> his analysis on the accumulation of capital has never been disputed
Within a Malthusian, i.e. zero or close to zero real growth, economy. And assuming no wealth transfers, e.g. welfare and taxation. Or bankruptcies and recessions, i.e. where accumulated "fake" capital is destroyed. Or limits to economies of scale, i.e. where "the larger capitals beat the smaller" [1], e.g. diminishing marginal returns or even antitrust.
Overaccumulation ("when the rate of profit is greater than the rate of new profitable investment outlets in the economy") is analogous to starvation (population growth > food supply growth).
It turns out we were able to both increase food supply more than Malthus expected and the profitable investment outlets more than Marx expected. (We're also better at moderating population growth and destroying surplus capital than either expected. Both predicted proximate doom where it didn't appear.)
Malthusianism and Marxism are also both discredited (albeit not useless) economic models from empirical and theoretical perspectives.
I'll take that as "nothing." Marx's analysis on the accumulation of capital has nothing to do with Malthus.
You haven't even answered my question. Why would I waste my time?
That said, Marx was a 19th century economist. Just like every other 19th century economist, he did not have a time machine and did not predict neoliberalism or modern financialized economies, which are still in their first test run. Hold your horses, sweetheart.
Having read Marx, it's important to understand that the political economy he discusses although founded on LTV, is substrate independent, ie: it could just as well be affixed on top of marginalism. The reason that no one has done so is that it doesn't matter and wouldn't change anyone's minds.
The interplay between social relations and economic relations are the entire point of the body of work and are entirely separate from any particular conceptualization of economics.
It's a much more mature and honest stance to say, yeah, he was wrong about this minutia, but right on these other things.
> he was wrong about this minutia, but right on these other things
I totally agree. And in a technical sense, his work is correct. If we didn't do wealth transfers or antitrust enforcement and had prolonged low or zero real growth, what he predicts would happen. (Same with Malthus.)
The point is those minutiae matter. Which is why, as a philosophy, Marxism holds its own. As an economic theory, it doesn't. Calling his theories on capital accumulation undisputed is simply wrong.
I guess it depends on what you think he predicts would happen. If it's workers revolting against capitalists, then sure, the trickle of bread works to diffuse this. If it's that economic relations would continue to define class relations, then he was absolutely spot on.
Within a Malthusian, i.e. zero or close to zero real growth, economy. And assuming no wealth transfers, e.g. welfare and taxation. Or bankruptcies and recessions, i.e. where accumulated "fake" capital is destroyed. Or limits to economies of scale, i.e. where "the larger capitals beat the smaller" [1], e.g. diminishing marginal returns or even antitrust.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_accumulation#Marxist_c...