricultural districts, wages are paid fortnightly and 
even monthly; with such long intervals between the payments, the agricultural la- 
bourer is obliged to buy on credit. . • . He must pay higher prices, and is in 
fact tied to the shop which gives him credit. Thus at Horningham in Wilts, for ex- 
ample^ where the wages are monthly, the same flour that he could buy elsewhere 
at Is lOd per stone, costs him 28 4d per stone. (&quot;Sixth Report&quot; on &quot;Public Health&quot; 
by &quot;The Medical Officer of the Privy Council, &amp;c, 1804.&quot; p. 804.) &quot;The block 
printers of Paisley and Kilmarnock enforced, by a strike, fortnightly, instead of 
monthly payment of wages.&quot; (Reports of the Injectors of Factories for 81st 
Oct, 1868,&quot; p. 84.) As a further pretty result of the credit given by the 
workmen to the capitalist, we may refer to the method current in many English 
coal mines, where the labourer is not paid till the end of the month, and in 
the meantime, receives sums on account from the capitalist, often in goods for 
which the miner is obliged to pay more than the market price (Truck-system). 
&quot;It is a common practice with the coal masters to pay once a month, and advance 
cash to their workmen at the end of each intermediate week. The cash is given 
in the shop&quot; (i. #., the Tommy shop which belongs to the master); &quot;the men take 
it oa one side and lay it out on the other.&quot; (Children&apos;s Employment Commis* 
tlon, III, Report, London. 1864, p. 88, n. 102.) 



 

The Buying and Selling of Labour-Power. 195 

possessor of this peculiar commodity, labour-power, is de- 
termined. The use-value which the former gets in exchange, 
manifests itself only in the actual usufruct, in the consump- 
tion of the labour-power. The money owner buys every- 
thing necessary for this purpose, such as raw material, in the 
market, and pays for it at its full value. The consumption 
of labour-power is at one and the same time the production of 
commodities and of surplus value. The consumption of 
labour-power is completed, as in the case of every other com- 
modity, outside the limits of the market or of the sphere of 
circulation. Accompanied by Mr. Moneybags and by the 
possessor of labour-power, we therefore take leave for a time 
of this noisy sphere, where everything takes place on the sur- 
face and in view of all men, and follow them both into the 
hidden abode of production, on whose threshold there stares 
us in the face &quot;No admittance except on business.&apos;^ Here we 
shall see, not only how capital produces, but how capital is 
produced. We shall at last force the secret of profit making. 
This sphere that we are deserting, within whose boundariea 
the sale and purchase of labour-power goes on, is in fact a very 
Eden of the innate rights of man. There alone rule Freedom, 
Equality, Property and Bentham. Freedom, because both 
buyer and seller of a commodity, say of labour-power, are 
constrained only by their own free will. They contract as 
free agents, and the agreement they come to, is but the form 
in which they give legal expression to their common wilL 
Equality, because each enters into relation with the other, as 
with a simple owner of commodities, and they exchange 
equivalent for equivalent. Property, because each disposes 
only of what is his own. And Bentham, because each looks 
only to himself. The only force that brings them together and 
puts them in relation with each other, is the selfishness, the 
gain and the private interests of each. Each looks to himself 
only, and no one troubles himself about the rest, and just be- 
cause they do so, do they all, in accordance with the pre- 
established harmony of things, or under the auspices of an 
all-shrewd providence, work together to their mutual advan- 
tage, for the common weal and in the interest of all. 



 

196 Capitalist Production. 

On leaving this sphere of simple circulation or of exchange 
of commodities, -which furnishes the &quot;Free-trader Vulgaris*&apos; 
with his views and ideas, and with the standard by which he 
judges a society based on capital and wages, we think we can 
perceive a change in the physiognomy of our dramatis personse. 
He, who before was the money owner, now strides, in front as 
capitalist ; the possessor of labour-power follows as his labourer. 
The one with an air of importance, smirking, intent on busi- 
ness ; the other, timid and holding back, like one who is bring- 
ing his own hide to market and has nothing to expect bat — 
a hiding. 



 

PARTm. 

THE PEODUCnON OF ABSOLUTE SUEPLU8- 

VALUE. 



CHAPTER VIL 

THB liABOUR-FBOCESS AND THE PROCESS OF PRODUCINa 
SURPLUS-VALUE. 

fiXOnOir 1. — THB XABOUB-PBOOESS OB THB PB0DU0TI017 OF 

USB-VALUBS. 

The capitalist buys labour-power in order to use it; and 
labour-power in use is lab itself. The purchaser of labour- 
power consumes H by setting the seller of it to work. By 
Working, the latter becomes actually, what before he only was 
potentially, labour-power in action, a labourer. In order that 
his labour may reappear in a commodity, he must, before all 
things, expend it on something useful, on something capable 
of satisfying a want of some sort Hence, what the capitalist 
sets the labourer to produce, is a particular use-value, a 
specified article. The fact that the production of use-values, 
or goods, is carried on under the control of a capitalist and 
on his behalf, does not alter the general character of that 
production. We shall, therefore, in the first place, have to 
consider the labour-process independently of the particular 
form it assumes under given social conditions. 

Labour is, in the first place, a process in which both man 
and Nature participate, and in which man of his own accord 
starts, regulates, and controls the material re-actions between 
himself and Nature. He opposes himself to Nature as one of 

197 



 

198 Capitalist Production. 

her own forces, setting in motion arms and legs, head and 
hands, the natural forces of his body, in order to appropriate 
Nature&apos;s productions in a form adapted to his own wants. By 
thus acting on the external world and changing it, he at the 
same time changes his own nature. He develops his slumber- 
ing powers and compels them to act in obedience to his sway. 
We are not now dealing with those primitive instinctive forms 
of labour that remind us of the mere animal. An immeasur- 
able interval of time separates the state of things in which a 
man brings his labour-power to market for sale as a commodity, 
from that state in which human labour was still in its first in- 
stinctive stage. We presuppose labour in a form that stamps 
it as exclusively human. A spider conducts operations that 
resemble those of a weaver, and a bee puts to shame many an 
architect in the construction of her cells. But what distin- 
guishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that 
the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects 
it in reality. At the end of every labour-process, we get a re- 
sult that already existed in the imagination of the labourer at 
its commencement He not only effects a change of form in 
the material on which he works, but he also realises a purpose 
of his own that gives the law to his modus operandi, and to 
which he must subordinate his wilL And this subordination 
is no mere momentary act Besides the exertion of the bodily 
organs, the process demands that, during the whole operation, 
the workman&apos;s will be steadily in consonance with his purpose. 
This means close attention. The less he is attracted by the 
nature of the work, and the mode in which it is carried on, 
and the less, therefore, he enjoys it as something which gives 
play to his bodily and mental powers^ the more close his at- 
tention is forced to be. 

The elementary factors of the labour-process are 1, the per- 
sonal activity of man, i.e., work itself, 2, the subject of that 
work, and 3, its instruments. 

The soil (and this, economically speaking, includes water) 
in the virgin state in which it supplies^ man with necessaries 

*&quot;The earth&apos;s fpontaneous productions being in small quantity, and quite inde- 
pendent of man, appear, as it were, to be furnished by Nature, in Uie same way as a 



 

The Labour Process. 199 

or the means of subsistence ready to hand, exists independently 
of him, and is the universal subject of human labour. All 
those things which labour merely separates from immediate 
connection with their environment, are subjects of labour 
spontaneously provided by Nature. Such are fish, which we 
catch and take from their element^ water, timber which we 
fell in the virgin forest, and ores which we extract from their 
veins. If, on the other hand, the subject of labour has, so to 
say, been filtered through previous labour, we call it raw 
material; such is ore already extracted and ready for wash- 
ing. All raw material is the subject of labour, but not every 
subject of labour is raw material ; it can only become so. after 
it has undergone some alteration by means of labour. 

An instrument of labour is a thing, or a complex of things, 
which the labourer interposes between himself and the subject 
of his labour, and which, serves as the conductor of his activity. 
He makes use of the mechanical, physical, and chemical pro- 
perties of some substances in order to make other substances 
subservient to his aims.^ Leaving out of consideration such 
ready-made means of subsistence as fruits, in gathering which 
a man&apos;s own limbs serve as the instruments of his labour, the 
first thing of which the labourer possesses himself is not the 
subject of labour but its instrument Thus Nature becomes 
one of the organs of his activity, one that he annexes to his 
own bodily organs, adding stature to himself in spite of the 
Bible. As the earth is his original larder, so too it is his 
original tool house. It supplies him, for instance, with stones 
for throwing, grinding, pressing, cutting, &amp;a The earth itself 
is an instrument of labour, but when used as such in agri- 
culture implies a whole series of other instruments and a com- 
paratively high development of labour.^ No sooner does 

•man stun is given to a young man, in order to put him in a way of industry, and 
of making his fortune.&quot; Games Steuart: &quot;Principles of PoliL Econ.&quot; edit Dub- 
lin, 1770, V. I. p. 116.) 

^&quot;Reason is just as cunning as she is powerful. Her cunning consists principally 
io her mediating activity, which, by causing objects to act and re-act on each other 
in accordance with their own nature, in this way, without any direct interference 
in the process, carries out reason&apos;s intentions.&quot; (Hegel: &quot;Encyklopadie, Erster 
Theil. Die Logik.&apos;* Berlin. 1840, p. 882.) 

* In his otherwise miserable work (&quot;Th^rie de I&apos;Econ. Polit&quot; Paris, 1819), 
Ganilh enumerates in a striking manner in opposition to the &quot;Physiocrats&quot; the 



 

200 Capitalist Production. 

labour tmdergo the least development^ than it requires specially 
prepared instruments* Thus in the oldest caves we find stone 
implements and weapons. In the earliest period of human 
history domesticated animals, i.e., animals which have been 
bred for the purpose, and have undergone modifications by; 
means of labour, play the chief part as instruments of laboull 
along with specially prepared stones, wood, bones, and shells.^ 
The use and fabrication of instruments of labour, althou^ 
existing in the germ among certain species of animals, is 
specifically characteristic of the human labour-process, and 
Franklin therefore defines man as a tool-making animaL 
Relics of by-gone instruments of labour possess the same im- 
portance for the investigation of extinct economical forms of 
society, as do fossil bones for the determination of extinct 
species of animals. It is not the articles made, but how they 
are made, and by what instruments, that enables us to dis- 
tinguish different economical epochs.^ Instruments of labour 
not only supply a standard of the degree of development to 
which human labour has attained, but they are also indicators 
of the social conditions under which that labour is carried on. 
Among the instruments of labour, those of a mechanical nature, 
which, taken as a whole, we may call the bone and muscles of 
production, offer much more decided characteristics of a given 
epoch of production, than those which, like pipes, tubs, baskets, 
jars, &amp;C., serve only to hold the materials for labour, which 
latter class, we may in a general way, call the vascular system 
of production. The latter first begins to play an important 
part in die chemical industries. 

In a wider sense we may include among the instruments of 

long series of prevlons processes necessary before agriculture propsrly so called 
can commence. 

STurgot in his &quot;Reflexions sur la Formation et la Distribution des Ricbessesf 
(1766) brings wdl into prominence the importance of domesticated animals to 
early dTilisation. 

&apos;The least important commodities of all for the technological comparison of 
different epochs of production are articles of luxury, in the strict meaning of the 
term. However little our written histories up to this time notice the development of 
material production, which is the basis of all social life, and therefore of all real 
history, yet prehistoric times have been classified in accordance with the results^ 
not of so c^ed historical, but of materialistic investigations. These periods haw 
been divided, to correspond with the materials from which their implements and 
weapons are made, viz., into the stone, the bronze, and the iron ages. 



 

The Labour Process. 201 

labour^ in addition to those things that are used for directly 
transferring labour to its subject^ and which therefore, in one 
way or another, serve as conductors of activity, all such objects 
as are necessary for carrying on the labour-process. These do 
not enter directly into the process, but without them it is either 
impossible for it to take place at all, or possible only to a 
partial extent. Once more we find the earth to be a universal 
instrument of this sort, for it furnishes a locus standi to the 
labourer and a field of employment for his activity. Among 
instruments that are the result of previous labour and also 
belong to this class, we find workshops, canals, roads, and so 
forth. 

In the labour-process, therefore, man&apos;s activity, with the help 
of the instruments of labour, effects an alteration, designed 
from the commencement, in the material worked upon. The 
process disappears in the product; the latter is a use-value, 
Nature&apos;s material adapted by a change of form to the wants of 
man. Labour has incorporated itself with its subject: the for- 
mer is materialised, the latter transformed. That which in 
the labourer appeared as movement, now appears in the prod- 
uct as a fixed quality without motion. The blacksmith forges 
and the product is a forging. 

If we examine the whole process from the point of view of 
its result, the product, it is plain that both the instruments and 
the subject of labour, are means of production,^ and that the 
labour itself is productive labour.^ 

Though a use-value, in the form of a product, issues from 
the labour-process, yet other use-values, products of previous 
labour, enter into it as means of production. The same use- 
value is both the product of a previous process, and a means of 
production in a later process. Products are therefore not only 
results, but also essential conditions of labour. 

With the exception of the extractive industries, in which 

* It appears paradoxical to assert, that uncaught fish, for instance, are a means of 
production in the fishing industry. But hitherto no one has discovered the art of 
catching fish in waters that contain none. 

*This method of determining from the standpoint of the labour-process alone, 
what is prodnctiTe labour, is by no means directly applicable to the case of tha 
capitalist process of production. 



 

202 Capitalist Production. 

the material for labour is provided immediatelj by nature, 
such as mining, hunting, fishing, and agriculture (so far as the 
latter is confined to breaking up virgin soil), all branches of 
industry manipulate raw material, objects already filtered 
through labour, already products of labour. Such is seed in 
agriculture. Animals and plants, which we are accustomed to 
consider as products of nature, are in their present form, not 
only products of, say last year&apos;s labour, but the result of a 
gradual transformation, continued through many generations^ 
imder man&apos;s superintendence, and by means of his labour. 
But in the great majority of cases, instruments of labour show 
even to the most superficial observer, traces of the labour of 
past ages. 

Eaw material may either form the principal substance of a 
product, or it may enter into its formation only as an acces- 
sory. An accessory may be consumed by the instruments of 
labour, as coal under a boiler, oil by a wheel, hay by draft- 
horses, or it may be mixed with the raw material in order to 
produce some modification thereof, as chlorine into unbleached 
linen, coal with iron, dye-stuff with wool, or again, it may help 
to carry on the work itself; as in the case of the materials used 
for heating and lighting workshops. The distinction between 
principal substance and accessory vanishes in the true chemical 
industries, because there none of the raw material reappears, in 
its original composition, in the substance of the product*^ 

Every object possesses various properties, and is thus capable 
of being applied to different uses. One and the same product 
may therefore serve as raw material in very different processes. 
Com, for example, is a raw material for millers, starch-manu- 
facturers, distillers, and cattle-breeders. It also enters as raw 
material into its own production in the shape of seed : coal, too, 
is at the same time the product of, and a means of production 
in, coal-mining. 

Again, a particular product may be used in one and the same 
process, both as an instrument of labour and as raw material. 
Take, for instance, the fattening of cattle, where the animal is 

^ Storcb calls trae nw materials &quot;mati^es,** and accessoiy material *&apos;mat6riaux:&apos;* 
Cherbuliex describes accessories as &quot;mati^es instrumentales.&quot; 



 

The Labour Process. 203 

the raw material^ and at the same time an instrament for the 
production of manure. 

A product^ though ready for immediate consumption, may 
yet serve as raw material for a further product, as grapes when 
they become the raw material for wine. On the other hand, 
labour may give us its product in such a form, that we can use 
it only as raw material, as is the case with cotton, thread, and 
yam. Such a raw material, though itself a product, may have 
to go through a whole series of different processes : in each of 
these in turn, it serves, with constantly varying form, as raw 
material, until the last process of the series leaves it a perfect 
product, ready for individual consumption, or for use as an 
instrument of labour. 

Hence we see, that whether a use-value is to be regarded as 
raw material, as instrument of labour, or as product, this is de- 
termined entirely by its function in the labour process, by the 
position it there occupies : as this varies, so does its character. 

Whenever therefore a product enters as a means of produc- 
t&amp;H into a new labour-process, it thereby loses its character of 
product, and becomes a mere factor in the process. A spinner 
treats spindles only as implements for spinning, and flax only 
as the material that he spins. Of course it is impossible to 
spin without material and spindles ; and therefore the existence 
of these things as products, at the commencement of the spin- 
ning operation, must be presumed : but in the process itself, the 
fact that they are products of previous labour, is a matter of 
utter indifference ; just as in the digestive process, it is of no 
importance whatever, that bread is the produce of the previous 
labour of the farmer, the miller, and the baker. On the con- 
trary, it is generally by their imperfections as products, that 
the means of production in any process assert themselves in 
their character as products. A blunt knife or weak thread 
forcibly remind us of Mr. A., the cutler, or Mr. B., the spinner. 
In the finished product the labour by means of which it has 
acquired its useful qualities is not palpable, has apparently 
vanished. 

A machine which does not serve the purposes of labour, is 
useless. In addition, it falls a prey to the destructive influenoe 



 

204 Capitalist Production. 

of natural foroes. Iron rusts and wood rots. Yam with whick 
we neither weave nor knit, is cotton wasted. Living labour 
must seize upon these things and rouse them from their death- 
sleep, change them from mere possible use-values into real and 
effective ones. Bathed in the fire of labour, appropriated aa 
part and parcel of labour&apos;s organism, and, as it were, made 
alive for the performance of their functions in the process, they 
are in truth consumed, but consumed with a purpose, as ele- 
mentary constituents of new use-values, of new products, ever 
ready as means of subsistence for individual consumption, or 
as means of production for some new labour-process. 

If then, on the one hand, finished products are not only 
results, but also necessary conditions, of the labour-process, on 
the other hand, their assumption into that process, their con- 
tact with living labour, is the sole means by which they can be 
made to retain their character of use-values, and be utilised. 

Labour uses up its material factors, its subject and its in- 
struments, consumes them, and is therefore a process of con- 
sumption. Such productive consumption is distinguished 
from individual consumption by this, that the latter uses up 
products, as means of subsistence for the living individual ; the 
former, as means whereby alone, labour, the labour-power of 
the living individual, is enabled to act. The product, there- 
fore, of individual consumption, is the consumer himself; the 
result of productive consumption, is a product distinct from 
the consumer. 

In so far then, as its instruments and subjects are themselves 
products, labour consumes products in order to create products, 
or in other words, consumes one set of products by turning 
them into means of production for another set But, just as 
in the beginning, the only participators in the labour-process 
were man and the earth, which latter exists independently of 
man, so even now we still employ in the process many means 
of production, provided directly by nature, that do not repre- 
sent any combination of natural substances with human labour. 

The labour process, resolved as above into its simple ele- 
mentary factors, is human action with a view to the produc- 
tion of use-values, appropriation of natural substances to hu- 



 

The Labour Process, 205 

man requirements ; it is the necessary condition for effecting 
exchange of matter between man and Nature; it is the ever- 
lasting nature-imposed condition of human existence, and 
therefore is independent of every social phase of that existence, 
or rather, is common to every such phase. It was, therefore^ 
not necessary to represent our labourer in connexion with other 
labourers ; man a 1 his labour on one side, Nature and its 
materials on the other, sufficed. As the taste of die porridge 
does not tell you who grew the oats, no more does this simple 
process tell you of itself what are the social conditions under 
which it is taking place, whether under the slave-owner&apos;s brutal 
lash, or the anxious eye of the capitalist, whether Cincinnatus 
carries it on in tilling his modest farm or a savage in killing 
wild animals with stones.^ 

Let us now return to our would-be capitalist We left him 
just after he had purchased, in the open market^ all the neces- 
sary factors of the labour-process; its objective factors, the 
means of production, as well as its subjective factor, labour- 
power. With the keen eye of an expert, he had selected the 
means of production and the kind of labour-power best adapted 
to his particular trade, be it spinning, bootmaking, or any other 
kind. He then proceeds to consume the commodity, the la- 
bour-power that he has just bought, by causing the labourer, 
the impersonation of that labour-power, to consume the means 
of production by his labour. The general character of the 
labour-process is evidently not changed by the fact, that the 
labourer works for the capitalist instead of for himself; more- 
over, the particular methods and operations employed in boot^ 
making or spinning are not immediately changed by the inter- 
vention of the capitalist. He must begin by taking the labour- 
power as he finds it in the market, and consequently be satis- 
fied with labour of such a kind as would be found in the period 
immediately preceding the rise of the capitalists. Changes in 

*By a wonderful feat of logical acumen. Colonel Toirens has discovered in this 
stone of the savage the origin of capital. &quot;In the first stone which he [th« 
savage] flings at the wild animal he pursues, in the stick that he seizes to strika 
down the fruit which hangs above his reach, we see the appropriation of ona 
article for the purpose of aiding in the acquisition of another, and thus discover the 
origin of capitaL (R. Torrem: &quot;An Essaj on the Production of Wealth*&quot; &amp;&amp;» 
pp. 70-71,) 



 

, 2o6 Capitalist Production. 

the methods of production by the subordination of labour to 
capital, can take place only at a later period, and therefore will 
have to be treated of in a later chapter. 

The labour-process, turned into the process by which the 
capitalist consumes labour-power, exhibits two characteristic 
phenomena. First, the labourer works under the control of 
the capitalist to whom his labour belongs; the capitalist taking 
good care that the work is done in a proper manner, and that 
the means of production are used with intelligence, so that 
there is no unnecessary waste of raw material, and no wear and 
tear of the implements beyond what is necessarily caused by 
the work. 

Secondly, the product is the property of the capitalist and 
not that of the labourer, its immediate producer. Suppose 
that a capitalist pays for a day&apos;s labour-i)ower at its value; 
then the right to use that power for a day belongs to him, just 
as much as the right to use any other commodity, such as a 
horse that he has hired for the day. To the purchaser of a 
commodity belongs its use, and the seller of labour-power, by 
giving his labour, does no more, in reality, than part with the 
use-value that he has sold. From the instant he steps into 
the workshop, the use-value of his labour-power, and therefore 
also its use, which is labour, belongs to the capitalist. By the 
purchase of labour-power, the capitalist incorporates labour, as 
a living ferment, with the lifeless constituents of the product 
From his point of view, the labour-process is nothing more 
than the consumption of the commodity purchased, i.e., of 
labour-power; but this consumption cannot be effected except 
by supplying the labour-power with the means of production. 
The labour-process is a process between things that the capi- 
talist has purchased, things that have become his properly. 
The product of this process also belongs, therefore, to him, just 
as much as does the wine which is the product of a process of 
fermentation completed in his cellar.^ 

^&quot;Products are appropriated before they are converted into capital; this convex 
don docs not secure them from such appropriation.&apos;* (Cherbuliez: &quot;Riche on 
Pauvrc,&quot; edit Paris, 1841, pp. 5S, 54.) &quot;The Proletarian, by selling his labour for 
a definite quantity of the necessaries of life, renounces all claim to a share in 
the product. The mode of appropriation of the products remains the same as 



 

The Labour Process. 2yj 



SECTION 2, — THE PBaDUOTIOW OF STTBFLTJS-VALtJB. 

The product appropriated by the capitalist is a use-value, as 
yam, for example, or boots. But, although boots are, in one 
sense, the basis of all social progress, and our capitalist is a 
decided &quot;progressist,&quot; yet he does not manufacture boots for 
their own sake. Use-value is, by no means, the thing &quot;qu&apos;on 
aime pour lui-meme&quot; in the production of commodities. Use- 
values are only produced by capitalists, because, and in so far 
as, they are the material substratum, the depositaries of ex- 
change-value. Our capitalist has two objects in view: in the 
first place, he wants to produce a use-value that has a value 
in exchange, that is to say, an article destined to be sold, a 
commodity ; and secondly, he desires to produce a commodity 
whose value shall be greater than the sum of the values of the 
commodities used in its production, that is, of the means of 
production and the labour-power, that he purchased with his 
good money in the open market His aim is to produce not 
only a use-value, but a commodity also; not only use-value, 
but value; not only value, but at the same time surplus- 
value. 

It must be borne in mind, that we are now dealing with the 
production of commodities, and that, up to this point, we have 
only considered one aspect of the process. Just as commodities 
are, at the same time, use-values and values, so the process of 
producing them must be a labour-process, and at the same 
time, a process of creating value. ^ 

before; it is no way altered by the bargain we have mentioned. The product be- 
longs exclusively to the capitalist, who supplied the raw material and the neces- 
saries of life; and this is a rigorous consequence of the law of appropriation, a law 
whose fundamental principle was the very opposite, namely, that every labourer has 
an exclusive right to the ownership of what he produces.&quot; (1. c. p. 58.) &quot;When 
the labourers receive wages for their labour .... the capitalist is then the 
owner not of the capital only&quot; (he means the means of production) &quot;but of the 
labour alsa If what is paid as wages is included, as it commonly is, in the 
term capital, it is absurd to talk of labour separately from capitaL The word 
capital as thus employed includes labour and capital both.&quot; (Junes Mill: &quot;Elc- 
menU of PoL Econ.,&quot; &amp;c, Ed. 1821, pp. 70, 71.) 

^ As has been stated in a previous note, the English language has two different 
expressions for these two different aspects of labour; in the Simple Labour-procesi^ 
the process of producing Use- Values, it is Work; in the process of creation of 
Value, it is Labour, taking the term in its strictly economical sense. — Ed. 



 

2o8 Capitalist Production. 

Let lis now examine production as a creation of value* 

We know that the value of each commodity is determined 
by the quantity of labour expended on and materialised in it, 
by the working-time necessary, under given social conditions, 
for its production. This rule also holds good in the case of 
the product that accrued to our capitalist, as the result of the 
labour-process carried on for him. Assuming this product to 
be 10 lbs. of yam, our first step is to calculate the quantity of 
labour realised in it 

For spinning the yam, raw material is required ; suppose in 
this case 10 lbs. of cotton. We have no need at present to 
investigate the value of this cotton, for our capitalist has, we 
will assume, bought it at its full value, say of ten shillings. 
In this price the labour required for the production of the 
cotton is already expressed in terms of the average labour of 
society. We will further assume that the wear and tear of the 
spindle, which, for our present purpose, may represent all other 
instruments of labour employed, amounts to the value of 2s. 
If, then, twenty-four hours^ labour, or two working days, are 
required to produce the quantity of gold represented by twelve 
shillings, we have here, to begin with, two days&apos; labour already 
incorporated in the yam. 

We must not let ourselves be misled by the circumstance 
that the cotton has taken a new shape while the substance of 
the spindle has to a certain extent been used up. By the 
general law of value, if the value of 40 lbs. of yam=the value 
of 40 lbs. of cotton + the value of a whole spindle, i.e., if the 
same working time is required to produce the commodities on 
either side of this equation, tlien 10 lbs. of yam are an equiva- 
lent for 10 lbs. of cotton, together with one-fourth of a spindle. 
In the case we are considering the same working time is ma- 
terialised in the 10 lbs. of yam on the one hand, and in the 10 
lbs. of cotton and the fraction of a spindle on the other. 
Therefore, whether value appears in cotton, in a spindle, or 
in yarn, makes no difference in the amount of that value. 
The spindle and cotton, instead of resting quietly side by side, 
join together in the process, their forms are altered, and they 
are turned into yam ; but their value is no more affected by 



 

Whe Labour Process. 209 

ibis fact fhan ff ^wotild be if they had been simply exchanged 
for their equivalent in yam. 

The labour required for the production of the cotton, the 
raw material of the yam, is part of the labour necessary to 
produce the yam, and is therefore contained in the yam. The 
same applies to the labour embodied in the spindle, without 
whose wear and tear the cotton could not be spun. 

Hence, in determining the value of the yam, or the labour- 
time required for its production, all the special processes car- 
ried on at various times and in different places, which were 
necessary, first to produce the cotton and the wasted portion of 
the spindle, and then with the cotton and spindle to spin the 
yam, may together be looked on as different and successive 
phases of one and the same process. The whole of the labour 
in the yam is past labour ; and it is a matter of no importance 
that the operations necessary for the production of its con- 
stituent elements were carried on at times which, referred to 
the present, are more remote than the final operation of spin- 
ning. If a definite quantity of labour, say thirty days, is 
requisite to build a house, the total amount of labour incor- 
porated in it is not altered by the fact that the work of the 
last day is done twenty-nine days later than that of the first. 
Therefore the labour contained in the raw material and the 
instruments of labour can be treated just as if it were labour 
expended in an earlier stage of the spinning process, before the 
labour of actual spinning commenced. 

The values of the means of production, i,e., the cotton and 
the spindle, which values are expressed in the price of twelve 
shillings, are therefore constituent parts of the value of the 
yam, or, in other words, of the value of the product. 

Two conditions must nevertheless be fulfilled. First, the 
cotton and spindle must concur in the production of a use- 
value; they must in the present case become yam. Value is 
independent of the particular use-value by which it is borne, 
but it must be embodied in a use-value of some kind. Sec- 
ondly, the time occupied in the labor of production must not 
exceed the time really necessary under the given social con- 
ditions of the case. Therefore, if no more than 1 lb. of cotton 



N 



 

210 Capitalist Production. 

be requisite to spin 1 lb. of jarn^ care must be taken that no 
more than this weight of cotton is consumed in the production 
of 1 lb. of yam; and similarly with regard to the spindle. 
Though the capitalist have a hobby, and use a gold instead of a 
steel spindle, yet the only labour that counts for anything in 
the value of the yam is that which would be required to pro- 
duce a steel spindle, because no more is necessary under the 
given social conditions. 

We now know what portion of the value of the yam is owing 
to the cotton and the spindle. It amounts to twelve diillings 
or the value of two days&apos; work. The next point for our con- 
sideration is, what portion of the value of the yam is added 
to the cotton by the labour of the spinner. 

We have now to consider this labour under a very different 
aspect from that which it had during the labour-process ; there, 
we viewed it solely as that particular kind of human activity 
which changes cotton into yam; there, the more the labour 
was suited to the work, the better the yam, other circumstances 
remaining the same. The labour of the spinner was then 
viewed as specifically different from other kinds of productive 
labour, different on the one hand in its special aim, viz., spin- 
ning, different, on the other hand, in the special character of its 
operations, in the special nature of its means of production and 
in the special use-value of its product For the operation of 
spinning, cotton and spindles are a necessity, but for making 
rifled cannon they would be of no use whatever. Here, on the 
contrary, where we consider the labour of the spinner only so 
far as it is value-creating, i.e., a source of value, his labour dif- 
fers in no respect from the labour of the man who bores cannon, 
or (what here more nearly concerns us), from the labour of the 
cotton-planter and spindle-maker incorporated in the means of 
production. It is solely by reason of this identity, that cotton 
planting, spindle making and spinning, are capable of forming 
the component parts, differing only quantitatively from each 
other, of one whole, namely, the value of the yam. Here, we 
have nothing more to do with the quality, the nature and the 
specific character of the labour, but merely with its quantity. 
And this simply requires to be calculated. We proceed upon 



 

The Labour Process. 211 

&apos;&amp;e assumption that spinning is simple, unskilled labour, the 
average labour of a given state of society. Hereafter we shall 
see that the contrary assumption would make no difference. 

While the labourer is at work, his labour constantly under- 
goes a transformation : from being motion, it becomes an object 
without motion ; from being the labourer working, it becomes 
the thing produced. At the end of one hour&apos;s spinning, that 
act is represented by a definite quantity of yam; in other 
words, a definite quantity of labour, namely that of one hour, 
has become embodied in the cotton. We say labour, i.e., the 
expenditure of his vital force by the spinner, and not spinning 
labour, because the special work of spinning counts here, only 
so far as it is the expenditure of labour-power in general, and 
not in so far as it is the specific work of the spinner. 

In the process we are now considering it is of extreme im- 
portance, that no more time be consumed in the work of trans- 
forming the cotton into yam than is necessary under the given 
social conditions. If under normal, i.e., average social condi- 
tions of production, a pounds of cotton ought to be made into 
6 pounds of yam by one hour&apos;s labour, then a day&apos;s labour 
does not count as 12 hours&apos; labour unless 12 a pounds of cotton 
have been made into 12 6 pounds of yam ; for in the creation 
of value, the time that is socially necessary alone counts. 

Not only the labour, but also the raw material and the pro- 
duct now appear in quite a new light, very different from that 
in which we viewed them in the labour-process pure and sim- 
ple. The raw material serves now merely as an absorbent of 
a definite quantity of labour. By this absorption it is in fact 
changed into yam, because it is spun, because labour-power 
in the form of spinning is added to it; but the product, the 
yam, is now nothing more than a measure of the labour ab- 
sorbed by the cotton. If in one hour If lbs. of cotton can be 
spun into 1§ lbs. of yam, then 10 lbs. of yam indicate the 
absorption of 6 hours&apos; labour. Definite quantities of product, 
these quantities being determined by experience, now represent 
nothing but definite quantities of labour, definite masses of 
orystallized labour-time. They are nothing more than the 



 

212 Capitalist Production. 

materialisatioii of so many hours or so many days of social 
labour. 

We are here no more ooncemed about the facts, that the 
labour is the specific work of spinning, that its subject is cotton 
and its product yam, than we are about the fact that the sub- 
ject itself is already a product and therefore raw material 
If the spinner, instead of spinning, were working in a coal 
mine, the subject of his labour, the coal, would be supplied by 
Nature; nevertheless, a definite quantity of extracted coal, a 
hundred weight, for example, would represent a definite quan- 
tity of absorbed labour. 

We assumed, on the occasion of its sale, that the value of 
a day&apos;s labour-power is three shillings, and that six hours&apos; la- 
bour are incorporated in that sum ; and consequently that this 
amount of labour is requisite to produce the necessaries of life 
daily required on an average by the labourer. If now our 
spinner by working for one hour, can convert 1§ lbs. of cotton 
into 1 J lbs. of yam,* it follows that in six hours he will convert 
10 lbs. of cotton into 10 lbs. of yam. Hence, during the spin- 
ning process, the cotton absorbs six hours&apos; labour. The same 
quantity of labour is also embodied in a piece of gold of the 
value of three shillings. Consequently by the mere labour of 
spinning, a value of three shillings is added to the cotton. 

Let us now consider the total value of the product, the 10 
lbs. of yam. Two and a half days&apos; labour have been embodied 
in it, of which two days were contained in the cotton and in 
the substance of the spindle worn away, and half a day was 
absorbed during the process of spinning. This two and a half 
days&apos; labour is also represented by a piece of gold of the value 
of fifteen shillings. Hence, fifteen shillings is an adequate 
price for the 10 lbs. of yam, or the price of one pound is eight- 
een-pence. 

Our capitalist stares in astonishment The value of the 
product is exactly equal to the value of the capital advanced. 
The value so advanced has not expanded, no surplus-value has 
been created, and consequently money has not been converted 
into capital The price of the yam is fifteen shillings^ and 

^ These figures are quite arbitrary. 



 

The Labour Process. 213 

fifteen shillings were spent in the open market upon the con- 
stituent elements of the product^ or, what amounts to the same 
thing, upon the factors of the labour-process ; ten shillings were 
paid for the cotton, two shillings for the substance of the spin- 
dle worn away, and three shillings for the labour-power. The 
swollen value of the yam is of no avail, for it is merely the 
Bum of the values formerly existing in the cotton, the spindle, 
and the labour-power ; out of such a simple addition of existing 
values, no surplus-value can possibly arise.* These separate 
values are now all concentrated in one thing ; but so they were 
also in the sum of fifteen shillings, before it was split up into 
three parts, by the purchase of the commodities. 

There is in reality nothing very strange in this result. The 
value of one pound of yam being eighteenpence, if our capita- 
list buys 10 lbs. of yam in the market, he must pay fifteen 
shillings for them. It is clear that, whether a man buys his 
house ready built, or gets it built for him, in neither case will 
the mode of acquisition increase the amount of money laid out 
on the house. 

Our capitalist, who is at home in his vulgar economy, ex- 
claims : &quot;Oh 1 but I advanced my money for the express pur- 
pose of making more money.^&apos; The way to Hell is paved with 
good intentions, and he might just as easily have intended to 
make money, without producing at all.^ He threatens all sorts 
of things. He won&apos;t be caught napping again. In future he 
will buy the commodities in the market, instead of manufac- 
turing them himself. But if all his brother capitalists were to 
do the same, where would he find his commodities in the mar- 
ket? And his monqr he cannot eat He tries persuasion. 

^Thb is the fundamental proposition on which is based the doctrine of the 
Physiocrats as to the unproductiveness of all labour that is not agriculture: it is 
irrefutable for the orthodox economist. &quot;Cette fagon d&apos;imputer &amp; une seule chose 
la Taleur de plusieurs autres&quot; (par exemple au lin la consommation du tisserand), 
&quot;d&apos;appliquer, pour ainsi dire, couche sur couche, plusieurs valeurs sur une seule, 
fait que cellena grossit d&apos;autant . . . . Le terme d&apos;addition peint tr^bien la 
mani^e dont se forme 1« prix des outrages de main-d&apos;oeuvre; ce prix n&apos;est qu&apos;un 
total de plusieurs valeurs consommies et additionies ensemble; or, additionner n&apos;est 
pas multiplier.&quot; (&quot;Mercier de la Riviire,&quot; 1. c, p. 699.) 

&apos;Thus from 1844-47 he withdrew part of his capital from productive employment, 
in order to throw it away in railway speculations; and so also, during the Ameri- 
can Civil War, he closed his factory, and turned his work-people into the streets^ 
ia order to gamble on the Liverpool cotton exchange. 



 

214 Capitalist Production. 

&quot;Consider my abstinence; I might have played ducks and 
drakes with tibe 15 shillings ; but instead of that I consumed 
it productively, and made yam with it.&quot; Very well, and by 
way of reward he is now in possession of good yam instead 
of a bad conscience ; and as for playing the part of a miser, 
it would never do for him to relapse into such bad ways as 
that; we have seen before to what results such asceticism 
leads. Besides, where nothing is, the king has lost his rights : 
whatever may be the merit of his abstinence, there is nothing 
wherewith specially to remunerate it, because the value of the 
product is merely the sum of the values of the commodities 
that were thrown into the process of production. Let him 
therefore console himself with the reflection that virtue is its 
own reward. But no&gt; he becomes importunate. He says: 
&quot;The yam is of no use to me: I produced it for sale.&apos;* In 
that case let him sell it, or, still better, let him for the future 
produce only things for satisfying his personal wants, a rem- 
edy that his physician M&apos;CuUoch has already prescribed as 
infallible against an epidemic of over-production. He now 
gets obstinate. &quot;Can the labourer,&quot; he asks, &quot;merely with 
his arms and l^s, produce commodities out of nothing ? Did 
I not supply him with the materials, by means of which, and 
in which alone^ his labour could be embodied? And as the 
greater part of society consists of such ne&apos;er-do-weels, have I 
not rendered society incalculable service by my instruments 
of production, my cotton and my spindle, and not only society, 
but the labourer also, whom in addition I have provided with 
the necessaries of life? And am I to be allowed nothing in 
return for all this service ?&quot; Well, but has not the labourer 
rendered him the equivalent service of changing his cotton 
and spindle into yam ? Moreover, there is here no question of 
service.^ A service is nothing more than the useful effect of 

^ Extol thyself, put on finery and adorn thyself . . . but whoever takes more 
or better than he gives, that is usury, and is not service, but wrong done to his 
neighbour, as when one steals and robs. All is not service and benefit to a neigh- 
bour that is called service and benefit. For an adulteress and adtdterer do one 
another great service and pleasure. A horseman does an incendiary a great serv* 
ice, by helping him to rob on the highway, and pillage land and houses. The 
papists do ours a great service in that they don&apos;t drown, bum, murder all of 
them, or let them all rot in prison; but let some live, and only drive them onU 



 

The Labour Process. 215 

a use-value, be it of a commodity, or be it of labour.^ But 
here we are dealing with exchange-value. The capitalist paid 
to the labourer a value of 3 shillings, and the labourer gave 
him back an exact equivalent in the value of 3 shillings, added 
by him to the cotton: he gave him value for value. Our 
friend, up to this time so purse-proud, suddenly assumes the 
modest demeanour of his own workman, and exclaims : ^^Have 
I myself not worked ? Have I not performed the labour of 
superintendence and of overlooking the spinner? And does 
not this labour, too, create value?&apos;&apos; His overlooker and his 
manager try to hide their smiles. Meanwhile, after a hearty 
laugh, he re-assumes his usual mien. Though he chanted to 
us the whole creed of the economists, in reality, he says, he 
would not give a brass farthing for it He leaves this and all 
such like subterfuges and juggling tricks to the professors of 
political economy, who are paid for it He himself is a prac* 
tical man; and though he does not always consider what he 
says outside his business, yet in his business he knows what 
he is about 

Let us examme the matter more closely. The value of a 
day&apos;s labour-power amounts to 3 shillings, because on our as- 
sumption half a day&apos;s labour is embodied in that quantity of 
labour-power, i.e., because the means of subsistence that are 
daily required for the production of labour-power, cost half a 
day&apos;s labour. But the past labour that is embodied in the 
labour-power, and the living labour that it can call into action ; 
the daily cost of maintaining it, and its daily expenditure in 
work, are two totally different things. The former determines 
the exchange-value of the labour-power, the latter is its use- 
value. The fact that half a day&apos;s labour is necessary to keep 
the labourer alive during 24 hours, does not in any way pre- 
vent him from working a whole day. Therefore, the value of 
labour-power, and the value which that labour-power creates 

or take from them what thej have. The devil himself does his senrants inestimable 
service ... To sum up, the world is full of great, excellent, and daily service 
and benefit.&quot; (Martin Luther: &apos;&apos;An die Pfarherm, wider den Wucher an 
predigen,&quot; Wittenberg, 1540.) 

^In &apos;&apos;Critique of Pol. Ec,&quot; p. 84, I make the following remark on this point — ^^t 
it not difficult to understand what &apos;service&apos; the category &apos;service&apos; must render to • 
class of economists like J. B. Say and F. Bastiat.&quot; 



 

2i6 Capitalist Production^, 

in tlie labour process^ are two entirely different magnitudes; 
and this difference of the two values was what the capitalist 
had in view, when he was purchasing the labour-power. The 
useful qualities that labour-power possesses, and by virtue of 
which it makes yam or boots, were to him nothing more than 
a conditio sine qua non ; for in order to create value, labour 
must be expended in a useful manner. What really influenced 
him was the specific use-value which this commodity possesses 
of being a source not only of value, bui of more value than U 
lias itself. This is the special service that the capitalist ex- 
pects from labour-power, and in this transaction he acts in ac- 
cordance with the &quot;eternal laws*^ of the exchange of commodi- 
ties. The seller of labour-power, like the seller of any other 
conunodity, realises its exchange-value, and parts with its use- 
value. He cannot take the one without giving the other. The 
use-value of labour-power, or in other words, labour, belongs 
just as little to its seller, as the use-value of oil after it has 
been sold belongs to the dealer who has sold it The owner 
of the money has paid the value of a day&apos;s labour-power; his, 
therefore, is the use of it for a day ; a day&apos;s labour belongs to 
him. The circumstance, that on the one hand the daily sus- 
tenance of labour-power costs only half a day&apos;s labour, while 
on the other hand the very same labour-power can work during 
a whole day, that consequently the value which its use during 
one day creates, is double what he pays for that use, this cir- 
cumstance is, without doubt, a piece of good luck for the 
buyer, but by no means an injury to the seller. 

Our capitalist foresaw this state of things, and that was the 
cause of his laughter. The labourer therefore finds, in the 
workshop, the means of production necessary for working, not 
only during six, but during twelve hours. Just as during the 
six hours&apos; process our 10 lbs. of cotton absorbed six hours&apos; 
labour, and became 10 lbs. of yam^ so now, 20 lbs. of cotton 
will absorb 12 hours&apos; labour and be changed into 20 lbs. of 
yam. Let us now examine the product of this prolonged 
process. There is now materialised in this 20 lbs. of yam the 
labour of five days, of which four days are due to the cotton 
and the lost steel of the spindle^ the remaining day having 



 

The Labour Process. 217 

been absorbed by the cotton during the spinning process. Ex- 
pressed in gold, the labour of five days is thirty shillings. 
This is therefore the price of the 20 lbs. of yam, giving, as 
before, eighteenpence as the price of a pound. But the sum 
of the values of the commodities that entered into the process 
amounts to 27 shillings. The value of the yam is 30 shillings. 
Therafore the value of the product is ^ greater than the value 
advanced for its production; 27 shillings have been trans- 
formed into 30 shillings; a surplus-value of 3 shillings has 
been created. The trick has at last succeeded; money has 
been converted into capital. 

Every condition of the problem is satisfied, while the laws 
that regulate the exchange of commodities, have been in no 
way violated. Equivalent has been exchanged for equivalent 
For the capitalist as buyer paid for each commodity, for the 
cotton, the spindle and the labour-power, its full value. He 
then did what is done by every purchaser of commodities ; he 
consumed their use-value. The consumption of the labour- 
power, which was also the process of producing commodities, 
resulted in 20 lbs. of yam, having a value of 30 shillings. 
The capitalist, formerly a buyer, now returns to market as a 
seller, of commodities. He sells his yam at eighteenpence a 
pound, which is its exact value. Yet for all that he with- 
draws 3 shillings more from circulation than he originally 
threw into it. This metamorphosis, this conversion of money 
into capital, takes place both within the sphere of circulation 
and also outside it; within the circulation, because conditioned 
by the purchase of the labour-power in the market ; outside the 
circulation, because what is done within it is only a stepping- 
stone to the production of surplus-value, a process which is 
entirely confined to the sphere of production. Thus &quot;tout est 
pour le mieux dans le meilleur des mondes possibles.&quot; 

By turning his money into commodities that serve as the 
material elements of a new product, and as factors in the la- 
bour-process, by incorporating living labour with their dead 
substance, the capitalist at the same time converts value, i.e., 
past, materialised, and dead labour into capital, into value big 
with value, a live monster that is fruitful and multiplies. 



 

2i8 Capitalist Production^, 

If we now compare the two processes of producing valne and 
of creating snrplns-value^ we see that the latter is nothing but 
the continuation of the former beyond a definite point If on 
the one hand the process be not carried beyond the point, 
where the value paid by the capitalist for the labour-power is 
replaced by an exact equivalent, it is simply a process of pro- 
ducing value; if, on the other hand, it be continued beyond 
that point, it becomes a process of creating surplus-value. 

If we proceed further, and compare the process of producing 
value with the labour-process, pure and simple, we find that 
the latter consists of the useful labour, the work, that produces 
use-values. Here we contemplate the labour as producing a 
particular article ; we view it under its qualitative aspect alone, 
with regard to its end and aim. But viewed as a value-creat- 
ing process, the same labour-process presents itself under its 
quantitative aspect alone. Here it is a question merely of liie 
time occupied by the labourer in doing the work ; of the period 
during which the labour-power is usefully expended. Here, 
the commodities that take part in the process, do not count 
any longer as necessary adjuncts of labour-power in the pro- 
duction of a definite, useful object. They count merely as 
depositaries of so much absorbed or materialised labour; that 
labour, whether previously embodied in the means of produc- 
tion, or incorporated in them for the first time during liie 
process by the action of labour-power, counts in either case 
only according to its duration ; it amounts to so many hours or 
days as the case may be. 

Moreover, only so much of the time spent in the production 
of any article is counted, as, under the given social conditions, 
is necessary. The consequences of this are various. In the 
first place, it becomes necessary that the labour should be 
carried on under normal conditions. If a self-acting mule is 
the implement in general use for spinning, it would be absurd 
to supply the spinner with a distaff and spinning wheel. The 
cotton too must not be such rubbish as to cause extra waste in 
being worked, but must be of suitable quality. Otherwise the 
spinner would be found to spend more time in producing a 
pound of yam than is socially necessary, in which case the 



 

The Labour Process. 219 

excess of time would create neither value nor money. But 
whether the material factors of the process are of normal 
quality or not, depends not upon the labourer, but entirely 
upon the capitalist. Then again, the labour-power itself must 
be of average eflScacy. In the trade in which it is being em- 
ployed, it must possess the average skill, handiness and quick- 
ness prevalent in that trade, and our capitalist took good care 
to buy labour-power of such normal goodness. This power 
must be applied with the average amount of exertion and with 
the usual degree of intensity ; and the capitalist is as careful 
to see that this is done, as that his workmen are not idle for a 
single moment He has bought the use of the labour-power 
for a definite period, and he insists upon his rights. He has 
no intention of being robbed. Lastly, and for this purpose our 
friend has a penal code of his own, all wasteful consumption of 
raw material or instruments of labour is strictly forbidden, be- 
cause what is so wasted, represents labour superfluously ex- 
pended, labour that does not count in the product or enter into 
its value.* 

We now see, that the difference between labour, considered 
on the one hand as producing utilities, and on the other hand, 

* This is one of the drcumstances that makes production by slare labour such 
a costly process. The labotarer here is, to use a striking expression of the ancients, 
distinguishable only as inttrumentum vocale, from an animal as instrumentum 
semi-TOcale, and from an implement as instrumentum mutum. But he himself 
takes care to let both beast and implement feel that he is none of them, but is a 
man. He convinces himself with imms*nse satisfaction, that he is a different being, 
by treating the one unmercifully and damaging the other con amore. Hence the 
principle, universally applied in this method of production, only to employ the rudest 
and heaviest implements and such as are difficult to damage owing to their sheer 
clumsiness. In the slave&gt;states bordering on the Gulf of Mexico, down to the date 
of the civil war, ploughs constructed on old Chinese models, which turned up the 
soil like a hog or a mole, instead of making furrows, were alone to be found. Conf. 
J. C Cairns. &quot;The Slave Power,&quot; London, 1862, p. 46-49. In his &quot;Sea Board 
Slave Sutes,*&apos; Olmsted tells us: &quot;I am here shown tools that no man in his senses, 
with us, would allow a labourer, for whom he was paying wages, to be incumbered 
with; and the excessive weight and clumsiness of which, I would judge, would make 
work at least ten per cent greater than with those ordinarily used with us. And I 
am assured that, in the careless and clumsy way they must be used by the slaves, 
anything lighter or less rude could not be furnished them with good economy, and 
that such tools as we constantly give our labourers and find our profit in giving 
them, would not last out a day in a Virginia cornfield — much lighter and more 
free from stones though it be than ours. So, too, when I ask why mules are so 
universally substituted for horses on the farm, the first reason given, and confessedly 
the most conclusive one, is that horses cannot bear the treatment that they always 
must get from the negroes; hones are always soon foundered or crippled by them. 



 

220 Capitalist Production. 

as creating value, a difference which we discovered by our 
analysis of a commodity, resolves itself into a distinction be- 
tween two aspects of the process of production. 

The process of production, considered on the one hand as 
the unity of the labour-process and the process of creating 
value, is production of commodities; considered on the other 
hand as the unity of the labour-process and the process of pro- 
ducing surplus-value, it is the capitalist process of production, 
or capitalist production of commodities. 

We stated, on a previous page, that in the creation of 
surplus-value it does not in the least matter, whether the labour 
appropriated by the capitalist be simple unskilled labour of 
average quality or more complicated skilled labour. All 
labour of a higher or more complicated character than average 
labour is expenditure of labour-power of a more costly kind, 
labour-power whose production has cost more time and labour, 
and which therefore has a higher value, than imskilled or 
simple labour-power. This power being of higher value, its 
consumption is labour of a higher class, labour that creates in 
equal times proportionally higher values than unskilled labour 
does. Whatever difference in skill there may be between the 
labour of a spinner and that of a jeweller, the portion of his 
labour by which the jeweller merely replaces the value of his 
own labour-power, does not in any way differ in quality from 
the additional portion by which he creates surplus-value. In 
the making of jewellery, just as in spinning, the surplus-value 
results only from a quantitative excess of labour, from a 
lengthening-out of one and the same labour-process, in the one 
case, of the process of making jewels, in the other of the pro- 
cess of making yam.* 

whfle mules will bear cudgelling, or lose a meal or two now and then, and not be 
materially injured, and they do not take cold or get sick, if neglected or oTer- 
worked. But I do not need to go further than the window of the room in which I 
am writing, to see at almost any time, treatment of cattle that would ensure the im* 
mediate discharge of the driver by almost any farmer owning them in the North.&quot; 

^The distinction between skilled and unskilled labour rests in part on pure illu- 
sion, or, to say the least, on distinctions that have long since ceased to be real, and 
that survive only by virtue of a traditional convention; in part on the helpless con- 
dition of some groups of the working-class, a condition that prevents them from 
exacting equally with the rest the value of their labour-power. Accidental cir- 
cnmstances here play so great a pi^rt. that these two forms of labour sometamcf 



 

Constant Capital and Variable Capital. 221 

But on the other hand, in every process of creating value, 
the reduction of skilled labour to average social labour, e.g., 
one day of skilled to six days of unskilled labour, is un- 
avoidable,^ We therefore save ourselves a superfluous oper- 
ation, and simplify our analysis, by the assumption, that the 
labour of the workman employed by the capitalist is unskilled 
average labour. 



CHAPTER VIIL 

OOITSTAirr CAPITAL. AND VARIABLE OAPITAI*. 

The various factors of the labour-process play different parts 
in forming the value of the product 

The labourer adds fresh value to the subject of his labour 
by expending upon it a given amount of additional labour, no 
matter what the specific character and utility of that labour 
may be. On the other hand, the values of the means of pro- 
duction used up in the process are preserved, and present 

change places. Where, for instance, the physique of the working-class has deterio- 
rated, and is, relatively speaking, exhausted, which is the case in all countries with a 
well developed capitalist production, the lower forms of labour which demand great 
expenditure of muscle, are in general considered as skilled, compared with much 
more delicate forms of labour; the latter sink down to the level of unskilled labour. 
Take as an example the labour of a bricklayer, which in England occupies a much 
higher level than that of a damask-weaver. Again, although the labour of a fustian 
cutter demands great bodily exertion, and is at the same time unhealthy, yet it 
counts only as unskilled labour. And then, we must not forget, that the so^alled 
skilled labour does not occupy a large space in the field of national labour. Laing 
estimates that in England (and Wales) the livelihood of 11,300,000 people depends 
on unskilled labour. If from the total population of 18,000,000 living at the time 
when he wrote, we deduct 1,000,000 for the &quot;genteel population,** and 1,500,000 
for paupers, vagrants, criminals, prostitutes, &amp;c, i^nd 4,650,000 who compose the 
middle-class, there remain the above mentioned 11,000,000. But in his middle-class 
he includes people that live on the interest of small investments, officials, men of 
letters, artists, schoolmasters and the like, and in order to swell the number he also 
includes in these 4,650,000 the better paid portion of the factory operatives! The 
bricklayers, too, figure amongst them. (S. Laing: &quot;National Distress,*&apos; &amp;c., London, 
1844.) &quot;The great class who have nothing to give for food but ordinary labour, are 
the great bulk of the people.&quot; (James Mill, in art: &quot;Colony,&quot; Supplement to the 
Encydop. Brit, 1831.) 

&apos; &quot;Where reference is made to labour as a measure of value, it necessarily implies 
labour of one particular kind . . . the proportion which the other kinds bear to it 
being easily ascerUined.&quot; (&quot;Outlines of Pol. Econ.,&quot; Lond., 1882, pp. 22 and 28.) 



 

222 Capitalist Production^ 

themselves afresh as constituent parts of the v&amp;Iue of the pro- 
duct; the values of the cotton and the spindle^ for instance, re- 
appear again in the value of the yarn. The value of the 
means of production is therefore preserved, by being trans- 
ferred to the product. This transfer takes place during the 
conversion of those means into a product, or in other words, 
during the labour-process. It is brought about by labour ; but 
how? 

The labourer does not perform two operations at once, one 
in order to add value to the cotton, the other in order to pre- 
serve the value of the means of production, or, in what amounts 
to the same thing, to transfer to the yam, to the product, the 
value of the cotton on which he works, and part of the value 
of the spindle with which he works. But, by the very act of 
adding new value, he preserves their former values. Since, 
however, the addition of new value to the subject of his labour, 
and the preservation of its former value, are two entirely dis- 
tinct results, produced simultaneously by the labourer, during 
one operation, it is plain that this twofold nature of the re- 
sult can be explained only by the twofold nature of his labour ; 
at one and the same time, it must in one character create value, 
and in another character preserve or transfer value. 

Now, in what manner does every labourer add new labour 
and consequently new value? Evidently, only by labouring 
productively in a particular way ; the spinner by spinning, the 
weaver by weaving, the smith by forging. But, while thus 
incorporating labour generally, that is value, it is by the par- 
ticular form alone of the labour, by the spinning, the weaving 
and the forging respectively, that the means of production, the 
cotton and spindle, the yam and loom, and the iron and anvil 
become constituent elements of the product, of a new use- 
value.* Each use-value disappears, but only to re-appear 
under a new form in a new use-value. Now, we saw, when 
we were considering the process of creating value, that, if a 
use-value be effectively consumed in the production of a new 
use-value, the quantity of labour expended in the production 

^&quot;Labour gives a new creation for one extinguished.&quot; (&quot;An essay on the Polit. 
Econ. of Nations,** London, 1821, p. 18.) 



 

Constant Capital and Variable Capital. 223 

of the consumed article, forms a portion of the quantity of 
labour necessary to produce the new use-value ; this portion is 
therefore labour transferred from the means of production to 
the new product. Hence, the labourer preserves the values of 
the consumed means of production, or transfers them as por- 
tions of its value to the product, not by virtue of his additional 
labour, abstractedly considered, but by virtue of the particular 
useful character of that labour, by virtue of its special pro- 
ductive form. In so far then as labour is such specific produc- 
tive activity, in so far as it is spinning, weaving, or forging, 
it raises, by mere contact^ the means of production from the 
dead, makes them living factors of the labour-process, and 
combines with them to form t&gt;i« new products. 

If the special productive labour of the workman were not 
spinning, he could not convert the cotton into yam, and there- 
fore could not transfer the values of the cotton and spindle to 
the yam. Suppose the same workman were to change his 
occupation to that of a joiner, he would still by a day&apos;s labour 
add value to the material he works upon. Consequently, we 
see, first, that the addition of new value takes place not by 
virtue of his labour being spinning in particular, or joinering 
in particular, but because it is labour in the abstract, a portion 
of the total labour of society ; and we see next, that the value 
added is of a given definite amount, not because his labour 
has a special utility, but because it is exerted for a definite 
time. On the one hand, then, it is by virtue of its general 
character, as being expenditure of human labour-power in the 
abstract, that spinning adds new value to the values of the 
cotton and the spindle; and on the other hand, it is by virtue 
of its special character, as being a concrete, useful process, that 
the same labour of spinning both transfers the values of the 
means of production to the product, and preserves them in the 
product Hence at one and the same time there is produced a 
twofold result 

By the simple addition of a certain quantity of labour, 
new value is added, and by the quality of this added labour, 
the original values of the means of production are preserved 
in the product This twofold effect^ resulting from the two* 



 

1224 Capitalist Production. 

fold character of labour^ may be traced in various phenomeiuu 
Let us assume^ that some invention enables the spinner to 
spin as much cotton in 6 hours as he was able to spin before in 
36 hours. His labour is now six times as effective as it was, 
for the purposes of useful production. The product of • 
hours&apos; work has increased sixfold, from 6 lbs. to 36 lbs. Bat 
now the 36 lbs. of cotton absorb only the same amount of 
labour as formerly did the 6 lbs. One-sixth as much new 
labour is absorbed by each pound of cotton, and consequently, 
the value added by the labour to each pound is only one-sixth 
of what it formerly was. On the other hand, in the product^ 
in the 36 lbs. of yam, the value transferred from the cotton is 
six times as great as before. By the 6 hours&apos; spinning, Ae 
value of the raw material preserved and transferred to the 
product is six times as great as before, although the new value 
added by the labour of the spinner to each pound of the very 
same raw material is one-sixth what it was formerly. This 
shows that the two properties of labour, by virtue of which 
it is enabled in one case to preserve value, and in the other to 
create value, are essentially different. On the one hand, the 
longer the time necessary to spin a given weight of cotton into 
yam, the greater is the new value added to the material; on 
the other hand, the greater the weight of the cotton spun in a 
given time, the greater is the value preserved, by being trans- 
ferred from it to the product. 

Let us now assume, that the productiveness of the spinner&apos;s 
labour, instead of varying, remains constant, that he therefore 
requires the same time as he formerly did, to convert one 
pound of cotton into yam, but that the exchange value of the 
cotton varies, either by rising to six times its former value or 
falling to one-sixth of that value. In both these cases, the 
spinner puts the same quantity of labour into a pound of cot- 
ton, and therefore adds as much value, as he did before tbe 
change in the value : he also produces a given weight of yam in 
the same time as he did before. Nevertheless, the value that 
he transfers from the cotton to the yam is either one-sixth 
of what it was before the variation, or, as the case may be, 
six times as much as before. The same result occurs when the 



 

Constant Capital and Variable Capital. 225 

valne of the instruments of labour rises or falls, wliile their 
useful efficacy in the process remains unaltered. 

Again, if the technical conditions of the spinning process re- 
main unchanged, and no change of value takes place in the 
means of production, the spinner continues to consume in 
equal working-times equal quantities of raw material, and 
equal quantities of machinery of unvarying value. The value 
that be preserves in the product is directly proportional to the 
new value that he adds to the product. In two weeks he incor- 
porates twice as much labour, and therefore twice as much 
value, as in one week, and during the same time he consumes 
twice as much material, and wears out twice as much ma- 
chinery, of double the value in each case; he therefore pre- 
serves, in the product of two weeks, twice as much value as in 
the product of one week. So long as the conditions of produc- 
tion remain the same, the more value the labourer adds by 
fresh labour, the more value he transfers and preserves; but 
he does so merely because this addition of new value takes place 
under conditions that have not varied and are independent of 
his own labour. Of course, it may be said in one sense, that 
the labourer preserves old value always in proportion to the 
quantity of new value that he adds. Whether the value of 
cotton rise from one shilling to two shillings, or fall to six- 
pence, the workman invariably preserves in the product of one 
hour only one half as much value as he preserves in two hours. 
In like manner, if the productiveness of his own labour varies 
by rising or falling, he will in one hour spin either more or less 
cotton, as the case may be, than he did before, and will con- 
sequently preserve in the product of one hour, more or less 
value of cotton; but, all the same, he will preserve by two 
hours&apos; labour twice as much value as he will by one. 

Value exists only in articles of utility, in objects : we leave 
out of consideration its purely symbolical representation by 
tokens. (Man himself, viewed as the impersonation of labour- 
power, is a natural object, a thing, although a living conscious 
thing, and labour is the manifestation of this power residing 
in him.) If therefore an article loses it utility, it also loses 
its value. The reason why means of production do not lose 



 

226 Capitalist Production. 

their value, at the same time that they lose their use-value, is 
this : they lose in the labour-process the original form of their 
use-value, only to assume in the product the form of a new use- 
value. But, however important it may be to value, that it 
should have some object of utility to embody itself in, yet it 
is a matter of complete indifference what particular object 
serves this purpose; this we saw when treating of the meta- 
morphosis of commodities. Hence it follows that in the 
labour-process the means of production transfer their value 
to the product only so far as along with their use-value they 
lose also their exchange value. They give up to the product 
that value alone which they themselves lose as means of pro- 
duction. But in this respect the material factors of the labour- 
process do not all behave alike. 

The coal burnt under the boiler vanishes without leaving a 
trace; so, too, the tallow with which the axles of wheels are 
greased. Dye stuffs and other auxiliary substances also vanish 
but re-appear as properties of the product Kaw material 
forms the substance of the product^ but only after it has 
changed its form. Hence raw material and auxiliary sub- 
stances lost the characteristic form with which they are clothed 
on entering the labour-process. It is otherwise with the in- 
struments of labour. Tools, machines, workshops, and vessels, 
are of use in the labour-process, only so long as they retain 
their original shape, and are ready each morning to renew the 
process with their shape unchanged. And just as during their 
lifetime, that is to say, during the continued labour-process in 
which they serve, they retain their shape independent of the 
product, so, too, they do after their death. The corpses of 
machines, tools, workshops, &amp;c, are always separate and dis- 
tinct from the product they helped to turn out. If we now 
consider the case of any instrument of labour during the whole 
period of its service, from the day of its entry into the work- 
shop, till the day of its banishment into the lumber room, we 
find that during this period its use-value has been completely 
consumed, and therefore its exchange value completely trans- 
ferred to the product. For instance, if a spinning machine 
lasts for 10 years, it is plain that during that working period 



 

Constant Capital and Variable Capital. 227 

its total value is gradually transferred to the product of the 
10 years. The lifetime of an instrument of labour, therefore, 
is spent in the repetition of a greater or less number of similar 
operations. Its life may be compared with that of a human 
being. Every day brings a man 24 hours nearer to his grave : 
but how many days he has still to travel on that road, no man 
can tell accurately by merely looking at him. This difiSculty, 
however, does not prevent life insurance oflSces from drawing, 
by means of the theory of averages, very accurate, and at the 
same time very profitable conclusions. So it is with the instru- 
ments of labour. It is known by experience how long on the 
average a machine of a particular kind will last. Suppose its 
use-value in the labour-process to last only six days. Then, 
on the average, it loses each day one-sixth of its use-value, and 
therefore parts with one-sixth of its value to the daily product. 
The wear and tear of all instruments, their daily loss of use- 
value, and the corresponding quantity of value they part with 
to the product, are accordingly calculated upon this basis. 

It is thus strikingly clear, that means of production never 
transfer more value to the product than they themselves lose 
during the labour-process by the destruction of their own use- 
value. If such an instrument has no value to lose, if, in other 
words, it is not the product of human labour, it transfers no 
value to the product. It helps to create use-value without con- 
tributing to the formation of exchange value. In this class 
are included all means of production supplied by Nature with- 
out human assistance, such as land, wind, water, metals in 
situ, and timber in virgin forests. 

Yet another interesting phenomenon here presents itself. 
Suppose a machine to be worth £1000, and to wear out in 1000 
days. Then one thousandth part of the value of the machine 
is daily transferred to the day&apos;s product. At the same time, 
though with diminishing vitality, the machine as a whole con- 
tinues to take part in the labour-process. Thus it appears 
that one factor of the labour-process, a means of production, 
continually enters as a whole into that process, while it enters 
into the process of the formation of value by fractions only. 
The difference between the two processes is here reflected in 



 

228 Capitalist Production, 

their material factors, by the same instrument of production 
taking part as a whole in the labour-process, while at the same 
time as an element in the formation of value, it enters only by 
fractions.^ 

On the other hand, a means of production may take part as a 
whole in the formation of value, while into the labour-grocess 
it enters only bit by bit Suppose that in spinning cotton, the 
waste for every 115 lbs. used amounts to 15 lbs., which is con- 
verted, not into yam, but into &quot;devil&apos;s dust.&quot; Now, although 
this 15 lbs. of cotton never becomes a constituent element of 
the yam, yet assuming this amount of waste to be normal and 
inevitable under average conditions of spinning, its value is 
just as surely transferred to the value of the yam, as is the 
value of the 100 lbs. that form the substance of the yam. The 
use-value of 15 lbs. of cotton must vanish into dust, before 100 
lbs. of yam can be made. The destruction of this cotton is 
therefore a necessary condition in the production of the yam. 
And because it is a necessary condition, and for no other rea- 
son, the value of that cotton is transferred to the product. 
The same holds good for every kind of refuse resulting from a 
labour-process, so far at least as such refuse cannot be further 
employed as a means in the production of new and independent 

^ The subject of repairs of the implements of labour does not concern us here. A 
machine that is undergoing repair, no longer plays the part of an instrument, but 
that of a subject of labour. Work is no longer done with it, but upon it. It is 
quite permissible for our purpose to assume, that the labour expended on the repairs 
of instruments is included in the labour necessary for their original production. 
But in the text we deal with that wear and tear, which no doctor can cure, and 
which little by little brings about death, with &quot;that kind of wear which cannot be 
repaired from time to time, and which, in the case of a knife, would ultimately re- 
duce it to a state in which the cutler would say of it, it is not worth a new blade.&quot; 
We have shewn in the text, that a machine takes part in every labour-process as an 
integral machine, but that into the simultaneous process of creating value it enters 
only bit by bit. How great then is the confusion of ideas exhibited in the following 
extract! &quot;Mr. Ricardo says a portion of the labour of the engineer in making 
[stocking] machines&quot; is contained for example in the value of a pair of stockings. 
&quot;Yet the total labour, that produced each single pair of stockings .... in- 
cludes the whole labour of the engineer, not a portion; for one machine makes many 
pairs, and none of those pairs could have been done without any part of the ma- 
chine.&quot; (&quot;Obs. on certain verbal disputes in Pol. Econ* particularly relating to 
value,&quot; p. 64.) The author, an uncommonly self-satisfied wiseacre, is right in his 
confusion and therefore in his contention, to this extent only, that neither Ricardo 
nor any other economist, before or since him, has accurately distinguished the two 
aspects of labour, and still less, therefore^ the part played by it under each of these 
aspects in the formation of value. 



 

Constant Capital and Variable CapitaL 22g 

nse-valties. Such an employment of refuse may be seen in the 
large machine works at Manchester, where mountains of iron 
turnings are carted away to the foundry in the evening, in 
order the next morning to re-appear in the workshops as solid 
masses of iron. 

We have seen that the means of production transfer value to 
the new product, so far only as during the labour-process they 
lose value in the shape of their old use-value. The maximum 
loss of value that they can suffer in the process, is plainly 
limited by the amount of the original value with which they 
came into the process, or in other words, by the labour-time 
necessary for their production. Therefore the means of pro- 
duction can never add more value to the product than they 
themselves possess independently of the process in which they 
assist. However useful a given kind of raw material, or a 
machine, or other means of production may be, though it may 
cost £160, or, say, 500 days&apos; labour, yet it cannot, under any 
circumstances, add to the value of the product more than £150. 
Its value is determined not by the labour-process into which it 
enters as a means of production, but by that out of which it has 
issued as a product. In the labour-process it only serves as a 
mere use-value, a thing with useful properties, and could not, 
therefore, transfer any value to the product, unless it possessed 
such value previously.^ 

* From this wc may judge of the absurdity of J. B. Say, who pretends to account 
for surplus-value (Interest, Profit, Rent), by the &quot;services product! fs&quot; which the 
means of production, soil, instruments, and raw material, render in the labour-proc- 
ess by means of tlieir use-values. Mr. Wm. Roscher who seldom loses an occasion 
of registering, in black and white, ingenious apologetic fancies, records the following 
specimen: — &quot;J. B. Say (Trait^, t. 1. ch. 4) very truly remarks: the value produced 
by an oil mill, after deduction of all costs, is something new, something quite differ- 
ent from the labour by which the oil mill itself was erected.&quot; (1. c, p. 82, note.) 
Very true, Mr. Professor 1 the oil produced by the oil mill is indeed something very 
different from the labour expended in constructing the mill! By value, Mr. Roscher 
understands such stuff as &quot;oil,&quot; because oil has value, notwithstanding that &quot;Na- 
ture&quot; produces petroleum, though relatively &quot;in small quantities,&quot; a fact to which 
he seems to refer in his further observation: &quot;It (Nature) produces scarcely any 
exchange value.&quot; Mr. Roscher&apos;s &quot;Nature&quot; and the exchange value it produces are 
rather like the foolish virgin who admitted indeed that she had had a child, but &quot;it 
was such a little one.&quot; This &quot;savant s^rieux&quot; in continuation remarks: &quot;Ricardo&apos;s 
school is in the habit of including capital as accumulated labour under the head of 
labour. This is unskilful work, because, indeed, the owner of capital, after all, does 
something more than the merely creating and preserving of the same: namely, the 
abstention from the enjoyment of it, for which he demands, #.g., interest&quot; (L c.) 



 

3^0 Capitalist Production. 

While productive labour is changing the means of produc* 
tion into constituent elements of a new product, their value 
undergoes a metempsychosis. It deserts the consumed body, 
to occupy the newly created one. But this transmigration 
takes place, as it were, behind the back of the labourer. He 
is unable to add new labour, to create new value, without at 
the same time preserving old values, and this, because the 
labour he adds must be of a specific useful kind ; and he can- 
not do work of a useful kind, without employing products as 
the means of production of a new product, and thereby trans- 
ferring their value to the new product The property there- 
fore which labour-power in action, living labour, possesses of 
preserving value, at the same time that it adds it, is a gift of 
Nature which costs the labourer nothing, but which is very 
advantageous to the capitalist inasmuch as it preserves the 
existing value of his capital.* So long as trade is good, the 
capitalist is too much absorbed in money-grubbing to take 
notice of this gratuitous gift of labour. A violent interruption 
of the labour-process by a crisis, makes him sensitively aware 

As regards the means of production, what is really consumed 
is their use-value, and the consumption of this use-value by 
labour results in the product There is no consumption of 

How very &quot;skilful** is this &quot;anatomico-physiological method** of political economy, 
which, &quot;indeed/* converts a mere desire &quot;after all** into a source of value. 

^ &quot;Of all the instruments of the farmers* trade, the labour of man ... is that on 
which he is most to rely for the repayment of his capital. The other two . . . the 
working stock of the cattle and the • • . carts, ploughs, spades, and so forth, 
without a given portion of the first, are nothing at all.*&apos; (Edmund Burke: 
&quot;Thoughts and Details on Scarcity, originally presented to the Right Hon. W. Pitt, 
in the month of November 1795,&quot; Edit. London, 1800, p. 10.) 

*In &quot;The Times** of 26th November, 1862, a manufacturer, whose mill employed 
800 hands, and consumed, on the average, 150 bales of East Indian, or 130 bales of 
American cotton, complains, in doleful manner, of the standing expenses of his 
factory when not working. He estimates them at £6,000 a year. Among them are 
a number of items that do not concern us here, such as rent, rates, and taxes, in- 
surance, salaries of the manager, book-keeper, engineer, and others. Then he reck- 
ons £150 for coal used to heat the mill occasionally, and run the engine now and 
then. Besides this, he includes the wages of the people employed at odd times to 
keep the machinery in working order. Lastly, he puts down £1,200 for depreciation 
of machinery, because &quot;the weather and the natural principle of decay do not sus- 
pend their operations because the steam-engine ceases to revolve.** He says, em- 
phatically, he does not estimate his depreciation at more than the small sum of 
£1,200, because his machinery is already nearly worn out 



 

Constant Capital and Variable Capital. 231 

their value,^ and it would therefore be inaccurate to say that 
it is reproduced. It is rather preserved ; not by reason of any 
operation it undergoes itself in the process; but because the 
article in which it originally exists, vanishes, it is true, but 
vanishes into some other article. Hence, in the value of the 
product, there is a re-appearance of the value of the means of 
production, but there is, strictly speaking, no reproduction of 
that value. That which is produced is a new use-value in 
which the old exchange-value re-appears.^ 

It is otherwise with the subjective factor of the labour-pro- 
cess, with labour-power in action. While the labourer, by 
virtue of his labour being of a specialised kind that has a 
special object, preserves and transfers to the product the value 
of the means of production, he at the same time, by the mere 
act of working, creates each instant an additional or new value. 
Suppose the process of production to be stopped just when the 
workman has produced an equivalent for the value of his own 
labour-power, when, for example, by six hours^ labour, he has 
added a value of three shillings. This value is the surplus, of 
the total value of the product, over the portion of its value 
that is due to the means of production. It is the only original 
bit of value formed during this process, the only portion of the 
value of the product created by this process. Of course, we 
do not forget that this new value only replaces the money 
advanced by the capitalist in the purchase of the labour-power^ 

* &quot;Productive consumption . . . where the consumption of a commodity is a pari 
of the process of production. ... In these instances there is no consumption of 
▼alue.&quot; (S. P. Newman, 1. c p. 296.) 

&apos;In an American compendium that has gone through, perhaps, 20 editions, thia 
passage occurs: &quot;It mhtters not in what form capital re-appears;&quot; then after &amp; 
lengthy enumeration of all the possible ingredients of production whose value re&gt; 
appears in the product, the passage concludes thus: &quot;The various kinds of food^ 
clothing, and shelter, necessary for the existence and comfort of the human being, 
are also changed. They are consumed from time to time, and their value re-appears 
in that new vigour imparted to his body and mind, forming fresh capital, to be em&gt; 
ployed again in the work of production.&quot; (F. Wayland, 1. c. pp. 81, 83.) Without 
noticing any other oddities, it suffices to observe, that what re-appears in the fresh 
vigour, is not the bread&apos;s price, but its blood-formmg substances. What, on the 
other hand, re-appears in the value of that vigour, is not the means of subsistence, 
but their value. The same necessaries of life, at half the price, would form just aa 
much muscle and bone, just as much vigour, but not vigour of the same value. Thia 
confusion of &quot;value&quot; and &quot;vigour&quot; coupled with our author&apos;s pharisaical indefinite- 
ness, mark an attempt, futile for all that, to thrash out an explanation of surplu»^ 
value from a mere re*appearance of pre-existing values. 



 

232 Capitalist Production. 

and spent by the labourer on the necessaries of life. TVith 
regard to the money spent, the new value is merely a repro- 
duction; but, nevertheless, it is an actual, and not, as in the 
case of the value of the means of production, only an apparent, 
reproduction. The substitution of one value for anotiier^ is 
here effected by the creation of new value. 

We know, however, from what has gone before, that the 
labour-process may continue beyond the time necessary to re- 
produce and incorporate in the product a mere equivalent for 
the value of the labour-power. Instead of the six hours that 
are suflBcient for the latter purpose, the process may continue 
for twelve hours. The action of labour-power, therefore, not 
only reproduces its own value, but produces value over and 
above it This surplus-value is the difference between the 
value of the product and the value of the elements consumed 
in the formation of that product, in other words, of the means 
of production and the labour-power. 

By our explanation of the different parts played by the vari- 
ous factors of the labour-process in the formation of the pro- 
duct&apos;s value, we have, in fact, disclosed the characters of the 
different functions allotted to the different elements of capital 
in the process of expanding its own value. The surplus of the 
total value of the product, over the sum of the values of its 
constituent factors, is the surplus of the expanded capital over 
the capital originally advanced. The means of production on 
the one hand, labour-power on the other, are merely the differ- 
ent modes of existence which the value of the original capital 
assumed when from being money it was transformed into the 
various factors of the labour-process. That part of capital 
then, which is represented by the means of production, by the 
raw material, auxiliary material and the instruments of labour, 
does not, in the process of production, undergo any quantitative 
alteration of value. I therefore call it the constant part of 
capital, or, more shortly, constant capital. 

On the other hand, that part of capital, represented by 
labour-power, does, in the process of production, undergo an 
alteration of value. It both reproduces the equivalent of its 
own value, and also produces an excess, a surplus-value, which 



 

Constant Capital and Variable Capites. 233 

may itself vary, may be more or less according to circum- 
stance. This part of capital is continually being transformed 
from a constant into a variable magnitude. I therefore call it 
the variable part of capital, or, shortly, variable capital. The 
same elements of capital which, from the point of view of the 
labour-process, present themselves respectively as the objective 
and subjective factors, as means of production and labour^ 
power, present themselves, from the point of view of the pro- 
cess of creating surplus-value, as constant and variable capital 
The definition of constant capital given above by no means 
excludes the possibility of a change of value in its elements. 
Suppose the price of cotton to be one day sixpence a pound, 
and the next day, in consequence of a failure of the cotton crop, 
a shilling a pound. Each pound of the cotton bought at six- 
pence, and worked up after the rise in value, transfers to the 
product a value of one shilling; and the cotton already spun 
before the rise, and perhaps circulating in the markets as yam, 
likewise transfers to the product twice its original value. It 
is plain, however, that these changes of value are independent 
of the increment or surplus-value added to the value of the 
cotton by the spinning itself. If the old cotton had never 
been spun, it could, after the rise, be resold at a shilling a 
pound instead of at sixpence. Further, the fewer the processes 
the cotton has gone through, the more certain is this result 
We therefore find that speculators make it a rule when such 
sudden changes in value occur to speculate in that material on 
which the least possible quantity of labour has been spent : to 
speculate, therefore, in yam rather than in cloth, in cotton 
itself, rather than in yam. The change of value in the case we 
have been considering, originates, not in the process in which 
the cotton plays the part of a means of production, and in 
which it therefore fxmctions as constant capital, but in the pro- 
cess in which the cotton itself is produced. The value of a 
commodity, it is true, is determined by the quantity of labour 
contained in it^ but this quantity is itself limited by social con- 
ditions. If the time socially necessary for the production of 
any commodity alters — and a given weight of cotton represents, 
after a bad harvest, more labour than after a good one — all 



 

234 Capitalist Production. 

previously existing commodities of the same class are affected, 
because they are, as it were, only individuals of the species,* 
and their value at any given time is measured by the labour 
socially necessary, i.e., by the labour necessary for their pro- 
duction under the then existing social conditions. 

As the value of the raw material may change, eo, too, may 
that of the instruments of labour, of the machinery, &amp;c., em- 
ployed in the process; and consequently that portion of tho 
value of the product transferred to it from them, may also 
change. If in consequence of a new invention, machinery of a 
particular kind can be produced by a diminished expenditure 
of labour, the old machinery becomes depreciated more or less 
and consequently transfers so much less value to the product 
But here again, the change in value originates outside the 
process in which the machine is acting as a means of pro- 
duction« Once engaged in this process, the machine cannot 
transfer more value than it possesses apart from the process. 

Just as a change in the value of the means of production, 
even after they have commenced to take a part in the labour 
process, does not alter their character as constant capital, so, 
too, a change in the proportion of constant to variable capital 
does not affect the respective functions of these two kinds of 
capital. The technical conditions of the labour process may 
be revolutionised to such an extent, that where formerly ten 
men using ten implements of small value worked up a relative- 
ly small quantity of raw material, one man may now, with the 
aid of one expensive machine, work up one hundred times as 
much raw materiaL In the latter case we have an enormous 
increase in the constant capital, that is represented by the 
total value of the means of production used, and at the same 
time a great reduction in the variable capital, invested in 
labour-power. Such a revolution, however, alters only the 
quantitave relation between the constant and the variable cap- 
ital, or the proportions in which the total capital is split up 
into its constant and variable constituents; it has not in the 
least degree affected the essential difference between the two. 



* &quot;Tcrates lea productions d&apos;un m^e genre ne fonnent proprement qu&apos;tme 
dont le prix se d^ermine en g6n6ral et sans ^gard aux circonstances paiticuliirei.&apos;&apos; 
(Le Trosne, L c p. 898.) 



 

The Rate of Surplus&lt;;alue. 235 

CHAPTER IX. 

THE RATE OP SURPLUS-VALUE. 
SBCnOir 1.— THB DBGREIB OP EXPLOITATION OP lABOUB-POWXB, 

The surplus-value generated in the process of production by 
C, the capital advanced, or in other words, the self -expansion 
of the value of the capital C, presents itself for our consider- 
ation, in the first place, as a surplus, as the amount by which 
the value of the product exceeds the value of its constituent 
dement. 

The capital C is made up of two components, one, the sum 
of money c laid out upon the means of production, and the 
other, the sum of money v expended upon the labour-power; 
c represents the portion that has become constant capital, and 
V the portion that has become variable capital At first then, 
C=c+v : for example, if £500 is the capital advanced, its com- 
ponents may be such that the £500=£410 const +£90 var. 
When the process of production is finished, we get a com- 
modity whose value=(c+v)+s, where s is the surplus-value; 
or taUng our former figures, the value of th&apos;s commodity may 
be (£410 const +£90 var.) +£90 surpl. Tho original capital 
has now changed from C to C, from £500 to £590. The dif- 
ference is s or a surplus value of £90. Since the value of the 
constituent elements of the product is equal to the value of 
the advanced capital, it is mere tautology to say, that the ex- 
cess of the value of the product over the value of its constitu- 
ent elements, is equal to the expansion of the capital advanced 
or to the surplus-value produced. 

Nevertheless, we must examine this tautology a little more 
closely. The two things compared are, the value of the pro- 
duct, and the value of its constituents consumed in the process 
of production. Now we have seen how that portion of the 
constant capital which consists of the instruments of labour, 
transfers to the product only a fraction of its value, while the 
remainder of that value continues to reside in those instm- 



 

236 Capibdisi Production. 

■KBiiL Snee dus lemaiiMler pk js no part in the formation of 
▼alue^ ve may at present leaTe it on one side. To introduce it 
into tlie caknlation ironld make no difference. For instance, 
taking our former example, c=£410 : suppose this sum to con- 
sist of £312 Talue of raw material, £44 value of auziliaiy 
materia], and £54 value of the machinery worn away in the 
proeess; and suppose that the total value of the machinery 
employed is £1,054^ Out of this latter sum, then, we reckon 
as advanced for the purpose of turning out the product, the 
sum of £54 alone, which the machinery loses by wear and 
tear in the process ; for this is all it parts with to the product 
Now if we also reckon the remaining £1,000, which still con- 
tinues in the machinery, as transferred to the product, we 
ought also to reckon it as part of the value advanced, and thus 
make it appear cm both sides of our calculation.^ We should, 
in this way, get £1,500 on one side and £1,590 on the other. 
The difference of these two sums, or the surplus-value^ would 
still be £90. Throu^iout diis Bock therefore, by constant 
capital advanced for the production of value, we always mean, 
umkss the context is repugnant thereto, the value of the means 
of production actually consumed in the process, and that value 
akne. 

This being so^ let us return to the formula C=c+v, which 
we saw transformed into Cf=(c+v)+s, C becoming C 
We know that the value of the constant capital is trans- 
ferred to^ and merely re-appears in the product The 
new value actually created in the process, the value pro- 
duced, or value-product, is therefore not the same as the value 
of the product; it is not, as it would at first sight appear 
(c+v)+s or £410 const +£90 var.+£90 surpL; but v+s 
or £90 var.+£90 surpL not £590 but £180. If c=o, or in 
other words, if there were branches of industry in which the 
capitalist could dispense with all means of production made 
by previous labour, whether they be raw material, auxiliary 
material, or instruments of labour, employing &lt;mly labour- 



* *nf ve lecfcM the vahxe of tbe ixcd capitti OBptored as a pavt •£ the i 
«e must reckon tbe renuxntng Talne of sock capital at tbe end of tke year as a part 
of tbe anoal rctBras.&quot; (Maltbaai. **Priac of FoL Eom.* S»d cd. Lottd* m&lt;^ pw 



 

The Rate of Surplus-value. 237 

power and materials supplied by Nature, in that case, there 
would be no constant capital to transfer to the product This 
component of the value of the product, Le., the £410 in our ex- 
ample, would be eliminated, but the sum of £180, the amount 
of new value created, or the value produced, which contains 
£90 of surplus-value, would remain just as great as if c repre- 
sented the highest value imaginable. We should have C= 
(0+v)=v or (y the expanded capital=v+s and therefore 
C&apos; — C=s as before. On the other hand, if s=0, or in other 
words, if the labour-power, whose value is advanced in the 
form of variable capital, were to produce only its equivalent, 
we should have C=c+v or C the value of the product= 
(c+v)+0 or C=(y. The capital advanced would, in this 
case, not have expanded its value. 

From what has gone before, we know that surplus-value is 
purely the result pf a variation in the value of v, of that portion 
of the capital which is transformed into labour-power; con- 
sequently, v-|-s=v-f v&apos; or V plus an increment of v. But the 
fact that it is V alone that varies, and the conditions of that 
variation, are obscured by the circumstance that in consequence 
of the increase in the variable component of the capital, there 
jB also an increase in the sum total of the advanced capitaL It 
was originally £600 and becomes £590. Therefore in order 
that our investigation may lead to accurate results, we must 
make abstraction from that portion of the value of the pro- 
duct, in which constant capital alone appears, and consequently 
must equate the constant capital to zero or make c=0. This 
is merely an application of a mathematical rule, employed 
whenever we operate with constant and variable magnitudes, 
related to each other by the symbols of addition and sub- 
traction only. 

A further diflSculty is caused by the original form of the 
variable capitaL In our example, C&apos;=£410 const -f-£90 var 
-f-£90 surpl. ; but £90 is a given and therefore a constant 
quantity ; hence it appears absurd to treat it as variable. But 
in fact, the term £90 var. is here merely a symbol to show that 
this value undergoes a process. The portion of the capital in- 
vested in the purchase of labour-power is a definite quantity of 



 

238 Capitalist Production. 

materialised labour^ a constant value like the value of the 
labour-power purchased. But in the process of production the 
place of the £90 is taken by the laboiuvpower in action^ dead 
labour is replaced by living labour, something stagnant by 
something flowing, a constant by a variable. The result is the 
reproduction of v plus an increment of v. From the point of 
view, then, of capitalist production, the whole process appears 
as the spontaneous variation of the originally constant value, 
which is transformed into labour-power. Both the process and 
its result^ appear to be owing to this value. If, therefore, such 
expressions as &quot;£90 variable capital,^&apos; or &quot;so much self- 
expanding value,*&apos; appear contradictory, this is only because 
they bring to the surface a contradiction immanent in cap- 
italist production. 

At first sight it appears a strange proceedings to equate the 
constant capital to zero. Yet it is what we do every day. If, 
for example, we wish to calculate the amount of England&apos;s 
profits from the cotton industry, we first of all deduct the sums 
paid for cotton to the United States, India, Egypt and other 
countries ; in other words, the value of the capital that merely 
re-appears in the value of the product, is put=0. 

Of course the ratio of surplus-value not only to that portion, 
of the capital from which it inmiediately springs, and whose 
change of value it represents, but also to the sum total of the 
capital advanced is economically of very great importance. 
We shall, therefore, in the third book, treat of this ratio ex- 
haustively. In order to enable one portion of a capital to ex- 
pand its value by being converted into labour-power, it is 
necessary that another portion be converted into means of pro- 
duction. In order that variable capital may perform its func- 
tion, constant capital must be advanced in proper proportion, 
a proportion given by the special technical conditions of each 
labour-process. The circumstance, however, that retorts and 
other vessels, are necessary to a chemical process, does not 
compel the chemist to notice them in the result of his analysis. 
If we look at the means of production, in their relation to the 
creation of value, and to the variation in the quantity of value, 
apart from anything else, they appear simply as the material 



 

The Rate of Surplus-value. 239 

in which labour-power, the value-creator, incorporates itself. 
Neither the nature, nor the value of this material is of any 
importance. The only requisite is that there be a sufficient 
supply to absorb the labour expended in the process of pro- 
duction. That supply once given, the material may rise or 
fall in value, or even be, as land and the sea, without any value 
in itself ; but this will have no influence on the creation of value 
or on the variation in the quantity of value.* 

In the first place then we equate the constant capital to zero. 
The capital advanced is consequently reduced from c+v to v, 
and instead of the value of the product (c+v) -|-s we have now 
the value produced (v+s). Given the new value produced= 
£180, which sum consequently represents the whole labour ex- 
pended during the process, then subtracting from it £90 the 
value of the variable capital, we have remaining £90, the 
amount of the surplus-value. This sum of £90 or s expresses 
the absolute quantity of surplus-value produced. The relative 
quantity produced, or the increase per cent of the variable 
capital, is determined, it is plain, by the ratio of the surplus- 
value to the variable capital, or is expressed by | . In our 
example this ratio isfj, which gives an increase of 100%. 
This relative increase in the value of the variable capital, or 
the relative magnitude of the surplus-value, I call, &quot;The rate 
of surplus-value.&apos;* * 

We have seen that the labourer, during one portion of the 
labour-process, produces only the value of his labour-power, 
that is, the value of his means of subsistence. Now since his 
work forms part of a system, based on the social division of 
labour, he does not directly produce the actual necessaries 
which he himself consumes ; he produces instead a particular 
commodity, yam for example, whose value is equal to the 
value of those necessaries or of the money with which they 

* What Lacretiiis says is self-evident; &quot;ni! pobse creari de nibilo/&apos; out of nothing; 
nothing can be created. Creation of Tain? id transformation of labour-power into 
labour. Labour-power itself is energy transferred to a human organism by means of 
nourishing matter. 

&apos;In the same way that the English use the terms &quot;rate of profit,** &quot;rate of in- 
terest&quot; We shall see. in Book III., that the rate of i.rofit is no mystery, so soon 
M we know the laws of surplus-value. If we reverse the process* we cannot com- 
prdiend either the one or the other. 



 

240 Capitalist Production, 

can be bought The portion of his day&apos;s labour devoted to 
this purpose, will be greater or less, in proportion to the value 
of the necessaries that he daily requires on an average, or, 
what amounts to the same thing, in proportion to the labour- 
time required on an. average to produce them. If the value 
of those necessaries represents on an average the expenditure 
of six hours&apos; labour, the workman must on an average work 
for six hours to produce that value. If instead of working for 
the capitalist, he worked independently on his own account, he 
would, other things being equal, still be obliged to labour for 
the same number of hours, in order to produce the value of his 
labour-power, and thereby to gain the means of subsistence 
necessary for his conservation or continued reproduction. But 
as we have seen, during that portion of his day&apos;s labour in 
which he produces the value of his labour-power, say three 
shillings, he produces only an equivalent for the value of his 
labour-power already advanced by the capitalist; the new 
value created only replaces the variable capital advanced. It 
is owing to this fact, that the production of the new value of 
three shillings takes the semblance of a mere reproduction. 
That portion of the working day, then, during which this re- 
production takes place, I call &apos;&apos;necessary&apos;&apos; labour-time, and the 
labour expended during that time I call &apos;&apos;necessary&quot; labour.* 
Necessary, as regards the labourer, because independent of the 
particular social form of his labour; necessary, as regards 
capital, and the world of capitalists, because on the continued 
existence of the labourer depends iheir existence also. 

During the second period of the labour-process, that in 
which his labour is no longer necessary labour, the workman, 
it is true, labours, expends labour-power; but his labour, being 
no longer necessary labour, he creates no value for himself. 
He creates surplus-value which, for the capitalist, has all the 
charms of a creation out of nothing. This portion of the 

* In this work, we have, up to now, «mplo]rc I the term &quot;necessary labour-time/&apos; 
to designate the time i cessary under given social conditions for the production of 
any commodity. Henceforward we use it t&apos;^ desi ^ate also the time necessary for 
the production of the f cular commodity labour-power. The use of one and the 
tame technical term in different senses is inconvenient, but in no science can it be 
altogether avoided. Compare* for instance, the higher with the lower branches of 
mathematics. 



 

The Rate of Surplus-value. 241 

working day, I name surplus labour-time, and to the labour 
expended during that time, I give the name of surplus-labour. 
It is every bit as important, for a correct understanding of 
surplus-value, to conceive it as a mere congelation of surplus- 
labour-time, as nothing but materialised surplus-labour, as it 
is, for a proper comprehension of value, to conceive it as a mere 
congelation of so many hours of labour, as nothing but ma- 
terialised labour. The essential difference between the various 
economic forms of society, between, for instance, a society 
based on slave labour, and one based on wage labour, lies only 
in the mode in which this surplus-labour is in each case ex- 
tracted from the actual producer, the labourer.* 

Since, on the one hand, the values of the variable capital 
and of the labour-power purchased by that capital are equal, 
and the value of this labour-power determines the necessary 
portion of the working day ; and since, on the other hand, the 
surplus-value is determined by the surplus portion of the 
working day, it follows that surplus-value bears the same ratio 
to variable capital, that surplus-labour does to necessary labour, 
or in other words, the rate of surplus-value -y = ncccasary^bw 
Both ratios, -7 and n^IS^&apos;l^r express the same thing in differ- 
ent ways ; in the one case by reference to materialised, incor- 
porated labour, in the other by reference to living, fluent 
labour. 

The rate of surplus-value is therefore an exact expression 
for the degree of exploitation of labour-power by capital, or of 
the labourer by the capitalist* 

^Herr Wilhelm Thucydides Roscber has found a mare&apos;s nest He has made tbe 
important discovery that if, on the one hand, the formation of surplus-value, or 
surplus-produce, and the consequent accumulation of capital, is now-a-days due to 
the thrift of the capitalist, on the other hand, in the lowest stages of civilisation it 
is the strong who compel the weak to economise (1. c p. 78). To economise what? 
Labour? Or superfluous wealth that does not exist? What is it that makes such 
men as Roscber account for the origin of surplus-value, by a mere rechauffe of the 
more or less plausible excuses by the capitalist, for his appropriation of surplua* 
value? It is, besides their real ignorance, their apologetic dread of a scientific 
analysis of value and surplus-value, and of obtaining a result, possibly not alto- 
gether palauble to the powers that be. 

&apos;Although the rate of surplus-value is an exact expression for the degree of ex- 
ploitation of labour-power, it is, in no sense, an expression for the absolute amount 
of exploitation. For example, if the necessary labour=:5 hours and the surplus-la- 
boiarMi6 hours, the degree of exploitation is 100%. The amount of exploitation it 

P 



 

242 Capitalist Production. 

We assumed in our example, that the value of the product 
=£410 const +£90 var.+£90 surpl., and that the capital 
advanced=£500. Since the 8urplu8-value=£90, and the ad- 
vanced capital=£600, we should, according to the usual way 
of reckoning, get as the rate of surplus value (generally con- 
founded with ^ate of profits) 18%, a rate so low as possibly 
to cause a pleasant surprise to Mr. Carey and other harmon- 
isers. But in truth^ the rate of surplus-value is not equal 

to g- ore:pvl&gt;«* *o V- ^^ i* is ^o* ^o% but f^ or 100%, which 
is more than five times the apparent degree of exploitation. 
Although, in the case we have supposed, we are ignorant of 
the actual length of the working day, and of the duration in 
days or weeks of the labour-process, as also of the number of 
labourers employed, yet the rate of surplus-value -7 accurately 
discloses to us, by means of its equivalent expression, n^!^^ ub b 
the relation between the two parts of the working day. This 
relation is here one of equality, the rate being 100%. Hence, 
it is plain, the labourer, in our example, works one half of the 
day for himself, the other half for the capitalist 

The method of calculating the rate of surplus value is there- 
fore, shortly, as follows. We take the total value of the pro- 
duct and put the constant capital which merely re-appears in it, 
equal to zero. What remains, is the only value that has, in 
the process of producing the commodity, been actually created. 
If the amount of surplus-value be given, we have only to deduct 
it from this remainder, to find the variable capital. And vice 
versa, if the latter be given, and we require to find the surplus- 
value. If both be given, we have only to perform the conclud- 
ing operation, viz., to calculate -J- , the ratio of the surplus- 
value to the variable capital 

Though the method is so simple, yet it may not be amiss, by 
means of a few examples, to exercise the reader in the applica- 
tion of the novel principles underlying it 

First we will take the case of a spinning mill containing 

here measured by 5 hours. If, on the other hand, the necessary labourB^ hours 
and the surplus-laboura^ hours, the degree of exploitation remains, as before, 
100%, while the actual amount of exploitation has increased 20%, namely from five 
hours to six. 



 

The Rate of Surplus-value. 243 

10,000 mule spindles, spinning No. 32 yam from American 
cotton, and producing 1 lb. of yam weekly per spindle. We 
assume the waste tohe Q%: under these circumstances 10,600 
lbs. of cotton are consumed weekly, of which 600 lbs. go to 
waste. The price of the cotton in April, 1871, was 7|d. per 
lb. ; the raw material therefore costs in round numbers £342. 
The 10,000 spindles, including preparation-machinery, and 
motive power, cost, we will assume, £1 per spindle, amounting 
to a total of £10,000. The wear and tear we put at 10%, or 
£1000 yearly=£20 weekly. The rent of the building we 
suppose to be £300 a year or £6 a week. Coal consumed (for 
100 horse-power indicated, at 4 lbs. of coal per horse-power per 
hour during 60 hours, and inclusive of that consumed in heat- 
ing the mill), 11 tons a week at 8s. 6d. a ton, amounts to 
about £4^ a week : gas, £1 a week, oil, &amp;c., £4^ a week. Total 
cost of the above auxiliary materials, £10 weekly. Therefore 
the constant portion of the value of the week&apos;s product is £378. 
Wages amount to £52 a week. The price of the yam is 12Jd. 
per lb., which gives for the value of 10,000 lbs. the sum of 
£510. The surplus value is therefore in this case £510 — 
£430 =£80. We put the constant part of the value of the 
product=0, as it plays no part in the creation of value. There 
remains £132 as the weekly value created, which=£52 var.+ 
£80 surpL The rate of surplus-vi ue is therefore |^ = 
158|^%. In a working day of hours with average labour 
the result is: necessary labour =8|^hours and surplus-labour 

One more example. Jacob gives he following calc\ tion 
for the year 1815. Owing to the previous adjustment of sev- 
eral items it is very imperfect ; nevertheless for our purpose it 
is sufficient. In it he assumes the price of wheat to be 83. a 
quarter, and the average yield per acre to be 22 bushels. 

* The above data, wbich may be relied upon, were given me by a Manchester apin- 
ner. In England the horae-power of an engine was formerly calculated from tha 
&lt;&amp;mieter of Ha cylinder, now the actual horte-oower ahown by the indicator ia taken. 



 

244 Capitalist Production. 



Value Produced Per Acre. 



Seed, &amp;1 9 

Manure, 2 10 

Wages, 3 10 



Total, .. &amp;1 9 



Tithes, Bates, 

and Taxes, .. &amp;1 1 
Rent, 1 8 

Farmer&apos;s Profit 
and Interest,. 12 



Total, .. £3 11 



Assuming that the priee of the product is the same as its 
value, we here find the surplus-value distributed under the 
various heads of profit, interest, rent, etc. We have nothing 
to do with these in detail ; we simply add them together, and 
the sum is a surplus-value of £3 lis. Od. The sum of £3 
19s. Od., paid for seed and manure, is constant capital, and we 
put it equal to zero. There is left the sum of £3 10s. Od., 
which is the variable capital advanced : and we see that a new 
value of £3 lOs. Od.+£3 lis. Od. has been produced in its 
place. Therefore -^ = - ^3 |o&apos;; ^ , giving a rate of surplus- 
value of more than 100%. The labourer employs more than 
one-half of his working day in producing the surplus-value, 
which different persons, under different pretexts, share 
amongst themselves.^ 

SECTION 2. — THE REPRESENTATION OF THE COMPONENTS OF 
THE VALUE OF THE PRODUCT BY CORRESPONDING PRO- 
PORTIONAL PARTS OF THE PRODUCT ITSELF. 

Let US now return to the example by which we were shown 
how the capitalist converts money into capital. 

The product of a working day of 12 hours is 20 lbs. of 
yam, having a value of 30s. No less than -^ths of this value, 
or 24s., is due to mere re-appearance in it, of the value of the 

&apos;The calculations given in the test are intended merely at illustrations. We hairo 
in fact assumed that prices = values. We shall, however, see in Volume IIL, that 
even in the case of average prices the assumption cannot be made in this very sim- 
ple manner. 



 

The Rate of Surplus-value. 245 

means of production (20 lbs. of cotton, value 208., and spindle 
worn away, 48.) : it is therefore constant capital. The re- 
maining -^ths or 6s. is the new value created during the spin- 
ning process : of this one half replaces the value of the day&apos;s 
labour-power, or the variable capital, the remaining half con- 
stitutes a surplus-value of 3s. The total value then of the 20 
lbs. of yam is made up as follows : 

30s. value of yam =24 const -|- 3s. var.-|-3s. surpL 

Since the whole of the value is contained in tho 20 lbs, of 
yam produced, it follows that the various component parts of 
this value, can be represented as being contained respectively 
in corresponding parts of the product 

If the value of 30s. is contained in 20 lbs. of yam, then 
^ths of this value, or the 24s. that form its constant part, is 
contained in ^ths of the product or in 16 lbs. of yam. Of 
the latter 13^ lbs. represent the value of the raw material, the 
20s. worth of cotton spun, and 2$ lbs. represent the 4s. worth 
of spindle, &amp;c., worn away in the process. 

Hence the whole of the cotton used up in spinning the 20 
lbs. of yam, is represented by 13^ lbs. of yam. This latter 
weight of yam contains, it is true, by weight, no more than 13 J 
lbs. of cotton, worth 13^ shillings; but the 6f shillings ad- 
ditional value contained in it, are the equivalent for the cotton 
consumed in spinning the remaining 6$ lbs. of yam. The 
effect is the same as if these 6$ lbs. of yam contained no cot- 
ton at all, and the whole 20 lbs. of cotton were concentrated in 
the 13^ lbs. of yam. The latter weight, on the other hand, 
does not contain an atom either of the value of the auxiliary 
materials and implements, or of the value newly created in the 
process. 

In the same way, the 2 J lbs. of yam, in which the 4s., the 
remainder of the constant capital, is embodied, represents 
nothing but the value of the auxiliary materials and instru- 
ments of labour consumed in producing the 20 lbs. of yam. 

We have, therefore, arrived at this result: although eight- 
tenths of the product, or 16 lbs. of yam, is, in its character of 
an article of utility, just as much the fabric of the spinner&apos;s 
labour, as the remainder of the same product, yet when viewed 



 

246 Capitalist Production. 

in this connexiony it does not contain, and has not absorbed any 
labour expended during the process of spinning. It is just as 
if the cotton had converted itself into yam, without help; as 
if the shape it had assumed was mere trickery and deceit: 
for so soon as our capitalist sells it for 248., and with the money 
replaces his means of production, it becomes evident that this 
16 lbs. of yam is nothing more than so much cotton and spindle- 
waste in disguise. 

On the other hand, the remaining i^ths of the product, or 4 
lbs. of yam, represent nothing but the new value of 6s., created 
during the 12 hours&apos; spinning process. All the value trans- 
ferred to those 4 lbs., from the raw material and instnunents 
of labour consumed, was, so to say, intercepted in order to bo 
incorporated in the 16 lbs. first spun. In this case, it is as if 
the spinner had spim 4 lbs. of ^Lm out of air, or, as if he had 
spun them with the aid of cotton and spindles^ that, being the 
spontaneous gift of Nature, transferred no value to the product 

Of this 4 lbs. of yam, in which the whole of the value newly 
created during the process, ia condensed, one half represents 
the equivalent for the value of the labour consumed, or the 3s. 
variable capital, the other half represents the 3s. surplus-value. 

Since 12 working hours of the spinner are embodied in 68., 
it follows that in yam of the value of 30s., there must be em- 
bodied 60 working hours. And this quantity of labour-time 
does in fact exist in the 20 lbs. of yam ; for in ^ths or 16 lbs. 
there are materialised the 48 hours of labour expended, before 
the commencement of the spinning process, on the means of 
production ; and in the remaining &quot;^(pths or 4 lbs. there are 
materialised the 12 hours&apos; work done during the process itself. 

On a former page we saw that the value of the yarn is equal 
to the sum of the new value created during the production of 
that yam plus the value previously existing in the means of 
production. 

It has now been shown how the various component parts of 
the value of the product, parts that differ functionally from 
each other, may be represented by corresponding proportional 
parts of the product itself. 

To split up in this manner the product into different parts^ 



 

The Rate of Surplus-value. 247 

of which one represents only the labour previously spent on 
the means of production, or the constant capital, another, only 
the necessary labour spent during the process of production, or 
the variable capital, and another and last part, only the surplus- 
labour expended during the same process, or the surplus-value; 
to do this, is, as will be seen later on from its application to 
complicated and hitherto unsolved problems, no less important 
than it is simple. 

In the preceding investigation we have treated the total 
product as the final result, ready for use, of a working day of 
12 hours. We can however follow this total product through 
all the stages of its production; and in this way we shall 
arrive at the same result as before, if we represent the partial 
products, given off at the different stages, as functionally 
different parts of the final or total product 

The spinner produces in 12 hours 20 lbs. of yam, or in 1 
hour 1§ lbs. ; consequently he produces in 8 hours 13 J lbs., or 
a partial product equal in value to all the cotton that is spun 
in a whole day. In like manner the partial product of the 
next period of 1 hour and 36 minutes, is 2| lbs. of yam : this 
represents the value of the instruments of labour that are con- 
sumed in 12 hours. In the following hour and 12 minutes, 
the spinner produces 2 lbs. of yam worth 3 shillings, a value 
equal to the whole value he creates in his 6 hours necessary 
labour. Finally, in the last hour and 12 minutes he produces 
another 2 lbs. of yam, whose value is equal to the surplus- 
value, created by his surplus-labour during half a day. This 
method of calculation serves the English manufacturer for 
everyday use ; it shows, he will say, that in the first 8 hours, 
or J of the working day, he gets back the value of his cotton ; 
and so on for the remaining hours. It is also a perfectly 
correct method: being in fact the first method given above 
with this difference, that instead of being applied to space, in 
which the different parts of the completed product lie side by 
side, it deals with time, in which those parts are successively 
produced. But it can also be accompanied by very barbarian 
notions, more especially in the heads of those who are as much 
interested, practically, in the process of making value beget 



 

248 Capitalist Production. 

value, as they are in misunderstanding that process theoreti- 
cally. Such people may get the notion into their heads, that 
one spinner, for example, produces or replaces in the first 8 
hours of his working day the value of the cotton; in the 
following hour and 36 minutes the value of the instruments of 
labour worn away ; in the next hour and 12 minutes the value 
of the wages ; and that he devotes to the production of surplus- 
value for the manufacturer, only that well known &quot;last hour.&quot; 
In this way the poor spinner is made to perform the two-fold 
miracle not only of producing cotton, spindles, steam-engin^ 
coal, oil, &amp;c., at the same time that he spins with them, but 
also of turning one working day into five ; for in, the example 
we are considering, the production of the raw material and in- 
struments of labour demands four working days of twelve 
hours each, and their conversion into yam requires another 
such day. That the love of lucre induces an easy belief in 
such miracles, and that sycophant doctrinaires are never 
wanting to prove them, is vouched for by the following inci- 
dent of historical celebrity. 

SECTION 3. BEiNIotfB ^*LAST HOUB.*&apos; 

One fine morning, in the year 1836, Nassau W. Senior, who 
may be called the bel-esprit of English economists, well known, 
alike for his economical &quot;science,&quot; and for his beautiful style, 
was summoned from Oxford to Manchester, to learn in the 
latter place the political economy that he taught in the former. 
The manufacturers elected him as their champion, not only 
against the newly passed Factory Act, but against the still 
more menacing Ten-hours^ agitation. With their usual prac- 
tical acuteness, they had found out that the learned Professor 
&quot;wanted a good deal of finishing;&quot; it was this discovery that 
caused them to write for him. On his side the Professor has 
embodied the lecture he received from the Manchester manu- 
facturers, in a pamphlet, entitled: &quot;Letters on the Factory 
Act, as it affects the cotton manufacture.&quot; London, 1837. 
Here we find, amongst others, the following edifying passage: 
&quot;Under the present law, no mill in which persons under 18 
years of age are employed, can be worked 



 

The Rate of Surplus-value. 249 

more tban 11^ liours a day^ that is 12 hours for 6 days in the 
week, and nine on Saturday. 

&quot;Now the following analysis ( !) will show that in a mill so 
worked, the whole net profit is derived from the last hour. I 
will suppose a manufacturer to invest £100,000 : — £80,000 in 
his mill and machinery, and £20,000 in raw material and 
wages. The annual return of that mill; supposing the capital 
to be turned once, a year, and gross profits to be 15 per cent., 

ought to be goods worth £115,000 Of this 

£115,000, each of the twenty-three half-hours of work pro- 
duces 5-115ths or one twenty-third* Of these 23-23rds (con- 
stituting the whole £115,000) twenty, that is to say £100,000 
out of the £115,000, simply replace the capital;— one twenty- 
third (or £5000 out of the £115,000) makes up for the de- 
terioration of the mill and machinery. The remaining 
2-23rds, that is, the last two of the twenty-three half-hours of 
every day, produce the net profit of 10 per cent If, there- 
fore (prices remaining the same), the factory could be kept at 
work thirteen hours instead of eleven and a half, with an 
addition of about £2600 to the circulating capital, the net 
profit would be more than doubled. On the other hand, if the 
hours of working were reduced by one hour per day (prices 
remaining the same), the net profit would be destroyed — ^if 
they were reduced by one hour and a half, even the ffross profit 
would be destroyed.&quot;^ 

^ Senior, L c., p. 12, 18. We let past such extraordinary notions as are of no im- 
portance for our purpose; for instance, the assertion, that manufacturers reckon as 
part of their profit, gross or net, the amount required to make good wear and tear of 
machinery, or in other words, to replace a part of the capiul. So, too, we pass over 
any question as to the accuracy of his figures. Leonard Homer has shown in *&apos;A 
Letter to Mr. Senior,&quot; &amp;c., London, 1837, that they are worth no more than the so- 
called &quot;Analysis.&quot; Leonard Horner was one of the Factory Inquiry Commissioners 
in 1888, and Inspector, or rather Censor of Factories till 1859. He rendered undy- 
ing service to the English working class. He carried on a life-long contest, not 
only with the embittered manufacturers, but also with the Cabinet, to whom the 
number of votes given by the masters in the Lower House, was a matter of far 
greater importance than the number of hours worked by the &quot;hands&quot; in the mills. 

Apart from errors in principle, Senior&apos;s statement is confused. What he really 
intended to say was this: The manufacturer employs the workman for 11^ hours 
or for 28 half-hours daily. As the working day, so, too, the working year, may be 
conceived to consist of 11^ hours or 28 half -hours, but each multiplied by the 
number of working days in the year. On this supposition, the 28 half-hours yield 
an annual product of £115,000; one half-hour yields^ X £116,000; 20 half-hours 
jield|jX £116,000; » £100,000, t.#., they replace no more than the capital «d&gt; 



 

250 Capitalist Production. 

And the professor calls this an &quot;analysis P If, giving 
credence to the out-cries of the manufacturers, he believed that 
the workmen spend the best part of the day in the production, 
i. e., the reproduction or replacement of the value of the build- 
ings, machinery, cotton, coal, &amp;c, then his analysis was super- 
fluous. His answer would simply have been: — Gentlemen I 
if you work your mills for 10 hours instead of 11^, then, other 
things being v^ua. the uaily sA&gt;nsumption of cotton, machinery, 
&amp;C., will decrease in proportion. You gain just as much as 
you lose. Your work-people will in future spend one hour 
and a half less time in ^)roducing or replacing the capital 
that has been advanced. — If, on the other hand, he did not 
believe them without further inquiry, but, as being an expert 
in such matters, aeemed an analy !s necessary, then he ought, 
in a question that is concerned exclusively with the relations 
of net profit to the length of the working day, before all things 
to have asked the manufacturers, to be careful not to lump 
together machinery, workshops, raw material, and labour, -ut 
to be good enough to place the constant capital, invested in 
buildings, machinery, raw material, &amp;c., on one ide of the 
account, and the capital advanced in wages on the other side. 
If the professor then found, that in accordance with the calcu- 
lation of the manufacturers, the workman reproduced or re- 
placed his wages in 2 half -hours, in that case, he should have 
continued his analysis thus: 

According to your figures, the workman in the last hour but 
one produces his wages, and in the last hour your surplus- 
value or net profit. Now, since iu equal periods he produces 
equal values, the produce of the last hour but one, must have 
the same value as that of the last hour. Further, it is only 
while he labours that he produces any value at all, and the 
amount of his labour is measured by his labour-time. This 
you say, amounts to llj hours a day. He employs one portion 
of these llj hours, in producing or replacing his wages, and 

vanced. There remain 8 half -hours, which yield AX £115,000a £16,000 or the 
gross profit Of these 8 half-hours, one yields Xx £116, 000» £6000; i «., it 
makes up for the wear and tear of the machinery; Uie remaining 8 half-hours, ir., 
the last hour, yield jLX £116,000»£ 10,000 or the net profit. In the text Senior 
converts the last ^ of the product into portions of the working day itself. 



 

The Rate of Surplus-^^alue. 251 

the remaining portion in producing jour net profit Seyond 
this he does absolutely nothing. But since, on your assump- 
tion, his wages, and tiie surplus-value he yields, are of equal 
value, it is clear that he produces his wages in 5| hours, and 
your net profit in the other 5| hours. Again, since the value 
of the yam produced in 2 hours, is equal to the sum of the 
values of his wages and of your net profit, the measure of the 
value of this yam must be llj working hours, of which 5| 
hours measure the value of the yam produced in the last hour 
but one, and 6f, the value of the yam produced in the last 
hour. We now come to a ticklish point; therefore, attention! 
The last working hour but one is, like the first, an ordinary 
working hour, neither more nor less. How then can the 
spinner produce in one hour, in the shape of yam, a value that 
embodies 6f hours labour ? The truth is that he performs no 
such miracle. The use-value produced by him in one hour, is 
a definite quantity of yam. The value of this yam is meas- 
ured by 5f working hours, of which 4f were, without any 
assistance from him, previously embodied in the means of 
production, in the cotton, the machinery, and so on ; the re- 
maining one hour is added by him. Therefore since his wages 
are produced in 5| hours, and the yam produced in one hour 
also contains 5| hours* work, there is no witchcraft in the re- 
sult, that the value created by his 6f hours&apos; spinning, is equal 
to the value of the product spun in one hour. You are dto- 
gether on the wrong track, if you think that he loses a single 
moment of his working day, in reproducing or replacing the 
values of the cotton, the machinery, and so on. On the con- 
trary, it is because his labour converts .the cotton and spindles 
into yam, because he spins, that the values of the cotton and 
spindles go over to the yam of their own accord. This result 
is owing to the quality of his labour, not to its quantity. It is 
true, he will in one hour tranfer to the yam more value, in the 
shape of cotton, than he will in half an hour ; but that is only 
because in one hour he spins up more cotton than in half an 
hour. You see then, your assertion, that the workman pro- 
duces, in the last hour but one, the value of his wages, and in 
the last hour your net profit, amounts to no more than this, 



 

252 Capitalist Production. 

that in the yarn produced by him in 2 ^working honrs, whether 
they are the 2 first or the 2 last hours of the working day, in 
that yam, there are incorporated 11^ working hours, or just a 
whole day&apos;s work, i. e., two hours of his own work and 9i hours 
of other people&apos;s. And my assertion that, in the first 6f hours, 
he produces his wages, and in the last 5f hours your net profit, 
amounts only to this, that you pay him for the former, but not 
for the latter. In speaking of payment of labour, instead of 
payment of labour-power, I only talk your own slang. Now, 
gentlemen, if you compare the working time you pay for, with 
that which you do not pay for, you will find tha^ they are to 
one another, as half a day is to half a day ; this gives a rate of 
100%, and a very pretty percentage it is. Further, there is 
not the least doubt&gt; that if you make your ^Tiands&apos;&apos; toil for 13 
hours instead of llj, and, as may be expected from you, treat 
the work done in that extra one hour and a half, as pure 
surplus-labour, then the latter will be increased from 5} hours&apos; 
labour to 7i hours&apos; labour, and the rate of surplus-value from 
100%, to 126^%. So that you are altogether too sanguine, 
in expecting that by such an addition of 1^ hours to the work- 
ing day, the rate will rise from 100% to 200% and more, in 
other words that it will be &quot;more than doubled.&quot; On the other 
hand — ^man&apos;s heart is a wonderful thing, especially when car- 
ried in the purse — you take too pessimistic a view, when you 
fear, that with a reduction of the hours of labour from 11^ to 
10, the whole of your net profit will go to the dogs. Not at 
all. All other conditions remaining the same, the surplus- 
labour will fall from 5} hours to 4} hours, a period that still 
gives a very profitable rate of surplus-value, namely 82|4%* 
But this dreadful **last hour,&quot; about which you have invented 
more stories than have the millenarians about the day of 
judgment, is &quot;all bosh.&quot; If it goes, it will cost neither you, 
your net profit, nor the boys and girls whom you employ, tiieir 
&quot;purity of mind.&quot;^ Whenever your &quot;last hour&quot; strikes in 

^ If, on the one hand. Senior proved that the net profit of the manufacturer, 
the existence of the English cotton industry, and England&apos;s command of the markets 
of the world, depend on &quot;the last working hour,&quot; on thr other hand. Dr. Andrew 
Ure showed, that if children and young persons under 18 years of age, instead of b*&gt; 
ing kept the full IM hours ia the warm and pure moral atmosphere of the factory, 



 

The Rate of Surplus-value. 253 

earndsty ihink on the Oxford Professor. And now, gentleman, 
*&apos;f arewell, and may we meet again in yonder better world, but 
not before/* 

Senior invented the battle cry of the &quot;last hour** in 1836.^ 

are turned out an hoar sooner Into the heartless and frivoloas outer world, they will 
be deprived, by idleness and vice, of all hope of salvation for their souls. Since 
1848, the factory inspectors have never tired of twitting the masters with this &quot;last,&quot; 
this &quot;fatal hour.&quot; Thus Mr. Howell in his report of the 81st May, 1855: &quot;Had 
the following ingenious calculation (he quotes Senior) been correct, every cotton 
factory in the United Kingdom would have been working at a loss since the year 
1850.&quot; (Reports of the Insp. of Fact, for the half-year, ending 80th April, 1856, 
pp. 19, 20.) In the year 1848, after the passing of the 10 hour&apos;s bill, the masters 
of some flax spinning mills, scattered, few and far between, over the country on the 
borders of Dorset and Somerset, foisted a petition against the bill on to the shoul- 
ders of a few of their work people. One of the clauses of this petition is as fol- 
lows: &quot;Your petitioners, as parents, conceive that an additional, hour of leisure will 
tend more to demoralise the children than otherwise, believing that idleness is the 
parent of vice.&quot; On this the factory report of 81st Oct., 1848, says: The atmos- 
phere of the flax mills, in which the children of these virtuous and tender parents 
work, is so loaded with dust and fibre from the raw material, that it is exception- 
ally unpleasant to stand even 10 minutes in the spinning rooms: for you are unable 
to do so without the most painful sensation, owing to the eyes, the ears, the nostrils, 
and mouth, being immediately filled by the clouds of flax dust from which there is 
no escape. The labour itself, owing to the feverish haste of the machinery, demands 
unceasing application of skill and movement, under the control of a watchfulness 
that never tires, and it seems somewhat hard, to let parents apply the term &quot;idling&quot; 
to their own children, who, after allowing for meal times, are fettered for 10 whole 
hours to such an occupation, in such an atmosphere. . . • These children work 
longer than the labourers in the neighbouring villages. ..... Such cruel 

talk about &quot;idleness and vice&quot; ought to be branded as the purest cant, and the most 

shameless hypocrisy. That portion of the public, who, about IS 

years ago, were struck by the assurance with which, under the sanction of high 
authority, it was publicly and most earnestly proclaimed, that the whole net profit 
of the manufacturer flows from the labour of the last hour, and that, therefore, 
the reduction of the working day by one hour, would destroy his net profit; that 
portion of the public, we say, will hardly believe its own eyes, when it now finds, 
that the original discovery of the virtues of &quot;the last hour&quot; has since been so far 
improved, as to include morals as well as profit; so that, if the duration of the 
labour of children, is reduced to a full 10 hours, their morals, together with the net 
profits of their employers, will vanish, both being dependent on this last, this fatal 
hour. (See Repts., Insp. of Fact., for 81st Oct., 1848, p. 101.) The same report 
then gives some examples of the morality and virtue of these same pure-minded 
manufacturers, of the tricks, the artifices, the cajoling, the threats, and the falsifica- 
tions, they made use of, in order, first, to compel a few defenceless workmen to sign 
petitions of such a kind, and then to impose them upon Parliament as the petitions 
of a whole branch of industry, or a whole country. It is highly characteristic of the 
present status of so called economical science, that neither Senior himself, who, at 
a later period, to his honour be it said, energetically supported the factory legisla- 
tion, nor his opponents, from first to last, have ever been able to explain the false 
conclusions of the &quot;original discovery.&quot; They appeal to actual experience, but the 
why and wherefore remains a mystery. 

^ Nevertheless, the learned professor was not without some benefit from his jour* 
ney to Manchester. In the &quot;Letters on the Factory Act,&quot; he makes the whole net 
gains including &quot;profit&quot; and &quot;interest,&quot; and even &quot;something niore,&quot; depend upoq 



 

254 Capitalist Production. 

In the London Economist of the 15th April, 1848, the same cry 
was again raised by James Wilson, an economical mandarin of 
high standing: this time in opposition to the 10 hours^ bilL 

SECTION 4. SUBPLTJS PBODUOB. 

The portion of the product that represents the surplus-value, 
(one-tenth of the 20 lbs., or 2 lbs. of yam, in the example given 
in Sec 2,) we call &quot;surplus-produce.&quot; Just as the rate of 
surplus-value is determined by its relation, not to the sum total 
of the capital, but to its variable part ; in like manner, the re- 
lative quantity of surplus-produce is determined by the ratio 
that this produce bears, not to the remaining part of the total 
product, but to that part of it in which is incorporated the 
necessary labour. Since the production of surplus-value is the 
chief end and aim of capitalist production, it is clear, that the 
greatness of a man^s or a nation^s wealth should be measured, 
not by the absolute quantity produced, but bv the relative 
magnitude of the surplus-produce.* 

The sum of the necessary labour and the surplus-labour, i.e., 
of the periods of time during which the workman replaces the 

a single unpaid hour&apos;s work of the labourer. One year previously, in his &quot;Outlines 
of Political Economy/&apos; written for the instruction of Oxford students and cultivated 
Philistines, he had also &quot;discovered, in opposition to Ricardo&apos;s determination of 
value by labour, that profit is derived from the labour of the capitalist, and interest 
from his asceticism, in other words, from his &quot;abstinence.&quot; The dodge was an old 
one, but the word &quot;abstinence&quot; was new. Herr Roscher translates it rightly by 
&quot;Enthaltung.&quot; Some of his countrymen, the Browns, Jones, and Robinsons, of 
Germany, not so well versed in Latin as he, have, monk-like, rendered it by 
&quot;Entsagting&quot; (renunciation). 

^ &apos;&apos;To an Individual with a capital of £20,000, whose profits were £2.000 per an- 
num, it would be a mattter quite indifferent whether his capital would employ a 
100 or 1,000 men, whether the commodity produced sold for £10,000 or £20,000» 
provided, in all cases, his profit were not diminished below £2,000. Is not the 
real interest of the nation similar? Provided its net real income, its rent and 
profits, be the same, it is of no importance whether the nation consists of 10 or of 
12 millions of inhabitants.&quot; (Ric L c, p. 416.) Long before Ricardo, Arthur 
Young, a fanatical upholder of surplus produce, for the rest, a rambling uncritical 
writer, whose reputation is in the inverse ratio of his merit, says, &quot;Of what use, in 
a modern kingdom, would be a whole province thus divided, [in the old Roman man- 
ner, by small independent peasants], however well cultivated, except for the mere 
purpose of breeding men, which taken singly is a most tiseless purpose?&quot; (Arthur 
Young: Political Arithmetic, &amp;c London, 1774, p. 47.) 

Very curious is &quot;the strong inclination ... to represent net wealth as bene- 
ficial to the labouring class .... though it is evidently not on account of 
being net.&quot; (Th. Hopkins, On Rent of Land, &amp;c London, 1828, p. 128.) 



 

The Working Day. 255 

value of his labour-power, and produces the surplus-value, this 
sum constitutes the actual time during which he works, i.6., the 
working day. 



CHAPTER X. 

THE WORKING DAY, 

BEOnOl? 1 THB LIMITS OP THE WOBEINa DAY. 

Wx started with the supposition that labour-power is bought 
and sold at its value. Its value, like that of all other commo- 
dities, is determined by the working time necessary to its 
production. If the production of the average daily means of 
subsistence of the labourer takes up 6 hours, he must work, on 
the average, 6 hours every day, to produce his daily labour- 
power, or to reproduce the value received as the result of its 
sale. The necessary part of his working day amounts to 6 
hours, and is, therefore, cceteris paribus, a given quantity. 
But with this, the extent of the working day itself is not yet 
given. 

Let us assume that the line A B represents the length of the 
necessary working time, say 6 hours. If the labour be pro- 
longed 1, 8, or 6 hours beyond A B, we have 3 other lines: 
Working day I. Working day IL Working day III. 

A B-^. A ^B C. A ^B C. 

representing 3 different working days of 7, 9, and 12 hours. 
The extension B C of the line A B represents the length of 
the surplus labour. As the working day is A B + B C or 
A C, it varies with the variable quantity B C. Since A B 
is constant, the ratio of B C to A B can always be calculated. 
In working day I. it is J, in working day II, f in working day 

m, f of A B. Since, further the ratio i^ l^&apos;rZSul de- 
termines the rate of the surplus-value, the latter is given by 
the ratio of B C to A B. It amounts in the 3 different working 
days respectively to 16|, 50 and 100 per cent On the other 
hand, the rate of surplus-value alone would not give us the 



 

256 Capitalist Production. 

extent of the workiiig day. If this rate e.g., were 100 per 
cent., the workiBg day might be of 8, 10, 12, or more hours. 
It would indicate that the 2 constituent parts of the working 
day, necessary-kbour and surplus-labour time&gt; were equal in 
extent, but not how long each of these two constituent parts 
was. 

The working day is thus not a constant, but a variable 
quantity. One of its parts, certainly, is determined by the 
working time required for the reproduction of the labour- 
power of the labourer himself. But its total amount varies 
with the duration of the surplus-labour. The working day is, 
therefore, determinable, but is, per se, indeterminate.^ 

Although the working day is not a fixed, but a fluent 
quantity, it can, on the other hand, only vary within certain 
limits. The minimum limit is, however, not determinable; 
of course, if we make the extension line BC or the surplus- 
labour=0, we have a minimum limit, i.e., the part of the day 
which the labourer must necessarily work for his own main- 
tenance. On the basis of capitalist production, however, this 
necessary labour can form a part only of the working day ; the 
working day itself can never be reduced to this minimum. On 
the other hand, the working day has a maximum limit It 
cannot be prolonged beyond a certain point This maximum 
limit is conditioned by two things. First, by the physical 
bounds of labour-power. Within the 24 hours of the natural 
day a man can expend only a definite quantity of his vital f orce^ 
A horse, in like manner, can only work from day to day, 8 
hours. During part of the day this force must rest, sleep; 
during another part the man has to satisfy other physical needs, 
to feed, wash, and clothe himself. Besides these purely physi- 
cal limitations, the extension of the working day encounters 
moral ones. The labourer needs time for satisfying his intel- 
lectual and social wants, the extent and number of which are 
conditioned by the general state of social advancement The 
variation of the working day fiuctuates, therefore, within 
physical and social bounds. But both these limiting condi- 

* &quot;A day&apos;s labour is vague, it may be long or short.&quot; (&quot;An Essay on Trade and 
Commerce, containing observations on taxes,&quot; &amp;c London, 1770. p. 78.) 



 

The Working Day. 257 

tions are of a very elastic nature, and allow, the greatest lati- 
tude. So we find working days of 8, IX), 12, 14, 16, 18 hours, 
i.e., of the most different lengths. 

The capitalist has bought the labour-power at its day-rate. 
To him its use-value belongs during one working day. lie 
has thus acquired the right to make the labourer work for him 
during one day. But what is a working day ? ^ 

At all even , less than a natural day. By how much? 
The capitalist has his own views of this uUima Thule, the 
necessary mm&apos;t of the working day. As capitalist, he is only 
capital personified. His soul is the soul of capital. But 
capital has one single life impulse, the tendency to create 
value and surplus-value, to make its constant factor, the means 
of production, absorb the greatest possible amount of surpluo- 
laboui&apos;.&apos; 

Capital is dead labour, that vampire-like, only lives by 
sucking living labour, and lives the more, the more labour it 
sucks. The time during which the labourer works, is the time 
during which the capitalist consumes the labour-power he has 
purchased of him.* 

If the labourer consumes his disposable time for himself, he 
robs the capitalist* 

The capitalist then takes his stand on the law of the ex- 
change of commodities. He, like all other buyers, seeks to get 
the greatest possible benefit out of the use-value of his commo- 
dity. Suddenly the voice of the labourer, which had be^i 

^This question it far more imporUnt than the celebrated question of Sir Robert 
Peel to the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce: What is a pound? A question 
that could only have been proposed, because Peel was as much in the dark as to the 
nature of money as the &quot;little shilling men&quot; of Birmingham. 

&apos;It is the aim of the capitalist to obtain with his expended capital the greatest 
possible quantity of labour (d&apos;obetnir du capital d^pens6 la plus forte somme de 
travail possible). J. G. Courcelle-Seneuil . . Trait6 th^orique et pratique des entre- 
prises industrielles. 2nd ed. Paris, 1867, p. 63. 

*&quot;An hour&apos;s labour lost in a day is a prodigious injury to a commercial State. 
. . . There is a very great consumption of luxuries among the labouring poor of 
this kingdom: particularly among the manufacturing populace, by which they also 
consume their time, the most fatal of consumptions.&quot; An Essay on Trade and 
Commerce, &amp;c, p. 47 and 168. 

* &quot;Si le manouvrier libre prend un instant de repos, I&apos;^conomie sordide qui le suit 
det yeux avec inquietude pretend qu&apos;il la vole.&quot; N. lingnet. &quot;Thterie des lotx 
ctviles, 6lc London, 1707,&quot; t. IL, p. 46«. 





 

^58 Capitalist Production. 

gtifled in the stonn and stress of the process of production, 
rises: &lt; 

The commodity that I have sold to you differs from the 
crowd of other commodities, in that its use creates value, and 
a value greater than its own. That is why you bought it. 
That which on your side appears a spontaneous expansion of 
capital, is on mine extra expenditure of labour-power. You 
and I know on the market only one law, that of the exchange 
of commodities. And the consumption of the commodity 
belongs not to die seller who parts with it, but to the buyer, 
who acquires it To you, therefore, belongs the use of my 
daily labour-power. But by means of the price that you pay 
for it each day, I must be able to reproduce it daily, and to 
sell it again. Apart from natural exhaustion through age, &amp;c., 
I must be able on the morrow to work with the same normal 
amoimt of force, health and freshness as to-day. You preach 
to me constantly the gospel of &quot;saving&apos;^ and &quot;abstinence.&quot; 
Good I I will, like a sensible saving owner, husband my sole 
wealth, labour-power, and abstain from all foolish waste of it 
I will each day spend, set in motion, put into action only as 
much of it as is compatible with its normal duration, and 
healthy development By an unlimited extension of the 
working day, you may in one day use up a quantity of labour- 
power greater than I can restore in three. What you gain in 
labour I lose in substance. The use of my labour-power and 
the spoliation of it are quite different things. If the average 
time that (doing a reasonable amount of work) an average 
labourer can live, is 30 years, the value of my labour-power, 
which you pay me from day to day is ssgxso ^^ nrJTZr&lt;&gt;f i^ 
total value. But if you consume it in ten years, you pay me 
daily ^ojgg instead of -^^jpoi its total value, i.e., only ^ of ita 
daily value, and you rob me, therefore, every day of § of the 
value of my commodity. You pay me for one day^s labour- 
power, whilst you use that of 3 days. That is against our 
contract and the law of exchanges. I demand, therefor, a 
working day of normal length, and I demand it without any 
appeal to your heart, for in money matters sentiment is out 
of place You may be a model citizen, perhaps a member 



 

The Working Day. 259 

of the Sociely for the Prevention of Cruelly to Animals* and 
in the odour of sanctity to boot ; but the thing that you rep- 
resent face to face with me has no heart in its breast. That 
which seems to throb there is my own heart-beating. I de- 
mand the normal working day because I, like every other 
seller, demand the value of my commodity.^ 

We see then, that&gt; apart from extremely elastic bounds, the 
nature of the exchange of commodities itself imposes no limit 
to the working day, no limit to surplus-labour. The capitalist 
maintains his rights as a purchaser when he tries to make the 
working day as long as possible, and to make, whenever possi- 
ble, two working days out of one. On the other hand, the 
peculiar nature of the commodity sold implies a limit to its 
consumption by the purchaser, and the labourer maintains his 
right as seller when he wishes to reduce the working day to one 
of definite normal duration. There is here, therefore, an anti- 
nomy, right against right, both equally bearing the seal of the 
law of exchanges. Between equal rights force decides. 
Hence is it that in the history of capitalist production, the de- 
termination of what is a working day, presents itself as the re- 
sult of a struggle, a struggle between collective capital, i.e., the 
elass of capitalists, and collective labour, t.e.^ the working class. 

SECTION 2. THE GREED FOB SURPLUS LABOE. MANUFAO 

TUBEE AND BOYABD. 

Capital has not invented surplus-labour. Wherever a part 
of society possesses the monopoly of the means of production, 
the labourer free or not free, must add to the working time 
necessary for his own maintenance an extra working time in 
order to produce the means of subsistence for the owners of the 
means of production,^ whether this proprietor be the Athenian 

^Dttring the grcmt strike of the London builders, 1860-61, for the reduction of 
the working day to 9 hours, their Committee published a manifesto that contained, to 
some extent, the plea of our workers. The manifesto alludes, not without irony, to 
the fact, that the greatest profit-monger amongst the building masters, a certain 
Sir M. Peto, was in the odour of sanctity. (This same Peto, after 1867, came to aa 
end i la Strousberg.) 

*&apos;*Tlioee who labour .... in reality feed both the pmiioncft • • • 
(called the rich] and themaelTCS.&quot; (Edmund Burke, L c» p. S.) 



 

26o Capitalist Production. 

KotXii KtfMi^ Etruscan theocrat, civis Itonianii% Norman 
baron, American slave owner, Wallachian Boyard, modem 
landlord or capitalist^ It is, however, clear that in any 
given economic formation of society, where not the exchange 
value but the use-value of the product predominates, surplus- 
labour will be limited by a given set of wants which may be 
greater or less, and that here no boundless thirst for surplus- 
labour arises from the nature of the production itself. Hence 
in antiquity overwork becomes horrible only when the object is 
to obtain exchange value in its specific independent money- 
form ; in the production of gold and silver. Compulsory work- 
ing to death is here the recognized form of over-work. Only 
read Diodorus Siculus.* Still these are exceptions in antiq- 
uity. But as soon as people, whose production still moves 
widiin the lower forms of slave-labour, corvee-labour, &amp;c., 
are drawn into the whirlpool of an international mar- 
ket dominated by the capitalistic mode of production, the 
Bale of their products for export becoming their principal 
interest, the civilized horrors of over-work are grafted 
on the barbaric horrors of slavery, serfdom, &amp;c. Hence the 
negro labour in the Southern States of the American 
Union preserved something of a patriarchal character, so long 
as production was chiefly directed to immediate local consump- 
tion. But in proportion, as the export of cotton became of 
vital interest to these states, the over-working of the negro and 
sometimes the using up of his life in 7 years&apos; of labour became 
a factor in a calculated and calculating system. It was no 
longer a question of obtaining from him a certain quantity of 
nseful products. It was now a question of production of sur- 
plus-labour itself. So was it also with the corvee, e.g., in the 
Danubian Principalities (now Boumania). 

^Niebuhr in his &quot;Roman History&quot; says very naively: &quot;It is evident that works 
fike the Etruscan, which, in their rains astound us, presuppose in little (!) states 
lords and vassals.&quot; Sismondi says far more to the purpose that &quot;Brussels lace&quot; 
presupposes wage-lords and wage-slaves. 

&apos; &quot;One cannot see these unfortunates (in the gold mines between Egjrpt, Ethiopiay 
and Arabia) who cannot even have their bodies clean, or their nakedness clothed, 
without pitying their miserable lot. There is no indulgence, no forbearance for the 
■ick, the feeble, the aged, for woman&apos;s weakness. All must, forced by blows, work 
«n until death puts an end to their sufferings and their distress.&quot; (&quot;IMod. Sic. BibL 
Hist&quot; lib. 8. c. 18.) 



 

The Working Day. 261 

The comparisoB of the greed for snrplua-labour in ihft 
Danubian Principalities with the same greed in English fac- 
tories has special interest, because surplus-labour, in the corvee 
has an independent and palpable form. 

Suppose the working day consists of 6 hours of necessary 
labour, and 6 hours of surplus-labour. Then the free labourer 
gives the capitalist every week 6 X 6 or 36 hours of surplus- 
labour. It is the same as if he worked 3 days in the week for 
himself, and 3 days in the week gratis for the capitalist But 
this is not evident on the surface. Surplus-labour and neces- 
sary labour glide one into the other. I can, therefore, express 
the same relationship by saying, e.g., that the labourer in every 
minute works 30 seconds for himself, and 30 for the capitalist^ 
etc. It is otherwise with the corvee. The necessary labour 
which the Wallachian peasant does for his own maintenance is 
distinctly marked oflF from his surplus-labour on behalf of the 
Boyard. The one he does on his own field, the other on the 
seignorial estate. Both parts of the labour-time exist, there- 
fore, independently, side by side one with the other. In the 
corvee the surplus-labour is accurately marked oflF from the 
necessary labour. This, however, can make no diflFerence with 
regard to the quantitative relation of surplus-labour to neces- 
sary labour. Three days^ surplus-labour in the week remain 
three days that yield no equivalent to the labourer himself, 
whether it be called corvee or wage-labour. But in the capi- 
talist the greed for surplus-labour appears in the straining 
after an unlimited extension of the working day, in the Boyard 
more simply in a direct hunting after days of corvee.^ 

In the Danubian Principalities the corvee was mixed up 
with rents in kind and other appurtenances of bondage, but it 
formed the most important tribute paid to the ruling class. 
Where this was the case, the corvee rarely arose from serfdom ; 
serfdom much more frequently on the other hand took origin 
from the corvee.^ This is what took place in the Eoumanian 

^ That which follows refers to the situation in the Roumanian provinces before th« 
change effected since the Crimean war. 

&apos;This holds likewise for Germany, and especially for Prussia east of the Elbe. 
In the 15th century the German peasant was nearly ever3rwhere a man, who, whilst 
•object to certain rents paid in produce and labour was otherwise at least practically 



 

262 Capitalist Production, 

Provinces. Their original mode of prodnction was based on 
community of the soil, but not in the Slavonic or Indian form. 
Part of the land was cultivated in severalty as freehold by the 
members of the community, another part — ager publicus — ^was 
cultivated by them in common. The products of this common 
labour served partly as a reserve fund against bad harvests and 
other accidents, partly as a public store for providing the costs 
of war, religion, and other common expenses. In course of 
time military and clerical dignitaries usurped, along with the 
common land, the labour spent upon it The labour of the free 
peasants on their common land was transformed into corvee for 
the thieves of the common land. This corvee soon developed 
into a servile relationship existing in point of fact, not in point 
of law, until Russia, the liberator of the world, made it legal 
tmder pretence of abolishing serfdom. The code of the corv6e, 
which the Russian General Kisseleff proclaimed in 1831, was 
of course dictated by the Boyards themselves. Thus Russia 
conquered with one blow the magnates of the Danubian prov- 
inces, and the applause of liberal cretins throughout Europe. 

According to the &quot;Reglement organique,&apos;&apos; as this code of the 
corvee is called, every Wallachian peasant owes to the so-caUed 
landlord, besides a mass of detailed payments in kind: (1), 13 
days of general labour; (2), one day of field labour; (8), one 
day of wood carrying. In all, 14 days in the year. With 
deep insight into political economy, however, the working day 
is not taken in its ordinary sense, but as the working day neces- 
sary to the production of an average daily product; and thai 
average daily product is determined in so crafty a way that n^ 
Cyclops would be done with it in 24 hours. In dry words, tka 
Il^glement itself declares with true Russian irony that by 12 
working days one must understand the product of the manual 
labour of 36 days, by 1 day of field labour 3 days, and by 1 day 

free. The Gennan colonists in Brandenbnrg, Pomerania, Silesia, and Eastern Pms- 
8ia» were even legally acknowledged as free men. The Tictory of the nobility in the 
peasants&apos; war put an end to that. Not only were the conquered South German 
peasants again enslaved. From the middle of the 16th century the peasants of 
Eastern Prussia, Brandenburg, Pomerania, and Silesia, and soon after the free peas* 
ants of Schleswig-Holstein were degraded to the condition of serfs. (Maurer, 
Fronhdfe It. yol.,~Meitsen, der Boden dcs preussischen Staats. — ^Hansen, Leibeigm- 
•cbaft ia Schleswig-Holstein.— Ed.) 



 

The Working Day. 263 

of wood carrying in like manner three times as much. In all, 
42 corvee days. To this had to be added the so-called jobagie, 
service due to the lord for extraordinary occasions. In propor- 
tion to the size of its population, every village has to furnish 
annually a definite contingent to the jobagie. This additional 
corv6e is estimated at 14 days for each Wallachian peasant 
Thus the prescribed corvee amounts to 66 working days yearly. 
But the agricultural year in Wallachia numbers in consequence 
of the severe climate only 210 days, of which 40 for Sundays 
and holidays, 30 on an average for bad weather, together 70 
days, do not count 140 working days remain. The ratio of 
the corv6e to the necessary labour || or 66§% gives a much 
smaller rate of surplus-value than that which regulates the 
labour of the English agricultural of factory labourer. This 
is, however, only the legally prescribed corvoe. And in a 
spirit yet more &quot;liberal&quot; than the English Factory Acts, the 
^&apos;Beglement organique&apos;&apos; has known how to facilitate its own 
evasion. After it has made 56 days out of 12, the nominal 
days work of each of the 56 corvee days is again so arranged 
that a portion of it must fall on the ensuing day. In one day, 
^.g., must be weeded an extent of land, which, for this work, 
especially in maize plantations, needs twice as much time. 
The legal day^s work for some kinds of agricultural labour is 
interpretable in such a way that the day begins in May and 
ends in October. In Moldavia conditions are still harder. 
&quot;The corvee days of the ^Eeglement organique,&apos; &quot; cried a Boy- 
ard, drunk with victory, &quot;amoimt to 3G5 days in the year.&quot; ^ 
If the Rcglement organique of the Danubian provinces was 
a positive expression of the greed for surplus-labour which 
every paragraph legalised, the English Factory Acts are the 
negative expression of the same greed. These acts curb the 
passion of capital for a limitless draining of labour-power, by 
forcibly limiting the working day by state regulations, made 
by a state that is ruled by capitalist and landlord. Apart from 
the working-class movement that daily grew more threatening, 
the limiting of factory labour was dictated by the same neces- 

&gt; Further details are to be found in E. Regnault&apos;s &quot;Histoire politique et sociale des 
Prindpaut^s Danubiennet.&quot; Parit» 1866. 



 

264 Capitalist Production. 

sity which spread guano over the English fields. The same 
blind eagerness for plunder that in the one case exhausted the 
soil, had, in the other, torn up by the roots the living force of 
the nation. Periodical epidemics speak on this point as 
clearly as the diminishing military standard in Germany and 
France.^ 

The Factory Act of 1850 now in force (1867) allows for the 
average working-day 10 hours, i.e., for the first 5 days 12 
hours from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., including ^ an hour for breakfast, 
and an hour for dinner, and thus leaving 10^ working hours, 
and 8 hours for Saturday, from 6 a.m. to 2 p.m., of which ^ 
an hour is subtracted for breakfast 60 working hours are 
left, lOi for each of the first 5 days, 7^ for the last^ Certain 
guardians of these laws are appointed, Factory Inspectors, di- 
rectly under the Home Secretary, whose reports are published 
half-yearly by order of Parliament They give regular and 
official statistics of the capitalistic greed for surplus-labour. 

Let us listen, for a moment, to the Factory Inspectors.* 

*&quot;In general and within certain limits, exceeding the medium size of their kind* 
is erridence of the prosperity of organic beings. As to man, his bodily height lessens 
if his due growth is interfered with, either by physical or social conditions. In all 
European countries in which the conscription holds, since its introduction, the 
medium height of aduh men, and generally their fitness for military service, has 
diminished. Before the revolution (1789), the minimum for the infantry in France 
was 196 centimetres; in 1818 Oaw of March 10th), 157; by the law of 1852, 156 
c m.; on the average in France more than half are rejected on accotmt of deficient 
height or bodily weakness. The military standard in Saxony was in 1780, 178 c m. 
It b now 155. In Prussia it is 157. According to the sutement of Dr. Meyer in 
the Bavarian Gazette, May 9th, 1868, the result of an average of 9 years is, that in 
Prussia out of 1000 conscripts 716 were unfit for military service, S17 becaus e of 
deficiency in height, and S99 because of bodily defects. . . ^ . Berlin in 1858, 
could not provide its contingent of recruits; it was 156 men short.** J. von Liebig: 
&apos;*Die Chemie in inrer Anwendung auf Agrikultur und Physiologic, 1863,** 7th Ed., 
vol 1., pp. 117, 118. 

*The history of the Factoty Act of 1850 will be found in the oourae of this 
chapter. 

*I only touch here and there on the period from the beginning of mouem in- 
dustry in England to 1845. For this period I refer the reader to **Die Lage der 
arbdtenden Klasse in En^and, von Friedrich Engels, Leipzig 1845.** How com- 
pletely Engels understood the nature of the capitalist mode of production is shown 
by the Factory Reports. Reports on Mines, Ac, that have appeared since 1845, and 
bow wonderfully he painted the circumstances in detail is seen on the most super- 
ficial comparison of his work with the official reports of the Children&apos;s Emplosrment 
Commission, published 18 to tO years later (1863*1867). These deal especially with 
the branches of industry in which the Factory Acts had not, up to 1863, been intro- 
duced, in fact are not yet introduced. Here, then, little or no alteration had been 
enforced, by authority, in the conditions painted by Fjigeh. I b oii ow my examples 



 

The Working Day. 263 

&apos;The fraudulent millowner begins work at a quarter of an hour 
(sometimes more, sometimes less) before 6 a.m.^ and leaves off 
a quarter of an hour (sometimes more^ sometimes less) after 
6 p.m. He takes 5 minutes from the beginning and from the 
end of the half hour nominally allowed for breakfast, and 10 
minutes at the beginning and end of the hour nominally al- 
lowed for dinner. He works for a quarter of an hour (some- 
times more^ sometimes less after 2 p.m« on Saturday. Thus 
bis gain is 

Before 6 a. m.. • • ... ... • . . 15 minutes. 

After 6 p. m 15 &quot; 

At breakfast time. 10 &quot; 

At dinner time 20 &apos;^ 

60 &quot; 
Five days — 800 minutes. 

On Saturday before 6 a. m. 15 minutes. 

At breakfast time. . . • 10 &quot; 

After 2 p.m. 15 &apos;&apos; 

40 minutes. 
Total weekly • •&apos; 840 minutes. 

Or 5 hours and 40 minutes weekly, which multiplied by 50 
working weeks in the year (allowing two for holidays and 
occasional stoppages) is equal to 27 working days.** ^ 

**rive minutes a day&apos;s increased work, multiplied by 60 
weeks, are equal to two and a half days of produce in the 
year.&apos;** 

*&apos;An additional hour a day gained by small instalments be- 
fore 6 a.m.^ after 6 p.m., and at the beginning and end of the 

chiefly from the free trade period after 1848, that age of paradise, of which the 
commercial traTellera for the great firm of free trade, blatant as ignorant, tell such 
fabulous tales. For the rest England figures here in the forground because she it 
the classic representative of capitalist production, and she alone has a oontinuoai 
set of ofiicial statistics of the things we are considering. 

* Suggestions, &amp;c by Mr. L. Homer, Inspector of Factories in: Factory Regula- 
tions Act Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed, 9th August, 18599 
p. 4, 6. 

* Reports of the Inspector of Factories for the half year, Oct6bef^ I860, p. S8. 



 

266 Capitalist Production. 

times nominally fixed for meals^ is nearly equivalent to work- 
ing 13 months in the year/^^ 

Crises during which production is interrupted and the fac- 
tories work &quot;short time/^ i.e., for only a part of the week, 
naturally do not affect the tendency to extend the working 
day. The less business there is^ the more profit has to be made 
on the business done. The less time spent in work, the more 
of that time has to be turned into surplus labour-time. 

Thus the Factory Inspector&apos;s report on the period of the 
crisis from 1857 to 1858 : 

&quot;It may seem inconsistent that there should be any over- 
working at a time when trade is so bad; but that very bad- 
ness leads to the transgression by unscrupulous men, they get 
the extra profit of it .... In the last half year, says Leonard 
Homer, 122 mills in my district have been given up ; 143 were 
found standing;&apos;&apos; yet^ overwork is continued beyond the legal 
hours.^ 

&quot;For a great part of the time,&quot; says Mr. Howell, &quot;owing to 
the depression of trade, many factories were altogether closed, 
and a still greater number were working short time. I continue, 
however, to receive about the usual number of complaints that 
half, or three-quarters of an hour in the day, are snatched from 
the workers by encroaching upon the times professedly allowed 
for rest and refreshment.&quot; * The same phenomenon was repro- 
duced on a smaller scale during the frightful cotton-crisis from 
1861 to 1865.* &apos;T!t is sometimes advanced by way of excuse^ 
when persons are found at work in a factory, either at a meal 
hour, or at some illegal time, that they will not leave the mill at 
the appointed hour, and that compulsion is necessary to force 
them to cease work [cleaning their machinery, &amp;c], especially 
on Saturday afternoons. But, if the hands remain in a factory 
after the machinery has ceased to revolve . . . they would not 
have been so employed if sufficient time had been set apart 

^Reports, ftc^ 80th April, 1868» p. 9. 

* Reports, &amp;c, L c., p. 48. 

&quot;Reports, &amp;c, 1. c, p. 26. 

« Reports, &amp;c, for the half year ending 80th April, 1861. See Appendix No. t; 
Reports, &amp;c, 8l8t October, 1868, p. 7, 62, 63. The violations of the Acts became 
aiore numerous during the last half year 1868. Cf. Reports, &amp;&amp;• ending 81st 
October, 1868, p. 7. &apos; 



 

The Working Day. 2^ 

specially for cleaning, &amp;c., either before 6 a.nu [«c/] or before 
2 p. m. on Saturday afternoons,&quot;^ 

&quot;The profit to be gained by it (over-working in violation of 
the Act) appears to be, to many, a greater temptation than they 
can resist; they calculate upon the chance of not being found 
out; and when they see the small amount of penalty and costs, 
which those who have been convicted have had to pay, they 
find that if they should be detected there will still be a con- 
siderable balance of gain. . . ? In cases where the additional 
time is gained by a multiplication of small thefts in the course 
of the day, there are insuperable difficulties to the inspectors 
making out a case.&quot;^ 

These &quot;small thefts&quot; of capital from the labourer&apos;s meal and 
recreation time, the factory inspectors also designate as &quot;petty 
pilfering of minutes,&quot;* &quot;snatching a few minutes,&quot;*^ or, as 
the labourers technically called them, &quot;nibbling and cribbling 
at meal times.&quot;® 

It is evident that in this atmosphere the formation of sur- 
plus-value by surplus-labour, is not secret. &quot;If you allow me,&quot; 
said a highly respectable master to me, &quot;to work only ten min- 
utes in the day over-time, you put one thousand a year in my 
pocket&quot;&apos;&apos; &quot;Moments are the elements of profit&quot;* 

* Reports* &amp;c., October Slst, 1860» p. 88. With what fanaticism, according to the 
evidence of manufacturers given in courts of law, their hands set themselves against 
every interruption in factory labour, the following curious circumstance showk. In 
the beginning of June, 1886, information reached the magistrates of Dewsbury 
lVorkshirc&gt; that the owners of 8 large mills in the neighbourhood of Batley had 
violated the Factory Acts. Some of these gentlemen were accused of having kept 
at work 6 boys between 12 and 16 years of age, from 6 a.m. on Friday to 4 p.m. on 
the following Saturday, not allowing them any respite except for meals and one 
hour for sleep at midnight. And these children had to do this ceaseless labour of 
SO hours in the &quot;shoddy-hole,&quot; as the hole is called, in which the woolen rags are 
pulled in pieces, and where a dense atmosphere of dust, shreds, &amp;c., forces even the 
adult workman to cover his mouth continually with handkerchiefs for the protec- 
tion of his lungs! The accused gentlemen affirm in lieu of taking an oath — as 
quakers they were too scrupulously religious to take an oath — that they had, in their 
great compassion for the unhappy children, allowed them four hours for sleep, but 
the obstinate children absolutely would not go to bed. The quaker gcnUcmen 
were mulcted in £20. Dry den anticipated these gentry: 

&quot;Fox full fraught in seeming sanctity. 
That feared an oath, but like the devil would Ue» 
That look&apos;d like Lent, and had the holy leer. 
And durst not sin I before he said his prayer!&quot; 

*Rc|&gt;., Slat Oct., 1866» p. 84. «L c p., p. 48. &apos;L c, p. 48. 

•L c, p. 85. &apos;L c, p. 48. &apos;L c, p. 48. 

* Report of the Insp., Ac, 80th April, 1880» p. 68. 



 

268 Capitalist Production. 

Nothing is from this point of view more characteristic than 
the designation of the workers who work full time as &quot;full- 
timers,&quot; and the children under 13 who are only allowed to 
work 6 hours as &apos;Tialf-timers.&quot; The worker is here nothing 
more than personified labour-time. All individual distinctions 
are merged in those of &quot;full-timers&quot; and *%alf-timers»&quot;^ 

SECTION 3. ^BRANCHES OF ENGLISH INDIJSTBT WITHOUT LEGAL 

LIMITS TO EXPLOITATION. 

We have hitherto considered the tendency to the extension of 
the working day, the were-wolf&apos;s hunger for surplus-labour in 
a department where the monstrous exactions, not surpassed, 
says an English bourgeois economist, by the cruelties of the 
Spaniards to the American red-skins,^ caused capital at last to 
be bound by the chains of legal regulations. Now, let us cast 
a glance at certain branches of production in which the exploi- 
tation of labour is either free from fetters to this day, or was 
so yesterday. 

Mr. Broughton Charlton, county magistrate, declared as 
chairman of a meeting held at the Assembly Rooms, Notting- 
ham, on the 14th of January, 1860, &quot;that there was an amount 
of privation and suffering among that portion of the popula- 
tion connected with the lace trade, unknown in other parts of 
the kingdom, indeed, in the civilized world . . . Children of 
nine or ten years are dragged from their squalid beds at two, 
three, or four o&apos;clock in the morning and compelled to work for 
a bare subsistence until ten, eleven, or twelve at night, their 
limbs wearing away, their frames dwindling, their faces 
whitening, and their humanity absolutely sinking into a stone- 
like torpor, utterly horrible to contemplate We are not 

surprised that Mr. Mallett, or any other manufacturer, should 
etand forward and protest against discussion The 

^This is the official expression both in the factories and in the reports. 

&apos; &quot;The cupidity of mill-owners whose cruelties in the ptirsuit of gain have hardly 
been exceeded by those perpetrated by the Spaniards in the conquest of America in 
the pursuit of gold.&quot; John Wade, History of the Middle and Working Classes, 3rd 
Ed. London, 1885, p. 114. The theoretical part of this book, a kind of hand-book of 
Political Economy, is, considering the time of its publication, original in some &apos;parts, 
e.g„ on commercial crises. The historical part is, to a great extent, a 
plagiarism of Sir F. M. £den*s &quot;History of the Poor,&quot; London. 1799. 



 

The Working Day. 269 

system^ as the Bev. Montagu Valpy describes it, is one of 
unmitigated slavery, socially, physically, morally, and spirit- 
ually What can be thought of a town which holds a public 

meeting to petition that the period of labour for men shall be 

diminished to eighteen hours a day? We declaim 

against the Virginian and Carolina cotton-planters. Is their 
black-market, their lash, and their barter of human flesh more 
detestable than this slow sacrifice of humanity which takes 
place in order that veils and collars may be fabricated for the 
benefit of capitalists ?&quot;^ 

The potteries of Staffordshire have, during the last 22 years, 
been the subject of three parliamentary inquiries. The result 
is embodied in Mr. Scriven&apos;s Report of 1841 to the &quot;Children&apos;s 
Employment Commissioners,&quot; in the report of Dr. Greenhow 
of 1860 published by order of the medical oflScer of the Privy 
Council (Public Health, 3rd Report, 112-113), lastly, in the 
report of Mr. Longe of 1862 in the &quot;First Report of the 
Children&apos;s Employment Commission, of the 13th June, 1863.*&apos; 
For my purpose it is enough to take, from the reports of 1860 
and 1863, some depositions of the exploited children them- 
selves. TVom the children we may form an opinion as to the 
adults, especially the girls and women, and that in a branch of 
industry by the side of which cotton-spinning appears an agree- 
able and healthful occupation.^ 

William Wood, 9 years old, was 7 years and 10 months when 
he began to work. He &quot;ran moulds&quot; (carried ready-moulded 
articles into the drying room, afterwards bringing back the 
empty mould) from the beginning. He came to work every 
day in the week at 6 a.m., and left off about 9 p.m. &quot;I work 
till 9 o^clock at night six days in the week. I have done so 
seven or eight weeks.&quot; Fifteen hours of labour for a child of 
7 years old 1 J. Murray, 12 years of age, says : &quot;I turn jigger, 
and run moulds. I come at 6. Sometimes I come at 4. I 
worked all last night, till 6 o^clock this morning. I have not 
been in bed since the night before last There were eight or 
nine other boys working last night. All but one have come this 



* ••Dafly Telegmph,&quot; 17th January* 1««0. 
*Cf. F. Engels&apos; Lage, etc., p. 849-61. 



 

270 Capitalist Production. 

morning. I get 8 ehillings and sixpence. I do not get any 
more for working at night. I worked two nights last week.&quot; 
Ferny hough, a boy of ten: &quot;I have not always an hour (for 
dinner). I have only half an hour sometimes; on Thursday, 
Friday, and Saturday.&quot;^ 

Dr. Greenhow states that the average duration of life in the 
pottery districts of Stoke-on-Trent, and Wolstanton is ex- 
traordinarily short Although in the district of Stoke, only 
36.6% and in Wolstanton only 30.4% of the adult nude 
population above 20 are employed in the potteries, among the 
men of that age in the first district more than half, in the 
second, nearly f of the whole deaths are the result of pul- 
monary diseases among the potters. Dr. Boothroyd, a medical 
practitioner at Hanley, says : ^^Each successive generation of 
potters is more dwai^ed and less robust than the preceding 
one.&quot; In like manner another doctor, Mr. M&apos;Bean : &quot;Since he 
began to practise among the potters 25 years ago, he has ob- 
served a marked degeneration especially shown in diminution 
of stature and breadth.^&apos; These statements are taken from the 
report of Dr. Greenhow in I860.* 

From the report of the Commissioners in 1863, the follow- 
ing: Dr. J. T. Arledge, senior physician of the North Staf- 
fordshire Infirmary, says: &quot;The potters as a class, both men 
and women, represent a degenerated population, both phys- 
ically and morally. They are, as a rule, stunted in growth, 
ill-shaped, and frequently ill-formed in the chest ; they become 
prematurely old, and are certainly short-lived; they are 
phlegmatic and bloodless, and exhibit their debility of consti- 
tution by obstinate attacks of dyspepsia, and disorders of the 
liver and kidneys, and by rheumatism. But of all diseases 
they are especially prone to chest-disease, to pneumonia, 
phthisis, bronchitis, and asthma. One form would appear pe- 
culiar to them, and is known as potter&apos;s asthma, or potter&apos;s 
consumption. Scrofula attacking the glands, or bones, or other 
parts of the body, is a disease of two-thirds or more of the 

&apos;Children&apos;s Employment Comminion. Tint report, elc^ IMS. EtMomc^ 9. U^ 

19, la. 

•Public Health, Srd report, ctc^ p. lOS, 104, lOS. 



 

The Working Day. 271 

potters That the ^degenerescence^ of the population of 

this district is not even greater than it is, is due to the constant 
recruiting from the adjacent country, and intermarriages with 
more healthy races.&apos;&apos;* 

Mr. Charles Parsons, late house surgeon of the same institu- 
tion, writes in a letter to Commissioner Longe, amongst other 
things: ^^I can only speak from personal observation and not 
from statistical data( but I do not hesitate to assert that my 
indignation has been aroused again and again at the sight of 
poor children whose health has been sacrificed to gratify the 
avarice of either parents or employers.&apos;&apos; He enxunerates the 
causes of the diseases of the potters, and sums them up in the 
phrase, *%ng hours.&quot; The report of the Commission trusts 
that &apos;^a manufacture which has assumed so prominent a place 
in the whole world, will not long b? subject to the remark that 
its great success is accompanied with the physical deterioration, 
wide-spread bodily suflFering, and early death of the work- 
people . . by whose labour and skill such great results have 
been achieved.&quot;* And all that holds of the potteries in Eng- 
land is true of those in Scotland.* 

The manufacture of lucifer matches dates from 1838, from 
the discovery of the method of applying phosphorus to the 
match itself. Since 1845 this manufacture has rapidly devel- 
oped in England, and has extended especially amongst the 
thickly populated parts of London as well as in Manchester, 
Birmingham, Liverpool, Bristol, Norwich, Newcastle and Glas- 
gow. With it has spread the form of lockjaw, which a Vienna 
physician in 1845 discovered to be a disease peculiar to lucifer- 
matchmakers. Half the workers are children under thirteen^ 
and young persons under eighteen. The manufacture is on 
account of its unhealthiness and unpleasantness in such bad 
odour that only the most miserable part of the labouring class, 
half-starved widows and so forth, deliver up their children 
to it, &quot;the ragged, half-starved, untaught children.&quot;* 

Of the witnesses that Commissioner White examined 

&gt; Child. Empl. Comm. I. Report, p, 84. 

B Children&apos;s Employment Commission, p. Z9, and icL 

•L c p. xlvii. 

«L c p. ll¥. 



 

2,&apos;j2 Capitalist Production. 

(1863), 270 were under 18, 50 under 10, 10 only 8, and 6 
only 6 years old. A range of the working day from 12 to 14 
or 15 hours, night-labour, irregular meal times, meals for the 
most part taken in the very workrooms that are pestilent with 
phosphorus. Dante would have found the worst horrors of his 
Inferno surpassed in this manufacture. 

In the manufacture of paper-hangings the coarser sorts are 
printed by machine; the finer by hand (block-printing). The 
most active business months are from the beginning of October 
to the end of ApriL During this time the work goes on fast 
and furious without intermission from 6 a.nL to 10 p.m. or 
further into the night 

J. Leach deposes: &apos;Tast winter six out of nineteen girls 
were away from ill-health at one time from over-work. I have 
to bawl at them to keep them awake.&quot; W. DufiFy: &quot;I have 
seen when the children could none of them keep their eyes 
open for the work ; indeed, none of us could.&apos;* J. Lightboume : 
&quot;Am 13 . . . We worked last winter till 9 (evening), and the 
winter before till 10. I used to cry with sore feet every night 
last winter.&apos;&apos; G. Apsden : &quot;That boy of mine . . . when he 
was 7 years old I used to carry him on my back to and fro 
through the snow, and he used to have 16 hours a day ... I 
have often knelt down to feed him as he stood by the machine^ 
for he could not leave it or stop.&quot; Smith, the managing 
partner of a Manchester factory : &quot;We (he means his *Tiands&quot; 
who work for &quot;us&quot;)work on, with no stoppage for meals, so 
that the day&apos;s work of 10^ hours is finished by 4.30. p.m., and 
all after that is overtime.&quot;* (Does this Mr. Smith take no 
meals himself during 10 J hours?) *We (this same Smith) 
seldom leave off working before 6 p.m. (he means leave off the 
consumption of &apos;our* labour-power machines), so that we 
(iterum Crispinus) are really working overtime the whole year 
round For all these, children and adults alike (152 

^This is not to be taken in the same sense as our surplus-labour time. These 
gentlemen consider 10 ;^ hours of labour as the normal working day, which includes 
of course the normal surplus-labour. After this begins &quot;overtime&quot; which is paid a 
little better. It will be seen later that the labour expended during the so^alled 
normal day is paid below its value, so that the overtime is simply a capitalist trick 
in order to extort more surplus-labor, which it would still be, even if the labour* 
power expended during the normal working day were properly paid. 



 

The Working Day. 273 

children and yonng persons and 140 adults), the average work 
for the last 18 months has heen at the very least 7 days, 5 
hours, or 78^ hours a &quot;week. For the six weeks ending May 
2nd this year (1862), the average was higher — 8 days or 84 
hours a weef ?till this srme Mr. Sm&apos;th, who is so extremely 
devoted to the pluralia majestatis, adds vith r. smile, &apos;^Machine 
work is not great^* So the &apos;employers in the block-printing 
say : *TEand labour is more healthy than machine-work.&quot; On 
the whole, manufacturers declare with indignation against the 
proposal ^^to stop the nachines at least during meal times*&apos; 
A clause, says Mr. Otley, manager of a wall-paper factory in 
the Borough, &quot;which allowed work between, say 6 a.nL and 9 
p.m, . . . would suit ns ( !) very well, but the factory hours, 6 
a.m. to 6 p.m., are not suit&amp;ble. Our machine is always 
stopped for dinner. (What generosity 1) There is no waste 
of paper and colour to speak of. But,&quot; he adds sympatheti- 
cally, &quot;I can understand the loss of time not being liked.&apos; 
The report of the Commission opines with naivete that the 
fear of some ^leading firms&quot; of losing time, i.e., the time for 
appropriating the labour of others, and thence losing profit 
is not a sufficient reason for allowing children under 13, and 
young persons under 18, working 12 to 16 hours per day, to 
lose their dinner, nor for giving it to them as coal and wat^ 
ere supplied to the steam-engine, soap to wool, oil to the 
wheel — as merely auxiliary material to the instruments of 
labour, during the process of production itself.^ 

No branch of industry in England (we do not take into 
account the making of bread by machinery recently intro- 
duced) has preserved up to the present day a method of pro- 
duction so archaic, so — as we see from the poets of the Soman 
Empire — ^pre-christian, as baking. But ^pital, as was said 
earlier, is at first indiflFerent as to the tech&apos;Siical character of the 
labour-process ; it begins by taking it just as it finds it 

The incredible adulteration of bread, especially in London, 
was first revealed by the House of Commons Committee &quot;on 
the adulteration of articles of food&apos;^ (1855-66), and Dn 



*L c ETideoce^ p. 188, 124, 185, 140, and 64. 

R 



 

274 Capitalist Production. 

Hassall&apos;s work, ^^Adulterations detected.&quot;* The oonseqnenoa 
of these revelations was the Act of August 6th, 1860, &quot;fop 
preventing the adulteration of articles of food and drink,&quot; an 
inoperative law, as it naturally shows the tenderest consider- 
ation for every free-trader who determines by the buying op 
selling of adulterated commodities &quot;to turn an honest penny.&apos;^ 
The Committee itself formulated more or less naively its con- 
viction that free-trade meant essentially trade with adulter^ 
ated, or as the English ingeniously put it, &quot;sophisticated&quot; 
goods. In fact this kind of sophistry knows better than Prota- 
goras how to make white black, and black white, and better 
than the Eleatics how to demonstrate ad ocvlos that everything 
is only appearance.^ 

At all events the committee had directed the attention of 
the public to its &quot;daily bread,&quot; and therefore to the baking 
trade. At the same time in public meetings and in petitions 
to Parliament rose the cry of the London journeymen bakers 
against their over^work, &amp;c. The cry was so urgent that Mr. 
H. S. Tremenheere, also a member of the Commission of 1868 
several times mentioned, was appointed Royal Commissioner 
of Inquiry. His report,* together with the evidence given, 
roused not the heart of the public but its stomach. English- 
men, always well up in the Bible, knew well enough that man, 
imless by elective grace a capitalist, or landlord, or sinecurist, 

^Alum finely powdered, or mixed with salt, is a normal article of commerce bear- 
ing the significant name of &quot;bakers&apos; stuff.&quot; 

&apos;Soot is a well-known and very energetic form of carbon, and forms a manure 
that capitalistic chimney-sweeps sell to English farmers. Now in 1868 the British 
juryman had in a law-suit to decide whether soot, with which, unknown to tht 
buyer 00% of dust and sand are mixed, is genuine soot in the commercial sense or 
adulterated soot in the legal sense. The &quot;amis du commerce&quot; decided it to be 
genuine commercial soot, and non-suited the plaintiff farmer, who had in addition 
to pay the costs of the suit. 

*The French chemist, Chevallier, in his treatise on the &quot;sophistications&quot; of 
commodities, enumerates for many of the 000 or more articles which he passes in 
review, 10, 20, 80 different methods of adulteration. He adds that he does not know 
all the methods, and does not mention all that he knows. He gives 6 kinds of 
adulteration of sugar, 9 of olive oil, 10 of butter, 12 of salt, 19 of milk, 20 of 
bread, 28 of brandy, 24 of meal, 28 of chocolate, 80 of wine, 82 of coffee, etc 
Even God Almighty does not escape this fate. See Ronard de Card, on the falsifi- 
cations of the materials of the Sacrament. (De la falsification des substances sacra 
mentelles, Paris, 1866.) 

* &quot;Report, &amp;c., relating to the grievances complained of by the joomeymea bakcrt 
fot London, 1862,&quot; and &quot;Second Report &amp;c, London, 1868.&quot; 



 

The Working Day. 275 

is oommanded to eat bis bread in tbe sweat of bis brow, but 
tbey did not know tbat be bad to eat daily in bis bread a certain 
quantity of buman perspiration mixed witb tbe discbarge of 
abcesses, cobwebs, dead black-beetles, and putrid German yeast, 
witbout counting alum, sand, and otber agreeable mineral in- 
gredients, Witbout any regard to bis boliness, Freetrade, tbe 
free baking-trade was tberefore placed under tbe supervision 
of the State inspectors (Close of ths Parliamentary session of 
1863), and by tbe same Act of Parliament, work from 9 in tbe 
evening to 6 in tbe morning was forbidden for journeymen 
bakers under 18. Tbe last clause speaks volumes as to tbe 
over-work in tbis old-f asbioned, bomely line of business. 

&quot;Tbe work of a London journeyman baker begins, as a rule, 
at about eleven at ni^t At tbat bour be ^makes tbe dougb,&apos; 
— a laborious process, wbicb lasts from balf-an-bour to tbree 
quarters of an bour, according to tbe size of tbe batcb or tbe 
labour bestowed upon it He tben lies down upon tbe knead- 
ing-board, wbicb is also tbe covering of tbe trougb in wbicb 
tbe dougb is *made ;&apos; and witb a sack under bim, and anotber 
rolled up as a pillow, be sleeps for about a couple of bours. 
He is tben engaged in a rapid and continuous labour for about 
five bours — throwing out tbe dough, &apos;scaling it off,* moulding 
it, putting it into tbe oven, preparing and baking rolls and 
fancy bread, taking tbe batcb bread out of the oven, and up 
into the shop, &amp;c, &amp;c. Tbe temperature of a bakehouse ranges 
from about 75 to upwards of 90 degrees, and in the smaller 
bakehouses approximates usually to the higher rather than to 
tbe lower degree of heat. When the business of making the 
bread, rolls, &amp;c., is over, that of its distribution begins, and a 
considerable proportion of the journeymen in the trade, after 
working bard in the manner described during the night, are 
upon their legs for many bours during the day, carrying bas- 
kets, or wheeling band-carts, and sometimes again in the bake- 
house, leaving off work at various hours between 1 and 6 p.m. 
according to the season of the year, or the amount and nature 
of their master&apos;s business ; while others are again engaged in 
the bakehouse in bringing out&apos; more batches until late in tbe 



 

ty6 Capitalist Production. 

afternoon.* . . . During what is called ^the London season,&apos; the 
operatives belonging to the &apos;full-priced&apos; bakers at the West 
End of the town, generally begin work at 11 p.nL, and are en- 
gaged in making the bread, with one or two short (sometimes 
very short) intervals of rest, up to 8 o&apos;clock the next morning. 
They are then engaged all day long, up to 4, 5, 6, and as late 
as 7 o&apos;clock in the evening carrying out bread, or sometimes in. 
the afternoon in the bakehouse again, assisting in the biscuit- 
baking. They may have, after they have done their work, 
sometimes five or six, sometimes only four or five hours&apos; sleep 
before they begin again. On Fridays they always begin 
sooner, some about ten o&apos;clock, and continue in some cases, at 
work, either in making or delivering the bread np to 8 p.m. on 
Saturday night, but more generally up to 4 or 5 o&apos;clock, 
Sunday morning. On Sundays the men must attend twice or 
three times during the day for an hour or two to make prepa- 
rations for the next day&apos;s bread The men employed 

by the underselling masters (who sell their bread under the 
&apos;full price,&apos; and who, as already pointed out, comprise three- 
fourths of the London bakers) have not only to work on the 
average longer hours, but their work is almost entirely confined 
to the bakehouse. The underselling masters generally sell their 
bread .... in the shop. If they send it out, which is not com- 
mon, except as supplying chandlers&apos; shops, they usually employ 
other hands for that purpose. It is not their practice to deliver 

bread from house to house. Towards the end of the week 

the men begin on Thursday night at 10 o&apos;clock, and continue on 
with only slight intermission until late on Saturday evening.&quot;* 
Even the bourgeois intellect understands the position of the 
&quot;underselling&quot; masters. &quot;The unpaid labour of the men was 
made the source whereby the competition was carried on.&apos;&quot; 
And the &quot;full-priced&quot; baker denounces his underselling com- 
petitors to the Commission of Inquiry as thieves of foreign 
labour and adulterators. &quot;They only exist now by first de- 
frauding the public, and next getting 18 hours work out of 
their men for 12 hours&apos; wages.&quot;* 

^L c First Report, Sec., p. rL 

*1. c. p. Ixxi. &apos;George Read, The History of Baking, London, 1848, p. 19. 

* Report (First) &amp;c. Evidence of the &apos;*full-priced*&apos; baker Cheeseman, p. 303. 



 

The Working Day. 277 

The adulteration of bread and the formation of a class of 
bakers that sells the bread below the full price^ date from the 
beginning of the 18th century, from the time when the 
corporate character of the trade was lost, and the capitalist in 
the form of the miller or flour-factor, rises behind the nominal 
master baker.^ Thus was laid the foundation of capitalistic 
production in this trade, of the unlimited extension of the 
working day and of night labour, although the latter only 
since 1824 gained a serious footing, even in London,* 

After what has just been said, it will be understood that the 
Eeport of the Commission classes journeymen bakers among 
the short-lived labourers, who, having by good luck escaped the 
normal decimation of the children of the working-class, rarely 
reach the age of 42. Nevertheless, the baking trade is always 
overwhelmed with applicants. The sources of the supply of 
these labour-powers to London are Scotland, the western agri- 
cultural districts of England, and Qermany. 

Li the years 1858-60, the journeymen bakers in Ireland 
organized at their own expense great meetings to agitate 
against night and Sunday work. The public — e.g., at the 
Dublin meeting in May, 1860 — ^took their part with Irish 
warmth. As a result of this movement, -.ay labor alone was 
successfully established in Wexford, Kilkenny, Clonmel, Water- 
ford, &amp;c. &quot;In Limerick, where the grievances of the journey- 
men are demonstrated to be excessive, the movement has been 
defeated by the opposition of the master bakers, the miller 
bakers being the greatest opponents. The example of Limerick 
led to a retrogression in Ennis and Tipperary. In Cork, where 
the strongest possible demonstration of feeling took place, the 
masters, by exercising their power of turning the men out of 
employment, have defeated the movement. In Dublin, the 
master bakers have offered the most determined opposition to 

^George Read, 1. c At the end of the 17th and the beginning of the 18th cen- 
turies the factors (agents) that crowded into every possible trade were still de- 
nounced as &quot;public nuisances.&quot; Thus the Grand Jury at the quarter session of the 
Justices of the Peace for the County of Somerset, addressed a presentment to the 
Lower House which, among other things, states, &quot;that these factors of Blackwell EEall 
arc a Public Nuisance and Prejudice to the Clothing Trade, and ought to be put 
down as a Nuisance.&quot; The case of our English Wool, &amp;c., London, 1685, p. 0, 7. 

*nr8t Report. Ac 



 

278 Capitalist Production. 

the movement; and by discountenancing as much as possible 
the journeymen promoting it, have succeeded in leading the 
men into acquiescence in Sunday work and night work, con- 
trary to the convictions of the men.&quot;^ 

The Committee of the English Government, which Govern- 
ment, in Ireland, is armed to the teeth, and generally knows 
how to show it, remonstrates in mild, though funereal, tones 
with the implacable master bakers of Dublin, Limerick, Cork, 
&amp;c: &quot;The Committee believe that the hours of labour are 
limited by natural laws, which cannot be violated with im- 
punity. That for master bakers to induce their workmen, by 
the fear of losing employment, to violate their religious con- 
victions and their better feelings, to disobey the laws of the 
land, and to disregard public opinion (this all refers to Sunday 
labour), is calculated to provoke ill-feeling between workmen 
and masters, • . . and affords an example dangerous to religion, 
morality, and social order, . . . The Committee believe that 
any constant work beyond 12 hours a-day encroaches on the 
domestic and private life of the working man, and so leads to 
disastrous moral results, interfering with each man&apos;s home, and 
the discharge of his family duties as a son, a brother, a hus- 
band, a father. That work beyond 12 hours has a tendency to 
undermine the health of tlie working man, and so leads to 
premature old age and death, to the great injury of families of 
working men, thus deprived of the care and support of the 
head of the family when most required.&quot;^ 

So far, we have dealt with Ireland. On the other side of 
the channel, in Scotland, the agricultural labourer, the plough- 
man, proteste against his 13-14 hours&apos; work in the most in- 
clement climate, with 4 hours&apos; additional work on Sunday (in 
this land of Sabbatarians!),^ whilst, at the same time, three 
railway men are standing before a London coroner&apos;s jury — a 
guard, an engine-driver, a signalman. A tremendous railway 
accident has hurried hundreds of passengers into another 
world. The negligence of the employes is the cause of the 

1 Report of Committee on the Baking Trade in Ireland for 1861. 
•i. c. 

* Public meeting of agricultural labourers at Lasswade, near Edinburgh, January 
5th, 18M. (See &quot;Workman&apos;s Advocate/&apos; January 18th, 1806.) The formation 



 

The Working Day. 279 

xniBforttme. They declare with one voice before the jury that 
ten or twelve years before, iheir labour only lasted eight hours 
a-day. During the last five or six years it had been screwed 
up to 14, 18, and 20 hours, and under a specially severe pres- 
sure of holiday-makers, at times of excursion trains, it often 
lasted for 40 or 50 hours without a break. They were ordinary 
men, not Cyclops. At a certain point their labour-power 
failed. Torpor seized them. Their brain ceased to think, their 
eyes to see. The thoroughly &quot;respectable*&apos; British jurymen 
answered by a verdict that sent them to the next assizes on a 
charge of manslaughter, and, in a gentle &quot;rider** to their ver- 
dict| expressed the pious hope that the capitalistic magnates of 
the railways would, in future, be more extravagant in the 
purchase of a sufficient quantity of labour-power, and more 
&quot;abstemious,** more &quot;self-denying,** more &quot;thrifty,** in the 
draining of paid labour-power.^ 

From the motley crowd of labourers of all callings, ages, 

stiioe the dote of 1866 of a Trades&apos; Union among the agricnltnral labonren ftt first 
in Scotland is a historic event In one of the most oppressed agricultural districts 
of England, Buckinghamshire» the labourers, in March, 1867, made a great strike for 
the raising of their weekly wage from 9-10 shillings to 12 shillings. (It will be seen 
from the preceding passage that the movement of the English agricultural proletariat, 
entirely crushed since the suppression of its violent msnifestations after 1880, and 
especially since the introduction of the new Poor Laws, begins again in the sixties, 
until it becomes finally epoch-making in 1872. I return to this in the 2nd volume, 
as well as to the blue books that have appeared since 1867 on the position of the Eng- 
lish land labourers. Addendum to the 8rd ed.) 

^&apos;&apos;Reynolds&apos; Newspaper,&quot; January, 1866. — Every week this same paper has, 
under the sensational headings, &quot;Fearful and fatal accidents,&quot; &quot;Appalling tragedies,&quot; 
ftc a whole list of fresh railway catastrophes. On these an employ^ on the North 
Staffordshire line comments: &quot;Everyone knows the consequences that may occur if 
the driver and fireman of a locomotive engine are not continually on the look-out. 
How can that be expected from a man who has been at such work for 29 or 80 
flours, exposed to the weather, and without rest The following is an example which 
is of very frequent occurrence: — One fireman commenced work on the Monday morn- 
ing at a very early hour. When he had finished what is called a day&apos;s work, he had 
been on duty 14 hours 60 minutes. Before he had time to get his tea, he was 
again called on for duty. • • • The next time he finished he had been on duty 14 
hours 26 minutes, making a total of 29 hours 16 minutes without intermission. 
The rest of the week&apos;s work was made up as follows: — ^Wednesday, 15 hours; Thurs- 
day, 16 hours 86 minutes; Friday, 14^ hours; Saturday, 14 hours 10 minutes, making 
a total for the week of 88 hours 40 minutes. Now, sir, fancy his astonishment on 
being paid 6^ days for the whole. Thinking it was a mistake, he applied to the time- 
keeper, . • • and Inquired what they considered a dajr&apos;s work, and was told 18 
fiottfs for a good man (i«., 78 hours. ... He then asked for what he had mada 
over and above the 78 hours per week, but was refused. However, he was at last 
•old they would give him another quarter, i^., lOd.&quot; L c, 4th February, 1866. 



 

2So Capitalist Production. 

sexes, that press on ns more busily than the sonls of the slain 
on Ulysses, on whom — without referring to the blue books 
under their armsi — ^we see at a glance the mark of over-work, 
let us take two more figures whose striking contrast proves 
that before capital all men are alike — a milliner and a black- 
smith* 

In the last week of June^ 1863, all the London daily papers 
published a paragraph with the &quot;sensational&quot; heading &quot;Death 
from simple over-work.&quot; It dealt with the death of the 
milliner, Mary Anne Walkley, 20 years of age, employed in a 
highly-respectable dressmaking establishment, exploited by a 
lady with the pleasant name of Elise. The old, often-told 
story,^ was once more recounted. This girl worked, on an 
average, 16^ hours, during the season often 30 hours, without a 
break, whilst her failing labour^werwas revived by occasional 
supplies of sherry, port, or coffee. It was just now the height 
of the season. It was necessary to conjure up in the twinkling 
of an eye the gorgeous dresses for the noble ladies bidden to 
the ball in honour of the newly-imported Princess of Wales. 
Mary Anne Walkley had worked without intermission for 26^ 
hours, with 60 other girls, 30 in one room, that only afforded -J 
of the cubic feet of air required for them. At night, they slept 
in pairs in one of the stifling holes into which the bedroom was 
divided by partitions of board.^ And this was one of the best 

^Ci. p. Engels. L c, pp. 268, 164. 

*Dr. Letheby, Consulting Physician of the Board of Health, declared: &apos;Hie mini* 
mum of air for each adult ought to be in a sleeping room 800, and in a dwelling 
room 600 cubic feet.&quot; Dr. Richardson, Senior Physician to one of the London 
Hospitals: &quot;Wit&apos; needlewomen of all kinds, including milliners, dressmakers, and 
ordinary sempstresses, there are three miseries — over-work, deficient air, and either 
deficient food or deficient digestion. . . . Needlework, in the main, ... is 
infinitely better adapted to women than to men. But the mischiefs of the trade* 
in the metropolis especially, are that it is monopolised by some twenty-six capitalists, 
who, under the advantages that spring from capital, can bring in capital to force 
economy out of labour. This power tells throughout the whole class. If a dress- 
maker can get a little circle of customers, such is the competition that, in her 
home, she must work to the death to hold together, and this same over-work she 
must of necessity inflict on any who may assist her. If she fail, or do not try 
independently, she must join an establishment, where her labour is not less, but 
where her money is safe. Placed thus, she becomes a mere slave, tossed about with 
the variations of society. Now at home, in one room, starving, or near to it, then 
engaged 16, 16, aye, even 18 hours out of the 24, in an air that is scarcely tolerable, 
and on food which, even if it be good, cannot be digested in the absence of pure 



 

The Working Day. 281 

millinery establisliments in London. Mary Anne Walkley fell 
ill on the Friday, died on Sunday, without, to the astonish- 
ment of Madame Elise, having previously completed the work 
in hand. The doctor, Mr. Keys, called too late to the death- 
bed, duly bore witness before the coroner&apos;s jury that &quot;Mary 
Anne Walkley had died from long hours of work in an over- 
crowded workroom, and a too small and badly-ventilated bed- 
room.&apos;&apos; In order to give the doctor a lesson in good manners, 
the coroner&apos;s jury thereupon brought in a verdict that &quot;the 
deceased had died of apoplexy, but there was reason to fear 
that her death had been accelerated by over-work in an over- 
crowded workroom, &amp;c&quot; &quot;Our white slaves,&quot; cried the &quot;Morn- 
ing Star,&quot; the organ of the free-traders, Cobden and Bright^ 
&quot;our white slaves, who are toiled into the grave, for the most 
part silently pine and die.&quot;* 

&quot;It ifl not in dressmakers&apos; rooms that working to death is 
the order of the day, but in a thousand other places ; in every 
place I had almost said, where &apos;a thriving business&apos; has to be 
done. . . . We will take the blacksmith as a type. If 
the poets were true, there is no man so hearty, so merry, as 
the blacksmith; he rises early and strikes his sparks before 
the sun; he eats and drinks and sleeps as no other man. 
Working in moderation, he is, in f act, in one of the best of 

air. On these victims, consumption, which is purely a disease of bad air, feeds.&quot; 
Dr. Richardson: &quot;Work and Overwork,&quot; in &quot;Social Science Review,&quot; 18th July, 
18C8. 

* &quot;Morning Star,&quot; 28rd June, 1808. — ^The &quot;Times&quot; made use of the circumstance 
to defend the American slave owners against Bright, &amp;c. &quot;Very many of us think,&quot; 
says a leader of July 2nd, 1868, &quot;that, while we work our own young women to 
death, using the scourge of starvation, instead of the crack of the whip, as the 
instrument of compulsion, we have scarcely a right to hound on fire and slaughter 
against families who were bom slave owners, and who, at least, feed their slaves 
well, and work them lightly.&quot; In the same manner, the &quot;Standard,&quot; a Tory organ, 
fell foul of the Rev. Newman Hall: &quot;He excommunicated the slave owners, but 
prays with the fine folk who, without remorse, make the omnibus drivers and con- 
ductors of London, &amp;c, work 10 hours a-day for the wages of a dog.&quot; Finally, 
•pake the oracle, Thomas Carlyle, of whom I wrote, in 1860, &quot;Zum Teufel ist der 
Genius, der Kultus ist geblieben.&quot; In a short parable, he reduces the one great 
event of contemporary history, the American civil war, to this level, that the Peter 
of the North wants to break the head of the Paul of the South with all his might, 
because the Peter of the North hires his labour by the day, and the Paul of the 
South hires his by the life. (&quot;Macmillan&apos;s Magazine.&quot; Ilias Americana in nuce. 
August, 1808.) Thus, the bubble of Tory sympathy for the urban workers— by tkS 
means for the rural— has burst at last. The sum of all is — slavery I 



 

28a Capitalist Production. 

buinan positions, physically speaking. But we follow him into 
the city or town, and we see the stress of work on that strong 
man, and what then is his position in the death-rate of his 
country. In Marylebone, blacksmiths die at the rate of 31 per 
thousand per annum, or 11 above the mean of the male adults 
of the country in its entirety. The occupation, instinctive 
almost as a portion of human art, unobjectionable as a branch 
of human industry, is made by mere excess of work, the de- 
stroyer of the man. He can strike so many blows per day, 
walk so many steps, breathe so many breaths, produce so much 
work, and live an average, say of fifty years; he is made to 
strike so many more blows, to walk so many more steps, to 
breathe so many more breaths per day, and to increase alto- 
gether a fourth of his life. He meets the effort ; the result is, 
that producing for a limited time a fourth more work, he dies 
at 37 for 50.&quot;^ 

SECTION 4. ^DAT AND NIGHT WOKE. THE BELAY SYSTEM. 

Constant capital, the means of production, considered from 
the standpoint of the creation of surplus-value, only exist to 
absorb labour, and with every drop of labour a proportional 
quantity of surplus-labour. While they fail to do this, their 
mere existence causes a relative loss to the capitalist, for they 
represent during the time they lie fallow, a useless advance of 
capitaL And this loss becomes positive and absolute as soon 
as the intermission of their employment necessitates additional 
outlay at the recommencement of work. The prolongation of 
the working day beyond the limits of the natural day, into 
the night, only acts as a palliative. It quenches only in a slight 
degree the vampire thirst for the living blood of labour. To 
appropriate labour during all the 24 hours of the day is, there- 
fore, the inherent tendency of capitalist production. But as it 
is physically impossible to exploit the same individual labour- 
power constantly during the night as well as the day, to over- 
come this physical hindrance, an alternation becomes necessary 
between the workpeople whose powers are exhausted by day» 

^Dr. Richardson, L e. 



 

The Working Day. 283 

and those who are used up by night This alternation may be 
effected in various ways ; e.g., it may be so arranged that part 
of the workers are one week employed on day work, the next 
week on night work It is well-known that this relay system, 
this alternation of two sets of workers, held full sway in the 
full-blooded youth-time of the English cotton manufacture, and 
that at the present time it still flourishes, among others, in the 
cotton spinning of the Moscow district This 24 hours&apos; process 
of production exists to-day as a system in many of the branches 
of industry of Great Britain that are still &quot;free,&apos;* in the 
blast-furnaces, forges, plate-rolling mills, and other metal- 
lurgical establishments in England, Wales, and Scotland. The 
working time here includes, besides the 24 hours of the 6 
working days, a great part also of the 24 hours of Sunday. 
The workers consist of men and women, adults and children 
of both sexes. The ages of the children and young persons run 
through all intermediate grades, from 8 (in some cases from 6) 
to 18.^ 

In some branches of industry, the girls and women work 
through the night together with the males.* 

Placing on one side the generally injurious influence of 
night-labour,^ the duration of the proceso of production, un- 

^ Children&apos;s Employment Commissio .. Third Report. Lsnd .., 1864, ;i. it., v., tL 
* &quot;Both in Staffordshire and in South Wale &apos;ouu j girb an * women are employed 
oo the pit banks and on the coke heaps, not only 7 Aaj but also by night This 
fn-actice has been often noticed in Reports nresente &apos;o Parliament, as being attended 
with great and notorious evils. These femal«^ er loyed with the men, hardly dis- 
tinguished from them in vheir dress, and b grimeu with dirt and smoke, a^e exposed 
to the deterioration of character, arising from the loss of ., elf -respect, which can 
hardly fail to follow from their un feminine occupation.&quot; (L c. 194., p. xxvL Cf. 
Fourth Report (1865), 61, p. xiii.) It is the same in glass-works. 

*A steel manufacturer w.«o employe children in night labotir remarked: &quot;It 
■eema but natural that boys who work r.t night cann t leep and get proper rest by 
day, but will be ruuning about.&quot; (I. c Fourth Report, 63, p. xiii.) On the im* 
portance of sunlight f r the maintenance and growth of t&apos; i body, a physician 
writes: &quot;Light also acts up 1 th^ tissues of the body directly In hardening them 
and supporting their elasticity. The muscles cf animals, when they are deprived 
of a proper amount of light, become soft and inelastic, the nervous power loses its 
tone from defective stimulation, and the elaboration of all growth seems to be 
perverted. . • . In the case of children, constant access to plenty of light during 
the day, and to the direct rays of the sun for a part of it, is most essential to 
health. Light assists in the elaboration of good plastic blood, and hardens the 
fibre after it has been laid down. It also acti as a stimulus upon the organs of 
light, and by this means brings about more activity in the various cerebral funo« 
Hona.&quot; Dr. W. Strange, Senior Physician of the Worcester General Hospital, from 



 

284 Capitalist Production. 

broken during the 24 hours, offers very welcome opportunities 
of exceeding the limits of the normal working day, e.g., in the 
branches of industry already mentioned, which are of an 
exceedingly fatiguing nature; the oflBcial working day means 
for each worker usually 12 hours by night or day. But the 
over-work beyond this amount is in many cases, to use the 
words of the English official report, &quot;truly fearfuL&quot;* 

&quot;It is impossible/^ the report continues, &quot;for any mind to 
realise the amount of work described in the following passages 
as being performed by boys of from 9 to 12 years of age .... 
without coming irresistibly to the conclusion that such abuses 
of the power of parents and of employers can no longer bo 
allowed to exist.&quot;^ 

&quot;The practice of boys working at all by day and night 
turns either in the usual course of things, or at pressing times, 
seems inevitably to open the door to their not unfrequently 
working unduly long hours. These hours are, indeed, in some 
cases, not only cruelly but even incredibly long for children 
Amongst a number of boys it will, of course, not unfrequently 
happen that one or more are from some cause absent When 
this happens, their place is made up by one or more boys, 
who work in the other turn. That tiiis is a well understood 
system is plain . . . from the answer of the manager of 
some large rolling-mills, who, when I asked him how the 
place of the boys absent from their turn was mado up, &apos;I 
daresay, sir, you know that as well as I do,&apos; and admitted, the 
fact^&apos;^ 

&quot;At a rolling-mill where the proper hours were from 6 a.m. 
to 5^ p.m., a boy worked f^bout four nights every week till 
8^ p.m. at least . . . and this for six months. Another, at 9 
years old, sometimes made three 12-hour shifts running, and, 

whose work on &quot;Health&quot; (1864) this passage is taken, writes in a tetter to Mr. 
White, one of the commissioners: &quot;I Iiave Iiad opportunities formerly, when in 
Lancashire, of observing the effects of night-work upon children, and I have no 
hesitation in saying, contrary to what some employers were fond of asserting, those 
children who were subjected to it soon suffered m their health/&apos; (1. c 884, p. 55.) 
That such a question should furnish the material of serious controversy, shows 
plainly how capitalist production acts on the brain-functions of capitalists and tb«ir 
retainers. 
*L c. 67, p. xiL *L c. Fourth Report (1865), 68, p. xiu &apos;La 



 

The Working Vay. 283 

\vben 10, lias made two days and two nights running.&quot; A 
thiTdy **now 10 . . . worked from 6 a.nL till 12 p.m. three 
nights, and till 9 p.m. the other nights.&quot; &quot;Another, now 13, 
• . « worked from 6 p.m. till 12 noon next day, for a week 
together, and sometimes for three shifts together, e.g., from 
Monday morning till Tuesday night&quot; &quot;Another, now 12, has 
worked in an iron foundry at Stavely from 6 a.m. till 12 p.nu 
for a fortnight on end ; could not do it any more.&quot; &quot;Gteorge 
AUinsworth, age 9, came here as cellar-boy last Friday ; next 
morning we had to begin at 3, so I stopped here all night, 
live five miles off. Slept on the floor of the furnace, over 
head, with an apron under me, and a bit of a jacket over ma 
The two other days I have been here at 6 a.m. Aye I it is hot 
in here. Before I came here I was nearly a year at the same 
-work at some works in the country. Began there, too, at 3 on 
Saturday morning — always did, but was very gain [near] 
home, and could sleep at home. Other days I began at 6 in the 
morning, and gi^en over at 6 or 7 in the evening,&quot; &amp;c.^ 

^1. c^ p. xiiL The degree of culture of these &quot;labour-powers&quot; must naturally b« 
such as (Appears in the following dialogues with one of the commissioners: Jere- 
miah Haynes, age 18 — &quot;Four times four is 8; 4 fours are 10. A king is him that 

a all . m ney and Id. We have a King (told it is a Queen), they call her 
tL. Princess ^vlexandria. Told that she married the Queen&apos;s son. The Queen&apos;s 
son the &apos; incess Alexandria. A Princess is a man.&quot; William Turner, age 13— &gt; 
**Don&apos;t live in England. Think it w a country, but didn&apos;t know before.&quot; John 
Morris, age 14 — &quot;Have heard say that God made the world, and that all the people 
was drowndc* but one; beard say that one was a little bird.&quot; William Smith, age 
15— ^God \ .de man, man made woman.&quot; Edward Taylor, age 16 — &quot;Do not know 
of London.&quot; Henry Matthewman, age 17 — ^&quot;Had been to chapel, but missed a good 
many times lately. One name that they preached about was Jesus Christ, but I 
cannot say any .&apos; *, and I cannot tell anything about him. He was not killed, 
but died lik- other people. He was not the same as other people in some ways, 
because he was religious in some ways, and others isn&apos;t&quot; (1. c p. xv.) &quot;The 
devil is a good person. I don&apos;t know where he lives.&quot; &quot;Christ was a wicked 
man.&quot; &quot;This girl spelt God as dog, and did not know the name of the queen.&quot; 
&lt;**Ch. Employment Comm. V. Report, 1866,&quot; p. 66, n. 278.) The same system 
obtains in the glass and paper works as in the metallurgical, already cited. In the 
paper factories, where the paper is made by machinery, night-work is the rule for 
all processes, except rag-sorting. In some cases night-work, by relays, is carried 
on incessantly through the whole week, usually from Sunday night until midnight 
of the following Saturday. Those who are on day-work work 6 days of 12, and 1 
day of 18 houra; those on night-work 6 nights of 12, and 1 of 6 houra in each 
week. In other cases each set works 24 hours consecutively on alternate da3rs, one 
set working 6 houra on Monday, and 18 on Saturday to make up the 24 hours. In 
other cases an intermediate system prevails, by which all employed on the paper- 
making machinery work 16 or 16 houra every day in the week. This system, says 
Commissioner Lord, &quot;seems to combine all the evils of both the 12 hours&apos; and the Si 



 

286 Capitalist Production. 

Let us now hear iiow capital itself regards this 24 hours&apos; 
system. The extreme forms of the system, its abuse in the 
&quot;cruel and incredible&quot; extension of the working day are natur- 
ally passed over in silence. Capital only speaks of the system 
in its ^^normal&quot; form. 

Messrs. Naylor &amp; Vickers, steel manufacturers, who employ 
between 600 and 700 persons, among whom only 10 per cent 
are under 18, and of those, only 20 boys under 18 work in 
night sets thus express themselves: &quot;The boys do not suffer 
from the heat. The temperature is probably from 86° to 90**. 
. . • • At the forges and in the rolling-mills the hands 
work night and day, in relays, but all the other parts of the 
work are day work, i.e., from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. In the forge 
the hours are from 12 to 12. Some of the hands always work 
in the night, without any alternation of day and night work. 

We do not find any difference in the health of those 

who work regularly by night and those who work by day, and 
probably people can sleep better if they have the same period 

of rest than if it is changed About 20 of the boys 

under the age of 18 work in the night sets We 

could not well do without lads under 18 working by night 
The objection would be in the increase in the cost of produc- 
tion Skilled hands and the heads in every department 

are diflScult to get, but of the lads we could get any number. 

But from the small proportion of boys that we employ 

the subject (i.e., of restrictions on night work) is of little im- 
portance or interest to us.&apos;^^ 

Mr. J. Ellis, one of the firm of Messrs. John Brown &amp; Co., 
steel and iron works, employing about 3000 men and boys, part 

hours&apos; relays.&quot; Children under 18, yoting persons under 18, tnd women, work 
under this night system. Sometimes tmder the 12 hours&apos; system they are obliged, on 
account of the non-appearance of those that ought to relieve them, to work a double 
turn of 24 hours. The evidence proves that boys and girls very often work over- 
time, which, not unfrequently, extends to 24 or even 80 hours of uninterrupted 
toiL In the continuous and unvarying process of glazing are found girls of IS 
who work the whole month 14 hours a day, &quot;without any regular rdief or cessation 
beyond 2 or, at most, 8 breaks of half-an-hour each for meals.&quot; In some mills, 
where regular night-work has been entirely given up, over-work goes on to a terri- 
ble extent, &quot;and that often in the dirtiest, and in the hottest, and in the most 
monotonous of the various processes.&quot; (&quot;Ch. Employment Cbmm. Report IV.« 
1866,&quot; p. xxxviii. and xxxix.) *■ Fourth Report, &amp;c., 1866, 79, p. xvL 



 

The Working Day. 287 

of whose operations, namely, iron and heavier steel work, goes 
on night and day by relays states &quot;that in the heavier steel 
work one or two boys are employed to a score or two men.*&apos; 
Their concern employs upwards of 500 boys under 18 of whom 
about i or 170 are under the age of 13. With reference to the 
proposed alteration of the law, Mr. Ellis says : &quot;I do not think 
it would be very objectionable to require that no person under 
the age of 18 should work more than 12 hours in the 24. But 
we do not think that any line could be drawn over the age of 
12, at which boys could be dispensed with for night work. But 
we would sooner be prevented from employing boys under the 
age of 13, or even so high as 14, at all, than not be allowed to 
employ boys that we do have at night. Those boys who 
work in the day sets must take their turn in the night sets also, 
because the men could not work in the night sets only; it 

would ruin their health We think, however, that 

night work in alternate weeks is no harm. (Messrs, Nay lor &amp; 
Vickers, on the other hand, in conformity with the interest of 
their business, considered that periodically changed night- 
labour might possibly do more harm than continual night- 
labour.) We find the men who do it, as well as the others who 

do other work only by day Our objections to not 

allowing boys under 18 to work at night, would be on account 
of the increase of expense, but this is the only reason. (What 
cynical naivete!) We think that the increase would be more 
than the trade, with due regard to its being successfully carried 
out, could fairly bear. (What mealy-mouthed phraseology!) 
Labour is scarce here, and might fall short if there were such 
a regulation.&apos;^ (i.e., Ellis Brown &amp; Co. might fall into the fatal 
perplexity of being obliged to pay labour-power its full value.)* 
The &quot;Cyclops Steel and Iron Works,&apos;* of Messrs. Cammel &amp; 
Co., are conducted on the same large scale as those of the above 
mentioned John Brown &amp; Co. The managing director hadt 
handed in his evidence to the Government Commissioner, Mr. 
White, in writing. Later he found it convenient to suppress 
the MS. when it had been returned to him for revision. Mr* 
White, however, has a good memory. He remembered quite 

^L c 80, p. xtL 



 

588 Capitalist Production. 

clearly that for the Messrs. Cyclops the forbidding of the 
night-labour of children and young persons &quot;would be im- 
possible, it would be tantamount to stopping their works,&quot; and 
yet their business employs little more than 6% of boys under 
18, and less than 1% under 13.^ 

On the same subject Mr. E. F. Sanderson, of the firm of 
Sanderson, Bros., &amp; Co., steel rolling-mills and forges, Atter- 
cliffe, says: &quot;Great difficulty would be caused by preventing 
boys under 18 from working at night The chief would be the 
increase of cost from employing men instead of boys. I can- 
not say what this would be, but probably it would not be 
enough to enable the manufacturers to raise the price of steel, 
and consequently it would fall on them, as of course the men 
(what queer-headed folk !) would refuse to pay it&quot; Mr. San- 
derson does not know how much he pays the children, but 
&quot;perhaps the younger boys get from 4«. to 5s. a week. . . . 
The boys&apos; work is of a kind for which the strength of the boys 
is generally (^generally,* of course not always) quite sufficient, 
and consequently there would be no gain in the greater strength 
of the men to counterbalance the loss, or it would be only in 
the few cases in which the metal is heavy. The men would 
not like so well not to have boys under them, as men would be 
less obedient Besides, boys must begin young to learn the 
trade. Leaving day work alone open to boys would not answer 
this purpose.&quot; And why not? Why could not boys learn 
their handicraft in the day-time ? Your reason ? &quot;Owing to 
the men working days and nights in alternate weeks, the men 
would be separated half the time from their boys, and would 
lose half the profit which they make from them. The training 
which they give to an apprentice is considered as part of the 
return for the boys&apos; labour, and thus enables the men to get it 
at a cheaper rate. Each man would want half of this profit&quot; 
In other words, Messrs. Sanderson would have to pay part of 
the wages of the adult men out of their own pockets instead of 
by the night work of the boys. Messrs. Sanderson&apos;s profit 
would thus fall to some extent, and this is the gpod Sanderson- 



a c. 88, p. xtU. 



 

The Working Day. 289 

lan reason why boys cannot learn their handicraft in the day.* 
In addition to this, it would throw night labour on those who 
worked instead of the boys, which they would not be able to 
stand. The difficulties in fact would be so great that they 
would very likely lead to the giving up of night work al- 
together, and &quot;as far as the work itself is concerned,*^ says 
E. F. Sanderson, &quot;this would suit as well, but — ^^ But Messrs. 
Sanderson have something else to make besides steeL Steel- 
making is simply a pretext for surplus-value making. The 
smelting furnaces, rolling-mills, &amp;c., the buildings, machinery, 
iron, coal, &amp;c, have something more to do than transform them- 
selves into steel. They are there to absorb surplus-labour, and 
naturally absorb more in 24 hours than in 12. In fact they 
give, by grace of God and law, the Sandersons a cheque on the 
working time of a certain number of hands for all the 24 hours 
of the day, and they lose their character as capital, are there- 
fore a pure loss for the Sandersons, as soon as their function of 
absorbing labour is interrupted. &quot;But then there would be 
the loss from so much expensive machinery, lying idle half the 
time, and to get through the amount of work which we are able 
to do on the present system, we should have to double our 
premises and plant, which would double the outlay.*&apos; But why 
should these Sandersons pretend to a privilege not enjoyed by 
the other capitalists who only work during the day, and whose 
buildings, machinery, raw material, therefore lie &quot;idle&apos;* during 
the night? E. F. Sanderson answers in the name of all the 
Sandersons : &quot;It is true that there is this loss from machinery 
lying idle in those manufactories in which work only goes on 
by day. But the use of furnaces would involve a further loss 
in our case. If they were kept up there would be a waste of 
fuel (instead of, as now, a waste of the living substance of the 
workers), and if they were not, there would be loss of time in 
laying the fires and getting the heat up (whilst the loss of 
sleeping time, even to children of 8, is a gain of working 
time for the Sanderson tribe), and the furnaces themselves 

^ In our reflecting and reasoning age a man is not worth much who cannot give s 
good reason for everything, no matter how bad or how crazy. Everything in the 
world that has been done wrong has been done wrong for the very b^ of reaaootk 
(Hegel, L c, p. 349.) 

S 



 

290 Capitalist Production. 

would suffer from the changes of temperature.^ (Whilst those 
same furnaces suffer nothing from the day and ni^t changes of 
labour.)* 

8BOnON 6. THE 8TBUGGLB FOB A lTOBl£AI« WOBKIITO DAT. 

COMPULSOBY LAWS i*&apos;OB THB BXTUNSIOir OF THB WOBKINa 
DAY FBOM THE MIDDLB OF THB 14tH TO THB WSTD OF THB 
17th OENTUBY. 

**What IS a working day? What is the length of time 
during which capital may consume the labour-power whose 
daily value it buys? How far may the workinp day be e&quot;^- 
tended beyond the working time necessary for the reproduction 
of labour-power itself ?&apos;* It *iafl been seen that to these quea* 
tions capital replies: the working day contains the full 24 
hours, with the deduction of the few hours of repose &quot;without 
which labour-power absolutely refuses its services again. 

*!. c. 85, p. xviL To tlmflar tender scruples of the glass manufacturers that 
regular meal times for the children are impossible because as a consequence a cer- 
tain quantity of heat» radiited by the fumaceb, wot i be &quot;a pure loss&quot; or &quot;wasted,** 
Commissioner White makes answer. His answer is unlil-* that o Ur Seni r, &amp;&amp;* 
and their puny German plagiarists k la Roschcr who are touche . b th &apos;^^)ttinettce^&apos;* 
&apos;&apos;self -denial/&apos; &quot;saving,&quot; of the capitalists in the expenditure of their gold, and by 
their Timur-Tamerlanish prodigality of human life! &quot;A certain amount of heat 
beyond what is usual at present might also be going to waste, if meal times were 
secured in these cases, but it seems likely not equal in money-value to the waste 
of animal power now going on in glass-hou *8 throughout the kingdom from growing 
boys not having enough quiet time to e t their meals at ease, with a little rest 
afterwards for digestion.&quot; 0* c, p. xlv.) And this in the year of progress 18661 
Without considering the expenditure of strength in lifting and carrying, such a 
child, in the sheds where bottle and flint glass are made, walks during the perform- 
ance of his work 16-20 miles in every 6 hours! And the work often lasts 14 or 16 
hours! In many of these glass works, as in the Moscow spinning mills, the system 
of 6 hours&apos; relays is in force. &quot;During the working part of the week six hours 
is the utmost unbroken period ever attained at any one time for rest, and out ol 
this has to come the time spent in coming and going to and from work, washing^ 
dressing, and meals, leaving a very short period indeed for rest, and none for fresk 
air and play, unless at the expense of the sleep necessary for young bo3rs, especially 
at such hot and fatiguing work. . . • Even the short sleep is obviously liable 
to be broken by a boy having to wake himself if it is night» or by tltc noise, if 
it is day.&quot; Mr. White gives cases where a boy worked 89 consecutive hours; 
others where boys of 12 drudged on until 2 in the morning, and then slept in the 
works till 6 a.m. (8 hours!) only to resume their work. *&apos;Tbe amount of work,** 
say Tremenheere and Tufnell, who drafted the general report, &quot;done by boy% 
youths, girls, and women, in the course of their daily or nightly spell of lalxmr, is 
certainly extraordinary.&quot; (1. c, xliii. and xliv.) Meanwhile, late by night perw 
haps, self-denying Mr. Glass-Capital, primed with port- wine, reels out of his club 
bomeward droning out idiotically, &quot;Britons never, never shall be slaveal** 



 

The Working Day, 291 

Hence it is self-evident that the labourer is nothing elaoy his 
■whole life through, than labour-power, that therefore all his 
disposable time is by nature and law labour-time, to be devoted 
to the self-expansion of capitaL Time for education, for 
intellectual development, for the fulfilling of social functions 
and for social intercourse, for the free-play of his bodily and 
mental activity, even the rest time of Sunday (and that in a 
country of Sabbatarians !)* — ^moonshine ! But in its blind un- 
restrainable passion, its were-wolf hunger for surplus-labour, 
capital oversteps not only the moral, but even the merely 
physical maximum bounds of the -working day. It usurps the 
time for growth, development, and healthy maintenance of 
the body. It steals the time required for the consumption of 
fresh air and sunlight. It higgles over a meal-time, incorpor- 
ating it &quot;where possible with the process of production itself, eo 
that food is given to the labourer as to a mere means of pro- 
duction, as coal is supplied to the boiler, grease and oil to the 
machinery. It reduces the sound sleep needed for the resto- 
ration, reparation, refreshment of the bodily powers to just so 
many hours of torpor as the revival of an organism, absolutely 
exhausted, renders essentiaL It is not the normal maintenance 
of the labour-power which is to determine the limits of the 
working day; it is the greatest possible daily expenditure of 
labour-power, no matter how diseased, compulsory, and painful 
it may be, which is to determine the limits of the labourers^ 
period of repose. Capital cares nothing for the length of life 
of labour-power. All that concerns it is simply and solely the 
maximum of labour-power, that can be rendered fluent in a 

*Ifi England even now occasionally in rural districts a labourer is condemned t9 
imprisonment for desecrating the Sabbath* by working in his front garden. The 
same labourer is punished for breach of contract if he remains away from his 
metal, paper, or glass works on the Sunday, even if it be from a religious whim. 
The orthodox Parliament will hear nothing of Sabbath-breaking if it occurs in th# 
process of expanding capitaL A memorial (August 18G8), in which the Loodos 
day-labourers in fish and poultry shops asked for the abolition of Sunday labour* 
states that their work lasts for the first 6 days of the week on an average 15 hours 
•Fday, and on Sunday 8-10 hours. From this same memorial we learn also that 
tile delicate gourmands among the aristocratic hypocrites of Exeter HaH, especially 
encourage this &quot;Sunday labour.&quot; These &quot;holy ones,&quot; so zealous tii eut€ eurando, 
■how their Christianity by the humility with which they bear the over-work, tbm 
privations, and the hunger of oChen. Obsequium ventrts isHs 0^9 tabourtrs) ptt* 



 

2^2 Capitalist Production. 

working day. It attains this end by shortening the extent of 
the labourer&apos;s life, as a greedy farmer snatches increased pro- 
duce from the soil by robbing it of its fertility. 

The capitalistic mode of production (essentially the produc- 
tion of surplus value, the absorption of surplus-labour), pro- 
duces thus, with the extension of the working day, not only 
the deterioration of human labour-power by robbing it of its 
normal, moral and physical, conditions of development and 
function. It produces also the premature exhaustion and 
death of this labour-power itself.* It extends the labourer&apos;s 
time of production during a given period by shortening his 
actual life-time. 

But the value of the labour-power includes the value of the 
commodities necessary for the reproduction of the worker, or 
for the keeping up of the working class. If then the unnatural 
extension of the working day, that capital necessarily strives 
after in its unmeasured passion for self-expansion; shortens 
the length of life of the individual labourer, and therefor the 
duration of his laboujvpower, the forces used up have to be re- 
placed at a more rapid rate and the sum of the expenses for 
the reproduction of labour-power will be greater; just as in a 
machine the part rf its value to be reproduced every day is 
greater the more rapidly the machine is worn out It would 
seem therefore that the interest of capital itself points in the 
direction of a normal working day. 

The slave-owner buys his labourer as he buys his horse. If 
he loses his slave, he loses capital that can only be restored 
by new outlay in the slave-marl But &quot;the rice-grounds of 
Georgia, or the swamps of the Mississippi may be fatally in- 
jurious to the human constitution; but the waste of human 
life which the cultivation of these districts necessitates, is not 
so great that it cannot be repaired from the teeming preserves 
of Virginia and Kentucky. Considerations of economy, more- 
over, which, under a natural system, afford some security for 
humane treatment by identifying the master&apos;s interest with 

^&apos;^e have given in our previous reports the statements of several experienced 
manufacturers to the effect that over-hours. . . . cerUinly tend prematurely to 
exhaust the working power of the men.&quot; (L c. M, p. adii.) 



 

The Working Day. 293 

the slaveys preservation, &quot;when once trading in slaves is prac- 
tised, become reasons for racking to the uttermost the toil of 
the slave ; for, when his place can at once be supplied from for- 
eign preserves, the duration of his life becomes a matter of less 
moment than its productiveness while it lasts. It is accord- 
ingly a maxim of slave management, in slave-importing coun- 
tries, that the most effective economy is that which takes out 
of the human chattel in the shortest space 5 time the utmost 
amount of exertion it is capable ox t&gt;- tting forth. It is in 
tropical culture, where annual profits often equal the whole 
capital of plantations, that negro life is most recklessly sac- 
rificed. It is the agriculture of the West Indies, which has 
been for centuries prolific of fabulous wealth, that has engulfed 
millions of the African race. It is in Cuba, at this day, whose 
revenues are reckoned by millions, and whose planters are 
princes, that we see in the servile class^ the coarsest fare, the 
most exhausting and unremitting toil, and even the absolute 
destruction of a portion of its numbers every year.^*^ 

Mutato nomine de te fabula narratvr. For slave-trade 
read labour-market for Kentucjjy inu Virginia Ireland and 
the agricultu: I districts of England, Scotland, to^id Wales, 
for iJ^ria , Germany. We heard how over-wor: ininned the 
ranks of the baker, in London. ITevertheless ch^ London 
labour-market is always over-stocked with Gterman and other 
candidates for death in the bakeries. Pottery, as we saw, is 
ono of the shortestrlived industries. Is there any want here- 
foro of potters? Josiah Wedgwood, the inventor of modem 
pottery, himself originally a common workman, said in 1785 
before the House of Conmaons that the whole trade employed 
from 15,000 to 20,000 people.^ In the year 1861 the popula- 
tion alone of the town centres of this industry in Great Britain 
numbered 101,302. &quot;The cotton trade has existed for ninety 

years It has existed for three generations of the English 

race, and I believe I may safely say that during that period it 
has destroyed nine generations of factory operatives.&quot;^ 

^Cainies, &quot;The Slave Power,&quot; p. 110, 111. 

*John Ward: &quot;History of the Borough of Stoke-upon-Trent,&quot; London, 1848, 
^ 42. 
* Ferrand&apos;s Speech in the House of Commons, S7th April, 1868. 



 

294 Capitalist Production, 

No doubt in certain epochs of feverish activity the labour- 
market shows significant gaps. In 1834, e.g. But then the 
manufacturers proposed to the Poor Law Conmiissioners that 
they should send the &quot;surplus-population^* of the agricultural 
districts to the north, with the explanation &quot;that the manu- 
facturers would absorb and use it up.&quot;^ &quot;Agents were ap- 
pointed with the consent of the Poor Law Commissioners. . . . 
An office was set up in Manchester, to which lists were sent of 
those workpeople in the agricultural districts wanting employ- 
ment, and their names were registered in books. The manu- 
facturers attended at these offices, and selected such persons as 
they chose; when they had selected euch persons as their 
&apos;wants required,* they gave instructions to have them for- 
warded to Manchester, and they were sent, ticketed like bales 
of goods, by canals, or with carriers, others tramping on the 
road, and many of them were found on the way lost and half- 
starved. This system had grown up into a regular trade. 
This House will hardly believe it, but I tell them, that this 
traffic in human flesh was as well kept up, they were in effect 
as regularly sold to these [Manchester] manufacturers as slaves 
are sold to the cotton-grower in the United States. . • . . In 
1860, &apos;the cotton trade was at its zenith.* .... The manu- 
facturers again found that they were short of hands. . . . They 
applied to the &apos;flesh agents,* as they are called. Those agents 
sent to the southern downs of England, to the pastures of Dor- 
setshire, to the glades of Devonshire, to the people tending 
kine in Wiltshire, but they sought in vain. The surplus- 
population was &apos;absorbed.* ** The &quot;Bury Guardian,** said, on 
the completion of the French treaty, that *&apos;10,000 additional 
hands could be absorbed by Lancashire, and that 30,000 or 
40,000 will be needed.** After the &quot;flesh agents and sub- 
agents** had in vain sought throu^ the agricultural districts^ 
&quot;a deputation came up to London, and waited on the right hon. 
gentleman [Mr. Villiers, President of the Poor Law Board] 
with a view of obtaining poor children from certain union 
houses for the mills of Lancashire.**^ 

***Thoie were the very words used by the cotton manufacttirers,&apos;&apos; 1. c. 

&apos;L c. Mr. Villiers, despite the best of intentions on his part, was &quot;legally* 



 

The Working Day. 295 

What experience shows to the capitalist generally is a con- 
stant excess of population^ i,e,, an excess, in relation to the 
momentary requirements of surplus-labour-absorbing capital, 
. although this excess is made up of generations of human beings 
stunted, short-lived, swiftly replacing each other, plucked, so 
to say, before maturity.* And, indeed, experience shows to 

obliged to refuse the requests of the manufacturers. These gentlemeo, however, 
attained their end through the obliging nature of local poor law boards. Mr. A. 
Redgrave, Inspector of Factories, asserts that this time the system under which 
orphans and pauper children were treated &quot;legally&quot; as apprentices &quot;was not accom- 
panied with the old abuses&quot; (on these &quot;abuses&quot; see Engels, 1. c), although in one 
case there certainly was &quot;abuse of this system in respect to a number of girls and 
young women brought from the agricultural districts of Scotland into Lancashire 
and Cheshire.&quot; Under this system the manufacturer entered into a contract with 
the workhouse authorities for a certain period. He fed, clothed, and lodged the 
children, and gave them a small allowance of money. A remark of Mr. Redgrave 
to be quoted directly seems strange, especially if we consider that even among the 
years of prosperity of the English cotton trade, the srear 1860 stands unparalleled, 
and that, besides, wages were exceptionally high. For this extraordinary demand 
for work had to contend with the depopulation of Ireland, with unexamp.ed emigra- 
tion from the English and Scotch agricultural districts to Australia and America, 
with an actual diminution of the popuiation in some of the English agricultural 
districts, in consequence partly of an actual breakdown of the vital force of the 
labourers, partly of the already effected dispersion of the disposa b le population 
through the dealers in human flesh. Despite all this Mr. Redgrave says: &quot;This 
kind of labour, however, would only be sought after when none other could be 
procured, for it b a high-priced labour. The ordinary wages of a boy of 18 would 
be about 4s. per week, but to lodge, to clothe, to feed, and to provide medical 
attendance and proper superintendence for 50 or 100 of these bojrs, and to set 
aside some remuneration fur them, could not be accomplished for 4s. a-head per 
week.&quot; (Report of the Inspector of Factories for 80th April, 1860, p. 27.) Mr. 
Redgrave forgets to tell us how the labourer himself can do all this for his chil- 
dren out of their 4s. a-week wages, when the manufacturer cannot do it for the 
50 or 100 children lodged, boarded, superintended all together. To guard against 
false conclusions from the text, I ought here to remark that the English cotton 
industry, since it was placed under the Factory Act of 1850 with its regulations of 
labour-time, &amp;c., must be regarded as the model industry of England. The English 
cotton operative b in every respect better off than hb continental companion in 
misery. &quot;The Prussian factory operative labours at least ten hours per week more 
than hb English competitor, and if employed at hb own loom in hb own house, 
hb labour b not restricted to even those additional hours.&quot; (&quot;Rep. of Insp. of 
Fact.,&quot; Oct. 1858, p. 103.) Redgrave, the Factory Inspector mentioned above, after 
the Industrial Exhibition in 1851, travelled on the Continent, especially in France 
and (Germany, for the purpose of inquiring into the conditions of the factories. 
Of the Prussian operative he says: &quot;He receives a remuneration sufficient to pro- 
cure the simple fare, and to supply the slender comforts to which he has been 
accustomed. ... he lives upon hb coarse fare, and works hard, wherein hb 
positioo b subordinate to that of the English operative.&quot; (&quot;Rep. of Insp. of Fact.,&quot; 
8l8t Oct., 1858, p. 85.) 

1 The overworked &quot;die off with strange rapidity; but the places of those who 
perish are instantly filled, and a frequent change of persons makes no alteration 
in the scene.&quot; (&quot;England and America.&quot; London, 1888, vol. I, p. 55. By £. G. 
Wakefield.) 



 

296 Capitalist Production. 

the intelligent observer with what swiftness and grip the 
capitalist mode of production, dating, historically speaking, 
only from yesterday, has seized the vital power of the people 
by the very root — show how the degeneration of the industrial 
population is only retarded by the constant absorption of prim- 
itive and physically uncorrupted elements from the country — 
shows how even the country labourers, in spite of fresh air 
and the principle of natural selection, that works so power- 
fully amongst them, and only permits the survival of the 
strongest, are already beginning to die off.^ Capital that has 
such good reasons for denying the sufferings of the legions of 
workers that surround it, is in practice moved as much and as 
little by the sight of the coming degradation and final de- 
population of the human race, as by the probable fall of the 
earth into the sun. In every stock-jobbing swindle every one 
knows that some time or other the crash must come, but every 
one hopes that it may fall on the head of his neighbour, after 
he himself has caught the shower of gold and placed it in 
safety. Apres moi le deluge! is the watchword of every cap- 
italist and of every capitalist nation. Hence Capital is reck- 
less of the health or length of life of the labourer, unless under 
compulsion from society.* To the outcry as to the physical 
and mental degradation, the premature death, the torture of 
overwork, it answers : Ought these to trouble us since they in- 

^ See &quot;Public Health. Sixth Report of the Medical Officer of the Privy Council, 
1868.&quot; Published in London 1864. This report deals especially with the agricultural 
labourers. &quot;Sutherland ... is commonly represented as a highly improved 
county . • • but . . . recent inquiry has discovered that even there, in 
districts once famous for fine men and gallant soldiers, the inhabitants have de- 
generated into a meagre and stunted race. In the healthiest situations, on hiU 
•ides fronting the sea, the faces of their famished children are as pale as they 
could be in the foul atmosphere of a London alley.&quot; (W. T. Thornton. &quot;Over- 
population and its remedy.&quot; 1. c, p. 74, 76.) They resemble in fact the 80,000 
&apos;&apos;s^lant Highlanders&quot; whom Glasgow pigs together in iu wynds and closet, with 
prostitutes and thieves. 

*&apos;*But though the health of a population is so important a fact of the national 
capital, we are afraid it must be said that the class of employers of labour have not 
been the most forward to guard and cherish this treasure. . . . The consider- 
ation of the health of the operatives was forced upon the millowncrs. (&quot;Times»&quot; 
November 6th, 1861.) &quot;The men of the West Riding became the clothiers of 
mankind . . . the health of the workpeople was sacrificed, and the race in a 
few generations must have degenerated. But a reaction set in. Lord Shaftea- 
burjr&apos;s Bill limited the hours of children&apos;s labour,&quot; &amp;c. (&quot;Report of the Registnr&gt; 
&lt;kneral,&quot; for October, 1861.) 



 

The Working Day. 2gy 

ierease onr profits ? But looking at things as a whole, all this 
does not, indeed, depend on the good or ill will of the in- 
dividual capitalist. Free competition brings out the inherent 
laws of capitalist production, in the shape of external coercive 
laws having power over every individual capitalist.* 

The establishment of a normal working day is the result of 
centuries of stru^le between capitalist and labourer. The 
history of this struggle shows two opposed tendencies. Com- 
pare, e.g., the English factory legislation of our time with the 
English Labour Statutes from the 14th century to well into 
the middle of the ISth.^ Whilst the modem Factory Acts 
compulsorily shortened the working-day, the earlier statutes 
tried to lengthen it by compulsion. Of course the pretensions 
of capital in embryo — ^when, beginning to grow, it secures the 
right of absorbing a quomium sufftcU of surplus-labour, not 
merely by the force of economic relations, but by the help of 
the State — appear very modest when put face to face with the 
concessions that, growling and struggling, it has to make in its 
adult condition. It takes centuries ere the &quot;free&quot; labourer, 
thanks to the development of capitalistic production, agrees, 
i.e., is compelled by social conditions, to sell the whole of his 
active life, his very capacity for work, for the price of the 
necessaries of life, his birthright for a mess of pottage^ Hence 
it is natural that the lengthening of the working day, which 

^We, therefore, find, e,g., that in the beginning of 1868, Sd firms owning ex- 
tensive potteries in Staffordshire, amongst others, Josiah Wedgwood, &amp; Sons&apos; peti- 
tion in a memorial for &quot;some legislative enactment.&quot; Competition with other 
capitalists permits them no voluntary limitation of working-time for children, &amp;c. 
&quot;Much as we deplore the evils before mentioned, it would not be possible to pre&gt; 
rent them by any scheme of agreement between the manufacturers. . . . Taking 
an these points into consideration, we have come to the conviction that some legis- 
lative enactment is wanted.&quot; (&quot;Children&apos;s Employment Comm.&quot; Rep. 1., 1863, p. 
822.) Most recently a much more striking example offers. The rise in the price 
of cotton during a period of feverish activity, had induced the manufacturers in 
Blackburn to shorten, by mutual consent, the working-time in their mills during s 
certain fixed period. This period terminated about the end of November, 1871. 
Meanwhile, the wealthier manufacturers, who combined spinning with weaving, used 
the diminution of production resulting from this agreement, to extend their own 
business and thus to make great profits at the expense of the small employers. The 
latter thereupon turned in their extremity to the operatives, urged them earnestly 
to agitate for the 9 hours&apos; system, and promised contributions in money to this end. 

* The Labour Statutes, the like of which were enacted at the same time in France, 
the Netherlands, and elsewhere, were first formally repealed in England in 181 8» 
long after the changes in methods of production had rendered them obsolete. 



 

298 Capitalist Production. 

capital from the middle of the 14th to the end of the 17th 
century, tries to impose by State-measures on adult labourers, 
approximately coincides with the shortening of the working 
day which, in the second half of the 19th century, has here and 
there been effected by the State to prevent the coining of 
children&apos;s blood into capital. That which to-day, e.g., in the 
State of Massachusetts, until recently the freest State of the 
North- American Republic, has been proclaimed as the statutory 
limit of the labour of children under 12, was in England, even 
in the middle of the 17th century, the normal working-day of 
able-bodied artizans, robust labourers, athletic blacksmiths.* 

The first &quot;Statute of Labourers&quot; (23 Edward III., 1349) 
found its immediate pretext (not its cause, for legislation of 
this kind lasts centuries after the pretext for it has disap- 
peared) in the great plague that decimated the people, so that, 
as a Tory writer says, &quot;The diflSculty of getting men to work 
on reasonable terms (i.e., at a price that left their employers 
a reasonable quantity of surplus-labour) grew to such a height 
as to be quite intolerable.&quot;^ Reasonable wages were, there- 
fore, fixed by law as well as the limits of the working day. 
The latter point, the only one that here interests us, is repeated 
in the Statute of 1496 (Henry VIIL). The working day for 
all artificers and field labourers from March to September 
ought, according to this statute (which, however, could not be 
enforced), to last from 5 in the morning to between 7 and 8 

* &quot;No child tinder 12 years of age shall be employed in any manufactaring estab- 
lishment more than 10 hours in one day.&quot; General Statutes of Massachusetts, 6Z, 
ch. 12. (The various Sututes were passed between 1836 and 1858.) &quot;Labour per- 
formed during a period of 10 hours on any day in all cotton, woollen, silk, paper, 
glass, and flax factories, or in manufactories of iron and brass, shall be considered 
a legal day&apos;s labour. And be it enacted, that hereafter no minor engaged in any 
factory shall be holden or required to work more than 10 hours in any day, or 
CO hours in any week; and that hereafter no minor shall be admitted as a worker 
under the age of 10 years in any factory within this Sute.*&apos; State of New Jersey. 
An Act to limit the hours of labour, &amp;c, 61 and 62. (Law of 11th March, 1855.) 
&quot;No minor who has attained the age of 12 years, and is under the age of 15 
years, shall be employed in any manufacturing establishment more than 11 hours 
in any one day, nor before 5 o&apos;clock in the morning, nor after 7.30 in the evening.&quot; 
(&quot;Revised Statutes of the Sute of Rhode Island,&quot; &amp;c., ch. 89, fi 23, 1st July, 1857.) 

* &quot;Sophisms of Free Trade.&quot; 7th Ed. London, 1850, p. 205. 9th Ed., p. 25S. 
This same Tory, moreover, admits that &quot;Acts of Parliament regulating wages, but 
against the labourer and in favour of the master, lasted for the long period of 
464 years. Population grew. These laws were then found, and really became, on* 
neceesarx «nd bnrdensome.&quot; (L c.&gt; p. 206.) 



 

The Working Day. 299 

IB the evening. But the meal times consist of 1 hour for 
breakfast, li honrs for dinner, and \ an hour for &quot;noon- 
meate,** i.e., exactly twice as much as under the factory acts 
now in force.* In winter, work was to last from 6 in the 
morning until dark, with the same intervals. A statute of 
Elizabeth of 1562 leaves the length of the working day for all 
labourers ^^ired for daily or weekly wage&quot; untouched, but 
aims at limiting the intervals to 2\ hours in the summer, or 
to 2 in the winter. Dinner is only to last 1 hour, and the 
*&apos;aftemoon-sleep of half an hour&apos;&apos; is only allowed between the 
middle of May and the middle of August. For every hour of 
absence Id. is to be subtracted from the wage. In practice, 
however, the conditions were much more favourable to the 
labourers than in the statute-book. William Petty, the father 
of political economy, and to some extent the founder of Sta- 
tistics, says in a work that he published in the last third of the 
17th century : &quot;Labouring-men (then meaning field-labourers) 
work 10 hours per diem, and make 20 meals per week, viz., 8 
a day for working days, and 2 on Sundays ; whereby it is plain, 
that if they could fast on Fryday nights, and dine in one hour 
and a half, whereas they take two, from eleven to one ; thereby 
this workhig 3^ more, and spending ^ less, the above-men- 
tioned (tax) might be raised.&quot; ^ Was not Dr. Andrew Ure 
right in crying down the 12 hours&apos; bill of 1833 as a retrogres- 
sion to the times of the dark ages ? It is true, these regula- 
tions contained in the statute mentioned by Petty, apply also to 
apprentices. But the condition of child-labour, even at the 
end of the 17th century, is seen from the following complaint: 
&quot;&apos;Tis not their practice (in Germany) as with us in this king- 

^In reference to this statute, J. Wade with truth remarks: &quot;From the statement 
•bore ({.#.« with regard to the statute) it appears that in 1496 the diet was con&gt; 
•idered equivalent to one third of the income of an artificer and one-half the income 
of a labourer, which indicates a greater degree of independence among the working 
classes than prevails at present; for the board, both of labourers and artificers, 
would now be reckoned at a much higher proportion of their wages.&quot; (J. Wade, 
*^istor7 of the Middle and Working Classes,&quot; p. 34, S6, and 577.) The opinion 
that this difference is due to the difference in the price-relations between food and 
clothing then and now is refuted by the most cursory glance at *&apos;Chronicon Pre- 
tiosuffl, &amp;C.&quot; By Bishop Fleetwood. 1st Ed., London, 1707; 2d Ed., London* 1746. 

&gt;W. Fttt7» &apos;&apos;Political Anatomy of Ireland. Vcrbum Sapie&amp;ti,*&apos; 1768, Ed. 1691* 
p. 10. 



 

300 Capitalist Production. 

dom, to biad an apprentice for seven years; three or four is 
their common standard: and the reason is^ because they are 
educated from their cradle to something of employment, which 
renders them the more apt and docile, and consequently the more 
capable of attaining to a ripeness and quicker proficiency in 
business. Whereas our youth, here in England, being bred to 
nothing before they come to be apprentices, make a very slow 
progress and require much longer time wherein to reach the 
perfection of accomplished artists.&apos;*^ 

Still, during the greater part of the 18th century, up to the 
epoch of Modem Industry and machinism, capital in England 
had not succeeded in seizing for itself, by the payment of the 
weekly value of labour-power, the whole week of the labourer 
with the exception, however, of the agricultural labourers. 
The fact that they could live for a whole week on the wage of 
four days, did not appear to the labourers a sufficient reason 
that they should work the other two days for the capitalist 
One party of English economists, in the interest of capital, de- 
nounces this obstinacy in the most violent manner, another 

^&quot;A Diacourte on the necessity of encouraging Mechanick Industry,&quot; London, 
1689, p. 18. Mscaulay, who has falsified English history in the interest of the 
Whigs and the bourgeoisie* declares as follows: &quot;The practice of setting children 
prematurely to work • • . prevailed in the 17th century to an extent which, 
when compared with the extent of the manufacturing system, seems almost incred- 
ible. At Norwich, the chief seat of the clothing trade, a little creature of six years 
old was thought fit for labour. Several writers of that time, and among them some 
who were considered as eminently benevolent, mention with exultation the fact 
that in that single city, boys and girb of very tender age create wealth exceeding 
what was necessary for their own subsistence by twelve thousand pounds a year. 
The more carefully we examine the history of the past, the more reason shall we 
find to dissent from those who imagine that our age has been fruitful of new 
social evils. • • . That which is new is the intelligence and the humanity which 
remedies them.&quot; (&quot;History of England,&quot; voL I., p. 419.) Macaulay might have 
reported further that &quot;extremely well-disposed&quot; amis du commerce in the 17th 
century, narrate with &quot;exultation&quot; how in a poorhouse in Holland a child of four 
was employed, and that this example of &quot;vertu mise en pratique&quot; passes muster in 
all the humanitarian works, d la Macaulay, to the time of Adam Smith. It is 
true that with the substitution of manufacture for handicrafts, traces of the exploi- 
tation of children begin to appear. This exploitation existed always to a certain 
extent among peasants, and was the more developed, the heavier the yoke pressing 
on the husbandman. The tendency of capital is there u nmi sta k ably; but the facts 
themselves are still as isolated as the phenomena of two-headed children. Hence 
they were noted &quot;with exultation&quot; as especially worthy of remark and as wonders 
by the far-seeing &quot;amis du commerce/&apos; and recommended as models for their own 
time and for posterity. This same Scotch sycophant and fine talker, Macaulay, 
says: &quot;We hear to-day only of retrogression and see only progress.&quot; What eyes, 
and especially what ears! 



 

The Working Day. 301 

parly defends the labourers. Let us listen^ e.g., to the contest 
between Postlethwayt whose Dictionary of Trade then had the 
same reputation as the kindred works of M^CuUoch and 
McGregor to-day, and the author (akeady quoted) of the 
&quot;Essay on Trade and Commerce.&quot;^ 

Postlethwayt says among other things : * We cannot put an 
end to those few observations, without noticing that trite re- 
mark in the mouth of too many ; that if the industrious poor 
can obtain enough to maintain themselves in five days, they 
will not work the whole six. Whence they infer the necessity 
of even the necessaries of life being made dear by taxes, or any 
other means, to compel the working artizan and manufacturer 
to labour the whole six days in the week, without ceasing. I 
must beg leave to differ in sentiment from those great 
politicians, who contend for the perpetual slavery of the work- 
ing people of this kingdom ; they forget the vulgar adage, all 
work and no play. Have not the English boasted of the in- 
genuity and dexterity of her working artists and manufacturers 
which have heretofore given credit and reputation to British 
wares in general ? What has this been owing to ? To nothing 
more probably than the relaxation of the working people in 
their own way. Were they obliged to toil the year round, the 
whole six days in the week, in a repetition of the same work, 
might it not blunt their ingenuity, and render them stupid in- 
stead of alert and dexterous ; and might not our workmen lose 
their reputation instead of maintaining it by such eternal 
slavery ? . . . . And what sort of workmanship could we ex- 
pect from such hard-driven animals? .... Many of them 
will execute as much work in four days as a Frenchman will in 

&gt; Among the acctisers of the workpeople, the most angry is the anonjrmous author 
quoted in the text of &quot;An Essay on trade and commerce, containing observations on 
Taxation, &amp;c, London, 1770.&quot; He had already dealt with this subject in his earlier 
work: &quot;Considerations on Taxes/&apos; London, 1766. On the same side follov^ 
Polonius Arthur Young, the unutterable statistical prattler. Among the defenders 
of the working classes the foremost are: Jacob Vanderlint, in: &quot;Money answers 
all things.*&apos; London, 1734; the Rev. Nathaniel Forster, D.D.; in &quot;An Enquiry into 
the Causes of the Present Price of Provisions,&quot; London, 1766; Dr. Price, and 
especially Postlethwayt, as well in the supplement to his &quot;Universal Dictionary of 
Trade and Commerce,&quot; as in his &quot;Great Britain&apos;s Commercial Interest explained and 
improved.&quot; 2nd Edition, 1766. The facts themselves are confirmed by many other 
writers of the time* among others by Josiah Tucker. 



 

J02 Capitalist Production. 

five or six. But if Englishmen are to be eternal drudges, &apos;tis 
to be feared they will degenerate below the Fren chm en. As 
our people are famed for bravery in war, do we not say that it 
is owing to good English roast beef and pudding in their 
bellies, as well as their constitutional spirit of liberty? And 
why may not the superior ingenuity and dexterity of our 
artists and manufactures, be owing to that freedom and liberty 
to direct themselves in their own way, and I hope we shall 
never have them deprived of such privileges and that good 
living from whence tbeir ingenuity no less than their courage 
may proceed.&quot;^ Thereupon the author of the &quot;Essay on Trade 
and Commerce^&apos; replies: &quot;If the making of every seventh 
day an holiday is supposed to be of divine institution, as it 
implies the appropriating the other six days to labour*&apos; (he 
means capital as we shall soon see) &quot;surely it will not be 
thought cruel to enforce it. ... . That mankind in 
general, are naturally inclined to ease and indolence, we fatally 
experience to be true, from the conduct of our manufacturing 
populace, who do not labour, upon an average, above four days 
in a week, unless provisions happen to be very dear. .... 
Put all the necessaries of the poor under one denomination; 
for instance, call them all wheat, or suppose that .... the 
bushel of wheat shall cost five shillings and that he (a manu- 
facturer) earns a shilling by his labour, he then would be 
obliged to work five days only in a week. If the bushel of 
wheat should cost but four shillings, he would be obliged to 
work but four days ; but as wages in this kingdom are much. 
higher in proportion to the price of necessaries. • • . the 
manufacturer, who labours four days, has a surplus of money 
to live idle with the rest of the week • • • . I hope I 
have said enou^ to make it appear that the moderate labour 
of six days in a week is no slavery. Our labouring people do 
this, and to aD appearance are the happiest of all our labour- 
ing poor,&apos; but the Dutch do this in manufactures, and appear 
to be a verj happy people. The Frendi do so, when hoUdays 

***Aa EM«y,** fte. He himnU t^atct oq p^ M 
Eattisk mifhu i rf Ubov ahmdy ia ITTO coosa 
ipM tke Mictt^ thcT cHMt five dM^cr tlM th^ 4^ mr^ 




 

The Working Day. 303 

do not intervene.* But our populace have adopted a notion, 
that as Englishmen they enjoy a birthright privilege of being 
more free and independent than in any country in Europe. 
Now this idea, as far as it may affect the bravery of our troops, 
may be of some use ; but the less the manufacturing poor have 
of it, certainly the better for themselves and for the State. 
The labouring people should never think themselves independ- 
ent of their superiors. .... It is extremely dangerous to 
encourage mobs in a commercial state like ours, where, per- 
haps, seven parts out of eight of the whole, are people with 
little or no property. The cure will not be perfect, till our 
manufacturing poor are contented to labour six days for tho 
same sum which they now earn in four days.&apos;*^ To this end, 
and for &quot;extirpating idleness, debauchery and excess,&quot; promot- 
ing a spirit of industry, &quot;lowering the price of labour in our 
manufactories, and easing the lands of the heavy burden of 
poor&apos;s rates,&quot; our &quot;faithful Eckart&quot; of capital proposes this 
approved device : to shut up such labourers as become depend- 
ent on public support, in a word, paupers, in &quot;an ideal vxyrTc- 
houseJ* Such ideal workhouse must be made a &quot;House of 
Terror,&quot; and not an asylum for the poor, &quot;where they are to 
be plentifully fed, warmly and decently clothed, and where 
they do but little work.&quot;* In this &quot;House of Terror,&quot; this 
&quot;ideal workhouse, the poor shall work 14 hours in a day, 
allowing proper time for meals, in such manner that there shdl 
remain 12 hours of neat-iabour.&quot;* 

Twelve working hours daily in the Ideal Workhouse^ in the 
&quot;House of Terror&quot; of 17701 63 years later, in 1833, when the 
English Parliament reduced the working day for children of 
13 to 18, in four branches of industry to 12 full hours, the 
judgment day of English Industry had dawned I In 1852, 

&gt; Protestantism, by changing almost all the traditional holidays into workdays^ 
plays an important part in the genesis of capital. 

■••An Essay,&quot; &amp;&amp;, p. 15, 41. 96, 97, 66, 67, 69.— Jacob Vanderlint, at early as 
1734, declared that the secret of the out-cry of the capiulists as to the laziness of 
the working people was simply that they claimed for the same wages 6 days&apos; labour 
instead of 4. 

»t c p. «4t. 

*L e, &apos;The French,&quot; he tayi, &apos;Hangfa at onr enthusiastic Ideas of liberty.&quot; 1. c 
PUTS. 



 

304 Capitalist Production. 

when Louis Bonaparte sought to secure his position with the 
bourgeoisie by tampering with the legal working day, the 
French people cried out with one voice &quot;the law that limits 
the working day to 12 hours is the one good that has remained 
to us of the legislation of the Eepublic !&quot;*• At Ziirich the work 
of children over 10, is limited to 12 hours ; in Aargau in 1862, 
the work of children between 13 and 16, was reduced from 
12 J to 12 hours; in Austria in 1860, for children between 14 
and 16, the same reduction was made.^ &quot;What a progress,&apos;^ 
since 1770 ! Macaulay would shout with exultation ! 

The &quot;House of Terror&apos;&apos; for paupers of which the capitalistic 
soul of 1770 only dreamed, was realized a few years later in 
the shape of a gigantic &quot;Workhouse&quot; for the industrial worker 
himself. It is called the Factory. And the ideal this time 
fades before the reality. 

SECTION 6. THE STRUGOLE FOB THE NORMAL WOEKINQ BAY. 

COMPULSOEY LIMITATION BY LAW OF THE WORKING TIME. 
THE ENGLISH FACTORY ACTS, 1833 TO 1864. 

After capital had taken centuries in extending the working- 
day to its normal maximum limit, and then beyond this to the 
limit of the natural day of 12 hours,^ there followed on the 
birth of machinism and modern industry in the last third of 

^ &quot;They especially objected to work beyond the 12 hours per day, because the law 
which fixed those hours, is the only good which remains to them of the legislation 
of the Republic&quot; (&quot;Rep. of Insp. of Fact.,&quot; Slst October, 1856, p. 80.) Th« 
French Twelve hours* Bill of September 6th, 1850, a bourgeois edition of the decree 
of the Provisional Government of March 2nd, 1848, holds in all workshops without 
exceptions. Before this law the working day in France was without definite limit. 
It lasted in the factories 14, 15, or more hours. See &quot;Des classes ouvrieres en 
France pendant Tannic 1848. Par M. Blanqui.&quot; M. Blanqui the economist, not the 
Revolutionist, had been entrusted by the Government with an inquiry into the con- 
dition of the working class. 

* Belgium is the model bourgeois state in regard to the regulation of the working 
day. Lord Howard of Welden, English Plenipotentiary at Brussels, reports to the 
Foreign Ofiice, May 12th, 1862: &quot;M. Rogier, the minister, informed me that 
children&apos;s labour is limited neither by a general law nor by any local regulations; 
that the Government, during the last three years, intended in every session to pro- 
pose a bill on the subject, but always found an insuperable obstacle in the jealous 
opposition to any legislation in contradiction with the principle of perfect freedom of 
labour.&quot; 

*&quot;It is certainly much to be regretted that any class of persons should toil IS 
hours a day, which, including the time for their meals and for going to and re- 
turning from their work, amounts, in fact, to 14 of the 84 hours* • • • Witbont 



 

The Working Day. &apos;305 

the ISth. century, a violent encroachment like that of an 
avalanche in its intensity and extent All bounds of morals 
and nature, age and sex, day and night, were broken down. 
Even the ideas of day and night, of rustic simplicity in the old 
statutes, became so confused that an English judge, as late as 
1860, needed a quite Talmudic sagacity to explain &quot;judicially&apos;&apos; 
what was day and what was night.^ Capital celebrated its 
orgies. 

As soon as the working class, stunned at first by the noise 
and turmoil of the new system of production, recovered, in 
some measure, its senses, its resistance began, and first in the 
native land of machinism, in England. For 30 years, how- 
ever, the concessions conquered by the workpeople were purely 
nominaL Parliament passed 5 Labour Laws between 1802 
and 1833, but was shrewd enough not to vote a penny for their 
carrying out, for the requisite officials, &amp;c.* 

They remained a dead letter. &quot;The fact is, that prior to the 
Act of 1833, young persons and children were worked all night, 
all day, or both ad lihiUim/*^ 

A normal working day for modem industry only dates from 
the Factory Act of 1833, which included cotton, wool, flax, and 
silk factories. Nothing is more characteristic of the spirit of 

entering into the question of health, no one will hesitate, I think, to admit that, in a 
moral point of view, so entire an absorption of the time of the working classes, 
without intermission, from the early age of 18, and in trades not subject to restric- 
tion, much yotmger, mtist be extremely prejudicial, and is an evil greatly to be de- 
plored • • • • For the sake, therefore, of public morals, of bringing up an orderly 
population, and of giving the great body of the people a reasonable enjoyment of 
life, it is much to be desired that in all trades some portion of every working day 
should be reserved for rest and leisure.&quot; (Leonard Homer in Reports of Insp. of 
Fact^ Dec^ 1841.) 

^ See &quot;Judgment of Mr. J* H. Otwey» Belfast Hilary Sessions, County Antrim, 
1860.&quot; 

* It is very characteristic of the regime of Louis Philippe, the bourgeois king, that 
the one Factory Act passed during his reign, that of March 22nd, 1841, was never 
put in force. And this law only dealt with child-labour. It fixed 8 hours a day for 
children between 8 and 12, 12 hours for children between 12 and 16, &amp;c, with many 
exceptions which allow night-work even for children 8 years old. The supervision 
and enforcement of this law are, in a country where every mouse is under police 
administration, left to the good-will of the amis dn commerce. Only since 1853, 
in one single department — ^the D^partement du Nord — ^has a paid government in- 
spector been appointed. Not less characteristic of the development of French so- 
ciety, generally, is the fact, that Louis Philippe&apos;s law stood solitary among the all- 
embracing mass of French laws, till the Revolution of 1848. 

&apos; &quot;Report of In«|i. of Fact,&quot; 80th April, 1860, p. 50. 

T 



 

3o6 Capitalist Production. 

capital than the history of the English Factory Acts from 1833 
to 1864. 

The Act of 1833 declares the ordinary factory working day 
to be from half -past five in the morning to half-past eight in. 
the evening, and within these limits, a period of 15 hours, it is 
lawful to employ young persons {i.e., persons between 13 and 
18 years of age), at any time of the day, provided no one in- 
dividual young person should work more than 12 hours in any 
one day, except in certain cases especially provided for. The 
6th section of the Act provided : **That there shall be allowed 
in the course of every day not less than one and a half hours for 
meals to every such person restricted as hereinbefore pro- 
vided.&quot; The employment of children under 9, with excep- 
tions mentioned later, was forbidden; the work of children 
between 9 and 13 was limited to 8 hours a day, night work, 
i.e., according to this Act, work between 8.30 p.m. and 5.30 
a.m., was forbidden for all persons between 9 and 18. 

The law-makers were so far from wishing to trench on tho 
freedom of capital to exploit adult labour-power, or, as they 
called it, *&apos;the freedom of labour,&quot; that they created a special 
system in order to prevent the Factory Acts from having a 
consequence so outrageous. 

&quot;The great evil of the factory system as at present con- 
ducted,&quot; says the first report of the Central Board of the Com- 
mission of June 28th, 1833, &quot;has appeared to us to be that it 
entails the necessity of continuing the labour of children to 
the utmost length of that of the adults. The only remedy for 
this evil, short of the limitation of the labour of adults, which 
would, in our opinion, create an evil greater than that which is 
sought to be remedied, appears to be the plan of working 
double sets of children.&quot; . . . Under the name of System 
of Relays, this &quot;plan&quot; was therefore carried out, so that, e.g., 
from 5.30 a.m. until 1.30 in the afternoon, one set of children 
between 9 and 13, and from 1.30 p.m. to 8.30 in the evening 
another set were &quot;put to,&quot; &amp;c. 

In order to reward the manufacturers for having, in tho 
most barefaced way, ignored all the Acts as to children&apos;s labour 
passed during die last twenty-two years, the bill was yet 



 

The Working Day. 307 

further gilded for them. Parliament decreed that after March 
let, 1834, no child under 11, after March Ist, 1835, no child 
under 12, and after March 1st, 1836, no child under 13, was to 
work more than eight hours in a factory. This &quot;liberalism,&apos;* 
80 full consideration for &quot;capital,*&apos; was the more noteworthy 
as. Dr. Farre, Sir A. Carlisle, Sir B. Brodie, Sir C. Bell, Mr. 
Guthrie, &amp;c, in a word, the most distinguished physicians and 
surgeons in London, had declared in their evidenec before the 
House of Commons, that there was danger in delay. Dr. 
Farre expressed himself still more coarsely. &quot;Legislation is 
necessary for the prevention of death, in any form in which it 
can be prematurely inflicted, and certainly this {i.e., the fac- 
tory method) must be viewed as a most cruel mode of in- 
flicting it&apos;&apos; 

That same &quot;reformed&quot; Parliament, which in its delicate 
consideration for the manufacturers, condemned children 
under 13, for years to come, to 72 hours of work per week in 
the Factory Hell, on the other hand, in the Emancipation Actj 
which also administered freedom drop by drop, forbade the 
planters, from the outset^ to work any negro slave more than 
45 hours a week. 

But in no wise conciliated capital now began a noisy agita- 
tion that went on for several years. It turned chiefly on the 
age of those who, under the name of children, were limited to 
8 hours work, and were subject to a certain amount of com- 
pulsory education. According to capitalistic anthropology, the 
age of childhood ended at 10, or at the outside, at 11. The 
more nearly the time approached for the coming into full force 
of the Factory Act, the fatal year 1836, the more wildly raged 
the mob of manufacturers. They managed, in fact, to in- 
timidate the government to such an extent that in 1835 it pro- 
posed to lower the limit of the age of childhood from 13 to 12. 
In the meantime the pressure from without grew more threat^ 
ening. Courage failed the House of Commons. It refused to 
throw children of 13 under the Juggernaut Car of capital for 
more than 8 hours a day, and the Act of 1833 came into full 
operation. It remained unaltered until June, 1844. 

In the ten years during which it regulated factory work, 



 

&apos;3o8 Capitalist Production. 

first in part, and then entirely, the official reports of the factory 
inspectors teem with complaints as to the impossibility of 
putting the Act into force. As the law of 1833 left it optional 
with the lords of capital during the 15 hours, from 5.30 a.m. 
to 8.30 p.m., to make every &quot;young person,&quot; and &quot;every child&quot; 
begin, break off, resume, or end his 12 or 8 hours at any 
moment they liked, and also permitted them to as*^ign to differ- 
ent persons different times for meals, these gentlemen soon 
discovered a new &quot;system of relays,&quot; by which the labour- 
horses were not changed at fixed stations, but wer constantly 
re-harnessed at changing stations. We do not pause longer i . 
the beauty of this system, as we shall have to return to it later. 
But this much is clear at the first glance: that this system 
annulled the whole Factory Act, not only in the spirit, but in 
the letter. How could factory inspectors, with this complex 
book-keeping in respect to each individual child or young 
person, enforce the legally determined work time and tho 
granting of the legal meal-times? In a great many of the 
factories, the old brutalities soon blossomed out agai un- 
punished. In an interview with the Home Secretary (1844), 
the factory inspectors demonstrated the impossibility of any 
control under the newly invented relay system.* In the mean&quot; 
time, however, circumstances had greatly changed. The fac* 
tory hands, especially since 1838, had made the Ten Hours&apos; 
Bill their economical, as they had made the Charter theii 
political, election-cry. Some of the manufacturers, even, who 
had managed their factories in conformity with the Act of 
1833, overwhelmed Parliament with memorials on the im- 
moral competition of their false brethren whom greater impu- 
dence, or more fortunate local circumstances, enabled to break 
the law. Moreover, however much the individual manufac- 
turer might give the rein to his old lust for gain, the spokes- 
men and political leaders of the manufacturing class ordered 
a change of front and of speech towards tho workpeople. They 
had entered upon the contest for the repeal of the Com Laws, 
and needed the workers to help them to victory. They prom- 
ised, therefore, not only a double-sized loaf of bread, but the 

* &quot;Rept of In»p. of Fict.&quot; Slst October, 1849, p. 6. 



 

The Working Day. 309 

enactment of the Ten Hours&apos; Bill in the Free Trade millen- 
iunu* Thus they still less dared to oppose a measure intended 
only to make the law of 1833 a reality. Threatened in their 
holiest interest, the rent of land, the Tories thundered with 
philanthropic indignation against the &quot;nefarious practices&quot;^ 
of their foes. 

This was the origin of the additional Factory Act of June 
7th, 1844. It came into effect on September 10th, 1844. It 
places under protection a new category of workers, viz., the 
women over 18. They were placed in every respect on the 
same footing as the young persons, their work time limited to 
twelve hours, their nightrlabour forbidden, &amp;c For the first 
time, legislation saw itself compelled to control directly and 
oflScially the labour of adults. In the Factory Report of 1844- 
1845, it is said with irony : &quot;No instances have come to my 
knowledge of adult women having expressed any regret at 
their rights being thus far interfered with.&quot;&apos; The working 
time of children under 13 was reduced to 6J, and in certain 
circumrtances to 7 hours a-day.* 

To get rid of the abuses of the &quot;spurious relay-system,&apos;* tiie 
law established besides others the following important regula- 
tions : — ^&apos;^That the hours of work of children and young persons 
shall be reckoned from the time when any child or young 
person shall begin to work in the morning.&quot; So that if A, 
e.g., begins work at 8 in the morning, and B at 10, B&apos;s work- 
day must nevertheless end at the same hour as A&apos;s. &quot;The 
time shall be regulated by a public clock,&quot; for example, the 
nearest railway clock, by which the factory clock is to be set. 
The occupier is to hang up a ^legible&quot; printed notice stating 
the hours for the beginning and ending of work and the times 
allowed for the several meals. Children beginning work be- 
fore 12 noon may not be again employed after 1 p.m. The 
afternoon shift must therefore consist of other children than 

»&quot;Rcpt. of Insp. of Fact,&quot; Slst October, 1848, p. 98. 

&apos;Leonard Homer uses the expression &quot;nefarious practices&quot; in his official reports. 
(&quot;Report of Insp. of Fact.,&quot; Slst October, 1869, p. 7.) 

•&quot;Kept.,&quot; Ac 80th Sept, 1844, p. 16. 

*The Act allows children to be employed for 10 hours if they do not work day 
•Iter daj, but only on alternate days. In the main this clause remained inoperative. 



 

310 Capitalist Production. 

those employed in the moming. Of the hour and a half for 
meal times, &quot;one hour thereof at the least shall be given before 
three of the cloc! in the afternoon. • • • and at the same 
period of the day. No child or young person shall be em- 
ployed • aore than five hours before 1 p.m. without an interval 
for meal time of at least 30 minutes. No child or young per- 
son [o-^ female] shall be employed or allowed to remain in any 
room in which any manufacturing process is then [i.e., at meal 
times] carri \ on/* &amp;c. 

I hi : been seen that these minutice, which, with military 
uniformity, regulate bf stroke of the clock the times, limits, 
pauses of the work, were not at all the products of Parlia- 
mentary fancy. They developed gradually out of circum- 
stances as natural laws of the modem mode of production* 
Thoir formulation, official recognition, and proclamation by the 
State, were the result of a long struggle of classed. One of 
tLeir first consequences was that in practice the wQ):]£ing day 
of the adult males in factories became subject to the same 
limitations, since in most processes of production the co-opera- 
tion of the children, young persons, and women is indis- 
pensable. On the whole, therefore, during the period from 
1844 to 1847, the 12 hours&apos; working day became fjeneral and 
uniform in all branches of industry under llie Factory Act 

The manufacturers, however, did not allow this &quot;progress&apos;* 
without a compensating &quot;retrogression.&quot; At their instigation 
the House of Commons reduced the minimum age for exploit- 
able children from 9 to 8, in order to assure that additional 
supply of factory children which is due to capitalists, accord- 
ing to divine and human law.* 

The years 1846-47 are epoch-making in the economic history 
of England. The Repeal of the Com Laws, and of the duties 
on cotton and other raw material ; free trade proclaimed as the 
guiding star of legislation ; in a word, the arrival of the mil- 
lenium. On the other hand, in the same years, the Chartist 
movement and the 10 hours&apos; agitation reached their highest 

^&quot;As a reduction in their hours of work would cause a larger number (of chil- 
dren) to be employed, it was thought that the additional supply of children from 6 
to 9 years of age would meet the increased demand&quot; (L a» p. 18.) 



 

The Working Day. 311 

point. They found allies in the Tories panting for revenge. 
Despite the fanatical opposition of the army of perjured Free- 
traders, with Bright and Cobden at their head, the Ten Hours&apos; 
Bill, struggled for so long, went through Parliament. 

The new Factory Act of June 8th, 1847, enacted that on 
July Ist, 1847, there should be a preliminary shortening of the 
working day for &quot;young persons&quot; (from 13 to 18), and all 
females ^11 hours, but that on May 1st, 1848, there should 
be a definite limitation of the working day to 10 hours. In 
other respects, the Act only amended and completed the Acts 
of .833 raid 1844. 

Capital now entered upon a preliminary campaign in order 
to hinder the Act from coming into full force on May 1st, 
1848. And the workers themselves, under the pretence that 
they had been taught by experience, were to help in the destrue- 
tion of their own work. The moment was cleverly chosen. 
**It must be remembered, too, that there has been more than 
two years of great suffering (in consequence of the terrible 
crisis of 1846-47) among the factory operatives, from many 
mills having worked short time, and many being altogether 
closed. A considerable number of the operatives must there- 
fore be i . very narrow circumstances ; many, it is to be feared, 
in debt ; so that it might fairly have been presumed that at the 
present time they would prefer working the longer time, in 
order to make up for past losses, perhaps to pay off debts, or 
get their furniture out of pawn, or replace that sold, or to get 
a new supply of clothes for themselves and their families.&quot;* 

The manufacturers tried to aggravate the natural effect of 
these circumstances by a general reduction of wages by 10%. 
This was done, so to say, to celebrate the inauguration of the 
new Free Trade era. Then followed a further reduction of 
8^% as soon as the working day was shortened to 11, and a 
reduction of double that amount as soon as it was finaUy 
shortened to 10 hours. Wherever, therefore, circumstances 
allowed it, a reduction of wages of at least 25% took place.^ 

« &quot;Rep. of Iiwp. of Fact./&apos; Slat Oct. 1848, p. 16. 

* &quot;I foinid that men who had been getting lOs. a week, bad had li. taken off for 
a reduction in the rate of 10 per cent, and la. 6d« off the remaining Oa. for the i^ 



 

312 Capitalist Production. 

Under sncH favourably prepared conditions the agitation 
among the factory workers for the repeal of the Act of 1847 
was begun. Neither lies, bribery, nor threats were spared in 
this attempt But all was in vain. Concerning the half- 
dozen petitions in which workpeople were made to complain of 
&quot;their oppression by the Act,&quot; the petitioners themselves de- 
clared under oral examination, that their signatures had been 
extorted from them. &quot;They felt themselves oppressed, but not 
exactly by the Factory Act.&quot;^ But if the manufacturers did 
not succeed in making the workpeople speak as they wished, 
they themselves shrieked all the louder in press and Parliament 
in the name of the workpeople. They denounced the Factory 
Inspectors as a kind of revolutionary commissioners like those 
of the French National Convention ruthlessly sacrificing the 
mihappy factory workers to their humanitarian crotchet. This 
manoeuvre also failed. Factory Inspector Leonard Homer 
conducted in his own person, and through his sub-inspectors, 
many examinations of witnesses in the factories of Lancashire. 
About 70% of the workpeople examined declared in favour 
of 10 hours, a much smaller percentage in favour of 11, and an 
altogether insignificant minority for the old 12 hours.^ 

Another &quot;friendly&quot; dodge was to make the adult males 
work 12 to 15 hours, and then to blazon abroad this fact as 
the best proof of what the proletariat desired in its heart of 
hearts. But the &quot;ruthless&quot; Factory Inspector Leonard Homer 
was again to the fore. The majority of the &quot;over-timers&quot; 
declared: &quot;They would much prefer working ten hours for 
less wages, but that they had no choice; that so many were 
out of employment (so many spinners getting very low wages 
by having to work as piecers, being unable to do better), that 
if they refused to work the longer time, others would im- 

duction in time, together 2s. 6d., and notwithstanding this, many of them said they 
would rather work 10 hours.&quot; 1. c. 

1 ** &apos;Though I signed it [the petition], I said at the time I was putting my hand to a 
wrong thing.&apos; &apos;Then why did you put your hand to it?&apos; &apos;Because I should have 
been turned off if I had refused.&apos; Whence it would appear that this petitioner felt 
himself &apos;oppressed/ but not exactly by the Factory Act&quot;. L c p. 102. 

■1. c. p. 17, 1. c In Mr. Homer&apos;s district 10,270 adult male labourers were thus 
examined in 101 factories. Their evidence is to be found in the appendix to the 
Factory Reporu for the half-year ending October 1848. These examinations fomiah 
Taluable material in other connexions also. 



 

The Working Day. 313 

mediately get their places, so that it was a question with them 
of agreeing to work the long time, or of being thrown out of 
employment altogether.&quot;* 

The preliminary campaign of capital thus came to grief, and 
the Ten Hours&apos; Act came into force May 1st, 1848. But mean- 
while the fiasco of the Chartist party whose leaders were im- 
prisoned, and whose organisation was dismembered, had shaken 
the confidence of the English working class in its own strength. 
Soon after this the June insurrections in Paris and its bloody 
suppression united, in England as on the Continent, all frao* 
tions of the ruling classes, landlords and capitalists, stock- 
exchange wolves and shop-keepers. Protectionists and Free- 
traders, government and opposition, priests and free-thinkers, 
young whores and old nuns, under the common cry for the sal- 
vation of Property, Religion, the Family and Society. The 
working class was everywhere proclaimed, placed under a ban, 
under a virtual law of suspects. The manufacturers had no 
need any longer to restrain themselves. They broke out in 
open revolt not only against the Ten Hours&apos; Act, but against 
tL whole of the legislation that since 1833 had aimea at re- 
stricting in some measure the &quot;free&quot; exploitation of labour- 
power. It was a pro-slavery rebellion in miniature, carried on 
for over two years with a cynical recklessness, a terrorisb 
energy all the cheaper because the rebel capitalist risked 
nothing except the skin of his ^Tiands.&quot; 

To imderstand that which follows we must remember that 
the Factory Acts of 1833, 1844, and 1847 vere all three in 
force so far as the one did not amend th other : that not one 
of these limited the working day ol th maL worker over 18, 
and that since 1833 the 15 hours from 6.S0 a.m. to 8.30 p.m. 
had remained the legal &quot;day,&quot; within the limits of which 
at first the 12, and later t e 10 hours&apos; labour of young persons 
and women had to be performed under the prescribed condi- 
tions. 

The manufacturers began by here and there discharging a 

^1. c. See the evidence collected 1 Leonard Homer himself, No«. 69, 70, 71, 78» 
M, 98, and that collected by Sub-Inspector A., Nos. 51, 52, 58, 59, 68, 70, of the 
Appendix. One manufacturer, too» tella the plain truth. See No. 14, and Now 
866, L c 



 

314 Capitalist Production. 

part of, in many cases half of, the young persons and women 
employed by them, and then, for the adult males, restoring 
the almost obsolete night-work. The Ten Hours&apos; Act, they 
cried, leaves no other alternative.^ 

Their second step dealt with the legal pauses for meal&amp; 
Let us hear the Factory Inspectors. &quot;Since the restriction of 
the hours of work to ten, the factory occupiers maintain, 
although they have not yet practically gone the whole length, 
that supposing the hours of work to be from 9 a.m. to 7 p.nu, 
they fulfil the provisions of the statutes by allowing an hour 
before 9 a.m. and half-an-hour after 7 p.m. [for meals]. la 
some cases they now allow an hour, or half an hour for dinner, 
insisting at the same time^ that they are not bound to allow 
any part of the hour and a half in the course of the factory 
working-day.&quot;^ The manufacturers maintained therefore that 
the scrupulously strict provisions of the Acts of 1844 with 
regard to meal times only gave the operatives permission to eat 
and drink before coming into, and after leaving the factory — 
i.e., at home. And why should not the workpeople eat their 
dinner before 9 in the morning? The crown lawyers, how- 
ever, decided that the prescribed meal times &quot;must be in the 
interval during the working hours, and that it will not be 
lawful to work for 10 hours continuously, from 9 a.m. to 7 
p.m., without any interval.&quot;* 

After these pleasant demonstrations. Capital preluded its 
revolt by a step which agreed with the letter of the law of 
1844, and was therefore legal. 

The Act of 1844 certainly prohibited the employment after 

1 p.m. of such children, from 8 to 13, as had been employed 
before noon. But it did not regulate in any way the 6^ 
hours&apos; work of the children whose work-time began at 12 mid- 
day or later. Children of 8 might, if they began work at noon, 
be employed from 12 to 1, 1 hour ; from 2 to 4 in the afternoon, 

2 hours ; from 5 to 8 :30 in the evening, 3 J hours ; in all, the 
legal 6^ hours. Or better stilL In order to make their work 

* Reports, &amp;c, for 81st October, 1848, p. 188, 184. 
•Reports, &amp;c., for 80th April, 1848, p. 47. 
•Reports, ftc, for 81st October, 1848, p. 180. 



 

The Working Day. 315 

coincide with that of the adult male labourers up to 8.30 p.m.y 
the manufacturers only had to give them no work till 2 in the 
afternoon ; they could then keep them in the factory without 
intermission till 8.30 in the evening. &quot;And it is now expressly 
admitted that the practice exists in England from the desire 
of mill-owners to have their machinery at work for more than 
10 hours a-day, to keep the children at work with male adults 
after all the young persons and women have left, and until 
8.30 p.m., if the factory-owners choose.*&apos;^ Workmen and 
factory inspectors protested on hygienic and moral grounds, but 
Capital answered : 

&quot;My deeds upon my head! I crave the law. 
The penalty and forfeit of my bond.&quot; 

In fact, according to statistics laid before the House of Com- 
mons on July 26th, 1850, in spite of all protests, on July 15th, 
1850, 3,742 children were subjected to this &quot;practice&quot; in 257 
factories.^ Still this was not enough. The lynx eye of 
Capital discovered that the Act of 1844 did not allow 5 hours* 
work before mid-day without a pause of at least 30 minutes for 
refreshment, but prescribed nothing of the kind for work after 
mid-day. Therefore, it claimed and obtained the enjoyment 
not only of making children of 8 drudge without intermission 
from 2 to 8.30 p.m., but also of making them hunger during 
that time. 

**Ay, his heart. 

So says the bond.^s 

This Shylock-clinging to the letter of the law of 1844, so far 
as it regulated children&apos;s labour, was but to lead up to an open 

» Reports, &amp;c^ 1 c, p. 142. 

* Reports, &amp;c., for 81st October, 1860, pp. 6, 6. 

*The nature of capital remains the same in its developed as In Its tindevdoped 
Conn. In the code which the influence of the slave-owners, shortly before the out- 
break of the American civil war, imposed on the territory of New Mexico, it is said 
that the labourer, in as much as the capitalist has bought his labour-power, &quot;is hifl 
(the capitalist&apos;s) money.&quot; The same view was current among the Roman patricians. 
The money they had advanced to the plebeian debtor had been transformed vid the 
means of subsistence into the flesh and blood of the debtor. This &quot;flesh and blood*&apos; 
were, therefore, &quot;their money.&quot; Hence, the Shylock-law of the Ten Fablesu 
Linguet&apos;s hypothesis that the patrician creditors from time to time prepared, beyond 
the Tiber, banquets of debtors&apos; flesh, may remain as undecided a* that of Daumer 
oo the Christian Eucharist 



 

gi6 Capitalist Prodwtion. 

revolt against tbe same law, so far as it regulated the labour of 
&quot;young persons and women/&apos; It will be remembered that the 
abolition of the &quot;false relay system&quot; was the chief aim and 
object of that law. The masters began their revolt with the 
simple declaration that the sections of the Act of 1844 which 
prohibited the ad libitum use of young persons and women in 
such short fractions of the day of 15 hours as the employer 
chose, were &quot;comparatively harmless^&apos; so long as the work- 
time was fixed at 12 hours. But under the Ten Hours&apos; Act 
they were a &quot;grievous hardship.&apos;*^ They informed the in- 
spectors in the coolest manner that they should place them- 
selves above the letter of the law, and re-introduce the old 
system on their own account^ They were acting in the inter- 
ests of the ill-advised operatives themselves, &quot;in order to be 
able to pay them higher wages/* &quot;This was the only possible 
plan by which to maintain, under the Ten Hours&apos; Act, the in- 
dustrial supremacy of Great Britain.&apos;&apos; *Terhaps it may be a 
little difficult to detect irregularities under the relay system ; 
but what of that ? Is the great manufacturing interest of this 
country to be treated as a secondary matter in order to save 
same little trouble to Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors of Fac- 
tories?&quot;* 

All these shifts naturally were of no avaiL The Factory 
Inspectors appealed to the Law Courts. But soon such a cloud 
of dust in the way of petitions from the masters overwhelmed 
the Home Secretary, Sir George Grey, that in a circular of 
August 5th, 1848, he recommends the inspectors not &quot;to lay 
informations against mill-owners for a breach of the letter of 
the Act, or for employment of young persons by relays in cases 
in which there is no reason to believe that such young persons 
have been actually employed for a longer period than that 
sanctioned by law.&quot; Hereupon, Factory Inspector J. Stuart 
allowed the so-called relay system during the 15 hours of the 
factory day throughout Scotland, where it soon flourished again 
as of old. The English Factory Inspectors, on the other hand, 

^Reports, &amp;c for 80th April, 1848, p. 28. 

^ Thus, among others. Philanthropist Ashworth to Leonard Homer, in a diagusting 
Quaker letter. (Reports, &amp;c., April, 1849, p. 4.) 
•L e^ p. 140. 



 

The Working Day. 317 

declared that the Home Secretary had no power dictatorially 
to suspend the law, and continued their legal proceedings 
against the pro-slavery rebellion. 

But what was the good of summoning the capitalists when 
the Courts, in this case the country magistrates — Cobbett&apos;s 
&quot;Great Unpaid&quot; — acquitted them? In these tribunals, the 
masters sat in judgment on themselves. An example. One 
Eskrigge, cotton-spinner, of the firm of Kershaw, Leese, &amp; 
Co., had laid before the Factory Inspector of his district the 
scheme of a relay system intended for his milL Receiving a 
refusal, he at first kept quiet. A few months later, an in- 
dividual named Robinson^ also a cotton-spinner, and if not his 
Man Friday, at all events related to Eskrigge, appeared before 
the borough magistrates of Stockport on a charge of introduc- 
ing the identical plan of relays invented by Eskrigge. Four 
Justices sat, among them three cotton-spinners, at their head 
this same inevitable Eskrigge. Eskrigge acquitted Robinson, 
and now was of opinion that what was right for Robinson was 
fair for Eskrigge. Supported by his own legal decision, he in- 
troduced the system at once into his own factory.* Of course, 
the composition of this tribunal was in itself a violation of the 
law.* These judicial farces, exclaims Inspector Howell, 
urgently call for a remedy— either that the law should be so 
altered as to be made to conform to these decisions, or that it 
should be administered by a less fallible tribunal, whose de- 
cisions would conform to the law. • • . when these cases are 
brought forward. I long for a stipendiary magistrate.&apos;*&apos; 

The Crown lawyers declared the masters&apos; interpretation of 
flie Act of 1848 absurd. But the Saviours of Society would 
not allow themselves to be turned from their purpose. Leonard 
Homer reports, &quot;Having endeavoured to enforce the Act . . . 
by ten prosecutions in seven magisterial divisions, and having 
been supported by the magistrates in one case only. ... I 

* Reports, ftc., for 80th April, 1849, pp. SI, 22. Cf. like cxAmples ibid. pp. 4, S. 

*By I. and II. Will. IV., ch. 24, a. 10, known as Sir John Hothouse&apos;s Factory 
Act, it was forbidden to any owner of a cotton-spinning or wearing mill, or the 
father, son, or brother of such owner, to act as Justioe of the Peace in any ia* 
qoiriea that oonoemed the Factory Act 

•Le. 



 

3i8 Capitalist Production. 

considered it useless to prosecute more for tliis evasion of the 
law. That part of the Act of 1848 which was framed for 
securing uniformity in the hours of work, ... is thus no 
longer in force in my district (Lancashire). Neither have tho 
sub-inspectors or myself any means of satisfying ourselves, 
when we inspect a mill working by shifts, that the young per- 
sons and women are not working more than 10 hours a-day. 
. • • In a return of the 30th April, ... of mill-owners work- 
ing by shifts, the number amounts to 114, and has been for 
some time rapidly increasing. In general, the time of work- 
ing the mill is extended to 13^ hours, from 6 a.m. to 7^ p.m., 
• • • in some instances it amounts to 15 hours, from 5^ a^m. 
to 8i p. m.&quot;* Already, in Decembei, 1848, Leonard Homer 
had a list of 65 manufacturers and 29 overlookers who unani- 
mously declared that no system of supervision could, under this 
relay system, prevent enormous overwork,* Now, the same 
children and young persons were shifted from the spinning- 
room to the weaving-room, now, during 15 hours, from one 
factory to another.^ How was it possible to control a system 
which, ^&apos;under the guise of relays, is some one of the many 
plans for shuffling Hhe hands&apos; about in endless variety, and 
shifting the hours of work and of rest for different individuals 
throughout the day, so that you may never have one complete 
set of hands working together in the same room at the same 
time.&apos;&apos;* 

But altogether independently of actual overwork, this so- 
called relay-system was an offspring of capitalistic fantasy 
such as Fourier, in his humorous sketches of &quot;Courtes 
Seances,&quot; has never surpassed, except that the &quot;attraction of 
labour&quot; was changed into the attraction of capitaL Look, for 
example, at those schemes of the masters which the **respectr 
able&quot; press praised as models of &quot;what a reasonable degree of 
care and method can accomplish.&quot; The personnel of the work- 
people was sometimes divided into from 12 to 14 categories^ 
which themselves constantly changed and rechanged their con- 

1 Reports, &amp;c, for 80th April, 1849, p. 6. 

* Reports, &amp;c, for Slst October, 1849, p. 0. 

* Reports, &amp;c^ for 80th April, 1840. p. 81. 
•Reporu, &amp;c^ for 1st October, 1848» p. 96. 



 

The Working Day. 319 

^tuent parts. During the 15 hours of the factory day, capital 
dragged in the labourer now for 30 minutes, now for an hour, 
and then pushed him out again, to drag him into the factory 
and to thrust him out afresh, hounding him hither and thither, 
in scattered shreds of time, without ever losing hold of him 
until the full 10 hours&apos; work was done. As on the stage, the 
same persons had to appear in turns in the different scenes 
of the different acts. But as an actor during the whole course 
of the play belongs to the stage, so the operatives, during 15 
hours, belonged to the factory, without reckoning the time 
for going and coming. Thus the hours of rest were turned 
into hours of enforced idleness, which drove the youths to 
the pot-house, and the girls to the brotheL At every new 
trick that the capitalist, from day to day, hit upon for keep- 
ing his machinery going 12 or 15 hours without increasing 
the number of his hands, the worker had to swallow his meals 
now in this fragment of time, now in that. At the time of the 
10 hours&apos; agitation, the masters cried out that the working mob 
petitioned in the hope of obtaining 12 hours&apos; wages for 10 
hours&apos; work. Now they reversed the medal. They paid 10 
hours&apos; wages for 12 or 15 hours&apos; lordship over labour-power.* 
This was the gist of the matter, this the masters&apos; interpretation 
of the 10 hours&apos; law! These were the same unctuous free- 
traders, perspiring with the love of humanity, who for full 10 
years, during the Anti-Corn Law agitation, had preached to 
the operatives, by a reckoning of poxmds, shillings and pence, 
that with free importation of com, and with the means pos- 
sessed by English industry, 10 hours&apos; labour would be quite 
enough to enrich the capitalist* This revolt of capital, after 
two years, was at last crowned with victory by a decision of 
one of the four highest Courts of Justice in England, the 
Court of Exchequer, which in a case brought before it on 
February 8th, 1850, decided that the manufacturers were 

* See Reports, &amp;c» for 80th April, 1849, p. 6, and&apos; the detailed explanation of the 
&quot;shifting system,&quot; by Factory Inspectors Howell and Saunders, in &quot;Reports, &amp;Cn for 
81st October, 1848.&quot; See also the petition to the Queen from the clergy of Asntoa 
and vicinity, in the spring of 1849, against the &quot;shift sjrstem.&quot; 

&apos;Cf. for example* &quot;The Factory Question and the Tea Houra^ BilL** By E. H. 
Gres- 1887. 



 

320 Capitalist Production. 

certainly acting against the sense of the Act of 1844. but that 
this Act itself contained certain words that rendered it mean- 
ingless. *^j this decision, the Ten Hours&apos; Act was aooi- 
ished.&quot;^ A crowd of masters^ who until then had been afraid 
of using the relay-system for young persons and women, now 
took it up heart and souL^ 

But on this apparently decisive victory of capital, followed 
at once a revulsion. The workpeople had hitherto offered a 
passive, although inflexible and unremitting resistance. They 
now protested in Lancashire and Yorkshire in threatening 
meetings. The pretended Ten Hours&apos; Act, was thus simple 
humbugs parliamentary cheating, had never existed I The 
Factory Inspectors urgently warned the Government that the 
antagonism of classes had arrived at an incredible tension. 
Some of the masters themselves murmured: ^^On account of 
the contradictoiy decisions of the magistrates, a condition of 
things altogether abnormal and anarchial obtains. One law 
holds in Yorkshire, another in Lancashire; one law in one 
parish of Lancashire, another in its immediate neighborhood. 
The manufacturer in large towns could evade the law, the 
manufacturer in country districts could not find the people 
necessary for the relaynaystem, still less for the shifting of 
hands from one factory to another,&apos;&apos; &amp;o. And the first birth- 
right of capital is equal exploitation of labour-power by all 
capitalists. 

Under these circumstances a compromise between masters 
and men was effected that received the seal of Parliament in 
the additional Factory Act of August 5thy 1850. The work- 
ing day for &apos;^oung persons and women,&apos;&apos; was raised from 10 
tx) 10^ hours for the first five days of the week, and was 
shortened to 7^ on the Saturday. The work was to go on be- 
tween 6 a.m. and 6 pan.,&apos; with pauses of not less than 1^ hours 
for meal-times, these meal-times to be allowed at one and the 

&gt; p. Engels: &quot;The English Ten Hours&apos; BiU.&quot; (In the &quot;Neue Rheinische Zeitnng^ 
PolitischKskonomische Revue.&quot; Edited by K. Marx. April number, 1860, p. 18.) 
The same &quot;high&quot; Court of Justice discovered* during the American Civil War, • 
Terbal ambiguity which exactly reversed the meaning of the law against the arming 
of pirate ships. 

* Rep., &amp;&amp;• for 80th April, 1860. 

*In winter, from 7 a*m. to 7 p^n. may be tubstitnted. 



 

The Working Day. 321 

same time for all^ and conformably to the conditions of 1844. 
By this an end was put to the relay-system once for alL^ For 
children&apos;s labour^ the Act of 1844 remained in force. 

One set of masters^ this time as before, secured to itself 
special seigneurial rights over the children of the proletariat. 
These were the silk manufacturers. In 1833 they had howled 
out in threatening fashion, ^^if the liberty of working children 
of any age for 10 hours a day were taken away, it would stop 
their works.&quot;^ It would be impossible for them to buy a suflS- 
cient number of children over 13. They extorted the privilege 
they desired. The pretext was shown on subsequent investiga- 
tion to be a deliberate lie.^ It did not, however, prevent them, 
during 10 years, from spinning silk 10 hours a day out of the 
blood of little children who had to be placed upon stools for 
the performance of their work.* The Act of 1844 certainly 
&quot;robbed^&apos; them of the &apos;Hiberty&apos;^ of employing children under 
11 longer than 6^ hours a day. But it secured to them, on the 
other hand, the privilege of working children between 11 and 
13, 10 hours a day, and of annulling in their case the educa- 
tion made compulsory for all other factory children. This 
time the pretext was &quot;the delicate texture of the fabric in 
which they were employed, requiring a lightness of touch, only 
to be acquired by their early introduction to these factories.&quot;* 
The children were slaughtered out-and-out for the sako of their 
delicate fingers, as in Southern Bussia the homed cattle for thci 
sake of their hide and tallow. At length, in 1850, the privilege 
granted in 1844 was limited to the departments of silk-twist- 
ing and silk-winding. But here, to make amends to capital 
bereft of its &quot;freedom,&apos;&apos; the work time for children from 11 
to 13 was raised from 10 to 10 J hours. Pretext: &quot;Labour in 
silk mills was lighter than in mills for other fabrics, and less 
likely in other respects also to be prejudicial to health.&quot;* 
OflScial medical inquiries proved afterwards that, on the con- 

* &apos;*Tbe present law (of 1850) was a compromise whereby the employed surrendered 
the benefit of the Ten Hours&apos; Act for the advantage of one uniform period for the 
commencement and termination of the labour of those whose labour is restricted.&quot; 
(Reports, &amp;c., for SQth April, 1852, p. 14.) 

&apos;Reports, &amp;c, for Sept, 1844, p. 18. &apos;L C. *L c. 

•L c 

*Report^ &amp;c, for Slst Oct, 1881, p. Se. 

U 



 

322 



Capitalist Production, 



trary, ^&apos;the average death-rate is exceedingly high in the silk 
districts, and amongst the female part of the population is 
higher even than it is in the cotton districts of Lancashire.&quot;^ 
Despite the protests of the Factory Inspector, renewed every 
6 months, the mischief continues to this hour.^ 

The Act of 1850 changed the 15 hours&apos; time from 6 a.m. to 
8 :30 p.m., into the 12 hours from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. for *Voung 
persons and women&quot; only. It did not, therefore, aflfect chil- 
dren who could always be employed for half an hour before 
and 2% hours after this period, provided the whole of their 
labour did not exceed 6^^ hours. Whilst the bill was under 
discussion, the Factory Inspectors laid before Parliament sta- 
tistics of the infamous abuses due to this anomaly. To no 
purpose. In the background lurked the intention of screwing 
up, during prosperous years, the working day of adult males 

*1. c, p. 27. On the whole the working poimlatioa, subject to the Factory Act, 
has greatly improved physically. All medical testimony agrees on this point, and 
persona] observation at different times has convinced me of it. Nevertheless, and 
exclusive of the terrible death-rate of children in the first years of their life, the 
official reports of Dr. Greenhow show the unfavourable health condition of the manu- 
facturing districts as compared with &quot;agricultural districts of normal health.&quot; As 
evidence, take the following table from his 1861 report:— 



Percentage 


Death-rate 




Death-rate 


Percentage 




of Adult 


from 




from 


of Adult 




Males en- 


Pulmonary 




Pulmonary 


Females 


Kind of Female 


gaged in 


Affections 


Name ol District. 


Affections 


engaged in 


Occupation. 


manufac- 


per 100,000 




per 100,000 


manufac- 




tures. 


Males. 




Females. 


tures. 




149 


598 


Wigan 


644 


18. D 


Jotton 


426 


708 


Blackburn 


734 


349 


Do. 


37.3 


547 


HaHfax 


564 


20-4 


Worsted 


419 


611 


Bradford 


603 


30-0 


Do. 


310 


691 


Macclesfield 


804 


260 


3Uk 


14.9 


588 


Leek 


705 


172 


Do. 


36.6 


721 


Stoke-upon-Trent 


665 


193 


Earthenwapo 


30-4 


726 


Woolstanton 
Eight healthy agri- 


727 


13. 9 


Do. 




305 


cultural districts 


340 







&apos;It is well-known with what reluctance the English &quot;free traders&quot; gave up the 
protective duty on the silk manufacture. Instead of the protection against French 
importation, the absence of protection to English factory children now serves tbeir 
turn. 



 

The Working Day, 323 

to 15 hours by the aid of the children. The experience of the 
three following years showed that such an attempt must come 
to grief against the resistance of the adult male operatives. 
The Act of 1850 was therefore finally completed in 1853 by 
forbidding the &quot;employment of children in the morning be- 
fore and in the evening after young persons and women.^&apos; 
Henceforth with a few exceptions the Factory Act of 1850 
regulated the working day of all workers in the branches of 
industry that come under it* Since the passing of the first 
Factory Act half a century had elapsed.^ 

Factory legislation for the first time went beyond its original 
sphere in the &quot;Printworks&apos; Acts of 1845.&quot; The displeasure 
with which capital received this new &quot;extravagance&quot; speaks 
through every line of the Act It limits the working day for 
children from 8 to 13, and for women to 16 hours, between 
6 a.m. and 10 p.m., without any legal pause for meal times. 
It allows males over 13 to be worked at will day and night* 
It is a Parliamentary abortion.* 

However, the principle had triumphed with its victory in 
those great branches of industry which form the most char- 
acteristic creation of the modem mode of production. Their 
wonderful development from 1853 to 1860, hand-in-hand with 
the physical and moral regeneration of the factory workers, 

^During 1869 and 1860, the zenith yean of the English cotton induttry* some 
manufacturer* tried, by the decoy bait of higher wages for over-time, to reconcile 
the adult male operatives to an extension of the working day. The hand-mule spin- 
ners and self -actor minders put an end to the experiment by a petition to their 
employers in which they say, &quot;Plainly speaking, our lives are to us a burthen; and, 
while we are confined to the mills nearly two days a week more than the other 
operatives of the country, we feel like helots in the land, and that we are perpetu- 
ating a system injurious to ourselves and future generations. . . . This, there- 
fore, is to give you most respectful notice that when we commence work again after 
the Christmas and New Years&apos; holidays, we shall work 60 hours per week, and no 
more, or from six to six, with one hour and a half out&quot; (Reports, &amp;c., for 80th 
Aprfl, 1880, p. 80.) 

*On the means that the wording of this Act afforded for its violation cf. the 
Parliamentary Return &quot;Factory Regulations Act&quot; (0th August, 1859), and in it 
Leonard Homer&apos;s &quot;Suggestions for amending the Factory Acts to enable the Inspec- 
tors to prevent illegal working, now become very prevalent.&quot; 

* &quot;Children of the age of 8 years and upwards, have, indeed, been employed from 
6 a.m. to 9 p.m. during the last half year in my district.&quot; (Reports, &amp;c, for 81st 
October, 1867, p. 89.) 

*&quot;The Prmtworks&apos; Act is admitted to be a failure, both with reference to its 
educational and protective provisions.&quot; (Reports, ftc., for 81st October, 1862, p. 62.) 



 

324 Capitalist Production. 

struck the most purblind. The masters from whom the legal 
limitation and regulation had been wrung step by step after a 
civil war of half a century, themselves referred ostentatiously 
to the contrast with the branches of exploitation still &quot;free.&quot;^ 
The Pharisees of &quot;political economy&apos;&apos; now proclaimed the dis- 
cernment of the necessity of a legally fixed working day as a 
characteristic new discovery &lt;•? their &quot;science/^* It will be 
easily understood that after the factory magnates had resigned 
themselves and become reconciled to the inevitable, the power 
of resistance of capital gradually weakened, whilst at the same 
time the power of attack of the working class grew with the 
number of its allies in the classes f society not inmiediately 
interested in the question. Hence the comparatively rapid 
advance since I860. 

The dye-works and bleach-works all came under the Factory 
Act of 1850 ia 1860;^ lace and stocking manufacturers in 
18C1. 

In consequence of the first report of the Conmiission on the 
employment of children (1863), the same fate was shared by 
the manufacturers of all earthenwares (not merely pottery), 
lucifer-matches, percussion-caps, cartridges, carpeta, fustian- 

^Thus, g.g,, E. Potter In a letter to the •Timet&quot; of March S4th, IMS. The 
TTiines&quot; reminded him of the manufacturers&apos; revolt against the Ten Hours* BilL 

&gt; Thus, among others, Mr. W. Newmarch, collaborator and editor of Tooke&apos;s &quot;Hia&gt; 
tory of Prices.&quot; Is it a scientific advance to make cowardly concessions to public 
opinion? 

•The Act passed in 1860, determined that, !n regard to dye and bleach-works, the 
working day should be fixed on August 1st, 1861, provisionally at 12 hours, and 
definitely on August 1st, 1862» at 10 hours, i.^., at 10^ hours for ordinary days, and 
lyi for Saturday. Now, when the fatal year, 1862, came, the old farce was repeated. 
Besides, the manufacturers petitioned Parliament to allow the employment of young 
persons and women for 12 hours during one year longer. &quot;In the existing condition 
of the trade (the time of the cotton famine), it was greatly to the advantage of the 
operatives to work 12 hours per day, and make wages whett they could.&quot; A bill to 
this effect had been brought in, &quot;and it was mainly due to the action of the operative 
bleachers m Scotland that e bill was abandoned.&quot; (Reports, &amp;c, for 81st October, 
1862, p. 14-15.) Thus efea a by the very work-people, in whose name it pre&gt; 
tended to speak, Capital iscovered, with the help of lawyer spectacles, that the Act 
9f 1860, drawn up, like all the Acts of Parliament for the &quot;protection of labour,&quot; 
jn equivocal phrases, gave them a pretext to exclude from its working the calenderert 
and finishers. English jurisprudence, ever the faithful servant of capital, sanctioned 
in the Ourt of Common Pleas thb piece of pettifogging. &quot;The operatives have 
been greatly disappointed . . . they have complained of overwork, and it ia 
greatly to be regretted that the clear intention of the legislature should have failed 
by reason of a faulty definition.&quot; 0. c, p. 18.) 



 

The Working Day. 325 

cutting, and maay proeesses included tinder the name of 
&quot;finishing/* In the year 1863 bleaching in the open air* and 
baking were placed under special Acts, by which, in the 
former, the labour of young persons and women during the 
night-tisie (from 8 in Ihe e&apos;^ening to 6 in the morning), and in 
the latter, the employment of journeymen bakers under 18, 
between 9 in the evening and 5 in the morning were forbiaden. 
We shall return to the later proposals of the same Commission, 
which threctened to deprive of their &quot;freedom&apos;&apos; all tne import- 
ant branches of English Industry, with the exception of agri- 
culture, mines, and the means of transport* 

^ The &quot;open-air bleachers&quot; had evaded the V»w of 1860, by muxm of the lie that no 
women w rked at it in the night. The lie wa-; exposed t^ the Factory Inspectors, 
and at the same time Parliament was, by petitions irom the op«nitiveSb bereft x^l 
its rotions as to the cool meadow-fragrance, ia which bleaching in th^ open-air waiJ 
reported *o take place, &apos;n this ^rial bleachi p. drying-rooms were used kt tempenu 
tures of from 90* to 100* Fahrenheit, in which the work was done for the laost ^^art 
by -iris. &apos;&apos;Cooling&quot; is the t^^hnical expression for their occasional escape fiom the 
drying-rooms into the fresh air. &quot;Fifteen ^irls in stores. Heat from 80* to 00* for 
linens, and 100* and upwards for cambrics. Twelve iris ironing and doing np 
in a sm &apos;.1 roo-ti about 10 f et square, in the centre of which is a close stovw. The 
girls stand r und the stove, which throws out a terrific heat, and dries the cambrics 
rapidly for the ironers. The tours of work for these hands are unlimited. If usy, 
they work till 9 or 12 at ni^ht f r successive nights.&quot; (Reports, &amp;c, for Slst Octo- 
ber, 1868, :&gt;• 66.) A medical man states: &quot;No special hours are allowed for cooling, 
but If the temperature gets too high, or the workers&apos; hands get soiled from erspira- 
tion, they are allowed to go out for a few minutes. • • • My experience, which 
is considerable, in treating the diseases of stove workers, compels me to express the 
opinion that their saniury condition is by no means so high as that of the operatives 
in a spinning factory (and Capital, in its memorials to Parliament, had painted them 
as floridly healthy, after the manner of Rubens). The diseases most observable 
amongst them are phthisis, bronchitis, irregularity of uterine functions, hysteria in 
Its most aggravated forms, and rheumatism. All of these, I believe, are either di- 
rectly or indirectly induced by the impure, overheated air of the apartments in 
which the hands are employed, and the want of sufficient comfortable clothing to 
protect them from the cold, damp atmosphere, in winter, when going to their 
homes.&quot; (1. c p. 56-57.) The Factory Inspectors remarked on the supplementary 
law of 1860, torn from these open-air bleachers: &quot;The Act has not orly failed to 
afFord that protection to the workers which it appears to offer, but contains a clause 
. . • apparently so worded that, unless persons are detected working after 8 
o&apos;clock at night they appear to come under no protective provisions at all, and if 
they do so work, the mode of proof is so doubtful that a conviction can scarcely 
follow.&quot; (1. c, p. 52.) &quot;To all intents and purposes, therefore, as an Act for any 
benevolent or educational purpose, it is a failure; since it can scarcely be called 
benevolent to permit, which is tantamount to compelling, women and children to 
work 14 hours a day with r without meals, as the case may be, and perhaps for 
longer hours than these, without limit as to age, without reference to sex, and 
without regard to the social habits of the families of the neighbourhood, in which 
such works (bleaching and dyeing) are situated.&quot; (Reports, &amp;c., for 80th April, 
1868, p. 40.) 

&apos;&apos;&apos;Note to the 2nd Ed. Since 1866» when I wrote the above psBsagei* a re-actioB 
Ims again tet in. 



 

326 Capitalist Production. 

SECTION 7. THE 8TBUOGLB FOR THE NORMAL WORKING-DAT. 

RE-ACTION OF THE ENGLISH ACTS ON OTHER COUNTRIES. 

The reader will bear in mind that the production of surplus* 
value, or the extraction of surplus-labour, is the specific end 
and aim, the sum and substance, of capitalist production quite 
apart from any changes in the mode of production, which 
may arise from the subordination of labour to capital He 
will remember that as far as we have at present gone, only the 
independent labourer, and therefore only the labourer legally 
qualified to act for himself^ enters as a vendor of a commodity 
into a contract with the capitalist If, therefore, in our his- 
torical sketch, modem industry, on the one hand ; the labour of 
those who are physically and legally minors, on the other, play 
important parts, the former was to us only a special depart- 
ment, and the latter only a specially striking example of labour 
exploitation. Without, however, anticipating the subsequent 
development of our inquiry, from the mere connexion of the 
historic facts before us, it follows : 

First. The passion of capital for an unlimited and reckless 
extension of the working day, is first gratified in the industries 
earliest revolutionised by water-power, steam, and machinery, 
in those first creations of the modem mode of production, 
cotton, wool, flax, and silk spinning, and weaving. The 
changes in the material mode of production, and the corre- 
sponding changes in the social relations of the producers* gave 
rise first to an extravagance beyond all bounds, and then in 
opposition to this, called forth a control on the part of Society 
which legally limits, regulates, and makes uniform the work- 
ing day and its pauses. This control appears, therefore, dur- 
ing the first half of the nineteenth century simply as ex- 
ceptional legislation.^ As soon as this primitive dominion of 

^&quot;The conduct of each of these classes (capitalists and workmen) has been the 
result of the relative situation in which they have been placed.&quot; (Reports, &amp;c, for 
81st October, 1848, p. 118.) 

&apos;**The employments, placed under restriction, were connected with the manufao* 
ture of textile fabrics by the aid of steam or water-power. There were two .ondi- 
tlons to which an employment must be subject to cause it to be inspected, viz., tht 
use of steam or water-power, and the manufacture of certain specified fibres.&quot; (R» 
ports, &amp;c, for 81st October, 1864, p. 8.) 



 

The Working Day. 327 

the new mode of production was conquered, it was found that, 
in the meantime, not only had many other branches of produc- 
tion been made to adopt the same factory system, but that 
manufacturers with more or less obsolete methods, such as 
potteries, glass-making, &amp;c., that old-fashioned handicrafts, 
like baking, and, finally, even that the so-called domestic in- 
dustries such as nail-making,* had long since fallen as com- 
pletely under capitalist exploitation as the factories themselves. 
Legislation was, therefore, compelled to gradually get rid of 
its exceptional character, or where, as in England, it proceeds 
after the manner of the Eoman Casuists, to declare any house 
in which work was done to be a factory.^ 

Second. The history of the regulation of the working day in 
certain branches of production, and the struggle still going on 
in others in regard to this regulation, prove conclusively that 
the isolated labourer, the labourer as &quot;free&quot; vendor of his 
labour-power, when capitalist production has once attained a 
certain stage, succumbs without any power of resistance. The 
creation of a normal working day is, therefore, the product of 
a protracted civil war, more or less dissembled, between the 
capitalist class and the working class. As the contest takes 
place in the arena of modem industry, &apos;it first breaks out in 
the home of that industry — England.^ The English factory 
workers were the champions, not only of the English, but of 
the modem working-class generally, as their theorists were 
the first to throw down the gauntlet to the theory of capital.* 

^ On the condition of so^cmUed domestic industriet, specially yaluable materials 
sre to be found in the latest reports of the Children&apos;s Employment Commission. 

*&quot;The Acts of last Session (1864) . . . embrace a diversity of occupations, 
the customs in which differ greatly, and the use of mechanical power to give motion 
to machinery is no longer one of the elements necessary, as formerly, to constitute, 
in legal phrase, a &apos;Factory.&apos;&quot; (Reports, &amp;c., for 81st October, 1864, p. 8.) 

&apos;Belgium, the paradise of Continental Liberalism, shows no trace of this move- 
ment. Even in the coal and metal mines, labourers of both sexes, and all ages, are 
consumed in perfect &quot;freedom,&quot; at any period, and through any length of time. 
Of every 1000 persons employed there, 788 are men, 88 women, 135 boys, and 44 
girls under 16; in the blast-furnaces, ftc, of every 1000, 688 are men, 149 women, 
98 boys, and 85 girls under 16. Add to this the low wages for the enormous exploi- 
tation of mature and immature labour-power. The average daily pay for a man is 
ta. lid., for a woman. Is. 8d., for a boy, Is. 2^d. As a result, Belgium had in 1868, 
as compared with 1850, nearly doubled both the amount and the value of its exports 
of coal, iron, &amp;c. 

* Robert Owen, soon after 1810, not only maintained the necessity of a limitation 



 

328 Capitalist Production. 

Henoe, the philosopher of the Factory, TJre, denounces as v&amp; 
ineffable disgrace to the English working-class that they iii- 
scribed &quot;the slavery of the Factory Acts&apos;* on the banner whiiii 
they bore against capital, manfully striving for &quot;perfect fxe^ 
dom of labour.&quot;* 

France limps slov^ly behind England. The February lev* 
olution was necessary to bring into the world the 12 hours^ 
law,^ which is much more defi ent than its English originaL 
For all that&gt; the French volutionary metnod has its special 
advantages. It onc^ for all commands the same limit to the 
working-day in cH shops and factories without distinction, 
whilst English legislation reluctantly yields to the pressure of 
circumstances, now on this point * or on that, and is getting 
lost in a hopelessly bewildenng tangle of contradictory enact- 
ments.* On the othe. hand, the French law proclaims as a 
principle that which in England was only won in the name 
of children, minors, and women, and has been only recently 
for the first time claimed as a general right^ 

of the working day in tbeorr, but acttuJly introduced the 10 hours&apos; day into hit 
factory at New Lanark. This was laughed at as a communistic Utopia; so were his 
&quot;Combination of children&apos;s education with productive labour,&quot; and the Co-operatiTO 
Societies of working-men, first called into being by him. To-day, the first Utopia is 
a Factory Act, the second figures as an official phrase in all Factory Acts, the third 
Is already being used as a cloak for reactionary humbug. 

^Ure: &quot;French translation, Philosophie des Manufactures.&quot; Pftris, 18Se, VoL IL» 
p. 80, 40, 07, 77, &amp;c 

&apos; In the Compte Rendu of the International Statistical Congress at Paris, 1866, it 
is stated: &quot;The French law, which limits the length of daily labour in factories and 
workshops to 18 hours, does not confine this work to definite fixed hours. For 
children&apos;s labour only the work-time is prescribed as between 6 a. m. and 9 p. m. 
Therefore, some of the masters use the right which this fatal silence gives them to 
keep their works going, without intermission, day in, day out, possibly with the 
exception of Sunday. For this ptupose they use two different sets of workers, of 
whom neither is in the workshop more than 18 hours at a time, but the work of the 
establishment lasts day and night The law is satisfied, but is humanity?&quot; Besides 
&quot;the destructive influence of night labour on the hiunan organism,&quot; stress is also 
laid upon &quot;the fatal influence of the association of the two sexes by night in the 
same badly-lighted workshops.&quot; 

*&quot;For insUnce, there is within my district one occupier who, within the tame 
curtilsge, is st the same time a bleacher and dyer under the Bleachirg and Dyeing 
Works Act, a printer under the Print Works Act, and a finisher under the Factory 
Act.&quot; (Report of Mr. Baker, in ReporU, &amp;c, for Octobre Slst, 1801, p. 80.) After 
enumerating the different provisions of these Acts, and the complications arising from 
them, Mr. Baker says: &quot;It will hence appear that it must be very difficult to secure 
the execution of these three Acts of Parliament where the occupier chooses to evade 
tiM law.&quot; But what is assured to the lawyers by this is lawsuits. 

*ThQ8 tilt Factory Inspectors at last venture to say: &quot;These objections (of 



 

The Working Day. 329 

In the TTnited States of North America, every independent 
movement of the workers was paralysed so long as slavery dis- 
figured a part of the Bepublic Labour cannot emancipate 
itself in the white skin where in the black it is branded. 
But out of the death of slavery a new life at once arose. The 
first fruit of the Civil War was the eight hours&apos; agitation, that 
ran with the seven-leagued boots of the locomotive from the 
Atlantic to the Pacific, from New England to California. The 
General Congress of Labour at Baltimore (August 16ih, 1866) 
declared : &quot;The first and great necessity of the present, to free 
the labour of this country from capitalistic slavery, is the pass- 
ing of a law by which eight hours shall be the normal work- 
ing-day in all States of the American Union. We are resolved 
to put forth all our strength until this glorious result is 
attained.&quot;^ At the same time, the Congress of the Liter- 
national Working Men&apos;s Association at Gteneva, on the prop- 
osition of the London General Council, resolved that &quot;the 
limitation of the working-day is a preliminary condition with- 
out which all further attempts at improvement and emancipa- 
tion must prove abortive. . . . the Congress proposes 
eight hours as the legal limit of the working-day.&apos;&apos; 

Thus the movement of the working-class on both sides of 
the Atlantic, that had grown instinctively out of the conditions 
of production themselves, endorsed the words of the English 
Factory Inspector, R. J. Saunders : &quot;Further steps towards a 
reformation of society can never be carried out with any hope 
of success, unless the hours of labour be limited, and the pre- 
scribed limit strictly enforced.&quot; ^ 

It must be acknowledged that our labourer comes out of the 

cftintal to the legal limitation of the worldng-day) must tuccumh before the broad 
principle of the rights of labour. . • • There is a time when the master&apos;s right in 
his workman&apos;s labour ceases, and his time becomes his own, even if there were no 
exhaustion in the question.&quot; (Reports, &amp;c., for 81st Oct., 1862, p. 64.) 

*■ &quot;We» the workers of Dunkirk^ declare that the length of time of labour required 
tinder the present system is too great, and that, far from leaving the worker time for 
rest and education, it pltmges him into a condition of servitude but little better than 
slavery. That is why we decide that 8 hours are enough for a working-day, and 
ought to be legally recognized as enough; why we call to our help that powerful 
lever, the press; . . . and why we shall consider all those that refuse us this 
help as enemies of the reform of labour and of the rights of the labourer.&quot; (Ra» 
lotion of the Working Men of Dunkirk, New York State, 1866.) 

* Reports, ftc., for Oct., 1848, p. IIS. 



 

330 Capitalist Production. 

process of production other than he entered. In the market 
he stood as owner of the commodity &quot;kbour-power*^ face to 
face with other owners of commodities, dealer against dealer. 
The contract by which he sold to the capitalist his labour- 
power proved, so to say, in black and white that he disposed 
of himself freely. The bargain concluded, it is discovered 
that he was no &quot;free agent,&quot; that the cime for which he is free 
to sell his labour-power is the time for which he is forced to 
sell it,^ that in fact the vampire will not lose its hold on him 
**so long as there is a muscle, a nerve, a drop of blood to be 
exploited.&quot;* For &quot;protection&quot; against &quot;the serpent of their 
agonies,&quot; the labourers must put their heads together, and, as 
a class, compel the passing of a law, an oil-powerful social 
barrier that shall prevent the very workers from selling, by 
voluntary contract with capital, themselves and their families 
into slavery and death.* In place of the pompous catalogue 
of the &quot;inalienable rights of man&quot; comes the modest Magna 
Charta of a legally limited working-day, which shall make 
clear &quot;when the time which the worker sells is ended, and 
when his own begins.&quot;* Quantum mutatus ab illo! 

^ &quot;The proceedings (the manfleurres of capital, s^., from 1848-60) have afforded, 
moreover, incontrovertible proof of the fallacy of the assertion so often advanced, 
that operatives need no protection, but may be considered as free agents in the dis- 
posal of the only property which they possess — ^the labour of their hands and the 
sweat of their brows.&quot; (Reports, &amp;c., for April 80th, 1850, p. 46.) &quot;Free labour 
(if so it may be termed) even in a free country, requires the strong arm of the law 
to protect it&quot; (Reports, &amp;c., for October Slst, 1864, p. 84.) &quot;To permit, which is 
tantamount to compelling ... to work 14 hours a day with or without meals,&quot; 
ftc. (Repts., &amp;c., for April 80th, 1868, p. 40.) * Friedrich Engels, L c^ P- 6- 

* The 10 Hours&apos; Act has, in the branches of industry that come under it, &quot;put aa 
end to the premature decrepitude of the former long*hour workers.&quot; (Reports, &amp;c, 
for 81st Oct, 1859, p. 47.) &quot;Gipital (in factories) can never be employed in keep- 
ing the machinery in motion beyond a limited time, without certain injury to the 
health and morals of the labouiers employed; and they are not in a position to 
protect themselves.&quot; (1. c, p. 8.) 

^&quot;A still greater boon is the distinction at last made clear between the worker&apos;s 
own time and his master&apos;s. The worker knows now when that which he sells is 
ended, and when his own begins; and by possessing a sure foreknowledge of this, is 
enabled to pre-arrange his own minutes for his own purposes.&quot; (1. c, p. 52.) &quot;By 
making them masters of their own time (the Factory Acts) have given them a moral 
energy which is directing them to the eventual possession of political power&quot; (1. c, 
p. 47). With suppressed irony, and in very well weighed words, the Factory In- 
spectors hint that the act|ial law also frees the capitalist from some of the brutality 
natural to a man who is a mere embodiment of capital, and that it has given hina 
time for little &quot;culture.&quot; Formerly the master had no time for anything but money; 
tbe servant had no time for anything bnt labour&quot; (L c, p. 48). 



 

Rate and Mass of Surplus-Value. 331 



CHAPTER XL 

RATE AJTD MASS OF SUBPLUS-VALUI. 

In this chapter, as hitherto, the value of labour-power, and 
therefore the part of the working-day necessary for the repro- 
duction or maintenance of that labour-power, are supposed to 
be given constant magnitudes. 

This premised with the rate, the mass is at the same time 
given of the surplus-value that the individual labourer fur- 
nishes to the capitalist in a definite period of time. If, e.g., 
the necessary labour amounts to 6 hours daily, expressed in a 
quantum of gold =3 shillings, then 3s. is the daily value of 
one labour-power or the value of the capital advanced in the 
buying of one labour-power. If, further, the rate of surplus- 
value be=100%, this variable capital of 3s. produces a mass 
of surplus-value of 3s., or the labourer supplies daily a mass of 
surplus-labour equal to 6 hours. 

But the variable capital of a capitalist is the expression in 
money of the total value of all the labour-powers that he 
employs simultaneously. Its value is, therefore, equal to the 
average value of one labour-power, multiplied by the number 
of labour-powers employed. With a given value of labour- 
power, therefore, the magnitude of the variable capital varies 
directly as the number of labourers employed simultaneously. 
If the daily value of one labour-power =38., then a capital of 
300s. must be advanced in order to exploit daily 100 labour- 
powers, of n times 3s., in order to exploit daily n labour- 
powers. 

In the same way, if a variable capital of 38., being the daily 
value of one labour-power, produce a daily surplus-value of 3s., 
a variable capital of 3008. will produce a daily surplus-value of 
8008., and one of n times 3s. a daily surplus-value of nX3s. 
The mass of the surplus-value produced is therefore equal to 
the surplus-value which the working-day of one labourer sup- 
plies multiplied by the number of labourers employed. But 



 

332 Capitalist Production. 

as further the mass of snrplus-valne wUcli a single labourer 
produces, the value of labour-power being given, is determined 
by the rate of the surplus-value, this law follows : the mass of 
the surplus-value produced is equal to the amount of the 
variable capital advanced, multiplied by the rate of surplus- 
value ; in other words : it is determined by the compound ratio 
between the number of labour-powers exploited simultaneously 
by the same capitalist and the degree of exploitation of eadi 
individual labour-power. 

Let the mass of the surplus-value be S^ the surplus-value 
supplied by the individual labourer in the average day s, the 
variable capital daily advanced in the purchase of one in- 
dividual labour-power v, the sum total of the variable capital 
V, the value of an average labour-power P, its degree of ex- 
ploitation J7„^^;^^^b^) and the number of labourers employed 
n; we lutYo; 



S = 



ivV 



X 

V 



Px?xn 



It 18 fclways supposed, not only that the value of an average 
labour-power is constant, but that the labourers employed by 
a capitalist are reduced to average labourers. There are ex- 
ceptional cases in which the surplus-value produced does not 
increase in proportion to the number of labourers exploited, 
but then the value of the labour-power does not remain con- 
stant 

In the production of a definite mass of surplus-value, there- 
fore, the decrease of one factor may be compensated by the in- 
crease of the other. If the variable capital diminishes, and at 
the same time the rate of surplus-value increases in the same 
ratio, the mass of surplus-value produced remains unaltered. 
If on our earlier assumption the capitalist must advance 300s., 
in order to exploit 100 labourers a day, and if the rate of 
surplus-value amounts to 50%, this variable capital of SOOs. 
yields a surplus-value of 150s. or of 100X3 working hours. 
If the rate of surplus-value doubles, or the working day, in- 



 

Rate and Mass of Surplus-Value. 333 

stead of being extended from 6 to 9, is extended from 6 to 13 
hours and at the same time variable capital is lessened by half, 
and reduced to 150s., it yields also a surplus-value of 150s. or 
60X6 v7orking hours. Diminution of the variable capital may 
therefore be compensated by a proportionate rise in the degree 
of exploitation of labour-power, or the decrease in the number 
of the labourers employed by a proportionate extension of the 
working-day. Within certain limits therefore the supply of 
labour exploitable by capital is independent of the supply of 
labourers.^ On the contrary, a fall in the rate of surplus- 
value leaves unaltered the mass of the surplus-value produced, 
if the amount of the variable capital, or number of the labour- 
ers employed, increases in the same proportion. 

^Nevertheless, the compensation of a decrease in the number 
of labourers employed, or of the amount of variable capital 
advanced, by a rise in the rate of surplus-value, or by the 
lengthening of the working-day, has impassable limits* What- 
ever the value of labour-power may be, whether the working 
time necessary for the maintenance of the labourer is 2 or 10 
hours, the total value that a labourer can produce, day in, day 
out, is always less than the value in which 24 hours of labour 
are embodied, less than 12s., if 12s. is the money expression for 
24 hours of realized labour. In our former assumption, ac- 
cording to which 6 working hours are daily necessary in order 
to reproduce the labour-power itself or to replace the value 
of the capital advanced in its purchase, a variable capital of 
1500s., that employs 500 labourers at a rate of surplus-value of 
100% with a 12 hours^ working-day, produces daily a surplus- 
value of 1500s. or of 6X500 working hours. A capital of 
300s. that employs 100 labourers a day with a rate of surplus- 
value of 200% or with a working-day of 18 hours, produces 
only a mass of surplus-value of 600s. or 12X100 working 
hours ; and its total value-product, the equivalent of the varia- 
ble capital advanced plus the surplus-value, can, day in, day 
out, never reach the sum of 1200s. or 24X100 working hours. 

*This elementary law appears to be unknown to the vulgar economists, who, up- 
sidedown Archimedes, in the determination of the market-price of labour by snppqf 
and demand, imagine they have found the fulcrum by means of which, not to i 
tbe world, but to stop its motion. 



 

334 Capitalist Production. 

The absolute limit of the average working-day — ^this being by 
Nature always less than 24 hours — sets an absolute limit to 
the compensation of a reduction of variable capital by a higher 
rate of surplus-value, or of the decrease of the number of la- 
bourers exploited by a higher degree of exploitation of labour- 
power. This palpable law is of importance for the clearing up 
of many phenomena, arising from a tendency (to be worked 
out later on) of capital to reduce as much as possible the num- 
ber of labourers employed by it, or its variable constituent 
transformed into labour-power, in contradiction to its other 
tendency to produce the greatest possible mass of surplus-value. 
On the other hand, if the mass of labour-power employed, or 
the amount of variable capital, increases, but not in proportion 
to the fall in the rate of surplus-value, the mass of the surplus 
value produced, falls. 

A third law results from the determination, of the mass of 
the surplus-value produced, by the two factors : rate of surplua- 
value and amount of variable capital advanced. The rate of 
surplus-value, or the degree of exploitation of labour-power, 
and the value of labour-power, or the amount of necessary 
working time being given, it is self-evident that the greater the 
variable capital, the greater would be the mass of the value 
produced and of the surplus-value. If the limit of the work- 
ingKiay is given, and also the limit of its necessary constituent, 
the mass of value and surplus-value that an individual capital- 
ist produces, is clearly exclusively dependent on the mass of 
labour that he sets in motion. But this, under the conditiona 
supposed above, depends on the mass of labour-power, or the 
number of labourers whom he exploits, and this number in its 
turn is determined by the amount of the variable capital ad- 
vanced. With a given rate of surplus-value, and a given value 
of labour-power, therefore, the masses of surplus-value pro- 
duced vary directly as the amounts of the variable capitaU 
advanced. Now we know that the capitalist divides his capital 
into two parts. One part he lays out in means of production. 
This is the constant part of his capital. The other part he lays 
out in living labour-power. This part forms his variable 
capital On the basis of the same mode of social production. 



 

Rate and Mass of Surplus-Value. 335 

the division of capital into constant and variable differs in 
different branches of production, and within the same branch 
of production, too, this relation changes with changes in the 
technical conditions and in the social combinations of the pro- 
cesses of production. But in whatever proportion a given 
capital breaks up into a constant and a variable part, whether 
the latter is to the former as 1 : 2 or 1 : 10 or 1 : x, the law just 
laid down is not affected by this. For, according to our previ- 
ious analysis, the value of the constant capital reappears in the 
value of the product, but does not enter into the newly produc d 
value, the newly created value-product &apos;xo employ 1000 
spinners, more raw material, spindles, &amp;c., are, f course, re- 
quired, than to employ 100. The value of these additional 
means of production however may rise fall, remai unaltered, 
be large or small ; it has no influence on the pro^esL of creation 
of surplus-value by means of the labour-powerw tha put them 
in motion. The law demonstrated above now, therefore, take** 
this form : the masses of value and of &apos;Surplu&amp;&apos;Value produced 
by different capitals — the value of labour-power being given 
and its degree of exploitation being equal — ^vary directly as the 
amounts of the variable constituents of these capitals, ue., as 
their constituents transformed into living labour-power. 

This law clearly contradicts all experience based on appear- 
ance. Every one knows that a cotton spinner, who, reckoning 
the percentage on the whole of his applied capital, employs 
much constant and little variable capital, does not, on account 
of this, pocket less profit or surplus-value than a baker, who 
relatively sets in motion much variable and little constant 
capitaL For the solution of this apparent contradiction, many 
intermediate terms are as yet wanted, as from the standpoint 
of elementary algebra many intermediate terms are wanted to 
understand tLat J may represent an actual magnitude. Class- 
ical economy, although not formulating the law, holds instinc- 
tively to it, because it is a necessary consequence of the general 
law of value. It tries to rescue the law from collision with 
contradictory phenomena by a violent abstraction. It will be 
seen later^ how the school of Bicardo has come to grief over 

^Pttrther particolars wiU be found in &quot;Theoriet of Surp^v^-Vtlw,&quot; edited tv 



 

33&lt;5 Capitalist Production. 

this fltumbling-blocL Vulgar economy wliich, indeed^ &apos;Tiae 
really learnt nothing/&apos; here as everywhere sticks to appear- 
ances in opposition to the law which regulates and explains 
them. In opposition to Spinoza, it believes that ^^ignorance is 
a BuflBcient reason/* 

The labour which is set in motion by the total capital of a 
society, aay in, day out^ may be regarded as a single collective 
working-day. If, e.g., the number of labourers is a million, 
and the average working-day of a labourer is 10 hours, the 
social working-day consists of ten million hours. With a given 
length of this work^np^-day, ^^hether its limits are fixed 
physically or iOci^ll7, the mass of surplus-value can only be in- 
creased by increasing the number of labourers, i.e., of the 
labouring population. The flrowth of populat&apos;on here forma 
the mathematical limit to the production of surplus-value by 
th-* ♦otal social capital On the contrary, with a given amount 
of population, this limit is formed by the possible ]3ngthening 
of the working-day.* It will^ however, be seen in the follow- 
ing chapter that this law only holds for the form of surplus- 
value dealt with up to the present. 

From the treatment of the production of surplus-value, so 
far, it follows that not every sum of money, or of value, is at 
pleasure transformable into capital To effect this transforma- 
tion, in fact, a certain minimum of money or of exchange- 
value must be presupposed in the hands of the individual 
possessor of money or commodities. The minimum of variable 
capital is the cost price of a single labour-power, employed the 
whole year through, day in, day out, for the production of 
surplus-value. If this labourer were in possession of his own 
means of production, and were satisfied to live as a labourer, 
he need not work beyond the time necessary for the reproduc- 
tion of his means of subsistence, say 8 hours a day. He would, 
besides, only require the means of production sufficient for 8 
working hours. The capitalist, on the other hand, who makes 

^&apos;The labour, that is the economic time, of society, Is a given portion, say ten 
hours a day cf a millio-i of people, or ten million hours. • • . Capital has its 
boundary of increase. This boundary may, at any given period, be attained in the 
•cti&apos;al extent of economic time employed.&quot; (&quot;An Essay on the Political Rconowy of 
Nations.&quot; London* 18S1» pp. 47. 49.) 



 

Rate and Mass of Surplus-Value. 337 

him do, besides these 8 hours, say 4 hours&apos; surplus-labour, re- 
quires an additional sum of money for furnishing the addi- 
tional means of production. On our supposition, however, he 
would have to employ two labourers in order to live, on the 
surplus-value appropriated daily, as well as, and no better than 
a labourer, i,e., to be able to satisfy his necessary wants. In 
tbis case the mere maintenance of life would be ihe end of his 
production, not the increase of wealth; but this latter is im- 
plied in capitalist production. That he may live only twice 
as well as an ordinary labourer, and besides turr half of the 
surplus-value produced into capital, he would have to raise, 
with the number of labourers, the minimum 01 the capital ad- 
vanced 8 times. Of course he can, like his labourer, take to 
work himself, participate directly in the process of production, 
but he is then only a hybrid between capitalist and labourer, a 
&quot;small master.^&apos; A certain stage of capitalist production ne- 
cessitates that the capitalist be able to devote the whole of the 
time during which he functions as a capitalist, t.6.^ as personi- 
fied capital, to the appropriation and Aerefore control of the 
labour of others^ and to the selling of the products of this la- 
bour.* The guilds of the middle ages therefore tried to 
prevent by force the transformation of the master of a trade 
into a capitalist, by limiting the number of labourers that could 
be employed by one master within a very small maximum. 
The possessor of money or commodities actually turns into a 
capitalist in such cases only where the minimum sum advanced 
for production greatly exceeds the maximum of the middle 
ages. Here, as in natural science, is shown the correctness of 

* &quot;niie farmer cannot rely on bit own labour, and if be does, I will maintain tbat 
he is a loser by it His employment should be a general attention to the whole: bis 
tbresber must be watched, or he will soon lose bis wages in corn not threshed out; 
his mowers, reapers, &amp;c., must be looked after; be must constantly go round his 
fences; he must see there is no neglect; which would be the case if he was confined 
to any one spot.&quot; (&quot;An Inquiry into the connection between the Price of Provisions 
and the Size of Farms, &amp;c By a Farmer.&quot; London, 1778, p. 12.) This book is 
rery interesting. In it the genesis of the &quot;capitalist farmer&quot; or &quot;merchant farmer,&quot; 
as be is explicitly called, may be studied, and his self*gIorification at the expense 
of the small farmer who has only to do with bare subsistence, be noted. &quot;The class 
of capitalists are from the first partially, and they become ultimately completely, 
discharged from the necessity of the manual labour.&quot; (&quot;Text-book of Lectures on 
the Political Economy of Nations. By the Rev. lUchard Jones.&quot; Hertford, 185S« 
Lecture III. p. 89.) 

V 



 

338 Capitalist Production. 

the law discovered by Hegel (in his &quot;Logic*&apos;), that merely 
quantitative differences beyond a certain point pass into quali- 
tative changes.* 

The minimum of the sum of value that the individual pos- 
sessor of money or commodities must command, in order to 
metamorphose himself into ^ capitalist, changes with the dif- 
ferent stages of development of capitalist production, and is 
at given stages different m different spheres of production, 
according to their special and technical conditions. Certain 
spheres of production demand, even at th-- very outset of capi- 
talist production, a minimum of capital that is not as yet 
found in the hands of single individuals. This gives rise 
partly to state subsidies to private persons, as in France in the 
time of Colbert, and as in many German states up to our own 
epoch ; partly to the formation of societies with legal monopoly 
for the exploitation of certain branches of industry and com- 
merce, the fore-runners of our own modem joint-stock com- 
panies.* 

Within the process of production, as we have seen, capital 
acquired the command over labour, i. e., over functioning la- 
bouring-power or the labourer himself. Personified capital, 
the capitalist takes care that the labourer does his work regu- 
larly and with the proper degree of intensity. 

Capital further developed into a coercive relation, which 
compels the working class to do more work than the narrow 
round of its own life-wants prescribes. As a producer of the 
activity of others, as a pumper-out of surplus-labour and ex- 
ploiter of labour-power, it surpasses in energy, disregard of 

^Thc molectilar theory of modem chemistry first sdentifically worked out hf 
Laurent and Gerhardt rests on no other law. (Addition to 8rd Edition.) For the 
explanation of this statement, which is not very clear to non-chemists, we remark that 
the author speaks here of the homologous series of carbon compounds, first so named 
by C Gerhardt in 1848, each series of which has its own general algebraic formula. 
Thus the series of paraffins: Cn H^n-f-*, that of the normal alcohols: Cn H&apos;n+&apos;O; 
of the normal fatty adds: Cn HHi O* and many others. In the above examples, by 
the simply quantitative addition of C H* to the molecular formula, a qualitatively 
different body is each time formed. On the share (overestimated by Marx) of 
Laurent and Jerhardt in the determination of this imporUnt fact see Kopp, &quot;Ent- 
wicklung der Chemie.&quot; Munchen, 1878, pp. 709, 716, and Schorlemmer, •&apos;Rise and 
Progress of Organic Chemistry.&quot; London, 1879, p. 54. — Ed. 

&apos;Martin Luther calls these kinds of institutions: •&apos;The Company MonopoUa.&quot;* 



 

Rate and Mass of Surplm-Vdue. 339 

bonndSy recklessness and efficiency, all earlier systems of pro- 
duction based on directly compulsory labour. 

At first, capital subordinates labour on the basis of the tech- 
nical conditions in which it historically finds it. It does not, 
therefore, change immediately the mode of production. The 
production of surplus-value — in the form hitherto considered 
by us — ^by means of simple extension of the working-day, 
proved, therefore, to be independent of any change in the 
mode of production itself. It was not less active in the old- 
fashioned bakeries than in the modem cotton factories. 

If we consider the process of production from the point of 
view of the simple labour-process, the labourer stands in rela- 
tion to the means of production, not in their quality as capital, 
but as the mere means and material of his own intelligent pro- 
ductive activity. In tanning, e. ^., he deals with the skins as 
his simple object of labour. It is not the capitalist whose skin 
he tans. But it is different as soon as we deal with the process 
of production from the point of view of the process of creation 
of surplus-value. The means of production are at once 
changed into means for the absorption of the labour of others. 
It is now no longer the labourer that employes the means of 
production, but the means of production that employ the la- 
bourer. Instead of being consumed by him as material ele- 
ments of his productive activity, they consume him as the 
ferment necessary to their own life-process, and the life-process 
of capital consists only in its movement as value constantly 
expanding, constantly multiplying itself. Furnaces and work- 
shops that stand idle by night, and absorb no living labour, are 
&quot;a mere loss&quot; to the capitalist. Hence, furnaces and work- 
shops constitute lawful claims upon the night-labour of the 
workpeople. The simple transformation of money into the 
material factors of the process of production, into means of 
production, transforms the latter into a title and a right to the 
labour and surplus-labour of others. An example will show, 
in conclusion, how this sophistication, peculiar to and charac- 
teristic of capitalist production, this complete inversion of the 
relation between dead and living labour, between value and 



 

340 Capitalist Production. 

the force that creates value, mirrors itself in the consciousness 
of capitalists. During the revolt of the English factory lords 
between 1848 and 1850, &quot;the head of one of the oldest and 
most respectable houses in the West of Scotland, Messrs. Car- 
liie Sons &amp; Co., of the linen and cotton thread factory at Pais- 
ley, a company which has now existed for about a century, 
which was in operation in 1752, and four generations of the 
same family have conducted it&quot; . . . this *Very intelli- 
gent gentleman&apos;* then wrote a letter * in the &quot;Glasgow Daily 
Mail&quot; of April 25th, 1849, with the title, &quot;The relay system,&quot; 
in which among other things the following grotesquely naive 
passage occurs: &quot;Let us now ... see what evils will 
attend the limiting to 10 hours the working of the factory. 
. . . They amount to the most serious damage to the mill- 
owner&apos;s prospects and property. If he (i. e., his *liands&quot;) 
worked 12 hours before, and is limited to 10, then every 12 
machines or spindles in his establishment shrink to 10, and 
should the works be disposed of, they will be valued only as 10, 
80 that a sixth part would thus be deducted from the value of 
every factory in the country.&quot; * 

To this West of Scotland bourgeois brain, inheriting the 
accumulated capitalistic qualities of &quot;four generations,&quot; the 
value of the means of production, spindles, &amp;c. is so insepar^ 
ably mixed up with their property, as capital, to expand their 
own value, and to swallow up daily a definite quantity of the 
unpaid labour of others, that the head of the firm of Carlile &amp; 
Co. actually imagines that if he sells his factory, not only will 
the value of the spindles be paid to him, but, in addition, their 
power of annexing surplus-value, not only the labour which is 
embodied in them, and is necessary to the production of spin- 
dles of this kind, but also the surplus-labour which they help 

&gt; Reports of Insp. of FkL, April SOtii, 1849, p. 69. 

&apos;L c^ p. 60. Factory Inspector Stuart, himaelf a Scotdunan, and In c ontr a si to 
the English Factory I ns pec t o rs , qttite taken captive by the capitalistic method of 
thin king; remarks expressly on this letter which he incorporates in his report that it 
is **the most osefnl of the communications which any of the factory-owners w o r ki ng 
witii relays have given to those engaged in the same trade, and which is the tauKt 
oaknlated to remove the prejudices of such of them m haive scnipkt &apos; ^f^&apos;1&apos;&quot;t *VJ 
of the arrangement of the hoars of work.** 



 

Rate and Moss of Surplus Value. 341 

to pump out daily from the brave Scots of Paisley, and for 
that very reason he thinks that with the shortening of the 
working-day by 2 hours, the selling-price of 12 spinning nia- 
ehines dwindles to that of 101 



 

PAETIV. 
PEODUCTION OF RELATIVE SURPLUS-VALUE. 



CHAPTER XIL 

THE CONCEPT OF RELATIVE SUBPIiUS-VALXTB. 

That portion of the working-day which merely produces an 
equivalent for the value paid by the capitalist for his labour- 
power, has, up to this point, been treated by us as a constant 
magnitude; and such in fact it is, under given conditions of 
production and at a given stage in the economical develop- 
ment of society. Beyond this, his necessary labour-time, 
the labourer, we saw, could continue to work for 2, 8, 4, 
6, &amp;c., hours. The rate of surplus-value and the length, of the 
working day depended on the magnitude of this prolongation. 
Though the necessary labour-time was constant, we saw, on 
the other hand, that the total working-day was variable. 
Now suppose we have a working-day whose length, and whose 
apportionment between necessary labour and surplus-labour, 
are given. Let the whole line a c, a — ■ ■ b — c, repre- 

sent, for example, a working-day of 12 hours; the portion of 
a b 10 hours of necessary labour, and the portion b c 2 hours 
of surplus-labour. How now can the production of surplus- 
value be increased, i.e., how can the surplus-labour be pro- 
longed, without, or independently of, any prolongation of a c? 
Although the lengh of a c is given, b c appears to be capable 
of prolongation, if not by extension beyond its end c, which is 
also the end of the working day a c, yet, at all events, by push- 
ing back its starting point b in the direction of a. Assume 
that V — b in the line, a b&apos; b c is equal to half of b o 

a ^b&apos;— b c 

342 



 

The Concept of Relative Surplus-Value. 343 

or to one hour&apos;s labour-time. If now, in a c, the working day 
of 12 hours, we move the point b to b&apos;, b c becomes b&apos; c ; the 
surplus-labour increases by one-half, from 2 hours to 3 hours, 
although the working day remains as before at 12 hours. 
This extension of the surplus labour-time from b c to V c, 
from 2 hours to 3 hours^ is, however, evidently impossible, 
without a simultaneous contraction of the necessary labour- 
time from a b into a V, from 10 hours to 9 hours. The pro- 
longation of the surplus-labour would correspond to a shorten- 
ing of the necessary labour; or a portion of the labour-time 
previously consumed, in reality, for the labourer&apos;s own bene- 
fit, would be converted into labour-time for the benefit of the 
capitalist There would be an alteration, not in the length 
of the working day, but in its division into necessary labour- 
time and surplus labour-time. 

On the other hand, it is evident that the duration of the 
surplus-labour is given, when the length of the working day, 
and the value of labour-power, are given. The value of la- 
bour-power, i.e., the labour-time requisite to produce labour- 
power, determines the labour-time necessary for the repro- 
duction of that value. If one working hour be embodied in 
sixpence, and the value of a day&apos;s labour-power be five shill- 
ings, the labourer must work 10 hours a day, in order to re- 
place the value paid by capital for his labour-power, or to 
produce an equivalent for the value of his daily necessary 
means of subsistence. Given the value of these means of sub- 
sistence, the value of his labour-power is given ; ^ and given 
the value of his labour-power, the duration of his necessary la- 
bour-time is given. The duration of the surplus-labour, how- 

&gt; The value of his average dailjr wages is determined by what the labonrer requires 
•*so as to live, labour, and generate.&quot; (Wm. Petty; &quot;Political Anatomy of Ireland,&quot; 
1072, p. 64.) &quot;The price of Labour is always constituted of the price of necessaries 
. . • whenever ... the labouring man&apos;s wages will not, suitably to his low 
rank and station, as a labouring man, support such a family as is often the lot of 
many of them to have,&quot; he does not receive proper wages. (J. Vanderlint, L c p. 
16.) &quot;Le simple ouvrier, qui n&apos;a que ses bras et son Industrie, n&apos;a rien qu&apos;autant 
qu&apos;il parvient i vendre i d&apos;autres sa peine. ... En tout genre de travail il doit 
arriver, et il arrive en effet, que le salaire de I&apos;ouvrier se borne A ce qui lui est n6ces- 
saire pour lui procurer sa substance.&quot; (Turgot, Reflexions, &amp;c., Oeuvres ed. Daire t. 
I. p. 10). &quot;The price of the necessaries of life is, in fact, the cost of jtroducing 
labour.&quot; (Malthas, Inquiry into, &amp;c. Rent, London, 1816, p. 48 note). 



 

344 Capitalist Production. 

ever, is arrived at, by subtracting the necessaiy labour-time 
from the total working day. Ten hours subtracted from 
twelve, leave two, and it is not easy to see, how, under the 
given conditions, the surplus-labour can possibly be prolonged 
beyond two hours. No doubt, the capitalist can, instead of 
five shillings, pay the labourer four shillings and sixpence or 
even less. For the reproduction of this value of four shill- 
ings and sixpence, nine hours labour-time would suflBce; and 
consequently three hours of surplus-labour, instead of two, 
would accrue to the capitalist, and the surplus-value would rise 
from one shilling to eighteenpence. This result, however, 
would be obtained only by lowering the wages of the labourer 
below the valuo of his labour-power. With the four shillings 
and sixpence which he produces in nine hours, he commands 
one-tenth less of the necessaries of life than before, and conse- 
quently the proper reproduction of his labour-power is crip- 
pled. The surplus-labour would in this case be prolonged 
only by an overstepping of its normal limits; its domain 
would be extended only by a usurpation of part of the domain 
of necessary labour-time. Despite the important part which 
this method plays in actual practice, we are excluded from 
considering it in this place, by our assumption, that all com- 
modities, including labour-power, are bought and sold at their 
full value. Granted this, it follows that the labour-time nec- 
essary for the production of labour-power, or for the reproduc- 
tion of its value, cannot be lessened by a fall in the labourer&apos;s 
wages below the value of his labour-power, but only by a fall 
in this value itself. Given the length of the working day, the 
prolongation of the surplus-labour must of necessity originate 
in the curtailment of the necessary labour-time; the latter 
cannot arise from the former. In the example we have taken, 
it is necessary that the value of labour-power should actually 
fall by one-tenth, in order that the necessary labour-time may 
be diminished by one-tenth, i.e., from ten hours to nine, and 
in order that the surplus-labour may consequently be pro- 
longed from two hours to three. 

Such a fall in the value of labour-power implies, however, 
that the same necessaries of life which were formerly pro- 



 

The Concept of Relative Surplus-Value. 345 

duced in ten hours, can now be produced in nine hours. But 
this is impossible without an increase in the productiveness of 
labour. For example, suppose a shoemaker, with given tools, 
makes in one working day of twelve hours, one pair of boots. 
If he must make two pairs in the same time, the productive- 
ness of his labour must be doubled; and this cannot be done, 
except by an alteration in his tools or in his mode of working, 
or in both. Hence, the conditions of production, i,e., his 
mode of production, and the labour-process itself, must be 
revolutionised. By increase in the productiveness of labour, 
we mean, generally, an alteration in the labour-process, of 
such a kind as to shorten the labour-time socially necessary for 
the production of a commodity, and to endow a given quantity 
of labour with the power of producing a greater quantity of 
use-value.^ Hitherto in treating of surplus-value, arising 
from a simple prolongation of the working day, we have 
assumed the mode of production to be given and invariable. 
But when surplus-value has to be produced by the conversion 
of necessary labour into surplus-labour, it by no means suffices 
for capital to take over the labour-process in the form under 
which it has been historically handed down, and then simply 
to prolong the duration of that process. The technical and so- 
cial conditions of the process, and consequently the very mode 
of production must be revolutionised, before the productive- 
ness of labour can be increased. By that means alone can the 
value of labour-power be made to sink, and the portion of the 
working day necessary for the reproduction of that value, be 
shortened. 

The surplus-value produced by prolongation of the working 
day, I call absolute surplus^alue. On the other hand, the 
surplus-value arising from the curtailment of the necessary 
labour-time, and from the corresponding alteration in the re- 
spective lengths of the two components of the working day, I 
call relative surplus-value. 

^ &quot;Quando si perfezionano le arti, che non i altro die la tcoperta di nuore vit, 
onde si possa compiere una manufattura con meno gente o (che i lo stesso) in minor 
tempo di prima.*&apos; (Galiani L c p. 159.) &apos;&apos;L&apos;^onomie sur les frais de production 
oe peut done ^re autre chose que I&apos;^conomie sur la quantity de travail employ^ potc 
prodnirc.&quot; (Sismondi, £tudet t. I. p. SS.&gt; 



 

346 &apos;Capitalist Production. 

In order to effect a fall in the value of labour-power, the in- 
crease in the productiveness of labour must seize upon those 
branches of industry, whose products determine the value of 
labour-power, and consequently either belong to the class of 
customary means of subsistence, or are capable of supplying 
the place of those means. But the value of a commodity is 
determined, not only by the quantity of labour which the la- 
bourer directly bestows upon that commodity, but also by the 
labour contained in the means of production. For instance, 
the value of a pair of boots depends, not only on the cobbler^s 
labour, but also on the value of the leather, wax, thread, &amp;a 
Hence, a fall in the value of labour-power is also brought about 
by an increase in the productiveness of labour, and by a cor- 
responding cheapening of commodities in those industries 
which supply the instruments of labour and the raw material, 
that form the material elements of the constant capital re- 
quired for producing the necessaries of life. But an increase 
in the productiveness of labour in those branches of industry 
which supply neither the necessaries of life, nor the means of 
production for such necessaries, leaves the value of labour- 
power undisturbed. 

The cheapened commodity, of course, causes only a pro 
tanto fall in the value of labour-power, a fall proportional to 
the extent of that commodity&apos;s employment in the reproduc- 
tion of labour-power. Shirts, for instance, are a necessary 
means of subsistence, but are only one out of many. The 
totality of the necessaries of life consists, however, of various 
commodities, each the product of a distinct industry ; and the 
value of each of those commodities enters as a component part 
into the value of labour-power. This latter value decreases 
with the decrease of the labour-time necessary for its reproduc- 
tion ; the total decrease being the sum of all the different cur- 
tailments of labour-time effected in those various and distinct 
industries. This general result is treated, here, as if it were 
the immediate result directly aimed at in each individual case. 
Whenever an individual capitalist cheapens shirts, for in- 
stance, by increasing the productiveness of labour, he by no 
means necessarily aims at reducing the value of labour-power 



 

The Concept of Relative Surplus-Value. 347 

and shortening, pro tanto, the necessary labour-time. But it 
is only in so far as he ultimately contributes to this result, 
that he assists in raising the general rate of surplusrvalue.* 
The general and necessary tendencies of capital must be dis- 
tinguished from their forms of manifestation. 

It is not our intention to consider, here, the way in which 
the laws, immanent in capitalist production, manifest them- 
selves in the movements of individual masses of capital, where 
they assert themselves as coercive laws of competition, and are 
brought home to the mind and consciousness of the individual 
capitalist as the directing motives of his operations. But this 
much is clear ; a scientific analysis of competition is not possi- 
ble, before we have a conception of the inner nature of capital, 
just as the apparent motions of the heavenly bodies are not 
intelligible to any but him, who is acquainted with their real 
motions, motions which are not directly perceptible by the 
senses. Nevertheless, for the better comprehension of the 
production of relative surplus-value, we may add the follow- 
ing remarks, in which we assume nothing more than the re- 
sults we have already obtained. 

If one hour^s labour is embodied in sixpence, a value of six 
shillings will be produced in a working day of 12 hours. 
Suppose, that with the prevailing productiveness of labour, 12 
articles are produced in these 12 hours. Let the value of the 
means of production used in each article be sixpence. Under 
these circumstances, each article costs one shilling: sixpence 
for the value of the means of production, and sixpence for the 
value newly added in working with those means. Now let 
some one capitalist contrive to double the productiveness of 
labour, and to produce in the working day of 12 hours, 24 in- 
stead of 12 such articles. The value of the means of produc- 
tion remaining the same, the value of each article will fall to 
ninepence, made up of sixpence for the value of the means of 
production and threepence for the value newly added by the 
labour. Despite the doubled productiveness of labour, the 

^ &quot;Let U8 suppose ... the products . . . of the manufacturer are doubled 
by nnprovement in machinery ... he will be able to clothe his workmen by 
means of a smaller proportion of the entire return . . . and thus his profit will 
be raised. But in no other way will it be influenced.&quot; (Ramsay, L c. p. 168, 169.) 



 

348 Capitalist Production. 

day&apos;s labour creates^ as before^ a new value of six shilliiigs and 
no more, which, however, is now spread over twice as many 
articles. Of this value each article now has embodied in it 
^tb, instead of -^th, threepence instead of sixpence ; or, what 
amoimts to the same thing, only half an hour&apos;s instead of a 
whole hour&apos;s labour-time, is now added to the means of pro- 
duction while they are being transformed into each article. 
The individual value of these articles is now below their social 
value; in other words, they have cost less labour-time than 
the great bulk of the same article produced under the average 
social conditions. Each article costs, on an average, one shill- 
ing, and represents 2 hours of sociJ labour; but under the 
altered mode of production *t cost** only ni: epence, or contains 
only IJ hours&apos; labour. Tie real value of «* commodity is, 
however, not its individua&apos; value but its social value ; that is 
to say, the real value is i ^ measured by the labour-time that 
the article in each indi&apos;ndual case costs the producer, but by 
the labour-time socially reauired for its production. If there- 
f &lt; re, the capitalist whc applies ^he new method, sells his com- 
modity at its social value of one shillinf^, he sells it for three- 
pence above its individual alue, and thus realises an extra 
surplus-value of threepence. On the other hand, the working 
day of 12 hours is, as regards hi^i, now represented by 24 arti- 
cles instead of 12. Hence, in order to get rid of the product 
of one working day, the demand must be double what it was, 
i.e., the market must become twice as extensive. Other things 
being equal, his commodities can conmiand a more extended 
market only by a diminution of their prices. He will there- 
fore sell them above their individual but under their social 
value, say at tenpence each. By this means he still squeezes 
an extra surplus-value of one penny out of each. This aug^ 
mentation of surplus-value is pocketed by him, whether his 
commodities belong or not to the class of necessary means of 
subsistence that participate in determining the general value 
of labour-power. Hence, independently of this latter circum- 
stance, there is a motive for each individual capitalist to 
cheapen his conuncdities, by increasing the productiveness of 
labour. 



 

The Concept of Relative Surplus-Value. 349 

Nevertheless, even in this case, the increased production of 
snrplns-value arises from the curtailment of the necessary 
labour-time, and from the corresponding prolongation of the 
surplus-labour.^ Let the necessary labour-time amount to 10 
hours, the value of a day^s labour-power to five shillings, the 
surplus labour-time to 2 hours, and the daily surplus-value to 
one shilling. But the capitalist now produces 24 articles, 
-which he sells at tenpence a-piece, making twenty shillings in 
alL Since the value of the means of production is twelve 
shillings, 14f of these articles merely replace the constant 
capital advanced. The labour of the 12 hours&apos; working day 
is represented by the remaining 9f articles. Since the price 
of the labour power is five shillings, 6 articles represent the 
necessary labour-time, and 3f articles the surplus-labour. 
The ratio of the necessary labour to the surplus-labour, which 
under average social conditions was 5:1, is now only 5 : 8. 
The same result may be arrived at in the following way. The 
value of the product of the working day of 12 hours is twenty- 
shillings. Of this sum, twelve shillings belong to the value 
of the means of production, a value that merely re-appears. 
There remain eight shillings, which are the expression in 
money, of the value newly created during the working day. 
This sum is greater than the sum in which average social 
labour of the same kind is expressed: twelve hours of the 
latter labour are expressed by six shillings only. The excep- 
tionally productive labour operates as intensified labour; it 
creates in equal periods of time greater values than average 
social labour of the same kind. (See Ch. I. Sect. 1. p. 45.) 
But our capitalist still continues to pay as before only five 
shillings as the value of a day&apos;s labour-power. Hence, instead 
of 10 hours, the labourer need now work only 7% hours, in 
order to re-produce this value. His surplus-labour is, there- 
fore, increased 2% hours, and the surplus-value he produces 

&gt; &quot;A man&apos;f profit does not depend upon his command of the produce of other men&apos;s 
Ubour, but upon his command of labour itself. If he can sell his goods at a higher 
price, while his workmen&apos;s wages remain unaltered* he is clearly benefited. . . • 
A tmaUer proportion of what he produces is suflScient to put that labour into mo- 
tkait and a larger proportion consequently remains for himself.&quot; (&quot;Outlinea of 
PoL Econ.&quot; London, 1882, pp. 49, 80.) 



 

350 Capitalist Production. 

grows from one, into three shillings. Hence, the capitalist 
who applies the improved method of production appropriates 
to surplus-labour a greater portion of the working day, than 
the other capitalists in the same trade. He does individually, 
what the whole body of capitalists engaged in producing rela- 
tive surplus-value, do collectively. On the other hand, how- 
ever, this extra surplus-value vanishes, so soon as the new 
method of production has become general and has consequently 
caused the difference between the individual value of the 
cheapened commodity and its social value to vanish. The law 
of the determination of value by labour-time, a law which 
brings under its sway the individual capitfhst who applies 
the new method of production, by compelling him to sell his 
goods under their social value, this same law, acting as a co- 
ercive law of competition, forces his competitors to adopt the 
new method.^ The general rate of surplus-value is, therefore^ 
ultimately affected by the whole process, only when the in- 
crease in the productiveness of labour, has seized upon those 
branches of production that are connected with, and has 
cheapened those commodities that form part of, the necessary 
means of subsistence, and are therefore elements of the value 
of labour-power. 

The value of commodities is in inverse ratio to the produc- 
tiveness of labour. And so, too, is the value of labour-power, 
because it depends on the values of commodities. Relative 
surplus-value is, on the contrary, directly proportional to that 
productiveness. It rises with rising and falls with falling 
productiveness. The value of money being assumed to be 
constant, an average social working day of 12 hours always 
produces the same new value, six shillings, no matter how this 
sum may be apportioned between surplus-value and wages. 
But if, in consequence of increased productiveness, the value 
of the necessaries of life fall, and the value of a day&apos;s labour- 

* &quot;If my ncighboar hy doing much with little labour, can sell cheap, I must con* 
trive to sell as cheap as he. So that every art, trade, or engine, doing work with 
labour of fewer hands, and consequently cheaper, begets in others a kind of necessity 
and emulation, either of using the same art, trade, or engine, or of inventing some&gt; 
thing like it, that every man may be upon the square, that no man may be able to 
undersell his neighbour.&quot; (&quot;The Advantages of the East India Trade to England** 
London, 1720, p. 67.) 



 

The Concept of Relative Surplus-Value. 351 

power be thereby reduced from five shillings to three, the sur- 
plus-value increases from one shilling to three. Ten hours 
were necessary for the reproduction of the value of the labour- 
power ; now only six are required. Four hours have been set 
free, and can be annexed to the domain of surplus-labour. 
Hence there is inunanent in capital an inclination and con- 
stant tendency, to heighten the productiveness of labour, in 
order to cheapen commodities, and by such cheapening to 
cheapen the labourer himself.^ 

The value of a commodity is, in itself, of no interest to the 
capitalist. What alone interests him, is the surplus-value that 
dwells in it, and is realisable by sale. Realisation of the sur- 
plus-value necessarily carries with it the refimding of the 
value that was advanced. Now, since relative surplus-value 
increases in direct proportion to the development of the pro- 
ductiveness of labour, while, on the other hand, the value of 
commodities diminishes in the same proportion ; since one and 
the same process cheapens commodities, and augments the sur- 
plus-value contained in them ; we have here the solution of the 
riddle : why does the capitalist, whose sole concern is the pro- 
duction of exchange-value, continually strive to depress the 
exchange-value of commodities? A riddle with which Ques- 
nay, one of the founders of political economy, tormented his 
opponents, and to which they could give him no answer. 
&quot;You acknowledge,&quot; he says, &quot;that the more expenses and the 
cost of labour can, in the manufacture of industrial products, 
be reduced without injury to production, the more advantage- 
ous is such reduction, because it diminishes the price of the 
finished article. And yet, you believe that the production of 
wealth, which arises from the labour of the workpeople, con- 

* &quot;In whatever proportion the expenses of a labourer are diminished, in the same 
proportion will his wages be diminished, if the restrainU upon industry are at the 
same time taken off.&quot; (&quot;Considerations concerning taking off of the Bounty on Com 
Exported,&quot; ftc, Lond., 1768, p. 7.) &apos;The interest of trade requires, that com and all 
provisions should be as cheap as possible; for whatever makes them dear, must make 
labour dear also ... in all countries where industry is not restrained the price 
of provisions must affect the price of labour. This will always be diminished when 
the necessaries of life grow cheaper.&quot; (1. c. p. 8.) &quot;Wages are decreased in the 
same proportion as the powers of production increase. Machinery, it is tme, cheap- 
ens the necessaries of life, but it also cheapens the labourer.&quot; (&quot;A Prize Essay oo 
the Comparative Merits of Competition and CoK&gt;peration.&quot; London, 1884, p, 87.) 



 

35^ Capitalist Production. 

sists in the augmeDtation of the exchange-value of their 
products.&quot;^ 

The shortening of the working day is, therefore, by no 
means what is aimed at, in capitalist production, when labour 
is economised by increasing its productiveness.^ It is only 
the shortening of the labour-time, necessary for the production 
of a definite quantity of conunodities, that is aimed at The 
fact that the workman, when the productiveness of his labour 
has been increased, produces, say 10 times as many commodi- 
ties as before, and thus spends one-tenth as much labour-time 
on each, by no means prevents him from continuing to work 12 
hours as before, nor from producing in those 12 hours 1200 
articles instead of 120. Nay, more, his working day may be 
prolonged at the same time, so as to make him produce, say 
1400 articles in 14 hours. In the treatises, therefore, of 
economists of the stamp of MacCuUoch, Ure, Senior, and tutti 
quanti, we may read upon one page, that the labourer owes a 
debt of gratitude to capital for developing his productiveness, 
because the necessary labour-time is thereby shortened, and on 
the next page, that he must prove his gratitude by working in 
future for 15 hours instead of 10. The object of all develop- 
ment of the productiveness of labour, within the limits of 
capitalist production, is to shorten that part of the working 
day, during which the workman must labour for his own bene- 
fit, and by that very shortening, to lengthen the other part of 
the day, during which he is at liberty to work gratis for the 
capitalist How far this result is also attainable, without 
cheapening commodities, will appear from an examination of 

&gt; &quot;lis coDTiennent que plus on pent, sans pr^udice, ^rgner de frais on de trayanz 
disp«ndieux dans la fabrication des ouTrages des artisans, plus cctte ^pargne cat pro&gt; 
fitable par la diminution des prix de ces ouvrages. Cependant ils croient que la pro- 
duction de nchesse qui r^ulte des traraux des artisans consiste dans I&apos;augmentation 
de la valeur v^nale de leurs ouvrages.&quot; (Quesnajr: &quot;Dialogues sor le Commerce et 
sur les Travaux des artisans/&apos; pp. 188, 189.) 

&apos;&quot;Ces sp^ulateurs si ^onomes du travail des ouvriers qu&apos;U faudrait qu&apos;ils paj* 
assent.*&apos; (J. N. Bidaut: &quot;Du Monopole qui s*^blit dans les arts industriels et le 
commerce.&quot; Paris, 1828, p. 18.) &quot;The employer will be always on the stretch to 
economise time and labour.&quot; (Dugald Stewart: Works ed. by Sir W. Hamilton. 
Edinburgh, ▼. viii., 1855. Lecture on Polit. Econ., p. 818.) **Their (the capiulists&apos;) 
interest is that the productive powers of the labourers they employ should be tha 
greatest possible. On promoting that power their attention is fixed and almoat es* 
dttsivciy fixed.&quot; (R. Jones: L c Lecture III.) 



 

Co-Operation. 353 

tbe particular modes ot producing relative surplus-yalue, to 
which examination we now proceed. 



CHAPTER XIIL 

CO-OPEEATION. 



Capitaubt production only then really begins, as we have 
already seen, when each individual capital employs simultane- 
ously a comparatively large number of labourers ; when conse- 
quently the labour-process is carried on on an extensive scale 
and yields, relatively, large quantities of products. A greater 
number of labourers working together, at the same time, in 
one place (or, if you will, in the same field of labour), in 
order to produce the same sort of commodity under the master- 
ship of one capitalist, constitutes, both historically and logi- 
cally, the starting point of capitalist production. With regard 
to the mode of production itself, manufacture, in its strict 
meaning, is hardly to be distinguished, in its earliest stages, 
from the handicraft trades of the guilds, otherwise than by the 
greater number of workmen simultaneously employed by one 
and the same individual capital. The workshop of the 
mediaeval master handicraftsman is simply enlarged. 

At first, therefore, the difference is purely quantitative. 
We have shown that the surplus-value produced by a given 
capital is equal to the surplus-value produced by each work- 
man multiplied by the number of workmen simultaneously em- 
ployed. The number of workmen in itself does not affect, 
either the rate of surplus-value, or the degree of exploitation 
of labour-power. If a working day of 12 hours be embodied 
in six shillings, 1200 such days will be embodied in 1200 
times 6 shillings. In one case 12X1200 working hours, and 
in the other 12 such* hours are incorporated in the product 
In the pn&gt;duction of value a number of workmen rank merely 
as so majy individual workmen; and it therefore makes no 
difference in the value produced whether the 1200 men work 
separatCA^ or united under the control of one capitalist 



w 



 

354 Capitalist Production. 

!N*evertheles8, within certain limits, a modification takes 
place. The labour realised in value&gt; is labour of an average 
social quality; is consequently the expenditure of average 
labour-power. Any average magnitude, however, is merely 
the average of a number of separate magnitudes all of one 
kind, but differing as to quantity. In every industry, each 
individual labourer, be he Peter or Paul, differs from the 
average labourer. These individual differences, or &quot;errors&apos;* 
as they are called in mathematics, compensate one another^ 
and vanish, whenever a certain minimum number of workmen 
are employed together. The celebrated sophist and syco- 
phant, Edmund Burke, goes so far as to make the following 
assertion, based on his practical observations as a farmer; 
viz., that &quot;in so small a platoon&quot; as that of five farm labour- 
ers, all individual differences in the labour vanish, and that 
consequently any given five adult farm labourers taken to- 
gether, will in the same time do as much work as any other 
five.^ But, however that may be, it is clear, that the collec- 
tive working day of a large number of workmen simultane- 
ously employed, divided by the number of these workmen, 
gives one day of average social labour. For example, let the 
working day of each individual be 12 hours. Then the collect- 
ive working day of 12 men simultaneously employed, consists 
of 144 hours; and although the labour of each of the dozen 
men may deviate more or less from average social labour, each, 
of them requiring a different time for the same operation, yet 
since the working day of each is one-twelfth of the collective 
working day of 144 hours, it possesses the qualities of an aver- 
-*^^ csolal working day. From the point of view, however, 
of the capitalist who employs these 12 men, the working day 
is that of the whole dozen. Each individual man&apos;s day is 

*&quot;UnqtieationabIy, there fa a good deal of difference between the value of one 
man*8 labour and that of another from strength, dexterity, and honest application. 
But I am quite sure, from my best observation, that any given five men will, in their 
total, afford a proportion of labour equal to any other five within the periods of life 
I have stated; that is, that among such five men there will be one possessing all the 
qualifications of a good workman, one bad, and the other three middling, and ap- 
proximating to the first and the last So that in so small a platoon as that of even 
five, you will find the fuU complement of all that five men can earn.&quot; (£. Burke» L 
c p. 16, 16). Compare Qu^telet on the average individuaL 



 

Co-Operation. 355 

an aliquot part of the collective working day, no matter 
whether the 12 men assist one another in their work, or 
whether the connexion between their operations consists mere- 
ly in the fact, that the men are all working for the same capi- 
talist. But if the 12 men are employed in six pairs, by as 
many different small masters, it will be quite a matter of 
chance, whether each of these masters produces the same value, 
and consequently whether he realises the general rate of sur- 
plus-value. Deviations would occur in individual cases. If 
one workman required considerably more time for the produc- 
tion of a commodity than is socially necessary, the duration of 
the necessary labour-time would, in his case, sensibly deviate 
from the labour-time socially necessary on an average; and 
consequently his labour would not count as average labour, nor 
his labour-power as average labour-power. It would either 
be not saleable at all, or only at something below the average 
value of labour-power. A fixed minimum of efficiency in all 
labour is therefore assumed, and we shall see, later on, that 
capitalist production provides the means of fixing this mini- 
mum. Nevertheless, this minimum deviates from the aver- 
age, although on the other hand the capitalist has to pay the 
average value of labour-power. Of the six small masters, one 
would therefore squeeze out more than the average rate of 
surplus-value, another less. The inequalities would be com- 
pensated for the society at large, but not for the individual 
masters. Thus the laws of the production of &quot;•mlue are only 
fully realised for the individual producer, wBeT&gt; he produces 
as a capitalist, and employes a number of workmen together, 
whose labour, by its collective nature, is at onc^ ::tamped as 
average social labour.^ 

Even without an alteration in the system of working, the 
simultaneous employment of a large number of labourers 
effects a revolution in the material conditions of the labour- 
process. The buildings in which they work, the store-houses 

^Professor Roscher claims to have discovered that one needlewoman employed hy 
Mrs. Roscher during two days, does more work than two needlewomen employed 
together during one day. The learned professor should not study the capitalist proc&gt; 
CSS of production in the nursery, nor under circumstances where the principal per- 
sonage, the capitalbt, is wanting. 



 

356 Capitalist Production. 

for the raw material^ the implements and ntensils used simnl* 
taneously or in turns by the workmen ; in short, a portion of 
the means of production, are now consumed in common. On 
the one hand, the exchange-value of these means of production 
is not increased ; for the exchange value of a commodity is not 
raided by its use-value being consumed more thoroughly and to 
greater advantage. On the other hand, they are used in com- 
mon, and therefore on a larger scale than before. A room 
where twenty weavers work at twenty looms must be larger 
than the room of a single weaver with two assistants. But it 
costs less labour to build one workshop for twenty persons 
than to build ten to accommodate two weavers each; thus the 
value of the means of production that are concentrated for use 
in common on a large scale does not increase in direct propor- 
tion to the expansion and to the increased useful effect of 
those means. When consTimed in common, they give up a 
smaller part of their value to each single product ; partly be- 
cause the total value they part with is spread over a greater 
quantity of products, and partly because their value, though 
absolutely greater, is, having regard to their sphere of action 
in the process, relatively less than the value of isolated means 
of production. Owing to this, the value of a part of the con- 
stant capital falls, and in proportion to the magnitude of the 
fall, the total value of the commodity also falls. The effect is 
the same as if the means of production had cost less. The 
economy in their application is entirely owing to their being 
consumed in common by a large number of workmen. More- 
over, this character of being necessary conditions of social 
labour, a character that distinguishes them from the dispersed 
and relatively more costly means of production of isolated, in- 
dependent labourers, or small masters, is acquired even when 
the numerous workmen assembled together do not assist one 
another, but merely work side by side. A portion of the 
instruments of labour acquires this social character before the 
labour-process itself does so. 

Economy in the use of the means of production has to be 
considered under two aspects. First, as cheapening commodi- 
ties, and thereby bringing about a fall in the value of labour- 



 

Co-Operation. 357 

power. Secondly, as altering the ratio of the surplus-value to 
the total capital advanced, i.e., to the sum of the values of the 
constant and variable capitaL The latter aspect will not be 
considered until we come to the third volume, to which, with 
the object of treating them in their proper connexion, we also 
rel^ate many other points that relate to the present question. 
The march of our analysis compels this splitting up of the 
subject matter, a splitting up that is quite in keeping with the 
spirit of capitalist production. For since, in this mode of pro- 
duction, the workman finds the instruments of labour existing 
independently of him as another man&apos;s property, economy in 
their use appears, with regard to him, to be a distinct operation, 
one that does not concern him, and which, therefore, has no 
connexion with the methods by which his own personal pro- 
ductiveness is increased. 

When numerous labourers work together side by side, 
whether in one and the same process, or in different but con- 
nected processes, they are said to co-operate, or to work in co- 
operation.^ 

Just as the offensive power of a squadron of cavalry, or the 
defensive power of a regiment of infantry, is essentially differ- 
ent from the sum of the offensive or defensive powers of the 
individual cavalry or infantry soldiers taken separately, so 
the sum total of the mechanical forces exerted by isolated 
workmen differs from the social force that is developed, when 
many bands take part simultaneously in one and the same un- 
divided operation, such as raising a heavy weight, turning a 
winch, or removing an obstacle.^ In such cases the effect of 
the combined labour could either not be produced at all by 
isolated individual labour, or it could only be produced by a 
great expenditure of time, or on a very dwarfed scale. Not 
only have we here an increase in the productive power of the 

»**Concour» de forces.&apos;* (Destutt de Tracy, 1. c, p. 78.) 

&apos;&quot;There are numerous operations of so simple a kind as not to admit a division 
into parts, which cannot be performed without the co-operation of many pairs of 
hands. I woul&lt;l instance the lifting of a large tree on to a wain . . . every- 
thing, in short, which cannot be done unless a great many pairs of hands help each 
oilier in the same undivided employment and at the same time&quot; (E. G. Wakefield: 
&quot;A View of the Art of Colonisation.&quot; London: 1849, p. 108). 



 

358 Capitalist Production. 

individual, by means of co-operation, but the creation of a new 
power, namely, the collective power of masses.^ 

Apart from the new power that arises from the fusion of 
many forces into one single force, mere social contact begets in 
most industries an emulation and a stimulation of the animal 
spirits that heighten the eflSciency of each individual workman. 
Hence it is that a dozen persons working together will, in 
their collective working-day of 144 hours, produce far more 
than twelve isolated men each working 12 hours, or than one 
man who works twelve days in succession.^ The reason of 
this is that a man is, if not as Aristotle contends, a political,^ 
at all events a social animaL 

Although a number of man may be occupied together at the 
flame time on the same, or the same kind of work, yet the 
labour of each, as a part of the collective labour, may corres- 
pond to a distinct phase of the labour-process, through all 
whose phases, in consequence of cooperation, the subject of 
their labour passes with greater speed. For instance, if a 
dozen masons place themselves in a row, so as to pass stones 
from the foot of a ladder to its summit, each of them does the 
same thing; nevertheless, their separate acts form connected 
parts of one total operation ; they are particular phases, which 
must be gone through by each stone; and the stones are thus 
carried up quicker by the 24 hands of the row of men than 
they could be if each man went separately up and down the 

*&quot;A* one man cannot, and ten men must strain to lift a tun of weight, yet lOO 
men can do it only by the strength of a finger of each of them.&quot; (John Bellers: 
&quot;Proposals for raising a College of Industry.&quot; London, 1696, p. 21.) 

&apos; &quot;There is also&quot; (when the same number of men are employed by one farmer on 
800 acres, instead of by ten farmers with 80 acres a piece) &quot;an advantage in the pro- 
portion of servants, which will not so easily be understood but by practical men; 
for it is natural to say, as 1 is to 4, so are 8: to 12; but this will not hold good in 
practice; for in harvest time and many other operations which require that kind of 
despatch by the throwing many hands together, the work is better and more expedi- 
tiously done; f. i. in harvest, 2 drivers, 2 loaders, 2 pitchers, 2 rakers, and the rest 
at the rick, or in the bam, will despatch double the work that the same number of 
hands would do if divided into different gangs on different farms.&quot; (&quot;An Inquiry 
into the connection between the present Price of Provisions and the Size of Farms.&quot; 
By a Farmer. London, 1773, pp. 7, 8.) 

&apos;Strictly, Aristotle&apos;s definition is that man is by nature a town-citizen. This is 
quite as characteristic of ancient classical society as Franklin&apos;s definition of man, as 
a tool-making animal, is characteristic of Yankeedom. 



 

Co-operation. 359 

ladder with his burden.^ The object is carried over the same 
distance in a shorter time. Again, a combination of labour 
occurs whenever a building, for instance, is taken in hand on 
different sides simultaneously; although here also the co- 
operating masons are doing the same, or the same kind of 
work. The 12 masons, in their collective working day of 144 
hours, make much more progress with the building than one 
mason could make working fpr 12 days, or 144 hours. The 
reason is, that a body of men working in concert has hands 
and eyes both before and behind, and is, to a certain degree, 
omni-present. The various parts of the work progress simul- 
taneously. 

In the above instances we have laid stress upon the point 
that the men do the same, or the same kind of work, because 
this, the most simple form of labour in common, plays a great 
part in co-operation, even in its most fully developed stage. 
If the work be complicated, then the mere number of the men 
who co-operate allows of the various operations being appor- 
tioned to different hands, and, consequently, of being carried 
on simultaneously. The time necessary for the completion of 
the whole work is thereby shortened.* 

In many industries, there are critical periods, determined by 
the nature of the process, during which certain definite results 
must be obtained. For instance, if a flock of sheep has to be 
shorn, or a field of wheat to be cut and harvested, the quantity 
and quality of the product depends on the work being begun 
and ended within a certain time. In these cases, the time 
that ought to be taken by the process is prescribed, just as it 

^On doit exKore remarquer que cette division partielle de travail peut se faire 
quand meme Ics ouvriers aont occupy d*une meme besogne. Des macons par ex- 
emple, occupy i faire passer de mains en mains des briques i un ^cbafaudage su- 
p^ieur, font totis la mime besogne, et pourtant il existe parmi eux une espice de 
division de travail, qui consiste en ce que chacun d&apos;eux fait passer la brique par un 
espace donn^, et que tons ensemble la font parvenir beaucoup plus promptement 4 
I&apos;endroit marqui qu*ils ne le feraient si chacun d&apos;eux portait sa brique sipar^ment 
jusqu *&amp; r^hafaudage sup^rieur/&apos; (F. Skarbek: &quot;Th^orie des richesses sociales/&apos; 
Paris, 1829. t I. pp. 97, 98.) 

&apos;&quot;£st-il question d&apos;ex6cuter un travail compliqu6, plusieurs choiei doivent £tre 
faites simultan^ment. L&apos;un en fait une pendant que Tautre en fait tine autre, et 
tous contribuent &amp; Teffet qu&apos;un seul homme n&apos;aurait pu produire. L*un rame pendant 
que Tautre ticnt le gouvernail, et qu*un troisi^me jette le filet ou harponne le poisaon, 
Ct la p^che a on succ^ impossible sans ce concours.&quot; (Destutt de Tracy* L c.) 



 

360 Capitalist Production. 

is in herring fishing. A single person cannot carve a working 
day of more than, say 12 hours, out of the natural day, but 100 
men co-operating extend the working day to 1,200 hours. 
The shortness of the time allowed for the work is compensated 
for by the large mass of labour thrown upon the field of pro- 
duction at the decisive moment The completion of the task 
within the proper time depends on the simultaneous applica- 
tion of numerous combined working days ; the amount of use- 
ful effect depends on the number of labourers; this number, 
however, is always smaller than the number of isolated la- 
bourers required to do the same amount of work in the same 
period.^ It is owing to the absence of this kind of co-opera- 
tion that, in the western part of the United States, quantities 
of com, and in those parts of East India where English rule 
has destroyed the old communities, quantities of cotton, are 
yearly wasted.* 

On the one hand, cooperation allows of the work being car* 
ried on over an extended space; it is consequently imperatively 
called for in certain undertakings, such as draining, coustmot* 
ing dykes, irrigation works, and the making of can&amp;ls, roads 
and railways. On the other hand, while extending the scale 
of production, it renders possible a relative contraction of the 
arena. This contraction of arena simultaneous with, and aris- 
ing from, extension of scale, whereby a numbe*- of useless ex- 
penses are cut down, is owing to the conglomoation of labour- 
ers, to the aggregation of various processes, and to the con- 
centration of the means of production.^ 

* &quot;The doing of It (agricultural work) at the critical juiieture it of so much tte 
greater consequence.&quot; (&quot;An Inquiry into the (^nnection between the Present Price,** 
&amp;c, p. 9.) &quot;In agriculture, there is no more important factor than that of time.&quot; 
(Liebig: &quot;Ueber Theorie und Praxis in der Landwirthschaft.&quot; 1859. p. 83.) 

&apos; &quot;The next evil is one which one would scarcely expect to find in a country whkli 
exports more labour than any other in the world, with the exception, perhaps, of 
China and England — the impossibility of procuring a sufficient number of hands to 
clean the cotton. The consequence of this is that large quantities of the crop ara 
left unpicked, while another portion is gathered from the ground when it has fallen* 
and is of course discoloured and partially rotted, so that for want of labour at the 
proper season the cultivator is actually forced to submit to the loss of a large part 
of that crop for which England is so anxiously looking.&quot; (Bengal Horkaru. Bi- 
Monthly Overland Summary of News, 82nd July, 1861.) 

* In the progress of culture &quot;all, and perhaps more than aU, the capital and labour 
which once loosely occupied 600 acres, are now concentrated for the more complete 
tillage of 100.&quot; Although &quot;relatively to the amount of capital and labour emptoyed. 



 

Co-Operation. 361 

The combined working day produces, relatively to an equal 
sum of isolated working-days, a greater quantity of use-values, 
and, consequently, diminishes the labour-time necessary for the 
production of a given useful effect. Whether the combined 
working-day, in a given case, acquires this increased produc- 
tive power, because it heightens the mechanical force of labour, 
or extends its sphere of action over a greater space, or con- 
tracts the field of production relatively to the scale of produc- 
tion, or at the critical moment sets large masses of labour to 
work, or excites emulation between individuals and raises their 
animal spirits, or impresses on the similar operations carried 
on by a number of men the stamp of continuity and many- 
sidedness, or performs simultaneously different operations, or 
economises the means of production by use in common, or lends 
to individual labour the character of average social labour — 
which ever of these be the cause of the increase, the special 
productive power of the combined working day is, under all 
circumstances, the social productive power of labour, or the 
productive power of social labour. This power is due to co- 
operation itself. When the labourer co-operates systematic- 
ally with others, he strips off the fetters of his individuality, 
and develops the capabilities of his species.* 

As a general rule, labourers cannot co-operate without being 
brought together : their assemblage in one place is a necessary 
condition of their co-operation. Hence wage labourers cannot 
co-operate, imless they are employed simultaneously by the 
same capital, the same capitalist^ and unless therefore their 
labour-powers are bought simultaneously by him. The total 
value of these labour-powers, or the amount of the wages of 
these labourers for a day, or a week, as the case may be, must 
be ready in the pocket of the capitalist, before the workmen 
are assembled for the process of production. The payment of 

gpace 18 concentrated, it is an enlarged sphere of production, as compared to the 
sphere of production formerly occupied or worked upon by one single independent 
agent of production/* (R. Jones: &quot;An Essay on the Distribution of Wealth,&quot; part 
L On Rent. London, 18S1, p. 191.) 

^&quot;La forza di ciascuno uomo ^ minima, ma la riunione delle minime forze forma 
ana forza totale maggiore anche della somma delle forze medesiroe fino a cbe le forze 
per essere riunite possono diminuere il tempo ed accrescere lo spado della loro 
(G. R. Carli, Note to P. Verri, L c. t, xr. p. 19«.) 



 

362 Capitalist Production. 

800 workmen at once, though only for one day, requires a 
greater outlay of capital, than does the payment of a smaller 
number of men, week by week, during a whole year. Henoe 
the number of the labourers that co-operate, or the scale of 
co-operation, depends, in the first instance, on the amount of 
capital that the individual capitalist can spare for the purchase 
of labour-power; in other words, on the extent to which a 
single capitalist has command over the means of subsistence of 
a number of labourers. 

And as with the variable, so it is with the constant capital. 
For example, the outlay on raw material is 30 times as great, 
for the capitalist who employs 300 men, as it is for each of 
the 30 capitalists who employ 10 men. The value and quan- 
tity of the instruments of labour used in common do not, it is 
true, increase at the same rate as the number of workmen, but 
they do increase very considerably. Henoe, concentration of 
large masses of the means of production in the hands of indi- 
vidual capitalists, is a material condition for the co-operation 
of wage-labourers, and the extent of the co-operation or the 
scale of production, depends on the extent of this concentra- 
tion. 

We saw in a former chapter, that a certain minimum amount 
of capital was necessary, in order that the number of labourers 
simultaneously employed, and, consequently, the amount of 
surplus-value produced, might sufl&amp;ce to liberate the employer 
himself from manual labour, to convert him from a small 
master into a capitalist, and thus formally to establish capital- 
ist production. We now see that a certain minimum amount 
is a necessary condition for the conversion of numerous iso- 
lated and independent processes into one combined social 
process. 

We also saw that at first, the subjection of labour to capital 
was only a formal result of the fact, that the labourer, instead 
of working for himself, works for and consequently under the 
capitalist By the co-operation of numerous wage-labourers, 
the sway of capital developes into a requisite for carrying on 
the labour-process itself, into a real requisite of production. 
That a capitalist should command on the field of production. 



 

Co-Operation. 363 

is now as indispensable as that a general should command on 
the field of battle. 

All combined labour on a large scale requires, more or less, 
a directing authority, in order to secure the harmonious work- 
ing of the individual activities, and to perform the general 
functions that have their origin in the action of the combined 
organism, as distinguished from the action of its separate or- 
gans. A single violin player is his own conductor ; an orches- 
tra requires a separate one. The work of directing, superin- 
tending, and adjusting, becomes one of the functions of capital, 
from the moment that the labour under the control of capital, 
becomes co-operative. Once a function of capital, it acquires 
special characteristics. 

The directing motive, the end and aim of capitalist produc- 
tion, is to extract the greatest possible amount of surplus- 
value,^ and consequently to exploit labour-power to the great- 
est possible extent As the number of the co-operating labour- 
ers increases, so too does their resistance to the domination of 
capital, and with it, the necessity for capital to overcome this 
resistance by counter-pressure. The control exercised by the 
capitalist is not only a special function, due to the nature of 
the social labour-propess, and peculiar to that process, but it is, 
at the same time, a function of the exploitation of a social 
labour-process, and is consequently rooted in the unavoidable 
antagonism between the exploiter and the living and labouring 
raw material he exploits. 

Again, in proportion to the increasing mass of the means of 
production, now no longer the property of the labourer, but 
of the capitalist, the necessity increases for some effective 
control over the proper application of those means.^ More- 

» &quot;Profit* ... is the sole end of trade.&quot; (J. Vandcrlint, L c, p. 11.) 
&apos;That Philistine paper, the Spectator, states that after the introduction of a 
sort of partnership between capitalist and workmen in the &quot;Wirework Company of 
Manchester/&apos; &quot;the first result was a sudden decrease in waste, the men not seeing 
why they should waste their own property any more than any other master&apos;s, and 
waste is, perhaps, next to bad debts, the greatest source of manufacturing loss.&quot; 
The same paper finds that the main defect in the Rochdale co-operative experiments 
is this: &quot;They showed that associations of workmen could manage shops, mills^ 
and almost all forms of industry with success, and they immediately improved 
the condition of the men; but then they did not leave a clear place for masters.&quot; 
Quelle horreurl 



 

364 Capitalist Production. 

over, the co-operation of wage labourers is entirely brought 
about by the capital that employs thenu Their union into one 
single productive body and the establishment of a connexion 
between their individual functions, are matters foreign and 
external to them, are not their own act, but the act of the 
capital that brings and keeps them together. Hence the con- 
nexion existing between their various labours appears to them, 
ideally, in the shape of a preconceived plan of the capitalist, 
and practically in the shape of the authority of the same capi- 
talist, in the shape of the powerful will of another, who sub- 
jects their activity to his aims. If, then, the control of the 
capitalist is in substance twofold by reason of the twofold 
nature of the process of production itself, — ^which, on the one 
hand, is a social process for producing use-values, on the other, 
a process for creating surplus-value — ^in form that control is 
despotic As co-operation extends its scale, this despotism 
takes forms peculiar to itself. Just as at first the capitalist 
is relieved from actual labour so soon as his capital has reached 
that minimum amount with which capitalist production, as 
such begins, so now, he hands over the work of direct and con- 
stant supervision of the individual workmen, and groups of 
workmen, to a special kind of wage labourer. An industrial 
army of workmen, under the command of a capitalist, requires, 
like a real army, officers (managers), and sergeants (foremen, 
overlookers), who, while the work is being done, command in 
the name of the capitalist. The work of supervision becomes 
their established and exclusive function. When comparing 
the mode of production of isolated peasants and artizans with 
production by slave labour the political economist counts this 
labour of superintendence among the faux frais of production.* 
But, when considering the capitalist mode of production, he, 
on the contrary, treats the work of control made necessary by 
the co-operative character of the labour process as identical 
with the different work of control, necessitated by the capitalist 

^Professor Cairns, after stating that the superintendence of labour is a leading 
feature of production by slaves in the Southern Sutes of North America, continues: 
&apos;&apos;The peasant proprietor (of the North), appropriating the whole produce of his toil, 
needs no other stimulus to exertion. Superintendence is here completely dispensed 
with.&quot; (Caimes, L c, pp. 48, 49.) 



 

Co-Operation. 365 

character of that process and the antagonism of interests be- 
tween capitalist and labourer.^ It is not because he is a leader 
of industry that a man is a capitalist ; on the contrary, he is a 
leader of industry because he is a capitalist The leadership 
of industry is an attribute of capital, just as in feudal times 
the functions of general and judge were attributes of landed 
property.^ 

The labourer is the owner of his labour-power until he has 
done bargaining for its sale with the capitalist; and he can 
sell no more than what he has — i.e., his individual, isolated 
labour-power. This state of things is in no way altered by 
the fact that the capitalist, instead of buying the labour-power 
of one man, buys that of 100, and enters into separate con- 
tracts with 100 unconnected men instead of with one. He 
is at liberty to set the 100 men to work, without letting them 
co-operate. He pays them the value of 100 independent 
labour-powers, but he does not pay for the combined labour- 
power of the hundred. Being independent of each other, the 
labourers are isolated persons, who enter into relations with 
the capitalist, but not with one another. This co-operation 
begins only with the labour process, but they have then ceased 
to belong to themselves. On entering that process, they be- 
come incorporated with capital. As co-operators, as members 
of a working organism, they are but special modes of existence 
of capital. Hence, the productive power developed by the 
labourer when working in co-operation, is the productive power 
of capital. This power ic developed gratuitously, whenever 
the workmen are placed under given conditions, and it is capi- 
tal that places them under such conditions. Because this 
power costs capital nothing, and because, on the other hand, 
the labourer himself does not develop it before his labour 
belongs to capital, it appears as a power with which capital 

^Sir James Steuart, a writer altogether remarkable for his quick eye for the 
characteristic social distinctions between different modes of production, says: &quot;Why 
do large undertakings in the manufacturing way ruin private industry, but by coming 
nearer to the simplicity of slaves?&quot; (&quot;Prin. of PoL Econ./&apos; London, 1767, ▼. I., p. 
167, 168.) 

&apos;Auguste Comte and his school might therefore have shown that feudal lords are 
«a eternal necessity in the same way that they have done in the case of the lords 
of 



 

366 Capitalist Production. 

is endowed by Nature — a productive power that is immanent 
in capital. 

The colossal effects of simple co-operation are to be seen in 
the gigantic structures of the ancient Asiatics, Egyptians, 
Etruscans, &amp;c &quot;It has happened in times past that these 
Oriental States, after supplying the expenses of their civil ano 
military establishments, have found themselves in possession 
of a surplus which they could apply to works of magnificence 
or utility, and in the construction of these their command over 
the hands and arms of almost the entire non-agricultural 
population has produced stupendous monuments which still 
indicate their power. The teeming valley of the Nile . . . 
produced food for a swarming non-agricultural population, and 
this food, belonging to the monarch and the priesthood, afford- 
ed the means of erecting the mighty monuments which filled 
the land. ... In moving the colossal statues and vast masses 
of which the transport creates wonder, human labour almost 
alone, was prodigally used. . . . The number of the labourers 
and the concentration of their efforts sufficed. We see mighty 
coral reefs rising from the depths of the ocean into islands and 
firm land, yet each individual depositor is puny, weak, and 
contemptible. The non-agricultural labourers of an Asiatic 
monarchy have little but their individual bodily exertions to 
bring to the task, but their number is their strength, and the 
power of directing these masses gave rise to the palaces and 
temples, the pyramids, and the armies of gigantic statues of 
which the remains astonish and perplex us. It is that con- 
finement of the revenues which feed them, to one or a few 
hands, which makes such undertakings possible.&quot;^ This power 
of Asiatic and Egyptian kings, Etruscan theocrats, &amp;c., has in 
modem society been transferred to the capitalist, whether he 
be an isolated, or as in joint stock companies, a collective 
capitalist 

Co-operation, such as we find it at the dawn of human de- 
velopment^ among races who live by the chase,^ or say, in 

*R. Jones. &quot;Text-book of Lectures,&quot; &amp;c., pp. 77, 78. The an&apos;:ien^ Awyrian. 
Egyptian, and other collections in London, and in other European capitals, mtkt us 
eye-witnesses of the modes of carrying on that co-operative labour. 

&apos;Linguet is probably right, when in his &quot;Theorie des Lois Civiles»&quot; he decUMt 



 

Co-Operation. 367 

like agriculture of Indian communities, is baaed, on the one 
hand, on ownership in common of the means of production, 
and on the other hand, on the fact, that in those cases, each 
individual has no more torn himself off from the navel-string 
of his tribe or community, than each bee has freed itself from 
connexion with the hive. Such co-operation is distinguished 
from capitalistic co-operation by both of the above characteris- 
tics. The sporadic application of co-operation on a large scale 
in ancient times, in the middle ages, and in modem colonies, 
reposes on relations of dominion and servitude, principally on 
slavery. The capitalistic form, on the contrary, presupposes 
from first to last, the free wage labourer, who sells his labour- 
power to capital. Historically, however, this form is devel- 
oped in opposition to peasant agriculture and to the carrying 
on of independent handicrafts whether in guilds or not^ From 
the standpoint of these, capitalistic co-operation does not mani- 
fest itself as a particular historical form of co-operation, but 
co-operation itself appears to be a historical form pecidiar to, 
and specifically distinguishing, the capitalist process of pro- 
duction. 

Just as the social productive power of labour that is de- 
veloped by co-operation, appears to be the productive power 
of capital, so co-operation itself, contrasted with the process of 
production carried on by isolated independent labourers, or 
even by small employers, appears to be a specific form of the 
capitalist process of production. It is the-first change experi- 
enced by the actual labour-process, when subjected to capital. 
This change takes place spontaneously. The simultaneous 
employment of a large number of wage-labourers, in one and 
the same process, which is a necessary condition of this change, 
also forms the starting point of capitalist production. This 
point coincides with the birth of capital itself. If then, on the 

bunting to be tbe first form of co-operation, and man-hunting (war) one of tbe 
earliest forma of hunting. 

^Peasant agriculture on a small scale, and the carrying on of independent bandi* 
crafts, which together form the basis of the feudal mode of production, and after 
tbe dissolution of that system, continue side by side with the capitalist mode, also 
form the economic foundation of the classical communities at their best, after the 
primitive form of ownership of land in common had disappeared, and before ilavery 
had seized on production in earnest. 



 

368 Capitalist Production. 

one hand^ the capitalist mode of production presents itself \o 
VLB historically, as a necessary condition to the transformation 
of the labour-process into a social process, so, on the other hand, 
this social form of the labour-process presents itself, as a 
method employed by capital for the more profitable exploita- 
tion of labour, by increasing that labour&apos;s productiveness. 

In the elementary form, under which we have hitherto 
viewed it, co-operation is a necessary concomitant of all pro- 
duction on a large scale, but it does not, in itself, represent 
a fixed form characteristic of a particular epoch in the develop- 
ment of the capitalist mode of production. At the most it 
appears to do so, and that only approximately, in the handi- 
craft-like beginnings of manufacture,^ and in that kind of 
agriculture on a large scale, which corresponds to the epoch of 
manufacture, and is distinguished from peasant agriculture^ 
mainly by the number of .the labourers simultaneously em- 
ployed, and by the mass of the means of production con- 
centrated for their use. Simple co-operation is always the 
prevailing form, in those branches of production in which 
capital operates on a large scale, and division of labour and 
machinery play but a subordinate part 

Co-operation ever constitutes the fundamental form of the 
capitalist mode of production; nevertheless, the elementary 
form of co-operation continues to subsist as a particular form 
of capitalist production side by side with the more developed 
forms of that mode of production. 



CHAPTER XIV. 

DIVISION OP LABOUR AITO MANUFACTURE. 
SKOnON 1. TWOFOLD ORIGIN OF MANTJFACTUEIL 

That co-operation which is based on division of labour, as- 
sumes its typical form in the manufacture, and is the prevalent 

* &quot;Whether the united skill, indnstfy, and emulation of many together on tb« 
■ame work be not the way to advance it? And whether it had been otherwiaa 
possible for England, to have carried on her Woollen Manufacture to so great a per- 
fection?*&apos; (Berkeley. &quot;The Querist.&quot; London, 1760, p. 66, par. 681.) 



 

Division of Labour and Manufacture. 369 

characteristic form of the capitalist process of production 
throughout the manufacturing period properly so called. That 
period, roughly speaking, extends from the middle of the 16th 
to the last third of the 18th century. 

Manufacture takes its rise in two ways: — 

(1) By the assemblage, in one workshop under the control 
of a single capitalist, of labourers belonging to various inde- 
pendent handicrafts, but through whose hands a given article 
must pass on its way to completion. A carriage, for example, 
was formerly the product of the labour of a great number of 
independent artificers, such as wheelwrights, harness-makers, 
tailors, locksmiths, upholsterers, turners, fringe-makers, gla- 
ziers, painters, polishers, gilders, &amp;c. In the manufacture of 
carriages, however, all these different artificers are assembled 
in one building, where they work into one another^s hands. 
It is true that a carriage cannot be gilt before it has been made. 
But if a nurbber of carriages are being made simultaneously, 
some may be in the hands of the gilders while others are going 
through an earlier process. So far, we are still in the domain 
of simple co-operation, which finds its materials ready to hand 
in the shape of men and things. But very soon an important 
change takes place. The tailor, the locksmith, and the other 
artificers, being now exclusively occupied in carriage-making, 
each gradually loses, through want of practice, the ability to 
cany on, to its full extent, his old handicraft But, on the 
other hand, his activity now confined in one groove, assumes 
the form best adapted to the narrowed sphere of action. At 
first, carriage manufacture is a combination of various inde- 
pendent handicrafts. By degrees, it becomes the splitting up 
of. carriage making into its various detail processes, each of 
which crystallizes into the exclusive function of a particular 
workman, the manufacture, as a whole, being carried on by 
the men in conjunction. In the same way, cloth manufacture, 
as also a whole series of other manufactures, arose by com- 
bining different handicrafts together imder the control of a 
single capitalist^ 

^To give a more modem Initance: The silk spinning and weaving of Lyons and 
Nlmea &quot;est toute patriarcale; elle emploie beaocoup de femmes et d&apos;enfants» mait 

X 



 

370 Capitalist Production. 

(2.) Manufacture also arises in a way exactly the reverse of 
this — ^namely, by one capitalist employing simultaneously in 
one workshop a number of artificers, who all do the same, or 
the same kind of work, such as making paper, type, or needles. 
This is co-operation in its most elementary form. Each of 
these artificers (with the help, perhaps, of one or two appren- 
tices), makes the entire commodity, and he consequently per^ 
forms in succession all the operations necessary for its produc- 
tion. He still works in his old handicraft-like way. But 
very soon external circumstances cause a different tise to be 
made of the concentration of the workmen on one spot, and 
of the simultaneousness of their worL An increased quantity 
of the article has perhaps to be delivered within a given time. 
The work is therefore re-distributed. Instead of each man 
being allowed to perform all the various operations in succes- 
sioU; these operations are changed into disconnected, isolated 
ones, carried on side by side; each is assigned to a different 
artificer, and the whole of them together are performed simul- 
taneously by the co-operating workmen. This accidental re- 
partition gets repeated, developes advantages of its own, and 
gradually ossifies into a systematic division of labour. The 
commodity, from being the individual product of an inde- 
pendent artificer, becomes the social product of a union of 
artificers, each of whom performs one, and only one, of the 
constituent partial operations. The same operations which, in 
the case of a papermaker belonging to a Glerman Guild, merged 
one into the other as the successive acts of one artificer, became 
in the Dutch paper manufacture so many partial operations 
carried on side by side by numerous co-operating labourers. 
The needlemaker of the ITuremberg Guild was the comer- 

sant les ^uiser ni les corrompre; elle let laiase dans leur beUes Tallies de la DrAme^ 
du Var, de I&apos;ls^e, de Vaudute, pour 7 Clever des vera et divider leura cocona; jamaia 
elle n&apos;entre dana une veritable fabrique. Pour £tre ausai bien obaerv^ . • • le 
principe de la division du travail a&apos;y revet d&apos;un caract&amp;re ap^ial. II 7 a bien dea 
d6videu8et, dea moulineurs, dea teinturiers, des encolleurs, puis des tisserands; mais 
ils ne sont pas r^unis dans un meme ^tablissement, ne dependent pas d*un meme 
maitre; tous ils sont ind6pendants.&quot; (A. Blanqui: &apos;&apos;Cours d&apos;Econ. Industrielle.&apos;* 
Recueilli par A. Blaise. Paris, 1888-80, pp. 70). Since Blanqui wrote this, the 
various independent labourers have, to some extent, been united in factories. (And 
since Marx wrote the above, the powerloom has invaded these factories, and ia now 
—1886 — rapidly superseding the bAndloom. Ed.] 



 

Division of Labour and Manufacture. 371 

Btone on which the English needle mannfacture &apos;was raised. 
But while in Nuremberg that single artificer i)erf ormed a series 
of perhaps 20 operations one after another, in England it was 
not long before there were 20 needlemakers side by side, each 
performing one alone of those 20 operations; and in conse- 
quence of further experience, each of those 20 operations was 
again split up, isolated, and made the exclusive function of a 
separate workman. 

The mode in which manufacture arises, its growth out of 
handicrafts, is therefore twofold. On the one hand, it arises 
from the union of various independent handicrafts, which be- 
come stripped of their independence and specialised to such an 
extent as to be reduced to mere supplementary partial processes 
in the production of one particular commodity. On the other 
hand, it arises from the co-operation of artificers of one handi- 
craft; it splits up that particular handicraft into its various 
detail operations, isolating, and making these operations inde- 
pendent of one another up to the point where each becomes the 
exclusive function of a particular labourer. On the one hand, 
therefore, manufacture either introduces division of labour 
into a process of production, or further developes that divi- 
sion ; on the other hand, it unites together handicrafts that 
were formerly separate. But whatever may have been its par- 
ticular starting point, its final form is invariably the same — a 
productive mechanism whose parts are human beings. 

For a proper understanding of the division of labour in 
manufacture, it is essential that the following points be fijrmly 
grasped. First, the decomposition of a process of production 
into its various successive steps coincides, here, strictly with 
the resolution of a handicraft into its successive manual opera- 
tions. Whether complex or simple, each operation has to be 
done by hand, retains the character of a handicraft^ and is 
therefore dependent on the strength, skill, quickness, and sure- 
ness, of the individual workman in handling his tools. The 
handicraft continues to be the basis. This narrow technical 
basis excludes a really scientific analysis of any definite process 
of industrial production, since it is still a condition that each 
detail process gone through by the product must be capable of 



 

372 Capitalist Production, 

being done by band and of forming, in its way, a separate 
handicraft. It is just because handicraft skill continues, in 
this way, to be the foundation of the process of production, 
that each workman becomes exclusively assigned to a partial 
function, and that for the rest of his life, his labour-power is 
turned into the organ of this detail function. 

Secondly, this division of labour is a particular sort of co- 
operation, and many of its disadvantages spring from the 
general character of co-operation, and not from this particular 
form of it 

SBCnON 2.— THB DBTAXL UkBOUBEK AND HIS IMPIiBMSNTS. 

If we now go more into detail, it is, in the first place, clear 
that a labourer who all his life performs one and the same 
simple operation, converts his whole body into the automatic, 
specialised implement of that operation. Consequently, he 
takes less time in doing it, than the artificer who performs a 
whole series of operations in succession. But the collective 
labourer, who constitutes the living mechanism of manufacture, 
is made up solely of such specialised detail labourers. Hence, 
in comparison with the independent handicraft, more is pro- 
duced in a given time, or the productive power of labour is 
increased.^ Moreover, when once this fractional work is es- 
tablished as the exclusive function of one person, the methods 
it employs become perfected. The workman&apos;s continued repe- 
tition of the same simple act, and the concentration of his 
attention on it, teach him by experience how to attain the 
desired effect with the minimum of exertion. But since there 
are always several generations of labourers living at one time, 
and working together at the manufacture of a given article, 
the technical skill, the tricks of the trade thus acquired, be- 
come established, and are accumulated and handed down.* 
Manufacture, in fact, produces the skill of the detail labourer, 

^&quot;Tbe more any manufacture of much variety shall be distributed and assigned 
to different artists, the same must needs be better done and with greater expedition, 
with less loss of time and labour.&quot; (&quot;The Advantages of the East India Tradef&quot; 
Lond., 1720. p. 71.) 

•&quot;Easy labour is transmitted sldll.&quot; (Th. Hodgskin, L o. p. ItS.) 



 

Division of Labour and Manufacture. 373 

hy reproducing, and systematically driving to an extreme 
within the workshop, the naturally developed differentiation 
of trades, which it foimd ready to hand in society at large. 
On the other hand, the conversion of fractional work into the 
life-calling of one man, corresponds to the tendency shown by 
earlier societies, to make trades hereditary; either to petrify 
fliem into castes, or whenever definite historical conditions 
beget in the individual a tendency to vary in a manner incom- 
patible with the nature of castes, to ossify them into guilds. 
Castes and guilds arise from the action of the same natural 
law, that regulates t^e differentiation of plants and animals 
into species and varieties, except that, when a certain degree 
of development has been reached, the heredity of castes and 
the exdusiveness of guilds are ordained as a law of society.^ 
&quot;The muslins of Dakka in fineness, the calicoes and other piece 
goods of Coromandel in brilliant and durable colours, have 
never been surpassed. Yet they are produced without capital, 
machinery, division of labour, or any of those means which 
give such facilities to the manufacturing interest of Europe, 
The weaver is merely a detached individual, working a web 
when ordered of a customer, and with a loom of the rudest 
construction, consisting sometimes of a few branches or bars of 
wood, put roughly together. There is even no expedient for 
rolling up the warp; the loom must therefore be kept stretched 
to its full length, and becomes so inconveniently large, that it 
cannot be contained within the hut of the manufacturer, who 
is therefore compelled to ply his trade in the open air, where 
it is interrupted by every vicissitude of the weathen&apos;^^ It is 
only the special skill accumulated from generation to g^iera- 

&gt; &apos;&apos;Tlie mits also have . • • in Egyi»t reached the requisite degree of perfection. 
For it is the only conntry where artificers may not in any way meddle with the 
affairs of another class of citizens, but must follow that calling alone which by 
law is hereditary in their clan ... In other countries it is found that trades- 
men divide their attention between too many objects. At one time they try agri- 
culture* at another they take to commerce, at another they busy themselves with two 
or three occupations at once. In free countries, they mostly frequent the assembliea 
of the people. ... In &quot;Egypt, on the contrary, every artificer is severely pun- 
ished if he meddles with affairs of Sute, or carries on several trades at once. Thus 
there is nothing to disturb their application to their calling. . . . Moreover, since 
they inherit from their forefathers numerous rules, they are eager to discover fresh 
advantages.&quot; (Diodorus Siculus: Bibl. Hist. L 1. c 74.) 

*Hlttorical and descriptive account of Brit. India, Ac* ^ Hui^ Mnrraj and 



 

374 Capitalist Production. 

tion, and transmitted from father to son, that gives to the 
Hindoo, as it does to the spider, this proficiency. And yet the 
work of such a Hindoo weaver is very complicated, compared 
with that of a manufacturing labourer. 

An artificer, who performs one after another the various 
fractional operations in the production of a finished article, 
must at one time change his place, at another his tools. The 
transition from one operation to another interrupts the flow 
of his labour, and creates, so to say, gaps in his working day. 
These gaps close up so soon as he is tied to one and the same 
operation all day long; they vanish in proportion as the 
changes in his work diminish. The resulting increased pro- 
ductive power is owing either to an increased expenditure of 
labour-power in a given time — i.e., to increased intensity of 
labour — or to a decrease in the amount of labour-power un- 
productively consumed. The extra expenditure of power, de- 
manded by every transition from rest to motion, is made up 
for by prolonging the duration of the normal velocity when 
once acquired. On the other hand, constant labour of one 
uniform kind disturbs the intensity and flow of a man&apos;s animal 
spirits, which find recreation and delight in mere change of 
activity. 

The productiveness of labour depends not only on the pro- 
ficiency of the workman, but on the i)erfection of his tools. 
Tools of the same kind, such as knives, drills, gimlets, ham- 
mers, &amp;c, may be employed in different processes; and the 
same tool may serve various purposes in a single process. But 
so soon as the different operations of a labour-process are dis- 
connected the one from the other, and each fractional operation 
acquires in the hands of the detail labourer a suitable and 
peculiar form, alterations become necessary in the implements 
that previously served more than one purpose. The direction 
taken by this change is determined by the difficulties ex- 
perienced in consequence of the unchanged form of the imple- 
ment Manufacture is characterized by the differentiation of 

James Wilson, ftc^ Edinburgh 188S, r. IL pw 449. The Indian loom is upright i. 9., 
the waxp is stretched vertically. 



 

Division of Labour and Manufacture, 375 

the instruments of labour — a differentiation whereby imple- 
ments of a given sort acquire fixed shapes, adapted to each 
particular application, and by the specialisation of those in- 
struments, giving to each special instrument its full play only 
in the hands of a specific detail labourer. In Birmingham 
alone 500 varieties of hammers are produced, and not only is 
each adapted to one particular process, but several varieties 
often serve exclusively for the different operations in one and 
the same process. The manufacturing period simplifies, im- 
proves, and multiplies the implements of labour, by adapting 
them to the exclusively special functions of each detail la- 
bourer.^ It thus creates at the same time one of the material 
conditions for the existence of machinery, which consists of a 
combination of simple instruments. 

The detail labourer and his implements are the simplest 
elements of manufacture. Let us now turn to its aspect as a 
whole, 

SECTION 3. THE TWO rUNDAMENTAI. FOBMS OF MANTIFAC- 

TITRE: HETEKOGENEOUS MANUFACTURE, SEEIAJ. MANUFAC- 
TUBS. 

The organisation of manufacture has two fundamental 
forms, which, in spite of occasional blending, are essentially 
different in kind, and, moreover, play very distinct parts in the 
subsequent transformation of manufacture into modem indus- 
try carried on by machinery. This double character arises 
from the nature of the article produced. This article either 
results from the mere mechanical fitting together of partial 
products made independently, or owes its completed shape to 
a series of connected processes and manipulations. 

A locomotive, for instance, consists of more than 5000 inde- 
pendent parts. It cannot, however, serve as an example of 

^ Darwin in his epoch-making work on the origin of species, remarks, with refer- 
ence to the natural organs of plants and animals, &quot;So long as one and the same 
organ has different kinds of work to perform, a ground for its changeability maj 
possiblj be found in this, that natural selection preserves or suppresses each small 
Variation of form less carefully than if that organ were destined for one special 
purpose alone. Thus, knives that are adapted to cut all sorts of things, may, on the 
whole, be of one shape; but an implement destined to be used exclusively in one 
way must have a different shape for every different use.&quot; 



 

37^ Capitalist Production. 

the first kind of genuine nLanufacture, for it is a structure 
produced by modem mechanical industry. But a watch can ; 
and William Petty used it to illustrate the division of labour 
in manufacture. Formerly the individual work of a Nurem- 
berg artificer^ the watch has been transformed into the social 
product of an immense number of detail labourers, such, as 
mainspring makers, dial makers, spiral spring makers, jewelled 
hole makers, ruby lever makers, hand makers, case makers, 
screw makers, gilders, with numerous sub-divisions, such as 
wheel makers (brass and steel separate), pin makers, movement 
makers, acheveur do pignon (fixes the wheels on the axles, 
polishes the facets, &amp;c), pivot makers, planteur de finissage 
(puts the wheels and springs in the works), finisseur de barillet 
(cuts teeth in the wheels, makes the holes of the right size, 
&amp;c.), escapement makers, cylinder makers for cylinder escape- 
ment, escapement wheel makers, balance wheel makers, ra- 
quette makers (apparatus for regulating the watch), the 
planteur d&apos;echappement (escapement maker proper) ; then the 
repasseur de barrillet (finishes the box for the spring, &amp;c), 
steel polishers, wheel polishers, screw polishers, figure painters, 
dial enamellers (melt the enamel on the copper), fabricant de 
pendants (makes the ring by which the case is hung), finisseur 
de chamiere (puts the brass hinge in the cover, &amp;c.) faiseur 
de secret (puts in the springs that open the case), graveur, 
ciseleur, polisseur de boite, &amp;c., &amp;c, and last of all the re- 
passeur, who fits together the whole watch and hands it over in 
a going state. Only a few parts of the watch pass through 
several hands ; and all these membra disjecta come together for 
the first time in the hand that binds them into one mechanical 
whole. This external relation between the finished product, 
and its various and diverse elements makes it, as well in this 
case as in the case of all similar finished articles, a matter of 
chance whether the detail labourers are brought together in 
one workshop or not The detail operations may further be 
carried on like so many independent handicrafts, as they are 
in the Cantons of Vaud and NeufchStel ; while in Geneva there 
exist large watch manufactories where the detail labourers 
directly co-operate under the control of a single capitalist. 



 

Division of Labour and Manufacture. ^77 

And even in the latter case the dial, the springs^ and the case, 
are seldom made in the factory itself. To carry on the trade 
as a manufacture, with concentration of workmen, is, in the 
watch trade, profitable only under exceptional conditions, be- 
cause competition is greater between the labourers who desire 
to work at home, and because the splitting up of the work 
into a nimiber of heterogeneous processes, permits but little 
use of the instruments of labour in common, and the capitalist, 
by scattering the work, saves the outlay on workshops, &amp;c.* 
Nevertheless the position of this detail labourer who, though 
he works at home, does so for a capitalist (manufacturer, 
€tablisseur), is very different from that of the independent 
artificer, who works for his own customers.^ 

The second kind of manufacture, its perfected form, pro- 
duces articles that go through connected phases of develop- 
ment, through a series of processes step by step, like the wire 
in the manufacture of needles, which passes through the hands 
of 72 and sometimes even 92 different detail workmen. 

In so far as such a manufacture, when first started, com- 
bines scattered handicrafts, it lessens the space by which the 
various phases of production are separated from each other. 
The time taken in passing from one stage to another is 
shortened, so is the labour that effectuates this passage.* In 
comparison with a handicraft, productive power is gained, and 

^In the year 1854 Geneya produced 80,000 watches, which is not one-fifth of the 
production in the Canton of NcufchAtel. La Chaux-de-Fond alone, which we may 
look upon as a huge watch manufactory, produces yearly twice as many as Geneva. 
From 1860-61 Geneva produced 750,000 watches. See &quot;Report from Geneva on the 
Watch Trade*&apos; in &quot;Reports hy H. M/s Secretaries of Embassy and Legation on the 
Manufactures, Commerce, &amp;c. No. 6, 1863.&quot; The want of connexion alone, between 
the processes into which the production of articles that merely consist of parts fitted 
together is split up, makes it very difficult to convert such a manufacture into a 
branch of modern industry carried on by machinery; but in the case of a watch there 
are two other impediments in addition, the minuteness and delicacy of its parts, and 
its character as an article of luxury. Hence their variety, which is such, that in the 
best London houses scarcely a dozen watches are made alike in the course of a year. 
The watch manufactory of Messrs. Vacheron &amp; Constantin, in which machinery has 
been employed with success, produces at the most three or four different varieties of 
size and form. 

*In watchmaking, that classical example of heterogeneous manufacture, we may 
study with great accuracy the above mentioned differentiation and specialisation of 
the instruments of labour caused by the sub-division of handicrafts. 

*&quot;In so close a cohabitation of the people, the carriage aiutt needs be teflti** 
(&quot;The Advantager of the East India Trade,&quot; p. 106.) 



 

378 Capitalist Production. 

this gain is owing to the general co-operative character of 
manufacture. On the other hand, division of labour, which is 
the distinguishing principle of manufacture, requires the isola- 
tion of the various stages of production and their independ- 
ence of each other. The establishment and maintenance of a 
connexion between the isolated functions necessitates the in- 
cessant transport of the article from one hand to another, and 
from one process to another. From the standpoint of modem 
mechanical industry, this necessity stands forth as a character- 
istic and costly disadvantage, and one that is immanent in the 
principle of manufacture.^ 

If we confine our attention to some particular lot of raw 
materials, of rags, for instance, in paper manufacture, or of 
wire in needle manufacture, we perceive that it passes in 
succession through a series of stages in the hands of the 
various detail workmen until completion. On the other hand, 
if we look at the workshop as a whole, we see the raw material 
in all the stages of its production at the same time. The col- 
lective labourer, with one set of his many hands armed with 
one kind of tools, draws the wire with another set, armed 
with different tools, he, at the same time, straightens it, with 
another, he cuts it, with another forms it and so on. The 
different detail processes which were successive in time, have 
become simultaneous, go on side by side in space. Hence, 
production of greater quantum of finished commodities in a 
given time,* This simultaneity, it is true, is due to the 
general co-operative form of the process ias a whole; but 
Manufacture not only finds the conditions for co-operation 
really to hand, it also, to some extent, creates them by the 
sub-division of handicraft labour. On the other hand, it 

^&quot;The isolatioii of the different stages of manufacture, consequent upon the em- 
ployment of manual labour, adds immensely to the cost of production, the loss 
mainly arisinff from the mere removals from one process to another.&quot; (&quot;The In- 
dustry of Nations.&quot; Lond., 1855. Part II., p. 200.) 

&apos; &quot;It (the division of labour) produces also an economy of time by separating the 
work into its different branches, all of which may be carried on into execution at 
the same moment. ... By carrying on all the different processes at once, which 
an individual must have executed separately, it becomes possible to produce a multi- 
tude of pins completely finished in the same time as a single pin might have bee^ 
either cut or pointed.&quot; (Dugald Stewart, 1. c, p. 819.) 



 

Division of Labour and Manufacture. 379 

accomplishes this social organisation of the labour-process only 
by riveting each labourer to a single fractional detail. 

Since the fractional product of each detail labourer is, at the 
same time, only a particular stage in the development of one 
and the same finished article, each labourer, or each group of 
labourers^ prepares the raw material for another labourer or 
group. The result of the labour of the one is the starting 
point for the labour of the other. The one workman therefore 
gives occupation directly to the other. The labour-time 
necessary in each partial process, for attaining the desired 
effect, is learnt by experience; and the mechanism of Manu- 
facture, as a whole, is based on the assumption that a given 
result will be obtained in a given time. It is only on this 
assumption that the various supplementary labour-processes 
can proceed uninterruptedly, simultaneously, and side by side. 
It is clear that this direct dependence of the operations, and 
therefore of the labourers, on each other, compels each one of 
them to spend on his work no more than the necessary time, 
and thus a continuity, uniformity, regularity, order,^ and even 
intensify of labour, of quite a different kind, is begotten than 
is to be found in an independent handicraft or even in simple 
co-operation. The rule that the labour-time expended on a 
commodity should not exceed that which is socially necessary 
for its production, appears, in the production of commodities 
generally, to be established by the mere effect of competition ; 
since, to express ourselves superficially, each single producer 
is obliged to sell his commodity at its market price. In 
Manufacture, on the contrary, the turning out of a given 
quantum of product in a given time is a technical law of the 
process of production itself.^ 

Different operations take, however, unequal periods, and 
yield therefore, in equal times unequal quantities of fractional 
products* If, therefore the same labourer has, day after day, 

* &quot;Tht more variety of artists to every manufacture ... the greater the order 
and regularity of every work, the same must needs be done in less time, the labour 
must be less.&quot; (&quot;The Advantages,*&apos; &amp;c., p. «8.) 

&apos;Nevertheless, the manufacturing system, in many branches of industry, attains 
this result but very imperfectly, because it knows not how to control with certainty 
the general chemical and physical conditions of the process of production. 



 

380 Capitalist ProductiotK 

to perform the same operation, there must be a different nnm- 
ber of labourers for each operation ; for instance, in type manu- 
facture, there are four founders and two breakers to one rub- 
ber : the founder casts 2,000 type an hour, the breaker breaks 
up 4,000, and the rubber polishes 8,000. Here we have again 
the principle of co-operation in its simplest form, the simulta- 
neous employment of many doing the same thing; only now, 
this principle is the expression of an organic relation. The 
division of labour, as carried out in the Manufacture, not only 
simplifies and multiplies the qualitatively different parts of the 
social collective labourer, but also create** a fixed mathematical 
relation or ratio which regulates the quantitative extent of those 
parts — i.e., the relative number of labourers, or the relative 
size of the group of labourers, for each detail operation. It de- 
velopes, along with the qualitative sub-division of the social 
labour process, a quantitative rule and proportionality for that 
process. 

When once the most fitting proportion has been experi- 
mentally established for the numbers of the detail labourers in 
the various groups when producing on a given scale, that scale 
can be extended only by employing a multiple of each particu- 
lar group.* There is ^is to boot, that the same individual can 
do certain kinds of work just as well on a large as on a small 
scale ; for instance, the labour of superintendence, the carriage 
of the fractional product from one stage to the next, &amp;c The 
isolation of such functions, their allotment to a particular 
labourer, does not become advantageous till after an increase 
in the number of labourers employed ; but this increase must 
affect every group proportionally. 

The isolated group of labourers to whom any particular 
detail function is assigned, is made up of homogeneous ele- 
ments, and is one of the constituent parts of the total 
mechanism. In many manufactures, however, the group itself 

^ &quot;When (from the peculiar nature of the produce of each manufactory), the num- 
ber of processes into which it is most advantageous to divide it is ascertained, as 
well as the number of individuals to be employed, then all other manufactories which 
do not employ a direct multiple of this number will produce the article at a greater 
cost. . . . Hence arises one of the causes of the great size of manufacturing 
establishments.&quot; (C. Babbage. &quot;On the Economy of Machinery,&quot; 1st ed. London, 
183S. Ch. xxL, p. 172-178.) 



 

Division of Labour and Mantifacture. 381 

lis an organised body of labour, the total mechanism being a 
repetition or multiplication of these elementary organisms. 
Take, for instance, the manufacture of glass bottles. It may 
be resolved into three essentially different stages. First, the 
preliminary stage, consisting of the preparation of the com- 
ponents of the glass, mixing the sand and lime^ &amp;c., and melt- 
ing them into a fluid mass of glass. ^ Various detail labourers 
are employed in this first stage, and also in the final one of re- 
moving the bottles from the drying furnace, sorting and pack- 
ing them, &amp;c. In the middle, between these two stages, comes 
the glass melting proper, the manipulation of the fluid mass. 
At each mouth of the furnace, there works a group, called &quot;the 
hole,&apos;&apos; consisting of one bottlemaker or finisher, one blower, 
one gatherer, one putter-up or whetter-off, and one taker-in. 
•These five detail workers are so many special organs of a single 
working organism that acts only as a whole, and therefore can 
operate only by the direct co-operation of the whole five. The 
whole body is paralysed if but one of its members be wanting. 
But a glass furnace has several openings (in England from 4 
to 6), each of which contains an earthenware melting-pot full 
of molten glass, and employs a similar five-membered group of 
workers. The organisation of each group is based on division 
of labour, but the bond between the different groups is simple 
co-operation, which, by using in common one of the means of 
production the furnace, causes it to be more economically con- 
sumed. Such a furnace, with its 4-6 groups, constitutes a 
glass house; and a glass manufactory comprises a number of 
such glass houses, together with the apparatus and workmen 
requisite for the preparatory and final stages. 

Finally, just as Manufacture arises in part from the com- 
bination of various handicrafts, so, too, it developes into a com- 
bination of various manufactures. The larger English glass 
manufacturers, for instance, make their own earthenware 
melting-pots, because, on the quality of these dei)ends, to a 
great extent, the success or failure of the process. The mann- 

^In England, the melting-furnace is distinct from the glass-fnmace in which the 
glass is manipulated. In Belgium, one and the same furnace serves for both 
processes- 



 

382 Capitalist Productiotk, 

f acture of one of the means of production is here united witK 
that of tlie product On the other hand, the manufacture of 
the product may be united with other manufactures, of which 
that product is the raw material, or with the products of which 
it is itself subsequently mixed. Thus, we find the manufac- 
ture of flint glass combined with that of glass cutting and brass 
founding; the latter for the metal settings of various articles 
of glass. The various manufactures so combined form more or 
less separate departments of a larger manufacture, but are at 
the same time independent processes, each with its own 
division of labour. In spite of the many advantages offered by 
this combination of manufactures, it never grows into a com- 
plete technical system on its own foundation. That happens 
only on its transformation into an industry carried on by ma- 
chinery. 

Early in the manufacturing period, the principle of lessen- 
ing the necessary labour-time in the production of conmiodi- 
ties,^ was accepted and formulated : and the use of machines, 
especially for certain simple first processes that have to be con- 
ducted on a very large scale, and with the application of great 
force, sprang up here and there. Thus, at an early period in 
paper manufacture, the tearing up of the rags was done by 
paper mills; and in metal works, the pounding of the ores 
was effected by stamping mills.* The Eoman Empire had 
handed down the elementary form of all machinery in the 
water-wheeL* 

The handicraft period bequeathed to us the great inventions 
of the compass, of gunpowder, of type-printing, and of the 
automatic clock. But, on the whole, machinery played that 
subordinate part which Adam Smith assigns to it in compari- 
sion with division of labour.* The sporadic use of machinery 

^This can be seen from W. Petty, John Bdlert, Andrew Yarranton, &quot;The Ad- 
vantages of the East India Trade,&quot; and J. Vanderlint, not to mention others. 

* Towards the end of the 16th century, mortars and sieves were still used in France 
for pounding and washing ores. 

*The whole history of the development of machinery can be traced in the history 
of the corn milL The factory in England is still a &apos;&apos;mill.&quot; In German technological 
works of the first decade of this century, the term &quot;Muhle&quot; is still found in use» 
not only for all machinery driven by the forces of Nature, but also for all manu- 
factures where apparatus in the nature of machinery is applied. 

*As will be seen more in detail in &quot;Theories of Surplus- Value,&quot; Adam Smith liaa 



 

Division of Labour and Manufacture. 383 

in the 17th century was of the greatest importance, becanse it 
supplied the great mathematicians of that time with a practical 
basis and stimulant to the creation of the science of mechanics. 
The collective labourer, formed by the combination of a 
number of detail labourers, is the mechanism specially char- 
acteristic of the manufacturing period. The various oi)era^ 
tions that are performed in turns by the producer of a com- 
modity, and coalesce one with another during the progress of 
production, lay claim to him in various ways. In one opera- 
tion he must exert more strength, in another more skill, in an- 
other more attention ; and the seme individual does not possess 
all these qualities in an equal degree. After Manufacture has 
once separated, made independent, and isolated the various 
operations, the labourers are divided, classified, and grouped 
according to their predominating qualities. If their natural 
endowments are, on the one hand, the foundation on which 
the division of labour is built up, on the other hand. Manu- 
facture, once introduced, developes in them new powers that 
are by nature fitted only for limited and special functions. 
The collective labourer now possesses, in an equal degree of 
excellence, all the qualities requisite for production, and ex- 
pends them in the most economical manner, by exclusively 
employing all his organs, consisting of particular labourers, or 
groups of labourers, in performing their special functions.^ 
The one-sidedness and the deficiencies of the detail labourer 
become perfections when he is a part of the collective labourer.* 
The habit of doing only one thing converts him into a never 

sot esUblished a single new proposition relating to division of labour. What, how- 
ever, characterises him as the political economist par excellence of the period of 
Manufacture, is the stress he lays on division of labour. The subordinate part which 
he assigns to machinery gave occasion in the early days of modem mechanical in- 
dustry to the polemic of Lauderdale, and, at a later period, to that of Ure. A. Smith 
also confounds differentiation of the instruments of labour, in which the detail 
labourers themselves took an active part, with the invention of machinery; in this 
latter, it is not the workmen in manufactories, but learned men, handicraftsmen, 
and even peasants (Brindley), who play a part. 

^&quot;The master manufacturer, by dividing the work to be executed into different 
processes, each requiring different degrees of skill or of force, can purchase exactly 
that precise qiumtity of both which is necessary for each process; whereas, if the 
whole work were executed by one workman, that person must possess sufficient skill 
to perform the most difficult, and sufficient strengUi to execute the most laborious of 
Ihe operations into which the article is divided.&apos;&apos; (Ch. Babbage. 1. c, ch. xviii.) 

*For instance, abnormal development of some muscles, curvature of bones, &amp;c 



 

384 Capitalist Production. 

failing instrument while his connexion with the whole me^ 
chanism compels him to work with the regularity of the parts 
of a machine.^ 

Since the collective labourer has functions, both simple and 
complex, both high and low, his members, the individual 
labour-powers, require different degrees of training, and must 
therefore have different values. Manufacture, therefore, de- 
velopes a hierarchy of labour-powers, to which there corres- 
ponds a scale of wages. If, on the one hand, the individual 
laborers are appropriated and annexed for life by a limited 
function; on the other hand, the various operations of the 
hierarchy are parcelled out among the laboures according to 
both their natural and their acquired capabilities.^ Every 
process of production, however, requires certain simple manip- 
ulations, which every man is capable of doing. They too are 
now severed from tiieir connexion with more pr^nant mo- 
ments of activity, and ossified into exclusive functions of spec- 
ially appointed labourers. Hence^ Manufacture begets, in every 
handicraft that it seizes upon, a class of so-called unskilled 
labourers, a class which handicraft industry strictly excluded. 
If it developes a on^^ided specialty into a perfection, at the 
expense of the whole of a man&apos;s working capacity, it also 
begins to make a specialty of the absence of all development 
Alongside of the hierarchic gradation there steps the sim- 
ple separation of the labourers into skilled and unskilled. 
For the latter, the cost of apprenticeship vanishes; for the 
former, it diminishes, compared with that of artificers, in 

^ The question put by one of the Inquiry Commissioners, How the young persons 
are kept steadily to their work, is very correctly answered by Mr. Wm. Marshall, the 
general manager of a glass manufactory: &quot;They cannot well neglect their work; 
when they once begin, they must go on; they are just the same as parts of a 
machine.&quot; (&quot;Children&apos;s Empl. Comm.,&quot; 4th Rep., 1866, p. 247.) 

&apos; Dr. Ure, in his apotheosis of Modem Mechanical Industry, brings out the peculiar 
character of manufacture more sharply than previous economists, who had not his 
polemical interest in the matters, and more sharply even than his contemporaries— 
Babbage, #.g., who, though much his superior as a mathematician and mechanician, 
treated mechanical industry from the standpoint of manufacture alone. Ure says, 
&quot;This appropriation ... to each, a workman of appropriate value and cost was 
naturally assigned, forms the very essence of division&apos; of labour.&quot; On the other 
hand, he describes this division as &quot;adaptation of labour to the different talents of 
men,&quot; and lastly, characterises the whole manufacturing system as &quot;a sjrstem for 
the division or gradation of labour,&quot; as &quot;the division of labour into degrees of 
skill,&quot; &amp;C. (Ure, L c. pp. 19-88 passim.) 



 

Division of Laboiif and Manufacture. 385 

consequence of the functions being simplified. In botk 
cases the value of la^jour-powcx falls. ^ An exception to this 
law Lolds good -whenever the decomposition of the labour- 
process b^^ts Tvew and comprehensive functions, that either 
had nc plac at all, or only a very modest one, in Handicrafts. 
The fall L. he value ox labour-power, caused by the disap- 
pearance \.. diminution of the expense 01 apprenticeship, im- 
plies a direct increase of surplus-value for the benefit of 
capital; for everything that shortens the necessary labour- 
time required for the reproduction of labour-power, extends 
the domain of surplus-labour. 

8BOTION 4. ^DIVISION OF ULBOXJB IN MANUFACTTTBB, AND 

DIVISION OF LABOXJB IN SOCIBTY. 

We first considered the origin of Manufacture^ then its 
simple elements, then the detail labourer and his implements, 
and finally, the totality of the mechanism. We shall now 
lightly touch upon the relation between the division of labour 
in manufacture, and the social division of labour, which forms 
the foundation of all production of commodities. 

If we keep labour alone in view, we may designate the 
separation of social production into its main division or 
genera — viz., agriculture, industries, etc., as division of labour 
in general, and the splitting up of these families into species 
and sub-species, as division of labour in particular, and the 
division of labour within the workshop as division of labour in 
singular or in detail.* 

^&quot;Each handicraftsman being ... enabled to perfect himself by practice ia 
ime point, became ... a cheaper workman.&quot; (Ure» 1. c, p. 19.) 

* &quot;Division of labour proceeds from the separation of professions the most widely 
different to that division, where several labourers divide between them the preparation 
of one and the same product, as in manufacture.&quot; (Storch: &quot;Cours d&apos;Econ. PoL 
Paris Edn.&quot; t. I., p. 178.) &quot;Nous rencontrons chez les peuples parvenus i un ceruin 
degr6 de civilisation trois genres de divisions d&apos;industrie: la premise, que nous 
nommerons g6nerale, amtee la distinction des producteurs en agriculteurs, manu- 
facturiers et commer^ans, elle se rapporte aux trois principales branches d&apos;industrie 
nationale; la seconde, qu&apos;on pourrait appeler sp^ciale, est la division de chaque genre 
d&apos;industrie en espices ... la troisi^me division d&apos;industrie, celle enfin qu&apos;on 
devrait qualifier de division de la besogne ou de travail ^^roorement dit, est celle qui 
•&apos;^blit dans les arts et les metiers s6par6s ... qui s etaonc oans la plupart dct 
iBanufactures et des ateliers.&quot; (Skarbek. L c pp. 84, 85.) 

Y 



 

386 Capitalist Production. 

Division of labour in a society, and the corresponding ty- 
ing down of individuals to a particular calling, developes itself, 
just as does the division of labour in manufacture, from oppo- 
site starting points. Within a family,^ and after further de- 
velopment within a tribe, there springs up naturally a division 
of labour, caused by differences of sex and age, a division that 
is consequently based on a purely physiological foundation, 
which division enlarges its materials by the expansion of the 
community, by the increase of population, and more especially, 
by the conflicts between different tribes, and the subjugation 
of one tribe by another. On the other hand, as I have before 
remarked, the exchange of products springs up at the points 
where different farJlies, tribes, communities, come in contact; 
for, in the beginn ng of civilisation, it is not private indi- 
viduals but famines, tribes, &amp;c., that meet on an independent 
footing. Different commimities find different means of pro- 
duction and different means of subsistence in their natural 
environment. Hence, their modes of production, and of living, 
and their products are different. It is this spontaneously de- 
veloped difference whic* ., when different communities come in 
contact, calls forth the :nutual exchange of products, and the 
consequent gradual co^^version of those products into com- 
modities. Exchange does not create the differences between 
ihe spheres of production, but brings such as are already differ- 
ent into relation, and thus converts them into more or less inter- 
dependent branches of the collective production of an enlarged 
society. In the latter case, the social division of labour arises 
from the exchange between spheres of production, that are 
originally distinct and independent of one another. In the 
former, where the physiological division of labour is the start- 
ing point, the particular organs of a compact whole grow loose, 
and break off, principally owing to the exchange of commodi- 
ties with foreign communities, and then isolate themselves so 

&gt;Note to the third edition. Subsequent rtrj searching stttdy of the primitive 
condition of man, led the author to the conclusion, that it was not the family that 
originally developed into the tribe, but that, on the contrary, the tribe was the primi- 
tive and spontaneously developed form of human association, on the basis of blood 
relationship, and that out of the first incipient loosening of the tribal bonds, the 
many and various forms of the family were afterwards developed. (Ed. Srd ed.) 



 

Division of Labour and Manufacture. 387 

far, that the sole bond^ still connecting the various kinds of 
work, is the exchange of the products as commodities. In the 
one case, it is the making dependent what was before inde- 
pendent; in the other case^ the making independent what was 
before dependent 

The foundation of every division of labour that is well de- 
velopedy and brought about by the exchange of commodities, is 
the separation between town and country.^ It may be said, 
that the whole economical history of society is summed up in 
the movement of this antithesis. We pass it over, however, 
for the present 

Just as a certain number of simultaneously employed 
labourers are the material pre-requisites for division of labour 
in manufacture, so are the number and density of the popula- 
tion, which here correspond to the agglomeration in one work- 
shop, a necessary condition for the division of labour in 
society.* Nevertiieless, this density is more or les: r&apos;^lative. 
A relatively thinly populated country, with -^ell-develof^d 
means of communication, has a dense * population than a more 
numerously populated country, with badly-developed means of 
communication; and in this sense the Northern States of the 
American Union, for instance, are more thickly populated than 
India.&apos; 

Since the production and the circulation of commodities ere 
the general pre-requisites of the capitalist mode of production, 
division of labour in manufacture demands, that division of 
labour in society at large should previously have attained a 

^Sir Jamei Steaart ii the economist who has handled this subject best How 
tittle his book, which appeared ten years before the &quot;Wealth of Nations,&quot; is known, 
even at the present time, may be judged from the fact that the admirers of Malthus 
do not even know that the first edition of the latter*! work on population contains, 
except in the purely declamatory part, very little but extracts from Steuart, and In 
a less degree, from Wallace and Townsend. 

* &quot;There is a certain density of population which is convenient, both for social 
intercourse, and for that combination of powers by which the produce of labour is 
increased.&quot; (James Mill, 1. c p. 60.) &quot;As the number of labourers increases, the 
productive power of society augments in the compound ratio of that increase, multi- 
plied by the effects of the division of labour.&quot; (Th. Hodgskin, 1. c. pp. 125, 126.) 

*In consequence of the great demand for cotton after 1861, the production of 
cotton, in some thickly populated districts of India, was extended at the expense of 
rice cultivation. In consequence there arose local famines, the defective means of 
communication not permitting the failure of rice in one district to be compensated 
by importation from another. 



 

388 Capitalist Production. 

certain degree of development Inversely, the former division 
reacts upon and developes and multiplies the latter. Simul- 
taneously, with the differentiation of the instruments of labour, 
the industries that produce these instruments, become more 
and more differentiated.^ If the manufacturing system seize 
upon an industry, which, previously, was carried on in con- 
nexion with others, either as a chief or as a subordinate 
industry, and by one producer, these industries immediately 
separate their connexion, and become independent If it 
seize upon a particular stage in the production of a com- 
modity, the other stages of its production become converted 
into so many independent industries. It has already been 
stated, that where the finished article consists merely of 
a number of parts fitted together, the detail operations may re- 
establish themselves as genuine and separate handicrafts. In 
order to carry out more perfectly the division of labour in 
manufacture, a single branch of production is, according to 
the varieties of its raw material, or the various forms that 
one and the same raw material may assume, split up into 
numerous, and to some extent, entirely new manufactures. 
Accordingly, in France alone, the first half of the 18th cen- 
tury, over 100 different kinds of silk stuffs were woven, and 
in Avignon, it. was law, that &quot;every apprentice should devote 
himself to only one sort of fabrication, and should not learn 
the preparation of several kinds of stuff at once.&quot; The 
territorial division of labour, which confines special branches 
of production to special districts of a coxmtry, acquires fresh 
stimulus from the manufacturing system, which exploits every 
special advantage.^ The Colonial system and the opening 
out of the markets of the world, both of which are included 
in the general conditions of existence of the manufacturing 
period, furnish rich material for developing the division of 
labour in society. It is not the place, here, to go on to 

^Thua, the fabrication of shuttles formed, as early as the 17th century, a special 
branch of industry in Holland. 

* &quot;Whether the woollen manufacture of England is not divided into several parts 
or branches appropriated to particular places, where they are only or principally 
manufactured; fine cloths in Somersetshire coarse in Yorlohire, long ells at Exeter, 
•des at Sudbury, crapes at Norwich, linse]rs at Kendal, blankets at Whitney, and 
to forth.&quot; (Berkeley: &quot;The QvieriMU&apos;* 1750, p. 680.) 



 

&apos;Division of Labour and Manufacture. 389 

show how division of labour seizes upon, not only the econom- 
ical, but every other sphere of society, and everywhere lays 
the foundation of that all engrossing system of specialising 
and sorting men, that development in a man of one single 
faculty at the expense of all other faculties, which caused A. 
Ferguson, the master of Adam Smita, to exclaim : &quot; We make 
a nation of Helots, and have no f 1 3e itizens.&quot;^ 

But, in spite of the numberous analogies and links connect- 
ing them, division of labour in the interior of a socie^, and 
that in the interior of a workshop, liffer not only in degree, 
but also in kind. The analogy appears most indisputable where 
there is an invisible bond uniting the various branches of 
trade. For instance the cattle breeder prodrces hides, the 
tanner makes the hides into leather, and the shoemaker, the 
leather into boots. Here the thing produced by each of them 
is but a step towards the final form, which is the product of 
all their labours combined. There are, besides, all the various 
industries that supply the cattle-breeder, the tanner, and the 
shoemaker with the means of production. Now it is quite 
possible to imagine, with Adam Smith, that the difference be- 
tween the above social division of labour, and the division in 
manufacture, is merely subjective, exists merely for the ob- 
server, who, in a manufacture, can see with one glance, all 
the numerous operations being performed on one spot, while 
in the instance given above, the spreading out of the work over 
great areas, and the great number of people employed in 
each branch of labour, obscure the connexion.* But what is 

»A. Ferguson: •&apos;History of Civil Society.&quot; Edinburgh, 1767; Part ir. sect. iL, 
p. 286. 

*In manufacture proper, he says, the division of labour appears to be greater* 
because &apos;&apos;those employed in every different branch of the work can often be col- 
lected into the same workhouse, and placed at once under the view of the spectator. 
In those great manufactures, (I) on the contrary, which are destined to supply the 
great wants of the great body of the people, every different branch of the work em- 
ploys so great a number of workmen, that it is impossible to collect them all into the 
same workhouse . . . the division is not near so obvious.&quot; (A. Smith: &quot;Wealth 
of Nations,&apos;* bk. i. ch. i.) The celebrated passage in the same chapter that begins 
with the words, &quot;Observe the accommodation of the most common artificer or day 
labourer in a civilized and thriving country,&quot; &amp;c, and then proceeds to depict what 
an enormous number and variety of industries contribute to the satisfaction of the 
wants of an ordinary labourer, is copied almost word for word from B. de Mande- 
ville&apos;s Remarks to his &quot;Fable of the Bees, or Private Vices, Publick Benefits.&quot; 
(First ed.. without the remarki^ 1706; with the remarks, 1714.) 



 

390 Capitalist Production. 

it that forms the bond between the independent labours of 
the cattle-breeder, the tanner, and the shoemaker? It is the 
fact that their respective products are commodities. What, on 
the other hand, characterises division of labour in manufac- 
tures? The fact that the detail labourer produces no com- 
modities.^ It is only the common product of all the detail 
labourers that becomes a conmiodity.^ Division of labour in 
a society is brought about by the purchase and sale of the 
products of different branches of industry, while the connexion 
between the detail operations in a workshop, are due to the 
sale of the labour-power of several workmen to one capitalist^ 
who applies it as combined labour-power. The division of 
labour in the workshop implies concentration of the means of 
production in the hands of one capitalist; the division of 
labour in society implies their dispersion among many inde- 
pendent producers of commodities. While within the work- 
shop, the iron law of proportionality subjects definite numbers 
of workmen to definite functions, in the society outside the 
workshop, chance and caprice have full play in distributing the 
producers and their means of production among the various 
branches of industry. The different spheres of production, 
it is true, constantly tend to an equilibrixun : for, on the one 
hand, while each producer of a commodity is botmd to pro- 
duce a use-value, to satisfy a particular social want, and while 

^ &quot;There U no longer anjrthing which we can call the natural reward of indiTidual 
labour. Each labourer produces only some part of a whole* and each part, having no 
value or utility in itself, there is nothing on which the labourer can seixe, and say: 
It is my product, this I will keep to myself.&quot; (&quot;Labour Defended against the Claims 
of Capital.&quot; Lond., 1826, p. 25.) The author of this admirable work is the Th. 
Hodgskin I have already cited. 

&apos;This distinction between division of labour in society and in manufacture, was 
practically illustrated to the Yankees. One of the new taxes devised at Washington 
during the civil war, was the duty of t% &quot;on all industrial products.&quot; Question: 
What is an industrial product? Answer of the legislature: A thing is produced 
&quot;when it is made,&quot; and it is made when it is ready for sale. Now, for one example 
out of many. The New York and Philadelphia manufacturers had previously been 
in the habit of &quot;making&quot; umbreUas, with all their belongings. But since an 
umbrella is a mixtum compositum of very heterogeneous parts, by degrees these 
parts became the products of various separate industri^ carried on independently 
in different places. They entered as separate commodities into the umbrella man* 
ufactory, where they were fitted together. The Yankees have given to articles thus 
fitted together, the name of &quot;assembled articles,** a name they deserve, for being 
an assemblage of taxes. Thus the umbrella &quot;assembles,&quot; first, 6% on the price of 
each of its elements, and a further 8% on its own total price 



Digitized by VjOO^ IC 



Division of Labour and Manufacture. 391 

the extent of these wants differs quantitatively, still there 
exists an inner relation which settles their proportions into a 
regular system, and that system one of spontaneous growth; 
and, on the other hand, the law of the value of commodities 
ultimately determines how much of its disposable working-time 
society can expend on each particular class of commodities. 
But this constant tendency to equilibrium, of the various 
spheres of production, is exercised, only in the shape of a 
reaction against the constant upsetting of this equiUbriunu 
The a priori system on which the division of labour, within 
the workshop, is regularly carried out&gt; becomes in the division 
of labour within the society, an a posteriori, nature-imposed 
necessity, cortrolling the lawless caprice of the producers, and 
perceptible in the barometrical fluctuations of the market 
prices. Division of labour within the workshop implies the 
undisputed authority of the capitalist over men, that are but 
parts of a mechanism that belongs to him. The division of 
labour within the society brings into contact independent 
commodity-producers, who acknowledge no other authority 
but that of competition, of the coercion exerted by the pressure 
of their mutual interests ; just as in the animal kingdom, the 
helium omnium contra omnes more or less preserves the con- 
ditions of existence of every species. The same bourgeois 
mind which praises division of labour in the workshop, life- 
long annexation of the labourer to a partial operation, and his 
complete subjection to capital, as being an organisation of 
labour that increases its productiveness — that same bourgeois 
mind denounces with equal vigour every conscious attempt to 
socially control and regulate the process of production, as an 
inroad upon such sacred things as the rights of property, 
freedom and unrestricted play for the bent of the individual 
capitalist. It is very characteristic that the enthusiastic apol- 
ogists of the factory system have nothing more damning to 
urge against a general organization of the labour of society, 
than that it would turn all society into one immense factory. 

If, in a society with capitalist production, anarchy in the 
social division of labour and despotism in that of the workshop 
are mutual conditions the one of the other, we find, on the con- 



 

392 Capitalist ProductiofL 

trarjj in those earlier forms of society in whicli the separation 
of trades has been spontaneously developed^ then crystallized, 
and finally made permanent by law, on the one hand, a speci- 
men of the organization of the labour of society, in accordance 
with an approved and authoritative plan, and on the other, 
the entire exclusion of division of labour in the workshop, 
or at all events a mere dwarflike or sporadic and accidental 
development of the same.^ 

Those small and extremely ancient Indian communities, 
some of which have continued down to this day, are based on 
possession in common of the land, on the blending of agricul- 
ture and handicrafts, and on an unalterable division of labour, 
which serves, whenever a new community is started, as a plan 
and scheme ready cut and dried* Occupying areas of from 
100 up to several thousand acres, each forms a compact whole 
producing all it requires. The chief part of the products is 
destined for direct use by the community itself, and does not 
take the form of a commodity. Hence, production here is 
independent of that division of labour brought about, in Indian 
society as a whole, by means of the exchange of commodities. 
It is die surplus alone that becomes a commodity, and a portion 
of even that, not until it has reached the hands of the State, 
into whose hands from time immemorial a certain quantity of 
these products has found its way in the shape of rent in kind. 
The constitution of these communities varies in different parts 
of India. In those of the simplest form, the land is tilled in 
common, and the produce divided among the members. At 
the same time, spinning and weaving are carried on in each 
family as subsidiary industries. Side by side with the masses 
thus occupied with one and the same work, we find the ^^chief 
inhabitant,&quot; who is judge, police, and tax-gatherer in one ; the 
bookkeeper who keeps the accoimts of the tillage and registers 
everything relating thereto; another official, who prosecutes 

^&apos;&apos;On peat ... ^bUr en rhglt gininile, qne moins rantorite preside k la 
division do trayail dans Tint^rieur de la soci6t6, plus la division do travail se 
d6veloppe dans Tint^rieur de Tatelier, et plus elle y est soumise 4 Tautorit^ d&apos;un 
•euL Ainsi Tautorit^ dans I&apos;atelier et celle dans la soci^t6, par rapport i la division 
dutravaiU sont en raison inverse Tune de I&apos;autre.&quot; (Karl Marx» &quot;Mis^e,&quot; &amp;c, pp. 
180181.) 



 

Division of Labour and Manufacture. 393 

criminals, protects strangers travelling through, and escorts 
them to the next village ; the boundary man, who guards the 
boundaries against neighbouring commimities ; the water-over- 
seer, who distributes the water from the common tanks for 
irrigation; the Brahmin, who conducts the religious services; 
the schoolmaster, who on the sand teaches the children reading 
and writing; the calendar-Brahmin, or astrologer, who makes 
known the lucky or unlucky days for seed-time and harvest^ 
and for every other kind of agricultural work ; a smith and a 
carpenter, who make and repair all the agricultural imple- 
ments; the potter, who makes all the pottery of the village; 
the barber, the washerman, who washes clothes, the silversmith, 
here and there the poet, who in some communities replaces the 
silversmith, in others the schoolmaster. This dozen of indi- 
viduals is maintained at the expense of the whole community. 
If the population increases, a new community is founded, on 
the pattern of the old one, on unoccupied land. The whole 
mechanism discloses a systematic division of labour; but a 
division like that in manufactures is impossible, since the 
smith and the carpenter, &amp;c., find an unchanging market, and 
at the most there occur, according to the sizes of the villages, 
two or three of each, instead of one.^ The law that regulates 
the division of labour in the community acts with the irresisti- 
ble authority of a law of Nature, at the same time that each 
individual artificer, the smith, the carpenter, and so on, con- 
ducts in his workshop all the operations of his handicraft in 
the traditional way, but independently, and without recogniz- 
ing any authority over him. The simplicity of the organisa- 
tion for production in these self-sufficing communities that 
constantly reproduce themselves in the same form, and when 
accidentally destroyed, spring up again on the spot and with 
the same name ^ — ^this simplicity supplies the key to the secret 

^Liettt.-CoL Mark Wilks: &quot;Historical Sketches of the South of India.&quot; Lond.» 
1810-17» y. I., pp. 118-20. A good description of the various forms of the Indian 
communities is to be found in George Campbell&apos;s &quot;Modem India.*&apos; Lond., 1862. 

&apos; &quot;Under this simple form ... the inhabitants of the country have lived from 
time immemorial. The boundaries of the villages have been but seldom altered; and 
though the villages themselves have been sometimes injured, and even desolated by 
war, famine* and disease, the same name, the same limits, the same interests, and 
even the same families, have continued for ages. The inhabitants give themsidvea 



 

/ 



/ 



Capitalist Production. 

pangeableness of Asiatic sooieties, an tmehangeable- 
h striking contrast with the ocmstant dissolution and 
: of Asiatic States, and the never-ceasing changes 
7. The structure of the economical elements of 
society remains untouched by the storm-clouds of the political 
sky. 

The rules of the guilds, as I have said before, by limiting 
most strictly the number of apprentices and journeymen that a 
single master could employ, prevented him from becoming a 
capitalist Moreover, he could not employ his journeymen in 
any other handicraft than the one in which he was a master. 
The guilds zealously repelled every encroachment by the capital 
of merchants, the only form of free capital with which they 
came in contact A merchant could buy every kind of com- 
modity, but labour as a commodity he could not buy. He 
existed only on sufferance, as a dealer in the products of the 
handicrafts. If circumstances called for a further division of 
labour, the existing guilds split themselves up into varieties, or 
founded new guilds by the side of the old ones ; all this, how- 
ever, without concentrating various handicrafts in a single 
workshop. Hence, the guild organization, however much it 
may have contributed by separating, isolating, and perfecting 
the handicrafts, to create the material conditions for the exist- 
ence of manufacture, excluded division of labour in the work- 
shop. On the whole, the labourer and his means of production 
remained closely united, like the snail with its shell, and thus 
there was wanting the principal basis of manufacture, the sep- 
aration of the labourer from his means of nroduction, and the 
conversion of these means into capital. 

While division of labour in society at large, whether such 
division be brought about or not by exchange of commodities, 
is common to economical formations of society the most diverse, 
division of labour in the workshop, as practised by manufac- 
ture, is a special creation of the capitalist mode of production 
alone. 

no trouble about the brealdiig up and division of Idngdoms; while the village remaiat 
entire^ they care not to what power it is transferred, or to what sovereign it devolves; 
its internal economy remains unchanged.&quot; (Th. Stamford Raffles, late Lieut Gov. 
of Javai «mie History of Java.&quot; Lond., 1817, VoL I., p. 186.) 



 

Division of Labour and Manufacture. 395 

SBCTTIOir 5.--&lt;rHE CAPITAUSTIO CHABAOTBB OF HAlTUFAOTUBBb 

An increased number of labourers under the control of one 
capitalist is the natural starting-point, as well of co-operation 
generally, as of manufacture in particular. But the division 
of labour in the manufacture makes this increase in the num- 
ber of workmen a technical necessity. The minimum number 
that any given capitalist is bound to employ is here prescribed 
by the previously established division of labour. On the other 
hand, the advantages of further division are obtainable only 
by adding to the number of workmen, and this can be done 
only by adding multiples of the various detail groups. But 
an increase in the variable component of the capital employed 
necessitates an increase in its constant component, too, in the 
workshops, implements, &amp;c, and, in particular, in the raw 
material, the call for which grows quicker than the number of 
workmen* The quantity of it consumed in a given time, by a 
given amount of labour, increases in the same ratio as does the 
productive power of that labour in consequence of its division. 
Hence, it is a law, based on the very nature of manufacture, 
that the minimum amount of capital, which is bound to be iil 
the hands of each capitalist, must keep increasing; in other 
words, that the transformation into capital of the social means 
of production and subsistence must keep extending.^ 

In manufacture^ as well as in simple co-operation, the collec- 
tive working organism is a form of existence of capital The 
mechanism that is made up of nimierous individual detail 
labourers belongs to the capitalist Hence, the productive 
power resulting from a combination of labourers appears to be 
the productive power of capital. Manufacture proper not only 

^ &quot;It is not sufficient that the capital&quot; (the writer should have said the necessary 
means of subsistence and of production) &quot;required for the sub-division of handi&gt; 
crafts should be in readiness in the society: it must also be accumulated in the bands 
of the employers in sufficiently large quantities to enable them to conduct their 
operations on a large scale. . . . The more the division increases, the more does 
the constant emplosrment of a given number of labourers require greater outlay of 
capital in tools, raw material, ftc,&quot; (Storch: Cours d&apos;Econ. Polit. Paris Ed., 1. 1, pp. 
S60, 261.) &quot;La concentration des instruments de production et la division du travail 
sont aussi insurables Tune de I&apos;autre que le sont, dans le regime politique, la con- 
centration des pouvoirs publics et la division des int^ets priv^&quot; (Karl Marx. L c^ 
p. 184.) 



 

39^ Capitalist Production. 

subjects the previously independent workman to the discipline 
and command of capital, but, in addition, creates a hierarchic 
gradation of the workmen themselves. While simple coK)pera- 
tion leaves the mode of working by the individual for the most 
part unchanged, manufacture thoroughly revolutionises it, and 
seizes labour-power by its very roots. It converts the labourer 
into a crippled monstrosity, by forcing his detail dexterity at 
the expense of a world of productive capabilities and instincts ; 
just !:is in the States of La Plata they butcher a whole beast 
for the sake of his hide or his tallow. Kot only is the detail 
work distributed to the different individuals, but the individual 
himself is made the automatic motor of a fractional operation,^ 
and the absurd fable of Menenius Agrippa, which makes man 
a mere fragment of his own body, becomes realised.* If, at 
first, the workman sells his labour-power to capital, because the 
material means of producing a commodity fail him, now his 
very labour-power refuses its services unless it has been sold 
to capitaL Its functions can be exercised only in an environ- 
ment that exists in the workshop of the capitalist after the 
sale. By nature imfitted to make anything independently, 
the manufacturing labourer developes productive activity as a 
mere appendage of the capitalist&apos;s workshop.&apos; As the chosen 
people bore in their features the sign manual of Jehovah, so 
division of labour brands the manufacturing workman as the 
property of capitaL 

The knowledge, the judgment, and the will, which, thou^ 
in ever so small a degree, are practised by the independent 
peasant or handicraftsman, in the same way as the savage 
makes the whole art of war consist in the exercise of his per- 
sonal cunning — ^these faculties are now required only for th© 
workshop as a whole. Intelligence in production expands in 

^Dngmld Stewart calls manufacturing labourers &quot;living automatons • • . em* 
ployed in the details of the work.&quot; (1. c, p. 818.) 

&apos; In corals* each indiTidual is, in fact, the stomach of the whole group; but it sup- 
plies the group with nourishment, instead of, like the Roman patrician, withdraw- 
ing St 

&apos; &quot;L&apos;ouvrier qui porte dans ses bras tout un metier, pent aller partout exercer son 
Industrie et trouver des moyens de subsister: I&apos;autre (the manufacturing labourer) 
n&apos;eat qu&apos;un accessoire qui, s^par6 de ses confreres, n&apos;a plus ni capacite, ni ind^pend- 
ance, ct qui se trouve ford d&apos;accepter la loi qu&apos;on juge i propoa de lui impoter.** 
(Storch. L c Petersb. edit., 1816, t. I., p. 804.) 



 

Division of Labour and Manufacture. 297 

one direction, because it vanishes in many others. What is 
lo3t by the detail labourers, is concentrated in the capital that 
employs them.^ It is a result of the division of labour in 
manufactures, that the labourer is brought face to face with 
the intellectual potencies of the material process of production, 
as the property of another, and as a ruling power. This sepa- 
ration begins in simple co-operation, where the capitalist re- 
presents to the single workman, the oneness and die will of 
the associated labour. It is developed in manufacture which 
cuts down the labourer into a detail labourer. It is com- 
pleted in modem industry, which makes science a productive 
force distinct from labour and presses it into the service of 
capitaL* 

In manufacture, in order to make the collective labourer, 
and through him capital, rich in social productive power, each 
labourer must be made poor in individual productive powers. 
&quot;Ignorance is the mother of industry as well as of superstition. 
Reflection and fancy are subject to err; but a habit of moving 
the hand or the foot is independent of either. Manufactures, 
accordingly, prosper most where the mind is least consulted, 
and where the workshop may ... be considered as an engine, 
the parts of which are men.&apos;^* As a matter of fact, some 
few manufacturers in the middle of the 18th century preferred, 
for certain operations that were trade secrets, to employ half- 
idiotic persons.* 

&quot;The understandings of the greater part of moi,^&apos; says Adam 
Smith, &quot;are necessarily formed by their ordinary employments. 
The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple 
operations . . . has no occasion to exert his understanding. 
.... He generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is 

*A. Fergnson, L c, p. 281: &quot;The former may have gained what the other has 
kwt.&quot; 

&apos;&quot;The man of knowledge and the productiye labourer come to be widely divided 
from each other, and knowledge, instead of remaining the handmaid of labour in the 
hand of the labourer to increase his productive powers . . . has almost every- 
where arrayed itself against labour . . . systematically deluding and leading them 
(the labourers) astray in order to render their muscular powers entirely mechanical 
and obedient&quot; (W. Thompson: &quot;An Inquiry into the Principles of the Distribu- 
tion of Wealth. London, 1824/&apos; p. 274.) 

*A. Ferguson, 1. c, p. 280. 

*J. D. Tuckett: &quot;A History of the Past and Present State of the Labouring 
Population.&quot; Lond., 1846. 



 

398 Capitalist Production. 

possible for a htunan creature to become/&apos; After describing 
the stupidity of the detail labourer he goes on: &quot;The uni- 
formity of his stationary life naturally corrupts the courage of 

his mind It corrupts even the activity of his body and 

renders him incapable of exerting his strength with vigour and 
perseverance in any other employments than that to which 
he has been bred. His dexterity at his own particular trade 
seems in this manner to be acquired at the expense of his in- 
tellectual, social, and martial virtues. But in every improved 
and civilised society, this is the state into which the labouring 
poor, that is, the great body of the people, must necessarily 
f alL^&apos;^ For preventing the complete deterioration of the great 
mass of the people by division of labour, A. Smith commends 
education of the people by the State, but prudently, and in 
homoeopathic doses. G. Gamier, his French translator and 
commentator, who, under the first Frepch Empire, quite natu- 
rally developed into a senator, quite as naturally opposes him 
on this point Education of the masses, he urges, violates the 
first law of the division of labour, and with it &quot;our whole 
social system would be proscribed.&quot; &quot;Like all other divisions 
of labour,&apos;&apos; he says, &quot;that between hand labour and head la- 
bour ^ is more pronounced and decided in proportion as society 
(he rightly uses this word, for capital, landed property and 
their State) becomes richer. This division of labour, like 
every other, is an effect of past, and a cause of future progress 
.... ought the government then to work in opposition to this 
division of labour, and to hinder its natural course ? Ought it 
to- expend a part of the public money in the attempt to con- 

^ A. Smith: Wealth of Nations, Bk. V., ch. I., art II. Being a pupil of A. Fer- 
guson who showed the disadvantageous effects of division of labour, Adam Smith was 
perfectly clear on this point In the introduction to his work, where he ex pro- 
fesso praises division of labour, he indicates only in a cursory manner that it is the 
source of social inequalities. It is not till the 5th Book, on the Revenue of the 
State, that he reproduces Ferguson. In my &quot;Misire de la Philosophie,&quot; I have 
sufficiently explained the historical connection between Ferguson, A. Smith, 
Lemontey, and Say, as regards their criticisms of Division of Labour, and have 
•hown, for the first time, that Division of Labour as practised m manufactures^ la 
a specific form of the capitalist mode of production. 

&apos;Ferguson had already said, 1. c. p. 281: &quot;And thinking itself, in this age of 
separations, may become a peculiar craft&quot; 



 

^ Division of Labour and Manufacture. 399 

found and blend together two classes of labour, which are 
striving after division and separation ?&quot;^ 

Some crippling of body and mind is inseparable even from 
division of labour in society as a whole. Since^ however, man^ 
ufacture carries this social separation of branches of labour 
much further, and also, by its peculiar division, attacks the in- 
dividual at the very roots of his life, it is the first to afford 
the materials for, and to give a start to, industrial pathology.* 

^^To subdivide a man is to execute him, if he deserves ^e 
sentence, to assassinate him if he does not. • • . The sub- 
division of labour is the assassination of a people/&apos;^ 

Co-operation based on division of labour, in other words, 
manufacture, commences as a spontaneous formation. So soon 
as it attains some consistence and extension, it becomes the re- 
cognised methodical and systematic form of capitalist produo- 
tion. History shows how the division of labour peculiar to 
manufacture, strictly so called, acquires the best adapted form 
at first by experience, as it were behind the backs of the actors, 
and then, like the guild handicrafts, strives to hold fast that 
form when once found, and here and there succeeds in keeping 
it for centuries. Any alteration in this form, except in trivial 
matters, is solely owing to a revolution in the instruments of 
labour. Modem manufacture wherever it arises — I do not 
here allude to modem industry based on machinery — either 
finds the disjecta membra poetse ready to hand, and only wait- 

*G. GarnJer, yoL V. of his translatioii of A. Smith, pp. 4-6. 

&apos; Ramazzini, professor of practical medicine at Padua, published in 1713 his work 
&quot;De morbis artificum/&apos; which was translated into French 1781, reprinted in 1841 in 
the &quot;Encyclopedic des Sciences Medicates. 7me Dis. Autenrs Classiques.&quot; Th* 
period of Modern Mechanical Industry has, of course, very much enlarged his cat- 
alogue of labour&apos;s diseases. See &quot;Hygiene physique et morale de Touvrier dans les 
grandes villes en g^n^ral et dans la ville de Lyon en particulier. Par le Dr. A. L^ 
Fonterel, Paris, 1868/* and &quot;Die Krankheiten, welche yerschiednen Standen, Altem 
und Geschlechtem eigenthumlich sind. 6 Vols. Ulm, 1860,&quot; and others. In 1854 
the Society of Arts appointed a Commission of Inquiry into industrial pathology. 
The list of documents collected by this commission is to be seen in the catalogue of 
the &quot;Twickenham Economic Museum.&quot; Very important are the official &quot;Reports 
on Public Health.&quot; See also Eduard Reich, M.D. &quot;Ueber die Entartung det 
Menschen,&quot; Eriangen, 1868. 

* (D. Urquhart: Familiar Words. Lond., 1866, p. 119.) Hegel held rery 
ft«&gt;retical views on division of labour. In his Rechtsphilosophie he say^: &quot;By well 
educated men w« understand in th« first instance, those who can do everything that 
others do.&quot; 



 

400 Capitalist Production. 

izig to be collected together, as is the case in the manufactnie 
of clothes in large towns, or it can easily apply the principle 
of division, simply by exclusively assigning the various ope a- 
tions of a handicraft (such as bookbinding) to particular men. 
In such cases, a week&apos;s experience is enou^ to determine the 
proportion between the numbers of the hands necessary for the 
various functions.* 

By decomposition of handicrafts, by specialisation of the in- 
struments of labour, by the formation of detail labourers, and 
by grouping and combining th i latter into a single mechanism, 
division of labour in manufacture creates a qualitative grada- 
tion, and a quantitative proportion in the social proces: of 
production; it consequently creates a definite organization of 
the labour of society, and thereby developes at the same time 
new productive forces in the society. In its specific capitalist 
form — and under the given conditions, it could take no other 
form than a capitalistic one — manufacture is but a particular 
method of begetting relative surplus-value, or of augmenting 
at the expense of the labourer the self-expansion of capital — 
usually called social wealth, *^ealth of Nations,&quot; &amp;c It in- 
creases the social productive power of labour, not only for the 
benefit of the capitalist instead of for that of the labourer, but 
it does this by crippling the individual labourers. It creates 
new conditions for the lordship of capital over labour. If, 
therefore, on the one hand, it presents itself historically as a 
progress and as a necessary phase in the economic develop- 
ment of society, on the other hand it is a refined and civilised 
method of exploitation. 

Political economy, which as an independent science^ first 
sprang into being during the period of manufacture, views 
the social division of labour only from the standpoint of manu- 
facture,^ and sees in it only the means of producing more com- 
modities with a given quantity of labour, and, consequently, 

^The gimple belief in the inventive genius exercised a priori by the individual 
capiulist in division of labour, exists now-a-days only among German professors, 
of the stamp of Herr Roscher, who. to recompense the capitalist from whose 
Jovian head division of labour sprang ready formed, dedicates to him &quot;variout 
wages&quot; (diverse Arbeitslohne). The more or less extensive application of diviaioa 
of labour depends on length of purse, not on greatness of genius. 

&apos;The older writers, like Petty and the anonymous author of &quot;AdTtntaget of tb* 



 

Division of Labour and Manufacture. 401 

of cheapening commodities and hurrying on the accumulation 
of capital In most striking contrast with this accentuation of 
quantity and exchange-value, is the attitude of the writers of 
classical antiquity, who hold exclusively by quality and use- 
value.^ In consequence of the separation of the social 
branches of production, commodities are better made, the vari- 
ous bents and talents of men select a suitable field,^ and with- 
out some restraint no important results can be obtained any- 
where.* Hence both product and producer are improved by 
division of labour. If the growth of the quantity produced is 
occasionally mentioned^ this is only done with reference to the 
greater abundance of use values. There is not a word alluding 
to exchange-value 01^ to the cheapening of commodities. This 
aspect, from the standpoint of use-value alone, is taken as well 
by Plato,* who treats division of labour as the foundation on 

East India Trader&quot; bring out the capitalist character of division of labour as applied 
in manufacture more than A. Smith does. 

^Amongst the modems may be excepted a few writers of the 18th c e ntury , like 
Beccaria and James Harris, who with regard to division of labour almost entirely 
follow the ancients. Thus, Beccaria: &quot;Qascuno prova coll&apos; esperienzay^-che applicancb 
la mano e Tingegno sempre alio stesso genere da opere e di produtte, egli piii facili, 
pi&amp; abbondanti e migliori ne traca risultati, di quello che se ciascuno isolatamente le 
cose tutte a se necessarie soltanto facesse. • . • Dividendosi in tal maniera per 
la comune e privati utiliti gli uomini in varie dassi e condLrionL&quot; (Cesare Beccaria: 
&apos;&apos;Elementi di Econ. Pubblica,&quot; ed. Custodi, Parte Modema, t. xL, p. 28.) James 
Harris, afterwards Earl of Malmesbury, celebrated for the &quot;Diaries&quot; of his embassy 
at St. Petersburg^ says in a note to his &quot;Dialogue Concerning Happiness,&quot; Lond., 
1741, reprinted afterwards in &quot;Three Treatises, Ac, 8 Ed., Lond., 1772:&quot; &quot;The 
whole argument to prove society natural (t.e., by division of employments). . . • 
is taken from the second book of Plato&apos;s Republic&quot; 

« Thus, in the Odyssey xiv., 228, &quot;fAXXof yiLp r* SWourtv dviip iwiripmrat lf)70if,&quot; 
and Archilochus in Sextus Empiricus, &quot; &apos;AXXof AXXy ^&apos; Uprytp Kopdliiw ialptrak** 

•&quot;IIoXX&apos;i^rlffTOTol&apos;^a, «oic«Dt yiK^frarordFro.&apos; Every Athenian considered 
himself superior as a producer of commodities to a Spartan; for the latter in time of 
war had men enough at his disposal but could not command money, as Thucydides 
makes Pericles say in the speedi inciting the Athenians to the Peloponnesian war: 
&apos;XA/Mfft re iroifn&amp;repoi ol adrovpyol rCbw aw$pt&amp;rup ^ xfiif&quot;^^^ xoXe/ueilr.&quot; (Thnci LI.c 
41.) Nevertheless, even with regard to material production, a^apjce(a, as opposed 
to division of labour remained their ideal, &quot; rap* &amp;p yhp rh cS, vaph, ro&amp;rup Kol rb 
oArapint** It should be mentioned here that at the date of the fall of the 80 
Tyrants there were still not 6000 Athenians without landed property. 

*With Plato, division of labour within the community is a development from the 
multifarious requirements, and the limited capacities of individuals. The main 
point with him is, that the labourer must adapt himself to the work, not the work 
to the labourer; which latter is unavoidable, if he carries on several trades at once, 
thus making one or the other of them subordinate. &apos;*0^yiLpiB4\eiTbwparr6fitvovTiiP 
ToO xpdrroyrof oxoMip vtpifiiptiPf dXX* dpdymi t6p rpdrropra rf rparrofUpip 
4waKo\ov$4ip fjAi h vapipyov piptij^* Kvi.yKm.^&apos;EiK d^ roifrwp vWtf re lucMta 

Z 



 

402 Capitalist Production. 

which the divisicm of society into dasaes is based, as by Xeno* 
phenyl who with characteristic bourgeois instinct, approaches 
more nearly to division of labour within the workshop. Plato&apos;s 
Bepublic, in so far as division of labour is treated in it, as the 
formative principle of the State, is merely the Athenian ideali- 
sation of the E^rptian system of castes, Egypt having served 
as the model of an industrial country to many of his contem- 
poraries also, amongst others to Isocrates,* and it continued to 
have this importance to the Greeks of the Roman Empire.&apos; 
During the manufacturing period proper, i.e., the period 

ylywtrai mU jctfXXioF ml pfop, ^aw c&amp; f f Kwrk ^6^19 koX h KotfiQ ^oMfv tQp iXKum 
iytip Kpdmf^ (Rep. t 8. Ed. Baiter, Orelli, &amp;c.). So in Thucydidet L c c, 4S: 
&apos;&apos;Seafaring is an art like any other, and cannot, as circumstances require, be carried 
on as a subsidiary occupation; nay, other subsidiary occupations cannot be carried 00 
alongside of this one.&quot; If the work, says Plato, has to wait for the labourer, the 
critical point in the process is missed and the article spoiled, Hpyov Katp6p ^i^XXvrdL 
The ssme Platonic idea is found recurring in the protest of the English bleachers 
against the cause in the Factory Act that provides fixed meal times for all opcr^ 
atiTCS. Their business cannot wait the convenience of the workmen, for &quot;in the 
various operations of singeing, washing^ bleaching^ mangling, calendering, and 
dyeing, none of them can be stopped at a given moment without risk of damage 
.... to enforce the same dinner hour for all the work-people might occasion- 
ally subject valuable goods to the risk of danger by incomplete operationa.&quot; Le 
platonisme oik va-t-il ee nicherl 

^ Xenophon sasrs, it is not only an honour to receive food from the taUe of tiie 
King of Persia, but such food is much more tasty than other food. &quot;And there 
is nothing wonderful in this, for as the other arts are brought to special perfection 
in the great towns, «o the royal food is prepared in a special way. For in the email 
towns the same mun makes bedsteads, doors, ploughs and tables: often, too, he 
builds houses into the bargain, and is quite content if he finds custom sufficient 
for his sustenance. It is altogether impossible for a man who does so many things to 
do them all well. But in the great towns, where each man can find many buyers, one 
trade is sufficient to maintain the man who carries it on. Nay, there is often not even 
need of one complete trade, but one man makes shoes for men, another for women. 
Here and there one man gets a living by sewing, another by cutting out shoes; 
one does nothing but cut out clothes, another nothing but sew the pieces together. 
It follows necessarily then, that he who does the simplest kind of work, undoubted- 
ly does it better than any one else. So it is with the art of cooking.&quot; (Xen. 
Cyrop. L viii., c 2.) Xenophon here lays stress exclusively upon the excellence 
to be attained in use-value, although he well knows that the gradations of the di- 
vision of labour depend on the extent of the market. 

&apos;He (Busiris) divided tbem all into special castes. .... commanded that 
the same individuals should always carry on the same trade, for he knew that they 
who change their occupations become skilled in none; but that those who constantly 
stick to one occupation bring it to the highest perfection. In truth, we shall also 
find that in relation to the arts and handicrafts, they have outstripped their rivals 
more than a master does a bungler; and the contrivances for maintaining the mon- 
archy and the other institutions, of their Sute are so admirable that the most 
celebrated philosophers who treat of this subject praise the constitution of the 
Egyptian State above all others. (Isocrates, Busiris, c 8.) 

&apos;Cf. Diodorus Siculua. 



 

Division of Labour and Manufacture. 403 

during which manufacture is the predominant form taken by 
capitalist production, many obstacles are opposed to the full 
development of the peculiar tendencies of manufacture. Al- 
though manufacture creates, as we have already seen, a simple 
separation of the labourers into skilled and unskilled, simul- 
taneously with their hierarchic arrangement in classes, yet the 
number of the unskilled labourers, owing to the preponderating 
influence of the skilled, remains very limited. Although it 
adapts the detail operations to the various degrees of maturity, 
strength, and development of the living instruments of labour, 
thus conducing to exploitation of women and children, yet this 
tendency as a whole is wrecked on the habits and the resistance 
of the male labourers. Although the splitting up of handi- 
crafts lowers the cost of forming the workman, and thereby 
lowers his value, yet for the more difficult detail work, a longer 
apprenticeship is necessary, and, even where it would be supers 
fluous, is jealously insisted upon by the workmen. In Eng- 
land, for instance, we find the laws of apprenticeship, with the 
seven years* probation, in full force down to the end of the 
manufacturing period ; and they are not thrown on one side till 
the advent of Modem Industry. Since handicraft skill is the 
foundation of manufacture, and since the mechanism of manu- 
facture as a whole possesses no framework, apart from the la- 
bourers themselves, capital is constantly compelled to wrestle 
with the insubordination of the workmen. &quot;By the infirmity 
of human nature,&quot; says friend Ure, &quot;it happens that the more 
skilful the workman, the more self-willed and intractable he is 
apt to become, and of course the less fit a component of a me- 
chanical system in which ... he may do great damage to the 
whole.&apos;** Hence throughout the whole manufacturing period 
there runs the complaint of want of discipline among the work- 
men.* And had we not the testimony of contemporary writers, 
the simple facts that, during the period between the 16th cen- 
tury and the epoch of Modem Industry, capital failed to be- 
come the master of the whole disposable working-time of the 

«Ure, t c, p. 20. 

*Thi8 it more the case in England than in France, and more in France than in 
Holland 



 

404 Capitalist Production. 

manufactaring labourers, that manufactures are short-lived, 
and change their locality from one country to another with the 
emigrating or immigrating workmen, these facts would speak 
volumes. &quot;Order must in one way or another be established,** 
exclaims in 1770 the oft-cited author of the &quot;Essay on Trade 
and Commerce.&quot; &quot;Order,&quot; re-echoes Dr. Andrew Ure 66 
years later, &quot;Order&quot; was wanting in manufacture based on 
&quot;the scholastic dogma of division of labour,&quot; and &quot;Arkwright 
created order.&quot; 

At the same time manufacture was unable^ either to seize 
upon the production of society to its full extent, or to revolu- 
tionise that production to its very core. It towered up as 
an economical work of art, on the broad foundation of the town 
handicrafts, and of the rural domestic industries. At a given 
stage in its development, the narrow technical basis on which 
manufacture rested, came into conflict with requirements of 
production that were created by manufacture itself. 

One of its most finished creations was the workshop for the 
production of the instruments of labour themselves, including 
especially the complicated mechanical apparatus then alrea^ 
employed. A machine-factory, says XJre, &quot;displayed the di- 
vision of labour in manifold gradations — the file, the drill, the 
lathe, having each its different workman in the order of skilL&quot; 
(p. 21.) This workshop, the product of the division of labour 
in manufacture, produced in its turn — machines. It is they 
that sweep away the handicraftsman&apos;s work as the regulnting 
principle of social production. Thus, on the one hand^ the 
technical reason for the life-long annexation of the workman to 
a detail function is removed. On the other hand, the fetters 
that this same principle laid on the dominion of capital, fall 
away. 



 

Machinery and Modern Industry^ 405 

CHAPTER XV. 

MACHINERY AND MODERN INDUSTRY. 
SECTION 1. THE DEVELOPMENT OP MAOHINEBT. 

John Stuart Mill says in his Principles of Political Econ- 
omy : **It is questionable if all the mechanical inventions yet 
made have lightened the day&apos;s toil of any human being.&quot; ^ 
That is, however, by no means the aim of the capitalistic ap- 
plication of machinery. Like every other increase in the 
productiveness of labour, machinery is intended to cheapen 
commodities, and, by shortening that portion of the working- 
day, in which the labourer works for himself, to lengthen 
the other portion that he gives, without an equivalent, to the 
capitalist In short, it is a means for oroducing surplus- 
value. 

In manufacture, the revolution in the mode of production 
begins with the labour-power, in modem industry it begins 
with the instruments of labour. Our first inquiry then is, 
how the instruments of labour are converted from tools into 
machines, or what is the difference between a machine and the 
implements of a handicraft ? We are only concerned here with 
striking and general characteristics; for epochs in the history 
of society are no more separated from each other by hard and 
fast lines of demarcation, than are geological epochs. 

Mathematicians and mechanicians^ and in this they are fol- 
lowed by a few English economists, call a tool a simple ma- 
chine, and a machine a complex tool. They see no essential 
difference between them, and even give the name of machine to 
the simple mechanical powers, the lever, the inclined plane, the 
screw, the wedge, &amp;c.^ As a matter of fact, every machine is 
a combination of those simple powers, no matter how they 

^Mfll shotald bave said, &quot;of any human being not fed by other people&apos;s labourv** 
for, without doubt, machinery has greatly increased the number of well-to-do 
idlers. 

&apos;See, for instance, Button: &quot;Course of Mathemstici.&apos;* 



 

4o6 Capitalist Production. 

may be disguised. From the economical standpoint this ex- 
planation is worth nothings because the historical element is 
wanting. Another explanation of the difference between tool 
and machine is that in the case of a tool, man is the motive 
power, while the motive power of a machine is something dif- 
ferent from man, is, for instance, an animal, water, wind, and 
BO on.^ According to this, a plough drawn by oxen, which is 
a contrivance common to the most different epochs, would be a 
machine, while Claussen^s circular loom, which, worked by a 
single labourer, weaves 96,000 picks per minute, would be 
a mere tooL Nay, this very loom, though a tool when worked 
by hand, would, if worked by steam, be a machine. And since 
the application of animal power is one of man^s earliest inven- 
tions, production by machinery would have preceded produc- 
tion by handicrafts. When in 1735, John Wyalt brought out 
his spinning machine, and began the industrial revolution of 
the 18th century, not a word did he say about an ass driving 
it instead of a man, and yet this part fell to the ass. He de- 
scribed it as a machine &quot;to spin without fingers.&quot;* 

*&quot;From this point of yiew we may draw a sharp line of distinction b et we en s 
tool and a machine: spades, hammers, chisels, ftc, combinations x&gt;f levers and of 
screws, in all of which, no matter how complicated they may be in other respects, 

man is the motive power, all this falls under the idea of a tool; but 

the plough, which is drawn by animal power, and windmills, &amp;c., must be classed 
among machines.&quot; (Wilhelm Schulz: &quot;Die Bewegung der Produktion. Zurich, 
1843,&quot; p. 88.) In many respects a book to be recommended. 

&apos;Before his time, spinning machines, although very imperfect ones, had already 
been used, and Italy was probably the country of their first appearance. A critical 
history of technology would show how little any of the inventions of the 18th cen- 
tury are the work of a single individual. Hitherto there is no such book. Darwin 
has interested us in the history of Nature&apos;s Technology, t.#., in the formation of 
the organs of plants and animals, which organs serve as instruments of production 
for sustaining life. Does not the history of the productive organs of man, of or- 
gans that are the material basis of all social organisation, deserve equal attention? 
And would not such a history be easier to compile since, as Vico says, human 
history differs from natural history in this, that we have made the former, but not 
the latter? Technology discloses man&apos;s mode of dealing with Nature, the process 
of production by which he sustains his life, and thereby also lays bare the mode 
of formation of his social relations, and of the mental conceptions that flow from 
them. Every history of religion even, that fails to take account of this material 
basis, is uncritical. It is, in reality, much easier to discover by analysis the earth- 
ly core of the misty creations of religion, than, conversely, it is, to develop from the 
actual relations of life the corresponding celestialised forms of those relations. The 
latter method is the only materialistic, and therefore the only scientific one. The 
weak points in the abstract materialism of natural science, a materialism that ex- 
cludes history and its process, are at once evident from the abstract and ideological 



 

Machinery and Modern Industry. 407 

AU folly developed machinery consists of three essentially 
different parts, the motor mechanism, the transmitting mechan- 
ism, and finally the tool or working machine. The motor 
mechanism is that which puts the whole in motion. It either 
generates its own motive power, like the steam engine, the 
caloric engine, the electro-magnetic machine, &amp;c, or it receives 
its impulse from some already existing natural force, like the 
water-wheel from a head of water, the wind-mill from wind, 
&amp;c. The transmitting mechanism, composed of fly-wheels, 
shafting, toothed wheels, pullies, straps, ropes, bands, pinions, 
and gearing of the most varied kinds, regulates the motion, 
changes its form where necessary, as for instance, from linear 
to circular, and divides and distributes it among the working 
machines. These two first parts of the whole mechanism are 
there, solely for putting the working machines in motion, by 
means of which motion the subject of labour is seized upon 
and modified as desired. The tool or working-machine is ^at 
part of the machinery with which the industrial revolution of 
the 18th century started. And to this day it constantly serves 
as such a starting point, whenever a handicraft, or a manu- 
facture, is turned into an industry carried on by machinery. 

On a closer examination of the working-machine proper, we 
find in it, as a general rule, though often, no doubt, under very 
altered forms, the apparatus and tools used by the handicrafts-* 
man or manufacturing workman; with this difference, that 
instead of being human implements, they are the implements 
of a mechanism, or mechanical implements. Either the entire 
machine is only a more or less altered mechanical edition of 
the old handicraft tool, as, for instance, the power-loom ;^ or 
the working parts fitted in the frame of the machine are old 
acquaintances, as spindles are in a mule, needles in a stocking- 
loom, saws in a sawing machine, and knives in a chopping 
machine. The distinction between these tools and the body 
proper of the machine, exists from their very birth ; for they 

eonceptloiis of its spokesmen, whenever they venture heyond the bounds of their 
own speciality. 

^Especially in the original form of the power-loom, we recognhe, at the first 
glance, the ancient loom. In its modem form, the power-loom has undergone es* 
sential alterations. 



 

4o8 Capitalist Production. 

continue for the most part to be produced by handicraft^ or by 
manufacture, and are afterwards fitted into the body of the 
machine, which is the product of machinery.* The machine 
proper is therefore a mechanism that, after being set in motion, 
performs with its tools the same operations that were formerly 
done by the workman with similar tools. Whether the motive 
power is derived from man, or from some other machine, makes 
no difference in this respect. From the moment that the tool 
proper is taken from man, and fitted into a mechanism, a 
machine takes the place of a mere implement. The difference 
strikes one at once, even in those cases where man himself 
continues to be the prime mover. The number of implements 
that he himself can use simultaneously, is limited by the num- 
ber of his own natural instruments of production, by tiie 
number of his bodily organs. In Germany, they tried at first 
to make one spinner work two spinning wheels, that is, to 
work simultaneously with both hands and both feet This was 
too difficult. Later, a treddle spinning wheel with two spin- 
dles was invented, but adepts in spinning, who could spin two 
threads at once, were almost as scarce as two-headed men. 
The Jenny, on the other hand, even at its very birth, spun 
with 12-18 spindles, and the stocking-loom knits with many 
thousand needles at once. The number of tools that a machine 
can bring into play simultaneously, is from the very first 
emancipated from the organic limits that hedge in the tools of 
a handicraftsman. 

In many manual implements the distinction between man as 
mere motive power, and man as the workman or operator 
properly so-called, is brought into striking contrast. For in- 
stance, the foot is merely the prime mover of the spinning 
wheel, while the hand, working with the spindle, and drawing 
and twisting, performs the real operation of spinning. It is 
this last part of the handicraftsman&apos;s implement that is first 

^ It is only during the last 16 years (t.#., since about 1860), that a constantiy 
increasing portion of these machine tools have been made in England by machinery, 
and that not by the same manufacturers who make the machines. Instances of 
machines for the fabrication of these mechanical tools are, the automatic bobbin- 
making engine, the card-setting engine, shuttle-making machines, and machines for 
forging mule and throstle spindles. 



 

Machinery and Modem Industry. 409 

seized upon by the industrial revolution, leaving to the work- 
man, in addition to his new labour of watching the machine 
with his eyes and correcting its mistakes with his hands, the 
merely mechanical part of being the moving power. On the 
other hand, implements, in regard to which man has always 
acted as a simple motive power, as, for instance, by turning the 
crank of a mill,* by pumping, by moving up and down the arm 
of a bellows, by pounding with a mortar, &amp;c, such implements 
soon call for the application of animals, water,^ and wind as 
motive powers. Here and there, long before the period of 
manufacture, and also, to some extent, during that period, 
these implements pass over into machines, but without creat- 
ing any revolution in the mode of production. It becomes 
evident, in the period of Modem Industry, that these imple- 
ments, even under their form of manual tools, are already 
machines. For instance, the pumps with which the Dutch, in 
1836-7, emptied the Lake of Harlem, were constructed on the 
principle of ordinary pumps; the only difference being, that 
their pistons were driven by cyclopean steam-engines, instead 
of by men. The common and very imperfect bellows of the 
blacksmith is, in England, occasionally converted into a blow- 
ing-engine, by connecting its arm with a steam-engine. The 
steam-engine itself, such as it was at its invention, during the 
manufacturing period at the close of the 17th century, and 
such as it continued to be down to 1780,* did not give rise to 
any industrial revolution. It was, on the contrary, the inven- 

^ Moses sajrs: &quot;Tlion shalt not muzzle the ox that treads the com.&quot; The Christian 
philanthropists of Germany, on the contrary, fastened a wooden board round the 
necks of the serfs, whom they used as a motive power for grinding, in order to 
prevent them from putting flour into their mouths with their hands. 

&apos;It was partly the want of streams with a good fall on them, and partly their 
battles with superabundance of water in other respects, that compelled the Dutch to 
resort to wind as a motive power. The windmill itself they got from Germany, 
where its invention was the origin of a pretty squabble between the nobles, the 
priests, and the emperor, as to which of those three the wind &quot;belonged.&quot; The air 
makes bondage, was the cry in Germany, at the same time that the wind was making 
Holland free. What it reduced to bondage in this case, was not the Dutchman, but 
the land for the Dutchman. In 1836, 12,000 windmills of 6000 horse-power were 
stiU employed in Holland, to prevent two- thirds of the land from being reconverted 
into morasses. 

•It was, indeed, very much improved by Watt&apos;s first so-called single acting en- 
gine; but, in this form, it continued to be a mere machine for raising water, and 
the liquor from salt mines. 



 

4IO Capitalist Production. 

tion of machinee that made a revolution in the form of steam- 
engines necessary. As soon as man, instead of working with 
an implement on the subject of his labour, becomes merely 
the motive power of an implement-machine, it is a mere acci- 
dent that motive power takes the disguise of human muscle; 
and it may equally well take the form of wind, water or steam* 
Of course, this does not prevent such a change of form from 
producing great technical alterations in the mechanism that 
was originally constructed to be driven by man alone. Now- 
adays, all machines that have their way to make, such as sew- 
ing machines, bread-making machines, &amp;c., are, unless from 
their very nature their use on a small scale is excluded, con- 
structed to be driven both by human and by purely mechan- 
ical motive power. 

The machine, which is the starting point of the industrial 
revolution, supersedes the workman, who handles a single tool, 
by a mechanism operating with a number of similar tools, and 
set in motion by a single motive power, whatever the form of 
that power may be.* Here we have the machine, but only as 
an elementary factor of production by machinery. 

Increase in the size of the machine, and in the number of its 
working tools, calls for a more massive mechanism to drive it; 
and this mechanism requires, in order to overcome its resist- 
anoe, a mightier moving power than that of man, apart from 
the fact that man is a very imperfect instnmient for producing 
uniform continued motion. But assuming that he is acting 
simply as a motor, that a machine has taken the place of his 
tool, it is evident that he can be replaced by natural forces. 
Of all the great motors handed down from the manufacturing 
period, horse-power is the worst, partly because a horse has a 
head of his own, partly because he is costly, and the extent to 
which he is applicable in factories is very restricted.* Never- 

i&lt;*The union of all these simple instruments, set in motion by s single motor* 
constitutes a machine.&quot; (Babbage, 1. c) 

&apos;In January, 1801, John C. Morton read before the Society of Arts a paper on 
&quot;The forces employed in agriculture.&quot; He there states: &quot;Every improvement that 
furthers the uniformity of the land makes the steam-engine more and more sppHca* 
ble to the production of pure mechanical force. • . . Horse-power is requisite 
wherever crooked fences and other obstructions prevent uniform action. These 
obstructions are vanishing day by day. For operations that demand more exerdst 



 

Machinery and Modem Industry. 411 

ihel668 the horse was extensively used during the infancy of 
Modem Industry. This is proved, as well by the complaints 
of contemporary agriculturists, as by the term &quot;horse-power,** 
which has survived to this day as an expression for mechanical 
force. 

Wind was too inconstant and imcontroUable, and besides, in 
England, the birthplace of Modem Industry, ihe use of water- 
power preponderated even during the manufacturing period. 
In the 17th century attempts had already been made to turn 
two pairs of millstones with a single water-wheeL But the 
increased size of the gearing was too much for the water- 
power, which had now become insufficient, and this was one 
of the circumstances that led to a more accurate investigation 
of the laws of friction. In the same way the irregularity 
caused by the motive power in mills that were put in motion 
by pushing and pulling a lever, led to the theory, and the 
application, of the fly-wheel, which afterwards plays so im- 
portant a part in Modem Industry.* In this way, during the 
manufacturing period, were developed the first scientific and 
technical elements of Modem Mechanical Industry. Ark- 
Wright&apos;s throstle-spinning mill was from thfe very first turned 
by water. But for all that, the use of water, as the predomi- 
nant motive power, was beset with difficulties. It could not be 
increased at will, it failed at certain seasons of the year, and, 
above all, it was essentially local. ^ Not till the invention of 
Watt&apos;s second and so called double-acting steam-engine, was a 

of will than actual force, the only power applicable is that controlled every instant 
by the human mind — in other words, man-power/&apos; Mr. Morton then reduces steam- 
power, horse-power, and man-power, to the unit in general use for steam-enginef» 
namely, the force required to raise 88,000 lbs. one foot in one minute, and reckons 
the cost of one horse-power from a steam-engine to be 8d., and from a horse to 
be 5^d. per hour. Further, if a horse must fully maintain its health, it can work 
no more than 8 hours a day. Three at the least out of every seven horses used on 
tillage land during the year can be dispensed with, by using steam-power, at an 
expense not greater than that which, the horses dispensed with, would cost dur- 
ing the 8 or 4 months in which alone they can be used effectively. Lastly, steam* 
power, in those agricultural operations in which it can be employed, improves, in 
comparison with horse-power, the quality of the work. To do the work of a steam- 
engine would require 66 men, at a total cost of 16s. an hour, and to do the work of 
a horse, 82 men, at a total cost of 8s. an hour. 

^F&apos;anlhebr, 1626; De Cous, 1688. 

*Tbe modem turbine frees the industrial exploitation of water-power from 
of its fonncr fetters. 



 

412 Capitalist Production. 

prime mover foimd^ that begot its own force by the consump- 
tion of coal and water, whose power was entirely under man&apos;s 
control, that was mobile and a means of locomotion, that was 
urban and not, like the water-wheel, rural, that permitted pro- 
duction to be concentrated in towns instead of, like the water- 
wheels, being scattered up and down the country,^ that was of 
universal technical application, and, relatively speaking, little 
affected in its choice of residence by local circumstances. The 
greatness of Watt&apos;s genius showed itself in the specification of 
the patent that he took out in April, 1784. In that specifica- 
tion his steam-engine is described, not as an invention for a 
specific purpose, but as an agent universally applicable in 
Mechanical Industry. In it he points out applications, many 
of which, as for instance, the steam-hammer, were not intro- 
duced till half a century later. Nevertheless he doubted the 
use of steam-engines in navigation. His successors, Boulton 
and Watt, sent to the exhibition of 1851 steam-engines of colos- 
sal size for ocean steamers. 

As soon as tools had been converted from being manual 
implements of man into implements of a mechanical apparatus, 
of a machine, the motive mechanism also acquired an indepen- 
dent form, entirely emancipated from the restraints of human 
strength. Thereupon the individual machine, that we have 
hitherto been considering, sinks into a mere factor in produc- 
tion by machinery. One motive mechanism was now able to 
drive many machines at once. The motive mechanism grows 
with the number of the machines that are turned simultane- 
ously, and the transmitting mechanism becomes a wide-spread- 
ing apparatus. 

We now proceed to distinguish the co-operation of a number 

^&quot;In the early days of textile manufacttires, the locality of the factory depended 
upon the existence of a stream having a sufficient fall to turn a water- wheel; and. 
although the establishment of the water mills was the commencement of the break- 
ing up of the domestic system of manufacture, yet the mills necessarily situated 
upon streams, and frequently^ at considerable distances the one from the other, form- 
ed part of a rural, rather than an urban system; and it was not until the introduc- 
tion of the steam-power as a substitute for the stream that factories were congre- 
gated in towns, and localities where the coal and water required for the productioa 
of steam were found in sufficient quantities. The steam-engine is the parent of 
manufacturing towns.&quot; (A. Redgrave in &quot;Reports of the Insp. of Fact. SOtk 
April, 1866,&quot; p. 86.) 



 

Machinery and Modem Industry. 413 

of machines of one kind from a complex system of machinery. 
In the one case, the product is entirely made by a single 
machine^ which performs all the various operations previously 
done by one handicraftsman with his tool ; as, for instance, by 
a weaver with his loom ; or by several handicraftsmen success- 
ively, either separately or as members of a system of Manu- 
facture.* For example, in the manufacture of envelopes, one 
man folded the paper with the folder, another laid on the gum, 
a third turned the flap over, on which the device is impressed, 
a fourth embossed the device, and so on ; and for each of these 
operations the envelope had to change hands. One single 
envelope machine now performs all these operations at once, 
and makes more than 3000 envelopes in an hour. In the Lon- 
don exhibition of 1862, there was an American machine for 
making paper comets. It cut the paper, pasted, folded, and 
finished 300 in a minute. Here, the whole process, which, 
when carried on as Manufacture, was split up into, and carried 
out by, a series of operations, is completed by a single machine, 
working a combination of various tools. Now, whether such 
a machine be merely a reproduction of a complicated manual 
implement, or a combination of various simple implements 
specialised by Manufacture, in either case, in the factory, i.e., 
in the workshop in which machinery alone is used, we meet 
again with simple co-operation; and, leaving the workman 
out of consideration for the moment^ this co-operation presents 
itself to us, in the first instance^ as the conglomeration in one 
place of similar and simultaneously acting machines. Thus, a 
weaving factory is constituted of a number of power-looms, 
working side by side, and a sewing factory of a number of 
eewing machines all in the same building. But there is here 
a technical oneness in the whole system, owing to all the ma- 

^From the standpoint of division of labour in Manufacture, weaving was not 
simple, but on the contrary, complicated manual labour; and consequently the 
power-loom is a machine that does very complicated work. It is altogether errone- 
ous to suppose that modem machinery originally appropriated these operations alone, 
which division of labour had simplified. Spinning and weaving were, during the 
manufacturing period, split up into new species, and the implements were modified 
and improved; but the labour itself was in no way divided, and it retained its handi- 
craft character. It is not the labour, but the instrument of labour, that servet as 
the starting-point of the machine. 



 

414 Capitalist Production. 

chines receiving their impulse simultaneously, and in an equal 
degree, from the pulsations of the common prime mover, by 
the intermediary of the transmitting mechanism; and this 
mechanism, to a certain extent, is also common to them all, 
since only particular ramifications of it branch off to each 
machine. Just as a number of tools, then, form the organs of 
a machine, so a number of machines of one kind constitute the 
organs of the motive mechanism. 

A real machinery system, however, does not take the place 
of these independent machines, until the subject of labour goes 
through a connected series of detail processes, that are carried 
out by a chain of machines of various kinds, the one supple- 
menting the other. Here we have again the co-operation by 
division of labour that characterises Manufacture; only now, 
it is a combination of detail machines. The special tools of 
the various detail workmen, such as those of the beaters, comb- 
ers, spinners, &amp;c., in the woollen manufacture, are now trans- 
formed into the tools of specialised machines, each machine 
constituting a special organ, with a special function, in the 
system. In those branches of industry in which the machinery 
system is first introduced, Manufacture itself furnishes, in a 
general way, the natural basis for the division, and consequent 
organisation, of the process of production.* Nevertheless an 
essential difference at once manifests itself. In Manufacture 
it is the workmen who. with their manual implements, must, 

^Before the epoch of Mechanical Industry, the wool manufacture was the pre&gt; 
dominating manufacture in England. Hence it was in this industry that, in the first 
half of the 18th century, the most experiments were made. Cotton, which required 
less careful preparation for its treatment by machinery, derived the benefit of the 
experience gained on wool, just as afterwards the manipulation of wool by machin- 
ery was developed on the lines of cotton-spinning and weaving by machinery. It 
was only during the 10 years immediately preceding 1860, that isolated details of 
the wool manufacture, such as wool&lt;combing, were incorporated in the factory 
system. &quot;The application of power to the process of combing wool .... 
extensively in operation since the introduction of the combing machine^ eq&gt;ecially 
Lister&apos;s • • . undoubtedly had the effect of throwing a very large number of 
men out of work. Wool was formerly combed by hand, most frequently in the 
cottage of the comber. It is now very generally combed in the factory, and hand- 
labour is superseded, except in some particular kinds of work, in which hand-combed 
wool is still preferred. Many of the hand-combers found employment in the fac- 
tories, but the produce of the hand-combers bears so small a pr&lt;^&gt;ortion to that of 
the machine, that the employment of a very large number of combers has yatsc d 
away.&quot; (Rep. of Insp. of Fact for Slst Oct, 1856, p. 16.) 



 

Machinery and Modem Industry. 415 

either singly or in groups, carry on each particular detail proc- 
ess. If, on the one hand, the workman becomes adapted to the 
process, on the other, the process was previously made suitable 
to the workman. This subjective principle of the division of 
labour no longer exists in production by machinery. Here, 
the process as a whole is examined objectively, in itself, that is 
to say, without regard to the question of its execution by hu- 
man hands, it is analysed into its constituent phases ; and the 
problem, how to execute each detail process, and bind them all 
into a whole, is solved by the aid of machines, chemistry, &amp;c.^ 
But, of course, in this case also, theory must be perfected by 
accumulated experience on a large scale. Each detail machine 
supplies raw material to the machine next in order ; and since 
they are all working at the same time, the product is always 
going through the various stages of its fabrication, and is also 
constantly in a state of transition, from one phase to another. 
Just as in Manufacture, the direct co-operation of the detail 
labourers establishes a numerical proportion between the spe- 
cial groups, so in an organised system of machinery, where 
one detail machine is constantly kept employed by another, a 
fbced relation is established between their numbers, their size, 
and their speed. The collective machine, now an organised 
system of various kinds of single machines, and of groups of 
single machines, becomes more and more perfect, the more the 
process as a whole becomes a continuous one, i.e., the less the 
raw material is interrupted in its passage from its first phase 
to its last ; in other words, the more its passage from one phase 
to another is effected, not by the hand of man, but by the ma- 
chinery itself. In Manufacture the isolation of each detail 
process is a condition imposed by the nature of division of 
labour, but in the fully developed factory the continuity of 
those processes is, on the contrary, imperative. 

A system of machinery, whether it reposes on the mere co- 
operation of similar machines, as in weaving, or on a combina- 
tion of different machines, as in spinning, constitutes in itself 

^&quot;The principle of the factory system, then, is to substitute ... the parti- 
tion of s process into its essential constituents, for the division or graduation of 
fabour among artisans.&quot; (Andrew Ure: &quot;The Philosophy of Manufactures.&quot; 
Lond., 1836, p. 20.) 



 

4i6 Capitalist Productiotk 

a huge automaton, whenever it is driven by a self-acting prime 
mover. But although the factory as a whole be driven by its 
steam-engine, yet either some of the individual machines may 
require the aid of the workman for some of their movements 
(such aid was necessary for the running in of the mule car- 
riage, before the invention of the self-acting mule, and is stiU 
necessary in fine-spinning mills) ; or, to enable a machine to do 
its \70Tky certain parts of it may require to be handled by the 
workman like a manual tool; this was the case in madiine- 
makers&apos; workshops, before the conversion of the slide rest into 
a self-actor. As soon as a machine executes, without man&apos;s 
help, all the movements requisite to elaborate the raw material, 
needing only attendance from him, we have an automatic sys- 
tem of machinery, and one that is susceptible of constant im- 
provement in its details* Such improvements as the apparatus 
that stops a drawing frame, whenever a sliver breaks, and the 
self-acting stop, that stops the power-loom so soon as the shuttle 
bobbin is emptied of weft, are quite modem inventions. As 
an example, both of continuity of production, and of the carry- 
ing out of the automatic principle, we may take a modem 
paper mill. In the paper industry generally, we may advan- 
tageously study in detail not only the distinctions between 
modes of production based on different means of production, 
but also the connexion of the social conditions of production 
with those modes : for the old German paper-making furnishes 
us with a sample of handicraft production; that of Holland 
in the 17th and of France in the 18th century with a sample 
of manufacturing in the strict sense ; and that of modem Eng- 
land with a sample of automatic fabrication of this article. 
Besides these, there still exist, in India and China, two dis- 
tinct antique Asiatic forms of the same industry. 

An organised system of machines, to which motion is com- 
municated by the transmitting mechanism from a central 
automaton, is the most developed form of production by ma- 
chinery. Here we hav^ in the place of the isolated machine, 
a medianical monster whose body fills whole factories, and 
whose demon power, at first veiled under the slow and meas- 



 

Machinery and Modem Industry. 417 

ured motions of his giant limbs^ at length breaks out into the 
fast and furions whirl of his countless working organs. 

There were mules and steam-engines before there were any 
labourers whose exclusive occupation it was to make mules 
and steam-engines ; just as men wore clothes before there were 
such people as tailors. The inventions of Vaucanson, Ark- 
wright, Watt, and others, were, however, practicable, only 
because those inventors found, ready to hand, a considerable 
number of skilled mechanical workmen, placed at their dis- 
posal by the manufacturing period. Some of these workmen 
were independent handicraftmen of various trades, others were 
grouped together in manufactures, in which, as before-men- 
tioned, division of labour was strictly carried out. As inven- 
tions increased in number, and the demand for the newly 
discovered machines grew larger, the machine-making industry 
split up, more and more, into numerous independent branches, 
end division of labour in these manufactures was more and 
more developed. Here, then, we see in Manufacture the imme- 
diate technical foundation of Modem Industry. Manufacture 
produced the machinery, by means of which Modem Industry 
abolished the handicraft and manufacturing systems in those 
spheres of production that it first seized upon. The factory 
system was therefore raised, in the natural course of things, on 
an inadequate foundation. When the system attained to a 
certain d^ree of development, it had to root up this ready- 
made foundation, which in the meantime had been elaborated 
on the old lines, and to build up for itself a basis that should 
correspond to its methods of production. Just as the indi- 
vidual machine retains a dwarfish character, so long as it is 
worked by the power of man alone, and just as no system of 
machinery could be properly developed before the steam engine 
took the place of the earlier motive powers, animals, wind, and 
even water ; so, too. Modem Industry was crippled in its com- 
plete development, so long as its characteristic instrument of 
production, the machine, owed its existence to personal 
strength and personal skill, and depended on the muscular de- 
velopment, the keenness of sight, and the cunning of hand, 
with which the detail workmen in manufactures and the 

2A 



 

4i8 Capitalist Production. 

manual labourers in handicrafts, wielded their dwarfish imple- 
ments. Thus, apart from the deamess of the machines made 
in this way, a circumstance that is ever present to the mind of 
the capitalist, the expansion of industries carried on by means 
of machinery, and the invasion by machinery of fresh branches 
of production, were dependent on the growth of a class of work- 
men, who, owing to the almost artistic nature of their employ- 
ment^ could increase their numbers only gradually, and not by 
leaps and bounds. But besides this, at a certain stage of its 
development. Modem Industry became technologically incom- 
patible with the basis furnished for it by handicraft and Manu- 
facture. The increasing size of the prime movers, of the 
transmitting mechanism, and of the machines proper, the 
greater complication, multiformity and regularity of the details 
of these machines, as they more and more departed from the 
model of those originally made by manual labour, and acquired 
a form, untrammelled except by the conditions imder which 
they worked,* the perfecting of the automatic system, and the 
use, every day more avoidable, of a more refractory ma- 
terial, such as iron instead of wood — ^the solution of all these 
problems, which sprang up by the force of circumstances, 
everywhere met with a stumbling-block in the personal restric- 
tions which even the collective labourer of Manufacture could 
pot break through, except to a limited extent Such machines 
as the modem hydraulic press, the modem powerloom, and the 
modem carding engine, could never have been furnished by 
Manufacture. 

A radical change in the mode of production in one sphere oi 
industry involves a similar change in other spheres. This 

* The powerloom was at first made chleflf of wood; in its improved modem fonv 
It is made of iron. To what an extent the old forms of the instruments of pro&gt; 
duction influenced their new forms at first starting, is shown by, amongst ot)iei 
things, the most superficial comparison of the present powerloom with the old one« 
of the modern blowing apparatus of a blast-furnace with the first inefficient me* 
chanical reproduction of the ordinary bellows, and perhaps more strikingly than 
in any other way, by the attempts before the invention of the present locomotive, 
to construct a locomotive that actually had two feet, which after the fashion of a 
horse, it raised alternately from the ground. It is only after considerable develop* 
ment of the science of mechanics, and accumulated practical experience, that the 
form of a machine becomes settled entirely in accordance with mechanical prin* 
dples, and emancipated from the traditional form of the tool that gave rise to it. 



 

Machinery and Modem Industry. 419 

happens at first in such branches of industry as are connected 
together by being separate phases of a process, and yet are 
isolated by the social division of labour^ in such a way, that 
each of them produces an independent commodity. Thus 
spinning by machinery made weaving by machinery a neces- 
sity, and both together made the mechanical and chemical revo- 
lution that took place in bleaching, printing, and dyeing, im- 
perative. So too, on the other hand, the revolution in cotton- 
spinning called forth the invention of the gin, for separating 
the seeds from the cotton fibre ; it was only by means of this 
invention, that the production of cotton became possible on the 
enormous scale at present required.* But more especially, the 
revolution in the modes of production of industry and agricul- 
ture made necessary a revolution in the general conditions of 
the social process of production, i.e., in the means of communi- 
cation and of transport. In a society whose pivot, to use an 
expression of Fourier, was agriculture on a small scale, with its 
subeidiary domestic industries, and the urban handicrafts, the 
means of communication and transport were so utterly inade- 
quate to the productive requirements of the manufacturing 
period, with its extended division of social labour, its concen- 
tration of the instruments of labour, and of the workmen, and 
its colonial markets, that they became in fact revolutionised. 
In the same way the means of communication and transport 
handed down from the manufacturing period soon became un- 
bearable trammels on Modem Industry, with its feverish haste 
of production, its enormous extent, its constant flinging of 
capital and labour from one sphere of production into another, 
and its newly-created connexions with the markets of the 
whole world* Hence, apart from the radical changes intro- 
duced in the construction of sailing vessels, the means of 
communication and transport became gradually adapted to the 
modes of production of mechanical industry, by the creation of 
a system of river steamers, railways, ocean steamers, and 

^Eli Whitnejr&apos;s cotton gin had unti] very recent times undergone lets essential 
changes than any other machine of the 18th century. It is only during the last 
decade «.#., stncg 1866) that another American, Mr. Emery, of Albany, New York, 
has rendered Whitney&apos;s gin antiquated by an improvement as simple as it is 
affectlTe. 



 

420 Capitalist Production. 

telegraphs. But the huge masses of iron that had now to be 
forged, to be welded, to be cut^ to be bored, and to be shaped, 
demanded, on their part, cyelopean machines, for the construc- 
tion of which the methods of the manufacturing period were 
utterly inadequate. 

Modem Industry had therefore itself to take in hand the 
machine, its characteristic instrument of production, and to 
construct machines by machines. It was not till it did this, 
that it built up for itself a fitting technical foundation, and 
stood on its own feet. Machinery, simultaneously with the 
increasing use of it, in the first decades of this century, appro- 
priated, by degrees, the fabrication of machines proper. But 
it was only during the decade preceding 1866, that the con- 
struction of railways and ocean steamers on a stupendous scale 
called into existence the cyelopean machines now employed in 
the construction of prime movers. 

The most essential condition to the production of machines 
by machines was a prime mover capable of exerting any 
amount of force^ and yet under perfect control Such a con- 
dition was already supplied by the steam-engine. But at the 
same time it was necessary to produce the geometrically accu- 
rate straight lines, planes, circles, cylinders, conee, and spheres, 
required in the detail parts of the machines. This problem 
Henry Maudsley solved in the first decade of this century by 
the invention of the slide rest, a tool that was soon made 
automatic, and in a modified form was applied to other con- 
structive machines besides the lathe, for which it was originally 
intended. This mechanical appliance replaces, not some par- 
ticular tool, but the hand itself, which produces a given form 
by holding and guiding the cutting tool along the iron or other 
material operated ui)on. Thus it became possible to produce 
the forms of the individual parts of machinery &quot;with a degree 
of ease, accuracy, and speed, that no accumulated experience 
of the hand of the most skilled workman could give.&quot;* 

***Thc Industiy of Nations, Lond., 1866,&quot; Part II., p. 289. This work also re- 
marks: &quot;Simple and outwardly unimportant as this appendage to lathes may appear, 
it is not, we believe, averring too much to state, that its influence in improving and 
extending the use of machinery has been as great as that produced by Watt&apos;s im- 
provements of the steam-engine itself. Its introduction went at once to perfect aH 
machinery, to cheapen it, and to stimulate invention and improvement.&quot; 



 

Machinery and Modem Industry. 421 

If we now fix our attention on that portion of the machinery 
employed in the ocmstmction of madiines^ which constitutes 
the operating tool, we find the manual implements reappear- 
ing, but on a Cyclopean scale. The operating part of the 
boring machine is an immense drill driven by a steam-en^ne; 
without this machine, on the other hand, the cylinders of large 
steam-engines and of hydaulic presses could not be made. 
The mechanical lathe is only a cyclopean reproduction of the 
ordinary fooMathe; the planing machine, an iron carpenter, 
that works on iron with the same tools that the human car- 
penter employs on wood ; the instrument that, on the London 
wharves, cuts the veneers, is a gigantic razor ; the tool of the 
shearing machine, which shears iron as easily as a tailor&apos;s 
scissors cut cloth, is a monster pair of scissors; and the 
steam hammer works with an ordinary hammer head, but of 
such a weight that not Thor himself could wield it^ These 
steam hammers are an invention of Nasmyth, and there is one 
that wei^s over 6 tons and strikes with a vertical fall of 7 
feet, on an anvil weighing 36 tons. It is mere child&apos;s play for 
it to crush a block of granite into powder, yet it is no less 
capable of driving, with a succession of light taps, a nail into a 
piece of soft wood.* 

The implements of labour, in the form of machinery, neces- 
sitate the substitution of natural forces for human force, and 
the conscious application of science, instead of rule of thumb. 
In Manufacture, the organisation of the social labour-process 
is purely subjective; it is a combination of detail labourers; 
in its machinery system. Modem Industry has a productive or^ 
ganism that is purely objective, in which the labourer becomes 
a mere appendage to an already existing material condition of 
production. In simple co-operation, and even in that founded 
on division of labour, the suppression of the isolated, by the 
collective, workman still appears to be more or less accidental 
Machinery, with a few exceptions to be mentioned later, oper- 

^One of these machines, tised for forging paddle-wheel shafts in London, is called 
&quot;Thor.** It forges a shaft of 16^ tons with as much ease as a blacksmith forges a 
horse-shoe. 

&apos;Wood working machines that are also capable of being employed on a smaii 
scale are mostly American inventions. 



 

422 Capitalist Production, 

ates only by means of associated labour, or labour in common. 
Hence, the co-operative character of the labour-process is, in 
the latter case, a technical necessity dictated by the instrument 
of labour itself. 



SBOnON 2. — THE VALUE TRANSFEItEBD BY MACHHOKBY TO 
THE PBODUCT. 

We saw that the productive forces resulting from co-opera- 
tion and division of labour cost capital nothing. They are 
natural forces of social labour. So also physical forces, like 
steam, water, &amp;c., when appropriated to productive processes, 
cost nothing. But just as a man requires lungs to breathe 
with, so he requires something that is work of man^s hand, in 
order to consume physical forces productively. A water-wheel 
is necessary to exploit the force of water, and a steam engine to 
exploit the elasticity of steam. Once discovered, the law of 
the deviation of the magnetic needle in the field of an electric 
current^ or the law of magnetisation of iron, around which 
an electric current circulates, cost never a penny. ^ But the 
exploitation of these laws for the purposes of telegraphy, &amp;c*, 
necessitates a costly and expensive apparatus. The tool, as we 
have seen, is not exterminated by the machine. From being 
a dwarf implement of the human organism, it expands and 
multiplies into the implement of mechanism created by man. 
Capital now sets the labourer to work, not with a manual tool, 
but with a machine which itself handles the tools. Although, 
therefore, it is clear at the first glance that, by incorporating 
both stupendous physical forces, and the natural sciences, with 
the process of production. Modem Industry raises the produc- 
tiveness of labour to an extraordinary degree, it is by no means 
equally clear, that this increased productive force is not^ on 
the other hand, purchased by an increased expenditure of 

^ Science, generally speaking, cosu the capitalist nothing, a fart that by no means 
hinders him frod exploiting it. The science of others is as much annexed by capital 
as the labour ^x others. Capitalistic appropriation and personal appropriation, 
whether of science or of material wealth, are, however, totally different things. Dr. 
Ure himself deplores the gross ignorance of mechanical science existing among hit 
dear machinery-exploiting manufacturers, and Liebig can a tale unfold about tht 
abounding ignorance of chemistry displayed by English chemical manufacturers. 



 

Machinery and Modem Industry. 423 

labour. Machinery, like eveiy other component of constant 
capital, creates no new valne, but yields up its own value to 
&apos;the product that it serves to begeU In so far as the machine 
has value, and, in consequence, parts with value to the product^ 
it forms an element in the value of that product Instead of 
being cheapened, the product is made dearer in proportion to 
the value of the machine. And it is clear as noon-day, that 
machines and systems of machinery, the characteristic instru- 
ments of labour of Modem Industry, are incomparably more 
loaded with value than the implements used in handicrafts 
and manufactures. 

In the first place, it must be observed that the machinery, 
while always entering as a whole into the labour-process, enters 
into the value-begetting process only by bits. It never adds 
more value than it loses, on an average, by wear and tear. 
Hence there is a great difference between the value of a ma- 
chine, and the value transferred in a given time by that 
machine to the product The longer the life of the machine 
in the labour-process, the greater is that difference. It is true, 
no doubt, as we have already seen, that every instrument of 
labour enters as a whole into the labour-process, and only piece- 
meal, proportionally to its average daily loss by wear and tear, 
into the value-begetting process. But this difference between 
the instrument as a whole and its daily wear and tear, is much 
greater in a machine than in a tool, because the machine, being 
made from more durable material, has a longer life ; because its 
employment, being regulated by strictly scientific laws, allows 
of greater economy in the wear and tear of its parts, and in the 
materials it consumes ; and lastly, because its field of produc- 
tion is incomparably larger than that of a tool. After making 
allowance, both in the case of the machine and of the tool, for 
their average daily cost, that is for the value they transmit to 
the product by their average daily wear and tear, and for 
their consumption of auxiliary substances, such as oil, coal, and 
so on, they each do their work gratuitously, just like the forces 
furnished by nature without the help of man. The greater 
the productive power of the machinery compared with that of 
the tool, the greater is the extent of its gratuitous service com* 



 

424 Capitalist ProductiofK 

pared with lihat of the tooL In Modem Industry man suc- 
ceeded for the first time in making the product of his past, 
labour work on a large scale gratuitously, like the forces of 
nature,^ 

In treating of Co-operation and Manufacture, it was sbown 
that certain general factors of production, such as buildings, 
are, in comparison with the scattered means of production of 
the isolated workman, economised by being consumed in com- 
mon, and that they therefore make lie product cheaper. In a 
system of machinery, not only is the framework of the macbine 
consumed in common by its numerous operating implements, 
but the prime mover, together with a part of the transmitting 
mechanism, is consumed in common by the numerous operative 
machines. 

Given the difference between the value of the machinery, 
and the value transferred by it in a day to the product^ the 
extent to which this latter value makes the product dearer, 
depends in the first instance, upon the size of the product; so 
to say, upon its area« Mr. Baynes, of Blackburn, in a lecture 
published in 1858, estimates that ^^each real mechanical horse- 
power^ will drive 450 self-acting mule spindles, vdth pre- 

*■ Ricardo lays such sticM on this effect of machineir (of which. In other connex- 
ions, he takes no more notice than he does of the general distinction between the 
labour-process and the process of creating surplus-yalue), that he occasionally loses 
sight of the value given up by machines to the product, and puts machines on the 
same footing as natural forces. Thus &quot;Adam Smith nowhere undervalues the serv- 
ices which the natural agents and machinery perform for us, but he very justly dis- 
tinguishes the nature of the value which they add to commodities • • • as tiiey 
perform their work gratuitously, the assistance which they afford us, adds nothing 
to value in exchange.&quot; (Ric. 1. c, p. 886, 837.) This observation of Ricardo is of 
course correct in so far as it is directed against J. B. Say, who imagines that 
machines render the &quot;service&quot; of creating value which forms a part of &quot;profits,&quot; 

*A horse-power is equal to a force of 88,000 foot-pounds per minute, «.«., to a 
force that raises 88,000 pounds one foot in a minute, or one pound 88,000 feet. 
This is the horse-power meant in the text In ordinary language, and also here and 
there in quotations in this work, a distinction is drawn between the &quot;nominal&quot; and 
the &quot;commercial&quot; or &quot;indicated&quot; horse-power of the same engine. The old or 
nominal horse-power is calculated exclusively from the length of piston-stroke^ and 
the diameter of the cylinder, and leaves pressure of steam and piston speed out of 
consideration. It expresses practically this: This engine would be one of 60 
horse-power, if it were driven with the same low pressure of steam, and the same 
slow piston speed, as in the days of Boulton and Watt. But the two latter factors 
have increased enormously since those days. In order to measure the mechanical 
force exerted to-day by an engine, an indicator has been invented which shows the 
pressure of the steam in the cylinder. The piston speed is easily ascertained. Thus 



 

Machinery and Modem Indmtry. 425 

paration, or 200 throstle spindles, or 15 looms for 40 inch 
cloth with the appliances for warping, sizing, &amp;c.&quot; In the 
first case, it is the day^s produce of 450 mule spindles, in 
the second, of 200 throstle spindles, in the third, of 15 power- 
looms, over which the daily cost of one horse-power, and the 
wear and tear of the machinery set in motion by that power, 
are spread ; so that only a very minute value is transferred by 
such wear and tear to a pound of yam or a yard of cloth. The 
same is the case with the steam-hammer mentioned above. 
Since its daily wear and tear, its coal-consumption, &amp;c., are 
spread over the stupendous masses of iron hammered by it in 
a day, only a small value is added to a hundredweight of iron ; 
but that value would be very great, if the cyclopean instrument 
were employed in driving in nails. 

Given a machine&apos;s capacity for work, that is, the number 
of its operating tools, or, where it is a question of force, their 
mass, the amount of its product will depend on the velocity of 
its working parts, on the speed, for instance, of the spindles, or 
on the number of blows given by the hammer in a minute. 
Many of these colossal hammers strike seventy times in a 
minute, and Ryder&apos;s patent machine for forging spindles with 
small hammers gives as many as 700 strokes per minute. 

Given the rate at which machinery transfers its value to the 
product, the amount of value so transferred depends on the 
total value of the machinery.* The less labour it contains, the 
less value it imparts to the product The less value it gives 
up, so much the more productive it is, and so much the more 

the &quot;indicated&quot; or &quot;commercial&quot; horse-power of an engine is expressed by a mathe-, 
matical formula, involving diameter of cylinder, length of stroke, piston speed, and 
steam pressure, simultaneously, and showing what multiple of 88,000 pounds is 
really raised by the engine in a minute. Hence, one &quot;nominal&quot; horse-power may 
exert three, four, or even five &quot;indicated&quot; or &quot;real&quot; horse-powers. This observa- 
tion is made for the purpose of explaining various citations in the subsequent 
pages. — (The editor.) 

^The reader who is imbued with capitalist notions will naturally miss here the 
&quot;interest&quot; that the machine, in proportion to its capital value, adds to the product. 
It is, however, easily seen that since a machine no more creates new value than any 
other part of constant capital, it cannot add any value under the name of &quot;interest.&quot; 
It is also evident that here, where we are treating of the production of surplus 
value, we cannot assume a priori the existence of any part of that value under the 
name of interest. The capitalist mode of calculating, which appears, primd facie, 
absurd, and repugnant to the laws of the creation of value, will be explained in the 
third book of this work. 



 

426 Capitalist Productiotk 

its services approximate to those of natural forces. But the 
production of machinery by machinery lessens its value rela- 
tively to its extension and efficacy. 

An analysis and comparison of the prices of commodities 
produced by handicrafts or manufacturers, and of the prices of 
the same commodities produced by machinery, shows generally 
that, in the product of machinery, the value due to the instru- 
ments of labour, increases relatively, but decreases absolutely. 
In other v^ords, its absolute amount decreases, but its amount, 
relatively to the total value of the product, of a poimd of yam, 
for instance, increases.^ 

It is evident that whenever it costs as much labour to pro- 
duce a machine as is saved by the employment of that machine, 
there is nothing but a transposition of labour; consequently 
the total labour required to produce a commodity is not 
lessened or the productiveness of labour is not increased. It 
is clear, however, that the difference between the labour a 
machine costs, and the labour it saves, in other words, that the 
degree of its productiveness does not depend on the difference 
between its own value and the value of the implement it re- 
places. As long as the labour spent on a machine, and conse- 
quently the portion of its value added to the product, remains 

1 This portion of value which is added by the machinery, decreases both absolutely 
and relatively, when the machinery does away with horses and other animals that 
are employed as mere moving forces, and not as machines for changing the form of 
matter. It may here be incidentally observed, that Descartes, in deixning animals at 
mere machines, saw with eyes of the manufacturing period, while to eyes of the 
middle ages, animals were assistants to man, as they were later to Von Haller in his 
&quot;ResUuration der Staatswissenschaften.&quot; That Descartes, like Bacon, anticipated 
an alteration in the form of production, and the practical subjugation of Nature by 
Man, as a result of the altered methods of thought, is plain from his &quot;Discours de 
la M^thode.&quot; He there says: &quot;H est possible (by the methods he introduced in 
philosophy) de parvenir i des connaissances fort utiles i la vie, et qu*au lieu de 
cette philosophic speculative qu*on enseigne dans les ^coles, on en pent trouver one 
pratique, par laquelle, connaissant la force et les actions du feu, de I&apos;eau, de I&apos;air, 
des astres, et de tons les autres corps qui nous enrironnent, aussi distinctement que 
nous conndissons les divers metiers de nos artisans, nous les pourrious employer en 
mtee facon &amp; tons les usages auxquels ils sont propres, et ainsi nous rendre comme 
maitres et possesseurs de la nature&quot; and thus &quot;contribuer au perfectionnement de 
la vie humaine.&quot; In the preface to Sir Dudley North&apos;s &quot;Discourses upon Trade&quot; 
(1691) it is stated, that Descartes* method had begun to free political economy from 
the old fables and superstitious notions of gold, trade, &amp;c. On the whole, however, 
the early English economists sided with Bacon and Hobbes as their philosophers; 
while, at a later period, the philosopher jrar* i(QX^9 ^^ political economy in £&amp;r 
land, France, and Italy, was Locke. 



 

Machinery and Modem Industry. 427 

smaller than the value added by the workman to the product 
with his tool, there is always a difference of labour saved in 
favour of the machine. The productiveness of a machine is 
therefore measured by the human labour-power it replaces. 
According to Mr. Baynes, 2^ operatives are required for the 
450 mule spindles, inclusive of preparation machinery,^ that 
are driven by one-horse power; each self-acting mule spindle^ 
working ten hours, produces 13 oimces of yam (average num- 
ber or thickness); consequently 2^ operatives spin weekly 
365f lbs. of yam. Hence, leaving waste on one side, 366 lbs. 
of cotton absorb, during their conversion into yam, only 150 
hours&apos; labour, or fifteen days&apos; labour of ten hours each. But 
with a spinning-wheel, supposing the hand-spinner to produce 
thirteen ounces of yam in sixty hours, the same weight of cot- 
ton would absorb 2700 days&apos; labour of ten hours each, or 
27,000 hours&apos; labour.^ Where block printing, the old method 
of printing calico by hand, has been superseded by machine 
printing, a single machine prints, with the aid of one man or 
boy, as much calico of four colours in one hour, as it formerly 
took 200 men to do.* Before Eli Whitney invented the cot- 
ton-gin in 1793, the separation of the seed from a pound of 
cotton cost an average day&apos;s labour. By means of his inven- 
tion one negress was enabled to clean 100 lbs. daily ; and since 
then, the eflBcacy of the gin has been considerably increased. 
A pound of cotton wool, previously costing 50 cents to produce, 
included after that invention more impaid labour, and was 
consequently sold with greater profit^ at 10 cents. In India 
they employ for separating the wool from the seed, an instru- 
ment, half machine, half tool, called a churka; with this one 

&gt; According to the annual report (1868) of the Essen chamber of commeroev 
tiiere was produced in 1862, at the cast-steel works of Krupp, with its 161 furnaces, 
thirty-two steam-engines (in the year 1800 this was about the number of all the 
steam-engines working in Manchester), and fourteen steam-hammers (representing 
in all 1386 horse-power), forty-nine forges, 203 tool-machines, and about 2400 work- 
men — ^thirteen million pounds of cast steeL Here there are not two workmen to 
each horse-power. 

* Babbage estimates that in Java the spinning labour alone adds 117% to the Talue 
of the cotton. At the same period (1882) the total value added to the cotton by 
machinery and labour in the fine spinning-industry, amounted to about 88% of the 
ynXut of the coUon. (&quot;On the Economy of Machinery/&apos; pp. 204-205.) 

* Machine printing also economises colour. 



 

4^8 Capitalist Production. 

man and a woman can clean 28 lbs. daily. With the churka 
invented some years ago by Dr. Forbes, one man and a boy pro- 
duce 260 pounds daily. If oxen, steam, or water, be used for 
driving it, only a few boys and girls as feeders are required. 
Sixteen of these machines driven by oxen do as much work in 
a day as formerly 750 people did on an average.^ 

As already stated, a steam-plough does as much work in one 
hour at a cost of threepence, as 66 men at a cost of 15 shillings. 
I return to this example in order to clear up an erroneous 
notion. The 15 shillings are by no means the expression in 
money of all the labour expended in one hour by the 66 men. 
If the ratio of surplus labour to necessary labour were 100%, 
these 66 men would produce in one hour a value of 30 shill- 
ings, although their wages, 15 shillings, represent only their 
labour for half an hour. S&apos;-&apos;ppose, then, a machine cost as 
much as the wages for a year of the 150 men it displaces, say 
£3000 ; this £3000 is by no means the expression in money of 
the labour added to the object produced by these 150 men b^ 
fore the introduction of the machine, but only of that portion 
of their year&apos;s labour which was expended for themselves and 
represented by their wages. On the other hand, the £3000, 
the money value of the machine, expresses all the labour ex- 
pended on its production, no matter in what proportion this 
labour constitutes wages for the workman, and surplu&amp;-value 
for the capitalist Therefore, though a machine cost as much 
as the labour-power displaced by its cost, yet the labour 
materalised in it is even then much less than the living labour 
it replaces.^ 

The use of machinery for the exclusive purpose of cheapen- 
ing the product, is limited in this way, that less labour must 
be expended in producing the machinery than is displaced by 
the employment of that machinery. For the capitalist, how- 
ever, this use is still more limited. Instead of paying for the 
labour, he only pays the value of the labour-power employed ; 

^ See paper read by Dr. Watson, Reporter on Producti to the Goyemment of 
India, before the Society of Arts, 17th April, 1860. 

* &quot;These mute agents (machines) are always the produce of much less labour than 
that which they displace, even when they are of the same money value.&quot; (Ricardow 
1. c, p. 40.) 



 

Machinery and Modem Industry. 429 

therefore^ the limit to his using a machine is fixed by the 
difference between the value of the machine and the value of 
the labour-power replaced by it. Since the division of the 
day&apos;s work into necessary and surplus-labour differs in differ- 
ent countries, and even in the same country at different 
periods, or in different branches of industry ; and further, since 
the actual wage of the labourer at one time sinks below the 
value of his labour-power, at another rises above it&gt; it is possi- 
ble for the difference between the price of the machinery to 
vary very much, although the difference between the quantity 
of labour requisite to produce the machine and the total quan- 
tity replaced by it, remain constant.* But it is the former 
difference alone that determines the cost, to the capitalist, of 
producing a commodity, and, through the pressure of competi- 
tion, influences his action. Hence the invention now-a-days 
of machines in England that are employed only in North 
America; just as in the sixteenth and seventeenlji centuries, 
machines were invented in Gtermany to be used only in Hol- 
land, and just as many a French invention of the eighteenth 
century was exploited in England alone. In the older coun- 
tries, machinery, when employed in some branches of industry, 
creates such a redundancy of labour in other branches that in 
these latter the fall of wages below the value of labour-power 
impedes the use of machinery, and, from the standpoint of the 
capitalist, whose profit comes, not from a diminution of the 
labour employed, but of the labour paid for, renders that use 
surperfiuous and often impossible. In some branches of the 
woollen manufacture in England the employment of children 
has during recent years been considerably diminished, and in 
some cases has been entirely abolished. Why? Because the 
Factory Acts made two sets of children necessary, one working 
six hours, the other four, or each working five hours. But the 
parents refuse to sell the ^Tialf-timers&quot; cheaper than the 
&quot;full-timers.&quot; Hence the substitution of machinery for the 
^^half-timers.*&apos;* Before the labour of women and of children 

^ Hence in a communistic society there would be a yery different scope for the 
employment of machinery than there can be in a bourgeois society. 

&apos; &quot;Employers of labour would not unnecessarily retain two sets of children under 
thirteen. ... In fact one class of manufacturers* the spinners of woollen yam. 



 

430 Capitalist Production. 

under 10 years of age was forbidden in mines, capitalists con- 
sidered the employmait of naked women and girls, often in 
company with men, so far sanctioned by their moral code, and 
especially by their ledgers, that it was only after the passing 
of the Act that they had recourse to machinery. The Yankees 
have invented a stone-breaking machine. The English do not 
make use of it, because the * Vretch&quot; ^ who does this work gets 
paid for such a small portion of his labour, that machinery 
would increase the cost of production to the capitalist&apos; In 
England women are still occasionally used instead of horses 
for hauling canal boats,&apos; because the labour required to pro- 
duce horses and machines is an accurately known quantity, 
while that required to maintain the women of the surplus 
population is below all calculation. Hence nowhere do we find 
a more shameful squandering of human labour-power for the 
most despicable purposes than in England, the land of ma- 
chinery. 

sscnoir 3. — the appboximatb effects of machiiteby on 

THE WORKMAN. 

The starting point of Modem Industry is, as we have shown, 
the revolution in the instruments of labour, and this revolu- 
tion attains its most highly developed form in the organised 
^stem of machinery in a factory. Before we inquire how 
human material is incorporated with this objective organism, 
let us consider some general effects of this revolution on the 
labourer himself. 

now rarely employ children under thirteen yeart of age, ut,, balf-timen. They hfcft 
introduced improved and new mAchinery of various kinds, which altogether supers 
sedes the employment of children (i.e,, under 18 years); f.i., I will mention one 
process as an illustration of this diminution in the number of children, wherein by 
the addition of an apparatus, called a piecing machine, to existing machines, the 
work of six or four half-times, according to the peculiarity of each machine, can be 
performed by one young person (over 18 years) . • . the half-time system &apos;stim- 
ulated&apos; the invention of the piecing machine.&quot; (Reports of Insp. of Fact for 81ft 
Oct, 1868.) 

^ &quot;Wretch&quot; is the recognized term in English political economy for the agricaltnral 
labourer. 

&apos;&quot;Machinery . . . can frequently not be employed until labour (he mcaoi 
wages) rises.&quot; (Rlcardo, 1. c, p. 679.) 

•See &quot;Report of tiie Social Science Congress, at Edinburgh.&quot; Oct, 1888. 



 

Machinery and Modem Indtistry. 431 

Ow Appropriation of supplemerUary Ldbovr^ower by 
Capital. The Employment of Womsn and Children. 

In 80 far as machinery dispenses with muscular power, it 
becomes a means of employing labourers of slight muscular 
strength, and those whose bodily development is incomplete, 
but whose limbs are all the more supple. The labour of 
women and children was, therefore, the first thing sought for 
by capitalists who used machinery. That mighty substitute 
for labour and labourers was forthwith changed into a means 
for increasing the number of wage-labourers by enrolling, 
under the direct sway of capital, every member of the work- 
man&apos;s family, without distinction of age or sex. Compulsory 
work for the capitalist usurped the place, not only of the 
children&apos;s play, but also of free labour at home within mod- 
erate limits for the support of the family.^ 

The value of labour-power was determined, not only by 
the labour-time necessary to maintain the individual adult 
laborer, but also by that necessary to maintain his family. 
Machinery, by throwing every member of that family on to 
the labour market, spreads the value of the man&apos;s labour- 
power over his whole family It thus depreciates his labour- 
power. To purchase the labour-power of a family of four 
workers may, perhaps, cost more than it formerly did to 
purchase the labour-power of the head of the family, but, in 
return, four days&apos; labour takes the place of one, and their price 
falls in proportion to the excess of the surplus-labour of 
four over the surplus-labour of one. In order that the family 
may live, four people must now, not only labour, but expend 

^Dr. Edward Smith, during the cotton crisis caused hj the American Civil War, 
was sent by the English Government to Lancashire, Cheshire, and other places, to 
report on the sanitary condition of the cotton operatives. He reported, that from 
&gt; hygienic point of view, and apart from the banishment of the operatives from the 
factory atmosphere, the crisis had several advantages. The women now had suffi- 
cient leisure to give their infants the breast, instead of poisoning them with &quot;God- 
fre/s cordiaL&quot; They had time to learn to cook. Unfortunately the acquisition of 
this art occurred at^a time when they had nothing to cook. But from this we see 
how capital, for the purposes of its self-expansion, has usurped the labour necessary 
in the home of the family. This crisis was also utilised to teach sewing to the 
daughters of the workmen in sewing schools. An American revolution and a uni- 
versal crisis in order that the working girxa, who spin for the whole world, might 
Ictrn to tcwl 



 

43^ Capitalist Production. 

Burplus-labor for the capitalist Thus we see, that machinery, 
while augmenting the human material that forms the principal 
object of capital&apos;s exploiting power/ at the same time raises 
the degree of exploitation. 

Machinery also revolutionises out and out the contract be- 
tween the labourer and the capitalist, which formally fixes 
their mutual relations. Taking the exchange of commodities 
as our basis, our first assumption was that capitalist and 
labourer met as free persons, as independent owners of com- 
modities ; the one possessing money and means of production, 
the other labour-power. But now the capitalist buys children 
and young persons under age. Previously, the workman sold 
his own labour power, which he disposed of nominally as a 
free agent Now he sells wife and child. He has become a 
slave dealer.* The demand for children&apos;s labour often resem- 
bles in form the inquiries for negro slaves, such as were 
formerly to be read among the advertisements in American 

^ &quot;The numerical increase of labourers has been great, through the growing substi- 
tution of female for male, and above all, of childish for adult labour. Three girls 
of 18, at wages of from 6 shillings to 8 shillings a week, have replaced the one 
man of mature age, of wages varying from 18 shillings to 45 shillings.*&apos; (Th. de 
Quincey: &quot;The Logic of Political Econ., London, 1846.&quot; Note to p. 147.) Since 
certain family functions, such as nursing and suckling children, cannot be entirely 
suppressed, the mothers confiscated by capital, must try substitutes of some sort. 
Domestic work, such as sewing and mending, must be replaced by the purchase of 
ready*made articles. Hence, the diminished expenditure of labour in the house is 
accompanied by an increased expenditure of money. The cost of keeping the fam- 
ily increases, and balances the greater income. In addition to this, economy and 
judgment in the consumption and preparation of the means of subsistence becomes 
impossible. Abundant material relating to these facts, which are concealed by 
official political economy, is to be found in the Reports of the Inspectors of Fae- 
tories, of the Children&apos;s Employment Commission, and more especially in the Re- 
ports on Public Health. 

*In striking contrast with the great fact, that the shortening of the hours of 
labour of women and children in English factories was exacted from capital by the 
male operatives, we find in the latest reports of the Children&apos;s Employment Com&gt; 
mission traits of the operative parents in relation to the traffic in children, that are 
truly revolting and thoroughly like slave-dealing. But the Pharisee of a capitalist, 
88 may be seen from the same reports, denounces this brutality which he himself 
creates, perpetuates, and exploits, and which he moreover baptizes &quot;Freedom of 
labour.&quot; &quot;Infant labour has been called into aid . • • even to work for their 
own daily bread. Without strength to endure such disproportionate toil, without 
instruction to guide their future life, they have been thrown into a situation phys- 
ically and morally polluted. The Jewish historian has remarked upon the overthrow 
of Jerusalem by Titus tfaiat it was no wonder it should have been destroyed, with 
such a signal destruction, when an inhuman mother sacrificed her own offspring to 
satisfy the cravings of absolute hunger.&quot; (&quot;Public Economy Concentrated.&quot; Car- 
lisle, 1888, p. 66.) 



 

Machinery and Modem Industry, 433 

journals, &quot;My attention/&apos; says an English factory inspector, 
&apos;&apos;was drawn to an advertisement in the local paper of one of 
the most important manufacturing towns of my district, of 
which the following is a copy : Wanted, 12 to 20 young pre- 
sons, not younger than what can pass for 13 years. Wages, 4 
shillings a week. Apply &amp;c&apos;&apos;^ The phase &apos;Svliat can pass 
for 13 years,*&apos; has reference to the fact, that by the Factory 
Act, children under 13 years may work only 6 hours. A sur- 
geon official appointed must certify their age. The manu- 
facturer, therefore, asks for children who look as if they were 
already 13 years old. The decrease, often by leaps and bounds 
in the number of children under 18 years employed in fac- 
tories, a decrease that is shown in an astonishing manner by 
the English statistics of the last 20 years, was for the most 
part, according to the evidence of the factory inspectors them- 
selves, the work of the certifying surgeons, who overstated the 
age of the children, agreeably to the capitalist&apos;s greed for ex- 
ploitation, and the sordid trafficking needs of the parents. In 
the notorious district of Bethnal Green, a public market ie held 
every Monday and Tuesday morning, where children of both 
sexes from 9 years of age upwards, hire themselves out to the 
silk manufacturers. &quot; The usual terms are Is. 8d. a week 
(this belongs to the parents) and &apos;2d. for myself and tea.&apos; 
The contract is binding only for the week. The scene and 
language while this market is going on are quite disgraceful&quot;* 
It has also occurred in England, that women have taken &quot;chil- 
dren from the workhouse and let any one have them out for 2s. 
6d. a week.&quot;* In spite of legislation, the number of boys 
sold in Great Britain by their parents to act as live chinmey- 
sweeping machines (allhought there exist plenty of machines 
to replace them) exceeds 2000.* The revolution effected by 
machinery in the judicial relations between the buyer and the 
seller of labour-power, causing the transaction as a whole to 

^A. Redgrare in &quot;Reports of Insp. of Fact for Slst October, 1858,&quot; pp. 40, 41. 

*Chfldreii*8 Employment Commission, Fifth Report, London, 1866, p. 81, n. 81. 
Note to the 4th edition: The silk industry of Bethnal Green is now almost 
mined.&apos;— Ed. 

&apos;Children&apos;s Employment Commission, Third Report, London, 1864, p. 58» n. 10. 

«t c. Fifth Report, p. 88, n. 187. 

8B 



 

434 Capitalist Production. 

lose the appearance of a contract between free persong^ afforded 
the English Parliament an excuse, founded on judicial princi- 
ples, for the interference of the state with factories. When- 
ever the law limits the labour of children to 6 hours in 
industries not before interfered with, the complaints of the 
manufacturers are always renewed. They allege that num- 
bers of the parents withdraw their children from the industry 
brought under the act, in order to sell them where &quot;freedom of 
labour^* still rules Le., where children under 13 years are com- 
pelled to work like grown-up people, and therefore can be got 
rid of at a higher price. But since capital is by nature a 
leveller, since it exacts in every sphere of production equality 
in the conditions of the exploitation of labour, the limitation 
by law of children&apos;s labour, in one branch of industry, becomes 
the cause of its limitation in others. 

We have already alluded to the physical deterioration as 
well of the children and young persons as of the women, whom 
machinery, first directly in the factories that shoot up on its 
bases, and then indirectly in all the remaining branches of in- 
dustry, subjects to the exploitation of capital. In this place, 
therefore, we dwell only on one point, the enormous mortality, 
during the first few years of their life, of the children of the 
operatives. In sixteen of the registration districts into which 
England is divided, there are, for every 100,000 children alive 
under the age of one year, only 9000 death in the year on an 
average (in one district only 7047) ; in 24 districts the deaths 
are over 10,000, but under 11,000 ; in 39 districts over 11,000, 
but under 12,000; in 48 districts over 12,000, but under 
13,000; in 22 districts over 20,000; in 25 districts over 
21,000 ; in 17 over 22,000 ; in 11 over 23,000 ; in Hoo, Wol- 
verhampton, Ashton-under-Lyne, and Preston, over 24,000 ; in 
Nottingham, Stockport, and Bradford, over 25,000; in Wis- 
beach, 26,000; and in Manchester, 26,125.^ As was shown 
by an official medical inquiry in the year 1861, the high death- 
rates are, apart from local causes, principally due to the 
employment of the mothers away from their homes, and to the 
neglect and maltreatment consequent on her absence, such afl^ 

&apos;Sixth Report on Public Health. Lond., 1864, p. Si. 



 

Machinery and Modem Industry. 435 

amongst others, insufficient nourishment^ imsuitable food, and 
dosing with opiates; beside this, there arises an imnatural 
estrangement between mother and child, and as a consequence 
intentional starving and poisoning of the children.^ In those 
agricultural districts, ^Svhere a minimum in the employment 
of women exists, the death-rate is on the other hand very low.&apos;^ 
The Inquiry-Commission of 1861 led, however, to the unex- 
pected result, that in some purely agricultural districts border- 
ing on the North Sea, the death-rate of children under one 
year old almost equalled that of the worst factory districts. 
Dr. Julian Hunter was therefore commissioned to investigate 
this phenomenon on the spot His report is incorporated with 
the &quot;Sixth Eeport on Public HealtL&apos;&apos;« Up to that time it 
was supposed, that the children were decimated by malaria, 
and other diseases peculiar to low-lying and marshy districts. 
But the inquiry showed the very opposite, namely, that the 
same cause which drove away malaria, the conversion of the 
land, from a morass in winter and a scanty pasture in summer, 
into fruitful com land, created the exceptional death-rate of 
the infants.* The 70 medical men, whom Dr. Hunter exam- 
ined in that district, were &apos;SvonderfuUy in accord&apos;* on this 
point. In fact, the revolution in the mode of cultivation had 
led to the introduction of the industrial system. Married 
women, who work in gangs along with boys and girls, are, for 
a stipulated sum of money, placed at the disposal of the 
farmer, by a man called &quot;the undertaker,&apos;&apos; wbo contracts for 
the whole gang. &quot;These gangs will sometimes travel many 
miles from their own village; they are to be met morning and 
evening on the roads, dressed in short petticoats, with suitable 
coats and boots, and sometimes trousers, looking wonderfully 
strong and healthy, but tainted with a customary immorality, 

^&apos;^t (the Inquiry of 1861) . . . showed, moreover, that while, with the de- 
•cribed drcumstances, infants perish under the neglect and mismanagement which 
their mothers* occupations imply, the mothers become to a grievous extent denatural- 
ized towards their offspring — commonly not troubling themselves much at the death, 
and even sometimes . • • taking direct measures to insure it.&quot; &lt;L c.) 

*L c, p. 464. 

*L c, p. 464-408. ** Report by Dr. Henry Julian Hunter on the excessive i 
tality of infants in some rural districts of England.&quot; 

&apos;L Cf p. 86 and pp. 466, 468. 



 

43^ Capitalist Production. 

and heedless of the fatal results which their love of this busy 
and independent life is bringing on their unfortunate offspring 
who are pining at home/&apos;^ Every phenomenon of the factory 
districts is here reproduced, including, but to a greater extent^ 
ill-disguised infanticide, and dosing children with opiates.* 
&quot;My knowledge of such evils,&quot; says Dr. Simon, the medical 
officer of the Privy Council and editor in chief of the Beports 
on Public Health, &quot;may excuse the profound misgiving with 
which I regard any large industrial employment of adult 
women.&quot;* &quot;Happy indeed,&quot; exclaims Mr. Baker, the factory 
inspector, in his official report, *Tiappy indeed will it be for the 
manufacturing districts of England, when every married 
woman having a family is prohibited from working in any 
textile works at all.&quot;* 

The moral degradation caused by the capitalistic exploita- 
tion of women and children has been so exhaustively depicted 
by F. Engels in his &quot;Lage der Arbeitenden Klasse Englands,&apos;&apos; 
and other writers, that I need only mention the subject in this 
place. But the intellectual desolation, artificially produced by 
converting immature human beings into mere machines for the 
fabrication of surplus-value, a state of mind clearly dis- 
tinguishable from that natural ignorance which keeps the 
mind fallow without destroying its capacity for development, 
its natural fertility, this desolation finally compelled even the 
English Parliament to make elementary education a com- 
pulsory condition to the &quot;productive&quot; employment of children 
under 14 years, in every industry subject to the Factory Acts. 
The spirit of capitalist production stands out clearly in the 
ludicrous wording of the so-called education clauses in the 
Factory Acts, in ihe absence of an administrative machinery, 
an absence that again makes the compulsion illusory, in tibe 

»L c, p. 46«. 

&apos;In the agricultural as well as in the factory districts the consumption of opium 
among the grown-up labourers, both male and female, is extending daily. &quot;To push 
the sale of opiate ... is the great aim of some enterprising wholesale merchants. 
By druggists it is considered the leading article.&quot; (1. c, p. 459.) Infants that take 
opiates &quot;shrank up into little old men/&apos; or &quot;wizzened liloe little monkeys,&quot; (L c, 
p. 460.) We here see how India and China avenged themselyes on England. 

»L c p. 87. 

«&quot;Rep. of Insp. of Fact, for Slst Oct, 1862,&quot; p. 69. Mr. Baker was formerly a 
doctor. 



 

Machinery and Modem Industry. 437 

opposition of the manufacturers themselves to these education 
clauses, and in the tricks and dodges they put in practice for 
evading them. &quot;For this the legislature is alone to blame, by 
having passed a delusive law, which, while it would seem to 
provide that the children employed in factories shall be 
educated, contains no enactment by which that professed end 
can be secured. It provides nothing more than that the 
children shall on certain days of the week, and for a certain 
number of hours (three) in each day, be inclosed within the 
four walls of a place called a school, and that the employer of 
the child shall receive weekly a certificate to that effect signed 
by a person designated by the subscriber as a schoolmaster or 
schoolmistress.&quot;* Previous to the passing of the amended 
Factory Act, 1844, it happened, not unfrequently, that the 
certificate of attendance at school were signed by the school- 
master or schoolmistress with a cross, as they themselves were 
tmable to write. &quot;On one occasion, on visiting a place called a 
school, from which certificates of school attendance had issued, 
I was 00 struck with the ignorance of the master, that I said 
to him: &quot;Pray, sir, can you read?&apos;* His reply was: &quot;Aye, 
summatF&apos; and as a justification of his right to grant certifi- 
cates, he added : &quot;At any rate^ I am before my scholars.&apos;^ The 
inspectors, when the Bill of 1844 was in preparation, did not 
fail to represent the disgraceful state of the places called 
schools, certificates from which they were obliged to admit as 
a compliance with the laws, but they were successful only in 
obtaining thus much, that since the passing of the Act of 1844, 
the figures in the school certificate must be filled up in the 
handwriting of the schoolmaster, who must also sign his 
Christian and surname in fulL&quot;^ Sir John Kincaid, factory 
inspector for Scotland, relates experiences of the same kind. 
&quot;The first school we visited was kept by a Mrs. Ann Killin. 
Upon asking her to spell her name, she straightway made a 
mistake, by beginning with the letter C, but correcting herself 
immediately, she said her name began with a K. On looking 
at her signature, however, in the school certificate books, I 



* Leonard Horner in &quot;Reports of Insp. of Fact, for 80th June, 1867/&apos; p. 17. 
*lm Homer la &quot;R^ of Insp. of Fact for 81st Oct» 1866,&quot; pp. 18, 19. 



 

438 CnpitdUst Production. 

noticed that she spelt it in various ways, while her hand- 
writing left no doubt as to her unfitness to teach. She her* 
self also acknowledged that she could not keep the register 
• ... In a second school I found the schoolroom 15 feet 
long, and 10 feet wide, and counted in this space 76 children, 
who were gabbling something unintelligible.&quot;^ But it is not 
only in the miserable places above referred to that the chil- 
dren obtained certificates of school attendance without having 
received instruction of any value, for in many schools where 
there is a competent teacher, his efforts are of little avail from 
the distracting crowd of children of all ages, from infants of 
3 years old and upwards ; his livelihood, miserable at the best, 
depending on the pence received from the greatest number of 
children whom it is possible to cram into the space. To this is 
to be added scanty school furniture, deficiency of books, and 
other materials for teaching, and the depressing effect upon 
the poor children themselves of a close, noisome atn^oaphere. 
I have been in many schools, where I have seen rows of 
children doing absolutely nothing; and this is certified as 
school attendance, and, in statistical returns, such children are 
set down as being educated.&quot;^ In Scotland the manufacturers 
try all they can to do without the children that are obliged to 
attend schooL &quot;It requires no further argument to prove 
that the educational clauses of the Factory Act, being held in 
such disfavour among mill owners tend in a great measure to 
exclude that class of children alike from the employment and 
the benefit of education contemplated by this Act.&apos;&apos;^ Horribly 
grotesque does this appear in print works, which are regulated 
by a special Act By that Act, &quot;every child, before being em- 
ployed in a print work must have attended school for at least 
80 days, and not less than 150 hours, during the six months 
immediately preceding such first day of employment, and 
during the continuance of its employment in the print works, 
it must attend for a like period of 30 days, and 150 hours 
during every successive period of six months. . . . The 

&gt; Sir John Kincaid in *&apos;Rep. of Insp. of Fact for Slst Oct, 1868,&quot; pp. 81* 89. 
«L. Horner in &quot;Reports, Ac., for Slst Oct, 1867,&quot; pp. 17, 18. 
•Sir J. Kincaid in &quot;ReporU, &amp;c, Slst Oct, 1866,&quot; p. 66. 



 

Machinery and Modern Industry. 439 

attendance at school must be between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. No 
attendance of less than 2| hours^ nor more than 6 hours on 
anj one day, shall be reckoned as part of the 150 hours. 
Under ordinary circumstances the children attend school 
morning and afternoon for 30 days, for at least 5 hours each 
day, and upon the expiration of the 30 days, the statutory total 
of 150 hours having been attained, having, in their language, 
made up their book, they return to the print work, where they 
continue until the six months have expired, when another in- 
stalment of school attendance becomes due, and they again seek 

the school until the book is again made up Many 

boys having attended school for the required number of hours, 
when they return to school after the expiration of their six 
months&apos; work in the print work, are in the same condition as 
when they first attended school as print-work boys, that they 
have lost all they gained by their previous school attendance. 
• • • In other print works the children&apos;s attendance at 
school is made to depend altogether upon the exigencies of the 
work in the establishment. The requisite number of hours is 
made up each six months, by instalments consisting of from 
3 to five hours at a time, spreading over, perhaps, the whole six 
months. . • . For instance, the attendance on one day 
might be from 8 to 11 a.m., on another day from 1 p.m. to 4 
p.m., and the child might not appear at school again for 
several days, when it would attend from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. ; 
then it might attend for 3 or 4 days consecutively, or for a 
week, then it would not appear in school for 3 weeks or a 
month, after that upon some odd days at some odd hours when 
the operative who employed it chose to spare it; and thus the 
child was, as it were, buffeted from school to work, from work 
to school, until the tale of 150 hours was told.*&apos;^ 

^ A. Redgrave in &quot;Rep. of Insp. of Fact., Slat Oct., 1857/&apos; pp. 41-48. In those in- 
duatriea where the Factory Act proper (not the Print Worka Act referred to in the 
text) haa been in force for aome time, the obataclea in the way of the education 
danaea have, in recent yeara, been overcome. In induatriea not under the Act, the 
Tiewa of Mr. J. Geddea, a glaaa manufacturer, atill extensively prevail. He informed 
Mr. White, one of the Inquiry Commissioners: &quot;A« far as I can aee, the greater 
amount of education which a part of the working class haa enjoyed for aome yeara 
past ia an evil. It ia dangerous, because it makes them independent&quot; (Childxen&apos;a 
Empl. Comm., Fourth Report, Lond., 1866, p. S68.) 



 

440 Capitalist Production, 

By the excessive addition of women and children to the 
ranks of the workers, machinery at last breaks down the re- 
sistance which the male operatives in the manufacturing period 
continued to oppose to the despotism of capitaL^ 

6. Prolongation of the tuorJcing-day. 

If machinery be the most powerful means for increasing the 
productiveness of labour — i.e., for shortening the working 
time required in the production of a commodity, it becomes 
in the hands of capital the most powerful means, in those in- 
dustries first invaded by it, for lengthening the working day 
beyond all bounds set by human nature. It creates, on the one 
hand, new conditions by which capital is enabled to give free 
scope to this its constant tendency, and on the other hand, new 
motives with which to whet capital&apos;s appetite for the labour 
of others. 

In the first place, in form of machinery, the implements 
of labour become automatic, things moving and working inde- 
pendent of the workman. They are thenceforth an industrial 
perpetuum mobile, that would go on producing forever, did it 
not meet with certain natural obstructions in the weak bodies 
and the strong wills of its human attendants. The automaton, 
as capital, and because it is capital, is endowed, in the person 
of the capitalist, with intelligence and will; it is therefore 
animated by the longing to reduce to a minimum the resistance 
offered by that repellant yet elastic natural barrier, man.^ 
This resistance is moreover lessened by the apparent lightness 
of machine work, and by the more pliant and docile character 
of the women and children employed on it&apos; 

^ &quot;Mr. E., a manufacturer . . . informed me that he employed females exclu- 
sively at his power-looms • . . gives a decided preference to married females, 
especially those who have families at home dependent on them for support; they are 
attentive, docile, more so than unmarried females, and are compelled to use their 
utmost exertions to procure the necessaries of life. Thus are the virtues, the pe- 
culiar virtues of the female character to be perverted to her injury — thus all that 
is most dutiful and tender in her nature is made a means of her bondage and suffer- 
ing.&quot; (Ten Hours* Factory BilL The Speech of Lord Ashley, March 15th, Lond., 
1844, p. 20.) 

&apos;&quot;Since the general introduction of machinery, human nature has been forced far 
beyond its average strength.&quot; (Rob. Owen: &apos;&apos;Observations on the effects of the 
manufacturing system, 2nd Ed., Lond., 1817.&apos;*) 

*The English, who have a tendency to look upon the earliest form of appearaace 



 

Machinery and Modem Industry. 441 

The productiveness of macliineiy is^ as we saw, inversely 
proportional to the value transferred by it to the product 
The longer the life of the machine, the greater is the mass of 
the products over which the value transmitted by the machine 
is spread, and the less is the portion of that value added to 
each single conmiodity. The active lifetime of a machine is, 
however, clearly dependent on the length of the working day, 
or on the duration of the daily labour-process multiplied by 
the number of days for which tiie process is carried on. 

The wear and tear of a machine is not exacUy proportional 
to its working tima And even if it were so, a machine working 
16 hours daily for 7^ years, covers as long a working period 
as, and transmits to the total product no more value than, the 
same machine would if it worked only 8 hours daily for 15 
years. But in the first case the value of the machine would 
be reproduced twice as quickly as in the latter, and the capi- 
talist would, by this use of the machine, absorb in 7| years as 
much surplus-value as in the second case he would in 15. 

The material wear and tear of a machine is of two kinds. 
The one arises from us^ as coins wear away by circulating, 
the other from non-us^ as a sword rusts when left in its 
scabbard. The latter kind is due to the elements. The 
former is more or less directly proportional, the latter to a 
certain extent inversely proportional, to the use of the 
machine.^ 

of a thing as the cause of its existence, are in the habit of attributin g the long boors 
of work in factories to the extensive kidnapping of children, practised by capitalists 
in the infancy of the factory system, on workhonses and orphanages, by means of 
which robbery, unresisting material for exploitation was procured. Thus, for in- 
stance, Fielden, himself a manufacturer, says: &quot;It is evident that the long hours 
of work were brought about by the circumstance of so great a number of destitute 
children being supplied from different parts of the country, that the masters were 
independent of the hands, and that having once established the custom by means of 
the miserable materials they had procured in this way, they could impose it on their 
neighbours with the greater facility.&quot; (J. Fielden: &quot;The Curse of the Factory 
System. Lond., ISStf,&quot; p. 11.) With reference to the labour of women, Saunders, 
the Factory inspector, says in his report of 1844: &quot;Amongst the female operatives 
there are some women who, for many weeks in succession, except for a few days, 
are employed from 6 a. m. till midnight, with less than 2 hours for meals, so that on 
S days of the week they have only 6 hours left out of the 24, for going to and from 
their homes and resting in bed.&quot; 
1 Occasion . . . injury to the delicate moving parts of metallic mech a nism fagr 
(Ure, L c, p. 28.) 



 

44^ Capxtalisf FroducHon. 

But in addition to the mttteii&amp;l ^ear and tear, a is^achine 
also undergoes, what we may call a moral depreciation. It 
loses exchange- value, either by mad? ires of the same sort being 
produced cheaper than it, or by better machines entering into 
competition with it* In both cases, be the machine ever so 
young and full of life, its value is no longer determined by 
the labour actually materialised in it, but by the labour-time 
requisite to reproduce either it or the better machine. It has, 
therefore, lost value moi-e or less. The shorter the period 
taken to reproduce its total value, the less is the danger of 
moral depreciation; and the longer the working day, the 
shorter is that period. When machinery is first introduced 
into an industry, new methods of reproducing it more cheaply 
follow blow upon blow,^ and so do improvements, that not only 
affect individual parts and details of the machine, but its en- 
tire build. It is, therefore, in the early days of the life of 
machinery that this special incentive to the prolongation of the 
working day makes itself felt most acutely.&apos; 

Given the length of the working day, all other circumstances 
remaining the same, the exploitation of double the number of 
workmen demands, not only a doubling of that part of constant 
capital which is invested in machinery and buildings, but also 
of that part which is laid out in raw material and auxiliary 
substances. The lengthening of the working day, on the other 
hand, allows of production on an extended scale without any 
alteration in the amount of capital laid out on machinery and 

^The &quot;Manchester Spinner&apos;* {Times, 86th Nov. 1862) before referred to sayt in 
relation to thb subject: &quot;It (namely, the &quot;allowance for deterioration of machin- 
ery&quot;) is also intended to cover the loss which is constantly arising from the super* 
seding of machines before they are worn out, by others of a new and better con- 
struction.&quot; 

*&quot;lt has been estimated, roughly, that the first individual of a newly-ioTented 
machine will cost about five times as much as the construction of the second.&quot; (Bab- 
bage, 1. c, p. 811.) 

*&quot;The improvements which took place not long ago in frames for making patent 
net was so great that a machine in good repair which had cost £1,800, sold a few 
years after for £60 . . . improvements succeeded each other so rapidly, that 
machines which had never been finished were abandoned in the hands of their 
makers, because new improvements had superseded their utility.&quot; (Babbage, L c 
p. 288.) In these stormy, go-ahead times, therefore, the tulle manufacturers soon 
extended the working day, by meana of double seta of hands, from the origiiial • 
hours to 84. 



 

Machinery and Modem Industry. 443 

buildings.^ Not only is there, therefore, an increase of snr- 
plus-valne, but the outlay necessary to obtain it diminishes. 
It is true that this takes place, more or less, with every length- 
ening of the working day ; but in the case under consideration, 
the change is more marked, because the capital converted into 
the instruments of labour preponderates to a greater degree.^ 
The development of the factory system fixes a constantly in- 
creasing portion of the capital in a form, in which, on the one 
hand, its value is capable of continual self-expansion, and in 
which, on the other hand, it loses both use-value and exchange- 
value whenever it loses contact with living labour. &quot;When a 
labourer,&apos;^ said Mr. Ashworth, a cotton magnate, to Professor 
Kassau W. Senior, &quot;lays down his spade, he renders useless, 
for that period, a capital worth eighteenpence. When one of 
our people leaves the mill, he renders useless a capital that has 
cost £100,000.&quot;^ Only fancy ! making &quot;useless&quot; for a single 
moment, a capital that has cost £100,000 ! It is, in truth, 
monstrous, that a single one of our people should ever leave 
the factory ! The increased use of our machinery, as Senior 
after the instruction he received from Ashworth clearly per- 
ceives, makes a constantly increasing lengthening of the wort 
ing day &quot;desirable.&quot;* 

Machinery produces relative surplus-value; not only by 
directly depreciating the value of labour-power, and by in- 

^&quot;It 18 8df-evident» that, amid the ebbings and flowings of the markets and the 
alternate expansions and contractions of demand, occasions will constantly recur, in 
which the manufacturer may employ additional floating capital without employing 
additional fixed capital ... if additional quantities of raw material can be 
worked up without incurring an additional expense for buildings and machinery.&quot; 
(R. Torrens: &quot;On Wages and Con-binations. London, 1834,** p. 63.) 

&apos;This circumstance is mentioned only for the sake of completeness, for I shall 
not consider the rate of profit, «.#., the ratio of the surplus-value to the total capital 
advanced, until I come to the third book. 

•Senior, &quot;Letters on the Factory Act. London, 1837,** p. 18, 14. 

* &quot;The great proportion of fixed to circulating capital . • . makes long hours of 
work desirable.*&apos; With the increased use of machinery, &amp;c., &quot;the motives to long 
hours of work will become greater, as the only means by which a large proportion of 
fixed capital can be made profitable.*&apos; (L c, pp. 11-18.) &quot;There are certain ex- 
penses upon a mill which go on in the same proportion whether the mill be rtmning 
short or futl time, as, for instance, rent, rates, and taxes, insurance against fire, 
^ages of several permanent servants, deterioration of machinery, with various other 
charges upon a manufacturing establishment, the proportion of which to profits in* 
creases as the production decreases. (&quot;Rep. of Insp. of Fact, for 81st Oct., 1862,*&apos; 
p. 19.) 



 

444 Capitalist Proditction. 

directly cheapening the same through cheapening die com- 
modities that enter into its reproduction, but also, when it is 
first introduced sporadically into an industry, by converting 
the labour employed by the owner of that machinery, into 
labour of a higher degree and greater eflScacy, by raising the 
social value of the article produced above its individual value, 
and thus enabling the capitalist to replace the value of a day&apos;s 
labour-power by a smaller portion of the value of the day&apos;s 
product During this transition period, when the use of ma- 
chinery is a sort of monopoly, the profits are therefore excep- 
tional, and the capitalist endeavours to exploit thoroughly &quot;the 
sunny time of this his first love,&quot; by prolonging the working 
day as much as possible. The magnitude of the profit whets 
his appetite for more profit. 

As the use of machinery becomes more general in a parti- 
cular industry, the social value of the product sinks down to 
its individual value, and the law that surplus-value does not 
arise from the labour-power that has been replaced by the 
machinery, but from the labour-power actually employed in 
working with the machinery, asserts itself. Surplus-value 
arises from the variable capital alone&gt; and we saw that the 
amount of surplus-value depends on two factors^ viz., the rate 
of surplus-value and the number of the workmen simul- 
taneously employed. Given the length of the working day, 
the rate of surplus-value is determined by the relative dura- 
tion of the necessary labour and of the surplus-labour in 
a day. The number of the labourers simultaneously em- 
ployed depends, on its side, on the ratio of the variable to the 
constant capital. Now, however much the use of machinery 
may increase the surplus-labour at the expense of the necessary 
labour by heightening the productiveness of labour, it is clear 
that it attains this result, only by diminishing the number of 
workmen employed by a given amount of capital. It converts 
what was formerly variable capital, invested in labour-power, 
into machinery, which, being constant capital, does not pro- 
duce surplus-value. It is impossible, for instance, to squeeze 
as much surplus-value out of 2 as out of 24 labourers. If eadfci 
of these 24 men gives only one hour of surplus-labour in 12, the 



 

Machinery and Modem Industry. 445 

24 men give together 24 hours of surplus-labour, while 24 
hours is the total labour of the two men. Hence, the applica- 
tion of machinery to the production of surplus-value implies 
a contradiction which is immanent in it, since, of the two 
factors of the surplus-value created by a given amount of 
capital, one, the rate of surplus-value cannot be increased, ex- 
cept by diminishing the other, the number of workmen. This 
contradiction comes to light, as soon as by the general employ- 
ment of machinery in a given industry, the value of the 
machine-produced commodity regulates the value of all com- 
modities of the same sort ; and it is this contradiction, that in 
its turn, drives the capitalist, without his being conscious of 
the fact,^ to excessive lengthening of the working day, in order 
that he may compensate the decrease in the relative number 
of labourers exploited, by an increase not only of the relative, 
but of the absolute surplus-labour. 

If, then, the capitalistic employment of machinery, on the 
one hand, supplies new and powerful motives to an excessive 
lengthening of the working day, and radically changes, as well 
the methods of labour, as also the character of the social work- 
ing organism, in such a manner as to break down all opposition 
to this tendency, on the other hand it produces, partly by 
opening out to the capitalist new strata of the working class, 
previously inaccessible to him, partly by setting free the 
labourers it supplants, a surplus working population,^ which is 
compelled to submit to the dictation of capital Hence that 
remarkable phenomenon in the history of Modem Industry, 
that machinery sweeps away every moral and natural restrio- 
tion on the length of the working day. Hence, too, the 
economical paradox, that the most powerful instrument for 
shortening labour-time, becomes the most unfailing means for 
placing every moment of the labourer&apos;s time and that of his 
family, at the disposal of the capitalist for the purpose of 
expanding the value of his capital. &quot;If,&quot; dreamed Aristotle, 

^Why it is, that the capitaKst, and also the political economists who are embued 
with his views, are unconsciotis of this immanent contradiction, will appear from the 
first part of the third volume. 

&apos; It is one of the greatest merits of Ricardo to have seen in machinery not only the 
&gt; of producing commodities, but of creating a &quot;redundant population.&quot; 



 

44^ Capitalist Production. 

the greatest tlunker of antiquity, &quot;if every tool, when sum- 
moned, or even of its own accord, could do tiie work that befits 
it, just as the creations of Dsedalus moved of themselves, or the 
tripods of Hephsestos went of their own accord to their sacred 
work, if the weavers&apos; shuttles were to weave of themselves^ 
then there would be no need either of apprentices for the 
master workers, or of slaves for the lords.&quot;* And Antipatros, 
a Greek poet of the time of Cicero, hailed the invention of the 
water-wheel for grinding com, an invention that is the ele- 
mentary form of all machinery, as the giver of freedom to 
female slaves, and the bringer back of the golden age.* Oh I 
those heathens I They understood, as the learned Bastiat, and 
before him the still wiser MacCuUoch have discovered, nothing 
of political economy and Christianity. They did not, for 
example, comprehend that machinery is the surest means of 
lengthening the working day. They perhaps excused the 
slavery of one on the ground that it was a means to the full 
development of another. But to preach slavery of the masses, 
in order that a few crude and half-educated parvenus, might 
become &quot;eminent spinners,&quot; &quot;extensive sausage-makers,&quot; and 
&quot;influential shoe-black dealers,&quot; to do this, they lacked the 
bump of Christianity. 

»F. Biese. •&apos;Die Philosophic des Aristotelcs,&quot; Vol. 8. Berlin. 1842, p. 408. 

* I give below the translation of this poem by Stolberg, because it brings into relief, 
quite in the spirit of former quotations referring to division of labour, the antithesis 
between the views of the ancients and the modems. &quot;Spare the hand that grinds 
the corn. Oh, miller girls, and softly sleep. Let Chanticleer announce the morn in 
vain! Deo has commanded the work of the girls to be done by the Nymphs, and now 
they skip lightly over the wheels, so that the shaken axles revolve with their spokes 
and pull round the load of the revolving stones. Let us live the life of our fatherly 
and let us rest from work and enjoy the gifts that the Goddess sends us.&quot; 

&quot;Schonet der mahlenden Hand, o Miillerinnen und schlafet 
Sanft! es verkiinde der Hahn euch den Morgen umsonstl 
Dao hat die Arbeit der Madchen den Nymphen befohlen* 
Und itzt hupfen sie leicht iiber die Rader dahin, 
Dass die erschutterten Achsen mit ihren Speichen sich wHzen, 
Und im Kreise die Last drehen des walzenden Steins. 
Lasst uns leben das Leben der Vater, und lasst uns der Gaben 
Arbeitslos uns freun, welche die Gottin uns schenkf 

(Gedichte aus dem Griechiscben iibertetzt von Christian Graf zu Stolberg, Htm* 
tmrg. 1782.) 



 

Marhn&apos;^y and Modern Industry. 447 

e. Intensification of Labour. 

The immoderate lengthening of the working day, produced 
by machinery in the hands of capital, leads to a reaction on 
the part of society, the very sources of whose life are menaced ; 
and, thence, to a normal working day whose length is fixed by 
law. Thenceforth a phenomenon that we have already met 
with, namely, the intensification of labour, develops into great 
importance. Our analysis of absolute surplus-value had refer- 
ence primarily to the extension or duration of the labour, its 
intensity being assumed as given. We now proceed to con- 
sider the substitution of a more intensified labour for labour 
of more extensive duration, and the degree of the former. 

It is self-evident, that in proportion as the use of machinery 
spreads, and the experience of a special class of workmen 
habituated to machinery accumulates, the rapidity and inten- 
sity of labour increase as a natural consequence. Thus in 
England, during half a century, lengthening of the working 
day went hand in hand with increasing intensity of factory 
labour. Nevertheless the reader will clearly see, that where 
we have labour, not carried on by fits and starts, but repeated 
day after day with unvarying uniformity, a point must inevitr 
ably be reached, where extension of the working day and in- 
tensity of the labour mutually exclude one another, in such a 
way tiiat lengthening of the working day becomes compatible 
only with a lower degree of intensity, and, a higher degree of 
intensity, only with a shortening of the working day. So soon 
as the gradually surging revolt of the working (^lass compelled 
Parliament to shorten compulsorily the hours of labour, and to 
begin by imposing a normal working day on factories proper, 
so soon consequently as an increased production of surplus 
value by the prolongation of the working day was once for all 
put a stop to, from that moment capital threw itself with all 
its might into the production of relative surplus-value, by 
hastening on the further improvement of machinery. At the 
same time a change took place in the nature of relative surplus- 
value. Generally speaking, the mode of producing relative 
surplus-value consists in raising the productive power of the 



 

448 Capitalist Production. 

workman^ so as to enable him to produce more in a given time 
with the same expenditure of labour. Labour-time continues 
to transmit as before the same value to the total product, but 
this unchanged amount of exchange value is spread over more 
use-values; hence the value of each single commodity sinks. 
Otherwise, however, so soon as the compulsory shortening of 
the hours of labour takes place. The immense impetus it gives 
to the development of productive power, and to economy in 
the means of production, imposes on the workman increased 
expenditure of labour in a given time, heightened tension of 
labour-power, and closer filling up of the pores of the working 
day, or condensation of labour to a degree that is attainable 
only within the limits of the shortened working day. This 
condensation of a greater mass of labour into a given period 
thenceforward counts for what it really is, a greater quantity 
of labour. In addition to a measure of its extension, i.e., dura- 
tion, labour now acquires a measure of its intensity or of the 
degree of its condensation or density.^ The denser hour of 
the ten hours&apos; working-day contains more labour, i.e., ex- 
pended labour-power, than the more porous hour of the twelve 
hours&apos; working-day. The product therefore of one of the 
former hours has as much or more value than has the product 
of 1 J of the latter hours. Apart from the increased yield of 
relative surplus-value through the heightened productiveness of 
labour, the same mass of value is now produced for the cap- 
italist, say, by 3^ hours of surplus labour, and 6| hours of 
necessary labour, as was previously produced by four hours of 
surplus labour and eight hours of necessary labour. 

We now come to the question : How is the labour intensified t 
The first effect of shortening the working day results from 
the self-evident law, that the efficiency of labour-power is in 
an inverse ratio to the duration of its expenditure. Hence, 
within certain limits what is lost by shortening the duration is 
gained by the increasing tension of labour-power. That the 

^ Tbere are, of course, always differences in the intensities of the labour in Tarioos 
Industries. But these differences are, as Adam Smith has shown, compensated to a 
partial extent by minor circumstances, peculiar to each sort of labour. Labour^timeii 
4m a measure of lalue.. is not, however, affected in this case, except in so far as tht 
duration of labour, and the degree of iU intensity, are two antithetical and mutually 
exdutive expressions for one and the fame quantity of labour. 



 

Machinery and Modem Industry. 449 

workman moreover really does expend more laboni^power, is 
ensured by the mode in which the capitalist pays him,^ In 
those industries, such as potteries, where machinery plays little 
or no part&gt; the introduction of the Factory Acts has strikingly 
shown that the mere shortening of the working-day increases 
to a wonderful degree the regularity, uniformity, order, con- 
tinuity, and energy of the labour.^ It seemed, however, doubt- 
ful whether this effect was produced in the factory proper, 
where the dependence of the workman on the continuous and 
uniform motion of the machinery had already created the 
strictest discipline. Hence, when in 1844 the reduction of the 
working-day to less than twelve hours was being debated, the 
masters almost unanimously declared &apos;^that their overlookers 
in the different rooms took good care that the hands lost no 
time,*&apos; that the &quot;extent of vigilance and attention on the part 
of the workmen was hardly capable of being increased,&quot; and 
therefore, that the speed of the machinery and other conditions 
remaining unaltered, &quot;to expect in a well-managed factory any 
important result from increased attention of the workmen was 
an absurdity.&quot;^ This assertion was contradicted by experi- 
ments. Mr. Robert Gardner reduced the hours of labour in 
his two large factories at Preston, on and after the 20th April, 
1844, from twelve to eleven hours a day. The result of about 
a year&apos;s working was that &quot;the same amount of product for the 
same cost was received, and the workpeople as a whole earned 
in eleven hours as much wages as they did before in twelve.&quot;* 
I pass over the experiments made in the spinning and carding 
rooms, because they were accompanied by an increase of 2% in 
the speed of the machines. But in the weaving department, 
where, moreover, many sorts of figured fancy articles were 
woven, there was not the slightest alteration in the conditions 
of the work The result was: &quot;From 6th January to 20th 
April, 1844, with a twelve hours&apos; day, average weekly wages of 
each hand 10s. l^d., from 20th April to 29th June, 1844, with 

* Especially by piece-work, a form we shall investigate in Part VL of this book. 

•See &quot;Rep. of Insp. of Fact, for Slst October, 1866.&quot; 

*Rep. of Insp. of Fact, for 1844 and the quarter ending 80th April 1846, pp. 
20-21. 

*]. c., p. 10. Since the wages for piece-work were unaltered, the weekly wages 
depended on the quantity produced. 

tC 



 

450 Capitalist Production. 

day of eleven hours, average weekly wages 10s. 8Jd.**^ Here 
we have more produced in eleven hours than previously in 
twelve, and entirely in consequence of more steady application 
and economy of time by the workpeople. While they got the 
same wages and gained one hour of spare time, the capitalist 
got the same amount produced and saved the cost of coal, gas, 
and other such items, for one hour. Similar experiments, and 
with the like success, were carried out in the milk of Messrs. 
Horrocks and Jacson.^ 

The shortening of the hours of labour creates, to begin with^ 
the subjective conditions for the condensation of labour^ Ey 
enabling the workman to exert more strength in a given time. 
So soon as that shortening becomes compulsory, machinery be- 
comes in the hands of capital the objective means, systemati- 
caDy employed for squeezing out more labour in a given time. 
This is effected in two ways: by increasing the speed of the 
machinery, and by giving the workman more machinery to 
tend. Improved construction of the machinery is necessary, 
partly because without it greater pressure cannot be put on 
the workman, and partly because the shortened hours of labour 
force the capitalist to exercise the strictest watch over the cost 
of production. The improvements in the steam-^igine have 
increased the piston speed, and at the same time have made it 
possible, by moans of a greater economy of power, to drive 
with the same or even a smaller consumption of coal more 
machinery with the same engine. The improvements in the 
transmitting mechanism have lessened friction, and, what so 
strikingly distinguishes modem from the older machinery, 
have reduced the diameter and weight of the shafting to a 
constantly decreasing minimum. Finally, the improvements 
in the operative machines have, while reducing their size, in- 
creased their speed and efficiency, as in the modem power- 
loom ; or, while increasing the size of their frame-work, have 
also increased the extent and number of their working parts, 

»!. c, p. 88. 

&apos;The moral clement played an important part in the above experiments. The 
workpeople told the factory inspector: &quot;We work with more spirit, we have the 
reward ever before us of getting away sooner at night, and one active and cheerful 
^nrit pervades the whole mill, from the youngest pieoer to the oldest hand, and we 
can greatly help each other&quot; (L c) 



 

Machinery and Modem Industry. 451 

as in spinning mules, or have added to the speed of these 
working parts by imperceptible alterations of detail, such as 
those which ten years ago increased the speed of the spindles in 
self-acimg mules by one-fifth. 

The reduction of the working day to 12 hours dates in 
England from 1832. In 1836 a manufacturer stated : &quot;The 
labour now undergone in the factories is much greater than it 
used to be . . . compared with thirty or forty years ago . . . 
owing to the greater attention and activity required by the 
greatly increased speed which is given to the machinery.&quot;* In 
the year 1844, Lord Ashley, now Lord Shaftesbury, made in 
the House of Commons the following statements, supported by 
documentary evidence: 

&quot;The labour performed by those engaged in the processes of 
manufacture, is three times as great as in the beginning of such 
operations. Machinery has executed, no doubt, the work that 
would demand the sinews of millions of men ; but it has also 
prodigiously multiplied the labour of those who are governed 
by its fearful movements ... In 1815, the labour of following 
a pair of mules spinning cotton of No. 40 — ^reckoning 12 hours 
to the working^day — involved a necessity of walking 8 miles. 
In 1832, the distance travelled in following a pair of mules, 
spinning cotton yam of the same number, was 20 miles, and 
frequently more. In 1835&quot; (query — 1815 or 1825?) &quot;tiio 
epinner put up daily, on each of these mules, 820 stretches, 
making a total of 1,640 stretches in the course of the day. In 
1832, the spinner put up on each mule 2,200 stretches, making 
a total of 4,400. In 1844, 2,400 stretches, making a total of 
4,800; and in some cases the amount of labour required is 
even still greater ... I have another document sent to me in 
1842, stating that the labour is progressively increasing — 
increasing not only because the distance to be travelled is 
greater, but because the quantity of goods produced is multi- 
plied, while the hands are fewer in proportion than before; 
and, moreover, because an inferior species of cotton is now 
often spun, which it is more difiicult to work ... In the 
earding-room there has also been a great increase of labour. 

ijoha Fkldtn, L c., p. 89. 



 

452 Capitalist Production. 

One person there does the work formerly divided between two. 
In the weaving-room, where a vast number of persons are em- 
ployed, and principally females • . • the labour has increased 
within the last few years fully 10 per cent, owing to the in- 
creased speed of the machinery in spinning. In 1838, the 
number of hanks spun per week was 18,000, in 1843 it 
amounted to 21,000. In 1819 the number of picks in power- 
loom-weaving per minute was 60 — in 1842 it was 140, show- 
ing a vast increase of labour.^&apos;^ 

In the face of this remarkable intensity of labour which had 
already been reached in 1844 under the Twelve Hours&apos; Act, 
there appeared to be a justification for the assertion made at 
that time by the English manufacturers, that any further pro- 
gress in that direction was impossible, and therefore that every 
further reduction of the hours of labour meant a lessened pro- 
duction. The apparent correctness of their reasons will be 
best shown by the following contemporary statement by Leon- 
ard Homer, the factory inspector, their ever watchful censor. 

&apos;&apos;Now, as the quantity produced must, in the main, be regu- 
lated by the speed of the machinery, it must be the interest of 
the mill owner to drive it at the utmost rate of speed con- 
sistent with these following conditions, viz., the preservation 
of the machinery from too rapid deterioration ; the preservation 
of the quality of the article manufactured ; and the capability 
of the workman to follow the motion without a greater exer- 
tion than he can sustain for a constancy. One of the most 
important problems, therefore, which the owner of a factory 
has to solve is to find out the maximum speed at which he can 
run, with a due regard to the above conditions. It frequently 
happens that he finds he has gone too fast, that breakages and 
bad work more than counterbalance the increased speed, and 
that he is obliged to slacken his pace. I therefore concluded, 
that as an active and intelligent millowner would find out the 
safe maximum, it would not be possible to produce as much in 
eleven hours as in twelve. I further assumed that the opera- 
tive paid by piece work, would exert himself to the utmost 



^Lord Ashley, 1. c^ p. 6-0, pttadau 



 

Machinery and Modem Industry. 453 

oonsistent with the power of continuing at the same rate.&quot;^ 
Homer, therefore, came to the conclusion that a reduction 
of the working hours below twelve would necessarily diminish 
production.^ He himself, ten years later, cites his opinion of 
1845 in proof of hov^ much he xmder-estimated in that year 
the elasticity of machinery, and of man&apos;s labour-power, both of 
which are simultaneously stretched to an extreme by the com- 
pulsory shortening of the working day. 

We now oome to the period that follows the introduction of 
the Ten Hours&apos; Act in 1847 into the English cotton, woollen, 
silk, and flax mills. 

&quot;The speed of the spindles has increased upon throstles 600, 
and upon mules 1000 revolutions a minute, i.e., the speed of 
the throstle spindle, which in 1839 was 4500 times a minute, 
is now (1862) 5000 ; and of the mule spindle, that was 5000, 
is now 6000 times a minute, amounting in the former case to 
one-tenth, and in the second case to one-fifth addition in- 
crease.&apos;&apos;&apos; James Nasmyth, the eminent civil engineer of Pat- 
ricroft, near Manchester, explained in a letter to Leonard 
Homer, written in 1852, the nature of the improvements in the 
steam-engine that had been made between the years 1848 and 
1852. After remarking that the horse-power of steam-engines, 
being always estimated in the official returns according to the 
power of similar engines in 1828,* is only nominal, and can 
serve only as an index of their real power, he goes on to say : 
&quot;I am confident that from the same weight of steam-engine 
machinery, we are now obtaining at least 50 per cent, more 
duty or work performed on the average, and that in many 
cases the identical steam-engines which in the days of the 
restricted speed of 220 feet per minute, yielded 50 horse- 

*Rep. of Intp. of Fact for Quarter ending 80th September, 1844, and from 1st 
October, 1844. to 80th AprU, 1845. p. 20. 

•L c, p. 22. 

»&quot;Rep. of Insp. of Fact for 8l8t October, 1862,&quot; p. 82. 

*Thi8 was altered in the &quot;ParliamenUry Return&quot; of 1862. In It the actual horse- 
power of the modem 8team*engines and water&gt;wheeU appears in place of the nominaL 
The doubling spindles, too, are no longer included in the spinning spindles (as was 
the case in the &quot;Returns&quot; of 1880, 1860, and 1866) ; further, in the case of woollen 
mills, the number of &apos;&apos;gigs&quot; is added, a distinction made between jute and hemp 
mills on t%c one hand and flax mills on the other, and finally stocking-weaving is for 
the first *imt Inserted in the report 



 

454 Capitalist Production. 

power, are now yielding upwards of 100.&quot; .... &quot;The modem 
steam-engine of 100 horse-power is capable of being driven at 
a much greater force than formerly, arising from improve- 
ments in its construction, the capacity and construction of the 
boilers, &amp;c.&quot; . . . &quot;Although the same nimaber of hands are 
employed in proportion to the horse-power as at former periods, 
there are fewer hands employed in proportion to the ma- 
chinery.^&apos;^ &quot;In the year 1850, liie factories of the United King- 
dom employed 134,217 nominal horse-power to give motion to 
25,638,716 spindles and 301,445 looms. The number of spin- 
dles and looms in 1856 was respectively 33,503,580 of the 
former, and 869,205 of the latter, which, reckoning the force 
of the nominal horse-power required to be the same as in 1850, 
would require a force equal to 175,000 horses, but the actual 
power given in the return for 1856 is 161,435, less by above 
10,000 horses than, calculating upon the basis of the return of 
1850, the factories ought to have required in 1856.&quot;* &quot;The 
facts thus brought out by the Betum (of 1856) appear to be 
that the factory system is increasing rapidly; that although 
the same number of hands are employed in proportion to the 
horse-power as at former periods, there are fewer hands em- 
ployed in proportion to the machinery ; that the steam-engine 
is enabled to drive an increased weight of machinery by econ- 
omy of force and other methods, and that an increased quan- 
tity of work can be turned off by improvements in machinery, 
and in methods of manufacture, by increase of speed of the 
machinery, and by a variety of other causes.&quot;* 

&quot;The great improvements made in machines of every kind 
have raised their productive power very much. Without any 
doubt, the shortening of the hours of labour .... gave the 
impulse to these improvements. The latter, combined with 
the more intense strain on the workman, have had the effect, 
that at least as much is produced in the shortened (by two 
hours or onerfiixth) working-day as was previousljr produced 
during the longer one.&quot;* 

^ &quot;Rep. of Insp. of Fact for Slst October, 1856,&quot; pp. 18-14, 80 and 1868, p. 81 
«L c, p. li-16. •!. C p. 20. 

* Reports, &amp;c., for Slst October, 1868, p. 0-10. Compare Reports, &amp;c., for 80tb 
April, 1860, p. 80, seqq. 



 

Machinery and Modem Industry, 455 

One fact is sufficient to show how greatly the wealth of the 
manufacturers increased along with the more intense exploita- 
tion of labour-power. From 1838 to 1850, the average pro- 
portional increase in English cotton and other factories was 
32%, while from 1850 to 1856 it amounted to 86%. 

But however great the progress of English industry had 
been during the 8 years from 1848 to 1856 under the influence 
of a working-day of 10 hours, it was far surpassed during the 
next period of 6 years from 1856 to 1862. In silk factories, 
for instance, there were in 1856, spindles 1,093,799; in 1862, 
1,388,544; in 1856, looms 9,260; in 1862, 10,709. But the 
number of operatives was, in 1856, 56,131 ; in 1862, 52,429. 
The increase in the spindles was therefore 26.9% and in the 
looms 15.6%, while the number of the operatives decreaseci 
7%. In the year 1850 there were employed in worsted mills 
875,830 spindles; in 1856, 1,324,549 (increase 51.2%), and 
in 1862, 1,289,172 (decrease 2.7%). But if we deduct the 
doubling spindles that figure in the numbers for 1856, but not 
in those for 1862, it will be found that after 1856 the number 
of spindles remained nearly stationary. On the other hand, 
after 1850, the speed of the spindles and looms was in many 
cases doubled. The number of power-looms in worsted mills 
was in 1850, 32,617 ; in 1856, 38,956 ; in 1862, 43,048. The 
number of the operatives was, in 1850, 79,737 ; in 1856, 87,- 
794; in 1862, 86,063; included in these, however, the children 
tmder 14 years of age were, in 1850, 9,956 ; in 1856, 11,228 ; 
in 1862, 13,178. In spite, therefore, of the greatly increased 
number of looms in 1862, compared with 1856, the total num- 
ber of the workpeople employed decreased, and that of the 
children exploited increased.^ 

On the 27th of April, 1863, Mr. Ferrand said in the House 
of Commons: &quot;I have been informed by del^ates from 16 
districts of Lancashire and Cheshire, in whose behalf I speak, 
that the work in the factories is, in consequence of the improve- 
ments in machinery, constantly on the increase. Instead of as 
formerly one person with two helps tenting two looms, one 
person now tents three looms without helps, and it is no un- 

» &quot;Report of Insp. of Fact for 81st Oct.. 1862/&apos; pp. 100 and 180. 



 

456 Capitalist Production. 

common thing for one person to tent four. Twelve hours&apos; 
work^ as is evident from the facts adduced, is now compressed 
into less than 10 hours. It is therefore self-evident, to what 
an enormous extent the toil of the factory operative has in- 
creased during the last 10 years.**^ 

Although, therefore, the Factory Inspectors unceasingly and 
with justice, commend the results of the Acts of 1844 and 
1850, yet they admit that the shortening of the hours of labour 
has already called forth such an intensification of the labour as 
is injurious to the health of the workman and to his capacity 
for work. &quot;In most of the cotton, worsted, and silk mills, an 
exhausting state of excitement necessary to enable the workers 
satisfactorily to mind the machinery, the motion of which has 
been greatly accelerated within the last few years, seems to me 
not unlikely to be one of the causes of that excess of mortality 
from lung disease, which Dr. Greenhow has pointed out in his 
recent report on this subject/** There cannot be the slightest 
doubt that the tendency that urges capital as soon as a pro- 
longation of the hours of labour is once for all forbidden, to 
compensate itself, by a systematic heightening of the intensity 
of labour, and to convert every improvement in machinery into 
a more perfect means of exhausting the workman, must soon 
lead to a state of things in which a reduction of the hours of 
labour will afirain be inevitable.* On the other hand, the rapid 
advance of English industry between 1848 and the present 
time, under the influence of a day of 10 hours, surpasses the 
advance made between 1833 and 1847, when the day was 12 
hours long, by far more than the latter surpasses the advance 

^ On 2 modem power-looms a weaver now makes In a week of 60 hoars 86 pieces 
of certain quality, length, and breadth; while on the old power-looms he could make 
no more than 4 such pieces. The cost of weaving a piece of such cloth had already 
soon after 1860 fallen from 2s. 9d. to 5^d. 

&quot;Thirty years ago (1841) one spinner with three piecers was not required to attend 
to more than one pair of mules with 800-824 spindles. At the present time (1871) 
he has to mind with the help of 6 piecers 2200 spindles, and produces not less than 
seven times as much yam as in 1841.&quot; (Alex. Redgrave, Factory Inspector — in the 
Journal of Arts, 5th January, 1872.) 

&apos; Rep. of Insp. of Fact, for 81st OcL 1861, pp. 26, 26. 

* The agiution for a working day of 8 hours has now (1867) begun in Lancashire 
among the factory operatives. 



 

^Machinery and Modem Industry. 457 

made during the half century after the first introduction of 
the factory system, when the working day was without limits.^ 



SECTION&apos; IV. THE FAOTOBY. 



At the commencement of this chapter we considered that 
which we may call the body of the factory, i. e., machinery 
organised into a system. We there saw how machinery, l^ 



^ The following few figures indicate the increase in the *^aetoriet&quot; of the United 
Kingdom since 1848: 




Quantity Expor- 
ted, 1848. 


Quantity Expor- 
ted, 1851. 


Quantity Expor- 
ted, 1860. 


Quantity Expor- 
ted. 1866. 


COTTON. 

Cotton 3ram.... 
Sewing thread. 
Cotton cloth. . . 

tLkX. * HXMP. 

Yam 


lbs. 185,881,162 

lbs. 

ydsl,091,878,980 

lbs. 11,722,188 
yds. 88,901,519 

lbs. 466,885 
yds. 

lbs. 
yds. 


lbs. 148.966.106 

lbs. 4,892,176 

ydsl,648,161,789 

lbs. 18,841,826 
yds. 189,106,758 

lbs. 463,518 
yds. 1,181,465 

lbs. 14,670.880 
yds. 241,120,978 


lbs. 197.848,655 
lbs. 6,297,554 
yd82,776,218,427 

lbs. 81,210,612 
yds. 148,996,778 

lbs. 897,402 
yds. 1,807,298 

lbs. 27,588,968 
yds. 190,881.637 


lbs. 108,761.455 
lbs. 4,648,611 
yds2,016,287,861 

lbs. 86,777,884 
yds. 847,012,529 

yds. 812.589 
yds. 8,869,887 

lbs. 81,669,267 
yds. 278,887,488 


Cloth 


Yam 


Cloth 


WOOL. 

Woollen and Y 
Cloth 








Value Expor- 
ted. 1848. 


Value Expor- 
ted, 1851. 


Value Expor- 
ted, 1860. 


Value Expor- 
ted. 1865. 


CXITTON. 

Yam 


£ 

5,927,881 

16,758,869 

498,449 
8,808,789 

77,789 

776,975 
5,788.828 


£ 

6,684,026 
28,454,810 

951,486 
4107,896 

195,880 
1,180,898 

1,484,544 
8.877,188 


£ 

0,870,875 
42,141,505 

1,801,278 
4,804,808 

918,848 
1,587,808 

8,848,450 
18,156,998 


£ 
10,851,04 
46,908,796 

9,505,497 
9,155,818 

768,067 
1,409,881 

5,424,017 
80,102,259 


Cloth 


VLAZ * HXKP. 

Yam ••••••••• 


Cloth 


SILX* 

Yam ••• 


Cloth ••••••••• 


W0«L. 

Yam .. 

Qoth . 



 

458 Capitalist Production. 

annexi&amp;g the labour of women and children, augments the 
number of human beings who form the material for capitalistic 
exploitation, how it confiscates the whole of the workman&apos;s 
disposable time, by immoderate extension of the hours of 
labour, and how finally its progress, which allows of enormous 
increase of production in shorter and shorter periods, serves as 
a means of systematically getting more work done in a shorter 
time, or in exploiting labour-power more intensely. We now 
turn to the factory as a whole, and that in its most perfect 
form. 

Dr. Fre, the Pindar of the automatic factory, describes it, on 
the one hand as &quot;Combined co-operation of many orders of 
workpeople, adult and young, in tending with assiduous skill, a 
system of productive machines, continuously impelled by a 
central power&apos;&apos; (the prime mover) ; on the other hand, as &quot;a 
vast automaton, composed of various mechanical and intel- 
lectual organs, acting in iminterrupted concert for the produc- 
tion of a common object, all of them being subordinate to a 
self-regulated moving force.&quot; These two descriptions are far 
from being identical. In one, the collective labourer, or social 
body of labour, appears as the dominant subject and the me- 
chanical automaton as the object; in the other, the automaton 
itself is the subject, and the workmen are merely conscious 
organs, co-ordinate with the imconscious organs of the automa- 
ton, and together with them, subordinated to the central 
moving-power. The first description is applicable to every 
possible employment of machinery on a large scale, the second 
is characteristic of its use by capital, and therefore of the 
modem factory system. Ure prefers therefore, to describe the 
central machine, from which the motion comes, not only as an 

See the Blaebooks &apos;&apos;Statistical Abstract of the United Kingdom, Not. 8 and 18.&quot; 
Lond., 1861 and 1866. In Lancashire the number of mills increased only 4 per cent 
between 1889 and 1860; 10 per cent, between 1850 and 1856; and 83 per cent be- 
tween 1856 and 1862; while the persons employed in them during each of the above 
periods of 11 years increased absolutely, but diminished relatively. (See &quot;Rep. of 
Insp. of Fact., for 81st Oct., 1862,&quot; p. 68.) The cotton trade preponderates in 
Lancashire. We may form an idea of the stupendous nature of th? cotton trade in 
that district, when we consider that, of the gross number of textile factories in the 
United Kingdom, it absorbs 45.2 per cent., of the spindles 88.8 per cent., of the 
power-looms 81.4 per cent., of the mechanical horse-power 72.6 per cent., and of the 
total number of persons employed 58.2 per cent. (L c, p. 62-68.) 



 

Machinery and Modem Industry. 459 

automaton, but as an autocrat ^&apos;In these spacious halls the 
l)emgnant power of steam summons around him his myriads 
of -willing menials.&quot;^ 

Along with the tool^ the skill of the workman in handling it 
passes over to the machine. The capabilities of the tool are 
emancipated from the restraints that are inseparable from 
human labour-power. Thereby the technical foundation on 
which is based the division of labour in Manufacture, is swept 
away. Hence, in the place of the hierarchy of specialised 
workmen that characterises manufacture, there steps, in the 
automatic factory, a tendency to equalise and reduce to one 
and the same level every kind of work that has to be done 
by the minders of the machines;* in the place of the artifi- 
cially produced differentiations of the detail workmen, step 
the natural differences of age and sex. 

So far as division of labour re-appears in the factory, it is 
primarily a distribution of the workmen among the specialised 
machines ; and of masses of workmen, not however organised 
into groups, among the various departments of the factory, 
in each of which they work at a number of similar machines 
placed together; their co-operation, therefore, is only simple. 
The organised group, peculiar to manufacture, is replaced by 
the connexion between the head workman and his few assist- 
ants. The essential division is, into workmen who are actually 
employed on the machines (among whom are included a few 
who look after the engine), and into mere attendants (almost 
exclusively children) of these workmen. Among the attend- 
ants are reckoned more or less all &apos;Teeders^&apos; who supply the 
machines with the material to be worked. In addition to 
these two principal classes, there is a numerically unimportant 
class of persons, whose occupation it is to look after the whole 
of the machinery and repair it from time to time; such as 
engineers, mechanics, joiners, &amp;c. This is a superior class of 
workmen, some of them scientifically educated, others brought 
up to a trade; it is distinct from lie factory operative class, 

«Ure, 1. c. p. 18. 

&apos;Ure, L c^ IK 81. See Karl Marx» Poverty of Pliilotophy, p. ijj. 



 

460 Capitalist Production. 

and merely aggr^ated to it^ This division of labour is purely 
technicaL 

To work at a machine, the workman should be taught from 
childhood, in order that ho may learn to adapt his own move- 
ments to the uniform and unceasing motion of an automaton. 
When the machinery, as a whole, forms a system of manifold 
machines, working simultaneously and in concert, the co-opera- 
tion based upon it, requires the distribution of various groups 
of workmen among the different kinds of machines. But the 
employment of machinery does away with the necessity of 
crystallizing this distribution after the manner of Manufac- 
ture, by the constant annexation of a particular man to a par- 
ticular function.* Since the motion of the whole system does 
not proceed from the workman, but from the machinery, a 
change of persons can take place at any time without an inter- 
ruption of the work. The most striking proof of this is 
afforded by the relays system, put into operation by the manu- 
facturers during their revolt from 1848-1850. Lastly, the 
quickness with which machine work is learnt by yoimg people, 
does away with the necessity of bringing up for exclusive em- 
ployment by machinery, a special class of operatives.* With 

&gt;It loolcB Teiy like intentional mislemding by ttatittict (which misleading it would 
be possible to prove in detail in other cases too), when the English factory legislation 
excludes from its operation the class of labourers last mentioned in the text, while 
the parliamentary returns expressly include in the category of factory operatives, not 
only engineers, mechanics, &amp;c, but also managers, salesmen, messengers, warehouse 
men, packers, ftc, in short everybody, except the owner of the factory himself. 

&apos; Ure grants this. He says, &quot;in case of need,&quot; the workmen can be moved at the 
will of the manager from one machine to another, and he triumphantly exclaims: 
&quot;Such a change is in flat contradiction with the old routine, that divides the labour, 
and to one workman assigns the task of fashioning the head of a needle, to another 
the sharpening of the point.&quot; He had much better have asked himself, why this 
&quot;old routine&quot; ia departed from in the automatic factory, only &quot;in case of need.&quot; 

* When distress is very great, as, for instance, during the American civil war, the 
factory operative is now and then set by the Bourgeois to do the roughest of worl^ 
•uch as road-making, ftc. The English &quot;ateliers nationaux&quot; of 186S and the follow- 
ing srears, established for the benefit of the destitute cotton operatives, differ from 
the French of 1848 in this, that in the latter the workmen had to do unproductive 
work at the expense of the state, in the former they had to do productive municipal 
work to the advantage of the bourgeois, and that, too, cheaper than the regular 
workmen, with whom they were thus thrown into competition. &quot;The physical ap- 
pearance of the cotton operatives is unquestionably improved. This I attribute 
. • . as to the men, to outdoor labour on public works.&quot; (&quot;Rep. of Insp. of 
Fact*&quot; 81st Oct, 1865, p. 59.) The writer here alludes to the Preston factory 
&lt;lperatives, who were employed on Preston Moor. 



 

Machinery and Modem Industry. 461 

regard to the work of the mere attendants, it can, to some 
extent) be replaced in the mill by machines,^ and owing to its 
extreme simplioitj, it allows of a rapid and constant change 
of the individuals burdened with this drudgery. 

Although then, technically speaking, the old system of 
division of labour is thrown overboard by machinery, it hangs 
on in the factory, as a traditional habit handed down from 
Manufacture, and is afterwards systematically re-moulded and 
established in a more hideous form by capital, as a means of 
exploiting labour-power. The life-long speciality of handling 
one and the same tool, now becomes the life-long speciality of 
serving one and the same machine. Machinery is put to a 
wrong use, with the object of transforming the workman, from 
his very cliildhood, into a part of a detail-machine.^ In this 
Way, not only are the expenses of his re-production considerably 
lessened, but at the same time his helpless dependence upon 
the factory as a whole, and therefore upon the capitalist, is 
rendered complete. Here as everywhere else, we must dis- 
tinguish between the increased productiveness due to the 
development of the social process of production, and that due 
to the capitalist exploitation of that process. In handicrafts 
and manufacture, the workman makes use of a tool, in the 
factory, the machine makes use of him. There the movements 
of the instrument of labour proceed from him, here it is the 
movements of the machine fiiat he must follow. In manu- 
facture the workmen are parts of a living mechanism. In the 
factory we have a lifeless mechanism independent of the work- 

* An example: The various mechanical apparatus Introduced since the Act of 1844 
into woollen mills, for replacing the labour of children. So soon as it shall happen 
that the children of the manufacturers themselves have to go through a course of 
schooling as helpers in the mill, this almost unexplored territory of mechanics will 
soon make remarkable progress. &quot;Of machinery, perhaps self-acting mules are as 
dangerous as any other kind. Most of the accidents from them happen to little 
children, from their creeping under the mules to sweep the floor whilst the mules are 
in motion. Several &apos;minders&apos; have been fined for this offence, but without much 
general benefit If machine makers would only invent a self-sweeper, by whose use 
the necessity for these little children to creep under the machinery might be pre- 
vented, it would be a happy addition to our protective measures.&quot; (&quot;Reports oi 
Insp. of Fact.&quot; for Slst Oct, 1866, p. 68.) 

•So much then for Proudhon&apos;s wonderful idea: he &quot;construes&quot; machinery not 
as a synthesis of instruments of labour, but as a synthesis of detail operations foi 
the benefit of the labourer himsell 



 

462 Capitalist Production. 

maBy Mdio becomes its mere living appendaga &apos;^The miserable 
routine of endless drudgery and toil in winch the same 
mechanical process is gone through over and over again, is like 
the labour of Sisyphus. The burden of labour, like the rock, 
keeps ever falling back on the worn-out labourer/*^ At the 
same time that factory work exhausts the nervous system to 
the uttermost, it does away with the many-sided play of the 
muscles, and confiscates every atom of freedom, both in bodily 
and intellectual activity.^ The lightening of the labour, even, 
becomes a sort of torture, since the machine does not free the 
labourer from work, but deprives the work of all interest 
Every kind of capitalist production in so far as it is not only 
a labour-process, but also a process of creating surplus-value, 
has this in common, that it is not the workman that employs 
the instruments of labour, but the instruments of labour that 
employ the workman. But it is only in the factory system 
that lliis inversion for the first time acquires technical and 
palpable reality. By means of its conversion into an automa- 
ton, the instrument of labour confronts the labourer, during 
the labour-process, in the shape of capital, of dead labour, that 
dominates, and pumps dry, living labour-power. The separa- 
tion of the intellectual powers of production from the manual 
labour, and the conversion of those powers into the might of 
capital over labour, is, as we have already shown, finally com- 
pleted by modem industry erected on the foundation of 
machinery. The special skill of each individual insignificant 
factory operative vanishes as an infinitesimal quantity before 
the science, the gigantic physical forces, and the mass of 
labour that are embodied in the factory mechanism and, 
together with that mechanism, constitute the power of the 
&quot;master.&quot; This &quot;master,&apos;&apos; therefore, in whose brain the 
machinery and his monopoly of it are inseparably united, 

^F. Engels, L c p. 217. Even an ordinary and optimist freetrader, like Mr. 
Molinari, goes so far as to say &quot;Un homme s&apos;use plus vite en surveillant» quinze 
heures par jour, revolution uniforme d*un m^canisme, qu*en exer^ant, dans le meme 
espace de temps, sa force physique. Ce travail de surveillance qui servirait peut- 
€tre d&apos;utile gymnastique i Tintelligence, s&apos;il n&apos;6tait pas trop prolong^, d^truit i U 
longue, par son excis, et rintelligence* et le corps meme.&quot; (G. de Molinari: 
£tudes Economiques.&quot; Paris 1846.) 

&apos; F. Engels, L c. p. 216. 



 

Machinery and Modern Industry. 463 

whenever lie falls out with, his &quot;hands,&quot; contemptuously tells 
them: &quot;The factory operatives should keep in wholesome 
remembrance the fact that theirs is really a low species of 
skilled labour; and that there is none which is more easily 
acquired, or of its quality more amply remunerated, or which 
by a short training of the least expert can be more quickly, as 
well as abundantly, acquired. • . . The master&apos;s machin- 
ery really plays a far more important part in the business of 
production than the labour and the skill of the operative, which 
six months&apos; education can teach, and a common labourer can 
leam.&apos;&apos;^ The technical subordination of the workman to the 
uniform motion of the instruments of labour, and the peculiar 
composition of the body of workpeople, consisting as it does of 
individuals of both sexes and of all ages, &apos;nve rise to a barrack 
discipline, which is elaborated into a complete system in the 
factory, and which fully developes the before mentioned labour 
of overlooking, thereby dividing the workpeople into operatives 
and overlookers, into private soldiers and sergeants of an 
industrial army. &quot;The main difficulty [in the automatic 
factory] . . . lay . . • above all in training human 
beings to renounce their desultory habits of work, and to iden- 
tify themselves with the unvarying regularity of the complex 
automaton. To devise and administer a successful code of 
factory discipline, suited to the necessities of factory diligence, 
was the Herculean enterprise, the noble achievement of Ark- 
wright ! Even at the present day, when the system is perfectly 
organised and its labour lightened to the utmost, it is found 
nearly impossible to convert persons past the age of puberty, 
into useful factory hands. &quot;^ The factory code in which capi- 
tal formulates, like a private legislator, and at his own good 
will, his autocracy over his workpeople, unaccompanied by that 
division of responsibility, in other matters so much approved 

^&quot;The Master Spinners&apos; and Manufacturers&apos; Defence Fund. Report of the Com- 
mittee.&quot; Manchester, 1864, p. 17. We shall see hereafter that the &quot;master&quot; can 
ting quite another song, when he is threatened with the loss of his &quot;living&quot; autom- 
aton. 

•Ure, 1. c p. 16. Whoever knows the life history of Arkwright, will never dub 
this barber-genius &quot;noble.&quot; Of all the great inventors of the 18th century, he was 
incontestably the greatest thiever of other people&apos;s inventions and the meanest 
fellow. 



 

464 Capitalist Production. 

of by the boargeoisie^ and unacoompanied by the still more 
approved representative system, this code is but the capitalistic 
caricature of that social regulation of the labour-process which 
becomes requisite in co-operation on a great scale, and in 
the employment in ccnnmon, of instruments of labour and 
especially of machinery. The place of the slave driver&apos;s lash 
is taken by the overlooker&apos;s book of penalties. All punish- 
ments naturally resolve themselves into fines and deductions 
from wages, and the law-giving talent of the factory Lycurgus 
so arranges matters^ that a violation of his laws is, if possible, 
more profitable to him than the keeping of theuL^ 

^&quot;The tlavery in which the bourgeoisie hat bound the proletariat, comet nowfaert 
more plainly into daylight than in the factory system. In it all freedom comes to an 
end both at law and in fact. The workman must be in the factory at half past five. 
If he come a few minutes late, he is punished; if he come 10 minutes late, he ia not 
allowed to enter until after breakfast, and thus loses a quarter of a day&apos;s wage. He 
must eat, drink and sleep at word of command. • . . The despotic bell calls him 
from his bed, calls him from breakfast and dinner. And how does he fare in the 
mill? There the master is the absolute law-giver. He makes what regulations he 
pleases; he alters and makes additions to his code at pleasure; and if he insert the 
veriest nonsense, the courts say to the workman: Since you have entered into this 
contract voluntarily, you must now carry it out. . . • These workmen are con- 
demned to live, from their ninth year till their death, under this mental and bodily 
torture.&quot; (F. Engels L c p. 217, sq.) What, &quot;the courU say,&quot; I will illustrate by 
two examples. One occurs at Sheffield at the end of 1866. In that town a workman 
had engaged himself for 8 years in a steelworks. In consequence of a quarrel with 
his employer he left the works, and declared that under no circumstances would he 
work for that master any more. He was prosecuted for breach of contract, and 
condemned to two months&apos; imprisonment (If the master break the contract, he can 
be proceeded against only in a civil action, and risks nothing but money damages). 
After the workman has served his two months, the master invites him to return to 
the works, pursuant to the contract Workman says; no: he has already been pun- 
ished for the breach. The master prosecutes again, the court condemns again, al- 
though one of the judges, Mr. Shee, publicly denounces this as a legal monstrosity, 
by which a man can periodically, as long as he lives, be punished over and over again 
for the same offence or crime. This judgment was given not by the &quot;Great Unpaid,&quot; 
the provincial Dogberries, but by one of the highest courts of justice in London. 

Note to the 4th German edition. — This has now been abolished. With the excep- 
tion of a few cases, for instance in public gas works, the English laborer has beoi 
placed on an equity with the employers in cases of contract breaking, and can be 
proceeded against only by the civil courts. F. E. — ^ 

The second case occurs in Wiltshire at the end of November 1868. About 80 
power-loom weavers, in the emplosrment of one Harrup, a cloth manufacturer at 
Leower&apos;s Mill, Westbury Leigh, struck work because master Hamtp indulged in 
the agreeable habit of making deductions from their wages for being late in the morn- 
ing; 6d. for 8 minutes; Is. for 8 minutes, and Is. 6d. for ten minutes. This is 
at the rate of 9s. per hour, and £4 10s. Od. per diem; while the wages of the 
weavers on the average of a year, never exceed 10s. to 18s. weekly. Harmp also 
appointed a boy to announce the starting time by a whistle, which he often did be- 
fore six o&apos;clock in the morning: and if the hands were not all there at the moment 
the whistle ceased, the doors were dosed, and those hands who were outside wera 



 

Machinery and Modern Industry. 465 

We shall here merely allude to the material conditions under 
wliich factory labour is carried on. Every organ of sense is 
injured in an equal degree by artificial elevation of the tem- 
perature, by the dust-laden atmosphere, by the deafening noise, 
not to mention danger to life and limb among the thickly 
crowded machinery, which, with the regularity of the seasons, 
issues its list of the killed and wounded in the industrial 
battle.^ Economy of the social means of production, matured 

fined: and as there was no clock on the premises, the unfortunate hands were at the 
mercy of the young Hamip-inspired time-keeper. The hands on strike, mothers of 
families as well as girls, offered to resume work if the time-keeper were replaced by 
m clock, and a more reasonable scale of fines were introduced. Harrup summoned 
19 women and girls before the magistrates for breach of contract To the utter in- 
dignation of all present, they were each mulcted in a fine of 6d. and 2s. 6d. for costs. 
Harrup was followed from the court by a crowd of people who hissed him. — ^A 
favourite operation with manufacturers is to punish the workpeople by deductions 
made from their wages on account of faults in the materia! worked on. This method 
gave rise in 1866 to a general strike in the English pottery districts. The reports of 
the Ch. Empl. Com. (1863-1866), give cases where the worker not only receives no 
wages, but becomes, by means of his labour, and of the penal regulations, the 
debtor to boot, of his worthy master. The late cotton crisis idso furnished edifying 
examples of the sagacity shown by the factory autocrats in making deductions from 
wages. Mr. R. Baker, the Inspector of Factories, says, &quot;I have myself had lately 
to direct prosecutions against one cotton mill occupier for having in those pinching 
and painful times deducted lOd. a piece from some of the young workers employed 
by him, for the surgeon&apos;s certificate (for which he himself had only paid 6d.), when 
only allowed by the law to deduct 8d., and by custom nothing at all • • • • 
And I have been informed of another, who, in order to keep without the law, but 
to attam the same object, charges the poor children who work for him a shilling 
each, as a fee for learning them the art and mystery of cotton spinning, so soon 
as they are declared by the surgeon fit and proper persons for that occupation. There 
may therefore be undercurrent causes for such extraordinary exhibitions as strikes, 
not only wherever they arise, but particularly at such times as the present, which 
without explanation, render them inexplicable to the public understanding.&quot; He al- 
ludes here to a strike of power-loom weavers at Darwin, June, 1868. (&quot;Reports of 
Insp. of Fact for 80 April, 1868,&quot; pp. 50-61.) The reports always go beyond their 
official dates. 

*The protection afforded by the Factory Acts against dangerous machinery has 
had a beneficial effect &quot;But • • • there are other sources of accident which did 
not exist twenty years since; one especially, viz., the increased speed on the ma- 
chinery. Wheels, rollers, spindles and shuttles are now propelled at increased and 
increasing rates; fingers must be quicker and defter in their movements to take up 
the broken thread, for, if placed with hesitation or carelessness, they are sacrificed. 
• . . A large number of accidents are caused by the eagerness of the workpeople 
to get through their work expeditiously. It must be remembered that it is of the 
highest importance to manufacturers that their machinery should be in motion, ut,, 
producing 3rams and goods. Every minute&apos;s stoppage is not only a loss of power, 
but of production, and the workpeople are urged by the overlookers, who are in- 
terested in the quantity of work turned off, to keep the machinery in motion; and 
h is no less important to those of the operatives who are paid by the weight or 
piece that the machines should be kept in motion. Consequently, although it is 
Strictly forbidden in many, nay in most factories, that machinery should be dean- 

2D 



 

466 Capitalist Production. 

and forced aB in a hothouse by the factory system, is turned, in 
the hands of capital into systematic robbery of what is neces- 
sary for the life of the workman while he is at work, robbery 
of space, light, air, and of protection to his person against the 
dangerous and unwholesome accompaniments of the productive 
process, not to mention the robbery of appliances for the com- 
fort of the workman.* Is Fourier wrong when he calls fac- 
tories &quot;tempered bagnos ?&quot;* 

Section&apos; 5. — the stbifb between woBKMiLN anb machine. 

The contest between the capitalist and the wage-labourer 
dates back to the very origin of capitaL It raged on throng- 
out the whole manufacturing period.* But only since the 

cd while in motion, it is revertheless the constant practice in most if not in all* 
tliat the workpeople do, unreproved, pidc out wastes wipe rollers and wheels, ftc, 
while their frames are in motion. Thus from this cause only, WM accidents hare 
occurred during the six months. .... Although a great deal of cleaning is 
constantly going on Jay by day, yet Saturday is generally the day set apart for the 
thorough cleaning of the machinery, and a great deal of this is done while the mSf 
chinery is in motion.&quot; Since cleaning is not paid for, the workpeople seek to get 
done with it as speedily as possible. Hence &quot;the number of accidents which occur 
on Fridajrs, and especially on Saturdays, is much larger than on any other day. 
On the former the excess is nearly 12 per cent, over the average number of the 
four first days of the week, and on the latter day the excess is 26 per cent over the 
average of the preceding five days; or, if the number of working*hours on Satnr^ 
day being taken into account — ^T^hours on Saturday as compared with 1054 &lt;m 
other days — there is an excess of 66 per cent on Saturdays over the average of 
the other five days.&quot; (&quot;Rep. of Insp. of Fact, 81st Oct, 1866,&quot; p. 9, 16, 16, 17.) 

^In Part I. of Book III. I shall give an account of a recent campaign by the 
English manufacturers against the Clauses in the Factory Acts that protect the 
&quot;hands&quot; against dangerous machinery. For the present let this one quotation from 
the official report of Leonard Homer suffice: &quot;I have heard some millowners speak 
with inexcusable levity of some of the accidents; such, for instance, as the loss of a 
finger being a trifling matter. A working-man&apos;s living and prospects depend so 
much upon his fingers, that any loss of them is a very serious matter to him. 
When I have heard such inconsiderate remarks made, I have usually put this 
question: Suppose you were in want of an additional workman, and two were to 
apply, both equally well qualified in other respects, but one had lost a thumb or 
a forefinger, which would you engage? There never was a hesitation as to the an- 
swer.&quot; .... The manufacturers have &quot;mistaken prejudices against what they 
have heard represented as a pseudo-philanthropic legislation.&quot; (&quot;Rep. of Insp. of 
Fact, 81st Oct., 1865.&quot; These manufacturers are clever folk, and not without rea- 
son were they enthusiastic for the slave-holder&apos;s rebellion. 

&apos;In those factories that have been longest subject to the Factory Acts, with their 
compulsory limitation of the hours of labour, and other regulations, many of the 
older abuses have vanished. The very improvement of the machinery demands to a 
certain extent &quot;improved construction of the buildings,&quot; and this is an advantage 
to the workpeople. (See &quot;Rep. of Insp. of Fact for 81st Oct, 1863,&quot; p. 109.) 

• See amongst others, John Houghton: &quot;Husbandry and Trade improved. Loi^ 



 

Machinery and Modem Industry. 467 

introductioii of machinery has the workman fought against the 
instrument of labour itself, the material embodiment of capitaL 
He revolts against this particular form of the means of produc- 
tion, as being the material basis of the capitalist mode of pro- 
duction. 

In the 17th century nearly all Europe experienced revolts 
of the workpeople against the ribbon-loom, a machine for 
weaving ribbons and trimmings, called in Germany Band- 
miihle, Schnurmiihle, and MiihlenstuhL These machines were 
invented in (Jermany. Abbe Lancellotti, in a work that ap- 
peared in Venice in 1636, but which was written in 1579, says 
as follows: &quot;Anthony Miiller of Danzig, saw about 50 years 
ago in that town, a very ingenious machine, which weaves 4 to 
6 pieces at once. But the Mayor being apprehensive that this 
invention might throw a large number of workmen on the 
streets, caused the inventor to be secretly strangled or 
drowned.&apos;* In Leyden, this machine was not used till 1629; 
there the riots of the ribbon-weavers at length compelled the 
Town Council to prohibit it &quot;In hac urbe,&apos;* says Boxhom 
(Inst Pol., 1663), referring to the introduction of this ma- 
chine in Leyden, &quot;ante hos viginti circiter annos instrumentum 
quidam invenerunt textorium, quo solus plus panni et facilius 
conficere poterat, quam plures aequali tempore. Hinc turbae 
ortse et querulse textorum, tandemque usus hujus instrumenti 
a magistratu prohibitus est.&quot; After making various decrees 
more or less prohibitive against this loom in 1632, 1639, &amp;c., 
the States General of Holland at length permitted it to be 
used, under certain conditions, by the decree of the 15th De- 
cember, 1661. It wa8 also prohibited in Cologne in 1676, at 
the same time that its introduction into England was causing 
disturbances among the workpeople. By an imperial Edict of 
19th Feb., 1685, its use was forbidden throughout all Germany. 

doo, 1727.&quot; ^The AdvanUges of the East India Trade, 1720.&quot; John Bellers, 1. 
c The masters and their workmen are, unhappily, in a perpetual war with each 
other. The invariable object of the former is to get their work done as cheaply as 
possible; and they do not fail to employ every artifice to this purpose, whilst the 
latter are equally attentive to every occasion of distressing their masters into a com* 
pliance with higher demands.&quot; (&quot;An Inquiry into the Causes of the Present High 
Prices of Provisions,&quot; p. 61-92. Author, the Rev. Nathaniel Forster, quite on the 
aide of the workmen.) 



 

468 Capitalist Production. 

In Hamburg it was burnt in public by order of the Senate. 
The Emperor Charles VI., on 9th Feb., 1719, renewed the 
edict of 1685, and not till 1765 was its use openly allowed in 
the Electorate of Saxony. This machine, which shook Europe 
to its foundations, was in fact the precursor of the mule and 
the power-loom, and of the industrial revolution of the 18th 
century. It enabled a totally inexperienced boy, to set the 
whole loom with all its shuttles in motion, by simply moving a 
rod backwards and forwards, and in its improved form pro- 
duced from 40 to 50 pieces at once. 

About 1630, a wind-sawmill, erected near London by a 
Dutchman, succumbed to the excesses of the populace. Even 
as late as the beginning of the 18th century, sawmills driven 
by water overcame the opposition of the people, supported as 
it was by parliament, only with great difficulty. No sooner 
had Everet in 1758 erected the first wool-shearing machine 
that was driven by water-power, than it was set on fire by 
100,000 people who had been thrown out of work. Fifty 
thousand workpeople, who had previously lived by carding 
wool, petitioned parliament against Arkwright&apos;s scribbling 
mills and carding engines. The enormous destruction of 
machinery that occurred in the English manufacturing dis- 
tricts during the first 15 years of this century, chiefly caused 
by the employment of the power-loom, and known as the 
Luddite movement, gave the anti-jacobin governments of a 
Sidmouth, a Castlereagh, and the like, a pretext for the most 
re-actionary and forcible measures. It took both time and 
experience before the workpeople learnt to distinguish between 
machinery and its employment by capital, and to direct their 
attacks, not against the material instruments of production, 
but against the mode in which they are used.^ 

The contests about wages in Manufacture, presuppose manu- 
facture, and are in no sense directed against its existence. The 
opposition against the establishment of new manufactures, pro- 
ceeds from the guilds and privileged towns, not from the work- 
-in old-faahioned manufactures the revolts of the workpeople against machinerji 
even to this day, occasionally assume a savage character at in the case of tlio 
Sheffield file cutters in 1866. 



 

Machinery and Modem Industry. 469 

people. Hence the writers of the manufacturing period treat 
the division of labour chiefly as a means of virtually supplying 
a deficiency of labourers, and not as a means of actually dis- 
placing those in work. This distinction is self-evident If it 
be said that 100 millions of people would be required in Eng- 
land to spin with the old spinning-wheel the cotton that is now 
spun vdth mules by 500,000 people, this does not mean that 
the mules took the place of those millions who never existed. 
It means only this, that many millions of workpeople would be 
required to replace the spinning machinery. If, on the other 
hand, we say, that in England the power-loom threw 800,000 
weavers on the streets, we do not refer to existing machinery, 
that would have to be replaced by a definite number of work- 
people, but to a number of weavers in existence who were 
actually replaced or displaced by the looms. During the man- 
ufacturing period, handicraft labour, altered though it was by 
division of labour, was yet the basis. The demands of the 
new colonial markets could not be satisfied owing to the 
relatively small number of town operatives handed down from 
the middle ages, and the manufactures proper opened out new 
fields of production to the rural population, driven from the 
land by the dissolution of the feudal system. At that time, 
therefore, division of labour and co-operation in the workshops, 
were viewed more from the positive aspect, that they made 
the workpeople more productive.^ Long before the period of 
Modem Industry, co-operation and the concentration of the 
instruments of labour in the hands of a few, gave rise, in 
numerous countries where these methods were applied in agri- 

^Sir James Stewart also understands machinery quite in this sense. &quot;Je con- 
sid^re done les machines comme des moyens d&apos;augmenter (virtuellement) le nombre 
des gens tndustrieux qu&apos;on n&apos;est pas oblig6 de nourrir. ... En quoi I&apos;effet d*une 
machine diffire-t-il de celui de nouveaux habitants?&quot; (French trans, t. I.» 1. I.» 
ch. XIX.) More naive is Petty, who says, it replaces &quot;Polygamy.&quot; The above 
point of view is, at the most, admissible only for some parts of the United States. 
On the other hand, &quot;machinery can seldom be used with success to abridge the 
labour of an individual; more time would be lost in its construction than could be 
saved by its application. It is only useful when it acts on great masses, when a 
single machine can assist the work of thousands. It is accordingly in the most 
populous countries, where there are most idle men, that it is most abundant . . . 
It is not called into use by a scarcity of men, but by the facility with which they 
can be brought to work in masses.&quot; (Piercy Ravenstone: &apos;&apos;Thoughts on the Fund- 
ing System and its Effects.&quot; London, 18S4» p. 16.) 



 

470 Capitalist Production. 

culture, to great, sudden and forcible revolutions in the modes 
of production, and consequentially, in the conditions of exist- 
ence, and the means of employment of the rural populations. 
But this contest at first takes place more between the large 
and the small landed proprietors, than between capital and 
wage-labour; on the other hand, when the labourers are dis- 
placed by the instruments of labour, by sheep, horses, &amp;c, in 
this case force is directly resorted to in the first instance as the 
prelude to the industrial revolution. The Uibourers are first 
driven from the land, and then come the sheep. Land grab- 
bing on a great scale, such as was perpetrated in England, is 
the first step in creating a field for the establishment of agri- 
culture on a great scale. ^ Hence this subversion of agriculture 
puts on, at first, more the appearance of a political revolution. 
The instrument of labour, when it takes the form of a 
machine, immediately becomes a competitor of the workman 
himself.^ The self-expansion of capital by means of machinery 
is thenceforward directly proportional to the number of the 
workpeople, whose means of livelihood have been destroyed by 
that machinery. The whole system of capitalist production is 
based on the fact that the workman sells his labour-power as a 
commodity. Division of labour specialises this labour-power, 
by reducing it to skill in handling a particular tooL So soon 
as the handling of this tool becomes the work of a machine^ 
then, with the use-value, the exchange-value too, of the work- 
man&apos;s labour-power vanishes; the workman becomes unsale- 
able, like paper money thrown out of currency by legal enact- 
ment That portion of the working class, thus by machinery 
rendered superfluous, i.e.y no longer immediately necessary 
for the self-expansion of capital, either goes to the wall in the 
unequal contest of the old handicrafts and manufactures with 
machinery, or else floods all the more easily accessible branches 
of industry, swamps the labour market, and sinks the price of 
labour-power below its value. It is impressed upon the work- 

*Note to the 4th Gennan edition. — This afypUes also to Germany. Whercrer 
agriculture on a large scale exists in Germany, that is, particularly in the East, it 
was made possible through the &apos;&apos;trapping of peasants&quot; in vogne since the 16tb 
century, and more particularly since 1648. F. E. — 

s &quot;Machinery and labour are in constant competition.&quot; Ricardo^ L c, p. 479^ 



 

Machinery atid Modem Industry. 471 

people^ as a great consolal^^on, firsts that their sufferings are 
only temporary (&quot;a temporary inconvenience&quot;), secondly, that 
machinery acquires the mastery over the whole of a given field 
of production, only by degrees, so that the extent and intensity 
of its destructive effect is diminished. The first consolation 
neutralizes the second. When machinery seizes on an industry 
by degrees, it produces chronic misery among the operatives 
who compete with it Where the transition is rapid, the effect 
is acute and felt by great masses. History discloses no tragedy 
more horrible than the gradual extinction of the English hand- 
loom weavers, an extinction that was spread over several de- 
cades, and finally sealed in 1838. Many of them died of star- 
vation, many with families vegetated for a long time on 2^ d. 
a day.* On the other hand, the English cotton machinery pro- 
duced an acute effect in India. The Governor General re- 
ported 1834-35. &quot;The misery hardly finds a parallel in the 
history of commerce. The bones of the cotton-weavers are 
bleaching the plains of India.&quot; No doubt, in turning them 
out of this &quot;temporal&quot; world, the machinery caused them no 
more than &quot;a temporary inconvenience.&quot; For the rest, since 
machinery is continually seizing upon new fields of production, 
its temporary effect is really permanent Hence, the char- 
acter of independance and estrangement which the capitalist 
mode of production as a whole gives to the instruments of 
labour and to the product, as against the workman, is devel- 

&gt; The competition between hand-weaving and power-weaving in England, before 
the passing of the Poor Law of 1838, was prolonged by supplementing the wages, 
which had fallen considerably below the minimum, with parish relief. &quot;The Rev. 
Mr. Turner was, in 1827, rector of Wilmslow, in Cheshire, a manufacturing dis- 
trict. The questions of the Committee of Emigration, and Mr. Turner&apos;s answers, 
show how the competition of human labour is maintained against machinery.&apos; Ques- 
tion: Has not the use of the power-loom superseded the use of the hand-loom? An- 
swer: Undoubtedly; it would have superseded them much more than it has done, 
if the hand-loom weavers were not enabled to submit to a reduction of wages. 
Question: &apos;But in submitting he has accepted wages which are insufficient to 
support him, and looks to parochial contribution as the remainder of his support? 
Answer: Yes, and in fact the competition between the hand-loom and the power- 
loom is maintained out of the poor-rates. Thus degrading pauperism or expatria- 
tion, is the benefit which the industrious receive from the introduction of machinery, 
to be reduced from the respectable and in some degree independent mechanic, to 
the cringing wretch who lives on the debasing bread of charity. This they call a 
tempory inconvenience.&quot; (&quot;A Prize Essay on the comparative merits of Compe&gt; 
tition and Co-operation.&quot; Lond., 1884, p. 89.) 



 

472 Capitalist Production. 

oped by means of machinery into a thorongli antagonism.^ 
Therefore, it is with the advent of machinery, that the work- 
man for the first time brutally revolts against the instruments 
of labour. 

The instrument of labour strikes down the labourer. This 
direct antagonism between the two comes out most strongly, 
whenever newly introduced machinery competes with handi- 
crafts or manufactures, handed down from former times. But 
even in Modem Industry the continual improvement of 
machinery, and the development of the automatic system, has 
an analogous effect &quot;The object of improved machinery is to 
diminish manual labour, to provide for the performance of a 
process or the completion of a link in a manufacture by the 
aid of an iron instead of the human apparatus.^&apos;* &quot;The 
adaptation of power to machinery heretofore moved by hand, 
is almost of daily occurrence . . . the minor improve- 
ments in machinery having for their object economy of power, 
the production of better work, the turning off more work in 
the same time, or in supplying the place of a child, a female, 
or a man, are constant, and although sometimes apparently of 
no great moment, have somewhat important results.&apos;^ 
&apos;&apos;Whenever a process requires peculiar dexterity and steadiness 
of hand, it is withdrawn, as soon as possible, from the cunning 
workman, who is prone to irregularities of many kinds, and it 
is placed in charge of a peculiar mechanism^ so self-regulating 
that a child can superintend it&apos;&apos;* &quot;On the automatic plan 

*&quot;The tame cause which may increaie the revenue of the countiy* (*.#.. as 
Ricardo explains in the same passage, the revenues of landlords and capitalists, 
whose wealth, from the economical point of view, forms the Wealth of the Nation), 
&quot;may at the same time render the population redundant and deteriorate the condi- 
tion of the labourer.** (Ricardo, 1. c^ p. 46».) &quot;The constant aim and the ten- 
dency of every improvement in machinery is, in fact, to do away entirely with the 
labour of man, or to lessen its price by substituting the labour of women and chil- 
dren for that of grown up men, or of unskilled for that of skilled workmen.&quot; 
(Ure, 1. c, t. I., p. 86). 

&lt;&quot;Rep. Insp. Fact, for 81st October, 1868,&quot; p. 48. 

• &quot;Rep. Insp. Fact, for Slst October, 1866,&quot; p. 15. 

«Ure, 1. c, p. 19. &apos;The great advantage of the machinery employed in Md^ 
making consists in this, that the employer is made entirely independent Of skilled 
labourers.&apos;* (&quot;Ch. EmpL Comm. V. Report,*&apos; Lond., 1800, p. 180, n. 40.) Mr. A. 
Sturrock, superintendent of the machine department of the Great Northern Railway, 
says, with regard to the building of locomotives, &amp;c: &quot;Expensive English workmen 
are being less used every day. The production of the workshops of England is 



 

Machinery and Modem Industry. 473 

skilled labour gets progressively superseded.&quot;^ &quot;The effect of 
improvements in machinery, not merely in superseding the 
necessity for the employment of the same quantity of adult 
labour as before, in order to produce a given result, but in 
substituting one description of human labour for another, the 
less oKilled for the more skilled, juvenile for adult, female for 
male, causes a fresh disturbance in the rate of wages.&apos;^ &quot;The 
ffect of substituting the self-acting mule for the common mule, 
is to discharge the greater part of the men spinners, and to 
retain adolescents and children.&quot;^ The extraordinary power 
of expansion of the factory system owing to accumulated prac- 
tical experience, to the mechanical means at hand, and to con- 
stant technical progress, was proved to us by the giant strides 
of that system under the pressure of a shortened working day. 
But who, in 1860, the Zenith year of the English cotton indus- 
try, would have dreamt of the galloping improvements in ma- 
chinery, and the corresponding displacement of working people, 
called into being during the following 3 years, under the 
stimulus of the American Civil War ? A couple of examples 
from the Reports of the Inspectors of Factories will suflBce on 
this point A Manchester manufacturer states : &quot;We formerly 
had 75 carding engines, now we have 12, doing the same quan- 
tity of work. . . . We are doing with fewer hands by 14, 
at a saving in wages of £10 a-week. Our estimated saving in 
waste is about 10% in the quantity of cotton consumed.*^ &quot;In 
another fine spinning mill in Manchester, I was informed that 
through increased speed and the adoption of some self-acting 
processes, a reduction had been made^ in number, for a fourth 
in one department, and of above half in another, and that the 
introduction of the combing machine in place of the second 
carding, had considerably reduced the number of hands for- 
merly employed in the carding room.&quot; Another spinning mill 
is estimated to effect a saving of labour of 10%. The Messrs. 

being increased by the use of improved tools and these tools are again served by 
a low class of labour . • • Formerly their skilled labour necessarily produced all 
the parts of engines. Now the parts of engines are produced by labour with less 
sldll, but with good tools. By tools» I mean engineer&apos;s machinery, lathes, planing 
machines, drills, and so on. (&quot;Royal Com. on Railways.&quot; Lond., 1867, Minutes of 
Evidence, n. 17,862 and 17»868.) 
»Ure, L c, p. 20. &quot;Ure, 1. c, p. 821. »Ure, L c p. 28. 



 

474 Capitalist Production. 

Gilmour, spinners at Manchester, state : &quot;In our blowing-room 
department we consider our expense with new machinery is 
fully one-third less in wages and hands ... in the jack- 
frame and drawing-frame room, about one-third less in ex- 
pense, and likewise one-third less in hands; in the spinning- 
room about one-third less in expenses. But this is not all; 
when our yarn goes to the manufacturers, it is so much better 
by the application of our new machinery, that they will pro- 
duce a greater quantity of cloth, and cheaper than from the 
yam produced by old machinery.^^^ Mr. Redgrave further 
remarks in the same Report : &quot;The reduction of hands against 
increased production is, in fact, constantly taking place; in 
woollen mills the reduction commenced some time since, and 
is continuing; a few days since, the master of a school in the 
neighbourhood of Rochdale said to me, that the great falling 
off in the girls^ school is not only caused by the distress, but by 
the changes of machinery in the woollen mills, in consequence 
of which a reduction of 70 shortrtimers had taken place.&quot;* 

The following table shows the total result of the mechanical 
improvements in the English eotton industry due to the 
American civil war. 

NUMBER OF FACTORIES. 

1858 1861 1868 

England and Wales 2,046 2 J 15 2,405 

Scotland 152 163 131 

Ireland 12 9 13 

United Kingdom 2,210 2,887 2,549 

NUMBER OF POWER-LOOMS. 

1858 1861 1868 

England and Wales 275,590 368,125 S44,7 19 

Scotland 21,624 30,110 31,864 

Ireland 1,633 1,757 2,746 

United Kingdom 298,847 399,992 379,329 

^ &quot;Rep. Insp. Fact., Slst Oct., 1808,&quot; pp. 108, 109. 

&apos;1. c, p. 109. The rapid improvement of machinery, daring the crisis, allowed the 
English manufacturers, immediately after the termination of the American civil war, 
and almost in no time, to glut the markets of the world again. Cloth, during the 
last six months of 1866, was almost tinsaleahle. Thereupon hegan the consignment 
of goods to India and China, thus naturally making the glut more intense. At th« 
beginning of 1867 the manufacturers resorted to their usual way out of the difficulty* 



 

Machinery and Modem Industry. 475 

NUMBER OF SPINDLES. 

1858 1861 1868 

England and Wales 25,818,576 28,352,152 30,478,228 

Scotland 2,041,129 1,915,398 1,397,546 

Ireland 150,512 119,944 124,240 

United Kingdom 28,010,217 30,387,494 32,000,014 

NUMBER OF PERSONS EMPLOYED. 

1858 1861 1868 

England and Wales • • 341,170 407,598 357,052 

Scotland 34,698 41,237 39,809 

Ireland 3,345 2,734 4,203 

United Kingdom 379,213 451,569 401,064 

Hence, between 1861 and 1868, 338 cotton factories dis- 
appeared, in other words more productive machinery on a 
larger scale was concentrated in the hands of a smaller num- 
ber of capitalists. The number of power-looms decreased by 
20,663 ; but since their product increased in the same period, 
an improved loom must have yielded more than an old one. 
Lastly the number of spindles increased by 1,612,541, while 
the number of operatives decreased by 50,505. The &quot;tem- 
porary&quot; misery, inflicted on the workpeople by the cotton-crisis, 
was heightened, and from being temporary made permanent, 
by the rapid and persistent progress of machinery. 

But machinery not only acts as a competitor who gets the 
better of the workman, and is constantly on the point of 
making him superfluous. It is also a power inimical to him, 
and as such capital proclaims it from the roof tops and as such 
makes use of it It is the most powerful weapon for repress- 
ing strikes, those periodical revolts of the working class against 
the autocracy of capital.* According to Gaskell, the steam 

▼iz., redodng wages 5 per cent The workpeople resisted, and said that the only 
remedy was to work short time, 4 days a-week; and their theory was the correct 
one. After holding out for some time, the self-elected captains of industry had to 
make up their minds to short time, with reduced wages in some places, and in others 
without. 

^&apos;&quot;Ihe relation of master and man in the blown-flint bottle trades amounts to a 
chronic strike.&apos;* Hence the impetus given to the manufacture of pressed glass, in 
which the chief operations are done by machinery. One firm in Newcastle, who 
formerly produced 850,000 lbs. of blown-flint glass, now produces in its place 8,000,- 
(00 lbs. of pressed glass. (&quot;Ch. EmpL Comm., Fourth Rep.,&quot; 1866, pp. 802, 868.) 



 

4/6 Capitalist Production. 

engine was from the very first an antagonist of haman power, 
an antagonist that enabled the capitalist to tread nnder foot 
the growing claims of the workmen, who threatened the newly 
bom factory system with a crisis.^ It would be possible to 
write quite a history of the inventions, made since 1830, for 
the sole purpose of supplying capital with weapons against the 
revolts of the working class. At the head of these in import 
ance, stands the self-acting mule, because it opened up a new 
epoch in the automatic system.^ 

Nasmyth, the inventor of the steam hammer, gives the 
following evidence before the Trades Union Commission, with 
regard to the improvements made by him in machinery and 
introduced in consequence of the wide-spread and long strikes 
of the engineers in 1851. &quot;The characteristic feature of our 
modem mechanical improvements, is the introduction of self- 
acting tool machinery. What every mechanical workman has 
now to do, and what every boy can do, is not to work himself 
but to superintend the beautiful labour of the machine. The 
whole class of workmen that depend exclusively on their skill, 
is now done away with. Formerly, I employed four boys to 
every mechanic Thanks to these new mechanical combina- 
tions, I have reduced the number of grown-up men from 
1500 to 750. The result was a considerable increase in my 
profits.&apos;&apos; 

TJre says of a machine used in calico printing: &quot;At lengtH 
capitalists sought deliverance from this intolerable bondage&apos;* 
[namely the, in their eyes, burdensome terms of their contracts 
with the workmen] &quot;in the resources of science^ and were 
speedily re-instated in their legitimate rule, that of the head 
over the inferior members.&quot; Speaking of an invention for 
dressing warps : &quot;Then the combined malcontents, who fancied 
themselves impregnably intrenched behind the old lines of 
division of labour, found their flanks tumed and their defences 
rendered useless by the new mechanical tactics, and were 
obliged to surrender at discretion.&quot; With regard to the in-» 

^GaakelL **The Manufacturing Population of England, London, 1888,** pp. 8, 4. 
&apos;W. Fairbaim discovered several very important applications of machinery to the 
construction of machines, in consequence of strikes in his own workshops. 



 

Machinery and Modem Industry. 477 

yention of the self-acting nmle, he says : &quot;A creation destined 
to restore order among the industrious classes. . . . This 
invention confirms the great doctrine already propounded, that 
when capital enlists science into her service, the refractory 
hand of labour will always be taught docility/&apos;* Although 
Tire&apos;s work appeared 30 years ago, at a time when the factory 
system was comparatively but little developed, it still perfectly 
expresses the spirit of the factory, not only by its undisguised 
cynicism, but also by the naivete with which it blurts out the 
stupid contradictions of the capitalist brain. For instance, 
after propounding the &quot;doctrine&quot; stated above, that capital, 
with the aid of science taken into its pay, always reduces the 
refractory hand of labour to docility, he grows indignant be- 
cause &quot;it (physico-mechanical science) has been accused of 
lending itself to the rich capitalist as an instrument for 
harrassing the poor.&quot; After preaching a long sermon to show 
how advantageous the rapid development of machinery is to 
the working classes, he warns ihem, that by their obstinacy 
and their strikes they hasten that development &quot;Violent re- 
vulsions of this nature,&quot; he says, &quot;display short-sighted man in 
the contemptible character of a self-tormentor.&quot; A few pages 
before he states the contrary. *^ad it not been for the 
violent collisions and interruptions resulting from erroneous 
views among the factory operatives, the factory system would 
have been developed still more rapidly and beneficially for all 
concerned.&quot; Then he exclaims again: &quot;Fortunately for the 
state of society in the cotton districts of Great Britain, the 
improvements in machinery are gradual.&quot; &quot;It&quot; (improve- 
ment in machinery) &quot;is said to lower the rate of earnings of 
adults by displacing a portion of them, and thus rendering 
their number superabundant as compared with the demand 
for their labour. It certainly augments the demand for the 
labour of children and increases the rate of their wages.&quot; On 
the other hand, this same dispenser of consolation defends the 
lowness of thi children&apos;s wages on the ground that it pre- 
vents parents from sending their children at too early an age 
into the factory. The whole of his book is a vindication * a 

«Urc L c pp. 868-S70. 



 

478 Capitalist Production. 

working day of unrestricted length; that Parliament should 
forbid children of 13 years to be exhausted by working 12 
hours a day, reminds his liberal soul of the darkest days of the 
middle ages. This does not prevent him from calling upon the 
factory operatives to thank Providence, who by means of 
machinery has given them the leisure to think of their ^^im- 
mortal interests/&apos;* 

SECTION 6. — THE THEOBT OF COMPENSATION AS BBGABDS TKB 
WOBKPEOPLE DISPLACED BY MACHINERY. 

James Mill, MacCulloch, Torrens, Senior, John Stuart Mill, 
and a whole series besides, of bourgeois political economists, 
insist that all machinery that displaces workmen, simul- 
taneously and necessarily sets free an amount of capital 
adequate to employ the same identical workmen.* 

Suppose a capitalist to employ 100 workmen, at £30 a year 
each, in a carpet factory. The variable capital annually 
laid out amounts, therefore, to £3000. Suppose, also, that he 
discharges 50 of his workmen, and employs the remaining 50 
with machinery that costs him £1500. To simplify matters, 
we take no account of buildings, coal, &amp;c. Further suppose 
that the raw material annually consumed costs £3000, both 
before and after the change.^ Is any capital set free by this 
metamorphosis? Before the change, the total sum of £6000 
consisted half of constant^ and half of variable capital After 
the change it consists of £4500 constant (£3000 raw material 
and £1500 machinery), and £1500 variable capital. The vari- 
able capital, instead of being one half, Js only one quarter, of 
the total capital. Instead of being set free, a part of the 
capital is here locked up in such a way as to cease to be ex- 
changed against labour-power: variable has been changed into 
constant capital. Other things remaining unchanged, the 
capital of £6000, can, in future, employ no more than 50 men. 

» Ure, t c pp. 868. 7, 870, 880, 881, 881, 870, 476. 

&apos;Ricardo originally was also of this opinion, but afterwards expressly disclaimed 
it, with the scientific impartiality and love of truth characteristic of him. See L c. 
ch. xxxi. &quot;On Machinery.&quot; 

• Nota bene. My illustration is entirely on the lines of those given by the above- 
named economists. 



 

Machinery and Modem Industry. 479 

With each improvement in the machinery, it will employ fewer. 
If the newly introduced machinery had cost less than did the 
labour-power and implements displaced by it, if, for instance, 
instead of costing £1500, it had cost only £1000, a variable 
capital of £1000 would have been converted into constant 
capital, and locked up ; and a capital of £500 would have been 
set free. The latter sum, supposing wages unchanged, would 
form a fund suflScient to employ about 16 out of the 50 men 
discharged; nay, less than 16, for, in order to be employed as 
capital, a part of this £500 must now become constant capital, 
thus leaving only the remainder to be laid out in labour- 
power. 

But, suppose, besides, that the making of the new machinery 
affords employment to a greater number of mechanics, can 
that be called compensation to the carpet makers, thrown on 
the streets ? At the best, its construction employs fewer men 
than its employment displaces. The sum of £1500 that 
formerly represented the wages of the discharged carpet- 
makers, now represents in the shape of machinery: (1) the 
value of the means of production used in the construction of 
that machinery, (2) the wages of the mechanics employed in 
its construction, and (3) the surplus-value falling to the share 
of their &quot;master.^&apos; Further, the machinery need not be re- 
newed till it is worn out Hence, in order to keep the in- 
creased number of mechanics in constant employment, one 
carpet manufacturer after another must displace workmen by 
machines. 

As a matter of fact, the apologists do not mean this sort of 
setting free. They have in their minds the means of sub- 
sistence of the liberated workpeople. It cannot be denied, in 
the above instance, that the machinery not only liberates 50 
men, thus placing them at others&apos; disposal, but, at the same 
time, it withdraws from their consumption, and sets free, 
means of subsistence to the value of £1500. The simple fact, 
by no means a new one, that machinery cuts off the workmen 
from their means of subsistence is, therefore, in economical 
parlance tantamount to this, that machinery liberates means of 
subsistence for the workman, or converts those means into 



 

480 Capitalist Production. 

capital for his employments The mode of ezpresBion, you see, 
is eveiything. Nominibus mollire licet mala. 

This theory implies that the £1500 &quot;worth of means of sub- 
sistence was capital that was being expanded by the labour of 
the 60 men discharged. That, consequently^ this capital falls 
out of employment so soon as they commence their forced 
holidays, and never rests till it has found a fresh investment^ 
where it can again be productively consumed by these same 50 
men. That sooner or later, therefore, the capital and the 
workmen must come together again, and that, then, the com* 
pensation is complete. That the sufferings of the workmen 
displaced by machinery are therefore as transient as are the 
riches of this world. 

In relation to the discharged workmen, the £1500 worth of 
means of subsistence never was capital. What really con- 
fronted them as capital, was the sum of £1500, afterwards laid 
out in machinery. On looking closer it will be seen that this 
sum represented part of the carpets produced in a year by the 
50 discharged men, which part they received as wages from 
their employer in money instead of in kind. With the carpets 
in the form of money, they bought means of subsistence to the 
value of £1500. These means, therefore, were to them, not 
capital, but commodities, and they, as regards these com- 
modities, were not wage-labourers, but buyers. The circum- 
stance that they were &quot;freed&quot; by the machinery, from the 
means of purchase, changed them from buyers into non-buyers. 
Hence a lessened demand for those commodities — ^voila tout. 
If this diminution be not compensated by an increase from 
some other quarter, the market price of the commodities falls. 
If this state of things lasts for some time, and extends, there 
follows a discharge of workmen employed in the production of 
these commodities. Some of the capital that was previously 
devoted to production of necessaiy means of subsistence, has 
to become reproduced in another f onn. While prices fall, and 
capital is being displaced, the labourers employed in the pro- 
duction of necessary means of subsistence are in their turn 
*&apos;freed&quot; from a part of their wages. Instead, therefore, of 
proving that, when machinery frees the workman from his 



 

Machinery and Modem Industry 481 

means of subeistence, it simultaneously converts those means 
into capital for his further employment, our apologists, &quot;with 
their cut-and-dried law of supply and demand, prove, on the 
contrary, that machinery throws workmen on the streets not 
only in Ihat branch of production n which it is introduced, but 
also in those branches in which it is not introduced. 

The real facts, which are travestied by the optimism of 
economists, are as follows : The labourers, when driven out of 
the workshop by the machinery, are thrown upon the labour 
market, and there add to the number of workmen at the dis- 
posal of the capitalists. In Part VII. of this book it wiU be 
seen that this effect of machinery, which, as we have seen, is 
represented to be a compensation to the working class, is on 
the contrary a most frightful scourge. For the present I will 
only say this : The labourers that are thrown out of work in 
any branch of industry, can no doubt seek for employment in 
some other branch. If they find it, and thus renew the bond 
between them and the means of subsistence, this takes place 
only by the intermediary of a new and additional capital that 
is seeking investment; not at all by the intermediary of the 
capital that formerly employed them and was afterwards con- 
verted into machinery. And even should they find employ- 
ment, what a poor look-out is theirs 1 Crippled as they are by 
division of labour, these poor devils are worth so little outside 
their old trade, that they cannot find admission into any indus- 
tries, except a few of inferior kind, that are over-supplied with 
underpaid workmen.* Further, every branch of industry 
attracts each year a new stream of men, who furnish a con- 
tingent from which to fill up vacancies, and to draw a supply 
for expansion. So soon as machinery sets free a part of the 
workmen employed in a given branch of industry, the reserve 

&gt; A disciple of Ricardo, in answer to the insipidities of J. B. Say, remarlcs on thit 
point: &quot;Where division of labour is well developed, the skill of the labourer is 
available only in that particular branch in which it has been acquired; he himself it 
a sort of machine. It does not therefore help matters one jot, to repeat in parrot 
fashion, that things have a tendency to find their level. On looking around us we 
cannot but see, that they are unable to find their level for a long time; and that 
when they do find it, the level is always lower than at the commencement of the 
process.&quot; (&quot;An Inquiry into those Principles respecting the Nature of Demaadt&quot; 
ftc Lood. 1881, p. 72.) 



 

482 Capitalist Production. 

men are also diverted into new channels of employment, and 
become absorbed in other branches; meanwhile the original 
victims, during the period of transition, for the most part 
starve and perish. 

It is an undoubted fact that machinery, as such, is not re- 
sponsible for &quot;setting free&apos;&apos; the workman from the means of 
subsistence. It cheapens and increases production in that 
branch which it seizes on, and at first makes no change in the 
mass of the means of subsistence produced in other branches. 
Hence, after its introduction, the society possesses as much, if 
not more, of the necessaries of life than before, for the la- 
bourers Arown out of work; and that quite apart from the 
enormous share of the annual produce wasted by the non- 
workers. And this is the point relied on by our apologists I 
The contradictions and antagonisms inseparable from the capi- 
talist employment of machinery, do not exist, they say, since 
they do not arise out of machinery, as such, but out of its 
capitalist employment! Since therefore machinery, consid- 
ered alone, shortens the hours of labour, but, when in the 
service of capital, lengthens them; since in itself it lightens 
labour, but when employed by capital, heightens the intensity 
of labour; since in itself it is a victory of man over the forces 
of nature, but in the hands of capital, makes man the slave 
of those forces; since in itself it increases the wealth of the 
producers, but in the hands of capital, makes them paupers — 
for all these reasons and others besides, says the bourgeois 
economist without more ado, it is clear as noonday that all 
these contradictions are a mere semblance of the reality, and 
that, as a matter of fact, they have neither an actual nor a 
theoretical existence. Thus he saves himself from all further 
puzzling of the brain, and what is more, implicitly declares his 
opponent to be stupid enough to contend against, not the capi- 
talistic employment of machinery, but machinery itself. 

No doubt he is far from denying that temporary incon* 
venience may result from the capitalist use of machinery. But 
where is the medal without its reverse 1 Any employment 
of machinery, except by capital, is to him an impossibility. 
Exploitation of the workman by the machine is therefore, with 



 

Machinery and Modern Industry. 483 

him, identical with exploitation of the machine by ihe work- 
man. Whoever, therefore, exposes the real state of things in 
the capitalistic employment of machinery, is against its em- 
ployment in any way, and is an enemy of social progress!* 
Exactly the reasoning of the celebrated Bill Sykes. &quot;Gentle- 
men of the jury, no doubt the throat of Ihis commercial 
traveller has been cut. But that is not my fault, it is the fault 
of the knife ! Must we, for such a temporary inconvenience, 
abolish the use of the knife? Only consider 1 where would 
agriculture and trade be without the knife? Is it not as 
salutary in surgery, as it is knowing in anatomy? And in 
addition a willing help at the festive board ? If you abolish 
the knife — ^you hurl us back into the depths of barbarism.*&apos;^ 

Although machinery necessarily throws men out of work in 
those industries into which it is introduced, yet it may, not- 
withstanding this, bring about an increase of employment in 
other industries. This effect, however, has nothing in common 
with the so-called theory of compensation. Since every article 
produced by a machine is cheaper than a similar article pro- 
duced by hand, we deduce the following infallible law : If the 
total quantity of the article produced by machinery, be equal 
to the total quantity of the article previously produced by a 
handicraft or by manufacture, and now made by machinery, 
then the total labour expended is diminished. The new labour 
spent on the instruments of labour, on the machinery, on the 
coal, and so on, must necessarily be less than the labour dis- 
placed by the use of the machinery ; otherwise the product of 
the machine would be as dear, or dearer, than the product of 
the manual labour. But, as a matter of fact, the total quantity 
of the article produced by machinery with a diminished num- 

* MacCullochy amongst others, is a past master in this pretentious cretinism. 
&quot;If,&quot; he says, with the affected naivet6 of a child of 8 years, &apos;*if it be advantageous, 
to developc the skill of the workman more and more, so that he is capable of produc- 
ing, with the same or with a less quantity of labour, a constantly increasing quantity 
of commodities, it must also be advantageous, that he should avail himself of the help 
of such machinery as will assist him most effectively in the attainment of this result.&quot; 
(MacCulloch: &quot;Princ. of PoL Econ.,&quot; Lond. 1830, p. 166.) 

&apos; &quot;The inventor of the spinning machine has ruined India, a fact, however, that 
touches us but little.&apos;* A. Thiers: De la propri^te. — M. Thiers here confounds the 
spinning machine with the power-loom, &quot;a fnct, however, that touches i&gt;« but 
Httle.&quot; 



 

484 Capitalist troducHon. 

ber of workmen, instead of remaining equal to, by far exceeds 
the total quantity of the hand-made article that has been dis- 
placed. Suppose that 400,000 yards of doth have been pro- 
duced on power-looms by fewer weavers than could weave 
100,000 yards by hand. In the quadrupled product there lies 
four times as much raw material. Hence the production of 
raw material must be quadrupled. But as regards the instru- 
ments of labour, such as buildings, coal, machinery, and so on, 
it is different; the limit up to which the additional labour 
&apos; required for their production can increase, varies with the 
difference between the quantity of the machine-made article, 
and the quantity of the same article that the same number of 
workmen could make by hand. 

Hence, as the use of machinery extends in a given industry, 
the immediate effect is to increase production in. the other in- 
dustries that furnish the first with means of production. How 
far employment is thereby found for an increased number of 
men, depends, given the length of the working-day and the 
intensity of labour, on the composition of the capital employed, 
i.e., on the ratio of its constant to its variable component. 
This ratio, in its turn, varies considerably with the extent to 
which machinery has already seized on, or is then seizing on, 
those trades. The number of the men condemned to work in 
coal and metal mines increased enormously owing to the 
progress of the English factory system; but during the last 
few decades this increase of number has been less rapid, owing 
to the use of new machinery in mining.^ A new type of 
workman springs into life along with the machine, namely, its 
maker. We have already learnt that machinery has possessed 
itself even of this branch of production on a scale that grows 
greater every day.* As to raw material,^ there is not the 

1 According to the census of 1861 (Vol. II., Lond., 1868), the nunber of people 
employed in coal mines in England and Wales, amounted to 246,618, of which 78,646 
were under, and 178,067 were over 20 years. Of those under 20, 886 were between 
6 and 10 years. 80,701 between 10 and 16 years, 42.010 between 16 and 10 years. 
The number employed in iron, copper, lead, tin, and other mines of every descrip- 
tion, was 819,222. 

&apos;In England and Wales, in 1861, there were employed in making machinery, 
60,807 persons, including the masters and their clerks, &amp;c., also all agents and 
business people connected with this industry, but excluding the makers of small 
machines, such as sewing machines, &amp;c., as also the makers of the operative parts 
of machines, such as spindles. The total number of civil engineers amounted i» 
8S29. 

* Since iron is one of the most impoittnl f»w materiala, let me here state the^ la 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



Machinery and Modem Industry. 485 

least doubt that the rapid strides of cotton spinning, not only 
pushed on with tropical luxuriance the growth of cotton in the 
United States, and with it the African slave trade, but also 
made the breeding of slaves the chief business of the border 
slave-states. When, in 1790, the first census of slaves was 
taken in the United States, their number was 697,000 ; in 1861 
it had nearly reached four millions. On the other hand, it 
is no less certain that the rise of the English woollen factories, 
together with the gradual conversion of arable land into sheep 
pasture, brought about the superfluity of agricultural labourers 
that led to their being driven in masses into the towns. Ire- 
land, having during the last twenty years reduced its i)opula- 
tion by nearly one half, is at this moment undergoing the pro- 
cess of still further reducing the number of its inhabitants, so 
as exactly to suit the requirements of its landlords and of the 
English woollen manufacturers. 

When machinery is applied to any of the preliminary or 
intermediate stages throtigh which the subject of labour has 
to pass on its way to completion, there is an increased yield 
of material in those stages, and simultaneously an increased 
demand for labour in the handicrafts or manufactures supplied 
by the produce of the machines. Spinning by machinery, for 
example, supplied yam so cheaply and so abundantly that the 
hand-loom weavers were, at first, about to work full time with- 
out increased outlay. Their earnings accordingly rose.* 
Hence a flow of people into the cotton-weaving trade, till at 
length the 800,000 weavers, called into existence by the Jenny, 
the throstle and the mule, were overwhelmed by the power- 
loom. So also, owing to the abundance of clothing materials 
produced by machinery, the number of tailors, seamtresses and 
needle-women, went on increasing until the appearance of the 
sewing machine. 

1861, there were in England and Wales 186,771 operative iron founders, of whom 
128,480 were males, 2841 females. Of the former 80,810 were under, and 98,620 
oyer 20 years. 

^&apos;&apos;A family of four grown up persons, with two children as winders, earned at 
the end of the last, and the beginning of the present century, by ten hours&apos; daily 
labour, £4 a week. If the work was very pressing, they could earn more . • • 
Before that they had always suffered from a deficient supply of yam.&quot; (Gaskdl^ 
L c pp. 26-27.) 



 

486 Capitalist Production. 

In proportion as machinery, with the aid of a relatively 
small number of workpeople, increases the mass of raw 
materials, intermediate products, instruments of labour, &amp;c, 
the working-up of these raw materials and intermediate pro- 
ducts becomes split up into numberless branches; social pro- 
duction increases in diversity. The factory system carries the 
social division of labour immeasurably further than does 
manufacture, for it increases the productiveness of the in- 
dustries it seizes upon, in a far higher degree. 

The immediate result of machinery is to augment surplua- 
value and the mass of products in which surplus-value is 
embodied. And, as the substances consumed by the capitalists 
and their dependants become more plentiful, so too do these 
orders of society. Their growing wealth, and the relatively 
diminished number of workmen required to produce the neces- 
saries of life beget, simultaneously with the rise of new and 
luxurious wants, the means of satisfying those wants. A 
larger portion of the produce of society is changed into surplus 
produce, and a larger part of the surplus produce is supplied 
for consumption in a multiplicity of refined shapes. In other 
words, the production of luxuries increases.^ The refined and 
varied forms of the products are also due to new relations with 
the markets of the world, relations that are created by Modem 
Industry. Not only are greater quantities of foreign articles 
of luxury exchanged for home products, but a greater mass of 
foreign raw materials, ingredients, and intermediate products, 
are used as means of production in the home industries. 
Owing to these relations with the markets of the world the 
demand for labour increases in the carrying trades, which 
split up into numerous varieties.^ 

The increase of the means of production and subsistence, 
accompanied by a relative diminution in the number of 
labourers, causes an increased demand for labour in making 
canals, docks, tunnels, bridges, and so on, works that can only 

^F. Engels in &quot;Lage, &amp;c.,&quot; points out the miserable condition of a large mimber 
of those who work on these very articles of luxury. See also numerous instances in 
the &quot;Reports of the Children&apos;s Employment Commission.&quot; 

*In 1861, in England and Wales, there were 94,665 tailors in the merchant 
•ervioe. 



 

Machinery and Modem Industry. 487 

bear fruit in the far future. Entirely new branches of pro- 
duction, creating new fields of labour, are also formed, as the 
direct result either of machinery or of the general industrial 
changes brought about by it. But the place occupied by these 
branches in the general production is, even in the most de- 
veloped countries, far from important. The number of 
labourers that find employment in them is directly propor- 
tional to the demand, created by those industries, for the 
crudest form of manual labour. The chief industries of this 
kind are, at present, gas works, telegraphs, photography, 
steam navigation, and railways. According to the census of 
1861 for England and Wales, we find in the gas industry 
(gasworks, production of mechanical apparatus, servants of 
the gas companies &amp;c.), 15,211 persons; in telegraphy, 2399; 
in photography, 2366; steam navigation, 3570; and in rail- 
ways, 70,599, of whom the unskilled &quot;navvies,&quot; more or less 
permanently employed, and the whole administrative and com- 
mercial staff, make up about 28,000. The total number of 
persons, therefore, employed in these five new industries 
amounts to 94,145. 

Lastly, the extraordinary productiveness of modem indus- 
try, accompanied as it is by both a more extensive and a 
more intense exploitation of labour-power in all other spheres 
of production, allows of the unproductive employment of a 
larger and larger part of the working class, and the consequent 
reproduction, on a constantly extending scale, of the ancient 
domestic slaves under the name of a servant class, including 
men-servants, women-servants, lackeys, &amp;c. According to the 
census of 1861, the population of England and Wales was 
20,066,244; of these, 9,776,259 males, and 10,289,965 female. 
If we deduct from this population all who are too old or too 
young for work, all unproductive women, young persons and 
children, the &quot;ideological&quot; classes, such as government officials, 
priests, lawyers, soldiers, &amp;c. ; further, all who have no occu- 
pation but to consume the labour of others in the form of 
rent, interest^ &amp;c. ; and, lastly, paupers, vagabonds, and 
criminals, there remain in round numbers eight millions of 
the two sexes of every age, including in that number every 



 

488 Capitalist Production. 

capitalist who is in any way engaged in industr7, oanmteToe^ or 
finance. Among these^ 8 millions are: 

Agricultural labourers (including sliep&lt;- picESOira. 
herds, farm servants, and maidserv- 
ants living in the houses of farmers), 1,098^61 

All who are employed in cotton, woollen, 
worsted, flax, hemp, silk, and jute fac- 
tories, in stocking making and lace 
making by machinery, . . . 642,607^ 

All who are employed in coal mines and 

metal mines, 565,835 

All who are employed in metal works 
(blast-furnaces, rolling mills, &amp;c,), 
and metal manufactures of every kind, 396,998* 

The servant class, .... 1,208,648* 

All the persons employed in textile factories and in mines^ 
taken together, number 1,208,442; those employed in textile 
factories and metal industries, taken together, number 1,039,- 
605 ; in both cases less than the number of modem domestic 
slaves. What a splendid result of the capitalist exploitation 
of machinery I 

SIXJTION 7. ^REPULSION AKD ATTEACTION OF WOBKPEOFLB BT 

THB FACTOBY SYSTEM. CRISIS IN THE COTTON TBADBi. 

All political economists of any standing admit that the 
introduction of new machinery has a baneful effect on the 
VTorkmen in the old handicrafts and manufactures with which 
this machinery at first competes. Almost all of them bemoan 
the slavery of the factory operative. And what is the great 
trump-card that they play? That machinery, after the 

^Of these only 177»596 are males above 18 years of age. 

&apos;Of these, 80,601 are females. 

* Of these, 187,447 males. None are included in the 1,808,848 who do not terra 
in private houses. Between 1861 and 1870 the number of male servants nearly 
doubled itself. It increased to 267,671. In the year 1847 there were 8694 game- 
keepers (for the landlords&apos; preserves), in 1869 there were 4921. The young servant 
girb in the houses of the London lower middle class are in common parlance called 
••sUvqrs.- 



 

Machinery and Modem Industry. 489 

horrors of the period of introduction and development have 
subeided, instead of diminishing^ in the long run increases 
the number of the slaves of labour I Yes^ political economy 
revek in the hideous theory, hideous to every &quot; philanthro- 
pist &quot; who believes in the eternal natureordained necessity for 
capitalist production, that after a period of growth and transi- 
tion, even its crowning success, the factory system based on 
madiinery, grinds down more workpeople than on its first 
introduction it throws on the streets.^ 

It is true that in some cases^ as we saw from instances of 
English worsted and silk factories, an extraordinary extension 
of the factory system may, at a certain stage of its develop- 
ment, be accompanied not only by a relative, but by an 
absolute decrease in the number of operatives employed. In 
the year 1860, when a special census of all the factories in the 
United Kingdom was taken by order of Parliament, the fao- 
toriee in those parts of Lancashire, Cheshire, and Yorkshire^ 
included in the district of Mr. Baker, the factory inspector, 
numbered 652; 570 of these contained 85,622 power-looms^ 
6,819,146 spindles (exclusive of doubling spindles), employed 
27,439 horse-power (steam), and 1390 (water), and 94,119 
persons. In the year 1865, the same factories contained, 
looDM 95,163, spindles 7,025,031, had a steam-power of 
28,925 horses, and a water-power of 1445 horses, and em- 
ployed 88,913 persons. Between 1860 and 1865, therefore, 

^Ganilli, on the contrary, considers the final result of the factory sjrstem to be an 
absolutely less number of operatiyes, at whose expense an increased number of 
&quot;gens honn£tes&quot; live and develop their well-known &quot;perfectibility perfectible.&apos;* Lit- 
tle as he understands the movement of production, at least he feels, that machinery 
must needs be a very ^atal institution, if its introduction converts busy workmen 
into paupers, and its development calls more slaves of labour into existence than it 
has suppressed. It is not possible to bring out the cretinism of his standpoint, ex- 
cept by his own words: &quot;^es classes condamn^ i produire et 4 consommer 
diminuent, et les classes qui dirigent le travail, qui soulagent, consolent, et ^lairent 
toute la population, se multiplient . . . et s&apos;approprient tons les bienfaits qui 
risultent de la diminution des frais du travail, de Tabondance des productions, et da 
bon march6 des consommations. Dans cette direction, Tesp^ce humaine s&apos;61ive aux 
plus hautes conceptions du g^nie, p6nitre dans les profondeturs mystirieuses de la 
religion, ^tabtit les principes salutaires de la morale (which consists in &apos;s&apos;approprier 
tons les bienfaits,&apos; &amp;c.)f les lois tutilaires de la libert6 (liberty of &apos;les classes con- 
damn^es i produire?*) et du pouvoir, de Tobeissance et de la justice, du devoir et 
de I&apos;htunanit^.&quot; For this twaddle see &quot;Des Syst^es d&apos; Economic Politique* Ikc^ 
Par M. Ch. C^anilh.&quot; Sime ed., Paris, 1821, t. IL, p. 224, and see p. 819, 



 

490 Capitalist Production. 

the increase in looms was 11%, in spindles 3%, and in engine- 
power 3%, while the number of persons employed decreased 
5^%.^ Between 1852 and 1862, considerable extension of the 
English woollen manufacture took place, while the number of 
hands employed in it remained almost stationary, showing how 
greatly the introduction of new machines had superseded the 
labour of preceding periods.^ In certain cases, the increase in 
the number of hands employed is only apparent; that is, it is 
not due to the extension of the factories already established, 
but to the gradual annexation of connected trades; for in- 
stance, the increase in power-looms, and in the hands em- 
ployed by them between 1838 and 1856, was, in the cotton 
trade, simply owing to the extension of this branch of in- 
dustry; but in the other trades to the application of steam- 
power to the carpet-loom, to the ribbon-loom, and to the linen- 
loom, which previously had been worked by the power of 
men.* Hence the increase of the hands in these latter trades 
was merely a symptom of a diminution in the total number 
employed Finally, we have considered this question entirely 
apart from the fact, that every\/here, except in the metal 
industries, young persons (under 18), and women and children 
form the preponderating element in the class of factory 
hands. 

Nevertheless, in spite of the mass of hands actually dis- 
placed and virtually replaced by machinery, we can under- 
stand how the factory operatives, through the building of 
more mills and the extension of old ones in a given industry, 
may become more numerous than the manufacturing work- 

* &quot;Reports of Insp. of Fact., 81 Oct, 1866/&apos; p. 68, sq. At the same time, how- 
CTcr, means of employment for an increased number of hands was ready in 110 new 
mills with 11,625 looms, 628,756 spindles and 2695 total horse-power of steam and 
water (1 c). 

« &quot;Reports, &amp;c. for 81 Oct., 1862,&quot; p. 79. At the end of 1871, Mr. A. Redgrave, 
the factory inspector, in a lecture given at Bradford, in the New Mechanics* Insti- 
tution, said: &quot;What has struck me for some time past is the altered appearance of 
the woollen factories. Formerly they were filled with women and children, now 
machinery seems to do all the work. At my asking for an explanation of this from 
a manufacturer, he gave me the following: &apos;Under the old sjrstem I employed 68 
persons; after the introduction of improved machinery I reduced my hands to 38» 
and lately, in consequence of new and extensive alterations, I have been in a positioa 
to reduce those 88 to 18.&apos;&quot; 

•See &quot;Reports. &amp;c, 31 Oct., 1866,&quot; p. 16. 



 

Machinery and Modem Industry. 491 

men and handicraftsmen that have been displaced. Suppose, 
for example, that in the old mode of production, a capital of 
£500 is employed weekly, two-fifths being constant and three- 
fifths variable capital, t.e., £200 being laid out in means of 
production, and £300, say £1 per man, in labour-power. On 
the introduction of machinery the composition of this capital 
becomes altered. We will suppose it to consist of four-fifths 
constant and one-fifth variable, which means that only £100 is 
now laid out in labour-power. Consequently, two-thirds of 
the workmen are discharged. If now the business extends, 
and the total capital employed grows to £1500 under un- 
changed conditions, the number of operatives employed will 
increase to 300, just as many as before the introduction of the 
machinery. If the capital further grows to £2000, 400 men 
will be employed, or one-third more than under the old system. 
Their numbers have, in point of fact, increased by 100, but 
relatively, i.e., in proportion to the total capital advanced, 
they have diminished by 800, for the £2000 capital would, in 
the old state of things, have employed 1200 instead of 400 
men. Hence, a relative decrease in the number of hands is 
consistent with an actual increase. We assumed above that 
while the total capital increases, its composition remains the 
same, because the conditions of production remain constant 
But we have already seen that, with every advance in the use 
of machinery, the constant component of capital, that part 
which consists of machinery, raw material, &amp;c., increases, 
while the variable component, the part laid out in labour- 
power, decreases. We also know that in no other system of 
production is improvement so continuous, and the composition 
of the capital employed so constantly changing as in the 
factory system. These changes are, however, continually inter- 
rupted by periods of rest^ during which there is a mere quanti- 
tative extension of the factories on the existing technical basis. 
During such periods the operatives increase in number. Thus, 
in 1835, the total number of operatives in the cotton, woollen, 
worsted, flax, and silk factories in the United Kingdom was 
only 354,684; while in 1861 the number of the power-loom 
v^eavers alone (of both sexes and of all ages, from eight years 



 

49^ Capitalist Production. 

upwards) y amounted to 230,654. Certainly, this growth ap- 
pears less important when we consider that in 1838 the hand- 
loom weavers with their families still numbered 800,000/ not 
to mention those thrown out of work in Asia, and on tiie 
Continent of Europe. 

In the few remarks I have still to make on this pointy I 
shall refer to some actually existing relations, the existence of 
which our theoretical investigation has not yet disclosed. 

So long as, in a given branch of industry, the factory system 
extends itself at the expense of the old handicrafts or of manu- 
facture, the result is as sure as is the result of an encounter be- 
tween any army furnished with breach-loaders, and one armed 
with bows and arrows. This first period, during which ma- 
chinery conquers its field of action, is of decisive importance 
owing to the extraordinary profits that it helps to produce. 
These profits not only form a source of accelerated accumu- 
lation, but also attract into the favoured sphere of production 
a large part of the additional social capital that is being 
constantly created, and is ever on the look-out for new in- 
vestments. The special advantages of this first period of fast 
and furious activity are felt in every branch of production 
that machinery invades. So soon, however, as the factory 
system has gained a certain breadth of footing and a definite 
degree of maturity, and, especially, so soon as its technical 
basis, machinery, is itself produced by machinery ; so soon as 
coal mining and iron mining, the metal industries, and the 
mean£&gt; of transport have been revolutionised ; so soon, in short, 
as the general conditions requisite for production by the 
modem industrial system have been established, this mode 
of production acquires an elasticity, a capacity for sudden 
extension by leaps and bounds that finds no hindrance except 
in the supply of raw material and in the disposal of the pro- 
duce. On the one hand, the immediate effect of machinery is 

^&quot;The taflferingt of the hand-loom weavers were the subject of an inqninr hj a 
Royal Commission, but although their distress was acknowledged and lamented, the 
amelioration of their condition was left, and probably necessarily so, to the chances 
and changes of time, which it may now be hoped&quot; {20 years later 11 &apos;HiaTe nmriy 
obliterated those miseries, and not improbably by the present great cztcnsioa of 
the power-loom.&quot; (&quot;Rep. Insp. of Fct., SI Oct, 186e,&quot; p. 16.) 



 

Machinery and Modem Industry. 493 

to increade the supply of raw material in the same way, for 
example^ as the cotton gin augmented the production of 
cotton.^ On the other hand^ the cheapness of the articles pro- 
duced by machinery, and the improved means of transport 
and communication furnish the weapons for conquering foreign 
markets. By ruining handicraft production in other countries, 
machinery forcibly converts them into fields for the supply of 
its raw material In this way East India was compelled to 
produce cotton, wool, hemp, jute, and indigo for Great 
Britain.* By constantly making a part of the hands &quot;super- 
numerary,^&apos; modem industry, in all countries where it has 
taken root, gives a spur to emigration and to the colonization 
of foreign lands, which are thereby converted into settlements 
for growing the raw material of the mother country ; just as 
Australia, for example, was converted into a colony for grow- 
ing wooL* A new and international division of labour, a 
division suited to the requirements of the chief centres of 
modem industry springs up, and converts one part of the globe 
into a chiefly agricultural field of production, for supplying 
the other part which remains a chiefiy industrial field. This 
evolution hangs together with radical changes in agriculture 
which we need not here further inquire into.* 

* Other ways in which machinery affects the production of raw material will be 
mentioned in the third book. 

&apos;bXPOST Of OOTTOH fftOK INDIA TO OBXAT BtlTAIH. 

1846.-44,640»148 lbs. 1860.~204441»168 lbs. 1865.-445,047,600 lbs. 

*BXPOCT Of WOOL rmOM INDIA TO CaSAT aaiTAIN. 

1846.-4,670^81 lbs. 1860.-80,314,178 lbs. 1865.-20,679,111 lbs. 
Bxpoar Of WOOL faoM thb caps to gbxat aaiTAiN. 
^-•,968,467 lbs. 1860.-16,674.846 lbs. 1866.-80,920,628 lbs. 

XXPOIT Of WOOL fXOM AUSTBALIA TO GBXAT BBITAIir. 

1846.— 81,789,846 lbs. 1860.-69,166,616 lbs. 1866.-109,784,861 lbs. 

«The economical development of the United States is itself a product of Enropeaa, 
more especially of English modem industry. In their present form (1866) the 
Sutes must stfll be consTdered a European colony. fNoto to the 4th German 
edition^— Since then the United SUtes has dereloped mto the second hidustna] 
country of the world* without thereby losing its colonial character entirely. F. E.1 

XZPOKT Of COTTON fBOK THB UNITXD STATBS TO GBBAT BXXTAIN. 

1846.-401,949,898 Ibi. 1868*— 766,680,648 Ibe. 1869.— 961.707364 lbs. 1860^ 
1.116,890,608 Ibs.^ 



 

494 



Capitalist Productiotk 



On the motion of Mr. Gladstone^ the House of Commons 
ordered, on the 17th February, 1867, a return of tiie total 
quantities of grain, corn, and flour, of all sorts, imported into, 
and exported from, the United Kingdom, between the years 
1831 and 1866. I give below a summary of the result The 
flour is given in quarters of com. 

QUINQUENNIAL PERIODS AND THE YEAR 1866. 



Annual Average. 


1831-1835. 


1836-1840. 


1841-1845. 


1846-1850. 


Import (Qrs.) - - 


1,096,373 


2,389,729 


2,843,865 


8,776,562 


Export •• - - 


225,363 


251,770 


139,056 


165,461 


Excess of Import 
over export - - 


871,110 


2,137,969 


2,704,809 


8,621,091 


Population. 










Yearly average in 
each period, - - 


24,621,107 


25,929,607 


27,262,569 


2ZJ97,598 


Average quantity of 
corn, Ac, in qrs., 
consumed annu- 
ally per head over 
and ahove the 
home produce con- 
sumed, - - - - 


036 


0082 


099 


0-310 



BZPOBT Of COBJI, ft&amp;t &quot;OX THK UMITID STATU TO OUAT BBITAXll. 





1850. 






1868. 


Wheat, cwtfc 


1«,202.81« 


1 •• 


• • • 


41,088.608 


Barley. &quot; 


8,669,658 


t •• 


• • • 


6,684.800 


Gate, - 


8.174.801 


&gt;•• 


• •• 


4,436.094 


Rye, - 


888.749 


• • 


• •• 


7.108 


Flour, •• 


8.819,440 


• • 


• • &lt; 


7.807.118 


Buckwheat, cwts. 


1054 


• •• 


• • « 


19,571 


Maize, cwta. 


6.478,161 


• •• 


• • • 


11,694,818 


Bere or Bigg (a aort of ^ 


8089 






7678 


Barley), cwtS. J 










Peas, cwta. ••• ••• 


811,680 


• •• 


• •• 


1.024,728 


Beans, &quot; 


1,888,978 


• •• 

• •• 


• •• 


2,087.187 


Total exports, ••• ••• 


84,865,801 


74,088,851 



 

Machinery and Modern Industry. 



495 



QUINQUENNIAL PERIODS, &amp;c.— (Contiwtjed.) 



Annual Average, 


186M855. 


1856-1860. 


1861-1865. 


1866. 


Import (Qrs.) - - 


8,345,237 


10,912,612 


15,009,871 


16,457,340 


Export *• - - 


307,491 


341,150 


302,754 


216,218 


Excess of Import 
over export - - 


8,037,746 


10,572,462 


14,707,117 


16,241,122 


POPUIATION. 










Yearly average in 
each period, - - 


27,672,923 


28,391,544 


29,381,460 


29,935,404 


Average quantity of 
com, &amp;c., in qrs., 
consumed annu- 
ally per head over 
and ahove the 
home produce con- 
sumed, - - - - 


0*291 


0-372 


0-643 


0-543 



The enormous power, inherent in the factory system, of ex- 
panding by jumps, and the dependence of that system on the 
markets of the world, necessarily beget feverish production, 
followed by over-filling of the markets, whereupon contraction 
of the markets brings on crippling of production. The life of 
modem industry becomes a series of periods of moderate 
activity, prosperity, over-production, crisis and stagnation. 
The uncertainty and instability to which machinery subjects 
the employment^ and consequently the conditions of existence, 
of the operatives become normal, owing to these periodic 
changes of the industrial cycle. Except in the periods of pros- 
perity, there rages between the capitalists the most furious 
combat for the share of each in the markets. This share is 
directly proportional to the cheapness of the product. Besides 
the rivalry that this struggle begets in the application of 
improved machinery for replacing labour^power, and of new 
methods of production, there also comes a time in every indus- 
trial cycle, when a forcible reduction of wages beneath the 



 

496 Capitalist Production. 

value of labonT-power, is attempted for tbe purpose of dieap- 
ening commodities.^ 

A necessary condition, therefore, to the growth of the num- 
ber of factory hands, is a proportionally much more rapid 
growth of the amount of capital invested in mills. This 
growth, however, is conditioned by the ebb and flow of the 
industrial cycle* It is, besides, constantly interrupted by the 
technical progress that at one time virtually supplies the place 
of new workmen, at another, actually displaces old ones. This 
qualitative change in medianical industry continually dis- 
charges hands from the factory, or shuts its doors against the 
fresh stream of recruits, while the purely quantitative exten- 
sion of the factories absorbs not only the men thrown out of 
work, but also fresh contingents. The workpeople are thus 
continually both repelled and attracted, hustled from pillar to 
post, while, at the same time^ constant changes take place in 
the sex, age, and skill of the levies. 

The lot of the factory operatives will be best depicted by tak- 
ing a rapid survey of the course of the English cotton industiy. 

From 1770 to 1815 this trade was depressed or stagnant for 

^In an appeal made in July, 1866, to the Trade Sodetica of England, hj the 
shoemakers of Leicester, who had been thrown on the streets by a lock-out, it is 
stated: &quot;Twenty years ago the Leicester shoe trade was revolutionised by the 
introduction of riveting in the place of stitching. At that time good wages could 
be earned. Great competition was shown between the different firms as to which 
could turn out the neatest article. Shortly afterwards, however, a worse kind of 
competition sprang up, namely, that of underselling one another in the market. 
The injurious consequences soon manifested themselves in reductions of wages* 
and so sweepingly quick was the fall in the price of labour, that many firms now 
pay only one half of the original wages. And yet, though wages sink lower and 
lower, profiu appear, with each alteration in the scale of wages, to increase.&quot; Even 
bad times are utilized by the manufacturers, for making exceptional profits by ex-&apos; 
cessive lowering of wages, «.#., by a direct robbery of the labourer&apos;s means of sub- 
sistence. One example (it has reference to the crisis in the Coventry silk weaving): 
&apos;&apos;From information I have received from manufacturers as well as workmen, there 
seems to be no doubt that wages have been reduced to a greater extent than eithef 
the competition of the foreign producers, or other circumstances have rendered 
necessary ... the majority of weavers are working at a reduction of 80 to 40 
per cent, in their wages. A piece of ribbon for making which the weaver got 6a. 
or 7s. five years back, now only brings them 8s. 8d. or 8s. 6d.; other work is now 
priced at 8s. and 8s. 8d. which was formerly priced at 4s. and 4s. 8d. The 
reduction in wage seems to have been carried to a greater extent than is neces- 
sary for increasing demand. Indeed, the reduction in the cost of weaving, ia 
the case of many descriptions of ribbons, has not been accompanied by any cor&gt; 
responding reduction m the selling price of the manufactured article.&quot; (Mr. F. Dl 
Longe&apos;s Report. &quot;Ch. Emp. Com., V. Rep., 1866,&quot; p. 114, 1.) 



 

Machinery and Modem Industry. 497 

6 years only. During thi8 period of 45 years the English 
manufacturers had a monopoly of machinery and of the mark- 
ets of the world. From 1815 to 1821 depression ; 1822 and 
1823 prosperity; 1824 abolition of the laws against Trades^ 
Unions, great extension of factories everywhere; 1825 crisis; 

1826 great misery and riots among the factory operatives; 

1827 slight improvement ; 1828 great increase in power-looms, 
and in exports; 1829 exports, especially to India, surpass all 
former years; 1830 glutted markets, great distress; 1831 to 

1833 continued depression, the monopoly of the trade with 
India and China withdrawn from the East India Company; 

1834 great increase of factories and machinery, shortness of 
hands. The new poor law furthers the migration of agricul- 
tural labourers into the factory districts. The country districts 
swept of children. White slave trade; 1835 great prosperity, 
contemporaneous starvation of the handloom weavers; 1836 
great prosperity; 1837 and 1838 depression and crisis; 1839 
revival; 1840 great depression, riots, calling out of the mili- 
tary; 1841 and 1842 frightful suffering among the factory 
operatives ; 1842 the manufacturers lock the hands out of the 
factories in order to enforce the repeal of the Com Laws. 
The operatives stream in thousands into the towns of Lanca- 
shire and Yorkshire, are driven back by the military, and 
their leaders brought to trial at Lancaster; 1843 great misery; 
1844 revival; 1845 great prosperity; 1846 continued improve- 
ment at first, then reaction. Eepeal of the Com Laws ; 1847 
crisis, general reduction of wages by 10 and more per cent, 
in honour of the &quot;big loaf;&apos;^ 1848 continued depression; 
Manchester under military protection; 1849 revival; 1850 
prosperity; 1851 falling prices, low wages, frequent strikes; 
1852 improvement begins, strikes continue, the manufacturers 
threaten to import foreign hands; 1853 increasing exports. 
Strike for 8 months, and great misery at Preston; 1854 
prosperity, glutted markets ; 1855 news of failures stream in 
from the United States, Canada, and the Eastem markets; 
1856 great prosperity; 1857 crisis; 1858 improvement; 1859 
great prosperity, increase in factories; 1860 Zenith of the 
English cotton trade, the Indian, Australian, and other mark- 



8F 



 

498 Capitalist Production. 

ets 80 glutted with goods that even in 1863 they had not ab- 
sorbed the whole lot ; the French Treaty of Commerce, enorm- 
ous growth of factories and machinery; 1861 prosperity con- 
tinues for a time, reaction, the American civil war, cotton 
famine; 1862 to 1863 complete collapse. 

The history of the cotton famine is too characteristic to dis- 
pense with dwelling upon it for a moment. From the indi- 
cations as to the condition of the markets of the world in 1860 
and 1861, we see that the cotton famine came in the nick of 
time for the manufacturers, and was to some extent advan- 
tageous to them, a fact that was acknowledged in the reports 
of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, proclaimed in Par- 
liament by Palmerston and Derby, and confirmed by events.* 
No doubt, among the 2887 cotton mills in the United Kingdom 
in 1861, there were many of small size. According to the 
report of Mr. A. Eedgrave, out of the 2109 mills included in 
his district, 392 or 19% employed less than ten horse-power 
each ; 345, or 16% employed 10 H. P., and less than 20 H. P. ; 
while 1372 employed upwards of 20 H. P.^ The majority of 
the small mills were weaving sheds, built during the period of 
prosperity after 1858, for the most part by speculators, of 
whom one supplied the yam, another the machinery, a third 
the buildings, and were worked by men who had been over- 
lookers, or by other persons of small means. These small 
manufacturers mostly went to the walL The same fate would 
have overtaken them in the commercial crisis that was staved 
off only by the cotton famine. Although they formed one- 
third of the total number of manuf acturers&gt; yet their mills 
absorbed a much smaller part of the capital invested in the 
cotton trade. As to the extent of the stoppage, it appears 
from authentic estimates, that in October 1862, 60.3% of the 
spindles, and 58% of the looms were standing. This refers to 
the cotton trade as a whole, and, of course, requires consider- 
able modification for individual districts. Only very few mills 
worked full time (60 hours a week), the remainder worked at 
intervals. Even in those few cases where full time was 
worked, and at the customary rate of piece-wage, the weekly 

*Conf. Reports of Insp. of Fact Slst October, 1868, p. SO. *L c., p. 19. 



 

Machinery and Modem Industry. 499 

Images of the operatives necessarily shrank, owing to good 
cotton being replaced by bad, Sea Island by Egyptian (in fine 
spinning mills), American and Egyptian by Surat, and pure 
cotton by mixing of waste and Surat. The shorter fibre of 
the Surat cotton and its dirty condition, the greater fragility 
of the thread, the substitution af all sorts of heavy ingredients 
for flour in sizing the warps, all these lessened the speed of the 
machinery, or the number of looms that could be superin- 
tended by one weaver, increased the labour caused by defects 
in the machinery, and reduced the piece-wage by reducing the 
mass of the product turned off. Where Surat cotton was used 
the loss to the operatives when on full time, amounted to 20, 
30, and more per cent But besides this, the majority of the 
manufacturers reduced the rate of piece-wage by 5, 7^, and 10 
per cent. We can therefore conceive the situation of those 
hands who were employed for only 3, 3 J or 4 days a week, of 
for only 6 hours a day. Even in 1863, after a comparative 
improvement had set in, the weekly wages of spinners and of 
weavers were 3s. 4d., 3s. lOd., 48. 6d. and 5s. Id.^ Even in 
this miserable state of things, however, the inventive spirit of 
the master never stood still, but was exercised in making 
deductions from wages. These were to some extent inflicted 
as a penalty for defects in the flnished article that were really 
due to his bad cotton and to his unsuitable machinery. More- 
over, where the manufacturer owned the cottages of the work- 
people, he paid himself his rents by deducting the amount 
from these miserable wages. Mr. Eedgrave tells us of self- 
acting minders (operatives who manage a pair of self-acting 
mules) &quot;earning at the end of a fortnight^s full work 8s. lid., 
and that from this sum was deduced the rent of the house, 
the manufacturer, however, returning half the rent as a gift. 
The minders took away the sum of 6s. lid. In many places 
the self-acting minders ranged from 5s. to 9s. per week, and 
the weavers from 2s. to 6s. ptr week, during the latter part of 
1862.&quot;^ Even when working short time the rent was fre- 
quently deducted from the wages of the operatives.® ifo 

»&quot;Rep. In«p. of Fact, Slst October, 1866,&quot; pp. 41-46. 
•&quot;Rep. Insp. of Fact., Slst October, 1863.&quot; » 1. c, p. 61. 



 

500 Capitalist Production. 

wonder that in some parts of Lancashire a kind of famine 
fever broke out But more characteristic than all this, was 
the revolution that took place in the process of production at 
the expense of the workpeople. Experimenta in corpore vili, 
like those of anatomists on frogs, were formally made. &quot;Al- 
though/&apos; says Mr. Bedgrave^ &quot;I have given the actual earnings 
of the operatives in the several mills, it does not follow that 
they earn the same amount week by week. The operatives 
are subject to great fluctuation from the constant experi- 
mentalizing of the manufacturers • • • • the earnings of the 
operatives rise and fall with the quality of the cotton mixings; 
sometimes they have been within 15 per cent, of former 
earnings, and tiien, in a week or two, they have fallen off from 
60 to 60 per cent.*&apos;^ These experiments were not made solely 
at the expense of the workman&apos;s means of subsistence. His 
five senses also had to pay the penalty. &quot;The people who are 
employed in making up Surat cotton complain very much. 
They inform me, on opening the bales of cotton there is an 
intolerable smell, which causes sickness • • • . In the mixing, 
scribbling and carding rooms, the dust and dirt which are 
disengaged, irritate the air passages, and give rise to cough 
and difficulty of breathing. A disease of the skin, no doubt 
from the irritation of the dirt contained in the Surat cotton, 
also prevails . . . The fibre being so short, a great amount of 
size, both animal and vegetable, is used .... Bronchitis is 
more prevalent owing to the dust. Infiammatory sore throat 
is common, from the same cause. Sickness and dyspepsia are 
produced by the frequent breaking of the weft, when the 
weaver sucks the weft through the eye of the shuttle.&quot; On 
the other hand, the substitutes for fiour were a Fortunatus* 
purse to the manufacturers, by increasing the weight of the 
yam. They caused &quot;15 lbs. of raw material to weigh 26 lbs. 
after it was woven.&quot;* In the Keport of Inspectors of Factories 
for 80th April, 1864, we read as follows : &quot;The trade is avail- 
ing itself of this resource at present to an extent which is 
even discreditable. I have heard on good authority of a cloth 
weiring 8 lbs. which was made of 5^ lbs. cotton and 2} lbs. 

it c pp. 60^1. *l c, pp. 6S-M. 



 

Machinery and. Modern Industry, 501 

size; and of another cloth weighing 5 J lbs., of which 2 lbs. 
was size. These were ordinary export shirtings. In cloths of 
other descriptions, as much as 50 per cent size is sometimes 
added ; so that a manufacturer may, and does truly boast&gt; that 
he is getting rich by selling doth for less money per pound 
than he paid for the mere yam of which they are composed.&quot;^ 
But the workpeople had to suflFer, not only from the experi- 
ments of the manufacturers inside the mills, and of the muni- 
cipalities outside, not only from reduced wages and absence of 
work, from want and from charity, and from the eulogistic 
speeches of lords and commons. &quot;Unfortunate females who, 
in consequence of the cotton famine, were at its commence- 
ment thrown out of employment, and have thereby become 
outcasts of society; and now though trade has revived, and 
work is plentiful, continue members of that unfortunate class, 
and are likely to continue so. There are also in the borough 
more youthful prostitutes than I have known for the last 25 
years.*&apos;^ 

We find then, in the first 45 years of the English cotton 
trade, from 1770 to 1815, only 5 years of crisis and stagna- 
tion ; but this was the period of monopoly. The second period 
from 1815 to 1863 counts, during its 48 years, only 20 years 
of revival and prosperity against 28 of depression and stag- 
nation* Between 1815 and 1830 the competition with the 
continent of Europe and with the United States sets in. 
After 1833, the extension of the Asiatic markets is enforced 
by &quot;destruction of the human race&quot; (the wholesale extinction 
of Indian handloom weavers). After the repeal of the Com 
Laws, from 1846 to 1863, there are 8 years of moderate 
activity and prosperity against 9 years of depression and stag- 
nation. The condition of the adult male operatives, even 
during the years of prosperity, may be judged from the note 
subjoined.* 

*Rep. ftc 80th April, 1864, p^ 87. 

&apos;From a letter of Mr. Harris, Chief Constable of Bolton, in Rep. of Insp. of 
Fact., 81st October, 1865, pp. 61-88. 

*In an appeal, dated 1868, of the factory operatives of Lancashire, ftc, for the 
purpose of forming a society for organised emigration, we find the following: &quot;That 
a large emigration of factory workers is now absolutely essential to raise them 



 

502 Capitalist Production. 

SECTION 8. ^KETVOLUTIOW EFFECTED IN MAIOTFACTUEB, 

HANDICBAJBTS. AND DOMESTIC HmUSTET BY MODEBN IN- 
DUSTRY. 

a. Overthrow of Cooperation based on Handicraft and on the 
Division of Labour. 

We have seen how machinery does away with coK)peration 
based on handicrafts, and with manufacture based on the divi- 
sion of handicraft labour. An example of the first sort is the 
mowing-machine; it replaces co-operation between mowers. 
A striking example of the second kind, is the needle-making 
machine. According to Adam Smith, 10 men, in his day, 
made in co-operation, over 48,000 needles a-day. On the 
other hand, a single needle-machine makes 145,000 in a work- 
ing day of 11 hours. One woman or one girl superintends 
four such machines, and so produces near upon 600,000 
needles in a day, and upwards of 3,000,000 in a week.^ A 
single machine, when it takes the place of co-operation or of 
manufacture, may itself serve as the basis of an industry of a 

from their present prostrate condition, few will deny; but to show that a con- 
tinuous stream of emigration is at all times demanded, and, without which it is 
impossible for them to maintain their position in ordinary times, we beg to call 
attention to the subjoined facU: — In 1814 the official value of cotton goods ex- 
ported was £17,665,378, whilst the real marketable value was £20,070,824. In 
1858 the official value of cotton goods exported, was £182,221,681; but the real 
or marketable value was only £48,001,822, being a ten-fold quantity sold for little 
more than double the former price. To produce results so disadvantageous to the 
country generally, and to the factory workers in particular, several causes have 
co-operated, which, had circumstances permitted, we should have brought more 
prominently under your notice; suffice it for the present to say that the most 
obvious one is the constant redundancy of labour, without which a trade so ruinous 
in its effects never could have been carried on, and which requires a constantly 
extending market to save it from annihilation. Our cotton mills may be brought 
to a stand by the periodical stagnations of trade, which, under present arrange- 
ments, are as ineviuble as death itself; but the human mind is constantly at 
work, and although we believe we are nnder the mark in stating that six millions 
of persons have left these shores during the last 25 years, yet, from the natural 
increase of population, and the displacement of labour to cheapen production, a 
large percentage of the male adults in the most prosperous times find it impossible 
to obtain work in factories on any conditions whatever.&quot; (&quot;Reports of Insp. of 
Fact., 80th April, 1868,&quot; pp. 61-62. We shall, in a later chapter, see how our 
friends, the manufacturers, endeavored, during the catastrophe in the cotton trade, 
to prevent by every means, including State interference, the emigration of the 
operatives. 

» &quot;Ch. Empl. Comm. IV. Report. 1864,&quot; p. 108, n. 447. 



 

Machinery and Modern Industry. 503 

handicraft character. Still, such a return to handicrafts 
is but a transition to the factory system, -which, as a rule, 
makes its appearance so soon as the human muscles are re- 
placed, for the purpose of driving the machines, by a me- 
chanical motive power, such as steam or v^ater. Here and 
there, but in any case only for a time, an industry may be 
carried on, on a small scale, by means of mechanical power. 
This is effected by hiring steam power, as is done in some 
of the Birmingham trades&gt; or by the use of small caloric- 
engines, as in some branches of weaving.^ In the Coventry 
silk weaving industiy the experiment of &quot;cottage factories&quot; 
was tried. In the centre of a square surrounded by rows of 
cottages, an engine-house was built and the engine connected 
by shafts with the looms in the cottages. In all cases the 
power was hired at so much per loom. The rent was pay- 
able weekly, whether the looms worked or not Each cottage 
held from 2 to 6 looms ; some belonged to the weaver, some 
were bought on credit, some were hired. The struggle be- 
tween these cottage factories and the factory proper, lasted 
over 12 years. It ended with the complete ruin of the 300 
cottage-factories.^ Wherever the nature of the process did 
not involve production on a large scale, the new industries 
that have sprung up in the last few decades, such as envelope 
making, steel-pen making, &amp;c., have, as a general rule, first 
passed through the handicraft stage, and then the manufactur- 
ing stage, as short phases of transition to the factory stage. 
The transition is very difficult in those cases where the pro- 
duction of the article by manufacture consists, not of a series 
of graduated processes, but of a great number of discon- 
nected ones. This circumstance formed a great hindrance to 
the establishment of steel-pen factories. Nevertheless, about 
15 years ago, a machine was invented that automatically per- 
formed 6 separate operations at once. The first steel-pens 
were supplied by the handicraft system, in the year 1820, at 
£7 4s, the gross ; in 1830 th^ were supplied by manufacture 

*In the United States the restoratioii in this way, of handicrafts based on 
machinery is frequent; and therefore, when the inevitable transition to the factory 
system shall take place, the ensuing concentration will, compared with Europe and 
even with England, stride on in seven-league boots. 

*Sce &quot;Rep. of Insp. of Fact, 81st Oct., 1806,&quot; p. 84. 



 

504 Capitalist Production. 

at 88.y and to-day the factory system supplies them to the 
trade at from 28. to 6d. the gross.^ 

h. Re-action of the Factory System on Manufacture and 
Domestic Industries. 

Along with the development of the factory system and of 
the revolution in agriculture that accompanies it, production 
in all the other branches of industry not only extends, but 
alters its character. The principle, carried out in the factory 
system, of analysing the process of production into its con- 
stituent phases, and of solving the problems thus proposed by 
the application of mechanics, of chemistry, and of the &quot;whole 
range of the natural sciences, becomes the determining prin- 
ciple everywhere. Hence, machinery squeezes itself into the 
manufacturing industries first for one detail process, then for 
another. Thus the solid crystal of their organisation, based 
on the old division of labour, becomes dissolved, and makes 
way for constant changes. Independently of this, a radical 
change takes place in the composition of the collective labourer, 
a change of the persons working in combination. In contrast 
with the manufacturing period, the division of labour is 
thenceforth based, wherever possible, on the employment of 
women, of children of all ages, and of unskilled labourers, 
in one word, on cheap labour, as it is characteristically called 
in England. This is the case not only with all production on 
a large scale, whether employing machinery or not, but also 
with the so-called domestic industry, whether carried on in 
the houses of the workpeople or in small workshops. This 
modem so-called domestic industry has nothing, except the 
name, in common with the old-fashioned domestic industry, 
the existence of which presupposes independent urban handi- 
crafts, independent peasant farming, and above all, a dwell- 
ing-house for the labourer and his family. That old-faah- 

^ Mr. Gillott erected in Birmingham the first steel-pen factory on a large scale. It 
produced, so early as 1851, over 180,000,000 of pens yearly, and consumed 120 tons 
of steel. Birmingham has the monopoly of this industry in the United Kingdom, 
and at present produces thotasands of millions of steel pens. According to the 
Census of 1801, the number of persons employed was 1488, of whom 1808 were 
females from 6 years of age upwards. 



 

Machinery and Modem Industry. 505 

ioned industiy has now been converted into an outside de- 
partment of the factory, the manufactory, or the warehouse. 
Besides the factory operatives, the manufacturing workmen 
and the handicraftsmen, whom it concentrates in large masses 
at one spot, and directly commands, capital also sets in mo- 
tion, by means of invisible threads, another army ; that of the 
workers in the domestic industries, who dwell in the large 
towns and are also scattered over the face of the country. An 
example: The shirt factory of Messrs. Tille at Londonderry, 
which employs 1000 operatives in the factory itself, and 9000 
people spread up and down the coimtry and working in their 
own houses.^ 

The exploitation of cheap and immature labour-power is 
carried out in a more shameless manner in modem Manu- 
facture than in the factory proper. This is because the tech- 
nical foundation of the factory system, namely, the substi- 
tution of machines for muscular power, and the light char- 
acter of the labour, is almost entirely absent in Manufacture, 
and at the same time women and over-young children are 
subjected, in a most unconscionable way, to the influence of 
poisonous or injurious substances. This exploitation is more 
shameless in the so-called domestic industry than in manu- 
factures, and that because the power of resistance in the 
labourers decreases with their dissemination ; because a whole 
series of plundering parasites insinuate themselves between 
the employer and the workman; because a domestic industry 
has always to compete, either with the factory system, or with 
manufacturing in the same branch of production; because 
poverty robe the workman of the conditions most essential to 
his labour, of space, light and ventilation; because employ- 
ment becomes more and more irregular; and, finally, because 
in these the last resorts of the masses made &quot;redimdanf* by 
Modem Industry and Agriculture, competition for work at- 
tains its maximum. Economy in the means of production, 
first systematically carried out in the factory system, and 
there, from the very beginning, coincident with the most reck- 
less squandering of labour-power, and robbery of the con- 

^Ch. EmpL Comm., II. Rep. 1864, i». LXVIII., n. 416. 



 

506 Capitalist Production. 

ditions normally requisite for labour — ^this economy now 
shows its antagonistic and murderous side more and more in 
a given branch of industry, the less the social productive 
power of labour and the technical basis for a combination of 
processes are developed in that branch. 

c. Modem Marmfactvre. 

I now proceed, by a few examples, to illustrate the prin- 
ciples laid down above. As a matter of fact, the reader is 
already familiar with numerous instances given in the chapter 
on the working day. In the hardware manufactures of 
Birmingham and the neighborhood, there are employed, 
mostly in very heavy work, 30,000 children and young per- 
sons, besides 10,000 women. There they are to be seen in 
the unwholesome brass-foimdries, button factories, enamelling^ 
galvanizing, and lackering works. ^ Owing to the excessive 
labour of their workpeople, both adult and non-adult, certain 
London houses where newspapers and books are printed have 
got the ill-omened name of &quot;slaughter-houses.^&apos;^ Similar ex- 
cesses are practised in bookbinding, where the victims are 
chiefly women, girls, and children ; young persons have to do 
heavy work in rope-walks and night-work in salt mines, candle 
manufactories, and chemical works ; young people are worked 
to death at turning the looms in silk weaving, when it is not 
carried on by machinery.^ One of the most shameful, the 
most dirty, and the worst paid kinds of labour, and one on 
which women and young girls are by preference employed, is 
the sorting of rags. It is well known that Great Britain, 
apart from its own immense store of rags, is the emporium 
for the rag trade of the whole world. They flow in from 
Japan, from the most remote States of South America, and 
from the Canary Islands. But the chief sources of their 
supply are Germany, France, Russia, Italy, Egypt, Turkey, 
Belgium, and Holland. They are used for manure, for mak- 

*And now forsooth children are employed at file-cutting in Sheffield. 
•Ch. EmpL Comm. V. Rep. 1866, p. 3, n. 24. p. 6, n. 66, 66, p. 7, n. 6», 60. 
*L. c pp. 114, 115, n. 6, 7. The commissioner justly remarks that though as 
a rule machines take th« place of men, here Uterally young persons replaco 



 

Machinery and Modem Industry. 507 

ing bed-flocks, for shoddy, and they serve as the raw material 
of paper. The rag-sorters are the medium for the spread 
of small-pox and other infectious diseases, and they themselves 
are the first victims.^ A classical example of over-work, of 
hard and inappropriate labour, and of its brutalising effects 
on the workman from his childhood upwards, is aflForded not 
only by coal-mining and miners generally, but also by tile and 
brick making, in which* industry the recently invented ma- 
chinery is, in England, used only here and ^ere. Between 
Jlay and September the work lasts from 5 in the morning till 
8 in the evening, and where the drying is done in the open 
air, it often lasts from 4 in the morning till 9 in the even- 
ing. Work from 5 in the morning till 7 in the evening is 
considered &quot;reduced&quot; and ^^oderate.&quot; Both boys and girls 
of 6 and even of 4 years of age are employed. They work for 
the same number of hours, often longer, than the adults. The 
work is hard and the summer heat increases the exhaustion. 
In a certain tile field at Mosley, e.g., a young woman, 24 
years of age^ was in the habit of making 2000 tiles a day, with 
the assistance of 2 little girls, who carried the clay for her, 
and stacked the tiles. These girls carried daily 10 tons up 
the slippery sides of the clay pits, from a depth of 30 feet, 
and then for a distance of 210 feet. &quot;It is impossible for a 
child to pass through the purgatory of a tile-field without 
great moral degradation . . . the low language, which 
they are accustomed to hear from their tenderest years, the 
filthy, indecent, and shameless habits, amidst which, unknow- 
ing, and half wild, they grow up, make them in after life 
lawless, abandoned, dissolute. ... A frightful source of 
demoralization is the mode of living. Each moulder, who is 
always a skilled labourer, and the chief of a group, supplies 
his 7 subordinates with board and lodging in his cottage. 
Whether members of his family or not, the men, boys, and 
girls all sleep in the cottage, which contains generally two, 
exceptionally 3 rooms, all on the ground floor, and badly venti- 
lated. These people are so exhausted after the day&apos;s work, 

*See the Report on the rag trade, and numerous details in Public Health. VIIL 
Rep. Lond. 1866, app. pp. IdS, 2C6. 



 

5o8 Capitalist Production. 

that neither the rules of health, of cleanliness, nor of deoenoj 
are in the least observed. Many of these cottages are models 
of untidiness, dirt, and dust . . . The greatest evil of 
the system that employs young girls on this sort of work, c(m- 
sists in this, that, as a rule^ it chains them fast from child- 
hood for the whole of their after-life to the most abandoned 
rabble. They become rough, foul-mouthed boys, before Na- 
ture has taught them that they are women. Clothed in a 
few dirty rags, the legs naked far above the knees, hair and 
face besmeared with dirt^ they learn to treat all feelings of 
decency and of shame with contempt During meal-times 
they lie at full length in the fields, or watch the boys bathing 
in a neighboring canal. Their heavy day&apos;s work at length 
completed, they put on better clothes, and accompany the men 
to the public houses.&quot; That excessive insobriety is prevalent 
from childhood upwards among the whole of this class, is 
only natural. &quot;The worst is that the brickmakers despair of 
themselves. You might as well, said one of the better kind 
to a chaplain of Southallfield, try to raise and improve the 
devil as a brickie, sir!&quot;^ 

As to the manner in which capital effects an economy in 
the requisites of labour, in modem Manufacture (in which I 
include all workshops of larger size, except factories proper), 
official and most ample material bearing on it is to be foimd 
in the Public Health Eeports IV. (1863) and VI. (1864). 
The description of the workshops, more especially those of the 
London printers and tailors, surpasses the most loathsome 
phantasies of our romance writers. The effect on the health 
of the workpeople is self-evident Dr. Simon, the chief 
medical officer of the Privy Council and the official editor of 
the &apos;Tublic Health Report,** says: &quot;In my fourth Report 
(1863) I showed, how it is practically impossible for the 
workpeople to insist upon that which is their first sanitary 
right, viz., the right that, no matter what the work for whidi 
their employer brings them together, the labour, so far as it 
depends upon him, should be freed from all avoidably un- 

&lt; Ch. Empt Comm. V. Rep., 18M, xri., n. 96, 97, and p. ISO, a. 19, 61. Sec alto 
ni. Rep., 1864, p. 48, S6. 



 

Machinery and Modem Industry. 509 

wholesome conditions. I pointed ont^ that while the work- 
people are practically incapable of doing themselves this sani- 
tary justice, they are unable to obtain any effective support 
from the paid adminstrations of the sanitary police. • • . 
The life of myriads of workmen and workwomen is now use- 
lessly tortured and shortened by the never-ending physical 
suffering that their mere occupation b^gets/^^ In illustration 
of the way in which the workrooms influence the state of 
health, I&gt;r. Simon gives the following table of mortality.* 



Number of persons of all 
ages employed in the re- 
spective industries. 


Industries compared 

•8 regards 

health. 


Death rate per 100,000 men in 

the respective industries between 

the stated agea. 


958^65 


AgricultuTe in 
England &amp; Wales 


Age 2S-35. 
743 


Age 35-45. 
806 


Age 45-55. 
1,146 


22,301 men 1 
12,370 women J 


London taflors 


968 


1,262 


2,093 


13,803 


London printers 


894 


1,747 


2,367 



d. Modem Dome^ic Industry. 

I now oome to the so-called domestic industry. In order to 
get an idea of the horrors of this s^diere, in which capital 
conducts its exploitation in the background of modem me- 
chanical industry, one must go to the apparently quiet idyllic 
trade of nail-md^ing,^ carried on in a few remote villages of 
England In this place^ however^ it will be enough to give a 

* Public Health. Sixth Rep. Lond. 1804, p. 81. 

&apos; 1. c, p. 80. Dr. Simon remarks that the mortality among the London tailors and 
printers between the ages of 26 and 86 is in fact much greater, because the em- 
ployers in London obtain from the country a great number of young people up to 80 
years of age, as &quot;apprentices&quot; and &quot;improvers,&quot; who come for the purpose of being 
perfected in their trade. These figure in the census as Londoners, they swell out 
the number of heads on which the London death-rate is calculated, without adding 
proportionally to the number of deaths in that place. The greater part of them 
in fact return to the country, and especially in cases of severe illness. (1. c.) 

*I allude here to hammered nails, as distinguished from nails cut out and made 
by machinery. See Child. Empl. Comm., Third Rep. p. xi, p. xiz, n. 185-180, p. 
68, n. 11, p. 114, n. 487. p. 187, n. 074. 



 

5IO Capitalist Production. 

few examples from those branches of the laoe-making and 
straw-plaiting industries that are not yet carried on by the 
aid of machinery, and that as yet do not compete with 
branches carried on in factories or in manufactories. 

Of the 150,000 persons employed in England in the pro- 
duction of lace, about 10,000 fall under the authority of the 
Factory Act, 1861. Almost the whole of the remaining 140,- 
000 are women, young persons, and children of both sexes, 
the male sex, however, being weakly represented. The state 
of health of this cheap material for exploitation will be seen 
from the following table, computed by Dr. Trueman, physi- 
cian to the Nottingham General Dispensary. Out of 686 fe- 
male patients who were lace makers, most of them between 
the ages of 17 and 24, the number of consumptive ones were : 

1852.— 1 in 45. 1855.— 1 in 18. 1858.— 1 in 15. 

1853.— 1 in 28. 1856. — 1 in 15. 1859.-1 in 9. 

1854.— 1 in 17. 1857.-1 in 13. 1860.-1 in 8. 

1861.— 1 in 8.^ 

This progress in the rate of consumption ought to suflSce for 
the most optimist of progressists, and for the biggest hawker 
of lies among the Free Trade bagmen of Germany. 

The Factory Act of 1861 regulates the actual making of the 
lace, so far as it is done by machinery, and this is the rule in 
England. The branches that we are now about to examine, 
solely with regard to those of the workpeople who work at 
home, and not those who work in manufactories or ware- 
houses, fall into two divisions, viz., (1), finishing; (2), mend- 
ing. The former gives the finishing touches to the machine- 
made lace, and includes numerous sub-divisions. 

The lace finishing is done either in what are called &quot;Mis- 
tresses&apos; Houses,&apos;* or by women in their own houses, with or 
without the help of their children. The women who keep the 
&quot;Mistresses&apos; Houses&apos;&apos; are themselves poor. The workroom is 
in a private house. The mistresses take orders from manu- 
facturers, or from warehousemen, and employ as many womeuj 

Ch. EmpL Comm., IX. Rep., ih xxxL, n. ICtk 



 

Machinery and Modem Industry. 511 

girls, and young children as the size of their rooms and the 
fluctuating demand of the business -will allow. The number 
of the workwomen employed in these workrooms varies from 
20 to 40 in some, and from 10 to 20 in others. The average 
age at which the children commence work is six years, but in 
many cases it is below five. The usual working hours are 
from 8 in the morning till eight in the evening, with 1^ hours 
for meals, which are taken at irregular intervals, and often in 
the foul workrooms. When business is brisk, the labour fre- 
quently lasts from 8 or even 6 o&apos;clock in the morning till 10, 
11, or 12 o&apos;clock at ni^t. In English barracks the regulation 
space allotted to each soldier is 500-600 cubic feet, and in the 
military hospitals 1200 cubic feet But in those finishing 
styes there are but 67 to 100 cubic feet to each person. At 
the same time the oxygen of the air is consumed by gas-lights. 
In order to keep the lace dean, and although the floor is tiled 
or flagged, the diildren are often compelled, even in winter, to 
pull off their shoes. &quot;It is not at all imcommon in Notting- 
ham to find 14 to 20 children huddled together in a small 
room, of, perhaps, not more than 12 feet square, and employed 
for 15 hours out of the 24, at work that of itself is exhausting, 
from its weariness and monotony, and is besides carried on 
under every possible unwholesome condition. . • . Even 
the very yoimgest children work with a strained attention and 
a rapidity that is astonishing, hardly ever giving their fingers 
rest or slowering their motion. If a question be asked them, 
they never raise their eyes from their work for fear of losing 
a single moment&apos;&apos; The &apos;long stick&quot; is used by the mistresses 
as a stimulant more and more as the working hours are pro- 
longed. &quot;The children gradually tire and becomes as restless 
as birds towards the end of their long detention at an occupa- 
tion that is monotonous, eye-straining, and exhausting from 
the uniformity in the posture of the body. Their work is like 
slavery.&quot;^ When women and their children work at home^ 
which now-a-days means in a hired room, often in a garret, 
the state of things is, if possible, still worse. This sort of 
work is giving out within a circle of 80 miles radius from Not- 

^Cb. EmpL ComnLf U. Rep^ 1804» pp. xix., xx,, xxL 



 

512 Capitalist Production. 

tingham. On leaving the warehouses at 9 or 10 o^dock at 
ni^t, the children are often given a bundle of lace to take 
home with them and finish. The Pharisee of a capitalist 
represented by one of his servants, accompanies this action, of 
course, with the unctuous phrase : &quot;That&apos;s for mother,&apos;^ yet he 
knows well enough that the poor children must sit up and 
help.^ 

Pillow lace making is chiefly carried on in England in two 
agricultural districts one, the Honiton lace district, extending 
from 20 to 30 mOes along the south coast of Devonshire, and 
including a few places in North Devon ; the other comprising 
a great part of the counties of Buckingham, Bedford, and 
Northampton, and also the adjoining portions of Oxfordshire 
and Huntingdonshire. The cottages of the agricultural la- 
bourers are the places where the work is usually carried on. 
Many manufacturers employ upwards of 8000 of these lace 
makers, who are chiefly children and young persons of the fe- 
male sex exclusively. The state of things described as in* 
cidental to lace finishing is here repeated, save that instead 
of the &apos;distresses* houses,&quot; we find what are called *^aoe 
schools,&quot; kept by poor women in their cottages. From their 
fifth year and often earlier, until their twelfth or fifteenth 
year, the children work in these schools ; during the first year 
the very young ones work from four to eight hours, and later 
on, from six in the morning till eight and ten o&apos;clock at night. 
&quot;The rooms are generally the ordinary living rooms of small 
cottages, the chimney stopped up to keep out draughts, the 
inmates kept warm by their own animal heat alone, and thia 
frequently in winter. In other cases, these so-called school^ 
rooms are like small store-rooms without fire-places. • • • 
The overcrowding in these dens and the consequent vitiation 
of the air are often extreme. Added to this is the injurious 
effect of drains, privies, decomposing substances, and other 
filth usual in the purileus of the smaller cottages.&quot; With re&apos; 
gard to space: &quot;In one lace school 18 girls and a mistress, 
35 cubic feet to each person ; in another, where the smell was 
unbearable, 18 persons and 24^ cubic feet per head. In this 

^L Cf pp. xzLy xxyL 



 

Machinery and Modem Industry. 513 

industry are to be found employed children of 2 and 2^ 
years.^&apos;^ 

Where lace-making ends in the counties of Buckingham and 
Bedford, straw-plaiting b^ins, and extends over a large part 
of Hertfordshire and the westerly and northerly parts of 
Essex. In 1861, there were 40,043 persons employed in 
straw-plaiting and straw-hat making; of these 3815 were 
males of all ages, the rest females, of whom 14,918, includ- 
ing about 7000 children, were under 20 years of age. In 
the place of the lace-schools we find here the &quot;straw-plait 
schools.*&apos; The children commence their instruction in straw- 
plaiting generally in their 4th, often between their 3rd and 
4th year. Education, of course, they get none. The children 
themselves call the elementary schools, &quot;natural schools,&quot; to 
distinguish them from these blood-sucking institutions, in 
which they are kept at work simply to get through the task, 
generally 30 yards daily, prescribed by their half-starved 
mothers. These same mothers often make them work at 
home, after school is over, till 10, 11, and 12 o&apos;clock at night 
The straw cuts their mouths, with which they constantly 
moisten it, and their fingers. Dr. Ballard gives it as the 
general opinion of the whole body of medical oflScers in Lon- 
don, that 300 cubic feet is the minimum space proper for 
each person in a bedroom or work-room. But in the straw- 
plait schools space is more sparingly allotted than in the 
lace-schools, &quot;12§, 17, 18^ and below 22 cubic feet for 
each person.&apos;&apos; The smaller of these numbers, says one of 
the commissioners, Mr. White, represents less space than the 
half of what a child would occupy if packed in a box measur- 
ing 3 feet in each direction. Thus do the children enjoy life 
till the age of 12 or 14. The wretched half-starved parents 
think of nothing but getting as much as possible out of their 
children. The latter, as soon as they are grown up, do not 
care a farthing, and naturally so, for their parents, and leave 
them. &quot;It is no wonder that ignorance and vice abound in a 
population so brought up. . . . Their morality is at the 
lowest ebb, • • • a great number of the women have il* 

^L c, pp. xsdx., xzx. 
8G 



 

514 Capitalist Production. 

legitimate children^ and that at such an immature age that 
even those most conversant with criminal statistics are aa- 
tonnded/&apos;^ And the native land of these model families 
is the pattern Christian country of Europe so says at least 
Count Montalemherty certainly a competent SLX^Jacritj on 
Christianity I 

Wages in the above industries, miserable as they are (the 
maximum wages of a child in the straw-plait schools rising 
in rare cases to 3 shillingSy are reduced far below their 
nominal amount by the prevalence of the truck system every- 
where, but especially in the lace districts.^ 

e. Passage of modem Marmfactnre, and Domestic Industry 
into Modem Mechanical Industry. The hastening of 
this revolution by the applioaiion of the Factory Acts to 
those Industries. 

The cheapening of labour-power, by sheer abuse of the 
labour of women and children, by sheer robbery of every nor- 
mal condition requisite for working and living, and by the 
sheer brutality of over-work and night-work, meets at last 
with natural obstacles that cannot be overstepped. So also, 
when based on these methods, do the cheapening of com- 
modities and capitalist exploitation in generaL So soon as 
this point is at last reached— and it takes many years — ^the 
hour has struck for the introduction of machineiy, and for the 
thenceforth rapid conversion of the scattered domestic indus- 
tries and also of manufactures into factory industries. 

An example, on the most colossal scale, of this movement is 
aflforded by the production of wearing appareL This in- 
dustry, according to the classification of the Childrens&apos; Em- 
ployment Commission, comprises straw-hat makers, ladies&apos;-hat 
makers, cap-makers, tailors, milliners and dressmakers, shirt- 
makers, corset-makers, glove-makers, shoemakers, besides 
many minor branches, such as the making of neck-ties, collars, 
&amp;c. In 1861, the number of females employed in these in- 
dustries, in England and Wales, amounted to 686,299, of 

^1. c. pp. xl, xlL 

* Child, Empl. Comm. I. Rep. 1868, p. 186. 



 

Machinery and Modem Industry. 515 

these 115,242 at the least were under 20, and 16,650 under 15 
years of age. The number of these workwomen in the United 
Kingdom in 1861, was 750,334. The number of males em- 
ployed in England and Wales, in hat-making, shoe-making, 
glove-making and tailoring was 437,969; of these 14,964 
under 15 years, 89,285 between 15 and 20, and 333,117 over 
20 years. Many of the smaller branches are not included in 
these figures. But take the figures as they stand; we then 
have for England and Wales alone, according to the census 
of 1861, a total of 1,024,277 persons, about as many as are 
absorbed by agriculture and cattle breeding. We begin to 
tmderstand what becomes of the immense quantities of goods 
conjured up by the magic of machinery, and of the enormous 
masses of workpeople, which that machinery sets free. 

The production of wearing apparel is carried on partly in 
manufactories in whose workrooms there is but a reproduction 
of that division of labour, the membra disjecta of which were 
found ready to hand ; partly by small master-handicraftsmen ; 
these, however, do not, as formerly, work for individual con- 
sumers, but for manufactories and warehouses, and to such 
an extent that often whole towns and stretches of country 
carry on ciertain branches, such as shoe-making, as a specialty ; 
finally, on a very great scale by the so-called domestic workers, 
who form an external department of the manufactories, ware- 
houses, and even of the workshops of the smaller masters.^ 

The raw material, &amp;c., is supplied by mechanical industry, 
the mass of cheap human material (taillable h. merci et miseri- 
corde) is composed of the individuals &apos;liberated&apos;* by me- 
chanical industry and improved agriculture. The manu- 
factures of this class owed their origin chiefly to the capital- 
ist&apos;s need of having at hand an army ready equipped to meet 
any increase of demand.* These manufactures, nevertheless, 
allowed the scattered handicrafts and domestic industries to 

* In England milUnenr and dressmaking are for the most part carried on, on the 
l&gt;remiaes of the employerp partly by worlcwomen who live tiiere, partly by women 
who live off the premises. 

&apos; Mr. White, a commissioner, visited a military clothing manufactory that employed 
1000 to 1200 persons, almost all females, and a shoe manufactory with 1800 pertoos; 
of these nearly one half were children and young persons. 



 

5l6 Capitalist Production. 

eontinue U&gt; exist as a broad foundation. The great production 
of surplus-value in these branches of labour, and the pro- 
gressive cheapening of their articles, were and are chiefly due 
to the minimum wages paid, no more than requisite for a 
miserable vegetation, and to the extension of working time 
up to the maximum endurable by the human organism. It 
was in fact by the cheapness of the human sweat and the 
human blood, which were converted into conunodities, that 
the markets were constantly being extended, and continue 
daily to be extended; more especially was this the case with 
England&apos;s colonial markets, where, besides, English tastes and 
habits prevail At last the critical point was reached. The 
basis of the old method, sheer brutality in the exploitation of 
the workpeople, accompanied more or less by a systematic di- 
vision of labour, no longer sufficed for the extending markets 
and for the still more rapidly extending competition of the 
capitalists. The hour struck for the advent of machinery. 
The decisively revolutionary machine^ the machine which at- 
tacks in an equal degree the whole of the numberless branches 
of this sphere of production, dressmaking, tailoring, shoe- 
making, sewing, hat-making, and many others, is the sewing- 
machine. 

Its immediate effect on the workpeople is like that of all 
machinery, which, since the rise of modem industry, has 
seized upon new branches of trade. Children of too tender 
an age are sent adrift. The wage of the machine hands rises 
compared with that of the house-workers, many of whom be- 
long to the poorest of the poor. That of the better situated 
handicraftsmen, with whom the machine competes, sinks. 
The new machine hands are exclusively girls and young 
women. With the help of mechanical force, they destroy 
the monopoly that male labour had of the heavier work, and 
they drive off from the lighter work numbers of old women 
and very young children. The overpowering competition 
crushes the weakest of the manual labourers. The fearful in- 
crease in death from starvation during the last 10 years in 
London runs parallel with the extension of machine sewing.* 

^An instance. The weekly report of deaths by the Registrar General dated S6tb 



 

Machinery and Modem Industry. 517 

The new workwomen turn the machine by hand and foot^ oi* 
by hand alone^ sometimes sitting, sometimes standing, ac- 
cording to the weight, size and special make of the machine^ 
and expend a great deal of labour-power. Their occupation 
is unwholesome, owing to the long hours, although in most 
cases they are not so long as under the old system. Wher- 
ever the sewing machine locates itself in narrow and already 
over-crowded workrooms, it adds to the unwholesome in- 
fluences. &quot;The eflFect,^* says Mr. Lord, &quot;on entering low- 
ceiled workrooms in which 30 to 40 machine hands are work- 
ing is unbearable. . . . The heat, partly due to the gas 
stoves used for warming the irons, is horriblow . . . Even 
when moderate hours of work, i.e., from 8 in the morning till 
6 in the evaiing, prevail in such places, yet 3 or 4 persons 
fall into a swoon regularly every day.&quot;^ 

The revolution in the industrial methods which is the 
necessary result of the revolution in the instruments of pro- 
duction, is effected by a medley of transition forms. These 
forms vary according to the extent to which the sewing ma- 
chine has become prevalent in one branch of industry or the 
other, to the time during which it has been in operation, to the 
previous condition of the workpeople, to the preponderance 
of manufacture, of handicrafts or of domestic industry, to the 
rent of the workrooms, &amp;c.^ In dressmaking, for instance, 
where the labour for the most part was already organised, 
chiefly by simple co-operation, the sewing machine at first 
formed merely a new factor in that manufacturing industry. 
In tailoring, shirtmaking, shoemaking, &amp;c, all the forms are 
intermingled. Here the factory system proper. There mid- 
dlemen receive the raw material from the capitalist en chef, 
and group around their sewing machines, in &quot;chambers&apos;* and 
&quot;garrets,&quot; from 10 to 50 or more workwomen. Finally, as is 

Feb., 1864, contains 5 cases of death from starratlon. On the same day the &apos;&apos;Times&quot; 
reports another case. Six victims of starvation in one week! 

^ Child. EmpL Comm., Second Rep., 1864, p. Ixvii n. 406-9, p. 84, n. 124, p. 
IxxiiL, n. 441, p. 66, n. 6, p. 84, n. 126, p. 78, n. 76, n. 69, p. Ixxii., n. 483. 

&apos;&quot;The rental of premises required for workrooms seems the element which 
nltimately determines the point; and consequently it is in the metropolis, that th« 
oM system of giving work out to small employers and families has been longest re* 
tained, and earliest returned to.&quot; (1. c. p. 83, n. 128.) The concluding statement 
in this quotation refers exclusively to shoemaking. 



 

5i8 Capitalist Production. 

always the case with machinery when not organised into a 
system, and when it can also be used in dwarfish proportions^ 
handicraftsmen and domestic workers, along with their fam- 
ilies, or with a little extra labour from without, makes use of 
their own sewing machines.^ The system actually prevalent 
in England is, that the capitalist concentrates a large number 
of machines on his premises, and then distributes the pro- 
duce of those machines for further manipulation amongst the 
domestic workers.^ The variety of the transition forms, how- 
ever, does not conceal the tendency to conversion into the 
factory system proper. This tendency is nurtured by the very 
nature of the sewing machine, the manifold uses of whidi 
push on the concentration, imder one roof, and one manage- 
ment, of previously separated branches of a trade. It is also 
favoured by the circumstance that preparatory needlework, 
and certain other operations, are most conveniently done on 
the premises where the machine is at work ; as weU as by the 
inevitable expropriation of the hand sewers, and of the do- 
mestic workers who work with their own machines. This 
fate has already in part overtaken them. The constantly 
increasing amount of capital invested in sewing machines,* 
gives the spur to the production of, and gluts the markets 
with, machine-made articles, thereby giving the signal to the 
domestic workers for the sale of their machines. The over- 
production of sewing machines themselves, causes their pro- 
ducers, in bad want of a sale, to let them out for so much a 
week, thus crushing by their deadly competition the small 
owners of machines.^ Constant changes in the construction 
of the machines, and their ever-increasing cheapness, de- 
preciate day by day the older makes, and allow of tiieir being 
sold in great numbers, at absurd prices, to large capitalists, 
who alone can thus employ them at a profit Finally, the sub- 
stitution of the steam-engine for man gives in this, as in all 
similar revolutions, the finishing blow. At first, the use of 

&apos;In glove-making and other industriea where the condition of the workpr&gt;ple if 
hardly dittinguishable from that of paupera» this does not occnr. 

*1. c p. 2, n. 122. 

&apos;In the wholesale boot and shoe trade of Leicester alone» there were it 18f4f 
800 sewing machines already in use. 

«L c. p. 84p n. 124. 



 

Machinery and Modem Industry. 519 

eteam power meets with mere technical difficulties, such as 
unsteadiness in the machines, difficulty in controlling their 
speed, rapid wear and tear of the lighter machines, &amp;c., all 
of which are soon overcome by experience.^ If, on the one 
hand, the concentration of many machines in large manu- 
factories leads to the use of steam power, on the other hand, 
the competition of steam with human muscles hastens on the 
concentration of workpeople and machines in large factories. 
Thus England is at present experiencing, not only in the 
colossal industry of making wearing apparel, but in most of 
the other trades mentioned above, the conversion of manu- 
facture, of handicrafts, and of domestic work into the factory 
system, after each of those forms of production, totally 
changed and disorganized under the influence of modem in- 
dustry, has long ago reproduced, and even overdone, all the 
horrors of the factory system, without participating in any of 
the elements of social progress it contains.^ 

This industrial revolution which takes place spontaneously, 
is artificially helped on by the extension of the Factory Acts 
to all industries in which women, young persons and children 
are employed. The compulsory regulation of the working 
day as regards its length, pauses, beginning and end, the sys- 
tem of relays of children, tiie exclusion of all children under a 
certain age, &amp;c., necessitates on the one hand more machinery&apos; 
and the substitution of steam as a motive power in the place 

&gt; Instances: The Army Qothing Depot At Pimlico, London, the Shirt factory of 
Tillie and Henderson at Londonderry, and the clothes factory of Messrs. Tait at 
Limerick which employs about 1200 hands. 

* &quot;Tendency to factory system&quot; 0- c p. Ixrii.). &apos;^The whole employment is at 
this time in a state of transition, and is undergoing the same change as that effected 
in the lace trade, weaving, &amp;c&quot; (L c. n. 406.) &quot;A complete revolution&quot; (L c p. 
xlvi. n. 818). At the date of the Child. Empl. Comm. of 1840, stocking making waa 
still done by manual labour. Since 1846 various sorts of machines have been in- 
troduced, which are now driv^** jy steam. The total number of persons of both 
sexes and of all ages from 8 years upwards, emplojred in stocking making in Eng* 
land, was in 1868 about 129,000. Of these only 4068 were, according to the Parlia- 
mentary Return of the 11th February, 1862, working under the Factory Acts. 

*Thus, #.f., in the earthenware trade, Messrs. Cochrane, of the Britain Pottery, 
Glasgow, report: &quot;To keep up our quantity we have gone extensively into machines 
&apos;.vrought by unskilled labour, and every day convinces us that we can produce a 
greater quantity than by the old method.&quot; (&quot;Rep. of Insp. of Fact, 81st Oct.» 
1866,&quot; p. 18.) &quot;The effect of the Fact Acts is to force on the further introdoo- 
tion of machinery&quot; (L c, p. 18-14). 



 

520 Capitalist Production. 

of musdes,^ On the other hand, in order to make np for jthe 
loss of timey an expansion occurs of the means of production 
used in common, of the furnaces, buildings, &amp;c. ; in one word, 
greater concentration of the means of production and a corres* 
pondingly greater concourse of workpeople. The chief objec* 
tion, repeatedly and passionately urged on behalf of each, 
manufacture threatened with the Factory Act, is in fact this^ &apos; 
that in order to continue the business on the old scale a 
greater outlay of capital will be necessary. But as regards 
labour in the so-called domestic industries and the inter- 
mediate forms between them and Manufacture, so soon as 
limits are put to the working day and to the employment of 
children, those industries go to the walL Unlimited exploita- 
tion of cheap labour-power is the sole foundation of their 
power to compete. 

One of the essential conditions for the existence of the fac- 
tory system, especially when the length of the working day is 
fixed, is certainty in the result, i.e,, the production in a given 
time of a given quantity of commodities, or of a given useful 
effect The statutory pauses in the working day, moreover, 
imply the assumption that periodical and sudden cessation of 
the work does no harm to the article undergoing the process of 
production. This certainty in the result, and this possibility 
of interrupting the work are, of course, easier to be attained 
in the purely mechanical industries than in those in which 
chemical and physical processes play a part; as, for instance, 
in the earthenware trade, in bleaching, dyeing, baking, and in 
most of the metal industries. Wherever there is a working 
day without restriction as to length, wherever there is night 
work and unrestricted waste of human life^ there the slightest 
obstacle presented by the nature of the work to a change for 
the better is soon looked upon as an everlasting barrier erected 
by Nature. No poison kills vermin with more certainty than 
the Factory Act removes such everlasting barriers. No one 
made a greater outcry over &quot;impossibilities&apos;^ than our friends 
the earthenwares manufacturers. In 1864, however, they 

^Thtts, after the extension of the Factoiy Act to the potteries, great increase of 
power-jiggers In place of hand-moyed jiggers. 



 

Machinery and Modem Industry. 521 

-were brought under the Act^ and within sixteen months every 
&quot;impossibility&apos;&apos; had vanished. &quot;The improved method,&apos;&apos; 
called forth by the Act, &quot;of making slip by pressure instead 
of by evaporation, the newly-constructed stoves for drying 
the ware in its green state, &amp;c., are each events of great im- 
portances in the pottery art, and mark an advance which the 
preceding century could not rival. ... It has even con- 
siderably reduced the temperature of the stoves themselves 
with a considerable saving of fuel, and with a readier eff^ 
on the ware.&quot;^ In spite of every prophecy, the cost price of 
earthenware did not rise, but the quantity produced did, and 
to such an extent that the export for the twelve months, end- 
ing December, 1865, exceeded in value by £138,628 the 
average of the preceding three years. In the manufacture of 
matches it was thought to be an indispensable requirement^ 
that boys, even while bolting their dinner, should go on dip- 
ping the matches in melted phosphorus, the poisonous vapour 
from which rose into their faces. The Factory Act (1864) 
made the saving of time a necessity, and so forced into ex- 
istence a dipping machine, the vapour from which could not 
come in contact with the workers.^ So, at the present timey 
in those branches of the lace manufacture not yet subject to 
the Factory Act, it is maintained that the meal times cannot 
be regular owing to the different periods required by the 
various kinds of lace for drying, which periods vary from 
three minutes up to an hour and more. To this the Children&apos;s 
Employment Commissioners answer: &quot;The circumstances of 
this case are precisely analogous to that of the paper-stainers, 
dealt with in our first report Some of the principal manu- 
facturers in the trade urged that in consequence of the nat^re 
of the materials used, and their various processes, they would 
be unable, without serious loss, to stop for meal times at any 
given moment But it was seen from the evidence that, by 
due care and previous arrangement, the apprehended diflSculty 

^&quot;Report of Insp. of Fact, Slst Oct, 1866,&quot; pp. 96 and 1S7. 

*The introduction of this and other machinery into match-making caused in one 
department alone 280 young persons to he replaced by 82 boys and girls of 14 to 17 
years of age. This saving in labour was carried still further in 1866, by the em- 
ployment of steam power. 



 

^22 Capitalist Productiofk 

would be got over; and acoordinglj, by clause 6 of section 6 
of the Factory Acts Extension Act^ passed during this Session 
of Parliament^ an interval of eighteen months is given to 
tbem from the passing of the Act before they are required 
to conform to the meal hours^ specified by the Factory Acts.&quot;^ 
Hardly had the Act been passed when our friends the manu- 
facturers found out: ^^The inconveniences we expected to 
arise from the introduction of the Factory Acts into our 
branch of manufacture^ I am happy to say, have not arisen. 
We do not find the production at all interfered with; in 
shorty we produce more in the same time.&apos;&quot; It is evident 
that the English legislature, which certainly no one will 
venture to reproach with being overdosed with genius, has 
been led by experience to the conclusion that a simple com- 
pulsory law is sufficient to enact away aU the so-called im- 
pediments, opposed by the nature of the process^ to the re- 
striction and regulation of the working day. Hence, on 
the introduction of the Factory Act into a given industry, 
a period varying from six to eighteen months is fixed within 
which it is incumbent on the manufacturers to remove all 
technical impediments to the working of the Act Mira- 
beau&apos;s ^^Impossible I ne me dites jamaisoebSte de mot I&apos;&apos; is pcuv 
ticularly applicable to modem technology. But though the 
Factory Acts thus artificially ripen the material elements 
necessary for the conversion of the manufacturing system into 
the factory system, yet at the same time, owing to the neces- 
sity they impose for greater outlay of capital, they hasten 
on the decline of the small masters, and the concentration of 
capital.* 

Besides the purely technical impediments that are remov- 
able by technical means, the irregular habits of the work- 

i*«Ch. Empl. Comm., II. Rep., 1864,&quot; p. ix., n. 60. 

s&quot;Rep. of Insp. of Fact, Slst Oct. 1806,&quot; p. 29. 

&apos; &quot;But it must be borne in mind that those improTementt, though carried oat folly 
id aome establishments, are by no means general, and are not capable of being 
Lronght into use in many of the old manufactories without an expenditure of capital 
beyond the means of many of the present occupiers.&quot; &quot;I cannot but rejoice/&apos; writes 
Sub-Insp. May, &quot;that notwithstanding the temporary disorganization which in* 
cvitably follows the introduction of such a measure (as the Factory Act Extension 
Act), and is, indeed, directly indicative of the evils which it was intended to rem- 
edy, ftc.** (Rep. of Insp. of Fact» Slst Oct, 1866.) 



 

Machinery and Modem Industry. 523 

people themselves obstruct the regulation of the hours of 
labour. This is especially the case where piece wage pre- 
dominates, and where loss of time in one part of the day or 
week can be made good by subsequent overtime, or by night 
work, a process which brutalises the adult workman, and 
ruins his wife and children.^ Although this absence of 
regularity in the expenditure of labour-power is a natural 
and rude reaction against the tedium of monotonous drudgery, 
it originates, also, to a much greater degree from anarchy 
in production, anarchy that in its turn pre-supposes mi- 
bridled exploitation of labour-power by the capitalist Be- 
sides the general periodic changes of the indnstrial (^cle, and 
the special fluctuations in the markets to which each industry 
is subject^ we may also reckon what is called &quot;the season,&apos;* 
dependent either on the periodicity of favonrable seasons 
of the year for navigation; or on fashion, and the sudden 
placing of large orders that have to be executed in the shortest 
possible time. The habit of giving such orders becomes more 
frequent with the extension of railways and telegraphs. 
\ &quot;The extension of the railway system thronghont the coun- 
try has tended very much to encourage giving short notice. 
Purchasers now come np from Glasgow, Manchester, and Ed- 
inburgh once every fortnight or so to the wholesale city 
warehouses which we supply, and give small orders requiring 
immediate execution, instead of buying from stock as they 
used to do. Years ago we were always able to work in the 
slack times, so as to meet the demand of the next season, 
but now no one can say beforehand what will be the de- 
mand then.&quot;* 

^With blast faraaces, for instmnce, &apos;Vork towards the end of the wedc bdng 
generally much increased in duration in consequence of the habit of the men of 
idling on Monday and occasionally during a part or the whole of Tuesday also.&quot; 
(Child. Empl. Comm., III. Rep., p. vi) &quot;The little masters generally have very 
irregular hours. They lose two or three days, and then work all night to make it 
up. . • • They always employ their own children, if they have any.&quot; (1. c, p. 
vii) &quot;The want of regularity in coming to work, encouraged by the possibility and 
practice of making up for this by working longer hours.&quot; (L c, p. xviii.) &quot;In 
Birmingham .... an enormous amount of time is lost .... idling part 
of the time, slaving the rest&quot; 0. c, p. xi.) 

* &quot;Child Empl. Cbmm., IV. Rep. p. xxxiL,** &apos;&apos;The extension of the railway sys- 
tem is said to have contributed greatly to this custom of giving sudden orders, and 
the consequent hurry, neglect of meal times, and late hours of the workpeople.&quot; 
O. p..- n. xxxL) 



 

524 Capitalist Production. 

In those factoriee and manufactories that are not yet sub- 
ject to the Factory Acts, the most fearful overwork prevails 
periodically during what is called the season, in consequ^ice 
of sudden orders. In the outside department of the factory, 
of the manufactory, and of the warehouse, the so-called do- 
mestic workers, whose employment is at the best irr^ular, 
are entirely dependent for their raw material and their orders 
on the caprice of the capitalist, who, in this industry, is not 
hampered by any regard for depreciation of his buildings 
and machinery, and risks nothing by a stoppage of work, 
but the skin of the worker himself. Here then he sets him- 
self systematically to work to form an industrial reserve force 
that shall be ready at a moment&apos;s notice; during one part of 
the year he decimates this force by the most inhuman toil, 
during the other part, he lets it starve for want of work. 
&quot;The employers avail themselves of the habitual irregularity 
in the home-work, when any extra work is wanted at a push, 
so that the work goes on tiU 11, and 12 p.m. or 2 a.m., or as 
the usual phrase is, &quot;all hours,&quot; and that in localities where 
&quot;the stench is enough to knock you down, you go to the door, 
perhaps, and open it, but shudder to go further.&quot;^ &quot;They 
are curious men,&apos;&apos; said one of the witnesses, a shoemaker, 
speaking of the masters, &quot;they think it does a boy no harm to 
work too hard for half the year, if he is nearly idle for the 
other half.&quot;» 

In the same way as technical impediments, so too, those 
&quot;usages which have grown with the growth of trade&quot; were 
and still are proclaimed by interested capitalists as obstacles 
due to the nature of the work. This was a favorite cry of the 
cotton lords at the time they were first threatened with the 
Factory Acts. Although their industry more than any other 
depends on navigation, yet experience has given them the lia 
Since then, every pretended obstruction to business has been 
treated by the Factory inspectors as a mere sham.* The 

^Ch. EmpL Cbmin. IV. Rep. p. xzxr. n. 986, 887. 

*Ch. EmpL G&gt;mm. IV. Rep. p. 127, n. 66. 

* &quot;With respect to the loss of trade by non-completion of shipping orders in time, 
I remember that this was the pet argument of the factory masters in 1888 and 1888. 
Nothing that can be advanced now on this subject, could have the force that it had 



 

Machinery and Modem Industry. 525 

thoroughly conscientious investigations of the Children&apos;s Em- 
ployment Conmiission prove that the eflfect of the regulation 
of the hours of -work, in some industries, -was to spread the 
mass of labour previously employed more evenly over the 
whole year;^ that this regulation was the first rational bridle 
on the murderous, meaningless caprices of fashion,^ caprices 
that consort so badly with the system of modem industry; 
that the development of ocean navigation and of the means 
of communication generally, has swept away the technical 
basis on which season-work was really supported,* and that 
all other so-called unconquerable difficulties vanish before 
larger buildings, addition^ machinery, increase in the num- 
ber of workpeople employed,* and the alterations caused by 
all these in the mode of conducting the wholesale trade.* But 
for all that, capital never becomes reconciled to such changes 
— and this is admitted over and over again by its own repre- 
sentatives—except &quot;under the pressure of a General Act of 

then, before steam had halved all diitances and esublished new regulations for 
transit It quite failed at that time of proof when put to the test, and again it will 
certainly fail should it have to be tried.&quot; (Reports of Inip. of Fact, 81 Oct. I86t. 
pp. 64, 66. 

^Ch. Empl. Comm. IV. Rep. p. xvili n. 118. 

*John Bellers remarked as far back as 1699: *&apos;The uncertainty of fashions does 
increase necessitous poor. It has two great mischiefs in it Ist, The journeymen 
are miserable in winter for want of work, the mercers and master weavers not dar- 
ing to lay out their stocks to keep the journeymen employed before the spring 
comes, and they know what the fashion will then be: Sndly, in the spring the jour- 
neymen are not sufficient, but the master-weavers must draw in many prentices, that 
they may supply the trade of the kingdom in a quarter or half a year, which robs the 
plough of hands, drains the country of labourers, and in a great part stocks the city 
with beggars, and starves some in winter that are ashamed to htg,** (Essays about 
the Poor, Manufactures, &amp;c., p. 9.) 

*Ch. EmpL Comm. V. Rep. p. 171, n. 84. 

^The evidence of some Bradford export-houses is as follows: &quot;Under these cir- 
cumstances, it seems clear that no boys need be worked longer than from 8 a.m. to 
7 or 7.80 p.m., in making up. It is merely a question of extra hands and extra 
outlay. If some masters were not so greedy, the boys would not work late; an 
extra machine costs only £16 or £18; much of such overtime as does occur is to be 
referred to an insufficiency of appliances, and a want of space.&quot; Ch. Empl. Comm. 
V. Rep. p. 171, n. 81. 86, 88. 

&apos;1. c A London manufacturer, who in other respects looks upon the compulsory 
regulation of the hours of labour as a protection for the workpeople against the 
manufacturers, and for the manufacturers themselves against the wholesale trade, 
states: &quot;The pressure in our business is caused by the shippers, who want e.g., to 
send the goods by sailing vessel so as to reach their destination at a given season, 
and at the same time want to pocket the difference in freight between a sailing 
vessel and a steamship, or who select the earlier of two steamships in order to bo 
\d the foreign market before their competitors.&quot; 



 

526 Capitalist Production. 

Parliament&quot;^ for the oompulsoiy r^golatiQii of tht brais 
of labour. 

8SOTION 9. THB 7A0T0BT ACTS. BAinTAST AND SDUCATIOH 

CLAUSES OF THX SAMS. THSIB GSNXBAL BXTUlTSIOISr XET 
SNGLAITD. 

Factory legislation, that first conscious and methodical re- 
action of society against the spontaneously developed form of 
the process of production, is, as we have seen, just as much 
the necessary product of modem industry as cotton yam, self- 
actors, and the electric tel^raph. Before passing to the con- 
sideration of the extension of that legislation in England, we 
shall shortly notice certain clauses contained in the Factory 
Acts, and not relating to the hours of work. 

Apart from their wording, which makes it easy for the 
capitalist to evade them, the sanitary clauses are extremely 
meagre, and, in fact, limited to provisions for whitewashing 
the walls, for insuring cleanliness in some other matters, for 
ventilation, and for protection against dangerous machinery. 
In the third book we shall return again to the fanatical op- 
position of the masters to those clauses which imposed upon 
them a slight expenditure on appliances for protecting the 
limbs of their workpeople, an opposition that tiirows a fresh 
and glaring light on the free trade dogma, according to which, 
in a society with conflicting interests, each individual neces- 
sarily furthers the common weal by seeking nothing but his 
own perscmal advantage! One example is enough. The 
reader knows that during the last 20 years, the flax industry 
has very much extended, and that, with tliat extension, the 
number of scutching mills in Ireland has increased. In 
1864 there were in that country 1800 of these mills. Begn- 
larly in autumn and winter women and &apos;^oung persons,&apos;* ihe 
wives, sons, and daughters of the neighboring small farmery 
a class of people totally unaccustomed to machinery, are 
taken from field labour to feed the rollers of the scutching 

^&quot;ThU could be obviated,** says a manufacturer* &quot;at the expense of an enlarge- 
ment of the works under the preasnre •/ 4 General Act of I&apos;arliament.&quot; L e» 
^ X. n. 88. 



 

Machinery and Modem Industry. $27 

mills with flax. The accidents, both as regards niunber and 
kind, are wholly unexampled in the history of machinery. In 
one scutching mill, at &apos;Kildinan, near Cork, there occurred 
between 1852 and 1856, six fatal accidents and sixty 
mutilations; every one of which might have been prevented 
by the simplest appliances, at the cost of a few shillings. 
Dr. W. White, the certifying surgeon for factories at Down- 
patrick, states in his official report, dated the 15th December, 
1865; ^^The serious accidents at tho scutching mills are of 
the most fearful nature. In many cases a quarter of the 
body is torn from the trunk, and either involves &apos;eath, or a 
future of wretched incapacity and suffering. The increase of 
mills in the country will, of course, extend these dreadful re- 
sults, and it will be a great boon if they are brought under 
the legislature. I am convinced that by proper supervision 
of scutching mills a vast sacrifice of life and limb would be 
averted.&apos;&apos;^ 

What could possibly show better the character of the capi- 
talist mode of production, than the necessity that exists for 
forcing upon it, by Acts of Parliament, the simplest ap- 
pliances for maintaining cleanliness and health ? In the pot- 
teries the Factory Act of 1864 ^&apos;has whitewashed and cleansed 
upwards of 200 workshops, after a period of abstinence from 
any such cleaning, in many cases of 20 years, and in some, 
entirely,&quot; (this is the &quot;abstinence&quot; of the capitalist!) &quot;in 
which were employed 27,800 artisans, hitherto breathing 
throu^ protracted days and often nights of labour, a mephitic 
atmosphere, and which rendered an otherwise comparatively 
innocuous occupation, pregnant with disease and death. The 
Act has improved the ventilation very much.&quot;^ At the same 
time, this portion of the Act strikingly shows that the capi- 
talist mode of production, owing to its very nature, excludes 
all rational improvement beyond a ^*»rtain point It has 
been stated over and over again that the English doctors are 
unanimous in declaring that where the work is continuous, 
600 cubic feet is the very least space that should be allowed 



*L c. p. XT. n. 78. tqq. 

*Rep. Intp. Fact., Sltt October, 1M6, i». It7« 



 

5^8 Capitalist Production. 

for each person. Now, if the Factory Acts, owing to their 
compulsory provisions, indirectly hasten on the conversion of 
small workshops into factories, thus indirectly attacking the 
proprietary rights of the smaller capitalists, and assuring a 
monopoly to the great ODes, so, if it were made obligatory to 
provide the proper spaoe for each workman in every work- 
shop, thousands of small employers would, at one full swoop, 
be expropriated directly 1 The very root of the capitalist 
mode of production, i.e., the self-expansion of all capital, large 
or small, by means of the &quot;free&quot; purchase and consumption 
of labour-power, would be attacked. Factory legislation is 
therefore brought to a dead-lock before these 500 cubic feet 
of breathing space. The sanitary officers, the industrial in- 
quiry commissioners, the factory inspectors, all harp, over 
and over again, upon the necessity for those 500 cubic feet, 
and upon the impossibility of wringing them out of capitaL 
They thus, in fact, declare that consumption and other lung 
diseases among the workpeople are necessary conditions to 
the existence of capital.* 

Paltry as the education clauses of the Act appear on the 
whole, yet they proclaim elementary education to be an in- 
dispensable condition to the employment of children.* The 
success of those clauses proved for the first time the iK)Ssi- 
bility of combining education and gymnastics® with manual 

^It hat been found out by experiment, that with each respiration of average in* 
tensity made by a healthy average individual, about 26 cubic inches of air are con- 
turned, and that about 20 respirations are made in each minute. Hence the air 
inhaled in 24 hours by each individual is about 720,000 cubic inches, or 416 cubic 
feet It is clear, however, that air which has been once breathed, can no longer 
serve for the same process until it has been purified in the great workshop of 
Nature. According to the experiments of Valentin and Brunner, it appears that 
a healthy man gives off about 1800 cubic inches of carbonic acid per hour; this would 
give about 8 ounces of solid carbon thrown off from the lungs in 24 hours. &quot;Every 
man should have at least 800 cubic feet.&quot; (Huxley.) 

&apos;According to the English Factory Act, parents cannot send their children under 
14 years of age into Factories under the control of the Act, unless at the same 
Hme they allow them to receive elementary education. The manufacturer is re-&apos; 
sponsible for compliance with the Act. &quot;Factory education it compulsory, and it 
k a condition of labour.&quot; (Rep. Insp. Fact. 81st Oct., 1868, p. 111. 

*0*i the very advantageous results of combining gymnastics (and drilling in the 
case of boys) with compulsory education for factory children and pauper scholars^ 
tee the speech of N. W. Senior at the seventh annual congress of &quot;The National 
Association for the Promotion of Social Science,&quot; in &quot;Report of Proceedings, Ac, 
Lond. 1868,&apos;* p. 68, 64» alto the Rep. Intp. Fact, 8l8t Oct, 1866» p. 11^ U9b 180^ 
186 tqq. 



 

Machinery and Modem Industry. 529 

laboTiTy and, consequently, of combining manual labour with 
education and gynmastics. The f actoiy inspectors soon found 
out by questioning the schoolmasters, that the factory children, 
although receiving only one half the education of die regular 
day scholars, yet learnt quite as much and often mora &apos;^This 
can be accounted for by the simple fact thal^ with only being 
at school for one half of the day, they are always freeh, and 
nearly always ready and willing to receive instruction. The 
system on which th^ work, half manual labour, and half 
school, renders each employm^it a rest and a relief to the 
other; consequently, both are far more congenial to the child, 
than would be the case were he kept constantly at one. It is 
quite dear that a boy who has been at school all the morning, 
cannot (in hot weather particularly) cope with one who comes 
fresh and bright from his work.&apos;&apos;^ Purther information on 
this point will be found in Senior&apos;s speech at the Social 
Science Congress at Edinburgh in 1863. He there shows, 
amongst other things, how the monotonous and uselessly long 
school hours of the children of the upper and middle classes, 
uselessly add io the labour of the teacher, &quot;while he not only 
fruitlessly, but absolutely injuriously, wastes the time^ health, 
and energy of the children.&quot;^ Prom the Factory system 
budded, as Bobert Owen has shown us in detail, the germ of 
the education of the future, an education that will, in the 
ca^e of eveiy child over a given age, combine productive 

^Rep. Ihsp. Fact Slst Oct 1865» ]&gt;. 118. A rilk manufactiirer nairely states to 
the Children&apos;s Emplosmieiit Commissionen: **! am quite sure that the true secret 
of i&gt;rodncing e£Scient workpeople is to he found in uniting education and labour 
from a period of childhood. Of course the occupation must not be too severe, nor 
irksome, or unhealthy. But of the advantage of the union I have no doubt I wish 
my own children could have some work as weU as play to give variety to their 
schooling.&quot; (Ch. EmpL Comm. V. Rep. p. 82. n. 86.) 

&apos;Senior, 1. c p. 66. How Modem Industry, when it has attained to a certain 
pitch, is capable, by the revolution it effects in the mode of production and in the 
social conditions of production, of also revolutionizing people&apos;s minds, is strikingly 
shown by a comparison of Sailor&apos;s speech in 1868, with his phiUppic against the 
Factory Act of 1888; or by a comparison, of the views of the congress above referred 
to, with the fact that in certain country districts of England poor parents are for- 
bidden, on pain of death by starvation, to educate their children. Thus, #.g., Mr. 
Snell reports it to be a common occurrence in Somersetshire that when a poor per- 
son r^ft^w parish relief, he is compelled to take his children from schooL Mr. 
Wollarton, the clergyman at Feltham, also tells of cases where all relief was denied 
to certain families &quot;because they were sending their children to school!&quot; 

SH 



 

530 Capitalist Production. 

labour with instraction and gynlnasticsy not onty as one o9 
the methods of adding to the efficiency of production, but as 
the only method of producing fully developed human beings. 

Modem Industry^ as we have seen, sweeps away 1^ techiu- 
cal means the manufacturing divisionr of labour, under whidi 
each man is bound hand and foot for life to a single detail- 
operation. At the same time^ the capitalistic form of that in- 
dustry reproduces this same division of labour in a still more 
monstrous shape; in the factory proper, by converting the 
workman into a living appendage of the machine; and every- 
where outside the Factory, partly by the sporadic use of 
machinery and machine workers,^ partly by re-establishing 
the divisions of labour on a fresh basis by the general intro- 
duction of the labour of women and children, and of cheap 
unskilled labour. 

The antagonism between the manufacturing division of 
labour and the methods of Modem Industry makes itself 
forcibly felt It manifests itself, amongst other ways, in the 
frightful fact that a great part of the children employed in 
modem factories and manufactures, are from their earliest 
years riveted to the most simple manipulations, and exploited 
for years, without being taught a single sort of work that 
would afterwards make them of use, even in the same manufac- 
tory or factory. In the English letter press printing trade, for 
example, there existed formerly a system, corresponding to 
that in the old manufactures and handicrafts, of advancing 
the apprentices from easy to more and more difficult work. 
They went throu^ a course of teadiing till they were finished 
printers. To be able to read and write was for every one of 

^Wherever handicnft-machinet, driven by men, compete (Hrectlj or indirectly 
with mox« developed machines driven by mechanical power, a great change takca 
place with regard to the labourer who drives the machine. At first the steam-engfaio 
replaces this labourer, afterwards he must replace the steam-engnie. Consequently 
the tension and the amount of labour-power expended become monstrous, and 
especially so in the case of the children who are condemned to this torture. Thus 
Mr. Longer one of the commissioners, found in Coventry and the neighbourhood 
boys of from 10 to 16 years employed in driving the ribbon looms, not to mentioQ 
younger children who had to drive smaller machines. &quot;It is extraordinarily fatigubig 
work. The boy is a mere substitute for steam-power.&quot; (Ch. EmpL Comm. V. Rep. 
1866, p. 114, n. 6.) As to the fatal consequences of &quot;this qrstem of slavery,&quot; as 
the official report styles it, see L c. o. 114 sqq. 



 

Machinery and Modem Industry. 531 

them a requirement of their trade. All this was changed bj 
the printing machine. It employs two Bort of labourers, one 
grown up, tenters, the other, boys mostly from 11 to 17 years 
of age whose sole business is either to spread the sheets of 
paper under the machine^ or to take from it the printed sbeets. 
They perform this weary task, in London especially, for 14, IS, 
and 16 hours at a stretcii, during several days in tlie week, and 
frequently for 36 hours, with only 2 hours&apos; rest for meak and 
sleep P A great part of them cannot read^ and they are, as a 
rule^ utter savages and very extraordinary creatures. ^^ To 
qualify them for the work which they have to do, they require 
no intellectual training; there is little room in it for skill, and 
less for judgment ; their wages, though rather hi^ for boys, do 
not increase proportionately as they grow up, and the majority 
of them cannot look for advancement to the better paid and 
more responsible post of machine minder, because while each 
machine has but one minder, it has at least two, and often four 
boys attached to it&apos;&apos;^ As soon as they get too old for such 
child&apos;s work, that is about 17 at the latest, they are discharged 
from the printing establishments. They become recruits of 
crime. Several attempts to procure them employment •else- 
where^ were rendered of no avail by their ignorance and 
brutality, and by their mental and bodily degradation. 

As with the division of labour in the interior of the manu- 
facturing workshops, so it is with the division of labour in 
the interior of society. So long as handicraft and manufacture 
form the general groundwork of social production, the sub- 
jection of the producer to one branch exclusively, the breaking 
up of the multifariousness of his employment,^ is a necessary 
step in the development On that ground-work each separate 

&gt;!. c p. 8, n. $4. 

%L c !&gt;. 7, n. 60. 

* &quot;In some parti of the Highlands of Scotland, not many yean ago, ereiy peasant, 
according to the Statistical Account, made his own shoes of leather tanned by him* 
self. Many a shepherd and cottar too, with his wife and children, appeared at 
Church in clothes which had been touched by no hands but their own, since they 
were shorn from the sheep and sown in the flaxfield. In the preparation of these, 
it is added, scarcely a single srtide had been purchased, except the awl, needle, 
thimble, and a very few parts of the iron-work employed in the weaving. The dyes, 
too, were chiefly extracted by the women from trees, shrubs and herba.&quot; (Dugald 
Stewart&apos;s Works. Hamilton&apos;s Ed., Vol. yiiL, p. 887-S88.) 



 

53* Capitalist Production. 

branch of production acquires empirically the form tfiat i» 
technically suited to it, slowly perfects it, and, so soon as a 
given d^ree of maturity has been readied, rapidly ciystallizes 
that form. The only thing, that here and there causes a 
change^ besides new raw material supplied by ocmmi^roe, is the 
gradual alteration of the instruments of labour. But their 
form, too, once definitely settled by experience, petrifies, as is 
proved by their being in many cases handed down in the same 
form by one generation to another during thousands of years. 
A characteristic feature is, that, even down into the ei^teenth 
century, the diflferent trades were called &quot; mysteries ^ (mys- 
teres) ^ ; into their secrets none but those duly initiated oouM 
penetrate. Modem Industry rent the veil that concealed from 
men their own social process of piroducticm, and that turned 
the various, spontaneously divided branches of production into 
so many riddles, not only to outsiders, but even to the initiated. 
The principle which it pursued, of resolving each process into 
its constituent movements, without any r^ard to their possible 
execution by the hand of man, created the new modem scioice 
of technology. The varied, apparently unocnmected, and pet- 
rified forms of the industrial processes now resolved thaoiselves 
into so many eonscious and systematic applications of natural 
science to the attainment of given useful effects. Technology 
also discovered the few main fundamental forms of motion, 
which, despite the diversity of the instrumoits used, are neces- 
sarily taken by every productive action of the human body; 
just as the science of mechanics sees in the most complicated 
machineiy nothing but the continual rq[)etition of the simple 
mechanical powers. 

Modem Industry never looks upon and treats the ATigHng 
form of a process as finaL The technical basis of that industiy 
is therefore revolutionaiy, while all earlier modes of produc- 
tion were essentially conservative.* By means of machinery, 

* In tiie celebrate d &quot;lirre des mfHenT of Etknae Boiksa, ve find it prescribed 
€tut a j ouiB cy uu n oo being admitted among the masters had to swear *^ lore his 
brethren with brodicrly tore, to s uppoit them in their f e sp e cU re trades, not witfolly 
to betray tiie secrets of the trade* and besides, in tiie interests of all* not to recoa- 
mend his own wares by calling tiie attention of the buyer to defects in the artidei 
made by otliers.** 

Inc bourgeoisie cannof exist without continnaPy icfoliithwiiring the issirs* 



 

Machinery and Modem Industry. 533 

chemical processes and other methods, it is continually causing 
changes not only in the technical basis of production, but also 
in the functions of the labourer, and in the social combinations 
of the labour-process. At the same time, it thereby also 
revolutionizes the division of labour within the society, and 
incessantly launches masses of capital and of workpeople from 
one branch of production to another. But if Modem Industry, 
by its very nature, therefore necessitates variation of labour, 
fluency of function, imiversal mobility of the labourer, on the 
other hand, in its capitalistic form, it reproduces the old 
division of labour with its ossified particularisations* We 
have seen how this absolute contradiction between the techni- 
cal necessities of Modem Industry, and the social character 
inherent in its capitalistic form, dispels all fixity and security 
in the situation of the labourer; how it constantly threatens, 
by taking away the instruments of labour, to snatch from his 
hands his means of subsistence,^ and, by suppressing his detail- 
function, to make him superfluous. We have seen, too, how 
this antagonism vents its rage in the creation of that monstros- 
ity, an industrial reserve army, kept in miseiy in order to be 
always at the disposal of capital; in the incessant human 
sacrifices from among the working class, in the most reckless 
squandering of labour-power, and in the devastation caused by 
a social anarchy which turns every economical progress into a 
social calamity. This is the negative side. But if, on the one 
hand, variation of work at present imposes itself after the 
manner of an overpowering natural law, and with the blindly 
destructive action of a natural law that meets with resist- 

meatf of prodttctioii, and thereby the relatioiis of production and all the social 
relations. Conservation, in an unaltered form, of the old modes of production was 
on the contrary the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. 
Constant revolution in production, imintemipted disturbance of all social conditions, 
everlasting uncertainty and agitation, distinguish the bouijieois epoch from all earlier 
ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable 
prejudices and opinion^ are swept away, all new formed ones become antiquated 
before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is pro- 
faned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions 
of life, and his relations with his kind. (F. Engels and Karl Marx: Manifest der 
Kommunistischen Partei. Lond, 1848, p. 6.) 

*&quot;You take my life 
When you do take the means whereby I live.** Sbakispiaii. 



 

534 Capitalist Production. 

anoe/ at all points^ Modem Industry, on tho^ other hand, 
through its catastrophes imposes the necessity of recognising, 
as a fundamental law of production, variation of work, oonse- 
quently fitness of the labourer for varied work, consequently 
tiie greatest possible development of his varied aptitudes. It 
becomes a question of life and death for society to adapt the 
mode of production to the normal functioning of tliis law, 
Modem Industry, indeed, compels society, under penalty of 
death, to replace the detail-worker of to-day, crippled by life- 
long repetition of one and the same trivial operation, and thu9 
reduced to the mere fragment of a man, by the fully developed 
individual, fit for a variety of labours, ready to face any 
change of production, and to whom the different social func- 
tions he performs, are but so many modes of giving free scope 
to his own natural and acquired powers. 

One step already spontaneously taken towards effecting tliis 
revolution is the establishment of technical and agricultural 
schools, and of ^^Scoles d&apos;enseignement professionnel,&quot; in which 
the children of the working-men receive some little instruction 
in technology and in the practical handling of the various 
implements of labour. Though the Factory Act, that first and 
meagre concession wrung from capital, is limited to combining 
elementary education with work in the factory, there can be 
no doubt that when the working class comes into power, as 
inevitably it must, technical instracticm, both theoretical and 
practical, will take its proper place in the working-class 
schools. There is also no doubt that such revolutionary fer- 
ments, the final result of which is the abolition of the old divi- 
sion of labour, are diametrically opposed to the capitalisti form 
of production, and to the economic status of the labourer cor- 
responding to that form. But the historical develoimient of 

^A Flraoch worluutHf oo his icUuii irooi Sm-Ff mftiic iOi» writes S8 fbOowss ^ 
never could lunre beHered, thst I was ospsUe of worldng at the Tarioos oocnpatkMis I 
was employed on in California. I was firmly convinoed that I was fit for nothing 
but letter-press printing. . . . Once in the midst of this world of adTcnturert, 
who change their occupation as often as they do their shirt, egad, I did as the 
others. As mining did not turn out remuneiative enough, I left it for the town, 
where in succession I became typographer, slater, plumber, ftc. In consequence of 
thus finding out that I am fit for any sort of work; I fed less of a mollusk and 
more of a man.&quot; (A. Courboo. De Tenseignement professionnd, Hat ed. p. 60.&gt; 



 

Machinery and Modem Industry. 535 

the antagonismSy immanent in a given form of production, is 
the only way in which that form of production can be dissolved 
and a new form established. &quot;Ne sutor ultra crepidam&quot; — 
this nee plus ultra of handicraft wisdom became sheer non- 
sense, from the moment the watchmaker Watt invented the 
steam-engine, the barber Arkwright, the throstle, and the work- 
ing-jeweller, Fulton, the steamship.^ 

So long as Factory legislation is confined to regulating the 
labour in factories, manufactories, &amp;a, it is regarded as a 
mere interference with the exploiting rights of capital But 
when it comes to regulating the so-called *Tiome-labour,&quot;^ it is 
immediately viewed as a direct attack on the patria potestas, 
on parental authority. The tender-hearted English Parlia- 
ment long a£Eected to shrink from taking this step. The force 
of facts, however compelled it at last to acknowledge that 
modem industry, in overturning the economical foundation on 
which was based the traditional family, and the family labour 
corresponding to it^ had also unloosened all traditional family 
ties. The rights of the children had to be proclaimed. The 
final report of the Ch. EmpL Comm. of 1866, states: &apos;&apos;It is 
unhappily, to a painful degree, apparent throughout the whole 
of the evidence, that against no persons do the children of both 
sexes so much require protection as against their parents.&apos;&apos; 
The system of unlimited exploitation of children&apos;s labour in 
general and the so-called home-labour in particular is &apos;&apos;main- 
tained only because the parents are able, without check or con- 
trol, to exercise this arbitrary and mischievous power over their 
young and tender offspring. .... Parents must not 
possess the absolute power of making their children mere &apos;ma- 

^John Belkn* a very phenomenon in tke history of political economy, taw moft 
clearly at the end of the 17th century, the necessity for abolishing the present system 
of education and division of labour, which beget hypertrophy and atrophy at the 
two opposite extremities of society. Amongst other things he says this: &apos;&apos;An idle 
learning being little better than the learning of idleness . . . Bodily labour, 
it&apos;s a primitiTe institution of God . . . Labour being as proper for the bodies&apos; 
health as eating is for its living; for what pains a man saves by ease, he will find 
in disessf. .... Labour adds oyl to the lamp of life, when thinking inflames 
it .... A childish silly employ*&apos; (a warning this, by presentiment, against the 
Basedows and their modern imiutors) &quot;leaves the children&apos;s minds silly.&quot; (Pro- 
posals for raising a college of industry of all useful trades and husbandry. Lond., 
1696, p. 18, 14, 18.) 

&apos;lliis tort of labour goes on mostly in imall worMiopi, as we have seen in the 



 

536 Capitalist Production. 

chines to earn so much weekly wage/ .... The chil- 
dren and young persons, therefore, in all such cases may justi* 
fiably claim from the legislature, as a natural rights that an 
exemption should be secured to them, from what destroys pre* 
maturely their physical strength, and lowers them in the scale 
of intellectual and moral beings.&quot;^ It was not, however, Ae 
misuse of parental authority that created the capitalistic ex- 
ploitation, whether direct or indirect, of children&apos;s labour; but, 
on the contrary, it was the capitalistic mode of expioitaticm 
which, by sweeping away the economical basis of parental au- 
thority, made its exercise degenerate into a mischievous misuse 
of power. However terrible and disgusting the dissolution, 
under the capitalist system, of the old family ties may appear, 
nevertheless, modem industry, by assigning as it does an im- 
portant part in the process of production, outside the domestic 
sphere, to women, to young persons, and to children of both 
sexes, creates a new economical foundation for a higher form 
of the family and of the relations between the sexes. It is, of 
course, just as absurd td hold the Teutonic-christian form of 
the family to be absolute and final as it would be to apply that 
character to the ancient Roman, the ancient Greek, or the East^ 
em forms which, moreover, taken together form i series in his- 
toric development. Moreover, it is obvious that the fact of the 
collective working group being composed of individuals of both 
sexes and all ages, must necessarily, under suitable conditions, 
become a source of humane development; although in its spon- 
taneously developed, brutal, capitalistic form, where the 
labourer exists for the process of production, and not the proc- 
ess of production for the labourer, that fact is a pestiferous 
source of conniption and slavery.^ 

Thp necessity for a generalization of the Factory Acts, for 
transforming them from an exceptional law relating to me- 
chanical spinning and weaving — ^those first creations of ma- 

lace-maldng and ttraw-plaiting trades* and as could be shown more in detail Iron 
the metal trades of Sheffield, Birmingham, &amp;c. 

&gt;Ch. Empl. Comm., V. Rep., p. xxv., n. 163, and II. Rep., p. xxxriil, n. 
186, 289, p. XXV., xxyi., n. 101. 

&apos; &apos;&apos;Factory labour may be as pure and as excellent as domestic labour, and perhaps 
more so.&quot; (Rep. Insp. Fact., 81st October, 1866, p. 127.) 



 

Machinery and Modem Industry. 537 

ohineiy— into a law affecting social production as a whole, 
arose^ as we have seen^ from the mode in which Modem Indus- 
try was historically developed. In the rear of that industry, 
the traditional form of- manufacture, of handicraft, and of 
domestic industry, is entirely revolutionised ; manufactures are 
constantly passing into the factory system, and handicrafts 
into manuf ajctures ; and lastly, the spheres of handicraft and 
of the domestic industries become, in a, comparatively speak- 
ing, wonderfully short time, dens of misery in which capitalis- 
tic exploitation obtains free play for the wildest excesses. 
There are two circumstances that finally turn the scale : first, 
the constantly recurring experience that capital, so soon as it 
finds itself subject to legal control at one point, compensates it- 
self all the more recklessly at other points ;^ secondly, the cry 
of the capitalists for equalily in the conditions of competition, 
i.e., for equal restraint on. all exploitation of labour.^ On 
this point let us listen tcr two hetertrbroken cries. Messrs. 
Cooksley of Bristol, nail and chain, &amp;c., manufacturers, spon- 
taneously introduced the regulations of the Factory Act into 
their business. &quot;As the old irregular system prevails in neigh- 
bouring works, the Messrs. Cooksley are subject to the disad- 
vantage of having their boys enticed to continue their labour 
elsewhere after 6 p.m. /This,* they naturally say, *is an unjus- 
tice and loss to us, as it exhausts a portion of the boy&apos;s strength, 
of which we ought to have the full benefit&apos; &quot;^ Mr. J. Simp- 
son (paper box and bagmaker, London) states before the com- 
missioners of the Ch. Empl. Comm. : &quot;He would sign any 
petition for it&quot; (legislative interference) .... &quot;As it 
was, he always felt restless at night, when he had closed his 
place, lest others should be working later than him and getting 
away his orders.&apos;&apos;* Summarising, the Ch. Empl. Comm. says : 
&quot;It would be unjust to the larger employers that their factories 
should be placed under regulation, while the hours of labour 
in the smaller places in their own branch of business were 
tmder no legislative restriction. And to the injustice arising 

s Rep. Insp. of Fact, Sltt October, 1866, p. 87-88. 
&apos;Numerous instances will be found in Rep. of Insp. of Fact. 
*Ch. EmpL Comm., V. Rep., p. x., n. 86. 
*Cb. Rmpl. Comm., V. Rep., p. ix., n. 88. 



 

538 Capitalist Production. 

from the ttnf air conditions of competition^ in regard to hottrs, 
that would be created if the smaller places of work were ex- 
empt, would be added the disadvantage to the larger manufac- 
turers, of finding their supply of juvenile and female labour 
drawn off to the places of work exempt from l^slation. 
Further, a stimulus would be given to the multiplication of the 
smaller places of work, which are almost invariably the least 
favourable to the health, comfort, education, and general im- 
provement of the people.&quot;^ 

In its final report the Commission proposes to subject to the 
Factory Act more than 1,400,(K)0 children, young persons, and 
women, of which number about one half are exploited in small 
industries and by the so-called home-work.* It says, &quot;But if 
it should seem fit to Parliament to place the whole of that 
large number of ohildren, young persons and females under the 
protective legislation above adverted ta ... it cannot be 
doubted that such legislation would have a most beneficent 
effect, not only upon the young and the feeble, who are its 
more immediate objects, but upon the still larger body of adult 
workers, who would in all these employments, both directly 
and indirectly, come immediately under its influence. It 
would enforce upon them regular and moderate hours; it 
would lead to their places of work being kept in a healthy and 
cleanly state; it would therefore husband and improve that 
store of physical strength on which their own well-being and 
that of the country so much depends ; it would save the rising 
generation from that overexertion at an early age which 
undermines their constitutions and leads to premature decay; 

^1. c, p. XXV., n. 166-167. As to the advantages of large scale, compared with 
small scale, industries, see Ch. Empl. Comm., III. Rep., p. 18, n. lU, p. 25, n. 
121, p. 26, n. 125, p. 27, n. 140, ftc 

*The trades proposed to be brought under the Act were the following: Laee- 
making, stocking-weaving, straw-plaiting, the manufacture of wearing apparel with 
its numerous subdivisions, artificial flower-making, shoemaking, hat-making, glove- 
making, tailoring, all metal works, from blast furnaces down to needleworks, ftcn 
paper-mills, glass-works, tobacco factories, india-rubber works, braid-making (for 
weaving), hand-carpet-making, umbrella and parasol making, the manufacture of 
spindles and spools, letter-press printing, book-binding, manufacture of stationery 
(including paper bags, cards, coloured paper, ftc,) rope-making, manufacture of jet 
ornaments, brick-making, silk manufacture by hand, Coventry weaving, salt works, 
tallow chandlers, cement works, sugar refineries, biscuit-making, various industries 
connected with timber, and other mixed trades. 



 

Machinery and Modem Industry. $29 

finally, it would ensure ihem— at least up to the age of 18 — 
the opportunity of receiving the elements of education, and 
would put an end to that utter ignorance . . • • so faithfully 
exhibited in the Reports of our Assistant Commissioners, and 
which cannot be regarded without the deepest pain, and a pro- 
found sense of national degradation.&quot; ^ 

The Tory Cabinet announced in the speech from the 
Throne, on February 5, 1867, that it had formulated the 
recommendations* of the Industrial Commission of Inquiry in 
^^Bills.&quot; A new experiment of 20 gears&apos; duration at the ex- 
pense of the working class had been necessary to accomplish 
so much. As early as 1840, a Commission of Parliament had 
been appointed to inquire into the conditions of child labor. 
Its report, as Senior remarks, disclosed &apos;%e most frightful 
picture of avarice, selfishness and cruelty on the part of 
masters and of parents, and of juvenile and infantile misery, 
degradation and destruction ever presented. ... It may 
be supposed that it describes the horrors of a past age. But 
there is unhappily evidence that those horrors continue as in- 
tense as they were. A pamphlet published by Hardwicke 
about 2 years ago states that the abuses complained of in 
1842, are in full bloom at the present day. It is a strange 
proof of the general neglect of the morals and health of the 
children of the working class, that this report lay unnoticed 
for 20 years, during which the children, *bred up without the 
remotest sign of comprehension as to what is meant by the 
term morals, who had neither knowledge, nor religion, nor 
natural affection,&apos; were allowed to become the parents of the 
present generation.&quot;® 

The social conditions having undergone a change. Parlia- 
ment could not venture to shelve the demands of ihe Com- 

*L c p. xzT. n. 169. 

&apos;The Factory Acts Extension Act was passed on August 12, 1867. It regulated 
aU metal foundries, forges, and manufactures, including machine shops, furthermore 
glass, paper, gutta-percha, caoutchouc, tobacco manufactures, printing shops, book 
binderies, and finally all workshops employing more than 60 persons. — The Hours ol 
Labor Regulation Act was passed on August 17, 1867, and regulates the smallet 
workshops and the so-called house work. — I revert to these laws, and to the new 
Mining Act of 1872 in volume II. 

* Senior, Social Science Congress, ppb 66-68. 



 

540 Capitalist Production. 

mission of 1862, as it had done those of the Commission of 
1840. Hence in 1864, when the CJommission had not yet 
published more than a part of its reports, the earthenware in- 
dustries (including the potteries, makers of paper-hangin g s, 
matches, cartridges, and caps, and fustian cutters were made 
subject to the Acts in force in the textile industries. In the 
speech from the Throng on 5th February, 1867, the Tory 
Cabinet of the day announced the introduction of Bills, 
founded on the final reconunendations of the Conmiission, 
which had completed its labours in 1866. 

On the 15th August, 1867, the Factory Acts Extension Act, 
and on the 21st August, the Workshops&apos; Emulation Act re- 
ceived the Eoyal Assent; the former Act having referwice to 
large industries, the latter to smalL 

The former applies to blast-furnaces, iron and copper mills, 
foundries, machine shops, metal manufactories, gutta-percha 
works, paper mills, glass works, tobacco manufactories, letter- 
press printing (including newspapers) book-binding, in short 
to all industrial establishments of the above kind, in which 50 
individuals or more are occupied simultaneously, and for not 
less than 100 days during the year. 

To give an idea of the extent of the sphere embraced by the 
Workshops&apos; Begulation Act in its application, we cite from its 
interpretation clause, the following passages : 

&apos;&apos;Handicraft shall mean any manual labour exercised by 
way of trade, or for purposes of gain, or incidental to, the 
making any article or part of an article, or ill, or incidental to, 
the altering, repairing, ornamenting, finishing, or otherwise 
adapting for sale any article.&quot; 

&apos;&apos;&apos;Workshop shall mean any room or place whatever in the 
open air or under cover, in which any handicraft is carried on 
by any child, young person, or woman, and to which and over 
which the person by whom such child, young person, or woman 
is employed, has the right of access and control.&quot; 

&quot;Employed shall mean occupied in any handicraft, whether 
for wages or not, under a master or under a parent as herein 
defined.&quot; 

&quot;Parent shall mean parent, guardian, or person, having 



 

Machinery and Modem Industry. 541 

the custody of, or control over, any . . • child or young 
person.&quot; 

Clause 7, whidi imposes a penalty for employment of 
children, young persons, and women, contrary to the provisions 
of the Act, subjects to fines, not only the occupier of the work- 
shops, whether parent or not, but even &quot;the parent of, or the 
person deriving any direct benefit from the labour of, or hav- 
ing the control over, the child, young person or woman.&quot; 

The Factory Acts Extension Act, which affects the large 
establishments, derogates from the Factory Act by a crowd of 
vicious exceptions and cowardly compromises with the masters. 

The Workshops* Emulation Act, wretched in all its de- 
tails, remained a dead letter in the hands of the municipal 
and local authorities who v^ere charged vnth its execution. 
When, in 1871, Parliament withdrew from them this power, 
in order to confer it on the Factory Inspectors, to whose 
province it thus added by a single stroke more than one hun- 
dred thousand workshops, and three hundred brickworks, care 
was taken at the same time not to add more than eight a/^ 
dfltants to their already undermanned staff.* 

What strikes us, then, in the English l^slation of 1867, is, 
on the one hand, the necessity imposed on the parliament of 
the ruling classes, of adopting in principle measures so extra- 
ordinary, and on so great a scale, against the excesses of 
capitalistic exploitation ; and on the other hand, the hesitation, 
the repugnance, and the bad faith, with which it lent itself to 
the task of carrying those measures into practice. 

The Inquiry Commission of 1862 also proposed a new regu- 
lation of the mining industry, an industry distinguished from 
others by the exceptional characteristic iheit, the interests of 
landlord and capitalist there join hands. The antagonism of 
these two interests had been favourable to Factory legislation, 
while on the other hand the absence of that antagonism is 
sufficient io explain the delays and chicanery of the legislation 
on mines. 

^The &quot;penoimel&apos;&apos; of this stefF conaisted of 2 intpectors, 8 assistant inspectors and 
41 sub-inspectors. Eight additional sub-inspectors were appointed in 1871. The 
total cost of administering the Acts in England, Scotland, and Ireland amounted 
for the year 1871-72 to no more than £25,847, inclusive of the law expenses ia- 
ctirred by prosecutions of offending masters. 



 

54^ Capitalist Production. 

The Inqniiy Commission of 1840 had made levelationB 80 
terrible^ so shocking, and creating such a scandal all oyer 
Europe, that to salve its conscience Parliament passed the 
Mining Act of 1842, in which it limited itself to forbidding 
the employment underground in mines of children under 10 
years of age and females. 

Then another Act, The Mines* Inspecting Act of 1860, pro- 
vides that mines shall be inspected by public officers nominated 
specially for that purpose, and that boys between the ages of 
10 and 12 years shall not be employed, unless they have a 
school certificate^ or go to school for a certain number of 
hours. This Act was a complete dead letter owing to the 
ridiculously small number of inspectors, the meagreness of 
their powers, and other causes that will become apparent as we 
proceed. 

One of the most recent blue books on mines is the ^^port 
from the Select Committee on Mines, together with Ac. Evi- 
dence, 23rd July, 1866.&apos;&apos; This Report is the work of a 
Parliamentary Committee selected from members of the House 
of Commons, and authorised to summon and examine wit- 
nesses. It is a thick folio volume in which the Report itself 
occupies only five lines to this effect: that the committee haa 
nothing to say, and that more witnesses must be examined ! 

The mode of examining the witnesses reminds one of the 
cross-examination of witnesses in English courts of justice, 
where the advocate tries, by means of impudent, unexpected, 
equivocal and involved questions, put without connection, to in- 
timidate, surprise, and confound the witness, and to give a 
forced meaning to the answers extorted from him. In this in- 
quiry the members of the committee themselves are the cross- 
examiners, and among them are to be foimd both mine owners 
and mine exploiters; the witnesses are mostly working coal- 
miners. The whole farce is too characteristic of the spirit of 
capital, not to call for a few extracts from this Report For 
the sake of conciseness I have classified them. I may also add 
that every question and its answer are numbered in the English 
Blue Books. 



 

Machinery and Modem Industry. 543 

L BMPLOYMENT Uf MINES OF BOYS OF 10 YEABS AEO) UF- 

WABDS. — In the mines the work^ inclusive of going and re- 
toming, usually lasts 14 or 15 hours, sometimes even from 3, 
4, and 6 o&apos;clock a.m., till 6 and 6 o&apos;clock p.m., (n. 6., 452, 83). 
The adults work in two shifts, of eight hours each ; but there 
is no alteration with the boys, on account of the expense 
(n. 80, 208, 204.) The younger boys are chiefly employed in 
opening and shutting the ventilating doors in the various parts 
of the mine ; the older ones are employed on heavier work, in 
carrying coal, &amp;c (n. 122, 739, 1747). They work these long 
hours undergrotmd until their 18th or 22nd year, when they 
«re put to miners work proper, (n. 161.) Children and 
young persons are at present worse treated, and harder worked 
than at any previous period (n. 1663 — ^1667). And now 
Hussey Vivian (himself an exploiter of mines) asks : &quot;Would 
not the opinicm of Ihe workman depend upon the poverty of 
tho workman&apos;s family?&quot; Mr. Bruce: &quot;Do you not think it 
would be a very hard case, where a parent had been injured, 
or whore he was sickly, or where a father was dead, and there 
was only a mother, to prevent a child between 12 and 14 
earning Is. 7d. a day for the good of the family? . . . 
You must lay down a general rule? . . . Are you pre- 
pared to recommend legislation which would prevent the em- 
ployment of children under 12 and 14, whatever the state of 
their parents might be?&quot; &quot;Yes.&quot; (ns. 107-110). Vivian: 
&quot;Supposing that an enactment were passed preventing the em- 
ployment of children imder the age of 14, would it not be 
probable that ... the parents of children would seek 
employment for their children in other directions, for instance, 
in manufacture!&quot; &quot;Not generally I think,&quot; (n. 174). Kin- 
naird: &quot;Some of the boys are keepers of doors T&quot; &quot;Yes.&quot; *Ta 
there not generally a very great draught every time you open 
a door or close itt&quot; ^Tes, generally there is.&quot; *T[t sounds 
a very easy thing, but it is in fact rather a painful one!&quot; 
&apos;^e is imprisoned there just the same as if he was in a cell 
of a gaol.&quot; Bourgeois Vivian : &quot;Whenever a boy is furnished 
with a lamp cannot he read!&quot; ^TTes, he can read, if he finds 
himself in candles ... I suppose he would be found 



 

544 Capitalist Productiofk 

fimlt widi if lie were diaoovered reading; lie is there to mind 
his business^ he has a duty to perform, and he has to attend 
to it in the first place^ and I do not think it would be allowed 
down the pit&apos;&apos; (ns. 139, 141, 143, 158, 160.) 

IL SDiJOATiON. — ^The working miners want a law for the 
oompulBOiy education of their children, as in factories. Thej 
declare the clauses of the Act of 1860, which require a school 
certificate to be obtained before employing boys of 10 and 12 
years of age, to be quite illusoiy. The examination of 
the witnesses on this subject is truly drolL ^^s it (the Act) 
required more against the masters or against the parents f 
&quot;It is required against both I think.&quot; &apos;TTou cannot say 
whether it is required against one more than against the 
other V^ &apos;^No ; I can hardly answer that question.&apos;&apos; (ns. 115, 
116.) ^1)oes there appear to be any desire on the part of the 
employers that the boys should have such hours as to enable 
them to go to school?&quot; &apos;^No; the hours are never shortened 
for that purpose.&quot; (n. 137.) Mr. Kinnaird: &quot;Should you say 
that the colliers generally improve their education ; have you 
any instances of men who have, since they b^an to work, 
greatly improved their education, or do they not rather go 
back, and lose any advantage that they may have gained!&quot; 
&quot;They generally become worse: they do not improve; they 
acquire bad habits ; they get on to drinking and gambling and 
such like, and they go completely to wreck,&quot; (n. 211). &quot;Do 
they make any attempt of the kind (for providing instruction) 
by having schools at night?&quot; &quot;There are few collieries where 
night schools are held, and perhaps at those collieries a few 
boys do go to those schools; but they are so physically ex- 
hausted that it is to no purpose that they go there.&quot; (n, 454.) 
&quot;You are then,&quot; conclude*^ the bourgeois, &quot;against education !&quot; 
&quot;Most certainly not; but,&quot; &amp;c (n. 443.) &quot;But are they (the 
employers) not compelled to demand them&quot; (school certifi- 
cates) ? &quot;By law they are ; bnt I am not aware that they are 
demanded by the employers.&quot; &quot;Then it is your opinion, tkU 
this provision of the Act as to requiring certificates, is not ge^v 
erally carried out in the collieries ?&quot; &quot;It is not carrifKl out.^ 
(ns. 443, 444.) &quot;Do the men take a g»&gt;at mt^v^mk in thii 



 

Machinery and Modern Indtistry. 545 

question^^ (of education) ? &quot;The majority of them do/* (n. 
717.) &quot;Are they very anxious to see the law enforced?&quot; 
&quot;The majority are.&apos;* (n. 718.) &quot;Do you think that in this 
country any law that you pass . . . can really be effectual 
unless the population themselves assist in putting it into opera- 
tion?&quot; &quot;Many a man might wish to object to employing a 
boy, but he would perhaps become marked by it.&quot; (n. 720.) 
&quot;Marked by whom ?&quot; &quot;By his employers.&quot; (n. 721.) &quot;Do 
you think that the employers would find any fault with a 
man who obeyed the law. ... ?&quot; &quot;I believe they 
would.&quot; (n. 722.) &quot;Have you ever heard of any workman 
objecting to employ a boy between 10 and 12, who could not 
write or read?&quot; &quot;It is not left to men&apos;s option.&quot; (n. 123.)&apos; 
&quot;Would you call for the interference of Parliament?&quot; &quot;I 
think that if anything effectual is to be done in the education 
of the colliers&apos; children, it will have to be made compulsory 
by Act of Parliament&quot; (n. 1634.) &quot;Would you lay that 
obligation upon the colliers only, of all the work people of 
Great Britain?&quot; &quot;I came to speak for the colliers.&quot; (n. 
1636.) &quot;Why should you distinguish them (colliery boys) 
from other boys?&quot; &quot;Because I think they are an exception 
to the rule.&quot; (n. 1638.) &quot;In what respect?&quot; &quot;In a phys- 
ical respect.&quot; (n. 1639.) ^^Why should education be more 
valuable to them than to other classes of lads?&quot; &quot;I do not 
know that it is more valuable ; but through the over-exertion 
in mines there is less chance for the boys that are employed 
there to get education, either at Sunday schools, or at day 
schools.&quot; (n. 1640.) &quot;It is impossible to look at a question 
of this sort absolutely by itself?&quot; (n. 1644.) &quot;Is there a 
sufficiency of schools ?&quot;— &quot;No.&quot; . . . (n. 1646.) &quot;If the 
state were to require that every child should be sent to school, 
would there be schools for the children to go to ?&quot; &quot;No ; but I 
think if the circumstances were to spring up, the schools would 
be forthcoming.&quot; (n. 1647.) &quot;Some of them (the boys) 
eannot read and write at all, I suppose ?&quot; &quot;The majority can- 
not . . . The majority of the men themselves cannot&quot; 
(ns. 705, 725.) 
m. BMPLOYMBNT OF WOMEN. — Siuce 1842 womeu are no 

2 I 



 

546 Capitalist Productiofk 

more employed imderground^ but are ooeapied on lb snrfaoe 
in loading llie coal, &amp;c., in drawing the tubs to the canals and 
railway waggons, in sorting, &amp;c Their numbers have con- 
siderably increased during the last three or four years, (n. 
1727.) They are mostly the wives, daughters, and widows 
of the working miners, and their ages range from 12 to 50 or 
60 years, (ns. 645, 1779.) &apos;^What is the feeling among the 
working miners as to the employment of women V^ &quot;I think 
they generally condemn it&apos;&apos; (n. 648.) **What objection 
do you see to it?&quot; ^^I think it is degrading to the 
sex.&apos;&apos; (n. 649.) &quot;There is a pecuUarity of dress?&quot; &apos;TTes 
. . • it is rather a man&apos;s dress, and I believe in some 
cases, it drowns all sense of decency.&quot; &quot;Do the women 
smoke?&quot; &quot;Some do.&quot; &quot;And I suppose it is very dirty 
work ?&quot; &quot;Very dirty.&quot; &quot;They get black and grimy ?&quot; &quot;As 
black as those who are down the mines ... I believe that 
a woman having children, (and there are plenty on the banks 
that have) cannot do her duty to her children.&quot; (ns. 650- 
654, 701.) &quot;Do you think that those widows could get em- 
ployment anywhere else, which would bring them in as much 
wages as that (from 8s. to 10s. a week) ?&quot; &quot;I cannot speak 
to that&quot; (n. 709.) &quot;You would still be prepared, would 
you,&quot; (flint-hearted felkwl) &quot;to prevent their obtaining a 
livelihood by these means ?&quot; &quot;I would.&quot; (n. 710.) &quot;What 
is the general feeling in the district ... as to the em- 
ployment of women ?&quot; &quot;The feeling is that it is degrading ; 
and we wish as miners to have more respect to the fair sex 
than to see them placed on the pit bank. . . . Some part 
of the work is very hard; some of these girls have raised 
as much as 10 tons of stuff a day.&quot; (ns. 1715, 1717.) &quot;Do 
you think that the women employed about the collieries are 
less moral than the women employed in the factories ?&quot; &quot; 
• . the percentage of bad ones may be a little more . . • 
than with the girls in the factories.&quot; (n. 1237.) &apos;T3ut you 
are not quite satisfied with the state of morality in the 
factories?&quot; &quot;No.&quot; (n. 1738.) ^ Would you prohibit the 
employment of women in factories also ?&quot; &quot;No, I would not&quot; 
(n. 1734.) &apos;&quot;Whj not ?&quot; &quot;I think it a more honourable oo- 



 

Machinery and Modern Industry. 547 

cupation for them in the mills/&apos; (n. 1785.) &quot;Still it is 
injurious to their morality, you think?&quot; &quot;Not so much as 
working on the pit bank ; but it is more on the social position 
I take it; I do not take it on its moral ground alone. The 
degradation, in its social bearing on the girls, is deplorable 
in the extreme. When these 400 or 500 girls become colliers&apos; 
wives, the men suffer greatly from this degradation, and it 
causes them to leave their homes and drink.&quot; (n. 1736.) 
&quot;You would be obliged to stop the employment of women in 
the ironworks as well, would you not, if you stopped it in the 
collieries?&quot; &quot;I cannot speak for any other trade.&quot; (n. 
1737.) &quot;Can you see any difference in the circumstances of 
women employed in iron-works, and the circumstances of 
women employed above ground in collieries?&quot; &quot;I have not 
ascertained anything as to that&quot; (n. 1740.) &quot;Can you see 
anything that makes a distinction between one class and the 
other ?&quot; &quot;I have not ascertained that, but I know from house 
to house visitation, that it is a deplorable state of things in 
our district . . .&quot; (n. 1741.) &quot;Would you interfere in 
every case with the employment of women where that em- 
ployment was degrading?&quot; &quot;It would become injurious, I 
think, in this way : the best feelings of Englishmen have been 
gained from the instruction of a mother .. . . &quot; (n. 
1750.) &quot;That equally applies to agricultural employments, 
does it not ?&quot; &quot;Yes, but that is only for two seasons, and we 
have work all the four seasons.&quot; (n. 1751.) &quot; They often 
work day and night, wet through to the skin, their constitu- 
tion undermined and their health ruined.&quot; &quot;You have not 
inquired into that subject perhaps ?&quot; &quot;I have certainly taken 
note of it as I have gone along, and certainly I have seen 
nothing parallel to the effects of the employment of women 
on the pit bank. . . . It is the work of a man ... a 
strong man.&quot; (ns. 1753, 1793, 1794.) &quot;Your feeling upon 
the whole subject is that the better class of colliers who desire 
to raise themselves and humanise themselves, instead of de- 
riving help from the women, are pulled down by them?&quot; 
&quot;Yes.&quot; (n. 1808.) After some further crooked questions 
from these bourgeois, the secret of their &quot;sympatiiy&quot; for 



 

548 Capitalist Production^ 

widows, poor families, &amp;c.y oomes out at last &apos;^The coal pro- 
prietor appoints certain gentlemen to take the oversight of 
the workings, and it is their policy, in order to receive ap- 
probation, to place things on the most economical basis they 
can, and these girls are employed at from Is. up to Is. 6d. a 
day, where a man at the rate of 2s. 6d. a day would have to be 
employed.&apos;* (n. 1816.) 

IV. coboneb&apos;s INQUB8TS. — ^&apos;&apos;With regard to coroner&apos;s in- 
quests in your district, have the workmen confidence in the pro- 
ceedings at these inquests when accidents occur T^ &quot;No; th^ 
have not&quot; (n. 360.) &quot;Why not?&quot; &quot;Chiefly because the 
men who are generally chosen, are men who know nothing 
about mines and such like.&quot; &quot;Are not workmen summoned 
at all upon the juries ?&quot; &quot;Never but as witnesses to my knowl- 
edge.&quot; ^&apos;Who are the people who are generally summoned 
upon these juries?&quot; &quot;Generally tradesmen in llie neighbor- 
hood • . . from their circumstances they are sometimes 
liable to be influenced by their employers . . . the owners 
of the works. They are generally men who have no knowl- 
edge, and can scarcely understand the witnesses who are called 
before them, and the terms which are used and such like.&quot; 
^Would you have the jury composed of persons who had been 
employed in mining?&quot; &apos;^es, partly . . . they (the 
workmen) think that the verdict is not in accordance with the 
evidence given generally, &quot;(ns. 361, 864, 366, 368, 371, 375.) 
&quot;One great object in summoning a jury is to have an impartial 
one, is it not ?&quot; &quot;Yes, I should think so.&quot; &quot;Do you think that 
the juries would be impartial if they were composed to a con- 
siderable extent of workmen?&quot; &quot;I cannot see any motive 
which the workmen would have to act partially . . • they 
necessarily have a better knowledge of the operations in con- 
nection with the mine.&quot; &quot;You do not think there would be a 
tendency on the part of the workmen to return imf airly severe 
verdicts?&quot; &quot;No, I think not&quot; (ns. 378, 379, 380.) 

V. FALSE WEIGHTS AND MBASUBBS. — ^Tho workmcu demand 
to be paid weekly instead of fortnightly, and by weigjit in- 
stead of by cubical contents of the tubs ; they also demand pro- 
tection against the use of false weights, &amp;c (n. 1071.) *Ti 



 

Machinery and Modem Industry. 549 

the tube were fraudulently increased, a man could discontinue 
working hj giving 14 days&apos; notice ?&quot; *^ut if he goes to an- 
other place, there is the same thing going on there.&quot; (n. 
1071.) &quot;But he can leave that place where the wrong has 
been committed ?&quot; &quot;It is general ; wherever he goes, he has 
to submit to it&quot; (n. 1072.) &quot;Could a man leave by giving 
14 days&apos; notice?&quot; &quot;Yes,&quot; (n. 1078.) And yet they are 
not satisfied I 

VI. iNSPBCTioN OP MINES. — Casualties from explosions are 
not the or^y things the workmen suffer from. (n. 234, sqq.) 
&apos;^Our men complained very mucb of the bad ventilation of tfie 
collieries • . • the ventilation is so bad in general that 
the men can scarcely breathe; they are quite unfit for em- 
ployment of vjij kind .ifter they have been for a length of 
time in connection with +heir work; indeed, just at the part 
of the mine where I am working, men have been obliged to 
leave their employment and come home in consequence of that 
. . . some of them bave been out of work for weeks just 
in consequence of the bad state of the ventilation where there 
is not explosive gas . . . there is plenty of air generally 
in the main courses, yet pains are not taken to get air into 
the workings where men are v^orking.&quot; *^Why do you not 
apply to the inspector?&quot; &quot;To tell the truth there are many 
men who are timid on that point; there have been cases of 
men being sacrificed and losing their employment in conse- 
quence of applying to the inspector.&quot; *^Why ; is he a marked 
man for having complained?&quot; &quot;Yes.&quot; &quot;And he finds it 
difficult to get employment in another mine ?&quot; &quot;Yes.&quot; &quot;Do 
you think the mines in your neighborhood are sufficiently in- 
spected to insure a compliance with the provisions of the 
Act ?&quot; &quot;No ; they are not inspected at all ... the in- 
spector has been down just once in the pit, and it has been 
going seven years. ... In the district to which I belong 
there are not a sufficient number of inspectors. We have one 
old man more than 70 years of age to inspect more than 130 
collieries.&quot; &quot;You wish to have a class of sub-inspectors?&quot; 
&quot;Yes.&quot; (ns. 234, 241, 251, 254, 274, 275, 554, 276, 293.) 
**Butdo you think it would be possible for government to main- 



 

550 Capitalist Productiotk 

tain such an anny of inspectors as would be necessary to do 
all that you want them to do, without information from the 
men V^ &quot;No, I should think it would be next to impossible.*&apos; 
. . • &quot;It would be desirable the inspectors should come 
oftener P&apos; &apos;Tes, and without being sent for/&apos; (n. 280, 277.) 
&quot;Do you not think that the effect of having these inspectors 
examining the collieries so frequently would be to shift the 
responsibilily (I) ^^ supplying proper ventilation from the 
owners of the collieries to the Government oflScials ?&quot; &quot;No, I 
do not think that, I think that they should make it their busi- 
ness to enforce the Acts which are already in existence.** (n. 
285.) *When you speak of sub-inspectors, do you mean men 
at a less salary, and of an inferior stamp to die present in- 
spectors?** &quot;I would not have them inferior, if you could 
get them otherwise.** (n. 294.) *T)o you merely want more 
inspectors, or do you want a lower class of men as an in- 
spector?** &quot;A man who would knock about, and see that 
things are kept right; a man who would not be afraid of him- 
self.** (n. 295.) &quot;If you obtained your wish in getting an 
inferior class of inspectors appointed, do you think there would 
be no danger from want of skill, &amp;c ?** &quot;I think not, I think 
that the Government would see after that, and have proper 
men in that position.** (n. 297.) This kind of examination 
becomes at last too much even for the chairman of the com- 
mittee, and he interrupts with the observation: &quot;You want a 
class of men who would look into all the details of the mine, 
and would go into all the holes and comers, and go into the 
real facts . . . they would report to the chief inspector, 
who would then bring his scientific knowledge to bear on the 
facts they have stated ?*&apos; (ns. 298, 299.) &quot;Would it not en- 
tail very great expense if all these old workings were kept 
ventilated ?** &quot;Yes, expense might be incurred, but life would 
be at the same time protected.** (n. 531.) A working miner 
objects to the 17th section of the Act of 1860; he says, &quot;At 
the present time, if the inspector of mines find^ a part of the 
mine unfit to work in, he has to report it to the mine owner 
and the Home Secretary. After doing that, there is given to 
the owner 20 days to look over the matter; at the end of 20 



 

Machinery and Modem Industry. 551 

days he has the power to refuse making any alteration in the 
mine; but, when he refuses, the mine owner writes to the 
Home Secretary, at the same time nominating five engineers, 
and from those five engineers named by the mine owner him- 
self, the Home Secretary appoints one, I think, as arbitrator, 
or appoints arbitrators from them ; now we think in that case 
the mine owner virtually appoints his own arbitrator/^ (n. 
581.) Bourgeois examiner, himself a mine owner: &apos;^ut 
. . • is this a merely speculative objection?&quot; (n. 586.) 
&quot;Then you have a very poor opinion of the integrity of min- 
ing engineers?&quot; &quot;It is most certainly unjust and inequi- 
table.&quot; (n. 588.) &quot;Do not mining engineers possess a sort 
of public character, and do not you think that they are above 
making such a partial decision as you apprehend?&quot; &quot;I do 
not wish to answer such a question as that with respect to the 
personal character of those men. I believe that in many cases 
•they would act yery partially indeed, and that it ought not to 
bo in their hands to do so, where men&apos;s lives are at stake.&quot; (n. 
689.) This same bourgeois is not ashamed to put this ques- 
tion: ^^o you not think that the mine owner also suffers 
loss from an explosion ?&quot; Finally, &quot;Are not you workmen in 
Lancashire able to take care of your own interests without 
calling in the Government to help you ?&quot; &quot;No.&quot; (n. 1042.) 

In the year 1865 there were 8217 coal mines in Great 
Britain, and 12 inspectors. A Yorkshire mine owner himself 
calculates (&quot;Times,&quot; 26th January, 1867), that putting on 
one side their office work, which absorbs all their time, each 
mine can be visited but once in ten years by an inspector. No 
wonder that explosions have increased progressively, both in 
number and extent (sometimes vdth a loss of 200-300 men), 
during the last ten years. 

The very defective Act, passed in 1872, is the first that 
regulates the hours of labour of the children employed in 
mines, and makes exploiters and owners, to a certain extent, 
responsible for so-called accidents. 

The Eoyal Commission appointed in 1867, to inquire intp 
the employment in agriculture of children, young persons, and 
women, has published some very important reports. Several 



 

552 Capitalist Production. 

attempts to apply the principles of the Factory Acts, bat in a 
modified form, to agrictdtare have been made, but have so far 
resulted in complete failure. All that I wish to draw atten- 
tion to here is the existence of an irresistible tendency towards 
the general application of those principles. 

If the general extension of factory legislation to all trades 
for the purpose of protecting the working class both in mind 
and body has become inevitable, on the other hand, as wa 
have already pointed out, that extension hastens on the gen- 
eral conversion of numerous isolated small industries into a 
few combined industries carried on upon a large scale; it 
therefore accelerates the concentration of capital and the ex- 
clusive predominance of the factory system. It destroys both 
the ancient and the transitional forms, behind which the do- 
minion of capital is still in part concealed, and replaces them 
by the direct and open sway of capital; but thereby it also 
generalises the direct opposition to tiiis sway. While in each 
individual workshop it enforces uniformity, regularity, order, 
and economy, it increases by the immense spur which the limi* 
tation and regulation of the working day give to technical im- 
provement, the anarchy and the catastrophes of capitalist pro- 
duction as a whole, the intensity of labour, and the compe- 
tition of machinery with the labourer. By the destruction of 
petty and domestic industries it destroys the last resort of Ae 
&quot;redundant population,^&apos; and with it the sole remaining safety- 
valve of the whole social mechanism. By maturing the ma- 
terial conditions, and the combination on a social scale of the 
processes of production, it matures the contradictions and 
antagonisms of the capitalist form of production, and thereby 
provides, along with the elements for the formation of a new 
society, the forces for exploding the old one.^ 

* Robert Owen, the father of GM&gt;peratiT« Factories and Stores, but who, as before 
remarked, in no way shared the illusion* of his followers with regard to the bear* 
ing of these isolated elements of transformation, not only practically made the fac- 
tory sjTStem the sole foundation of his experiments, but also declared that sjrstem 
to be theoretically the starting point of the social revolution. Herr Vissering, Pro- 
fessor of Political Economy in the University of Leyden, appears to have a suspicion 
of this when, in his &quot;Handboek van Praktische Staatshuishoudkunde, 180(M)8»&quot; 
which reproduces all the platitudes of vulgar economy, he strongly supports handi- 
crafts against the factory system. CNote to the 4th German edition. — ^The new juristic 
abortion created by English legislation in the mutually contradictory Factory Act% 



 

Machinery and Modem Industry. 553 



BBOnON 10. ^MODEBN INDUSTBT AISTD AGBICTTLTUKB. 

The revolution called forth by modem industry in agricul- 
ture, and in the social relations of agricultural producers, will 
be investigated later on. In this place we shall merely indi- 
cate a few results by way of anticipation. If the use of 
machinery in agriculture is for the most part free from the 
injurious physical effect it has on the factory operative,^ its 
action in superseding the labourers is more intense, and finds 
less resistance, as we shall see later in detail In the counties 
of Cambridge and Suffolk, for example, the area of cultivated 
land has extended very much within the last 20 years (up to 
1868),. while in the same period the rural population has 
diminished, not only relatively, but absolutely. In the United 
States it is as yet only virtually that agricultural machines 

Fatcoiy Extension Att, and Workshop Act, became finally unbearable, and in conse- 
qtience, the Factory and Workshops Act of 1878 made this entire legislation into- 
a new code. Of course, we cannot give an exhaustive critique of the present indtis- 
trial code of England in this place. The following notes may suffice; The Act com- 
prizes (1) Textile mills. Here everything remains about as it was. Working time 
allowed for children over 10 years, 5^ hours per day, or 6 hours per day and Sat- 
urday off. For young persons and women, 10 hours on 5 days, and no more than 
6H hours on Saturday. (2) Other than textile mills. Here the rules are more 
nearly approximated to those of class (1), but still many of them permit excep- 
tions favoring the capitalist, which may even be extended in special cases by the 
permission of the Minister of the Interior. (8) Workshops, defined about the same 
as in the former act. So far as children, yotmg persons, or women are employed 
in them, workshops are placed in about the same class with other than textile mills, 
but again with special favors. (4) Workshops, in which no children or yotmg per- 
sons, but only persons of both sexes over 18 years are employed. This class enjoys 
still other favors. (6) Domestic Workshops, in which only members of the family 
are employed in the home of the family. Here the rules are still more elastic, with 
the additional restriction that the inspector must not enter rooms serving at the 
same time as homes without the permission of the Minister or the Judge. Finally, 
the unconditional surrender of straw plating, lace making, glove making to the 
family circle. Yet, with all its shortcomings, this law, and the factory laws of the 
Swiss Confederation passed March 28, 1877, are by far the best on this subject 
A comparison of these two codes is particularly interesting, because it reveals the 
advantages and disadvantages of the two different methods of legislation, the English, 
&apos;&apos;historical&quot; method interfering from case to case, and the continental, more gen- 
eralising method built upon the traditions of the French revolution. Unfortunately, 
the English code is still largely a dead letter on account of the lack of in- 
spectors.— F. E.1 

^A detailed description of the machinery employed in English agriculture is 
found in &apos;*The Agricultural Implements and Machines of England,&quot; by Dr. W. 
Hamm. Second edition, 1866. In a sketch of the evolution of English agriculture 
Mr. Hamm follows too narrowly the ideas of Mr. Leonce de Lavergne. — (Note to 
the 4th German edition. —This is now obsolete, of course.— F* £J 



 

554 Capitalist Productiofk 

leplaoe labourers; in other words^ they allow of llie eidti- 
vation by the farmer of a larger surface, but do not aotoally 
expel the labourers employed. In 1861 the number of per- 
sons occupied in England and Wales in the manufacture of 
agricultural machines was 1034, whilst the number of agri- 
cultural labourers employed in the use of agricultural mar 
chines and steam engines did not exceed 1205. 

In the sphere of agriculture, modem industry has a more 
revolutionary eflFect ^an elsewhere, for this reason, that it 
annihilates the peasant, that bulwark of the old society, and 
replaces him by the wage labourer. Thus the desire for social 
changes, and the class antagonisms are brought to the same 
level in the country as in the towns. The iyrational, old fash- 
ioned methods of agriculture are replaced by scientific ones. 
Capitalist production completely tears asander the old bond 
of union which held together agriculture and manufacture in 
their infancy. But at the same time it creates the material 
oonditions for a higher synthesis in the future, viz., the union 
of agriculture and industry on the basis of the more perfected 
forms ihey have each acquired during their temporary separa- 
tion. Capitalist production, by collecting the population in 
great centres, and causing an ever increasing preponderance 
of town population, on the one hand concentrates the historical 
motive-power of society ; on the other hand, it disturbs the cir- 
culation of matter between man and the soil, i.e., prevents the 
return to the soil of its elements consumed by man in the form 
of food and clothing ; it therefore violates the conditions neces- 
saiy to lasting fertility of the soiL By this action it destroys 
at the same time the health of the town labourer and the intel- 
lectual life of the rural labourer.^ But while upsetting the 
naturally grown conditions for the maintenance of that circu- 
lation of matter, it imperiously calls for its restoration as a 



&apos;&apos;&apos;Yon divide tlie people into two hostile camps of clownish boors and 
lated dwarfs. Good heavens I a nation divided into agrtcultnral and commercial 
interests, calling itself sane; nay. styling itself enlightened and civilized, not only 
in spite of, bnt in consequence of this monstrous and unnatural division.&quot; (David 
Urquhart, L c, p. 119.) This passage shows, at one and the aame time, the 
strength and the weakness of that kind of criticism which knows how to jodfe and 
condemn the present, but not how to comprehend it. 



 

Machinery and Modem Industry. 555 

ffTSfem, as a r^alating law of social production, and under a 
form appropriate to the full development of the human race. 
In agriculture ae in manufacture, the transformation of pro- 
duction under the sway of capital, means, at the same time, 
the martyrdom of the producer; the instrument of labour be^ 
comes the means of enslaving^ exploiting, and impoverishing 
the labourer; the social combination and organization of la- 
bour-processes is turned into an organised mode of crushing 
out the workman&apos;s individual vitality, freedom, and inde- 
pendence. The dispersion of the rural labourers over larger 
areas breaks their power of resistance while concentration 
increases that of the town operatives. In modem agriculture, 
as in the urban industries, the increased productiveness and 
quantity of the labour set in motion are bought at the cost of 
laying waste and consuming by disease labour-power itsel£ 
Moreover, all progress in capitalistic agriculture is a progress 
in the art, not only of robbing the labourer, but of robbing the 
soil; all progress in increasing the fertility of the soil for a 
given time^ is a progress towards ruining the lasting sources of 
that fertility. The more a country starts its development on 
the foundation of modem industry, like the United States, 
for example, the more rapid is this process of destruction.^ 

^ See lieUg: &apos;^e Chemie in ibrer Anwendimg auf Agriculttir tmd Physiologie, 7. 
Attflage, 1862,&quot; and etpedallx the &quot;Einleitung in die Natorgetetze des Feldbaui,&apos;* 
in tlie l8t Volume. To have developed from the point of view of natural science^ 
the negative, i,e., destructive side of modem agriculture, is one of Liebig&apos;s immortal 
merits. His summary, too, of the history of agriculture, although not free from 
gross errors, contains flashes of light It is, however, to be regretted that he ven- 
tures on such hap-hazard assertions as the following: &quot;By greater pulverising and 
more frequent ploughing, the circulation of air in the interior of porous soil is aided, 
snd the surface exposed to the action of the atmosphere is increased and renewed; 
but it is easily seen that the increased jrield of the land cannot be proportional to 
the labour spent on that land, but increases in a much smaller proportion. This 
bw,&quot; adds Liebig, &quot;was first enunciated by John Stuart MO! in his &apos;Principles of 
Pol. Econ.&apos;, Vol I., p. 17, as follows: *That the produce of land increases, cctterit 
paribus, in a diminishing ratio to the increase of the labourers employed&quot; (Mill 
here introduces in an erroneous form the law enunciated by Ricardo&apos;s school, for 
since the &apos;decrease of the labourers employed,&apos; kept even pace in England with the 
advance of agriculture, the law discovered in, and applied to, England, could have no 
application to that country, at all events), &quot;is the universal law of agricultural in- 
dustry.&apos; This is very remarkable, sinfce Mill was ignorant of the reason for this law.** 
(liebig, L c Bd. I., p. 148 and Note.) Apart from Liebig&apos;s wrong interpreution of 
the word &quot;labour,&quot; by which word he undersUnds something quite different from 
what political economy does, it is, in any case, &quot;very remarkable&quot; that he should 



 

556 Capitalist Production. 

Capitalist production, therefore, developes technology, and the 
combining together of various processes into a social whole, 
only by sapping the original sources of all wealth — iha sofl 
and the labourer. 

make Mr. John Stturt Mill the fint propotmder of m tiieofy wliicli w« first published 
by James Anderson in A. Smith&apos;s days, and was repeated in Tarious works down to 
the beginning of the 19th century; a theory which Malthas, that master in plagiarism 
(the whole of his population theory is a shsmflrss plagiarism), appropriated to him- 
self in 1815; which West developed at the same time as, and independently of, 
Anderson; which in the year 1817 was connected by Rkardo with the general theory 
of ▼alue, then made the round of the world as Ricardo&apos;s theory, and in 18S0 was 
▼nlgarised by James Mill, the father of John Stuart Mill; and which, finally, was 
reproduced by John Stuart Mill and others, as a dogma already quite common-place, 
and known to every school-boy. It cannot be denied that Jchn Stuart Mill owes his, 
at all events^ &quot;remarkable&quot; authority almost entirely to guch qmd-pro&apos;qmas. 



 

PAET V. 

THE PEODUCTION OP ABSOLUTE AND OP 
RELATIVE SURPLUS-VALUE. 



CHAPTER XVI. 

lABSOIiUTE AND EBLATIVB SURPLUS- VAI.TJB, 

In considering the labour-process, we began (see Chapter 
VII.) by treating it in the abstract, apart from its historical 
forms, as a process between man and nature. We there stated, 
p. 201: &quot;If we examine the whole labour-process, from the 
point of view of its result, it is plain that both the instruments 
and the subject of labour are means of production, and that 
the labour itself is productive labour.^&apos; And in Note 2, same 
page, we further added : &quot;This method of determining, from 
the standpoint of the labour-process alone, what is productive 
labour, is by no means directly applicable to the case of the 
capitalist process of production.&quot; We now proceed to the 
further development of this subject. 

So far as the labour-process is purely individual, one and the 
same labourer unites in himself all the functions, that later on 
become separated. When an individual appropriates natural 
objects for his livelihood, no one controls him but himself. 
Afterwards he is controlled by others. A single man cannot 
operate upon nature without calling his own muscles into play 
under the control of his own brain. As in the natural body 
head and hand wait upon each other, so the labour-process 
unites the labour of the hand with that of the head. Later on 
they part company and even become deadly foes. The product 

557 



 

558 Capitalist Production. 

ceases to be the direct product of the indiyidnal, and becomes 
a social product, produced in common by a coUectiye labourer, 
ue., by a combination of workmen^ each of whom takes only a 
part, greater or less, in the manipulation of the subject of their 
labour. As the co-operative character of the labour-process 
becomes more and more marked, so, as a necessary consequence^ 
does our notion of productive labour, and of its agent the pro- 
ductive labourer, become extended. In order to labour pro- 
ductively, it is no longer necessary for you to do manual work 
yourself; enough, if you are an organ of the collective labourer, 
and perform one of its subordinate functions. The first defini- 
tion given above of productive labour, a definition deduced 
from the very nature of the production of material objects, 
still remains correct for the collective labourer, considered as 
a whole. But it no longer holds good for each member taken 
individually. 

On the other hand, however, our notion of productive labour 
becomes narrowed. Capitalist production is not merely the 
production of commodities, it is essentially the production of 
surplus-value. The labourer produces, not for himself, but for 
capitaL It no longer suffices, therefore, that he should simply 
produce. He must produce surplus-value. That labourer 
alone is productive, who produces surplus-value for the capi- 
talist, and thus works for the self-expansion of capitaL If we 
may take an example from outside the sphere of production of 
material objects, a schoolmaster is a productive labourer, when, 
in addition to belabouring the heads of his scholars, he works 
like a horse to enrich the school proprietor. That the latter 
has laid out his capital in a teaching factory, instead of in a 
sausage factory, does not alter the relation. Hence the notion 
of a productive labourer implies not merely a relation between 
work and useful effect, between labourer and product of labour, 
but also a specific, social relation of production, a relation that 
has sprung up historically and stamps the labourer as the 
direct means of creating surplus-value. To be a productive 
labourer is, therefore, not a piece of luck, but a misfortune. 
In Book IV. which treats of the history of the theory, it will 
be more clearly seen, that the production of surplus-value hag 



 

Absolute and Relative Surplus-Value. 559 

at all times been made, by classical political economists, the 
distinguishing characteristic of the productive labourer. Hence 
their definition of a productive labourer changes with their 
comprehension of the nature of surplus-value. Thus the 
Physiocrats insist that only agricultural labour is productive, 
since that alone, they say, yields a surplus-value. And they 
say so because, with them, surplus-value has no existence ex- 
cept in the form of rent. 

The prolongation of the working day beyond the point at 
which the labourer would have produced just an equivalent 
for the value of his labour-power, and the appropriation of 
that surplus-labour by capital, this is production of absolute 
surplus-value. It forms the general groundwork of the capi- 
talist pystem, and the starting point for the production of rela- 
tive surplus-value. The latter presupposes that the working 
day is already divided into two parts, necisssary labour, and 
surplus-labour. In order to prolong the surplus-labour, the 
necessary labour is shortened by methods whereby the equiva- 
lent for the wages is produced in less time. The production 
of absolute surplus-value turns exclusively upon the length of 
the working day; the production of relative surplus-value, 
revolutionises out cmd out the technical processes of labour, 
and the composition of society. It therefore presupposes a 
specific mode, the capitalist mode of production, a mode which, 
along with its methods, means, and conditions, arises and de- 
velopes itself spontaneously on the foundation afforded by the 
formal subjection of labour to capital In the course of this 
development, the formal subjection is replaced by the real sub- 
jection of labour to capital. 

It will suffice merely to refer to certain intermediate forms, 
in which surplus-labour is not extorted by direct compulsion 
from the producer, nor the producer himself yet formally sub- 
jected to capital In such forms capital has not yet acquired 
the direct control of the labour-process. By the side of inde- 
pendent producers who carry on their handicrafts and agricul- 
ture in the traditional old-fashioned way, there stands the 
usurer or the merchant, with his usurer&apos;s capital or merchant&apos;s 
capital, feeding on them like a parasite. The predominance, in 



 

560 Capitalist Production. 

a society, of this form of exploitation excludes the capitalist 
mode of production ; to which mode, however, this form may 
serve as a transition, as it did towards the close of the Middle 
Ages. Finally, as is shown by modem &quot;domestic industry,&quot; 
some intermediate forms are here and there reproduced in the 
background of Modem Industry, though their physiognomy is 
totally changed. 

If, on the one hand, the mere formal subjection of labour to 
capital suffices for the production of absolute surplus-value, if, 
e.g., it is sufficient that handicraftsmen who previously worked 
on their own account, or as apprentices of a master, should 
become wage labourers imder the direct control of a capitalist ; 
so, on the other hand, we have seen, how the methods of pro- 
ducing relative surplus-value, are, at the same time, methods 
of producing absolute surplus-value. Nay, more, the excessive 
prolongation of the working day tumed out to be the peculiar 
product of Modem Industry. Generally speaking, the specifi- 
cally capitalist mode of production ceases to be a mere means 
of producing relative surplus-value, so soon as that mode has 
conquered an entire branch of production; and still more so, 
so soon as it has conquered all the important branches. It 
then becomes the general, socially predominant form of pro- 
duction. As a special method of producing relative surplus- 
value, it remains effective only, first, in so far as it seizes upon 
industries that previously were only formally subject to capital, 
that is, so far as it is propagandist; secondly, in so far as the 
industries that have been taken over by it, continue to be 
revolutionized by changes in the methods of production. 

From one standpoint, any distinction between absolute and 
relative surplus-value appears illusory. Eelative surplus- 
value is absolute, since it compels the absolute prolongation of 
the working day beyond the labour-time necessary to the exist- 
ence of the labourer himself Absolute surplus-value is rela- 
tive, since it makes necessary such a development of the pro- 
ductiveness of labour, as will allow of the necessary labour- 
time being confined to a portion of the working day. But if 
we keep in mind the behaviour of surplus-value, this appear- 
ance of identity vanishes. Once the capitalist mode of produo- 



 

Absolute and Relative Surplus-Value. 561 

tion established and become general, the difference between 
absolute and relative surplus-value makes itself felt, whenever 
there is a question of raising the rate of surplus-value. As- 
simiing that labour-power is paid for at its value, we are con- &apos; 
fronted by this alternative : given the productiveness of labour 
and its normal intensity, the rate of surplus-value can be raised 
only by the actual prolongation of the working day; on the 
other hand, given the length of the working day, that rise can 
be effected only by a change in the relative magnitudes of the 
components of the working day, viz., necessary labour and sur- 
plus-labour; a change, which, if the wages are not to fall be- 
low the value of labour-power, presupposes a change either in 
the productiveness or in the intensity of the labour. 

If the labourer wants all his time to produce the necessary 
means of subsistence for himself and his race, he has no time 
left in which to work gratis for others. Without a certain de- 
gree of productiveness in his labour, he has no such super- 
fluous time at his disposal ; without such superfluous time, no 
surplus-labour, and therefore no capitalists, no slave-owners, 
no feudal lords, in one word, no class of large proprietors.^ 

Thus we may say that surplus-value rests on a natural 
basis; but this is permissible only in the very general sense, 
that there is no natural obstacle absolutely preventing one man 
from disburdening himself of the labour requisite for his own 
existence, and burdening another with it, any more, for in- 
stance, than unconquerable natural obstacles prevent one man 
from eating the flesh of another.^ No mystical ideas must in 
any way be connected, as sometimes happens, with this his- 
torically developed productiveness of labour. It is only after 
men have raised themselves above the rank of animals, when 
therefore their labour has been to some extent socialised, that 
a state of things arises in which the surplus-labour of the 
one becomes a condition of existence for the other. At the 

1 «The Tery existence of the master-capitalists, as a distinct class* is dependent on 
the productiTeness of industry.*&apos; (Ramsay, 1. c p. 206.) &quot;If each man&apos;s labour 
were but enough to produce his own food, there could be no property.&quot; (Raven- 
stone, 1. c p. 14, 16). 

&apos;According to a recent calculation, there are yet at least 4,000,000 cannibals in 
tlioie parts of tlie earth which have already been explored. 



 

.562 Capitalist Production. 

dawn of dvilisation the productivenees acquired by labour Ib 
small, but so too are the wants which develop with and by the 
means of satisfying them. Further, at that early period, the 
portion of society that lives on the labour of others is infinitely 
small compared with the mass of direct producers Along 
with the progress in the productiveness of labour, that small 
portion of society increases both absolutely and relatively.* 
Besides, capital with its accompanying relations springs up 
from an economic soil that is the product of a long process of 
development The productiveness of labour that serves as its 
foundation and starting point, is a gift, not of nature, but of a 
history embracing thousands of centuries. 

Apart from the d^pree of development, greater or lees, in the 
form of social production, the productiveness of labour is fet- 
tered by physical conditions. These are all referable to tb6 
constitution of man himself (race, &amp;c), and to surroimding 
nature. The external physical conditions fall into two great 
economical classes, (1) Natural wealth in means of subsisir 
ence, i.e., a fruitful soil, waters teeming with fish, &amp;c, and 
(2), natural wealth in the instruments of labour, such as 
waterfalls, navigable rivers, wood, metal, coal, &amp;c. At the 
dawn of civilisation, it is the first class that turns the scale; 
at a higher stage of development, it is the second. Compare 
for example, England with India, or in ancient times, Athens 
and Corinth with the shores of the Black Sea. 

The fewer the number of natural wants imperatively calling 
for satisfaction, and the greater the natural fertility of the soil 
and the favourableness of the climate;^ so much less is the 
labour-time necessary for the maintenance and reproduction of 
the producer. So much greater therefore can be the excess of 
his labour for others over his labour for himself. Diodorus 
long ago remarked this in relation to the ancient Egyptians. 
&quot;It is altogether incredible how little trouble and expense the 
bringing up of their children causes them. They cook for 
them the first simple food at hand; they also give them the 

^ &quot;Among the wild Indians in America, almost everything b the labourer**, 99 
parts of a hundred are to be put upon the account of labour. In England, perhaps 
the labourer has not fS.&quot; (The Advantages of the East Indi« Trader Ac pw Tt.) 



 

&apos;Absolute and Relative Surplus-Value. 56J 

lower part of the papyrus stem to eat, so far ae it can be 
roasted in the fire, and the roots and stalks of marsh plants^ 
some raw, some boiled and roasted. Most of the children go 
without shoos and unclothed, for the air is so mild. Hence a 
child, until he is grown up, costs his parents not more, on the 
whole, than twenty drachmas. It is this, chiefly, which ex- 
plains why the population of Egypt is so numerous, and, there- 
fore, why so many great works can be undertaken.&quot;^ Never- 
theless tie grand structures of ancient Egypt are less due to 
the extent of its population than to the large proportion of it 
that was freely disposable. Just as the individual labourer 
can do more surplus-labour in proportion as his necessary 
labour-time is less, so with ref ard to the working population. 
The smaller the part of it which is required for the production 
of the necessary means of subsistence, so much the greater is 
the part that can be set to do other work. 

Capitalist production once assumed then, all other circum- 
stances remaining the same, and g ven the length of the work- 
ing day, the quantity of surplus-labour will vary with the 
physical conditions of labour, especially with the fertility of 
the soil. But it by no means follows from this that the most 
fruitful soil is the most fitted for the growth of the capitalist 
mode of production. This mode is based on the dominion of 
man over nature. Where nature is too lavish, she &apos;Tteeps him 
in hand, like a child in leading-strings.&quot; She does not impose 
upon him any necessity to develop himself.^ It is not the 
tropics with their luxuriant vegetation, but the temperate 
zone, that is the mother country of capital. It is not the mere 
fertility of the soil, but the differentiation of the soil, the 

^Diodonit, 1. c. L I. c. 80. 

*&quot;The first (natural wealth) as it is Bost noble and advantageous, so doth it 
make the people careless, proud, and given to all excesses; whereas the second 
enforceth vigilancy, literature, arts and policy.&quot; (England&apos;s Treasure by Foreign 
Trade. Or the Balance of our Foreign Trade is the Rule of our Treasure. Written 
by Thomas Mun of London, merchant, and now published for the common good 
by his son John Mun. London, 1669, p. 181, 182.) &quot;Nor can I conceive a greater 
curse upon a body of people, than to be thrown upon a spot of land, where the 
productions for subsistence and food were, in great measure, spontaneous, and the 
climate required or admitted little care for raiment and covering . . . there may 
he an extreme on the other side. A soil incapable of produce by labour is quite 
m bod as a soil that produces plentifully without any labour.&quot; (An Inquiry int« 
the present High Price of Provisions. Lond., 1767. p. 10.) 



 

564 Capitalist Production. 

variety of its natural products, the changes of the seasons, 
which form the physical bctsis for the social division of labour, 
and which, by changes in the natural surroundings, spur man 
on to the multiplication of his wants, his capabilities, his 
means and modes of labour. It is the necessity of bringing a 
natural force under the control of society, of economising, of 
appropriating or subduing it on a large scale by the work of 
man&apos;s hand, that first plays the decisive part in the history of 
industry. Examples are, the irrigation works in Egypt,* 
Lombardy, Holland, or India and Persia where irrigation by 
means of artificial canals, not only supplies the soil with the 
water indispensable to it, but also carries down to it, in the 
shape of sediment from the hills, mineral fertilizers. The 
secret of the flourishing state of industry in Spain and Sicily 
under the dominion of the Arabs lay in their irrigation 
works.^ 

Favourable natural conditions alone, gave us only the possi* 
bility, never the reality, of surplus-labour, nor, consequently, 
of surplus-value and a surplus-product. The result of differ- 
ence in the natural conditions of labour is this, that the same 
quantity of labour satisfies, in different countries, a different 
mass of requirements,* consequently, that under circumstances 

^The necessity for predicting the rise and fall of the Nile created Egyptian M&gt; 
tronomy, and with it the dominion of the priests, as directors of agriculture. &quot;Le 
solstice est le moment de Tannic ou commence la crue du Nil. et celui que Ics 
Egyptiens ont du observer avec le plus d&apos;attention . . . C&apos;^tait cette ann^ 
tropique qu&apos;il leur importait de marquer pour se diriger dans leura operations agri- 
coles. lis durent done chercher dans le ciel un signe apparent de son retour.** 
(Cuvier: Discours sur les revolutions du globe, ed. Hoefer. Paris, 1863, p. 141.) 

&apos;One of the material bases of the power of the state over the small disconnected 
producing organisms in India, was the regulation of the water supply. The Ma- 
hometan rulers of India understood this better than their English successors. It 
is enough to recall to mind the famine of 1860, which cost the lives of more than 
a million Hindoos in the district of Orissa, in the Bengal presidency. 

&apos;There are no two countries which furnish an equal number of the necessaries of 
life in equal plenty, and with the same quantity of labour. Men&apos;s wants increase 
or diminish with the severity or temperateness of the climate they live in; conse- 
quently, the proportion of trade which the inhabitants of different countries are 
obliged to carry on through necessity cannot be the same, nor is it practicable to 
ascertain the degree of variation farther than by the degrees of Heat and Cold; 
from whence one may make this general conclusion, that the quantity of labour 
required for a certain number of people is greatest in cold climates, and least in 
hot ones; for in the former men not only want more clothes, but the earth mora 
cultivating than the latter.&quot; (An Essay on the Governing Causes of the Natural 
Rate of Interest. Lond. 1750. p. 60.) The author of this epoch-making anonymoot 
work is J. Massey. Hume took his theory of interest from it. 



 

Absolute and Relative Surplus-Value. 565 

in other respects analogous, the necessary labour-time is differ- 
ent. These conditions affect surplus-labour only as natural 
limits, i.e., by fixing the points at which labour for others can 
begin. In proportion ae industry advances, these natural 
limits recede. In the midst of our West European society, 
where the labourer purchases the right to work for his own 
livelihood only by paying for it in surplus-labour, the idea 
easily takes root that it is an inherent quality of human 
labour to furnish a surplus-product,^ But consider, for ex- 
ample, an inhabitant of the eastern islands of the Asiatic 
Archipelago&gt; where sago grows wild in the forests. &quot;When 
the inhabitants have convinced themselves, by boring a hqle 
in the tree^ that the pith is ripe, the trunk is cut down and 
divided into several pieces, the pith is extracted, mixed with 
water and filtered: it is then quite fit for use a^ sago. One 
tree commonly yields 300 lbs., and occasionally 600 to 600 
lbs. There, then, people go into the forests, and cut bread 
for themselves, just as with us they out firewood.&apos;&apos;* Sup- 
•poBB now such an eastern bread-cutter requires 12 working 
hours a week for the satisfaction of all his wants. Nature^s 
direct gift to him is plenty of leisure time. Before he can 
apply this leisure time productively for himself, a whole series 
of historical events is required ; before he spends it in surplus- 
labour for strangers, compulsion is necessary. If capitalist 
production were introduced, the honest fellow would perhaps 
have to work six days a week, in order to appropriate to him- 
self the product of one working day The boun^ of Nature 
does not explain why he would then have to work 6 days a 
week, or why he must furnish 5 days of surplus-labour. It 
explains only why his necessary labour-time would be limited 
to one day a week. But in no case would his surplus-pro- 
duct arise from some occult quality inherent in human labour. 
Thus, not only does the historically developed social pro- 
ductiveness of labour, but also its natural productiveness, ap- 
pear to be productiveness of the capital with which that labour 
is incorporated. 

^&quot;Chaque travail dolt (this appears also to be part of the droits et devoirs du 
dtoyen) laisser vtn exc^dant.&quot; Proudbon. 
*V, Shouw: &quot;Die Erdc« die Pflanze und der Mensch. 8 Ed. Leipz. 1864. p. 148. 



 

S66 Capitalist Production. 

Bicardo never concerns himself about the origin of surplna- 
value. He treats it as a thing inherent in the capitalist mode 
of production^ which mode^ in. his eyes, is .the natural form of 
social production. Whenever he discusses the productiveness 
of labour, he seeks in it, not the cause of surplus-value, but 
the cause that determines the magnitude of that value* On 
the other hand, his school has openly proclaimed the produo^ 
tiveness of labour to be the originating cause of profit (read : 
Surplus-value). This at all events is a progress as against 
the mercantilists who, on their side, derived the excess of the 
price over the cost of production of the product^ from the act 
of exchange, from the product being sold above its value. 
Nevertheless, Bicardo&apos;s school simply shirked the problem^ 
they did not solve it In fact these bourgeois economists inr 
stinctively saw, and rightly so, that it is very dangerous to 
stir too deeply the burning question of the origin of surplus 
valua But what are we to think of John iStuart Mill, who, 
half a century after Bicardo, solemnly claims superiority over 
the mercantiUsts, by clumsily repeating the wretched evasions 
of Bicardo&apos;s earliest vulgarisers? 

Mill says: &quot;The cause of profit is that labour produces 
more than is required for its support^&apos; So far, nothing but 
the old story ; but Mill wishing to add something of his own, 
proceeds: &quot;To vary the form of the theorem; the reason why 
capital yields a profit, is because food, clothing, materials and 
tools, last longer than the time which was required to produce 
them.&apos;* He here confounds the duration of labour-time with 
the duration of its products. According to this view, a baker 
whose product lasts only a day, could never extract from his 
workpeople the same profit, as a machine maker whose prod- 
ucts endures for 20 years and mora Of course it is very true^ 
that if a bird&apos;s nest did not last longer than the time it takes 
in building, birds would have to do without nests. 

This fundamental truth once established. Mill establishes 
his own superiority over the mercantilists. *^e thus see,&apos;* 
he proceeds, &quot;that profit arises, not from the incident of ex- 
change, but from tiie productive power of labour; and the 
general profit of the country is always what the productive 



 

Absolute and Relative Surplus-Value. 567 

power of labour makes it^ whether any exchange takes place 
or not If there were no division of employments, there would 
be no buying or selling, but there would still be profit.^&apos; For 
Mill then, exchange, buying and selling, those general condi- 
tions of capitalist production, are but an incident^ and there 
would always be profits even without the purchase and sale 
of labour-power I 

&quot;If,&quot; he continues, &quot;the labourers of the country collectively 
produce twenty per cent more than their wages, profits will be 
twenty per cent, whatever prices may or may not be.&apos;* This 
is, on the one hand, a rare bit of tautology ; for if labourers 
produce a surplus-value of 20% for the capitalist, his profit 
will be to the total wages of the labourers as 20 : 100. On 
the other hand, it is absolutely false to say that ^^profits will 
be 20%.&apos;^ They will always be less, because they are cal- 
culated upon the sium total of the capital advanced. If, for 
example, the capitalist have advanced £500, of which £400 
is laid out in means of production and £100 in wages, and if 
the rate of surplus-value be 20%, the rate of profit will be 
20 : 600, le., 4% and not 20%. 

Then follows a splendid example of Mill&apos;s method of han- 
dling the different historical forms of social production: &quot;I 
assume, throughout, the state of things which, where the 
labourers and capitalists are separate classes, prevails, with 
few exceptions, universally; namely, that the capitalist ad- 
vances the whole expenses, including the entire remuneration 
of the labourer.&apos;&apos; Strange optical illusion to see everywhere 
a state of things which as yet exist only exceptionally on 
our earth. But let us finiei — Mill is willing to concede, 
&quot;that he should do so is not a matter of inherent necessity.&quot; 
On the contrary: &quot;the labourer might wait^ until the produc- 
tion is complete, for all that part of his wages which exceeds 
mere necessaries; and even for the whole, if he has funds in 
hand sufficient for his temporary support. But in the latter 
case, the labourer is to that extent really a capitalist in the 
concern, by supplying a portion of the funds necessary for 
carrying it on.&quot; Mill might have gone further and have 
added, that the labourer who advances to himself not only the 



 

S68 Capitalist Production. 

neoeesaries of life bat also the means of production, is in 
reality nothing but his own wage-labourer. He mi^t also 
have said that the American peasant proprietor is but a serf 
who does enforced labour for himself instead of for his lord. 

After thus proving clearly, that even if capitalist produo* 
tion had no existence^ still it would always exist, Mill is con- 
sistent enou^ to show, on the contrary, that it has no ez- 
istence^ even when it does exist ^^And even in the former 
case&quot; (when the workman is a wage labourer to whom the 
capitalist advances all the necessaries of life, he the labourer), 
&apos;^may be looked upon in the same li^t,&quot; %.e., as a capitalist, 
^^since, contributing his labour at less than the market price, 
( !) he may be regarded as lending the difference (?) to his 
employer and receiving it back with interest, &amp;c.*&apos;^ In re- 
ality, the labourer advances his labour gratuitously to the 
capitalist during, say one week, in order to receive the market 
price at the end of ^e week, &amp;c., and it is this which, accord- 
ing to Mill, transforms him into a capitalist. On the level 
plain, simple mounds look like hills; and the imbecile flatness 
of the present bourgeoisie is to be measured by the altitude 
of its great intellects. 



CHAPTER XVIL 



CHAKGEB OF MAGNITTJDB IN THS PBIC1£ OF ULBOXTft-FOWEB 

Axrsy m subplus-valub. 

Thb value of labour-power is determined by the value of the 
necessaries of life habitually required by the average labours. 
The quantity of these necessaries is known at any given epodi 
of a given society, and can therefore be treated as a constant 
magnitude What changes, is the value of this quantity* 
There are, besides, two other factors that enter into the de- 
termination of the value of labour-power. One^ the exp ow n n a 

&gt; J. St ICn. Principles of PoL Econ. Loud. 1868. p. Sfi»-6S 



 

Changes of Magnitude. 569 

of developing that power, which expenses vary with the mode 
of production; the other, its natural diversity, the difference 
between the labour-power of men and women, of childreD and 
adults. The employment of these diflferent sorts of labour- 
power, an employment which is, in its turn, made necessary by 
the mode of production, makes a great difference in the cost of 
maintaining the family of the labourer, and in the value of 
the labouT^power of the adult male. Both these factors, how- 
ever, are excluded in the following investigation.^ 

I assume (1) that commoditieB are sold at their value; (2) 
that the price of labour-power rises occasionally above its 
value, but never sinks below it 

On this assumption we have seen that the relative magni- 
tudes of surplus-value and of price of labour-power are de- 
termined by three circumstances; (1) the length of the work- 
ing day, or the extensive magnitude of labour; (2) the normal 
intensity of labour, its intensive magnitude, whereby a given 
quantity of labour is expended in a given time; (3) the pro- 
ductiveness of labour, whereby the same quantum of labour 
yields, in a given time, a greater or less quantum of product, 
dependent on the degree of development in the conditions of 
production* Very different combinations are clearly possible, 
according as one of the three factors is constant and two vari- 
able, or two constant and one variable^ or lastly, all three 
simultaneously variable. And the number of these combina- 
tions is augmented by the fact that, when these factors simul- 
taneously vary, the amoimt and direction of their respective 
variations may differ. In what follows the chief combinations 
alone are considered. 

I. Length of the worhmg day and iniensUff of labour consttmt. 
Productvveness of labovr variable. 

On these assumptions the value of labour-power, and the 
magnitude of surplus-value, are determined by three laws. 

(1.) A working day of given length always creates the same 
amount of value, no matter how the productiveness of labour, 

* The (^e considered at pages 847-850 ia here of oottne omitted. (Note Ij editor 
of third editioii.&gt; 



 

Syo Capitalist Production. 

and, with it^ the mass of the product^ and the prioe of eadi 
single commodify produced, may vaiy. 

If the value created by a working day of 12 hours be, say, 
six shillings, then, although the mass of the articles produced 
varies with the productiveness of labour, the only result is that 
the value represented by six shillings is spread over a greater 
or less number of artides. 

(2.) Surplus-value and the value of labour-power vary in 
opposite directions. A variation in the productiv^iess of 
labour, its increase or diminution, causes a variation in the 
opposite direction in the value of labour-power, and in the 
same direction in surplus-value* 

The value created by a working day of 12 hours is a con- 
stant quantity, say, six shillings. This constant quantity is 
the sum of the surplus-value plus the value of the labour-power, 
which latter value the labourer replaces by an equivalent. It 
is self-evident, that if a constant quantity consist of two parts, 
neither of them can increase without the other diminishing. 
JLet the two parts at starting be equal ; 3 shillings value of la- 
bour-power, 8 shillings surplus-value. Then the value of the 
labour-power cannot rise from three shillings to four, with- 
out the surplus- value falling from three shillings to two ; and 
the surplusrvalue cannot rise from three shillings to four, 
without the value of labour-power falling from three shillings 
to two. Under these circumstances, therefore^ no change can 
take place in the absolute magnitude, either of the surplus- 
value, or of the value of labour-power, without a simultaneous 
change in their relative magnitudes, i.e., relatively to each 
other. It is impossible for them to rise or fall simultane- 
ously. 

Further, the value of labour-power cannot fall, and con- 
sequently surplus-value cannot rise, without a rise in the pro- 
ductiveness of labour. For instance, in the above case, the 
value of the labour-power cannot sink from three shillings 
to two, unless an increase in the productiveness of labour 
makes it possible to produce in 4 hours the same quantity of 
necessaries as previously required 6 hours to produce. On 
the other hand, the vdue of the labour-power cannot risd 



 

Changes of Magnitude. 571 

from three sliillings to fonr^ without a decrease in the pro- 
ductiveness of labour, whereby eight hours become requisite 
to produce the same quantity &lt;^ necessaries, for the production 
of wliich six hours previously sufficed. It follows from this, 
that an increase in the productivenes of labour causes a fall 
in the value of labour-power and a consequent rise in surplus- 
value, while&gt; on .the other hand, a decrease in such productive- 
ness causes a rise in the value of labour-power, and a fall in 
surplus-value. 

In formulating this law, Bicardo overlooked one circum- 
stance; although a change in the magnitude of the surplus- 
value or surplus-labour causes a change in the opposite di- 
rection in the magnitude of the value of labour-power, or in 
the quantity of necessary labour, it by no means follows that 
they vary in the same proportion. They do increase or 
diminish by the same quantity. But their proportional in- 
crease or diminution depends on their original magnitudes 
before the change in the productiveness of labour took place. 
If the value of the labour-power be 4 shillings, or the neces- 
sary labour-time 8 hours, and the surplus- value be 2 shillings, 
or the surplus-labour 4 hours, and if, in consequence of an 
increase in the productiveness of labour, the value of the 
labour-power fall to 8 shillings, or the necessary labour to 6 
hours, the surplus-value will rise to 3 shillngs, or the surplus- 
labour to 6 hours. The same quantity, 1 shilling or 2 hours, is 
added in one case and subtracted in the other. But the pro- 
portional change of magnitude is different in each casa While 
the value of the labour-power falls from 4 shillings to 3, i.e., by 
J or 26%, the surplus-value rises from 2 shillings to 3, i.e., 
by i or 60%. It therefore follows that the proportional in- 
crease of diminution in surplus-value, consequent on a given 
change in the productiveness of labour, depends on the original 
magnitude of that portion of the working day which embodies 
itself in surplus-value; the smaller that portion, the greater 
is the proportional change; the greater that portion, the less 
is the proportional change. 

(8.) Increase or diminution in surplus-value is always con- 



 

5/2 Capitalist Production. 

sequent on, and never the cause of, the corresponding dimi- 
nution or increase in the value of labour-power.* 

Since the working-day is constant in magnitude, and is 
represented by a value of constant magnitude, since, to every 
variation in the magnitude of surplus-value, there corresponds 
an inverse variation in the value of labour-power, and since 
the value of labour-power cannot change, except in consequence 
of a change in the productiveness of labour, it clearly follows, 
under these conditions, that every change of magnitude in sur- 
plus-value arises from an inverse change of magnitude in the 
value of labour-power. If, then, as we have already seen, 
there can be no change of absolute magnitude in the value of 
labour-power, and in surplus-value, imaccompanied by a 
change in their relative magnitudes, so now it follows that no 
change in their relative magnitudes is possible, without a 
previous change in the absolute magnitude of the value of 
labour-power. 

According to the third law, a change in the magnitude of 
surplus-value, presupposes a movement in the value of labour- 
power, which movement is brought about by a variation in the 
productiveness of labour. The limit of this change is given 
by the altered value of labour-power. Nevertheless, even 
when circumstances allow the law to operate^ subsidiary move- 
ments may occur. For example: if in consequence of the 
increased productiveness of labour, the value of labour-power 
fall from 4 shillings to 3, or the necessary labour-time from 
8 hours to 6, the price of labour-pov^r may possibly not fall 
below 3s. 8d., 3s. 6d., or Ss. 2d., and the surplus-value conse- 
quently not rise above 3s. 4d., 3c. 6d., or 3s. lOd. The 
amoimt of this fall, the lowest limit of which is 3 shillings 
(the new value of labour-power), depends on the relative 

^To this third law MacCuUoch has made, amongst others, this absord addition, 
that a rise in surplus value unaccompanied by a fall in the yalue of labour-power, 
can occur through the abolition of taxes payable by the capitalist. The abolition 
of such taxes makes no change whatever in the quantity of surplus- value that the 
capitalist extorts at first-hand from the labourer. It alters only the proportion in 
which that surplus-value is divided between himself and third persons. It conse- 
quently makes no alteration whatever in the relation between surplus-value and valnc 
of labour-power. MacCulloch&apos;s exception therefore proves only his misapprehensioo 
of the rule, a misfortune that as oftens happens to him in the vulgarisation ol 
Ricardo, as it does to J. B. Say in the vulgarisation of Adam Smith. 



 

Changes of Magnitude. 573 

weighty which the pressure of capital on the one side, and the 
resistance of the labourer on the other, throws into the scale. 

The value of labour-power is determined by the value of a 
given quantity of necessaries* It is the value and not the 
mass of these necessaries that varies with the productiveness 
of labour. It is&gt; however, possible that, owing to an increase 
of productiveness, both the labourer, and the capitalist may 
simultaneously be able .to appropriate a greater quantity of 
these necessaries, without any change in the price of labour- 
power or in surplus-value. If the value of labour-power be 8 
shillings, and the necessary labour-time amount to 6 hours, if 
the surplus-value likewise be 3 shillings, and the surplus- 
labour 6 hours, then if the productiveness of labour were 
doubled without altering the ratio of necessary labour to 
surplu^labour, there would be no change of magnitude in 
surplus-value and price of labour-power. The only result 
would be that each of them would represent twice as many 
use-values as before; these use-values being twice as cheap as 
before. Although labour-power would be imcbanged in price, 
it would be above its value. If, however, the prices of labour- 
power had fallen, not to Is. 6d., the lowest possible point con- 
sistent with its new value^ but to 2s. lOd. or 2s. 6d., still this 
lower price would represent an increased mass of necessaries. 
In this way it is possible with an increasing productiveness of 
labour, for the price of labour-power to keep on falling, and 
yet .this fall to be accompanied by a constaat growth in the 
mass of the labourer&apos;s means of subsistence. But even in such 
case, the f aU in the value of labour-power would cause a corre- 
sponding rise of surplus-value, and thus the abyss between the 
labourer&apos;s position and that of the capitalist would keep 
widening.* 

Eicardo was the first who accurately formulated the three 
laws we have above stated. But he falls into the following 
errors: (1) he looks upon the special conditions under which 

^&apos;&apos;When an alteration takes place in the productiTenen of industry, and that 
either more or less is produced by a given quantity of labour and capital, the propor* 
tion of wages may obviously vary, whilst the quantity, which that proportion repre- 
sents, remains the same, or the quantity may vary, whilst the proportion 
the same.&quot; (&quot;Outlines of Political Economy,&quot; &amp;c.« p. 67.) 



 

574 Capitalist Pfoductlotk 

these laws hold good as the general and sole &lt;midition9 6t 
capitalist production. He knows no diange, either in the 
length of the working day, or in the intensity of labour ; con- 
sequently with him there can be only one variable factor^ viz.^ 
the productiveness of labour; (2), and this error vitiates his 
analysis much more than (1), he has not, any more than have 
the other economists, investigated surplus-value as such, i.e., 
independently of its particular forms, such a profit, rent, &amp;c. 
He therefore confounds together the laws of the rate of sur- 
plus-value and the laws of the rate of profit The rate of 
profit is, as we have already said, the ratio of the surplus-value 
to the total capital advanced ; the rate of surplus-value is the 
ratio of the surplus-value to the variable part of that capital 
Assume that a capital (C) of £500 is made up of raw material, 
instruments of labour^ &amp;c. (c) to the amount of £400 ; and of 
wages (v) to the amount of £100; and further, that the sur- 
plus-value (s)=£100. Then we have rate of surplus-value 
^ = |i5^^=100%. But the rate of profit §.=412? =20%. It 
is, besides, obvious that the rate of profit may depend on 
circumstances that in no way affect the rate of surplus-value. 
I shall show in Book IIL that, with a given rate of surplus- 
value, we may have any nimiber of rates of profit, and that 
various rates of surplus-value may, under given conditions^ 
express themselves in a single rate of profit. 

IL Workiti^-day constant. Productiveness of labour constant 
Intensity of labour vaaiahle. 

Increased intensity of labour means increased expenditure 
of labour in a given time. Hence a working-day of more 
intense labour is embodied in more products than is one of less 
intense labour, the length of each day being the same. In- 
creased productiveness of labour also, it is true, will supply 
more products in a given working-day. But in this latter case^ 
the value of each single product falls, for it costs less labour 
than before ; in the former case, that value remains unchanged, 
for each article costs the same labour as before. Here wo 
have an increase in the number of products, unaccompanied 



 

Changes of Magnitude. 575 

by a fall in their individual prices : as their number increases, 
so does the sum of their prices. But in the case of increased 
productiveness, a given value is spread over a greater mass of 
products. Hence the length of the working-day being con- 
stant, a day&apos;s labour of increased intensity will be incorporated 
in an increased value, and, the value of money remaining un- 
changed, in more money. The value created varies with the 
extent to which the intensity of labour deviates from its nor- 
mal intensity in the society. A given working-day, there- 
fore, no longer creates a constant, but a variable value; in a 
day of 12 hours of ordinary intensity, the value created is, say 
6 shillings, but with increased intensity, the value created may 
be 7, 8, or more shillings. It is clear that, if the value cre- 
ated by a day&apos;s labour increases from, say, 6 to 8 shillings, 
then the two parts into which this value is divided, viz., price 
of labour-power and surplus-value, may both of them increase 
simultaneously, and either equally or unequally. They may 
both simultaneously increase from 3 shillings to 4. Here, the 
rise in the price of labour-power does not necessarily imply 
that the price has risen above the value of labour-power. On 
the contrary, the rise in price may be accompanied by a fall in 
value. This occurs whenever the rise in the price of labour- 
power does not compensate for its increased wear and tear. 

We know that, with transitory exceptions, a change in the 
productiveness of labour does not cause any change in the 
value of labour-power, nor consequently in the magnitude of 
surplus-value, unless the products of the industries affected are 
articles habitually consimied by the laborers. In the present 
case this condition no longer applies. For when the variation 
is either in the duration or in the intensity of labour, there is 
always a corresponding change in the magnitude of the value 
created, independently of the nature of the article in which 
that value is embodied. 

If the intensity of labour were to increase simultaneously 
and equally in every branch of industry, then the new and 
higher degree of intensity would become the normal degree for 
the society, and would therefore cease to be taken account of. 
But still, even then, the intensity of labour would be different 



 

5/6 Capitalist Production. 

in diflfe^ent countriee, and would modify the international aj 
plication of the law of value. The more intense working 
day of one nation would be represented by a greater sum of 
money than would the leae intense day of another nation*^ 

IIL Praductvvenesfi and Intensity of Labour constant. LengOk 
of the working-dajf variable. 

The working^ay may vary in two ways. It may be made 
either longer or shorter. From our present data, and within 
the limits of the assumptions made on jk 669 vto obtain the 
following laws: 

(1.) The working^ay creates a greater or less amount of 
value in proportion to its length — ^thus^ a variable and not a 
constant quantity of value. 

(2.) Every change in the relation between the magnitudes 
of surplus value and of the value of labour-power arises from 
a change in the absolute magnitude of the surplus^labour, and 
consequently of the surplus-value, 

(3.) The absolute value of labour-power can change only 
in consequence of the reaction exercised by the prolongation of 
surplus-value upon the wear and tear of labour-power. Every 
change in this absolute value is therefore the effect^ but never 
the cause, of a change in the magnitude of surplus-value. 

We begin with the case in which the VTorking-day is short- 
ened. 

(1). A shortening of the wt)rking-day under the conditions 
given above, leaves the value of labour-power, and with it, the 
necessary labour-timi^ xmaltered. It reduces the surplus- 
labour and surplus-value. Along with the absolute magnitude 
of the latter, its relative magnitude also falls, i.e., its magni- 
tude relatively to the value of labour-power whose magni- 
tude remains unaltered. Only by lowering the price of la- 

* &quot;All thing! being equal, the English manufacturer can turn out a conaiderably 
larger amount of work in a giren time than a foreign manufacturer, ao much aa to 
counterbalance the difference of the working-daya, between 60 houra a week here, 
and 72 or 80 elsewhere.&quot; (Rep. of Insp. of Fact, for Slst Oct 1866, p. 66.) The 
moat infallible means for reducing this qualitative difference between die Engliab 
and Continental working hour would be a law ahortening quantiUtively the Jaagtk 
of the working-day in Continental factoriea. 



 

Changes of Magnitude. 577 

bour-power below its value could the capitalist save himself 
harmless. 

All the usual arguments against the shortening of the 
working^ay, assume that it takes place under the conditions 
we have here supposed to exist; but in reality the very con- 
trary is the case: a change in the productiveness and intensity 
of labour either precedes, or immediately follows, a shorten- 
ing of the working-day.* 

(2). Lengthening of the working-day. Let the necessary 
labour-time be 6 hours, or the value of labour-power 8 shil- 
lings; also let the surplus-labour be 6 hours or the surplus- 
value 3 shillings. The whole working-day then amounts to 12 
hours and ie embodied in a value of 6 shillings. If, now, 
the working-day be lengthened by 2 hours and the price of 
labour-power remain unaltered, the surplus-value increases 
both absolutely and relatively. Although there is no absolute 
change in the value of labour-power, it suffers a relative f alL 
Under the conditions assumed in I. there could not be a change 
of relative magnitude in the value of labour-power without a 
change in its absolute magnitude. Here, on the contrary, the 
change of relative magnitude in the value of labour-power is 
the result of the change of absolute magnitude in surplus- 
value. 

Since the value in which a day&apos;s labour is embodied, in- 
creases with the length of that day, it is evident that the sur- 
plus-value and the price of labour-power may simultaneously 
increase, either by equal or unequal quantities. This simul- 
taneous increase is therefore possible in two cases, one, the 
actual lengthening of the working-day, the other, an increase 
in the intensity of labour unaccompanied by such lengthen- 
ing. 

When the working-day is prolonged, the price of labour- 
power may fall below its value, although that price be nomin- 
ally unchanged or even rise. The value of a day&apos;s labour- 
power, is, as will be remembered, estimated from its normal 
average duration, or from the normal duration of Ufe among 

* &quot;There $n eompennttnff drcumttancet . . . which the wotking of the Ten 
Hours&apos; Act hat brought to light.&quot; (Rep. of Imp. of Fact for Ist Dec 1848» p. 7.) 

9K 



 

^yB Capitalist Production. 

the labourers^ and from corresponding normal transformationd 
of organised bodily matter into motion,* in conformity with the 
nature of man. Up to a certain pointy the increased wear and 
tear of labour-power, inseparable from a lengthened working- 
day, may be compensated by higher wages. But beyond this 
point the wear and tear increases in geometrical progression, 
and every condition suitable for the normal reproduction and 
functioning of labour-power is suppressed. The price of 
labour-power and the d^ee of its exploitation cease to be 
commensurable quantities. 

IV. — Sinrndtaneous variations in the duration, productiveness, 
and intensity of labour. 

It is obvious that a large nimiber of combinations are here 
possible. Any two of the factors may vary and the third 
remain constant, or all three may vary at once. They may 
vary either in the same or in different degrees, in the same 
or in opposite directions, with the result that the variations 
counteract one another, either wholly or in part Nevertho- 
less the analysis of every possible case is easy in view of the 
results given in I., II., and III. The effect of every possible 
combination may be found by treating each factor in turn as 
variable, and the other two constant for the time being. We 
shall, therefore, notice, and that briefly, but two important 
cases. 

(1). DinUndshing productiveness of labour with a sinwJtoneouf 
lengthening of the vxyrhvag-day. 

In speaking of diminishing productiveness of labour, we 
here refer to diminution in those industries whose products de- 
termine the value of labour-power; such a diminution, for 
example, as results from decreasing fertility of the soil, and 
from the corresponding deamess of its products. Take the 

*&quot;The amount of labour which a man had undergone in the course of 24 hours 
might be approximately arrived at by an examination of the chymical changes which 
lud taken place in his body, changed forms in matter indicating the anterior ( 
ctse of dynamic force.&quot; (Grove: &quot;On the Correlation of Physical Forces.**) 



 

Changes of Magnitude. 579 

i97orkmg&lt;laj at 12 hours and the value created by it at 6 
flhillings, of which one half replaces the value of the labour- 
power, the other forms the surplus-value. Suppose^ in conse- 
quence of the increased deamess of the products of the soil^ 
tiiat the value of labour-power rises from 3 shillings to 4, and 
therefore the necessary labour-time from 6 hours to 8. If 
there be no change in the length of the working-day, the sur- 
plus-labour would fall from 6 hours to 4, the surplus-value 
from 3 shillings to 2. If the day be lengthened by 2 hours, 
i.e., from 12 hours to 14, the surplus-labour remains at 6 
hours, the surplus-value at 3 shillings, but the surplus-value 
decreases compared with the value of labour-power, as meas- 
ured by the necessary labour-time. If the day be lengthened 
by 4 hours, viz., from 12 hours to 16, the proportional magni- 
tudes of surplus-value and value of labour-power, of surplus- 
labour and necessary labour, continue unchanged, but the 
absolute magnitude of surplus-value rises from 3 shillings to 4, 
that of the surplus-labour from 6 hours to 8, an increment of 
83^%. Therefore, with diminishing productiveness of labour 
and a simultaneous lengthening of the working-day, the ab- 
solute magnitude of surplus-value may continue unaltered, at 
the same time that its relative magnitude diminishes; its rela- 
tive magnitude may continue unchanged, at the same time 
that its absolute magnitude increases; and, provided the 
lengthening of the day be sufficient, both may increase. 

In the period between 1799 and 1815 the increasing price of 
provisions led in England to a nominal rise in wages, although 
the real wages, expressed in the necessaries of life, felL From 
this fact West and lUcardo drew the conclusion, that the 
diminution in the productiveness of agricultural labour had 
brought about a fall in the rate of surplus-value, and they 
made this assumption of a fact that existed only in their 
imaginations, the starting-point of important investigations 
into the relative magnitudes of wages, profits, and rent But, 
as a matter of fact, surplus-value had at that time, thanks to 
the increased intensity of labour, and to the prolongation of 
the workingnlay, increased both in absolute and relative mag- 
nitudew This was the period in which the right U&gt; prolong 



 

580 Capitalist Production. 

the hours of labour to an outrageous extent was eatabliahed;^ 
the period that was especially (diaracterised by an accelerated 
accumulation of capital here^ by pauperism there.* 

(2) Increasing irdensity and productivenesa of labour with 
simultaneous diortemng of the worhing-day. 

Increased productiyeness and greater intensity of labour^ 
both have a like effect They both augment the mass of 
articles produced in a given time. Both, therefore, shorten 
that portion of the working-day which the labourer needs to 
produce his means of subsistence or their equivalent The 
minimum length of the working-day is fixed by this necessaiy 
but contractile portion of it If the whole working^ay were 
to shrink to the length of this portion, surplus-labour would 
vanish, a consummation utterly impossible under the regime 
of capitaL Only by suppressing the capitalist form of pro- 
duction could the length of the working-day be reduced to 

*&quot;Coni and labour rarely inarch quite abreaat; but diere ia an obvioua limit be* 
yond which they cannot be aeparated. With regard to the unusual exertions made 
by the labouring classes in periods of deamess, which produce the fall of wages 
noticed in the evidence&quot; (namely, before the Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry, 
1814&gt;16), &quot;they are most meritorious in the individuals, and certainly favour the 
growth of capitaL But no man of humanity could wish to see them constant and 
unremitted. They are most admirable as a temporary relief; but if they were con- 
stantly in action, effects of a similar kind would result from them, as from the 
population of a country being pushed to the very extreme limits of its food.&quot; 
(Malthus: &quot;Inquiry into the Nature and Progress of Rent,&quot; Lond., 1816, p. 48» 
note.) All honour to Malthus that he lays stress on the lengthening of the hours 
of labour, a fact to which he elsewhere in his pamphlet draws attentioo, while 
Ricardo and others, in face of the most notorious facts, make invariability in the 
length of the working-day the ground-work of all their investigations. But the 
conservative interests, which Malthua served, prevented him from seeing that an 
unlimited prolongation of the working-day, combined with an extraordinary develop- 
ment of machinery, and the exploiution of women and children, must inevitably 
have made a great portion of the working class &quot;supernumerary,&quot; particularly when- 
ever the war should have ceased, and the monopoly of England in the markets of 
the world should have come to an end. It was, of course, far more convenient, 
and much more in conformity with the interests of the ruling classes, whom Malthus 
adored like a true priest, to explain this &quot;over-population&quot; by the eternal laws of 
Nature, rather than by the historical laws of capitalist production. 

&apos;&quot;A principal cause of the increase of capital, during the war, proceeded from 
the greater exertions, and perhaps the greater privations of the labouring classes, 
the most numerous in every society. More women and children were compelled by 
necessitous circumstances, to enter upon laborious occupations, and former work- 
men were, from the same cause, obliged to devote a greater portion of their time 
%D increase production.&quot; (Essays on PoL Econ., in which are illustrated the prin- 
cipal causes of the present national distress. Lond., 1880, p. 848.) 



 

Changes of Magnitude. 581 

Hm n^fbgsdry Ittboor-time. But, even in that case, the latter 
would extend its limits. On the one hand, because the notion 
of &quot;means of subsistence&apos;&apos; would considerably expand, and the 
labourer would lay claim to an altogether different standard 
of life. On the other hand, because a part of what is now 
surplus-labour, would then count as necessary labour ; I mean 
the labour o. forming a xund for reserve and accumulation. 

The more the productiveness of labour increases, the more 
can the working-day be shortened ; and the more the working- 
day is shortened, the more can the intensity of labour increase. 
Prom a social point of view, the productiveness increases in 
the same ratio as the economy of labour, which, in its turn, 
includes not only economy of lie means of production, but also 
the avoidance of all useless labour. The capitalist mode of 
production, while on the one hand, enforcing economy in each 
individual business, on the other hand, begets, by its anarchical 
system of competition, the most outrageous squandering of 
labour-power and of the social means of production, not to 
mention the creation of a vast nimaber of employmaits, at 
present indispensable, but in themselves superfluous. 

The intensity and productiveness of labour being given, the 
time which society is bound to devote to material production 
is shorter, and as a consequence, the time at its disposal for 
the free development, intellectual and social, of the individual 
is greater, in proportion as the work is more and more evenly 
divided among all the able-bodied members of society, and 
as a particular class is more and more deprived of the power 
to shift the natural burden of labour from its own shoulders 
to those of another layer of society. In this direction, the 
shortening of the working-day finds at last a limit in the 
generalisation of labour. In capitalist society spare time is 
acquired for one class by converting the whole life-time of 
the masses into labour-tima 



 

582 CapUalist Production. 



OHAPTEB XVIIL 

VASIOITB FOSMUUB FOB THE BATS OF BUKFLVBrVALU^ 

Wb have seen that the rate of surplus-value is represented by 
the following formulsB; 

T Sqrplm-vdqe f £ \ ^ SmpliM-valqe Sorplot-labogr 

VarUble Capital V ▼ / Valae of labour-power NeccMiry labonr 

The two first of these formulse represent^ as a ratio of values^ 
that which, in the third, is represented as a ratio of the times 
during which those values are produced. These formulss, 
fnipplementary the one to the other, are rigorously definite and 
correct We therefore find them substantially, but not con- 
sciously, worked out in claisical political economy* There 
we meet with the following derivative formula. 

•pi&quot; Surplui-labour Surpliia&apos;valu^ Su rplqa-prodnct 

■&apos;•■^* Worldng-day ^ Value of the Product ^^ Total Product 

One and the same ratio is here expressed as a ratio of 
labour-times, of the values in which fliose labour-times are 
embodied, and of the products in which those values exist It 
is of course understood that, by &quot;Value of the Product,&quot; is 
meant only the value newly created in a working-day, the 
constant part of the value of the product being excluded. 

In all of these formulse (II.)&gt; the actual degree of exploita- 
tion of labour, or the rate of surplus-value, is falsely expressed. 
Let the working-day be 12 hours. Then, making the same 
assumptions as in former instances, the real d^ee of ex- 
ploitation of labour will be represented in the following pro- 
portions. 



6 hours aurpluS&apos;labour Surplua-value of 8 ah. 

6 hours necessary labour &quot;^ Variable Capital of 8 all. &quot;~ 



100% 
Prom formulae II. we get very differently, 

6 hours surplus-labour Surplus- value of 8 rti. ^^^ --^ ^ 

Working-day of 18 bours ^^ Value created of 6 ah. — vU 7b 

These derivative formulsd express, in reality, only the pro- 

Digitized by VjOOQIC 



Various Formtdce for Rate of Surplus-Value. 583 

portion in which tho working-day, or the value produced by 
it&gt; is divided between capitalist and labourer. If they are to 
be treated as direct expressions of the degree of self-expansion 
of capital, the following erroneous law would hold good : Sur^ 
plus-labour or surplus-value can never reach 100%.^ Since 
the surplus-labour is only an aliquot part of the working-day, 
or since surplus-value is only an aliquot part of the value 
created, the surplus-labour must necessarily be always less 
than the working-day, or the surplus-value always less than 
the total value created. In order, however, to attain the 
ratio of 100:100 they must be equal. In order that the 
8urplu&amp;-labour may absorb the whole day (i. e., an average day 
of any week or year), the necessary labour must sink to zero. 
But if the necessary labour vanish, so too does the surplus- 
labour, since it is only a function of the former. The ratio 

Surpltis-labour Surplus-value xi_ j? i. j.i. t -x 

Working-day o^ Value created ^au therefore ucvcr reach the Imiit 
of ^, still less rise to ^^ 100 ^ * But not so the rate of surplus- 
value, the real degree of exploitation of labour. Take, e.g., the 
estimate of L. de Lavergne, according to which the English 
agricultural labourer gets only i, the capitalist (farmer) on the 
other hand f of the product? or of its value, apart from the 
question of how the booty is subsequently divided between the 

*Thu8, e,g., in &quot;Dritter Brief an v. Kirchmann von Rodbertut. Widerlegung der 
Ricardo*schen Theorie von der Grundrente und Bcgrundung einer neuen Renten- 
theorie. Berlin, 1851.&quot; I shall return to this letter later on; in spite of its erro- 
neous theory of rent, it sees through the nature of capitalist production. 

Note by the Editor of the 8rd Edition. It may be seen from this how favourably 
Marx judged his predecessors, whenever he found in them real progress, or new and 
sound ideas. The subsequent publication of Rodbertus&apos; letters to Rud. Meyer has 
shown that the above acknowledgment by Marx wants restricting to some extent. 
In those letters this passage occurs: &quot;Capital must be rescued not only from labour, 
but from itself, and that will be best effected, by treating the acts of the industrial 
capitalist as economical and political functions, that have been delegated to him 
with his capital, and by treating his profit as a form of salary, because we still know 
no other social organisation. But salaries may be regulated, and may also be re- 
duced if they take too much from wages. The irruption of Marx into Society, as 
I may call his book, must be warded off. . . . Altogether, Marx&apos;s book is not so 
much an investigation into capital, as a polemic against the present form of capital, 
a form which he confounds with the concept itself of capital.&quot; (Briefe, &amp;c., von 
Dr. Rodbertus- Jagetzow, herausgg. von Dr. Rud. Meyer, Berlin, 1881, I. Bd. p. 111., 
48. Brief von Rodbertus.). To such ideological commonplaces did the bold attack 
by Rodbertus in his &quot;social letters&quot; finally dwindle down. 

&apos;That part of the product which merely replaces the constant capital advanced, is 
of course left out in this caluclation. Mr. L. de Lavergne, a blind admirer of Eng- 
landf is inclined to estimate the share of the capitalist too low, rather than too high. 



 

584 Capitalist Production, 

capitalist, the landlord and others. According to this, the sur- 
plus-labour of the English agricultural labourer is to his 
necessaiy labour as 3 :1; which gives a rate of exploitation of 
300%. 

The favourite method of treating the working-day as con* 
stant in magnitude became, through the use of the formula 
IL, a fixed usage, because in them surplus-labour is always 
compared with a working-day of given length. The same 
holds good when the repartition of the value produced is ex- 
clusively kept in sight The working-day that has already 
been realised in a given value, must necessarily be a day of 
given length. 

The habit of representing surplus-value and value of labour- 
power as fractions of the value created — a habit that originates 
in the capitalist mode of production itself, and whose import 
will hereafter be disclosed — conceals the very transaction that 
characterises capital, namely the exchange of variable capital 
for living labour-power, and the consequent exclusion of the 
labourer from the product Instead of the real fact, we have 
the false semblance of an association, in which labourer and 
capitalist divide the product in proportion to the different ele- 
ments which they respectively contribute towards its for- 
mation.^ 

Moreover, the formul» II. can at any time be reconverted 

• , ^ iT-ri&gt;j&gt;«&lt; 1 Surplus-labour of 6 hotars 

into formulae 1. If, for mstance, we have woridng-day of 12 hours 
the necessary labour-time being 12 hours less the surpluft- 
labour of 6 hours, we get the following result, 

Surplus-labour of 6 hours TOO 

Necessary-labour of 6 hours 100 

There is a third formula which I have occasionally already 
anticipated ; it is 

111 Surplus-value Surplus-labour Unpaid labour 

Value of labour-power*&apos;&apos;* Necessary labour Paid labour 

After the investigations we have given above, it is no longer 
possible to be misled, by the formula p^diab!)ur^ 9 ^^ con- 

^All well-developed forms of capitalist production being forms of co-operation, 
nothing is, of course, easier, than to make abetraetioa from their antagonistic char^ 



 

Various FormultB for Rate of Surplus-Value. 585 

dudingy that the capitalist pays for labour and not for labour* 
power. This formula is only a popular expression for 
g^^^^^^. The capitalist pays the value^ so far as price co- 
incides with value, of the labour-power, and receives in ex- 
change the disposal of the living labour-power itself. His 
usufruct is spread over two periods. During one the labourer 
produces a value that is only equal to the value of his labour- 
power: he produces its equivalent Thus the capitalist re- 
ceives in return for his advance of the price of the labour pow- 
er, a product of the same price. It is the same as if he 
had bought the product ready made in the market During 
the other period, the period of surplus-labour, the usufruct of 
the labour-power creates a value for the capitalist, that costs 
him no equivalent^ This expenditure of labour-power 
comes to him gratis. In this sense it is that surplus-labour 
can be called unpaid labour. 

Capital, therefore^ is not only, as Adam Smith says, the 
command over labour. It is essentially the command over un- 
paid labour. All surplusrvalue, whatever particular form 
(profit, interest, or rent), it may subsequently crystallise into, 
is in substance the materialisation of unpaid labour. The se- 
cret of the self -expansion of capital resolves itself into having 
the disposal of a definite quantity of other people&apos;s unpaid 
labour. 

acter, and to tniiBfonn them hj a word into tome fonn of free aMociation, aa ia 
done by A. de Laborde in &quot;De I&apos;Esprit de I&apos;Atsodation dana tooa les int^r^ de !a 
oommunant^.&quot; Paria 1818. H. Carey, tlie Yankee, occasionally performa this con- 
joring trick with like success, eren with the relations resulting from slavery. 

^Although the PhysiocraU could not penetrate the mystery of surplus-value, iret 
this much was clear to them, viz., that it is &quot;une richease ind^pendante et disponible 
qu&apos;il (the possessor) n&apos;a point acbet^e et qu&apos;il vend.&quot; (Torgot: &quot;R^flexiona aur la 
Formation et la Distribution dca RichesseSy&quot; p. 11.) 



 

PART VL 
WAGES* 



OHAPTEB XIX. 

THB TBAirSFOBlCATIOK OF THB VALUB (aITD BIDBPBOTIVKLY THB 
PBICS) OF LABOUB-POWSS INTO WAQB8. 

On the surface of bourgeois society the wage of the lar 
bourer appears as the price of labour^ a certain quantity 
of money that is paid for a certain quantity of labour. Thus 
people speak, of the value of labour and call its expression in 
money its necessaiy or natural price. On the other hand 
they speak of the market prices of labour, i.e., prices oscillating 
above or fc3low its natural price. 

But what is the value of a commodity ? The objective form 
of the social labour expended in its production. And how do 
we measure the quantity of this value? By the quantity of 
the labour contained in it How then is the value, e.g., of a 
12 hours&apos; working day to be determined? By the 12 work- 
ing hours contained in a working day of 12 hours, which is 
an absurd tautology.* 

&apos; &quot;Mr. Ricardo, ingeniously enougli, avoidB a diflBcnlty which, on a firtt Tiew, 
threaten! to encumber his doctrine, that value depends on the quantity of labour 
employed in production. 1£ this principle is rigidly adhered to, it follows that the 
value of labour qtepends on the quantity of labour employed in producing it — which 
IS evidently absuhL By a dexterous turn, therefore, Mr. Ricardo maken the value 
of labour depend on the quantity of labour required to produce wages; or, to give 
him the benefit f his own language, he maintains, that the value of labour is to be 
estimated by the quantity of labour required to produce wages; by which he means 
the quantity of labour required to produce the money or commodities given to the 
labourer. This is similar to sajring, that the value of cloth is estimated, not by the 
quantity of labour bestowed on its production, but by the quantity of labour be- 
stowed on the production of the silver, for which the cloth is exchanged.** (A. 
Critical Discourse on the Nature, &amp;c., of Value, p. 50, 51.) 

586 



 

Value of Labour-Power and Wages. 587 

In order to be sold as a commodity in the market^ labour 
must at all events exist before it is sold. But could the 
labourer give it an independent objective existence, he would 
sell a commodity and not labour.^ 

Apart from these contradictions, a direct exchange of money, 
%.e., of realized labour, with living labour would either do 
away with the law of value which only begins to develop itself 
freely on the basis of capitalist production, or do away with 
capitalist production itself, which rests directly on wage- 
labour. The working day of 12 hours embodies itself, e.g., 
in a money value of 6s. Either equivalents are exchanged, 
and then the labou -er receives 63. for 12 hours&apos; labour ; the 
price of his labour would be equal to the price of his product 
In this case he produces no surplus-value, for the buyer of 
his labour, the js. are not transformed into capital, the basis 
of capitalist production var ishes. But it is on this very basis 
that he sells his labour and that his labour is wage-labour. 
Or else he receives for 12 hours&apos; labour less than 6s., i.e., less 
than 12 hours&apos; labour. Twelve hours labour are exchanged 
against 10, 6, &amp;c., hours&apos; labour. This equalisation of un- 
equal quantities not nerely does way with the determination 
of value. Such a self-destructive contradiction cannot be in 
any way even enunciated or formulated as a law.* 

It is of no avail to deduce the exchange of more labour 
against less, from their difference of form, the one being 
realized, the other living.&apos; This is the more absurd as the 

^ &quot;If you call labour a commodity, it is not like a commodity which is first pro- 
duced in order to exchange, and then brought to market where it must exchange 
with other commodities according to the respective quantities of each which ther« 
may be in the market at the time; labour is created the moment it is brought to 
market; nay, it is brought to market before it is created.&quot; (Obsenrations on som« 
Verbal Disputes, etc, pp. 76, 76.) 

* &quot;Treating labour as a commodity, and capital, the produce of labour, as another, 
then, if the values of these two commodities were regulated by equal quantities of 
labour, a given amount of labour would . . . exchange for that quantity of 
capital which had been produced by the same amount of labour; antecedent labour 
would . . • exchange for the same amount as present labour. But the value 
ot labous in relation to other commodities ... is determined not by equal 
quantities of labour.&quot; (E. G. Wakefield in his edition of Adam Smith&apos;s &quot;Wealth 
of Nations,&quot; voL i., London, 1836, p. 281, note.) 

*&quot;I1 a fallu convenir (a new edition of the contrat social 1) que toutes les fois 
qu&apos;il ^changerait du travail fait contre du travail 4 faire, le dernier (le capitaliste) 
aurait une valeur sup^rieure au premier&quot; (le travaiUeur). Simonde («.#., Sismondi), 
&quot;De la Richesse Commerdale,&quot; Gen^e, 1808, t 1, p. 87- 



 

S88 Capitalist Production. 

yalne of a oommodity is determined not by the quantity of 
labour actually realized in it, but by the quantity of living 
labour necessary for its production. A commodity represents, 
say 6 narking hours. If an invention is made by which it 
can be produced in 8 hours^ the value, even of the comm&lt;&gt;dity 
already produced, falls by half. It represents now 3 houra 
of social labour instead of the 6 formerly necessary. It is 
the quantity of labour required for its production, not the 
realized form of that labour, by which the amount of the 
value of a commodity is determined. 

That which comes directly face to face with the possessor 
of money on the market, is in fact not labour, but the labourer. 
What the latter sells is his labou]&gt;power. As soon as his 
labour actually b^ns, it has already ceased to belong to him ; 
it can therefore no longer be sold by him. Labour is the 
substance, and the immanent measure of value, but has itself 
no valve.^ 

In the expression **value of labour,&apos;* the idea of value is not 
only completely obliterated, but actually reversed. It is an 
expression as imaginary as the value of the earth. These 
imaginary expressions, arise, however, from the relations of 
production themselves. They are categories for the phe- 
nomenal forms of essential relations. That in their appear- 
ance things often represent themselves in inverted form is 
pretty well known in every science except political economy.* 

* &quot;Labour the cxdusiTe standard of Talue ... the greater of all wealth, no 
commodity.&quot; Th. Hodgtkm, L c p. 180. 

&apos;On the other hand, the attempt to explafai such expreteiotts as merely poetic 
license only shows the impotence of the analysis. Hence, in answer to Prondhon&apos;s 
phrase; &quot;Le travail est dit valoir, non pas en tant que marchandise Ini m^e, mais 
en yue des ▼aleurs qn&apos;on suppose, renfermdes puissanciellement en luL La yaleor 
da travail est une expression figurfe,&quot; ftc., I have remarked: &quot;Dans le travail- 
marchandise qui est d&apos;une rHllti effrayant, il (Proudhon) ne voit qu&apos;nne ellipse 
grammaticale. Done, toute la socidtd actuelle fondle sur le travail-marchandise, est 
disormais fondle sur une license po6tique, sur une expression figur6e. La aodM 
veut-elle &apos;tiiminer tons les inconvdnients,&apos; qui la travaillent, eh bienl qu&apos;elle limine 
les termes malsonnants, qu&apos;elle change de langage, et pour cela elle n&apos;a qu* i 
s&apos;adresser i TAcaddmie pour lui demander une nouvelle ^tion d^ son dictionnaire.&quot; 
(Karl Marx. &quot;Mis^e de la Philosophic,&quot; p. 84, 85.) It is naturally still more 
convenient to understand by value nothing at all. Then one can without difficulty 
subsume everything under this category. Thus, e.g., J. B. Say; what is &quot;valeur?&quot; 
Answer: &quot;C&apos;est ce qu&apos;une chose vaut,&quot; and what is &quot;prix?** Answer; &quot;La valenr 
d&apos;une chose exprim^ «n monnaie.&quot; And why has &quot;le travail de la terre . . • 



 

Value of Labour-Power and Wages. 589 

Classical political economy borrowed from every-day life 
the category &quot;price of labour&apos;* without further criticism, and 
then simply asked the question, how is this price determined ? 
It soon recognized that the change in the relations of demand 
and supply explained in r^ard to the price of labour, as of all 
other commodities, nothing except its changes, i.e., the oscilla- 
tions of the market price above or below a certain mean. If 
demand and supply balance, the oscillation of prices ceases, all 
other conditions remaining the same. But then demand and 
supply also cease to explain anything. The price of labour, at 
the moment when demand and supply are in equilibrium, is 
its natural price, determined independently of the relation of 
demand and supply. And how this price is determined, is 
just the question. Or a larger period of oscillations in the 
market-price is taken, e.g., a year, and they are found to can- 
cel one the other, leaving a mean average quantity, a relatively 
constant magnitude. This had naturally to be determined 
otherwise than by its own compensating variations. This price 
which always finally predominates over the accidental market- 
prices of labour and regulates them, this &quot;necessary price** 
(physiocrats) or &quot;natural price&quot; of labour (Adam Smith) can, 
as with all other commodities, be nothing else than its value 
expressed in money. In this way political economy expected 
to penetrate athwart the accidental prices of labour, to the 
value of labour. As with other commodities, this value was 
determined by the cost of production. But what is the cost of 
production — of the labourer, i.e., the cost of producing or re- 
producing the labourer himself? This question unconsciously 
substituted itself in political economy for the original one; 
for the search after the cost of production of labour as such 
turned in a circle and never left the spot What economists 
therefore call value of labour, is in fact the value of labour- 
power, as it exists in the personality of the labourer, which is 
as different from its function, labour, as a machine is from 
the work it performs. Occupied with the difference between 

one valeur? Parce qu&apos;on 7 met un prix.&quot; Therefore value is what a thing is 
worth, and the land has its &quot;value,*&apos; because its value is &quot;expressed in money.&quot; 
This is, anyhow, a Tery simple way of explaining the why and the wherefore of 
Ihings. 



 

590 Capitalist Production. 

the market-price of labour and its-so^^Ued value, with the 
relation of this value to the rate of profit, and to the values 
of the commodities produced by means of labour, &amp;c., they 
never discovered that the course of the analysis had led not 
only from the market prices of labour to its presumed value, 
but had led to the resolution of this value of labour itself 
into the value of labour-povTer. Classical economy never ar- 
rived at a consciousness of the results of its own analysis ; it 
accepted uncritically the categories &quot;value of labour,&apos;^ &quot;natural 
price of labour,&quot; &amp;c, as final and as adequate expressions for 
the value-relation under consideration, and was thus led, as 
will be seen later, into inextricable confusion and contradicr- 
tion, while it offered to the vulgar economists a secure basis of 
operations for their shallowness, which on principle worships 
appearances only. 

Let us next see how value (and price) of labour-power, 
present themselves in this transformed condition as wages. 

We know that the daily value of labour-power is calculated 
upon a certain length of the labourer&apos;s life, to which, again, 
corresponds a certain length of working-day. Assume the 
habitual working-day as 12 hours, the daily value of labour- 
power as 3s., the expression in money of a value that embodies 
6 hours of labour. If the labourer receives 3s., then he re- 
ceives the value of his labour-power functioning through 13 
hours. If, now, this value of a day&apos;s labour-power is ex- 
pressed as the value of a day&apos;s labour itself, we have the 
formula : Twelve hours&apos; labour has a value of 3s. The value 
of labour-power thus determines the value of labour, or, ex- 
pressed in money, its necessary price. If, on the other hand, 
the price of labour-power differs from its value, in like man- 
ner the price of labour differs from its so-called value. 

As the value of labour is only an irrational expression for 
the value of labour-power, it follows, of course, that the value 
of labour must always be less than the value it produces, for 
the capitalist always makes labour-power work longer than is 
necessary for the reproduction of its own value. In the above 
.^jTample, the value of the labour-power that functions through 
12 hours is 3s., a value for the reproduction of which 6 houra 



 

Value of Labour-Power and Wages. 591 

are required. The value which the labour-power produces is, 
on the other hand, 68., because it, in fact, functions during 12 
hours, and the value it produces depends, not on its own 
value, but on the length of time it is in action. Thus, we have 
a result absurd at first sight — ^that labour which creates a value 
of 6s. possesses a value of 3s.* 

We see, further : The value of 3s. by which a part only of 
the working day — i.e., 6 hours&apos; labour — is paid for, appears 
as the value or price of the whole wt)rking-day of 12 hours, 
which thus includes 6 hours unpaid for. The wage-form thus 
extinguishes every trace of the division of the working-day 
into necessary labour and surplus-labour, into paid and un- 
paid labour. All labour appears as paid labour. In the 
corvee, the labour of the worker for himself, and his compul- 
sory labour for his lord, differ in space and time in the clear- 
est possible way. In slave-labour, even that part of the 
working-day in which the slave is only replacing the value of 
his own means of existence, in which, therefore, in fact, he 
works for himself alone, appears as labour for his master. 
All the slave&apos;s labour appears as unpaid labour,^ In wage- 
labour, on the contrary, even surplus labour, or unpaid labour, 
appears as paid. There the property-relation conceals the 
labour of the slave for himself; here the money-relation con- 
ceals the unrequited labour of the wage-labourer. 

Hence, we may understand the decisive importance of the 
transformation of value and price of labour-power into the 
form of wages, or into the value and price of labour itself. 
This phenomenal form, which makes the actual relation in- 
visible, and, indeed, shows the direct opposite of that relation, 
forms the basis of all the juridicial notions of both labourer and 
capitalist, of all the mystifications of the capitalistic mode of 

^ Cf. Zttr Kritik der Politischen CEkonoinie, p. 40, where I state that, in the por- 
tion of that work that deals with Capital, this problem will be solved: &quot;How does 
production, on the basis of exchange-value determined simply by labour-time, lead 
to the result that the exchanse-value of labour is less than the exchange-value of 
Its product?&quot; 

* The &quot;Morning Star,&quot; a London free-trade organ, naif to silliness, protested again 
and again during the American civil war, with all the moral indignation of which 
man is capable, that the negro in the &quot;Confederate States** worked absolutely for 
nothing. It should have compared the daily cost of such a negro with that of the 
free workman in the East end of London. 



 

59^ Capitalist Production. 

production^ of all its illusions as to liberty, of all the apologetie 
shifts of the vulgar economists. 

If history took a long time to get at the bottom of the 
mystery of wages, nothing, on the other hand, is more easy 
to understand than the necessity, the raison d&apos;etre, of this 
phenomenon. 

The exchange between capital and labour at first presents 
itself to the mind in the same guise as the buying and selling 
of all other conunodities. The buyer gives a certain sum of 
money, the seller an article of a nature different from money. 
The jurist&apos;s consciousness recognises in this, at most, a material 
difference, expressed in the juridically equivalent formals: 
&quot;Do ut de^ do ut facias, facio ut des, facio ut facias.&quot; 

Further. Exchange-value and use-value, being intrin- 
sically incommensurable magnitudes, the expressions ^Sralue of 
labour,&apos;* &quot;price of labour,&apos;&apos; do not seem more irrational than 
the expressions &quot;value of cotton,&quot; &quot;price of cotton.&quot; More- 
over, the labourer is paid after he has given his labour. In 
its function of means of payment, money realises subsequently 
the value or price of the article supplied — i.e., in this par- 
ticular case, the value or price of the labour supplied. 
Finally, the use-value supplied by the labourer to the capitalist 
is not, in fact, his labour-power, but its function, some definite 
useful labour, the work of tailoring, shoemaking, spinning, &amp;c 
That this same labour is, on the other hand, the xmiversal 
value-creating element, and thus possesses a property by which 
it differs from all other commodities, is beyond the cognisance 
of the ordinary mind. 

Let us put ourselves in the place of the labourer who 
receives for 12 hours&apos; labour, say the value produced by 6 
hours&apos; labour, say Ss. For him, in fact, his 12 hours&apos; labour 
is the means of buying the 3s. The value of his labour- 
power may vary, with the value of his usual means of sub- 
sistence, from 3 to 4 shillings, or from 3 to 2 shillings; or, if 
the value of his labour-power remains constant, its price may, 
in consequence of changing relations of demand and supply, 
rise to 4s. or fall to 2s. He always gives 12 hours of labour. 
Every change in the amount of the equivalent that he receives 



 

Value of Labour-Power and Wages. 593 

appears to him, therefore^ necessarily as a change in the value 
or price of his 12 hours&apos; work. This circumstance misled 
Adam Smith, who treated the working-day as a constant 
quantity,^ to the assertion that the value of labour is constant^ 
although the value of the means of subsistence may vary, and 
the same working-day, therefore, may represent itself in more, 
or less money for the labourer. 

Let us consider, on the other hand, the capitalist He 
wishes to receive as much labour as possible for as little 
money as possibla Practically, therefore, the only thing that 
interests him is the difference between the price of labour- 
power and the value which its function creates. But, then, he 
tries to buy all commodities as cheaply as possible, and always 
accounts for his profit by simple cheating, by buying under, 
and selling over the value. Hence, he never comes to see that, 
if such a thing as the value of labour really existed, and be 
really paid this value no capital would exist, his money 
would not be turned into capital. 

Moreover, the actual movement of wages presents phe- 
nomena which seem to prove that not the value of labour- 
power is paid, but the value of its function, of labour itself. 
We may reduce these phenomena to two great classes: (1.) 
Change of wages with the changing length of the working- 
day. One might as well conclude that not the value of a 
machine is paid, but that of its working, because it costs more 
to hire a machine for a week than for a day. (2.) The indi- 
vidual difference in the wages of different labourers who do 
the same kind of work. We find this individual difference, 
but are not deceived by it, in the system of slavery, where, 
frankly and openly, without any circumlocution, labour-power 
itself is sold. Only, in the slave system, the advantage of a 
labour-power above the average, and the disadvantage of a 
labour-power below the average, affects the slave-owner ; in the 
wage-labour system it affects the labourer himself, because his 
labour-power is, in the one case, sold by himself, in the other, 
by a third person. 

^Adam Smith only accidentally alladet to the rariation of the working-day when 
he is referring to piece-wages. 

9L 



 

594 Capitalist Production. 

For the rest, in respect to the phenomenal f onn, &quot;value and 
price of labour,&quot; or &quot;wages,&quot; as contrasted with the essential 
relation manifested therein, viz,, the value and price of labour- 
power, the same difference holds that holds in respect to all 
phenomena and their hidden substratum. The former appear 
directly and spontaneously as current modes of thought; the 
latter must first be discovered by science. Classical political 
economy nearly touches the true relation of things, without, 
however, consciously formulating it This it cannot so Icmg 
as it sticks in its bourgeois skin« 



CHAPTER XX. 

TIMB-WAQBB. 



Wages themselves again take many forms, a fact not recog- 
nizable in the ordinary economical treatises which, exclusively 
interested in the material side of the question, neglect every 
difference of form. An exposition of all these forms however, 
belongs to the special study of wage-labour, not therefore to 
this work. Still the two fundamental fonns must be briefly 
worked out here. 

The sale of labour-power, as will be remembered, takes 
place for a definite period of time. The converted form under 
which the daily, weekly, &amp;c, value of labour-power presents 
itself, is hence that of time-wages, therefore day-wages, &amp;c. 

Next it is to be noted that the laws set forth, in the 17ih 
chapter, on the changes in the relative magnitudes of price of 
labour-power and surplus-value, pass by a simple transforma- 
tion of form, into laws of wages. Similarly the distinction 
between the exchange-value of laboui^power, and the sum of 
the necessaries of life into which this value is converted, now 
reappears as the distinction between nominal and real wages. 
It would be useless to repeat here, with regard to the phe- 
nomenal form, what has been already worked out in the sub- 



 

Time-Wages. 595 

stantial fonn. We limit ourselves therefore to a few points 
characteristic of time-wages. 

The sum of money* which the labourer receives for his daily 
or weekly labour, forms the amount of his nominal wages, or of 
his wages estimated in value. But it is dear that according 
to the length of the working-day, that is, according to the 
amount of actual labour daily supplied, the same daily or 
weekly wage may represent very different prices of labour, i.e., 
very different sums of money for the same quantity of labour.* 
We must, therefore, in considering time-wages, again dis- 
tinguish between the sum total of the daily or weekly wages, 
&amp;C., and the price of labour. How then to find this price, 
1.6., the money-value of a given quantity of labour ? The aver- 
age price of labour is found, when the average daily value 
of the labour-power is divided by the average number of hours 
in the working-day. If, e.g., the daily value of labour^power 
is 3 shillings, the value of the product of 6 working hours, 
and if the working-day is 12 hours, the price of 1 working hour 
is -^ shillings=3i The price of the working hour thus found 
serves as the unit measure for the price of labour. 

It follows therefore that the daily and weekly wages, &amp;o., 
may remain the same, although the price of labour falls con- 
stantly. If, e.g., the habitual working-day is 10 hours and the 
daily value of the labour-power Ss., the price of the working 
hour is 3f d« It falls to 3d. as soon as the working-day rises 
to 12 hours, to 2f d. as soon as it rises to 15 hours. Daily or 
weekly wages remain, despite all this, unchanged* On the 
contrary, the daily or weekly wages may rise, although the 
price of labour remains constant or even falls. If, e.g., the 
working day is 10 hours, and the daily value of labour^ 
power 3 shillings, the price of one working hour is 3f d. 
If the labourer in consequence of increase of trade works 12 
hours, the price of labour remaining the same, his daily wage 

^The value of money itself is here always supposed constant. 

*&apos;*The price of labour is the sum paid for a given quantity of labour.&quot; (Sir 
Edward West, &quot;Price of Com and Wages of Labour.*&apos; London, 1886, p. 67). West 
is the author of the anonymous &quot;Essay on the Application of Capital to Land. 
By a Fellow of the University College of Oxford, Lcmdon, 1816.&quot; An epoch mak- 
ing work in the history of political economy. 



 

Sg6 Capitalist Production. 

now rises to 8 sMllings 7J d. without any variation in the price 
of labour. The same result mi^t follow if, instead of the ex- 
tensive amount of labour^ its intensive amount increased.* 
The rise of the nominal daily or weekly wages may therefore 
be accompanied by a price of labour that remains stationary 
or falls. The same holds as to the income of the labourer&apos;s 
family, as soon as the quantity of labour expended by the head 
of the family is increased by the labour of the members of his 
family. There are, therefore, methods of lowering the price 
of labour independent of the reduction of the nominal daily or 
weekly wages,* 

As a general law it follows that, given the amount of daily, 
weekly labour, &amp;c., the daily or weekly wages depend on the 
price of labour which, itself varies either with tiie value of 
labour-power, or with the difference between its price and its 
value. Given, on the other hand, the price of labour, the 
daily or weekly wages depend on the quanti^ of the daily or 
weekly labour. 

The unit measure for time-wages, the price of the working- 
hour, is the quotient of the value of a day&apos;s labour-power, 
divided by the number of hours of the average working-day. 
Let the latter be 12 hours, and the daily value of labour-power 
8 shillings, the value of the product of 6 hours of labour. 
Under these circumstances the price of a working-hour is 3d., 

*&quot;The wages of laboor depend upon the price of labour and the quantity of 
labour performed. ... An increase in the wages of labour does not necessarily 
imply an enhancement of the price of labour. From fuller employment, and grea te r 
exertions, the wages of labour may be considerably increased, while the price of 
labour may continue the same.&quot; West, 1. c. pp. 67, 68, 112. The main question: 
&apos;^ow is the price of labour determined?&quot; West, howerer, dismisses with mere 
1&gt;analitiea. 

&apos;This is perceived by the fanatical repreaentatire of the industrial bo urg eoisie of 
the 18th century, the author of the &quot;Essay on Trade and Commerce&quot; often quoted 
by us, although he puts the matter in a confused way: &quot;It is the quantity of labour 
and not the price of it Oie means by this the nominal daily or weekly wages) that is 
determined by the {nice of provisions and other necessaries: reduce the price of 
necessaries very low, and of course yon reduce the quantity of labour in proportion. 
If aster manufacturers know that there are various ways of raising and felling the 
price of labour, besides that of altering its nominal amount.&quot; (L c. pp. 48, 61.) 
In his &quot;Three Lectures on the rate of Wages,&quot; London, 1890, in which N. W. 
Senior uses West&apos;s work without mentioning it, he says: &quot;The labourer is prin« 
dpally interested in the amount of wages,&quot; (p. 14), that is to say the labourer is 
principally interested in what he receives, the nominal sum of his wages, not in that 
which he gives* the amount of labour! 



 

Time-Wages. 597 

the value produced in it is 6d. K the labourer is now em- 
ployed less than 12 hours (or less than 6 days in the week)^ 
e.g., only 6 or 8 hours, he receives, with this price of labour, 
only 2s. or Is. 6d. a day.* As on our hypothesis he must work 
on the average 6 hours daily, in order to produce a day^s wage 
corresponding merely to the value of his labour-power, as 
according to the same hypothesis he works only half of every 
hour for himself, and half for the capitalist, it is dear that he 
cannot obtain for himself the value of the product of 6 hours 
if he is employed less than 12 hours. In previous chapters we 
saw the destructive consequences of over-work; here we find 
the sources of the sufferings that result to the labourer from his 
insufficient employment. 

If the hour&apos;s wage is fixed so that the capitalist does not 
bind himself to pay a day&apos;s or a week&apos;s wage, but only to pay 
wages for the hours during which he chooses to employ the 
labourer, he can employ him for a shorter time than that which 
is originally thfe basis of the calculation of the hour-wage, of 
the unit-measure of the price of labour. Since this unit is 

J . • J &quot;L xi- X* daily value of labour-power .. 

determmed by the ratio ^ working-day of « given number of houra, i*&gt; o* 

course, loses all the meaning as soon as the working day ceases 
to contain a definite number of hours. The connexion between 
the paid and the unpaid labour is destroyed. The capitalist 
can now wring from the labourer a certain quantity of sur- 
plus-labour without allowing him the labour-time necessary 
for his own subsistence. He can annihilate bM regularity 
of employment, and according to his own convenience, caprice, 
and the interest of the moment, make the most enormous 
over-work alternate with relative or absolute cessation of 
work He can, imder the pretence of paying &quot;the normal 
price of labour,&quot; abnormally lengthen the working-day with- 
out any corresponding compensation to the labourer. Hence 

^The effect of inch mn abnormal lessening of employment is quite different from 
that of a general reduction of the working&lt;4ay, enforced by law. The former has 
nothing to do with the absolute length of the working-day, and may occur jutt as 
well in a working-day of 16, as of 6 hours. The normal price of labour is in the 
first case calculated on the labourer working 15 hours, in the second case in his 
working 6 hours a day on the average. The result is therefore the same if he in the 
one case is employed only for 7^, in the other only for 8 hours. 



 

59^ Capitalist Production. 

the perfectly rational revolt in 1860 of the London labourers, 
employed in the building trades, against the attempt of the 
capitalists to impose on them this sort of wage by the hour. 
The legal limitation of the working-day puts an. end to such 
mischief, although not&gt; of course, to the diminution of em- 
ployment caused by the competition of machinery, by changes 
in the quality of the labourers employed, and by crisis partial 
or general. 

With an increasing daily or weekly wage the price of labour 
may remain nominally constant, and yet may fall below its 
normal leveL This occurs every time that, the price of labour 
(reckoned per working hour) remaining constant, the work- 
ing-day is prolonged beyond its customary lengtih. K in 

the fraction : &apos; ^ ^worktng*day &apos;^^&apos;^^&apos;^^ ^^ denominator increases, the 
numerator increases yet more rapidly. The value of labour- 
power, as dependent on its wear and tear, increases with the 
duration of its functioning, and in more rapid proportion than 
the increase of that duration. In many branches of industry 
where time-wage is the general rule without legal limits to the 
working-time, the habit has, therefore, spontaneously grown 
up of regarding the working-day as normal only up to a cer- 
tain point, e.g., up to the expiration of the tenfli hour (&quot;nor- 
mal working-day,&quot; &quot;the day&apos;s work,&apos;* &quot;the regular hours of 
work&quot;). Beyond this limit the working^time is over-time, and 
is, taking the hour as unit-measure, paid better (&quot;extra pay&quot;), 
although often in a proportion ridiculously small.* The nor- 
mal working-day exists here as a fraction of the actual work- 
ing-day, and the latter, often during the whole year, lasts 
longer than the former.^ The increase in the price of labour 
with the extension of the working-day beyond a certain normal 

^ &quot;The rate of pajrment for overtime (in lace-making) i« so small, from ^d. and 
^d. to 2d. per hour, that it stands in painful contrast to the amount of injury 
produced to the health and stamina of the workpeople. . . The small amount 
thus earned is also often obliged to be spent in extra nourishment&quot; (&quot;Child Empw 
Com., II. Rep.,&quot; p. xvi., n. 117.) 

* E,g,, in paper-staining before the recent introduction into this trade of the Fac- 
tory Act. &quot;We work on with no stoppage for meals, so that the day&apos;s work of 
10^ hours is finished by 4.80 p.m., and all after that is overtime, and we seldom 
leave off working before 6 p.m., so that we are really working overtime the whole 
year round.&quot; (Mr. Smith&apos;s &quot;Evidence in Child Emp. Com., I. Rep.,&quot; p. 126.) 



 

Time-Wages. 599 

limit, takes such a shape in yarious British industries that the 
low price of labour during the so-called normal time compeb 
the labourer to work during the better paid over-time, if he 
wishes to obtain a sufficient wage at all.^ Legal limitation of 
the working-day puts an end to these amenities.^ 

It is a fact generally known that, the longer the working- 
days, in any branch of industry, the lower are the wages.* A. 
Redgrave, factory-inspector, illustrates this by a comparative 
review of the 20 years from 1839-1859, according to which 
wages rose in the factories imder the 10 hours&apos; law, whilst 
they fell in the factories in which the work lasted 14 to 15 
hours daily.* 

From the law : &quot;the price of labour being given, the daily 
or weekly wage depends on the quantity of labour expended,** 
it follows, first of all, that&gt; the lower tiie price of labour, the 
greater must be the quantity of labour, or the longer must be 

^E.g,, in the Scotch bleaching-works. &quot;In tome parts of Scotland this trade 
[hefore the introduction of the Factory Act in 1862] was carried on by a system of 
overtime, u€,, ten hours a day were the regular hours of work, for which a nominal 
wmge of Is. 2d. per day was paid to a man, there being every day overtime for 
three or four hours, paid at the rate of 8d. per hour. The effect of this system 
... a man could not earn more than Ss. per week when working the ordinary 
hours . . . without overtime they could not earn a fair day&apos;s wages.&quot; (&quot;Kept, 
of Insp. of Factories,&quot; April 80th, 1868, p. 10.) &apos;&apos;The higher wages, for getting 
adult males to work longer hours, are a temptation too strong to be resisted.&quot; 
C&apos;Rept. of Insp. of Fact.,&quot; April 80th, 1848, p. 6.) The bookbinding trade in the 
city of London employs very many young girls from 14 to 16 years old, and that 
under indentures which prescribe certain definite hours of labour. Nevertheless, 
they work in the last week of each month until 10, 11, 18, or 1 o&apos;clock at night, 
along with the older labourers, in a very mixed company. &quot;The masters tempt them 
by extra pay and supper,&quot; which they eat in neighboring public-houses. The great 
debauchery thus produced among these &apos;young immortals&apos; (&quot;Children&apos;s Employment 
Comm., V. Rept,&quot; p. 44, n. 191) is compensated by the fact that among the rest 
many Bibles and religious books are bound by them. 

&apos; 5#« &quot;Reports of Insp. of Fact,&quot; 80th April, 1808, L c With very accurate ap- 
preciation of the state of things, the London labourers employed in the building 
trades declared, during the great strike and lockout of 1860, that they would only 
accept wages by the hour under two conditions (1) that, with the price of the 
working-hour, a normal working-day of and 10 hours respectively should be fixed, 
and that the price of the hour for the 10 hours&apos; working-day should be higher than 
that for the hour of the hours&apos; working-day; (2) that every hour beyond the 
normal working-day should be reckoned as overtime and proportionally more highly 
paid. 

*&quot;It is a very notable thing; too, that where long hours are the rule, small 
wages are also so.&quot; (&quot;Report of Insp. of Fact.,&quot; 81st Oct., 1868, p. 0.) &quot;The 
work which obtains the scanty pittance of food, is, for the most part, excessively 
prolonged.&quot; (&quot;Public Health, Sixth Report,&quot; 1864, p. 15.) 

* &quot;Reports of Inspectors of Fact.,&quot; 80th April, 1860, pp. 81, 88. 



 

6oo Capitalist Production. 

ihd working-day for the labourer to secure e^en a miaeraBle 
average-wage. The lowness of the price of labour acts here 
as a stimulus to the extension of the labour-time.^ 

On the other hand, the extension of the working-time pro- 
duces, in its tum^ a fall in the price of labour, and with this a 
fall in the day&apos;s or week&apos;s wages. 

The determination of the price of labour by: 

daily rwlvtt of labour&apos;power 

worldncHlay of a given nnmber of houn» 

ehowB that a mere prolongation of the working-day lowers the 
price of labour, if no compensation steps in. But the same 
circumstances which allow the capitalist in the long run to 
prolong the working-day, also allow him first, and compel him 
finally, to nominally lower the price of labour, until the total 
price of the increased number of hours is lowered, and, there- 
fore, the daily or weekly wage. Eeference to two circum- 
stances is sufficient here. If one man does the work of 1^ or 2 
men, the supply of labour increases, although the supply of 
labour-power on the market remains constant The competi- 
tion thus created between the labourers allows the capitalist 
to beat down the price of labour, whilst the falling price of 
labour allows him, on the other hand, to screw up still further 
the working-time.* Soon, however, this command over abnor- 
mal quantities of unpaid labour, i.e., quantities in excess of 
the average social amoimt, becomes a source of competition 
amongst the capitalists themselves. A part of the price of the 
commodity consists of the price of labour. The impaid part 
of the labour-price need not be reckoned in the price of the 

&apos;The hand-nail makers in England* g,£., have, on account of the low price of 
laboor, to work 15 hours a day in order to hammer out their miserable weekly 
wage. &quot;It&apos;s a great many hours in a day (6 a.m. to 8 p.m.), and he has to work 
bard all the time to get lid. or Is., and there is the wear of the tools, the cost 
of firing, and something for waste iron to go out of this, which takes off altogether 
BHd. or Zd,&quot; (&quot;Children&apos;s Employment Com., III. Report,&quot; p. 1S6, n. 671.) The 
women earn by the same working-time a week&apos;s wage of only 6 shillings (L c, 
p. 187, a. 974. 

&apos;If a factory-hand, e^., refused to work the customary long hours, &quot;^e would 
▼ery shortly be replaced by somebody who would work any length of time, and thus 
be thrown out of employment.&quot; (&quot;Report of Inspectors of Fact.,** Slst Oct, 1848, 
EWdence, p. 89, n. 58.) &quot;If one man performs the work of two . . . Ae rata 
of profits win generally be raised ... in consequence of the additional mxppfy 
of labour haviog diminishrd its price.&quot; (Senior, L c, p. 14.) 



 

Time-Wages. 6oi 

commodity. It may be presented to the buyer. This is the 
first step to ^hich competition leads. The second step to 
which it drives^ is to exclude also from the selling-price of the 
oommodily, at least a part of the abnormal surplus^value 
created by the extension of the working-day. In this way an 
abnormally low selling-price of the commodity arises, at first 
BporadicaUy, and becomes fixed by degrees; a lower selling 
price which henceforward becomes the constant basis of a 
miserable wage for an excessive working-time, as originally it 
was the product of these very circumstances. This movement 
is simply indicated here, as the analysis of competition does 
not belong to this part of our subject Nevertheless, the capi- 
talist may, for a moment, speak for himself. &quot;In Birmingham 
there is so much competition of masters one against another, 
that many are obliged to do things as employers that they 
would otherwise be ashamed of; and yet no more money is 
made, but only the public gets the benefit&apos;*^ The reader will 
remember the two sorts of London bakers, of whom one sold 
the bread at its full price (the &quot;full-priced&quot; bakers), the other 
below its normal price (&quot;the underpriced,*&apos; &quot;the under- 
sellers&apos;^). The &quot;full-priced&quot; denounced their rivals before the 
Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry: &quot;They only exist now 
by first defrauding the public, and next getting 18 hours&apos; work 
out of their men for 12 hours&apos; wages. . . . The unpaid 
labour of the men was made . . . the source whereby the 
competition was carried on, and continues so to this day. 
. . . The competition among the master bakers is the 
cause of the diflSculty in getting rid of night-work An imder- 
seller, who sells his bread below the cost price according to 
the price of flour, must make it up by getting more out of 
the labour of the men. ... If I got only 12 hours&apos; work 
out of my men, and my neighbour got 18 or 20, he must beat 
me in the selling price. If the men could insist on payment 
for over-work, this would be set right .... A large 
number of those employed by the undersellers are foreigners^ 



&gt; &quot;Children&apos;s Emoloyment Com., III. Rep.,** Evidence, p. M, n. 22. 



 

6o2 Capitalist Production. 

and youths, who are obliged to accept almost any wages they 
can obtain.&apos;*^ 

This jeremiad is also interesting because it shows, how 
the appearance only of the relations of production mirrors 
itself in the brain of the capitalist. The capitalist does not 
know that the normal price of labour also includes a definite 
quantity of unpaid labour, and that this very unpaid labour is 
the normal source of his gain. The category, surplus-labour- 
time, does not exist at all for him, since it is included in the 
normal working-day, which he thinks he has i&gt;aid for in the 
day&apos;s wages. But overtime does exist for him, the prolonga- 
tion of the working day beyond the limits corresponding with 
the usual price of labour. Face to face with his imderselling 
competitor, he even insists upon extra pay for this overtime. 
He again does not know that this extra pay includes unpaid 
labour, just as well as does the price of the customary hour of 
labour. For example, the price of one hour of the 12 hours&apos; 
working-day is 3d., say the value-product of half a working- 
hour, whilst the price of the overtime working-hour is 4d., or 
the value-product of f of a working-hour. In the first case 
the capitalist appropriates to himself one-half, in the second^ 
one-third of the working-hours without paying for it. 



CHAPTER XXI. 



PIECE-WAGES. 



Wages by the piece are nothing else than a converted form 
of wages by time, just as wages by time are a converted form 
of the value or price of labour-power. 

In piece-wages it seems at first sight as if the use-value 

^&quot;Report, ftc, relative to the Grieymncet complained of by the Jonmeyinen 
Bakers.&quot; Lon&lt;L 1862, p. 411, and ib. Evidence, notes 470, 860, 87. Anjhow the 
full-priced also, as was mentioned above, and as their spokesman* Bennett, himself 
admits, make their men &quot;generally begin work at 11 p.m. . . • up to 8 o&apos;clock 
the next morning . . . they are then engaged all day long • • • as Itte at 7 
o&apos;clock in the evening.&quot; (L c, p. 88.) 



 

Piece-Wages. 603 

bought from the labourer was, not the function of his labour- 
power, living labour, but labour already realised in the pro- 
duct, and as if the price of this labour was determined, not as 
with time-wages, bv the fraction, daily vaioe of labor power — 

^ &apos; ^ &apos; working day of given nnmber of hoars 

but by the capacity for work of the producer.* 

The confidence that trusts in this appearance ought to re- 
ceive a first severe shock from the fact that both forms of 
wages exist side by side, simultaneously, in the same branches 
of industry; e.g., &quot;the compositors of London, as a general 
rule, work by the piece, tim^work being the exception, while 
those in the country work by the day, the exception being work 
by the piece. The shipwrights of the port of London work 
by the job or piece, while those of all other parts work by the 
day.^&apos;« 

In the same saddlery shops of London, often for the same 
work, piece-wages are paid to the French, time-wages to the 
English. Li the regular factories in which throughout piece- 
wages predominate, particular kinds of work are imsuitable to 
this form of wage, and are therefore paid by time.® But 
it is moreover self-evident that the difference of form in the 
payment of wages alters in no way their essential nature, 

&gt;&quot;Tbe system of piece-work illustrates an epoch in the history of the working 
man; it is halfway between the position of the mere day labourer depending upon 
the will of the capitalist and the co-operative artisan, who in the not distant future 
promises to combine the artisan and the capitalist in his own person. Piece-workers 
are in fact their own masters&apos; even whilst working upon the capital of the employer.&quot; 
(John Watts: &quot;Trade Societies and Strikes, Machinery and Co-operative Societies.&quot; 
Manchester, 1865, p. 62, 58.) I quote this little work because it is a very sink of all 
long-ago-rotten, apologetic commonplaces. This same Mr. Watts earlier traded in 
Owenism and published in 1842 another pamphlet: &quot;Facts and Fictions of Political 
Economists,&quot; in which among other things he declares that &quot;property is robbery.&quot; 
That is long ago. 

*T. J. Dunning: &quot;Trade&apos;s Unions and Strikes,&quot; Lond. 1800. p. 82. 

* How the existence, side by side and simultaneously, of these two forms of wage 
favours the masters&apos; cheating: &quot;A factory employs 400 people, the half of which 
work by the piece, and have a direct interest in working longer hours. The other 
800 are paid by the day, work equally long with the others, and get no more money 
for their overtime. . . . The work of these 200 people for half an hour a day 
is equal to one person&apos;s work for 60 hours, or ^ of one person&apos;s labour in a 
week, and is a positive gain to the employer.&quot; (&quot;Reports of Insp. of Fact, 81st 
Oct., 1860,&quot; p. 9.) &quot;Overworking to a very considerable extent still prevails; and, 
in most instances, with that security against detection and punishment which the 
law itself affords. I have in many former reports shown ... the injury to 
workpeople who are not employed on piece-work, but receive weekly wages.&quot; Leon- 
ard Homer in &quot;Reports of Insp. of Fact.&quot; 80th April, 1859, pp. 8, 9.) 



 

6o4 Capitalist Production. 

althou^ the one form may be more favorable to the develop- 
ment of capitalist production than the other. 

Let the ordinary working day contain 12 hours of whidi 6 
are paid, 6 unpaid. Let its value-product be 6 shillings, that 
of one hour&apos;s labour therefore 6d. Let us suppose that, as the 
result of experience^ a labourer who works with the average 
amount of intensity and skill, who, therefore, gives in fact only 
the time socially necessary to the production of an article^ 
supplies in 12 hours 24 pieces, either distinct products or 
measurable parts of a continuous whole. Then the value of 
these 24 pieces, after subtraction of the portion of constant 
capital contained in them, is 6 shillings, and the value of a 
single piece 3d. The labourer receives l^d. per piece^ and 
thus earns in 12 hours 3 shillings. Just as, with time-wages, 
it does not matter whether we assume that the labourer works 
6 hours for himself and 6 hours for the capitalist, or half of 
every hour for himself, and the other half for the capitalist, so 
here it does not matter whether we say that each individual 
piece is half paid, and half unpaid for, or that the price of 12 
pieces is the equivalent only of the value of the labour-power, 
whilst in the other 12 pieces surplus-value is incorporated. 

The form of piece-wages is just as irrational as that of time- 
wages. Whilst in our example two pieces of a commodity, 
after subtraction of the value of the means of production con- 
sumed in them, are worth 6d. as being the product of one hour, 
the labourer receives for them a price of 3d. Piece-wages 
do not, in fact, distinctly express any relation of value. It is 
not, therefore, a question of measuring the value of the piece 
by the working time incorporated in it, but on the contrary of 
measuring the working-time the labourer has expended, by the 
number of pieces he has produced. In time-wages the labour 
is measured by its immediate duration, in piece-wages by the 
quantity of products in which the labour has embodied itself 
during a given time.^ The price of labour-time itself is finally 
determined by the equation; value of a day&apos;s labour=-daily 

^ **Jjt nlatre peut se mettirer de detix mani^res: ou stir U dor^ da trmTmil, 4« far 
son prodoit.** (*&apos;Abr6g6 ^6mentaire des prindpes de rEconooiie PoUtiqae.** Jhth 
17M, p. St.) The aathor of this anoaymous work: G. Garnier. 



 

Piece-Wages. 605 

value of labour-power. Piece-wage is, therefore, only a modi- 
fied form of time-wage. 

Let lis now consider a little more clpsely the characteristic 
peculiarities of piece-wages. 

The quality of the labour is here controlled by the work 
itself, which must be of average perfection if the piece-price is 
to be paid in full. Piece-wages become, from this point of 
view, lie most fruitful source of reductions of wages and capi- 
talistic cheating. 

They furnish to the capitalist an exact measure for the 
intensity of labour. Only the working-time which is em- 
bodied in a quantum of commodities determined beforehand 
and experimentally fixed, counts as socially necessary working 
time, and is paid as such. In the larger workshops of the 
London tailors, therefore, a certain piece of work, a waistcoat 
e,g., is called an hour, or half an hour, the hour at 6d. By 
practise it is known how much is the average product of 
one hour. With new fashions, repairs, etc, a contest arises 
between master and labourer, whether a particular piece of 
work is one hour, and so on, until here also experience decides. 
Similarly in the London furniture workshops, etc If the 
labourer does not possess the average capacity, if he cannot in 
consequence supply a certain minimum of work per day, he is 
dismissed.^ 

Since the quality and intensify of the work are here con- 
trolled by the form of wage itself, superintendence of labour 
becomes in great part superfluous. Piece-wages therefore lay 
the foundation of the modem &quot;domestic labour,&quot; described 
above, as well as of a hierarchically organised system of exploi- 
tation and oppression. The latter has two fundamental forms. 
On the one hand piece-wages facilitate the interposition of 
parasites between the capitalist and the wage-labourer, the 
&quot;sub-letting of labour.&quot; The gain of these middle-men comes 

i&apos;&apos;So much weight of cotton is delivered to him [the spinnerL and he has to 
retnm by a certain time, in lieu of it, a given weight of twist or yam, of a certain 
degree of fineness, and he is paid so much per pound for all that he so returns. 
If his work is defective in quality, the penalty falls on him, if less in quantity 
tlun the minimum fixed for a given time, he is dismissed and an abler operatiw 
vrottured.&quot; (Ure L c. p. S17.) 



 

6o6 Capitalist Production. 

entirely from the difference between the labour prioe which tlie 
capitalist pays, and the part of that price which they actually 
allow to reach the labourer.^ In England this system is diar- 
acteristically called the &quot;Sweating system/&apos; On the othwr 
hand piece-wage allows the capitalist to make a contract for 
so much per piece with the head labourer — ^in manufactures 
with the chief of some group, in mines with the extractor of 
the coal, in the factory with the actual machine-worker — at a 
price for which the head labourer himself undertakes the en- 
listing and payment of his assistant workpeople. The exploi- 
tation of the laboui^r by capital is here effected through the 
exploitation of the labourer by the labourer.* 

Given piece-wage, it is naturally the personal interest of the 
labourer to strain his labour-power as intensely as possible; 
this enables the capitalist to raise more easily Uie normal de- 
gree of intensity of labour.* It is moreover now the personal 
interest of the labourer to lengthen the working day, since 
with it his daily or weekly wages rise.* This gradually brings 

^&quot;It is when work pMtet through several hands, each of which is to take tta 
share of profits* while only the last does the work, that the pay which reaches tha 
work-woman is miserably disproportioned.&quot; (Child Emp. Com. IL Report* p. Izx. 
n. 4S4.) 

&apos; Even Watts, the apologetic, remarks: &apos;&apos;It would be a great improvement to the 
system of piece&gt;work, if all the men employed on a job were partners in the oon- 
tract, each according to his abilities, instead of one man being interested in over- 
working his fellows for his own benefit.&quot; (L c p. 53.) On the vileness of this 
system, cf. Child. Emp. Com. Rep. III. p. 66, n. 22, p. 11« n. 124, p. xi. n. IS, 
6S, 60, etc 

* This spontaneous result is often artificially helped along^ €,g., in the Engineering 
Trade of London, a customary trick is &quot;the selecting of a man who possesses su- 
perior physical strength and quickness, as the principal of several workmen, and 
paying him an additional rate, by the quarter or otherwise, with the understanding 
that he is to exert himself to the utmost to induce the others, who are only paid 
the ordinary wages, to keep up to him. . . . Without any comment this will go 
far to explain many of the complaints of stinting the action, superior skill, and 
working-power, made by the employers against the men&quot; (in Trades-Unions. Dun- 
ning, 1. c pp. 22, 28). As the author is himself a labourer and secretary of a 
Trade&apos;s Union, this might be taken for exaggeration. But the reader may compare 
the &quot;highly respectable&quot; Cyclopaedia of Agriculture of J. Cb, Morton, Art. &quot;La- 
bourer,&quot; where this method is recommended to the farmers as an approved one. 

*&quot;A11 those who are paid by piece-work . . . profit by the transgression of 
the legal limits of work. This observation as to the willingness to work overtime 
is especially applicable to the women employed as weavers and reelers.&quot; (Rept. of 
Insp. of Fact, 80th April, 1868, p. 0). &quot;This system (piece-work), so advantageous 
to the employer . . . tends directly to encourage the young potter greatly to 
overwork himself during the four or five years during which he is employed in the 
piece-work system, but at low wages. . . . This is . . . another great caan 



 

Piece-Wages. 6oy 

on a reaction like that already described in time-wages, without 
reckoning that the prolongation of the working day, even if 
the piece-wage remains constant, includes of necessity a fall in 
the price of the labour. 

In time-wages, with few exceptions, the same wage holds for 
the same kind of work, whilst in piece-wages, though the price 
of lie working time is measured by a certain quantity of 
product, the day^s or week^s wage will vary with the indi- 
vidual diflFerences of the labourers, of whom one supplies in a 
given time the minimum of product only, another the average, 
a third more than the average. With regard to actual receipts 
there is, therefore, great variety according to the different skill, 
strength, energy, staying-power, etc, of the individual la- 
bourers.^ Of course this does not alter the general relations be- 
tween capital and wage-labour. First, the individual differ- 
ences balance one another in the workshop as a whole, which 
thus supplies in a given working^time the average product, 
and the total wages paid will be the average wages of that 
particular branch of industry. Second, the proportion be- 
tween wages and surplus-value remains unaltered, since the 
mass of surplus-labour supplied by each particular labourer 
corresponds with the wage received by him. But the wider 
scope that piece-wage gives to individuality, tends to develop 
on the one hand that individuality, and with it the sense of 
liberty, independence, and self-control of the labourers, on the 
other, their competition one with another. Piece-work has, 
therefore, a tendency, while raising individual wages above 
the average, to lower this average itself. But where a 
particular rate of piece-wage has for a long time been fixed by 
tradition, and its lowering, therefore, presented especial diflS- 
culties, the masters, in such exceptional cases, sometimes had 
recourse to its compulsory transformation into time-wages. 
Hence» e.g., in 1860 a great strike among the ribbon-weavers 

Co wAich the Dad constitutfons of tiie potten are to be attributed.&quot; (Child EmpL 
Com. I. Rept., p. xiii.) 

***Whcre the work in any trade is paid for by the piece at so much per job 
. . . wages may very materially differ in amount . • . But in work by the 
day there is generally an uniform rate . . . recognized by both employer and 
employed as the standard of wages for the general run of workmen in the trade.&quot; 
(Dunning, L c p. 17.) 



 

6o8 Capitalist Production. 

of Coventrjr.^ Piece-wage is finally one of the chief supports 
of the hour-system described in the preceding chapter.&apos; 

From what has been shown so f ar, it follows lliat piece-wage 
is the form of wages most in harmony with the capitalist 
mode of production. Although by no means new — ^it figures 
side by side with time-wages officially in the Frendi and 
Englidi labour statutes of the 14th century — it only conquers 
a larger field for action during the period of Manufacture, 
properly so-called. In the stormy youth of Modem Industry, 
especially from 1797 to 1815, it served as a lever for the 
lengthening of the working day, and the lowering of wages. 
Very important materials for the fluctuation of wages during 
that period are to be found in the Blue-books: &quot;Report and 
Evidence from the Select Committee on Petitions respecting 
the Com Laws,*&apos; (Parliamentary Session of 1813-14), and 
&quot;Report from the Lords* Committee, on the state of the 
Orowthy Commerce, and Consumption of Grain, and all laws 
relating thereto,&apos;* (Session of 1814-15). Here we find docu- 
mentary evidence of the constant lowering of the price of 
labour from the beginning of the Anti-Jacobin War. In the 
weaving industry, e.g., piece-wages had fallen so low that in 

^ &quot;Le travail des Compagnont-artisaiia sera rigU &amp; la joum^ ou &amp; la piice . . . 
Ces maitres-ardiani savent &amp; peu pr^ combien d&apos;ouvrage un compagnon-artiaaii peat 
faire par jour dans chaque metier, et les payent souvent i proportion de TouTrace 
qu&apos;ils font; ainsi ces oompagnons travaillent autant qu&apos;ils peuvent, pour leur propre 
intir^t, sans autre inspection.&quot; (Cantilloo, Essai sur la Nature du Commerce 
en gininXp Amst. Ed., 1766, pp. 186 and 202. The first edition appeared in 1766.) 
Cantillon, from whom Quesnay. Sir James Steuart &amp; A. Smith have largely drawn, 
already here represents piece-wage as simply a modified form of time-wage. The 
French edition of Cantillon professes in its title to be a translation from the Eng- 
lish, but the English edition: &quot;The analysis of Trade, Commerce, etc., by Philip 
Cantillon, late of the city of London, Merchant,&quot; is not only of later date (1760), 
but proves by its contents that it is a later and revised edition; t.g., in the French 
edition, Hume is not yet mentioned, whilst in the English, on the other hand, Petty 
hardly figures any longer. The English edition is theoretically less important, bat 
it contains numerous details referring specifically to English commerce, bullion 
trade, etc., that are wanting in the French text. The words on the title-page of 
the English edition, according to which the work is &quot;Taken chiefly from the manu- 
script of a very ingenious gentleman, deceased, and adapted, etc,&quot; seem, therefore, 
a pure fiction, very customary at that time. 

* &quot;Combien de fois n&apos;avons-notis pas vu, dans certains ateliers, embaucher beaucoop 
plus d&apos;ouvriers que ne le demandait le travail k mettre en main? Souvent, dans la 
provision d&apos;un travail al^atoire, quelquefois m€me imaginaire, on admet des onvriers: 
comme on les paie aux pieces, on se dit qu&apos;on ne court aucun risque, parceque toutes 
les pertes de temps seront k la charge des inoccup6s.&quot; (H. Gr^goir: &quot;Les Typo- 
graphes devant le Tribunal correctioonel de Bruxellci,&quot; Bruxellca, 1866^ p. 9l) 



 

Piece-Wages. 609 

spite of the very gieat lengthening of the working day, the 
daily wages were then lower than before. &quot;The real earnings 
of the cotton weaver are now far less than they were; his 
superiority over the common labourer, which at first was very 
great, has now almost entirely ceased. Indeed ... the 
difference in the wages of skilful and common labour is far less 
now than at any former period.&quot;^ How little the increased in- 
tensity and extension of labour through piece-wages benefited 
the agricultural proletariat, the following passage borrowed 
from a work on the side of the landlords and farmers shows : 
&quot;By far the greater part of agricultural operations is done by 
people, who are hired for the day or on piece-work. Their 
weekly wages are about 12s., and although it may be assumed 
that a man earns on piece-work under the greater stimulus to 
labour. Is. or perhaps 26. more than on weekly wages, yet it is 
found, on calculating his total income, that his loss of employ- 
ment, during the year, outweighs this gain • . • Fur- 
ther, it will generally be found that the wages of these men 
bear a certain proportion to the price of tho necessary means 
of subsistence, so that a man with two children is able to bring 
up his family without recourse to parish relief.&quot;^ Malthus at 
that time remarked with reference to the facts published by 
Parliament: &quot;I confess that I see, with misgiving, the great 
extension of the practice of piece-wage. Eeally hard work 
during 12 or 14 hours of the day, or for any longer time, is 
too much for any human being.&apos;** 

In the workshops under the Factory Acts, piece-wage be- 
comes the general rule, because capital can there only increase 
the eflBcacy of the working day by intensifying labour.* 

With the changing productiveness of labour the same quan- 
tum of product represents a varying working time. There- 
fore, piece-wage also varies, for it is the money expression of a 
determined working time. In our example above, 24 pieces 
were produced in 12 hours, whilst the value of the product 

* Remarks on the Commerciml Policy of Great Britain, London, 1816. 
&apos;A defence on the Land-owners and Farmers of Great Britain, 1814, pp. 4, ft. 
&apos;Malthus, Inquiry into the Nature and Progress of Rent, Lond., 1811. 
^ &quot;Those who are paid by piece-work . . . constitute probably fonr«fifthf of tht 
workers in the factories.&quot; &quot;Report of Insp. of Fact, 80th April, 1868.&quot; 

8M 



 

610 Capitalist Production. 

of the 12 hours was 6s., the daily value of the labour- 
power 3s., the price of the labour-hour 3d., and the wage 
for one piece lj4d. In one piece half-an-hour&apos;s labour was 
absorbed. If the same working day now supplies, in conse- 
quence of the doubled productiveness of labour, 48 pieces 
instead of 24, and all other circumstances remain unchanged, 
then the piece-wage falls from l^^d. to ^d., as every piece now 
only represents J4f instead of J4 of a working hour. 24 by 1 J4d. 
=3s., and in like manner 48 by }id,=Ss. In other words, 
piece-wage is lowered in the same proportion as the number of 
the pieces produced in the same time rises,^ and therefore as 
the working time spent on the same piece falls. This change 
in piece-wage, so far purely nominal, leads to constant battles 
between capitalist and labour. Either because the capitalist 
uses it as a pretext for actually lowering the price of labour, 
or because increased productive power of labour is accompanied 
by an increased intensity of the same. Or because the labourer 
takes seriously the appearance of piece-wages, viz., that his 
product is paid for, and not his labour-power, and therefore 
revolts against a lowering of wages, unaccompanied by a lower- 
ing in the selling price of the commodity. &quot;The operatives 
.... carefully watch the price of the raw material and 
the price of manufactured goods, and are thus enabled to form 
an accurate estimate of their master&apos;s profits.&quot;* 

The capitalist rightly knocks on the head such pretensions 
as gross errors as to the nature of wage-labour.* He cries out 
against this usurping attempt to lay taxes on the advance of 

^ &quot;The productive power of his spinning-micliiiie U aocitratcly measured, and the 
rate of pay for work done with it decreases with, though not as, the increase of its 
productive power.&quot; (Ure, 1. c, p. 817.) This last apologetic phrase Ure himself 
again cancels. The lengthening of the mule causes some increase of labour, he 
admits. The labour does therefore not diminish in the same ratio as its productivity 
increases. Further: &quot;By this increase the productive power of the machine will 
be augmented one-fifth. When this event happens the spinner will not be paid 
at the same rate for work done as he was before, but as that rate will not be 
diminished in the ratio of one-fifth, the improvement vrill augment his money earn- 
ings for any given number of hours&apos; work,&quot; but &quot;the foregoing statement requires 
a certain modification. . . . The spinner has to pay something additional for 
juvenile aid out of his additional sixpence, accompanied by displacing a portion of 
adults&quot; (1. c p. 821), which has in no way a tendency to raise wages. 

*H. Fawcett: &quot;The Economic Position of the British Labourer. Cambridge and 
London, 1866,&quot; p. 178. 

*In the London Standard of October 86, 1861^ there is a rei&gt;ort of pro«eed«siQi 



 

National Differences of Wages. 6ll 

industry, and declares roundly that the productiveness of 
laboux does not concern the labourer at alL^ 



CHAPTER XXIL 

KATIONAIi DIFFERENCES OF WAGES. 

In the I7th chapter we were occupied with the manifold 
combinatione which may bring about a change in magnitude 
of the value of labour-power — ^this magnitude being considered 
either absolutely or relatively, i.e., as compared with surplus- 
value ; whilst on the other hand, the quantum of the means of 
subsistence in which the price of labour is realised might 
again undergo fluctuations independent of, or different from, 
the changes of this price.^ As has been already said, the sim- 
ple translation of the value or respectively of the price of 
labour-power into the exoteric form of wages transforms all 
these laws into laws of the fluctuations of wages. That which 
appears in these fluctuations of wages within a single country 
as a series of varying combinations, may appear in different 
countries as contemporaneous difference of national wages. 
In the comparison of the wages in different nations, we must 
therefore take into account all the factors that determine 

of the firm of John Bright &amp; G&gt;., before the Rochdale magistrates &quot;to prosecute for 
intimidation the agents of the Carpet Weavers Trades&apos; Union. Bright&apos;s partners 
had introduced new machinery which would turn out S40 yards of carpet in the 
time and with the labour (I) previously required to produce 160 jrards. The work- 
men had no claim whatever to share In the profits made by the investment of their 
employer&apos;s capital in mechanical improvements. Accordingly, Messrs. Bright pro- 
posed to lower the rate of pay from 1H&lt;1« P«r yard to Id., leaving the earnings of 
the men exactly the same as before for the same labour. But there was a nominal 
reduction, of which the operatives, it is asserted, had not fair warning before hand.&quot; 

^&quot;Trades&apos; Unions, in their desire to maintain wages, endeavour to share in the 
benefits of improved machinery. (Quelh horreurl) . . . the demanding higher 
wages, because labour is abbreviated, is in other words the endeavour to establish a 
duty on mechanical improvements.&quot; (&quot;On Combination of Trades, new ed., London, 
1884,&quot; p. 42.) 

*&quot;It is not accurate to say that wages&quot; (he deals here with their money expres- 
sion) &quot;are increased, because they purchase more of a cheaper article.&quot; (David 
Buchanan in his edition of Adam Smith&apos;s &quot;Wealth,&quot; &amp;c, 1814, VoL I., p. 417. 
Note.) 



 

6i2 Capitalist Productian. 

changae in Hie amouBt of tLo value of labour-power ; the price 
and the extent of the prime neecxsaries of life as naturally and 
historically developed, the ocU of training the labourers, the 
part played by the labour of women and children, the produc- 
tiveness of labour, its e^lensive and intensive magnitude. 
Even the most superficial comparison requires the reduction 
first of the average day-wage for the same trades, in different 
countries, to a uniform working day. After this reduction to 
the same terms of the day-wages, time-wage must again be 
translated into piece-wage, as the latter only can be a measure 
both of the productivity and the intensity of labour. 

In every country there is a certain average intenaily of 
labour, below which the labour for the production of a com- 
modity requires more than the socially necessary time, and 
therefore does not reckon as labour of normal quality. Only 
a degree of intensity above the national average affects, in a 
given country, the measure of value of the mere duration of 
the working time. This is not the case on the universal 
market, whose integral parts are the individual countries. 
The average intensity of labour changes from country to coun- 
try; here it is greater, there less. These national averages 
form a scale, whose unit of measure is the average imit of 
universal labour. The more intense national labour, therefore, 
as compared with the less intense, produces in the same time 
more value, which expresses itself in more money. 

But the law of value in its international application is yet 
more modified by this, that on the world-market the more 
productive national labour reckons also as the more intense, so 
long as the more productive nation is not compelled by com- 
petition to lower the selling price of its commodities to the 
level of their valua 

In proportion as capitalist production is developed in a 
country, in the same proportion do the national intensity and 
productivity of labour there rise above the international leveL^ 
The different quantities of commodities of the same kind, pro- 
duced in different countries in the same working time, have, 

*We shall Inquire, in another place, what drcumstancet in relation to product I ?llj 
flUy modify this law for individual branchct of industry. 



 

National Differences of Wages. 613 

therefore, unequal international values, which are expressed in 
different prices, i.e., in sums of money varying according to 
international values. The relative value of money will, there- 
fore, be less m the nation with more developed capitalist 
mode of prodaction than in the nation with less developed. 
It follows, then, that the nominal wages, the equivalent of 
labour-powftT expressed in money, will also be higher in the 
first natifdi than in the second; which does not at all prove 
that this holds also for the real wages, i.e., for the means of 
subsistence placed at the disposal of the labourer. 

But even apart from these relative differences of the value 
of money in different countries, it will be found, frequently, 
that the daily or weekly, &amp;c, wage in the first nation is higher 
than in the second, whilst the relative price of labour, i.e., the 
price of labour as compared both with surplus-value and with 
the value of the product, stands higher in the second than in 
ihefirst^ 

J. W. Cowell, member of the Factory Commission of 1833, 
ifter careful investigation of the spinning trade, came to 
the conclusion that, &quot; in England wages are virtually lower to 
the capitalist, liiough higher to the operative than on the 
Continent of Europe.&quot; (Ure, p. 314.) The English Factory 
Inspector, Alexander Bedgrave, in his Beport of Oct 31st, 
1866, proves by comparative statistics with Continental states, 
that in spite of lower wages and much longer working-time, 
Continental labour is, in proportion to the product, dearer than 
English. An English manager of a cotton factory in Olden- 

^ James Anderson remarks in his polemic against Adam Smith: &quot;It desenres, 
likewise, to be remarked, that although the apparent price of labour is usually lower 
in poor countries, where the produce of the soil, and grain in general, is cheap; yet 
it is in fact for the most part really higher than in other countries. For it is not 
the wages that is given to the labourer per day that constitutes the real price of 
labour, although it is its apparent price. The real price is that which a certain 
quantity of work performed actually costs the employer; and considered in this light, 
labour is in almost all cases cheaper in rich countries than in those that are poorer, 
although the price of grain, and other provisions, is usually much lower in the last 
than in the first. . . . Labour estimated by the day, is much lower in Scotland 
than in England. . . . Labour by the piece is generally cheaper in England.&quot; 
(James Anderson, Observations on the means of exciting a spirit of National Indus- 
try, &amp;c., Edin. 1777, pp. 850, 851). On the contrary, lowness of wages produces, 
in its turn, deamess of labour. &quot;Labour being dearer in Ireland than it is in 
England . . . because the wages are so much lower.&quot; (N. 8079 in Royal Cooi* 
mission on Railways, Minutes, 1867.) 



 

6i4 Capitalist Production. 

huTgy declares that liie working-time there lasted from 5.30 
a.m. to 8 p.m.) Saturdays included^ and that the workpeople 
there, when tinder English overlookers, did not supply during 
this time quite so much product as the English in 10 hours, but 
under German overlookers much less. Wages are much lower 
than in England, in many cases 50%, but the number of hands 
in proportion to the machinery was much greater, in certain 
departments in the proportion of 5:3. — ^Mr. Bedgrave gives 
very full details as to the Bussian cotton factories. The data 
were given him by an English manager until recently em- 
ployed there. On this Russian soil, so fruitful of all infamies, 
the old horrors of the early days of English factories are in full 
swing. The managers are, of course, English, as the native 
Russian capitalist is of no use in factory business. Despite 
all over-work, continued day and night, despite the most 
shameful under-payment of the workpeople, Russian manu- 
facture manages to vegetate only by prohibition of foreign 
competition. I give, in conclusion, a comparative table of Mr. 
Redgrave^s, on the average number of spindles per factory and 
per spinner in the different countries of Europe. He^ himself, 
remarks that he had collected these figures a few years ago, 
and that since that time liie size of the factories and the 
number of spindles per labourer in England has increased. 
He supposes, however, an approximately equal progress in the 
Continental countries mentioned, so that the numbers given 
would still have their value for purposes of comparison. 

AvEKAGB Number of Spindles per Paotoby. 



England, average 


of spindles 


per factory 


12,600 


France, &apos;&apos; 


:f 


II 


1,500 


Prussia, &apos;* 


» 


II 


1,500 


Belgium, &apos;&apos; 


9» 


99 


4,000 


Saxony, &quot; 


ff 


II 


4,500 


Austria, &quot; 


ff 


99 


7,000 


Switzerland ^ 


n 


l&gt; 


8.000 



 

14 


spindlnfi 


28 


» 


37 


» 


46 


»» 


49 


» 


60 


»» 


60 


» 


65 


» 


66 


» 


74 


» 



National Differences of Wages. 615 



AtEE^OE ITlTMBEB OF PeBSONS EmFIX)TED TO SpINDLXS. 

France, one person to 
Eussia, &quot; 

Prussia, &apos;* 

Bavaria, ^ 

Austria, &quot; 

Belgium, &quot; 

Saxony, &quot; 

Switzerland, ** 
Smaller States of Germany, 
Great Britain, &quot; 

&quot; This comparison,^^ says Mr. Redgrave, &quot; ia yet more un- 
favourable to Great Britain, inasmuch as there is so large a 
number of factories in which weaving by power is carried on 
in conjunction with spinning [whilst in the table the weavers 
are not deducted], and the factories abroad are chiefly spinning 
factories ; if it were possible to compare like with like, strictly, 
I could find many cotton spinning factories in my district in 
which mules containing 2,200 spindles are minded by one 
man (the &quot; minder &quot;) and two assistants only, turning off daily 
220 lbs. of yam, measuring 400 miles in length.&quot; (Reports 
of Insp. of Fact, Slst Oct, 1866, p. 31-33, passim.) 

It is well known that in Eastern Europe as well as in Asia, 
English companies have undertaken the construction of rail- 
ways, and have, in making them, employed side by side with 
the native labourers, a certain number of English working- 
men. Compelled by practical necessity, they thus have had to 
take into account the national difference m the intensity of 
labour, but this has brought them no loss. Their experience 
shows that even if the height of wages corresponds more or 
less with the average intensity of labour, the relative price of 
labour varies generally in the inverse direction. 

^ &quot;Essay ou the Rate of Wages, with an Examination of the Causes of the Differ- 
ences in the G)ndttions of the Labouring PopiUation throughout the World,&quot; Phil^ 
delphia, 1885. 



 

6i6 Capitalist Production. 

In an &apos;&apos; Essay on the Eate of Wages,&quot;^ one of his first eoono- 
mic writings, H. Carey tries to prove that the wages of the 
different nations are directly proportional to the degree of 
productiveness of the national working days, in order to draw 
from this international relation, the conclusion that wages 
everywhere rise and fall in proportion to the productiveness 
of labour. The whole of our analysis of the production of 
surplus value shows the absurdity of this conclusion, even if 
Carey himself had proved his premises, instead of, after his 
usual uncritical and superficial fashion, shuffling to and fro a 
confused mass of statistical materials. The best of it is that 
he does not assert that things actually are as they ought to be 
according to his theory. For State intervention has falsified 
the natural economic relations. The different national wages 
must be reckoned^ therefore, as if that part of each that goes to 
the State in liie form of taxes, came to the labourer himself. 
Ought not Mr. Carey to consider further whether those &quot; State 
expenses &apos;^ are not the &quot; natural &quot; fruits of capitalistic develop- 
ment! The reasoning is quite worthy of the man who first 
declared the relations of capitalist production to be eternal laws 
of nature and reason, whose free, harmonious working is only 
disturbed by the intervention of the State, in order after- 
wards to discover that the diabolical influen e of England on 
the world-market (an influence which, it appears, does not 
spring from the natural laws of capitalist production) necessi- 
tates State intervention, i.e., the protection of those laws of 
nature and reason by the State, alias the System of Protection* 
He discovered further, that the theorems of Ricardo and oth- 
ers, in which existing social antagonisms and contradictions 
are formulated, are not the ideal product of the real economic 
movement, but on the contrary, that the real antagonisms of 
capitalist production in England and elsewhere are the result 
of the theories of Ricardo and others ! Finally, he discovered 
that it is, in the last resort, commerce that destroys the inborn 
beauties and harmonies of the capitalist mode of production. 
A step further, and he will, perhaps, discover that the one 
evil in capitalist production is capital itself. Only a man 



 

National Differences of Wages. 617 

with such atrocious want of the critical faculty and such 
spurious erudition deserved, in spite of his Protectionist hep- 
esy, to become the secret source of the harmonious wisdom of a 
Bastiat^ and of all the other Free Trade optimists of to-day. 



 

PART VIL 
THE ACCUMULATION OF CAPITAL. 



The eonversion of a sum of money into means of prodnetion 
and labonr-power, ia the first step taken by the quanttim of 
▼alue that is going to function as capital. This conversion 
takes place in the market, within the sphere of circulation. 
The second step, the process of production, is complete so soon 
as the means of production have been converted into commodi- 
ties whose value exceeds that of their component parts, and, 
therefore, contains the capital originally advanced, plus a 
surplus-value. These commodities must then be thrown into 
circulation. They must be sold, their value realised in money, 
this money afresh converted into capital, and so over and over 
again. This circular movement, in which the same phases are 
continually gone through in succession, forms the circulation 
of capital 

The first conditior of accumulation is that the capitalist 
must have ^ntrived to sell his commoditier^ and u) reconvert 
into capital the greater part of the money so received. In the 
following pages we shall assume that capital circulates in its 
normal way. The detailed analysis of the process will be 
found in Book II. 

The capitalist who produces surplus-value — i.e., who ex- 
tracts unpaid labour directly from Ihe labourers, and fixes it 
in commodities, is, indeed, the first appropriator, but by no 
means the ultimate owner, of thi surplus value. He has to 
share it with capitalists, -^ith landowners, &amp;c, who fulfill 
other functions in the comple&quot;^ of social production. Surplus- 
value, therefore, splits up aito various parts. Its fragments 
fall to various categories of persons, and take various forms, 

61S 



 

Simple Reproduction. 619 

{ndependent the one of the other, such as profit, interest, mer- 
chants&apos; profit^ rent, &amp;c. It is only in Book III. that we can 
take in hand these modified forms of surplns-value. 

On the one hand, then, we assume that the Capitalist sells 
at their value the commodities he has produced, without con- 
cerning ourselves either about the new forma that capital 
assumes while in the sphere of circulation, or about the con- 
crete conditions of reproduction hidden tmder these forms. 
On the other hand, we treat the capitalist producer as owner 
of the entire surplus-value, or, better perhaps, as the repre- 
sentative of all the sharers with him in the booty. We, there- 
fore, first of all consider accumulation from an abstract 
point of view— 4.6.^ as a mere phase in the actual process of 
production. 

So far as accumulation takes place, the capitalist must have 
succeeded in selling his commodities, and in reconverting the 
sale-money into capitaL Moreover, the breaking-up of sur* 
plus-value into fragments neither alters its nature nor the con- 
ditions tmder which it becomes an element of accumulation. 
Whatever be the proportion of surplus-value which the indus- 
trial capitalist retains for himself, or yields up to others, he is 
the one who, in the first instance, appropriates it. We, there- 
fore, assume no more than what actually takes place. On the 
other hand, the simple fundamental form of the process of 
accumulation is obscured by the incident of the circulation 
which brings it about, and by the splitting up of surplus-value. 
An exact analysis of the process, therefore, demands that we 
should, for a time, disregard all phenomena that hide the play 
of its inner mechanism. 



CHAPTER XXnL 

SIICFLB BEPRODUCTION. 



Whatever the form of the process of production in a society, 
it must be a continuous process, must continue to go periodi- 
callj through the same phases. A society can no more cease 



 

620 Capitalist Production. 

to prodnoe than it can cease to consume. When viewed, theie^ 
fore, as a connected whole, and as flowing on with incessant 
renewal, every social process of jNroduotion is, at the same tinie^ 
a process of reproduction. 

The conditions of production are also those of rei^roduction. 
No society can go on producing, in other words, no society can 
reproduce, unless it constantly reconverts a part of its products 
into means of production, or elements of fresh products. All 
other circumstances remaining the same, the only mode by 
which it can reproduce its wealth, and maintain it at one level, 
is by replacing the means of production — i.e., the instrumentB 
of labour, the raw material, and the auxiliary substances con- 
sumed in the course of the year — by an equd quantity of the 
same kind of articles ; these must be separated from tiie mass 
of the yearly products, and thrown afresh into the process of 
production* Hence&gt; a definite portion of each year&apos;s product 
belongs to the domain of production. Destined for productive 
consumption from the very first, this portion ^dsts, for the 
most part, in the shape of articles totally unfitted for individ- 
ual consumption. 

If production be capitalistic in form, so, too, will be repro- 
duction. Just as in the former Hie labour-process figures but 
as a means towards the self-expansion of capital, so in the lat- 
ter it figures but as a means of reproducing as capital— 4.6., as 
self-expanding value, — ^the value advanced. It is only be- 
cause his money constantly functions as capital that the 
economical guise of a capitalist attaches to a man. I^ for 
instance, a sum of £100 has this year been converted into capi- 
tal, and produced a surplus-value of £20, it must continue dur- 
ing next year, and subsequent years, to repeat the same opera- 
tion. As a periodic increment of the capital advanced, or 
periodic fruit of capital in process, surplus-value acquires the 
form of a revenue fiowing out of capital.^ 

*&quot;Mait ces richet, qtd eontomment let produiti du trtTftil des autret, ne pen- 
Tcnt let obtenir que pmr des ichanget [purcbaset of commodhiea.]. S&apos;ila donnent ce- 
pendant leur richette acquite et accumul6e en retour contre cet prodoita nouTeaux 
qui tont I&apos;objet de leur fantaiaie, ila aemblent expot^ i ^uiaer bient6t leur fonds dt 
r^erve; ila ne travaillent point, ayona-noua dit, et ila ne peuyent m£me travailler; 
on croirait done que chaque jour doit voir diminuer leura Tieillea richeiaea, ct que 
loraqo&apos;il ne leur en rcatera plua, rien ne tera offert en Exchange aux o uvf lq- i qui 



 

Simple Reproduction. 621 

If this reveiiue serve the capitalist only as a fund to provide 
for his oonsumption, and be spent as periodically as it is 
gained^ then, cseteris paribus, simple reproduction will take 
place. And although this reproduction is a mere repetition of 
the process of production on the old scale, yet this mere repe- 
tition, or continuily, ^ves a new character to the process, or, 
rather, causes the disappearance of some apparent character- 
istics which it possessed as an isolated discontinuous process. 

The purchase of labour-power for a fixed period is the pre- 
lude to the process of production; and this prelude is con- 
stantly repeated when the stipulated term comes to an end, 
when a definite period of producti n, duch as a week or a 
month, has elapsed. But the labourer is not paid until after 
he has expended his labour-power, and realised in commodities 
not only its value, but surplus-value. He has, therefore, pro- 
duced not only surplus-value, which we for the present regard 
as a fund to meet the private consumption of the capitalist, 
but he haa also produced, before it flows back to him in the 
shape of wages, the fund out of which he himself is paid, the 
variable capital ; and his employment lasts only so long as he 
continues to reproduce this fund. Hence, that formula of the 
economists, referred to in Chapter XVIII., which represents 
wages as a share in the product itself.^ What flows back to 
the labourer in the shape of wages is a portion of the product 
that is continuously reproduced by him. The capitalist, it is 
true, pays him in money, but this money is merely the transr 
muted form of the product of his labour. While he is con- 
verting a portion of the means of production into products, a 
portion of his former product is being turned into money. It 
is his labour of last week, or of last year, that pays for his 
labour-power this week or this year. The illusion begotten by 

travaillent ezdutiveinent pour etix. . . . Mail dant I&apos;ordre social, la richeste a 
acquis la propri£t6 de se reproduire par le travail d*autrui, et sans que son pro- 
pri^tatre 7 concoure. La richesse, comme le travail, et par le travail, donne un 
fruit annuel qui pent itrt d^truit chaque annie sans que le riche en devienne plua 
pauvre. Ce fruit est le menu qui nait du capital &quot; (Sismondi: Nouv. Princ. 
d&apos;Econ. PoL Paris, 1819. t. L pp. 81-82.) 

^ &quot;Wages as well as profits are to be considered, each of them, as really a por- 
tion of the finished product.&quot; (Ramsay, l.c., p. 142.) &quot;The share of the product 
which comes to the labourer in the form of wages.&quot; (J. Mill, Elements, &amp;c. Tnot&apos; 
lated by Parissot. Paris, 1828. p. 84.) 



 

622 Capitalist Production. 

the interventioii of money vanishes inunediatelyy i£^ instead 
of taking a single capitalist and a single labourer^ we take the 
class of capitalists and the class of labourers as a whole. The 
capitalist class is constantly giving to the labouring class orders 
notes, in the form of money, on a portion of the commodities 
produced by the latter and appropriated by the former. The 
labourers give these order-notes back just as constantly to the 
capitalist dass, and in this way get their share of their own 
product The transaction is veiled by the commodity-form of 
the product and the money-form of the commodity. 

Variable capital is therefore only a particular historical form 
of appearance of the fund for providing the necessaries of life, 
or the labour-fund which the labourer requires for the main- 
tenance of himself and family, and which, whatever be the 
system of social production, he must himself produce and re- 
produce. If the labour^fund cc^stantly flows to him in the 
form of mcmey that pays for his labour, it is because the pro- 
duct he has created moves constantly away from him in the 
form of capitaL But all this does not alter the fact, that it is 
the labourer&apos;s own labour, realised in a product^ which is ad- 
vanced to him by the capitalist^ Let us take a peasant liable 
to do compulsory service for his lord. He works on his own 
land, with his own means of production, for, say, 3 days a 
week. The 3 other days he does forced work on the lord&apos;s do- 
main. He constantly reproduces his own labour-fund, which 
never, in his case, takes the form of a money payment for his 
labour, advanced by another person. But in return, his un- 
paid forced labour for the lord, on its side, never acquires the 
character of voluntary paid labour. If one fine morning the 
lord appropriates to himself the land, the cattle, the seed, in a 
word, the means of production of this peasant, the latter will 
thenceforth be obliged to sell his labour-power to the lord. He 
will, cfiBteris paribus, labour 6 days a week as before, 3 for him- 
self, 3 for his lord, who thenceforth becomes a wages-paying 
capitalist As before^ he will use up the means of production 

&apos;^&apos;When capital is employed in advanciiig to the workmen his wagea, it adda 
nothing to the funds for the maintenance of labour.&quot; (Caaenore in note to hit 
edition ox Malthas, Definitions in PoL Econ. London, 16$Z, p. St.) 



 

Simple Reproduction. 623 

as means of production^ and transfer their value to the product 
As before, a definite portion of the product will be devoted to 
reproduction. But from the moment that the forced labour is 
changed into wage-labour, from that moment the labour-fund, 
which the peasant himself continues as before to produce and 
reproduce, takes the form of a capital advanced in the form of 
wages by the lord. The bourgeois economist whose narrow 
mind is unable to separate the form of appearance from the 
thing that appears, shuts his eyes to the fact, that it is but here 
and there on the face of the earth, that even now-a-days the 
labour-fund crops up in the form of capitaL^ 

Variable capital, it is true, only then loses its character of a 
value advanced out of the capitalist&apos;s funds,^ when we view 
the process of capitalist production in the flow of its constant 
renewal. But that process must have had a beginning of some 
kind. From our present stand-point it therefore seems likely 
that the capitalist, once upon a time, became possessed of 
money, by some accumulation that took place independently 
of the unpaid labour of others, and that this was, therefore, 
how he was enabled to frequent the market as a buyer of 
labour-power. However this may be, the mere continuity of 
the process, the simple reproduction, brings about some other 
wonderful changes, which aflFect not only the variable, but the 
total capital 

If a capital of £1000 beget yearly a surplus-value of £200, 
and if this surplus-value be consumed every year, it is clears 
that at the end of 5 years the surplus-value consumed will 
amount to 5X£20O or the £1000 originally advanced. If 
only a part, say one half, were consumed, the same result 
would follow at the end of 10 years, since 10X£100=£1000. 
General Rule: The value of the capital advanced divided by 
the surplus-value annually consumed, gives the number of 
years, or reproduction periods, at the expiration of which the 

&apos;&quot;The wages of labour are advanced by capitalists in the case of less than one 
fourth of the labourers of the earth.&quot; (Rich. Jones: Textbook of Lectures on the 
Pol. Econ. of Nations. Hertford, 1852, p. 16.) 

&apos;&quot;Though the manufacturer&quot; (i&apos;.#. the labourer) &quot;has his wages advanced to him 
by his master, he in reality costs him no expense, the value of these wages being 
generally reserved, together with a profit, in the improved value of the subject upon 
which his Ubour is bestowed.&quot; (A. Smith 1. c. Book II. ch. III. p. 811.) 



 

624 Capitalist Production. 

capital originallj advanced has been consumed by fhe capitalist 
and has disappeared The capitalist thinks, that he is consum- 
ing the produce of the unpaid labour of others, i,e., the sur- 
plus-value, and is keeping intact his original capital ; but what 
he thinks canno€ alter facts. After the lapse of a certain 
number of years the capital value he then possesses is equal 
to the sum total of the surplus-value appropriated by him 
during those years, and the total value he has consumed is 
equal to that of his original capitaL It is true, he has in hand 
a capital whose amount has not changed, and of which a part, 
viz., the buildings, machinery, Ac, were already there when 
the work of his business began. But what we have to do with 
here, is not the material elements^ but the value, of that capitaL 
When a person gets through all his property, by taking upon 
himself debts equal to the value of that property, it is dear 
that his property represents nothing but the sum total of his 
debts. And so it is with the capitalist; when he has con- 
sumed the equivalent of his original capital, the value of his 
present capital represents nothing but the total amount of the 
surplus-value appropriated by him without payment. Not a 
single atom of the value of his old capital continues to exist 

Apart then from all accumulation, the mere continuity of 
the process of production, in other words simple reproduction, 
sooner or later, and of necessity, converts every capital into 
accumulated capital, or capitalised surplus-valua Even if 
that capital was originally acquired by the personal labour of 
its employer, it sooner or later becomes value appropriated 
without an equivalent, the unpaid labour of others materialised 
either in money or in some other object We saw in chapter 
VI. that in order to convert money into capital something more 
is required than the production and circulation of conmiodities. 
We saw that on the one side the possessor of value or money, 
on the other, the possessor of the value-creating substance; on 
the one side^ the possessor of the means of production and sub- 
sistence, on the other, the possessor of nothing but labour- 
power, must confront one another as buyer and seller. The 
separation of labour from its product, of subjective labour* 
power from the objective conditions of labour, was therefore 



 

Simple Reproduction. 625 

the real fonndatioii in fact, and the starting point of capitalist 
prodncticp. 

But that which at first was but a starting point, beoomee, 
by the mere continuity of the process, by simple reproduction, 
the peculiar result, constantly renewed and perpetuated, of 
capitalist production. On the* one hand, the process of pro- 
duction incessantiy converts material wealth into capital, into 
means of creating more wealth and means of enjoyment for the 
capitalist On the other hand the labourer, on quitting the 
process, is what he was on entering it, a source of wealth, but 
devoid of all means of making that wealth his own« Since, 
before entering on the process, his own labour has already been 
alienated from himself by the sale of his labour-power, has 
been appropriated by the capitalist and incorporated with capi- 
tal, it must, during the process, be realised in a product that 
does not belong to him. Since the process of production is 
also the process by which the capitalist consumes labour-power, 
the product of the labourer is incessantly converted, not only 
into commodities, but into capital, into value that sucks up 
the value-creating power, into means of subsistence that buy 
the person of the labourer, into means of production that 
command the producers.^ The labourer therefore constantiy 
produces material, objective wealth, but in the form of capital, 
of an alien power that dominates and exploits him ; and the 
capitalist as constantly produces labour-power, but in the form 
of a subjective source of wealth, separated from the objects 
in and by which it can alone be realised ; in short he produces 
the labourer, but as a wage-labourer.* This incessant repro- 
duction, this perpetuation of the labourer, is the sine qu% non 
of capitalist production. 

The labourer consumes in a twofold way. While producing 

^&quot;Tliit is a remarkably peculiar property of prodoctiTe labour. WhateTer it 
productiirely consumed is capital, and it becomes capital by consumption.&quot; (James 
Mill L c p. 848.) James Mill, however, never got on the track of this &quot;remarkably 
peculiar property.&quot; 

&apos;&apos;It is true indeed, that the first introducing a manufacture employs many poor, 
but they cease not to be so, and the continuance of it makes many.&quot; (Reasons for a 
limited Exportation of Wool. London, 1677, p. 19.) &quot;The farmer now absurdly 
asserts, that he keeps the p«or. They are indeed kept in misery.&quot; (Reasons for th« 
late increase of the Poor Rates; or a comparative view of the prices of labour and 
proviskoa. London, 1777, p. 87.) 

tN 



 

626 Capitalist Production. 

he concnunes by his labour the means of production, and oon* 
verts them into products with a higher value than that of the 
capital advanced. This is his productive consimiption. It is 
at the same time consumption of his labour-power by the 
capitalist who bought it On the other hand^ the labourer 
turns the money paid to him for his labour-power, into means 
of subsistence: this is his individual consumption. The la- 
bourer&apos;s productive consumption, and his individual consump- 
tion, are therefore totally distinct In the former, he acts as 
the motive power of capital, and belongs to the capitalist In 
the latter, he belongs to himself, and performs Ids necessary 
vital functions outside the process of production. The result 
of the one is, that the capitalist lives; of the other, that the 
labourer lives. 

When treating of the workingKlay, we saw that the labourer 
is often compelled to make his individual consumption a mere 
incident of production. In such a case, he supplies himself 
with necessaries in order to maintain his labour-power, just as 
coal and water are supplied to the steam engine and oil to the 
wheeL His means of consumption, in that case, are the mere 
means of consumption required by a means of production ; his 
individual consumption is directly productive consumption. 
This, however, appears to be an abuse not essentially apper- 
taining to capitalist production.^ 

The matter takes quite another aspect, when we contemplate, 
not the single capitalist, and the single labourer, but the capi- 
talist class and the labouring class, not an isolated process of 
production, but capitalist production in full swing, and on its 
actudl social scale. By converting part of his capital into 
labour-power, the capitalist augments the value of his entire 
capital He kills two birds with one stone. He profits, not 
only by what he receives from, but by what he gives to, the 
labourer. The capital given in exchange for labour-power is 
converted into necessaries, by the consumption of whidi the 
muscles, nerves, bones, and brains of existing laboureiB are 
reproduced, and new labourers are begotten. Within the lim- 

^RoMi would not dedaim to emphatfeally againit tbli^ bad he rciUj pcnctntad 
the secret of &quot;productiYe contnmption.&quot; 



 

Simple Reproduction. 6sj 

itB of wHat is strictly neoessaiy, the individual oonsnmption of 
the working class is^ therefore, the reconversion of the means 
of subsistence given by capital in exchange for labour-power, 
into fresh labour-power at the disposal of capital for exploita- 
tion. It is the production and reproduction of that means of 
production so indispensible to the capitalist: the labourer him- 
self. The individual consumption of the labourer, whether it 
proceed within the workshop or outside it, whether it be part 
of the process of production or not, forms therefore a factor of 
the production and reproduction of capital; just as cleaning 
machinery does^ whether it be done while the machinery is 
working or while it is standing. The fact that the labourer 
consumes his means of subsistence for his own purposes, and 
not to please the capitalist, has no bearing on the matter. The 
consumption of food by a beast of burden is none the less a 
necessary factor in the process of production, because the beast 
enjoys what it eats. The maintenance and reproduction of the 
workingKjlass is, and must ever be, a necessary condition to the 
reproduction of capitaL But the capitalist may safely leave 
its fulfillment to the labourer&apos;s instincts of self-preservation 
and of propagation. All the capitalist cares for, is to reduce 
the labourer&apos;s individual consumption as far as possible to 
what is strictly necessary, and he is far away from imitating 
those brutal South Americans, who force their labourers to 
take the more substantial, rather than the less substantial, kind 
of food.^ 

Hence both the capitalist and his ideological representative, 
the political economist, consider that part alone of the labour- 
er&apos;s individual consumption to be productive, which is requi- 
site for the perpetuation of the class, and which therefore must 
take place in order that the capitalist may have labour-power 
to consume; what the labourer consumes for his own pleasure 

^&quot;The labourers in the mines of S. America, whose daily task (the hearicst per- 
haps in the world) consists in bringing to the surface on their shoulders a load of 
metal weighing from 180 to 200 pounds, from a depth of 460 feet, live on bread and 
beans only; they themselves would prefer the bread alone for food, but their 
masters, who have found out that the men cannot work so hard on bread, treat them 
like horses, and compel them to eat beans; beans, however, are relatively much 
richer ia bone-earth (phosphate of lime) than is bread&quot; (Liebig, L c toL 1, p. 1M» 



 

628 Capitalist Production. 

beyond that part&gt; is unproductive consumption.^ If tbe ac- 
cumulation of capital were to cause a rise of wages and an 
increase in the labourer&apos;a consumption^ unaccompanied by 
increase in the consumption of labour-power by capital, the 
additional capital would be ccHisumed unproductively.&apos; In 
reality, the individual consumption of the labourer is unpro- 
ductive as regards himself, for it reproduces nothing but the 
needy individual; it is productive to the capitalist and the 
State^ since it is the production of the power that creates their 
wealth.* 

From a social point of view, therefore^ the working^slass, 
even when not directly engaged in the labour-process, is just 
as much an appendage of capital as the ordinary instrum^xts 
of labour. Even its individual consumption is, within obtain 
limits, a mere factor in the process of production. That proc- 
ess, however, takes good care to prevent these self-conscious in- 
struments from leaving it in the lurch, for it removes their 
product, as fast as it is made, from their pole to the opposite 
pole of capital Individual consumption provides, on the one 
hand, the means for their maintenance and reproduction: on 
the other hand, it secures by the annihilation of the necessaries 
of life, the continued reappearance of the workman in the 
labour-market The Eoman slave was held by fetters: the 
wage-labourer is bound to his owner by invisible threads. The 
appearance of independence is kept up by means of a constant 
change of employers, and by the fictio juris of a contract 

In former times, capital resorted to legislation, whenever 
necessary, to enforce its proprietary rights over the free la- 
bourer. For instance, down to 1815, the emigration of me- 
chanics employed in machine making was, in England, for^ 
bidden, under grievous pains and penalties. 

* Junes Mill L c, p. S88. 

* &quot;If the price of labour shotild rife to high that, notwithstanding the incrette of 
capital, no more could be employed, I should say that such increase of capital would 
be still unproductively consumed.&quot; (Ricardo, 1. c, p. 168.) 

*&quot;The only productive consumption, properly so-called, is the consumption or 
destruction of wealth&quot; (he alludes to the means of production) &quot;by capitalists with 
• view to reproduction .... The workman .... is a productive con- 
sumer to the person who employs him, and to the State» but not, strictly speaking^ 
ti himself.&quot; (Malthus* Definitions, &amp;c., p. 80.) 



 

Simple Reproduction. 629 

The reproduction of the working class carries with it the 
accumulation of skill, that is handed down from one genera- 
tion to another.* To what -extent the capitalist reckons the 
existence of such a skilled class among the factors of produc- 
tion that belong to him by right, and to what extent he actu- 
ally regards it as the reality of his variable capital, is seen so 
soon as a crisis threatens him with its loss In consequence of 
the civil war in the United States and of the accompanying 
cotton famine, the majority of the cotton operatives in Lanca- 
shire were, as is well known, thrown out of work. Both from 
the working-class itself, and from other ranks of society, there 
arose a cry for State aid, or for voluntary national subscrip- 
tions, in order to enable the &quot;superfluous&quot; hands to emigrate to 
the colonies or to the United States. Thereupon, the &quot;Times&quot; 
published on the 24th March, 1863, a letter from Edmund 
Potter, a former president of the Manchester Chamber of 
Commerce. This letter was rightly called in the House of 
Commons, the manufacturers^ manifesto.^ We cull hero a 
few characteristic passages, in which the proprietary rights of 
capital over labour-power are unblushingly asserted. 

&quot;He&quot; (the man out of work) &quot;may be told the supply of 
cotton-workers is too large .... and .... must .... in 
fact be reduced by a third, perhaps, and that then there will be 
a healthy demand for the remaining two-thirds .... Public 
opinion .... urges emigration .... The master cannot 
willingly see his labour supply being removed ; he may think, 
and perhaps justly, that it is both wrong and unsound .... 
Eut if the public funds are to be devoted to assist emigration, 
he has a right to be heard, and perhaps to protest&quot; Mr. 
Potter then shows how useful the cotton trade is, how the 
&quot;trade has undoubtedly drawn the surplus-population from 
Ireland and from the agricultural districts,&quot; how immense is 
its extent, how in the year 1860 it yielded ^^ths of the total 

* *Tht only thing, of which one cmn say, that it is stored up and prepared before- 
hand, is the slcill of the labourer .... The accumulation and storage of skilled 
labour, that most important operation, is, as regards the great mass of labourers, 
accomplished without any capiul whaterer.&quot; (Tho. Hodgskin: Labour Defended, 
ftc, p. 18.) 

&apos;&quot;That letter might be looked upon as the manifesto of the manufacturers.** 
&lt;Fcrrand: Motion on the Cotton Famine, H. o. C, STth April, 1868.) 



 

630 Capitalist Production. 

English exports, how, after a few years, it will agam expand 
by the extension of the market, particulurly of the Indian mar- 
ket, and by calling forth a plentiful supply of cotton at 6d. 
per lb. He then continues: &quot;Some time . . . , one, two, or 
three years, it may be, will produce the quantity .... The 
question I would put then is this — ^Is the trade worth retain- 
ing? Is it worth while to keep the machinery (he means the 
living labour machines) in order, and is it not the greatest 
folly to think of parting with that ? I think it is. I allow 
that the workers are not a property, not the property of Lanca- 
shire and the masters ; but they are the strength of both ; they 
are the mental and trained power which cannot be replaced 
for a generation ; the mere machinery which they work might 
much of it be beneficially replaced, nay improved, in a twelve- 
month.^ Encourage or allow (!) the working-power to emi- 
grate, and what of the capitalist! «... Take away the 
cream of the workers, and fixed capital will depreciate in a 
great degree, and the floating will not subject itself to a strug- 
gle with the short supply of inferior labour We 

are told the workers wish it&apos;* (emigration). &quot;Very natural it 
is that they should do so ... . Reduce, compress the 
cotton trade by taking away its working power and reducing 
their wages expenditure, say one-fifth, or five millions, and 
what then would happen to the class above, the small shopkeep- 
ers ; and what of the rents, the cottage rents .... Trace 
out the effects upward to the small farmer, the better house- 
holder, and .... the landowner^ and say if there could be 
any suggestion more suicidal to all classes of the country than 
by enfeebling a nation by exporting the best of its manufac- 
turing population, and destroying the value of some of its most 

^ It will not be forgotten that this game capital aings quite another aong, tmder^ 
ordinary drcumttances, when there it a question of reducing wages. Then the 
masters exclaim with one voice: &apos;*The factory operatives should keep in wholesome 
remembrance the fact that theirs is really a low species of skilled labour; and that 
there is none which is more easily acquired, or of its quality more amply remuner* 
ated« or which, by a short training of the least expert, can be more quickly, as well 
as abundantly, acquired .... The master&apos;s machinery&quot; (which we now learn 
can be replaced with advantage in 12 months) &quot;really plays a far more important 
part in the business of production than the labour and skill of the operative&quot; (who 
cannot now be replaced under 80 years), &quot;which six months&apos; education can teach, 
and a common labourer can learn.&quot; (See ante, p. iM.) 



 

Simple Reproduction. 631 

productive capital and enrichment • . . • I advise a loan 
(of five or six millions sterling), . . . extending it may be 
over two or three years, administered by special commission- 
ers added to the Boards of Guardians in the cotton districts, 
under special legislative regulations, enforcing some occupa- 
tion or labour, as a means of keeping up at least the moral 
standard of the recipients of the loan • • • • can anything be 
worse for landowners or masters than parting with the best of 
the workers, and demoralising and disappointing the rest by 
an extended depletive emigration, a depletion of capital and 
value in an entire province V^ 

Potter, the chosen mouthpiece of the manufacturers, distin- 
guishes two sorts of &quot;machinery,&quot; each of which belongs to the 
capitalist, and of which one stands in his factory, the other at 
night-time and on Sundays is housed outside the factory, in 
cottages. The (me is inanimate, the other living. The inani- 
mate machinery not only wears out and depreciates from day 
to day, but a great part of it becomes so quickly super-annu- 
ated, by constant technical progress, that it can be replaced 
with advantage by new machinery after a few months. The 
living machinery, on the contrary, gets better the longer it 
lasts, and in proportion as the skill, handed from one genera- 
tion to another, accumulates. The &quot;Times&quot; answered the 
cotton lord as follows : 

&apos;^r. Edmimd Potter is so impressed with the exceptional 
and supreme importance of the cotton masters that, in order 
to preserve this class and perpetuate their profession, he would 
keep half a million of the labouring class confined in a great 
moral workhouse against their wilL ^Is the trade worth re- 
taining V asks Mr. Potter. ^Certainly by all honest means it 
is,&apos; we answer. &apos;Is it worth while keeping the machinery in 
order?&apos; again asks Mr. Potter. Here we hesitate. By the 
^machinery&apos; Mr. Potter means the human machinery, for he 
goes on to protest that he does not mean to use them as an 
absolute property. We must confess that we do not think it 
Svorth while,&apos; or even possible, to keep the human machinery 
in order — that ia to shut it up and keep it oiled till it is 
wanted. Himian machinery vHU rust under inaction, oil and 



 

63a Capitalist Production. 

rub it as yon may. Moreover, the human machinery will, as 
we have just seen, get the steam up of its own aeoord, and 
burst or run a muck in our great towns. It might, as Mr. 
Potter says, require some time to reproduce the workers, but, 
having machinists and capitalists at hand, we could always 
find thrifty, hard, industrious men wherewith to improvise 
more master manufacturers than we can ever want Mr. Pot- 
ter talks of the trade reviving *in one, two, or three years,* and 
he asks us not ^to encourage or allow ( !) die working power to 
emigrate.&apos; He says that it is very natural the workers should 
wish to emigrate ; but he thinks that in spite of their desire, 
the nation ought to keep this half million of workers with 
their 700,000 dependents, shut up in the cotton districts; and 
as a necessary consequence, he must of course think that the 
nation oug^t to keep down their discontent by force, and sus- 
tain them by alms — and upon the chance that the cotton mas- 
ters may some day want them . . . The time is come when 
the great public opinion of these islands must operate to save 
this Svorking power&apos; from those who would deal with it as 
they would deal with iron, and coal, and cotton.&apos;* 

The &quot;Times&apos; &quot; article was only a jeu d&apos;esprit The &quot;great 
public opinion&quot; was, in fact, of Mr. Potter&apos;s opinion, that the 
factory operatives are part of the movable fittings of a factory. 
Their emigration was prevented.* They were locked up in 
that &quot;moral workhouse,&quot; the cotton dista&apos;icts, and they form, 
as before, &quot;the strength&quot; of the cotton manufacturers of Lan- 
cashire. 

Capitalist production, therefore, of itself reproduces the 
separation between labour-power and the means of labour. It 
thereby reproduces and perpetuates the condition for exploit- 
ing the labourer. It incessantly forces him,to sell his labour- 

* P^liament did not vote a single farthing ia aid of emigration, hot ttmidy paaaed 
some Acts empowering the municipal corporations to keep the operatives in a half- 
starred state, i#., to exploit them at less than the normal wages. On the other 
hand, when 8 years later, the cattle disease broke out. Parliament broke wildly 
through its usages and voted, straight off, millions for indemnifying the millionaire 
landlords, whose farmers in any event came off without loss, owing to the rise in the 
price of meat The bull-like bellow of the landed proprietors at the opening of Pat^ 
liament, in 1806, showed that a man can worship the cow Sabala without being a 
Hindoo, and can change himself into an ox without being a Jupiter. 



 

Simple Reproduction. 633 

power in order to live, and enables the capitalist to purcliase 
labour-power in order that he may enrich himself.^ It is no 
longer a mere accident^ that capitalist and labourer confront 
each other in the market as buyer and seller. It is the process 
itself that incessantly hurls back the labourer on to the market 
as a vendor of his labour-power, and that incessantly converts 
his own product into a means by which another man can pur- 
chase him. In reality, the labourer belongs to capital before 
he has sold himself to capital His economical bondage* is 
both brought about and concealed by the periodic sale of him- 
self, by his change of masters, and by the oscillations in the 
market price of labour-power.* 

Capitalist production, therefore, under its aspect of a con- 
tinuous connected process^ of a process of reproduction, pro- 
duces not only commodities, not only surplus-value, but it also 
produces and reproduces ihe capitalist relation; on the one 
side the capitalist, on the other the wage-labourer.* 

^ &quot;L&apos;omrrier demandait de la aubslstenoe pour rhrre, le chef demandait du tnrail 
pottr gagncr.&quot; (Sitmondi, L c., p. 91.) 

&apos; A boorishly clumay form of thia bondage exiata in the county of Durham. Thia 
la one of the few counties, in which circumstancea do not secure to the farmer 
undisputed proprietary rights over the agricultural labourer. The mining industry 
allows the latter some choice. In this county, the farmer, contrary to the custom 
elsewhere, rents only such farms as have on them labourers&apos; cottages. The rent of 
the cottage is a part of the wages. These cotugea are known as &quot;hinds&apos; houses.&apos;* 
They are let to the labourers in consideration of certain feudal services, twder a con- 
tract called &quot;bondage,&quot; which, amongst other things, binds the labourer during the 
time he is employed elsewhere, to leave some one, say hia daughter, &amp;c., to aupply hia 
place. The labourer himself is called a &quot;bondsman.&quot; The relationship here set up 
alao shows how individual consumption by the labourer becomes consumption on be- 
half of capital — or productive consumption — from quite a new point of view: &quot;It ia 
cnrioua to observe that the very dung of the hind and bondsman is the perquisite of 
the calculating lord . . . and the lord will allow no privy but his own to exist 
in the neighbourhood, and will rather give a bit of manure here and there for a 
garden than bate any part of his seigneurial right.&quot; (Public Health, Report VII., 
1864, p. 188.) 

&apos;It will not be forgotten, that, with respect to the labour of children, &amp;c., eren 
the formality of a voluntary sale disappears. 

^&quot;Capital pre-supposes wage-labour, and wage-labour pre-supposes capital. One 
Is a necessary condition to the existence of the other; they mutually call each other 
into existence. Does an operative in a cotton*factory produce nothing but cotton 
goods? No, he produces capital. He produces values that give fresh command over 
hia labour, and that, by meana of auch command, create fresh values.&quot; (Karl Marx: 
Lohnarbeit und Kapital, in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, No. 266, 7th April, 1849.) 
The articles published under the above title in the N. Rh. Z. are parta of soma 
lecturea given by me on that subject, in 1847, in the (Serman &quot;Arbeiter-Verein&quot; at 
Bruasels, the publication of which waa interrupted by the revolution of February. 



 

634 Capitalist ProductioiK 



CHAPTER XXIV* 

OONVER8ION OF SURPLUS-VALUE INTO OAPITAK 

BBCTIOIf I. CAPITAUBT PEODUCTIOlf Olf A FBOOBSeSIVELT 

INOBKASINO BOALK. TBANSTTIOIV^ OF THX LAWB OF PBOP- 
BBTY THAT OHABAOTBBISE PBODUOTIOIV^ OF OOKKODITIBB 

nrro laws of capitalist APPBOiPBiATioir. 

HiTiiEBTO we have investigated how surplus-yalue emanates 
from capital; we have now to see how capital arises from 
surplus-valuew Employing surplus-value as capital, reconvei^ 
ting it into capital, is called accumulation of capital^ 

First let us consider this transaction from the standpoint of 
the individual capitalist Suppose a spinner to have advanced 
a capital of £10,000, of which four^fifths (£8000) are laid out 
in cotton, machinery, &amp;c., and one-fifth (£2000) in wages. 
Let him produce 240,000 lbs. of yam annually, having a value 
of £12,000. The rate of surplus-value being 100 9{&gt;, the sur- 
plus-value lies in the surplus or net product of 40,000 Ibst of 
yam, one sixth of the gross product, with a value of £2000 
which will be realized by a sale. £2000 is £2000. We can 
neither see nor smell in this sum of money a trace of surplus- 
value. When we know that a given value is surplus-value, we 
know how its owner came by it; but that does not alter the 
nature either of value or of money. 

In order to convert this additional sum of £2000 into cap- 
ital, the master spinner wiU, all circumstances remaining as 
before, advance fouivfifths of it (£1600) in the purchase of 
cotton, &amp;C., and one-fifth (£400) in the purchase of additional 
spinners, who will find in the market the necessaries of life 
whose value the master has advanced to them. Then the new 

^ &quot; Aociimulation of capital; the emploTment of a portfon of rerenne as capital** 
(Malthtis: Definitional ftc, ed. Cazenove p. 11.) &quot;CbnTersion of rerentie into capL 
taL&quot; Malthua: Princ. of Pol. Boon., 2nd Ed., Lond., 1886, p. 819.) 



 

Conversion of Surplus-Value into Capital. 633 

oapital of £2000 functions in the spinning mill, and brings 
in, in its turn, a surplus-value of £400. 

The capital-value was originally advanced in the money 
form. The surplus-value on the contrary is, originally, the 
value of a definite portion of the gross product If this gross 
product be sold, converted into money, the capital-value re- 
gains its original form. From this moment the capital- 
value and the surplus-value are both of them sums of money, 
and their reconversion into capital takes place in precisely 
the same way. The one, as well as the other, is laid out by 
llie capitalist in the purchase of commodities that place him 
in a position to begin afresh the fabrication of his goods, 
and this time, on an extended scale. But in order to be able 
to buy those commodities, he must find them ready in the 
market 

His own yams circulate, only because he brings his annual 
product to market, as all other capitalists likewise do with 
their commodities. But these commodities, before coming to 
market, were part of the general annual product, part of the 
total mass of objects of every kind, into which the sum of the 
individual capitals, i.e., the total capital of society, had been 
converted in the course of the year, and of which each capi- 
talist had in hand only an aliquot part The transactions in 
the market effectuate only the interchange of the individual 
components of this annual product, transfer them from one 
hand to another, but can neither augment the total annual 
production, nor alter thfe nature of the objects produced. 
Hence the use that can be made of the total annual product, 
depends entirely upon its own composition, but in no way 
upon circulation. 

The annual production must in the first place furnish all 
those objects (use-values) from which the material components 
of capital, used up in the course of the year, have to be re- 
placed. Deducting these there remains the net or surplus- 
product, in which the surplus-value lies. And of what does 
this surplus-product consist? Only of things destined to sat- 
isfy the wants and desires of the capitalist class, things which, 
ooQsequently, enter into the consumption fund of the capital- 



 

^36 X^ckpitalist Production. 

iflts ? Were tKat the case, the cup of sarplus-valne would \m 
draired to the veij dr^s, and nothing but siniple leproduo- 
tion would ever take place. 

^&apos;0 accumulate it is necesaaiy to convert a portion of the 
suiplus-product into capital But we cannot^ except by a 
miracle, convert into capital anything but such articles as can 
be employed in the labour-process {i.e., means of {Nroducticm), 
and such further articles as are suitable for the sust^ianoe of 
the labourer, (i.e., means of subsistence.) Consequently, a 
part of the annual surplus-labour must have been applied to 
the production of additional meaua of production and subsist* 
ence, over and above the qukntity of these things required to 
replace the capital advanc^. In &lt;me word, surplus-value is 
convertible into capital solely because the surplus-product, 
whose value it is, already comprises the material elements of 
new capital^ 

Now in order to allow of these elements actually function- 
ing as capital, the &lt;5apitalist class requires additional labour. 
If the exploitation of the labourers already employed do not 
increase, either extensively or intensively, then additicmal 
labour-power must be found. For this the mechanism of 
capitalist production provides beforehand, by converting the 
working class into a class dependent on wages, a class whose 
ordinary wages suffice^ not only for its maintenance, but for its 
increase. It is only necessary for capital to incorporate this 
additional labour-power, annually supplied by the working 
class in the shape of labourers of all ages, with the surplus 
means of production ccMnprised in the annual produce, and 
che c(mversion of surplus-value into capital is complete. 
From a concrete point of view, accumulation resolves itself 
into the reproduction of capital on a progressively increasing 
scale. The circle in which simple reproduction moves, alters 

^ We here take no accotmt of export trade, bj meant of which a nation can chanft 
jrtidea of luxury either into means of production or means of subsistence, and vic§ 
&apos;itrtd. 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 it ererywhere established and hM poneiied 
ilaall of every branch of industry. 



 

Conversion of Surplus-Value into Capital. 631/ 

its form, and, to use Sismondi&apos;s expression, changes into a 
spiraL* 

Let us now return to our illustration. It is the old story: 
Abraham begat Isaac, Isaac begat Jacob, and so on. The 
original capital of £10,000 brings in a surplus-value of £2000, 
which is capitalised. The new capital of £2000 brings in a 
surplus-value of £400, and this, too, is capitalised, converted 
into a second additional capital, which, in its turn, produces 
a further surplus-value of £80. And so the ball rolls on. 

We here leave out of consideration the portion of the sur- 
plus-value consumed by the capitalist Just as little does it 
concern us, for the moment, whether the additional capital is 
joined on to the original capital, or is separated froia it to 
function independently; whether the same capitalist^ who 
accumulated it, employs it, or whether he hands it over to 
another. This only we must not forget, that by the side of 
the newly-formed capital, the original capital continues to re- 
produce itself, and to produce surplus-value, and that this is 
also true of all accumulated capital, and the additional capital 
engendered by it. 

The original capital was formed by the advance of £10,000, 
How did the owner become possessed of it? &quot;By his own 
labour and that of his forefathers,&apos;* answer unanimously the 
spokesmen of political economy.* And, in fact, their supposi- 
tion appears the only one consonant with the laws of the pro- 
duction of commodities. 

But it is quite otherwise with regard to the additional 
capital of £2000. How that originated we know perfectly 
welL There is not one single atom of its value that does not 
owe its existence to unpaid labour. The means of production, 
with which the additional labour-power is incorporated, as well 
as the necessaries with which the labourers are sustained, are 
nothing but component parts of the surplus product, of the 
tribute annually exacted from the working class by tiie capi- 

1 Sismondi&apos;t analysis of accumulation suffers from the great defect^ that he coa* 
tents himself, to too great an extent, with the phrase &quot;conversion of reTenue into 
carital/&apos; without fathoming the material conditions of this operation. 

&apos; &quot;Le travail primitif anqnel son capital a dft sa naissanoe.&quot; Sismondi, 1. «.» od» 
Paris, t. I^ p. 109. 



 

638 Capitalist Production. 

talist class. Though the latter with a portion of that tribute 
purchases the additional labour-power even at its full price, so 
that equivalent is exchanged for equivalent, yet the transao- 
tion is for all that only the old dodge of ev^ry oonquerer who 
buys commodities from the conquered with the money he 
has robbed them of. 

If the additional capital employs the person who produced 
it, this producer must not only continue to augment the value 
of the original capital, but must buy back the fruits of his 
previous labour with more labour than they cost When 
viewed as a transaction between the capitalist class and the 
working class, it makes no difference that additional labourers 
are employed by means of the unpaid labour of the previously 
employed labourers. The capitalist may even convert the 
additional capital into a machine that throws the producers of 
that capital out of work, and that replaces them by a few 
children. In every case the working class creates by the sur- 
plus-labour of one year the capital destined to employ addi- 
tional labour in the following year.^ And this is what is 
called: creating capital out of capital. 

The accumulation of the first additional capital of £2000 
presupposes a value of £10,000 belonging to tho capitalist by 
virtue of his &quot;primitive labour,&quot; and advanced by him. The 
second additional capital of £400 presupposes, on the con- 
trary, only the previous accumulation of the £2000, of which 
the £400 is the surplus-value capitalised. The ownership of 
past unpaid labour is thenceforth the sole condition for the 
appropriation of living unpaid labour on a constantly increas- 
ing scale. The more the capitalist has accumulated, the more 
is he able to accumulate. 

In so far as the surplus-value, of which the additional 
capital. No. 1, consists, is the result of the purchase of labour- 
power with part of the original capital, a purchase that con- 
formed to the laws of the exchange of commodities, and that, 
from a legal stand-pointy presupposes nothing beyond the free 
disposal, on the part of die labourer, of his own capacities, and 

^&quot;Labour creates capital before capital emplor* labour.&quot; E. Gw Wakefidd, Ear 
Imd and America. Lond., 188t, VoL II., p. 110. 



 

Conversion of Surplt^-Value into Capital. 639 

dn tho phTt of the owner of money or commodities, of the values 
that belong to him ; in 00 far as the additional capital. No. 2, 
&amp;c, is the mere result of No. 1^ and, therefore, a consequence 
of the above condition; in so far as each single transaction 
invariably conforms to the laws of the exchange of commodi- 
ties, the capitalist buying labour^power, the labourer selling it&gt; 
and we will assume at its real value; in so far as all this is 
true&gt; it is evident that the laws of appropriation or of private 
property, laws that are based on the production and circula- 
tion of commodities, become by their own inner and inexorable 
dialectic changed into their veiy opposite.* The exchange of 
equivalents, the original operation with which we started, haa 
now become turned round in such a way that there is only an 
apparent exchange. This is owing to the fact, first, that the 
capital which is exchanged for labour-power is itself but a 
portion of the product of others&apos; labour appropriated without 
an equivalent; and, secondly, that this capital must not only 
be replaced by its producer, but replaced together with an 
added surplus. The relation of exchange subsisting between 
capitalist and labourer becomes a mere semblance appertaining 
to the process of circulation, a mere form, foreign to the real 
nature of the transaction, and only mystify it The ever re- 
peated purchase and sale of labour-power is now the mere 
form ; what really takes place is this — ^the capitalist again and 
again appropriates, without equivalent, a portion of the pre- 
viously materialised labour of others, and exchanges it for a 
greater quantity of living labour. At first the rights of projh 
erty seemed to us to be based on a man&apos;s own labour. At 
least, some such assumption was necessary since only com- 
modity owners with equal rights confronted each other, and 
the sole means by which a man could become possessed of the 
commodities of others, was by alienating his own commodities; 
and these could be replaced by labour alone. Now, however, 

^Just u at a giTen stage in its deTelopment, commodity ^oductioii necessarily 
passes into capitalistic commodity production (in fact, it is only on the basis of 
capitalistic production that products take the general and predominant form of com- 
modities), so the laws of property that are based on commodity production, neces- 
sarily turn into the lawa of capitalist appropriation. We may well, therefore, fed 
astonished at the cleverness of Proudhon, who would abolish capitalistic property bj 
caforcing the eternal laws of property that are based on commodity production! 



 

dfo Capitalist Production. 

property turns out to be the right, on the part of the capital- 
isty to appropriate the unpaid labour of others or its product 
and to be the impossibility, on the part of the labourer, of ap- 
propriating his own product. The separation of property 
from labour has become the necessary consequence of a law 
that apparently originated in their identity.* 

No matter how severely the capitalist mode of appropriation 
may seem to slap the face of the fundamental laws of the pro- 
duction of commodities^ it does not arise from a violation, but 
from an application of these laws. A brief retrospect upon 
the succession of phases^ whose climax the capitalist accumur 
lation is, may serve once more to make this clear. 

We have seen, in the first place, that the original transfor- 
mation of a certain quantity of values into capital proceeded 
strictly according to the laws of exchange. One of the con- 
tracting parties sells his labour-power, the other buys it The 
first receives the exchange-value of his commodity, while 
its use-value, labour, passes into the possession of the other. 
This second party then converts means of production belong- 
ing to him into a new product belonging to him by ri^t 
through the instrumentality of labour also belonging to him. 

The value of this product comprizes, in the first plaoe^ the 
value of the consumed means of producti(MU Useful labour 
cannot consume these means of production without trans- 
ferring their value to the new product But in order to be 
saleable labour-power must be able to furnish useful labour in 
that line of industry in which it is to be employed. 

The value of the new product comprizes^ furthermore, the 
equivalent of the value of labour-power and a surplus-value. 
It does so for the reason that the labour-power sold for a cer- 
tain length of time, such as a day, a week, etc, has less value 
than is produced by its employment during that time. The 
labourer, however, has received the exchange-value of his la- 

« The property of the capitalist in the product of the labour of others &quot;is a strict 
consequence of the law of appropriation, the fundamental principle of which waa, on 
the contrary, the exclusive title of every labourer to the product of his own labour.&quot; 
(Cherbulicz, Riche ou Pauvre. Paris. 1841, p. 58, where, however, the d?a]ectical 
reversal is not properly developed.) 



 

Conversion of Surplus-Value into Capital. 641 

fcour-power and given up its use-value in return, as happens 
in every sale and purchase. 

The fact that this particular commodily labour-power haa 
the peculiar use-value of supplying labour and creating value 
cannot affect the general law of the production of commodi- 
ties. Hence, if the sum of values advanced in wages is not 
merely reproduced in the product, but also increased by a 
surplus-value, this is not due to an advantage gained over the 
seller, who received the value of his commodily, but simply 
to the consumption of this commodity by the buyer. 

The law of exchange requires &apos; juality only for the exchange- 
values of the commodities passed from hand to hand. But 
it requires at the outset a disparity of their use-values, and 
has nothing to do with their consumption, which does not 
begin until after the trade has been made. 

The original transformation of money into capital pro- 
ceeds, therefore, in strict compliance with the economic laws 
of the production of commodities and with the property right 
derived therefrom. Nevertheless it has the following results: 

(1) That the product bebngs to the capitalist, not to the 
labourer ; 

(2) That the value of this product comprizes a surplus- 
value over and above the vulue of the advanced capital 
This surplus-value has cost \h^ labourer labour, but the capi- 
talist notiiing, yet it becomes the lawful projperty of the capi- 
talist; 

(3) That the labourer has reproduced his labour-power 
and can sell it once moie^ if he finds a buyer for it 

Simple reproduction is but a periodical repetition of this 
first operation. Money is thereby transformed again and 
again into capital. The general law is not violated thereby, 
but rather finds an opportunity to manifest itself permanently. 
&quot;Several successive exchanges have merely made of the last 
a representative of the first.&quot; (Sismondi, 1. c, p. 70.) 

Nevertheless we have seen that this simple reproduction 

suflSces to impregnate this first operation, so far as it was 

considered an isolated transaction, with a totally different 

character. &quot;Of those, who divide the national revenue 

20 



 

642 Capitalist Production. 

among tLemselveB^ some (the labourers) acquire each year a 
new title to it by new labour, while others (the capitalista) 
have previously acquired a permanent title to it by primitive 
work.&apos;&apos; (Sismondiy L o., p. 111.) The domain of labour is 
evidently not the only one in which primogeniture aceomr 
plishes wonders. 

It does not alter matters any, if simple reproduction is 
replaced by reproduction on an enlarged scale, by accumula- 
tion. In the first instance the capitalist consumes the entire 
surplus-value, in the second he demonstrates his civic virtue 
by consuming only a part of it and converting the remainder 
into money. 

The surplus-value is his property, it has never belonged to 
anybody else. If he advances it to production, he makes ad- 
vances &apos;rom hiB own funds just as he did on the day when 
he first came n the market That this fund in the present 
case &lt;x&gt;me8 from the unpaid labour of his labourers, does not 
alter the matter in the least If labourer B is employed with 
surplus-values produced by labourer A, then, in the first place^ 
A supplied this surplus-value without having the just price 
of his commodity reduced by one farthing, and, in the seo- 
ond place, this transaction is none of B&apos;s concern. What B 
demands and has a right to demand is that the capitalist 
should pay him the value of his labour-power. &apos;&apos;Both sides 
are gainers; the labourer, by having the fruit of his labour 
advanced to him&apos;&apos; (that is, tiie fruit of the unpaid labour of 
others) &apos;^before he has performed any labour&quot; (that is, be- 
fore his own labour has borne any fruit) ; &apos;Hhe master, be- 
cause the labour of this labourer was worth more than his 
wages&quot; (that is, produced a value greater than that of his 
wages). (Sismondi, L c., p. 186.) 

True, the matter assumes an entirely different aspect when 
we look upon capitalist production in the uninterrupted flow 
df its reproduction, and when we consider the capitalist class 
as a whole and its antagonist^ the working class, instead of 
the individual capitalist and the individual labourer. But 
in so doing we should be applying a standard which is totalfy 
foreign to the production of commoditiee. 



 

Conversion of Surplus-Value into Capital. 643 

In the production of commoditiee only sellers and bujers^ 
independent of one another, meet Their mutual relations 
oease with the termination of their mutual contract. If the 
transaction is repeated, it is done by a new contract, which 
has nothing to do with the former on^ and only an accident 
brings the same seller once more together with the same buyer. 

Henoe^ if the production of conmiodities, or a transaction 
belonging to it, is to be judged by its own economic laws, we 
must consider each act of exchange by itself, outside of all 
connection with the act of exchange preceding it and following 
it. And since purchases and sales are transacted between in- 
dividuals, it will not do to seek therein relations between en- 
tire classes of society. 

No matter how long may be the series of periodical repro- 
ductions and former accumulations through which the capital 
now invested may have passed, it always retains its primal 
virginity. So long as the laws of exchange are observed in 
every act of exchange, individually considered, the mode of 
appropriation may be completely revolutionised without in 
the least affecting the property right bestowed by the produc- 
tion of commodities. The same right remains in force, 
whether it be at a time when the product belonged to the pro- 
ducer, and when this producer, exchanging equivalent for 
equivalent, could enrich himself only by his own labour, or 
whether it be under capitalism, where the social wealth be- 
comes in an ever increasing degree the property of those, 
who are in a position to appropriate to themselvee again and 
again the unpaid labour of others. 

This result becomes inevitable, as soon as labour-power is 
sold as a commodity by the &quot;free&quot; labourer himself. It is 
from that time on that the production of commodities becomes 
universal and a typical form of production. Henceforth 
every product is intended at the outset for sale, and all pro- 
duced wealth passes through the circulation. The produc- 
tion of commodities jioes not impose itself upon the whole 
society, until wage-labour becomes its basis. And only then 
does it unfold all its powers. To say that the intervention 
of wage labour adulterates the production of commodities 



 

644 Capitalist Production. 

means to say that the production of eonunodities must not 
develop^ if it wishes to remain unadulterated* To the same 
extent that it continues to develop by its own inherent laws 
into a capitalist production, the property laws of the produc- 
tion of commodities are converted into the laws of capitalistic 
appropriation,* 

We have seen that even in the case of simple reproduction^ 
all capital, whatever its original source, becomes converted in- 
to accimiulated capital, capitalised surplus-value. But in the 
flood of production all the capital originally advanced becomes 
a vanishing quantity {magnitvdo evanescens, in the mathema- 
tical sense), compared with the directly accumulated capital, 
i,e., with the surplus-value or surplus product that is recon- 
verted into capital, whether it function in the hands of its 
accimiulator, or in those of others. Hence, political economy 
describes capital in general as ^^accumulated wealth&quot; (con- 
verted surplus-value or revenue), *Hhat is employed over 
again in the production of surplus-value,&quot; * and the capitalist 
as &quot;the owner of surplus-value.&quot; * It is merely anoth^ way 
of expressing the same thing to say that aU existing capital is 
accumulated or capitalised interest, for interest is a mere 
fragment of surplus-value.^ 

SECTION 2. ^EBBOXBOrS CONCBPTION BY POUTICAI- SOONOMT 

OF BEFBODUCnON ON A PBOOBESSIVELT IN- 
CBEASING SCALE. 

Before we further investigate accumulation or the reconver- 
sion of surplus-value into capital, we must brush on one side 
an ambiguity introduced by the classical economists. 

^Admire, therefore, the ciaftin c as of Prondhoa who wishes to abolish cspitslitt 
pro perty by enfordnff sfainst it — the etemsl property laws of the p co d uclion of 



***Capital, Tix., acciaralsted wealth employed with a riew to profit.&apos;* (Mahhna* 
L c) **Capital .... consists of wealth saved from rercnne, and used with 
a Tiew to profit.** (R. Jones: An Introductory Lectnre on Pblit. Econ., Lond., 183S» 
pw 1«.) 

* &quot;The possessors of surplus produce or capitaL** (The Source and Reme^J of the 
National Difficulties. A Letter to Lord John RusseO. Lond.. 18SL) 

*&apos;*Capttal. with compound interest on erery portion of capital saved, is so aU 
cncrossinc that aU the wealth in the world from which income is derived, has long 
■fo become the interest on capitaL** iLoudom Ec^ncmtist, I9th Jydy, 1SS9L) 



 

Conversion of Surplus-Value into Capitcd. 645 

Just as little as the commoditiee that the capitalist buys 
with a part of the surplus-value far his own consumption, 
serve the purpose of production and of creation of value, so 
little is the labour that he buys for the satisfaction of his 
natural and social requirements, productive labour. Instead 
of converting surplus- value into capital, he, on the contrary, by 
the purchase of those commodities and that labour, consumes 
or expends it as revenue. In the face of the habitual mode of 
life of the old feudal nobility, which, as Hegel rightly says, 
&quot;consists in consuming what is in hand,&quot; and more especially 
displays itself in the luxury of personal retainers, it was ex- 
tremely important for bourgeois economy to promulgate the 
doctrine that accumulation of capital is the first duty of every 
citizen, and to preach without ceasing, that a man cannot ac- 
cumulate, if he eats up all his revenue, instead of spending a 
good part of it in the acquisition of additional productive la^ 
bourers, who bring in more than they cost On the other hand 
the economists had to contend against the popular prejudice, 
that confuses capitalist production with hoarding,* and fancies 
that accumulated wealth is either wealth that is rescued from 
being destroyed in its existing form, i.e., from being con- 
simied, or wealth that is withdrawn from circulation. Exclu- 
sion of money from circulation would also exclude absolutely 
its self -expansion as capital, while accumulation of a hoard in 
the shape of commodities would be sheer tomfoolery.^ The 
accumulation of commodities in great masses is the result 
either of overproduction or of a stoppage of circulation.* It 
is true that the popular mind is impressed by the sight, on the 
one hand, of the mass of goods that are stored up for gradual 
consumption by the rich,* and on the other hand, by the for- 

^ &quot;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 refer- 
ence to the national wealth can well be imagined, but that which must arise frooi 
a different application of what is saved, founded upon a real distinction between 
the different kinds of labour maintained by it.&quot; (Malthus, L c, p. 88, 89.) 

&apos;Thus for instance, Balzac, who so thoroughly studied every shade of avarice* 
represents the old usurer Gobsec as in his second childhood when he begins to heap 
tip a hoard of commodities. 

* &quot;Accumulation of stocks . . . non-exchange . . . over-production.&quot; (Tb. 
Corbet 1. c, p. 14.) 

« In this sense Necker speaks of the &quot;objeU de faste et de somptuosit^&apos;* of which 



 

646 Capitalist Production. 

mation of reserve stocks ; the latter, a phenomenon that is com- 
mon to all modes of production, and on which we shall dwell 
for a moment, when we come to analyse circulation. Classical 
economy is therefore quite right, when it maintains that the 
consumption of surplus-products by productive, instead of by 
unproductive labourers, is a characteristic feature of the 
process of accumulation. But at this point the mistakes also 
begin. Adam Smith has made it the fashion, to represent 
accumulation as nothing more than consumption of surplus- 
products b/ productive labourers, which amounts to sayings 
that the capitalising of surplus-value consists in merely turn- 
ing surplus^value into labouivpowen Let us see what Bicardo 
e.g.y says: ^&apos;It must be understood that all the productions 
of a country are consumed ; but it makes the greatest diff^&gt; 
ence imaginable whether they are consimied by those who 
reproduce, or by those who do not reproduce another value. 
When we say that revenue is saved, and added to capital, what 
we mean is, that the portion of revenue, so said to be added 
to capital, is consumed by productive instead of unproductive 
labourers. There can be no greater error than in supposing 
that capital is increased by non-consumption.&quot; * There can 
be no greater error than that which Bicardo and all subsequent 
economists repeat after A. Smith, viz., that ^Hhe part of rev- 
enue, of which it is said, it has been added to capital, is conr 
sumed by productive labourers.&quot; According to this, all sur- 
plus-value that is changed into capital becomes variable cap- 
itaL So far from this being the case, the surplus-value, like 
the original capital, divides itself into constant capital and 
variable capital, into means of production and labour-power. 
Labour-power is the form under which variable capital exists 
during the process of production. In this process the labour- 
power is itself consumed by the capitalist while the means of 
production are consumed by the labour-power in the exercise of 
its function, labour. At the same time, the money paid for 
the purchase of the labour-power, is converted into necessaries, 

*ne temp« a gr&lt;wn raccumulation,&quot; and which &quot;let loii de propria ont naaembl^ 
dans une seule classe de la Bo&amp;€tL&apos;* (Oeufrct dc M. Necker, FmtU and Laasanu^ 
1780, t. it p. 201.i 
* R ka r do, 1. c^ p. ie8» note; 



 

Conversion of Surplus-Value into Capital. 647 

tliat are oonsumed, not by &quot;productive labour,&quot; but by the 
&apos;^^productive labourer.&quot; Adam Smith, by a fundamentally 
perverted analysis^ arrives at the absurd conclusion, that even 
though each individual capital is divided into a constant and 
a variable party the capital of society resolves itself only into 
variable capital, ie., is laid out exclusively in payment of 
-wages. For instance^ suppose a cloth manufacturer ccmverts 
£2000 into capital One portion he lays out in buying 
weavers, the other in woollen yam, machinery, &amp;c. But the 
people, from whom he buys the yam and the machinery, pay 
for labour vrith a part of the purchase money, and so on until 
the whole £2000 are spent in the payment of wages, i.e., un- 
til the entire product represented by the £2000 has been con- 
sumed by productive labourers. It is evident that the whole 
gist of tiiis argument lies in the words &quot;and so on,&quot; which 
send us from pillar to ix)8t. In truth, Adam Smith breaks 
his investigation off, just where its diflSculties begin.* 

The annual process of reproduction is easily understood, so 
long as we keep in view merely the sum total of the yearns 
production. But every single component of this product must 
be brought into the market as a commodity, and there the diffi- 
culty begins. The movements of the individual capitals, and 
of the personal revenues, cross and intermingle and are lost in 
the general change of places, in the circulation of the wealth of 
society ; this dazes the eight, and propoimds very complicated 
problems for solution. In the third pai-t of Book II. I shall 
give the analysis of the real bearings of the facts. It is one of 
the great merits of the Physiocrats, that in their Tableau 
Sconomique they were the first to attempt to depict the annual 
production in the shape in which it is presented to us after 
passing through the process of circulation.* 

^ la spite of hla &quot;Logic,&quot; John St. Mill never detects even such fatilty aadrsls •• 
this when made by his predecessors, mn analysis which, even from the bourgeois stand- 
point of the science, cries out for rectification. In every case he registers with the 
dogmatism of a disdple, the confusion of his master&apos;s thoughts. So here: &quot;The 
capital itself in the long run becomes entirely wages, and when replaced by the sale 
of produce becomes wages again.&quot; 

&apos;In 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, espedally the Physiocrats. Connected with the 



 

648 Capitalist Production. 

For H^ refit^ it is a matter of course, that political economy, 
acting in the interests of the capitalist class, has not failed to 
exploit the doctrine of Adam Smith, viz., that the whole of 
that part of tha surplus product which is converted into 
capital, is consumed bj the working class. 

SEOnOir 3.— BBPABATION OP SUBPLUS-VALITB UTTO OAITTAXi 
AND EEVENUS. THE ABSTINENCE THBOBT. 

In the last preceding chapter, we treated surplus-value (or 
the surplus product) solely as a fimd for supplying the in- 
dividual consumption of the capitalist In this chapter we 
have, so far treated it solely as a fund for accumulation. It 
is, however, neither the one nor the other, but is both to- 
gether. One portion is consumed by the capitalist as rev- 
enue,* the other is employed as capital, is accumulated. 

Given the mass of surplus-value, then, the larger the one of 
these parts, the smaller is the other. Ceteris paribus, the 
ratio of these parts determines the magnitude of the ac- 
cumulation. But it is by the owner of the surplus-value, by 
the capitalist alone, that the division is made. It is his de- 
liberate act That part of the tribute exacted by him which 
he accumulates^ is said to be saved by him, becaiise he does 
not eat it, i.e., because he performs the function of a capitalist, 
and enriches himself. 

Except as personified capital, the capitalist has no historical 
value, and no right to that historical existence, which, to use 
an expression of the witly Lichnowsky, &apos;Tiasn&apos;t got no date,&apos;* 

illuisoii mentioned in the text, is the really wonderful dogma, left by him as an in- 
heritance to political economy, the dogma, that the price of commodities is made op 
of wages, profit (interest) and rent, i.e., of wages and surplus-Talue. Starting from 
this basis, Storch naively confesses, &quot;II est impossible de r^soudre le prix n6cessaire 
dans ses Elements les plus simples.&quot; (Storch, I. c. Petersb. Edit. 1815, tip. 140, 
note.) A fine science of economy this, which declares it impossible to resolve the 
price of a commodity into its simplest elements 1 This point will be further inves- 
tigated in the seventh part of Book iii. 

^The reader will notice, that the word revenue is used in a double sense: first, to 
designate surplus-value so far as it is the fruit periodically yielded by capital; 
secondly, to designate the part of that fruit which is periodically constmied by the 
capitalist, or added to the fimd that supplies his private consumption. I have retained 
this double meaning because it harmonises with the language of the English mad 
French economists. 



 

Com/ersion of Surplus-Value into Capital. 649 

And so far only is the necessity for his own transitory ex- 
istence implied in the transitory necessity for ^lie capitalist 
mode of production. But, so far as he is personified capital, 
it is not values in use and the enjoyment of them^ but exchange- 
value and its augmentation, that spur him into action. Fan- 
atically bent on making valuj expand itself, he ruthlessly 
forces the human race to produce for production&apos;s sake; he 
thus forces the development of the productive powers of so- 
ciety, and creates those material conditions, which alone can 
form the real basis of a higher form cf society, a society in 
which the full and free development of every individual forms 
the ruling principle. Only as personified capital is the 
capitalist respectable. As such, he shares with the miser the 
passion for wealth as wealth. But that which in the miser 
is a mere idiosyncrasy, is, in the capitalist, the effect of the 
social mechanism, of which he is but one of the wheels. More- 
over, the development of capitalist production makes it con- 
stantly necessary to keep increasing the amount of the capital 
laid out in a given industrial undertaking, and competition 
makes the immanent laws of capitalist production to be felt 
by each individual capitalist, as external coercive laws. It 
compels him to keep constantly extending his capital, in order 
to preserve it, but extend it he cannot, except by means of 
progressive accumulation. 

So far, therefore, as his actions are a mere function of 
capital — endowed as capital is, in his person, with conscious- 
ness and a will — his own private consumption is a robbery 
perpetrated on accumulation, just as in book-keeping by double 
entry, the private expenditure of the capitalist is placed 
on the debtor side of his account against his capital. To 
acciraiulate, is to conquer the world of social wealth, to in- 
crease the mass of human beings exploited by him, and thus 
to extend both the direct and the indirect sway of the capital- 
ist.^ 

* Taking the usurer, that old-fashioned but ever renewed specimen of the capitalist 
for his text, Luther shows very aptly that the love of power is an element in the 
desire to get rich. **The heathen were able, by the light of reason, to conclude that 
a usurer is a double-dyed thief and murderer. We Christians, however, hold them in 
tttch honour, that we fairly worship them for the sake of their money .... 



 

^O Capitalist Production. 

But original sin is at work everywhere. Afl capitalist pro- 
ducticm, accumulation, and wealth, become developed, the 
capitalist ceases to be the mere incarnation of capitaL He has 
a fellow-feeling for his own Adam, and his education gradu- 
ally enables him to smile at the rage for asceticism, as a mere 
prejudice of the old-fashioned miser. While the capitalist of 
the classical type brands individual consumption as a sin 
against his function, ai^d as ^^abstinence&quot; from accumulating^ 
the modernised capitalist is capable of looking upon accumula- 
tion as ^^abstinence&quot; from pleasure. 

*^ Two soul9, alas, do dwell within his breast; 
The one is ever parting from the other.*&apos; * 

At the historical dawn of capitalist production, — and every 
capitalist upstart has personally to go through this historical 
stage — avarice, and desire to get rich, are the ruling passions. 

WhocTcr eats tip* robt, and ttemlt the&apos; nourishmeiit of another, that man commHs as 
great a murder (so far as in him lies) as he who starves a man or utterly undoes 
him. Such does a usurer, and sits the while safe on his stool, when he ought rather 
to he hanging on the gallows, and be eaten by as many ravens as he has stolea 
guilders, if only there were so much flesh on him, that so many ravens could stick 
their beaks in and share it. Meanwhile, we hang the small thieves . . • Little 
thieves are put in the stocks, great thieves go flaunting in gold and silk .... 
Therefore is there, on this earth, no greater enemy of man (after the devil) than 
a gripe-money, and usurer, for he wants to be (yod over all men. Turks, soldiers, 
and tyrants are also bad men, yet must they let the people live, and confess that they 
are bad, and enemies, and do, nay, must, now and then show pity to rome. But a 
usurer and money-glutton, such a one would have the whole world perish of hunger 
and thirst, misery and want, so far as in him lies, so that he may have a*t to him* 
•elf, and every one may receive from him as from a G I, and be his serf Tj^ ever. 
To wear fine cloaks, golden chains, rings, to wipe his mouth, to be deemed ai.i taken 
for a worthy, pious man . . . Usury is a great huge monster, like &apos;• were-wvrff* 
who lays waste all, more than any C^acus, Gerion or Antus. And • ;t dec!c8 himsdl 
out, and would be thought pious, so that people may not see where ^he oxen ^.ave 
gone, that he drags backwards into his den. But Hercules shall hear the cry of the 
oxen and of his prisoners, and shall seek Cacus even in cliffs and among rocks, . J 
shall set the oxen loose again from the villain. For Cacus means the villain tiiat 
is a pious usurer, and steals, robs, eats everything. And will not own that he has 
done it, and thinks no one will find him out, because the oxen, drawn backwards 
into his den, make it seem, from their foot-prints, that they have been let out. So 
the usurer would deceive the world, as though he were of use and gave tiie worid 
oxen, while he, however, rends, and eats all alone . . . And since we break on 
the wheel, and behead highwaymen, murderers and housebreakers, how much more 
ought we to break on the wheel and kiU* . • . hunt down* eurwt and behead 
all usurers.&quot; (Martin Luther, L c.) 
^ See Goethe&apos;s Faust 



 

Conversion of Surplus-Value into Capital. 651 

But the progresB of capitalist production not only creates a 
world of delights; iO lays open, in speculation and the credit 
system, a thousand sources of sudden enrichment When a 
certain stage of development has been reached, a conventional 
degree of prodigality, -which is also an exhibition of wealth, 
and consequently a source of credit, becomes a business neces- 
sity to the &quot;unfortunate&apos;^ capitalist Luxury enters into 
capital&apos;s expenses of representation. Moreover, the capitalist 
gets rich, not like the miser, in proportion to his personal 
labour and restricted consumption, but at the same rate as he 
squeezes out the labour-power of others, and enforces on the 
labourer abstinence from all life&apos;s enjoyments. Although, 
therefore, the prodigality of the capitalist never possesses the 
bona-fide character of the open-handed feudal lord&apos;s prodigal- 
ity, but, on the contrary, has always lurking behind it the most 
sordid avarice and the most anxious calculation, yet his ex- 
penditure grows with his accumulation, without the one neces- 
sarily restricting the other. But along with this growth, there 
is at the same time developed in his breast, a Faustian con- 
flict between the passion for accumulation, and the desire for 
enjoyment 

Dr. Aikin says in a work published in 1795 : &quot;The trade of 
Manchester may be divided into four periods. First, when 
manufacturers were obliged to work hard for their livelihood.&quot; 
They enriched themselves chiefly by robbing the parents, 
whose children were bound as apprentices to them : the parents 
paid a high premium, wtiile tne apprentices were starved. On 
*he other hand, the avera^*e profit* were low, and to ac- 
cumulate, extreme parsimony was requisite. They lived like 
misers, and were far from x^nsuming even the interest on their 
c^^pital. &quot;The ••econd period, when they had begun to acquire 
little fortunes, but worked mS hard as before,&quot; — ^for direct ex- 
ploitation of labour costs labour, as every slave-driver knows 
— &quot;and lived in as plain a manner as before. . . . The 
third, when luxury began, and the trade was pushed by send- 
ing out riders for orders into every market town in the King- 
dom. . . . It ia probable that few or no capitals of 
£3000 to £4000 acquired by trade existed here before 1690. 



 

652 Cafntalist Production. 

However, about that time, or a little later, the traders had got 
money beforehand, and b^an to build modem brick houses, 
instead of those of wood and plaster/&apos; Even in the early part 
of the 18th century, a Manchester manufacturer, who placed 
a pint of foreign wine before his guests, exposed himself to 
the remarks and headshakings of all his neighbors. Befon^ 
the rise of machinery, a manufacturer&apos;s evening expenditure at 
the public-house where they all met^ never exceeded sixpence 
for a glass of punch, and a penny for a screw of tobacco. It 
was not till 1758, and this marks an epoch, that a person 
actually engaged in business was seen with an equipage of 
his own. &quot;The fourth period,^&apos; the last 30 years of the 18th 
century, &quot;is that in which expense and luxury have made 
great progress, and was supported by a trade extended by 
means of riders and factors through every part of Europe.&apos;^* 
What would the good Dr. Aikin say if he could rise from his 
grave and see the Manchester of to-day ? 

Accumulate, accumulate I That is Moses and the prophets! 
&quot;Industry furnishes the material which saving accimiulates.&quot;* 
Therefore, save, save, i.e., reconvert the greatest possible por- 
tion of surplus-value^ or surplus-product into capital I Ac- 
cumulation for accumulation&apos;s sake, production for produo- 
tion&apos;s sake: by this formula classical economy expressed the 
historical mission of the bourgeoisie, and did not for a single 
instant deceive itself over the birth-throes of wealth.&apos; But 
what avails lamentation in thel face of historical necessity! 
If to classical economy, the proletarian is but a machine for 
the production of surplus-value ; on the other hand, the capital- 
ist is in its eyes only a machine for the conversion of this 
surplus-value into additional capital. Political economy takes 
the historical function of the capitalist in bitter earnest In 
order to charm out of his bosom the awful conflict between 



^Dr. Aikin: Description of the country from 80 to 40 miles round 
Lond., 1706, p. 182, sqq. 

&apos;A. Smith: 1. c, blc iii^ ch. iii. 

*Even J. B. Say says: &quot;Les ^pargnes des riches se font aux d^pens des patnrres.&quot; 
&quot;The Roman proletarian lived almost entirely at the expense of society. • • • • 
It can almost be said that modem society lives at the expense of the ivoletarians, on 
what it keeps out of the remuneration of labour.&quot; (Sismondit Etudes, &amp;c.« t. L» 
P. 2i.) 



 

Conversion of Surplus-Value into Capitd. 653 

the desire for enjoyment and the chase after riches, Malthns, 
about the year 1820, advocated a division of labour, which 
assigns to the capitalist actuaUy engaged in production, the 
business of accumulating, and to the other sharers in surplus- 
value, to the landlords, the place-men, the beneficed clergy, 
&amp;C., the business of spending. It is of the highest importance, 
he says, &quot;to keep separate the passion for expenditure and 
the passion for accumulation.&quot;^ 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, &amp;c., 
so that the pressure of the spur may constantly be kept on 
the industrious by unproductive consumers I By all means, 
production, production on a constantly increasing scale, runs 
the shibboleth ; but &quot;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.&apos;** 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&apos;s 
wages to a minimum &quot;to keep him industrious.&apos;&apos; Nor does 
he for a moment conceal the fact, that the appropriation of un- 
paid labour is the secret of surplus-value. &quot;Increased de- 
mand on the part of the labourers means nothing more than 
their willingness to take less of their own product for them- 
selves, and leave a greater part of it to their employer ; and if 
it be said, that this begets glut, by lessening consumption&quot; 
(on the part of the labourers), &quot;I can only reply that glut 
is synonymous with large profits.&quot; * 

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 after- 
wards, the town proletariat at Lyons sounded the tocsin of 

&lt; Malthas, 1. c, p. 819, 8S0. 

&apos;An Inquiry into those Prindplet respecting the Nature of Demand, Ac, p. 67« 

»1. c^ p. 60. 



 

654 Capitalist Production. 

revolution, and the country proletariat in England began to 
set fire to farmyards and comstacks. On this side of the 
Channel OweniEm began to spread; on the other side, St 
Simonism and Fourierism. The hour of vulgar eoonomy had 
strucL 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 anr 
nounced to the world another discovery, &quot;I substitute,&apos;&apos; he 
proudly says, ^^for the word capital, considered as an in- 
strument of production, the word abstinence.&apos;&apos;^ An un- 
paralleled sample this, of the discoveries of vulgar economy ! 
It substitutes for an economic category, a sycophantic phrase 
— i;oKd tout. &quot;When the savage,&quot; says Senior, &quot;makes bows, 
he exercises an industry, but he does not practice abstinence.^ 
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 &quot;The more society progresses, 
the more abstinence is demanded,&quot;&apos; namely, from those who 
ply the industry of appropriating the fruits of others&apos; in- 
dustry. 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 com is not all eaten, but 
part of it also sown — abstinence of the capitalist If the 
wine gets time to mature — abstinence of the capitalist^ The 

^ (Senior, Prindpet fondamentaux de I&apos;Ecoii. PoL trad. ArriTabeue. Paris, 18S6, 
p. SOS). This was rather too much for the adherents of the old classical schooL 
&quot;Mr. Senior has substituted for it&quot; (the expression, labour and profit) &apos;*the expres- 
sion Labour and Abstinence. He who converts his revenue abstains from the 
enjoyment which its expenditure would afford him. It is not the capital, but the 
use of the capital productively, which is the cause of profits.&quot; (John Cazenove, L c. 
p. 180, Note.) John St. Mill, on the contrary, accepts on the one hand Ricardo*s 
theory of profit, and annexes on the other hand Senior&apos;s &quot;remuneration of absti* 
nence.&quot; He is as much at home in absurd contradictions, as he feels at sea in the 
Hegelian contradiction, the source of all dialectic. It has never occurred to the 
vulgar economist to make the simple reflexion, that every human action may be 
viewed, as &quot;abstinence&quot; from its opposite. Eating is abstinence from fasting, walk&gt; 
ing, abstinence from standing still, working, abstinence from idling, idling absti- 
nence from working, &amp;c. These gentlemen would do well, to ponder, once in a waj« 
over Spinoza&apos;s: &quot;Determinatio est Negatio.&quot; 

&apos;Senior, L c p. 84S. 

*&quot;No one • • . will sow his wheat, for instance, and allow it to remain a 
twelve-month in the ground, or leave his wine in a cellar for years, instead of con- 
suming these things or their «:quivalent at once . . . unless he expects to acquire 
additional value, ftc&quot; (Scrope, PoUt. Econ. edit, by A. Potter, New York, 1841, 
p, 188-184.) 



 

Conversion of Surplus-Value into Capital. 655 

capitalist robs his own self, -whenever he ^lends ( !) the in- 
struments of production to the labourer/&apos; that is, whenever 
by incorporating labour-power with them, he uses them to ex- 
tract surplus-value out of that labour-power, instead of eating 
theon up, steam-engines^ cotton, railways, manure, horses, and 
all ; or as the vulgar economist childishly puts it, instead of 
dissipating &apos;&apos;their value&quot; in luxuries and other articles of con- 
sumption.^ How the capitalist as a class are to perform that 
feat, is a secret that vulgar economy has hitherto obstinately 
refused to divulge. Enough, that th^ world still jogs on, 
solely through the self-chastisement of this modem penitent 
of Vishnu, the capitalist Not only accumulation, but the 
simple &quot;conservation of a capital requires a constant effort to 
resist the temptation of consuming it.&quot;^ The simple dictates 
of humanity therefore plainly enjoin the release of the capital- 
ist 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, en- 
tirely 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&gt; 
there occurs, not only simple reproduction, but, in varying de- 
grees, reproduction on a progressively increasing scale. By 
d^^rees more is produced and more consumed, and conse- 
quently 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 laboureir&apos;s means of production, and with them, 
his product and means of subsistence, do not confront him in 
the shape of capital* Richard Jones, who died a few years 
ago, and was the successor of Malthus in the chair of po- 

^&quot;La privation qtte s&apos;impose le capitaliste, en pr^tant (this euphemism used, for 
the purpose of identifying, according to the approved method of vulgar economy, 
the labourer who it exploited, with the industrial capitalist who exploits, and to 
whom other capitalists lend money) ses instruments de production au travailleur, 
sn lieu d&apos;en consacrer la valeur i son propre usage, en la transforment en objeta 
d&apos;titilit^ ou d&apos;agr^ment.&quot; (G. de Molinari, 1. c. p. 40.) 

* &quot;La conservation d&apos;un capital exige . . . un effort constant pour r^siater i la 
tentation de le consommer.&quot; (Courcelles-Seneuil, 1. c. p. 57.) 

&apos;&apos;The partictdar classes of income which yieM the most abundantlj to the vrof* 



 

656 Capitalist Production. 

litical economy at Haileybury College, discusses this point 
well in the light of two important facts. Since the great mass 
of the Hindoo 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.&apos;^ ^ On the other hand, the 
non-agricultural labourers in those provinces where the Eng- 
lish rule has least disturbed the old system, are directly em- 
ployed 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 &quot;abetainer/** 

SUCTION 4. CrBOtTMSTANCES THAT, HTDBPENDBNTLT OF THB 

DIVISION OP BUBPLUS-VALUB INTO CAPITAL AND BEVBNTTB, 
DETBBMINB THE AMOUNT OP ACCUMULATION. DEOBEE OP 
EXPLOITATION OP LABOU16-P0WEE. PRODUCTIVITY OP 
LABOUB. GBOWING DIFFEBENCE IN AMOUNT BETWEEN 
CAPITAL EMPLOYED AND CAPITAL CONSUMED. MAGNI- 
TUDE OP CAPITAL ADVANCED. 

The proportion in which. surplu&amp;-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 

ress of national capital, change at different stages of their |&gt;rogress, and are, there- 
fore, entirely different in nations occupying different positions in that progress 
. . . Profits . . . unimportant source of accumulation, compared with wages 
and rents, in the earlier stages of society . , . When a considerable advance in 
the powers of national industry has actually taken place, profits rise into comparatsvc 
importance as a source of accumulation.&quot; (Richard Jones. Textbook, &amp;c., p. 1«. 81.) 
&apos;Lap. 86, sq. — Note to the 4th German edition. — ^Thii must be a mistake. Tlda 
passage has not been located. F. E. — 



 

Conversion of Sarplus-Valice into Capital. 65/ 

and 20 per cent eaten up, the accumulated capital will bo 
£2,400 OP £1,200, according as the total surplus-value has 
amounted to £3,000 or £1,500. 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 neiw points of view in 
regard to accumulation. 

It will be remembered that the rate of eurplus-value de- 
pends, 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 
dut to increased exploitation of the labourer.* In the chapters 
on the production of surplus-value it was constantly presup- 
posed 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&apos;s necessary consumption-fund into a fund 
for the accumulation of capital 

&quot;Wages,&apos;* says John Stuart Mill, &apos;Tiave no productive 
power; they are the price of productive-power. Wages do 
not contribute, along with labour, to the production of com- 
modities, no more than the price of tools contributes along 
with the tools themselves. If labour could be had without 
purchase, wageel might be dispensed with.&quot;^ 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 mathe- 
matical sense, always beyond reach, although we can always 

* &quot;Rlcardo says: &apos;In different stages of society the accumulation of capital or of the 
means of employing&quot; (i.e., exploiting) &quot;labour is more or less rapid, and must in all 
cases depend on the productive powers of labour. The productive powers of labour 
are generally greatest where there is an abundance of fertile land.&apos; If, in the first 
sentence, the productive powers of labour mean the smallness of that aliquot part of 
any produce that goes to those whose manual labor produced it, the sentence it 
nearly identical, because the remaining aliquot part is the fund whence capital can, 
if the owner pleases, be accumulated. But then this does not generally happen, where 
there is most fertile land.&apos;* (&quot;Observations on certain verbal disputes, &amp;c.,&quot; pp. 
74. 75.) 

*J. Stuart Mill: &quot;Essays on some unsettled questions of Political Economy Lond., 
1840/&apos; p. 00. 

2P 



 

658 Capitalist Production. 

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 &quot;Essay on Trade and Commerce,&apos;* oolj bo- 
trays 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.* With other things he says naively: &quot;But if our 
poor** (technical term for labourers) &quot;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, &amp;c.&apos;&apos;* He quotes the 
work of a Northamptonshire manufacturer, who, with eyed 
squinting heavenward, moans : &apos;Tabour 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, 
fruity herbs, roots, and dried fish; for they very seldom eat 
flesh; and when wheat is dear, they eat very little bread.&quot;* 
&quot;To which may be added,*&apos; 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 th^ 
have been effected both in France and in Holland,*** Twenty 

^&quot;An Einqr on Trade ud Commerce^ hand,, 1770,&quot; p. 44. The &quot;Tim^ of 
December, 1866, and January, 1867, in like manner published certain outpourings of 
the heart of the English mineowner, in which the happy lot of the Belgian minera 
was pictured, who asked and received no more than was strictly necessary for thca 
to live for their &quot;masters.&quot; The Belgian labourers hare to suffer much, bat to 
figure in the &quot;Times&quot; as model labourers! In the beginning of February, 1867, came 
the answer: strike of the Belgian miners at Marchienne, put down by powder and 
lead. 

*L C pp. 44, 46. 

*The Northamptonshire manufacturer commits a pious fraud, pardonable in one 
whose heart is so full. He nominally compares the life of the English and French 
manufacturing labourer, but in the words just quoted he is painting, at he htmsdf 
confesses in his confused way, the French agricultural labourers. 

*1. c, p. 70, 71. Note to the 8rd edition: Today, thanks to the competitioQ on the 
world-market, established since then, we have advanced much further. &quot;If China,** 
says Mr. Stapleton, M. P., to his constituents, &quot;should become a great manufacturing 
country, I do not see how the manufacturing population of Europe could sustain the 
contest without descending to the level of tiieir competitors.&quot; (&quot;Times,&quot; Sept. ^ 
1878, p. 8.) The wished-for goal of English capital is no longer Continental 
but Chinese. 



 

Conversion of Surplus-Value into &apos;Capital. 659 

years later, an American humbug, the baronised Yankee, Ben- 
jamin Thompson (alias Coimt Bumford) followed the same 
line of philanthropy to the great satisfaction of God and man« 
Bis &quot;Essays^&apos; are a cookery book &quot;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: &quot;5 lbs. of barley meal, T^d.; 
5 lbs. of Indian com, 6:|d. ; 3d. worth of red herring, Id. 
salt, Id. vin^ar, 2d. pepper and sweet herbs, in all 20f d. ; 
make a soup for 64 men, and at the medium price of barley 
and of Indian com • • . this soup may be provided at 
id, the portion of 20 ounces.&apos;^^ With ihe advance of capital- 
istic production, the adulteration of food rendered Thompr 
son&apos;s ideal superfluous.^ At 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 pa- 
rochial relief. An example of the wa^sh way in which the 
English Dogberries acted in their &apos;legal&quot; fixing of a wages 
tariff: &quot;The squires of Norfolk had dined, says Mr. Burke, 
when they fixed the rate of wages; the squires of Berks evi- 
dently 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 8s. for a 

1 Benjamin ThompMn: Essayt, Politick* Economical, and PhnoK&gt;pUcaI» ftc, • 
▼ols., Lond^ 1796-1808. voL L, p, 288. In his &quot;The Stote of the Poor, or an History 
of the Labouring Classes in England, ftc/&apos; Sir F. M. Eden strongly recommends the 
Rumfordian beggar-soup to workhouse orerseers, and reproachfully warns the English 
labourers that &quot;many poor people, particularly in Scotland, live, and that very com- 
forUbly, for months together, upon oat-meal and barley-meal, mixed with only water 
and salt.&quot; (L c, voL L, book L, ch. 2., p. 608.) The same sort of hints in the 19th 
century. &quot;The most wholesome mixtures of flour having been refused (by the 
English agricultural labourer) .... in Scotland, where education u better, 
this prejudice is, probably, unknown.&quot; (Charles H. Parry, M.D.: The question of 
the necessity of the existing Com Laws considered. London, 18ie, p. 09.) This 
same Parry, however, complains that the English labourer is now (1816) in a much 
worse condition than in Eden&apos;s time (1787). 

* From the reports of the last Parliamentary Commission on adulteration of means 
of subsistence, it will be seen that the adulteration even of medicines is the rule, not 
the exception of England. E.g., the examination of 84 specimens of opium, pur- 
chased of as many different chemists in London, showed that 81 were adulterated 
with poppy beads^ wheat-flour, gum, clay, sand, &amp;c Several did not oootila aa atom 
OT morphia. 



 

66o Capitalist Production. 

man/ when the gallon or half-peck loaf of 8 Ibfl. 11 oz. is 
at Is., and increase regularly till bread is Is. 5d. ; when it is 
above that sum, decrease regularly till it be at 28., and then 
his food shovld be ^th less.^&apos;^ Before the Committee of In- 
quiry of the House of Lords, 1814, a certain A* Bennett, a 
large farmer, magistrate, poor-law guardian, and wage-regu- 
lator, was asked: &quot;Has any proportion of the value of daily 
labour been made up to the labourers out of the poors* rate ?&quot; 
Answer: **Yes, it has; the weekly income of eveiy family is 
made up to the gallon loaf (8 lbs. 11 oz.), and 3cL per head! 
. . • The gallon loaf per week is what we suppose suflB- 
cient 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.&apos;^ **For years,** exclaims a bourgeois 
author of that time, &quot;they (the farmers) have degraded a re- 
spectable class of their countrymen, by forcing them to have 
recourse to the workhouse ... the farmer, while in- 
creasing his own gains, has prevented any accumulation on the 
part t)f his labouring dependants.**^ The part played in our 
days by the direct robbery from the labourer&apos;s necessary con- 
sumption-fund in the formation of surplus-value, and, there- 
fore, of the accumulation fund of capital, the so-called do- 
mestic industry has served to show. (Ch. xv., sect 8, d.) 
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 certam 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 

* G. B. Ncwnham (barristcr-at-law) : &quot;A Review of the Evidence before the Com- 
mittee of the two Houses of Parliament on the Com Laws. Lond., 1816,&quot; p. t8» 
note, 

■1. c, pp. 19, 20. 

• C. H. Parry, 1. c., pp. 77, 69. The landlords, on their side, not only &apos;indemni- 
fied&quot; themselves for the Anti-jacobin war, which they waged in the name of Eng^ 
land, but enriched themselves enormously. Their rents doubled, trebled, quadrupled, 
&quot;and in one instance, increased sixfold in eighteen years.&quot; (L c, pp. 100, 101.) 



 

Conversion of Surplus-Value into Capital. 66i 

&quot;Working 8 hours a day yield 800 working-hours. If the 
capitalist wishes to raise this sum by one half, he can em- 
ploy 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 in- 
istead of 8, and then the instruments of labour already on hand 
would be enough. These would them simply be more rapidly 
consumed. Thus additional labour, b^otten of the greater 
tension of labour-power, can augment surplus-product and sur- 
plus-value (i.e., the subject matter of accumulation), without 
corresponding augmentation in the constant part of capital 

In the extractive industries, mines, &amp;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 furn- 
ished by Nature gratis, as in the case of metals, minerals, coal, 
stone, &amp;a In these cases the constant capital consists almost 
exclusively of instruments oi labour, which can very well ab- 
sorb 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 to- 
gether. Thanks to the elasticity of labour-power, the domain 
of accumulation has extended without any previous enlarge- 
ment of constant capital 

In agriculture the land under cultivation cannoti be in- 
creased 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 



 

662 Capitalist Production. 

additional expenditure of raw materials, but not necessarily 
of instruments of labour. And as extractive industry and 
agriculture supply manufacturing industry with its raw ma- 
terials and those of its instrumenta 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 primaiy 
creators of wealth, labour-power and the land, capital acquires 
a power of expansion that permits it to augument 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 sur- 
plus-value of a given magnitude, is embodied. The rate of 
surplus-value remaining the same or e* en 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, therefor^ in- 
crease without any decrease in the fund of accumulation. The 
relative magnitude of the accumulation fund, may even in- 
crease at the expense of the consumption fund, whilst the 
cheapening of commodities places at the disposal of the capital- 
ist as many means of enjoyment as formerly, or even more 
than formerly. But hand-in-hand with the increasing pro- 
ductivity of labour, goes, as we have seen, the cheapening of 
the labourer, therefore a higher rate of surpluB-VfiJue, even 
when the real wages are rising. The latter never rise pro- 
portionally 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 



 

Conversion of Surplus-Value into Capital. 663 

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 con- 
sists of instruments of labour such as machinery, &amp;c., &quot;which 
are not consumed, and therefore not reproduced, or replaced 
by new ones of the same kind, until after long periods of time. 
But eveiy 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 reproduc- 
tion, for its replacement by new ones of the same kind. K the 
productiveness of labour has, during the using up of these in- 
struments of labour, increased (and it developee continually 
with the uninterrupted advance of science and technology), 
more efficient and (considering their increased efficiency), 
cheaper machines, tools, apparatus, &amp;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 repro- 
duced 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 ex- 
tending 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 



 

664 Capitalist Production. 

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 en- 
tered 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 pro- 
ductive. Though the same quantity f 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, in- 
creases with the growing productivity of labour. 

An English and Ohinese 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 /ill obtain between the value of the 
week&apos;s product of the ^llnglishman, 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 reappear in a new, useful 
form, and can thus function anew as capital &quot;In 1782,&apos;* as 
Frederick Engels teaches us, &quot;all the wool crop in England of 
the three preceding years, lay untouched for want of labour- 
ers, and so it must have lain, if newly invented machinery had 
not come to its aid and spun it&quot;^ 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, 

• Fk«derick Engcb, &quot;Lage der arbdtenden Klasse in EngltadL&quot; ik tO. 



 

Conversion of Surpltis-Vcdue into Capital. 665 

not only to consume the wool productively, and put into it 
new value, but to preserve in the form of yam, &amp;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 ac- 
companies the development of its productive power, labour 
keeps up and eternises an always increasing capital-value in 
a form ever new.* This natural power of labour takes the 

^ Classic economy has, on account of a deficient analysis of the labour-process, and 
of the process of creating value, never properly grasped this weighty element of re- 
production, as may be seen in Ricardo; he says, e.g., whatever the change in pro&lt; 
ductive power, &quot;a million men always produce in manufactures the same value.&quot; 
This is accurate, if the extension and degree of intensity of their labour are given. 
But it does not prevent (this Ricardo overlooks in certain conclusions he draws) a 
million men with different powers of productivity in ♦heir labour, turning into 
products very different masses of the means of production, and therefore preserving 
in their products very diflFerent masses of value; in consequence of which the values 
of the products yielded may vary considerably. Ricardo has, it may be noted in 
passing, tried in vain to make clear to J. B. Say, by that very example, the difference 
between use-value (which he here calls wealth or material riches) wnd exchange- 
value. Say answers: &quot;Quant 4 la difficult^ qu&apos;ilive Mr. Ricardo en disant que, par 
des proc^d^ mieux entendus, un million de personnes peuvent produire deux fois, 
trois fois autant de richesses, sans produire plus de valeurs, cette difficult^ n*est pas 
une lorsque Ton consid^re, ainsi qu&apos;on le doit, la production comme un Change dans 
lequel on donne les services productifs de son travail, de sa terre, et de ses capitaux, 
pour obtenir des produits. C&apos;est par le moyen de ces services productifs, que nous 
acqu6rons tous les produits qui sont au monde. Or ... . nous sommes 
d*autant plus riches nos services productifs ont d&apos;autant plus de valcur qu&apos;ils obtiennent 
dans r^change appel6 production une plus grande quantity de choses utiles.&quot; (J. 
B. Say; &quot;Lettres a M. Malthus, Paris, 1820,&quot; pp. 168, 169.) The &quot;difficult*&quot;— it 
exists for him, not for Ricardo — ^that Say means to clear up is this: Why does 
not the exchange-value of the use-values increase, when their quantity increases in 
consequence of increased productive power of labour? Answer; the difficulty is 
met by calling use-value, exchange-value, if you please. Exchange-value is a thing 
that is connected one way or another with exchange. If therefore production is 
called an exchange of labour and means of production against the product, it is 
clear as day that you obtain more exchange-value in proportion as the production 
yields more use-value. In other words, the more use-values, e.g., stockings, a working 
day jrields to the stocking-manufacturer, the richer is he in stockings. Suddenly, 
however, Say recollects that &quot;with a greater quantity&quot; of stockings their &quot;price&quot; 
(which of course has nothing to do with their exchange- value I) falls &quot;parce que la 
concurrence les (les producteurs) oblige 4 donner les produits pour ce qu*ils leur 
coiitent.&quot; But whence does the profit come, if the capitalist sells the commodities 
at cost price? Never mind I Say declares that, in consequence of increased pro- 
ductivity, every one now receives in return for a given equivalent two pairs of stock- 
ings instead of one as before. The result he arrives at, is precisely that proposition 
of Ricardo that he aimed at disproving. After this mighty effort of thought, he 
triumphantly apostrophises Malthus in the words: &quot;Telle est, monsieur, la doctrine 
ticn liee, sans laquelle il est impossible, je le d6clare, d&apos;expliquer les plus grandes 



 

666 Capitalist Production. 

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 capital- 
ists, 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, ruch as buildings, ma- 
chinery, drain-pipes, working^attle^ apparatus of every kind 
that function for a longer or shorter time in processes of pro- 
duction constantly repeated, or that serve for the attain- 
ment of particular useful effects, whilst they themselves only 
gradually wear out, therefore only lose their value piece- 
meal, therefore transfer that value of the product only Int by 
bit In the same proportion as these instruments of labour 
serve as product-formers without adding value to the product, 
Le., 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 sendee 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 M&apos;Oulloch, 
ought to receive a special remuneration in the shape of in- 

difficult^ de r^conomk politique, ct notamment, comment il te peut qu&apos;ane nation 
•oit plus riche lorsque m* produits diminuent de Taleur* quoique Im richttie soit de la 
Taleur.&quot; (L c p. 170.) An English economist remarks upon the conjuring tricks of 
the same nature that appear in Say&apos;s &quot;Lettres&quot;: &quot;Those affected ways of talking 
make up in general that which M. Say is pleased to call his doctrine and which he 
earnestly urges Malthus to teach at Hertford, as it is already Uught &apos;dans plusieurs 
parties de I&apos;Europe.&apos; He says, &apos;Si tous trouves une physionomie de paradoxe 4 
toutes ces propositions, voyex les choses qu&apos;elles expriment, et j&apos;ose croire qu&apos;ellcs 
TOUS paraitront fort simples et fort raisonnables.&apos; Doubtless, and in consequence of 
the same process, they will appear everything else, except original.&quot; (An Inquiry 
into those Principles respecting the Nature of Demand, ftc., p. 116, 110.) 



 

Conversion of Swplus-Vdue into Capital. 6S7 

teresty profit, etc.^ The powerful and eveivincreaBing aa- 
eistance given bj 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 petti- 
fogging ideologists are as imable to think of the means of 
production as separate from the antagonistic social m^ask they 
wear to-day, 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 num- 
ber 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 simi of the value 
increase that is divided into consumption-fund and accumu- 
lation-fund. The capitalist can therefore, live a more jolly 
life, and at the same time show more &quot;abstinence.&quot; And, 
finally, all the springs of production act with greater elasticity, 
the more its scale extends with the mass of the capital ad- 
vanced. 

asonoir 6.— thb so-caluqd labottb fuitd. 

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 sur- 
plus-value into revenue and additional capitaL It has been 
seen further that, even with a given magnitude of function- 
ing capital, the labour-power, the science, and the land (by 
which are to be understood, economically, all conditions of 
labour furnished by Nature independen Jy of man), embodied 
in it, from elastic powers of capital, allowing it, within cer^ 
tain 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 

^M&apos;CuIIoch took out a patent for &apos;Vages of past labour/* long before Senior did 
ter &apos;Vages of abstinence.&quot; 



 

668 Capitalist Production. 

of ^ciency in die same mass of capitaL And as we pie- 
supposed the limits set by capitalist production, that is to say, 
pre-suppoeed the process of social production in a form de- 
veloped 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 con- 
ceive social capital as a fixed magnitude of a fixed degree of 
eflSciency. But this prejudice was first established as a dogma 
by the arch-Philistine, Jeremy Bentham, that insipid, pe- 
dantic, leather-tongued oracle of the ordinary bourgeois in- 
telligence of the 19th century.* Bentham is among philoso- 
phers what Martin Tupper is among poets. Both could only 
have been manufactured in England.^ In 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.* The 

* Compare among others, Jeremy Bentham: &quot;Throne dei Peines et des Rtowa- 
penses. traduct. d&apos;Et. Dumont, 84mc idit. Paris, 182C,&quot; p. II., L. IV., ch. II. 

* Bentham is a purely English phenomenon. Not even excepting our philosopher. 
Christian Wolf, in no time and in no country has the most nomespun zommon-plaoe 
ever strutted about in so self-satisfied a way. The principle of utility was no dis- 
covery of Bentham. He simply reproduced in his dull way what Helvetius and 
other Frenchmen had said with esprit in the 18th century. To know what is useful 
for a dog, one must study dog-nature. This nature itself is not to •»€ deduced 
from the principle of utility. Applying this to man, he that would criticise all 
human acts, movements, relations, etc, by the principle of utility, must first deal 
with human nature in general, and then with human nature as modified in each 
historical epoch. Bentham makes short work of it. With the drycst naivct* he 
takes the modern shopkeeper, especially the English shopkeeper, as iie normal man. 
Whatever is useful to this queer normal man, and to bis world, is absolutely usefuL 
This yard-measure, then, he applies to past, present, and future. The Christias 
religion, e.g., is &quot;useful,&quot; because it forbids in the name of religion the same faults 
that the penal code condemns in the name of the law. Artistic criticism is &quot;harm- 
ful,&quot; because it disturbs worthy people in their enjoyment of Martin Tupper, etc 
With such rubbish has the brave fellow, with his motto, &quot;null adies sine linea,&quot; piled 
up mountains of books. Had I the courage of my friend, Heinrich Heine, I should 
call Mr. Jeremy a genius in the way of bourgeois stupidity. 

&apos; &quot;Political economists are too apt to consider a certain quantity of capital and a 
certain number of labourers as productive instruments of uniform power, or operating 
with a certain uniform intensity . . . Those . . . who maintain . . • 
that commodities are the sole agents of production . . . prove that production 
could never be enlarged, for it requires as an indispensable condition to such an en* 
largement that food, raw materials, and tools should be previously augmented; which 
is in fact maintaining that no increase of production can take place without a 
previous increase, or, in other words, that an increase is impossible.&quot; (S. Bailey: 
&quot;Money and its vicissitudes,&quot; pp. 26 and 70.) Bailey criticises the dogma mainly 
from the point of view of the process of circulation. 



 

Conversion of Surplus-Value into Capital. 669 

dogma was used by Bentham himself^ as well as by Malthus, 
James Mill, M&apos;CuUoeh, 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 con- 
stant 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 num- 
ber 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.^ On the olber 
hand, only in favourable and exceptional cases, has he the 
power to enlarge the so-called labour-fund at the expense of 
the &quot;revenue&quot; 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^ &quot;The 
circulating capital of a country,&quot; he says, &quot;is its wage-fund. 
Hence, if we desire to calculate the average money wages re- 
ceived by each labourer, we have simply to divide the amount 

*John Stuart Mill, in his &quot;Principles of Political Economy,&quot; says: &quot;The really 
exhausting and the really repulsive labours instead of being better paid than others, 
are almost invariably paid the worst of all . . . The more revolting the occupa- 
tion, the more certain it is to receive the minimum of remuneration . . . The 
hardships and the earnings, instead of being directly proportional, as in any just 
arrangements of society they would be, are generally in an inverse ratio to one an- 
other.&quot; To avoid misunderstanding, let me say that although men like John Stuart 
Mill are to blame for the contradiction between their traditional economic dogmas 
and their modem tendencies, it would be very wrong to class them with the herd 
of vulgar economic apologists. 

&apos; H. Fawcett, Professor of Political Economy at Cambridge. &quot;The Economic Posi* 
tion of the British Labourer.&quot; London, 1866, p. 120. 



 

670 Capitalist Production. 

of this capital by the number of the labouring population.&apos;&apos;^ 
That 10 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 ^&apos;labour-fund&quot; determined and 
vouchsafed to us by Gk&gt;d and Nature. Lastly, we divide the 
siun thus obtained by the number of labourers to find out 
again how much may come to each on the average. An un- 
commonly knowing dodge this. It did not prevent Mr. Faw- 
cett saying in the same breath : &apos;&apos;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, noil a large portion of the 
wealth which is annually saved in this country, is invested 
in our own industry.&quot;* 

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 &quot;labour-fund&quot; invented by 
God and Bentham is also exported.&apos; 

&lt; I muft here remind the reader thmt the cttegoriet, &quot;rmriable and constant capital*&apos;* 
were first used by me. Political Economy since the time of Adam Smith has con- 
fusedly mixed up the essential distinctions involved in these categories, with the 
mere formal differences, arising out of the process of circulation, of fixed and 
circulating capital. For further details on this point* see Book II.» Part IL 

• Fawcett, 1. c pp. 12«, 128. 

&apos; It might be said that not only capital, but also labonrera, in the shape of enfr 
grants, are annually exported from England. In the text, however, there is no ques- 
tion of the peculium of the emigrants, who are in great part not labonrers. The 
sons of farmers make up a great part of them. The additional capital annually trans- 
ported abroad to be put out at interest is in much greater proportion 90 the annual 
accumulation than the yearly eoiigration is to the yearly increase of populatinii. 



 

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation. 671 



CHAPTER XXV. 

THE GENERAL LAW OF CAPITALIST ACCUKULATION. 

SECTION^ 1. THB INOBEASED) DE-MAND FOB LABOUBrPOWER 

THAT ACCOMPANIBS AOOUMTTLATION, THE C0MFO8ITI0K OV 
CAPITAL BEMAININa THE 8AMS. 

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 accumu- 
lation. 

The composition of capital is to be understood in a two- 
fold sense. On the side of value, it is determined by the pro- 
portion 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 ma- 
terial, 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 value-compoaition, the 
latter the techmoaZ composition of capital. 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 orgamc composition of capital. Wherever I refer to the 
composition of capital, without further qualification, its or- 
ganic composition is always understood. 

The many individual capitals invested in a particular 
branch of production have, one with another, more or less 
di£Ferent compositions. The average of their individual 
compositions gives us the composition of the total capital in 
tfiifl branch of production. Lastly, the average of these 



 

^2, Capitalist Production. 

averages, in all branches of production, gives ns tbe comiK)8i- 
tion of the total social capital of a country, and with this alone 
are we, in the last resort, concerned in the following in- 
vestigation. 

Growth of capital involves growth of its variable constituent 
or of the part invested in labour-power. A part of the sur- 
plus-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 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 augumentation 
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, &amp;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, there- 
fore, 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 require- 
ments 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 ei^teenth 
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 pro- 



 

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation. 673 

dnction. 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&gt; more capitalists or larger 
capitalists at this pole, more wage-workers at that The re- 
production of a mass of labour-power, which must incessantly 
re-incorporate itself with capital for that capitaFs self -expan- 
sion; which cannot get free from capital, and whose enslave- 
ment 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* 

Classical economy grasped this fact so thoroughly that 
Adam Smith, Eicardo, &amp;c, as mentioned earlier, inaccurately 
identified accumulation with the consumption, by the pro- 
ductive 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: &quot;For if one 
had a hundred thousand acres of land and as many pounds of 
money, and as many cattle, without a labourer, what would 
the rich man be, but a labourer ? And as the labourers make 
naen rich, so the more labourers, there will be the more rich 
men . . . the labour of the poor being the mines of the 
rich/^^ So also Bernard de Mandeville at the beginning of 
the eighteenth century: &quot;It would be easier, where property 

^Karl Marx, 1. c &quot;A ^lit6 d&apos;oppression des masses, plus un pays a de proU- 
taires et pltis il est riche.&quot; (Colins. L*Economie politique. Source des Revolutions 
et des Utopies pr^tendues Socialistes. Paris, 1857, t. III. p. 881.) Our &apos;&apos;prole- 
tarian&apos;* is economically none other than the wage-labourer, who produces and in- 
creases capital, and is thrown out on the streets, as soon as he is superfluous for the 
needs of aggrandisement of &quot;Monsieur capital,&quot; as Pecqueur calls this person. &apos;The 
sickly proletarian of the primitive forest,&quot; is a pretty Roscherian fancy. The 
primitive forester is owner of the primitive forest, and uses the primitive forest as 
his property with the freedom of an orang-utang. He is not, therefore, a prole- 
tarian. This would only be the case, if the primitive forest exploited him, instead of 
being exploited by him. As far as his health is concerned, such a man would 
well bear comparison, not only with the modem proletarian, but also with the 
syphilitic and scrofulous upper classes. But, no doubt, Herr Wilhelm Roscher, 
by &apos;&apos;primitive forest&quot; means his native heath of Luneburg. 

&apos;John Bellers, L c p. 9. 

80 



 

674 Capitalist Production. 

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 uncom* 
mon 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 tiiey 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 relievo, 
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, th« 
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 so- 
ciety&quot; [which of course consists of non-workers] &apos;Tiappy and 
people easier under the meanest circumstances, it is requisite 
that great numbers of them should be ignorant as well as poor; 
knowledge both enlar^res and multiplies our desires, and the 
fewer things a man wishes for, the more easily his necessities 
may be supplied/&apos;^ 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 &quot;labouring poor,&quot; i.e., the wage-labourers, who 
turn their labour-power into an increasing power of self-ex- 

^ Bernard de Mandeville: &quot;The Fable of the Bees,&quot; 6th edition, London. 172S. 
Remarks, pp. 212, 218, 828. &quot;Temperate living and constant employment is the 
direct road, for the poor, to rational happiness&quot; [by which he most probably means 
long working days and little means of subsistence], &quot;and to riches and strength for 
the state&quot; (viz., for the landlords, capitalists, and their political dignitaries tad 
•gents). (An Essay on Trade and Commerce, London, 1170, p. 64.) 



 

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation. 675 

pansion of the growing capital^ and even by doing so must 
eternize their dependent relation on their own product^ as 
personified in the capitalists. In reference to this relation 
of dependence, Sir F. M. Eden in hie &quot;The State of the Poor, 
an History of the Labouring Classes in England/&apos; says &quot;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 &apos;neither toil nor spin,&apos; can 
yet command the produce of industry, but who owe their ex* 
emption from labour solely to civilisation and order. . • • 
They are peculiarly the creatures of civil institutions,* which 
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 com- 
fort&apos;&apos;^ Sir F. M. Eden, it may be remarked in passing, is 
the only disciple of Adam Smith during the eighteenth cen- 
tUTy that produced any work of importance.&apos; 

^E^en should have anktd, whoM cremtures then are &quot;the dvH inttitiiticfit?^ 
From hit ttandpoiiit of juridical illusion, he does not regard the law as a product of 
tiie material relations of production, but conversely the relations of production as 
products of the law. Linguet overthrew Montesquieu&apos;s illusory &apos;&apos;Esprit des lois&quot; 
with one word; &quot;L&apos;esprit des lois. c&apos;est la propri^t6.&quot; 

* Eden 1. c Vol. I, book I. chapter I. pp. 1, 2, and preface, p. xx. 

*If the reader reminds me of Malthus, whose &quot;Essay on Population** appeared 
in 1798, I remmd him that this work in its first form is nothing more than a 
•choolboyish, superficial plagiary of De Foe, Sir James Steuart, Townsend, Franklin, 
Wallace, kc, and does not contain a single sentence thought out by himself. The 
great MMation this pamphlet caused, was due solely to party interest. The French 



 

676 Capitalist Production. 

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 en- 
durable, or, as Eden says : &quot;easy and liberaL&apos;&apos; Instead of be- 
coming more intensive with the growth of capital, this relation 

Rerolittioa had found passionate defenders in the United Kingdom; the &quot;principle 
of population,&quot; slowly worked-out in the eighteenth century, and then, in the midst 
of a great social crisis, proclaimed with drums and trumpets as the infallible antidote 
to the teachings of Condorcet, &amp;c., was greeted with jubilance by the English 
oligarchy as the great destroyer of all hankerings after human derelopment. 
Malthus, hugely astonished at his success, ga^e himself to stuffing into his book ma- 
terials superficially compiled, and adding to it new matter, not discovered but an- 
nexed by him. Note further: Although Malthus was a parson of the English State 
Church, he had taken the monastic vow of celibacy— one of the conditions of hold- 
ing a Fellowship in Protestant Cambridge University: &quot;Socios collegiorum maritos 
esse non permittimus, sed sutim postquam quis uxorem duxerit, socius collegii desinat 
esse.&quot; (Reports of Cambridge University Commission, p. 172.) This circumstance 
favourably distinguishes Malthus from the other Protestant parsons, who have 
shuffled off the command enjoining celibacy of the priesthood and have taken, 
&quot;Be fruitful and multiply,&quot; as their special Biblical mission in such a degree that 
they generally contribute to the increase of population to a really unbecoming extent, 
whilst they preach at the same time to the labourers the &quot;principle of population.&quot; 
It is characteristic that the economic fall of man, the Adam&apos;s apple, the urgent 
appetite, &quot;the checks which tend to blunt the shafts of Cupid,&quot; as Parson Townsend 
waggishly puts it, that this delicate question was and is monopolised by the Reverends 
of Protestant Theology, or rather of the Protestant Church. With the exception 
of the Venetian monk, Ortes, an original and clever writer, most of the population- 
theory teachers are Protestant parsons. For instance, Bruckner, **Th6orie du Systeme 
animal,&quot; Leyden, 1707, in which the whole subject of the modem population theory 
in exhausted, and to which the passing quarrel between Quesnay and his pupil, the 
elder Mirabeau, furnished ideas on the same topic; then Parson Wallace, Parson 
Townsend, Parson Malthus and his pupil, the arch-Parson Thomas Chalmers, to say 
nothing of lesser reverend scribblers in this line. Originally, political economy was 
studied by philosophers like Hobbes, Locke, Hume; by business men and statesmen, 
like Thomas More, Temple, Sully, De Witt, North, Law, Vanderlint, Cantillon, 
Franklin; and especially, and with the greatest success, by medical men like Petty, 
Barbon, Mandeville, Quesnay. Even in the middle of the eighteenth century, the 
Rev. Mr. Tucker, a notable economist of his time, excused himself for meddling with 
the things of Mammon. Later on, and in truth with this very &quot;principle of popn* 
lation,&quot; struck the hour of the Protestant parsons. Petty, who regarded the 
population as the basb of wealth, and was, like Adam Smith, an outspoken foe to 
parsons, says, as if he had a presentiment of their bungling interference, &quot;that 
Religion best flourishes when the Priests are most mortified, as was before said of the 
Law, which best flourisheth when lawyers have least to do.&quot; He advises the Protestant 
priests, therefore if they once for all, will not follow the Apostle Paul and &quot;mortify** 
themselves by celibacy, &quot;not to breed more Churchmen than the Benefices, as they 
now stand shared out, will receive, that is to say, if there be places for about twelve 
thousand in England and Wales, it will not be safe to breed up 24,000 ministers, for 
then the twelve thousand which are unprovided for, will seek ways how to get them* 
•elves a livelihood, which they cannot do more easily then by persuading the people 
^t the twelve thousand incumbents do poison or stsrve their souls, and misguide 
Ihem in their way to Heaven.&quot; (Petty; &quot;A Treatise on Taxes and Contributions, 
London, 1067,&quot; p. 67.) Adam Smith&apos;s position with the Protettaat priesthood •&lt; 



 

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation. 677 

of dependence only becomes more extensive, i.e., the sphere of 
capital&apos;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 con- 
sumption-fund of clothes, furniture, &amp;c., and can lay by small 
reserve-funds of money. But just ae 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 

his time it shown by the following. In &quot;A Letter to A. Smith, L.L.D. On the 
Life, Death and Philosophy of his Friend, David Hume. By one of the People 
called Christians, 4th Edition, Oxford, 1784,&quot; Dr. Home, Bishop of Norwich, re- 
proves Adam Smith, because in a published letter to Mr. Strahan, he &quot;embalmed 
his friend David&quot; (sc Hume); because he told the world how &quot;Hume amused him- 
self on his deathbed with Lucian and Whist,&quot; and because he even had the impu- 
dence to write of Hume: &quot;I have always considered him, both in his life-time and since 
his death, as approaching as nearly to the idea of a perfectly wise and virtuous man, 
as, perhaps, the nature of human frailty will permit.&quot; The bishop cries out, in a 
passion: &quot;Is it right in you, Sir, to hold up to our view as &apos;perfectly wise and 
virtuous,&apos; the character and conduct of one, who seems to have been possessed with 
an incurable antipathy to all that is called Religion; and who strained every nerve 
to explode, suppress and extirpate the spirit of it among men, that it*s very name, if 
he could effect it, might no more be had in remembrance?&quot; (1. c p. 8). &quot;But let 
not the lovers of truth be discouraged. Atheism cannot be of long continuance.&quot; 
(p. 17.) Adam Smith, &quot;had the atrocious wickedness to propagate atheism through 
the land (vix. by his &quot;Theory of moral sentiments.&quot;) Upon the whole. Doctor, jrour 
meaning is good; but I think you will not succeed this time. You would persuade uc, 
by the example of David Hume, Esq., that atheism is the only cordial for low spirits, 
and the proper antidote against the fear of death . . . You may smile over 
Babylon in ruins and congratulate the hardened Pharaoh on his overthrow in the Red 
Sea.&quot; (1. c. pp. 21, 22.) One orthodox individual, amongst Adam Smith&apos;s college 
friends, writes after his death: &quot;Smith&apos;s well-placed affection for Hume . . . 
hindered him from being a Christian . . . When he met with honest men whom 
he liked ... he would believe almost anything they said. Had he been a 
friend of the worthy ingenious Horrox he would have believed that the moon some^ 
times disappeared in a clear sky without the interposition of a cloud. . . . He ap- 
proached to republicanism in his political principles.&quot; (The Bee. By James Ander- 
son, 18 Vols., Vol. 8, pp. 165, 164. Edinburgh, 1701-03.) Parson Thomas Chalmers 
has his suspicions as to Adam Smith having invented the category of &quot;unproductive 
labourers,&quot; solely for the Protestant parsons, in spite of their blessed work in tht 
vineyard of the Lord. 



 

678 Capitalist Production. 

been overlooked^ viz., the differentia epecifica of capitalistic 
production. Labour-power is sold to-day, not with a view of 
satisfying, by its service or bj its product^ the personal needs 
of the buyer. His aim is augmentation of his capital, produc- 
tion of commodities containing more laboui than he pays for, 
containing therefore a portion of value that costs him nothing, 
and that is nevertheless realised when the conmiodities 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 oj production in their capacity of 
capital, reproduces its own value as capital, and yields in un- 
paid labour a source of additional capital.^ The 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, al- 
ways 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, 
&amp;c, such an increase only means at best a quantitative diminu- 
tion of the unpaid labour that the worker has to supply. This 
diminution can never reach the point at which it would 
threaten the i^stem 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) y a rise in the price of labour resulting from ac- 
cumulation 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. Li this 
there is nothing wonderful, for, says Adam Smith, &quot;after these 
(profits) are diminished, stock may not only continue to in- 
crease, but to increase much faster than before. ... A 
great stock, though with small profits, generally increases 

^&quot;The limit, bowerer, to the emplojment of both the operative and the labourer 
is the same; namely, the possibility of the employer realising a profit on the produca 
of their industry. If the rate of wages is such as to reduce the master&apos;s gains below 
the average profit of capital, he will cease to employ them, or he will only employ 
them on conditioii of aobmission to a reduction of wages.&quot; (John Wade^ L e^ 
p. 241.) 



 

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation. 679 

faster than a small stock with great profits.&quot; (1. c ii., p. 
189.) In this case it is evident that a diminution in the un- 
paid 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, be- 
&lt;»use the stimulus of gain is blunted. The rate of accumula- 
tion 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 tempo- 
rarily creates. The price of labour falls again to a level cor- 
responding 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 ex- 
ploitable labour-power insufficient In the second case, it is 
not the increased rate either of the absolute, or of the pro- 
portional, increase in labour-power, or labouring population, 
that makes capital insufficient; but, conversely, tiie 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&apos;s own in- 
dependent movement To put it mathematically : the rate of 
accumulation is the independent not the dependent, variable ; 
the rate of wages, the dependent, not the indep«ident, vari- 
able. 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 little, with low prices too much 
tnoney is in circulation. Their ignorance and complete mis- 



 

68o Capitalist Production. 

understanding of f acts^ aie worthily paralleled by the eoono- 
mists, who interpret the above phenomena of accumulation by 
flaying that there are now too few, now too many wage 
labourers. 

The law of capitalist production, that is at the bottom of 
Ae pretended &quot;natural law of population/^ reduces itself 
simply to this: The correlation between accumulation of 
capitid 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 Aerefore 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 impaid 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 extraordinaiy 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 quan- 
tity, 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 econo- 
mists into a pretended law of nature, in reality merely states 
that the very nature of accumulation excludes every diminu- 
tion in the degree of exploitation of labour, and every rise in 
the price of labour, which could seriously imperil the con- 
tinual reproduction, on an ever enlarging scale, of the capital- 
istic relation. It cannot be otherwise in a mode of produc- 
tion in which the labourer exists to satisfy the needs of self- 
expansion of existing values, instead of on the contrary, mtt 

^Ct Karl Marx: Znr Kritik der Politiachen Oekonomie, pp. 166, teq. 



 

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation. 68l 

terial wealth existing to eatisfy 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.^ 

SBOTION 2. ^RELATIVE DIMINUTION OF THE VABIABLE PART OF 

CAPITAL SIMUXTANBOUSLY WITH THE PROGEESS OF AC 
CUMULATION AND OF THE CONCENTRATION THAT AC- 
COMPANIES 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. &quot;The same cause,&apos;&apos; says 
Adam Smith, &quot;which raises the wages of labour, the increase 
of stock, tends to increase its productive powers, and to make a 
smaller quanti^^ of labour produce a greater quantity of 
work.&apos;* 

Apart from natural conditions, such as fertility of the soil, 
&amp;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 

^ &quot;If we now return to our first inquiry, wherein it was shown that capital itself 

i% only the result of human labour it seems quite incomprehensible 

that man can have fallen under the denomination of capital, his own product; can 
be subordinated to it; and as in reality this is beyond dispute the case, involuntarily 
the question arises: How has the labourer been able to pass from being master of 
capital — as its creator — to being its slave?&quot; (Von Thunen. &quot;Der isolirte Staat.&quot; 
Part ii.. Section ii. Rostock, 1863, pp. 6. 6.) It is Thiinen&apos;s merit to have asked 
that question. His answer is simply childish. 



 

68a Capitalist Production. 

timBy with the same tensi(m of labour-power, turns into pro- 
ducts. The mass of the means of production which he tiius 
transforms^ increases with the productiveness of his labour. 
But those means of production play a double part The in- 
crease of some is a consequence^ that of the others a condition 
of the increasing productivity of labour. E.g., vnth the divi- 
sion of labour in manuf acture, and with the use of machinery, 
more raw material is worked up in the same time, and, there- 
fore, a greater mass of raw material and auxiliary substances 
enter into the labour-process. That is the consequence of iiie 
increasing productivity of labour. On the other hand, the 
mass of machinery, beasts of burden, mineral manures, drain- 
pipes, &amp;C., is a condition of the increasing productivity of 
labour. So also is it with the means of production concen- 
trated in buildings, furnaces, means of transport^ &amp;c. But 
whether condition or consequence, the growing extent of the 
means of production, as compared with the labour-power in- 
corporated with them, is an expression of the growing produo- 
tiveness of labour. The increase of the latter appears, there- 
fore, in the diminution of the mass of labour in proportion to 
the mass of means of production moved by it, or in the dimi- 
nution of the subjective factor of the labour process as oom- 
pared 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 ihem, is reflected 
again in its value-composition, by the increase of the constant 
constituent of capital at the expense of its variable constita- 
ent. There may be, e.g., originally 50 per cent of a capital 
laid out in means of production, and 60 per cent in the 
labour-power; later on, with the development of the product- 
ivity 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 diown) by the comparative 
analysis of the prices of commodities, whether we compare dif- 
ferent economic epochs or different nations in the same epodi. 
The relative magnitude of the element of price, which rqpro* 



 

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation. 683 

Bents the value of the means of production only^ or the con- 
stant part of capital consumed, is in direct, the relative magni- 
tude of the other element of price that pays labour (the vari* 
able part of capital) is in inverse proportion to the advance 
of accumulation. 

This diminution in the variable part of capital as compared 
with the cohistant, 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 to-day in spinning is J constant and ^ vari- 
able, whilst at the beginning of the 18th century it was ^ con- 
stant and ^ variable, on the other hand, the mass of raw ma- 
terial, instruments of labour, &amp;a, that a certain quantity of 
spinning labour consumes productively to-day, is many hun- 
dred times greater than at the beginning of the 18 th century. 
The reason ia simply that^ with the increasing productivity of 
labour, not only does the mass of the means of production con- 
sumed 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 be- 
tween 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 accimiulation lessens the relative 
nfiagnitude 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 



 

684 Capitalist Production. 

In Part lY. it was shown, how the development of liie 
prodnctivenees of social labour presupposes oo-operation on 
a large scale ; how it is only upon this supposition that divi- 
sion 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 ^stem of 
machineiy, 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 aj^lication of science^ On the basis of 
the production of commodities, where the means of produc- 
tion are the property of private persons, and where the artisan 
therefore either produces commodities, isolated from and in- 
dependent of others, or sells his labour-power as a oonmaodity, 
because he lacks the means for independent industry, co-opera- 
tion 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 pro- 
duction of oonmiodities 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 comr 
modities, forms therefore the necessary preliminaiy of the 
specifically capitalistic mode of production. We had, there- 
fore, to assume that this occurs during the transition from 
handicraft to capitalistic industry. It may be called primi- 
tive 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 de- 
veloped on this basis, are at the same times methods for the 
increased production of surplus-value or surplus-product 
which in its turn is the formative element of accumulation. 
Th^ are, therefore, at the same time methods of the produc- 
tion of capital by capital, or methods of its accelerated ac- 
cumulation. The continual re-transformation of surplus- 



 

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation. 685 

value into capital now appears in the shape of the increasing 
magnitude of the capital that enters into the process of pro- 
duction. 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 accumula- 
tion of capital appears as a condition of the specifically capital- 
ist mode of production, the latter causes conversely an ac- 
celerated accumulation of capital. With tiie accumulation of 

capital, therefore, the specifically capitalistic mode of pro- 
duction developes, and with the capitalist mode of production 
the accumulation of capital Both these economic factors 
bring about, in the compound ratio of the impluses they reci- 
procally give one another, that change in the technical compo- 
sition of capital by which the variable constituent becomes al- 
ways 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 capital- 
ists, and thereby widens the basds 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, increases 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, there- 
fore, the number of capitalists grows to a greater or less ex- 
tent Two points characterise this kind of concentration 
which grows directly out of, or rather is identical vnth, ao- 
ciunulation. First; The increasing concentration of the social 
means of production in the hands of individual capitalists is. 



 

686 Capitalist Production. 

other things remaining equal, limited by the degree of increase 
of social wealth. Second : The part of social capital domiciled 
in each particular sj^ere of production is divided among 
many capitaUsts who face one another as independent com- 
modity-producers competing with each other. Accumulation 
and the concentration accompanying it are, therefore, not only 
scattered over many points, but the increase of each function- 
ing 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 irom another. 

This splitting-up of the total social capital into many in- 
dividual capitals or the repulsion of its fractions one from an- 
other, 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 vnth ac- 
cumulation. It is concentration of capitals already formed, 
destruction of their individual independence, expropriation of 
capitalist by capitalist, transformation of many small into few 
largo 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 there- 
fore not limited by the absolute growth of social wealtli, by 
the absolute limits of accumulation. Capital grows in one 
place to a huge mass in a single hand, because it has in an- 
other 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 attrac- 
tion 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 depends, cceteris 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 re- 
membered 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 



 

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation^ 687 

normal conditions. The smaller capitals, therefore, crowd 
into spheres of production which Modem Industry has only 
sporadically or incompletely got hold of. Here competition 
rages in direct proportion to the number, and in inverse pro- 
portion to the magnitudes, of the antagonistic capitals. It 
always ends in the ruin of many sm^dl capitalists, whose 
capitals partly pass into the hand of their conquerors, partly 
vanish. Apart from this, with capitalist production an al- 
togethei- new force comes into play — ^the credit system. 

In its beginnings, the credit system sneaks in as a modest 
helper of accumulation and draws by invisible threads the 
money resources scattered all over the surface of society into 
the hands of individual or associated capitalistsw But soon it 
becomes a new and formidable weapon in the competitive 
stru^le, and finally it transforms itself into an immense so- 
cial mechanism for the centralisation of capitals. 

Competition and credit, the two most powerful levers of cen- 
tralization, develop in proportion as capitalist production and 
accumulation do. At the same time the progress of ac- 
cumulation increases the matter subject to centralisation, that 
is, .the individual capitals, while the expansion of capitalist 
production creates the social demand here, the technical re- 
quirements there, for those gigantic industrial enterprises, 
which depend for their realisation on a previous centralisation 
of capitals. Nowadays, then, the mutual attraction of in- 
dividual capitals and the tendency to centralisation are 
stronger than ever befora However, while the relative ex- 
pansion and energy of the centralisation movement is de- 
termined .to a certain degree by the euperiority of the economio 
mechanism, yet the progress of centralisation is by no means 
dependent upon the positive growth of the volume of social 
capital This is the particular distinction between central- 
isation and concentration, the latter being but another expres- 
sion for reproduction on an enlarged scale. Centralisation 
may take place by a mere change in the distribution of al- 
ready existing capitals, a simple change in the quantitative ar- 
rangement of the components of social capital Capital may 
in that case accumulate in one hand in large masses by with- 



 

688 Capitalist Production. 

drawing it from many individual hands. Centralisation in a 
certain line of industry would have reached its extr^ne limits 
if all the individual capitals invested in it would have been 
amalgamated into one single capital.^ 

This limit would not be reached in any particular society 
until the entire social capital would be united^ either in the 
hands of one single capitalist, or in those of one single cor- 
poration* 

Centralisation supplements the work of accumulation, by 
enabling the industrial capitalists to expand the scale of their 
operations. The economic result remains the same, whether 
this consummation is brought about by accumulation or cen- 
tralisation, whether centralisation is accomplished by the vio- 
lent means of annexation, by which some capitals become such 
overwhelming centers of gravitation for others as to break 
their individual cohesion and attracting the scattered frag^ 
ments, or whether the amalgamation of a number of capitals^ 
which already exist or are in process of formation, proceeds hj 
the smoother road of forming stock companies. The in- 
creased volume of industrial establishments forms everywhere 
the point of departure for a more comprehensive organisation 
of the co-operative labor of many, for a wider development of 
their material powers, that is, for the progressive transfor- 
mation of isolated processes of production carried on in ac- 
customed ways into socially combined and scientifically man- 
aged processes of production. 

It is evident, however, that accumulation, the gradual prop- 
agation of capital by a reproduction passing from a circular 
into a spiral form, is a very slow process as compared with 
centralisation, which needs but to alter the quantitative 
grouping of the integral parts of social capital The world 
would still be without railroads, if it had been obliged to wait 
until accumulation should have enabled a few individual 
capitals to undertake the construction of a railroad. Central- 
isation, on the other hand, accomplished this by a turn of the 

&apos;Note to the 4th German edition — ^The latest English and American &quot;tnists&quot; are 
aiming to accomplish this by trying to unite at least all the large estahliahments of 
8 certain line of industry into one great stock company with a practical monopoly^— 
F.E. 



 

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation. 689 

hand through stock companies. Centralisation, by thus ac- 
celerating and intensifying the effects of accumulation, ex- 
tends and hastens at the same time the revolutions in the 
technical composition of capital, which increase its constant 
part at the expense of its variable part and thereby reduce 
the relative demand for labor. 

The masses of capital amalgamated over night by central- 
isation reproduce and augment themselves like the others, only 
faster, and thus become new and powerful levers of social ac- 
cumulation. Hence, if the progress of social accumulation 
is mentioned nowadays, it comprizes as a matter of course the 
effects of centralisation. The additional capitals formed in 
the course of normal accumulation (see chapter XXIV, 1.) 
serve mainly as vehicles for the exploitation of new inven- 
tions and discoveries, or of industrial improvements in gen- 
eraL However, the old capital likewise arrives in due time 
at the moment when it must renew its head and limbs, when 
it casts off its old skin and is likewise bom again in its per- 
fected industrial form, in which a smaller quantity of labor 
suffices to set in motion a larger quantity of machinery and 
raw materials. The absolute decrease of the demand for 
labor necessarily following therefrom will naturally be so 
much greater, the more these capitals going through the pro- 
cess of rejuvenation have become accumulated in masses by 
means of the movement of centralisation. 

On the one hand, therefore, the additional capital formed 
in the course of accumulation attracts fewer and fewer la- 
bourers in proportion to its magnitude. On the other hand, 
the old capittj periodically reproduced with change of compo- 
sition, repels more and more of the labourers formerly em- 
ployed by itw 

SECTION 3. ^PEOGBBBSrVB PBODTJCTION OF A nELATTTE SXTB- 

PXUS-POPULATION OB nn)USTEIAL KESEBVE ARMY. 

The accumulation of capital, though originally appearing as 
its quantitative extension only, is effected, as we have seen, 
under a progressive qualitative change in its composition, 

8R 



 

690 Capitalist Production. 

under a constant increase of its constant^ at the expense of its 
Tariable conetitutent^ 

The specifically capitalist mode of production, the develop- 
ment of the productive power of labour corresponding to it, 
and the change thence resulting in the organic composition of 
capital, do not merely keep pace with the advance of accumu- 
lation, or with the growth of social wealth. They develop at 
a much quicker rate, because mere accumulation, the absolute 
increase of the total social capital, is accompanied by the cen- 
tralisation of the individual capitals of which that total is 
made up; and because the change in the technological com- 
position of the additional capital goes hand in hand with a 
similar change in the technological composition of the original 
capitaL With the advance of accumulation, therefore, the 
proportion of constant to variable capital changes. If it was 
originally say 1 :1, it now becomes successively 2 :1, 3 :1, 4 :1, 
5 :1, 7 :1) &amp;c., so that, as the capital increases, instead of i of 
its total value, only J, J, J, i, ^, Ac, is transformed into la- 
bour-power, and, on the other hand, f , f , ^, f , J into means 
of production. Since the demand for labour is determined 
not by the amount of capital as a whole, but by its variable 
constituent alone, .that demand falls progressively with the in- 
crease of the total capital, instead of, as previously assumed, 
rising in proportion to it It falls relatively to the magni- 
tude of the total capital, and at an accelerated rate, as this 
magnitude increases. With the growth of the total capital, its 
variable constituent or the labour incorporated in it, also 
does increase, but in a constantly diminishing proportion. 
The intermediate pauses are shortened, in which accumu- 
lation works as simple extension of production, on a given 
technical basis. It is not merely that an accelerated accumu- 
lation of total capital, accelerated in a constantly growing 
progression, is needed to absorb an additional number of 
labourers, or even, on account of the constant metamorphosis 

^ Note to the Srd edition. In Marx&apos;s copy there it here the marginal &gt; note: *^crc 
note for working out later; if the extension it only quantitative, then for a greater 
and a smaller capital in the same branch of business the profits are as the magnitudes 
of the capitals advanced. If the quantitative extension induces qualitative change^ 
then the rate of profit on the larger capital ritet timultaneoutly.&quot; 



 

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation. 691 

of old capital, to keep employed those already functioning. 
In its turn, l^s increasing accumulation and centralisation 
becomes a source of new changes in the composition of capital, 
of a more accelerated diminution of its variable, as compared 
with its constant constituent This accelerated relative 
diminution of the variable constituent, that goes along with 
the accelerated increase of the total capital, and moves more 
rapidly than this increase, takes the inverse form, at the other 
pole, of an apparently absolute increase of the labouring pop- 
ulation, an increase always moving more rapidly than that of 
the variable capital or the means of employment But in fact, 
it is capitalistic accumulation itself that constantly produces, 
and produces in the direct ratio of its own energy and ex- 
tent, a relatively redundant population of labourers, i.e., a 
population of greater extent than suffices for the average needs 
of the self-expansion of capital, and therefore a surplus-pop- 
ulation. 

Considering the social capital in its totality, the movement 
of its accumulation now causes periodical changes, affecting 
it more or less as a whole, now distributes its various phases 
simultaneously over the different spheres of production. In 
some spheres a change in the composition of capital occurs 
without increase of its absolute magnitude, as a consequence 
of simple centralisation; in others the absolute growth of 
capital is connected with absolute diminution of its variable 
constituent, or of the labouivpower absorbed by it; in others 
again, capital continues growing for a time on its given tech- 
nical basis, and attracts additional labour-power in proportion 
to its increase, while at other times it undergoes organic 
change, and lessens its variable constituent; in all spheres, 
the increase of the variable part of capital, and therefore of 
the number of labourers employed by it, is always connected 
with violent fluctuations and transitory production of sur- 
plus-population, whether this takes the more striking form of 
the repulsion of labourers already employed, or the less evi- 
dent but not less real form of the more difficult absorption of 
the additional labouring population through the usual chan- 



 

6^2 Capitalist Production. 

nels.^ With the magnitude of social capital already functioii* 
ing, and the degree of its increase, with the extension of the 
scale of production, and the mass of the labourers set in mo- 
tion^ wiih the development of the productiveness of their 
labour, with the greater breadth and fuhiess of all sources of 
wealth, there is also an extension of the scale on which greater 
attraction of labourers by capital is accompanied by their 
greater repulsion; the rapidity of the change in the organic 
composition of capital, and in its technical form increases, 
and an increasing number of spheres of production becomes 
involved in this change, now simultaneously, now alternately. 
The labouring population therefore produces, along vnth the 
accumulation of capital produced by it, the means by vrtiich 
itself is made relatively superfluous, is turned into a relative 
surplus population; and it does this to an always increasing 
extent&apos; This is a law of population peculiar to the capitalist 

^The census of England and Wales shows: all persons employed in agricultare 
(landlords, farmers, gardeners, shepherds, ftc, included): 1861, 2,011,447: 1861, 
1,024,110. Fall, 87,337. Worsted manufacture: 1861, 102,714 persons: 1861. 
70,242. Silk weaving: 1861, 111,040: 1861, 101,678. Calico-printing: 1861, 
12,008: lo61, 12,666. A small rise that, in *he face of the enormous 
extension of this industry and implying a great fall proportionally in the 
number of labourers employed. Hat-making: 1861, 16,067: 1861, 18,814. Straw- 
hat and bonnet-making: 1861, 20,808: 1861, 18,176. Malting: 1861, 10,566: 1861, 
10,677. Chandlery, 1861, 4040: 1861, 4686. This fall is due, b»ides other causes, 
to the increase in lighting by gas. Comb-maldng: 1861, 2,088: 1861, 1,478. Sawyers: 

1861, 80,662: 1861, 81,647 — ^a mall rise in con.^ucnce of the increase of sewing- 
machines. Nail-maldng. 1861, 26,040: 1801, 26,180 — fall in consequence of the 
competition of machinery. Tin and copper-mining: 1861, 81,860: 1861, 82,041. On 
the other hand: Cotton-spinning and wearing: 1861, 871|777: 1861, 466,646. Coal- 
mining: 1851, 188,880: 1861, 246, 618. &quot;The increase of labourers is generally 
greatest, since 1861, in such branches of industry in which machinery has not up 
to the present been cmpl yed with success.&quot; (Census of England and Wales for 

1862. Vol. III. London, 1808, p. 86.) 

&apos;The law of the progressive decrease of the relative size of the yariable capital, 
and of its effects on thw condition of th« wage-working class, has been more intui- 
tively felt than actually comprehended b^ some &quot;xcellent economists of the classic 
school. The greatest hon r in this respect is ue to John Barton, although he, 
like all the othe-s, jumbles together e constant with the fixed capital and the 
circulating with the variable cap&apos;tal. He 9ays: &quot;T*.e dem&lt;Ad for labour depends on 
the increase of circulating, an t ol fixeu capital. vVere it true that the propor- 
tion between these two sorts f capital L the same at all times, and in all circum- 
stances, then, indeed, it follows that th number of labourers employed is in pro- 
portion to the wealth of the state. But dch a proportion has not the semblance of 
probability.. As arts are cultivated, and civilization is extended, fixed capital bears 
a larger and larger proportion to circulating capital. The amount of fixed capital 
employed in the production of a piece of British muslin is at least a hundred, 
probably a thousand times greater than that employed in a similar piece of Indiaa 



 

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation. 693 

mode of production; and in fact every special historic mod© 
of production has its own special laws of population, his- 
torically valid within its limits alone. An abstract law of 
population exists for plants and animals only, and only in so 
far as man has not interfered with them. 

But if a surplus labouring population is a necessaiy pro- 
duct of accumulation or of the development of wealth on a 
capitalist basis, this surplus population becomes, conversely, 
the lever of capitalistic accumulation, nay, a condition of ex- 
istence of the capitalist mod© of production. It forms a disr 
posable industrial reserve army, that belongs to capital quit© 
as absolutely aa if the latter had bred it at its own cost In- 
dependently of th© limits of th© actual increase of population, 
it creates, for the changing needs of th© self-expansion of 
capital, a mass of human material always ready for ex- 
ploitation. With accumulation, and the development of th© 
productiveness of labour that accompanies it, the power of 
sudden expansion of capital grows also; it grows, not merely 
because the elasticity of the capital already functioning in- 
creases, not merely because the absolute wealth of society ex- 
pands, of which capital only forms an elastic part, not merely 
because credit, under ©very special stimulus, at once places 
an unusual part of this wealth at the disposal of production 
in the form of additional capital ; it grows, also, because th© 
technical, conditions of the process of production themselves — 
machinery, means of transport, &amp;c. — now admit of the rapid- 

mtislin. And the proportion of circulating capital is a hundred or thousand times 
less • • • the whole of the annual savings, added to the fixed capital, would 
have no eflFect in increasing the demand for labour.&quot; (John Barton. &quot;Observations 
on the Circumstances which Influence the Condition of the Labouring Classes of 
Society.&quot; London, 1817, pp. 16, 17.) &quot;The same cause which may increase the 
net revenue of the country may at the same time render tho population redundant, 
and deteriorate the condition of the labourer.&quot; (Ricardo, 1. c, p. 469.) With in- 
crease of capital, &quot;the demand [for labour] will be in a diminishing ratio.&quot; (ibid, 
p. 480, Note.) &quot;The amount of capital devoted to the maintenance of labour may 
vary, independently of any changes in the whole amount of capital. . . . 
Great fluctuations in the amount of employment, and great suffering may become 
more frequent as capital itself becomes more plentiful.&quot; (Richard Jones. &quot;An 
Introductory Lecture on Pol. Econ., Lond. 1888,&quot; p. 18.) &quot;Demand [for labour] 
will rise . . . not in proportion to the accumulation of the general capital. 
. . . Every augmentation, therefore, in the national stock destined for reproduc- 
tion, comes, in the progress of society, to have less and less influence upon the 
condition of the labourer.&quot; (Ramsay, 1. c., pp. 90, 91.) 



 

694 Capitalist Production. 

eat transfonnatioii of masseB of surplus product into addi- 
tional means of production. The mass of social wealth, over- 
flowing with the advance of accumulation, and transformable 
into additicmal capital, thrusts itself frantically into old 
branches of production, whose market suddenly expands, or 
into newly formed branches, such as railways, &amp;c., the need 
for which grows out of the development of the old ones. In 
all such cases, there must be the possibility of throwing great 
masses of men suddenly on the decisive points without injury 
to the scale of production in other spheres. Over-population 
supplies these masses. The course characteristic of modem 
industry, viz., a decennial cycle (interrupted by smaller oscil- 
lations), of periods of average activity, production at high 
pressure^ crisis and stagnation, depends on the constant for- 
mation, the greater or less absorption, and the ^e-formation 
of the industrial reserve army of surplus population. In 
their turn, the varying phases of the industrial &lt;grcle recruit 
the surplus population, and become one of the most energetic 
agents of its reproduction. This peculiar course of modem 
industry, which occurs in no earlier period of human history, 
was also impossible in the childhood of capitalist production. 
The composition of capital changed but very slowly. With 
its accumulation, therefore, there kept pace, on the whole, a 
corresponding growth in the demand for labour. Slow as 
was the advance of accumulation compared with that of more 
modem times, it found a check in the natural limits of the 
exploitable labouring population, limits which could only be 
got rid of by forcible means to be mentioned later. The ex- 
pansion by fits and starts of the scale of production is the 
preliminary to its equally sudden contraction ; the latter again 
evokes tiie former, but the former is impossiUe without dis- 
posable human material, without an increase in the number 
of labourers independently of the absolute growth of the 
population. This increase is effected by the simple process 
that constantly &quot;sets free&apos;&apos; a part of the labourers ; by methods 
which lessen the number of labourers employed in proportion 
to the increased production. The whole form of the move- 
ment of modem industry depends, therefore, upon the constant 



 

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation. 695 

transformation of a part of the labouring population into un- 
employed or half-employed hands. The superficiality of Po- 
litical Economy shows itself in the fact that it looks upon 
the expansion and contraction of credit, which is a mere symp- 
tom of the periodic changes of the industrial cycle, as their 
cause. As the heavenly bodies, once thrown into a certain 
definite motion, always repeat this, so is it with social pro- 
duction as soon as it is once thrown into this movement of 
alternate expansion and contraction. Effects, in their turn, 
become causes, and the varying accidents of the whole process, 
which always reproduces its own conditions, take on the form 
of periodicity. When this periodicity is once consolidated, 
even Political Economy then sees that the production of a 
relative surplus population — i.e., surplus with regard to the 
average needs of the self-expansion of capital — ^is a necessary 
condition of modem industry. 

&quot;Suppose,&quot; says H. Marivale, formerly Professor of Po- 
litical Economy at Oxford, subsequently employed in the Eng- 
lish Colonial OflSce, &quot;suppose that, on the occasion of some 
of these crises, the nation were to rouse itself to the effort of 
getting rid by emigration of some hundreds of thousands of 
superfluous arms, what would be the consequence? That, at 
the first returning demand for labour, there would be a de- 
ficiency. However rapid reproduction may be, it takes, at all 
events, the space of a generation to replace the loss of adult 
labour. Now, the profits of our manufacturers depend mainly 
on the power of making use of the prosperous moment when 
demand is brisk, and thus compensating themselves for the 
interval during which it is slack. This power is secured to 
them only by the command of machinery and of manual la- 
bour. They must have hands ready by them, they must be 
able to increase the activity of their operations when required, 
and to slacken it again, according to the state of the market, 
or they cannot possibly maintain the pre-eminence in the race 
of competition on which the wealth of the country is found- 
ed.&quot;* Even Malthus recognises over-population as a neces- 
sity of modem industry, though, after his narrow fashion, he 

*H. Mcrivale: Lectures on Cblonization and Colonies, 1841.&quot; VoL I., p. 146. 



 

696 Capitalist Productiotk 

explains it by the absolute over-growth of the labouring pop- 
ulation, not by their becoming relatively supernumerary. He 
says: &quot;Prudential habits with regard to marriage, carried to 
a considerable extent among the labouring class of a country 
mainly depending upon mai^ufactures and commerce, might 
injure it. . . . From the nature of a population, an in- 
crease of labourers cannot be brought into market in conse- 
quence of a particular demand till after the lapse of 16 or 18 
years, and the conversion of revenue into capital, by saving, 
may take place much more rapidly ; a country is always liable 
to an increase in the quantity of the funds for the maintenance 
of labour faster than the increase of population/&apos; * After Po- 
litical Economy has thus demonstrated the constant produc- 
tion of a relative surplus-population of labourers to be a 
necessity of capitalistic accumulation, she very aptly, in the 
guise of an old maid, puts in the mouth of her &apos;T)eau ideal*&apos; of 
a capitalist the following words addressed to those supernu- 
meraries .thrown on the streets by their own creation of ad- 
ditional capital: — ^^We manufacturers do what we can for 
you, whilst we are increasing that capital on which you must 
subsist, and you must do the rest by accommodating your 
numbers to the means of subsistence/&apos; ^ 

Capitalist production can by no means content itself with 
the quantity of disposable labour-power which the natural 
increase of population yields. It requires for its free play an 
industrial reserve army independent of these natural limits. 

Up to this point it has been assumed that the increase or 
diminution of the variable capital corresponds rigidly with 
the increase or diminution of the number of labourers em- 
ployed. 

The number of labourers commanded by capital may remain 
the same, or even fall, while the variable capital increases. 
This is the case if the individual labourer yields more labour, 

*Malthu8. &apos;Trinciplcs of Political Economy,&quot; pp. 264, 819, S20. In this work. 
Malthus finally discovers, with the help of Sismondi, the beautiful Trinity of capital- 
istic production: over-production, over-population, over-consumption — three very deli- 
cate monsters, indeed. Cf. F. Engels. &quot;Umrisse zu einer Kritik der National- 
Oekonomie,&quot; 1. c p. 107, et seq. 

* Harriet Martineau. &quot;The Manchester Strike,&quot; 1842, p. 101. 



 

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation. 697 

and therefore his wages increase and this although the price of 
labour remains the same or even falls, only more slowly than 
the mass of labour rises. Increase of variable capital, in 
this case, becomes an index of more labour, but not of more 
labourers employed It is the absolute interest of every 
capitalist to press a given quantity of labour out of a smaller, 
rather than a greater number of labourers, if the coat is about 
the same. In the latter case, the outlay of constant capital 
increases in proportion to the mass of labour set in action ; in 
the former that increase is much smaller. The more ex- 
tended the scale of production, the stronger this motive. Its 
force increases with the accumulation of capitaL 

We have seen that the development of the capitalist mode 
of production and of the productive power of labour — at once 
the cause and effect of accumulation — enables the capitalist, 
with&apos; the same outlay of variable capital, to set in action more 
labour by greater exploitation (extensive or intensive) of eadi 
individual labour-power. We have further seen that the 
capitalist buys with the same capital a greater mass of labour^ 
power, as he progressively replaces skilled labourers by less 
skilled, mature labour-power by immature, male by female, 
that of adults by that of young persons or children. 

On the one hand, therefore, with the progress of accumula- 
tion, a larger variable capital sets more labour in action with- 
out enlisting more labourers ; on the other, a variable capital 
of the same magnitude sets in action more labour with the 
same mass of labour-power ; and, finally, a greater number of 
inferior labour-power by displacement of higher. 

The production of a relative surplus-population, or the set- 
ting free of labourers, goes on therefore yet more rapidly than 
the technical revolution of the process of production that ac- 
companies, and is accelerated by, the advances of accumula- 
tion ; and more rapidly than the corresponding diminution of 
the variable part of. capital as compared with the constant. 
If the means of production, as they increase in extent and 
effective power, become to a less extent means of employment 
of labourers, this state of things is again modified by the fact 
that in proportion as the productiveness of labour increasesi 



 

698 Capitalist Production. 

capital inereaseB it8 supply of labour more quickly tlian its de- 
mand fcH* laboui^rs. The over-woi^ of the employed part of 
the working class swells the ranks of the resenrCy whilst con- 
versely the greater pressure that the latter by its competition 
exerts on the former, forces these to submit to over-work and 
to subjugation under the dictates of capitaL The condemna- 
tion of one part of the working^lass to enforced idleness by 
the over-work of the other part, and Uie converse^ becomes a 
means of enriching the individual capitalists,^ and accelerates 
at the same time the production of the industrial reserve army 
on a scale corresponding with the advance of social accumu- 
lation. How important is this element in the formation of 
the relative surplus-population, is shown by the example of 
England. Her technical means for saving labour are colossal 
Nevertheless, if to-morrow morning labour generally were re- 
duced to a rational amount^ and proportioned to the different 
sections of the working-class according to age and sex, the 
working population to hand would be absolutely insufScient 
for the carrying on of national production on its present scale. 
The great majority of the labourers now &quot;unproductive&quot; 
would have to be turned into &quot;productive&quot; ones. 

&gt; ETen in the cotton famine of 1868 we find, in a pamphlet of the opermtive coC- 
ton«tpinnera of Blackburn, fierce denunciations of overwork, which, in conseqoenoe 
of the Factory Acts, of course onlj affected adult male labourers. &quot;The aduh op- 
eratives at this mill have been asked to work from 18 to 18 hours per daj, while 
there are hundreds who are compelled to be idle who would willingly work partial 
time, in order to maintain their families and save their brethren from a premature 
grave through being overworked . . . We,&quot; it goes on to say, &quot;would ask if 
the practice of working overtime by a number of hands, is likely to create a good 
feeling between masters and servants. Those who are worked overtime feel the 
injustice equally with those who are condemned to forced idleness. There is in 
the district almost sufficient work to give to all partial employment if fairly dis- 
tributed. We are only asking what is right in requesting the masters generally to 
pursue a system of short hours, particularly until a better state of things begins 
to dawn upon us, rather than to work a portion of the hands overtime, while others, 
for want of work, are compelled to exist upon charity.&quot; (Reports of Insp. of 
Fact., Oct 81, 1863, p. 8.) The author of the &quot;Essay on Trade and Commerce&quot; grasps 
the effect of a relative surplus-population on the employed labourers with his usual 
unerring bourgeois instinct. &quot;Another cause of idleness in this kingdom is the want 
of a sufficient number of labouring hands .... Whenever from an extraor^ 
dinary demand for manufacturers, labour grows scarce, the labourers feel their own 
consequence, and will make their masters feel it likewise — it is amazing; but so de&gt; 
praved are the dispositions of these people, that in such cases a set of workmen have 
combined to distress the employer, by idling a whole day together.&quot; (Essay, ftc 
pp. 87, 88.) The fellows in fact were hankering after a rise in wages. 



 

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation. 699 

Taking them as a whole^ the general movements of wages 
are exclusively regulated bj the expansion and contraction of 
the industrial reserve army, and these again corret^nd to the 
periodic changes of the industrial cycle. They are^ therefore, 
not determined by the variations of the absolute number of 
the working population, but by the varying proportions in 
which the working class is divided into active and reserve 
army, by the increase of diminution in the relative amount of 
the surplus-population, by the extent to which it ia now ab- 
sorbed, now set free. For Modem Industry with its decen- 
nial cycles and periodic phases, which, moreover, as accmnu- 
lation advances, are complicated by irregular oscillations fol- 
lowing each other more and more quickly, that would indeed 
be a beautiful law, which pretends to make the action of 
capital dependent on the absolute variation of the population, 
instead of regulating the demand and supply of labour by the 
alternate expansion and contraction of capital, the labour- 
market now appearing relatively under-full, because capital is 
expanding, now again over-full, because it is contracting. Yet 
this is the dogma of the economists. According to them, 
wages rise in consequence of accumulation of capitaL The 
higher wages stimulate the working population to more rapid 
multiplication, and this goes on until the labour-market be- 
comes too full, and therefore capital, relatively to .the supply 
of labour, becomes insufficient. Wages fall, and now we have 
the reverse of the medaL The working population is little by 
little decimated as the result of the fall in wages, so tiiiat 
capital is again in excess relatively to them, or, as others ex- 
plain it, falling wages and the corresponding increase in the 
exploitation of the labourer again accelerates accumulation, 
whilst, at the same time, the lower wages hold the increase of 
the working&lt;;lass in check. Then comes again the time, when 
the supply of labour is less than the demand, wages rise, and 
so on. A beautiful mode of motion this for developed capital- 
ist production t Before, in consequence of the rise of wages, 
any positive increase of the population really fit for work 
oould occur, the time would have been passed again and again, 



 

TOO Capitalist Production. 

during which the industrial campaign must have beoi carried 
through, the battle fought and won. 

Between 1849 and 1859, a rise of wages practically in- 
significant, though accompanied by falling prices of com, took 
place in the English agricultural districts. In Wiltshire, e.g., 
the weekly wages rose from 7s. to 88. ; in Dorsetshire from 7s. 
or 8s., to 9s., &amp;c Thb was the result of an unusual exodus 
of the agricultural surplus-population caused by the demands 
of war, the vast extension of railroads, factories, mines, &amp;c 
The lower the wages, the higher is the proportion in which ever 
so insignificant a rise of them expresses itself. If the weekly 
wage, e.g., is 20s. and it rises to 22s., that is a rise of 10 per 
cent ; but if it is only 7s. and it rises to 9s., that is a rise of 
28 f per cent, which sounds very fine. Everywhere the farm- 
ers were howling, and the &quot;London Economist,&quot; with refer- 
ence to these starvation-wages, prattled quite seriously of &quot;a 
general and substantial advance.&quot;* What did the farmers do 
now ? Did they wait until, in consequence of this brilliant re- 
muneration, the agricultural labourers, had so increased and 
multiplied that their wages must fall again, as prescribed by 
the dogmatic economic brain? They introduced more ma- 
chinery, and in a moment the labourers were redundant again 
in a proportion satisfactory even to the farmers. There was 
now &quot;more capital&quot; laid out in agriculture than before, and 
in a more productive form. With this the demand for labour 
fell, not only relatively, but absolutely. 

The above economic fiction confuses the laws that regulate 
the general movement of wages, or the ratio between the 
working&lt;5lass — i.e., the total labour-power — and the total so- 
cial capital, with the laws that distribute the working popu- 
lation over the different spheres of production. If, e.g., in 
consequence of favourable circumstances, accumulation in a 
particular sphere of production becomes especially active, and 
profits in it, being greater than the average profits, attract 
additional capital, of course the demand for labour rises and 
wages also rise. The higher wages draw a larger part of the 
working population into the more favoured sphere, until it is 

* Economist Jan. 21. 1860. 



 

The General Law of Capitalisi Accumulation. 701 

glutted with labour-power, and wages at length fall again to 
their average level or below it^ if the pressure is too great 
Then, not only does the immigration of labourers into the 
branch of industry in question cease ; it gives place to their 
emigration. Here the political economist thinks he sees the 
why and wherefore of an absolute mcrv^ase of workers accom- 
panying an increase of wages, and of a diminution of wages 
accompanying an absolute increase of labourers. But he sees 
really only the local oscillation of he labour-market in a par^ 
ticular sphere of producti n — ^he sees only the phenomena ac- 
companying the distribrtion of the working population into 
the different spheres of outlay of capital, according to its vary- 
ing needs. 

The industrial reserve army, during the periods of stagna- 
tion and average prosperity, weighs down the active labour- 
army ; during the periods of over-production and paroxysm, it 
holds its pretension* in check. Eelative surplus-population 
is therefore the pivot upon wh&apos;ch the law of demand and 
supply of labour works. It confines the field of action of this 
law within the limits absolutely convenient to the activity of 
exploitation and to the domination of capital. 

This is the place to return to one of the grand exploits of 
economic apologetics. It will be remembered that if through 
the introduction of new, or the extension of old, machinery, a 
portion of variable capital is transformed into constant^ the 
economic apologist interprets this operation which &quot;fixes&quot; 
capital and by that very act set labourers &quot;free,&quot; in exactly 
the opposite way, pretending that it sets free capital for the 
labourers. Only now can one fully understand the effrontery 
of these apologists. What are set free are not only the la- 
bourers immediately turned out by the machines, but also 
their future substitutes in the rising generation, and the addi- 
tional contingent, that with the usual extension of trade on 
the old basis would be regularly absorbed. They are now 
all &quot;set free,&quot; and every new bit of capital looking out for 
employment can dispose of them. Whether it attracts them 
or others, the effect on the general labour demand will be nil, 
if this capital is just sufficient to take out of the market as 



 

702 Capitalist ProductiofL 

many labourers as the machines threw upon it If it employs 
a smaller number, that of the supernumeraries increases ; if it 
employs a greater, the general demand for labour only in- 
creases to the extent of the excess of the employed over those 
^^set free/&apos; The impulse that additional capital, seeking an 
outlet, would otherwise have given to the general demand for 
labour, is therefore in every case neutralised to the extent of 
the labourers thrown out of employment by the machine. 
That is to say, the mechanism of capitalistic production so 
manages matters that the absolute increase of capital is ac- 
companied by no corresponding rise in the general demand 
for labour. And this the apologist calls a compensation for 
the misery, the sufferings, the possible death of the displaced 
labourers during the transition period that banishes them into 
the industrial reserve army I The demand for labour is not 
identical with increase of capital, nor supply of labour with 
increase of the working class. It is not a case of two inde- 
pendent forces working on one another. Les des sont pip6s. 
Capital works on both sides at the same time. If its accumu- 
lation, on the one hand, increases the demand for labour, it in- 
creases on the other the supply of labourers by the &quot;setting 
free of them, whilst at the same time the pressure of the un- 
employed compels those that are employed to furnish more 
labour, and therefore makes the supply of labour, to a certain 
extent^ independent of tlie supply of labourers. The action of 
the law of supply and demand of labour on this basis com- 
pletes the despotism of capital. As soon, therefore, as the 
labourers learn the secret, how it comes to pass that in the 
same measure as they work more, as they produce more wealth 
for others, and as the productive power of their labour in- 
creases, so in the same measure even their function as a means 
of the self-expansion of capital becomes more and more pre- 
carious for them ; as soon as they discover that the degree of in- 
tensity of the competition among themselves depends wholly 
on the pressure of the relative surplus-population; as soon 
as, by Trades&apos; Unions, &amp;c., they try to organise a regular co- 
operation between employed and unemployed in order to 
destroy or to weaken the ruinous effects of this natural law 



 

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation. 703 

of capitalistic production on their class, so soon capital and its 
sycophant, political economy, cry out at the infringement of 
the &quot;eternal&quot; and so to say &quot;sacred&quot; law of supply and de- 
mand. Every combination of employed and unemployed dia- 
turbe the &quot;harmonious&quot; action of this law. But, on the other 
hand, as soon as (in the colonies, e.g.,) adverse circimistances 
prevent the creation of an industrial reserve army and, with 
it, the absolute dependence of the working class upon the 
capitalist class, capital, along with its commonplace Sancho 
Panza, rebels against the &quot;sacred&quot; law of supply and demand, 
and tries to check its inconvenient action by forcible means 
and State interference. 

8i;CTIOK 4. ^DIFFERENT FORMS OF THE RELATIVE SURPLTJS- 

POPUULTION. THE GENERAL LAW OF CAPITALISTIC AC- 
CITMITLATIOl^. 

The relative surplus population exists in every possible 
form. Every labourer belongs to it during the time when he 
is only partially employed or wholly imemployed. Not tak- 
ing into account the great periodically recurring forms that 
the changing phases of the industrial cycle impress on it, now 
an acute form during the crisis, then again a chronic form 
during dull times — it has always three forms, the floating, 
the latent, the stagnant 

In the centres of modem industry — ^factories, manufactur- 
ers, ironworks, mines, &amp;c. — ^the labourers are sometimes re- 
pelled, sometimes attracted again in greater masses, the num- 
ber of those employed increasing on the whole, although in a 
constantly decreasing proportion to the scale of production. 
Here the surplus population exists in the floating form. 

In the automatic factories, as in all the great workshops, 
where machinery enters as a factor, or where only the modem 
divisions of labour is carried out, large numbers of boys are 
employed up to the age of maturity. When this term is 
once reached, only a very small number continue to find em- 
ployment in the same branches of industry, whilst the ma- 
jority are regularly discharged. This majority forms an ele- 



 

704 Capitalist Production. 

ment of the floating surpluB-popuIationy growing with the 
extension of those branches of industry. Part of them emi- 
gratesy following in fact capital that has emigrated. One 
consequence is that the female population grows more rapidly 
than the male, teste England. That the natural increase of 
the number of labourers does not satisfy the requirements of 
the accumulation of capital, and yet all the time is in excess 
of them, is a contradiction inherent to the movement of capital 
itself. It wants larger numbersi of youthful labourers, a 
smaller number of adults. The contradiction is not more 
glaring than that other one that there is a complaint of the 
want of hands, while at the same time many thousands are 
out of work, because the division of labour &lt;:hains them to a 
particular branch of industry.^ 

The consumption of labour-power by capital is, besides, so 
rapid that the labourer, half-way through his life, has already 
more or less completely lived himself out He falls into the 
ranks of the supernumeraries, or is thrust down from a higher 
to a lower step in the scale. It is precisely among the work- 
people of modem industry that we meet with the shortest 
duration of life. Dr. Lee, Medical Officer of Health for Man- 
chester, stated ^&apos;that the average age at death of the Man- 
chester . . . upper middle class was 38 years, while the 
average age at death of the labouring class was 17 ; while at 
Liverpool those figures were represented as 35 against 15. It 
thus appeared that the well-to-do classes had a lease of life 
which was more than double the value of that which fell to 
the lot of the less favoured citizens.&quot; * In order to conform 
to these circumstances, the absolute increase of this section 
of the proletariat must take places under conditions that shall 
swell their numbers, although the individual elements are 

^Whilst during the last six months of 1866, 80-00,000 working people in London 
vere thrown out of work, the Factory Report for that same half year says: &quot;It 
does not appear absolutely true to say that demand will always produce supply just 
at the moment when it is needed. It has not done so with labour, for much ma- 
chinery has been idle last year for want of hands.&quot; (Rep. of Insp. of Fact., 81st 
Oct, 1866, p. 81.) 

&apos;Opening address to the Sanitary Conference, Birmingham, January 16th, 1876, 
1^ J. Chamberlain, Mayor of the town, now (1888) President of the Board ol 
Ttada. 



 

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation. 705 

wiei up rapidly. Hence, rapid renewal of the generations of 
labourers (this law does not hold for the other classes of tho 
population). This social need is met by early marriages, a 
necessary consequence of the conditions in which the labourers 
of modem industry live, and by the premium that the ex* 
ploitation of children sets on their production. 

As soon as capitalist production takes possession of agri* 
culture, and in proportion to the extent to which it does so, 
the demand for an agricultural labouring population falls 
absolutely, while the accumulation of the capital employed in 
agriculture advances, without this repulsion being, as in non- 
agricultural industries, compensated by a greater attraction. 
Part of the agricultural population is therefore constantly on 
the point of passing over into an urban or manufacturing 
proletariat, and on the look-out for circumstances favourable 
to this transformation. (Manufacture is used here in the 
sense of all non-agricultural industries).^ This source of 
relative surplus-population is thus constantly flowing. But 
the constant flow towards the towns presupposes, in the coun- 
try itself, a constant latent surplus-population, the extent of 
which becomes evident only when its channels of outlet open 
to exceptional width. The agrictdtural labourer is therefore 
reduced to the minimum of wages, and always stands with 
one foot already in the swamp of pauperism. 

The third category of the relative surplus-population, the 
stagnant, forms a part of the active labour army, but with, 
extremely irregular employment Hence it furnishes to 
capital an inexhaustible reservoir of disposable labour-power. 
Its conditions of life sink below the average normal level of 
the working class; this makes it at once the broad basis of 
special branches of capitalist exploitation. It is character- 

^781 Towns given in the census for 1861 for England and Wales ■* &apos;contained 
10,080,008 inhabitants, while the villages and country parishes contained 0,105,220. 
In 1851, 680 towns were distinguished, and the population in them and in the sur- 
rounding country wan nearly equal. But while ia the subsequent ten years the 
population in the villages and the country increased half a million, the populatioB 
In the 580 towns increased by a million and a half (1,654,067). The increase of 
the population of the country parishes is 6.5 per cent., and of the towns 17.8 per 
cent. The difference in the rates of increase is due to the migration from country 
to town. Three-fourths of the total increase of population has taken place ia tlM 
towns. (Census, &amp;c., pp. 11 and 12.) 

tS 



 

7o6 Capitalist Production. 

ized by maximnm of working time, and minimum of wages. 
We have leamt to know its chief form under the rubric of 
&quot;domestic industry.&quot; It recruits itself constantly from the 
supernumerary forces of modern industry and agriculture, 
and specially from those decaying branches of industry where 
handicraft is yielding to manufacture, manufacture to ma- 
chinery. Its extent grows, as with the extent and energy of 
accumulation, the creation of a surplus popul tion advances. 
But it forms at the same time a self-reproducing and self-per- 
petuating element of the working class, taking a proportionally 
greater part in the general increase of that class than the 
other elements. In fact, not oniy the number of births and 
deaths, but the absolute size tie xamilies stand in inverse 
proportion to the height of wageSj therefor to the unount 
of means of subsistence of which the differ t categories of 
labourers dispose. This law of ^apit&apos;listic society would 
sound absurd to savages, or evex civilized colonists. It calls 
to mind the bound^ss reproduction of animals individually 
weak and constantly hunted down.* 

The lowest sediment of the relative surplus-population 
finally dwells in the sphere of pauperism. Exclusive of vaga- 
bonds, criminals, prostitutes, in a word, the &quot;dangerous&apos;* 
classes, this layer of society consists of three categories. 
First, those able to work One need only glance superficially 
at the statistics of English pauperism to find that the quantity 
of paupers increases with every crisis, and diminishes 
with every revival of trade. Second, orphans and pauper 
children. These are ca didates for the industrial reserve- 
army, and are, in times of great prosperity, as 1860, e.g., 
speedily and in large numbers enrolled in the active army of 
labourers. Third, the demoralized and ragged, and those un- 
able to work, chiefly people who succimib to their incapacity 

* Poverty seema favourable to generation.&quot; (A. Smith.) This is even a spe- 
cially wise arrangement of God, according to the gallant and witty AbM Galir**^ 
&quot;Iddio fa che gli uomini che esercitano mestieri di prima utiliti nascono abbondant^ 
mente.&quot; (Galiani, 1. c, p. 78.) &apos;&apos;Misery up to the extreme point of famine and 
pestilence, instead of checking, tends to increase population.&apos;* (S. Laing: 
National Distress, 1844, p. 69.) After Laing has illustrated this by statistics, be 
continues: &quot;If the people were all in easy circumstances, the world would soon be 
depopulated.** 



 

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation. 707 

for adaptation, due to the division of labour ; people who have 
passed the normal age of the labourer ; the victims of industry, 
whose number increases with the increase of dangerous ma- 
chinery, of mines^ chemical works, &amp;c., the mutilated, the 
sickly, the widows, &amp;c. Pauperism is the hospital of the 
active labour-army and the dead weight of the industrial re- 
serve-army. Its production is included in that of the relative 
surplus-population, its necessity in theirs ; along with the sur- 
plus-population, pauperism forms a condition of capitalist 
production, and of the capitalist development of wealth. It 
enters into the faiix frai$ of capitalist production ; but capital 
knows how to throw these, for the most part, from its own 
shoulders on to those of the workingKslass and the lower mid- 
dle class. 

The greater the social wealth, the functioning capital, the 
extent and energy of its growth, and, therefore, also the ab- 
solute mass of the proletariat and the productiveness of its 
labour, the greater is the industrial reserve-army. The same 
causes which develop the expansive power of capital, developes 
also the labour-power at its disposal. The relative mass of 
the industrial reserve-army increases therefore with the po- 
tential energy of wealth. But the greater this reserve-army 
in proportion to the active labour-army, the greater is the 
mass of a consolidated surplus-population, whose misery is in 
inverse ratio to its torment of labour. The more extensive, 
finally, the lazurus-layers of the working-class, and the in- 
dustrial reserve-army, the greater is official pauperism. This 
is the absduie general Imo of capitalist accumylation. Like 
all other laws it is modified in its working by many circum- 
stances, the analysis of which does not concern us here. 

The folly is now patent of the economic wisdom that 
preaches to the labourers iho accommodation of their num- 
ber to the requirements of capital. The mechanism of capital- 
ist production and accumulation constantly effects this adjust- 
ment. The first word of this adaptation is the creation of a 
relative surplus-population, or industrial reserve-army. Its 
last word is the misery of constantly extending strata of the 
active army of labour, and the dead weight of pauperism. 



 

7o8 Capitalist Production. 

The law by which a constantly increasing quantity of means 
of prodnctiony thanks to the advance in the productiveness of 
social labour, may be set in movement by a progressively 
diminishing expenditure of human power, this law, in a 
capitalist society — ^where the labourer does not employ the 
means of production, but the means of production employ the 
labourer — undergoes a complete inversion and is expressed 
thus: the higher the productiveness of labour, the greater is 
the pressure of the labourers on the means of employment, the 
more precarious, therefore, becomes their condition of ex- 
istence, viz., the sale of their own labour^power for the in- 
creasing of another&apos;s wealth, or for the self-expansion of 
capital The fact that the means of production, and the pro- 
ductiveness of labour, increase more rapidly than the pro- 
ductive population, expresses itself, therefore, capitalistically 
in the inverse form that the labouring population always in- 
creases more rapidly than the conditions under which capital 
can employ this increase for its own self -expansion. 

We saw in Part IV., when analysing the production of rela- 
tive surplus-value: within .the capitalist system all methods 
for raising the social productiveness of labour are brought 
about at the cost of the individual labourer; all means for 
the development of production transform themselves into 
means of domination over, and exploitation of, the producers ; 
they mutilate the labourer into a fragment of a man, degrade 
him to the level of an appendage of a machine, destroy every 
remnant of charm in his vrork and turn it into a hated toil ; 
they estrange from him the intellectual potentialities of the 
labour-process in the same proportion as science is incorpor* 
ated in it as an independant power; they distort the condi- 
tions under which he works, subject him during the labour- 
process to a despotism the more hateful for its meanness ; they 
transform his life-time into working-time, and drag his wife 
and child beneath the wheels of the Juggernaut of capital, 
But all methods for the production of surplus value are at the 
same time methods of accumulation; and every extension of 
accumulation becomes again a means for the development of 
those methods. It follows therefore that in proportion as 



 

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation. 709 

capital accumulates, the lot of the labourer, be his payment 
high or low, must grow worse. The law, finally, that always 
equilibrates the relative surplus-population, or industrial re- 
serve army, to the extent and energy of accumulation, this law 
rivets the labourer to capital more firmly than the wedges of 
Vulcan did Prometheus to the rock. It establishes an ac- 
cumulation of misery, corresponding with accumulation of 
capital. Accumulation of wealth at one pole is, therefore, at 
the same time accumulation of misery, agony of toil, slavery, 
ignorance, brutality, mental degradation, at the opposite pole, 
i.e., on the side of the class that produces its own product in 
the form of capital. 

This antagonistic character of capitalistic accumulation^ is 
enunciated in various forms by political economists, although 
by them it is confounded with phenomena, certainly to some 
extent analogous, but nevertheless essentially distinct, and be- 
longing to precapitalistic modes of production. 

The Venetian monk Ortes, one of the great economic writers 
of the 18th century, regards the antagonism of capitalist pro- 
duction as a general natural law of social wealth. &quot;In the 
economy of a nation, advantages and evils always balance one 
another (il bene ed il male economico in una nazione sempre 
all, istessa misura) : the abundance of wealth with some peo- 
ple, is always equal to the want of it with others (la copia dei 
beni in alcuni sempre eguale alia mancanza di essi in altri) : 
the great riches of a small number are always accompanied by 
the absolute privation of the first necessaries of life for many 
others. The wealth of a nation corresponds with its popu- 
lation, and its misery corresponds with its wealth. Diligence 
in some compels idleness in others. The poor and idle are a 
necessary consequence of the rich and active,^&apos; &amp;c^ In a 

*&quot;De jour en jour il devient done plus clalr que les rapports de production dans 
lesqucls se meut la bourgeoisie n&apos;ont pas un caractere un, tmcaractire simple, mais 
un caractere de dupliciti; que dans les memes rapports dans lesquels se produit U 
richesse, la mis^re ee produit aussi; que dans les memes rapports dans lesqucls il y a 
d^veloppement des forces productivcs, il y a une force productive de repression; que 
ces rapports ne produisent la richesse bourgeoise, c&apos;est-i-dire la richesse de la classe 
bourgcoise, qu&apos;en an^ntissant continuellement la richesse des membres integrants de 
cette classe et en produisant un proletariat toujours croissant&quot; (Karl Marx: 
Mis^re de la Philosophic, p. 116.) 

&apos;G. Ortes: Delia Economia Nazionale libri set, 1777, in Custodi* Parte Modema, 



 

710 Capitalist ProductiofL 

thoroughly brutal way about 10 years after Ortes, the Churdi 
of England parson, Townsend, glorified misery as a neces- 
sary condition of wealth. &quot;Legal constraint (to labour) is 
attended with too much trouble, violence, and noise, . . . 
whereas hunger is not only a peaceable, silent, unremitted 
pressure, but at the most natural motive to industry and 
labour, it calls forth the most powerful exertions.&quot; Every- 
thing therefore depends upon making hunger permanent 
among the working class, and for this, according to Town- 
send, the principle of population, especially active among the 
poor, provides. **It seems to be a law of nature that the poor 
should be to a certain degree improvident&quot; [i.e., so improvi- 
dent as to be born without a silver spoon in the mouth], &quot;that 
there may always be some to fulfil the most servile, the most 
sordid, and the most ignoble oflSces in the community. The 
stock of human happiness is thereby much increased, whilst 
the more delicate are not only relieved from drudgery . . . 
but are left at liberty without interruption to pursue those 
callings which are suited to their various dispositions . . . 
it [the Poor Law] tends to destroy the harmony and beauty, 
the symmetry and order of that system which (Jod and Nature 
have established in the world.&quot; ^ If the Venetian monk found 
in the fatal destiny that makes misery eternal, the raison 
d&apos;etre of Christian charity, celibacy, monasteries and holy 
houses, the Protestant prebendary finds in it a pretext for 
condemning the laws in virtue of which the poor possessed a 
right to a miserable relief. 

L xxL pp. d» 9, 22, 26, etc Ortet Mys, L c, p. 88: &quot;In luoco di progettar tistemi 
inutili per la feliciU de&apos;popoli, mi limiterd a investigare la ragione della loro in* 
feliciti.&quot; 

&gt; A Diaaertation on the Poor Lawa. By a Well-wisher of Mankind. (The Rer. J. 
Townsend) 1786, republished Lond. 1817, pp. 15, 89, 41. This &quot;delicate** parson, 
from whose work just quoted, as well as from his &quot;Journey through Spain,** 
Mai thus often copies whole pages himself borrowed the greater part of his doctrine 
from Sir James Steuart, whom he however alters in the borrowing. E.g., when 
Steuart says: &quot;Here, in slavery, was a forcible method of making mankind diligent,** 
(for the non-workers] . . . &quot;Men were then forced to work&quot; £».*. to work 
gratis for others], &quot;because they were slaves of others; men are now forced to 
work&quot; ii.e., to work gratis for non-workers] because they are the slaves of their 
necessities,&quot; he does not thence conclude, like the fat holder of benefices, that the 
wage-labourer must always go fasting. He wishes, on the contrary, to increase 
their wants and to make the increasing number of their wants a stimulous to thdf 
labour for the &quot;more delicate.&apos;* 



 

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation. 711 

&quot;The progress of social wealth/&apos; says Storch, *T)egets this 
useful class of society . . • which performs the most weari- 
some, the vilest, the most disgusting f imctions, which takes, in 
a word, on its shoulders all that is disagreeable and servile in 
life, and procures thus for other classes leisure, serenity of 
mind and conventional [c&apos;est bon !] dignity of character.&quot; ^ 
Storch asks himself in what then really consist the progress 
of this capitalistic civilization with its misery and its degrada- 
tion of the masses, as compared with barbarism. He finds 
but one answer : security ! 

&quot;Thanks to the advance of industry and science,^&apos; says 
Sismondi, &quot;every labourer can produce every day much more 
than his consumption requires. But at the same time, whilst 
his labour produces wealth, that wealth would, were he called 
on to consume it himself, make him less fit for labour.&quot; Ac- 
cording to him, &quot;men,&quot; [i.e., non-workers] &quot;would probably 
prefer to do without all artistic perfection, and all the enjoy- 
ments that manufacturers procure for us^ if it were necessary 
that all should buy them by constant toil like that of the 
labourer. . . . Exertion to-day is separated from its re- 
compense ; it is not the same man that first works, and then 
reposes; but it is because the one works that the other rests. 
. . . The indefinite multiplication of the productive pow- 
ers of labour can then only have for result the increase of lux- 
ury and enjoyment of the idle rich.&quot; ^ 

Finally Destutt de Tracy, the fish-blooded bourgeois 
doctrinaire, blurts out brutally: &quot;In poor nations the people ^ 
are comfortable, in rich nations they are generally poor.&quot; * 

SECnOlT 6. ^nXUSTBATIONS OP THB GENEEAL LAW OF OAP- 

ITAUST ACCUMULATION. 

{a.) England from 1846-1866. 

No period of modem society is so favourable for the study 
of capitalist accumulation as the period of the last 20 years. 

^Storch, Let. iii., p. 228. 
&apos;Sismondi 1. c pp. 79, 80, 86. 

&apos;Destutt de Tracy, 1. c. p. 281: &apos;liCt nations paurres, c&apos;est li o{k le peuple Cit &amp; 
•on aise; et les nations riches, c&apos;est li oA il est ordinairement pauvre.&quot; 



 

712 Capitalist Production. 

It is as if this period had found Fortunatus&apos; purse. But of aU 
countries England again furnishes the classical example, be* 
cause it holds the foremost place in the world-market, because 
capitalist production is here alone completely developed, and 
lastly, because the introduction of the Free Trade millennium 
since 1846 has cut off the last retreat of vulgar economy. 
The titanic advance of production — ^the latter half of the 20 
years period again far surpassing the former — has been al- 
ready pointed out suflSciently in Part IV. 

Although the absolute increase of the English populaticm in 
the last half century was very great^ the relative increase or 
rate of growth fell constantly, as the following table borrowed 
from the census shows. 

Annual increase per cent of the population of England and 
Wales in decimal numbers: 

1811-1821 1.633 per cent 

1821-1831 1.446 „ 

1831-1841 1.326 „ 

1841-1851 1.216 „ 

1851-1861 1.141 „ 

Let us now, on the other hand, consider the increase of 
wealth. Here the movement of profit, rent of land, &amp;c., that 
come under the income tax, furnishes the surest basis. The 
increase of profits liable to income tax (farmers and some other 
categories not included) in Great Britain from 1853 to 1864 
amounted to 50.47% or 4.58% as the annual average,^ that of 
the population during the same period to about 1.2%. The 
augmentation of the rent of land subject to taxation (including 
houses, railways, mines, fisheries, &amp;c.), amounted for 1853 to 
1864 to 38% or 39ii% annually. . Under this head the follov7- 
ing categories show the greatest increase : 

Houses, 38.60% 8.50% 

Quarries, 84.76% 7.70% 

Mines, 68.85% 6.26% 

&apos;Tenth Report of the Commlidonen of H.BC. laUad Revenue. Lond. IBM^ 
p. S8. 



 

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation. 713 

Iron-works, 39.92% 3.63% 

Fisheries, 67.37% 6.21% 

Gasworks, 126.02% 11.46% 

BaUways, 83.29% 7.67%^ 

If we oompaTe the years from 1853 to 1864 in three sets of 
A)ur consecutive years each, the rate of augmentation of the 
income increases constantly. It is, e.g., for that arising from 
profits between 1853 to 1857, 1.73% yearly; 1857-1861, 
2.74%, and for 1861-64, 9.30% yearly. The sum of the in- 
comes of the United Kingdom that come under the income 
tax was in 1856 £307,068,898; in 1859, £328,127,416; in 
1862, £351,745,241; in 1863, £359,142,897; in 1864, £362,- 
462,279; in 1865, £385,530,020.^ 

The accumulaton of capital was attended at the same time 
by its concentration and centralisation. Although no ofBcial 
statistics of agriculture existed for England (they did for Ire- 
land), they were voluntarily given in 10 counties. These sta^- 
tistics gave the result that from 1851 to 1861 the number of 
farms of less tiian 100 acres had fallen from 31,583 to 26,597, 
so that 5016 had been thrown together into larger farms.&apos; 
From 1815 to 1825 no personal estate of more than £1,000,- 
000 came imder the succession duty ; from 1825 to 1855, how- 
ever, 8 did; and 4 from 1856 to June, 1859^ i.e., in 4J years.* 
The centralisation will, however, be best seen from a short 
analysis of the Income Tax Schedule D (profits, exclusive of 
farms, &amp;c.), in the years 1864 and 1865. I note beforehand 
that incomes from this source pay income tax on everything 
over £60. These incomes liable to taxation in E^ngland, 

* Ibidem. 

&apos;These figures are sufficient for comparison, but, taken absolutely, «re fttoe, tince, 
perhaps, £100,000,000 of income are annually not declared. The complaints of the 
Inland Revenue Commissioners of systematic fraud, especially on the part of the 
commercial and industrial classes, are repeated in each of their reports. So «.;., &quot;A 
Joint-stock company returns £6000 as assessable profits, the surveyor raises the 
amount to £88,000, and upon that sum duty is ultimately paid. Another company 
which returns £190,000 is finally compelled to admit that the true return should 
be ££60,000/&apos; (Ibid., p. 42.) 

* Census, &amp;c, 1. c, p. 29. John Bright&apos;s assertion that 160 landlord* own balf of 
England, and 12 half the Scotch soil, has never been refuted. 

s Fourth Report, &amp;c.» of Inland RerenuCi Lond., 1800, p. 17. 



 

714 Capitalist Productiof^ 

Wale8^ and Scotland, amounted in 1864 to £95,844,222, in 
1865 to £105,435,579.^ The number of persons taxed were 
in 1864, 308,416, out of a population of 23,891,009; in 1865, 
332,431 out of a population of 24,127,003. The following 
table shows the distribution of these incomes in the two years: 



Ykab ending April 5th, 1864. 


Ybab ending April 5th, 1865. 


Inooms fbom PBonrs. 


Persons. 


Income from Profits. 


PERSONa 


Total Income £95,844^22 


308,416 


Total Income £105,435,738 


332,431 


of these 57,028^9 


23,334 


of these 64,554,297 


24,265 


« 36,415,225 


3,619 


n 42,535,576 


4,021 


,, 22,809,781 
8,744,762 


832 
91 


„ 27,555,313 
„ 11,077,238 


973 
107 



In 1855 there &quot;were produced in the United Kingdom 61,- 
453,079 ton&apos;s of coal, of value £16,113,167; in 1864, 92,787,- 
873 tons, of value £23,197,968; in 1855, 3,218,154 tons of 
pig-iron, of value £8,045,385 ; 1864, 4,767,951 tons, of value 
£11,919,877. In 1854 the length of the railroads worked in 
the United Kingdom was 8054 miles, with a paid-up capital 
of £286,068,794 ; in 1864 the length was 12,789 miles, with 
capital paid up of £425,719,613. In 1854 the total sum of 
the exports and imports of the United Kingdom was £268,- 
210,145 ; in 1865, £489,923,285. The following table ahowa 
the movement of the exports: 



1846 
1849 
1856 
1860 
1865 
1866 



£58,842,377 
63,596,052 
115,826,948 
135,842,817 
165,862,402 
188,917,563* 



* These are the net incomes after certain legally authorized abatements. 
&apos;At this moment, March, 1867, the Indian and Chinese market is again 
stocked by the consignments of the British cotton manufacturers. In 1866 a 



 

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation. 715 

After these few examples one understands the cry of tri- 
umph of the Kegistrar-General of the British people: &quot;Rap- 
idly as the population has increased, it has not kept pace with 
the progress of industry and wealth.*&apos; ^ 

Let us turn now to the direct agents of this industry, or the 
producers of this wealth, to the working cass. &quot;It is one of 
the most melancholy features in the social state of this coun- 
try/&apos; says Gladstone, &quot;that while there was a decrease in the 
consuming powers of the people, and while there was an in- 
crease in the privations and distress of the labouring class and 
operatives, there was at the same time a constant accumula- 
tion of wealth in the upper classes, and a constant increase of 
capital/&apos;^ Thus spake this unctuous minister in the House of 
Commons on February 13th, 1843. On April 16th, 1863, 20 
years later, in the speech in which he introduced his Budget : 
&quot;From 1842 to 1852 the taxable income of the country in- 
creased by 6 per cent .... In the 8 years from 1853 
to 1861 it had increased from the basis taken in 1853 by 20 
per cent! The fact is so astonishing as to be almost incredible 

• . . . this intoxicating augmentation of wealth and power 

• . • • entirely confined to classes of property • • • . must be 
of indirect benefit to the labouring population, because it 
cheapens the commodities of general consumption. While the 
rich have been growing richer, the poor have been growing less 
poor. At any-rate, whether the extremes of poverty are less, 
I do not presume to say.&apos;&apos; * How lame an anti-climax ! If the 
workingKjlass has remained &quot;poor,&quot; only &quot;less poor&quot; in propor- 
tion as it produces for the wealthy class &quot;an intoxicating aug- 

ducdon in wages of 6 per cent, took place amongst the cotton operatives. In 1867, 
as consequence of a similar operation, there was a strike of 20,000 men at Preston. 
Note to the 4th German edition. — ^Thit was a prelude to the crisis^ which broke out 
soon afterwards. — F. £. 

* Census, &amp;c., L c, p. 11. 

s Gladstone in the House of Commons, Feb. 18th, 1848. &apos;Times,&apos;* FeK 14th, 1848. 
— ^&quot;It is one of the most melancholy features in the social state of this country that 
we see, beyond the possibility of denial, that while there is at this moment a de- 
crease in the consuming powers of the people, an increase of the pressure of priva- 
tions and distress; there is at the same time a constant accumulation of wealth in the 
upper classes, an increase of the luxuriousness of their habits, and of their means 
of enjoyment&quot; (Hansard, 18th Feb.) 

•Gladstone in the House of Commons, April l«th, 1888. &quot;Morning Star/* 
April 17th. 



 

7i6 Capitalist Production. 

meDtati&lt;m of ^v^th and power/&apos; then it has remained vdIa* 
tiyely just as poor. If tiie extremes of poverty have not lee- 
senedy they haye increased, because the extremes of wealth 
haye. As to the cheapening of the means of subsistencey the 
oflScial statistics, e.g., tiie accounts of the London Orphan Asy- 
lum, show an increase in price of 20% for the average of the 
three years 1860-1862, compared with 1851-1853. In the 
following three years, 1863-1865, there was a progressive rise 
in the price of meat, butter, milk, sugar, salt, coals, and a 
number of other necessary means of subsistence.^ Gladstone&apos;s 
next Budget speech of April 7th, 1864, is a Pindaric dithy- 
rambus on the advance of surplus-value-making and the hap- 
piness of the people tempered by ^^verty.&quot; He speaks of 
masses &apos;&apos;on the border&quot; of pauperism, of branches of trade in 
which &apos;&apos;wages have not increased,&quot; and finally sums up the 
happiness of the working class in the words : &quot;human life is 
but, in nine cases out of ten, a struggle for existence.&quot; ^ Pro- 
fessor Fawcett, not bound like (Gladstone by &lt;^cial considera- 
tions, declares roundly : &quot;I do not, of course, deny that money 
wages have been augmented by this increase of capital (in the 
last ten years), but this apparent advantage is to a great ex- 
tent lost, because many of the necessaries of life are becoming 
dearer&quot; (he believes because of the fall in value of the precious 
metals) .... &quot;the rich grow rapidly richer, whilst there ia 
no perceptible advance in the comfort enjoyed by the indus- 

* See the official accouiits in the Blue Book: &quot;Miacdlaneoat ttatittict of the United 
Kingdom,&quot; Part yi., London, 1866, pp. 860-87S, passim. Instead of the ttatisUca 
of orphan asylums, ftc., the declamations of the ministerial journals in recommend- 
inf dowries for the Royal children might also serre. The greater deamess of the 
means of subsistence is never forgotten there. 

* Gladstone, House of Commons, 7th April, 1864. — ^*The Hansard Terslon runs; 
&quot;Again, and yet more at large — what is human life, but, in the majority of cases, a 
struggle for existence.** The continual crying contradictions in Gladstone&apos;s Budget 
speeches of 186S and 1864 were characterised by an English writer by the following 
quotation from Moliire: 

&quot;VoiU l*homme en effet. D ys du blanc an noir. 
II condamne au matin ses sentiments du soir. 
Importun i tout autre, i soi*meme incommode, 
II change i tout moment d*eq&gt;rit comme de mode.** 

(The Theory of Exchanges, ftc, London, 1864, p. 186.) 



 

The General Lxnv of Capitalist Accumulation. 717 

trial classes . • • . They (the labourers) become almost 
the slaves of the tradesman, to whom they owe money.&quot;^ 

In the chapters on the &quot;working day&apos;* and &quot;machinery/* the 
reader has seen under what circumstances the British working- 
class created an &quot;intoxicating augmentation of wealth and 
power** for the propertied classes. There we wer© chiefly 
concerned with the social functioning of the labourer. But 
for a full elucidation of the law of accumulation, his condition 
outside the workshop must also be looked at, his condition as 
to food and dwelling. The limits of this book compel us to 
concern ourselves chiefly with the worst paid part of the 
industrial proletariat, and with the agricultural labourers, 
who together form the majority of the working^lass. 

But first, one word on oflScial pauperism, or on that part of 
the working-class which has forfeited its condition of existence 
(the sale of labour-power), and vegetates upon public alms. 
The oflScial list of paupers numbered in England^ 851,369 per- 
sons; in 1856, 977,767; in 1865, 971,433. In consequence 
of the cotton famine, it grew in the years 1863 and 1864 to 
1,079,382 and 1,014,978. The crisis of 1866, which fell most 
heavily on London, created in this centre of the world-market, 
more populous than the kingdom of Scotland, an increase of 
pauperism for the year 1866 of 19.5% compared with 1866, 
and of 24.4% compared with 1864, and a still greater increase 
for the first months of 1867 as compared with 1866. From 
the analysis of the statistics of pauperism, two points are to be 
taken. On the one hand, the fiuctuation up and down of the 
number of paupers, reflects the periodic changes of the indus- 
trial cycle. On the other, the official statistics become more 
and more misleading as to the actual extent of pauperism in 
proportion as, with the accumulation of capital, the class- 
struggle, and, therefore, the class-consciousness of the work- 
ing-men, develope. E.g., the barbarity in the treatment of 
the paupers, at which the English Press (The Times, Pall 
Mall Oazette, etc.) have cried out so loudly during the last 

*H. Fawcett, t c&gt; pp. 67*88. As to the increasing dependence of labourers on 
the retail shopkeepers, this is the consequence of the frequent oscillations and In- 
terruptions of their employment 

&apos; Wales here is always included in England. 



 

I 



718 Capitalist Production. 

two years, is of ancient date. F. Engels showed in 1844 ex- 
actly the same horrors, exactly the same transient canting out- 
cries of &quot;sensational literature.&quot; But frighthil increase of 
&quot;deaths by starvation&quot; in London during the last ten years 
proves beyond doubt the growing horror in which the work- 
ing-people hold the slavery of the workhouse, that place of 
pimishment for misery.^ 

. (5). The hadly paid Strata of the British Industrial Class. 

During the Cotton famine of 1862, Dr. Smith was charged 
by the Privy Council with an inquiry into the conditions of 
nourishment of the distressed operatives in Lancashire and 
Cheshire. His observations during many preceding years had 
led him to the conclusion that &quot;to avert starvation diseases,*&apos; 
the daily food of an average woman ought to contain at least 
3,900 grains of carbon with 180 grains of nitrogen ; the daily 
food of an average man, at least 4,300 grains of carbon with 
200 grains of nitrogen ; for women, about the same quantity of 
nutritive elements as are contained in 2 lbs of good wheaten 
bread, for men 1-9 more; for the weekly average of adult men 
and women, at least 28,600 grains of carbon and 1,330 grains 
of nitrogen. His calculation was practically confirmed in a 
surprising manner by its agreement with the miserable quan- 
tity of nourishment to which want had forced down the con- 
sumption of the cotton operatives. This was, in December, 
1862, 29,211 grains of carbon, and 1,295 grains of nitrogen 
weekly. 

In the year 1863, the Privy Council ordered an inquiry into 
the state of distress of the worst-nourished part of the English 
working&lt;5lass. Dr. Simon, medical oflScer to the Privy Coun- 
cil, chose for this work the above-mentioned Dr. Smith. His 
inquiry ranges on the one hand over the agricultural labourer^ 
on the other, over silk-weavers, needle-women, kid-glovers, 

^A peculiar light is thrown on the advance made since the time of Adam Smith, 
hf the fact that by him the word &quot;workhouse&quot; is still occasionally used as synony- 
mous with &quot;manufactory;&quot; e,g,, the opening of his chapter on the division of 
labour; &quot;those employed in every different branch of the work can often be ool* 
kcted into the same workhouse.&quot; 



 

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation. 719 

etoc&amp;ing-weavers, glove-weavers, and shoe-makers. The latter 
categories are, with the exception of the stocking-weavers, 
exclusively town-dwellers. It was made a rule in the inquiry 
to select in each category the most healthy families, and those 
comparatively in the best circumstances. 

As a general result it was found that &quot;in only one of the 
examined classes of in-door operatives did the average nitrogen- 
supply just exceed, while in another it nearly reached, the 
estimated standard of bare suflSciency [i.e., sufficient to avert 
starvation diseases], and that in two classes there was defect — 
in one a very large defect — of both nitrogen and carbon. 
Moreover, as regards the examined families of the agricultural 
population, it appeared that more than a fifth were with less 
than the estimated sufficiency of carbonaceous food, that more 
than one third were with less than the estimated sufficiency of 
nitrogeneous food, and that in three counties (Berkshire, Ox- 
fordshire, and Somersetshire), insufficiency of nitrogenous 
food was the average local diet&apos;&apos;^ Among the Agricultural 
labourers, those of England, the wealthiest part of the United 
Kingdom, were the worst fed.^ The insufficiency of food 
among the agricultural labourers, fell, as a rule, chiefly on the 
, women and children, for &quot;the man must eat to do his work.&apos;* 
Still greater penury ravaged the town-workers examined. 
&quot;They are so ill fed that assuredly among them there must be 
many cases of severe and injurious privation.*&apos; * (&quot;Privation** 
of the capitalist all this ! i.e., &quot;abstinence** from paying for the 
means of subsistence absolutely necessary for the mere v^eta- 
tion of his hands.**) 

The following table shows the conditions of nourishment 
of the above-named categories of purely town-dwelling work- 
people, as compared with the minimum assumed by Dr. Smith, 
and with the food-allowance of the cotton operatives during 
the time of their greatest distress : 

&lt; Public Health. Sixth Report, 1664, p. It. 
•1. c. p. 17. 
*L c p. 13. 



 

fao 



Capitalist Production^ 



Both Sexes. 


AVEBAOB 

Weekly 
Cabbdit. 


Avebagb 
Weekly 

NiTBOOBir. 


FiTB m^Qot oocupations • - • 

Unemployed Lancashire Operatives 

Minimum quantity to be allowed 
to the Lancashire Operatives, 
equal number of males and 
females, - - - • . 


28,876 grains 
28,211 ^ 

28,600 „ 


1,192 grains 
14596 ^ 

W30 «i 



One half, or T^ft- of the industrial labour categories investv 
gated, had absolutely no beer, 28% no milk. The weekly aver- 
age of the liquid means of nourishment in the families varied 
from seven ounces in the needle-women to 24f ounces in the 
stocking-makers. The majority of those who did not obtain 
milk were needle-women in London. The quantity of bread- 
stuffs consumed weekly varied from 7f lbs for the needle-women 
to 11^ lbs for the shoemakers, and gave a total average of 9.9 
lbs. per adult weekly. Sugar (treacle, eta) varied from 4 
ounces weekly for the kid-glovers to 11 ounces for the stocking- 
makers ; and the total leverage per week for all categories was 
8 ounces per adult weekly. Total weekly average of buttef 
(fat, etc.) 6 ounces per adult The weekly average of meat 
(bacon, etc.) varied from 7i ounces for the silk- weavers, to 
18^ ounces for the kid-glovers; total average for the differ* 
ent categories 13.6 oimces. The weekly cost of food per adult, 
gave the following average figures; silk-weavers 2s 2id., 
needle-women 2s. 7d., kid-glovers 2s. O^d., shoemakers 28 7}d., 
stocking weavers 23. 6:Jd. For the silk-weavers of Maccles- 
field the average was only Is. S^d. The worst categories were 
the needle-women, silk-weavers and kid-glovers.* Of these 
facts, Dr. Simon in his (Jeneral Health Eeport says: &quot;That 
cases are innumerable in which defective diet is the cause or 
the aggravator of disease, can be aflSrmed by any one who is 
conversant with poor law medical practice, or with the wardi 

*t C Appendix p. 2SS. 
•L c. pp. t88, 881. 



 

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation. 721 

and out-patient rooms of hospitals. • • . Yet in this point 
of view, there is, in my opinion, a very important sanitary 
context to be added. It must be remembered that privation 
of food is very reluctantly borne, and that as a rule great poor- 
ness of diet will only come when other privations have pre- 
ceded it. Long before insuflSciency of diet is a matter of 
hygienic concern, long before the physiologist would think of 
counting the grains of nitrogen and carbon which intervene 
between life and starvation, the household will have been 
utterly destitute of material comfort; clothing and fuel will 
have been even scantier than food — against inclemencies of 
weather there will have been no adequate protection — dwelling 
space will have been stinted to the degree in which over- 
crowding produces or increases disease ; of household utensils 
and furniture there will have been scarcely any — even cleanli- 
ness will have been found costly or difficult, and if tiiere still 
be self-respectful endeavours to maintain it, every such en- 
deavour will represent additional pangs of hunger. The home, 
too, will be where shelter can be cheapest bought; in quarters 
where commonly there is least fruit of sanitary supervision, 
least drainage, least scavenging, least suppression of public 
nuisances, least or worst water supply, and, if in town, least 
light and air. Such are the sanitary dangers to which poverty 
is almost certainly exposed, when it is poverty enough to im- 
ply scantiness of food. And while the sum of them is of 
terrible magnitude against life, the mere scantiness of food is 

in itself of very serious moment. These are 

painful reflections, especially when it is remembered that the 
poverty to which they advert is not the deserved poverty of 
idleness. In all cases it is the poverty of working popula- 
tions. Indeed, as regards the indoor operatives, the work 
which obtains the scanty pittance of food, is for the most part 
excessively prolonged. Yet evidently it is only in a qualified 
sense that the work can be deemed self-supporting. .... 
And on a very large scale the nominal self-support can be only 
a circuit, longer or shorter, to pauperism.&quot;^ 

The intimate connexion between the pangs of hunger of the 

&lt;!. cppu 14» IS. 



 

723 Capitalist Production. 

iDOst industriouB layers of the working class, and the extrava- 
gant consumption, coarse or refined, of the rich, for which 
capitalist accumulation is the basis, reveals itself only when the 
economic laws are known. It is othervise with the &apos;housing 
of the poor/^ Every unprejudiced observer sees that the 
greater the centralisation of the means of production, the 
greater is the corresponding heaping together of the labourers, 
within a given space; that therefore the swifter capitalistic 
accumulation, the more miserable are the dwellings of the 
working^people, &quot;Improvements&quot; of towns^ accompanying 
the increase of wealth, by the demolition of badly built quar- 
ters, the erection of palaces for banks, warehouses, &amp;c, the 
widening of streets for business traflSc, for the carriages of lux- 
ury, and for the introduction of tramways, &amp;c., drive away the 
poor into even worse and more crowded hiding places. On 
the other hand, every one knows that the deamess of dwellings 
is in inverse ratio to their excellence, and that the mines of 
misery are exploited by house speculators with more profit or 
less cost than ever were the mines of PotosL The antagonistio 
character of capitalist accumulation, and therefore of the cap- 
italistic relations of property generally,^ is here so evident, 
that even the official English reports on this subject teem with 
heterodox onslaughts on &quot;property and its rights.&quot; With the 
development of industry, with the accumulation of capital, 
with the growth and &quot;improvement of towns, the evil makes 
such progress that the mere fear of contagious diseases which 
do not spare even &quot;respectability,&quot; brought into existence from 
1847 to 1864 no less than 10 Acts of Parliament on sanitation, 
and that the frightened bourgeois in some towns, as Liverpool, 
Glasgow, &amp;c., took strenuous measures through their munici- 
palities. Nevertheless Dr. Simon, in his report of 1865, says: 
&quot;Speaking generally it may be said that the evils are imcon- 
trolled in England.&quot; By order of the Privy Council in 1864, 
an inquiry was made into the conditions of the housing of the 

&apos;&quot;In no particular have the rights of persons been so avowedly and shamefully 
sacrificed to the rights of property as in regard to the lodging of the labouring daas. 
Every large ix&gt;wn may be looked upon as a place of human sacrifice, a shrine where 
thousands p&apos;«s yearly through the fire as offerings to the moloch of avarice.&quot; S» 
Laing» L fr p. 160. 



 

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation. 723 

agricultural labourers, in 1865 of the poorer classes in the 
towns. The results of the admirable work of Dr. Julian 
Hunter are to be found in the seventh (1865) and eighth 
(1866) reports on &quot;Public Health.&quot; To the agricultural la- 
bourers, I shall come later. On the condition of town dwell- 
ings, I quote, as preliminary, a general remark of Dr. Simon. 
&quot;Although my official point of view,&quot; he says, &quot;is one ex- 
clusively physical, common humanity requires that the other 
aspect of this evil should not be ignored. ... In its 
higher degrees it [i.e., overcrowding] almost necessarily in- 
volves such negation o:f all delicacy, such unclean confusion of 
bodies and bodily functions, such exposure of animal and 
sexual nakedness, as is rather bestial than human., To be sub- 
ject to these influences is a degradation which, must become 
deeper and deeper for those on whom it continues to work. 
To children who are bom under its curse, it must often be a 
very baptism into infamy. And beyond all measure hopeless is 
the wish that persons thus circumstanced should ever in other 
respects aspire to that atmosphere of civilization which has its 
essence in physical and moral cleanliness.&quot;^ 

London takes the first place in overcrowded habitations, 
absolutely unfit for human beings. &quot;He feels clear,&quot; says Dr. 
Hunter, &quot;on two points; first, that there are about 20 large 
colonies in London, of about 10,000 persons each, whose miser- 
able condition exceeds almost anything he has seen elsewhere 
in England, and is almost entirely the result of their bad house 
accommodation ; and second, that the crowded and delapidated 
condition of the houses of these colonies is much worse than 
was the case 20 years ago.&quot;^ &quot;It is not too much to say that 
life in parts of London and Newcastle is infemaL&quot;^ 

Further, the better-oflf part of the working class, together 

^ Public Health, eighth report, 1865, p. 14, note. 

*L c p. 89. With reference to the children in these colonies. Dr. Hunter says: 
&quot;People are not now alive to tell us how children were brought up before this age of 
dense agglomerations of poor began, and he would be a rash prophet who should tell 
us what future behaviour is to be expected from the present growth of children, who, 
under circumstances probably never before paralleled in this country, are now com- 
pleting their education for future practice, as &quot;dangerous classes*&apos; by sitting ^ip 
half the night with persons of every age, half naked, drunken, obscene, and quar- 
relsome.&quot; 0* c p. 66.) 

«t c p. 62. 



 

724 Capitalist Production, 

with the small shopkeepers and other elements of the lower 
middle class^ falls in London more and more under the corse 
of these vile conditions of dwelling, in proportion as **improve- 
mentSy&quot; and with them the demolition of old streets and houses, 
advance, as factories and the afflux of human beings grow in 
the metropolis, and finally as house rents rise with the ground 
rents. ^&apos;Bents have become so heavy that few labouring men 
can afford more than one room.&quot;* There is almost no house- 
properly in London that is not overburdened with a number of 
middlemen. For the price of land in London is always very 
high in comparison with its yearly revenue, and therefore 
every buyer speculates on getting rid of it again at a juiy 
price (the expropriation valuation fixed by jurymen), or on 
pocketing an extraordinary increase of value arising from the 
neighbourhood of some large establishment As a consequence 
of this there is a regular trade in the purchase of ^^fag-ends of 
leases.&quot; Gentlemen in this business may be fairly expected 
to do as they do — get all they can from the tenants while they 
have them^ and leave as little as they can for their successors.&quot;* 
The rents are weekly, and these gentlemen run no risk. Li 
consequence of the making of railroads in the City, &apos;&apos;the 
spectacle has lately been seen in the East of London of a 
number of families wandering about some Saturday night with 
their scanty worldly goods on their backs, without any resting 
place but Ae workhouse.&quot;&apos; The workhouses are already over 
crowded, and the &quot;improvements&quot; already sanctioned by Par- 
liament are only just begun. If labourers are driven away by 
thp demolition of their old houses, they do not leave their old 
parish, or at most they settle down on its borders, as near as 
they can get to it &apos;They try, of course, to remain as near as 
possible to their workshops. The inhabitants do not go beyond 
the same or the next parish, parting their two-room tenements 
into single rooms, and crowding even those. . . . Even at 
an advanced rent, the people who are displaced will hardly be 
able to get an acconmiodation so good as the meagre one they 

» Report of the Officer of Health of St. Mwtint-in-the-Fieldi, 1866. 
&apos;Public Heftlth, eighth report, 1865, p. 91. 
•L c. p* SS. 



 

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation. 725 

have left • • • Half the workmen • . • of the 
Strand . . • walked two miles to their work.&quot;^ This 
same Strand, a main thoroughfare which gives strangers an 
imposing idea of the wealth of London, may serve as an exam- 
ple of the packing together of human beings in that jwn. In 
one of its parishes, the Officer of Health reckoned 581 persons 
per acre&gt; although half the width of *he Thames was reckoned 
in. It will be self-understood that every sanitary measure, 
which, as has been the case M herto in London, hunts the la^ 
bourers from one quarter, by demolisLirg uninnabitable 
houses, serves only to crowd them together yet more closely in 
another. &quot;Either,*^ says Dr. Hunter, &apos;the \rhc-e &gt;roceeding 
will of necessity stop as an absurdity, or the public /)mpa8- 
aion ( I) be effectually aroused to the )bligation which may 
now be without exaggeration called national, of supplying 
cover to those who by reason of their naving no capital, can- 
not provide it for themselves, though they can by periodical 
payments reward those who will provide it for them.&quot;^ Ad- 
mire this capitalistic justice ! The owner of and, of houses, 
the business man, when expropriated by * &apos;improvements&apos;&apos; such 
as railroads, the building of new streets, &amp;c., not only receive? 
full indemnity. He must, according to law, human and di- 
vine, be comforted for his enforced &quot;abstinence&apos;&apos; over and 
above this by a thumping profit. The labourer, with his wife 
and child and chattels, is thrown out into the street, and — 
if he crowds in too large numbers towards quarters of the 
town where the vestries insist on decency, he is prosecuted in 
the name of sanitation ! 

Except Ijondon, there was at the beginning of the 19th 
century no single town in England of 100,000 inhabitants. 
Only five had more than 50,000. Now there are 28 towns 
with more than 50,000 inhabitants. &quot;The result of this 
change is not only that the class of town people is enormously 
increased, but the old close-packed little towns are now centres, 
built round on every side, open nowhere to air, and being no 
longer agreeable to the rich are abandoned by them for the 
pleasanter outskirts. The successors of these rich are occupy* 

SL c ^ 88. *L c ^ 8^ 



 

726 Capitalist Production. 

ing the larger houses at the rate of a family to each room 
[. . . and find accommodation for two or three lodgers 
. . .] and a population, for which the houses were not 
intended, and quite unfit, has been created, whose surround- 
ings are truly d^rading to the adults and ruinous to the chil- 
dren.&quot;* The more rapidly capital accumulates in an indus- 
trial or commercial town, the more rapidly flows the stream 
of exploitable human material, the more miserable are the im- 
provised dwellings of the labourers. 

Newcastle-on-Tyne, as the centre of a coal and iron district 
of growing productiveness, takes the next place after London 
in the housing inferno. Not less than 34,000 persons live 
there in single rooms. Because of their absolute danger to 
the community, houses in great numbers have lately been de- 
stroyed by the authorities in Newcastle and Gateshead. The 
building of new houses progresses very slowly, business very 
quickly. The town was, therefore, in 1865, more full than 
ever. Scarcely a room was to let Dr. Embleton, of the New- 
castle Fever Hospital, says: &quot;There can be little doubt that 
the great cause of the continuance and spread of the typhus has 
been the overcrowding of human beings, and the imcleanliness 
of their dwellings. The rooms, in which labourers in many 
cases live, are situated in confined and imwholesome yards or 
courts, and for space, light, air, and cleanliness, are models of 
insufficiency and insalubrity, and a disgrace to any civilised 
community ; in them men, women, and children lie at night 
huddled together; and as regards the men, the night-shift suc- 
ceed the day-shift, and the day-shift the night-shift in un- 
broken series for some time together, the beds having scarcely 
time to cool ; the whole house badly supplied with water, and 
worse with privies; dirty, unventilated, and pestiferous.&quot;* 
The price per week of such lodgings ranges from 8d. to 3s. 
&quot;The town of Newcastle-on-Tyne,&quot; says Dr. Hunter, &quot;oontains 
a sample of the finest tribe of our countrypien, often sunk by 
external circumstances of house and street into an almost fiav^ 
age degradation.&quot;* 

^55 and 60. &gt;L c. p. 149. &gt;L c. p. 64 



 

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation. 727 

As result of the ebbing and flowing of capital and labour, 
the state of the dwellings of an industrial town may to-day be 
bearable, to-morrow hideous. Or the sedileship of the town 
may have pulled itself together for the removal of the most 
shocking abcises. To-morrow, like a swarm of locusts, come 
crowding in masses of ragged Irishmen or decayed English 
agricultural labourers. They are stowed away in cellars and 
lofts, or the hitherto respectable labourer&apos;s dwelling is trans- 
formed int i lodging-house, whose persormel changes as 
quickly as the bilhts in the 30 years&apos; war. Example: Brad- 
ford (Yorkshire). Ti.jre the municipal philistine was just 
busied with urba. improvements. Besides^ there were still in 
Bradford, i: 1861, 1751 uninhabited houses. But now comes 
that reviv?&apos; of trade which the mildly liberal Mr. Forster, the 
negro&apos;s friend, recently crowed over with so much grace. 
With the revival of trade came of course an overflow from the 
waves of the ever fluctuating &quot;reserve-army&quot; or &quot;relative sur- 
plus population.&quot; The frightful cellar habitations and rooms 
registered in the list,* which Dr. Himter obtained from the 
agent of an Insurance Company, were for the most part in- 
habited by well-paid labourers. They declared that they 
would willingly pay for better dwellings if they were to be 
had. Meanwhile, they become degraded, they fall ill, one and 

^CoLLicTZNO Agents&apos; List (Bbadposd). 
Houses, 



Vulcan Street, No. 122 ] 


L room 


16 persons 


Lumley Street, No. 18 ] 


ff 


11 &quot; 


Bower Street, No. 41 1 


ft 


11 - 


Por.Mard Street, No. 112 ] 


»» 


10 &quot; 


Hardy Street, No. 17 1 


»» 


10 &quot; 


North Street, No. 18 ] 


M 


16 &quot; 


North Street, No. 17 1 


tt 


18 &quot; 


^ymer Street, No. 191 ] 


M 


8 adulti 


Jowett Street, No. 56 ] 


»» 


12 persons 


George Street^ No. 150 1 


I ** 


8 families 


Rifle Court Marygate, No. 33 ] 


L room 


11 persons 


Marshall Street, No. 28 ] 


&gt;• 


10 &quot; 


Marshall Street, No. 28 3 


) »• 


8 families 


George Street, No. 128 1 


»&gt; 


18 persons 


George Street, No. 180 1 


n 


16 &quot; 


Edward Street, No. 4 1 


ft 


17 &quot; 


George Street, No. 49 ] 




8 families 


York Street, No. 84 ] 


9* 


8 &quot; 


Salt Pic Street (bottom) \ 


\ ** 


86 persons 

 

728 Capitalist Production. 

all, whilst the mildly liberal Forster, M.P., sheds tears over 
the blessings of f ree-trade, and the profits of the eminent men 
of Bradford who deal in worsted. In the Seport of Septem- 
ber, 1865, Dr. Bell, one of the poor law doctors of Bradford, 
ascribes the frightful mortality of fever-patients in his district 
to the nature of their dwellings. ^&apos;In one small cellar meas- 
uring 1500 cubic feet • • • there are ten persons. . . . 
Vincent Street, Qreen Aire Place^ and the Leys include 223 
houses haying 1450 inhabitants, 435 beds, and 36 privies. 
. . . The beds — and in that term I include any roll of 
dirty old rags&gt; or an armful of shavings — have an average of 
3.3 person to each, many have 5 and 6 persons to each, and 
some people, I am told, are absolutely without beds ; they sleep 
in their ordinary clothes, on the bare boards — young men and 
women, married and unmarried, all together. I need scarcely 
add that many of these dwellings are dark, damp, dirty, stink- 
ing holes, utterly unfit for human habitations; they are the 
centres from which disease and death are distributed amongst 
those in better circumstances, who have allowed them to fester 
in our midst&quot;^ 

Bristol takes the third place after London in the misery of 
its dwellings. &quot;Bristol, where the blankest poverty and 
domestic misery abound in the wealthiest town of Europe,&quot;* 

c. The Nomad PopvJaium. 

We turn now to a class of people whose origin is agricul- 
tural, but whose occupation is in great part industriaL They 
are the light infantry of capital, thrown by it, according to its 
needs, now to this point, now to that. When they are not on 
fjhe march, they &quot;camp.&quot; Nomad labour is used for various 

cellars. 

Regent Square 1 cellar 8 penona 

Acre Street 1 &quot; f •* 

88 Roberts Court I •• T &quot; 
Back Pratt Street, uaed aa m 

brazier&apos;s shop. 1 •* 7 ** 

87 Ebeoezer Street 1&quot; 6** Lap-iB. 

«L e. t&gt;. 114. 
&apos;L c p. 60. 



 

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation. 729 

operation of building and draining, brick-making, lime-burn- 
ing, railway-making, &amp;»• A flying column of pestilence, it 
carries into the places in whose neighbourhood it pitches its 
camp, small-pox, typhus, cholera, scarlet fever, &amp;c.* In under- 
takings that involve much capital outlay, such as railways, &amp;c., 
the contractor himself generally provides his army with 
wooden huts and the like, thus improvising villages without 
any sanitary provisions, outside the control of the local boards, 
very profitable to the contractor, who exploits the labourers in 
two-fold fashion — as soldiers of industry and as tenants. Ac- 
cording as the wooden hut contains 1, 2, or 8 holes, its inhab- 
itant, navvy, or whatever he may be, has to pay 1, 3, or 4 
shillings weekly.^ One example will suffice. In September, 
1864, Dr. Simon reports that the Chairman of the Nuisances 
Removal Committee of the parish of Sevenoaks sent the fol- 
lowing denunciation to Sir Qeorge Grey, Home Secretary: — 
&quot;Small-pox cases were rarely heard of in this parish until 
about twelve months ago. Shortly before that time, the works 
for a railway from Lewisham to Tunbridge were commenced 
here, and, in addition to the principal works being in the im- 
mediate neighbourhood of this town, here was also established 
the depot for the whole of the works, so that a large number 
of persons was of necessity employed here. As cottage ac- 
commodation could not be obtained for them all, huts were 
built in several places along the line of the works by the con- 
tractor, Mr. Jay, for their especial occupation. These huts 
possessed no ventilation nor drainage, and, besides, were neces- 
sarily overcrowded, because each occupant had to accommodate 
lodgers, whatever the number in his own family migiht be, 
although there were only two rooms to each tenement. The 
consequences were, according to the medical report we re- 
ceived, that in the night-time these poor people v^re com- 
pelled to endure all the horror of suffocation to avoid the 
pestiferous smells arising from the filthy, stagnant water, and 
the privies close under the windows. Complaints were at 
length made to the Nuisances Removal Committee by a medi- 
cal gentleman who had occasion to visit these huts, and he spoke 

&gt; Public Hetlth. Seventh Report. 1804, p. 18. &apos;L c p. 16&amp; 



 

730 Capitalist Production. 

of their condition as dwellings in the most severe terms, and he 
expressed his fears that some very serious consequences mig^t 
ensue^ unless some sanitary measures were adopted* About 
a year ago, Mr. Jay promised to appropriate a hut, to whidi 
persons in his employ, who were suffering from contagious 
diseases, might at once be removed. He repeated that prom- 
ise on the 23rd July last, but although since the date of the 
last promise there have been several cases of small-pox in 
his huts, and two deaths from the same disease, yet he has 
taken no steps whatever to carry out his promise. On the 9th 
September instant, Mr. Kelson, surgeon, reported to me further 
cases of small-j&gt;ox in the same huts, and he described their 
condition as most disgraceful. I should add, for your (the 
Home Secretary&apos;s information that) an isolated house, called 
the Pestrhouse, which is set apart for parishioners who might 
be suffering from infectious diseases, has been continually 
occupied by such patients for many months past, and is also 
now occupied ; that in one family five children died from small- 
pox and fever; that from the 1st April to the 1st September 
this year, a period of five months, there have been no fewer 
than ten deaths from small-pox in the parish, four of them 
being in the huta already referred to ; that it is impossible to 
ascertain the exact number of persons who have suffered from 
that disease^ although they are known to be many, from the 
fact of the families keeping it as private as possible.&apos;&apos;^ 

The labourers in coal and other mines belong to the best paid 
categories of the British proletariat The price at which they 
buy their wages was shown on an earlier page.* Here I 
merely cast a hurried glance over the conditions of their dwell- 

*L c, p. 18. Note— The Relieving Officer of the Chapel-en-le-FHth Union 
reported to the Registrar-General as follows: — &quot;At Doyeholes, a number of small 
excavations have been made into a large hillock of lime ashes (the refuse of lime- 
kilns), and which are used as dwellings, and occupied by labourers and others em- 
ployed in the construction of a railway now in course of construction through that 
neighbourhood. The excavations are small and damp, and have no drains or privies 
about them, and not the slightest means of ventilation except up a hole pulled 
through the top, and used for a chimney. In consequence of this defect, small-pox 
has been raging for some time, and some deaths [amongst the troglodytes] have been 
caused by them.&quot; (1. c, note 8.) 

*The details given at the end of Part IV. refer especially to the labo ur ers in 
coal mines. On the still worse condition in metal mines, tee the very conacientioat 
Report of the Royal Commission of 1884. 



 

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation. 731 

ings. As a rule, the exploiter of a mine, whether its owner or 
his tenant^ builds a number of cottages for his hands. They 
receive cottages and coal for firing &quot;for nothing^&apos; — i.e., these 
form part of their wages, paid in kind Those who are not 
lodged in this way receive in compensation £4 per annum. 
The mining districts attract with rapidity a large population, 
made up of the miners themselves, and .the artisans, shop- 
keepers, &amp;c.y that group themselves around thenu The ground- 
rents are high, as they are generally where population is dense. 
The master tries, therefore, to run up, within the smallest 
space possible at the mouth of the pit, just so many cottages as 
are necessary to pack together his hands and their families. 
If new mines are opened in the neighbourhood, or old ones are 
again set working, the pressure increase^ In the construction 
of the cottages, only one point of view is of moment^ the 
&apos;^abstinence&quot; of the capitalist from all expenditure that is not 
absolutely unavoidable. &quot;The lodging which is obtained by 
the pitmen and other labourers connected with the collieries of 
Northumberland and Dtirha: ,&quot; &apos;ays Dr. Julian Hunter, &quot;is 
perhapv., on the whole, the vorst and the dearest of which any 
large specimens can K/ found in England, the similar parishes 
of MonmoutJbshire excepted. . . . The extreme badness is 
in the high number of men found in one room, in the smallness 
of the groimd-plot on which a great number of houses are 
thrust, the want of water, the absence of privies, and the fre- 
quent placing of one house on the top of another, or distribu- 
tion into flats, ... the lessee acts as if the whole colony 
were encamped, not resident.&quot;^ 

&quot;In pursuanoe of my instructions,&quot; says Dr. Stevens, &quot;I 
visited most of the large colliery villages in the Durham 
Union. • . . With very few exceptions, the general state- 
ment that no means are taken to secure the health of the in- 
habitants would be true of all of them. . . . All colliers 
are bound [^boimd,* an expression which, like bondage, dates 
from the age of serfdom] to the colliery lessee or owner for 
twelve months. ... If the colliers express discontent, or 
in any way annoy the &apos;viewer,&apos; a mark or memorandum is 

* I. c, pp. 180, 182. 



 

73^ Capitalist Production. 

made against their names, and, at the annual ^indin^&apos; snoh 
men are turned off. ... It appears to me that no part 
of the ^truck system&apos; could be worse than what obtains in these 
densely-populated districts. The collier is bound to take as 
part of his hiring a house surrounded with pestiferous influ- 
ences ; he cannot help himself, and it appears doubtful whether 
anyone else can help him except his proprietor (he is, to all 
intents and purposes, a serf), and his proprietor first consults 
his balance-sheet, and the result is tolerably certain. The col- 
lier is also often supplied with water by the proprietor, which, 
whether it be good or bad, he has to pay for, or rather he 
suffers a deduction for from his wages.&apos;&apos;* 

In conflict with &quot;public opinion,&quot; or even with the OfiScers 
of Health, capital makes no difficulty about &quot;justifying&quot; the 
conditions partly dangerous, partly degrading, to which it con- 
fines the working and domestic life of the labourer, on the 
ground that they are necessaiy for profit. It is the same thing 
when capital &quot;abstains&quot; from protective measures against 
dangerous machinery in the factory, from appliances for ven- 
tilation and for safety in mines, &amp;c It is the same here with 
the housing of the miners. Dr. Simon, medical officer of the 
Privy Council, in his official Report says: &quot;In apology for 
the wretched household accommodation ... it is aUeged 
that mines are commonly worked on lease ; that the duration 
of the lessee&apos;s interest (which in collieries is commonly for 21 
years), is not so long that he should deem it worth his while 
to create good accommodation for his labourers, and for the 
tradespeople and others whom the work attracts; that even 
if he were disposed to act liberally in the matter, this disposi- 
tion would commonly be defeated by his landlord&apos;s tendency 
to fix on him, as ground rent, an exorbitant additional charge 
for the privilege of having on the surface of the ground the 
decent and comfortable village which the labourers of the sub- 
terranean property ought to inhabit, and that prohibitory 
price (if not actual prohibition) equally excludes others who 
might desire to build. It would be foreign to the purpose of 
this report to enter upon any discussion of the merits of the 

&gt;L c, |»p. 616, 617. 



 

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation 733 

above apology. Nor here is it even needful to consider where 
it would be that, if decent accommodation were provided, the 
cost . • . would eventually fall — ^whether on landlord, or 
lessee, or labourer, or public. But in presence of such shame- 
ful facts as are voudied for in the annexed reports [those 
of Dr. Hunter, Dr. Stevens, &amp;c.] a remedy may well be 
claimed. . . . Claims of landlordship are being so used 
as to do great public wrong. The landlord in his capacity of 
mine-owner invites an industrial colony to labour on his estate, 
and then in his capacity of surface-owner makes it impossible 
that the labourers whom he collects, should find proper lodging 
where they must live. The lessee [the capitalist exploiter] 
meanwhile has no pecuniary motive for resisting that division 
of the bargain; well knowing that if its latter conditions be 
exorbitant, the consequences fall, not on him, that his labourers 
on whom they fall have not education enough to know the 
value of their sanitary rights, that neither obscenest lodging 
nor foulest drinking water will be appreciable inducements 
towards a &apos;strike.&apos; &quot;^ 

(&lt;?). E^ect of Crises on the best paid part of the Working 

Class. 

Before I turn to the regular agricultural labourers, I may be 
allowed to show, by one example, how industrial revulsions 
affect even the best-paid, the aristocracy, of the working-class. 
It will be remembered that the year 1857 brought one of the 
great crises with which the industrial cycle periodically ends. 
The next termination of the cycle was due in 1866. Already 
discounted in the regular factory districts by the cotton famine, 
which threw much capital from its wonted sphere into the 
great centres of the money-market, the crisis assumed, at this 
time, an especially financial character. Its outbreak in 1866 
was signalised by the failure of a gigantic London Bank, im- 
mediately followed by the collapse of countless swindling com- 
panies. One of the great London branches of industry in- 
volved in the catastrophe was iron shipbuilding. The mag- 

*t c, p. 16. 



 

734 Capitalist Production. 

nates of this trade had not only over-produced beyond all 
measure during the overtrading time, but they had, besides, 
engaged in enormous contracts on the speculation that credit 
would be forthcoming to an equivalent extent. Now, a ter- 
rible reaction set in, that even at this hour (the end of March, 
1867) continues in this and other London industries.^ To 
show the condition of the labourers, I quote the following from 
the circumstantial report of a correspondent of the &quot;Morning 
Star,&quot; who, at the end of 1866, and beginning of 1867, visited 
the chief centres of distress: &quot;In the East End districts of 
Poplar, Millwall, Greenwich, Deptford, Limehouse and Can- 
ning Town, at least 16,000 workmen and their families were 
in a state of utter destitution, and 3000 skilled mechanics were 
breaking stones in the workhouse yard (after distress of over 
half a year&apos;s duration). ... I had great difficulty in 
reaching the workhouse door, for a hungry crowd besieged it. 
. . . They were waiting for their tickets, but the time had 
not yet arrived for the distribution. The yard was a great 
square place with an open shed running all round it, and sev- 
eral large heaps of snow covered the paving-stones in the mid- 
dle. In the middle, also, were little wicker-fenced spaces, like 
sheep pens, where in finer weather the men worked; but on 
the day of my visit the pens were so snowed up that nobody 
could sit in them. Men were busy, however, in the open 
shed breaking paving-stones into macadam. Each man had 
a big paving-stone for a seat, and he chipped away at the 
TimeKiovered granite with a big hammer until he had broken 
up, and think! five bushels of it, and then he had done his 
day&apos;s work, and got his day&apos;s pay — threepence and an allow- 

^ &quot;Wholesale staryation of the London Poor. . . . Within the last few days 
the walls of London have been placarded with large posters, bearing the following 
remarkable announcement:— ^ Fat oxen! Starving menl The fat oxen from their 
palace of glass have gone to feed the rich in their luxurious abode, while the starving 
men are left to rot and die in their wrecked dens.&apos; The placards bearing these 
ominous words are put up at certain intervals. No sooner has one set been defaced 
or covered over, than a fresh set is placarded in the former, or some equally pnblic 
place. .... This . . . reminds one of the secret revolutionary associations 
which prepared the French people for the events of 1789 At this mo- 
ment, while English workmen with their wives and children are dying of cold and 
hunger, there are millions of English gold — the produce of English labour — bemg 
invested in Russian, Spanish, Italian, and other foreign enterprises.&quot; — ^&quot;ReynoMs^ 
Newspaper/&apos; January SOth, 1807. 



 

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation. 735 

anoe of food. In another part of the yard was a rickety little 
wooden house, and when we opened the door of it, we found 
it filled with men who were huddled together shoulder to 
shoulder, for the warmth of one another&apos;s bodies and breath. 
They were picking oakum and disputing the while as to which 
could work the longest on a given quantity of food — ^for en- 
durance was the point of honour. Seven thousand . . . 
in this one workhouse . . . were recipients of relief 
. . . many hundreds of them ... it appeared, were, 
six or eight months ago, earning the highest wages paid to 
artisans. . . . Their number would be more than doubled 
by the count of those who, having exhausted all their savings, 
still refuse to apply to the parish, because they have a little 
left to pawn. Leaving the workhouse, I took a walk through 
the streets, mostly of little one-storey houses, that abound in 
the neighbourhood of Poplar. My guide was a member of the 
Committee of the Unemployed. . . . My first call was on 
an ironworker who had been seven and twenty weeks out of 
employment I found the man with his family sitting in a 
little back room. The room was not bare of furniture, and 
there was a fire in it This was necessary to keep the naked 
feet of the young children from getting frost bitten, for it was 
a bitterly cold day. On a tray in front of the fire lay a quan- 
tity of oakum, which the wife and children were picking in 
return for their allowance from the parish. The man worked 
in the stone yard of the workhouse for a certain ratio of food, 
and three pence per day. He had now come home to dinner 
quite hungry, as he told us with a melancholy smile, and his 
dinner consisted of a couple of slices of bread and dripping, 
and a cup of milkless tea. . . . The next door at which 
we knocked was opened by a middle-aged woman, who, with- 
out saying a word, led us into a little back parlour, in which 
sat all her family, silent and fixedly staring at a rapidly dying 
fire. Such desolation, such hopelessness was about these peo- 
ple and their little room, as I should not care to witness again. 
^Nothing have they done, sir,&apos; said the woman, pointing to 
her boys, &apos;for six and twenty weeks ; and all our money gone- 
all the twenty pounds that me and father saved when timai 



 

736 Capitalist Production^ 

were better^ thinking it would yield a little to htep m &apos;^en 
we got past work. Look at it&gt;&apos; she said, almost fiercely, bring- 
ing out a bank book with all its well-kept entries of money 
paid in, and money taken out, so that we could see how the 
little fortune had begun with the first five shilling deposit, 
and had grown by little and little to be twenty pounds^ and 
how it had melted down again till the sum in hand got from 
pounds to shillings, and the last entry made the book as worth- 
less as a blank sheet This family received relief from the 
workhouse, and it furnished them with just one scanty meal 
per day. . . . Our next visit was to an iron labourer&apos;s 
wife, whose husband had worked in the yards. We found her 
ill from want of food, lying on a mattress in her clothes, and 
just covered with a strip of carpet, for all the bedding had been 
pawned. Two wretched children were tending her, themselves 
looking as much in need of nursing as their mother. Nineteen 
weeks of enforced idleness had brought them to this pass, and 
while the mother told the history of that bitter past, she 
moaned as if all her faith in a future that should atone for it 
were dead. ... On getting outside a young fellow came 
running after us, and asked us to step inside his house and see 
if anything could be done for him. A young wife&gt; two pretty 
children, a cluster of pawn-tickets, and a bare room were all 
he had to show.*&apos; 

On the after pains of the crisis of 1866, the following extract 
from a Tory newspaper. It must not be forgotten that the 
East-end of London, which is here dealt with, is not only the 
seat of the iron shipbuilding mentioned above, but also of 
a so-called &apos;Tiome-industry&apos;* always underpaid. &quot;A fri^tful 
spectacle was to be seen yesterday in one part of the metro- 
polis. Although the unemployed thousands of the East End 
did not parade with their black flags en ma^ise, the human 
torrent was imposing enough. Let us remember what these 
people suffer. They are dying of hunger. Thai is the simple 
and terrible fact There are 40,000 of them. ... In 
our presence, in one quarter of this wonderful metropolis, are 
packed — next door to the most enormous accumulation of 
wealth the world ever saw — cheek by jewel with this are 



 

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation. 737 

40,000 helpless, starving people. These thousands are now 
brealdng in upon the other quarters, always half-starring, Ihey 
cry their misery in our ears, they cry to Heaven, they tell 
us from their miserable dwellings, that it is impossible for 
them to find work, and useless for them to beg. The local 
ratepayers themselves are driven by the parochial charges to 
the verge of pauperism.&quot; — (&quot;Standard,&quot; 5th April, 1866.) 

As it is the fashion amongst English capitalists to quote 
Belgium as the Paradise of the labourer becauses &quot;freedom of 
labour,&quot; or what is the same thing, &quot;freedom of capital,&quot; is 
there limited neither by the despotism of Traders Unions, nor 
by Factory Acts, a word or two on the &apos;^happiness&quot; of the 
Eelgian labourer. Assuredly no one was more thoroughly 
initiated in the mysteries of this happiness than the late M. 
Ducpetiaux, inspector-general of Belgian prisons and chari- 
table institutions, and member of the central commission of 
Belgian statistics. Let us take his work: &quot;Budgets 6cono- 
miques des classes ouvridres de la Belgique, Bruxelles, 1855.&quot; 
Here we find among other matters, a normal Belgian labourer&apos;s 
family, whose yearly income and expenditure he calculates 
on very exact data, and whose conditions of nourishment are 
then compared with those of the soldier, sailor, and prisoner. 
The family &quot;consists of father, mother, and four children.&quot; 
Of these 6 persons &quot;four may be usefully employed the whole 
year through.&quot; It is assumed that &quot;there is no sick person 
nor one incapable of work, among them,&quot; nor are there &quot;ex- 
penses for religious, moral, and intellectual purposes, except 
a very small sum for church sittings,&quot; nor &quot;contributions to 
savings banks or benefit societies,&quot; nor &quot;expenses due to luxury 
or the result of improvidence.&quot; The father and eldest son, 
however, allow themselves &quot;the use of tobacco,&quot; and on Sun- 
days &quot;go to the cahwret,** for which a whole 86 centimes a 
week are reckoned. &quot;From a general compilation of wages 
allowed to the labourers in different trades, it follows that 
the highest average of daily wage is 1 franc 66a, for men, 
89 centimes for women, 56 centimes for boys, and 55 centimes 
for girls. Calculated at this rate, the resource- of the family 
would amount^ at the maximum, to 1068 francs a-year. 



su 



 

738 Capitalist Productiatk 

... In the family . . • taken as typical &quot;we liave 
calculated all possible resources. But in ascribing wages to 
the mother of the family we raise the qyeslion of the direc- 
tion of the household. How will its internal economy be 
oared for ? Who will look after the young childrai % Who 
will get ready the meals, do the washing and mending? This 
is the dilemma incessantly presented to the labourers.&quot; 
According to this the budget of the family is: 

The father 300 working days at fr. 1 -56 ... fr. 468 

jy mother y^ yy 99 99 89 . • • 99 267 

» W II n n n 66 ... 99 168 

n gi&apos;l If n n n 66 ... 99 165 

Total fr. 1,068 

The annual expenditure of the family would cause a defidt 
iiTX)n the hypothesis that the labourer has the food of: 



The man of war&apos;s man fr. 1828 . 


. . . Deficit fr. 760 


9, soldier „ 1473 . 


.. .. ,9 9, 405 


99 prisoner „ 1112 . 


. . . 99 »&gt; 44 



*^e see that few labouring families can reach, we will not 
say the average of the sailor or soldier, but even that of the 
prisoner. The general average (of the cost of each prisoner 
in the different prisons during the period 1847-1849), has 
been 63 centimes for all prisons. This figure, compared with 
that of the daily maintenance of the laboui^r, shows a dif- 
ference of 13 centimes. It must be remarked further, that 
if in the prisons it is necessary to set down in the account the 
expenses of administration and surveillance on the other hand, 
the prisoners have not to pay for their lodging ; that the pur- 
chases they make at the canteens are not included in the ex- 
penses of maintenance, and that these expenses are greatly 
lowered in consequence of the large number of persons that 
make up the establishments, and of contracting for or buying 
wholesale, the food and other things that enter into their con- 



 

The General Law of Capitalist Accwnulation. 739 

fiumption. . • . How comes it^ however^ that a great 
number, we might say, a great majority, of labourers, live in 
a more economical way? It is ... by adopting ex- 
pedients, the secret of which only the labourer knows ; by re- 
&gt;iucing his daily rations; by substituting rye-bread for wheat; 
\ff eating less meat, or even none at all, and the same with 
butter and condiments ; by contenting themselves with one or 
two rooms where the family is crammed together, where boys 
and girls sleep side by side, often on the same pallet; by 
economy of clothing, washing, decency; by giving up the 
Sunday diversions; by, in short, resigning themselves to the 
most painful privations. Once arrived at this extreme limit, 
the least rise in the price of food, stoppage of work, illness. 
Increases the labourer&apos;s distress and determines his complete 
ruin ; debts accumulate, credit fails, the most necessary clothes 
and furniture are jmwned, and finally, the family asks to be 
enrolled on the list of paupers.&apos;&apos; (Ducpetiaux, L 0., pp. 151, 
154, 155.) In fact, in this ^^Paradise of capitalists&quot; there 
follows, on the smallest change in the price of the most es- 
sential means of subsistence, a change in the number of 
deaths and crimes I (See Manifesto of the Maatschappij : 
De Vlamingen VooruitI Brussels, 1860, pp. 15, 16.) In all 
Belgiimi are 930,000 families, of whom, according to the 
oflScial statistics, 90,000 are wealthy and on the list of voters 
=460,000 persons; 390,000 families of the lower middle- 
class in towns and villages, the greater part of them con- 
stantly sinking into the proletariat, =1,950,000 persons. 
Finally, 450,000 working-class families= 2,250,000 persons 
of whom the model ones enjoy the happiness depicted by 
Ducpetiaux. Of the 450,000 workingndass families^ over 
200,000 are on the pauper list 

{e.) The British Agricultural Proletariai^ 

Nowhere does the antagonistic character of capitalistio pro* 
duction and accumulation assert itself more brutally than in 
the progress of English agriculture (including cattle-breeding) 
and the retrogression of the English agricultural labourer. 
Before I turn to his precent situation^ a rapid retrospect: 



 

740 Capitalist Productiotk 

Modem agricnlture dates in England from the middle oi ihe 
18th century, although the revolution in landed property, from 
which the changed mode of production starts as a basis, has 
a much earlier date. 

If we take the statements of Arthur Young, a careful ob- 
server, though a superficial thinker, as to the agricultural 
labourer of 1771, the latter plays a very pitiable part com- 
pared with his predecessor of the end of the 14th century, 
&quot;when the labourer . . . could live in plenty, and ao- 
ciunulate wealth,&apos;&apos;^ not to speak of the 15th century, &quot;the 
golden age of the English labourer in town and country/* 
We need not, however, go back so far. In a very instructive 
work of the year 1777 we read: &quot;The great farmer is nearly 
mounted to a level with him [the genttleman] ; while the 
poor labourer is depressed almost to the earth. His un- 
fortunate situation will fully appear, by taking a comparative 
view of it, only forty years ago, and at present . . . 
Landlord and tenant . . . have both gone hand in hand 
in keeping the labourer down.&apos;*^ It is then proved in de- 
tail that the real agricultural wages between 1737 and 1777 
fell nearly J or 25 per cent &quot;Modem policy,** says Dr. 
Bichard Price also, &quot;is, indeed, more favourable to the higher 
classes of people; and the consequences may in time prove 
that the whole kingdom will consist of only gentry and b^ 
gars, or of grandees and slaves.**^ 

Nevertheless, the position of the English agricultural la- 
bourer from 1770 to 1780, with regard to his food and dwell- 

^ James E. Thorold Rogers. (Prof, of Polit. Econ. in the University of Oxford.) 
A History of Agiiculture and Prices in England. Oxford, 1866, v. I., p. 690. This 
work, the fruit of patient and diligent labour, contains in the two voltkmes that have 
so far appeared, only the period 1269 to 1400. The second volume contains 
•imply sUtistics. It is tiie first authentic &quot;History of Prices*&apos; of the time that we 
possess. 

&apos;Reasons for the late increase of the Poor-Rates, or a comparative view of the 
price of labour and provisions. Lond., 1777, pp. 6, 11. 

•Dr. Richard Price: Observations on Reversionary Payments, 6th Ed. By W. 
Morgan, Lond., 1808, v. II., pp. 168, 169. Price remarks on p. 169: &quot;The nominal 
price of day-labour is at present no more than about four times, or, at most, five 
tiroes higher than it was in the year 1614. But the price of com is seven times, and 
of flesh-meat and raiment about fifteen times higher. So far, therefore, has the 
price of labour been even from advancing in proportion to the increase m the ex- 
penses of living, that it does not appear that it bears now half the proportion to those 
expenses that it did bear.&quot; 



 

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation. 741 

ing^ as well as to his self-respect^ amusements, &amp;c.y is an ideal 
never attained again since that time. His average wage ex- 
pressed in pints of what was from 1770 to 1771, 90 pints, in 
Eden&apos;s time (1797) only 65, in 1808 but 60.^ 

The state of the agricultural labourer at the end of the 
Anti-Jacobin war, during which landed proprietors, farmers, 
manufacturers, merchants, bankers, stockbrokers, army-con- 
tractors, &amp;C., enriched themselves so extraordinarily, has been 
already indicated above. The nominal wages rose in con- 
sequence partly of the bank-note depreciation, partly of a 
rise in the price of the primary means of subsistence inde- 
pendent of this depreciation. But the actual wage-variation 
can be evidenced in a very simple way, without entering into 
details that are here unnecessary. The Poor Law and its ad- 
ministration were in 1795 and 1814 the same. It will be 
remembered how this law was carried out in the country dis- 
tricts: in the form of alms the parish made up the nominal 
wage to the nominal sum required for the simple vegetation 
of the labourer. The ratio between the wages paid by the 
farmer, and the wage-deficit made good by the parish, shows 
us two things* First, the falling of wages below their mini- 
mum; second, the degree in which the agricultural labourer 
was a compound of wage-labourer and pauper, or the degree 
in which he had been turned into a serf of his parish. Let 
us take one county that represents the average condition of 
things in all counties. Li Northamptonshire, in 1795, the 
average weekly wage was 7s. 6d. ; the total yearly expenditure 
of a family of 6 persons, £36 12s. 6d. ; their total income, 
£29 18s. ; deficit made good by the parish, £6 14s. 5d. In 
1814, in the same county, the weekly wage was 12s. 2d. ; the 
total yearly expenditure of a family of 5 persons, £54 188. 
4d. ; their total income, £36 2s. ; deficit made- good by the 
parish, £18 16s. 4d.&apos; In 1795 the deficit was less than i the 
wage, in 1814, more than half. It is self-evident that, under 
these circumstances, the meagre comforts that Eden still 
found in the cottage of the agricultural labourer, had van- 

^ Barton, L c., p. S6. For the end of the 18th century cf. Eden, L c. 
• hmnj, L c, p. 86. 



 

74^ Capitalist Productiofk 

ished by 1814.^ Of all the animals kept l^ the farmer, the 
labourer, the instrumentwnx. vocale, was, thenceforth, the most 
oppressed, the worst nourished, the most brutally treated. 

The same state of things went on quietly until &quot;the Swing 
riots, in 1830, revealed to us [i.e., the ruling classes] by the 
light of blazing corn-stacks, that misery and black mutinous 
discontent smouldered quite as fiercely imder the surface of 
agricultural as of manufacturing England.&quot;* At this time, 
Sadler, in the House of Commons, christened the agricultural 
labourers &quot;white slaves,&quot; and a Bishop echoed the epithet in 
the Upper House, The most notable political economist of 
that period — E. G. Wakefield — says: &quot;The peasant of the 
South of England ... is not a freeman, nor is he a 
slave; he is a pauper.&quot;* 

The time just before the repeal of the Com Laws threw new 
light on the condition of the agricultural labourers. On the 
one hand, it was to the interest of the middle-class agitators to 
prove how little the Com Laws protected the actual producers 
of the com. On the other hand, the industrial bourgeoisie 
foamed with sullen rage at the denunciations of the factory 
system by the landed aristocracy, at the pretended sympathy 
with the woes of the factory operatives, of those utterly 
corrupt, heartless, and genteel loafers, and at their &quot;diplomatic 
zeal&quot; for factory legislation. It is an old English proverb 
that &quot;when thieves fall out, honest men come by their own,^ 
and, in fact, the noisy, passionate quarrel between the two 
fractions of the mling class about the question, which of the 
two exploited the labourers the more shamefully, was on each 
hand the midwife of the truth. Earl Shaftesbury, then 
Lord Ashley, was commander-in-chief in the aristocratic, phil- 
anthropic, anti-factory campaign. He was, therefore, in 
1845, a favourite subject in the revelations of the &quot;Morning 
Chronicle&quot; on the condition of the agricultural labourers. 
This joumal, then the most important Liberal organ, sent 
special commissioners into the agricultural districts, wno did 
not content themselves with mere general descriptions and 

*«., p. 218. «S. L»iiig. L Cn p. 08. 

• En^and and America. Lond., 1888. Vol. L, p. 47. 



 

The General Law of CcfiUUist Accumulatiofk 743 

Btatifitios^ but jmblished the nanies both of the labouring fam- 
ilies examined and of their landlords. The following list 
gives the wages paid in three villages in the neighborhood of 
Blanford, Wimboume, and Poole. The villages are the prof)- 
erty of Mr. G. Bankes and of the Earl of Shaftesbury. It 
will be noted that, just like Bankes, this &quot;low church pope,&quot; 
this head of English pietists, pockets a great part of the 
miserable wages of the labourers under the pretext of house- 
rent: — 

FIBST VnXAOB. 



5 


(d) Number of 

Members m 

Family. 


(c) Weekly 

Wage of the 

Men. 


id) Weekly 

Wage of the 

Children. 


U) Weekly 

Income of 

the Whole 

Family. 


s 


M Total 
weekly wage 
after deduc- 
tion of Rent 


W Weekly 

Income per 

head. 


2 


i 


8. d. 
8 


.. 


8. d. 
8 


8. d. 
2 


•. d. 
6 


8. d. 
1 6 


3 


5 


8 


— 


8 


1 6 


6 6 


1 3J 


2 


i 


8 


— 


8 


1 


7 


1 9 


2 


4 


8 


— 


8 


1 


7 


1 9 


6 


8 


7 


1-.16, 


10 6 


2 


8 6 


1 01 


3 


5 


7 


l-,2. 


7 


1 4 


5 8 


1 11 



SBGOND VIIXAGB, 



6 


8 


8. d. 
7 


1-.16, 


8. d. 
10 


8. d. 
1 6 


8. d. 
8 6 


8. d. 
1 Of 


6 


8 


7 


l.,16. 


7 


1 3i 


5 8i 


81 


8 


10 


7 


— 


7 


1 31 


5 81 


7 


4 


6 


7 


— 


7 


1 6i 


5 51 


11 


3 


5 


7 


— 


7 


1 6i 


5 51 


1 1 



 

744 



Capitalist Production^ 



THIBD VILLAGB. 



5 


ib) Number of 

Meml)ers in 

Family. 


{c) Weekly 

Wage of the 

Men. 


{d) Weekly 

Wage of the 

Children. 


U) Weekly 

Income o! 

the Whole 

Family. 


s 


*« 

^ 

3 


*-• 

a 

o 

1 


ih) Weekly 

Income per 

head* 






8. d. 




s. d. 


8. d. 


8. 


d. 


8. d. 


i 


6 


7 


— 


7 


1 


6 





1 


3 


5 


7 


1-.2-, 


11 6 


10 


10 


8 


2 1« 





2 


5 


1-.26, 


5 


1 


4 





2 ^ 



The repeal of the Corn Laws gave a marvellous impulse to 
English agriculture.^ Drainage on the most extensive scale, 
new methods of stall-feeding, and of the artificial cultivation 
of green crops, introduction of mechanical manuring appa- 
ratus, new treatment of clay soils, increased use of mineral 
manures, employment of the steam-engine, and of all kinds 
of new machinery, more intensive cultivation generally, 
characterised this epoch. Mr. Pusey, Chairman of the Eoyal 
Agricultural Society, declares that the (relative) expenses of 
farming have been reduced nearly one-half by the introduction 
of new machinery. On the other hand, the actual return of 
the soil rose rapidly. Greater outlay of capital per acre, 
and, as a consequence, more rapid concentration of farms, 
were essential conditions of the new method.* At the same 

^London Economist, March 20th, 1845, p. 290. 

&apos; The landed aristocracy advanced themselves to this end, of course per Parltamcnl^ 
funds from the State Treasury, at a very low rate of interest, which the fanners 
have to make good at a much higher rate. 

*The decrease of the middle-class farmers can be seen especially in the census 
category: &quot;Farmer&apos;s son, grandson, brother, nephew, daughter, grand-daughter, sister, 
niece&quot;; in a word, the members of his own family, employed by the fanner. This 
category numbered, in 1861, 216,861 persons; in 1861, only 176,161. From 1851 to 
1871, the farms under 20 acres fell by more than 900 in number; those between 60 
and 75 acres fell from 8,268 to 6,870;- the same thing occurred with all other farms 
under fOO acres. On the other hand, during the same twenty years, the number of 
large farms increased; those of 800-600 acres rose from 7,771 to 8,410, those of more 
than 600 acres from 8.766 to 8,914, those of more than 1,000 acres from 492 to 
682. 



 

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation. 745 

time^ the area under cultivation increased, from 1846 to 
1866, by 464,119 acres, without reckoning the great area in 
the Eastern Counties which was transformed from rabbit war- 
rens and poor pastures into magnificent cornfields It has 
already been seen that, at the same time, the total number 
of persons employed in agriculture fell. As fa* as the actual 
agricultural labourers of both sexes and of all ages are con- 
cerned, their number fell from t,241,396, in 1851, to : ,163,- 
217 in 1861.* If the English Pegistrar-Gene^&apos;*^ therefore, 
rightly remarks : &quot;The increase of farmers and farm-labourers, 
since 1801, bears no kind of proportion , . . to the in- 
crease of agricultural produce,^&apos;* this disproportion obtains 
much more for the last i)eriod, when a positive ^«^crease of the 
agricultural population went hand in hanH with increase of the 
area under cultivation, with more intensive cultivat^OT^, un- 
heard-of accumulation of the capital incorporated with the 
Boil, and devoted to its working, an augmentption in the prod- 
ucts of the soil without parallel in the history of Fnglish 
agriculture, plethoric rent-rolls of landlords, and growing 
wealth of the capitalist farmers. If we take this, together 
with the swift, unbroken extension of the markets, viz., the 
towns, and the reign of Free Trade, then the agricultural la- 
borer was at last, post tot discri^nma rerum, placed in circum- 
stances that ought, secundum curtem, to have made him drunk 
with happiness. 

But Professor Rogers comes to the conclusion that the lot of 
the English agricultural labourer of to-day, not to speak of his 
predecessor in the last half on the 14th and in the 15th cen- 
tury, but only compared with his predecessor from 1770 to 
1780, has changed for the worse to an extraordinary extent, 
that &quot;the peasant has again become a serf,&apos;^ and a serf worse 
fed and worse clothed.^ Dr. Julian Hunter, in his epoch- 
making report on the dwellings of the agricultural labourers, 
says: &quot;The cost of the hind&quot; (a name for tiie agricultural 
labourer, inherited from time of serfdom) &quot;is fixed at the 

&apos;The number of shepherds increased from 12,617 to 26,660. 
&apos;Census. I. c, p. 86. 

* Rogers. 1. c. p. 698, p. 10. Mr. Rogers belongs to the Liberal School, is a per* 
•ooal friend of Cobden and Bright, and therefore no laudator temporis acti 



 

746 Capitalist ProdwiiofK 

lowest possible amount on which he can live • • . the 
supplies of wages and shelter are not calculated on the profit 
to be derived from him. He is a zero in fanning calcula- 
tions.^ • • • The means [of subsistence] being always 
supposed to be a fixed quantity.* As to any further reducticm 
of his income, he may say, niliil habeo nihil euro. He has 
no fears for the future, because he has now only the spare 
supply necessary to keep him. He has reached the zero from 
which are dated the calculations of the farmer. Come what 
will, he has no share either in prosperity or adversity.&apos;** 

In the year 1863, an oflScial inquiry took place into the con- 
ditions of nourishment and labour of the criminals condemned 
to transportation and penal servitude The results are re- 
corded in two voluminous blue books. Among other things it 
is said: ^Trom an elaborate comparison between the diet of 
convicts in the convict prisons in England, and that of paupers 
in workhouses and of free labourers in the same country 
. . • it certainly appears that the former are much better 
fed than either of ihe two other classes,*&apos;^ whilst &apos;^the amount 
of labour required from an ordinary convict under penal 
servitude is about one half of what would be done by an 
ordinary day labourer.*&apos;*^ A few characteristic depositions of 
witnesses : John Smith, governor of the Edinbur^ prison, do- 
poses: No. 5056. &quot;The diet of the English prisons [is] 
superior to that of ordinary labourers in England.&apos;&apos; No. 50. 
&quot;It is the fact • • • that the ordinary agricultural la- 
bourers in Scotland very seldom get any meat at alL&apos;&apos; An- 
swer No. 3047. &quot;Is there anything that you are aware of to 
account for the necessity of feeding them very much better 
than ordinary labourers ?— &lt;I!ertainly nof No. 3048. &quot;Do 
you think that further experiments ought to be made in order 

^PaUle Heahh. Seventh Report, 1864, p. 248. It it therefore nothing unusual 
either for the landlord to raise a labourer&apos;s rent as soon as he hears that be is 
earning a little more, or for the farmer to lower the wage of the labourer, &quot;becaosa 
his wife has found a tade,&quot; L c. 

«L c. p. 1S6. »L c. p. 184. 

^Report of the Commissioners .... relating to transportation and penal 
•enritude, Lond. 1868, pp. 48, 60. 

*L c. p. 77. Memorandum by the Lord Chief Justice. 



 

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation. 747 

to ascertain whether a dietary might not be hit upon for 
prisoners employed on public works nearly approaching to the 
dietary of free labourers?^ . . . &quot;He [the agricultural 
labourer] might say: &apos;I work hard, and have not enough to 
eat^ and when in prison I did not work harder where I had 
plenty to eat&gt; and therefore it is better for me to be in prison 
again than here/ &quot;* From the tables appended to the first 
volume of the Beport I have compiled the annexed comparative 
summaiy. 

WEEKLY AMOUNT OP NUTMMBNT. 





Quantity 
of Nitron 
genous In- 
gredients. 


Quantity of 
Non-Nitro- 
genous In- 
gredients. 


Quantitvof 
Mineral 
Matter. 


Total. 




Ounces 


Ounces 


Ounces 


Ounces 


Portland (convict 


28*95 


160 r 06 


4*68 


188.69 


Sailor in the Navy 


29*63 


162*91 


4r62 


187 06 


Soldier 


25*55 


114*49 


3r94 


148.98 


Working Coachmaker 


24-63 


162 06 


4*23 


190^82 


Compositor 


21*24 


100*83 


312 


125^9 


Agricultural labourer 


17^73 


118*06 


3*29 


139*08* 



The general result of the inquiry by the medical commission 
of 1863, on the food of the lowest fed classes, is already known 
to the reader. He will remember that the diet of a great part 
of the agricultural labourer&apos;s families is below the minimum 
necessary &quot;to arrest starvation diseases.&quot; This is especially 
the case in all the purely rural districts of Cornwall, Devon, 
Somerset, Wilts, Stafford, Oxford, Berks, and Herts. &quot;The 
nourishment obtained by the labourer himself,&quot; says Dr. E. 
Smith, &quot;is larger than the average quantity indicates, since he 
eats a larger share . . . necessary to enable him to per- 

«L c Vol. II. Minutes of Evideaoe. 
&apos;L c Vol. I. Appendix p. 880. 
•L c pp. S74, S76. 



 

748 Capitalist Production. 

form his labour ... of food than the other members of 
the family, including in the poorer districts nearly all the meat 
and bacon. . . . The quantity of food obtained by the 
wife and also by the children at the period of rapid growth, is 
in many eases, in almost every county, deficient, and particu- 
larly in nitrogen.*^^ The male and female servants living with 
the farmers themselves are sufficientiy nourished. Their num- 
ber fell from 288,277 in 1851, to 204,962 in 1861. &quot;The la- 
hour of women in the fields,&quot; says Dr. Smith, &quot;whatever may 
be its disadvantages, ... is under present circumstances 
of great advantage to the family, since it adds that amount of 
income vhich . . . provides shoes and clothing and pays 
the rent, and thus enables the family to be better fed.&quot;* One 
of the most remarkable results of the inquiry was that the 
agricultural labourer of England, as compared with other parts 
of the United Kingdom, &quot;is considerably the worst fed,&quot; as the 
appended table shows : 

Quantities of Carbon and Nitrogen weekly consumed by an 
average agricultural adult 





Carbon, grains. 


Nitrogen, grains. 


England 


46-673 


1-594 


Wales 


48-354 


2-031 


Scotiand 


48-980 


2-348 


Ireland 


43-366 


2-434.* 



&lt; Public Health, Sixth Report, 186S, pp. t88, U9, 261, SOS. 

«L c p. 26S. 

*1. c p. 17. The English agricultural labourer receives only }i as aifteh out^ 
and $4 as much bread as the Irish. Arthur Young in his &quot;Tour through I^viand*** 
at the beginning of this century, already noticed the better nourishment oi the latter. 
The reason is simply this, that poor Irish farmer is incomparably mor« humane 
than the rich English. As regards Wales, that which is said in the text holds only 
for the south-west. All the doctors there agree that the increase of the deathrate 
through tuberctilosis, scrofula, etc, increases in intensity with the deterioration el 
the ph3rsical condition of the population, and all ascribe this deterioration to por- 
erty. &quot;His (the farm labourer&apos;s) keep is reckoned at about five pence a day, but in 
many districts it was said to be of much less cost to the farmer,&quot; [himself very 
poor]. ... &quot;A morsel of the salt meat or bacon, . . . salted and dried to 
the texture of mahogany, and hardly worth the difficult process of assimilation 
.... is used to flavour a large quantity of broth or gruel, of meaJ and lecka» 
and day after day this is the labourer&apos;s dinner.&quot; The advance of industry resulted 
for him, in this harsh and damp climate, in &quot;the abandonment of the solid home* 
spun clothing in favour of the cheap and so-called cotton goods,&quot; and of stronger 



 

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation. 749 

^*To the insuflScient quantity and miserable quality of the 
bouse accommodation generally had/&apos; says Dr. Simon, in his 
official Health Beport^ %y our agricultural labourers, almost 
every page of Dr. Hunter&apos;s report bears testimony. And 
gradually, for many years past, the state of the labDurer in 
these respects has been deteriorating, house-room being now 
greatly more difficult for him to find, and, when found, greatly 
less suitable to his needs than, perhaps, for centuries had been 
the case. Especially within the last twenty or thirty years, 
the evil has been in very rapid increase, and the household cir- 
cumstances of the labourer are now in the highest degree de- 
plorable. Except in so far as they whom his labour enriches, 
see fit to treat him with a kind of pitiful indulgence, he is 
quite peculiarly helpless in the matter. Whether he shall find 
house-room on the land which he contributes to till, whether 
the house-room which he gets shall be human or swineish, 

drinks for to-called tea. &apos;&apos;The agrictsltttrist, after aereral hours&apos; exposure to wiod 
and rain, gains his cottage to sit by a fire of peat or of balls of clay and small 
coal kneaded together, from which volumes of carbonic and sulphurous acids are 
poured forth. His walls are of mud and stones, his floor the bare earth which was 
there before the hut was built, his roof a mass of loose and sodden thatch. Every 
crevice is stopped to maintain warmth, and in an atmosphere of diabolic odour, with 
a mud floor, with his only clothes drying on his back, he often sups and sleeps with 
his wife and children. Obstetricians who have passed parts of the night in such 
cabins have described how they found their feet sinking in the mud of the floor, and 
they were forced (easy task) to drill a hole through the wall to effect a little private 
respiration. It was attested by numerous witnesses in various grades of life, that to 
these insanitary influences, and many more, the underfed peasant was nightly ex- 
posed, and of the result, a debilitated and scrofulous people, there was no want of 

evidence The statements of the relieving officers of Carmarthenshire and 

Cardiganahire show In a striking way the same state of things. There is besides 
&quot;a plague more horrible still, the great number of idiots.&quot; Now a word on the 
climatic conditions. &quot;A strong south-west wind blows over the whole country for 
8 or 9 months in the year, bringing with it torrents of rain, which discharge prin- 
cipally upon the western slopes of the hills. Trees are rare, except in sheltered 
places, and where not protected, are blown out of all shape. The cottages generally 
crouch under some bank, or often in a ravine or quarry, and none but the smallest 
sheep and native cattle can live on the pastures. .... The young people mi- 
grate to the eastern mining districts of Glamorgan and Monmouth. Carmarthenshire 
is the breeding ground of the mining population and their hospital. The population 
can therefore barely maintain its numbers.&apos;* Thus in Cardiganshire: 

1851. 1861. 

Males 45,165 44,44d 

Females 6S,459 62,055 



97,014 97,401 

X&gt;&amp; Hunter&apos;s Report in Public Health, Seventh Bq&gt;ort 1884. pp. 498-609 



 

750 Capitalist Productiotk 

whether he shall have the little space of garden that so vasdy 
lessens the pressure of his poverty — all this does not depend 
on his willingness and ability to pay reasonable rent for the 
decent accommodation he requires, but depends on the use 
which others may see fit to make of their ^right to do as they 
will with their own/ However large may be a farm, there 
is no law that a certain proportion of labourers&apos; dwellings 
(much less of decent dwelhngs) shall be upon it; nor does any 
law reserve for the labourer ever so little right in that soil to 
which his industry is as needful as sun and rain. ... An 
extraneous element weighs the balance heavily against him 
. . . the influence of the Poor Law in its provisions con- 
cerning settlement and chargeability.^ Under this influence, 
each parish has a pe^imiary interest in reducing to a minimum 
the number of its resident labourers : — ^for, unhappily, agricul- 
tural labour instead of implying a safe and permanent in- 
dependence for the hard-working labourer and his *.amily, im- 
plies for the most ;&gt;art only a longer or shorter circuit to 
eventual pauperism — a pauperism which, during the whole cir- 
cuit, is so near, that any illness or temporary failure of occu- 
pation necessitates immediate recourse to parochial relief — 
and thus all residence of agricultural population in a parish is 
glaringly an addition to its poor rates. . . . Large pro- 
prietors* . . . have but to resolve that there shall be no 
labourers&apos; dwellings on their estates, and their estates will 
thenceforth be virtually free from half their responsibility for 
the poor. How far it has been intended, in the English con- 
stitution and law, that this kind of unconditional property in 
land should be acquirable^ and that a landlord, ^doing as he 
wills with his own,&apos; should be able to treat the cultivators 
of the soil as aliens, whom he may expel from his territory, ia 
a question which I do not pretend to discuss. . . . For 
that (power) of eviction • . • does not exist only in 

^In 1866 this law was improved to some extent. It will toon be learnt from 
experience tliat tinkering of thli sort is of no use. 

&apos;In order to understand that which follows, we most reneiilMr fhat &apos;*Ciom 
Villages&quot; are those whose owners are one or two large landlords. *&apos;Qp«n villages,** 
those whose soil belongs to many smaller landlorda. It it la ttie latter ibat InriHirf 
speculators can build cottages and lodging-houses. 



 

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation. 751 

theory. On a very large scale it prevails in practice — ^prevails 
. . . as a main governing condition in the household cir- 
cumstances of agricultural labour. ... As regards the 
extent of the evil, it may suffice to refer to the evidence which 
Dr. Himter has compiled from tho last census, that destruc- 
tion of houses, notwithstanding increased local demands for 
them, had, during the last ten years, been in progress in 821 
separate parishes or townships of England, so that irrespec- 
tively of persons who had been forced to become non-resident 
(that is in the parishes in which they work), these parishes 
and townships were receiving in 1861, as compared with 1851, 
a population 6^ per cent greater, into house-room 4^ per 
cent. less. . . . When the process of depopulation has 
completed itself, the result, says Dr. Hunter, is a show- 
village where the cottages have been reduced to a few, and 
where none but persons who are needed as shepherds, garden- 
ers, or game-keepers, are allowed to live ; regular servants who 
receive the good treatment usual to their class.* But the land 
requires cultivation, and it &quot;V.ill be found that the labourers 
employed upon it are not the tenants of the owner, but that 
they come from a neighboring open village, perhaps three 
miles oflF, where a numerous small proprietary had received 
them when their cottages were destroyed in the close villages 
around. Where things are tending to the above result, often 
the cottages which stand, testify, in their unrepaired and 
wretched condition, to the extinction to which they are doomed. 
They are seen standing in the various stages of natural decay. 
While the shelter holds together, the labourer is permitted to 
rent it, and glad enough he will often be to do so, even at the 
price of decent lodging. But no repair, no improvement shall 
it receive, except such as its penniless occupants can supply. 
And when at last it becomes quite uninhabitable — ^uninhabit- 

* A show yHlage of this kind looks very nice, bat is as unreal as the villages that 
Catherine IL saw on her journey to the Crimea. In recent times the shepherd also 
has often been banished from the show villages; €,g., near Market Harboro&apos; is a 
sheep-farm of about 600 acres, which only employs the labour of one man. To 
reduce the long trudges over these wide plains, the beautiful pastures of Leicester and 
Northampton, the shepherd used to get a cottage on the farm. Now they give him 
a thirteenth shilling a week for lodging, that he must find far away in an open 
village. 



 

752 Capitalist Production, 

able even to the humblest standard of serfdom — ^it will be 
but one more destroyed cottage, and future poor-rates will be 
somewhat lightened. While great owners are thus escaping 
from poor-rates throu^ the depopulation of lands over which 
they have control, the nearest town or open village receive the 
evicted labourers: the nearest, I say, but this &apos;barest** may 
mean three or four miles distant from the farm where the la- 
bourer has his daily toil To that daily toil there will then 
have to be added, as though it were nothing, the daily need of 
walking six or eight miles for power of earning his bread. 
And whatever farm-work is done by his wife and children, is 
done at the same disadvantage. Nor is this nearly all lie toil 
which the distance occasions him. In the open village, cot- 
tage-speculators buy scraps of land, which they throng as 
densely as they can with the cheapest of all possible hovels. 
And into those wretched habitations (which, even if they ad- 
join the open country, have some of the worst features of the 
worst town residences) crowd the agricultural labourers of 
England.^ . . • Nor on the other hand must it be sup- 
posed that even when the labourer is housed upon the lands 
which he cultivates, his household circumstances are generally 
such as his life of productive industry would seem to deserve. 
Even on princely estates ... his cottage • • • may 

&gt; The labourers&apos; houses (in the open villages, which, of course, are alwaja ove^ 
crowded) are usually in rows, built with their backs against the extreme edge of the 
plot of land which the builder could call his, and on this account are not allowed 
light and air, except from the front.&quot; (Dr. Hunter&apos;s Report, L c ,p. 186.) Very 
often the beerseller or grocer of the village is at the same time the letter of its 
houses. In this case the agricultural labourer finds in him a second master, besides 
the farmer. He must be his customer as well as his tenant. &quot;The hind with his 
10s. a week, minus a rent of £4 a year .... is obliged to buy at the seller&apos;s 
own terms, his modicum of tea, sugar, flour, soap, candles, and beer.** (L c, p. 
132.) These open villages form, in fact, the &quot;penal settlements&quot; of the English 
agricultural proletariat. Many of the cottages are simply lodging-houses, through 
which all the rabble of the neighbourhood passes. The country labourer and his 
family who had often, in a way truly wonderful, preserved, under the foulest coa£- 
tions, a thoroughness and purity of character, go, in these, utterly to the deviL 
it is, of course, the fashion amongst the aristocratic shylocks to shrug their shoulders 
pharisaically at the building speculators, the small landlords, and the open villages. 
They know well enough that tlieir &quot;close villages&quot; and &quot;show villages&quot; axe the btrtb- 
places of the open villages, and could not exist without them. &quot;The labocrers 
. • • • were it not for the small owners, would, for by far the most part, have 
to sleep under the trees of the farms on which they work.&quot; (1. c, p. 13S.) The 
system of &quot;open&quot; and &quot;closed&quot; villages obtains In all the Midland ooaotiet aad 
tfaKmghout the East of England. 



 

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation. 753 

be of the meanest description* There are landlords who deem 
any sty good enough for their labourer and his family, and 
who yet do not disdain to drive with him the hardest pos- 
sible bargain for rent^ It may be but a ruinous one-bed- 
roomed hut, having no fire-grate, no privy, no opening vrindow, 
no water supply but the ditch, no garden — ^but the labourer is 
helpless against the wrong. . . . And the Nuisances Ee- 
moval Acts • . • are ... a mere dead letter 
. . , in great part dependent for their working on such 
cottage owners as the one from whom his (the labourer&apos;s) 
hovel is rented. . . . TVom brighter, but exceptional 
scenes, it is requisite in the interests of justice, that attention 
should again be drawn to the overwhelming preponderance of 
facts which are a reproach to the civilization of England. 
Lamentable indeed, must be the case, when, notwithstanding 
all that is evident with regard to the quality of the present 
accommodation, it is the common conclusion of competent ob- 
servers that even the general badness of dwellings is an evil 
infinitely less urgent than their mere numerical insufficiency. 
For years the overcrowding of rural labourer&apos;s dwellings has 
been a matter of deep concern, not only to persons who care 
for sanitary good, but to persons who care for decent and 
moral life. For again and again in phrases so uniform that 
they seem stereotyped, reporters on the spread of epidemic 
disease in rural districts, have insisted on the extreme im- 
portance of that over-crowding, as an influence which renders 
it a quite hopeless task, to attempt the limiting of any infection 
which is introduced. And again and again it has been 
pointed out that, notwithstanding the many salubrious in- 
fluences which there are in country life, the crowding which 

^&quot;The employer .... is ... . directly or indirectly securing to him- 
•df the profit on a man employed at 10s. a week, and receiving from this poor 
hind £4 or £6 annual rent for houses not worth £20 in a really free market, but 
maintained at their artificial yalue by the power of the owner to say &apos;Use my house, 
or go seek a hiring elsewhere, without a character from me.&apos; .... Does a man 
wish to better himself, to go as a plate-layer on the railway, or to begin quarry- 
wbrk, the same power is ready with &apos;Work for me at this low rate of wages, or be- 
gone at a week&apos;s notice; take your pig with you, and get what you can for the 
potatoes growing in your garden.&apos; Should his interest appear to be better served by 
IL an enhanced rent is sometimes preferred in these cases by the owner &lt;{.#. the 
itrmer) as the penalty for leaving his service.&quot; (Dr. Hunter, L c, p. 188.) 



 

7S4 Capitalist Production. 

80 favours the extension of contagious disease, also ifavours the 
origination of disease which is not contagious. And those 
who have denounced the over-crowded state of our rural popu- 
lation have not been silent as to a further mischief. Even 
where their primary concern has been only with the injury to 
healthy often almost perforce they have referred to other rela- 
tions on the subject. In showing how frequently it happens 
that adult persons of both sexes, married and unmarried, are 
huddled together in single small sleeping rooms, their reports 
have carried the conviction that, under the circumstances they 
describe, decency must always be outraged, and morality al- 
most of necessity must suffer.^ Thus, for instance, in the 
appendix of my last annual report, Dr. Ord, reporting on an 
outbreak of fever at Wing, in Buckinghamshire, mentions how 
a young man who had come thither from Wingrave with fever, 
*^in the first days of his illness slept in a room with nine other 
persons. Within a fortnight several of these persons were at- 
tacked, and in the course of a few weeks five out of the nine 
had fever, and one died.&apos;^ . . . From Dr. Harvey, of St 
George&apos;s Hospital, who, on private professional business^ 
visited Wing during the time of the epidemic, I received in- 
formation exactly in the sense of the above report. . . . 
^^A young woman having fever, lay at night in a room occupied 
by her father and mother, her bastard child, two yoimg men 
(her brothers), and her two sisters, each with a bastard 
child — 10 persons in alL A few weeks ago 13 persons slept 
in it&apos;&apos;* 

Dr. Hunter investigated 5,375 cottages of agricultural lab- 
ourers, not only in the purely agricultural districts, but in all 
counties of England. Of these, 2,195 had only one bed- 

^&quot;New married couples are no edifying study for grown-up brothen and assten; 
and though instances must not be recorded, sufficient data are remembered to war&gt; 
rant the remark, that great depression and sometimes death are the lot of the 
female participator in the offence of incest&quot; (Dr. Hunter, L c, p. 187.) A mem- 
ber of the rural police who had for many years been a detective in the worst 
quarters of London, says of the girls of his village: &quot;their boldness and shameless- 
ness I never saw equalled during some years of police life and detective duty in 

the worst parts of London They live like pigs, great boys and girK 

mothers and fathers, all sleeping in one room, in many instances.&quot; (Child. EufL 
Com. Sixth Report, 1807, p. 77 sq. 156.) 

&apos;Public Health. Seventh Report, 1884, pp. 9. 14 passim. 



 

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation^ 755 

room (oftoi at the same time used as living-room), 2,930 
only two, and 260, more than two. I will give a few speci- 
mens culled from a dozen coimties. 

(1.) BSDFOBDSHIKB. 

Wrestling worth. Bedrooms about 12 feet long and 10 
broad, although many are smaller than this. The small, 
one-storied cots are often divided by partitions into two bed- 
rooms, one bed frequently in a kitchen, 6 feet 6 inches in 
height Kent, £3 a year. The tenants have to make their 
own privies, the lancUord only supplies a hola As soon as 
one has made a privy, it is made use of by the whole neigh- 
borhood. One house, belonging to a family called Richard- 
son, was of quite unapproachable beauty. &quot;Its plaster walls 
bulged very like a lady&apos;s dress in a curtsey. One gable end 
was convex, the other concave, and on this last, ^mfortunately, 
stood the chimney, a curved tube of clay and wood like an 
elephant&apos;s trunk. A long stick served as prop to prevent 
the chimney from falling. The doorway and window were 
rhomboidal.&apos;&apos; Of 17 houses visited, only 4 had more than 
one bedroom, and those four overcrowded. The cots with one 
bedroom sheltered 3 adults and 3 children, a married couple 
with 6 children, &amp;c. 

Dvnton. High rents, from £4 to £5 ; weekly wages of the 
man, lOs. They hope to pay the rent by the straw-plaiting of 
the family. The higher the rent, the greater the number 
that must work together to pay it Six adults, living with 
4 children in one sleeping apartment, pay £3 10s. for it 
The cheapest house in Ihinton, 15 feet long externally, 10 
broad, let for £3. Only one of the houses investigated had 
2 bedrooms. A little outside the village, a house whose 
&quot;tenants dunged against the house-side,&apos;&apos; the lower 9 inches 
of the door eaten away through sheer rottenness; the door- 
way, a single opening closed at night by a few bricks, in- 
geniously pushed up after shutting and covered with some 
matting. Half a window, with glass and frame, had gone 
the way of all flesh. Here, without furniture, huddled to- 



 

756 Capitalist Production. 

gether^ were 8 adults and 5 children. Donton is not worse 
than the rest of Biggleswade Union. 

(2.) Bbsxshiba. 

BeenhafTL In June, 1864, a man, his wife and 4 children 
lived in a cot (one-storied cottage). A daughter came home 
from service with scarlet fever. She died. One child sick- 
ened and died. The mother and one child were down with 
typhus when Dr. Hunter was called in. The father and one 
diild slept outside, but the difficulty of securing isolation was 
seen here, for in the :rowaed market of the miserable vil- 
lage lay the linen of the fever stricken household, waiting for 
the wash. The rent of H.&apos;s louse, Is. a &quot; eek ; one bedroom 
for man, wife, and 6 children. One house let for 8d. a- 
week, 14 feet 6 inches lojg, 7 feet broad; kitchen, 6 feet 
high ; the bedroom without window, nre-place, door, or opaa- 
ing, except into the lobby ; no garden. A man lived here for 
a little while, with two grown-up daughters and one grown- 
up son ; father and son slept on the bed, the girls in the pas* 
sage. Each of the latter had a child while the family was 
living here, but one went to the workhouse for her con- 
finement and then came home. 

(3.) BuCEINGHAMSHntB. 

80 cottages— on 1,000 acres of land — contained here about 
130-140 persons. The parish of Bradenham comprises 1,000 
acres; it numbered, in 1861, 36 houses and a population of 
84 males and 54 females. This inequality of the sexes was 
partly remedied in 1861, when they numbered 98 males and 
87 females; increase in 10 years of 14 men and 33 women. 
Meanwhile, the number of houses was one less. 

Winslow. Great part of this newly built in good style; de- 
mand for houses appears very marked, since very miserable 
oots let at Is. to Is. 3d. per week. 

Water Eaton. Here the landlords, in view of the increas- 
ing population, have destroyed about 20 per cent- of the ex- 
isting houses. A poor labourer, who had to go alK&gt;ut 4 miles 



 

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation. 757 

to his work^ answered the question, whether he could not 
find a cot nearer: ^^No; thej know better than to take a man 
in with my krge family.&quot; 

Tinker&apos;s End, near Winslow. A bedroom in which were 4 
adults and 4 children; 11 feet long, 9 feet broad, 6 feet 5 
inches high at its highest part; another 11 feet 3 inches by 9 
feet, 6 feet 10 inches high, sheltered 6 persons. Each of 
these families had less space than is considered necessary 
for a convict* No house had more than one bedroom, not 
one of them a back-door ; water very scarce ; weekly rent from 
Is. 4d. to 2s. In 16 of the houses visited, only 1 man that 
earned 10s. a week. The quantity of air for each person under 
the circumstances just described corresponds to that which he 
would have if he were shut up in a box of 4 feet measuring 
each way, the whole night But llien, ihe ancient dens af* 
forded a certain amount of unintentional ventilation* 

(4.) Cambbxdgebhibb. 

Oamblvnga/t/ belongs to several landlords. It contains the 
wretchedest cots to be found anywhere. Much straw-plait- 
ing. &quot;A deadly lassitude, a hopeless surrendering up to 
filth,&quot; reigns in Gamblingay. The neglect in its centre, be- 
comes mortification at its extremities, north and south, where 
the houses are rotting to pieces. The absentee landlords 
bleed this i)oor rookery too freely. The rents are very high ; 
8 or 9 persons packed in one sleeping apartment, in 2 casee 
6 adults, each with 1 or 2 children in one small bedroouL 

(6.) Essex. 

In this county, diminutions in the number of persons and 
of cottages go, in many parishes, hand in hand. In not less 
than 22 parishes, however, the destruction of houses has not 
prevented increase of population, or has not brought about 
that expulsion which, under the name ^^igration to towns,&quot; 
generally occurs. In Pingringhoe, a parish of 3443 acres, 
were in 1861, 145 houses ; in 1861, only 110. But the people 
did not wish to go away, and managed even to increase undel* 



 

758 Capitalist Production. 

these circumstances. In 1851, 252 persons inhaUted 61 
houses, but in 1861, 262 persons were squeezed into 49 houses. 
In Basilden, in 1851, 157 persons lived on 1827 acres, in 35 
houses ; at the end of ten years, 180 persons in 27 houses. In 
the parishes of Fingringhoe, South Fambridge, Widford, 
Basilden, and Bamsden Crags, in 1851, 1392 persons were 
living on 8449 acres in 316 houses; in 1861, on the same area, 
1473 persons in 249 houses. 

(6.) HSBEFOBDSHIBX. 

This little county has suffered more from the &quot;eviction- 
spirit&quot; than any other in England. At Nadby, overcrowded 
cottages generally, with only 2 bedrooms, belonging for the 
most part to the farmers. They easily let them for £8 or £4 
a-year, and paid a weekly wage of 9s. 

(7.) HXTNTINODON. 

Hartford had, in 1851, 87 houses; shortly after this^ 19 
cottages were destroyed in this small parish of 1720 acres; 
population in 1831, 452 ; in 1852, 832 ; and in 1861, 841. 14 
cottages, each with 1 bedroom, were visited. In one, a mai^ 
ried couple, 3 grown-up sons, 1 grown-up daughter, 4 chil- 
dren — in all 10; in another, 3 adults, 6 children. One of 
these rooms, in which 8 people slept, was 12 feet 10 inches 
long, 12 feet 2 inches broad, 6 feet 9 inches high: the average^ 
without making any deduction for projections into the apart- 
ment, gave about 130 cubic feet per head. In the 14 sleep- 
ing rooms^ 34 adults and 33 children. These cottages are 
seldom provided with gardens, but many of the inmates are 
able to farm small allotments at 10s. or 12s. per rood. These 
allotments are at a distance frem the houses, which are with- 
out privies. The family &apos;^must either go to the allotment to 
deposit their ordures,&quot; or, as happens in this place, saving 
your presence, &quot;use a closet with a trough set like a drawer 
in a diest of drawers, and drawn out weekly and conveyed to 
the allotment to be emptied where its contents were wanted.&quot; 
In Japan, the cirele of life-conditions moves more decently 
than this. 



 

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulatioiu 759 

(8.) LlNOOLNSHnUk 

Langtoft A man lives here, in Wright&apos;s house, with his 
wife, her mother, and 5 children ; the house has a front kit- 
chen, scullery, bedroom over the front kitchen ; front kitchen 
and bedroom, 12 feet 2 inches by 9 feet 5 inches; the whole 
ground floor, 21 feet 2 inches by 9 feet 6 inches. The bed- 
room is a garret; the walls run together into the roof like a 
sugar-loaf, a dormer-window opening in front ^&apos;Why did 
he live here? On account of the garden? No; it is very 
small Kent? High, Is. 3d. per we^ Near his work? 
No ; 6 miles away, so that he walks daily, to and iro^ 12 miles. 
He lived there, because it was a tenantable cot,&apos;&apos; and because 
he wanted to have a cot for himself alone, anywhere, at any 
price, and in any conditions. The following are the statistics 
of 12 houses in Langtoft, with 12 bedrooms, 38 adults, and 36 
children. 



TWBLVB HOUSES IN LANGTOFT. 



a 



N0.1. 

f» 3. 

.. *. 

„ 6. 
„ 6. 



a 

I 



8 

4 
4 
5 



.-3 r\ 



o 



No. 7. 
»&gt; 8. 
» 9. 
,.10. 

,.12. 



5 



8 
3 
2 
2 
3 



I 



3 
2 

3 
3 
4 



o - 

|i 
I- 



6 
6 
2 
6 
6 
6 



(9.) Kent. 

Kennington, very seriously over-populated in 1859, when 
diphtheria appeared, and the parish doctor instituted a med- 



 

T^o Capitalist Production. 

ical inquiiy into the condition of the poorer classes. He 
found that in this locality, where much labour is employed, 
various cots had been destroyed and no new ones built. In 
one district stood four houses, named birdcages; each had 4 
rocons of the following dimensions in feet and inches: 

Kitchen : 9 ft. 5 by 8 ft 11 by 6 ft. 6. 
Scullery: 8 ft 6 by 4 ft 6 by 6 ft 6. 
Bedroom: 8 ft 6 by 5 ft 10 by 6 ft 8. 
Bedroom: 8 ft 3 by 8 ft 4 by 6 ft 8. 

(10.) NOBTHAMPTONSHIBS. 

Brimpofih, Pick ford and Floore: in these villages in thd 
winter 20 — 30 men were lounging about the streets from want 
of wort The farmers do not always till suflSciently the com 
and turnip lands, and the landlord has found it best to throw 
all his farms together into 2 or 3. Hence want of employ- 
ment Whilst on one side of the wall, the land calls for labour, 
on the other side the defrauded labourers are casting at it 
longing glances. Feverishly overworked in summer, and half- 
starved in winter, it is no wonder if they say in their peculiar 
dialect, ^^the parson and gentlefolk seem frit to death at 
them.&quot; 

At Floors instanced, in one bedroom of the smallest size, of 
couples with 4, 5, 6 children; 3 adults with 5 children; a 
couple with grandfather and 6 children down with scarlet 
fever, &amp;c. ; in two houses with two bedrooms, two families of 
8 and 9 adults respectively. 

(11.) WrLTSHIKB. 

StraHoTL 81 houses visited, 8 with only one bedroom. 
Pen till, in the same parish : a cot let at Is. 3d. weekly with 4 
adults and 4 children, had nothing good about it, except the 
walls, from the floor of rough-hewn pieces of stones to the 
roof of worn-out thatch. 



 

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation. 761 

(12.) W0BOESTF.BBHIRJS. 

HcmBe-destraction liere not quite so excessive; jet from 
1851 to 1861, the number of inhabitants to each house on the 
average, has risen from 4^2 to 4*6. 

Badsey. Many cots and little gardens here. Some of the 
farmers declare that the cots are ^^a great nuisance here, be- 
cause they bring the poor.&apos;* On the statement of one gentle- 
man : &quot;The poor are none the better for them ; if you build 
500 they will let fast enough, in fact, the more you build, the 
more they want,&quot; (according to him the houses give birth to 
the inhabitants, who then by a law of Nature press on &quot;the 
means of housing*&apos;). Dr. Hunter remarks: &quot;Now these poor 
must come from somewhere, and as there is no particular at- 
traction, such as doles, at Badsey, it must be repulsion from 
some other unfit place, which will send them here. If each 
could find an allotment near his work, he would not prefer 
Badsey, where he pays for his scrap of ground twice as much 
as the farmer pays for his.&quot; 

The continual emigration to the towns, the continual forma- 
tion of surplus-population in the country through the concen- 
tration of farms, conversion of arable land into pasture, ma- 
chinery, &amp;C., and the continual eviction of the agricultural 
population by the destruction of their cottages, go hand in 
hand. The more empty the district is of men, the greater is 
its &quot;relative surplus-population,&quot; the greater is their pressure 
on the means of employment, the greater is the absolute ex- 
cess of the agricultural population over the means for hous- 
ing it, the greater, therefore, in the villages is the local sur- 
plus-population and the most pestilential packing together of 
human beings. The packing together of knots of men in scat- 
tered little villages and small country towns corresponds to the 
forcible draining of men from the surface of the land. The 
continuous superseding of the agricultural labourers, in spite 
of their diminishing number and the increasing mass of their 
products, gives birth to their pauperism. Their pauperism 
is ultimately a motive to their eviction and the chief source 
of their miserable housing which breaks down their last power 



 

762 Capitalist Production. 

of resistance, and makes them mere slaves of the landed pro- 
prietors and the farmers.^ Thus the minimum of wages be- 
comes a law of Nature to them. On the other hand, the land, 
in spite of its constant &quot;relative surplus-population,&quot; is at the 
same time under-populated. This is seen, not only locally 
at the points where the efflux of men to towns, mines, railroad- 
making, &amp;C., is most marked. It is to be seen everywhere, in 
harvest-time as well as in spring and summer, at those fre- 
quently recurring times when English agriculture, so care- 
ful and intensive, wants extra hands. There are always too 
many agricultural labourers for the ordinary, and always too 
few for the exceptional or temporary needs of the cultivation 
of the soiL* Hence we find in the official documents contra- 
dictory complaints from the same places of deficiency and ex- 
cess of labour simultaneously. The temporary or local want 
of labour brings about no rise in wages, but a forcing of 
the women and children into the fields, and exploitation at an 
age constantly lowered. As soon as the exploitation of the 

^&quot;The hcavea-bom employment of the hind gives dignity even to this position. 
He is not a slave* but a soldier of peace, and deserves his place in married men&apos;s 
quarters to be provided by the landlord, who has claimed a power of enforced laboor 
similar to that the country demands of the soldier. He no more receives market 
price for his work than does the soldier. Like the soldier he is caught younfr 
ignorant, knowing only his own trade, and his own locality. Early marriage and 
the operation of the various laws of settlement a£fect the one as enlistment and the 
Mutinr Act affect the other.&quot; (Dr. Hunter, L c, p. 182.) Sometimes an excep- 
tionally soft-hearted landlord relents at the solitude he has created. &quot;It is a 
melancholy thing to stand alone in one&apos;s country,&quot; said Lord Leicester, when com- 
plimented on the completion of Hookham. &quot;I look around and not a house is to 
be seen but mine. I am the giant of Giant Castle, and have eat up all my neigh- 
bours.&quot; 

&apos;A similar movement is seen during the last ten years in France; in propo r tion as 
capitalist production there takes possession of agriculture, it drives the &apos;&apos;surplus&apos;* 
agricultural population into the towns. Here also we find deterioration in the 
housing and other conditions at the source of the surplus-population. On the special 
&quot;proletariat foncier,&quot; to which this system of parcelling out the land has given rjat^ 
see, among others, the work of Colins, already quoted, and Karl Marx &quot;Der 
Achtxehnte Brumaire des Louis Bonaparte.&quot; 2nd edition. Hamburg, 1869, pp. 50, 
ftc. In 1846, the town population in France was represented by 94.49, the agri- 
cultural by 76.68; in 1861, the town by 98.86, the agricultural by 71.4 per cent. 
During the last 6 years, the diminution of the agricultural percentage of the popu- 
lation has been yet more marked. As early as 1846, Pierre Dupont in hit &quot;Onvxiers&apos;&apos; 

Mai v^tus, log^s dans des trous. 
Sous les combles, dans les d6combret» 
Nous vivons avec les hiboux 
Et les larrons, amis des ombrcs&gt; 



 

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation. 763 

women and children takes place on a larger scale^ it becomes 
in turn a new means of making a surplus-population of the 
male agricultural labourer and of keeping down his wage. In 
the east of England thrives a beautiful fruit of this vicious 
circle — ^the so-called gang^system, to which I must briefly re- 
turn here.* 

The gang-system obtains almost exclusively in the counties 
of Lincoln, Huntingdon, Cambridge, Norfolk, Suffolk, and 
Nottingham, here and there in the neighbouring counties of 
Northampton, Bedford, and Rutland. Lincolnshire will serve 
US&apos; as an example. A large part of this country is new land, 
marsh formerly, or even, as in others of the eastern counties 
just named, won lately from the sea. The steam-engine has 
worked wonders in the way of drainage. What were once 
fens and sandbanks, bear now a luxuriant sea of com and the 
highest of rents. The same thing holds of the alluvial lands 
won by human endeavor, as in the island of Axholme and 
other parishes on the banks of the Trent In proportion as 
the new farms arose, not only were no new cottages built : old 
ones were demolished, and the supply of labour had to come 
from open villages, miles away, by long roads that wound 
along the sides of the hills. There alone had the population 
formerly found shelter from the incessant floods of the winter- 
time. The labourers that dwell on the farms of 400 — 1000 
acres (they ar^ called &quot;confined labourers&quot;) are solely em- 
ployed on such kinds of agricultural work as is permanent, 
difficult, and carried on by aid of horses. For every 100 
acres there is, on an average, scarcely one cottage. A fen 
farmer, e.g., gave evidence before the Commission of In- 
quiry: &quot;I farm 320 acres, all arable land. I have not one 
cottage on my farm. I have only one labourer on my farm 
now. I have four horsemen lodging about We get light 
work done by gangs.&quot;* The soil requires much light field 
labour, such as weeding, hoeing, certain processes of manur- 
ing, removing of stones, &amp;c. This is done by the gangs, or or^ 
ganised bands that dwell in the open villages. 

* &quot;Sixth and last Report of the Children&apos;s Employment Commission,*&apos; published 
at the end of March, 1867. It deals solely with the agricultural. 
•&quot;Child. Empl. Comm., VI. Report.&quot; Evidence 178, p. 87. 



 

764 Cc^talist Production. 

The gang oonsiBtB of 10 to 40 or 50 persons, wom^ young 
persons of both sexes (13-18 years of age, although the boys 
are for the most part eliminated at the age of 13), and chil- 
dren of both sexes (6-13 years of age)* At the head is the 
gang-master, always an ordinary agricultural labourer, gen- 
erally what is called a bad lot, a scapegrace, unsteady, 
drunken, but with a dash of enterprise and savior faire. He 
is the recruiting^ergeant for the gang, which works under 
him, not under the farmer. He generally arranges with the 
latter for piece-work, and his income^ which on the average 
is not very much above that of an ordinary agricultural la- 
bourer,* depends almost entirely upon the dexterity with 
which he manages to extract within the shortest time the 
greatest possible amount of labour from his gang. The 
farmers have discovered that women work steadily only under 
flie direction of men, but that women and children, once set 
going, impetuously spend their life-force — as Fourier knew 
— while the adult male labourer is shrewd enough to economise 
his as much as he can. The gang-master goes from one farm 
to another, and Ihus employs his gang from 6 to 8 months in 
the year. Employment by him is, therefore, much more 
lucrative and more certain for the labouring families, than 
employment by the individual farmer, who only employs chil- 
dren occasionally. This circumstance so completely rivets 
his influence in the open villages that children are generally 
only to be hired through his instrumentality. The lending 
out of these individually, independently of the gang^ is his 
second trade. 

The &quot;drawbacks&quot; of the system are the over-work of the 
children and young persons, the enormous marches that they 
make daily to and from the farms, 5, 6, and sometimes 7 miles 
distant^ finally, the demoralisation of the gang. Although the 
gangmaster, who, in some districts is called &quot;the driver,&quot; is 
armed with a long stick, he uses it but seldom, and complaints 
of brutal treatment are exceptional. He is a democratic em- 
peror, or a kind of Pied Piper of Hamelin. He must there- 

&gt; SixDt gangmasters, however, have worked themselves up to tiie posHJon ol 
fanccrs of 600 acres, or proprietors of whole rows of houses. 



 

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation. 765 

fore be popular with his subjects, and he binds them to him- 
self by the charms of the gipsy life under his direction. 
Coarse freedom, a noisy jollity, and obsceneet impudence give 
attractions to the gang. Generally the gangmaster pays up 
in a public house; then he returns home at the head of the 
procession reeling drunk, propped up right and left by a 
stalwart virago, while children and young persons bring up 
the rear, boisterous, and singing chaffing and bawdy songs. 
On the return journey what Fourier calls &quot;phanerogamic,&quot; is 
the order of the day. The getting with child of girls of 13 
and 14: by liheir male companions of the same age, is common. 
The open villages which supply the contingent of the gang, 
become Sodoms and Qomorrahs,^ and have twice as high a 
rate of illegitimate births as the rest of the kingdom. The 
moral character of girls bred in these schools, when married 
women, was shown above. Their children, when opium does 
not give them the finishing stroke, are bom recruits of the ; 
gang. 

The gang in its classical form just described, is called the 
public^ common, or tramping gang. For there are also private 
gangs. These are made up in the same way as the common 
gang, but count fewer members, and work, not under a gang- 
master, but under some old farm servant, whom the farmer 
does not know how to employ in any better way. The gipsy 
fun has vanished here, but according to all witnesses, the pay- 
ment and treatment of the children is worse. 

The gang^system, which during the last years has steadily 
increased,^ clearly does not exist for the sake of the gang- 
master. It exists for the enrichment of the large farmers,* 
and indirectly of the landlords.* For the farmer there is no 

* &quot;Half the girls of Lndford hav« been rained by going out&quot; (in gangs). L c. 
SI. 6, 8 82. 

&apos;&apos;They (gangs) have greatly increased of late years. In some places they are 
•aid to have been introduced at comparatively late dates; in others where gangs 
.... have been known for many yeary .... more and yonnger children 
are employed in them.&quot; (1. c, p. 79, 8 174.) 

&apos;&quot;Small farmers never employ gangs.&quot; &quot;It is not on poor land, bnt on land 
which affords rent of from 40 to 60 shillings, that women and children are em- 
I&gt;]o]red in the greatest numbers.&quot; 0* c., pp. 17, 14.) 

*To one of these gentlemen the taste of his rent was so grateful that he in- 
dignantly declared to the Commission of Inquiry that the whole hubbub was only 



 

766 Capitalist Production. 

more ingenious method of keeping his labourers well below 
the normal level^ and yet of always having an extra hand 
ready for extra work, of extracting the greatest possible 
amount of labour with the least possible amount of money,^ 
and of making adult male labour ^&apos;redundant&apos;&apos; From the 
exposition already made^ it will be understood why, on the 
one hand, a greater or less lack of employment for the 
agricultural labourer is admitted, while on the other, the 
gang-system is at the same time declared &quot;necessary on ac- 
count of the want of adult male labour and its migration to 
the towns.* The cleanly weeded land, and the uncleanly hu- 
man weeds, of Lincolnshire, are pole and oounterpole of 
capitalistic production.&apos; 

due to tbe name of the tyftem. If instead of &quot;gang^ it were caOed &apos;the Agricol- 
taral Juvenile Industrial Self-supporting Association,&quot; everything would be all right 
^ &quot;Gang work is cheaper than other work; that is why they are emplojed,&quot; says a 
former gangmaster (1. c, p. 17, 8 14). &quot;The gang-system is decidedly the cheap- 
est for the farmer, and decidedly tiie worst for the children,&quot; says a fanner. (L c, 
p. le. 8 8.) 

* &quot;Undoubtedly much of the work now done by children in gangs osed to be done 
by men and women. More men are out of work now where children and women 
are employed than formerly.&quot; (1. c, p. 43, n. 209.) On the other hand, &quot;the 
labour question in some agricultural districts, particularly the arable, is becoming so 
serious in consequence of emigration, and the facility afforded by railways for get- 
ting to large towns that I (the &quot;I&quot; is the steward of a great lord) think the services 
of children are most indispensable.&quot; (L c, p. 80, n. 180.) For the &quot;labour ques- 
tion&quot; in English agricultural districts, differently from the rest of the civilised 
world, means the landlords&apos; and farmers&apos; question, vix., how it is possible, despite 
an alwajrs increasing exodus of the agricultural folk, to keep up a suflkient relative 
surplus-population in the country, and by means of it keep the wages of the agri- 
cultural labourer at a minimum? 

• The &quot;Public Health Report,&quot; where in dealing with the subject of children&apos;s 
mortality, the gang-system is treated in passing, remains unknown to the press, and, 
therefore, to the English public On the other hand, the last report of the &quot;Child. 
Empl. Comm.&quot; afforded the press sensational copy always welcome. Whilst the 
liberal press asked how the fine gentlemen and ladies, and the well-paid clergy of 
the State Church, with whom Lincolnshire swarms, could allow such a system to 
arise on their estates, under their very eyes, they who send out expressly missions 
to the Antipodes, &quot;for the improvement of the morals of South Sea Islanders&quot; — the 
more refined press confined itself to reflections on the coarse degradation of the agri- 
cultural population who are capable of selling their children into such slavery! 
Under the accursed conditions to which these &quot;delicate&quot; people condemn the agri- 
cultural labourer, it would not be surprising if he ate his own children. What is 
really wonderful is the healthy integrity of character, he has, in great part, retained. 
The official reports prove that the parents, even in the gang districts, loathe the 
gang-system. &quot;There is much in the evidence that show that the parents of the 
children would, in many instances, be glad to be aided by the requirements of a legal 
obligation, to resist the pressure and the temptations to which they are often snb* 
ject. They are liable to be urged at times by the parish officers, at times by em 



 

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation. 767 

In concluding this section, we must trayel for a moment 
to Ireland. First, the main facts of the case. 

The population of Ireland had, in 1841, reached 8,222,664; 
in 1861, it had dwindled to 6,623,986 ; in 1861, to 6,860,309 ; 
in 1866, to 5^ millions, nearly to its level in 1801. The 
diminution began with the famine year, 1846, so that Ireland, 
in less than twenty years, lost more than-^ths of its people.^ 

TabUA. 

LIVE STOOE. 



Year. 


H0B8B8. 


Cattle. 


Total 
Number. 


Decrease. 


Total 
Number. 


Decrease. 


Increase. 


1860 


619,811 




3,606,374 






1861 


614^32 


5,993 


3,471,688 


138,316 




1862 


602,894 


11,338 


8,254,890 


216,798 




1863 


679,978 


22,916 


3,144,231 


110,695 




1864 


662,158 


17,820 


3,262,294 




118,063 


1865 


547,867 


14,291 


3,493,414 




231,120 



ployers, under threats of being themselves discharged, to be taken to work at an age 
when . . . school attendance . . . would be manifestly to their greater ad- 
vantage. .... All that time and strength wasted; all the suffering from extra 
and unprofitable fatigue produced to the labourer and to his children; every instance 
in which the parent may have traced the moral ruin of his child to the under- 
mining of delicacy by the overcrowding of cottages, or to the contaminating in- 
fluences of the public gang, must have been so many incentives to feelings in the 
minds of the labouring poor which can be well understood, and which it would be 
needless to particularise. They must be conscious that much bodily and mental pain 
has thus been inflicted upon them from causes for which they were in no waj 
answerable; to which, had it been in their power, they would have in no w«f 
consented; and against which they were powerless to struggle.&quot; (1. c, p. xx., S 8t» 
and xxiiL, n. 96.) 

1 Population of Irdand, 1801, 6,819,807 persons; ISll. 6,084^996; 1881, 6,869,644} 
1881, 7,828,847; 1841, 8,888,664. 



 

768 



Capitalist Production^ 



Its total emigration from May, 1861, to July, 1865, numbered 
1,691,487: the emigration during the years 1861-1865 was 
ipcre than half-a-million. The number of inhabitated houses 
fell, from 1851-1861, by 52,990. From 1851-1861, the 
nimiber of holdings of 15 to 30 acres increased 61,000, that 
of holdings over 30 acres, 109,000, whilst the total number 
of all farms fell 120,000, a fall, therefore, solely due to the 
suppression of farms under 15 acres — i.e., to their central- 
isation. 



Tear. 


Sheep. 


Pigs. 


Total 
Number. 


Decrease. 


Increase. 


Total 
Number. 


Decrease. 


Increase. 


1860 
1861 
1862 
1863 
1864 
1865 


3,542,080 
8,556,050 
3,456,132 
3,308,204 
3,366,941 
3,688,742 


99,918 
147,982 


13,970 

58,737 
321,801 


1,271,072 
1,102,042 
1,164,324 
1,067,458 
1,058,480 
1,299,893 


169,030 

86,866 
8,978 


52,282 
241,413 



The decrease of the population was naturally accompanied 
by a decrease in the mass of products. For our purpose, it 
suffices to consider the 5 years from 1861-1865 during which 
over half-a-million emigrated, and the absolute number of 
people sank by more than ^ of a million. 

From the above tables it results: — 



HOBSBS. 


Cattle. 


Sheep. 


Pros. 


Absolute 
Decrease. 

72,358 


Absolute 
Decrease. 

116,626 


Absolute 
Increase. 

146,608 


Absolute 
Increase. 

28,819 1 



*&apos;thc result would be found yet more unfaTourable if we went further back 



 

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation. 769 

Let us now turn to agriculture, which yields the means of 
subsistence for cattle and for men. In the following table is 
calculated the decrease or increase for each separate year, as 
compared with its immediate predecessor. The Cereal Crops 
include wheat, oats, barley, rye, beans and peas; the Green 
.Crops, potatoes, turnips, mangolds, beet-root, cabbages, car- 
rots, parsnips, vetches, &amp;c. 

TahU B. 

INOSBASB OB DEOBEASE IN THE ABBA ITNDBB OBOPS USD 
GBASS IN ACBBAGE. 



1 

1861 
1862 
1868 
1864 
1856 
1861-65 


Cereal 
Crops. 


Green Crops. 


Grass and 
Clover. 


Flax. 


Total CalHfated 
Land. 


1 


1 


1 


1 


1 


1 


1 


i 


1 


Acres. 
15,701 
72,784 

144.719 

122,487 
72.460 

488,011 


Acres. 
86.974 
74,785 
19,868 
2.817 

107.984 


Acres 
25,211 


Acres 
47,969 


Acres 

6,628 
7.724 
47,486 
68,970 
82,884 


Acres 
50,159 


Acres. 
19,271 
2.066 
68,922 
87,781 

122,860 


Acres 
81,878 

188,841 
92.481 

28,218 
880,860 


Acres. 
10.488 



In the year 1866, 127,470 additional acres came under the 
heading &quot;grass land,&quot; chiefly because the area under the head- 
ing of &quot;bog and waste unoccupied,&quot; decreased by 101,548 
acres. If we compare 1865 with 1864, there is a decrease in 
cereals of 246,667 qrs., of which 48,999 were wheat, 160,605 
oats, 29,892 barley, &amp;c. : the decrease in potatoes was 446,398 
tons, although the area of their cultivation increased in 1865. 

From the movement of population and the agricultural pro- 
duce of Ireland, we pass to the movement in tiie purse of its 

ThvM&apos;. Sheep in 1866, 8.688,742. but in 1866. 8.694.294. Pigs in 1885. 1.299.898. but 
ki 1868. 1.409.888. 

2 W 



 

770 



Capitalisi Production. 






1 


it 




i : : t i t H 

lUMI J 




1 II 1 




i 


^. R I 82. S. 8. t ^ 1 R 




i 


1l|ll||lll| 


il. 








M e» 00 1-1 M 

b ^ •€ ^ b 


1 
1 


i 


sasssSS2|5^ 


i 


•9 A a--Vio~;U &apos;e6 le « 4i &lt;6 
r S S S - i 


1&quot; 




i| ^ 1 1 




S. H 1 s ^ t 

* - « - 8 


1 

H 


i 


1 1 § 1 1 5 II 1 1 


i 


8 t i. t H- 8. 1 1 8 1 

r4 r4 «&lt;^ 


1 


; : : ««kA«% : : ^« ; : : 
I : : : : : : 8 : : : 

1 1 1 II II 1 3 II 



o| ►•2 625.5 
PcMtd 



■a&apos;S ^i&apos;o 



O ka aa «« i 



2 



» n — tj •• 






s 









 

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation. 771 

landlords, larger farmers^ and indusEtrial capitalists. It is 
reflected in the rise and fall of the Income-tax. It may be 
remembered that Schedule D (profits with the exception oi&apos; 
those of farmers), includes also the so-called, &quot;professional&quot; 
profits — i.e., the incomes of lawyers, doctors, &amp;c; and the 
Schedules C. and E., in which no special details are given, 
include the incomes of employes, officers, State sinecurists. 
State fundholders, &amp;c 

Table. D. 

THB UTOOMB-TAX ON TKE SUB JOnTEID UTOOMBS HT 
POUNDS STBBl.INa. 



/ 
















1860. 


1861. 


1869. 


1868. 


1864 


1866. 


SCRSDVLB A. 














Rent of Land 


1S,898,8S9 


18,008,664 


18,808,088 


18,404.001 


18.470.700 


18.801.616 


SCBXDULB B. 














Farmn&apos;. Pfts. 


8,766,887 


9,778,644 


9,087,800 


9,088.898 


9,080.874 


9.046.079 


SCHKDULB D. 














Industrial, ftc 
Profits .... 


4,801,669 


4^6.908 


4.868,800 


4,846.407 


4,646,147 


4380,100 


Total Schedls. 
A. to E.... 


83,068386 


89,008,804 


98,607,674 


98.668.681 


98,986,908 


98.080,8401 



Under Schedule D. the average annual increase of income 
from 1853-1864 was only 0*93 ; whilst, in the same period, in 
Great Britain, it was 4 -68. Table E, p. 772, shows the dis- 
tribution of the profits (with the exception of those of farm- 
ers) for the years 1864 and 1865. 

England, a country with fully developed capitalist produc- 
tion, and pre-eminently industrial, would have bled to death 
with such a drain of population as Ireland has suffered. But 
Ireland is at present only an agricultural district of England, 
marked off by a wide channel from the country to which it 
yields com, wool, cattle, industrial and military recruits. 

* Tenth Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. Lond. 1800. 



 

77^ 



Capitalist Production^ 



Table E. 

017HXD17IJS IX nrooMB FROM PBOFTTS (ovsB £60) nr 
ifiEiiAin). 





1864. 
£. 


1865. 
£. 


Total yearly income 
of 


4,868,ei0 diTided among 

17,M7 penoos. 


18,081 penoos. 


Yearly income over 
£60 and under £100 


238,626 „ 6,016 „ 


222,676 


„ 4,703 „ 


Of the yearly toUl 
income »..»», ^ ^ - 


1,979,066 „ 11,321 „ 
2,150,818 „ 1,131 n 


2,028,471 


„ 12,184 „ 


Remainder of the to- 
tal yearly income 


2,418,933 


„ 1,194 „ 




1,083,906 „ 910 „ 


1,097,937 


„ 1,044 „ 




1,066,912 „ 121,, 


1,320,996 


« 186 „ 


Of these 


430,535 „ 106 „ 
646,377 „ 26 „ 


684,458 
736,448 


„ 122,, 
„ 28 „ 




^ 


262,610 „ 3„ 


264,528 


8 „i 



The depopulation of Ireland has thrown mnch of the land 
ont of cultivation, has greatly diminished the produce of the 
8oil,^ and, in spite of the greater area devoted to cattle breed- 
ing, has brought about, in some of its branches, an absolute 
diminution, in others, an advance scarcely worthy of mention, 
and constantly interrupted by retrogressions. Nevertheless, 
with the fall in numbers of the population, rents and farmers&apos; 
profits rose, although the latter not as steadily as the former. 

&apos;The total yearly income under Schedule D. is different in this style from that 
which appears in the preceding ones, because of certain deductions allowed by law. 

&apos;If the product also diminishes relatively per acre, it must not be forgotten that 
ior a century and a half England has indirectly exported the soil of Ireland, widh 
•at as much as allowing its cultivators the means for making np the co n stit u en t i of 
fbt soil that had been exhausted. 



 

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulatio-. 773 

The reason of this is easily comprehensible. On the one hand^ 
with the throwing of small holdings into large ones, and the 
change of arable into pasture land, a larger part of the whole 
produce was transformed into surplus produce. The surplus 
produce increased, althou^ the total produce, of which it 
formed a fraction, decreased. On the o&amp;er hand, the money- 
value of this surplus produce increased yet more rapidly than 
its mass^ in consequence of the rise in the English market^ 
price of meat^ wool; &amp;c., during the last 20, and especially 
during the last 10, years. 

The scattered means of production that serve the producers 
themselves as means of employment and subsistence, without 
expanding their own value by the incorporation of the labour 
of others, are no more capital than a product consumed by its 
own producer is a commodity. If, with the mass of the popu- 
lation, that of the means of production employed in agricul- 
tural also diminished, the mass of the capital employed in 
agriculture increased, because a part of the means of produc- 
tion that were formerly scattered, was concentrated and 
turned into capital. 

The total capital of Ireland outside agriculture, employed 
in industry and trade, accumulated during the last two de- 
cades slowly, and with great and constantly recurring 
fluctuations ; so much the more rapidly did the concentration 
of its individual constituents develop. And, however small 
its absolute increase, in proportion to the dwindling popu- 
lation it had increased largely. 

Here, then, under our own eyes and on a large scale, a pro- 
cess is revealed, than which nothing more excellent could be 
wished for by orthodox economy for the support of its dogma: 
that misery springs from absolute surplus-population, and 
that equilibrium is re-established by depopulation. This is 
a far more important experiment than was the plague in the 
middle of the 14th century so belauded of Malthusians. Note 
further: If only the naivete of the schoolmaster could apply, 
to the conditions of production and population of the nine- 
teenth century, the standard of the 14th, this naivete, into the 
bargain, overlooked the fact that whilst, after the plague and 



 

774 Capitalist Production. 

the deoimation that accompanied it, followed on this side ol 
the channel, in England, enfranchisement and enrichment of 
the agricultural population, on that side, in France, followed 
greater servitude and more misery.^ 

The Irish famine of 1846 killed more than 1,000,000 peo- 
ple, but it killed poor devils only. To the wealth of the coun- 
try it did not the slightest damage. The exodus of the next 
20 years, an exodus still consta^itly increasing did not, as, e.g., 
the thirty years&apos; war^ decimate, along with the human beings, 
their means of production. Irish genius discovered an al- 
together new way of spiriting a poor people thousands of 
miles away from the scene of its misery. The exiles trans- 
planted to the United States, send home sums of money every 
year as travelling expenses for those left behind. Every 
troop that emigrates one year, draws another after it thM9 
next Thu% instead of costing Ireland anything, emigration 
forms one of the most lucrative branches of its export trada 
Finally, it is a systematic process, which does not simply 
make a passing gap in the population, but sucks out of it 
every year more people than are replaced by the births, so 
that the absolute level of the population falls year by year.* 

What were the consequences for the Irish labourers left be- 
hind and freed from the surplus-population ? That the rela- 
tive surplus-population is to-day as great as before 1846 ; that 
wages are just as low, that the oppression of the labourers&apos; 
has increased, that misery is forcing the country towards a 
new crisis. The facts are simple. The revolution in agri- 
culture has kept pace with emigration. The production of 
relative surplus population has more than kept pace with the 
absolute depopulation. A glance at table C shows that the 
change of arable to pasture land must work yet more acutely 
in Ireland than in England. In England the cultivation oi 
green crops increases with the breeding of cattle; in Ireland, 

^As Ireland is regarded as the promised land of the &apos;principle of population.** 
A. Sadler, before the publication of his work on population, issued his famous bool^ 
&quot;Ireland, its evils and their remedies. 2nd edition, London. Id29.&quot; Here, by com 
psrison of the statistics of the individual provinces, and of x\u individual counties ia 
each province, he proves that the misery there is not, as Malthus would have it, m 
proportion to the number of the population, but in inverse ratio to this. 

* B e t ween 1861 and 1874, the total number ot eougrants amounted to S,S86kMS. 



 

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation 775 

it decreases. Whilst large number of acres^ that were for- 
merly tilled, lie idle or are turned permanently into grassr 
land, a great part of the waste land and peat bogs that were 
unused formerly, become of service for the extension of cat- 
tle-breeding. The smaller and medium farmers — ^I reckon 
among these all who do not cultivate more than 100 acres — 
still make up about ^ftj-ths of the whole number.^ They are, 
one after the other, and with a degree of force imknown be- 
fore, crushed by the competition of an agriculture managed by 
capital, and therefore they continually furnish new recruits to 
the class of wage-labourers. The one great industry of Ire- 
land, lineia-manufacture, requires relatively few adult men 
and only employs altogether, m spite of its expansion since 
the price of cotton rose in 1861-1866, a comparatively insig- 
nific&lt;&gt;nt part of th )opulation. Like all the other great mod- 
m industries, it constantly roduces, by incessant fluctuations, 
a relative surplus-population within its own sphere, even with 
an absolute increase in t^e mass of human beings absorbed 
by it The misery of the agricultural population forms the 
pedestal for gigantic shirt-factories, whose armies of labourers 
are, for the most part, cattered ever the country. Here, we 
encounter again the system described above of domestic in- 
dustry, which in under-payment and over-work, possesses its 
own systematic means for creating supernumerary labourers. 
Finally, although the depopulation has not such destructive 
consequences as would result in a country with fully developed 
capitalistic production, it does not go on without constant re- 
action upon the homo-market. The gap which emigration 
causes here, limits not only the local demand for labour, but 
also the incomes of small shopkeepers, artisans, tradespeople 
generally. Hence the diminution in incomes between £60 and 
£100 in table E. 

A clear statement of the condition of the agricultural la- 
bourers in Ireland is to be found in the Eeports of the Irish 
Poor Law Inspectors (1870).* OflScials of a government 

&lt; According to a table in Mtirphy&apos;t &quot;Ireland industrial, political and wocbA,** 1870, 
M.6 per cer.t. of the holdings do not reach 100 acres, 6.4 exceed 100 acres. 
&apos;&apos;tteyorli frMi the Poor Law Inspectors on the wages of Agricultural Labottfcn 



 

776 



Capitalist Production. 



which is maintained only by bayonets and by a state of siege, 
now open, now disguised, they have to observe all the pre- 
cautions of language that their colleagues in England disdain. 
In spite of this, however, they do not let their government 
cradle itself in illusions. According to them the rate of 
wages in the country^ still very low, has within the last 20 
years risen 50-60 per cent, and stands now, on the average, at 
6s. to 9s. per week. But behind this apparent rise, is hidden 
an actual fall in wages, for it does not correspond at all to the 
rise in price of the necessary means of subsistence that has 
taken place in the meantime. For proof, the following ex- 
tract from the official accounts of an Irish workhouse. 

AVEBAOS WSBKLY COBT FEB HsAD. 



Tear ended 


Provisions and 
Necessaries. 


aothing. 


TotaL 


29th Sept 1840 
„ 1860 


la. 34d. 
2s. 7|d. 


3d. 
6d. 


la. 6id. 
U. lid. 



The price of the necessary means of subsistence is therefore 
fully twice, and that of clothing exactly twice, as much as 
they were 20 years before. 

Even apart from this disproportion, the mere comparison of 
the rate of wages expressed in gold would give a result far 
from accurate. Before the famine, the great mass of agricul- 
tural wages were paid in kind, only the smallest part in 
money; to-day, payment in money is the rule. From this 
it follows that, whatever the amount of the real wage, its 
money rate must rise. *Trevious to the famine, the labourer 
enjoyed his cabin . . . with a rood, or half-acre or acre 

in Dublin, 1870/&apos; S«e alio &quot;Agricolturml Lsbourcn (Ireland) Rctorn, cts« M 
March 1808, London 1808.&quot; 



 

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation, jjj 

txi land, and facilities for • . . a crop of potatoes. He 
WHS able to read his pig and keep fowl. . . . But they 
now have to buy bread, and they have no refuse upon which 
they can feed a pig or fowl, and they have consequently no 
benefit from the sale of a pig, fowl, or eggs.&quot;^ In fact, for- 
merly, the agricultural labourers were but the smallest of the 
small farmers, and formed for the most part a kind of rear- 
guard of the medium and large farms on which they found 
employment Only since the catastrophe of 1846 have they 
begun to form a fraction of the class of purely wage-la- 
bourers, a special class, connected with its wage-masters only 
by monetary relations. 

We know what were the conditions of their dwellings in 
1846. Since then they have grown yet worse. A part of the 
agricultural labourers, which, however, grows less day by day, 
dwells still on the holdings of the farmers in over-crowded 
huts, whose hideousness far surpasses the worst that the 
English agricultural labourers oflfered us in this way. And 
this holds generally with the exception of certain tracts of 
Ulster; in the south, in the counties of Cork, Limerick, Kil- 
kenny, 4^c. ; in the east, in Wicklow, Wexford, &amp;c. ; in the 
centre of Ireland, in King&apos;s and Queen&apos;s County, Dublin, &amp;c. ; 
in the west, in Sligo, Roscommon, Mayo, Galway, &amp;c. &quot;The 
agricultural labourers&apos; huts,&quot; an inspector cries out, &quot;are a 
.disgrace to the Christianity and to the civilisation of this 
country.&quot;* In order to increase the attractions of these holes 
for the labourers, the pieces of land belonging thereto from 
time immemorial, are systematically confiscated. &quot;The mere 
sense that they exist subject to this species of ban, on the 
part of the landlords and their agents, has . . . given 
birth in the minds of the labourers to corresponding senti- 
ments of antagonism and dissatisfaction towards those by 
whom they are thus led to regard themselves are being treated 
as . . • a proscribed race.&quot;* 

The first act of the agricultural revolution was to sweep 
away the huts situated on the field of labour. This was done 
on the largest scale, and as if in obedience to a command from 

M. c pp. a«, 1. «L c p. 18. •!. c. p. IJ, 



 

7/8 Capitalist Production. 

on high. Thus many labourers were oompelled to seek shelt^ 
in villages and towns. There they were thrown like refuse 
into garrets, holes, cellars and comers, in the worst back slums. 
Thousands of Irish families, who according to the testimony 
of the English, eaten up as these are with national prejudice, 
are notable for their rare attachment to the domestic hearth, 
for their gaiety and the purity of their home-life, found them- 
selves suddenly transplanted into hotbeds of vice. The men 
are now obliged to seek work of the neighboring farmers 
and are only hired by the day, and therefore under the most 
precarious forms of wage. Hence &apos;&apos;they sometimes have long 
distances to go to and from work, often get wet, and suffer 
much hardship, not unfrequently ending in sickness, disease 
and want&apos;&apos;^ 

&quot;The towns have had to receive from year to year what 
was deemed to be the surplus-labour of the rural division ; ^&apos;* 
and then people still wonder &apos;&apos;there is still a surplus of labour 
in the towns and villages, and either a scarcity or a threatened 
scarcity in some of the country divisions.&quot;* The truth is that 
this want only becomes perceptible &quot;in harvest-time, or during 
spring, or at such times as agricultural operations are carried 
on with activity ; at other periods of the year many hands are 
idle ;&quot;* that &quot;from the digging out of the main crop of potatoes 
in October untU the early spring following . • • there is 
no employment for them ;&quot;* and further, that during the ac- 
tive times they &quot; are subject to broken days and to all kinds of 
interruptions.&apos;^* 

These results of the agricultural revolution — i.e., the change 
of arable into pasture land, the use of machinery, the most 
rigorous economy of labour, &amp;c., are still further aggravated 
by the model landlords, who, instead of spending their rents 
in other countries, condescend to live in Ireland on their de- 
mesnes. In order that the law of supply and demand may not 
be broken, these gentlemen draw their &quot;labour-supply . . . 
chiefly from their small tenants^ who are obliged to attend 
when required to do the landlord&apos;s work, at rates of wages, in 

^l c p. t5. •!. e. p. 2S. &quot;L c. pp. n* BS. 

•i c p. tr. «L c p. 1. •L c p. SS. 



 

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation. 779 

many instances, considerably under the current rates paid to 
ordinary labourers, and without regard to the inconvenience 
or loss to the tenant of being obliged to neglect his own business 
at critical periods of sowing or reaping.&quot;* 

The Tincertainty and irregularity of employment, the con- 
stant return and long duration of gluts of labour, all these 
symptoms of a relative surplus-population, figure therefore in 
the reports of the Poor Law administration, as so many hard- 
ships of the agricultural proletariat It will be remembered 
that we met, in the English agricultural proletariat, with a 
similar spectacle. But the difference is that in England, an 
industrial country, the industrial reserve recruits itself from 
the country districts, whilst in Ireland, an agricultural coun- 
try, the agricultural reserve recruits itself from the towns, the 
cities of refuge of the expelled agricultural labourers. In the 
former, the supernumeraries of agriculture are transformed 
into factory-operatives; in the latter, those forced into the 
towns, whilst at the same time they press on the wages in 
towns, remain agricultural labourers, and are constantly sent 
back to the country districts in search of work* 

The official inspectors sum up the material condition of the 
agricultural labourer as follows; &quot;Though living with the 
strictest frugality, his own wages are barely sufficient to pro- 
vide food for an ordinary family and pay his rent, and he de- 
pends upon other sources for the means of clothing himself, his 
wife, and children. • . The atmosphere of these cabins, 
combined with the other privations they are subjected to, has 
made this class particularly susceptible to low fever and pul- 
monary consumption.&quot;* After this, it is no wonder that, ac- 
cording to the unanimous testimony of the inspectors, a sombre 
discontent runs through the ranks of this class, that they long 
for the return of the past, loathe the present, despair of ihe fu- 
ture, give themselves up to &quot;to the evil influence of agita- 
tors,&quot; and have only one fixed idea, to emigrate to America. 
This is the land of Cockaigne, into which the great Malthu- 
sian panacea, depopulation, has transformed green Erin. 

What a happy life the Irish factory operative leads, one 

«i c |k 80 •L c pi». 81. 18. 



 

780 Capitalist Production. 

example will show: ^^On my recent visit to the Nortih of 
Ireland,&quot; says the English Factory Inspector, Bobert Baker, 
&quot;I met with the following evidence of effort in an Irish skill- 
ed workman to afford education to his children; and I give 
his evidence verbatim, as I took it from his mouth. That he 
was a skilled factory hand, may be understood when I say that 
he was employed on goods for the Manchester market ^John- 
son. — ^I am a beetler and work from 6 in the morning till 11 
at night, from Monday till Friday. Saturday we leave off 
at 6 p.m,. and get three hours of it (for meals and rest). I 
have five children in alL For this work I get lOs. 6d. a week; 
my wife works here also, and gets 5s. a week. The oldest 
girl who is 12, minde the house. She is also cook, and all the 
servant we have. She gets the young ones ready for schooL 
A girl going past the house wakes me at half past five in the 
morning. My wife gets up and goes along with me. We get 
nothing (to eat) before we come to work. The child of 13 
takes care of the little children all the day, and we get noth- 
ing till breakfast at eight At eig^t we go home. We get 
tea once a week; at other times we get stirabout, sometimes 
of oatmeal, sometimes of Indian meal, as we are able to get 
it. In the winter we get a little sugar and water to our Indian 
meal. In the summer we get a few potatoes, planting a 
small patch ourselves; and when they are done we get back to 
stirabout Sometimes we get a little milk as it may be. So 
we go on from day to day, Sunday and week day, always the 
same the year roTmd. I am always very much tired when I 
have done at night We may see a bit of flesh meat sometimes, 
but very seldom. Three of our children attend school, for 
whom we pay Id. a week a head. Our rent is 9d. a week. 
Peat for firing costs le. 6d. a fortni^t at the very lowest&quot;^ 
Such are Irish wages, such is Irish life I 

In fact the misery of Ireland is again the topic of the day in 
England. At the end of 1866 and the beginning of 1867, one 
of the Irish land magnates, Lord Dufferin, set about its solu- 
tion in the &quot;Times.&quot; ^Wie menschlich von solch grossem 
Hermr 



&gt;Rept of Insp. of Fact Sltt Oct^ ISM, ^ 96. 



 

The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation. 781 

From Table E. we saw that, during 1864, of £4,368,610 of 
total profits, three surplus-value makers pocketed only 
£262,610; that in 1865, however, out of £4,669,979 total 
profits, the same three virtuosi of &quot;abstinence^^ pocketed 
£274,448; in 1864, 26 surplus-value makers reached to 
£646,377; in 1865, 28 surplus-value makers reached to 
£736,448 ; in 18C4, 121 surplus-value makers, £1,066,912 ; in 
1865, 186 surplus-value makers, £1,320,996; in 1864, 1131 
surplus-value makers £2,150,818, neprly half of the total an- 
nual profit; in 1865, 1194 surplus-value makers £2,418,933, 
more than half of the total annual profit But the lion&apos;s 
share, which an inconceivably small number of land magnates 
in England, Scotland and Ireland swallow up of the yearly 
national rental, is so monstrous that the wisdom of the English 
state does not think fit to afford the same statistical materials 
about the distribution of rents as about the distribution of 
profits. Lord Dufferin is one of those land magnates. That 
rent-rolls and profits can ever be &quot;excessive,&quot; or that their 
plethora is in any way connected with plethora of the people&apos;s 
misery is, an idea as &quot;disreputable&quot; as &quot;unsound.&quot; He keeps 
to facts. The fact is that, as the Irish population diminishes, 
the Irish rent-rolls swell ; that depopulation benefits tbc land- 
lords, therefore also benefits the soil, and, therefore the people, 
that were accessory of the soil. He declares, therefore, that 
Ireland is still over-populated, and the stream of emigration 
still flows too lazily. To be perfectly happy, Ireland must 
get rid of at least one-third of a million of labouring men. 
Let no man imagine that this lord, poetic into the baigain, 
is a physician of the school of Sangrado, who as often as he 
did not find his patient better, ordered phlebotomy and again 
phlebotomy, until the patient lost his sickness at the same 
time as his blooi Lord Dufferin demands a new blood-letting 
of one-third of a million only, instead of about two millions ; 
in fact&gt; without the getting rid of these, the millennium in 
Erin is not to be. The proof is easily given. 

Centrialisation has from 1851 to 1861 destroyed principally 
farms of the first three cat^ories, under 1 and not over 15 
aores. These above all must disappear. This gives 307,058 



 

782 



Capitalist Production. 



NuicBEB Ain&gt; Extent of Fabms nr Ireland in 1864w 



(1) Parmt not over 
1 acre. 


(8) Farms orer 1. not 
over 6 acres. 


(8) Farms over 6, not 
over 16 acres. 


(4) Farms over li, noi 
over 80 acres. 




No. 
48.668 


Acres. 
»,804 


No. 
88,087 


Acres. 
888,916 


No. 
175,808 


Acres. 
1,886,810 


No. 
186,678 


Acres. 
8,061^ 










(6) Fmrms over 80, not 
over 60 acres. 


(6) Farms over 60, not 
over 100 acres. 


(7) Farms over 100 
acres. 


(8) Total area. 




No. 
71,m 


Acres. 
t,006,«T4 


No. 
64,817 


Acres. 
1.888^ 


No. 


Acres. 
8,817,807 


Acres. 
86.819.8841 





&quot;supernumerary&quot; farmers, and reckoning the families the low 
average of 4 persons 1,228,232 pers&lt;His. On the extravagant 
supposition that^ after the agricultural reyolution is complete^ 
one-fourth of these are again absorbable, there remain for emi- 
gration 921,174 persons. Categories, 4, 6, 6, of over 15 and 
not over 100 acres, are, as was known long since in England, 
too small for capitalistic cultivation of com, and for dieep- 
breeding are almost vanishing quantities. On the same sup- 
position as before, therefore, there are further &apos;788,761 persons 
to emigrate; total, 1,709,532. And as Fappetit vient en 
mangeant. Rent-roll&apos;s eyes will soon discover that Ireland, with 
3y2 millions, is still always miserable because she is over- 
populated. Therefore her depopulation must go yet further, 
that thus she may fulfill her true destiny, that of an English 
sbeep walk and cattle-pasture.* 

&apos;The total area indndes also peat, bogs, and waste land. 

&apos; How the famine and its consequences have been deliberately made the most o^ 
both by the individual landlords and by the English legislature, to forcibly carry out 
the agricultural revolution and to thin the population of Ireland down to the propor- 
tion satisfactory to the landlords, I shall show more fully in Vol. III. of this work, 
in the section on landed property. There also I return to the condition of the small 
farmers and the agricultural labourers. At present, only one quotation. Nassau W. 
Senior says, with other things, in his posthumous work, &quot;Journals, Cooversatkms 
and Essays, relating to Ireland.&apos;* S vols. London 1868; Vol II., p. S83. &quot;WetU&quot; 
•aid Dr. &amp;» &apos;Sre have got our Poor Law and it ia a great instntme&amp;t for giving tht 



 

The General Law of Capitalist AccumtUdHon. 783 

Like all good things in this bad world, this profitable method 
has its drawbacks. With the accumulation of rents in Ireland, 
the accumulation of the Irish in America keeps pace. The 
Irishman, banished by sheep and ox, reappears on the othei 
side of the ocean ae a Fenian^ and face to face with the olci 
queen of the sea rises, threatening and more threatening, the 
young giant Bepublic: 

Acerba fata Bomanos agunt 
Scelusque fratemse necis. 

▼fetofy to the landlord*. Another* and a still more powerful instrument is &apos;.-micra- 
tion ... No friend to Ireland can wish the war to be prolonged CbetW4.en the 
landlords and the small Celtic farmers] — still less, that it should end by the victory 
of the tenants. The sooner it is over — the sooner Ireland becomes a grazing country, 
with the comparatively thin population which a grazing country requires, the better 
lor all classes.&quot; The English Com Laws of 1816 secured Ireland the monopoly of 
the free importation of com into Great Britain. They favoured artificially, therefore^ 
the cultivation of com. With the abolition of the Com Laws in 1846, this monopoly 
was suddenly removed. Apart from all other circumstances, this event alone was 
sufficient to give a great impulse to the turning of Irish arable into pasture land, 
to the concentration of farms, and to the eviction of small cultivators. After the 
fruitfulness of the Irish soil had been praised from 1816 to 1846, and proclaimed 
loudly as by Nature herself destined for the cultivation of wheat, English agrono- 
mists, economists, politicians, discover suddenly that it is good for nothing but to 
produce forage. M. L6once de Lavergne has hastened to repeat this on the other 
aide of the ChaaneL It takes a &quot;serious&quot; man, i La Lavefgne^ to be caught by such 
fhildiihnfia 



 

PABT vm. 

THE SO-CALLED PRmiTIVE ACCUMULATION. 

CHAPTER XXVL 

THB SBOBET OF PBIMITIVS ACCTTHXTLATIO&apos;lf. 

Wb have seen how money is changed into capital; how 
through capital surplus-value is made^ and from suxplu^- 
value more capital But the ..ccumulation of capital pie- 
supposes surplus-value; surplus-value presupposes capital- 
istic production; capitalistic production presupposes the pre- 
existence of considerable masses of capital and of labour-pow- 
er 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 « primitive accumulation 
(previous accumulation of Adam Smith) preceding capital- 
istic accumulation ; an accumulation not the result of the capi- 
talist 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 t Thus it came to pass that the former 

784 



 

The Secret of Primitive Accumulation. 785 

sort accamulated wealthy 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 np 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.y 
had the assurance to repeat it with all the solemnity of a states- 
man, 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, rob- 
bery, murder, briefly force, play the great part In the tender 
annals of Political Economy, the idyllic reigns from time im- 
memorial Right and ^labour&apos;&apos; were from all time the sole 
means of enrichment, the present year of course always ex- 
cepted. As a matter of fact, the methods of primitive accumu- 
lation 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 it- 
self can only take place imder certain circumstances tiiat 
centre in this, viz.y 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&apos;s labour-power; on the 
other hand, free labourers, the sellers of their own labour-pow- 
er, 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, 
&amp;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 sep- 



sx 



 

786 Capitalist Production. 

iiration of the labourers from all property in the means by 
&quot;which they can realise 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 scala. 
The process, therefore, that clears the way for the capitalist 
system, can be none other than the process which takes away 
&amp;om 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, therofore, is nothing else than the 
historical process of divorcing the producer from the means 
of production. It appears as primitive, because it forms 
the pre-historic stage of capital and of the mode of produo* 
tion corresponding with it 

The economic structure of capitalistic 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 tlie 
soil and ceased to be the slave, serf, or bondman of another. 
To become a free seller of labour-power, who carries his com- 
modity wherever he finds a market, he must further have 
escaped from the regime of the guilds, their rules for appren- 
tices 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 histor- 
ians. But, on the other hand, these new freedmen became sell- 
ers of themselves only after they had been robbed of all their 
own means of production, and of all the guarantees of ex- 
istence 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 th^ 
part not only to displace the guild masters of handicrafts, but 
also the feudal lords, the possessors of the sources of w^tL 



 

The Secret of Primtive Accumulation. 787 

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&apos;industrie, how- 
ever, only succeed 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 Soman f reed-man 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 in- 
to capitalist exploitation. To understand its march, we need 
not go back very far. Although we come across the first be- 
ginnings 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 capitalist 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 ^&apos;unattached&quot; 
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.^ 

^In Italy* where capitalistic production developed earliett* the dlitolution of 
serfdom also took place earlier than elsewhere. The serf was emancipated in that 
coantry before he had acquired any prescriptive right to the soil. His emancipation 
■t once transformed him into a free proletarian, who, moreover, found his master 
Ttadj waiting for him in the towns, for the most part handed dowa as legacies from 



 

788 Capitalist Production. 



CHAPTER XXVn. 

BZPBOPBIATION OF THB AGBICCTLrTU&amp;AL POPULATIOV VBOH 

THB LAin&gt;. 

In England, serfdom had practically disappeared in the last 
part of the 14th century. The immense majority of the 
population^ consisted then, and to a still larger extent, in the 
15th century, of free peasant proprietors, whatever was the 
feudal title under which their right of property was hidden. 
In the larger seignorial domains, the old bailiff, himself a serf, 
was displaced by the free farmer. The wage-labourers of 
agriculture consisted partly of peasants, who utilised their 
leisure time by working on the large estates, partly of an 
independent special class of wage-labourers, relatively and 
absolutely few in numbers. The latter also were practically 
at the same time peasant farmers, since, besides their wages, 
they had alloted to them arable land to the extent of 4 or more 
acres, together with their cottages. Besides they, with the 
rest of the peasants, enjoyed the Ubufruct of the conmion 
land, which gave pasture to their cattle, furnished them with 
timber, fire-wood, turf, &amp;c* In all countries of Europe, 

the Roman time. When the revolution of the world-market, ahout the end of the 
16th 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 petUt cuihtre, carried on 
in the form of gardening. 

^ &quot;The petty proprietors who cultivated their own fields with their own hands, and 
enjoyed a modest competence .... then formed a much more important part 
of the nation than at present If we may trust the best statistical writers of that 
age, not less than 160,000 proprietors who, with their families, must have made op 
more than a seventh of the whole population, derived their subsistence from litde 
freehold estates. The average income of these small landlords .... was est^ 
mated at between £60 and £70 a year. It was computed that the number of per^ 
sons who tilled their own land was greater than the number of those who farmed 
the land of others.&quot; Macaulay: History of England. 10th ed., 1864, I. p. SSS,S84. 
Even in the last third of the 17th century, ji of the English people were agricnl- 
nral. (1. c, p. 413.) I quote Macaulay, because as systematic falsifier of history he 
minimises as much as possible facts of this land. 

•We must never forget that even the serf was not only the owner, if bnt a 
tribute-paying owner, of the piece of land attached to his house, but also a o» 
possessor of the common land. &quot;Le paysan y (in Silesia, under Frederick II.) cil 



 

Expropriation of Agricultural Population. 789 

feudal production is characterised bj division of the soil 
amongst the greatest possible number of sub-feudatories. The 
might of the feudal lord, like that of the sovereign, depended 
not on the length of his rent roll, but on the number of his 
subjects, and the latter depended on the number of peasant 
proprietors.* Although, therefore, the English land, after the 
Norman conquest, -was distributed in gigantic baronies, one of 
which often included some 900 of the old Anglo-Saxon lord- 
ships, it &quot;was bestrewn with small peasant properties, only here 
and there interspersed with great seignorial domains. Such 
conditions, together with the prosperity of the towns so charac- 
teristic of the 15th century, allowed of that wealth of the 
people which Chancellor Fortescue so eloquently paints in his 
&apos;^Laudes legum Anglke;&apos;&apos; but it excluded the possibility of 
capitalistic wealth. 

The prelude of the revolution that laid the foundation of 
the capitalist mode of production, was played in the last third 
of the 15th, and the first decade of the 16th century. A mass 
of free proletarians was hurled on the labour-market by the 
breaking-up of the bands of feudal retainers, who, as Sir James 
Steuart well says, &quot;everywhere uselessly filled house and 
castle.^&apos; Although the royal power, itself a product of bour- 
geois development, in its strife after absolute sovereignty for- 
cibly hastened on the dissolution of these bands of retainers, 
it was by no means the sole cause of it. In insolent conflict 
with king and parliament^ the great feudal lords created an 
incomparably larger proletariat by the forcible driving of the 
peasantry from the land, to which the latter had the same 
feudal right as the lord himself, and by the usurpation of the 
common lands. The rapid rise of the Flemish wool manufac- 
tures, and the corresponding rise in the price of wool in Eng- 
land, gave the direct impulse to these evictions. The old nobil- 

scrf.&quot; Nevertheless, these serfs possess common lands. &quot;On n&apos; a pas pn encore 
engager les SilMens au partage des communes, tandis que dans la NouTclle Marche, 
il n&apos;7 a guire de village oi!i ce parUge ne soit ex6ciit6 avec le plus grand succ&amp;s.&quot; 
(Mirabeau: De la Monarchic Prussienne. Londres, 1788, t. ii., pp. 125, 126.) 

* Japan, with its purely feudal organisation of landed property and its developed 
pgtUf culturtt gives a much truer picture of the European middle ages than all our 
history books, dictated as these are, for the most part, by bourgeois prejudices. It 
is very convenient to be &quot;liberal&quot; at the expense of the middle ages. 



 

790 Capitalist Production. 

ity had been devoured by the great feudal wars. The new 
nobility was the child of its time^ for which money was the 
power of all powers. Transformation of arable land into 
sheep-walks was, therefore, its cry. Harrison, in his &quot;Descrip- 
tion of England, prefixed to Holinshed&apos;s Chronicle,&quot; describes 
how the expropriation of small peasants is ruining the coimtiy. 
^^What care our great encroachers ?&quot; The dwellings of the 
peasants and the cottages of the labourers were razed to the 
ground or doomed to decay. &quot;If,&quot; says Harrison, &quot;the old 
records of euerie manour be sought .... it will soon 
appear that in some manour seventeene, eighteene, or twentie 
houses are shrunk .... that England was neuer less fur- 
nished with people than at the present. ... Of cities and 
townes either utterly decaied or more than a quarter or half 
diminished, though some one be a little increased here or there; 
of townes pulled downe for sheepe-walks, and no more but the 
lordships now standing in them .... I could saie some- 
what&quot; The complaints of tLese old chroniclers are always 
exaggerated, but Uiey reflect faithfully the impression made 
on contemporaries by the revolution in the conditions of prod- 
uction. A comparison of the writings of Chancellor Fortescue 
and Thomas More reveals the gulf between the 15th and 16th 
century. As Thornton rightly has it, the English working- 
class was precipitated without any transition from its golden 
into its iron age. 

Legislation was terrified at this revolution* It did not yet 
stand on that height of civilisation where the &quot;wealth of the 
nation&quot; (t.6., the formation of capital, and the reckless ex* 
ploitation and impoverishing of the mass of the people) figure 
as the vUirna Thule of all state-craft In his history of 
Henry VIL, Bacon says: &quot;Inclosuree at that time (1489) 
began to be more frequent, whereby arable land (which could 
not be manured without people and families) was turned into 
pasture, which was easily rid by a few herdsmen ; and tenan- 
cies for years, lives, and at will (whereupon much of the yeo- 
manry lived) were turned into demenses. This bred a decay 
of people, and (by consequence) a decay of towns, churches, 
tithes, and the like In remedying of this inconvenience 



 

Expropriation of Agricultural Population. 791 

the king^s wisdom was admirable, and the parliament at that 
time .... they took a course to take away depopulating in- 
dosuree, and depopulating pasturage.&apos;&apos; An Act of Henry 
VIL, 1489, cap. 19, forbad the destruction of all &quot;houses of 
husbandry&quot; to which at least 20 acres of land belonged. By 
an Act, 25 Henry VIII., the same law was renewed. It re- 
cites^ among other things, that many farms and large flocks of 
cattle, especially of sheep, are concentrated in the hands of a 
few men, whereby the rent of land has much risen and tillage 
has fallen o£F, churches and houses have been pulled down, and 
marvellous numbers of people have been deprived of the means 
wherewith to maintain themselves and their families. The 
Act, therefore, ordains the rebuilding of the decayed farm- 
steads, and fixes a proportion between com land and pasture 
land, &amp;c An Act of 1533 recites that some owners possess 
24,000 sheep, and limits the number to be owned to 2000.* 
The cry of the people and the legislation directed, for 150 
years after Henry VII., against the expropriation of the 
small farmers and peasants, were alike fruitless. The secret 
of their ineflSciency Bacon, without knowing it, reveals to us. 
**The device of King Henry VIL,&quot; sayis Bacon, in his &quot;Essays, 
Civil and Moral,&quot; Essay 29, &quot;was profound and admirable^ 
in making farms and houses of husbandry of a standard ; that 
is, maintained with such a proportion of land unto them as 
may breed a subject to live in convenient plenty, and no ser- 
vile condition, and to keep the plough in the hands of the 
owners and not mere hirelings.&quot;^ What the capital system 

&lt; In his &apos;Utopia/&apos; Thomat More Mys, that in England &quot;your thepe that were 
wont to he BO meke and tame, and so smal eaters, now, as I heare saye, be become so 
great deyourers and so wylde that they eate up, and swallow downe, the very men 
themselfes.&quot; &quot;Utopia,&quot; transl. by Robinson., ed. Arber, Lond., 1869, p. 41. 

* Bacon shows the connexion between a free, well-to^lo peasantry and good in- 
fantry. &quot;This did wonderfully concern the might and mannerhood of the kingdom 
to have farms as it were of a standard sufficient to maintain an able body out of 
penary, and did in effect amortize a great part of the lands of the kingdom unto 
the hold and occupation of the yeomanry or middle people, of a condition between 
gentlemen, and cottagers and peasants. .... For it hath been held by the 
general opinion of men of best judgment in the wars .... that the principal 
strength of an army consisteth in the infantry or foot. And to make good infantry 
it requireth men bred, not in a servile or indigent fashion, but in some free and 
plentiful manner. Therefore, if a state run most to noblemen and gentlemen, and 
that the husbandmen and ploughmen be but as their workfolk and labourer% or 



 

792 Capitalist Production. 

demanded was, on the other hand^ a degraded and almost 
servile condition of the mass of the people, the transformation 
of them into mercenaries, and of their means of labour into 
capital During this rtansformation period, legislation also 
strove to retain the 4 acres of land by the cottage of the ag- 
ricultural v^age-labourer, and forbad him to take lodgers into 
his cottage. In the reign of Tames I. 1627, Roger Crocker of 
Front Mill, was condemned ior having built a cottage on 
the manor of Front Mill witho 4 acres of land attached to 
the same in perpetuity. As late as Charles I/s reign, 1638, 
a royal conmiission was appo nted to enforce the carrying out 
of lie old laws, especially that referring to the 4 acres of 
land. Even in Cromwell^s time, the building of a house with- 
in 4 miles of London was forbidden unless it was endowed 
with 4 acres of land. As late as the first half of the 18th 
century complaint is made if the cottage of the agricultural 
labourer has not an adjunct of one or two acres of land. Now- 
adays he is lucky if it is furnished with a little garden, or 
if he may rent, far avray from his cottage, a few roods. 
&quot;Landlords and farmers,&quot; says Dr. Hunter, &quot;work here hand 
in hand. A few acres to the cottage would make the labourers 
too independent&quot;^ 

The process of forcible expropriation of the people received 
in the 16th century a new and frightful impulse from the 
Beformation, and from the consequent colossal spoliation 
of the church property. The Catholic diurch was, at the 
time of the Reformation, feudal proprietor of a great part of 
the English land. The suppression of the monasteries, &amp;c, 
hurled their inmates into the proletariat The estates of 
the church were to a large extent given away to rapacious 

else mere cottages (which are but housM beggars), yon m&amp;j have a good cavalry, 
but never good stable bands of foot .... And this is to be seen in France^ 
and Italy, and some other parts abroad, where in effect qH is noblesse or peasantry 
. . . . insomuch that they are inforced to employ mercenary bands of Switxers 
and the like, for their battalions of foot; whereby also it comes to pass that those 
nations have much people and few soldiers.&quot; (&quot;The Reign of Henry VII.&quot; Ver- 
batim reprint from Kennet&apos;s England. Ed. 1719. Lond., 1870, p. 808.) 

^Dr. Hunter, 1. c, p. 184. &quot;The quantity of land assigned (in the old laws) 
would now be judged too great for labourers, and rather as likely to convert them 
into small farmers.&quot; ((George Roberts: &quot;The Social History of the People of the 
Southern Counties of England in past centuries.&quot; Lond., 1866, pp. 1S4-186.) 



 

Expropriation of Agricultural Population. 793 

royal favourites^ or sold at a nominal price to speculating 
farmers and citizens, who drove out, en. masse, the hereditary 
sub-tenants and threw their holdings into one. The l^ally 
guaranteed property of the poorer folk in a part of the church&apos;s 
tithes was tacitly confiscated.^ &quot;Pauper ubiquejacet,&quot; cried 
Queen Elizabeth, after a journey through England. In the 
43rd year of her reign the nation was obliged to recognise 
pauperism officially by the introduction of a poor-rate. &quot;The 
authors of this law seem to have been ashamed to state the 
grounds of it, for [contrary to traditional usage] it has no pre- 
amble whatever.&quot;^ By the 16th of Charles I., cL 4, it was 
declared perpetual, and in fact only in 1834 did it take a new 
and harsher form.&apos; These immediate results of the Keforma- 
tion were not its most lasting ones. The property of the 

^ &quot;The right of the poor to share in the tithe, is established by the tenonr of an- 
cient sUtutes.&quot; (Tuckett, 1. c. Vol. 11^ pp. 804-806.) 

&apos;William Cobbett: &quot;A History of the Protestant Reformation/&apos; | 471. 

*The &quot;spirit&quot; of Protestantism may be seen from the following, among other 
things. In the sonth of England certain landed proprietors and well-to-do farmers 
put their heads together and propounded ten questions as to the right interpretation 
of the poor-law of Elizabeth. These they laid before a celebrated jurist of that 
time. Sergeant Snigge (later a judge under James I.) for his opinion. &quot;Question 
9 — Some of the more wealthy farmers in the parish have devised a skilful mode by 
which all the trouble of executing this Act (the 48rd of Elizabeth) might be avoided. 
They have proposed that we shall erect a prison in the parish, and then give notice 
to the neighbourhood, that if any persons are disposed to farm the poor of this 
parish, they do give in sealed proposals, on a certain day, of the lowest price at 
which they will take them off our hands; and that they will be authorised to refuse 
to any one unless he be shut up in the aforesaid prison. The proposers of this plan 
conceive that there will be found in the adjoining counties, persons, who, being un- 
willing to labour and not possessing substance or credit to take a farm or ship, so 
as to live without labour, may be induced to make a very advantageous offer to the 
parish. If any of the poor perish under the contractor&apos;s care, the sin will lie at 
his door, as the parish will have done its duty by them. We are, however, apprehen- 
sive that the present Act (48rd of Elizabeth) will not warrant a prudential measure 
of this kind; but you are to learn that the rest of the freeholders of the county, 
and of the adjoining county of B, will very readily join in instructing their members 
to propose an Act to enable the parish to contract with a person to lock up and 
work the poor; and to declare that if any person shall refuse to be so locked up 
and worked, he shall be entitled to no relief. This, it is hoped, will prevent per- 
sons in distress from wanting relief, and be the means of keeping down parishes.&quot; 
(R. Blakey: &quot;The History of Political Literature from the earliest Times.&quot; Lond., 
1866, Vol. II., pp. 84-85.) In Scotland, the abolition of serfdom took place some 
centuries later than in England. Even in 1698, Fletcher of Saltoun, declared in the 
Scotch parliament, &quot;The number of beggars in Scotland is reckoned at not less than 
900,000. The only remedy that I, a republican on principle can suggest, is to restore 
the old state of serfdom, to make slaves of all those who are unable to provide for 
their own subsistence.&quot; Eden, L c. Book I., ch. 1, pp. 60-01, says, &quot;The decrease of 
Tillenage seems necessarily to have been the era of the origin of the poor. Manu* 



 

794 Capitalist Production. 

church fonned the religious bulwark of the traditional condi- 
tions of landed property. With its fall these were no longer 
tenable.^ 

Even in the last decade of the 17th century, the yeomanry, 
Ihe class of independent peasants, were more numerous than 
the class of farmers. They had formed the backbone of Crom- 
well&apos;s strength, and, even according to the confession of 
Macaulay, stood in favourable contrast to the drunken squires 
and to their servants, the country clergy, who had to many 
their master&apos;s castroS mistresses. About 1750, the yeomanry 
had disappeared,^ and so had, in the last decade of the 18th 
century, the last trace of the common land of the agricultural 
labourer. We leave on one side here the purely economic 
causes of the agricultural revolution^ We deal oidy with the 
forcible means employed. 

After the restoration of the Stuarts, the landed proprietors 
carried, by legal means, an act of usurpation, effected every- 
where on the Continent without any legal formality. They 
abolished the feudal tenure of land, i.e., they got rid of all 
its obligations to the State, &quot;indemnified&quot; the State by taxes 
on the peasantry and the rest of the mass of the people, vindi- 
cated for themselves the rights of modem private property in 
estates to which they had only a feudal title, and, finally, 
passed those laws of settlement, which, rmdatis trmlandis, had 
the same effect on the English, agricultural labourer, as the 

facturet and commerce are the two parents of oar national poor.&quot; Eden, like onr 
Scotch republican on principle, errs only in this: not the abolition of rillenage. but 
the abolition of the property of the agricultural labourer in the soil made him a 
proletarian, and eventually a pauper. In France, where the expropriatioti was 
effected in another way, the ordonnance of Moulins, 1671, and the Edict of 1S6A, 
correspond to the English poor-laws. 

^ Professor Rogers, although formerly Professor of Political Economy in the XJai- 
▼ersity of Oxford, the hotbed of Protestant orthodoxy, in his preface to the &apos;&apos;History 
of Agriculture&quot; lays stress on the fact of the pauperisation of the mass of the pcopk 
by the Reformation. 

&apos;A letter to Sir T. C. Banbury, Bart., on the High Price of Proyisioos. By a 
Suffolk Gentleman. Ipswich, 1796, p. 4. Even the fanatical advocate of the system 
of large farms, the author of the &quot;Inquiry into the connection of large farmi» etc, 
London, 1778,&quot; p. 138, says: &quot;I most lament the loss of otir yeomanry, that set of 
men who really kept up the independence of this nation; and aorry I am to see their 
lands now in the hands of monopolizing lords, tenanted out to amall farmers, who 
hold their leases on such conditions as to be little better than vassals ready to attend 
a summons on every mischievous occasion.&quot; 



 

Expropriation of Agricultural Population. 795 

edict of Hie Tartar Boris Godunof on the Russian peasantry. 

The &quot;glorious Eevolution&apos;&apos; brought into power, along with 
William of Orange, the landlord and capitalist appropriators 
of surplus-value.^ They inaugurated the new era by practis- 
ing on a colossal scale thefts of state lands, thefts that had been 
hitherto managed more modestly. These estates were given 
away, sold at a ridiculous figure, or even annexed to private es- 
tates by direct seizure.^ All this happened without the slight- 
est observation of legal etiquette. The crown lands thus 
fraudulently appropriated, together with the robbery of the 
Church estates, as far as these had not been lost again during 
the republican revolution, form the basis of the to-day princely 
domains of the English oligarchy.^ The bourgeois capitalists 
favoured the operation with the view, among others, to pro- 
moting free trade in land, to extending the domain of modem 
agriculture on the large farm-system, and to increasing their 
supply of the free agricultural proletarians ready to hand. 
Besides^ the new landed aristocracy was the natural ally of 
the new bankocracy, of the newly-hatched haute fitumce, and 
of the large manufacturers, then depending on protective 
duties. The English bourgeoisie acted for its own interest 
quite as wisely as did the Swedish bourgeoisie who, reversing 
the process, hand in hand with their economic allies, the 
peasantry, helped the kings in the forcible resumption of the 
Crown lands from the oligarchy. This happened since 1604 
under Charles X. and Charles XI. 

Communal property — always distinct from the State prop- 

^On the private moral character of thia bourgeois hero, among other things: 
&quot;The large grant of lands in Ireland to Lady Orkney, in 1695» is a public instance of 
the king&apos;s affection, and the lady&apos;s influence. . . . Lady Orkney&apos;s endearing 
offices are supposed to have been — fceda labiorum ministeria.&apos;* (In the Sloane Manu- 
script Collection, at the British Museum, No. 4224. The Manuscript is entitled: 
&quot;The charakter and behaviour of King William, Sunderland, etc, as represented in 
Original Letters to the Duke of Shrewsbury, from Somers Halifax, Oxford, Secre- 
tary Vernon, etc.&quot; It is full of curiosa.) 

&apos; &quot;The illegal alienation of the Crown EsUtes, partly by sale and partly by gift, is 
a scandalous chapter in English history ... a gigantic fraud on the nation.** 
&lt;F. W. Newman, Lectures on Political Economy. London, 1851, pp. 129, 180.) 
£For details as to how the present large landed proprietors of England came into 
their possessions see &quot;Our Old Nobility. By Noblesse Oblige.&quot; London, 1870.— Ed.) 

■Read e.g,, £. Burke&apos;s Pamphlet on the ducal house of Bedford, whose offshoot 
was Lord John Russell, the &quot;tomtit of Liberalism.&quot; 



 

796 Capitalist Production. 

erty just dealt with — waa an old Teutonic instituticm wliidi 
lived on under cover of feudalism. We have seen how the 
forcible usurpation of this, generally accompanied by the turn- 
ing of arable into pasture land, begins at the end of the 15th 
and extends into the 16th century. But, at that time, the 
process was carried on by means of individual acts of violence 
against Ttiiich legislation, for a hundred and fifty years, fou^t 
in vain. The advance made by the 18th century shows itself 
in this, that the law itself becomes now the instrument of 
the theft of the people&apos;s land, although the large farmers make 
use of their little independent methods as welL* The parlia- 
mentary form of the robbery is that of Acts for enclosures of 
Commons, in other words, decrees by which the landlords 
grant themselves the people&apos;s land as private property, decrees 
of expropriation of the people. Sir F. M. Eden refutes his 
own crafty special pleading, in which he tries to represent com- 
munal property as the private property of the great landlords 
who have taken the place of the feudal lords, when he, him- 
self, demands a &quot;general &quot;Act of Parliament for the enclosure 
of Commons,&quot; (admitting thereby that a parliamentary coup 
d&apos;etat is necessary for its transformation into private prop- 
erly), and moreover calls on the legislature for the indemnifi- 
cation for the expropriated poor.* 

Whilst the place of the independent yeoman was taken by 
tenants at will, small farmers on yearly leases, a servile rabble 
dependent on the pleasure of the landlords, the systematic 
robbery of the Communal lands helped especially, next to 
the theft of the State domains^ to swell those large farms, that 
were called in the 18ih century capital farms&apos; or merchant 
farms,* and to &quot;set free&quot; the agricultural populations as prole- 
tarians for manufacturing industry. 

^&apos;Tbe farmert forbid cottagen to keep any )Mng creatures besides th euis e l te s 
and children, tinder the pretence that if thej keep any beasts or poultry, they will 
steal from the farmers&apos; bams for their support; they also say, keep the cottagers poor 
and you will keep them industrious, ftc, but the real fact, I belieye, is that the 
farmers may have the whole right of common to themselves.&quot; (A Political Inquiry 
into the consequences of enclosing Waste Lands. London, 1786 p. 76.) 

&apos; Eden, 1. c preface. 

&apos;&quot;Capital Farms.&quot; Two letters on the Flour Trade and the Deamess of Corau 
By a person in business. London, 1767, pp. 19, 20. 

* &quot;Merchant Farms.&quot; An inquiry into thr present High Prices of P io f iii o nfc 



 

Expropriation of Agricultural Population. 797 

The 18tli century, however, did not yet recognise as fully ad 
the 19th, the identity hetween national wealth and the poverty 
of the people. Hence the most vigorous polemic, in the eco- 
nomic literature of that time, on the &quot;enclosure of commons/&apos; 
From the mass of materials that lie before me, I give a few 
extracts that will throw a strong light on the circumstances 
of the time. &quot;In several parishes of Hertfordshire/* writes 
one indignant person, &quot;24 farms, numbering on the average 
60-150 acres, have been melted up into three farms.&quot;^ &quot;In 
Northamptonshire and Leicestershire the enclosure of common 
lands has taken place on a very large scale, and most of the 
new lordships, resulting from the enclosure, have been turned 
into pasturage, in consequence of which many lordships have 
not now 50 acres ploughed yearly, in which 1500 were 
ploughed formerly. The ruins of former dwelling-houses, 
bams, stables, &amp;c.,&apos;&apos; are the sole traces of the former inhabi- 
tants. &quot;An hundred houses and families have in some open 
field villages .... dwindled to eight or ten .... The land- 
holders in most parishes that have been enclosed only 15 or 20 
years, are very few in comparison of the numbers who occupied 
them in their open-field state. It is no uncommon thing for 4 
or 5 wealthy graziers to engross a large enclosed lorship which 
was before in the hands of 20 or 30 farmers, and as many 
smaller tenants and proprietors. All these are hereby thrown 
out of their livings with their families and many other families 
who were chiefly employed and supported by them.&quot;^ It was 
not only the land that lay waste, but often land cultivated 
either in common or held under a definite rent paid to the 
community, that was annexed by the neighbouring landlords 
under pretext of enclosure. &quot;I have here in view enclosures 
of open fields and lands already improved. It is acknowledged 
by even the writers in defence of enclosures that these di- 
minished villages increase the monopolies of farms, raise the 

London, 1767, p. 11. Note.—Thia excellent work, that was published anonymootty, 
is by the Rev. Nathaniel Forster. 

^Thomas Wright: A short address to the public on the monopoly of large farms, 
1779, pp. 2, 8. 

&apos;Rev. Addington: Inquiry into the reasons for or against enclosing open fieldi. 
London, 1772, pp. 87, 43 passim. 



 

798 Capitalist Productioi$. 

prices of provisionB^ and produce ddpopulation .... and 
even tue enclosure of waete lands (as now carried oai) bean 
hard on the poor, by depriving them of a part of their subsist- 
ence^ and only goes towards increasing farms already too 
large.* ^&apos;When/&apos; says Dr. Price, &quot;this land gets into the 
hands of a few great farmers, the consequence must be that the 
litde farmers&quot; (earlier designated by him &quot;a multitude of lit- 
tle proprietors and tenants^ who maintain themsdyes and 
families by the produce of the ground they occupy by sheep 
kept on a conmion, by poultry, hogs, &amp;c, and who therefore 
have little occasion to purchase any of the means of subsist- 
ence&quot;) *Svill be converted into a body of men who earn their 
subsistence by working for others, and who will be under a ne- 
cessity of going to market for all they want .... There will, 
perhaps, be more labour, because there will be more compulsion 
to it ... . Towns and manufacturers will increase, because 
more will be driven to them in quest of places and employment 
This is the way in which the engrossing of farms naturally 
operates. And this is the way in which, for many years, it 
has been actually operating in this kingdom.&apos;&quot; He sums up the 
effect of the enclosures thus: &quot;Upon the whole, the circum- 
stances of the lower ranks of men are altered in almost every 
respect for the worse. From little occupiers of land, they are 
reduced to the state of day-labourers and hirelings ; and, at the 
same time, their subsistence in that state has become more dif- 
ficult&quot;* In fact, usurpation of the common lands and the 

*Dr. R. Pricey L c., ▼. IL, p. 166, Forater, Addington, Kent, Price, and James 
Anderson, should be read and compared with the miserable prattle of Sycophant 
MacCulloch in his catalogue: The Literature of Political Economy, London* 1846. 

•Price, I c, p. 147. 

• Price, L c, p. 160. We are reminded of ancient Rome. &quot;The rich had got poo- 
session of the greater part of the undivided land. They trusted in the conditions 
of the time, that these possessions would not be again taken from them, and bonght, 
therefcre, some of the pieces of land lying near theirs, and belonging to the poor. 
with the acquiescence of their owners, and took some by force, so that they now 
were cultivating widely extended domains, instead of isolated fields. Then they 
employed slaves in agriculture and cattle-breeding, because freemen would have been 
taken from labour for military service. The possession of slaves brought them great 
gain, inasmuch as these, on account of their immunity from military service^ coold 
freely viultiply and have a multitude of children. Thus the powerful men drew all 
wealth to themselves, and all the land swarmed with slaves. The Italians, on the 
other hand, were alwajrs decreasing in number, destroyed as they were by poverty, 
taxes, and military service. Even when times of peace came, thiqr were dooned If 



 

Expropriation of Agricultural Population. 799 

revolution in agricoltare accompanying this, told so acutely on 
the agricultural labourers that, even according to Eden, be- 
tween 1765 and 1780, their wages began to fall below the mini- 
mum, and to be supplemented by official poor-law relief. 
Their wages, he says, &quot;were not more than enough for the abso- 
lute necessaries of life.&quot; 

Let us hear for a moment a defender of enclosures and an 
opponent of Dr. Price. &quot;Nor is it a consequence that there 
must be depopulation, because men are not seen wasting their 
labour in the open field .... If, by converting the little 
farmers into a body of men who must work for others, more 
labour is produced, it i6 an advantage which the nation&quot; (to 
which, of course, the &quot;converted&quot; ones do not belong) &quot;should 
wish for .... the produce being greater when their joint 
labours are employed on one farm, there will be a surplus for 
manufactures, and by this means manufactures, one of the 
mines of the nation, will increase, in proportion to the quantity 
of com produced.&quot;^ 

The stoical peace of mind with which the political economist 
regards the most shameless violation of the &quot;sacred rights of 
property&quot; and the grossest acts of violence to persons, as soon 
as they are necessary to lay the foundations of the capitalistic 
mode of production, is shown by Sir. F. M. Eden, philanthro- 
pist and tory, to boot The whole series of thefts, outrages, 
and popular misery, that accompanied the forcible expropria- 
tion of the people, from the last third of the 15th to the end of 
the 18th century, lead him merely to the comfortable conclu- 
sion: &quot;The due proportion between arable land and pasture 
had to be established. During the whole of the 14th and the 
greater part of the 15th century, there was one acre of pasture 

complete inacthrity, because the rich were in possession of the soil, and used slarcs 
instead of free men in the tilling of it.&quot; (Appian: Civil Wars, I. 7.) This pas- 
sage refers to the time before the Lidnian rogations. Military service, which has- 
tened to so great an extent the ruin of the Roman plebeians, was also the chief 
means by which, as in a forcing-house, Charlemagne brought about the transforma- 
tion of free German peasants into serfs and bondsmen. 

^ An Inquiry into the Connection between the Present Prices of Provisions, &amp;c., p. 
194, 129. To the like effect, but with an opposite tendency: &quot;Working-men are 
driven from their cottages and forced into the towns to seek for employment; but 
then a larger surplus is obtained, and thus capital is augmented.&quot; (The Perila 0$ 
the Nation, 2nd ed. London. 1848, p. 14.) 



 

8oo Capitalist Production. 

to 2, 8 and even. 4 of arable land. About the middle of the 
I6II1 oentorjr the proportion was changed to 2 acres of pasture 
to 2y later on^ of 2 acres of pasture to CHie of arable^ until at 
last the just proportion of 8 acres of pasture to one of arable 
land was attained.&apos;^ 

In tilie 19th century, the very memoiy of the connexion 
between the agricultural labourer and the communal property 
had, of course, vanished. To say nothing of more recent times, 
have the agricultural population received a farthing of ccmi- 
pensation for the 8,511,770 acres of common land which be- 
tween 1801 and 1831 were stolen from them and by parlia- 
mentary devices presented to the landlords by the lan^ords ! 

The last process of wholesale expropriation of the agricul- 
tural population from the soil is, finally, the so-called clearing 
of estates, i.e., the sweeping men off diem. AU the English 
methods hitherto considered culminated in &apos;&apos;clearing.&apos;^ As 
we saw in the picture of modem conditions given in a former 
chapter, where there are no more independent peasants to get 
rid of, the ^^clearing&quot; of cottages begins ; so that the agricul- 
tural labourers do not find on the soil cultivated by them even 
the spot necessary for their own housing. But what ^&apos;clearing 
of estates&apos;&apos; really and properly signifies, we learn only in the 
promised land of modem romance, the Highlands of Scotland. 
There the process is distinguished by its systematic character, 
by the magnitude of the scale on whidi it is carried out at one 
blow (in Ireland landlords have gone to the length of sweeping 
away several villages at once; in Scotland areae as large as 
German principalities are dealt with), finally by the pecu- 
liar form of property, under which the embezsded lands were 
held. 

The Highland Celts were organised in dans, each of which 
was the owner of the land on which it was settled. The 
representative of the dan, its chief or &apos;^great man,&quot; was only 
the titular owner of this property, just as the Queen of Eng- 
land is the titular owner of all the national soiL When the 
English government succeeded in suppressing the intestine 
wars of these ^^great men,&quot; and their constant incursions into 
the Lowland plains, the chiefs of the dans by no means gave 



 

Expropriation of AgrictUtural Population. 8oi 

up their tiine-Iiaiioured trade as robbers ; they only changed its 
form. On their own authority they transformed their nominal 
right into a right of private property, and as this brought 
them into collision with their clansmen, resolved to drive them 
out by open force. &quot;A king of England might as well claim 
to drive his subjects into the sea/* says Professor Newman.* 
This revolution, which began in Scotland after the last rising 
of the followers of the Pretender, can be followed through its 
first phases in the writings of Sir James Steuart^ and James 
Anderson.&apos; In the 18th century the hunted-out Gkels were 
forbidden to emigrate from the country, with a view to driv- 
ing them by force to Glasgow and other manufacturing towns.* 
As an example of the method*^ obtaining in the 19th century, 
the &quot;clearing&apos;&apos; made by the Duchess of Sutherland will suf- 
fice here. This person, well instructed in economy, resolved, 

&lt;L c, p. 18S. 

&apos; Steuart says: &quot;If yott compare the rent of these lands&quot; Oie erroneously includes 
in this economic category the tribate of the taskmen to the clan-chief) *Vith the 
extent, it appears rery smalL If you compare it with the numbers fed upon the 
farm, you will find that an estate in the Highlands maintains, perhaps, ten times 
as many people as another of the same value in a good and fertile province.&quot; (1. c., 
vol. i., ch. xvi., p. 104.) 

&apos;James Anderson: Observations on the means of exciting a spirit of National 
Industry, &amp;c. Edinburgh, 1777. 

*In 1860 the people expropriated by force were exported to Canada under false 
pretences. Some fled to the mountains and neighbouring islands. They were fol- 
lowed by the police, came to blows with them and escaped. 

* &quot;In the Highlands of Scotland,&quot; says Buchanan, the commentator on Adam 
Smith, 1814, *&apos;the ancient state of property is daily subverted. . . . The land- 
lord, without regard to the hereditary tenant (a category used in error here), now 
offers his land to the highest bidder, who, if he is an improver, instantly adopts a new 
system of cultivation. The land, formerly overspread with small tenants or labourers, 
was peopled in proportion to its produce, but under the new system of improved 
cultivation and increased rents, the largest possible produce is obtained at the least 
possible expense: and the useless hands being, with this view, removed, the popula- 
tion is reduced, not to what the land will maintain, but to what it will employ. The 
dispossessed tenants either seek a subsistence in the neighbouring towns,&quot; &amp;c. 
(David Buchanan: Observations on, &amp;c, A. Smith&apos;s Wealth of Nations. Edinburgh, 
1814, voL iv., p. 144.) &quot;The Scotch grandees dispossessed families as they would 
grub up coppice-wood, and they treated villages and their people as Indians harassed 
with wild beasts do, in their vengeance, a jungle with tigers. . . • Man is bar- 
tered for a fleece or a carcase of mutton, nay, held cheaper. . . . Why, how 
much worse is it than the intention of the Moguls, who, when they had broken 
into the northern provinces of China, proposed in council to exterminate the in- 
habitants, and convert the land into pasture. This proposal many Highland pro- 
prietors have effected in their own country against their own countrymen.&quot; (George 
Fnsor: An inquiry concerning lie population of nations. Lond., 1818, pp. 216, 

s\e.) 

tY 



 

8q3 Capitdist Production. 

on entering npon her gavemment^ to effect a radical core, and 
to turn the whole conntiy^ whose population had already been, 
by earlier processes of die like kind, reduced to 15,000, into 
a sheep-walk. From 1814 to 1820 these 15,000 inhatntants, 
about 3000 families, were systematically hunted and rooted 
out All their villages were destroyed and bumt^ all their 
fields turned into paeturage. British soldiers enforced this 
eviction, and came to blows with the inhabitants. One old 
woman was burnt to death in the flames of the hut, which 
she refused to leave. Thus this fine lady appropriated 794,- 
000 acres of land that had from time immemorial belonged 
to the clan. She assigned to the expelled inhabitants about 
6000 acres on the sea-shore — 2 acres per family. The 6000 
acres had until this time lain waste, and brou^t in no in- 
come to their owners. The Duchess, in the nobility of her 
heart, actually went so far as to let these at an average rec^ 
of 2s. 6d. per acre to the clansmen, who for centuries had 
shed their blood for her family. The whole of the stolen 
clan-land she divided into 29 greet sheep farms, each inhabited 
by a single family, for the most pert imported English farm- 
servants. In the year 1835 the 15,000 Gaels were already 
replaced by 131,000 sheep. The remnant of the aborigines 
flung on the sea-shore, tried to live by catching fish. They 
became amphibious and lived, as an English author says, half 
on land and half on water, and withal only half on both.^ 

But the brave Gaels must expiate yet more bitterly their 
idolatry, romantic and of the mountains, for the &quot;great men*&apos; 
of the clan. The smell of their fish rose to the noses of the 
great men. They scented some profit in it, and let the sea- 
shore to the great fishmongers of London. For the second 
time the Gaels were himted out* 

^When the present Duchess of Sutherland entertained Mrs. Beccher Stowe, au- 
thoress of &quot;Uncle Tom&apos;s Cabin/&apos; with great magnificence in London, to show her 
sympathy for the negro slaves of the American republic — a sympathy that she pru- 
dently forgot, with her fellow-aristocrats, during the civil war, in which every 
&quot;noble&quot; English heart beat for the slave-owner — I gave in the **New York Tribune&quot; 
the facts about the Sutherland slaves. (Epitomised in part by Carey in The Slave 
Trade. London, 1868, p. 808, 808.) My article was reprinted in a Scotch news- 
paper, and led to a pretty polemic between the latter and the sycophants of die 
Sutherlands. 

&apos;Interesting details on this fish trade will be found in Mr. David Urquhifl^ 



 

Expropriation of Agricultural Populatiofk 8p3 

Buty finally, part of the sheep-walks are turned into deer 
preserves. Eveiy one knows that there are no real forests 
in England. The deer in the parks of the great are demurely 
domestic cattle, fat as London aldermen. Scotland is there- 
fore the last refuge of the &quot;noble passion.&quot; &quot;In the High- 
lands^&quot; says Somers in 1848, &quot;new forests are springing up 
like mushrooms. Here, on one side of Gkick, you have the 
new forest of Glenf eshio ; and there on the other you have the 
new forest of Ardverikie. In the same line you have the 
Black Mount, an immense waste also recently erected. From, 
east to west — ^from the neighbourhood of Aberdeen to the 
crags of Oban — you have now a continuous line of forests; 
while in other parts of the Highlands there are the new for- 
ests of Loch Archaig, Glengarry, Glenmoriston, &amp;c Sheep 
\nere introduced into glens which had been the seats of com- 
munities of small farmers ; and the latter were driven to seek 
subsistence on coarser and more sterile tracks of soil Now 
deer are supplanting sheep; and these are once more dispos- 
sessing the small tenants, who will necessarily be driven down 
^upon still coarser land and to more grinding penury. Deer 
forests^ and the people cannot co-exist One or other of the 
two must yield. Let the forests be increased in number and 
extent during the next quarter of a century, as they have been 
in the last, and the Gaeb will perish from their native soiL 
. . . This movement among the Highland proprietors is 
with some a matter of ambition. . . . with some love of 
sport . . . while others, of a more practical cast, follow 
the trade in deer with an eye solely to profit For it is a f act^ 
that a mountain range laid out in forest is, in many cases, 
more profitable to the proprietor than when let as a sheep walk. 
. . . The huntsman who wants a deer-forest limits his 
offers by no other calculation than the extent of his purse. 
. . • Sufferings have been infiicted in the Highlands 

portfolio, new series. — Nassau W. Senior, in his posthumous work, already quoted, 
terms &quot;the proceedings in Sutherlandshire one of the most beneficent clearings since 
the memory of man.&quot; (1. c) 

^The deer-forests of Scotland contain not a single tree. The sheep are driven 
from, and then the deer driven to, the naked hills, and then it is called a dM» 
lorest Not even timber-planting and real forest culture. 



 

8o4 Capitalist Production. 

scarcely less severe than those occasioned by the policy of the 
Norman kings. Deer have received extended ranges, while 
men have been hunted within a narrower* and still narrower 
cirde. • • • One after one the liberties of the people have 
been dov^i down* • • . And the oppressions are daily on 
the increase. • • • The clearance and dispersion of the 
people is pursued by the proprietors as a settled principle, as 
an agricultural necessity, just as trees and brushwood are 
cleared from the wastes of America or Australia ; and the op- 
eration goes on in a quiet, business-like way, &amp;c*&apos;* 

^ Robert Somen: Letters from the Highlands: or the Famine of 184f&gt; London 
1848, pp. IS^ passim. These letters originally appeared in the &quot;Times.&apos;* The Eng- 
lish economists . f course explained the famine of the Gaels i 1847, by their orer^ 
populatioo. it all erents, they &apos;Srere pressing on their food-snpply.^ The &apos;^dear- 
lig of estates,** or s^ ic b called in Germany &quot;Bauemlegen/* occurred in Germany 
especially Iter the 80 years&apos; war, and led to peasant-revolts as late as 1790 in 
Kursachaen. It obtained especially in East Germany. In most &apos;f the Prussian 
provinces, Frederick II. .&apos;or the first time secured right of pr op erty &apos; r the peaaanta. 
After the conquest of Silesia he forced the landlords to rebuild the hut3, tarns, etc, 
and to provide the peasanu with cattle and implements. He &gt; nted soldiers for Lis 
army&apos; and tax-payers for his treasury. For the rest, the pleasant :e i iat the peasant 
led under Frederick&apos;s system of finance and hodgei&gt;odge rule of desp o tism, bunao- 
cracy and feudalism, may be seen from the following quotation from :Jt admirer, 
Mirabeau: **!« lin fait done une des grandes richesses du cultivateur dans le Nord 
de TAllemsgne. Malheureusement pour I&apos;espte humaine, ce n&apos;est qn&apos;nne icmourrc 
contre la misire et non un moyen de bien-ltre. Les impftts directs, les oorr6es, les 
servitudes de tout genre, toasent le cultivateur allemand, qui pale encore des imp&amp;ts 
indirects dans tout ce qu&apos;il achate . . . et poure comble de ruine^ il n&apos;ose pas 
vendre ses productions o&amp; et comme il le veut; il n&apos;ose pas achter ce dont il a besotn 
aux marchands qui pourraient le lui livrer au meilleur prix. Toutes ces causes le 
ruinent insensiblement, et il se trouverait hort d&apos;^t de payer les imp6ts directs i 
r^h^ance sans la filerie; elle lui off re une ressource, en occupant utilement sa femme, 
ses enfants, ses servant^ ses valets, et lui-mteie; mais quelle ptoible vie^ m&amp;ne aid^ 
de ce secours. En 6t6, il travaiUe comme un format au labourage et i la r€colte; 
n se couche i heures et se l^e i deux, pour suffire aux travaux; en htver il devrait 
r^parer ses forces par un plus grand repos; mais il manquera de grains pour le pain 
et les semaiUes, s&apos;il se d^fait des denr^es qu&apos;il faudrait vendre pour payer les imp6ta. 
n faut done filer pour supply i ce vide . . . il faut y apporter la plus grande 
assiduity Aussi le paysan se couche-t*il en hiver i minuit, une heure, et se live 4 
dnq ou six; ou bien il se couche i neuf, et se l^e i deux, et cela tons les jours de 
la vie si oe n&apos;est le dimanche. Ces exc^ de veille et de travail usent la nature 
humaine^ et de li vient qu&apos; hommes et fcmmes vieillissent beauooup pldtdt dans les 
campagnes que dans les villes. (Mirabeau, Let. III., pp. 218 sqq.) 

Note to the second edition. In April 1866, 18 years after the publication of the 
work of Robert Somers quoted above. Professor Leone Levi gave a lecture before tiie 
Sodety of Arts on the transformation of sheep walks into deer-forests, in whkh be 
depicts the advance in the devasution of the Scottish Highlands. He says, with 
other things: &apos;&apos;Depopulation and transformation into sheep-walks were tiie most 
convenient means for getting an income without expenditure. ... A deer forest 
in place of a sheep-walk was a common change in the Highlands. The landowners 
4Kned out the sheep as they once turned out the men from their estates, snd wcl&gt; 



 

Legislation Against the Expropriated. 805 

Tha spoliation of the churche&apos;s property, the fraudulent 
alienation of the State domains, the robbery of the common 
lands, the usurpation of feudal and clan property, and it6 
transformation into modem private property imder circum- 
stances of reckless terrorism, were just so many idyllic meth- 
ods of primitive accumulation. They conquered the field for 
capitalistic agriculture, made the soil part and parcel of cap- 
ital, and created for the town industries the necessary supply 
of a &quot;f ree&apos;* and outlawed proletariat 



cfldLPTER xxvni. 



BLOODY LEGISLATION AG^NST THE EXPROPRIATED, FROM THE 
END OP THE 15th CENTURY. FORGING DOWN OF WAGES 
BY ACTS OF PARLIAMENT. 

The proletariat created by the breaking up of the bands of 
feudal retainers and by the forcible expropriation of the peo- 

comed the new tenants — the wild beasts znd the feathered birds. . . . One can 
walk from the Earl of Dalhousie&apos;s estates in Forfarshire to John o&apos; Groats, without 
ever leaving forest land. ... In many of these woods the fox, the wild cat« 
the marten, the polecat, the weasel and the Alpine hare are common; whilst the 
rabbit, the squirrel and the rat have lately made their way into the country. Im- 
mense tracts of land, much of which is described in the statistical account of Scot- 
land as having a pasturage in richness and extenv oi very superior description, are 
thus shut out from all cultivation and improvement, and are solely devoted to the 
sport of a few persons for a very brief period of the year.*&apos; The London Economist 
of June 2, 1866, says, &quot;Amongst the items of news in a Scotch paper of last week, 
we read. . . . &apos;One of the finest sheep farms in Siitherlandshire, for which a 
rent of £1,200 a year was recently offered, on the expiry of the existing lease this 
year, is to be converted into a deer forest&apos; Here we see tiie modem instincts of 
feudalism . . . operating pretty much as they did when the Norman Conqueror 
. . . destroyed 86 villages to create the New Forest. . . . Two millions of 
acres . . . totally laid waste, embracing within their area some of the most 
fertile lands of Scotland. The natural grass of Glen Tilt vafr among the most 
nutritive in the county of Perth. The deer forest of Ben Aulder was by far the best 
grazing ground in the wide district of Badenoch; a part of the Black Mount forest 
was the best pasture for black-faced sheep in Scotland. Some idea of the ground 
laid waste for purely sporting purposes in Scotland may be formed irom the fact 
that it embraced an area larger than the whole cotmty of Perth. The resources 
of the forest of Ben Aulder might give some idea of the loss sustained from the 
forced desolations. The ground would pasture 16,000 sheep, and as it was not more 
than one-thirtieth part of the old forest ground in Scotland ... it might, &amp;c, 
... All that forest land is as totally unproductive. ... It might thus as 
well have been submerged under the waters of the German Ocean. . . . Such 
extemporized wildernesses or deserts ought to be put down by the decided inter- 
ference of the Legislature.&quot; 



 

8o6 Capitalist Production. 

pie from llie soil, this ^^free&quot; proletariat oould not possibly be 
absorbed by the nascent manufactures as fast as it was thrown 
upon the world. On the other hand, these men, suddenly 
dragged from their wanted mode of life, could not as suddenly 
adapt themselves to the discipline of their new condition. 
They were turned en masse into beggars, robbers, vagabonds, 
partly from inclination, in most cases from stress of circum- 
stances. Hence at the end of the 15th and during the whole 
of the 16th century, throughout Western Europe a bloody 
legislation against vagabcmdage. The fathers of the present 
working-class were chastieed for their enforced transforma- 
tion into vagabonds and paupers. Legislation treated them 
as &apos;Voluntary&quot; criminals^ and assumed that it depended on 
their own goodwill to go on working under the old conditions 
that no longer existed. 

In England this legislation began under Henry VIL 
Henry VIII. 1530 : Be^ars old and unable to work receive 
a beggar&apos;s licence. On die other hand, whipping and impris- 
onment for sturdy vagabonds. They axe to be tied to the cart- 
tail and whipped until the blood streams from their bodies, 
then to swear an oath to go back to their birthplace or to where 
they have lived the last three years and to &apos;&apos;put themselves 
to labour.&apos;&apos; What grim irony ! In 27 Henry VIII. the for- 
mer statute is repeated, but strengthened with new clauses. 
For the second arrest for vagabondage the whipping is to be 
repeated and half the ear sliced off; but for the third relapse 
the offender is to be executed as a hardened criminal and 
enemy of the common weaL 

Edward VI. : A statute of the first year of his reign, 1547, 
ordains that if anyone refuses to work, he shall be condemned 
as a slave to the person who has denounced him as an idler. 
The master shall feed his slave on bread and water, weak broth 
and such refuse meat as he thinks fit He has the right to 
force him to do any work, no matter how disgusting, with whip 
and chains. If the slave is absent a fortnight, he is con- 
demned to slavery for life and is to be branded on forehead or 
back with the letter S ; if he runs away thrice, he is to be exe- 
cuted as a felon. The master can sell him, beqiaeath him, let 



 

Legislation Against the Expropriated. 807 

him out on hire as a slave^ just as any other personal chattel or 
eattle. If the slaves attempl. anything against the masters^ 
they are also to be ezecuted. Justices of the peace, on inf ormar 
tion, are to hunt the rascals down. If it happens that a vaga- 
bond has been idling about for three days, he is to be taken to 
his birthplace, branded with a redhot iron with the letter V 
on the breast and be set to work, in chains, in the streets or at 
some other labour. If the vagabond gives a false birthplace, 
he is then to become the slave for life of this place, of its in- 
habitants, or its ^rporation, and to be branded with an S. All 
persons have the right to take away the children of the vaga- 
bonds and to keep them as apprentices, the young men until the 
24th year, the girls until the 20th. If they run away, they 
are to become up to Ihis age the slaves of their masters, who 
can put them in irons, whip them, 4x5., if they like. Every 
master may put an iron ring round the neck, arms or legs of his 
slave, by which to know him more easily and to be more certain 
of him.^ The last part of the statute provides, that certain 
poor people may be employed by a place or by persons, who are 
willing to give them food and drink and to find them work. 
This kind of parish-slaves was kept up in England until far 
into the 19th century under the name of &quot;roundsmen.&apos;* 

Elizabeth, 1672 : Unlicensed beggars above 14 years of age 
are to be severely flogged and branded on the left ear unless 
some one will take them into service for two years ; in case of a 
repetition of the offence, if they are over 18, they are to be 
executed, unless some one will take them into service for two 
years ; but for the third offence they are to be executed without 
mercy as felons. Similar statutes: 18 Elizabeth, c 18, and 
another of 1597. 

James I : Any one wandering about and begging is declared 
a rogue and a vagabond. Justices of the peace in petty ses- 
sions are authorised to have them publicly whipped and for the 
first offence to imprison them for 6 months, for the second for 
2 years. Whilst in prison they are to be whipped as much 

* The author of the Essay on Trade, etc.» 1770, says, &quot;In the reign of Edward VI. 
indeed the English seem to hare set, in good earnest, about encouraging manufac- 
tures and employing the poor. This we learn from a remarkable statute which nms 
thus: That all Tagrants shall be branded, &amp;c.,&apos; &quot; L c, p. 5. 



 

8o8 Capitalist Production. 

and as often as the justioes of the peace think fit • • . Incor- 
rigible and dangerous rogues are to be branded with an B on 
the left shoulder and set to hard labour^ and if they are caught 
begging again, to be executed without mercy. These statutes, 
legally binding until the beginning of the 18th century, were 
only repealed by 12 Ann, c. 23.^ 

Similar laws in France, where by the middle of the 17th 
century a kingdom of vagabonds (truands) was established 
in Paris. Even at the beginning of Louis XVL&apos;s reign (Or- 
dinance of July 134, 1777) every man in good health from 
16 to 60 years of age, if without means of subsistence and not 
practising a trade, is to be sent to the galleys. Of the same 
nature are the statute of Charles V. for, the Netherlands (Oc- 
tober, 1637), the first edict of the States and Towns of Hol- 
land (March 10, 1614), the ^Tlakaatf&apos; of the United Provinces 
(June 26, 1649), &amp;a 

Thus were the agricultural people, first forcibly expropri- 

^Thomms More says in Us &quot;Uto^&quot;: &quot;Therefore that one coretou and imaatlaWe 
cormaraunte and Tcry plage of his natire co n trey maye compai&gt;e abonte and tndoae 
many thouaand akers of grounde together within one pale or hedge, the hntbandmen 
be thrust owte of their owne, or els either by eoneyne and fraode, or by violent op- 
pression they be put besydes it, or by wrongs and iniarics thei be so weried that 
they be compelled to sell all: by one meanes, therfore, or by other, either by hooke 
or crooke they muste needes departe awaye, poore, selye, wretched sooles, men, 
women, husbands, wiues, fatherlesse children, widowes, wofull mothers with their 
yonge babes, and their whole household smal in substance, and muche in numbre, as 
husbandrye requireth many handes. Awaye thei trudge, I say, owte of their 
fcnowen acc ust o m ed houses, fyndynge no place to reste in. All their householde 
stufFe, which is very little woorthe, thoughe it might well abide the sale: yet beeynge 
sodainely thruste owte, they be constrayned to sell it for a thing of nought. And 
when they haue wandered abrode tyll that be spent, what can they then els doe but 
steale, and then iustly pardy be hanged, or els go about beggyng. And yet then 
also they be caste in prison as vagabondes, because theey go aboute and worke not; 
whom no man wyl set a worke though thei neuer so willyngly profre themselues 
therto.&apos;* Of these poor fugitives of whom Thomas More says that they were forced 
to thieve, &quot;7200 great and petty thieves were put to death,&quot; in the reign of Henry 
VIII. (Hollinshed, description of England, VoL 1., p. 186.) In Elizabeth&apos;s time, 
&quot;rogues were trussed up apace, and that there was not one jrear commonly wherein 
three or four hundred were not devoured and eaten up by the gallowes.&quot; (Strype*s 
Annals of the Reformation and Establishment of Religion, and other Various Occur- 
rences in the Church of England during Queen Elizabeth&apos;s Happy Reign. Second 
ed., 1725, Vol. 2.) According to this same Strype, in Somersetshire, in one year, 
40 persons were executed, 86 robbers burnt in the hand, 87 whipped, and 188 dis- 
cbarged as &quot;incorrigible vagabonds.&quot; Nevertheless, he is of opinion that this large 
number of prisoners does not comprise even a fifth of the actual criminals, thanks 
to the negligence of the justices and the foolish compassion of the people; and the 
other counties of England were not better off in thia respect than Somersetshire, 
while some were even worse. 



 

Legislation Against the Expropriated. 809 

ated from the soil, driven from their homes, turned into vaga^ 
bonds, and then whipped, branded, tortured by laws gro- 
tesquely terrible, into the discipline necessary for the wage 
system. 

It is not enou^ that the conditions of labour are concen- 
trated in a ma68, in the shape of capital, at the one pole of 
society, while at the other are grouped masses of men, who 
have nothing to sell but their labour^power. Neither is it 
enou^ that they are compelled to sell it voluntarily. The 
advance of capitalist production develops a working-class, 
which by education, tradition, habit, looks upon the conditions 
of that mode of production as self-evident laws of nature. 
The organization of the capitalist process of production, once 
fully developed, breaks down all resistance. The constant 
generation of a relative surplus-population keeps the law of 
supply and demand of labour, a. id therefore keeps wages, in 
a rut that corresponds with the wants of capital The dull 
compulsion of economic relations completes the subjection of 
the labourer to die capitalist. Direct force, outside economic 
conditions, is of course still used, but only exceptionally. In 
the ordinary run of things, the labourer can be left to the 
&quot;natural laws of production,&quot; i.e., to his dependence on capital, 
a dependence springing from, and guaranteed in perpetuity by, 
the conditions of production themselves. It is otherwise dur- 
ing the historic genesis of capitalist production. The bour- 
geoisie, at its rise^ wants and uses the power of the state to 
&quot;regulate&quot; wages, i.e., to force them within the limits suitable 
for surplus-value making, to lengthen the working-day and to 
keep the labourer himself in the normal d^ree of dependence. 
This is an essential element of the so-called primitive accumu- 
lation. 

llie class of wage-labourers, which arose in the latter half of 
the 14th century, formed then and in the following century 
only a very small part of the population, well protected in its 
position by the independent peasant proprietary in the coun- 
try and the guild-organization in the town, &apos;in country and 
town master and workman stood close together socially. The 
subordination of labour to capital was only formal — i.e., the 



 

8io Capitalist Production. 

mode of production itaelf had as yet no speoifie eapitalistie 
oharaoter. Variable capital preponderated greatly over con- 
stant. The demand for wage-labour grew^ therefore, rapidly 
with every accumulation of capital, whilst the supply of wage- 
labour followed but slowly. A large part of the national pro- 
duct, changed later into a fund of capitalist accumulation, then 
still entered into the consumption fund of the labourer. 

Legislation on wage-labour, (from the firsts aimed at the ex- 
ploitation of the labourer and, as it advanced, always equally 
hostile to him),^ is started in England by the Statute of La- 
bourers, of Edward III., 1349. The ordinance of 1350 in 
France, issued in the name of King John, corresponds with it 
English and French legislation run parallel and are identical 
in purport So far as the labour-statutes aim at ccoipulaory 
extension of the working-day, I do not return, to them, as this 
point was treated earlier (Chap. X., Section 6). 

The Statute of Labourers was passed at the urgent instance 
of the House of Commons. A Tory says naively : &quot;Formerly 
the poor demanded such high wages as to threaten industry 
and wealth. Next, their wages are so low as to threaten in- 
dustry and wealth equally and perhaps more, but in another 
way.*&apos;^ A tariff of wages was fixed by law for town and coun- 
try, for piece-work and day-work. The agricultural labourers 
were to hire themselves out by the year, the town ones &quot;in open 
market&apos;&apos; It was forbidden, under pain of imprisonment^ to 
pay higher wages than those fixed by the statute, but the tak- 
ing of higher wages was more severely punished than the giv- 
ing them. [So also in Sections 18 and 19 of the Staute of 
Apprentices of Elizabeth, ten days&apos; imprisonment is decreed 
for him that pays the higher wages, but twenty-one days for 
him that receives them.] A statute of 1360 increased the 
penalties and authorised the masters to extort labour at the 
legal rate of wages by corporal punishment All combina- 

^&quot;Whenerer the leffitUture attempts to regulate tbe differences between maaten 
and their workmen, its counsellors are always the masters,&quot; says A. Smith. &apos;XTeaprit 
des lois, c&apos;est la propri^^,&quot; says Linguet 

* &quot;Sophisms of Free Trade.&quot; By a Barrister. Lond., 1860, p. 58. He adds 
maliciously: &quot;We were ready enough to interfere for the employer, can nodung 
aow be done for the employed?&quot; 



 

Legislation Against the Expropriated. 8ii 

tionsi ccmtraots, oaths, isc, by which masons and carpenters le- 
dprocallj bound themselves, were declared nnll and void. 
Coalition of the labourers is treated as a heinous crime from 
the 14th century to 1825, the year of the repeal of the laws 
against Trade^&apos; Unions. The spirit of the Statute of Labour- 
ers of 1849 and of its offshoots, comes out clearly in the fact, 
that indeed a maximum of wages is dictated by the State, but 
on no account ii minimum. 

In the 16th century, the condition of the labourers had, as 
we know, become much woree. The money wage rose, but not 
in proportion to the depreciation of money and the correspond- 
ing rise in the prices of commodities. Wages, therefore, in 
reality felL Nevertheless, the laws for keeping them down 
remained in force, together with the ear-clipping and branding 
of those ^^hom no one was willing to take into service.&quot; By 
the Statute of Apprentices 5 Elizabeth, a 3, the justices of the 
peace were empowered to fix certain wages and to modify them 
according to the time of the year and the price of conmiodities. 
James L extended these regulations of labour also to weavers, 
spinners, and all possible categories of workers.^ Qeorge 11. 
extended the laws against coalitions of labourers to manufac- 
ture&amp; In the manufacturing period par excellence, the capi- 
talist mode of production had become su£5ciently strong to ren- 
der legal regulation of wages as impracticable as it was 
unnecessary ; but the ruling classes were unwilling in case of 

^ FkxMii ft clause of Statute S James I., c. 6, we see that eertaia doth-makers took 
upon thenselves to dictate* in their capacity of justices of the peace, the official tariff 
of wages in their own shops. In Germany, especially after the Thirty Years&apos; War, 
statutes for keeping down wages were general. &apos;The want of servants and labour^ 
ers was very troublesome to the landed proprietors in the depopulated districts. 
All vUlagers were forbidden to let rooms to single men and women; all the latter 
were to be reported to the authorities and cast into prison if they were unwilling to 
become senrants, eren if they were employed at any other work, such as sowing seeds 
for the peasants at a daily wage, or even buying and selling com. (Imperial privi- 
leges and sanctions for Silesia, I., 85.) For a whole century in the decrees of the 
small German potentates a bitter cry goes up again and again about the wicked and 
impertinent rabble that win not reconcile itself to its hard lot, will not be content 
with the legal wage; the individual landed proprietors are forbidden to pay more 
than the State had fixed by a tariff. And yet the conditions of service were at times 
better after the war than 100 years later; the farm servants of Silesia had, in 166t, 
meat twice a week, whilst even in our century, districts are known where they have 
it only three times a year. Further, wages after the war were higher than in t^• 
foiiowing century.&quot; iG, Freitag.) 



 

8i2 Capikdist Production. 

neoesflily to be witiliout the weapons of the old arsenaL Still, 
8 George IL forbade a higher day&apos;s wage than 2s. 7^ for 
journeymen tailors in and around London, except in oases of 
general mourning; still 13 Qeorge III., a 68, gave the regula- 
tion of the wages of silk-weavers to the justioes of the peace; 
stiU, in 1706, i^ required two judgments of the hi^er oourte 
to decide, whether the mandates of Justices of the peace as to 
wages held good also for non-agricultural labourers; still, in 
1799, an act of Parliami^Lt ordered that the wages of the 
Scotch miners should continre U ae ^&quot;egul&amp;ted by a statute of 
Elizabeth and two Scotch acts of 1661 &lt;ind 1671. How com- 
pletely in the meantime circumstances had changed, is proved 
by an occurrence unheard-of before in the English Lower 
House. Li that places where for more tnan 400 years laws 
had been made for the maximum, beyond iiicH wages abso- 
lutely must not rise, Whitbread in 17P6 proposed ^ leg^T mini- 
mum wage for agricultural labourersw Pitt apposed thi% bat 
confessed tha. the &quot;condition of the poor was orueL** Finally, 
in 1811, the laws for the regulation of wages were repealed. 
They were an absurd anomaly, since the capitalist regulated 
his factory by his private legislation, and could by the poor- 
rates make up the wage of Jie agricultural labourer to the 
indispensable minimum. The provisions of the labour statr 
utes as to contracts between master and workman, as to giving 
notice and the like, which only allows of a civil action against 
the contract-breaking master, but on the contrary permit a 
criminal action against the contract-breaking worbnan, are to 
this hour (1873) in full force. The barbarous laws against 
Trades&apos; Unions fell in 1825 before the threatening bearing of 
the proletariat. Despite this, they fell only in part Certain 
beautiful fragments of the old statute vanished only in 1859. 
Einally, the act of Parliament of June 29, 1871, made a pre- 
tence of removing the last traces of this dass of l^islation by 
legal recognition of Trades Unions. But an act of Parlia- 
ment of the same date (an act to amend the criminal law relate 
ing to violence^ threats^ and molestation), re-established, in 
point of f act^ the former state of things in a new shape. By 
this Parliamentary escamotage the means which the labourecs 



 

Legislation Against the Expropriated. 813 

oonld use in a strike or lock-out were withdrawn from the laws 
common to all citizens^ and placed under exceptional penal leg- 
islation, the interpretation of which fell to the masters them- 
selves in their capacity as justices of the peace. Two years 
earlier, the same House of Commons and the same Mr. Glad- 
stone in the well-known straightforward fashion brought in a 
bill for the abolition of all exceptional penal legislation against 
the workingKslass. But this was never allowed to go beyond 
the second reading, and the matter was thus protracted until 
at last the &quot;great Liberal party,&quot; by an alliance with the Tor- 
ies, found courage to turn against the very proletariat that had 
carried it into power. Not content with this treachery, the 
&quot;great Liberal party*&apos; allowed the English judges, ever com- 
plaisant in the service of the ruling classes, to dig up again 
the earlier laws against &quot;conspiracy,&quot; and to apply them to 
coalitions of labourers. We see that only against its will and 
under the pressure of the masses did the English Parliament 
give up the laws against Strikes and Trades&apos; Unions, after it 
had itself, for 500 years, held, with shameless egoism, the posi- 
tion of a permanent Trades&apos; Union of the capitalists against 
the labourers. 

During the veiy first storms of the revolution, the French 
bourgeoisie dared to take away from the workers the right of 
association but just acquired. By a decree of June 14, 1791, 
they declared all coalition of the workers as &quot;an attempt 
agtinst liberty and the declaration of the rights of man,&quot; pim- 
ishable by a fine of 500 livres, together with deprivation of the 
rights of an active citizen for one year.* This law which, by 
means of State compulsion, confined the struggle between capi- 
tal and labour within limits comfortable for capital, has out- 
lived revolutions and changes of dynasties. Even the Reign 
of Terror left it untouched. It was but quite recently struck 
out of the Penal Code. Nothing is more characteristic than 
the pretext for this bourgeois coup d&apos;etat &quot;Granting,&quot; says 
Chapclier, the reporter of the Select Committee on this law, 
&quot;that wages ought to be a little higher than they are, . . . 
that they ought to be high enough for him that receives them, 

^Atftick I. of this Uw nma: &quot;L* an^ntisfemeiit de toute csp^ de coiporatioiit 



 

8i4 Cafntalist Production. 

to be free from that 6tate of absolute dependence due to the 
want of the neceesariee of life, and which is ahnost that of slav- 
ery,&quot; yet the workers must not be allowed to come to any 
imderstanding about their own interests, nor to act in common 
and thereby lessen their ^&apos;absolute dependence, which is almost 
that of slavery ;&quot; because, forsooth, in doing this they injure 
**the freedom of their cidevant masters, the present entrepre- 
neurs,&quot; and because a coalition against the despotism of the 
quondam masters of the corporations is — guess what! — ^is a 
restoraticMi of the corporations abolished by the Frraoh conati- 
tution*^ 



CHAPTER XXIX, 

osmesis OF THE OAPITALI8T FABMSB. 

Now that we have considered the forcible creation of a class of 
outlawed proletarians, the bloody discipline that turned them 
into wage-labourers, the disgraceful action of the state which 
employed the police to accelerate the accumulation of capital 
by increasing the degree of exploitation of labour, the ques- 
tion remains: whence came the capitalists originally! For 
the expropriation of the agricultural population creates, 
directly, none by great landed proprietors. As far, however, 
as concerns the genesis of the farmer, we can, so to say, put our 
hand on it, because it is a slow process evolving through many 
centuries. The serfs, as well as the free small proprietors, 
held land under very different tenures, and were therefore 
emancipated under very different economic conditions. In 
England the first form of the farmer is the bailiff, himself a 

dti m^e ^t et profession ^tant I&apos;lme des btses fondamenules de U. coostHatioo 
frangaise, U est d^fendu de les r^blir de fait sons qnelque prftescte et sous quelqne 
forme que ce soit.&quot; Article IV. declares, that if &quot;des dtojens attaches am a&amp;nes 
professions, arts et m^ers prenaient des diUb^tions, faisaient entre cux des coo- 
▼entions tendantes i refuser de concert ou i n&apos;aocorder qu&apos;i on priz d^tcrmln^ la 
secours de leur Industrie ou de leurs travaux, les dites diUMratioos ct oonTcntioaa 
• . . seront didar^ inconstitutionnelles, attenUtoires i la ltbert6 et i la decJan* 
tion des droits de lliomme, &amp;c.&quot;: felonj, therefore, as in the old laboar«tatoieab 
(&quot;ReYolutions de Paris.&quot; Paris, 1791, t. III., p. 6£S.) 
^ Buchez ct Roux: &quot;Histoire Parlementairt,&quot; t. x., p. 196. 



 

Genesis of the Capitalist Farmer. 815 

serf. His position is similar to that of the old Boman viUicua, 
only in a more limited sphere of action* During the second 
half of the 14th century he is replaced by a farmer, i^om the 
landlord provides with seed, cattle and implements. His con- 
dition is not very different from that of the peasant Only he 
exploits more wage-labour. Soon he becomes a metayer, a 
half-farmer. He advances one part of the agricultural stocky 
the landlord the other. The two divide the total product in 
proportions determined by contract This form quickly disap- 
pears in England, to give place to the farmer proper, who 
makes his own capital breed by employing wage-labourers, and 
pays a part of the surplus product, in money or in kind, to the 
landlord as rent So long, during the 15th century, as the 
independent peasant and the farm-labourer working for him- 
self as well as for wages, enriched themselves by their own la* 
hour, the circumstances of the farmer, and his field of produc- 
tion, were equally mediocre. The agricultural revolution 
which commenced in the last third of the 15th century, and 
continued during almost the whole of the 16th (excepting, how- 
ever, its last decade), enriched him just as speedily as it im- 
poverished the mass of the agricultural people.^ 

The usurpation of the common lands allowed him to aug- 
ment greatly his stock of cattle, almost without cost, whilst 
they yielded him a richer supply of manure for the tillage of 
the soiL To this, was added in the 16th century, a very inn- 
portant element At that time the contracts for farms ran foil 
a long time, often for 99 years. The progressive fall in the 
value of the precious metals, and therefore of money, brought 
the farmers golden fruit Apart from all the other circum- 
stances discussed above, it lowered wages. A portion of the 
latter was now added to the profits of the farm. The con* 
tiQuous rise in the price of com, wool, meat, in a word of all 
agricultural produce, swelled the money capital of the f armes 
without any action on his part, whilst ^e rent he paid, (being 

^Harrifon in his &apos;Description of Englsnd,&apos; ssjs &apos;filthougfa peta d T Cntur e fonre 
potmds of old rent be improved to fortie, toward the end of his term, if he hava 
not six or seven years rent liefig by him, filtie or a hundred pounds, yet will tbt 
ianoer thinke his gainea Terie smalL&quot; 



 

8i6 Capitalist Production. 

calculated on the old value of money) diminished in reality.^ 
Thus they grew rich at the expense both of their labourers and 
their landlords. No wonder therefore, that England, at the 
end of the 16th century, had a class of capitalist farmers, rich, 
considering the circumstances of the time.&apos; 

* On the influence of the depredation of money in the 16th century, on Ae 
diflferent dastet of society, see &quot;A Compendious or Briefe Examination of Certayne 
Ordinary complaints of Diverse of our CountrymcL in these our days.&quot; By W. S^ 
Gentleman. (London 1681). The dialogue form&apos; of this work led people for a long 
time to ascribe it to Shakespeare, and even in 1761, it was published under his 
name. Its author is William Suflford. In one place the Hiight reasons as follows: 

Knight: &quot;You, my neighbour, the husbandman, you Maister Mercer, and you 
Goodman Cooper, with other artificers, may save yoursdves metdy w^. For as 
much as all things are deerer than they were, so muca do you arise in the pryce of 
your wares and occupations that ye sell agayne. B t - e have nothing to adl wbere- 
i#^ we might advance ye price there of, to countervail^ thoae tings that we must buy 
agayne.&quot; In another pla . the knight asks the doctor: &apos; i pray you, what be those 
sorts that ye meane. And first, &apos; those that ye thinke should have no loase 
thereby? — Doctor: I mean all those Jia live by buying and sdling, for as they buy 
deare, they sell thereafter. Knight: What is the next sort that ye say would win 
by t? Doctor. Marry, all such as have takings or fearmes in their owne manuranee 
[cultivation] a the old rent, for where they pay after the olde rate they sell after 
the newe — ^that is, they paye for theire lande good cheape, and sell all things grow- 
ing thereof deare. Knight: What sorte b that which, ye sayde should have greater 
losse hereby, than these men had profit? Doctor: It it all noblemen, gentlemen, 
and all other that live dther by a stinted rent or stypend, or do not manure [cultiva- 
tion] the ground, or doe occupy no bujring and adling.** 

*In France, the r^gisseur, steward, collector of dues for the feudal lords during 
the earlier part of the middle ages, soon became an homme d&apos;affaires, who by extor* 
tion, cheating, ftc, swindled himsdf into a capitalist. These r^gisseurs themsdves 
were sometimes noblemen. £. g. Cest 11 compte que messire Jacques de Thorainc, 
chevalier chastelain sor Besan^on rent da-seigneur tenant les comptes i Dijon pour 
monsdgneur le due et comte de Bourgoigne, des rentes appartenant i la dite cfaas- 
tdlenie, depuis xxve jour de d^cembre MCCCLIX jusqu&apos; au xxviiie jour de decern- 
bre MCCCLX. (Alexis Montdl: Histoire des Materiaux manuscrits, etc, p. 244.) 
Already it is evident here how in all spheres of sodd life the lion&apos;s share falls to the 
middleman. In the economic domain, #.g., finanders, stock-exchange speculators, 
merchants, shopkeepers skim the cream; in dvil matters, the lawyer fleeces his 
dients; in politics the representative is of more importance than the voters, the 
minister than the sovereign; in religion God is pushed into the background by the 
&quot;Mediator,&quot; and the latter again is shoved back by the priests, the inevitable 
middlemen between the good shepherd and his sheep. In France, as in Eng^d, 
the great feudal territories were divided into inumerable small homesteads, bat 
under conditions incomparably more unfavourable for the people. During the 14th 
century arose the farms or itrrurs. Thdr number grew constantly, far beyond 
100,000. They paid rents vanring from -X to H of the product in money or La 
kind. These farms were fiefs, sub-fiefs, ft&quot;., according to the value and extent 
of the domains, many of them only containing a few rcres. But these farmers 
had rights of jurisdiction in some degree over the dwdlers on the soil; there were 
four grades. The oppression of the agriculturd population under all these petty 
tyrants will be understood. Montdl says that there were once in France 160,00t 
judges, where today 4000 tribunals, induding justices of the peaces 



 

Reaction of Agricultural Revolution. 817 



CHAPTER XXX. 

RELA.OTIOIT&apos; OF THB AGEICTTLTUBAL KBVOLUTIOl? Ol? nTDTTSTEY. 
OKEATION OF THE HOME MASKET FOB Iin&gt;U&amp;TEIAIi CAPI- 
TAL. 

The expropriation and expulsion of the agrionltural popula- 
tion, intermittent but renewed again and again, supplied, as 
we saw, the town industries with a mass of proletarians, en- 
tirely unconnected with the corporate guilds and unfettered 
by them ; a fortunate circumstance that makes old A. Ander- 
son (not to be confounded with James Anderson) in his &quot;His- 
tory of Conmieroe,&quot; 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.^ In spite of the 
smaller numbers 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 im- 
proved methods of culture, greater co-operation, concentration 
of the means of production, &amp;c, and because not only were 
the agricultural wage-labourers put on the strain more in- 
tensely,^ but the field of production on which they worked for 
themselves, became more and more contracted. With the set- 
ting 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 capi- 
tal The peasant, expropriated and cast adrift, must buy 
their value in the form of wages, from his new master, the in- 
dustrial capitalidt That which holds good of the means of 
subsistence holds with the raw materials of industry dependent 

*Iii his Notions de Philosophie Naturelle. Paris, 1888. 
&apos;A point that Sir James Stewart emphasises. 
8Z 



 

8i8 Capitalist Production. 

upon home agrioolture. Thej were transfonned into an ele- 
ment of constant capitaL SuppoBe, e.g., a part of the Westr 
phalian peaaants, who^ at the time of Frederic IL, all apan 
flax, forcibly expropriated and hunted from the soil; and the 
other part that remained, turned into day-labourers of large 
farmers. At the same t^mo arise large establishments for flax- 
spinning and weaving, in which the men &apos;^set free&apos;&apos; now work 
for wages. The flax lo&lt;^ 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 man- 
ufacturer. Formerly divided among a number of small pro- 
ducers, who cultivated it themselves and with their families 
spun it in retail fashion, it is now oono^itrated 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 Frederic IL&apos;s time, in taxes pour le roi de Prussa 
It realises itself now in profit for a few capitalists. The spin- 
dles and looms, formerly scattered over the face of the country, 
are now crowded together in a few great labour-barrac^ to- 
gether with the labourers and the raw material And spindles, 
looms, raw material, are now transformed, from means of in- 
dependent existence for the spinners and weavers, into means 
for commanding them and sucking out of them unpaid labour.^ 
One does not perceive, when looking at the large manufactories 
and the large farms, that th^ have originated from the throw- 
ing 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 Eevolution, 
the great manufactories were still called manufactures r6unie8, 
workshops thrown into one, as we speak of fields thrown into 
one. Says Mirabeau: ^&apos;We are only paying attention to the 
grand manufactories, in which hundreds of men work under 
a director and which are commonly called manufactures ri- 

^*^t pennettrai,** nyi the capitalist, &quot;qne tow ayes rhoancnr de me aervir, 4 
eondition que ▼oos me donnes le pen qui roui rette pour la peine que je prenda dt 
voufl commander.&quot; (J. J. Ronatcau: Diicours anr rEoonomic Politique.) 



 

&apos;Reaction of Agricultural Revolution. 819 

unies. 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 (manu- 
facture r6unie) wiU enrich prodigiously one or two entrepren- 
eurs, but the Iftbourers will only be journeymen, paid more 
or less, and will not have any Aare in the success of the under- 
taking. In the discrete workshop (manufacture s^parfe,) 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 themfielves or their belongings. The 
number of saving and industrious labourers will increase, be- 
cause they will see in good conduct, in activity, a means of 
essentially bettering their condition, and not of obtaining a 
small rise of wages that can never be of any importance for 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 
workshop^ 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. Dis- 
crete workshops, for the most part combined with cultivation 
of small holding are the only free ones.^&apos;^ The ^cpropriation 
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 moat part, consumed. These raw 

^Mirabeau, t c. t. Ill, pp, 80-109 passim. That Mirabeau ccmsiders the separate 
workshops more economic and prodtictiye than the &quot;combined,&quot; and sees in the 
latter merely artificial exotics under goTemment cultivation, b explained bj the 
poafdon at tiiat time of a great part of the continental manufactures. 



 

820 Capitalist Production. 

materials and meane of subeistence have now become com- 
modities ; the large farmer sells them, he finds his market in 
manufactures. Yam, linen, coarse wooUai stn&amp; — things 
whose raw materials had been within the reach of eveiy 
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 artizans until now had 
found in the nimierous small producers working on their own 
account, concentrate themselves now into one great market 
provided for by industrial capital^ Thus, hand in hand with 
the expropriation of the self-supporting peasants, with their 
separation from their means of production, goes the destmo- 
tion of rural domestic industry, the process of separation be- 
tween manufacture and agriculture. And only the destruc- 
tion 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 trans- 
formation radically and completely. It will be remembered 
that manufacture, properly so-called, conquers but partially 
the domain of national production, and always rests on tb^ 
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 Ae 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 manu- 
facturers directly, or through the medium of merchants. This 
is one, though not the chief, cause of a phenomenon which, at 

^&apos;Twenty pounds of wool conrerted tmobtnisiyely into the yearly clothing o£ s 
labourer&apos;s family by its own industry in the intervals of other work — this makes no 
show; but bring it to market, send it to the factory, thence to the broker, thence t» 
the dealer, and you will have great commercial operations, and nominal capital cb&gt; 
gaged to the amount of twenty times its value. . . . The working class is this 
emerced to support a wretched factory population, a parasitica] shop-keeping dasi* 
and a fictitious commercial, monetary, and financial system. (David Urquhart, I. Cm 
p. 120.) 



 

Reaction of Agrkudtural Revolution. 821 

fiTst, puzzles the student of English history. From the last 
third of the 15th century he finds continually complaints, only 
interrupted at certain invervals, 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 rea- 
son is: England is at one time chiefly a cultivator of com, at 
another diiefly a breeder of cattle, in alternate periods, and 
with these the extent of peasant cultivation fluctuates. Mod- 
em Industry alone^ and finally, supplies, in machinery, the 
lasting basis of capitalistic agriculture, expropriates radically 
the enormous majority of the &gt; agricultural population, and 
completes the separation between agriculture and rural domes- 
tic industry, whose roots — spinning and weaving — ^it tears 
up.^ It therefore also, for the first time, conquers for indus- 
trial capital the entire home market&apos; 

^Cromwell&apos;s time forms tn exception. So long u the Republic lasted, the mass 
of the English people of all grades rose from the degradation into which thej had 
sunk under the Tudors. 

&apos;Tuckett is aware that the modem woollen industry has sprung, with the intro- 
duction of machinery, from manufacture proper and from the destruction of rural 
and domestic industries. &quot;The plough, the yoke, were Hhe invention of gods, and 
the occupation of heroes;&apos; are the loom, the spindle, the distaff, of less noble parent* 
age. You sever the distaff and the plough, the spindle and the yoke, and you get 
factories and poorhouses, credit and panics, two hostile nations, agricultural and 
commercial&quot; (David Urquhart, L c, p. 122.) But now comes Carey, and cries 
out upon England, surely not with unreason, that it is trjring to turn &apos;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 &quot;the owners and occu- 
pants 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 ham- 
mer and the harrow.&quot; (The Slave Trade, p. 126.) 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. 

&apos;Philanthropic English economists, like Mill, Rogers, C^ldwin, Smith, Fawcett, 
&amp;c., and liberal manufacturers like John Bright &amp; Co., ask the English landed 
proprietors, as (^d asked Cam. after Abel, Where are our thousands of freeholders 
gone? But where do you come from, then? From the destruction of those free- 
holders. Why don&apos;t you ask further, where «re the independent weavers, spinnen^ 
^ad ATtitattt gone? 



 

8aa CapttaUit Production, 

OHAPTEU XX3X 

omnssm of thb iin&gt;nsTBiAi. oapitaijbt* 

Tos genesis of the industrial^ capitalist did not proceed in 
such a gradual way as that of the farmer. Doubtless manj 
small guild-masters, and yet more independent small artisans, 
or even wage-labourers, transformed themselves into small 
capitalists, and (bj gradually extending exploitation of wage- 
labour and corresponding accumulation) into full-blown capi- 
talists. In the infan&lt;7 of capitalist production, things often 
nappened as in the infanc^^ of mediseval towDii^&apos;whet.e the 
question, which of the escaped serfs should be. master and 
which servant, was in great part decided by the earlier or later 
date of their flight The snail&apos;s-pace of this method corre- 
sponded in no wise with the commercial requirements of the 
new world-market that the great discoveries of the end of the 
IStb century created. But the middle age had handed down 
two distinct forms of capital, which mature in the most differ- 
ent economic social formations, and which, before the era .of 
the capitalist mode of production, are considered as capital 
quand memo — ^usurer&apos;s capital and merchant&apos;s capital. 

^&apos;At present, all the wealth of society goes first into the pos- 
session of the capitalist .... he pays the landowner his rent, 
the labourer his wages, the tax and tithe gatherer their claims, 
and keeps a large, indeed the largest, a^d a continually aug- 
menting share, of the annual produce of labour for himself. 
The capitalist may now be said to be the first owner of all die 
wealth of the community, though no law has conferred on him 
the right to this property . • • . this change has been effected 
by the taking of interest on capital • . • • and it is not a little 
curious that all the lawgivers of Europe endeavoured to pre- 
vent this by statutes, viz., statutes against usury. . . • • The 
power of the capitalist over all the wealth of the country is a 

^ Industrial here in contrmdistinction to agricultnraL In the &quot;cateforic^ tenw tbt 
fanner it an industrial capitalist as much as the manufacturer. 



 

Genesis of the Industrial Capitalist. 823 

complete change in the right of property, and by what law, or 
series of laws, was it effected ? &quot; ^ The author should have re- 
membered that revolutions are not made by laws. 

The money capital fprmed by means of usury and commerce 
was prevented from turning into industrial capital, in the 
country by the feudal constitution, in the towns by the guild 
organization.^ These fetters vanished with the dissolution of 
feudal society, with the expropriation and partial eviction of 
the country population. The new manufacturers were estab- 
lished at sea-ports, or in inland points beyond the control of 
the old municipalities and their guilds. Hence in England an 
embittered struggle of the corporate towns against theee new 
industrial nurseries. 

The discovery of gold and silver in America, the extirpa- 
tion, enslavement and entombment in mines of the aboriginal 
population, the beginning of the conquest and looting of the 
East Indies, the turning of Africa into a warren for the com- 
mercial hunting of black-skins, signalised the rosy dawn of 
the era of capitalist production. These idyllic proceedings 
are the diief momenta of primitive accumulation. On their 
heels treads the commercial war of the European nations, 
with the globe for a theatre. It begins with the revolt of 
the Netherlands from Spain, assumes giant dimensions in Eng- 
land&apos;s anti-jacobin war, and is still going on in the opium wars 
against China, &amp;c. 

The different momenta of primitive accumulation distribute 
themselves now, more or less in chronological order, partic- 
ularly over Spain, Portugal, Holland, France^ and England. 
In England at the end of the 17th century, they arrive at a 
systematical combination, embracing the colonies, the national 
debt, the modem mode of taxation, and the protectionist sys- 
tem. These methods depend in part on brute force, e.g., the 
colonial system. But they all employ the power of the State, 
the concentrated and organised force of society, to hasten, 

^&quot;The Natural and Artificial Rights of Property Contrasted.&quot; Lond^ 18S2» pp. 
M-99. Author of the anonymous work: &quot;Th. Hodgsldn.&quot; 

*Even as late as 1794, the small cloth-makers of Leeds sent a deputation to Par* 
Uament, with a petition for a law to forbid any merchant from becoming a manu* 
iKturer. (Dr. Aikin. I c.) 



 

824 Capitalist Production. 

hothouse fashion, the process of transformation of the feudal 
mode of production into the capitalist mode, and to shorten the 
transition. Force is the midwife of every old society pr^nant 
with a new one. It is itself an economic power. 

Of the Christian colonial system, W. Howitt, a man who 
makes a specialty of Christianity, says: &quot;The barbarities and 
desperate outrages of the so-called Christian race, throughout 
every region of the world, and upon every people they have 
been able to subdue, are not to be paralleled by those of any 
other race, however fierce, however untaught, and however 
reckless of merqr and of shanie&gt;, in any age of the earth.&quot; ^ 
The history of the colonial administration of Holland — and 
Holland was the head capitalistic nation of the 17th century 
— ^&apos;^is one of the most extraordinary relations of treachery, 
bribery, massacre, and meanness.&quot; * Nothing is more charac- 
teristic than their system of stealing men, to get slaves for 
Java. The men stealers were trained for this purpose. The 
thief, the interpreter, and the seller, were the dliief agents in 
this trade, native princes the chief sellers. The young people 
stolen, were thrown into the secret dungeons of Celebes, until 
they were ready for sending to the slave-ships. An official re- 
port says: &quot;This one town of Macassar, e.g., is full of secret 
prisons, one more horrible than the other, crammed with un- 
fortunates, victims of greed and tyranny fettered in chains, 
forcibly torn from their families.&quot; To secure Malacca, the 
Dutch corrupted the Portuguese governor. He let them into 
the town in 1641. They hurried at once to his house and 
assassinated him^ to &quot;abstain&quot; from the payment of £21,875, 
the price of his treason. Wherever they set foot, devastation 
and depopulation followed. Banjuwangi, a province of Java, 
in 1760 numbered over 80,000 inhabitants, in 1811 only 18,- 
000. Sweet commerce I 

1 William Howitt: &quot;Colonisation and Christianity: A Popnlar History of dM 
Treatment of the Natives by the Europeans in all their Colonies.&quot; London, 1838, 
p. 9. On the treatment of the slaves there is a good compilation in Charles Comtc; 
Traits de la Legislation. Sme id. Bruxelles, 1837. This subject one must study 
in detail, to see what the bourgeoisie makes of itself and of the labourer, wherever 
it can, without restraint, model the world after its own image. 

* Thomas Stamford Raffles, late Lieut.-Gov. of that island: &apos;&apos;Histoty of Jsft 
and its dependencies.&quot; Lond., 1817 



 

Genesis of the Industrial Capitalist. 825 

The English East India Company, as is well known, ob- 
tained, besides the political rule in India, the exclusive monop- 
oly of the tea-trade, as well as of the Chinese trade in general, 
and of the transport of goods to and from Europe. But the 
coasting trade of India and between the islands, as well as the 
internal trade of India, were the monopoly of the higher em- 
ployes of the company. The monopolies of salt, opium, betel 
and other commodities, were inexhaustible mines of wealth. 
The employes themselves fixed the price and plundered at will 
the unhappy Hindus. The Governor-General took part in this 
private traflSc. His favourite received contracts under con- 
ditions whereby they, cleverer than the alchemists^ made gold 
out of nothing. Great fortunes sprang up like mushrooms in 
a day; primitive accumulation went on without the advance 
of a shilling. The trial of Warren Hastings swarms with such 
cases. Here is an instance. A contract for opium was given 
to a certain Sullivan at the moment of his departure on an 
official mission to a part of India far removed from the opium 
district Sullivan sold his contract to one Binn for £40,000) 
Binn sold it the same day for £60,000, and the tiltimate pur- 
chaser who carried out the contract declared that after all he 
realised an enormous gain. According to one of the lists laid 
before Parliament^ the Company and its employ^ from 1757- 
1766 got £6,000,000 from the Indians as gifts. Between 1769 
and 1770, the English manufactured a famine by buying up 
all the rice and refusing to sell it again, except at fabulous 
prices.^ 

The treatment of the aborigines was, naturally, most frighlr 
ful in plantation-oolonies destined for export trade only, sudi 
as the West Indies, and in rich and well-populated countries, 
such as Mexico and India, that were given over to plunder. 
But even in the colonies properly so-called, the Christian 
character of primitive accumulation did not belie itself. Those 
sober virtuosi of Protestantism, the Puritans of New England, 
in 1703, by decrees of their assembly set a premium of £40 on 

^ In the year 18M more than a million Hindni died of hunger in the province of 
Ofitaa alone. Neyerthelest, the attempt was made to enrich the Indian treasury bf 
tkc price at which the necessaries of life were sold to the starring people. 



 

B26 Capitalist Production. 

eveiy Indian aoalp and every captured red-akin: in 1720 a 
premium of £100 on every scalp; in 1744, after Massachufiettir 
Bay had proclaimed a certain tribe as rebels, the following 
prices : for a male scalp of 12 years and upwards £100 (new 
currency), for a male prisoner £105, for women and children 
prisoners £50, for scalps of women and children £50. Some 
decades later, the colonial system took its revenge on the de- 
scendants of the pious pilgrim fathers, who had grown sedi- 
tious in the meantime. At English instigation and for Eng- 
lish pay they were tomahawked by rednddns. The British 
Parliament, proclaimed blood-hounds and scalping as &apos;^eans 
that Ood and Nature had given into its hand.&apos;&apos; 

The colonial system ripened, like a hot-house, trade and 
navigation. The &quot;societies Monopolia&quot; of Luther were power- 
ful levers for concentration of capital. The colonies secured a 
market for the budding manufactures, and, throng the mo- 
nopoly of the market, an increased accumulation. The treas- 
ures captured outside Europe by undisguised looting, enslave- 
ment, and murder, floated back to the mother^jountry and 
were there turned into capital Holland, which first fully 
developed the colonial system, in 1648 stood already in the 
acme of its commercial greatness. It was &quot;in almost ezdur 
sive possession of the East Indian trade and the commerce be- 
tween the south-east and north-west of Europe. Its fisheries, 
marine, manufactures, surpassed those of any other country. 
The total capital of the Bepublic was probably more important 
than that of all the rest of Europe put together.&quot; GiUich for- 
gets U&gt; add that by 1648, the people of Holland were more 
overworked, poorer and more brutally oppressed than those of 
all the rest of Europe put together. 

To-day industrial supremacy implies commercial supremacy. 
In the period of manufacture properly so-called, it is, on the 
other hand, the commercial supremacy that gives industrial 
predominance. Hence the preponderant role that the colonial 
system plays at that time. It was &quot;the strange God&quot; who 
perched himself on the altar cheek by jowl with the old Gods 
of Europe, and one fine day with a shove and a kick ohnciDed 



 

Genesis of the Industrial Capitalist. 827 

them all of a heap. It prodaimed surplus-value making as 
the sole end and aim of himianitj. 

The system of public credit, i.e. of national debts, whose 
origin we discover in Qenoa and Venice as early as the middle 
ages, took possession of Europe generally during the manu- 
facturing period. The colonial system with its maritime trade 
and commercial wars served as a forcing-house for it Thus it 
first took root in Holland. National debts, i.e., the alienation 
of the state — whether despotic, constitutional or republican — 
marked with its stamp the capitalistic era. The only part of 
the so-called national wealth that actually enters into the col- 
lective possessions of modem peoples is — ^their national debt.^ 
Hence, as a necessary consequence, the modem doctrine that a 
nation becomes the richer the more deeply it is in debt 
Public credit becomes the credo of capital. And with the 
rise of national debt-making, want of faith in the national 
debt takes the place of the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, 
which may not be forgiven. 

The public debt becomes one of the most powerful levers of 
primitive accumulaticm. As with the stroke of an enchanter&apos;s 
wand, it endows barren money with the power of breeding and 
thus turns *t into capital, witiout the necessity of its exposing 
itself to the troubles and risks inseparable from its employ- 
ment in industry or even in usury. The state-creditors actu- 
ally give nothing away, for the sum lent is transformed into 
public bonds, easily negotiable, which go on functioning in 
their hands just as so much hard cash would. But further, 
apart from the class of lazy annuitants thus created, and from 
the improvised wealth of the financiers, middlemen between 
the government and the nation — ^as also apart from the tax- 
farmers, merchants, private manufacturers, to whom a good 
part of every national loan renders the service of a capital 
fallen from heaven — the national debt has given rise to joint- 
stock companies, to dealings in negotiable effects of all kinds, 
and to agiotage, in a word to stock-exchange gambling and the 
modem bankocracy. 

^Winiam Cobbett remarks that in England all public institutions are designated 
&apos;Voytl;&apos;* as compensation for this, however, there is the &quot;national&quot; debt 



 

filS Capitalist Production. 

At their birth the great banksy decorated widli national 
titles, were only associations of private speculators^ who placed 
themselves by the side of governments, and, thanks to the 
privileges they received, were in a positicm to advance mmiey 
to the state. Hence the accumulation of the national debt has 
no more infallible measure than the successive rise in the stock 
of these banks, whose full development dates from the found- 
ing of the Bank of England in 1694. The Bank of England 
began with lending its money to the Government at 8% ; at 
the same time it was empowered by Parliament to coin money 
out of the same capital, by lending it again to the public in 
the form of bank-notes. It was allowed to use these notes for 
discounting bills, making advances on oommoditiea, and for 
buying the precious metals. It was not long ere this credit- 
money, made by the bank itself, became the coin in which the 
Bonk of England made its loans to the state, and paid, on ac- 
count of the state, the interest on the public debt^ It was not 
enough that the bank gave with one hand and tock back more 
with the other; it remained, even whilst receiving, the eternal 
creditor of the nation down to the last shilling advanced. 
Oradually it became inevitably the receptacle of the metallic 
hoard of the country, and the centro of gravity of all com- 
mercial credit What effect was produced on their ccmtem- 
poraries by the sudden uprising of this brood of bcmkocrats, 
financiers, rentiers, brokers, stock-jobbers, &amp;c, is proved by the 
writings of that time, e.g., by 3olingbroke&apos;s.^ 

With the national debt arose an international credit system, 
which often conceals one of the sources of primitive accumula- 
tion in this or that people. Thus the villanies of the Venetian 
thieving ^stem formed one cf the secret bases of the capital- 
wealth of Holland to whom Venice in her decadonce lent large 
sums of money. So also was it with Holland and England. 
By the beginning of the 18th century the Dutch manuffuy 
tures were far outstripped. Holland had ceased to be the 
nation preponderant in commerce and industry. One of its 

^&quot;Si les Tartares inondaient TEtirope aujotird&apos;htiU fandrait bten dcs aflFairet 
pour leur faire entendre ce que c&apos;ett qu&apos;un financier parmt nona.&quot; Monteaqmcu 
Esprit des loia, t It. p. 88, ed. Londrea, 1769. 



 

Genesis of the Industrial Capitalist. 829 

main linee of business, therefore, from 1701-1776, is the lend- 
ing out of enormous amounts of capital, especially to its great 
rival England. The same thing is going on to-day between 
England and the United States. A great deal of capital, 
which appears to-day in the United States without any oerti- 
ficate of birth, was yesterday, in England, the capitalised blood 
of children. 

As the national debt finds its support in the public revenue, 
wbich must cover the yearly payments for interest, &amp;c, the 
modem system of taxation was the necessary complement of 
the system of national loans. The loans enable the govern- 
ment to meet extraordinary expenses, without the tax-payers 
feeling it immediately, but they necessitate, as a consequence, 
increased taxes. On the other hand, the raising of taxation 
caused by the accumulation of debts contracted one after an- 
other, compels the government always to have recourse to new 
loans for new extraordinary expenses. Modem fiscality, whose 
pivot is formed by taxes on the most necessary means of sub- 
sistence (thereby increasing their price), thus contains within 
itself the germ of automatic progression. Over-taxation is not 
an incident, but rather a principle. In Hollana, therefore, 
where this system was first inaugurated, the great patriot, De 
Witt, has in his &apos;&apos;Maxims&quot; extolled it as the best system for 
making the wage-labourer submissive, frugal, industrious, and 
overburdened with labour. The destructive influence that it 
exercises on the condition of the wage-labourer concerns us 
less however, here, than the forcible expropriation, resulting 
from it, of peasants, arti8&lt;ais, and in a word, all elements of 
the lower middlenjlass. On this tliere are not two opinions, 
even among the bourgeois economists. Its expropriating effi- 
cacy is still further heightened by the system of protection, 
which forms one of its integral parts. 

The great part that the public debt, and the fiscal system 
corresponding with it, has played in the capitalisation of 
wealth and the expropriation of the masses, has led many 
writers, like Cobbett, Doubleday and others, to seek in this, 
incorrectly, the fundamental cause of the misery of the modem 
peoples. 



 

830 Capitalist Production. 

The qrstem of protection was an artificial means of numn&amp;o- 
taring manufacturers, of expropriating independent labourers, 
of capitalising the national means of production and subsist- 
ence, of forcibly abbreviating the transition from the mediseval 
to the modem mode of production. The European states tore 
one another to pieces about the patent of this invention, and, 
once entered into the service of the surplus-value makers, did 
not merely lay under contribution in the pursuit of this pur- 
pose their own people, indirectly through protective duties, di- 
rectly through export premiums. They also forcibly rooted 
out, in their dependent countries, all industry, as, e.g., England 
did with the Irish woollen manufacture. On the continent of 
Europe, after Colbert&apos;s example, the process was much simpli- 
fied. The primitive industrial capital, here, came in part 
directly out of the state treasury. ^&apos;Why,&quot; cries Mirabeau, 
&quot;why go so far to seek the cause of the manufacturing glory of 
Saxony before the war f 180,000,000 of debts contracted by 
the sovereigns !&apos;&apos;^ 

Colonial system, public debts, heavy taxes, protection, com- 
mercial wars, &amp;c., these children of the true manufacturing 
period, increase gigantically during the infancy of Modem 
Industry. The birth of tiie latter is heralded by a great 
slaughter of the innocents. Like the royal navy, the factories 
were recruited by means of the press-gang. Blas6 as Sir F. 
M. Eden is as to the horrors of the expropriation of the agricul- 
tural population from the soil, from the last third of the 15th 
century to his own time; with all the self-satisfaction with 
which he rejoices in this process, &quot;essential&quot; for establishing 
capitalistic agriculture and &quot;the due proportion between arable 
and pasture land&apos;&apos; — ^he does not show, however, the same eco- 
nomic insight in respect to the necessity of child-stealing and 
child-slavery for the transformation of manufacturing exploi- 
tation into factory exploitation, and the establishment of the 
&quot;true relation&quot; between capital and labour-power. He says: 
&quot;It may, perhaps, be worthy the attention of the public to 
conpider, whether any manufacture, which, in order to be 
carried on successfully, requires that cottages and workhooses 

^Wnbtm, L c, t. tL, p. 101. 



 

Genesis of the Industrial Capitalist. 831 

ebould be ransacked for poor children; that they should be 
employed by turns during the greater part of the night and 
robbed of that rest which, though indispensable to all, is most 
required by the young; and that numbers of both sexes, of 
different ages and dispositions, should be collected together in 
such a manner that the contagion of example cannot but lead 
to profligacy and debauchery ; will add to the sum of individ- 
ual or national felicity?&quot;^ 

&quot;In the counties of Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, and more 
particularly in Lancashire,&quot; says Fielden, &quot;the newly-invented 
machinery was used in large factories built on the sides of 
streams capable of turning the water-wheel. Thousands of 
hands were suddenly required in these places, remote from 
towns; and Lancashire, in particular, being, till then, com- 
paratively thinly populated and barren, a population was all 
that she now wanted. The small and nimble fingers of little 
children being by very far the most in request, the custom 
instantly sprang up of procuring apprentices from the different 
parish workhouses of London, Birmingham, and elsewhere. 
Man^ , many thousands of these little, hapless creatures were 
sent down into the north, being from the age of 7 to the age of 
13 or 14 years old. The custom was for the master to clothe 
his apprentices and to feed and lodge them in an &quot;appren- 
tice house&apos; near the factory ; overseers were appointed to see 
to t/he works, whose interest it was to work the children to 
the utmost, because their pay was in proportion to the quantity 
of work that they could exact Cruelty was, of course, the 
consequence. . . In many of the manufacturing districts, but 
particularly, I am afraid, in the guilty county to which I 
belong [Lancashire], cruelties the most heart-rending were 
practised upon the unoffen ing and friendless creatures who 
were thus consigned to the charge of master manufacturers; 
they were harassed to the brink of death by excess of labour 
. . . were flogged, fettered and tortured in the most exquisite 
refinement of cruelty; . . . they were in many cases starved 
to the bone while flogged to their work and .... even in 
some instances . . . were driven to commit suicSde . . . The 



1 Eden, 1. c^ Vol. I., Book II., Ch. I., p. 421. 



 

832 Capitalist Production. 

beautifol and romantic valleys of Derbyshiie^ Nottingliam- 
shire and Lancaahire^ secluded from the public eye, became the 
dismal solitudes of torture, and of many a murder. The 
profits of manufactures were enormous ; but this only whetted 
the appetite that it should have satisfied, and therefore the 
manufacturers had recourse to an expedient that seemed to 
secure to them those profits without any possibility of limit; 
they began the practice of what is termed ^^night-working,&quot; 
that i% having tired one set of hands, by working them 
throughout the day, they had another set ready to go on 
working throughout the ni^t; the day-set getting into the 
beds that the ni^t-set had just quitted, and in their turn 
again, the night-set getting into the beds that the day-set 
quitted in the morning. It is a common tradition in Lanca- 
shire^ that the beds never get cold/*^ 

With the development of capitalist production during the 
manufacturing period, the public opinion of Europe had lost 
the last remnant of shame and conscience. Hie nations 
bragged cynically of every infamy that served them as a means 
to capitalistic accumulation. Bead, e.g., the naive Annals of 
Commerce of the worthy A. Anderson. Here it is trumpetted 
forth as a triumph of English statecraft that at the Peace of 
Utrecht, England extorted from the Spaniards by the Asiento 
Treaty the privilege of being allowed to ply the negro-trade, 
until then only carried on between Africa and the English 

^John Fidden, L c. pp. 6, «. On the earlier infamies of the factory syatem, cf. 
Dr. Allan (1796) L c. p. 819» and Gisbome: Enquiry into the Duties of lien, 1705. 
Vol. II. When the steam-engine transplanted the factories from the country water* 
falls to the middle of towns* the &quot;abstemious^ surplus-value maker found the child- 
material ready to his hand, without being forced to seek slaves from the workhouses. 
When Sir R. Peel, (father of the &quot;minister of plausibility&quot;), brought in his bill for 
the protection of children, in 1816, Francis Homer, lumen of the Bullion C6mnitttee 
and intimate friend of Ricardo, said in the House of Commons: &quot;It Is notorioas, 
that with a bankrupt&apos;s effects, a gang, if he might use the word, of these children 
had been put up to sale, and were advertised publicly as part of the pi o peity. A 
most atrocious instance had been brought before the Court of King&apos;s Bench two 
years before, in which a number of these boys, apprenticed by a pariah in London 
to one manufacturer, had been transferred to snother, and had hotn. found by some 
benevolent persons In a state of absolute famine. Another case more horrible bad 
come to his knowledge while on a [Parliamentary] (Committee • • . that not 
many jrears ago, an agreement had been made between a London parish and a 
Lancashire manufacturer, by which it was stipulated, that with every 20 sound chil 
dren one idiot should be taken.&quot; 



 

Genesis of the Industrial Capitalist. 833 

West Indies, between Africa and Spanish America as well. 
England thereby acquired the right of supplying Spanish 
America until 1743 with 4800 negroes yeariy. This threw, at 
the same time, an official cloak over British smuggling, 
Liverpool waxed fat on the slave-trade. This was its method 
of primitive accumulation. And, even to the present day, 
Liverpool &quot;respectability&quot; is the Pindar of the slave-trade 
which — compare the work of Aikin [1795] already quoted — 
^Tias coincided with that spirit of bold adventure which has 
characterised the trade of Liverpool and rapidly carried it to its 
present state of prosperity; has occasioned vast employment 
for shipping and sailors, and greatly augmented the demand 
for the manufactures of the country&quot; (p. 339). Liverpool em- 
ployed in the slave trade, in 1730, 15 ships; in 1751, 63; in 
1760, 74; in 1770, 96; and in 1792, 132. 

Whilst the cotton industry introduced child-slavery in 
England, it gave in the United States a stimulus to the trans- 
formation of the earlier, more or less patriarchal slavery, into a 
system of commercial exploitation. In fact, the veiled slavery 
of the wage-earners in Europe needed, for its pedestal, slavery 
pure and simple in the new world.* 

TantsB molis erat, to establish the &quot;eternal laws of 
Nature&quot; of the capitalist mode of production, to complete 
the process of separation between labourers and conditions 
of labour, to transform, at one pole, the social means of 
production and subsistence into capital, at the opposite pole^ 
the mass of the population into wage-labourers, into **free 
labouring poor,&quot; that artificial product of modem society.* If 

* In 1790, there were in the English West Indies ten slaves for one free man, in 
the French fourteen for one, in the Dutch twenty-three for one. (Henry Brougham: 
An Inquiry into the Colonial Policy of the European Powers. Edin. 1808, toL U. 
p. 74.) 

&apos;The phrase, &quot;labouring poor,&quot; is found in English legislation from the moment 
when the class of wage-labourers becomes noticeable. This term is used in oppo- 
sition, on the one hand, to the &quot;idle poor,&apos;* beggars, etc, on the other to those 
labonrerSy who, pigeons not yet plucked, are still possessors of their own means of 
labour. From the Statute Book it passed into political economy, and was handed 
down by Culpeper, J. Child, etc., to Adam Smith and Eden. After this, one 
can judge of the good faith of the &quot;execrable political cant-monger,** Edmund Burke^ 
when he called the expression, &quot;labouring poor,&quot; — &quot;execrable political cant.&quot; This 
sycophant who, in the pay of the English oligarchy, played the romantic laudator 
tcmporis acti against the French Revolution, just as, in the pay of the North Amcfi* 

tA 



 

834 Capitalist Production. 

money, according to Angier,^ ^&apos;oomee into the TiTorld W]&apos;&lt;4 a 
congenital blood-stain on one cheek,&quot; capital comes dripping 
from head to foot^ from every pore, with blood and dirt^ 



CHAPTER XXXn. 

HISTOBICAL TENDENCY OF CAPITALIST ACCUMULATIOir. 

What does the primitive accumulation of capital, %.e., its his- 
torical genesis, resolve itself into ? In so far as it i^ not im- 
mediate transformation of slaves and serfs into wage-labourers, 
and therefore a mere change of form, it only means the expro- 
priation of the immediate producers, i.e., the dissolution of 
private property based on the labour of its owner. Private 
properly, as the antithesis to social, collective property, exists 
only where the means of labour and the external conditions of 
labour belong to private individuals. But according as these 
private individuals are labourers or not labourers^ private 
property has a different character. The numberless shades, 
that it at first sight presents, correspond to the intermediate 
stages lying between these two extremes. The private prop- 

can Colonies, at the beginning of the American tronblet, he had played the Liberal 
against the English oligarchy, was an out and out vulgar bourgeois. &quot;The laws of 
commerce are the laws of Nature, and therefore the laws of God.&quot; (E. Burfce, 
L c, pp. 81, 88.) No wonder that, true to the laws of God and of Nature, ha 
always sold himself in the best market. A very good portrait of this Edmund Burfce. 
during his liberal time, is to be found in the writings of the Rer. Mr. Ttxrher. 
Tucker was a parson and a Tory, but, for the rest, an honourable man and a com- 
petent political economist. In face of the infamous cowardice of character that 
reigns to-day, and belieres most devoutly in &apos;&apos;the laws of co mm erce , &quot; it is our 
bounden duty again and again to brand the Burkes, who only differ from their suc- 
cessors in one thing — talent. 

1 Marie Augier: Du Credit Public. Paris, 1848. 

•&quot;Capital is said by a Quarterly Reviewer to fly turbulence and strife, and to 
be timid, which is very true; but this is very incompletely stating the question. 
Capital eschews no profit, or very small profit, just as Nature was formeriy said to 
abhor a vacuum. With adequate profit, capital is very bold. A certain 10 per cent, 
will ensure its employment anywhere; 80 per cent, certain will produce eagerness; 
60 per cent, positive audacity; 100 per cent, will make it ready to trample on all 
human laws; 800 per cent., and there is not a crime at which it will scruple, nor a 
risk it win not run, even to the chance of its owner being banged. If turbulence 
and strife will bring a profit, it will freely encourage both. Smuggling and the 
slave-trade have amply proved all diat is here suted.&quot; (P. J. Dunning, L c p. 86.) 



 

Historical Tendency of Accumulation. 835 

erty of the labourer in his means of production is the founda- 
tion of petty industry, whether agricultural, manufacturing 
or both ; petty industry, again, is an essential condition for the 
development of social production and of the free individuality 
of the labourer himself. Of course, this petty mode of pro- 
duction exists also tmder slavery, serfdom, and other states 
of dependence. But it flourishes, it lets loose its whole energy, 
it attains its adequate classical form, only where the labourer 
is the private owner of his own means of labour set in action 
by himself: the peasant of the land which he cultivates, the 
artizan of the tool which he handles as a virtuoso. Tbis mode 
of production pre-supposes parcelling of the soil, and scatter* 
ing of the other means of production. As it excludes the con^ 
oentration of these means of production, so also it excludes co- 
operation, division of labour within each separate process of 
production, the control over, and the productive application 
of the forces of Nature by society, and the free development 
of the social productive powers. It is compatible only with 
a system of production, and a society, moving within narrow 
and more or less primitive bounds. To perpetuate it would 
be, as Pecqueur rightly says, &quot;to decree universal mediocrity.&quot; 
At a certain stage of development it brings forth the material 
agencies for its ovm dissolution. From that moment new forces 
and new passions spring up in the bosom of society ; but the 
old social organization fetters them and keeps them down. It 
must be annihilated; it is annihilated. Its annihilation, the 
transformation of the individualised and scattered means of 
production into socially concentrated ones, of the pigmy prop- 
erty of the many into the huge property of the few, the ex- 
propriation of the great mass of the people from the soil, 
from the means of subsistence, and from the means of labour, 
this fearful and painful expropriation of the mass of the peo- 
ple forms the prelude to the history of capital. It comprises 
a series of forcible methods, of which we have passed in re- 
view only those that have been epoch-making as methods of 
the primitive accumulation of capital. The expropriation of 
the immediate producers was accomplished with merciless Van- 
dalism, and under the stimulus of passions the most infamous^ 



 

836 Capitalist Production. 

the most sordid, the pettiest, the most meanly odious. Self- 
earned private property, that is based, so to saj, on the fusing 
together of the isolated, independent labouring-individual with 
the conditions of his labour, is supplanted bj capitalistic pri- 
vate property, which rests on exploitation of the nominally 
free labour of others, i.e,, on wages-labour.^ 

As soon as this process of transformation has sufficiently de- 
composed the old society frcmi top to bottom, as soon as 
the labourers are turned into proletarians, their means of 
labour into capital, as soon as the capitalist mode of produc- 
tion stands on its own feet, then the further socialisation of 
labour and further transformation of the land and other means 
of production into socially exploited and, therefore, commcm 
means of production, as well as the further expropriation of 
private proprietors, takes a new form. That which is now 
to be expropriated is no longer the labourer working for him- 
self, but the capitalist exploiting many labourers. This ex- 
propriation is accomplished by the action of the immanent laws 
of capitalistic production itself, by the centralisation of capi- 
tal One capitalist always kills many. Hand in hand with 
this centralisation, or this expropriation of many capitalists 
by few, develop, on an ever extending scale, the cooperative 
form of the labour-process, the conscious technical application 
of science, the methodical cultivation of the soil, the trans- 
formation of the instruments of labour into instruments of 
labour only usable in common, the economising of all means 
of production by their use as the means of production of com- 
bined, socialised labour, the entanglement of all peoples in the 
net of the world-market, and this, the international character 
of the capitalistic regime. Along with the constantly dimin- 
ishing number of the magnates of capital, who usurp and 
monopolise all advantages of this process of transformation, 
grows the mass of misery, oppression, slavery, degradation, ex- 
ploitation ; but with this too grows the revolt of the working- 
class, a class always increasing in numbers, and disciplined, 

&apos; &quot;Nous soniines dan» une condition tout4-f tit nouvelle de la Mci^ . . . aom 
tendons i s^parer toute esp^ de propri^t^ d&apos;avec toute esp^ce de travaiL** &lt;Si^ 
noodi: Nonrcanx Prindpet de rEcon. Polit. t 11., p. 4S4.) 



 

Historical Tendency of Accumulation. 837 

tinitedy organised by the very mechanism of the process of 
capitalist production itself. The monopoly of capital becomes 
a fetter upon the mode of production, which has sprung up 
and flourished along with^ and under it. Centralisation of the 
means of production and socialisation of labour at last reach 
a point where they become incompatible with their capitalist 
integument This integument is burst asunder. The knell 
of capitalist private property sounds. The expropriators are 
expropriated. 

The capitalist mode of appropriation, the result of the capi- 
talist mode of production, produces capitalist private properly. 
This is the first negation of individual private property, aa 
founded on the labour of the proprietor. But capitalist pro- 
duction begets, with the inexorability of a law of Nature, its 
own negation. It is the negation of negation. This does not 
re-establish private property for the producer, but gives him 
individual property based on the acquisitions of the capitalist 
era : i.e., on co-operation and the possession in conunon of the 
land and of the means of production. 

The transformation of scattered private property, arising 
from individual labour, into capitalist private properly is, 
naturally, a process, incomparably more protracted, violent, 
and difficult, than the transformation of capitalistic private 
property, already practically resting on socialised production, 
into socialised property. In the former case, we had the ex- 
propriation of the mass of the people by a few usurpers; in 
the latter, we have the expropriation of a few usurpers by the 
mass of the people.^ 

* The advance of industry, wbose Inyoltmtary promoter Is the hourgeoisie, replacea 
the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, bj their revolutionary combina- 
tion, due to association. The development of Modem Industry, therefore, cuts from 
under its feet, the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropri- 
ates&apos; products. What the bourgeoisie therefore, produces, above all, are its own 
grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable. 
. . . Of all the classes, that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie to-day, the 
proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class. The other classes perish and dis- 
appear in the face of Modem Industry, the proletariat is its special and essential 
product. . • . The lower middle-classes, the small manufacturers, the shop keep- 
ers, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from 
extinction their existence as fractions of the middle-class . . . they are reac- 
tionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. &quot;Karl Marx and Frederick 
Engels, Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei,&quot; London, 1847, pp. 911. 



 

8^8 Capitalist Productiofk 

CHAPTER XXXTEL 

THS MODERN THEOBT OF OOLONISATIOIT*^ 

Political economy confuses on principle two very different 
kinds of private property, of which one rests on the producers&apos; 
own labour, the other on the employment of the labour of 
others. It forgets that the latter not only is the direct anti- 
thesis of the former, but absolutely grows on its tomb only. 
In Western Europe, the home of political economy, the process 
of primitive accimiulation is more or less accomplished. Here 
the capitalist regime has either directly conquered the whole 
domain of national production, or, where economic conditions 
are less developed, it, as least, indirectly controls those strata of 
society which, though belonging to the antiquated mode of pro- 
duction, continue to exist side by side with it in gradual decay. 
To this ready-made world of capital, the political economist 
applies the notions of law and of property inherited from a pre- 
capitalistic world with all the more anxious zeal and all the 
greater unction, the more loudly the facts cry out in the face 
of his idealogy. It is otherwise in the colonies. There the 
capitalist regime everywhere comes into collision with the 
resistance of the producer, who, as owner of his own condi- 
tions of labour, employs that labour to enrich himself, instead 
of the capitalist The contradiction of these two diametrically 
opposed economic systems, manifests itself here practically in 
a struggle between them. Where the capitalist has at his back 
the power of the mother-country, he tries to clear out of his 
way by force, the modes of production and appropriation, 
based on the independent labour of the producer. The same 
interest which compels the sycophant of capital, the political 
economist, in the mother-country, to proclaim the theoretical 

^We treat here of real Colonies, Tirgin soils, colonised by free immigrants. Tlie 
United States are, speaking economically, still only a Colony of Europe. Besides, 
to this category belong also such old plantations as those in which the abolition of 
slavery has completely altered the earlier conditions. 



 

The Modem Theory of Colonisation. 839 

identity of the capitalist mode of production with its con- 
traiy, that same interest compels him in the colonies to make a 
clean breast of it, and to proclaim aloud the antagonism of 
the two modes of production. To this end he proves how the 
development of the social productive power of labour, co- 
operation, division of labour, use of machinery on a large 
scale, &amp;c., are impossible without the expropriation of the 
labourers, and the corresponding transformation of their means 
of production into capitaL In the interest of the so-called 
national wealth, he seeks for artificial means to ensure the 
poverty of the people. Here his apologetic armour crumbles 
off, bit by bit, like rotten touchwood. It is the great merit 
of E. G. Wakefield to have discovered, not anything new 
about the Colonies,^ but to have discovered in the Colonies the 
truth as to the conditions of capitalist production in the mother- 
country. As the system of protection at its origin^ attempted 
to manufacture capitalists artificially in the mother-country, 
so Wakefield&apos;s colonisation theory, which England tried for a 
time to enforce by Acts of Parliament, attempted to effect the 
manufacture of wage-workers in the Colonies. This he calls 
&quot;systematic colonisation.&quot; 

First of all, Wakefield discovered that in the Colonies prop- 
erty in money, means of subsistence, machines and other means 
of production, does not as yet stamp a man as a capitalist if 
there be wanting the correlative — ^the wage-worker, the other 
man who is compelled to sell himself of his own free-will. 
He discovered that capital is not a thing, but a social relation 
between persons, established by the instrumentality of things.® 
Mr. Peel, he moans, took with him from England to Swan 
River, West Australia, means of subsistence and of produc- 

* Wakefield&apos;s few fflimpses on the subject of Modem Colonisation are fully antici- 
pated by Mirabeau Tire, the physiocrat, and even much earlier by English econo- 
mists. 

* Later, it became a temporary necessity in the international competitive struggle. 
But, whatever its motive, the consequences remain the same. 

&apos;A negro is a negro. In certain circumstances he becomes a slave. A mule is a 
machine for spinning cotton. Only under certain circumstances does it become 
capital. Outside these circumstances, it is no more capital than gold is intrinsically 
money, or sugar is the price of sugar. . . . Capital is a social relation of pro- 
duction. It is a historical relation of production. (Karl Marx, &quot;Lohnarbeit uad 
Kapital.&quot; N. Rh. Z. No. 260. April 7, 1849.) 



 

840 Capitalist Production. 

tion to the amount of £50,000. Mr. Peel hai the foreai^t to 
bring with him, besides, 8000 persons of the workingK^Uss^ 
men, women, and children. Once arrived at his destination, 
&quot;Mr. Peel was left without a servant to make his bed or fetdi 
him water from the river.&quot;^ Unhappy Mr. Peel who pro^ 
vided for everything except the export of English modes of 
production to Swan lUverl , 

For the understanding of the following discoveries of Wake- 
field, two preliminary remarks : We know that the means of 
production and subsistence^ while they remain the property of 
the immediate producer, are not capital. They become capi- 
tal, only imder circumstances in which they serve at the same 
time as means of exploitation and subjection of the labourer. 
But this capitalist soul of theirs is so intimately wedded, in 
the head of the political economist, to their material substance^ 
that he christens them capital under all circumstances, even 
when they are its exact opposite. Thus is it with Wakefield. 
Further : the splitting up of the means of production into the 
individual properly of many independent labourers, working 
on their own account, he calls equal division of capital It is 
with the political economist as with the feudal jurist The 
latter stuck on to pure monetary relations the labels supplied 
by feudal law. 

&quot;If,&apos;^ says Wakefield, &quot;aU the members of the society are 
supposed to possess equal portions of capital • • • no man 
would have a motive for accumulating more capital than ho 
could use with his own hands. This is to some extent the 
case in new American settlements, where a passion for owning 
land prevents the existence of a class of labourers for hire.&quot;* 
So long, therefore, as the labourer can accumulate for him- 
self — and this he can do so long as he remains possessor of 
his means of production — capitalist accumulation and the cap- 
italistic mode of production are impossible. The class of 
wage-labourers, essential to these, is wanting. How, then, in 
old Europe, was the expropriation of the labourer from his 
conditions of labour, i.e., the co-existence of capital and wage- 

^E. G. Wakefield: England and America, toL ii^ p. St. 
•L c. p. 17. 



 

The Modem Theory of Colonisation. 841 

labour, brought about? By a social contract of a quite orig- 
inal kind. ^&apos;Mankind have adopted a . . • simple con- 
trivance for promoting the accumulation of capital,&quot; which, of 
course, since the time of Adam, floated in their imagination as 
the sole and final end of thier existence : &quot;they have divided 
themselves into owners of capital and owners of labour. 
. . . This division was the result of concert and combina- 
tion.*&apos;* In one word: the mass of mankind expropriated it- 
self in honour of the &quot;accumulation of capital.&quot; Now, one 
would think, that this instinct of self-denying fanaticism 
would give itself full fling especially in the Colonies, where 
alone exist the men and conditions that could turn a social 
contract from a dream to a reality. But why, then, should 
&quot;systematic colonisation&quot; be called in to replace its opposite, 
spontaneous, unregulated colonisation t But — ^but — ^&quot;In the 
Northern States of the American Union, it may be doubted 
whether so many as a tenth of the people would fall under the 
description of hired labourers. ... In England . . . 
the labouring class compose the bulk of the people.&quot;* Nay, 
the impulse to self-expropriation, on the part of labouring 
humanity, for the glory of capital, exists so little, that slavery, 
according to Wakefield himself, is the sole natural basis of 
Colonial wealth. His systematic colonisation is a mere pis 
oiler, since he unfortunately has to do with free men, not 
with slaves. &quot;The first Spanish settlers in Saint Domingo did 
not obtain labourers from Spain. But, without labourers, 
their capital must have perished, or, at least, must soon have 
been diminished to that small amount which each individual 
could employ with his own hands. This has actually occurred 
in the last Colony founded by Englishmen — ^the Swan River 
Settlement — ^where a great mass of capital, of seeds, imple- 
ments, and cattle, has perished for want of labourers to use it, 
and where no settler has preserved much more capital than he 
can employ with his own hands.&quot;^ 

We have seen that the expropriation of the mass of the peo- 
ple from the soil forms the basis of the capitalist mode of pro- 
duction. The essence of a free colony, on the contrary, con- 

M. c ToL L, n. la Uc, pp. 43; 43,44. &gt;Lc, ▼oLiL.p.S. 



 

842 Capitalist Production. 

flists in this — that the bulk of the soil is still public property, 
and every settler on it therefore can turn part of it into his 
private property and individual means of production, without 
hindering the later settler^ in the same operation.^ This is 
the secret both of the prosperity of the colonies and of their 
inveterate vice — opposition to the establishment of capitaL 
**Where land is very cheap and all men are free, where one 
who so pleases can easily obtain a piece of land for himself, 
not only is labour very dear, as respects the labourer&apos;s share 
of the produce, but the difficulty is to obtain combined labour 
at any price.&quot;&apos; 

As in the colonies the separation of the labourer from the 
conditions of labour and their root, the soil, does not yet exist^ 
or only sporadically, or on too limited a scale, so neither does 
the separation of agriculture from industry exist, nor the de- 
struction of the household industry of the peasantry. Wh«ioe 
then is to come the internal market for capital ? &quot;No part of 
the population of America is exclusively agricultural, except- 
ing slaves and their employers who combine capital and labour 
in particular works. Free Americans, who cultivate the soil, 
follow many other occupations. Some portion of the furniture 
and tools which they use is commonly made by themselves. 
They frequently build their own houses, and carry to market, 
at whatever distance, the produce of their own industry. 
They are spinners and weavers; they make soap and candles, 
as well as, in many cases, shoes and clothes for their own use. 
In America the cultivation of land is often the secondary pur- 
suit of a blacksmith, a miUer or a shopkeeper.&quot;* With such 
queer people as these, where is the &quot;field of abstinence&quot; for 
the capitalists ? 

The great beauty of capitalist production consists in this — 
that it not only constantly reproduces the wage-worker as 
wage-worker, but produces always, in proportion to the ac- 
cumulation of capital, a relative surplus population of wage- 
workers. Thus the law of supply and demand of labour is 

*■ &quot;Land, to be an element of colonisation, mast not only be waste, but it must be 
public property, liable to be conTerted into private property.&quot; (1. c Vol. IL, p. 196.) 
*L c. VoL I. p. 24). &apos;L c pp. SI, M. 



 

The Modem Theory of Colonisation. 843 

kept in the right rut^ the oscillation of wages is penned witliin 
limits satisfactory to capitalist exploitation, and lastly, the so- 
cial dependence of the labourer on the capitalist, that indis- 
pensable requisite, is secured; an unmistakeable relation of 
dependence, which the smug political economist, at home, in 
the mother country, can transmogrify into one of free contract 
between buyer and seller, between equally independent own- 
ers of commodities, the owner of the commodity capital and 
the owner of the commodity labour. But in the colonies this 
pretty fancy is torn asunder. The absolute population here 
increases much more quickly than in the mother-country, be- 
cause many labourers enter this world as ready-made adults, 
and yet the labour market is always understocked. The law 
of the supply and demand of labour falls to pieces. On the 
one hand, the old world constantly throws in capital, thirst- 
ing after exploitation and ^^abstinence ;&apos;&apos; on the other, the 
regular reproduction of the wage-labourer as wage-labourer 
comes into collision with impediments the most impertinent 
and in part invincible. What becomes of the production of 
wage-labourers, supernumerary in proportion to the accumula- 
tion of capital ? The wage-worker of to-day is to-morrow an 
independent peasant, or artisan, working for himself. He 
vanishes from the labour-market, but not into the workhouse. 
This constant transformation of the wage-labourers into inde- 
pendent producers, who work for themselves instead of for 
capital, and enrich themselves instead of the capitalist gentry, 
reacts in its turn very perversely on the conditions of the la- 
bour-market Not only does the d^ree of exploitation of the 
wage-labourer remain indecently low. The wage-labourer 
loses into the bargain, along with the relation of dependence, 
also the sentiment of dependence on the abstemious capitalist 
Hence all the inconveniences that our E. G. Wakefield pic- 
tures so doughtily, so eloquently, so pathetically. 

The supply of wage-labour, he complains, is neither con- 
stant, nor regular, nor suflScient &quot;The supply of labour is 
always, not only small, but uncertain.&quot;^ &quot;Though the produce 
divided between the capitalist and the labourer be ls^:ge the 

»L c. Vol. II.. p. lie. 



 

844 Capitalist Production. 

labourer takes so great a share that he soon becomes a capital- 
ist. •• • FeWy even of those whose lives are unusually 
long, can accumulate great masses of wealth*&apos;&apos;^ The labourers 
most distinctly decline to allow the capitalist to abstain from 
the payment of the greater part of their labour. It avails him 
nothing if he is so cunning as to import from Europe, with 
his own capital, his own wage-workers. They soon &apos;&apos;cease 
. • • to be labourers for hire; they • • • become in^ 
dependent landowners, if not competitors with their former 
masters in the labour market&apos;&apos;&apos; Think of the horror! The 
excellent capitalist has imported bodily from Europe, with hia 
own good money, his own competitors ! The end of the world 
has come I No wonder Wakefield laments the absence of all 
dependence and of all sentiment of dependence on the part 
of the wage-workers in the colonies. On account of the hi^ 
wages, says his disciple^ Merivale, there is in the colonies &apos;Hhe 
urgent desire for cheaper and more subservient labourers — 
for a class to whom the capitalist might dictate terms, in- 
stead of being dictated to by them. • • • In ancient civi- 
lized countries the labourer, though free, is by law of nature 
dependent on capitalists ; in colonies this dependence must be 
created by artificial means.&apos;&apos;* 

What is now, according to Wakefield, the consequence of 

&lt;L c, VoL I., p. 181 *L c, VoL II., p. 5. 

&apos;Merivale, L c. Vol. II., pp. 285^14 ptatim. Even the mild, free-trade, vulgar 
economist, Molinari, sayt: &quot;Dans lea colonies oh resclavage a ^t^ aboli sans que le 
travail forc6 se trouvait remplac6 par nne quantity ^nivalente de travail libre, on a 
vu s&apos;op^rer la contre-partie du fait qui ae realise tons les jours sous nos yeux. On a 
vu les simples travailleurs exploiter 4 leur tour les entrepreneurs d&apos;indnstrie, exigcr 
d&apos;eux des salairea hors de toute proportion avec la part legitime qui leur revenait dana 
le produit Les planteurs, ne pouvant obtenir de leurs sucres un prix suffisant pour 
couvrir la hausse de salaire, ont 6U oblig^ de foumir I&apos;exc^dant, d&apos;abord sur lenn 
profits, ensuite sur leurs capitaux memes. Une f oule de planteurs ont 6te ruin^ de la 
sorte, d&apos;autres ont ferm6 leurs ateliers pour ^chapper 4 une ruine imminente. . . . 
Sans doute, il vaut mieux voir p^rir des accumulations de capitaux que des gtoira- 
tions d&apos;hommes [bow generous of Mr. Molinari!]: mais ne vaudrait-il pas mieux qua 
ni les uns ni les autres p^rissent?&quot; (Molinari 1. c pp. 51, 52.) Mr. Molinari, Mr. 
Molinari I What then becomes of the ten commandments, of Moses and the prophets^ 
of the law of supply and demand, if in Europe the &quot;entrepreneur&quot; can cut down 
the labourer&apos;s legitimate part, and in the West Indies, the labourer can cut down 
the entrepreneur&apos;s? And what, if you please, is this &quot;legitimate part,&quot; which on 
your own showing the capitalist in Europe daily neglects to pay? Over yonder, in 
the colonies where the labourers are so &quot;simple&quot; as to &quot;exploit&quot; the capitalist, Mr. 
Molinari feels a strong itching to set the law of supply and demand, that worfca 
elsewhere automatically, on the right road by means of the police. 



 

The Modem Theory of Colonisation. 845 

this unfortunate state of things in the colonies ? A *T)arbaris- 
ing tendency of dispersion&quot; of producers and national wealth.* 
The parcelling-out of the means of production among in- 
numerable owners, working on their own account^ annihilates, 
along with the centralisation of capital, all the foundations of 
combined labour. Every long-winded undertaking, extend- 
ing over several years and demanding outlay of fixed capital, 
is prevented from being carried out In Europe, capital 
invests without hesitating a moment^ for the working-class 
constitutes its living appurtenance, always in excess, always 
at disposal. But in the colonies! Wakefield tells an ex- 
tremely doleful anecdote. He was talking with some capital- 
ists of Canada and the state of New York, where the immi- 
grant wave often becomes stagnant and deposits a sediment of 
&quot;supernumerary&apos;^ labourers. &quot;Our capital,&quot; says one of the 
characters in the melodrama, &quot;was ready for many operations 
which require a considerable period of time for their comi 
pletion; but we could not begin such operations with labour 
which, we knew, would soon leave us. If wq had been sure o( 
retaining the labour of such emigrants, we should have been 
glad to have engaged it at once, and for a high price: and 
we should have engaged it, even though we had been sure it 
would leave us, provided we had been sure of a fresh supply 
whenever we might need it&quot;* 

After Wakefield has contrasted the English capitalist agri- 
culture and its &quot;combined&quot; labour with the scattered cultiva- 
tion of American peasants, he unwittingly gives us a glimpse 
at the reverse of the medal. He depicts the mass of the 
American people as well-to-do, independent, enterprising and 
comparatively cultured, whilst &quot;the English agricultural la- 
bourer is a miserable wretch, a pauper. ... In what 
country, except North America and some new colonies, do the 
wages of free labour employed in agriculture, much exceed a 
bare subsistence for the labourer? . . . Undoubtedly, 
farm-horses in England, being a valuable property, are better 
fed than English peasants.&quot;^ But, never mind, national 



&gt; Wakefield, 1. c. Vol. II., p. 62. *1. c pp. 191, 19t. 

•1. c, VoL L, pp. 47, 24«. 



 

846 Capitalist Production. 

wealth is, onoe again, by its very nature, identical with misery 
of the people. 

How, then, to heal the anti-oapitalistic cancer of the colon- 
ies? If men were willing, at a blow, to turn all the soil 
from public into private property, they would destroy cer- 
tainly the root of the evil, but also — the coloniesu The trick 
is how to kill two birds with one stone. Let the Government 
put upon the virgin soil an artificial price, independent of the 
law of supply and demand, a price that compels the immigrant 
to work a long time for wages before he can earn enough 
money to buy land, and turn himself into an independent 
peasant^ The funds resulting from the sale of land at a price 
relatively prohibitory for the wage-workers, this fund of 
money extorted from the wages of labour by violation of the 
sacred law of supply and demand, the Government is to em- 
ploy, on the other hand, in proportion as it grows, to import 
have-nothings from Europe into the colonies, and thus keep 
the wage-labour market full for the capitalists. Under these 
circumstances, tout sera pour le mieux dans le meilleur des 
mondes possibles. This is the great secret of &apos;&apos;systematic col- 
onisation.&apos;&apos; By this plan, Wakefield cries in triumph, &quot;the 
supply of labour rmist be constant and regular, because, first, 
as no labourer would be able to procure land until he had 
worked for money, all immigrant labourers, working for a time 
for wages and in combination, would produce capital for the 
employment of more labourers; secondly, because every lab- 
ourer who left off working for wages and became a landowner, 
would, by purchasing land, provide a fund for bringing fresh 
labour to the colony.&quot;* The price of the soil imposed by the 
State must, of course, be a &quot;sufficient price&apos;&apos; — Le,, so hi^ &quot;as 
to prevent the labourers from becoming independent landown- 

&lt; &quot;Cest, ajoutez-Totit, grace 4 rappropriation da sol «t des capitanx qoe rhomme, 
qui n&apos; a que sea bras, trouve de Toccupation, et se fait un rerenn • • . c&apos;est aa 
contraire, grace 4 Tappropriatioii indlviduellc du sol qu&apos;il se trouve des hommes 
n&apos;ayant que leurs bras. . . . Quand vous mettex un homme dans le vide, toss 
Yous emparez de Tatmosphire. Ainsi faites-vous, quand tous tous empares du soL 
. . . Cest le mettre dans le vide de richesses, pour ne le liisscr vivre qu&apos;i volns 
▼olont6.&quot; (Colins, L c, t III., pp. 868-271, 

•Wakefield, 1. c, VoL IL, p. 19S. 



 

The Modem Theory of Colonisation. 847 

ers until others had followed to take their place.&apos;&apos;^ This ^^suffi- 
cient price for the land&quot; is nothing but a euphemistic circum- 
locution for the ransom which the labourer pays to the 
capitalist for leave to retire from the wage-labour market to 
the land. Firsts he must create for the capitalist &quot;capital,&quot; 
with which the latter may be able to exploit more labourers ; 
then he must place^ at his own expense, a locvan tenena on the 
labour market^ whom the Government forwards across the sea 
for the benefit of his old master, the capitalist 

It is very characteristic that the English Government for 
years practised this method of &quot;primitive accumulation,&quot; pre- 
scribed by Mr. Wakefield expressly for the use of the colonies. 
The fiasco was, of course, as complete as that of Sir Bobert 
Peel&apos;s Bank Act The stream of emigration was only diverted 
from the English colonies to the United States. Meanwhile, 
the advance of capitalistic production in Europe, accompanied 
by increasing Government pressure, has rendered Wakefield&apos;s 
recipe superfluous. On the one hand, the enormous and cease- 
less stream of men, year after year driven upon America, 
leaves behind a stationary sediment in the east of the United 
States, the wave of immigration from Europe throwing men 
on the labour market there more rapidly than the wave of emi- 
gration westwards can wash them away. On the other hand, 
the American Civil War brought in its train a colossal national 
debt, and, with it, pressure of taxes, the rise of the vilest 
financial aristocracy, the squandering of a huge part of the 
public land on speculative companies for the exploitation of 
railways, mines, &amp;c., in brief, the most rapid centralisation of 
capital The great republic has, therefore, ceased to be the 
promised land for emigrant labourers. Capitalistic produc- 
tion advances there with giant strides, even though the low- 
ering of wages and the dependence of the wage-worker are 
yet far from being brought down to the normal European leveL 
The shameless lavishing of uncultivated colonial land on aristi- 
crats and capitalists by the Government, so loudly denounced 
even by Wakefield, has produced, especially in Australia,&apos; in 

»t c, p. 45. 

&apos;As soon M Atastralia became ber own Uw-ghrer, she passed, of cottrse^ tewt 



 

^848 Capitalist Production. 

conjunction with the stream of men that the gold-diggings at- 
traoty and with the competition that the importation of Eng- 
lish commodities causes even to the smallest artisan, an ample 
&quot;relative surplus labouring population/* so that almost every 
mail brings the Job&apos;s news of a &quot;glut of the Australian labour- 
market,&quot; and prostitution in some places there flourishes as 
wantonly as in the London Haymarket 

However, we are not concerned here with the condition of 
the colonies. The only thing that interests us is die secret 
discovered in the new world by the political economy of the 
old world, a id proclaimed on the house-tops: that the capitalist 
mode of production and accumulation, and therefore capitalist 
private property, have for their fundamental condition the 
annihilation of self-earned private property; in other words^ 
the expropriation of the labourer. 

faronrable to the tettlen, but the tqitaaderiaf of tlM land, tirttAj acoompliibed If 
the English Goyernment, stand* in the way. &quot;The first and main object at which 
the new Land Act of 186S aims is to gire increased facilities for the a et tl ement of 
the people.&quot; (The Land Law of Victoria, by the Hon. O. G. JhtSj, Minister of 
PobUc Lands. Load. IMI.) 



 

WORKS AND AUTH0E8 QUOTED IN &quot;CAPITAL&apos;&apos; 



AuihffT. Work. Dola 

L,EL,andMeck- 

lenburg, F. A...Arbeiten der KaSserlich RuBsiscben 

Qesandtschaft zu Pekin ttber Ohina.Berlin, 1868. 
AimniQTOV, Steph^^Enquiry into the Reasons for or 

against enclosing Open Fields LondoHf 1772. 

m Aut£o6 £14mentaire des Principes 

d&apos;ficonomie Politique. {See under 

Anonymous) 

«• Advantages of the East Indian 

Trade. (Bee under Anonymous) . 

Arrtw ^ Tkr Description of the country from 

thirty to forty miles round Man- 
chester London, V!9tk 

Ahonticous Abb£g6 £l6mentaire des Principes 

de V £oonomie Politique. (^fee 

Gamier, G.) Pari*. 1796. 

•* AoYAiTTAOEs of the East Indian 

Trade to England London, 1720. 

« Case, The, of our English Wool, etcl^ndon, 1685. 

* Combination, On, of Trades London, 1834. 

^ Considerations concerning taking 

oflf the bounty on Com exported.. Ix)ndon, 1753. 

« CuBBBNOT Question, The London, 1847. 

m CuBBENOT Question reviewed. The. 

A Letter to the Scotch People. By 

a Banker in England London, 1845. 

« Defence, A, of the Landowners and 

Farmers of Great Britain London, 1814. 

&apos; DiscouBSE conceming Trade, that in 

particular of the East Indies Ix&gt;ndon, 1689 

* BisoouBSB, A, on the general no- 

tions of Money, Trade, and Ex- 
change as they stand in relation to 

each other. By a merchant liOndon, 1695. 

^ DisoouBSE, A, on the Necessity of 

encouraging Mechanick Industry.. J^odon, 1690 

• Dissertation, A critical, on the 

Nature, Measure, and Causes of 

Value, etc. {See Bailey S.) London, 1825. 

• Dissertation on the Poor Laws. 

By A Well-wisher of Mankind. 

{Bee Townsend) Lond(m, 1786 {w 

pub. 1817.) 
849 



 

850 Capitalist Production. 

Author. Work, 

Anoimious East India Trade, The, a most pro- 
fitable Trade London, 1696. 

^ EooNOMT, Public, concentrated Garliale, 183S. 

Elf QUiBT into the connection between 
the high price of Provisions and 
the sice of Farms. B7 a Farmer... London, 1773. 
^ Ekquibt into the present high price 

of Provisions London, 1767. 

* Ekquibt into the causes of the pres- 

ent high price of Provisions. {8ee 

Forster, Nathaniel) London, 177S. 

^ Enquibt into those principles re- 

specting the nature of Demand aa 
lately advocated hj Mr. Malthus. . .London, 182L 

^ En QUIBT, A political, into the conse- 

quences of enclosing Waste Lands. London, 1786. 

* Ebsat, An, on the Ck^veming Causes 

of the Natural rate of Interest 

(See J. Massey) London, 1760. 

*■ Ebsat, a prize, on the Comparative 
merits m Competition and Co- 
operation London, 1834. 

*■ EssAT on Credit and the Bankrupt 

Act London, 1707. 

EssAT on the Political Economy of 
Nations London, 1821. 

^ EssAT on Public Credit London, 1710. 

^ Ebsat on Trade and Commerce. . . .London, 1770. 

^ EssATS on Political Economy in 
which are illustrated the principal 
causes of the present National 
Distress London, 1830. 

^ Fabms, Capital, Two Letters on the 

Flour Trade, and the deamess of 
Com. By a Person in Business. . .London, 1767. 

^ InousTBT of Nations, The London, 1866. 

^ Inquibt. (See Enquiry) 

* Krankhbiten, Die. Welche ver- 

schiednen Stftnden, Altem und 
Geschlechtem eigenthOmlich sind..Ulm, 1860. 

&lt;■ Laboub Defended asainst Capital, 

by T. H. {See Hodgskin) London, 1826. 

^ Letter, A, to Sir J. C. Banbury, 
Bt., On the high Price of Provi- 
sions. By a Suffolk Gentleman Ipswidi, 1796. 

^ Monet and its Vicissitudes. {See 

S. Bailey) London, 1837. 

&apos; OuTUNES of Political Economy London, 1832. 

^ Obsebvations on certain verbal dis- 
putes in Political Economy London, 1821. 

* Pebils, The, of the Nation London, 1843. 

^ Pbinciflbs, Essential, of the Wealth 

of Nations London, 1707. 

^ Reasons for the late Increase of the 

Poor Rate London^ 1777. 



 

Works and Authors quoted in &apos;&apos;Capital/&apos; 851 

Author. Work. Date. 

AiTONTMOUS Keasons for a limited Exportation 

of Wool London, 1677. 

^ Remarks on the Commercial Policy 

of Great Britain London, 1815. 

^ S. W. A Compendious and Briefe 
Examination of certayne ordinary 
complaints of diverse of our coun- 
trymen in these our days. {Bee 
William Stafford) London, 1581. 

* Sophisms of Free Trade. By a 

Barrister Reprint, 1870. London, 1850. 

* SouBCE, The, and Remedies of the 

National Difficulties. A letter to 

Lord John Russell London, 1821. 

* Theoby, The, of the Exchanges. 

The Bank Charter Act of 1844. 
The abuse of the Metallic Principle 

to Depreciaticm London, 1864. 

^ TnouoHTS, Some, on the interest of 
money in general, and particularly 
in the English Funds London, 1870. 

Appian De bellis Civilibus 

A s H LS T, Antli.,The Ten Hours&apos; Factory Bill, Speech 
Lord. of the 15th March London, 1844. 

Abistotub De Republica 

AuGiKB, Marie.... Du cr^it public et de son Histoire 
depuis les temps anciens jus qu&apos; k 
nos jours Pftria, 1842. 

B. 

Bahxt, S A Critical Dissertation, etc, chiefly 

in reference to the writings of Mr. 

Ricardo London, 1825. 

Bahjbt, S. Money and its Vicissitudes. (Pub- 
lished Anon.) London, 1837. 

Babbagk, Charles. On the Economy of Machinery London, 1832. 

Bacx)N Life of Henry VlL (Rennet&apos;s Eng- 
land) London, 1817. 

** Bank Acts. {See Parliamentary 
Papers) 

Banker, A The Currency Question reviewed. 

A letter to the Scotch people by 

a Banker in England London, 1845. 

Babbon, Nicolas, .a Discourse on coining the new 
money lighter, in answer to Mr. 
Locke&apos;s Considerations London, 1606. 

Babton, John... .Observations on the circumstances 
which influence the condition of the 
Labouring Classes of Society London, 1817. 

Babbzsteb, A Sophisms of Free Trade. {See 

under Anonymous) 

Bbocabia, Cbsabb. Elementi di Economia Pubblica. 

Custodi&apos;s ed. of Italian Econombts.Milano, 1803. 

0ELEJB8, John. . . .Essays about the Poor. Manufacture 



 

85a Capitalist Production. 

Anihor. Work. 

en, Trade, Plantatione, and Im- 

moralitj. London, 1099. 

Bengal Hubkabu. {See under 
Newspapers) • 

Benthah, Jeremj.Th^orie des peines et des recom- 
penses (d&apos;aprds des manuscrita 
inWts, ed. by £. Dumont) Londrea, 181L 

Bebkelet, Qeorge.The Querist London, 1750. 

BiDAUT, J. N Du Monopole qui s&apos;^tablit dans lea 

arts industriefs et le Commerce... Paris, 1828. 

BiBSE, F Die Philosophie des Aristoteles. . ..Berlin, 1842. 

Blaket, Robert.. .The History of Political Literature 

from the earliest times London, 1855. 

Blahqui, J. A... Des Classes Ouvri^res en France 
pendant 1 ann^, 1848. 
** Ccurs d&apos;6conomie industrielle Paris, 1835-89. 

BoisoTTnjgHET ..Dissertation sur la nature des rich- 
esses, de I&apos;argent et des tributs. 
(Ed. Daire) Paris, 1843. 

BoxHOBN Institutiones politics^ Leyden, 1663. 

BoTLEAU, Etienne.Livres des metiers. (Collection de 

documents in6dits) Paris, 1835. 

BBOADnuBST, J. . .Political Economy London, 1842. 

Bbouoham, Henry.An Inquiry into the Colonial Policy 

of the European Powers Edinburgh, 18031 

Bbuckiteb, Th4orie du syst^me animal Leyden, 1767. 

BuoHAiTAif, DaTid. Inquiry into the Taxation and Com- 
mercial Policy of Qreat Britain. ..Edinburgh, 1844^ 
•• Smith&apos;s Wealth of Nations. With 

notes and an additional volume. ..London, 1814. 

BuoHEZ et Bonz..Histoire Parlementaire de la Revo- 
lution Francaise Paris, 1834-38. 

BUBKE, Edmund. .Thouguts and details on Scarcity. . .London, 1800. 
^ A Letter from the Right Hon. Ed. 
Burke, to a noble lord, on the at- 
tacks made upon him and his pen- 
sion in the House of Lords by the 
Duke of Bedford, etc Philadephia, 1795 

BUTiMM ••••• Hudibras. (7) 

c 

Caibnes, J. E....The Slave Power London, 1862. 

Campbell, George.Modem India London, 1852. 

Caittillon, Philip.Essai sur la nature du Commerce 

en general Amsterdam, 1756. 

^ The Analysis of Trade, Commerce, 

etc. (English translation) London, 1759. 

Cabd, Ronard de. • Falsification des substances sacra- 

mentelles 

Cabet, H. O The Slave Trade Philadelphia, 180S. 

&quot; Essay on the Rate of Wages London, 1834. 

Cabu, Q. B Notes in his edition of Verri. {Bee 

Verri) miano, 1808. 



 

Works and Authors quoted in &quot;Capital&quot; 853 

Ai4h(&gt;r. Work. Date. 

Oazbhovb, John... Notes in his edition of Malthns&apos; De- 
finitions in Political Economy.. ..London, 1853. 
Census. {8ee Parliamentary Pa- 
pers) 

Chalmebs, Th . . . .On Political Economy Glasgow, 1832. 

Chahbbbiain, Jos. Speech at Sanitary Congress, Bir- 
mingham. (Times, 15th Jan., 

1875.) 

Ohebbxtusz, a. E.Kiche ou pauvre Paris, 1841. 

CoBBBTT, William. A History of the Protestant Refor- 
mation Dublin, 1868. 

0OIJN8, H L&apos;ficonomie Politique Paris, 1857. 

** Combination (On) of Trades. {See 

Anon.) London, 1834* 

Commissions. (Children&apos;s Employ- 
ment, on Railways, etc. (Bee 

Pari. Papers) 

CoNOBESS. (International Statis- 
tic). Compte rendu Paris. 

ComaiLAO Le Commerce et le Gouvemement.. Paris, 1776. 

Reprinted in: 

Melanges de P l^nomie Politique. 

(Ed. Daire et Molinari) Paris, 1847. 

CoNSiDEBATiONS Concerning taking 
off the Bounty on Ck&gt;m exported. 

(Bee Anonymous) London, 1763. 

Gqbbbt« Th An Inquiry into the Causes and 

Modes of the Wealth of Indiyiduals . London, 1841. 

CoEBON, C. A De I&apos;enseignement professionnel . . . .Paris, 1858. 

CouBOELLE • SBN-Trait6 thtorique et pratique des en- 

EUiLy J. G treprises industrielles Paris, 1857, 

CuBBENOT Question, The. (Bee 

Anon.) London, 1847. 

CuBBBNCT Question, reviewed. The 

{Bee Anon.) London, 1845. 

CuTlEB, J. L. C.Discotirs sur les Revolutions du 

Globe. (Ed. Hoefer) Faris^ 1863. 

D. 

Daily TtuDOSAPH. (Bee News- 
papers). 

PABivinr, Charles. .Oriein of Species London, 1869. 

DeAnoe, A, of the landlords and 
farmers of Great Britain. (Bee 

Anon.) London, 1814. 

De Quinoet, Th..The Logic of Political Economy.... London, 1844. 

0BSOABTE8, Ren6. .Discours de la M6thode Paris^ 1668. 

Beutsoh • Fbanz5sische Jaub- 
BttoHEB (See Marx and Ruse) .... 
DisoouBSB concerning Trade, etoParis, 1844. 

DiDDOBns SiODLD&amp;Bibliotheca Historica 

(Bee Anonymous) London, 1689. 

DisoouBSE on the General Notions 
of Money, etc. (Bee Anon.) London, 1696. 



 

854 Cckpitalist Production. 

Author. Work. iMe. 

DisoouBSK on the necessi^ of en- 
couraging Mechanick industry, 

(See Anon.) London, 169QI 

DissEBTATiON on the Poor Laws, 

etc. (Bee Anon.) Ix&gt;ndon, 1788. 

DuififUfO, T. J. . . .Trades&apos; Unions and Strikes London, 1860. 

0UFONT» Pierre.. .Chansons Paris, 1846. 



East Indian Trade, etc, {Bee 

Anon.) London, 1696. 

EcoNOMT, Public, Concentrated, 

(see Anon.) Carlisle, 1833. 

Economist («ce under Newspapers) . 

£dsn, p. M The SUte of the Poor London, 1797. 

Empibicus, Sextus.Opera 

Engels, Friedrich.Lage der arbeitenden Klasse in Eng- 
land Leipzig, 1845. 

«• Umrisse su einer Kritik der Na- 

tionaloBkonomie (Deutsch-Franzd- 

sische Jahrbiicher) Paris, 1844. 

« Die Englische Zehn - Stunden - Bill 

(Neue Rheinische Zeitung April 

number) Hamburg, 1850. 

Engeui, F. &amp; Marx,Manife8t der Kommunistischen Par- 

K. tei London, 1847. 

Enquiry into, etc (eee under 

Anonymous ) 

Essat, etc. (see under Anonymous.) 
Enbm, Qeorge....An Inquiry concerning the Popula- 
tion of Nations London, 1818. 

F. 

Faotort Acts, Reports of Inspec- 
tors, (see Pari. Papers) 

Fabiceb, a Enqui^ into the Connection, etc, 

(see Enquiry under Anonymous) . .London, 1773. 
Farms, Capital, etc., (see under 
Anonymous) London, 1767. 

Fawcett, Henry.. The Economic Position of the Brit- 
ish Labourer London, 1865. 

Ferguson, A A History of Civil Society, ReprintedXondon, 1850. 

FCRRAND .Speech in House of Commons, (see 

Hansard) 

Ferrier, F. L. A..Le gouvemement consid^6 dans aes 

rapports avec le commerce Paris, 1822. 

FiELDEN, J The Curse of the Factory System. .London, 1836. 

FLEETWOOD,Bishop.Chronicon pretiosum London, 1707. 

FoNTEBOL, A. L... Hygiene physique et morale de 

Touvrier, etc Paris, 1868. 

FoBBONNAiB, V. dcEl^meuts du Commerce, Nouvelle 

. Edition Leyde, 1766. 



 

Works and Authors qtwted in &quot;Capital/&apos; 855 

Author. Work. Date. 

FoBSTEB, Rev. Na^An enquiry into the Causes of the 
thaniel present high price of Provisions.. London, 1773. 

FKANKUNy Benja- 
min Works, (Edited by Sparks), Boston, 1830-36-40. 

FuiXABTONy John. Regulation of Currencies London, 1844. 

a 

Gauani, F Delia Moneta, (Custodi Ed.) Milano, 1803. 

GAinLH, Charles.. Dessyst^mesde T^conomie politiqucParis, 1821. 
Qaxsism, G. • . . . . .Abrgg^ 4l6mentaire des principes de 

P^conomie politique (published 

anonymously) Paris, 1796. 

Gasksll, P The Manufacturing Population of 

England London, 1833. 

Gcntlbman, A Suf -Letter to Sir J. C. Banbuiy on the 

folk higl price of proyisions London, 1705. 

Gknoybbi, a Lezioni di Economia dYile (Custodi 

Ed.) Milano, 1803. 

GiSBOUBNK Enquiry into the Duties of Man... London, 1705. 

Giadbtonb, W. B.See Hansard 

Gbbooib, H Les Typographes devant k Tribunal 

Corre^ionnel de Bruxelles Bnixelles, 1865 

Gbbo, R. H The Factory question and the Ten 

Hours&apos; Bill London, 1837. 

Gbovb, W. R On the Correlation of Physical 

Forces London, 1846. 

H. 

HAT.Tmi, C. L. Von.Re8tauration der Staatswissenschaf- 

ten Wintherthur, 1820- 

1834. 

Hajcm, W. Die Landwirthschaftlichen Gerftthe 

und Maschinen Englands Braunschweig,1856. 

Hansabd Parliamentary Debates. Speech of 

Mr. Ferrand, April 27th, 1863 London, 1863. 

&apos;* Parliamentary Debates. Speech of 
Mr. Gladstone on the Budget, Feb. 
14th, 1843 London, 1843. 

Hansabd Parliamentary Debates. Speech of 

Mr. Gladstone on the Budget, 

April 16th, 1863 London, 1863. 

** Parliamentary Debates. Speech of 

Mr. Gladstone, April 7th, 1864. London, 1864. 

HARBi8,James,Earl 
of Malmesbury.. Dialogue oonoeming Happiness (re- 
published in &quot;Three Treatises,&apos;&apos; 
1765) London, 1741. 

Hassaiij, Dr. H. H. Adulterations detected London, 1857. 

Heoel, G. W. F. . . Webkb Berlin, 1832-40. 

HiLAiBE,GeoffroiStNotions de Philosophie Naturelle.... Paris, 1838. 

HoBBXS, Th Leviathan. (Works) Londcm, 1839-44. 

BooosKHf, Th..... Labour Defended against CapitaL 

By T. H. {See under Anon.) . . . .hondxm, 1825. 



 

856 Capitalist Production. 

Author. Wofk. 

HoDOBKiH, Th. •• .Natural and Artificial Rights, The, 
of Property Contrasted. (Anony- 
mous) London, 1832. 

H01XJK8HSD • • • • .Description of England 

HoMSA ....••••. .Iliad and Odyssey 

H0PKIIT8, Th. On Rent of Land London, 1828. 

fiosNB, Geo. A Letter to Adam Smith, LLJ)., On 

the Life, Death and Philosophy of 

his Friend, David Hume Oxford, 1784. 

SoBifiB, Leonard. .A Letter to Mr. Senior, etc London, 1837. 

HouGHTOif, John. .Husbandry and Trade Improved... London, 1727. 

Howrrr, William.. Colonization and Christianity London, 1838. 

fiuTXOH. Course of Mathematics Reprint, TiOndoa, 

1841-^43. 
L 

Industbt of Nations. (Hee Anony- 
mous) London, 1866. 

Ill QUIBT. ( 899 Enquinr under Anon. ) 

iMTERNATioNAt. Statistic Congress, 

Compte raidu Paris. 

IflOCBam Orationes et £pist&lt;dae 

J. 

JoiiBB, Richard... An Essay on the Distribution of 

Wealth. Part I., On Rent London, 1831. 

^ An Introductory Lecture on Polit- 
ical Economy London, 1833. 

«* Text Book of Lectures on the Po- 
litical Economy of Nations Hertford^ 1862. 

^ Journal of the Society of Arts. 
(890 under newspapers) 

K. 

ERAifKHEiTBif, Die wclche versdiie- 
denen St&amp;nden, Altem und Qe- 
•chlechtem eigenthttmlich 8ind....Ulni, 1880t. 



ffAnnim, A. da. . .De I&apos;esprit de Tassociation dans tous 

les inter^ts de la communaut^.. ..Paris^ 1818. 
Labour defended, (^fee Hodgskin) . 
Laboubebs, (Agricultural) Ireland. 

{8ee Parliamentary Papers) 

Laihg, S National Distress, etc London, 1844. 

X^AivoEixoTn, Abb.Farfalloni de ^li Antichi Hi8torici..Venetia, 16311. 
Lassallx, Ferdin.Die Philoeophie des Herakleitos. ..Berlin, 186ft. 
Lavbbgne, Ltonce 

de Essai sur I&apos;^conomie rurale de PAn- 

gleterre Paris, 1868. 

Iaw, J, Considerations sur le numeraire et 

sur le Commerce. (Ed. Daire) . . .Paris, 1843. 



 

Works and Authors quoted in &quot; Capital.&quot; 85; 
TForfc. Da#e. 

Letteb, A» to Sir J. C. Banbury, 

etc B7 a Suffolk gentleman. 

(See Anonymous) Ipswich, 1796. 

IdB Tbobnb De I&apos;interet Social. (Ed. Daire) . . Paris/ 1846. 

Iwn, Leone Lecture before the Society of Arts, 

April, 1866. {Bee Newspapers) ..London, 1866. 
LiKBie, J. YOn. . . .Die Chemie in ihrer Anwendung auf 

Agrikultur Braunschweig,1862 

&quot; Ueber Theorie und Praxis in der 

Landwirthschaft Braunschweig, 18p6 , 

LuouiT , N. Th6orie des loix civiles Londres, 1767. 

Looks, John . • . • • . Some Considerations on the Conse- 
. quences of the Lowering of Inter- 
est. (Works, Vol. n. ) London, 1777. 

LoBDS (House of) Ck)mmittee on 

Bank Acts. (Bee Parliamentary 

Papers) 

liUCBXnds De Rerum Naturft 

LuTHEBy Martin... An die Pfarherm, wider den 

Wucher zu predigen Wittenberg, 1640. 

M. 

llA0AULAT,Tho8.B. History of England. 10th Edit London, 1854. 

Maoiaben, James. History of the Currency London, 1858. 

MACLEOD, H. D... Theory and Practice of Banking... London, 1855. 
M&apos;CuLLOOH, J. R. • A Dictionary, Practical, &amp;c., of Com- 
merce London, 1847. 

** The Literature of Political Economy. London, 1845. 

** Principles of Political Economy.... London, 1830. 

Mai^thus, T. R... Definitions in Political Economy.. .London, 1827, 
** Inquiry into the Nature and Ftog- 

ress of Rent London, 1815. 

Malthus, T. R... Principles of Political Economy. ..London, 1836. 

Mandeville, B. de.Fable of the Bees London, 1728. 

Mabthteau, Har- 
riet The Manchester Strike ( T) 1842. 

Mabx, Karl, and 

Engels, F Manifest der Kommimistischen Par- 

tei London, 1847 

Mabx, Karl, and 

Ruge, A. Deutsch-franzosische Jahrbilcher....Paris, 1844. 

Mabx, Karl...... Lohnar belt und Kapital. (Neue 

Rheinische Zeitung, 7th April.) ..K51n, 1849. 
** Misdre de la philosophic: R^ponse 

&amp; la philosophic de la Mis^re de M. 

Proudhon Paris, 1847. 

•• Zur Kritik der Politischen GSkon- 

omie Berlin, 1859. 

Massst, J. An Essay on the Ck&gt;vemine Causes 

of the Natural Rate of Interest. 

(Pub. Anon.) London, 1750. 

Master Spinners and Manufactur- 

Geschichte der Fronh5f e 

ICaubeb €reschichte der Fronhbfe Erlangen, 18G9 



 

858 Capitalist Production. 

Author. Work. Daie. 

Hauxb Einleittuig zur Cteschichte der Mark- 

yerfassung MOncheiiy 185I. 

Mebcieb de la Ri- 

viftre {Bee Rivi6rc.) 

Mebchakt, a. . . . a Discourse on the General Noti&lt;ni8 
of Money, etc {See under Anony- 
mous) London, 169S. 

Mkhvalb, H Lectures on Golonixation and Colo- 
nies London, 1841. 

idlLL, Jamea. Article &quot; Colony/&apos; Supplement of 

Encyclopedia Britannica Edinbuiuli, 183L 

** Elements of Political Economy London, 182L 

iisLL, John StuarUSssays on some Unsettled Questions 

of Political Economy London, 1844. 

&apos;&apos; Principles of Political Economy London, 1848. 

MiKABBAU De la Monarchie Prussienne Lond^-es, 1788. 

MoLiNAU, G. de. .Etudes ficonomiques Paris, 1846. 

MoiCKSKif, Th....ROmische Geschichte Berlin, 1856. 

Money and its Vicissitudes. {See 

S. Bailey. Pub. Anon.) London, 1837. 

MoiiTBiL^ Alexis. ..Histoire des Mat^riaux manuscripts, 

4c Paris, 1835. 

Montesquieu ....Esprit des Lois. CEuvres Londres, 1767* 

MoBB, Th(»nas. . . .Utopia 

Morning Stab. {See under Newa- 

papers) 

MoKOir, J* GL** ..Article Laboubeb in Qyclopadia of 

Agriculture 

Paper read before the Society of 

Arts Jan. 1861 

MoBNiNG Stab. {See under News- 



papers) 
ifflan&quot; 



Iftnr, Th.. England&apos;s Treasure by Foreign 

Trade &apos;London, 1669. 

HuiPHT Ireland, Industrial^ Political, and 

Social London, 1870. 

MuBBAT, Hugh, Historic and descriptive account of 
Wilson, etc.... British India Edinburgh, 1832. 

N. 

Nashith •••••.••Speech at Trades&apos; Union Commis- 
sion, 1851 London, 1851. 

Newman, S. P.... Elements of Political Economy.... New York, 1836w 

Newman, W. F. . .Lectures on Political Economy London, 1851. 

Newnham, G. B. . a Review of tbe Evidence before the 
Committee of the two Houses of 

Parliament on the Com Laws London, 1815. 

NcwSPAnDM Newspafebs and journals, etc. 

Bengal Hubxabu. Bi-monthly Over- 
land Summary of news, July 22nd.. Calcutta (?) 186L 

Daily Telegbaph, Jan. 7th London, 1860. 

Economist, July 19th London, 1850. 

** Janr., 21st Jx&gt;ndon, 1860. 

** June, 2nd. London, 1866. 



 

Works and Authors qtwted in &apos;&apos;Capital/&apos; 859 

Author. Work. DaU. 

JoUBNAL of the Society of Arts. . . .Londaii. 

*« January, 1861 

** January, 1872 

April, 1866, etc 

MoBNmo Stab, April 17th London, 1863. 

« June 23rd London, 1863. 

Obsebveb, April 24th London, 1864. 

Bevolutioits de Pabis Paris, 1789-94. 

Reynolds&apos; Newspapeb, Jan London, 1860. 

Feb London, 1866. 

&quot; ** Jan. 20th.. London, 1867. 

Spbctatob, June London, 1866 (f) 

STAimABD London, 1865 (f) 

Oct 26th London, 1861. 

Times, Nov. 6th London, 1861. 

&quot; Nov. 26th London, 1862. 

&quot; Nov. 29th London, 1862. 

&apos;&apos; March 24tn London, 1863. 

&quot; Sept. 9th London, 1873. 

WoBKMAN&apos;s Advocate, Jan. 1866... London, 1866. 
KiEBUHB, G. B....R0mi8che Geschichte (reprinted) ..Berlin, 1853. 
NoBTH, Sir Dudley.Discourses upon Trade London, 1691. 

o. 

Obsebvations on certain verbal dis- 
putes. {See Anonymous) London, 1821. 

Obsebveb. (Bee Newspapers). 

OUCSTID, F Sea board Slave States New York, 1856. 

Ofdtkb, G A treatise on Political Economy. . . . New York, 185L 

Obtss, G.«**«« •••Delia Econonria libri sei (Ed. Cus- 

todi) Milano, 1808. 

OrwAT, J. H Judgment of J. H. Otway, Hilary 

Sessions, Belfast 

OwEir, Rdberi.... .Observations on the Effects of the 

Manufacturing ^stem London, 1817. 



PAGimn; li 2K....Saggio sopra il giusto pregio delle 

cose. (Ed. Custodi) Milano, 1808. 

Pableamentaxt Agbicultubal Labourers, (Ireland) 

Pafbbs 1862 

Census for Great Britain, Ireland 

an(&apos;v Wales, 1863, etc 

Chudbeit&apos;s Employment Commission 

Factory Regulation Acts, 1859.... 
House or Commons Committee, 

1826. 
House of LoBr&gt;s Committee &lt;m 

Bank Acts, 1848 

Repobts on Bank Acts, 1857 

of Select Committe on Bank Acts, 

1858 



 

86o Capitalist Production. 

Auikor. Work. 

BspoBTs of Select Committee on 

Mines, 1866 

Refosts of Ck)mmiB8ioner8 of H. M/s 
Inland Revenue. ( Fourth A, Tenth ) . 
Refobts of Commissioners relating 
to Transportation and Penal Servi- 
tude. (1863 

Rkpobts of Foreign Office. (How- 
ard de Welden) 

Rkposts of Ispectors of Factories.. 
Reports of Royal Commission on 
the Grievances of the Journeymen 

Bakers. (1802) 

Refobts from the Poor Law Inspec- 
tors on the Wages of Agricultural 
Labourers in Dublin. (1870).... 

Refobts on Public Health 

Refobts of the Registrar CSkneral.. 
Refobts of H. M. Secretaries of 
Embassies and Legations on Manu- 
factures. ( 1863) 

Statistical Abstract Ion Jor United 

Kingdom. ( 18C1 and V%) 

Statistics ( Miscellaneri; ) 4 . the 

United Kingdom. (18 ^) 

Pabbt, C. H The Question oa the Nece^-ity of the 

Existing Com Laws ixinsidered ... London, 1810. 
Pebson in Busi- 
ness, A Capital Farms. {See und&apos;^r Anon.) . London, 1767. 

PSTTT, William... Political Anatomy of L eland and 

Verbum Sapicnti London, 169L 

^ Quantulumcunque concerning money. London, 1695. 
^ A Treatise on Taxes and Contribu- 
tions London, 1662. 

^ Verbum Sapienti. (See Political 

Anatomy of Ireland) 

PmTO, Isaac Traits de la Circulation et du Credit . Amsterdam, 1771. 

Plato De Republica 

Postleth watt, M. First Preliminary Discourse London. 

Pbicb, Richard.... Observations on Reversionary Pay- 
ments London, 1808. 

** Universal Dictionary of Trade and 

Commerce London. 

•• Great Britain&apos;s Commercial Interest 

Explained London, 1765. 

PsouDHQir Ocuvres Paria. 

Q- 

QuxsH AT. Dr. F... Dialogue aur le Commerce. (Ed. 

Daire) Paris, 1846. 

Haximea G^drales. (Ed. Daire). Paria, 184d. 



 

Works and Authors qiwted in &quot; Capital/* 86l 
Author. Work. Date. 



Raffles, Th. Stam- 
ford Histoiy of Java London, 1817. 

RAMAZzna De morbis artificum (1713). French 

translation in &apos;&apos; Encyclopedic des 

Sciences M^dicales.&quot; Paris, 1841. 

RAHSATy G. ••••••An Essay on the Distribution of 

Wealth Edinburgh, 183&lt;L 

fLAYENffroTfE, p. ••Thoughts on the Funding System 

and its Effects London, 1824. 

Read, Georse . • • .History of Baking London, 1848^ 

RxDORATK, A. Report of Speech in Journal of the 

Society of Arts. (Jan., 1872).. • 

Bbqnault, B Histoire politique et sociale dea 

Principaut^ Danubiennes Paris, 1855. 

Bdch, Ed!iard...^Ueber die Entartung des Menschen..£rlangen, 1868^ 
Report of the Committee of the 
Master Spinners and Manufactur- 
ers Defence Fund Manchester, 1854. 

Rkfobt of Social Science Congress, 

Edinburgh, Oct., 1863 

Repobts (Inspectors of Factories, 
Health, etc See under Parlia- 
mentary Papers.) 

Resolution of Working Men of 

Dunkirk New York, 1850. 

REYOLTrnoNS de Paris. {Bee under 

Newspapers) 

Retnolds&apos; Newspapers. ( Bee under 

Newspapers) 

RiOABDO, BaTid. . .Principles of Political Economy. . . . London, 182L 
RiCHABDSON, B.W.Work and Overwork. (Social Sci* 

ence Review, July, 1863 ) London, 1863. 

RiviftBB, Mercier 

de la. (Bee Mercier) 

Rodbebtub-Jaobt- 

zow, Soziale Briefe an Kirchmann Berlin, 1850. 

Briefe, etc. Edited by Dr. R.M^er. Berlin, 1881. 
RoGEBs, James £• 

Thorold A History of Agriculture and Prices. Oxford, 1866. 

RoscHEB, W Qrundlaffen der Nationaloekonomie. . Berlin, 1858. 

Rossi, P Cours d°£conomie Politique Bruzelles, 1842. 

Rousseau, Jean* 

Jacques Discours sur I&apos;doonomia Politique. . Gendve, 1766* 

Roux ei Buches. • {Bee Buohez) 

s. 

Saint*Hilaibb, 

Geoffroi Notions de Philosophie NatureUe. . Paris, 1888. 

8at, J. B. Lettres k M. Malthus Paris, 1820. 

&apos;&apos; Traits de I&apos;ficonomie Politiaue.... Paris, 1841. 

SoHOUW, F Die Erde, die Pflanze und der MensdhLeipdg, 1864. 

SoHui;^ WilhelnL.DieBewegungder ProduktioD Zfirioh« 1848, 



 

862 Capitalist Production. 

Author. Work. Da*9, 

6oB0Pi» G. P Political Economy (Edited bj A. 

Potter) New York, 164L 

Sbniob, WilliAm 

Nusaa Journals, ConveraationB and Bnaya 

relating to Irdund London, IMS. 

^ Letters on Uiu jfncUvryt Acta London, 1837. 

^ Prindpes Fondxun&apos;mtaux de I&apos;ficono- 

mie Politiqno {Fieucii tnuklaJon 

by \rriyabene) Paris, 1830. 

^ Threeijectures .^iOial tec^ Wages. London, 1830L 

SHAKBgpBABK, Wm.Works 

^iSMONDi, Simonda 

da Etudes d&apos;ficonomie Politique Paris, 1837* 

^ Nouveaux Prindpes de rficonomie 

Politioue Paris, 181». , 

^ De la kichesse Ck)mmerciale Gen^re, 1803. 

Skabbek, F. Thtorie des Richesses Sociales Paris, 1829. 

Smith, Adam.. . . .Wealth of Nations Aberdeen, 1848. 

Social Sciencb Congress. {See 

under Report) 

Socmr of Arts, Journal of. (Bee 

under Newspapers) 

SociETT of Arts, Commission of In* 

quiry into Industrial Pathology.. 

SoMEBS, Bobert... Letters from th^ Highlands, on the 

Famine of 1847 London, 1848. 

60PHOCLB8 Antigone 

Spectator. (See under Newspapers). 
^TAFffOBD, William.A Compendius and Briefe Examina- 
tion of certayne ordinary oom- 
plaints of diverse of our countrymen 
in these our days (Publ. Anon.) . .London, 168L 
Standabd. ( See under Newspapers ) . 
Statistics. {See under Parlia- 
mentary Papers) 

Statutes, Genend, of Maasachu* 

setts 

Statutes, Revised of Rhode Island. 
Statute, Decree of Philippe de Va^ 

lois, 1346 

Steuabt, Sir Jas. Principles of Political Economy... Dublin, 1770l 

« Works London, 1805. 

SixwABT, Dugald.. Works. (Edited by Sir William 

Hamilton) Edinburgh, 1855. 

8T0LBEB0,&lt;Dhri8tianGedichte aus dem Griechischen .... Hamburg, 1782. 

Stobch, H. F Cours d&apos;ficonomie Politique St.Peter8burg,1816u 

Stbtpb Annals of the Reformation London, 1725. 

T. 

Times. (See under Newspapers).. 

Thiers, Adolphe. . De la propri^t^ Paris, 1848 

Thompson, Benj . . Ef^f nys, Political, Economical, and 

Philosophical, eta London, 1796-1808. 



 

Works and Authors quoted in &apos;&apos; Capital/* 863 
Author. Work. Date. 

Thompson, W....An Inquiry into the prindples of 

the distribution of Wealth London, 1824. 

Thobnton, W. T.. Over-population and its Remedy... London^ 1864. 

Thucidt DBS De Bello Peloponneaiaco 

THthTEN, J. H. yon.Der isolirte 8taat Rostock, 1863. 

TOOKS, Thos History of Prices (partly Ed. by W. 

Newmarch) London, 1853-57* 

T0BBBN89 R. An Essay on the External Com 

Trade London, 1815. 

^ An Essay on the Production of 

Wealth London, 182L 

^ On Wages and Combinations London, 1834. 

TawiTSEND, W.... Dissertation on the Poor Laws, etc 

{See under Anonymous) . . ) London, 1817* 

Traot, Destutt de.Trait6 de la Volont^ etdesesEffets. Paris, 1826. 
Trades&apos; Union Commission 

TuoKETT, J. D. ...A History of the Past and Present 

State of the Labouring Population.. London, 1846w 

TuBQOT •• • • • Reflexions sur la formation et la dis- 
tribution des richesses Paris^ 1844. 

Ubb, Andrew Philosophy of Manufacturs London, 1835. 

Ubquhabt, DaTid. Familiar Words London, 1858 

^ Portfolio, New Series, (see under 
Newspapers) 

V. 

Vaitdeblint, Jmm. Money answers all things London, 1734. 

Vebbi, Pietro.....Meditazioni sulla Economia politica, 

(Ed. Chistodi) Milano, 1803. 

VissEBnro, 8 Handboek van pratische Staatshuis- 

houdkunde Amsterdam, 186(K 

62. 

w. 

iWadb, John ffistory of the Middle and Working 

Classes London, 1833. 

Wakxtikld, E. G. J)ngland and America London, 1833. 

« Notes in his ed. of Smith&apos;s Wealth 

of Nations London, 1835. 

^ A view of the Art of (Colonization . . London, 1849. 

Wabd, John. History of the Borough of Stoke- 

upon Trent London, 1843. 

Watson, S (i6fee under Society of Arts) 

Watts, Jehn Facts and fictions of Political Econ- 
omists Manchester, 1842. 

^ Trade Societies and Strikes Manchester, 1865. 

Watlaud, F. Elements of Political Economy.... London, 1856. 

West, Edward. . . .Price of Com and Wases of Labour. London, 1826. 

WILK89 Mark Historical Sketches of the South of 

India London. 1810-17. 



 

864 Capitalist Production. 

Author. Work. 

WoBKKAiT&apos;s Adtoojlix, (§06 Under 

Newspapers) 

WxTOHTy llionill* • Sbort Address to the Public on the 

Monopolj of large Farms London^ 1779. 

X. 

Xenophon QrTopadia ••• 

Y. 
rouHG, Arthur* •••Political Arithmetio •• London* 1774. 



 

INDEX. 



Abstinence, two kinds of, 660. 

Absurdities of vulgar economy, 180, 206 
note, 241 note, 249, 862, 489, 668, 664, 
666, 666, 669, 701, 889, 841. 

Accumulation of capital, its concept, 684; 
not identical witn hoardinR^ 646; at a 
faster rate than increase of population 
increases wages, 678; means increase of 
proletariat, 674: means concentration of 
capital and labourers, 685; causes a 
relative overpopulation (industrial re- 
serve army), 691; its absolute general 
law, 707; its general law illustrated, 
711-717; degrades the labourer, 727- 



breast, 661; not interested in valne, bttt 
in surplus-value, 861; in the !abor-proc&gt; 

Capitalist, industrial, his genesis, 828; m 
lover of force, 824, 826. 

Capitalist Accumulation, its phases re- 
viewed, 640; its historical tendencies, 
884-887. 

Capitalist Argument, to conceal true na- 
ture of labor process, 218; against ten 
hours&apos; day, 240. 

Capitalist Co-operation differs from an- 
tique co-operation, 867. 

Capitalist Era, its beginning, 787. 

Capitalist View of production of com- 
modities individualistic, 64.*^. 



783; primitive, its secret, 784; promoted Capiulist Production, a production of 
t_ «-.ui.. J.U. oo.,. 1.^ i-.«.-i.- «,rp.lus-value, 668; based on man&apos;s do- 
minion over nature, 663; begets rlass- 
strufl^le, 683; means anarchy in ^social 
division of labor and despotism in the 
workshop, 891. 
Capitalists, denouncing one another, 601; 

Kreventing one another from obeying 
iws, 687. 

Centralisation, its difference from con- 
centration, 686. 

Changes in the original plan of &quot;Capital,&quot; 
7. 8. 

Child Labor in England, S68, 884-889» 
610, 611« 

Circulation, sweating money, 187; not a 
source of surplus-value, 177. 

Qassic Economy never understood the 
process of reproduction, 666, note; see 
also Political Economy. 

Oass-Struggles between creditors and 
debtors in antiquity, 168. 

Coin as mooe^, 140. 

Colonisation, its modem theory. 888; in- 
dependent labor its obstacle^ 840; on a 
capitalist basis impossible without wage&gt; 
labor, 843; uncovers secret of capitalist 
accumulation. 848. 

Commodities, defined, 41; their fetishism, 
81; their exchange, 96; explaining their 
own nature, 05: their relation to their 
owners, 97; their circulation, 106: their 
meUmorphosis, 116; differentiated from 



by public debt, 827; see also Capitalist 
Accumulation. 

Additions to the text of the fourth Ger- 
man edition of &quot;Capital,&quot; 82. 

Adulteration of commodities, 194, 274, 
277. 

Agricultural laborers&apos; misery in England, 
719, 789-778, 779. 

Agricultural revolution in England, 778, 
788-806; its reaction on industry, 817. 

American Civil War centralised capital, 
847; stimulated improvements in cotton 
machinery. 478. 

Animals and plants transformed by a con- 
tinuous process of labor, 202. 

Antagonism between capitalists and labor- 
ers, 868. 

Aristotle lacked a concept of value, 60. 

B. 

Barter, direct, its development, 100. 
Bentham&apos;s dogma of a nxed wage fund, 

668. 
Burke&apos;s observation of comoensation of 

differences in co-operative labor, 864. 



0. 

&quot;Capital,&apos;* the Bible of the working class, 
80. 

Capital^ first money-capital, 168; its cir- 
culation without limits, 170; contradic- 
tions in its general formula, 178; mer- 
chant&apos;s and monev-lender&apos;s does not 
create any new value, 188; problem of 
its production posed, 184; its creation 
accomplished, 217; constant, 282; varia- 



Sold, 117; in love with money, 121; 
le* * &apos; • &apos; — 



.ieir complete metamorphosis, 126. 
Condition of Political Economy in 1848, 
17-19. 
.«.^w.u»...«.&lt;w«^, ««.. w»»w&gt;..v, «»«, YaiM»- Constant Capital, see CapitaL 
ble, 288; dead labor sucking living la- Co-operation, based on division of labor 
bor, 267; squanders labor-power, 681; typical of manufacturing period, 860: 
means command over unp-&gt;id labor, 686; implies concentration of labor and capi- 
tal, 862; in antiquity, 866; of machm- 
ery, 414; under capitalism develops des- 
potism, 864. 
Co-operative Labor different in effect 

from individual labor, 867. 
Corv^, abuse of, 861. 



not increased by non-consumption, 646; 
its technical and organic composition, 
672; see also Value. 
Capitalist,^ creates no surplus-value, 688; 
nis individual consumption robs accu- 
mulation, 640; Faustian conflict in his 



865 



 

866 



Index. 



Cott-PrieCf U9. 

Cotton Indnttrr, pr oBioted tfltft bfMdiflC 

industry, 48o. 
Credit-System, helps centrmbsation, MT; 

grows with nstional debL 8t8. 
Craes, cycle of, fl: see miso Orcr-Po^ii- 

Ution. AccumuUtion, Monev, Michm* 

ery. Stock Exchange Gsmblmg. 
Crusoe, Robinson, in political ecooooaj* 

88. 

D. 

Death from over-worlL 880. 

Death Rate increased by capitalist pro- 
duction, 888, 484, 486, 610. 

Debt. Public, a lerer of prtmhiTe aocn- 
mulation, 887. 

Degeneration of laborer, 870. 

Degradation of laborer by capitalism, 7S7» 
789. 781, 788, 786, 787. 888. 

Difference between English and 
edition of &quot;Capital,^ 0. 

Diaeases caused hj capitalist ejcploitatko* 
870. 610, 611, T81, 787. 788. 781. 

Division of Labor, necessary for prodoo- 
tioo of commoaities, 40; not based on 
production of commodities, 49; under 
manufacture explained, 871: in manu- 
facture and society compared, 886; fatal 



to free citizenship. 889; in guilds. 894; 
stupefying effect on the laborer. 



Ite 



897; increases capiulist authority, 891; 
in Indian communities, 898; makes 
automaton of laborer. 896. 
Domestic Industry, Modem, 609; em- 
ploys women and children, 610, 611; 
cause of overcrowding, 618; an lndii»&gt; 
trial reserve force, 684. 



Factory Systen, wifBing nanwcrafts and 
manufactuse, 498-498; its effect oo 
English cotton industry, 497-Ml; its 
enormous power of expansion, 496; its 
reactic on handicrafts, manufacturer 
and domestic industries, 608-606. 

Family, its transformation under capttalM 
production^ 611-614. 

Farmer, Capitalist, his genesis, 814. 

Force, sn element in primitive accumnhl- 
tion, 809; the midwife of social rcroli^ 
tion, 884. 

Forecast of events by averages* 887. 

Freedom, Equality, and Benthiam, 198. 

French revolution aboliahed laborer&apos;s xigV&apos; 
of associstion, 818. 



Q. 

tc. his contradictory speech, Tliw 

Gold and Silver, natural money, 108; 
differences in mining; 100 note; their 
different weight as a standard of price 
and medium of drmlation, 141; see 
also MetaL 
Guilds, medievaL tried to prevent trade 
from becoming capitalists, 887. 



Handicraft, skill an obstacle to capitaliat 
discipline, 408; revolutionised by mod- 
em Industry, see Machinery. 

Hegel&apos;s dialectics inv ted by Marx, 86, 
80; law of transformatioa of qusintitj 
into quality, 888. 

Hoarding, see Money. 

Home-Market, conquered by modem in- 
dustry, 881. 



Economy in constant capital through co- 
operative labor, 866. 

Emigration of laborera meets opposition 
ot masters, 689. 

Engcls. his additional work on &quot;Capital,&apos;* 
88: his ridicule of Malthus, 696. 

Epochs, Economic, distinguished by tools, 
800. 

Equivalent, see Value. 

Exchange, illustrated, 118; a double proc- 
ess, 188. 

Exchange Value defined and explained, 
48; see also Production and Value. 

Excrements of production, 668. 

Experiments, made to intensify labor, 449; 
in labor legislation made at the expense 
of the laborers, 689. 

Exports refute wage fund theory, 670. 

Extinction of English handloom weavers, 
471. 



Factory, modem, described, 467-466. 

Factory Acts, hasten industrial revolu- 
tion, 614. 619, 521, 622; circumvented, 
866; a curb on the greed for surplus- 
labor, 268; their effect on saniution 
and education in England, 626; re- 
garded as an interference with the 
rights of capita), 695; hastOA ooocen- 
tration of cap&apos;nal, 668. 

Factory Acts Extension Acts, n&gt;here em- 
braced by them, 640; apoii Factory 
Acts, 641. 



Ideas reflexes of the real worid, 91. 

Industrial Reserve Army, caused by 
mulation of capital, 691; a necL. 
condition of capitaliat production, 698; 
a regulator of wagea, 699; a check upon 
the emancipation of labor, 701. 

Industry, Modem, revolutionises agriad- 
ture. 658, 778, 78»-806; revolutionises 
handicrafts and manufacture, see Ma- 
chinery and Accumulation; annihilates 
peasant, 564; breaka power of resist 
ance of agricultural laborer, 666; in- 
creasea public debts and taxation, 880. 

Interest, not analyzed in volume 1; aee 
volu ie III. 

Intemational -iread of &quot;Capital,&quot; 80. 

Internationalism of capitalist prodocdon. 
aee World Market. 

Invention causes more invention, 419. 

Inventions of handicraft period, 888. 

9. 

June Insurrection in France, its effect oo 
ruling class of Ensfland, 818. 

Justice of capitalism illustrated, 786. 
ustification of the phrase &quot;value of la- 
bor,&quot; 698. 



Labor, the common p rop e rty of commodi- 
ties, 44; its twofold character, 48; aim- 
pie average labor in the abstract 61; 
skilled, reduced to simple average labor. 



 

Index. 



867 



51, 52; the cause of the fetishism of 
commodities, 83; its social character, 
84; homogeneous, the secret of social 
production, 85; in free communities, 90; 
Its property transformed into capitalist 
property, 140; skilled and unskilled, 
their difference in value, 220; neces- 
sary, 240; has no value, 588; separated 
from property, 640; coH)pcrative, sec 
G&gt;-OperaUon; surplus, sec Surplus-La- 
bor. 

Labor Fund, its relation to capital, 622. 

Labor Laws in England, from the 14th to 
the 17th century, 290-304; from 1833- 
1864, 304-330. 

Labor-Power, general property of labor&gt; 
process, 57; bought and sold, 185; a 
commodity, 186: its value determined, 
189; minimum limit of its value. 192; 
advanced to the capiulist, 193; pro- 
duces more value tnan it has itself, 
216; ha value determined by average 
neoestitict of Kfe 568; three laws of 
dctermiiiiiic its vahie» 569. 

Labor-ProoeM, explained, SOS; a produo* 
tive proocaa, 567. 

Labor Time, a standard meattue of valuer 



45; sodaliv necessary, 40: its assertion 
aa a social law* 86; regulated by com- 
petition, 879. 

Laoorer, the free, 187: his demand for a 
normal use of hit labor-power, 858; a 
specialised implement in division of la^ 
Dor. 872: the collective, S88; feeds him- 
self ana the capiulist, 681; his pro- 
ductive and individual consimiption, 
036-628. 

Land, first naed aa money in the 17th 
century, 101. 

Law, concerning issue of paper money. 
143; of population escplained, 681; of 
value in its international application, 
612; of value in general, see value. 

Legislation against expropriated in Eng* 
land, 805-808, 810-814; in France, 
808, 818. 

Leisure, nature&apos;s gift to primitive man, 
565. 

Limits of Compensation of rate and mast 
of snrplua-vaitte, 888; see alto Surplua- 



ICachine, collective, 415; a product of 
modem industry, 418. 

Machinery, its difference from tools, 405; 
not a means of shortening labor time 
under capitalism, 405; uses more tools 
than man, 408; the starting point of 
industrial revolution, 410; more exact 
than skilled labor, 480; its giant power, 
421; differences in its wear and tear, 
428: its capacity for speed. 426; its 
productivity, 437; substituted for half- 
time laborers, 420; increases female 
and child labor, 4&quot; . develops slave 
trade in white children, 488; increases 
death rate among laborers, 484; under- 
mines moralitv, 485, 436; prevents edu- 
cation of children, 487-489: prolongs 
working day, 440; its twofola wear and 
tear, 441; its moral depreciation, 442; 
increases relative surplus-value, 448; 
reduces variable capital relatively, 444; 
fntenaifiet contradictiona of capitalist 



production, 445; in anti&lt;inity lightened 
latwr. 446; intensifies exploiution, 447; 
fought br laborers, 467; its use for- 
bidden by law, 467-468; increases 
profits, 476; does not compensate work- 
ing people for loss of employment, 479, 
481; bwers consumption of commodi- 
ties, 480; under capitalism and in a 
free society compared, 482; in one in- 
dustry increases i)roduction in another, 
484; animate and inanimate, 631. 

Malthus, his queer division of labor be- 
tween accumulating and spending ex- 
ploiters, 653; his &quot;Essay on Popula- 
tion,&quot; 675; his &quot;Principles of Political 
Economy,&quot; 696. 

Malthusianism exploded, 676. note. 

Mandeville&apos;s Fable of the Bees, 674. 

Manufacture, its twofoM rise, 369. 370: 
its two fundamental forms, 375; its 
narrow technical basis, 404; modern, 
in operation, 506-509; ruin^ by ma- 
chinery, see Machinery. 

Mats, of profit, see Profit; of surpluy* 
value, see Surplus- Value. 

Market, see Home-Market and World- 
Market. 

Mane&apos;s method erolainfd by himself, 12, 
15, 81. SS, S4, 96; method of quotation, 
80, Ml qnotatioa from Gladstone vin* 
dicated, 84-80. 

Materialist Conception of History, 15, SS. 

Meant of Production, necettary for re- 
production, 680; aee alto Conttant Cap- 

Mercantilittt and Free Tradert, their mit- 
conception of value, 70. 

Metal; itt weight in tilver and copper 
arbitrarily fixed by law, 142; aee alto 
Gold, Silver, and Money. 

Mill, John Stuart, hit tuperiority over the 
mercantilittt. 566; his misinterpretation 
of profits, 567; his excessive generalisa- 
tions, 567; an apologist of the wage 
fund theory, 669. 

Mind, Human, operating on materials 
after the fact, 87. 

Mines&apos; Inspection Act, a dead letter, 548; 
farce of questioning witnesses, 548-55L 

Misery of Britith induttrial proletariat, 
718. 

Modem Induttry, tee Induttry, Machin- 
ery, and Accumulation. 

Money, the universal equivalent. 09; itt 
magic 106; a measure of value, 106; 
wild theories of, 108; itt two functiona 
at a measure of value and a standard 
of price, 109; historical origin of its 
names, 112; its currency. 128; keeps up 
the continuitv of circulation, 180; its 
change of place in aimple circulation, 
181; effect of its rise or fall on the 
prices of commodities, 182; its quantity 
m circulation determined by volume of 
production^ 184; its currency a reflex 
of circulation of commodities, 188; its 
quantity determined by sum of prices 
and velocity of exchange, 187; mutual 
compensation of factors in its currency, 
188 ; erroneous opinion concerning de&gt; 
termination of its quantity in circula- 
tion, 189; paper, symbolising gold and 
silver, 144; replaced by tokeni^ 145; 
hoarding of, 146; buried by Hindoos, 
147; its power, 148; bounds of its effi- 
cacy. 149; a means of payment, 151s 



 

868 



Index. 



d c r el opm ent of special iasthiitiofiB for 
its payment, 164; its contrsdkCorj 
character expressed through cnscs, 166; 
its rise as a means of credit, 16«; uni- 
Yersal, 160; resenrc, 101; iu trans- 
formation mto capital. 16S; the be- 
finninf and end oi valoe, 17S: its in- 
ternational value, 018; probable form 
of its primitiTe accumulation, OtS. 

Moore, Samuel, and Aveltng, Edward* 
translators of the first volume of &quot;Cap- 
ital,&quot; 17, 18. 

Monility, of capiultsm illustrated, 105, 
178, 174, 178, 179, 187, 191, 194. 802, 
811, 819, 811, 889. 890, 440, 716; 
of working people destroyed by capi- 
Ulism, 188, 4817488, 486, 480, 601, 607, 
608. 

Mysteries of trades, 68S. 



NsHonal Debt, see Debt . 

Natural forces cost capital nothing, 411. 

Nature, the basis of the labor-process* 

199, 101, 117, 180; its two economic 

danes, 602; and labor-power primary 

wealth crea;»rs, 001. 
Night Work opposed by laborers, 177., 
Nomad Races the first to develop the 

money form, 101. 



o. 

Original Plan of &apos;&apos;Capital,&apos;* 7. 
Over-Crowding of laborer by caphalisni* 

728, 719, 781. 
Over-Popuiatioiu Relative, caused by ac&gt; 

cumulation of capital, C91 ; its dlnerent 

forms, 7U8. 
Over- Production, see Over-Population, 

Accumulation, Industrial Reserve Army, 

and Machinery. 
Over-Time paid extra, 698. 
Over-Work shortening Ufe, 170, 178, t76» 

179. 

P. 

Pauperism a form of relative over-popu- 
lation, 700. 

Physiocrats, consider onlv agricultural la- 
bor as productive, 660; their Tableau 
Economtque, 047. 

Piece Wages, a converted form of time 
wages, 602; irrationality, of thdr form, 
004; their characteristic peculiarities, 
005; a form of the sweating system, 
000; compared with time wages, 007; 
in vogue since the 14th century, 008; 
the general rule under the Factory 
Acts, 009; lowered in proportion as 
the number of prices increases, 010; 
see also Wages. 

Plato&apos;s Republic on division of labor, 402. 

Political Economy, as a science a product 
of manufacturing period, 400; in an- 
tiquity dwells most on use-value and 
quality, 401: classic, could not explain 
price or value, 589, 690; stuck &apos;•*&gt; its 
bourgeois skin, 594; its condition in 
1848, 17, 19; vulgar, see Absurdities, 

Precious Metals, their increase 



107; its fluctnatioat eirptonifd. lU: th* 
money-name of labor, 114; witboct 
value, 116; affected by changes in labor 
time, 110; of products of nandicraits 
and machmery compared, 410. 

Productivity, its effect on value, 68; de- 
pends on proficiency of laborer and 
perfection of tools, 874; declared to be 
no concern of the laborer&apos;s. Oil. 

Production and Reproduction without 
&quot;abstinence,&quot; 060. 

Production of commodities conv e r te d into 
capitalist production. 048. 

Production of use-vsJue and exchange 
value compared, 218; see also F.xchangt 
Value ana Use- Value. 

Profit, according to classic economy, 626; 
not analyzed in volume I, see volume 

Property, its different forms, 89. 

Protective Legislation for children 
fiu also the adult, 638. 

Protestantism changed holidays into work- 
ins days, 808 note. 

Public Auction of children. 488. 

Public Debt, see Debt. 

Public Opinion a tool of capitalists, 6S1. 

Purchase, the second metamorphosis of 
commodities, 118. 



Q^r. Rlddfe f or ,al,« ««««l«^ 



in prices, 133; see also 
Metal, Money, Gold, and Silver. 
Price, the money-form of commodities. 



Railway System enoonragea short orders* 
628. 

Rate of Profit, not analysed ia volume I; 
see volume III. 

Rate of Surplus- Value, see Surplus-Value. 

Raw Materials supplied by nature are not 
capital, 001. 

Reception of &quot;Capital&quot; in Germany^ 10. 

Reduction of labor time under capitalism 
produces intensification of exploitation* 
460. 

Relajr System. 181. 

Religion a reflex of the real world, 91. 

Rent, not analysed in volume I; see vol- 
ume III. 

Reproduction, see Capitalist Production. 

Reserve Army, Industrial, created by 
modem industry, 688; see also Indus- 
trial Reserve Army, Accnmulstion, and 
Machinery. 

Revolution, see Capitalist Production, Ag- 
ricultural Revolution, Factory System, 
and Industry. 

Ricardo, his insufficient analysis of valtie, 
92, 600; his three laws of value, 609- 
678; his errors, 674. 

Rodbertus. his owt* detractor, 688. 

Reman Empire, its failure to coUect all 
• ntributions in money, 167. 

Roscher&apos;s ntirsery economics, 856, note. 

Rumford&apos;s receipts for cheap livings 069. 



Sale, the first metamorphosis of com* 

modities, 119. 
Schools, technical and agricultural, 684. 
Self -earned Money of capitalists. 087. 
Sentimentality in e co oomicsb 198. 



 

Index. 



869 



tilftr, see Gold, Metai, and Money, 
lave Labor is unpaid labor, 691. , 

Smith. Adam, contended that additional 
capital is consumed by laborer, 640; 
supposed that social capital was only 
variable capital, 647. . . , 

Social Laws, mistaken by bourgeois for 
natural laws, 98, 709; evolved by nat- 
ural processes, 878.^ 

Soul ot Capital, surplus-value, 257. 

Speculation, see Stock Exchange Gam* 
bling. 

Stock Companies a means of centralisa- 
tion, 68. 

Stock Exchange Gambling promoted by 
pubUc debt, 827. , ., . . ^ 

Sunday Work, 278; double standard of 
justice in regard to it, 291, note. 

Superintendence creates no value, 216. 

Supply and Demand no escplanation for 
value or price, 689; used and abused 
by capitalists, 702. 

Surplus-Labor, 241; not invented by capi- 
tal, 269; its intermediate forms, 659: 
its natural basis, 661; appears as paid 
Ubor, 691. 

Surplus-Product, its concept, 686; be- 
comes property of capitalist by virtue 
of laws ot commodity production, 642. 

Surplus- Value, absolute, its concept, 846. 
669: its production, 197; the end of 
capitalist production, 207; its rate, 286: 
calculation of its rate, 242; produced 
only by variable capital, 237; its rate 
and mass, 881 ; its mass varies in direct 
proportion to the variable capital, 886; 
relative, its concept, U2, &amp;46, 669; 
explained in deUil^ 847; three laws de- 
termininff its magnitude, 569; it^ nature 
concealed by capitalist production, 686 1 
converted into capital, 686; divided into 
capital and revenue, 648. 

Survival of the Fittest among agricul- 
tural laborers of England, 296. 

Symbols of money and commoditiea* 108. 

!• 

Tablean Economique, see Physiocrats. 

Taxation a product of national loam^ 
829 

Taxes&apos; payable in kind a means of pre- 
serving the old order. 158. 

Terminology of &quot;Capital&quot; explained, 29l 

Time Wa^, 594; see also Wages. 

Trade Unions desire to share benefits of 
improved machinery, 611, note. 

Tramc in human flesh, 294. 

Transition from manufacture to machine 
production, its different forms, 617. 

u. 

Unemployed, parade in London, 786; see 
also Over-Population and Machinery. 

Unproductive Laborers, their increase, 
487. 

Ure, denouncing law for reduction of 
labor time as a retrocession, 299. 

Use- Value* defined ana explained, 48; 



without exchanse vain 
quality compared to 
quantity, 62, 58; 
Production. 



47, 48; as 
e-value aa 
/alue and 



V. 



Value, its substance and form, 41-96; 
crystallised human labor, 46: lyy labor 
time illustrated, 47; as a relation and 
an equivalent, 66; equivalent form illus- 
trated, 68; relative and absolute com- 
pared, 63; its elementary form, 71; 
its expanded relative form, 72; its par- 
ticular equivalent form, 78; defects of 
hs expanded form, 74; its general 
form, 76; interdependent development 
of its forms, 78; its transition from the 
general to the money form, 79; its 
creation explained, 208; bow trans- 
ferred to the product m production, 
222; of constant capital transferred to 
the product, 284; represented by differ- 
ent parts of the product, 245; of com- 
modities in inverse ratio to produc- 
tivity, 860; surplus, see Surplus- Value; 
in use, see Use- Value; exchange, see 
Exchange Value. 

VariableCapital, see CapiUl. 

Vulgar Economy, see Absurdities. 



Wage Laborer, his incesssnt reproductioii 
tne indispensable condition of capitalist 

W production, 626. 
ages, the price of labor-power. 586; 
nominal rise may be ictual fall, 679; 
not eoual to full value of product, 
687; their variations, 696; lower with 
longer working hours, 699: compared 
internationally, 614, 616; do not rise 
or fall in proportion as productivity 
varies, 616; their forcible reduction a 
means of accumulation, 657; their gen- 
eral movement regulated by industrial 
reserve army, 699; regulated by laws 
of distribution of population, 700; see 
also Piece Wages, Time Wages, and 
Variable Capital. 

Wage Fund, according to Bentham, 668; 
according to Fawcett, 669. 

Water and Wind as motive powers, 411. 

Watt&apos;s genius shown by proclaiming the 
universality of the steam engine, 418. 

Wealth, National, measured by relative 
magnitude of surplus produce, 264; its 
primary creatora labor-power and land. 

Work, unsanitary, a source of disease, 
271^ 

Working Day, indeterminate, 266: capi* 
talist Idea of, 290^ summary of its two 
historical stages in England, 826-880. 

World-Market, 828-884. 



Xenophon&apos;s bourgeois instinct showtt 
hit idea of division of labor, 402. 



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

</p>
    </body>
    <back>
      <div type='colophon'>
        <head>Colophon</head>
        <p>This file was originally marked up using the Text Encoding Initiative XML markup language for use in an experiment/studuy colloquially called "How 'great' are the Great Books?" ( 
        <xref url='http://infomotions.com/sandbox/great-books/'>http://infomotions.com/sandbox/great-books/</xref>) by Eric Lease Morgan. It's Infomotions unique identifier is marx-capital-1110.</p>
        <p rend='center'>
          <figure url='http://infomotions.com/logo.gif' rend='center'>
            <lb />
            <figDesc>Infomotions Man says, "Give back to the 'Net."</figDesc>
          </figure>
        </p>
      </div>
    </back>
  </text>
</TEI.2>
