to dismiss his theory of exploitation based on your (mis)understanding of the LTV is quite silly:
"... it is often assumed that a 'labour theory of value' amounts to the proposition that 'under normal capitalist conditions, the relative prices of commodities will tend to equal the relative quantities of labour-time required for the production of those commodities. It must therefore be said at once both that under that interpretation no labour theory of value would merit ten seconds' consideration and that no serious economist has ever entertained such a theory. Neither Adam Smith, nor Ricardo, nor Marx asserted that commodities would tend to exchange in proportion to their labour contents, under developed capitalist conditions; indeed, each of them expressly denied it. In particular, Marx went out of his way, in Capital Volume 3, part Il, to explain just why commodities would not exchange in such proportions. It just so happens that Marx's explanation was faulty, but what is significant, at this point, is that he sought to provide that explanation. If a 'labour theory of value' is not to be dismissed out of hand, it must amount, not to the proposition stated above, but rather to the proposition that 'the rate of profit and normal prices, under capitalist conditions, can be explained in terms of labour quantities'. It was this latter (much less restrictive) proposition that Marx maintained" - lan Steedman, The Value Controversy chapter 1, page 13-14, Ricardo, Marx, Sraffa
Personally, I think Marx's explanation was not faulty but at least Steedman clarifies the question. What Marx argued for was the "Law of Value" which expresses the "laws of conservation" between aggregate labor time and prices and profits (paraphrasing economist Duncan Foley).
to dismiss his theory of exploitation based on your (mis)understanding of the LTV is quite silly:
"... it is often assumed that a 'labour theory of value' amounts to the proposition that 'under normal capitalist conditions, the relative prices of commodities will tend to equal the relative quantities of labour-time required for the production of those commodities. It must therefore be said at once both that under that interpretation no labour theory of value would merit ten seconds' consideration and that no serious economist has ever entertained such a theory. Neither Adam Smith, nor Ricardo, nor Marx asserted that commodities would tend to exchange in proportion to their labour contents, under developed capitalist conditions; indeed, each of them expressly denied it. In particular, Marx went out of his way, in Capital Volume 3, part Il, to explain just why commodities would not exchange in such proportions. It just so happens that Marx's explanation was faulty, but what is significant, at this point, is that he sought to provide that explanation. If a 'labour theory of value' is not to be dismissed out of hand, it must amount, not to the proposition stated above, but rather to the proposition that 'the rate of profit and normal prices, under capitalist conditions, can be explained in terms of labour quantities'. It was this latter (much less restrictive) proposition that Marx maintained" - lan Steedman, The Value Controversy chapter 1, page 13-14, Ricardo, Marx, Sraffa
Personally, I think Marx's explanation was not faulty but at least Steedman clarifies the question. What Marx argued for was the "Law of Value" which expresses the "laws of conservation" between aggregate labor time and prices and profits (paraphrasing economist Duncan Foley).