A paper on "the practical significance of labor value"

My opinion on labor theory of value

Abstract: The source of value can only exist in human labor. The concept of labor should be extended to the sum of materialized labor and living labor. The concept of labor value is not only objective, but also subjective. Both living labor and materialized labor should participate in the distribution of value and embody the principle of equal pay for equal work. The distribution of living labor here should be based on the value of living labor. The state should attach importance to the fairness of reform. Keywords: Song Guiwu, male, from Jingyuan, Gansu, born in June, 1964, 10, party member, now a professor in the Department of Economics Teaching and Research at the Party School of Gansu Provincial Party Committee, mainly engaged in economic theory research, publishing more than 100 papers, and editing or compiling 8 books. The study of labor theory of value is an important field of political economy research. Representative figures of classical political economy, such as Pei Di, BuaGilbert, Smith, Ricardo, sismondi, etc. , discussed the labor theory of value to varying degrees, and achieved many important results. Marx critically inherited the labor theory of value of classical political economy, and founded his own category system of labor theory of value on this basis. However, with the development of practice, especially with the establishment and perfection of China's socialist market economic system, it is urgent for us to further study the theoretical issues of labor value. At present, the research on labor theory of value and related issues in China's theoretical circles can be said to be fruitful and controversial. Below, the author puts forward some views on the issue of labor theory of value for colleagues' reference. First, the definition of the concept of "labor" Logically speaking, to establish a scientific labor theory of value system, we must first define the category of "labor" scientifically. Marx believed that living labor is the only source of value, and he experienced the following three logical arguments. First, Marx thinks that two different commodities (as use value) can be exchanged (equivalent) according to a certain proportion, which shows that there must be some equivalent transitivity between them. "With a simple example of geometry can illustrate this point. In order to determine and compare the areas of various straight lines, we divide them into triangles, and then transform the triangles into completely different expressions-the base times half the height. The exchange value of various commodities should also be transformed into the same things as * * *, each of which represents the quantity or quantity of this * * thing. Second, Marx thought: "This * * * same thing can't be a commodity, geometric, physical, chemical or other natural attributes ... As a use value, a commodity has a qualitative difference first, and as an exchange value, it can only have a quantitative difference, so it doesn't contain any atoms of use value." Third, Marx thought that "if the use value of commodity body is abandoned, there is only one attribute left in commodity body, that is, the attribute of labor product." "But the products of labor have changed in our hands. If we take away the use value of labor products, then we also take away the material components and forms that make the use value of labor products ... With the disappearance of the usefulness of labor products, the usefulness of all kinds of labor embodied in labor products also disappears, so the specific forms of these labor also disappear. There is no longer any difference between all kinds of labor, and all labor has become the same human labor, abstract human labor. " From this, Marx concluded that only abstract labor or human physical and mental consumption is the source of value, and it is the only source. For the above analysis process, the author has the following considerations: First, does the exchange of two different commodities necessarily mean that there must be some equivalent exchange between them? This is not a logical necessity. The success of communication here only reflects the balance between the two sides, and this balance is reflected in their respective evaluations, which are not necessarily based on a certain communication. Second, admit that there must be some equivalent transitivity between them, but * * * transitivity is different from source, and it is a two-level concept, with * * * transitivity as the measure and source as the decisive factor. Therefore, in view of the above situation, the author believes that Marx's exposition that living labor is the only source of value is debatable. Here, the author thinks that the source of value can only exist in human labor, which is correct in the overall and absolute sense. Because "value" itself is the product of human activities, rather than the "inherent thing" in nature, human labor is a special form of human activities; Therefore, the value of human labor results can only be found in human labor. But the concept of "labor" here should be redefined and should not be limited to living labor. 1. We should expand "labor" into the sum of living labor and materialized labor. Some comrades think that materialized labor is also the source of value, and the author has a similar view here. First of all, living labor input is the current labor input. The remuneration of current labor depends on the early input of current labor. At present, the labor with high initial investment is generally a complex labor category, and at this time, it should get a higher reward corresponding to its initial investment. At present, the initial investment in small labor is generally a simple labor category, of course, only a lower reward can be obtained. Secondly, materialized labor is the product of previous labor. From the early point of view, materialized labor is labor input; From this period on, materialized labor is the re-investment of labor input. Therefore, fundamentally speaking, materialized labor input is ultimately labor input, so it is also the source of value and deserves its corresponding reward. Materialized labor in the current period, with more investment in the early stage, can be roughly equivalent to complex labor, so it deserves higher remuneration. In the current materialized labor, the initial investment is less, which is roughly equivalent to simple labor, so the reward should be less. Complex labor is still manifested here as the doubling of simple labor. 2. The concept of "labor" should be defined from a holistic, long-term and dynamic concept. (1) It is the whole human labor that creates value, and the formation of any value is the crystallization of the labor of all parties. (2) From the current point of view, the source of value should be the total result of labor input in previous periods, and it is the crystallization of long-term labor, not just the formation of current labor. (3) With the diversification and complication of labor forms in human society and the emergence of new labor forms, the connotation of labor should be continuously enriched, so the understanding of the concept of labor that creates value should also be dynamic, not static. Second, the connotation of the concept of "value" is purely explained by nouns, and the concept of "value" has multiple meanings. From the philosophical point of view, the so-called "value" is a useful attribute that exists in the object to meet the needs of the subject, realize the desire of the subject and achieve the purpose of the subject. Here, value is essentially defined as the subjective utility of the object to the subject. Marx's value in labor theory of value refers to the condensation of general human labor determined by socially necessary labor time. The value here is an objective existence independent of the subject. Here, I think: 1. Under the condition of planned economy, if the planner is omnipotent and the information is completely sufficient, the economic system can reflect the inevitability of this "objective value" in its operation. But this is not the case. First, planners are not omnipotent. Second, the information is incomplete; The third is how to accurately measure labor. Therefore, the embodiment of labor theory of value can only be a subjective ideal under the condition of planned economy, but there are many problems objectively. 2. Under the condition of market economy, commodity value cannot be separated from the utility evaluation of commodity objects by the majority of demand subjects, because commodities will enter the market exchange. Commodity a is exchanged with commodity b, and commodity b itself contains two utility evaluations. One is a person's utility evaluation of commodity A; The other is another person's evaluation of the utility of commodity B. Therefore, in the overall and average sense of society, commodity value itself contains subjective characteristics and is the unity of opposites between subjective and objective. 3. The value of commodities formed in the production process of enterprises is different from the value realized after commodities enter the market. The value formed in the production process of an enterprise depends on the efficiency of the initial live labor input, materialized labor input and their combination. The commodity value formed at this time is essentially an objective value without any subjective component. We might as well call this value the enterprise value of goods. However, after the goods enter the market exchange, that is, after a "thrilling jump", the enterprise value of the goods has reached the state of realization. We can call the enterprise value of this commodity the social value or realized value of this commodity after market exchange. The realized value of this commodity is characterized by the unity of subjectivity and objectivity. On the one hand, it is based on the enterprise value of goods, which is objective; On the other hand, it is subjective, because it must be evaluated and recognized by the subject of social needs. It is the result of the unity of opposites between subjective and objective. Third, how does labor create value? The process of creating value by labor is also the input-output process of labor. But any process is not only an independent process, but always restricted by many background conditions. The process of creating value by labor is no exception. The background condition that restricts the value of labor production in reality is: (1) property right system. Different property rights arrangements will directly affect the efficiency of living labor, materialized labor and their combination. (2) Market structure. Different market structures will affect the degree of value realization, and then affect the direction of labor flow and labor input efficiency. (3) Economic management system. This is what any society should have. It is self-evident that different countries and different stages of development of the same country have corresponding economic management systems. (4) spirit. Spirit is also an important factor that restricts the value efficiency of labor generation. (5) law. In a society ruled by law, the role of law is particularly obvious. (6) politics. In different countries, politics plays different roles, some bigger and some smaller. The key here depends on the degree of separation between politics and economy. In a country where economic operation and political operation are relatively independent, its politics has little influence on the economy, so it has little influence on the economic process of labor creating value. Under the above-mentioned specific background conditions, the process of labor creating value is also manifested as the input-output process of labor, which is carried out in specific enterprises. Before production, business owners always expect a profit rate P (the profit rate here should be at least equal to the average social profit rate P), where the expected profit rate = expected realized profit ÷ total labor input. Total labor input = activity input+materialized labor input. Living labor input is equivalent to salary, and materialized labor input is the sum of capital, equipment and materials. The wages invested by business owners in living labor are equivalent to the returns of workers' own investment in the early stage; At the same time, this return value should conform to the social average. Let the value of living labor be R, where R represents the sum of the workers' early investment, such as the sum of the expenditures on education, training and exercise in each period. Let's assume that the wage earned by workers is W. For workers, at least w/r ≥ p level should be met. Assuming that the value of materialized labor is m, for business owners and workers, to meet the expected interests of both sides, at least there must be a return of rp+MP. Among them, rp flat meets the return of living labor value, and rp flat +MP flat meets the return on investment of business owners as a whole. Of course, whether the input of living labor can get rp level is also related to the distribution system. Under the condition of free competitive market, it is possible to make the living labor input realize the rp value better. Of course, it is one thing that the expected profit rate of business owners is greater than or equal to P, but whether it can be realized in practice is another matter. When living labor and materialized labor are combined to produce goods, the value of goods only exists in the form of enterprise value, that is, the value given to goods by enterprises themselves. Only after a "thrilling jump" can a commodity obtain the form of social value, that is, the value recognized by the society. The enterprise value form and social value form of goods here are not always equal in quantity, which depends on many market conditions. In fact, the enterprise value of goods is the expected value of business owners, while the social value of goods is the realized value of goods. Expected value = initial investment+expected profit. Expected value, that is, the difference between enterprise value and social value of goods, constitutes the basis of enterprise profit and loss. The average value of all realized social values constitutes the social average value, that is, the realization form of labor value. The enterprise value of unrealized goods is only the potential form of labor value, not the realization form. Because of the unity of opposites between subjective and objective contained in the value itself, it cannot be guaranteed that the sum of commodity enterprise values is equal to the sum of commodity social values, that is, the value stream does not satisfy the conservation theorem. The above-mentioned value can be expressed in the form of three elements: one element is expectation; One factor is that the combination of living labor input and materialized labor input enters the production process; One factor is the transformation from the enterprise value form of goods to the social value form of goods, that is, to realize the transformation of value form. However, the functions of the above three elements are always restricted by certain social and economic systems and other background conditions. Fourth, how to distribute value. After realizing the "thrilling jump" from the enterprise value form of goods to the social value form of goods, the business owner has completed the task of realizing value, and the next step is to realize the division of value. Generally speaking, business owners always want to get the expected profit rate p, and there is a level of p ≥ p. But this is not the case in the real economy. If the profit rate actually obtained by the enterprise is P, then P may be greater than P or less than P ... In addition, if the business owner himself participates in the activities of the enterprise, the labor of the business owner also belongs to the category of living labor. At this time, the income of living labor is divided into two parts: one part is the income of ordinary workers, whose income is generally fixed in advance in the form of contracts, and it is generally required to meet the W/R ≥ P level; One is the living labor income W of the business owner, where W represents the wages payable to the business owner. Let R-owner represent the owner's own value, that is, the sum of various investments made by the owner before, then the minimum condition that W-owner should meet is W-owner/R-owner ≥p-level. For materialized labor input, business owners generally require that the segmentation value should not be less than mp. When P is equal to or higher than P, the income of business owners' living labor and materialized labor may be higher than the social average, and this above-average return can be attributed to a compensation for business owners' living labor. Because the living labor input of business owners is relatively risky compared with ordinary workers, it can also be regarded as a relatively complicated living labor input (because mental risk is also the result of previous labor input), so the living labor income of business owners should be higher than that of ordinary workers. In the case of P real < P flat, the living labor input and materialized labor input of business owners will not get reasonable returns, and may even lose money. But this phenomenon is not universal. Under normal social and economic conditions, as a whole, the living labor of business owners is more risky and complicated than that of ordinary workers, so they deserve higher value distribution, so business owners deserve higher income than ordinary workers. In addition, for business owners, materialized labor input can also be regarded as reinvestment in their previous labor, so there should also be a rate of return. In this way, in general, the income of business owners includes two parts, one is the reward for their living labor, and the other is the reward for their materialized labor. The two isomorphic forms the total reward of business owners' labor input. Because the sum of the living labor value of business owners and their materialized labor value is generally greater than that of a single ordinary worker; Therefore, from this perspective, the income of business owners should also be higher than that of ordinary workers. In short, the distribution of realized value can only be based on realized value, not on the value of commodity enterprises; It should follow the principle of equal pay for equal work. Since all inputs can be regarded as the sum of living labor and materialized labor inputs, the gains from capital are equal, and the profits are equal, so the gains from labor are equal to other rewards. Equal pay for equal work has become the fairest principle in distribution. Of course, the distribution in reality is complicated, but a reasonable distribution system should embody the principle of equal pay for equal work. In this regard, the state should increase its intervention. Of course, one of the above problems is labor measurement. For the input of living labor, its value is the sum of various inputs in the early stage of living labor itself, such as the input of education, which is equivalent to the input of human capital. For the living labor with more human capital investment, its value is also high, so its living labor investment is also a complex labor investment, and it should be paid according to its human capital investment in distribution. On the contrary, on the contrary. For materialized labor, its value is also reflected in the purchase price of the market, which has included the sum of various inputs in the early stage; Therefore, the distribution of materialized labor can only be based on the purchase price. Due to the complexity of the real economy, the actual distribution does not well correspond to its value. V. Suggestions In order to reasonably embody the principle of labor value, the state and the government should do the following work well: 1. Pay attention to the fairness of reform. Reform is essentially a readjustment of the interest pattern, which will make different people occupy different amounts of labor, and the reinvestment of different amounts of labor will have different values; Therefore, the first element of successful reform should embody the principle of fairness. Here also embodies the meaning of initial fairness. 2. Pay attention to the construction of rationality of economic rules. Reasonable economic operation rules should embody the principles of efficiency and equal pay for equal work. Therefore, unreasonable rules and regulations should be reformed. In the construction of rules, we should embody the principles of openness, fairness and justice. The rationality of the rules here embodies the meaning of process fairness. 3. Pay attention to the construction of distribution system. The state should increase its intervention in the field of distribution, so that the principle of distribution can reflect the equal amount of labor and get the same remuneration as much as possible. The construction of distribution system here embodies the meaning of fair results. 4. Pay attention to the reform of property rights system. The construction of property right system has an important influence on labor creation value and value distribution. In the construction of property right system, two principles should be embodied: initial fairness and fairness and efficiency in operation. 5. Pay attention to the stable construction of social and economic environment. A stable social and economic environment is the premise of forming good economic expectations, and it is also the guarantee condition for the production and smooth realization of labor value. 6. Improve the market structure. Monopoly should be eliminated as much as possible, because monopoly itself will lead to unreasonable distribution. 7. Pay attention to spiritual construction. Some people write articles saying that technology is more important than system, while others say that system is more important than technology. In fact, comparing the two, system should be more important than technology, because a good system is the premise of producing good technology and the guarantee for technology to play its role. However, there is a more important aspect behind the system, and that is the spirit. The same system will lead to different economic results under different mental states. The same spirit will lead to different results under different institutional conditions. The key is to adapt the system and spirit. At present, in China, on the one hand, some western systems are introduced, but on the other hand, they lack the spirit to adapt to them, which leads to the inefficiency, inefficiency and even negative efficiency of the system, which makes the process of labor creating value and value distribution further away from rationalization. 8. Try to separate politics from economy. Politics has the law of political operation and economy has the law of economic operation. The relationship between politics and economy should be that politics should ensure that the economy can operate in accordance with economic laws, not against them. Only when the economy can operate reasonably according to its own laws can we ensure the effective realization of the rationality of labor creation value and distribution process. Note: ① Complete Works of Marx and Engels, Volume 23, page 47. ② The Complete Works of Marx and Engels Volume 23 Page 50 ③ The Complete Works of Marx and Engels Volume 23 Page 50 -5 1. Mailing address: Department of Economic Teaching and Research, Party School of Gansu Provincial Party Committee, China 730070.

Re-understanding of labor theory of value

Is it a major breakthrough in the study of labor theory of value? Or is it a major misunderstanding?

Advanced social productive forces and scientific labor theory of value

Shu Wei: Deepening the understanding of labor and labor value theory in socialist society 7 pages.

Labor Theory of Value: Dilemma and Outlet

Reflection on Labor Theory of Value —— Also on Utility Theory of Value and Equilibrium Price Theory

Smith never had a labor theory of value!

Necessary Labor Theory of Value —— The Essence of Marx's Labor Theory of Value

Marx's axiology-the chaotic body of labor axiology and factor axiology

Debate on labor theory of value

My opinion on labor theory of value

Understanding socialist labor value theory from capital gene