FALLACIES OF MODERN ECONOMISTS. 237 



Now, take the case of machinery. In place of the old-fashioned 

 wells, with the bucket and rope— the primitive method of draw- 

 ing water — yon have the pumps, boilers, steam engines, and reser- 

 voirs of a modern water-works. Similarly, instead of the ancient 

 style of propelling boats by means of oars and paddles, yon have 

 the modern steam vessels. To say that machinery in these and 

 endless other examples is "that which renders labor more pro- 

 ductive or more efficient" is mere folly. Human labor is here 

 wholly displaced, and the principal human exertion employed is 

 that of a totally different nature, being transferred from the mus- 

 cle to the mind. Instead of ten, twenty, forty, or a limitless num- 

 ber of human arms pulling on as many oars, yon have one or two 

 employed in watching indicators, water gauges, and other similar 

 contrivances. And the principal manual exertion is that required 

 in turning a valve. Even in the case of firing boilers, the recent 

 inventions in fuel tend to abolish human exertion. The tend- 

 ency of human ingenuity in the field of production is to wholly 

 and totally abolish human labor. Machinery, therefore, becomes 

 qualitatively the equivalent of labor, inasmuch as it supersedes 

 it — does what men's muscles do, only more economically and effi- 

 ciently. Speaking logically, we have no grounds for making any 

 distinction in economics between labor and that which possesses 

 precisely similar functions, viz., machinery. And so long as this 

 is the case we have no reason, from an economical standpoint, to 

 observe the slightest difference in our treatment of the results of 

 each. In a division of the proceeds of capital and labor, dividing 

 them in the ratio of the amount contributed by each, how small a 

 share belongs equitably to labor, and how large an amount to 

 machinery, a moment's thought will make clear. 



Adam Smith stated that in his time ten men could make 

 48,000 needles per day. This was prior to the invention of the 

 needle machine. This machine Karl Marx mentions as making 

 145,000 per day of eleven hours, and that "one woman or girl 

 superintended four such machines, which produced near upon 

 600,000 needles in a day and upward of 3,000,000 in a week." It 

 would be absurd to speak of this machinery making labor more 

 productive. It has entirely displaced it, and the only human 

 exertion required is that of the girl's superintendence, which is 

 of a vastly different character from that of the men who made 

 needles by hand, and is really of a lower order of skill and in- 

 telligence. Dividing the gross products in ratio of the two factors 

 employed, we find that one girl and four machines are the equivalent 

 to twelve and a half men. If we allow the girl's labor as equal 

 to half a man's, we have four needle machines equal to twelve 

 men, or one machine equal to three men. It is unnecessary to 

 multiply examples. The tendency in mechanical inventions is to 



