A Study of the Dissemination of Marx’s *Capital* in Tsarist Russia / Soviet Russia / the Soviet Union / Russia

The dissemination of Marx’s *Capital* in Tsarist Russia / Soviet Russia / the Soviet Union / Russia has accumulated a history of more than 150 years. Reviewing this history is of great significance for understanding the picture of the dissemination of Marxism in the Russian-speaking world and even globally. As Lyudmila Vasina (Людмила Васина), the current head of the “Moscow Editorial Group” of MEGA², has said: “Without this history of Marx’s thought exerting a profound influence in Russia, without the academic research organizations established during the Soviet period for publishing the literary heritage of Marx and Engels, Marx and Engels would not be so famous and highly esteemed.”

马克思《资本论》在沙俄/苏俄/苏联/俄罗斯的传播累计已有150多年的历史。回顾这段历史，对于理解马克思主义在俄文世界乃至全球的传播图景意义重大。正如MEGA2“莫斯科编辑小组”现任负责人柳德米拉·瓦西娜（Людмилa Васина）所说：“如果没有马克思思想在俄国产生深远影响的这段历史，如果没有苏联时期建立的出版马克思恩格斯文献遗产的学术研究组织，马克思恩格斯就不会如此闻名遐迩和备受推崇。”

I. The Dissemination of *Capital* in Russia before 1917 and Its Influence on the Choice of Russia’s Path of Social Development

一、1917年之前《资本论》在俄国的传播及其对俄国社会发展道路选择的影响

Before 1872, the German edition of Volume 1 of Marx’s *Capital* had already attracted the attention of Russian intellectuals. In 1872, the Russian translation of Volume 1 of *Capital* was officially published in Russia. The dissemination of this classic work of Marxism in Russia evoked a strong response among Russians and exerted an important influence on the choice of Russia’s path of social development.

在1872年之前，马克思《资本论》第1卷德文版已被俄国知识分子所关注。1872年，《资本论》第1卷俄译本在俄国正式出版。这部马克思主义经典著作在俄国的传播引起了俄国人的强烈反响，并对俄国社会发展道路的选择产生了重要的影响。

(1) The Ideological Foundation for the Dissemination of *Capital* in Russia before 1917

（一）1917年之前《资本论》在俄国传播的思想基础

Compared with other European countries, the study of political economy in Russia started relatively late. In 1804, Moscow University welcomed its first professor of political economy — the German Christian Schlözer. During his tenure (1804–1825), Schlözer compiled the first textbook on political economy for the Russian academic community. In the same period, Heinrich Storch, the compiler of another important Russian textbook on political economy, was also German. Both scholars received their higher education in Germany, which was based on British classical political economy. Their teaching work, and that of their successors, laid the ideological foundation for Marx’s theory to smoothly enter Russia. Alexander Manuilov (Александр Мануйлов), a professor of economics at Moscow University, pointed out as early as the second half of the 19th century that the most authoritative and popular thinkers in Russia were Marx and Ricardo, that most Russian political economy courses were built on the foundation of the ideas of these two economists, and that the Ricardo–Marx system was a characteristic of Russian economic thought at that time.

与欧洲其他国家相比，俄国的政治经济学研究起步较晚。1804年，莫斯科大学迎来了第一位政治经济学教授——德国人克里斯蒂安·施勒策（Christian Schl?zer）。施勒策在任教期间（1804—1825年）为俄国学界编写了第一本政治经济学教材。同一时期，俄国另一本重要的政治经济学教材的编写者海因里希·斯托希（Heinrich Storch）也是德国人。这两位学者在德国接受的高等教育均是英国古典政治经济学。他们及其后来者的教学工作为马克思的理论顺利进入俄国奠定了思想基础。莫斯科大学经济学教授亚历山大·马努依洛夫（Александр Мануйлов）早在19世纪下半叶就指出，在俄国最权威且最受欢迎的思想家是马克思和李嘉图，俄国政治经济学课程大都建立在这两位经济学家思想的基础之上，李嘉图—马克思体系是当时俄国经济思想的特征。

Against this background, some political economists consciously introduced Marx’s *Capital* to Russia. For example, Nikolai Ziber (Николай Зибер), a professor of political economy at Kiev University, in his master’s thesis *Ricardo’s Theory of Value and Capital* (1871), treated Marx’s theories of value, money, and capital as the inevitable outcome of the development of the doctrines of Smith and Ricardo. This conclusion was mentioned in the postface to the second edition of Volume 1 of *Capital* (1873) and received Marx’s approval. Ziber popularized *Capital* in Russia even earlier than Russia’s first Marxist, Plekhanov. Economists represented by him made important contributions to the dissemination of Marxism in Russia. As the 2014 edition of the *Russian Philosophical Encyclopedia* notes: “In Russia in the 1870s–1880s, Ziber most completely and objectively popularized Marx’s socio-economic doctrine, playing an important role in its legal dissemination in academic and journalistic publications.”

在这一背景下，一些政治经济学者自觉地将马克思的《资本论》介绍到俄国。例如，基辅大学政治经济学教授尼古拉·季别尔（Николай Зибер）在其硕士毕业论文《李嘉图的价值和资本理论》（1871年）中将马克思的价值、货币和资本的理论视为斯密和李嘉图学说发展的必然结果，该结论在马克思1873年《资本论》第1卷第二版的跋中被提及并得到了马克思的赞同。季别尔在俄国普及《资本论》的时间甚至早于俄国第一位马克思主义者普列汉诺夫。以他为代表的俄国经济学家为马克思主义在俄国的传播作出了重要贡献。正如2014年版俄罗斯哲学百科全书介绍的：“在1870—1880年代的俄国，季别尔最完整、最客观地普及了马克思的社会经济学说，为其在学术和新闻出版物中的合法传播发挥了重要作用。”

(2) The Publication and Distribution of *Capital* in Russia before 1917

（二）1917年之前《资本论》在俄国的出版发行情况

The contemporary scholar Vincent Barnett points out: “In the 1870s, two landmark events occurred in Russian economic thought that had a profound impact on the subsequent 30 years: the Western marginal revolution and the publication of the Russian translation of *Capital* in 1872.” Comparatively speaking, the latter was even more sensational. As soon as the Russian translation of Volume 1 of *Capital* was published in St. Petersburg on April 8, 1872, the Russians immediately showed great enthusiasm: the total print run of this edition was 3,000 copies; sales reached more than 900 copies in less than a month and a half, and it sold out within four months. According to incomplete statistics, in Russia “in the 1870s, approximately 170 publications responded to the Russian translation of Volume 1 of *Capital*.” In a letter to Sorge in 1880, Marx noted that *Capital* had “more readers and was held in greater esteem” in Russia “than anywhere else.”

当代学者文森特·巴内特（Vincent Barnett）指出：“1870年代俄国经济思想界发生了两件对之后30年产生深远影响的标志性事件：西方的边际革命和1872年《资本论》俄译本的发行。”比较而言，后者甚至更为轰动。1872年4月8日《资本论》第1卷俄译本在圣彼得堡刚一发行，俄国人立刻就表现出极大的热情：该版总发行量3000册，不到一个半月销量便达900多册，四个月内宣告售罄。据不完全统计，俄国“1870年代大约有170种出版物对《资本论》第1卷俄译本作出了回应”。马克思在1880年给左尔格的信中提到，《资本论》在俄国“比在其他任何地方都有更多的读者，受到更大的重视”。

Compared with the “dismal sales” of the German edition of Volume 1 of *Capital* in Germany, the dissemination of the Russian translation of Volume 1 of *Capital* in Russia was evidently very smooth. Even when it encountered official control and prohibition by the Russian authorities in the 1880s and 1890s, the process of disseminating *Capital* in Russia was not greatly affected. According to Lenin’s research, before the October Revolution of 1917, five editions of the Russian translation of Volume 1 of *Capital* were publicly issued in Russia: two editions translated by Nikolai Danielson (Николай Даниельсон) (1872 and 1898); two editions translated by Evgenia Gurvich (Евгения Гурвич) and Lev Zak (Лев Зак) and edited by Pyotr Struve (Пётр Струве) (1899 and 1905); and one edition translated by Vladimir Bazarov (Владимир Базаров) and Ivan Skvortsov-Stepanov (Иван Скворцов-Степанов) (1909). Before the October Revolution, in addition to the Russian translation of Volume 1 of *Capital*, two editions of the Russian translations of Volumes 2 and 3 of *Capital* were also issued in Russia: the translation by Danielson (Volume 2, 1885; Volume 3, 1896) and the translation jointly done by Bazarov and Skvortsov-Stepanov (1907–1909). Furthermore, before the October Revolution, some publications related to *Capital* were also published in Russia, for example, the Russian translation of Volume 1 of Karl Kautsky’s edition of *Theories of Surplus Value*. This translation had three editions: the St. Petersburg edition of 1906 edited by Plekhanov, the Kiev edition of 1906 edited by Vladimir Zheleznov (Владимир Железнов), and the Kiev edition of 1907 edited by Pavel Tuchapsky (Павел Тучапский).

与《资本论》第1卷德文版在德国发行时的“惨淡销量”相比，《资本论》第1卷俄译本在俄国的传播显然十分顺利。即便在1880年代和1890年代遭遇俄国官方的管制和查禁，《资本论》在俄国的传播进程也没有受到太大影响。据列宁考证，1917年十月革命前，俄国曾公开发行过五版《资本论》第1卷俄译本：尼古拉·丹尼尔逊（Николай Даниельсон）翻译的1872年版和1898年版两版译本；叶夫根尼娅·古尔维奇（Евгения Гурвич）和列夫·扎克（Лев Зак）翻译、彼得·司徒卢威（Пётр Струв）校订的1899年版和1905年版两版译本；弗拉基米尔·巴扎罗夫（Владимир Базаров）和伊万·斯克沃尔佐夫-斯捷潘诺夫（Иван Скворцов-Степанов）翻译的1909年版译本。十月革命前，除了《资本论》第1卷俄译本外，俄国还曾发行过两版《资本论》第2卷和第3卷的俄译本：丹尼尔逊翻译的译本（第2卷1885年版、第3卷1896年版）和巴扎罗夫与斯克沃尔佐夫-斯捷潘诺夫共同翻译的译本（1907—1909年版）。此外，十月革命前，俄国还出版过一些与《资本论》相关的出版物，例如，卡尔·考茨基（Karl Kautsky）版《剩余价值理论》第1卷俄译本，此译本共有三个版本：普列汉诺夫校订的1906年圣彼得堡版、弗拉基米尔·热列兹诺夫（Владимир Железнов）校订的1906年基辅版和帕维尔·图恰普斯基（Павел Тучапский）校订的1907年基辅版。

(3) The Dissemination of *Capital* in Russia and the Choice of Russia’s Path of Social Development

（三）《资本论》在俄国的传播与俄国社会发展道路的选择

From the perspective of revolutionary practice, the dissemination of *Capital* in Russia was also successful, which to a certain extent should be attributed to the surging revolutionary liberation movement after the abolition of serfdom in 1861. In the mid-19th century, an extremely active revolutionary force emerged in Russia—the Narodniks. The early dissemination of *Capital* in Russia has a deep historical connection with the Narodniks, because the translation and publication of the first Russian edition of *Capital* were mainly organized and completed by Narodnik intellectuals. However, the Narodniks organized the translation and introduction of *Capital* in Russia not because they endorsed the Marxist proposition of proletarian revolution, but because the critique of feudal autocracy in *Capital* aligned with their opposition to tsarist autocracy. The Narodniks believed that the “historical inevitability” of social development expounded in *Capital* applied to the advanced Western European countries, not to backward Russia, and that Russia could fully utilize its own “village commune” advantage to mobilize the peasant class and take a path of “village-commune socialism” that bypassed capitalism. Precisely because of this, the publication of the Russian translation of Volume 1 of *Capital* in 1872 triggered a theoretical debate between the Narodniks and the liberals who advocated that Russia should take the capitalist road, lasting from 1877 to 1879. This theoretical debate aroused strong interest among Russian socialists. Lenin summarized the focus of Russian socialists’ attention on *Capital* as “the fate of capitalism in Russia,” a theme of such powerful vitality that it persisted from the introduction of *Capital* into Russia until the October Revolution.

从革命实践的角度看，《资本论》在俄国的传播也是成功的，这在一定程度上应归功于1861年废除农奴制后风起云涌的革命解放运动。19世纪中叶，俄国出现了一支极为活跃的革命力量——民粹派，《资本论》在俄国的早期传播与民粹派有着很深的历史渊源，因为《资本论》初版俄译本的翻译和出版工作主要是由民粹派知识分子组织完成的。然而，民粹派在俄国组织翻译和引入《资本论》并不是因为他们赞成马克思主义的无产阶级革命主张，而是因为《资本论》批判封建专制的观点符合他们反对沙皇专制的主张。民粹派认为，《资本论》中阐释的社会发展的“历史必然性”适用于先进的西欧国家而不是落后的俄国，俄国完全可以利用自身的“村社”优势，发动农民阶级走跨越资本主义的“村社社会主义”道路。正因如此，1872年《资本论》第1卷俄译本的发行引发了1877—1879年间民粹派与主张俄国走资本主义道路的自由派之间的理论争论。这场理论争论引起了俄国社会主义者的强烈兴趣。列宁把俄国社会主义者对《资本论》的关注点概括为“俄国资本主义的命运”，这一生命力强大的主题从《资本论》引入俄国一直持续到十月革命。

After the 1880s, the Narodniks abandoned their early radical revolutionary propositions, but still believed that Russian capitalism had developed by chance, was therefore without a future and had already declined. They denied the fact that Russian capitalism had already developed and opposed its continued development in Russia. In the same period, Plekhanov and the first Russian Marxist group he founded, the “Emancipation of Labor Group,” disagreed with the Narodniks’ views. They consistently insisted on propagating the basic viewpoints of *Capital* within the workers’ movement, in order to eliminate the erroneous influence of the Narodniks in the dissemination of *Capital*. In his book *The Development of the Monist View of History* (1885), Plekhanov, from the perspective of Marxist philosophy, reduced the above-mentioned views held by the Narodniks represented by Nikolai Mikhailovsky to the theoretical error of subjectivism, and asserted: “There is no basis to lead one to hope that Russia will quickly depart from the path of capitalist development it embarked upon after 1861.”

1880年代后，民粹派放弃了早年激进的革命主张，但仍然认为俄国资本主义是偶然发展起来的，因而没有前途且已经衰落，他们否认俄国的资本主义已经发展起来的事实，并反对资本主义在俄国继续发展。在同一时期，普列汉诺夫及其组建的第一个俄国马克思主义团体“劳动解放社”不同意民粹派的看法，他们始终坚持在工人运动中宣传《资本论》的基本观点，以消除民粹派在《资本论》传播中的错误影响。在《论一元论历史观之发展》（1885年）一书中，普列汉诺夫从马克思主义哲学的视角出发，将以尼古拉·米海洛夫斯基（Николай Михайловский）为代表的民粹派所持有的上述观点归结为主观主义的理论错误，并且断言：“没有根据可以使人希望俄国将迅速离开其在1861年后走上的资本主义发展的道路。”

However, Plekhanov did not completely refute the Narodniks’ views, because in essence his philosophical argument was too general and abstract. For Russian Marxists, what was more urgently needed at this time was a “Russian *Capital*” that possessed objective data and could provide theoretical support for revolutionary practice. From 1897 to 1899, while in exile, Lenin, using first-hand data on Russia’s domestic socio-economic conditions he had collected during his earlier imprisonment in St. Petersburg, completed his political economy work *The Development of Capitalism in Russia*. From the perspective of Marxist political economy, he systematically analyzed Russia’s economic and social system and class structure. In this work, Lenin specifically targeted the “village commune”—the foundation of all Narodnik fantasies—and, combining the theory of social development expounded in *Capital* with the reality of Russian agricultural development, pointed out: “The structure of economic relations in the ‘village commune’ village is by no means a special structure (‘people’s production,’ etc.), but an ordinary petty-bourgeois structure.” The capitalist mode of production had been fully established in both Russian cities and the countryside, and the strength of the Russian proletariat was continuously growing. Based on this judgment, Lenin provided a “preliminary answer” in *The Development of Capitalism in Russia* regarding the path of Russian social development.

然而，普列汉诺夫并没有完全驳倒民粹派的观点，因为从本质上讲，他的哲学论证过于笼统和抽象，对于俄国马克思主义者而言，此时更需要一部拥有客观数据资料、能为革命实践提供理论支撑的“俄国的《资本论》”。1897—1899年，在流放途中的列宁利用此前在圣彼得堡被监禁期间搜集到的俄国国内社会经济第一手资料，完成了他的政治经济学著作《俄国资本主义的发展》，从马克思主义政治经济学的角度系统分析了俄国的经济社会制度和阶级结构。在这部著作中，列宁特别针对民粹派全部幻想的基础——“村社”，结合《资本论》阐述的社会发展理论与俄国农业发展的现实指出，“‘村社’农村中的经济关系结构决不是特殊的结构（‘人民生产’等），而是普通的小资产阶级的结构”，资本主义生产方式无论在俄国的城市还是农村均已完全确立，俄国无产阶级力量也在不断发展中壮大。根据这一判断，列宁在《俄国资本主义的发展》一书中对俄国社会发展道路给出了“初步回答”。

At the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, the major capitalist countries entered the stage of imperialism. While closely observing imperialism, this “new stage” in the process of capitalist development, Lenin also conducted a deep and systematic study of the philosophical foundation of *Capital*—dialectics. Lenin’s research work had a profound purpose. As the Soviet philosopher Mark Rosenthal stated, this was “not accidental.” Through his outstanding interpretation of the “soul” of *Capital*—dialectics—in his *Philosophical Notebooks* (1895–1916), Lenin completed in 1916 a scientific exposition of imperialism: *Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism*. This book, starting from the initial category of imperialism’s “monopoly” (just as Marx’s *Capital* starts from the initial category of “value”), continues Marx’s *Capital*’s study of the laws of capitalist development, pointing out that imperialism is the highest and final stage of capitalism, the eve of the proletarian revolution. On this basis, Lenin provided the “final answer” to the focal issue of the early dissemination of *Capital* in Russia—the choice of Russia’s social development path: Russia, as a weak link in the imperialist chain, possessed the conditions to erupt in a proletarian revolution and move towards socialism before the developed countries. This also laid a solid theoretical foundation for the October Revolution in Russia in 1917.

19世纪末20世纪初，主要资本主义国家进入帝国主义阶段。列宁在密切关注帝国主义这个资本主义发展进程中出现的“新阶段”的同时，对《资本论》的哲学基础——辩证法进行了深入而系统的研究。列宁的这个研究工作有其深刻用意。正如苏联哲学家马克·罗森塔尔（Марк Розенталь）所言，这“不是偶然的”。通过在1895—1916年的《哲学笔记》中对《资本论》的“灵魂”——辩证法的卓越解读，列宁于1916年完成了对帝国主义的科学阐释——《帝国主义是资本主义的最高阶段》。该书从帝国主义的“垄断”这一初始范畴出发（正如马克思的《资本论》从“价值”这一初始范畴出发一样），延续了马克思《资本论》对资本主义发展规律的研究，指出帝国主义是资本主义最高和最后的阶段，是无产阶级革命的前夜。在此基础上，列宁为《资本论》在俄国早期传播的焦点问题——俄国社会发展道路的选择提供了“最终回答”：俄国作为帝国主义链条上的薄弱环节，具备了先于发达国家爆发无产阶级革命、走向社会主义的条件。这也为1917年俄国十月革命奠定了坚实的理论基础。

II. The Dissemination of *Capital* in Soviet Russia and the Soviet Union from 1917 to the Mid-1950s

二、1917年至1950年代中期《资本论》在苏俄和苏联的传播

After the October Revolution in 1917, Soviet power was established throughout Russia. From this time onward, the dissemination of *Capital*, the “Bible of the working class,” in Soviet Russia and subsequently the Soviet Union received the support of the new regime. From 1917 to the mid-1950s, the dissemination of *Capital* achieved many valuable results, including the successive editing and publication of various *Capital*-related publications, and the collection, editing, and publication of precious manuscripts of *Capital*. However, with the formation of the Soviet Marxist “textbook system,” abnormal phenomena appeared in the study and interpretation of *Capital* in the Soviet Union.

1917年十月革命后，苏维埃政权在俄国全国各地建立起来。从这时起，作为“工人阶级的圣经”的《资本论》在苏俄及此后的苏联的传播得到新生政权的支持。从1917年至1950年代中期，《资本论》的传播取得了很多有价值的成果，包括相继编辑发行了多种《资本论》相关出版物，搜集并编辑出版了《资本论》的珍贵手稿。然而，随着苏联马克思主义“教科书体系”的形成，《资本论》在苏联的研究阐释出现了不正常现象。

(I) Achievements in the Dissemination of *Capital* in Soviet Russia and the Soviet Union from 1917 to the Mid-1950s

（一）1917年至1950年代中期《资本论》在苏俄和苏联传播的成就

After the October Revolution, the dissemination of Marxism in Russia entered a completely new period. Under Lenin’s care, David Riazanov took the lead in establishing the world’s first Marxist museum, and on this basis founded the research institution later known as the Marx-Engels Institute, dedicated to collecting, organizing, editing, and publishing the literary legacy of Marx and Engels. At its inception, the Institute possessed only eight original letters from Marx to Ruge. After several years of effort, the Institute collected a large number of originals and all photocopies of the literary legacy of Marx and Engels. These precious documentary materials constituted the textual basis for the future major Soviet project of editing and publishing the works of Marx and Engels. Among them, the Institute collected original and photocopied textual materials related to *Capital*, including not only texts officially published during the lifetimes of Marx and Engels and after their deaths, but also their relevant drafts, manuscripts, notes, correspondence, and a large number of references cited by Marx during his writing of *Capital*. Through the collection, organization, and identification of these original textual documents, the dissemination work of *Capital* in Soviet Russia and subsequently the Soviet Union was brought to an entirely new level overall.

十月革命后，马克思主义在俄国的传播进入全新的时期。在列宁的关怀下，达维德·梁赞诺夫牵头在世界上成立第一个马克思主义博物馆，并在此基础上创建后来被称为马克思恩格斯研究院的搜集、整理、编辑和出版马克思恩格斯文献遗产的研究机构。成立之初，研究院仅拥有马克思写给卢格的8封书信原件。经过数年努力，研究院收集到马克思恩格斯文献遗产中的大量原件以及全部影印件。这些宝贵的文献资料构成了日后苏联编辑和出版马克思恩格斯著作的重要工程的文本依据。其中，研究院搜集到《资本论》相关文本文献的原本与影印本资料，不仅包括马克思恩格斯生前及逝世后曾正式出版过的文本，还有二人的相关草稿、手稿、笔记、通信，以及马克思写作《资本论》期间所引用的大量参考文献等。借由对这些原始文本文献的搜集、整理和辨识，《资本论》在苏俄及此后的苏联的传播工作从总体上被带至一个全新的水平。

During this period, the Soviet Union published a variety of publications related to *Capital*, the most striking of which was the excavation by MEGA1 of multiple manuscripts and documentary materials related to *Capital*. According to the publication plan announced by Riazanov in 1927, Part II of MEGA1, namely “*Capital* and Its Preparatory Materials,” “would amount to no fewer than 13 volumes.” However, this plan was never completed. In November 1931, the Marx-Engels Institute and the Lenin Institute merged to form the Marx-Engels-Lenin Institute. Under the direction of its director, Vladimir Adoratsky, MEGA1 issued some volumes of Marx’s early writings related to *Capital* that had already been prepared during Riazanov’s tenure. In 1932, the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* were published in MEGA1 Part I, Volume 3, and *The German Ideology* in MEGA1 Part I, Volume 5. It is worth noting that these two works sparked a wave of academic research in Western academia during the 1950s–1960s centered on the “young Marx” and “discovering another Marx.” However, because the institute’s work priorities shifted after 1931, the editing and publication of textual materials related to *Capital* in MEGA1 were marginalized. After 1935, the publication of MEGA1 was almost at a standstill, and its Part II, “*Capital* and Its Preparatory Materials,” likewise failed to complete its publication plan. Nevertheless, the experts involved in MEGA1 did not cease the work of identifying, collating, and editing “*Capital* and Its Preparatory Materials.” The final publication that emerged was the *Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Ökonomie (Rohentwurf)*, i.e., the *Economic Manuscripts of 1857–1858* (Book 1, 1939; Book 2, 1941), edited by Pavel Veller and issued as an informal volume. This work opened a door for revealing the secrets of the formation of *Capital* and, on that basis, for further interpreting *Capital*.

这一时期，苏联出版了与《资本论》相关的多种出版物，最引人注目的是MEGA1挖掘出与《资本论》相关的多部手稿与文献资料。按照1927年梁赞诺夫公布的出版计划，MEGA1的第Ⅱ部分即“《资本论》及其准备材料”“将不少于13卷”，然而这一计划后来并没有完成。1931年11月，马克思恩格斯研究院与列宁研究院合并为马克思恩格斯列宁研究院。在院长弗拉基米尔·阿多拉茨基（Владимир АДоратский）的主持下，MEGA1发行了部分梁赞诺夫任期内已经准备好的、与《资本论》相关的马克思早期文献的卷次。1932年，《1844年经济学哲学手稿》在MEGA1第Ⅰ部分第3卷中发行，《德意志意识形态》在MEGA1第Ⅰ部分第5卷中发行。值得一提的是，这两部著作在1950—1960年代的西方学界掀起了“青年马克思”“发现另一个马克思”的学术研究浪潮。不过，由于1931年后研究院工作重点的转移，MEGA1中《资本论》相关文本文献的编辑出版工作被边缘化。1935年后，MEGA1的出版工作几乎处于停摆状态，其第Ⅱ部分“《资本论》及其准备材料”亦未完成出版计划。尽管如此，参与MEGA1的专家并没有停止“《资本论》及其准备材料”的辨识、整理和编辑工作，最终呈现的出版物是由帕维尔·韦勒（Pavel Veller）编辑、以非正式卷次形式发行的《政治经济学批判大纲（草稿）》，即《1857—1858年经济学手稿》（第1册，1939年；第2册，1941年）。这部著作向人们敞开了揭示《资本论》形成的秘密以及在此基础上进一步解读《资本论》的一扇大门。

In addition to carrying out the editing and publication of critical texts primarily aimed at academia, the Soviet regime also placed great emphasis on popularizing the basic ideas of *Capital* among the proletariat. Anatoly Lunacharsky, then People’s Commissar for Education, criticized in 1921 the erroneous view held by some comrades within the Party that “the proletarian does not need to study *Capital*.” He wrote: “Only a fool would say, ‘Marx need not have written *Capital* at all. It is a difficult book; hardly any proletarian can finish reading it. It would be better to focus exclusively on popularization.’ The cultural level of the Russian proletariat varies considerably; besides performing the simplest work, it can and needs to perform work of a higher degree of skill.” Therefore, it was also extremely necessary to provide Russian translations that served political propaganda and were close to the reading needs of the masses. After the founding of Soviet Russia, the authorities continuously revised, improved, and issued the Russian translation of *Capital* by Skvortsov-Stepanov, making this edition the most popular Russian translation of *Capital* in Soviet Russia and subsequently in the Soviet Union. At the same time, the basic ideas of *Capital* became the main teaching content for political economy majors in Soviet higher education institutions and were widely disseminated among several generations of intellectuals. Moreover, the encyclopedic series compiled during the Soviet period—the *Great Soviet Encyclopedia*, the *Small Soviet Encyclopedia*, the *Soviet Encyclopedic Dictionary*, and other publications—all contained a large number of entries related to *Capital*, providing important reference tools for academic research on and popular reading of *Capital*. In addition, Soviet academia also produced popular reading materials on *Capital* for ordinary readers, such as Lev Leontiev’s *Introduction to Capital*, which promoted the popular reading and widespread dissemination of *Capital*.

除了落实编辑出版主要面向学术界的考证性文本的工作以外，苏维埃政权还非常重视《资本论》基本观点在无产阶级中的普及工作。时任教育人民委员的阿纳托利·卢那察尔斯基（Анатолий Луначарский）在1921年批判了在党内部分同志中存在的“无产者不需要学习《资本论》”的错误观点。他写道：“只有笨蛋才会说，‘马克思本来用不着写《资本论》的。这是一本难懂的书，难得有个无产者能读完它，还不如专门搞普及工作好’。俄国无产阶级在文化修养上的差异是相当大的，除了从事最简单的工作以外，它能够并且需要从事熟练程度较高的工作。”因此，为无产阶级提供服务于政治宣传且贴近大众阅读需要的俄译本也极为必要。苏俄成立后，当局对斯克沃尔佐夫-斯捷潘诺夫版的《资本论》俄译本不断地进行修订、改进和发行，使得该版本成为苏俄及之后的苏联最为流行的《资本论》俄译本。与此同时，《资本论》的基本观点还成为苏联高等教育院校政治经济学专业的主要教学内容，在几代知识分子中得到广泛普及。而苏联时期编写的百科全书系列——《苏联大百科全书》《苏联小百科全书》《苏联百科辞典》等出版物中均包含大量与《资本论》相关的词条，为《资本论》的学术研究及大众阅读提供了重要的参考工具。此外，苏联学界还面向普通读者推出了列夫·列昂节夫（Лев Леонттьев）撰写的《〈资本论〉导引》等《资本论》通俗类读物，推动了《资本论》的大众阅读和广泛传播。

(2) Abnormal Phenomena in the Study and Interpretation of *Capital* in the Soviet Union from the 1930s to the Mid-1950s

（二）1930年代至1950年代中期《资本论》在苏联研究阐释的不正常现象

Lenin’s study of *Capital* represented the highest level of Russian Marxism in the early twentieth century. He profoundly grasped the dialectical relationship between Hegel’s philosophy and Marx’s *Capital*, pointing out: “It is impossible completely to understand Marx’s *Capital*, and especially its first chapter, without having thoroughly studied and understood the whole of Hegel’s *Logic*.” “In *Capital*, the logic, dialectics and theory of knowledge of materialism (three words are not needed: they are one and the same thing) are applied to a single science, and this materialism has taken everything valuable from Hegel and developed it further.” Unfortunately, these important views of Lenin were not well inherited. During the Stalin period, the Soviet authorities’ understanding of Marxism and *Capital* mainly emphasized the one-dimensional dimension of their role in revolution and national construction, while weakening their richer theoretical connotations (especially dialectics). This practice had a negative impact on the dissemination of *Capital* in the Soviet Union. In particular, the formation of the Soviet Marxist “textbook system” in the 1930s further reinforced the above practice. From the 1930s to the mid-1950s, influenced by the “textbook system,” the study and interpretation of *Capital* tended to become rigid, and some abnormal phenomena emerged.

列宁对《资本论》的研究代表了20世纪初俄国马克思主义的最高水平，他深刻地洞察了黑格尔哲学与马克思《资本论》之间的辩证关系，指出：“不钻研和不理解黑格尔的全部逻辑学，就不能完全理解马克思的《资本论》，特别是它的第1章。”“在《资本论》中，唯物主义的逻辑、辩证法和认识论（不必要三个词：它们是同一个东西）都应用于一门科学，这种唯物主义从黑格尔那里吸取了全部有价值的东西并发展了这些有价值的东西。”可惜的是，列宁的这些重要观点并没有很好地得到继承。在斯大林时期，苏联当局对马克思主义和《资本论》的理解主要偏重其作用于革命与国家建设的单向维度，而弱化了更为丰富的理论内涵（特别是辩证法），这种做法给《资本论》在苏联的传播带来了不好的影响。特别是1930年代苏联马克思主义“教科书体系”的形成，更是强化了上述做法。1930年代至1950年代中期，受“教科书体系”的影响，《资本论》的研究阐释趋于僵化，出现了一些不正常的现象。

First, during this period, innovative research on *Capital* by Soviet scholars encountered setbacks. In 1932, after the two early works related to *Capital*—the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* and *The German Ideology*—were published in the Soviet Union, Soviet scholars attempted to interpret them within the broad framework of the transformation from idealism to materialism and from revolutionary democracy to communism, following Lenin’s understanding. However, these efforts not only received no support but were instead criticized. For example, in the 1930s, Isaak Rubin’s theoretical study of the form of value was defined as “idealism” for being “Hegelianized”; Nikolai Kondratiev, who proposed the theory of long waves in capitalist economic crises, was also criticized for his academic views advocating the development of Russian capitalism. In 1946, certain views in Evgeny Varga’s *Changes in the Postwar Capitalist Economy* were severely criticized for contradicting Stalin’s theory of the general crisis of capitalism.

第一，这一时期，苏联学者关于《资本论》的创新性研究遭遇挫折。1932年，《1844年经济学哲学手稿》和《德意志意识形态》这两部与《资本论》相关的早期文献在苏联出版后，苏联学者均尝试按照列宁的理解，在从唯心主义转变为唯物主义、从革命民主主义转变为共产主义的大框架内进行解读。然而，这些努力不但没有得到支持，反而受到了批判。例如，1930年代，伊萨克·鲁宾（Исаак Рубин）对价值形式的理论研究因“黑格尔化”而被界定为“唯心主义”；提出资本主义经济危机长波理论的尼古拉·康德拉季耶夫（Николай Кондратьев）也因主张发展俄国资本主义的学术观点而受到批判。1946年，叶甫根尼·瓦尔加（Евгений Варга）撰写的《战后资本主义经济的变化》中的某些观点因与斯大林的资本主义总危机理论相悖而遭到严厉批评。

Second, during this period, the study and interpretation of *Capital* in the Soviet Union contained elements of conjecture. Starting in 1933, in response to the many “defects” of the popular edition of *Capital* published by the German Social Democratic Party in the 1920s (the Kautsky edition), the Soviet Union began to issue the Moscow popular edition of *Capital*. The Soviet side accused the Kautsky edition of deliberately creating an opposition between Marx and Engels and Lenin, calling it a “forgery by the German Social Democrats” and a “bourgeois trick.” The preface and textual annotations of the Moscow popular edition of *Capital*, compiled under the direction of Adoratsky, cited relevant writings by Lenin and Stalin to demonstrate the consistency between Marxism and Leninism and Stalinism. Moreover, Volume 3 of *Capital* included two texts not found in the Kautsky edition—Engels’s “The Law of Value and the Rate of Profit” and “The Stock Exchange.”

第二，这一时期，《资本论》在苏联的研究阐释有臆想的成分。从1933年起，针对1920年代德国社会民主党发行的考茨基版《资本论》普及版存在的诸多“缺陷”，苏联开始发行莫斯科版《资本论》普及版。苏联方面指责考茨基版有意制造马克思与恩格斯、列宁之间的对立，是“德国社会民主党人的伪造”和“资产阶级的鬼魅伎俩”。阿多拉茨基主持编纂的莫斯科版《资本论》普及版前言及文本注释引用了列宁和斯大林的有关文献，以体现马克思主义与列宁主义、斯大林主义之间的一致性，并且在《资本论》第3卷中收录了考茨基版中没有收录的两篇文献——恩格斯的《价值规律和利润率》与《交易所》。

Third, during this period, the study and interpretation of *Capital* in the Soviet Union showed a tendency toward vulgarization and dogmatization. According to Lenin’s division, Marxism consists of Marxist philosophy, political economy, and scientific socialism. These three parts run through *Capital*, making it an indivisible whole. However, because the basic viewpoints of *Capital* were compiled into the Soviet *Textbook of Political Economy* (1954), the content of philosophy and scientific socialism in *Capital* was omitted, retaining only the political economy part, which objectively led to a one-sided interpretation of *Capital*. In addition, the Soviet *Textbook of Political Economy* extended the object of study of political economy to a “broad political economy” that included socialist political economy, dividing its overall structure into three sections: pre-capitalist modes of production, the capitalist mode of production, and the socialist mode of production. Yet its logic did not, like Marx’s *Capital*, proceed from the “cell” of social economy to reveal the historical laws of the entire development of social economy, thereby losing the holistic character of Marx’s *Capital*.

第三，这一时期，《资本论》在苏联的研究阐释有被庸俗化、教条化的倾向。根据列宁的划分，马克思主义由马克思主义哲学、政治经济学和科学社会主义组成。这三个部分贯穿于《资本论》，使其成为不可肢解的整体。然而，由于《资本论》的基本观点被汇编于苏联《政治经济学教科书》（1954年）之中，《资本论》中哲学和科学社会主义部分的内容被舍去，只保留政治经济学部分，这在客观上造成了《资本论》的片面化解读。另外，苏联《政治经济学教科书》将政治经济学的研究对象扩展至包含社会主义政治经济学的“广义政治经济学”，在总体结构上分为资本主义前的生产方式、资本主义的生产方式和社会主义的生产方式三篇，但其逻辑并不像马克思的《资本论》那样从社会经济的“细胞”出发，上升至对整个社会经济发展历史规律的揭示，因而丧失了马克思《资本论》的整体性特征。

Overall, after the 1930s, the objective situation of the study and interpretation of *Capital* in the Soviet Union was characterized internally by the constraints of the Soviet Marxist “textbook system” and externally by the shift of the center of gravity for innovative elaboration of *Capital* due to the rise of Western Marxism. Although some abnormal phenomena appeared, the research on *Capital* in the Soviet Union during this period was still meaningful, and the study of *Capital* in various countries benefited from it.

整体而言，1930年代后，苏联对《资本论》研究阐释的客观状况表现为内部受到苏联马克思主义“教科书体系”的束缚，外部面临着因西方马克思主义的崛起而导致对《资本论》进行创新性阐发的重心发生了转移。尽管出现了一些不正常现象，这一时期的苏联对《资本论》的研究工作仍然是有意义的，各国对《资本论》的研究工作均从中获益。

III. The Dissemination of *Capital* in the Soviet Union from the Mid-1950s to 1991

三、1950年代中期至1991年《资本论》在苏联的传播

From the mid-1950s to 1991, the Soviet Union edited and published the second Russian edition of the *Complete Works of Marx and Engels* and, in cooperation with the Socialist Unity Party of Germany, launched the new historical-critical edition of the *Complete Works of Marx and Engels*, i.e., MEGA², and the project of its editing and publication, on the basis of which a series of philological achievements concerning *Capital* and its manuscripts were obtained. During the same period, Soviet scholars achieved many innovative results in the two fields of the history of the formation of *Capital* and the study of its method.

1950年代中期至1991年，苏联编辑出版了《马克思恩格斯全集》俄文第二版，并与德国统一社会党合作开启了新的《马克思恩格斯全集》历史考证版即MEGA2的编辑和出版工程，并在此基础上取得了一系列关于《资本论》及其手稿的文献学成果。同期，苏联学者在《资本论》的形成史与方法论研究两个领域取得了诸多创新性成果。

(A) Philological Achievements Based on the Second Russian Edition of the *Complete Works of Marx and Engels* and MEGA²

（一）基于《马克思恩格斯全集》俄文第二版和MEGA2的文献学成果

Starting in 1955, the Soviet Union initiated the editing and publication of the second Russian edition of the *Complete Works of Marx and Engels*, which is to date the most complete and widely circulated edition of the complete works of Marx and Engels globally. The second part of this edition and the supplementary volumes 46–50 included the first three volumes of *Capital*, *Theories of Surplus Value*, and the main body of the “three major manuscripts” of *Capital* written by Marx. On the basis of the second Russian edition of the *Complete Works of Marx and Engels*, editions in German, English, Bulgarian, Japanese, Korean, Polish, Romanian, Serbian, Czech, Hungarian, and the first Chinese edition of the *Complete Works of Marx and Engels* were successively edited and published.

从1955年开始，苏联启动了《马克思恩格斯全集》俄文第二版的编辑和出版工作，该版本是迄今为止全球范围内内容最完整、流传最广泛的马克思恩格斯全集。该版全集的第二部分及补卷部分的第46—50卷收录了《资本论》前三卷、《剩余价值理论》与马克思写作的《资本论》的“三大手稿”的主体部分。在《马克思恩格斯全集》俄文第二版的基础上，德文版、英文版、保加利亚文版、日文版、朝鲜文版、波兰文版、罗马尼亚文版、塞尔维亚文版、捷克文版、匈牙利文版及中文版第一版《马克思恩格斯全集》等版本陆续编辑出版。

Furthermore, with the launch of the second Russian edition of the *Complete Works of Marx and Engels*, some Soviet experts proposed issuing a historical-critical edition (MEGA²) to accompany it, following the publication tradition of the first Russian edition. In the 1960s, the Soviet side reached an agreement with the Socialist Unity Party of Germany on the cooperative editing and publication of MEGA², in which *Capital* and its manuscripts were mainly included in Part II, “*Capital* and Its Preparatory Materials.” Through the joint efforts of Soviet scholars and scholars from the German Democratic Republic, eight volumes of Part II of MEGA² were published by 1990. In 1990, the Russian State Archive of Socio-Political History, together with the International Institute of Social History in Amsterdam, the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities, and the Karl Marx House Museum and its Research Center in Trier, established the International Marx-Engels Foundation, which ultimately ensured the continuation of the MEGA² editing and publication project, and the editing and publication of *Capital* and its manuscripts also continued to advance.

此外，随着《马克思恩格斯全集》俄文第二版的启动，苏联部分专家提出按照《马克思恩格斯全集》俄文第一版的出版传统，发行与《马克思恩格斯全集》俄文第二版相配套的历史考证版（MEGA2）。1960年代，苏联方面与德国统一社会党达成编辑出版MEGA2的合作事宜，其中，《资本论》及其手稿主要收入第Ⅱ部分“《资本论》及其准备材料”中。在苏联学者与民主德国学者的共同努力下，MEGA2的第Ⅱ部分在1990年前共发行了8个卷次。1990年，俄罗斯国立社会政治史档案馆与荷兰阿姆斯特丹国际社会史研究所、德国柏林—勃兰登堡科学院和特里尔的卡尔·马克思故居博物馆及其研究中心一起，组建“国际马克思恩格斯基金会”，使MEGA2的编辑和出版工程最终延续下来，《资本论》及其手稿的编辑和出版工作也得以继续推进。

Alongside text editing and publication, Soviet scholars achieved important results in the philological study of *Capital* and its manuscripts. In fact, as early as after Riazanov’s discovery of important manuscripts and documentary materials related to *Capital*, Soviet scholars had been continuously engaged in their identification, arrangement, editing, and publication. On this basis, after the mid-1950s, Soviet scholars such as Vitaly Vygodsky, Georgy Bagaturia, Nikolai Lapin, and Teodor Oizerman conducted in-depth and meticulous textual research and studies on issues such as the edition arrangement, logical structure, and writing dates of these texts and documents, obtaining many classic philological results. For example, Bagaturia’s research on the logical relationships among the three notebooks of the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, Lapin’s research on the “two-stage theory” of the writing period of the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* and the study of the writing stages and order of the “three sources of income” in Notebook I, and Vygodsky and Inna Ossobova’s research on the writing dates of the *Economic Manuscripts of 1857–1858* — these results all gained general recognition in the international Marxist scholarly community.

在文本编辑和出版的同时，苏联学者在《资本论》及其手稿的文献学研究方面取得了重要成果。实际上，早在梁赞诺夫发现与《资本论》相关的重要手稿和文献资料后，苏联学者就一直在不断地进行辨识、整理、编辑和出版工作。在此基础上，1950年代中期以后，维塔利·维戈茨基（Виталий Выгодский）、格奥尔基·巴加图利亚（Георгий Багатурия）、尼古拉·拉宾（Николай Лапин）、特奥多尔·奥伊泽尔曼（Теодор Ойзерман）等苏联学者围绕这些文本文献的版本编排、逻辑结构、写作时间等问题进行了深入细致的考证与研究，获得了许多经典性的文献考证成果，如巴加图利亚对《1844年经济学哲学手稿》的三个笔记本之间逻辑关系的考证，拉宾对《1844年经济学哲学手稿》写作阶段的“两阶段说”的考证以及笔记本Ⅰ中“三个收入来源”的写作阶段和写作顺序的研究，维戈茨基和因娜·奥索博娃（Инна Особова）对《1857—1858年经济学手稿》写作时间的考证等成果，均在国际马克思主义学界获得了普遍认可。

Not only domestic dissemination, but the Soviet Union also did a great deal of work for the global dissemination of *Capital*. Especially after the mid-1950s, the Soviet Foreign Languages Publishing House provided editions of *Capital* in different languages for many countries and regions around the world. These were: Chinese edition (1929, incomplete), German edition (1932–1934), English edition (1954–1986), Finnish edition (1957–1980), French edition (1965–1986), Hindi edition (1965–1988), Italian edition (1980), Vietnamese edition (1984–1988), Arabic edition (1985–1990), Bengali edition (1988–1989), and Spanish edition (Volume 1, 1990). Including the above foreign-language translations, from 1917 to 1991, the Soviet Union published approximately 10 million copies of *Capital* in 25 national languages and multiple foreign languages.

不单是国内传播，苏联还为《资本论》的全球传播做了大量的工作。尤其是1950年代中期之后，苏联的外文出版社为全球多个国家和地区提供了不同语种的《资本论》版本，它们分别是：中文版（1929年，未完成）、德文版（1932—1934年）、英文版（1954—1986年）、芬兰文版（1957—1980年）、法文版（1965—1986年）、印地文版（1965—1988年）、意大利文版（1980年）、越南文版（1984—1988年）、阿拉伯文版（1985—1990年）、孟加拉文版（1988—1989年）、西班牙文版（第1卷，1990年）。包括以上外文译本在内，从1917年到1991年，苏联用25种民族语言以及多国语言共出版约1000万册《资本论》。

(B) Research Results on the History of the Formation of *Capital* and Its Method

（二）《资本论》形成史与方法论研究成果

After the mid-1950s, driven by the relatively open academic environment within the Soviet Union and the wave of “young Marx” research initiated by Western Marxists, Soviet scholarship began to attach importance to the study of the “young Marx” issue and the related early literature of *Capital*. N. I. Lapin’s *The Young Marx* (1968) was a work of considerable international influence in Soviet research on the “young Marx” and early texts. As early as before the mid-1950s, Soviet scholars such as David Rjazanov [19]19 The text says “卢森贝 (Давид Розенберг)”, which is a Chinese transliteration of the Russian name David Rjazanov (Давид Рязанов). Rjazanov (1870–1938) was a Soviet Marxist historian and archivist who founded the Marx-Engels Institute and initiated the first Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA¹). He was executed during the Great Purge., Lev Leontiev, and Vladimir Adoratsky had already begun research on the formation history of *Capital*. However, because Soviet scholarship at that time emphasized the “mature Marx” over the “young Marx” and neglected the latter, it never recognized the important question of the need to determine the development process of Marx’s political economy before 1848. The serious attention to the “young Marx” prompted Soviet scholars such as Alexander Malysh, V. S. Vygodsky, and Georgi Bagaturia to bring this question out of the historical fog, thereby enabling Soviet scholarship to produce a series of systematic academic results on the formation history of *Capital* in the late 1950s. Among these, the research of Vygodsky, a member of the editorial board of MEGA², was quite representative. He was the first to clearly propose the question of establishing a scientific criterion for determining the degree of maturity of Marx’s political economy theory, advocating the use of Marx’s attitude toward classical bourgeois political economy as the criterion. On this basis, he divided the formation history of important theories in *Capital*, such as the theory of value, the theory of money, and the methodology, into stages. In terms of time, he classified the period before 1848 as the “prehistory” of *Capital*, and divided the creative process of *Capital* into three periods and three manuscripts: the *Economic Manuscripts of 1857–1858*, the *Economic Manuscripts of 1861–1863*, and the *Economic Manuscripts of 1863–1865*, systematically revealing the formation history of *Capital* from the 1840s to the 1860s.

1950年代中期后，在苏联国内相对开放的学术环境和西方马克思主义者掀起的“青年马克思”研究浪潮的双重推动下，苏联学界开始重视对“青年马克思”问题以及《资本论》的相关早期文献的研究工作。拉宾撰写的《马克思的青年时代》（1968年）一书是苏联学界在“青年马克思”和早期文献研究方面颇具国际影响力的成果。早在1950年代中期以前，苏联学者达维德·卢森贝（Давид Розенберг）、列昂节夫、阿多拉茨基等已经开始了《资本论》的形成史研究，但由于彼时苏联学界在“成熟马克思”与“青年马克思”之间侧重前者而轻视后者，因而始终没有意识到需要确定马克思的政治经济学在1848年以前的发展进程这一重要问题。对“青年马克思”的正视促使亚历山大·马雷什（Александр Малыш）、维戈茨基、巴加图利亚等苏联学者将这一问题从历史迷雾中揭示出来，从而使苏联学界在1950年代后期产出了一系列系统研究《资本论》形成史的学术成果。其中，MEGA2编辑委员会成员之一维戈茨基的研究成果颇具代表性。他第一次明确提出了确立马克思的政治经济学理论成熟程度的科学划分标准问题，主张以马克思对资产阶级古典政治经济学的态度作为划分标准，并以此为依据对《资本论》中的价值理论、货币理论和方法论等重要理论的形成史进行阶段划分，在时间维度上将1848年以前划分为《资本论》“前史”，将《资本论》的创作过程划分为三个时期和三份手稿，即《1857—1858年经济学手稿》《1861—1863年经济学手稿》《1863—1865年经济学手稿》，系统揭示了《资本论》从1840年代到1860年代的形成史。

At the same time, the Soviet intellectual world experienced an epistemological turn. In this movement, a group of Soviet scholars represented by Evald Ilyenkov attempted to “correct” the rigid “textbook system’s” path of philosophical interpretation of *Capital* and return to the long-dormant Leninist tradition—interpreting *Capital* from the perspective of the unity of dialectics, epistemology, and logic. After Stalin’s death, Soviet scholars’ interest in the methodological issues in *Capital* increased markedly compared to before. A number of academic works emerged studying methods in *Capital* such as the abstract and the concrete, the logical and the historical, analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, and the individual and the general. However, their focus remained on the core method of *Capital*, namely the method of rising from the abstract to the concrete. M. M. Rozental’s *Problems of Dialectics in Marx’s Capital* (1955) argued that “the entire structure of *Capital* and every part of it are built on the method of rising from the simple to the complex and from the abstract to the concrete.” Although the classical school of political economy also used the method of rising from the abstract to the concrete, it could not understand the true relationship between the abstract and the concrete, neglecting the “intermediate links.” In contrast, the conceptual categories in Marx’s *Capital*, such as “value,” “surplus value,” “profit,” “average profit,” “price of production,” and “rent,” mutually condition each other precisely as “intermediate links.” Ilyenkov’s *The Dialectics of the Abstract and the Concrete in Marx’s Capital* (1960) particularly emphasized the question of the “starting point” of rising from the abstract to the concrete. He pointed out that the abstraction serving as the “starting point” for rising from the abstract to the concrete is a concrete abstraction in dialectics, not a formal abstraction in positivism. The starting point of *Capital*, “value in general,” is just as concrete as the starting points of the natural sciences, such as “life in general” or “chemical elements.” Only for this reason was it chosen as the “starting point” for examining modern capitalist society.

与此同时，苏联思想界迎来了认识论转向运动。在这场运动中，以埃瓦尔德·伊利延科夫（Эвальд Ильенков）为代表的一批苏联学者试图“修正”僵化的“教科书体系”对《资本论》的哲学阐释路径，回归到被尘封已久的列宁传统中去——从辩证法、认识论和逻辑学相统一的角度对《资本论》进行解读。斯大林逝世后，苏联学者对《资本论》中的方法问题的研究旨趣比之前明显增强，涌现出一批研究《资本论》中抽象与具体、逻辑与历史、分析与综合、归纳与演绎、个别与一般等方法的学术成果，但其关注点仍聚集于《资本论》的核心方法，即从抽象上升到具体的方法。罗森塔尔撰写的《马克思〈资本论〉中的辩证法问题》（1955年）一书认为，《资本论》的“整个结构及其每一个部分都建立在从简单上升到复杂和从抽象上升到具体的方法上”。古典政治经济学派虽然也运用了从抽象到具体的方法，但却不能了解抽象与具体的真正关系，忽略了“中间环节”，而马克思《资本论》中“价值”“剩余价值”“利润”“平均利润”“生产价格”“地租”等概念范畴正是作为“中间环节”相互制约的。伊利延科夫撰写的《马克思〈资本论〉中抽象和具体的辩证法》（1960年），则特别强调了从抽象上升到具体的“起点”问题。他指出，作为抽象上升到具体的“起点”的抽象是辩证法中具体的抽象，而非实证主义中形式的抽象；《资本论》的起点“价值一般”与自然科学的起点“生命一般”“化学元素”一样都是具体的，如此才会被选作考察现代资本主义社会的“起点”。

After the mid-1950s, with the support of state power, Soviet scholarship continued to advance the editorial and publication work related to *Capital*, so that the study of *Capital* in the post-Stalin period overall presented a favorable situation compared to the Stalin period.

1950年代中期以后，在国家力量的支持下，苏联学界继续推进与《资本论》相关的编辑出版工作，使《资本论》在后斯大林时期的研究较之斯大林时期整体呈现出良好的态势。

IV. The Dissemination of *Capital* in Russia after 1991

四、1991年以后《资本论》在俄罗斯的传播

In the first few years after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, because the new rulers adopted a strategy of “completely leaning toward the West,” *Capital* was once in a state of being marginalized, misunderstood, and slandered in Russia. Over time, after the mid-1990s, the Russian intellectual world began to view *Capital* again in an objective and rational manner. After entering the new century, neoliberal economics could no longer explain the profound qualitative changes occurring in modern capitalist society, nor could it warn of their destructive consequences. Since the outbreak of the global financial crisis in 2008, interest in *Capital* has increased significantly across all sectors of Russian society. Domestic left-wing publishers such as Eksmo, AST, and Bombora have repeatedly issued new editions of *Capital*. Among them, the new edition of *Capital* published by Eksmo in 2011 brought the sales of its “Selected Economic Thought” series, which had been published since 2007, to a peak. In April 2012, the first International Conference on Political Economy, initiated by the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Moscow University of Finance and Law, was held, solemnly announcing the return of political economy. It can be said that the dissemination of *Capital* in Russia overall shows a trend of revival.

苏联解体后的最初几年，由于新的执政者采取“全面倒向西方”的战略，《资本论》在俄罗斯一度处于被边缘化、被误解、被诋毁的状态。随着时间的推移，1990年代中期以后，俄罗斯思想界开始以客观和理性的方式重新看待《资本论》。进入新世纪之后，新自由主义经济学已经无法解释现代资本主义社会正在发生的深刻质变，也无法预警其破坏性后果。2008年全球金融危机爆发以来，俄罗斯各界对《资本论》的兴趣显著增加，其国内的埃科斯莫出版社、阿斯特出版社和邦博拉出版社等左翼出版社多次发行新版《资本论》，其中埃科斯莫出版社2011年发行的新版《资本论》使其自2007年起陆续发行的“经济思想选集”丛书的销量达到顶峰。2012年4月，由俄罗斯科学院经济研究所与莫斯科金融法律大学发起的首届国际政治经济学大会召开，郑重宣告了政治经济学的回归。可以说，《资本论》在俄罗斯的传播整体呈现复兴趋势。

(I) Russia’s Contribution to the Editorial Work on *Capital* and Its Manuscripts in MEGA²

（一）俄罗斯对MEGA2中《资本论》及其手稿编辑工作的贡献

After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the Moscow editorial group, led by Russian scholar Georgi Bagaturia and including Larisa Vasina, Elena Arzanova, Galina Golovina, and Valerij Fomičev, took over the relevant work of the Institute of Marxism-Leninism of the CPSU Central Committee and became the official Russian editorial team for MEGA², continuing to participate in completing this unfinished undertaking of MEGA². Although Russian Marxism after the dissolution of the Soviet Union no longer enjoyed the glory of the MEGA¹ period, and the number of members in the Moscow editorial group was very limited, Russia still made its own contribution to the editorial work on *Capital* and its manuscripts in MEGA².

苏联解体后，由俄罗斯学者巴加图利亚领导瓦西娜、爱莲娜·阿扎诺娃（Elena Arzanova）、加里纳·戈洛维娜（Galina Golovina）、瓦列里·福米乔夫（Valerij Fomi?ev）组成的莫斯科编辑小组，承接苏共中央马列主义研究院的有关工作而成为MEGA2的俄方正式编辑团队，继续参与完成MEGA2这项未竟事业。尽管苏联解体后的俄罗斯马克思主义在MEGA2时期已经不复MEGA1时期的辉煌，莫斯科编辑小组的成员数量也十分有限，但俄罗斯仍然为MEGA2中《资本论》及其手稿的编辑工作作出了自己的贡献。

As of 2012, the publication of Part II of MEGA², i.e., “*Capital* and Its Preparatory Materials,” had been fully completed. At the beginning of 2013, at a roundtable meeting on MEGA² held in Berlin, Vasina summarized the contributions of the Moscow editorial group to Part II. She pointed out that, in addition to providing MEGA² with the economic literature of Marx and Engels preserved in the Russian State Archive of Socio-Political History, the Moscow editorial group also made the following contributions to Part II of MEGA².

截至2012年，MEGA2第Ⅱ部分即“《资本论》及其准备材料”的出版工作已经全部完成。2013年初，在柏林召开的MEGA2专题圆桌会议上，瓦西娜总结了莫斯科编辑小组对第Ⅱ部分的贡献。她指出，莫斯科编辑小组除了为MEGA2提供了保存在俄罗斯国立社会政治史档案馆中的马克思恩格斯经济学文献资料外，还为MEGA2第Ⅱ部分作出了以下贡献。

First, the Moscow editorial group provided the materials for the identification and decipherment of all the editorial work on *Capital* and its manuscripts. During the MEGA¹ period (mainly when David Rjazanov and Vladimir Adoratsky were in charge), the Institute had already completed the identification and decipherment of most of Marx and Engels’s economic manuscripts and notes. The starting point for the editorial work on Part II of MEGA² was to use these identification materials as important references, and the proofreading of these materials was also completed by the Moscow editorial group.

首先，莫斯科编辑小组为《资本论》及其手稿的全部编辑工作提供了辨认和破译材料。在MEGA1时期（主要是梁赞诺夫和阿多拉茨基主持工作期间），研究院已经完成了马克思恩格斯的大多数经济学手稿和笔记的辨识和破译工作，MEGA2第Ⅱ部分编辑工作的起点就是将这些辨识材料作为重要参考，而且这些材料的审校工作也是由莫斯科编辑小组完成的。

Second, the Moscow editorial team directly or indirectly participated in the editing of volumes 11, 12, and 13 of Part II. Among them, volume 11 was co-edited by Vasina and the Japanese team of Ōtani Teinosuke, presenting for the first time in their original language the second version of Marx’s manuscripts for Volume 2 of *Capital* written between 1868 and 1870, along with nine other manuscripts of Volume 2 of varying lengths. These manuscripts reveal the formation process of one of the most important parts of Marx’s economic theory—the theory of the circulation of capital. Volume 12 consists of Engels’ editorial manuscripts for Volume 2 of *Capital*; these editorial manuscripts form the basis of the text of Volume 2 of *Capital*. The original publication plan for MEGA² did not include these editorial manuscripts, which were also the only manuscripts in Marx’s economic legacy that had not yet been identified at that time. The staff of the Moscow editorial team believed these manuscripts were of great significance, recommended publishing them as a separate volume of MEGA², and undertook the work of deciphering them. In addition, the Moscow editorial team, following the requirements of the International Marx-Engels Foundation Board, provided microfilm materials related to the manuscripts to the Japanese editorial team in Sendai, forming a mechanism for good cooperation among the transnational teams.

其次，莫斯科编辑小组直接或间接参与了第Ⅱ部分第11卷、第12卷和第13卷的编辑工作。其中，第11卷是由瓦西娜与日本的大谷祯之介团队共同编辑的，首次以原文形式呈现了马克思在1868—1870年间创作的《资本论》第2卷手稿第二版，以及其他9份不同篇幅的第2卷手稿。这些手稿显示了马克思经济学理论最重要的部分之一——资本流通理论的形成过程。第12卷是恩格斯编辑《资本论》第2卷的手稿，该编辑手稿构成了《资本论》第2卷文本的基础，MEGA2的最初出版计划中没有这份编辑手稿，这也是马克思的经济学遗产中当时唯一没有被辨识的手稿。莫斯科编辑小组的工作人员认为，这份手稿意义重大，建议将其作为MEGA2单独的卷次出版，并承担了破译工作。此外，莫斯科编辑小组还按照国际马克思恩格斯基金会董事会的要求，为仙台的日本编辑团队提供了与手稿相关的微缩胶卷资料，形成了跨国团队间的良好合作机制。

(II) Russian Scholars’ Research on *Capital*

（二）俄罗斯学者对《资本论》的研究

After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, marked by the publication of two works by Russian Academy of Sciences academician Teodor Oizerman—*Marxism and Utopianism* (2003) and *In Defense of Revisionism* (2005)—Russia initiated a de-ideologized, de-Stalinized study of Marxism and texts such as *Capital*.

苏联解体后，以俄罗斯科学院院士奥伊泽尔曼推出的《马克思主义与乌托邦主义》（2003年）和《为修正主义辩护》（2005年）两部著作为标志，俄罗斯开启了对马克思主义及《资本论》等文本的去意识形态化、去斯大林化研究。

Although the intellectual trend initiated by Oizerman is of great significance for the resurgence of Marxism and *Capital* in Russia in the new century, Oizerman’s argumentation methods and the conclusions he drew did not contribute much to the development and innovation of *Capital* in contemporary Russia. The innovative research work on *Capital* in contemporary Russia has been mainly accomplished by the school of critical Marxism, represented by Moscow University economics professors Alexander Buzgalin and Andrey Kolganov. The school of critical Marxism advocates a return to classical political economy while distinguishing itself from Soviet Marxism, forming a new Marxist political economy that attempts to use *Capital* to find solutions to the “eternal” and newly emerging problems in Russia’s economic society. The research of the school of critical Marxism on *Capital* focuses mainly on the following three aspects.

尽管奥伊泽尔曼开启的这一思潮对新世纪马克思主义及《资本论》在俄罗斯的回潮具有重大意义，但是，奥伊泽尔曼的论证方法及其得出的结论对《资本论》在当代俄罗斯的发展与创新并没有太大建树，《资本论》在当代俄罗斯的创新性研究工作主要还是由以莫斯科大学经济学系教授亚历山大·布兹加林（Александр Бузгалин）和安德烈·科尔加诺夫（Андрей Колганов）为代表的批判的马克思主义学派完成的。批判的马克思主义学派倡导回归古典政治经济学而又区别于苏联马克思主义的新马克思主义政治经济学，试图利用《资本论》为俄罗斯经济社会中“永恒的”与新出现的问题找到解决途径。批判的马克思主义学派对《资本论》的研究主要集中在以下三个方面。

First, research on the issue of globalization. The book *Global Capital*, co-authored by Buzgalin and Kolganov, represents the response of the school of critical Marxism to the issue of globalization and is called Russia’s “*Capital* for the 21st century.” Besides absorbing the ideas of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Luxemburg, Ilyenkov, and others, they were also influenced by Western Marxism, including Lukács’ ontology of social being, Gramsci’s theory of hegemony, and Sartre’s theory of alienation. They argue that in the era of globalization, capitalism has entered a stage of the hegemony of global corporate capital, forming a global capitalist system based on capital’s comprehensive domination over people and the comprehensive alienation of people. In *Global Capital*, Buzgalin and Kolganov study the new changes in the relations of commodities, money, and capital during the stage of the hegemony of global corporate capital, examine new forms such as information commodities, virtual money, and virtual corporate financial capital, and point out that the hegemony of global corporate capital is both an inevitable trend in the development of capital’s logic under the background of globalization and a dead end for capitalist development and the final stage of late capitalism. On this basis, they explore a plan for transcending the hegemony of global capital and transitioning to the “realm of freedom,” forming a critical theory of the hegemony of global capital.

第一，全球化问题研究。布兹加林和科尔加诺夫合著的《全球资本》一书代表了批判的马克思主义学派对全球化问题的回应，被称为俄罗斯的“21世纪的《资本论》”。他们除吸收了马克思、恩格斯、列宁、卢森堡、伊利延科夫等人的思想外，还受到西方马克思主义中卢卡奇的社会存在本体论、葛兰西的霸权理论、萨特的异化理论的影响。他们认为，在全球化时代，资本主义进入了全球公司资本的霸权阶段，形成了以资本对人的全面统治和人的全面异化为基础的全球资本主义体系。在《全球资本》中，布兹加林和科尔加诺夫研究了全球公司资本霸权阶段的商品、货币和资本关系的新变化，考察了信息商品、虚拟货币和虚拟公司金融资本等新形式，指出全球公司资本霸权既是全球化背景下资本逻辑发展的必然趋势，也是资本主义发展的死胡同和晚期资本主义的最后阶段，并在此基础上探索了超越全球资本霸权、向“自由王国”过渡的方案，形成了全球资本霸权批判理论。

Second, research on the issue of the “re-actualization” of methodology. In terms of methodological research, the school of critical Marxism advocates that contemporary Marxist scholars should continuously “re-actualize” the methodology of *Capital* and then apply it to the study of modern capitalist society. In his 2016 work *Marx’s Capital and the System of Modern Capitalist Relations of Production*, Buzgalin points out that from the perspective of dialectics, the research results of contemporary domestic and foreign scholars on capitalism merely list various phenomena of late capitalism and attempt to establish connections among some of these phenomena. However, the method of *Capital* of “rising from the abstract to the concrete” requires not categories that are juxtaposed with each other, but a system of categories that are interconnected and reflect the mode of production. In the first volume of *Global Capital*, Buzgalin and Kolganov advocate continuing the research results of Soviet philosopher Evald Ilyenkov, using the method of rising from the abstract to the concrete, starting from core categories such as commodity, money, and capital, and rising to a system of categories that reveals the overall development of the logic of global capital. They argue that, on the basis of adhering to the method of the dialectical labor theory of value, positivist methods should be appropriately combined to carry out concrete theoretical analysis of modern capitalist society. In addition, they also absorbed the dialogism of Soviet philosopher Mikhail Bakhtin, believing that in the future “realm of freedom,” where creative activity replaces alienated labor, a “dialogical” dialectics will replace Marx’s “classical” dialectics.

第二，方法论的“再现实化”问题研究。在方法论研究方面，批判的马克思主义学派主张，当代马克思主义学者要将《资本论》的方法论不断“再现实化”，进而应用于对现代资本主义社会的研究。布兹加林在《马克思的〈资本论〉与现代资本主义生产关系体系》（2016年）中指出，从辩证法的角度来看，当代国内外学者对资本主义的研究成果只是列举了晚期资本主义的种种现象，并试图在其中一些现象之间建立联系。但是，《资本论》“从抽象上升到具体”的方法所要求的并不是彼此并列的范畴，而是相互联系并反映生产方式的范畴体系。在《全球资本》第一卷中，布兹加林和科尔加诺夫主张延续苏联哲学家伊利延科夫的研究成果，使用从抽象上升到具体的方法，从商品、货币和资本等核心范畴出发，上升到对全球资本逻辑发展进行整体性揭示的范畴体系。他们认为，在坚持辩证的劳动价值论方法的基础上，应该恰当地结合实证主义方法对现代资本主义社会展开具体的理论剖析工作。此外，他们还吸收了苏联哲学家米哈伊尔·巴赫金（Михал Вахтил）的对话主义思想，认为在未来实现由创造性活动代替异化劳动的“自由王国”中，“对话”辩证法将代替马克思的“经典”辩证法。

Third, research on contemporary Russian social issues. The revival of *Capital* in Russia stems to a large extent from the needs of its national rejuvenation and social transformation. The school of critical Marxism defines Soviet socialism as “mutated socialism” and characterizes contemporary Russian capitalism as a “semi-peripheral oligarchic bureaucratic capitalism” accompanied by the “resurgence of semi-feudal orders,” arguing that Russia is still in a period of transition to socialism. Regarding the conception of future socialism, a “new socialist trend” has formed within Russian Marxism. Yuri Petrov’s work *Why Socialism?* (1997) argues that socialism is an organization of life that can serve the interests of the majority and give people the opportunity for full self-realization. Boris Kurashvili’s work *New Socialism* (1997) holds that new socialism has two basic characteristics: market and autonomy. Lyudmila Vartazarova, in her book *Takeoff in the 21st Century* (1997), elaborates on new socialist ideals imbued with Russian characteristics, such as a strong state, social justice, and solidarity. Although the theory of new socialism is still in its growth period, the “new socialist movement” has already become a political movement jointly promoted by the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and left-wing scholars.

第三，当代俄国社会问题研究。《资本论》在俄罗斯的复兴在很大程度上源于其民族复兴和社会转型的需要。批判的马克思主义学派将苏联社会主义定义为“变异的社会主义”，将当代俄罗斯的资本主义概括为“伴随着半封建主义秩序死灰复燃”的“半外围型的寡头官僚资本主义”，认为俄罗斯目前仍处于向社会主义过渡的时期。在对未来社会主义的设想方面，俄罗斯马克思主义形成了一股“新社会主义思潮”。尤里·彼得罗夫（Юрий Петров）的著作《为什么是社会主义》（1997年）认为，社会主义是一种能为多数人利益服务、让人有机会得到充分自我展现的生活组织。鲍里斯·库拉什维利（Борис Курашвили）的著作《新社会主义》（1997年）认为新社会主义具有市场与自治两个基本特征。柳德米拉·瓦尔塔扎洛娃（Людмила Вартазарова）在《21世纪的腾飞》（1997年）一书中阐释了强国、社会公平和团结等充满俄罗斯色彩的新社会主义理想。新社会主义理论虽然目前还处于成长期，但“新社会主义运动”已经成为俄罗斯共产党和左翼学者共同推动的政治运动。

(Author: Liu Xun, School of Marxism Studies, Renmin University of China)

（作者：刘洵，中国人民大学马克思主义学院）

(This article is a phased result of the National Social Science Fund major project “The Latest Developments in Foreign Academic Research on Marx’s *Capital*”)

（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