劳动的价值理论（八）
本篇文章由我翻译，全文共63页，本篇为节选的第八部分约3.5页内容，原文为英文并附于末尾，蓝色标注为我添加的补充和注释。全文已翻译完毕。
4.马克思价值分析的政治含义
我们在一开始就否定了马克思的价值分析是剥削存在的证据的观点，但认为这种否定并不必然会导致这一分析的去政治化。我们现在简短地回到政治问题上；简单地说，这是由于任何试图深入处理这一问题的尝试都至少需要另一篇论文。在我看来，马克思价值理论中的政治性优点以及它有助于社会主义者的地方在于它为我们提供了一个可以用于分析资本主义剥削是如何运转、如何改变并发展和理解资本主义剥削过程的工具。因此，它为我们提供了一种探索唯物主义政治实践可能性的途径，用Colletti的话来说，这种实践将“颠覆并从属于产生它的条件” (Colletti, 1976, p. 69)。
为了支持这一观点，我只提出三个简短的要点：首先，价值理论能够使我们在分析资本主义剥削的同时克服剥削经验碎片化的缺点；其次，它能够使我们将资本主义剥削把握为一个不断变化的、矛盾的、危机四伏的过程；最后，它帮助我们建立了对剥削过程运转过程的理解，以及采取行动终结它的可能性。
第一点来源于这样一个前提，即那些经历过资本主义剥削的人并不需要一个理论来告诉他们什么是错误的。但问题在于，资本主义剥削的经验是碎片化和缺乏关联性的，因此很难准确地说出什么是错误的，以及如何才能改变它。尤其是在同时存在着货币关系和劳动过程关系的情况下，剥削表现为两种不同的形式：“不公平”的货币工资或价格，和/或长时间和恶劣条件下的艰苦工作。从这样的碎片化经验中产生的政治行动反过来被一分为二：流通政治和/或生产政治。我所指的流通政治是一种旨在试图以对工人阶级有利的方式改变货币关系的政治行动。例如通过斗争来提高货币工资、控制货币价格；控制并消除金融系统运作中的不良影响和控制投资资金的直接流动；通过福利国家转移货币收入等等。我所指的生产政治则是旨在试图改善生产条件的政治行动；缩短工作日，组织工人在车间中对抗；建立工人合作社，制定“替代性计划”（参见卢卡斯航空航天公司工人计划）(22)。这两类政治行动都是马克思的时代与我们现在的时代的工人运动所追求的。这里并不是说这两类政治行动本身都是错误的，而是它们两者都是分别进行的（即使是在同一个组织同时进行这两者的时候），就好像有两个独立的斗争领域：流通和生产；货币关系和劳动过程关系。
马克思的价值理论为揭示剥削过程中货币关系和劳动过程关系之间的联系提供了一个基础。剥削过程实际上是一个统一体；在经验中被认为是两个独立且不同的关系的货币关系和劳动过程关系实际上只是这一统一体中特定方面的单方面反映。无论是货币关系还是劳动过程关系本身都不单独构成资本主义剥削；如果不伴随着另一者的变化，任何一者都不会发生很大的变化（马克思在这一点上的论述，见《工资、价格和利润》，in Marx-Engels, Selected Works, Vol. 2；以及《政治经济学批判》，p.83-6）（《马克思恩格斯全集》中文第二版第21卷第155-212页；《马克思恩格斯全集》第二版第31卷第478-81页）。马克思的价值理论能够表明货币和劳动过程的这种统一性，因为它并没有将生产和流通领域当作两个独立的不同领域，也没有将价值和价格当作两个不连续的不同变量。
第二点即资本主义被分析为一个矛盾的过程，而非一个静态的“事实”的重要性则在于它能够使我们把握住剥削是如何在其不断变化的形式中，在流通政治和生产政治不断促成这些改变的情况下维持其存在的；以及剥削又是如何具有这种旧形式不断解体新形式又不断形成的内在趋势的。理解这一矛盾过程的关键在于，尽管货币关系和劳动过程关系是同一统一体的两个方面，在内部相互依存，但它们在外部却具有相对自主性，独立于对方。这种相对自主性中埋下了危机可能性的种子。这具有很重要的政治意义，并非因为这样的危机本身会导致资本主义的崩溃——显然并非如此——而是因为它表明了政治行动的潜在空间；对生产和分配过程的自我有意识的集体调节，而非通过“盲目”市场力量进行的调节。
但马克思的价值理论并非仅限于以表明政治行动潜在空间的方式来分析资本主义社会中的劳动确定。它的第三个优点在于它同时也是建立在分析中，不仅仅是政治行动的潜在空间，还包括采取政治行动的可能性。现在，所有的社会主义者都认为，采取政治行动反对劳动确定的资本主义形式、反对资本主义剥削是理所当然的。但奇怪的是，这种可能性在社会主义者分析剥削过程时却往往没有被纳入剥削范畴中。相反，剥削被分析为一个封闭的体系，并引入反对它的政治行动——阶级斗争来从外部影响这一体系。随着时间的推移，它会作为“历史发动机”以更慢或更快的速度推动这一体系；或作为一个独立变量决定工资水平，或决定工作日长度，或决定危机后资本重构的速度或特定形式。无论使用哪种公式，都有一个相同的缺点：阶级斗争仅仅作为机械降神进入分析之中。这使我们无法将资本主义到社会主义的过渡视为一个历史过程、一个集体行动自觉引发的质变；而将其视为两个固定的、预先给定的结构之间的跳跃，或把社会主义形式当作一种已与资本主义形式共存的某种社会形式的简单延伸（对这一点的更详尽讨论，见Elson, 1979）。
爱德华•汤普森最近就这一点对阿尔都塞的马克思主义进行了激烈的批判(Thompson, 1978)，在我看来，他的批判同样适用于大多数马克思主义经济学的模型构建；以及资本-逻辑学派那不断展开的辩证法。它们全都对资本主义剥削进行了分析，但都没有使用那种包含了对有意识的反对这种剥削的集体行动的可能性的范畴。他们对什么是资本主义剥削以及如何对终结它的政治行动的分析存在着一定的割裂。如果“结构”确实处在“统治地位”；如果自变量仅仅只是给定的，而因变量是由它们唯一决定的；如果资本确实是“统治主体”；那么我们就失去了政治行动的物质基础。
在我看来，以及在这里我的观点并不同于汤普森，我并不认为马克思的《资本论》中存在着同样的割裂。它没有为我们提供一个占据统治地位的结构，没有提供一个政治经济模型，也没有提供一个自我发展的、包括万象的实体。相反，它将在资本主义生产方式盛行的社会中的劳动确定分析为一个形成本质上未形成的事物的历史过程；并认为资本主义所特有的就是劳动其中一个方面——抽象劳动的主导，其对象化为价值。在此基础上，才有可能理解资本为什么表现为一个统治主体，而个人仅仅只是资本主义生产关系的承担者；但也有可能确定为什么如此仅仅只是真相的一半。因为马克思的分析也意识到了将个人还原为价值形式承担者的趋势的局限性。它通过将私人和具体劳动范畴中劳动的主观、有意识和特殊方面；以及社会劳动范畴中劳动的集体方面纳入分析中来处理这一点。在价值形式中，劳动抽象方面的主导并不是从劳动的其他方面被抹杀的角度来分析的，而是从这些其他方面从属于抽象方面的角度来分析的。这种从属可以被理解为抽象方面对其他方面的中介，即将劳动的其他方面转化为货币形式。但在分析中，劳动的主观、有意识和集体方面被赋予了相对自主性。通过这种方式，《资本论》中的论述中确实包含了政治行动的物质基础。人类活动的主观、有意识和集体方面得到了认识。政治问题则是将劳动的这些私人、具体和社会方面结合起来，而不需要价值形式的中介，从而创造出特殊的、有意识的集体活动来直接反抗剥削。马克思的价值理论包含了这一可能性。
在我看来，如果社会主义者试图利用马克思价值理论所提供的工具来分析当今资本主义国家中普遍存在的劳动确定的特定形式，那么这一可能性的实现将会有助于此。本文旨在为恢复这些工具的工作状态做出贡献。
后记
我要感谢布莱顿和曼彻斯特的许多同志，在过去的几年里，我与他们一起讨论了价值理论；特别感谢伊恩•斯蒂德曼，他阅读并对本文的手稿进行了评论。当然，文责自负。欢迎读者们通过CSE Books发表评论。
译者注：
(22) 20世纪70年代前中期时，在面临着高失业率、去工业化和裁员威胁时，英国军工企业卢卡斯航空航天公司中不同岗位的工人们组织起来发起抗争，并结合当时左翼学者们的设想提出了一项大胆且具有开创性的计划，旨在通过直接掌握企业乃至整个行业的经营权力和生产过程、通过由工人主导的企业和行业改革来保住他们的工作。在遭到企业管理层的粗暴拒绝后，这一行动迅速得到了社会各界的支持，其他受到鼓舞的关键军工企业也发起了类似的行动试图将这一计划在整个军工行业中铺开，而包括伦敦市政府、英国工商业联合会在内的组织向政府不断施压，迫使企业管理层重新回到谈判桌前。尽管政府和企业管理层最终做出了一些让步，并达成了一项减少裁员的协议，但该计划并未得到实施，甚至没有受到他们的认真考虑，就最终结果来看裁员问题也没有得到缓解——这与卢卡斯航空航天公司引进新的自动化技术并转向在其他国家投资有关，同时也表明传统的工会运动已不足以应对当代资本主义的一些新特征。虽然行动和计划都最终失败，但这次行动依然影响深远。
社会主义经济学家联合会成立于1970年。自那时起，发生了许多变化。CSE致力于发展马克思主义传统下的资本主义的唯物主义批判。CSE的成员现在涵盖了政治和研究活动的广泛领域，并引发了广泛的辩论，因为CSE尽可能不受传统学术界对智力劳动的划分，如“经济学”、“政治性”、“社会学”或“历史学”的限制。
相反，这些小组围绕着CSE工作小组。目前，活跃在研究一线的小组包括意识形态小组、住房小组、资本与国家小组、国家经济政策小组、资本主义劳动过程小组、女性政治经济小组；欧洲一体化小组、健康与社会政策小组。劳动过程历史学家小组以及其他小组正在组建中。小组分散在全球各地。有关成员资格的更多信息，请写信给CSE, 55 Mount Pleasant, London WC1X0AE.
CSE Books
CSE Books由社会主义经济学家联合会的成员们创建，旨在促进作为一个整体的CSE所致力于的对资本主义的实践批判，并促进CSE中进行的辩论和分析的更广泛讨论。我们不想把自己变成一个学术编辑委员会，对作者评头论足，对读者一无所知，而是想在政治上参与当前的辩论和斗争。通过与CSE的活动相协调、定期出版Socialist Review of Books以及就我们自己的出版物中提出的议题组织日间学校，我们希望缩小资产阶级社会中图书生产者与图书消费者之间的隔阂。
有关CSE Books和CSE Bookclub的更多信息，请写信给55 Mount Pleasant, London WC1X0AE.
参考文献
Althusser, L (1975), Reading Capital, New Left Books, London.
Althusser, L (1977), Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays, New Left Books, London.
Armstrong, P, Glyn, A and Harrison, J (1978), 'In Defence of Value', Capital and Class, No. 5.
Arthur, C J (1976), 'The Concept of Abstract Labour', CSE Bulletin, No. 14.
Arthur, C J (1978), 'Labour: Marx's Concrete Universal', Inquiry, No. 2.
Arthur, C J (1979), 'Dialectic of the Value-Form', in Elson, D (ed.), Value: the representation of labour in capitalist economy, CSE Books, London.
Aumeeruddy, A and Tortajada, R (1979), 'Reading Marx on Value: A Note on the Basic Texts' in Elson, D (ed.) op. cit.
Banaji, J (1976), 'Marx, Ricardo and the Theory of the Value-Form. Prelude to a Critique of Positive Marxism , Marxistisk Antropologi, 2,2-3.
Banaji, J (1977), 'Modes of Production in a Materialist Conception of History, Capital & Class, No. 3.
Banaji, J (1979), 'From the Commodity to Capital: Hegel's Dialectic in Marx's Capital' in Elson, D (ed.), op. cit.
Braverman, H (1974), Labour and Monopoly Capital, Monthly Review Press, New York and London.
Brenner, R (1977), 'The Origins of Capitalist Development—A Critique of Neo-Smithian Marxism', New Left Review, No. 104.
Colletti, L (1976), From Rousseau to Lenin, New Left Books, London.
Cutler, A, Hindess, B, Hirst, P and Hussain, A (1977), Marx's Capital and Capitalism Today, Vol. I, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
Dobb, M (1971), Introduction to Marx's A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Lawrence and Wishart, London.
Dobb, M (1973), Theories of Value and Distribution since Adam Smith, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Elson, D (1979), 'Which Way "Out of the Ghetto"?', Capital & Class, No. 9.
Engels, F (1962), Anti-Duhring, Lawrence and Wishart, London.
Fine, B and Harris, L(1976), 'Controversial Issues in Marxist Economic Theory' in Miliband, R and Saville, J (eds.), Socialist Register, Merlin Press, London.
Georgescu-Roegen, N (1966), Analytical Economics, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Himmelweit, S and Mohun, S (1978), 'The Anomalies of Capital', Capital & Class No. 6.
Hodgson, G (1976), 'Exploitation and Embodied Labour Time', CSE Bulletin,No. 13.
Hussain, A (1979), 'Misreading Marx's Theory of Value: Marx's Marginal Notes on Wagner', in Elson, D (ed.), op. cit.
Itoh, M (1976), 'A Study of Marx's Theory of Value', Science and Society, Fall.
Kay, G (1976), 'A Note on Abstract Labour', CSE Bulletin, No. 13.
Kay, G (1979), 'Why Labour is the starting point of Capital', in Elson, D (ed.), op. cit.
Marx, K (1969-72), Theories of Surplus Value, Parts One, Two and Three, Lawrence and Wishart, London.
Marx, K (1971), A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Lawrence and Wishart, London.
Marx, K (1972), Marginal Notes on Adolph Wagner's 'Lehrbuch der politischen Okonomie', translated in Theoretical Practice, Issue 5.
Marx, K (1973), Grundrisse, translated by M Nicolaus, Penguin Books, London.
Marx, K (1973), 1857 Introduction, included in Grundrisse, pp. 83-111, Penguin Books, London.
Marx, K (1974), Capital, translated by Moore and Aveling in three volumes, Lawrence and Wishart, London.
Marx, K (1915), Early Writings, Penguin Books, London.
Marx, K (1976), Capital, Vol. I, translated by Ben Fowkes, Penguin Books, London.
Marx, K (1976), Results of the Immediate Process of Production, Appendix to Capital, I, Penguin Books, London.
Marx, K and Engels, F (n.d.), Selected Correspondence, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow.
Marx, K and Engels, F (1973), Selected Works, Vols. II and III, Progress Publishers, Moscow.
Marx, K and Engels, F (1974), The German Ideology, Lawrence and Wishart, London.
Meek, R L (1967), Economics and Ideology and other Essays, Chapman and Hall, London.
Meek, R L (1977), Smith, Marx and After, Chapman and Hall, London.
Moore, S (1971), 'Marx and the Origins of Dialectical Materialism', Inquiry, Vol. 14.
Morishima, M (1973), Marx's Economics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Ohlin Wright, E (1979), "The Value Controversy and Social Research', New Left Review, No. 116.
Oilman, B (1976), Alienation (Second Edition), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Pilling, G (1972), "The Law of Value in Ricardo and Marx', Economy and Society, Vol I, No. 3.
Rosdolsky, R (1977), The Making of Marx's Capital, Pluto Press, London.
Rowthorn, R (1974), 'Neo-Classicism, Neo-Ricardianism and Marxism', New Left Review, No. 86.
Ruben, D-H (1977), Marxism and Materialism: A Study in Marxist Theory of Knowledge, Harvester Press, Hassocks, Sussex.
Rubin, II (1973), Essays on Marx's Theory of Value, Black Rose Books, Montreal.
Schumpeter, J A (1963), History of Economic Analysis, Allen and Unwin, London.
Steedman, I (1975a), 'Value, Price and Profit', New Left Review, No. 90.
Steedman, I (1975b), 'Positive Profits with Negative Surplus Value', Economic Journal, March.
Steedman, I, (1976), 'Positive Profits with Negative Surplus Value: A Reply', Economic Journal, September.
Steedman, I (1911),Marx after Sraffa, New Left Books, London.
Sweezy, P (1962), The Theory of Capitalist Development, Dennis Dobson Ltd, London.
Sweezy, P (ed.) (1975), Karl Marx and the Close of his System, by E von Bohm-Bawerk and Bohm-Bawerk's criticism of Marx, by R Hilferding, Merlin Press, London.
Thompson, E P (1978), The Poverty of Theory, Merlin Press, London.
4. The political implications of Marx's value analysis
We began by rejecting the view that Marx's value analysis constitutes a proof of exploitation, but argued that such a rejection did not necessarily lead to a de-politicisation of that analysis. We must now briefly return to the question of politics; briefly, because any attempt to treat this question in depth would require at least another essay. In my view the political merit of Marx's theory of value, the reason why it is helpful for socialists, is that it gives us a tool for analysing how capitalist exploitation works, and changes and develops; for understanding capitalist exploitation in process. And as such, it gives us a way of exploring where there might be openings for a materialist political practice, a practice which in Colletti's words 'subverts and subordinates to itself the conditions from which it stems' (Colletti, 1976, p. 69).
In support of this view I will make just three short points: firstly, the theory of value enables us to analyse capitalist exploitation in a way that overcomes the fragmentation of the experience of that exploitation; secondly, it enables us to grasp capitalist exploitation as a contradictory, crisis-ridden process, subject to continual change; thirdly, it builds into our understanding of how the process of exploitation works, the possibility of action to end it.
The first point stems from the premise that those who experience capitalist exploitation do not need a theory to tell that something is wrong. The problem is that the experience of capitalist exploitation is fragmentary and disconnected, so that it is difficult to tell exactly what is wrong, and what can be done to change it. In particular, there is a problem of a bifurcation of money relations and labour process relations, so that exploitation appears to take two separate forms: 'unfair' money wages or prices, and/or arduous work with long hours and poor conditions. The politics that tend to arise spontaneously from this fragmented experience is in turn bifurcated: it is a politics of circulation and/or a politics of production. By a politics of circulation I mean a politics that concentrates on trying to change money relations in a way thought to be advantageous to the working class. Examples are struggles to raise money wages, control money prices; control and remove the malign influence of the operation of the financial system, direct flows of investment funds; make transfers of money income through a welfare state, etc. By a politics of production, I mean a politics that concentrates on trying to improve conditions of production; shorten the working day, organise worker resistance on the shop-floor; build up workers' co-operatives, produce an 'alternative plan' (cf. Lucas Aerospace Workers Plan), etc. Both these kinds of politics have been pursued by the labour movement in both Marx's day and ours. The point is not that these kinds of politics are in themselves wrong, but that they have been pursued in isolation from one another (even when pursued at the same time by the same organisation), as if there were two separate arenas of struggle, circulation and production; money relations and labour process relations.
What Marx's theory of value does is provide a basis for showing the link between money relations and labour process relations in the process of exploitation. The process of exploitation is actually a unity; and the money relations and labour process relations which are experienced as two discretely distinct kinds of relation, are in fact onesided reflections of particular aspects of this unity. Neither money relations nor labour process relations in themselves constitute capitalist exploitation; and neither one can be changed very much without accompanying changes in the other. (For examples of Marx's argument on this point, see Wages, Price and Profit' in Marx-Engels, Selected Works, Vol. 2; and Critique of Political Economy, p. 83-6). Marx's theory of value is able to show this unity of money and labour process because it does not pose production and circulation as two separate, discretely distinct spheres, does not pose value and price as discretely distinct variables.
The importance of the second point, that capitalist exploitation is analysed as a contradictory process, not a static 'fact', is that it enables us to grasp both how exploitation survives, despite the many changes in its form, changes which the politics of circulation and the politics of production have helped to bring about; and also how it has an inbuilt tendency to disintegrate in the form in which it exists at any moment, and to be constituted in another form. Hie key to understanding this contradictory process is that although money relations and labour process relations are aspects of the same unity, internally dependent on other, they are nevertheless relatively autonomous from one another. In that relative autonomy he the seeds of potential crisis. This is important politically, not because such a crisis in itself constitutes the breakdown of capitalism —it clearly does not — but because it indicates a potential space for political action; for the self conscious collective regulation of the processes of production and distribution, rather than their regulation through 'blind' market forces.
But Marx's theory of value does not simply analyse the determination of labour in capitalist society in a way that indicates potential space for political action. Its third virtue is that it also builds into the analysis, not only potential space for political action, but the possibility of taking political action. Now the possibility of taking political action against the capitalist form of the determination of labour, against capitalist exploitation, is taken for granted by all socialists. But the strange thing is that this possibility has all too often not been built into the concepts with which socialists have analysed the process of exploitation. Instead exploitation has been analysed as a closed system, and political action against it —class struggle —has been introduced, to impinge upon this system, from the outside. It may impinge as 'the motor of history' pushing the system on over time, at a slower or more rapid pace; or as the independent variable determining the level of wages, or the length of the working day, or the particular form or tempo of the restructuring of capital after crisis. Whatever formula is used, the same drawback is there: class struggle only enters the analysis as a deus ex machina. This leaves us unable to think of the transition from capitalism to socialism as an historical process, a metamorphosis consciously brought about by collective action; rather than as a leap between two fixed, pre-given structures, or as a simple extension of socialist forms considered as already co-existing with capitalist ones (for a longer discussion of this point, see Elson, 1979).
Edward Thompson has recently presented an impassioned critique of Althusserian Marxism on this very point (Thompson, 1978), and it seems to me that his critique is equally applicable to the model-building of most Marxist economics; and to the relentlessly unfolding dialectic of the capital-logic school. All of them analyse capitalist exploitation without using concepts which contain within them the recognition of the possibility of conscious collective action against that exploitation. There is a bifurcation between their analysis of what capitalist exploitation is, and their analysis of the politics of ending it. If the 'structure' really is 'in dominance'; if the independent variables are simply 'given', and the dependent variables uniquely determined by them; of capital really is 'dominant subject'; then we are left without a material basis for political action.
In my view, and here I differ from Thompson, the same bifurcation does not occur in Marx's Capital. This offers us neither a structure in dominance, nor a model of political economy, nor a self-developing, all-enveloping entity. Rather it analyses, for societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, the determination of labour as an historical process of forming what is intrinsically unformed; arguing that what is specific to capitalism is the domination of one aspect of labour, abstract labour, objectified as value. On this basis it is possible to understand why capital can appear to be the dominant subject, and individuals simply bearers of capitalist relations of production; but it is also possible to establish why this is only half the truth. For Marx's analysis also recognises the limits to the tendency to reduce individuals to bearers of value-forms. It does this by incorporating into the analysis the subjective, conscious, particular aspects of labour in the concepts of private and concrete labour; and the collective aspect of labour in the concept of social labour. The domination of the abstract aspect of labour, in the forms of value, is analysed, not in terms of the obliteration of other aspects of labour, but in terms of the subsumption of these other aspects to the abstract aspect. That subsumption is understood in terms of the mediation of the other aspects by the abstract aspect, the translation of the other aspects of labour into money form. But the subjective, conscious and collective aspects of labour are accorded, in the analysis, a relative autonomy. In this way the argument of Capital does incorporate a material basis for political action. Subjective, conscious and collective aspects of human activity are accorded recognition. The political problem is to bring together these private, concrete and social aspects of labour without the mediation of the value forms, so as to create particular, conscious collective activity directed against exploitation. Marx's theory of value has, built into it, this possibility.
Its realisation, in my view, would be helped if socialists were to use the tools which Marx's theory of value provides to analyse the particular forms of determination of labour which prevail in capitalist countries today. This essay is offered as a contribution to the restoration to working condition of those tools.
Notes
I should like to thank the many comrades in Brighton and Manchester with whom I have discussed value theory over the last few years; and in particular Ian Steedman for reading and commenting on the manuscript of this essay. The responsibility for its idiosyncracies remains mine alone. I would welcome comments from readers via CSE Books.
