Some questions about “Introduction to Political Economy”.
1、我不是很理解不同使用价值之间为何无法相互比较？物的有用性，亦即它能满足人们某种需要的属性，便是物品的使用价值。那么可不可以说：人对一物品的需求大，该物品就越有用，它的效用就越大，使用价值就越大呢？
2、如何论证使得不同商品之间能够相互交换的共同的质一定是凝结在其中的劳动量而不会是其他东西呢？
3、”价值是一定社会条件下生产者之间的社会关系”感觉对这句话理解的不是很深刻。
4、使用价值与价值之间的矛盾随着商品经济的发展而逐渐激化能否这样理解：比如一个鞋匠过去一天只生产几双鞋，现在一天生产几百双、几千双，他生产的使用价值更多了，他就更需要将这些使用价值让渡出去，以获得价值，更需要使自己的私人劳动带上社会劳动的性质，否则他便无法生存。
5、为什么说货币作为支付手段这一职能的出现是货币前三种职能、是商品经济的矛盾发展的结果。
6、如何理解**“商品价格对商品价值的 不断背离是一个必要的条件，只有在这个条件下并由于这个条 件，商品价值才能存在。只有通过竞争的波动从而通过商品价 格的波动，商品生产的价值规律才能得到贯彻，社会必要劳动时 间决定商品价值这一点才能成为现实。”**
7、为什么资产阶级古典经济学家不懂得劳动二重性无法区分具体劳动与抽象劳动呢？
1 Like
-
Can the use value of rice be compared to that of a transportation tool? Can the use value of a lathe be compared to that of a copper ingot? Can we say that a bicycle can replace the function of 100 bowls of rice? Of course not. Because the qualities of different use values are not the same, they are fundamentally incomparable. The use value of a thing is not determined by the amount of human demand for it, because the use value of an object is its inherent property, just like rice can be eaten directly, used as raw material to make rice balls, feed livestock, or paste windows. This is determined by its chemical composition as food, the softness or hardness on the surface, and its ability to gelatinize and become sticky when soaked in water, not by whether people need it. Whether or not it is needed, it still has these properties and can fulfill these functions. If use value were decided by human demand, then when a person is full, would its function as food become less important? No, it would not. So this is a subjective idealist understanding. Use value can only be compared within the same product category; for example, the quantity can be distinguished between a bowl of rice and two bowls. Products of different qualities cannot be directly compared. In the absence of food and the inability to choose among types, rice and flour can be compared because they have similar chemical properties as food and can somewhat substitute for each other. However, this substitution is incidental and cannot serve as a universal method for studying social economy. The demand for a product in society is considered when conducting economic accounting and planning how much of this product to produce during the socialist period. In other words, it is only about calculating the quantity of use value to be produced, which is a calculation of the same product quantity.
-
This is primarily because all products are originally created by labor, which itself embodies labor. Labor inherently has two aspects: abstract labor and concrete labor. The latter refers to the specific process of labor, the type of labor object handled, and the kind of labor product produced; these differ in quality. The former, that is, how much time and effort you spend on labor, can be completely compared because you can spend the same amount of time on another type of labor, and there is no difference between them. If you insist on why other qualities are comparable, it is because the common aspect of labor is activity involving mental and physical effort to produce products, and everyone can engage in it. Therefore, comparison can only be made regarding the amount of mental and physical effort spent, measured by the time spent (usually based on societal average). This is how it is realized in specific situations. Suppose you use leftover flour to exchange for tools made by craftsmen; if you demand tools that exceed the labor contained in your flour, the other party would be unwilling to suffer losses because it would be better for them to perform the same labor as you to produce flour. In a highly developed commodity exchange society like capitalism, this becomes even more evident. If your offered price is too high, they will go to another merchant whose goods better match the commodity value.
-
Value itself is a reflection of the general labor condensed in commodities under the conditions of a commodity economy. Commodities are meant to be exchanged; exchange itself is a process of dominating others’ labor, at the cost of having one’s own part of labor subjected to others’ control. The social relationship embodied by value is essentially a relationship where a producer can dominate others’ labor based on the amount of labor contained in the commodities they own.
-
To some extent, this can be said, but its manifestation forms vary. When the commodity economy was still very underdeveloped, a large part of the products produced by people were not yet commodities. At that time, the need for exchange was not significant, and exchanges were only occasional acts of mutual benefit. As productivity developed, surplus products increased, and the proportion of commodities in total products grew, making exchange more frequent. This led to situations where a needs B’s goods, B needs C’s goods, and C needs A’s goods, requiring multiple exchanges to realize the circulation of commodities. As this chain of barter lengthened, exchange became more difficult, and the contradiction between use value and value grew larger. Later, fixed commodities in the form of equivalence—general equivalent money—were gradually formed, easing this contradiction, separating buying and selling, and enabling commodities to be exchanged over broader periods and spaces. However, this also introduced the possibility of selling without buying and buying without selling, which could interrupt circulation, and producers increasingly did not know who would ultimately control their products. Ultimately, in capitalist society, this contradiction erupted completely. The bourgeoisie, in pursuit of surplus value, must maximize their accumulation; their production no longer considers whether society’s commodities can be consumed by the working people. Economic crises occur frequently, with goods often unsalable, and the contradiction between use value and value becoming extremely sharp. These issues will be elaborated on later.
-
Similarly, the means of payment is the function of currency during the separation of commodity exchange and sale. This results from the fact that commodity exchange occurs over broader periods and spaces. It is based on the function of currency as a measure of value because currency must first have a certain value to facilitate payment. Since currency has value and can be stored, accumulated currency can be used for payments. The separation of buying and selling also stems from the division of the circulation function into two parts.
-
Because the value of a commodity cannot be precisely calculated directly by the amount of time each commodity takes, or rather, no one would exchange based solely on this. No one would pay a higher price just because your individual commodity takes more time to produce. The process of determining value through socially necessary labor time is achieved through competition. In this process, there will be producers with lower productivity selling their products at prices below their individual labor time, and producers with higher productivity selling at prices above their individual labor time. Those with prices too high will have low sales, and those with prices too low will reduce profits per unit. Without this, there would be no unified price, and the possibility of expressing the value determined by socially necessary labor time through price would not exist.
-
Because the bourgeoisie wants to prove that profit is generated by their entire capital—that it is money making money, rather than created by workers’ labor— they cannot demonstrate that the abstract labor in workers’ active labor creates value and increases its amount. Instead, they claim that concrete labor transfers the original use value of the means of production, denying that their capital actually creates value. They argue that even the process of value transfer is the result of workers’ concrete labor, and that their constant capital itself is also created by workers. All products should ultimately belong to the workers.
9 Likes
Thank you for the clarification! However, I still have some doubts: How do socially necessary labor time or labor productivity spontaneously determine commodity prices? Is there any necessary relationship between them? Why is it said that the higher the labor productivity, the cheaper the goods, and the lower the price, the more expensive?
How can coinage, as a symbol of value, fulfill the function of a store of value? What is the specific process by which metallic currency, as a means of storing value, spontaneously adjusts the money supply? For example, why does a portion of coinage spontaneously exit circulation to become stored currency when the amount of money needed in circulation decreases?
The necessary labor time, which is the main labor time spent on producing a certain commodity in society. Commodities with higher labor productivity require less labor per unit, so their value is lower. When labor productivity remains unchanged, this is easy to understand. For example, the labor to make one knife can produce two hammers or four clotheslines, so the latter obviously requires less labor and is cheaper. Because I can make four rods in the same amount of time, it’s impossible for your rods to sell at a higher price. In capitalist society, it’s quite similar; if the price of the rods exceeds this value, someone will expand production, eventually causing the price to fall back to the value under oversupply, or even lower. But if you ask how the reduction in commodity value is achieved during the process of increasing labor productivity, then if this new technology is only mastered by a few enterprises, the social necessary labor of this commodity will not change much, and these few enterprises can earn excess profits. However, once most enterprises have mastered it, other companies will also lower prices to capture the market (because the price only returns to its value, and does not go below it, so they can still profit normally, thus they can carry out this operation), which again pulls the commodity price back down. This is the specific process of change.
1 Like
Money is simply currency that has been minted, guaranteed in quality and purity by a reputable mint, containing a value consistent with its face value. It is not a symbol of value, but a tangible currency. It can certainly fulfill the function of storage. If you are talking about undervalued currency, then people will not tend to store such currency, but will choose others. Its function of storage is indeed greatly weakened. How exactly to regulate the currency in circulation is actually quite simple: the less currency needed, meaning fewer transactions, no longer taking money out to buy things, then of course the money will be stored rather than in circulation. But banknotes do not have this situation, unless it is small change used for daily expenses. Large capitalists’ large amounts of currency will never be willing to exit circulation because holding onto this money is meaningless. Currently, banknotes rely on national credit to be issued, temporarily used as currency with a fixed value. Even so, no one really wants to store them for long, because they are just paper. But when credit is insufficient and currency depreciates, no one will want to continue storing it, but will be eager to sell it off to buy goods or other metal currencies.
1 Like
Are the current coins full-valued metal currency, or are they undervalued symbols of value?
The materials of Chinese coins are stainless steel, or stainless steel plated with nickel, or steel core plated with stainless steel. The value of these metals is far below that of precious metals like gold and silver, and can be essentially ignored, so they are just symbols of value.
4 Likes
The cost of repairing Chinese coins, based on Taiwan’s situation, is about 1.54 New Taiwan Dollars per coin, which converts to approximately 0.35 RMB. The weight of RMB is twice that of New Taiwan Dollars, but it can also be said to be severely undervalued, similar to banknotes. Additionally, the material cost is very low; the steel cost for 100 coins is only 2 yuan. However, the transfer of machine value during casting, the labor condensed by workers, and the value transfer during transportation account for a relatively high proportion. The main reason is that the inflation of Chinese currency is severe, which actually increases the production costs.
2 Likes
Is it good to read the corresponding content in Capital after reading the introduction?
Reading Capital directly can be quite challenging. I recommend finishing it first, then reading the Imperialist Political Economy at Nankai University, followed by the History of Bourgeois Political Economy and Socialist Political Economy (which is also very complex and difficult to understand). To truly understand Capital, a strong foundation in political economy is necessary.
2 Likes
Hiring decorators, electricians, and others is also a form of wage labor, but this kind of wage labor is aimed at obtaining a use value to satisfy one’s own needs rather than to acquire surplus value. Does this kind of wage labor involve exploitation?
This kind of situation requires specific analysis. For example, if you hire an electrician to repair the wiring, you are purchasing their service, and the cost you pay is far higher than the market hourly rate. If you have ever hired an air conditioning repair technician, you will find that you might spend two hundred or more yuan at once, but their labor time multiplied by the usual skilled worker’s hourly wage is far below that amount. In this case, what they actually receive is their full labor remuneration. However, although they can obtain their full labor value, because they are small producers and find it difficult to find clients, their monthly income is generally at most the income of a skilled worker. If you are using platform maintenance services, the money paid to these maintenance workers is only a small part of what you pay them; the rest, besides the cost of production materials, is the platform’s profit. Such platforms are a form of commercial capital; through centralized operation, they can ensure these repair personnel often have orders, but at this point, they are workers—proletariat. Renovation is similar; generally, we can only hire workers from renovation companies, and the fees you pay far exceed their wages, purchasing a service, but the workers only receive very low wages. For example, if you pay 400 yuan for labor, the worker might only get 200 yuan. If you are talking about this kind of situation—some workers bypass the platform to take private jobs, saying they will only charge 300 yuan, and they receive the full 300 yuan for the renovation. In this case, they are actually acting as small producers, simultaneously functioning as productive labor workers and small merchants selling services on their own. The reason their labor price is below 400 yuan is not because you are exploiting them or because they are getting their full labor value. It is because, as small producers, they cannot compete with large-scale production, cannot compete for clients with big commercial capital, have slow turnover rates, and the quality of the goods they provide (such as additional guarantees offered by some renovation companies) prevents them from obtaining their full labor remuneration, forcing them to sell their labor at a lower price. Moreover, it must be pointed out that this situation is not universal in capitalism.
I don’t quite understand why Ricardo didn’t realize that exchange value is the manifestation of value. Isn’t value the common quality that makes different commodities mutually exchangeable? Since Ricardo believed that labor determines value and that the amount of value depends on socially necessary labor, doesn’t that imply an acknowledgment that “different commodities can be exchanged at certain ratios based on the amount of labor contained within them”? Isn’t it a natural conclusion that the exchange ratio of commodities reflects their value, and that value is the basis of exchange value?
He never understood from the beginning that value is the common quality that allows goods to be exchanged with each other. This definition actually already links value and exchange value. Moreover, as a bourgeois political economist, Ricardo, out of his opposition to the interests of the proletariat and his desire to conceal exploitation, and also because the bourgeoisie only considers earning more profit, focusing mainly on quantity calculations rather than qualitative analysis, he was also unable to study the relationships between different categories in detail, especially their dialectical relationships. From the perspective of Ricardo, who had no contact with the correct labor theory of value and was a bourgeois, he encountered many complex problems, such as the fact that land has no actual value but has a price. For Ricardo, land can be exchanged for some currency or commodities, but what is the labor contained in the land? It does not exist. Therefore, he could only say that the value of land is reflected in its form of use value that can be exchanged for commodities. In other words, it seems there is only exchange value here, and the value he defined cannot be found. He became confused, as if the two were separate and disconnected things. Furthermore, stocks, promissory notes, paper money—these things actually have no value, only price; luxury goods contain very little labor, yet their prices are very high; wines stored for a long time far exceed the labor time spent in wine production. Faced with so many phenomena that seem to deviate from labor determining value, he could only admit the existence of relative value and could not conceive of these commodities’ value. This is his limitation. Based on this, he also could not recognize that relative value is the phenomenon form of value and that there is an inevitable connection within it. After all, this inevitable connection is not simply derived from theory; because his labor theory of value is still not dialectical and not thorough enough, it cannot fully reflect objective reality, and therefore he inevitably doubts some of its basic principles.
4 Likes
Why does Ricardo consider agricultural labor as the source of value? Why does Ricardo define social necessary labor as the necessary labor time under the least favorable production conditions?
Before the partition, the Irish land redistribution director accumulated a large amount of land for himself, becoming a landlord-based bourgeoisie, and therefore promoted agriculture, raised the status of agricultural labor, and fought for the interests of his class. This is determined by his class position. As a bourgeoisie, David Ricardo could not acknowledge exploitation; in fact, the most unfavorable production conditions are those of small producers, meaning he believed that market exchanges did not cause small producers to lose money, and that exchanges were equivalent, not harming farmers’ interests. This is also determined by his class position.
1 Like
1、为什么说“生产关系是最基本的关系。其他各种关系，如政治的、文化的等等，都是在生产关系的基础上产生和建立起来的？
2、为什么在殖民地和附属国里自然经济仍然被大量保留下来，资产阶级出于对自由劳动力的需要，不是应该推动自然经济的瓦解，增加自由劳动力吗？
3、怎么理解“在社会主义下，体力劳动和脑力劳动的对立虽然消除了，但是二者之间还存在着本质差别，人们还不得不屈从于某一特定的职业范围，不能自由地选择职业”？
4、“劳动是人们使用劳动工具以改变自然物质使之适合自己需要的有目的的活动。”猩猩也会用木棍等物品抓取树上的一些东西，但他它们无法制造一件哪怕是最简单的石器。也就是说，劳动一/4要使用人类制造的劳动工具。那比如说在古代生产力低下、运输技术不发达的情况下，运输物品直接靠双手而不用如何劳动工具，那这算劳动吗？
5、孤立的、脱离社会的个人生产一定就不存在吗？资产阶级为什么喜欢虚构这些孤立的个人生产？
Because relations of production are the necessary relations for carrying out labor and production, and human consciousness and subjective initiative are all generated in labor. Without labor and the corresponding relations of production, there would be no human consciousness, and political and cultural aspects would also not exist.
Which period of colonies and dependent countries are you referring to? Modern or the late 17th and 18th centuries?
Because socialism still retains many capitalist elements, such as the old division of labor left over from history. Moreover, in capitalist society, only capital has freedom; the masses of people do not have the freedom to engage in mental labor nor the freedom to learn the knowledge required for mental labor. Naturally, it is impossible to engage in mental labor immediately after socialism replaces capitalism. Those engaged in mental labor at the beginning of socialist construction are mostly people who have detached from labor in the previous capitalist society, able to learn this knowledge through owning the labor of the proletariat and being supported, and these are knowledge-based intellectuals of the bourgeoisie.
I’m not very sure about this, but I think the hands here should be regarded as labor tools.
They do not exist. From the primitive society’s three major social divisions to modern capitalist society, the social nature of production has been increasing, especially in the late stages of capitalism. Examples include joint-stock companies and financial monopolies. Of course, the bourgeoisie fabricates such isolated individual producers for two purposes: one is to make the petty bourgeoisie believe they can achieve personal freedom within capitalist society through effort, masking the fact that they are inevitably part of the exploitative class, living off the labor of others, and that petty bourgeoisie cannot realistically achieve such a life; the second is to deny that the bourgeoisie’s possession of the proletariat’s labor is exploitation, claiming that the bourgeoisie’s activities are not exploitation but personal labor, thus denying the inherent socialized production and the contradiction of private ownership of labor in capitalist society. This ultimately amounts to recognizing that individual ownership of labor results is reasonable and defending capitalism’s exploitation.
1 Like