204 chapter five
due to exchange. Having discovered the origin of surplus, produit net,
they went on to add, in Quesnay’s ‘Tableau economique’, an analysis
of its circulation among different classes of society (Roll, 1973). They
advocated that those who worked in industry and trade depended
ultimately on the amount of subsistence raised by those working in
agriculture above the needs of the latter. In other words, they under-
stood that that degree of productivity of labour, which made a sur-
plus possible, made its first appearance in agriculture (ibid.) Therefore,
agriculture was the only form of surplus, and any measures of fos-
tering the industry were useless. Because of this limitation, no value
was related to trade, or exchange. It was not until Turgot that
exchange-value was introduced, valeur-exchange, which Turgot called
valeurappreciative, and said it was determined by the average of the
estimated value of the parties to the exchange (ibid.).
Al-Shaibànìdid not go as far as Quesnay’s ‘Tableau economique’,
but what could be attributed to him, in contrast to the Physiocrats,
is that (a) he did not argue for agriculture as being the only pro-
ductive sector with other sectors being sterile; to him all sectors were
productive but agriculture was superior to the others, and (b) from
the start he acknowledged the exchange value attributed to trade,
“Trade does not provide subsistence but with trade, wealth, or income,
Màl, develops”, he states. Though he did not examine the topic as
extensively as the Physiocrats, he introduced fresh thinking and new
ideas in the subject, which were capable of being developed further
in parallel with the Physiocrats. In that sense it could be said that he
preempted Turgot in his findings on the exchange-value, valeur-exchange.
Other Issues
In addition to the above topics, al-Shaibànìdiscussed other issues in
detail.
He criticised severely those opting for voluntary unemployment,
particularly the flùfìs, a religious group appearing during that period
who called for the full desertion of worldly matter and complete
devotion to God’s worship—the analogy of monks in other religions.
How could they accept to feed themselves from the offerings made
to them by the others who worked to make these offerings possible,
while they simultaneously frown upon work, he exclaimed. In appre-
ciation of the value of work for earning a living and linking that
with worship he ascertained that work is important for enabling the