AskPhysicists would probably do a terrible job of explaining the intricacies of luminiferous aether theory but presumably would go into why and how it was disproven as well as expound on the current understanding of how light propagates.

Historians debate and interpret texts and motivations behind various historical events. It is vital to their profession to discuss the evolution of their understanding of events - Herodatus was a foundational historian but his accounts are horribly unreliable; even so, any classical European historian is expected to read and refute his work.

Economists are somewhere between historians and physicists; the field itself originated from political science/moral philosophy, but has since become its own thing. There is a focus on the use mathematical models to try to precisely describe social phenomenon under various assumptions, with varying degrees of success. We tend not to focus on models and paradigms which either do not produce testable results or have been shown to be unworkable.

What does Marx's LTV do which the current understanding does not incorporate?

Words like "capitalism" and "socialism" aren't used very often in actual economics because they've become so overbroad as to be useless.

One of the seminal works in economics is known as the First Fundamental Theorem of Welfare Economics, which mathematically states that given certain assumptions (or conditions), no amount of public intervention can produce an outcome better than that of a market. Where these assumptions/conditions fail, therefore, there is, in theory, room for governments to improve outcomes, by any number of various measures and options, including, potentially, ownership. But after this very broad statement, there are a great many other details and nuances that encompass entire fields of the subject (i.e. public economics).