================= HES POSTING ================= 
 
This is sparked by research into Marx's concept of the law of value and 
the earlier discussion on the origins of the terms 'neoclassical' and 
'classical'. 
 
Aladar Madarasz (15/01/99) wrote: 
 
> Marx used the term "classical political economy" to characterize  not 
> "the economic writers before him" but those French and English writers 
> from Petty and Boisguillebert till Ricardo and Sismondi who - according 
> to him - had supported and developed the labour theory of value.  
 
Aladar's description of Marx's concept of classical is widely-held but I 
don't think it's what Marx said, as indicated by the citations I posted a 
couple of days ago and other contributions in the 'neoclassical' thread. 
His distinction centres, as has been said, on those who examined the 
inner connection of things, and those who confined themselves to their 
outer appearance. 
 
Also as far as I can ascertain, Marx never used the term 'labour theory 
of value'. He spoke variously of the 'law of value' or simply the theory 
of value. I think the difference is rather important when it is studied 
carefully, since the law of value distinguishes Marx from the classicals 
in being a law of motion, that is, a non-equilibrium formulation of value, 
a formulation which does not pre-suppose the equality of demand and 
supply. 
 
I have a paper which deals with this in some detail, as I think the 
theoretical differences are very considerable. It can be found (with 
papers from many other contributors) in the sessions for the upcoming 
conference of the IWGVT at the EEA, on our website 
 
        www.greenwich.ac.uk/~fa03/iwgvt 
 
I'd be interested to know where the term 'labour theory of value' 
originates. I suspect it is widely disseminated in Eastern countries and 
in many semi-official writings about Marx because it was part of the 
official teaching, and this begins I think because Lenin characterised 
Marx's theory as the 'labour theory of value' in 'Three Sources and 
component parts of Marxism'. However Kautsky's use of the term pre-dates 
Lenin in his 1905 'Economic Doctrines of Karl Marx' and I suspect that 
Lenin simply took it from Kautsky, since before 1914 there would have been 
no reason not to, Kautsky being generally held in great respect by Russian 
Marxists. 
 
I think the reason it is so widely disseminated in Western countries is 
that, first, economists tended to just take over the official view unless 
they had a specific reason to question it, and second, they found it 
rather convenient to amalgamate Marx with Ricardo and Smith so that they 
didn't have to deal so specifically with Marx's own theory, which was very 
different from that of Ricardo and Smith. 
 
Where did Kautsky get it from? I suspect, though I haven't researched it, 
that the term is Austrian in origin, or perhaps in some sense a response 
by Kautsky response to the Austrians. But I'd be interested to know. 
 
Alan 
 
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]