The discussion of the proposition, “The influence of machinery 
in the hands of capitalists”, was opened by Citizen Marx. He said 
what strikes us most is that all the consequences which were 
expected as the inevitable result of machinery have been reversed. 
Instead of diminishing the hours of labour, the working day was 
prolonged to sixteen and eighteen hours. Formerly, the normal 
working day was ten hours, during the last century the hours of 
labour were increased by law here as well as on the Continent. 
The whole of the trade legislation of the last century turns upon 
compelling the working people by law to work longer hours. 

It was not until 1833 that the hours of labour for children were 
limited to twelve.“ In consequence of overwork there was no time 
left whatever for mental culture. They also became physically 
deteriorated; contagious fevers broke out amongst them, and this 
induced a portion of the upper class to take the matter up. The 
first Sir Robert Peel was one of the foremost in calling attention to 
the crying evil, and Robert Owen was the first mill-owner who 
limited the hours of labour in his factory. The ten hours’ bill was 
the first law which limited the hours of labour to ten and a half 
per day for women and children, but it applied only to certain 
factories.** _ 

This was a step of progress, in so far as it afforded more leisure 
time to the work-people. With regard to production, the limitation 
has long since been overtaken. By improved machinery and 
increased intensity of the labour of individuals there is now more 


@ By “An Act to Regulate the Labour of Children and Young Persons in the — 
Mills and Factories of the United Kingdom. August 29, 1833”.— Ed. 


Appendices 383 


work done in the short day than formerly in the long day. People 
are again overworked, and it will soon become necessary to limit 
the working day to eight hours. | 

Another consequence of the use of machinery was to force 
women and children into the factory. The woman has thus 
become an active agent in our social production. Formerly female 
and children’s labour was carried on within the family circle. I do 
not say that it is wrong that women and children should 
participate in our social production. I think every child above the 
age of nine ought to be employed at productive labour a portion 
of its time, but the way in which they are made to work under 
existing circumstances is abominable. 

Another consequence of the use of machinery was that it 
entirely changed the relations of the capital, of the country. . 
Formerly there were wealthy employers of labour, and poor 
labourers who worked with their own tools. They were to a certain 
extent free agents, who had it in their power effectually to resist 
their employers. For the modern factory operative, for the women 
and children, such freedom does not exist, they are slaves of 
capital. 

There was a constant cry for some invention that might render 
the capitalist independent of the working man; the spinning 
machine and power-loom has rendered him independent, it has 
transferred the motive power of production into his hands. By this 
the power of the capitalist has been immensely increased. The 
factory lord has become a_ penal legislator within his own 
establishment, inflicting fines at will, frequently for his own 
aggrandisement. The feudal baron in his dealings with his serfs 
was bound by traditions and subject to certain definite rules; the 
factory lord is subject to no controlling agency of any kind. 

One of the great results of machinery is organised labour which 
must bear fruit sooner or later. The influence of machinery upon 
those with whose labour it enters into competition is directly | 
hostile. Many hand-loom weavers were positively killed by the 
introduction of the power-loom both here and in India. 

We are frequently told that the hardships resulting from 
machinery are only temporary, but the development of machinery 
is constant, and if it attracts and gives employment to large 
numbers at one time it constantly throws large numbers out of 
employment. There is a continual surplus of displaced population, 
not as the Malthusian asserts a surplus population in relation to 
the produce of the country, but a surplus whose labour has been 
superseded by more productive agencies. 


384 Appendices 


Employed on land machinery produces a constantly increasing 
surplus population whose employment is not fluctuating. This 
surplus flocks to the towns and exercises a constant pressure, a 
wage lowering pressure upon the labour market. The state of the 
East of London is one of the phenomena it produces.*” 

The real consequences are best seen in those branches of labour 
in which the machine is not employed. 

To conclude for the present, machinery leads on one hand to 
associated organised labour, on the other to the disintegration of 
all formerly existing social and family relations.