Notes on the History of the Discovery of the So-called Ricardian Law

Anderson was a practical farmer. His first work, in which the nature of rent is discussed in passing, appeared in 1777,⁽¹⁾ at a time when, for a large section of the public, Sir James Steuart was still the leading economist, and while everyone's attention was focused on the Wealth of Nations, which had appeared a year earlier.⁽²⁾ As against this, the work of the Scottish FARMER, which had been occasioned by an immediate practical controversy and which did not ex professa deal with rent but only incidentally elucidated its nature, could not attract any attention. In this work, Anderson only dealt with rent accidentally, not ex professo. This theory of his appears again, in the same incidental fashion, in one or two of his collected essays which he himself published in three volumes under the title of: £550315 Relating to Agriculture and Rural Affairs, 1775-1796, 3 vols, Edinburgh. Similarly in his Recreations in Agriculture, Natural-History, Arts etc., London, 1797⁽³⁾ (to be looked up in the British Museum). All these writings are directly intended for FARMERS and AGRICULTURISTS. [It would have been] different if Anderson had had an inkling of the importance of his FIND and had put it before the public separately, as an INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE OF RENT, or if he had had the least bit of talent in trading his own ideas, as his fellow countryman, McCulloch, did so successfully with other people's. The reproductions of his theory which appeared in 1815 were published forthwith as independent theoretical inquiries into the nature of rent, as the very titles of the respective works of West and Malthus show: Malthus: An Inquiry into the Nature and Progress of Rent; West: Essay on the Application of Capital to Land.

Furthermore, Malthus used the Andersonian theory of rent to give his population law, for the first time, both an economic and a real (natural-historical) basis, while the nonsense about geometrical and arithmetical progression borrowed from earlier writers, was a purely imaginary hypothesis. MR. Malthus AT ONCE "IMPROVED" THE matter. Ricardo even made this doctrine of rent, as he himself says in his preface,^[3] one of the most important LINKS in the whole system of political economy and — quite apart from the practical aspect — gave it an entirely new theoretical importance.

Ricardo evidently did not know Anderson since, in the preface to his political economy, he treats West and Malthus as the originators. Judging by the original manner in which he presents the law, West was possibly as little acquainted with Anderson as Tooke was with Steuart. With Mr. Malthus it is different. A close comparison of his writings shows that he knows and uses Anderson. He was in fact plagiarist by [XI-496] profession. One need only compare the first edition of his work on POPULATION b with the work of the REVEREND Townsend which I have quoted previously,^[123] to be convinced that he does not work him over as an independent producer, but copies him and paraphrases him like a slavish plagiarist, although he does not mention him anywhere by name and conceals his existence.

The manner in which Malthus used Anderson is characteristic. Anderson had defended premiums on exports of corn and duties on corn imports, not out of any interest for the LANDLORDS, but because he believed that this type of legislation "would reduce the average price of corn" and ensure an even development of the productive forces in agriculture. Malthus accepted this practical application of Anderson's because — being a staunch MEMBER of the ESTABLISHED CHURCH OF England — he was a professional sycophant of the landed aristocracy, whose rents, sinecures, squandering, heartlessness, etc. he justified economically. Malthus advocates the interests of the industrial bourgeoisie only in so far as these are identical with the interests of landed property, of the aristocracy, i.e., against the mass of the people, the proletariat. But where these interests diverge and are antagonistic to each other, he sides with the aristocracy against the bourgeoisie. Hence his defence of the "unproductive worker", over-consumption, etc.

Anderson, on the other hand, explained the difference between land which pays rent and that which does not, or between lands which pay varying rents, by the relatively low fertility of the land which bears no rent or a smaller rent compared with that which bears a rent or a greater rent. But he stated expressly that these degrees of relative productivity of different types of land, i.e., also the relatively low productivity of the worse types of land compared with the better, had absolutely nothing to do with the absolute productivity of agriculture. On the contrary, he stressed not only that the absolute productivity of all types of land could be constantly improved and must be improved with the progress in population, but he went further and asserted that the differences in productivity of various types of land can be progressively reduced. He said that the present degree of development of agriculture in England gives no indication at all of its possibilities. That is why he said that in one country the prices of corn may be high and rent low, while in another country the prices of corn may be low and rent may be high, and this is in accordance with his principle, since the level and the existence of rents is in both countries determined by the difference between the fertile and the unfertile land, in neither of them by the absolute fertility; in each only by the degree of difference in fertility of the existing types of land, and not by the average fertility of these types of land. From this he concluded that the absolute fertility of agriculture has nothing to do with rent. Hence later, as we shall see below,⁽⁴⁾ he declared himself a decided adversary of the Malthusian theory of population and it never dawned on him that his own theory of rent was to serve as the basis of this monstrosity. Anderson reasoned that the rise in corn prices in England between 1750 and 1801 as compared with the years 1700 to 1750 was by no means due to the cultivation of progressively less fertile types of land, but to the influence of legislation on agriculture during these two periods.

What then did Malthus do? Instead of his (also plagiarised) chimera of the geometrical and arithmetical progression, which he retained as a "phrase", he made Anderson's theory the confirmation of his population theory. He retained Anderson's practical application of the theory in so far as it was in the interests of the LANDLORDS — this FACT alone proves that he understood as little of the connection of this theory with the system of bourgeois economy as Anderson himself. Without going into the counter-evidence which the discoverer of the theory put forward, he turned it against the proletariat. The theoretical and practical advance which could have been made from this theory was: theoretical — for the determination of the value of the commodity, etc., and gaining an insight into the nature of landownership; practical — against the necessity of private ownership of the land, on the basis of bourgeois production and, more immediately, against all State regulations such as CORN LAWS, which enhanced this ownership of land. These advances from Anderson's theory, Malthus left to Ricardo. The only practical use he made of it was a defence of the protective tariffs which the LANDLORDS demanded in 1815 — a sycophantic service for the aristocracy — and a new justification for the poverty of the producers of wealth, a new apology for the exploiters of labour. In this respect it was a sycophantic service for the industrial capitalists.

Utter baseness of mind is a distinctive trait of Malthus — a baseness which can only be indulged in by a parson [XI-497] who sees human suffering as the punishment for sin and who, in any case, needs a "vale of tears on earth", but who, at the same time, in view of the benefice he enjoys, and aided by the dogma of predestination, finds it altogether advantageous to "sweeten" the ruling classes' sojourn in the vale of tears. The "baseness" of this mind is also evident in his scientific work. Firstly, in the shameless way he makes plagiarism into a profession. Secondly in the cautious, not radical, conclusions which he draws from scientific premisses.

Ricardo, rightly for his time, regards the capitalist mode of production as the most advantageous for production in general, as the most advantageous for the creation of wealth. He wants production for the sake of production and this with good reason. To assert, as sentimental opponents of Ricardo's did, that production as such is not the object, is to forget that production for its own sake means nothing but the development of human productive forces, in other words the development of the richness of human nature as an end in itself. To oppose the welfare of the individual to this end, as Sismondi does, is to assert that the development of the species must be arrested in order to safeguard the welfare of the individual, so that, for instance, no war may be waged in which at all events some individuals perish. Sismondi is only right as against the economists who conceal or deny this contradiction. Apart from the barrenness of such edifying reflections, they reveal a failure to understand the fact that, although at first the development of the capacities of the human species takes place at the cost of the majority of human individuals and whole human classes, in the end it breaks through this contradiction and coincides with the development of the individual; the higher development of individuality is thus only achieved by a historical process during which individuals are sacrificed, for the interests of the species in the human kingdom, as in the animal and plant kingdoms, always assert themselves at the cost of the interests of individuals, because these interests of the species coincide with the interests of certain individuals, and it is this coincidence which constitutes the strength of these privileged individuals.

Thus Ricardo's ruthlessness'was not only scientifically honest but also a scientific necessity from his point of view. But because of this it is also quite immaterial to him whether the advance of the productive forces slays landed property or workers. If this progress devalues the capital of the industrial bourgeoisie it is equally welcome to him. If the development of the productive power of labour halves the value of the existing fixed capital, what does it matter, says Ricardo. The productivity of human labour has doubled. Thus here is scientific honesty. Ricardo's conception is, on the whole, in the interests of the industrial bourgeoisie, only because, and in so far as, its interests coincide with those of production or the productive development of human labour. Where the bourgeoisie comes into conflict with this, he is just as ruthless towards it as he is at other times towards the proletariat and the aristocracy.

But Malthusl Ce misérable^[3] only draws such conclusions from the given scientific premisses (which he invariably steals) as will be "agreeable" (useful) to the aristocracy against the bourgeoisie and to both against the proletariat. Hence he does not want production for the sake of production but only in so far as it maintains or extends the status quo, and serves the interests of the ruling classes.

Already his first work,b one of the most remarkable literary examples of the success of plagiarism at the cost of the original work, had the practical purpose to provide "economic" proof, in the interests of the existing English government and the landed aristocracy, that the tendency of the French Revolution and its adherents in England to perfect matters was Utopian. In other words, it was a panegyric pamphlet for the existing conditions, against historical development and, furthermore, a justification of the war against revolutionary France.

His writings of 1815, on protective tariffs and rent,^[3] were partly means to confirm the earlier apology of the poverty of the producers, in particular, however, to defend reactionary landed property against "enlightened", "liberal" and "progressive" capital, and especially to justify an intended retrogressive step in English legislation in the interests of the aristocracy against the industrial bourgeoisie.^[1] Finally, [XI-498] his "PRINCIPLES OF POLITICAL ECONOMY" directed against Ricardo had essentially the purpose of reducing the absolute demands of "industrial capital" and the laws under which its productivity develops, to the "desirable limits" "favourable" to the existing interests of the landed aristocracy, the "ESTABLISHED CHURCH" (to which Malthus belonged), government pensioners and consumers of taxes. But when a man seeks to accommodate science to a viewpoint which is derived not from science itself (however erroneous it may be) but from outside, from alien, external interests, then I call him "base".

It is not a base action when Ricardo puts the proletariat on the same level as machinery or beasts of burden or commodities, because (from his point of view) their being purely machinery or beasts of burden is conducive to "production" or because they really are mere commodities in bourgeois production. This is stoic, objective, scientific. In so far as it does not involve sinning against his science, Ricardo is always a philanthropist, just as he was in practice too.

The parson Malthus, on the other hand, reduces the worker to a beast of burden "for the sake of production" and even condemns him to death from starvation and to celibacy. But when these same demands of production curtail the LANDLORD'S "rent" or threaten to encroach on the "tithes" of the ESTABLISHED CHURCH, or on the interests of the "consumers of taxes"; ajid also when that part of the industrial bourgeoisie whose interests stand in the way of progress is being sacrificed to that part which represents the advance of production — and therefore whenever it is a question of the interests of the aristocracy against the bourgeoisie or of the conservative and stagnant bourgeoisie against the progressive — in all these instances "parson" Malthus does not sacrifice the particular interests to production but seeks, as far as he can, to sacrifice the demands of production to the particular interests of existing ruling classes or sections of classes. And to this end he falsifies his scientific conclusions. This is his scientific baseness, his sin against science, quite apart from the shameless way he makes plagiarism into a profession. The scientific conclusions of Malthus are "considerate" towards the ruling classes IN GENERAL and towards the reactionary elements of the ruling classes IN PARTICULAR; in other words he falsifies science for these interests. But his conclusions are ruthless as far as they concern the subjugated classes. He is not only ruthless; he affects ruthlessness; he takes a cynical pleasure in it and exaggerates his conclusions in so far as they are directed against the miserables, even beyond the point which would be scientifically justified from his point of view.

The hatred of the English working classes for Malthus — the " MOUNTEBANK-PARSON" as Cobbett rudely called him (Cobbett, though England's greatest political writer of this century, lacked the Leipzig professorial scholarship ^[125] and was a pronounced enemy of the "LEARNED LANGUAGE")—was thus fully justified and the people's INSTINCT was correct here, in that they felt he was no homme de science, but a bought advocate^[3] of their opponents, a shameless sycophant of the ruling classes.

The inventor of an idea may exaggerate it in all honesty; when the plagiarist exaggerates it, he always makes "a business" of such an exaggeration.

Because the first edition of Malthus' work On Population contains not a single new scientific word, it is to be regarded purely as an obtrusive Capuchin's sermon, an Abraham a Santa Clara version of the discoveries of Townsend, Steuart,^[126] Wallace, Herbert, etc. Since in fact it only wants to impress by its popular form, popular hatred rightly turns against it. As compared to the wretched bourgeois economists who preach harmony, Malthus' only merit lies in his pointed emphasis on the disharmonies, which, though none of them were discovered by him, were all emphasised, amplified and publicised by him with complacent sacerdotal cynicism.

[XI-499] Charles Darwin, in the introduction to his On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, London, 1860 (5TH ED.), says the following:

"In the next chapter the Struggle for Existence amongst all organic beings throughout the world, which inevitably follows from the high geometrical ratio of their increase, will be treated of. This is the doctrine of Malthus, applied to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms" [pp. 4-5],

In his splendid work, Darwin did not realise that by discovering the "geometrical" progression in the animal and plant kingdom, he overthrew Malthus' theory. Malthus' theory is based on the fact that he set Wallace's geometrical progression of man against the chimerical " arithmetical" progression of animals and plants. In Darwin's work, for instance on the extinction of species, we also find (quite apart from his fundamental principle) the detailed refutation, based on natural history, of the Malthusian theory. But in so far as Malthus' theory rests upon Anderson's theory of rent, it was refuted by Anderson himself.

For instance, when Ricardo's theory (see above) convinces him that a rise in wages above their minimum does not raise the value of the commodities, he says so in a straightforward manner. Malthus wants to hold DOWN wages so that the bourgeois may profit.

Anderson's first publication, in which he develops the theory of rent incidentally, was a practical polemic, not on rent but on protection. It appeared in 1777 and its very title, An Enquiry into the Nature of the Corn Laws, with a View to the New Corn Bill Proposed for Scotland, Edinburgh, 1777, shows, firstly, that it pursues a practical purpose, secondly, that it is related to an imminent act of legislation, in which the interests of the MANUFACTURERS and the LANDLORDS are diametrically opposed.

The law of 1773 (in England; to be looked up in McCulloch's Catalogue^[3]) was due (so it appears) to be introduced into Scotland in 1777 (see in the Museum).

"The law of 1773 was constructed," says Anderson, "with the AVOWED INTENTION of lowering the price of corn to our MANUFACTURERS, by ENCOURAGEMENT OF FOREIGN IMPORTATION to place our own people AT A CHEAPER RATE" (A Calm Investigation of the Circumstances that Have Led to the Present Scarcity of Grain in Britain, London, 1801, p. 50).

Thus Anderson's publication was a polemic on behalf of the interests of the AGRICULTURISTS (protection) (inclusive of the LANDLORDS) against the interests of the MANUFACTURERS. And he published it "AVOWEDLY" as such a partisan piece of writing. The theory of rent comes in here only incidentally. In his later writings which are to a greater or lesser degree continuously concerned with this battle of interests he merely repeats the theory of rent once or twice in passing. He never pretends to a scientific interest in it and it does not even become an independent subject in his presentation. Accordingly one may judge the correctness of the following remarks of Wilhelm Thucydides Roscher^[12]' who was evidently not acquainted with Anderson's writings:

"Remarkable, how a doctrine, which in 1777 remained almost unnoticed, was immediately defended and attacked with the greatest interest in 1815 and the following years because it touched upon the contradiction between MONIED and LANDED INTEREST which had meanwhile so sharply developed" (Die Grundlagen der Nationalökonomie, 3rd edition, 1858, [pp.] 297-98).

This sentence contains as many falsehoods as words. Firstly, unlike West, Malthus and Ricardo, Anderson did not put forward his opinion as a "doctrine". Secondly, it remained not "almost", but "entirely" unnoticed. Thirdly, it first came in incidentally in a work whose sole purpose it was to deal with the contradiction between MANUFACTURERS and LANDLORDS — a contradiction which was considerably developed in 1777 — and the work only "touched upon" this practical battle of interests and left "untouched" the general [XI-500] theory of political economy. Fourthly, in 1815 one of the reproducers of this theory, Malthus, expounded it just as much in support of the CORN LAWS as Anderson had done. The same doctrine was used in support of landed property by its discoverer and [by] Malthus, but was turned against landed property by Ricardo. Thus, at most, one might say that some of those who put it forward were defending the interests of landed property while others who put it forward fought those same interests, but one could not say that this theory was attacked by the defenders of landed property in 1815 (for Malthus defended it before Ricardo), or that it was defended by the attackers of landed property (for Ricardo did not have to "defend" this theory against Malthus, since he himself regarded Malthus as one of its discoverers and as his own forerunner. He only had to "combat" the practical conclusions that were drawn by Malthus). Fifthly, the contradiction between "MONIED" and "LANDED INTEREST", "touched upon" by Wilhelm Thucydides Roscher, had, up to that moment, absolutely nothing to do either with Anderson's theory of rent or with its reproduction, defence and attack. As Wilhelm Thucydides could have gathered from John Stuart Mill (Essays on Some Unsettled Questions of Political Economy, London, 1844, pp. 109-10), by "MONIED CLASS" the Englishman understands 1) the money-lenders; and 2) these money-lenders are people who either live altogether on interest or are money-lenders by profession, such as bankers, bill-brokers, etc. Mill also observes that all these people who form the "MONIED CLASS" are opposed to, or at any rate are distinct from, the "PRODUCING CLASS" (by which Mill understands "industrial capitalists" BESIDES THE WORKING MEN). Hence Wilhelm Thucydides should see that the interests of the "PRODUCING CLASS", including the MANUFACTURERS, the INDUSTRIAL CAPITALISTS, and the interests of the MONIED CLASS are two very different matters and that these classes are different classes. Furthermore, Wilhelm Thucydides should see that a battle between the INDUSTRIAL CAPITALISTS and the LANDLORDS was thus by no means a battle between the "MONIED INTEREST" and the "LANDED INTEREST". If Wilhelm Thucydides knew the history of the corn laws of 1815 and the struggle over these, then he would already have known from Cobbett that the BOROUGH-MONGERS (LANDED INTEREST) a n d the LOAN-MONGERS (MONIED INTEREST) combined against the INDUSTRIAL INTEREST. But Cobbett is " crude " . Furthermore, Wilhelm Thucydides should know from the history of 1815 to 1847 that in the battle over the corn laws, the majority of the MONIED INTEREST and some even of the COMMERCIAL INTEREST (Liverpool for instance) were to be found amongst the allies of the LANDED INTEREST against the MANUFACTURING INTEREST."

If I were to elucidate in equal detail all similar gross falsifications of history which Wilhelm Thucydides commits in his literary historical notes, then I would have to write as fat a volume as his Grundlagen, and indeed, such a work would "NOT be WORTH

THE PAPER IT WAS WRITTEN UPON". But the harmful effects which such learned ignorance as that of a Wilhelm Thucydides can have on researchers in other fields of knowledge, can be seen in the example of Mr. Adolf Bastian. In his work Der Mensch in der Geschichte, Vol. I, 1860, p. 374, note, he quotes the above sentence of Wilhelm Thucydides as documentary proof for a "psychologi-cal" assertion. Incidentally, one cannot say of Bastian that "materiam superabat opus".b Rather, in this case, the "opus" does not master its own raw material. Besides, I have found out through the few sciences which I "know", that Mr. Bastian who knows "all" sciences, very often relies on such authorities à la Wilhelm Thucydides, which is in any case unavoidable in a "pantologist".^[12]

[XI-501] I hope I shall not be accused of "unkindness" towards Wilhelm Thucydides. Note the "unkindness" with which this pedant himself treats science! Anyhow, I have the same right to speak of his "total untruths" as he has to speak in his self-satisfied and condescending manner of Ricardo's "half-truths".⁽⁵⁾ Furthermore, Wilhelm Thucydides is by no means "honest" in his research and cataloguing. Anyone who is not "RESPECTABLE" does not exist for him historically either. For instance, Rodbertus does not exist for [him as] a theoretician of rent because he is a "communist". Besides, Wilhelm Thucydides is also inaccurate when it comes to "RESPECTABLE WRITERS". For instance, Bailey exists for McCulloch, who even regards his work as epoch-making. For Wilhelm Thucydides he does not exist. If the science [XI-502] of political economy is to be furthered and popularised in Germany, people like Rodbertus should found a journal which would be open to all scholars (not pedants, prigs and vulgarisers) and whose main purpose it would be to demonstrate the ignorance of the specialists in the science itself as well as in its history. [XI-502]

[X1-501] Anderson was in no way concerned with any inquiry into the relationship of his theory of rent to the system of political economy. This is not in the least surprising, since his first book appeared a year after Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, i.e., at a moment when the "system of political economy" in general was only first being consolidated, for Steuart's system too had only appeared a few years before. But so far as the material is concerned, which Anderson examined, within the confines of the specific subject he was considering, this was decidedly more extensive than Ricardo's. Just as in his theory of money, the reproduction of Hume's theory, Ricardo specifically only took into account the events from 1797 to 1809, so in the theory of rent, the reproduction of Anderson's theory, he considered only the economic phenomena relating to the rise in corn prices between 1800 and 1815.

The following two paragraphs are very important because they clearly reflect Ricardo's character:

* "I shall greatly regret that considerations for any particular class, are allowed to check the progress of the wealth and population of the country" * (Ricardo, An Essay on the Influence of a Low Price of Corn on the Profits of Stock, 2ND ED., London, 1815, [p.] 49).

With free IMPORT OF CORN, "LAND IS ABANDONED" (I.e., [p.] 46). In other words landed property is sacrificed to the development of production.

With the same free import of corn however:

want is an abundance of commodities" * (wealth in general) * "and if it could be proved that by the sacrifice of a part of our capital we should augment the annual produce^[3] of those objects which contribute to our enjoyment and happiness, we ought not to repine at the loss of a part of our capital " * ( On Protection to Agriculture, 4TH ED., London, 1822, [p.] 60).

Ricardo terms as " OUR CAPITAL" that capital which belongs neither to us nor to him, but which has been permanently invested in the land by the capitalists. But we signifies a cross-section of the nation. The increase in "our" wealth is the increase in social wealth, which is an end as such, irrespective of who are the participants in this wealth!

* "To an individual with a capital of £20,000, whose profits were £2,000 per annum, it would be a matter quite indifferent whether his capital would employ a hundred or a thousand men, whether the commodity produced, sold for £10,000, or for £20,000, provided, in all cases, his profits were not diminished below £2,000. Is not the real interest of the nation similar? Provided its net real income, its rent and profits be the same, it is of no importance whether the nation consists of 10 or of 12 millions of inhabitants" * (Principles of Political Economy, 3RD ED., p. 416).

Here the "proletariat" is sacrificed to wealth. In so far as it is a matter of indifference to the existence of wealth, wealth finds its existence a matter of indifference. Here mass — mass of human beings — is WORTN NOTHING.

These 3 instances [XI-502] EXEMPLIFY Ricardo's scientific IMPAR-TIALITY.

//The element in which the capital employed in agriculture is invested, is the soil (nature), etc. Hence rent is here equal to the excess of the value of the product of labour created in this element, over its average price. If, on the other hand, an element of nature (or material) which is privately owned by an individual, is employed in another sphere of production whose (physical) basis it does not form, then the rent, if it only comes into being' through the employment of this element, cannot consist in the excess of the value of this product over the average price, but only in the excess of the general average price of this product over its own average price. For instance, a waterfall may replace the STEAM-ENGINE for a MANUFACTURER and save him consumption of coal. While in possession of this waterfall, he would, for instance, constantly be selling yarn above its average price and making an excess profit. If the waterfall belongs to a landowner, this excess profit accrues to him as rent. In his book on rent, Mr. Hopkins observes that in Lancashire the waterfalls not only yield rent but, according to the degree of the natural motive power, they yield differential rent.^[3] Here rent is purely the excess of the average market price of the product over its individual average price.//

(At most Mr. Roscher might have been surprised that the same "doctrine" served in favour of "LANDED INTEREST" in 1777 and against it in 1815 and that it caused a stir only t/ien.^[129])

//In competition there are two distinct movements towards equalisation. Capitals within the same sphere of production equalise the prices of the commodities produced within this sphere to the same market price, irrespective of the relationship of the value of these commodities to this price. The average market price should equal the value of the commodity, [were] it not for the equalisation between different spheres of production. As between these different spheres, competition equalises the values to the average prices, in so far as the reciprocal interaction of the capitals is not hampered, disrupted by a third element — landownership, etc.//

Rodbertus is altogether mistaken when he thinks that because one commodity is dearer than another, thus realising more labour time, it must therefore — given the same rate of surplus value or the equal exploitation of the workers in the different spheres—also contain more unpaid labour time, surplus labour time.

If the same labour yields 1 qr on unfertile land and 3 on fertile (in a good or a bad year alike); if the same labour yields 1 oz of gold in land very rich in gold whereas in less rich or exhausted land it yields only V3 oz; if the same labour time which produces 1 lb. of wool spins 3 lbs of wool, then, d'abord, the values of the 1 qr and the 3 qrs, of the 1 oz of gold and the 7s oz, of the 1 lb. of wool and the 3 lbs of woollen yarn (minus the value of the wool it contains) are of equal magnitude. They contain equal quantities of labour time, therefore, according to the assumption, equal quantities of surplus labour time. True, the quantity of surplus labour embodied in the 1 qr is greater, but then it is only 1 qr whereas in the other case it is 3 qrs, or 1 lb. of wool whereas in the other case it is 3 lbs of woollen yarn (minus the value of the material). The volume is therefore the same, and the proportional quantity of surplus value, comparing the individual commodities one with another, [is] also equal. According to the assumption, the amount of labour contained in the 1 qr or the 1 lb. of wool, is the same as that contained in the 3 qrs or the 3 lbs of yarn. The capital laid out in wages is therefore greater to exactly the same degree as the surplus value. The 1 lb. of wool contains 3 times as much labour as the 1 lb. of yarn. Though the surplus value is 3 times as great, the capital laid out in wages on which it is based is also 3 times as great. The proportion thus remains the same.

Rodbertus calculates quite wrongly here, or wrongly compares the capital laid out in wages with the [XI-503] greater or lesser quantity of commodities which these wages represent. But this calculation is completely wrong, if, as he presupposes, wages or the rate of surplus value are given. The same quantity of labour, say, 12 hours, may result in x or 3x commodities. In one case, lx commodities contain as much labour and surplus labour as 3x in the other; but in no case would more than 1 working day be spent and in no case would the rate of surplus value be more than, say, Vs. In the first instance Vs of the one x would be to x as in the 2nd '/s of the 3% would be to 3x. And if we were to call each of the three x: x', x", x'", then there would be ^[4]/^[5] paid and V5 unpaid labour in each x', x", x'". It is quite right, on the other hand, that if just as much commodity were to be produced under the unproductive conditions as under more productive, the commodity would contain more labour and so also more surplus labour. But then, proportionately, a greater capital would also have to be laid out. In order to produce 3x, three times as much capital would have to be laid out (in wages) as is required to produce 1 x.

Now it is true that manufacture cannot work up more raw material than agriculture supplies. Thus, for instance, it cannot spin more pounds of wool than have been produced. If the productivity in wool spinning is trebled, then, provided the conditions of the production of wool remained the same, three times as much time as previously would have to be spent, three times as much capital would have to be expended on labour in wool production, whereas only the same amount of the spinners' labour rime would be required to spin up this trebled quantity of wool. But the rate [of surplus value] would remain the same. The same spinning labour would have the same value as before and contain the same surplus value. The wool-producing labour would have a trebled surplus value but the labour embodied in it, or the capital advanced in wages, would accordingly have trebled as well. The 3 times greater surplus value would thus be calculated on a 3 times greater capital. But this is no reason for saying that the rate of surplus value is lower in spinning than in wool production. One would only say that the capital laid out in wages is 3 times as great in one as in the other (since it is assumed here that the changes in the spinning and in the production of wool are not due to any change in their constant capital).

It is necessary to make a distinction here. The same labour +constant capital gives a smaller output in an unfavourable than a favourable SEASON, in unproductive than in productive soil, in a poorer than in a richer mine. In the former case the product is thus dearer, contains more labour and more surplus labour in the same number of products. But in the latter case, the number of these products is the greater. Furthermore, the ratio between paid and unpaid labour in each individual product in the two categories is not affected by this, for though the individual product contains less unpaid labour, according to the assumption, it also contains less paid labour in the same proportion. For it has been assumed here that there is no CHANGE in the proportions of the organic component parts of capital — of variable and constant capital. It is assumed that the same amount of variable and constant capital supplies varying, greater or smaller, quantities of product under varying conditions.

Mr. Rodbertus appears to confuse this all the time, and as a matter of course to conclude from the mere increase in the price of the product that it contains a greater surplus value. As to the rate, this is wrong even according to the assumption. As to the total, however, it is only right if more capital is advanced in one case than in the other, that means if as much is produced now of the dearer product as previously of the cheaper or if the increased quantity of the cheaper product (as above with spinning) presupposes a correspondingly increased quantity of the dearer product.

[XI-504] That rent, hence also the value of land, can rise, although the rate of rent, hence also the productivity of agriculture, remains the same or even increases, is something Ricardo occasionally forgets, although he is well aware of it. Anyhow, Anderson knows it and Petty and D'Avenant already knew it. That is not the question.

Ricardo abstracts from the question of absolute rent which he denies on theoretical grounds because he starts out from the false assumption that if the value of commodities is determined by labour time, the average prices of commodities must equal their values (which is why he comes to the wrong practical conclusion, that competition of more fertile types of land must throw the less fertile out of cultivation, even if they bore rent previously). If values of commodities and average prices of commodities were identical then absolute rent — i.e., rent on the worst cultivated land or on that originally cultivated — would be equally impossible. What is the average price of the commodity? The total capital (constant+variable) laid out in its production+the labour time contained in the average profit, say 10%. Supposing that a capital produced a higher value than the average price, just because it was operating in a particular element, an element of nature, say land, then the value of this commodity would be above its value and this excess value would contradict the concept of value being equal to a certain quantity of labour time. An element of nature, something heterogeneous from social labour time would be creating value. But this cannot be. Hence capital invested in land pure and simple cannot bear a rent. The worst land is land pure and simple. If the better land bears a rent, then this only shows that the difference between the individually necessary labour and that which is socially necessary becomes permanently established in agriculture because it has a natural basis, whereas in industry it is constantly disap-pearing.

Absolute rent cannot be permitted to exist, but only differential rent. To admit the existence of absolute rent would be to admit that the same quantity of labour (objectified, laid out in constant capital and bought with wages) creates varying values according to the element in which [the labour is expended] or according to the material which it works up. But if one admits this diversity in value although in each sphere of production the same amount of labour time materialises itself in the product, then one admits that value is not determined by labour time but by something heterogeneous. These different magnitudes of value would invalidate the concept of value, they would invalidate the proposition that the substance of value is social labour time, hence its differences can only be quantitative and these quantitative differences can only be equal to the differences in the amounts of social labour time applied.

The maintenance of value—the determination not only of the amount of value by the varying amount of labour time, but also of the substance of value by social labour — thus requires the denial of absolute rent The denial of absolute rent can, however, be expressed in two ways.

Firstly. The worst land cannot bear a rent. The rent from the better types of land can be explained as arising from the market price which is the same for products which have been produced on more favourable types of land as for those which have been produced on less favourable. But the worst land is land pure and simple. It is not differentiated in itself. It differs from industrial capital investment only in that it is a special sphere of capital investment. If it bore a rent then this would arise from the fact that the same quantity of labour would produce different values, if applied in different spheres of production; this means that the quantity of labour in itself does not determine the value, and products which contain the same amount of labour are [not] equal.

[XI-505] [Secondly.] Or one might say that the land which was cultivated originally must not bear rent. For what is the originally cultivated land? The land which is "originally" cultivated is neither better nor worse land; it is land pure and simple. Undifferentiated land. Originally, capital investment in agriculture can only differ from investment in industry because of the spheres in which these capitals are invested. But since equal quantities of labour are represented in equal values, there is absolutely no reason why the capital invested in land should yield a rent in addition to profit, unless the same quantity of labour applied in this sphere produced a higher value, so that the excess of this value over the value yielded in manufacture would produce an excess profit, equal to rent. But this would amount to saying that the land as such creates value, thus invalidating the concept of value itself.

The land which is cultivated originally therefore cannot originally bear a rent, if the whole theory of value is not to be discarded. Furthermore, this ties up very easily (although not necessarily, as Anderson shows) with the idea that originally people of course chose not the worst but rather the best land for cultivation. With the advance of civilisation and population, the land which originally bears no rent, does so at a later stage, because people are forced to descend to worse types of land and thus in this descent to Avernus, to ever worse land, rent must arise on the originally cultivated, most fertile land. And then, step by step, on the land which follows it, while the worst land which always represents simply land — the particular sphere of capital investment—-never bears a rent. All this has a more or less logical coherence.

If, on the other hand, one knows that average prices and values are not identical, that the average price of a commodity may be either=to its value or > or <, then the question, the problem itself, disappears and with it also the hypotheses for its solution. The only remaining question is why, in agriculture, the value of the commodity, or at any rate its price, is above its average price though not above its value. But this question no longer bears any relation to the fundamentals of the theory, the determination of value as such.

Ricardo knows of course that the "relative values" of commodities are modified according to the varying proportion of fixed capital and capital laid out in wages, which enter into their production. //But these are not opposites; fixed capital and circulating capital are opposites, and circulating capital comprises not only wages but also raw materials and matières instrumentales. For example, the same ratio may exist between capital laid out in labour and fixed capital in the mining and fishing industries, as between that laid out in wages and in raw materials in tailoring.// But Ricardo also knows that these relative values are equalised by competition. In fact he only makes the differentiation, so that the same average profit should result from these different capital investments. In other words these relative values of which he speaks are only the average prices. It does not even occur to him that value and average price are different. He only gets as far as their identity. Since however this identity does not exist when the ratio of the organic component parts of capital varies, he accepts it as an unexplained FACT brought about by competition. Hence too, he does not come up against the question: Why do the values of agricultural products not equalise in average [XI-506] prices? On the contrary he assumes that they do so and poses the problem from that point of view.

It is quite incomprehensible why fellows à la Wilhelm Thucydides should be so ardently for Ricardo's theory of rent. From their point of view, Ricardo's "half truths", as Thucydides condescendingly calls them, lose their whole value.

For Ricardo the problem only exists because value is determined by labour time. With those fellows this is not the case. According to Roscher, nature as such has value. See later.^[130] In other words, he has absolutely no idea what value is. What prevents him therefore from allowing the value of land to enter into production costs from the outset and to form the rent; what prevents him from presupposing the value of land, i.e., rent, as an explanation for rent?

With these fellows, the phrase "production costs" is meaningless. We see this with Say. The value of the commodity is determined by the production costs, capital, land, labour. But these are determined by demand and supply. In other words, no determination is taking place. Since the land performs "productive services", why should not the price of these "services" be

24-176 determined by demand and supply, just as the services performed by labour or capital? And since the "land services" are in the possession of certain sellers, why should their article not have a market price, in other words why should not rent exist as an element of price?

One can see how little reason Wilhelm Thucydides had for getting so well-meaningly "vexed" over the Ricardian theory.

But apart from absolute rent, the following question remains for Ricardo:

The population grows and with it the demand for agricultural products. Therewith their price rises, as happens in similar cases in industry. But in industry, this rise in price ceases as soon as demand has become effective and brought about an increased supply of commodities. The product now falls to the old, or rather below the old, LEVEL of value. But in agriculture this additional product is thrown on to the market neither at the same price nor at a lower price. It costs more and effects a constant rise in market prices and along with that, a raising of rent. How is this to be explained if not by the fact that ever less fertile types of land are being used, that ever more labour is required in order to produce the same product, that agriculture becomes progressively more sterile? Why, apart from the influence of the DEPRECIATION [of money], did agricultural products rise in England from 1797 to 1815 with the rapid development of the population? That they fell again later proves nothing. That supplies from foreign markets were cut off proves nothing. On the contrary. This in fact created the right conditions for demonstrating the effect of the law of rent as such. For it was the very cutting off of foreign supplies which forced the country to have recourse to ever less fertile land. This cannot be explained by an absolute increase in rent, because not only did the RENTAL rise but also the rate of rent. The quarter of wheat, etc. rose in price. It cannot be explained by DEPRECIATION because although this might well explain why, with greater productivity in industry, industrial products fell, hence why the relative price of agricultural products rose, it would not explain why, in addition to this relative rise, the prices of agricultural products were continuously rising absolutely.

Similarly, it cannot be explained as a consequence of the fall in the rate of profit. This would never explain a change in prices, but only a change in the distribution of value or of price between LANDLORD, MANUFACTURER and worker.

So far as DEPRECIATION is concerned, assume that £1 now=jf2. A qr of wheat which was previously equal to £2 is now equal to £4. If the industrial product fell to Vio, and previously its value was 20s., then it would be now 2s. But these 2s. are now equal to 4s. True, DEPRECIATION could have something to do with this, the poor harvests as well.

[XI-507] But quite apart from all this it can be assumed that, considering the state of agriculture at that time, unfertile land (for wheat) was being cultivated. The same land was later fertile, in that the rate of differential rents decreased, as is proved by the best barometer, namely, wheat prices.

The highest prices [occur in the years] 1800 and 1801 and 1811 and 1812; the first were years of poor growth, the second, [years] of the peak of DEPRECIATION. Similarly 1817 and 1818 were years of DEPRECIATION. But if these years are omitted, probably (to be checked up later) what was left would give the average price.

In comparing wheat prices, etc., in different periods, it is at the same time important to compare the amounts produced at so much per qr, because this shows to what extent the additional production of corn influences the PRICE.

I) AVERAGE WHEAT PRICES

YEARLY AVERAGE PRICE

Highest price Lowest [Price]

1641-49 60s. 52/3d. 1650-59 45s. 8^[9]/^[10]d. 68s. Id. (1650) 23s. Id. (1659) 1660-69 44s. 9d. 65s. 9d. (1662) 32s. Od. (1666 & 1667)

1670-79 44s. 89/10d. 61s. Od. (1674) 33s. Od. (1676)

1680-89 35s. 7^[8]/i0d. 41s. 5d. (1681) 22s. 4d. (1687) 1690-99 50s. "/^[10]d. 63s. Id. (1695) 30s. 2d. (1691)

If we take the period 1650 to 1699 then the (yearly) average price for these 50 years is 44s. 2^[1]/^[5]d.

During the period (9 years) from 1641 to 1649, the HIGHEST YEARLY AVERAGE PRICE is 75s. 6d. for 1645, year of the revolution, then 71s. Id. for 1649, 65s. 5d. for 1647 and the lowest price, 42s. 8d.,for 1646.

II) The HIGHEST and lowest prices in each DECENNIAL PERIOD

HIGHEST LOWEST

1700-1709 35s. Vi0d. 69s. 9d. (1709) 25s. 4d. (1707) 1710-1719 43s. 6^[7]/^[10]d. 69s. 4d. (1710) 31s. Id. (1719) 1720-1729 37s. 3^[7]/,0d. 48s. 5d. (1728) 30s. Wd. (1723) 1730-1739 31s. 5^[5]/^[10]d. 58s. 2d. (1735) 23s. 8d. (1732) 1740-1749 31s. 7^[9]/^[10]d. 45s. Id. (1740) 22s. Id. (1743 & 1744)

Average price (yearly) for the 50 years [from] 1700 to 1749: 35s. 92^[9]/^[50]d.

24* [XI-508] III) The HIGHEST AND LOWEST PRICES in each DECENNIAL PERIOD

HIGHEST LOWEST

1750-1759 36s. 4VI0d. 53s. 4d. (7 757) 28s. 10d. (1750) 1760-1769 40s. 4^[9]/i0d. 53s. 9d. (1768) 26s. 9d. (1761) 1770-1779 45s. 3*/^[10]d. 52s. 8d. (1774) 33s. 8d. (1779) 1780-1789 46s. 9*/^[10]d. 52s. 8d. (1783) 35s. 8d. (1780) 1790-1799 57s. 65/^[10]d. 78s. 7d. (1796) 43s. Od. (1792)

Yearly AVERAGE for the 50 years [from] 1750 to 1799: 45s. 3,s/^[50]d.

IV) The HIGHEST AND LOWEST YEARLY AVERAGE PRICES in each DECENNIAL PERIOD

HIGHEST LOWEST

1800-1809 84s. 8S/,0d. 119s. 113s.

6d. (1801) Wd. (1800)

58s. 10d. (1803)

1810-1819 91s. 4^[8]/,od. 126s. 6d. (1812) 65s. 7d. (1815) 109s. 9d. (1813) 74s. 4d. (1814) 106s. 5d. (1810) 74s. 6d. (1819) 1820-1829 58s. 9?/^[10]d. 68s. 6d. (1825) 44s. 7d. (1822) 1830-1839 56s. 8^[5]/iod-66s. 4d. (1831) 39s. 4d. (1835) 1840-1849 55s. m/^[10]d. 69s. 5d. (1847) 44s. 6d. (1849) 1850-1859 53s. 4^[7]/i0d. 74s. 9d. (1855) 40s. 4d. (1850)

YEARLY AVERAGE for the 50 years [from] 1800 to 1849: 69s. 69/50d. YEARLY AVERAGE for the 60 years [from] 1800 to 1859: 66s. 9'4/15d.

Hence YEARLY AVERAGES:

1641-1649 60s. 52/^[3]d. 1650-1699 44s. 2V^[5]d. 1700-1749 35s. 9^[29]/S0d. 1750-1799 45s. 3^[13]/^[50]d. 1800-1849 69s. 6^[9]/^[50]d. 1850-1859 53s. 4^[7]/,0d.

West says himself:

* "In an improved state of agriculture produce may be raised on the second or third quality of land at as little cost as it could under the old system upon the first quality"* (Sir Edward West, Price of Corn and Wages of Labour, London, 1826, p. 98).

Hopkins g r a s p s correctly t h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n absolute a n d differential rent:

"The PRINCIPLE OF COMPETITION renders impossible 2 RATES OF PROFIT in the same country, and this determines the RELATIVE RENTS but not the GENERAL AVERAGE OF RENT" (Thomas Hopkins, On Rent of Land, and Its Influence on Subsistence and Population, London, 1828, p. 30).^[131]

[XI-508a]a Hopkins makes the following distinction between productive and unproductive labour or, as he says, between primary and secondary:

* "If all labourers were employed for the same end, or object, as the diamond cutter and the opera singer, in a short time there would be no wealth to subsist them; because none of the wealth produced would then become capital If a considerable proportion were so employed, wages would be low; because but a comparatively small part of what was produced would be used as capital;—but if only a few of the labourers were so employed, and, of course, nearly all were ploughmen, shoemakers, weavers, etc., then much capital would be produced,and wages could be proportionally high"* (I.e., pp. 84-85). * "With the diamond cutter and the singer, must be classed all those who labour for the landlords, or annuitants, and who receive a part of their income as wages: all, in fact, whose labours terminate merely in producing those things which gratify landlords and annuitants, and who receive in return for their labours, a part of the rent of the landlord, or of the income of the annuitant. These are all productive labourers, but all their labours are for the purpose of converting the wealth which exists, in the shape of rents and annuities, [into some other form,] that shall, in that other form, more gratify the landlord and annuitant, and therefore they are secondary producers. All other labourers are primary producers" * (I.e., [p.] 85).

Diamonds and song are both realised labour and can — like all commodities — be converted into money and as money into capital. But in this transformation of money into capital we must distinguish two things. All commodities can be converted into money and as money into capital, because in the form of money their use value and its particular natural form become extinct. They are objectified labour in that social form in which it is exchangeable for any real labour, therefore convertible into any form of real labour. On the other hand, whether the commodities which are the product of labour can as such become elements of productive capital once again, depends on whether the nature of their use values permits them to re-enter the process of production — be it as objective conditions of labour (tools and material) or as subjective conditions of labour (means of subsistence of the worker) (in other words [as] elements of constant or of variable capital).

"In Ireland, according to a moderate estimate and the CENSUS of 1821, the WHOLE NET PRODUCE which g o e s t o t h e LANDLORDS, t h e GOVERNMENT AND the TITHE-OWNERS, amounts to £20^[3]/^[4] million, the WHOLE WAGES, however, only to £14,114,000" (Hopkins, I.e., [p.] 94).b "The CULTIVATORS IN ITALY generally paying from l/^[2] to more than V^[2] of the PRODUCE as rent to the LANDLORD, with MODERATE SKILL IN AGRICULTURE, and A SCANTY SUPPLY OF FIXED CAPITAL. The greater part of the POPULATION is composed of SECONDARY PRODUCERS and LANDLORDS and GENERALLY THE PRIMARY PRODUCERS ARE A POOR AND DEGRADED CLASS" (p[p. 101-]02).

"The same was the CASE in France under Louis XIV. According to Young, rent, TITHES and TAXES amounted to £140,905,304. Cultivation moreover was very poor. The POPULATION of France, at that time, is stated to have been 26,363,074. Now if there had been 6 MILLIONS OF LABOURING POPULATION (which is too high a figure), each FAMILY would have had to furnish annually, either directly or indirectly, AN AVERAGE of ABOUT £ 2 3 OF NET WEALTH TO THE LANDLORDS, THE CHURCH AND THE GOVERNMENT. According to Young, and taking into account various other factors, the labouring family produced annually £42 10s.; £23 of which were PAID AWAY TO OTHERS, and £ 1 9 10s. REMAINED TO SUBSIST ITSELF" (I.e., [pp.] 102-04).a

The dependence of population on capital.

* "The error of Mr. Malthus and his followers is to be found in the assumption, that a reduction of the labouring population would not be followed by a correspondent reduction of capital!" * (l.c, [p.] 118.) "Mr. Malthus forgets that the DEMAND [for labourers is] LIMITED BY THE MEANS OF PAYING WAGES and that these MEANS DO NOT ARISE SPONTANEOUSLY, BUT ARE ALWAYS PREVIOUSLY CREATED BY LABOUR" (I.e., [p.] 122).

This conception of the accumulation of capital is correct. But the MEANS can grow, i.e., the quantity of surplus PRODUCE or surplus LABOUR can grow, without a proportionate growth in the quantity of labour.

"Strange that [there is] a * strong inclination to represent net wealth as beneficial to the labouring class, because it gives employment though it is evidently [XI-509] not on account of being net, that it has that power, but because it is wealth,—that which has been brought into existence by labour: while, simultaneously, an additional quantity of labour is represented as injurious to the labouring classes, though that labour produces 3 times as much as it consumes"* (I.e., [p.] 126).

*"If by the use of superior machinery, the whole primary produce could be raised from 200 to 250 or 300, while net wealth and profit took only 140,* it is clear *that there would remain as a fund for the wages of the primary producers 110 or 160 instead of 60"* (I.e., [p.] 128).

* "The condition of labourers is rendered bad either by crippling their productive power, or by taking from them what they have produced"* ([p.] 129).

First,— It must exist in a degree of scarcity; Secondly,— It must have the power to aid labour in the great work of p r o d u c t i o n " * (I.e., [p.] 14).

"Of course one must not take the CASE WHERE LAND SO PLENTIFUL, COMPARED WITH THE LABOUR AND STOCK TO BE EMPLOYED UPON IT, //ABUNDANCE OR SCARCITY OF LAND are of course relative, a n d are related to the DISPOSABLE QUANTITY OF LABOUR AND CAPITAL// THAT NO CHARGE FOR RENT COULD BE MADE, BECAUSE IT WAS NOT SCARCE" (I.e., [p.] 21).

" T h e LORD may obtain in some countries 50%, in others not 10.a In the fertile regions of the East, MAN CAN SUBSIST UPON i/i of the PRODUCE OF HIS LABOUR EMPLOYED UPON THE LAND; BUT IN PARTS OF SWITZERLAND AND NORWAY, AN EXACTION OF 10% MIGHT DEPOPULATE THE COUNTRY ... WE SEE NO NATURAL BOUNDS TO THE RENT THAT MAY BE EXACTED, BUT IN THE LIMITED ABILITIES OF THE PAYERS" ([p.] 31), a n d "WHERE INFERIOR SOILS EXIST, THE COMPETITION OF THOSE INFERIOR SOILS AGAINST THE SUPERIOR" ([pp.] 33-34).

" T h e r e is much * common land in England, the natural fertility of which is equal to what a large part of the land now cultivated was prior to its being taken into cultivation; a n d yet the expense of bringing such common lands into cultivation is so great, as to cause them not to yield the ordinary interest for the money expended in improving them, leaving nothing as rent for the natural fertility of the soil : a n d this with all the advantages of an immediate application of labour, aided by stock skilfully applied, a n d furnished with manufactures cheaply produced ; * in addition *good r o a d s * in the neighbourhood, etc.... * The present land proprietors may be considered the owners of all the accumulated labour which has for ages been expended, in bringing the country to its present productive state"* (I.e., [p.] 35). This is a very important circumstance in relation to rent, especially when the population suddenly grows significantly, as it did from 1780 to 1815, consequent upon the advance in industry, and hence a large portion of hitherto uncultivated land is suddenly brought into cultivation. The newly cultivated land may be as fertile as or even more fertile than old land was, before centuries of cultivation had accumulated in it. But what is demanded of the new land — if it [this product] is not to be sold at a dearer price — is that its fertility must be equal firstly to the natural fertility of the cultivated [XI-510] land + secondly to the artificial fertility which has been engendered by cultivation, but which has now become its natural fertility. The newly cultivated land would thus have to be much more fertile than the old had been before its cultivation.

But it will be said: The fertility of the cultivated land originates in the first place from its natural fertility. Thus it depends on the natural condition of the newly cultivated land whether or not it possesses this fertility arising from and owing to nature. In either case it costs nothing. The other part of the fertility of cultivated land is an artificial product, owing to cultivation, the investment of capital. But this part of productivity involves production costs which are repaid as interest on the fixed capital which has been sunk into the land. This part of rent is merely interest on the fixed capital tied up in the land. Hence it enters into the production costs of the product of the previously cultivated land. Hence only the same capital needs to be thrown into the uncultivated land for it to obtain this second part of fertility; and as with the first, the interest on the capital which has been employed to bring forth this fertility will enter into the price of the product. Why then should it not be possible to cultivate new land — unless it is more fertile — without the price of the product rising? If the natural fertility is the same, then the difference is brought about only by the capital invested and, in both cases alike, the interest on this capital enters into production costs to the same extent.

However, this reasoning is wrong. A portion of the costs of bringing the land into cultivation, etc., is no longer liable to be paid for, because, as Ricardo has already observed, the fertility thus created has partly coalesced with the natural quality of the soil (this applies to the costs of clearing, draining, levelling, the chemical change of the soil resulting from continued chemical processes, etc.). Thus if [the product of] the newly cultivated land is to sell at the same price as [that of] the last cultivated land — the land must be sufficiently fertile for this price to cover that part of the costs of bringing it into cultivation which enters into its own production costs but which has ceased to enter into the costs of the previously cultivated land, because it has coalesced with the natural fertility of the land.

* "A stream, favourably situated, furnishes an instance of a rent being paid for an appropriated gift of nature, of as exclusive a kind as anv that can be named. This is well understood in" manufacturing districts, where considerable rents are paid for small streams of water, particularly if the fall is considerable. The power obtained from such streams being equal to that afforded by large steam-engines, it is as advantageous to use them, though subject to the payment of a heavy rent, as it is to expend large sums in the erection and working of steam-engines. Of streams, too, there are some larger, some smalle.i. Contiguity to the seat of manufacture is also an advantage which commands a higher rent. In the counties of York and Lancaster there is probably a much greater difference between the rents paid for the smallest and the largest streams of water, than there is between the rents paid for 50 of the least and 50 of the most fertile acres that are in common cultivation"* (Hopkins, I.e., [pp.] 37-38).

If we compare the AVERAGE PRICES given earlier^[3] and deduct firstly what is due to DEPRECIATION (1809-13) and secondly what is due to particularly bad seasons such as 1800 and 1801, then [we shall find that] a very important element is the amount oj new land cultivated AT A GIVEN MOMENT OR DURING A GIVEN PERIOD. A rise in price on the cultivated land here indicates a growth in population and hence an excess in price; on the other hand, the same increase in demand brings about THE CULTIVATION OF FRESH SOIL. If proportionately the amount [of cultivated land] has greatly increased, then the rising price, and the higher price than in the early period merely shows that a large part of the costs of bringing land into cultivation enters into the ADDITIONAL QUANTITY OF FOOD CREATED. If the price had not risen, this CREATION would not have taken place. Its effect, a fall in price, can only come into evidence later, because the price of the RECENTLY CREATED FOOD comprises * an element of the cost of production or price, that has long become extinct in the older applications of capital to land, or in the older portions of cultivated soil. The difference would be even greater if, consequent upon the increased productivity of labour, the cost of appropriating soil to cultivation, had not greatly fallen, as compared to the costs of cultivation in former, bygone periods.

[XI-511] The transformation of new land, whether more or equally or less fertile than old land, into such a state (and this state is given by the general rate of adaptation to culture prevailing on the existing land under cultivation) as to enable it for application of capital and labour — under the same conditions under which capital and labour is employed on the average quantity of cultivated soil — this adaptation must be paid for by the costs of converting waste land into cultivated land. This difference of cost must be borne by the newly cultivated land. If it enters not into the price of its produce, there are only two cases possible, under which such a result can be realised. Either the produce of the newly cultivated land is not sold at its real value. Its price stands below its value, as is in fact the case with most of the land bearing no rent, because its price is not constituted by its own value, but by the value of the produce derived from more fertile soils. Or the newly cultivated land must be so fertile, that, if it was sold at its immanent, own value, according to the quantity of labour realised in it, it would be sold at a less price than the price of produce grown on the formerly cultivated soil.

If the difference between the inherent value of its product and the market price settled bv the value of the cultivated soil is such, that it amounted for instance to 5%, and if on the other hand the interest, entering into its costs of production on the part of the capital employed to bring it up to the level of productive ability, common to the old soils, amounted also to 5%, then the newly cultivated land would grow produce able to pay at the old market price the usual wages, profits and rents. If the interest of the capital employed amounted to 4% only while its degree of fertility exceeded 4%, as compared to the older soils, the market price, after the deduction of the 4 % interest for the capital employed to bring the new land into a "cultivable" state would leave a surplus, or it might be sold at a lower price than the market price settled by the v a l u e of the least fruitful soil. Rents consequently would generally be lowered, together with the market price of the produce.

Absolute rent is the excess of value over the average price of raw produce. Differential rent is the excess of the market price of the produce grown on favoured soils over the value of their own produce.

If, therefore, the price of raw produce rises or remains constant in periods in which a relatively large part of the additional food, required by the increase of population, is produced on soil which from a state of wasteness has been converted into a state of cultivation, this constancy or rise of prices does not prove that the fertility of the land has decreased, but only that it has not increased to such a degree as to counteract the fresh element of production — formed by the interest of capital applied with a view to bringing the uncultivated land to a level of the common conditions of production, under which the old soils — in a given state of development — are cultivated.*

If the relative quantity of the newly cultivated soil is different in different periods, then even a constant or rising price does not prove that the new soil is unfertile or yields less produce, but only that an element of cost WHICH HAS BECOME EXTINCT IN THE OLD CULTIVATED SOILS enters into the value of the products of the newly cultivated land. This new element of cost moreover remains, although under the new conditions of production, the costs of bringing new soil into cultivation have fallen considerably, compared with the costs of BRINGING the old soil FROM ITS ORIGINAL, NATURAL STATE OF FERTILITY TO ITS PRESENT STATE. It is therefore necessary to establish the relative proportion of ENCLOSURES during the different [XI-512] periods.^[132]

The above list (pp. 507-08) a moreover shows: T h a t of the DECENNIAL PERIODS examined, the period 1641-49 reaches a higher level than any other DECENNIAL PERIOD u p to 1860, with the exception of the DECENNIAL PERIODS 1800-1809 and 1810-1819.

So far as the fifty-year PERIODS are concerned, that of 1650-1699 is at a considerably higher level than that of 1700-1749 and that of 1750-1799. The latter is higher than that of 1700-1749 and lower than that of 1800-1849 (or 1859).

Prices constantly fall in the period from 1810 to 1859, whereas in the period from 1750 to 1799, despite the lower average price over the 50 years, an upward movement [takes place]; the upward movement is just as consistent as the downward movement between 1810 and 1859.

IN FACT, compared with the DECENNIAL PERIOD OF 1641-1649, there is, on the whole, a continuous fall in DECENNIAL AVERAGE PRICES, until this fall reaches its peak (lowest point) in the last two DECENNIAL PERIODS of the first half of the 18th century.

From the middle of the 18th century onwards, an upward movement takes place. It commences from a price (36s. 4^[5]/i0d. 1750-1759), which is lower than the 50 years' average price of the second half of the 17th century and approximately corresponds [to or is] a little higher than the average price of the 50 year period 1700-1749 (35s. 9^[29]/^[50]d.), the first half of the 18th century. This upward movement continues at an increasing pace in the 2 DECENNIAL PERIODS 1800-1809 and 1810-1819. In the latter it reaches its ACME. From that point on, the consistent downward movement begins again. If we take the average of the period of rise from 1750 to 1819, then its average price (a little over 57s. per qr) [is] equal to the starting-point of the period of fall from 1820 (namely a little over 58s. for the DECENNIAL PERIOD 1820-1829); just as the starting-point for the 2nd half of the 18th century [equals] the average price of its first half.

Any mathematical example will show how individual circumstances, a poor harvest, depreciation of money, etc. can affect the average figure. For instance, 30, 20, 5, 5, 5=65. Average is 13, although the last 3 numbers here [are] always only equal to 5. As against this, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, average=10, although, if one struck off the exceptional 30 and 20 in the first series, the average of ANY THREE YEARS in [the] second [series] would be greater.

If one deducts the differential costs for the capital successively employed in bringing new land into cultivation, which FOR A CERTAIN PERIOD ENTERS AS AN ITEM INTO COST, then perhaps the prices of 1820-1859 [would be] lower than ANY of the earlier ones. And this to some extent may well be the notion of those blockheads who explain rent as interest for fixed capital sunk into the soil."

Anderson says in:

A Calm Investigation of the Circumstances that Have Led to the Present Scarcity of Grain in Britain, London, 1801:

"From 1700 to 1750, there has been a regular fall of price from £2 18s. Id. to £1 12s. 6d. per quarter OF WHEAT; from 1750 to 1800 progressional RISE from £1 12s. 6d. to £5 10s. per quarter of WHEAT" (p. 11).

Thus, unlike West, Malthus, Ricardo, he did not one-sidedly consider the phenomenon of a rising scale of corn prices (from 1750 to 1813), but rather the double phenomenon, a whole century, of which the first half shows a constantly falling and the second half a constantly rising scale of corn prices. He says very definitely:

"The population was on the increase during the first half of the 18th century as well as the second" (I.e., p. 12).

He is a decided enemy of the theory of population⁽⁶⁾ and says explicitly that the land is capable of increasing and perennial improvement.

"The soil can be continuously improved by chemical influences and cultivation" (I.e., [p.] 38).m [XI-513] "Under a *judicious system of management,* the productivity of the soil may *be made to augment, from year to year, for a succession of time to which no limit can be assigned, till at last it may be made to attain a degree of productiveness, of which we cannot, perhaps, at this time conceive an idea" * (pp. 35-36).

"It may be with certainty said, that the PRESENT POPULATION is such a trifle compared to that which this island can maintain, as to be much BELOW ANY DEGREE OF SERIOUS CONSIDERATION" ([p.] 37).

* "Wherever population increases, the produce of the country must be augmented along with it, unless some moral influence is permitted to derange the economy of nature"* ([p.] 41).

The "theory of population" represents "the most pernicious prejudice" ([p.] 54). m Anderson seeks to prove historically that the "productivity of agriculture" rises with a growing and falls with a declining population (pp. 55, 56, 60, 61 sqq.).

With a correct conception of rent, the first point to arise was of course that it does not originate from the land but from the product of agriculture, that is, from labour, from the price of the product of labour, for instance of wheat; from the value of the agricultural product, from the labour applied to the land, not from the land, and Anderson quite correctly emphasises this.

//Rent has thus nothing to do with the absolute productivity of agriculture.//

* "This seems to be a paradox that deserves to be explained. "In every country there is a variety of soils, differing considerably from one another in point of fertility. These we shall at present suppose arranged into different classes, which we shall denote by the letters A, B, C, D, E, F, etc.; the class A comprehending the soils of the greatest fertility, and the other letters expressing different classes of soils, gradually decreasing in fertility as you recede from the first. Now, as the expense of cultivating the least fertile soil is as great or greater than that of the most fertile field, it necessarily follows, that if an equal quantity of corn, the produce of each field, can be sold at the same price, the profit on cultivating the most fertile soil must be much greater than that of cultivating the others" *

/ / n a m e l y t h e EXCESS OF PRICE OVER THE EXPENSES OR THE PRICE OF THE CAPITAL

ADVANCED//

* "and as this"* //i.e., the PROFIT// * "continues to decrease as the sterility increases, it must at length happen that the expense of cultivating some of the inferior classes will equal the value of the whole produce" * (pp. 45-48).

The last field pays no rent. (This is cited from McCulloch, The Literature of Political Economy, London, 1845.) (Does McCulloch quote here from An Enquiry into the Nature of the Corn Laws or from Recreations in Agriculture, Natural-History, Arts etc., London, 1797a? This to be looked u p at the Museum.) b

What Anderson calls " VALUE OF THE WHOLE PRODUCE" is evidently nothing other than his conception of the market price at which the product is sold, whether it grows on better or on worse land. With the more fertile types of land, this "price" (VALUE) leaves a greater or lesser EXCESS over the EXPENSES. This does not apply to the last product. Here the average price—i.e., that [formed] by the production costs + the average profit — coincides with the market price of the product. Hence it does not yield an excess profit, which alone can constitute rent. WTith Anderson, rent = t h e excess of the market price of the product over its average price. (The theory of value as yet does not worry Anderson at all.) Thus if, as a result of the particularly low fertility of the land, the average price of the product of this land coincides with the market price of the product, then there is n o excess and therefore n o fund FOR THE FORMATION OF RENT. Anderson does not say the last cultivated land cannot bear a rent. H e only says that if it "HAPPENS" that the EXPENSES (the production costs+the average profit) are so great that the difference between the market price of the product and its average price disappears, then rent also disappears a n d that this must be the case if one descends ever further down the scale.

Anderson says expressly that a definite market price equal for equal quantities of produce that have been produced under more favourable or less favourable conditions of production, is the prerequisite for this formation of rent. H e says that a surplus profit or excess of profit from the better types of soil over that from the worse, necessarily follows " IF AN EQUAL QUANTITY OF CORN, THE PRODUCE OF EACH FIELD, CAN BE SOLD AT THE SAME PRICE", i.e., if a general market price is presupposed.

[XI-514] Anderson by no means assumes, as might have appeared from the preceding passage, that different DECREES OF FERTILITY are merely the product of nature. O n the contrary the

* "infinite diversity of soils" * arises partly from the fact that these * "soils may be so much altered from their original state by the modes of culture they have been formerly subjected to, by the manures",* etc. (An Inquiry into the Causes etc., Edinburgh, 1779, p. 5).

On the one hand, the progress in the productivity OF GENERAL LABOUR makes it easier to bring land into cultivation; on the other hand, cultivation increases the diversity of SOILS, in that the ORIGINAL FERTILITY of land A which is cultivated and land B which is not, may have been the same if we deduct from A's FERTILITY that part which, though it is now inherent in it, had previously been added artificially. Thus cultivation itself increases the DIVERSITY OF NATURAL FERTILITY BETWEEN CULTIVATED AND WASTE LANDS.

Anderson says expressly that that land for whose produce average price and market price coincide, can pay no rent:

"WHERE THERE ARE TWO FIELDS, THE PRODUCE OF WHICH IS NEARLY AS ABOVE STATED, namely the one yielding 12 BUSHELS REMUNERATING THE EXPENSE, the other 20, WITHOUT REQUIRING ANY IMMEDIATE OUTLAY FOR THEIR IMPROVEMENT, THE FARMER WOULD PAY EVEN MORE RENT THAN 6 BUSHELS FOR INSTANCE FOR THE LATTER while [he would pay] none for the former. If 12 BUSHELS are JUST SUFFICIENT FOR THE EXPENSE OF CULTIVATING, NO RENT WHATEVER CAN BE AFFORDED FOR CULTIVATED LAND THAT YIELDS ONLY 12 BUSHELS" (Essays Relating to Agriculture and Rural Affairs, VOL. Ill, Edinburgh and London, 1775-1796, pp. 107-09).*

T h e n he immediately goes on to say:

* "Yet it cannot be expected that, if the superior produce has been immediately occasioned by his own outlay of capital, and exertions of industry, he can pay nearly the same proportion of it as rent; but after the land has been for some time in a permanent state of fertility to that degree, though it even originally derived that fertility from his own industry, he will be content to pay such a proportion of rent as is here stated"* (I.e., [pp.] 109-10).

Supposing therefore the produce of the best CULTIVATED land is 20 BUSHELS per ACRE. Of this, according to the assumption, 12 BUSHELS pay the EXPENSES (ADVANCES+average profit). Then it can pay 8 BUSHELS as rent. Assume that the BUSHEL=5S., then 8 BUSHELS or 1 qr=40s. or £ 2 and 20 BUSHELS=£5 (2V2 qrs). Of these £ 5 , 12 BUSHELS or 60s. w h i c h = £ 3 , is EXPENSES. T h e n it pays a rent of £ 2 or 8 BUSHELS. If the rate of profit=10%,then of the £ 3 EXPENSES the outlay = 54^[6]/nS. and the profit=5 ^[5]/nS. (54^[6]/n:5^[5]/n = 100:10). Now supposing, the FARMER had to carry out various improvements on waste land, which is just as fertile as that yielding 20 BUSHELS had been originally, in order TO

BRING IT INTO SUCH A STATE OF CULTIVATION AS APPROPRIATE TO THE GENERAL STATE OF AGRICULTURE. Apart from the outlay of 54^[6]/nS., or, if we reckon the profit in with the EXPENSES, apart from 60s., this may involve a further outlay of 36 ^[4]/ u; then 10% on this would = 3^[7]/n, and if the FARMER always sold 20 BUSHELS at 5s. he could pay a rent only after 10 years, only after the reproduction of his capital. From then on the artificially created fertility of the land would be reckoned as original and would fall to the LANDLORD.

Although the newly cultivated land is as fertile as the best cultivated land was originally, the market price and the average price for its product d o nevertheless coincide, because it contains an ITEM of costs which is extinct in the best land, whose artificially created fertility and whose natural fertility coincide TO A CERTAIN EXTENT. But with the newly cultivated land, that part of fertility which is created artificially, by the application of capital, is still entirely distinct from the natural fertility of the land. T h e newly cultivated land can therefore pay no rent although its original fertility may be the same as that of the best cultivated land. After 10 years, however, it could pay not only rent, but as much rent as the best type which was cultivated earlier. Thus Anderson comprehends both phenomena:

1) T h a t the differential rent of the LANDLORD is partly the result of the FERTILITY which the farmer has given the land artificially.

2) That after a certain LAPSE OF TIME, this artificial FERTILITY appears as the ORIGINAL PRODUCTIVITY of the son. itself, in that the SOIL itself has been transformed and the process by which this transformation has been accomplished, has disappeared and is no longer visible.

[XI-515] If today I build a COTTON MILL for £100,000, I get A MORE EFFICIENT MILL than my predecessor who set one u p 10 years ago. I do not pay for the difference between productivity in machine-building, building in general, etc., of today and of 10 years ago; on the contrary. It enables me to pay less for a MILL of the same EFFICIENCY or only the same for a MILL of higher EFFICIENCY. In agriculture it is different. T h e difference between the ORIGINAL FERTILITIES OF [THE] SOILS IS MAGNIFIED BY THAT PART OF THE SO-CALLED NATURAL FERTILITY OF THE SOIL WHICH, IN FACT, HAS BEEN ONCE PRODUCED BY MEN, BUT HAS

NOW BECOME INCORPORATED i n THE SOIL AND IS NO LONGER TO BE DISTINGUISHED FROM ITS ORIGINAL FERTILITY. Owing to the development of the productive power OF GENERAL LABOUR, it costs less to raise uncultivated soil of the same original fertility to the improved level of fertility, than it COST TO

BRING THE ORIGINAL FERTILITY OF THE CULTIVATED SOIL TO ITS NOW APPARENTLY ORIGINAL FERTILITY, BUT some expenditure is STILL REQUIRED TO BRING THAT EQUALISATION ABOUT. T h e average price of the new product is consequently higher than that of the old, the difference between market price and average price is thus smaller and may disappear completely. But supposing, in the above case, the newly cultivated soil is so fertile, that after the ADDITIONAL EXPENSE OF 4 0 S . (including profit) it yields 28 BUSHELS instead of 20. In this case the FARMER could pay a rent of 8 BUSHELS OR £2. And why? Because the newly cultivated soil yields 8 BUSHELS more than the old, so that despite the higher average price, with the same market price, it yields just as much in EXCESS OF the PRICE. If it had involved no EXTRA EXPENSE, its fertility would be double that of the old land.^[135] With this EXPENSE it is the same as that of the old land.

---

Endnotes

(1) [J. Anderson,] An Enquiry into the Nature of the Corn Laws..., Edinburgh, 1777.— Ed.

(2) A. Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. In two volumes, London, 1776.— Ed.

(3) The reference is to the edition of 1799-1802.— Ed.

[123] Marx is referring to the book by Joseph Townsend, A Dissertation on the Poor Laws (London, 1786), which he quotes in Notebook III of his manuscript of 1861-63 (present edition, Vol. 30, p. 205) in the section "2) Absolute Surplus Value". The three passages quoted by Marx can also be found in Capital, Vol. I, Ch. XXV, Sect. 4 (see present edition, Vol. 35).—345

a To On the Principles of Political Economy..., p. VI.— Ed. h [T. R. Malthus,] An Essay on the Principle of Population..., London, 1798.— Ed. 23-176

(4) See this volume, p. 372.— Ed.

23»

a This wretch.— Ed. b [T. R. Malthus,] An Essay on the Principle of Population...—Ed.

a T. R. Malthus, The Grounds of an Opinion on the Policy of Restricting the Importation of Foreign Corn..., London, 1815, and idem, An Inquiry into the Nature and Progress of Rent..., London, 1815.— Ed.

[125] A reference to the Leipzig University Professor Roscher, a vulgar economist.— 350

[126] See A Dissertation on the Poor Laws (London, 1786), by Joseph Townsend, and also Notebook VII of the manuscript of 1857-58 (present edition, Vol. 29, pp. 221-22) and James Steuart, An Inquiry into the Principles of Political Oeconomy..., in three volumes, Dublin, 1770.—350

a In the manuscript a word "plaideur" is written above this word.— Ed.

a J. R. McCulloch, The Literature of Political Economy..., London, 1845.— Ed.

a See this volume, p. 356.— Ed. h "The work surpasses the material" (Ovid, Metamorphoses, II, 5).— Ed.

* "That some capital would be lost cannot be disputed, but, is the possession or preservation of capital the end, or the means? The means, undoubtedly. What we

(5) W. Röscher, Die Grundlagen der Nationalökonomie: System der Volkswirtschaft, 3rd ed., Vol. I, Stuttgart and Augsburg, 1858, p. 191.— Ed.

a Here Marx gives a German equivalent in parentheses.— Ed.^

[129] By its substance this sentence belongs to pp. 352-53 of this volume. Marx is referring to Edward West's Essay on the Application of Capital to Land, with Observations Shewing the Impolicy of Any Great Restriction of the Importation of Corn... and David Ricardo's An Essay on the Influence of a Low Price of Corn on the Profits of Stock; Shewing the Inexpediency of Restrictions on Importation..., both published in London in 1815.—356

a See Th. Hopkins, Economical Enquiries Relative to the Laws which Regulate Rent, Profit, Wages, and the Value of Money, London, 1822, pp. 37, 38, and also this volume, p. 368.— Ed.

[130] M a r x did not return to the analysis of these views of Roscher's in the manuscript of 1861-63. He touched on Roscher's view of nature as a source of value in Capital, Vol. I, Ch. VIII, note (see present edition, Vol. 35). See also Capital, Vol. Ill, Ch. XLVIII (present edition, Vol. 37).—361

[13] By its substance the text in double oblique lines belongs not to p. VII — 300 but to p. VII — 299 of the manuscript of 1861-63 (see present edition, Vol. 30, pp. 450-51).—13

[131] Marx is paraphrasing a passage from Hopkins which reads: "The great source of error in Mr. Ricardo's theory of rent, seems to be the confounding together of the relative rents of lands, of different degrees of fertility, with the general average rate of rent. "The principle of competition, which renders it impossible that there should be two rates of profit in the same country, the very basis upon which his theory of rent is founded; can and does constantly determine all lands to be let, at their proper relative rents."—365

a Marx mistakenly wrote "508" on two pages; later he added "a" on the second page.— Ed. b Marx quotes Hopkins with some alterations.— Ed

* "No, says Mr. Malthus, the weight of your burthen has nothing whatever to do with your distress; that arises solely from there being too many persons carrying it" * (I.e., [p.] 134). *"In the general principle, that cost of production regulates the exchangeable value of all commodities, original materials are not included; but the claim which the owners of these have upon produce, causes rent to enter into value" * (Thomas Hopkins, Economical Enquiries Relative to the Laws which Regulate Rent, Profit, Wages, and the Value of Money, London, 1822, [p.] 11). *"Rent, or a charge for use, arises naturally out of ownership, or the establishment of a r i g h t of p r o p e r t y " * (I.e., [p.] 13). * "Any thing may yield a rent if it is possessed of the following qualities: — a Here Marx summarises Hopkins' ideas.— Ed

•' Hopkins has: "in others 10 p e r cent".— Ed.

a See this volume, pp. 363-64.— Ed

[132] Marx writes at greater length about enclosures in England in Capital, Vol. I, Ch. XXVII (see present edition, Vol. 35).—370

a See this volume, pp. 363-64.— Ed.

a Marx has in mind Carey first of all.— Ed.

* "It is not the rent of the land that determines the price of its produce, but it is the price of that produce which determines the rent of the land, although the price of that produce is often highest in those countries where the rent of the land is lowest." *

(6) A reference to the Malthusian theory of population.— Ed.

a The reference is to the edition of 1799-1802.— Ed h McCulloch quotes from An Enquiry into the Nature of the Corn Laws....— Ed.

a This is Marx's summary of pages 107-09 of Anderson's book; some passages are quoted word for word.— Ed

[135] By fertility of land Marx understands the sum total of rent yielded by this land.—376

[3] This is in fact not the conclusion but only the continuation of the section on Smith. The conclusion of this section can be found in Notebook IX.—6

[1] Theories of Surplus Value, on which Marx began work in March 1862, constituted the fifth, concluding section of the first chapter of his research into capital, "The Production Process of Capital". The original intention was to examine absolute and relative surplus value in their combination. Theories of Surplus Value was to be an historical survey included in the chapter on surplus value, similar to the historical notes introducing the chapters on commodity and on money in A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. However, during the work, the character of the manuscript of Theories of Surplus Value had changed substantially. Both in its length and content, it surpassed the tasks the author had originally set himself. Marx not only considered the views of bourgeois economists but also put forward a number of major theoretical propositions. Theories of Surplus Value were published in English for the first time, in an abridged form, in: K. Marx, Theories of Surplus Value. A selection from the volumes published between 1905 and 1910 as Theorien über den Mehrwert, edited by Karl Kautsky, taken from Karl Marx's preliminary manuscript for the projected fourth volume of Capital. Translated from the German by G. A. Bonner and Emile Burns. Lawrence & Wishart, London, 1951. The work was first published in full between 1963 and 1971: K. Marx, Theories of Surplus-Value (Vol. IV of Capital), Part I, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1963; Part II, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1968; Part III, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1971. This volume contains the sequel to Marx's Theories of Surplus Value. The first five notebooks of the Economic Manuscript of 1861-63 and the beginning of Theories of Surplus Value (Notebook VI and part of Notebook VII), in which Marx critically analyses the views of James Steuart, the Physiocrats, and Adam Smith's determinations of value, are to be found in Volume 30 of the present edition.—6

[12] Marx is referring to Malthus' remark that the differentiation between productive and unproductive labour is the cornerstone of Adam Smith's work and the basis on which the main line of his reasoning rests (T. R. Malthus, Principles of Political Economy..., 2nd ed., London, 1836, p. 44).—12

[4] Marx gave an in-depth analysis of the problem of productive and unproductive labour on pp. XXI — 1317-1331 of the manuscript of 1861-63 (present edition, Vol. 34).—7

[5] Marx is referring to the section of the manuscript of 1861-63 in Notebook VII entitled in the contents "Inquiry into how it is possible for the annual profit and wages..." (see present edition, Vol. 30, pp. 347, 411 et seq.).—7, 149

[9] Marx analyses the Physiocrats' views in Notebook VI of the manuscript of 1861-63 (see present edition, Vol. 30, pp. 354-55 and 358-61).—9

[10] Marx examines the Mercantilists' views in Notebook VI of the manuscript of

[8] See this volume, pp. 389-400 and pp. XIII — 711, XIV — 818, 821-822, 840-841 of the manuscript of 1861-63 (present edition, Vol. 32).—8

[7] Marx is referring to the vicious circle in Adam Smith's doctrine of the "natural price of wages", which he had discussed in the manuscript of 1861-63 (see present edition, Vol. 30, p. 401).—8

[50] (Vol. 1, Paris, 1821, p. 216).—115

[29] Marx is referring to part three of his work, "Third Chapter. Capital in General". In the Draft Plan of the Chapter on Capital drawn up in 1860, this part is entitled "III. Capital and Profit" (see present edition, Vol. 29, p. 516). The beginning of this work is to be found on pp. XVI —973-1021 and XVII — 1022-1028 of the manuscript (see present edition, Vol. 33).—70, 162, 282, 397

[2] The entries below were made by Marx on the inside covers of notebooks VIII-XII of the manuscript of 1861-63. The table of contents of Notebook \ II is published in Volume 30, p. 347, and its text in Volume 30 and in this volume. The tables of contents had been corrected several times. Marx's original plan was to analyse Adam Smith's doctrine in notebooks VII and VIII and then to pass on to Necker and Ricardo. But later he rejected this scheme. He also proposed to examine Ricardo's views in Notebook X, first after the analysis of Linguet and then of Bray. In the contents of Notebook XI, point "g) Rodbertus" was originally followed by point "h) Ricardo". Later Marx inserted several other points preceding that on Ricardo, probably after the notebooks had been filled in. In Notebook XII, next to the line "5) Theories of Surplus Value", Marx wrote in pencil without the mark of insertion, "(CIRCULATING AND FIXED CAPITAL p. 643) in Ricardo". The last two points in the contents of this notebook were later crossed out in pencil and replaced with "Theories of COST PRICE". The inside cover of Notebook IX has a note "Mercantilists (408)" made in pencil later. Written on the inside cover of Notebook XI are a number of quotations (see this volume, pp. 579-80). Alongside the contents, the inside cover of Notebook XII contains Marx's notes and quotations (see this volume, p. 580).—6

[6] The Economists was the name given to the Physiocrats in France during the second half of the 18th and first half of the 19th centuries. By the 1850s the name acquired a more general meaning and ceased to designate exponents of a particular economic doctrine.— 7, 116