事情经过：
2015年3月15日，上海财大的一位研究生，给我发来一封email，内容是:
【你好，李老师:我是上海财大的一名研究生，最近有幸读到大作《马克思劳动价值理论中的真理和谬误》，觉得很有新意。尤其对文中：G．A．科恩讲“认定价值必须被创造出来本身就是一种先入为主的偏见”感到疑惑，想进一步阅读G.A.的著作。想请问李老师这句话的出处。感谢您在百忙之中回信。谢谢！祝工作愉快，生活开心！】
我的这篇文章还是二十多年前写的，当时还没有读到G.A.科恩的文章全文，只知道它的标题，所引的引文，还是从国内那些批判G.A.科恩的学者文章中转摘来的。就把标题发给这个财大研究生了。这个财大研究生也是有心人，2015年3月18日又给我发了一封email，内容是：
【李老师您好：首先非常感激您回复我的邮件！在网上搜索后发现了这篇文章（见附件）：
The Labor Theory of Value and the Concept of Exploitation
G. A. Cohen
Philosophy & Public Affairs
Vol. 8, No. 4 (Summer, 1979), pp. 338-360
Published by: Wiley
与您所给文章题目有差别：
Cohen.G.A."The labor theory of value and the concept of exploitation" in The Value Controversy,lan Steedmm et al, Verso,London.1981.
不知道“G．A．科恩讲‘认定价值必须被创造出来本身就是一种先入为主的偏见’”，这句话是出自第一篇文章，还是第二篇。若是出自第二篇，李老师方便的话能有电子版发来，或准确中文版书名及作者，最是为好。万分感激！祝李老师开心每一天！】
我把他发的附件下载下来，看了一遍，觉得真是一篇好文章，值得一读，特转发在此，以供大家学习。
But they can be replaced by a truism, which will contribute no less well than they to the conclusion that the laborer is exploited. The result is this simpler Marxian argument (statement (ii) is the truism):Our argument shows that if the labor theory of value is true, labor does not create value. But it would be quixotic to seek a basis otherthan the labor theory of value for the proposition that labor creates value.
We may therefore take it that labor does not create value,whether or not the labor theory of value is true.Some will ask, If labor does not create value, what does? But it is a prejudice to suppose that value must be created. Something must,of course, explain value and its magnitudes, but not all explainers are creators. One putative explanation of value magnitudes is the labor theory of value, the strict doctrine. But it identifies no creator of value, unless we suppose that explaining is creating. What would now be needed to produce a commodity of a certain kind-that is not a creator in any literal sense.
An obvious argument against the labor theory of value is that magnitude of value is affected by things other than socially necessary labor time. One such different thing is the pattern of ownership of means
of production, which can affect values, through the distribution of bargaining power which reflects it.
Products of means of productionon which there is some degree of monopoly are likely for that reasonto command a higher price in equilibrium than they otherwise would,and therefore to have a higher value, under the definition of value we have given.
But if value is something the explanation of which must literally create it, then since ownership of means of production literally creates nothing, it would follow that, despite appearances, the pattern of that
ownership cannot affect value formation. And that is what a Marxist says. He says that labor alonecreates value: the pattern of ownership can affect price, and hence how much value various owners get. But no part of what they get is created by ownership. ==============
我在此特别声明：
所有权是决定商品价值主要因素的科学发现，完全是我自己独立思考出来的，没有受到任何人观点的启发。
在昨日之前，本人从没有读过科恩这篇文章，也因此未受到他在这篇论文中提出的“生产资料所有制的不同形式也决定价值大小”的观点的影响。
扫码加好友，拉您进群
全部版块
我的主页
收藏
