Marx theory of value is much more elaborated than the one from Smith and Ricardo, and most arguments against it, are in fact arguments against naive and simplified versions of the theory.
Marx theory of value is much more elaborated than the one from Smith and Ricardo, and most arguments against it, are in fact arguments against naive and simplified versions of the theory.
But I do no not agree exactly with asu_thomas that the labor theory of value is so unimportant for marxism and I think you are right in questioning the affirmation. But I think you mixed a little the value theories from Smith and Ricardo and from Marx in your interpretation (the first two are the ones that do not consider this "surplus value" in the value and try to explain the capitalist profit as coming somehow from the labor of the capitalist or from other effects in the market and environment). And I also do not agree that the marxist theory of value is debunked and so easily dismissed. Certainly it is not a mainstream theory, but there are still marxist economists nowadays between the heterodox ones.