The Absolute Limit of Capital and Its Rational Transcendence

Marx wrote *Capital* and engaged in long-term political economy research with the fundamental aim of achieving the free and comprehensive development of the human individual through the critique and transcendence of capital. Unlike various idealist humanitarians and utopian socialists, Marx sought to scientifically elucidate the operational mechanism of capital and, by revealing its inherent contradictions (absolute limits), demonstrate the historical inevitability and real possibility of transcending capital. However, the complexity of the issue lies in the fact that Marx and Engels could not foresee the possibility of operating a market economy under socialist conditions, and therefore did not analyze how socialist society should treat capital. Yet their assertion of “using capital itself to abolish capital” indicates that, when the material prerequisites for communist society are still lacking, preserving and developing capital is entirely necessary. Consequently, exploring how to unleash the positive role of capital while effectively curbing its negative effects under the conditions of a socialist market economy is an unavoidable major theoretical issue. On the topic of transcending capital, the Eastern European neo-Marxist theorist István Mészáros has conducted extensive analysis in *Beyond Capital*. This article intends to review and evaluate the “theory of transcending capital” in order to advance research on related issues.

马克思写作《资本论》并长期从事政治经济学研究，其根本目的是通过批判和超越资本，实现人的自由全面发展。与各种唯心主义的人道主义者和空想社会主义者不同，马克思是要科学地阐明资本的运行机制，并通过揭示其内在矛盾（绝对界限）表明超越资本的历史必然性和现实可能性。但问题的复杂性在于，马克思和恩格斯未能预见到社会主义条件下可以运行市场经济，因此没能分析社会主义社会如何对待资本这个问题，但其“利用资本本身来消灭资本”的论断却表明，在共产主义社会的物质前提仍不具备的情况下，保留和发展资本是完全必要的。因此，探索如何在社会主义市场经济条件下发挥资本的积极作用，同时有效抑制资本的消极作用，就是一个不可回避的重大理论问题。就超越资本这个论题而言，东欧新马克思主义理论家梅扎罗斯（István Mészáros）在《超越资本》中做了大量分析，本文拟对“超越资本论”进行评析，以期促进相关问题的研究。

Mészáros is a prominent Western Marxist theorist and a student of Lukács. The American scholar Ronald H. Chilcote, in *Comparative Political Theory*, classifies him together with Bertell Ollman as a Hegelian Marxist, but in fact Mészáros aims to “take Hegelian Marxism as his foundation yet go beyond it.” The difference between Mészáros and Lukács is that, in *History and Class Consciousness*, Lukács was clearly indebted to the intellectual legacy of Hegel, whereas in *Beyond Capital*, Mészáros not only rejects Hegel’s “uncritical positivism” but also questions Lukács’s concept of mediation and theory of class consciousness. Although Mészáros expresses dissatisfaction with Hegel’s conservatism, he greatly admires the method of totality, emphasizing that capital is a totalizing system and mode of social metabolic control that stands above individuals, arguing that “the life chances of individuals are determined according to the actual position they occupy within the hierarchical command structure of capital.” Unlike bourgeois economists and philosophers, Mészáros holds that the capital system has fatal defects; its tendency toward unlimited expansion inevitably encounters absolute limits, leading to severe destructive consequences. Because capital refuses to acknowledge the existence of absolute limits, its reckless and overbearing posture will summon the “specter of total失控.” [1]1 The Chinese term “失控” (shīkòng) means “loss of control” or “out of control”; here it renders Mészáros’s concept of total loss of control. Currently, the rule of capital has penetrated every aspect of daily life, and humanity’s only hope is to transcend capital and shift toward a completely new social metabolic order. Marx long foresaw capital’s death throes, noting: “The difficult question for us is this: on the Continent the revolution is imminent and will immediately assume a socialist character. But will it not necessarily be crushed in this little corner, given that in a much larger area bourgeois society is still on the ascendant?” [2]2 This is a paraphrase of Marx’s letter to Engels, October 8, 1858, in which he discusses the prospects of revolution in Europe. Marx not only recognized capital’s immense power but also foresaw that its global expansion would very likely stifle revolution, for “no social order ever perishes before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have developed.” [3]3 This is a paraphrase of Marx’s famous statement from the Preface to *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy* (1859). Mészáros’s analysis of capital’s absolute limits is grounded in Marx’s assertions while incorporating real-world considerations of new changes in capitalism, such as the transformation of periodic economic crises into totalizing structural crises, the emergence of consumer society, and the strengthening of state regulation. Yet no matter what, capital’s nature of unlimited expansion remains unchanged, absolute limits persist, and capital’s self-important attempt to surpass these limits to achieve “perpetual peace” can only be self-defeating and humiliating. With the end of capital’s historical ascendant phase, absolute limits are reactivated; however, capital would rather perish together with humanity than voluntarily disappear, so it can only be transcended. Bourgeois agents claim that there is “no alternative,” while Mészáros emphasizes that absolute limits are capital’s fate. Although adjustments in relations of production may prolong capitalism’s lifespan, in the long run capital is bound to perish, because absolute limits are a necessary condition for capital’s continued existence. If one must acknowledge “no alternative,” it can only be that there is “no alternative” to transcending capital and moving toward socialism.

梅扎罗斯是西方著名的马克思主义理论家，卢卡奇的学生，美国学者奇尔科特（Ronald H. Chilcote）在《比较政治学理论》中将他与奥尔曼（Bertell Ollman）一道称为黑格尔主义的马克思主义者，但事实上梅扎罗斯是要“以黑格尔主义的马克思主义为本，却又超出它”。梅扎罗斯与卢卡奇的区别在于，在《历史与阶级意识》中卢卡奇明显受惠于黑格尔的思想遗产，而在《超越资本》中梅扎罗斯不仅拒斥黑格尔“无批判的实证主义”，还对卢卡奇的中介概念和阶级意识理论提出质疑。梅扎罗斯虽然对黑格尔的保守主义表示不满，却对总体性的方法大加赞赏，强调资本是一种凌驾于个人之上的总体性的制度和社会新陈代谢控制方式，认为“个人的生活机会是按照他们所属的社会群体在资本的等级制命令结构中实际上所处的地位来决定的”。与资产阶级的经济学家和哲学家不同，梅扎罗斯认为资本制度具有致命的缺陷，其无限扩张的趋势必然会遭遇到绝对界限，导致严重的破坏性后果。由于资本拒不承认绝对界限的存在，不自量力的肆意妄为姿态将诱发“总体失控的幽灵”降临。目前，资本的统治已深入日常生活的方方面面，人类唯一的希望是超越资本，转向一种全新的社会新陈代谢秩序。关于资本的垂死挣扎马克思早有预见，他指出：“对我们来说，困难的问题是：大陆上革命已经迫在眉睫，并将立即具有社会主义的性质。但是，由于在广大得多的地域内资产阶级社会还在走上坡路，革命在这个小小角落里不会必然被镇压吗？”马克思不仅意识到资本具有强大无比的力量，而且预见到资本在全球范围内的扩展将极有可能扼杀革命，毕竟“无论哪一个社会形态，在它所能容纳的全部生产力发挥出来以前，是决不会灭亡的”。梅扎罗斯关于资本绝对界限的分析是以马克思的论断为基点的，同时加入了对资本主义新变化的现实考量，如周期性的经济危机转变为总体化的结构危机、消费社会的出现、国家调控的增强等，但无论怎样，资本无限扩张的本性没有改变，绝对界限也始终存在，自命不凡的资本妄图超越界限实现“永久和平”只能是背道而驰、自取其辱。随着资本历史上升期的终结，绝对界限被再次激活，然而资本却宁愿与人类同归于尽也不打算自行消亡，这就只能超越资本。资产阶级的代理人声称一切都“别无选择”，梅扎罗斯则强调绝对界限是资本的宿命，尽管生产关系的调整会延长资本主义的寿命，但从长远看资本是必然要消亡的，因为绝对界限是资本存续的必要条件，如果非要承认“别无选择”，也只能是超越资本和走向社会主义“别无选择”。

I. The Irreconcilable Contradiction between Transnational Capital and the Nation-State

一、跨国资本与民族国家不可调和的矛盾

The relationship between universality and particularity has always been a focus of philosophers. Hegel believed that people should pursue universal things, that “to raise oneself to the universal is precisely the infinitely urgent demand of our age.” Capital contains a claim to universality; it must constantly expand and cross national borders to become a global existence. It is in this sense that Marx acknowledges the objective developmental trend of capital’s globalization, emphasizing that “the true task of bourgeois society is to create the world market (at least in outline) and to establish production based on this market,” and believes that the formation of world history and universal intercourse is a necessary prerequisite for the realization of the communist cause. The problem lies in the fact that capitalist society has failed to handle the relationship between universality and particularity, and there is an irreconcilable contradiction between transnational capital and nation-states. Whether it is Kant’s “perpetual peace,” Smith’s “invisible hand,” or Hegel’s “ethical state,” all attempt to sublate the binary opposition between universality and particularity, but ultimately “perpetual peace” falls into subjectivist fantasy, while the “invisible hand” and the “ethical state” fall into “uncritical positivism.” Hegel distinguished the “ethical state” as a divine thing on earth from the actual “concrete state,” attempting to unify universality and particularity, and believed that the “cunning of reason” could achieve this unity. But this is tantamount to stating that social development has an overall harmony, and that “universal eternal capital” will become the endpoint of history. It can be seen that Hegel’s idealist view of the state is conservative and closed; the leap from civil society to the ethical state does not mean that human society will enter a new stage of historical development, but rather that modern history logically concludes, “this logical conclusion must simultaneously be recognized as the final completion of the entire modern social system.” [4]4 Mészáros, István. *Beyond Capital: Toward a Theory of Transition*. Mészáros deeply perceived that Hegel’s “uncritical positivism” originated from the views of the national economists; like Smith’s “invisible hand,” its inevitable result is “the inability to find the inseparable destructive side from the productive progress of the capital system.” As Marx criticized, Hegel “sees only the positive side of labor, not its negative side.” Hegel’s main problem is confusing theoretical contradictions with real contradictions. Once it is determined that the ethical state can compensate for the congenital defect of civil society’s amorality, it inevitably overlooks all contradictions caused by capital in real society, thereby falling into the position of bourgeois apologetics. Hegel vainly attempted to contain the contradictions of civil society with an idealistic ethical state, but the result was to legitimize both civil society and the capital system together. There is still debate in academia over whether Hegel neglected particularity; some scholars argue that in Hegel’s view “difference and individuality are both irrelevant and insignificant,” but in fact Hegel sometimes also favored particularity, as in *Elements of the Philosophy of Right* where he emphasized that the state in reality is essentially an individual state and a particular state, that each nation has a state system suitable for itself, and that independence and sovereignty are the basic freedom and highest honor of a nation. Overall, Hegel believed that transnational capital (universality) could coexist peacefully with nation-states (particularity), but in fact, the contradiction between the two is unsolvable within the capital system. On the one hand, capital cannot eliminate its tendency toward unlimited expansion, and nation-states will inevitably defend the particular interests of their own nation; on the other hand, capital circulation requires a social environment of equality and justice, but capital’s maintenance of its rule also requires establishing an unequal relationship with labor.

普遍性与特殊性的关系一直是哲学家关注的焦点。黑格尔认为人们应该追求普遍性的事物，“提高到普遍物，正是我们时代无限迫切的要求”。资本内含一种普遍性的声称，它要不断扩张和跨出国界，成为全球性的存在。正是在这个意义上，马克思承认资本具有全球化的客观发展趋势，强调“资产阶级社会的真正任务是建成世界市场（至少是一个轮廓）和确立以这种市场为基础的生产”，并相信世界历史和普遍交往的形成是共产主义事业实现的必要前提。问题在于，资本主义社会未能处理好普遍性和特殊性的关系，跨国资本与民族国家之间存在着不可调和的矛盾。无论是康德的“永久和平”、斯密的“看不见的手”还是黑格尔的“伦理国家”，均试图扬弃普遍性和特殊性的二元对立，但最终“永久和平”陷入了主观主义的幻想，“看不见的手”和“伦理国家”陷入了“无批判的实证主义”。黑格尔区分了作为地上神物的“伦理国家”和现实中的“具体国家”，试图将普遍性和特殊性统一起来，并认为“理性的狡计”能够实现这种统一，但这就相当于言明了社会发展具有一种整体的和谐性，“普遍永恒的资本”将成为历史的终点。可见，黑格尔观念论的国家观是保守的、封闭的，市民社会向伦理国家的跃迁并不意味着人类社会将进入一个新的历史发展阶段，而是意味着现代历史在逻辑上的终结，“这种逻辑上的终结必然会同时被认定为是全部现代社会制度的最后完成”。梅扎罗斯深刻洞察到黑格尔“无批判的实证主义”源于国民经济学家的观点，与斯密的“看不见的手”一样，其结果必然是“无法从资本制度的生产性进展中找出不可分离的破坏性一面”。正如马克思批判的，黑格尔“只看到劳动的积极的方面，没有看到它的消极的方面”。黑格尔的主要问题是混淆了理论矛盾与现实矛盾，一旦认定伦理国家可以弥补市民社会非道德性的先天缺陷，就必然会忽视现实社会中由资本引发的一切矛盾，进而落入资产阶级辩护论的立场。黑格尔妄图用理想性的伦理国家包容市民社会的矛盾，结果却将市民社会和资本制度一道合法化了。关于黑格尔是否忽略特殊性这一问题学界仍存在争议，有的学者认为在黑格尔的视野中“差别性和个体性都是无关紧要的、微不足道的”，但事实上黑格尔有时也偏袒特殊性，如在《法哲学原理》中强调现实中的国家本质上是个别国家和特殊国家，每个民族都有适合于自己的国家制度，独立自主是民族的基本自由和最高荣誉。总体上看，黑格尔认为跨国资本（普遍性）能够与民族国家（特殊性）相安无事，但事实上，二者的矛盾在资本制度内是无解的，一方面资本不可能消除无限扩张的发展趋势，民族国家必定会维护本民族的特殊利益；另一方面资本流通需要平等和正义的社会环境，但资本维系其统治又需要同劳动建立不平等的关系。

Hegel realized that there must be conflicts of interest and contradictions among nation-states, because “particularity itself is without restraint, without measure,” but he opposed Plato’s ideal state, considering such attempts to exclude particularity as futile. Hegel disagreed with Kant’s “league of states” and “perpetual peace,” viewing these ideas as weak and illusory, instead advocating reliance on the dialectical movement of absolute spirit and the realization of the unity of universality and particularity through the ethical state. But as Mészáros stated, this unity is equally abstract and false, equally failing to escape the value presupposition of the “ought.” “Hegel often opposed letting the ‘ought’ intrude into philosophy. In fact, despite this, compared with his way of ending historical development with the modern state, which is defined as the idol and realization of reason, what could be noisier than this ‘ought’ of fantasy thinking?” [5]5 Mészáros, *Beyond Capital*. Mészáros discovered that capital, as a universal force, always bears the characteristic of “overreaching itself,” but in reality it is forced to be constrained by particularity, because particularity constitutes the basic condition for the realization of universality. The problem is that as long as unequal relations still exist in society, the contradiction between universality and particularity cannot be resolved; people seem to have only two options: either continue to struggle within the capital system, or completely transcend capital. Mészáros believed that the infinite expansion of capital is an illusion, stemming from an ahistorical affirmation of capital’s metabolic order. The truth of history is that “the structural mismatch between the material reproduction structure of global capital and its overarching political command structure—the diverse nation-states with their ‘individuality’ that is difficult to transcend—merely foreshadows the sharpening of antagonisms and the inevitability of the principal contradiction.” [6]6 Mészáros, *Beyond Capital*. Therefore, Kant’s “perpetual peace” and “league of nations” are merely subjectivist fantasies, and Hegel’s “cunning of reason” is nothing but the forced logic of the philosophy of history. Any attempt to resolve the contradictions of capitalist society, as long as it does not question the capital system and its unequal principle of rule, cannot succeed. When capital expansion reaches a degree that civil society cannot contain, the state is no longer a panacea for capital accumulation but inevitably disintegrates together with capital.

黑格尔意识到民族国家之间必然存在利益冲突和矛盾，因为“特殊性本身是没有节制的，没有尺度的”，但他反对柏拉图的理想国，认为这种妄图排除特殊性的做法是徒劳的。黑格尔不同意康德的“国君联盟”和“永久和平”，认为这些观念具有软弱性和虚妄性，而是主张依靠绝对精神的辩证运动并通过伦理国家实现普遍性和特殊性的统一。但诚如梅扎罗斯所言，这种统一同样是抽象的、虚假的，同样未能摆脱“应当”的价值悬设，“黑格尔经常反对让‘应当’侵入哲学。实际上，尽管如此，与他本人使历史发展终结于限定为理性的偶像和实现的现代国家的方式相比，还有什么比这种幻想思维的‘应当’更喧闹呢？”梅扎罗斯发现，资本作为一种普遍性的力量总是带有“不自量力”的特征，但在现实中它却不得不受制于特殊性，因为特殊性构成了普遍性实现的基本条件。问题在于，只要社会中仍然存在不平等的关系，普遍性和特殊性的矛盾就无法化解，人们似乎只能要么继续留在资本制度内不断挣扎，要么彻底地超越资本。梅扎罗斯认为资本的无限扩张是一种错觉，它源于对资本新陈代谢秩序的非历史性肯认，历史的真相却是，“全球资本的物质再生产结构与其总体化的政治命令结构——具有难以超越的‘个性’的形形色色的民族国家——之间结构性的失调，仅仅预示了对抗的日益尖锐和主要矛盾的必然性。”因此，康德的“永久和平”和“民族联盟”只是主观主义的空想，黑格尔的“理性的狡计”不过是历史哲学的强制逻辑，一切试图解决资本主义社会矛盾的努力，只要不质疑资本制度及其不平等的统治原则，就不可能获得成功。当资本扩张达到市民社会无法容纳的程度时，国家便不再是资本增殖的灵丹妙药，而是必然同资本一道走向解体。

II. The Destruction of the Material Conditions for the Social Metabolic Reproduction

二、社会新陈代谢再生产物质条件的破坏

Marx believed that capital is “a boundless and insatiable drive to transcend its own limits. Every limit is and must be a barrier for capital.” This means that in capitalist society, capital and nature can only stand in an antagonistic relationship: capital always strives to create more exchange value, while nature can only provide limited material resources. The unceasing expansion of capital inevitably leads to the destruction of nature. Given that nature is the inorganic body of humanity and a necessary condition for capital’s valorization, the result of capital’s movement can only be the simultaneous destruction of humanity and capital. To avoid this outcome, the only path is to transcend capital and take the socialist road of development. In 1972, the Club of Rome, in its research report *The Limits to Growth*, predicted that future economic growth would be unsustainable and that “zero growth” would become the fundamental strategy for humanity to escape crisis. From the early “more is better” and “economies of scale” to the present “less is better” and “diseconomies of scale,” bourgeois ideology always tends to “attribute the responsibility for the emergence of difficulties and the growth of danger to weak and powerless individuals, thereby ignoring the causal foundations and overall framework of the capital system,” leading to the universal triumph of impersonal reified forces. [7]7 The Club of Rome is a global think tank founded in 1968 that published *The Limits to Growth* in 1972, arguing that finite natural resources would constrain exponential economic and population growth. Mézáros argued that the Club of Rome fabricated a natural crisis and population predicament for people, attempting to balance humanity and nature by limiting population growth and slowing production. According to this logic, the capital system naturally possesses the ability to limit its own desires, to promptly halt disorderly expansion, and to make itself something that cannot be transcended in the present era. The basic strategy of the Club of Rome is to make people learn to adapt to limits and coexist peacefully with capital, but Mézáros saw this as a neo-Malthusian population theory, whose fatal flaw is its failure to recognize the nature and developmental trend of capital, inevitably leading to pessimism. Marx once pointed out, “If capital no longer feels a certain limit as a barrier, but feels at home within it, then capital itself will descend from exchange value to use value, from the general form of wealth to a particular substance of wealth.” What Marx meant by this statement is that capital will never voluntarily yield to use value or allow material substance to replace the general form of wealth. Future human society should abolish the dominant position of exchange value and restore use value to the center of social life.

马克思认为资本是“力图超越自己界限的一种无止境的和无限制的欲望。任何一种界限都是而且必然是对资本的限制。”这就意味着在资本主义社会资本与自然只能是对立的关系，资本总是力图创造出更多的交换价值，而自然界则只能提供有限的物质资源。资本无休止的扩张必然导致自然的破坏，鉴于自然界是人类的无机身体和资本增殖的必要条件，因此资本运动的结果只能是人类与资本同时灭亡。要避免这个结局就只能超越资本，走社会主义的发展道路。1972年，“罗马俱乐部”在研究报告《增长的极限》中做出预言，认为未来的经济增长无法持续，“零增长”将成为人类摆脱危机的根本策略。从早期的“越多越好”和“规模经济”到当下的“越少越好”和“规模不经济”，资产阶级的意识形态总是倾向于“把困难产生和危险增长的责任归咎于软弱无力的个人，从而对资本制度的原因基础和总体框架置之不理”，这就导致了非个人的物化力量的普遍胜利。梅扎罗斯认为“罗马俱乐部”为人们虚构了一种自然危机和人口困境，并试图通过限制人口增长和减缓生产维系人与自然的平衡。按照这一逻辑，资本制度便天然具有了限制自身欲望的能力，能够及时中止无序扩张，让自己成为现时代不可超越之物。“罗马俱乐部”的基本策略是要人们学会适应界限，与资本和平相处，但梅扎罗斯却认为这是一种新马尔萨斯人口论，其要害是未能认清资本的本性和发展趋势，结果必然坠入悲观主义。马克思曾指出，“如果资本不再感到某种界限是限制，而是在这个界限内感到很自在，那么资本本身就会从交换价值降为使用价值，从财富的一般形式降为财富的某种实体存在”。马克思这句话要表达的意思是，资本决不会主动让位于使用价值，或让物质实体代替财富的一般形式，未来人类社会应该废除交换价值的统治地位，让使用价值回归社会生活的中心。

According to Mézáros, capital possesses uncertainty. When expansion remains within a certain limit, it presents a progressive aspect; when development exceeds a specific boundary, it reveals its hideous regressive face. The nature of capital’s boundless expansion determines that it inevitably turns from good to evil. No matter what forces (nature, the state, culture) set up obstacles, capital will eliminate them, and in this process, confrontation and contradiction are unavoidable. Mézáros believed that capital is destined to be “overreaching.” Although it can resolve some contradictions and crises—for example, by shifting contradictions through economies of scale, a strategy that was initially effective—as the contradiction between labor and capital deepens, it has now been proven absurd. The reason economies of scale become diseconomies is, on the one hand, that they are inevitably based on a wasteful economy. Under the capital system, use value is always subordinate to exchange value. From the perspective of profit, the result can only be that “no matter how absurdly wasteful a production process may be, as long as its products can be sold on the market for profit, it must be welcomed as the correct and appropriate form of capitalist ‘economy.’” [8]8 Werner Sombart (1863–1941) was a German economist and sociologist who linked the rise of capitalism to luxury consumption in his work *Luxury and Capitalism*. Werner Sombart was an early observer of the connection between luxury and capitalism, emphasizing that “luxury consumption possesses a revolutionary force, bringing about the formation of the capitalist mode of production, commodity mode, and organizational form.” In contrast, Weber believed that frugality was the core spirit of capitalism, advocating that people live a Puritan-like life. In the confrontation between frugality and luxury, the former camp also includes economists Say and Ricardo, while the latter camp includes Mandeville and Malthus. Mézáros argued that both sides only grasped one aspect of capital, failing to fully elucidate its essence, and they shared the same theoretical presupposition: that the existence of the capital market is reasonable. Although some theorists recognized the contradictions of the capital system and denounced exploitation, they unanimously believed that social contradictions were accidental and temporary, and that exploitation was a necessary price for human liberation and social development. In Mandeville’s words, “Every part was full of vice, yet the whole was a paradise.” This view is identical to Smith’s “invisible hand” automatically achieving social affluence and universal human goodness. All these theorists mistakenly assumed that the capital system is eternal, thereby falling into the ideological trap of “there is no alternative.”

依梅扎罗斯之见，资本具有不确定性，当扩张保持在一定限度内时，它呈现出进步的面相，当发展超出特定界限时，它暴露出退步的狰狞面孔。资本无限扩张的本性决定了它必然由善转向恶，无论任何力量（自然、国家、文化）设置障碍，资本都会消除它们，在这个过程中对抗和矛盾是不可避免的。梅扎罗斯认为资本注定是“不自量力”的，它虽然能够化解部分矛盾和危机，譬如通过规模经济转移矛盾，该策略在初期确实有效，但随着劳动和资本矛盾的加深，目前已被证明是荒谬的。规模经济之所以不经济，一方面是它将不可避免地以浪费经济为基础，在资本制度下，使用价值总是服从于交换价值，从利润的角度看，其结果只能是“无论一种生产程序是多么荒谬地浪费，只要其产品能够投入市场获利，它必定被作为资本主义‘经济’的正确和恰当的形式而受到欢迎。”桑巴特（Werner Sombart）较早注意到奢侈与资本主义的联系，他强调“奢侈消费具有一种革命性的力量，它带来了资本主义的生产方式、商品方式和组织形态的形成”。与之相反，韦伯认为勤俭是资本主义的核心精神，提倡人们过一种清教徒般的生活。在勤俭和奢侈的对峙中，前一个阵营还包括经济学家萨伊和李嘉图，后一个阵营还包括曼德维尔和马尔萨斯。梅扎罗斯认为双方各执一端，只是揭示了资本的某个侧面，而未能充分阐明资本的本质，双方拥有一个相同的理论预设，即资本市场的存在是合理的。虽然有部分理论家意识到资本制度的矛盾并痛斥剥削现象，但他们却一致认为社会矛盾是偶然的、暂时的，剥削是人类解放和社会发展事业的必要代价。用曼德维尔的话说就是，“每一部分都充满罪恶，然而，整体却是天堂”，这种观点与斯密的“看不见的手”能够自动实现社会富裕和人类全善如出一辙。所有这些理论家都错误地认定资本制度是永恒的，进而跌入了“别无选择”的意识形态陷阱。

The second way capital struggles with itself is by using science and technology to raise labor productivity. This method is equally ineffective. Even if science and technology can, to some extent, prevent the deterioration of the natural environment, capital and its personified representatives will not allow it to develop in that direction. The scope of science and technology will “have to be strictly subordinated to the absolute requirements of capital’s expansion and accumulation. Consequently, they always have to be selectively used in accordance with the selective principle that benefits only capital.” [9]9 Gajo Petrović (1927–1993) was a Yugoslav Marxist philosopher and a leading figure of the Praxis School, which emphasized humanist and creative dimensions of Marxism. Unlike technological optimists, Mézáros believed that science and technology are rooted in the capital system and therefore possess both productive and destructive aspects. Any attempt to retain the productive while avoiding the destructive is impossible. He particularly warned: “Science and technology are not well-trained, energetic substitutes sitting on the bench, anxiously awaiting the call of an enlightened socialist coach to turn the game around.” Just as Gajo Petrović argued, when people affix a socialist label to science and technology, an atomic bomb will not begin producing edible mushrooms. Mézáros pointed out that capital always tries to control everything, but ultimately can only fall into loss of control. This is because capital’s control over needs is based on exchange value: “Under the conditions of capitalist modernity, the needs that have been developed to a great extent must be those recognized and determined by capital, while the genuine needs that can shape human individuality are inevitably neglected.” Marx once noted, “The higher the development of real wealth, the more necessary become historically generated needs—needs arising from production itself—and social needs, i.e., needs arising from social production and exchange.” Here, Marx is not merely clarifying that human needs are social and historical; he is emphasizing that needs can easily become accomplices of capital. Once needs are directed toward the growth of material wealth, those needs declared necessary by capital tend toward alienation, because they no longer point to the free and all-round development of human beings but instead serve the valorization of capital. Orthodox Marxism tends to view the sociality and historicity of needs in a neutral and affirmative sense, emphasizing that needs are not only a basic fact of human history but that already satisfied needs can give rise to new needs, promoting the continuous development of human society. Marx never denied that needs have a positive significance, but he warned that under the capitalist system, needs are alienated needs. Capital transforms past luxury needs into necessary needs in order to achieve its own valorization. Therefore, to realize the free and all-round development of human beings, it is necessary to thoroughly transform and abolish this alienated structure of needs.

资本自我挣扎的第二种方式是利用科学技术提高劳动生产率。这种方法同样无效，即便科学技术能够在一定程度上阻止自然环境的恶化，资本及其人格化的代表也不会让它朝这个方向发展，科学技术的范围将“不得不严格地从属资本扩张与积累的绝对要求。因而，它们总是不得不被有选择地加以使用，以符合仅仅对资本有利的选择性原理”。与技术乐观主义者不同，梅扎罗斯认为科学技术是扎根于资本制度的，因此兼具生产性和破坏性，任何妄图保留生产性而规避破坏性的做法均不可能实现，他尤其提醒人们：“科学技术并不是受过良好训练、精力充沛的候补队员，他们正坐在一边的凳子上，焦急地等待着开明社会主义小组的教练的召唤，以便扭转战局”，正像彼得洛维奇（Gajo Petrović）认为的那样，当人们为科学技术贴上社会主义的标签时，原子弹并不会开始生产食用蘑菇。梅扎罗斯指出，资本总是试图控制一切，但最终只能陷入失控，这是因为资本对需要的控制建立在交换价值之上，“在资本主义现代性条件下，得到长足发展的需要一定是被资本认可和决定的需要，而能够塑造人类个性的真正需要则必然遭到冷落。”马克思曾指出，“历史地自行产生的需要即由生产本身产生的需要，社会需要即从社会生产和交换中产生的需要越是成为必要的，现实财富的发展程度便越高。”在这里，马克思并非仅仅是想阐明人的需要具有社会性和历史性，而是要强调需要极有可能转变为资本的帮凶。一旦需要指向物质财富的增长，则被资本宣布为必要需要的那些需要便趋向于异化，因为它们不再指向人的自由全面发展，而是服从于资本的增殖。正统马克思主义倾向于在中性和肯定的意义上看待需要的社会性和历史性，强调需要不仅是人类历史的基本事实，而且已经满足的需要可以引起新的需要，促进人类社会不断向前发展。马克思从来不否认需要具有积极意义，但他提醒人们资本主义制度下的需要是异化的需要，资本将过去的奢侈需要转变为必要需要，目的是实现自身的增殖，因此要实现人的自由全面发展，就必须彻底变革和废除这种异化的需要结构。

In short, capital is in the process of stripping away the natural foundation of every branch of production. Although it has played a positive role in history, its overall developmental trajectory not only fails to bring about human emancipation but also endangers the very continuation of capital and the survival of humanity. Mézáros argues that under the capital system, humanity cannot achieve liberation through technology; without a qualitative break from the dominant mode of social production, the scarcity caused by capital will forever dominate humanity. Unlike those bourgeois ideologues who adhere to the “there is no alternative” stance, Mézáros, while acknowledging that “we live in a world firmly controlled by the rule of capital,” firmly believes that “there exists the wisdom to resist ‘there is no alternative’ and the necessity for individuals to participate in such resistance.” In a 1992 interview, he stated: every one of us Marxists owes a debt to Sartre, for it was Sartre who issued a severe challenge to the “there is no alternative” viewpoint. Although capitalist society has undergone tremendous changes, Marx’s thought remains the entire horizon of our activity; only Marxism can provide us with a way out of the crisis of capital.

总之，资本正在把每一个生产部门的自然基础抽掉，虽然它在历史上发挥过积极的作用，但其总体发展趋势不仅没有带来人类解放，反而危及到资本的存续和人类的生存。梅扎罗斯认为在资本制度下人类不可能从技术中获得解放，在未能从质上打破占统治地位的社会生产模式的情况下，由资本导致的匮乏将永远支配人类。与那些秉持“别无选择”立场的资产阶级意识形态家不同，梅扎罗斯虽然承认“我们生活在为资本的统治所牢牢控制的世界中”，但却坚信“存在反抗‘别无选择’的智慧以及个人参与这种反抗的必然性”。在1992年的一次访谈中他说道：我们每一个马克思主义者都欠萨特一笔债，正是萨特对“别无选择”的观点提出了严厉的挑战。尽管资本主义社会发生了巨大的变化，马克思的思想仍是我们活动的全部视界，只有马克思主义才能为我们提供一条摆脱资本危机的出路。

III. The Challenge of Women’s Liberation and Substantive Equality

三、女性解放与实质平等的挑战

Since the valorization of capital is inseparable from the combination of laborers and the means of production, the third absolute limit of capital is the production of human beings. Capital not only reproduces its own structure and social relations at the macro level of social production but also reproduces individuals at the micro level in the form of the family. The latter aspect is important because “if individuals are to reproduce society, they must reproduce themselves as individuals.” Marx and Engels regarded the production of human beings as the third relationship in historical development and summarized and refined the theory of “twofold production” [10]10 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, Chapter 23, Section 3. [Translator’s note: The English translation follows the standard edition; the Chinese text cites Marx’s original.], which shows the significance of the production of human beings for the development of human society. It can be said that once the production of human beings becomes alienated, then society must be alienated as well. The production of human beings is closely related to women’s liberation. Historically, as Engels stated, “the overthrow of mother-right was the world-historic defeat of the female sex.” [11]11 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The Communist Manifesto*, Chapter 1. [Translator’s note: The Chinese text paraphrases the famous passage on commercial crises.] Since humanity entered civilized society, women have always been in a position of being ruled and oppressed. Mézáros believes that the key to women’s liberation is the attainment of substantive equality, and both point toward the overall transcendence of the capital system. Women’s liberation and substantive equality constitute an absolute limit of capital, a limit that has now been fully activated.

由于资本增殖离不开劳动者和生产资料的结合，因此资本的第三个绝对界限是人的生产。资本不仅在宏观社会生产层面再生产出自身的结构和社会关系，还在微观层面以家庭的形式再生产出个体，后一个方面之所以重要就在于“如果个体要再生产出社会，他们就必须再生产出作为个体的自身”。马克思和恩格斯将人的生产视为历史发展的第三种关系，并总结和提炼出“两种生产”理论，足见人的生产对于人类社会发展的重要意义。可以说，一旦人的生产出现异化，那么社会就一定是异化的。人的生产与女性解放密切相关，历史地看，正如恩格斯所言，“母权制被推翻，乃是女性的具有世界历史意义的失败”。自人类步入文明社会起，妇女就始终处于被统治、被压迫的地位。梅扎罗斯认为女性解放的关键是获得实质平等，二者共同指向对资本制度的整体超越。女性解放和实质平等构成了资本的绝对界限，这个界限目前已被彻底激活。

On the issue of women’s liberation, Mézáros returns once again to his critique of Kant and Hegel. He argues that both erroneously adhered to the conservative stance of “there is no alternative” and therefore cannot provide any useful reference for women’s liberation and substantive equality. In the eyes of Kant and Hegel, women’s social status was not high. Kant openly advocated “patriarchy,” insisting that women must be assigned to a subordinate position. Since capital holds absolute dominance over labor, unequal relations are inevitably reflected in the family as the oppression of women by men. Hegel also harbored prejudice against women, claiming, for example, that women are “naturally not suited for higher sciences, philosophy, or certain artistic creations,” because “they act not according to the demands of universality but according to accidental preferences and opinions.” [12]12 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 3, Chapter 15, Section 1. [Translator’s note: The Chinese text cites the Chinese edition of *Capital*; the English rendering follows the standard translation.] While the prejudices of Kant and Hegel against women are partly attributable to their times, their pursuit of Enlightenment values such as equality and justice was genuine. The problem is that the inherent contradictions of capital were not fully exposed at the time, leading them to believe only in the power of transcendental morality and the ethical state. If Kant and Hegel already had a certain theoretical awareness of the contradictions of modern society and expressed dissatisfaction with the negative consequences of Enlightenment rationality, then extreme liberals like Hayek directly declared the capital system to be the most ideal social system, falling completely into naked cynicism. Mézáros resolutely opposes the market liberalism of Hayek and others. In his view, the theoretical secret of Hayek and others lies in “tracing capitalist exchange relations back to the earliest periods of human history, in order to eternalize the specific mode of the existing socio-economic system of expanded reproduction (based on the rule of capital), along with the ‘expanded economic order’.” [13]13 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse*, Notebook VII, “The Chapter on Capital.” [Translator’s note: The Chinese text cites a passage from the *Grundrisse* on capital’s self-limitation.] In essence, this is a crude material reductionism.

在女性解放问题上，梅扎罗斯再次回到了对康德和黑格尔的批判，他认为二者都错误地坚持了“别无选择”的保守主义立场，因此不可能为女性解放和实质平等提供任何有益借鉴。在康德和黑格尔眼中妇女的社会地位并不高，康德公开主张“家长制”，强调妇女必须被指派到从属位置上去，由于资本对劳动拥有绝对主导权，不平等关系反映在家庭中就必然是男性对女性的压迫。黑格尔对女性也存在偏见，如声称女性“天生不配研究较高深的科学、哲学和从事某些艺术创作”，“因为她们不是按普遍物的要求而是按偶然的偏好和意见行事”。康德和黑格尔对女性的偏见固然有时代的原因，但他们对平等正义等启蒙价值理想的追求却是真切的，问题是资本的固有矛盾当时并未充分暴露，这导致他们只能相信先验道德和伦理国家的力量。如果说康德和黑格尔对现代社会的矛盾已经有了一定的理论自觉，并且对启蒙理性的消极后果表示出不满，哈耶克等极端自由主义者则径直宣布资本制度是最理想的社会制度，完全坠入了赤裸裸的犬儒主义。梅扎罗斯坚决反对哈耶克等人的市场自由主义，在他看来，哈耶克等人的理论奥秘在于，“把资本主义交换关系回溯到人类历史的最早时期，以便能够使现存扩张性再生产的社会经济制度的特殊方式（建立在资本的统治的基础之上的）、连同‘扩张的经济秩序’都永恒化。”从本质上看，这是一种拙劣的物质还原论。

In the “Introduction to a Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right,” Marx pointed out that “the emancipation of the German is the emancipation of the human being.” [14]14 “Cutting off flesh to patch a sore” (挖肉补疮) is a Chinese idiom meaning a temporary, self-defeating remedy that makes the original problem worse. Mézáros further proposes that “women’s liberation is the emancipation of the human being.” The identity between the two lies in the fact that under the capitalist system, the proletariat cannot achieve liberation; workers cannot emancipate all of humanity without emancipating themselves. Similarly, “within the framework of the given socio-economic order, there can be no ‘special space’ for women’s liberation.” [15]15 István Mészáros, *Beyond Capital: Toward a Theory of Transition*, Chapter 1. [Translator’s note: The Chinese text paraphrases Mészáros’s distinction; the English rendering follows the original work.] Women’s liberation requires the support of substantive equality, which cannot be realized under the capital system. Thus, women’s liberation can only take the socialist cause as its fundamental orientation, and its goal can only be a social metabolic order fundamentally different from the capital system. Regarding the relationship between capital and women’s liberation, capital is equally “overreaching.” This is prominently manifested in the fact that capital, due to its irrepressible driving force, tends to transform an increasing number of women into wage laborers while maintaining an unequal power relationship, inevitably leading to family instability and social dysfunction. That is to say, under the capital system, transcending capital and achieving women’s liberation fall into a vicious cycle: the more unequal the capital system, the more distant women’s liberation becomes; the more women are oppressed and exploited, the greater the power of capital to maintain its privileges. Under the capital system, the irreconcilable contradiction between capital and labor determines that substantive equality is fundamentally unattainable. Therefore, only by thoroughly changing the metabolic production mechanism centered on capital and replacing it with a society of associated producers can substantive equality and women’s liberation be achieved.

在《<黑格尔法哲学批判>导言》中，马克思指出“德国人的解放就是人的解放”，梅扎罗斯则进一步提出“女性解放就是人的解放”。二者的同一性在于，在资本主义制度下无产阶级不可能获得解放，工人不解放自己就不可能解放全人类，同样，“在既定的社会经济秩序的框架内，女性解放不可能有‘特殊的空间’”，女性解放需要实质平等的支撑，实质平等在资本制度下是无法实现的。可见，女性解放只能以社会主义事业为基本指向，其目标只能是一种根本有别于资本制度的社会新陈代谢秩序。就资本和女性解放的关系而言，资本同样是“不自量力”的，这突出表现在：资本由于具有一种难以抑制的推动力，倾向于将越来越多的女性转变为劳动力，同时保持一种不平等的权力关系，这就势必会导致家庭的不稳定和社会功能的紊乱。也就是说，在资本制度下超越资本和女性解放陷入了恶性循环，资本制度越是不平等，女性解放就越是遥遥无期，女性越是被压迫和受剥削，资本维持自身特权的力量就越大。在资本制度下，资本和劳动不可调和的矛盾决定了实质平等根本无法实现，因此只有彻底改变以资本为核心的新陈代谢生产机制，用联合生产者的社会取而代之，才能实现实质平等和女性解放。

IV. The Fate of Long-Term Unemployment and Population Crisis

四、长期失业与人口危机的宿命

In *An Essay on the Principle of Population*, Malthus, with an alarmist posture, declared that a crisis of overpopulation was imminent. Under the guise of “natural law,”

马尔萨斯在《人口原理》中以杞人忧天的姿态宣称人口过剩的危机行将来临，他打着“自然规律”的幌子设计出一套解决方案，不过是为了维系资本制度的存续，确证“别无选择”和“资本永恒”。马克思和恩格斯多次批评马尔萨斯的人口理论，认为它掩盖了社会矛盾的真正根源，无非是告诉人们一切苦难和不平等源于人口的过快增长，与资本全然无关。马尔萨斯强调要抑制人口过快增长就必须晚婚、节育、勤奋、节俭，他攻击社会救济，认为这样会极大地降低工人工资，使原本窘迫的生活条件雪上加霜。马尔萨斯用虚妄不实的言论威胁工人，目的是令其心甘情愿地接受资本的统治，对此马克思一针见血地批判道，“把历史上不同的关系变成一种抽象的数字关系。这纯粹是凭空捏造，既没有自然规律作根据，也没有历史规律作根据。”梅扎罗斯赞同马克思对马尔萨斯人口理论的批判，在他看来，资本逻辑才是人口危机的真正根源，因此，要将人口控制在合理的区间范围内，就必须提出一种不同于资本制度的全新的社会新陈代谢秩序。

In Mészáros’s view, overpopulation is merely the surface phenomenon of the population crisis in capitalist society, not an absolute surplus of population. As Marx analyzed, “The overpopulation of workers is the necessary product of accumulation or of the development of wealth on a capitalist foundation; but this overpopulation in turn becomes the lever of capitalist accumulation, indeed a condition of existence of the capitalist mode of production.” [10]10 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, Chapter 23, Section 3. [Translator’s note: The English translation follows the standard edition; the Chinese text cites Marx’s original.] Malthus also acknowledged this, but confined by narrow prejudice, he reached the erroneous conclusion of absolute overpopulation. According to bourgeois ideology, surplus population is related to the means of subsistence: when population growth exceeds the supply of means of subsistence, surplus population appears. This view ignores the decisive role of social factors in surplus population; surplus population is not overpopulation in a general sense, but an oversupply of labor power. Since surplus population is created by capital, it cannot be eradicated within the capital system. For capital, surplus labor power is not entirely useless; the reason it is declared redundant is mainly to maintain the unequal relationship between capital and labor. Specifically, this can be divided into the following two situations: first, those workers excluded from the production process become capital’s “human reservoir,” which not only supplies new labor power for capital at any time but also depresses the wage level of the entire workforce; second, those who exist as actual (potential) consumers are crucial for the realization of capital’s profit. Through a set of ideological propaganda, capital and its personifications on the one hand claim that unemployment is inevitable, and on the other hand encourage workers to consume, aiming solely to realize capital’s exploitation of labor in the two links of production and consumption, completing the rule of things over people. Therefore, on the population issue, capital is bound to encounter its own absolute limit. Liberal ideologues may claim that the “invisible hand” or the state can successfully make adjustments to save humanity from disaster, but the reality is that large-scale unemployment has already seriously endangered the foundation of the capital system. “In this situation, the ‘population explosion’ in the form of long-term unemployment is activated as the absolute limit of capital.”

在梅扎罗斯看来，人口过剩只是资本主义社会人口危机的表象，并非人口的绝对过剩。正如马克思分析的，“过剩的工人人口是积累或资本主义基础上的财富发展的必然产物，但是这种过剩人口反过来又成为资本主义积累的杠杆，甚至成为资本主义生产方式存在的一个条件。”马尔萨斯也承认这一点，但囿于褊狭的成见，他得出人口绝对过剩的错误结论。按照资产阶级意识形态的说法，剩余人口与生活资料有关，当人口增长超过生活资料的供给时，就会出现剩余人口。这种观点忽略了社会因素对剩余人口的决定性作用，剩余人口并非一般意义上的人口过剩，而是劳动力过剩，由于剩余人口是资本制造的，因此在资本制度内不可能被根除。对资本而言，剩余劳动力并非毫无用处，之所以宣布他们是多余的，主要是为了维系资本与劳动之间的不平等关系。具体来说又可以分为以下两种情形：一是指那些被生产过程排斥在外的劳动力，这些人成为资本的“人力蓄水池”，不仅能够随时为资本补充新的劳动力，还能压低整体工人的工资水平；二是作为现实（潜在）消费者的那部分人，他们对资本利润的实现至关重要。通过一套意识形态的宣传，资本及其人格化一方面声称失业是必然的，另一方面鼓励工人消费，无非是要在生产和消费两个环节上实现资本对劳动的剥削，完成物对人的统治。因此，在人口问题上资本必将遭遇自己的绝对界限，自由主义的意识形态家可能会声称“看不见的手”或国家可以成功做出调整，让人类免于灾难，但现实却是大规模的失业已经严重危及到资本制度的根基，“在这种情况下，长期失业这种形式的‘人口爆炸’，就会作为资本的绝对界限而被激活”。

V. An Evaluation of Mészáros’s “Beyond Capital” Theory

五、梅扎罗斯“超越资本论”评析

Above we have briefly analyzed Mészáros’s theory of the absolute limits of capital. The four limits correspond to four pairs of contradictions. In the rising period of capitalism, the state could alleviate and transfer some contradictions through a series of policy adjustments, but for contemporary capitalist society, the means of regulation are becoming increasingly impoverished, and the possibility of achieving sustainable development is becoming ever lower. “These are merely the means by which the bourgeoisie prepares for more comprehensive and more violent crises, and by which it reduces the means of preventing crises to an ever smaller number.” [11]11 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The Communist Manifesto*, Chapter 1. [Translator’s note: The Chinese text paraphrases the famous passage on commercial crises.] As Marx analyzed in *Capital*: “Capitalist production constantly strives to overcome these immanent barriers, but the means by which it overcomes them only bring these barriers to reappear on a greater scale.” [12]12 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 3, Chapter 15, Section 1. [Translator’s note: The Chinese text cites the Chinese edition of *Capital*; the English rendering follows the standard translation.] Marx once pointed out, “The universality toward which capital irresistibly strives encounters barriers in the nature of capital itself, which at a certain stage of capital’s development will make people recognize that capital itself is the greatest barrier to this tendency, and hence drive people to use capital itself to abolish capital.” [13]13 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse*, Notebook VII, “The Chapter on Capital.” [Translator’s note: The Chinese text cites a passage from the *Grundrisse* on capital’s self-limitation.] Mészáros’s analysis of the absolute limits of capital precisely follows Marx’s line of thought. He believes that although contemporary capitalist society constantly transforms relations of production, this deathbed struggle is merely “cutting off flesh to patch a sore” [14]14 “Cutting off flesh to patch a sore” (挖肉补疮) is a Chinese idiom meaning a temporary, self-defeating remedy that makes the original problem worse. and cannot be sustained at all. If humanity does not want to perish, a new socialist type of metabolic order must be placed on the agenda. Although contemporary capitalist society is very different from the era of Marx and Engels, one thing has not changed: capital, as an uncontrollable mode of social metabolic reproduction, still occupies a dominant position. Since this is the case, capital’s nature of ceaseless expansion must inevitably manifest itself in various forms, and capital is bound to encounter its own absolute limits. But before its demise, capital will put up a desperate struggle, releasing a large amount of destructive energy. If people do not take timely action, the cost will be very high, and they may even perish together with capital. Mészáros firmly believes that humanity’s only way out is to transcend capital. He distinguishes between capital and capitalism, arguing that the concept of capital is broader and more fundamental than that of capitalism. It includes not only the mode of operation of capitalist society but also “the origins and conditions of development of capital production, including periods when commodity production was not yet as ubiquitous and dominant as under capitalism.” [15]15 István Mészáros, *Beyond Capital: Toward a Theory of Transition*, Chapter 1. [Translator’s note: The Chinese text paraphrases Mészáros’s distinction; the English rendering follows the original work.] Based on this distinction, Mészáros believes that “Marx wrote *Capital* in order to help break through the rule of capital, and not merely capitalism.” [16]16 Ibid. Mészáros makes this distinction mainly to oppose the bureaucratized socialism of the Soviet Union. In his view, although the Soviet Union eliminated private ownership in its political system, it did not achieve the true liberation of labor; capital as a process of social metabolic reproduction was not eliminated. “Changing the legal form of ownership, replacing one type of personification of capital with another, absolutely cannot change the subordinate position of labor to the structurally decisive capital system.” [17]17 Ibid.

以上我们简要分析了梅扎罗斯关于资本绝对界限的理论，四个界限分别对应四对矛盾，在资本主义的上升期，国家通过一系列的政策调整能够缓解和转移部分矛盾，但对于当代资本主义社会而言，调控的手段变得越来越贫乏，实现可持续发展的可能性变得越来越低，“这不过是资产阶级准备更全面更猛烈的危机的办法，不过是使防止危机的手段越来越少的办法。”正如马克思在《资本论》中分析的：“资本主义生产总是竭力克服它所固有的这些限制，但是它用来克服这些限制的手段，只是使这些限制以更大的规模重新出现在它面前。”马克思曾指出，“资本不可遏止地追求的普遍性，在资本本身的性质上遇到了限制，这些限制在资本发展到一定阶段时，会使人们认识到资本本身就是这种趋势的最大限制，因而驱使人们利用资本本身来消灭资本。”梅扎罗斯关于资本绝对界限的分析正是沿着马克思的思路展开的，他认为当代资本主义社会尽管不断地变革生产关系，但这种垂死挣扎不过是挖肉补疮，根本无法延续下去，如果人类不想灭亡，新的社会主义类型的新陈代谢秩序就必须提上议事日程。当代资本主义社会虽然与马克思和恩格斯所处的时代大不相同，但有一点并未改变，那就是资本作为不可控的社会新陈代谢生产方式仍然占据统治地位，既然如此，资本不断扩张的本性就必然要通过各种形式表现出来，资本也势必会遭遇到自身的绝对界限。但是资本在灭亡前必将做困兽之斗，释放出大量破坏性的能量，人们若不及时采取行动代价就会非常大，甚至可能与资本同归于尽。梅扎罗斯坚信人类唯一的出路是超越资本，他区分了资本和资本主义，认为资本概念比资本主义概念更宽泛、更基本，它不仅包括资本主义社会的运行方式，还涉及“资本生产的起源和发展的条件，包括商品生产还没有像在资本主义之下那样无所不在和占统治地位的时期”。基于这一区分，梅扎罗斯认为“马克思写作《资本论》，是为了帮助突破资本的统治，而不仅仅是资本主义”。梅扎罗斯做出这种区分主要是为了反对苏联官僚化的社会主义，在他看来，苏联虽然在政治制度上消灭了私有制，但并未实现劳动的真正解放，资本作为社会新陈代谢再生产的过程仍未消除，而“变更所有制的法律形式，以资本人格化的一种类型取代另一种类型，绝对无法改变劳动对在结构上起决定作用的资本制度的从属地位”。

Mészáros’s viewpoint requires dialectical examination. Marx indeed distinguished between capital and capitalism, but in most cases he understood capital from the perspective of capitalist relations of production. *Capital* studies “the capitalist mode of production, and the relations of production and exchange corresponding to it.” [18]18 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume 1, Preface to the First Edition. Marx acknowledged that capital existed in pre-capitalist societies, but at that time capital had not yet developed into the dominant force in society, nor had it been elevated as an alien power above humanity; hence it was not the main object of analysis and critique. Moreover, Marx’s scientific methodology, expressed in the dictum that “the anatomy of man is a key to the anatomy of the ape,” [19]19 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse*, Introduction, section on “The Method of Political Economy.” also determined that the object of his analysis and critique was capital in capitalist society. The problem lies in the fact that socialist society did not emerge during the lifetimes of Marx and Engels; therefore they tended to assume that the transcendence of capitalism and the transcendence of capital were accomplished simultaneously. Capitalist society is the last class-exploitative society in human history, and capitalist relations of production are the last antagonistic form of the social production process. Mészáros calls Soviet socialism “post-capitalism,” on the one hand to remind people that this type of socialism is anti-capitalist, and on the other hand to imply that Soviet socialism did not transcend capital. However, Mészáros adopts a metaphysical mode of thinking. Starting from the stark opposition between capitalism and socialism, he argues that people can only choose one of two options: either transcend capital or submit to capital. “Capital is a mode of control, and you cannot just tinker with it. Either it controls you, or you eliminate it; there is no middle ground between the two.” [20]20 István Mészáros, *Beyond Capital: Toward a Theory of Transition*. From this starting point, Mészáros regards market socialism as a square circle, utterly absurd and inconceivable. This view is clearly mistaken; it fails to correctly grasp the true meaning of Marx’s statement “to use capital itself to destroy capital.” [21]21 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse*, Notebook VII. In fact, the real intention of Marx’s critique of capital “is not to completely negate capital, still less to oppose it in a purely moralizing way, but to objectively analyze and reveal the inherent laws governing the operation of the capitalist mode of production, so as to sublate and transcend capitalist relations of production.” [22]22 Author’s paraphrase of a common interpretation in Chinese Marxist scholarship. That is to say, what should be transcended is not capital in general (the natural attribute of capital), but capital in particular (the social attribute of capital). The main problem with Soviet socialism was not whether capital was retained after the abolition of private property, but rather the failure to effectively utilize capital and eliminate its negative effects. For communist society, the highest ideal society of humanity, it must be completely insulated from capital. But the process of realizing communist society is extremely tortuous and complex, especially during the stage of socialist development, which “in every respect, economically, morally and intellectually, still bears the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges.” [23]23 Karl Marx, *Critique of the Gotha Programme*. Here, the “birthmarks of the old society” refer not only to the influence of the commodity (market) economy and capital, but also, for our country, to the dregs of feudal culture. Mészáros tends toward a radical and decisive critique and negation of capital; he fails to see the diversity of socialist models and does not realize that a specific type of socialist market economy can, on the one hand, activate “the civilizing side of capital” [24]24 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse*, Notebook V. and, on the other hand, overcome “the negative side of capital,” [25]25 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse*, Notebook V. ultimately falling into pessimism. For Mészáros, “transcending capital” means, in addition to eliminating “capital,” two further things: first, transcending the current version of *Capital*, including the *Grundrisse* and *Theories of Surplus Value*; second, transcending Marx’s design itself. The author believes that if “transcendence” is based primarily on the unfinished and open character of *Capital*, with the fundamental aim of supplementing and developing Marxism in light of new changes in capitalism, then it is reasonable. But if “transcendence” aims to negate and overthrow the basic viewpoints and fundamental methods of Marxism, then it is erroneous and must be resisted. Overall, Mészáros’s analysis of the absolute limits of capital adheres to the basic stance and fundamental methods of Marxism. Since these limits were not yet fully revealed in the mid-19th century, Marx and Engels could not fully elucidate them; therefore this interpretation has a certain positive significance and represents an important development of the Marxist critique of capital. However, one must be cautious about the metaphysical one-sided views contained within it. Specifically for our country, in the context of the New Era, the problem is not how to transcend capital, but how to regulate and guide the healthy development of capital. It is necessary to see, on the one hand, that capital is an important force for promoting the development of productive forces, and on the other hand, to recognize that “capital has a profit-seeking nature; if not regulated and constrained, it will bring incalculable harm to economic and social development.” [26]26 Quotation from a Chinese Communist Party document on regulating capital, likely from the 2021 Central Economic Work Conference or related Politburo study sessions. Strengthening the study of the theory of capital requires not only delving into the texts of the classical Marxist writers, but also absorbing and drawing on the views of foreign Marxist theorists. Mészáros’s analysis of the absolute limits of capital in his lifelong work *Beyond Capital* is evidently instructive.

梅扎罗斯的观点需要辩证看待，马克思的确区分了资本和资本主义，但在大多数情况下他是从资本主义生产关系的角度理解资本的，《资本论》研究的是“资本主义生产方式以及和它相适应的生产关系和交换关系”。马克思承认前资本主义社会也存在资本，但那时资本并未发展成为社会的主导性力量，未能作为异己力量凌驾于人之上，故不是分析和批判的主要对象。此外，马克思关于“人体解剖是猴体解剖的钥匙”这一科学方法论也决定了他分析批判的对象是资本主义社会中的资本。问题在于，社会主义社会在马克思和恩格斯在世时并未出现，因此他们倾向于认定超越资本主义和超越资本是同时完成的，资本主义社会是人类社会最后一个剥削阶级社会，资本主义生产关系是社会生产过程的最后一个对抗形式。梅扎罗斯把苏联社会主义称为后资本主义，一方面是要提醒人们这种类型的社会主义是反资本主义的，另一方面是要暗示苏联社会主义并未超越资本。然而梅扎罗斯采取了形而上学的思维方式，他从资本主义与社会主义的决然对立出发，认为人们只能二选一：要么超越资本，要么臣服于资本，“资本是一种控制力量，你不可能仅仅随便摆弄它。不是它控制你，就是你消灭它，二者之间没有折中办法。”由此出发，梅扎罗斯认为市场社会主义如同方的圆，完全是荒谬的、不可想象的。这种观点显然是错误的，它没能正确揭示马克思“利用资本本身来消灭资本”一语的真谛，事实上，马克思批判资本的真实意图“并不是完全否定资本，更不是纯粹道德化地反对资本，而是客观分析、揭示资本主义生产方式运行的内在规律，从而扬弃和超越资本主义生产关系”。也就是说，应该超越的不是资本一般（资本的自然属性），而是资本特殊（资本的社会属性）。苏联社会主义的主要问题不在于是否在废除私有制后保留了资本，而在于未能有效地利用资本和消除资本的负面影响。对于共产主义这一人类最高理想社会而言，一定是与资本彻底绝缘的，但共产主义社会的实现过程却是无比曲折和复杂的，尤其是社会主义发展阶段，“在各方面，在经济、道德和精神方面都还带着它脱胎出来的那个旧社会的痕迹”。在这里，“旧社会的痕迹”不仅指商品（市场）经济和资本的影响，对我们国家而言，还包括封建文化中的糟粕。梅扎罗斯倾向于激进决然地批判和否定资本，没有看到社会主义模式的多样性，未能意识到特定类型的社会主义市场经济能够一方面激活“资本的文明面”，另一方面克服“资本的消极面”，最终陷入了悲观主义。在梅扎罗斯那里，“超越资本”除了意指消灭“资本”外，还包含两层涵义：一是超越《资本论》的现行版本，包括《1857-1858年经济学手稿》和《剩余价值理论》；二是超越马克思的设计本身。笔者认为，如果“超越”主要基于《资本论》的未完成性和开放性，根本目的是依据资本主义的新变化补充和发展马克思主义，那就是合理的，但若“超越”旨在否定和推翻马克思主义的基本观点和根本方法，则是错误的、需要抵制的。总体上看，梅扎罗斯关于资本绝对界限的分析坚持了马克思主义的基本立场和根本方法，由于这些界限在19世纪中叶还未完全显露出来，马克思和恩格斯未能充分阐明，因此这种阐释具有一定的积极意义，也是对马克思主义资本批判理论的重要发展，但对于其中内含的形而上学片面观点则需多加留意。具体到我国而言，新时代背景下问题不在于如何超越资本，而在于如何规范和引导资本健康发展，必须一方面看到资本是促进生产力发展的重要力量，另一方面意识到“资本具有逐利本性，如不加以规范和约束，就会给经济社会发展带来不可估量的危害”。加强资本理论研究不仅需要钻研马克思主义经典作家的文本，也需要吸收和借鉴国外马克思主义理论家的观点，梅扎罗斯在其毕生之作《超越资本》中对资本绝对界限的分析显然具有启发意义。

(The author is a professor and doctoral supervisor at the School of Philosophy, Zhongnan University of Economics and Law, and a part-time researcher at the Center for Studies of Marxist Social Theory, Nanjing University.)

（作者系中南财经政法大学哲学院教授、博士生导师，南京大学马克思主义社会理论研究中心兼职研究员）

Online editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑