If Marx says that value is determined by socially necessary labour time isn’t that circular or basically the same as the marginalise argument that value is only determined by what is desired by society? I.e. isn’t the “socially necessary” part basically making a demand-side argument? Although at a societal level rather than individual.
Or have the lib brain worms got to me and this isn’t actually the main conflict between LTV and marginalism?
That’s a great breakdown thanks.
It still seems a bit circular: So if society values a commodity a particular amount it will dedicate a certain amount of labour time to producing it, which shows its value.
But at the same time the concept of labour being the only way to produce value makes sense intuitively. That’s really the only thing we can use to improve or modify our products or surroundings.
It also makes sense to avoid using money or prices as the indicator of value, especially as you point out above: the ability to pay varies wildly person to person.
Society's judgment does play a role; it determines whether a thing's exchange value is actually realized, and it affects what the exchange value is through industrialization. But, the exchange value still exists and can be calculated whether or not there's actual demand for a good.
Also, when you say "dedicate a certain amount of labour time," it's important to remember that this is labor per unit; so, if it takes 1 hour of labor to make 10 widgets that's the same as if it took 2 hours to create 20. How much of a thing is produced isn't a (direct) determining factor of the value in exchange.