https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/value-price-profit/index.htm
Literally just 5 pages long and the best introduction to Marxist economics.
If you have any questions, feel free to post them here, I’ll try to answer them.
“For my own part, I considered it therefore my duty to enter fully into the matter, even at the peril of putting your patience to a severe test.”
Marx was the greatest shitposter of all time. And, crucially, he fuckin’ knew it. What a chad.
Goes great together with Wage Labour and Capital
This seems longer than 5 pages. But thanks for the link. Its a really good intro
I would say that the first page of Ricardo’s On The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation preface (about a half page) and the first six paragraphs of the first chapter are the best introductions to the introduction. There is more to read from Ricardo, but with those ideas and his quote of Adam Smith the stage is set for Marx to built upon and critique about.
I suggest everyone to read it and see how Marx’s thought were grounded in the academic debates of his time and the material conditions thereof.
PREFACE to Ricardo’s On The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation
The produce of the earth – all that is derived from its surface by the united application of labour, machinery, and capital is divided among three classes of the community; namely, the proprietor of the land the owner of the stock or capital necessary for its cultivation, and the labourers by whose industry it is cultivated
But in different stages of society, the proportions of the whole produce of the earth which will be allotted to each of these classes under the names of rent, profit, and wages will be essentially different depending mainly on the actual fertility of the soil, on the accumulation of capital and population, and on the skill, ingenuity, and instruments employed in agriculture.
To determine the laws which regulate this distribution is the principal problem in Political Economy much as the science has been improved by the writings of Turgot, Stuart, Smith, Say, Sismondi, and others, they afford very little satisfactory information respecting the natural course of rent, profit, and wages.
…Adam Smith, and the other able writers to whom I have alluded, not having viewed correctly the principles of rent, have, it appears to me, overlooked many important truths, which can only be discovered after the subject of rent is thoroughly understood.
To supply this deficiency, abilities are required of a far superior cast to any possessed by the writer of the following pages [waiting for Marx, lol]; … to state his opinions on the laws of profits and wages, and on the operation of taxes. If the principles which he deems correct, should be found to be so, it will be for others, more able than himself, to trace them to all their important consequences.
…
…
Advertisement to the Third Edition
In this Edition I have endeavoured to explain more fully than in the last, my opinion on the difficult subject of VALUE and for that purpose have made a few additions to the first chapter. I have also inserted a new chapter on the subject of MACHlNERY, and on the effects of its improvement on the interests of the different classes of the State. In the chapter on the DISTINCTIVE PROPERTIES OF VALUE AND RICHES,…, the diminished quantity of labour required to produce its corn at home, by improvements in its husbandry, or from its obtaining a part of its corn at a cheaper price from abroad, by means of the exportation of its manufactured commodities. This consideration is of great importance, as it regards the question of the policy of leaving unrestricted the importation of foreign corn, particularly in a country burthened with a heavy fixed money taxation, the consequence of an immense National Debt. I have endeavoured to shew, that the ability to pay taxes, depends, not on the gross money value of the mass of commodities, nor on the net money value of the revenues of capitalists and landlords, but on the money value of each man’s revenue, compared to the money value of the commodities which he usually consumes.
David Ricardo’s On The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation
Chapter 1: On Value
The value of a commodity, or the quantity of any other commodity for which it will exchange, depends on the relative quantity of labour which is necessary for its production and not on the greater or less compensation which is paid for that labour.
It has been observed by Adam Smith that the word Value has two different meanings and sometimes expresses the utility of some particular object and sometimes the power of purchasing other goods which the possession of that object conveys. The one may be called value in use the other value in exchange The things,’ he continues, 'which have the greatest value in use, have frequently little or no value in exchange; and, on the contrary, those which have the greatest value in exchange, have little or no value in use; Water and air are abundantly useful; they are indeed indispensable to existence, yet, under ordinary circumstances, nothing can be obtained in exchange for them. … Utility then is not the measure of exchangeable value although it is absolutely essential to it. If a commodity were in no way useful, - in other words, if it could in no way contribute to our gratification, - it would be destitute of exchangeable value, however scarce it might be, or whatever quantity of labour might be necessary to procure it.
Possessing utility, commodities derive their exchangeable value *from two sources: from their scarcity, and from the quantity of labour required to obtain them There are some commodities, the value of which is determined by their scarcity alone. No labour can increase the quantity of such goods, and therefore their value cannot be lowered by an increased supply. Some rare statues and pictures, scarce books and coins, wines of a peculiar quality, which can be made only from grapes grown on a particular soil, of which there is a very limited quantity, are all of this description. Their value is wholly independent of the quantity of labour originally necessary to produce them, and varies with the varying wealth and inclinations of those who are desirous to possess them. These commodities, however, form a very small part of the mass of commodities daily exchanged in the market. By far the greatest part of those goods which are the objects of desire, are procured by labour,. and they may be multiplied, not in one country alone, but in many, almost without any assignable limit, if we are disposed to bestow the labour necessary to obtain them. In speaking then of commodities, of their exchangeable value, and of the laws which regulate their relative prices, we mean always such commodities only as can be increased in quantity by the exertion of human industry, and on the production of which competition operates without restraint.
In the early stages of society, the exchangeable value of these commodities, or the rule which determines how much of one shall be given in exchange for another, depends almost exclusively on the comparative quantity of labour expended on each.
‘The real price of every thing,’ says Adam Smith, ‘what every thing really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it. What every thing is really worth to it, or the man who has acquired it, and who wants to dispose of it, or exchange it for something else, is the toil and trouble which it can save to himself, and which it can impose upon other people.’ Labour was the first price - the original purchase-money that was paid for all things.’ Again, ‘in that early and rude state of society, which precedes both the accumulation of stock and the appropriation of land, the proportion between the quantities of labour necessary for acquiring different objects seems to be the only circumstance which can afford any rule for exchanging them for one another. If among a nation of hunters, for example, it usually cost twice the labour to kill a beaver which it does to kill a deer, one beaver should naturally exchange for, or be worth two deer. It is natural that what is usually the produce of two days’, or two hours’ labour, should be worth double of what is usually the produce of one day’s, or one hour’s labour.’ (2) [David Graber disagrees on that part, that exchange didn’t happen in that way, but social aspects played a role and where Trade happened the societal relations were important, too]
That this is really the foundation of the exchangeable value of all things excepting those which cannot be increased by human industry, is a doctrine of the utmost importance in political economy for from no source do so many errors, and so much difference of opinion in that science proceed, as from the vague ideas which are attached to the word value.
If the quantity of labour realized in commodities, regulate their exchangeable value, every increase of the quantity of labour must augment the value of that commodity on which it is exercised as every diminution must lower it.
…
To continue reading press here, but rather switch over to Marx’s Value, Price and Profit
You want me to read MORE theory in order to understand THIS theory :agony-consuming:
I haven’t received any questions so far. I’m assuming you kids are still reading :lenin-shining:
