their value is the difference in value their labour creates between the things used up in the production and the final product.

my ownership of the land and the factories and running the actual enterprise has value as well as the physical labor

the ownership on its own does in fact not produce any value.

someone working in an administrative position does.

being the owner of something and being the one actually running the business is not inherently connected.

If I'm a strawberry collector, and there's no strawberry farms anywhere for me to work at, I can't create value through my work.

strawberry farms can exist independently of whether or not they are owned by someone. who owns them doesn't really matter.

not an argument to justify ownership which is nothing but an arbitrary social hierarchy.

I could maybe make my own farm and then it'd be a much smaller scale but at least I'd own the "means of production." But as soon as I hire another strawberry collector, I assume you'd think I was exploiting them.

if you make your own farm and you are the only one working on it then you are not exploiting anyone and you are also getting the full value of your own labour.

if you hire someone and they are equally productive then profits/pay should be almost 50/50 otherwise it would be exploitation.

you can pay yourself more at the start to account for the money and labour you put into setting up your own farm that would not be exploitative it would be fair because you're basically making them buy themselves in.

unless you literally used your own labour to create the means of production that you own, paying someone less than the increase in value that their labour produces is inherently exploitative. it's no different from a feudal lord levying taxes on the peasants who live and work on "the Lords land"