人自然地会竭力去创造能满足其需要的财物。人的需要繁多,无法脱离他人而独自满足。因此,人必然生活在社会之中,与他人交换彼此劳动的成果。于是,生活在社会中的人,既为自己直接使用(消费)而付出努力,也为交换而付出努力。由于他的需要繁多,他不会把全部努力都用于直接消费,因为他还需要自己所没有的财物。他必须直接受益于他人的努力,例如他对教育、医疗及类似事务的需要。

Man rushes naturally to spend effort in producing the property by which He fulfils his needs. Man’s needs are numerous and He cannot meet them in isolation of other people. Therefore, it becomes inevitable that man lives in a society in which He exchanges with others the products of their efforts. Therefore, man who lives in a society spends his effort to produce both for his direct use (consumption) and for exchange. Because his needs are numerous, He does not spend all his efforts for his direct consumption only, for He is in need of properties which He does not have. It becomes necessary for Him to benefit directly from the efforts of others, as in his need for education and medicine and the like.

因此,人所生产的各种财产,无论种类多么不同、数量多么庞大,都不足以满足他的全部需求。这是因为他无法仅凭自身努力生产出满足所有需求的物品,而必须依靠他人的努力。所以,他必须用自己的努力或财产,去交换他人努力的成果。因此,人与人之间努力的交换是必要的。由于这些努力可以用另一种努力或财产来补偿,就有必要设立一个尺度,用以界定各种努力成果彼此之间的价值,以便进行交换。这一尺度确定了财产的价值,使财产之间、财产与劳动之间得以相互交换。因此,用来界定努力价值的尺度与用来界定财产价值的尺度必须是同一个,以便实现财产与财产之间的交换、财产与努力之间的交换,以及努力与努力之间的交换。

Therefore, the types of properties which man produces, however different and numerous they are, are not enough to fulfil all his needs. This is because He cannot produce by his own effort the things that fulfil all his needs. Rather He must depend on the efforts of others. So He has to exchange his effort or his property with the fruits of the others efforts. Therefore, the exchange of people’s efforts is necessary. Since these efforts may be recompensed by another effort or property it becomes necessary to have a measure that defines the values of all the fruits of efforts, relative to each other, in order that they may be exchanged. This defines the values of properties, so that they can be exchanged with each other or for labour. Therefore it is necessary that the measure used to define the value of efforts, and the measure used to define the value of properties is the same, so as to enable the exchange of properties with each other, the exchange of property with effort and the exchange of effort with effort.

因此，人们约定了一种货币报酬，使他们能够获得满足其需要所必需的财产和劳动。这种货币报酬，就商品而言是价格，就劳动而言是工资。这是因为，在商品交换中，它是对商品本身的回报；在劳动交换中，它是对人所付出的努力所带来的利益的回报。因此，贸易交易和雇佣合同对人而言是不可或缺的，尽管贸易与雇佣之间除了都是人与人之间的交易之外，并无其他联系。所以，雇佣不取决于买卖（贸易），工资也不取决于价格。因此，工资的估定不同于价格的估定，二者之间并无关联。这是因为，价格是对财产的回报，所以它必然是以一种财产换取另一种财产，无论该财产是以价值还是以价格来估定的。工资是对努力的回报，而努力未必会产生财产；它可能产生财产，也可能不产生。努力所带来的利益并不局限于财产的生产，因为劳动还会带来财产之外的利益。因此，农业、商业和工业中所付出的努力，无论其种类和数量如何，都能产生财产，并直接增加国家的财富。但医生、工程师、律师、教师以及其他类似的服务，并不产生财产，也不直接增加国家的财富。如果一个制造者获取工资，他是以其所生产的财产作为交换而获取的；但如果一个工程师获取工资，他并不是以财产作为交换而获取的，因为他并未生产任何财产。因此，价格的估定必然是以财产作为回报的。 这与由劳动所产生的利益的估值相悖。劳动所产生的并非财产的回报，而是利益的回报，而利益未必是财产。由此，买卖不同于雇佣员工，价格在实际估值上也不同于工资。然而，买卖与雇佣之间的差别、价格与工资之间的差别，并不意味着二者之间没有关联。它们的差异在于：雇佣不应建立在买卖之上，买卖也不应建立在雇佣之上。因此，价格的估定不以工资的估定为基础，工资的估定也不以价格的估定为基础。这是因为，若以其中一方为另一方的基础，就会导致工人所生产商品的价格去左右他所获得的工资；而事实上应当是商品价格制约雇主，而不是制约雇员。若让价格来制约雇员，则会导致雇主控制雇员，使其可以借口物价的涨跌而随意增减工资，这是不允许的。因为雇员的工资是对其劳动利益的报酬，所以他的工资应当等同于其劳动利益的价值，而不应与其所生产商品的价格挂钩。那种认为在商品价格下跌时强制雇主支付估定工资会导致其亏损，进而导致工人被裁减的说法，是不成立的。这只会发生在整个市场的商品价格都下跌的情况下。因此，此事应交由专家估定，以保障工人的利益，而不应交由雇主决定。这是因为，专家考虑的是劳动的整体利益，而不是仅仅考虑某一个个别情况。 因此，工资的估算并不以商品的价格为准，而是由专家的估算来决定。

Accordingly, people agreed upon a monetary reward that enables them to obtain the properties and the labour necessary for the fulfilment of their needs. This monetary reward, concerning commodities is the price, and concerning labour is the wage. This is because, in the exchange of commodities, it is a recompense for the commodity itself, and in the exchange of labour it is a recompense for the benefit of the effort spent by man. Thus, trade transactions and hiring deals are indispensable for man, though there is no connection between trading and hiring except that they are transactions between individuals amongst human beings. So hiring does not depend on selling (trading), nor does the wage depend on the price. Therefore the estimation of the wage is different from the estimation of the price, and there is no relationship between them. This is because the price is a recompense for property, so it is inevitably a property in return for a property, whether the property was estimated with the value or the price. The wage is the recompense for an effort, which does not necessarily produce a property; rather it may or may not produce a property. The benefit from effort is not restricted to the production of property, as there are benefits other than property which result from labour. Accordingly, the efforts spent in farming, trading and industry, whatever their kind, and whatever their amount, produce property and this directly increases the wealth of the country. But the services, provided by the doctor, the engineer, the solicitor, the teacher, and other similar services, do not produce property nor directly increase the wealth of the nation. If a manufacturer took a wage He would have taken it in exchange for a property He produced, but if an engineer took a wage, He would have not taken it in exchange for a property, because He did not produce any property. Therefore the estimation of the price is inevitably in return for a property. This is contrary to the estimation of the benefit resulting from effort, which is not a return of property but rather a return of benefit, which may or may not be a property. In this way, selling is different from hiring an employee, and the price differs from the wage regarding the actual estimation However, the difference of selling from hiring, and of price from wage, does not mean the absence of a relationship between them. Rather their difference means that hiring is not to be built upon selling or selling upon hiring. So the estimation of the price is not based upon the estimation of the wage, nor is the estimation of the wage based upon the estimation of the price. This is because establishing one of them upon the other leads to the prices of commodities which the worker produces, controlling the wages He receives, whereas the prices of the commodities control the employer, not the employee. If the prices were left to control the employee then this would lead to the employer controlling the employee, thus He may reduce and increase the wage whenever He likes, under the pretence of the decline and increase of the prices, a matter that is not allowed. This is because the wage of the employee is in return for the benefit of his work, so his wage equals the value of his benefit, and it should not be linked to the prices of the commodities He produces. It is untrue to claim that forcing the employer to pay the estimated wage, when the price of the commodity falls, leads to his loss, and accordingly leads to making the worker redundant. This only occurs when the prices of the commodity fall down in the whole market. Therefore, this matter is left to the estimation of the experts for the benefit of the worker and not left to the employer. This is because the experts consider the whole benefit of the labour in general, and do not consider one case only. Therefore, the estimation of the wage is not based on the price of the commodity, but decided by the estimation of the experts.

此外,将雇佣建立在出售之上、出售又建立在雇佣之上,会导致劳动者所需商品的价格来左右其工资,然而劳动者所需商品的价格本应决定劳动者的生活资料,而不是其工资。因此,如果让劳动者所需商品的价格来左右其工资,就会使劳动者的生活成为雇主的责任,而雇主是有义务保障这一点的。然而,每个人的生活都属于国家应当关照的事务,而非雇主的责任。同样,绝对不允许将劳动者的生活与其产出挂钩,因为劳动者可能体质虚弱,只能生产少量产品,低于其所需。因此,如果其工资与其所生产的数量挂钩,他将被剥夺体面的生计,而这是不被允许的。所以,对于每一位公民,生计权都必须得到保障,无论他生产得多还是少,无论他有能力生产还是无能力生产。因此,他的工资应当以其所带来的利益的价值来衡定,而不论其工资是否足以满足他的需要。

Moreover, building hiring upon selling, and selling upon hiring leads to the prices of commodities needed by the worker controlling his wage, though the prices of his needed commodities should control the sustenance of the worker, and not his wage. So if the prices of the commodities needed by the labour were given control over his wage, it would make the sustenance of the worker a duty upon the employer, which He has to secure. However, the sustenance of every person is a part of his affairs which have to be cared for by the State, not by the employer. It is also not allowed absolutely to link the sustenance of the worker with his production, as the worker could be of a delicate body and not able to produce but a little, which is below his need. So if his wage is linked to that which He produces then He will be deprived of a decent livelihood, a matter which is not allowed. Thus the right of livelihood has to be secured for every person of the citizens whether He produces much or little, and whether He was able or unable to produce. Therefore, his wage is assessed by the value of his benefit, whether his wage was enough to meet his needs or not.

因此，以工人所生产商品的价格，或以工人所需商品的价格来估算其工资，是错误的。于是，以出售为基础来雇佣、以雇佣为基础来出售，也都是错误的；即不允许将其中一方建立在另一方之上。因此，不允许以价格来确定工资，也不允许以工资来确定价格。这是因为工资的估算与价格的估算是两回事，二者各有其特定的因素和特殊的考量，并分别支配着各自的估算。工资是以劳动所产生的利益来估算的，因此估算的依据只是利益，而不是劳动本身，尽管所产生的利益是由于此人付出了劳动。专家们依据这种利益及其被利用的情况来估算工资。工资的估算并非永久不变，而是与双方约定的期限相联系，或与双方约定要完成的工作相联系。一旦期限届满或工作完成，新的工资估算便开始，无论是由缔约双方来确定，还是由专家来估算相当的工资。期限可以是按日、按月或按年计算。

In this way, it is wrong to estimate the wage of the worker by the prices of the commodities that He produces, or by the prices of the commodities that He requires. So it becomes wrong to build the hiring upon selling and selling upon hiring; i.e. it is not allowed to build one of them upon the other. Therefore, it is not allowed to build the wage upon the price, nor the price upon the wage. This is because the estimation of the wage is a matter different from the estimation of the price; and each of them has particular factors and special considerations, which have control over the estimation. The wage is estimated by the benefit that the effort produces, so the estimation is only by the benefit and not by the effort, though the benefit produced is due to the effort spent by the person. The experts estimate the wage by this benefit, according to its utilisation. The estimation of the wage is not permanent; rather it is linked to the period agreed upon, or to the job which is agreed to be performed. Once the period finished or the work is accomplished, a new estimation of the wage starts, whether by the two contracting parties or by the experts, in estimating the equivalent wage. The period could be daily, monthly or annually.

价格是货币数量与等值商品(货物)数量之间的交换比率。因此,价格就是在某一时间为换取某种商品的一个单位所付出的货币。至于其估定,价格自然由市场根据人们对该商品的需求而决定。诚然,价格可以依买方对该商品的需求程度来估定,于是他不论价格多少都要购买;也可以依卖方的需求程度来估定,于是他不论价格多少都要出售。然而这是不允许的;它对社会有害,决不可容许。这就是所谓的欺诈(Ghuban)。因此,在这种情况下,重要的是市场上的卖方和买方所决定的,而不是某个特定的签约卖方和买方所达成的协议。换言之,价格就是市场所估定的商品价值。因此,买方必须接受市场所确定的价格,卖方也必须接受市场所确定的价格。决定这一价格并迫使卖方和买方接受它的,是商品在其出售的社会中的使用价值的需求,而与其生产成本无关。因此,价格的估定不同于工资的估定,二者之间没有关系。所以,工资的估定并不以价格的估定为基础。价格仅由对商品的需求决定,并将市场上商品的短缺作为这种估定的一个因素。价格不能以生产成本来衡量,因为价格可能不等于生产成本,在短期内,根据具体情况,它可能低于或高于生产成本。但从长期来看,市场所确定的价格与生产成本之间会自然地达到平衡。 然而，这并不会使工资与商品的价格挂钩，因为买卖双方无论在短期还是长期交易中，都不会以商品的成本作为考量。相反，在这两种情况下，商品的价格都是由其需求决定的，并同时考虑其在市场上的稀缺性因素。

The price is the ratio of exchange between the quantity of money and the quantity of equivalent goods (commodities). So the price is the money given in return for a unit of a certain commodity at a certain time. In regard to its estimation, it is decided naturally by the market based upon the need of the people for that commodity. It is true that the price could be estimated by the extent of the need of the buyer for the commodity, so He takes it whatever it’s price. It could also be estimated by the amount of the need of the seller, so He sells it whatever is its price. However this is not allowed; it is dangerous for the society and must not be permitted. This is what is called Ghuban (fraud). Therefore, what matters in this situation is what the sellers and buyers in the market decide and not what the (particular) contracting seller and buyer agree upon. In other words, the price is the value of the commodity estimated by the market. So the acceptance of the buyer of the price defined by the market is compulsory, and the acceptance of the seller of the price defined by the market is compulsory. The matter that defined this price and forced the seller and the buyer to accept it is the demand for the benefit of the commodity in the society in which it was sold, irrespective of its production costs. Therefore, the estimation of the price differs from the estimation of the wage, and there is no relationship between the two estimations. So, the estimation of the wage is not based on the estimation of the price. The price is only defined by the demand for the commodity, taking the shortage of the commodity in the market as a factor in this estimation. The price cannot be measured by the cost of production, as the price may not be equal to the production costs, since it could be less or could be more according to the circumstances in the short term. But in the long term, a balance occurs naturally between the price defined by the market and the production costs. However this does not make the wage linked to the commodity’s price, as the buyers and the sellers, in the short and long terms, do not look at the cost of the commodity when they trade it. Rather its price in both cases is defined by the demand for the commodity, taking into consideration the factor of its scarcity in the market.

资本家和共产主义者在估算工人工资上存在分歧，分歧之大以至于彼此矛盾。资本家给予工人的是自然工资，在他们看来，这是工人维持生活所需、处于最低标准的生活资料。当生活费用超过这一最低标准而上涨时，他们便提高这份工资；生活费用下降时，则减少工资。因此，工人的工资是依据生活费用来估算的，与其劳动为雇主和社会所创造的利益无关。而在欧洲和美国，资本主义国家所采取的工人所得工资，是对资本主义制度的一种修正，即给予工人超出其权利、超出所有权自由所赋予他的部分。尽管有这样的修正，工人所得仍处于最低生活标准，若低于此标准，他们便无法安居，只能心怀不满地生活。欧洲和美国生活水平的提高，使工人所得的最低工资标准有所上升，表明工人的境况有所改善，然而他们所得仍不等于其所创造的价值。因此，欧洲和美国对工人工资的估算，虽然使工人与其他国家相比并不贫困，并能满足其基本需求和部分奢侈消费，但与其所在社会的生活水平相比，仍然相对偏低。尽管欧洲和美国工人的生活水平有所提高，但在那里以及在所有资本主义国家，工资的估算相对于其社会而言，仍然处于最低生活标准。

Capitalists and Communists differed in estimating the wage of the worker to the point that they became contradictory. Capitalists give the worker the natural wage which is, in their view, that which the worker needs of the living means at their minimum standard. They increase this wage as the living costs increase over this minimum standard, and they reduce the wage if the living costs decrease. Hence the wage of the worker is estimated according to the living costs irrespective of the benefit which his effort produced for the employer and the society. Whereas, what the workers take of wages in Europe and America as Capitalists states, is an amendment of the Capitalist system by giving the worker more than his rights and more than that which the freedom of ownership gives him. Despite that amendment, that which the worker takes is still at the minimum standard of living, without which He can’t live except in discontent. Raising the level of living in Europe and America allows the minimum standard of wage the worker receives, showing Him to be better off, however He does not take equal to what He produces. So the estimation of the wage of the worker in Europe and America, though it does not make the worker poor compared with other countries, and enables Him to fulfil his basic needs and some of his luxuries is, compared with the standard of living in the community in which He lives, relatively low. Despite raising the standard of living of workers in Europe and America, the estimation of the wage there, and in all Capitalist countries, is still at the minimum standard of living compared with their society.

然而,只要工资的估算以工人维持最低生活所需的生活资料为准,工人的所有权就会被限制在其满足需要所必需的数额之内,即按照其所生活的社会而言的最低标准。无论其生活只是为了满足基本需要,例如智识落后国家(如伊斯兰国家)的工人的情况;还是为了满足基本需要和奢侈享受,例如智识先进国家(如欧洲和美洲)的工人的情况,都是如此。在所有这些国家,工人的所有权都被限制在其所生活的社会中的最低生活标准之内,无论该生活标准高还是低。只要工资的估算以工人维持最低生活标准所需的生活资料为准,情况便是如此。

However, as long as the estimation of the wage is dictated by what the worker needs of means of living at their minimum, it will result in the ownership of the workers being limited to the amount they require to meet their needs, at their minimum standard compared with the community among which they live. This is regardless of whether their living was to meet their basic needs only, as is the case of workers in the intellectually declined countries (like the Islamic countries), or to meet their basic needs and luxuries, as is the case of workers in the intellectually progressed countries (like Europe and America). The ownership of the worker in all such countries is limited to the minimum standard of living in relation with the community among which He lives, whether the standard of living is high or low. This is the case, as long as the estimation of the wage is dictated by what the worker needs of the means of living at their minimum standard.

共产主义者认为，雇员所进行的劳动是生产商品并完成其制造的主要因素；因此，劳动或劳动能力在生产商品中起着至关重要的作用。于是，共产主义者认为雇员的劳动是生产的基础，所以雇员的工资等同于他所生产的东西，而所有的生产成本都归因于一个要素，即劳动。这当然是错误的，也与现实相悖。切实的现实是：宇宙中的财产（由安拉（SWT）创造）是商品价值的基础；为增加该财产的效益或在其中创造效益所花费的成本，连同劳动，是使其转变为能提供某种效益之形态的要素。因此，把劳动作为基础是错误的，也与现实相矛盾。此外，将所生产的商品等同于雇员的工资，等于否定了原材料以及为其生产所花费的成本，而这些成本本可由另一名已经领取了工资的雇员来投入。所以，当前的雇员并没有生产这件商品，生产也不能仅仅归因于他的劳动，从而将该商品作为他的工资。

The Communists consider that the work, which the employee carried out, is the main factor in producing the commodity and completing its manufacture; so the work, or the ability to work, plays an essential role in producing the commodity. Thereupon, Communists consider the work of the employee is the basis of production, so the wage of the employee is equal to what He produces, and all the production costs are attributed to one element, which is the work. This is, of course, wrong and in disagreement with the reality. The tangible reality is that property in the universe, (which is created by Allah (swt)), is the basis of the value of the commodity; the costs spent on increasing the benefit of that property or in creating a benefit in it, together with the work, are the elements which transferred it to the form by which it provides a certain benefit. Hence making the work as the basis is wrong and contradictory to the reality. Moreover, making the produced commodity equal to the wage of the employee is an invalidation of the raw material and the costs spent on its production, which could have been spent by another employee who already took a wage for it. So the current employee did not produce the commodity, and the production is not attributed solely to his work, in order to be given the commodity as his wage.

然而，如果假定所指的工人是一般意义上的工人，那么真主（SWT）所创造的原材料仍然作为收益的一部分存在，将其视为不存在、不予计算是不恰当的。此外，以一般意义上的工人来估算工资是错误的，因为工人是特定的个人，工资也只归属于这些人。因此，以一般意义上的工人来考虑，并不能用来估算工资，反而会导致工资的废除和所有权的废除，而这与人的本性相悖。这也是一种没有实际根据的错误观念。

However if we assume that what is meant by the worker a worker in general, then the raw material which Allah (swt) created still remains (as part of the benefit) and it is improper to be considered as not existent and not accounted for. Moreover, considering the worker in general terms for estimation of the wage is wrong, because the workers are designated persons and the wage is but for these persons. So considering the worker in general does not lead to estimation of the wage, rather it leads to the abolition of the wage and the abolition of ownership, a matter which contradicts with man’s nature. It is also an incorrect thought that has no tangible reality.

客观的现实表明,人会凭借自身去满足需要。因此,他努力从宇宙中获取产品,或从他人那里获取,或将自己的部分努力附加到宇宙中存在的事物之上,使该物品适合满足其需要。因此,共产主义者关于工人工资应当等于其所生产商品的估价理论是错误的;将工资界定为等于其所生产之物(排除原材料)同样是错误的。这是因为工人所使用的工具以及他所付出的费用都对商品的形成作出了贡献,然而它们并不属于工人的劳动。如果从一般意义上看待劳动,将它们视为工人劳动的一部分,那就会导致工资被取消,而这是错误的,正如前文所述。

The tangible reality indicates that man rushes to fulfil his needs by himself; thus He strives to obtain products from the universe, or from another person, or by attaching some of his effort to the things which exist in the universe, so that the property becomes suitable to fulfil his needs. Therefore, the Communist’s theory of the estimation of the wage of the worker as being equal to the commodity He produced is wrong; and defining the wage as equal to what He produced excluding the raw material is wrong also. This is because the tools which the worker used and the expenses He spent have contributed to forming the commodity, yet they are not a part of the worker’s work. If they were considered as a part of the workers’ work looking at work in general, this leads to abolition of the wage which is wrong as was discussed previously.

工人的工资既不与商品挂钩，无论是其价值还是其价格。相反，它与其劳动为个人和社会所带来的利益挂钩，无论这种利益是存在于原材料之中，如蘑菇和苹果，还是存在于工人对工作的贡献之中，如蒸汽机。因此，工资的估算与利益挂钩，而不是与其所生产的商品挂钩。所以，将工人的工资限定在某个界限之内，无论规模大小，都是错误的，也与切实的现实相矛盾。只要工资是已知的即可，而不必由某个界限来规定。因此，资本主义者、共产主义者和社会主义者所使用的工资估算理论是错误的，与现实相矛盾。它还会扰乱人们在为满足各自需要而工作时必然产生的各种关系。

The worker’s wage is not linked with the commodity, whether its value or its price. Rather it is linked with the benefit which his effort provided to the individual and the community, whether this benefit exists in the raw material, like the mushroom and the apple, or it exists in the worker’s contribution to the work like in the steam engine. Thus the estimation of the wage is linked with the benefit not with the commodity which He produces. Therefore, limiting the worker’s wage by a certain limit, whatever its scale, is wrong and contradicts to the tangible reality. It is sufficient that the wage be known rather than defined by a certain limit. Thereupon, the theory of the wage estimation used by the Capitalists, the Communists, and the Socialists is wrong and contradicts the reality. It also causes disruption in the relationships which necessarily arise among the people during the work for fulfilling their needs.

这种工人工资估算上的差异，源于人们对商品价值的界定不同，即对“商品价值”含义的理解不同。一些资本主义者将价值定义为等同于该商品所耗费的时间、精力和原材料的成本。例如，蒸汽机的价值被估得高于自行车。这种价值还取决于这些商品在他们看来的稀缺程度。另有人认为，一物的价值取决于其效用，即取决于它满足需求的能力。还有人认为，任何商品的价值取决于其生产过程中所耗费的劳动量，加上生产过程中所用机器和工具的生产所耗费的劳动量。最近的理论（称为“边际效用理论”）则从生产者和消费者双方的角度，即从供求关系的角度来看待价值，因此价值取决于供给与需求。由此，边际效用支配需求，即它是商品满足需要的最低效用界限，超过这一边际界限后，人们对满足需要的热切程度会减弱，甚至变为有害。而生产的边际成本支配供给，即它们是生产该商品所耗费的最后一份劳动量，超过这一量再投入劳动便会造成亏损。因此，价值随之波动，在这两种现象之间保持平衡。

This difference in estimating the wage of the worker is due to their differences in assigning the meaning of the value of the commodity i.e. in defining the value of the commodity. Some of the Capitalists defined the value as equal to what the commodity costs of time, effort and raw materials. As an example, the steam engine is evaluated more than the bicycle. This value is considered according to the scarcity of these commodities to them. Others said that the value of a thing depends on its benefit i.e. on its ability to fulfil the needs. Others said that the value of any commodity depends on the amount of work spent in its production, in addition to the amount of work spent in producing the machinery and tools used in the production process. The most recent theory, (called the ‘marginal utility theory’), looks at the value from the viewpoint of the producer and consumer together i.e. from the viewpoint of supply and demand, thus depending on the supply and demand. Thus the marginal benefit controls the demand i.e. it is the minimum limit of the commodity’s benefit for fulfilling the need, such that the keenness for fulfilment after this marginal limit diminishes or becomes harmful. While the marginal costs of production control the supply i.e. they are the last amount of work spent in producing the commodity such that spending any more work in production becomes a loss. Thus the value fluctuates such that it maintains a balance between these two phenomena.

关于共产主义者所持的价值观，卡尔·马克思提出，价值的唯一来源是生产过程中所耗费的劳动。资本家金融家以仅够工人维持生存并保持劳动能力的工资购买其劳动力，然后利用这一劳动力生产出价值远超其所支付工资的商品。马克思将工人所创造的价值与其实际所得报酬之间的差额称为“剩余价值”。他指出，这部分剩余价值代表地主和资本家以收入、利润和资本利息的名义，侵占了工人应得权利的数额；当然，他并不承认这些名目的合法性。

With regard to the value according to the Communists, Karl Marx mentioned that the only source of the value is the work spent in its production, and that the Capitalist financier buys the power of the employee for a wage which is not more than He needs to stay alive and able to work. Then He exploits this power to produce commodities whose values greatly exceed the wage which He pays to the employee. Marx called the difference between what the worker produces and what is really paid to Him ‘the surplus value’. He stated that this surplus value represents the amount which landlords and businessmen usurp of the worker’s rights under the name of the revenue, profit and the capital interest whose legality He of course, did not acknowledge.

事实上，任何商品的价值，就是其效用的大小，并同时考虑其稀缺性（短缺）这一因素。虽然劳动是获取这种效用的手段，或是生产这种效用的手段，但在该商品与另一商品进行交换时，或在使用该商品时，劳动完全不被考虑。因此，对于任何商品而言，正确的看法是：考虑其稀缺性这一要素，着眼于其效用。无论这件商品最初是人所占有的，比如狩猎所得，还是通过交换获得的，比如贸易所得，都是如此。在这一问题上，莫斯科社会、巴黎社会与麦地那社会并无差别。这是因为人在任何地方，当他努力获取某一商品时，都会衡量其中所含的效用大小，并考虑该商品在市场上的稀缺程度。这就是人们所看到的商品价值，也就是它的真实价值。

The fact is that the value of any commodity is the amount of its benefit, taking into consideration the factor of its scarcity (shortage). Though work is a means to obtain this benefit, or a means to produce it, it is not considered at all when this commodity is exchanged with another, nor when using it. Therefore the true view for any commodity is the view of its benefit, taking into consideration the element of its shortage, whether this commodity was possessed by man initially like from hunting, or by exchange like trading. There is no difference regarding this matter in the society of Moscow, the society of Paris and the society of Madinah. This is because man everywhere, when He strives to obtain a commodity assesses the amount of benefit that exists in it, taking in to account its shortage in the market. This is the value of the commodity as men view it, which is its true value.

但是，商品的真实价值是通过它与另一物品（无论是商品还是货币）的交换量来衡量的。从这个意义上说，这一价值不会因时间、地点和环境的变化而改变。至于商品的价格，则是在某一特定时间、特定地点和特定环境下，用来交换该商品一个单位所付出的货币数量。这一数量会随着时间、地点和环境的变化而变化。换言之，价格就是货币数量与等值商品数量之间的交换比率。

But the actual value of the commodity is estimated by the amount of its exchange with another thing, whether a commodity or money. This value, by this sense, remains constant despite the change of time, place and circumstances. With regard to the price of the commodity, it is the amount of money which is given in exchange of one unit of this commodity in a certain time, certain place and in certain circumstances. This amount changes as the time, place and circumstances change. In other words, the price is the ratio of exchange between the amount of money and the equivalent amount of commodities.

如果一个人娶了一个女子，并以某个已描述的橱柜作为她的嫁妆的一部分，并说明其价值为五十第纳尔，最后把它交给了她，那么橱柜的价值就因她以其作为商品接收而已被确定。如果他之后从她那里把它拿走，她就此对他提起诉讼，那么他必须把橱柜本身交给她，而不是它的价格。如果橱柜被证实已损坏，或他声称它已损坏，那么他应当支付她五十第纳尔，因为这就是橱柜的价值，无论在诉讼之时，同样的橱柜是多于还是少于五十第纳尔，因为这是它实际的估定价值。同样橱柜的价格不予考虑。 这与以下情况不同：若婚约中注明该橱柜的价格为五十第纳尔，丈夫最后把橱柜交给了妻子。那么，如果他从她那里把它拿走，她就此提起诉讼，他可以选择把橱柜交给她，或支付她其价格（五十第纳尔），或用五十第纳尔为她购买另一个橱柜（无论诉讼之时该橱柜是多于还是少于五十第纳尔）。因此，他有义务始终交给她一个价格为五十第纳尔的橱柜。

So if a person married a woman and made, as a part of her dowry, a certain described cupboard, and He mentioned its value as fifty dinars, and He eventually handed it to her, then the value of the cupboard had been designated through her receiving it as a commodity. If He later took it from her and she brought a lawsuit against Him over it, then He has to hand over to her the cupboard itself not its price. If the cupboard was proved to be damaged, or He alleged that it was damaged, then He should pay her fifty dinars, because this is the value of the cupboard whether the identical cupboard at that time of the court case was more or less than fifty dinars, because this is its actual estimated value. The price of an identical cupboard is not considered. This is different than the case if it were mentioned in the marriage contract that the price of the cupboard was fifty dinars and the husband eventually handed the cupboard to his wife. Then if He took it from her and she brought a lawsuit against Him over it, He would have the choice to hand the cupboard to her or to pay her its price (fifty dinars), or to buy her another cupboard with fifty dinars (whether the cupboard at the time of the court case was more or less than fifty dinars.) So He is obliged to hand to her a cupboard whose price is fifty dinars at all times.

这是因为价值不变，而价格会变化。因此，商品的实际价值，是在估价时其交换的数量；商品的价格，则是市场上为换取该商品而支付的货币数量。这种价值与价格的区分适用于贸易以及各种不同类型的交换。 然而，雇员的工资是在订立合同时，对其劳动所带来的效益所作的估价，并在雇佣期结束时再次估价。由此看来，工人的工资与商品价值之间没有关系，工人的工资与生产成本之间也没有关系，工人的工资与生活水平之间同样没有关系。这是另一回事：工资衡量的是雇主所获得的利益的价值。对这一利益的估价不是由雇主决定的，而是取决于雇主对这一利益的需要。因此，衡量工人工资的单位，就是所描述的利益。这种工资因工作的类型而异，并随同一工作中熟练程度的高低而变化。所以工程师的工资不同于木匠的工资，熟练木匠的工资也不同于普通木匠的工资。从事同一工作的人，其工资随着他们在劳动效益上的精进而增长。这不被视为对他们的晋升，而是他们应得的工资，因为他们提高了自己劳动的效益。

This is because the value does not change but the price changes. So the actual value of the commodity is the amount of its exchange at the time of estimation, and the price of the commodity is the amount of money paid in the market as an exchange for it. This differentiation between the value and the price applies in trading and the different types of exchange. But the wage of an employee is the amount at which the benefit of his effort is estimated, at the time of contract. It is estimated again at the end of the hiring period. Thus it appears that there is no relationship between the wage of the worker and the value of the commodity or between the wage of the worker and the costs of production, nor between the wage of the worker and the standard of living. It is a different matter; it is the worth of the benefit which his employer obtains. The estimation of this benefit is not left to the employer but to his need for this benefit. So the unit of estimating of the worker’s wage is the described benefit. This wage differs according to the type of work, and varies with the degree of perfection in the same work. So the wage of an engineer differs from that of a carpenter, and the wage of a skilled carpenter differs from that of an ordinary carpenter. The wage of people who do the same work increases according to their perfection in their effort’s benefit. This is not considered a promotion to them, but rather it is their wage which they deserve as they improved the benefit of their effort.