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 employed.
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, 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 cost is about the same. In the latter case, the outlay of constant capital increases in proportion to the mass of labour set in motion; in the former that increase is much smaller.
Even in the cotton famine of 1863 we find, in a pamphlet of the operative cottonspinners of Blackburn, fierce denunciations of over-work. which, in consequence of the Factory Acts, of course only affected adult male labourers. 'The adult operatives at this mill have been asked to work from 12 to 13 hours per day, 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,' it goes on to say, 'would ask if the practice of working over-time by a number of hands, is likely to create a good feeling between masters and servants. Those who are worked over-time 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 distributed. 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 over-time, while others, for want of work, are compelled to exist upon charity.' (Reports of Insp. of Fact., Oct. 31, 1863, p. 8.)
Even Malthus recognises overpopulation as a necessity of modern industry, though, after his narrow fashion, he explains it by the absolute over-growth of the labouring population, not by their becoming relatively supernumerary. He says: 'Prudential habits with regard to marriage, carried to a considerable extent among the labouring class of a country mainly depending upon manufactures and commerce, might injure it.... From the nature of a population, an increase of labourers cannot be brought into market in consequence 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.' After Political Economy has thus demonstrated the constant production of a relative surplus population of labourers to be a necessity of capitalistic accumulation, she very aptly, in the guise of an old maid [Harriet Martineau], puts in the mouth of her “beau ideal” of a capitalist the following words addressed to those supernumeraries thrown on the streets by their own creation of additional 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.'
The folly is now patent of the economic wisdom that preaches to the labourers the accommodation of their number to the requirements of capital. The mechanism of capitalist production and accumulation constantly effects this adjustment. 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.
Pages
- Jobs, Liberty and the Bottom Line
- Time on the Ledger: Social Accounting for the “Goo...
- Intermediate Goods and Duplication
- The Long Term Problem of Full Employment
- The Source and Remedy of the National Difficulties...
- Grundrisse: "Capital (like property) rests on prod...
- Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844: "W...
- McCulloch on Combination Laws
- Submission to the White House Task Force on Middle...
- Thinking Along the Right Lines
- The Problem with "The Problem of Social Cost"
- State and Prospects of Manufactures
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Free Play: This is the absolute general law of capitalist accumulation
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
'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.'
ReplyDeleteDoes this suggest that the manufacturers subscribe to the infamous lump? The quote seems to say that we have made all the capital we can -- you have to decrease your numbers -- rather than that the capital can always grow to accommodate those who wish to work.
Another case of right wing projection?
--ml
Martin,
ReplyDeleteYou suspect correctly. In its evolution, the infamous lump went through a remarkable inversion.
When it first emerged in the 1830s (and dame Harriet was one of its midwives), the nascent fallacy claim was part and parcel of the wages-fund doctrine -- a concoction of "Malthusianism at its most immature and Ricardianism at its most abstract."
But in the 1870s, after J.S. Mill famously recanted his adherence to the wages-fund doctrine and marginalism was beginning to supplant classical political economy, the fallacy taunt was turned around 180 degrees to now accuse the workers and unions of a "fixed work-fund fallacy" akin to the discredited wages-fund doctrine.
So the rule here is you commit the fallacy whether you dissent from the doctrine or consent to it, without any actual evidence of your alleged dissent or consent. In the decades after the reversal, you can find both versions of the accusation being self-righteously hurled (sometimes even in the same breath)!
Ah! To always left foot the lower ranks is the goal. Thanks for this Sandwichman. --ml
ReplyDelete