reason? "Owing to the men working days and nights in alternate weeks, the men would be separated
half the time from their boys, and would lose half the profit which they make from them. The training
which they give to. an apprentice is considered as part of the return for the boys' labour, and thus enables
the man to get it at a cheaper rate. Each man would want half of this profit." In other words, Messrs.
Sanderson would have to pay part of the wages of the adult men out of their own pockets instead of
by the night-work of the boys. Messrs. Sanderson's profit would thus fall to some extent, and this is
the good Sandersonian reason why boys cannot learn their handicraft in the day.70 In addition to this,
it would throw night-labour on those who worked instead of the boys, which they would not be able to
stand. The difficulties in fact would be so great that they would very likely lead to the giving up of night-
work altogether, and "as far as the work itself is concerned," says E. F. Sanderson, "this would suit as
well, but " But Messrs. Sanderson have something else to make besides steel. Steel-making is simply
a pretext for surplus-value making. The smelting furnaces, rolling-mills, &c., the buildings, machinery,
iron, coal, &c., have something more to do than transform themselves into steel. They are there to absorb
surplus-labour, and naturally absorb more in 24 hours than in 12. In fact they give, by grace of God and
law, the Sandersons a cheque on the working-time of a certain number of hands for all the 24 hours of
the day, and they lose their character as capital, are therefore a pure loss for the Sandersons, as soon
as their function of absorbing labour is interrupted. "But then there would be the loss from so much
expensive machinery, Iying idle half the time, and to get through the amount of work which we are able
to do on the present system, we should have to double our premises and plant, which would double the
outlay." But why should these Sandersons pretend to a privilege not enjoyed by the other capitalists who
only work during the day, and whose buildings, machinery, raw material, therefore lie "idle" during the
night? E. F. Sanderson answers in the name of all the Sandersons: "It is true that there is this loss from
machinery Iying idle in those manufactories in which work only goes on by day. But the use of furnaces
would involve a further loss in our case. If they were kept up there would be a waste of fuel (instead
of, as now, a waste of the living substance of the workers), and if they were not, there would be loss
of time in laying the fires and getting the heat up (whilst the loss of sleeping time, even to children of 8
is a gain of working-time for the Sanderson tribe), and the furnaces themselves would suffer from the
changes of temperature." (Whilst those same furnaces suffer nothing from the day and night change of
labour.)71
SECTION 5
THE STRUGGLE FOR A NORMAL WORKING-DAY.
COMPULSORY LAWS FOR THE EXTENSION
OF THE WORKING-DAY FROM THE MIDDLE OF THE 14TH TO THE END OF THE 17TH CENTURY
"What is a working-day? What is the length of time during which capital may consume the labour-power
whose daily value it buys? How far may the working-day be extended beyond the working-time necessary
for the reproduction of labour-power itself?" It has been seen that to these questions capital replies: the
working-day contains the full 24 hours, with the deduction of the few hours of repose without which labour-
power absolutely refuses its services again. Hence it is self-evident that the labourer is nothing else, his
whole life through, than labour-power, that therefore all his disposable time is by nature and law labour-
time, to be devoted to the self-expansion of capital. Time for education, for intellectual development,
for the fulfilling of social functions and for social intercourse, for the free-play of his bodily and mental
activity, even the rest time of Sunday (and that in a country of Sabbatarians!)72 moonshine! But in
its blind unrestrainable passion, its were-wolf hunger for surplus-labour, capital oversteps not only the
moral, but even the merely physical maximum bounds of the working-day. It usurps the time for growth,
development, and healthy maintenance of the body. It steals the time required for the consumption of
fresh air and sunlight. It higgles over a meal-time, incorporating it where possible with the process of
production itself, so that food is given to the labourer as to a mere means of production, as coal is supplied
to the boiler, grease and oil to the machinery. It reduces the sound sleep needed for the restoration,
reparation, refreshment of the bodily powers to just so many hours of torpor as the revival of an organism,
absolutely exhausted, renders essential. It is not the normal maintenance of the labour-power which is
to determine the limits of the working-day; it is the greatest possible daily expenditure of labour-power,
no matter how diseased, compulsory, and painful it may be, which is to determine the limits of the labourers' period