Abstract
The two mainstream viewpoints think that a unit commodity value is inversely proportional to the productivity of labour, which is named “inversely-proportional-theory.” The first one defines the value as the labour time, and defines the magnitude of the value of a unit commodity as the labour time embodied in a unit commodity, then defines the productivity of labour as the production of use value in unit labour time, thus the magnitude of the value of a unit commodity is inversely proportional to the productivity of labour; the second one defines the unit value as the quantity of human labour in the abstract embodied in a unit commodity, then defines the productivity of labour as the production of use value by unit human labour in the abstract, therefore the magnitude of the value of a unit commodity and the productivity of labour are inversely proportional to each other. In the first one, the unit value and the productivity of labour are both put into the concrete labour space; while in the second one, the production in the concrete labour space and that in the abstract labour space are confused. Thus, both of them cannot form a transition between the abstract labour space and the concrete labour space. If the two kinds of space are distinguished, we will find the magnitude of the value of a unit commodity is directly proportional to the productivity of labour, which is called “directly-proportional-theory.”
Highlights
The mainstream viewpoint is that the labour quantity cost by a unit commodity, that is, the magnitude of the value of a unit commodity is inversely proportional to the productivity of labour
The magnitude of the value of a unit commodity is always inversely proportional to the productivity of labour, and is never directly proportional to it. We can describe this theory as inverselyproportional-theory. This theory can be divided into two kinds in detail: the first kind (Bai 2002; Lin 2005) defines the value as the labour time, the magnitude of the value of a unit commodity is the labour time embodied in a unit commodity, it defines the productivity of labour as the production in unit labour time, the productivity of labour is inevitably inversely proportional to the unit value
As long as one of them exists, the other will certainly do. Both kinds of inversely-proportional-theory defined the magnitude of the value of a unit commodity and the productivity of labour from their own points of view, and got the conclusion of an inversely proportional relation between them based on the definitions
Summary
The mainstream viewpoint is that the labour quantity cost by a unit commodity, that is, the magnitude of the value of a unit commodity is inversely proportional to the productivity of labour. The magnitude of the value of a unit commodity is always inversely proportional to the productivity of labour, and is never directly proportional to it. There are opponents who do not approve the inversely-proportional-theory in the academic circle They propose a hypothesis that the magnitude of the value of a unit commodity is directly proportional to the productivity of labour (Ma and Cheng 2002), which is named directly-proportional-theory in short. Those who support the directly-proportional-theory hold an idea that the determinants of the productivity of labour include object elements and subject elements. We start from the contradictions of the inversely-proportional-theory, and point out the root causes of the contradictions, give a strict mathematical proof to the existence of the directly-proportional-theory
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
