Engels is making the point, here, alluded to earlier, of the distinction between money as measure of value and money tokens/currency. A requirement for a money commodity, such as gold, is that it does itself have value, which is why things like Bitcoin are not money. But, a money token is, indeed, only a token of value, and need have no value itself, as with base metal coins or paper notes. On this point, therefore, Hume was inferior to Petty, and many of his own contemporaries. He, also, retained some of the old mercantilist prejudices and notions, “that the “merchant” is the mainspring of production, which Petty had long passed beyond.” (p307)
Contrary to Duhring's claims about Hume's concern with the “chief economic relationships”, Engels says,
“if the reader only compares Cantillon’s work quoted by Adam Smith (which appeared the same year as Hume's essays, 1752, but many years after its author’s death), he will be surprised at the narrow field covered by Hume’s economic writings. As we have said, despite the letters-patent issued to him by Herr Dühring, Hume remains a respectable figure in the field of political economy too, but here he is anything but an original investigator, and even less an epoch-making one. The influence of his economic essays on the educated circles of his day was due not merely to his excellent presentation, but much more to the fact that they were a progressive and optimistic glorification of the thriving industry and trade of the time — in other words, of the capitalist society which was then rapidly rising in England, and whose “applause” they were therefore bound to gain.” (p 307-8)
Engels cites as an example of Hume's polemic in favour of indirect taxes. Without mentioning his name, Hume polemicises against Vanderlint, who was “the stoutest opponent of indirect taxation and the most determined advocate of a land tax.” (p 308) The system of indirect taxation – consumption taxes – was used ruthlessly by Sir Robert Walpole to benefit the landlords and the rich, at the expense of the masses, just as Trump seeks to do, today, with his use of tariffs, which are also a tax on consumption.
Engels quotes Hume.
“They” (taxes on consumption) “must be very heavy taxes, indeed, and very injudiciously levied, which the artisan will not, of himself, be enabled to pay, by superior industry and frugality, without raising the price of his labour.” (p 308)
Tax, as Marx notes, cannot change values or general level of prices, but is ultimately, therefore, a deduction from surplus value, as with interest and rent. They cause some prices to rise, but, equally, therefore, others to fall, as capital is reallocated to restore an average rate of profit.
Marx argued for direct taxes on income, as opposed to indirect taxes, not because of any concern for the supposed progressive nature of the former, but because he sought to limit the role of the state. He wrote,
“(a) No modification of the form of taxation can produce any important change in the relations of labour and capital.
b) Nevertheless, having to choose between two systems of taxation, we recommend the total abolition of indirect taxes, and the general substitution of direct taxes. [In Marx's rough manuscript, French and German texts are: "because direct taxes are cheaper to collect and do not interfere with production".]
Because indirect taxes enhance the prices of commodities, the tradesmen adding to those prices not only the amount of the indirect taxes, but the interest and profit upon the capital advanced in their payment.
Because indirect taxes conceal from an individual what he is paying to the state, whereas a direct tax is undisguised, unsophisticated, and not to be misunderstood by the meanest capacity. Direct taxation prompts therefore every individual to control the governing powers while indirect taxation destroys all tendency to self-government.”
No comments:
Post a Comment