“劳动价值论一元论”源自考茨基对马恩的误解——对马克思主义价值理论演变史的非主流性考察

马恩价值理论并非劳动价值论一元论,而是宏观的"效用/劳动价值论";劳动价值论只是其向"具体"上升中的抽象出发点.本文由此出发,论述了考茨基《卡尔·马克思的经济学说》一书是在《资本论》第三卷未公开发表的条件下撰成的,存在对《资本论》第三卷的悖离和对第一卷的形式主义或绝对化理解.后来,伯恩斯坦依据《资本论》第二、三卷,畅言劳动价值论与当时已兴起的效用价值论的互补,是比较符合马恩价值理论本相的,而考茨基等人以"反修"为名,用"劳动价值论一元论"批判伯氏,虽在政治上有一定合理性,但在理论上却是僵守误解,曲解马恩.这种"一元论"后来因"反修"而"正宗"化于列宁,独尊于前苏联,至今残喘于中国,乃是"阶级斗争为纲"在价值理论中的遗存物.

The Monism of Labor Theory of Value Originated from Kautsky's Misunderstanding of Marx and Engles--A Non- mainstream Examination of the Evolution of Marxist Theory of Value

Marxist theory of value is not the monism of labor theory of value, but macroscopic "utility/labor theory of value". Labor theory of value is just the abstract starting point towards the "concrete". On this basis, this paper points out that Kautsky's Karl Marxist's Economic Theory was written before the publishing of Des Kapital, deviating somewhat from the first volume of Des Kapital and containing formal and absolute understanding of the third volume of Des Kapital. Later, Bernstein expounded the complementariness of labor theory of value and utility theory of value, which is in compliance with Marxism. In spite of his political reasonableness, Kautsky misunderstood Marx and Engles theoretically. As a result of "anti revisionism", this monism was respected by Lenin and in Soviet Union and even lingers nowadays in China, which should be considered as the remains of "class struggle as the guiding principle" in the theory of value.