It

ON THE VALUE

at one time a quarter, and at another time half,
his labour at the latter period will be doubled
in value in relation to these commodities.
Mr. Ricardo’s error, it deserves to be repeated,
lies in considering this change in the proportion
 to be the only cause of change, or rather
the only case of change in the value of labour*.

* Mr. Ricardo’s inference is-a legitimate deduction from
his premises, if we concede certain postulates. Grant
him the kind of value ealled real, which has no relation to
the quantity of commodities commanded, but solely to the
quantity of producing labour, and it inevitably follows, that
there could be no alteration in the real value of labour,
but from an alteration in the proportion of the product
which went to the labourer. Neither, if money were always
 produced by a uniform quantity of labour, could
there be any other alteration in the money-value of labour.
But to say in this case, that although the labourer obtained
a larger quantity of hats, coats, and corn, yet if he obtained
 less money, the value of his labour would have
fallen, is altogether nugatory. Money-value has no
greater claim to the general term value,” than any
other kind of value; and the simple state of the case
would be, that labour had risen in value in relation to hats,
coats, and corn, and fallen in relation to money. As to
real value, the last chapter has shown that it is a nonentity.