Content deleted Content added
No edit summary Tags: Visual edit Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
m spelling |
||
Line 131:
[[Karl Marx]] acknowledged that "nothing can have value, without being an object of utility",<ref>Marx, Karl Heinrich; ''Capital'' V1 Ch 1 §1.</ref><ref>Marx, Karl Heinrich; [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/f239-289.htm ''Grundrisse''] (completed in 1857 though not published until much later)</ref> but in his analysis "use-value as such lies outside the sphere of investigation of political economy",<ref>[[Karl Marx|Marx, Karl Heinrich]]: ''A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy'' (1859), p. 276</ref> with labor being the principal determinant of value under capitalism.{{primary source inline|date=October 2021}}
Many scholars interpret the doctrines of marginalism and the Marginal Revolution as a response to [[Marxism|Marxist economics]].<ref name=":02">{{cite book |author-last1=Screpanti |author-first1=Ernesto |title=An Outline of the History of Economic Theory |author-last2=Zamagni |author-first2=Stefano |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |year=2005 |pages=170–173 |author-link1=Ernesto Screpanti |author-link2=Stefano Zamagni}}</ref> However, this view is somewhat flawed, as the first volume of ''[[Das Kapital]]'' was not published until July 1867, which was after the works of Jevons, Menger, and Walras had either been
Despite the fact the Marxist economics wasn't an immediate target for the marginalists, it is possible to argue that the new generation of economists succeeded partly because they were able to provide simple responses to Marxist economic theory. One of the best known responses was Böhm-Bawerk, {{Lang|de|Zum Abschluss des Marxschen Systems}} (1896),<ref>Böhm-Bawerk, Eugen Ritter von: "''Zum Abschluss des Marxschen Systems''" <nowiki>[</nowiki>"On the Closure of the Marxist System"<nowiki>]</nowiki>, ''Staatswiss. Arbeiten. Festgabe für [[Karl Knies|K. Knies]]'' (1896).</ref> but the first response was actually Wicksteed's "The Marxian Theory of Value. ''Das Kapital'': a criticism" (1884),<ref>Wicksteed, Philip Henry; "Das Kapital: A Criticism", ''To-day'' 2 (1884) pp. 388–409.</ref> followed by "The Jevonian criticism of Marx: a rejoinder" in 1885).<ref>Wicksteed, Philip Henry; "The Jevonian criticism of Marx: a rejoinder", ''To-day'' 3 (1885) pp. 177–79.</ref> At first, there were only a few Marxist responses to marginalism, including [[Rudolf Hilferding]]'s ''Böhm-Bawerks Marx-Kritik'' (1904)<ref>Hilferding, Rudolf: ''Böhm-Bawerks Marx-Kritik'' (1904). Translated as ''Böhm-Bawerk's Criticism of Marx''.</ref> and ''Politicheskoy ekonomii rante'' (1914) by [[Nikolai Bukharin]].<ref>[[Nikolai Bukharin|Буха́рин, Никола́й Ива́нович (Nikolai Ivanovich Bukharin)]]; ''Политической экономии рантье'' (1914). Translated as [http://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1927/leisure-economics/ ''The Economic Theory of the Leisure Class''].</ref> However, over the course of the 20th century, a significant body of literature emerged on the conflict between marginalism and labour theory of value. One important critique of marginalise came from neo-Ricardian economist [[Piero Sraffa]].
| |||