Summary: The central government's proposal on the formulation of the Tenth Five-Year Plan for national economic and social development (hereinafter referred to as the "proposal") points out that "the distribution system with distribution according to work as the main body and multiple forms of distribution coexisting shall be implemented, and distribution according to work and distribution according to factors shall be combined to encourage capital, technology and other production factors to participate in income distribution. With the development of productive forces, scientific and technological work and management, as an important form of labor, are playing an increasingly important role in social production. Under the new historical conditions, we should deepen our understanding of labor and labor theory of value. Compared with the era when Marx put forward the labor theory of value, modern society has undergone earth-shaking changes, and Marx could not fully foresee all kinds of new problems in modern society. This requires us to look at the labor theory of value from a developmental perspective, solve new problems with the basic theory of Marxism, and look at the basic theory of Marxism from a new perspective. This paper intends to express my humble opinion on how to treat the labor theory of value and how enterprise managers and scientific and technological workers participate in income distribution in the new period.
Keywords: labor theory of value, value, manual labor, mental labor
First, the theoretical roots of China's current distribution system
As China is still in the primary stage of socialist economic operation, the socialist market economic system has been basically established. In the economic operation, public ownership is the main body and various ownership systems coexist, and the income distribution adopts the distribution system combining distribution according to work and distribution according to production factors.
1. The distribution system combining distribution according to work and distribution according to factors is determined by the diversity of ownership structure in China: the combination of productivity level in the primary stage of socialism and public ownership economy in China determines that public ownership economy can only adopt the income distribution system based on distribution according to work. On the other hand, because China is still in the primary stage of socialism, the non-public economy and the public economy coexist, and * * * participates in creating wealth and requires distribution according to production factors. Distribution according to production factors means that various factors should participate in income distribution according to their contributions in the process of reproduction and get corresponding remuneration. Based on the objective reality of China's social and economic development, only the income distribution system combining distribution according to work and distribution according to factors is the only fair distribution mode at this stage, which is equal in form and therefore fair. In the public ownership economy, because the state and the collective are the sole owners of all factors of production except labor, all members of society can only be laborers but not owners of other factors of production. In this case, distribution according to work can only be implemented, that is, the amount of income is determined according to the amount of labor paid. However, there is also inequality in this distribution method. Because people's talents, abilities, responsibilities and risks, and the difficulty of work are different, their contributions to society and production are also different. If we adopt the same distribution method and treat them equally, it will inevitably lead to new inequalities. As Marx said in Critique of Gotha Program, "It is an unequal right like all rights". [1] and "to avoid all these ills, rights should not be equal, but unequal." [2]
2. The distribution system combining distribution according to work and distribution according to factors is determined by the contributions made by various factors of production in the process of wealth creation. William? Petty once pointed out that "labor is the mother of wealth and land is the father of wealth", and Marx also pointed out many times in Das Kapital and Critique of Gotha Program that labor is not the only source of all wealth. Practical common sense tells us that without the participation of other production factors such as capital and land, it is impossible to create value and wealth only by the participation of workers, and the three are indispensable in the production process (it should be noted that this does not mean that capital and land also create value). In this regard, Marx once said: "Without the natural and perceptual external world, workers can't create anything. It is the raw material used by laborers to realize their own labor, carry out labor activities in it, and produce and produce their own products from it. " [3] In addition, with the development of economy, knowledge, technology, information and management capabilities that were neglected in the past occupy an increasingly important position in modern production and operation, and they also require participation in distribution. Marx pointed out in Critique of Gotha Program that "the distribution of any kind of consumption materials is only the result of the distribution of production conditions themselves." Therefore, the owners of production factors such as capital and technology should be allowed to participate in the distribution, which is conducive to the flow of production factors to more effective fields, the acceleration of technological progress, and the upgrading of China's industrial structure and the transformation of economic growth mode.
Some people think that since factors of production include labor, distribution according to work should be included in distribution according to factors of production, so distribution according to factors of production should be implemented instead of combining distribution according to work with distribution according to factors of production. The mistake of this view is that they confuse "labor" in distribution according to work and "labor" in distribution according to production factors, and confuse distribution according to work and distribution according to labor value. In fact, the "labor" in the distribution according to work refers to the living labor in the production of material products, and the "labor" in the distribution according to production factors refers to the labor bought and sold in the labor market. Distribution according to work includes necessary labor value and surplus product value created by surplus labor, while distribution according to work is only necessary labor value (if it is really an "equivalent exchange" between employers and employees).
Secondly, it is necessary to correctly understand that distribution according to production factors is not equal to factor value theory. Distribution according to factors of production is because capitalists own capital and land. Based on this legal property right, they enjoy the right to claim surplus value, but they can't draw the conclusion that other production factors such as capital and land also create value. On the contrary, the most basic viewpoint of the factor theory of value is that the three factors of production, land, capital and labor create value together. Now it is suggested that entrepreneurs are the fourth factor of production, and the first three factors of production work together to create value. They advocate distribution according to contribution. They believe that capital and land should also participate in distribution, precisely because they also participate in the creation of value. The theory of factor value confuses the production of use value with the production of value, the formation process of value and the proliferation process of value.
Why do many scholars believe in the theory of factor value? Is the seemingly reasonable factor theory of value really reasonable? This requires us to find out what creates value. In addition, the arrival of knowledge economy and information age also requires us to deepen our understanding of labor and labor value.
Second, deepen the understanding of labor and labor theory of value.
With the advent of knowledge economy and information age, human capital (mainly entrepreneurs and technological innovators) plays an increasingly important role in economic development, and the value created by human capital is also increasing. With the proportion of manual labor in modern production getting smaller and smaller, and labor becoming more and more complicated, many scholars have doubts about Marx's labor theory of value. In this new era, how should we view Marx's labor theory of value?
Some scholars think that Marx does not attach importance to mental work, and that what Marx said refers to manual labor. Therefore, when the knowledge-based economy came, they suggested that there were fewer and fewer physical labor components in commodities, and Marx's labor theory of value was no longer applicable. The value of commodities should be changed from being determined by labor and labor time to being determined by "knowledge content" and measured by knowledge. In fact, Marx never neglected mental work. Marx clearly pointed out in Das Kapital: "Whenever people produce some use value, they use the sum of physical strength and intelligence." [5] That is to say, no matter what kind of goods are produced, they are the products of the combination of mental labor and physical labor, but the proportion of physical labor and mental labor is different. Because Marx lived in an era in which manual labor was dominant, Das Kapital mainly analyzed manual labor as an example. Now mental labor has replaced the dominant position of manual labor, and there have been "unmanned factories" and "production automation", and the role of manual labor has been gradually ignored by people. For this mode of production, Marx also mentioned in Das Kapital: "Labor is no longer included in the production process as before. On the contrary, it shows that people are related to the production process itself as supervisors and regulators of the production process. Here, it is no longer the laborer who regards the changed natural things as the intermediate link between himself and things; On the contrary, the worker transforms the natural process from him into an industrial process as a medium between himself and the inorganic nature under his control. Workers are no longer the main participants in the production process, but stand beside the production process. " [6] Here, Marx clearly realized that the development of productive forces will gradually replace the dominant position of manual labor with mental labor (but due to historical limitations, Marx could not elaborate on this phenomenon), but this does not mean that the theoretical conclusion that labor creates value is no longer applicable, and what Marx said from beginning to end includes mental labor. In the final analysis, machines are also created by laborers; Science and technology promote the development of productive forces, but it is also the crystallization of a lot of mental work of scientific and technological workers. In addition, the development of science and technology will not make much contribution to production if scientific and technological achievements are not applied to production through labor. Furthermore, a large number of products created by the above-mentioned automatic production mode are material wealth and use value, and Marx's theory of labor duality has clearly demonstrated the relationship between labor productivity and value and use value. Therefore, the sharp increase of products cannot deny the scientific nature of labor theory of value. Under the new situation of knowledge economy, the labor theory of value has made some progress, but the principle that the value of goods is still determined by the socially necessary labor time remains unchanged, but this kind of labor has new characteristics such as high efficiency, high energy and high quality.
Secondly, it is necessary to find out what creates value and correctly understand what Marx said: "Labor is the only source of value" [7] and "Labor is not the use value it produces, that is, the only source of material wealth". [8] Marx emphasized that "only labor is the last and only realistic measure that we can use to estimate and compare the value of various commodities at any time", [9] that is to say, labor is the only source of value, to be precise, it should be general undifferentiated human labor or abstract human labor. Labor here refers to abstract labor that creates value, not concrete labor. Marx clearly pointed out in Das Kapital that "all labor, on the one hand, is the consumption of human labor in the physiological sense; As the same or abstract human labor, it forms commodity value. On the other hand, all labor is a special form of human labor consumption with a certain purpose; As a concrete useful labor, it produces and uses value. " [10] Although other factors of production, such as capital and land, participated in the process of value formation, they did not create new value, but only transferred the original old value. It should be pointed out that in the new era, labor is no longer just manual labor, but also mental labor, which is gradually replacing the main position of manual labor. Therefore, the above-mentioned abstract labor should include higher-level mental labor, namely, technological innovation, knowledge application, theoretical research and enterprise management. "Labor is not the only source of all wealth" means that wealth cannot be created by labor alone, and the formation of wealth needs the joint action of labor, capital and land. Labor here refers to specific labor that creates use value. Therefore, it is correct to say that capital and land participate in the creation and formation of use value, but it is completely wrong to say that they create value.
In addition, it needs to be emphasized that only living labor creates value, and materialized labor is the concentration and materialization of living labor, which is the value of goods. There is a phenomenon in modern production: the proportion of living labor in the specific production process is getting smaller and smaller, and the role of materialized labor (machinery, equipment, etc.) is getting smaller and smaller. ) is becoming more and more important, but materialized labor does not create the value of goods. This is because: first of all, the means of production such as machinery and equipment are also condensed with undifferentiated human labor, which is created by living labor; Secondly, these means of production increase the surplus value created by workers by improving labor productivity, shortening necessary labor time and prolonging surplus labor time, which in itself does not create value. Therefore, only living labor in labor can create value.
Based on the above understanding, under the background that mental work is dominant and information technology and knowledge are becoming more and more important in the production process, how should we understand the role of enterprise managers in production and participate in distribution in what form?
Third, correctly understand the labor of scientific and technological workers and managers
Nowadays, scientific and technological work and management work are playing an increasingly important role in economic life. The increase of gross national product depends to a great extent on the improvement of production efficiency, thus increasing the number of products produced per unit time. This is not only the increase of labor expenditure of production workers, but also a lot of complicated mental work paid by scientific and technological workers and managers to improve labor productivity. Because the management ability of enterprise managers is the key to the survival and development of enterprises, and it is also an important factor to greatly enhance the economic strength of a country. This requires us to comprehensively evaluate the management labor of scientific and technological workers and business operators, and put forward corresponding incentive measures. In this regard, the "Proposal" puts forward guiding opinions: "With the development of productive forces, scientific and technological work and management, as an important form of labor, are playing an increasingly important role in social production. Under the new historical conditions ... establish and improve the incentive mechanism and restraint mechanism of income distribution. The annual salary system and equity and option pilots will be implemented for business leaders and scientific and technological backbones. "
The labor value of scientific and technological workers should be investigated from the following two aspects: on the one hand, scientific and technological workers, as productive workers, create value through their own labor. In this regard, Marx also discussed in Das Kapital: "Some people work with their hands, some people work with their brains, and some people work as managers, engineers, craftsmen, etc. Some are supervisors, some are direct manual workers or do very simple rough work, so more and more functions of labor ability are listed under the direct concept of productive labor, and the undertaker of this labor ability is also listed under the concept of productive labor. " [1 1] It can be seen that Marx regarded scientific and technical workers and managers as productive laborers and thus participated in the creation of value. Moreover, because the labor of scientific and technological workers is a complex labor, they can create more value than ordinary workers in the same time. On the other hand, the labor of scientific and technological workers has played a decisive role in improving labor productivity, increasing economic benefits of enterprises and creating social wealth. Scientific and technological workers can not only increase the quantity of products by improving labor productivity, but also improve the quality of products by applying advanced technology to the production process. Therefore, when evaluating the labor value of scientific and technological workers, we should not only measure the value created by their complex labor, but also see their role in creating social wealth.
Regarding the labor value of enterprise managers, as mentioned above, Marx regarded managers as productive workers. However, the value-creating labor of managers is different from that of ordinary workers, and their role in enterprises is also different from that of ordinary workers. Ordinary workers only produce goods without other pressures, but managers should not only manage the production process, but also decide what products to produce and how to price them. A good manager can save an enterprise on the verge of bankruptcy. On the contrary, an incompetent manager will turn a profitable enterprise into a loss. The value of enterprise managers not only plays an important role in the survival and development of enterprises, but also includes the impact on society (external effects). Because the value of enterprise managers is not only to create value, but also to bear more responsibilities and bear greater pressure, they are engaged in more complicated mental work and simpler work, and naturally they should be paid higher than ordinary workers, which makes their own human capital value realized. In addition, in order to prevent the phenomenon of "May 8th" and "May 9th" and arouse the enthusiasm of operators, we should also let them get the remuneration they deserve, and adopt the distribution method of combining the annual salary system with the stock option system to arouse the enthusiasm of operators. Scientific and technological workers should be combined with scientific and technological shareholding system and annual salary system.
With the continuous recognition and affirmation of the labor value of enterprise managers, many scholars have put forward that the income of private entrepreneurs is all their labor income, which is not exploitative, and thus come to the absurd conclusion that "capitalists support workers" and capitalist society is the most superior society. This can not help but lead to reflection on the income of private entrepreneurs.
First of all, it should be affirmed that part of the income of private entrepreneurs is his own labor income. In this regard, Marx described it in Das Kapital: "Profit also contains things that belong to wages. Capitalists appear as managers and commanders of labor in the production process. In this sense, capitalists play an active role in the labor process itself. ..... this kind of labor is combined with exploitation ... Of course, just like the labor of hiring workers, it is a kind of labor that increases the value of products. " [12] As we have analyzed above, the labor of business owners managing enterprises is also productive labor, so the labor of private entrepreneurs also creates value. However, this does not mean that there is no exploitation in the income of private entrepreneurs. The income of private entrepreneurs is greater than that of ordinary state-owned enterprise operators. In addition to their own labor, a large part of their income is the profit income corresponding to capital investment. As mentioned above, the materialized labor of capital (representing machines and other means of production) itself will not create value, so this profit income is the result of capital appreciation and is obtained by exploiting the surplus labor of workers.
In short, we should clearly realize that the income of private entrepreneurs includes both his own labor income and the part that exploits the surplus value of workers.
References:
1, Zou, Fan: Deepen the understanding of labor and labor theory of value ―― Learn from the suggestion of the Central Committee on formulating the tenth five-year plan for national economic and social development.
2, Gao Shangquan:' Deepening the understanding of labor and labor theory of value' in the macro-network.
3. Wei Xinhua: "On deepening the understanding of labor and labor theory of value", contained in "Macroeconomic Research" 200 1.3.
4. Entrepreneur Forum: On the Value of Entrepreneurs by www.263.com.
5. Wang Yufen: "Labor Theory of Value: Laborers' Economic Outlook", contained in "Economic Issues" 200 1.4.
6. Wei Xinhua: On Deepening the Understanding of Labor and Labor Theory of Value, contained in Socialist Economic Theory 200 1.4.
[1] Critique of Marx's Gotha Program [M] singleton People's Publishing House 1997 Page 15.
[2] "Critique of Marx's Gotha Program" [M] singleton People's Publishing House 1997 Page 15.
[3] "The Complete Works of Marx and Engels" Volume 42 People's Publishing House 1979 Page 92.
[5] The Complete Works of Marx and Engels Volume 3 People's Publishing House 1972 Page 90.
[6] "The Complete Works of Marx and Engels" Volume 46 Volume 2 People's Publishing House 1972 Page 2 18.
[7] "The Complete Works of Marx and Engels" Volume 23 People's Publishing House 1972 Page 75.
[8] "The Complete Works of Marx and Engels" Volume 23 People's Publishing House 1972 Page 57.
[9] "The Complete Works of Marx and Engels" Volume 23 People's Publishing House 1972 Page 60.
[10] "The Complete Works of Marx and Engels" Volume 23 People's Publishing House 1972 Page 60
[1 1] The Complete Works of Marx and Engels Volume 49 People's Publishing House 1972100-10/.
[12] The Complete Works of Marx and Engels, Volume 46 People's Publishing House 1972, Page 2 19-220.