The credit for the interpretation of Marx’s theory of value as an “objectivist”
interpretation is due to Sombart.
In The Economic Theory of the Leisure Class (completed 1914) Bukharin writes as
follows: "Werner Sombart... designates Marx's system as an outgrowth of
"extreme objectivism"; while the Austrian school, in his opinion, was "the most
consistent development in the opposite direction". We consider this
characterisation completely accurate. (...) Marx's theory is accordingly an
objective theory of labour value..." (p. 36, 37). Bukharin cites Werner
Sombart,"Zur Kritik des oekonomischen Systems von Karl Marx", in Archiv fur
soziale Gesetzgebung und Statistik, vol. VII, 1894, pp. 591,
592.http://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1927/leisure-economics/index.htm
I have been meaning to translate Sombart’s article, since it had such a great
influence on the interpretationn of Marx’s theory of value. Whether there is
time for that remains to be seen.
In The German Ideology manuscript, if I remember correctly, Marx and Engels
showed themselves well aware of the subjective utility theory. That theory
already existed long before the marginalist revolution, as mentioned by
Schumpeter:
"But let us bear in mind that it was the 'subjective' or 'utility' theory of
price that had the wind until the influence of the Wealth of Nations [by Adam
Smith] - and especially Ricardo's Principles [of Political Economy and
Taxation] - asserted itself. Even after 1776, that theory prevailed on the
Continent, and there is an unbroken line of development between Galiani and
J.B. Say. Quesnay, Beccaria, Turgot, Verri, Condillac, and many minor lights
contributed to establishing it more and more firmly. " (History of Economic
Analysis, p. 302).
http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/OPE/archive/0703/0097.html
Marx’s theory cannot be simply a theory of objective value, since part of his
aim is precisely to show why value is “perceived” in a particular way, and
indeed why the phenomena of economic value are frequently perceived in a way
that inverts the real societal relationship involved.
Use-value is just as “objective and subjective” as value is. To produce a
product, materials are required, and those materials are required regardless of
whether their price is high or low. That is an objective reality without which
economic (re-)production cannot take place at all. The normal consumption
pattern is likewise an objective reality, which ultimately must be rooted in a
hierarchy of survival needs. Subjective preferences have objective
consequences. But that of course does not mean that subjective preferences do
not exist. They do. Human valuations are rooted in the evolutionary ability of
sentient organisms to prioritize and weigh up behaviours according to
consciously self-chosen options. “Choice” is therefore at the core of “value”.
I don’t think Marx denied that idea, it is merely that the value proportions
between products get “a life of their own”, and therefore, that a social
reality emerges in which people can “prefer” all they like, without this
altering the trading ratios between their products very much at all.
J.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
