Theories of Surplus Value, Part II, Chapter 9 - Part 1

[CHAPTER IX] Notes on the History of the Discovery of the So-Called Ricardian Law of Rent. [Supplementary Notes on Rodbertus] (Digression)

[1. The Discovery of the Law of Differential Rent by Anderson. Distortion of Anderson’s Views by His Plagiarist, Malthus, in the Interests of the Landowners]

Ricardo's theory on rent originates with James Anderson. Anderson's theory was plagiarised by Malthus, and it's from him that Ricardo picks it up. Malthus used the theory to provide an apology for the landed aristocracy, who's paid lackey he was. Ricardo used it for the exact opposite purpose. The ideas contained in Anderson's theory were also developed by Sir Edward West.

Anderson was a practical Scottish farmer. His theory of rent was not developed as such, but formed part of another work,"An Enquiry into the Nature of the Corn Laws, with a view to the New Corn Bill Proposed For Scotland" (1777). Marx points out that, at the time, Sir James Steuart was still the leading economist, and everyone's attention was also on Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations", which had been published the year before.

"As against this, the work of the Scottish farmer, which had been occasioned by an immediate practical controversy and which did not ex professo deal with rent but only incidentally elucidated its nature, could not attract any attention." (p 114)

His theory of rent appears in several of his other works, again only in an incidental role. The works were published in three volumes by Anderson - " Essays Relating to Agriculture and Rural Affairs".

Marx notes that these works were intended for other practical farmers, and that had Anderson instead have published them as an "Inquiry into the Nature of Rent", they would have attracted much more attention. As it was, they passed by unnoticed. It was not until 1815 that the theory resurfaces in the works of Malthus and West, and is presented as "independent inquiries into the nature of rent." (p 114).

"Furthermore, Malthus used the Andersonian theory of rent to give his population law, for the first time, both an economic and a real (natural-historical) basis, while the nonsense about geometrical and arithmetical progression borrowed from earlier writers, was a purely imaginary hypothesis." (p 115)

In his Preface to "On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation", Ricardo makes the theory of rent pivotal to political economy. It is the basis of later marginalist theories of value, and Ricardo's theory of economic rent, and his theory of comparative advantage are probably the only elements of Ricardo's theory that most students of orthodox economics have heard of.

"Ricardo evidently did not know Anderson since, in the preface to his Principles of Political Economy, he treats West and Malthus as the originators. Judging by the original manner in which he presents the law, West was possibly as little acquainted with Anderson as Tooke was with Steuart. With Mr. Malthus it is different. A close comparison of his writings shows that he knows and uses Anderson. He was in fact plagiarist by profession." (p 115)

The Corn Laws that Anderson was writing about, in 1777, were not the same Corn Laws that Malthus was writing about.

"Anderson had defended premiums on exports of corn and duties on corn imports, not out of any interest for the landlords, but because he believed that this type of legislation “would reduce the average price of corn” and ensure an even development of the productive forces in agriculture." (p 115)

That is a similar argument as was put forward by, for example, proponents of the Alternative Economic Strategy, as a means of enabling a period of stability so as to facilitate modernising investment. A similar approach was taken in the US, during is period of industrialisation behind high tariff barriers. Marx and Engels in their writings on Free Trade and Protectionism, discuss these different situations.

Malthus supported the later Corn Laws purely as an advocate of the landed aristocracy, whose rents were maintained on the basis of the high prices that the Corn Laws sought to sustain.

“Malthus accepted this practical application of Anderson’s because—being a staunch member of the Established Church of England—he was a professional sycophant of the landed aristocracy, whose rents, sinecures, squandering, heartlessness etc. he justified economically. Malthus defends the interests of the industrial bourgeoisie only in so far as these are identical with the interests of landed property, of the aristocracy, i.e., against the mass of the people, the proletariat. But where these interests diverge and are antagonistic to each other, he sides with the aristocracy against the bourgeoisie. Hence his defence of the “unproductive worker”, over-consumption etc.” (p 115)

Anderson's position is diametrically opposed to that of Malthus. Anderson rejects the idea of rent arising from absolute fertility of the land, and instead explains it on the basis of relative fertility. Where Malthus plucks from the air his theory about agricultural productivity rising only arithmetically as opposed to the geometric progression of population, Anderson not only states that the productivity of all agricultural land can be raised continuously, but that the existing differences between different types of land can be eradicated.

“He said that the present degree of development of agriculture in England gives no indication at all of its possibilities. That is why he said that in one country the prices of corn may be high and rent Low, while in another country the price of corn may be low and rent may he high, and this is in accordance with his principle, since the level and the existence of rents is in both countries determined by the difference between the fertile and the unfertile land, in neither of them by the absolute fertility; in each only by the degree of difference in fertility of the existing types of land, and not by the average fertility of these types of land, From this he concluded that the absolute fertility of agriculture has nothing to do with rent. Hence later, as we shall see below, he declared himself a decided adversary of the Malthusian theory of population and it never dawned on him that his own theory of rent was to serve as the basis of this monstrosity.” (p 116)

The same argument has been put forward by later economists in opposition to the nonsense promoted by modern day Malthusians. (See – Food, Population and Development).

"The theoretical and practical advance which could have been made from this theory was: theoretical—for the determination of the value of the commodity etc. and gaining an insight into the nature of landownership; practical—against the necessity of private ownership of the land, on the basis of bourgeois production and, more immediately, against all state regulations such as corn laws, which enhanced this ownership of land. These advances from Anderson’s theory, Malthus left to Ricardo. " (p 117)

Malthus turned the theory into a justification of his own theory of population and thereby turned it against the proletariat, and in defence of the landed aristocracy. He used it as a defence of protective tariffs which increased the living costs of workers and protected the rents of landlords.

“Utter baseness is a distinctive trait of Malthus—a baseness which can only he indulged in by a parson who sees human suffering as the punishment for sin and who, in any ease, needs a 'vale of tears on earth', but who, at the same time, in view of the living he draws and aided by the dogma of predestination, finds it altogether advantageous to “sweeten” their sojourn in the vale of tears for the ruling classes. The 'baseness' of this mind is also evident in his scientific work. Firstly in his shameless and mechanical plagiarism. Secondly in the cautious, not radical, conclusions which he draws from scientific premises.” (p 117) 

Back To Chapter 8

Forward To Part 2