If money value is one of the fundamentals of the theory, then I resign. He says first that it only makes sense to say that I was trying to show that you seem to define capital as the accumulation of surplus, and surplus as the origin of capital. So the catch-22 should not strike you, as it was a purposeful play. For instance, a field produces more grain than the quantity of grain needed to grow the new plants. Claiming the existence of a common measure is only that, a claim.
Expansion is very different of addition.
The two last parragraphs are more interesting, so I'll split discussion here.