传统的经济学一贯认为,要说明劳动的价值就会导致循环论证。那么,说明劳动的价值是否就会导致循环论证呢?这是一个谜,我把它叫做循环论证之谜。这是一个斯芬克斯之谜!破解了循环论证之谜将具有重大的意义,本文就试图破解这个谜。循环论证的责难最初是由庸俗经济学家赛·贝利提出来的。古典经济学家认为商品的价值是由其中包含的劳动决定的,同时又认为劳动也是商品。有些庸俗经济学家是反对商品的价值由其中包含的劳动决定这一命题的,因为他们意识到了这一命题当中包含着危及资本主义制度的一个革命性结论,即劳动是商品价值的唯一源泉,一切具有价值的财富都理应为劳动者所有。所以,他们就对古典经济学家提出了责难。比如赛·贝利 Traditionally, economics has always held the view that the value of labor leads to circular arguments. So, does it mean that the value of labor leads to circular argument? This is a mystery, I call it the mystery of circular argument. This is a Sphinx mystery! It is of great significance to crack the mystery of circular argumentation. This article attempts to solve this mystery. The clichés of circular argument were originally set out by the vulgar economist Sai Bailey. Classical economists think that the value of a commodity is determined by the labor involved and that labor is also a commodity. Some vulgar economists oppose the proposition that the value of a commodity is determined by the labor it contains, for they realize that this proposition contains a revolutionary conclusion that endangers the capitalist system: labor is the only source of commodity value, All valuable wealth deserves to be owned by laborers. Therefore, they blame the classical economists. Such as 赛 · Bailey