for labour remains unsold, the labourer derives no benefit from it, but rather he will feel it to be a cruel nature-imposed necessity that this capacity has cost for its production a definite amount of the means of subsistence and that it will continue to do so for its reproduction. He will then agree with Sismondi: "that capacity for labour … is nothing unless it is sold."[1]
One consequence of the peculiar nature of labour-power as a commodity is, that its use-value does not, on the conclusion of this contract between the buyer and seller, immediately pass into the hands of the former. Its value, like that of every other commodity, is already fixed before it goes into circulation, since a definite quantity of social labour has been spent upon it; but its use-value consists in the subsequent exercise of its force. The alienation of labour-power and its actual appropriation by the buyer, its employment as a use-value, are separated by an interval of time. But in those cases in which the formal alienation by sale of the use-value of a commodity, is not simultaneous with its actual delivery to the buyer, the money of the latter usually functions as means of payment.[2] In every country in which the capitalist mode of production reigns, it is the custom not to pay for labour-power before it has been exercised for the period fixed by the contract, as for example, the end of each week. In all cases, therefore, the use-value of the labour-power is advanced to the capitalist: the labourer allows the buyer to consume it before he receives payment of the price; he everywhere gives credit to the capitalist. That this credit is no mere fiction, is shown not only by the occasional loss of wages on the bankruptcy of the capitalist,[3] but also by a series of more enduring consequences.[4] Never-
- ↑ Sismondi: "Nouv. Princ. etc.," t, I. p. 112.
- ↑ "All labour is paid after it has ceased." ("An inquiry into those Principles respecting the nature of Demand," &c., p. 104.) "Le crédit commercial a dü commencer au moment où l'ouvrier, premier artisan de la production, a pu, au moyen de ses économies, attendre le salaire de son travail jusqu, à la fin de la semaine, de la quinzaine, du mois, du trimestre, &c. (Ch. Ganilh: "Des Systèmes de l'Econ. Polit." 2éme. edit. Paris, 1821, t. I. p. 150.).
- ↑ "L'ouvrier prête son industrie," but adds Storch slyly: he "risks nothing" except "de perdre son salaire … L'ouvrier ne transmet rien de materiel." (Storch: "Cours d'Econ. Polit. Econ." Petersbourg, 1815, t. II., p. 37.)
- ↑ One example. In London there are two sorts of bakers, the "full priced," who
