I'm by no means an expert, but yes to put it simply. Austrian Economists, while certainly descendants of Neo-Classical and Classical economics break with far too much to be considered the same. For an example I'm somewhat better versed in, subjective value as opposed to many classical economists subscribing to some form of the Labor Theory of Value.
Austrians do not deal in equilibrium models - in an exchange for instance the buyer values the item more than the money you have in your hand so you buy it and the person selling the reverse values the money more than the item they have. It is not an equal exchange from either side.
Austrians reject also the abstract idea of marginal utility absent from prices - the coin word "utils" that came out of classical economics that is really hard to translate to any reality. Prices are a signal and with a person's time preference and values of items they can enact an exchange.
Generally also they don't fancy a lot of empirical data, ascribe to the idea of economics as human action and formulate ideas through deduction. Some see this as anti-scientific method, but the Austrians counter that reliance on empirical data in social sciences when the field has unique human actions. Even if you reject the Austrian stance on the whole it is an interesting way of looking at the complex statistical, econometric models favored by the MIT-type economists, Keynesians, and monetarists.
As a socialist - what do you think of the idea of subjective value - for instance just because someone puts a certain amount of effort and labor into it that its value is determined not by the producer or business owner but by the end user/consumer? Marx addresses nature as a key facet of value but for him the consumer side does not seem to be a part of the consideration.
This is a key difference too for the Austrians from both the socialists and the neoclassical views. It was my understanding that neoclassical, non-socialists today don't talk much about the LTV except only in discussing history as classical economists like Ricardo and Smith did have this view. Pretty much it is economic Marxists (Law of Value), those who advocate authoritarian technocratic Resource Based Economy models, and left libertarian/anarchists in the Proudhon / Warren tradition who have a view that is related or tacks on to the LTV.
Austrians were not alone in criticizing the LTV as for instance Pilkington mentions:
"[V]alue is attributed to objects due to our desire for them. This desire, in turn, is inter-subjective. We desire to gain [a] medal or to capture [an] enemy flag [in battle] because it will win recognition in the eyes of our peers. [A] medal [or an enemy] flag are not valued for their objective properties, nor are they valued for the amount of labour embodied in them, rather they are desired for the symbolic positions they occupy in the inter-subjective network of desires."
This very close to Menger's subjective theory of value which was part of the late 19th century preliminary Austrian flourishing.
Of course the other key aspect of Austrian economics is the business cycle and their views on monetary policy - loose credit distorting the market and encouraging malinvestment and this was the one that got the most attention in academic economic circles - eventually leading to Hayek's Nobel prize in 1974.
For instance despite the idea that Austrians don't like data - try reading even 40-50 pages of Murray Rothbard's The Great Depression and let me know what you think - when compared with the standard 'speculators and evil capitalists' under laissez faire policies under Coolidge and Hoover caused the Depression that is still regularly rolled out by the defenders of Keynes, FDR and government intervention. It's a far cry from his other books - and a lot of political philosophy books.
Likewise contrast the views of Mises and Hayek prior to the 1929 depression vs Keynes and the mainstream economists. Who was right? Hmm?
Empiricists look back and use aggregates and modeling to attack Austrian economics - but still depend on aggregates, averages, and assumptions and that is a consistent criticism of those who rely too heavily on empirical data that it is a very problematic way of predicting human behavior.
