That rejected and discredited notion you embrace is the labor theory of value.
It is why we reject the Marxist vision of the future of free exchange.
Far from a "pagan timeless myth", our analysis is based on hard facts.
marx's scenario cannot occur, because it is based on the flawed economic theory mentioned above.
Or maybe the economy is only a part of larger whole and society can influence it in various ways? That is why Ricardo/Marx's scenario cannot occur. The things like government regulations, religious influence, trade unions, redistribution are not some abnormal weird deviations, they are the proof that life is larger than the market.
Hegel, when some scientific discovery negated one of his theories, he said "If the facts do not agree with theory it is too bad for the facts". Freemarketeers see the real life events as aberrations. People will not agree to become the cogs in the economical machine and they will react.
I've always wondered about that line of rhetoric: accusing someone of believing that which you yourself believe. What's the purpose? Is it deliberate sophistry, or simple inability to comprehend contradiction?