不能把马克思、恩格斯局限于“劳动价值论”一元论——从方法论角度再论马克思、恩格斯价值理论本相及其它

The Labor Theory of Value of Marx and Engles Shouldn't Be Limited to Monism: A Re-discussion of the Nature of Value Theory and other Issues of Marx and Engles from the Angle of Methodology

马克思、恩格斯共识于“价值是对效用和劳动花费的衡量”,因为亡与生产力与生产关系矛盾统一的唯物史观原理相适应:“价值”与“生产力” 同义。但是,这种价值理论在《资本论》各卷中的展述却是按照“从抽象上升到具体”的方法,从抽象的“劳动价值论” 出发,一步一步上升为“具体” 的。细读之,可以发现,每向“具体”前进一步,都靠使劳动价值论与某种突现使用价值决定性的理论相结合而完成,其理论实质是使劳动价值论被纳入唯物史观框架。显然,马克思、思格斯的价值理论不限于劳动价值论,它是由抽象劳动价值论上升为具体的宏观“效用/劳动价值论” 的理论体系。西方学者关于第一第三卷彼此矛盾的说法,以及一些马克思主,义者针锋相对的反击,虽各有些合理之处,但也均陷入了对马克思、恩格斯劳动价值论的绝对化和形式主义误解。

The paper says that Value Theory of Marx and Engles shouldn't be limited to Labor Theory of Value Theory upgraded from abstract theory of value to the concrete theoretic system of Macro Effectiveness and Labor Theory of Value. Explanations by western scholars about the first and third volume of On Capital and the related counterattacks by Marxists had misunderstandings of the labor theory of value, while some reasonable understandings existed.