A Reading Guide to Marxist Studies of the History of Commercial Capitalism

I. Introduction

一、引言

The fourth section of Volume III of *Capital* is Marx’s longest text on merchant’s capital or trading capital. First, it must be made clear that Marx strictly regards “commercial capital” — one of the two basic forms of merchant’s capital, the other being “money-dealing capital” — as a function of industrial capital in circulation. The merchant is merely an “agent” of industrial capital, whose sole function is to buy and sell the commodities that constitute the commodity capital of the industrial enterprise.

《资本论》第三卷第四篇是马克思论述商人资本（merchant’s capital）或商业资本（trading capital）的最长文本。首先必须明确的是，马克思严格地将“商品经营资本”（commercial capital）——即他所说的商人资本的两种基本形式之一，另一种是“货币经营资本”（money-dealing capital）——视为产业资本流通的一种功能。商人只是产业资本的“代理人”，其唯一的职能就是买卖构成工业企业的商品资本（commodity capital）的商品。

I believe that Marxists should not mechanically insist on using Marx’s “theoretical definition” of the concept in Chapter 16, “Commercial Capital,” of the fourth section of Volume III of *Capital* as the basis for writing the history of capitalism; such research will make no progress. In contrast, the passages in Chapter 20, “Historical Facts about Merchant’s Capital,” of the same section, which deal with possible “transitional” types within capitalism, are the most brilliant part of Marx’s exposition on merchant’s capital. In addition, there are scattered discussions of merchant’s capital in the *Grundrisse*, *Theories of Surplus Value*, and Volume II of *Capital*. Among the most valuable of these are: the discussion of mercantilism in the “Chapter on Capital” of the *Grundrisse*; the discussion of the putting-out system and large-scale production and their relationship with major trading centers such as Venice; and the discussion of domestic industry controlled by Russian merchants in Chapter 13, “Production Time,” of the second section of Volume II of *Capital*. Nevertheless, in my view, the historical exposition of merchant’s capital in Chapter 20 of Volume III of *Capital* remains insufficient, and some of its judgments are open to question.

我认为，马克思主义者不应机械地坚持以马克思在《资本论》第三卷第四篇第十六章“商品经营资本”中关于该概念的“理论界定”作为书写资本主义历史的基础，这样的研究不会取得任何进展。相比之下，《资本论》第三卷第四篇第二十章“关于商人资本的历史考察”中涉及资本主义内部可能的“过渡”类型的段落是马克思论述商人资本的最精彩部分。除此之外，《政治经济学批判大纲》《剩余价值理论》和《资本论》第二卷中也有关于商人资本的零星论述。其中最有价值的内容包括：《政治经济学批判大纲》“资本”章中有关重商主义的论述，有关委托包工制和大规模生产以及它们与威尼斯等主要贸易中心城市之间的关系的论述；《资本论》第二卷第二篇第十三章“生产时间”中有关被俄国商人控制的家庭手工业的论述。尽管如此，在我看来，《资本论》第三卷第二十章中对商人资本的历史阐述仍然是不充分的，其中的某些判断有待商榷。

A major unresolved theoretical problem in Volume III of *Capital* is related to Marx’s analysis of the status of “commercial workers.” Relevant content can be found in Marx’s discussion in Chapter 17, “Commercial Profit,” of the same volume, and the “difficulties” he faced in that discussion. Marx argues: “The difficulty is: since the merchant’s own labour-time and labour are not value-creating labour (although this labour creates for him a share in the already produced surplus value), what is the situation with the variable capital he uses to purchase commercial labour-power? Should this variable capital be included as a cost outlay in the advanced merchant’s capital? If it should not be included, then this seems to contradict the law of the equalization of the rate of profit; which capitalist would advance 150 when he can only count 100 as advanced capital? If it should be included, then this seems to contradict the nature of commercial capital, because this kind of capital can perform the function of capital not because it, like industrial capital, sets in motion the labour of others, but because it itself performs labour, that is, performs the functions of buying and selling, and precisely for this reason and through this path, transfers to itself a part of the surplus value produced by industrial capital.” In other words, can the wage laborers employed by the commercial capitalist produce value and surplus value? On this question, the “difficulty” Marx faced is obvious: since the commercial capitalist does not produce value (Marx is clear about this), how do commercial workers produce surplus value?

《资本论》第三卷中一个悬而未决的重大理论问题与马克思对“商业工人”的地位的分析有关。相关内容可以参照马克思在该卷第四篇第十七章“商业利润”中的探讨，以及他在探讨中所面临的“困难”。马克思认为：“困难在于：既然商人本身的劳动时间和劳动不是创造价值的劳动（尽管这种劳动为他在已经生产的剩余价值中创造出一个份额），他用来购买商业劳动力的可变资本的情况又是怎样的呢？这个可变资本是否应当作为成本支出而列入预付的商人资本中呢？如果不应当列入，那么，这看起来是和利润率平均化的规律相矛盾的；当一个资本家只能把100算作预付资本时，哪一个资本家会预付150呢？如果应当列入，那么，这看起来是和商业资本的本质相矛盾的，因为这一类资本所以能执行资本的职能，并不是由于它像产业资本一样推动了他人的劳动，而是由于它自己进行劳动，也就是说，执行买和卖的职能，并且正是由于这个缘故和通过这个途径，才把产业资本所生产的剩余价值的一部分转移到自己手里。”换言之，商业资本家雇用的雇佣劳动者能否生产价值和剩余价值？在这个问题上，马克思面临的“困难”显而易见：既然商业资本家不生产价值（马克思很清楚这一点），那么商业工人是如何生产剩余价值的呢？

II. Commercial Capitalism: General Studies

二、商业资本主义：总体研究

Mikhail Nikolaevich Pokrovsky was a famous Marxist historian and social activist, and the founder of Soviet historiography. His *History of Russia from the Earliest Times to the Rise of Commercial Capitalism* is a work that attempts to explain the development of Russian history using commercial capital. In the book, Pokrovsky regards “commercial capitalism” as a socio-economic formation in Russia.

米哈伊尔·波克罗夫斯基（Mikhail Nikolaevich Pokrovsky）是著名的马克思主义史学家和社会活动家，也是苏联历史学的奠基者。他的《从远古时代到商业资本主义兴起时的俄国历史》（History of Russia from the Earliest Times to the Rise of Commercial Capitalism）是一部尝试用商业资本来解释俄国历史发展的著作。在书中，波克罗夫斯基将“商业资本主义”（commercial capitalism）视为俄国的一种社会经济形态。

John Barber’s work *Soviet Historians in Crisis, 1928-1932* mainly includes: a discussion of the significance of Pokrovsky for Soviet history, Stalin’s attacks on Pokrovsky in the late 1920s, and the supportive attitude of Soviet political activist and early leader of the Communist International Karl Radek towards using “merchant capitalism” as a category of historical analysis.

约翰·巴伯（John Barber）的作品《危机中的苏联历史学家们：1928—1932》（Soviet Historians in Crisis, 1928-1932）的主要内容包括：有关波克罗夫斯基对苏联历史的重要意义的探讨，1920年代末斯大林对波克罗夫斯基的抨击，以及苏联政治活动家、共产国际早期领导人卡尔·拉狄克（Karl Bernardovich Radek）对于把“商人资本主义”（merchant capitalism）作为历史分析范畴所持的支持态度。

In 1984, David Ormrod published the article “R.H. Tawney and the Origins of Capitalism” in Volume 18 of the journal *History Workshop*. This article analyzes the complexity of the work of the English economic historian Richard Henry Tawney and clarifies the important position of the category “commercial capitalism” in Tawney’s thought. Within the internal debates of the post-war Marxist tradition, a strict dichotomy dividing the English economy into commercial and agricultural sectors prevailed, for example in the writings of Robert Brenner and others. In contrast, Tawney adopted a more balanced approach in his study of English economic history, blurring the lines of this dichotomy.

1984年，大卫·奥姆罗德（David Ormrod）在《历史工作坊》（History Workshop）杂志第18卷上发表了《理查德·亨利·托尼与资本主义的起源》（“R.H.Tawney and the Origins of Capitalism”）一文。这篇文章分析了英国经济史学家理查德·亨利·托尼（Richard Henry Tawney）的作品的复杂性，阐明了“商业资本主义”范畴在托尼思想中的重要地位。在战后马克思主义传统的内部争论中，严格坚持将英国经济区分为商业与农业两部分的二分法占据了上风，比如罗伯特·布伦纳（Robert Brunner）等人的著述。与此不同，托尼则在英国经济史研究中采取了更为平衡的方式，他的研究模糊了这种二分法的界线。

Eric H. Mielants’ *The Origins of Capitalism and the “Rise of the West”* (Second edition) opposes a purely Eurocentric perspective in describing early capitalism; in this respect, it is a very useful introductory work, but Mielants does not engage in more extensive theoretical discussion on this topic.

埃里克·米兰特茨（Eric H.Mielants）的《资本主义的起源与“西方的崛起”》（The Origins of Capitalism and the“Rise of the West”，Second edition）反对以纯粹的欧洲中心论视角来描述早期资本主义，就此来说，这是一部非常有用的导论性著作，但米兰特斯并未就此话题展开更多的理论探讨。

One of my articles, “Merchant Capitalism,” divides modes of capital accumulation into four main forms and provides a typological examination of their historical development over several centuries up to the 19th century, offering a strong case for refuting the habitual description of merchant capital as “antediluvian” and highlighting the essentially modern character of merchant capital. This article is included as a chapter in the forthcoming *Handbook of Marxism*, edited by Sara Farris and Alberto Toscano.

我的一篇文章《商人资本主义》（“Merchant Capita-lism”）将资本积累模式分为四种主要形式，并对其在直至19世纪的几个世纪中的历史发展进行了类型学考察，为驳斥将商人资本习惯性地描述为“时过境迁”（antediluvian）、凸显商人资本在本质上所具有的现代性特征提供了强有力的案例。该文作为一个章节被收录在由萨拉·法里斯（Sara Farris）和阿尔贝托·托斯卡诺（Alberto Toscano）主编并即将出版的《马克思主义手册》（Handbook of Marxism）中。

III. Commercial Capital in Antiquity

三、古代的商业资本

*L’économie antique: Une économie de marché?*, edited by Yves Roman and Julie Dalaison, includes the essay “Production artisanale et manufacturière à l’époque romaine: à propos de *L’Histoire brisée* d’Aldo Schiavone” by Maurice Picon. This article offers an impressive critique of the world-renowned Roman jurist Aldo Schiavone and his minimalist view of Roman economic organization. Picon, who works on ceramics, makes full use of the cross-analytical methods of the discipline of archaeology and draws cases concerning commercial capital from the glass and ceramics industries.

由伊夫·罗曼（Yves Roman）和茱莉·达莱松（Julie Dalaison）主编的《古代经济：一种市场经济？》（L’économie antique: Une économie de marché?）收录了莫里斯·皮孔（Maurice Picon）的论文《罗马时代的手工和制造业生产：关于〈阿尔多·斯契亚沃尼中断的历史〉》（“Production artisanale et manufacturière à l’époque romaine: à propos de L’Histoire brisée d’Aldo Schiavone”）。这篇文章对世界知名罗马法学家阿尔多·斯基亚沃尼（Aldo Schiavone）及其对罗马经济组织持有的极简主义观点进行了令人印象深刻的批评。从事陶瓷研究的皮孔充分利用了考古学学科的交叉分析方法，并从玻璃和陶瓷行业中提取了关于商业资本的案例。

IV. The Sprouts of Commercial Capitalism in the Late Middle Ages and Early Modern Period

四、中世纪晚期和近代早期的商业资本主义萌芽

In the final part of Volume 3 of *Capital*, the “Supplement to Volume 3 of *Capital*” edited by Engels, Marx describes Venice and Genoa as city-republics in which merchants lived and were content to let the state serve them. Giorgio Cracco’s work *Società e stato nel medioevo Veneziano (secoli xii–xiv)*, although not explicitly written from a Marxist standpoint, provides a detailed account of capitalism in Venice from the 12th to the 14th centuries, demonstrating the degree and forms of control that the great merchants exercised over the Venetian Republic. Cracco points out that by the 13th century, the concentration of merchant capital had developed to a point sufficient to destroy the solidarity of the various strata that had earlier participated in maritime trade.

在《资本论》第三卷的最后一部分，即恩格斯编辑的“《资本论》第三册增补”中，马克思将威尼斯和热那亚描述为城市共和国，商人们生活在其中，而且心安理得地让国家为他们服务。而乔吉奥·克拉科（Giorgio Cracco）的著作《中世纪威尼斯（12—14世纪）的社会和国家》（Societa e stato nel medioevo Veneziano [secoli xii-xiv]）虽然没有明确地从马克思主义的立场出发，但它详尽地论述了12世纪至14世纪威尼斯的资本主义，展示了大商人对威尼斯共和国的控制程度和控制形式。克拉科指出，到了13世纪，商人资本的集中已经发展到足以摧毁早期参与海上贸易的各阶层的团结的程度。

Mohamed Ouerfelli’s book *Le Sucre: Production, commercialisation et usages dans la Méditerranée médiévale* offers a fruitful examination of the development of the sugar industry in the medieval Mediterranean. The industry began with its early evolution in Egypt (gradually expanding outward during the Fatimid and Ayyubid dynasties) and then grew continuously by spreading across the various regions of the Mediterranean along a route from east to west. Ouerfelli notes that by the end of the 15th century, the Mediterranean sugar industry had entered a period of decline as cheaper sugar from the Eastern Atlantic flowed continuously into Mediterranean markets. Throughout the book, Ouerfelli repeatedly emphasizes the prominent role played by merchant capital (especially capital from Italy) in expanding and organizing markets, investing in sugar mills, and endowing the industry with an international character from its very beginnings.

穆罕默德·乌尔费里(Mohamed Ouerfelli)的《糖：中世纪地中海世界的生产、营销和使用》（Le Sucre.Production, commercialisation et usages dans le Méditerranée médievale）一书对中世纪地中海的糖业发展进行了卓有成效的考察。该产业始于其在埃及的早期演变（在法蒂玛王朝和阿尤布王朝统治期间逐步向外扩张），随后沿着从东到西的路线跨越了地中海的各个地区，从而不断发展壮大。乌尔费里指出，随着更具价格优势的糖从东大西洋不断流入地中海市场，到15世纪末，地中海的糖业步入了衰退期。在书中，乌尔费里反复强调指出，商人资本（尤其是来自意大利的资本）在扩大和组织市场、投资制糖厂以及从一开始就赋予该产业以国际性特征方面发挥了突出的作用。

Tognetti Sergio’s *Un’industria di lusso al servizio del grande commercio* presents a case study of the Florentine silk industry. The book makes extensive use of archival materials from the commercial records of business firms and emphasizes the modernity of the commercial companies, attributing this to the scale of resources at the merchants’ disposal, their managerial skills, and their profound understanding of international markets.

托格内蒂·塞尔吉奥（Tognetti Sergio）在《为大型贸易服务的奢侈品行业》（Un’industria di lusso al servizio del grande commercio）一书中对佛罗伦萨的丝绸业进行了案例研究。书中使用了大量商行商业文件中的档案材料，并强调了商业公司的现代性，认为这应归功于商人们所掌握的资源规模、他们的管理技能，以及他们对国际市场的深刻了解。

Fernand Braudel, the representative figure of the French Annales School, produced the two-volume masterpiece *The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II*, which is undoubtedly the clearest and most vivid economic history of the 16th century ever written. The second part is the core of these two volumes. In this work, Braudel shows how capitalists flowed seamlessly between the main sectors of the Mediterranean economy—trade, finance, and industry, apart from agriculture. In addition, the wealth of material collected in the second volume of Braudel’s other work, *Civilization and Capitalism, 15th–18th Century*, is equally noteworthy.

法国年鉴学派的代表性人物费尔南·布罗代尔（Fernand Braudel）的两卷本名作《菲利普二世时代的地中海与地中海世界》（The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II）无疑是有史以来最清晰、最生动的16世纪经济史。其中的第二部分是这两卷书的核心。在这部著作中，布罗代尔展示了资本家如何在除农业以外的贸易、金融和工业等地中海经济的主要部门之间无缝流动。除此之外，布罗代尔的另一部著作《15至18世纪的物质文明、经济和资本主义》第二卷（Civilization and Capitalism 15th -18th Century: Volume 2）中收录的大量资料同样引人关注。

Leo Noordegraaf’s article “The New Draperies in the Northern Netherlands, 1500–1800,” included in *The New Draperies in the Low Countries and England, 1300–1800*, edited by Negley B. Harte, provides an extremely accomplished Marxist analysis of the production system of the Dutch woolen textile industry and its transformation toward a more centralized mode of production.

列奥·诺德格拉夫（Leo Noordegraaf）的文章《荷兰北部的新服装业（1500—1800年）》（“The New Draperies in the Northern Netherlands, 1500-1800”）收录在内格里·哈特（Negley B.Harte）主编的《低地国家和英格兰的新服装业（1300—1800年）》（The New Draperies in the Low Countries and England, 1300-1800）一书中。该文对荷兰羊毛纺织业的生产系统及其向一种更为集中的生产方式转变的过程进行了极为出色的马克思主义分析。

Carlo Poni’s article “All’origine del sistema di fabbrica: tecnologia e organizzazione produttiva dei mulini da seta nell’Italia settentrionale (sec. XVII–XVIII),” published in *Rivista storica italiana* (1976, vol. 88), presents a pioneering study of the Bolognese water-powered silk mills that were spread across northern Italy in the 17th century. Poni argues that these large-scale, mechanized production sites predated the 19th-century English factories by about 200 years. He also points out that investment in these silk mills came primarily from great merchants. This article, which particularly emphasizes merchant capital’s control over labor, is among the most Marxist in character of Poni’s works since the 1970s.

《意大利历史杂志》（Rivista storica italiana）1976年第 88卷发表了卡洛·波尼（Carlo Poni）的《工厂制度的起源：意大利北部丝绸厂的技术和生产组织（17—18世纪）》 （“All’origine del sistema di fabbrica: tecnologia e organizzazione produttiva dei mulini da seta nell’Italia settentrionale [sec.XVII-XVIII]”）一文，对17世纪遍布意大利北部的博洛尼亚式水力丝绸厂进行了开创性的研究。波尼认为，这些大规模、机械化的生产场所比19世纪的英国工厂早了大约200年。他还指出，这些丝绸厂的投资主要来自大商人。该文特别强调了商人资本对劳动的控制，是1970年代以来波尼最具马克思主义特征的作品。

*Merchants and Revolution: Commercial Change, Political Conflict, and London’s Overseas Traders, 1550-1653* can be said to be the best work of the American Marxist economist and historian Robert Brenner. This work focuses primarily on the internal differentiation of the English merchant class during the reign of Elizabeth and after. However, what is striking is that, on the one hand, the book refuses to describe these merchants as “merchant capitalists,” while on the other hand it repeatedly and matter-of-factly refers to the landed aristocracy as the “capitalist class.” Perry Anderson wrote an excellent review of this book.

《商人与革命：1550—1653年的商业变革、政治冲突和伦敦的海外贸易商》（Merchants and Revolution: Commercial Change, Political Conflict, and London’s Overseas Traders, 1550-1653）可以说是美国马克思主义经济学家和历史学家罗伯特·布伦纳（Robert Brenner）最好的作品。这部著作主要关注了伊丽莎白统治时期及之后英国商人阶层的内部分化。但是，引人注目的是，该书一方面拒绝将这些商人描述为“商人资本家”（merchant capitalists），另一方面却以理所当然的姿态一再将土地贵族称为“资本家阶级”（capitalist class）。佩里·安德森（Perry Anderson）撰写了有关此书的精彩书评。

In his two-volume work *O Capitalismo monárquico Português, 1415-1549. Contribuição para o estudo das origens do capitalismo moderno* (Portuguese Monarchical Capitalism, 1415-1549: A Contribution to the Study of the Origins of Modern Capitalism), Manuel Nunes Dias regards Portugal as the frontrunner of European capitalism, arguing that although Portugal was a monarchy in form of government, it could essentially be called the first true capitalist state. Dias points out that Portuguese monarchical capitalism adopted an institutional model of cooperation between the state and (commercial) capital, a partnership structure entirely different from the joint-stock companies of France and Britain that later expanded into Asian markets.

曼纽尔·迪亚斯（Manuel Nunes Dias）在其两卷本著作《1415—1549年葡萄牙的君主制资本主义：对研究现代资本主义起源的贡献》（O Capitalismo monárquico Português, 1415-1549.Contribui?o para o estudo das origens do capitalismo moderno）中将葡萄牙视为欧洲资本主义的领跑者，认为葡萄牙尽管在政体形式上是君主制的，但本质上可以被称为第一个真正意义上的资本主义国家。迪亚斯指出，葡萄牙的君主制资本主义采取了一种国家与（商业）资本合作的制度模式，这种伙伴关系结构与后来扩张到亚洲市场的法国和英国的股份制公司截然不同。

Peter Kriedte’s work *Peasants, Landlords and Merchant Capitalists: Europe and the World Economy 1500-1800* is one of the earliest Marxist works to break free from the shackles of Stalinism, return to the study of merchant capitalism, and rehabilitate it.

彼得·克利特（Peter Kriedte）的论著《农民、地主和商人资本家：1500—1800年的欧洲与世界经济》（Peasants, Landlords and Merchant Capitalists: Europe and the World Economy 1500-1800）是最早打破斯大林主义的禁锢、回归商人资本主义研究并为其恢复名誉的马克思主义著作之一。

The work of Chinese economists Xu Dixin and Wu Chengming, *Chinese Capitalism, 1522-1840*, contains some very interesting chapters that discuss the “sprouts of capitalism” in various industrial and commercial sectors during China’s Ming and Qing dynasties.

中国经济学家许涤新和吴承明的著作《中国的资本主义：1522—1840》（Chinese Capitalism, 1522-1840）有一些非常令人感兴趣的章节，其中讲述了中国明清时期各个工商部门的“资本主义萌芽”。

V. Other Related Research

五、其他相关研究

Pierre Goubert belongs to the Labrousse school within the French historiographical tradition. His monograph *Beauvais et le Beauvaisis de 1600 à 1730. Contribution à l’histoire sociale de la France du XVIIe siècle* (Beauvais and the Beauvaisis from 1600 to 1730: Contribution to the Social History of 17th-Century France) avoids in-depth exploration of theoretical issues. Nevertheless, the predominantly rural French history he describes is filled with concerns about the nature of French capitalism in the 17th and 18th centuries, and he particularly explains how the putting-out system incorporated the countryside into the cycle of international trade.

皮埃尔·古贝尔（Pierre Goubert）属于法国史学流派中的拉布鲁斯学派，他的专著《1600年至1730年的博韦市和博韦地区:对17世纪法国社会史的贡献》（Beauvais et le Beauvaisis de 1600 à 1730. Contribution à l’histoire sociale de la France du XVIIe siècle）回避了对理论问题的深入探讨，然而，其笔下所描述的那段以农村为主的法国历史充满了对17—18世纪法国资本主义的性质问题的关切，尤其是他解释了委托包工制是如何将农村纳入到国际贸易循环之中的。

Joseph C. Miller’s *Way of Death: Merchant Capitalism and the Angolan Slave Trade, 1730-1830* provides a detailed study of the Portuguese slave trade, exploring the role merchant capital played in establishing control over this slave trade. The 18th century was a watershed for the internationalization of capital, and this serves as the overarching perspective for Miller’s analysis.

约瑟夫·米勒（Joseph C.Miller）的《死亡之路：1730—1830年的商人资本主义与安哥拉奴隶贸易》（Way of Death: Merchant Capitalism and the Angolan Slave Trade, 1730-1830）详细研究了葡萄牙的奴隶贸易，探讨了商人资本在建立起对这种奴隶贸易的控制方面所发挥的作用。18世纪是资本国际化的分水岭，也是米勒展开分析的总体视角。

In 1927, Peter Ivanovich Lyashchenko published his Russian article “The Development of the Russian Grain Economy during the Crisis of 1880-1890.” In 1998, the article was translated by Hari Vasudevan and included in the collection *Commercialization and Agriculture in Late Imperial Russia: Essays on Russian Economic History*, edited by Vasudevan himself. In this article, Lyashchenko elaborates on the evolution of the category of “trading capitalism” within Marxist theory, and provides a good explanation of why Russian Marxists raised no objections to this category before it was abandoned by Marxist theory.

1927年，彼得·利亚什琴科（Peter Ivanovich Lyashchenko）发表了他的俄文文章《1880—1890年危机期间俄罗斯粮食经济的发展》（“The Development of the Russian Grain Economy during the Crisis of 1880-1890”）。1998年，该文经哈里·瓦苏德万（Hari Vasudevan）翻译后被收录在由其本人主编的《商业化与晚期俄罗斯帝国的农业：俄罗斯经济史研究文集》（Commercialization and Agriculture in Late Imperial Russia: Essays on Russian Economic History）一书中。在这篇文章中，利亚什琴科阐述了“贸易资本主义”（trading capitalism）这一范畴在马克思主义理论中的演变历程，很好地解释了为什么俄罗斯马克思主义者在该范畴被马克思主义理论抛弃之前一直没有提出任何异议的问题。

Sven Beckert’s work *Empire of Cotton: A New History of Global Capitalism* is the only work that can demonstrate how crucial merchant capitalists were for the expansion of industrial capitalism in the branch of industry it involved—namely, cotton textiles. In this work, Beckert says that because the global expansion of the cotton textile industry was always accompanied by violence, he prefers the term “war capitalism” to “merchant capitalism.” If Beckert’s view is misinterpreted as referring to a theoretical category rather than a purely historical one, it could mislead readers.

斯文·贝克特（Sven Beckert）的著作《棉花帝国：一部全球资本主义的新历史》（Empire of Cotton: A New History of Global Capitalism）是唯一一部能够证明商人资本家对于工业资本主义在其所涉及的行业分支——即棉纺织品——中的扩张起到了多么关键的作用的作品。贝克特在这部著作中说，由于棉纺织业在全球扩张的过程中始终伴随着暴力，所以他更喜欢用“战争资本主义”（war capitalism）而不是“商人资本主义”（merchant capitalism）这一术语。如果贝克特的观点被误解为意指一个理论范畴，而非纯粹的历史范畴，可能会对读者产生误导。

VI. Discussion on the Nature of British Capitalism

六、关于英国资本主义本质的讨论

Geoffrey Ingham’s book *Capitalism Divided? The City and Industry in British Social Development* is an example of research conducted outside the self-consciously Marxist tradition, which can fill the huge gap left by the debate on the nature of British capitalism begun by Anderson and Tom Nairn in the 1960s. Ingham demonstrates the essentially mercantilist character of the City of London and its crucial role in sustaining British capitalism as a whole.

杰弗里·英厄姆（Geoffrey Ingham）的著作《资本主义分裂了吗？英国社会发展中的城市与工业》（Capitalism Divided? The City and Industry in British Social Development）一书是学者们在自觉的马克思主义传统（self-consciously Marxist tradition）之外开展研究的一个范例，可以填补安德森与汤姆·奈恩（Tom Nairn）在1960年代开始的关于英国资本主义之本质的辩论中留下的巨大空白。英厄姆论证了伦敦金融城本质上所具有的重商主义特征及其在维持整个英国资本主义方面所起的关键作用。

Furthermore, in his article “Commercial Capitalism and British Development,” published in *New Left Review* 1988, Vol. 172, No. 1, Ingham mounted a forceful rebuttal to Barrat Brown’s severe and dogmatic criticism of *Capitalism Divided? The City and Industry in British Social Development*.

此外，英厄姆还在《新左翼评论》（New Left Review）1988年第172卷第1期上发表了《商业资本主义与英国的发展》（“Commercial Capitalism and British Development”）一文，对巴拉特·布朗（Barrat Brown）就《资本主义分裂了吗？英国社会发展中的城市与工业》一书所进行的严厉的教条主义批评作出了有力的回击。

VII. Capital and Household Production

七、资本与家庭生产

In 1977, Henry Bernstein published “Notes on Capital and Peasantry” in *Review of African Political Economy*, Vol. 4, No. 10. This is a highly influential work, a product of the great Marxist theoretical debates of the 1970s, as is the article by Michael Cowen mentioned below. In this article, Bernstein writes: “The peasantry must be situated in relation to capital and the state, that is, in capitalist relations of production mediated by the form of household production, which is the site of struggle between producers and capital/state for effective possession and control.” That is, maintaining household production as a key element of accumulation, rather than simply destroying the peasantry, is highly beneficial to both capital and the state. The article also draws readers’ attention to this mode of accumulation as discussed by the Soviet economist Alexander Chayanov in two of his articles.

1977年，亨利·伯恩斯坦（Henry Bernstein）在《非洲政治经济学评论》（Review of African Political Economy）第4卷第10期上发表了《论资本与农民》（“Notes on Capital and Peasantry”）一文。这是一篇影响深远的作品，就像下面将要提到的迈克尔·考恩（Michael Cowen）的文章一样，是1970年代马克思主义理论大辩论的产物。伯恩斯坦在这篇文章中写道：“农民必须处于与资本和国家的关系中，换言之，处于通过家庭生产形式调节的资本主义生产关系中，而家庭生产形式是生产者与资本/国家之间争夺有效的占有权和控制权的场所。”也就是说，保持家庭生产作为积累的关键要素，而不是单纯地摧毁农民，对资本和国家都大有裨益。本文还提请读者关注苏联经济学家亚历山大·恰亚诺夫（Alexander Chayanov）在他的两篇文章中论及的这种积累模式。

Cowen’s article, “Commodity Production in Kenya’s Central Province,” is a major attempt to “creatively” apply Marxist categories, aiming to show how the integration of household commodity production into the broader process of capitalist accumulation should be understood. Cowen argues that intervention by international finance (e.g., British government aid agencies) stabilised the household production sector in countries like Kenya, shielding it from the destabilising effects that indigenous capitalism might bring. The article is included in the volume *Rural Development in Tropical Africa*, edited by Judith Heyer, Pepe Roberts, and Gavin Williams.

考恩的文章《肯尼亚中部省份的商品生产》（“Commodity Production in Kenya’s Central Province”）是“创造性地”运用马克思主义范畴的一次重大尝试，旨在表明应当如何理解家庭商品生产与更广泛的资本主义积累过程的融合问题。考恩认为，国际金融（例如英国政府援助机构）的干预稳定了肯尼亚等国家的家庭生产部门，使其免受本土资本主义可能带来的不稳定因素的影响。该文被收录在由朱迪思·海尔（Judith Heyer）、佩佩·罗伯茨（Pepe Roberts）和加文·威廉姆斯（Gavin Williams）主编的《热带非洲的农村发展》（Rural Development in Tropical Africa）一书中。

My article, “Merchant Capitalism, Peasant Households and Industrial Accumulation: Integration of a Model,” was published in *Journal of Agrarian Change* 2016, Vol. 16, No. 3. This article, included in a festschrift for Bernstein, first summarises Bernstein’s 1977 pioneering work, then takes Chayanov’s idea of “vertical capitalist concentration” as its main thesis, constructing a more general typology of the ways capital dominates the agricultural sector (household producers). The most brilliant part of the article is its discussion of the so-called “trade in agricultural products,” which was the backbone of French and British commercial capitalism in the nineteenth century.

我的一篇文章《商人资本主义、农户与产业积累：一个模式的整合》（“Merchant Capitalism, Peasant Households and Industrial Accumulation: Integration of a Model”）刊发于《农业变迁杂志》（Journal of Agrarian Change）2016年第16卷第3期。这篇被收录在伯恩斯坦纪念文集中的文章首先总结了伯恩斯坦在1977年发表的那篇开创性作品，然后以恰亚诺夫的“资本主义纵向集中”（vertical capitalist concentration）思想为主要论点，针对资本支配农业部门（家庭生产者）的各种方式构建了一种更为普遍的分类系统。本文最精彩的部分在于对所谓的“农产品贸易”的讨论，它是19世纪法国和英国商业资本主义的支柱。

Robert Shenton’s book *The Development of Capitalism in Northern Nigeria* highlights the extreme importance of merchant capital and is one of the few valuable Marxist studies of capitalism in Nigeria. In Chapter Five, “Concentration and Centralisation of Capital,” Shenton points out that “concentration and centralisation are the only means of commercial survival,” meaning survival in the competitive space between the large commercial companies controlling West African trade and the commercial companies controlling trade shipping.

罗伯特·申顿（Robert Shenton）的著作《尼日利亚北部资本主义的发展》（The Development of Capitalism in Northern Nigeria）突出了商人资本的极端重要性，是关于尼日利亚资本主义研究的为数不多且有价值的马克思主义研究成果。在第五章“资本的集中与集中化”中，申顿指出，“集中和集中化是商业生存的唯一手段”，它意味着在控制着西非贸易的大型商业公司与控制着贸易航运的商业公司之间的竞争夹缝中谋生。

VIII. The Subordination of Commercial Capital to Industrial Capital

八、商业资本对产业资本的从属关系

Research by Glenn Porter and Harold Livesay in their book *Merchants and Manufacturers: Studies in the Changing Structure of Nineteenth-Century Marketing* shows that the subordination of commercial capital to industrial capital emerged mainly in the nineteenth century, much later than Marx had envisaged. At that time, large industrial enterprises began to integrate upstream to control their own sales and marketing, thereby reducing the need for “middlemen.”

格伦·波特（Glenn Porter）和哈罗德·利夫赛（Harold Livesay）在《商人与制造商：19世纪营销结构变化研究》（Merchants and Manufacturers: Studies in the Changing Structure of Nineteenth-Century Marketing）一书中的研究显示，商业资本对产业资本的从属关系主要是在19世纪才出现的，这比马克思设想的时间要晚得多。当时，大型工业企业开始向上游整合以掌控自己的销售和市场推广，从而减少了对“中间人”的需求。

IX. Merchant Capital in the Twentieth Century

九、20世纪的商人资本

The work of Chinese economist Chen Hansheng, *Industrial Capital and Chinese Peasants: A Study of the Livelihood of Chinese Tobacco Cultivators*, is arguably the first valuable case study of contract farming ever produced. It shows how Chinese merchant capital (the comprador class) was integrated into the supply chain controlled by a large industrial corporation—in this specific case, the Anglo-American tobacco giant British American Tobacco (BAT), headquartered in London, England. In Chen’s view, price domination was the key mechanism through which industrial capital directly exploited Chinese peasant workers.

中国经济学家陈翰笙的著作《工业资本与中国农民：中国烟草种植户生计研究》（Industrial Capital and Chinese Peasants: A Study of the Livelihood of Chinese Tobacco Cultivators）可能是有史以来第一个有价值的关于契约农业的案例研究。它展示了中国的商人资本（买办）是如何被整合到大型工业公司——在本案例中特指总部位于英国伦敦的英美烟草集团（British American Tobacco，BAT）这一英美烟草巨头——控制的供应链中的。在陈翰笙看来，价格支配是工业资本直接剥削中国农民工的关键机制。

Susan Becker’s article “The German Metal Traders before 1914” and her monograph *Multinationalität hat verschiedene Gesichter. Formen internationaler Unternehmenstätigkeit der Société anonyme des mines et des fonderies de zinc de la Vieille Montagne und der Metallgesellschaft vor 1914* also explore merchant capital in the twentieth century. The former is included in *Multinational Traders*, edited by Geoffrey Jones. Both works emphasize the importance of vertical integration for the business strategy of large German non-ferrous metal producers, which were striving to maintain their market share in their core (commercial) business. Becker argues that the fact that Metallgesellschaft integrated downstream to control global mining and smelting operations did not turn it into an industrial company (a form of industrial capital). Apart from David K. Fieldhouse’s study of UAC, these two works are the closest results to advanced commercial capitalist research in a pure modern form.

苏珊·贝克（Susan Becker）的文章《1914年之前的德国金属贸易商》（“The German Metal Traders before 1914”）以及著作《“多民族性的不同面孔”：1914年之前法国维埃耶山锌矿石铸造公司与德国金属公司的跨国商业活动形式》（Multinationalit?t hat verschiedene Gesichter. Formen internationaler Unternehmenst?tigkeit der Société anonyme des mines et des fonderies de zinc de la Vieille Montagne und der Metallgesellschaft vor 1914）同样对20世纪的商人资本进行了探讨。前者收录在杰弗里·琼斯（Geoffrey Jones）主编的《跨国贸易商》（Multinational Traders）一书中。这两部作品都强调了纵向整合（vertical integration）对于德国大型有色金属生产商的商业战略的重要性，这些生产商正在致力于保持其核心（商业）业务的市场份额。贝克认为，德国金属公司（Metallgesellschaft）向下游整合以控制全球采矿和冶炼业务的事实并没有使其成为一家工业公司（产业资本的一种形式）。除了大卫·菲尔德豪斯（David K.Fieldhouse）对UAC（用户账户控制）的研究之外，这两部作品是最接近纯粹现代形式的先进商业资本主义研究的成果。

Fieldhouse’s work *Merchant Capital and Economic Decolonization: The United Africa Company, 1929-1987* offers an illuminating and detailed study of UAC, the trading arm of Unilever. As a survey of the extraordinary business history of one of the world’s largest commercial companies, this book further highlights its significant value.

菲尔德豪斯的著作《商人资本与经济去殖民化：1929—1987年的联合非洲公司》（Merchant Capital and Economic Decolonization: The United Africa Company, 1929-1987）对联合利华公司贸易部门的UAC展开了富有启发性的详细研究。作为对这家世界上最大的商业公司之一的非凡商业史的梳理，本书更是突显了其重要价值。

Barbara Harriss-White’s work *Rural Commercial Capital: Agricultural Markets in West Bengal* is one of the best case studies of how commercial capitalists control agricultural production and exchange in India. Of particular note is that the fieldwork for this book was conducted in West Bengal, which was then governed by the Communist Party of India (Marxist). Harriss’s analysis clearly shows that the development of the agro-industrial sector in West Bengal was largely premised on a deal between merchant capital and the left-wing government.

芭芭拉·哈里斯-怀特（Barbara Harriss-White）的著作《农村商业资本：西孟加拉邦的农业市场》（Rural Commercial Capital: Agricultural Markets in West Bengal）是关于商业资本家如何控制印度农业生产和交换的最佳案例研究之一。尤其值得关注的是，本书的田野调查是在当时由印度共产党（马克思主义）执政的西孟加拉邦进行的。哈里斯的分析清楚地表明，西孟加拉邦农用工业部门（agro-industrial sector）的发展大都是以商人资本与左翼政府之间达成交易为前提的。

(Author: Jairus Banaji, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London; Translator and Editor: Zhang Yanchen, School of Marxism, Beijing Technology and Business University)

（作者：贾鲁斯·巴纳吉（Jairus Banaji），英国伦敦大学亚非学院；编译：张彦琛，北京工商大学马克思主义学院）

(This article is translated and compiled from the English-language e-journal *Historical Materialism*, originally published in the French-language e-journal *Période* on 24 April 2017. This translation is a phased outcome of the 2019 Beijing Social Science Fund Youth Project “Research on New Trends in Welfare Governance under Contemporary Capitalism”)

（本文编译自英文电子期刊《历史唯物主义》（Historical Materialism），原载法文电子期刊《时代》（Période）2017年4月24日。本译文系2019年北京市社会科学基金青年项目“当代资本主义福利治理新动向研究”的阶段性成果）

Online Editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心