I asked a question, and it's not a rhetorical one, even though it's formulation indicates that I have some serious doubts that there is a factual answer - it's called capital-ism for a reason.
I'm curious what the author means by: "Marxism and the labor theory of value is incorrect". First of all isn't that the wrong way around and should be the value theory of labor? But that aside: what is wrong about the concept of surplus value and labour power? (Which I assume would form the core of a marxism and be the value theory of labour; or vice versa) Aren't those generally accepted concepts? The entirety of marxism, especially its teleologial argument/eschatology is a different story, but what social/economic theory falsifies or even contradicts the concept of labour power and surplus value and in what way?
> what is wrong about the concept of surplus value and labour power? ...what social/economic theory falsifies or even contradicts the concept of labour power and surplus value and in what way?
Learning latin in school as a kid/teenager vastly improved my ability to learn english. Also helped alot with latinisms and academic lingo, which feels just natural, having internalised its semantic roots. So imho your statement it's not a universal truth. Still wouldn't learn a dead language as a grown up though.
