The debate over“proportional to" involves two propositions. The first:a working day of certain hours always represents product of the same value;The second:the magnitude of commodity value decreases along with increasing labor productivity. This paper is a response to the contraversy over the First Proposition. In the debate were expressions like "the actual selling price"，"phase difference" and "value exchange coefficient". These expressions were not used to address the problem in reality，that is，they were not used to explain the phenomenon that in the capitalist mode of production"rules are only used as the regulation of the average which is irregulate in itself and functions blindly.”On the contrary，they were meant to deny the general law of inevitability that“no matter what changes take place in the productive force，the value provided by the same labor in the same working hours is always the same" by citing cases of accidental deviation in some enterprises. Obviously，this kind of denial is in vain.
|Переведенное название||On A Working Day of Certain Hours Represents Product of the Same Value: A Response to Proposition One in the Controversy over "Proportional to"|
|Язык оригинала||Chinese (Simplified)|
|Состояние||Published - 2011|