value from the labour-power that is purchased is not the only cause of the class antagonism between capital and labour. I his antagonism is also nourished by the power over labour which is invested in capital by its monopoly of the means of production. Every kind of social cooperation requires to be directed. But the capitalist becomes a captain of industry because he owns the means of production, and not because the workers and consumers have any confidence in his capacity or experience. In capitalist undertakings the master was originally an autocrat, who not merely managed the business, but dominated it personally and gave it a code of rules. The worker was the object, not the subject of this legislation.
The struggle of the worker against capital is not merely directed against exploitation; that is, against the creation of surplus value, but also against the omnipotence, of the captain of industry, against the attitude of "master in the house."
Both parts of the class struggle are inseparable and closely connected with each other. In the one case, the restriction of the omnipotence of capital visible progress is achieved during the lifetime of capitalism, but not in the other case, the struggle against the exploitation of the workers. In the latter case progress is only made through increasing encroachments upon the domain of capitalistic production, and the extension of socialisation. As regards the first-named aspect of the class struggle, progress commenced to be made one hundred years ago but in respect of the second aspect, it has scarcely begun as yet. The power of the master in industry tends to be restricted by the growing force of Labour organisations and of the State, "the organised power of society."
But this does not cause a diminution in the exploitation of labour, which often shows a tendency to increase. Every labour protection law, every factory inspector, every successful strike, every trade union
60
