(Edit: Frustration is not helpful for communication.)
We must distinguish positive from normative statements. A theory in answer to the question "what determines value" is a statement of what is, not a statement of what should be. Thus, any serious criticism must demonstrate that it is inaccurate, not that it leads to conclusions we dislike, or has ideological implications that we reject.
Value being determined by the equation of marginal utilities at equilibrium is not a conclusion reached by reasoning from an ideology. Rather, the ideology has built itself around the theory. Any critique of the ideology must, therefore, undermine the validity of the theory of value on which it is based. You cannot undermine the validity of the theory by rejecting the ideology that emerges from it. This would be precisely as fallacious as saying that the labour theory of value is wrong, because it is Marxist, and Marxism is a horrible doctrine.
-Jester
We must distinguish positive from normative statements. A theory in answer to the question "what determines value" is a statement of what is, not a statement of what should be. Thus, any serious criticism must demonstrate that it is inaccurate, not that it leads to conclusions we dislike, or has ideological implications that we reject.
Value being determined by the equation of marginal utilities at equilibrium is not a conclusion reached by reasoning from an ideology. Rather, the ideology has built itself around the theory. Any critique of the ideology must, therefore, undermine the validity of the theory of value on which it is based. You cannot undermine the validity of the theory by rejecting the ideology that emerges from it. This would be precisely as fallacious as saying that the labour theory of value is wrong, because it is Marxist, and Marxism is a horrible doctrine.
-Jester