It is you, who is arguing in a neo-ricardian framework. The difference between you and other Neo-ricardians is that you claim that there is only one basic commodity, namely labor, thinking thereby to save the LTV, whereas other Neoricardians would claim, that besides labor there are other basic commodities, thereby questioning the importance of the LTV and the consequences Marx drew from it. A corn theorist, for instance, is a Neo-Ricardian, who claims that besides labor also corn is a basic commodity. Against this reo-ricardian reasoning some Marxists argue (who are then of course no reo-ricardians), that it is the common social substance (see quote of Marx in the article!) and not the physical or technical substance that matters, for the rest see end of article.