Marx’s comments on James Mill's book

produces for what is produced by other people, it is found that

each obtains more of the several things which he desires, than

he would have obtained had he endeavoured to produce them

all for himself." 

"In the case of the man who produces for himself, there is no

exchange. He neither offers to buy any thing, nor to sell any

thing. He has the property; he has produced it; and does not

mean to part with it. If we apply, by a sort of metaphor, the

terms demand and supply to this case, it is implied [...] that the

demand and supply are exactly proportioned to one another. As

far then as regards the demand and supply of the market, we

may leave that portion of the annual produce, which each of the

owners consumes in the shape in which he produces or receives

it, altogether out of the question." Pp. 186, 187

 "In speaking here of demand and supply, it is evident that we

speak of aggregates. When we say of any particular nation, at

any particular time, that its supply is equal to its demand, we do

not mean in any one commodity, or any two commodities. We

mean, that the amount of its demand in all commodities taken

together, is equal to the amount of its supply in all commodities

taken together. It may very well happen, notwithstanding this

equality in the general sum of demands and supplies, that some

one commodity or commodities may have been produced in a

quantity either above or below the demand for those particular

commodities." P. 188 (pp. 251, 252). "Two things are necessary

to constitute a demand. These are -- A Wish for the commodity,

and An Equivalent to give for it. A demand means, the will to

purchase, and the means of purchasing. If either is wanting, the

purchase does not take place. An equivalent is the necessary

foundation of all demand. It is in vain that a man wishes for

commodities, if he has nothing to give for them. The equivalent

which a man brings is the instrument of demand. The extent of

his demand is measured by the extent of his equivalent. The

demand and the equivalent are convertible terms, and the one

may be substituted for the other. [...] We have already seen, that

every man, who produces, has a wish for other commodities,

than those which he has produced, to the extent of all that he

has produced beyond what he wishes to keep for his own

consumption. And it is evident, that whatever a man has

produced and does not wish to keep for his own consumption,

is a stock which he may give in exchange for other

commodities. His will, therefore, to purchase, and his means of

purchasing -- in other words, his demand, is exactly equal to

the amount of what he has produced and does not mean to

1844: Marx’s comments on James Mill's book

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844-mil/index.htm (16 of 22) [23/08/2000 18:56:15]

---

consume." Pp. 188-89 (pp. 252, 253).

 

With his customary cynical acumen and clarity, Mill here analyses

exchange on the basis of private property.

 Man produces only in order to have -- this is the basic presupposition

of private property. The aim of production is having. And not only

does production have this kind of useful aim; it has also a selfish aim;

man produces only in order to possess for himself; the object he

produces is the objectification of his immediate, selfish need. For man

himself -- in a savage, barbaric condition -- therefore, the amount of

his production is determined by the extent of his immediate need, the

content of which is directly the object produced.

 Under these conditions, therefore, man produces no more than he

immediately requires. The limit of his need forms the limit of his

production. Thus demand and supply exactly coincide. The extent of

his production is measured by his need. In this case no exchange takes

place, or exchange is reduced to the exchange of his labour for the

product of his labour, and this exchange is the latent form, the germ,

of real exchange.

 As soon as exchange takes place, a surplus is produced beyond the

immediate limit of possession. But this surplus production does not

mean rising above selfish need. On the contrary, it is only an indirect

way of satisfying a need which finds its objectification not in this

production but in the production of someone else. Production has

become a means of gaining a living, labour to gain a living. Whereas

under the first state of affairs, therefore, need is the measure of

production, under the second state of affairs production, or rather

ownership of the product, is the measure of how far needs can be

satisfied.

 I have produced for myself and not for you, just as you have

produced for yourself and not for me. In itself, the result of my

production has as little connection with you as the result of your

production has directly with me. That is to say, our production is not

man's production for man as a man, i.e., it is not social production.

Neither of us, therefore, as a man stands in a relation of enjoyment to

the other's product. As men, we do not exist as far as our respective

products are concerned. Hence our exchange, too, cannot be the

mediating process by which it is confirmed that my product  is [for]

you, because it is an objectification of your own nature, your need.

For it is not man's nature that forms the link between the products we

make for one another. Exchange can only set in motion, only confirm,

the character of the relation which each of us has in regard to his own

1844: Marx’s comments on James Mill's book

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844-mil/index.htm (17 of 22) [23/08/2000 18:56:15]

---