Anti-Duhring, Part II, Political Economy, X – From The Critical History - Part 21

Engels notes that Duhring's statements, so far, have not taken the understanding of the Tableau forward one bit, “but now it is coming:

“On the other hand, however, now also”—this “however, now also” is a gem!—“the net product, enters into circulation as a natural object, and in this way becomes an element which should serve ... to maintain the class which is described as sterile. Here we can immediately (!) see the confusion arising from the fact that in one case it is the money value, and in the other the thing itself, which determines the course of thought”.” (p 312)

In fact, as Engels sets out, and as Marx describes, in Capital II, and Theories of Surplus Value, the Tableau describes the measurement of inputs and outputs, in the process of reproduction, both as physical quantities, “natural objects”, i.e. use-values, and as money values.

“Subsequently Quesnay even made his assistant, the Abbé Baudeau, include the natural objects in the Tableau itself, beside their money values.” (p 312)

Why? Because reproduction is about the reproduction of those use-values, the basis of continuing production, on at least the same scale, as the requirement to production on an expanded scale.

“After all this “input“, we at last get the “output”. Listen and marvel at these words:

“Nevertheless, the inconsistency“ (referring to the role assigned by Quesnay to the landlords) at once becomes clear as soon as we enquire what becomes of the net product, which has been appropriated as rent, in the course of economic circulation. Here the physiocrats and the economic Tableau could offer nothing but confusion and arbitrariness, culminating in mysticism”.” (p 312)

In other words, Duhring has to admit that he does not understand even the basis of Physiocratic theory, and the Tableau, and cannot see what happens to the “net product”, i.e. surplus product, appropriated as rent by the landlords. There is certainly error and some “mysticism” in Physiocratic theory, as set out by Marx in Theories of Surplus Value, in that it describes this “surplus product”, which it equates with surplus value, to some innate property of the land. In Physiocratic theory, it is this property of the land to produce this surplus product, which is the basis of the owners of the land, the landlords, appropriating it as rent. But, its not true, as Duhring claims, to say that they or the Tableau does not describe what happens to it.

Engels quotes Duhring's statement,

““The lines which Quesnay draws to and fro” (in all there are just five of them!) “in his otherwise pretty simple” (!) “Tableau, and which are meant to represent the circulation of the net product”, make one wonder whether “these whimsical combinations of columns” may not be based on some mathematical fantasy; they are reminiscent of Quesnay’s attempts to square the circle” — and so forth.” (p 313)

Back To Part 20