sions, now we see their logical and "experimental" justification.
Strange as it may seem, the very critics who are most vehement in the denunciation of Marx's so-called abstractions as unwarranted, and his supposed disregard of the "category" of usefulness, as unpardonable, are at the same time raising an outcry against Marx for his insistence that only "socially necessary" labor is the cause and measure of value! With all their astuteness they cannot see the very simple fact that Marx does include usefulness as a factor of value, and, that this very inclusion, which they loudly demand, accounts for the "socially necessary" which they no less loudly abjure! Indeed, none are so blind as those who will not see.
We have seen the baselessness of the chief objections to Marx's analysis by which he comes to regard labor as the "common something" of all the commodities which must be the cause and measure of value. The objections noted, while the most important, are not, however, the only ones. There are other objections urged against this analysis by Böhm-Bawerk himself as well as by the noted German economist, Professor Carl Diehl, not to speak of our old acquaintances, L. Slonimski and Professor Masaryk. We will attempt to exhaust the list and to pay our respects to all of them but one, who will be pointed out; and that one will not be considered here for the reason that certain other phases of the Marxian theory must be explained before the objection and the answer thereto can be properly appreciated. This task will, therefore, be left for the next chapter, which will be specially devoted to it. We refer to the so-called "Great Contradiction" between the Marxian theory of value and the theory of the Uniform Rate of Interest. Incidentally, we will have occasion to examine into the supposed contradictions between the first and third volumes of "Capital."
