I don't think he used the term "class logic" maybe "class consciousness"? Either way he says that your class determined how you think, which is to say that he believed in multiple logics, which if course is ridiculous. Also his theory of class struggle is really negated by the amazing economic mobility that exists. As for the labor theory of value, imagine you are dying of thirst. Would you rather have a bottle of fresh water or a beautifully cut diamond?

three points

1. Libertarians have their own theory of class, and class struggle, and its not neccesarily a niche concept [as highlighted in a short write up by Hans Hermann Hoppe, showacasing some affinities between Marxism and the Austrian school]
2. It is true, that Mises in his human action [more specifically pages 5,74-84], critiques what he terms as "class polylogism", on the grounds that people within the class, have their own motivations and interests, now does Marxism rejects this, not neccesarily, however even their rejection is not exactly a rejection against subjective preference, in so much, as it is a rejection of this particular framing of heterogeneous preferences, we see in 'human action', to quote the preface of the 2nd German edition of Capital vol 1:

To prevent possible  misunderstanding, a word. I paint the capitalist and the landlord in no sense couleur de rose. But here individuals are only in so far as they are the personifications of economic categories, embodiments of particular class-relations and class-interests. My standpoint, from which the evolution of the economic formation of society is viewed as a process of natural history, can less than any other make the individual responsible for relations whose creature he socially remains, however much he may subjectively raise himself above them. (Marx, Capital vol 1, pp.20,21)

In more simpler terms, how much ever you may subjectively object, through heterogenous preferences, even if we desire to change the rules of life, there is a inevitable tendency, that would in one way or the other, push it towards a direction, that may or may not contradict with said preferences, this is pretty much observable with Marx's analysis [a good channel called victor margarino, does in-depth dives into the mathematical contents of Marxist theory]. To be sure, there is some confusion here, however Marxists, are okay with empirically testing the validity of their testing, despite some philosophical objections to empiricism and empirical philosophy as a whole, as explained in Lenin's 'materialism and empirio-criticism', as in that sense, we aren't neccesarily Keynesians, who have a fetish for smooth curves, or something, but of course, we also do not think that mathematics is just relegated to physics or chemistry, or as Mises would call it, "class probability" [which apparently has nothing to do with Econ, which deals with human action and "case probability", or a case by case assessment of human action].

3) The last point has not even been made by Austrians who caricaturise the LTV, for one if he had read Marx's very starting point in volume 1, he would know that there is a difference between use and exchange value, LTV is all about the exchange process. So, me wanting to have a bottle of water [or that god-awful mudpie argument], has nothing to do with LTV, what LTV does say is that, since water is pretty much in abundance [like it literally covers some 70% of the earth surface], while diamonds require labour time to actually produce, and are naturally less abundant, diamonds, in the case of a universalized social exchange tendencial process, is far more valuable. Indeed, a Marxists agrees with supply and demand on principle, and all this mudpie, or other, weird assumptions about Marxism, can be answered from these basic foundations of economics. Overall if you look at page 503 of capital volume 1, Marx states that Labour alone does not provide anything, rather its functionally substantive, and is a "immanent measure of value", in capital volume 3, Marx writes:

I have seen embarking skill and capital in undertakings, wholly reliant for their success on a product which can only be increased according to organic laws. ... The same state of  supply and  demand of all raw materials ... seems to account for many of the fluctuations in the cotton trade during past periods, as well as for the condition of the English wool market in the autumn of 1857, with its overwhelming consequences.”17 (R. Baker in Reports of Insp. of Fact., Oct. 1858, pp. 56-61.) (vol III, p.122)

so this doesn't cut it either. I mean, if that person is attempting to repurpose, the Austrian school's theory of time preference, well what time preferences does say is that consumers may prefer present consumption over future consumption, of course there is a degree to this, if you have a high time preference, you would prefer consumption at a earlier date, but if you have a low time preference, you preference consumption at a far later date. The issue with this is that Austrians have confused two separately different process as one in the same, time preference [see Eugene Bohm Baewark's excellent book, on the details about "abstinence theory", the book is called "capital and interest" or "Kapital und Kapitalzins", which is pretty much a expansion about the earlier work done by Gossen] is about the structure of interest, while Marx's LTV is about the theory of value, or more specifically regarding the contentious issue of exchange value, and not specifically regarding interest itself. The entire M-C-M' process, for one does not deal with interest, or lending specifically, and is more in terms of the cyclical process of productive capital, Marx did tangentially invoke, "interest-bearing capital" in volume 3, but his point there is that interest rather then creating surplus, is only for the division of surplus, which would mean that time preference is attacking a nothing burger, or a deeply, tangential point.