【摘要】 复杂劳动还原是马克思主义经济学中一直没有得到妥善解决的传统难题。本文批判地考察了过往关于复杂劳动还原的理论,尤其是希法亭的理论,在汲取这些理论的合理要素的基础上,重新诠释了教育培训劳动与产品的价值形成过程的关系。本文提出,应同时立足于两种社会必要劳动的概念,将希法亭和鲁宾所代表的两种理论传统经过适当的修正综合在一个框架里。本文据此设计了可以求解复杂劳动还原系数的新模型。本文还进一步探讨了如何在经验中识别相关部门是否存在复杂劳动还原的问题,给出了一个简易的解决方法。更多还原

【Abstract】 The reduction of complex labor has been an unsolved problem in Marxian economics. This paper critically investigates three theories on the reduction of complex labor,especially those of Hilferding and his followers. As Hilferding argues,the educational and training labor expended in producing skills can be considered a value of fixed capital and transferred into the value of products when skilled labor is used to enhance productivity. Notwithstanding its pervasive influence,this point of view has been repeatedly criticized throughout the history of Marxist economic thought because it runs the risk of blurring the basic stance of the labor theory of value. In recognizing the shortcomings of Hilferding’s theory,this paper draws on his idea that educational and training labor indeed exerts an effect on the value creation process. It thus attempts to reinterpret the relationship between educational and training labor and the labor expended in the production of products. Our fundamental hypothesis is that education and training can be regarded as one of two sequentially successive phases in a continuous and unified labor process,with the labor process normally defined as its second phase. We further argue that the theories of Hilferding and Russian economist Rubin must be combined to explain the reduction in complex labor,which can be achieved by taking both value creation and its realization into account simultaneously,corresponding to Marx’s two conceptions of socially necessary labor.Based on the aforementioned theoretical analysis,we evaluate the mathematic model of Japanese economist Okishio,who followed Hilferding and other pioneers in designing an equation system that included equations of commodity production as well as an equation of skill production. Okishio’s shortcomings are obvious. First,he duplicates Hilferding’s controversial view that educational and training labor is transferred into the value of products. Second,he overlooks Rubin’s viewpoint that the conversion of complex labor occurs in not only production but also exchange. This paper constructs a new model that combines the production of skill and products into one equation,as both are successive phases of one unified and enlarged labor process. As a result,educational and training labor creates a part of the value materialized in products besides those expended in the direct labor process. The conversion coefficient of complex labor can be solved in a system composed of two equations by introducing an equation denoting exchange. The determination of the value of advanced labor power is partly ex post in character, as it is fixed in the aftermath of the value creation and realization process.Furthermore,this paper explains why complex labor and simple average labor have different ratios of exploitation. Finally,a preliminary empiric method is determined that can be applied to recognize the conditions for the reduction of complex labor in relevant sectors.更多还原