...Marx relates, "supposes," asserts, but he gives no word
of proof. He consequently makes a bold, not to say naive jump, when he proclaims
as an ascertained result (as though he had successfully worked out a line of
argument) that it is, therefore, quite consistent with facts to regard values,
historically also, as prior to prices of production. As a matter of fact it is beyond
question that Marx has not proved by his "supposition" the historical existence of
such a condition. He has only hypothetically deduced it from his theory; and as to
the credibility of that hypothesis we must, of course, be free to form our own
judgment.
As a fact, whether we regard it from within or from without, the gravest doubts
arise as to its credibility. It is inherently improbable, and so far as there can be a
question here of proof by experience, even experience is against it.
It is inherently altogether improbable. For it requires that it should be a matter of
complete indifference to the producers at what time they receive the reward of their
activity, and that is economically and psychologically impossible. Let us make this
clear to ourselves by considering Marx's own example point by point. Marx
compares two workers—I. and II. Labourer No. I. represents a branch of
production which requires technically a relatively large and valuable means of
production resulting from previous labour, raw material, tools, and auxiliary
material. Let us suppose, in order to illustrate the example by figures, that the
production of the previous material required five years' labour, whilst the working
of it up into finished products was effected in a sixth year. Let us further suppose—
what is certainly not contrary to the spirit of the Marxian hypothesis, which is
meant to describe very primitive conditions—that labourer No. I. carries on both
works, that he both creates the previous material and also works it up into finished
products. In these circumstances he will obviously recompense himself for the
previous labour of the first years out of the sale of the finished products, which
cannot take place till the end of the sixth year. Or, in other words, he will have to
wait five years for the return to the first year's work. For the return to the second
year he will have to wait four years; for the third year, three years, and so on. Or,
taking the average of the six years' work, he will have to wait nearly three years
after the work has been accomplished for the return to his labour. The second
worker, on the other hand, who represents a branch of production which needs a
relatively small means of production resulting from previous labour will perhaps
turn out the completed product, taking it through all its stages, in the course of a
month, and will therefore receive his compensation from the yield of his product
almost immediately after the accomplishment of his work.
Now Marx's hypothesis assumes that the prices of the commodities I. and II. are
determined exactly in proportion to the amounts of labour expended in their
production, so that the product of six years' work in the commodity No. I. only
fetches as much as the total produce of six years' work in commodity No. II. And
further, it follows from this that the labourer in commodity No. I. should be
satisfied to receive for every year's work, with an average of three years' delay of
payment, the same return that the labourer in commodity No. II. receives without
any delay; that therefore delay in the receipt of payment is a circumstance which
has no part to play in the Marxian hypothesis, and more especially has no influence
on competition, on the crowding or understocking of the trade in the different
branches of production, having regard to the longer or shorter periods of waiting to
which they are subjected.
I leave the reader to judge whether this is probable...
Originally Posted by PPLE
) has come from Marx. To which I say well, nothing but the ONLY description of the origin of Capital ever given. 
