哲学研究

面对庞巴维克关于“价值实体为何是劳动”的质疑，《资本论》研究中的抽象统治路径通过探究“为什么劳动表现为价值”来挽救马克思的劳动价值论。然而，无论是普殊同偏向重解劳动概念的进路，还是阿瑟偏向重解价值概念的进路，都会带来理论困难——或把资本主义现实裁剪为同质性的形式体系，或以抽象统治话语削弱阶级统治话语的地位。事实上，马克思的形式分析方法不仅能容纳政治经济学抽象观念与社会形式的异质性，而且能容纳不同观念之间与不同社会形式之间的异质性。《资本论》不仅说明了劳动异于商品其他属性的地位，呈现了劳动之所以表现为价值的异质性的表现机制，还揭示了这一表现机制所植根的生产关系，从而阐明了劳动何以成为价值实体并表现为价值的问题，其中蕴含着对阶级统治话语的强调。

In response to B?hm-Bawerk 's challenge regarding“why labor is the substance of value”,the approach of “dominance of abstraction”in The Capital studies defends Marx's labor theory of value by answering “why labor manifests itself as value. ”However,both approaches,i. e.,Pu Shutong's focus on reinterpreting the concept of labor and Arthur's emphasis on reinterpreting the concept of value,give rise to theoretical problems: they either reduce the reality of capitalism to a homogeneous formal system or weaken the position of “the discourse on class dominance”by “the discourse on the dominance of ion”.In fact,Marx's method of formal analysis can accommodate not only the heterogeneity between the abstract concepts of political economy and social forms, but also the heterogeneity between different concepts and different social forms. The Capital not only clarifies the unique status of labor that is distinct from other properties of commodities,but also demonstrates the heterogeneous mechanism through which labor manifests itself as value and further reveals the production relations as well as historical conditions underlying this mechanism. In this way,it explains why labor becomes the substance of value and manifests itself as value and also implies an emphasis on “the discourse on class dominance”.