Complex is very far from what I would call Marx's objective hypotheses. Perhaps you are confusing Marx's analyses of the capitalist modus specifically, such as he did in Capital, with dialectical materialism in general; the former is naturally very complex, as it is the analysis of a subjective and transitory superstructural expression of dialectical materialism in general, the latter being, if I may take this liberty, akin to Bayes' Law in being simple in expression yet complex in result.

To put it another way, it is easy to confuse Marx's subjective analysis of a transitory form, which he did most prominently in Capital, with the broad, historical, sociological, objective principles of the materialist conception of history, dialectical materialism, which he expressed in parts throughout his writing.

Additionally I, for one, would hold that contrary to the common perception of Marx having failed at his predictions that Marx's writings on capitalism apply more to the current state of affairs than to his own.

Anyway, on reading back over your post, I'm not so sure now exactly what you are trying to do; but reading the literature on surplus labor, etc. can never hurt!