Again, in proportion to the increasing mass of the means of production,
 now no longer the property of the labourer, but of the capitalist, the
 necessity increases for some effective control over the proper application
 of those means. [15] Moreover, the co-operation of wage labourers314 is entirely brought about by the capital that employs them. Their union
 into one single productive body and the establishment of a connexion between
 their individual functions, are matters foreign and external to them, are
 not their own act, but the act of the capital that brings and keeps them
 together. Hence the connexion existing between their various labours appears
 to them, ideally, in the shape of a preconceived plan of the capitalist,
 and practically in the shape of the authority of the same capitalist, in
 the shape of the powerful will of another, who subjects their activity
 to his aims. If, then, the control of the capitalist is in substance two-fold
 by reason of the two-fold nature of the process of production itself, which,
 on the one hand, is a social process for producing use-values, on the other,
 a process for creating surplus-value in form that control is despotic.
 As co-operation extends its scale, this despotism takes forms peculiar
 to itself. Just as at first the capitalist is relieved from actual labour
 so soon as his capital has reached that minimum amount with which capitalist
 production, as such, begins, so now, he hands over the work of direct and
 constant supervision of the individual workmen, and groups of workmen,
 to a special kind of wage-labourer. An industrial army of workmen, under
 the command of a capitalist, requires, like a real army, officers (managers),
 and sergeants (foremen, overlookers), who, while the work is being done, command in the name of the capitalist. The work of supervision becomes their established and exclusive function. When comparing the mode of production
 of isolated peasants and artisans with production by slave-labour, the
 political economist counts this labour of superintendence among the faux
 frais of production. [16] But, when considering
 the capitalist mode of production, he, on the contrary, treats the work
 of control made necessary by the co-operative character of the labour-process
 as identical with the different work of control, necessitated by the capitalist
 character of that process and the antagonism of interests between capitalist
 and labourer. [17] It is not because he is a leader
 of industry that a man is a capitalist; on the contrary, he is a leader
 of industry because he is a capitalist. The leadership of industry is an
 attribute of capital,315 just as in feudal times the functions of general
 and judge, were attributes of landed property. [18]