The Labour Theory of Value

In the January issue we replied to a letter criticising the labour theory of value, and this has evoked a further letter from the same correspondent, the relevant paragraphs of which are given below.

To the Managing Editor,
THE SOCIALIST STANDARD,
42, Great Dover Street, S.E.l.
January 14th, 1938.

Dear Sir,
We now come to the third (January) issue, and again there will be much laughter, for THE SOCIALIST STANDARD’s reply to my contention is nothing but an exhibition of either nonsense or stupidity or evasion.
The reply says: “Why is fur, ebony, badger hair, etc., etc., scarce? Because it costs a good deal of human effort, human labour, to get it.”
What profound wisdom! !! And I, poor simpleton, always imagined that badger hair, for instance, was scarce because badgers are scarce. But now I know better. And I take it that North Poles and South Poles are scarce because it takes a good deal of human effort, human labour, to find them?
However, let me come to my real rejoinder, expressed illustratively.
When a badger is caught it is caught whole, not piecemeal. Therefore the labour (or labour-time) applying to its capture applies to the whole badger. But the hair-covering of this same badger is divided into sections. There is a comparatively small section of hair of fine quality; there is a larger section of hair of medium quality; and there is a still larger section of hair of comparatively coarse quality. All three sections are mounted in handles of exactly the same size, quality and workmanship. But the brushes made with the first-mentioned section of hair will be high priced: those with the second-mentioned section of hair will be at a less price; and those with the third-mentioned section of hair will be at a comparatively low price.
I could add to this illustration of my argument to the extent of many columns, but the given illustration alone will suffice (using THE SOCIALIST STANDARD language) to knock the bottom out of THE SOCIALIST STANDARD’s reply to my argument, and demonstrates what I stated in my previous letter, viz., that labour (or labour-time) is not the sole and exclusive determinor of value and price, as Marx and THE SOCIALIST STANDARD tell us.
Sincerely yours,
P. P. M.

We said, and we repeat, that badger hair is scarce because it costs a good deal of human labour to get it. It costs much labour because badgers are scarce. We did not, as P. P. M. implies, say anything so silly as that badgers are scarce because it costs much labour to catch them. He falls over himself by confusing badger hair and badgers. Badger hair is a commodity: the North and South Poles are not, nor are badgers—until they are caught with a view to sale. The labour theory of value does not explain the niggardliness or the bounty of Nature, it explains the value of commodities. It is the amount of labour involved in catching badgers (together with the labour in subsequent processes) which determines the value of badger hair.

The example given, intended to refute the labour theory of value, is, in fact, an illustration of it. The badger provides a larger quantity of coarse hair than fine hair. But the badger (we learn) is caught whole, not piecemeal. So it takes as long to catch the smaller quantity of finer hair as to catch the larger quantity of coarser hair, and, accordingly, the same amounts of coarse and fine hair have different values, which arc reflected in the prices of the brushes.

We must add that neither Marx nor THE SOCIALIST STANDARD has ever said that labour time determines value and price. Prices can be, and are, affected by other factors.

F. E.

(Socialist Standard, May 1938)