Samuelson famously dismissed Marx as a minor post Ricardian. In Scott Meikle's Aristotlean Economics (Clarendon, 1995) Marx appears as a minor post Aristotlean.
Meikle writes:
" Aristotle's inquiry into exchange value is aimed at explaining a capacity: the capacity products come to have for exchanging in proportions as quantities...'Value', as the term is used in economics, is the name of whatever it is by virtue of which products can behave in exchange in the way that they do, that is, exchange in proportions as quantities...If a thing has a capacity, its possessing that capacity implies actual properties in the thing. In Aristotle, and in the Aristotelian traditions, things are indentified as things of a kind, and that identification can involve capacities as well as qualities...Since attributing value to products is attributing a capacity to them, value must be intrinsic to them...If there is held to be no distinction between a capacity and its exercise, then the fact that products do exchange in non arbitrary proportions is all there is to saying that they can. From this it has been inferred that it is not necessary or even possible to seek an explanation of that capacity, of how things that are exchanged are capable of being equated in proportions, that is, of how they can be commensurable...Schumpeter, for instance, writes that Marx 'was under the same delusion as Aristotle, viz., that value [is]...something that is different from, and exists independently, of relative prices or exchange relations.'...Pareto is less restrained in his Humean saracasm:'...Of this 'capacity' or its homonym 'value' we know only the 'concrete manifestation' which is the price; truly then it is useless to entangle ourselves with these metaphysical entities, and we can stick to the prices.'" (p. 113-116)
rb