【作者】 陈旸；

【导师】 荣兆梓；

【作者基本信息】 安徽大学 ， 政治经济学， 2014， 博士

【摘要】 本文研究马克思的“价值向生产价格转形问题”。在《资本论》第一卷中,马克思一般假设商品是按照劳动价值量交换的,而在第三卷中,马克思发展出了生产价格理论,商品被视为按照生产价格量交换。生产价格是劳动价值的一种表现形式,而不是对价值规律的颠覆,因为价值体系通过“两个总量相等”制约着生产价格体系。价值体系和生产价格体系之间的内在逻辑问题,即为转形问题。本文第一章回顾了转形研究的百年历史。从鲍特凯维兹对转形问题的“古典表述”,一直到森岛通夫、萨缪尔森等人的“现代表述”,他们都在模型中引入了一个外生给定的实物工资假设。本文将建立在这一假设基础上的解法统称为“A体系”。从上个世纪初开始直到上个世纪80年代,转形问题的A体系解法一直被视为“公认的解法”。A体系对转形问题的结论是：马克思的两个总量相等无法同时成立,生产价格体系下的平均利润率是独立确定的,与价值体系无关。由此,A体系的解法被某些人用来攻击马克思的经济学理论,劳动价值论被诬蔑为“毫无必要的迂回”。但是通过对A体系模型的仔细分析,我们发现,给定的实物工资假设正是A体系处理转形问题的症结所在。本文第二章介绍了两种反对实物工资假设的转形学说。1980年代出现的“新解释”学派(本文称B-2)试图在放弃给定实物工资的假设基础上,建立起价格量和价值量之间的换算关系。他们建议放弃马克思的“总价值和总生产价格相等”,改为“净产品价值和生产价格相等”,这使得他们的理论与马克思的理论产生了比较大的区别。本世纪出现的“平均利润率不变的解法”(本文称B-1)则采用一种更加符合马克思本意的方式,在保持“两个总量相等”的基础上解决了转形问题。通过对B体系进行的数理综合,我们发现,给定的实物工资假设清除了生产价格方程的一个自由度,此时马克思的“两个总量相等”作为限制条件无法在模型中同时成立。这进一步说明了,给定的实物工资假设是转形问题中的症结所在。本文第三章进一步考察实物工资假设的理论溯源及其在劳动价值论和转形理论中的地位。A体系的支持者认为,劳动力的价值由工人的生活必需品决定,这是马克思自己的理论,因此这一假设并不是毫无根据的。但通过对古典经济学和马克思工资理论的梳理,我们发现,马克思是为了研究一般资本的属性以及剩余价值的来源,才将工人的必需品视为给定的。但劳动力作为工人家庭生产的产物,其生产过程并不属于一般资本的范围。所以,劳动力既有一般商品的属性,又有其特殊性。劳动力价值的决定,既要考虑到劳动力作为一般商品时的性质,也要考虑到它作为特殊商品时的性质。实际上,马克思本人已经为此预留了接口,劳动力的价值既可以视为一组生活必需品的价值,也可以视为活劳动中归工人所有的那一部分。当我们在研究生产价格问题时,如果选用前一种决定方式,就会和马克思的“剩余价值率均等”前提相矛盾。因此在转形问题研究中,给定的实物工资向量假设是完全不必要的。通过前三章的分析,我们已经找到了转形问题的症结所在：给定的实物工资假设。建立在这一假设基础上的A体系,正是错误地理解了马克思的劳动力价值决定学说和生产价格学说之间的区别,将外生给定的实物工资强加给转形模型,才得出了“两个总量相等无法同时成立”的结论。一旦放弃这一假设就会发现马克思的转形学说并不存在理论上的不一致性。萨缪尔森等人对劳动价值论的批评也就不攻自破了。通过解决转形问题可以认识到,给定一个由技术水平决定的物质消耗系数矩阵和劳动投入向量,我们可以建立起一个价值体系,并将其与实际的市场价格体系和理论上的生产价格体系联系起来。马克思的两个总量相等,不但适用于价值和生产价格体系,也适用于处于两者之间的市场价格体系。只要对现有的统计资料作出适当的修改,使其符合马克思的经济学范畴,我们就可以根据投入产出表实际计算“劳动价值国民生产账户”。本文后三章按照马克思主义经济学计算了国民核算体系中的一些变量,并与外国的同类研究进行了对比。我们发现,根据转形理论和劳动价值论建立起来的核算体系,与马克思在《资本论》第三卷中分析的状况更加接近。更多还原

【Abstract】 In the first volume of Capital, Marx usually suppose that goods exchange each other according to the labor materialized in commodities.In the volume3of Capital, however, Marx developed a theory of production price and commodities are supposed to exchange according to production price. Production price is manifestation of labor value rather than negation of it, because labor value system constrains production price system through the "two equal aggregates". The internal logic relations between labor value system and production price system form the transformation problem. There exist two major schools in more one hundred years of transformation problem research:system A and system B. During the beginning of the last century to the80’s, the solution offered by system A was considered as "accepted solution" The conclusions of system A are:Marx’s two equal aggregates are incompatible and the rate of profit in the production price system is independent of value system. Therefore, someone against Marx demonise the labor theory of value as "unnecessary detour". By carefully analyzing A system’s model, we found an common assumption hidden in the model, whether the classical3sectors model by Borkiewicz or transformation model using matrix by Morishima. We also found that this assumption is the root of system A’s solution. Proponents of system A believe that Marx himself determines the value of labor power commodity by worker’s subsistence goods. Studying through text of classical economics and Marx’s wage theory, we found that Marx presume the given wage goods because he want to study the common properties of general capital. However, Labor power is product of worker’s family and not of capital production. Labor power is a commodity but a special commodity. When we determine its value, we have to consider its common properties and its special properties. In fact, Marx has reserved some points about it. In Capital, value of labor power equals the value of worker’s subsistence goods and equals a part of worker’s living labor as well. When we deal with transformation problem, the former will contradict with Marx’s "even rate of surplus value" assumption. Therefore, the given wage goods assumption is unnecessary.Some solutions for transformation problem oppose given wage goods vector assumption. We call these solutions "B system". In1980’s, a school of "new interpretation"(called B-2in this paper) tried to build a conversion relation between value quantity and price quantity based on giving up the assumption of given wage goods. They suggested that turn Max’s "total value equals total production price" into "value of net product equals production price of net prodcut". This kind of change made their theory differ from Max’s greatly."Invariant rate of profit" solution (called B-1in this paper) which existed in this century used a method which was more compatiable to Max’s real intention and solved the transformation problem on the basis of "two equal aggregates".By solving transformation problem, we realized that if given technology decided material consumption coefficient matrix and vector of living labor, we can build a value system and also can connected it with the real market price system and theoretical production price system. Then, Max’s "two equal aggregates" not only can be used in value and production system, but also can be used in the market price system which is between in these two systems. Only slightly modifying existing statistic information, we can make those data meet the requirement of Max’s economics, then "labor value national production account" can be calculated according to input-output table. Existing national account statistical information is based on SNA system which doesn’t differentiate productive and unproductive labor. However, in Maxian economics, there is big difference between these two types of labor. All value is created by productive labor. The payment and total income of unproductive labor come from productive sector. When an unproductive sector joins social economy, from the view of Maxian economics, it only involves in the distribution of surplus value but not creates new value. However in the national account information it increases value of total output. Therefore, according to Maxian economics, existing national account statistical data double account some vaule. And this kind of double accounting should be removed. In this paper, we calculate some variables in China’s national account system by using the method of Maxian economics, and compare with similar research in foreign countries. We discovered that the account system which built on transformation theory and labor value theory is closer to the situation which analyzed in the third volume of Max’s Capital.更多还原