Realisation of the surplus value outside the only two existing cla.s.ses of society appears as indispensable as it looks impossible. The acc.u.mulation of capital has been caught in a vicious circle. At any rate, the second volume of _Capital_ offers no way out.

If we should now ask why Marx's _Capital_ affords no solution to this important problem of the acc.u.mulation of capital, we must bear in mind above all that this second volume is not a finished whole but a ma.n.u.script that stops short half way through.

The external form of its last chapters in particular proves them to be in the nature of notes, intended to clear the author's own mind, rather than final conclusions ready for the reader's enlightenment. This fact is amply authenticated by the man best in the position to know: Friedrich Engels, who edited the second volume. In his introduction to the second volume he reports in detail on the conditions of the preliminary studies and the ma.n.u.scripts Marx had left, which were to form the basis of this volume:

'The mere enumeration of the ma.n.u.scripts left by Marx as a basis for Volume II proves the unparalleled conscientiousness and strict self-criticism which he practised in his endeavour to fully elaborate his great economic discoveries before he published them. This self-criticism rarely permitted him to adapt his presentation of the subject, in content as well as in form, to his ever widening horizon, which he enlarged by incessant study.

'The material ... consists of the following parts: First, a ma.n.u.script ent.i.tled "A contribution to the Critique of Political Economy", containing 1,472 quarto pages in 23 divisions, written in the time from August, 1861, to June, 1863. It is a continuation of the work of the same t.i.tle, the first volume of which appeared in Berlin, in 1859....

This ma.n.u.script, valuable though it is, could not be used in the present edition of Volume II.

'The ma.n.u.script next following in the order of time is that of Volume III....

'The period after the publication of Volume I, which is next in order, is represented by a collection of four ma.n.u.scripts for Volume II, marked I-IV by Marx himself. Ma.n.u.script I (150 pages) presumably written in 1865 or 1867, is the first independent, but more or less fragmentary, elaboration of the questions now contained in Volume II. This ma.n.u.script is likewise unsuited for this edition. Ma.n.u.script III is partly a compilation of quotations and references to the ma.n.u.scripts containing Marx's extracts and comments, most of them relating to the first section of Volume II, partly an elaboration of special points, particularly a critique of Adam Smith's statements as to fixed and circulating capital and the source of profits; furthermore, a discussion of the relations of the rate of surplus-value to the rate of profit, which belongs in Volume III. The references furnished little that was new, while the elaborations for Volumes II and III were rendered valueless through subsequent revisions and had to be ruled out for the greater part.

Ma.n.u.script IV is an elaboration, ready for printing, of the first section and the first chapters of the second section of Volume II, and has been used in its proper place. Although it was found that this ma.n.u.script had been written earlier than Ma.n.u.script II, yet it was far more finished in form and could be used with advantage for the corresponding part of this volume. I had to add only a few supplementary parts of Ma.n.u.script II. This last ma.n.u.script is the only fairly completed elaboration of Volume II and dates from the year 1870. The notes for the final revision, which I shall mention immediately, say explicitly: "The second elaboration must be used as a basis."

'There is another interruption after 1870, due mainly to ill health.

Marx employed this time in his customary way, that is to say he studied agronomics, agricultural conditions in America and especially Russia, the money market and banking inst.i.tutions, and finally natural sciences, such as geology and physiology. Independent mathematical studies also form a large part of the numerous ma.n.u.scripts of this period. In the beginning of 1877, Marx had recovered sufficiently to resume once more his chosen life's work. The beginning of 1877 is marked by references and notes from the above named four ma.n.u.scripts intended for a new elaboration of Volume II, the beginning of which is represented by Ma.n.u.script V (56 pages in folio). It comprises the first four chapters and is not very fully worked out. Essential points are treated in footnotes. The material is rather collected than sifted, but it is the last complete presentation of this most important first section. A preliminary attempt to prepare this part for the printer was made in Ma.n.u.script VI (after October, 1877, and before July, 1878), embracing 17 quarto pages, the greater part of the first chapter. A second and last attempt was made in Ma.n.u.script VII, dated July 2, 1878, and consisting of 7 pages in folio.

'About this time Marx seems to have realised that he would never be able to complete the second and third volume in a manner satisfactory to himself, unless a complete revolution in his health took place.

Ma.n.u.scripts V-VIII show traces of hard struggles against depressing physical conditions far too frequently to be ignored. The most difficult part of the first section had been worked over in Ma.n.u.script V. The remainder of the first, and the entire second section, with the exception of Chapter 17, presented no great theoretical difficulties.

But the third section, dealing with the reproduction and circulation of social capital, seemed to be very much in need of revision. Ma.n.u.script II, it must be pointed out, had first treated of this reproduction without regard to the circulation which is instrumental in effecting it, and then taken up the same question with regard to circulation. It was the intention of Marx to eliminate this section and to reconstruct it in such a way that it would conform to his wider grasp of the subject. This gave rise to Ma.n.u.script VIII, containing only 70 pages in quarto. A comparison with Section III, as printed after deducting the paragraphs inserted out of Ma.n.u.script II, shows the amount of matter compressed by Marx into this s.p.a.ce.

'Ma.n.u.script VIII is likewise merely a preliminary presentation of the subject, and its main object was to ascertain and develop the new points of view not set forth in Ma.n.u.script II, while those points were ignored about which there was nothing new to say. An essential part of Chapter 17, Section II, which is more or less relevant to Section III, was at the same time drawn into this discussion and expanded. The logical sequence was frequently interrupted, the treatment of the subject was incomplete in various places, and especially the conclusion was very fragmentary. But Marx expressed as nearly as possible what he intended to say on the subject.

'This is the material for Volume II, out of which I was supposed "to make something", as Marx said to his daughter Eleanor shortly before his death.'[145]

We cannot but admire this 'something' which Engels managed to 'make'

from material of such a kind. As far as our present problem is concerned, however, this detailed report makes it clear that no more than the first two of the three sections that make up volume ii were anything like ready for print in the ma.n.u.scripts Marx left: the section 'On the Circulation of Money and Commodity Capital' and on 'The Causes of Circulation and the Turnover of Capital'. The third section which treats of the reproduction of total capital is merely a collection of fragments which Marx himself considered to be 'very much in need of revision.' Yet it is the last part of this section, i.e. chapter 21, 'On Acc.u.mulation and Enlarged Reproduction', which is of primary importance in the present context, and of the whole book this is the most incomplete. It comprises thirty-five pages of print in all and breaks off right in the middle of the a.n.a.lysis.

Besides this extraneous circ.u.mstance, we would suggest another point of great influence. Marx's investigation of the social reproductive process starts off, as we have seen, from the a.n.a.lysis of Adam Smith which came to grief, among other reasons, because of the erroneous doctrine that the price of all commodities is composed of _v + s_. Polemics against this dogma dominated Marx's entire a.n.a.lysis of the reproductive process.

He devoted all his attention to proving that the total capital of society must serve, not only for consumption to the full amount of the various sources of revenue, but also for renewal of the constant capital. And inasmuch as the purest theoretical form for this line of reasoning is given, not by enlarged reproduction, but by simple reproduction, Marx tends to consider reproduction mainly from a point of view that is the very opposite of acc.u.mulation, from the a.s.sumption that the entire surplus value is consumed by the capitalists. How greatly these polemics influenced his a.n.a.lysis is proved by his returning time and again in the course of his work to the attack on Adam Smith from the most various angles. So already in volume i, the following pages are devoted to it: vol. i, sect. 7, chap. 24, (2), pp. 588-602, and in vol.

ii, pp. 417-56, p. 473, pp. 504-8, and pp. 554 f.

Marx again takes up the question of total reproduction in volume iii but from the start becomes once more involved with the problem set by Smith to which he devotes the whole of his 49th chapter and most of chapter 50 (pp. 968-92 and 992-1022). Finally, in _Theorien ueber den Mehrwert_, we again find detailed polemics against Smith's dogma: pp. 164-253 in vol.

i, and pp. 92, 95, 126, 233, and 262 in vol. ii, part 2. Marx repeatedly stressed and emphasised the fact that he considered replacement of the constant capital from the aggregate social product the most difficult and important problem of reproduction.[146] The other problem, that of acc.u.mulation, i.e. realisation of the surplus value for the purpose of capitalisation, was thus pushed into the background, so that in the end Marx hardly touched upon it.

This problem being of such paramount importance for capitalist economy, it is not surprising that bourgeois economists have dealt with it again and again. Attempts to grapple with this vital question for capitalist economy, with the question whether capital acc.u.mulation is possible in practice, come up time and again in the history of economic theory. To these historical attempts, before and after Marx, at solving this problem we shall now turn.

FOOTNOTES:

[133] _Capital_, vol. ii, p. 572.

[134] _Capital_, vol. ii, pp. 380-1.

[135] Ibid., p. 381.

[136] _Capital_, vol. ii, pp. 381-3.

[137] Ibid., p. 383.

[138] _Capital_, vol. ii, pp. 384-5.

[139] Ibid., p. 385.

[140] _Capital_, vol. ii, p. 387.

[141] Ibid., p. 397.

[142] Ibid., p. 397.

[143] Ibid., pp. 397-8.

[144] _Capital_, vol. ii, p. 401.

[145] _Capital_, vol. ii, pp. 8 ff.

[146] Cf. e.g. _Capital_, vol. ii, pp. 430, 522, and 529.

_SECTION TWO_

HISTORICAL EXPOSITION OF THE PROBLEM

FIRST ROUND

SISMONDI-MALTHUS _v._

SAY-RICARDO--MACCULLOCH

_CHAPTER_ X

SISMONDI'S THEORY OF REPRODUCTION

The first grave doubts as to the divine character of the capitalist order came to bourgeois economists under the immediate impact of the first crises of 1815 and 1818-19 in England. Even then it had still been external circ.u.mstances which led up to these crises, and they appeared to be ephemeral. Napoleon's blockade of the Continent which for a time had cut off England from her European markets and had favoured a considerable development of home industries in some of the continental countries, was partly responsible; for the rest the material exhaustion of the Continent, owing to the long period of war, made for a smaller demand for English products than had been expected when the blockade was lifted. Still, these early crises were enough to reveal to the contemporary world the sinister aspects of this best of all social orders. Glutted markets, shops filled with goods n.o.body could buy, frequent bankruptcies--and on the other hand the glaring poverty of the toiling ma.s.ses--for the first time all this starkly met the eyes of theorists who had preached the gospel of the beautiful harmonies of bourgeois _laissez-faire_ and had sung its praises in all keys. All contemporary trade reports, periodicals and travellers' notes told of the losses sustained by English merchants. In Italy, Germany, Russia, and Brazil, the English disposed of their commodity stocks at a loss of anything between 25 per cent and 33 1/3 per cent. People at the Cape of Good Hope in 1818 complained that all the shops were flooded with European goods offered at lower prices than in Europe and still unmarketable. From Calcutta there came similar complaints. From New Holland whole cargoes returned to England. In the United States, a contemporary traveller reports, 'there was no town nor hamlet from one end to the other of this immense and prosperous continent where the amount of commodities displayed for sale did not considerably exceed the means of the purchasers, although the vendors tried to attract custom by long-term credits, all sorts of facilities for payment, payment by instalments and acceptance of payment in kind'.

At the same time, England was hearing the desperate outcry of her workers. The _Edinburgh Review_ of 1820[147] quotes an address by the Nottingham frame-work knitters which contained the following statements:

'After working from 14 to 16 hours a day, we only earn from 4_s._ to 7_s._ a week, to maintain our wives and families upon; and we farther state, that although we have subst.i.tuted bread and water, or potatoes and salt, for that more wholesome food an Englishman's table used to abound with, we have repeatedly retired, after a heavy day's labour, and have been under the necessity of putting our children supperless to bed, to stifle the cries of hunger. We can most solemnly declare, that for the last eighteen months we have scarcely known what it was to be free from the pangs of hunger.'[148]

Then Owen in England, and Sismondi in France, almost simultaneously raised their voices in a weighty indictment of capitalist society. Owen, as a hard-headed Englishman and citizen of the leading industrial state, const.i.tuted himself spokesman for a generous social reform, whereas the petty-bourgeois Swiss rather lost himself in sweeping denunciations of the imperfections of the existing social order and of cla.s.sical economics. And yet, by so doing, Sismondi gave bourgeois economics a much harder nut to crack than Owen, whose fertile practical activities were directly applied to the proletariat.