Before offering an analysis and summary of “Principles of Political Economy” for clarification it must be noted that it was published in seven different editions.  The final edition of the text was published in 1871.  The book’s subject matter, political economy, is today termed macroeconomics.  In simple terms, to offer a summary of Principles of Political Economy” would mean offering a full summary and analysis of the entire economy, typically putting to use unemployment, inflation, production, and price information to provide a “big picture” of the economy in question. 18^th and 19^th century political economists had a fundamentally more philosophical bent than their modern brethren.  The works of Adam Smith, David Ricardo, John Stuart Mill, and others are marked by a considerably less empirical approach than the work of modern economists.  “Principles of Political Economy” focuses on a thorough examination of society’s basis in economic processes.  Topically, the book covers production and distribution of goods and services, social progress and its correlation to production and distribution, and the role that governments play in economic systems.

Summary of the first book of “Principles of Political Economy”- This book in “Principles of Political Economy”  is particularly focused on identifying the necessary conditions for the existence of production.  It identifies labor and natural objects as the two criteria essential to production.  In Chapter One of “Principles of Political Economy” , Mill states, “Nature does more than supply materials; she also supplies powers. The matter of the globe is not an inert recipient of forms and properties impressed by human hands; it has active energies by which it co-operates with, and may even be used as a substitute for, labor” (3).

Clearly, not all labor will lead to the production of a new physical object, however Mill writes that labor does produce three distinct types of utilities. The first utility discussed is the production of objects that will be used by humans.  In the production of this utility, labor has injected external material objects with properties that make them valuable to human beings for their usefulness and overall utility.  The second utility is that of service.  Some of the labor performed by human beings makes their services valuable to the society they live in, or to themselves.  Examples provided include instructors and physicians, whose labors enhance the lives and endeavors of their pupils and patients, respectively.  Finally, the third utility is that of providing pleasure of entertainment.  This does not result in any tangible product, nor does it increase the individual or society’s productivity.  These three utilities are the very fundamental basis of Mill’s theories, and serve as a backdrop to “Principles of Political Economy” and is a necessary foundation for an analysis of the text.

To summarize, “Principles of Political Economy” shows Mill as he defines capital as the amassed stock of the products of labor.  Capital, alongside labor and natural objects, is a prerequisite for the existence and maintenance of production.  Mill goes on to discuss various manifestations of capital, notably the ideas of fixed and circulating capital.  Fixed capital is an economic concept introduced by David Ricardo.  Any kind of real or physical capital not entirely used in the production of a final product that is also not easily moved into the production of a new product is fixed capital.  This contrasts with circulating capital, which refers to physical capital such as short-lived items that are used in production and used up entirely in the process of creating other goods or services.  This can include raw materials, intermediate goods, and inventories.

Following this to continue this summary of “Principles of Political Economy” , Mill explores the different social forms of production.  These include cooperation, the combination of labor, small-scale production, and large-scale production.  He elaborates on increased labor, by which there is an increase in both capital and production.  Finally, Mill looks into land-based production.  He sees that this specific type of production is substantially different from other types, which are achieved almost entirely through labor and capital.  Land-based production has limits that do not constrain other types of production.  As these limits are exceedingly unlikely to increase, land-based production must be viewed, understood, and undertaken very differently from other forms of production. In Book II of Principles of Political Economy, John Stuart Mill goes about a rigorous examination of distribution in property allocation.  The effects of a number of different factors that relate to distribution are analyzed.  Specifically, the effects of competition, customs, slaveholding, peasant ownership, wages, profits and profiteering, and rents on distribution are subject to analysis.  Mill delves into the products of labor as shared by capitalists and workers, while granting the difference between the two.

Summary of the third book of “Principles of Political Economy”  : This follows John Stuart Mill approach the subjects of exchange and value.  Mill’s definition of value is put into the terms of supply and demand.  In the third book, Mill begins his discussion about value and exchange by stating, “The conditions and laws of Production would be the same as they are, if the arrangements of society did not depend on Exchange, or did not admit of it. Even in the present system of industrial life, in which employments are minutely subdivided, and all concerned in production depend for their remuneration on the price of a particular commodity, exchange is not the fundamental law of the distribution of produce…” (239). His vision of value is relative and dependant on the quantity of an external thing.  He sees no overall rise and fall of value, as value rises only when a drop is supposed, and value dips only when a rise is expected.  Mill goes further to look at money and how it relates to various economic factors.  He examines the relationship to production costs, supply and demand, and credit.  Following that, he moves into credit’s sway over pricing, currency function, trade and value, and interest rates.

In Book IV of “Principles of Political Economy”  John Stuart Mill’s interest in social progress shines through.  Throughout his life, Mill was an advocate of social reform.  His publication of “The Subjection of Women” in 1869 marked one of the first instances of a man of the era coming out in favor of women’s rights and suffrage.  John Stuart Mill wrote many articles and delivered a number of speeches that marked the beginning of masculine support for the liberation of women.  Principles of Political Economy argues in favor of that liberation as well, speaking specifically of the entrance of women into the workforce.  John Stuart Mill encourages women to enter the workforce, and encourages those in power to grant these newly empowered women the freedom to enter into the traditionally male-dominated workforce.  Mill makes a call seeking the end of women’s dependence on men, citing it as an unfortunate remnant of society that should long ago have been jettisoned in favor of a more progressive system, in which gender is not the sole determining factor in a person’s potential capabilities.

In Book IV, John Stuart Mill specifically deals with the progress of society and its relationship to that society’s economic affairs.  His definition of social progress is manifold.  The increase, both individually and collectively, of knowledge is a key factor.  The improvement of a citizenry’s protection is essential as well.  This is put in terms of their health, lives, and property.  Tax reform in the face of oppressive taxation is yet another component.  The avoidance of unnecessary war is held up as another example for progressive society.  Effective, utilitarian employment of the citizenry through education and improved business capacity is lauded. Despite his advocacy of social progress and social reform, John Stuart Mill does specifically state that social progress is not infinite.  Without improvements in production and management of the flow of capital, the state of affairs can very easily stagnate.  This recognition of a stationary environment brought Mill to speculation on laborers in the future, whose education could feasibly cause societal change on a massive and entirely unprecedented scale.  These subjects have also been addressed at length by other economists, notably by Karl Marx, whose views of an educated proletariat labor uprising would lead to the idea of communism.  Education is viewed as the greatest tool for the empowerment of the working class.

Principles of Political Economy’s fifth book probes the government’s influence on society.  As a preface to his arguments about the nature of laws, he states, “Not only does the State undertake to decide disputes, it takes precautions beforehand that disputes may not arise. The laws of most countries lay down rules for determining many things, not because it is of much consequence in what way they are determined, but in order that they may be determined somehow” (310). John Stuart Mill makes a strong argument that the functions performed by the government are divisible into two categories: the necessary and the optional.  Necessary functions of the government are those which are fundamentally incapable of separation from the idea of having and maintaining a government.  These include security, taxation, and protection.  All other functions performed by the government, the optional functions, are thought by Mill to be dubious and subject to inquiry.

John Stuart Mill was very much an advocate of personal liberty, and thought that the government had no place in the private lives of its citizenry.  Mill was a believer in the concept of negative liberty, which is essentially an absence or lack of impediments, obstacles, or coercion to achieve the goal of liberty.  This is distinguished from positive liberty, in which there are conditions for freedom.  These might take the form of the possession of material resources, the attainment of a certain level of education or enlightenment, or the opportunity to participate in a political system. Mill argues that the government should, at all times, restrict itself to performing only the necessary functions of governance.  He proposes that a government should be particularly aware of and admonish and halt individual citizens’ behavior as it negatively effects or harms other people.  This includes the use and abuse of force, coercion, fraudulent activity, and general negligence.  He also advanced the idea of a government that actively works to limit and, if possible, altogether eliminate the expenditure of energy in the interest of causing harm to nations by another nation.  Mill was strongly in favor of harnessing that exertion that might be used for harm and putting it to more productive use.  He sought the betterment of the planet’s faculties with utility in mind.  Mill’s ultimate assertion is that governments should adopt a laissez-faire social policy, by which they would eschew interference in the daily lives of their citizenry, and individual citizens would be free to make choices without obstruction or constraints.  This freedom, Mill thought, would allow people to pursue their interests with the utmost utility.

What is perhaps the most important feature of Principles of Political Economy is its use of scientific methodology as applied to political analysis.  This provides immediate practical application to what are otherwise intangible, theoretical ideas, and does so in a field that is often confusing to the common person.  The publication of Principles of Political Economy made liberal economic thought tangible by providing ideas within the framework of social and political activism, all firmly entrenched in science and reason.

Other essays and articles in the Main Archives related to this topic include :  The Economics of Socialism: An Historical Perspective  •   Marx and Locke: Comparison of Views on Government, Property and Labor    •    Analysis and Summary of “General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money” by John Maynard Keynes   •    Summary and Analysis ofThe Essential Adam Smith by Robert L. Heilbroner

In general, the goal of socialism in economic terms was to create greater equality and not rely on individuals or private institutions for the means of production. While there were many phases in a variety of socialist attempts, from utopian to Marxian, nearly all socialist-inspired revolutions and movements were geared at creating a balance between the classes, more (and at ties complete) state involvement in the growth of a national economy, and a commitment to the ideals set forth by early thinkers such as the as Karl Marx, author of “The Communist Manifesto” and Das Kapital as well as other movements such as those by the Fabians, for example. In general, a pure theory of socialism involves these elements of creating equality and although the general economic concepts behind many of these movements in countries such as China, Yugoslavia, and the former Soviet Union may have been altered throughout time, the guiding principles remained essentially the same.

In some ways, it is best to begin by not necessarily defining a pure theory of socialism by what it is, but rather by what it is not. While some of the defining factors of socialism would not include private ownership of the means of production, a economic and political system governed and regulated by a ruling elite or aristocracy, nor conversely a welfare state in which all are by default dependent on the state for all aspect of existence, there are a number of engaging arguments made against socialism. For example, one scholar notes, “In the absence of the unhampered markets of a competitive capitalist economy, there can be no possibility of maintaining that rational economic calculus which is essential to the efficient organization of production. Universal chaos and destitution will be the only outcome of following the mirage of a socialist commonwealth” (Lerner 51). Such a view is common in criticisms of socialism, particularly as it relates to economics. There is the belief that without markets, the driving force behind a society is gone and will go on to have a negative impact on the society as whole, turning it into a state that is wholly dependent on the government for everything. While this a perfectly rational fear—one that will be explored in later sections of this paper—this dreaded result is not usually a concern. What does become a concern is when governments step out of the pure theory of socialism and attempt to create mixed markets or phase out old forms of socialism that are no longer economically viable.

Again, these are issues that will be raised and put into context later when exploring the socialism and the economies of different nations but such criticism provides a useful backdrop against which one can view socialism, both in its Marxian and Fabian forms. To go one step further, another economic scholar has broadly defined socialism by stating first what it is not and then moving on to what it is comprised of. “Socialism is not statism, or the collective ownership of the means of production.  It is a judgment on the priorities of economic policy.  The community takes precedence over the individual in the values that legitimate economic policy.  The first lien on the resources of a society therefore should be to establish that ‘social minimum’ which would allow individuals to lead a life of self-respect, to be members of the community” (Bell xii). It is interesting that this critic notes that it is not the collective ownership of the means of production since this is, in essence, what many associate with socialism. This topic of ownership in production will arise later within the context of certain nations and their experiments, both successful and unsuccessful, of turning to economic socialism.

Before embarking on an exploration of two more focused and pure schools of socialist thought, it is useful to gain an ideological grounding for the movement as a whole. While a majority of the early socialist movements were associated with utopianism, especially in the economic sense, there still remains a great deal of idealism inherent in the system today. For example, in Ideas and Opinions, a collection of essays from one the world’s foremost thinkers, Albert Einstein, socialism is not only a political and economic alternative to capitalism, but a definite necessity. He posits, “In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow-men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society” (Einstein 102). Despite the many treatises and tracts about the nature of socialism in a pure sense, this statement sums up the idealism behind the movement quite succinctly. He states that the very means of production are removed from the hands of an elite or economically privileged sector and thus the entire pattern of work and personal capital changes dramatically. Although there are hundreds of more specialized claims of essentially the same message found throughout actual socialist texts, this vision puts the pure theory of socialism most succinctly.

Revolutions are distinguished from wars by the fact that the latter are acts of resistance against external enemies and conditions, while the former are acts of resistance that originate within a country and are directed against internal enemies and conditions that prevent the country from developing and asserting a cohesive national identity (Trotsky, 1957). When the voice of the people has not been an effective means of securing political and social change, revolutions have been staged as an impetus for the facilitation of desired change. In some of the largest and most powerful countries of the world, revolutions have redefined the national identity of a society and have worked towards the “abolition of [its] more shameful national limitations” (Trotsky, 1957, p. 39). “The fundamental premise of a revolution,” writes Trotsky (1957), “is that the existing social structure has become incapable of solving the urgent problems of development of the nation,” and that an alternative system is not only possible, but necessary (p. 173).

In the most successful revolutions, there has been a congruence between the “inner readiness” for such an act and the capability of the people to bring it to fruition (Trotsky, 1957, p. 177). Walt (1996) contends that “a revolution is more than just a rearrangement of the administrative apparatus or the replacement of one set of rulers by [another” (p. 12). He continues by explaining that the outcome of a successful revolution is the creation of a “fundamentally new state based on different values, myths, social classes, political institutions, and conceptions of the political community” (Walt, 1996, p. 12). In fact, the power of the revolutionary paradigm is that it “establishes the basic nature of a polity” by redefining national identity through the implementation of new goals, systems, and means of achieving objectives (p. 12). Revolutions are typically spearheaded and carried out by the revolutionary lower classes, the members of which have been marginalized and “disinherited” by the country’s dominant system, which has “no intention of dying” or being dismantled without a fight (Trotsky, 1957, p. 240; 133).

The lower classes take “all phenomena and all relations [and address them] in concentrated form” through the appropriation of existing systems and ideologies and infusing them with new symbolic meanings (Trotsky, 1957, p. 160). What defines contemporary western society beyond shared geography is its history of revolutionary activity. Beyond the obvious physical activity of a revolution, Goldstone (1994) contends that the true power of a revolution has always been that it fosters “revolutions…in the way people think, how they view their world, and what they aspire to achieve” (p. 239). This consequence of a revolution is not true just for the country in which the revolution occurred. As Walt (1996) points out, “revolutions are more than just critical events in the history of individual nations; they are usually watershed events in international politics” (p. i), not the least reason being that they often precipitate shifts in thought within other societies by virtue of their example.

Despite Gray’s somewhat romanticized understanding of life in America before massive-scale industrialization, the fact remains that families and for that matter, standard gender, family, and rules for children and their place within the family structure were far more cohesive as they not only relied on each other for economic and social support, but on their communities as well. With new employment opportunities opening up for women, men and children in New England and America, families were now more free to split apart, move away, or engage in work that their gender or age might not have otherwise allowed. In addition to leading to families now having the opportunity to leave home to seek employment, the coming of the Industrial Revolution to New England sparked many changes involving the role and function of having children came about, as did other paradigm shifts in the way gender roles were perceived and even solidified.

Perhaps one of the greatest general statements to be made about the changes that resulted from the Industrial Revolution in New England is that families were no longer, if even by proxy, required to remain tight-knit and solely reliant on another. Before this time children worked in fields, women, as their gender roles demanded in this pre- Industrial Revolution society and family structure in New England took care of the home and men worked in the fields. “The industrial revolution spawned great changes in family structure. Industrialization and urbanization prompted a marked change in life and working styles. Many people, especially the young, left the farms to work in factories; this process led to the dissolution of many extended families” (Finneran 1994: 46). With the shift away from the traditional modes of cottage industry in New England before the Industrial Revoltion or highly localized familial production came a related shift of family values. Instead of being tied to the home because one was needed to assist with farm or family business tasks, young people were now more free to explore their own paths. Women, instead of being relegated domestic tasks were now granted an opportunity to earn an income, even if it was significantly less than that earned by male counterparts. Entire communities, comprised of family units and networks, were split and the traditional bonds of inter-family support that arose out of necessity, particularly because of farm-related and family business tasks, was now quite as essential. In sum, the arrival of the Industrial Revolution in New England, despite some of its drawbacks, brought with it opportunity and the potential to move away from traditional family networks.

The potential offered for all members of a New England family during the Industrial Revolution in America, for men, women, and even children,  was not the only important paradigm shift that occurred. For one thing, the revolution changed the way families viewed themselves and new changes occurred in terms of both gender and generational roles. Before the arrival of industry and the possibility for work outside the home and family, most people “may have had life plans, they did not have careers. Fundamental changes in the nature of work as well as gender and work accompanied the Industrial Revolution. Moving from self- and family employment to a paid labor force led to the construction of career trajectories based on the (male) breadwinner model” (Hertz 2001: 111). What this suggests is that because of a more specialized nature of the work, particularly as the Industrial Revolution moved forward and more detailed skills were required that entailed training or certain talents, the concept of the “career” emerged.

For the most part, according to the editor’s introduction essay to the translation of Das Kapital, much of Marx’s observations of the thirty-year period were in England, which were at once the center of the industrial revolution (with all of its glory) as well as the epicenter of the urban degradation caused by rapid and massive industrialization. While these theories about the nature of the worker, the work day, the capitalist, and economies in general were influential after their first publication, the same ideas still persist in general conversations about our modern economy—especially in terms of capitalism. In order to present the most succinct overview, analysis, and interpretation of Das Kapital ,it seems necessary to chronologically go through Das Kapital for this essay and examine some key points and themes, examine them within Marx’s context, and finally present them as templates for looking at modern capitalism society, industry, and economy.

Without any fanfare, Marx begins the first chapter of Das Kapital with a statement concerning commodities. He defines a commodity as “an object outside us, a thing that by its properties satisfies human wants of sort or another” (125). It is interesting that Marx begins the text with a discussion and definition of a commodity and after several successive chapters, it is clear to see that the commodity is one of the main driving forces behind capitalism. The commodity itself, however, is only valued according to demand or other more ethereal conditions and thus it is a perfect item for the capitalist as it presents no fixed “price” in itself, but its value is rather determined by desire and the potential for profit. To backtrack for a moment, however, a more concise definition of commodity is contained within the idea of “use value.”

This refers to a commodity’s value in how it will be used and how it is desired but this value, according to Marx, has little to do with the actual labor that went into the production of the item. Again, while it is not immediately clear at this early point in the text, the use value versus the idea of labor are important issues because there is more distinction between the two than one might initially think. For instance, something might have a very high use-value and be greatly desired. This desire leads the capitalist to make it expensive and the laborer who made the desired commodity is not paid what the desired commodity is worth, but rather is paid living wages while the surplus profits go directly to the capitalist since he owns the means of production. While that was a very brief, concise, but altogether limited description of the process behind commodities and use value, it is useful background information to frame the discussion as this analysis continues.

After this introduction to commodities and use values in Das Kapital , the idea of exchange value becomes of equal importance. As Marx puts it in one of the important quotations from “Das Kapital”, “As use values, commodities are, above all, of different qualities, but as exchange values they are merely different quantities, and consequently do not contain an atom of use value” (127). In other words, it is the proportion by which use values of one kind exchange for use values of another kind. This is a vital and fluctuating relationship and has less to do with the commodity than it might initially seem. For example, to put this into a modern context, let us assume that an iPod and a particular brand of cell phone equal x. In this case let’s make “x” stand for an inexpensive computer. In short, both the iPod and the cell phone must come out to be equivalent to another item. While this may be a confusing analogy, it is important to remember that the common item cannot be part of the initial commodity but rather must be subtracted from its use-value.

Once those use values are taken care of, the only commodity left is the work that went into the production of the item. In short, the common element in a commodity’s exchange-value is simply the “value” of it. This means that it all comes down to labor. This is a common tactic Marx employs, at first there a number of daunting methods for scientifically extracting a conception of value but in the end, it all boils down to questions about work and laborer. What has not yet been mentioned, however, is that labor is not an issue when it comes to the natural resources that went into the final commodity since they did not require labor.

Marx makes a strange shift in tone at the beginning of Chapter 2 of Das Kapital that should be noted and analyzed. He states, “persons exist for one another merely as representatives of, and, therefore, as owners of, commodities. In the course of our investigation we shall find, in general, that the characters who appear on the economic stage are but the personifications of the economic relationships that exist between them” (178). This is slightly disconcerting because this is one of the few moments in Das Kapital when Marx seems to be offering an explicit social as well as economic critique about the nature of capitalist interactions. What he is suggesting, in essence, is akin to saying that this system of capital and commodities has reduced everyone to acting based on economic decisions. There is not a hint of emotion, ethics, or other moral guidance at play here. Instead, human interactions are thus reduced to exchange and more importantly, capital itself. In the same section of Das Kapital  he goes on to remark upon the commodity that, “the bodily form of this commodity becomes the form of the socially recognized universal equivalent.

To be the universal equivalent, becomes, by this social process, the specific function of the commodity thus excluded by the rest. Thus it becomes—money” (180). Although in this latter section essay from Das Kapital presented here it is less clear, this is an indeed a moral judgment Marx is passing along about the nature of capitalism. He does not suggest at any other point throughout the text where capitalism and the ideological basis for it comes from, nor does he explore the ethics or morals to an great degree (at least overtly) but this is one clear case in which he is examining the way society is changed as a result of capital and commodities. We are no longer simply working together to form a society, but we are all individuals with varying amounts of capital, thus we are reduced to having human interactions that are limited and impersonal as we are all “characters” and as such we appear only as the economic relationships that define us. While some might argue that this is an overly literal way of reading the beginning of Chapter 2 of Das Kapital , it is important because it lets the reader into the morality as well as the scientific deconstruction of capitalism.