|
|
|
|
Starbucks Obstructing First Union Vote
(G*rd*n) wrote
> I don't the the pure subjectivity of value is an item of the
> True Faith, inasmuch as the major prophet Adam Smith did not
> profess it -- it is his labor theory of value which, supposedly,
> underlies Marx's. I suspect it is something novel introduced
> to exorcise any influence of the Devil (that is, the aforesaid
> Marx).
Your suspicion is wrong and you seem ignorant of the relevant
economic history. As far as I know Galliani was the first to introduce
a theory of value based on utility and scarcity -- he did it in 1751,
before Adam Smith even published his work.
Condillac published his work in the 18th century (I don't know
whether with or without knowledge of Adam Smith), and he is worth
quoting on this:
"Value is not an attribute of matter, but represents our sense of
its usefulness and this utility is relative to our need. It grows or
diminishes according as our need expands or contracts. But since the
value of things is based upon need, it is natural that a more keenly
felt need should endow things with a greater value, while a less
urgent need endows them with less. Value increases with scarcity and
diminishes with plenty."
The main factor in the overthrow of the labor theory of value came
with the so called "marginalist revolution" usually dated in 1871-1874
and it is attributed to Stanley Jevons, Carl Menger and Leon Walras.
But this "revolution" had precursors in von Thunen and Gossen, which
wrote in the 1850's.
This "revolution" is the result of faults and inconsistencies in the
classical labor theory of value -- not in any reaction to Marx. Marx
simply failed to keep up with economic theory, building castles of
cards on shaky foundations.
Cheers,
Alex
|