I have not read enough theory to even fully understand LTV, let alone understand its criticisms. But I'm assuming there are some Marxists who have written the "Criticisms of the Criticisms of the Labor Theory of Value". What would these be? Right now you get the impression that the "Criticisms of the Labor Theory of Value" are going unchallenged.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] TankieTanuki@hexbear.net 1 points 3 years ago (3 children)

In my experience, a lot of criticisms rely on the assumption that value and price are the same thing, whereas every Marxist knows that price is exchange value.

[–] LibsEatPoop@hexbear.net 0 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (1 children)

What do you think about the Ecological Economics or the Post-Keynesian argument?

[–] NaturalsNotInIt@hexbear.net 1 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago)

The Post-Keynesian arguments are the same dreck as earlier Keynesians, namely that the market allocates resources based on "marginal utility" or "preference". These people live in a fantasy land where the market magically determines the value of all products, sets the price accordingly, and there's an omnipotent force (the State/central bank) who is supposed to step in if Mr. Market isn't doing his self-care and keeping up with therapy.

As TankieTanuki said, these criticisms ultimately get back to the idea that price is value, which is something that Marxists fundamentally disagree with (fwiw, stock market gurus like Warren Buffett are on the same side as Marx, "value investing" requires price/value mismatches on a fundamental level!).

The ecological economics theory from Wiki sounds like some ecofash b.s. on first read. "Labor doesn't create value because labor takes energy to produce" - no shit, that's the "v" part of the "c+v+s". "Cultural differences can change the use-value of goods" - yes to some extent, but this sounds an awful lot like "those primitive people don't value those resources".

load more comments (1 replies)