Systemic Dialectics and the Neue Marx-Lektüre: An Examination from a Comparative Perspective

The question of the relationship between Marx and Hegel is an important topic in foreign Marxology. Initially, foreign scholars examined the Marx-Hegel relationship only from the perspective of Marx’s philosophy or political thought (including historical materialism). In recent decades, foreign scholarship has tended to emphasize Marx’s borrowing from Hegel’s *Science of Logic* from the perspective of Marx’s political economy. This trend is represented in the German-speaking world by the Neue Marx-Lektüre (New Marx Reading) and in the English-speaking world by systemic dialectics. In recent years, with the rise of the domestic research boom on the “value-form,” some views of systemic dialectics and the Neue Marx-Lektüre have been embraced by domestic researchers, but the academic formation history and internal connections of these two schools remain outside the purview of domestic scholars.

马克思与黑格尔的关系问题是国外马克思学的重要议题。起初，国外学者仅从马克思的哲学或政治思想（包括唯物史观）的角度来审视马克思与黑格尔的关系。近几十年来，国外学界则倾向于从马克思政治经济学角度来强调马克思对黑格尔《逻辑学》的借用。这种趋势在德语世界以马克思新阅读（neue Marx-Lektüre）为代表，在英语世界则以体系辩证法为代表。近年来，随着国内“价值形式”研究热潮的兴起，体系辩证法与马克思新阅读的一些观点受到了国内研究者的追捧，但这两个学派的学术形成史和内在关联却在国内学者们的视域之外。

This article examines the theoretical connections between systemic dialectics and the Neue Marx-Lektüre from a comparative perspective.

本文基于比较视角考察体系辩证法与马克思新阅读之间的理论关联。

The first part of the article clarifies the academic formation history of systemic dialectics and the Neue Marx-Lektüre; the second part discusses their family resemblances in the philosophical interpretation of *Capital*; the third part explains, from the perspective of problem-consciousness, the academic logic behind the emergence of these family resemblances; the fourth part focuses on the internal theoretical difficulties and conflicts of systemic dialectics and the Neue Marx-Lektüre; the fifth part attempts to provide a new research paradigm for contemporary Marxists’ philosophical study of *Capital*.

文章第一部分厘清体系辩证法与马克思新阅读的学术形成史；第二部分讨论两者在对《资本论》进行哲学阐释时的家族相似性；第三部分从问题意识的角度解释这种家族相似性之所以出现的学术理路；第四部分聚焦体系辩证法与马克思新阅读的内在理论困境和冲突；第五部分尝试为当代马克思主义者的《资本论》哲学研究提供新的研究范式。

I. The Past and Present of Systemic Dialectics and the Neue Marx-Lektüre

一、体系辩证法与马克思新阅读的前世今生

In recent years, with the advancement of philosophical research on *Capital*, domestic scholarship has come into contact with systemic dialectics in the English-speaking world and the Neue Marx-Lektüre in the German-speaking world, and has developed a strong interest in them. As early as 2009, the author included the representative work of systemic dialectics, *The New Dialectic and Marx’s Capital* (2004), in the publication plan of the “Foreign Marxology Translation Series.” In 2010, in the second part of my article “The Sources of Marx’s Thought in German Classical Philosophy,” I detailed the main views of the new dialectical school represented by Christopher Arthur. According to the materials I have so far, this is the first time domestic scholarship has introduced systemic dialectics. On the occasion of the bicentennial of Marx’s birth, two representative works of the new dialectical school—Arthur’s *The New Dialectic and Marx’s Capital* and Robert Albritton’s *Dialectics and Deconstruction in Political Economy*—were published by Beijing Normal University Press as part of the “Foreign Marxology Translation Series.” At the same time, relevant works by Moishe Postone and others were translated into Chinese by domestic colleagues, and the relevant achievements of the German Neue Marx-Lektüre gradually became known to domestic scholarship.

近年来，随着《资本论》哲学研究的推进，国内学界接触到了英语世界的体系辩证法与德语世界的马克思新阅读，并且对它们产生了浓厚的兴趣。早在2009年，笔者就曾把体系辩证法的代表作《新辩证法与马克思的〈资本论〉》（2004年）纳入“国外马克思学译丛”出版计划。2010年，我又在《马克思思想的德国古典哲学来源》一文第二部分详细地介绍了以克里斯多夫·阿瑟（Christopher Arthur）为代表的新辩证法学派的主要观点。据我目前掌握的资料，这是国内学界首次评介体系辩证法。在马克思诞辰200周年之际，新辩证法学派的两部代表作——阿瑟的《新辩证法与马克思的〈资本论〉》和罗伯特·阿尔布瑞顿（Robert Albritton）的《政治经济学中的辩证法与解构》——以“国外马克思学译丛”的形式由北京师范大学出版社出版。与此同时，莫伊舍·普殊同（Moishe Postone）等人的相关著作被国内同仁译介到汉语世界，而德国马克思新阅读的相关成果也逐渐被国内学界所知。

Objectively speaking, domestic scholarship has gained a preliminary understanding of the basic views of systemic dialectics and the Neue Marx-Lektüre, but it is still unclear about the academic origins and similarities and differences of these two schools. Some researchers even mistakenly include the German Neue Marx-Lektüre school within systemic dialectics, or mistakenly regard systemic dialectics as a variant of the Neue Marx-Lektüre in the English-speaking world. Therefore, it is necessary to sort out the birth history of these two schools from their origins.

客观而言，国内学界已经初步了解了体系辩证法与马克思新阅读的基本观点，但尚不清楚这两个学派的学术渊源及其异同，一部分研究者甚至错误地把德国新马克思阅读学派纳入体系辩证法，或者错误地把体系辩证法视作马克思新阅读在英语世界的变型。因此，有必要从源头处梳理这两个学派的诞生史。

(1) Systemic Dialectics Originates from the New Dialectic

（一）体系辩证法源自新辩证法

The predecessor of systemic dialectics is the new dialectic. In 1993, while reviewing the English monograph *Dialectics and Social Theory: The Logic of Capital* by Iranian economist Ali Shamsavari, Arthur first used the term “the new dialectic.” Thereafter, this concept was widely accepted. In Arthur’s view, the “new” of the new dialectic is relative to the dialectics of “Diamat” (i.e., dialectical materialism), which Arthur regards as the old dialectic. According to Arthur, all dialectical propositions that oppose the Soviet system of dialectical materialism (especially those emphasizing the relationship between Marx and Hegel) can be considered the new dialectic, which naturally includes his own representative work, *Dialectics of Labour: Marx and His Relation to Hegel*, published in 1986.

体系辩证法的前身是新辩证法。1993年，在评论伊朗经济学家阿里·沙姆萨瓦里（Ali Shamsavari）的英文专著《辩证法和社会理论：〈资本论〉的逻辑》时，阿瑟第一次使用了“新辩证法”（the new dialectic）一词。此后，这一概念被广泛接受。在阿瑟看来，新辩证法的“新”是相对于“Diamat”（即辩证唯物主义）的辩证法而言的，后者被阿瑟视作旧辩证法。按照阿瑟的看法，所有反对苏联辩证唯物主义体系（特别是强调马克思与黑格尔的关系）的辩证法主张都可以算作新辩证法，这自然也包括他本人于1986年出版的代表作《劳动辩证法：马克思与黑格尔的关系》。

“The new dialectic” (or its variants) was later called systemic dialectics by its proponents. Arthur divides systemic dialectics into two schools, one of which includes Patrick Murray, Moishe Postone, Tomohisa Sekine, Robert Albritton, and himself. Some researchers also include Fred Moseley and Shamsavari in this school. Scholars in this school compare Hegel and Marx at the ontological level. (1) Arthur emphasizes Marx’s direct borrowing from Hegel’s *Science of Logic*, arguing that Marx’s *Capital* and Hegel’s *Science of Logic* share a homology. British scholar Alex Callinicos explicitly opposes Arthur’s approach, opposing the “new dialectic” replacing Marx’s own discourse with Hegel’s logical categories. However, the “borrowing” Arthur emphasizes is limited only to the first two parts of Volume 1 of *Capital* (up to the “General Formula for Capital”), and does not apply to the parts concerning production. The shift from circulation to production is no longer a borrowing from the *Science of Logic*, but rather resembles Hegel’s transition from the *Science of Logic* to the *Philosophy of Nature* and the *Philosophy of Spirit*. (2) Sekine’s argumentation is similar to Arthur’s, but his reconstruction is not limited to the first two parts of Volume 1 of *Capital*, but covers all three volumes of *Capital*. Sekine belongs to the Japanese Uno school; he accepts Kozo Uno’s view that Marx’s *Capital* is a “theory of economic principles.” (3) Murray argues that the first chapter of Marx’s *Capital* employs the Doctrine of Essence from Hegel’s *Science of Logic*, and he also examines the value-form from the perspective of the so-called “Rubin dilemma” (i.e., the contradiction between the private and social nature of individual labor). (4) Postone emphasizes that the object of critique in Marx’s *Capital* is the social structure of abstract domination, rather than the social structure of class domination. (5) Moseley, in turn, criticizes Michael Heinrich, the latest representative of the Neue Marx-Lektüre movement. Thus, as Arthur says, “Marx regarded Hegel’s logic merely as an aid to his mode of presentation,” but for this school of the new dialectic, “the Hegelian logical framework is an ontological import.”

“新辩证法”（或其变体）后来又被其拥护者称为体系辩证法。阿瑟将体系辩证法分为两派，其中一派包括帕特里克·默里（Patrick Murray）、普殊同、关根友彦、阿尔布瑞顿以及他本人。一些研究者也把弗雷德·莫斯利（Fred Moseley）和沙姆萨瓦里归入这一派。这派学者在本体论层面比较黑格尔与马克思。（1）阿瑟强调马克思辩证法对黑格尔《逻辑学》的直接借用，认为马克思的《资本论》与黑格尔的《逻辑学》具有同源性。英国学者阿历克斯·卡利尼科斯（Alex Callinicos）明确反对阿瑟的这种做法，反对“新辩证法”用黑格尔的逻辑范畴替代马克思本人的话语。然而，阿瑟强调的“借用”仅局限于《资本论》第1卷的前两篇（截止到“资本总公式”），而不适用于有关生产的部分。从流通转向生产，不再是对《逻辑学》的借用，而是类似于黑格尔从《逻辑学》到《自然哲学》和《精神哲学》的转变。（2）关根友彦的论证思路与阿瑟类似，但其重构并不局限于《资本论》第1卷的前两篇，而是覆盖了《资本论》全三卷。关根友彦属于日本宇野学派，他接受了宇野弘藏关于马克思的《资本论》是“经济原理论”的观点。（3）默里认为马克思《资本论》第一章运用了黑格尔《逻辑学》的本质论，他还从所谓的“鲁宾难题”（Rubin dilemma）（即个体劳动的私人性与社会性的矛盾）出发来考察价值形式。（4）普殊同强调马克思《资本论》的批判对象是抽象统治的社会结构，而非阶级支配的社会结构。（5）莫斯利则对马克思新阅读运动的最新代表人物米夏埃尔·海因里希（Michael Heinrich）进行了批评。由此可见，正如阿瑟所说，“马克思把黑格尔的逻辑仅仅视作对他叙述方式上的帮助”，但对于新辩证法的这一派学者而言，“黑格尔逻辑框架是一种本体论意义上的引进”。

The other school of systemic dialectics, according to Arthur, includes Tony Smith, Geert Reuten, Michael Williams, and others. In Arthur’s view, unlike the former school, the latter school regards Marx’s *Capital* as a “development” of Hegel’s *Science of Logic*, rather than an “application.” They argue that the comparison between Hegel and Marx should be conducted at the level of substantive social theory, especially by comparing Marx’s *Capital* with Hegel’s *Philosophy of Right*. Smith argues that *Capital* reconstructs the capitalist mode of production in thought through the systematic progression of socio-economic categories, beginning with the simplest abstract category and developing dialectically to the concrete totality. Unlike Arthur, who regards “capital” as the “totality,” Smith’s “totality” is the “capitalist mode of production.” Furthermore, unlike Arthur and Sekine, Smith not only does not map logical categories one-to-one onto corresponding capital categories, but even opposes such mechanical application by Arthur and others. In Smith’s view, capital as a material system cannot truly become a logical structure; only communism possesses the logical structure of Hegel’s “Doctrine of the Concept.”

阿瑟所谓的体系辩证法的另一派包括托尼·史密斯（Tony Smith）、吉尔特·鲁特（Geert Reuten）、迈克尔·威廉姆斯（Michael Williams）等人。在阿瑟看来，区别于前一派学者，后一派学者把马克思的《资本论》视作黑格尔逻辑学的“发展”，而非“应用”，他们认为，对黑格尔与马克思的比较应在实质性的社会理论层面进行，特别是应将马克思的《资本论》与黑格尔的《法哲学原理》进行比较。史密斯认为，《资本论》通过社会经济诸范畴的体系性进展而在思想中重构了资本主义生产方式，它始于最简单的抽象范畴，并辩证地发展至具体整体。不同于阿瑟将“资本”视作“总体”，史密斯的“总体”是“资本主义生产方式”。此外，区别于阿瑟和关根友彦，史密斯不仅没有将逻辑范畴一一对应于相应的资本范畴，甚至还反对阿瑟等人的这种生搬硬套。在史密斯看来，作为物质体系的资本并不能真正成为逻辑结构，只有共产主义才具有黑格尔“概念论”中的逻辑结构。

(2) The Neue Marx-Lektüre Originates from the Capital-Logic School

（二）马克思新阅读源自资本逻辑学派

In 1997, Hans-Georg Backhaus explicitly put forward the term “Neue Marx-Lektüre” (New Reading of Marx). Before this, the Neue Marx-Lektüre was known as the capital-logic school, and therefore Backhaus’s interpretation is also called the “Hegelian version of capital logic.” At the end of the 1960s, with the publication of relevant works by Backhaus and Helmut Reichelt, the capital-logic school began to take shape. In 1973, the Hanover Group in Germany published a work with the German title “Logik des Kapitals,” which is semantically ambiguous: it can be understood either as “the logic of capital” or as “the logic of *Capital*,” but the Hanover Group’s interpretation at the time was more in line with the latter. The Danish scholar Hans-Jørgen Schanz, however, moved directly from “the logic of *Capital*” to “capital logic.” In 1973, Schanz explicitly used the term “capital logic” (Kapitallogik) in his work *The Extensional Logical Status of the Reconstruction of the Critique of Political Economy*. The East German scholar Peter Ruben, while serving as a visiting professor at Aarhus University in Denmark, encountered Schanz’s concept of “capital logic” and introduced it into the German-speaking world in 1977.

1997年，汉斯-格奥尔格·巴克豪斯 (Hans-Georg Backhaus）明确提出了“马克思新阅读”这一说法。在此之前，马克思新阅读是以资本逻辑学派而为人所知的，因此巴克豪斯的解读也被称为“资本逻辑的黑格尔主义版本”。1960年代末，随着巴克豪斯和赫尔穆特·莱希尔特（Helmut Reichelt）的相关论著的出版，资本逻辑学派初具雏形。1973年，德国的汉诺威小组出版了一本德语书名为“Logik des Kapitals”的著作，该书名语义双关，既可以理解为“资本的逻辑”，又可以理解为“《资本论》的逻辑”，但汉诺威小组当时的解读更契合后者。而丹麦学者汉斯-延尔根·尚茨（Hans-JØrgen Schanz）则直接从“《资本论》的逻辑”走向了“资本逻辑”。1973年，尚茨在其著作《政治经济学批判重建的外延逻辑地位》中明确地使用了“资本逻辑”（Kapitallogik）一词。东德学者彼得·鲁本（Peter Ruben）在丹麦奥胡斯大学担任客座教授期间接触到尚茨的“资本逻辑”概念，并于1977年将这一概念引入德语世界。

Backhaus, Reichelt, and others emphasize a “logical” interpretation of Marx’s methodology, rather than a “historical” or “logical-historical” interpretation. According to Backhaus, Marx’s theory of the capitalist mode of production is a logical model of a certain stage of the human reproduction process. Therefore, capital logic is the objective dialectics of capitalist society (the mode of production), and Marx’s *Capital* is a dialectical presentation of capital logic (objective dialectics). However, Backhaus believes it is necessary to thoroughly reconstruct this objective dialectics, because in his view, *Capital* does not consistently adhere to the dialectical method but mixes in research methods with an empiricist character.

巴克豪斯和莱希尔特等人强调对马克思的方法论进行“逻辑”解释，而非“历史”解释或“逻辑—历史”解释。根据巴克豪斯的说法，马克思的资本主义生产方式理论是关于人类再生产过程的一定阶段的逻辑模型，因此资本逻辑是资本主义社会（生产方式）的客观辩证法，马克思的《资本论》就是对资本逻辑（客观辩证法）的辩证法呈现。然而，巴克豪斯认为有必要彻底重建这种客观辩证法，因为在他看来，《资本论》并没有一以贯之地坚持辩证方法，而是混入了具有经验主义色彩的研究方法。

Thus it can be seen that the capital-logic school was the original name for the Neue Marx-Lektüre. However, members of the Neue Marx-Lektüre later deliberately avoided the name “capital logic” and styled themselves the “New Reading School,” perhaps because Ruben, when first introducing the concept, regarded it as a pejorative one. Therefore, if we understand this “New Reading” in the sense of the capital-logic school, it is not difficult to see why Backhaus, Reichelt, and others paid special attention to the method in *Capital*. In terms of academic lineage, the Neue Marx-Lektüre emerged from the social critical theory of the Frankfurt School, and its early figures were directly taught by representatives of the Frankfurt School such as Theodor Adorno. Hence, a critique of Marx’s method naturally became an integral part of the Neue Marx-Lektüre, and this critique began with the discussion of capital logic (objective dialectics). In fact, when Arthur first encountered the Neue Marx-Lektüre (namely, in his comments on two of Backhaus’s essays), he emphasized Backhaus’s critical stance. Nevertheless, the Neue Marx-Lektüre is after all not the mainstream of the Frankfurt School; it has its own new characteristics, namely, a focus on “value-form analysis” and an emphasis on “exchange abstraction.” From the perspective of academic inheritance and development, although the Neue Marx-Lektüre deviated from the social critical theory of the Frankfurt School, it developed Adorno’s relevant thoughts on “exchange abstraction.” Adorno’s idea of “exchange abstraction” differs from Alfred Sohn-Rethel’s concept of “exchange abstraction.” Because Adorno placed greater emphasis on the dichotomous dialectics of “universal-particular,” he was more accustomed to using the term “conceptualization” rather than “exchange abstraction.” In fact, the early representatives of the Neue Marx-Lektüre movement read Marx’s “Commodity” chapter in *Capital* (especially according to the first German edition of *Capital*) with great enthusiasm along the lines of “exchange abstraction” precisely because they initially sought to advance their research by following Adorno’s critical interpretation.

由此可见，资本逻辑学派是对马克思新阅读的最初称呼。但是，马克思新阅读的成员们后来却有意回避了“资本逻辑”之名，自诩为“新阅读派”，这或许是因为鲁本在译介这一概念之初将其视作一个贬义的概念。因此，如果我们从资本逻辑学派的意义上理解这种“新阅读”，就不难理解巴克豪斯、莱希尔特等人为什么会格外关注《资本论》中的方法。就学术渊源而言，马克思新阅读脱胎于法兰克福学派的社会批判理论，其早期人物也直接受业于西奥多·阿多诺（Theodor Adorno）等法兰克福学派的代表人物。因此，对马克思方法的批判自然成为了马克思新阅读的应有之义，而这种批判始于对资本逻辑（客观辩证法）的讨论。实际上，阿瑟在与马克思新阅读最初相遇（即在评论巴克豪斯的两篇论文）时，就强调了巴克豪斯的批判性。然而，马克思新阅读毕竟不是法兰克福学派的主流，它有其自身的新特征，即注重“价值形式分析”和强调“交换抽象”。从学术传承和发展的角度而言，马克思新阅读虽然偏离了法兰克福学派的社会批判理论，但却发展了阿多诺关于“交换抽象”的相关思想。阿多诺的“交换抽象”思想不同于阿尔弗雷德·索恩-雷特尔（Alfred Sohn-Rethel）的“交换抽象”概念。由于阿多诺更强调“普遍—特殊”的二分辩证法，也就更习惯使用“概念化”一词，而非“交换抽象”。事实上，马克思新阅读运动的早期代表们之所以以很大的热情按照“交换抽象”的思路重新阅读马克思《资本论》的“商品”章（特别是依据《资本论》德文第一版），是因为他们一开始就试图沿着阿多诺的批判性解读向前推进自己的研究。

II. From Dialectical Materialism to Capital Dialectics: The Family Resemblance between Systemic Dialectics and the Neue Marx-Lektüre

二、从唯物辩证法到资本辩证法：体系辩证法与马克思新阅读的家族相似性

Although the capital-logic school (Neue Marx-Lektüre) emerged earlier than the systemic dialectics school, the emergence of systemic dialectics in the English-speaking world was independent of the Neue Marx-Lektüre. Therefore, systemic dialectics should neither be regarded as a variant of the German Neue Marx-Lektüre movement (especially value-form research or value critique) in the English-speaking world, nor should the Neue Marx-Lektüre be classified under systemic dialectics. So why do so many people confuse the two? The reason is that these two schools share similar themes (value-form analysis), similar approaches (starting from “exchange abstraction”), and common intellectual origins (Isaak Rubin and Sohn-Rethel). Consequently, these two schools exhibit a certain family resemblance in theory. This family resemblance is mainly manifested in the following five aspects.

尽管资本逻辑学派（马克思新阅读）的出场早于体系辩证法学派，但英语世界体系辩证法的产生却独立于马克思新阅读，因此既不能把体系辩证法看作德国马克思新阅读运动（特别是价值形式研究或价值批判）在英语世界的变种也不应该把马克思新阅读归入体系辩证法。那么，为什么会有那么多人把两者混为一谈呢？其原因是这两派具有相似的主题（价值形式分析）、类似的进路（从“交换抽象”切入）以及共同的思想渊源（伊萨克·鲁宾和索恩-雷特尔）。因此，这两个学派在理论上表现出一定的家族相似性。这种家族相似性主要体现在以下五个方面。

(1) Entering the Philosophical Study of *Capital* through the Reconstruction of the Category of “Totality”

（一）通过重建“总体”范畴切入《资本论》哲学研究

The earliest researchers of *Capital* were mostly economists, while Lenin was a pioneer in studying *Capital* from a philosophical perspective (especially from a methodological one). Subsequently, scholars (or thinkers) such as György Lukács, Galvano Della-Volpe, Evald Ilyenkov, Jindřich Zelený, and Louis Althusser all adopted a philosophical approach, but most of them focused on the methodological issues of *Capital*. Lukács is an exception; he focused on the issues of reification and fetishism in *Capital*. Systemic dialectics and the Neue Marx-Lektüre also focus on issues of reification and fetishism (especially from the perspective of value-form analysis), but they pay even more attention to methodological issues. Scholars from both schools oppose the formalism and positivism of mainstream Western economics and emphasize the grasp of “totality.” However, different scholars have different understandings of “totality.” As mentioned above, for most scholars (such as Arthur and Backhaus), “totality” is “capital”; while Smith and Reichelt emphasize that “totality” is “capitalist society (the mode of production),” that is, a specific historical stage of human production. Therefore, the reconstruction of the category of “totality” is a major feature of the philosophical interpretation of *Capital* by systemic dialectics and the Neue Marx-Lektüre.

最初的《资本论》研究者大都是经济学家，而列宁是从哲学角度（特别是从方法论角度）研究《资本论》的先行者。此后，格奥尔格·卢卡奇（György Lukács）、加尔瓦诺·德拉-沃尔佩（Galvano Della-Volpe）、伊夫德·伊里延科夫（Э.В.Ильенков）、金德里希·泽勒尼（Jindrich Zeleny）、路易·阿尔都塞（Louis Althusser）等学者（或思想家）都采取了哲学进路，但他们大多关注的是《资本论》的方法论问题。卢卡奇是一个例外，他关注《资本论》中的物化和拜物教问题。体系辩证法与马克思新阅读也关注物化和拜物教问题（特别是从价值形式分析的角度），但更关注方法论问题。这两派学者都反对西方主流经济学的形式主义和实证主义，强调对“总体”的把握。但是，不同的学者对“总体”的认定有所不同。如前所述，在大多数学者（比如阿瑟和巴克豪斯）那里，“总体”就是“资本”；而史密斯和莱希尔特则强调“总体”就是“资本主义社会（生产方式）”，即人类生产的特定历史阶段。因此，对“总体”范畴的重建是体系辩证法与马克思新阅读在对《资本论》进行哲学阐释时的一大特色。

(2) Replacing “Dialectical Materialism” and “Materialist Dialectics” with “Capital Dialectics”

（二）用“资本辩证法”取代“辩证唯物主义”和“唯物辩证法”

Opposing the dialectical materialism expounded in Soviet textbooks is a common orientation of Western Marxists and Western Marx scholars. The Systemic Dialectics school and the Neue Marx-Lektüre school both criticize transhistorical materialist dialectics (as well as the application of materialist dialectics to various fields). Theoretically, they only recognize a “capital-dialectics” corresponding to the specific historical stage of the capitalist mode of production. Albritton even believes that Sekine’s reconstruction of the logic of capital (or the inner logic of capital) into a dialectics of capital is a major theoretical breakthrough in the history of Marxist economics. The so-called “capital-dialectics” contains three possibilities: (1) an objective dialectics concerning the self-movement of the economic categories of capitalism; (2) a subjective dialectics (the method of presentation) for grasping the totality of capitalist society; and (3) a positive dialectics (the method of inquiry) for studying the movement of capital. Both the Systemic Dialectics school and the Neue Marx-Lektüre school advocate a “capital-dialectics,” but what they mean by this term differs. For example, Arthur regards capital-dialectics as a purely formal dialectics, as the concrete application of Hegel’s *Science of Logic* to the critique of political economy. Reichelt, by contrast, explicitly criticizes the Frankfurt School, especially Jürgen Habermas, for a formal dialectics divorced from the concrete content of capital. He argues that capital-dialectics is the organic unity of content and form, and therefore emphasizes a capital-dialectics as a “method on revocability” (*Methode auf Widerruf*). In Reichelt, bourgeois subjectivity disappears, replaced by objective social structure (i.e., the natural-historical process behind individuals). Undoubtedly, Reichelt’s view is very close to Althusser’s, namely that “history is a process without a subject.” In Backhaus, capital-dialectics as objective dialectics is the unity of subject and object. It is for this reason that Ilyenkov criticizes Backhaus as a “Fichtean.”

反对苏联教科书所阐述的辩证唯物主义，是西方马克思主义者和西方马克思学者的共同取向。体系辩证法学派和马克思新阅读学派同样对超历史的唯物辩证法（以及将唯物辩证法运用于各领域的做法）提出了批评。在理论上，他们都只承认与资本主义生产方式这一特定历史阶段相适应的“资本辩证法”。阿尔布瑞顿甚至认为，关根友彦将资本的逻辑（或资本的内在逻辑）重构为资本的辩证法，是马克思主义经济学史上的重大理论突破。所谓“资本辩证法”包含三种可能性：（1）关于资本主义经济范畴自我运动的客观辩证法；（2）关于把握资本主义社会总体性的主观辩证法（叙述方法）；（3）研究资本运动的实证辩证法（研究方法）。体系辩证法学派和马克思新阅读学派都提倡“资本辩证法”，但他们所谓的“资本辩证法”却各有不同。例如，阿瑟把资本辩证法看作纯形式辩证法，看作黑格尔的《逻辑学》在政治经济学批判中的具体运用。莱希尔特则明确批评法兰克福学派、特别是于尔根·哈贝马斯（Jürgen Habermas）脱离资本具体内容的形式辩证法。他认为资本辩证法是内容与形式的有机统一，因此强调一种作为“可撤回的方法”（Methode auf Widerruf）的资本辩证法。在莱希尔特那里，资产阶级的主体性消失了，客观的社会结构（即个体背后的自然史过程）取代了这种主体性。毫无疑问，莱希尔特的这种观点已经非常接近阿尔都塞，即“历史是无主体的过程”。在巴克豪斯那里，作为客观辩证法的资本辩证法则是主体与客体的统一。正因为如此，伊里延科夫批评巴克豪斯是“费希特主义者”。

In summary, both the Systemic Dialectics school and the Neue Marx-Lektüre school approach the study of *Capital* from the perspective of “capital-dialectics” and strive to reveal the method Marx used in *Capital*. The reason they seek to reconstruct Marx’s dialectics is that they believe the dialectics presented by Marx in *Capital* contains certain problems to be resolved. Arthur, Uno Kōzō, and others sever the relationship between the empirical and the dialectical, thereby accusing Marx of falling into self-contradiction on the issue of dialectics, and subsequently attempt to reconstruct a non-contradictory “capital-dialectics.” Backhaus, Reichelt, and others, while not accusing Marx of “self-contradiction,” also believe that he did not present his dialectics clearly and distinctly, and therefore wish to reconstruct a clear “capital-dialectics.”

总之，体系辩证法学派和马克思新阅读学派都从“资本辩证法”的角度切入《资本论》研究，并致力于揭示马克思在《资本论》中所使用的方法。他们之所以要重构马克思的辩证法，是因为他们认为马克思在《资本论》中呈现出来的辩证法存在一些有待解决的问题。阿瑟、宇野弘藏等人割裂了实证与辩证的关系，因此指责马克思在辩证法问题上陷入了自相矛盾的境地，进而试图重构一种不矛盾的“资本辩证法”；巴克豪斯、莱希尔特等人虽然没有指责马克思“自相矛盾”，但也认为他没有清楚明白地呈现其辩证法，因此想要重构一种清晰的“资本辩证法”。

(III) Emphasis on the Analysis of the Value-Form

（三）强调价值形式分析

The analysis of the value-form is a shared interest of the Systemic Dialectics school and the Neue Marx-Lektüre school. The investigation of the value-form can be traced back to the Soviet scholar Rubin’s studies in the 1920s, and more recently to the German scholar Sohn-Rethel’s related research. In terms of intellectual lineage, Rubin and Sohn-Rethel jointly inspired the New Dialectics school and the Neue Marx-Lektüre school. The concept of “real abstraction” (*Realabstraktion*) proposed by Sohn-Rethel in his book *Intellectual and Manual Labour: A Critique of Epistemology* has had a significant influence on Western scholars, breaking the tradition in Western philosophy that only treats “abstraction” as an epistemological category, and emphasizing abstraction as something real. Specifically with regard to “value,” what Marx calls “value-substance” is a real abstraction. Of course, Marx’s value-substance is both a product of exchange abstraction and a product of historical abstraction. However, because Sohn-Rethel focuses only on the sphere of exchange, he can only notice the relationship between value-substance and exchange abstraction, neglecting the sphere of production, and thus fails to see the relationship between value-substance and historical abstraction. The Systemic Dialectics school and the Neue Marx-Lektüre school did not discover this error of Sohn-Rethel’s; instead, they fully accepted this one-sided interpretation. At the same time, because Western scholars at the time did not have access to the complete texts of Rubin, they mistakenly believed that Rubin would also support Sohn-Rethel’s approach of neglecting the sphere of production. Consequently, some scholars of the Systemic Dialectics school, such as Reuten and Williams, further employed the concept of “actual abstraction” (or “an abstraction in practice”), and scholars like Arthur also strongly supported this new formulation.

价值形式分析是体系辩证法学派和马克思新阅读学派共同感兴趣的内容。对价值形式的考察最早可以追溯到苏联学者鲁宾1920年代的研究，较近则可以追溯到德国学者索恩-雷特尔的相关研究。从思想渊源上说，鲁宾和索恩-雷特尔共同启发了新辩证法学派和马克思新阅读学派。索恩-雷特尔在《脑力劳动与体力劳动——西方历史的认识论》一书中提出的“现实抽象”（Real abstraktion)概念对西方学者的影响很大，他打破了西方哲学史上仅仅把“抽象”视为认识论的传统，强调作为现实的抽象。具体到“价值”而言，马克思所谓的“价值实体”就是现实的抽象。当然，马克思的价值实体既是交换抽象的产物，也是历史抽象的产物。然而，由于索恩-雷特尔仅仅关注交换领域，所以他只能注意到价值实体与交换抽象的关系，忽视了生产领域，从而看不到价值实体与历史抽象的关系。体系辩证法学派和马克思新阅读学派并未发现索恩-雷特尔的这一错误，反而全盘接受了这种偏颇的解读。与此同时，由于西方学者当时接触到的鲁宾文本不够完整，误以为鲁宾也会支持索恩-雷特尔这种忽视生产领域的做法，因此，鲁特和威廉姆斯等体系辩证法学派的部分学者进一步使用了“实践抽象”（actual abstraction或an abstraction in practice）的概念，而阿瑟等学者也大力支持这种新提法。

Arthur explicitly uses the phrase “dialectics of the value-form,” which is his reconstruction of Marx’s method of presentation in *Capital*. As is well known, Backhaus also speaks of the “dialectics of the value-form” (i.e., the development from the commodity to the duplication of the commodity into commodity and money), and regards this dialectics as the conceptual presentation of the commodity’s own inner logic. However, although the names are the same, their meanings differ. While both focus on the dialectics of the value-form, the center of gravity (or core) of Arthur’s systemic dialectics lies in the value-form, whereas the center of gravity (the point of arrival) of Backhaus’s value-form analysis lies in money (i.e., the monetary theory of value), emphasizing the inseparability of money and value, and that the two are two aspects of the same thing. As a contemporary representative of the Neue Marx-Lektüre movement, Heinrich inherits and develops Backhaus’s formulation, emphasizing that “without money, the value-substance, abstract labour, cannot be manifested at all.” It can be seen that although both systemic dialectics and the Neue Marx-Lektüre emphasize the dialectics of the value-form, their theoretical interests differ.

阿瑟明确使用了“价值形式的辩证法”的说法，这是他对马克思《资本论》叙述方法的重构。众所周知，巴克豪斯也讲“价值形式的辩证法”（即从商品到商品二重化为商品与货币的发展），并把这种辩证法看作商品自身内在逻辑的概念呈现。然而，两者名虽同，意则殊。虽然两者都关注价值形式的辩证法，但阿瑟的体系辩证法的重心（或核心）在价值形式，而巴克豪斯的价值形式分析的重心（落脚点）在货币（即货币价值理论），强调货币与价值的不可分，强调二者是同一事物的两个方面。作为马克思新阅读运动的当代代表，海因里希继承并发展了巴克豪斯的说法，强调“没有货币，价值实体、抽象劳动就根本不能得到显示”。由此可见，体系辩证法与马克思新阅读虽然都强调价值形式的辩证法，但两者的理论旨趣却有所不同。

(IV) Criticism of Engels’s Methodology of “the Unity of the Logical and the Historical” and the Concept of “Simple Commodity Production”

（四）批评恩格斯“逻辑与历史相统一”的方法论和“简单商品生产”概念

Both the Systemic Dialectics school and the Neue Marx-Lektüre school refuse to acknowledge that Marx employed the method of “the unity of the logical and the historical,” thereby severing the identity between historical dialectics and systemic dialectics. Systemic dialectics is a logical method; it opposes Engels’s concept of “simple commodity production” and his methodology of “the unity of the logical and the historical,” emphasizing only Marx’s “logical” method. The Systemic Dialectics school believes that Engels misunderstood the first three chapters of Volume 1 of *Capital*, mistakenly regarding pre-capitalist commodity production (i.e., “simple commodity production”) as the historical precondition of the capitalist mode of production and the logic of capital. Similarly, Backhaus also opposes the methodology of “the unity of the logical and the historical”; his monetary commodity theory is the theoretical product of opposing the “simple commodity production interpretation.”

体系辩证法学派和马克思新阅读学派都拒绝承认马克思运用了“逻辑与历史相统一”的方法，进而割裂了历史辩证法与体系辩证法之间的同一性。体系辩证法是一种逻辑方法，它反对恩格斯的“简单商品生产”概念及其“逻辑与历史相统一”的方法论，只强调马克思的“逻辑”方法。体系辩证法学派认为恩格斯误解了《资本论》第1卷的前三章，误把前资本主义的商品生产（即“简单商品生产”）视为资本主义生产方式和资本逻辑的历史前提。与之类似，巴克豪斯也反对“逻辑与历史相统一”的方法论，其货币商品理论就是反对“简单商品生产解读”的理论产物。

It is worth mentioning that although Alfred Schmidt is a Frankfurt School scholar of the same generation as Backhaus and Reichelt, he opposes the separation of history and logic (or structure), and in his book *History and Structure* emphasizes that “Marx in *Capital* simultaneously employs the method of structural analysis and the method of historical genesis.” Interestingly, it is precisely this anti-historical-dialectical, logical-genetic dialectical method of the Neue Marx-Lektüre and systemic dialectics that is criticized by Althusserians as historicism. Different from Backhaus and Schmidt, Wolfgang Fritz Haug emphasizes that Marx demands the recognition that dialectics has limits, and attempts to adopt a third position between the logical interpretation of capital and the historical interpretation, namely, treating Engels’s concept of “simple commodity production” as a “genetic reconstruction.”

值得一提的是，虽然阿尔弗雷德·施密特（Alfred Schmidt）是与巴克豪斯、莱希尔特同辈的法兰克福学派学者，但他反对割裂历史与逻辑（或结构），并在《历史和结构》一书中强调“马克思在《资本论》中结构分析的方法与历史发生的方法同时并用”。有趣的是，恰恰是马克思新阅读和体系辩证法的这种反历史辩证法的逻辑发生学辩证方法，被阿尔都塞主义者视为历史主义而加以批判。区别于巴克豪斯和施密特，沃尔夫冈·豪格（Wolfgang Fritz Haug）则强调，马克思要求承认辩证法是有限度的，并且试图在资本的逻辑解释与历史解释之间持第三种立场，即把恩格斯的“简单商品生产”概念视为“发生学的重建”。

(V) Anti-Positivism

（五）反实证主义

In Arthur’s view, Marx reconstructed the core categories of the capitalist mode of production and presented them in a systematic form. Of course, Marx’s mode of systematic presentation differs from that of classical British political economy, because he employed the dialectics of Hegel’s *Science of Logic*. For Arthur, systemic dialectics is not scientific induction, nor the hypothetico-deductive method, nor a transcendental deduction of the conditions of possibility of what are taken as given empirical forms; rather, it is the logical development of the system of categories or forms of existence from the most basic and indeterminate to the richest and most concrete. Consequently, Arthur transfers the transitions between categories in Hegel’s *Science of Logic* into the study of *Capital*, holding that one category transforms into another because the present stage has a deficiency (or defect), namely, that the present stage cannot prove its own necessity and prevail when confronted with contingency. Only when the entire system of categories is completed does the process of narrating (or presenting) the self-sufficient (or self-maintaining) “totality” come to an end.

在阿瑟看来，马克思重建了关于资本主义生产方式的核心范畴并以体系的形式呈现出来。当然，马克思的体系呈现方式不同于英国古典经济学，因为他运用了黑格尔《逻辑学》的辩证法。在阿瑟那里，体系辩证法不是科学归纳法，不是假说—演绎方法，也并非对被视为既定经验形式的可能性条件的先验论证，而是范畴体系或存在形式从最基本和不确定到最丰富和最具体的逻辑发展。因此，阿瑟把黑格尔《逻辑学》中诸范畴之间的过渡搬到了《资本论》研究中，认为一个范畴之所以会转变为另一个范畴，是因为现阶段存在着不足（或缺陷），即现阶段无法证明其自身具有必然性并在其面对偶然性时胜出。直到整个范畴体系完成，对自足（或自我维持）的“总体”的叙述（或呈现）过程才告结束。

Anti-positivism has been a consistent stance of the Frankfurt School’s critical theory. In the 1950s, the *Grundrisse* was published in Germany, thereby sparking a wave of research on Marx’s political economy in the German-speaking world. Influenced by the academic atmosphere of the time, Adorno also engaged with Marx’s economics in his later years, and his research influenced disciples such as Backhaus in at least two respects: (1) new reflections on exchange abstraction; (2) criticism of positivist social scientific methods. Building on the work of Adorno and others, Backhaus, drawing on Lukács’s relevant ideas, grasped Marx’s social scientific methodology from the perspective of subject–object dialectics and criticized the Soviet textbook-style base–superstructure analytical method.

反实证主义是法兰克福学派批判理论的一贯立场。1950年代，《政治经济学批判大纲》在德国出版，从而在德语世界掀起了马克思政治经济学研究的热潮。受到当时学术氛围的影响，阿多诺晚年也涉足马克思的经济学，其研究至少在两个方面影响了巴克豪斯等弟子：（1）对交换抽象的新思考；（2）对实证主义社会科学方法的批评。在阿多诺等人研究的基础上，巴克豪斯结合卢卡奇的相关思想，从主体—客体辩证法的角度来把握马克思的社会科学方法论，并批评了苏联教科书式的经济基础—上层建筑分析方法。

III. The Problematic of Systemic Dialectics and the Neue Marx-Lektüre

三、体系辩证法与马克思新阅读的问题意识

Although systemic dialectics and the Neue Marx-Lektüre emerged in different historical periods, they share a similar epochal background and corresponding problematic. The broad background is a reaction against dialectical materialism, which can be said to be a common problematic of Western Marxism. However, the problematic of systemic dialectics and the Neue Marx-Lektüre does not stop there; in their philosophical research on *Capital*, they exhibit the following three more specific problematics.

尽管体系辩证法与马克思新阅读产生于不同的历史时期，但却有着相似的时代背景及相应的问题意识。大的背景是对辩证唯物主义的逆反，这可以说是西方马克思主义共同的问题意识。但是，体系辩证法与马克思新阅读的问题意识并不止于此，它们在对《资本论》展开哲学研究时呈现出如下三种更加特殊的问题意识。

(1) The Problem of the Measure of Labor Value in Post-Capitalist Society

（一）后资本主义的劳动价值尺度问题

Heinrich argues that traditional Marxism focused only on the connection between value and labor, but Backhaus in the 1970s noticed the connection between value and money, which directly gave rise to the Neue Marx-Lektüre movement. However, as the Finnish scholar Paula Rauhala points out, this claim is problematic, because East German economists in the 1960s had already deeply explored the relationship between labor value and money, and Backhaus directly benefited from the discussions of that time. In fact, the problem of the measure of labor value in post-capitalist society can be traced further back to Lenin and later to the market socialism debate. Before the October Revolution in Russia, Lenin, in *State and Revolution*, envisioned socialism (i.e., the first phase of communism) based on the theories of the classical writers as a society that had abolished private property, commodity exchange, and money; the New Economic Policy implemented after the War Communism policy was only a temporary retreat as an expedient measure. With the realization of socialism in the Soviet Union at the end of the 1920s, and especially after the formation of the Eastern European socialist camp following World War II, the problems of actually existing socialism (including practical economic problems) became issues that socialist theorists had to confront. The characteristic of the Soviet economic system was a planned economy based on public ownership. Under this economic system, commodities still existed because they were products of labor intended for exchange, but the commodity economy (i.e., commodity exchange mediated by the market) no longer existed; central planning replaced the spontaneous mechanism of the market. Therefore, the Soviet model of socialism still had commodities and money, but no market (including markets for means of production and markets for consumer goods). Consequently, the problem of the measure of commodity value in post-capitalist society came to the fore. Although Engels did not discuss the problem of commodity value in socialist society, his statements about the applicability of Marx’s political economy to pre-capitalist society, especially his notion of “simple commodity production,” were sufficient to inspire socialist theorists. Relatedly, although Marx and Engels both criticized the “commodity labor vouchers” of utopian socialism, this did not prevent “money” in actually existing socialism from playing the role of “commodity labor vouchers.” Therefore, in the Soviet model of socialist society, its central planning committee determined the value (i.e., price) of a commodity by estimating the socially necessary labor time required for workers to produce that commodity. This was tantamount to indirectly acknowledging that Marx’s political economy (especially the labor theory of value) also applies to post-capitalist society. However, there is a technical problem here: how can the central planning committee accurately determine the value of a commodity (i.e., the socially necessary labor time for its production)? Under market economy conditions, prices are determined through the anarchic market mechanism; can the central planning committee simulate the market mechanism to determine commodity prices (i.e., “correct equilibrium prices”)? This gave rise to the “socialist economic calculation debate” of the 1920s–1940s, the famous debate on “market socialism” between scholars represented by Ludwig von Mises and those represented by Oskar Lange.

海因里希认为传统马克思主义只关注价值与劳动的联系，但巴克豪斯却在1970年代注意到价值与货币的关联，而这直接催生了马克思新阅读运动。但是，正如芬兰学者葆拉·劳哈拉（Paula Rauhala）所指出的，这种说法是有问题的，因为东德经济学家在1960年代就曾深入探讨过劳动价值与货币的关系，而巴克豪斯则直接受益于当时的讨论。事实上，后资本主义的劳动价值尺度问题可以进一步向前追溯到列宁以及后来的市场社会主义之争。俄国十月革命前，列宁在《国家与革命》中根据经典作家的理论所设想的社会主义（即共产主义第一阶段）是消灭了私有财产、商品交换和货币的社会，战时共产主义政策之后实施的新经济政策只是权宜之计的暂时退却。随着1920年代末社会主义在苏联成为现实，特别是二战后东欧社会主义阵营的形成，现实社会主义存在的问题（包括现实经济问题）成为社会主义理论家必须面对的课题。苏联经济体制的特点是以公有制经济为基础的计划经济，在这种经济体制下，商品仍然存在，因为它仍然是以交换为目的的劳动产品，但商品经济（也就是以市场为中介的商品交换）却不再存在，中央计划代替了市场的自发机制。因此，苏联模式的社会主义仍然存在商品和货币，但不存在市场（包括劳动资料的市场和消费资料的市场）。于是，后资本主义社会中商品价值的尺度问题就凸显出来。恩格斯虽然没有谈及社会主义社会的商品价值问题，但他关于马克思政治经济学适用于前资本主义社会的说法，特别是他关于“简单商品生产”的说法，足以激发社会主义理论家的灵感。与此相关，尽管马克思和恩格斯都曾批判过空想社会主义的“商品劳动券”，但这并不妨碍现实社会主义中的“货币”发挥“商品劳动券”的作用。因此，在苏联模式的社会主义社会，其中央计划委员会通过估算工人生产某一商品的社会必要劳动时间来确定该商品的价值（即价格）。这相当于间接承认，马克思政治经济学（特别是劳动价值论）也适用于后资本主义社会。但是，这里存在一个技术性问题：中央计划委员会如何才能准确地确定商品的价值（即生产该商品的社会必要劳动时间）？在市场经济条件下，价格是通过无政府状态的市场机制来确定的，那么中央计划委员会是否可能模拟市场机制来确定商品的价格（即“正确的均衡价格”）？这就引发了1920—1940年代的“社会主义经济核算大论战”，即以路德维希·冯·米塞斯（Ludwig von Mises）为代表的学者与以奥斯卡·兰格（Oskar Lange）为代表的学者之间关于“市场社会主义”的著名论战。

If we set aside the introduction of the market as a mechanism for allocating resources, Lange and Maurice Dobb had no fundamental disagreement on adhering to the planned economy, and their views were relatively consistent with the economic practice of actually existing socialism. Both adhered to Marx’s labor theory of value and were left-wing economists in the Western world; therefore, their debate with Mises had a profound impact on left-wing academic circles in the Western world.

如果撇开引入市场作为配置资源的机制这一点，兰格与莫里斯·多布（Maurice Dobb）在坚持计划经济的问题上并没有根本分歧，也比较贴合现实社会主义的经济实践。他们都坚持了马克思的劳动价值论，都是西方世界的左翼经济学家，因此他们与米塞斯的争论在西方世界左翼学术圈产生了深远的影响。

Backhaus, who was studying Marx’s *Capital* in West Germany, naturally turned his attention to actually existing socialism in East Germany. He consciously reflected on the practice of the Soviet model in East Germany and examined this practice with the academic posture of “returning to Marx’s texts.” In this way, the problematic of the scope of application of Engels’s economics came to the fore. Backhaus explicitly opposed Engels’s notion of “simple commodity economy” and instead strictly confined the “analysis of the value-form” in *Capital* to the specific historical stage of capitalist society. As a representative of the Neue Marx-Lektüre movement, Reichelt held the same position.

而在西德研读马克思《资本论》的巴克豪斯，自然会把目光投向东德的现实社会主义。他有意识地思考了苏联模式在东德的实践，并以“回到马克思文本”的学术姿态审视这种实践。这样一来，恩格斯关于马克思经济学的适用范围的问题意识就凸显出来。巴克豪斯明确反对恩格斯关于“简单商品经济”的说法，而是把《资本论》中的“价值形式分析”明确限定在资本主义社会这一特定的历史阶段。作为马克思新阅读运动的代表，莱希尔特也持相同的立场。

The systemic dialectics school in the English-speaking world also opposes Engels’s thesis on “simple commodity production,” and Arthur has written a special article to expound this. However, Backhaus’s critique of “simple commodity production” and its methodology of “the unity of the logical and the historical” has its own characteristics, namely, an emphasis on so-called “monetary value theory.” This is what distinguishes Backhaus from other scholars (including Rubin) who are keen on “value-form analysis,” and the reason lies in his being influenced by the aforementioned historical background (the debate on market socialism) and problem-consciousness. Specifically, Backhaus believes that the dialectic of Marx’s “value-form analysis” necessarily develops into the category of money. In the stage of “simple commodity production,” barter can take place, or it can develop into the stage of the universal equivalent characterized by commodity fetishism. However, Backhaus does not stop at the theory of fetishism. He wants to reconstruct Marx’s dialectic, with the focus on emphasizing that the “value-form” in the capitalist stage necessarily takes the monetary form and the subsequent form of money-capital (i.e., G-W-G′). Therefore, Backhaus does not emphasize general “value-form analysis,” but rather the value-form analysis of monetary value theory. The latter means that value and money are two sides of the same coin, inseparable from each other, and this is precisely a phenomenon unique to the capitalist stage. This judgment of Backhaus implies that he explicitly denies the validity of the labor theory of value (i.e., the dialectic of capital in *Capital*) in the post-capitalist stage. This view of Backhaus has found theoretical resonance in figures such as Reichelt. The reason Reichelt and others criticize transhistorical materialist dialectics is that they recognize the historicity of the labor theory of value.

英语世界的体系辩证法学派也反对恩格斯关于“简单商品生产”的论断，阿瑟就曾专门撰文予以阐述。不过，巴克豪斯对“简单商品生产”及其“逻辑与历史相统一”的方法论的批判有其自身的特点，即强调所谓的“货币价值论”。这是巴克豪斯有别于其他热衷于“价值形式分析”的学者（包括鲁宾）之处，原因在于他受到了上述历史背景（有关市场社会主义的争论）和问题意识的影响。具体来说，巴克豪斯认为，马克思的“价值形式分析”的辩证法最终会发展到货币范畴。在“简单商品生产”阶段，可以采取以物易物的形式，或者发展到以商品拜物教为特征的一般等价物阶段。但是，巴克豪斯并没有止步于拜物教理论。他想要重建马克思的辩证法，其重心在于强调资本主义阶段的“价值形式”必然采取货币形式以及随之出现的货币资本形式（即G-W-G′）。因此，巴克豪斯并不强调一般的“价值形式分析”，而是强调货币价值论的价值形式分析。后者意味着，价值与货币是一枚硬币的两面，两者如影随形，而这恰恰是资本主义阶段所特有的现象。巴克豪斯的这一判断意味着，他明确否定劳动价值论（即《资本论》中的资本辩证法）在后资本主义阶段的有效性。巴克豪斯的这种观点在莱希尔特等人那里产生了理论共鸣。莱希尔特等人之所以批评超历史的唯物辩证法，是因为他们看到了劳动价值论的历史性。

(II) The Distinction between Marx’s Labor Theory of Value and the Labor Theory of Value of Classical Political Economy

（二）马克思劳动价值论与古典经济学劳动价值论的区别

As early as the 1920s, Rubin pondered the distinction between Marx’s labor theory of value and that of the classical political economists. In Rubin’s view, David Ricardo and others studied the content of value but neglected the form of value; whereas Marx not only studied the content of value (abstract human labor) but also paid special attention to the form of value. Through a close reading of the text of the “Commodity” chapter in Volume 1 of *Capital*, Rubin examined Marx’s value-form analysis in detail. It is noteworthy that if we carefully study the fourth Russian edition of Rubin’s *Essays on Marx’s Theory of Value* and his responses to criticism, we find that when examining the value-form, he did not confine himself to the sphere of exchange, but balanced “production” and “exchange.” Unfortunately, because the translations Western scholars read at the time were incomplete, they mistakenly believed that Rubin’s interpretation was valid only in the sphere of exchange, thus going to an extreme of completely denying the role of production in the value-form. The “Rubin school” in Western academia exaggerated the role of exchange and circulation, erroneously emphasizing that “exchange creates value.” When reading Rubin’s texts, both the Neue Marx-Lektüre school in the German-speaking world and the systemic dialectics school in the English-speaking world took note of Rubin’s problem-consciousness and further discussed the distinction between Marx’s labor theory of value and that of Ricardo and others. However, they also misread Rubin, setting aside the sphere of production and exaggerating the role of circulation and exchange. To some extent, Sohn-Rethel’s interpretation further misled the systemic dialectics school and the Neue Marx-Lektüre school, leading them to completely exclude production. For example, Arthur explicitly rejects production, emphasizing that socially necessary labor, which is related to the content of value, only appears after the completion of value-form analysis. Regarding the order of appearance of the concept of socially necessary labor, Arthur and others coincidentally postpone it, but they differ on the specific point. Arthur places it in the production link, while the “Konstanz-Sydney group” places it in the examination of the production of relative surplus value.

早在1920年代，鲁宾就曾思考过马克思的劳动价值论与古典经济学家的劳动价值论之间的区别。在鲁宾看来，大卫·李嘉图等人虽然研究了价值内容，但却忽视了价值形式；而马克思不仅研究了价值内容（抽象人类劳动），还特别重视价值形式。通过对《资本论》第1卷“商品”章文本的细读，鲁宾详细考察了马克思的价值形式分析。值得注意的是，倘若我们仔细研读鲁宾的《马克思价值理论文集》俄文第四版以及他对批判的回应，就会发现他在考察价值形式时并未局限于交换领域，而是兼顾了“生产”与“交换”之间的平衡。遗憾的是，由于西方学者当时阅读的译本不完整，因而误以为鲁宾的阐释仅在交换领域有效，从而走向了一个极端，即完全否定生产在价值形式中的作用。西方学界的“鲁宾学派”夸大了交换和流通的作用，错误地强调“交换创造价值”。在阅读鲁宾的文本时，德语世界的马克思新阅读学派和英语世界的体系辩证法学派都关注到鲁宾的问题意识，并且进一步讨论了马克思的劳动价值论与李嘉图等人的劳动价值论之间的区别。然而，他们同样误读了鲁宾，将生产领域置之一旁，并夸大了流通和交换的作用。在某种程度上，索恩-雷特尔的解读进一步误导了体系辩证法学派和马克思新阅读学派，使之彻底地排除了生产。例如，阿瑟就旗帜鲜明地排斥生产，强调只有在价值形式分析完成之后，与价值内容相关的社会必要劳动才会出场。关于社会必要劳动概念的出场顺序，阿瑟等人不约而同地将其后移，但在具体节点上产生了分歧。阿瑟将其放在生产环节，“康斯坦茨—悉尼小组”（Konstanz-Sydney）则将其放在相对剩余价值生产的考察之中。

Thus, influenced by Rubin and Sohn-Rethel, the systemic dialectics school and the Neue Marx-Lektüre school only conduct value-form analysis from the sphere of exchange, but dissenting voices have also emerged within the systemic dialectics school. As a representative of the new dialectics, Moseley has sharply criticized Heinrich, a representative of the German Neue Marx-Lektüre, on this issue.

由此可见，受到鲁宾和索恩-雷特尔的影响，体系辩证法学派和马克思新阅读学派只从交换领域进行价值形式分析，但体系辩证法学派内部也出现了不一样的声音。作为新辩证法的代表，莫斯利就曾围绕这一问题尖锐地批判德国马克思新阅读的代表海因里希。

If some members of the systemic dialectics school and the Neue Marx-Lektüre school exaggerate the distinction between Marx’s labor theory of value and Ricardo’s labor theory of value, then other members go to the opposite extreme, emphasizing a “rupture” between them. For them, the “transformation problem” from value to price is entirely superfluous, and Marx’s analysis of the magnitude of value lies outside their field of vision. A related issue is that many scholars in the systemic dialectics school and the Neue Marx-Lektüre school only emphasize Marx’s qualitative analysis of value (i.e., value-form analysis), thus being keen on dialectics (even copying Hegel’s dialectics wholesale), while completely ignoring Marx’s quantitative investigation of value, and even criticizing the quantitative study of value as positivism.

如果说体系辩证法学派与马克思新阅读学派的部分成员夸大了马克思劳动价值论与李嘉图劳动价值论的区别，那么另一些成员则走向了另一个极端，即强调两者之间的“断裂”。在他们那里，从价值到价格的“转形问题”完全多余，马克思的价值量分析在他们的视域之外。与此相关的问题是，体系辩证法学派与马克思新阅读学派中有许多学者只强调马克思对价值的定性分析（即价值形式分析），从而热衷于辩证法（甚至照搬黑格尔的辩证法），完全无视马克思对价值的定量考察，甚至把对价值的定量研究视为实证主义加以批判。

(III) Transcending the Direct Opposition between the Subjective Utility School and Orthodox Marxist Economists

（三）超越主观效用学派与正统马克思主义经济学家的直接对立

How to understand and grasp Marx’s concept of “value substance” is an important parameter for measuring each school’s attitude toward Marx. Anti-Marx bourgeois economists, based on a positivist methodology, completely deny the existence of value substance, and even deny the necessity of the concept of “value” distinct from price. This is particularly evident in economists of the subjective utility school such as Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk. When Rudolf Hilferding and other orthodox Marxist economists engaged in a counter-critique of the subjective utility economists, they all emphasized the existence of objective value. Emphasizing objective value is an important theoretical contribution of Ricardo’s labor theory of value, and neo-Ricardians like Piero Sraffa still adhere to this theoretical hard core of Ricardo. However, because they overreached, orthodox Marxist economists, in emphasizing objective value, forgot the essential distinction between Marx’s labor theory of value and Ricardo’s labor theory of value (the latter does not distinguish between the private and social nature of labor, lacking dialectical thinking about the relationship between the two).

如何理解和把握马克思的“价值实体”概念，是衡量各学派对待马克思的态度的重要参数。反马克思的资产阶级经济学家基于实证主义方法论，完全否认价值实体的存在，甚至否认有别于价格的“价值”概念存在的必要性。这在欧根·冯·庞巴维克（Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk）等主观效用学派经济学家那里表现得尤为明显。鲁道夫·希法亭（Rudolf Hilferding）等正统马克思主义经济学家在对主观效用经济学家进行反批判时，都强调客观价值的存在。强调客观价值是李嘉图劳动价值论的重要理论贡献，皮埃罗·斯拉法（Piero Sraffa）等新李嘉图主义者至今仍然坚持李嘉图的这一理论硬核。但是，由于用力过猛，正统马克思主义经济学家在强调客观价值时，忘记了马克思劳动价值论与李嘉图劳动价值论的本质区别（后者没有区分劳动的私人性与社会性，缺乏关于二者关系的辩证思维）。

In interpreting *Capital*, the systemic dialectics school and the Neue Marx-Lektüre school attempt to transcend the direct opposition between the subjective utility school and orthodox Marxist economists. Therefore, they must confront value substance from a position distinct from both, but their final interpretation is an incomplete compromise. Similar to orthodox Marxist economists, they generally acknowledge the existence of value substance, yet they fail to correctly reveal why value substance exists, thus sliding toward subjective utility economics. Specifically, in explaining the generation of value substance, they overemphasize exchange (social form), thereby moving toward neglecting production (private labor). In this way, their interpretation violates Marx’s dialectical method, especially the method of the unity of the historical and the logical, and easily falls into subjective utility economics, which emphasizes equilibrium price and denies that socially necessary labor determines value.

体系辩证法学派与马克思新阅读学派在解读《资本论》时试图超越主观效用学派与正统马克思主义经济学家的直接对立。因此，他们必须以区别于这两者的立场来面对价值实体，但其最终阐释却是一种不彻底的调和。与正统马克思主义经济学家类似，他们普遍承认价值实体的存在，然而却没能正确揭示价值实体何以存在，从而滑向了主观效用经济学。具体而言，他们在解释价值实体的产生时过分强调交换（社会形式），从而走向了忽视生产（私人劳动）。这样一来，他们的解读就违背了马克思的辩证方法，特别是历史与逻辑相统一的方法，并且很容易倒向强调均衡价格、否定社会必要劳动决定价值的主观效用经济学。

IV. Criticisms of Systemic Dialectics and the Neue Marx-Lektüre

四、体系辩证法与马克思新阅读受到的批评

Within the new dialectics school and the Neue Marx-Lektüre school, there is no lack of criticism of the representatives of these schools, and there is also mutual criticism between the two schools. At the same time, these two schools have also faced many external criticisms.

在新辩证法学派和马克思新阅读学派内部，不乏对本学派代表人物的批评，而且这两派之间也存在相互批评。与此同时，这两派也受到了诸多外部批评。

The “Constance-Sydney Group” is the earliest manifestation of the Neue Marx-Lektüre movement spilling out of the German-speaking world into the English-speaking world. Although it cannot be said that this group is the origin of Arthur’s new dialectics, its emergence in the English-speaking world (especially in the relatively isolated Australia) is indeed worthy of attention. The “Constance-Sydney Group” was a collaborative project within the German Neue Marx-Lektüre movement, promoting exchanges between Australian scholars such as Michael Eldred and Marnie Hanion and German scholars such as Volkbert Roth and Lucia Kleiber, and opening up an ambitious interpretive approach within the English-speaking world. Although the “Constance-Sydney Group” emerged inspired by the German Neue Marx-Lektüre movement, its members opposed the movement’s emphasis on qualitative analysis to the neglect of quantitative analysis; therefore, it can be regarded as an opposition faction developed from within the Neue Marx-Lektüre movement.

“康斯坦茨—悉尼小组”是马克思新阅读运动溢出德语世界、走向英语世界的最初表现。尽管不能说该小组是阿瑟新辩证法的源头，但其在英语世界（特别是偏安一隅的澳大利亚）的出场确实值得关注。“康斯坦茨—悉尼小组”是德国马克思新阅读运动中的一个合作项目，促进了迈克尔·埃尔德雷德（Michael Eldred）、玛妮·哈尼恩（Marnie Hanion）等澳大利亚学者与福尔克贝尔特·罗特（Volkbert Roth）、露西娅·克莱伯（Lucia Kleiber）等德国学者之间的交流，并在英语世界内部开辟了一条雄心勃勃的解释进路。“康斯坦茨—悉尼小组”虽然是受德国马克思新阅读运动的启发而出现的，但小组成员反对马克思新阅读只重视定性分析而忽视定量分析的做法，因此可以将其视作马克思新阅读运动内部发展出来的反对派。

The research on the philosophy of *Capital* by the Neue Marx-Lektüre school [33]33 The Neue Marx-Lektüre (New Reading of Marx) is a German-language school of Marxist interpretation that emerged in the 1960s–70s, centered on a close, often Hegelian, re-reading of Marx’s *Capital*, particularly the theory of the value-form, and critical of both orthodox Soviet Marxism and traditional Western Marxism. attracted attention and criticism from Marxist scholars in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe at an early stage. In 1977, the East German philosopher Ruben, after returning to Berlin from Denmark, wrote an article criticizing “capital logic.” This criticism was directed not only at Schanz in Denmark but also at the capital-logic school in West Germany (i.e., members of the Neue Marx-Lektüre school such as Backhaus and Reichelt). As a specialist in Engels’s *Dialectics of Nature*, Ruben’s critique of value-form research for neglecting the materialist dimension of use value was insightful; it can be said to have struck at the heart of the Neue Marx-Lektüre, namely, that the capital-logic school might slide into the abyss of idealism. In fact, there is a tension in Marx’s analysis of the value-form, a dimension that emphasizes matter, nature, and use value. In the first chapter of *Capital*, Marx reminds the reader: “Labor is not the only source of material wealth, of use values produced by labor. As William Petty says, labor is the father of material wealth, and the earth is its mother.” [34]34 This is a direct quotation from Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Chapter 1, Section 1, where Marx cites the 17th-century English economist William Petty. If labor, as a social form and the essence of the human being, lacks nature as its counterbalancing force, it can easily slide into the bourgeois ideology of idealism. In fact, after Ruben used the concept of “capital logic” as a pejorative term, Marxist scholars in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe generally questioned the interpretive approach of Backhaus, Reichelt, and others. Similar to scholars in the socialist camp like Ruben, the Czech philosopher Zelený argued that Reichelt distorted Marx’s (and Engels’s) concept of materialist dialectics into a “scientific” method of thinking.

马克思新阅读学派的《资本论》哲学研究很早就受到苏联、东欧马克思主义学者的关注和批评。1977年，东德哲学家鲁本从丹麦返回柏林后就撰文批评了“资本逻辑”，这一批评不仅指向丹麦的尚茨，也同样指向西德的资本逻辑学派（即巴克豪斯、莱希尔特等马克思新阅读学派成员）。作为恩格斯《自然辩证法》研究专家，鲁本对价值形式研究忽视使用价值这一唯物主义维度的批评颇有见地，可以说切中了马克思新阅读的要害，即资本逻辑学派有可能会滑向唯心主义的深渊。实际上，马克思的价值形式分析中存在着一种张力，即强调质料、自然界和使用价值的维度。马克思在《资本论》第一章就提醒读者：“劳动并不是它所生产的使用价值即物质财富的唯一源泉。正像威廉·配第所说，劳动是财富之父，土地是财富之母。”作为社会形式和人的本质的劳动，如果没有自然界作为其平衡力量，很容易滑向唯心主义的资产阶级意识形态。事实上，当鲁本把“资本逻辑”这一概念视作贬义词后，苏联、东欧马克思主义学者就普遍质疑巴克豪斯、莱希尔特等人的解读路径。与鲁本等社会主义阵营的学者类似，捷克哲学家泽勒尼认为，莱希尔特将马克思（和恩格斯）的唯物辩证法概念扭曲为一种“科学的”思维方法。

The “logic” in “capital logic” is a concept at the same level as “syntax” in linguistics, “law” in natural science, and “structure” in social science. The concept of “capital logic” inherently has the color of Althusserian structuralism, lacking a dimension of subjectivity (a subjectless historical process), whereas “subjectivity” is precisely what Backhaus emphasizes. Unless the logic of capitalist collapse (the theory of crisis) is taken as a premise, the revolutionary subject (whether the proletariat or another revolutionary subject) is a necessary active factor for breaking the capitalist structure. In other words, the capital-logic school must necessarily confront the question of the logic of capitalist collapse. Regarding the logic of capitalist collapse, there was a debate between Heinrich of the Neue Marx-Lektüre school and Robert Kurz of the Wertkritik school in Nuremberg. Heinrich explicitly denies the existence of any so-called theory of capitalist collapse. As Rauhala says, there are also two factions within the Neue Marx-Lektüre movement: one close to Hegelian dialectics, the other championing Althusserian structuralism. The former mainly includes early representatives of the Neue Marx-Lektüre movement such as Hans-Jürgen Krahl, Backhaus, and Reichelt, who have the character of humanist critique; the latter, represented by Ingo Elbe, Frieder Wolf, and Heinrich, is deeply influenced by Althusser and attempts to maintain a distance from critical theory.

“资本逻辑”中的“逻辑”，是与语言学中的“句法”、自然科学中的“规律”和社会科学中的“结构”同一层次的概念。“资本逻辑”概念天然具有阿尔都塞结构主义的色彩，缺乏主体性维度（无主体的历史过程），而“主体性”恰恰是巴克豪斯所强调的。除非以资本主义崩溃逻辑（危机理论）为前提，否则革命主体（无论是无产阶级还是其他革命主体）就是打破资本主义结构的必要能动因素。换言之，资本逻辑学派必然面对资本主义崩溃逻辑这一问题。关于资本主义崩溃逻辑，马克思新阅读学派的海因里希与纽伦堡价值批判学派的罗伯特·库尔茨（Robert Kurz）有过争论。海因里希明确否认存在所谓的资本主义崩溃论。正如劳哈拉所说，马克思新阅读运动内部也存在两派，一派亲近黑格尔辩证法，另一派则推崇阿尔都塞结构主义。前者主要包括汉斯-于尔根·克拉尔（Hans-Jürgen Krahl）、巴克豪斯、莱希尔特等马克思新阅读运动的早期代表人物，他们具有人道主义批判的特征；后者以英格·埃尔贝（Ingo Elbe）、弗里德·沃尔夫（Frieder Wolf）和海因里希为代表，他们深受阿尔都塞的影响，并试图与批判理论保持距离。

Ilyenkov is an important scholar in the development of the new dialectics school and the Neue Marx-Lektüre school. Arthur directly opposes Ilyenkov; Reichelt, although he does not mention Ilyenkov, would likely oppose Ilyenkov’s materialist dialectics just as Arthur does. Backhaus initially opposed Ilyenkov but later changed his attitude, and the two began to appreciate each other. The new generation of scholars in the new dialectics school and the Neue Marx-Lektüre school are committed to applying Ilyenkov’s reconstruction of Marx’s “dialectics of the abstract and the concrete,” especially Ilyenkov’s original views on Marx’s “the ideal,” to further deepen research on the value-form. The value-form is the ideal; this is both a clear conclusion Ilyenkov directly draws from Rubin’s value-form and an original view that resonates in the Western world.

伊里延科夫是新辩证法学派和马克思新阅读学派发展中的一个重要学者。阿瑟直接反对伊里延科夫，莱希尔特虽然没有提及伊里延科夫，但应该会与阿瑟一样反对伊里延科夫的唯物辩证法。巴克豪斯最初反对伊里延科夫，后来改变了态度，而且两人开始惺惺相惜。新辩证法学派和马克思新阅读学派的新秀们致力于运用伊里延科夫对马克思“抽象和具体的辩证法”的重建，特别是伊里延科夫关于马克思“观念的东西”的原创性观点进一步深化了价值形式研究。价值形式是观念的东西，这既是伊里延科夫从鲁宾的价值形式出发直接得出的明确结论，也是在西方世界引发共鸣的原创性观点。

V. Remaining Discussion: From “Value-Form” to “Form of the Product of Labor and the Commodity”

五、余论：从“价值形式”走向“劳动产品及商品形式”

In the field of contemporary philosophical research on *Capital*, the systemic dialectics school in the English-speaking world and the Neue Marx-Lektüre school in the German-speaking world are undoubtedly at the forefront. Both focus on the analysis of the “value-form.” However, the above analysis shows that their excessive emphasis on the value-form and exchange and circulation inevitably leads to the neglect of the content of the sphere of production, thereby sliding into the mire of idealism. Therefore, while absorbing and drawing on the most cutting-edge academic achievements of the international scholarly community, contemporary Chinese Marxist philosophical research must open up an interpretive approach that is more faithful to Marx’s texts, return to the original context of Marx’s *Capital*, and move toward the philosophy of labor and the analysis of the commodity form.

在当代《资本论》哲学研究领域，英语世界的体系辩证法学派和德语世界的马克思新阅读学派无疑走在了前列。两者都关注“价值形式”分析研究。然而，上述分析表明，他们过分强调价值形式和交换流通，势必会忽视生产领域的内容，进而滑向唯心主义的泥淖。因此，在吸收和借鉴国际学界最前沿的学术成果的同时，当代中国马克思主义哲学研究有必要开辟一条更加契合马克思文本的解释进路，回到马克思《资本论》的原始语境，走向劳动哲学和商品形式分析。

The product of labor is the objectification and congealing of labor, the formal transformation of matter. Labor includes two aspects: the quality of labor (the form of labor, i.e., concrete labor) and the quantity of labor (the expenditure of the human brain, muscles, nerves, hands, etc., i.e., human labor distinct from that of animals). The commodity is the product of labor used for exchange. The commodity form includes the natural form of the commodity and the value-form. The natural form of the commodity is use value; the value-form is exchange value. Therefore, value has a dual character, namely, use value and exchange value. Use value is determined by useful labor (concrete labor); exchange value (value) is determined by abstract human labor. The form of exchange value can be examined from two dimensions: first, from the dimension of value (the relationship between humans and nature, i.e., private labor), including the two aspects of the substance of value and the magnitude of value; second, from the dimension of exchange (the relationship between things, behind which lies the relationship between people), manifested as the social form of appearance of value (social labor), i.e., the social value-form. Through the general equivalent, the value-form transforms into the money-form; through the valorization process (G-W-G′), the money-form further transforms into the capital-form (including commercial capital and industrial capital). *Capital* examines the logic of industrial capital, including the dialectical process of its self-affirmation (the structuration of simple reproduction and expanded reproduction) and its self-negation (deconstruction). The logical starting point of Marx’s historical materialism is labor (material life); the logical starting point of *Capital* is the commodity (not value). Marx mentions several “forms,” including the form of the matter of the product (in the Aristotelian sense), the form of labor, the shaping of labor (i.e., the objectification and congealing of labor), the natural form of the commodity and the value-form, etc. The value-form includes the “value-form” of the commodity as a product and the “value-form” as an equivalent in the process of exchange.

劳动产品是劳动的对象化和凝结，是质料的形式改变。劳动包括劳动的质（劳动形式，即具体劳动）和量（人的大脑、肌肉、神经、手等等的生产耗费，即有别于动物的人的劳动）两个方面。商品是用于交换的劳动产品，商品形式包括商品的自然形式和价值形式。商品的自然形式是使用价值，价值形式是交换价值。因此,价值具有二重性，即使用价值和交换价值。使用价值由有用劳动（具体劳动）决定，交换价值（价值）由抽象的人的劳动决定。交换价值形式可以从两个维度进行考察，一是从价值（人与自然的关系，即私人劳动）维度考察，包括价值实体和价值量两个方面；二是从交换（物与物的关系，其背后是人与人的关系）维度考察，体现为价值的社会表现形式（社会劳动），即社会价值形式。通过一般等价物，价值形式转化为货币形式；通过价值增殖过程（G-W-G′），货币形式进一步转化为资本形式（包括商业资本和产业资本）。《资本论》考察的是产业资本的逻辑，包括其自我肯定（简单再生产和扩大再生产的结构化）和自我否定（解构）的辩证过程。马克思唯物史观的逻辑起点是劳动（物质生活），《资本论》的逻辑起点是商品（不是价值）。马克思提及了几种“形式”，包括产品质料的形式（亚里士多德意义上的）、劳动的形式、劳动塑形（即劳动的对象化及凝结）、商品的自然形式和价值形式等，而价值形式则包括商品作为产品的“价值形式”以及在交换过程中作为等价物的“价值形式”。

The fundamental distinction between a product of labour and a commodity lies in the fact that a commodity is simultaneously private and social. This is the root of the commodity’s dual character (or contradiction) and the driving force that pushes the commodity toward money and capital. Simple commodity production (selling in order to buy) gives rise to commercial capital (buying in order to sell, i.e., valorisation). The transformation from commercial capital to industrial capital (the capitalist mode of production) requires a historical precondition: the separation of the direct producer from the means of production (“the separation of the objective conditions of labour from labour itself,” “the separation of the worker from the ownership of his conditions of labour,” “the separation of the objective conditions of labour from subjective labour-power,” “the separation of free labour from the objective conditions for the realisation of free labour”). Of course, this does not mean that the first three chapters of *Capital* merely examine the historical stage of pre-capitalist simple commodity production. It can be said that the first three chapters of *Capital* take simple commodity production as a model and also embody Marx’s method of presentation “from the abstract to the concrete.” They are the opening move in Marx’s narration (so-called systemic dialectics) of the “totality” of the developed capitalist society (mode of production) typified by Britain. The separation of the direct producer from the means of production is the implicit precondition of the first three chapters of *Capital*.

劳动产品与商品的根本区别在于，商品既是私人的，又是社会的，这是商品二重性（或矛盾）的根源，也是推动商品走向货币和资本的动力。简单商品生产（为买而卖）孕育了商业资本（为卖而买，即价值增殖），从商业资本到产业资本（资本主义生产方式）的转化需要一个历史前提，即直接生产者与生产资料的分离（“劳动客观条件与劳动本身的分离”、“劳动者和他的劳动条件的所有权分离”、“客观劳动条件和主观劳动力的分离”、“自由劳动同实现自由劳动的客观条件相分离”。当然，这并不是说《资本论》前三章只是考察前资本主义的简单商品生产的历史阶段。可以说，《资本论》前三章既是以简单商品生产为模型，也是马克思“从抽象到具体”的叙述方法的体现，它是马克思对以英国为典型的发达资本主义社会（生产方式）的“总体”进行叙述（所谓体系辩证法）的起手式，直接生产者与生产资料的分离是《资本论》前三章的隐性前提。

If we go further back to Marx’s text of *Capital*, we find that the “commodity” as the logical starting point of *Capital* contains a premise of historical materialism: the transhistorical “product of labour.” The product of labour is wealth, i.e., use-value. Only after this does Marx turn to the specific historical stage of capitalist (or commodity-economic) society, where the product of labour becomes a commodity. At this point, contradiction arises, duality emerges, and the commodity has two forms: the natural form (use-value) and the value-form (exchange-value). Thus, the commodity-form comes first, and only then the value-form. Rubin’s emphasis on the study of the value-form in *Capital* undoubtedly opened a new paradigm for the philosophical study of *Capital*. However, if one only emphasises the value-form of the commodity, one effaces its natural form.

如果我们进一步回到马克思的《资本论》文本，就会发现作为《资本论》逻辑起点的“商品”蕴含着一个唯物史观前提，即超历史的“劳动产品”。劳动产品就是财富，即使用价值。在此之后，马克思才转向资本主义（或商品经济）社会这一特定的历史阶段，劳动产品变成了商品。至此，矛盾得以产生，二重性得以出现，商品就有了两种形式：自然形式（使用价值）和价值形式（交换价值），因此是先有商品形式，再有价值形式。鲁宾强调《资本论》的价值形式研究，无疑开辟了《资本论》哲学研究的新范式。然而，倘若只强调商品的价值形式，就会抹杀它的自然形式。

Therefore, when contemporary scholars examine the philosophical thought of *Capital*, they should draw on the merits of systemic dialectics and the Neue Marx-Lektüre, while at the same time always remaining alert to the shortcomings of both. They must not, in the study of the “value-form,” forget the “natural form” of the commodity. Consequently, we should not fixate solely on the analysis of the value-form; rather, we should turn to the new paradigm of “the product of labour and the commodity-form.” Emphasising the “product of labour” leads to Marx’s “philosophy of labour,” a philosophy of labour that is one and the same with Marx’s communist political philosophy. Emphasising the “commodity-form” highlights the natural (i.e., material) form of the commodity, thereby leading to the ecological dimension in Marx’s thought in *Capital*.

因此，当代学者在考察《资本论》的哲学思想时，应当借鉴体系辩证法与马克思新阅读的可取之处，同时也要时刻留意两者的不足之处，切不可在“价值形式”的研究中忘却商品的“自然形式”。因此，我们不应该只盯着价值形式分析，而要转向“劳动产品及商品形式”这一新范式。强调“劳动产品”会导向马克思的“劳动哲学”，这种劳动哲学与马克思的共产主义政治哲学是合二为一的；强调“商品形式”，就会凸显商品的自然（即质料）形式，从而导向马克思《资本论》思想中的生态维度。

(Author’s bio: Lu Kejian: School of Marxism, Hainan University)

（作者简介：鲁克俭：海南大学马克思主义学院）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心