第8章
Hereitis:
“Forceandlabourarethetwoprincipalfactorswhichcomeintoplayinformingsocialconnections“{D。C。255}。
Inthisonesentencewehavethecompleteconstitutionoftheeconomicworlduptothepresentday。Itisextremelyshort，andruns:
ArticleOne:Labourproduces。
ArticleTwo:Forcedistributes。
Andthis，“speakinginplainhumanlanguage“{D。K。G。496}，sumsupthewholeofHerrDühring’seconomicwisdom。
VIII。
CAPITALANDSURPLUS-VALUE
(Conclusion)“InHerrMarx’sview，wagesrepresentonlythepaymentofthatlabour-timeduringwhichthelabourerisactuallyworkingtomakehisownexistencepossible。Butonlyasmallnumberofhoursisrequiredforthispurpose;alltherestoftheworking-day，oftensoprolonged，yieldsasurplusinwhichiscontainedwhatourauthorcalls’surplus-value’，or，expressedineverydaylanguage，theearningsofcapital。Ifweleaveoutofaccountthelabour-timewhichateachstageofproductionisalreadycontainedintheinstrumentsoflabourandinthepertinentrawmaterial，thissurpluspartoftheworking-dayisthesharewhichfallstothecapitalistentrepreneur。Theprolongationoftheworking-dayisconsequentlyearningsofpureexploitationforthebenefitofthecapitalist“{D。K。G。500-01}。
AccordingtoHerrDühring，therefore，Marx’ssurplus-valuewouldbenothingmorethanwhat，expressedineverydaylanguage，isknownastheearningsofcapital，orprofit。LetusseewhatMarxsayshimself。Onpage195ofCapital，surplus-valueisexplainedinthefollowingwordsplacedinbracketsafterit:“Interest，Profit，Rent“。Onpage210，Marxgivesanexampleinwhichatotalsurplus-valueof£3。11。0。appearsinthedifferentformsinwhichitisdistributed:tithes，ratesandtaxes，£1。10;rent£1。80;farmer’sprofitandinterest，£1。20;
togethermakingatotalsurplus-valueof£3。11。0——Onpage542，MarxpointsoutasoneofRicardo’smainshortcomingsthathe“hasnot{……}investigatedsurplus-valueassuch，i。e。，independentlyofitsparticularforms，suchasprofit，rent，etc。”，andthathethereforelumpstogetherthelawsoftherateofsurplus-valueandthelawsoftherateofprofit;
againstthisMarxannounces:“IshallshowinBookIIIthat，withagivenrateofsurplus-value，wemayhaveanynumberofratesofprofit，andthatvariousratesofsurplus-valuemay，undergivenconditions，expressthemselvesinasinglerateofprofit。”Onpage587wefind:“Thecapitalistwhoproducessurplus-value——i。e。，whoextractsunpaidlabourdirectlyfromthelabourers，andfixesitincommodities，is，indeed，thefirstappropriator，butbynomeanstheultimateowner，ofthissurplus-value。Hehastoshareitwithcapitalists，withlandowners，etc。，whofulfilotherfunctionsinthecomplexofsocialproduction。Surplus-value，therefore，splitsupintovariousparts。Itsfragmentsfalltovariouscategoriesofpersons，andtakevariousforms，independenttheoneoftheother，suchasprofit，interest，merchants’profit，rent，etc。ItisonlyinBookIIIthatwecantakeinhandthesemodifiedformsofsurplus-value。”Andtherearemanyothersimilarpassages。
Itisimpossibletoexpressoneselfmoreclearly。OneachoccasionMarxcallsattentiontothefactthathissurplus-valuemustnotbeconfoundedwithprofitortheearningsofcapital;thatthislatterisratherasubformandfrequentlyevenonlyafragmentofsurplus-value。AndifinspiteofthisHerrDühringassertsthatMarxiansurplus-value，“expressedineverydaylanguage，istheearningsofcapital“;andifitisanactualfactthatthewholeofMarx’sbookturnsonsurplus-value——thenthereareonlytwopossibilities:EitherHerrDühringdoesnotknowanybetter，andthenitisanunparalleledactofimpudencetodecryabookofwhosemaincontentheisignorant;orheknowswhatitisallabout，andinthatcasehehascommittedadeliberateactoffalsification。
Toproceed:
“ThevenomoushatredwithwhichHerrMarxpresentsthisconceptionofthebusinessofextortionisonlytoounderstandable。Butevenmightierwrathandevenfullerrecognitionoftheexploitativecharacteroftheeconomicformwhichisbasedonwage-labourispossiblewithoutacceptingthetheoreticalpositionexpressedinMarx’sdoctrineofsurplus-value“
{D。K。G。501}。
Thewell-meantbuterroneoustheoreticalpositiontakenupbyMarxstirsinhimavenomoushatredagainstthebusinessofextortion;butinconsequenceofhisfalse“theoreticalposition“theemotion，initselfethical，receivesanunethicalexpression，manifestingitselfinignoblehatredandlowvenomousness，whilethedefinitiveandmoststrictlyscientifictreatment{498}byHerrDühringexpressesitselfinethicalemotionofacorrespondinglynoblenature，inwrathwhicheveninformisethicallysuperiorandinvenomoushatredisalsoquantitativelysuperior，isamightierwrath。WhileHerrDühringisgleefullyadmiringhimselfinthisway，letusseewherethismightierwrathstemsfrom。
Wereadon:“Nowthequestionarises，howthecompetingentrepreneursareableconstantlytorealisethefullproductoflabour，includingthesurplus-product，atapricesofarabovethenaturaloutlaysofproductionasisindicatedbytheratio，alreadymentioned，ofthesurpluslabour-hours。
NoanswertothisistobefoundinMarx’stheory，andforthesimplereasonthattherecouldbenoplaceinitforevenraisingthatquestion。Theluxurycharacterofproductionbasedonhiredlabourisnotseriouslydealtwithatall，andthesocialconstitutionwithitsexploitatoryfeaturesisinnowayrecognisedastheultimatebasisofwhiteslavery。Onthecontrary，politicalandsocialmattersarealwaystobeexplainedbyeconomics“
{501}。
NowwehaveseenfromtheabovepassagesthatMarxdoesnotatallassertthattheindustrialcapitalist，whofirstappropriatesthesurplus-product，sellsitregardlessofcircumstancesontheaverageatitsfullvalue，asishereassumedbyHerrDühring。Marxsaysexpresslythatmerchants’
profitalsoformsapartofsurplus-value，andontheassumptionsmadethisisonlypossiblewhenthemanufacturersellshisproducttothemerchantbelowitsvalue，andthusrelinquishestohimapartofthebooty。
Thewaythequestionisputhere，thereclearlycouldbenoplaceinMarxforevenraisingit。Statedinarationalway，thequestionis:Howissurplus-valuetransformedintoitssubforms:profit，interest，merchants’
profit，landrent，andsoforth？AndMarx，tobesure，promisestosettlethisquestioninthethirdbook。ButifHerrDühringcannotwaituntilthesecondvolumeofCapital[88]appearsheshouldinthemeantimetakeacloserlookatthefirstvolume。Inadditiontothepassagesalreadyquoted，hewouldthensee，forexampleonp。323，thataccordingtoMarxtheimmanentlawsofcapitalistproductionassertthemselvesintheexternalmovementsofindividualmassesofcapitalascoercivelawsofcompetition，andinthisformarebroughthometothemindandconsciousnessoftheindividualcapitalistasthedirectingmotivesofhisoperationsthatthereforeascientificanalysisofcompetitionisnotpossiblebeforewehaveaconceptionoftheinnernatureofcapital，justastheapparentmotionsoftheheavenlybodiesarenotintelligibletoanybuthimwhoisacquaintedwiththeirrealmotions，whicharenotdirectlyperceptiblebythesensese;andthenMarxgivesanexampletoshowhowinadefinitecase，adefinitelaw，thelawofvalue，manifestsitselfandexercisesitsmotivepowerincompetition。HerrDühringmightseefromthisalonethatcompetitionplaysaleadingpartinthedistributionofsurplus-value，andwithsomereflectiontheindicationsgiveninthefirstvolumeareinfactenoughtomakeclear，atleastinitsmainfeatures，thetransformationofsurplus-valueintoitssubforms。
ButcompetitionispreciselywhatabsolutelypreventsHerrDühringfromunderstandingtheprocess。Hecannotcomprehendhowthecompetingentrepreneursareableconstantlytorealisethefullproductoflabour，includingthesurplus-product，atpricessofarabovethenaturaloutlaysofproduction。Hereagainwefindhiscustomary“strictness“{D。C。95}
ofexpression，whichinfactissimplyslovenliness。InMarx，thesurplus-productassuchhasabsolutelynooutlaysofproduction;itisthepartoftheproductwhichcostsnothingtothecapitalist。
Ifthereforethecompetingentrepreneursdesiredtorealisethesurplus-productatitsnaturaloutlaysofproduction，theywouldhavesimplytogiveitaway。Butdonotletuswastetimeonsuch“micrologicaldetails“
{D。K。G。507}。Arenotthecompetingentrepreneurseverydaysellingtheproductoflabouraboveitsnaturaloutlaysofproduction？AccordingtoHerrDühring，thenaturaloutlaysofproductionconsist“intheexpenditureoflabourorenergy，andthisinturn，inthelastanalysis，canbemeasuredbytheexpenditureoffood“{D。C。274};
thatis，inpresent-daysociety，thesecostsconsistintheoutlaysreallyexpendedonrawmaterials，meansoflabour，andwages，asdistinguishedfromthe“tax“{D。C。135}，theprofit，thesurchargeleviedswordinhand{23}。Moweveryoneknowsthatinthesocietyinwhichwelivethecompetingentrepreneursdonotrealisetheircommoditiesatthenaturaloutlaysofproduction，butthattheyaddontothese——andasarulealsoreceive——theso-calledsurcharge，theprofit。ThequestionwhichHerrDühringthinkshehasonlytoraisetoblowdownthewholeMarxianstructure——
asJoshuaonceblewdownthewallsofJericho[89]——thisquestionalsoexistsforHerrDühring’seconomictheory。Letusseehowheanswersit。
“Capitalownership。”hesays，“hasnopracticalmeaning，andcannotberealised，unlessindirectforceagainsthumanmaterialissimultaneouslyincorporatedinit。Theproductofthisforceisearningsofcapital，andthemagnitudeofthelatterwillthereforedependontherangeandintensityinwhichthispowerisexercised{179}……Earningsofcapitalareapoliticalandsocialinstitutionwhichexertsamorepowerfulinfluencethancompetition。Inrelationtothisthecapitalistsactasasocialestate，andeachoneofthemmaintainshisposition。Acertainmeasureofearningsofcapitalisanecessityundertheprevailingmodeofeconomy“{180}。
Unfortunatelyevennowwedonotknowhowthecompetingentrepreneursareableconstantlytorealisetheproductoflabourabovethenaturaloutlaysofproduction。ItcannotbethatHerrDühringthinkssolittleofhispublicastofobitoffwiththephrasethatearningsofcapitalareabovecompetition，justastheKingofPrussiawasabovethelaw。[90]WeknowthemanoeuvresbywhichtheKingofPrussiaattainedhispositionabovethelaw;themanoeuvresbywhichtheearningsofcapitalsucceedinbeingmorepowerfulthancompetitionarepreciselywhatHerrDühringshouldexplaintous，butwhatheobstinatelyrefusestoexplain。Anditisofnoavail，if，ashetellsus，thecapitalistsactinthisconnectionasanestate，andeachoneofthemmaintainshisposition。Wesurelycannotbeexpectedtotakehiswordforitthatanumberofpeopleonlyneedtoactasanestateforeachoneofthemtomaintainhisposition。EveryoneknowsthattheguildsmenoftheMiddleAgesandtheFrenchnoblesin1789
actedverydefinitelyasestatesandperishednevertheless。ThePrussianarmyatJena[91]alsoactedasanestate，butinsteadofmaintainingtheirpositiontheyhadonthecontrarytotaketotheirheelsandafterwardseventocapitulateinsections。Justaslittlecanwebesatisfiedwiththeassurancethatacertainmeasureofearningsofcapitalisanecessityundertheprevailingmodeofeconomy;forthepointtobeprovedispreciselywhythisisso。WedonotgetastepnearertothegoalwhenHerrDühringinformsus:
“Thedominationofcapitalaroseincloseconnectionwiththedominationofland。Partoftheagriculturalserfsweretransformedinthetownsintocraftsmenandultimatelyintofactorymaterial。Aftertherentofland，earningsofcapitaldevelopedasasecondformofrentofpossession“{176}。
Evenifweignorethehistoricalinexactitudeofthisassertion，itneverthelessremainsamereassertion，andisrestrictedtoassuringusoverandoveragainofpreciselywhatshouldbeexplainedandproved。WecanthereforecometonootherconclusionthanthatHerrDühringisincapableofansweringhisownquestion:howthecompetingentrepreneursareableconstantlytorealisetheproductoflabourabovethenaturaloutlaysofproduction;
thatistosay，heisincapableofexplainingthegenesisofprofit。Hecanonlybluntlydecree:earningsofcapitalshallbetheproductofforce——which，trueenough，iscompletelyinaccordancewithArticle2oftheDühringianconstitutionofsociety:Forcedistributes。Thisiscertainlyexpressedverynicely;butnow“thequestionarises“{D。K。G。501}:Forcedistributes——what？Surelytheremustbesomethingtodistribute，oreventhemostomnipotentforce，withthebestwillintheworld，candistributenothing。Theearningspocketedbythecompetingcapitalistsaresomethingverytangibleandsolid。Forcecanseizethem，butcannotproducethem。AndifHerrDühringobstinatelyrefusestoexplaintoushowforceseizestheearningsofcapitalists，thequestionofwhenceforcetakesthemhemeetsonlywithsilence，thesilenceofthegrave。
Wherethereisnothing，theking，likeanyotherforce，loseshisrights。
Outofnothingcomesnothing，andcertainlynotprofit。Ifcapitalownershiphasnopracticalmeaning，andcannotberealised，unlessindirectforceagainsthumanmaterialissimultaneouslyembodiedinit，thenonceagainthequestionarises，first，howcapital-wealthgotthisforce——aquestionwhichisnotsettledintheleastbythecoupleofhistoricalassertionscitedabove;secondly，howthisforceistransformedintoanaccessionofcapitalvalue，intoprofit;andthirdly，whereitobtainsthisprofit。
FromwhateversideweapproachDühringianeconomics，wedonotgetonestepfurther。Foreveryobnoxiousphenomenon——profit，landrent，starvationwages，theenslavementoftheworkers——hehasonlyonewordofexplanation:force，andeveragainforce，andHerrDühring’s“mightierwrath“{501}finallyresolvesitselfintowrathatforce。Wehaveseen，first，thatthisinvocationofforceisalamesubterfuge，arelegationoftheproblemfromthesphereofeconomicstothatofpolitics，whichisunabletoexplainasingleeconomicfact;andsecondly，thatitleavesunexplainedtheoriginofforceitself——andveryprudentlyso，forotherwiseitwouldhavetocometotheconclusionthatallsocialpowerandallpoliticalforcehavetheirsourceineconomicpreconditions，inthemodeofproductionandexchangehistoricallygivenforeachsocietyateachperiod。
Butletusseewhetherwecannotwrestfromtheinexorablebuilderof“deeperfoundations“{seeD。C。11}ofpoliticaleconomysomefurtherdisclosuresaboutprofit。Perhapsweshallmeetwithsuccessifweapplyourselvestohistreatmentofwages。Onpage158wefind:
“Wagesarethehirepaidforthemaintenanceoflabour-power，andareatfirsttakenintoconsiderationonlyasabasisfortherentoflandandearningsofcapital。Inordertogetabsoluteclarityastotherelationshipsobtaininginthisfield，onemustconceivetherentofland，andsubsequentlyalsoearningsofcapital，firsthistorically，withoutwages，thatistosay，onthebasisofslaveryorserfdom……Whetheritisaslaveoraserf，orawage-labourerwhohastobemaintained，onlygivesrisetoadifferenceinthemodeofchargingthecostsofproduction。Ineverycasethenetproceedsobtainedbytheutilisationoflabour-powerconstitutetheincomeofthemaster……Itcanthereforebeseenthat……thechiefantithesis，byvirtueofwhichthereexistsontheonehandsomeformofrentofpossessionandontheotherhandpropertylesshiredlabour，isnottobefoundexclusivelyinoneofitsmembers，butalwaysonlyinbothatthesametime。”
Rentofpossession，however，aswelearnonpage188，isaphrasewhichcoversbothlandrentandearningsofcapital。Further，wefindonpage174:
“Thecharacteristicfeatureofearningsofcapitalisthattheyareanappropriationofthemostimportantpartoftheproceedsoflabour-power。Theycannotbeconceivedexceptincorrelationwithsomeformofdirectlyorindirectlysubjectedlabour。”
Andonpage183:
Wages“areinallcircumstancesnothingmorethanthehirebymeansofwhich，generallyspeaking，thelabourer’smaintenanceandpossibilityofprocreationmustbeassured“。
Andfinally，onpage195:
“Theportionthatfallstorentofpossessionmustbelosttowages，andviceversa，theportionofthegeneralproductivecapacity“(！)“thatreacheslabourmustnecessarilybetakenfromtherevenuesofpossession。”
HerrDühringleadsusfromonesurprisetoanother。Inhistheoryofvalueandthefollowingchaptersuptoandincludingthetheoryofcompetition，thatis，frompage1topage155，thepricesofcommoditiesorvaluesweredivided，first，intonaturaloutlaysofproductionortheproductionvalue，i。e。，theoutlaysonrawmaterials，instrumentsoflabourandwages;andsecondly，intothesurchargeordistributionvalue{27}，thattributeleviedswordinhand{23}forthebenefitofthemonopolistclass——asurchargewhich，aswehaveseen，couldnotinrealitymakeanychangeinthedistributionofwealth，forwhatittookwithonehanditwouldhavetogivebackwiththeother，andwhich，besides，insofarasHerrDühringenlightensusastoitsoriginandnature，aroseoutofnothingandthereforeconsistsofnothing。Inthetwosucceedingchapters，whichdealwiththekindsofrevenue，thatis，frompage156to217，thereisnofurthermentionofthesurcharge。Insteadofthis，thevalueofeveryproductoflabour，thatis，ofeverycommodity，isnowdividedintothetwofollowingportions:
first，theproductioncosts，inwhichthewagespaidareincluded;andsecondly，the“netproceedsobtainedbytheutilisationoflabour-power“，whichconstitutethemaster’sincome。Andthesenetproceedshaveaverywell-knownphysiognomy，whichnotattooingandnohouse-painter’sartcanconceal。“Inordertogetabsoluteclarityastotherelationshipsobtaininginthisfield“{158}，letthereaderimaginethepassagesjustcitedfromHerrDühringprintedoppositethepassagespreviouslycitedfromMarx，dealingwithsurplus-labour，surplus-productandsurplus-value，andhewillfindthatHerrDühringishere，thoughinhisownstyle，directlycopyingfromCapital。
Surplus-labour，inanyform，whetherofslavery，serfdomorwage-labour，isrecognisedbyHerrDühringasthesourceoftherevenuesofallrulingclassesuptonow;thisistakenfromthemuch-quotedpassageinCapital，p。227:Capitalhasnotinventedsurplus-labour，andsoon——Andthe“netproceeds“whichconstitute“theincomeofthemaster“——
whatisthatbutthesurplusofthelabourproductoverandabovethewages，which，eveninHerrDühring，inspiteofhisquitesuperfluousdisguiseofitintheterm“hire“，mustassure，generallyspeaking，thelabourer’smaintenanceandpossibilityofprocreation？Howcanthe“appropriationofthemostimportantpartoftheproceedsoflabour-power“{174}becarriedoutexceptbythecapitalist，asMarxshows，extortingfromthelabourermorelabourthanisnecessaryforthereproductionofthemeansofsubsistenceconsumedbythelatter;thatistosay，bythecapitalistmakingthelabourerworkalongertimethanisnecessaryforthereplacementofthevalueofthewagespaidtothelabourer？Thustheprolongationoftheworking-daybeyondthetimenecessaryforthereproductionofthelabourer’smeansofsubsistence——Marx’ssurplus-labour——this，andnothingbutthis，iswhatisconcealedbehindHerrDühring’s“utilisationoflabour-power“;
andhis“netproceeds“{158}fallingtothemaster——howcantheymanifestthemselvesotherwisethanintheMarxiansurplus-productandsurplus-value？
Andwhat，apartfromitsinexactformulation，istheretodistinguishtheDühringianrentofpossessionfromtheMarxiansurplus-value？Fortherest，HerrDühringhastakenthename“rentofpossession“[“Besitzrente“]
fromRodbertus，whoincludedboththerentoflandandtherentofcapital，orearningsofcapital，undertheonetermrent，sothatHerrDühringhadonlytoadd“possession“toit。*6Andsothatnodoubtmaybeleftofhisplagiarism，HerrDühringsumsup，inhisownway，thelawsofthechangesofmagnitudeinthepriceoflabour-powerandinsurplus-valuewhicharedevelopedbyMarxinChapterXV(page539，etseqq。，ofCapital)，anddoesitinsuchamannerthatwhatfallstotherentofpossessionmustbelosttowages，andviceversa，therebyreducingcertainMarxianlaws，sorichincontent，toatautologywithoutcontent——foritisself-evidentthatofagivenmagnitudefallingintotwoparts，onepartcannotincreaseunlesstheotherdecreases。AndsoHerrDühringhassucceededinappropriatingtheideasofMarxinsuchawaythatthe“definitiveandmoststrictlyscientifictreatmentinthesenseoftheexactdisciplines“{D。K。G。498}——whichiscertainlypresentinMarx’sexposition——iscompletelylost。
WethereforecannotavoidtheconclusionthatthestrangecommotionwhichHerrDühringmakesintheKritischeGeschichteoverCapital，andthedustheraiseswiththefamousquestionthatcomesupinconnectionwithsurplus-value(aquestionwhichhehadbetterhaveleftunasked，inasmuchashecannotanswerithimself)——thatallthisisonlyamilitaryruse，aslymanoeuvretocoverupthegrossplagiarismofMarxcommittedintheCursusHerrDühringhadinfacteveryreasonforwarninghisreadersnottooccupythemselveswith“theintricatemazewhichHerrMarxcallsCapital“{D。K。G。497}，withthebastardsofhistoricalandlogicalfantasy，theconfusedandhazyHegeliannotionsandjugglery{498}，etc。TheVenusagainstwhomthisfaithfulEckartwarnstheGermanyouthhadbeentakenbyhimstealthilyfromtheMarxianpreservesandbroughttoasafeplaceforhisownuse。WemustcongratulatehimonthesenetproceedsderivedfromtheutilisationofMarx’slabour-power，andonthepeculiarlightthrownbyhisannexationofMarxiansurplus-valueunderthenameofrentofpossessiononthemotivesforhisobstinate(repeatedintwoeditions)andfalseassertionthatbythetermsurplus-valueMarxmeantonlyprofitorearningsofcapital。
AndsowehavetoportrayHerrDühring’sachievementsinHerrDühring’sownwordsasfollows:
“InHerr“Dühring’s“viewwagesrepresentonlythepaymentofthatlabour-timeduringwhichthelabourerisactuallyworkingtomakehisownexistencepossible。Butonlyasmallnumberofhoursisrequiredforthispurpose;alltherestoftheworking-day，oftensoprolonged，yieldsasurplusinwhichiscontainedwhatourauthorcalls“{500}——
rentofpossession。“Ifweleaveoutofaccountthelabour-timewhichateachstageofproductionisalreadycontainedintheinstrumentsoflabourandinthepertinentrawmaterial，thissurpluspartoftheworking-dayisthesharewhichfallstothecapitalistentrepreneur。Theprolongationoftheworking-dayisconsequentlyearningsofpureextortionforthebenefitofthecapitalist。ThevenomoushatredwithwhichHerr“Dühring“presentsthisconceptionofthebusinessofexploitationisonlytoounderstandable“
{501}……
Butwhatislessunderstandableishowhewillnowarriveoncemoreathis“mightierwrath“{501}。
IX。
NATURALLAWSOFTHEECONOMY。
RENTOFLANDTUptothispointwehavebeenunable，despiteoursincerestefforts，todiscoverhowHerrDühring，inthedomainofeconomics，can“comeforwardwiththeclaimtoanewsystemwhichisnotmerelyadequatefortheepochbutauthoritativefortheepoch“{D。K。G。
1}。
However，whatwehavenotbeenabletodiscerninhistheoryofforceandhisdoctrineofvalueandofcapital，mayperhapsbecomeasclearasdaylighttouswhenweconsiderthe“natural，lawsofnationaleconomy“{D。C。4}
putforwardbyHerrDühring。For，asheputsitwithhisusualoriginalityandinhistrenchantway，“thetriumphofthehigherscientificmethodconsistsinpassingbeyondthemeredescriptionandclassificationofapparentlystaticmatterandattaininglivingintuitionswhichilluminethegenesisofthings。Knowledgeoflawsisthereforethemostperfectknowledge，foritshowsushowoneprocessisconditionedbyanother“{59}。
TheveryfirstnaturallawofanyeconomyhasbeenspeciallydiscoveredbyHerrDühring。
AdamSmith，“curiouslyenough，notonlydidnotbringouttheleadingpartplayedbythemostimportantfactorinalleconomicdevelopment，butevencompletelyfailedtogiveitdistinctiveformulation，andthusunintentionallyreducedtoasubordinaterolethepowerwhichplaceditsstamponthedevelopmentofmodernEurope“{64}。This“fundamentallaw，towhichtheleadingrolemustbeassigned，isthatofthetechnicalequipment，onemightevensayarmament，ofthenaturaleconomicenergyofman“{63}。
This“fundamentallaw“{66}discoveredbyHerrDühringreadsasfollows:
LawNo。1。“Theproductivityoftheeconomicinstruments，naturalresourcesandhumanenergyisincreasedbyinventionsanddiscoveries“
{65}。
Weareovercomewithastonishment。HerrDühringtreatsusasMolière’snewlybakednoblemanistreatedbythewagwhoannouncestohimthenewsthatallthroughhislifehehasbeenspeakingprosewithoutknowingit。
Thatinagoodmanycasestheproductivepoweroflabourisincreasedbyinventionsanddiscoveries(butalsothatinverymanycasesitisnotincreased，asisprovedbythemassofwaste-paperinthearchivesofeverypatentofficeintheworld)weknewlongago;butweowetoHerrDühringtheenlighteninginformationthatthisbanality，whichisasoldasthehills，isthefundamentallawofalleconomics。If“thetriumphofthehigherscientificmethod“ineconomics，asinphilosophy，consistsonlyingivingahigh-soundingnametothefirstcommonplacethatcomestoone’smind，andtrumpetingitforthasanaturallaworevenafundamentallaw，thenitbecomespossibleforanybody，eventheeditorsoftheBerlinVolks-Zeitung，tolay“deeperfoundations“{11}andtorevolutionisescience。Weshouldthen“inallrigour“{9，95}beforcedtoapplytoHerrDühringhimselfHerrDühring’sjudgmentonPlato:
“Ifhoweverthatissupposedtobepolitical-economicwisdom，thentheauthorof“thecriticalfoundations“sharesitwitheverypersonwhoeverhadoccasiontoconceiveanidea“orevenonlytobabble“aboutanythingthatwasobviousonthefaceofit“{D。K。G。20}。
If，forexample，wesayanimalseat，wearesayingquitecalmly，inourinnocence，somethingofgreatimport;forweonlyhavetosaythateatingisthefundamentallawofallanimallife，andwehaverevolutionisedthewholeofzoology。
LawNo。2。DivisionofLabour:“Thecleavingoftradesandthedissectionofactivitiesraisestheproductivityoflabour“{D。C。73}。
Insofarasthisistrue，italsohasbeenacommonplacesinceAdamSmith。HowfaritistruewillbeshowninPartIII。
LawNo。3。“Distanceandtransportarethechiefcauseswhichhinderorfacilitatetheco-operationoftheproductiveforces“{91}。
LawNo。4。“Theindustrialstatehasanincomparablygreaterpopulationcapacitythantheagriculturalstate“{107}。
LawNo。5。“Intheeconomynothingtakesplacewithoutamaterialinterest“{126}。
Thesearethe“naturallaws“{4，5}onwhichHerrDühringfoundshisneweconomics。Heremainsfaithfultohismethod，alreadydemonstratedinthesectiononPhilosophy。Ineconomicstooafewself-evidentstatementsoftheutmostbanality——moreoverquiteoftenveryineptlyexpressed——
formtheaxiomswhichneednoproof，thefundamentaltheorems，thenaturallaws。Underthepretextofdevelopingthecontentoftheselaws，whichhavenocontent，heseizestheopportunitytopouroutawordystreamofeconomictwaddleonthevariousthemeswhosenamesoccurinthesepretendedlaws——inventions，divisionoflabour，meansoftransport，population，interests，competition，andsoforth——averbaloutpouringwhoseflatcommonplacesareseasonedonlywithoraculargrandiloquence，andhereandtherewithineptformulationsorpretentioushair-splittingoverallkindsofcasuisticalsubtleties。Thenfinallywereachrentofland，earningsofcapital，andwages，andaswehavedealtwithonlythetwolatterformsofappropriationintheprecedingexposition，weproposenowinconclusiontomakeabriefexaminationoftheDühringianconceptionofrent。
IndoingthisweshallnotconsiderthosepointswhichHerrDühringhasmerelycopiedfromhispredecessorCarey;wearenotconcernedwithCarey，norwithdefendingRicardo’sviewsonrentoflandagainstCarey’sdistortionsandstupidities。WeareonlyconcernedwithHerrDühring，andhedefinesrentas“thatincomewhichtheproprietorassuchdrawsfromtheland“
{D。C。156}。
Theeconomicconceptofrentofland，whichiswhatHerrDühringistoexplain，isstraightawaytransferredbyhimintothejuridicalsphere，sothatwearenowiserthanwewerebefore。Ourconstructorofdeeperfoundationsmusttherefore，whetherhelikesitornot，condescendtogivesomefurtherexplanation。Hecomparestheleaseofafarmtoatenantwiththeloanofcapitaltoanentrepreneur，butsoonfindsthatthereisahitchinthecomparison，likeinmanyothers。
For，hesays，“ifonewantedtopresstheanalogyfurther，theearningslefttothetenantafterpaymentofrentmustcorrespondtothebalanceofearningsofcapitalleftwiththeentrepreneurwhoputsthecapitaltouseafterhehaspaidinterest。Butitisnotcustomarytoregardtenants’earningsasthemainincomeandrentasabalance……Aproofofthisdifferenceofconceptionisthefactthatinthetheoryoflandrentthecaseofmanagementoflandbytheownerisnotseparatelytreated，andnospecialemphasisislaidonthedifferencebetweentheamountofrentinthecaseofaleaseandwheretheownerproducestherenthimself。Atanyratenoonehasfounditnecessarytoconceivetherentresultingfromsuchself-managementoflandasdividedinsuchawaythatoneportionrepresentsasitweretheinterestonthelandedpropertyandtheotherportionthesurplusearningsofenterprise。Apartfromthetenant’sowncapitalwhichhebringsintothebusiness，itwouldseemthathisspecificearningsaremostlyregardedasakindofwages。Itishoweverhazardoustoassertanythingonthissubject，asthequestionhasneverbeenraisedinthisdefiniteform。Whereverwearedealingwithfairlylargefarmsitcaneasilybeseenthatitwillnotdototreatwhatarespecificallythefarmer’searningsaswages。Fortheseearningsarethemselvesbasedontheantithesisexistinginrelationtotherurallabour-power，throughwhoseexploitationthatformofincomeisalonemadepossible。Itisclearlyapartoftherentwhichremainsinthehandsofthetenantandbywhichthefullrent，whichtheownermanaginghimselfwouldobtain，isreduced“{157-58}。
ThetheoryoflandrentisapartofpoliticaleconomywhichisspecificallyEnglish，andnecessarilyso，becauseitwasonlyinEnglandthatthereexistedamodeofproductionunderwhichrenthadinfactbeenseparatedfromprofitandinterest。InEngland，asiswellknown，largelandedestatesandlarge-scaleagriculturepredominate。Thelandlordsleasetheirlandinlarge，oftenverylarge，farms，totenant-farmerswhopossesssufficientcapitaltoworkthemand，unlikeourpeasants，donotworkthemselvesbutemploythelabourofhandsandday-labourersonthelinesoffull-fledgedcapitalistentrepreneurs。Here，therefore，wehavethethreeclassesofbourgeoissocietyandtheformofincomepeculiartoeach:thelandlord，drawingrentofland;thecapitalist，drawingprofit;andthelabourer，drawingwages。IthasneveroccurredtoanyEnglisheconomisttoregardthefarmer’searningsasakindofwages，asseemstoHerrDühringtobethecase;evenlesscoulditbehazardousforsuchaneconomisttoassertthatthefarmer’sprofitiswhatitindisputably，obviouslyandtangiblyis，namely，profitoncapital。Itisperfectlyridiculoustosaythatthequestionofwhatthefarmer’searningsactuallyarehasneverbeenraisedinthisdefiniteform。InEnglandtherehasneverbeenanynecessityeventoraisethisquestion;bothquestionandanswerhavelongbeenavailable，derivedfromthefactsthemselves，andsinceAdamSmiththerehasneverbeenanydoubtaboutthem。
Thecaseofself-management，asHerrDühringcallsit——
orrather，themanagementoffarmsbybailiffsforthelandowner’saccount，ashappensmostfrequentlyinGermany——doesnotalterthematter。Ifthelandowneralsoprovidesthecapitalandhasthefarmrunforhisownaccount，hepocketstheprofitoncapitalinadditiontotherent，asisself-understoodandcannotbeotherwiseonthebasisoftheexistingmodeofproduction。AndifHerrDühringassertsthatuptonownoonehasfounditnecessarytoconceivetherent(heshouldsayrevenue)resultingfromtheowner’sownmanagementasdividedintoparts，thisissimplyuntrue，andatbestonlyproveshisownignoranceonceagain。Forexample:
“Therevenuederivedfromlabouriscalledwages。Thatderivedfromstock，bythepersonwhomanagesoremploysit，iscalledprofit……Therevenuewhichproceedsaltogetherfromland，iscalledrent，andbelongstothelandlord……Whenthosethreedifferentsortsofrevenuebelongtodifferentpersonstheyarereadilydistinguished;butwhentheybelongtothesametheyaresometimesconfoundedwithoneanother，atleastincommonlanguage。Agentlemanwhofarmsapartofhisownestate，afterpayingtheexpenseofcultivation，shouldgainboththerentofthelandlordandtheprofitofthefarmer。Heisapttodenominate，however，hiswholegain，profit，andthusconfoundsrentwithprofit，atleastincommonlanguage。ThegreaterpartofourNorthAmericanandWestIndianplantersareinthissituation。Theyfarm，thegreaterpartofthem，theirownestates，andaccordinglyweseldomhearoftherentofaplantation，butfrequentlyofitsprofit……Agardenerwhocultivateshisowngardenwithhisownhands，unitesinhisownpersonthethreedifferentcharacters，oflandlord，farmer，andlabourer。Hisproduce，therefore，shouldpayhimtherentofthefirst，theprofitofthesecond，andthewagesofthethird。
Thewhole，however，iscommonlyconsideredastheearningsofhislabour。
Bothrentandprofitare，inthiscase，confoundedwithwages。”
ThispassageisfromthesixthchapterofBookIofAdamSmith。
Thecaseofself-managementwasthereforeinvestigatedahundredyearsago，andthedoubtsanduncertaintieswhichsoworryHerrDühringinthisconnectionaremerelyduetohisownignorance。
Heeventuallyescapesfromhisquandarybyanaudacioustrick:
Thefarmer’searningscomefromtheexploitationofthe“rurallabour-power“
andarethereforeobviouslya“partoftherent“bywhichthe“fullrent“，whichreallyshouldflowintothelandowner’spocket，“isreduced“。
Fromthiswelearntwothings。Firstly，thatthefarmer“reduces“therentofthelandowner，sothat，accordingtoHerrDühring，itisnot，aswasconsideredhitherto，thefarmerwhopaysrenttothelandowner，butthelandownerwhopaysrenttothefarmer——certainlya“fromthegrounduporiginalview“{D。Ph。525}。Andsecondly，welearnatlastwhatHerrDühringthinksrentoflandis:namely，thewholesurplus-productobtainedinfarmingbytheexploitationofrurallabour。
Butasthissurplus-productinalleconomicshitherto——saveperhapsfortheworkofafewvulgareconomists——hasbeendividedintolandrentandprofitoncapital，wearecompelledtonotethatHerrDühring’sviewofrentalsois“nottheacceptedone“{D。K。G。497}。
AccordingtoHerrDühring，therefore，theonlydifferencebetweenrentoflandandearningsofcapitalisthattheformerisobtainedinagricultureandthelatterinindustryorcommerce。AnditwasofnecessitythatHerrDühringarrivedatsuchanuncriticalandconfusedviewofthematter。Wesawthathisstarting-pointwasthe“reallyhistoricalconception“，thatdominationoverthelandcouldbebasedonlyondominationoverman。Assoon，therefore，aslandiscultivatedbymeansofanyformofsubjugatedlabour，asurplusforthelandlordarises，andthissurplusistherent，justasinindustrythesurplus-labourproductbeyondwhatthelabourerearnsistheprofitoncapital。
“Thusitisclearthatlandrentexistsonaconsiderablescalewhereverandwheneveragricultureiscarriedonbymeansofanyoftheformsofsubjugationoflabour“{D。C。162}。
Inthispresentationofrentasthewholesurplus-productobtainedinagriculture，HerrDühringcomesupagainstbothEnglishfarmer’sprofitandthedivision，basedonEnglishfarmingandrecognisedbyallclassicalpoliticaleconomy，ofthatsurplus-productintorentoflandandfarmer’sprofit，andhenceagainstthepure，preciseconceptionofrent。WhatdoesHerrDühringdo？Hepretendsnottohavetheslightestinklingofthedivisionofthesurplus-productofagricultureintofarmer’sprofitandrent，andthereforeofthewholerenttheoryofclassicalpoliticaleconomy;hepretendsthatthequestionofwhatfarmer’sprofitreallyishasneveryetbeenraised“inthisdefiniteform“{157}，thatatissueisasubjectwhichhasneveryetbeeninvestigatedandaboutwhichthereisnoknowledgebutonlyillusionanduncertainty。AndhefleesfromfatalEngland——where，withouttheinterventionofanytheoreticalschool，thesurplus-productofagricultureissoremorselesslydividedintoitselements:
rentoflandandprofitoncapital——tothecountrysobelovedbyhim，wherethePrussianlawexercisesdominion，whereself-managementisinfullpatriarchalbloom，where“thelandlordunderstandsbyrenttheincomefromhisplotsofland“andtheJunkers’viewsonrentstillclaimtobeauthoritativeforscience——wherethereforeHerrDühringcanstillhopetoslipthroughwithhisconfusedideasofrentandprofitandeventofindcredenceforhislatestdiscovery:thatrentoflandispaidnotbythefarmertothelandlordbutbythelandlordtothefarmer。
X。
FROMKRITISCHEGESCHICHTE
[92]Finally，letustakeaglanceattheKritischeGeschichtederNationalökonomie，at“thatenterprise“ofHerrDühring’swhich，ashesays，“isabsolutelywithoutprecedent“{9}。
Itmaybethathereatlastweshallfindthedefinitiveandmoststrictlyscientifictreatmentwhichhehassooftenpromisedus。
HerrDühringmakesagreatdealofnoiseoverhisdiscoverythat“economicscience“is“anenormouslymodernphenomenon“(p。12)。
Infact，MarxsaysinCapital:“Politicaleconomy……asanindependentscience，firstsprangintobeingduringtheperiodofmanufacture“;andinZurKritikderpolitischenOekonomie，page29，that“classicalpoliticaleconomy……datesfromWilliamPettyinEnglandandBoisguillebertinFrance，andcloseswithRicardointheformercountryandSismondiinthelatter“。HerrDühringfollowsthepaththuslaiddownforhim，exceptthatinhisviewhighereconomicsbeginsonlywiththewretchedabortionsbroughtintoexistencebybourgeoisscienceafterthecloseofitsclassicalperiod。Ontheotherhand，heisfullyjustifiedintriumphantlyproclaimingattheendofhisintroduction:
“Butifthisenterprise，initsexternallyappreciablepeculiaritiesandinthemorenovelportionofitscontent，isabsolutelywithoutprecedent，initsinnercriticalapproachesanditsgeneralstandpoint，itisevenmorepeculiarlymine“(p。9)。
Itisafactthat，onthebasisofbothitsexternalanditsinternalfeatures，hemightverywellhaveannouncedhis“enterprise“(theindustrialtermisnotbadlychosen)as:TheEgoandHisOwn。
Sincepoliticaleconomy，asitmadeitsappearanceinhistory，isinfactnothingbutthescientificinsightintotheeconomyintheperiodofcapitalistproduction，principlesandtheoremsrelatingtoit，forexample，inthewritersofancientGreeksociety，canonlybefoundinsofarascertainphenomena——commodityproduction，trade，money，interest-bearingcapital，etc——arecommontobothsocieties。InsofarastheGreeksmakeoccasionalexcursionsintothissphere，theyshowthesamegeniusandoriginalityasinallotherspheres。Becauseofthis，theirviewsform，historically，thetheoreticalstarting-pointsofthemodernscience。Letusnowlistentowhattheworld-historicHerrDühringhastosay。
“Wehave，strictlyspeaking，really“(！)“absolutelynothingpositivetoreportofantiquityconcerningscientificeconomictheory，andthecompletelyunscientificMiddleAgesgivestilllessoccasionforthis“(forthis——
forreportingnothing！)。“Ashoweverthefashionofvaingloriouslydisplayingasemblanceoferudition……hasdefacedthetruecharacterofmodernscience，noticemustbetakenofatleastafewexamples“{17}。
AndHerrDühringthenproducesexamplesofacriticismwhichisintruthfreefromeventhe“semblanceoferudition“。
Aristotle’sthesis，that“twofoldistheuseofeveryobject……Theoneispeculiartotheobjectassuch，theotherisnot，asasandalwhichmaybeworn，andisalsoexchangeable。
Bothareusesofthesandal，forevenhewhoexchangesthesandalforthemoneyorfoodheisinwantof，makesuseofthesandalasasandal。Butnotinitsnaturalway。Forithasnotbeenmadeforthesakeofbeingexchanged“——thisthesis，HerrDühringmaintains，is“notonlyexpressedinareallyplatitudinousandscholasticway“{18};butthosewhoseeinita“differentiationbetweenuse-valueandexchange-value“fallbesidesintothe“ridiculousframeofmind“{19}offorgettingthat“inthemostrecentperiod“and“intheframeworkofthemostadvancedsystem“——whichofcourseisHerrDühring’sownsystem——nothinghasbeenleftofuse-valueandexchange-value。
“InPlato’sworkonthestate，people……claimtohavefoundthemoderndoctrineofthenational-economicdivisionoflabour“{20}。
ThiswasapparentlymeanttorefertothepassageinCapital，Ch。
XII，5(p。369ofthethirdedition)，wheretheviewsofclassicalantiquityonthedivisionoflabourareonthecontraryshowntohavebeen“inmoststrikingcontrast“withthemodernview。HerrDühringhasnothingbutsneersforPlato’spresentation——onewhich，forhistime，wasfullofgenius——ofthedivisionoflabourasthenaturalbasisofthecity(whichfortheGreekswasidenticalwiththestate);andthisonthegroundthathedidnotmention——thoughtheGreekXenophondid，HerrDühring——the“limit“
“setbythegivendimensionsofthemarkettothefurtherdifferentiationofprofessionsandthetechnicalsubdivisionofspecialoperations……Onlytheconceptionofthislimitconstitutestheknowledgewiththeaidofwhichthisidea，otherwisehardlyfittobecalledscientific，becomesamajoreconomictruth“{20}。
Itwasinfact“Professor“Roscher{14}，ofwhomHerrDühringissocontemptuous，whosetupthis“limit“atwhichtheideaofthedivisionoflabourissupposedfirsttobecome“scientific“，andwhothereforeexpresslypointedtoAdamSmithasthediscovererofthelawofthedivisionoflabour。
Inasocietyinwhichcommodityproductionisthedominantformofproduction，“themarket“——toadoptHerrDühring’sstyleforonce——wasalwaysa“limit“verywellknownto“businesspeople“{18}。Butmorethan“theknowledgeandinstinctofroutine“isneededtorealisethatitwasnotthemarketthatcreatedthecapitalistdivisionoflabour，butthat，onthecontrary，itwasthedissolutionofformersocialconnections，andthedivisionoflabourresultingfromthis，thatcreatedthemarket(seeCapital，Vol。I，Ch。XXIV，5:“CreationoftheHome-MarketforIndustrialCapital“)。
“Theroleofmoneyhasatalltimesprovidedthefirstandmainstimulustoeconomic“(！)“ideas。ButwhatdidanAristotleknowofthisrole？Nomore，clearlythanwascontainedintheideathatexchangethroughthemediumofmoneyhadfollowedtheprimitiveexchangebybarter“{21}。
Butwhen“an“Aristotlepresumestodiscoverthetwodifferentformsofthecirculationofmoney——theoneinwhichitoperatesasameremediumofcirculation，andtheotherinwhichitoperatesasmoneycapital，heisthereby——accordingtoHerrDühring——“onlyexpressingamoralantipathy“
Andwhen“an“Aristotlecarrieshisaudacitysofarastoattemptananalysisofmoneyinits“role“ofameasureofvalue，andactuallystatesthisproblem，whichhassuchdecisiveimportanceforthetheoryofmoney，correctly——then“a“Dühringprefers(andforverygoodprivatereasons)
tosaynothingaboutsuchimpermissibletemerity。
Finalresult:Greekantiquity，asmirroredinthe“noticetaken“
{21}byDühring，infactpossessed“onlyquiteordinaryideas“(p。
25)，ifsuch“niaiserie“(p。19)hasanythingwhateverincommonwithideas，whetherordinaryorextraordinary。
ItwouldbebettertoreadHerrDühring’schapteronmercantilism[93]inthe“original“，thatis，inF。List’sNationalesSystem，Chapter29:“TheIndustrialSystem，IncorrectlyCalledtheMercantileSystembytheSchool“。HowcarefullyHerrDühringmanagestoavoidheretooany“semblanceoferudition“{17}isshownbythefollowingpassage，amongothers:
List，Chapter28:“TheItalianPoliticalEconomists“，says:
“Italywasinadvanceofallmodernnationsbothinthepracticeandinthetheoryofpoliticaleconomy“，andthenhecites，as“thefirstworkwritteninItaly，whichdealsespeciallywithpoliticaleconomy，thebookbyAntonioSerra，ofNaples，onthewaytosecureforthekingdomsanabundanceofgoldandsilver(1613)“。
HerrDühringconfidentlyacceptsthisandisthereforeabletoregardSerra’sBrevetrattato“asakindofinscriptionattheentranceofthemorerecentprehistoryofeconomics“{34}。
HistreatmentoftheBrevetrattatoisinfactlimitedtothis“pieceofliterarybuffoonery“{506}。Unfortunately，theactualfactsofthecaseweredifferent:in1609，thatisfouryearsbeforetheBrevetrattato，ThomasMun’sADiscourseofTradeetc。，hadappeared。Theparticularsignificanceofthisbookwasthat，eveninitsfirstedition，itwasdirectedagainsttheoriginalmonetarysystemwhichwasthenstilldefendedinEnglandasbeingthepolicyofthestate;henceitrepresentedtheconsciousself-separationofthemercantilesystemfromthesystemwhichgaveitbirth。Evenintheforminwhichitfirstappearedthebookhadseveraleditionsandexercisedadirectinfluenceonlegislation。Intheeditionof1664(England’sTreasureetc。)，whichhadbeencompletelyrewrittenbytheauthorandwaspublishedafterhisdeath，itcontinuedtobethemercantilistgospelforanotherhundredyears。Ifmercantilismthereforehasanepoch-makingwork“asakindofinscriptionattheentrance“，itisthisbook，andforthisveryreasonitsimplydoesnotexistforHerrDühring’s“historywhichmostcarefullyobservesthedistinctionsofrank“{133}。
OfPetty，thefounderofmodernpoliticaleconomy，HerrDühringtellsusthattherewas“afairmeasureofsuperficialityinhiswayofthinking“{54}andthat“hehadnosenseoftheintrinsicandnicerdistinctionsbetweenconcepts“
{55}……whilehepossessed“aversatilitywhichknowsagreatdealbutskipslightlyfromonethingtoanotherwithouttakingrootinanyideaofamoreprofoundcharacter“{56}，……his“national-economicideasarestillverycrude“，and“heachievesnaivetés，whosecontrasts……amoreseriousthinkermaywellfindamusingattimes“{56}。
Whatinestimablecondescension，therefore，forthe“moreseriousthinker“
HerrDühringtodeigntotakeanynoticeatallof“aPetty“{60}！
Andwhatnoticedoeshetakeofhim？
Petty’spropositionson“labourandevenlabour-timeasameasureofvalue，ofwhichimperfecttracescanbefoundinhiswritings“{62}
arenotmentionedagainapartfromthissentence。Imperfecttraces！InhisTreatiseonTaxesandContributions(firstedition1662)，Pettygivesaperfectlyclearandcorrectanalysisofthemagnitudeofvalueofcommodities。Inillustratingthismagnitudeattheoutsetbytheequalvalueofpreciousmetalsandcornonwhichthesamequantityoflabourhasbeenexpended，hesaysthefirstandthelast“theoretical“wordonthevalueofthepreciousmetals。Buthealsolaysitdowninadefiniteandgeneralformthatthevaluesofcommoditiesmustbemeasuredbyequallabour。Heapplieshisdiscoverytothesolutionofvariousproblems，someofwhichareveryintricate，andonvariousoccasionsandinvariousworks，evenwherehedoesnotrepeatthefundamentalproposition，hedrawsimportantconclusionsfromit。Buteveninhisveryfirstworkhesays:
“This“(estimationbyequallabour)“Isaytobethefoundationofequalizingandbalancingofvalues，yetinthesuperstructuresandpracticeshereupon，Iconfessthereismuchvariety，andintricacy。”
Pettywasthusconsciousequallyoftheimportanceofhisdiscoveryandofthedifficultyofapplyingitindetail。Hethereforetriedtofindanotherwayincertainconcretecases。
Anaturalparshouldthereforebefoundbetweenlandandlabour，sothatvaluemightbeexpressedatwill“byeitherofthemaloneaswellorbetterthanby“
Eventhiserrorhasgenius。
HerrDühringmakesthispenetratingobservationonPetty’stheoryofvalue:
“Hadhisownthoughtbeenmorepenetratingitwouldnotbepossibletofind，inotherpassages，tracesofacontraryview，towhichwehavepreviouslyreferred“{63-64};
thatistosay，towhichno“previous“referencehasbeenmadeexceptthatthe“traces“are“imperfect“。ThisisverycharacteristicofHerrDühring’smethod——toalludetosomething“previously“inameaninglessphrase，inorder“subsequently“tomakethereaderbelievethathehas“previously“
beenmadeacquaintedwiththemainpoint，whichinfacttheauthorinquestionhasslidoverbothpreviouslyandsubsequently。
InAdamSmith，however，wecanfindnotonly“traces“of“contraryviews“ontheconceptofvalue，notonlytwobuteventhree，andstrictlyspeakingevenfoursharplycontraryopinionsonvalue，runningquitecomfortablysidebysideandintermingled。Butwhatisquitenaturalinawriterwhoislayingthefoundationsofpoliticaleconomyandisnecessarilyfeelinghisway，experimentingandstrugglingwithachaosofideaswhichareonlyjusttakingshape，mayseemstrangeinawriterwhoissurveyingandsummarisingmorethanahundredandfiftyyearsofinvestigationwhoseresultshavealreadypassedinpartfrombooksintotheconsciousnessofthegenerality。
And，topassfromgreatthingstosmall:aswehaveseen，HerrDühringhimselfgivesusfivedifferentkindsofvaluetoselectfromatwill，andwiththem，anequalnumberofcontraryviews。Ofcourse，“hadhisownthoughtbeenmorepenetrating“，hewouldnothavehadtoexpendsomucheffortintryingtothrowhisreadersbackfromPetty’sperfectlyclearconceptionofvalueintotheuttermostconfusion。
AsmoothlyfinishedworkofPetty’swhichmaybesaidtobecastinasingleblock，ishisQuantulumcunqueconcerningMoney，publishedin1682，tenyearsafterhisAnatomyofIreland(this“first“appearedin1672，not1691asstatedbyHerrDühring，whotakesitsecond-handfromthe“mostcurrenttextbookcompilations“)。[94]Inthisbookthelastvestigesofmercantilistviews，foundinotherwritingsbyhim，havecompletelydisappeared。Incontentandformitisalittlemasterpiece，andforthisveryreasonHerrDühringdoesnotevenmentionitstitle。Itisquiteintheorderofthingsthatinrelationtothemostbrilliantandoriginalofeconomicinvestigators，ourvaingloriousandpedanticmediocrityshouldonlysnarlhisdispleasure，andtakeoffenceatthefactthattheflashesoftheoreticalthoughtdonotproudlyparadeaboutinrankandfileasready-made“axioms“{D。Ph。224}，butmerelyrisesporadicallytothesurfacefromthedepthsof“crude“{D。K。G。57}
practicalmaterial，forexample，oftaxes。
Petty’sfoundationsofPoliticalArithmetic{58}，vulgostatistics，aretreatedbyHerrDühringinthesamewayasthatauthor’sspecificallyeconomicworks。HemalevolentlyshrugshisshouldersattheoddmethodsusedbyPetty！ConsideringthegrotesquemethodsstillemployedinthisfieldacenturylaterevenbyLavoisier，[95]andinviewofthegreatdistancethatseparatesevencontemporarystatisticsfromthegoalwhichPettyassignedtotheminbroadoutline，suchself-satisfiedsuperioritytwocenturiespostfestumstandsoutinallitsundisguisedstupidity。
Petty’smostimportantideas——whichreceivedsuchscantattentioninHerrDühring’s“enterprise“{9}——are，inthelatter’sview，nothingbutdisconnectedconceits，chancethoughts，incidentalcomments，towhichonlyinourdayasignificanceisgiven，bytheuseofexcerptstornfromtheircontext，whichinthemselvestheyhavenotgot;whichthereforealsoplaynopartintherealhistoryofpoliticaleconomy，butonlyinmodernbooksbelowthestandardofHerrDühring’sdeep-rootedcriticismand“historicaldepictioninthegrandstyle“{556}。Inhis“enterprise“，heseemstohavehadinviewacircleofreaderswhowouldhaveimplicitfaithandwouldneverbeboldenoughtoaskforproofofhisassertions。
Weshallreturntothispointsoon(whendealingwithLockeandNorth)，butmustfirsttakeafleetingglanceatBoisguillebertandLaw。
Inconnectionwiththeformer，wemustdrawattentiontothesolefindmadebyHerrDühring:hehasdiscoveredaconnectionbetweenBoisguillebertandLawwhichhadhithertobeenmissed。Boisguillebertassertsthatthepreciousmetalscouldbereplaced，inthenormalmonetaryfunctionswhichtheyfulfilincommoditycirculation，bycreditmoney(unmorceaudepapier)。Lawontheotherhandimaginesthatany“increase“whateverinthenumberofthese“piecesofpaper“increasesthewealthofanation。
HerrDühringdrawsfromthistheconclusionthatBoisguillebert’s“turnofthoughtalreadyharbouredanewturninmercantilism“{83}
inotherwords，alreadyincludedLaw。Thisismadeasclearasdaylightinthefollowing:
“Allthatwasnecessarywastoassigntothe’simplepiecesofpaper’thesamerolethatthepreciousmetalsshouldhaveplayed，andametamorphosisofmercantilismwastherebyatonceaccomplished“{83}。
Inthesamewayitispossibletoaccomplishatoncethemetamorphosisofanuncleintoanaunt。ItistruethatHerrDühringaddsappealingly:
“OfcourseBoisguilleberthadnosuchpurposeinmind“{83}。
Buthow，inthedevil’sname，couldheintendtoreplacehisownrationalistconceptionofthemonetaryfunctionofthepreciousmetalsbythesuperstitiousconceptionofthemercantilistsforthesolereasonthat，accordingtohim，thepreciousmetalscanbereplacedinthisrolebypapermoney？
Nevertheless，HerrDühringcontinuesinhisserio-comicstyle，“neverthelessitmaybeconcededthathereandthereourauthorsucceededinmakingareallyaptremark“(p。83)。
InreferencetoLaw，HerrDühringsucceededinmakingonlythis“reallyaptremark“:
“Lawtoowasnaturallyneverablecompletelytoeradicatetheabove-namedbasis“(namely，“thebasisofthepreciousmetals“)，“buthepushedtheissueofnotestoitsextremelimit，thatistosay，tothecollapseofthesystem“(p。94)。
Inreality，however，thesepaperbutterflies，meremoneytokens，wereintendedtoflutteraboutamongthepublic，notinorderto“eradicate“thebasisofthepreciousmetals，buttoenticethemfromthepocketsofthepublicintothedepletedtreasuriesofthestate。[96]
ToreturntoPettyandtheinconspicuousroleinthehistoryofeconomicsassignedtohimbyHerrDühring，letusfirstlistentowhatwearetoldaboutPetty’simmediatesuccessors，LockeandNorth。Locke’sConsiderationsonLoweringofInterestandRaisingofMoney，andNorth’sDiscoursesuponTrade，appearedinthesameyear，1691。
“Whathe“(Locke)“wroteoninterestandcoindoesnotgobeyondtherangeofthereflections，currentunderthedominionofmercantilism，inconnectionwiththeeventsofpoliticallife“(p。64)。
Tothereaderofthis“report“itshouldnowbeclearascrystalwhyLocke’sLoweringofInteresthadsuchanimportantinfluence，inmorethanonedirection，onpoliticaleconomyinFranceandItalyduringthelatterhalfoftheeighteenthcentury。
“Manybusinessmenthoughtthesame“(asLocke)“onfreeplayfortherateofinterest，andthedevelopingsituationalsoproducedthetendencytoregardrestrictionsoninterestasineffective。AtaperiodwhenaDudleyNorthcouldwritehisDiscoursesuponTradeinthedirectionoffreetrade，agreatdealmustalreadyhavebeenintheair，astheysay，whichmadethetheoreticaloppositiontorestrictionsoninterestratesseemsomethingnotatallextraordinary“(p。64)。
SoLockehadonlytocogitatetheideasofthisorthatcontemporary“businessman“，ortobreatheinagreatdealofwhatwas“intheair，astheysay“tobeabletotheoriseonfreeplayfortherateofinterestwithoutsayinganything“extraordinary“！Infact，however，asearlyas1662，inhisTreatiseonTaxesandContributions，Pettyhadcounterposedinterest，asrentofmoneywhichwecallusurytorentoflandandhouses，andlecturedthelandlords，whowishedtokeepdownbylegislationnotofcourselandrent，buttherentofmoney，onthevanityandfruitlessnessofmakingcivilpositivelawagainstthelawofnature。inhisQuantulumcunque(1682)hethereforedeclaredthatlegislativeregulationoftherateofinterestwasasstupidasregulationofexportsofpreciousmetalsorregulationofexchangerates。Inthesameworkhemadestatementsofunquestionableauthorityontheraisingofmoney(forexample，theattempttogivesixpencethenameofoneshillingbydoublingthenumberofshillingscoinedfromoneounceofsilver)。
Asregardsthislastpoint，LockeandNorthdidlittlemorethancopyhim。Inregardtointerest，however，LockefollowedPetty’sparallelbetweenrentofmoneyandrentofland，whileNorthgoesfurtherandopposesinterestasrentofstocktolandrent，andthestocklordstothelandlords。
AndwhileLockeacceptsfreeplayfortherateofinterest，asdemandedbyPetty，onlywithreservations，Northacceptsitunconditionally。
HerrDühring——himselfstillabittermercantilistinthe“moresubtle“{55}sense——surpasseshimselfwhenhedismissesDudleyNorth’sDiscoursesuponTradewiththecommentthattheywerewritten“inthedirectionoffreetrade“{64}。ItisratherlikesayingofHarveythathewrote“inthedirection“ofthecirculationoftheblood。North’swork——apartfromitsothermerits——isaclassicalexposition，drivenhomewithrelentlesslogic，ofthedoctrineoffreetrade，bothforeignandinternal——certainly“somethingextraordinary“{64}intheyear1691！
HerrDühring，bytheway，informsusthatNorthwasa“merchant“andabadtypeatthat，alsothathiswork“metwithnoapproval“{64}。
Indeed！Howcouldanyoneexpectabookofthissorttohavemetwith“approval“
amongthemobsettingthetoneatthetimeofthefinaltriumphofprotectionisminEngland？Butthisdidnotpreventitfromhavinganimmediateeffectontheory，ascanbeseenfromawholeseriesofeconomicworkspublishedinEnglandshortlyafterit，someofthemevenbeforetheendoftheseventeenthcentury。
LockeandNorthgaveusproofofhowthefirstboldstrokeswhichPettydealtinalmosteverysphereofpoliticaleconomyweretakenuponebyonebyhisEnglishsuccessorsandfurtherdeveloped。Thetracesofthisprocessduringtheperiod1691to1752areobviouseventothemostsuperficialobserverfromtheveryfactthatallthemoreimportanteconomicwritingsofthattimestartfromPetty，eitherpositivelyornegatively。Thatperiod，whichaboundedinoriginalthinkers，isthereforethemostimportantfortheinvestigationofthegradualgenesisofpoliticaleconomy。The“historicaldepictioninthegrandstyle“{556}，whichchalksupagainstMarxtheunpardonablesinofmakingsomuchcommotioninCapitalaboutPettyandthewritersofthatperiod，simplystrikesthemrightoutofhistory。FromLocke，North，BoisguillebertandLawitjumpsstraighttothephysiocrats，andthen，attheentrancetotherealtempleofpoliticaleconomy，appears——DavidHume。WithHerrDühring’spermission，however，werestorethechronologicalorder，puttingHumebeforethephysiocrats。
Hume’seconomicEssaysappearedin1752。Intherelatedessays:ofMoney，oftheBalanceofTrade，ofCommerce，Humefollowsstepbystep，andofteneveninhispersonalidiosyncrasies，JacobVanderlint’sMoneyAnswersAllThings，publishedinLondonin1734。HoweverunknownthisVanderlintmayhavebeentoHerrDühring，referencestohimcanbefoundinEnglisheconomicworksevenattheendoftheeighteenthcentury，thatistosay，intheperiodafterAdamSmith。
LikeVanderlint，Humetreatedmoneyasameretokenofvalue;
hecopiedalmostwordforword(andthisisimportantashemighthavetakenthetheoryofmoneyasatokenofvaluefrommanyothersources)
Vanderlint’sargumentonwhythebalanceoftradecannotbepermanentlyeitherfavourableorunfavourabletoacountry;likeVanderlint，heteachesthattheequilibriumofbalancesisbroughtaboutnaturally，inaccordancewiththedifferenteconomicsituationsinthedifferentcountries;likeVanderlint，hepreachesfreetrade，butlessboldlyandconsistently;likeVanderlint，thoughwithlessprofundity，heemphasiseswantsasthemotiveforcesofproduction;hefollowsVanderlintintheinfluenceoncommoditypriceswhichheerroneouslyattributestobankmoneyandgovernmentsecuritiesingeneral;likeVanderlint，herejectscreditmoney;likeVanderlint，hemakescommoditypricesdependentonthepriceoflabour，thatis，onwages;heevencopiesVanderlint’sabsurdnotionthatbyaccumulatingtreasurescommoditypricesarekeptdown，etc。，etc。
AtamuchearlierpointHerrDühringmadeanoracularallusiontohowothershadmisunderstoodHume’smonetarytheorywithaparticularlyminatoryreferencetoMarx，whoinCapitalhad，besides，pointedinamannercontrarytopoliceregulationstothesecretconnectionsofHumewithVanderlintandwithJ。Massie，whowillbementionedlater。
Asforthismisunderstanding，thefactsareasfollows。InregardtoHume’srealtheoryofmoney(thatmoneyisameretokenofvalue，andtherefore，otherconditionsbeingequal，commoditypricesriseinproportiontotheincreaseinthevolumeofmoneyincirculation，andfallinproportiontoitsdecrease)，HerrDühring，withthebestintentionsintheworld——thoughinhisownluminousway——canonlyrepeattheerrorsmadebyhispredecessors。Hume，however，afterpropoundingthetheorycitedabove，himselfraisestheobjection(asMontesquieu，startingfromthesamepremises，haddonepreviously)thatnevertheless“’tiscertain“thatsincethediscoveryoftheminesinAmerica，“industryhasencreasedinallthenationsofEurope，exceptinthepossessorsofthosemines“，andthatthis“mayjustlybeascribed，amongstotherreasons，totheencreaseofgoldandsilver“。
Hisexplanationofthisphenomenonisthat“thoughthehighpriceofcommoditiesbeanecessaryconsequenceoftheencreaseofgoldandsilver，yetitfollowsnotimmediatelyuponthatencrease;butsometimeisrequiredbeforethemoneycirculatethroughthewholestate，andmakeitseffectsbefeltonallranksofpeople“。
Inthisintervalithasabeneficialeffectonindustryandtrade。
AttheendofthisanalysisHumealsotellsuswhythisisso，althoughinalesscomprehensivewaythanmanyofhispredecessorsandcontemporaries:
“’Tiseasytotracethemoneyinitsprogressthroughthewholecommonwealth;
whereweshallfind，thatitmustfirstquickenthediligenceofeveryindividual，beforeitencreasesthepriceoflabour。’“
Inotherwords，Humeisheredescribingtheeffectofarevolutioninthevalueofthepreciousmetals，namely，adepreciation，or，whichisthesamething，arevolutioninthemeasureofvalueofthepreciousmetals。Hecorrectlyascertainsthat，intheslowprocessofreadjustingthepricesofcommodities，thisdepreciation“increasesthepriceoflabour“——
vulgo，wages——onlyinthelastinstance;thatistosay，itincreasestheprofitmadebymerchantsandindustrialistsatthecostofthelabourer(whichhe，however，thinksisjustasitshouldbe)，andthus“quickensdiligence“。Buthedoesnotsethimselfthetaskofansweringtherealscientificquestion，namely，whetherandinwhatwayanincreaseinthesupplyofthepreciousmetals，theirvalueremainingthesame，affectsthepricesofcommodities;andhelumpstogetherevery“increaseofthepreciousmetals“withtheirdepreciation。HumethereforedoespreciselywhatMarxsayshedoes(ZurKritiketc。，p。141)。Weshallcomebackoncemoretothispointinpassing，butwemustfirstturntoHume’sessayonInterest。
Hume’sarguments，expresslydirectedagainstLockethattherateofinterestisnotregulatedbytheamountofavailablemoneybutbytherateofprofit，andhisotherexplanationsofthecauseswhichdeterminerisesorfallsintherateofinterest，arealltobefound，muchmoreexactlythoughlesscleverlystated，inAnEssayontheGoverningCausesoftheNaturalRateofInterest;whereinthesentimentsofSirW。PettyandMr。Locke，onthathead，areconsidered。Thisworkappearedin1750，twoyearsbeforeHume’sessay;itsauthorwasJ。Massie，awriteractiveinvariousfields，whohadawidepublic，ascanbeseenfromcontemporaryEnglishliterature。AdamSmith’sdiscussionoftherateofinterestisclosertoMassiethantoHume。NeitherMassienorHumeknoworsayanythingregardingthenatureof“profit“，whichplaysarolewithboth。
“Ingeneral。”HerrDühringsermonisesus，“theattitudeofmostofHume’scommentatorshasbeenveryprejudiced，andideashavebeenattributedtohimwhichheneverentertainedintheleast“{131}。
AndHerrDühringhimselfgivesusmorethanonestrikingexampleofthis“attitude“。
Forexample，Hume’sessayoninterestbeginswiththefollowingwords:
“Nothingisesteemedamorecertainsignoftheflourishingconditionofanynationthanthelownessofinterest:Andwithreason;thoughIbelievethecauseissomewhatdifferentfromwhatiscommonlyapprehended。”
Intheveryfirstsentence，therefore，Humecitestheviewthatthelownessofinterestisthesurestindicationoftheflourishingconditionofanationasacommonplacewhichhadalreadybecometrivialinhisday。Andinfactthis“idea“hadalreadyhadfullyahundredyears，sinceChild，tobecomegenerallycurrent。Butwearetold:
“Among“(Hume’s)“viewsontherateofinterestwemustparticularlydrawattentiontotheideathatitisthetruebarometerofconditions“
(conditionsofwhat？)“andthatitslownessisanalmostinfalliblesignoftheprosperityofanation“(p。130)。
Whoisthe“prejudiced“andcaptivated“commentator“whosaysthis？NoneotherthanHerrDühring。
WhatarousesthenaiveastonishmentofourcriticalhistorianisthefactthatHume，inconnectionwithsomefelicitousideaorother，“doesnotevenclaimtohaveoriginatedit“{131}。ThiswouldcertainlynothavehappenedtoHerrDühring。
WehaveseenhowHumeconfuseseveryincreaseofthepreciousmetalswithsuchanincreaseasisaccompaniedbyadepreciation，arevolutionintheirownvalue，hence，inthemeasureofvalueofcommodities。ThisconfusionwasinevitablewithHumebecausehehadnottheslightestunderstandingofthefunctionofthepreciousmetalsasthemeasureofvalue。Andhecouldnothaveit，becausehehadabsolutelynoknowledgeofvalueitself。Theworditselfistobefoundperhapsonlyonceinhisessays，namely，inthepassagewhere，inattemptingto“correct“Locke’serroneousnotionthatthepreciousmetalshad“onlyanimaginaryvalue“，hemakesitevenworsebysayingthattheyhad“merelyafictitiousvalue“。
InthisheismuchinferiornotonlytoPettybuttomanyofhisEnglishcontemporaries。Heshowsthesame“backwardness“instillproclaimingtheold-fashionednotionthatthe“merchant“isthemainspringofproduction——anideawhichPettyhadlongpassedbeyond。AsforHerrDühring’sassurancethatinhisessaysHumeconcernedhimselfwiththe“chiefeconomicrelationships“{121}，ifthereaderonlycomparesCantillon’sworkquotedbyAdamSmith(whichappearedthesameyearasHume’sessays，1752，butmanyyearsafteritsauthor’sdeath)，[97]hewillbesurprisedatthenarrowrangeofHume’seconomicwritings。Hume，aswehavesaid，inspiteoftheletters-patentissuedtohimbyHerrDühring，isneverthelessquitearespectablefigurealsointhefieldofpoliticaleconomy，butinthisfieldheisanythingbutanoriginalinvestigator，andevenlessanepoch-makingone。Theinfluenceofhiseconomicessaysontheeducatedcirclesofhisdaywasduenotmerelytohisexcellentpresentation，butprincipallytothefactthattheessayswereaprogressiveandoptimisticglorificationofindustryandtrade，whichwerethenflourishing——inotherwords，ofthecapitalistsocietywhichatthattimewasrapidlyrisinginEngland，andwhose“approval“theythereforehadtogain。Letoneinstancesufficehere。EveryoneknowsthepassionatefightthatthemassesoftheEnglishpeoplewerewaging，justinHume’sday，againstthesystemofindirecttaxeswhichwasbeingregularlyexploitedbythenotoriousSirRobertWalpoleforthereliefofthelandlordsandoftherichingeneral。
InhisessayOfTaxes，inwhich，withoutmentioninghisname，HumepolemisesagainsthisindispensableauthorityVanderlint——thestoutestopponentofindirecttaxationandthemostdeterminedadvocateofalandtax——weread: