Anti-Duhring, Part I, Philosophy Dialectics, XII – Quantity and Quality - Part 3 of 14

Duhring's comment about contradictions is, Engels notes, about all he has to say about dialectics, in The Course of Philosophy, before dismissing it as absurd, and, along with it, Marx's analysis of capital based on it. In fact, as Marx describes, in Theories of Surplus Value, this same idea that there can be no contradiction within any given unity was also represented in the ideas of Mill, Say, and Ricardo – Say's Law – as the basis of their argument that there could be no generalised overproduction of commodities. For them, production takes place for the purpose of consumption. These are simply two poles of a unity, as much as the poles of a magnet may be opposites. Production takes place to produce products to be consumed, either those that produce those products consume them – direct production – or they exchange them with others for other products they want to consume – commodity production and exchange. So, no contradiction between production (supply) and consumption (demand) can exist.

But, it can, as Marx describes. What Mill et al failed to recognise was the difference between a product and a commodity. In a product, the use-value and and its value (labour) are inextricably linked. I only expend my labour-time in its production if I consider it is justified by the use-value of the product. But, that is not the case with a commodity. When I produce a commodity, I have no interest in its use-value, on the contrary, it has no use-value for me. I am only interested in its value in exchange for some other commodity that I do obtain use-value from. The inherent and inextricable unity of use-value and value of the product is, therefore, broken apart in the commodity, along with the direct relation between its production and consumption – supply and demand.

Within the confines of small-scale commodity production and exchange, on the basis of barter, this relation of production and consumption, supply and demand, which is the basis of Say's Law, holds, so that no generalised overproduction of commodities occurs. That does not mean, even then, that partial overproduction may not occur, and individual commodity producers may find that they cannot obtain the value of their commodity in exchange for the other commodities they demand. They may have to exchange more of their commodity to obtain the commodities they demand than is represented by the relative values of those commodities – their exchange value.

It may even be that, if this continues, the individual producer is ruined, and becomes a debt slave, servant or pauper. But, this remains an individual failure not a generalised over production of commodities. Mill et al, thereby, took this condition, applying to the nature of the product, and its extension, under barter and small scale commodity production – mostly the exchange of surplus products – as applying, also, to generalised commodity production and exchange within a money economy. As Marx notes, this is also where Ricardo's false theory of money also played a role. Because Ricardo only viewed money as currency, as the means by which this exchange of commodities, C – M – C, is facilitated, he was unable to recognise the difference between this production of commodities for the purpose of obtaining money (exchange-value incarnate, as Marx calls it) as against their production to obtain other commodities, i.e. to exchange use-value in one form for use-value in another.

In Theories of Surplus Value, Chapter 17, Marx notes this failure of Ricardo. Ricardo says,

““One would be led to think.., that Adam Smith concluded we were under some necessity” (this is indeed the case) “of producing a surplus of corn, woollen goods, and hardware, and that the capital which produced them could not be otherwise employed. It is, however, always a matter of choice in what way a capital shall be employed, and therefore there can never, for any length of time, be a surplus of any commodity; for if there were, it would fall below its natural price, and capital would be removed to some more profitable employment” (l.c., pp. 341-42, note).

Productions are always bought by productions, or by services; money is only the medium by which the exchange is effected.””

(Theories of Surplus Value, Chapter 17, Section 8, p 499)

Back To Part 2

Forward To Part 4