THE LABOUR-VALUE FALLACY.

Evening Post, Volume LXXIV, Issue 78, 28 September 1907, Page 3

THE LABOUR-VALUE FALLACY.

TO TDK EDITOB. Sir, — Your valuablo article on the above subject will tend to help the Socialist to think more clearly on the most fundamental and most important point in political economy — tho question of "value.", What do we mean when we say that a commodity has value, or that it is valuable? Anil if we know for a fact that a thing nas value, then why has it value? All kinds of definitions havo been attempted for the terra value, such as "utility." "capability of supplying a want," "difficulty of replacement,"' and the labour embodied in the commodity. But most of the ordinary definitions aro wholly inadequate, for reasons which will appear presently. The valuo of an article* may bo viewed from tho point of view of tho possessor who owns it, and from the point of view of the non-possessor who does not own it. Obviously, therefore, valuo is somo feeling or sentiment on the part of any ona, possessor or ion-possessor, towards a certain commodity. If C possess an object for which any one is willing to givo me something in exchange, it is manifest that that object has some valuo; and if no one is willing to give mo anything in exchange lor it, that object manifestly bas no alue. II I own a commodity, it does not matter a particle what virtue it «iay have, be- it ever so useful, or beautiful, or scarce, or how much labour embodied, it Is only worth what I can get for it. Furthermore, as value is a feeling on tho part of individuals, there is no human agency which can, by its simple declaration, influence this feeling. No Government can decree that thoso who have an effective demand for a commodity shall offer to purchase that commodity at. this or that rate. Tho labour-time socially necessary for the production of any article is Us cost of production, and has nothing to do with its value, which is determinede by the effective dem&ttd of any community. 1 am, etc., J. BRUTON. 'Wellington, 26th Sept., 1907. \ TO ' THE EDITOR. i Sir, — I would like to ask you one or two questions about tho leader on Socialism in last night's Post. Could you name any advocate- of Socialism who ever said that nature did uot form a principle part in producing valuable commodities? If a fifty-pound note, or fifty sovereigns were droped on the best farm in New Zealand, how long would it take (without labour) to produce a bushel of wheat? If labour, applied to nature, produces most of the necessaries of life, do you think it right that the- producer should get the smallest and coarsest part, and havo to hand over tho largest and finest part to the idler, who hns d'ono nothing to nelp to produce it. Tho report of Sunday night's meeting is only half truo, as hundreds can prove. — A WORKER. Wellington, 25th Sept, 1907. TO THI EDITOB. Sir, — Criticising the Marxian theory of value in your leader you say labour is j not tho sole source of value, and attempt j to show cases where wealth on values have been created independent oi Labour : one of a carpenter who, by his labour and by employing labour, becomes wealthy. In this instance of accumula tion, according to your own showing. Labour, and nought but Labour, created tho wealth renlUed. Brains, again, you o&y, is another instance, of values or wealth beint; created independent of Labour. Doubtless by brain, you n-.e-in intelligence, mental activity, brain exertion, and it this ia not Labour, ' what is it? Can brain* produce value or nre they of any utility unless they labour of are exerted? Nature, you cay. also produces value or wealth independently of Labour. Yes, Nature does produce all wmlth, but not independent of Labour. But whether wealth is created by Nature independently, or through the instrumentality of human beings, cives no claim of the capitalist to it." Did capital croated or mnkc Nature? Nor is it Nature which gives valuo to the meteorite mentioned ; it) all depends where the meteorite drops. It^ is tha cost of the trouble or Hbour involved which determines the- value of even meteorites. If meteorites could be had without labour w trouble, it is evident they would possess no commercial value. Again, what value we ask would even sheep or lambs m a wild state have? To possess value, «.heejr had tib » firs.<domesticated ; tho bußh had to be felled, the land fenced, and gr;ns sown. Animals and "lants. says Marx, which we, are accurtomed to consider natural products, are in their present form not only products of, Fay, last year's labour, but tho result of a gradual transformation effected through many generations. _ Turn which ever way the Post will, it cannot get away fr<>m tho fact that Labour is a, general law determining values and all wealth created. It is the most universal form of tho expression of value, and no other law, or theory >of value comes oven a good second with tho theory that the value of commodities is determined by tho trouble, service, or cost in average labour requiied to produce them. With regard to your statement that Socialists assert employers are rogues : ,what the Socialists do assert is that, iiio system compels the community generally with few if any, exceptions to be social cannibals, industrial and commercial robbers of each other; to act very often tlifgrjcefully and dishonestly whether they vill or'no. — I nm, etc.. HOCIALTST. Wellington, 25th September, 1907.