1
10
1
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/75c19e51d9dbbf987030514dd5ddec2c.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=EbtYw5K8Iw6invj-GH8rlQUqbhoICSoHulvFxg9jakA-NnSeYywa2rZL1FvNkhOKh8cPYnYyLwL9EDcc7WvqlG4t0fAL%7E6roakxMgE8N0zr4UpIpHSBbfQUs-Iq2uiU0f2Np8V9KQ0n5CGM40PS7xEaip6ECCvDfWUjECQgriSh56xQUIzXv3VO%7E6Xmy9b1tNBkLLKualHbWP7nAMnFXek9P6pzSvvd53EenDOTgpM7BpEL3YFinPvvpeyDiTLnOE9TceTq8xwgBPjqULakyoDt25%7EJSPNdfg54bFyIVdPLh5B1ZmrCgP0rEEdRJJFWLacBvIJomkRMiWmBg4z3a%7Ew__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
a0bb954f46e15c4b342aae9119b92f31
PDF Text
Text
Price One Penny.
THE GENESIS
OF CAPITAL.
*
TRANSLATED FROM THE FRENCH OF
GABRIEL
BY
DEVILLE,
B.
J.
London :
THE MODERN PRESS, 13, PATERNOSTER ROW, E.C.
1887.
��THE GENESIS OF CAPITAL.
APITAL, considered in its evolution, from its origin to the
destined disappearance that the actual conditions of its
existence show to be imminent, will be the subject of this
series.
Just as nothing remained for chemists since the time of Lavoisier,
but ‘to teach that water was formed by the combination of hydrogen
and oxygen, so my only aim will be to interpret faithfully the work of
the great writer whose profound insight into economic facts first enabled
us to understand them clearly.
The glory of having discovered the origin and growth of capital, with
the elements of which it is composed, is due to Karl Marx. Now that,
thanks to him, we possess the method of analysis, every one may assure
himself of the correctness of his deductions, just as every one may
verify the composition of water. Being a correct description of the
exact truth, the ideas of Marx, as will be quickly seen, may be easily
grasped by every reader,
Therefore when we see a theory of his described as “ that old story of
Marx,” without the shadow of argument, or even with the announcement
that none will be given—and reason good !—we are pretty sure to be
dealing with a blockhead, whose silly and feeble hostility merits nothing
more, under the circumstances, than a scornful shrug of the shoulders.
In stating that my analysis will tally with that of Marx, I know that I
lay myself open to the regular charge brought against Socialists by
bourgeois journalists, the crime of always repeating the same thing ;
but what of that ? We must continue to maintain that two and two
make four, and we are unable to transfer the heart to the right side of
the body, even to please these gentlemen’s whim for change.
Anyhow, if it be true that we seldom change our theories, still less do
our adversaries vary their method of attack. Can anything be more
monotonous than their milk-and-water criticism of us ? It is like the
refrain of a wearisome song repeated over and over again. Whenever
a Socialist speaks or agitates they instantly seize the opportunity of
reiterating the complaint that he has been attacking that “ infamous
capital.” They have found nothing else to say : and this is never
varied. I beg their pardon though ; I am wrong : some put “ infamous
capital ” in italics, others in inverted commas, but that is the only differ
ence ; their imagination has gone no further.
�4
It is not as if the epithet gave a correct impression of the attitude of
Socialists towards capital; unfortunately it does not even do that. The
expression is not only absent from the Socialist vocabulary, but, more
over, being of bourgeois invention, both in substance and in form, it
misrepresents the attitude which it pretends to portray. It misrepresents
it by assuming that Socialists criticise the present state of things from a
sentimental standpoint, whereas they stand exclusively on scientific
ground.
For from the scientific point of view the attitude of goodness or badness,
infamy or merit, is due either to our personal material circumstances, or
to the particular bent of our character; that is a sufficient criterion for
judging the individual; in fact we have only to deal with economic
states, evolved according to laws which we have to determine.
If strict obedience to the laws of the physiology of the human frame
could lead, by suppressing morbid conditions, to the disappearance of
pain, which is the consequence of these conditions, without the feeling
of pain having been taken into consideration in the study of physiology,
we shall see that in the same way, a complete conformity to the economic
laws of the social organism, would result in social health, which would
put an end to the sufferings and injustice which are unquestionably
crushing the masses to-day, without allowing the burning reality of this
last fact to influence the march of events. Therefore our aim thould be
to arrive at a knowledge of economic laws. It will suffice us to know
these laws, but we must know them thoroughly.
Nor does thorough knowledge of these laws—that is to say, of the
relations existing between things, and resulting from their nature—con
sist in confining ourselves to analysing isolated facts, without taking
into account their mutual connection, their constant relation to their
surroundings, and the endless modifications necessarily resulting there
from : in confining ourselves to the study of things separately, and in a
state of rest, though everything in the universe is always in motion.
And what does movement mean but change ?
This, however, is what economists do. According to them, there have
been economic states which were artificial and temporal, but that at
present existing is natural and eternal; in this economists imitate theo
logians, in whose eyes their particular theory is always of divine origin,
while rival religions are merely of human invention.
The means of production and subsistence which embody to-day the
idea of capital are continually confounded by economists with their material
substance; it is as if they maintained that a negro is naturally a slave.
A negro is a negro; it is only in certain definite social conditions that
he becomes a slave. A spinning machine is a spinning machine; it only
becomes capital under fixed social conditions. The idea of capital is
not a natural idea, but purely social; far from being eternal, the
capitalist system is only a phase of economic movement.
After demonstrating that it has not always existed, I shall show that
it is the necessary result of certain historical events. The “ Genesis of
Capital ” shall be the title of this first treatise.
With all economists alike, as the “Dictionary of Political Economy ”
declares, “ the idea of reproduction is firmly allied with that of capital
by common consent the term “ capital ” does not only imply “ acquired
wealth,” but essentially wealth endowed with the “ faculty of repro
duction.” Value, “which multiplies continually,” as the economist
�5
Sismondi says; “ the insatiable greed for gain,” according to one of the
shining lights of bourgeois economy, MacCulloch ; gain for the sake of
gain ; realized gain producing more; this is what is generally implied
by capital.
Therefore the products of labour, as funds which may be used in
industrial employment, owing to this single fact, under the present
normal conditions increase periodically by a certain sum. From this
sum, from this profit, the landlord draws his means of consumption; if
he does not consume all, that which he does not consume is used in its
turn in industrial employment, and in its turn preserves its character by
giving interest; the excess of income over consumption becoming the
source of profit. This produce of labour, these funds, in virtue of this
power of renewing themselves, have the character of capital. On the
contrary the produce of labour which could not be used in industrial
enterprise, which, though suitable for consumption, would remain idle if
not consumed, would not have this character.
This being admitted, we read the following remarks in the “ Dictionary
of Political Economy,” already quoted:—“ There is no difference of
opinion, among economists, concerning the necessity of capital as
auxiliary to labour. From Adam Smith to Rossi, all agree on this
point, that, without the assistance of capital in the work of production,
man can do nothing. . . . Capital is the companion, the necessary
auxiliary to labour, so much so, that we may safely say that without
capital there is no labour. This is true, even with regard to the savage
state, as has always been recognised, where man never hunts without
bow and arrow, or some similar implement.”
Here, then, we have before us two opinions on which, as their diction
ary declares, all economists agree: one explains what is understood by
capital, the other proves the existence of capital ever since the savage
state, and also in that state itself. Socialists admit the first of these, but
they deny that this thing, described by everybody in the same way,
makes its appearance “ in the work of production ” before modern times,
and they deny it on the grounds of its own specific character.
As we have had the savage and his bow given us as an example, let us
examine the bow of the savage. Here is an implement of labour which
helps its owner to support himself, to gain his living ; but the quality
of capital is missing; the wealth of the savage, viz., the means of sub
sistence acquired by his bow, being devoid of all reproductive properties;
he can kill as much game as he pleases, but its excess will only serve to
give him indigestion. But further. Let us imagine a Pangloss of
political economy, possessed of a bow, entering into communication with
a savage in a forest near that country of Eldorado, visited by Candi le,
where the pebbles are gold. It is very probable that the savage would
consent to give gold to possess the bow. Furnished with this gold, under
whose worshipped form capital first presents itself, our economist will
shortly see the necessity of social surroundings other than those of the
savage, in order that the result of his exchange may act as capital, and
become productive. And, if he cannot escape from the economic con
ditions of the savage, he will not be long regretting his bargain ; for
under these conditions a bow enables him, at least, to try to get some
thing to eat, whereas gold is useless.
From the savage state let us pass to ancient communities, before
slavery had become an organised method of production. Founded on
�6
common property, these communities consumed the provisions produced
by their labour, and this produce, divided among their members, was
e nough for all. But even when they exchanged products with the
neighbouring communities, this exchange, which only played an inferior
part in their economy, had simply the satisfaction of their needs in view.
Neither their products nor their means of labour or subsistence, ever
appear as begetters of interest ; so that here again the character of
capital is missing.
The producing power of man was originally very small. So long as
he could not produce more than enough for his needs, one half of society
could not live on the labour of the other half, and slavery could not be
come established. How could a man work gratuitously for others, when
he could barely procure his own means of subsistence ? Under pre ssure
of physical wants, man’s faculties slowly developed. As the result of such
development labour acquired a productiveness, owing to which it was
able to provide for everyone over and above the simple necessaries of
life : and, since that time, a certain number have been able to live on the
labour of others. As soon as it became possible for a privileged class
to exist, a possibility depending from the first upon the productiveness
of labour, this class began to organise itself—and this always by force—
as for instance after a war or a conquest, or the forceable subjection of one
colony by another, and with the increase of productiveness this class
has increased. It is because slavery depends, to a certain extent, on the
productiveness of labour, that we meet with it only in southern regions,
while it loses its importance as we approach the north, where it only
appears, when it appears at all, in a modified form ; for this productive
ness depends, more especially in the earliest stage of civilisation,
upon natural conditions, the fertility of the soil, the profusion
of the means of subsistence, etc., and all the surroundings of the
labourer; and the north being less well endowed in these respects
than the south, slaves produce less and cost more to keep. In the work
of production, under the slave-owning system, we see the implements of
labour, and the means of consumption and of enjoyment, but no capital.
The aim of production was the satisfaction of wants: this satisfac
tion was secured to the master by the absolute possession of slaves, whom
he employed according to their number and the resources at his com
mand, in cultivating the ground, or, it may be, in working mines, and in
various domestic services. What he gained from the labour of his
slaves, he consumed by living more or less grandly, more or less
luxuriously; but this wealth, which was fitted to be an abundant source
of enjoyment, was nothing else ; it could be consumed, but it had no
inherent power of increase ; therefore it was not capital.
This holds good, too, in cases relatively less frequent, where the master
made his slaves work to sell the produce. Instead of being directly
manufactured, his objects of consumption were produced in the shape
of flutes, let us say, which were exchanged for other objects of con
sumption, or for money, the means of procuring these objects. In one
way or another it was in the means of consumption and enjoyment that
the fruits of production were used.
Under the Roman empire, which embraced the world one may say. a
system of production existed differing from the preceding system based
on slavery. The central authority absorbed nearly everything, con
fiscating private fortunes, monopolising implements of labour, directing
�7
trades, regulating all kinds of labour. %In this instance of administrative
communism, where the labourer was drilled into brigades, it is evident
that there could have been no room for the capitalist, but only for
officers.
At the same time various causes combined to diminish slavery. Experi ence having proved that the slave who had the opportunity of saving money
with the hope of freeing himself by means of a third person, who should
first buy him, and to whom he should pay back the purchase price,
worked better, and produced more, the masters’ own interests led them
to facilitate this saving of money, which became a kind of patrimony
for the slave. In this way masters profited by the increased pro
ductiveness of labour, and by the purchase price which they received.
Enfranchisement of slaves also became more common. On another
side the laws relating to the distribution of provisions rather encouraged
such enfranchisements, the masters having thus discovered a means of
obtaining part of the provisions accorded by these laws to freed slaves;
and we must not forget that the latter continued to be bound to their
patrons for certain services.
In the country, in order to stimulate production and to satisfy the
exigencies of • the exchequer, the profits of agriculture contributed to
turn the slaves into settlers, who cultivated the soil and paid a certain
rent. These settlers, neither free men nor slaves, but between the two,
were not allowed to leave the settlement. At length invasions of bar
baric tribes, by encouraging the revolt and escape of slaves, and by making
the security of proprietors doubtful, made this transformation general.
The masters found it to their advantage to parcel out their ground to
their slaves, who were turned into settlers, or serfs, performing certain
prescribed duties.
We can now realise the absurdity of those who persist in maintaining
that the abolition of slavery is due to Christianity. It is due to eco
nomic causes which have gradually led to its disappearance, and re
placed it by serfdom. Neither religion nor fraternity have had anything
to do with it.
In the middle ages, when serfdom prevailed, we find all social rela
tions based on a system of personal dependence, in virtue of which men
stood in various degrees of bondage to other men, with different
obligations to perform, particular duties and services. Beside the serfs
of the glebe, who represented part of the property, the cultivation of the
lands of the lord of the manor was secured by the corvee of beasts and
men, to which the peasants were bound for a variable number of days.
As for industrial labour, it was accomplished by artisan serfs. There
was no kind of service that serfs, peasants, or liege men of the town
were not obliged to render to the lord of the manor, who would not be
satisfied with any special duty incumbent on one or more inhabitants of
the domain under his sovereignty. The master could lead an enjoyable
life, thanks to all the things provided for him, and all the services
rendered; but there was not a trace of capital here, all these means of
enjoyment which he could consume at pleasure being incapable of
multiplying themselves.
Not being content with burdening the town artisans with taxes of all
kinds for their own profit, the barons and their retainers had a habit of
taking things out of the shops whenever they liked. Constant pillaging
went on. Tired of useless complaints, the victims formed a kind of
�s
Bi
I
mutual help society against these robberies. Whenever the men from
the castle entered any shop, all the townsmen following the same trade
were bound by an oath to lend their aid. Constant struggles resulted,
till at last the different trade corporations of a town united for defence.
Owing to this steady resistance, the towns ceased to be attacked. These
energetic risings of the people, occasionally crowned with success, and
the interests of the lords of the soil, led them gradually to agree to barter
for sums of money all their rights and claims.
This money, spent in means of enjoyment, could not by any means
fructify “ in the work of production,” or become, in a word, capital;
there was no possibility of- investment of this kind.
The forming of trades into corporations, at first with a view to mutual
protection, had led to practices, customs, and statutes, which, collected
and codified, became the substance of royal ordinances, and thus pro
duced the laws of corporations. These had their limitations, and de
tailed directions of methods to be used, and rules to be followed; they
fixed salaries, and prices, and conditions of apprenticeship ; regulated
the quality of products, etc., and all this under severe penalties, which
even went so far as the amputation of a hand.
Every master—who was one because his father was one before him ;
or because he had fulfilled the various rules laid down by the statutes in
order to become one ; or, lastly, because he had bought his freedom—
every master was one of a privileged class : it was in virtue of a special
prerogative that he followed his trade, that he was enabled to produce.
But though he was thus privileged, masters of others trades enjoyed
similar privileges, whence the impossibility for a master to enlarge his
production by joining another branch of industry to his own, however
alike the two might be. Again, in his own particular trade he found
himself confronted with masters having exactly the same prerogatives
as himself; thus each master was prevented from employing more than
a certain number of hands. How, then, could the result of production
be made to fructify ?
Supposing one master to gain more than the others, he could not use
his surplus money in producing more for himself, because he could not
increase the number of his hands: for the same reason, that which he
could not do himself he could not do through the agency of another. It
was impossible to increase a sum by investing it in any other master’s
concern, simply because the same limitation of employed producers, and,
consequently, of manufactured products, existed for all.
So, then, production in the middle ages did not allow wealth to multiply
itself in any way,
to become capital. In that sphere of production,
money, excellent for supplying comforts, did not increase if not con
sumed, it was heaped up in view of future consumption, whence the
custom of treasuries so frequent at that time. From this investigation
it becomes sufficiently evident that that which is, according to all
economists, the specific form of capital, did not appear “ in the work of
production ” before the modern era. That which they all agree to be the
characteristic of capital is the “ power of reproducing,” and I think I
have just shown that this reproductive power is not met with in the pro
duction of the savage state, nor in that of early communities, neither in
the production of early ages by means of slavery, nor in that of the
middle ages by means of serfdom ; it is, therefore, a peculiar feature of
the production of to-day, contrary to the opinion, always unanimous, of
�9
economists who, in their universal love of harmony, would do well to
harmonise their own contradictory doctrines.
The quotation given above from the “ Dictionary of Political
Economy,” which sums up the general opinion oi economists, only con
sidered capital employed (this is the exact expression) “ in the work of
production : ;t in my criticism I have done the same, for studying capital
in the sphere of production is the same thing as studying it in its funda
mental form, production being the source of all wealth.
Capitalist production dates from the sixteenth century. In conse
quence of historical changes which I shall speak of presently, production,
as it was carried on in the traditional small work-shop of the master of
the corporation, could no longer suffice to keep pace with the growing
demands of a daily expanding market, this work-shop must be enlarged;
and this enlarging of the corporate work-shop is the starting point of
capitalist production. As the result of circumstances which abolished
the Feudal system, the system of capitalist production follows as an his
torical sequence in the development of productive forces. That it might
become established, it was indispensable to have at the outset an
accumulation of wealth. To develope production it was necessary to
have the means for developing it. The masters of corporations certainly
might have followed the course of events, and become capitalists, only
the general poverty of their means did not allow of their keeeping up at
all with the requirements of the new market. But there were two forms
of capital which could not be used, which appeared under the most
varied economic systems, and which before the modern epoch alone
represented capital, being the only forms in which, before this epoch,
wealth could increase. I mean commercial capital and loan capital.
Although they appear in history before the fundanhental form of capital,
yet these two forms are derived forms of capital. This, at first sight,
may appear strange; and, in order that it ma4 be clearly understood, I
will give an example.
Let us imagine a peasant family cultivating For themselves their bit of
ground, gaining their livelihood by their labour. We have here neither
capital nor capitalist: the means of labour for this family are only the
means of using their productive activity in view of the satisfaction of
their personal wants. But some useful article! they do not produce, and
must therefore buy, and in some cases they need advances, and they
borrow. They sell some of their products towards purchasing, and pay
ing their debts. Their production has only one aim, that of satisfying
their wants, and these are satisfied whether directly by their own produce,
or indirectly by the help of part of their produce exchanged for money,
which to them is simply a means of buying useful articles. So capital
in its fundamental form, capital in production, does not exist here. But
the merchant to whom the peasant producer went, the lender with whom
he had transactions, will make the money received from him fructify,
and will turn it into capital. We see then how commercial capital and
loan capital may be derived from a production where the form of capital
has not yet appeared.
Not to leave this brief survey of the origin of capital too incomplete,
I shall point out the principal phases of the evolution of its first forms
from the time, when, amassed by the meads of commerce and usury, it
helped the birth of capitalist production.
When capital is studied historically from its first appearance, it is
�IO
always in the shape of money that we first see it arise ; and this pheno
menon is equally observable to-day ; at least, it is in this shape that every
new form of capital appears in the market. When it first appears on the
scene at its source of production, where it is exchanged as the direct pro
duct of labour for some other product, money represents in the hands
of its possessors the price of an article sold; they must have sold to
possess the money ; so there must have been circulation of merchandise.
Circulation of merchandise is the starting point of capital. Certain
historical conditions are necessary in order that the produce of labour may
be transformed into merchandise, and that production may be carried on,
not with a view to consumption or use, but to exchange.
With members of primitive communities their products were not mer
chandise, for, though they were divided amongst themsqlves, still there
was no exchange. Exchange began in the relations of one community
with another. Different communities found in their own particular cen
tre different means of production and subsistence, whence the difference
in their conditions of life, and in their produce ; and the intercourse
established between the communities led to the exchange of their mutual
products. The foreign articles acquired by exchange, at first accidentally,
ended by becoming necessary ; the exchange was repeated, and the habit
became a regular custom ; certain things were produced solely with a
view to exchange, and things which, in dealings of the community with
outsiders, had acquired the character of merchandise, kept this character
in dealings of the community with one another.
The number of products which were capable of exchange slowly in
creased. To measure their respective quantities, the two forms of
merchandise to be exchanged were referred to a third. The form of the
standard of value, represented by this third merchandise, vanished with ,
the social circumstances which produced it; and thus, sometimes one
commodity was used, sometimes another, until, when trade had reached
a certain point, one especial species of merchandise was used, and this
became money.
From this time commerce grew. It was especially maritime commerce
that produced accumulation of wealth in ancient times; this commerce
was centred in certain towns favoured by their geographical position, to
which they were indebted for monopolies which brought them wealth,
and thus enabled them to increase their traffic. I will give as an example
the far-famed commercial city of ancient times, Tyre, called the queen
of the seas. Her shores abounded in those shells from which the best
purple was prepared, and we know the estimation attached to purple by
the ancients. Owing to this natural monopoly riches flowed into Tyre ;
and this enabled her to multiply her maritime and commercial transac
tions, to found prosperous colonies, and to fetch from a distance the
coveted products of foreign lands, the sale of which, thus becoming also
her exclusive privilege, contributed still more to her wealth.
All that the masters drew from the labour of their slaves was, as we
have seen, the means of consumption and enjoyment; but a good many
of them, after having consumed all the profits of this labour, borrowed,
to indulge their expensive tastes and extravagant habits, and so swelled
the fortuues of traffickers in merchandise and gold. As a witness to
this fact that the ancients borrowed with a view to consumption I may
quote Plutarch : “ If people would content themselves with what was
necessary, there would be no more usurers than there are centaurs.”
�11
I should add that in Rome owing to peculiar circumstances the chief
reason for loans was to obtain necessaries. The citizens were soldiers ;
in times of war the lands of the rich continued to be cultivated by their
slaves, while the poor man was obliged to leave his field untilled. The
campaign over, patricians holding commissions in the army came back
loaded with the spoils of the conquered, which they had bestowed upon
themselves, to find their lands well cultivated, and in full bearing ; the
plebeian found his piece of ground lying waste and useless ; and ruined
in this way through military service, he was forced to borrow in order to
live, and be able to begin cultivating over again.
These debts became so heavy that insurrections followed, and
struggles constantly renewed between creditors and debtors. In the
early part of the middle ages, after the incursions of tribes out of
Central Asia and Germany, production was very limited, the business of
transporting small amounts of products was perilous owing to the
difficulty of communication, aggravated by constant plunder. Each
district organised itself as much as possible for the production of its
own necessaries, and exchange was only carried on in a narrow circle.
To effect exchanges with outsiders certain centres were chosen, whither
the people repaired in numbers at fixed periods; this was the origin of
fairs, sprung from the material conditions of life at that time.
By degrees came intervals of peace in the life of these war-like
people ; conflicts became less frequent, without ceasing altogether, and
disorder no longer reigned supreme. Unoccupied in their domains
during these intervals of relative calm, the cavaliers devoted themselves
to all kinds of warlike games, jousts, and tournaments. Every one
wished to excel in them ; luxury in armour, jewels, texture, etc., grew;
wants multiplied ; town industries were developed ; with this larger pro
duction commerce widened, and its progress reacted on production, and
hastened its development.
At the fall of the Roman Empire the results of the ancient order of
things were found to survive most successfully in Italy. She inherited
the legacy of the old civilisations; and having been longer trained in
their customs, she retained their memory the longest. Her products
felt the effects of this; they were better, and in consequence more in
demand ; they were exported by way of the sea more safely than by the
land, which was infested with pillaging armies ; thus her commerce
enriched chiefly her towns in the Mediterranean, whose maritime situa
tion was the reason that permanent fairs were held there. The begin
nings of social revival also first appeared in these towns. Pisa, Naples,
Amalfi, formed free communities when the rest of Europe was under the
yoke of tyranny, and during the darkest years of the middle ages their
vessels furrowed all seas, owing chiefly to the compass, which, though
it had been discovered some time, was not in general use in Europe till
this period. Other cities followed in their footsteps. Venice and Genoa
also enriched themselves by conveying pilgrims and crusaders. While
the crusaders relieved the country of a large number of robbers and
highwaymen, they helped to free the cities, the communities, and the
serfs by means of financial operations, the barons turning everything
into money and pledging even their estates to procure the funds indis
pensable to these distant expeditions. On the other hand they brought
these rude nobles into contact with Eastern manners, and refined their
taste, they brought back notions of niceness, ignored till then, and ideas
�12
of costly elegance. On their return thej’’ were more than ever dependent
on the Italian cities, whose ships went to fetch from Egyptian ports and
from the shores of the Black Sea, spices, perfumes, gems, costly stuffs,
and all the merchandise in fashion in the Levant. Money—money
which their commerce rapidly increased—flowed into those cities which
united industrial supremacy with their commercial and maritime power.
To the enormous gains of their world-wide commerce, their chief
merchants and bankers added the profits of usury, they lent to the
kings of Europe ; by means of their wealth they reigned in the retirement
of their counting-houses ; from one of these merchant families two sons
were raised to the Papacy, Leo X. and Clement VIE, and two daughters
became Queens of France, Catherine and Marie de Medicis.
Among the causes of this extraordinary accumulation of capital in
Italy we must mention the Papacy, which by its fraudulent trade in
indulgences and dispensations, and by its Peter’s Pence procured an
*
enormous revenue.
And what helps to support the economic materialism of Marx, and
shows that the material conditions of life are the cause of the different
social phenomena, is the fact that this prosperity of Italy! gave birth to
the Renaissance of art, and its imperishable chefs d’auvre. In the midst
of this magnificence intellectual power ripened into wonderful perfection.
But this prosperity excited envy ; her riches and the enjoyments of life
which they allowed, made Italy a tempting prey, upon which the Euro
pean monarchies threw themselves in their passion for wealth.
Nevertheless it was not these political events that deprived Italy of
her capitalist supremacy, however important may have been their con
sequences. The taking of Constantinople by the Turks, in 1453, dealt a
terrible blow to the dominion of Venice, at that time the first commercial
city of Italy, and indeed of the world. Italy retired from the Bosphorus
to the Adriatic, and her downfall, which was signified by this retreat,
was to be completed by the two great discoveries at the end of the 15th
century.
By doubling the Cape of Gtood Hope in 1497 Vasco di Gama opened
a new way to commerce; and in 1492 and 1498 Christopher Columbus
gave it a new world; but Italy found herself thenceforth out of the run
of fortune. The centre of activity was changed, and passed from the
towns on the Mediterranean to the towns of the Atlantic.
The new openings in the East and in America, the forming of colonies
and the increase of merchandise gave considerable scope to commerce
and navigation. Fresh opportunities of exchange were the result, which
led on the one hand to the depreciation of the land revenues of the nobles,
andon the other increased the wealth of the bourgeoisie ; the commercial
and industrial class, the bourgeois element, became more and more
developed, at the expense of the old Feudal system which it replaced.
The nobles on their side hurried on this work of dissolution. They had
* “Peter’s Pence ” was a tax levied on all families possessed of thirty pence yearly
rent in land, out of which they paid one penny, and was so called because paid on the
feast of St. Peter. It was claimed by the Popes as a tribute from England, and regu
larly collected till suppressed by Henry VIII. It had been originally presented for the
endowment of an English College in Rome.
f But compare page 17 of the “ Summary of the Principles of Socialism,” by
H. M. Hyndman and William Morris.—Ed.
�*3
begun to pledge their estates at the time of the crusades, and their un
bridled love of luxury, fine horses, splendid armour, sumptuous houses,
brilliant fetes, and amusements of all kinds, led them to continue this sys
tem, and they cared less and less to liberate their pledged property ; while
usury was carried on at their expense by Jews and Lombards, under the
form of pawnbroking and mortgaging. In short from the 14th century
they gradually alienated their estates, and at length the extensive im
portation of precious metals from America depreciated still more landed
fortunes, and contributed to the ruin of the feudal debtor, whose political
power declined as the economic basis which had supported it became
•feebler, for it was based upon landed property, involving personal rela
tions of domination and dependence.
We must not forget that the use of gunpowder and firearms had dealt
a serious blow to the feudal system by taking away its social function.
Supported by his serfs and liege men, the noble fought to defend them
against the extortions of strangers ; with the invention of artillery the
cavaliers cased in iron ceased to be a necessary rampart; the art of war
changed, and consequently the corporation of the nobility lost its useful
ness, and its ancient power was undermined.
All discoveries, all changes, which involved expansion of the market
and lessening the costs of transport, immeasurably accelerated produc
tion. Production must be increased to keep pace with growing wants,
and from this increase, occasioned by the creation of the market of the
two worlds in the 16th century, dates the history of capitalist production,
of which only the first faint beginnings had been traced in some of the
Italian towns.
But that production might increase, pecuniary means were necessary ;
and the feudal constitution of the country, and the corporate regime of
the towns were opposed to the transformation of capital in money form,
amassed by the twofold practice of commerce and usury, into industrial
capital. These barriers, becoming less solid with the relaxation of
feudal ties, caused by the phenomena shortly stated above, yielded in
many points to the force of necessity.
Kings multiplied pretexts, not altogether disinterestedly J for the creation
of masters in the corporations; they granted privileges to individuals
for the purchase and sale of certain products; they suppressed various
charges which burdened commerce, etc., and thus surmounted the
obstacles which the organisation of craft-guilds held out to the extension
of production. It was in this way that commercial capital and capital
by usury were developed, and in this way they prepared the way for the
capitalist era, properly speaking. To wind up my sketch of the evo
lution of these two forms of capital, I must add a few words.
Commercial and maritime supremacy passed at first from Italy to
Portugal, to whom the way to India, discovered by Vasco di Gama,
promised splendid possessions in Africa, and still more in Asia. Portu
gal overflowed with riches, but it was quickly supplanted by Spain, to
whom Christopher Columbus had given America; in 1580, Portugal
became a province of Spain.
In revolt against Philip II, who had crowned himself king of Portugal,
the Dutch established themselves with complete success upon the ruins
of the power of the Portuguese and Spaniards. These had founded their
dominion upon conquest: Holland was the first nation which developed
industrial capital simultaneously with commerce and navigation, and she
became the most opulent power of the world.
�14
When William III, Prince of Orange, was raised to the throne of
England in 1689, the Dutch nation with its capital and its men turned
towards this last country, and economic supremacy passed with them to
England who has since retained it.
The United States of America imagine they will subordinate her to
the office to which she has subordinated Holland, of being simply the
distributor of American products; whether they will succeed or not the
future will show.
We have now examined the growth of capital in its fundamental form,
and the growth of bourgeois industrialism, which necessarily arose in the
historical evolution, in order to develope the means of production, and
adapt them to the supply of a larger market: for the small work-shop of the
master of the corporation had to be enlarged, and at first the difference
was merely in quantity. We have seen whence came the funds indis
pensable to this enlargement, but other conditions were necessary, before
the larger work-shops could be used : for besides the means of labour,
labourers must be forthcoming. I shall examine in my next sketch, the
historical movement which changed the immediate producers into the
proletariat, I shall then touch on the different phases of capitalist pro
duction, co-operation, social machinery, and associated labour; and I
shall thus arrive at the present time, where the forces of production are
tending to destroy the economic conditions which produced them.
Once more, after studying the creation of the class destined to carry
into effect the means of operation of which I have traced the origin, I
shall take our method of production from the point where I leave it to
day, at its birth. I shall trace it in its evolution, prove that it is
approaching its dissolution, and show, by means of the very symptoms
which foretells its end, that its dissolution will evolve the constitutive
elements of a superior social organisation, where the means of produc
tion, being socialised, will no longer be clothed in this form of capital,
which they began to assume#nearly 400 years ago.
The continual change in the development of productive forces
necessarily brings with it modifications in the relations of production,
that is to say, in the manner of living; and the social relations depend
ing upon this must, evidently, be transformed that they may be adapted
to the changes in the relations of production : they are, consequently,
bound to change at the same time as the change in the productive forces.
Socialisation of the means of production, collective appropriation, which
is the basis of our theory, presents itself therefore, not as the original
conception of brains impassioned for justice, but as the scientific definition
of the end towards which economic phenomena are taking us whether we
will or no. x\s long as the state of the powers of production was such that
the material conditions demanded by the new society had not yet appeared,
those whose dream has been to remedy the misery of the lower classes
have been reduced to extemporising systems, and have fallen into
utopianism ; but the producing forces of to-day have attained a develop
ment which substitutes for the generous but unscientific speculations 01
the mind, the study of the changes in progress and the relations which
depend upon them. Collective superintendence of production and ex
change, formerly the ideal of certain brains, an institution with no
foundation, is at present an historical necessity, material facts tending
inevitably towards its realisation.
Between the social conditions reserved for us by its realisation, and
�i5
the actual conditions of to-day, there stands nothing but the denseness
of bourgeois stupidity; the obstacle is enormous I admit, but it is not
insurmountable. Were the bourgeois class aware of their true interests,
they would facilitate a transformation, by retarding which they are
ruining their own supports, and exhausting, as Marx has it, the two
sources from which all wealth springs, the soil and the labourer. Ifi
this the bourgeois class resemble the animal mentioned by our great prose
writer, Gustave Flaubert, in his “Temptation of St. Anthony,” which was
so supremely stupid, that it devoured its own paws without being aware
of it.
I
• I'm
.beeoqx5
srfT
9
' .T /flI
rl
.A
ansoNl I
.'•I
/fl
adj ni ifi W easlO
•up >1
,di'n 1
bi » 4 taeoTgTO-.)
>iiW
�Socialism and Soldiering ;
with some comments on the
Army Enlistment Fraud. By George Bateman (Late 23rd Regi
ment), with Portrait. With an introduction by H. H. Champion
(Late Royal Artillery). Price One Penny.
The Working Man’s Programme
(Arbeiter Pro-
gramm). By Ferdinand Lassalle. Translated from the German
by Edward Peters. Crown 8-vo., paper cover, price 6d.
The Robbery of the Poor.
By W. H. P. Campbell.
Demy 8-vo., paper cover, price 6d.
The Appeal to the Young.
By
Prince Peter
Kropotkin. Translated from the French by H. M. Hyndman and
reprinted from Justice. Royal 8-vo., 16-pp. Price one penny.
The most eloquent and noble appeal to the generous emotions ever penned by a
scientific man. Its author has just suffered five years’ imprisonment at rhe hands of the
French Republic for advocating the cause of the workers
Wage-Labour and Capital.
From the German of
Karl Marx translated by J. L. Joynes and reprinted from Justice.
New and cheaper edition, Royal 8-vo., price id.
By Edward Carpenter—Social
Progress and Indi
The Man with the Red Flag I
Being John Burns’
vidual Effort; Desirable Mansions; and Co-operative Production.
One penny each.
Speech at the Old Bailey, when tried for Seditious Conspiracy, on
April 9th, 1886. (From the Verbatim Notes of the official short
hand reporter.) With Portrait. Price threepence.
The Socialist Catechism.
with additions from Justice.
By J. L. Joynes. Reprinted
Demy 8-vo., price id. 20th thousand.
Socialism and Slavery.
By H. M. Hyndman.
(In
reply to Mr. Herbert Spencer’s article on “ The Coming Slavery.”)
New Edition, with portrait. 16 pp. Royal 8-vo., price one penny.
The Fmigration Fraud Exposed.
By
What an Eight Hours Bill Means.
By T. Mann
H.
M.
Hyndman. With a Portrait of the Author. Reprinted by per
mission from the Nineteenth Century for February, 1885. Crown 8-vo.,
price one penny.
(Amalgamated Engineers). New edition with portrait.
Thousand. Price one penny.
Socialism and the Worker.
Price id.
By F.
A.
Sixth
Sorge.
An explanation in the simplest language of tne main idea of Socialism.
The Chicago Riots and the Class War in the
United States. By H. M. Hyndman. Reprinted
from Time, June, 1886.
Price one penny.
International Trade Union Congress, held at
August, 1886. Report by Adolphe Smith.
Price Three-Halfpence.
Paris,
24-pp., Royal 8-vo.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The genesis of capital
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Deville, Gabriel [Writer on Political Economy.]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 15, [1] p. ; 23 cm.
Notes: Publisher's list on unnumbered page at the end.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
The Modern Press
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1887
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G4971
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
J., B (tr)
Subject
The topic of the resource
Capitalism
Socialism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The genesis of capital), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Capitalism
Socialism