Dushulang and Others, Please Get Your Position Straight!

Some people don't like others talking about Marx. This isn't surprising at all, because replies like these naturally appear:

"What little broken content you have, why keep reposting it? Besides history and movement, what else can you say?" (Dushulang: 2006-08-30 21:52:27)0B (0/1/0)
"Bullshit! Your kind of talk shows you fundamentally don't understand 'categories.'" (Chengnan Feiren: 2006-08-30 23:35:07)0B (0/1/0)
"Category = worry? = stinky rice?" (Weiming: 2006-08-31 00:51:57)781B (0/2/1)

How strange -- talking about Marx has now become a rare thing, and some people are actually unhappy about it. Setting aside whether I really only talked about "history and movement" -- Chinese culture spans five thousand years and ultimately comes down to one word: "Dao." How come nobody calls that broken stuff? Western economics talks endlessly about "supply and demand" -- how come nobody calls that broken stuff? Following these people's logic, since people write nothing but characters, why write at all? Since people say nothing but words, why speak at all?

The key issue is not whether I repeatedly said certain things, but because I'm talking about Marx -- presenting Marx's true situation -- I've stepped on certain people's tails! That's the real issue, because some people don't want Marx to be discussed, and even less do they want Marx to be accurately discussed. What they'd love most is for Marx to never be mentioned, or even if mentioned, to be distorted and falsified!

Loudly and openly talking about Marx on Chinese forums is protected by the constitution. Do those who daily denigrate Marx even know what the constitution says? Has our constitution already changed, requiring even a limit on how many times one can discuss Marx? Those running dogs of the West, barking every day for their Western masters, and that's supposedly natural?

Dushulang and others, please get your position straight! Even now, the constitution still bears Marx's name. Even if the constitution didn't mention Marx, discussing Marx would still be my freedom. I'll discuss him however I please, because my discussions help more people understand what Marx actually said. This is what I love doing. If you think your insults express your fear of Marx, if your insults express your quality, I have no objections -- please continue!

Shenzhoux Xingren Wujiang, your absurd logic can't save you either!

The absurd logic of Shenzhoux Xingren Wujiang is fully exposed in this post. Let us quote one by one:

"A work full of holes -- what's wrong with criticizing it! What do you mean, divorced from historical materialism, there is no labor theory of value, and the labor theory of value cannot be understood! I think it's because the theory can't hold together, so conditions are set up to make people feel they have no choice but to believe. This is somewhat like the trick of the two swindlers in the story 'The Emperor's New Clothes': Look how beautiful this garment is -- only fools can't see it! Many people didn't believe they were fools, so they said the garment was indeed nice!"
=========================
Excuse me, is this scientifically rigorous language? Apart from invective, what is there? All anti-Marx people use only two tricks: one is invective, the other is distortion. What else is there? When did Marx ever set up conditions? Marx requires no a priori concepts or conditions. If you don't even understand that, you have no right to discuss Marx, because you simply haven't comprehended him!

"When did Marx ever say such a thing? In my impression, Marx did say that capital is a social attribute, not a material attribute, embodying the historical movement of exchange relationships. Even though I consider this unscientific too, it's not entirely without merit! Value as a measure of the usefulness of objects and objectified labor -- how did it become the historical movement of exchange relationships? This doesn't even have basic logic. And you still criticize others?"
================
What does "a measure of the usefulness of objects and objectified labor" -- this a priori abstract concept -- have to do with Marx? And who said value is a material attribute? Don't distort at will! Value didn't exist from the beginning; it's a developmental process from nonexistence to existence. If you don't even know this, what right do you have to discuss Marx?

"Saying value movement corresponds to the exchange process is still understandable. Saying value is a historical process limited to labor value is also acceptable. But saying it is a historical process of all exchangeable commodities is pure nonsense. The assertion that value is essentially the exchangeability and exchange ratio of commodities is not wrong, but his claim that commodities can only be labor products is wrong!"
============
Marx only says the commodity category developed from the economic category, and the economic category developed from the labor category. This development is not an a priori conclusion but a historical reality. Without human labor there is no economy -- this is proved by human history. Of course, it's not excluded that someday economy could exist without labor, where nobody does anything and nobody starves. Unless that happens, Marx's conclusions remain valid! So don't use the a priori proposition that "commodities can only be labor products" to distort Marx!

"Exchange value reflects nothing more than the proportional relationship between the use values or utilities of commodities (not limited to labor products). It is not a product of historical movement but innate to humanity! It is a priori! And currency, which expresses exchange value, is merely a product of this a priori! Why can one cow be exchanged for one sheep? Because they have a corresponding relationship in use value for humans. For convenience and accuracy of trade, humans found things like gold or silver as measures. So, it is not that the commodity category's historical movement forms the value category. Rather, the value category is the cause of the commodity category. The assertion that without human labor, there is no economy is unscientific! Without human labor, natural economic activity still exists. Don't apes nurturing their young and nature providing fruit constitute economic phenomena? One can only say commercial economy or the category of exchange value doesn't exist!"
==========
Everything that exists for humanity is the result of historical development. Even humans themselves are the result of historical development. Don't use those a priori abstract definitions of exchange value to distort Marx. What's a priori? Did primitive society have exchange value? Did apes newly becoming humans have exchange value? Moreover, the existence of exchange value isn't eternal either. Even the universe isn't eternal, let alone exchange value!

"----If it truly is a rigorous system, then it shouldn't fear being critiqued. Why fear others' criticism?"
======
Marx was never afraid of critique. Don't distort Marx. Haven't there been more than enough people critiquing and attacking Marx over this past century? Does the world really need one more of you? At bottom, this is class struggle. Anyone who denies class struggle, in the very act of attacking Marx, is proving the omnipresence of class struggle! Is Marx afraid of class struggle? It is certain people who fear Marx's theory of class struggle! Your critiques and comments, in the face of Marx's class struggle -- you still dare say others are afraid?!