years ago. It is no longer merely political, but ethical; it is more gentle, philanthropic, and Christian, and as such is drawing multitudes to its standard.

VII. ·As to the Equal Value of all Labor-Time.

"All labor of a higher or more complicated character than average labor is expenditure of labor-power of a more costly kind; labor-power whose production has cost more time and labor, and which, therefore, has a higher value than unskilled or simple labor-time. This power being of higher value, its consumption is labor of a higher class; labor that creates in equal times proportionally higher values than unskilled labor does." KARL MARX.

It is charged against Socialism that it proposes to pay the same price for all kinds of work on a simple time basis. For example, equal hours of labor, whether of sweeping or superintending the streets, whether of wiping or driving an engine, should be regarded as equivalent in value. Thus all kinds of work will be put upon the same level; the hod-carrier would receive equal pay with the mason, the water-boy with the conductor, the yard-hand in the mill. with the superintendent.

We are told that labor-time alone, quantity of labor, irrespective of quality or conditions, determines the amount of recompense. This is objected to as both unjust and absurd. Does Socialism advance this doctrine? That it is charged with it may be seen from nearly all its recent critics. Dr. Woolsey says, "It is. impossible to count hour's work in different employments as having the same value; or to put difficult or dangerous work by the side of easy or safe work, as though they ought to be subjected to the same measure; or to give equal rewards to intellectual and artistic work and to that performed by the common operative.” 1

Mr. Rae thus paraphrases Marx in "Das Kapital:" "Value, then, is quantity of abstract labor; and now what is quantity of labor? How is it to be ascertained? Labor is the exertion or use of man's natural powers of labor, and the quantity of labor is measured by the duration of the 1 "Communism and Socialism," pp. 165, 166.

exertion. Quantity of labor is thus reduced to time of labor, and is measured by hours and days and weeks."1

That Mr. Rae by the quotation, "Quantity of labor is measured by the duration of the exertion," represents Marx as placing the same value upon all hours of concrete work, whatever be the occupation, is evident from the following statement, which he naïvely quotes from Marx: "A day's labor of given length always turns out a product of the same value." 2

Thus put into circulation by the ablest critics of Socialism, this charge has become widely current, and is continually reiterated from the press and platform. In reply, we say, first, it is not true; and secondly, if it were true, that is, had a few Socialists indulged in this sentiment, it would no more discredit Socialism than the crusades or its other excrescences discredit Christianity. Socialism, like Christianity, consists of a body of principles admitting of great variety and latitude of expression and application.

1. This charge is inherently unreasonable and absurd. Is it natural to suppose that men of learning and sound judgment, like Rodbertus and Marx, would claim that health in occupation is of no account? That, for an example, the man who inhales sixty times as much carbonic acid gas as the laborer in pure air, should receive no more than the latter for one hour's labor, or should work the same number of hours for the same pay, which amounts to the same thing? Shall occupations that endanger life and limb, and in which the record of mortality is frightful, be put on a par with those wherein is perfect safety?

Is the severest strain on mind, muscle, and nerve, to receive the same compensation per hour as the most indifferent, happy-go-easy sort of work? skill that has cost half a lifetime and an outlay of thousands of dollars, to be paid no more than the young, green hand who picks up a shovel or broom for the first time! Such are the interrogations and exclamations indulged in by people who really believe that Socialism indorses such absurdities. They remind us 1 "Contemporary Socialism," p. 152.

2 Ibid., p. 152.

of the poor ignorant whites in the South during the war, who assured us that when they first saw the Yankees, they were surprised to find them without horns and tails, which they had been told by their leaders all Yankees possessed. 2. The alleged quotation from Marx, which furnishes the foundation of Mr. Rae's criticism, is a glaring misquotation: it is that, "a day's labor of given length always turns out a product of the same value." Marx says nothing of the kind in his great work on capital, neither does any other Socialistic writer regarded as authority.

The words of Marx, in "Das Kapital," which Mr. Rae is criticising, are, "The same labor, exercised during equal periods of time, always yields equal amounts of value."1 Marx shows that even this rule would be varied by different degrees of production; it holds only caeteris paribus. It is then "the same labor," and not "a day's labor," in any occupation that produces equal values. The two statements are as wide apart as the poles of the earth. The former is eminently true; the latter eminently untrue, and even ridiculous. Furthermore, Marx does not mean by the "same labor" concrete labor at all, but average social labor; that is, labor in the abstract. This renders the misrepresentation still more glaring. Mr. Rae's quotation is thus seen to be a false witness, doing the greatest injustice to Marx. It has not even the merit of a caricature, which generally deceives no one; while this misrepresentation is caught up and believed, not only by newspapers and magazines which touch lightly on the profoundest themes, but also by eminent writers who have, until recently, been obliged to accept their knowledge of Marx at second hand, and is made the occasion of animadversion and ridicule, which have filled the popular mind with prejudice and even indignation.

3. The utter groundlessness of the charge under consideration is at once apparent when Dr. Woolsey's strictures are carefully examined.

In his chapter on "The Theory of Marx," he says, "It is impossible to count hours of work in different employ1 "Das Kapital," pp. 13, 14.

ments as having the same value; or to put difficult or dangerous work by the side of easy or safe work, as though they ought to have the same measure," etc. He does not claim to give the exact words of Marx, but only the idea. Marx is represented as counting all hours of work, of whatever kind, as having the same value. One of "common is equated to one hour of "skilled" labor; one hour of work of "the common operative" to one hour of “intellectual and artistic work."

Let Marx reply to this parody on his views. "Skilled labor counts only as simple labor intensified, or rather, as multiplied simple labor, a given quantity of skilled being considered equal to a greater quantity of simple labor. . . . A commodity may be the product of the most skilled labor, but its value, by equating it to the product of simple, unskilled labor, represents a definite quantity of the latter labor alone. The different proportions in which different sorts of labor are reduced to unskilled labor as their standard, are established by a social process that goes on behind the backs of the producers, and, consequently, appears to be fixed by custom. For simplicity's sake we shall henceforth account every kind of labor to be unskilled, simple labor; by this we do no more than save ourselves the trouble of making the reduction." 1

Throughout his monumental work, Marx adheres to this rule, which, indeed, is the only scientific basis on which the discussion can proceed.

So far from counting "hours of work in different occupations as having the same value," Marx distinctly recognizes the different sorts of concrete labor as having for equal hours different values. So far from equating one hour's work of "the common operative" to one hour of “intellectual and artistic work," as Dr. Woolsey alleges, he sharply distinguishes "simple," common labor from skilled labor. "Skilled labor counts" not as simple, but as "simple labor intensified, or rather as multiplied simple labor." Notwithstanding his plain and emphatic words, "A given quantity of skilled being considered equal to a 1.66 Capital," pp. 11, 12.

greater quantity of simple labor," his critic persists in representing him as counting "hours of work in different employment as having the same value." What is the more remarkable, Marx nowhere employs any dicta in which this egregious misrepresentation can take refuge; on the contrary, he repeatedly emphasizes the difference in value of different kinds of work for the same periods of time; "all labor of a higher or more complicated character than average labor, is expenditure of labor-power of a more costly kind, labor-power, whose production has cost more time and labor, and which therefore has a higher value than unskilled or simple labor-power. This power being of higher value, its consumption is labor of a higher class, labor that creates in equal times proportionally higher values than unskilled labor does." 1

The italics are ours.

Further citations are unnecessary.

It is evident that Marx has been misunderstood and misrepresented. The charge that he advocated the same pay per hour for all sorts of work has no foundation, save in the imagination of Dr. Woolsey, Mr. Rae, and others, who have given it wide circulation. The bubble is no sooner pricked by the truth than it collapses. The false impressions created cannot, however, be so readily counteracted.

These critics, though unfriendly, doubtless intended to be fair. Dr. Woolsey was the embodiment of candor and fairness, but he was a born aristocrat and capitalist; but how hardly is it possible for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of Socialism? His chapter on "Leading Features of the Theory of Marx " abounds in errors and misconceptions. We have already seen that the assertion that Marx advocated equal pay for equal hours of all kinds of work has not the shadow of support. Take another instance equally unjust to Marx. The latter says, "That which determines the magnitude of the value of any article is the amount of labor socially necessary, or the labor-time socially necessary, for its production."2 Dr. Woolsey, assuming that manual labor of wage-workers alone is intended, replies, "It is not true that the amount of labor 1 "Capital," p. 179. 2 Ibid., p. 6.