Looking now to the eventual results of the theory, I must beg the reader to bear in
mind that this book was never put forward as containing a systematic view of
Economics. It treats only of the theory, and is but an elementary sketch of elementary
principles. The working out of a complete system based on these lines must be a
matter of time and labour, and I know not when, if ever, I shall be able to attempt it.
In the last chapter, I have, however, indicated the manner in which the theory of
wages will be affected. This chapter is reprinted almost as it was written in 1871;
since then the wage-fund theory has been abandoned by most English Economists,
owing to the attacks of Mr. Cliffe Leslie, Mr. Shadwell, Professor Cairnes, Professor
Francis Walker, and some others. Quite recently more extensive reading and more
careful cogitation have led to a certain change in my ideas concerning the
superstructure of Economics—in this wise:
Firstly, I am convinced that the doctrine of wages, which I adopted in 1871, under the
impression that it was somewhat novel, is not really novel at all, except to those
whose view is bounded by the maze of the Ricardian Economics. The true doctrine
may be more or less clearly traced through the writings of a succession of great
French Economists, from Condillac, Baudeau, and Le Trosne, through J.-B. Say,
Destutt de Tracy, Storch, and others, down to Bastiat and Courcelle-Seneuil. The
conclusion to which I am ever more clearly coming is that the only hope of attaining a
true system of Economics is to fling aside, once and for ever, the mazy and
preposterous assumptions of the Ricardian School. Our English Economists have been
living in a fool's paradise. The truth is with the French School, and the sooner we
recognise the fact, the better it will be for all the world, except perhaps the few writers
who are too far committed to the old erroneous doctrines to allow of renunciation.
Although, as I have said, the true theory of wages is not new as regards the French
School, it is new, or at any rate renewed, as regards our English Schools of
Economics. One of the first to treat the subject from the right point of view was Mr.
Cliffe Leslie, in an article first published in Fraser's Magazine for July 1868, and
subsequently reprinted in a collection of Essays.1 Some years afterwards Mr. J. L.
Shadwell independently worked out the same theory of wages which he has fully
expounded in his admirable System of Political Economy.2 In Hearn's Plutology,
however, as pointed out in the text of this book (pp. 271 - 273), we find the same
general idea that wages are the share of the produce which the laws of supply and
demand enable the labourer to secure. It is probable that like ideas might be traced in
other works were this the place to attempt a history of the subject.
Secondly, I feel sure that when, casting ourselves free from the Wage-Fund Theory,
The Cost of Production doctrine of Value, the Natural Rate of Wages, and other
misleading or false Ricardian doctrines, we begin to trace out clearly and simply the
results of a correct theory, it will not be difficult to arrive at a true doctrine of wages.
This will probably be reached somewhat in the following way:—We must regard
labour, land, knowledge, and capital as conjoint conditions of the whole produce, not
as causes each of a certain portion of the produce. Thus in an elementary state of
society, when each labourer owns all the three or four requisites of production, there
would really be no such thing as wages, rent, or interest at all. Distribution does not
arise even in idea, and the produce is simply the aggregate effect of the aggregate
Online Library of Liberty: The Theory of Political Economy
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
22
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/625