Eh ltv isn't really Marx's and if it were it would be one of his many significant contributions to various fields.
Marx may not have been the first theorist to come up with it, but the LToV is still foundational to most of the economic theory that did have its origin in his work. Furthermore, Marx did make contributions to the LToV itself, and in that sense it is one of his significant contributions to various fields.
It'd still be reasonable to call yourself a Marxist if you ascribe to other parts of his framework, especially in specific academic contexts. And in revolutionary contexts I doubt most non-academic revolutionaries fully understand the mechanisms laid out in Capital, so it seems inconsequential really.
A person doesn't need to fully understand evolution by natural selection to consider themselves a Darwinist (biologically speaking, obviously I'm not talking about social Darwinism here). But if they reject evolution by natural selection as the mechanism for the diversity of species, then they are not Darwinists. Similarly, you don't have to be able to explain the LToV let alone its nitty-gritty details, but if you claim that the theory is false, you probably shouldn't be calling yourself a Marxist revolutionary.
Class analysis doesn't inherently require ltv either.
Class analysis requires a mechanism for how one class exploits another economically, a mechanism that the LToV provides.
I do think ltv makes more sense than modern models, but Marx was basically using bourgeois theory to critique itself,
And that critique is what extended it beyond being merely bourgeois theory.
and arguably the same can be done using the more abstract modern models.
Maybe so. But are those models refutations of the LToV or elaborations on it? In either case, do you have examples?
It's late and I'm about to head to bed, but to quickly reply: this is ultimately just a categorical discussion, so if you feel ltv is a necessary quality to the essence of Marxism that's fine, I just think the label can be used in plenty of ltv-agnostic ways. To me the useful essence of a label like that is to describe an intensity of associations that can be directed or used to direct energy effectively, rather than a strict categorical structure. There's simply no context where I'll dismiss or disassociate from a person or idea that doesn't claim one facet of Marxism, in theory or in practise, due to a categorical claim.
You bring up some good points which I'll engage with later if I remember.
For what it's worth, I agree with you on almost all of that. I think the main difference here is that I see the labor theory of value as being much more fundamental to Marxism than just, as you put it, one facet of it. It's very difficult to keep Marxism as a whole if you toss out the LToV, since the whole structure would begin to crumble. It may be possible for similar models to be put in its place to prevent the crumble, but I think that those models would have to be close enough to the LToV that the distinctions wouldn't really matter except to academics. (edit, fixed a word)
Marx may not have been the first theorist to come up with it, but the LToV is still foundational to most of the economic theory that did have its origin in his work. Furthermore, Marx did make contributions to the LToV itself, and in that sense it is one of his significant contributions to various fields.
A person doesn't need to fully understand evolution by natural selection to consider themselves a Darwinist (biologically speaking, obviously I'm not talking about social Darwinism here). But if they reject evolution by natural selection as the mechanism for the diversity of species, then they are not Darwinists. Similarly, you don't have to be able to explain the LToV let alone its nitty-gritty details, but if you claim that the theory is false, you probably shouldn't be calling yourself a Marxist revolutionary.
Class analysis requires a mechanism for how one class exploits another economically, a mechanism that the LToV provides.
And that critique is what extended it beyond being merely bourgeois theory.
Maybe so. But are those models refutations of the LToV or elaborations on it? In either case, do you have examples?
It's late and I'm about to head to bed, but to quickly reply: this is ultimately just a categorical discussion, so if you feel ltv is a necessary quality to the essence of Marxism that's fine, I just think the label can be used in plenty of ltv-agnostic ways. To me the useful essence of a label like that is to describe an intensity of associations that can be directed or used to direct energy effectively, rather than a strict categorical structure. There's simply no context where I'll dismiss or disassociate from a person or idea that doesn't claim one facet of Marxism, in theory or in practise, due to a categorical claim.
You bring up some good points which I'll engage with later if I remember.
For what it's worth, I agree with you on almost all of that. I think the main difference here is that I see the labor theory of value as being much more fundamental to Marxism than just, as you put it, one facet of it. It's very difficult to keep Marxism as a whole if you toss out the LToV, since the whole structure would begin to crumble. It may be possible for similar models to be put in its place to prevent the crumble, but I think that those models would have to be close enough to the LToV that the distinctions wouldn't really matter except to academics. (edit, fixed a word)