转形问题的误读——从鲍特凯维茨、狄金逊到“新解释”

The Misunderstanding of the Transformation Problem:From Boitkiewicz,Dickinson to "New Interpretation"

鲍特凯维茨的价值转化模型是近代转形研究最具开创性的研究成果。但是鲍特凯维茨将再生产平衡问题引入转形问题分析,由于这个无关问题的干扰而使鲍特凯维茨研究传统陷于困局。狄金逊在鲍特凯维茨等人解决转形问题遇到困难时,提出了价值和价格是不同层次的量,不必寻找不变性方程的解法,从而将转形问题的本题——价值转化生产价格问题,误读为商品价值实现为货币价格问题。20世纪80年代,狄金逊的这一错误思想却得到了弗利等经济学家的继承和发展,弗利通过强调劳动时间和货币的关系,提出了劳动时间的货币表示(MELT),并以此作为解决转形问题的"新解释"。无论是狄金逊的价值和价格不同层次量的说法,还是弗利的劳动时间的货币表述的"新解释",都没有深入分析鲍特凯维茨研究传统困局形成的真正原因,因而也就不能找到摆脱转形问题危机的科学路径,事实上使转形问题研究误入了歧途。

The value transformation model of Boitkiewicz is the most pioneering re- search of the modern transformation. But Boitkiewicz introduced reproduction balance problem into the transformation problem, and make the Boitkiewicz study of traditional into dilemma due to the unrelated question interference, resolving the transformation problem when Boitkiewicz encountered difficulties, Dickinson put forward the value and price are different levels of quantity, do not have to look for the solution of equa- tion of invariance, thus transformation problem value transformation of production price, misreading for realization of commodity value for money price problem. In the 1980s, the wrong thought of Dickinson has been inherited and carried forward by the economists such as Foley, who, by emphasizing the between labor time and money, proposed the monetary expression of labor time （MELT）, and as ＂a new interpretation＂ to solve the transformation problem. Whether Dickinson＇s argument of the value and price of different levels of quantity, or Foley＇s ＂new interpretation＂of MELT, are no in-depth analysis the real reason of Boitkiewicz study of traditional predicament formation, and therefore will not be able to find a way out of the problem in the crisis of scientific path, in fact to make the transformation problem research misguided.