How is surplus value generated? What role do various factors play in the formation of value and surplus value?

Surplus value: excluding wages, the part of value obtained by workers' labor and occupied by capitalists for free is called surplus value. For example, the value of labor products obtained by workers is $65,438+00, and workers only get $4 for each product produced, so capitalists get a surplus value of $6.

First of all, from the concept of productivity.

Productivity is the ability of workers to transform their labor objects with certain labor means. Productivity includes labor force, labor means and labor object, and the unity of labor means and labor object is the means of production. Therefore, productivity is the ability produced by the combination of labor and means of production. The process of productive labor is the combination of labor and things, and it is also the process of commodity value formation. Labor force and means of production are inseparable, and the means of production divorced from labor force and labor divorced from means of production are neither realistic productivity nor realistic productive labor process, let alone creating and forming commodity value.

The three elements of productivity can be abstracted into two elements: people and things, labor and capital. There are three relationships between them:

First, the logical relationship. Logically speaking, the labor process is the combination of people and things. Although people cannot live without things, things cannot live without people. People and things are two inseparable and equally important elements in the process of labor.

Second, the philosophical relationship. According to the traditional Marxist theory, among the two factors of productivity, human (labor) is the most critical and decisive factor. Because people have initiative and creativity, labor is the most prominent manifestation of people's initiative and creativity, and people create things, not things create people. Things are passive and inconclusive. However, we should see that the exertion of people's initiative and the use of people's labor force are all a kind of transformation of material objects with the help of certain material means under certain conditions of production relations and certain material premises. This transformation must follow objective laws, including natural laws and social laws.

Third, the value relationship is the judgment of the relationship between people and things from the perspective of class. Traditional Marxism thinks that people take precedence over things and labor takes precedence over capital, but the reality of capitalism is just the opposite. People create things, things rule people, labor creates capital, and capital dominates labor, thus reaching the conclusions of human alienation, labor alienation and social alienation.

The above three relationships belong to rational analysis, but rational analysis is not enough after all. We should also make a historical analysis according to the historical evolution of the relationship between people and things, labor and capital.

Labor is not the only source of value. Marx refuted the view that "labor is the source of all wealth and culture" in Critique of Gotha Program. Marx further pointed out: "Labor is not the source of all wealth. Nature, like labor, is also a use value (and material wealth is made up of use value! ), labor itself is only a natural force, that is, the performance of human labor. " Only when labor is combined with the means of production (labor means and labor object) can labor have condensed objects, and labor as a factor of production can produce goods and property. Because the labor process is the result of the combination of labor and other factors of production, the owners of different factors of production have the right to distribute their own labor results. Both employers and employees distribute their own fruits, but they cannot monopolize all the fruits.

Any value creation is inseparable from the factors of production. According to Marx's point of view, value is undifferentiated human labor condensed in commodities, and this kind of abstract labor is bound to condense in commodities, and it cannot be separated from the conditions of producing commodities, including production tools, labor objects and so on. No labor process can be a labor process divorced from things, and no labor time can be attributed to empty labor time divorced from things. No labor can be made out of nothing, and it must rely on other factors.

Second, from the perspective of production factors.

With the progress of production modernization, factors of production are constantly adding new contents, which shows that the role of factors of production in value creation is becoming more and more obvious. In the traditional agricultural society, the structure of production factors is labor-land; In capitalist society, the structure of production factors is labor-land-capital; In the later stage of industrial society, the structure of production factors is labor-land-capital-management; In the knowledge and information age under the background of globalization, the structure of production factors is labor-land-capital-management-technology-information-knowledge. With the continuous progress of productivity, more factors of production will enter the field of labor production. New factors of production play an increasingly important role in the process of value creation and formation. A new patent, a new technology, a new technology and a new idea will create value many times. From the broad sense of the structure of factors of production, the labor force itself is also a factor of production. In the later period of industrialized society, the labor force has evolved into human capital, and has received different levels of education. The labor force with different scientific and cultural qualities and labor skills also plays different roles in the process of creating value. In short, in theory, we can not admit that other factors of production other than capital and labor participate in creating value, but we cannot deny that they are necessary conditions for value production and play an indispensable role in value creation. Among them, the position and role of production factors such as technology, knowledge and information in value growth are still improving, so they should get corresponding shares in value distribution. On the other hand, capital and production factors other than labor, like labor itself, are also the source of use value or wealth creation and the basic elements of social productivity development. The creation of social wealth is the result of the comprehensive action of various factors of production. Without the role of production factors other than labor, labor itself cannot create use value, so it cannot create value. At present, we are still in the primary stage of socialism, and we are promoting the construction of a market economic system. With the existence of various forms of ownership, investors of various factors should participate in the distribution of production results according to the property rights of factors, which is the corresponding return of production factors determined by the laws of market economy and the inevitable requirement of normal production and productivity development of society. As long as the way of value distribution is not an obstacle but conducive to promoting the development of productive forces, it shows that the policy provisions and adjustments of distribution are reasonable.

Although Marx criticized Say's theory that labor, capital and land are all factors of production that create value, he did not deny the rationality of Say's distribution according to factors of production. It should be noted that even contemporary mainstream economists abroad do not think that distribution according to production factors is ethically reasonable and does not need to be adjusted. When they demonstrate the rationality of income distribution, they still emphasize the contribution of human labor.

The core of the academic debate on this issue is that labor creates value, and factors of production transfer value, and creation and transfer become a focus. Among them, labor and capital * * * jointly create value, which has become a compromise point in this debate. The viewpoint that labor creates value emphasizes labor justice, the dominant position of workers and their liberation, and opposes labor alienation and capital exploitation. The viewpoint of value transfer emphasizes that capital and production factors are indispensable and important factors in the process of labor, and labor does not have the ability to create value without things, and labor is not the only source of value. The viewpoint that labor and capital, factors of production and * * * create value emphasizes that both employers and employees and owners of other factors have the right to obtain the distribution of surplus value. Distribution according to work and distribution according to capital factors go hand in hand, and each has its own income.

Value creation, value transfer, value * * * and creation are intertwined, each with its own basis, and it is difficult to draw a conclusion. Are these three views so tit for tat that there is no room for reconciliation? Are these three arguments a question of defending or tampering with Marx's theory of labor value and surplus value? Does the debate between these three viewpoints represent capitalism or socialism? Actually, the argument is not that serious. The problems lie in the interference of ideology, the influence of metaphysical thinking mode, the understanding of Marxist dogmatism and the confusion of new social and economic phenomena and problems in the process of time-space transformation. Connecting with the background of this debate, we can easily see its practical significance. More than 20 years' economic system reform has formed a pattern in contemporary China in which public ownership is the main body and various forms of ownership coexist, which has impacted the traditional socialist theory of distribution according to work and made distribution according to factors an inevitable choice. In order to introduce foreign capital and encourage the development of private enterprises, we must recognize the legitimacy of capital and the rationality of capital's acquisition of surplus value, unless we still insist on single public ownership. How to coordinate the relationship between distribution according to work and distribution according to factors in theory needs us to find theoretical basis. From the broad theory of production factors, there is no contradiction between distribution according to work and distribution according to need. Under modern economic conditions, factors of production are composed of labor (human capital), monetary capital, land capital, venture capital, scientific and technological patents, management knowledge and so on. By virtue of their ownership, these elements have the right to obtain the surplus value formed in the production process.

(Author: harbin university of science and technology Marxism-Leninism Research Center)