Late Stage Capitalism

So the problem with Marxism is that labor isn’t considered something that individuals own themselves.

Ironically it's the exact opposite, Marx is very clear on that.

By labour-power or capacity for labour is to be understood the aggregate of those mental and physical capabilities existing in a human being, which he exercises whenever he produces a use-value of any description.

Labor-power is also the only thing laborers can "commodify" and sell because laborers don't own the means of production to make commodities. Your individual labor is a cornerstone of Marx's criticism of capitalism.

The M-C-M’ cycle is just kind of… how things work? There is labor involved in changing currency for commodities, and exchanging the commodity for more money than originally bought for. Like doing maintenance on the commodity, maybe transportation, etc. The only way you can purchase a commodity and then proceed to sell it for a profit is if some labor had occurred to make that commodity more valuable. Therefore the extra money comes from that labor. You can’t buy a TV from Walmart for $400 and try to sell it for $500 right out the front door, but someone might pay a premium for you to deliver it to their house.

Okay, this is as clear of an example as you can make to show that you have no idea what Marx is talking about. Let me break it down.

The M-C-M’ cycle is just kind of… how things work?

What the M-C-M' cycle describes is you buying a TV from Walmart for $400 and then selling it for $500 right out the door. M to C is trading $400 for the TV and C to M is trading the TV for $500. You say that's just how things work and then at the end say you literally can't do that. What gives?

There is labor involved in changing currency for commodities

No there's not. Let's say you have $10 in your pocket and you go to a market to buy a cake. What labor is involved when you give the cake maker $10 and they give you the cake? None. You most likely got that $10 by selling your own labor-power as a commodity (because that's all we laborers can do) so labor went into that $10 and then labor went into baking that cake. However no labor goes into the exchange because the exchange doesn't produce anything, it's just an exchange of two "equal" value items.

Like doing maintenance on the commodity, maybe transportation,

All of those things are factored into the cost of the commodity, you'd know that if you were familiar with Das Kapital. Everything from labor used to extract minerals that are used to create tools all the way to someone driving to move the goods from one location to another where the goods are needed or sold, everything is taken into account.

The only way you can purchase a commodity and then proceed to sell it for a profit is if some labor had occurred to make that commodity more valuable.

I'm going to use your own example to explain this. If someone is willing to pay you $100 for you to deliver the goods to your door then yeah, that extra money (or profit as you put it) does come from the labor that you put in. I won't get into the nuances of this argument as Marx writes multiple chapters on this topic, but the short version is that it's not the M-C-M' cycle. You put in your labor power, they put in the money, you get the money, they get the output of your labor power - it all evens out because that's actually the C-M-C cycle.

If you want to turn it into an example of the M-C-M' cycle imagine you're a delivery driver. Someone is willing to pay $100 to have the TV delivered to their doorstep. That someone pays $100 to your boss because they own the company (or more specifically the means of production). Your boss pays you $80 for the delivery as per your agreement with them. For you the C-M-C cycle applies, you sell your labor power as a commodity (the first C), you get $80 for your labor power (the M) and then you use that $80 to buy whatever you need (the last C). Completely makes sense. The same C-M-C cycle applies to the person who is willing to spend $100 on a delivery. They most likely sold their labor power (the first C) to get $100 (the M) and then they used that $100 to have the TV delivered to you (The last C). Also completely makes sense. But for you boss applies the M-C-M' cycle. They pay you $80 for you labor power, you use that labor power to make a $100 delivery and then your boss gets $100 back. Where did they get that $20 when they did literally nothing in the labor process? Just doesn't make sense.

Now back to the original question, make a compelling argument explaining how someone can put in $80, do nothing, and get back $100.