Without troubling myself to quote more passages from these authors,or to transcribe the opinion of other writers,I shall proceed to examine the effects of capital;and I shall begin with circulating capital.Mr M'Culloch says,"without circulating capital,"meaning the food the labourer consumes,and the clothing he wears,"the labourer never could engage in any undertaking which did not yield an almost immediate return."Afterwards he says,"that division of labour is a consequence of previous accumulation of capital,"and quotes the following passage from Dr Smith,as a proper expression for his own opinions:--"Before labour can be divided,'a stock of goods of different kinds must be stored up somewhere,sufficient to maintain the labourer,and to supply him with tools for carrying on his work.A weaver,for example,could not apply himself entirely to his peculiar business,unless there was beforehand stored up somewhere,either in his own possession,or in that of some other person,a stock sufficient for his maintenance,and for supplying him with the materials and implements required to carry on his work,till he has not only completed,but sold his web.This accumulation must evidently be previous to his applying himself for so long a time to a peculiar business.'"The only advantage of circulating capital is that by it the labourer is enabled,he being assured of his present subsistence,to direct his power to the greatest advantage.He has time to learn an art,and his labour is rendered more productive when directed by skill.Being assured of immediate subsistence,he can ascertain which,with his peculiar knowledge and acquirements,and with reference to the wants of society,is the best method of labouring,and he can labour in this manner.Unless there were this assurance there could be no continuous thought,an invention,and no knowledge but that which would be necessary for the supply of our immediate animal wants.The weaver,I admit,could not complete his web,nor would the shipwright begin to build his ship,unless he knew that while he was engaged in this labour he should be able to procure food.A merchant certainly could not set out for South America or the East Indies unless he were confident that during the period of his absence he and his family could find subsistence,and that he would be able at the end of his voyage to pay all the expenses he had incurred.It is this assurance,this knowledge,this confidence of obtaining subsistence and reward,which enables and induces men to undertake long and complicated operations,and the question is,do men derive this assurance from a stock of goods already provided (saved from the produce of previous labour)and ready to pay them,or from any other source?
I SHALL ENDEAVOUR TO SHOW THAT THIS ASSURANCE ARISES FROM AGENERAL PRINCIPLE IN THE CONSTITUTION OF MAN,AND THAT THEEFFECTS ATTRIBUTED TO A STOCK OF COMMODITIES,UNDER THE NAME OFCIRCULATING CAPITAL,ARE CAUSED BY CO-EXISTING LABOUR.
The labourer,the real maker of any commodity,derives this assurance from a knowledge he has that the person who set him to work will pay him,and that with the money he will be able to buy what he requires.He is not in possession of any stock of commodities.Has the person who employs and pays him such a stock?Clearly not.Only a very few capitalists possess any of those commodities which the labourers they employ consume.
Farmers may have a stock of corn,and merchants and shipowners may have a few weeks'or months'supply of provisions for their seamen,according to the length of the voyage they are to undertake;but,beyond this,no capitalist possesses ready prepared the commodities which his labourers require.He possesses money,he possesses credit with other capitalists,he possesses,under the sanction of the law,a power over the labour of the slave-descended labourer,but he does not possess food or clothing.He pays the labourer his money wages,and the expectation which other labourers have of receiving part of these wages or other wages,induces them in the meantime to prepare the clothing and food the labourer constantly requires.Not to deal,however,in general terms and abstractions,doing which seems to have led other writers astray,let us descend to particulars.
A great cotton manufacturer,we suppose,for example,a Sir Robert Peel,or any other of those leviathans who are so anxious to retain their power over us,and who,as legislators,either in their own persons or in the persons of their sons,make the laws which both calumniate and oppress us,employs a thousand persons,whom he pays weekly:does he possess the food and clothing ready prepared which these persons purchase and consume daily?Does he even know whether the food and clothing they receive are prepared and created?In fact,are the food and clothing which his labourers will consume prepared beforehand,or are other labourers busily employed in preparing food and clothing while his labourers are making cotton yarn?Do all the capitalists of Europe possess at this moment one week's food and clothing for all the labourers they employ?
