Explaining a Kindergarten-Level Question About Marx to the Likes of [Dushulang]!

[Dushulang] actually went and posted a dedicated thread "[Tangfen], don't dodge the question -- tell us what is the dimension of Marx's 'value'? And what is the dimension of 'labor'?" to ask a kindergarten-level question about Marx. By kindergarten-level, I don't mean these people are kindergarteners; it's a metaphor for how this question is the most elementary common knowledge about Marx, one that shouldn't raise any doubts at all. Yet now these anti-Marx people don't even know this, which also proves from one angle that these people who oppose Marx have never actually understood Marx!

The dimension of Marx's "value" is the dimension of currency. What we commonly call the yuan of RMB and the dollar of USD all belong to units of currency, and dimension is something more fundamental than units. Like centimeters and millimeters are both units of length, but both belong to the dimension of length, generally represented by L. The yuan of RMB and the dollar of USD, these specific currency units, all belong to the dimension of currency, and the dimension of Marx's "value" is the currency dimension.

Some people who can't even grasp the concept of dimensions might ask: what is the dimension of labor? Such people fundamentally don't know what dimension means. It's like asking: "What is the dimension of the sun?" -- anyone who asks this basically has never studied physics. Dimension relates to measurement. For example, regarding the sun, if we examine it from the perspective of time, the dimension of the sun's lifespan is the dimension of time; if from the perspective of size, the dimension of the sun's volume is the cube of the length dimension. From this we know that asking "what is the dimension of the sun?" only shows that the person doesn't understand dimensions at all! Similarly, asking "what is the dimension of labor?" is the same. But from the perspective of value measurement, the dimension of the value of the labor-power commodity is likewise the currency dimension.

The ratio relationship of exchange value is formed in commodity exchange on the common basis of the currency dimension. Without value -- this common basis of the currency dimension -- the possibility of commodity exchange cannot exist. Actually, these are all the most basic concepts for understanding Marx, but one must note here that the currency dimension is a result of the historical formation movement of the currency category, not an a priori concept. The movement from the commodity category to the currency category to the capital category constitutes the developmental history of capitalism.

In short, my advice to those who oppose Marx: Marx is not beyond criticism, especially in the academic domain where open research is perfectly acceptable. But the prerequisite is that one must first understand Marx, first get Marx's actual ideas straight. If you don't even know what Marx is saying and you're already opposing Marx, don't you think that's a bit too unserious?