Political Economy (Lev Gatovsky, I. I. Kuzminov, Ivan Laptev, Lev Leontyev, Konstantin Ostrovityanov, Anatoly Pashkov, V. I. Pereslegin, Dmitri Shepilov, Vladimir Starovsky, Pavel Yudin)

Political Economy
Author	Lev Gatovsky, I. I. Kuzminov, Ivan Laptev, Lev Leontyev, Konstantin Ostrovityanov, Anatoly Pashkov, V. I. Pereslegin, Dmitri Shepilov, Vladimir Starovsky, Pavel Yudin
Translated by	Lawrence & Wishart from Russian
Publisher	Economics Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR
First published	1954 Moscow
Source	MIA
PDF	Revolutionary Democracy

Foreword to the First Edition

This textbook of political economy has been written by a group of economists comprising: Academician K.V. Ostrovityanov; Corresponding Member of the V.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences D.T. Shepilov; Corresponding Member of the V.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences L.A. Leontyev; Member of the All-Union Lenin Academy of Agricultural Sciences I.D. Laptev; Professor I.I. Kuzminov; Doctor of Economic Sciences L.M. Gatovsky; Academician P.F. Yudin; Corresponding Member of the V.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences A.I. Pashkov; and Candidate [Master] of Economic Sciences V. I. Pereslegin, Doctor of Economic Sciences V. N. Starovsky took part in the selection and editing of the statistical information included in the textbook. In connection with the drafting of the textbook a large number of Soviet economists made valuable critical observations and contributed numerous useful suggestions concerning the text. These observations and suggestions were taken into account by the authors in their subsequent work on the book.

Of very great importance for the work on this textbook was the economic discussion organised in November 1951 by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. In the course of this discussion, in which hundreds of Soviet economists took an active part, the draft for a textbook of political economy submitted by the authors was subjected to a thorough critical examination. The proposals worked out as the result of this discussion for improving the draft of the textbook were an important source of improvement in the structure of the textbook and of enrichment of its content.

The final editing of the textbook was carried out by comrades K.V. Ostrovityanov, D.T. Shepilov, L.A. Leontyev, I.D. Laptev, I.I. Kuzminov and L. M. Gatovsky.

Being fully aware of the importance of a Marxist textbook of political economy, the authors intend to continue to work on further improvement of the text, on the basis of critical observations and suggestions which readers may make when they have acquainted themselves with the first edition. In this connection, the authors request readers to address their comments and suggestions on the textbook to the following address:

Institute of Economics,

U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences,

14 Volkhonka,

Moscow

Foreword to the Second Edition

The first edition of the Political Economy textbook, published at the end of 1954 in over six million copies, was rapidly sold out. Besides the Russian original, there were versions in many of the languages of the peoples of the U.S.S.R., and the book was also published in a number of foreign countries.

The need has arisen for a second edition of the textbook. In preparing this edition the authors have made it their task to strengthen the text with new propositions and facts reflecting the steady growth of the socialist economy of the U.S.S.R. and the countries of People's Democracy and also the further intensification of the general crisis of capitalism.

The authors have endeavoured to take into account as fully as possible the experience gained in using this textbook in higher educational institutions, in Party schools and study-groups and for purposes of individual study. During the past year the book has been discussed in many university departments of political economy, and these have sent in their comments and requests. The authors have also received a large number of letters from readers, containing suggestions regarding the text. Broad conferences of economists were held in March and April 1955 to discuss thoroughly the first edition of the book, these being attended by research workers, teachers and business executives in Moscow, Leningrad, Kiev, Minsk, Riga, Tallinn, Vilnius, Tbilisi, Erevan, Baku, Tashkent, Ashkhabad, Stalinabad, Alma-Ata and Sverdlovsk.

The authors have carefully studied all the critical observations and proposals regarding the textbook which have been made at conferences of university departments of political economy, at meetings of economists and in readers' letters, and have tried to use all of these that made for improving the book. At the same time they have maintained as their point of departure the need to keep to the present type of textbook, intended for the general reader, and not to allow its size to be enlarged to any considerable extent.

The final editing of the second edition has been carried out by comrades K.V. Ostrovityanov, D.T. Shepilov, L.A. Leontyev, I.D. Laptev, I.I. Kuzminov and L. M. Gatovksy.

Comrade V.N. Starovsky took part in the selection and editing of the statistical information contained in the book.

The authors express their thanks to all the comrades who helped in the preparation of the second edition of this textbook through their critical comments and suggestions. The authors intend to continue to work on the improvement of the textbook, and in this connection request readers to send their comments and suggestions to the following address:

Institute of Economics,

U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences,

14 Volkhonka,

Moscow

September 1955

Introduction

Political economy belongs to the category of the social sciences.^[1]. It studies the laws of the social production and distribution of material wealth at the various stages of development of human society.

The basis of the life of society is material production. In order to live, people must have food, clothing and other material means of life. In order to have these, people must produce them, they must work.

Men produce the material means of life, i.e., carry on their struggle with nature, not as isolated individuals but together, in groups and societies. Consequently, production is always and under all circumstances social production, and labour is an activity of social man.

The process of producing material wealth presupposes the following factors: (1) human labour; (2) the subject of labour; and (3) the means of labour.

Labour is a purposive activity of the human being in the process of which he transforms and adapts natural objects so as to satisfy his own requirements. Labour is a natural necessity, an indispensable condition for man's existence.Without labour human life itself would be impossible.

Everything to which man's labour is directed is a subject of labour. Subjects of labour may be directly provided by nature, as, for example, wood, which is cut in the forest, or ore, which is extracted from the bowels of the earth. Subjects of labour which have previously been subjected to the action of labour (e.g., ore in a metal works, cotton in a spinning mill, yarn in a weaving mill) are called raw materials.

Means of labour consist of all those things with the aid of which man acts upon the subject of his labour and transforms it. To the category of means of labour belong, first and fore-most, the instruments of production, together with land, buildings used for production purposes, roads, canals, storehouses, etc. The determining role among the means of labour is played by the instruments of production. These comprise the various kinds of tools which man uses in his working activity, beginning with the crude stone implements of primitive man and ending with modern machinery. The level of development of the instruments of production provides the criterion of society's mastery over nature, the criterion of the development of production. Economic epochs are distinguished one from another not by what is produced but by how material wealth is produced, with what instruments of production.

The subjects of labour and the means of labour constitute the means of production. Means of production in themselves, not associated with labour power, can produce nothing. For the labour process, the process of producing material wealth, to begin, labour power must be united with the instruments of production.

Labour power is man's ability to work, the sum total of the physical and spiritual forces of man, thanks to which he is able to produce material wealth. Labour power is the active element in production, which sets the means of production in motion. With the development of the instruments of production man's ability to work also develops, his skill, habits of work, and production experience.

The instruments of production, by means of which material wealth is produced, and the people who set these instruments in motion and accomplish the production of material values, thanks to the production experience and habits of work which they possess, constitute the productive forces of society.

The working masses are the basic productive force of human society in all stages of its development.

The productive forces reflect the relationship of people to the objects and forces of nature used for the production of material wealth. In production, however, men act not only upon nature but also upon each other.

"They produce only by co-operating in a certain way and mutually exchanging their activities. In order to produce, they enter into definite connections and relations with one another and only within these social connections and relations does their action on nature, does production, take place." (Marx, "Wage-Labour and Capital", Marx and Engels, Selected Works, 1950, English edition, vol. I, p. 83.)

The definite social connections and relations formed between people in the process of the production of material wealth constitute production relations. Production relations include: (a) forms of ownership of the means of production; (b) the position of the various social groups in production which result from this, and their mutual relations; (c) the forms of distribution of products that follow from the ownership of the means of production and people's position in production.

The character of production relations depends on who owns the means of production (land, woods, waters, subsoil, raw materials, instruments of production, buildings used for production, means of communication and transport, etc.)whether they are the property of particular persons, social groups or classes, which use these means of production in order to exploit the working people, or whether they are the property of society, whose aim is the satisfaction of the material and cultural requirements of the masses of the people, of society as a whole. The state of production relations shows how the means of production are distributed among the members of society and, consequently, how the material wealth produced by people is distributed. Thus, the determining feature, the basis of production relations is one or another form of property in the means of production.

The relations of production determine also corresponding relations of distribution. Distribution is the connecting link between production and consumption.

The products which are produced in society serve either productive or personal consumption. Productive consumption means the use of means of production to create material wealth. Personal consumption means the satisfaction of man's requirements in food, clothing, shelter, etc.

The distribution of the objects of personal consumption which are produced depends on the distribution of the means of production. In capitalist society the means of production belong to the capitalists, and in consequence the products of labour also belong to the capitalists. The workers are deprived of means of production and, so as not to die of hunger, are obliged to work for the capitalists, who appropriate the products of their labour. In socialist society the means of production are public property. In consequence, the products of labour belong to the working people themselves.

In those social formations in which commodity production exists, the distribution of material wealth takes place through exchange of commodities. Production, distribution, exchange and consumption constitute a unity, in which the determining role is played by production. The particular forms of distribution, exchange and consumption so determined exert in their turn a reciprocal influence upon production, either facilitating its development or hindering it.

The sum total of the

"relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness." (Marx, "Preface to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy," Marx and Engels, Selected Works, 1950, English edition, vol. I, p. 329).

Having come into existence, the superstructure exercises in its turn a reciprocal active influence on the basis, hastening or hindering the development of the latter.

Production has a technical aspect and a social aspect. The technical aspect of production is studied by the natural and technical sciences: physics, chemistry, metallurgy, engineering, agronomy and others. Political economy studies the social aspect of production, the social-production, i.e., the economic, relations between people. "Political economy", wrote V. I. Lenin, "is not at all concerned with 'production' but with the social relations between people in production, the social system of production." (Lenin, "Development of Capitalism in Russia", Works, vol. III, pp. 40-1.)

Political economy studies production relations in their interaction with the productive forces. The productive forces and the production relations as a unity constitute the mode of production.

The productive forces are the most mobile and revolutionary factor in production. The development of production begins with changes in the productive forces-first of all with changes and development in the instruments of production, and thereafter corresponding changes also take place in the sphere of production relations. Production relations between men, which develop in dependence upon the development of the productive forces, themselves in turn actively affect the productive forces.

The productive forces of society can develop uninterruptedly only where the production relations correspond to the nature of the productive forces. At a certain stage of their development the productive forces outgrow the framework of the given production relations and come into contradiction with them. The production relations are transformed from being forms of development of the productive forces into fetters upon them.

As a result, the old production relations sooner or later give place to new ones, which correspond to the level of development which has been attained and to the character of the productive forces of society. With the change in the economic basis of society its superstructure also changes. The material premises for the replacement of old production relations by new ones arise and develop within the womb of the old formation. The new production relations open up scope for the development of the productive forces.

Thus an economic law of the development of society is the law of obligatory correspondence of production relations to the nature of the productive forces.

In society based on private property and the exploitation of man by man, conflicts between the productive forces and the production relations are expressed in the form of class struggle; In these conditions the replacement of an old mode of production by a new one is effected by way of social revolution.

Political economy is an historical science. It is concerned with material production in its historically determined social form, with the economic laws which are inherent in particular modes of production. Economic laws express the essential nature of economic phenomena and processes, the internal, causal connection and dependence existing between them.

The laws of economic development are objective laws. They arise and operate on the basis of definite economic conditions independent of men's will. Men can understand these laws and utilise them in society's interests, but they can neither abolish nor create economic laws.

The utilising of economic laws in class society always has a class character: the advanced class of each social formation makes use of economic laws to serve the progressive development of society, while the moribund classes resist this.

Each mode of production has its own basic economic law.

This basic economic law expresses the essence of the given mode of production and determines its main aspects and line of development.

Political economy

"must first investigate the special laws of each separate stage in the evolution of production and exchange, and only when it has completed this investigation will it be able to establish the few quite general laws which hold good for production and exchange as a whole". (Engels, Anti-Dühring, 1936, Lawrence & Wishart edition, p.165.)

Consequently, the development of the various social formations is governed both by their own specific economic laws and also by those economic laws which are common to all formations, e.g., the law of obligatory correspondence of the production relations to the character of the productive forces. Hence social formations are not only marked off one from another by the specific economic laws inherent in each given mode of production, but also are linked together by a few economic laws which are common to all formations.

Political economy studies the following basic types of production relations which are known to history: the primitive-communal system, the slave-owning system, feudalism, capitalism, socialism. The primitive-communal system is a pre-class system. The slave-owning system, feudalism and capitalism are different forms of society based on the enslavement and exploitation of the working masses. Socialism is a social system which is free from exploitation of man by man.

Political economy investigates how social production develops from lower, stages to higher stages, and how the social orders which are based on exploitation of man by man arise, develop and are abolished. It shows how the entire course of historical development prepares the way for the victory of the socialist mode of production. It studies, furthermore, the economic laws of socialism the laws of the origin of socialist society and its subsequent development along the road to the higher phase of communism.

Thus political economy is the science of the development of the socialproductive, i.e., economic, relations between men. It elucidates the laws which regulate the production and distribution of material wealth in human society at the different stages of its development.

The method of Marxist political economy is the method of dialectical materialism. Marxist-Leninist political economy is built up by applying the fundamental propositions of dialectical and historical materialism to the study of the economic structure of society.

Unlike the natural sciences -physics, chemistry, etc.- political economy cannot make use in its study of the economic structure of society of experiments or tests carried out in artificially created laboratory conditions which eliminate phenomena that hinder examination of a process in its purest form. "In the analysis of economic forms neither microscopes nor chemical reagents are of use. The force of abstraction must replace both." (Marx, Capital, vol. I, Kerr edition, p. 12.)

Every economic system presents a contradictory and complicated picture. The task of scientific research consists in revealing by means of theoretical analysis the deep-seated processes and fundamental features of the economy which lie behind the outward appearance of economic phenomena and express the essential character of the particular production relations concerned, abstracting these from secondary features.

What emerges from such scientific analysis is economic categories, i.e., concepts which represent the theoretical expression of the real production relations of the particular social formation concerned, such as, for example, commodity, value, money, economic accounting, profitability, work-day, etc.

Marx's method consists of gradually ascending from the simplest of economic categories to more complex ones, which corresponds to the progressive development of society on an ascending line, from lower stages to higher. When such a procedure is used in investigating the categories of political economy, logical investigation is combined with historical analysis of social development.

Marx, in his analysis of capitalist production relations, singles out first of all the everyday relationship which is the simplest of all and the most frequently repeated-the exchange of one commodity for another. He shows that in the commodity, this cell-form of capitalist economy, the contradictions of capitalism are laid up in embryo. With analysis of the commodity as his point of departure, Marx explains the origin of money, discloses the process of transforming money into capital, the essential nature of capitalist exploitation. Marx shows how social development leads inevitably to the downfall of capitalism, to the victory of communism.

Lenin pointed out that political economy must be expounded in the form of the characterisation of the successive periods of economic development. In conformity with this, in the present course of political economy, the basic categories of political economy -commodity, value, money, capital, etc.- are examined in the historical order of succession in which they arose at different stages in the development of human society. Thus, elementary concepts concerning commodities and money are presented already when pre-capitalist formations are being described. These categories are later set forth in fully developed form when capitalist economy, in which they attain their full development, is being studied. The same order of exposition will also be employed when socialist economy is dealt with. An elementary notion of the basic economic law .of socialism, of the law of planned, proportional development of the national economy, of distribution according to work done, and of value, money, etc., will be given in the section devoted to the transitional period from capitalism ' to socialism. An expanded treatment of these laws and categories will be given in the section "The Socialist System of National Economy".

Political economy, unlike history, does not undertake to study the historical process of society's development in all its concrete variety. It provides basic concepts concerning the fundamental features of each system of social economy. Besides political economy there are also a number of other scientific disciplines which are concerned with the study of economic relations in the various branches of the national economy on the basis of the laws discovered by political economy-industrial economics, agricultural economics, etc.

Political economy studies, not some transcendental questions detached from life, but very real and living questions which affect the vital interests of men, society, classes. Are the downfall of capitalism and the triumph of the socialist system of economy inevitable; do the interests of capitalism contradict those of society and of the progressive development of mankind; is the working class capitalism's grave-digger and the bearer of the idea of the liberation of society from capitalism-all these and similar questions are answered differently by different economists, depending on which class's interests they voice.

That is just why there does not exist one single political economy for all classes of society, but instead several political economies: bourgeois political economy, proletarian political economy, and also the political economy of the intermediate classes, petty-bourgeois political economy.

It follows from this, however, that those economists are quite wrong who assert that political economy is a neutral, non-party science, that political economy is independent of the struggle between classes in society and not connected either directly or indirectly with any political party.

Is it possible in general for a political economy to exist which is objective, impartial and does not fear the truth? Certainly this is possible. Such an objective political economy can only be the political economy of that class which has no interest in slurring over the contradictions and sore places of capitalism, which has no interest in preserving the capitalist order: the class whose interests merge with the interests of liberating society from capitalist slavery, whose interests coincide with the interests of mankind's progressive development. Such a class is the working class. Therefore an objective and disinterested political economy can only be that which is based on the interests of the working class. This political economy is the political economy of Marxism-Leninism.

Marxist political economy is a very important component of Marxist-Leninist theory.

The great leaders and theoreticians of the working class, K. Marx and F. Engels, were the founders of proletarian political economy. In his work of genius, Capital, Marx revealed the laws of the rise, development and downfall of capitalism; and showed, the economic grounds for the inevitability of socialist revolution and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Marx and Engels worked out in general terms the theory of the transition period from capitalism to socialism and of the two phases of communist society.

The economic teachings of Marxism underwent further creative development in the works of V.I. Lenin, founder of the Communist Party and the Soviet State, brilliant continuer of the work of Marx and Engels. Lenin enriched Marxist economic science by generalising the new experience of historical development, created the Marxist teaching on imperialism, revealed the economic and political nature of imperialism, provided the initial propositions for the basic economic law of modern capitalism, worked out the fundamentals of the theory of the general crisis of capitalism, created a new, complete theory of socialist revolution, and worked out scientifically the basic problems of the building of socialism and communism.

Lenin's great companion-in-arms and pupil, J.V. Stalin, put forward and developed a number of new propositions in political economy, based on the fundamental works of Marx, Engels and Lenin which had created a really scientific political economy.

Marxist-Leninist economic theory is creatively developed in the resolutions of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and of the fraternal Communist Parties and the works of the pupils and companions-in-arms of Lenin and Stalin-the leaders of these parties, who have enriched economic science with new conclusions and propositions on the basis of generalising the practice of the revolutionary struggle and of the building of socialism and communism.

Marxist-Leninist political economy is a powerful weapon of ideas in the hands of the working class and of all working mankind in their struggle for emancipation from capitalist oppression. The living strength of the economic theory of Marxism-Leninism consists in the fact that it arms the working class and the working masses with knowledge of the laws of the economic development of society, giving them clear prospects and confidence in the ultimate victory of Communism.

Pre-Capitalist Modes of Production

The Primitive Communal Mode of Production

The Rise of Human Society

The rise of man belongs to the present, the Quaternary period of the earth's history, which science reckons as a little less than a million years. In various regions of Europe, Asia and Africa distinguished by their warm and moist climates there dwelt a highly developed species of anthropoid ape. As a result of a very long development, which included a number of transitional stages, from these remote ancestors there originated man.

The emergence of man was one of the greatest turning points in the development of nature. This turning point took place when man's ancestors began to make implements of labour. The fundamental difference between man" and animal starts only with the making of implements, though they be the very simplest. It is well known that apes often use a stick or stone to knock fruit from a tree or to defend themselves from attack. But not a single animal has ever made even the most primitive implement. The conditions of their daily lives drove man's ancestors to make implements. Experience taught them that sharpened stones could be used for defence against attack or for hunting animals. Man's ancestors began to make stone implements, striking one stone against another. In this way a start was made in the making of implements. With the making of implements labour begins.

Thanks to labour the fore-paws of the anthropoid ape were converted into the hands of man. Remains of the ape-man-a transitional stage from ape to man-found by archaeologists afford evidence of this. The ape-man's brain was much smaller than the human brain, but his hand was already comparatively little different from that of man. It follows that the hand is not only an organ of labour, but also its product.

As hands became freed for acts of labour, man's ancestors acquired an ever more upright gait. Once the hands were occupied with labour the final transition to an upright gait took place, and this played a very important part in making man.

Man's ancestors lived in hordes, or herds; the first men also lived in herds. But between men there arose a link which did not, and could not, exist in the animal world: the link through labour. Men made implements jointly and jointly they applied them. Consequently, the rise of man was also the rise of human society, the transition from the zoological to the social condition.

Men's common labour led to the rise and development of articulate speech. Language is the means, the implement by which men communicate with one another, exchange opinions and achieve mutual understanding.

The exchange of thoughts is a constant and vital necessity, since without it the common activities of men in their struggle with the forces of nature, and the very existence of social production, are impossible.

Labour and articulate speech had a decisive influence in perfecting man's organism, in the development of his brain. The development of language is closely linked with the development of thought. In the process of labour man's circle of perceptions and conceptions was widened, his sensory organs were perfected. Man's labour activities became conscious acts as distinct from the instinctive activities of animals.

Thus, labour is "the prime basic condition for all human existence, and this to such an extent that, in a sense, we have to say that labour created man himself". (Engels, "The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man", Man: and Engels, Selected Works, 1950, English edition, vol. II, p. 74.) Thanks to labour, human society arose and began to develop.

Conditions of Material Life. The Development of the Implements of Labour

In primitive times man was extremely dependent on his natural surroundings; he was completely weighed down by the difficulties of existence, by the difficulties of his struggle with nature. The process of mastering the elemental forces of nature went on extremely slowly, since the implements of labour were extremely primitive. Man's first implements were roughly chipped stones and sticks. They were like artificial extensions of his bodily organs: the stone, of his fist, the stick, of his outstretched arm.

Men lived in groups whose numbers did not exceed a few dozen persons: a greater single number could not have provided food for themselves. When groups met clashes sometimes took place between them. Many groups perished from hunger or became the prey of wild animals. In these conditions labour in common was for men the only possible form of labour and an absolute necessity.

For a long time primitive man lived mainly by means of food gathering and hunting, both carried out collectively with the help of the simplest implements. What was jointly obtained was jointly consumed. Cannibalism occurred among primitive men as a consequence of the precariousness of the food supply. In the course of many thousands of years, as though groping their way, by means of an extremely slow accumulation of experience, men learned to make the simplest implements suitable for striking, cutting, digging and the other very simple activities which then almost exhausted the whole sphere of production.

The discovery of fire was a great victory for primitive man in his struggle with nature. At first men learned to make use of fire which had arisen naturally. They saw lightning set fire to a tree, observed forest fires and the eruptions of volcanoes. The fire which had been obtained by chance was long and carefully preserved. Only after many thousands of years did man learn the secret of making fire. With more advanced production of implements men observed that fire came from friction and learned to make it.

The discovery of fire and its application gave men dominion over specific natural forces. Primitive man had finally broken away from the animal world: the long epoch of his becoming human had been completed. Thanks to the discovery of fire the conditions of material life for man changed fundamentally. First, fire could be used to prepare food, as a result of which the number of edible objects available to man was increased: it became possible to eat fish, meat, starchy roots, tubers and so on prepared with the help of fire. Secondly, fire began to play an important part in making the implements of production. Thirdly, it "also afforded protection against cold, thanks to which it became possible for men to spread over the greater part of the world. Fourthly, fire afforded a defence against wild beasts.

For a long time hunting remained the most important source of the means of existence. It provided men with skins for clothes, bones with which to make implements, and meat which influenced the further development of the human organism and primarily the development of the brain.

As his physical and mental development progressed man became able to perfect his implements. A stick with a sharpened end served for hunting. Then he began to fix sharpened stones to the stick. Stone-tipped spears, stone axes, scrapers and knives, harpoons and fish-hooks appeared. These implements made possible the hunting of large animals and the development of fishing.

Stone remained the chief material for implement-making for a very long time. The epoch when stone implements predominated, which lasted for hundreds of thousands of years, is called the Stone Age. Only later did man learn to make implements of metal; at first of native metal, in the first instance copper (but copper, being a soft metal, was not widely used to make implements), later of bronze (an alloy of copper and tin), and finally of iron. Thus, after the Stone Age the Bronze Age followed, and after that the Iron Age.

The earliest traces of the smelting of copper in Hither Asia date from the fifth to fourth millennia B.C. In Southern and Central Europe the smelting of copper arose in approximately the third to second millennia B.C. The oldest traces of bronze in Mesopotamia date from the fourth millennium B.C.

The earliest traces of the smelting of iron have been discovered in Egypt and Mesopotamia; they date from before 2000 B.C. In Western Europe the Iron Age began about 1000 B.C.

The invention of the bow and arrow, with the appearance of which hunting began to provide more of the necessities of life, was an important landmark on the road to improving the implements of labour. The development of hunting led to the origin of primitive cattle-breeding. Hunters began to domesticate animals. The dog was domesticated earlier than other animals, and later goats, cattle, pigs and horses.

The origin of primitive agriculture was a further great stride in the development of society's productive forces. While gathering fruits and roots of plants, primitive men began to notice that grains which were dropped on the ground sprouted. Thousands of times this remained uncomprehended, but sooner or later the connection of these phenomena was established in primitive man's mind, and he began to cultivate plants. Thus agriculture arose.

For a long time it remained extremely primitive. The earth was broken up by hand, at first with a simple stick, then with a stick with a hooked end, a hoe. In the river valleys the seeds were scattered on the mud which had been brought down by the river floods. The domestication of animals made possible the use of cattle for draught purposes. Later, when men learned to smelt metal, and metal implements appeared, their application made agricultural labour more productive. Tillage acquired a firmer basis. Primitive tribes began to adopt a settled mode of life.

The Production Relations of Primitive Society. Natural Division of Labour

Production relations are determined by the character and condition of the productive forces. In primitive communal society the basis of production relations is communal property in the means of production. Communal property corresponds to the character of the productive forces in this period. The implements of labour in primitive society were so crude that they prevented primitive man from struggling with the forces of nature and wild animals singlehanded. "This primitive type collective or co-operative production", Marx wrote, "was, of course, the result of the weakness of the individual and not of the socialisation of the means of production." ("Rough drafts of Marx's Letter to Vera Zasulich", Marx and Engels, Works, Russian edition, vol. XXVII, p. 681.) Hence came the necessity for collective labour, for common property in land and other means of production as well as in the products of labour. Primitive men had no conception of private ownership of the means of production. Only certain implements of production, those which were also implements of defence against wild animals, were their private property, used by separate members of the commune.

Primitive man's labour created no overplus beyond what was essential for life, that is no surplus product. In such conditions there could be no classes or exploitation of man by man in primitive society. Social property extended only to small communities which were more or less isolated from one another. As Lenin put it, the social character of production here embraced only the members of one community.

The labour activity of men in primitive society was based on simple cooperation. Simple co-operation is the simultaneous application of more or less considerable labour force to perform work of the same kind. Even simple cooperation gave primitive men the possibility of performing tasks which would have been unthinkable for a single man (for example, in hunting large animals).

In the extremely low level of development of productive forces which then existed the meagre food was divided equally. There could be no other division, since the products of labour scarcely sufficed to satisfy the most essential needs: if one member of a primitive community received more than the share which was equal for all, then someone else would be doomed to starvation and death. Thus, equal distribution of the products of common labour was inevitable.

The custom of equal division was deeply rooted among primitive peoples. It has been observed by travellers living among tribes at a low level of social development. More than a hundred years ago the great naturalist Darwin made a voyage round the world. Describing the life of tribes on Tierra del Fuego he relates the following incident: The Tierra del Fuegans were given a piece of canvas; they tore the canvas into completely equal parts so that each one should have an equal share.

The basic economic law of primitive communal society consisted in the securing of the vitally necessary means of existence with the help of primitive implements of production, on the basis of communal. ownership of the means of production, by means of common labour and the equal distribution of the products.

As the implements of production are developed, division of labour arises. Its simplest form was the natural division of labour, i.e., division of labour dependent on sex and age, between men and women, between adults, children and old people.

The famous Russian traveller Miklukho-Maklai, who in the second half of the nineteenth century studied the life of the New Guinea Papuans, thus describes the collective process of labour in tillage. Several men stand in a row and thrust sharpened sticks deep into the soil and then, with one heave, raise a great lump of earth. The women follow after them crawling on their knees. In their hands they have sticks with which they break up the soil raised by the men. Children of various ages go behind the women, rubbing the soil out with their hands. After the soil has been crumbled the women, using little sticks, make depressions in the soil and bury seeds or plant roots in them. Labour here is collective in character and at the same time there exists division of labour by sex and age.

As productive forces developed, the natural division of labour gradually became stable and consolidated. The specialisation of men in the sphere of hunting, of women in the sphere of gathering vegetable food and housekeeping, led to a certain increase in the productivity of labour.

Clan Society. The Matriarchal Clan. The Patriarchal Clan

While the process of man's separation from the animal world was taking place people lived in herds or hordes as their immediate ancestors had done. Subsequently, in connection with the rise of primitive economy and the growth of population, the clan organisation of society gradually came into existence.

In those times only people in kinship relation with one another could unite for common labour. Primitive implements of production limited the possibility of collective labour within the narrow framework of a group of people linked by kinship and life together. Primitive man was usually hostile to anyone who was not tied to him by kinship and life together. The clan was a group at first consisting of a few dozen persons in all and linked by the bond of blood relationship. Every such group existed separately from other such groups. With the passage of time the clan's numbers increased, reaching several hundred persons. The habit of common existence developed the benefits of common labour more and more compelled men to stay together.

Morgan, a student of the life of primitive peoples described the clan structure which was still preserved among the Iroquois Indians in the middle of the last century. Hunting, fishing, the gathering of fruits of the earth and tillage were the basic occupations of the Iroquois: Labour was divided between men and women. Hunting and fishing, the making of weapons and implements of labour clearance of the soil, the building of huts and fortifications were the men's duties. The women carried out the basic field work gathered the harvest and stored it, cooked, made clothing and earthenware and gathered wild fruit, berries, nuts and tubers. The land was the clan's common property. The heavier work -cutting down trees, clearance of the land for arable, large hunting expeditions- was carried out in common. The Iroquois lived in so-called "great houses" accommodating twenty families and more. Such a group had common stores where their stock of provisions was kept. The woman at the head of the group divided the food among the separate families. In time of warfare the clan chose itself a war chief who had no material benefits; with the end of warfare his power ceased.

At the first stage of clan society^[1] woman had the leading position and this followed from the material conditions of men's life at that period. Hunting with the help of the most primitive implements, which was the men's business, could not completely secure the community's livelihood; its results were more or less fortuitous. In such conditions even the embryonic forms of agriculture and cattle-breeding (the domestication of animals) were of great economic significance. They were a more reliable and constant source of livelihood than hunting. But tillage of the soil and cattle-breeding, so long as they were carried on by primitive methods, were predominantly the occupation of the women who remained near the domestic hearth while the men were hunting. Throughout a lengthy period woman played the dominant part in the clan community. Kinship was reckoned in the maternal line. This was the maternal or matriarchal clan (matriarchy).

In the course of further development of the productive forces when nomadic breeding of cattle (pastoral economy) and a more developed agriculture (corngrowing), which were the men's concern, began to playa decisive part in the life of the primitive community, the matriarchal ‘clan was replaced by the paternal or patriarchal clan (patriarchy). The dominant position passed to the man. He put himself at the head of the clan community. Kinship began to be reckoned in the paternal line. The patriarchal clan existed in the last period of primitive communal society.

The absence of private property, of a class division of society and of the exploitation of man by man precluded the possibility of the State appearing.

In primitive society... there were yet no signs of the existence of the State. We find the predominance of custom, authority, respect, the power enjoyed by the elders of the tribe; we find this power sometimes accorded to women... but nowhere do we find a special category of people who are set apart to rule others and who, in the interests and with the purpose of rule, systematically and permanently command a certain apparatus of coercion, an apparatus of violence ..." (Lenin, "The State", a lecture delivered at the Sverdlov University, July 11, 1919, Selected Works, Twelve-volume English edition, vol. XI, p. 643.)

The Rise if Social Division if Labour and Exchange

With the advance to cattle-breeding and agriculture there arose the social division of labour, that is, the division of labour under which at first different communities, and then individual members of communities as well, began to engage in differing forms of productive activity. The separation of the pastoral tribes was the first great social division of labour.

The pastoral tribes engaged in breeding cattle achieved substantial successes. They learned to care for the cattle in such a way that they received more meat, wool and milk. This first big social division of labour already led to what was for that age a noticeable rise in the productivity of labour.

For a long time in the primitive community there was no basis for exchange; the whole product was obtained and consumed in common. Exchange first originated and developed between clan communities, and for a long time was fortuitous.

With the appearance of the first great social division of labour the situation changed. Among the pastoral tribes there appeared a certain surplus of cattle, milk products, meat, hides and wool. At the same time they experienced a need for products of the soil. In their turn the tribes engaged in agriculture achieved as time went on considerable successes in the output of agricultural produce. Tillers of the soil and breeders of cattle required products which they could not produce within their own economy. All this led to the development of exchange. Other forms of productive activity also developed side by side with tillage of the soil and cattle-breeding. Even in the period of stone implements men learned to make vessels from clay. Later, hand weaving appeared. Finally, with the discovery of iron smelting it became possible to make metal implements of labour (the wooden plough with iron share, the iron axe) and weapons (iron swords). It became ever more difficult to combine these forms of labour with tillage of the soil or pastoral labour. In the communities men engaged in handicraft gradually separated out. The handiwork of the craftsmen -blacksmiths, weapon-makers, potters and so on- began more and more frequently to be offered for exchange. The field of exchange considerably widened.

The Rise of Private Property and Classes. The Breakdown of Primitive Communal Society

Primitive communal society came to full flower under matriarchy. The patriarchal clan already concealed in itself the seeds of the breakdown of the primitive communal structure. The production relations of primitive communal society up to a certain period corresponded to the level of development of the productive forces. In the last stage of patriarchy, however, with the appearance of new, more improved implements of production (the Iron Age), the production relations of primitive society ceased to correspond to the new productive forces. The narrow framework of communal property and the equal distribution of the products of labour began to act as a brake on the development of new productive forces.

Formerly it had been possible to work a field only by the joint labour of dozens of men. In such conditions common labour was a necessity. With the development of the implements of production and the growth of the productivity of labour one family was now in a position to work a plot of land and secure for itself the essential means of existence. Thus the perfecting of implements of production made possible the advance to an individual economy, which was more productive in those historical conditions. Joint labour and a communal economy became less and less necessary. While common labour demanded common property in the means of production, individual labour demanded private property.

The origin of private property is inseparably linked with the social division of labour and the development of exchange. At first exchange was carried out by the heads of the clan communities-by the elders or patriarchs. They took part in barter deals as representatives of the communities. What they exchanged was the property of the community. But as social division of labour developed further, and exchanges expanded, the clan chiefs gradually began to treat communal property as their own.

At first the chief item of exchange was cattle. Pastoral communities had large flocks of sheep and goats and herds of cattle. The elders and patriarchs, who already held great power in society, became accustomed to dispose of these herds as their own property. Their right in fact to dispose of the herds was also recognised by the other members of the community. Thus first of all cattle, and then gradually all the implements of production, became private property. Common property in land was preserved longest of all.

The development of the productive forces and the appearance of private property led to the breakdown of the clan. The clan fell apart into large patriarchal families. Then, within the large patriarchal family, individual family units began to separate out, converting the implements of production, utensils and cattle into their own private property. The ties of clan became weakened with the growth of private property. The village community began to occupy the place of the clan community. The village, or neighbourhood, community as distinct from the clan consisted of people not necessarily bound by kinship. House, household goods, cattle, all were in the private ownership of individual families. On the other hand, woods, meadows, water and other natural amenities, and also for a definite period the ploughland, were communal property. At first the ploughland was periodically re-divided between the members of the community, but later it began to pass into private hands.

The rise of private property and exchange was the beginning of a great turning-point in the whole structure of primitive society. The development of private property and property distinctions led to the result that within the communities different interests arose among different groups. In these conditions the individuals who in the community held the offices of elders, military leaders and priests used their position to enrich themselves. They acquired a considerable share of the communal property. The bearers of these social offices became more and more distinct from the mass of members of the community, forming a clan aristocracy and more and more frequently passing on their power to their heirs. Aristocratic families became at the same time the richest families. The mass of the members of the community gradually fell into one form or another of economic dependence on the rich and aristocratic upper stratum.

With the growth of productive forces, man's labour applied to cattle-breeding and agriculture began to yield greater means of subsistence than were essential to maintain man's life. The possibility arose of appropriating surplus labour and the surplus product, that is, the surplus of labour and product above what was needed to maintain the worker himself and his family. In these conditions it became advantageous not to kill men taken prisoner, as had formerly been done, but to make them work, converting them into slaves. The slaves were seized by the more aristocratic and richer families. In its turn slave labour led to a further growth of inequality, since the households using slaves grew rich quickly. In conditions of the growth of property inequality the rich began to convert into slaves not only prisoners but also their own impoverished and indebted fellow-tribesmen. Thus the first class division of society arose, the division into slave-owners and slaves. There appeared the exploitation of man by man, that is, the uncompensated appropriation by some of the products of the labour of others.

The relations of production prevailing in primitive communal society broke down, perished and made way for new relations of production, suited to the character of new productive forces.

Common labour gave way to individual labour, social property to private property" clan society to class society. The whole history of mankind from this period onwards, right up to the building of socialist society, became the history of class struggle.

Bourgeois ideologists represent matters as if private property had existed for ever. History refutes such inventions and convincingly bears witness to the fact that all people passed through the stage of primitive communal society based on communal property, and knowing no private property.

Social Conceptions of the Primitive Epoch

Primitive man, weighed down by need and the difficulties of his struggle for existence, at first did not distinguish himself from his natural surroundings. For a long time he had no really coherent conceptions either of himself or of the natural conditions of his existence.

Only gradually did very limited and crude conceptions of himself and of the conditions surrounding his life begin to take shape in the mind of primitive man. There could not be the slightest trace of religious views which, as the defenders of religion assert were allegedly inherent in the human consciousness from the very outset. Only later did primitive man -not being in a position to understand and explain the phenomena of nature and social life around him- in his conceptions begin to people the world around him with supernatural beings, spirits and magical powers. He attributed spiritual existence to the forces of nature. This was the so-called animism (from the Latin anima-the spirit, soul). Primitive myths and primitive religion were born of these dim conceptions in men of their own nature and that around them. In them the primitive equality of the social structure was reproduced. Primitive man not knowing class division and property inequality in real life introduced no corresponding subordination in his imaginary world of spirits. He divided the spirits into his own and others" friendly and hostile. Division of the spirits into higher and lower appeared only when the primitive community was breaking down.

Primitive man felt himself an inseparable part of the clan. He could not imagine himself outside the clan. A reflection of this in ideology was the cult of the ancestral progenitors of the clan. It is characteristic that in the course of the development of language "I" and "my" arise much later than other words. The power of the clan over the individual was exceedingly strong. The breakdown of the primitive community was accompanied by the origin and spread of conceptions associated with private property. This was clearly reflected in myths and religious conceptions. When private property relations began to be established, and property inequality appeared, among many tribes there arose the custom of imposing a religious prohibition -"taboo"- on goods appropriated by the leaders or rich families (the inhabitants of the Pacific Islands used the word "taboo" for everything that was prohibited or taken out of common use). With the breakdown of the primitive community and the rise of private property, the power of religious prohibition began to be used to reinforce the new economic relations and property inequality which had come into existence.

Brief Conclusions

(1) Thanks to labour, men emerged from the animal world and human society arose. The distinctive feature of human labour is the making of implements of production.

(2) The productive forces of primitive society were on an exceedingly low level, the implements of production were extremely primitive. This necessitated collective labour, social property in the means of production and equal distribution. In the primitive community there was no property inequality or private property in the means of production; there were no classes or exploitation of man by man. Social ownership of the means of production was confined within a narrow framework; it was the property of small communities more or less isolated from one another.

(3) "The basic economic law of the primitive community consists in the securing of man's vitally necessary means of subsistence with the help of primitive implements of production, on the basis of communal property in the means of production, by means of common labour and the equal distribution of the products.

(4) Working together, men for a long time performed uniform labour. The gradual improvement of implements of production promoted the rise of a natural division of labour, depending on sex and age. Further perfecting of the implements of production and the mode of obtaining the means of life, the development of cattle-breeding and agriculture led to the appearance of the social division of labour and exchange, of private property and property inequality, to the division of society into classes and to the exploitation of man by man. Thus the growing forces of production entered into contradiction with the relations of production, as a result of which primitive communal society gave way to another type of relations of production-the slave-owning system.

The Slave-Owning Mode of Production

Rise of the Slave-Owning System

Slavery is the first and crudest form of exploitation in history. In the past it existed among almost all peoples.

The transition from the primitive community to the slave-owning system took place for the first time in history in the countries of the ancient East. The slave-owning mode of production predominated in Mesopotamia (Sumer, Babylonia, Assyria and others), Egypt, India and China by the fourth millennium B.C. in some cases, and not later than the second millennium B.C. in others. In the first millennium B.C. the slave-owning mode of production was dominant in Transcaucasia (Urartu); from the eighth or seventh centuries B.C. to the fifth or sixth centuries A.D. a powerful slave-owning State existed in Khorezm. The culture achieved in the slave-owning countries of the ancient East greatly influenced the development of the peoples of European countries.

In Greece the slave-owning mode of production reached its height in the fifth to fourth centuries B.C. Subsequently slavery developed in the States of Asia Minor, Macedonia (from the fourth to the first centuries B.C.). The slave-owning system reached the highest stage of its development in Rome in the period from the second century B.C. to the second century A.D.

At first slavery bore a patriarchal or domestic character. There were comparatively few slaves. Slave labour was not yet the basis of production but played a subsidiary part in the economy. The aim of the economy remained the satisfaction of the demands of the large patriarchal family which had hardly any recourse to exchange. The master's power over his slaves was already unlimited but the sphere of application of slave labour was limited.

The further growth of productive forces, and the development of the social division of labour and of exchange, formed the basis of society's transition to the slave-owning system.

The advance from stone to metal implements of labour led to a considerable extension of the limits of human labour. The invention of the blacksmith's bellows enabled man to make iron implements of labour of a durability not seen before. It became possible with the help of the iron axe to clear the land of forests and undergrowth for ploughing. The wooden plough with iron share made it possible to work comparatively large plots of land. Primitive Hunting economy gave place to agriculture and cattle-breeding. Handicrafts appeared.

In agriculture, which remained the main branch of production, methods of tillage and cattle-breeding improved. New branches of agriculture arose; vine and flax growing, the growing of oil crops, and so on. The rich families' herds increased. More and more working hands were needed to look after the cattle.

Weaving, metal-working, the art of pottery and other crafts gradually improved. Formerly a craft had been a subsidiary occupation of the husbandman or herdsman. Now for many people it became an independent occupation. The separation of handicraft from agriculture took place. This was the second large-scale social division of labour.

With the division of production into two large basic branches, agriculture and handicraft, there arises production directly for exchange though still in an undeveloped form. The growth in productivity of labour led to an increase in the amount of the surplus product which, with private property in the means of production, afforded the opportunity for the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a minority of society, and on this basis for the subordination of the working majority to the exploiting minority, for the conversion of labourers into slaves.

Under conditions of slavery the economy was basically a natural one. A natural economy is one in which the products of labour are not exchanged but consumed within the economy where they were produced. At the same time, however, the development of exchange took place. At first craftsmen made their products to order and then for sale on the market. At the same time, many of them continued for long to have small plots of land and to cultivate them to satisfy their needs. In the main the peasants carried on a natural economy, but were compelled to sell a certain part of their produce on the market in order to be able to buy the craftsman's wares and to pay money taxes. Thus gradually part of the products of the craftsman's and peasant's labour became commodities.

A commodity is a product prepared not for direct consumption but for exchange, for sale on the market. The production of objects for exchange is the characteristic feature of commodity economy. Thus the separation of handicraft from agriculture, the rise of handicraft as an independent occupation, signified the birth of commodity production.

So long as exchange bore a fortuitous character one product of labour was directly exchanged for another. As exchange expanded and became a regular phenomenon, a commodity for which any other commodity would be willingly given gradually emerged. Thus money arose. Money is a universal commodity by which all other commodities are evaluated and which serves as an intermediary in exchange.

The development of handicraft and exchange led to the formation of towns. Towns arose in remote antiquity, at the dawn of the slave-owning mode of production. At first the town was little to be distinguished from the village, but gradually handicraft and trade concentrated in towns. The towns became more and more distinct from villages by the type of occupation of the inhabitants and by their way of life.

Thus began the separation of town from country and the rise of the antithesis between them.

As the quantity of exchangeable commodities increased, the territorial limits of exchange also expanded. Merchants arose who in pursuit of gain purchased commodities from the producers, carried the commodities to markets sometimes quite far from the place of production, and sold them to the consumers.

The expansion of production and exchange considerably intensified inequality of property. Money, working cattle, implements of production and seeds accumulated in the hands of the rich. The poor were compelled more and more frequently to turn to them for loans, mainly in kind, but sometimes also in money. The rich lent them implements of production, seeds and money, making bondsmen of their debtors and, when the latter did not pay their debts, made them slaves and took their land. Thus usury arose. It brought a further growth of riches to some, debt bondage to others.

The land also began to be converted into private property. It began to be sold and mortgaged. If a debtor could not pay the usurer, he had to abandon his land and sell himself and his children into slavery. Sometimes, on one pretext or another, the large landowners seized part of the meadows and pastures from the peasant village communes.

Thus proceeded the concentration of landed property, wealth in money and masses of slaves in the hands of the rich slave-owners. The small peasant economy more and more broke down, while the slave-owning economy grew strong and expanded, spreading to all branches of production.

"The continued increase of production and with it the increased productivity of labour enhanced the value of human labour-power. Slavery, which had been a nascent and sporadic factor in the preceding stage, now became an essential part of the social system. The slaves ceased to be simply assistants, but were now driven in scores to work in the fields and workshops." (Engels, "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State"; Marx and Engels, Selected Works, English edition, vol. II, p. 283.)

Slave labour became the basis of society's existence. Society split into two basically opposed classes, slaves and slave-owners.

Thus the slave-owning mode of production was established.

Under the slave-owning system the population was divided into free men and slaves. The free had all civil, property and political rights (except women, who were essentially in the position of slaves). The slaves were deprived of all these rights and had no right of admission to the ranks of the free. In their turn the free were divided into a class of large landowners, who were also large-scale slave-owners, and a class of small producers (peasants, craftsmen), the well-to-do strata of which also made use of slave labour and were slave-owners. The priests, who played a great part in the period of slavery, were attached, because of their status, to the class of large landowners and slave-owners.

Apart from the class contradiction between slaves and slave-owners there also existed a class contradiction between the large landowners and the peasants. But with the development of the slave-owning system slave labour, as the cheapest, embraced the larger part of the branches of production and became the main basis of production; and the contradiction between slaves and slave-owners became the basic contradiction of society.

Society's split into classes evoked the necessity for the State. With the growth of social division of labour and the development of exchange, separate clans and tribes came ever closer together and combined into unions. The character of clan institutions was changed. The organs of the clan system more and more lost their popular character. They were converted into organs of dominance over the people, into organs of plunder and oppression of their own and of neighbouring tribes. The elders and military leaders of the clans and tribes became princes and kings. Formerly they had authority as people elected by the clan or union of clans. Now they began to use their power to defend the interests of the propertied upper layer, to keep a grip on their fellow clansmen falling into poverty, and to hold down the slaves. Armed retinues, courts and punitive organs served this end.

Thus State power arose.

"Only when the first form of the division of society into classes appeared, only when slavery appeared, when a certain class of people, by concentrating on the crudest forms of agricultural labour, could produce a certain surplus, when this surplus was not absolutely essential for the most wretched existence of the slave and passed into the hands of the slave-owner when in this way the existence of this class of slave-owners took firm root -and in order that it might take firm root- it was essential that the state should appear." (Lenin, "The State", Selected Works, English edition, vol. XI, p. 647; and in "Lenin and Stalin on the State", Little Lenin Library, vol. XXIII, p. 15.)

The State arose in order to hold in check the exploited majority in the interests of the exploiting minority.

The slave-owning State played a great part in the development and stabilisation of the production relations of slave-owning society. The slave-owning State held the slave masses in subjection. It grew into a widely ramified machinery for domination over and oppression of the masses of the people. The democracy in ancient Greece and Rome which bourgeois history textbooks extol was essentially a slave-owning democracy.

Production Relations of the Slave-Owning System. Position of Slaves

The production relations of slave-owning society were based on the fact that not only the means of production but also the workers in production, the slaves, were the slave-owners' property. The slave was considered a chattel.

He was at the complete and utter disposal of his owner. Slaves were not only exploited, they were bought and sold like cattle and were even killed with impunity. While in the period of patriarchal slavery the slave had been regarded as a member of the family, in the conditions of the slave-owning mode of production he was not considered even a man.

"The slave did not sell his labour-power to the slave-owner, any more than the ox sells its services to the peasant. The slave, together with his labour-power, has been sold once and for all to his owner." (Marx, "Wage, Labour and Capital", Selected Works, English edition, vol. I, p. 77.)

Slave labour had an openly compulsory character. Slaves were made to work by means of the crudest physical force. They were driven to work with whips and were subjected to harsh punishments for the least negligence. Slaves were branded so that they could be more easily taken if they fled. Many of them wore permanent iron collars which bore their owner's name.

The slave-owner acquired the whole product of slave labour. He gave the slaves only the smallest possible quantity of the means of subsistence-sufficient to prevent them dying of hunger and to enable them to go on working for him. The slave-owner took not only the surplus product but also a considerable part of the necessary product of the slaves' labour.

The development of the slave-owning mode of production was accompanied by an increase in the demand for slaves. In a number of countries slaves as a rule had no family. The rapacious exploitation of slaves led to their rapid physical exhaustion. It was continually necessary to add to the numbers of slaves. War was an important source of obtaining new bondmen. The slave-owning States of the ancient East carried on constant wars with a view to conquering other peoples. The history of ancient Greece is full of wars between separate city States, between metropolis and colonies, between Greek and Oriental States. Rome carried on uninterrupted wars; at her height she conquered the greater part of the lands known at that time. Not only the warriors who had been taken prisoner, but also a considerable part of the population of the conquered lands, were enslaved.

Provinces and colonies served as another source for adding to the numbers of slaves. They supplied the slave-owners with "living commodities" as well as with every other commodity. The slave trade was one of the most profitable and flourishing branches of economic activity. Special centres of the slave trade arose: fairs were arranged to which came traders and buyers from distant countries.

The slave-owning mode of production opened broader opportunities for the growth of productive forces than the primitive community. The concentration of a large number of slaves in the hands of the slave-owning State and of individual slave-owners made possible the use of simple co-operation of labour on a large scale: This is attested by the gigantic construction works which were executed in antiquity by the peoples of China, India, Egypt, Italy, Greece, Transcaucasia, Central Asia and others: irrigation systems, roads, bridges, military fortifications, cultural monuments.

Social division of labour developed and expressed itself in the specialisation of agricultural and handicraft production, thus creating conditions for raising the productivity of labour.

In Greece slave labour was widely applied in handicraft. Large workshops arose, ergasteria, in which there worked several dozen slaves at a time. Slave labour was also used in building, in mining iron ore, silver and gold. In Rome slave labour was widespread in agriculture. The Roman aristocracy owned broad estates, latifundia, where hundreds and thousands of slaves worked.

These latifundia were created by the seizure of peasants' lands and also of unoccupied State lands.

The slave-owning latifundia, in consequence of the cheapness of slave labour and the utilisation of the advantages of simple co-operation, were able to produce grain and other agricultural produce at lower cost than the small farms of the free peasants. The small peasantry was squeezed out, fell into slavery or swelled the ranks of the impoverished sections of the town population, the lumpen-proletariat.

The contradiction between town and country, which had already arisen during the transition from the primitive communal system to the slave-owning system, grew deeper and deeper.

The towns became the centres where the slave-owning nobility, the merchants, the usurers, the officials of the slave-owning State, all of whom exploited the broad masses of the peasant population, were concentrated.

On the basis of slave labour the ancient world achieved considerable economic and cultural development. But the slave-owning system could not create the conditions for any further serious technical progress. Slave labour was distinguished by extremely low productivity. The slave was not at all interested in the results of his labour. The slaves hated their labour under the yoke. Frequently they expressed their protest and indignation by spoiling the implements of labour. Therefore the slaves were given only the crudest implements, which it was difficult to spoil.

The technique of production founded on slavery remained at an exceedingly low level. Despite a certain development of the natural and exact sciences, they were hardly applied at all in production. Certain technical inventions were used only for war purposes and in building. Through the several centuries of its dominance the slave-owning mode of production went no further than the application of manual implements borrowed from the small agriculturalist and craftsman, and no further than simple labour co-operation. The basic motive force remained the physical strength of men and cattle.

The wide application of slave labour allowed the slave owners to free themselves from all physical labour and to transfer it completely to the slaves.

The slave-owners treated physical labour with scorn, considered it an occupation unworthy of a free man and led a parasitic form of life. With the development of slavery greater and greater numbers of the free population broke away from any productive activity. Only a certain part of the slave-owning upper class and of the other free population engaged in public affairs, the sciences and the arts, which attained a considerable level of development.

The slave-owning system gave birth to the antithesis between mental and physical labour, to the gap between them. The exploitation of slaves by slave-owners is the main feature of the production relations of slave-owning society.

At the same time the slave-owning mode of production had its peculiarities in various countries.

In the countries of the ancient East natural economy predominated to a still greater degree than in the ancient world' of Europe. Here slave labour was widely applied in the State economies and those of the large slave-owners and temples. Domestic slavery was greatly developed. Huge- masses of members of peasant communities were exploited, as well as the slaves, in the agriculture of China, India, Babylonia and Egypt. Here the system of enslavement for debt acquired great importance. The member of the peasant community who did not pay his debt to the usurer, or his rent to the landowner, was compelled to work on their land for a definite time as a bond-slave.

In the slave-owning countries of the ancient East communal and State forms of ownership of land were widespread. The existence of these forms of property was linked with the system of cultivation based on irrigation. Irrigated agriculture in the river valleys of the East demanded enormous labour expenditure for the construction of dams, canals and reservoirs and the draining of marshes. All this evoked the necessity of centralising the construction and use of the irrigation systems over large territories. "Artificial irrigation is here the first condition of agriculture and this is a matter either for the communes, the provinces or the central government." (Engels, "Letter to K. Marx", June 6, 1843, Marx and Engels, Selected Correspondence, 1846-95, 1934, English edition, p.67.) With the development of slavery the communal lands were concentrated in the hands of the State. The king with unlimited power became the supreme owner of the land.

The slave-owners' State, concentrating in its hands the ownership of land, imposed huge taxes on the peasants, compelled them to carry out different types of duties and thereby put the peasants in a condition of servile dependence. The peasants remained members of the rural community. But with the concentration of the land in the hands of the slave-owning State, the rural community was a firm base for oriental despotism, i.e., the unlimited autocratic power of a despotic monarch. The priestly aristocracy played an important part in the slave-owning States of the East. The great estates belonging to the temples were maintained on the basis of slave labour.

Under the slave-owning system the slave-owners in all countries expended unproductively by far the greater part of slave labour and its products: on the satisfaction of personal fancies, the accumulation of, treasure, the construction of military fortifications and armies, the erection and maintenance of luxurious palaces and temples. In particular the Egyptian pyramids, which have been preserved up to the present day, testify to the unproductive expenditure of huge masses of labour. Only an insignificant part of slave labour and its product was expended on the further expansion of production, which therefore developed exceedingly slowly. Ruinous wars led to the destruction of productive forces, the extermination of huge numbers of the peaceful population and the ruin of the culture of entire States.

The basic economic law of the slave-owning system consists in the production of surplus product to satisfy the demands of the slave-owners, by means of the rapacious exploitation of the slaves, on the basis of full ownership by the slave-owners of the means of production and of the slaves themselves, by the ruining and enslaving of peasants and craftsmen, and also by conquering and enslaving the peoples of other countries.

Further Development of Exchange. Merchants' and Usurers' Capital

The slave-owning economy in the main preserved its natural character. In it production was mainly for the direct consumption of the slave-owner, of his numerous hangers-on and retainers, not with a view to exchange. All the same, exchange gradually began to play a more noticeable part, particularly in the period of the greatest development of the slave-owning system. In a number of branches of production a certain part of the products of labour, was regularly sold on the market-that is, was converted into commodities.

With the expansion of exchange the part played by money increased. Usually there arose as money that commodity which was the most frequently exchanged. Among many peoples, particularly among cattle-breeders, cattle first served as money. Among others salt, grain or furs became money.

Gradually all other forms of money were squeezed out by metallic currency.

Metallic currency first appeared in the countries of the ancient East. Money in the form of bronze, silver and gold bars was already circulating here in the third to second millennia B.C., and in the form of coins from the seventh century B.C. In Greece in the eighth century B.C., iron money was current. In Rome even in the fifth to fourth centuries B.C. only copper money was used. Later iron and copper money were replaced by silver and gold.

The Greek city States carried on quite far-flung trade, including trade with the Greek colonies scattered along the shores of the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. The colonies regularly supplied the basic labour force-slaves-and certain forms of raw material and foodstuffs: hides, wool, cattle, grain and fish.

In Rome, as well as in Greece, apart from trade in slaves and other commodities, trade in luxury objects played a great part. These commodities were supplied from the East mainly in the shape of all sorts of tribute taken from conquered peoples. Trade was connected with plunder, piracy and the enslavement of colonies.

Under the slave-owning system money had already become not only a means of buying and selling commodities; it had also come to serve as a means for the appropriation of the labour of others by means of trade and usury. Money expended with a view to appropriating surplus labour and its product becomes capital, that is, a means of exploitation. Merchants' and usurers' capital were historically the first forms of capital. Merchants' capital is capital engaged in the sphere of commodity exchange. Merchants buying up and reselling commodities appropriated a considerable part of the surplus product created by the slaves, small peasants and craftsmen. Usurers' capital is capital applied in the form of loans of money, means of production or objects of consumption for the appropriation of the peasants' and craftsmen's surplus labour by means of high interest rates. The usurers also granted money loans to the slave-owning aristocracy, thus sharing in the surplus product that the latter received.

Sharpening of the Contradictions of the Slave-Owning Mode of Production

Slavery was an essential stage on mankind's road of development.

"It was slavery that first made possible the division of labour between agriculture and industry on a considerable scale, and along with this, the flower of the ancient world, Hellenism. Without slavery, no Greek state, no Greek art and science; without slavery, no Roman Empire. But without Hellenism and the Roman Empire as a basis, also no modern Europe." (Engels, Anti-Dühring, 1934, English edition, p. 203.)

On the bones of generations of slaves there arose a culture which was the basis for mankind's further development. Many branches of knowledge-mathematics, astronomy, mechanics, architecture-achieved considerable development in the ancient world. The artistic objects which have corrie down to us from antiquity, the works of literature, sculpture and architecture have entered for ever into the treasury of human culture.

The slave-owning system, however, concealed in itself insuperable contradictions which led to its destruction. The slave-owning form of exploitation constantly destroyed the basic productive force of this society, the slaves. The struggle of the slaves against harsh forms of exploitation was more and more frequently expressed in armed risings. An uninterrupted influx of slaves and their cheapness were a condition of existence for slave-owning economy. Slaves were mainly supplied by war. The mass of free small producers, the peasants and craftsmen, formed the basis of the military power of slave-owning society. They served in the armed forces and bore On their shoulders the main burden of taxes essential for conducting war. But as a result of the competition of large-scale production based on cheap slave labour, and under the weight of burdens beyond their strength, the peasants and craftsmen were ruined. The insoluble contradiction between large latifundia and peasant farms continued to intensify.

The squeezing out of the free peasantry subverted not only the economic, but also the military and political might of the slave-owning States, and particularly Rome. Victories were replaced by defeats. Wars of conquest were replaced by defensive ones. The source of the uninterrupted supply of cheap slaves dried up. The negative aspects of slave labour appeared more and more strongly. A general fall in production took place in the last two centuries of the existence of the Roman Empire. Trade fell http confusion, formerly rich lands became poor, the population began to decline, crafts perished and towns began to be deserted.

The productive relations based on slave labour had turned into fetters for the expanded productive forces of society. The labour of slaves, completely uninterested in the results of production, had outlived itself. There had arisen the historical necessity for the replacement of slave-owning production relations by other production relations, which would change the situation in society of the main productive force, the labouring masses. The law of the obligatory correspondence between production relations and the character of the productive forces demanded the replacement of slaves by workers who were to some extent interested in the results of their labour.

As large-scale slave-owning production became economically unprofitable the slave-owners began to set free considerable groups of slaves whose labour no longer brought them any income. Large estates were broken into small plots. These plots were handed over on definite conditions, either to former slaves who had been set free, or to formerly free citizens who were now obliged to bear a number of duties for the benefit of the landowner. The new tillers of the soil were bound to the plots of land, and could be sold together with them. But they were no longer slaves.

This was a new social stratum of small-scale producers, occupying an intermediary position between free and slave, and having a certain interest in the results of their own labour. They were called coloni, and were the predecessors of the medieval serfs.

Thus the elements of a new, feudal mode of production were born in the womb of slave-owning society.

Class Struggle of the Exploited against the Exploiters. Slave Revolts. Downfall of the Slave-Owning System

The history of slave-owning societies in the countries of the ancient East, in Greece and Rome shows that with the development of the slave-owning economy the class struggle of the enslaved masses against their oppressors was intensified. Slave revolts were linked with the struggle of the exploited small peasants against the slave-owning upper class, the large landowners.

The contradiction between small producers and large well-born landowners gave birth already at an early stage in the development of slave-owning society to a democratic movement among the free men which set itself the aim of destroying debt bondage, the redivision of lands, the abolition of the prerogatives of the landed aristocracy and the transfer of power to the demos (that is, to the people).

Of the numerous slave risings in the Roman Empire that led by Spartacus (74-71 B.C.) was particularly remarkable. The most vivid page in the history of the slaves' struggle against the slave-owners is linked with his name.

Slave risings flared up more than once throughout many centuries. Impoverished peasants joined the slaves. These risings achieved particular force in the second to first centuries B.C. and in the third to fifth centuries A.D. The slave-owners suppressed the risings with the fiercest measures.

The risings of the exploited masses, primarily of the slaves, radically undermined the former might of Rome. Blows from inside began more and more to be interconnected with blows from outside. The inhabitants of neighbouring lands who had been enslaved revolted in the fields of Italy, while at the same time their fellow-tribesmen who had remained free stormed the frontiers of the Empire, broke into its territories and destroyed Roman supremacy. These circumstances hastened the downfall of the slave-owning system in Rome.

The slave-owning mode of production achieved its greatest development in the Roman Empire. The fall of the Roman Empire was also the fall of the slave-owning system as a whole. The feudal system took the place of the slave-owning system.

Economic Views of the Slave-Owning Period

The economic views of the slave-owning period were reflected in many literary works left by poets, philosophers, historians, statesmen and public figures. In the view of these men, a slave was considered not a person but a chattel in his master's hands. Slave labour was scorned. And since labour became predominantly the lot of slaves, there followed scorn for labour in general, as activity unworthy of a free person.

The code of laws of the Babylonian king Hammurabi (eighteenth century B.C.) provides evidence of the economic views of slave-owning Babylonia. The code defends the property and personal rights of the rich and noble slave-owners and landowners. According to the code whoever concealed a runaway slave was punished with death. A peasant who did not pay his debt to the moneylender, or his rent to the landowner, had to give his wife, son or daughter into bond slavery until he had worked off the debt. In the ancient Indian collection "The Code of Manu" social, religious and moral injunctions sanctifying slavery are expounded. According to these laws a slave had no property. The law punished with death anyone who "gave shelter to a runaway slave".

The views of the ruling classes were reflected in religion. Thus, in India Buddhism became widespread beginning from the sixth century B.C. Proclaiming acceptance of reality, non-resistance to violence and humility before the ruling classes, Buddhism was a religion of use to the slave-owning aristocracy which they used to strengthen their domination.

Even the outstanding thinkers of antiquity could not imagine the existence of society without slavery. .For example, the Greek philosopher Plato (fifth to fourth centuries B.C.) wrote the first Utopia in the history of mankind about an ideal social system. But even in his ideal State he retained slaves. The labour of slaves, tillers of the soil and artisans, had to supply the means of existence for the higher class of rulers and warriors.

In the eyes of the greatest thinker of antiquity, Aristotle" (fourth century B.C.), slavery was also an eternal and inevitable necessity for society. Aristotle greatly influenced the development of thought in the ancient world and in the middle ages. Though he rose high above the level of contemporary society in his scientific conjectures and anticipations, on the question of slavery Aristotle remained a prisoner of the conceptions of his age. His views on slavery amounted to the following: for the helmsman the rudder is an inanimate instrument, but the slave is an animate instrument. If implements performed their work to order, if, for example, shuttles wove of themselves, there would be no need for slaves. But since in economic life there existed many occupations demanding simple unskilled labour, Nature had made wise provision, by creating slaves. In Aristotle's opinion Nature itself had ordained that some men should be slaves and that others should rule them. Slave labour supplied free men with leisure for perfecting themselves. Hence, he concluded, the whole art of the master consisted in knowing how to use his slaves.

Aristotle gave to the science of management of resources the name "oikonomia". In his lifetime exchange, trade and usury were quite widely developed, but the economy basically preserved its natural character, producing for consumption within its own framework. Aristotle considered natural the acquisition of benefits only by means of agriculture and handicrafts; he was a partisan of natural economy. However, Aristotle also understood the nature of exchange.

He found exchange with a view to consumption completely natural "because usually people have more of certain objects and fewer of others than is essential for the satisfaction of their needs". He understood the necessity for money for exchange.

At the same time Aristotle considered that trade with a view to profit, and usury, were reprehensible occupations. He pointed out that these occupations, as distinct from agriculture and handicraft, knew no limits to the acquisition of wealth.

The ancient Greeks already had a certain conception of the division of labour and the part it played in the life of society. Thus Plato envisaged division of labour as the basic principle of the State system in his ideal republic.

The economic conceptions of the Romans also reflected the relations of the prevailing slave-owning mode of production.

Roman writers and public men, expressing the ideology of the slave-owners, counted slaves as simple implements of production; It is to the Roman encyclopaedist Varro (first century B.C.) who composed, among a number of other books, a sort of handbook for slave-owners on the conduct of agriculture, that we owe the well-known division of implements into (1) the dumb (carts); (2) those which utter inarticulate sounds (cattle); and (3) those gifted with speech (slaves). In giving this definition he was expressing views generally accepted among slave-owners.

The minds of Rome, as well as of Greece, were concerned with the art of managing slaves.

Plutarch (first to second century A.D.), the historian of the Roman era, tells of the "model" slave-owner Cato and how he bought slaves young "that is at the age when, like puppies and foals, they can be readily subjected to education and training". Later he says that "among the slaves he constantly invented methods of maintaining quarrels and disputes, for he considered agreement among them dangerous and feared it".

In ancient Rome, especially in the later period, breakdown and decay of the economy founded on the compulsory labour of slaves grew worse and worse. The Roman writer Columella (first century A.D.) complained: "The slaves do the greatest harm to the fields. They lend the oxen 'on the side'. They also pasture the other stock badly. They plough the land poorly." His contemporary Pliny the Elder said that "the latifundia have destroyed Italy and its provinces".

Like the Greeks, the Romans considered normal the natural form of economy, in which the master exchanges only his surpluses. Sometimes in the literature of that time high trading profits and usurious rates of interest were condemned. In reality, however, the merchants and usurers accumulated enormous fortunes.

In the last period of the existence of the slave-owning system voices could be already heard condemning slavery and proclaiming the natural equality of men. These views, understandably, met with no sympathy among the ruling class of slave-owners. As for the slaves, they were so crushed by their servitude, so downtrodden and ignorant, that they were unable to work out an ideology of their own more progressive than the obsolete ideas of the slave-owning class. This is one of the causes of the spontaneity and unorganised character of the slave revolts.

One of the sharp contradictions inherent in the slave-owning system was the struggle between large and small land-holders. The impoverished peasantry put forward the demand for the limitation of the landed property of the great slave-owners and the re-allocation of lands.

This was the essence of the agrarian reform for which the brothers Gracchi struggled (second century B.C.).

In the period of the decline of the Roman Empire when an absolute majority of the population of town and country, both slaves and free, saw no way out of the situation, there developed a severe crisis in the ideology of slave-owning Rome.

A new religious ideology, Christianity, emerged on the basis of the class contradictions of the dying Empire. The Christianity of that period expressed the protest of slaves, of the ruined masses of the peasantry and craftsmen, and of declassed elements, against slavery and oppression. On the other hand, Christianity reflected the mood of broad strata of the ruling classes, who sensed the utter hopelessness of their situation. That is why, in the Christianity of the decline of the Roman Empire, by the side of grim warnings to the rich and powerful, there are also calls to humility and to seek salvation in life beyond the grave.

In the following centuries Christianity finally became the religion of the ruling classes, a spiritual weapon for the defence and justification of the exploitation and oppression of the labouring masses.

Brief Conclusions

(1) The slave-owning mode of production arose thanks to the growth of the productive forces of society, the appearance of a surplus product, the origin of private property in the means of production, including land, and the appropriation of the surplus product by the owners of the means of production.

Slavery is the first and crudest form of the exploitation of man by man. The slave was the full and unlimited property of his master. The slave-owner, at his will, commanded not only the slave's labour, but also his life.

(2) The State first took shape with the rise or the slave-owning system. It arose, as a result of the splitting of society into irreconcilably hostile classes, as the machine for suppressing the exploited majority of society by the exploiting minority.

(3) Slave-owning economy was in the main of a natural character. The ancient world broke down into numerous separate economic units satisfying their requirements by their own production. Trade was mainly in slaves and luxury articles. The development of exchange gave rise to metallic currency.

(4) The basic economic law of the slave-owning mode of production consists in the production of surplus product, to satisfy the demands of the slave-owners, by the rapacious exploitation of the slaves on the basis of full ownership by the slave-owners of the means of production and the slaves themselves, by the ruining and enslaving of peasants and craftsmen, and also by conquering and enslaving the peoples of other countries.

(5) A comparatively high culture (art, philosophy, the sciences) arose on the basis of slavery. Its fruits were enjoyed by the small upper class of slave-owning society. The social consciousness of the ancient world corresponded to the mode of production based on slavery. The ruling classes and their ideologists did not consider the slave a man. Physical labour, being the lot of the slaves, was considered a shameful occupation, unworthy of a free man.

(6) The slave-owning mode of production caused an increase in the productive forces of society compared with the primitive communal system.

But later the labour of the slaves, who were completely without interest in the results of production, outlived its usefulness. The spread of slave labour and the lack of any legal protection whatsoever for the slaves resulted in the destruction of the basic productive force of society-the labour force-and the ruin of the small free producers-the peasants and artisans. This 'predetermined the inevitable downfall of the slave-owning system.

(7) Slave revolts shook the slave-owning system and hastened its destruction. The feudal mode of production came to replace the slave-owning mode of production; instead of the slave-owning form of exploitation there arose the feudal form of exploitation, which gave some scope for the further, development of the productive forces of society.

The Feudal Mode of Production

Rise of Feudalism

The feudal system existed, with particular features of one sort or another, in almost all countries.

The era of feudalism covers a long period. In China the feudal system existed for more than two thousand years. In Western Europe feudalism covers a number of centuries, from the time of the fall of the Roman Empire (fifth century) to the bourgeois revolution in England (seventeenth century) and in France (eighteenth century); in Russia from the ninth century to the peasant reform of 1861; in Transcaucasia from the fourth century to the seventies of the nineteenth century; among the peoples of Central Asia from the seventh or eighth centuries right up to the victory of the proletarian revolution in Russia.

In Western Europe feudalism arose out of the breakdown of Roman slave-owning society, on the one hand, and the decay of the tribal system of the conquering tribes, on the other; it was established as a result of the interaction of these two processes.

Elements of feudalism, as has already been said, had originated in the womb of slave-owning society in the form of the system of coloni. The coloni were obliged to work the land of their master, the large landowner, to make him a definite money payment or hand over a considerable share of the harvest, and to fulfil various types of duty. Nevertheless, the coloni had more interest in their labour than the slaves, since they had their own holdings.

Thus there arose new productive relations which achieved full development in the feudal period.

Tribes of Germans, Gauls, Slavs and other peoples living in different parts of Europe destroyed the Roman Empire. The slave-owners' power was overthrown and slavery fell. The large latifundia and handicraft workshops based on slave labour broke down. The population of the former Roman Empire consisted of large landowners (former slave-owners, who had adopted the system of coloni), freed slaves, coloni, small peasants and artisans.

The conquering tribes, at the time of the subjugation of Rome, had a communal system which was in decline. The village community, which the Germans called the mark, played a great part in the social life of these tribes.

The land, except for the large landed possessions of the clan nobility, was common property. The forests, heaths, pastures and ponds were used in common. Fields and meadows were re-divided every few years among the members of the community. Gradually, however, the land around the homestead, and later also the ploughland, began to be inherited by separate families. The distribution of land, the investigation of matters concerning the community, the settlement of disputes between its members, were dealt with by the community meeting and by the elders and judges elected by it. At the head of the conquering tribes stood their military leaders who, together with their retinues, held considerable tracts of land.

The tribes which conquered the Roman Empire acquired a great part of its State lands and some part of the lands of the large proprietors. Forests, meadows and pastures remained in common use, but the ploughland was divided into separate holdings. Later the divided lands became the private property of the peasants. Thus a broad stratum of independent small peasantry was formed.

The peasants, however, were unable to preserve their independence for long. Property inequality between different members of the village community inevitably developed on the basis of private ownership of land and 'other means of production. Well-to-do and poor families appeared among the peasants. With the growth of property inequality members of the community who had grown rich began to acquire power over the community. The land was more and more concentrated in the hands of the rich families, the clan aristocracy and military leaders. The peasants fell into personal dependence on the large landowners.

The conquest of the Roman Empire hastened the break-up of the clan system among the conquering tribes.

In order to maintain and strengthen their power over the dependent peasants the large landowners had to reinforce the organs of State power.

Military leaders, relying on the clan aristocracy and the members of their retinues, began to concentrate power in their hands and became kings-monarchical rulers.

A number of new States headed by kings were formed on the ruins of the Roman Empire. The kings generously handed out the land they had seized for the lifetime and afterwards for the hereditary possession of their attendants, who had to bear military service in return. The Church, which served as an important support for the royal power, received much land. The land was worked by peasants who now had to fulfil a number of duties for their new masters. Huge landholdings passed into the hands of members of the royal retinue and servants, the clerical authorities and the monasteries.

The lands distributed on such conditions were called feods (fiefs). Hence comes the name of the new social structure, feudalism.

The gradual conversion of peasant land into the property of feudal lords and the enserfment of the peasant masses (the process of feudalisation) took place in Europe in the course of a number of centuries (from the fifth or sixth to the ninth or tenth centuries). The free peasantry was ruined by incessant military service, plunder and impositions. Turning for help to the large landowner, the peasants converted themselves into his dependents. Frequently the peasants were compelled to yield themselves into the "protection" of the feudal lord; otherwise it was impossible for a defenceless man to exist in conditions of ceaseless wars and bandit raids. In such cases property rights in the plot of land passed to the feudal lord, and the peasant could work his plot only on condition of fulfilling various duties for the lord. In other cases the royal lieutenants and officials, by means of deceit and force, appropriated the land of free peasants, making the latter acknowledge their power.

In different countries the process of feudalisation took different courses, but the essence of the matter was everywhere the same: the formerly free peasants fell into personal dependence on the feudal lords who had seized their land. Sometimes this dependence' was weaker, sometimes stronger. In course of time the differences in the position of former slaves, coloni and free peasants disappeared, and they were all converted into a single mass of peasant serfs. Gradually there was established the' position which is described by the medieval phrase: "No land without its lord." (i.e.) without its feudal master). The kings were the supreme landowners.

Feudalism was an essential stage in the historical development of society.

Slavery had outlived itself. In these circumstances the further development of productive forces was only possible on the basis of the labour of the mass of dependent peasantry, possessing their own holdings, their own implements of production and having some interest in labour.

As the history of mankind testifies, however, it is not obligatory that every people should pass through all stages of social development. For many peoples conditions arise under which they have the possibility of missing one stage of development or another and of passing immediately to a higher stage.

In Russia patriarchal slavery arose when the primitive community was breaking down. The development of society here, however, went in the main not along the road of slave-owning, but of feudalisation. The Slavonic tribes, even when the clan system was predominant among them, beginning from the third century A.D., attacked the Roman slave-owning Empire, struggled to free the towns of the northern Black Sea coast which were in its power and played a great part in the overthrow of the slave-owning system. The transition from the primitive community to feudalism-took place in Russia at a time when the slave-owning system had long since fallen in the countries of Western Europe, and when feudal relations had been stabilised there.

The village community among the Eastern Slavs was called verv or mir. The community had meadows, forests and ponds in common use, but the ploughland began to pass into the possession of separate families. An elder was at the head of the community. The development of private landowning led to the gradual breakdown of the village communities. The elders and tribal princes seized the land. The peasants (smerds) were at first free members of the community, but later fell into dependence on the large landowners (boyars).

The Church became the largest feudal owner. Grants by the princes, endowments and legacies made it the possessor of broad lands and the richest estates of those times. In the period of the formation of the centralised Russian State (fifteenth to sixteenth centuries) the Grand Princes and Tsars began to "place" (Russian, pomeshchat) their attendants and serving people on the land, i.e., to give them land and peasants on condition of their owing military service. Hence the names pomest'e (fee or estate) and pomeshchik (lord of the manor).

At that time the peasants were not yet finally bound to the landowner and the land; they had the right to transfer from one lord to another. At the end of the sixteenth century the lords, with a view to increasing the production of grain for sale, intensified their exploitation of the peasants. In connection with this the State in 1581 deprived the peasants of the right of transfer from one landlord to another. The peasants were completely bound to the land belonging to the lords and were thus converted into serfs.

In the period of feudalism agriculture played a predominant part and tillage was its most important branch. Gradually, in the course of a number of centuries, methods of grain-growing improved and market gardening, fruit-growing, vine-growing and butter-making developed.

In the early period of feudalism the fallow system predominated, but in forested regions the "slash and burn" system of tillage predominated. A plot of land was sown several years consecutively with some crop until the soil was exhausted. Then they transferred to another plot. Later an advance to the "three-field" system took place; in this the arable was divided into three fields of which in turn, one was used for winter crops, the second for spring crops and the third remained fallow. The three-field system began to spread in Western Europe between the ninth and the tenth and in Russia from the eleventh and twelfth centuries onwards: It remained dominant throughout many centuries, being preserved until the nineteenth century and, in many countries, even to the present time.

Agricultural equipment in the early period of feudalism was poor. The primitive wooden plough (sokha) with iron share, the sickle, scythe and spade served as implements of labour. Later, the iron plough and harrow began to be used. The grinding of grain was for a long time carried out by hand, until wind and water mills became widespread.

Production Relations of Feudal Society. Exploitation of Peasants by Feudal Lords

The property of the feudal lords in land and their incomplete property rights over the peasant serf were the basis of the production relations of feudal society. The peasant serf was not a slave. He had his own holding. The feudal lord could no longer kill him, but he could sell him. By the side of the property of the feudal lords there also existed the individual property of peasants and craftsmen in their implements of production and in their private holdings, based on personal labour.

Large-scale feudal landed property was the basis for the exploitation of peasants by the lords. The feudal lord sown demesne occupied part of the land.

The feudal lord granted another part of the land on extortionate conditions for use by the peasants. The lord allotted land to the peasants to "hold", hence the expression "holding". The peasant holding was the means by which the lord secured his labour force. With hereditary possession of his holding, the peasant was obliged to work for the lord to till the lord's soil with the help of his own implements and stock, or else to give the lord his surplus product in kind or in money.

Such a system of economy inevitably presupposed the peasants' personal dependence on the landlord-a system of extra-economic compulsion. "If the lord had not had direct power over the person of the peasant he would not have been able to compel to work for him a man who possessed land and tilled on his own account." (Lenin, "Development of Capitalism in Russia", Works, fourth Russian edition, vol. III, p. 159.).

The peasant serf's working time was divided into necessary and surplus time. During the necessary time, the peasant created the product necessary for his own existence and the existence of his family. During the surplus time he created the surplus product which was appropriated by the lord. The surplus labour of the peasant who worked on the lord's demesne, or the surplus product created by the peasant in his own holding and appropriated by the lord, constitute feudal land-rent.

Feudal rent frequently swallowed up not only the peasant's surplus labour, but also part of his necessary labour. The basis of this rent was feudal ownership of land, linked with the direct domination of the feudal lord over the peasants dependent on him.

Under feudalism there existed three forms of land-rent: labour-rent, rent in kind and money-rent. In all these forms of rent the exploitation of the peasants by the landlords stood out in unconcealed form.

Labour-rent, or "week-work" (barshchina), predominated in the early stages of feudalism's development. Under the system of week-work the peasant worked for a specified part of the week, three or more days, with his own implements of production (plough, draught animals, etc.) on his master's estate and the remaining days worked on his own holding. Thus by week-work the necessary and surplus labour of the peasant were clearly distinguished in time and space. The sphere covered by week-work was exceedingly broad. The peasant ploughed, sowed and gathered the harvest, pastured cattle, worked as a carpenter, chopped timber for the lord, and carted agricultural produce and building materials using his own horse.

Under the week-work system the peasant serf was interested in raising the productivity of labour only while working on his own holding. When working on the lord's land the peasant had no such interest. The feudal lord kept overseers who compelled the peasants to work.

In the course of further development labour-rent was replaced by rent in kind, or quitrent paid in produce. Under this system the peasant was obliged to deliver regularly to the lord a definite quantity of grain, cattle, poultry and other agricultural produce. Most frequently the quitrent was combined with remnants of week-work duties, i.e., with the peasant's work on the lord's demesne.

With rent in kind the peasant expended the whole of his labour both necessary and surplus, according to his own discretion. Necessary and surplus labour were no longer divided as clearly as with labour-rent. Here the peasant became relatively more independent. This created a certain stimulus to further raising the productivity of labour.

At a later stage of feudalism, when exchange had become comparatively widespread, money-rent arose, or quitrent in money. Money-rent is characteristic of the period of the breakdown of feudalism and the appearance of capitalist relations. Various forms of feudal-rent often existed simultaneously.

"In all these forms of ground-rent, whether labour-rent, rent in kind, or money-rent (as a mere change of form of rent in kind), the rent-paying party is always supposed to be the actual tiller and possessor of the land, whose unpaid surplus labour passes directly into the hands of the landlord." (Marx, Capital, Kerr edition, vol. III, p. 932.)

Striving to increase their income, the feudal lords imposed every sort of exaction on the peasant. In many cases they had monopolistic possession of mills, smithies and other enterprises. The peasant was compelled to use them for exceedingly high payments in kind or money. Apart from quitrent in kind or money paid to the feudal lord, the peasant had to pay all sorts of imposts to the State, local taxes and, in some countries, a tithe, i.e., a tenth of the harvest to the Church.

Thus the labour of peasant serfs was the basis of the existence of feudal society. Peasants not only grew agricultural produce. They worked in the feudal lord's estates as craftsmen, erected castles and monasteries and made roads.

Towns were built by the hands of peasant serfs.

The economy of the feudal lords, particularly in the early stages of its development, was basically a natural economy. Each feudal estate, consisting of the lord's demesne and the villages belonging to him, lived an isolated economic life, rarely engaging in exchange. The requirements of the feudal lord and his family, and the needs of the numerous house hold were at first satisfied by the produce from the seigniorial economy and supplied by the peasants paying quitrent. Fairly large estates had a sufficient quantity of craftsmen, mostly among the household serfs. These craftsmen made clothing and footwear, made and repaired weapons, hunting equipment and agricultural implements, and erected buildings.

The peasant economy was also a natural one. The peasants engaged not only in agricultural labour but also in domestic handicraft, mainly working up raw materials produced in their holdings-spinning, weaving, making footwear and farm implements.

For a long time a characteristic of feudalism was the combination of agriculture, as the basic branch of the economy, with domestic handicraft, which was auxiliary to it. The few imported products without which it was impossible to manage, as for example, salt and articles of iron, were at first supplied by wandering traders. Later, in connection with the growth of towns and handicraft, the division of labour and development of exchange between town and country made a great step forward.

The exploitation of dependent peasants by feudal lords was the main feature of feudalism among all peoples. However, in particular countries the feudal system had its own special features. In countries of the East feudal relations were for a long time combined with slave relations. Thus it was in China, India, Japan and a number of other countries. Feudal State property in land was of great significance in the East. For example, in the period of the Bagdad Khalifate, under the dominance of the Arabs (particularly in the eighth to ninth centuries A.D.), a large section of the members of peasant communities lived on the Khalif's land and paid feudal-rent direct to the State. Feudalism in the East was also characterised by the vitality of patriarchal clan relations which were utilised by the feudal lords as a means of intensifying exploitation of the peasants.

In the agricultural lands of the East, where irrigated agriculture is of decisive significance, the peasants were in bondage to the feudal lords because not only the land but also the water resources and irrigation works were the property of the feudal State or of individual feudal lords. Among nomad peoples the land was used as pasture. The size of feudal land-owning was determined by the quantity of cattle. The large cattle-owning feudalists were, in fact, large-scale owners of pasture. They held the peasantry in dependence and exploited them.

The basic economic law of feudalism consisted in the production of surplus product to satisfy the demands of the feudal lords, by means of the exploitation of dependent peasants on the basis of the ownership of the land by the feudal lords and their incomplete ownership of the workers in production-the serfs.

The Medieval Town. Craft Guilds. Merchant Guilds

Towns had already arisen under the slave-owning system. Such towns as Rome, Florence, Venice and Genoa in Italy; Constantinople and Alexandria in the Near East; Paris, Lyons and Marseilles in France; London in England; Samarkand in Central Asia, and many others, were inherited by the Middle Ages from the epoch of slavery. The slave-owning system fell, but towns remained. The large slave-owning workshops broke down, but the crafts continued to exist.

In the period of the early Middle Ages the towns and crafts developed slowly.

Town craftsmen produced articles for sale, but a large part of the objects of consumption which they needed they obtained from their own holdings. Many of them had small ploughlands, gardens and cattle. The women engaged in the spinning of flax and wool to make clothing. This showed the limited extent of markets and exchange.

In the, countryside the working up of agricultural raw material was at first a subsidiary occupation of the husbandman. Then, from among the peasants there began to emerge craftsmen who served their own village. The craftsmen's productivity of labour increased. It became possible to produce more articles than were necessary for the feudal lord or the peasants of one village. The craftsmen began to settle around feudal castles, at the walls of monasteries, in large villages and other trading centres. Thus, gradually, usually on the waterways, new towns arose (in Russia, for example, Kiev, Pskov, Novgorod, Vladimir). In the course of time crafts became a more and more profitable business. The skill of the craftsman was perfected. The feudal lord began to buy the product of handicraft from the townsmen. He was no longer satisfied with the work of his own serfs. The more developed crafts were finally isolated from agriculture.

The towns which had arisen on the lands of lay and clerical feudal lords were subject to their authority. Townsmen owed a number of duties to the feudal lord, paid him quitrent in kind or money, and were subject to his administration and court. The town population very soon began the struggle for freedom from feudal dependence. Partly by force, partly by means of purchase, the towns obtained for themselves the right of self-administration, holding courts, minting coinage and collecting taxes.

The town population consisted mainly of craftsmen and traders. In many towns serfs fleeing from their landlords found refuge. The town acted as the centre of commodity production, as distinct from the countryside where natural economy prevailed. The growth of competition from the fugitive serfs who had crowded into the towns, the struggle against exploitation and oppression by the feudal lords, caused the craftsmen to unite into guilds. The guild system existed in the feudal period in almost all countries.

Guilds arose in Byzantium and Italy in the ninth and tenth centuries, and later in the whole of "Western Europe and Russia. In the countries of the East (Egypt, China), and in the towns of the Arab Khalifate guilds arose even earlier than in the European countries. The guilds united the town craftsmen of one specific trade or several similar ones. Only the master craftsmen were full members of the guilds. The master craftsmen had a small number of journeymen and apprentices. The guilds carefully preserved the exclusive right of their members to engage in that craft and regulated the process of production: they laid down the length of the working day, the number of journeymen and apprentices with each master defined the quality of raw materials and finished products and their prices, and frequently purchased raw material in common. Methods of work established by long tradition were obligatory for all. Strict regulation had as its aim the prevention of any single master from raising himself above the others. Apart from this the guilds served as mutual aid organisations.

The guilds were a feudal form of craft organisation. In the first period of their existence they played a certain positive part in assisting the strengthening and development of urban crafts. However, with the growth of commodity production and the expansion of the market, the guilds gradually became a brake on the development of productive forces.

The strict regulation of craft production by the guilds fettered the craftsmen's initiative and hindered the development of technique. In order to limit competition the guilds began to create all sorts of hindrances to those wishing to receive the rights of a master. For the apprentices and journeymen, whose numbers had considerably increased, the possibility of becoming independent masters had practically ceased. They were compelled to remain for their whole life in the position of hired wage workers. In, these conditions the relations between a master and his subordinates lost their former more or less patriarchal character. The masters intensified the exploitation of their subordinates, making them work fourteen to sixteen hours a day for insignificant pay. The journeymen began to unite into secret brotherhoods to defend their interests. The guilds and town authorities persecuted the journeymen's brotherhoods in every way.

The richest section of the town population were the merchants. Trading activity developed both in the towns surviving from the period of slavery and in the towns which arose under feudalism. The organisation of guilds in the crafts found their counterpart in the organisation of guilds in trade. Merchant guilds in the feudal period existed almost everywhere. In the East they are known from the ninth century, in Western Europe from the ninth or tenth century, and in Russia from the twelfth century. The basic task of the merchant guilds was the struggle with competition from outside merchants, the regulation of weights and measures, the defence of merchants' rights from the infringements of the feudal lords.

In the ninth to tenth centuries there already existed considerable trade between the countries of the East and Western Europe. Kievan Rus ^[1] took an active part in this trade. The Crusades (eleventh to thirteenth centuries) played a great part in the expansion of trade, opening the Near Eastern markets for Western European merchants. A flood of gold and silver from the East swept into Europe. Money began to appear in places where it had formerly not been used. The Italian towns, particularly Genoa and Venice, which carried the crusaders to the East in their trading vessels and supplied them with provisions, took a direct part in the conquest of Eastern markets.

For a long time the Mediterranean ports were the main centres of the trade linking Western Europe with the East. But apart from this, trade developed widely in the north German and Netherland towns scattered along the trade routes of the North and Baltic Seas. Here in the fourteenth century there arose a commercial union of towns, the German Hansa, which united in the following two centuries about eighty towns of various European countries. The Hanseatic League carried on trade with England, Scandinavia, Poland and Russia. In exchange for the growth of towns and development of trade greatly influenced the feudal countryside. The economy of the feudal lords began to be drawn into the market. In order to purchase luxury objects and articles of town crafts the feudal lords needed money. In connection with this it was convenient for the feudal lords to transfer the peasants from week-work and quitrent in kind to money quitrent. Feudal exploitation was still further intensified with the transfer to money quitrents. The contradiction between town and country which had arisen under slavery became still more acute.

Classes and Estates of Feudal Society.

The Feudal Hierarchy Feudal society was divided into two basic classes, feudal lords and peasants.

"Feudal society represented a division of classes under which the vast majority-the peasant serfs-were completely subjected to an insignificant minority-the landlords, who owned the land." (Lenin, "The State", Selected Works, English edition, vol. XI, p. 651.

The class of feudal lords was not a uniform whole. Petty feudal lords paid tribute to those more powerful, helped them in war, but on the other hand took advantage of their patronage. The patron was called the baron or seigneur, and the one patronised the vassal (vavassar). The barons (seigneurs), in their turn, were vassals of still greater barons or lords (tenantsin-chief). Thus the feudal hierarchy was formed.

As the ruling class, the feudal lords stood at the head of the State. They formed one estate, the baronage (nobility, lords). The lords held the honourable position of first estate and had wide political and economic privileges.

The clergy (Church and monastic) was also a very large landowner. It held extensive lands with a numerous dependent and serf population and was the ruling estate together with the nobles.

The broad base of the "feudal ladder" was the peasantry. The peasants were subordinate to the landowner and were under the supreme power of the most powerful feudal lord, the king. The peasantry was an estate without political rights. The landlords were able to sell their serfs and made wide use of this right. The serf-owners subjected the peasants to physical punishment. Lenin called serfdom "serf slavery". The exploitation of peasant serfs was almost as cruel as the exploitation of slaves in the ancient world. Nevertheless, the serf could work part of the time on his own holding and could, to a certain degree, be independent.

The contradiction between feudal lords and peasant serfs was the basic class contradiction of feudal society. The struggle of the exploited peasantry against the feudal lords was carried on throughout the whole period of feudalism and assumed particular intensity at the end of this period, when serf exploitation had been intensified to extremes.

In the towns freed from feudal dependence power was in the hands of the rich townsmen-merchants, usurers, owners of town lands and large house-owners. The artisans of the various crafts who formed the main mass of the town population, often stood out against the town nobility, winning their participation in the town administration together with the town aristocracy. The small craftsmen and journeymen struggled against the master craftsmen and merchants who were exploiting them.

By the end of the feudal period the town population was already considerably stratified. On the one hand, there were rich merchants and master craftsmen, on the other a broad mass of journeymen and apprentices, the town poor. The lower classes of the towns entered into the struggle against the united forces of the town nobility and feudal lords. This struggle fused into a single stream with the struggle of the peasant serfs against feudal exploitation.

The kings (in Russia the Grand Princes and later the Tsars) were considered the holders of supreme power. Beyond the boundaries of their own holdings, however, the significance of the kings' power in the period of early feudalism was insignificant. Frequently this power remained nominal. The whole of Europe was divided into a multitude of large and small States. The large feudatories were complete masters of their own possessions. They issued laws, saw to their execution, held courts of justice, inflicted penalties, maintained their own forces, raided their neighbours and did not always refrain from highway robbery. Many of them independently minted coinage. The smaller feudal lords also had exceedingly wide rights in respect of the people under their power; they tried to vie with the great lords.

In the course of time feudal relations created an exceedingly confused tangle of rights and obligations. Endless disputes and quarrels arose between the feudal lords. They were usually decided by force of arms in internecine wars.

Development of the Productive Forces of Feudal Society

In the feudal period a higher level of productive forces was achieved compared with the period of slavery.

In the sphere of agriculture the technique of production was improved; the iron plough and other iron implements of labour were used more extensively.

New branches of cultivation arose; vine-growing, wine-making and market gardening developed considerably. Livestock husbandry grew and particularly horse-breeding, which was linked with the feudal lords' military service; butter- making developed. Sheep-breeding became widespread in a number of regions. Meadows and pastures were extended and improved.

Gradually, the implements of labour of the craftsmen and methods of processing raw material were improved. Former crafts began to become specialised. Thus, for example, the blacksmith had formerly produced all metal articles. In the course of time the crafts of the armourer, nail-maker, cutler and locksmith separated from the trade of blacksmith, and the craft of the shoemaker and the saddlemaker were separated from the craft of the leather worker. In the sixteenth to seventeenth centuries in Europe the spinning wheel became wide-spread. In 1600 the ribbon loom was invented.

The improvement of the smelting and working of iron was of decisive significance in perfecting the implements of labour. At first iron was produced by an exceedingly primitive method. In the fourteenth century the water-wheel was first used to work bellows for the blast, and heavy hammers to crush the ore. With the increased draught in the furnaces, instead of a malleable mass, a molten mass, cast iron, was obtained. With the application of gunpowder in warfare and the appearance of firearms (in the fourteenth century) much metal was required for cannon balls; from the beginning of the fifteenth century they began to be cast from pig-iron. More and more metal was needed for the production of agricultural and other implements. In the first half of the fifteenth century the first blast furnaces appeared. The invention of the compass helped the further development of navigation and seafaring. The invention and spread of printing was of great significance.

China had achieved a considerable development of its productive forces and culture by the sixth to eleventh centuries, in many respects surpassing the Europe of that time. The Chinese were the first to invent the compass, gunpowder, writing-paper and a very simple form of printing.

The development of the productive forces of feudal society more and more clashed with the narrow framework of feudal production relations. The peasantry, under the yoke of feudal exploitation, were in no condition to increase further the output of agricultural produce. The productivity of unfree peasant labour was exceedingly low. In the town the growth of the craftsman's productivity of labour came up against the obstacles created by guild statutes and rules. The feudal system was characterised by the slow rate of development of production, by routine and by the authority of tradition.

The productive forces which had grown up in the framework of feudal society demanded new relations of production.

The Birth of Capitalist Production in the Womb of the Feudal System.

The Role of Merchant Capital in the feudal period commodity production gradually developed, town handicrafts expanded and peasant economy was more and more drawn into exchange.

Production by small craftsmen and peasants, based on private property and personal labour creating products for exchange, is called simple commodity production.

As has already been said a product made for exchange is a commodity.

Different commodity producers expend on the production of the same commodities an unequal quantity of labour. This depends on the different conditions in which they have to work: commodity producers possessing improved implements expend on the production of one and the same commodity less labour in comparison with other commodity producers. In addition to differences in the implements of labour, differences in strength, dexterity, the skill of the worker and so on have their effect. The market, however, is not concerned in what conditions and with what implements one commodity or another is produced. For identical commodities on the market one and the same amount of money is paid independent of those individual conditions of labour in which they were produced.

Therefore, commodity producers whose individual labour expenditure, because of worse conditions of production, are higher than average cover only part of these costs when selling their commodities and ultimately are ruined.

On the other hand, commodity producers whose individual labour expenditure thanks to better conditions of production are lower than average, are in an advantageous position when selling their commodities, and grow rich. This strengthens competition. A differentiation takes place among small commodity producers. The majority of them become more and more impoverished, an insignificant section grow rich.

The divided condition of the country under feudalism was a great hindrance in the way of the development of commodity production. The feudal lords established at will dues on imported goods, exacted tribute for passage through their possessions, and thus created serious obstacles to the development of trade. The requirements of trade and the economic development of society in general evoked the necessity of abolishing feudal separatism. The growth of handicraft and agricultural production, the development of the social division of labour between town and country, led to the intensification of economic links between different districts within the country and to the formation of a national market. The formation of a national market created the economic preconditions for the centralisation of State power. The nascent town bourgeoisie was concerned to remove feudal obstacles and supported the creation of a centralised State.

The kings, relying on the broader stratum of non-noble landowners (gentry), on the "vassals of their vassals" and also on the rising towns, dealt the feudal nobility decisive blows and strengthened their own dominance. They became not only nominal, but also effective sovereigns in the State. Large national States emerged in the form of absolute monarchies. The overcoming of feudal separatism and the creation of centralised State power facilitated the appearance and development of capitalist relations.

The formation of a world market was also of great significance for the rise of the capitalist order.

In the second half of the fifteenth century the Turks seized Constantinople and the whole of the eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea. The most important artery along which passed the trade routes between Western Europe and the East was cut. In the search for the sea route to India, Columbus discovered America in 1492; while in 1498 Vasco da Gama, having sailed round Africa, discovered the sea route to India.

As a result of these discoveries the focal point of European trade moved from the Mediterranean Sea to the Atlantic Ocean, the bulk of trade, passed to the Netherlands, England and France. Russia played a noticeable role in European trade.

With the rise of world trade and a world market handicrafts were no longer in a position to satisfy the growing demand for goods. This hastened the transition from small-scale artisan production to large-scale capitalist production, based on the exploitation of wage-workers.

The advance from the feudal mode of production to the capitalist was made in two ways: on the one hand; the differentiation among the small commodity producers gave birth to capitalist entrepreneurs; on the other hand, merchant capital, through the merchants, directly subordinated production to itself.

The guilds were able to limit competition and differentiation among the craftsmen so long as commodity production was little developed. With the development of exchange, competition became stronger and stronger. The masters working for a wider market in part obtained the alteration of guild restrictions, and in part simply evaded them. They lengthened the working day of the journeymen and apprentices, increased their number and applied more productive methods of labour. The richest master craftsmen gradually became capitalists, while the poorer masters, apprentices and journeymen became wage-workers.

Merchant capital assisted the rise of capitalist production by breaking down the natural economy. Merchant capital first appeared as an intermediary in the exchange of the commodities of the small producers-the craftsmen and the peasants-and in the realisation by the feudal lords of part of the surplus product which they appropriated. Later, the merchant began to buy up regularly from the small producers the commodities they had made and then to resell them on a wider market. The merchant became an engrosser. With the growth of competition and the appearance of the engrosser the position of the mass of the craftsmen radically changed. The impoverished masters were compelled to turn for help to the trader or engrosser, who loaned them money and raw materials on condition that they should sell him the finished articles at a pre-arranged low price. Thus, the small producers fell into economic dependence on merchant capital.

Gradually many impoverished masters found themselves dependent in this way on the rich engrosser. He distributed raw material to them-for example, thread to be worked up into cloth for a definite payment-and thus became a putter-out.

The impoverishment of the craftsman resulted in the engrosser now supplying him not only with raw materials, but also with implements of labour.

Thus the craftsman was deprived of the last semblance of independent existence, and was finally converted into a wage-worker, while the engrosser was becoming an industrial capitalist.

The craftsmen of yesterday, gathered in the capitalist's workshop, carried out uniform work. Soon, however, it was discovered that certain of them were more successful with one operation, others with another. Therefore it was more advantageous to entrust to each one just that part of the work at which he was most skilful. Thus, in the workshops with a fairly considerable number of workers division of labour was gradually introduced.

Capitalist enterprises using wage-workers who worked by hand on the basis of division of labour were called manufactories. ^[2]

The first manufactories already appeared in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries in Florence and some medieval city republics of Italy. Then, in the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries, manufactories in various branches of production-cloth, linen, silk, watchmaking, arms and glass-spread in all European countries.

In Russia manufactories began to arise in the seventeenth century. At the beginning of the eighteenth century under Peter I they began to develop at faster rates. Among them were arms, cloth, silk and other manufactories. Iron foundries, mines and salt works were created in the Urals.

As distinct from the West European factories, which were based on wage labour, Russian enterprises in the seventeenth to eighteenth centuries, while employing some free wage labour, in the main employed the labour of peasant serfs and bound workers. Manufactories based on free wage labour began to become widespread from the end of the eighteenth century. This process was particularly intensified in the last decades before the abolition of serfdom.

The process of the breakdown of feudal relations was also taking place in the countryside. With the development of commodity production the power of money grew. The feudal serf-owners substituted money payments for the peasants' payments in kind. The peasants had to sell the products of their labour and pay the feudal lords the money they had obtained. Chronic need of money appeared among the peasants. Engrossers and usurers made use of this to make the peasants their bondmen. Feudal oppression intensified and the position of the serfs deteriorated.

The development of money relations gave a great impetus to the differentiation of the peasantry, i.e., its stratification into different social groups. The overwhelming majority of the peasantry became impoverished, stifled from overwork and were ruined. Side by side with this kulak land-grabbers began to appear in the countryside, exploiting their fellow-villagers by means of loans at extortionate rates and buying up from them agricultural produce, cattle and farm equipment at ruinous prices.

Thus, capitalist production came into existence in the womb of the feudal system.

Primitive Capital Accumulation. Forcible Seizure of Peasant Lands

Capitalist production presupposes two basic conditions: one, the presence of numbers of propertyless people, personally free and at the same time deprived of the means of production and livelihood and, therefore, compelled to hire themselves out for work to the capitalists; and two, the accumulation of the wealth in money necessary to create large capitalist enterprises.

We have seen that capitalism drew its sustenance from small commodity production based on private property, with its competition bringing enrichment to the few and ruin to the majority of small producers. The slowness of this process, however, did not correspond to the requirement of the new world market created by the great discoveries of the end of the fifteenth century. The rise of the capitalist mode of production was hastened by the application of the crudest methods of violence by the large landowners, bourgeoisie and the State power which was in the hands of the exploiting classes. Force, in Marx's expression, played the part of the midwife, hastening the birth of the new capitalist mode of production.

Some bourgeois historians idyllically depict the history of the rise of the capitalist and working classes. In immemorial times, they assert, there existed a group of assiduous and careful men who accumulated wealth by their labour.

On the other hand, there existed a number of lazy-bones and idlers who squandered all their substance and were converted into propertyless proletarians.

These fables of the defenders of capitalism have no connection with reality.

In fact, the formation of the mass of propertyless people, the proletariat, and the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few took place by means of the forcible deprivation of the small producers of their means of production. The process of the separation of the producers from the means of production (the land, implements of production, and so on) was accompanied by an endless succession of acts of plunder and cruelty. This process is called primitive capital accumulation since it preceded the creation of large-scale capitalist production.

Capitalist production achieved considerable development first of all in England. From the end of the fifteenth century there took place in that country an agonising process of the forcible expulsion of the peasants from the land.

The increased demand for wool from the large cloth manufactories, which arose first in Flanders and then in England itself, gave the direct impetus to this. The landlords began to raise large flocks of sheep. Pastures were needed for sheep-raising. The feudal lords drove off the peasants in masses from the places they occupied, seized the lands which had been in their permanent possession, and converted the arable into pastures.

The expulsion of the peasants from the land was carried out by various means, and primarily by means of the open seizure of common lands. The landlords enclosed these lands, destroyed the peasant homes and forcibly expelled the peasants. If the peasants attempted to get back the land illegally seized from them, the armed force of the State came to the help of the landlord. The State power began to issue laws in the eighteenth century on "enclosure", justifying the plundering of the peasants.

The ruined and plundered peasants formed innumerable crowds of indigent beggars who filled the towns, villages and roads of England. Having no means of existence they became beggars. The State authority issued bloody laws against those who had been expropriated. These laws were distinguished by their exceptional ferocity. Thus, in the reign of the English king Henry VIII (sixteenth century), 72,000 people were executed for "vagabondage".

In Tsarist Russia, which entered the road of capitalist development later than other European countries, the separation of the producer from the means of production was effected in the same ways as in other countries. In 1861 the Tsarist government, under the influence of peasant risings was compelled to abolish serfdom.

This reform was a gigantic plundering of the peasants. The landlords seized two-thirds of the land, leaving only one-third for the use of the peasants. The most convenient lands, and also in a number of cases the pastures, ponds, roads to the fields and so on which were used by the peasant, were cut off by the landlords. In the hands of the landlords the lands "cut off" by the landlords became a means of imposing a new bondage on the peasants, compelled to rent these lands from the landlords on the most burdensome conditions. The law while announcing the personal freedom of the peasants, temporarily preserved week-work and quitrent. For the reduced plot of land which he received, the peasant was obliged to carry out these duties for the landlord until the land had been paid for. The scale of purchase payments was reckoned at inflated prices for land and amounted to about two milliard roubles.

Characterising the features of the peasant reform of 1861 Lenin wrote:

"They all represent the first acts of mass violence against the peasantry in the interests of nascent capitalism in agriculture. It is the 'clearing of estates' for capitalism by the landlords." (Lenin, "The Agrarian Programme of Social Democracy in the First Russian Revolution", Selected Works, English edition, vol. III, p. 182.),,

A double result was achieved by the eviction of the peasants from the land. On the one hand, the land became the private property of a comparatively small group of landowners.

Feudal estate property in land was converted into bourgeois property. On the other hand, an abundant influx into industry of free workers ready to hire themselves to the capitalists, was assured.

Apart from the presence of a cheap labour force, the accumulation in a few hands of great wealth, in the form of sums of money which could be converted into any means of production and used to hire workers, was essential for the appearance of capitalist production.

In the Middle Ages large amounts of money were accumulated by traders and usurers. This wealth was later used as the basis for organising many capitalist enterprises.

The conquest of America, which was accompanied by the mass plundering and extermination of the native population, brought the conquerors incalculable riches which began to grow still faster as a result of the exploitation of very rich mines of gold and silver. Hands were needed for the mines. The native population, the Indians, perished in masses, not surviving the harsh labour conditions. European merchants in Africa organised the hunting of negroes which was carried out entirely as though it was wild animals they hunted. The trade in negroes exported from Africa and converted into slaves was exceptionally profitable. The slave traders' profits achieved fabulous heights. Negro slave labour began to be widely applied in the cotton plantations of America.

Colonial trade was also one of the most important sources for the creation of large fortunes. Dutch, English and French merchants organised East India companies for trade with India. These companies were supported by their governments. They were granted the monopoly of trade in colonial commodities and the right of unlimited exploitation of the colonies with the use of any forcible measures they pleased. The profits of the East India companies were reckoned in hundreds per cent per year. In Russia rapacious trading with the population of Siberia gave the merchants huge profits, as did the plunderous system of liquor monopolies, which consisted in the State's granting to private entrepreneurs the right to produce and sell alcoholic liquors for a definite payment.

Huge wealth in money was concentrated in the hands of commercial and usurers' capital as a result.

Thus, at the price of the plundering and ruin of the mass of small producers, the wealth essential for the creation of large capitalist enterprises 'was accumulated. Describing this process, Marx wrote: "... capital comes [into the world] dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt." (Marx, Capital, Kerr edition, vol. I, p. 834.)

The Birth of Capitalist Production in the Womb of the Feudal System.

The Role of Merchant Capital In the feudal period commodity production gradually developed, town handicrafts expanded and peasant economy was more and more drawn into exchange.

Production by small craftsmen and peasants, based on private property and personal labour creating products for exchange, is called simple commodity production.

As has already been said a product made for exchange is a commodity.

Different commodity producers expend on the production of the same commodities an unequal quantity of labour. This depends on the different conditions in which they have to work: commodity producers possessing improved implements expend on the production of one and the same commodity less labour in comparison with other commodity producers. In addition to differences in the implements of labour, differences in strength, dexterity, the skill of the worker and so on have their effect. The market, however, is not concerned in what conditions and with what implements one commodity or another is produced. For identical commodities on the market one and the same amount of money is paid independent of those individual conditions of labour in which they were produced.

Therefore, commodity producers whose individual labour expenditure, because of worse conditions of production, are higher than average cover only part of these costs when selling their commodities and ultimately are ruined.

On the other hand, commodity producers whose individual labour expenditure thanks to better conditions of production are lower than average, are in an advantageous position when selling their commodities, and grow rich. This strengthens competition. A differentiation takes place among small commodity producers. The majority of them become more and more impoverished, an insignificant section grow rich.

The divided condition of the country under feudalism was a great hindrance in the way of the development of commodity production. The feudal lords established at will dues on imported goods, exacted tribute for passage through their possessions, and thus created serious obstacles to the development of trade. The requirements of trade and the economic development of society in general evoked the necessity of abolishing feudal separatism. The growth of handicraft and agricultural production, the development of the social division of labour between town and country, led to the intensification of economic links between different districts within the country and to the formation of a national market. The formation of a national market created the economic preconditions for the centralisation of State power. The nascent town bourgeoisie was concerned to remove feudal obstacles and supported the creation of a centralised State.

The kings, relying on the broader stratum of non-noble landowners (gentry), on the "vassals of their vassals" and also on the rising towns, dealt the feudal nobility decisive blows and strengthened their own dominance. They became not only nominal, but also effective sovereigns in the State. Large national States emerged in the form of absolute monarchies. The overcoming of feudal separatism and the creation of centralised State power facilitated the appearance and development of capitalist relations.

The formation of a world market was also of great significance for the rise of the capitalist order.

In the second half of the fifteenth century the Turks seized Constantinople and the whole of the eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea. The most important artery along which passed the trade routes between Western Europe and the East was cut. In the search for the sea route to India, Columbus discovered America in 1492; while in 1498 Vasco da Gama, having sailed round Africa, discovered the sea route to India.

As a result of these discoveries the focal point of European trade moved from the Mediterranean Sea to the Atlantic Ocean, the bulk of trade, passed to the Netherlands, England and France. Russia played a noticeable role in European trade.

With the rise of world trade and a world market handicrafts were no longer in a position to satisfy the growing demand for goods. This hastened the transition from small-scale artisan production to large-scale capitalist production, based on the exploitation of wage-workers.

The advance from the feudal mode of production to the capitalist was made in two ways: on the one hand; the differentiation among the small commodity producers gave birth to capitalist entrepreneurs; on the other hand, merchant capital, through the merchants, directly subordinated production to itself.

The guilds were able to limit competition and differentiation among the craftsmen so long as commodity production was little developed. With the development of exchange, competition became stronger and stronger. The masters working for a wider market in part obtained the alteration of guild restrictions, and in part simply evaded them. They lengthened the working day of the journeymen and apprentices, increased their number and applied more productive methods of labour. The richest master craftsmen gradually became capitalists, while the poorer masters, apprentices and journeymen became wage-workers.

Merchant capital assisted the rise of capitalist production by breaking down the natural economy. Merchant capital first appeared as an intermediary in the exchange of the commodities of the small producers-the craftsmen and the peasants-and in the realisation by the feudal lords of part of the surplus product which they appropriated. Later, the merchant began to buy up regularly from the small producers the commodities they had made and then to resell them on a wider market. The merchant became an engrosser. With the growth of competition and the appearance of the engrosser the position of the mass of the craftsmen radically changed. The impoverished masters were compelled to turn for help to the trader or engrosser, who loaned them money and raw materials on condition that they should sell him the finished articles at a pre-arranged low price. Thus, the small producers fell into economic dependence on merchant capital.

Gradually many impoverished masters found themselves dependent in this way on the rich engrosser. He distributed raw material to them-for example, thread to be worked up into cloth for a definite payment-and thus became a putter-out.

The impoverishment of the craftsman resulted in the engrosser now supplying him not only with raw materials, but also with implements of labour.

Thus the craftsman was deprived of the last semblance of independent existence, and was finally converted into a wage-worker, while the engrosser was becoming an industrial capitalist.

The craftsmen of yesterday, gathered in the capitalist's workshop, carried out uniform work. Soon, however, it was discovered that certain of them were more successful with one operation, others with another. Therefore it was more advantageous to entrust to each one just that part of the work at which he was most skilful. Thus, in the workshops with a fairly considerable number of workers division of labour was gradually introduced.

Capitalist enterprises using wage-workers who worked by hand on the basis of division of labour were called manufactories. ^[3] The first manufactories already appeared in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries in Florence and some medieval city republics of Italy. Then, in the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries, manufactories in various branches of production-cloth, linen, silk, watchmaking, arms and glass-spread in all European countries.

In Russia manufactories began to arise in the seventeenth century. At the beginning of the eighteenth century under Peter I they began to develop at faster rates. Among them were arms, cloth, silk and other manufactories. Iron foundries, mines and salt works were created in the Urals.

As distinct from the West European factories, which were based on wage labour, Russian enterprises in the seventeenth to eighteenth centuries, while employing some free wage labour, in the main employed the labour of peasant serfs and bound workers. Manufactories based on free wage labour began to become widespread from the end of the eighteenth century. This process was particularly intensified in the last decades before the abolition of serfdom.

The process of the breakdown of feudal relations was also taking place in the countryside. With the development of commodity production the power of money grew. The feudal serf-owners substituted money payments for the peasants' payments in kind. The peasants had to sell the products of their labour and pay the feudal lords the money they had obtained. Chronic need of money appeared among the peasants. Engrossers and usurers made use of this to make the peasants their bondmen. Feudal oppression intensified and the position of the serfs deteriorated.

The development of money relations gave a great impetus to the differentiation of the peasantry, i.e., its stratification into different social groups. The overwhelming majority of the peasantry became impoverished, stifled from overwork and were ruined. Side by side with this kulak land-grabbers began to appear in the countryside, exploiting their fellow-villagers by means of loans at extortionate rates and buying up from them agricultural produce, cattle and farm equipment at ruinous prices.

Thus, capitalist production came into existence in the womb of the feudal system.

Peasant Serf Risings. Bourgeois Revolutions. Fall of the Feudal System

The struggle of the peasantry against the feudal landowners took place throughout the whole feudal epoch, but it became particularly sharp towards the end of this epoch. In the fourteenth century France was in the grip of a peasant war which has gone down to history as the "Jacquerie". The rising bourgeoisie of the towns at first supported this movement, but left it at the decisive moment.

At the end of the fourteenth century in England a peasant revolt flared up which covered the greater part of the country. Armed peasants headed by Wat Tyler went through the country, sacking landlords' estates and the monasteries, and entered London. The feudal lords turned to violence and deceit in order to suppress the rising. Tyler was treacherously killed. Believing the promises of the king and the feudal lords the rebels dispersed to their homes. After this, punitive expeditions went about the countryside dealing out savage punishment to the peasants.

At the beginning of the sixteenth century Germany was convulsed by a peasant war supported by the town poor. Thomas Münzer was the leader of the rebels. The peasants demanded the abolition of the licence and violence of the gentry.

In Russia the peasant wars headed by Stepan Razin in the seventeenth century and Emelyan Pugachov in the eighteenth century were on a particularly large scale. The rebellious peasants sought the abolition of serfdom, the transfer to themselves of the landowners' and government lands and the ending of landlord rule. The intensification of the crisis of the feudal serf-owning system of economy in the 1850's was expressed in a broad wave of peasant risings on the eve of the 1861 reform.

In China peasant wars and risings on a huge scale took place throughout the centuries. The rising of the T'ai P'ing in the period of the Tsing dynasty (middle of the nineteenth century) embraced the millions of the peasantry. The rebels occupied the ancient capital of China, Nanking. The T'ai P'ing agrarian law proclaimed equality in the use of land and other property. In State organisation the T'ai P'ing linked monarchy and peasant democracy in their own way, which is also characteristic of peasant movements in other countries.

The revolutionary significance of peasant risings was that they shook the foundations of feudalism and in the end led to the abolition of serfdom.

The transition from feudalism to capitalism in the countries of Western Europe took place through bourgeois revolutions. The struggle of the peasants against the landowners was used by the rising bourgeoisie in order to hasten the downfall of the feudal system, to replace serf exploitation by capitalist exploitation and take power into their own hands. The peasants formed the basic mass of those fighting against feudalism in the bourgeois revolutions. So it was in the first bourgeois revolution in the Netherlands in the sixteenth century. So it was in the English revolution of the seventeenth century. So it was in the bourgeois revolution in France at the end of the eighteenth century.

The bourgeoisie used the fruits of the revolutionary struggle of the peasantry, climbing to power on its shoulders. The peasants were strong in their hatred of the oppressors. The peasant risings, however, bore a spontaneous character. The peasantry, as a class of small private owners, was split up and could not create a clear programme or a strong and well-knit organisation for the struggle. Peasant risings can lead to success only if they unite with the workers' movement and if the workers lead the peasant risings.

At the period of the bourgeois revolutions of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, however, the working class was still weak, few in numbers and unorganised.

In the womb of feudal society more or less complete forms of the capitalist order ripened. The new exploiting class, the capitalist class, grew up and there appeared at the same time masses of people deprived of the means of production, the proletarians.

In the period of bourgeois revolutions the bourgeoisie used against feudalism the economic law of the obligatory correspondence between relations of production and the character of the forces of production; they overthrew feudal production relations, created new, bourgeois production relations and brought production relations into keeping with the character of the forces of production which had ripened in the womb of feudalism.

The bourgeois revolutions put an end to the feudal system and established the dominance of capitalism.

Economic Views of the Feudal Period

The social system dominant at that time was reflected in the economic views of the feudal period. Mental life in feudal society was under the control of the clergy and therefore found expression predominantly in a religious and scholastic form. Considerations on the economic life of that time formed special sections in theological tracts.

Economic opinions in China were for many centuries under the influence of the teaching of Confucius. Confucianism as a religious ideology had arisen already in the fifth century B.C. The social and economic views of Confucianism require strict maintenance of the hierarchy of feudal estates, both in State structure and in family life. In Confucius's words, "the unenlightened people should obey the aristocrats and wise men. Disobedience by ordinary people to their superiors is the beginning of disorder". At the same time, Confucius called upon the "nobles" to be "humane" and not to treat the poor too harshly. Confucius advocated the necessity of uniting China, which was then divided, under the rule of a monarch. Confucius and his followers idealised backward forms of economy and extolled the "golden age" of the patriarchal past. The peasantry, crushed by the feudal aristocracy and the merchants, put into the Confucian preachings their own aspirations and hopes for betterment of their lot, though Confucianism did not express the class interests of the peasantry. As it developed, Confucianism became transformed into the official ideology of the feudal nobility. It was used by the ruling classes for the purpose of training the people in a spirit of slavish submission to the feudalists and of perpetuating the feudal system.

One of the ideologists of feudalism in medieval Europe, Thomas Aquinas (thirteenth century), attempted to justify the need for feudal society by divine law. Proclaiming feudal property as necessary and reasonable, and declaring the peasant serfs to be slaves, Thomas Aquinas, in opposition to the ancient slave-owners, asserted that "in his soul the slave is free" and therefore a master has no right to kill a slave. Labour was no longer considered unworthy of a free man. Thomas Aquinas regarded physical labour as base, and mental labour as noble.

In this division he saw the justification for society's division into estates. The same approach from the point of view of the feudal estates appeared in his views on wealth. Each person should own wealth in keeping with the position which he occupied on the hierarchical feudal ladder. From this point of view the teaching of the medieval theologians on .the so-called ''just'' price is characteristic. The "just" price should reflect the quantity of labour expended in producing a commodity, and the estate of the producer.

Medieval defenders of the ''just'' price did not protest at all against merchant profits. They only strove to confine profits within bounds so that they would not threaten the economic existence of the other estates. They condemned usury as a low and immoral occupation. With the development of commodity production and exchange, however, the clergy themselves began to take part in money-lending; along with this, the attitude of the Church to usury became more and more tolerant.

The class struggle of the oppressed and exploited masses against the ruling classes of feudal society developed in a religious form for several centuries. The demands of exploited peasants and journeymen were frequently based on quotations from the Bible. All sorts of sects were very widespread. The Catholic church, fiercely persecuting "heretics" through the Inquisition, burned them at the stake.

With the development of the class struggle, the religious form of the movement of the oppressed masses retreated into the background, and the revolutionary character of this movement stood out ever more clearly. The peasants demanded the suppression of serf slavery, the abolition of feudal privileges, the establishment of equal rights, the abolition of estates, and so on.

In the course of the peasant wars in England, Bohemia and Germany the slogans of the rebels became more and more radical. The longing of the exploited masses of town and country for equality expressed itself in the demand for community of property. This was a yearning for equality in the sphere of consumption. Although the demand for community of property was unrealisable, it was of revolutionary significance at that time since it rallied the masses in struggle against feudal oppression.

Towards the end of the feudal period two outstanding early Utopian Socialists appeared-the Englishman Thomas More, who wrote Utopia (sixteenth century) and the Italian Tomaso Campanella whose book is called City of the Sun (seventeenth century). Seeing the growing inequality and contradictions of contemporary society, these thinkers expounded their views on the causes of social evils in an original form; they described what were, in their opinion, ideal social systems, from which these evils would be excluded.

In the books of these Utopians a social system is described which is free from private property and all its accompanying faults. Every one in this society is engaged in both handicraft and agricultural labour. All inhabitants work six, or even four, hours a day, and the fruits of their labour are entirely sufficient to satisfy all their needs. Products are distributed according to need. The education of children is a concern of society.

The works of More and Campanella played a progressive part in the process of the development of social thought. They contained ideas considerably in advance of the development of society of that time. More and Campanella, however, did not know the laws of social development, and their ideas were unrealisable, "Utopian". It was impossible at that time to destroy social inequality; the level of productive forces demanded the advance from feudal to capitalist exploitation.

The rise of capitalism belongs to the sixteenth century. To the same century belong the first attempts to comprehend and explain a number of the phenomena of capitalism. Thus in the.sixteenth to eighteenth centuries there arose and developed the trend of economic thought and policy known as mercantilism.

Mercantilism arose in England, and afterwards it appeared in France, Italy and other countries. The mercantilists discussed the question of the country's wealth, the forms of wealth and the ways of its growth.

This was a time when capital-in the form of merchant and usurers' capital-was predominant in the sphere of trade and credit. In the sphere of production, however, it had made only the first steps by founding manufactories. After the discovery and conquest of America a flood of gold and silver poured into Europe. Gold and silver were then ceaselessly re-distributed among the individual European States, both by means of wars and through foreign trade.

In their understanding of the nature of wealth the mercantilists started from the superficial phenomena of circulation. They concentrated attention not on production, but on trade and money circulation, particularly the movement of gold and silver.

In the view of the mercantilists, not social production and its products, but money, gold and silver, was the sole real wealth. The mercantilists demanded active intervention in economic life by the State, so that as much money as possible should flow into the country and as little as possible pass beyond its limits. The early mercantilists sought to achieve this by purely administrative measures, forbidding the export of money from the country. Later mercantilists considered it essential to expand foreign trade for these ends. Thus an English partisan of mercantilism, Thomas Mun (1571-1641), a great merchant and director of the East India Company wrote: "The ordinary means therefore to increase our wealth and treasure is by Foreign Trade, wherein we must ever observe this rule; to sell more to strangers yearly than we consume of theirs in value." The mercantilists reflected the interests of the bourgeoisie which was growing up in the womb of feudalism and striving to accumulate wealth in gold and silver by developing foreign trade, colonial plunder and trade wars and the enslavement of backward peoples. In connection with the development of capitalism, they began to demand that the State authorities should protect the development of industrial enterprises, the manufactories. Export bounties, which were paid to merchants selling commodities on the foreign market, were established. Import duties soon became still more significant. With the development of the manufactories and later of factories, the imposition of duties on imported commodities became the most widespread defence measure of home industry against foreign competition.

Such a defensive policy is called protectionism. In many countries it remained for a long time after the conceptions of mercantilism had been overcome.

In England protective duties were of great significance in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, when competition from the more developed manufactories of the Netherlands threatened her. From the eighteenth century England was steadily gaining industrial leadership.

Other less developed countries could not compete with her. Consequently, ideas of free trade began to gain ground in England.

A different situation was created in countries which entered on the capitalist road later than England. Thus, in France in the seventeenth century Colbert, the minister of Louis XIV, who in' fact ruled the country, created a widely ramified system of State patronage of manufactories.

His system included high import duties, the prohibition of exports of raw materials, the introduction of a number of new branches of industry, the setting up of companies for foreign trade, and so on.

Mercantilism played a progressive part for its time. The protectionist policy inspired by the ideas of mercantilism greatly helped the spread of manufactories. The lack of development of capitalist production at that time, however, was reflected in the mercantilists' views of wealth. The further development of capitalism made the unsoundness of the conceptions of the mercantile system more and more evident.

In Russia in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the feudal serf-owning system of economy was dominant. The economy was basically a natural one. At the same time, trade and handicraft developed considerably, a national market was formed and manufactories began to arise. These economic changes in the country helped to strengthen absolutism in Russia.

The representatives of Russian economic thought, reflecting the historical and economic peculiarities of the country, developed certain mercantilist ideas. However, as distinct from many West European mercantilists, they ascribed great significance not only to trade, but also to the development of industry and agriculture.

The economic views of that time were reflected in the works and measures of the seventeenth century Russian statesman A.L. Ordyn-Nashchokin, in the economic policy of Peter I and in the works of the most important Russian economist of the beginning of the eighteenth century, I.T. Pososhkov.

In his Book on Poverty and Wealth (1724) I.T. Pososhkov expounded a broad programme of Russian economic development and offered a developed justification for this programme. Pososhkov demonstrated the necessity of adopting a number of economic measures in Russia with the aim of protecting the development of home industry trade and agriculture and improving the country's financial system.

In the last third of the eighteenth century a tendency to the breakdown of feudal serf-owning relations was noticeable in Russia; this became much more acute in the first quarter of the nineteenth century, and later grew into a direct crisis of serfdom.

The initiator of the revolutionary-democratic trend in Russian social thought, A.N. Radishchev (1749-1802), was an outstanding economist of his time. Radishchev, resolutely attacking serfdom and defending the oppressed peasantry, made an annihilating criticism of the serf-owning system, exposed the exploiting nature of the wealth of the landlords and serf-owners, the owners of manufactories and traders and justified the right to ownership of land of those who worked it with their labour. Radishchev was firmly convinced that the autocracy and serfdom could be liquidated only by revolutionary means. He worked out a system of economic measures which were progressive for, his time, and the realisation of which would have secured Russia s advance to a bourgeois democratic system.

The Decembrists, in the first half of the nineteenth century, were revolutionaries of that historical period in Russia when the need to replace feudalism by capitalism had ripened. They directed the edge of their criticism against serfdom. Standing forth as fiery partisans of the development of Russia's productive forces, they considered the abolition of serfdom and the emancipation of the peasants as the most important conditions of this development. The Decembrists not only put forward the slogan of struggle against serfdom and autocracy, but also organised an armed rising against the absolute monarchy. P.I. Pestel (1793-1826) worked out an original scheme for the solution of the agrarian problem in Russia. He drew up a kind of draft constitution, which he called "The Russian Law", envisaging the urgent and complete emancipation of the peasants from serfdom and also economic measures for the defence of the peasants' interests for the future. For this purpose Pestel considered it essential to create a special public land fund from which each peasant could receive for his own use, without payment, land essential for his existence. This fund should be formed out of part of the land of the landlords and the Government, moreover, part of the land should be alienated from the largest landlords without compensation. The Decembrists, as revolutionaries coming from the ranks of the gentry, were far from the people, but their ideas of struggle against serfdom helped the growth of the revolutionary movement in Russia.

The ideology of the bourgeoisie in their rise to supremacy was formed in conditions of the breakdown of feudalism and the birth of the capitalist order of society. This ideology was directed against the feudal system and against religion as the ideological weapon of the feudal lords. Therefore, the outlook of the bourgeoisie struggling for power had a progressive character in a number of countries. Its most notable representatives-economists and, philosophers-subjected to decisive criticism all the fundamental principles of feudal society: economic, political, religious, philosophical and moral. They played a great part in the ideological preparation of the bourgeois revolution and exerted a progressive influence on the development of science and art.

Brief Conclusions

(1) Feudalism arose on the basis of the disintegration of slave-owning society and the break-up of the village community of the tribes which conquered the slave-owning States. In those countries where there had been no slave-owning system, feudalism arose on the basis of the break-up of the primitive community system. The clan aristocracy and military leaders of the tribes took into their hands a great quantity of lands and distributed them among their followers. The gradual enserfing of the peasants took place. (2) The feudal lord's ownership of land and incomplete ownership of the worker in production-the peasant serf-was the basis of the relations of production in feudal society. As well as feudal property there existed the individual property of the peasant and craftsman, which was based on personal labour. The labour of the peasant serfs was the source of the existence of feudal society. Serf exploitation was expressed in the fact that the peasants were compelled to perform week-work for the feudal lord, or to pay him quitrent in kind and in money. The burden that serfdom laid on the peasant was frequently little different from that of slavery. However, the serf system opened certain possibilities for the development of the productive forces since the peasant could work a certain part of the time on his own holding and had a certain interest in his labour.

(3) The basic economic law of feudalism consists in the production of surplus product to satisfy the demands of the feudal lords, by means of the exploitation of dependent peasants, on the basis of the ownership of the land by the feudal lords and their incomplete ownership of the workers in production-the serfs.

(4) Feudal society, particularly in the period of the early Middle Ages, was split into small princedoms and states. The nobility and clergy were the ruling estates of feudal society. The peasant estate had no political rights. A class struggle between peasants and feudal lords took place throughout the whole history of feudal society. The feudal State, reflecting the interests of nobility and clergy, was an active force helping them to consolidate their right of feudal ownership of the land and to intensify their exploitation of the dispossessed and oppressed peasants.

(5) In the feudal epoch agriculture played a predominant part, and the economy had a basically natural character. With the development of the social division of labour and exchange, the old towns which had survived the fall of the slave-owning system revived, and new towns arose. The towns were centres of handicraft and trade. The crafts were organised in guilds which strove to prevent competition. Traders united in merchant guilds.

(6) The development of commodity production, breaking down the natural economy, led to differentiation among the peasants and the craftsmen. Merchant capital hastened the decline of the crafts and promoted the birth of capitalist enterprise-the manufactories. Feudal limitations and territorial divisions acted as a brake on the growth of commodity production. In the process of further development the national market was formed. The centralised feudal State arose in the form of absolute monarchy.

(7) Primitive accumulation of capital prepared the conditions for the rise of capitalism. Huge numbers of small producers-peasants and craftsmen-were deprived of the means of production. Great monetary wealth concentrated in the hands of large landowners, merchants and usurers was created by means of the forcible expropriation of the peasantry, colonial trade, taxes and the slave trade. Thus the formation of the basic classes of capitalist society, of wage-workers and capitalists, was accelerated. More or less complete forms of the capitalist order of society grew and ripened in the womb of feudal society.

(8) The production relations of feudalism, the low productivity of the unfree labour of the peasant serfs, and guild restrictions, hindered the further development of productive forces. Peasant serf risings. shook the feudal system and led to the abolition of serfdom. The bourgeoisie took the lead in the struggle for the overthrow of feudalism. It made use of the revolutionary struggle of the peasants against the feudal lords in order to take power into its own hands. The bourgeois revolutions put an end to the feudal system and established the rule of capitalism, giving scope for the development of the forces of production.

The Capitalist Mode of Production: Pre-Monopoly Capitalism

Commodity Production. Commodities and Money

Commodity Production—the Point of Departure for the Rise of Capitalism and a General Feature of Capitalism

The capitalist mode of production, which arose as successor to the feudal mode of production, is based upon exploitation of the class of wage-workers by the class of capitalists. To understand the essence of the capitalist mode of production one must bear in mind, first and foremost, that the capitalist system has commodity production as its foundation: under capitalism everything takes the form of a commodity and the principle of buying and selling prevails everywhere.

Commodity production is older, than capitalist production. It existed in slave-owning society and under feudalism. In the period when feudalism was breaking down, simple commodity production served as the basis for the rise of capitalist production.

Simple commodity production presupposes, first, the social division of labour, under which individual producers specialise in making particular products, and, second, the existence of private property in the means of production and in the products of labour.

The simple commodity production of craftsmen and peasants is distinguished from capitalist commodity production by the fact that it is based upon the personal labour of the commodity producer. Yet fundamentally it is similar in kind to capitalist production, in so far as its foundation is private property in the means of production. Private ownership inevitably gives rise to competition between the commodity producers, which leads to the enrichment of a minority and the ruin of the majority. Thus, petty commodity production serves as the point of departure for the rise and development of capitalist relations.

Under capitalism commodity production becomes dominant and universal. The exchange of commodities, Lenin wrote, appears as "the simplest, most ordinary, fundamental, most common and everyday relation of bourgeois (commodity) society, a relation that is encountered thousands of millions of times." (Lenin, "On Dialectics", Marx-Engels-Marxism, 1951, English edition, p. 334.)

The Commodity and its Characteristics. Dual Nature of the Labour embodied in a Commodity

A commodity is a thing which, first, satisfies some human demand and, second, is produced not for personal consumption but for exchange.

The utility of a thing, the characteristics thanks to which it is able to satisfy some human demand, makes the thing a use-value. A use-value can either directly satisfy an individual human demand or else serve as a means of production of material wealth. For instance, bread satisfies a demand as food and cloth as clothing, while the use-value of a loom consists in the fact that cloth is made with its help. In the course of historical development, man continually discovers fresh useful characteristics in things and fresh ways of using them.

Use-value is possessed by many things which have not in any way been created by human labour, such as, for example, spring-water or the fruits of wild trees. But not everything which has use-value is a commodity. For a thing to become a commodity it must be a product of labour produced for sale. Use-value forms the material substance of wealth, whatever its social form may be. In a commodity economy, use-value is the depository of the exchange-value of a commodity. Exchange-value appears first of all as the quantitative relationship in which use-values of one kind are exchanged for use-values of another kind. For example, one axe is exchanged for 20 kilogrammes of grain. In this quantitative relationship between the commodities exchanged is expressed also their exchange-value. Commodities are treated as equivalent to each other in definite quantities, consequently they must have a common basis. This basis cannot be any of the natural properties of commodities-their weight, size, shape, etc. The natural properties of commodities determine their utility and their use-value, a necessary condition for exchange is difference between the use-values of the commodities to be exchanged. No one will exchange commodities which are identical, such as wheat for wheat, or sugar for sugar. The use-values of different commodities, being different qualitatively, are incommensurable quantitatively.

Commodities of different kinds have only one characteristic in common which makes it possible to compare them for purposes of exchange, and it is that they are all products of labour. Underlying the equivalence of two commodities which are exchanged against each other is the social labour expended in producing them. When a commodity producer brings an axe to market in order to exchanger it he finds that for his axe he can get 20 kilogrammes of grain. This means that the axe is worth the same amount of social labour as 20 kilogrammes of grain are worth. Value is the social labour of commodity producers embodied in a commodity.

That the value of commodities embodies the social labour expended in producing them is borne out by some generally known facts. Material wealth which is useful in itself, but requires no expenditure of labour for its production, has no value-e.g., the air. Material wealth which requires a large expenditure of labour has a high value-e.g., gold, diamonds. Many commodities which at one time were costly have become cheaper as the development of technique has reduced the amount of labour needed to produce them. Changes in the amount of labour expended in producing commodities are usually reflected in the quantitative relationship between these commodities when exchanged, i.e., in their exchange-value. It follows from all this that the exchange-value of a commodity is the form in which its value manifests itself.

Hidden behind the exchange of commodities is the social division of labour between the persons who are the owners of these commodities. When commodity producers compare different commodities, one with another, in so doing they are comparing their different kinds of labour. Thus, value expresses the production-relations between commodity producers. These relations manifest themselves in the exchange of commodities.

A commodity has a two-fold character: in one aspect it is a use-value and in another it is a value. The two-fold character of the commodity is caused by the two-fold nature of the labour embodied in the commodity. The kinds of labour are just as various as the use-values which are produced. The labour of a joiner is qualitatively different from that of a tailor, a shoemaker, etc. The different kinds of labour are distinguished one from another by their aims, methods, tools and, finally, their results. The joiner does his work with an axe, a saw and a plane and makes wooden articles: tables, chairs, cupboards; the tailor makes clothes, using a sewing machine, scissors and a needle. Thus, in each use-value a definite kind of labour is embodied: in a table-the joiner's labour, in a suit-the tailor's labour, in a pair of shoes-the shoemaker's labour, etc. Labour expended in a definite form is concrete labour. Concrete labour creates the use-value of a commodity.

In the course of exchange, commodities of the most various kinds, created by different kinds of concrete labour, are compared together and measured on a common footing. Consequently, behind the different concrete forms of labour there is hidden something common, something inherent in every form of labour. Both the joiner's labour and the tailor's, despite the qualitative difference between these forms of labour, constitute a productive expenditure of human brains, nerves, muscles, etc., and in this sense are homogeneous human labour, labour in general. The labour of commodity producers, considered as expenditure of human labour-power generally, without regard to its concrete form, is abstract labour. Abstract labour forms the value of a commodity.

Abstract and concrete labour are two aspects of the labour embodied in a commodity.

"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 expenditure 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." (Marx, Capital, Kerr edition, vol. I, p. 54.)

In a society in which private property in the means of production prevails, the two-fold character of the labour embodied in a commodity reflects the contradiction between the private and social labour of the commodity producers. Private ownership of the means of production separates people, makes the labour of the individual commodity producer his own private affair. Each commodity producer conducts his enterprise separately from the rest. The labour of the separate workers is not concerted or co-ordinated on the scale of society as a whole. But, from another angle, the social division of labour means that all-round connections exist between the producers, who are working for each other. The more labour is divided in society and the more varied are the products manufactured by the separate producers, the more extensive is the mutual dependence of the latter. Consequently, the labour of each separate commodity producer is essentially social labour and forms a particle of the labour of society as a whole. Commodities, which are products of various kinds of particular, concrete labour, are at the same time also products of human labour in general, abstract labour.

It follows that the contradiction of commodity production consists in the labour of commodity producers, which is directly the private affair of each one of them, having at the same time a social character. Owing to the isolation of the commodity products one from another, the social character of their labour in the process of production remains hidden. It finds expression only in the process of exchange, when the commodity comes on to the market and is exchanged against another commodity. Only in the process of exchange is it revealed whether the labour of a particular commodity producer is needed by society and whether it will receive social recognition.

Abstract labour, which forms the value of a commodity, is an historical category, a specific form of social labour belonging to commodity economy only. In natural economy men produce their products not for exchange but for personal consumption, so that the social character of their labour appears directly in concrete form. For example, when a feudal lord extracted surplus product from serf-peasants in the form of labour-rent or rent in kind, he appropriated their labour directly in the form of labour services or definite products. In these circumstances social labour did not assume the form of abstract labour. In commodity production, products are produced not for personal consumption but for sale. The social character of labour is here expressed by means of the comparison of one commodity with another, and this comparison takes place through the reducing of concrete forms of labour to the abstract labour which forms the value of a commodity. This process takes place spontaneously, without any sort of common plan, behind the backs of the commodity producers.

Socially-necessary Labour-Time. Simple and Complex Labour

The magnitude of the value of a commodity is determined by labour-time. The more labour-time is needed to produce a given commodity, the higher is its value. Of course, the individual commodity producers work in varying conditions and expend varying amounts of labour-time in the production of one and the same kind of commodity. Does this mean that the more idle the worker, or the less favourable the conditions in which he is working, the higher the value of the commodity produced by him? No, it does not mean that. The magnitude of the value of a commodity is determined not by the individual labour-time expended by a particular commodity producer in producing a commodity, but by the socially-necessary labour-time.

Socially-necessary labour-time is the time needed for the making of any commodity under average social conditions of production, i.e., with the average level of technique and average skill and intensity of labour. It corresponds to the conditions of production under which the greatest bulk of goods of a particular kind are produced. Socially-necessary labour-time changes as a result of the growth of the productivity of labour.

The productivity of labour is expressed in the amount of products created in a given unit of labour-time. The productivity of labour grows as a result of the improvement or fuller utilisation of the instruments of production, the development of science, the increase in the worker's skill, the rationalisation of work, and other improvements in the production process. To a greater or less extent it is also dependent on natural conditions. The higher the productivity of labour, the less the time needed for the production of a unit of the given commodity and the lower the value of this commodity.

The intensity of labour must be distinguished from the productivity of labour. The intensity of labour is determined by the amount of labour expended in a unit of time. A growth in the intensity of labour means an increase in the expenditure of labour in one and the same interval of time. More intensive labour embodies itself in a greater quantity of products and creates a greater value in a given unit of time, as compared with less intensive labour.

Workers of varying skill take part in the production of commodities. The labour of a worker who has had no special training is simple labour. Labour which requires special training is complex or skilled labour.

Complex labour creates value of greater magnitude than is created by simple labour in the same unit of time. Into the value of a commodity created by complex labour there enters also part of the labour expended on the worker's training, on raising his degree of skill. Complex; labour is equivalent to multiplied simple labour; one hour of complex labour is equal to several hours of simple labour. The reduction of various forms of complex labour to simple labour takes place spontaneously under commodity production based on private property. The magnitude of the value of a commodity is determined by the socially-necessary amount of simple labour.

Development of the Forms of Value. Nature of Money

The value of a commodity is created by labour in the process of production, but it can manifest itself only through the comparison of one commodity with another in the process of exchange, i.e., through exchange-value.

The simplest form of value is the expression of the value of one commodity in terms of another commodity: e.g., one axe=2.0 kilogrammes of grain. Let us examine this form.

In this case, the value of the axe is expressed in terms of grain. The grain serves as a means of expressing the value of the axe. It is possible to express the value of the axe in the use-value of grain only because labour is expended both in the production of the grain and in that of the axe. Behind the equality of these commodities is concealed the equal expenditure of labour in producing them. A commodity which expresses its value in another commodity (in our example, the axe), has a relative form of value. A commodity the use-value of which serves as the means of expressing the value of another commodity (in our example, the grain), has an equivalent form. The grain is the equivalent of (is worth) the other commodity, viz., the axe.

The use-value of one commodity, grain, thus becomes the form in which the value of another commodity, the axe, is expressed.

In the beginning, exchange, which originated already in primitive society, was of a casual nature and took place in the form of direct exchange of one product for another. To this stage in the development of exchange corresponds the elementary or accidental form of value:

1 axe = 20 kilogrammes of grain.

Under the elementary form of value, the value of an axe can be expressed only in the use-value of a single commodity; in the given example, grain.

With the rise of the first major social division of labour-the separation of pastoral tribes-from the general mass of tribes exchange becomes more regular. Certain tribes, e.g., the cattle-raising ones, begin to produce a surplus of cattle products, which they exchange for products of agriculture or handicraft which they lack. To this level of the development of exchange corresponds the total or expanded form of value. There now take part in exchange not two but a whole series of commodities:

[diagram]

In this case the commodity's value is expressed in the use-value not of a single commodity but of a number of commodities, all playing the part of equivalent. In addition, the quantitative correlations in which the commodities are exchanged, acquire a more constant character. At this stage, however, the direct exchange of one commodity for another is retained.

With the further development of the social division of labour and of commodity production, the form of direct exchange of one commodity far another becomes inadequate. Difficulties arise in the process of exchange, engendered by the growth of the contradictions of commodity production, contradictions between individual and social labour, between the use-value and the value of a commodity. With increasing frequency the situation occurs when, for example, the owner of some shoes wants an axe, but the use-value of the shoes prevents exchange being effected, because the owner of an axe wants not shoes but grain: it is not possible for these two commodity owners to effect a transaction. When this happens the owner of shoes exchanges his shoes for that commodity which is exchanged more often than any other and which everybody accepts most readily-a sheep, say-and then exchanges this sheep for the axe which he wants. The owner of the axe, having received in exchange for it a sheep, exchanges this for grain. This is how the contradictions of direct exchange are solved. The direct exchange of one commodity for another gradually disappears. From among the commodities one becomes singled out-e.g., livestock-for which all commodities begin to be exchanged. To this stage in the development of exchange corresponds the general form of value:

[diagram]

It is a characteristic of the general form of value that all commodities begin to be exchanged for a commodity which plays the role of universal equivalent. At this stage, however, the role of universal equivalent had still not become attached to any single commodity. In different places the role of universal equivalent was played by different commodities. In some places it was livestock, in others furs, in yet others salt, and so on.

The further growth of the productive forces, the transition to metal tools, the rise of the second major division of labour -the separation of handicraft from agriculture-led to the further development of commodity production and the widening of the market. The abundance of different commodities playing the role of universal equivalent came into contradiction with the needs of the growing market, which required transition to a single equivalent.

When the role of universal equivalent had become attached to one commodity, the money form of value appeared. The role of money has been taken by various metals, but eventually it became consolidated in the precious metals, gold and silver. In silver and gold are particularly expressed all the advantages of metals which make them more suitable than anything else to fulfil the function of money: homogeneity, divisibility, durability and insignificant size and weight combined with great value. Therefore the role of money became firmly connected with the precious metals, and in the long run with gold. The money form of value can be depicted like this:

[diagram]

Under the money form of value, the value of every commodity is expressed in the use-value of a single commodity, which has become the universal equivalent.

Money thus arose as a result of a long process of development of exchange and of forms of value. With the rise of money a polarisation took place in the world of commodities-at one pole remained the ordinary commodities, while to the other pole went the commodity which played the role of money. Now all commodities begin to express their value in the money; commodity. Consequently, money appears, in contradiction to all other commodities, as the general embodiment of value the universal equivalent. Money possesses the property of being directly exchangeable for any commodity and so serves as the means of satisfying all the requirements of the commodity owners, whereas all other commodities can satisfy only one or other of their requirements-e.g., bread, clothing, etc.

Consequently, money is the commodity which is the universal equivalent of all commodities; it embodies social labour and expresses the production relations between the' commodity producers.

Functions of Money

As commodity production extends so the functions fulfilled by money expand. In developed commodity production money serves as:

(1) the measure of value, (2) the medium of circulation, (3) the means of accumulation, (4) the means of payment and (5) world-wide currency.

The fundamental function of money consists in serving as the measure of value of commodities. With the aid of money the individual labour of a commodity producer finds social expression and the spontaneous calculation and measurement of the values of all commodities is effected. The value of a commodity cannot be directly expressed in labour-time, since under conditions in which the private commodity producers operate in isolation and separation one from another it is impossible to determine the amount of labour which not any particular commodity producer but society as a whole expends in the production of any particular commodity. For this reason the value of a commodity can be expressed only indirectly, by way of the equating of the commodity with money in the process of exchange.

To fulfil the function of measure of value, money must itself be a commodity and possess value. Just as the weights of bodies can be measured only by means of scales which themselves possess weights, so the value of a commodity can be measured only by means of a commodity which possesses value.

Measurement of the value of commodities by means of gold occurs even before a given commodity is exchanged for money. To express the value of commodities in money it is not necessary to have cash in one's hand. In fixing a definite price for a commodity, its owner mentally (or, as Marx puts it, ideally) expresses the commodity's value in gold. This is possible thanks to the fact that there exists in reality a definite correlation between the value of gold and the value of the given commodity; the basis for this correlation is provided by the socially-necessary labour which is expended in producing them.

A commodity's value expressed in money is called its price. Price is the monetary expression of the value of a commodity. Commodities express their value indefinite amounts of silver or gold. These amounts of the money commodity must themselves in their turn be measured. This gives rise to the need for a unit of measurement of money. This unit consists of a definite amount, by weight, of the metal used for money.

In Britain, for example, the money unit is called the pound sterling; at one time it corresponded to a pound of silver. Later, money units ceased to coincide with units of weight. This occurred as a result of the importation of foreign coins, of the going over from silver to gold, and especially in consequence of the debasement of coins by governments, which gradually reduced their weight. For convenience of measurement monetary units are divided into aliquot parts: the rouble into 100 kopeks, the dollar into 100 cents, the franc into 100 centimes, etc.

The unit of money and its parts provide the standard of price. As a standard of price money plays a role completely different from when it serves as a measure of value. As a measure of value money measures the value of other commodities, but as a standard of price it measures the quantity of the money metal itself. The value of the money commodity varies with changes in the amount of labour socially necessary for its production. Changes in the value of gold are not reflected in its function as a standard of price. However much the value of gold may change, a dollar is still worth a hundred times as much as a cent.

The State can alter the gold content of the money unit, but it is not in a position to vary the value relationship between gold and other commodities. Should the State reduce the amount of gold contained in the money unit, i.e., lower its gold content, the market would react to this by a rise in prices, and the value of a commodity would be expressed, as before, in that quantity of gold which corresponded to the labour expended in producing the commodity in question. All that would happen would be that now a larger number of monetary units than before would be needed to express the same quantity of gold.

The prices of commodities may rise or fall under the influence of changes either in the value of commodities or in the value of gold. The value of gold, as of every commodity, depends on the productivity of labour. Thus, the discovery of America, with its rich gold-fields, led to a price-revolution in Europe between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries. Gold was obtained in America with less labour than in Europe. The influx into Europe of the cheaper American gold brought about a general rise in prices.

Money fulfils the function of circulation medium. The exchanging of commodities effected with the aid of money is called commodity circulation. The circulation of commodities is inseparably bound up with the circulation of money itself: when a commodity passes from the hands of the seller into those of the buyer, money passes from the hands of the buyer into those of the seller. Money's function as circulation medium consists in its playing the part of intermediary in the circulation process of commodities. To carry out this function real money must be actually present.

At first, when commodities were exchanged, money figured directly in the form of bars of silver or gold. This led to certain difficulties: it was necessary to weigh the money metal, to break it up into small pieces and to carry out assays. Gradually bars of the money metal gave place to coins. A coin is a piece of metal of definite shape, weight and denomination, which serves as a medium of circulation. The minting of money was concentrated in the hands of the State.

During the process of circulation, coins become worn by use and lose part of their value. The practice of monetary circulation showed that worn coins could fulfil the function of circulation medium equally as well as coins of full value. The reason for this was that money when acting as a circulation medium plays only a fleeting role. As a rule, the seller of a commodity accepts money in exchange for it so as to buy another commodity with this money. Consequently, money acting as circulation medium need not necessarily possess its proper value.

Taking into account the practice of the circulation of worn coins, governments began consciously to debase the coinage, to reduce its weight, to lower the standard of assay of the money metal without changing the nominal value of coins, i.e., the number of monetary units marked upon them. Coins were transformed more and more into symbols of value, tokens of money. Their actual values are very much less than they nominally appear to be.

The splitting of the category "commodities" into commodities and money heralds a development of the contradictions of commodity production. When one commodity is directly exchanged for another, each transaction is of an isolated nature; selling is not separated from buying. It is another matter when exchange is carried on by mean of money, i.e., when commodity circulation arises. Now exchange presupposes an all-round connection between commodity producers and a ceaseless interweaving of transactions among them. It opens up the possibility of a separation between buying and selling. A commodity producer can sell his commodity and retain for the time being the money which he receives for it. When many commodity producers sell without buying, a hold-up in the sale of commodities Can come about. Thus, even simple commodity circulation contains in germ the possibility of crises. For this possibility to be transformed into inevitability, however, a number of conditions are needed which appear only with the advance to the capitalist mode of production.

Money fulfils the function of means of accumulation or means of forming hoards. Money is transformed into a hoard when it is withdrawn from circulation. As money can always be transformed into any commodity, it is the universal equivalent of wealth. It can be kept in any quantity. Commodity producers accumulate money, for example, in order to buy means of production or as savings. With the development of commodity production the power of money grows. All this gives rise to a passion for saving money, to the formation of hoards. The function of a hoard can be fulfilled only by money of full value: gold and silver coins, bars of gold and silver, and also articles made of gold and silver. When gold or silver coins are serving as money, they spontaneously adapt themselves in amount to the requirements of commodity circulation. When the production of commodities declines and commodity circulation shrinks, some of the gold coins disappear from circulation and are transferred into hoards. When production extends and commodity circulation grows, these coins reappear in circulation.

Money fulfils the function of means of payment. Money figures as a means of payment in cases when the buying and selling of a commodity is carried out on credit, i.e., with the payment deferred. When a commodity is bought on credit the transfer of the commodity from the seller's hands to the buyer's is effected without immediate payment by the purchaser. When the time comes for the purchased commodity to be paid for, money is paid by the buyer to the seller without any' transfer of a commodity, this having taken place earlier. Money serves as a means of payment also in the payment of taxes, rent, etc.

The functioning of money as a means of payment reflects the further development of the contradictions of commodity production. The links between the separate commodity producers become more extensive and their dependence upon each other increases. The buyer now becomes a debtor and the seller is transformed into a creditor. When many commodity owners are buying commodities on credit, the failure of one or a number of debtors to honour in due time their promises to pay can react upon a whole series of obligations to pay, and lead to the bankruptcy of a number of commodity owners who are linked together by credit relationships. Thus the possibility of crises, which is already inherent in the function of money as circulation medium, is intensified.

Examination of the function of money as circulation medium and as means of payment enables us to see clearly the law which determines the amount of money needed for the circulation of commodities.

Commodities are bought and sold in many places at the same time. The amount of money needed for circulation in a given period depends, first of all, on the total of the prices of the commodities in circulation, which in turn depends on the quantity of commodities and the price of each separate commodity. In addition, the velocity with which money moves around must be taken into account. The more rapidly money moves, the less of it is needed for circulation, and vice versa. If, for example, in the course of a given period-a year, say-,commodities are sold at a total price of 1,000 million dollars, and each dollar moves five times, on the average, then for the circulation of the whole mass of commodities 200 million dollars are needed.

Thanks to the credit which commodity producers grant each other, the need for money is reduced by the total of the prices of commodities which are sold on credit and by the total of payments which mutually cancel out. Ready money is needed only for the settlement of those debt obligations the time to meet which has arrived.

Thus, the law of the circulation of money is this: the amount of money needed for the circulation of commodities must equal the total of the prices of all commodities, divided by the average turnover of money units of the same denomination. Furthermore, from the total of the prices of all commodities must be deducted the total of the prices of all commodities sold on credit and the sum of mutually-cancelling payments, and to it must be added the total of payments the time to settle which has come round.

This law applies universally to all social formations where commodity production and circulation take place.

Finally, money plays the role of world-wide currency in circulation between different countries. The role of universal money cannot be played by coins of less than full value or by paper money. On the world market money abandons the form of coins and appears in its original aspect-bars of precious metal. On the world market, in circulation between countries, gold is the universal purchasing medium for payment for commodities imported into one country from another, the universal means of payment for clearing international debts, for paying interest on foreign loans and other obligations, and the universal embodiment of social wealth when this is transferred from one country to another in monetary form, e.g., when money capital is exported from one country to another for the purpose of depositing it in foreign banks, for making loans, or for the payment of contributions by a conquered country to a victorious one, etc.

The development of the function of money expresses the growth of commodity production and its contradictions. In social formations based on the exploitations of man by man money bears a class character, serving as the means of appropriating the labour of others. It played this part in slave-owning society and in feudal society. As we shall see below, the role of money as an instrument of exploitation attained its highest development in capitalist society.

Gold and Paper Money

Under conditions of developed commodity production, paper money is often used instead of gold coins. The issue of paper money was engendered by the practice of the circulation of worn and devalued coins which had become transformed into symbols of gold, symbols of money.

Paper money means money tokens issued by the State, which people are obliged to accept instead of gold so far as its function as circulation medium is concerned. Paper money has no value of its own. For this reason it cannot fulfil the function of measure of the value of commodities. However much paper money may be issued, it represents only the value of that quantity of gold which is necessary for commodity circulation to be maintained. Paper money is not accepted in exchange for gold.

If paper money is issued in accordance with the amount of gold needed for circulation, the purchasing power of paper money, i.e., the amount of commodities which it can buy, coincides with the purchasing power of gold money. But usually the State issues paper money to cover its expenses, especially in wartime, during crises or other emergencies, without regard to the needs of commodity circulation.

When the production and circulation of commodities are restricted or when an exceptional amount of paper money is issued, the latter is found to be in excess of the quantity of gold needed for circulation. Money has been issued, let us say, to an extent double what is needed. In such a case, each unit of paper money (dollar, mark, franc, etc.) will represent half the quantity of gold, i.e., the paper will depreciate by half.

The first attempts to issue paper money took place in China as far back as the twelfth century; paper money was issued in America in 1690¹and in France in 1716; Britain began to issue paper money at the time of the Napoleonic Wars. In Russia paper money was first issued in Catherine II's reign.

An extraordinarily large issue of paper money, leading to its depreciation and used by the ruling classes for the purpose of transferring the burden of State expenditure on to the backs of the working masses and increasing their exploitation; is called inflation. Inflation, which gives rise to an increase in the cost of goods, bears heaviest upon the working people, because the wages and salaries of the workers lag behind the rise in prices. Capitalists and landlords benefit from inflation, owing above all to the fall in the real wages of industrial and agricultural workers. Inflation benefits those capitalists who export their commodities. As a result of the fall in real wages and the reduction thereby of the costs of production of commodities it becomes possible for them to compete successfully with foreign capitalists and landlords and increase the sale of their commodities.

The Law of Value—an Economic Law of Commodity Production

In commodity production based on private property, the production of commodities is carried out by separate private commodity producers. A competitive struggle goes on between these commodity producers. Each one tries to push the others aside and to maintain and extend his own position in the market. Production proceeds without any sort of general plan. Each one produces on his own account, regardless of the others; nobody knows what the demand is for the commodity which he is producing or how many other commodity producers are engaged in producing the same commodity, whether he will be able to find a market for his commodity or whether he will be reimbursed for the labour he has expended. With the development of commodity production the power exercised by the market over the commodity producers becomes ever greater.

This means that in commodity production based on private ownership of the means of production there operates the economic law of competition and anarchy of production. This law expresses the spontaneous nature of production and exchange, the struggle between private commodity producers for more advantageous conditions of production and sale of goods.

Under the conditions of anarchy of production which reign in commodity production based on private property, the law of value appears as the spontaneous regulator of production, acting through market-competition.

The law of value is an economic law of commodity production, by which the exchange of commodities is effected in accordance with the amount of socially-necessary labour expended on their production.

The law of value regulates the distribution of social labour and means of production among different branches of commodity economy spontaneously, through the price mechanism. Under the influence of fluctuations in the relationship of supply and demand the prices of commodities continually diverge either above or below their value. Divergences of prices from values are not a result of some defect in the operation of the law of value, but, on the contrary, are the only possible way in which it can become effective. In a society in which production is in the hands of private owners, working blindly, only the spontaneous fluctuations of prices on the market inform the commodity producers whether they have produced goods in excess of the effective demand by the population or have not produced sufficient to meet it. Only the spontaneous fluctuations of prices around values oblige commodity producers to extend or restrict the production of particular commodities. Under the influence of price-fluctuations, commodity producers rush into those branches which appear most profitable at the given moment because the prices of commodities are higher than their values, and quit those branches where the prices of commodities are lower than their values.

The operation of the law of value conditions the development of the productive forces of commodity economy. As we have seen, the magnitude of the value of a commodity is determined by socially-necessary labour-time. The commodity producers who are the first to introduce a higher technique produce their commodities at reduced cost, in comparison with that which is socially-necessary, but sell these commodities at the prices which correspond to the socially-necessary labour. When they sell their commodities they receive a surplus of money arid grow rich. This impels the remaining commodity producers to make technical improvements in their own enterprises. Thus, as a result of the separate actions of separate commodity producers, each striving for his own private advantages, progress takes place in technique and the productive forces of society are developed.

As a result of competition and anarchy of production, the distribution of labour and means of production between the various branches of economy and the development of the forces of production are accomplished in a commodity economy at the price of great waste of social labour, and lead to the contradictions of this economy becoming more and more acute.

In conditions of commodity production based on private property, the operation of the law of value leads to the rise and development of capitalist relations. Spontaneous fluctuations of market prices around values, and divergences of individual labour costs from the socially-necessary labour which determines the magnitude of the value of a commodity, intensify the economic inequality of the commodity producers and the struggle among them. This competitive struggle leads to some commodity producers being ruined and transformed into proletarians while others are enriched and become capitalists. The operation of the law of value thus brings about a differentiation among the commodity producers. "Small production engenders capitalism and the bourgeoisie continuously, daily, hourly, spontaneously and on a mass scale." (Lenin, '''Left-wing' Communism, an Infantile Disorder", Selected Works, 1951, English edition, vol. II, Pt. 2, p. 344.)

Commodity Fetishism

In conditions of commodity production based on private ownership of the means of production, the social link between people which exists in the production process makes its appearance only through the medium of exchange of commodities. The fate of the commodity producers is found to be closely connected with the fate of the commodities which they create. The prices of commodities continually change, independently of people's will or consciousness, and yet the level of prices is often a matter of life and death for the commodity producers.

Relations between things conceal the social relations between people. Thus, though the value of a commodity expresses the social relationship between commodity producers, it appears as a kind of natural property of the commodity, like, say, its colour or its weight. "It is a definite social relation between men," wrote Marx, "that assumes, in their eyes, the fantastic form of a relation between things." (K. Marx, Capital, Kerr edition, vol. I, p. 83.)

In this way, in a commodity economy based on private property, the production-relations between people inevitably appear as relations between things (commodities). In this transmutation of production-relations between persons into relations between things is inherent also the commodity fetishism which is characteristic of commodity production.²

Commodity fetishism is displayed with especial clarity in money. In commodity economy money is a tremendous force, giving power over men. Everything can be bought for money. It comes to seem that this capacity to buy anything and everything is a natural property of gold, whereas in reality it is a result of definite social relations.

Commodity fetishism has deep roots in commodity production, in which the labour of a commodity producer appears directly as private labour, and its social character is revealed only in the exchange of commodities. Only when private property in the means of production is abolished does commodity fetishism disappear.

Brief Conclusions

(1) The point of departure for the rise of capitalism was the simple commodity production of craftsmen and peasants. Simple commodity production differs from capitalism in that it is based upon the individual labour of the commodity producer. At the same time it belongs fundamentally to the same type as capitalist production, in as much as its foundation is private ownership of the means of production. Under capitalism, when not only the products of labour, but labour power too becomes a commodity, commodity production acquires a dominant, universal character.

(2) A commodity is a product which is made for exchange, it appears from one angle as a use-value and from the other as a value. The labour which creates a commodity possesses a dual character. Concrete labour is labour expended in a definite form; It creates the use-value of a commodity. Abstract labour is the expenditure of human labour power in general; It creates the value of a commodity.

(3) Value is the social labour of the commodity producers embodied in a commodity. Value is an historical category which belongs only to commodity economy. The magnitude of the value of a commodity is determined by the labour which is socially-necessary for its production. The contradiction in simple commodity economy consists in the fact that the commodity producers' labour, which is directly their own private affair, bears at the same time a social character.

(4) The development of the contradictions of commodity production leads to one commodity spontaneously being singled out from the rest and becoming money. Money appears as the commodity which plays the role of universal equivalent. Money fulfils the following functions: (1) measure of value, (2) medium of circulation, (3) means of accumulation, (4) means of payment, and (5) world-wide currency.

(5) With the growth of the circulation of money, paper money arises. Paper money, which lacks any value of its own acts as a token for metallic money and replaces it as the circulation medium. An exceptionally large issue of paper money, causing its depreciation (inflation) leads to a lowering of the standard of life of the working people.

(6) In a commodity economy based on private property in the means of production, the law of value is the spontaneous regulator of the distribution of social labour between branches of production. The operation of the law of value causes a differentiation among the petty commodity producers and the development of capitalist relations.

Capitalist Simple Co-operation and Manufacture

Capitalist Simple Co-operation

Capitalism at first subjects production to itself just as it finds it, i.e., with the backward technique of handicraft and small-peasant economy; and only later, at a higher level of its own development, does it refashion production on new economic and technical foundations. Capitalist production begins when the means of production are concentrated in private hands while the workers, deprived of means of production, are obliged to sell their labour power as a commodity. In handicraft production and in peasant crafts fairly large workshops are formed, belonging to capitalists. The capitalists extend the scale of production without at first changing either the instruments or the methods of work used by the petty producers. This primary stage in the development of capitalist production is called capitalist simple co-operation. Capitalist simple co-operation is that form of social labour under which the capitalist exploits a more or less considerable number of wage-workers who are all employed simultaneously and all of whom carry out the same kind of work. Capitalist simple co-operation arises on the basis of the break-up of petty commodity production. The first capitalist enterprises were founded by merchant-engrossers¹ and money-lenders, or by master craftsmen and artisans who had become wealthy. Those who worked in these enterprises were ruined craftsmen and journeymen, who no longer had the possibility of becoming independent master craftsmen, together with the rural poor. Capitalist simple co-operation has certain advantages over petty commodity production. The bringing together of many workers in one enterprise makes for economy in means of production. To build, to heat and to light one workshop containing twenty persons costs less than to build and maintain ten workshops with two workers in each. Expenses for tools, store-rooms and transport of material and of the finished product are also reduced. The results of the labour of an isolated craftsman depend to a considerable extent on his individual characteristics-strength, dexterity, skill, etc. In conditions of primitive technique differences between workers in these respects are very great. Merely for this reason alone the situation of a petty producer is extremely precarious. Commodity producers who expend in producing one and the same kind of commodity more labour than is required in average conditions of production are inevitably ruined. When many workers are together in a workshop individual differences between them tend to be evened out. The work of particular workers diverges in one direction or the other from the average social labour, but the joint work of many simultaneously-employed workers corresponds more or less to the average socially-necessary labour. For this reason, the production and sale of commodities by capitalist workshops become more regular and stable. Under simple co-operation an economy of labour is achieved and the productivity of labour grows. Let us take as an example the shifting of bricks by hand carried out by a chain of workers. Each separate worker accomplishes in this case one and the same movement, but his actions form part of one common operation. As a result the work goes much quicker than when each man separately shifts bricks. Ten men working together produce in the course of a working day more than the same ten men working separately, or than one man in the course of ten working days of the same length. Co-operation enables work to be carried out simultaneously over a large area, for example, in the draining of marshes, the building of dams, canals and railways and also makes it possible to expend a considerable mass of labour in a small space, for example, in the construction of buildings or in the cultivation of crops which require a great deal of labour. Co-operation is of great importance in those branches of production where certain jobs must be carried out in a short time, for instance, harvesting, sheep-shearing, etc. The simultaneous employment of a large number of workers enables such jobs to be completed in a reduced time and thereby prevents the incurring of great losses. Thus, co-operation gave a new social productive force to labour. The mere simple bringing together of the forces of separate workers led to an increase in the productivity of labour. This enabled the owners of the first capitalist workshops to produce commodities more cheaply and to compete successfully with the petty producers. The results of the new social productivity force of labour were appropriated without compensation by the capitalists and served to enrich them. The Period of Capitalist Manufacture

The development of simple capitalist co-operation led to the rise of manufacture. Manufacture is capitalist co-operation based on division of labour and handicraft technique. Manufacture as a form of capitalist production prevailed in Western Europe approximately from the middle of the sixteenth century to the last third of the eighteenth century. Manufacture arose in two different ways. The first way was the bringing together by a capitalist in one workshop of craftsmen of different skills. In this way there arose, for example, a coach manufactory, which brought together within its walls craftsmen who had previously been independent: coachmakers, harnessmakers, upholsterers, locksmiths, coppersmiths, turners, braidmakers, glaziers, painters, polishers, etc. In the manufactory the production of a coach was divided into a large number of different, mutually-complementary operations, each of which was carried out by a particular worker. As a result of this the previous nature of the craftsmen's work underwent a change. For instance, a worker employed as a locksmith now carried out over a long period only certain definite operations connected with the production of a coach, and gradually ceased to be the locksmith who formerly had made a finished product all by himself. The second way was the bringing together by a capitalist in a single workshop of craftsmen all of one skill. Formerly each of these craftsmen had independently carried out all the operations required to produce a given commodity. The capitalist broke down the process of production in his workshop into a series of separate operations, each of which was assigned to' a worker who specialised in it. Thus arose, for example, the manufacture of needles. In a needle manufactory needles were passed through the hands of seventy-two or more workers: one drew the wire, another straightened it, a third cut it, a fourth sharpened the ends, and so on. The division of labour in manufacture means the division of labour within an enterprise for the production of one and the same commodity, as distinguished from the division of labour in society between different enterprises for the production of different commodities. Division of labour within a manufactory presupposes concentration of the means of production in the hands of a capitalist, who is at the same time the owner of the commodities produced. The wage-worker, unlike the petty commodity producer, does not produce the commodity independently; only the common product of the labour of many workers is transformed into a commodity. The division of labour within society presupposes the splitting up of the means of production among commodity producers who are separate from and independent of each other. The products of their labour, for instance, the labour of a joiner, a tanner, a cobbler and tiller of the soil, appear as commodities, and the link between the independent commodity producers is effected by means of the market.. A worker who carries out in a manufactory a particular operation for the production of a commodity, is a detail-worker. Constantly repeating one and the same simple operation, he expends in it less time and energy than does the craftsman who performs by turns a whole series of different operations. At the same time, along with this specialisation, labour becomes more intensive. Formerly the worker spent a certain amount of time in passing from one operation to another, and in changing his tools. In a manufactory this waste of working time was reduced. Gradually specialisation came to affect not only the workers but also the instruments of production; they became more and more closely adapted to that detail operation for which they were designed. All this led to a further increase in the productivity of labour.

The production of needles furnishes a clear example. In the eighteenth century a small manufactory, employing ten workers, by means of division of labour produced in one day 48,000 needles, i.e., 4,800 needles were produced per worker. Yet without division of labour one worker could not have produced even twenty needles a day. Specialisation of labour in the manufactory, associated with continual repetition of one and the same uncomplicated set of movements maimed the worker physically and spiritually. Workers appeared with curvature of the spine, with hollow chests, etc. Thus, the growth of the productivity of labour in manufactories was achieved at the expense of crippling the worker. Manufacture "converts the worker into a crippled monstrosity, by forcing his detail dexterity at the expense of a world of productive capabilities and instincts". (Marx, Capital, Kerr edition, vol. I, p. 396.) Workers in manufacture were subjected to savage exploitation. Their working day reached 18 hours or more; their wages were extremely low, and the overwhelming mass of manufactory-workers lived in want; the new, capitalist labour-discipline was introduced by the most ruthless measures of compulsion and coercion. The division of labour in manufacture, wrote Marx, "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 development of society, on the other hand, it is a refined and civilised method of exploitation." (Marx, Capital, Kerr edition, Vol. I, p. 400.) In slave-owning and feudal societies two forms of capital exist-merchant and usurers' capital. The rise of capitalist production signified the appearance of industrial capital. Industrial capital is capital invested in the production of commodities. One of the typical peculiarities of the manufacture period of capitalism is a close and inseparable connection between merchant and industrial capital. The owner of a manufactory was almost always an engrosser as well. He resold raw materials to small commodity producers, distributed material to their houses for them to work up, or else bought particular parts of articles from small commodity producers, or bought finished articles from them for resale later. This sale of raw material to arid purchase of products from small commodity producers became interwoven with debt-enslavement, which worsened the position of the small commodity producer to a tremendous degree, leading to prolongation of his working day and lowering of the earnings he received. Capitalist Domestic Industry

In the period of capitalist manufacture the distribution of work to be done at home developed on an extremely wide scale. Capitalist domestic industry means the working-up at home, on piece-rates, of material received from an entrepreneur. This form of exploitation was encountered sporadically even under simple co-operation. It is found also in the period of large-scale machine industry; but it is typical above all of manufacture. Capitalist domestic industry here figures as an appendage to manufacture. In manufacture the division of labour breaks down the production of each commodity into a series of distinct operations. Often the engrosser manufactory-owner found it profitable to set up a comparatively small workshop, where only the assembly or the ultimate finishing of the commodity was carried out. All the preparatory operations were performed by handicraftsmen and artisans who worked at home but were completely dependent on the capitalist. Frequently the artisans, scattered in different villages, had dealings not with the owner of the assembly workshop but with middlemen or foremen, who exploited them additionally. The artisans and handicraftsmen working at home received from the capitalist payment which was considerably less than that given to workers employed in the capitalist's workshop. Masses of peasants whose need for money obliged them to seek extra work on the side were drawn into handicraft. In order to earn a small sum of money, the peasant exhausted himself and forced all his family to work as well. An excessively long working day, unhealthy working conditions, the most ruthless exploitation-such were the distinguishing features of capitalist' domestic industry.

These features were found in the numerous handicraft industries of Tsarist Russia. Engrossers who became in practice the bosses of handicraft industry in a given village or district extensively introduced division of labour among the craftsmen. For example, in the Zavyalovs' establishment at Pavlovo (where more than 100 workers were employed in the assembly workshop in the 1860's) an ordinary penknife passed through the hands of eight of nine craftsmen. On it worked a smith, a blade-maker, a handle-maker, a temperer, a polisher, a finisher, a leveller and a stamper. Yet a substantial section of the detail-workers were employed not in the capitalist's workshop but in their own houses. A similar picture was shown by the carriage-making industry, feltmaking, a number of woodworking handicrafts, shoemaking, button-making, etc. Numerous examples of savage exploitation of handicraftsmen are given by V.I. Lenin in his work The Development of Capitalism in Russia. Thus, in Moscow Province at the beginning of the 1880's, in unreeling cotton thread, and in knitting and other industries employing women, 37,500 women workers were engaged. Children began to work at the age of five or six. The average daily wage was thirteen kopeks; the working day lasted up to eighteen hours. Role of Manufacture in History

Manufacture was the transitional form between the petty production of artisans and craftsmen and large-scale capitalist machine industry. A manufactory was akin to handicraft in that its basis remained hand technique, and to a capitalist factory in that it meant large-scale production based on exploitation of wage-workers. The division of labour in manufacture was a notable step forward in the development of the productive forces of society. But manufacture, based on hand labour, was not in a position to supplant petty production. Typical of the manufacturing period of capitalism's development was a small number of relatively large-scale establishments alongside a considerable number of small ones. While a certain share of the commodities were produced in manufactories, the overwhelming mass of them were provided as before by craftsmen and artisans, who were dependent in varying degrees upon capitalist engrossers, putters-out and manufacturers. Thus, manufacture could not lay hold of the whole field of social production. It was a kind of superstructure; the basis remained as before, petty production with its primitive technique. The role played by manufacture in history was that it prepared the conditions necessary for the passage to machine production. In relation to this, three circumstances were of especial importance. First, manufacture, bringing the division of labour to a high level, simplified many working operations. They were reduced to such simple movements that it became possible to replace the worker's hands by machines. Second, the development of manufacture led to specialisation of the working tools, to their becoming considerably improved, as a result of which an advance from hand-operated tools to machines became possible. Third, manufacture prepared cadres of skilled workers for large-scale machine industry, thanks to their prolonged specialisation in the carrying out of particular operations.

Petty commodity production, capitalist simple co-operation and manufacture, with its appendage, capitalist domestic industry, are widespread at the present day in economically under-developed countries such as India, Turkey, Persia, etc. Disintegration of the Peasantry. Transition from Labour- Service Economy to Capitalist Economy

In the manufacturing period of the development of capitalism industry became more and more separated from agriculture. The growth in the social division of labour led to not only industrial products but also agricultural products being transformed into commodities. Specialisation of districts by crops and branches took place in agriculture. Districts where commercial agriculture was carried on made their appearance: flax-cultivation, sugar-beet production, cotton-growing, tobacco-growing, dairying, cheese-making, etc. On this basis exchange developed not merely between industry and agriculture but also between different branches of agriculture. The further commodity production penetrated into agriculture, the fiercer became the competition between the tillers of the soil. The peasants fell into greater and greater dependence upon the market. Spontaneous fluctuation of prices on the market intensified and made more acute the inequality of property among the peasants. Spare money accumulated in the hands of the upper handful of well-to-do in the countryside. This money served them as a means to enslave and exploit the poorer peasants, becoming transformed into capital. One of the ways in which this enslavement was effected was the purchasing for trivial sums of the products of the peasants' labour. Gradually the ruin of the peasantry attained such a level that many of them were forced completely to abandon their holdings and resort to selling their labour-power. Thus, with the development of the social division of labour and with the growth of commodity production, a process of differentiation of the peasantry took place; capitalist relations were formed in the countryside, new social types of rural population, the classes of capitalist society, came into being-a rural bourgeoisie and an agricultural proletariat. The rural bourgeoisie (or kulaks) carry on commodity production on the basis of employing hired labour, exploiting the permanent rural labourers and (still more) the day-labourers and other temporary workers whom they take on for seasonal field work. They concentrate in their possession a considerable share of the land (including leased land), draught animals and agricultural produce. They also own enterprises for the working-up of raw material, mills, threshing-machines, pedigree stock, etc. They usually also function as the village moneylenders and shopkeepers. All this serves as a means of exploiting the poor and a considerable section of the middle peasantry. The agricultural proletariat is the mass of labourers, deprived of means of production and exploited by the landlords and rural bourgeoisie. The basic source of livelihood of the agricultural proletarian is the sale of his labour-power. The typical agricultural proletarian is a hired worker with an allotment. The tiny scale of the farming which he carries on on his patch of land, and his lack of draught animals and implements, inevitably compel a peasant of this kind to sell his labour-power. Very close to the agricultural proletariat are the rural poor. The poor peasant has a small plot of land and a small number of cattle. The grain which such a peasant can grow is not sufficient for his needs. The money which he needs for food and clothing, to run his holding and pay his taxes, he is obliged to earn to a substantial extent by working for wages. A peasant like this has already half-ceased to be his own master and is a rural semi-proletarian. The standard of living of the poor peasant, as of the rural proletarian, is extremely low and is inferior to that of the industrial worker. The development of capitalism in agriculture leads to a continual growth in the ranks of the rural proletariat and poor peasantry. An intermediate position between the rural bourgeoisie and the poor peasants is occupied by the middle peasantry. The middle peasantry carry on agriculture on the basis of their own means of production and their personal labour. Only under favourable conditions does the labour of the middle peasant on his holding guarantee the livelihood of his family. Hence the instability of the middle peasant's situation. "In its social relationships this group oscillates between the higher group towards which it gravitates and into which only a fortunate minority succeeds in entering, and the lower group into which the whole process of evolution is forcing it." (Lenin, "Development of Capitalism in Russia", Selected Works, 12-vol. edition, vol. I, p. 235.) A process of ruining and "erosion" of the middle peasantry goes on. Capitalist relations in the agriculture of bourgeois countries are interwoven with survivals of serfdom. The bourgeoisie when it came to power did not, in the majority of countries, abolish large-scale feudal landownership. The landowners' estates gradually adapted themselves to capitalism. The peasantry, freed from servile dependence but deprived of a substantial part of the land, suffocated from land hunger. It was obliged to lease land from the landlords on extortionate terms.

In Russia, for example, after the reform of 1861, the most widespread form of exploitation of the peasants by the landlords was work-payment, by which the peasant was obliged, either in return for the lease of land or to repay a loan contracted on extortionate terms, to work on the landlord's farm, using his own means of production-draught animals and primitive implements. The disintegration of the peasantry undermined the foundations of the landlords' economy, which was carried on by means of work-payment, exploiting an economically dependent peasantry, and was based on backward technique. The well-to-do peasant was in a position to rent land for money and so did not need to accept extortionate terms of lease which obliged him to perform work-payment. The poor peasant was also unsuitable for the workpayment system, but for a different reason: lacking means of production, he was transformed into a wage-worker. The landlord could use for work-payment mainly the middle peasantry. But the development of commodity economy and commercial agriculture, by ruining the middle peasantry, undermined the workpayment system of economy. The landlords extended their employment of hired labour; which was more productive than the labour of dependent peasants; the importance of the capitalist system of economy grew while that of the work-payment system declined. Work payment, however, as a direct survival of week-work was, preserved for a long time alongside the capitalist system of economy. Formation of a Home Market for Capitalist Industry

With the development of capitalism in industry and agriculture there took place the formation of a home market. Already in the period of manufacture a number of new branches of industrial production arose. One after another various forms of industrial processing of agricultural raw material were separated off from agriculture. With the growth of industry the demand for agricultural products continually grew. In connection with this a widening of the market took place. Districts which specialised in the production, e.g., of cotton, flax or sugar-beet, or in stock-raising, had a demand for grain. Agriculture increased its demand for various products of industry. The home market for capitalist industry is formed by the very development of capitalism, by the disintegration of the petty commodity producers. "The divorcement of the direct producer from the means of production, i.e., his expropriation, which signifies the transition from simple commodity production to capitalist production (and which is the necessary condition for this transition), creates the home market." (Lenin, "Development of Capitalism in Russia", Selected Works, 12-vol. edition, vol. I, p. 223.) The process of formation of the home market bore a two-fold character. On the one hand, the bourgeoisie of town and country presented a demand for means of production: improved implements of labour, machines, raw materials, etc., needed to extend the existing capitalist enterprises and build new ones. The bourgeoisie's demand for consumer goods increased. On the other hand, the increase in the numbers of the industrial and agricultural proletariat, inseparably connected with' the disintegration of the peasantry, was accompanied by an increase in the demand for commodities serving as means of subsistence for the workers. Manufacture, based as it was on primitive technique and hand labour, was not in a position to satisfy the growing demand for industrial commodities. The economic necessity arose to pass over to large-scale machine production. BRIEF CONCLUSIONS

(1) Capitalist simple co-operation is a form of production based on exploitation by a particular capitalist of a more or less substantial number of simultaneously-employed wageworkers who all carry out work of the same kind. Capitalist simple co-operation secured economy in means of production, created a new social productive force of labour, reduced the expenditure of labour per unit of production. The results of the growth in the productive power of social labour were appropriated by the capitalists without compensation.

(2) Manufacture is large-scale capitalist production based on hand technique and division of labour among wage-workers. The division of labour under manufacture considerably enhanced the productivity of labour, while at the same time mutilating the wage-worker by dooming him to an extremely one-sided development. Manufacture created the necessary prerequisites for the transition to large-scale machine industry.

(3) The development of commodity production leads to disintegration of the peasantry. A small upper section of countryfolk pass into the ranks of the bourgeoisie, while a substantial section of the peasantry pass into the ranks of the proletariat-urban and rural; the poor grow in numbers; the broad intermediate stratum of middle peasants falls into ruin. The disintegration of the peasantry undermines the foundations of the work-payment system. The landlords increasingly pass over from labour-service economy to capitalist economy.

(4) The home market is formed by the very development of capitalism. Extension of the home market signifies an increase in the demand for means of production and for means of subsistence. Manufacture, based on backward technique and hand labour, was not in a position to satisfy the demand for industrially produced commodities presented by the growing market. The need arose to pass on to machine industry.

The Machine Period of Capitalism

Transition from Manufacture to Machine Industry

So long as production remained based on hand labour, as was the case in the period of manufacture, capitalism could not achieve a radical revolution in the economic life of society. Such a transformation was effected with the transition from manufacture to machine industry, which began to take place in the last third of the eighteenth century and spread throughout the principal capitalist countries of Europe and the U.S.A. during the nineteenth century.

The material, technical foundation for the revolution was the machine.Every developed machine consists of three parts: (1) the motor mechanism, (2) the transmitting mechanism, (3) the working machine.

The motor mechanism acts as the moving force of the entire mechanism. It either generates the driving power itself (e.g., the steam engine), or obtains it from outside, from some available force of nature" (e.g., the water-wheel, moved by the force of falling water).

The transmitting mechanism consists of all kinds of devices (transmissions, cog-wheels, belts, electrical systems, etc.) which regulate movement, change its form where necessary (e.g., transforming a straight-line movement into a circular one), distribute it and transfer it to the working machine. Like the motor mechanisms, the transmitting mechanism serves to set the working machine in motion.

The working machine acts directly on the object of labour and produces the changes needed in it in accordance with a defined aim. If the working machine is examined more closely there will be found in it, albeit often in very altered forms, the same tools on the whole as are used in hand work. But in every case these are not hand-work tools any more, they are toolmechanisms, mechanical tools. The working machine was the point of departure of the revolution which led to the replacement of manufacture by machine production. After mechanical tools had been invented radical changes were introduced in the construction of the driving and transmitting mechanisms.

In its insatiable pursuit of profit capital acquired in the machine a mighty means of increasing the productivity of labour. First, the use of machines, which put a multitude of tools into operation simultaneously, freed the production process from the narrow limits imposed by the limitations of the human limbs. Second, the use of machines provided for the first time the possibility of employing in production tremendous new sources of energy-the motive power of steam, gas and electricity. Third, the use of machines enabled capital to place science at the service of production, extending the power of man over nature and revealing ever new possibilities of raising the productivity of labour. On the basis of large-scale industry the domination of the capitalist mode of production was consolidated. In large-scale machine industry capitalism found Its appropriate material and technical foundation.

The Industrial Revolution

Large-scale machine industry began in Britain. Favourable historical conditions had been formed in that country for a rapid development of the capitalist mode of production: the early abolition of serfdom and ending of feudal disunity, the victory of the bourgeois revolution in the seventeenth century, the forcible dispossession of the peasantry, and also the accumulation of capital by way of an extensive development of trade and of the plundering of colonies.

In the middle of the eighteenth century Britain was the country with the largest number of manufactories. The most important branch of industry was textile production. It was in this industry that the industrial revolution began which took place in Britain in the course of the last third of the eighteenth century and the first quarter of the nineteenth.

The extension of the market and the capitalists' striving for profit made necessary an improvement in technique of production. In the cotton industry, which was developing more rapidly than other branches, hand labour predominated. The principal operations in the cotton industry are spinning and weaving. The product of the spinners' work serves as the material of the weavers' work. The increase in the demand for cotton Cloth pressed in the first place on the technique of weaving: in 1733 the flying shuttle was invented, which doubled the productivity of the weaver's labour. This led to spinning lagging behind weaving. In the manufactories the looms often stood idle for lack of yarn. An urgent need to improve spinning technique arose.

This task was solved by means of the invention (in 1765-7) of spinning machines, each of which had fifteen to twenty spindles. The driving power of the first machines was at first provided by human beings or draught animals, but later machines appeared which were operated by water power. Further technical improvement led not only to an increase in the amount of yarn produced but also to improvement in its quality. At the end of the eighteenth century there were already in existence spinning machines with up to 400 spindles. As a result of these inventions the productivity of labour in spinning greatly increased.

There now arose in the textile industry another discrepancy: spinning had outstripped weaving. This discrepancy was overcome by the invention in 1785 of a mechanical loom. After a number of improvements the mechanical loom was introduced on a wide scale in Britain, and by the 1840's had completely ousted hand-weaving. The processes of working up cloth-bleaching, dyeing, printing-also underwent radical changes. The application of chemistry shortened the time taken by these processes and improved the quality of the product.

The first textile factories were built on the banks of rivers and the machines were driven by means of water-wheels. This greatly restricted the possibility of using machine technique. A new kind of prime mover was needed which was not dependent on a particular place or season. Such a prime mover was the steam engine.

The steam engine was invented in its primary form as far back as the manufacturing period, and from 1711 to 1712 was in use in the English mining industry in the form of a pump for extracting water from mines. The industrial revolution in England gave rise to a demand for a universal steam engine. This task was accomplished in England in the 1780's through the perfecting of the steam engine already in existence.

The introduction of the steam engine was of enormous importance. The steam engine was a prime mover of universal significance, free from the numerous shortcomings inherent in a water-driven engine. Using coal and water, the steam engine produces a motive force which is wholly under man's control. This machine is movable; it frees industry from its attachment to natural sources of power and makes it possible to concentrate' industry in any place desired.

The steam engine became widespread not only in Britain but also beyond its bounds, creating the prerequisites for the appearance of large-scale factories with many machines and a large number of workers.

Machines revolutionised production in all branches of industry. Not only did they seize hold of cotton production, they also came to be used in the woollen, linen and silk industries as well. Means were quickly found of using steam engines in transport: in 1807 the first steamboat was built in the U.S.A., and in 1825 in Britain the first railway was built.

At first machines were produced in manufactories by means of hand labour. They were expensive and were insufficiently powerful and precise. The manufactories could not produce such a quantity of machines as was required by rapidly-growing industry. This task was solved by going over to production of machines by machines. There arose a new, rapidly-developing branch of industry-engineering. The first machines were made mostly of wood. Later the wooden parts of machines were replaced by metal ones. The replacement of wood by metal, which increased the longevity and durability of machines, revealed the possibility of working at such speed and with such intensity as previously had been unthinkable. At the beginning of the nineteenth century there were invented mechanical hammers, presses and metal-working lathes : first turners' lathes, then milling and boring-machines.

For the production of machines, locomotives rails and steam-ships an enormous quantity of iron and steel was needed. Metallurgy began to develop quickly. Of great importance in the development of metallurgy was the discovery of a method of smelting iron ore with mineral fuel instead of with charcoal. The blast-furnace was increasingly improved. In the 1830's cold blast began to be replaced by hot, which quickened the blast process and gave a large saving of fuel. New, improved methods of smelting steel were discovered.

The spread of the steam engine and the growth of metallurgy created a need for enormous quantities of coal, which led to a rapid growth of the coal industry.

As a result of the industrial revolution Britain was transformed into the industrial workshop of the world. After Britain, machine production spread in other countries of Europe and in America.

The industrial revolution in France took place in the course of the few decades immediately following the bourgeois revolution of 1789-94. The capitalist factory became predominant in French industry only in the second half of the nineteenth century:

In Germany, owing to its feudal disunity and the continued survival of relations originating in serfdom, the industrial revolution took place later than in Britain and France. Large-scale industry began to develop in Germany only from the 1840's onward and advanced especially quickly after the unification of Germany into a single State in 1871.

In the U.S.A. large-scale industry arose at the beginning of the nineteenth century. American machine industry began to develop rapidly after the Civil War of 1861-5. When this happened the technical achievements of British industry were widely drawn upon, together with an influx of surplus capital and of cadres of skilled workers from Europe.

In Russia the transition from manufacture to the machine stage of production began before the abolition of serfdom, but developed to its full extent in the first decades after the Reform of 1861. However, even after the fall of serfdom numerous survivals of the feudal-serf-owning system in the country hindered the transition of industry from hand to machine production. This circumstance affected to an especially striking extent the mining industry of the Urals.

Capitalist Industrialisation

The industrial revolution marked the beginning of capitalist industrialisation. The basis of industrialisation is heavy industry, the production of the means of production.

Capitalist industrialisation takes place spontaneously, in response to the capitalists' drive for profit. The development of large-scale capitalist industry usually begins with the development of light industry, i.e., the branches producing consumer goods. These branches require a smaller investment of resources and capital circulates faster in them than in heavy industry, i.e., in the branches producing means of production-machines, metals, fuel. Heavy industry begins to be developed only at the end of a more or less long period of time during which light industry piles up profits. These profits are gradually pumped into heavy industry. Thus capitalist industrialisation is a process which takes many decades.

In Britain, for example, the textile industry for a long time remained the most developed branch of industry. In the second half of the century heavy industry began to play the predominant role. The same order of succession in the development of branches of industry occurred in the other capitalist countries too.

In the second half of the nineteenth century metallurgy continued to develop; the technique of smelting metal improved, the size of blast-furnaces increased. The production of pig-iron grew. In Britain the production of pig-iron increased from 193,000 tons in 1800 to 2,285,000 tons in 1850, 6,059,000 tons in 1870 and 7,873,000 tons in 1880. In the U.S.A. it grew from 41,000 tons in 1800 to 573,000 tons in 1850, 1,692,000 tons in 1870 and 3,897,000 tons in 1880.

Down to the last third of the nineteenth century the steam engine remained the only kind of engine used in large-scale industry and transport. Steam played a very great role in the development of machine industry. Throughout the nineteenth century further improvement of the steam engine continued; the capacity of steam-driven machines increased and also the degree of utilisation of heat energy. In the 1880's the steam turbine came into being. Thanks to its advantages it began to oust the steam engine from a number of branches.

However, the more large-scale industry grew, the more rapidly did the inadequacy of steam as a motive force become apparent. A new kind of mover was invented-the internal combustion engine, at first using gas (1877), and then an engine working on liquid fuel, the diesel (1893). In the last third of the nineteenth century a new and powerful force appeared in the arena of economic life, which revolutionised production still more-electricity.

In the nineteenth century machine technique laid hold of one branch of industry after another. The mining industry-extraction of ores and of coal developed. In connection with the invention of the internal combustion engine the extraction of petroleum increased. The chemical industry underwent extensive development. The rapid growth of large-scale machine industry was accompanied by intense building of railways.

Capitalist industrialisation is brought about both by means of the exploitation of the wage-workers and the ruin of the peasantry of the country concerned and also by means of the plundering of the working people of other lands, especially colonies. It leads inevitably to a sharpening of the contradictions of capitalism, to the impoverishment of millions of workers, peasants and craftsmen.

History has seen various paths of capitalist industrialisation. The first path of capitalist industrialisation is the path of conquest and plunder of colonies. That was how Britain's industry developed. Having conquered colonies in all parts of the world, Britain pumped enormous profits out of them for two centuries and invested the profits in her own industry.

The second path is the path of war and the imposing of indemnities by victor countries on defeated countries. Thus Germany, after defeating France in the Franco-Prussian War, obliged her to pay five thousand million francs as indemnity and invested these in her own industry.

The third path is the path of enslaving concessions and loans, which lead to the economic and political dependence of backward countries upon the capitalistically developed countries. Tsarist Russia, for example, granted concessions and obtained loans from the Western Powers on extortionate terms, endeavouring in this way to advance gradually along the path of industrialisation.

In the history of various countries these different paths of capitalist industrialisation were often interwoven and supplemented each other. The history of the economic development of the U.S.A. offers an example. The large-scale industry of the U.S.A. was created with the aid of foreign loans and long-term credits, and also by way of unrestrained plundering of the indigenous population of America.

Despite the development of machine industry in the bourgeois countries, a very great part of the population of the capitalist world continues to live and work under conditions in which primitive hand technique predominates.

Growth of Towns and Industrial Centres. Formation of the Class of Proletarians

Capitalist industrialisation caused a rapid growth of towns and industrial centres. The number of large towns in Europe (with populations exceeding 100,000) increased sevenfold during the nineteenth century. The proportion of the urban population grew unceasingly at the expense of the agricultural population. In Britain as early as the middle of the nineteenth century and in Germany by about the beginning of the twentieth century, more than half of the entire population was concentrated in towns.

In the period of capitalist manufacture, the masses of wageworkers did not yet represent a settled class of proletarians. The workers in the manufactories were relatively few and to a considerable degree they were connected with agriculture dispersed among a multitude of small workshops and kept apart by all sorts of narrow craft interests.

As a result of the industrial revolution and the further development of machine industry an industrial proletariat was formed in the capitalist countries. The working class grew rapidly in numbers, its ranks being continually reinforced from those of the peasantry and craftsmen who were being ruined. With the growth of large-scale machine-industry the local, craft and caste interests and prejudices of the earliest generations of workers were gradually outlived, along with their utopian aspirations to get back to the lost position of the medieval craftsman. The mass of workers were welded into a single class, the proletariat. Describing the formation of the proletariat as a class, Engels wrote:

"Only, the development of capitalist production, modern industry and agriculture on a large scale, gave continuity to its existence, enlarged its numbers and formed it as a special class with special interests and with a special historical mission." Engels, The Workers' Movement in America", Marx and Engels, Works, Russian edition, vol. XVI, Pt. 1, p. 287.)

In Britain the number of the workers in industry and transport in the second decade of the nineteenth century amounted to about two millions; during the ensuing hundred years the number grew more than threefold.

In France the workers in industry and transport in the 1860's numbered about two millions, but at the beginning of the twentieth century there were nearly 3,800,000.

In the U.S.A. the number of workers in industry and transport amounted in 1859 to 1,800,000 and in 1899 to 6,800,000. In Germany the number of workers in industry and transport grew from 700,000 in 1848 to 5 millions in 1895.

In Russia after the abolition of serfdom the process of forming a working class went forward rapidly. In 1865,706,000 workers were employed in large factories and works, in mining and on the railways in 1890 they numbered 1,433,000. Thus, the number of workers in large-scale capitalist enterprises more than doubled in twenty-five years. Towards the end of the 1890's the number of workers in large factories and works, in mining and on the railways had reached 2,207,000 in fifty provinces of European Russia, and in Russia as a whole had reached 2,792,000.

The Capitalist Factory. The Machine as a means whereby Capital exploits Wage Labour

The capitalist factory is a large-scale industrial enterprise based on the exploitation of wage-workers and using a system of machinery for the production of commodities.

A system of machinery is an aggregate of working machines which simultaneously carry out uniform production operations (e.g., looms of the same type), or an aggregate of working machines which, though of different kinds, are complementary to each other. A system of machinery of different kinds means a combination of detail-working machines, based on a distribution of production operations amongst them. Each detail machine supplies work to another machine. The machines operate simultaneously, the product continuously going through different stages of the production process and passing from one phase of production to another.

The introduction of machines ensures a tremendous growth in the productivity of labour and reduction in the value of commodities. The machine makes it possible to produce the same number of commodities with very much less expenditure of labour, or to produce with the same expenditure of labour a considerably larger number of commodities.

In the nineteenth century the working-up of a given quantity of cotton into yarn, using a machine, required only 1-180th of the labour-time taken when a hand-operated spinning wheel was used. Using a machine one adult or adolescent worker could in one hour print as many four-coloured chintzes as previously, by hand labour, could be printed by 200 adult workers. In the eighteenth century, under the manufacturing division of labour, a worker made 4,800 needles a day; in the nineteenth century one worker, operating four machines at once, produced up to 600,000 needles a day.

Under the capitalist mode of production all the advantages of introducing machines are appropriated by the owners of these machines, the capitalists, whose profits grow.

The factory is the highest form of capitalist co-operation. Capitalist cooperation, as joint work carried out on a relatively large scale, makes necessary a special function of management, supervision, co-ordination of the separate jobs. In a capitalist enterprise the function of management belongs to the capitalist and has specific features which figure at the same time as functions of exploitation of the wage-workers by capital. The capitalist is not a capitalist because he manages an industrial enterprise; on the contrary, he becomes the manager of an enterprise because he is a capitalist.

Already under simple capitalist co-operation the capitalist freed himself from physical work. With the growth in the scale of co-operation of labour he frees himself also from the function of direct and constant supervision of his workers. He transfers these functions to a special category of wage-workers managers and foremen-who give orders in the enterprise in the capitalist's name. By its very nature, capitalist management is despotic."

With the transition to the factory the creation by capital of a special capitalist labour-discipline is complete. Capitalist labour-discipline is the discipline of hunger. Under it, the worker lives constantly under the threat of dismissal from the factory, in fear of finding himself in the ranks of the unemployed. Barrack discipline is characteristic of the capitalist factory.

Workers are punished by means of money fines and deductions from their wages.¹

In itself the machine is a mighty means of lightening labour and enhancing its productivity. Under capitalism, however, the machine serves as a means of intensifying the exploitation of wage-labour.

From its very first introduction the machine became a competitor with the worker. The capitalist rise of machines first and foremost deprives of their livelihood tens and hundreds of thousands of hand workers, who became redundant. For example, when steam-operated looms were installed on a large scale, 800,000 English and Scotch weavers were thrown on to the street. Millions of weavers were condemned to hunger and death in India because Indian hand-produced cloth could not stand up to the competition of British machine-made cloth. In consequence of the increasing use of machines and their increasing improvement, more and more wage-workers are ousted by machines and thrown out of the capitalist factories on to the streets, filling the ranks of the growing army of unemployed. The machine simplifies the production process and makes superfluous the use of great muscular strength by the worker. For this reason, with the transition to machine technique, capital extensively draws women and children into production. The capitalist obliges them to work under hard conditions and for wretchedly small pay. This results in a high level of child mortality in working-class families and the physical and moral crippling of women and children.

The machine opens up extensive possibilities of reducing the labour-time needed for the production of a commodity and so of shortening the working day. Under capitalism, however, it is used as a means of lengthening the working day. In the pursuit of gain the capitalist tries to use his machines to the full. First, the longer a machine is in paying use during a working day, the sooner he recovers its cost. Second, the longer the working day and the more fully the machine is used, the less danger there is that the machine will become technically obsolete and that other capitalists will succeed in adopting better or cheaper machines and so place themselves in more advantageous conditions of production. The capitalist strives therefore to lengthen the working day to its maximum.

In the capitalists' hands the machine is used to pump more labour out of the worker during a given period of time. The excessive intensity of labour, overcrowding in the factory premises, the inadequacy of air and light, the absence of measures necessary for ensuring safety at work lead to mass incidence of occupational diseases among workers, the undermining of their health and the shortening of their lives.

Machine technique opens up a wide field for the utilisation of science in the production process and for making labour more intelligent and creative. Capitalist use of machines, however, leads to the worker becoming transformed into an appendage to the machine. To the worker's lot falls only monotonous and exhausting physical work. Mental work becomes the privilege of certain special workers: engineers, technicians, scientists. Science serves capital. The antagonism between physical and mental labour continually deepens.

The machine signifies in itself a strengthening of man's power over the forces of nature. By raising the productivity of labour the machine increases society's wealth. But this wealth is taken by the capitalists, and the position of the working class, the principal productive force of society, continually worsens. Marx showed in Capital that it is not machines themselves that are the enemies of the working class but the capitalist social order under which they are used. He wrote that :

"machinery, considered alone, shortens the hours of labour, but, when in the service of capital, lengthens them; in itself it lightens labour, but when employed by capital, heightens the intensity of labour; in itself it is a victory of man over the forces of nature, but in the hands of capital, makes man the slave of these forces; in itself it increases the wealth of the producers, but in the hands of capital makes them paupers." (Marx, Capital, Kerr edition, vol. I, p. 482.)

From the very first rise of capitalist relations there began the class struggle between the wage-workers and the capitalists. It went on during the whole of the period of manufacture and with the transition to machine production assumed large dimensions and unprecedented sharpness.

The way in which the as yet immature labour movement expressed its protest against the baneful effects of the capitalist use of machine technique was to try to destroy the machines. The first cloth-shearing machine, invented in 1758, was set on fire by workers whom the introduction of this machine had put out of work. At the beginning of the nineteenth century an extensive "machine-wrecking" movement developed in the industrial areas of Britain, directed first and foremost against the steam-driven looms. The working class needed a certain amount of time and experience to understand that the oppression and poverty under which it suffered were due not to the machines themselves but to the use made of them by the capitalists.

The capitalists made extensive use of the machine as a potent weapon for putting down the periodical workers' outbreaks, strikes, etc., directed against the dictatorship of capital. After 1830 a substantial number of inventions were evoked in Britain directly by the requirements of the class struggle of the capitalists against the workers, the endeavour being made by the capitalists, through reducing the number of workers employed and using labour which was less' skilled, to break the resistance of the workers to their oppression by capital.

Thus the capitalist use of machines causes a, worsening in the position of the workers and a sharpening in the class contradictions between capital and labour.

Large-scale Industry and Agriculture

The development of large-scale industry led to machines beginning to be introduced in agriculture as well. One of the weightiest advantages of largescale agricultural production is that it makes possible the use of machines.

Machines increase the productivity of labour in agriculture to an enormous extent. They are, however, beyond the resources of the petty peasant economy, for the purchase of machines demands a substantial outlay. In addition, the machine can be used effectively over large cultivated areas, for introducing industrial crops, etc. In large-scale economy based on machine technique the expenditure of labour per unit of production is markedly less than in petty peasant economy based on backward technique and hand labour. Consequently, petty peasant economy cannot stand up to the competition of large-scale capitalist economy.

The widespread use of agricultural machinery under conditions of capitalism hastens the process of differentiation among the peasantry. "The systematic employment of machinery in agriculture squeezes out the patriarchal 'middle' peasant as inexorably as the steam-driven loom squeezes out the hand-loom weaver." (Lenin, "Development of Capitalism in Russia", Selected Works, 12- vol. edition, vol. 1, p. 274.) Capitalism, in elevating the technique of agriculture and advancing it, ruins the mass of petty producers. Yet hired labour-power is so cheap in agriculture that many large-scale estates do not use machines but prefer to use hand labour. This hinders the development of machine technique in agricultural production.

Capitalist use of machines in agriculture is inevitably accompanied by intensified exploitation of the agricultural proletariat through raising the intensity of work. For instance, a kind of reaping machine which was widely used in its time was called "the brow-warmer" because working with it demanded great physical exertion.

In the machine period of capitalism the separation of industry from agriculture is completed and the antithesis between town and country deepened and made more acute. Under capitalism agriculture increasingly lags behind industry in its development. Lenin declared that the agriculture of the capitalist countries at the beginning of the twentieth century was at about the stage of manufacture so far as its technical and economic level was concerned.

Under capitalism the introduction of machine technique in agriculture proceeds much more slowly than in industry. While the steam engine made possible fundamental technical transformations in industry, in agriculture it was used only in the form of the steam-driven threshing machine. In the comprehensive mechanical thresher were later combined the threshing, cleaning and sorting of the grain. Only in the last quarter of the nineteenth century were horse-drawn machines -for grain-harvesting-harvester-binders brought into wide use. The caterpillar tractor was invented as far back as the 1880's and the wheeled tractor at the beginning of the twentieth, but the more or less extensive employment of the tractor on large capitalist farms began only in the 1920'S, mainly in the U.S.A.

Down to the present day the basic motive power in the agriculture of the majority of capitalist countries is provided by draught animals, and the implements with which the soil is worked are the horse-drawn plough, harrow and cultivator.

Capitalist Socialisation of Labour and Production. Limits to the Use of Machines under Capitalism

On the basis of machine technique great progress was achieved under capitalism in the development of the productive forces of society as compared with the feudal mode of production. The machine was a revolutionary force which transformed society.

"The transition from manufacture to the factory marks a complete technical revolution, which eliminates the age-old skill of the handicraftsman, and this technical revolution is followed by an extremely sharp change in the social relations in production, by a final rupture between the various groups taking part in production, a complete rupture with tradition, the intensification and expansion of all the gloomy sides of capitalism, and at the same time the mass socialisation of labour by capitalism. Thus, large-scale machine industry is the last word of capitalism, the last word of its negative and 'positive' aspects." (Lenin, "Development of Capitalism in Russia", Selected Works, 12-vol. edition, vol. 1, p. 303.)

On the basis of large-scale machine industry a spontaneous process of extensive socialisation of labour by capital is accomplished.

First, as a result of the use of machines industrial production is more and more concentrated in large-scale enterprises. The machine itself requires the joint labour of many workers.

Second, a further development takes place under capitalism in the social division of labour. The number of branches of industry and agriculture is increased. At the same time the separate branches and enterprises become even more dependent one upon another. With this extensive specialisation of branches a factory-owner producing, for example, cloth, becomes directly dependent on a factory-owner producing yarn, the latter upon a capitalist who produces cotton, an owner of an engineering works, of collieries, etc.

Third, the disunity of petty economic units characteristic of natural economy disappears, and the petty local markets become fused in a vast national and world market.

Fourth, capitalism with its machine technique does away with the various forms of personal dependence affecting the worker. The basis of production becomes free hired labour. Greater mobility of the population is brought about, which guarantees an unfailing supply of labour-power to the growing branches of industry.

Fifth, with the spread of machine production a great number of industrial centres and large towns arise. Society is more and more split into two basic antagonistic classes-the class of capitalists and the class of wage-workers.

The socialisation of labour and production, for which machine technique served as the foundation, was a notable step forward in the progressive development of society. But the selfish interests of the capitalists, avid for profits, set a definite limit to the development of the productive forces. From the social standpoint it is advantageous to use a machine if the labour which it costs to produce the machine is less than the labour which will be saved by using it, and also if the machine lightens labour. But for the capitalist neither economising social labour nor lightening the worker's labour means anything; all' he cares about is economising on wages. The limit to the use of machines is therefore for the capitalist a narrower one. It is set by the difference between the price of the machine and the wages of the workers displaced by it. The lower the wages of the workers the weaker the incentive to the capitalist to introduce machinery. Therefore hand labour is still widely used to this day in the industry of capitalist countries.

Large-scale machine industry sharpened the competitive struggle between the capitalists and intensified the spontaneity and anarchy of all social production. Capitalist use of machines brought about not only a rapid development of the productive forces of society but also an unprecedented growth in the oppression of labour by capital and sharpening of all the contradictions of the capitalist mode of production.

Brief Conclusions

(1) The transition from manufacture to large-scale machine industry meant an industrial revolution. Of very great importance for the transition to machine industry were: the invention of the steam engine, improvement in the method of smelting metal, and the making of machines to produce machines. The machine conquered one province' of the production of commodities after another.

(2) With the growth of capitalism there took place the process of capitalist industrialisation of the most important countries of Europe and America. Capitalist industrialisation begins as a rule with the development of light industry. In the industrialisation of capitalist countries a big role is played by the plundering of colonies and conquered countries and also the obtaining of loans on extortionate terms. Capitalist industrialisation is based on the exploitation of wage-labour and intensifies the ruining of the broad masses of peasants and craftsmen. It leads to a further growth in the social division of labour, completes the separation of industry from agriculture, and makes more acute the antithesis between town and country.

(3) The capitalist factory is a large-scale enterprise, based upon exploitation of wage-workers and employment of a system of machines for producing commodities. Management in the capitalist factory is despotic in character. In capitalist society the use of machines is accompanied by increasingly burdensome labour of the wage-worker, his intensified exploitation and the drawing into production of women and children, who are paid extremely low wages.

Capitalist machine production completes the process of separating mental labour from physical and sharpens the antithesis between them.

(4) The development of large-scale machine industry leads to the growth of cities, to an increase in the urban population at the expense of the rural, to the formation of a class of wage-workers (the proletariat), and to growth in the numbers of the latter. The introduction of machinery into agriculture is an advantage for large-scale production. It leads to raising the productivity of labour and hastens, the process of disintegration of the peasantry. Under capitalism agriculture lags further and further behind industry, and this deepens the antithesis between town and country.

(5) Large-scale machine industry plays a progressive role in history, leads to the growth of the productivity of labour and to the socialisation of labour by capital. The limits to the use of machinery by the capitalists are set by the fact that capitalists introduce machinery only where its price is less than the wages of the workers displaced by it.

Capital and Surplus-Value. The Basic Economic Law of Capitalism

The Basis of Production Relations in the Capitalist System

With the transition from manufacture to large-scale machine industry the capitalist mode of production became predominant. In industry, in place of craft workshops and manufactories based on hand labour, factories and works appeared in which labour was equipped with complicated machinery. Largescale capitalist farms began to arise in agriculture, using comparatively developed agronomical technique and agricultural machinery. New techniques developed, new productive forms came into being, and new capitalist production-relations became predominant. An investigation of the productionrelations of capitalist society in their rise, development and decline makes up the principal content of Marx's Capital.

The basis of the production-relations of bourgeois society is capitalist property in the means of production. Capitalist property in the means of production means the private property of the capitalists, not derived from their own labour, and used for exploitation of wage-workers. In Marx's classic definition,

"the capitalist mode of production rests on the fact that the material conditions of production are in the hands of non-workers in the form of property in capital and land, while the masses are only owners of the personal conditions of production, of labour-power". (Marx, "Critique of the Gotha Programme", Marx and Engels, Selected Works, 1950, English edition, vol. II, p. 23.)

Capitalist production is based on wage-labour. Wageworkers are free from the ties of serfdom. But they are deprived of the means of production and compelled under threat of starvation to sell their labour-power to the capitalists. The exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie is the main feature of capitalism, and the relationship between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat is the fundamental class relationship of the capitalist system.

In countries where the capitalist mode of production prevails, alongside capitalist forms of economy more or less substantial survivals of pre-capitalist forms of economy have been preserved. "Pure capitalism" does not exist anywhere. Besides capitalist property there also exist in bourgeois countries the large-scale landed property of the landlords, together with the petty private property of simple commodity producers, peasants and craftsmen, who live by their own labour. Petty production plays a subordinate role under capitalism. The mass of petty commodity producers of town and country are exploited by the capitalists and landlords who own the factories and works, the banks, commercial institutions and the land.

The capitalist mode of production passes through two stages in its development: pre-monopoly and monopoly. The general economic laws of capitalism operate in both stages of its development. At the same time, monopoly capitalism is distinguished by a whole series of important special features, of which more later.

Let us now pass to examining the essential nature of capitalist exploitation.

Transformation of Money into Capital

Each unit of capital begins its career in the form of a certain sum of money.

Money does not in itself constitute capital. When, for instance, independent petty commodity producers exchange their commodities, money plays its part as a circulation medium but does not serve as capital. The formula of commodity circulation is: C (commodity)-M (money)-C (commodity), i.e., the selling of one commodity in order to buy another. Money becomes capital when it is used to exploit the labour of others. The general formula of capital is M-CM, i.e., buying in order to sell so as to make money.

The formula C-M-C means that one use-value is exchanged for another: a commodity producer hands over a commodity which he does not need and receives in exchange another commodity which he needs for use. The purpose of the circulation process is a use-value. In the formula M-C-M, on the contrary, the starting and finishing points of the movement coincide: at the beginning of the process the capitalist had money and at the end of it he has money. The movement of capital would be pointless if at the end of the process the capitalist had the same amount of money as at the beginning. The whole sense of the capitalist's activity is that as the result of the operation he has more money than he had at the beginning. The purpose of the circulation process is an increase in value. Therefore the general formula of capital in its full form is: M-C-M', with M' standing for an increased amount of money.

Capital advanced by a capitalist, i.e., put into circulation by him, returns to its owner with a certain increment.

What is the source of this growth of capital? Bourgeois economists, in their endeavour to hide the true source of money-making by the capitalists, often assert that this increment comes about in the process of commodity circulation. This assertion is unsound. Consider the facts. If commodities and money of equal value, i.e., equivalents, are exchanged, none of the commodity owners can derive from circulation any value greater than that which is embodied in his own commodity. If sellers succeed in selling their commodities above their value, by 10 per cent, say, when they become buyers they have to pay back this 10 per cent to the sellers. Thus, what the commodity owners gain as sellers they lose as buyers. Yet in actual fact increments to capital are secured by the whole class of capitalists. Evidently, the owner of money, in order to become a capitalist, must find on the market a commodity which when consumed creates its own value and something over besides, more than it possesses itself. In other words, the owner of money must find on the market a commodity the use-value of which possesses the property of being a source of value. This commodity is labour-power.

Labour-power as a Commodity. Value and Use-value of the Commodity Labour-power

Labour-power, as the aggregate of physical and mental qualities of which a person disposes and which he puts into action whenever he produces material wealth, is a necessary element of production in any form of society. Only under capitalism, however, does labour-power become a commodity.

Capitalism is commodity production at the highest stage of its development, when labour-power too becomes a commodity. With the transformation of labour-power into a commodity, commodity production takes on a universal character. Capitalist production is based on wage-labour, and the hiring of a worker by a capitalist is nothing else than the buying and selling of the commodity labour-power: the worker sells his labour-power and the capitalist buys it.

When he has hired a worker, a capitalist has the worker's labour-power at his free disposal. The capitalist uses this labour-power in the process of production; and that is where the increment to capital takes place.

Like every other commodity, labour-power is sold at a definite price, which is based upon its value. What is this value?

For the worker to retain his ability to work he must satisfy his need for food, clothing, footwear and housing. Satisfaction of these necessary vital requirements means restoring the vital energy-of muscles, nerves and brains which the worker has expended and putting him once more in a fit state to work. Furthermore, capital needs a constant flow of labour-power; for this reason the worker must be able to maintain not only himself but also his family. In this way the reproduction, i.e., the continuous renewal, of labour-power is ensured. Finally, capital needs not only unskilled but also skilled workers, able to handle complex machinery, while the acquisition of skill involves a certain outlay of labour on training. For this reason the expenses of producing and reproducing labour-power also include a definite minimum of expenditure on the training of the rising generations of the working class.

It follows from the above that the value of labour-power as a commodity is equal to the value of the means of existence which are necessary for the maintenance of the worker and his family. "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." (Marx, Capital, Kerr edition, vol. 1, p. 189)

In the course of the historical development of society both the level of worker's customary requirements and also the means needed to satisfy these requirements have undergone changes. The level of a worker's customary requirements varies from country to country. The special features of the historical path followed by a given country and the conditions in which the class of wage-workers was formed have much to do with determining the nature of these requirements. Climatic and other natural conditions also have a certain bearing on the workers' requirements in respect of food, clothing and shelter. The value of labour-power includes not only the value of the consumer goods needed to restore the physical strength of the worker but also the cost of satisfying certain cultural requirements of himself and his family, engendered by the very conditions of society in which the workers live and are brought up (education of children, purchase of newspapers and books, visits to the cinema and the theatre, etc.). The capitalists try, all the time and everywhere, to reduce the material and cultural conditions of the working class to the lowest possible level.

When he begins in business, a capitalist buys everything that he needs for production: buildings, machinery, equipment, raw materials, fuel. Then he engages workers, and the production-process commences in the enterprise which he owns. When the commodity is ready, the capitalist sells it. The value of the finished commodity comprises: first, the value of the means of production expended (the raw material worked up, the fuel used, a certain part of the value of the buildings, machinery and tools); second, the new value created by the workers in the enterprise itself.

What does this new value consist of?

The capitalist mode of production presupposes a comparatively high level of productivity of labour, under which the worker needs only part of the working day to create value equal to the value of his labour-power. Let us suppose that one hour of simple average labour creates value equivalent to one dollar and the daily value of labour-power is equivalent to six dollars. In this case the worker, so as to pay for the daily value of his labour-power, would have to work six hours~ But the capitalist has bought his labour-power for the whole day, and he compels the worker to work not six hours but for an entire working day, lasting, say, twelve hours. During these twelve hours the worker creates value equivalent to twelve dollars, even though the value of his labour-power is equivalent only to six dollars.

We now see what the specific use-value of the commodity labour-power consists of for the person who buys it-the capitalist. The use-value of the commodity labour-power is its capacity to be the source of value, and withal, of more than it possesses itself.

The Production of Surplus-Value-Basic Economic Law of Capitalism

The value of labour-power and the value which is created in the process of using it are, in fact, two quite distinct magnitudes. The difference which exists between these magnitudes is the necessary prerequisite for capitalist exploitation.

In our example, the capitalist, who has spent 6 dollars on hiring workers, obtains value created by their labour which is equivalent to 12 dollars. The capitalist recovers the capital which he originally advanced plus an increment or surplus equivalent to 6 dollars. It is this increment that constitutes surplus-value.

Surplus-value is the value created by the labour of a wage-worker over and above the value of his labour-power and appropriated by the capitalist without payment. Thus, surplus labour is the result of the worker's unpaid labour.

The working day in a capitalist enterprise is divided into two parts : necessary labour-time and surplus labour-time, and the labour of the wageworker into necessary and surplus labour. During the necessary labour-time the worker reproduces the value of his labour-power, and during the surplus labour- time he creates surplus-value.

A worker's labour, under capitalism, is a process of use by the capitalist of the commodity labour-power, or a process of extraction of surplus-value from the worker by the capitalist. The labour-process is characterised, under capitalism, by two fundamental peculiarities. First, the worker works under the control of the capitalist to whom the worker's labour belongs. Second, not only does the worker's labour belong to the capitalist but also the product of this labour. These peculiarities of the labour-process transform the wage-worker's labour into a heavy and hateful burden.

The immediate aim of capitalist production is the production of surplus-value. In accordance with this, productive labour means under capitalism only such labour as creates surplus-value. If the worker does not create surplus-value, his work is unproductive work, useless for capital.

In contrast to the previous forms of exploitation-slave-owning and feudal-capitalist exploitation is masked. When the wage-worker sells his labour-power to the capitalist, this transaction appears at first sight to be an ordinary transaction between commodity owners, the usual exchange of a commodity against money, carried out in accord with the law of value. The transaction of buying and selling labour-power, however, is merely the outward form behind which is hidden the exploitation of the worker by the capitalist, the appropriation by the capitalist, without any equivalent, of the worker's unpaid labour.

In order to clarify the essential nature of capitalist exploitation we will suppose that the capitalist, when he engages the worker, pays him the full value of his labour-power, determined by the law of value. It will be shown later when we examine wages that, unlike the prices of other commodities, the price of labour-power, as a rule, diverges below its value. This circumstance still further increases the exploitation of the working class by the capitalist class.

Capitalism enables the wage-worker to work, and consequently to live, only in so far as for a certain amount of his time he works gratis for the capitalist. If he leaves one capitalist enterprise, the most favourable thing that can happen to the worker will be to find himself in another capitalist enterprise, where he will be subjected to the same exploitation. When he exposed the system of wage-labour as a system of wage-slavery, Marx pointed out that whereas the Roman slave was bound by chains, the wage-worker was bound by invisible threads to his owner. This owner is the capitalist class as a whole.

Surplus-value, created by the unpaid labour of wage-workers, constitutes the common source of the unearned incomes of the various groups of the bourgeois class: industrialists, traders and bankers-and also the class of landowners.

Production of surplus-value is the basic economic law of capitalism. Analysing capitalism, Marx wrote: "Production of surplus-value is, the absolute law of this mode of production." (Marx, Capital, Kerr edition, vol. 1, p. 678.)

The essential features of this law consist in the production of surplus-value on an ever-increasing scale and the appropriation of it by the capitalists on the basis of bourgeois ownership of the means of production by means of increasing exploitation of wage-labour and the extension of production.

Capital did not invent surplus labour. Wherever society consists of exploiters and exploited, the ruling class pumps surplus labour out of the exploited classes. But unlike the slave-owner and the feudalist, who in conditions where natural economy prevailed used the greater part of the product of the surplus labour of the slaves and serf-peasants for the direct satisfaction of their needs and whims, the capitalist transforms the whole of what his wage-workers produce into money. Part of this money the capitalist spends on buying consumer goods and luxury articles, the rest he invests again, as additional capital, to bring him in further surplus-value. This is why capital displays, in Marx's words, truly wolf-like greed for surplus labour.

The pursuit of surplus-value is the principal driving-force of the development of the productive forces under capitalism. None of the previous forms of society based on exploitation, neither slavery nor feudalism, possessed such a force, hastening forward the growth of technique.

Lenin called the doctrine of surplus-value the corner-stone of Marx's economic theory. By disclosing in his doctrine of surplus-value the essence of capitalist exploitation, Marx dealt a mortal blow to bourgeois political economy and its talk about the harmony of interests under capitalism, and gave the working class a spiritual weapon for overthrowing capitalism.

Capital as a Social Relation of Production. Constant and Variable Capital

Bourgeois economists call "capital" every instrument of labour and every means of production, beginning with the stones and sticks of primitive man. This definition of capital has the aim of concealing the essence of capitalist exploitation of the worker and of showing capital as some sort of eternal and unchanging condition for the existence of any human society.

In fact, the stones and sticks of primitive man served him as instruments of labour but were not capital. Neither are the tools and raw material of the handicraftsman capital, nor the Implements, seed and draught animals of the peasant who works his holding with his own labour. Means of production become capital only at a certain level of historical development, when they are the private property of a capitalist and serve as means of exploiting wagelabour. With the liquidation of the capitalist system the means of production pass into social ownership and cease to be capital. Thus, capital is not a thing but a social relationship of production which is historically transient in character.

Capital is value which, through the exploitation of wage-labour, brings in surplus-value. In Marx's words, capital is "dead labour, that vampire-like, only lives by sucking living labour, and lives the more, the more labour it sucks." (Marx, Capital, Kerr edition, vol. 1, p. 257.) Embodied in capital is the production-relationship between the class of capitalists and the working class, consisting in the fact that the capitalists as owners of the means and conditions of production exploit wageworkers who create surplus-value for them. This production-relationship, like all the other production-relations of capitalist society, takes the form of a relationship between things, and appears as if it were a property of things themselves-the means of production-to bring in an income for the capitalist.

This is what constitutes the fetishism of capital. Under the capitalist mode of production a deceptive appearance is created, as though the means of production (or a particular sum of money for which means of production can be bought), possess by themselves the miraculous property of providing their owner with a regular unearned income.

Different parts of capital play different roles in the process of producing surplus-value.

The entrepreneur spends a certain part of his capital on erecting a factory building, on purchasing equipment and machinery, on buying raw materials, fuel and auxiliary supplies. The value of this part of capital is transferred into the newly-produced commodity in proportion as the means of production are used up or worn out in the labour process. The part of capital which exists in the form of value of the means of production does not change its magnitude during the process of production, and is therefore called constant capital.

Another part of his capital is spent by the entrepreneur on the purchase of labour-power-on hiring workers. In return for this part of the capital which he lays out the entrepreneur receives at the end of the production process a new value which has been produced by the workers in his enterprise. This new value, as we have seen) is greater than the value of the labour-power bought by the capitalist. Thus that part of the capital which is spent on the hiring workers changes its magnitude in the production process: it grows as a result of the creation by the workers of surplus-value which is appropriated by the capitalist. The part of capital which is spent on the purchase of labour-power (i.e., on hiring workers) and grows in the process of production, is called variable capital.

Marx used the Latin letter "c" to signify constant capital and "v" to signify variable capital. It was Marx who first divided capital into its constant and variable parts. Through this division the special role played by variable capital employed in the purchase of labour-power was revealed. The exploitation of wage-workers by capitalists is the real source of surplus-value.

The discovery of the two-fold character of the labour embodied in a commodity provided Marx with the key for establishing the difference between constant and variable capital and exposing the essential nature of capitalist exploitation. Marx showed that the worker by his labour simultaneously creates new value and transfers the value of the means of production into the manufactured commodity. As a definite kind of concrete labour, the worker's labour transfers the value of the used-up means of production into his product; while as abstract labour, as expenditure of labour-power in general, the same worker's labour creates new value. These two aspects of the labour-process are distinguished quite tangibly. For example, when the productivity of labour in a particular branch of industry is doubled, a spinner transfers to his product during the course of a working day twice as much of the value of the means of production (because he works up a quantity of cotton twice as large), but he creates only the same amount of new value as before.

The Rate of Surplus-Value

The Rate of Surplus-Value The degree of exploitation of the worker by the capitalist is expressed in the rate of surplus-value.

The rate of surplus-value is the term used for the relation between the surplus-value and the variable capital, expressed as a percentage. The rate of surplus-value shows the proportions in which the labour expended by the worker is divided into necessary and surplus labour, or in other words, what part of the proletarian's working day is spent in replacing the value of his labour-power and what part of it he spends working gratis for the capitalist.

Marx used the Latin letter "s" to stand for surplus-value and "s"/v to stand for the rate of surplus-value. In the case quoted above the rate of surplus-value, expressed as a percentage, would be: s/v=6 dollars/6 dollars x100=100 per cent.

The rate of surplus-value is in this case 100 per cent. What this means is that in the given case the worker's labour is divided equally into necessary and surplus labour. As capitalism develops, the rate of surplus-value grows, expressing the increase in the degree of exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie. Still more rapidly grows the mass of surplus-value, as the number of wage-workers exploited by capital increases.

In his article "Workers' Earnings and Capitalists' Profits in Russia", written in 1912, Lenin set out the following calculations, showing the degree to which the proletariat was exploited in pre-revolutionary Russia. According to the findings of an official investigation of factories and works carried out in 1908 and tending, undoubtedly, to overestimate the figures for the size of workers' earnings and underestimate those for the size of capitalist's profits, the workers' wages amounted to 555.7 million roubles, while the capitalists' profit totalled 568.7 million roubles. The total number of workers employed in the enterprises of large-scale factory industry which were investigated was 2,254,000. Thus, a worker's average wage was 246 roubles it year, while each worker provided the capitalists, on an average, with 252 roubles of profit annually.

Thus, in Tsarist Russia the worker spent less than half of his day working for himself and more than half working for the capitalist.

Wages

Two Ways of Increasing the Degree of Exploitation of Labour by Capital. Absolute and Relative Surplus-Value

Each capitalist tries his utmost, with the aim of increasing surplus-value, to increase the share of surplus labour extracted from the worker. The increasing of surplus-value is effected in two main ways.

Let us take for example a working day of 12 hours, of which 6 hours are necessary and 6 are surplus labour. Let us show this working day as a line on which each division is equivalent to 1 hour.

[diagram]

The magnitude of the surplus labour-time has grown as a result of the absolute lengthening of the working day as a whole, while the necessary labour-time has remained the same. Surplus-value produced by lengthening the working-day is called absolute surplus-value.

The second method of increasing the degree of exploitation of the workers consists in arranging, while the overall length of the working day remains unchanged, for the surplus-value received by the capitalist to increase thanks to a reduction in the necessary labour-time. The growth of the productivity of labour in the branches of industry which manufacture goods consumed by the workers, and also in those supplying implements and material for the production of these consumer goods, leads to a reduction in the labour-time needed for their production. Consequently, the value of the workers' means of subsistence decreases; and in accordance with this the value of labour-power declines. Where formerly 6 hours had to be expended to produce a worker's means of subsistence, now this demands, say, only 4 hours. In a case like this the working day may be depicted in the following manner:

[diagram]

The length of the working day has not been altered, but the amount of surplus labour-time has grown as a result of the changed proportion between necessary and surplus labour-time. Surplus-value which arises from a reduction in necessary labour-time and corresponding increase in surplus labour-time as a result of an increase in the productivity of labour is called relative surplus-value.

Both ways of increasing surplus-value lead to intensifying the exploitation of wage labour by capital; but they play a different part at different stages of the historical development of capitalism. In the first stages of the development of capitalism, when technique was at a low level and progressed relatively slowly, the most important method was the increase in absolute surplus-value. In its hunt for surplus-value capital effected a radical revolution in former methods of production, the Industrial Revolution, which gave rise to large-scale machine industry. Capitalist simple co-operation, manufacture and machine industry, discussed above, in Chapters V and VI, were successive stages in the increase in the productivity of labour by capital. In the machine period, when rapidly developing technique made it possible to raise the productivity of labour in a short time, the capitalists brought about a tremendous intensification in the degree of exploitation of the workers first and foremost by effecting an increase in relative surplus labour. At the same time they continued as before to strive for a lengthening of the working day and especially to enhance the intensity of labour. Intensifying the workers' labour means for the capitalist the same as lengthening the working day: lengthening the working day from 10 to 11 hours or heightening the intensity of labour by one-tenth gives him the same result in either case.

Extra Surplus-Value

An important role in the development of capitalism is played by the pursuit of extra surplus-value. It is obtained when individual capitalists introduce machines and production methods in their works which are more advanced than those used in the majority of enterprises in the same branch. In this way the individual capitalist achieves in his enterprise a higher productivity of labour compared with the average level which prevails in the relevant branch of production. As a result, the individual value of a commodity produced in this capitalist's enterprise is lower than the social value of this commodity. As the price of a commodity is determined by its social value, however, the capitalist obtains a higher rate of surplus-value compared with the usual rate.

Let us take the following example. Let us suppose that a worker in a tobacco factory produces 1,000 cigarettes an hour and works twelve hours, during six of which he is creating value equivalent to the value of his own labour-power. If a machine is introduced in this factory which doubles the productivity of labour, this worker, working twelve hours as before, produces not 12,000 but 24,000 cigarettes. Part of the newly-created value, embodied (allowing for the value of the transferred part of the constant capital) in six thousand cigarettes i.e., the product of three hours, reimburses the factory-owner for the worker's wages. The rest of the newly created value, embodied (allowing for the value of the transferred part of the constant capital) in 18,000 cigarettes, i.e., the product of nine hours, remains with the factory-owner.

Thus, a reduction in the necessary labour-time takes place, with a corresponding lengthening of the surplus labour-time. The worker needs not even six hours but only three hours to replace the value of his own labour-power; his surplus labour has increased from six hours to nine. The rate of surplus-value has trebled.

Extra surplus-value is an excess of surplus-value above the usual rate, obtained by individual capitalists as a result of a decrease in the individual values of commodities produced in their enterprises.

The obtaining of extra surplus-value is only a temporary phenomenon for any particular enterprise. Sooner or later the majority of entrepreneurs in the same branch will introduce the new machinery, and whoever does not possess sufficient capital to do this will be ruined in the process of competition. As a result, the time socially-necessary for the production of the given commodity will be shortened and the value of the commodity reduced; and the capitalist who introduced the technical improvements earlier than the rest will cease to obtain extra surplus-value. Disappearing from one enterprise, however, extra surplus-value appears in another, where new and still more advanced machinery is being introduced.

Each capitalist aims only at his own enrichment. But the ultimate result of the separate actions of the individual entrepreneurs is the growth of technique, the development of the productive forces of capitalist society. At the same time the pursuit of surplus-value causes each capitalist to keep his technical achievements from his competitors, gives rise to trade secrets and technological hush-hush, Thus it becomes evident that capitalism sets definite limits to the development of productive forces.

The development of the productive forces under capitalism takes place in contradictory fashion. The capitalists introduce new machinery only when it will lead to an increase in surplus-value. The introduction of new machinery serves as the basis for an all-round increase in the degree of exploitation of the proletariat, lengthening of the working day and growth in the intensity of labour; the progress of technique takes place at the cost of numberless sacrifices and deprivations on the part of many generations of the working class. Thus, capitalism deals in most predatory fashion with the main productive force of society, the working class, the toiling masses.

The Working Day and its Limits. The Struggle to Shorten the Working Day

In their drive to raise the rate of surplus-value the capitalists try to lengthen the working day to its maximum length. The working day means that period of a given 24 hours during which the worker is at the enterprise and at the disposal of the capitalist. Were it possible, the employer would compel his workers to work 24 hours a day. A man needs, however, to spend a certain part of each day and night recovering his strength, resting, sleeping and eating. These needs determine the purely physical limits of the working day. Besides these, the working day also has moral limits, for the worker needs time to satisfy his cultural and social requirements.

Capital, in its insatiable greed for surplus labour, does not want to reckon with even the purely physical limits to the working day, let alone the moral ones. As Marx puts it, capital is ruthless towards the life and health of the worker. The rapacious exploitation of labour-power shortens the proletarian's life-span and leads to an exceptional increase in the mortality rate among the working population.

In the period of the rise of capitalism the State power promulgated special laws in the interests of the bourgeoisie, for the purpose of compelling the wage-workers to work the maximum possible number of hours. In those days technique was still at a low level and the masses of peasants and craftsmen were still able to work independently, in consequence of which capital did not have a surplus of workers at its disposal. The situation changed with the spread of machine production and the growth of the proletarian population. Sufficient workers became available to capital, and they were obliged by the threat of starvation to accept enslavement to the capitalists. The need for State laws lengthening the working day declined. Capital became able to lengthen the working day to its utmost extent by means of economic compulsion. Under these conditions the working class began a stubborn struggle to shorten the working day. This struggle developed earliest in Britain.

As a result of a long struggle the British workers secured the passing in 1833 of a factory Act which restricted the labour of children under thirteen to eight hours and that of adolescents between thirteen and eighteen to twelve hours. In 1844 a law was passed restricting women's hours of work to twelve and those of children to six and a half. In the majority of cases child labour and female labour were employed alongside that of men. For this reason a working day of twelve hours for all workers became general in enterprises affected by the factory legislation. By a law of 1847 the labour of adolescents and women was restricted to ten hours. A law of 1901 restricted working hours for adults to twelve in the first five days of the week and five and a half on Saturdays.

In proportion as the resistance of the workers grew, laws restricting the working day began to appear in other capitalist countries as well. After the passing of each law of this kind, the workers had to wage an unremitting struggle to ensure that it was implemented in practice.

A particularly stubborn struggle for legislative restriction of labour-time developed after the working class put forward as its battle-slogan the demand for an eight-hour working day. This demand was proclaimed in 1866 by the Labour Congress in America and the Congress of the First International, at Marx's suggestion. The struggle for the eight-hour working day became an integral part not only of the economic but also of the political struggle of the proletariat.

In Tsarist Russia the first factory Acts were promulgated at the end of the nineteenth century. After the famous strikes waged by the Petersburg proletariat, the law of 1897 restricted the working day to 11½ hours. This law was, in Lenin's words, a forced concession, won from the Tsarist government by the Russian workers.

On the eve of the first world war a working day of 10 hours prevailed in the majority of developed capitalist countries. In 1919, influenced by the bourgeoisie's alarm at the growth of the revolutionary movement, the representatives of a number of capitalist' countries, meeting at Washington, concluded a convention for introducing an 8-hour day internationally. Later however, all the big capitalist States refused to ratify this convention. Nevertheless, in many capitalist countries the 8-hour working day was introduced, under the pressure of the working class. But the employers made up for the reduction in the working day by acutely increasing the intensity of labour. In a number of capitalist countries, together with an exhausting intensity of labour, a long working day prevails, especially in industries producing armaments. An excessively long working day is the lot of the proletariat in the colonial and dependent countries.

Class Structure of Capitalist Society. The Bourgeois State

The Bourgeois State Characteristic of the slave-owning and feudal modes of production was the splitting-up of society into various classes and estates, forming a complex hierarchical social structure. The bourgeois epoch simplified class contradictions and replaced the diverse forms of hereditary privilege and personal dependence by the impersonal power of money, the unrestricted despotism of capital. Under the capitalist mode of production, society splits up more and more into two great antagonistic camps, into two opposed classes, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.

The bourgeoisie is the class which possesses the means of production and uses them to exploit wage-labour. The bourgeoisie is the ruling class in capitalist society.

The proletariat is the class of wage-workers, deprived of means of production and therefore obliged to sell its labour-power to the capitalists. Machine production enables capital to subject wage-labour to itself completely. Proletarian status becomes the lifelong lot of the class of wage-workers. By force of its economic situation the proletariat is the most revolutionary class.

The bourgeoisie and the proletariat are the basic classes of capitalist society. So long as the capitalist mode of production exists, these two classes are inseparably linked together: the bourgeoisie cannot exist and become rich without exploiting the wage-workers; the latter cannot live unless they are hired by the capitalists. At the same time the bourgeoisie and the proletariat are mutually antagonistic classes, whose interests are opposed and irreconcilably hostile to each other. The development of capitalism leads to a deepening of the gulf between the exploiting minority and the exploited masses. Besides the bourgeoisie and the proletariat there exist also under the capitalist system the classes of landlords and peasants. These classes have survived from the previous, feudal system, but have to a considerable extent changed their nature in accordance with capitalist conditions.

Landlords are, under capitalism, a class of large landowners who usually lease land to capitalist tenants or small producers-peasants; or else conduct large-scale capitalist production, using wage-labour, on the land belonging to them.

The peasantry is the class of small producers who conduct their enterprises on the basis of private ownership of the means of production and by means of backward technique and hand labour. In bourgeois countries the peasantry forms an important part of the population. The main mass of the peasantry are mercilessly exploited by the landlords, kulaks, merchants and usurers, and go down into ruin. As the process of differentiation takes effect, there are continually becoming separated off from the peasantry, on one side a mass of proletarians and on the other kulaks or capitalists.

The bourgeois State, which arose in succession to the feudal State as a result of the bourgeois revolution, is a tool in the hands of the capitalists for subjecting and oppressing the working class and the peasantry. The bourgeois State protects capitalist private property in the means of production, guarantees the exploitation of the working people and puts down their struggle against the capitalist system.

Since the interests of the capitalist class are sharply opposed to those of the overwhelming majority of the population, the bourgeoisie is obliged to conceal in every possible way the class nature of its State. The bourgeoisie tries to present this State in the guise of something above classes, existing for the benefit of the whole people, as a State of "pure democracy". But in fact bourgeois "freedom" is freedom for capital to exploit the labour of others; bourgeois "equality" is an outward show hiding the inequality which exists in fact between the exploiter and the exploited, the satiated and the hungry, between the owners of the means of production and the mass of proletarians who possess only their own labour-power. The bourgeois State holds down the masses of the people by means of its administrative apparatus, police, army, courts, prisons, concentration camps and other means of coercion. As a necessary supplement to these means of coercion, means of ideological influence exist, through which the bourgeoisie maintains its domination. To this category belong the bourgeois press, the wireless, the cinema, bourgeois science and art, and the Church.

The bourgeois State is the executive committee of the capitalist class. Bourgeois constitutions have for their aim to consolidate social systems which are acceptable and profitable to the possessing classes. The basis of the capitalist system, private ownership of the means of production, is proclaimed sacred and inviolable by the bourgeois State.

The forms assumed by bourgeois States are extremely varied, but the essence of them all is the same: all these States are dictatorships of the bourgeoisie, and try by all possible methods to protect and strengthen the system of exploitation of wage-labour by capital.

As large-scale capitalist production grows, the numbers of the proletariat increase and it becomes more and more aware of its class interests, develops politically and organises for struggle against the bourgeoisie.

The proletariat is that class of working people which is linked with the advanced form of economy, large-scale production. "Only the proletariat-by virtue of the economic role it plays in large-scale production-is capable of, being the leader of all the toiling and exploited masses." (Lenin, "State and Revolution", Selected Works, 1951, English edition, vol. II, Pt. I, p. 224) The industrial proletariat is the most revolutionary, most advanced class of capitalist society, called upon to unite around it the working masses of the peasantry and all the exploited strata of the population and to lead them in the attack upon capitalism.

Brief Conclusions

(1) Under the capitalist system the basis of production relations is capitalist ownership of the means of production which is used for exploiting wageworkers. Capitalism is commodity production at its highest level of development, when labour-power also becomes a commodity. Being a commodity, labour-power under capitalism has value and use-value. The value of the commodity labour-power is determined by the value of the means of subsistence necessary for the maintenance of the worker and his family. The use-value of the commodity labour-power consists in property of being the source of value and surplus-value.

(2) Surplus-value is the value created by the labour of the worker in excess of the value of his labour-power and is appropriated by the capitalist without compensation. The production of surplus-value is the basic economic law of capitalism.

(3) Capital is value which brings in surplus-value by exploiting wageworkers. Capital embodies the social relationship between the capitalist class and the working class. The different parts of capital play different roles in the process of producing surplus-value. Constant capital is that part of capital which is spent on means of production; this part of capital does not create new value and does not change its magnitude. Variable capital is that part of capital which is spent on the purchase of labour-power; this part of capital grows as a result of the creation by the workers of surplus-value which is appropriated by the capitalists.

(4) The rate of surplus-value is the proportion of surplus-value to variable capital. It expresses the degree of exploitation of the worker by the capitalist. The capitalists raise the rate of surplus-value by two methods-by the production of absolute surplus-value and by the production of relative surplus-value. Absolute surplus-value is surplus-value created by means of lengthening the working day or raising the intensity of labour. Relative surplus-value is surplus-value created by means of shortening necessary labour-time and correspondingly increasing surplus labour-time.

(5) The class interests of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat are irreconcilable. The contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat is the main class contradiction of capitalist society. The bourgeois State is the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie which functions as an organ for the protection of the capitalist system and for holding down the working and exploited majority of society.

---

Monopoly Capitalism-Imperialism

The Socialist Mode of Production: The Transitional Period from Capitalism to Socialism

The Socialist Economic System

The Building of Socialism in the Countries of People's Democracy