How Austrian School Economists Crushed Karl Marx’s Socialism

1️⃣ Ludwig von Mises and the Economic Calculation Problem

Beyond Incentives: Mises argued that the fundamental flaw in socialism isn’t just the lack of incentives to work hard or perform undesirable tasks but the inability of central planners to make rational economic decisions.

Absence of Prices: He highlighted that without private ownership of the means of production, there could be no genuine market, no price formation, and thus no way to calculate profits and losses. This makes rational economic planning impossible.

Inevitability of Chaos: Mises concluded that without market prices, central planning leads to arbitrary, chaotic decisions and the irrational allocation of resources, resulting in widespread shortages and the collapse of the planned economy.

2️⃣ F.A. Hayek and The Knowledge Problem

Dispersed Knowledge: Hayek demonstrated that in the real world, information is dispersed among countless individuals, making it impossible for central planners to possess the specific knowledge needed to manage an economy.

Spontaneous Order: He argued that only individuals with localized knowledge can coordinate supply and demand effectively through a price system.

Limitations of Central Planning: Hayek highlighted that central planning is not only presumptuous but also harmful, as it prevents those with the necessary information from making optimal decisions. The market’s price system functions as a “telecommunication network,” efficiently transmitting knowledge without bureaucratic interference.

3️⃣ Carl Menger and Subjective Value

Subjective Value: Menger refuted Marx’s labor theory of value by showing that a good’s value is subjective and determined by individual utility, not the amount of labor invested.

Labor Doesn’t Create Value: He argued that labor alone doesn’t give value to a product; the value depends on whether someone finds the product useful and is willing to pay for it.

Diminishing Marginal Utility: Menger introduced the concept that the value of additional identical goods decreases as their quantity increases, further challenging Marx’s idea that value is tied solely to labor.

4️⃣ Eugen Böhm-Bawerk and Time Preference

Surplus Value Debunked: Böhm-Bawerk refuted Marx’s idea that capitalists exploit workers by underpaying them, emphasizing that wages reflect the time preference of present goods over future profits.

Time Preference: He introduced the concept of time preference, where capitalists advance wages (present goods) in exchange for future goods (profits), accounting for risk and waiting time.

Wage Differences: The wage difference isn’t exploitation but a fair trade of present wages for future profits, with workers receiving immediate compensation and avoiding future risks.

✒️: Students for Liberty

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Great review. Wish it went as as far as Friedman too.

Wonder why this isn’t taught in school.?! 🤫

For statist incentives.

A significant error that I constantly run across among liberty-oriented fellows: the labor theory of value is not a "Marx thing", it's a "classical thing" -- Adam Smith himself subscribed to a form of it, as did Ricardo (which is a more explicit precedent for socialist theories).

The fork in the road that led to a more truthful theory of value was the Marginal Revolution that lies at the core of neoclassical theories.

I always scratch my head when labor theory is attacked when it's not fully Marx's understanding.

He obviously has a particular understanding compared to classical political economists like Smith or Ricardo but he was basically following their lines a lot.

Marx focused on contradictions in how capitalism develops and undermines some of its own characteristics, like how capitalism and free markets are about competition but also leads to monopolies that undermine competition. Or that free markets is a non-statist form of organizing production but then leads to state and regulatory capture by private interests.

Look around. Does this not happen? So it's nice to see some push back at these misunderstandings.

The fact that I remarked that Marx did not invent the labor theory of value and that he followed Ricardo and Smith in a sense does not make his lunatic theories valid to any extent whatsoever.

If that's what you took away from my comment, you were jumping to conclusions about my intent.

OK. my point was that if people are going to take a position on an economic position or concepts they should at least get some basics understood in order to make a scientific point and not one based on the feels.

Totally agreed.