LTV

If LTV is valid (yes yes I know the PDF) how come it's not accepted anywhere in academic circles, even Marxist ones. Even Zizek has his doubts.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/value

Economists are too dumb for Marxism + Bourgeois conspiracy

"Because it's wrong mudpies and diamonds lol"

No they aren't. They fully understand Marx, they're just corruption apologists that's all.

The LTV is a social relationship, not a set of hard numbers.

No, they are. How can you explain the millions of man-hours spent on economics otherwise? The entire field is wrong - it was ended with Marx. There is an element of bourgeois conspiracy, but eventually some economists at elite institutions would've come out and told us all that the labor theory of value was right if they were actually just pretending. A better explanation is that they're just too dumb for Marxism. Being a STEM retard will do this to you, unfortunately.

If you spent any time in even a well reputed university's economics class you'd know that's just not true. The understanding Marx (or any other leftist category) part, that is.

I'd hedge to say that it is due, not in any conspiratorial or deliberate fashion, in the function of capitalism - not in its positive suppositions about the equalization of comparative advantage or its tending towards any equal distribution of the production and reproduction of capital, but rather in the ideological presuppositions it has made.

It has become abundantly apparent that the problems of capitalism are unsustainable, yet we continue onwards. This is not an issue of practicality, as the fundamental contradiction in the appraisal of labor and the dictatorial construction of the apparatus to build and birth capital per Marx is still one hundred percent the most material, functioning explanation for the whole of the process of the capitalist mode of production. We are at an impasse, far more, in the establishment of a movement or critique that can destabilize the positive or essential assertions of the whole ideological corpus of ideological commodity.

To read, I'd recommend Anwar Shaikh and Jacques Lacan (though in all candor, Zizek is equally applicable)

...

The difference is that Marx is correct and ancaps aren't. Big difference!

Besides, Mises is post-Marx. Who cares what he has to say?

How could it be? It is not taught in academic circles. And there are no Marxist ones.

When you point out ways in which value has nothing to do with labor lefties always cry "Noooo I'm talking about a certain type of value!!!" Lefties should restrain from altering the meanings of words.

en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/value

I'm not even saying I'm agreeing with the LTV. But economists clearly display no understanding of leftist ideas, whether Marxist or otherwise. It's not even that they're too stupid for it, it's that it is never taught at any level of economic education and the economists never take it upon themselves to read the works of people outside the exclusively orthodox economics they're taught.

Because economists are too dumb for Marxism.

Plenty of Marxists are too dumb for Marxism and they're still smarter than every economist out there.

Name them.

I don't know and I don't need to. The fact that not one Marxist economist that accepts LTV except Cockshott is ever brought up on this board is quite enough. And besides, I already mentioned Zizek.

There are no "Marxist economists".

list a couple of marxist economists who explicitly reject the LTV and aren't also right wing capitalists.

Don't Sraffans reject Marx's LTV?

and before some dumb Holla Forumsyp believes this disprove marxian economics, it doesn't, it's just a different representation of it

...

I don't know any, but why don't you list just one (besides cockshott since he is known) who does accept the LTV

Because there are no Marxist economists.

zizek is a marginalist

Capital was written for a vastly different world than the one we live in now. Marxism is not a form of economics or government. And neither should leftists try to follow what the Soviets and the Maoists did.

The way forward is vastly different than any of those outdated methods.

No.

Marxism is not a form of economics or government.
Indeed.

We must learn from their experience in order to know what in it should or should not be followed.

No.

so I got a buch saying economics ended with Marx, another saying Marxism isn't economics, and everyone have every excuse in the world why no one takes it seriously.

Distinguished economists dismissing LTV based on their years of research and experience? Nope! They're just too retarded to grasp LTV, unlike me, 20-something image board denizen!

You brainlet let me help you,

Kliman,
Shaikh,
Niels Frohlich,
Alin Cottrel

for starters.

Don't be a fucking brainlet in future and search. You have the internet available for fucks sake.

No they aren't. But, like you, they never actually try.

Also:

I'm not gonna search and trundle the internet for 4 names, and if it was so simple one of the posters could just list these guys. But they didn't, so fuck off.

I also asked why isn't it popular in academia academy, not just your obscure economists, that according to some here shouldn't be called Marxist at all because Marxism isn't economics! - or that it's just a social relation and not economics. So fuck off twice.

brainletism here on full display folks. Sad!

I didn't know about Niels Fröhlich, apparently financial-markets expert at the Technische Universität Chemnitz, so thanks for that name. Ages ago, I saw a presentation by Andrew Kliman and thought he was an untrustworthy weirdo, though I don't remember the details.

Butt problems?

A bit. Apparently I've transgressed some boundary because I didn't know some names and came here to ask.