Distinguishing Abstract Labour and the Concept of Labour

Labour is the basic concept in the study of *Capital* and the foundation on which the labour theory of value of Marxist political economy was established. Marx once pointed out: labour is the sun around which society revolves, and he believed that “for socialist man, the whole of what is called world history is nothing but the creation of man by human labour.” [1]1 Marx, “Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844,” in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 3 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 305. Engels also said that Marxism “found the key to the understanding of all social history in the history of labour.” [2]2 Engels, “Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy,” in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 26 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1990), p. 387. Therefore, the study and understanding of the concept of labour have very important academic significance. At present, in the study of Marxist theory, it is necessary to emphasise that abstract labour is a concept equivalent to labour, and that the concept of abstract labour must not be interpreted or understood differently from the concept of labour.

劳动是《资本论》研究的基本概念，是马克思主义政治经济学劳动价值论创立的基点。马克思曾经指出：劳动是社会围绕其旋转的太阳，并且认为：“对社会主义的人来说，整个所谓世界历史不外是人通过人的劳动而诞生的过程。”恩格斯也曾说过马克思主义是“在劳动发展史中找到了理解全部社会史的锁钥”。因此，对于劳动概念的研究和认识，具有十分重要的学术意义。现在，在马克思主义理论研究中，需要强调的是，抽象劳动是与劳动等同的概念，不可对抽象劳动概念作出与劳动概念不同的解释和认识。

Logically, labour is a genus concept, and labour does not only refer to human labour. As a genus concept, labour includes animal labour and human labour, and human labour originated or evolved from animal labour; before human labour emerged, there was only animal labour on earth. However, as a term in everyday language in modern society and as a basic category in philosophical and social science research, when labour is mentioned today, without causing ambiguity, it refers only to human labour, usually excluding animal labour. That is, without a strict analysis of the genus concept, human labour and labour are synonymous; speaking of labour means speaking of human labour, and speaking of human labour means speaking of labour. Moreover, as a genus concept, the concept of labour is itself an abstract generalisation of the various productive or service activities in which human beings engage. Therefore, the concept of labour is itself an abstract concept; wherever it appears, whether in economic research or philosophical research, when labour is mentioned, it refers to abstract labour. This is the logic of “a white horse is not a horse.” [3]3 A classical Chinese logical paradox from the School of Names (c. 4th century BCE), attributed to Gongsun Long, arguing that the concept “white horse” is not identical to the broader genus concept “horse.” The concept of a white horse is not equivalent to the genus abstraction of the concept of horse; just as “horse” is an abstract generalisation of horses of all colours, labour is an abstract generalisation of all human economic activities. A white horse is only one specific horse among all horses; similarly, a specific concrete labour is only one specific instance of the abstractly generalised human labour. Therefore, under normal circumstances, just as the concept of labour can refer only to human labour without referring to animal labour, the concept of labour is the concept of abstract labour, and there is basically no need to emphasise specifically that it is the concept of abstract labour. In *Capital*, Marx also often uses the concept of labour to denote the concept of abstract labour. When discussing the twofold character of the commodity, Marx points out: “So far as use-value is concerned, what matters is the quality of the labour contained in the commodity; so far as value is concerned, what matters is the quantity of the labour contained in the commodity, but this labour has been reduced to human labour without any distinction of quality.” [4]4 Marx, *Capital*, vol. 1, trans. Ben Fowkes (London: Penguin, 1990), p. 131. And most clearly and definitively, in his explanation of the twofold character of labour, Marx states: “All labour is, on the one hand, the expenditure of human labour-power in the physiological sense; as identical or abstract human labour, it forms the value of commodities. All labour is, on the other hand, the expenditure of human labour-power in a particular, purposive form; as concrete useful labour, it produces use-values.” [5]5 Marx, *Capital*, vol. 1, p. 137. That is, Marx holds that abstract labour forms value, while concrete labour produces use-value. Yet everyone knows that Marx’s theory of value is consequently called the labour theory of value, and it has never been specifically emphasised as the abstract labour theory of value. Therefore, solely in terms of studying *Capital*, labour refers to human labour, the concept of human labour is equivalent to the concept of labour, and the concept of labour is equivalent to the concept of abstract labour. That is, human labour is the expression of abstract labour, the abstract generalisation of all specific concrete labours. The origin of human beings and human society is determined by the origin of human labour. Generalising the development of labour in various periods from the origin of human beings to the present as the development of human labour is an abstract understanding of the development of labour, a generalisation of the development of abstract labour. Understanding abstract labour in this way, that is, understanding human labour, is necessary for studying the history of human beings and human society from their origin to the present. In short, the concept of labour is an abstraction of concrete labour; that is, the concept of abstract labour and the concept of labour have identity. Labour exists in all historical periods of human society; that is, the concept of abstract labour can be used to express labour in all historical periods of human society. The concept of abstract labour, like the concept of labour, runs through the entire historical period of human society; abstract labour is not a concept unique to a particular stage of social development.

从逻辑上讲，劳动是一个类概念，而且劳动并不只表示人类劳动。作为类概念，劳动包括动物劳动和人类劳动，而且人类劳动就是从动物劳动起源或者说演化过来的，在没有产生人类劳动之前，地球上只有动物劳动。只不过，作为现代社会人们的日常用语，作为哲学和社会科学研究的基本范畴，现在讲到劳动，在不产生歧义的情况下，就是只指人类劳动，通常是排除了动物劳动的，即在对类概念不作严格辨析的前提下人类劳动与劳动是同义的，讲劳动就是讲人类劳动，讲人类劳动就是讲劳动。而且，作为类概念，劳动这一概念就是对于人类从事的各种各样的生产或服务活动的抽象概括。所以，劳动概念本身就是抽象概念，不论在哪里，不论是经济学研究，还是哲学研究，讲到劳动都是指抽象劳动。这就是“白马非马”的道理，白马概念不等同于作为类抽象的马概念，即像马是对所有的各种颜色的马的抽象概括一样，劳动是对所有的人类经济活动的抽象概括，一匹白马只是所有马中具体的一匹马，同样，某一具体劳动只是抽象概括的人类劳动中的某一具体存在。所以，在一般情况下，如同劳动概念可以不表示动物劳动只表示人类劳动一样，劳动概念就是抽象劳动概念，基本上可以不用特别强调是抽象劳动概念。在《资本论》中，马克思也是常常用劳动概念表示抽象劳动概念的。在讲到商品的二重性时，马克思指出：“就使用价值说，有意义的只是商品中包含的劳动的质，就价值量说，有意义的只是商品中包含的劳动的量，不过这种劳动已经化为没有质的区别的人类劳动。”而且，最为明显确定的是，马克思对于劳动二重性的解释，他指出：“一切劳动，从一方面看，是人类劳动力在生理学意义上的耗费；作为相同的或抽象的人类劳动，它形成商品价值。一切劳动，从另一方面看，是人类劳动力在特殊的有一定目的的形式上的耗费；作为具体的有用劳动，它生产使用价值。”即马克思认为是抽象劳动形成价值，具体劳动生产使用价值。但人人都知道，由此马克思的价值理论被称为劳动价值论，而从来没有特别强调说是抽象劳动价值论。所以，仅就研究《资本论》来说，劳动就是指人类劳动，人类劳动概念等同于劳动概念，劳动概念等同于抽象劳动概念，即人类劳动就是抽象劳动的表示，就是对所有的特定的具体劳动的抽象概括。人类和人类社会起源，是由人类劳动的起源决定的。将人类起源后发展至今各个时期的劳动发展概括为人类劳动的发展，就是抽象地对于劳动发展的认识，就是对抽象劳动发展的概括。这样认识抽象劳动即认识人类劳动是研究人类和人类社会自起源发展至今历史的需要。总之，劳动概念是对具体劳动的抽象，即抽象劳动概念与劳动概念是具有同一性的，劳动存在于人类社会各个历史时期，即抽象劳动概念可用于表述人类社会各个历史时期的劳动，抽象劳动概念同劳动概念一样贯穿于人类社会的全部历史时期，抽象劳动并不是某个社会发展时期特有的概念。

To further understand the equivalence of the concept of abstract labour and the concept of labour, it must be made clear that abstract labour cannot be equated with simple labour, and it must be recognised that the development of human labour is increasingly complex. That is to say, abstract labour cannot be regarded as simple operations devoid of any technicality, independence, or individuality, as simple labour that any ordinary person can perform. In fact, in every historical period of human society, labour has been distinguished between complex labour and simple labour; social development is determined by the continuous increase in the complexity of complex labour. Abstract labour is an expression of undifferentiated human labour, encompassing both the generalisation of complex labour and the generalisation of simple labour; it does not represent only the abstraction of simple labour. Therefore, the assertion that abstract labour is simple labour is an unfounded arbitrary judgment, completely inconsistent with the most basic facts of social life. The reduction of complex labour to simple labour is a complex issue in political economy research; it does not mean that complex labour and simple labour cannot be commensurable in the sense of market exchange, nor does it mean that only simple labour can be commensurable, calculable, and transferable as abstract labour in terms of physiological expenditure. If it were said that in modern society people can only live within the economic security of exchanging abstract labour expressed in the form of simple labour, how absurd that would be. It can be said that to be unaware that the development of modern society is determined by the increasing complexity of modern human labour, and that modern human labour has already become highly complex, is to completely ignore the reality of the development of human labour. In the 19th century, when *Capital* was published, humanity still lived within the limited space of a closed earth; the breaking of the closed nature of the earth’s limited living space occurred after the new technological revolution in the mid-20th century. Today, human beings, whose labour can reach into cosmic space, already enjoy various high-tech modern lifestyles unimaginable in the 19th century. This is the result of the increasing complexity of real social labour. Therefore, proceeding from the facts, one must never regard abstract labour as simple labour, and one must never regard the development of human labour as becoming increasingly simplified.

进一步认识抽象劳动概念与劳动概念的等同性，必须明确不能将抽象劳动等同于简单劳动，必须认识到人类劳动的发展是越来越复杂化的。这就是说，不能认为抽象劳动是没有任何工艺性、独立性和个性的简单操作，是任何平常人都可以胜任的简单劳动。事实上，劳动在人类社会的各个历史时期都有复杂劳动与简单劳动的区分，社会的发展就是由复杂劳动的复杂化程度不断提高决定的，抽象劳动是对无差别的人类劳动的表示，既包括对于复杂劳动的概括，也包括对于简单劳动的概括，并不只表示对简单劳动的抽象。所以，出现对于抽象劳动就是简单劳动的认定属于毫无根据的妄下断语，完全不符合最基本的社会生活事实。由复杂劳动向简单劳动还原是一个政治经济学研究的复杂问题，并非复杂劳动与简单劳动之间不可进行市场交换意义上的通约，并不意味着只有简单劳动才能够作为抽象劳动在生理耗费上可以通约、计算和让渡。如果说在现代社会，人们只能生活在以简单劳动为表现形式的抽象劳动相互交换的经济保障之中，那是何其荒谬。可以说，如果不知道现代社会的发展是由现代人类劳动的复杂化推进决定的，现代人类劳动已经高度复杂化了，就是完全无视人类劳动发展的现实。19世纪，即在《资本论》问世的时候，人类还生活在封闭的地球有限空间中，打破地球有限生存空间的封闭性是在20世纪中期新技术革命之后，今天劳动触角能够通达宇宙空间的人类已经可以享受到19世纪无法想象的各种高科技现代生活，这就是人类现实的社会劳动复杂化的结果。所以，从事实出发，决不能认为抽象劳动就是简单劳动，决不能认为人类劳动的发展越来越简单化了。

To further establish the equivalence between the concept of labour and the concept of abstract labour expressed as forming the value of commodities, it is also necessary to correctly understand the history of the emergence and development of the commodity economy. One cannot hold that only capitalist society possesses a commodity economy in which value is formed by abstract labour, nor can one hold that abstract labour is a concept unique to advanced capitalist society. Historical research, especially research in economic history, shows that human society has experienced only three socio-economic forms: the first socio-economic form is the natural economy, which ended in the late primitive society; the second socio-economic form is the commodity economy, which emerged in the late primitive society and has continued to develop up to the present day; the third socio-economic form is the market economy, which emerged in the early period of capitalist society, or rather, the market economy emerged together with the capitalist mode of production. Thus, the market economy is a new socio-economic form that arose after the commodity economy became developed, and by now it too has become highly developed. Therefore, the commodity economy is a long-standing socio-economic form; even before the emergence of money, there existed a commodity economy based on barter, and the history of money has always accompanied the history of the development of the commodity economy. It can be stated with certainty that without the development of the commodity economy, there would be no emergence of the market economy, and no emergence of capitalist society. The capitalist market economy was formed on the basis of a commodity economy that had developed over approximately 3,000 years in slave society (including the buying and selling of slaves) and then continued for about 2,000 years in a relatively developed feudal society. Therefore, before capitalist society, there existed a commodity-economy social formation in which commodity value existed. If one holds that commodity exchange existed only in capitalist society, and that abstract labour forming commodity value emerged only then, this is impossible to sustain either from objective historical facts or from logic. When Marx wrote *Capital*, capitalist society had existed for only a little over 100 years; he was certainly clear that before capitalist society there was a commodity economy. Marx never stated that abstract labour was a concept unique to advanced capitalist society, because he always treated the concept of abstract labour as a concept for analysing undifferentiated homogeneous human labour. His research shows that under the general capitalist mode of production, labour that universally manifests as labour in the service of capital—i.e., abstract labour—does not exist only in the period of advanced capitalism.

更进一步确定劳动概念与表述为形成商品价值的抽象劳动概念的等同，还需要对商品经济的产生与发展历史给予正确认识，不能认为只有到了资本主义社会才有由抽象劳动形成价值的商品经济，不能认为抽象劳动是发达资本主义社会的特有概念。历史的研究尤其是经济史的研究表明，人类社会只经历了三种社会经济形态：第一种社会经济形态是自然经济，结束于原始社会末期；第二种社会经济形态是商品经济，产生于原始社会末期，一直发展延续到当今社会；第三种社会经济形态是市场经济，产生于资本主义社会初期，或者说市场经济是与资本主义生产方式一同产生的，因而市场经济是商品经济发达之后产生的新的社会经济形态，到如今也已经高度发达了。所以，商品经济是由来已久的社会经济形态，甚至货币产生之前就有以物易物的商品经济形成，而货币的历史一直是伴随着商品经济发展的历史，可以肯定地讲，没有商品经济的发达就没有市场经济的产生，就没有资本主义社会的产生。资本主义市场经济是在约3000年包括奴隶买卖的奴隶社会商品经济发展之后，又延续了约2000年的已经相对发达的封建社会商品经济的基础上形成的，因此，在资本主义社会之前就有存在商品价值的商品经济社会形态。如果认为只是到了资本主义社会，才存在商品交换，才产生了形成商品价值的抽象劳动，从客观的历史事实和逻辑上讲，都是不可能成立的。马克思在写作《资本论》时，资本主义社会才产生了100多年，他当然清楚资本主义社会之前就是商品经济。马克思也从来没有讲过抽象劳动是发达资本主义社会特有的概念，因为他始终是将抽象劳动概念作为分析无差别的同质的人类劳动的概念，其研究表明，在一般资本主义生产方式下普遍表现为资本服务的劳动即抽象劳动并非只存在于发达资本主义时期。

In short, abstract labour is labour, and labour is human labour. Since the origin of humanity, the development of labour has continuously propelled human society forward. Abstract labour is neither a concept unique to capitalist society, nor even a concept unique to advanced capitalist society. To study *Capital* and to study Marxist theory requires a spirit of in-depth investigation and pioneering enterprise, and requires a consciousness of development and innovation that keeps pace with the times. But in any case, one must respect the most basic historical facts, and must abide by the most basic logic. One cannot create new understandings through mental fabrications about labour—i.e., abstract labour—that are inconsistent with logic and facts. It can be said that the study of labour is an extremely important field in the study of Marxist theory, and it requires that those who earnestly pursue this field make genuine arduous efforts.

总之，抽象劳动就是劳动，劳动就是人类劳动。自人类起源以来，劳动的发展就一直推动着人类社会不断地向前发展，抽象劳动既不是资本主义社会特有的概念，更不是发达资本主义社会特有的概念。研究《资本论》，研究马克思主义理论，需要具有深入钻研和开拓进取精神，需要具有与时俱进的发展创新意识，但无论如何必须尊重最基本的历史与事实，必须遵守最基本的逻辑，不能以对劳动即抽象劳动不符合逻辑和事实的思维臆想创造新的认识。可以说，对于劳动的研究是马克思主义理论研究极其重要的领域，需要在这一领域孜孜追求的人们切实付出艰辛的努力。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗