/lit/ - Literature

>>9725058
Except LTV has strong empirical support that "subjective" theories of value fail to provide. It's also laughable to use the prevailing economic orthodoxy as a knockdown argument, neoclassical assumptions are so fucking bad they can only prevail by expelling dissenters from the field.
Neoclassicals as a whole have failed to engage with contemporary advances in Marxist economics, like the research done by Cockshott and Cottrell.

http://bnarchives.yorku.ca/308/2/20101200_cockshott_nitzan_bichler_testing_the_ltv_exchange_web.htm
http://www.academia.edu/32232262/The_Scientific_Status_of_the_Labour_Theory_of_Value

Also google "testing the ltv in Sweden"

The Labour Theory of Value has empirical support. There are calculations than clearly show a strong correlation between average labour time and market price. You can plug your ears and pretend it's all "muh subjective", but it doesn't change reality. Try "Classical Econophysics"
It's also laughable to appeal to mainstream economics as an authority, like the field is a impartial science. Neoclassical economics is a long string of capitalist apologetics and market worship. Post-Keynesians shred it to pieces, let alone contemporary Marxist theory.