Re Rakesh's [5770]:
> Isn't Marx most contemptuous of Malthus'
population theory (the greatest calumy ever heaped on the human race or
some such what
unforgettable line though alas I have forgotten) while at the same time
underlining that Ricardo
could only respond with forced abstractions and his followers with pathetic
word games in the face
of Malthus's valid objections? <
Oh, yes, Marx was contemptuous of the
Malthusian population theory. Yet, he was
*generally* contemptuous of Malthus. This,
of course, was not personal animosity on
Marx's part (although some might read it as such)
but rather *class hatred*.
Malthus's "purpose", Marx claimed, was to write
"an apologia for the existing state of affairs in
England, for landlordism, 'State and Church',
pensioners, tax-gatherers, tenths, national debt,
stock-jobbers, beadles, parsons and menial
servants ('national expenditure') assailed by the
Ricardians as so many useless and superannuated
drawbacks to bourgeois production and as
nuisances" (_TSV_, Part III, Ch. XIX, pp. 51-2.)
He goes on to consider Malthus's individual works:
"Malthus's book _On Population_ was a lampoon
directed against the French Revolution and the
contemporary ideas of reform in England
(Godwin, etc.). It was an apologia for the poverty
of the working classes. The *theory* was
plagiarised from Townsend and others.
His *Essay on Rent* was a piece of polemic
writing in support of the landlords against industrial
capital. Its *theory* was taken from Anderson.
His _Principles of Political Economy_ was a
polemic work written in the interests of capitalists
against the workers and in the interests of the
aristocracy, Church, tax-eaters, toadies, etc.,
against the capitalists. Its *theory* was taken from
Adam Smith. When he inserts his own inventions,
it is pitiable. It is on Sismondi that he bases
himself in further elaborating the theory" (Ibid,
pp. 61-2).
Despite making some valid points re Ricardo
(e.g. having an emphasis on *unequal exchange*
between capital and wage-labour {Ibid, p. 14}),
Marx viewed Malthus as a *reactionary
representative of the Church, feudalism, and
the absolute monarchy* (thus Marx wrote that
Malthus "wants bourgeois production as long
as it is not revolutionary"). In contrast, Ricardo
was as viewed as a representative of classical
liberalism which during Ricardo's time Marx
thought was revolutionary and progressive in
contrast to the the likes of "Parson Malthus".
>Ricardo made a scientific leap forward, but
could not complete it. <
Whereas, Marx thought that Malthus took a
leap backwards: Malthus sought to "drag
political economy back to where it was before
Ricardo, even to where it was before Adam Smith
and the Physiocrats" (Ibid, p. 16)
> So Marx's critique of political economy begins with the problems that the
Ricardian school could
not solve...as Malthus and other critics
demonstrated. I don't see how Marx's theoretical
efforts make sense without recognition
of the scientific or objective validity of the criticisms made by Malthus
and others of
Ricardo.<
By no means did Marx just take Malthus's side in
these debates. Indeed, he often supported
Ricardo against Malthus on specific issues.
In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jul 15 2001 - 10:56:28 EDT