Labor theory of value - labor theory of value

This theory states that the value of a commodity is determined by the labor time socially necessary to produce it. Because it objectifies the determination of commodity value by labor time as the standard of commodity exchange, it is also called the objective value theory, as opposed to the subjective value theory, which explains commodity value based on desire and utility. The labor theory of value was first noticed by William Petty, and was developed by classical economics -- represented in England by A. Smith and D. Ricardo, in addition to Petty, and in France by Boisguilbert, F. Quesnay, and Sismondi -- and was further completed by K. Marx, who critically examined and overcame classical economics.

Smith, who systematized economics, developed the theory of invested labor value, which defines the amount of value of a commodity by the labor required to produce it, and in a society where division of labor and exchange take place, private labor is combined with social labor through the exchange of the commodity, and the substance of value is labor. On the other hand, he advocates the controlled labor theory of value, which states that in a capitalist society where "assets are accumulated by specific people," the amount of value of a commodity is determined by the amount of labor exchanged with that commodity, that is, the amount of labor that can be controlled or purchased. The two coincide in simple commodity production, but while the former is determined by labor in production, the latter is determined by distribution, so they are completely different, and Smith confused the two. Smith also argues that the natural price of a commodity derived from invested labor is broken down into wages, profits, and rent (Explanation of the division of value), and that it is composed of these three incomes: wages, profits, and rent (Theory of Value Composition), but since the latter is each income, it is determined by the supply and demand relationship of each income, and is different from the determination by invested labor. This is based on the controlled labor theory due to distribution. In this way, Smith adopts a dualistic approach in which, on the one hand, society is defined by its essential internal connections, but on the other hand, it is defined by its phenomenal form.

Ricardo correctly inherited and developed the labor invested theory of value and the explanation of value division among these dualisms, severely criticized the errors of Smith's labor command theory of value and the theory of value composition, and purified the labor theory of value. However, he too focused his analysis only on the quantity of value, neglected the qualitative determination of labor that constitutes the substance of value, and was unable to clearly distinguish labor expressed by value (= abstract human labor) from labor expressed by use value (= concrete useful labor). In addition, he regarded the value form of a commodity as something external that is insignificant to the nature of commodity value, and did not consider the internal connection between value and exchange value. Furthermore, he was unable to explain the facts of the source of profit, the formation of average profit, and the establishment of production prices based on the value of labor invested, and was forced to revise the labor theory of value.

Marx fundamentally criticized these defects and rigorously established the labor theory of value based on the duality of labor (concrete useful labor and abstract human labor) that he obtained as the critical final result of his research into classical economics. First, he grasped abstract human labor as the substance of the value of a commodity, separate from the concrete useful labor that produces the use value of the commodity, and clarified the formation of value by distinguishing between labor power, its expenditure = labor, and the objectification of labor. In this case, labor is also eliminated in its qualitative difference, and as abstract human labor, its unit of measurement is based on simple labor. Therefore, complex labor is reduced to simple labor. Next, the amount of value of a commodity is determined by the amount of this abstract human labor, that is, labor time. This labor time is not the amount spent by each producer, but socially necessary labor time. It is the labor time required to produce a certain commodity under the current socially normal production conditions and the social average degree of labor skill and intensity. This determination of labor time is Marx's law of value.

Based on the duality of labor, Marx clarified the relationship between value and exchange value, the essence and function of money, the labor process and the process of value growth, and based on the law of value, he elucidated the exchange of capital and wage labor, and the production of surplus value through the distinction between labor and labor power commodities. Furthermore, he clarified the production price (cost price + average profit) as a transformed form of value by equating total average profit to total surplus value, and the sum of all production prices of all commodities to their total value, thereby completing the labor theory of value and developing his entire economic theory. Here, the various concepts of economics, their movement, and the laws that permeate them are based on the labor theory of value.

[Kaido Katsutoshi]

"Das Kapital" by K. Marx (translated by Itsuro Mukaizaka, Iwanami Bunko / translated by Jiro Okazaki, Otsuki Shoten, Kokumin Bunko)" ▽ "Critique of Political Economy" by K. Marx (translated by Takao Takeda et al., Iwanami Bunko / translated by Toshiro Sugimoto, Otsuki Shoten, Kokumin Bunko)" ▽ "History of the Theory of Surplus Value" by K. Marx, translated by Jiro Okazaki and Yoshito Tokinaga (Otsuki Shoten, Kokumin Bunko)"

Source: Shogakukan Encyclopedia Nipponica About Encyclopedia Nipponica Information | Legend

商品の価値はその商品を生産するために社会的に必要な労働時間によって決定されるという理論をいう。労働時間による商品価値の規定を商品交換の基準とし客観化するので、欲望・効用を基準に商品価値を説明する主観価値説に対して客観価値説ともいう。労働価値説は、ウィリアム・ペティによって初めて着目され、古典派経済学――イギリスではペティのほかA・スミス、D・リカードに代表され、フランスではボワギルベールに始まり、F・ケネーを経て、シスモンディに代表される――によって発展させられたのち、さらにK・マルクスによってこの古典派経済学が批判的に検討克服されて完成された。

　経済学を体系化したスミスは、一方で商品の価値の量をその商品の生産に必要な労働によって規定し、分業と交換の行われる社会ではその商品の交換を通して私的労働が社会的労働に結合し、価値の実体を労働ととらえる投下労働価値説を展開したが、他方で、「資財が特定の人々に蓄積される」資本主義社会では、商品の価値の量は、その商品で交換される労働の量、すなわち支配または購買しうる労働の量によって規定されるという支配労働価値説を説く。両者は単純な商品生産では一致するが、前者は生産における労働からの規定であるのに対し、後者は流通からの規定であって、両者はまったく異なり、スミスは両者を混同していた。またスミスは、一方で投下労働からの商品の自然価格が賃金、利潤、地代に分解する（価値分解説）とし、他方でこれら賃金、利潤、地代の三所得から構成される（価値構成説）と説くが、後者は各所得であるから、各所得の需給関係から規定され、投下労働による規定と異なる。これは流通により、支配労働説に基づくことになる。このようにスミスでは、一方で社会の本質的内的連関から規定するが、他方でその現象形態から規定する二元論となっている。

　リカードは、この二元論のうち投下労働価値説・価値分解説を正しく継承発展させ、スミスの支配労働価値説・価値構成説の誤りを厳格に批判し、労働価値説を純化した。だが彼も価値の量のみに分析を向け、価値の実体をなす労働の質的規定を等閑にし、価値で表される労働（＝抽象的人間労働）を使用価値で示される限りの労働（＝具体的有用労働）から明確に区別できなかった。また、商品の価値形態を商品価値の本性にとってはどうでもよい外的なものとみなし、価値と交換価値との内的連関を問題にしなかった。さらに、利潤の源泉、平均利潤の形成、生産価格の成立という事実を投下労働の価値に基づいて説明することができず、労働価値説を修正せざるをえなかった。

　マルクスは、これらの欠陥を根本的に批判し、古典派経済学研究の批判的最終成果として得た労働の二重性（具体的有用労働と抽象的人間労働）から労働価値説を厳密に打ち立てる。まず、商品の価値の実体として、商品の使用価値を生産する具体的有用労働とはべつに抽象的人間労働をとらえ、労働力、その支出＝労働、労働の対象化を区別して価値の形成を明らかにする。その場合の労働も質的差異をなくし、抽象的人間労働としてその度量単位に単純労働を基準とする。それゆえ複雑労働が単純労働に還元される。次に、商品の価値量は、この抽象的人間労働の量、すなわち労働時間によって決まる。この労働時間は個々の生産者が費やすそれではなく、社会的必要労働時間である。それは、現在の社会的に正常な生産条件と、労働の熟練および強度の社会的平均度とをもってある商品を生産するのに必要とされる労働時間のことである。この労働時間の規定がマルクスの価値法則である。

　マルクスは、労働の二重性に基づいて価値と交換価値との関連、貨幣の本質と機能、労働過程と価値増殖過程を明らかにし、価値法則に基づいて資本と賃労働の交換、労働と労働力商品の区別による剰余価値の生産を解明し、さらに総平均利潤が総剰余価値に等しく、全商品生産価格の総計がその価値総計に等しいことによって生産価格（費用価格＋平均利潤）を価値の転化された形態として明らかにして労働価値説を完成させ、自己の全経済学説を展開した。ここに経済学の諸概念、その運動、およびそこに貫徹する法則が労働価値説によって基礎づけられた。

［海道勝稔］

『K・マルクス著『資本論』（向坂逸郎訳・岩波文庫／岡崎次郎訳・大月書店・国民文庫）』▽『K・マルクス著『経済学批判』（武田隆夫他訳・岩波文庫／杉本俊朗訳・大月書店・国民文庫）』▽『K・マルクス著、岡崎次郎・時永淑訳『剰余価値学説史』（大月書店・国民文庫）』

出典　小学館　日本大百科全書(ニッポニカ)日本大百科全書(ニッポニカ)について　情報 | 凡例