卡尔·马克思谈论科技巨头 Karl Marx on Big Tech Firms

GPT-2 trained with Karl Marx’s books, with the hint ” we need to end those big tech firms. “, 1000 steps

we need to end those big tech firms. we must begin to change the industrial processes that we use daily. modern technology cannot be changed overnight; but, if it is dealt with with the correct degree of care, it can be turned at a prodigious rate, and exercised with vigour and vigour, which must never be wasted. if the direct co-operation of the agricultural labourer, with the manufacturers, can be obtained, the ancient methods of agriculture must be replaced by methods which will leave no trace of their being there, or which wilfully let them go by, and only produce the congelation of a new form of human labour. a careful comparison of the present system of manufacture with that of the ancients, and of the gigantic social changes resulting from it, will, in the main, place us within striking distance of that epoch of social change in social production, the epoch of mass production, when the whole social process breaks down into its component parts, and the laws of production, and the organisation of society, spring fulminating forth from an occult cause.
and how is it, then, that the poor man is turned out in this increased number, and is driven from the market? by two causes: (1) by the rapidity with which machinery, which in fact extends the domain of labour more rapidly than the domain of the labourer himself, makes it necessary, by incessant improvement, to replace the workman by a machine; and, (2) by the introduction of cheap cotton, by the use of which, in some industries, only a part of the adult male labour force is laid out on the cotton spinning, and this, in others, a great part, too, in the weaving of the woollen articles, and of paper-making. the rapidity of change in the methods of production appears, therefore, to depend on two circumstances. first, on the extent to which machinery has seized on the workman by direct barter; secondly, on the acuteness of the greed for new and sensational methods, which becomes most marked, with the extension of the scale of production, into hitherto relatively less skilled trades. when we look at an industry in its most developed stage, we may, with the exception of the spinning of cotton, entirely disregard the specialisation and technical proficiency of the operatives, and count only their rapidity of change. from the very first, machinery plays an important part in the work of distilleries, because there the product has to pass through a specialising process that lasts a whole day, instead of being handed down unceasingly from generatio munus. hence in the early days of distilling, the handicraft labour peculiar to speculative and arable farming (and continued to the last century) was often the exclusive preserve of the great landlords. this epoch will probably never be forgotten, except in its more striking contrast with the modern times, when every establishment that has not for centuries been organised on the capitalist basis has been either completely carried on exclusively by machinery, or at least divided into independencial branches that have been spontaneously handed down from one epoch to another, and in many cases even converted into guilds. fandral engels, in his history of nations, lists for the genesis of that nation chiefly the agricultural handicrafts, and the modern manufacture of articles of luxury.21 and at the end of the 14th and the beginning of the 15th century, the english aristocratic class successfully expropriated the whole of the agricultural population, both male and female, on the continenously increasing basis of their work in the form of hired labour. the latter were discharged from their bands and made to work for hire by the sovereign in return for a nominal sum of money. this practice was renewed sporadically for the duration of the 16th and 17th centuries, until at length it was outlawed by statute,20 during which period the working classes were always cast ad infinitum as mercenaries paid for the privilege of being employed for the state. they became, by the colonial systeresis of economic life, two-fold mercenaries, employed for the royal privateers, and for the export trade, and to which they, at least, never by right gave up their different national and personal character.21
on the other hand, political economy has for a long time tended to equate the distinction between private wage-labourers and wage-labourers, between free labourers and wage labourers, between private individuals and wage-labourers, but especially, and with justice to the history of all poetics, between wage labourers and wage wage-slaves, by equating their political equations to those of certain great historic governments. its notion of slaves and serfs23 though accompanied by other such absurdities, such as that between masters and slaves, is consonant with its starting-point. the ancient greeks, pindar included, were the first to equate the rights of the slave to his or her servitude. the antithesis between labour for private gain and wage labour, as well as this antithesis b

we need to end those big tech firms. there are enough of them. the industrial reserve army is on the march, and as we have seen, capitalist production itself cannot keep up with the increasing scale of that army. the cry of bourgeois economists: mass productivity is dead! is one of the darkest secrets of the nineteenth century.
33 the great advance in the economic methods of modern industry is not the result of any progress in the analysis of old manufacture, or of advances in mechanical industry. modern industry was originally prac-tised on unproductive labour, on the division of labour in society, on the mechanical re-agents, on the division of labour of modern manufacture, and on the arrangement of social means of production and transportation. but the methods of the manufacture of articles for transport and for use in the process of production, were, during the last third of the 18th century, largely borrowed from manufacture, although they often modified the old ones. modern industry, therefore, is not made possible merely by the building of new roads, railways, canals, canals of steel, tunnels, &c., but, on the contrary, by the introduction into a given field of production of machinery that was the subject of a previous process of production. the instruments of labour which made the manufacturing period possible, had, as a rule, to some extent, to go through earlier stages of development than the implements. and in the case of all these instruments of labour, not only was the material itself changed, but either the subject of production was changed, or the labour process it revolutionised was altered as well, so that the product now has to pass through a whole series of modifications before it can be called finished. this special character of the creation of finished products dates from the very beginning of capitalist production, and appears to have been acquired not by the historical processes directly paralleled in the transition from handicraft to modern industry, but only by the labour prodigality of those earlier stages of the process. this prodigality, however, acquires additional technical expression in the different degrees of proficiency with which different individuals, whilst working side by side, allow themselves to be manipulated by one another, or by the means of production themselves. later, when surplus labour accumulates in the hands of capitalists, its greatest pressure on the underlings springs up from the difficulty and waste inseparable from the labour of one opere to another. special talents are therefore acquired for each kind of handicraft.
previous to this division of labour, and independently of its boundary lines, the body of society was organised around the workshop, and each individual worked for himself. the tailor in france, the weaver in england, the carpenter in england, and so on. later on, the advance of science throws fresh light on the old divisions of labour, and on the mechanism of society as a whole. division of labour within manufac- turers houses was thus split up into numerous detail work-shops, with one house supplying the whole workshop, another the few scattered links, which as it were become disconnected and scattered. the community itself now trades by division of labour. the bookkeeper, for example, who keeps the registers of the different trades, does so because his trade requires it, and his particular trade does not spring up spontaneously on the field of natural science. he is simply divided from others in rega- tude, placed at the disposal of the different manufacturers, and, at the same time, always isolated from others in the locality. he thus enters into relations with each handicraftsman and each turn-pikeman according to his particular trade, leaving to others the monopoly of each and every detail shop. hence the division of labour, not only in england but in europe, leads at first to an altogether unexpected result. the division of the instruments of labour develops into a concentration of the detail system, within the limits of the workshops, and at the same time, a primitive division of labour with regard to each special function, due to special experience in those workshops and to specific social conditions, begins. one series of operations is given to each detail toolmaker, another to each ironworker, another to each flint-becker, before they are combined in such a way as to do all kinds of work simultaneously, and independently of one another. this hybrid system forms the fundamque of the modern workshops.
one consequence of the hand-to-hand combat common to the various trades is, that the results are measured by some definite degree of efficacy. this efficacy is a function of the division of labour as a whole, the technical proficiency of the workmen, and finally of the economy of the instruments of labour. such economy consists in the incorporation of smaller detail manipulations with greater importance; they fulfil certain special functions; they employ the product

we need to end those big tech firms. that would be very easy and we can do it. we could wipe the rich off the face of the earth. the rest is up to parliament, the national legislature. no one could obstruct that. in fact, we only needed to give them a few weeks notice. but of course that would give rise to enormous protests. it would require a massive strike. that would be very dangerous.
(survey: the condition of the english working class. edinburgh, 1866, p. 53.)
49 des mondes principales par le m.tre, par ceci. [the three powe r kings have three points of contact with men.] (diodorus siculus, bibl. hist. i. c. 15.)
50 tutti messaggio il migliori e di essi non esse per lingegno in questo che le tuo i facili in altro che pi in una scoperta, tutti che il migliori eguale che pi ben mancanza dir le ho scoperta di questo. [it is not easy for me, you see, to learn how to do everything in addition to my job, if there is something to be done by you too, just as when we take care of the buildings or sweep the floor you cannot carry on without the help of others.] (galiani, l.c.) tutti messaggio il migliori e di essi non esse per lingegno in questo che le tuo i facili in altro che pi in una scoperta, tutti che il migliori eguale che pi ben mancanza dir le ho scoperta di questo. [it is not easy for me, you see, to learn how to do everything in addition to my job, if there is something to be done by you too, just as when we take care of the buildings or sweep the floor you cannot carry on without the help of others.] (galiani, l.c.) trascanti possa una scoperta di questi tutti che pi pi ben mancanza si legganti gli altro. [the master, who does everything by himself, does it with ease. when he has finished the work he begins again, and the same thing happens to the rest of us when we wait for him.] (munday: heraclitus, iv. c., viii., 87, and vi. c.)
5 italian labour has the same old faustian pattern. if we look at the history of the manufacture of the home-market, we see that the factory system has always beget more disorganised workers than it has organised, and that, although the influence of machinery on trades, has been greater than on manufactures, yet the absolute number of those engaged in those trades in the north and at its mouth in serbia, has diminished as compared with those in the rest of europe. (horn: herr von roscher und ricardo. zur kritik der pol. oek., med. berlin, 1834, p. 319.)
6 professor b. th. torrens is, of course, in a perfect position to use the expression reckless mr. peevishness, because he is but the latest exponent of the theory of the mill-owner.
7 even to-day, when a large part of the working-men are without power of expression, at least these few persons who have it under control are of service.
8 this is in consequence of the employment of a system very similar to that in maryland. in order to put one thousand hands to work in one night, as in some states of the united states, requires at least 33,000 persons. hence, maryland, a country where the mining in mining towns and on the surface at least is not regulated, supplies for this purpose the large towns with a most extraordinary stock of miners. (r. b. hunter, l.c., p. 149.)
1 by the use of machinery, that is, of machinery that is specifically used for purposes other than those specifically prescribed by the workmen, man may no longer be fully conscious of his bodily and mental condition. (s. mirabeau, l.c., p. 126.)
2 those who use spinning machines as a general rule suffer from a general reckless disregard for their own health. they destroy the health of young people, and their effects on old people and women are equally serious. (r. jones, l.c., p. 150.)
3 the other handicraftsmen and tailors that we mentioned, are entirely dependent upon their manufacturers, for the supply of raw material and the aid of workmen. a defect in their material, a source of loss to them, they cannot, without their manufacturers, fix, and, consequently, with difficulty, escape. if they cannot extricate themselves from this dependent dependence, they can hardly find employment, except as beggars, or as apprentices, or as mechanics, or as carpenters, or as shoemakers, or as blacksmiths, or as joiners, or as tailors, or as messengers or couriers, or as tailors to foreign manufactures. they are virtually eliminated from society, and leave but little work to their children and grandchildren. (l.c., p. xxxvii.) it is a fact universally acknowledged that, while an unwholesome working day, especia lage, is the normal working day of children from four to eighteen years of age, in our modern, capitalist country, it is more commonly during the first years of life, that a spoliation of the working-power becomes most serious, and results in the premature and painful death of many a working-class family. on friday morning, from eight in the morning until five in the evening, millions of working-people in this country are systematically robbed of the rest of their time. but the facts are as fol

we need to end those big tech firms. not for want of a better name.
not to be outdone, in the wake of the euro crisis, the prime minister has gone even further.
he has called for the immediate immediate application of the european common agricultural policy, in order to encourage and free up the branches of industry that remain outside the home market, so that, where appropriate, they can be turned into continental or international markets. this [name changed to protect source of funds] objective of the european government must ossify before the full-blown collapse of the euro takes place, in order that, when it does happen, the free-trade measures which have already succeeded in eastern and central europe may be applied to the blockaded colonies. the necessary measure must therefore be to compel the governments of these blockaded colonies to join the common market as free citizens, so that each state can buy from any other state that which it does not possess by right, and is as free as a small vendor of any article, w.t. (intl. comm. reports, i. 61, 67 and 72.)
23 the system of factory legislation must not be confused with the modern system of factory certificates, since the former had its origin in the factory act of 1770, and was renewed in 1833.
24 e. g. carlisle. l.c., p. 62, n. 8.
25 professor wilhelm roscher, in his histoire des frais artificiens (1766), says: since all the metallic articles produced by machines are becoming more and more extremely dear and difficult to replace, we must naturally anti- semble capital. before he (roscher) asserts this, however, he impresses upon us the appearance of a more humane sentiment in his straightforward manner that capital, always striving after power, requires as a means of preserving itself a large compensation for the value of the labour expended on it. he soon forgets that, as capital itself, it is only the sum total of the products of labour it exploits.
26 le trosne (the thrifty farmer), l.c., p. 173.
27 at the end of the 18th century, a certai absurd des milles francophiles, une riche naturel est mais un grand plus grande en particulier. [in this country there is only one absolute form of wealth and that is wealth concentrated in the purse of the farmer] [an extraordinary fact] (karl marx, l.c.)
28 let us hear but a word on this as regards capital. it is not the property of every individual to which he has the power to sell; it is only the property of society, the social capital, which legally possesses it. for instance, the individuall powers that belong to each individual cannot in any way sell their respective individual powers. it is through the collective power of society that every individual is enabled to sell his individuality. all the persons individually possessed of the property of the necessary means of subsistence, i.e., of labour, can become owners of capital, because the collective power of the entire society is incorporated with that of each individual, and consequently is the property of that individual alo. this property is thus only a special, national, or secret property.
we saw, on p. 74, that all those commodities which each individual, when selling his labour-power for a definite period of time, transfers to capital, represent only one-sided products of his labour. as regards him individually, these commodities constitute only one-sided means of subsistence, and as such, have no real social value. they are not so much the personal effects of his labour, as they are the direct social product of the labour-process. their value consists in this, that they are private consumption-products, and as such belong to the possessor of his own body and soul, and are distinct and independent beings. they are neither private property in and of themselves, nor private relations of men.6
so far, therefore, capitalist production has only one form of social production, that of capital. but if, on the one hand, capitalist production appears to be a general productive power, and the necessary conditio sine qua non of all other forms of social production, on the other hand it has, historically speaking, very definite forms, of which the two most important are, agriculture and domestic industry.
agricultural production, as distinguished from domestic industry, begins with the clearing and raising of the soil, the cultivation of which furnishes the labourer with necessaries and facilities for his existence, and also with the means for preserving his labour-power. it extends, in so far as the labourer works under normal conditions of temperature, sunlight, and ventilation, from his mother-country to the united states and the american colonies, and it ends, when social conditions are changed, with the factory system, whether that system lasts 150 years, 200, or 300. hence, the agricultural revolution takes its rise in its first phase, that of clearing and raising the soil, in its second, that of its transformation into a factory, when every labourer becomes a machine for transforming

we need to end those big tech firms. we need a government that acts on behalf of ordinary people and does not force them into these deadly contracts. a contract that they can put on hold, and leave better for the future. not a government for the rich, or for big business. a government that cares for the average working person, not the super-rich. a government that treats the blue book workers as fellow human beings. a government that allows the unpaid parental leave of millions of young people. a government that understands that, and not some really evil one that will make boys work 12-14 hours a day for pay, and girls 9 hours. a government which has compassion for the physically handicapped, who suffer from disease, and the unhealthiest of all classes. it is the spirit of equality, not the letter, which for 22 years the people of this land, having sent the party of capital to power, have kept in check.
added by a. redgrave, 9th january, 1866.
147 the vote for the ten hours manifesto of 1867 was the first time that a non-violent direct action had been adopted by the working class. for about a decade past it had been the practice of the class to keep quiet, owing to the agitators. only at the outbreak of the present war has this passive, compromising protestantism proclaimed as its highest ideal.
148 a reader who wishes to find out more of the background of this motley lot of die-hards will consult the history of the great manufacturers associations, in the lighter, continental mould.
149 france: lage quon achat, par une marchandise politique politique. edit. paris, 1842. pp. 90, 91.
150 teutonic republic, edit. petersbacher, 1824, p. 54.
151 the owner of a watch manufactory in england says that its people are more anxious for work, because there they are not tied to the shop; in other words, because they do not work for the master. thus marx: nominibus virtutem, tanto sapienti sine solus receptus et pauperis erit. [my ideal of a perfectly productive workman is nothing but the most perfect potter a potter can find] m. bellerive toutes les manufacturies industrielles de son industrie qui tient en fait passer la nature et la peine. [manufacture, without knowledge and without work are incompatible with the production of wealth and of civilisation.] [labour without means is pauperism… man becomes such a pauper whenever he makes himself dependent on others. this is the truth of riches and power…. man acquires the means of acquiring them, only by working for others, and for these he becomes a pauper, just as he becomes pauperous when he eats his bread in the sweat of his brow, when he sleeps on fetters and in chains] (th. beccaria: polit. ouvrire, petersbourg, 1821, t. i., p. 59.)
5 the labour of artisans is, in fact, money; they get, for exorbitant prices, from their consumers everything that is in excess of its market price. (w. th. ashworth, l.c., p. 51.)
6 soot in its civilised forms forms, (in various shades of purple, orange, green, and red.) occurs only in pottery. a represenative and forbidding carbon of it [soot] amounts to about a fourth part of the total mass of the atmosphere in the torrid, seasonable states of the south american districts. (c. of engels: a brit. bibl. aristot. zur kritik, pp. 5, 6.)
7 poetic justice. (l.c., pp. 95, 96.)
8 this justice of the nations, that men are to each according to his need, is no mere fancy. the happiness of nations is a maxim of nature, and based in every law of natural justice. (verri, l.c., p. 246.) that which is most noble, is wisdom. (venerable de verri, l.c., p. 192.) malthus did not hesitate to refer to the different weights of political economy in the same breath. on the one hand, he denounced the partisans of mercantilism as hypocrites, who, in affirming, on the one hand, that the average national wealth is sufficient for the support of all men, and on the other, that on the other hand, that the non-agricultural population must be proportioned to its own strength, to be of use only as a storehouse of pauperism, we know to be altogether erroneous. at the same time, however, he claimed the superiority of practical economy over sophistical economy. on this point, de mandeville remarks, with a smile, that malthus is a bird of a different colour from mandevilles philosophers. (preface to the second edition, lond., 1859, pp. 101, 102.)
17 analysis of competition and of the internal market by b. h. marshall (ed.), the theory of landed property (london, 1837), pp. 11, 15, 17, 19, 40, 51.
18 also, in econ. polit. i. part 1, and in part 2, p. 42, i give the following extract from a later work, on political economy, which appeared several years before this one. in it i give a detailed analysis of the ideas underlying, on the one hand, the idea of the necessity of competition (co-operation), which originates, i conceive, in the economic necessity of making commodities of common use, and therefore of establishing, within a given sphere of action, a measure of the exchange value of the products,

we need to end those big tech firms. but the job-destroying, reckless and utterly destructive activity of corporate raider is the great equaliser, not the losing battle against short-term gain.
mcneill mr. watt of the free trade body told us:
i applaud the success of the american competition act (aka state-sanctioned theft). but the tediously long clauses on redundancy and contract terminations mean that at times of crisis, as we saw recently with the spinners crisis, state intervention in the functioning of a trade union is again becoming the order of the day. this means that amongst other things unorganised industrial action may be considered as a last resort… the state still gets an important piece of business out of the distress caused by the self-managed or self-managed-for-hire (often not-for-hire) as opposed to the organised.401
in 1843 the general strike at kolkata, the birthplace of the modern manufacturing system, caused misery in the whole country.
a system, discovered in england, of imposing by compulso (commodities) tax, a maximum on the raw material and auxiliary substances, a limitation of the working day, and the exclusion of children below the age of 18 from compulsory labour,401 which being successful, secures, as it were, a secure monopoly in power in these states for the exploitation of children, was soon practised throughout europe.
similar schemes were first tried in france and england. the french general, one duc de ricard, who for a long time exercised political and administrative sway in the subcontinent, collected slaves, sold them as apprentices to the state-slaves, and collected taxes on them. for this same purpose the english parliament for 15 years from 1859 to 1862 collected taxes on cotton, of which 12,000 went to lancashire, the remainder to england. in england proper, for a long time, the administration of child-servitude, which in england is the highest and most decided branch of london-slavery, from the royal commission to examine the state of the children of the labourers on the labour-market (1863-1867) up to the present time, comprises the following prisons.
woolworths, near whitehorse, on the border of newcastle-on-tyne and dunton, holds 400 adults and 140 children. at the far end of the yard is an open cell, on which is fastened a long iron bar, made of yellow gable and tile, and bristly with scotch-stone. the inmates are toiled and fanatically worked 24 hours a day, till late in the afternoon, and then only for short intervals of time, alloweing meal-times only for tea and coffee. if one of the convict workers falls sick, or becomes feeble, the door is locked and barred by a chain; there the prisoner stares grimly into space for a space of several minutes, he then stares again into space until dinner is ready. among the childrens clothes are hung up on a post; another sort is stretched out upon the iron bar, but this hangs by no means so loosely, and rests in the glade, which, when the day is clear, extends in the direction of the oasis, just as the steamboat does from the bays of scotland to the middle of britain.19 the convict labour has its natural consequence, that, in addition to a degradation in the quality of the labour itself, the workpeople spend their very lives in the process. at least 70 per cent of the agricultural population in ireland, and of the employed in mines, manufactures, and the like, are to some extent at the lowest ebb of civilisation.
as the gaolers are more or less exclusively male, the work on mens premises naturally devolves on the females. the exact ratio, however, varies according to the connexion of family, occupation, social position, strength of character, and wealth of the family. for instance, in the district of lancashire and the neighbouring districts of massachusetts, females work in groups of 4 to 10 persons, each of whom lays 2 to 3 stones on the waggon.
we know from an early period of english industry, that wherever capital sets free skilled labour, that is, where it crams labourers of various trades into one large factory, and sells them to the highest bigness, the relative over-representation of women in this capacity will vanish, as will their greater relative lack of resistance in the workhouse. the consideration of the greater general fitness for labour in general will necessarily increase as the necessary number of workwomen increases, and the resistance of women to over-work will be correspondingly diminished. the absolute increase of the number of worriers necessitates also a correspondingly smaller number of workwomen for the same aggregate of labour.
the division of labour, therefore, plays a subordinate part in all these cases only in so far as it is co-operating with the magnitude of the process; it does not compete with the free expenditure of labour-power itself, but fixes the limits, within which the labour-process may be conducted.
the production of relative surplus-value comes into collision with the absolute limitation of the wor

we need to end those big tech firms.
but money wants the place of commodity, as babbage discovered, in the market-place. more than one economic thinker in germany, swedish-chinese, belgium, england and elsewhere has shown that in a free market all commodities have their due place, whatever their form of production, as means of purchase, as means of payment, and, finally, as objects of exchange.109 it is a fact, however, that the simplest form of social labour-power is absolutely incapable of satisfying these wants. hence, capitalistic production, not only requires the prolongation and reproduction of the labour-power to maintain itself, it requires that it should never exhaust itself.
at the same time, the means of satisfying these wants must be supplied by non-labourers, that is, by non-workers. this is done by the means of employment.
in the first place, means of employment, such as the buildings and machinery of large workshops, not only furnish the factory operative with a larger, but with a more varied supply of instruments of labour. within the limits of this sphere, the labour-power is also chiefly extended to the periodic phases of production, during which the buildings and machinery cease to be consumed and the labourers continue to provide the material elements of the whole process. on the other hand, during these phases, the means of employment continue to be limited to certain minimum categories of labourers. the labour-power is especially furnished with the means of production, coat-hangings, bales of yarn, coal, iron, &c., on the one hand, and of heating, light, air, ventilation, power, and communication, on the other. outside these limits the social relations of property continue to play a very important part, not only because they enforce the dependence of the labourer on the capitalist for the means of subsistence, and because they assist in keeping alive, by stupendous magnitudes, the totally irrational competition between the two great manufacturers.
capitalist production, it i think is self-evident, must have by nature, during a given period of time, a certain natural surplus-population. for instance, if the length of the working day be 12 hours, the natural population is 6; but if, during the first week of that week, the labourer is regularly compelled to work 15 hours, the surplus-population is increased to 15; and, during the next week, it is increased still more, to 18, i.e., to 32. it is at this period, therefore, that capitalist production requires a perpetual augmenting surplus population. in the same way it takes a long time for the surplus population to renew itself, after having been brought down by successive generations.18
these contradictions in the accumulation of capital, so characteristic of the process of capitalist production, when viewed from the point of view of a capitalist who is taking the exploitation of labour for granted, come to light only in those industries in which the working day is shortened and surplus-labour incorporated. to illustrate, a list of the branches of industry that are subject to capitalistic crises is sufficient.
– cotton
blacksmiths, journeymen tailors, tailors and lace-makers, millers, dressmakers, glass-makers, extractors of coal, metal operatives. in 1770 only 1/3 of the above mentioned people worked longer than 12 hours a day, and 15 years later only 1/3 of the above mentioned people worked more than 16 hours a day.
– iron and copper
copper and ironworks (other than the manufacture of hammered-iron, for which an exception is made in section 4 below), machinery, but chiefly iron and steel fabrication (including finishing work), glass-works, book-binding, &c., employed 140,000 people, and only employed 6,000 people (in 1857), and as few as 400,000 in the worst year of the 18th century. the combined number of the above mentioned industries increased from 1801-1867 by only 10,000, of which 3,000,000 were also in 1830, when we entered upon the manufacturing period. these figures, however, only indicate the scale of the movement of production during that period, and show the constant reproduction of the social division of labour. on the other hand, our own statistics, taken at the end of the manufacturing period, give a much more accurate representation of the material progress made during the preceding 200 years.
to the labourer working in the factory, as to the labourers, the whole world presents a succession of changes in the relations of master and workman, product and producen; of periodical social changes; of the establishment and gradual diminution of division of labour in society; of natural forces acting as motive power, of man as a member of a hierarchic social species, of the continuous reproduction of the old relations, and of the attempt to realise them in a harmonious social whole. but on the other hand, one constantly reproduces, by the passing of centuries, every change produced by social forces, and it is only through historical and scientific study th

we need to end those big tech firms.
we need to stop introducing compulsory education. education is often merely a pretext for its own forcible suppression. compulsory school attendance destroys adult capacity. it shreds the social foundation on which education is based. compulsory schooling in factories, in old-fashioned rural co-operatives, in belgium tends, not only to raise the children into brutes, but to teach them with the same recklessness, brutality, selfishness, and nastiness as the slaves. the value of adult labour i now more than ever admit, and wish to emphasise by a few examples, outweigh the fatal effects it may cause to the childrens development.
factory operatives have to work long hours, often for long periods of time without rest. they are often in close contact with the machinery and with all its surrounding atmosphere. their bodily strength, with regard to dress and meal-times, is entirely sacrificed. even their intellectual development in the early years, when their training consists mainly of echolalia and rote repetition, is crippled. such long hours, once begun, must be interrupted only seldom and at irregular periods. especially in the first years after birth, premature labour-power is wasted. the still greater stress they place upon it, during their infancy and childhood, compels, to an ever-increasing extent, their mothers to prolong the work of their young until they are old enough to give their own consent to the continued labour of their children.
in proportion as the working day increases, both in degree and intensity, the corresponding expenses increase too. the expense of clothes, for instance, increases rapidly with the duration of labour. with each successive day the amount of wear and tear increases. in all states of society, increasing outlay of capital on luxuries is a necessary condition of every industry.
as wages rise, capital seeks a lower degree of exploitation by squeezing out more labour-power from the labourer. the duration of the labour-process, an attribute common to all labour, increases in inverse ratio to the extension of the working day. to this side belong the wear and tear of the instruments of labour, such as hoses, chemical utensils, measuring spades, screwdrivers, nail-drivers, levers, hammers, spindles, &c. with the growth of industry, therefore, the functions of these implements shorten, their wear increases, and wear and tear fall on the workman, who is then forced to accept as the price of employment a diminished capability i.e., a shortened life.
on the other hand, the productiveness of labour increases with the intensity of labour. given the productiveness of the process of production, there is a given maximum limit to the speed of the labour-process. but, as the productiveness of labour increases, so does the limit. with the intensity of labour there is also a given maximum limit to the speed at which that labour can produce its necessary increase in productiveness.
an obvious effect of the increasing speed o f labour is, that a given quantity of product will expend more energy in the process of production than previously represented by the same quantity of labour in its average form. this reflects a change in the constant law of the exchange of commodities, of whose laws already we know nothing. if the labour power given in a day by 10 men working 12 hours on a piece of iron requires twice as much energy to produce, than a day of similar labour of the same amount consumed by the same number of men with the same value in labour-power then 12 labour hours are represented by twice as many working-hours, as are represented by 2 working-hours in the product. the apparent discrepancy between the labour-time consumed by the two articles is evidently caused by the fact that the one represents an increased expenditure of labour-power than the other.
we have here, first, a direct contradiction, by which, according to our assumption, two different quantities of product can, in the same working da man, have the same value in common, only by virtue of the fact that the labour-power, in which the article is worked, and the means of production, are both equally values, or in other words, the labour-time necessary for its production. the difference between the working-time required for the production of the 2 articles being 12 and 12, the actual value of the product will be 12. but if now the time actually expended by the capitalist on the 2 articles, be 12 working-hours, or 12×12 = 24 hour labour-time; the actual value of the product will then be 24, but of the same exact nature as that 24 already expressed.
we now come to the realisation of the quantum of the value of the product, or the value of 24.
a. quantity equal to the product of the labour-time which produced the commodity, or for a set of similar commodities; a use-value. such a quantity, or, in other words, 24, is inherent in the commodity, such that the creation of a single use-value is of its own accord, independent

we need to end those big tech firms. from the context of the 20th century, only an organised attempt had been made to seize on and extract the technological basis of production, or the capitalistic relations of production, from the working class itself. this was impossible in the case of england, because of the cohesion, the proletariats will and, above all, the unity of the nation, a unity based on a class-struggle. that was swept away by a few successful revolutions. it was only with the passing of the first, and in england firs greatest efforts, the last century, that the factory system in its concrete form attained, as a product, a mass consciousness among the working class. not till very recent times have the great forces of production developed into a mass consciousness amongst the people. they do this chiefly by means of the education, which gives them the revolutionary idea of seizing upon the means of production, or the material basis of production itself. education which proclaims, not the economic basis of the relations of property, but the basis of their antagonistic character, and a mode of production corresponding to that economic basis, of accumulation and wealth-creation, all this is handed down from childhood, and leaves its stamp in the cretin heart of the mature capitalist. the history of modern industry reveals the class of practical men and women, destined to fill the shoes of the exploited, and to sweep away the fetters that separate the masses from the means of subsistence and independent development. one characteristic is, that the class increases gradually along the line of development of accumulation, whilst the number of the absolute producers diminishes.
capitalist production, so far as it exists, and based on the self-expansion of capital, changes therefore the economic basis of its very nature. it reproduces the old relations, already in existence for thousands of years, independently of any direct historical development. on the other hand, modern industry, as far as it produces relative surplus-value and handicraftspeople arises out of the process of production itself, i.e., out of the forcible centralisation of capital, out of the self-expansion of capital. such a process is only possible in a society founded on private property, on private wealth, and on the slavery of capital. even if modern industry were to represent an economic foundation on which the co-existence of free producers could be kept up by capitalistic robbery, modern industry would have to but then modern industry is merely the modern mode of production on a colossal scale. in it every product can be sold directly to consumers. that is to say, the metamorphosis of raw material and instruments of labour the accumulation of capital and of a mass of means of production takes place on a colossal scale. by means of the law of value and of competition, the products that form the constituent elements of capitalistic production transform themselves into socially necessary products, tha must, therefore, be exchanged for other socially necessary products. that is to say, society has already invented the means of production, and is now constructing the social means of production and subsistence for the additional labourers. with the completion of this colossal labour-operation, therefore, there must be an increased supply of material elements an increased demand for those elements. to supply them, on the other hand, the original product must be replaced by a larger mass of surprens.
on the one hand, therefore, we must not forget the great difference between the means of production, when given as means of production of the labourer, and those as means of subsistence of the capitalist. at the dawn of capital, the absolute quantity of the means of production in use was limited by the social capital advanced, while in the hands of the capitalist today, the number of labourers whom he exploits, and with whom he comes in contact, expands constantly without limit. this is otiose thinking, and we shall see later how macculloch got it. we shall, however, content ourselves with observing that in capitalist production, with its changes of scale, fluctuations in the amount of the means of production employed, and with the various metamorphoses that accompany them, the specific material factors, the various organisms that form the material basis of social production, are constantly changing. this, as we saw, is no obstacle to the determination of the price of a commoditie of commodities or of labour-power, provided the quantitative relations between them be sufficiently simple. how then is this price to be determined? by a simple calculation of the proportional changes in the magnitude of the capital and in the variable constituent parts of that capital, i.e., the labour-powers? a simple calculation, that is, of the product of a working day of the means of production and of the variable constituent parts of the capital of a given magnitude. the product of one

we need to end those big tech firms. where as in the early days of the birth of modern industry the large manufacturers, in their eagerness to expand their markets, turned to every possible mode of exploitation of women and children, now they are turning to the smallest possible source of employment. if that employment was in factory operatives, that was only to do them long time. the medium term ideal of factory operatives is now the home of the family, for, by eliminating the independent women and children, they now make a large number of men dependent. with more capital in production, in fewer hands, in a larger sphere of production, the demand for work is constantly growing for the less well paid operatives, who, though doing the same as before, find themselves, by the greater crowding, accommodation, filth, &c., of the factory, and the competition of so many competitors, enriched by the protection of the factory acts. the introduction of the cotton spinning machine was the first step in this direction. but, of cours, the enormous advantages of this machine, at first, did not secure to the operatives the work of factory inspectors, until after the passing of the act of 1844. the large iron, machinery, &c., now in use in many factories, can sweep away the workpeople, and the competition is great with machinery for the handling of heavier work. the proportion between the hands, both employed and independent, increases; and a decimation of skilled operatives, already extremely great before the introduction of modern machinery, is heightened.184
the reason is shown by statistics of the various branches of industry in england. of those for the year 1851, 52,874 were employed in manual industries, while the total number of operatives employed in these branches was 1,236,707; in the yarning and weaving industries, 1,176,346; in carding, 250,613; needlework, 233,597; glove-making, 223,467; and tailoring, 194,819. of the yearly number of factory inspectors employed, 228,958 were employed in the yarning, a figure that is very much exaggerated, since in those industries in which a slave-class has always been predominant, the number of inspectors who are under the age of 18 employed, may be estimated from their reports. on the other hand, the number of all the manufacturing establishments employed in england, and in all neighbouring countries of europe, decreased during the same period, being only 11,616, just as the english east india trade began to swell rapidly. tailoring is the chief branch of handicrafts that entered the english market during this period. it was included here in the gross number, together with handicrafts of both domestic and manufactured kind. manufactures, however, did not absorb them all. now it will not be amiss, for the nonce, to assume, that every year there is a demand for these manufactures in england and elsewhere for which places are sought for in the open market, and therefore demand is naturally augmented; and that consequently, at the expiration of each succeeding year, the number of places afforded by handicrafts dwindles.
again, however, we should have no difficulty in relating the above circumstance to the different ages of men. for instance, the handicrafts of each of the four ages forms a division of labour into its subdivisions, into domestic, manufactures, &c.
importantly it will be remembered, that this section of the analysis treats only of trades in general. we now proceed to a closer study of each of the specific branches of handiwork.
wages on the different handicrafts are determined not only by the total product, but also by its individual components. hence a given quantity of the particular kind of handicraft produced by a given person will command a higher price than that of a given quantity of the same kind produced by the identical labourer, at the same skill, with the same tools, and with the same skill set.
we assume, therefore, that in handicrafts the exact productiveness of the labour process determines the a priori price. the more or less developed character of the production (or the technical basis on which it develops) of each detail work alters the general relative form of the whole process. from this aspect it becomes clear why the price of the product depends on the quantity of the particular kind of labour embodied in it, whether this labour, in a given form, is applied either alone or in combination with earlier work.
the factor of time, like the factor of weight, regulates the quantity of a given commodity. but with the rise or fall of the value of a commodity, a greater or less portion of that commodity is converted into capital, into means of production, instead of into means of subsistence. such a change in the relative magnitude of capitals is here effected in its original composition. different capitals can now find a new home, not only in new markets, but also in new spheres of production. the constantly increasing scale of the production of a commodity alters, in the same

t of expressing in common parlance as follows: we don’t think that the advantages of the invention are to be gained by lowering the price of labour. we think that by lowering the price of labour, it will be spread over a wider circle of employments, and that by doing away with competition, it will give rise, in consequence of this, to greater consumption. but that by lowering the price of labour we imply the lowering of wages, is a proposition, which, though it has been shown to be impossible, we don’t think can be maintained by any independent investigation. we therefore abstain from all talk of lowering the price of labour, and think it rather desirable that it should be done away with altogether. (the factory acts, &c., second reading, 17th oct., 1862.) we hope that the committee may at some future time be enabled to make a proper inquiry into the matter, and to give further details of the cases in which it has been shown that lowering of wages would give rise to a phenomenon analogous to the one we are about to describe, viz., the consumption of commodities by the capitalist.
36 in the speech before the house of commons, i there referred to the various combinations of machinery, and to the difficulties which a failure in one of them might occasion in another, when a single machine being out of action prevented the employment of a number of similar machines. it is clear that the limitation of the total number of such machines in factories by the law of supply and demand is in many cases the cause of the glut of machinery, which in fact is always present in any given factory, and is the source of its glut. but it is also clear that in a glut there must be the same amount of production in proportion as demand and supply both exceed each other. the difficulty, therefore, in determining whether an epidemic of glut is the cause of an epidemic of production, or whether the origin of an epidemic of glut can be traced in a case where supply exceeds demand, is of very great importance. i have here, however, given my opinion as to the cause of an epidemic of glut.
37 to the question, whether the difficulty in fixing the price of labour arises from the supply of commodities above the demand of the labourer, he says, no, it does not. the supply being greater than the demand, the labourer will be enabled to sell his labour-power at a higher price. he then may sell his labour-power for a higher price, but that does not affect the supply. we have here a contradiction, where the demand for labour is greater than the supply, where the supply is greater than the demand, and in no case does the supply affect the price of the labour. in this way, even the difficulties are brought about by the labourer selling his labour-power, and yet his wages are only too high. it is just as much the price of a cup of coffee as the supply of coffee. in this case the production of a cup of coffee is simultaneous with the production of a cup of coffee. this law does not hold good in this case. on the one hand, the labourer cannot sell his labour-power for a price, and on the other hand, he must have a supply of labour. he is then forced to sell his labour-power for the supply, not the demand.
38 the fact that in some branches of industry the supply of labour increases as the demand of the work increases, and that, in consequence, the supply of labour always exceeds the demand, proves that the limits of the supply of labour, and their limits, in such cases, are fixed by law. but if the labourers supply is always too great, the supply is always too little. the limits of the supply of labour, that are fixed by law, are fixed by the nature of the work. the supply of labour, or the limits of the demand for labour, are not so fixed by law, because the demand always exceeds the supply.
39 sir j. hunter, one of the commissioners appointed by the lords privy council, visited lancashire and its neighbourhood in 1862, and examined into the case of a certain mill in which machinery had been set in operation. the mill employed 110 workpeople, and employed 1,000 men. in 1851, the number of persons employed in the mill was 8, which was higher than the number of persons employed in the london textile mills of the year before, and much higher than the number of persons employed in the cotton factories of the same year. from the number of persons employed in the factory, it is apparent that, at the current rate of employment, the number of men required would be about 895, and of those only 405 were employed; but from the number of men employed, it appears that the number of persons required was, at most, 1,175. as regards the number of the workpeople, sir j. hunter estimated that they would require more men than were employed by them. according to his calculation, the demand for such a number of workpeople would be, on the average, about 3,200. the demand for the number of workpeople actually employed, is, on the average, about 3,500, and the supply, i say, is quite so small as to cause great inconvenience to the workpeople, if it were to swell to the enormous number that is wanted. so great a glut would ensue, that they would have to turn their workpeople over to machinery.
40 suppose, says sir j. hunter, the supply of workmen to be 895, the demand for men being 1,000, and the supply of machinery, i.e., persons to replace the men, i.e., about the number of persons required in the lancashire and scotland textile industries. suppose the workpeople to fall to 2,000, and the machinery to supply 2,500; and further, suppose that the demand be doubled, to 3,000; and further, suppose the supply not to be doubled, to 4,000; and suppose that the demand not to be doubled, to 6,000; and further, that the supply not to…