Marginal utility: Difference between revisions

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 marginalism came from neo-Ricardian economist [[Piero Sraffa]].

 

 

In the 1980s [[John Roemer]] and other [[Analytical Marxism#Exploitation|analytical Marxists]] have worked to rebuild Marxian theses on a marginalist foundation.