The Concepts of "Labor" and "Value" in Marx's Labor Theory of Value

The concepts of "labor" and "value" in Marx's labor theory of value each have strict limits of applicability. In exploring the scientific content of the labor theory of value, one must neither abuse the concept of "labor" nor abuse the concept of "value."

马克思劳动价值论中的“劳动”概念和“价值”概念均有严格的适用范围，探讨劳动价值论的科学内涵，不能滥用“劳动”概念，也不能滥用“价值”概念。

Marx's view of labor

马克思的劳动观

In Marx's theoretical writings, the concept of "labor" has at least three determinations. First, in the sense of "life activity," labor is defined as humanity's "free, conscious activity." Second, in the sense of "sensuous activity," labor is extended into a social-historical concept, confirming its social-historical character and establishing the basic standpoint and principle of historical materialism, which proceeds from material production activity to explain human society and its historical development. Third, there is Marx's analysis and definition of the concept of "labor in general," referring to "labor as, first of all, a process between man and nature, a process by which man, through his own activity, mediates, regulates and controls the material exchange between himself and nature." [1]1 Karl Marx, Capital, vol. 1, ch. 7, sec. 1. This is Marx's most rigorous, clearest, and most explicit understanding and definition of material production labor in the political-economic sense.

在马克思的理论著述中，“劳动”概念至少有三重规定。其一，从“生命活动”的意义上把劳动界定为人的“自由的有意识的活动”；其二，从“感性活动”的意义上，把劳动延展为社会历史概念，确认其社会历史性质并奠定从物质生产活动出发来阐释人类社会及其历史发展的历史唯物主义基本立场和原则；其三，是马克思关于“一般劳动”概念的分析和界定，指“劳动首先是人和自然之间的过程，是人以自身的活动来中介、调整和控制人和自然之间的物质变换的过程”。这是马克思从政治经济学意义上对物质生产劳动最为严谨、最为清晰，也最为明确的理解和界定。

We may divide the labor theory of value into a broad and a narrow level. The broad labor theory of value refers to "labor" in the sense of humanity's essential existence and social-historical character; correspondingly, the concept of "value" refers to the value that embodies the ultimate meaning of human existence (such as human freedom and emancipation). The narrow labor theory of value refers specifically to material production labor in the political-economic sense, because only this kind of labor can alter the original form of existence of the labor object, complete the material exchange with nature, and create material wealth that satisfies people's various needs. "Value" in this sense refers to the exchange value that labor products possess as "commodities." Through his analysis of the twofold character of the commodity, Marx derived the twofold character of labor, dividing labor into concrete labor and abstract labor — the former creating the use value of the commodity, the latter being undifferentiated general human labor abstracted from all concrete forms and contents of labor — thereby resolving the problem of how market exchange, setting aside incomparable use values, can compare abstract value in purely quantitative terms. Value, as the "mere congelation of undifferentiated human labor," [2]2 Karl Marx, Capital, vol. 1, ch. 1, sec. 1. is essentially a social entity abstracted from commodity exchange and created by abstract labor; it embodies the social relations that are reified in commodity exchange. In this sense, any labor whose product cannot be or need not be measured by "general human labor" or "undifferentiated socially necessary labor" falls outside the scope considered by the labor theory of value. In capitalist commodity economy, labor in the labor theory of value is not only the sole source of value but also the sole source of surplus value. Marx emphasized that "productive labor under the capitalist system" is labor that produces surplus value for capital.

我们可以把劳动价值论分为广义和狭义两个层次。广义的劳动价值论指人的本质性存在和社会历史性质的“劳动”，相应地，“价值”概念是指体现人存在的终极意义的价值（如人的自由解放）；而狭义的劳动价值论就是专指政治经济学意义上的物质生产劳动，因为只有这种劳动能够改变劳动对象的原有存在形态，完成与自然界的物质变换，创造出满足人们各种需要的物质财富。这个意义上的“价值”则是指劳动产品作为“商品”所具有的交换价值。马克思通过对商品二重性的分析推导出劳动二重性，即把劳动划分为具体劳动和抽象劳动，前者创造商品的使用价值，后者则是撇开劳动的一切具体形式和具体内容而抽象出来的无差别的一般人类劳动，从而解决了市场交易如何避开不可比较的使用价值而能够在单纯的量上进行比较抽象价值的问题。价值作为“无差别的人类劳动的单纯凝结”，本质上是从商品交换中抽象出来的由抽象劳动创造的社会实体，它体现的是在商品交换中被物化的社会关系。在这个意义上，凡是产品不能用或没必要用“一般人类劳动”或“无差别的社会必要劳动”来衡量的劳动，都不属于劳动价值论所考虑的范围。在资本主义商品经济中，劳动价值论中的劳动不仅是价值的唯一源泉，也是剩余价值的唯一源泉。马克思强调，“资本主义制度下的生产劳动”就是为资本生产剩余价值的劳动。

"Living labor" in the labor theory of value

劳动价值论中的“活劳动”

"Living labor" is the core concept of Marx's labor theory of value. In the production process it bears the dual function of preserving value and creating value. Therefore, Marx pointed out that under the premise of capitalist wage labor, only "living labor" is the sole source of surplus value.

“活劳动”是马克思劳动价值论的核心概念，它在生产过程中承担着保存价值和创造价值的双重职能。因此，马克思指出，在资本主义雇佣劳动前提下，只有“活劳动”才是剩余价值的唯一源泉。

Labor itself is a unity of physical and mental power. In previous non-intelligent production processes, only the labor of direct production workers was "living labor" in the true sense, because "the individual cannot act upon nature without calling upon his own muscles, under the control of his own brain. Just as in the natural organism head and hand belong together, so the labor process unites manual labor and mental labor." [3]3 Karl Marx, Capital, vol. 1, ch. 7, sec. 1. That is to say, the "living" in "living labor" lies not only in the worker's investment of physical strength in labor, but also in the worker's investment of intellectual capacity in labor. However, Marx did not simply equate "living labor" with production workers, but cautiously called production workers the "bearers" of "living labor," saying that "living labor is nothing but a means to enable objectified dead labor to increase its value, to endow dead labor with a living soul," [4]4 Karl Marx, "Results of the Immediate Process of Production," in Capital, vol. 1, appendix. which leaves room for further expansion of the understanding of living labor.

劳动本身就是体力和智力的统一。在以往的非智能化生产过程中，只有直接的、生产工人的劳动才是真正意义上的“活劳动”，因为“单个人如果不在自己的头脑的支配下使自己的肌肉活动起来，就不能对自然发生作用。正如在自然机体中头和手组成一体一样，劳动过程把体力劳动和脑力劳动结合在一起了”，这就是说，“活劳动”的“活”不仅在于劳动者不仅在劳动中投入自己的体力，更在于劳动者在劳动中投入自己的智力。然而，马克思并没有把“活劳动”与生产工人直接等同起来，而是谨慎地把生产工人称为“活劳动”的“承担者”，并说“活劳动只不过是这样一种手段，它使对象化的死的劳动增殖价值，赋予死劳动以活的灵魂”，这就为进一步扩展对活劳动的理解留下了空间。

Since the 21st century, the development of artificial intelligence has made the expansion of the understanding of "living labor" not only possible but necessary. The fundamental difference between artificial intelligence and traditional mechanized and automated machinery lies in its possession of intellectual capacity, enabling it to invest the intellectual factors required by labor tasks into the labor process. If the essential characteristic of labor power is "the aggregate of those mental and physical capabilities existing in a human being, which he exercises whenever he produces a use-value of any description," [5]5 Karl Marx, Capital, vol. 1, ch. 4, sec. 3. then artificial intelligence, in the production process, already possesses a relatively complete capacity to assume the role of direct producer, and thus becomes a "bearer" of "living labor" in the direct production process.

21 世纪以来，人工智能的发展不仅使扩展对“活劳动”的理解成为可能，也成为必须。人工智能与以往传统的机械化自动化机器的根本不同在于具备智力能力，可以把劳动任务所需的智力因素投入到劳动过程中。如果说劳动力的本质特征就是“生产某种使用价值时就运用的体力和智力的总和”，那么人工智能在生产过程中已经具备了比较完整的承担直接生产者的能力，从而成为直接生产过程中“活劳动”的“承担者”。

Artificial intelligence and the bearers of "living labor"

人工智能与“活劳动”的承担者

Some scholars who advocate a theory of knowledge value hold that intellectual labor or knowledge labor is also a form of labor, and can also be divided into concrete and abstract labor; hence the knowledge products created by knowledge labor also possess all the characteristics of commodities. From this they conclude that the abstract labor expended in producing intangible commodities in the non-material production sphere also creates value. This view clearly overlooks a problem: the reason labor in the labor theory of value refers only to material production labor is precisely that only material labor is labor that conducts material exchange between humanity and nature, and only the products of material labor can have their value determined in market exchange by undifferentiated socially necessary labor time. But the products of knowledge labor are purely immaterial products in the form of pure knowledge, and their magnitude of value cannot be measured by socially necessary labor time. Some knowledge products may be the crystallization of decades or even centuries of knowledge labor, while others may be produced in a single contingent moment. Viewed in isolation, the magnitude of value of such purely intellectual labor products cannot be measured by labor time at all. Only when the products of knowledge labor or intellectual labor are invested into the direct material production process, becoming an organ of "total labor," can the value they create be manifested through the material products of common labor. Although the development of science and technology has promoted the separation of mental labor from manual labor, material products remain the products of their common labor; separated from the common labor that unites mental and manual power, purely mental labor has no independent significance of existence.

某些主张知识价值论的学者认为，智力劳动或知识劳动也是一种劳动，也可以有具体劳动和抽象劳动之分，因而知识劳动创造出来的知识产品也具有商品的一切特点。由此认为，非物质生产领域中生产无形商品所耗费的抽象劳动也创造价值。这种观点明显忽视了一个问题，即劳动价值论中的劳动之所以仅仅指物质生产劳动，就在于唯有物质劳动才是人类与自然界进行物质变换的劳动，也只有物质劳动产品能够在市场交换中用无差别的社会必要劳动时间来确定其价值。而知识劳动的产品就是纯粹知识形态的非物质产品，其价值量是不能用社会必要劳动时间来衡量的。有的知识性产品可能是数十年甚至数百年知识劳动的结晶，有的则可能是在一个偶然的瞬间就产生出来的。孤立地看待这种纯粹的智力劳动产品，其价值量根本无法用劳动时间来衡量。只有把知识劳动或智力劳动的产品投入到直接的物质生产过程中，使其成为“总体劳动”的一个器官，通过共同劳动的物质产品才能把它所创造的价值体现出来。尽管科学技术的发展促使脑力劳动与体力劳动相互分离，但物质产品依然是他们共同劳动的产品，离开了脑力和体力相统一的共同劳动，单纯的脑力劳动就没有独立存在的意义。

Other scholars hold that artificial intelligence is objectified knowledge power, a labor product, an instrument of labor, fixed capital, and therefore artificial intelligence cannot replace the subject position of human labor and does not possess labor subjectivity. This view overlooks a more fundamental problem: under capitalist wage labor, the direct production process does not manifest the autonomy of production workers. The reason Marx called labor under capitalist wage labor "alienated labor" is precisely that this kind of labor fundamentally negates the autonomous position of the worker. Under the wage labor system, there is simply no need for the "bearer" of "living labor" to possess full autonomy.

还有学者认为人工智能就是对象化的知识力量，是一种劳动产品、劳动资料、固定资本，因而人工智能无法取代人的劳动主体地位，不具有劳动主体性。这种观点忽视了一个更为根本的问题，即在资本主义雇佣劳动之下，直接的生产过程并不体现生产工人的自主性，马克思之所以把资本主义雇佣劳动之下的劳动称为“异化劳动”，就是因为这种劳动从根本上否定了工人的自主地位。在雇佣劳动制下，根本不需要“活劳动”的承担者具备完全自主性。

Some scholars are unwilling to acknowledge that artificial intelligence can serve as a "bearer" of "living labor" and create value in the direct production process. Faced with the fact and trend of direct production workers being displaced, and in order to solve the problem of the source of value, they have proposed a plausible-sounding but fallacious conception: in the age of high intelligence, value and surplus value do not come directly from the direct production process of the "unmanned factory," but rather from a kind of "scientific value reservoir," which contains the surplus value created by scientific personnel engaged in fundamental theoretical research, while the "unmanned factory" is the "incubator" of the potential value of the scientific value reservoir. This formulation in effect directly negates the proposition that "living labor is the sole source of value," making the question of the source of value or surplus value even more obscure.

有些学者不愿意承认人工智能可以作为“活劳动”的承担者在直接生产过程中创造价值。面对直接生产工人被淘汰的事实和趋势，为解决价值来源问题，他们提出了一个似是而非的构想，即在高度智能化的时代，价值和剩余价值不是直接来自“无人工厂”的直接生产过程，而是来自一种“科学价值库”，这种“科学价值库”蕴藏着从事基础性理论研究的科学人员所创造的剩余价值，而“无人工厂”则是科学价值库潜在价值的“孵化器”。这种说法实际上是直接否定了“活劳动是价值的唯一源泉”这一命题，把价值或剩余价值的来源问题变得更加模糊不清。

Since the division between physical and mental labor emerged, scientific theoretical research has consciously or unconsciously become an important domain of mental labor. Some intellectuals devote themselves to the exploration of nature and the pursuit of civilization, thereby continuously supplying society with public knowledge. But truly applying this knowledge to material production requires another segment of intellectuals in the mental labor sphere—namely, those directly connected with material production—to be able to apply existing scientific theory to industrial technological development, designing and manufacturing new machines, new processes, and corresponding new facilities. The intellectual achievements they provide are no longer public social knowledge, but knowledge that genuinely contains value or surplus value; these will combine with physical labor to constitute the joint labor that creates value or surplus value, and their value must likewise be measured by the socially necessary labor time of direct production.

自从有了体力劳动和脑力劳动的分工，科学理论研究就自觉不自觉地成为脑力劳动的一个重要领域。一些知识分子热心于对自然的探索和对文明的追求，从而不断地为社会提供公共知识。但真正把这些知识应用到物质生产中，则需要脑力劳动领域中的另一部分知识分子，即直接与物质生产相联系的这部分知识分子，能够把已有的科学理论应用于产业技术开发，设计制造新机器、新工艺和相应的新设施等。经由他们提供的智力成果就不再是公共性的社会知识，而是真正蕴含价值或剩余价值的知识，它们将同体力劳动结合在一起，构成创造价值或剩余价值的共同劳动，其价值也必然要用直接生产的社会必要劳动时间来衡量。

From the above analysis it can be seen that the concepts of “labor” and “value” in Marx’s labor theory of value constitute the applicable boundary of that theory. This means that with the development of science and technology, especially artificial intelligence, the labor theory of value is rapidly approaching its own applicable boundary. For when intelligent machines universally become the bearers of “living labor,” that implies that “living labor” produces profit for capital but no longer creates surplus value for capital, and capital’s exploitation of directly productive workers has disappeared along with the gradual disappearance of human “living labor.” Of course, this does not mean that capital’s exploitation has disappeared with it. Under the premise of the capitalist system, capital’s exploitation increasingly spreads across the whole of society, and the objects of exploitation are not only organized, concentrated directly productive workers, but the dispersed masses of society at large.

从上述分析中可以看出，马克思劳动价值论中的“劳动”概念和“价值”概念构成了劳动价值论的适用边界。这意味着，随着科学技术，特别是人工智能的发展，劳动价值论已经迅速地接近自己的适用边界。因为，当智能机器普遍地成为“活劳动”的承担者，那就意味着“活劳动”只为资本生产利润而不为资本创造剩余价值，资本对直接生产工人的剥削已经随着人类“活劳动”的逐步消失而消失。当然，这并不是说资本的剥削也随之消失。在资本主义制度前提下，资本的剥削越来越多地向整个社会泛化，剥削的对象也不仅是有组织的、集中的直接生产工人，而是分散的社会大众。

(The author is a professor in the Department of Philosophy at Nankai University)

（作者系南开大学哲学系教授）