I literally provided a source lmfao

You specifically said that it was empirically proven that labor is the only source of value in the economy, and the paper you provided wasn't a study with empirically evidence, but a response paper that didn't make this claim to begin with.

you can go through the references of the paper I sent such as the Zacchariah multi-country study.

I'm not going to do that. That's not how providing sources work. If you want to provide a source, then you cite specific sources that support specific claims, and have to quote or point out specific parts of those sources that are relevant to the conversation. What you're doing here is just lazy, it's the equivalent of some MAGA boomer going "do your own research".

If neoliberal economists had any sort of empirical proof showing otherwise, they’d be more than happy to share it, but there are no studies in the academia providing this. Please search them for me if you will.

No, they wouldn't. Academia doesn't work like Lemmy. There's no team "Marxists" vs team "neoliberals" like you seem to think. Academics are not going to endlessly go back and forth arguing about politics because that's a waste of their time. They have job duties to fulfill, and they will only ever respond to a paper if it either advances their career or is a defense of their work. No serious academic will ever respond to this paper outside of the original authors because they have to defend their reputation. The lack of responses is not an indication that team Marxism won the argument. That's a debate bro mindset, not a professional academic mindset.

As for references for why you’re wrong, you can go through Albert Szymanski’s “human rights in the Soviet Union”, Robert B Allen’s “Farm to Factory”, Pat Sloan’s “Soviet Democracy” or Alec Nove’s “economic history of the USSR” (paraphrasing the title of the last one because I read it long ago). You can go through my comment history and find references to all of those books if you want

Yeah... no, that's not how this works. What you're doing here is just source dumping. Spamming a bunch of random article titles means absolutely nothing. It doesn't make you right or look smart, it just shows that for a way out while saving face... which is fine, if you can't handle this discussion then you're free to end it, but at least have the honesty to do so directly.

In the off chance that I'm wrong, which I highly doubt, and you actually want to provide sources then you're going to have to do what I mentioned earlier AND you also have to explain how any of these sources are relevant to the discussion, as in you have to actually explain which claims you're using the source to support or disprove. Then, and only then, can we actually start talking about credibility of your sources, the merits of their content, and how the shifts the discussion.

However, if you're not planning to do that and you're just willing to insulting shit like asking me to go look through your comment history or go through your source dump without any having any connections to this discussion, then you have nothing of value to say and this conversation is not worth continuing any further.

but I have nothing to prove to you.

That's literally the whole point of this discussion. Keep in mind, you replied to me, you started this discussion. You chose to state your views. If you can't defend your claims against such mild criticism that then that means you're simply incapable of defending your beliefs.

I gave you a summary paper collecting references several studies on labour theory of value

But it doesn't support what you claimed it did...

When you actually bring up sources to the conversation you may change my mind and make me do the effort, but you won’t do that I bet.

I'm not you, name me the claims you want sourced and I will gladly provide you relevant sources.