Unpopular Opinion

What did you think of Marx's critique of Condillac in Capital?

Are you familiar with the debates between the two school from 1894 to 1914. Notable participants were Engels publishing Volume 3, Böhm-Bawerk, and Rudolf Hilferding. This debate wasn't settled academically because the evidence was clear, but the was a world war, then the Russian revolution, and the a red scare. No one cared and the West wouldn't support this open debate because society was on the line in a very real way.

Marginalism doesn't reign supreme because it won the debate. Marginalism reigns supreme because the culture changed. Have any of the professional economist taken Marxist economics seriously?

And, since you want the leftist goals that I also want, you might want to read Bukharin's treaise on how marginalism is a theory that allows for some to have more freedoms than others.

Edit: I read the stack-exchange comment you linked to. It's one sided, reductive and dismissive. It flattens Marx to Ricardo which it clearly isn't. It doesn't engage with Marxist critiques of STV, of which there are real critiques. It conflated price with surplus value, which it has a relationship, but is not the same. Fails to understand that Marx is analyzing the role of a commodity and knows very well the role of nature in value creation. It is ignorant of 50+ years of modern empirical input-output testing on Marxist value theory. It cites a 1971 study without acknowledging work that complicates it from the 80s and 90s.

Overall, it approaches Marx not as a social theorist analyzing the systemic macro-laws of capital accumulation, but as a bad neoclassical economist trying (and failing) to build a microeconomic utility model for consumer pricing. It's a clumsy response at best.

I really don't have a horse in this race, but:

But TODAY, when marginalism has proven time and time again to be the more superior explanation to value,

Marginalism explains value... by not trying to explain it. Marginalism explains prices, which, sure but that's not the point here; from what I understand, LVT attempts to explain the social dynamics emerging from and underpinning economic production, which is where the "all value comes from labor" idea really shines.

I've never met a single professional economist who takes it seriously.

There are plenty of Marxian economists out there, but also mainstream economics tends to skew right (with often disastrous results), so economists aren't a representative sample of social scientists who deal with how the economy functions.

Mainstream economic theory (Marginalism) is obsessed with price determination, that is to to say, calculating the exact point where lines cross on a graph. The material basis of economics is about who gets to eat, who holds the power to direct human labor, and what happens to a society when its resources are misallocated by profit-driven speculation.

LTV hasn't been surpassed by marginalism. Marginalism is a failing attempt to justify the current economic system by completely ignoring material reality

No shade but why would economists agree with LTV? How would they reconcile agreeing with it and their work in the current system? That's like asking an astronaut what they think of flat earth theory.

Finally, a truly unpopular opinion due to its disconnect from reality. Try reading Capital sometime and look up what a liberal is (it's exactly how you define yourself).

Poor word choices abound.

You refer to people as its instead of their...

Poor construction. What is freedom? You want lawlessness? Are you free to rob other people or kill other people? Where does your freedom end and their freedom begins? Sorry. Where does your freedom begin and its freedom began? See how that sounds awful?

I don't think randomly capitalizing complete words is doing your little diatribe any favors.

I don't know what LTV is and I'm pretty sure nobody else does either(some used LVT). If you use an acronym/initialism you should probably define it.

And you failed to define or elaborate on any economics that better define reality. Which I'm sure you probably can't do.....

I give you a zero. Abject failure. This is fucking garbage. Worse than a shit post. I mean at least some people eat shit. This is just calorie-free bulllocks.

Not unpopular. I don't recognize Marxism as a valid economic theory. Might do a longer post about it later, but my thesis is:

An economic system should balance the needs of labor and industry, placing a slight preference for one over the over. In this system, the government is simply a means to enforce the laws that maintain it. Marxism seeks to extend the government's role, creating a third entity with it's own needs requiring balance. Then, Marxism seeks to insert a preference for the government into that system. It justifies this bias under the basis that the government represents the will of the people. It is, quite simply, authoritarianism wearing the government as a disguise so it can present itself as socialism.

Congratulations -- you're an anarchist. Or maybe a libertarian socialist.

(As mad as it might make certain people on Lemmy to hear this, it's absolutely possible to be a leftist without being a Marxist.)

I’m not trying to bandwagon effect + appeal to authority here, but this is just so reminiscent of anti vaxxers and flat earthers (at least for me).

actually it's more that you sound like a christian fundamentalist baffled that people don't have the same religion as you or even reject the premise entirely.

Bro is trying to reject marxism on a ML site

I don't know much about economics but I think it's less about value and more about feeling valued (i.e. appreciated) and while we've been using money for that for the past couple gorillion years if we make an economic system where peoples needs are met first and foremost all other exchange can be settled with passionate kissing and maybe a little stroking/flicking.

godspeed to you