Engels notes that Duhring's statements, so far, have not taken the understanding of the Tableau forward one bit, “but now it is coming:
“On the other hand, however, now also”—this “however, now also” is a gem!—“the net product, enters into circulation as a natural object, and in this way becomes an element which should serve ... to maintain the class which is described as sterile. Here we can immediately (!) see the confusion arising from the fact that in one case it is the money value, and in the other the thing itself, which determines the course of thought”.” (p 312)
In fact, as Engels sets out, and as Marx describes, in Capital II, and Theories of Surplus Value, the Tableau describes the measurement of inputs and outputs, in the process of reproduction, both as physical quantities, “natural objects”, i.e. use-values, and as money values.
“Subsequently Quesnay even made his assistant, the Abbé Baudeau, include the natural objects in the Tableau itself, beside their money values.” (p 312)
Why? Because reproduction is about the reproduction of those use-values, the basis of continuing production, on at least the same scale, as the requirement to production on an expanded scale.
“After all this “input“, we at last get the “output”. Listen and marvel at these words:
“Nevertheless, the inconsistency“ (referring to the role assigned by Quesnay to the landlords) at once becomes clear as soon as we enquire what becomes of the net product, which has been appropriated as rent, in the course of economic circulation. Here the physiocrats and the economic Tableau could offer nothing but confusion and arbitrariness, culminating in mysticism”.” (p 312)
In other words, Duhring has to admit that he does not understand even the basis of Physiocratic theory, and the Tableau, and cannot see what happens to the “net product”, i.e. surplus product, appropriated as rent by the landlords. There is certainly error and some “mysticism” in Physiocratic theory, as set out by Marx in Theories of Surplus Value, in that it describes this “surplus product”, which it equates with surplus value, to some innate property of the land. In Physiocratic theory, it is this property of the land to produce this surplus product, which is the basis of the owners of the land, the landlords, appropriating it as rent. But, its not true, as Duhring claims, to say that they or the Tableau does not describe what happens to it.
Engels quotes Duhring's statement,
““The lines which Quesnay draws to and fro” (in all there are just five of them!) “in his otherwise pretty simple” (!) “Tableau, and which are meant to represent the circulation of the net product”, make one wonder whether “these whimsical combinations of columns” may not be based on some mathematical fantasy; they are reminiscent of Quesnay’s attempts to square the circle” — and so forth.” (p 313)
“What this “economic image of the relations of production and distribution means in Quesnay himself,” he says, can only be explained if one has “first carefully examined the leading ideas which are peculiar to him”. All the more so because hitherto these have only been set forth with “wavering indefiniteness”, and their “essential features cannot be recognised” even in Adam Smith.” (p 310)
But, as Engels sets out, Duhring, in the following five pages, fails to put forward any new perceptions in respect of the Tableau, and presents only confusion and vagueness “such as, for example, “the difference between input and output”. Though the latter, “it is true, is not to be found complete in Quesnay's ideas”, Herr Dühring on the other hand will give us a dazzling example of it as soon as he passes from his lengthy introductory “input” to his remarkably short-winded “output” , that is to say, to his elucidation of the Tableau itself.” (p 311)
Engels quotes Duhring's “input”.
“It seemed self-evident to him” (Quesnay) “that the revenue” (Herr Dühring had just spoken of the net product) “must be thought of and treated as a money value ... He tied his deliberations” (!) “immediately with the money values which he assumed as the results of the sales of all agricultural products when they first change hands. In this way” (!) “he operates with several milliards (that is, with money values) in the columns of his Tableau” .” (p 311)
Engels stresses Duhring's repeated statement that there are only money values set out in The Tableau. The Tableau does indeed contain money values, just as Marx, in his own schemas of reproduction, in his depiction of the circuit of industrial capital, and so on, also uses money values. But, these money values are a shorthand, they represent the money equivalent of the actual physical product that must be reproduced. It assumes no change in the value of money, i.e. no inflation of prices, and no change in social productivity, i.e. no change in the value the commodities to be physically reproduced.
But, it is precisely because the Tableau, as with Marx's schemas, is about the reproduction of the physical product, that its real basis is as an input-output table of these physical quantities. As Marx puts it in Capital III, Chapter 49.
“If the productiveness of labour remains the same, then this replacement in kind implies replacing the same value which the constant capital had in its old form. But should the productiveness of labour increase, so that the same material elements may be reproduced with less labour, then a smaller portion of the value of the product can completely replace the constant part in kind.” (p 849)
In other words, if productivity rises so that the product of 100 hours of labour is 1,000 kilos of corn (seed), rather than 800 kilos of corn (seed), and to produce this corn (seed), 100 kilos of seed must be planted, it is this physical amount of seed (100 kilos) that must be replaced, as Marx noted, in response to Ramsay, and it, now, constitutes only 10% of the product, not 12.5%, as before.
Engels quotes Duhring further.
“Had Quesnay considered things from a really natural standpoint, and had he rid himself not only of regard for the precious metals and the quantity of money, but also of regard for money values...But as it is he reckons solely with sums of value, and imagined” (!) “the net product in advance as a money value”.” (p 311)
In these arguments of Duhring can, also, be seen the roots of the same errors made by the proponents of the TSSI, and use of historic prices.
Duhring says,
“He” (Quesnay) “obtained it” (the net product) “by deducting the expenses and thinking, (!) principally” (not traditional but for that matter all the more superficial reporting) “of that value which would accrue to the landlord as rent”.” (p 312)
Set aside the reference to “rent” as opposed to profit, and essentially, this is the process used by Ramsay, as described by Marx in Theories of Surplus Value, Chapter 22, which results in the “illusion” of profit arising from changes in prices, leading to a release of capital. It is also the argument of the TSSI based on the use of historic prices.
“But why is Hume given such an exaggerated position in Kritische Geschichte? Simply because this “serious and subtle thinker” has the honour of enacting the Dühring of the eighteenth century. Hume serves as proof that
“the creation of this whole branch of science” (economics) “is the achievement of a more enlightened philosophy”,
and similarly Hume as a precursor is the best guarantee that this whole branch of science will find its immediately foreseeable close, in that phenomenal man who has transformed the merely “more enlightened” philosophy into the absolutely luminous philosophy of reality, and with whom, just as with Hume, and what is
“ unprecedented on German soil … the cultivation of philosophy in the narrow sense of the word is combined with scientific endeavours in economics”.
Accordingly we find Hume, who in any case is respectable as an economist, inflated into an economic star of the first magnitude, whose importance could hitherto be denied only by the same envy which has hitherto so obstinately hushed up Herr Dühring's achievements, which are “authoritative for the epoch”.” (p 309-10)
Engels turns, then, to the Physiocrats, the Tableau Economique, and Duhrings treatment of it.
He writes,
“The Physiocratic school, as everyone knows, left us a riddle in the form of Quesnay’s Tableau économique on which all critics and historians of political economy have so far broken their teeth in vain. This Tableau, which was intended to bring out clearly the Physiocrats’ conception of the production and circulation of a country's total wealth, has remained pretty obscure for succeeding economists.” (p 310)
The Tableau was seen as a significant development by Marx, which shaped his own analysis of the integration of the process of production and circulation of commodities, money and capital, in Capital II and III, and his schemas of reproduction, rates of turnover and so on. It can be seen as an early form of input-output table.
Why is the mainstream media surprised that Starmer's Cabinet members, and other members of the government, came out to back him? Not to have done so would have been like Turkey's voting in favour of Christmas. The same is not true for other Labour MP's, or for the Labour Party itself, for whom Starmer and his Blue Labour government are thoroughly toxic. Unless the Labour Party, and the trades unions, which are, ultimately, the determining factor, get rid of Starmer and Blue Labour, it will be reduced to rubble, after the Spring elections, but that is, now, the least of the problems of Starmer and his government.
They are looking at the prospect of criminal investigations and prosecutions, as all of the revelations around Epstein, Maxwell, Mandelson and so on explode on to the public arena. The latest scandal of Starmer and Blue/New Labour appointing paedophiles and friends of paedophiles illustrates the point, but the real criminal activity they are seeking to keep hidden, is the support for war criminals and genocidal regimes, just as, also, the wider political crimes of the creation of totalitarian regimes, and use of ICE against US citizens has been successfully driven from the headlines.
Losing an election is never the end of the world for prominent government ministers. They can come back again, later, and, in the meantime, they are lined up for lucrative jobs in large corporations, and so on, which pay them far more than being an MP or Minister. Just look at the tens of millions pocketed by Blair and his family, since he ceased being Prime Minister. But, facing criminal prosecution is a totally different matter.
The problem that Starmer, and the rest of his Blue/New Labour government face is seen starkly in the events of the last few days. The Leader of Scottish Labour Anas Sarwar, facing annihilation in the forthcoming elections, came out to try to distance himself and Scottish Labour from the unfolding Starmer/Mandelson/Epstein scandal, but, in doing so, only invited questions into his own past associations with Mandelson.
It is, of course, not just, all of those politicians bound up in the New Labour project, and its, Third Way, US equivalent around Clinton, of the 90's, whose associations with Mandelson are now being raked over, but the whole sleazy, self-serving ecosphere that went with it, in the mainstream media. As with Trump's support for the genocidal regime in Israel, and his increasing use of totalitarian methods, those now being accused can rightly point back to the actions of their predecessors. That whataboutery takes ridiculous form, when the likes of Bondi and Patel appear before Congressional committees, and clearly does not offer any defence, but simply focussing on the actions of current governments, without looking at what went before, is, also, simply opportunism. It fails to understand how what went before paved the way for the present.
All of them now face the question of why, during all of the time that this was going on, and that everyone, in those circles, knew about it, did they not speak out? Why, even after the Epstein/Maxwell/Mandelson revelations became public knowledge, did they not use their very powerful public platforms to denounce the appointment of Mandelson, but, instead, continued to invite him on to their TV programmes, write in their newspapers, and to refer to him as their “old friend”? The reason is simple, to have done so would, then, have been to unravel the whole corrupt network of which it was a part, and would, consequently, have exposed them to investigation too. They play the role of courtiers.
Similarly, the attempt to portray this just as some aberration and a consequence of the actions of powerful men is also opportunistic and deflectionary. What about the roles of Maxwell? What about the role of the late Queen, who protected her favourite son, Prince Andrew, for decades, while knowing about these activities? What about the role of Fergie? What this is really about is the decadence of a global oligarchic elite, a tiny number of people so wealthy and powerful that they sit on top even of the global ruling-class, like a scum that has risen to the surface. It is not a question of gender, but of class, as a look at the activities of Catherine the Great illustrates. The "No Kings", movement in the US is more appropriate than its organisers even know.
Lenin, in writing about the utopian nature of the petty-bourgeois ideology of the Narodniks, pointed out that it is impossible to retain the conditions that existed in the society of peasant producers without also having the other social relations of feudal society. The 50% growth of the petty-bourgeoisie over the last 40 years has not just brought with it many of those same reactionary petty-bourgeois ideas, but has also brought with it a return to some of the social relations of pre-bourgeois society, though in a new form. It's important, therefore, to understand that this scum resting on top of the global ruling-class, which seeks to act in the same way that the absolute monarchs and their courtiers did, is neither the same as, and, indeed, is antagonistic to, the interests of the global ruling-class, and even more so of real industrial capital.
Sarwar can probably ride out the criticism of his own association with Mandelson, unless further revelations in that regard emerge. He is, after all, part of that same right-wing, political faction of the Labour Party spawned by Mandelson, and of which, also, Streeting is a part. For Sarwar, the priority was to try to distance Scottish Labour from Starmer and the Westminster government, ahead of the Spring elections, hence his repeated comments, in his speech, about his priority being “his country”, i.e. Scotland. That emphasis is much more important in Scotland than in Wales, but, as I wrote recently, its unlikely that any attempt by Labour candidates to separate themselves from the toxin of Starmer and Blue Labour will save them, at this stage.
Sarwar's speech has been portrayed as being a coup attempt by him and Streeting. That is unlikely. Streeting knows that the one who wields the knife rarely wears the crown. His best hope is that Starmer sacks him from the government, leaving him open to campaign more openly for the leadership after Labour is destroyed in the local elections, and in the by-election in Denton & Gorton. But, Streeting's own attempt to distance himself from Mandelson, by publishing his e-mail conversations with him, has, also, shown the problem for Blue/New Labour and its ecosphere, because, as Owen Jones has set out, in those e-mails, Streeting admits that Israel has been committing war crimes with the knowledge of the British government.
Of course, we all knew that Israel has been guilty of war crimes and genocide, and that the British, US and EU governments were lying through their teeth when they claimed not to know about it, as they all actively supported it, and armed it, whilst denouncing, purging and even gaoling those that acted against it! The desperation of the Zionists and their supporters in New/Blue Labour to remove Corbyn, and to utilise the lie that equates anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, now, becomes apparent and understandable, not because of any concern over the mildly progressive, social-democratic agenda of Corbyn, which is less radical than that of Wilson in the 1960's, and 70's, but, because of the threat it already posed to the web of lies and connections that ran through the whole project of New Labour, and of which Epstein and Mandelson were central, just as in the 1960's and 70's, Ghislane Maxwell's father, the tycoon and Labour MP, Robert Maxwell, played a similar role, as an agent of Mossad.
For Labour Ministers to have voted down Starmer, at this point, would have been the equivalent of turkeys voting for Christmas, not because of a threat to their jobs, but as a threat to their own liberty and future wealth. It is why Trump's supporters are so keen to ensure by whatever means that they rig the next election so as to not lose, just as Netanyahu has continued the war to avoid an election, and why Zelensky does the same in Ukraine. The mainstream media reported the last PLP meeting as having quashed any coup attempt, but its clear that that is not true. There are 404 Labour MP's, and only 200 people turned up to the PLP meeting, many of them being Labour peers, not MP's. Reports state that even infirm, elderly peers dragged themselves to their feet in repeated ovations to the Glorious Leader, Starmer. This looks like desperation not salvation.
Engels is making the point, here, alluded to earlier, of the distinction between money as measure of value and money tokens/currency. A requirement for a money commodity, such as gold, is that it does itself have value, which is why things like Bitcoin are not money. But, a money token is, indeed, only a token of value, and need have no value itself, as with base metal coins or paper notes. On this point, therefore, Hume was inferior to Petty, and many of his own contemporaries. He, also, retained some of the old mercantilist prejudices and notions, “that the “merchant” is the mainspring of production, which Petty had long passed beyond.” (p307)
Contrary to Duhring's claims about Hume's concern with the “chief economic relationships”, Engels says,
“if the reader only compares Cantillon’s work quoted by Adam Smith (which appeared the same year as Hume's essays, 1752, but many years after its author’s death), he will be surprised at the narrow field covered by Hume’s economic writings. As we have said, despite the letters-patent issued to him by Herr Dühring, Hume remains a respectable figure in the field of political economy too, but here he is anything but an original investigator, and even less an epoch-making one. The influence of his economic essays on the educated circles of his day was due not merely to his excellent presentation, but much more to the fact that they were a progressive and optimistic glorification of the thriving industry and trade of the time — in other words, of the capitalist society which was then rapidly rising in England, and whose “applause” they were therefore bound to gain.” (p 307-8)
Engels cites as an example of Hume's polemic in favour of indirect taxes. Without mentioning his name, Hume polemicises against Vanderlint, who was “the stoutest opponent of indirect taxation and the most determined advocate of a land tax.” (p 308) The system of indirect taxation – consumption taxes – was used ruthlessly by Sir Robert Walpole to benefit the landlords and the rich, at the expense of the masses, just as Trump seeks to do, today, with his use of tariffs, which are also a tax on consumption.
Engels quotes Hume.
“They” (taxes on consumption) “must be very heavy taxes, indeed, and very injudiciously levied, which the artisan will not, of himself, be enabled to pay, by superior industry and frugality, without raising the price of his labour.” (p 308)
Tax, as Marx notes, cannot change values or general level of prices, but is ultimately, therefore, a deduction from surplus value, as with interest and rent. They cause some prices to rise, but, equally, therefore, others to fall, as capital is reallocated to restore an average rate of profit.
Marx argued for direct taxes on income, as opposed to indirect taxes, not because of any concern for the supposed progressive nature of the former, but because he sought to limit the role of the state. He wrote,
“(a) No modification of the form of taxation can produce any important change in the relations of labour and capital.
b) Nevertheless, having to choose between two systems of taxation, we recommend the total abolition of indirect taxes, and the general substitution of direct taxes. [In Marx's rough manuscript, French and German texts are: "because direct taxes are cheaper to collect and do not interfere with production".]
Because indirect taxes enhance the prices of commodities, the tradesmen adding to those prices not only the amount of the indirect taxes, but the interest and profit upon the capital advanced in their payment.
Because indirect taxes conceal from an individual what he is paying to the state, whereas a direct tax is undisguised, unsophisticated, and not to be misunderstood by the meanest capacity. Direct taxation prompts therefore every individual to control the governing powers while indirect taxation destroys all tendency to self-government.”
The Labour Party is almost dead, poisoned by the venom of progeny of the marriage, made in hell, of Blue Labour and New Labour, in order to defeat Corbyn and a resurgent Left, after 2015. But, the biter has been bit. Mandelson, aka, the Prince of Darkness has been exposed to the light, and begins to disintegrate before our eyes, whilst his disciples rush to rescue his church, all the while being slowly dragged into the light themselves. One of the original apostles, Blair, is silent, whilst the other Brown, has sought to disown his master and all his works, particularly from the time of the 2008 global financial crisis. At the same time, Brown has sought to offer some solace to Starmer, who will be offered up as the sacrifice.
The revelation setting out the way the Prince of Darkness, riding a pale horse, acted in 2008, to pass information to Epstein, whose global financial connections with other members of the elite, enabled them to feather their own nest, only begs further questions to be asked, including some that were asked at the time about how and why the global ruling class were bailed out, by bailing out the banks, and why central banks and governments pumped literally trillions of dollars into stock and bond markets in the years that followed, whilst simultaneously draining trillions of dollars from the global economy, via financial austerity.
My novel, 2017, is a work of fiction, but draws on some historical events during the period after 1999. One such event is the strange behaviour of the UK, under the Chancellorship of Gordon Brown, in selling large amounts of gold from its reserves, just at the point when the price of gold had reached a nadir of around $250 an ounce, and was about to embark on a long period of secular rise that took it to nearly $2000 in 2011, and, after a period of consolidation, has now seen its price rise to over $5,000 an ounce. In my novel, I also discussed other suggestions on the sale of the gold at a time when many financial institutions had been shorting it, and when, a sharp rise in its price could have cost them billions of dollars.
Brown proclaims that Starmer is an honourable man, and that, although appointing Mandelson was a mistake, he believes that it was only a mistake. But, there is no grounds for claiming that Starmer is in any way honourable. Like Trump and Mandelson, he lies as easily as he breathes. We know that he was chosen by the unholy cabal of New Labour and Blue Labour to act as their vicar on Earth, the bland face they presented to the Labour Party, as they sought to seize control from Corbyn and the mass of the members. In that role, he presented himself as continuing the mildly progressive, and electorally popular, social-democratic agenda of Corbyn, but, it was simply a lie to get elected leader, and as soon as he had done so, every single element of that programme, no matter how electorally popular, was ditched.
For the conservative, social-democrats of New Labour, Starmer's commitment to the petty-bourgeois nationalist agenda of Blue Labour, symbolised by his support for Brexit, is anathema, but the Blairites of New Labour could not defeat the Corbynite majority in the party on their own. They needed an alliance with Blue Labour, and the cover of the need to win in the so called Red Wall seats. The ground had already been seeded. The idiotic and unprincipled position of Labour of refusing to oppose Brexit, under Corbyn, on the grounds that it had been voted for in the 2016 Referendum, and the false claims about needing to “win back” Labour voters in Red Wall, constituencies, fed into it. The use of the “anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism” lie, to oust Corbyn, and attack the Left, also provided the New Labour/Blue Labour alliance with a shared trope that could be used.
But, it is the conservative social-democrats (neo-liberals) of New Labour that have been used by Blue Labour, just as, in the past, the liberal politicians in Italy and Germany thought they could utilise the Fascists but found that they had themselves been used. The Prince of Darkness has fallen, but Beelzebub, in the form of Maurice Glassman, is ready to seize his throne, and to instruct his minions. The spawn of the marriage made in hell, has stepped forward to sacrifice himself in what appears a vain attempt to keep in place Starmer. McSweeney has gone, but Mandelson himself showed that such actions are far from being terminal.
By the end of the week, Starmer may well be gone too. The main thing saving him at the moment is that, neither New nor Blue Labour have a credible candidate to replace him. Streeting is himself a progeny of Mandelson's New Labour venture, and closely tied to Mandelson himself. He is also closely tied to all of those private healthcare vultures set to swoop on a collapsing NHS, and so bringing with it all the echoes of those relations between Mandelson, New Labour and big business. Burnham could have been an acceptable candidate for them, but is not in parliament, blocked by Starmer. Rayner is touted by sections of the media, but is also recently tainted by all the same kinds of sleaze and grasping. For the Left, despite what the media try to portray she has no credentials, and sat passively as Starmer's Deputy as he steadily decimated the party membership, and pushed ever Rightwards.
More significantly, none of those alternatives can save Labour, at this stage, from its inevitable demise, just as the repeated changes of leader of the Tories was unable to save them. For all the glaring deficiencies of Corbyn's Labour, it still turned Labour into a truly mass party, the largest in Europe, and, in 2017, secured the biggest increase in votes and seats since 1945. Even in 2019, having suffered 4 years of constant attack from the Right inside the party, and from the media, it still won more votes than did Starmer's Labour in 2024. Despite the deficiencies of Corbyn's politics, and of the Stalinoid elements behind him, the very prospect of a new Left Party, quickly attracted 800,000 people towards it.
The continued failure of Your Party to resolve its internal squabbles, has simply driven a large portion of those seeking such an alternative into the arms of the Greens. The fact that the Greens, despite their own petty-bourgeois agenda, have attracted over 150,000 members, and have surged in the polls to an extent that, in many seats, it will be they and not Labour that represents the credible alternative to Reform, shows that, the idea of Labour offering up just the same stale and failed politics of the last 30 years, will not fly. Only if the Blair-Rights could form an alliance/party with the Liberals and Left of the Conservatives, would they be able to appeal to any sizeable electoral base within the ranks of the progressive middle-class.
If Labour is to offer any real alternative on its own, its only hope, at this point, is to outflank the Greens on their Left, and, in doing so, to also appeal to those same sections of the progressive middle-class, in particular, by committing to reverse Brexit, as a precondition for growth. The only credible candidate to do that is John McDonnell. McDonnell could bring back large numbers of those that supported Corbyn's Labour. But, he would suffer the same problem as Corbyn with the hostile PLP, unless, to save their own skins, they were forced to acquiesce in his return. Either way, the mistake made by Corbyn cannot be repeated. The party must be thoroughly democratised, including instituting mandatory reselection of all MP's and councillors.
