Formulate the main differences between spiritual values and material ones. Material and spiritual values

Value

- importance, significance, benefit, usefulness of something. Externally, value appears as a property of an object or phenomenon. However, significance and usefulness are not inherent in them by nature, not simply due to the internal structure of the object itself, but are subjective assessments of specific properties that are involved in the sphere of human social existence, a person is interested in them or has a need. The system of values plays the role of everyday guidelines in the objective and social reality of a person, designations of his various practical relationships to surrounding objects and phenomena. For example, a glass, being an instrument for drinking, manifests this useful property as a use value, a material benefit. Being a product of labor and an object of commodity exchange, a glass acts as an economic value, cost. If a glass is an object of art, it is also endowed with aesthetic value and beauty.

Man, his rights and freedoms are the highest value (Constitution of the Russian Federation, Art. 2) (ill.: Vitruvian Man L. da Vinci)
Used in several senses:

Value - as a characteristic of an object or phenomenon, denoting recognition of its significance. They separate “Material values” and “Spiritual values”. The concept of “Eternal values” is known.
Value - in philosophy - is an indication of the personal, socio-cultural significance of certain objects and phenomena.
Value - in economics - is used as a synonym for the concept of “use value” [ source not specified 2157 days
], that is, the significance, usefulness of an item for the consumer.
The philosophical concept of “Value System” means by values what an individual values in the society around him. Closely related to the concept of motivation.

Value in Economics

In economics there are:

use value (value for the consumer, utility, ability of a good or product to satisfy some human need)
exchange value (the value of an item for exchange, quantitative ratios of different goods in equivalent exchange) [ source not specified 1185 days
]

Representatives of the Austrian school believe that value is the value that the quantities of specific goods or benefits have to satisfy human needs. The more a person recognizes his dependence on the presence of an object, the higher its value. The phenomenon of value comes from the same source as the economic character of goods, that is, from the relationship between need and quantity. Goods available in unlimited quantities (air, water, etc.), that is, non-economic goods, have no value. And only goods that are available in smaller quantities than are necessary to satisfy a person are valuable[1]. Value must be distinguished from utility. Utility is the suitability of an object to serve human needs. Non-economic goods are useful to the same extent as economic goods due to their ability to satisfy human needs. At the same time, the satisfaction of needs depends on specific quantities of economic goods. As a result, it is they who acquire the meaning of value [2] (see also The Paradox of Value).

The idea of value and its understanding

Value is one of the main conceptual universals in the system of philosophical and humanitarian discourses, denoting in the most general form, firstly, the positive or negative significance of any object or phenomenon of reality, in abstraction from its existential and qualitative characteristics (subject values), secondly, the normative (evaluative) side of the phenomena of social consciousness (subjective values). The term “value” is used to indicate the human, social and cultural significance of certain objects and phenomena, referring, on the one hand, to the world of due, purposeful, semantic grounds, and on the other, to the main category of political economy - value.

Externally, values appear as properties of an object or phenomenon, but they are inherent in it not due to the nature or internal structure of the object itself, but because it is involved in the sphere of human social existence and has become the bearer of certain social relations. For the subject (person), values serve as objects of his interests, and for his consciousness they serve as everyday guidelines in objective and social reality, his attitudes and practical relations to surrounding objects and phenomena. The methods and criteria on the basis of which the procedures for assessing the relevant phenomena are carried out are fixed in the public consciousness (see Society) and culture (see Culture) as “subjective values” (attitudes and assessments, imperatives and prohibitions, goals and projects expressed in form of normative ideas), acting as guidelines for human activity. “Objective” and “subjective” values are, therefore, like two poles of a person’s value relationship to the world.

Values set one of the possible limiting frameworks for a person’s sociocultural activity. They are attributed an extrapersonal, transpersonal, and in some cases ahistorical character. They are interpreted as culturally generated and/or transcendentally defined contents, introduced into the changing diversity of social life as its invariants, allowing: to connect different temporal modes (past, present, future); semiotize the spaces of human life, endowing all elements in it with axiological significance; set priority systems, methods of social recognition, evaluation criteria; build complex and multi-level systems of orientation in the world; justify meanings.

Due to the fact that values are not directly “given” and “not representable,” they are embodied and realized through other universal cultural mechanisms, primarily through norms. Each historically specific form of social life can be characterized by a specific set and hierarchy of values, the system of which acts as the highest level of social regulation. It fixes those criteria of what is socially recognized (by a given society and social group), on the basis of which more specific and special systems of normative control, corresponding public institutions and the purposeful actions of people themselves, both individual and collective, are deployed. The assimilation of these criteria at the level of personality structure constitutes the necessary basis for its formation and maintenance of normative order in society.

Values are also interpreted as the meaning-forming foundations of human existence, setting the direction and motivation of human life (in this regard, they can be considered as mechanisms of semantic retention and rooting of a person in the world). The concept of “value” plays a central role in the analysis of the mechanisms of goal setting and obligation as options for value causation (teleological causation). In this regard, values, ensuring temporal continuity, make it possible to separate the world of existence (“the given” with its resource limitations) and the world of the ought (regardless of resource limitations) and structure the future as overcoming existing conditions, as a world of value-based goals (not necessarily achievable, but always defining vectors of change and development as a possible world (possible worlds). At the same time, values introduce a “metaphysical dimension” into the world of human existence - they are always absolute as self-sufficient entities and “final arguments”, not subject to discussion and challenge, due to their unconditionality. " The metaphysical nature of values is enhanced if they are interpreted as ahistorical (existing in the space of culture) and/or transcendental, which allows us to posit a system of religious relations.

In the social sciences, value is identified with the idea of any object, material or ideal, idea or institution, in relation to which individuals or groups take a position of evaluation (see Valuation), attributing to them an important role in their lives and the desire to possess which they feel as a necessity, or as something that is strived for as a goal, or considered as a means to achieve a goal, or as an object of any nature that has significance for the subject, that is, the ability to satisfy his needs, and so on. In this context, values are typologically divided into: goal values, means values (instrumental values), and situational values. At the same time, values can be: recognized (institutionalized), and they can either strive for them or not; unrecognized, but valid; potential. According to the object of focus, values are distinguished: those aimed at oneself, at others, at an object, at nature, at God, and so on.

The philosophical discipline of “axiology” studies the problems of values (see Axiology).

System of values

The norms that have developed in a society are the highest expression of its value system (that is, the prevailing ideas about what is considered good, correct or desirable). The concepts of values and norms are different. Values are abstract, general concepts, and norms are rules or guidelines for behavior for people in certain kinds of situations. The value system that has developed in society plays an important role, as it influences the content of norms. All norms reflect social values. The value system can be judged by the norms that have developed in society.

Values may include:

Health
Love, family, children, home
Relatives, friends, communication
Self-realization at work. Getting pleasure from work
Material well-being
Spiritual values, spiritual growth, religion
Leisure - pleasures, hobbies, entertainment
Creative self-realization
Self-education
Social status and position in society
Freedom (freedom of choice, freedom of speech, etc.)
Stability

Other values may also be present. Different people have different value priorities.

As researcher Polina Gadzhikurbanova notes, in Stoicism, which contrasts the wise with the profane: “The layman endows objects with greater value than they possess by nature, endows them with his own erroneous ideas about good and evil. As a result, he begins to strive for what seems good to him - for health, fame, wealth in themselves, but in his striving he goes beyond a certain natural measure, thereby falling into the trap of his own passions and ideas.

What values are more important for a person?

Someone will say that under no circumstances should one elevate material wealth above relationships with loved ones and one’s own conscience. For other people there are no prohibitions or boundaries on the path to wealth and fame. Which of them is right and what is more important for a person?

The material and spiritual values of culture are closely interconnected. People will not feel comfortable having only one of these types of values. For example, many businessmen who have earned a huge fortune often feel unhappy because they could not find harmony with their soul. At the same time, a person with a rich inner world will not feel good if he loses his home or livelihood.

Thus, if someone asks you: “Formulate the main differences between spiritual values and material ones and explain which of them is more important for a person,” say that this cannot be answered unambiguously. Everyone sets their own priorities.

The mistake of some people is the desire to take possession of as much wealth as possible at any cost. At the same time, in pursuit of money, they neglect friendship, honesty, and warm relationships with their loved ones. The approach when people living in poverty do not make any efforts to improve their financial situation is also wrong. They believe that the main thing for them is a rich inner world, and everything else is completely unimportant. Ideally, one should try to find the right balance between spiritual and material values.

Literature

Belyaev I. A.
The value content of a holistic worldview / I. A. Belyaev // Bulletin of the Orenburg State University. - 2004. - No. 2. - P. 9-13.
Great Soviet Encyclopedia: [in 30 volumes] / ch. ed. A. M. Prokhorov. — 3rd ed. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1969-1978.
Gulyaikhin V.N., Serova N.V.
Agonal patterns in the system of political and legal values of Russian society // Bulletin of Volgograd State University. Episode 7: Philosophy. Sociology and social technologies. 2009. No. 2. P. 180-183.
Manuylov A. A.
Value // Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron: in 86 volumes (82 volumes and 4 additional). - St. Petersburg, 1890-1907.
Menger K.
Selected works. - M.: Publishing house "Territory of the Future", 2005. - 496 p. - (Economy). — ISBN 5-7333-0175-9.
Inglehart R.
The Silent Revolution in Europe: Changing Values and Political Styles among Western Publics. - Princeton, NY, 1977.

The meaning of the word Value according to Ushakov’s dictionary:

VALUE value, g. 1. units only The value of something expressed in money, price. Determine the value of fur. An item of high value. Parcel with declared value. 2. portable, units only Importance, meaning. his thought is of great value. Recognize the great value of his work for science. 3. Something that has a high value, a valuable item. Storage of valuables. Transportation of gold and other valuables. || trans. A phenomenon, an object that has one meaning or another, is important, significant in some way. respect. Spiritual values. Cultural values.

The meaning of the word Value according to the Brockhaus and Efron dictionary:

Value is a person’s idea of the economic significance of objects in the external world. It is necessarily connected with the very concept of economic good. A person becomes in a special relationship with objects that are in limited quantity compared to the need for them or that are products of his labor (see Economic Good). he takes care of replenishing their supply, distributes their consumption, protects them, values them, values

their.
Economic activity is unthinkable in relation to things that do not represent value in the eyes of a person: he will not produce or save something that, in his opinion, is devoid of any significance in his life. The value of an economic good thus follows from a person’s recognition of the value of a good as an object of economic activity. Color is a product of human consciousness, a psychological fact: it depends not on the natural properties of an object, but on how these properties are recognized by a person. An object that does not have useful properties or is even harmful may nevertheless be a C. if beneficial properties are mistakenly attributed to it. These are, for example, herbs or roots that were previously considered beneficial to health, and then recognized as harmful or useless. amulets that were once given miraculous powers. And vice versa, an object whose useful properties are not yet recognized is not a value. It can become one only when its significance for economic activity is realized. Value as a psychological phenomenon must, therefore, be distinguished from the objective suitability of an object, that is, from the natural properties that make it capable of satisfying human needs: an object can exist for centuries, possessing such suitability, but without representing value, because its suitability is not conscious human. An economic good can be valued as a means to achieve two goals: satisfying a certain need or obtaining, through exchange, another necessary good. In the first case we are talking about a consumer price, in the second - about an exchange price. The nature of consumer value was clarified relatively recently, when the subjective nature of the phenomenon of value itself was finally recognized. Previously, many economists called consumer value the natural properties of an object that make it suitable to serve human needs, or what can be called its objective utility. For example, Marx says: “The utility of a thing turns it into a consumer value. There is nothing vague or unclear in such utility. It is determined by the properties of the substance of the product; without them it does not exist. The very substance of the commodity, for example, iron, wheat, diamond, etc., therefore represents the consumer price.” This definition sins against the basic principle of color, which here appears to be a phenomenon of the external world, and not of human consciousness. Consumer value as a psychological fact cannot be identified with the substance of the product. It is only the meaning a person recognizes that a given object can have to satisfy a certain need. The value of any economic good changes with a change in its quantity in relation to the need for it. therefore, the consumer price of households. goods fluctuates completely independently of their substance and natural properties. In a completely isolated economy, dealing only with consumer goods, a pood of grain with a bountiful harvest will have less economic significance than with a meager one: the loss of a pood of grain, when there are many such poods, is not as sensitive as when there are few. In one case, the price of bread will be higher than in the other, even though its natural properties in both cases remain the same. Such fluctuations in consumer value are quite understandable from the point of view of psychological theory and are completely inexplicable when consumer value is confused with the objective suitability of an object. The final clarification of the psychological, subjective nature of color is mainly due to the so-called. Austrian school (Menger, Böhm-Bawerk, Wieser, etc.). Carl Menger, simultaneously with Jevons and Gossen, but completely independently of them, presented an explanation for the fluctuations in consumer prices depending on the quantity of the item being valued. His theories are based on the idea of the so-called. marginal utility. Its essence lies in establishing the concept of subjective utility of goods as the basis for their assessment. Each individual unit of any good, not differing in its natural properties from other units and satisfying the needs of the same category, nevertheless can represent very different utilities, depending on the quantity in which such units are available. So, for example, if a person, possessing one pound of bread, could not count on increasing his supply of food in the near future, then this pound would be necessary to maintain his life. its loss would be tantamount to the deprivation of life, and the usefulness that bread would represent under such conditions, from the point of view of its owner, would be determined by the highest measure that the usefulness of any object is generally capable of achieving. He would apply the economic principle to bread as strictly as possible, would look at it as an economic good, would carefully organize its consumption and would value it as highly as his life. The usefulness of bread would be the basis of its price and would determine the value of the latter. The situation would change somewhat if for the same period of time a person had two pounds of bread. The second pound would no longer be absolutely necessary to support his life, but he would need it to strengthen his strength. If a person were deprived of it, he would experience a loss of energy, a decrease in efficiency, but would not die of hunger. Possessing the same nutritional properties and satisfying the same food needs, the second pound of bread would nevertheless represent less utility than the first. a person would attach less interest to it and therefore would value it less: its price would be lower than the price of that pound of bread, which alone constitutes his entire supply of food. It would be wrong, however, to suppose that, given two pounds of bread, a person would value one more than the other. Due to their equal suitability to serve the need for food, he would treat them exactly the same: whichever one he lost, No. 1 or No. 2, he would only lose the opportunity to satisfy a less urgent need - to maintain strength, but with the help of the remaining pound could support his life. Consequently, given two pounds of bread, he would evaluate each of them from the point of view of the least important need that he could satisfy with one or another pound. This least important need would determine what Jevons calls the “final degree of utility” and the Austrian economists call “marginal utility” (Grenznutzen). The marginal utility of a given number of units of some good serves as the basis for valuing all available units of it: in other words, marginal utility determines the price. - The law of marginal utility manifests itself in its pure form in relation to goods, the quantity of which cannot be increased by labor, at least in for a certain, more or less long time (for example, bread - until the new harvest). If the production of known objects is placed in such conditions that each lost copy can be immediately or relatively quickly replaced by another by spending a certain amount of labor, then the basis for evaluating such goods will be the amount of labor used for their production. This can be proven using the same technique that is used by the theorists of marginal utility to prove that utility, and not labor, serves as the basis of value, that is, by clarifying the consequences that would occur in the event of the loss of two objects that required the expenditure of different quantities of labor for its production. Ricardo also pointed out this: “If I,” he says, “must spend a month of labor to make myself a dress, and only one week to make a hat, then at least I would never have to exchange either one or the other, the dress had would be four times higher than a hat. and if a thief were to break into my house and carry off some of my property, I would rather he carry away 3 hats than one dress” (“Letters from Ricardo to Thrower,” art. 152). From this reasoning it is absolutely clear that in an isolated economy, where we can only talk about use values, objects, the supply of which is determined by the expenditure of labor, are generally valued by the amount of labor spent on their production. This fact served as the basis for the so-called theory of labor pricing. Proponents of the latter, imagining the assessment of economic goods under the simplest conditions, proceeded from the empirical law they noticed, but did not give it any explanation, considering the principle of labor pricing an axiom that does not require proof. The attacks of representatives of the opposite teaching were directed against this view. They rightly pointed out that the labor principle has never been substantiated, and that almost none of the supporters of the labor system, with the exception of Marx, even seriously tried to substantiate it. Indeed, why does a person value more highly what required him to spend more labor? The indication that a person supposedly by nature tends to avoid work and therefore values more that object, the reproduction of which, if lost, would cost him a greater sacrifice of leisure, is based on a completely arbitrary position about the innate tendency of a person to inaction. Meanwhile, if such a tendency can be noticed among primitive peoples, then it cannot in any way be elevated to a general law of human actions (Böhm-Bawerk, Wieser). These objections are fair, but it would be a mistake to completely eliminate the labor principle from the theory of C. on the basis of them. You just need to provide a psychological basis for it. This basis is the principle of utility. Labor power, as a means to satisfy needs, is a good in the eyes of man. Already at fairly early stages of culture, this good turns out to be quantitatively limited in relation to the demands that are placed on it. A person who has risen above the level of animal existence very soon comes to realize the discrepancy between his strengths and needs. The further we go, the deeper this discrepancy becomes: human needs are capable of limitless development, but labor energy is strictly limited. Hence the need to use labor expediently, to properly distribute and conserve labor energy. A person establishes the same attitude towards his own labor power as towards the economic goods of the outside world, and the grounds for such an attitude are the same: the usefulness of labor and its quantitative limitation in comparison with the need for it. If labor itself represents a price, then it is clear that goods, the production of which requires the expenditure of labor, will also have a price, and the latter will be higher, the more labor spent on the production of these goods, or the more it would be required. to reproduce them. Thus, the labor principle is only a manifestation of the same law that determines the price of goods that cannot be reproduced. Psychological analysis of the labor principle reduces all phenomena of valuation of economic goods to one source and thus leads to the elimination of the duality of the teachings of the classical school, which recognized two reasons for value: scarcity and labor (Ricardo). In reality, there is a single law of evaluation, and labor value represents only one of the forms of its discovery. - With all the above reasoning, an isolated economy was assumed, the subject of which, in an effort to satisfy his needs for material goods, is face to face with nature. If we assume that two farms that previously existed in isolation enter into exchange relations with each other, then the goods subject to exchange will have an exchange price in the eyes of the subjects of these farms. Under the simplest living conditions, when individual farms still retain their natural character, despite exchange relations in which they have to enter into with other similar farms, the basis of the exchange price is the same principle that determines the consumer price. Everyone evaluates his own good, which he offers for exchange, and someone else’s good, which he wants to receive in exchange for his , and, after comparing the results of these assessments, decides whether to enter into an exchange and on what conditions. If in this case we are talking about objects that are produced and can be reproduced by labor, then the measure of value will be the amount of labor spent on production. if the objects of exchange are objects that cannot be produced or reproduced by labor, then the criterion for assessment, and therefore for comparison of values, is the urgency of the need to be satisfied. In both cases, the final basis of price is the same: the general law of valuation of economic goods. — The stated doctrine considers capital as an individual phenomenon that arises in the sphere of farms isolated or connected by very weak ties with other economic units of the same individual type. Meanwhile, political economy, as a branch of social science, studies social phenomena. Therefore, the doctrine of value should be a doctrine of the assessment of economic goods in the national economy, and not in the individual economy. Social phenomena are facts that, although they dominate each individual individually, are products of their mental communication with each other and therefore have their roots in the individual psyche; therefore, the law of C., derived from the study of the psychology of the economic individual, does not lose its significance and when color is studied as a social phenomenon. If each individual individual, by his nature, attaches value only to those objects that are useful and quantitatively limited in his mind, then the totality of individuals living in society cannot proceed from a different beginning in their economic activity. In the national economy, as in the individual economy, economic goods are only those that are recognized as capable of satisfying human needs and are in quantity limited in relation to the need for them, no matter whether this limitation is the result of natural or artificial conditions. The difference compared to the simplest relationships assumed above is that the exchange value acquires dominant significance and is manifested in the form of price,
that is, a certain amount of money received in exchange for a product.
At the same time, the process of production of values becomes extremely complicated, as a result of which the relations in which goods are exchanged are determined by very complex reasons. Therefore, the phenomenon of price in the national economy cannot be explained with the help of elementary laws obtained from the study of the simplest exchange relations between economic units living, as it were, outside any social atmosphere. Meanwhile, the most important theories that have prevailed until now were of precisely this nature. This applies equally to both the theory of labor value and the theory of marginal utility. Discussions about value among the classics usually begin with the establishment of the laws of valuation among primitive peoples, that is, under the simplest conditions, and then are directly applied to the capitalist system. but since here exchange price receives the form of price, then the theory of price naturally turns into the doctrine of price among the classics, the basis of which is production costs, and labor serves only as a regulator of exchange proportions, under certain hypothetical conditions. Marx also starts from the labor principle and also comes to the doctrine of price, based on production costs. In Volume I of Capital, he identifies the very concept of value with the concept of labor spent on production. C. is “materialized” or “frozen” labor, a “clump of labor.” It is measured by the amount of labor energy expended on production under technical conditions considered average in a given society, and the ratio between the amounts of labor embodied in individual goods determines the relative price of the latter. Meanwhile, in Volume III of Capital, Marx allows a significant deviation from the theory of labor capital, which he developed in Volume I. This deviation boils down to the fact that in reality goods are not exchanged in proportion to the amounts of labor expended on their production, because their relative price is also influenced by profit. In order for equal capital to bring equal profits in equal periods of time, it is necessary that the exchange price of some goods be lower than their labor price, and higher for others. With this formulation, Marx’s teaching loses the significance of a theory based on the labor principle. The attempt of Austrian economists to build a doctrine of exchange value in the national economy on the principle of utility should also be considered equally unsuccessful. Exchange price in the modern economic system is found in the form of an objective exchange price or price, and price, according to this theory, from beginning to end represents the product of subjective assessments. This position is proven by the following reasoning. The seller makes a subjective assessment of the item he wants to sell and money as a good he wants to receive. Then he decides what amount of money is the same for him the same C. as the subject sold by him. The solution to this issue will determine the minimum price at which he will agree to exchange his subject for money. If the described psychological process establishes that the seller appreciates, for example, as much as 50 rubles, then he will decide that it will profitably sell the horse for any price exceeding 50 rubles, but will not agree to give it back for this the price and nevertheless for the lower. Having entered the market with such a ready -made decision, the seller will meet on the other hand the customer’s finished decision, that is, who, possessing money, has a desire to give them to the horse. The buyer, based on a subjective assessment of money and a horse, with the help of a psychological process, similar to the one that was performed with the seller, will establish the maximum price that he can give for a horse. Suppose this price is 40 p. If the seller and the buyer stopped at the indicated prices, then the deal between them could not have taken place, because one would consider it unprofitable for himself to sell 50 rubles cheaper, and the other would have found a loss -making to buy more than 40 rubles. The purchase and sale could take place only if the buyer set himself the maximum price above 50 rubles, for example, at 60 p. The market price would then be established within the limits between these two values, but at which paragraph - this would depend on the various reasons, which is impossible to determine the theoretical study. Thus, according to the teachings of Austrian theorists, a subjective assessment based on the law of “marginal utility” serves as a basis determining “marginal prices”, within the boundaries of which market prices are set. The law of subjective C. also determines the objective C., or the price, that is, the purchasing force of the subject, and the number of each of the other items that can be received in exchange for it. The criticism of this theory is already referring to the teachings of price. Here you should dwell on one question that is directly related to C. - the question of how subjective estimates are formed, then determining the limits in which prices are set. In order for the seller and the buyer to speak in the market with certain decisions to sell the goods no cheaper than such a price or buy it no more than such and such an amount, it is necessary that they have previously established a view of the subjective c. Not only goods, but also money : They must decide what amount of money in their eyes has the same subjective c. as this product. A subjective assessment of the goods is committed according to the law of marginal utility. But how is a subjective assessment of money made? What determines their maximum utility? The Austrian school does not give a satisfactory answer to this question. The value of money is determined, by its teaching, a number of conditions, including the amount and birth of goods that can be purchased for this amount of money under the current market conditions and prices for goods (viter, smart). But in this case, we find ourselves in an enchanted circle: a subjective assessment of money is made dependent on the price of goods, and the prices of goods cannot be explained if the law of subjective assessment of money is not explained. It shows that the Austrian theorists could not explain the connections between the subjective C. and the price, and without this the theory of C. they propose in the national economy cannot be considered established. - The latest work in the field of doctrine of C. is carried out in different directions. Some researchers seek to reconcile the theory of labor C. and marginal utility (Tugan-Baranovsky, etc.) and on this basis to build a general doctrine of assessing economic goods. Others, making amendments and additions to the teachings of the Austrian school, direct their attention to the study of distribution laws, the connection of which with the laws of evaluation is more and more attracted. This is the last direction, which has been expressed in the latest works of Gobson and Clark, it is important in the fact that it puts on the queue a review of the attitude of the attitude between exchange c., Price and income and indicates the need to study the laws of distribution as a condition for the correct formulation of the problem of C. Literature
(except for the guidelines for the political economy and works of the main representatives of economic theory): N. I. Ziber, “David Ricardo and Karl Marx in their socio-economic research” (1885).
His, Appendix I to the Russian translation of the works of Ricardo (article on the history of the doctrine of labor C.). Antonovich, “Theory of Value” (1877). Bukh, "Theory of C." (1889). Zalessky, “The doctrine of the origin of arrival on capital. Dept. I. The doctrine of C. " (1893). Den, "To the teachings of C." (1895). Orientsky, "utility and price" (1895). Engels, “The Law of C. and the level of profit” (“New Word”, 1897, XI). Frank, "Psychological direction in the theory of C." ("Russian God.", 1898, VIII). His, “Theory of C. Marx and its meaning” (1900). Tugan-Baranovsky, “Essays on the history of political economy” (1903). him, Art. About the theory of marginal utility ("Law. Vestn.", October, 1890). Manuilov, “The concept of C. on the teachings of economists of the classical school” (1901). For extensive literary guidelines, see the composition of Tsuckerkandl: “Zur Theorie des Preyses” (1889) and in Art. “Wert” Bem Baverk in vol. VII “Handw. d. Staatswissenschaften. " A. Manuilov.