第19章 THE COMMODITY(17)

4.But not Romance political economy，since the contrast of English and French economists is repeated by the Italians in their two schools one at Naples and the other at Milan；whereas the Spaniards of the earlier period are either simply Mercantilists and modified Mercantilists like Ustariz，or follow Adam Smith in observing the happy mean like Jovellanos (see his Obras ，Barcelona，1839-40)5."True wealth ...is the complete enjoyment not only of the necessaries of life but also of all the superfluities and of everything that can give pleasure to the senses"(Boisguillebert，Dissertation sur la nature de la richesse ，etc.，p.403).But whereas Petty was just a frivolous，grasping，unprincipled adventurer，Boisguillebert，although he was one of the intendants of Louis XIV，stood up for the interests of the oppressed classes with both great intellectual force and courage.

6.French socialism as represented by Proudhon suffers from the same national failing.

7.Benjamin Franklin，A Modest Inquiry into the Nature and Necessity of a Paper Currency ，in The Works of Benjamin Franklin，edit.

by J.Sparks，Vol.II，Boston，1836.

8.Remarks and Facts relative to the American Paper Money ，1764(l.c.).

9.See Papers on American Politics，and Remarks and Facts relative to the American Paper Money，1764(l.c.).

10.See for instance Galiani，Della Moneta ，Vol.III，in Scrittori classici Italiani di Economia Politica (published by Custodi)，Parte Moderna ，Milano，1803.He says："It is only toil"(fatica )"which gives value to things"，p.74.The term "fatica "for labour is characteristic of the southerner.

11.Steuart's work An Inquiry into the Principles of Political Economy，Being an Essay on the Science of Domestic Policy in Free Nations was first published in London in 1767，in two quarto volumes，ten years earlier than Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations .I quote from the Dublin edition of 1770.

12.Steuart，op.cit.，Vol.I，pp.181-83.

13.Ibid.，pp.361-62.

14.Steuart therefore declares that the patriarchal form of agriculture，whose direct aim is the production of use-values for the owner of the land，is an abuse，although not in Sparta or Rome or even in Athens，but certainly in the industrial countries of the eighteenth century.This "abusive agriculture"is not "trade"but a mere means of subsistence.Just as bourgeois agriculture clears the land of superfluous mouths，so bourgeois manufacture clears the factory of superfluous hands.

15.Adam Smith writes for instance --"Equal quantities of labour，at all times and places，may be said to be of equal value to the labourer.In his ordinary state of health，strength，and spirits；in the ordinary degree of his skill and dexterity，he must always lay down the same portion of his ease，his liberty，and his happiness.The price which he pays must always be the same，whatever may be the quantity of goods which he receives in return for it.Of these，indeed，it may sometimes purchase a greater and sometimes a smaller nuantity，but it is their value which varies，not that of the labour which purchases them....Labour alone，therefore，never varying in its own value，is alone the ultimate and real standard by which the value of all commodities can ...be estimated....It is their real price...."[Wealth of Nations.Book I，Chapter V.]

16.David Ricardo，On the Principles of Political Economy，and Taxation ，Third Edition，London，1821，p.3.

17.Sismondi，Etudes sur l'économie politique ，tome II，Bruxelles，1838."Trade has reduced the whole matter to the antithesis of use-value and exchange-value."P.162.

18.Ibid .，pp.163-66et seq.

19.It probably assumes the most trivial form in J.B.Say's annotations to the French translation --prepared by Constancio --of Ricardo's work，and the most pedantic and presumptuous in Mr.Macleod's recently published Theory of Exchange ，London，1858.

20.This objection，which was advanced against Ricardo by bourgeois economists，was later taken up by socialists.Assuming that the formula was theoretically sound，they alleged that practice stood in conflict with the theory and demanded that bourgeois society should draw the practical conclusions supposedly arising from its theoretical principles.In this way at least English socialists turned Ricardo's formula of exchange-value against political economy.The feat of declaring not only that the basic principle of the old society was to be the principle of the new society，but also that he was the inventor of the formula used by Ricardo to summarise the final result of English classical economics，was reserved to M.Proudhon.It has been shown that the utopian interpretation of Ricardo's formula was already completely forgotten in England，when M.Proudhon "discovered"it on the other side of the Channel.(Cf.the section on la valeur constituée，in my Misere de la philosophie ...，Paris，1847.a)[See Karl Marx，The Poverty of Philosophy ，Moscow，1962，pp.43-49--Ed.]