An Elementary Math Lesson for the Likes of Yunguzi!

This Yunguzi hasn't even gotten the most basic concepts straight, yet day after day he writes things slandering the labor theory of value, and his level keeps sinking lower. Originally I had no interest in writing a main post for someone of such caliber, but what he wrote today is so abysmally low that I have no choice but to give the likes of Yunguzi an elementary school math lesson.

First, let me quote a passage from this fellow:
"The exchange value of commodities. When two different commodities first establish an exchange relationship, since their use values differ, they cannot be directly compared. If both are converted into the same numerical value, the numerical values themselves are identical, and this solves the 'commonality' problem. Then by adjusting the ratio of the two commodities' numerical values to make them equal or 1:1, this solves the equal quantity problem. Finally, equivalent exchange is carried out according to equal numerical quantities. This is the essence and secret of commodity exchange. Unfortunately, 'Principles of Marxist Political Economy' failed to find what it should have found, and instead found something that is not the value of commodities."

Only someone who can't even pass elementary school math would say "if both are converted into the same numerical value, the numerical values themselves are identical, and this solves the 'commonality' problem." In elementary school math class, they teach you that when dividing two things, to obtain a pure ratio relationship, the prerequisite is that the two things must have the same dimension -- that is, only things with the same dimension can be divided, or have their ratio discussed.

For example, RMB cannot have a pure ratio relationship with apples, because the two things are fundamentally different. But RMB can have a pure ratio relationship with US dollars, because both are currencies and have the same dimension. Similarly, in physics, we can say a certain speed reaches such-and-such fraction of the speed of light, but we cannot say a certain speed reaches such-and-such fraction of a light-year, because the latter have different dimensions. These are the simplest problems that should be resolved in elementary school.

Conversely, if two quantities have a pure ratio relationship, it means the two have the same dimension. Pure ratio relationships and identical dimensions are equivalent. So it is not that "converting them into the same numerical value makes the numerical values identical, thus solving the 'commonality' problem." Rather, it is because they have a pure ratio relationship between them that the two share the same dimension, and only things with the same dimension can have an exchange relationship.

Why can commodities be exchanged, why does an exchange relationship exist? Because all commodities share a common dimension, and that dimension is value, where exchange value corresponds to the exchange ratio. If commodities did not share the same dimension, exchange relationships between them would be impossible, and their exchange ratios could not exist. Without the commonality of identical dimensions, there can be no exchange relationships between commodities. And why must commodities necessarily share the commonality of identical dimensions? Because commodities contain value determined by the totality of labor relations. The realistic logical relationship here is perfectly clear. The exchangeability of commodities on the basis of shared dimensions and the exchange ratios are not abstract, theoretical results, but rather holistic, historical, real relationships.

Those who Marshallize Marx can never truly understand what Marx is saying. Of course, the likes of Yunguzi can't even measure up to Marshall. At least Marshall knew that pure ratio relationships derive from identical dimensions. To evade this identical dimension, he simply fabricated a dimension, things like "utility." This kind of error is at least slightly better than errors that don't even reach elementary school level, but it is still wrong, because the identity of dimensions is not a purely theoretical abstraction but a holistic, historical, real manifestation -- but that's a digression, so I won't go into it.