Use & Exchange

He's probably referring to neoclassical economics fam

fuck, now i miss my beanine babies.

Neoclassical economics is not necessarily bourgeois, there were plenty of socialist economists who subscribed to the neoclassical theory. Also, you don’t need to believe in the labour theory of value to be a Marxist. As John Roemer has shown using rational choice and game theory, you can prove that the bourgeoisie exploits the proletariat without the LTV.

Why should I use neoclassical tools when I have the LTV? I do see the value of proving Marxist points using mainstream economical tools, but that does nothing to diminish the LTV itself, especially considering its scientific validity compared to general equilibrium or game theory.

Because the LTV has been utterly discredited and it cannot be taken seriously by anyone who is not economically illiterate

Oh really? Discredited how and when?

The same goes for the non-existent tendency of the rate of profit to fall and the notion of ever-increasing severity of capitalist crises.

Attached: 40382374e4c6f37da3300f718f686856f3cfb6727909cbf720993b847a1f6208.png (204x307, 134.26K)

By Joan Robinson


stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2007/07/marx-wrong-and-.html

Attached: 118d842fad24847093ce6f487ef5c332477547676b3656396f312a774f0d2530.jpg (612x612, 84.3K)