“ But, according to Quesnay, this fund of one milliard serves, for the most part to cover the repairs which become necessary in the course of the year and the partial renewals of invested capital; further, as a reserve fund against accidents, and lastly, where possible, for the enlargement of the invested and working capital, as well as for the improvement of the soil and the extension of cultivation.” (p 321)
In part, this is true. The capitalist farmer, in so far as they undertake labour, covers their own personal consumption out of the wage fund (variable-capital), as with other labour. It is part of the working-capital. But, the repair and renewal of capital should, also, form part of that working-capital. The amount to cover accidents, and for capital accumulation are valid elements of this “interest”. The same categories are listed by Marx, in The Critique of the Gotha Programme, in his explanation of why, even under communism, the workers could never receive “the full fruits of their labour”. Indeed, because workers, under communism, would want to develop production and productivity as much, and as quickly, as possible, so as to raise living standards for all, they would need to expand the amount of surplus-value going to this accumulation of capital, i.e. to raise the rate of surplus-value.
Whilst Quesnay's argument may have had validity at the time, and similar arguments were made in relation to the industrial capitalists, at the start of the Industrial Revolution, it soon ceased having any such validity. As profits expanded, the capitalists, also, expanded their own personal consumption, including conspicuous consumption of luxury goods.
“The whole process is certainly “pretty simple”. There enter into circulation: from the farmers, two milliards in money for the payment of rent, and three milliards in products, of which two-thirds are means of subsistence and one-third raw materials; from the sterile class, two milliards in manufactured goods. Of the means of subsistence amounting to two milliards, one half is consumed by the landlords and their retainers, the other half by the sterile class in payment for its labour. The raw materials to the value of one milliard replace the working capital of this latter class. Of the manufactured goods in circulation, amounting to two milliards, one half goes to the landlords and the other to the farmers, for whom it is only a converted form of the interest on their invested capital which accruing at first hand from agricultural reproduction. But the money thrown into circulation by the farmer in payment of rent flows back to him through the sale of his products, and thus the same process can take place afresh in the next economic year.” (p 321-2)
Engels, having given this explanation of the Tableau, then returns to Duhring, and his “truly critical” exposition of it. Duhring had admitted that he did not understand what happened to the net product, and had also, falsely, claimed that the Tableau contained only money values. But,
“We have seen that the Tableau — this description of the annual process of reproduction through the medium of circulation which was as simple as for its time inspired — gives a very exact answer to the question of what becomes of this net product in the course of economic circulation. Thus once again it is with Herr Dühring alone that the “mysticism” and the “confusion and arbitrariness” remain as “the most dubious aspect” and the sole “net product” of his study of Physiocracy.” (p 322)
Engels notes Duhring's other claims about the Physiocrats and their historical influence.
““With Turgot,” he teaches us, “Physiocracy in France came to an end both in practice and in theory”.” (p 322)
That Mirabeau was essentially a Physiocrat in his economic views, a leading authority in the Constituent Assembly of 1789, and this assembly put a large part of Physiocratic principles into practice, including a heavy tax on ground-rent, “all this does not exist for “a” Dühring.” (p 323)
No comments:
Post a Comment