勞動(dòng)的價(jià)值理論（一）
????????本篇文章由我翻譯，全文共63頁，本篇為節(jié)選的第一部分約7頁內(nèi)容，原文為英文并附于末尾，紅色標(biāo)注為原文附帶的注釋，藍(lán)色標(biāo)注為我添加的補(bǔ)充和注釋。文章中引用部分若已有漢譯本，則一概使用漢譯本的翻譯，并補(bǔ)充標(biāo)注漢譯本的引用文獻(xiàn)。文中多次出現(xiàn)的值得注意的專有名詞（術(shù)語、人名、書名等）均采用中文譯名，并在初次出現(xiàn)的位置標(biāo)注其英文名，出現(xiàn)次數(shù)較少的專有名詞則保留其英文名。
?
勞動(dòng)的價(jià)值理論(1)
Diane Elson
?
????????一、馬克思的價(jià)值理論是關(guān)于什么的理論？
?????????
????????1.價(jià)值理論：剝削存在的證據(jù)？（剝削論解讀傳統(tǒng)）
????????讓我們首先考慮一下在左派中，特別是在左派社會(huì)活動(dòng)家中廣泛存在的一種解讀，即馬克思(Marx)的價(jià)值理論提供了剝削存在的證據(jù)。Armstrong、Glyn和Harrison在社會(huì)主義經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家聯(lián)合會(huì)(The Conference of Socialist Economists, CSE. https://www.cseweb.org.uk/)的辯論中的主張就是一個(gè)很好的例子。他們對(duì)價(jià)值范疇堅(jiān)持不懈的辯護(hù)依賴于這樣一個(gè)信念，即只有運(yùn)用價(jià)值范疇才能證明資本主義剝削的存在，而證明這一點(diǎn)正是馬克思價(jià)值理論的重點(diǎn)：
????????“任何有關(guān)于剩余勞動(dòng)的范疇，如果不是從勞動(dòng)是一切價(jià)值的源泉這一主張推導(dǎo)出來的話，都將是無足輕重的?！?Armstrong, Glyn and Harrison, 1978, p. 21.)
????????然而，馬克思似乎并不認(rèn)同這一觀點(diǎn)：
????????“既然商品的交換價(jià)值實(shí)際上不過是個(gè)人勞動(dòng)作為相同的一般勞動(dòng)而相互發(fā)生的關(guān)系，不過是勞動(dòng)的一種特定社會(huì)形式的對(duì)象化表現(xiàn)，那么，說勞動(dòng)是交換價(jià)值的、因而也是由交換價(jià)值構(gòu)成的那種財(cái)富的唯一源泉，就是同義反復(fù)?！绻J(rèn)為，勞動(dòng)就它創(chuàng)造使用價(jià)值來說，是它所創(chuàng)造的東西即物質(zhì)財(cái)富的唯一源泉，那就錯(cuò)了?！?A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy[1], p. 35-36.)（《馬克思恩格斯全集》第二版第31卷第427-429頁）
????????“資本并沒有發(fā)明剩余勞動(dòng)。凡是社會(huì)上一部分人享有生產(chǎn)資料壟斷權(quán)的地方，勞動(dòng)者，無論是自由的或不自由的，都必須在維持自身生活所必需的勞動(dòng)時(shí)間以外，追加超額的勞動(dòng)時(shí)間來為生產(chǎn)資料的所有者生產(chǎn)生活資料。”(Capital, I, p. 344.)（《馬克思恩格斯全集》第二版第44卷第272頁）
????????此外，將馬克思的價(jià)值理論視為剝削存在的證據(jù)，將會(huì)使價(jià)值范疇去歷史化，使價(jià)值成為勞動(dòng)時(shí)間的同義詞，使馬克思對(duì)剩余勞動(dòng)和剩余價(jià)值的區(qū)分變得畫蛇添足。為了了解剝削是否存在，我們必須重新審視生產(chǎn)資料的所有權(quán)和控制權(quán)，必須重新審視決定固定工作日長(zhǎng)度的流程(參見Rowthorn, 1974.)。馬克思關(guān)注的是資本主義社會(huì)中剝削所采取的具體方式(參見Capital, I, p. 325)（《馬克思恩格斯全集》第二版第44卷第265頁），因?yàn)樵谫Y本主義中，剩余勞動(dòng)不能簡(jiǎn)單地以直接勞動(dòng)產(chǎn)品的形式被占有。將勞動(dòng)產(chǎn)品出售并轉(zhuǎn)換為貨幣是必需的。正如多布(Dobb)所言：
????????“對(duì)于馬克思來說，問題不在于通過價(jià)值理論證明剩余價(jià)值和剝削的存在；實(shí)際上，問題在于如何使剩余價(jià)值的存在與市場(chǎng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)和等價(jià)交換的支配相協(xié)調(diào)?！?Dobb, 1971. p. 12.)
????????這種認(rèn)為馬克思的價(jià)值理論旨在為剝削存在提供證據(jù)的觀點(diǎn)雖然確實(shí)具有將該理論作為政策干預(yù)依據(jù)的優(yōu)點(diǎn)，但問題在于，它展現(xiàn)出的是一種更接近于“李嘉圖社會(huì)主義”(“Ricardian socialism”)或《德國(guó)社會(huì)的民主》（羅素的著作）的“天賦人權(quán)”(“natural right”)式政治主張，而非馬克思的政治主張。（例如，見馬克思的《哥達(dá)綱領(lǐng)批判》，Marx-Engels, Selected Works, Vol.3; 也見Dobb, 1973, p. 137-141.）正因如此，它沒有對(duì)以下問題給出一個(gè)令人滿意的回答：資本主義中的剝削完全可以用剩余產(chǎn)品的分配來理解，而根本不需要引入價(jià)值。（例如，見Hodgson, 1976; Steedman, 1977.）但在否定這種對(duì)馬克思價(jià)值理論的解讀時(shí)，我們必須留意，不能將其去政治化。這一理論的政治性我們將在本文的最后回過頭來討論。
?????????
????????2.價(jià)值理論：對(duì)價(jià)格的解釋？（相對(duì)價(jià)格論解讀傳統(tǒng)）
????????這種觀點(diǎn)可能單獨(dú)出現(xiàn)，也可能和我們剛剛討論的觀點(diǎn)結(jié)合起來。盎格魯—薩克遜世界的大部分馬克思主義經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家給出的解釋是，馬克思的價(jià)值理論是對(duì)資本主義經(jīng)濟(jì)中均衡價(jià)格或“自然”價(jià)格(2)的解釋。它是眾多均衡價(jià)格理論中的一種，例如在多布的《價(jià)值與分配理論》(Theories of Value and Distribution)一書中，馬克思的價(jià)值理論與斯密(Smith)、李嘉圖(Ricardo)、穆勒(Mill)、杰文斯(Jevons)、瓦爾拉斯(Walras)和馬歇爾(Marshall)的價(jià)值理論一同審查，仿佛它們的研究對(duì)象完全相同一樣。多布指出，這些理論的主要區(qū)別在于：
????????“主要通過生產(chǎn)條件（成本、投入系數(shù)等）來決定價(jià)格或交換關(guān)系和主要從需求側(cè)來決定價(jià)格或交換關(guān)系?！?Dobb, 1973, p. 31.)
????????對(duì)于多布來說，最大的分歧在于斯密、李嘉圖和馬克思屬于第一類，而其他人屬于第二類。米克(Meek)提出了類似的解讀：
????????“毫無疑問，他（馬克思）希望他的價(jià)值理論……具有一個(gè)更常見的功能，也就是價(jià)值理論在經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)中一直被用來做的事，即確定價(jià)格?！?Meek, 1977, p. 124.)
????????當(dāng)然，人們也意識(shí)到，在這種解釋下，馬克思與其他經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家之間，甚至是馬克思與李嘉圖之間都存在著差別。
????????“馬克思的價(jià)值理論不僅僅是一般意義上的價(jià)值理論：它不僅具有數(shù)量意義上解釋交換價(jià)值或價(jià)格的功能，而且還具有在勞動(dòng)力本身成為商品的交換——或商品——的社會(huì)的勞動(dòng)過程中顯現(xiàn)出歷史社會(huì)基礎(chǔ)的功能?！?Dobb, 1971, p. 11.)
????????斯威齊(Sweezy)提出的價(jià)值量問題和價(jià)值質(zhì)問題之間的區(qū)別已經(jīng)成為了切入馬克思與其他經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家差別的最流行的方法。前者是解釋商品之間交換比例的問題；后者是解釋商品形式背后的社會(huì)關(guān)系的問題。對(duì)于斯威齊來說，
????????“馬克思的價(jià)值理論的偉大創(chuàng)見，在于它認(rèn)識(shí)到本問題的這兩個(gè)方面，并試圖在一個(gè)單獨(dú)的概念體系中同時(shí)加以探討?！?Sweezy, 1962, p. 25.)（保羅·斯威齊，2016，p. 46.）
????????或如米克所說，
????????“答案的性質(zhì)方面針對(duì)的是這樣一個(gè)問題：為什么商品具有價(jià)格？數(shù)量方面的問題則是：為什么商品具有它們應(yīng)當(dāng)具有的特定價(jià)格？”(Meek, 1967, p. 10.)
????????很明顯，在這一傳統(tǒng)中，馬克思價(jià)值理論的對(duì)象是交換或流通的過程。
????????“……所以，研究商品，就是研究交換的經(jīng)濟(jì)關(guān)系。”(Sweezy, 1962, p. 23.)（保羅·斯威齊，2016，p. 44.）
????????馬克思被解讀為用一個(gè)獨(dú)立的、更基本的過程，即生產(chǎn)過程來解釋這一流通過程。例如，在多布寫的《馬克思〈政治經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)批判〉導(dǎo)論》(Introduction to Marx's A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy)中，暗示了馬克思的興趣所在，
????????“（馬克思的興趣）現(xiàn)在集中在從生產(chǎn)的角度解釋交換……交換關(guān)系或市場(chǎng)‘表象’只能被理解為……在社會(huì)基礎(chǔ)層面上的一些更基本的關(guān)系的表現(xiàn)?！?Dobb, 1971, p. 9-10.)
????????按斯威齊所說，
????????“商品在市場(chǎng)上按一定的比例相互交換；它們又從社會(huì)上可資利用的總勞動(dòng)力吸收了某個(gè)定量（以時(shí)間單位衡量）。這兩個(gè)事實(shí)之間有什么關(guān)系呢？作為初次近似，馬克思假定，在交換比率和勞動(dòng)時(shí)間比率之間有一種精確的對(duì)應(yīng)關(guān)系，或者說，凡是需要以等量時(shí)間來生產(chǎn)的商品，它們必須在一對(duì)一的基礎(chǔ)上進(jìn)行交換。這是一個(gè)最簡(jiǎn)單的公式，因而也是一個(gè)好的起點(diǎn)。實(shí)踐中發(fā)生的背離，可以在隨后向現(xiàn)實(shí)接近的過程中加以處理?！?Sweezy, 1962, p. 42.) （保羅·斯威齊，2016，p. 67.）
????????通常認(rèn)為，初次近似在前兩卷《資本論》中成立，在第三卷中則被放棄，同時(shí)引入生產(chǎn)價(jià)格范疇，并將價(jià)值轉(zhuǎn)形(transform)為價(jià)格?！爸钡阶罱?，馬克思對(duì)‘轉(zhuǎn)形問題’的‘解答’的充分性，以及各種替代性解決方案的優(yōu)點(diǎn)一直都是這一解讀傳統(tǒng)的主要爭(zhēng)議點(diǎn)。”（此處不會(huì)試圖回顧冗長(zhǎng)的文獻(xiàn)。參考文獻(xiàn)請(qǐng)參見Fine and Harris, 1976.）
????????在何種意義上，人們認(rèn)為生產(chǎn)商品所需的勞動(dòng)時(shí)間“解釋”或“決定”了商品的價(jià)格（作為“初次近似”或通過轉(zhuǎn)形）？我認(rèn)為這一傳統(tǒng)的著作中有兩個(gè)相互聯(lián)系的論點(diǎn)。價(jià)格與生產(chǎn)所需勞動(dòng)時(shí)間的“初次近似”得到了亞當(dāng)·斯密關(guān)于“鹿和河貍”經(jīng)濟(jì)中收益均衡的例子的支持。（參見，例如，Sweezy, 1962, p. 45-46.）（保羅·斯威齊，2016，p. 72-73.）。假設(shè)我們考慮兩種商品（“鹿”和“河貍”），其中一種（“鹿”）需要一個(gè)小時(shí)才能生產(chǎn)一個(gè)，另一種（“河貍”）需要兩個(gè)小時(shí)；假定市場(chǎng)上一只鹿換一只河貍。每個(gè)生產(chǎn)者都會(huì)將其生產(chǎn)商品所需的時(shí)間（在本例中是通過狩獵）與其用其他商品表示的市場(chǎng)價(jià)格進(jìn)行比較。很明顯，與直接生產(chǎn)河貍相比，生產(chǎn)鹿并交換河貍可以獲得更多的河貍。因此，生產(chǎn)者傾向于將他們的時(shí)間分配給生產(chǎn)鹿，而不是河貍。在其他條件相同的情況下，這將降低鹿的市場(chǎng)價(jià)格，提高河貍的市場(chǎng)價(jià)格。勞動(dòng)時(shí)間將持續(xù)從河貍流向鹿的生產(chǎn)，直到鹿的市場(chǎng)價(jià)格與生產(chǎn)這兩種商品所需的相對(duì)勞動(dòng)量相等，即直到兩只鹿交換一只河貍為止。在這一點(diǎn)時(shí)，勞動(dòng)時(shí)間的轉(zhuǎn)移將停止，體系將處于均衡狀態(tài)，價(jià)格等于勞動(dòng)時(shí)間比率。
????????接下來可以使用一個(gè)更復(fù)雜的方法來說明勞動(dòng)時(shí)間是如何通過“轉(zhuǎn)形”決定生產(chǎn)價(jià)格的。在這里，勞動(dòng)時(shí)間和生產(chǎn)價(jià)格通過內(nèi)生變量和外生變量的均衡“模型”相聯(lián)系。正如米克所說：
????????“在他們的基本模型中，這三位經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家（即李嘉圖、馬克思和斯拉法(Sraffa)）實(shí)際上都設(shè)想了一套技術(shù)和社會(huì)條件，在這些條件下，凈產(chǎn)品或剩余將被生產(chǎn)出來（這些凈產(chǎn)品超出了工人的生存水平，這一水平通常被認(rèn)為是由生理和社會(huì)條件決定的）。假設(shè)該凈產(chǎn)品或剩余的水平被給定且與價(jià)格無關(guān)，這將約束和決定支付出去的利潤(rùn)（和其他非工資收入）的總水平。這個(gè)模型的主要目的是表明，在假定的生產(chǎn)條件下，剩余的分配過程將使所有商品的價(jià)格和平均利潤(rùn)率同時(shí)決定。”(Meek, 1977, p. 160.)
????????凈產(chǎn)品的量由其生產(chǎn)所需的社會(huì)勞動(dòng)時(shí)間來衡量。
????????值得注意的是，這兩個(gè)觀點(diǎn)的特點(diǎn)是，它們將凝結(jié)在商品中的社會(huì)必要?jiǎng)趧?dòng)時(shí)間視為一種完全不同于、且與價(jià)格概念相斷裂并完全獨(dú)立于價(jià)格的某種東西。它僅僅在生產(chǎn)過程中被給出，而價(jià)格僅僅在流通過程中被給出。這兩個(gè)過程之間本身是斷裂開的，盡管它們事實(shí)上是聯(lián)系在一起的。 “關(guān)鍵因素”，即相對(duì)獨(dú)立的“決定常數(shù)”在生產(chǎn)中被發(fā)現(xiàn)。(參見Meek, 1967, p. 95; Meek, 1977, p. 151.)因此，原則上，我們可以計(jì)算出完全獨(dú)立于價(jià)格的價(jià)值（即凝結(jié)在商品中的社會(huì)必要?jiǎng)趧?dòng)時(shí)間），并從這些價(jià)值中推導(dǎo)出均衡價(jià)格。后者這種推導(dǎo)的可行性通常被認(rèn)為是馬克思價(jià)值理論科學(xué)地位的不可或缺的保證，是確使馬克思的價(jià)值理論不同于形而上學(xué)雜耍概念的保證。（盡管，正如這一傳統(tǒng)的學(xué)者們通常所承認(rèn)的那樣，在實(shí)踐中這樣的轉(zhuǎn)形通常是不可能的。）(3)
????????在一些專業(yè)的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家最近的研究中，將馬克思視為一名經(jīng)濟(jì)模型構(gòu)建者的解讀方式已經(jīng)達(dá)到了邏輯的頂點(diǎn)，其中最出名的或許是森島通夫(Morishima)的研究，其中，
????????“我們采用一個(gè)人們熟知的、與列昂節(jié)夫(Leontief)部門間價(jià)格—成本方程相似的形式，將古典勞動(dòng)價(jià)值論(the classical labour theory of value)進(jìn)行了嚴(yán)密的數(shù)學(xué)化。通過運(yùn)用投入—產(chǎn)出數(shù)學(xué)分析，揭示出古典勞動(dòng)價(jià)值論的全部隱含假定，證明了與商品（用任意選擇的一種標(biāo)準(zhǔn)商品）相對(duì)價(jià)值作用相聯(lián)系的比較靜態(tài)規(guī)律。物質(zhì)產(chǎn)品與商品價(jià)值之間的雙重性，同物質(zhì)產(chǎn)品與競(jìng)爭(zhēng)性價(jià)格之間的雙重性是相似的。這樣看來，勞動(dòng)價(jià)值論(the labour theory of value)與消費(fèi)者需求的效用理論或者它的任何改進(jìn)的變體可能是一致的?！?Morishima, 1973, p. 5.)（森島通夫，2017，p. 5.）
????????為了使馬克思成為一個(gè)受人尊敬的早期數(shù)理經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家，理論中的所有政治性都被無情抹除。[2]
????????“（價(jià)值）的決定僅取決于技術(shù)系數(shù)……它們不依賴于諸如市場(chǎng)、社會(huì)階級(jí)結(jié)構(gòu)、稅收等的情況?！?(Morishima, 1973, p. 15.)（森島通夫，2017，p. 15.）
????????在社會(huì)主義經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家聯(lián)合會(huì)的辯論中，這種解讀傳統(tǒng)更重要的一點(diǎn)是發(fā)展出了一種不涉及政治性，只與價(jià)值有關(guān)的方法。
????????從與斯威齊—米克—多布傳統(tǒng)相同的假定出發(fā)，將導(dǎo)向這樣的結(jié)論，
????????“如果說對(duì)資本主義社會(huì)進(jìn)行唯物主義的分析還依存于馬克思的價(jià)值理論的話，那只能是從否定的意義上來理解的，即繼續(xù)依附于后者只是前者發(fā)展的一個(gè)主要桎梏?！?(Steedman, 1977, p. 207;另見Hodgson and Steedman, 1975; Hodgson, 1976; Steedman, 1975a, 1975b.)（揚(yáng)·斯蒂德曼，1991，p. 181.）
????????凝結(jié)在商品中的社會(huì)必要?jiǎng)趧?dòng)時(shí)間的數(shù)量被發(fā)現(xiàn)即使在最好的情況下也不過是冗余的，即使在最好的情況下，社會(huì)必要?jiǎng)趧?dòng)時(shí)間也無法決定商品的均衡價(jià)格。相反，所謂的“新李嘉圖主義者”(“Neo-Ricardians”)則將社會(huì)必要生產(chǎn)條件和支付給工人的以特定商品的實(shí)物數(shù)量表示的實(shí)際工資作為自變量(4)。與森島通夫不同的是，斯蒂德曼(Steedman)并沒有將這些數(shù)量視為純粹的技術(shù)數(shù)量：它們由社會(huì)和歷史決定，反映了工作場(chǎng)所中工人和資本家之間的“力量平衡”。
????????毫無疑問，在相對(duì)價(jià)格理論的范圍內(nèi)，這種對(duì)價(jià)值理論作為一種對(duì)均衡價(jià)格和勞動(dòng)量之間關(guān)系的解釋的批判是完全正確的。對(duì)保留傳統(tǒng)盎格魯—薩克遜版本的價(jià)值理論的嘗試傾向于融入比“新李嘉圖主義”更“李嘉圖主義”的立場(chǎng)上(這種觀點(diǎn)的提出可參見Himmelweit and Mohun, 1978)（伊恩·斯蒂德曼和保羅·斯威齊等，2016，p. 264.）。本文并不試圖挽救這種傳統(tǒng)的“勞動(dòng)價(jià)值理論”(“l(fā)abour theory of value”)。相反，本文主張對(duì)馬克思的價(jià)值理論進(jìn)行一種完全不同的解讀，與之相關(guān)的是基于斯拉法的批判——即馬克思的價(jià)值理論是冗余的——而非經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)中的相對(duì)價(jià)格概念。
????????在某些方面，Cutler、Hindess、Hirst以及Hussain的研究甚至比新李嘉圖主義者們更具破壞性。他們以一種耶穌清洗異教徒圣殿污穢的姿態(tài)開始，聲稱：
????????“有人可能會(huì)說，價(jià)格和交換價(jià)值沒有一般的功能或一般的決定因素……這種問題針對(duì)性的變化不僅將使我們置身于馬克思主義價(jià)值理論之外，而且還將使我們置身于傳統(tǒng)經(jīng)濟(jì)理論之外?！?Cutler et al., 1977, p. 14.)
????????并宣布：
????????“在本書中，我們將挑戰(zhàn)這樣一種觀點(diǎn)，即‘價(jià)值’是一個(gè)決定價(jià)格的因素?！保ㄍ希琾. 19.）
????????我也將挑戰(zhàn)價(jià)值是一個(gè)決定價(jià)格的因素這樣一種觀點(diǎn)，從這個(gè)意義上來講，Cutler理解的是這樣一種觀點(diǎn)，即價(jià)值是價(jià)格和利潤(rùn)的唯一“源泉”或“原因”。但我將挑戰(zhàn)這樣一種觀點(diǎn)，即馬克思的價(jià)值理論將價(jià)值視為一切范疇的起源或原因。此外，我還將設(shè)法論證，馬克思決定因素范疇完全不同于本章涉及到的那些學(xué)者們。
?????????
????????注釋：
????????[1]以下簡(jiǎn)稱《政治經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)批判》(Critique of Political Economy)。
????????[2]正如斯蒂德曼在1976年指出的那樣，森島的“廣義馬克思基本定理”實(shí)際上包含了一個(gè)與馬克思截然不同的價(jià)值概念。
?????????
????????譯者注：
????????(1)馬克思的“勞動(dòng)價(jià)值論”在英文中通常有以下幾種寫法：“a/the labour theory of value”（最常見的寫法，例如米克的《勞動(dòng)價(jià)值學(xué)說的研究》Studies in the Labour Theory of Value）、“theory of labour value”（Saad-Filho認(rèn)為這種寫法優(yōu)于前者）和“value theory of labour”（本文作者強(qiáng)烈建議使用這種寫法），通常而言，在中文中它們都被翻譯為勞動(dòng)價(jià)值論，但作者Diane Elson選取The Value Theory of Labour作為標(biāo)題是特意為之，并聲稱這一寫法的意義與其他寫法完全不同。為強(qiáng)調(diào)這一點(diǎn)，翻譯標(biāo)題時(shí)我選擇了“勞動(dòng)的價(jià)值理論”以示區(qū)別，而前兩者分別暫譯為“勞動(dòng)價(jià)值理論”、“勞動(dòng)價(jià)值的理論”。
????????(2)“自然價(jià)格”是古典學(xué)者常用的一個(gè)術(shù)語，它指的是市場(chǎng)價(jià)格的“引力中心”（斯密借用自牛頓萬有引力定律的比喻，參見亞當(dāng)·斯密，1972，p. 52），同時(shí)與市場(chǎng)價(jià)格這一概念嚴(yán)格區(qū)分（參見亞當(dāng)?斯密，1972，p. 49、彼羅·斯拉法，1997，p. 73和斯拉法，2012，p. 10）。這一概念還有幾個(gè)不同的名字，“那些古典用語，例如‘必要價(jià)格’，‘自然價(jià)格’，或‘生產(chǎn)價(jià)格’”（斯拉法，2012，p. 10）所指的都是同一概念。古典學(xué)者從來沒有試圖去解釋我們?nèi)粘＝?jīng)驗(yàn)中的市場(chǎng)價(jià)格，更不用說認(rèn)為某種數(shù)學(xué)定律或結(jié)構(gòu)（比如供給函數(shù)和需求函數(shù)）可以用來決定/描述市場(chǎng)價(jià)格。古典學(xué)者從來沒有將市場(chǎng)價(jià)格視為一種理論變量，這種方法對(duì)于他們來說是極為陌生的，市場(chǎng)價(jià)格從來都只是一個(gè)經(jīng)驗(yàn)變量，因而古典學(xué)者也不會(huì)去解釋在某一特定時(shí)刻市場(chǎng)價(jià)格具體由什么決定。自然價(jià)格與均衡價(jià)格也具有本質(zhì)上的不同，后者強(qiáng)調(diào)供需均衡這一要求，而前者不以供需均衡為前提，其決定在邏輯上也是先于流通過程的，因此本篇文章對(duì)其的解讀實(shí)際上是錯(cuò)誤的，應(yīng)當(dāng)留意。對(duì)于亞當(dāng)·斯密來說，自然價(jià)格甚至不是“正常”、“平均”或“長(zhǎng)期”價(jià)格，它指的是一種真正的“自然關(guān)系”（見斯拉法的分析，被加雷格納尼所引用，參見Garegnani, 2004, p. 182）。同時(shí)，自然價(jià)格的引入要求規(guī)律性和復(fù)雜的商品交換以及資本的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)已然形成，也即發(fā)達(dá)的資本主義商品經(jīng)濟(jì)已經(jīng)存在。通過提出自然價(jià)格的概念，古典學(xué)者將市場(chǎng)供需等非規(guī)律性因素排除出自己的理論體系中，而專門研究一個(gè)基于勞動(dòng)分工體系的資本主義社會(huì)在長(zhǎng)期再生產(chǎn)中所具有的那些特征。與新古典主義和奧地利學(xué)派的方法論相比，古典學(xué)者們所采用的方法論更正確。
????????(3)傳統(tǒng)馬克思主義認(rèn)為，我們只有通過價(jià)值和剩余價(jià)值這一前置范疇才能轉(zhuǎn)形得到生產(chǎn)價(jià)格和利潤(rùn)這一后置范疇，但斯拉法的理論表明，我們完全不需要價(jià)值和剩余價(jià)值這一范疇即可直接得到生產(chǎn)價(jià)格和利潤(rùn)這一范疇，兩者的推導(dǎo)實(shí)際上也是并行的，沒有先后順序，由此引發(fā)了許多爭(zhēng)議。對(duì)此問題的一個(gè)直觀圖表可參見M. C. 霍華德和J. E. 金，2020，p. 266.與伊恩·斯蒂德曼和保羅·斯威齊等，2016，p. 38-40.。對(duì)此問題以及相關(guān)的持續(xù)至今的爭(zhēng)論的進(jìn)行詳盡討論需要極大的篇幅和極多的參考文獻(xiàn)，在此不再深入討論。
????????(4)這種方法經(jīng)常被使用，然而我認(rèn)為這種解讀方向存在問題。關(guān)鍵的不是工人得到了多少實(shí)物工資，而是相對(duì)于計(jì)價(jià)物，工人得到了多少貨幣工資，或者說，工人得到了多少交換價(jià)值的工資。給定一個(gè)工資品束并無意義，反而束縛了我們的手腳。
????????
????????參考文獻(xiàn)：
????????亞當(dāng)·斯密. (1972). 國(guó)民財(cái)富的性質(zhì)和原因的研究. 商務(wù)印書館.
????????彼羅·斯拉法. (1997). 李嘉圖著作和通信集：第一卷. 商務(wù)印書館.
????????保羅·斯威齊. (2016). 資本主義發(fā)展論. 商務(wù)印書館.
????????M. C. 霍華德和J. E. 金. (2020). 馬克思主義經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)史(1929-1990). 中央編譯出版社.
????????森島通夫. (2017). 馬克思經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué). 中國(guó)社會(huì)科學(xué)出版社.
????????斯拉法. (2012). 用商品生產(chǎn)商品. 商務(wù)印書館.
????????揚(yáng)·斯蒂德曼. (1991). 按照斯拉法思想研究馬克思. 商務(wù)印書館.
????????伊恩?斯蒂德曼和保羅?斯威齊等. (2016). 價(jià)值問題的論戰(zhàn). 商務(wù)印書館.
????????Armstrong, P, Glyn, A and Harrison, J (1978), 'In Defence of Value', Capital and Class, No. 5.
????????Cutler, A, Hindess, B, Hirst, P and Hussain, A (1977), Marx's Capital and Capitalism Today, Vol. I, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
????????Dobb, M (1971), Introduction to Marx's A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Lawrence and Wishart, London.
????????Dobb, M (1973), Theories of Value and Distribution since Adam Smith, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
????????Fine, B and Harris, L(1976), 'Controversial Issues in Marxist Economic Theory' in Miliband, R and Saville, J (eds.), Socialist Register, Merlin Press, London.
????????Garegnani P (2004), ‘Di una svolta nella posizione teorica e nella interpretazione dei calssici in Sraffa nei tardi anni 20’, in Piero Sraffa, Atti dei Convegni Lincei n. 200, Roma: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 157-94.
????????Himmelweit, S and Mohun, S (1978), 'The Anomalies of Capital', Capital & Class No. 6.
????????Hodgson, G (1976), 'Exploitation and Embodied Labour Time', CSE Bulletin,No. 13.
????????Marx, K (1971), A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Lawrence and Wishart, London.
????????Marx, K (1976), Capital, Vol. I, translated by Ben Fowkes, Penguin Books, London.
????????Meek, R L (1967), Economics and Ideology and other Essays, Chapman and Hall, London.
????????Meek, R L (1977), Smith, Marx and After, Chapman and Hall, London.
????????Morishima, M (1973), Marx's Economics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
????????Rowthorn, R (1974), 'Neo-Classicism, Neo-Ricardianism and Marxism', New Left Review, No. 86.
????????Steedman, I (1975a), 'Value, Price and Profit', New Left Review, No. 90.
????????Steedman, I (1975b), 'Positive Profits with Negative Surplus Value', Economic Journal, March.
????????Steedman, I (1977), Marx after Sraffa, New Left Books, London.
????????Sweezy, P (1962), The Theory of Capitalist Development, Dennis Dobson Ltd, London.
?
?
THE VALUE THEORY OF LABOUR
?
Diane Elson
?
????????WHAT IS MARX'S THEORY OF VALUE A THEORY OF?
?????????
????????1. The theory of value: a proof of exploitation?
????????Let us first consider the interpretation which is very widespread on the left, particularly among activists, that Marx's theory of value constitutes a proof of exploitation. A good example of this position in CSE debates is that put forward by Armstrong, Glyn and Harrison. Their dogged defence of value rests on the belief that only by employing the category of value can the existence of capitalist exploitation be demonstrated and that to demonstrate this is the point of Marx's value theory:
????????Any concept of surplus labour which is not derived from the position that labour is the source of all value is utterly trivial. (Armstrong, Glyn and Harrison, 1978, p. 21.)
????????Marx does not, however, seem to have shared this view:
????????Since the exchange-value of commodities is indeed nothing but a mutual relation between various kinds of labour of individuals regarded as equal and universal labour, i.e. nothing but a material expression of a specific social form of labour, it is a tautology to say that labour is the only source of exchange-value, and accordingly of wealth in so far as this consists of exchange-value .. .It would be wrong to say that labour which produces use-values is the only source of the wealth produced by it, that is of material wealth. (A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy!, p. 35-36.)
????????Capital did not invent surplus labour. Wherever a part of society possess the monopoly of the means of production, the worker, free or unfree, must add to the labour-time necessary for his own maintenance an extra quantity of labour-time in order to produce the means of subsistence for the owner of the means of production. (Capital, I, p. 344.)
????????Moreover to regard Marx's theory of value as a proof of exploitation tends to dehistoricise value, to make value synonymous with labour-time, and to make redundant Marx's distinction between surplus labour and surplus value. To know whether or not there is exploitation, we must examine the ownership and control of the means of production, and the process whereby the length of the working day is fixed. (See Rowthorn, 1974.) Marx's concern was with the particular form that exploitation took in capitalism (see Capital, I, p. 325), for in capitalism surplus labour could not be appropriated simply in the form of the immediate product of labour. It was necessary for that product to be sold and translated into money. As Dobb comments:
????????The problem for Marx was not to prove the existence of surplus value and exploitation by means of a theory of value; it was, indeed to reconcile the existence of surplus value with the reign of market competition and of exchange of value equivalents. (Dobb, 1971. p. 12.)
????????The view that Marx's theory of value is intended as a proof of exploitation does, however, have the merit of seeing that theory as a political intervention, the problem is that it poses that politics in a way that is closer to the "natural right' politics of 'Ricardian socialism' or German Social Democracy, than to the politics of Marx. (See for instance Marx's 'Critique of the Gotha programme', Marx-Engels, Selected Works, Vol.3; also, Dobb, 1973, p. 137-141.) Because of this it has no satisfactory answer to the claim that exploitation in capitalism can perfectly well be understood in terms of the appropriation of surplus product, with no need to bring in value at all. (See for instance Hodgson, 1976; Steedman, 1977.) But in rejecting this interpretation of Marx's value theory we must be careful not to de-politicise that theory. The politics of the theory is a question we shall return to at the end of this paper.
?????????
????????2. The theory of value: an explanation of prices?
????????This approach may be found separately or combined with the one we have just considered. It is the interpretation offered by most Marxist economists in the Anglo-Saxon world, that Marx's theory of value is an explanation of equilibrium or 'natural' prices in a capitalist economy.. As such it is one of a number of theories of equilibrium price, so that, for instance, in Dobb's Theories of Value and Distribution, Marx's theory of value can be examined alongside the theories of Smith, Ricardo, Mill, Jevons, Walras and Marshall, as if it were a theory with the same kind of object. Indeed the main distinction made by Dobb is
????????'between theories that approach the determination of prices, or the relations of exchange, through and by means of conditions of production (costs, input-coefficients and the like) and those that approach it primarily from the side of demand.' (Dobb, 1973, p. 31.)
????????For Dobb the great divide is between Smith, Ricardo and Marx who are in the first category, and the others, who are in the second. A similar interpretation is offered by Meek:
????????'there is surely little doubt that he (Marx) wanted his theory of value . . . to do another and more familiar job as well—the same job which theories of value had always been employed to do in economics, that is, to determine prices.' (Meek, 1977, p. 124.)
????????Of course, it is recognised, within this interpretation, that there are differences between Marx and other economists, even between Marx and Ricardo.
????????'Marx's theory of value was something more than a theory of value as generally conceived: it had the function not only of explaining exchange-value or prices in a quantitative sense, but of exhibiting the historico-social basis in the labour process of an exchange—or commodity—society with labour power itself become a commodity.' (Dobb, 1971, p. 11.)
????????The way of noting these differences that has become most popular is the distinction between the quantitative-value problem and the qualitativevalue problem, introduced by Sweezy. The former is the problem of explaining the quantitative exchange-relation between commodities; the latter is the problem of explaining the social relations which underlie the commodity form. For Sweezy,
????????The great originality of Marx's value theory lies in its recognition of these two elements of the problem and in its attempt to deal with them simultaneously within a single conceptual framework.' (Sweezy, 1962, p. 25.)
????????Or as Meek put it,
????????'The qualitative aspect of the solution was directed to the question: why do commodities possess price at all? The quantitative aspect was directed to the question: why do commodities possess the particular prices which they do?' (Meek, 1967, p. 10.)
????????It is clear that the object of Marx's theory of value is taken, in this tradition, to be the process of exchange or circulation.
????????' . . . the study of commodities is therefore the study of the economic relations of exchange.' (Sweezy, 1962, p. 23.)
????????Marx is interpreted as explaining this process in terms of a separate, more fundamental process, production. Dobb, for instance, writing an Introduction to Marx's A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, suggests that Marx's interest,
????????'is now centred on explaining exchange in terms of production ... Exchange relations or market 'appearances' could only be understood . . . if they were seen as the expression of these more fundamental relations at the basis of society.' (Dobb, 1971, p. 9-10.)
????????According to Sweezy,
????????'Commodities exchange against each other on the market in certain definite proportions; they also absorb a certain definite quantity (measured in time units) of society's total available labour force. What is the relation between these two facts? As a first approximation Marx assumes that there is an exact correspondence between exchange ratios and labour-time ratios, or, in other words, that commodities which require an equal time to produce will exchange on a one-to-one basis. This is the simplest formula and hence a good starting point. Deviations which occur in practice can be dealt with in subsequent approximations to reality.' (Sweezy, 1962, p. 42.)
????????It has generally been suggested that this first approximation' is maintained throughout the first two volumes of Capital, and relinquished in Volume III, where the category of prices of production is introduced and Values are transformed into prices.' The adequacy of Marx's 'solution' to the 'transformation problem', and the merits of various alternative solutions have until recently been the chief point of debate in this tradition of interpretation. (No attempt will be made here to review the lengthy literature. For references, see Fine and Harris, 1976.)
????????In what sense is it held that the labour-time required to produce commodities 'explains' or 'determines' their prices (either as a 'first approximation' or through some transformation')? I think two related arguments are deployed in the writings in this tradition. The 'first approximation' of prices to the labour-time required for production is supported by an argument that derives from Adam Smith's example of the principle of equalisation of advantage in a 'deer and beaver' economy. (See, for instance, Sweezy, 1962, p. 45-46.) Suppose we consider two commondities ('deer' and 'beaver'), one of which ('deer') takes one hour to produce, the other of which ('beaver') takes two hours; and suppose that on the market one deer exchanges for one beaver. The argument is that each producer will compare the time it takes him to produce the commodity (in this case by hunting) with its market price, expressed in terms of the other commodity. It is clear that you can get more beavers by producing deer and exchanging than for beaver, than by directly producing beaver. Therefore producers will tend to allocate their time to producing deer rather than beaver. This will increase the supply of deer, reduce the supply of beaver. Other things being equal, this will reduce the market price of deer and increase the market price of beaver. The movement of labour-time from beaver to deer will continue until the market price of deer in terms of beaver is equal to the relative amounts of labour required to produce the two commodities, i.e. until two deer exchange for one beaver. At this point the transfer of labour-time will stop, and the system will be in equilibrium, with prices equal to labour-time ratios.
????????A more complex argument is deployed to indicate how labour-time determines prices through a 'transformation.' Here labour-time and price of production are related through an equilibrium 'model' of dependent and independent variables. As Meek put it:
????????'In their basic models, all three economists (i.e. Ricardo, Marx and Sraffa) in effect envisage a set of technological and sociological conditions in which a net product or surplus is produced (over and above the subsistence of the worker, which is usually conceived to be determined by physiological and social conditions.) The magnitude of this net product or surplus is assumed to be given independently of prices, and to limit and determine the aggregate level of the profits (and other non-wage incomes) which are paid out of it. The main thing which the models are designed to show is that under the postulated conditions of production the process of distribution of the surplus will result in the simultaneous formation of a determinate average rate of profit and a determinate set of prices for all commodities.' (Meek, 1977, p. 160.)
????????The magnitude of the net product is measured in terms of the labour time socially required for its production.
????????The feature of both arguments which it is important to note is that they pose the socially-necessary labour-time embodied in commodities as something quite separate, discretely distinct from, and independent of, price. It is given solely in the process of production, whereas price is given solely in the process of circulation. The two processes are themselves discretely distinct, although they are of course linked. And it is in production that 'the key causal factor', the relatively independent 'determining constant" is to be found. (See Meek, 1967, p. 95; Meek, 1977, p. 151.) It follows that we can, in principle, calculate values (i.e. socially-necessary labour-time embodied in commodities) quite independently of prices, and deduce equilibrium prices from those values. The last possibility is often regarded as the indispensable guarantee of the scientific status of Marx's value theory, of its distance from a metaphysical juggling of concepts. (Although, as writers in this tradition generally admit, in practice such a calculation would be impossible to make.)
????????The reading of Marx as a builder of economic models has been carried to its logical extreme in the recent work of some professional economists, perhaps most notably in the work of Morishima, in which,
????????'the classical labour theory of value is rigorously mathematised in a familiar form parallel to Leontief's inter-sectoral price-cost equations. The hidden assumptions are all revealed and, by the use of the mathematics of the input-output analysis, the comparative statical laws concerning the behaviour of the relative values of commodities (in terms of a standard commodity arbitrarily chosen) are proved. There is a duality between physical outputs and values of commodities, which is similar to the duality between physical outputs and competitive prices. It is seen that the labour theory of value may be compatible with the utility theory of consumers demand or any of its improved variations.' (Morishima, 1973, p. 5.)
????????All politics is ruthlessly excised in the interests of making Marx a respectable proto-mathematical economist.2
????????'(values) are determined only by technological coefficients . . . they are independent of the market, the class-structure of society, taxes and so on.'(Morishima, 1973, p. 15.)
????????More important in CSE debates has been the development within this general line of interpretation of an approach which excises not politics as such, but value. Arguing from the same premises as the Sweezy-Meek-Dobb tradition, it has come to the conclusion that,
????????'the project of providing a materialist account of capitalist societies is dependent on Marx's value magnitude analysis only in the negative sense that continued adherence to the latter is a major fetter on the development of the former.' (Steedman, 1977, p. 207; See also Hodgson and Steedman, 1975; Hodgson, 1976; Steedman, 1975a, 1975b.)
????????The quantity of socially-necessary labour-time embodied in a commodity has been found to be at best redundant to, at most incapable of, the determination of its equilibrium price. The so-called 'Neo-Ricardians' pose instead, as independent variables, the socially-necessary conditions of production and the real wage paid to workers, specified in terms of physical quantities of particular commodities. Unlike Morishima, Steedman does not take such quantities as purely technological: they are assumed to be determined socially and historically and reflect the 'balance of forces' between workers and capitalists in the work place.
????????There is no doubt that within its own terms this critique of the theory of value, as an explanation of equilibrium prices in terms of labour quantities, is quite correct. Attempts to preserve the traditional Anglo-Saxon version of the theory of value tend to dissolve into positions even more 'Ricardian' than that of the 'Neo-Ricardians' (a point made by Himmelweit and Mohun, 1978). This paper makes no attempt to rescue this traditional 'labour theory of value'. Instead it argues for a quite different reading of Marx's theory of value, in relation to which it is the Sraffa-based critique which is redundant, rather than value.
????????In some respects even more iconoclastic than the Neo-Ricardians is the work of Cutler, Hindess, Hirst and Hussain. Prefaced by a picture of Christ cleansing the temple, they claim:
????????'It is possible to argue that prices and exchange-values have no general functions or general determinants... Such a change of pertinence of problems would put us not only outside of the Marxist theory of value but also conventional economic theory.' (Cutler et al., 1977, p. 14.)
????????and declare:
????????'In this book we will challenge the notion that Value' is such a general determinant' (op. cit., p. 19.)
????????I too will challenge the notion that value is such a general determinant, in the sense that Cutler et al. understand this, i.e. as a single 'origin' or 'cause' of prices and profits. But my challenge will be directed to the very notion that Marx's theory of value poses value as the origin or cause of anything. Among other things, I shall argue that Marx's concept of a determinant is quite different from those of authors considered in this section.
