[e)] Prévost [Rejection of some of the Conclusions of Ricardo and James Mill. Attempts to Prove That a Constant Decrease of Profit Is Not Inevitable]
“Suppose that all the land cultivated in the country were of one uniform quality, and yielded the same return to every portion of the capital employed upon it, with the exception of one acre: that acre, we shall suppose, yields six times as much as any other acre (Mill, Elements, second ed., p. 71).” (p 105)
The point being made here is that the market value of the output will be determined by all of the land apart from the one acre, whose contribution to the total supply will be insignificant. Consequently, there is no rise in market prices or reduction in the rate of profit, leading to the creation of differential rent. Yet, it's clear that, on this one acre, surplus profits will be produced, resulting in a rent being levied.
In the errata slip in McCulloch's “A Discourse on the Rise, Progress, Peculiar Objects, and Importance of Political Economy” translated by Prévost, it says,
“the farmer who rents this last acre, cannot increase his rent” (p 105)
The point here is that it illustrates Marx's argument in Capital III, that the progression is not necessarily from more fertile to less fertile land, as Ricardo presumes, but can be in the opposite direction. But, even in that case, differential rent arises, because surplus profits arise in this newly cultivated, more fertile land.
“...this must happen all the more frequently, since the situation must improve continuously with the industrial development of the country, the growth of its means of communication and the increase in population, irrespective of the natural fertility, and the relatively better location has the same effect as [greater] natural fertility.” (p 105)
Marx quotes Prévost's further comment.
““But had the ingenious author thought of making a similar supposition in the opposite case, he would have realised that the result would be different. Let us suppose that all the land was of equal quality with the exception of one acre of inferior land. The profit on the capital on this single acre amounted to one-sixth of the profit yielded by every other acre. Does he believe that the profit on several million acres would be reduced to one-sixth of their accustomed level? It is probable that this solitary acre would have no effect at all, because the various products (particularly corn), when they come onto the market, would not be markedly affected by such a minute amount. That is why we say that the assertions of Ricardo’s supporters about the effect of inferior soil should be modified by taking the relative areas of land of different quality into account” (Prévost, loc. cit., pp. 177-78).” (p 105)
All that this demonstrates is that the market value is not determined by the single acre. On the basis of what Prévost says here, we would have to conclude that the single acre could not be farmed capitalistically, because the profit, if any at all, would be significantly below the average. This acre could only realistically be cultivated on a subsistence basis.
No comments:
Post a Comment