Anti-Duhring, Part II, Political Economy, VIII – Capital and Surplus Value (Concluded) - Part 2 of 13

Marx sets out, in numerous places, that the produced surplus-value should not be equated with, or confused with profit, let alone profit of enterprise. If we take commercial profit, for example, as Marx sets out, in Capital III, Chapter 17 et sub, it is a deduction from the produced surplus value, as a necessary cost of circulation and realisation of the value of commodities. It forms an integral part of the circuit of industrial capital, and, thereby, participates in the formation and distribution of the average industrial rate of profit.

All productive capitals, as Marx sets out, in Capital III, also undertake this function of circulation. They have their own commercial workers employed as sales and marketing staff, and so on. But, productive-capital, as a whole, sub-contracts a large part of this role to specialist commercial capitals – wholesalers, retailers, money dealers, factors and so on – because such division of labour, and specialisation reduces the necessary costs of circulation. The commercial capital does not produce additional surplus-value, but, by reducing costs of circulation, increases the mass of realised profit, and rate of profit. Its profit comes from the fact that, as part of the circuit of industrial capital, it obtains the average industrial rate of profit. The means of achieving that is that the productive-capitals sell commodities to the merchant capitals, on average, at prices below their value, and the merchant capitals, then, sell those commodities, on average, at their value.

Duhring, therefore, misrepresents Marx's theory of surplus value and profits. He, then, accuses Marx of a moralistic and emotional response to this. “business of extortion”. He continues,

“But even mightier wrath and even fuller recognition of the exploitative character of the economic form based on wage-labour is possible without accepting the theoretical position expressed in Marx's doctrine of surplus-value”.” (p 272)

According to Duhring, Marx's emotional hatred of the extortion is perfectly ethical, but based upon a false theory. Duhring's even greater hatred of ths extortion, he bases upon what he considers his own correct and scientific theory, but which, as seen earlier, amounts only to his claim that all such social relations stem from the use of force by some in society against the rest.

In fact, this claim falls apart as soon as Duhring seeks to apply it to explain the existence of surplus-value in societies based on commodity production and exchange. Engels quotes his statement,

“Now the question arises, how the competing entrepreneurs are able constantly to realize the full product of labour, including the surplus-product, at a price so far above the natural cost of production as is indicated by the ratio, already mentioned, of the surplus labour-hours. No answer to this is to be found in Marx's doctrine, and for the simple reason that there could be no place in it for even raising that question. The luxury character of production based on hired labour is not seriously dealt with at all, and the social constitution with its bloodsucking opportunities is in no way recognised as the ultimate basis of white slavery. On the contrary, political and social matters are always to be explained by the economic.” (p 272-3)

Back To Part 1

Forward To Part 4