Recently, a lot of so called “expert economists” have completely discredited the labor theory of value. Their basis is that the theory of marginal utility has accurately replaced it, and explains economics perfectly well. Such a notion is merely an attempt to denounce Marxist economics with no legitimate understanding of the labor theory of value.
Marginal utility as a theory, is in fact embedded with bourgeois economics which explain how prices are formed through primarily subjective estimates between members of the capitalist class who compete with one another. The theory itself was originated against Marxist theories in the late nineteenth century. The main adherents to this theory went on to create the Austrian school of thought, which is a prime example of bourgeois economists, whose followers are libertarians or those who were once Ayn Rand supporters, ironically enough.
These pro-free market economists base their analysis from utility, or use value, and the subjective understanding of it. Values are then determined from their “marginal utility” (the utility of the last unity that accounts for the least important requirement of the subject). As a result, exchange is no longer based around exchange value, but instead use value.
From there, supporters of the theory split. The more traditionalists, or the Cardinalists and the Ordinalists. Regardless, their theories still deny that value is the expression of socially required labor, and as a result, ignore the roles production has and instead substitute production relations by means of exchange. Therefore, the entire theory is reactionary because it attempts to minimize the exploitation of labor by capital, distorts the class structure of society, and doesn’t understand the nature of surplus value (which is unpaid labor for the working class).
Legitimate Marxists worldwide have already proven that the marginal utility theory is ridiculous, and furthermore doesn’t work in reality. The theorists continue to neglect social reality, and moreover, they continue to ignore criticisms of their theory by anybody seemingly left leaning.
So to conclude, marginal utility theory only mentions the increases or decreases in “fetishization” of items based on their consumption. It does practically nothing to actually explain how the value of such an item originated in any concrete, material basis. There is no true value without labor, as Marxism states correctly. Such a theory as marginal utility, which denies the importance of labor, is reactionary and counter-Marxist
For more information I advise you to read the labor theory of value FAQ. I furthermore advise all comrades to take on the issue of economics, as it is a key to our legitimacy and scientific accuracy. It is a difficult challenge, and it took me a little while to understand the nature of marginal utility for example, but it is well worth it if you do!