AT DIFFERENT PERIODS. 81

not proportioned to the value of the labour ne-
cessary to its production at each period; that
although, for example, the value of the labour
were doubled at the latter period, the value of
the commodity might not be affected. The
proposition expressed more simply is, that the
value of a commodity and the value of the la-
bour employed in its production, do not bear
to each other a constant ratio; or more simply
still, that labour may rise and fall in value with-
out affecting the value of the commodity.

This is obviously a very different proposition
from the other, and depends in fact on the fal-
sity of the other, or on the contrary proposition,
““ that the values of two contemporary commo-
dities are to each other as the values of the
labour employed in producing them.” For as
value must be value in something, let us ask,
in relation to what object might the value of a
at period No. 2 be, as here asserted, the same
as its value at period No. 1, although the value
of the producing labour were doubled? In re-