pc2 [8]
of exchange-values, and of production producing exchange-values, _presupposes_ alien labor power as itself an exchange-value. I.e., it presupposes the separation of living labor power from its objective conditions; a relationship to these -- or to its own objectivity -- as someone else's property; in a word, a relation to them as _capital_. The golden age of labor emancipating itself occurred only in those periods when feudalism was in decay, but still engaged in internecine conflict -- as in England in the 14th and the first-half of the 15th centuries. If labor is once again to be related to its objective conditions as to its property, another system must replace that of private exchange, for as we have seen private exchange assumes the exchange of labor transformed into objects against labor-power, and thereby the appropriation of living labor without exchange. Historically, money is often transformed into capital in quite simple and obvious ways. Thus, the merchant sets to work a number of spinners and weavers, who formerly engaged in these activities as subsidiary occupations to their agricultural work, and turns a subsidiary occupation into a principal one, after which he has them under his control and sway as wage-laborers. The next step is to remove them from their homes and to assemble them in a single house if labor. In this simple process, it is evident that the merchant has prepared neither raw materials nor instruments nor means of subsistence for the weaver or the spinner. All he has done is gradually to confine them to one sort of labor, in which they are dependent on the _buyer_, the _merchant_, and thus eventually find themselves producing solely _for_ and _by means of_ him. Originally, he has bought their labor merely by the purchase of their product. As soon as they confine themselves to the production of this exchange-value, and are therefore obliged to produce immediate _exchange-values_, and to exchange their labor entirely for money in order to go on living, they come under his domination. Finally, even the illusion of _selling_ him their products, disappears. He purchases their labor and takes away first their property in the product, soon also their ownership of the instrument, unless he allows them the _illusions of ownership_ in order to diminish his costs of production. The original historical forms in which capital appears at first sporadically or _locally, side by side_ with the old modes of production, but gradually bursting them asunder, make up _manufacture_ in the proper sense of the word (not yet the factory). This arises, where there is mass-production for export -- hence on the basis of large-scale maritime and overland trade, and in the centres of such trade, as in the Italian cities, Constantinople, the Flemish, Dutch cities, some Spanish ones such as Barcelona, etc. Manufacture does not initially capture the so-called urban crafts, but the rural subsidiary occupations, spinning and weaving, the sort of work which least requires craft skill, technical training. Apart from those great emporia, in which it finds the basis of an _export_ market, and where production is, as it were _by its spontaneous nature_, directed towards exchange-value -- i.e., manufactures directly connected with shipping, including shipbuilding itself, etc. The rural subsidiary occupations contain the broad basis of manufactures, whereas a high degree of progress in production is required in order to carry on the urban crafts as factory industries. Such branches of production as glassworks, metal factories, sawmills, etc., which from the start demand a greater concentration of labor-power, utilize more natural power, and demand both mass-production and a concentration of the means of production, etc.: these also lend themselves to manufacture. Similarly, paper mills, etc. The other aspect of this process is the appearance of the tenant farmer and the transformation of the agricultural population into free day-laborers. Though