Anti-Duhring, Part II, Political Economy, IX Natural Laws of Economics. Ground-Rent - Part 2 of 8

Duhring's Law No. 2 reads,

“Division of Labour: “The separation of trades and the dissection of activities raises the productivity of labour”. (p 284)

Engels notes,

“In so far as this is true, it has likewise been a commonplace since Adam Smith. How far it is true will be shown in Part III.” (p 284)

Duhring's other fundamental laws of economics are:

“Law No. 3.“Distance and transport are the chief causes which hinder or facilitate the co-operation of the productive forces”.

Law No. 4. “The industrial state has an incomparably greater population capacity than the agricultural state”.

Law No. 5. “In the economy nothing takes place without a material interest”.” (p284)

Engels notes that, in terms of method, these economic laws remain true to Duhring's approach, set out earlier, in relation to Philosophy. In other words, a small number of axioms held to be universally and eternally true, as with formal logic or mathematics, but which, thereby, are equally banal, and lacking in content. They represent simply a superficial description, like a still photograph of the world, as perceived at a given time. And, as Engels describes, this world, perceived by Duhring, much as was the case with Rodbertus, analysed by Marx in Theories of Surplus Value, is, in fact, only the world of Prussia, a world that no longer existed, even in Prussia.

This becomes clear when Duhring discusses ground-rent.

“We shall not consider those points which Herr Dühring has merely copied from his predecessor Carey; we are not concerned with Carey, nor with defending Ricardo's views on ground-rent against Carey’s distortions and stupidities. We are only concerned with Herr Dühring, who defines ground-rent as “that income which the proprietor as such draws from the land”.” (p 285)

But, Duhring, like Rodbertus, describes a world in which the landlord still occupied a role in social production. In other words, a wold in which feudal production continues, and the landlord directly exploits the labour employed on the land, and appropriates the surplus product/value, thereby.

That world no longer existed. In Britain, it had disappeared long ago, as it was the capitalist farmer that took over the social function of the landlord in rural production. From that point, it is the capitalist farmer that directly exploits labour, and also, thereby, appropriates the surplus product/value.

Duhring says,

“if one wanted to press the analogy further, the earnings left to the tenant after payment of ground-rent must correspond to the balance of earnings of capital left with the entrepreneur who puts the capital to use after he has paid interest. But it is not customary to regard tenants' earnings as the main income and ground-rent as a balance.” (p 285-6)

Back To Part 1