通过对历史规律的探讨寻求自由实现的路径，是近代西方哲学的突出特征。发达商品经济是近代社会的本质形态，价值则是把握其经济运行规律的根本范畴。斯密首次从劳动一般维度来理解价值来源，揭示出了劳动和所有权分离的历史性过程，对马克思价值理论的形成和发展提供了思想史前提和基础。因此，基于历史哲学视角，系统比较马克思与斯密价值理论，具有重要的理论和现实意义。马克思与斯密价值理论根本特征及其理论实质的差异，突出体现在两者关于哲学基础、商品价值论、剩余价值的生产和再生产、剩余价值的分割等四个方面的理解上。第一，斯密以建立一个市民社会道德共同体为目标，把财富的增加作为实现上述目标的手段，进而以人的趋利性、同情心界定人的本质，以此作为建构近代社会经济发展模式的哲学基础；马克思则以实现自由人联合体为目标，以物质生活资料的生产作为考察社会发展规律的历史和逻辑前提，把承载着历史性内涵的社会关系的总和界定为人和社会的本质。第二，斯密将劳动一般作为财富的源泉，将社会劳动分工看作社会生产力发展的唯一原因，认为分工源于人们相互交换的倾向，这种交换倾向是为了满足人的利己心，因此，他从商品交换的尺度理解价值，形成了多种价值决定论；马克思从商品生产解读资本主义社会经济运行规律，基于商品交换之间量的关系抽象出其质的一般性，即作为社会必要劳动时间的价值，进而揭示了商品价值形式，为破解商品拜物教和货币拜物教的秘密开辟了道路。第三，斯密基于多种价值决定论，一方面认为只有给雇主带来利润的劳动才是生产性劳动，另一方面又认为只要是固定或物化在商品上的劳动就是生产性劳动，从而陷入了二重性矛盾；马克思则基于劳动力价值维度，区分了生产性劳动的形式规定和物质规定，将从事物质生产并带来剩余价值的劳动看作生产性劳动。第四，斯密价值理论的内在矛盾导致其建构道德共同体的方案体现在，他认为在“看不见的手”的自由法则支配下，商业社会通过不断增加社会财富，最终可以实现社会各阶级的普遍富裕；马克思则基于剩余价值理论，指出资本有机构成的提高带来平均利润率的下降，导致近代社会不可调和的阶级矛盾，真正揭示了资本主义社会中工资的秘密，指出只有消灭私有制才能真正实现自由。深入探讨斯密和马克思价值理论的差异，对于我们理解马克思主义理论的实质，回应当代西方经济理论对马克思价值理论的误读，从而激发劳动价值论的当代活力，具有重要的理论和现实意义。

It is a prominent feature of modern western philosophy to seek the path of freedom through the discussion of historical laws. Developed commodity economy is the essential form of modern society, and value is the fundamental category to grasp its economic operation law. Smith understood the source of value from the general dimension of labor for the first time, revealed the historical process of the separation of labor and ownership, and provided an ideological prehistoric basis for the formation and development of Marx's value theory. Therefore, it is of great theoretical and practical significance to systematically compare the value theory of Marx and Smith from the perspective of historical philosophy. The fundamental characteristics and theoretical essence of Marx's and Smith's value theory are prominently reflected in their understanding of philosophical premise, commodity value theory, production and reproduction of surplus value and division of surplus value. First, Smith took the establishment of a moral community of civil society as the goal, took the increase of wealth as the means to achieve the above goal, and then defined man's essence with man's profit seeking and compassion as the philosophical basis for constructing the modern social and economic development model; Marx took the realization of a community of free individuals as the goal, took the production of means of material subsistence as the historical and logical premise to investigate the law of social development, and defined the sum of social relations carrying historical connotation as the essence of man and society. Second, Smith regarded labour in general as the source of wealth, regarded the social division of labor as the only reason for the development of social productivity, and believed that the division of labor originated from the tendency of people to exchange with each other, which was to meet people's self-interest. Therefore, he understood value from the scale of commodity exchange and formed a variety of value determinism; Marx interpreted the capitalist socio-economic operation law from commodity production, abstracted its qualitative generality based on the quantitative relationship between commodity exchange, that is, the value of the labour time required for its production, and then revealed the form of commodity value, opening up a way to break the secret of the fetishism of commodities and money. Thirdly, based on a variety of value determinism, Smith believed that only the labor that brought profits to the employer is productive labor, on the other hand, as long as it is fixed or materialized in commodities, it is productive labor, so he fell into a dual contradiction; Based on the value of labour-power, Marx distinguished the formal provisions and material provisions of productive labor, and regarded the labor engaged in material production and bringing surplus value as productive labor. Fourth, the internal contradiction of Smith's value theory greatly affected his plan of building a moral community. He believed that under the control of the freedom law of "invisible hand", the commercial society can finally realize the general prosperity of all classes of society by increasing social wealth; Based on the theory of surplus value, Marx pointed out that the improvement of the organic composition of capital brought about the decline of the average profit margin, resulting in the irreconcilable class contradictions in modern society, and then really revealed the secret of wages in capitalist society, and pointed out that only the elimination of private ownership can truly realize human freedom. In depth discussion of the differences between Smith and Marx's value theory has important theoretical and practical significance for us to understand the essence of Marxist theory, respond to the misreading of Marx's value theory by contemporary western economic theory, and stimulate the contemporary vitality of labor value theory.