Skip to main content

Starting from [Dushulang]'s Reply: Please Read Carefully, Everyone, and Don't Get the Meaning Completely Backwards

Some people haven't understood Marx themselves yet oppose Marx -- that's nothing unusual; there are too many such people. Of course there are also some who shout about Marx every day yet fundamentally haven't understood Marx either. These two kinds of people basically constitute most of the arguments about Marx. But none of that is important. However, some basic principles should still be observed. For example, you should at minimum not distort someone's meaning, and at minimum not make obvious reading errors. For instance, in my post "Explaining a Kindergarten-Level Question About Marx to the Likes of [Dushulang]!" I had this passage:
"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."

That [Dushulang] actually replied:
Labor-power is not the same as labor! Go study Marxism! -- Labor itself is a dimension? Fine! How does this dimension equal the currency dimension? (Dushulang: 2006-08-22 21:08:35)0B (0/1/1)
You yourself haven't learned Marx's theory well, you have no right to discuss "academics"! -- Are "labor" and "labor-power" the same thing? (Dushulang: 2006-08-22 21:11:52)0B (0/2/0)
The dimension of the value of the labor-power commodity is likewise the currency dimension? -- I asked you about "labor" and you bring up "labor-power"? Dodging, are we? Haha (Dushulang: 2006-08-22 21:13:15)0B (0/1/1)
Seems like your "academics" are kindergarten-level too. Why do you think I asked you about two dimensions? How can the labor dimension equal the currency dimension? (Dushulang: 2006-08-22 21:22:57)0B (0/3/1)

Anyone with reading ability who reads carefully could not possibly make such replies. Can this person not understand what "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" means? Can he not understand what "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" means?

How could anyone possibly derive from my words that I think "'labor' and 'labor-power' are the same thing"? Can he not see that the above passage is saying that "what is the dimension of labor?" is a false question, just as asking "what is the dimension of the sun?" is a false question? What is the real question? It is: "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." Similarly: "But from the perspective of value measurement, the dimension of the value of the labor-power commodity is likewise the currency dimension."

"The dimension of labor" and "the dimension of the sun" are equally pseudo-concepts. Only from the perspective of measurement do dimensions exist -- for example, lifespan, length, value, etc. The logical relationship above is so clear, why would there still be comprehension errors? If those who oppose Marx can't even understand one of my posts correctly, is the Marx that these anti-Marx people understand still Marx? Scholarship is not child's play, not a contest of tempers. First understand someone else's ideas properly -- this is the most basic academic requirement. Can this also be observed on forums? I hope this is not a false proposition!