6) Stirling ( Patrick James), The Philosophy of Trade etc., Edinburgh, 1846
"The QUANTITY of every commodity must be so regulated that the supply of each commodity shall bear a less proportion to the demand for it than the supply of labour bears to the demand for labour. The difference between the price or value of the commodity, and the price or value of the LABOUR WORKED UP IN IT constitutes the profit OR surplus which Ricardo cannot explain on the basis of his theory" ([pp.] 72-73).a [XIV-851] The same author informs us:
"When the values of commodities relate to each other according to their production costs, this may be called PAR OF VALVE" (p[p. 16-]18).(1)
Thus if demand and supply of labour correspond with one another, then labour would be sold at its value (whatever Stirling may understand by value). And if demand and supply of the commodities IN WHICH THE LABOUR IS WORKED UP do correspond, then the commodities would be sold at their production costs, by which Stirling understands THE VALUE OF LABOUR. The price of the commodity would then be equal to the VALUE OF the LABOUR WORKED UP IN IT. And the price of labour would be ON A PAR with its own VALUE. HENCE THE
PRICE OF THE COMMODITY=THE PRICE OF THE LABOUR WORKED UP IN IT. H E N C E , THERE WOULD BE NO PROFIT OR SURPLUS. Stirling explains profit, or the SURPLUS, in this way:
The supply of labour in relation to the demand for it must be greater than the supply of commodities in which THE LABOUR IS WORKED UP in relation to the demand for them. The matter must be so arranged that the commodity is sold at a higher price than that paid for the labour contained in it. This is what Mr. Stirling calls explaining the phenomenon of the surplus, whereas it is, in fact, nothing but a paraphrase of what is supposed to be explained. If we go into it further, then there are only 3 possibilities. [1)] The price of labour is ON "a PAR with VALUE", that is, the demand for and supply of labour balance in such a way that the price of labour=the value of labour. In these circumstances, the commodities must be sold above their value, or things must be arranged in such a way that the supply is below the demand. This is tout pur(2) "profit UPON ALIENATION",[56] except that the condition is stated under which it is possible. [2)] Or the demand for labour is greater than the supply and the price is higher than its value. In these circumstances, the capitalist has paid the worker more than the value of the commodity, and the buyer must then pay the capitalist a twofold surplus — first to replace the amount he [the capitalist] has d'abord paid to the worker and then his profit. [3)] Or the price of labour is below its value and the supply of labour above the demand for it. The SURPLUS would then arise from the fact that labour is paid below its value and is sold at its value or, at least, above its price.
If one strips this of all NONSENSE, then Stirling's SURPLUS is [here] due to the fact that labour is bought by the capitalist below its value and is sold again above its price in the form of commodities.
The other cases, divested of their ridiculous form — according to which the producer has to "arrange" matters in such a way that he is able to sell his commodity above its value, or above "THE PAR OF VALUE"—mean nothing but that the market price of a commodity rises above its value, if the demand for it is greater than the supply. This is certainly not a new discovery and explains one sort of "SURPLUS" which never caused Ricardo or anyone. else the slightest difficulty.
Endnotes
[56] "Profit upon expropriation", or "profit upon alienation" is a concept formulated by James Steuart which Marx cites and analyses at the beginning of his Theories of Surplus Value (see present edition, Vol. 30, pp. 351-52).—211, 371