How does Marx's Labour Theory of Value contradict Marginalism?

[Desperado]

Seeing as Marx looks at socially necessary labour time, do they actually contradict at all?

[RadioRaheem84]

Marginalist theory came almost half a century after Marx's death. Walrus, I believe came up with the concept. It was a way of making the owner just as important if not more so to an enterprise. It argued for a harmony of interests instead of a total denunciation of the capitalist. Their argument needs the worker, Marxism, though, does not need the owner.

They argue that the capitalist invested much money into the company, yet the capitalist just merely transferred one form of value (money) for another (a factory, tools, machines, i.e. constant capital). Nothing was created. The only time something is created is when workers (the only variable commodity) work and create a product.

They argue that the worker merely invested his social necessary labor time and would not lose anything but his job in case the company goes under, this allows for the owner to be compensated in an interest payment (profit) that could only come from the production process through exploitation. But like I said above the capitalist did nothing to create value except exchange one form of value for another. They forget that other workers created the constant capital (factory, tools, machines) too and gave them value for him which to buy.

Workers create, owner own. His marginal contribution is zero. Kick him out and the factory still runs. Kick out the workers and the factory falters.

It's that simple.