In the rest of this subsection, Marx dissects a string of absurdities contained in McCulloch's work. Even Say had not been so absurd as to claim that wind, fire, machinery etc. was labour, but only that the “action” of these agents created value.
“ Thus Mac is even lower than Say.
This vulgarisation of Ricardo represents the most complete and most frivolous decline of Ricardo’s theory.” (p 182)
McCulloch believed that only those natural agents that can be monopolised create value. He writes,
““In so far, however, as that result” (i.e., the result produced by the action or operation of any thing) “is effected by the labour or operation of natural agents, that can neither be monopolised nor appropriated by a greater or smaller number of individuals to the exclusion of others, it has no value. What is done by these agents is done gratuitously” (J. R. McCulloch [in: Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Vol. IV, London, 1828], p. 75 [Note I]).” (p 182)
But, in order to utilise any of these natural agents, it is necessary to also have the commodities that enable these natural agents to be utilised. There is no point owning air, unless, for example, you own a windmill to convert the wind into energy, so as to mill grain into flour. It's impossible to use the motive power of steam unless you have a steam engine. And, McCulloch, in this statement, again confuses use value and exchange-value. The use-value of steam is indeed freely given, but, as Marx notes, the action of raw materials, machinery, etc., is also freely given.
“As if what is done by cotton, wool, iron or machinery, were not also done “gratuitously”. The machine costs money, but the operation of the machine is not paid for. No use-value of any kind of commodity costs anything after its exchange-value has been paid.” (p 182)
Marx quotes Carey to that effect.
““The man who sells oil makes no charge for its natural qualities. In estimating its cost he puts down the value of the labour employed in its pursuit, and such is its value” (H. C. Carey, Principles of Political Economy… Part I, Philadelphia, 1837, p. 47).” (p 182)
No comments:
Post a Comment