10 2307@40434585

Karl Marx and John Stuart Mill
Author(s): Bela A. Balassa

Source: Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, Bd. 83 (1959), pp. 147-165
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40434585
Accessed: 24-01-2016 14:33 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 208.95.48.254 on Sun, 24 Jan 2016 14:33:23 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Karl Marx and John Stuart Mill
By
Professor
Dr. Bela A. Balassa
New Haven, Conn.
Contents: I. Marx on Mill. - II. Theoriesof Value. - III. The Theory

of Profit.- IV. The Theoryof Relative Prices. - V. The Law of Markets.-
VI. CounteractingTendenciesto the Fall of the Rate of Profit.- VII. Mill
on Socialism.
I. Marxon Mill
treatmentof JohnStuart Mill is one of the great puzzles
of the historyof economicthought.Reading Marx (and his
followers)one gets the impressionthat Mill was an insignificant
figurewhose writingsexemplifythe "decline" of Ricardian economics.
WheneverMarx mentionsMill's name (which does not happen very
frequently) he neverforgetsto add some derogatorycomment1.In most
cases, however,Mill's views are not even given consideration.And yet
at the time Marx was workingon Capital, Mill's Principles*was the
leading treatiseof contemporary economics.One needs only to recall
Remark:I wishto acknowledgemy indebtedness to ProfessorMarkBlaug forvaluable
commentsand suggestions, and to Mr.FrederickW. Demingforhelpingme in theimprove-
mentof presentation. This studywas carriedout withthe assistanceof a fellowshipfrom
the Rockefeller Foundation.
1 Cf. e.g., Karl Marx, Capital, A Critiqueof Political Economy,Chicago, 1906- 09,
Vol. 1, p. 19, Vol. 3, p. 653. For a somewhatmore"lenient" treatmentsee Vol. 1, p. 669.
For characteristic viewsofmodernMarxistssee Ronald L. Meek,"The Declineof Ricardian
Economicsin England", Economica,N.S., Vol. XVII, London, 1950, p. 62, furthermore,
Maurice Dobb, Political Economyand Capitalism,Some Essays in EconomicTradition,
London,1950,p. 53.
» The followingeditionwill be quoted here: John Stuart Mill, Principlesof Political
EconomyWithSome of TheirApplicationsto Social Philosophy, Ed. by W. J. Ashley,New
York, 1909.
148 Bela Á. Balassa
Jevons'bitterattack on the tyrannicalauthorityof the "Ricardo-Mill

school,"pennedfouryearsafterthe publicationof Volume1 of Capital,
to realizehow singularwas Marx'sdepreciationof Mill.
Neverthelessin spite of Marx's unfavorableutteranceson Mill,there
are manystrikingsimilarities in the theoriesof the two authors.Indeed,
it is clearfrominternalevidencethatMillmade a considerableimpression
upon Marx. This has neverbeen broughtout in the literature.Perhaps
those who read Marx do not read Mill and vice versa? The purpose of
the presentpaperis to examinethishithertoneglectedquestion.
II. Theoriesof Value

Value theoryhas servedmanyfunctionsin the historyof economics.
For ourpurposesthefollowing distinction value theories
willbe sufficient:
as theoriesof relative
pricesor as theories
ofdistribution.
In presentday parlance, value means exchange value and value
theoryis designedto explain relative prices. In Marx, however,the
conceptofvalueis gearedinsteadto thetheoryofclass-income distribution,
serving as a basis forhis of
theory exploitation. Marxian value theory
as expoundedin Volume1 of Capital does not accountforrelativeprices
as Marx himselfpoints out. To determinerelativeprices we need the
muchdiscussed"transformation" ofvaluesintoprices1.Thus,in Volume3
of Capital we arriveat an "ordinary"cost ofproductiontheoryofprices.
The conceptsused by Milldiffer greatlyfromthoseof Marx.Distribu-
tion,as examinedin the secondbook of the Principlesis not connected
with the problemof value. Value is a phenomenonof exchange,which
is the subject of Book III. Yet the difference betweenthe two theories
is largelyterminological. The explorationof the "kinship"betweenthe
two theoriesof distributionand theoriesof prices will be the subject
of the following two sections.
III. The Theoryof Profit

ModernMarxistsmaintainthat Ricardo representsan intermediate
stage betweenSmithand Marx in the developmentof the labor theory
1 It is hard to understandwhyso manyoutstandingeconomists,fromBöhm-Bawerk
to Sweezyand Dickinson,botheredwiththisproblem.It has no bearingwhatsoeveron the
validityor invalidityof the Marxian theoryof value. The possibilityof transformation
(whichhas beenfinallyprovedby F. Seton,cf."The 'Transformation Problem*
", The Review
of EconomicStudies,Vol. XXIV, Cambridge,1957, pp. 149sqq.), does not give validation
to the labor theoryof value. As Samuelsonput it: ' 'logicallythistransformation
goes from
exchange-valuesto Marx-defined values not vice versa." Paul A. Samuelson,"Wages and
Interest:A ModernDissectionof Marxian Economic Models", The AmericanEconomic
Review,Vol. XLVII, Menasha,Wise, 1957,p. 890.
KarlMarxandJohnStuartMill 149
ofvalue1.Thisistheopinion alsoofsomemodern "bourgeois" economists2.

Theseviewsarelargelybasedon themisinterpretation oftheRicardian
theory andona confusion between valuetheory as a theoryofdistribution
and as a theoryofrelativeprices.Thereis no theoryofthenatureof
profitas incomein Ricardo.As Marxrightly states3:"Ricardonever
concerns himself about the of
origin surplus value."
as
Nearly strongly as Marx is saidto haveelaborated the"Ricardian"
labortheory ofvalue,Millis presented as havingimpaired it4.According
to Marx5:"JohnStuartMill . . . acceptson the one hand Ricardo's
theoryof profit and annexeson the otherhandSenior'sremuneration
of'abstinence'. He is at homein absurdcontradictions."
Marxis in error in hiscriticism, however, overlooking thefactthata
of
theory exploitation is not incompatible with a theoryof abstinence.
Millpresents a synthesis of boththeories6: "... theincreaseof capital
mustdependupontwothings- theamountofthefundfrom whichthe
savingcan be made, and the strength ofthe dispositions which prompt it.
Thefundfrom whichsavingcanbe made,is the surplusoftheproduce
oflabour,aftersupplying thenecessaries oflifeto all concerned in the
production: including those employed in replacing the materials,and
keepingthe fixedcapitalin repair.Morethan this surpluscannotbe
savedunderanycircumstances."
In thechapter"Of Profits" Millrepeatsand elaborates theanalysis
presented in the chapter "Of the Law of the Increase ofCapital"(partly
quotedabove).Askingwhatis the causeofprofit, he answers7:"The
cause of profitis that labourproducesmorethan is requiredforits
support. . . We thussee that profitarises,not fromthe incidentof
exchange, butfrom theproductive poweroflabour."
1 Cf.e.g.,RonaldL. Meek,Studiesin theLabourTheory ofValue,London,1956,pp. n6sqq.
1 Cf.e.g.,T. W. Hutchinson, "SomeQuestionsAboutRicardo",Economica, N.S., Vol. XIX,
1952,p. 421.
8 Marx, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 566. - Cf. also John M. Casseis, "A Re-interpretation of
Ricardo on Value", The Quarterly Journalof Economics,Vol. XLIX, Cambridge,Mass.,
1934/35» P« 532. - Samuelson,op. cit.,p. 892.
4 Cf.Jacob Viner,Studiesin theTheoryof International Trade,New York and London,
1937,p. 490. - Also Leo Rogin,The Meaningand ValidityofEconomicTheory, A Historical
Approach,New York, 1956,p. 319. - For a modernMarxistview cf. Dobb, op. cit.,p. 137,
and Meek,Studies,op. cit.,pp. 243sqq.
5 Marx,op. cit.,Vol. 1, p. 654. This passage, contraryto the one quoted above, seems
to implythat Marx attributedsome formof a theoryof profitto Ricardo.Or is it onlyto
belittleMill?
• Mill,op. cit.,pp. 163sq.
7 Ibid.,pp. 4i6sq.
150 Bela A. Balassa
Marxquotesthissentence buttriesto ridiculeMill,partlyby stating

thatthisis "nothing but the old story"1, and partlyby accusingMill
of havingconfounded "the durationof labour-time withthe duration
ofits products"2. If one readsMill'swholepassagecarefully, it willbe
clearthathe simplystated(and restated) the idea whichbecame the
coreoftheMarxian system : laborproduces more than thegoodsnecessary
foritssubsistence,henceprofits.
Millfaresstillworsein theTheorien überdenMehrwert3. Hereassert-
ing that the Principles does not contain anyoriginal ideas,overand
abovethosein theEssays*,Marxexamines only Essays and arrives
the
at surprisingconclusions5: "Millnimmt. . an, daß derLohn,denein
MannfüreinenArbeitstag erhält,gleichdemProdukt seinesArbeitstags
ist odersovielArbeitszeit enthält, als er arbeitet."
It follows,
according to Marx,thatMillassumesthatthe sourceof
profitis "profitupon alienation," i.e., profitderivedfromexchange6.
This conclusion is not substantiated by the Essays and Marxshould
have consultedCapital,wherehe quotes7the Principles to the effect
"that profitarises,not fromthe incidentof exchange,but fromthe
productive poweroflabour"8.
Consequently,profit is causedby thedifference betweentheproduct
oflaborand thecostoflabor9.This,although statedin physical-rather
thanin value-terms (and withoutthe Hegelianjargon)is exactlythe
sameproposition as thatof Marx:profit betweenthe
is the difference
value producedby labor(productoflabor)and thevalue ofthelabor
power(costofproducing labor).Thisis theobjectivesideoftheMillian
1 Marx,op. cit.,Vol. 1, p. 566.
a Quotinga passage fromMill accordingto which "the reason why capital yields a
profit,is because food,clothing,materialsand tools,last longerthan the timewhichwas
requiredto producethem" (Mill,op. cit.,p. 417), Marx writesthe following(op. cit.tVol. 1,
p. 566): "he [Mill] here confoundsthe durationof labour-timewith the durationof its
products.Accordingto this view, a baker whose productslast only a day, could never
extractfromhis workpeoplethe same profitas a machinemakerwhoseproductsendures
for20 yearsand more."
* KarlMarx,Theorien überden Mehrwert, Aus demnachgelassenen "Zur Kri-
Manuskript
tikder politischen Ökonomie"hrsg.von Karl Kautsky,Bd. 3 : Von Ricardozur Vulgäröko-
nomie,Stuttgart,1910.
* JohnStuart Mill,Essays on Some Unsettled Questionsof PoliticalEconomy,London,
1844. - Cf. Marx, Theorien,op. cit.,p. 230.
8 Marx,Theorien, op. cit.,p. 244.
• Ibid., p. 245.
7 Idem,Capital,op. cit.,Vol. 1, p. 566.
8 Mill,Principles,op. cit.,p. 417.
• Ibid., pp. 418sqq.
Karl Marxand JohnStuartMill 151
profittheory.The "infamous" concept of abstinenceis the subjective

side, givingreasonfortheexistenceof profit, that is, the surplusproduct
of labor provides the means of accumulation;the abstinenceof the
capitalist (whichis rewardedby profit)ensuresthat this surpluswill
be accumulated(and not consumed)1.
The subjectiveside of the theoryof profitis foundin the Marxian
doctrine,too: profitis needed for the sake of accumulation.A fall in
the profitratewouldprovidea check.Because "the rate ofself-expansion
of capital,the rate of profit,is the incentiveof capitalistproduction. . .
its fallchecksthe formation of new independentcapitals and thus seems
to threatenthe developmentof the processof capitalistproduction"2.
Thus, in the Marxian system,accumulationis the functionof the
profitrateand profitis neededforprompting the capitalistto accumulate
the surplus product of labor. "The rate of profitis the compelling
force of capitalist productionand only such things are produced as
yield a profit"3.In the courseof capitalistdevelopment"througha fall
in the rate of profits,
the vital fireof productionwould be extinguished.
It wouldfallinto a dormantstate"4.
We mightsay that the capitalistis on the marginof decisionwhether
to consumeor to accumulatethe surplusproductand he is inducedby
the possibilityof profitto "abstain" frompresentconsumptionforthe
sake ofthe future,higherreward.Marxspeaksabout a "Faustian conflict
betweenthe passion foraccumulation,and the desireforenjoyment"6.
And accumulation,"the developmentof the productiveforcesof social
labor is the historicaltask and privilegeof the capital"6. Now, it is
understandable whySchumpeterstatesthatin spiteof Marx'sdisavowal,
". . it is in fact not difficultto see ... the presencein the logic of his
structureboth of the elementof abstinence. . . and of the elementof
waiting"7.
One may conclude that, in spite of terminologicaldifferences, we
findboththe objectiveand the subjectiveelementsof Mill'sprofittheory
in Marx. Mill's profittheoryis, then,not an "absurd contradiction"in
1 Mill,Principles,op. cit.,
pp. 405sqq.
* Marx,Capital,op. cit.,Vol. 3, p. 283.
» Ibid., p. 304.
* Ibid.
« Ibid., Vol. 1, p. 653.
"Accumulate,accumulate!That is Moses and the prophets!. . .
Therefore, save, save, i.e. reconvertthe greatestpossibleportionof the surplus-value,or
surplus-product intocapital." (Ibid., p. 652.)
• Ibid., Vol. 3, p. 304.
7 JosephA. Schumpeter, HistoryofEconomicAnalysis,Ed. fromManuscript by Elizabeth
Boody Schumpeter, New York, 1954,p. 661.
152 Bela A. Balassa
the lightof theMarxiandoctrine.Profitis boththesurplusproductoflabor

and therewardofthecapitalistnecessary foraccumulation in boththeories.
Consequently, thebasisoftheMarxiantheory ofprofitis notto be found
in Ricardobutin Mill.
Thesimilarity betweentheMillianandtheMarxiantheories ofprofit
is largelythe resultof theirsimilarviewsabout the productivity of
Both
capital. expound theview that only laboris not
productive, capital1.
Nevertheless, Marxcouldhave used the Ricardiandistinction between
value and richesto arguethatcapitalis productive of richesbut not
of value (i.e., capitalhas physical- but no value - productivity).
Yet theideological overtonesofhissystem prevented himfromcarrying
out this distinction. Hence,thereis onlyone factor(labor)whichis
productive in hissystemeitherin physicalorin valueterms.
NeitherMillnorMarxis consistent in thisview.Millrecognizes that
theproductivity oflaboris increased by the"invention and theuse of
toolsand machinery"2. And Marxis obligedto admitthat "thereis
immanent in capitalan inclination and constanttendency to heighten
the productiveness oflabour. . ."3. Thus,thequestionofproductivity
becomesa "verbalpoint"4.
IV. The Theoryof RelativePrices

As is all too well-known,Ricardo'stheory ofrelativepricesis a cost
ofproduction theory.In Ricardo"... it is supplywhichregulates value
- and supplyis itselfcontrolled by comparative cost of production.
Cost of production, in money,meansthe value of labour,as well as
profits"5."The buyers[demand]have the leastin the worldto do in
regulating price"6.The implicitassumption of thistheoryis thatthe
supply curve is therefore
horizontal, any shift in thedemandcurvewill
1 "The 'productivepower of capital/ througha common,and, forsome purposes,a

convenientexpression,is a delusiveone. Capital,strictlyspeaking,has no productivepower.
The onlyproductivepoweris thatoflabour ..." Mill,Essays,op. cit.,p. 90, and "productive
activity,if we leave out of sightits special form,viz. the usefulcharacterof the labour,
is nothingbut theexpenditure ofhumanlabour-power." Marx,Capital,op. cit.,Vol. 1, p. 51.
8 Marx,Capital,op. cit.,Vol. 1, p. 351.
4 "Whetherwe choose to say that capital is productive,or that capital is necessary
to makelabourproductive, is not a matterof muchimportance."Joan Robinson,An Essay
on MarxianEconomics,London,1942,p. 21.
* The Worksand Correspondence ofDavid Ricardo,Ed. by PieroSraffa,WiththeCollab.
of M. H. Dobb, Cambridge,1951 and 1952,Vol. 8, p. 279,
• Ibid., p. 277.
change only the quantity produced but (abstractingfromtemporary

rigidities)willnot resultin a changein price.
The Milliantheoryof relativepricesconstitutesa considerabledevel-
opmentoverRicardo'stheory.Millmakesthefollowing explicitdistinction
betweencommodities:
(1) Commodities withinelastic(vertical)supplycurves1.
(2) Commodities withinfinitely elastic (horizontal)supplycurves2.
(3) Commodities with upward-sloping supplycurves(increasingMC)3.
In spite of terminological waverings,Mill's treatmentgivesriseto an
"ordinary"supply and demand explanation4,where,in everycase, the
intersection point of the demand and supplyscheduledetermines values
(relativeprices) and quantities, "the real law of demand and supply,
the equationbetweenthemholdsin all cases"6.
Marx fallsback on the Ricardiancost of productiontheoryas if Mill
had never written.The implicitassumptionof infinitely elastic supply
returns:"If demand and supplybalance, then they cease to have any
effectand for this very reason commoditiesare sold at theirmarket-
values ... It is evidentthatthe essentialfundamental laws ofproduction
cannotbe explainedby the interactionof supplyand demand"6.
It is notdifficult to see whyMarxsticksto theoutdatedRicardianfor-
mulation.He wantsto showthat "the law ofvalue dominatesthe move-
mentsofprices,"and demandviewedas a "subjectiveelement"does not
"impair"the eternaland fundamental"objective"law ofvalue.Marxdid
notgraspthattheequalityofsupplyand demand is in the natureof an
equation as Mill pointedout. Cost of productionacts on pricesthrough
supply.The infinitely elastic supply curve is just a special case of the
supply-demand explanationofprices.
1 "... an absolutelimitationof supply."Mill,
Principies,op. cit.,p. 444.
■"... the articlecan be producedin indefinite
quantityat thesame cost."Ibid.,p. 569.
8 "Onlya limitedquantitycan be producedat a given
cost; if moreis wanted;it must
be producedat a greatercost." Ibid., p. 445.
4 Cf.Schumpeter, op. cit.,p. 604.
» Mill, Principles,op. cit.,p. 455 (hereit is related
only to one groupof commodities)-
Cf. also ibid.,p. 584: "... we must ... fallback upon an antecedentlaw, that of supply
and demand," and ibid., p. 592: "This law of internationalvalues is but an extensionof
the moregenerallaw of value, whichwe called the equationof supplyand demand." It is
not our purposehere to assess Mill's achievementsin price-theory. The readeris referred
to Stiglerwho dealt withMill'soriginalaccomplishments in pricetheory.(GeorgeJ. Stigler,
"The Nature and Role of Originalityin ScientificProgress",Economica,N.S., Vol. XXII,
I955» PP-296sqq.) Cf. also Schumpeter,op. cit.,pp. 6o3sq., 611sqq.
• Marx,
Capital,op. cit.,Vol. 3, p. 233.
154 Bela A-Salassa
V. The Law of Markets1

Mill uses two conceptsof money:commodity-money (metallic-money
or paper-money backedby ioo percentgoldreserves2) and credit-money3.
His treatmentof Say's Law is built on thesetwo concepts:If moneyis
a commodity, a "generalexcess" of commodities is impossible,aggregate
demand equals aggregatesupplyby definition4. It moneyis considered
as credit-money, we have thepossibilityforan excessdemandformoney;
in otherwords,a generaloversupplyof goods is possible.'The buying
and sellingbeingnow separated,it may verywell occur,that theremay
be, at some giventime,a very generalinclinationto sell with as little
delay as possible,accompaniedwith an equally generalinclinationto
deferall purchasesas long as possible.This is always actuallythe case,
in those periodswhichare describedas periodsof generalexcess"5.
The separationof purchaseand sale givesthe possibilityof a "general
excess."Thispossibility is materializedduringtherecessionwhen"specula-
tive holdersare unwillingto sell in a fallingmarket"6.Duringthe period
of speculationthe degreeof indebtednessincreasesin the systemwhich
further aggravatesthe situation7.
In theEssays*and in Book III, Chs. XIV and XXIV ofthe Principles
Millexpoundshis theoryon the different phasesof the cycle,postulating
that the systemwill eventuallyreturnto equilibriumvia price-changes9.
Periodicaloverproduction in business
and thecycleas a wholeis originated
psychology; the sensitiveness of the market towards expectationsis the
reason why "general eagernessto buy and generalreluctanceto buy,
succeedone anotherin a mannermoreorless marked,at briefintervals"10.
1 In a separatepaper I have endeavoredto showthattheinterpretation ofSay's Law in

Millmustbe based on his conceptsofmoney.Here I giveonlya summaryof the argument.
For a detailedexposition,see my "JohnStuartMill and the Law of Markets",The Quar-
terlyJournalofEconomics.Vol. LXXIII, 1959,pp. 263 sqq.
* Mill,Principles,op. cit.,pp. 488sqq.
8 In its different formsas bank notes,bills of exchange,promissory notes,cheques.
Cf.ibid.,pp. 511sqq.
4 "In orderto renderthe argumentfortheimpossibility of an excessof all commodities
applicableto the case in whicha circulatingmediumis employed,moneymust itselfbe
consideredas a commodity.It must,undoubtedly,be admittedthat therecannotbe an
excess of all othercommoditiesand an excess of moneyat thesame time."Idem,Essays,
op. cit.,p. 71.
8 Ibid., p. 70.
• Mill,Principles,op. cit.,p. 656.
7 Ibid., pp. 655sq.
8 Idem,Essays,op. cit.,pp. 67sqq.
• Idem,Principles,op. cit.,p. 561.
10Idem,Essays,op. cit.,p. 68.
Thus,Mill'ssystemcontainstwopossibilities: theuse ofcommodity-

moneywiththe impossibility of overproduction by Walras'Law and
theuse ofcredit-money whentemporary overproduction is possiblebut
theequilibrium willbe restored via price-effects(Say's Equality)1.
In an excellentarticle,Professor Vargahas recently shownthatwe
havethesamedualityoftheconceptofmoneyin Marx2.LikeMill,also
Marxstartswiththecommodity-money concept3: "... themoney-form
is buta reflex,thrown one
upon singlecommodity, ofthevalue-relations
between all therest. . . moneyis a commodity ..."
Yet Marxneedsthecredit-money concept torefute Say'sLaw4.Credit-
money appears inthe Marxian system "as the main leverofoverproduction
and overspeculation"6. "It is thedevelopedcreditand bankingsystem
whichcreates[the]oversensitiveness ofthewholeorganism"6.
For the repudiation of the Say-Ricardian theoremconcerning the
of the
impossibility generaloverproduction7, credit-money conceptis
used implicitly in the Theorien8. "No crisiscan existunlesssale and
purchasebecomeseparatedfromeach otherand come into conflict,
or the contradictions inherent in moneyas a meansof paymentcome
to thesurface"9.
We have,inMarx,twoaspectsofthepossibility ofoverproduction10:
"The generalpossibility of crisesis given... in a twofold way: in
so faras moneyfunctions as meansofcirculation, through theseparation
of purchaseand sale; in so far as it functions as meansof payment,
1 For an explanationof the conceptsused above cf. Gary S. Becker and WilliamJ.
Baumöl, "The Classical MonetaryTheory: The Outcomeof the Discussion",Economica,
N.S., Vol. XIX, 1952,pp. 355sqq.
* StefanVarga, "Das Geld im Sozialismus,Sein Begriffund seine Funktionen",Welt-
wirtschaftliches Archiv,Bd. LXXVIII, 1957 I, p. 265. Thereis one pointwhereI am unable
to agreewithProfessorVarga: he contendsthat accordingto Marx onlypaper-money can
assumethefunctions ofmoney,but notcredit.The passagesquotedbelowand thetreatment
of creditin ChapterXXXIII of Capital. Vol. 3 suggeststhat Marx recognized:creditmay
also functionas money.(For ProfessorVarga's discussionsee op. cit.,p. 247.)
* He understoodSay's Law as thenegationof the possibilityofoverproduction.
• Ibid., p. 671.
7 "Too muchof a particularcommoditymay be produced,of whichtheremay be such
a glutin the marketas not to repaythe capitalexpendedon it, but thiscannotbe the case
withrespectto all commodities."Ricardo,op. cit.,Vol. 1, p. 292 (myitalics).
8 The Englishtranslation, TheoriesofSurplusValue,A Selection, Transi,by G. A. Bonner
and E. Burns,London,1951,pp. 343 sqq.
• Ibid., p. 386.
10Ibid., p. 388.
156 Bela A. Balassa
whereit has two separate aspects, as measureof value and as realiza-

tion of value" "But the latter formsare not possible withoutthe
former, that is, withoutthe separationbetweenpurchaseand sale"1.
Moneyas "means of payment"refershereto a standardof deferred
payment2.In otherwords,the extensionof creditrelationsbetweenthe
membersof the businesscommunitymay aggravatethe crises arising
fromthe fact that moneyseparatespurchaseand sale. The extension
of credit-relationshas a similaraggravatingeffectin Marx as it has in
Mill. This similarityis born out, inter alia, by the followingpassage
fromthe Capital*: "As soon as the crisisbreaks out, it is henceforth
onlya questionof means of payments.But since everyoneis dependent
upon the otherforthe comingin of thesemeansof paymentswhendue,
a stampede takes place for the means of apymentsavailable on the
market,that is, the bank notes. Every one accumulatesas many of
themas he can secure,and thusthe notesdisappearfromthe circulation
on the veryday whentheyare neededthe most."
Overproduction is a temporary phenomenon in Marx.It is part of the
cycle. Yet the cycle does not returnto its initialpoint but consistsof
markedoscillationsaround the generaltrend4.It is "a cycle in which
thereis not merelyreproduction, but reproduction on an extendedscale;
it describesnot a circlebut a spiral . . ."6. Nor does Marx postulatethe
validityof Say's Law in his reproduction models as Miss BerniceShoul
contendsin her recentarticle6.The equality of aggregatedemand and
supply is only an equilibrium-condition in the Marxian reproduction
schema. Accordingto him this equilibriumis only an "accident under
crude conditionsof this (capitalist) production"7.How can we state
then that "Marx's reproduction modelsexpressthe same tautologiesas
are containedin Say's Law"8 ?
1 Marx, Theories,op. cit.,p. 389.
» Ibid., pp. 385sq.
3 Idem, Capital, op. cit.,Vol. 3, p. 620. Cf. Mill,Principles,op. cit.,p. 662: "... a large
extensionofcredit... is mostsalutarywhenthecollapsehas come,and whencreditinstead
of beingin excess is in distressing deficiency, and increasedadvancesby bankers,instead
of beingan additionto the ordinaryamountof floatingcredit,serve to replacea mass of
othercreditwhichhas been suddenlydestroyed."
4 The linkingtogetherof the conceptof trendand cycleis foundin Mill,too. Cf. Mill,
Principles,op. cit.,pp. 733sqq.
• Marx,Theories,op. cit.,p. 402.
• BerniceShoul, "Karl Marx and Say's Law", The QuarterlyJournalof Economics,
Vol. LXXI, 1957,p. 616. She uses the concept"Say's Law" roughlyin the same way as
Marxdid.
• Shoul,op. cit.,p. 616.
Marx's expositionof the possibilityof generaloverproduction is far

superiorto that of Malthus. While Malthus was unable to give any
consistentargumentof how overproductionmightcome about, Marx
provesits possibilityon the basis of the conceptof moneyused in the
Theorien.Furthermore, Malthus postulates that "a marked depression
'* is
of wealth and population [existing]permanently* possible, while
Marx makes it clear that a "general glut" can be only a temporary
phenomenon.
On the otherhand, if one abstractsfromthe Hegelian terminology
there is considerablesimilaritybetweenMarx's and Mill's exposition,
of which similarityMarx is aware. He admits that Mill, contraryto
Ricardo,maintainedthe possibilityof a "generalexcess" by reason of
the separationofpurchaseand sale. This does not mean, however,that
Marxacknowledged his indebtedness to Mill.Indeed,he ratherendeavors
to belittleMill.Accordingto him,Millis "no better"than the defenders
ofthetheoremabout theimpossibility ofgeneraloverproduction, because
the Milliantheoryshowsonly the possibilityof overproduction but not
undercapitalistconditions."Those economists,
its inevitability however,
are not better,who (like JohnStuartMill,forexample)seek to explain
crisisby thesesimplepossibilitiesofcrisiscontainedin themetamorphosis
of commodities- such as the separationbetweenpurchaseand sale.
These characteristics, which explain the possibilityof crisis,are very
farfromexplainingtheiractuality,and still less, whythe phases of the
processcomeintosuch conflictthattheirinnerunityassertitselfthrough
a crisis,througha violentprocess"2.
Nevertheless,the differencebetweentheexpositionofthetwotheories
consistsneitherin the postulationof thepossibilityof crisis,nor in the
stresslaid on different actual causes*,but ratherin Marx's emphasis
on the inevitability of crises undercapitalistconditions" The general
conditionsofcrises- writesMarx- mustbe explicablefromthe general
conditionsof capitalistproduction"4.
1 Ricardo,op. cit.,Vol. 2, p. 325.

1 Marx,Theories, op. cit.,p. 379.
* With regardto the actual causes Marx displayssome argumentssimilarto thoseof
Mill: "A generalrise of pricesin all articlesof capitalistproductionusuallyprecedesthe
crisis." Ibid., p. 393. Crisis display a conflictbetweenprofit-expectations and realization.
Cf. Idem, Capital,op. cit.,Vol. 3, pp. 286sq. Nevertheless,at scatteredplaces Marx gives
someadditionalreasonsforcrisis: cyclesoffixedcapital{ibid.,Vol. 2,p. 211,Vol. 3,pp.292sq.),
cyclesdue to irregularities of turnover(Vol. 2, pp. 87, 365). We even finda "crude" under-
consumptionist theoryin Marx {ibid.,p. 363,Vol. 3, p. 287).
4 Idem, Theories,op. cit.,p. 390.
158 Bela A. Balassa
Withregardto the Marxiantheoryof value Mrs.Robinsonwrote

oncethefollowing1: "Voltaireremarkedthatit is possibleto killa flock
of sheepby witchcraft if you give them plentyof arsenicat thesame
time. The sheep, in this figure,may well stand forthe complacent
of
apologists capitalism; Marx penetratinginsight and bitteroppression
supply the arsenic,while the labour theory value providesthe
of
incantations."
Oneis inclinedto saythatMarxgivesactuallya moredetailedexposi-
tionof Mill'sviewson the Law of Markets, attaching to it some"in-
cantations" aboutthecapitalistsystem,since it is self-evidentthatMill
was talkingabouttheverysamesystemin histreatment oftemporary
generaloverproduction.
Tendenciesto theFall oftheRate ofProfit

VI. Counteracting
In a recentarticleProfessorSamuelsoncharacterized Marx as
"Ricardowithout diminishingreturns"2. We might this
rephrase passage,
statingthatthe explanation of the fallingtendency of the profit rate
is oneofthemaintopicswhereMarxabandoned theclassicalteachings.
According to Ricardo(and Mill)themarginal productcurveof capital
in manufacturing is horizontal.The increasein the demandof labor
resultsin an increasein agricultural production and decreasing returns
in agriculture,in turn,resultsin a fallingrateofprofit. Marx,however,
doesnotpostulatedecreasing returns in agriculture,butratherlaysthe
responsibility forthe fallingrate of profiton the increasing organic
composition of capital.WhereasMilland Marxdiffer in the exposition
ofthecausesresulting in thefallingprofit-rate theyexpounded similar
viewswithregardto the causescounteracting the fallin the rate of
profit.Readingthe relevantchapterin Marx3,one cannotescapethe
feeling thattheexposition ofcounterbalancing factorsis, at leastpartly,
basedon Mill'schapter"Of the Tendencyof Profits to a Minimum"4.
This contention can be substantiated the
by reviewing counteracting
causesas enumerated by Mill and comparing themwiththosefound
in Marx.
(1) According to Millthe firstcause preventing thefallof profit is
the "waste of capital" in periodsof crises."This, doubtless,is one
considerable causewhicharrests profitsin theirdescentto theminimum,
1 Robinson,op. cit.,p. 22.
* Samuelson,op. cit.,p. 884.
» Marx,Capital,op. cit.,Vol. 3, Ch. XIV.
* Mill,Principles,op. cit.,Book IV, Ch. IV.
by sweepingaway fromtime to time a part of the accumulatedmass

by whichtheyare forceddown"1.
We have a similarphenomenonin Marx. It is "the periodicaldepre-
ciation ofthe existingcapital, whichis one of the immanentmeans of
"2
capitalistproduction by whichthefalloftherateofprofitis checked. . .
and this periodicaldepreciationis "accompaniedby sudden stagnations
and crisesin the processofproduction"3.
(2) Mill specifiesthe secondcounteracting tendencyas improvements
in production.These improvements are materializedin the cheapening
ofwage-goodsand also in the cheapeningof the goods consumedby the
capitalists (luxury-goods), the latter by shiftingthe supply curve of
capital downwards4. The first itemis expoundedin Volume1 of Capital,
whereMarx states that with the increaseof productivity in the wage-
goods industries "the fall in the value of labour-power would cause a
corresponding rise of surplus-value . . ."5. In the same place the second
itemis fleetingly mentioned6. In Volume3 the increasein the intensity
of exploitationis emphasized,as counteracting the fall of rate of profit
by increasingthe rate of surplusvalue7. But in a later passage, where
Marx "for the sake of preventingmisunderstanding" summarizesthe
impactof an increasein the rate of surplus-valueon the rate of profit,
he examinesthe cheapeningof wage-goodsand concludesthat the rate
of surplus-valuetends to increase"eitherby an absolute,or by a pro-
portionalreductionof the paid portion"8(i.e., of the wages-fundin
value-terms).
(3) The thirdcounteracting factorin Millis foreigntradewhichmakes
it possibleto obtain"cheap commodities fromforeign countries."Foreign
tradeincreasesthe rate of profitby cheapeningdirectlyor indirectly the
cost of labor9.In Marx foreigntradebesidescheapeningthe "necessities
of lifeforwhichthe variablecapital is exchanged"i.e., the wage goods,
also cheapens the elementsof constant capital10.The latter will be
mentionedbelow.
1 Mill,Principles,op. cit.,pp. 734sq.
8 Ibid.,p. 293.
4 Mill,Principles,op. cit.,pp. 735sq.
« Ibid.
7 Ibid., Vol. 3, pp. 272sqq.
8 Ibid.,p. 281.
9 Mill,Principles,op. cit.,pp. 736sqq.
10Marx,Capital,op. cit.,Vol. 3, p. 278.
ArchivBd. LXXXllI.
Weltwirtschaftliches 11
l6o Bela A. Balassa
(4) There is no differencebetweenMill and Marx withregardto the

effectof capital-exporton the profitrate at home. On the assumption
that the profitrate is higherin "underdevelopedcountries,"capital
exportedearns a higherrate abroad and therebyincreasesthe average
rate earned1.
Beside stating the counteractingcauses expoundedby Mill, Marx
gives some additionalreasonsof his own whichmay halt the fall of the
profitrate.The increasein therateofexploitationhas beennotedalready.
UnderthisheadingMarxconceivesofthe "prolongation ofthelabour-day
and an intensification
oflabour"2,furthermore"theextensiveintroduction
of femaleand childrenlabor"3. The "depressionof wages below their
value"4 belongs to the same group. Yet neitherof these contentions
have been born out by history.Relative overpopulation, mentionedby
Marx,is an importantelementin the Milliansystemtoo, appearingin
both theoriesin the formof pressureof the excess-supplyof labor on
the labor-market holdingdownthe wagesoflabor.
There is one importantreason given by Marx as a counteracting
tendencywhichdoes not figurein Mill's theory:the cheapeningof the
elementsof constantcapital (capital-savinginnovations)5.Yet capital-
savinginnovationsincreasethe profitrate onlyunderthe (Marxian)as-
sumptionof unlimitedlabor supply,afterthe adjustmentin the capital
stock has been made.
VII. Mill on Socialism
ofMarxistwriters
It is theusualcontention that"bourgeois"economists
look upon the capitalistmode of productionas eternal.Sweezyremarks
that "the eventualpassingof capitalism ... is thoughtof in the same
way as the eventualcoolingof the sun, that is to say, its relevanceto
contemporaryevents was denied"6. It is a ratherstrangenegligence
thatthesewritersdo notmentionMill'sviewson thesubject.This neglect
dates back to the time of Marx. Marx speaks about economists"who
like Ricardo, regard the capitalist mode of productionas absolute"7,
but fails to mentionMill as an exception.Nevertheless,as the master
bibliophile,he must have been aware of the changesin Mill's thinking
about socialism,changeswhichfinallyled Mill to a kind of evolutionary
1 Marx,Capital,op. cit.,Vol. 3, p. 279. - Mill,Principles,op. cit.,pp. 738sq.
8 Ibid.
4 Ibid., p. 276.
5 Ibid.,p. 276sq.
• Paul M. Sweezy,The TheoryofCapitalistDevelopment,
PrinciplesofMarxian Political
Economy, New York, 1942,p. 21.
Karl Marxand JohnStuartMill l6l
socialism.There is only one passage which shows that Marx was well
aware of Mill's viewson the subject. In the Second Prefaceto Volumei
of Capital, afterhaving stated that by 1830 "in place of disinterested
enquirerstherewereprize-fighters; in place of genuinescientific research,
the bad conscienceand the evil intentof apologetic"1he declaresthat
"menwhostillclaimedsomescientific standingand aspiredto be something
more than mere sophistsand sycophantsof the rulingclass, tried to
harmonizethe Political Economyof capital with the claims,no longer
to be ignored,of the proletariat.Hence a shallowsyncretism, of which
John Stuart Millis the best representative1 '2. This assertionis at variance
with Mill's own contentionthat he would be classed "decidedlyunder
the generaldesignationof Socialists"3.
There are different views on Mill's ideas about socialismalso among
modernnon-Marxisteconomists.For example ProfessorRobbins tends
to underemphasize the changesin Mill's thinkingon socialismand finds
some allegedinconsistencies in Mill's views4.Mill had a different opinion
himself5 : "In thefirstedition[ofthePrinciples]thedifficulties ofsocialism
werestatedso strongly, thatthetonewas on thewholethatofopposition
to it. In theyearor twowhichfollowed, muchtimewas givento thestudy
of the best Socialisticwriterson the Continent,and to meditationand
discussionon the whole range of topics involved in the controversy:
and the resultwas that most of what had been writtenon the subject
in thefirsteditionwas cancelled,and replacedbyarguments and reflections
whichrepresenta moreadvancedopinion."
ProfessorRobbins overlooksthe distinctionmade by Mill between
socialismand communism. In his discussionofthechapter"Of Property,"
ProfessorRobbins uses the twoconceptsinterchangeably8. Yet theyhave
distinctly differentmeanings in Mill. In a communist society,as under-
stood by Mill "the produceis dividedand the labour is apportioned,as
far as possible,equally"7,whereassocialismretains"more or less the
incentivesto labourderivedfromprivatepecuniaryinterest"8.Professor
RobbinsdisplaysMill's argumentsagainstcommunismas if theywould
2 Ibid.
8 Autobiography byJohnStuartMill, Withan AppendixofHitherto Unpublished
Speeches,
and a Pref.by Harold J. Laski, The World'sClassics,CCLXII, London,1924,p. 196.
4 LionelRobbins,The TheoryofEconomicPolicyin EnglishClassicalPoliticalEconomy,
London,1952,pp. 142sqq.
8 Autobiography,op. cit.,pp. 198sqq. - Cf.also Rogin,op. cit.,pp. 28osqq.
• Robbins,op. cit.,pp. 152sqq.
»Ibid.
11*
IÓ2 Bela A. Balassa
also be valid againstsocialism.Yet accordingto Mill "the two elaborate

formsofnon-communistic Socialismknownas St. Simonismand Fourierism
are totally free from objectionsusually urged against Communism"1.
The same is truewithregardto the posthumousChapterson Socialism2.
Mill distinguishes also here betweencommunism, "equal divisionof the
produce among sharers"3 and "other forms of Socialism, particularly
Fourierism,which do ... allow differences in remuneration. .."4. He
explicitlystatesthat "ifpracticaltrialis necessaryto testthe capabilities
of Communism, it is no less requiredforthose otherformsof Socialism
which recognisethe difficulties of Communismand contrivemeans to
surmountthem"5.
In the Chapterson SocialismMill promisedthat aftercriticising the
communist and socialist he
writers, would presenthis own views on the
possibilitiesof socialism6.His death preventedthis. Nevertheless,the
chapter "Of the Probable Future of the Labouring Classes" in the
Principlesgives a fairlyclear view of his ideas. The change in Mill's
thinkingwas decisivehere,too. In the firsttwo editionshe recommended
only profit-sharing arrangements. Yet in the thirdeditionhe insertsa
passage of utmost importance7:"The formof association,however,
whichif mankindcontinuesto improve,must be expectedin the end
to predominate,is not that which can exist betweena capitalistas a
chief,and workpeoplewithout a voice in the management,but the
associationof the labourersthemselveson termsof equality,collectively
owningthecapitalwithwhichtheycarryon theiroperations,and working
undermanagerselectedand removableby themselves."
This is, in fact,the repudiationof profit-sharing
arrangements and
leads to a kind of cooperativesocialism.Mill emphasizesthe importance
of competitionin the socialistsystem,competition"betweenassociation
and associationwould be forthe benefitof the consumers,that is, of
the associations;of the industriousclasses generally"8.The particular
1 Mill, Principles,op. cit.,p. 212.

8 Idem, "Chapterson Socialism",The Fortnightly Review,London,1879,PP- 217 sqq.,
373sqq., 513sqq. - Cf. Robbins,op. cit.,pp. 166sq.
8 Mill,"Chapterson Socialism",op. cit.,p. 515.
* Ibid.
5 Ibid., p. 523. ProfessorRobbinsgives a footnoteto Fourierism(op. cit., p. 163) but
failsto expoundthe distinction statedabove.
6 Ibid.,p. 530.
7 Idem,Principles,op. cit.,pp. 772sq.
8 Ibid., p. 793.
formrecommended by Mill is in fact the precursorof the Lange-Lerner

solution: competingindependent but publiclyownedunits1.
The contractis strikingindeed.The praisegoes to Ricardowho was
the' 'protagonist"ofcapitalistinterests,
whileMillis rebukedfor"shallow
syncretism."In fact, the foregoingsimply that in some fundamental
questionsMarxwas muchnearerto Millthanto Ricardo.
But whatis thenthereasonforMarx'sbelittlingand apparentneglect
of Mill? Surely,the answeris to be foundin Marx's own philosophy.
Accordingto historicalmaterialismideas are but the reflectionof the
conditionsof materiallife in a society.Ideas being the superstructure
and capitalismhavingenteredits decliningphase by the middleof the
nineteenthcentury (according to Marx) post-Ricardian economics
necessarilybecomesan apologyforcapitalism.Furthermore, as a con-
the
tributingfactor, strategy and tacticsof the communist partiesmay
be mentionedwhich call for war against ideas potentiallycompeting
with communistideology.Yet all the possible interpretations do not
change the conclusion:there are strikingsimilarities
between the ideas
presentedby Mill and Marx and it is not inappropriateto speak about
Mill'sinfluenceon the formation ofthe Marxiantheory.
Zusammenfassung: Karl Marx und John Stuart Mill. - Der Verfasserver-

sucht zu beweisen, daß John Stuart Mill auf die nationalökonomischeTheorie von
Karl Marx einen beträchtlichenEinfluß ausgeübt hat. Es wird behauptet, daß die
Marxsche Theorie des Unternehmergewinnsnicht mit den AuffassungenRicardos,
sondernmit der Profittheorievon Mill in einer engen Beziehung stehe. Sowohl Mill
wie Marx behandeln die objektive Seite des Gewinns in der gleichen Weise: Profit
wird betrachtet als der Unterschiedzwischen dem vom ArbeitergeschaffenenPro-
duktionswertund seinem Lohn. Beide befassen sich mit der subjektiven Seite des
Gewinns: Profitist nötig, um dem Kapitalisten Anreiz zu Akkumulationzu geben.
In der Preistheoriefolgtaber Marx nichtMill, sondernRicardo in der Annahme kon-
stanter Produktionskosten.
Marx ebenso wie Mill sehen die Möglichkeitvon Krisen in der Trennungvon Ein-
kauf und Verkaufin der Geldwirtschaft.Ähnlichesgilt fürdie tatsächlichenUrsachen
von Krisen. Die Annahme der Unvermeidlichkeitder Krisen unter kapitalistischen
Verhältnissenkann man aber bei Mill nicht finden.
Schließlich wird darauf hingewiesen,daß Mill die Anliegen des Sozialismus an-
erkannt hat. Angesichtsdes offenbarenEinflusses von J. St. Mill auf die Marxschè
Theorie und Mills sympathischerStellungnahme zum Sozialismus ist es schwierig
zu verstehen,warum Marx Mill anscheinend vernachlässigtund seine Bedeutung zu
1 It is anotherquestionthat timehas disprovedMill's contentionthat capitalismhas

"almost"doneits work.But this- and thedeficienciesof theMilliandecentralized socialist
system- is anotherstory.
164 Bela A. Balassa
versuchthat. Der Verfasser

verkleinern die-
versucht,einigemöglicheErklärungen
serTatsachezu geben.
Résumé: Karl Marx et JohnStuartMill. - L'auteurchercheà prouver,que

JohnStuartMilla eu une influence remarquablesurla théorieéconomiquede Karl
Marx.Il estd'avis,que la théoriemarxienne du profit estétroitement
del'entrepreneur
liée,nonpas aux idéesde Ricardo,maisà la théoriedu profitde Mill.Millet Marx
traitentidentiquement du côté objectifdu profit:est considérécommeprofitla
différenceentrela valeurde la production réaliséepar l'ouvrieret son salaire.Mill
et Marx,tous les deux,parlentdu côté subjectifdu profit:le profitest nécessaire
pourpousserl'entrepreneur versl'accumulation. Par contre,dans sa théoriedu prix
Marxne suitpas Mill,maisRicardo,lorsqu'ilparlede prixconstants de la production.
Marx,toutaussibienque Mill,voitdans la séparationde l'achatde la venteune
sourcepossiblede crisesdans l'économiemonétaire.En ce qui concerneles causes
actuellesdes crises,leursidées se touchentégalement.Mais on ne trouvepas chez
Milll'idéede l'inévitabledes crisesdans l'économiecapitaliste.
Finalement,l'auteurfaitremarquer, que Mill a reconnul'objet du socialisme.
Vue l'influenceévidente,qu'a eu JohnStuartMillsurla théoriemarxienne, et vue la
sympathie, a
qu'il témoigné pour le socialisme,il est difficile
à comprendre, pourquoi
Marxa négligéMill,à ce qu'il parait,et pourquoiil a cherchéà diminuer son impor-
tance. L'auteur essaye de donnerquelques raisons,qui pourraientexpliquerceci.
Resumen: Karl Marxy JohnStuartMill.- El autortratade demostrar que

JohnStuartMillha ejercidouna influencia considerable sobrela teoríaeconómico-
políticade Karl Marx.Es de opiniónque la teoríadel beneficio empresarial,sentada
porMarx,no está en estrechasrelacionescon las ideas de Ricardo,sinocon la teoría
del beneficiode Mill. Tanto Mili como Marx tratanla parteobjetivadel beneficio
de la mismamanera:el beneficio es considerado comola diferencia entreel valorde
producción creadopor el trabajadory su salario.Ambosse ocupande la partesub-
es necesariopara incitarel capitalistaa la acumu-
jetiva del beneficio:el beneficio
lación.Peroen la teoríadel precioMarxno siguea Milisinoa Ricardo,admitiendo la
hipótesisde costesconstantesde producción.
TantoMarxcomoMiliconsideran posibleslas crisis,si en la economíadel dinero
se separanla comprade la venta.Otrotantopuede decirsede las causas efectivas
de las crisis.Peroen las obrasde Milino se puedehallarla hipótesisque en la econo-
mía capitalistalas crisissean inevitables.
Por finel autorhace observarque Miliha aceptadolas demandasdel socialismo.
En vistade la evidenteinfluencia de J. St. Millsobrela teoríade Marxy en vistade
la simpatíade Mili para el socialismoes difícilcomprender, porquéMarx,según
parece,ha descuidadoa Mili y ha tratadode disminuir su importancia. El autor
procuradar unasrazonespara explicarestehecho.
Riassunto: Karl Marx e JohnStuartMill.- L'autoretentadi mostrareche

JohnStuartMill ha influenzato la teoriaeconomico-politica
considerevolmente di
Karl Marx. È di parereche la teoriadell'utileimprenditoriale, istituitadal Marx,

non è in stretterelazionicon le idee del Ricardo,ma con la teoriadel profitto del
Mill.Nonsoloil Millma pureil Marxtrattanola parteobbiettivadell'utilenell'istesso
modo: il profitto è considerato comela differenzafrail valoredi produzionecreato
dal lavoratore ed il suo salario.Ambeduesi occupanodellapartesoggettiva dell'utile:
il profittoè necessarioperincitareil capitalistaall'accumulazione. Però nella teoria
dei prezziil Marx non segueil Mill ma il Ricardo,supponendocosti constantidi
produzione.
Il Marxcom'ancheil Millcredonoche crisisonopossibili,se nell'economia mone-
taria si separanola compradalla vendita.Lo stessopuò dirsidelle cause effettive
delle crisi.Però nelleoperedel Mill non si può trovarel'ipotesiche nell'economia
capitalisticale crisisiano inevitabili.
Per finel'autoreaccennache il Millha accettatole domandedel socialismo.In
considerazione all'evidenteinfluenzadi J. St. Millsulla teoriadel Marxed alla sim-
patia del Millperil socialismoè difficile
comprendere, perchéil Marx,secondol'appa-
renza,ha trascuratoil Milled ha tentatodi diminuire la sua importanza.L'autore
tentadi addurrealcuneragioniperesplicarequestofatto.

10 2307@40434585

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

10 2307@40434585

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Karl Marx and John Stuart Mill

Author(s): Bela A. Balassa

Contents: I. Marx on Mill. - II. Theoriesof Value. - III. The Theory

Jevons'bitterattack on the tyrannicalauthorityof the "Ricardo-Mill

II. Theoriesof Value

III. The Theoryof Profit

ofvalue1.Thisistheopinion alsoofsomemodern "bourgeois" economists2.

Marxquotesthissentence buttriesto ridiculeMill,partlyby stating

profittheory.The "infamous" concept of abstinenceis the subjective

the lightof theMarxiandoctrine.Profitis boththesurplusproductoflabor

IV. The Theoryof RelativePrices

1 "The 'productivepower of capital/ througha common,and, forsome purposes,a

change only the quantity produced but (abstractingfromtemporary

V. The Law of Markets1

1 In a separatepaper I have endeavoredto showthattheinterpretation ofSay's Law in

Thus,Mill'ssystemcontainstwopossibilities: theuse ofcommodity-

whereit has two separate aspects, as measureof value and as realiza-

Marx's expositionof the possibilityof generaloverproduction is far

1 Ricardo,op. cit.,Vol. 2, p. 325.

Withregardto the Marxiantheoryof value Mrs.Robinsonwrote

Tendenciesto theFall oftheRate ofProfit

by sweepingaway fromtime to time a part of the accumulatedmass

(4) There is no differencebetweenMill and Marx withregardto the

also be valid againstsocialism.Yet accordingto Mill "the two elaborate

1 Mill, Principles,op. cit.,p. 212.

formrecommended by Mill is in fact the precursorof the Lange-Lerner

Zusammenfassung: Karl Marx und John Stuart Mill. - Der Verfasserver-

1 It is anotherquestionthat timehas disprovedMill's contentionthat capitalismhas

versuchthat. Der Verfasser

Résumé: Karl Marx et JohnStuartMill. - L'auteurchercheà prouver,que

Resumen: Karl Marxy JohnStuartMill.- El autortratade demostrar que

Riassunto: Karl Marx e JohnStuartMill.- L'autoretentadi mostrareche

Karl Marx. È di parereche la teoriadell'utileimprenditoriale, istituitadal Marx,

You might also like