A Study of the Dissemination of Marx’s *Capital* in Italy

*Capital* embodies Marx’s lifelong effort. Using historical materialism, Marx completed his transcendence of classical political economy, shattered the long-standing illusion of survival that capitalist society had painted for humanity, and took a crucial step toward “understanding humanity itself.” This epoch-making work attracted widespread attention around the world. In Italy, Paolo Favilli, author of *A History of Italian Marxism*, points out that it was through important texts such as Marx’s *Capital* that Italian Marxists completed their creative independent reflection, thereby making significant contributions to the study of Marxist theory worldwide.

《资本论》凝结着马克思的毕生心血。马克思运用历史唯物主义完成了对古典政治经济学的超越，破除了长久以来资本主义社会为人类描绘的生存假象，向“认识人自身”的方向迈出了至关重要的一步。这一划时代的著作引起了世界范围的广泛关注。在意大利，《意大利马克思主义史》一书的作者保罗·法维利（Paolo Favilli）指出，意大利马克思主义者正是通过马克思的《资本论》等重要文本完成了创造性的独立反思，进而对世界范围内的马克思主义理论研究做出了重要的贡献。

I. Early Dissemination of *Capital* in Italy from the Late 1860s to the Early 20th Century

一、1860年代末到20世纪初《资本论》在意大利的早期传播

(1) Translation and Introduction Work Initiated by the Anarchists

（一）由无政府主义者开启的译介工作

“The Italian movement initially arose under the influence of Bakuninism,” and the dissemination of *Capital* in Italy was also initiated by the anarchists. In 1864, shortly after the founding of the First International (the International Workingmen’s Association), Marx entrusted Bakunin with promoting the spirit of the First International’s documents in Italy, but encountered great difficulties. On the one hand, the influence generated by the First International through normal channels of propaganda was extremely limited; on the other hand, the ideas of the First International often had to survive in the cracks as a “negative example” subjected to criticism. In 1866, before the Geneva Congress of the First International, Marx specifically stated: “They should take whatever steps they deem appropriate to secure the representation of Italian groups at the congress.” But this wish was not fulfilled. Although the early dissemination of Marxist theory in Italy was fraught with hardship, the ranks of those spreading *Capital* and its manuscripts not only did not vanish in Italy but quietly grew stronger amid the sparks lit by Marx and Engels, guiding the continuous development of the Italian workers’ movement. As the head of the First International in Italy, Bakunin secretly established his own underground organization, but all his work still had to revolve around the First International; therefore, promoting the ideas of the First International was a task he could not avoid. Under Bakunin’s influence, the publishing house of the same name affiliated with the Italian revolutionary organization “Freedom and Justice” published part of the preface to *Capital* on October 27, 1867, with the translation work completed by the anarchists Emilio Covelli and Carlo Cafiero. However, due to Italy’s fragmented national conditions at the time and the Massacre of Mentana [1]1 The Massacre of Mentana (November 3, 1867) was a battle in which French and Papal troops defeated Giuseppe Garibaldi’s volunteer forces attempting to capture Rome, resulting in the deaths of many Italian democrats and republicans. against democrats in November of that year, the First International’s propaganda work in Italy was greatly hindered, and the translation and publication of the preface caused barely a ripple. In April 1877, after Cafiero participated in the failed rebellion of the “Banda del Matese” [2]2 The “Banda del Matese” (Matese Gang) was a small group of Italian anarchists who attempted to spark a peasant insurrection in the Matese mountains in April 1877; the revolt was quickly suppressed. and was imprisoned, he read the French translation of Volume 1 of *Capital* by Joseph Roy while in prison, and completed the writing of the book *Il Capitale di Carlo Marx* (Karl Marx’s *Capital*) in the spring of 1879. This pamphlet provided a relatively complete exposition of Volume 1 of *Capital*, was also recognized by Marx, and was reprinted many times.

“意大利的运动最初是在巴枯宁主义的影响下产生的”，《资本论》在意大利的传播也是由无政府主义者开启的。1864年，第一国际（国际工人协会）成立后不久，马克思就委托巴枯宁在意大利宣传第一国际的文件精神，但却遭遇巨大困境。一方面，第一国际通过正常的宣传途径产生的影响极为有限；另一方面，第一国际的思想经常作为被批判的“反面典型”在夹缝中寻求生存。1866年，在第一国际日内瓦会议召开前，马克思曾专门谈道：“应采取他们认为适当的一切步骤，争取意大利各团体派代表参加代表大会。”但这一愿望未能实现。尽管马克思主义理论在意大利的早期传播充满艰辛，但传播《资本论》及其手稿的队伍不仅没有在意大利销声匿迹，反而在马克思恩格斯播下的星星之火中悄然壮大，并指导着意大利工人运动不断发展。巴枯宁作为第一国际在意大利的负责人，虽然秘密建立了自己的地下组织，但其一切工作仍需要围绕第一国际展开，因此，宣传第一国际思想是他无法回避的任务。在巴枯宁的影响下，意大利国内的革命组织“自由与正义”旗下的同名出版社于1867年10月27日出版了《资本论》的部分序言，相关翻译工作由无政府主义者埃米利奥·科韦利（Emilio Covelli）与卡罗·卡菲埃罗（Carlo Cafiero）完成。但是，由于当时意大利国内四分五裂的国情，以及当年11月针对民主人士发生的门塔纳大屠杀，第一国际在意大利的宣传工作受到巨大阻碍，序言的译介与出版并未激起涟漪。1877年4月，卡菲埃罗在参与“马特斯帮”（Banda del Matese）叛乱失败入狱后，在狱中阅读了约瑟夫·鲁瓦（Joseph Roy）翻译的法文版《资本论》第1卷，并于1879年春天完成了《卡尔·马克思的〈资本论〉》（Il Capitale di Carlo Marx）一书的写作。这本小册子对《资本论》第1卷进行了较为完整的阐述，同时也得到了马克思的认可，被多次再版。

(2) Early Translation and Introduction Work on *Capital*

（二）《资本论》的早期译介工作

Marx’s German edition of Volume 1 of *Capital* first appeared in 1867. In the nearly twenty years that followed, aside from a small number of studies and translations, translation and introduction work within Italy made no substantial progress. Although various translation attempts were made in academic circles, the overall work mainly consisted of reprinting already published texts (translations). It was not until 1886, under the organization of the Italian economist Gerolamo Boccardo, that the French edition of Volume 1 of *Capital* was translated into Italian and published by the Biblioteca dell’Economista (Economist’s Library Press). This was the first complete Italian translation of Volume 1 of *Capital* to appear. Subsequently, Italian scholars did not proceed with the translation of Volume 2 of *Capital* in sequential order; instead, they paid more attention to Volume 3, which was published later. The main reason for this phenomenon was the prevalence of Loriaism [3]3 Loriaism refers to the economic theories of Achille Loria (1857–1943), an Italian economist who claimed to have independently discovered Marx’s theory of surplus value and who criticized Marx’s law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, gaining some influence in Italian intellectual circles. in Italy at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. At that time, the Italian economist Achille Loria was the first to initiate criticism of Marxist theory, especially the “law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall” in Volume 3 of *Capital*, and this had a relatively broad impact in Italy. Against this backdrop, the issues addressed in Volume 3 of *Capital* attracted widespread attention among Italian scholars, leading to far greater interest in Volume 3 than in Volume 2 within Italy. In 1895, Pasquale Martinetti translated the preface written by Engels for Volume 3 of *Capital* and published it in the Neapolitan biweekly *Critica*. In his reply to Martinetti, Engels praised his translation work and indicated that the publication of the translation would enable the Italian people to better understand the true face of Loria and his followers. In the same year, Martinetti also translated Engels’s “Supplement to *Capital*, Volume 3,” published in issue 5 of the journal *Critica Sociale*. In addition to Martinetti’s translation work, in 1897, the historically distinguished Accademia Pontaniana in Naples held a prize competition on the exposition and critique of the newly published posthumous work of Marx, Volume 3 of *Capital*; in 1899, the Italian revolutionary syndicalist Arturo Labriola published *The Theory of Value of Karl Marx: A Study of Volume 3 of Capital*.

马克思的德文版《资本论》第1卷在1867年首次问世，在之后的近20年时间里，除了少量的研究和译本，意大利国内的译介工作并未得到实质性进展。虽然学界也进行过各种翻译尝试，但总体工作主要是对已经出版的文本（译本）进行再版。直到1886年，在意大利经济学家杰罗拉莫·博卡尔多（Gerolamo Boccardo）的组织下，法文版《资本论》第1卷才被翻译成意大利文，并由经济学家图书馆出版社（Biblioteca dell’Economista）出版，这是意大利最完整的《资本论》第1卷译本首次问世。之后，意大利学者并没有按照卷次顺序开展《资本论》第2卷的译介工作，而是更加关注后出版的《资本论》第3卷。出现这一现象的主要原因是19世纪末20世纪初洛里亚主义在意大利开始盛行。当时，意大利经济学家阿基莱·洛里亚（Achille Loria）率先开启了对马克思主义理论的批判，尤其是对《资本论》第3卷“利润率下降规律”进行了批判，并在意大利产生了较为广泛的影响。在这一背景下，《资本论》第3卷中涉及的问题引起了意大利学者的普遍关注，致使意大利国内对《资本论》第3卷的关注远远大于第2卷。1895年，帕斯夸勒·马尔提涅蒂（Pasquale Martinetti）翻译了恩格斯为《资本论》第3卷撰写的序言，并发表在那不勒斯的双周刊《评论》（Critica）上。恩格斯在给马尔提涅蒂的回信中称赞了他的翻译工作，并表示译文的发表将会使意大利民众更好地了解洛里亚及其拥护者的真实面目。同年，马尔提涅蒂又翻译了恩格斯的《〈资本论〉第3卷增补》，发表于《社会评论》（Critica Sociale）杂志第5期。除了马尔提涅蒂的译介工作外，1897年，具有光荣传统的那不勒斯蓬塔尼亚纳学院还举办了有关刚刚出版的马克思的遗作《资本论》第3卷的阐述和批评的征文比赛；1899年，意大利革命工团主义者阿图罗·拉布里奥拉（Arturo Labriola）出版了《卡尔·马克思的价值理论：〈资本论〉第3卷研究》。

(3) Early Research on *Capital* in Italy

（三）《资本论》在意大利的早期研究

Although *Capital* was translated into Italian relatively early, it did not receive sufficient attention in Italy in the early period and was even subjected to constant questioning and distortion. The reason this situation later improved was mainly due to the outstanding contributions of Antonio Labriola. Labriola was one of the earliest scholars to disseminate Marxism in Italy. He not only openly promoted Marxism but also actively participated in the international workers’ movement, and in 1892, together with Filippo Turati, he helped found the Italian Workers’ Party.

虽然《资本论》被译为意大利文的时间比较早，但早期在意大利国内并未得到足够的重视，甚至一直饱受质疑和歪曲。这一情况之所以在后来得以改观，主要缘于安东尼奥·拉布里奥拉（Antonio Labriola）做出的突出贡献。拉布里奥拉是最早在意大利传播马克思主义的学者之一，他不仅公开宣传马克思主义，还积极参加国际工人运动，并于1892年与菲力浦·屠拉梯（Filippo Turati）一起协助创立了意大利工人党。

At that time, Italy was deeply influenced in the realm of thought and culture by currents such as anarchism and utopian socialism. After a “long and painful struggle,” Labriola “transformed from a Left Hegelian and a radical democrat into a Marxist.” After turning to Marxism in the 1890s, Labriola wrote two works, *In Memory of the Communist Manifesto* and *On Historical Materialism*, which became important texts for understanding Marxism within Italy. In *In Memory of the Communist Manifesto*, Labriola offered an interpretation of *Capital*. On the one hand, he examined Marx and Engels’ early research on economics, affirming the significant influence of Engels’ *Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy* and *The Condition of the Working Class in England*, and pointed out that “before they were commissioned to formulate the principles and program of the Communist League in the *Communist Manifesto*, they had already undertaken a new critique of economic science.” On the other hand, he affirmed the important role played by Marx’s *Economic Manuscripts of 1857–1858* in the formation of historical materialism and the writing of *Capital*, noting that the ideas in the manuscripts concerning the commodification of labor power as a precondition for the emergence of surplus value were “the first germs of those ideas that were later coherently and thoroughly revealed and analyzed in *Capital*.” Furthermore, Labriola analyzed the historical and revolutionary character of *Capital*. He argued that Marx analyzed the socio-economic formations preceding the realization of communism from the perspective of historical development, rather than discussing communism in an isolated and abstract manner; changing the mode of production required “thoroughly” breaking with the old model, and attempts at partial change (reform) were unfeasible. In this regard, Marx’s *Capital* was not “the first work of critical communism,” but rather “the last great work on bourgeois economy.” In the face of Lorianism’s distortion of Marxism, Labriola affirmed Engels’ critique of Loria in the preface to Volume 3 of *Capital*, defending Marx’s historical materialism.

当时的意大利在思想文化领域深受无政府主义和空想社会主义等思潮的影响，在经历了“漫长而痛苦的斗争”后，拉布里奥拉“从黑格尔左派、激进民主派，最后才转变为马克思主义者”。在1890年代转向马克思主义后，拉布里奥拉撰写了《纪念〈共产党宣言〉》《关于历史唯物主义》两部著作，这两部著作成为意大利国内了解马克思主义的重要文献。在《纪念〈共产党宣言〉》一书中，拉布里奥拉对《资本论》进行了解读。一方面，他考察了马克思恩格斯关于经济学的早期研究，肯定了恩格斯的《国民经济学批判大纲》和《英国工人阶级状况》的重要影响，并指出“在他们接受委托在《共产党宣言》中为共产主义者同盟制定原则和纲领之前，他们已经对经济科学进行了崭新的批判”；另一方面，他肯定了马克思《1857—1858年经济学手稿》在唯物史观的形成和《资本论》的写作过程中发挥的重要作用，指出手稿中谈到的劳动力商品化是剩余价值出现的前提等思想是“后来在《资本论》中连贯地和详细地加以揭示和分析的那些思想的最初萌芽”。此外，拉布里奥拉还分析了《资本论》所具有的历史性和革命性。他认为，马克思从历史发展的角度分析了实现共产主义之前的社会经济形态，而不是孤立抽象地论述共产主义；改变生产方式需要“彻底”破除原有模式，想要进行部分改变（改良）的企图是不可行的，就此来说，马克思的《资本论》不是“批判的共产主义的第一部著作”，而是“关于资产阶级经济的最后一部巨著”。面对洛里亚主义对马克思主义的歪曲，拉布里奥拉肯定了恩格斯在《资本论》第3卷序言中对洛里亚的批判，捍卫了马克思的历史唯物主义。

Under Labriola’s influence, the Italian philosopher Benedetto Croce also began to study historical materialism and Marx’s political-economic thought. However, the influence Labriola exerted on Croce was complex, encompassing not only identification and development but also critique and debate. Initially, Croce’s intellectual direction aligned with Labriola’s, but after corresponding with the philosopher Giovanni Gentile in late 1896, Gentile’s critique of Labriola affected Croce’s stance. Croce’s tendency to idealize historical materialism grew increasingly pronounced, and he ultimately detached from concrete political and economic conditions.

在拉布里奥拉的影响下，意大利哲学家贝奈戴托·克罗齐（Benedetto Croce）也开始研究历史唯物主义与马克思的政治经济学思想。然而，拉布里奥拉带给克罗齐的影响是复杂的，不仅包含认同和发展，同时也包含批判和争论。起初，克罗齐与拉布里奥拉的思想方向一致，但在1896年底同哲学家乔瓦尼·詹蒂莱（Giovanni Gentile）通信之后，詹蒂莱对拉布里奥拉的批判影响了克罗齐的立场。克罗齐将历史唯物主义唯心主义化的倾向越来越严重，最终脱离了现实的政治经济条件。

In 1900, in *Historical Materialism and the Economics of Karl Marx*, Croce questioned the scientific nature of Marxist theory, revealing a systematic intellectual turn during this period. Yet Croce never considered himself a critic or opponent of Marxism; he believed his views were “in divergence and change, not in the substance of thought, but in tone or color” from Marxist theory. However, a close reading of the text reveals that Croce’s interpretation of Marxist theory did involve misunderstandings and regression. In the book, he criticized Marx’s law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. In Croce’s view, a declining trend in the profit rate did indeed exist, but the most important influencing factor was not the rise in the organic composition of capital brought about by technological progress, but rather the growth of savings and population. Thus, he reverted to the explanatory framework of vulgar economists. Because of his refutation of the law of the falling rate of profit, Croce’s attitude toward Loria also differed markedly from Labriola’s. Croce argued that “Engels’ words against Loria carry weight in the preface to a book like *Capital*,” but that “such an accusation is both useless and uncharitable.”

1900年，克罗齐在《历史唯物主义与卡尔·马克思的经济学》中对马克思主义理论的科学性提出质疑，展现了他在这一时期的系统性思想转折。但是，克罗齐始终不认为自己是马克思主义的批评者或反对者，他认为自己的观点与马克思主义理论“存在分歧和变化，但不是在思想的实质上，而是在语气或色彩上存在差异”。然而，在深入了解了其文本内容后就会发现，克罗齐对马克思主义理论的解读确实存在误解和倒退，他在书中批判了马克思的一般利润率下降规律。在克罗齐看来，利润率呈现下降的趋势确实存在，但最重要的影响因素不是技术进步带来的资本有机构成的提高，而是储蓄和人口的增长。由此可见，他又回到了庸俗经济学家的解释框架之下。由于对利润率下降规律的反驳，克罗齐对洛里亚的态度也与拉布里奥拉迥然不同。克罗齐认为，“恩格斯反对洛里亚的话在《资本论》这样一本书的序言中很有分量”，但是“这种指责，既无用又不厚道”。

Although Croce was influenced by the contemporaneous French Sorelianism and erroneous views within Italy, causing his understanding of Marxism to gradually deviate from the correct path, he still made particular contributions. On the one hand, Croce’s emphasis on Hegelian philosophy made the tradition of interpreting Marx through Hegelianism increasingly prominent in Italian theoretical circles, and he placed greater importance than Labriola on analyzing the principles of historical materialism in *Capital*. On the other hand, his aforementioned critiques constituted the direct starting point and core issues for Gramsci’s exploration of political economy. On a practical level, Croce’s writings made Marxism more widely known in Italy.

克罗齐虽然受到同时期法国索列尔主义与意大利国内错误观点的影响，对马克思主义的理解逐渐偏离正轨，但仍有其特殊的贡献。一方面，克罗齐对黑格尔哲学的重视，使意大利理论界以黑格尔主义解读马克思的传统日趋显著，而且他比拉布里奥拉更重视对《资本论》中的历史唯物主义原理的分析；另一方面，他的上述质疑构成了葛兰西探讨政治经济学问题的直接出发点和核心议题。从现实层面讲，克罗齐的论述使马克思主义在意大利更加广为人知。

II. The Translation and Introduction of *Capital* and the Italian Socialist Movement from World War I to World War II

二、一战至二战期间《资本论》的译介与意大利社会主义运动

(A) The Translation and Introduction of *Capital* Around World War I

（一）一战前后《资本论》的译介

In 1915, about thirty years after the publication of the Italian edition of Volume 1 of *Capital*, a second Italian translation of Volume 1 from the German edition appeared, published serially in *Avanti!* and translated by Ettore Marchioli. This volume was also published as the seventh volume of the *Collected Works of Marx, Engels, and Lassalle* by the Avanti! Publishing Company. In the period between the two complete translations, few translations of *Capital* were published in Italy; the most influential was Ettore Fabietti’s 1902 abridged edition, *A Popular Edition of Marx’s Capital*. In addition to the translation of Volume 1, in 1908 the Roman publisher Luigi Mongini published Volume 2 of *Capital*, and in 1909 a portion of Volume 3. Between 1905 and 1910, Kautsky’s edited *Theories of Surplus Value* (Volume 4 of *Capital*) attracted attention in Italian academic circles, and the Roman anarcho-syndicalist revolutionary organ *L’Evoluzione Sociale* published portions of Volume 4 from August to December 1906 and from December 1907 to May 1908. These translations further advanced the dissemination of *Capital* in Italy.

1915年，在《资本论》第1卷意大利文版出版约30年后，意大利才出现第二版由德文版翻译过来的《资本论》第1卷，译文发表在《前进报》上，译者是埃托雷·马乔利（Ettore Marchioli）。该卷作为《马克思、恩格斯、拉萨尔著作集》的第七卷，同时由前进出版公司出版。在上述两个完整译本出版之间的时间里，意大利出版的《资本论》译本不多，比较有影响的是1902年埃托雷·法别蒂（Ettore Fabietti）编译的《马克思〈资本论〉通俗版》。除了第1卷的译介工作，1908年，罗马出版商路易吉·蒙吉尼（Luigi Mongini）出版了《资本论》第2卷，次年出版了第3卷的一部分。1905—1910年间，考茨基整理出版的《剩余价值学说史》（《资本论》第4卷）受到意大利学界的重视，罗马无政府工团主义革命机关报《社会演变报》在1906年8—12月以及1907年12月至1908年5月期间发表了第4卷中的部分内容。这些译本进一步推动了《资本论》在意大利的传播。

(B) “Hibernation and Growth” Between the Two World Wars

（二）两次世界大战间的“蛰伏与成长”

After the October Revolution, the translation and introduction of *Capital* brought new guidance for the revolution in Italy. In 1917, Gramsci published the article “The Revolution Against *Capital*.” The article, while seemingly criticizing the “iron necessity” mentioned in Marx’s *Capital* in light of the facts of the October Revolution, was in fact Gramsci’s exploration of the relationship between theory and revolution. Gramsci did not dogmatically interpret the principles of historical materialism expounded in *Capital*; he clearly stated that “the principles of historical materialism are not as immutable as one might think and as they have always been imagined,” and that the Bolsheviks “did not use the Master’s works dogmatically to construct a rigid theory that brooked no discussion.” Thus, the Bolshevik victory was a successful practice of applying historical materialism in accordance with the specific conditions of Russia.

十月革命后，《资本论》的译介为意大利的革命带来了新的指南。1917年，葛兰西发表了《反对〈资本论〉的革命》一文。文章看似是以十月革命的事实批判马克思《资本论》中提到的“铁的必然性”，实则是葛兰西对理论与革命关系的探讨。葛兰西没有教条地理解《资本论》中阐述的历史唯物主义原理，他明确指出，“历史唯物主义的原则并不像人们可能认为和一直被想象的那样是一成不变的”、布尔什维克“并没有用这位大师的著作教条主义式地去编制一种容不得讨论的僵化理论”，因此布尔什维克的胜利是结合俄国国情、运用历史唯物主义的一次成功实践。

From 1920 onward, in order to suppress the revolutionary workers’ movements that had erupted in Italy, such as the Turin factory council movement, the bourgeoisie adopted various means of repression, further intensifying the contradictions between workers and capitalists. In this environment, the Italian Communist Party (PCI) emerged as the times required. However, shortly after the founding of the PCI, the fascist party seized state power in Italy. Communists were severely repressed for resisting the dark rule of the fascist regime; the PCI General Secretary Antonio Gramsci was consequently arrested, while another important PCI founder, Palmiro Togliatti, fled into exile in Moscow. During this period, Marxism became taboo in Italy, and Gramsci, writing in prison, could only use “the philosophy of praxis” as a substitute for “Marxist philosophy.” In his *Prison Notebooks*, Gramsci discussed issues related to economics. When addressing the application of “the philosophy of praxis” in political science, Gramsci considered *Capital* to be Marx’s “practical lesson taught to his adversaries,” because *Capital* systematically and rationally grasps and explains the reality of capitalist society.

从1920年开始，为了压制意大利爆发的都灵工厂委员会运动等革命工运，资产阶级采用了各种镇压手段，工人与资本家的矛盾进一步激化。在这种环境中，意大利共产党应运而生。但是，在意大利共产党成立后不久，法西斯政党便夺取了意大利国家政权。共产党人因反抗法西斯政权的黑暗统治遭到严酷镇压，意共总书记葛兰西也因此被捕，另一位意共重要创始人陶里亚蒂则流亡莫斯科。这一时期，马克思主义在意大利成了禁忌，葛兰西在狱中的写作也只能以“实践哲学”代指“马克思主义哲学”。葛兰西在《狱中札记》中探讨了与经济学相关的问题。而在谈到“实践哲学”在政治学中的运用时，葛兰西认为《资本论》是马克思给“敌手们讲授了一堂实践课”，因为《资本论》系统性地并且合理地把握和阐释了资本主义社会的现实。

Due to the repressive rule of the fascist regime and the impact of the two world wars, from the fascists’ rise to power until the end of the Second World War, Italy saw no widely circulated or profoundly influential new translations of *Capital* or its manuscripts. The translation, introduction, and study of the text of *Capital* within Italy fell into a trough, even a period of stagnation. However, the development of Marxism in Italy did not cease altogether; the Italian Communists, led by Togliatti, relocated to the Soviet Union to build up their strength.

由于法西斯政权的高压统治以及两次世界大战的影响，从法西斯上台执政到第二次世界大战结束，意大利没有再出现流传广泛、影响深远的《资本论》及其手稿译本，意大利国内对《资本论》文本的译介与研究陷入了低谷甚至停滞期。但是，马克思主义在意大利的发展并没有就此停止，以陶里亚蒂为首的意大利共产党人转移到苏联境内积蓄力量。

Looking across the two historical periods of the dissemination of *Capital* in Italy, from the late 1860s to the end of the Second World War, the study of *Capital* by Italian Marxists formed a continuous tradition, mainly reflected in three aspects: first, because the text of *Capital* was initially met with skepticism and criticism in Italy, Italian Marxists of this period maintained a sustained focus on the issue of the “falling rate of profit” in *Capital*; second, based on their attention to the theoretical origins of Marxist thought, Italian Marxists valued the influence of Hegelian philosophy on Marx’s writing of *Capital*, establishing a consistent main line in Italian *Capital* studies; third, given Italy’s specific historical circumstances, the dissemination of *Capital* was closely linked to the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat.

纵观1860年代末至第二次世界大战结束《资本论》在意大利传播的两个历史时期，意大利的马克思主义者对《资本论》的研究是一脉相承的，这主要体现在三个方面：第一，由于《资本论》文本早期在意大利受到质疑和非议，这一时期的意大利马克思主义者对《资本论》中“利润率下降”的问题保持着持续的关注；第二，基于对马克思主义理论思想渊源的关注，意大利马克思主义者重视黑格尔哲学对马克思写作《资本论》的影响，奠定了意大利《资本论》研究一以贯之的主线；第三，鉴于意大利所处的特殊历史环境，《资本论》的传播与无产阶级的革命斗争联系紧密。

III. Translation, Introduction, and Study of *Capital* from the Post-WWII Period to the End of the 1970s

三、二战后至1970年代末《资本论》的译介与研究

(I) The Flourishing and Shift in *Capital* Studies

（一）《资本论》研究的繁荣与转向

Around the 1950s, the Italian economy recovered to its pre-war levels and ushered in more than a decade of the “Italian economic miracle.” However, the Italian Communist Party lost its direction on the question of which path to take. Togliatti, then serving as PCI General Secretary, led the party in an attempt to adopt a “peaceful parliamentary road,” “replacing class struggle with class collaboration, and replacing proletarian revolution with ‘structural reform’,” in order to achieve the legalization of the PCI and make it a mainstream force in Italian politics.

1950年代前后，意大利经济恢复到了战前水平，并迎来十余年的“意大利经济奇迹”，但意大利共产党却在道路选择的问题上迷失了方向。时任意共总书记的陶里亚蒂带领意共试图采取“和平的议会道路”，“用阶级合作来代替阶级斗争，用‘结构改革’来代替无产阶级革命”，以达到使意共合法化并成为意大利政坛主流的目的。

Nevertheless, the post-war environment of peace and development in Italy, along with the favorable development momentum shown by the Italian Communist Party, provided fertile ground for the translation and introduction of *Capital* and its manuscripts. The left-leaning Joint Publishers (Editori Riuniti) published numerous translations of *Capital* and its manuscripts: from 1952 to 1956, a complete three-volume translation of *Capital* was published; in 1957, an Italian translation of *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. Part One*, based on the 1859 German edition, was published; in 1961, an Italian translation of *Value, Price and Profit* was published. Also in 1961, Giorgio Giorgetti edited and published an Italian translation of *Theories of Surplus Value*, and in the preface introduced Marx’s *Economic Manuscripts of 1857–1858*. He pointed out that to understand the theory of surplus value, one must examine the developmental stages of Marx’s theoretical research before he wrote the 1861 economic manuscripts, and therefore the *Economic Manuscripts of 1857–1858* must be considered a primary reference. He also affirmed, from a methodological perspective, the consistency between the *Economic Manuscripts of 1857–1858* and *Capital*. In 1965, the “*Capital* Series” edited by Eugenio Sbardella and published by the Rome-based Avanzini e Toracca press appeared in Italy. In 1968, an Italian edition of the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* was published in Turin. From 1968 to 1970, Marx’s *Economic Manuscripts of 1857–1858* was published in two volumes by La Nuova Italia, with the Italian title *Outlines of the Critique of Political Economy 1857–1858*, translated from the German edition by Enzo Grillo. In 1969, La Nuova Italia published *Capital: Volume 1, the Unpublished Chapter VI*, that is, the section “Results of the Direct Production Process” from Marx’s *Economic Manuscripts of 1863–1865*.

尽管如此，战后意大利国内和平与发展的大环境以及意大利共产党呈现出的良好发展势头，为《资本论》及其手稿的译介工作提供了优渥的土壤。具有左翼背景的联合出版社出版了很多关于《资本论》及其手稿的译本：1952—1956年，《资本论》全三卷译本出版；1957年，根据1859年德文版翻译的《政治经济学批判。第一分册》意大利文译本出版；1961年，《工资、价格和利润》的意大利文译本出版。1961年，乔治·焦尔杰蒂（Giorgio Giorgetti）编辑出版了《剩余价值理论》意大利文译本，并在前言中介绍了马克思的《1857—1858年经济学手稿》。他指出，为了理解剩余价值理论，必须考察1861年马克思撰写经济学手稿之前其理论研究的发展阶段，因此《1957—1858年经济学手稿》必须作为主要的参考文献。他还从方法论的角度肯定了《1857—1858年经济学手稿》与《资本论》的一致性。1965年，由欧金尼奥·斯巴尔代拉（Eugenio Sbardella）编辑、罗马阿万齐尼和托拉卡（Avanzini e Torraca）出版社发行的“《资本论》系列丛书”在意大利面世。1968年，《1844年经济学哲学手稿》的意大利文版在都灵出版。1968—1970年，马克思的《1957—1858年经济学手稿》分两卷由新意大利出版社（La Nuova Italia）出版，意大利文书名为《1857—1858年政治经济学批判大纲》，由恩佐·格里洛（Enzo Grillo）依据德文版翻译。1969年，新意大利出版社出版了《〈资本论〉：第1卷，未发表的第六章》，即马克思《1863—1865 年经济学手稿》中的“直接生产过程的结果”部分。

The publication of numerous translations pushed Italian domestic Marxist theoretical research to a new stage. However, influenced by the 1956 Poznań June and Hungarian Revolution [6]6 The Poznań June (1956) was a workers’ uprising in Poland suppressed by the communist government; the Hungarian Revolution (1956) was a nationwide revolt against Soviet control, crushed by Soviet military intervention. Both events caused significant ideological turmoil within Western communist parties., divisions emerged within the Italian Communist Party and gradually intensified. In this context, the “Della Volpe school” gradually came to the fore. Opposing historicist interpretations of Marxism, this school pioneered a scientistic paradigm for interpreting Marxist theory and conducted groundbreaking research on *Capital* and its related manuscripts, such as the *Paris Manuscripts* and the *Economic Manuscripts of 1857–1858*.

诸多译本的问世，将意大利国内马克思主义理论研究推向了新的阶段。然而，受1956年波匈事件的影响，意大利共产党内部出现分歧并逐渐加剧。在这种情况下，“德拉-沃尔佩学派”逐渐崭露头角。该学派在反对马克思主义的历史主义解读的基础上，开创了以科学主义范式解读马克思主义理论的先河，并对《资本论》及其相关手稿如《巴黎手稿》和《1957—1858年经济学手稿》进行了开创性研究。

Before the *Paris Manuscripts* and the *Economic Manuscripts of 1857–1858* were translated into Italian, the Italian philosopher Galvano Della Volpe had already studied their German editions. He approached Marx’s dialectic and its application in *Capital* using a positivist method, thus becoming the founder of neo-positivist Marxism. In his book *Rousseau and Marx*, Della Volpe understood the *Paris Manuscripts* as Marx’s “philosophical legacy.” He denounced the Hegelian-Marxist interpretive approach, arguing that this “philosophical” understanding merely served to highlight the immaturity of the *Paris Manuscripts*. However, Della Volpe also acknowledged the significance of the *Paris Manuscripts* for understanding the *Economic Manuscripts of 1857–1858* and its “Introduction”: “Without the epistemological key provided by this so-called immature work, this ‘Introduction’ would also remain obscure.” Della Volpe reduced the Marxian dialectic embodied in the “Introduction” to a “scientific dialectic” different from Hegel’s, considering it a scientific exposition of empirical facts.

在《巴黎手稿》和《1957—1858年经济学手稿》被译为意大利文之前，意大利哲学家德拉-沃尔佩就研究了它们的德文版，并用实证主义的方法看待马克思的辩证法及其在《资本论》中的应用，因而成为新实证主义的马克思主义的开创者。在《卢梭和马克思》一书中，沃尔佩将《巴黎手稿》理解为马克思的“哲学遗著”。他贬斥黑格尔主义的马克思主义的解读路径，认为这种“哲学式”的理解不过是为了突出《巴黎手稿》的不成熟性。不过，德拉-沃尔佩也承认《巴黎手稿》对理解《1957—1858年经济学手稿》及其导言具有重要意义：“假若没有这部所谓未成熟著作所提供的认识论的钥匙，那么这个‘导言’也将是晦涩不明的。”德拉-沃尔佩将“导言”中体现的马克思的辩证法归结为与黑格尔不同的“科学辩证法”，认为它是对经验事实的科学阐述。

Lucio Colletti inherited his teacher Della Volpe’s research approach. He believed that Marx formed a scientific understanding of capitalist society in *Capital* and reached the conclusion that capitalism would inevitably perish. However, he considered it even more important to use the summarized laws to guide the revolutionary movement of the working class: “When the working class transcends economic spontaneism and gives play to its consciousness as the protagonist of a revolution that liberates not only the workers but the whole of society, it becomes a class. Through this consciousness, the working class forms political organizations and plays a leading role in its alliances with other classes.” That is to say, Colletti believed the working class is the executor of capitalist economic activity; when economic laws manifest as the class consciousness of the working class, the proletariat can drive economic and historical development through changes in class consciousness.

卢乔·科莱蒂（Lucio Colletti）继承了其老师德拉-沃尔佩的研究路径，认为马克思在《资本论》中形成了对资本主义社会的科学认识，得出了资本主义必然灭亡的结论；但他认为，利用总结出的规律指导工人阶级的革命运动更为重要，“当工人阶级超出经济自发主义，发挥出作为不仅解放工人而且解放整个社会的革命的主角的意识时，就成为一个阶级。通过这种意识，工人阶级形成政治组织并在它与其他阶级联盟中发挥领导作用”。也就是说，科莱蒂认为工人阶级是资本主义经济活动的执行者，当经济规律表现为工人阶级的阶级意识时，无产阶级就能够通过阶级意识的改变推动经济和历史的发展。

Compared with Della Volpe, Colletti held *The Paris Manuscripts* in higher regard, even seeing them as Marx’s first attempt to shift from philosophical analysis to the analysis of social relations of production, and he followed the “logic of production” in understanding historical materialism. However, Colletti did not agree with Louis Althusser, the French structuralist scholar who at the time shared many similarities with Italian neopositivism. In his view, Althusser’s research lacked a philosophical foundation and failed to understand the “subject” in Hegel’s philosophy. When discussing Althusser’s interpretation of *Capital*, Colletti bluntly quoted Eric Hobsbawm’s assessment: “*Reading Capital* did not help anyone read *Capital*.”

与德拉-沃尔佩相比，科莱蒂对《巴黎手稿》的评价更高，甚至将其看作是马克思首次从哲学分析转向社会生产关系分析的尝试，并遵循“生产逻辑”理解历史唯物主义。但是，科莱蒂并不认同对当时与意大利新实证主义有着诸多相似之处的法国结构主义学者路易·阿尔都塞。在他看来，阿尔都塞的研究缺乏哲学根基，没能理解黑格尔哲学中的“主体”。在谈及阿尔都塞对《资本论》的解读时，科莱蒂更是毫不客气地引用了艾瑞克·霍布斯鲍姆的评价：“《读〈资本论〉》并没有帮助任何人阅读《资本论》。”

(II) A “Guiding Light” for the Workers’ Movement

（二）工人运动的“指明灯”

In 1964, under the impact of an economic crisis, Italy’s economic development began to slow, and the situation of the working class grew increasingly difficult. The autonomist Marxist movement emerged amid various contradictions and conflicts. In 1968, revolutionary movements broke out in many parts of Italy, and the revolutionary wave continued until the end of the 1970s. During the same period, various social movements erupted worldwide, including France’s “May ’68,” the West German student movement, and Czechoslovakia’s “Prague Spring.” The outbreak of these revolutionary movements became an important opportunity for the dissemination of *Capital* and its manuscripts in Italy, and they promoted the enactment of Italy’s *Workers’ Statute* in 1970.

1964年，受经济危机的影响，意大利的经济发展开始放缓，工人阶级的处境愈加困难，自治主义的马克思主义运动在各种矛盾冲突中应运而生。1968年，意大利多地爆发了革命运动，革命浪潮一直持续到1970年代末。同一时期，法国的“五月风暴”、联邦德国的学生运动、捷克斯洛伐克的“布拉格之春”等世界范围内的各种社会运动相继爆发。这些革命运动的爆发成为《资本论》及其手稿在意大利传播的重要契机，并推动了1970年意大利《工人法令》的颁布。

The early representatives of the autonomist workers’ movement were mostly members of the Italian Socialist Party; some of them, influenced by the French “Socialisme ou Barbarie” group, opposed Stalinism and dogmatism ideologically. Unlike other Marxists, they were less concerned with party organization and instead focused on autonomous organizations outside traditional organizational structures. They believed that the working class could form organizations independent of the state, trade unions, or parties, and change the capitalist system from the bottom up. Based on the need to carry out the workers’ movement, they emphasized the study and application of *Capital*. During this period, Italian academic research on *Capital* was relatively scattered and lacked coherence, often taking the needs of the workers’ movement as its theme, with varied research content. In the late 1950s, the Italian Marxist theorist and Socialist Party leader Raniero Panzieri began to use Marxism to guide the workers’ movement. Together with Antonio Negri, Mario Tronti, Danilo Montaldi, and others, he founded the journal *Quaderni Rossi* (Red Notebooks), using it as an ideological platform to promote their views. These scholars later became the main representatives of autonomist Marxism.

早期的自治主义工人运动的代表人物多为意大利社会党成员，其中一些人受到法国“社会主义或野蛮”组织的影响，在思想上反对斯大林主义和教条主义。他们不像其他马克思主义者那样关心政党组织，而是关注传统组织结构之外的自治组织，认为工人阶级可以组建独立于国家、工会或政党的组织，以自下而上的方式改变资本主义制度。基于开展工人运动的需要，他们重视对《资本论》的研究与运用。这一时期，意大利学界对《资本论》的研究较为分散，缺乏连贯性，往往以工人运动的需求为主题，研究内容各异。1950年代末期，意大利马克思主义理论家、社会党领袖拉涅罗·潘齐耶里（Raniero Panzieri）开始运用马克思主义指导工人运动，与安东尼奥·奈格里（Antonio Negri）、马里奥·特龙蒂（Mario Tronti）、达尼洛·蒙塔尔迪（Danilo Montaldi）等人共同创办了《红色笔记》杂志，并以其为思想阵地宣传自己的主张。这些学者后来成为自治主义的马克思主义的主要代表人物。

To better guide the workers’ movement, the autonomist Marxists emphasized exploring the connection between the actual movement and *Capital*. They carefully studied Marxist works, went deep into factories to propagate the ideas of important texts such as *Capital*, and tried to find a direct link between the classic texts and the workers’ movement. Several leading figures of autonomist Marxism made outstanding contributions to the translation and dissemination of *Capital* in Italy. In 1968, Panzieri, together with Delio Cantimori and Maria Luisa Boggeri, co-translated and published the complete three volumes of *Capital*, with Panzieri primarily responsible for translating Volume 2. In addition, he wrote *Surplus Value and Planning: Reading Notes on Capital*, using a more accessible explanation to help young workers and students understand Marx’s critique of capitalist society. Panzieri’s interpretations influenced a generation of young intellectuals in the workers’ autonomist movement and promoted the dissemination of *Capital*. In 1971, Tronti translated and published Marx’s *Wage Labour and Capital*, and in the inaugural issue of *Quaderni Rossi*, he published a translation of Volume 2 of *Capital*. The translation of these texts provided theoretical support for the creation of new concepts and the formation of new ideas in the Italian workers’ movement. In 1979, Negri published the book *Marx Beyond Marx: Lessons on the Grundrisse*, offering a politicized interpretation and development of the *Economic Manuscripts of 1857–1858*.

为了更好地指导工人运动，自治主义的马克思主义者重视探讨现实运动与《资本论》的联系。他们认真研读马克思主义著作，深入工厂宣传《资本论》等重要文本的思想，试图找到经典文本与工人运动之间的直接联系。自治主义的马克思主义的几位领军人物为《资本论》在意大利的译介与传播做出了突出贡献。潘齐耶里与德里奥·坎蒂莫里（Delio Cantimori）、玛丽亚·路易莎·博杰里（Maria Luisa Boggeri）于1968年共同翻译出版了《资本论》全三卷，其中潘齐耶里主要负责第2卷的翻译工作。此外，他还撰写了《剩余价值与计划：〈资本论〉解读笔记》，通过更为通俗易懂的阐释帮助青年工人和学生了解马克思对资本主义社会的批判。潘齐耶里的阐释影响了后来工人自治主义的一批青年知识分子，推动了《资本论》的传播。1971年，特龙蒂翻译出版了马克思的《雇佣劳动与资本》，并在《红色笔记》创刊号上发表了《资本论》第2卷的译文。这些文本的翻译为意大利工人运动创立新概念、形成新理念提供了理论支撑。1979年，奈格里出版了著作《〈大纲〉：超越马克思的马克思》，对《1857—1858年经济学手稿》进行了政治化的解读与发展。

Influenced by the workers’ movement of this period, a large number of translations of *Capital* and its manuscripts sprang up in Italy like mushrooms after rain, and the publication of an Italian-language edition of the *Marx-Engels Collected Works* was put on the agenda. In addition to the translation work on *Capital* and its manuscripts, translations of studies on *Capital* by some foreign scholars also began to circulate in Italy. For example, in 1973, the Italian translation of French philosopher Jacques Rancière’s work *Critique and Political Economy: From the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 to Capital* was published by Feltrinelli. In 1976, Giorgio Backhaus’s translation of *Outlines of the Critique of Political Economy (Grundrisse)* was published in Turin.

受这一时期工人运动的影响，意大利如雨后春笋般地涌现出一大批《资本论》及其手稿的译本，出版意大利文版《马克思恩格斯全集》的工作也被提上了日程。除了《资本论》及其手稿的译介工作外，部分国外学者对《资本论》研究的译本也开始在意大利传播，例如，1973年法国哲学家雅克·朗西埃的著作《批判和政治经济学批判：从〈1844年经济学哲学手稿〉到〈资本论〉》的意大利文译本由费尔特里内利出版社（Feltrinelli）出版。1976年，乔治·巴克豪斯（Giorgio Backhaus）翻译的《政治经济学批判纲要（大纲）》在都灵出版。

Overall, after World War II, the dissemination of *Capital* and its manuscripts in Italy became more widespread, and the translation of the manuscripts in particular opened a new chapter in Italian research on *Capital*. During this period, Italian scholars’ research on *Capital* had three prominent characteristics: first, research became more systematic, emphasizing the role of the manuscript complex and focusing on the relationship between the manuscripts and *Capital*; second, interpretations of *Capital* saw the emergence of a scientistic paradigm opposed to humanism; third, the social changes after World War II led some scholars to seize the opportunity to further promote social movements, while others, feeling disappointed with social movements, chose to engage in theoretical research, gradually detaching themselves from social practice. However, the content that these two types of theorists focused on was very similar: they all emphasized analyzing the changes that the development of science and technology brought to capitalist modes of exploitation, stressed the role of the revolutionary subject, and focused on interpreting Marx’s economic manuscripts.

总体而言，二战后《资本论》及其手稿在意大利的传播更为广泛，尤其是手稿的译介开创了意大利《资本论》研究的新局面。这一时期，意大利学者对《资本论》的研究有三个突出特点：第一，研究更加系统，重视手稿群的作用，并关注手稿与《资本论》的关系问题；第二，对《资本论》的解读出现了与人本主义相对立的科学主义范式；第三，二战后的社会变革使一部分学者试图抓住时机进一步推动社会运动，而另一部分学者则对社会运动产生失望情绪，选择进行理论研究，从而逐渐脱离了社会实践。不过，这两类理论家所关注的内容非常相似，他们都注重分析科学技术的发展给资本主义剥削方式带来的变化，强调革命主体的作用，注重对马克思经济学手稿的解读。

IV. The Translation and Development of *Capital* and Its Manuscripts from the 1980s to the Present

四、1980年代至今《资本论》及其手稿的译介与发展

(I) The Translation and Research of *Capital* and Its Manuscripts from the 1980s to the End of the 20th Century

（一）1980年代至20世纪末《资本论》及其手稿的译介与研究

The workers’ movement from the 1960s to the early 1970s was the high tide of socialist development in Italy, and the translation and research of *Capital* and its manuscript complex also reached a peak. However, in the mid-to-late 1970s, the momentum of the workers’ movement gradually weakened. During this period, the Italian Communist Party (PCI), affected by external interference and internal splits, was gradually marginalized. Coupled with its fear of the black terrorism of residual fascist elements, the PCI ultimately chose to compromise with the Christian Democracy party, making the dissemination of Marxism in Italy even more difficult. From the 1980s to the end of the 20th century, as the workers’ movement gradually declined, research on *Capital* and its manuscripts in Italy once again entered a trough.

1960年代至1970年代初期的工人运动是意大利社会主义发展的高潮阶段，《资本论》及其手稿群的译介与研究也随之达到高峰。但是，1970年代中后期，工人运动的势头逐渐减弱。这一时期，意共因受外部干预和内部分裂的影响而被逐渐边缘化，加之对残余的法西斯分子的黑色恐怖主义的忌惮，意共最终选择向天主教民主党妥协，使马克思主义在意大利的传播更加艰难。1980年代至20世纪末，随着工人运动逐渐式微，意大利国内对《资本论》及其手稿的研究重新进入低谷。

During this period, although the translation and introduction of *Capital* and its manuscripts did not come to a complete halt, there was little pioneering translation work; the main effort was the republication of existing editions. In 1980, Editori Riuniti published the ninth reprint of the complete three volumes of *Capital*, translated by Panzieri and others in 1968; this enduring translation became the generally recognized Italian version. Editori Riuniti’s plan to publish the *Complete Works of Marx and Engels* continued into the early 1990s, producing a total of 32 volumes. In 1997, Enzo Grillo’s two-volume translation of the *Economic Manuscripts of 1857–1858*, under the title *Outlines of the Critique of Political Economy 1857–1858*, was reprinted for the second time and received a positive response. In addition, the founding in 1990 of the International Symposium on Marxian Theory (ISMT) promoted the study of *Capital* by Italian scholars and their exchanges with international peers. From 1991 to 2012, the ISMT held annual conferences, with Italian scholars such as Riccardo Bellofiore and Guglielmo Carchedi frequently participating in the writing and editing of conference papers. In collaboration with scholars from the United States, Britain, the Netherlands, Mexico, and other countries, they published eleven books, including *The Method in Marx’s Capital: A Reexamination* and *Marx’s Capital and Hegel’s Logic: A Reexamination*, which explored issues such as the methodology of *Capital*, the historical background of the *Economic Manuscripts of 1857–1858*, and the logic of the text.

在这一时期，虽然《资本论》及其手稿的译介工作并没有完全停滞，但开创性的译介工作不多，主要工作是对已有版本的再版。1980年，联合出版社第九次再版了1968年由潘齐耶里等人翻译的《资本论》全三卷，这一经久流传的译本成为意大利普遍认可的译本。而联合出版社的《马克思恩格斯全集》出版计划则延续到了1990年代初期，共出版了32卷。1997年，恩佐·格里洛（Enzo Grillo）以《1857—1858年政治经济学批判大纲》为书名分两卷译介的《1857—1858年经济学手稿》第二次再版，获得良好反响。此外，1990年 “马克思主义经济理论国际研究会”（ISMT）成立，为意大利学者对《资本论》的研究以及与国际同行的交流起到了促进作用。从1991年至2012年，ISMT每年都会召开会议，里卡多·贝洛菲奥雷（Riccardo Bellofiore）、古列尔莫·卡尔凯迪（Guglielmo Carchedi）等意大利学者多次参与会议学术论文的写作与编辑工作。他们与美国、英国、荷兰和墨西哥等国的学者合作出版了包括《马克思〈资本论〉中的方法：一种再考察》《马克思的〈资本论〉和黑格尔的逻辑：一种再考察》等在内的11部书籍，探讨了《资本论》中的方法论、《1857—1858年经济学手稿》的历史背景及文本逻辑等议题。

(2) The Publication and Republication of the Second Section of the Italian Edition of the *Complete Works of Marx and Engels*

（二）意大利文版《马克思恩格斯全集》第二部分的出版及再版

In the 1990s, after Editori Riuniti’s plan to publish the *Complete Works of Marx and Engels* ceased, La Città del Sole in Naples and Lotta Comunista in Milan took up the publication task. The new edition continued the original plan while adopting the translations published by Editori Riuniti in 1964–1965.

1990年代，联合出版社的《马克思恩格斯全集》出版计划停止后，那不勒斯太阳城出版社（La Città del Sole）与米兰共产主义斗争出版社（Lotta Comunista）担负起了出版任务。新版全集延续原有计划，同时采纳了联合出版社1964—1965年出版的译本。

As of the end of May 2022, Lotta Comunista and La Città del Sole had jointly completed the publication of 38 volumes of the *Complete Works of Marx and Engels*. Although the two publishers did not complete the entire publication task by the originally planned date of 2020, the republication of the complete works enhanced the influence of Marxist theory in Italy. Among all the published volumes, Volume 30 of the complete works contains the content of Volume 1 of *Capital* and was published in 2011, edited by Roberto Fineschi. In the process of compilation, he extensively referred to the text of MEGA2 and devoted considerable space in the introduction to explaining the criteria for selecting translated terms, the indexes established for various documents, and the relevant background knowledge involved in the translation process, guiding readers to understand *Capital* in light of the latest scholarly research. This volume was divided into two parts: the first part introduced the fourth German edition of Volume 1 of *Capital* (1890) and Engels’s revisions; the second part sorted out the background of the composition of Volume 1 and Marx’s preparatory work for writing it, introduced the evolution of the main editions of Volume 1 of *Capital* (the first and second German editions and the French edition), and also presented all the materials Marx prepared for writing Volume 1 of *Capital*, thereby providing important research references for Italian academia and a reference text for the general public reading *Capital*.

截至2022年5月底，米兰共产主义斗争出版社和太阳城出版社已经共同完成了《马克思恩格斯全集》中38个卷次的出版工作。两家出版社虽未按原定计划于2020年完成全部的出版任务，但全集的再版使马克思主义理论在意大利的影响力得到了提升。在所有的出版卷次中，全集第30卷收录了《资本论》第1卷的内容，并于2011年出版，其编辑是罗伯托·菲内斯基（Roberto Fineschi），他在编译过程中大量参照了MEGA2的文本，并在导论中用相当大的篇幅介绍了翻译词汇的选取标准、为各类文献建立的索引以及译介过程中涉及的相关背景知识，引导读者根据学界最新研究成果了解《资本论》。该卷被设置为上、下两册，上册对1890年《资本论》第1卷德文第四版和恩格斯的修订工作进行了介绍，下册梳理了第1卷成书的背景以及马克思的写作准备情况，介绍了《资本论》第1卷德文第一版、第二版和法文版几个主要版本的演变，同时也介绍了马克思为撰写《资本论》第1卷准备的所有材料，从而为意大利学界提供了重要的研究参考，也为大众阅读《资本论》提供了参考文本。

(3) The Revival of *Capital* Studies in the New Century

（三）新世纪《资本论》研究的复兴

Since the beginning of the 21st century, Marxism has remained a “niche” field of study in Italy, but the relatively peaceful environment at home and abroad provided favorable objective conditions for the translation, introduction, and dissemination of *Capital* and its manuscripts. In 2010, Pgreco published the *Economic Manuscripts of 1857–1858*, noting in the preface that this work was an important transition from Marx’s early *Paris Manuscripts* to his later *Capital*. On January 2, 2012, Giovanni Sgro translated and published the *Economic Manuscripts of 1863–1865*, one of the latest results of Italian academia’s translation efforts referencing MEGA2. In 2017, Editori Riuniti University Press published Volume 1 of *Capital*, with a preface by Eric Hobsbawm. This revised edition placed greater emphasis on Marx’s analysis of the systemic characteristics of modern society and deleted some polemical content. In 2018, Feltrinelli republished the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*; to help readers better understand Marx’s text, this edition not only referenced MEGA2 in its content but also added the *Notes on Mill* on the basis of previous editions.

进入21世纪以来，马克思主义在意大利国内仍然属于“小众”研究，但国内外较为和平的环境为《资本论》及其手稿的译介传播提供了良好的客观条件。2010年，圆周率出版社（Pgreco）出版了《1857—1858年经济学手稿》，并在序言中指出这本著作是马克思从早期《巴黎手稿》到晚期的《资本论》的重要过渡。2012年1月2日，乔瓦尼·斯格罗（Giovanni Sgro）翻译出版了《1863—1865年经济学手稿》，该译本是意大利学界参考MEGA2进行译介的最新成果之一。2017年，联合大学出版社（Editori Riuniti University Press）出版了《资本论》第1卷，霍布斯鲍姆为其作了序言。这一版本的修订工作更加重视马克思对现代社会系统特征的分析，删减了一些辩论内容。2018年，费尔特里内利出版社再版了《1844年经济学哲学手稿》，为让读者更好地理解马克思的文本，该版本在内容上不仅参考了MEGA2，还在之前版本的基础上加入了《穆勒笔记》。

The global financial crisis of 2008 once again brought Marxist studies to the attention of the Western world. In July 2008, the ISMT held a conference at the University of Bergamo in Italy, aiming to conduct an in-depth reflection on Marx’s *Economic Manuscripts of 1857–1858* in the context of the 190th anniversary of Marx’s birth. This conference led to the publication of the book *In Marx’s Laboratory: Critical Interpretations of the Grundrisse*. In 2018, Italian scholars Luca Basso, Bellofiore, and Favilla, together with French scholar Étienne Balibar and others, co-edited *Rereading Capital*. They argued that *Capital* is an important basis for understanding the dynamics of contemporary capitalist society, and that by rereading *Capital*, one can better understand the development and changes of contemporary capitalism.

2008年全球金融危机使马克思主义研究再一次受到西方世界的重视。2008年7月，ISMT在意大利的贝加莫大学举行会议，希望在马克思诞辰190周年的背景下对马克思的《1857—1858年经济学手稿》进行深入思考，这次会议促成了《在马克思的实验室中：关于〈大纲〉的批判性解读》一书的问世。2018年，意大利学者卢卡·巴索（Luca Basso）、贝洛菲奥雷、法维利与法国学者艾蒂安·巴里巴尔（étienn Balibar）等人一起编著了《重读〈资本论〉》，他们提出，《资本论》是理解当代资本主义社会动态的重要依据，通过重读《资本论》，能够更好地理解当代资本主义的发展与变化。

It is worth noting that although a scientistic interpretive paradigm emerged in Italian academia in the mid-20th century, the emphasis on Hegelian philosophy, inherited from philosophers such as Vico and Croce, continued to deeply influence Gramsci and many subsequent Italian Marxists. At the same time, because scientism arose to a certain extent on the basis of a critique of humanism, humanism never truly withdrew from the historical stage in the theoretical research and practice of Italian Marxist theorists. On the one hand, although many Italian scholars (such as Negri and Basso) focused on analyzing the structure of capitalist society and new developments in science and technology at the macro level of research, when confronting micro-level concepts, they still tended to emphasize the historicity of capitalist society from the perspective of socio-historical development, acknowledging the important influence of Hegel on Marx’s writing of *Capital*. On the other hand, Italian scholars from other camps of scientism drew on the research results of humanist Marxism and attempted to surpass them. For example, Colletti placed considerable emphasis on the role of Marx’s early *Paris Manuscripts* in the formation of his critique of political economy, striving to explain the relationship between the concept of alienated labor in *Capital* and the *Paris Manuscripts*; Bellofiore paid close attention to the German Neue Marx-Lektüre and sought theoretical sources for its humanist dimension from figures such as Theodor Adorno. These phenomena all reveal the historical trend of mutual influence and integration between the two paradigms of scientism and humanism in the development of Italian Marxism.

值得一提的是，虽然意大利学界在20世纪中叶出现了科学主义解读范式，但由维科、克罗齐等哲学家延续下来的对黑格尔哲学的重视，依然深深影响着葛兰西及后来的众多意大利马克思主义者。同时，由于科学主义在一定程度上是基于对人本主义的批判而出现的，因此在意大利马克思主义理论家的理论研究与实践中，人本主义从未真正退出过历史舞台。一方面，虽然许多意大利学者（如奈格里、巴索）在宏观研究层面上比较注重对资本主义社会的结构以及科学技术的新发展进行分析，但在面对微观概念时，他们仍倾向于从社会历史发展的角度强调资本主义社会的历史性，认可黑格尔对马克思写作《资本论》带来的重要影响。另一方面，科学主义其他阵营的意大利学者借鉴了人本主义的马克思主义的研究成果并试图进行超越，如科莱蒂就颇为重视马克思早期的《巴黎手稿》在其政治经济学批判思想形成过程中起到的作用，力图就《资本论》与《巴黎手稿》中的异化劳动概念的关系问题做出解释；贝洛菲奥雷则对德国的新马克思阅读研究高度关注，并就其人本主义向度从西奥多·阿多诺等人那里寻找理论之源。这些现象都呈现出科学主义与人本主义两大范式在意大利马克思主义发展进程中相互影响、相互融合的历史趋势。

In sum, with the relaunch of the project for the *Complete Works of Marx and Engels* and the dissemination of MEGA² in Italy, research on *Capital* and its manuscripts has been further deepened, and the scope of translation and introduction of the relevant manuscript groups has also been further expanded. The study of *Capital* in Italy has taken on the following new characteristics: first, international academic cooperation has deepened further, and its influence in the international scholarly community has continued to grow; second, the scientistic and humanistic interpretive paradigms have shifted from opposition to integration, and scholarly research on the content and structure of *Capital* has become more thorough.

总之，随着《马克思恩格斯全集》计划的重启和MEGA2在意大利的传播，《资本论》及其手稿的研究得到了进一步深化，相关手稿群的译介范围也得到了进一步拓展。意大利的《资本论》研究呈现出以下新特点：第一，国际范围内的学术合作进一步加深，在国际学界的影响力也不断扩大；第二，科学主义与人本主义解读范式由对立转向融合，学界对《资本论》的内容和结构的研究更加深入。

(Author: Li Jingwen, School of Marxism Studies, Renmin University of China)

（作者：李晶文，中国人民大学马克思主义学院）

(This article is a phased result of the Major Project of the National Social Science Fund of China, “The Latest Developments in the Study of Marx’s *Capital* in Foreign Academic Circles”)

（本文系国家社会科学基金重大项目“国外学界《资本论》研究的最新进展”的阶段性成果）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心