History and criticism of the labor theory of value in English political economyWhitaker, Albert C. (Albert Conser)
History
History and criticism of the labor theory of value in English political economy
Whitaker, Albert C. (Albert Conser)
Economics -- Great Britain -- History; Labor theory of value -- Great Britain -- History
[242] Without attempting a systematic classification of kinds of causes,
we all know that such is our notion of cause that we can conceive of many
causes which bear no assignable quantitative relation with their effects
(_i. e._, effects for which they are partly responsible). The pressure of
an electric button “caused” the Hell Gate explosion (after conditions—_i.
e._, other causes—were prepared) but the amount of pressure put upon this
button, or the size of this button, had nothing to do with the quantity
of the explosion or the amount of work done in the explosion. We are
permitted to speak of the act of pressing the button as a cause, but not
as a regulator (except with respect to the _time_ of the explosion, an
irrelevant consideration here), for a regulator is a cause the quantity
of which determines the quantity of the effect. It should be noted that
when the quantity of the cause is compared with the quantity of the
effect, to show that the former regulates the latter, the quantity of
the cause must be established independently of the quantity of this same
effect; otherwise the fallacy of reasoning in a circle is committed. This
digression does not lead us so far astray from the theory of value as
might be supposed. This precise fallacy has been committed time and again
in the reasonings that have been brought to the support of the labor
theory of value. For instance when the term “labor” is used to signify
disutility or cost (instead of productive power) by the expounders of
the “difficulty of attainment” philosophy of value, and it is asserted
that the labor cost of a good regulates its value, the objection is
soon encountered that skilled labor produces a greater value per day
than common. Thereupon it is frequently explained that skilled labor is
condensed, or counts as more labor per day than common. As a matter of
fact, we all know that in the vast majority of cases, skilled labor,
measured independently of the value produced by it, and measured as a
quantity of labor in the sense of disutility, is less labor per day than
common toil.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account