: Now, unless that orange walked there by itself and hopped up onto a table to be bought, labor was certainly applied to it.
You persisted with the labor becomes value theory in arguing the 'orange' case. Value is decided by the buyer, if buyer A buys the orage for $1 the worker get $1, but if a buyer were to pay $2 for it then the labor value is $2 despite the labor effort being the same? The same theory would, incidently demand that some workers are paid nothing.
Take 3 bottle of wine - assume 'labor' in the marxist sense to be 100% of production
Bottle 1 sells immediately for $3
Bottle 2 sells ten years later for $10
Bottle 3 fails to sell at all.
Then you should pay the worker 1 $3, pay worker 2 $10 in ten years time and pay worker 3 nothing at all, if the worker is to receive full labor value.
Instead of bearing this risk most people would choose to get $2 py per bottle and allow somoene else to risk the loss or gain.
: Most interesting, though, is how determinedly you ignore the changes in the social relations of production that are required by Marxism.
Such as?.. Marx did like to obscure economics with a great many personal theories about social relations.
: It's like using Newtonian physics to explain quantum mechanics, yes, they are in the same discipline, but it's a pointless task.
Marx is hardly as advanced as the above comparison suggests, a reverse would have been more appropriate.
: By assuming the same social relations of production, you invalidate your own argument. Marx used capitalism's own contradictions in his analysis, but you use capitalist theory in an attempt to contradict non-capitalist theory.
Meaningless as the identification of economics by Marx rested upon fallacious derivations, the contradictions do not exist except in marxist writing, although I'd enjoy scrutinising examples.