Excavating the Critical Dimension of the Labour Theory of Value

The labour question is one of the core issues of Marxist philosophy, and the labour theory of value is the linchpin for understanding Marx’s critique of political economy. In recent years, with new changes in capitalist industrial forms, science and technology, and the labour process, contemporary left-wing scholars have begun to emphasise the critical dimension of the labour theory of value. For a long time, Marxist scholars in China have placed greater emphasis on the constructive dimension of the labour theory of value, while its critical dimension has been insufficiently discussed. We tend to believe that the labour theory of value contains a certain idea of Marx’s “distributive justice,” which holds that labour is the creator of value, that the main defect of capitalism is the unpaid appropriation of the surplus value created by labour, and that the post-capitalist system of distribution should be based on the fair distribution of value. However, the deterioration of the labour situation in contemporary capitalism has led left-wing scholars to realise that, within the capitalist mode of production, not only is the value created by labour unjustly distributed, but “labour manifests itself as value” itself contains a certain degree of labour alienation. As Postone states: “This analysis of Marx’s theory provides the basis for a critique of the specifically capitalist form of production and form of wealth (i.e., value)… What it delineates as the specificity of capitalism is a form of abstract domination, which is related to the nature of labour specific to that society.” [1]1 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Ökonomie* (Berlin: Dietz Verlag, 1953), p. 189. [Translator’s note: The English translation follows the standard MECW edition; the Chinese text cites a different edition.]

劳动问题是马克思主义哲学的核心问题之一，劳动价值论是理解马克思政治经济学批判的枢纽。近年来，随着资本主义产业形态、科学技术与劳动过程的新变化，当代左翼学者开始强调劳动价值论的批判性维度。长期以来，我国马克思主义学者较为重视劳动价值论的建构性维度，对其批判性维度则讨论不足。我们倾向于认为，劳动价值论蕴含着马克思的某种“分配正义”思想，它主张劳动是价值的创造者，资本主义的主要弊端是无偿占有了劳动创造的剩余价值，后资本主义的分配制度应当建立在公平分配价值的基础上。但是，当代资本主义劳动处境的恶化则让左翼学者意识到，在资本主义生产方式中，不仅劳动创造的价值遭到了不公正的分配，而且“劳动表现为价值”本身就包含着一定程度的劳动异化。如普舒同所说：“对马克思理论的这一分析，为批判资本主义特有的生产形式与财富形式（即价值）提供了基础……它所勾勒的资本主义的特质，是一种抽象的统治形式，它与这一社会特有的劳动之本质相关。”

In view of this, re-excavating the critical dimension of the labour theory of value in *Capital* is a contemporary task for Marxist scholars. This task includes the following key points.

有鉴于此，重新发掘《资本论》中劳动价值论的批判性维度，是当代马克思主义学者的一项时代课题。这一课题包含以下几个要点。

The Social Constructedness of Categories

范畴的社会建构性

Historical materialism holds that ideas are historical, and that specific ideas are the historical products of specific social formations. Accordingly, the foundational categories used by historical materialism itself, such as general “labour” and “value,” are themselves historical; only on this principle can historical materialism understand itself historically. To this end, Marx pointed out in the *Grundrisse* (hereinafter referred to as the *Grundrisse*): “Even the most abstract categories… are likewise the product of historical conditions,” and “the most general abstractions arise only in the midst of the richest concrete development.” [2]2 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. I, Afterword to the Second German Edition. [Translator’s note: The Chinese text cites a different edition; the English follows the standard translation.]

历史唯物主义主张观念是历史性的，特定思想观念是特定社会形态的历史性产物。按此，历史唯物主义自身所运用的根基性范畴，如一般的“劳动”“价值”等，本身也是历史性的；只有在此原则下，历史唯物主义才能历史性地理解自身。为此，马克思在《1857—1858年经济学手稿》（以下简称《大纲》）中指出：“哪怕是最抽象的范畴……同样是历史条件的产物”，而“最一般的抽象总是产生在最丰富的具体发展的场合”。

This principle also applies to general categories such as “value” and “labour.” Regarding the category of “value,” Marx pointed out in *Capital*: “Political economy has indeed analysed value and its magnitude… and has uncovered the content concealed within these forms. But it has never once asked the question: why does this content take that form? Why does labour manifest itself as value, and the measure of labour by its duration as the magnitude of the value of the product?” [3]3 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse*, Introduction. [Translator’s note: The Chinese text cites a different edition; the English follows the standard translation.] It can be seen that the main difference between Marx and the national economists is that the national economists uncritically accept the category of “value,” focusing only on the question of the magnitude of value, whereas Marx instead asks “why labour manifests itself as value”—that is, on what socio-historical conditions is “value” possible. Similarly, regarding the general category of “labour,” Marx also pointed out in the Introduction to the *Grundrisse*: “Indifference towards any specific kind of labour presupposes a social form in which individuals can easily transfer from one kind of labour to another… This is most developed in the most modern form of bourgeois society—the United States.” [4]4 Marx, *Grundrisse*, p. 104. In other words, the general category of “labour,” seemingly the most universal and ancient, is in fact a product of modern commodity exchange. From this, we can distinguish two different concepts of “labour”: the first is the concept of labour used in Marx’s early historical materialism, which, as human sensuous objective activity, has a general ontological significance; the second is the concept of labour in *Capital* linked to “value,” possessing a dimension of “abstract labour,” whose object is capitalist wage labour, a historical concept specific to a particular social formation. In summary, the general categories of “value” and “labour” are historical constructions of specific social formations, especially products of the modern commodity economy; therefore, “labour manifests itself as value” itself contains the embryonic forms of various alienating phenomena in modern society.

这一原则同样适用于“价值”“劳动”等一般范畴。关于“价值”范畴，马克思在《资本论》中指出：“政治经济学曾经分析了价值和价值量……揭示了这些形式所掩盖的内容。但它甚至从来也没有提出过这样的问题：为什么这一内容采取这种形式呢？为什么劳动表现为价值，用劳动时间计算的劳动量表现为劳动产品的价值量呢？”可见，马克思与国民经济学家的主要差别就在于，国民经济学家非批判地接受“价值”范畴，只关注价值量问题，但马克思要反过来追问“为什么劳动表现为价值”，即“价值”在何种社会历史性条件的基础上才是可能的。同样地，关于一般的“劳动”范畴，马克思在《大纲》导言中也指出：“对任何种类劳动的同样看待，适合于这样一种社会形式，在这种社会形式中，个人很容易从一种劳动转到另一种劳动……在资产阶级社会的最现代的存在形式——美国，这种情况最为发达。”换言之，一般的“劳动”范畴看似是最为普遍和古老的，实际上却是现代商品交换的产物。由此，我们可以区分两种不同的“劳动”概念：第一种是马克思早期历史唯物主义所使用的劳动概念，它作为人的感性对象性活动，具有一般性的本体论意义；第二种是《资本论》中与“价值”联系在一起的、具有“抽象劳动”维度的劳动概念，其对象是资本主义雇佣劳动，是专属于特定社会形态的历史性概念。综上，一般的“价值”“劳动”范畴是特定社会形态的历史性建构，尤其是现代商品经济的产物，因此，“劳动表现为价值”本身就蕴含着现代社会诸种异化现象的萌芽形式。

The Historicity of the Labour Theory of Value

劳动价值论的历史性

The historicity of the categories “labour” and “value” indicates that the “labour theory of value,” which links the two, is also historical. The labour theory of value is a scientific law that reveals the mode of operation of capitalism, but because its object is historical, this law itself is also historical and will disappear with the demise of the specific social formation. Marx himself had a clear understanding of this.

“劳动”“价值”等范畴的历史性表明，将两者联系在一起的“劳动价值论”也是历史性的。劳动价值论是揭示资本主义运作方式的科学规律，但由于其对象是历史性的，所以这一规律本身也是历史性的，会随着特定社会形态的消亡而消亡。对于这一点，马克思本人有着清晰的认识。

In the *Grundrisse*, Marx pointed out the paradoxical results of the labour theory of value under capitalist relations of production. “The foundation of present-day wealth is the theft of others’ labour time. This appears miserable compared to this newly developed foundation created by large-scale industry itself.” [5]5 Marx, *Grundrisse*, p. 705. Although large-scale machine industry has created enormous productive forces, containing the potential to liberate labour, because capital still uses labour as the sole measure of wealth, workers’ labour has not been lightened but has instead become more onerous. Machinery has not liberated labour but has become a means of exploiting it: “The system of machinery does not arise to compensate for a shortage of labour power, but to compress the existing mass of labour power to the necessary limit.” [6]6 Marx, *Grundrisse*, p. 704. This shows that labour as the sole measure of wealth is a social appearance constructed by capital for its own self-valorisation, and it stands in sharp contradiction to the development of productive forces: “Capital wants to measure the enormous social forces thus created by labour time, and to confine them within the limits necessary to preserve the value already created as value.” [7]7 Marx, *Grundrisse*, p. 706. It can be seen that Marx set the labour theory of value as the guiding principle of the critique of political economy, certainly to reveal the laws of operation of capitalism, but also to place the contradiction between capitalist relations of production and productive forces at the centre of the exposition. The supersession of capitalist relations of production means not only that the labourer appropriates the value they have created, but also the supersession of the value form itself—that is, labour no longer serves as the measure of wealth: “Once direct labour in its immediate form has ceased to be the great source of wealth, labour time ceases, and must cease, to be the measure of wealth.” [8]8 Marx, *Grundrisse*, p. 705.

在《大纲》中，马克思指出了劳动价值论在资本主义生产关系下所造成的悖谬结果。“现今财富的基础是盗窃他人的劳动时间，这同新发展起来的由大工业本身创造的基础相比，显得太可怜了。”尽管大机器工业已经创造了巨大的生产力，蕴含着解放劳动的潜力，但由于资本仍然将劳动当作财富的唯一尺度，所以工人的劳动不仅没有减轻，反而更加繁重了。机器不仅没有解放劳动，反而成为剥削劳动的手段：“机器体系的出现，不是为了弥补劳动力的不足，而是为了把现有的大量劳动力压缩到必要的限度。”这表明，劳动作为财富的唯一尺度，是资本为了自身的增殖而建构的社会表象，它同生产力的发展之间存在着尖锐的矛盾：“资本想用劳动时间去衡量这样造出来的巨大的社会力量，并把这些力量限制在为了把已经创造的价值作为价值来保存所需要的限度之内。”可见，马克思将劳动价值论设定为政治经济学批判的主导性原则，固然是为了揭示资本主义的运作规律，但也是为了将资本主义生产关系与生产力的矛盾置于论述的中心。资本主义生产关系的扬弃，不仅意味着劳动者占有自身创造的价值，更意味着价值形式本身的扬弃，即劳动不再充当财富的尺度：“一旦直接形式的劳动不再是财富的巨大源泉，劳动时间就不再是，而且必然不再是财富的尺度。”

Thus it can be seen that the labour theory of value is fundamentally historical; as a representation of specific relations of production, it ultimately comes into contradiction with the development of productive forces. The demise of the law of value is an inherent part of Marx’s critique of capital.

由此可见，劳动价值论在根本上是历史性的，它作为特定生产关系的表征，最终也要同生产力的发展相矛盾；价值规律的消亡，是马克思资本批判的题中之义。

The Organic Nature of the Object and the Dialectical Nature of the Method

对象的有机性与方法的辩证性

How to understand the theoretical status of the labour theory of value involves grasping the overall narrative method and logical structure of *Capital*. A common interpretation of *Capital* is the “linear logic” type, which tends to understand *Capital* as an “axiomatic system” in the sense of positive science, deducing the complete capitalist economic system from the fundamental principle of the labour theory of value. According to this understanding, the labour theory of value is merely the premise, while other aspects of capitalism (such as surplus value, the labour process, capital accumulation, etc.) are merely conclusions, and the labour theory of value becomes a critical benchmark prior to capitalism. However, this interpretation does not conform to Marx’s original intention. The object of *Capital* is the “organic totality” of capitalist society, and its method is the dialectical method of “ascending from the abstract to the concrete”; neither can be simply summarised by a “linear logic” interpretation.

如何理解劳动价值论的理论地位，涉及如何在整体上把握《资本论》的叙述方法与逻辑结构。常见的《资本论》解读是“线性逻辑”式的，它倾向于将《资本论》理解为一个知性科学意义上的“公理体系”，从劳动价值论这一基本原则出发，推演出完整的资本主义经济系统。按照这种理解，劳动价值论仅仅是前提，而资本主义的其他环节（如剩余价值、劳动过程、资本积累等）则仅仅是结论，劳动价值论成为一种先在于资本主义的批判基准。但是，这种解读并不符合马克思的本意。《资本论》的对象是资本主义社会这一“有机总体”，其方法是“从抽象到具体”的辩证方法，这两者都不可能用“线性逻辑”的解读来简单概括。

First, capitalist society is an “organic totality,” in which every link is both condition and result, and every link is conditioned by the co-presence of all other links. As Marx said: “In the completed bourgeois system, each economic relation presupposes another economic relation in the bourgeois economic form, and thus everything posited is also a presupposition.” [1]1 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Ökonomie* (Berlin: Dietz Verlag, 1953), p. 189. [Translator’s note: The English translation follows the standard MECW edition; the Chinese text cites a different edition.] Accordingly, while the labor theory of value is the principle of explanation for this organic totality, it is also an effect constructed by the continuous reproduction of this totality. The mechanism that makes “labor appear as value” is the concentrated expression of the joint operation of multiple links such as commodity circulation, monetary valorization, and capital accumulation.

首先，资本主义社会是一个“有机总体”，其中每一个环节都既是条件又是结果，每一个环节都以其他一切环节的共在为条件。如马克思所说：“在完成的资产阶级体制中，每一种经济关系都以具有资产阶级经济形式的另一种经济关系为前提，从而每一种设定的东西同时就是前提。”按此，劳动价值论固然是这一有机总体的解释原则，但也是这一总体的不断再生产所建构的效应。使得“劳动表现为价值”的机制，是商品流通、货币增值、资本积累等多个环节共同运作的集中表现。

Second, this organic totality cannot be grasped by a “linear logic” method, because it is impossible to find a presuppositionless “first presupposition.” To grasp this organic totality, one can only use the dialectical method of “rising from the abstract to the concrete.” This method starts from relatively abstract categories and scenarios, deducing contradictions through inference; then, it revises the original abstract assumptions in order to sublate the contradictions, thereby forming an increasingly concrete theoretical structure. Regarding this dialectical method, Marx pointed out: “The method of rising from the abstract to the concrete is merely the way in which thought appropriates the concrete and reproduces it as a mental concrete. But it is by no means the process of the genesis of the concrete itself.” [2]2 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. I, Afterword to the Second German Edition. [Translator’s note: The Chinese text cites a different edition; the English follows the standard translation.] This shows that the inferential process of *Capital* is not the real historical developmental process, but rather Marx’s process of “reproducing” capitalism, this “real concrete,” whose various links are co-present and mutually conditioning within the organic totality of capitalism. Accordingly, *Capital* does not treat the labor theory of value as a pre-existing theoretical principle, but rather includes it as a link within the totality of capitalism. Furthermore, “the subject, i.e., society, must also always be presupposed as floating before the representation.” [3]3 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse*, Introduction. [Translator’s note: The Chinese text cites a different edition; the English follows the standard translation.] That is to say, the concrete capitalist society, this “subject,” is the presupposition for the validity of abstract propositions such as the “labor theory of value”; the process of inferring from the labor theory of value to the totality of capitalism is indeed a process “from presupposition to result,” but it is also a process “from result to presupposition,” revealing the conditions under which the labor theory of value itself becomes valid. Once this dialectical method is correctly understood, the labor theory of value no longer appears as the product of pre-capitalist “simple commodity production,” but rather as an abstract aspect of capitalism itself, which together with other links of capitalism constitutes the object of critical scrutiny in *Capital*.

其次，这种有机总体不能用“线性逻辑”方法来把握，因为无法找到一个无前提的“第一前提”。要把握这一有机总体，只能使用“从抽象到具体”的辩证方法。这种方法从较为抽象的范畴和场景出发，通过推论得出矛盾；然后，修正原先的抽象假设，以便扬弃矛盾，从而形成一个愈发具体的理论结构。关于这种辩证方法，马克思指出：“从抽象上升到具体的方法，只是思维用来掌握具体、把它当作一个精神上的具体再现出来的方式。但决不是具体本身的产生过程。”这说明，《资本论》的推论过程不是真实的历史发展过程，而是马克思“再现”资本主义这一“现实具体”的过程，它的各个环节在资本主义这一有机总体之中是彼此共在、互为条件的。据此，《资本论》并不是将劳动价值论当作先在的理论原则，而是将其作为一个环节包含在资本主义总体之内。进而言之，“主体，即社会，也必须始终作为前提浮现在表象面前”。也就是说，具体的资本主义社会这一“主体”，是“劳动价值论”等抽象命题得以成立的前提；从劳动价值论推论到资本主义总体的过程，固然是“从前提到结果”的过程，但也是“从结果到前提”的过程，其所揭示的是劳动价值论本身得以成立的条件。一旦正确理解了这种辩证方法，那么劳动价值论就不再表现为前资本主义的“简单商品生产”的产物，而是表现为资本主义本身的一个抽象侧面，与资本主义的其他环节共同构成《资本论》批判审视的对象。

The Dialectical Relationship between the Labor Theory of Value and the Theory of Surplus Value

劳动价值论与剩余价值论的辩证关系

The significance of understanding the dialectical method of *Capital* is mainly manifested in the relationship between the labor theory of value and the theory of surplus value. It is commonly believed that the labor theory of value is, in the sense of “linear logic,” the presupposition of the theory of surplus value: according to the labor theory of value, only the special commodity of labor-power can create more value; therefore, capital can only achieve valorization by purchasing labor-power and exploiting its surplus value. However, this interpretation likewise overlooks the dialectical nature of the method of *Capital*.

理解《资本论》辩证方法的重要意义，主要表现在劳动价值论与剩余价值论的关系上。通常认为，劳动价值论在“线性逻辑”的意义上是剩余价值论的前提：依据劳动价值论，只有劳动力这种特殊商品才能创造更多价值；因此，资本只有通过购买劳动力、剥削其剩余价值，才能实现增殖。但是，这种解读同样忽视了《资本论》方法的辩证性质。

As mentioned above, *Capital* starts from abstract categories such as “commodity,” “value,” and “labor,” and grounds these categories on the more concrete totality of capitalist society. First, Marx decomposes the category “commodity” into the two factors of “use-value” and “value,” and through the analysis of the value-form, demonstrates that the universal expression of commodity value cannot be achieved through other value-forms, but only through the money-form of value, i.e., value itself obtains an independent material entity. This shows that the condition for the expression of commodity value is monetary circulation. Second, universal monetary circulation includes two formulas, namely the W-G-W formula seen in the forward direction and the G-W-G formula seen in the reverse direction, of which the second formula requires money to undergo valorization (G-W-G’), i.e., monetary circulation becomes capital circulation. This in turn shows that the condition for universal monetary circulation is capital valorization. Finally, Marx further demonstrates that the condition for capital valorization is surplus value. The above argumentation process presents a logical chain in which value is grounded in money and capital, and then in surplus value, i.e., the relationship in which value and surplus value are closely linked and mutually conditioning within the organic totality of capitalism.

如前所述，《资本论》从“商品”“价值”“劳动”等抽象范畴出发，将这些范畴奠基于更为具体的资本主义社会总体之上。首先，马克思将“商品”范畴分解为“使用价值”“价值”两个因素，又通过价值形式分析，证明了商品价值的普遍表现不能通过其他价值形式，只能通过价值的货币形式，即价值本身获得独立的物质实体。这表明商品价值得以表现的条件是货币流通。其次，普遍的货币流通包含两个公式，即正向看来的W-G-W公式和逆向看来的G-W-G公式，其中第二个公式要求货币发生增殖（G-W-G’），即货币流通成为资本流通。这又表明普遍货币流通的条件是资本增殖。最后，马克思又证明了资本增殖的条件是剩余价值。上述论证过程呈现的是价值奠基于货币与资本，进而奠基于剩余价值的逻辑链条，即价值与剩余价值在资本主义这一有机总体中紧密联系、互为条件的关系。

Thus, it can be seen that in real, concrete capitalist society, if the labor theory of value is the principle of explanation for the theory of surplus value, then the existence of surplus value is likewise the real condition for the labor theory of value. Since capital monopolizes the means of production, labor cannot occur at all unless it combines with capital and creates profit for capital. Therefore, there is no abstract, isolated labor; there is only wage-labor capable of creating surplus value for capital; “labor creates value” is, in its reality, “wage-labor creates profit.” It can be said that the function of the category “value” is to directly place labor under the movement of capital valorization; the real situation of “value-creating labor” can only be realistically revealed in the production process of surplus value.

可见，在现实的、具体的资本主义社会中，如果劳动价值论是剩余价值论的解释原则，那么剩余价值的存在同样是劳动价值论的现实条件。由于资本垄断生产资料，劳动若非与资本结合、为资本创造利润，就根本不可能发生。因此，并不存在抽象的、孤立的劳动，只存在能够为资本创造剩余价值的雇佣劳动；“劳动创造价值”在其现实性上就是“雇佣劳动创造利润”。可以说，“价值”范畴的功能，就是将劳动直接置于资本增殖运动之下；“创造价值的劳动”的真实处境，只有在剩余价值的生产过程中才能得到现实的揭示。

In summary, starting from multiple perspectives such as the social constructedness of the categories “labor” and “value,” the historicity of the labor theory of value, the object and method of *Capital*, and the relationship between the labor theory of value and the theory of surplus value, we attempt to elucidate the critical dimension of the labor theory of value. The labor theory of value is not a pure presupposition of *Capital*, nor is it a critical benchmark that exists prior to and independent of capitalism. It is more an abstract aspect of the organic totality of capitalism, which together with other links constitutes the object of critical scrutiny in *Capital*, containing the theoretical principles for penetrating this critical object and the embryonic forms of the alienation of labor. Today, with the deepening of the inherent contradictions of capitalism, phenomena such as labor intensification, destabilization of labor relations, intensification of labor competition, and the meaninglessness of labor content have also emerged in the labor sphere. Grasping the critical dimension of the labor theory of value in the contemporary context helps to reactivate the theoretical value of *Capital* and provide a profound philosophical interpretation of contemporary labor issues.

综上，我们从“劳动”“价值”等范畴的社会建构性、劳动价值论的历史性、《资本论》的对象与方法、劳动价值论与剩余价值论的关系等多重视角出发，尝试阐发劳动价值论的批判性维度。劳动价值论不是《资本论》的纯然前提，也不是一个先在于且独立于资本主义的批判基准。它更多的是资本主义有机总体的抽象侧面，与其他环节共同构成了《资本论》批判审视的对象，蕴含着透视这一批判对象的理论原则和劳动异化的萌芽形式。今天，随着资本主义内在矛盾的加深，劳动领域也出现了劳动强化、劳动关系不稳定化、劳动竞争激化、劳动内容无意义化等现象。在当代语境下把握劳动价值论的批判性维度，有助于重新激活《资本论》的理论价值，为当代劳动问题给出一种有深度的哲学阐释。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗