from the labour of men.” (_North_, Discourses upon Trade, 112.) Thus, _Locke_ (1690), Of Civil Government, II, 5, 40 ff., is of opinion, that, at least 9/10 of the value of the products of the soil, useful to man, are to be ascribed to labor, and, in the case of most, even 99/100. And so, _Berkeley_ (1735), Querist, No. 38 seq. This view is advocated in its boldest form,—a thing unusual in the case of the independent disciples of a great master—by _McCulloch_, Principles, II, ch. i, that it is to labor, and to labor alone, that man owes everything that possesses any value in exchange. Similarly, _J. Mill_, Elements (1824), III, 2. The consequences which socialism might draw from these premises are self-evident. _Karl Marx’s_ whole system, for instance, rests, without any attempt at demonstration, on the assumption that the Ricardo school is right. Much more moderate views are met with earlier. Thus, _Hobbes_, De Cive, XIII, 14, and _Leviath_., 24 (1642 and 1651), calls _labor et parsimonia_ necessary sources of wealth; _proventus terræ et aquæ_ useful ones; and _Petty_, On Taxes (1679), 47, says: “Labour is the father and active principle of wealth, as lands are the mother. Land and labour together are the sources of all wealth; without a competency of lands there would be no subsistence, and but a very poor one without labour.” _Harris_, Upon Money and Coins, 1757, P.I. _Adam Smith_, also, in spite of the well known passage at the beginning of his work, very frequently lays stress on “the annual produce of land and labour.” (See the passages collected in _Leser_, Begriff des Reichthums bei A.S., 97.) According to _Leibniz, regionis potentia consistit in terra, rebus, hominibus_. (ed. Dutens, IV. 2, 531.) _Ricardo’s_ school is wont to bring capital under the head of labor, as saved-up labor. This is about as correct as to say, that all that a grown man does, his parents had done. (_Umpfenbach_, Nat. Œk., 64.) There is only one way in which labor, and even then the expression is not exactly correct, can be looked upon as the only factor in production; and that is to presuppose the forces of nature as matters of course (_als sich von selbst verstehend_), and to call the aggregate use made of them by the human mind, labor. Or we might say with old _Epicharmos_, that the gods sell all goods for labor. (_Xenoph_., Memor. II. 1.) Moreover, even in purely intellectual productions, in poetical productions for instance, nature, labor and experience, the culture inherited from former ages (a kind of intellectual capital) uniformly coöperate. But how almost completely valueless in literature are all entirely pure (empty!) productions of the fancy!