of being produced, and this minimum is demonstrated by competition. Suppose for a moment that there is no longer any competition, and therefore, no means of demonstrating the minimum of labor necessary for the production of a commodity, what would be the result? It would suffice to put six hours' labor into the production of a commodity in order to have the right, according to M. Proudhon, to exact in exchange six times as much as he who has devoted only one hour to the production of the same article.
In place of a "relation of proportion" we have a relation of disproportion, if we are at all times willing to remain in these relations, good or evil.
The continual depreciation of labor is only a single side, only a single consequence of the valuation of commodities by labor time. The inflation of prices, overproduction, and many other of the phenomena of industrial anarchy find their interpretation in this mode of valuation.
But labor time serving as means of value, does it at least give rise to the proportional variety in commodities which so charms M. Proudhon?
On the contrary, monopoly in all its dreary monotony, follows in its train and invades the world of commodities, as, in the sight and to the knowledge of everybody, monopoly invades the world of the instruments of production. It appertains only to certain branches of industry to make very rapid progress, as, for instance, the cotton industry. The natural consequence of this progress is that the products manufactured from cotton fall rapidly in price; but in proportion as the prices of cotton falls the price of linen must rise in comparison. What is the result? Linen is replaced by cotton. It is in this way that linen has been nearly driven out of the
