Böhm-Bawerk / Hilferding controversy

The Böhm-Bawerk / Hilferding controversy refers to a criticism of the economic work of Karl Marx , in particular with regard to the consistency of Volume I and Volume III of " Capital ", which Eugen Böhm Ritter von Bawerk had undertaken in 1893 and whereupon Rudolf Hilferding with a Counter-criticism replied.

The main point of Böhm-Bawerk's criticism then turned to the solution of the transformation problem promised by Marx and Engels . This question has already led to a real price puzzle literature. The promised dissolution by Marx was, however, in the III. Band not done.

The fact that a uniform general rate of profit forms under competition is incompatible with Marx's law of value . Basically, Marx would admit in Volume III that goods are not exchanged according to the ratio determined by the socially necessary working hours. In order to save the law of value, Marx asserted that it "in the last instance" exercises control over prices. Böhm-Bawerk works out four arguments that Marx would have explicitly or implicitly put forward and gives reasons why they should be rejected. He counts:

"1. Argument: even if the individual commodities sell each other above or below their values, these opposing deviations cancel each other out, and in society itself - considering the totality of all branches of production - the sum of the production prices of the goods produced remains the same Sum of their values [ MEW 25, p. 169].

2nd argument: the law of value governs the movement of prices in that a reduction or increase in the labor time required for production makes production prices rise or fall (III. 158, similar to III. 156) [MEW 25, p. 189 u. 186].

3rd argument: according to Marx's assertion, the law of value dominates the exchange of goods with undiminished authority in certain “original” stages in which the transformation of values into prices of production has not yet taken place.

4th argument: In the complex economy, the law of value "regulates" at least indirectly and "in the last instance" the prices of production, in that the total value of goods, which is determined according to the law of value, regulates the total added value, but this regulates the level of average profit and therefore the general rate of profit ( III. 159) [MEW 25, p. 189]. "

- At the end of the Marx system, 1896, p. 66.

Against the first argument he argues that the law of value has the task of determining the exchange relationships between individual commodities. In relation to the sum of all goods, however, the question of exchange relationships no longer makes sense. Against the second argument he argues that it is a fallacy. The law of value states that the working time is the determining factor for the price. The generally recognized fact that working time is a determinant of price is, however, not a sufficient condition for the law of value.

Against the third argument he argues that the assertion assumed by Böhm-Bawerk in Marx that the law of value is valid in primitive social conditions has not been substantiated and is therefore only a hypothesis. However, this seems implausible, since it presupposes that workers behave indifferently to a delay in payment. Against the fourth argument, in addition to the replies to the first argument, he argues that in each of the steps mentioned by Marx, total value, total surplus value, average profit, general rate of profit, and price of production help determine the next variable in each case, elements that are alien to the law of value, that is, prices deviating from labor value Groceries, total capital, wages and wages.

From the Marxist side, Rudolf Hilferding responded to this criticism .

Böhm-Bawerk had interpreted the analysis of the shape of goods in Volume I as a failed attempt at dialectical proof of labor value, just as Hegel understood a speculative justification or as Baden Neo-Kantianism understood an emanatic logic . Hilferding, on the other hand, points to the central role of the allocation of labor depending on the results of the corresponding goods exchange processes:

“For society, which does not exchange anything, the commodity is nothing but a work product. And the members of society can only relate to one another economically by working for one another. This material relationship appears in its historical form determination in the exchange of goods. The total labor product is presented as a total value that appears in the individual goods in quantitative determinateness as exchange value. "

- Rudolf Hilferding

supporting documents

↑ Heinz D. Kurz: Joseph A. Schumpeter. A social economist between Marx and Walras . Metropolis-Verlag, Marburg 2005, ISBN 3-89518-508-6 . P. 15
↑ Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk: To the conclusion of the Marx system. In: Political Science. Fixed dates for Karl Knies. (Ed .: Otto von Boenigk). Berlin 1896. Reprinted in: Friedrich Eberle, (Ed.): Aspects of Marx's theory 1. On the methodological significance of the third volume of 'Capital'. Frankfurt 1973. p. 25 ff. Online
↑ The references in square brackets are from www.marxists.org
↑ In fact, similar statements can already be found in earlier labor value theorists; see. Adam Smith: Wealth of Nations : "At the lowest stage of development, all the proceeds of labor belong to the worker, and the amount of labor commonly done to acquire or produce a good is the only standard by which to measure the amount Determine work for which it should normally be bought, claimed or exchanged. " (11th edition 2005, p. 42f.) Marx says: "The exchange of goods at their values or approximately to their values therefore requires a much lower level than the exchange at production prices, for which a certain level of capitalist development is necessary. " ( Chapter Volume III - MEW 25, p. 186)
↑ First published in Marx Studies , (Ed. M. Adler, R. Hilferding), 1st volume, Vienna 1904; reprinted in: Friedrich Eberle, (ed.): Aspects of Marx's theory 1. On the methodological significance of the third volume of 'Capital'. Frankfurt 1973. pp. 130-192. Online in the Marxists Internet Archive
^ Rudolf Hilferding: Böhm-Bawerks Marx criticism. In: Friedrich Eberle, (Ed.): Aspects of Marx's theory 1. On the methodological significance of the third volume of 'Capital'. Frankfurt 1973. p. 137 f.

[1] Heinz D. Kurz: Joseph A. Schumpeter. A social economist between Marx and Walras . Metropolis-Verlag, Marburg 2005, ISBN 3-89518-508-6 . P. 15

[2] Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk: To the conclusion of the Marx system. In: Political Science. Fixed dates for Karl Knies. (Ed .: Otto von Boenigk). Berlin 1896. Reprinted in: Friedrich Eberle, (Ed.): Aspects of Marx's theory 1. On the methodological significance of the third volume of 'Capital'. Frankfurt 1973. p. 25 ff. Online

[3] The references in square brackets are from www.marxists.org

[4] In fact, similar statements can already be found in earlier labor value theorists; see. Adam Smith: Wealth of Nations : "At the lowest stage of development, all the proceeds of labor belong to the worker, and the amount of labor commonly done to acquire or produce a good is the only standard by which to measure the amount Determine work for which it should normally be bought, claimed or exchanged. " (11th edition 2005, p. 42f.) Marx says: "The exchange of goods at their values or approximately to their values therefore requires a much lower level than the exchange at production prices, for which a certain level of capitalist development is necessary. " ( Chapter Volume III - MEW 25, p. 186)

[5] First published in Marx Studies , (Ed. M. Adler, R. Hilferding), 1st volume, Vienna 1904; reprinted in: Friedrich Eberle, (ed.): Aspects of Marx's theory 1. On the methodological significance of the third volume of 'Capital'. Frankfurt 1973. pp. 130-192. Online in the Marxists Internet Archive

[6] Rudolf Hilferding: Böhm-Bawerks Marx criticism. In: Friedrich Eberle, (Ed.): Aspects of Marx's theory 1. On the methodological significance of the third volume of 'Capital'. Frankfurt 1973. p. 137 f.