The question isn't about the amount of labour needed to produce food, it's regarding who collects the profit from the labour that is done. Not sure what point you were trying to make with food production there.
The labor theory of value has nothing to do with collecting profits and isn't concerned with who gets it. It argues that the economic value of a good or service is determined by the total amount of "socially necessary labor" required to produce it. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value)
My point is that value is actually not determined by "socially necessary labor" but by supply and demand, even within a commune. The food you produce will rot if you and others produce too much of it = it has no value, and nobody collects profit (not even in the form of social capital) because everybody lost any possibility of selling for a good price by producing too much.
On the other hand during a shortage people will start valuing food much more than they previously did, gradually paying higher price as they have less of it - again totally disconnected from the "socially necessary labor" required to produce it.
Most importantly - the value of most if not all things is subjective and different based on time, place, etc. Even within a commune - some people simply don't like peppers, so even though you put a lot of work into them they have no value to these people (which will quickly change once there's a food shortage).
Of course it has to do with profits and who gets it. That's the whole context for introducing the theory of value in Kapital, which one of us actually read while the other evidently skimmed a wikipedia page.
Labour theory of value is not in anyway at odds with the idea of supply and demand. In fact, the whole idea of value in Kapital is derived from supply and demand.
The labour theory of value states that the inherent value of a commodity is directly related to the combination of labour and cost of the machinery needed to produce the commodity. This is what acts as the foundation for the value that the market assigns to the commodities. The market value doesn't just appear out of thin air, it's rooted in material costs of production.
To put it bluntly, you have an infantile understanding of the subject you're attempting to debate here.
If you read the book then you'd understand what labour theory of value is. Your comments make it pretty clear that you don't. You literally don't understand how it relates to market. Kek as you say.
