ABSTRACT
It is well known that Marx introduced the concept of ‘classical political economy’ into the language of the science, and that subsequently he only spasmodically developed it in other writings, particularly in Capital. It is likewise generally appreciated that Keynes intentionally perpetrated a ‘solecism’ on Marx’s definition when he defined classical economics for his own purposes, and that both before and since Keynes, the terminology has been interpreted in a variety of ways.2 Discussion of Sraffa’s work as a ‘rehabilitation of classical political economy’ has brought interest in the precise meaning of the term back on to the agenda. This paper makes a contribution to this kind of project by examining in more detail Marx’s position on classical political economy, which in many respects has not received the attention it deserves. This applies particularly to his remark on the importance of distinguishing the French and British version of classical political economy. A substantial part of the paper is therefore devoted to a comparative evaluation of Marx’s comments on Petty and Boisguillebert, Ricardo and Sismondi, with particular emphasis on the earlier pair and on the French side of the comparison.
