Somewhat ironically, the only people who still make discourse concerning value theory are heterodox economists and philosophers who disagree with marginalist value theory, and mainstream economists tend to have very little engagement with them, either in agreement or disagreement. The debate rages on (though much more quietly) with strong normative implications. Paul Samuelson himself was arguing the point in the 70s and 80s. The real shame is that people think these issues are at all settled in economics simply because many economists believe them, or don't concern themselves with them because of their abstractness.

You're right that intrinsic isn't really the right word, but the problem with pre-marginalist theories of value isn't that they're intrinsic per-se, it's that they're objective.

It's exactly that products do not have prices that is the problem. The apparent 'price' of a product is an epiphenomenon of a particular market, a side effect of the unequal subjective values of the participants (and it's trivial to observe that these clearing prices are determined at the margin, not on average, which makes aggregate LTV even wronger than the regular kind)

In a well-functioning market all products have clearing prices that are easily measured and compared to one another, but this is a mirage that requires constant arbitrage to maintain. The slightest change in unrelated market conditions turns dirt into ore or crude oil into toxic waste, with no objective change in the material itself, only changes in the subjective needs of the participants.