Content deleted Content added
Fix commas to create a parenthetical clause. |
m Fix spelling: marginalise to marginalism. |
||
Line 135:
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 written or were under way (Walras published {{Lang|fr|Éléments d'économie politique pure}} in 1874 and Carl Menger published ''Principles of Economics'' in 1871); Marx was still a relatively minor figure when these works were completed and it is unlikely that any of these economists knew anything about him. Some scholars, such as [[Friedrich Hayek]] and [[W. W. Bartley III]], have suggested that Marx may have come across the works of one or more of these economists while reading at the [[British Museum]]. However, it is also possible that Marx's inability to formulate a viable critique may account for his failure to complete any further volumes of ''Kapital'' before his death.<ref>Hayek, Friedrich August von, with [[William Warren Bartley|William Warren Bartley III]]; ''The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism'' (1988) p. 150.</ref>
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
It is noteworthy to mention that certain followers of [[Henry George|Henry George's]] ideas view marginalism and neoclassical economics as a response to ''[[Progress and Poverty]]'', which was published in 1879.<ref>[[Mason Gaffney|Gaffney, Mason]], and Fred Harrison: ''The Corruption of Economics'' (1994).</ref>
| |||