On the Theoretical and Methodological Validity of Karl Marx's Labour Theory of Value, Using as an Example the Critique Advanced by Eugen Bohm-Bawerk: Value as a Logical-Diaectical Category

Value as a structure-forming economic category and as a socio-economic phenomenon is one of the most controversial topics, the definitions of which were undertaken within the framework of deductive-logical, mathematical, theoretical, empirical, subjectivist approaches (including their combination). Despite the popularity of the marginalist definition of the concept of “cost” in economics, there are still ongoing active discussions between representatives of marginalism and supporters of the theory labor cost, especially during the most acute and protracted phases of the crisis capitalist market economy. Böhm-Bawerk as the most prominent critic of the theory of labor value in his work. The Critique of Marx's Theory begins by acknowledging the popularity of Marx's ideas. Along with this, he often imputes to Marx that he is deliberately engaged in fitting facts under his theory, thereby allowing him to strengthen its conceptual design, which at the same time allowed him to adhere to his concept without in conflict with the facts. If we state as briefly as possible the essence of Böhm-Bawerk's criticism of Marx's theory of value, then all volumes of Capital (possibly for
with the exception of some fragments of Volume III) are sheer sophism: “As is often the case with Marx, her (theory - N.G.) argumentation is based on a simple play on words” (Böhm-Bawerk, 2002. P. 106-107 ). The culmination of dialectical "tricks", in the words of Böhm-Bawerk, used by Marx on throughout almost all volumes of "Capital", was the tenth chapter of the third volume
as a natural result of self-contradiction: “Under this sign stands tenth chapter of Marx's third volume: she brings the so belated bad
the harvest that was supposed to grow out of bad sowing ”(Ibid., p. 115). By Böhm-Bawerk's remark (he emphasizes this both at the beginning of the criticism of Marx's theory of value and after its completion), this systematic error is largely associated with Marx's disregard for the empirical and economic-psychological approach to the study of value.