[Dushulang] and Others, Can You Really Not Even Understand the Relationship Between Labor and the Labor-Power Commodity?

In my post "[Dushulang], Ququ Xiansheng, Falanxi Dacai Shifu, and Others: Please Stop Perpetuating the Pseudo-Concept of 'Labor Dimension'!" I wrote: "The labor dimension is likewise a pseudo-concept. Only when examining labor from the perspective of value measurement can we say that the dimension of the value of the labor-power commodity is likewise the currency dimension." This was stated so clearly, yet some people still don't understand and keep asking all day: how did labor turn into the labor-power commodity? From this it's clear that these people can't even understand the relationship between labor and the labor-power commodity!

In that post, I already anticipated that these people might not understand these relationships, so I specifically wrote: "I ask those who either oppose or support Marx to first get clear on several concepts: labor, labor-power, and the labor-power commodity." So let me discuss the relationship between labor and the labor-power commodity.

In Marx, all categories are historical, holistic, concrete, and real. That is, no category is a priori or unchanging. In different historical periods, categories evolve into different historical forms. In Marx, this is a very basic piece of common knowledge.

For example, the category of the labor-power commodity had no meaning before capitalist society. We cannot discuss anything about the labor-power commodity category, because outside the historical stage of capitalist society, it is nothing at all. Similarly, the labor category spans all historical periods of humanity, but in the specific historical stage of capitalist society, it manifests particular content. So discussing categories divorced from historical periods has no meaning in Marx. Similarly, for the categories of value, commodity, capital, and currency -- before we discuss them, there is a basic Marxian premise: we discuss them under the historical conditions of capitalism. Not in the vague, a priori way people nowadays discuss these concepts.

Value is an attribute specific to commodities. That is, when we measure a phenomenon from the perspective of value, there is a basic premise: this phenomenon is capable of being measured by value. Labor is not unconditionally measurable by value. Only under the historical conditions of capitalism does value measurement of labor become possible. That is, the premise for labor to be measured by value is the commodification of labor -- that is, the emergence of the labor-power commodity. Labor-power is not a priori a commodity; it becomes a commodity only under capitalist historical conditions.

The labor-power commodity category is the historical form of the labor category under capitalist conditions. Therefore, it's not hard to understand the sentence: "The labor dimension is likewise a pseudo-concept. Only when examining labor from the perspective of value measurement can we say that the dimension of the value of the labor-power commodity is likewise the currency dimension." Because once labor can be examined from the perspective of value measurement, labor must necessarily manifest in the capitalist historical form of the labor-power commodity. Otherwise, unconditionally claiming to examine labor from the perspective of value measurement has no meaning. Precisely because many people can't figure out the relationship between labor and the labor-power commodity, they can't understand the meaning of this sentence.

Marx's theory is a rigorous system. Please do not comment on it carelessly!