VALUE
The extent of Aristotle’s contribution to the theory of value has been very diversely estimated.521 In a classic passage of the Politics, he distinguishes between the two uses of an object, the direct use for which it was produced, and the indirect as an article for exchange.522 This has often been heralded as an anticipation of Adam Smith’s distinctions between value in use and value in exchange.523 Such an interpretation, however, is hardly warranted.524
The entire emphasis of Aristotle in the passage is upon use rather than upon value. The exchange use is declared subordinate, and the context shows that the purport of the statement is to teach the uneconomic doctrine that exchange (μεταβλητική) is an artificial use, especially when pursued for gain.
Moreover, the passage fails to develop the definition further by distinguishing between economic utilities that involve a cost of production, and other necessities that are devoid of exchange value because of their universality.525
Need is recognized as an element in exchange value,526 but it is not differentiated from economic demand that has the means to purchase. All that can safely be said of this statement of Aristotle, therefore, is that he accidentally hit upon a basal distinction, which, had it been his purpose, he might have used as starting-point for the development of the modern theory of value.
Certain other passages from his writings reveal a clearer apprehension of the distinction. In the Rhetoric, he states the principle that exchange value is measured by rarity, though this may not be a criterion of the actual value of the commodity to life.527 The latter is measured by its necessity or practical utility.528