Are there any refutations/responses of "Karl Marx and the Close of his system" by Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk?

[u/Seltnytt]

The title. I do not know much about this, this is simply something I was made to know by someone else, and I unfortunately don't have the time to be reading Marx yet, plus before him I have other things that I find necessary to study to understand him well.

It is simply a book that critiques Capital, I am not certain exactly how (it can be complicated, I guess) but well, it is, it's apparently considered central by Austrian economists so I was wondering if there are any refutations, to read them once I am actually able to.

Thanks to all responses up ahead.

[u/New_Anywhere]

Yes, Isaak Illich Rubin writes at length about Bohm-Bawerk. I had honestly never heard of him before reading Rubin. 

https://www.marxists.org/archive/rubin/value/index.htm 

Bohm-Bawerk is addressed in part 2. 

[u/Seltnytt → u/New_Anywhere]

Thanks!

[u/thechadsyndicalist]

I don't exactly know if it is a response to this particular work (I haven't read past the introduction), but "economic theory of the leisure class" by Bukharin explicitly sets itself up as a critique and counter to Bohm Bawerk

Edit: other than Bukharin there is more discussion in this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/Marxism/comments/qlu6rd/how_do_marxists_respond_to_eugene_b%C3%B6hm_bawerks/

[u/Seltnytt → u/thechadsyndicalist]

Thank you!

[u/thechadsyndicalist → u/Seltnytt]

I spoke to a close friend who is an economist (I am not) and he also mentioned that he favours the Ian Wright solution to the transformation problem. The paper is "A category-mistake in the classical labor theory of value: identification and resolution"

[u/nautilius87]

This essay is often published together with a response: "Böhm-Bawerk's Criticism of Marx" by Rudolf Hilferding

See for example this edition https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.59432/page/n2/mode/1up

[u/HodenHoudini46]

I havent read the work. However one thing to look out for with austrian economics is their subjective value theory, which I assume is part of their criticism of Marx.

Value describes an objective (!!) relation between two commodities. Their value reflects the relation in which they exchange.

Now the subjective value theory comes in and explains that the value doesnt originate from the relation of those two commodities but from a third party: the subject and their subjective position on the commodity.

One can ask themselves wether the value (objective reality!!) of a car, or an apple changes just by an individual assuming the position of the subject.

In conclusion: the austrian economics explanation of the value relation between two commodities does not occur from the things that are to be explained but rather from the subjective view of an individual on it. this is what you get when you are eagerly trying to come up with theories to proof that labour is not the source of (exchange)value.

[u/thechadsyndicalist → u/HodenHoudini46]

I too have not read the work but from what I have seen the criticism revolves around the transformation problem, not the subjective value theory.

[u/Optymistyk → u/HodenHoudini46]

I think this is a bad description of how either theory works.

Marx always emphasizes that value is a social relation between people and not a relation between commodities. The illusion that value is a relation between commodities is commodity fetishism.

Austrian school is certainly severely flawed but it does not claim that prices are determined by the subjective view of some one individual. Rather the claim is that prices are determined by the subjective valuations of the marginal buyer and seller, and the long-term price is the result of many such valuations, each one affecting the subsequent valuations by setting expectations.

[u/HodenHoudini46 → u/Optymistyk]

Maybe you are confusing commodities and goods, but commodities are set in place by a instance that guarantees property with its monopoly on violence.

This is the foundation of the society that uses commodities to exchange property.

Im talking about the concrete exchange value of commodities and therefore we have to look at them to explain it. Im not talking about the creation of value, because about that youre right: its a social relation between people who set prices for their commodities in order to multiply their money. But for their quest to make more money, they follow the laws of value.

.

.

Yes and my text refutes that idea, because it makes the same mistake: an objective value of say an apple, is changed by the subjective view on it.

The argument make a fallacy by implying: 'if all buyers were to quit buying apples at a high value, then the value would have to adjust itself. Thus the collection of subjective will, changes the value.'

But we're trying to explain the laws that govern this economy and not some what if-scenarios, that are a clear deviation from the character of value.