노동시간의 화폐적 표현(MELT)에 대한 비판적 검토 : 전형 문제를 중심으로
Critical Appraisal of the Monetary Expression of the Labor Time(MELT): To the Center of Transformation Problem
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
투하노동 관점에 따르면, 총가치-총가격 비율과 총불불노동시간-총이윤 비율은일치하지 않는다. 또는 폴리의 관심사를 두고 말하면, 총불불노동시간-총이윤 비율은 총직접노동시간-총부가가치 비율과 일치하지 않는다. 그래서 MELT 옹호론자들은 불불노동시간을 포함한 투하노동 관점에서의 가치 범주들의 규정을 버리고, 지배노동 관점에서 가치 범주들 — 특히 노동력의 가치, 지불노동시간 그리고 불불노동시간 — 을 규정하게 된다. 지배노동 관점에서 가치 범주들을 규정하기 위해 이들이 도입한 매개 개념이 바로 MELT이다. 총직접노동시간-총부가가치 비율로서의MELT는 1 평균화된 또는 무차별화된 직접노동시간이 유통영역에서 실현되는 금액이다. 그리고 MELT의 역수인 ‘화폐의 가치’는 1달러가 지배할 수 있는 무차별화된직접노동시간이다. MELT 옹호론자들은 이러한 MELT(그리고 ‘화폐의 가치’)의 의미를 정확하게 파악하지 못했다. 이들은 MELT(특히 그것의 역수인 ‘화폐의 가치’)를이용하여, 지불노동시간을 임금에 ‘화폐의 가치’를 곱한 값 곧 임금이 지배할 수 있는 무차별화된 직접노동시간으로 규정한다. 그런데 이 규정에 따른 지불노동시간과불불노동시간은 직접노동시간 중의 일부분이 아니다. 따라서 지배노동 관점에서의지불노동시간과 불불노동시간 규정은 이론적으로 성립할 수 없다. 결국 가치 범주들을 MELT를 이용하여 지배노동 관점에서 규정하는 것 자체가 오류이다. 따라서MELT를 이용하여 전형문제 — 폴리의 관심사와 관련하여 말하면, 지배노동 관점에서의 총불불노동시간과 총이윤의 관계 — 를 해명하려는 MELT 옹호론자들의 논의들은 재고되어야 한다.
Abstract
In terms of the expended labor, the ratio of gross value to gross price and the ratio of gross unpaid labor time to gross profit are not equal. To say this in other way according to Poley’s interest, the ratio of gross unpaid labor time to gross profit does not coincide with the ratio of direct labor time to gross value added. Therefore the advocates for MELT abandon the definitions of value categories in terms of the expended labor, alternatively accept the definitions of value categories(especially the value of labor power) in terms of the commanded labor. They introduce the intermediary notion, i.e., MELT to define the value categories in terms of the commanded labor. The MELT which is defined as the ratio of gross direct labor time to gross value added is the amount of money that is realized by an averaged or indiscriminative direct labor time through the circulation. ‘The value of money’ or the reciprocal of MELT is the indiscriminative direct labor time that one dollar can command. But the advocates for MELT did not apprehend the meaning of MELT like this correctly. They define the paid labor time as the value of money multiplied by the money wage that connotes the indiscriminative direct labor time which the money wage can command. Then the paid labor time and the unpaid labor time that are defined by this definition are not a part of the direct labor time. Therefore the definitions of the paid labor time and unpaid labor time in terms of the commanded labor are not valid in theory. In effect the definitions of the value categories by MELT in terms of the commanded labor are themselves incorrect. Therefore the advocates for MELT have to reconsider their tries to elucidate the transformation problem by the use of MELT as an intermediary notion.
참고문헌 (30)
- 마르크스, 카를, "자본론 제Ⅰ권(상)(하)" (2015), 비봉출판사
- 마르크스, 카를, "자본론 제Ⅲ권(상)(하)" (2015), 비봉출판사
- Bortkiewicz, L. von, "Karl Marx and the Close of his System" (1949), Augustus M. Kelley
- Campbell, A., "The Transformation Problem: A Simple Presentation of the ‘New Solution’", Review of Radical Political Economics, 29(3), pp.59~69 (1997)
- Duménil, G., "Beyond the Transformation Riddle : A Labor Theory of Value", Science and Society, 47(4), pp.427~450 (1983)
- Duménil, G., "The Unifying Formalism of Domination: Value, Price, Distribution and Growth in Joint Production", Zeitschrift für Nationalökonomie, Journal of Economics, 44(4), pp.349~371 (1984)
- Duménil, G., "The Conservation of Value : A rejoinder to Alan Freeman", Review of Radical Economics, 32(1), pp.119~146 (2000)
- Foley, D., "The Value of Money, the Value of Labor Power, and the Marxian Transformation Problem", Review of Radical Political Economics, 14(2), pp.37~47 (1982)
- Foley, D., "Understanding Capital" (1986), Harvard University Press
- Foley, D., "Recent Developments in the Labor Theory of Value", Review of Radical Political Economics, 32(1), pp.1~39 (2000)
- Freeman, A., "Marx and Non-equlilibrium Economics" (1996), Edward Elgar
- Freeman, A., "Marx and Non-equlilibrium Economics" (1996), Edward Elgar
- Freeman, A., "A Welcome Step in a Useful Direction : A Response to Changkeun Kim", Marxism 21, 8(2), pp.167~214 (2011)
- Freeman, A., "The New Value Controversy and the Foundations of Economics" (2004), Edward Elgar Publishing
- Glick, M., "The Transformation Problem: An Obituary", Australian Economic Papers, 26(49), pp.294~317 (1987)
- Itoh, M., "Marx’s Theory of Money" (2005), Palgrave Macmillan
- Kliman. A., "Is Marx’s Theory of Profit Right?" (2015), Lexington Books
- Kliman. A., "Reclaiming Marx’s “Capital”" (2007), Lexington Books
- Kliman. A., "Replicating Marx: A reply to Mohun", Capital &Class, 30(1), pp.117~126 (2006)
- Kliman, A., "The Transformation non-Problem and the non-Transformation Problem", Capital and Class, 12(2), pp.56~83 (1988)
- Kliman, A., "A Temporal Single-System Interpretation of Marx’s Value Theory", Review of Political Economy, 11(1), pp.33~59 (1999)
- Laibman, D., "The New Value Controversy and the Foundations of Economics" (1998), Edward Elgar
- Lipietz, A., "The So-called ‘Transformation Problem’ Revisited", Journal of Economic Theory, 26(1), pp.59~88 (1982)
- Mohun, S., "A Re(in)statement of the Labour Theory of Value", Cambridge Journal of Economics, 18(4), pp.391~412 (1994)
- Morishima, M., "맑스의 경제학" (2010), 나남
- Moseley, F., "The MELT and Circular Reasoning in the New Interpretation and the Temporal Single System Interpretation", Marxism 21, 13(2), pp.123~146 (2016)
- Potts. N., "Two Temporal Single System Interpretation of Marx Calculations of the MELT", Marxism 21, 13(2), pp.94~122 (2016)
- Rodriguez, A., "Marx and Non-equlilibrium Economics" (1996), Edward Elgar
- Steedman, I., "Marx after Sraffa" (1977), New Left Books
- Sweezy, P., "The Theory of Capitalist Development" (1942), Monthly Review Press