From: Jurriaan Bendien (adsl675281@TISCALI.NL)
Date: Wed Jul 26 2006 - 13:27:03 EDT
Rakesh, I think it's mainly a fallacy, i.e. Marx shows evidence that he worked out his concept of capital and its circulation process BEFORE his conspectus and critique of Quesnay, and really Quesnay himself is not so important, as far as Marx concerned, much more important is how Smith, Sismondi and Ricardo etc. interpret Quesnay's insights, i.e. how they try to reconcile their theory of industrial capital with the concept of the reproduction of capital. The historical significance of the Physiocrats according to Marx was that "The Physiocrats transferred the inquiry into the origin of the surplus value from the sphere of circulation into the sphere of direct production, and thereby laid the foundation for the analysis of capitalist production." They tried to get clear about the concept of the capital stock as such, and Marx regarded the invention of the Tableau Economique as "brilliant". Even so, Marx remarks in the "Resultate" (1864) that "There is nevertheless a whole range of confused conceptions traditionally associated with [the] distinction between gross and net product. These derive in part from the Physiocrats (see Book IV) and in part from Adam Smith, who continues on occasion to confuse capitalist production with production for the direct producers." And: "Otherwise, the doctrine that the net product is the final and highest goal of production is only a brutal, but correct expression of the fact that the valorisation of capital, and therefore the creation of surplus value, without any concern for the worker, is the driving force and the essence of capitalist production. The highest ideal of capitalist production - corresponding to the relative growth of the net product - is the greatest possible reduction in the number of people living on wages, and the greatest possible increase in the number of people living off the net product." (Ben Fowkes translation). BTW Ben Fowkes did accept the translation of "Verwertung" as "valorisation", presumably because of the same kinds of reasons which I have cited - Marx did not believe in Say's law, and thus the valorisation of capital and the realisation of capital were semi-autonomous 'moments' in the accumulation process. Jurriaan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 31 2006 - 00:00:03 EDT