How do you respond to those who claim Marx's Labor Theory of Value is wrong...

...

I think we should produce an simplified definition of LTV so that it can be more easily justified.

Communism is literally just Christianity put into politics

I ask them to explain why. Normally they then link me a paper where the author either intentionally misrepresents the LTV or, having not read Capital, completely misunderstands it. Then when I explain why the paper is wrong they generally meme at me or stop posting.

Once had a libertarian claim it to be debunked in person, but after I asked him to explain why he changed the subject.

Yeah, dude and me being ignorant, does it really hold up? Is it really reasonable and up-to date. Much economics have been developed since then.

Scientific Creationism continues to this day; it is only dependant on the individuals who mobilize it as a subject of truth.

Typical right-wing willful ignorance

absolutely unmathematical

eh, partly it does but marxist economics has also developed since Marx so some faults of Marx have been corrected.

More interestingly there are some papers out there showing that the rate of profit does indeed fall so Marxs basic prediction based on the LTV might have come true.

Also I dont think that the LTV, to the degree I understand it(which is not much), needs to be correct to support communism in general. The opression by capitalists is visible daily and clearly and total freedom is obstructed by them either way.

What about people who say it is untestable/unfalsifiable? Is it a metaphysical proposition, or an empirical claim about material reality, and if the latter how would one go about testing it?

Like with any religion, criticizing the holy scripture is blasphemy punishable by death.

My favorite thing about Marx is the sheer amount of anal pain he's provoked since he started writing. Never has a man been so frequently quoted, scarcely read, and universally hated. I don't think anyone else will ever top it.

...

Before you argue who produces value, what makes you think material goods have any inherent "value" in the first place? Who says it isn't all totally subjective, like "beauty"?

And even if there is some sort of objective value, one could argue that value is produced in part by scarcity independent of labor, as in things like beachfront property or valuable minerals, neither of which have had any labor applied to them. And one could also argue that value has to do with demand as well as production, for example if a bunch of workers spend a lot of time working to produce something that absolutely no one wants to buy, haven't they produced less value than when workers put an equal amount of labor into making something that's in demand? And if so, then to the extent it's not always obvious in advance what products will be in demand, aren't capitalists contributing to value to some degree if they are good at predicting which investments will pay off and which won't, something the average worker might be less skilled at? (even in a centrally-planned economy you would need skilled people to direct production in this way, and even if they didn't officially 'own' the means of production they would still have much more authority over the large-scale use of the means of production than the average worker.) You could call this a form of intellectual 'labor' but ideas and insights are a lot harder to quantify than work-hours, making the labor theory of value more nebulous and untestable.

Basically it all seems to be a matter of opinion or definition, supported by nothing more than how convincing your explanation of 'value' sounds rhetorically, not something like a scientific theory that can be tested and potentially falsified (if you think it is more scientific, just give a hypothetical piece of evidence that would falsify your ideas about value, or at least make your ideas seem less likely to be true).

...

...

this

This is why Marxism is garbage. All Marxist analysis is based on taking obsolete capitalist theories to their logical conclusions. Perfectly logical, but perfectly incorrect, because the premises are false. Marxism is what happens when someone takes lolbertarianism seriously and then thinks that because he's seen through the holes that he has everything figured out.

Literally the only good ideology is Keynesianism. If you believe in anything else, you are a reactionary 19th Century retard who belongs in a mental home. If it wasn't for you rioting fuckheads and your false doctrines, we would have brought back Keynesianism already, and then the working classes would live in stable and happy societies. We could have gulag'd neoliberals already, if it wasn't for you socialist retards and your nonsense theories that require neoliberalism to be half true in order to work.

...

LTV has serious problems, but aside from hardline Classical Marxism it's not vital.

If anything I would argue that the inherent subjectivity of value as a concept is a very strong case for socialism.

Keynesianism only works in relatively closed economies. The public money you inject in nowadays economies is more likely to flee the country via importations.

That's why we do imperialism and empire building. Build a world government, run Keynesian economy. No problem. Workers happy worldwide.

Economics is not a hard science.

No, it's not.
Marxism is a continuation of classical economics, which dealt with real operation of capitalism, and not with post-Walrasian formalisation. All significant non-marxist economists (Keynes, Kalecki, Sraffa etc.) of 20th century come to the conclusions that are close to classical school and not neoclassical mainstream.
See youtube.com/watch?v=armTrDln8Ik&list=PLB1uqxcCESK6B1juh_wnKoxftZCcqA1go&index=18

AKA lolberg classical liberal stuff.

and that's the fake operation of capitalism, because classical libs are wrong.

It doesn't need to be justified. I want to abolish the class structure to secure power for myself and the rest of the proletariat.

hit me up with a source famalam

AKA you don't even known what you are talking about.

danke

Is economics bullshit?

The Right is illiteracy put into politics.

I think it's just very difficult to test empirically.

I don't see how the Labor Theory of Value is necessary to demonstrate the exploitation that is a feature of capitalism. Marx was just using a popular idea in his time in Capital to segue into what he really wanted to say.

It's necessary because in neoclassical theory the rich are rich because they have the highest marginal productivity; which is due to them owning private property; which means they're entitled to the profits of any enterprise they own; which means there's no such thing as exploitation, as workers receive their fare share; and there is no surplus being exploited away as a result.

You need an economic critique for any objections against capitalism to have teeth.

Fair. I swear I'm not always retarded.

So who's right then?
I swear I'm hardly ever not retarded.

The stateless jew who nearly died pantless.

Accepting that property rights are immutable ignores that the bourgeoisie fought tooth and nail for them against the aristocracy. Why should the proletariat accept history as it has come to them, with some owning private property and reaping the rewards as the rest toil endlessly?