1830.] 
of Wealth and Value. 
329 
Mr. Ricardo states his argument pretty nearly thus. When, to obtain the 
increasing food, necessary for the support of an increasing population, resort is 
had to lands of an inferior quality ; the product of this unferior land being the 
result of More labour, must be more valuable; (what value is he discussing now, 
positive or relative ? it will be found that he is now treating of positive value ;) 
the wages of labour must, therefore, rise, to enable the labourer to exist ; for this 
class of men is always to be supposed living from hand to mouth : If on this 
occurrence the productive capitalist dealing in hats, should say to the capitalist 
dealing in fish, “ give me more fish for my hats, because I have had more than 
before to pay to the labourers who made the hats the answer of the fisherman 
would be, “ iny labourers also were paid more wages, and you, in like manner, 
must give me more hats for my fish and thus it would be with nil producers 
whatsoever; with him also who raised the gold from the mine with which money 
was formed ; for Mr. Ricardo always treats money merely as a commodity. 
There could, therefore, be no rise of price, all products standing in the same rela- 
tion one to another, as they did before. But in what, I beg to know, does this vary 
from the statement I have given ; except that by the mention of wages, and labour- 
ers, he opens the way for introducing the class of capitalists ? But if food be 
necessary for the support of labourers, and if all labourers come to be supported on 
food on which more labour than before had been expended, and if again, all 
products are the result of labour, it follows that on the occurrence of this 
necessity, for applying more labour to obtaining food, all labourers are the 
result of more labour than they were before ; and all the subsequent products, 
obtained through the means of these labourers, are the result of more labour 
than they were before. When we talk, then, of a rise ot wages, such us the 
above, we talk, in effect, of an enhancement of the difficulty of obtaining 
every product ; of a rise of their real price, and positive value ; and when 
we say, that a rise of wages must be paid by capitalists, we say, in reality, 
that every general increase in the necessary labour of production shall fall, 
not upon all classes, as it would be natural to suppose, when we found that 
every one’s means of obtaining products were diminished; but upon one un- 
fortunate class, which it has pleased Mr. Ricardo to thrust forward for this 
particular purpose. If such a thing should happen, as a necessity for resorting 
to worse lands for the increasing food of the society, before there was in ex- 
istence a class of capitalists, who then would pay the increased real price of food • > 
Consumers could not, in this case, for the same reason, why they could not pay 
before ; if their purses can only be reached through the means of a commodity, 
their pockets could not be touched by an alteration in the relations ot any com- 
modities under any circumstances ; and capitalists there are none on whom to 
shove the charge ! What then, would the wealth of the various classes in so- 
cietv be in no Way whatever affected by so great a charge as the above . It must 
be answered, that, if there be no such thing as real value, society cou rt not be 
affected at all ; and the study of relative value, as alone existing, would tell us, that 
no change whatever would take place amongst consumers m thesc.alteredciraim- 
stances ; because values, estimated in commodities, had undergone no change. 
But Mr. Kicardo, as i have already mentioned, always unwittingly reasons as if 
real value did exist in some classes of products ; he always reckbns upon ithe price 
of food as rising, when it is the result of more labour than before. I apprehend, 
however, that if his argument against a general rise ot price, on owurreMe of 
a necessity for increased labour in raising food, n? goo< or 1 ^ 
he applies it, it will be good to prevent a nse of price in tood also, as well as a 
riS i e f,°as t W r»».ten e r> a bo»rers are only so much fool it foil.., that when 
the labouring hatter the labouring shoemaker, and the labouring clothier, an 
& nzrzvsjz a ti,a. 
more labour, the former -must in that of him who pro- 
of food be enabled to rise? In what commodity 
have risen in value ? The food must remain unchanged in 
as iu the other, be just as they weie oeiore, am 
