doubled; but measured either by the quantity of labor that it could buy, or by the quantity of labor by which it could be bought, it would be far from having doubled. On the other hand, if the same labor produced double the amount of clothing as before, the relative value would fall to one half; but nevertheless this double quantity of clothing will not thereby be reduced to command only half the quantity of labor, nor could the same quantity of labor command double the quantity of clothing, as the half of the clothing would continue to render to the workers the same service as before.
Thus, to determine the relative value of commodities by the value of labor is contrary to economic facts. It is to move in a vicious circle, to determine relative value by a relative value which, in its turn, needs to be determined.
It is beyond doubt that M. Proudhon confounds the two measures, the measure by the labor-time necessary to the production of a commodity, and the measure by the value of the labor. "The labor of every man," says he, "will purchase the labor which it embodies." Thus, according to him, a certain quantity of labor embodied in a product equals in value the remuneration of the worker, that is to say, the value of labor. It is, once more, the same reason which leads him to confound the cost of production with wages.
"What are wages? They are the price of the amount of wheat, &c., . . . . the integral price of all things." Let us go further still: "Wages are the proportionality of the elements which compose wealth!" What are wages? They are the value of labor.
Adam Smith takes as measures of value, sometimes the labor time necessary to the production of a commodity, sometimes the value of labor. Ricardo exposed
