In that it ignored the previous half a century of (well tested) advances on the area and just made claims that were already known not to hold on the real world.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Can you for one second elaborate on anything you're saying? What did Marx ignore, and what doesn't hold in the real world?

[–] marcos@lemmy.world -4 points 4 months ago (2 children)

For example, the entire labor theory of value doesn't hold up on the real world and Economics had already better explanations for the phenomenon it was trying to explain.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

What part of Marx's LTV doesn't hold up? What theories explain Value better?

Are you capable of specifics, or can you only gesture? I am genuinely trying to see if you have an actual argument, I'm a Marxist and I encourage you to point to something that could maybe test that.

[–] marcos@lemmy.world -3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

None of the LTV hold up. For a start, it predicts that people won't ever trade. That's quite a big flaw because, you know, people do trade. Theories of value predicting people won't trade was a big problem by the time Marx was young. His one doesn't solve the problem at all, but well, it wasn't a problem anymore when he published.

The family of theories of value that predict that trade happens are called "subjective theories of value".

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

None of the LTV hold up. For a start, it predicts that people won't ever trade

What on Earth are you talking about? Do you know what "Exchange-Value" represents? Can you point to that in Marx's writings? If this is your best, then you need to read more of Marx before you randomly start pretending it's debunked or outdated, lmao.

[–] marcos@lemmy.world -3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Do you know what “Exchange-Value” represents?

An attempt of pushing some amount of subjectivity into his value theory, but still in a way that keeps it objective and still fails to predict trade.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Exchange-Value isn't subjective.

Can you answer my main question, where did you invent the idea that the LTV doesn't believe trade exists? This is PragerU level, try harder please.

[–] Funkytom467@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

Labour theory of value puts value on goods for the sole purpose of trading and explaining trades. Both LTV and STV does.

Marx's use of LVT is to criticize how Capitalism leads to exploitation. But although the specifics differ SVT could still be used to raise the same critiques.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 months ago

It certainly holds up better than whatever nonsense western economists peddle.