馬克思的政治經濟學由勞動價值論出發，推導出剩餘價值論，解釋生產過剩和消費不足，分析週期性經濟危機的原因，再預言無產階級革命，建立社會主義政權，最終實現共產主義社會。
勞動價值論認為，商品必須同時滿足三個條件：一、對消費者有用，或有需求，不管是精神上還是物質上的都稱為使用價值；二、可以買賣，稱為交換價值，如果使用貨幣作為中介交換，就表現為價格；三、由勞動產生，也就是價值。勞動時間越長，價值就越高。
假設「小達」平均每天可以製作20瓶水；「小德」平均每天可以製作10個麵包，兩瓶水的價值便等於一個麵包。他們交換的時候，平均勞動時間就會相同。交換令兩人不用學習對方的技術，就可以有對方的勞動成果，達到一個幸福的均衡狀態。
英國經濟學家李嘉圖認為，供求和勞動價值這兩個因素決定了價格，然而商品的價格不斷波動，價格和價值總是不能達到均衡狀態。李嘉圖認為，供求關係決定短期價格，而價值決定長期價格。
馬克思對李嘉圖的解釋並不滿意，他認為價格不能反映價值，不是勞動價值論出了問題，而是資本主義的固有問題。馬克思在李嘉圖的基礎上提出了自己的勞動二重性理論，將勞動價值分為具體勞動和抽象勞動。
抽象勞動（Abstract labour）則創造「價值」。是撇開具體形式的體力和腦力勞動。工人和律師、醫生等專業人士的具體勞動有些複雜有些簡單，性質不同，無法比較，但他們都有耗費勞動時間這個共通點。
同時，馬克思在論述抽象勞動時認為，每個人的生產效率不同，工人把工作拖慢來做，產出的商品不會影響使用和交換的價值，自然也不會影響其價值。工人效率比別人高一倍，當然也不等於可以用半價購買。因此，商品的價值不是由「個別勞動時間」決定，而是平均化的「社會必要勞動時間」所決定的。
在資本主義社會，錢不等於資本，資本指的是用來投資的錢，也就是可以錢生錢的錢。投資的目的不是滿足需求而是獲得利潤，要獲得利潤，就不能等價交換，而是要找到一種可以低買高賣的商品。剩餘價值論認為，利潤由剩餘價值產生，而工人的勞動才能產生剩餘價值，也就是這種可以低買高賣的商品。
資本主義生產方式的特別之處，資本家支付工資，僱傭工人工作，等於購買了工人的勞動時間，將勞動力變成了一種商品。表面上看，資本主義的生產方式十分公平，也沒有強迫勞動的情況存在。不過，剩餘價值論認為，資本家付出的工資總是低於工人勞動所創造出來的價值，否則資本家就沒有辦法得到利潤，並不是等價交換。而資本家組成的資產階級掌握了生產資料，工人事實上不得不為資本家打工。
可變資本指的是工人的工資，可變的意思在於生產的過程中，能夠創造出新的價值，可以增值。資本家看中的，正是這超出自己原本價值的部分。由於是當下的勞動，也稱為活的勞動，能產生新的價值，也就是剩餘價值或利潤。
相對剩餘價值生產，則是不增加勞動時間，但增加勞動的強度。例如使用機器提升每個工人的生產效率等等。用機器提升生產效率，本來是縮短勞動時間的最有力手段，但沒有資本家會因為使用機器而減少勞動時間。相反，因為機器的大量使用，工人熟練程度的意義大大降低，大量的低薪低技術工人會取代有技術的工人。
首先、對工人來說，勞動沒有合理的報酬，越努力工作，產生的剩餘價值自然越高。但剩餘價值只屬於資本家而不屬於工人。工人的收入總是比生產的價值少，導致社會購買力總是低於社會生產的物質財富，貧富差距不斷擴大。
其次、對資本家來說，資本主義高度競爭，任何一個資本家如果放慢腳步，都有可能被淘汰，促使資本家只能賺取更多的利潤。而資本家的利潤不斷增加，不可能通過資本家個人消費重新回流市場，只能進行過度的投資以適應競爭，導致投資經常是不理性的，有很高的投機盲目性。
馬克思觀察到，在十九世紀以前，要造房子是先付款，後建屋。但是到了馬克思的時代，已經變成資本家先建造大量房屋，然後推出市場售賣。可見資本主義的競爭，導致資本家必須搶在需求之前就要做出供應，因此經常都有賣不出的存貨，經常都有失敗的投資。
社會科學的理論都是高度概括化的，總能找到反例，不能完美解釋一切，卻不代表沒有意義。大海都會有潮漲潮落，不代表海平面這個抽象概念沒有意義。馬克思的勞動價值論對理解貧富差距，週期性經濟波動依然很有幫助。
第一種觀點認為，投資失敗的風險由資本家來承擔，工人沒有風險。但現實中工人也需要面對失業的風險，資本家卻可以通過破產保護等各種方法來降低風險，最後失敗的投資，更可能由政府用人民的稅收來填補損失。
第二種觀點認為，企業家的創新推動了科技的發展，進而推進了社會的發展，社會需要給這種企業家累計大量的財富，創造試錯的空間。但這樣就對企業家的要求非常嚴苛了，排除了富二代和沒有創新能力的資本家。一旦停止創新，開始享受「收成期」，也就不能再稱為企業家。誠然，企業家提出概念、整合資源、參與管理，是複雜勞動，給予這種勞動相應的報酬，合情合理。只是企業家個人勞動的報酬，總是遠遠不如剝削剩餘價值所賺的利潤。
馬克思的《資本論》發表於150多年前，和我們的時代已經大不相同。馬克思的時代機器生產，導致工人的議價能力降低。到了現在，自動化生產、無人商店和人工智能等技術逐漸普及，雖然還是不變資本，但活勞動和死勞動的界限已經受到衝擊，機器越來越不依賴人的操作。
我們不妨將問題推到極致，如果資本家全部使用機器生產，不僱傭工人，那麼誰來消費生產出來的商品？馬克思認為資本主義包含自我毀滅的種子，這或許在將一段時間，越來越值得大家思考一下。
Introduction to Marxism: Theory of labor value and surplus value.
Marx's political economy starts with the labor theory of value, from which he derives the theory of surplus value. This framework explains phenomena such as overproduction and underconsumption, analyzes the causes of cyclical economic crises, and predicts the proletarian revolution, the establishment of a socialist state, and the eventual realization of a communist society.
Now, we will delve into a deeper topic, and explore the reasons driving the ceaseless expansion of capitalism: the labor theory of value and surplus value.
The labor theory of value emerged as a prominent economic theory in the wake of the Industrial Revolution in Britain. The labor theory of value posits that a commodity must satisfy three conditions simultaneously:
1. It must be useful or fulfill a need for the consumer, whether materially or spiritually. This is termed "use value."
2. It must be exchangeable, known as "exchange value." When money mediates this exchange, it manifests as price.
3. It must be produced by labor, which constitutes its value. The more labor time invested, the higher the value.
For example, "Worker A" drinks water from a well, obtaining its use value. He further adds value to the water by sterilizing, bottling, and transporting it. Eventually, he exchanges two bottles of water with "Worker B" for a loaf of bread, giving the water exchange value.
If "Worker A" can produce an average of 20 bottles of water per day, while "Worker B" can produce an average of 10 loaves of bread per day, the value of two bottles of water equals one loaf of bread. In this exchange, both parties contribute an equal amount of labor time. Through such exchanges, two people can enjoy the fruits of each other's labor without needing to learn each other's skills, thus achieving a state of balanced equilibrium.
According to the British economist David Ricardo, the price of a commodity is determined by the supply and demand as well as labor value. But since the price of a commodity constantly fluctuates, an equilibrium between price and value is never achieved. Ricardo proposed that short-term prices are determined by supply and demand, while long-term prices are determined by value.
Marx, however, found Ricardo's explanation unsatisfactory. He believed that the discrepancy between prices and value was not a flaw in the labor theory of value itself, but rather an inherent problem of capitalism. Building on Ricardo's work, Marx introduced his theory of the dual nature of labor, categorizing labor into concrete labor and abstract labor.
Concrete labor involves the creation of specific "use value" through the application of specific skills and knowledge. For example, baking bread or bottling water requires specialized expertise.
Abstract labor, on the other hand, generates "value" through non-concrete mental and physical labor. The nature of labor performed by workers and professionals such as lawyers and doctors may differ in complexity and can’t be compared, but what they share is the expenditure of working hours.
Furthermore, Marx argued that individuals possess different levels of productivity. If a worker slows down their pace of work, it does not impact the use value, exchange value, or value of the goods they produce. Similarly, if a worker is twice as efficient as others, it does not mean their goods can be purchased at half the price. Therefore, the value of a commodity is not determined by "individual labor time", but rather by the averaging of "socially necessary labor time”.
By defining the concept of abstract labor, the equilibrium problem that Ricardo faced can be resolved, and so we can discuss the theory of surplus value.
In a capitalist society, money does not equal capital. Capital refers to money that can be invested, specifically money that can be used to generate more money. The purpose of investing is not to fulfill a need, but to generate profits. To achieve profitability, equal exchange is insufficient; instead, a commodity that can be purchased at a low price and sold at a higher price must be sought.
The theory of surplus value asserts that profits arise from surplus value, which is generated solely through the labor of workers. This surplus value is the commodity that capitalists buy at a low cost and sell at a higher price. This is because capitalists pay wages and employ workers' labor, effectively purchasing their labor time and turning labor into a commodity.
On the surface, the capitalist mode of production appears fair, and devoid of forced labor. However, the theory of surplus value argues that the wages paid by capitalists are always lower than the value of the labor provided by workers, otherwise capitalists would not be able to make a profit. This arrangement does not constitute an equal exchange. Furthermore, the bourgeoisie, comprised of capitalists, control the means of production, forcing workers to work for the capitalists.
Marx divided the labor time of workers into two parts. The first part is known as "necessary labor", which corresponds to workers' wages. This portion is needed for workers to obtain necessities like food, clothing, shelter, and to support family and raise offspring.
The second part is called "surplus labor." It creates additional value beyond wages, which is referred to as "surplus value." In theory, this surplus value can accumulate, allowing workers to enjoy a better standard of living or even invest in the future. However, workers do not own this surplus value; it is instead owned by capitalists. Workers need to remain relatively impoverished to secure their continued employment.
Marx proposed a formula to calculate surplus value: Surplus value equals the total value, minus constant capital and variable capital.
Constant capital refers to the means of production whose value remains unchanged, such as machinery, factories, and raw materials. Since they were produced by labor in the past, they are referred to as "dead labor."
Variable capital, on the other hand, pertains to workers' wages. The term "variable" implies that during the production process, new value can be generated and added. Capitalists seek to exploit this portion that surpasses the initial value. As this labor occurs in the present, it is called "living labor", and it has the ability to create new value, commonly known as surplus value or profit.
Dead labor such as machines cannot generate value independently; they require the involvement of a worker. Similarly, factors like capital, land, technology, and management cannot create value without the contribution of labor. Therefore, they all fall under the category of constant capital.
For instance, if the price of a good is $80, the constant capital such as machinery, materials, and rent cost $20, and the worker’s wage is $20, then the surplus value would amount to $20. In this scenario, the worker labors for 8 hours a day and receives a wage of $20. The value created during 4 hours of work is $20, while the additional $20 generated in the remaining 4 hours constitutes the surplus value.
There are two methods to acquire surplus value. The first is absolute surplus value, which involves increasing labor time without a corresponding increase in workers' wages. This can be achieved through practices like unpaid overtime or by asking workers to continue their work at home.
The second method is relative surplus value, where instead of extending labor time, the intensity of labor is increased, such as by using machines to enhance the productivity of each worker.
Although utilizing machines to boost productivity could be an effective means of reducing labor time, capitalists generally do not opt for this approach. On the contrary, widespread adoption of machinery diminishes the significance of worker expertise. Skilled workers would easily be replaced by low-paid and low-skilled laborers.
Marx identified two key issues with the exploitation of surplus value. First, from the workers' perspective, their labor is inadequately compensated. The harder they work, the more surplus value they produce, yet this surplus value is appropriated by capitalists rather than the workers themselves. As a result, workers earn less than the value they produce, perpetuating a situation where society's purchasing power always remains lower than the material wealth it produces. This contributes to the ever-widening wealth gap between the rich and the poor.
Secondly, from the capitalists' perspective, capitalism is a highly competitive system. Any capitalist who slows down their pace risks being outcompeted and eliminated, which drives them to pursue greater profits. As their profits increase, they cannot be fed into the market through personal consumption. Instead, capitalists are compelled to over-invest to keep up with the competition. This often leads to irrational investment decisions and a high degree of blind speculation.
Marx noted that in earlier times, people would pay for houses before their construction. However, in his era, capitalists would construct multiple houses at the same time and then attempt to sell them on the market. This phenomenon shows that capitalist competition often leads to a supply that outpaces demand, resulting in unsold inventory and failed investments. These two factors are key contributors to overproduction and underconsumption in capitalism, making it difficult to stabilize prices or maintain an equilibrium with value.
Marx advocated for a pricing system that more closely reflected the value of commodities. In contrast, many Western economists have abandoned the concept of value altogether, focusing exclusively on prices determined by supply and demand. In actuality, Marx did not oppose the concept of markets; he believed that markets could effectively distinguish between efficient and inefficient labor.
A market based on value would enable the survival of the most capable, and promote the optimal allocation of resources. Marx's opposition lay primarily with the private ownership of the means of production. He also acknowledged that supply and demand could cause price fluctuations, but maintained that prices should fluctuate within a specific range, representing the value of labor.
Theories in social science are often generalized, and while counterexamples may exist, their imperfections do not render them meaningless. Just as ocean tides may rise or fall, it doesn’t mean the abstract concept of "sea level" has no significance.
Marx's labor theory of value provides valuable insights into understanding the wealth gap and cyclical changes within the economy. Historical materialism and the theory of surplus value are two of Marx's most original and controversial doctrines, sparking ongoing debates and discussions.
The first viewpoint is that capitalists bear the risk of failed investments, while workers bear no risk at all. But in reality, workers do face the risk of losing their jobs, while capitalists can rely on methods such as bankruptcy protection to minimize their own risk. Additionally, any failed investments can often be covered by government assistance funded by people's taxes.
The second viewpoint is that entrepreneurial innovation drives technological development and the advancement of society. It argues that society should allow entrepreneurs to accumulate wealth to create room for experimentation and trial and error. However, this viewpoint also implies a strict definition of "entrepreneurs", which excludes individuals who are wealthy due to inheritance or non-innovative capitalists. If individuals cease innovating and solely enjoy the benefits of their wealth, they can no longer be considered true "entrepreneurs."
Certainly, entrepreneurs contribute through conceptualization, resource integration, and management, which entails complex labor. It is reasonable to provide fair compensation for this labor. However, the rewards that entrepreneurs receive for their labor are often far less than the profits generated through the exploitation of surplus value.
Marx's seminal work, "Das Kapital," was published over 150 years ago, during a time vastly different from our own. In Marx's era, the use of machines in production resulted in less bargaining power for workers. Today, automation plays a more prominent role, with technologies like unmanned stores and artificial intelligence becoming increasingly prevalent. Although they are still considered as constant capital, the line between living labor and dead labor is blurring, and machines are becoming less reliant on human operation.
Let's take this issue to the extreme: If capitalists employ machines in all aspects of production and eliminate the need for human workers entirely, who would have the ability to purchase the goods that are produced?
Marx believed that capitalism inherently contains the seeds of its own destruction. Perhaps, in the future, this will be a topic worthy of further contemplation.
b.png)
留言
張貼留言