Value and Price: Quick Though on the Worth of Marx

One of the main difficulties I find with Marx is the determination of value and price and how they are different. In a way, value seems to be a qualitative subjective thing, but the word we use for it is synonymous with price. At least how much worth something has in relation to price.

Is it even possible to talk about value in the abstract without comparing it to something so that it has more or less value? Or even worse do we just put a number on it in terms of willingness to pay and point at the consumer or producer surplus and say that this was the value realized?

And then this is tangential, but one of the things that struck me when I was first reading on Marxian economics was that Marx himself didn’t have all the charts and graphs I was used to M – C – M’ was well and good but I wanted some of Marshall’s scissors on the page. And that kind of lead to the question in a larger sense about why Marx has been marginalized (pun intended). Is it because there aren’t enough charts and graphs? Is it because Economics has evolved as a British and then American science so the German Jew’s work isn’t important especially in light of the 20^th century and the people he inspired. Or is it just that no one really felt comfortable with the answer to the transformation problem?