|
|
In the present
chapter I shall enter into some enquiry respecting the influence
of machinery on the interests of the different classes of
society, a subject of great importance, and one which appears
never to have been investigated in a manner to lead to any
certain or satisfactory results. It is more incumbent on me to
declare my opinion on this question, because they have, on
further reflection, undergone a considerable change; and
although I am not aware that I have ever published any thing
respecting machinery which it is necessary for me to retract,
yet I have in other ways given my support to doctrines which I
now think erroneous; it, therefore, becomes a duty in me to
submit my present views to examination, with my reasons for
entertaining them. |
|
31.1 |
Ever since I
first turned my attention to questions of political economy, I
have been of opinion, that such an application of machinery to
any branch of production, as should have the effect of saving
labour, was a general good, accompanied only with that portion
of inconvenience which in most cases attends the removal of
capital and labour from one employment to another. It appeared
to me, that provided the landlords had the same money rents,
they would be benefited by the reduction in the prices of some
of the commodities on which those rents were expended, and which
reduction of price could not fail to be the consequence of the
employment of machinery. The capitalist, I thought, was
eventually benefited precisely in the same manner. He, indeed,
who made the discovery of the machine, or who first usefully
applied it, would enjoy an additional advantage, by making great
profits for a time; but, in proportion as the machine came into
general use, the price of the commodity produced, would, from
the effects of competition, sink to its cost of production, when
the capitalist would get the same money profits as before, and
he would only participate in the general advantage, as a
consumer, by being enabled, with the same money revenue, to
command an additional quantity of comforts and enjoyments. The
class of labourers also, I thought, was equally benefited by the
use of machinery, as they would have the means of buying more
commodities with the same money wages, and I thought that no
reduction of wages would take place, because the capitalist
would have the power of demanding and employing the same
quantity of labour as before, although he might be under the
necessity of employing it in the production of a new, or at any
rate of a different commodity. If, by improved machinery, with
the employment of the same quantity of labour, the quantity of
stockings could be quadrupled, and the demand for stockings were
only doubled, some labourers would necessarily be discharged
from the stocking trade; but as the capital which employed them
was still in being, and as it was the interest of those who had
it to employ it productively, it appeared to me that it would be
employed on the production of some other commodity . . . As,
then, it appeared to me that there would be the same demand for
labour as before, and that wages would be no lower, I thought
that the labouring class would, equally with the other classes,
participate in the advantage, from the general cheapness of
commodities arising from the use of machinery. |
|
31.2 |
These were my
opinions, and they continue unaltered, as far as regards the
landlord and the capitalist; but I am convinced, that the
substitution of machinery for human labour, is often very
injurious to the interests of the class of labourers.
|
|
31.3 |
My mistake arose
from the supposition, that whenever the net income of a society
increased, its gross income would also increase; I now, however,
see reason to be satisfied that the one fund, from which
landlords and capitalists derive their revenue, may increase,
while the other, that upon which the labouring class mainly
depend, may diminish, and therefore it follows, if I am right,
that the same cause which may increase the net revenue of the
country, may at the same time render the population redundant,
and deteriorate the condition of the labourer. |
|
31.4 |
A capitalist we
will suppose employs a capital of the value of £20,000 and that
he carries on the joint business of a farmer, and a manufacturer
of necessities. We will further suppose, that £7,000 of this
capital is invested in fixed capital, viz. in buildings,
implements, &c. &c. and that the remaining £13,000 is employed
as circulating capital in the support of labour. Let us suppose,
too, that profits are 10 per cent, and consequently that the
capitalist's capital is every year put into its original state
of efficiency, and yields a profit of £2,000. |
|
31.5 |
Each year the
capitalist begins his operations, by having food and necessaries
in his possession of the value of £13,000, all of which he sells
in the course of the year to his own workmen for that sum of
money, and, during the same period, he pays them the like amount
of money for wages: at the end of the year they replace in his
possession food and necessaries of the value of £15,000, £2,000
of which he consumes himself, or disposes of as may best suit
his pleasure and gratification. As far as these products are
concerned, the gross produce for that year is £15,000, and the
net produce £2,000. Suppose now, that the following year the
capitalist employs half his men in constructing a machine, and
the other half in producing food and necessaries as usual.
During that year he would pay the sum of £13,000 in wages as
usual, and would sell food and necessaries to the same amount to
his workmen; but what would be the case the following year?
|
|
31.6 |
While the
machine was being made, only one-half of the usual quantity of
food and necessaries would be obtained, and they would be only
one-half the value of the quantity which was produced before.
The machine would be worth £7,500, and the food and necessaries
£7,500, and, therefore, the capital of the capitalist would be
as great as before; for he would have besides these two values,
his fixed capital worth £7,000, making in the whole £20,000
capital, and £2,000 profit. After deducting this latter sum for
his own expenses, he would have a no greater circulating capital
than £5,500 with which to carry on his subsequent operations;
and, therefore, his means of employing labour, would be reduced
in the proportion of £13,000 to £5,500, and, consequently, all
the labour which was before employed by £7,500, would become
redundant. |
|
31.7 |
The reduced
quantity of labour which the capitalist can employ, must,
indeed, with the assistance of the machine, and after deductions
for its repairs, produce a value equal to £7,500, it must
replace the circulating capital with a profit of £2,000 on the
whole capital; but if this be done, if the net income be not
diminished, of what importance is it to the capitalist, whether
the gross income be of the value of £3,000, of £10,000, or of
£15,000? |
|
31.8 |
In this case,
then, although the net produce will not be diminished in value,
although its power of purchasing commodities may be greatly
increased, the gross produce will have fallen from a value of
£15,000 to a value of £7,500, and as the power of supporting a
population, and employing labour, depends always on the gross
produce of a nation, and not on its net produce, there will
necessarily be a diminution in the demand for labour, population
will become redundant, and the situation of the labouring
classes will be that of distress and poverty. |
|
31.9 |
As, however, the
power of saving from revenue to add to capital, must depend on
the efficiency of the net revenue, to satisfy the wants of the
capitalist, it could not fail to follow from the reduction in
the price of commodities consequent on the introduction of
machinery, that with the same wants he would have increased
means of saving—increased facility of transferring revenue into
capital. But with every increase of capital he would employ more
labourers; and, therefore, a portion of the people thrown out of
work in the first instance, would be subsequently employed; and
if the increased production, in consequence of the employment of
the machine, was so great as to afford, in the shape of net
produce, as great a quantity of food and necessaries as existed
before in the form of gross produce, there would be the same
ability to employ the whole population, and, therefore, there
would not necessarily be any redundancy of people. |
|
31.10 |
All I wish to
prove, is, that the discovery and use of machinery may be
attended with a diminution of gross produce; and whenever that
is the case, it will be injurious to the labouring class, as
some of their number will be thrown out of employment, and
population will become redundant, compared with the funds which
are to employ it. |
|
31.11 |
. . .
The statements
which I have made will not, I hope, lead to the inference that
machinery should not be encouraged. To elucidate the principle,
I have been supposing, that improved machinery is suddenly
discovered, and extensively used; but the truth is, that these
discoveries are gradual, and rather operate in determining the
employment of the capital which is saved and accumulated, than
in diverting capital from its actual employment. |
|
31.25 |
With every
increase of capital and population, food will generally rise, on
account of its being more difficult to produce. The consequence
of a rise of food will be a rise of wages, and every rise of
wages will have a tendency to determine the saved capital in a
greater proportion than before to the employment of machinery.
Machinery and labour are in constant competition, and the former
can frequently not be employed until labour rises. |
|
31.26 |
In America and
many other countries, where the food of man is easily provided,
there is not nearly such great temptation to employ machinery as
in England, where food is high, and costs much labour for its
production. . . |
|
31.27 |
|
|
The employment
of machinery could never be safely discouraged in a State, for
if a capital is not allowed to get the greatest net revenue that
the use of machinery will afford here, it will be carried
abroad, and this must be a much more serious discouragement to
the demand for labour, than the most extensive employment of
machinery; for, while a capital is employed in this country, it
must create a demand for some labour; machinery cannot be worked
without the assistance of men, it cannot be made but with the
contribution of their labour. By investing part of a capital in
improved machinery, there will be a diminution in the
progressive demand for labour; by exporting it to another
country, the demand will be wholly annihilated. |
|
31.29 |
The prices of
commodities, too, are regulated by their cost of production. By
employing improved machinery, the cost of production of
commodities is reduced, and, consequently, you can afford to
sell them in foreign markets at a cheaper price. If, however,
you were to reject the use of machinery, while all other
countries encouraged it, you would be obliged to export your
money, in exchange for foreign goods, till you sunk the natural
prices of your goods to the prices of other countries. In making
your exchanges with those countries, you might give a commodity
which cost two days labour, here, for a commodity which cost
one, abroad, and this disadvantageous exchange would be the
consequence of your own act, for the commodity which you export,
and which cost you two days labour, would have cost you only one
if you had not rejected the use of machinery, the services of
which your neighbours had more wisely appropriated to
themselves. |
|
|