>>2818714>>2844087Sources on Aquinas' theory of value can be give thricefold; "A Letter on Credit Sales and Usury" (1262), Summa ii.ii.77 (1274), Summa ii.ii.78 (1274). In the first case, Aquinas speaks of Just Price (worth/value) as opposed to "usury", which he defines as setting an additional price upon a good for the delay of payment. Aquinas later presents the injustice of this being in the lack of substance attached to time; he does not say what defines justice here, but only injustice, which is not selling a thing what it is worth. Later, we move on to the Summa - in the first case, Aquinas clearly borrows his viewpoint from Augustine (De Civ. Dei xi, 16, 426 CE):
<according to the utility each man finds in a thing, there are various standards of value, so that it comes to pass that we prefer some things that have no sensation to some sentient beings […] even when valued by men themselves (whose nature is certainly of the highest dignity), more is often given for a horse than for a slave, for a jewel than for a maid […] the former considers what value a thing in itself has in the scale of creation, while necessity considers how it meets its needhttps://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120111.htmValue to Augustine is thus twofold, between natural worth (in the order of creation by reason) and pleasure. Aquinas uses the same terminology in Summa ii.ii.77:
<the price of things salable does not depend on their degree of nature, since at times a horse fetches a higher price than a slave; but it depends on their usefulness to man.https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3077.htmSo then, price to Aquinas depends on usefulness, which is also directly caused by the substance of things:
<Gold and silver are costly not only on account of the usefulness of the vessels and other like things made from them, but also on account of the excellence and purity of their substance.https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3077.htmThis is relevant to earlier and later comments concerning usury, that since time does not add anything to objects, there can be no change in value. Further, the exchange of commodities to Aquinas implies the active consumption of substance, and whereby this is not done, there is a sale of non-existent things unjustly:
<Wherefore if he exacts more for the usufruct of a thing which has no other use but the consumption of its substance, he exacts a price of something non-existent: and so his exaction is unjust.https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3078.htmThis is similar to Marx's view, that the use-value of a commodity is only realised in its consumption:
<Use values become a reality only by use or consumptionhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htmSo, Aquinas does not directly relate the cause of useful substance to the primacy of labour, but imagines the independence of substances in their particular qualities.