劳动价值论一元论":考茨基"反修"的酸果——对马克思主义价值理论演变史的非主流性考察

A Research of the History of Marx and Engels' Labor Theory of Value

马恩价值理论并非劳动价值论一元论,而是宏观的"效用/劳动价值论";劳动价值论只是其向"具体"上升中的抽象出发点。文章由此出发,论述了考茨基《卡尔·马克思的经济学说》一书是在《资本论》第三卷未公开发表的条件下撰成的,存在对《资本论》第三卷的悖离和对第一卷的形式主义或绝对化理解。后来,伯恩斯坦依据《资本论》第二、三卷,畅言劳动价值论与当时已兴起的效用价值论的互补,是比较符合马恩价值理论本相的,而考茨基等人以"反修"为名,用"劳动价值论一元论"批判伯氏,虽在政治上有一定合理性,但在理论上却是僵守误解、曲解马恩。这种"一元论"后来因"反修"而"正宗"化于列宁、独尊于前苏联,至今残喘于中国,乃是"阶级斗争为纲"在价值理论中的遗存物。

Marx and Engels' theory of value isn't 'monism on the labor theory of value', but a macro 'utility/labor theory of value'. The labor theory of value is only the beginning of advancing from abstraction to concrection. This paper points out that Kautsky's 'economical theory of Marx' had written before volume three of 'Capital' published, and it has some absolute or formal understandings about volume one 'Capital'. Afterward, some people such as Bernstein, according to volume two and three of 'Capital', suggest interconnection between labor theory of value and utility theory of value happened that time, which is in accordance with the truth of the labor theory of value. Some people like Kautsky criticized Bernstein's points by 'Monism on the labor theory of value under the banner of 'Against Revisionism'. They were wrong in understanding Marx-Engels' theory, though reasonable in politics. The 'Monism' became main legacy theory in Lenin, authority in USSR, vestige in China, is left behind by deceased 'Platform of Class Struggle' in theory of value.