FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   148   149   150   151   152   153   154   155   156   157   158   159  
160   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   181   182   183   184   >>   >|  
we take, for example, a man working in a factory, at a great machine, making screws. We go to that man and say: "Every screw here is made by manual labor alone. The machine does not count; the brains of the inventors of the machine have nothing to do with the making of screws." Our laborer might be illiterate and unable to read a single page of political economy with understanding, but he would know that our statement was foolish and untrue. Or, suppose we take the machine itself and say to the laborer: "That great machine with all its levers and wheels and springs working in such beautiful harmony was made entirely by manual workers, such as molders, blacksmiths, and machinists; no brain workers had anything to do with the making of it; the labor of the inventors, and of the men who drew the plans and supervised the making, had nothing to do with the production of the machine"--our laborer would rightly conclude that we were either fools or seeking to mock him as one. Curiously enough, notwithstanding the frequent reiteration of this criticism of Marx by Mr. Mallock, he himself, in an unguarded moment, provides the answer by which Marx is vindicated! Thus, speaking of the great classical economists, Adam Smith, Ricardo, and John Stuart Mill, he points out that they included "all forms of living industrial effort, from those of a Watt or an Edison down to those of a man who tars a fence, grouped together under the common name of labor" (Lecture I, page 16). And again: "At present the orthodox economists and the socialistic economists alike give us _all human effort_[160] tied up, as it were, in a sack, and ticketed 'human labor'" (Lecture I, page 18). Now, if the Socialist includes in his definition of labor "all human effort," it stands to reason that he does not mean only "ordinary manual labor" when he uses the term. Thus Mallock answers Mallock and vindicates Marx! Of course, Marx, like all the great economists, includes in his concept of labor every kind of productive effort, mental as well as physical, as Mr. Mallock, to the utter destruction of his disingenuous criticism, unconsciously--we must suppose--admitted. Take, for example, this definition: "By labor power or capacity for labor is to be understood the aggregate of those _mental and physical_ capabilities existing in a human being, which he exercises when he produces a use-value of any description."[161] As against this luminous and precise definition, i
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   148   149   150   151   152   153   154   155   156   157   158   159  
160   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168   169   170   171   172   173   174   175   176   177   178   179   180   181   182   183   184   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

machine

 

effort

 

Mallock

 

economists

 

making

 

laborer

 

definition

 
manual
 

workers

 

suppose


Lecture

 

physical

 

mental

 

criticism

 

includes

 

working

 
screws
 

inventors

 

ticketed

 

precise


factory

 

stands

 

luminous

 

Socialist

 

common

 

grouped

 
orthodox
 

socialistic

 

present

 

reason


admitted

 

unconsciously

 

destruction

 

disingenuous

 

existing

 

exercises

 

capabilities

 

aggregate

 
capacity
 

understood


answers
 
vindicates
 

ordinary

 
productive
 

description

 
concept
 

produces

 

machinists

 

illiterate

 

molders