论文部分内容阅读
关于社会必要劳动时间,长期以来经济学界一直存在有不同的看法:(1)两种社会必要劳动时间之说。认为马克思在《资本论》第1卷第52页讲到的是第一种社会必要劳动时间,而在第3卷第722页讲到的是第二种社会必要劳动时间。(2)一些同志认为第二种社会必要劳动时间不决定价值,只是与价值实现有关;另一些同志则认为,两种社会必要劳动时间共同决定价值。从20世纪50年代以来,两部分同志各持己见争执不下。我认为,长期以来争论不休的重要原因在于,没有看到使用价值在确定社会必要劳动时间上的重要意义。双方不适当地把马克思在《论本论》第1卷里所讲的社会必要劳动时间与第3卷中所讲的社会必要劳动时间的区别扩大化了,把本来是从不同角度说明的同一种社会必要劳动时间当成两种不同的社会必要劳动时间,再从两种社会必要劳动时间上去谈论所谓第二种社会必要劳动时间与价值的关系。这种分析问题的前提就是不科学的,当然不可能得出科学的结论。
There has been a long history of different views on the socially necessary working hours: (1) Two kinds of socially necessary working hours. Think of Marx as referring to the first socially necessary working time in Capital 1, p. 52, and the second socially necessary working time in Volume 3, p. 722. (2) Some comrades consider that the second socially necessary working time does not determine the value but only the realization of the value; while some comrades think that the two socially necessary working hours jointly determine the value. Since the 1950s, two parts of the comrades have their own disagreements. In my opinion, the important reason why there has been a long debate has been that it does not see the significance of using value in determining the necessary social work time. Both sides unduly magnified the difference between the socially necessary labor time in Marx’s first volume of Ontology and the socially necessary labor time in Volume III, The socially necessary working time is treated as two different socially necessary working hours, and then the so-called second socially necessary working time and value are discussed from two socially necessary working hours. The premise of this analytical problem is unscientific, of course, can not draw scientific conclusions.