The Demise of Capitalism: Ultimate Crisis and the Substance of Value

Can it be proven that capitalism will trigger its own ultimate crisis? Has such a crisis already arrived? Although Marx did not specifically conduct a focused discussion on crisis, he regarded crisis as an inherent feature of the capitalist mode of production, thereby providing us with a new paradigm for understanding capitalist crisis. For Marx, capitalist crises erupt periodically and are difficult to overcome. To escape the impact of crisis, the bourgeoisie “are compelled, on the one hand, to destroy a mass of productive forces, on the other, to conquer new markets and to exploit the old ones more thoroughly… This is merely the way in which the bourgeoisie prepares for more extensive and more destructive crises, and diminishes the means of warding off crises.” [1]1 This is a quotation from Marx and Engels, *The Communist Manifesto* (1848), describing the cyclical nature of capitalist crises and the bourgeoisie’s contradictory response.

能否证明资本主义将引发自身的终极危机？这样的危机是否已经到来？尽管马克思并没有专门对危机展开集中的探讨，但他将危机视为资本主义生产方式的固有特征，从而为我们提供了一种理解资本主义危机的新范式。对于马克思来说，资本主义危机是周期性爆发且难以克服的。资产阶级为了摆脱危机的影响，“一方面不得不消灭大量生产力，另一方面夺取新的市场，更加彻底地利用旧的市场……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”。

The facts of several economic collapses provide evidence for Marx’s judgment on the systemic nature of capitalist crises, but they also raise a series of more complex questions: What is the connection between crises occurring in different periods? Do these constantly erupting crises necessarily lead to an ultimate crisis or other catastrophes? If an ultimate crisis is inevitable, to what extent can its trajectory of emergence be foreseen?

数次经济崩溃的事实为马克思关于资本主义系统性危机的判定提供了例证，但也引出了一系列更复杂的问题：发生于不同时期的危机之间有什么关联？这些不断爆发的危机是否必然导致终极危机或者其他灾难？如果终极危机必然到来，它的生成轨迹可以在多大程度上被预见？

To better understand the relationship between value and crisis, this article analyzes two different positions. The first position is mainly represented by Robert Kurz, who argues that successive economic crises will inevitably converge into the ultimate crisis of capitalism. Capitalism has reached its end, and even the widespread application of new forms of capital accumulation cannot change this fact. The second position is represented by Michael Heinrich. In his view, although economic crises are an inherent feature of the capitalist mode of production, capitalism may overcome or mitigate the impact of crises by developing new forms of exploitation and accumulation.

为了更好地理解价值与危机之间的关系，本文分析了两种不同立场的观点。第一种观点主要来自罗伯特·库尔茨（Robert Kurz），他认为接连不断爆发的经济危机最终必然汇聚成资本主义的终极危机。资本主义已经走到了尽头，即便是全新资本积累形式的普遍应用，也难以改变这一事实。第二种观点的代表人物是迈克尔·海因里希（Michael Heinrich）。在他看来，虽然经济危机是资本主义生产方式的固有特征，但是资本主义可能会通过开发新的剥削和积累形式来克服或减弱危机的影响。

In recent years, research examining the ultimate crisis of capitalism from a Marxist theoretical perspective has increased. This article does not provide a theoretical overview of such research but instead focuses on analyzing the views of Kurz and Heinrich in order to highlight the distinction between substantialist and non-substantialist concepts of value. For Kurz, value is a historical material substance; it is the expenditure of labor in social (re)production, which ultimately crystallizes in commodities. Therefore, if labor power in the production process is replaced through means such as automation, then the material basis of value (and simultaneously the basis of the capitalist economy) is destroyed. For Heinrich, value primarily expresses a relation; it is not a “substance.” As a social measure of abstract labor, the value of any commodity is determined by its relation to other commodities. In this sense, the replacement of labor power has no direct causal relationship with the end of value.

近年来，从马克思主义理论出发考察资本主义终极危机的研究日渐增多。本文不提供相关研究的理论概述，而是集中分析库尔茨和海因里希的观点，以便突出实体主义的（Substantialist）与非实体主义的（Non-substantialist）价值概念的区别。对于库尔茨来说，价值是一种历史性的物质实体，它是社会（再）生产中对劳动的消耗，并且最终凝结在商品之中。因此，如果通过自动化等手段替代生产过程中的劳动力，那么也就破坏了价值的物质基础（同时也是资本主义经济的基础）。而在海因里希看来，价值主要表达的是一种关系，它并不是“实体”。作为抽象劳动的社会尺度，任何商品的价值都是根据其与其他商品的关系来确定的。从这个意义上讲，劳动力的替代与价值的终结并没有直接的因果关系。

By comparing these two views, this article aims to make the following theoretical contributions: First, to establish a theoretical framework for examining value and crisis. Second, to incorporate Kurz’s views into the current academic debate on value and crisis. Finally, to analyze the potential limitations of the theory of ultimate crisis, including assessing whether the ultimate crisis can be regarded as the inevitable outcome of the historical process of capitalism. Objectively speaking, value-critique scholars such as Kurz have made important contributions to constructing a theory of crisis. However, there are still some contradictions in Kurz’s methodology. On the one hand, his assessment of the developmental trend of capitalism has a typical irrationalist character; on the other hand, he is eager to justify the rationality of the ultimate crisis of capitalism. In summary, this article argues that corresponding critique will contribute to the further construction of crisis theory.

通过对比以上两种观点，本文旨在作出以下理论贡献：首先，建立一个考察价值与危机的理论框架。其次，将库尔茨的观点纳入学界当前关于价值与危机的争论之中。最后，剖析终极危机理论潜在的局限性，这包括研判终极危机是否可以被视为资本主义历史进程的必然结局。客观上讲，库尔茨等价值批判学者为建构危机理论作出了重要贡献。然而，库尔茨的方法论还存在一些矛盾。一方面，他对资本主义发展趋向的研判具有典型的非理性色彩；另一方面，他迫切地想要证明资本主义终极危机的合理性。总而言之，本文认为，相应的批判将有助于危机理论的进一步建构。

The concluding section of this article discusses the broad impact of the two most recent crises. The 2008 global financial crisis is a key focus of research in political economy, and it has thus become a typical case for Kurz’s theory of ultimate crisis. In contrast, the crisis triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic has not only affected the economic situation but has also extended to the ecological environment and public health fields; its developmental trajectory poses a challenge to the validity of Kurz’s theory.

本文的结语部分探讨了最近两次危机的广泛影响。2008年的全球金融危机是政治经济学领域的研究重点，它也由此成为库尔茨终极危机理论的典型案例。相比之下，新冠疫情引发的危机不仅影响了经济形势，还波及到生态环境和医疗卫生领域，其发展态势对库尔茨理论的有效性提出了挑战。

I. Crisis and the Substance of Value

一 危机与价值实质

(1) The Location of Value: Substance or Relation

（一）价值定位：实体亦或是关系

Marxism has two ways of defining value: one is to understand value as undifferentiated human labor crystallized in commodities; the other is to regard value as a social relation realized in exchange. In the view of Isaak Rubin, these two definitions are contradictory. “If abstract labor is a physiological expenditure of energy, then value is a real material. But if value is understood as a social relation, then abstract labor must also be a social phenomenon that emerges under a specific mode of production. The physiological nature of abstract labor and the historical nature of the value it creates are difficult to coexist.”

马克思主义对价值有两种定义方式：一是将价值理解为凝结在商品中的无差别的人类劳动；二是将价值视为一种在交换中实现的社会关系。在伊萨克·鲁宾看来，以上两种定义方式是互相矛盾的。“如果抽象劳动是一种生理性的能量输出，那么价值就是一种实在的物质。而假若将价值理解为社会关系，那么抽象劳动也必然是一种在特定生产方式之下出现的社会现象。抽象劳动的生理性与其所创造价值的历史性是难以共存的。”

Both Kurz and Heinrich argue that labor must be understood within the historical framework of capitalism. However, they diverge on the methodological question of substantialism versus non-substantialism, which leads them to different understandings of concrete labor and abstract labor. For Kurz, the production of commodities is the crystallization of labor, and value is a “real material” existing within commodities. This “material” has two forms: first, use-value, which expresses the relationship between natural materials and material effectiveness; second, exchange-value, which derives from the abstract process of value formation, i.e., abstract labor as the source of value. In short, value is created in production and is embodied “in every product.”

库尔茨和海因里希都认为，劳动必须被置于资本主义的历史框架下进行理解。然而，他们在实体主义与非实体主义的方法论问题上存在分歧，这使得他们对具体劳动和抽象劳动有着不同的理解。对于库尔茨来说，商品的生产是劳动的凝结，而价值是一种存在于商品之中的“真实的物质”。该“物质”具有两种形式：一是使用价值，它体现了自然材料与物质有效性之间的关系；二是交换价值，它来自价值形成的抽象过程，即作为价值源泉的抽象劳动。概言之，价值是在生产中创造的，它体现在“每一个产品”之中。

In contrast, in Heinrich’s perspective, the essence of value is social and relational; it does not exist within commodities but must be confirmed through their relationship to the totality of commodities. Using Marx’s example, when a coat is exchanged for linen, both are transformed into objectifications of human labor, but neither the coat nor the linen possesses objective value before exchange; their value can only be manifested in the exchange relation. As the embodiment of abstract labor, “value represents the relationship between the individual commodity and the world of commodities as a whole, or between individual labor and total social labor.”

与此相反，在海因里希的视域中，价值的本质是社会性和关系性，它并不存在于商品中，而是需要通过与商品总体的关系得到确证。借用马克思的例子来讲，当一件外套与亚麻布交换时，两者都转变为人类劳动的客观化，可无论外套还是亚麻布，在交换之前都不具备客观的价值，它们的价值只有在交换关系中才能体现出来。作为抽象劳动的体现，“价值代表了商品个体与商品世界整体、或者说个别劳动与社会总劳动之间的关系”。

In the view of Norbert Trenkle, a value-critique scholar of the Kurz school, Heinrich’s assumption that value arises only when commodities are exchanged is problematic because it separates exchange from production and treats value as the result of individual decisions. Trenkle argues that Heinrich is influenced by Alfred Sohn-Rethel’s concept of “real abstraction.” Conceptual abstraction is generated by synthesizing different ideas in thought, while real abstraction exists as a socially established rule before it enters thought. For Sohn-Rethel, his core goal is to provide a materialist answer to Kant’s epistemology; conceptual abstraction is determined by real abstraction. In capitalist society, value, as a real abstraction whose material form is exchange, plays a decisive role. At the same time, the concept of value also connects history and logic, presenting changes in thought within exchange, which lays the foundation for a materialist critique of reality. In Trenkle’s words, “Sohn-Rethel uses exchange to separate production from circulation, thereby making the sphere of labor a private space in which individuals create their products.”

在库尔茨派的价值批判学者诺伯特·特伦克尔看来，海因里希假定只有当商品进行交换时才会产生价值的观点是有问题的，因为他把交换与生产割裂开来，将价值视为个人决定的结果。特伦克尔认为，海因里希是受到阿尔弗雷德·索恩-雷特尔的“现实抽象”概念的影响。概念抽象是通过在思想中综合不同的想法生成的，而现实抽象在进入思维之前就已经作为约定俗成的社会规则而存在。对于索恩-雷特尔来说，他的核心目标是给康德的认识论一个唯物主义的答案，概念抽象是由现实抽象决定的。在资本主义社会中，价值这种以交换为物质形式的现实抽象发挥着决定性的作用。同时，价值的概念还联通了历史与逻辑，它把思维的变化呈现在交换中，这为唯物主义的现实批判奠定了基础。用特伦克尔的话来讲，“索恩-雷特尔用交换将生产与流通分开，这使得劳动领域成为个人空间，个人在其中创造他们的产品”。

Trenkle points out that Heinrich’s definition of value in terms of relations repeats Sohn-Rethel’s error of isolating value within the sphere of exchange. In this definition, value is abstracted from its material characteristics only during the exchange process, after production is completed and commodities are thrown into the sphere of circulation. By separating the sphere of production from the sphere of circulation, Sohn-Rethel and Heinrich obliterate the internal connections of the modern commodity-production system. Furthermore, they obscure the progressive relationship between production and sale, and they confuse the essential distinction between capital valorization and commodity exchange—to the point that they fail to recognize the reality: exchange is not the core of capitalism; it is merely a presupposition of commodity production. Sohn-Rethel once stated: “The exchange relation is established through the exchange network; only the exchange-consumption relation is part of the social relation.” By identifying the “exchange network” as the site of real abstraction and value realization, he also understands abstraction psychologically as an act of deferred gratification. From Sohn-Rethel’s perspective, value realization is seen as the result of individual behavior, which is likewise one of the errors of neoclassical economics.

特伦克尔指出，海因里希用关系来定义价值是在重复索恩-雷特尔将价值孤立在交换领域中的错误。在这一定义中，只有当生产完成后，商品被投放到流通领域，价值才会在交换过程中从其物质特性中抽象出来。由于将生产领域与流通领域分离开来，索恩-雷特尔和海因里希抹杀了现代商品生产系统的内部联系。进一步讲，他们模糊了生产与销售之间的递进关系，并且混淆了资本增殖与商品交换之间的本质区别——以至于他们无法认清现实：交换并非资本主义的核心，它只是商品生产的一种预设。索恩-雷特尔曾经提到：“交换关系是借由交换网络建立起来的，只有交换消费关系才是社会关系的一部分。”他将“交换网络”确定为现实抽象和价值实现的场所，这也意味着他从心理学的角度出发把抽象理解为一种延迟满足的行为。在索恩-雷特尔的视域下，价值实现被看作是个体行为的结果，这同样是新古典经济学的误区之一。

Trenkle accurately identifies the limitations of Sohn-Rethel’s theory of exchange alienation, but the question is whether Heinrich repeats Sohn-Rethel’s error. I believe he does not. Trenkle argues that Heinrich’s concept of value presupposes linear time, and that the “objectivity of value” can only be confirmed for a commodity during the exchange process. However, does the conception that “an isolated commodity in itself only has value in the exchange process” necessarily imply that the sphere of labor is a purely private space? How is the problem of space being determined by time to be explained? If we associate value with a specific commodity object, then it can be argued that Heinrich repeats Sohn-Rethel’s error. Yet, in Heinrich’s theory, the object of analysis is never a specific individual commodity. To analyze how this misreading of Heinrich arises, it is necessary to examine his commentary on *Capital* (Volume 1).

特伦克尔精准地指出了索恩-雷特尔交换异化理论的局限性，但是问题在于，海因里希是否重复了索恩-雷特尔的错误？我认为他没有。特伦克尔指出，海因里希的价值概念建立在线性时间的前提下，商品只有在交换过程中才能确证“价值的客观性”。可是，“孤立的商品本体仅在交换过程中具有价值”的构想是否必然意味着劳动的场域是纯粹私人空间？如何解释空间由时间决定的问题？如果我们将价值与特定的商品对象联系起来，那么可以论证海因里希重复了索恩-雷特尔的错误。然而，在海因里希的理论中，分析对象从来都不是特定的个体商品。为了分析对海因里希的误读是如何出现的，有必要考察他关于《资本论》（第1卷）的评述。

1. A commodity has exchange value, and the nature of exchange value is socially determined. If something has exchange value, then it is a commodity; the act of exchange confers a value-level upon a useful object (a useful object with natural properties). The latter is not fixed in the object but is acquired in the exchange process, which is necessarily social; therefore, for Heinrich, “the commodity character of a chair is not inherent in it, but is socially conferred.”

1.商品具有交换价值，交换价值的性质是由社会决定的。如果某物具有交换价值，那么它就是商品；交换行为赋予了一个有用物（具有自然属性的有用物）的价值层次。后者并不固定在物体中，而是在交换过程中获得的，这个过程必然是社会性的；因此，对于海因里希来说，“椅子的商品属性并不是它本身固有的，而是由社会赋予的”。

2. The extension of exchange determines that value is a relation. “In the case where exchange is an isolated phenomenon, various quantitative exchange relations may arise: I can exchange a chair for two yards of linen in one place, or for three yards of linen in another, and so on. However, if exchange becomes the determinate form of commodity circulation, then each exchange relation must be matched according to some standard.” In other words, if I can exchange a coat for a chair or for 100 eggs, then I can also exchange 100 eggs for a chair. Here, Heinrich’s relational understanding of value is clear: value is not produced by the act of exchange itself, but arises from the fact of exchangeability.

2.交换的扩展决定了价值是一种关系。“在交换作为孤立现象的情况下，可能会产生各种数量的交换关系：我可以在某个地方用一把椅子换两张亚麻布，或者在另一个地方换三张亚麻布等等。但是，如果交换成为商品流通的规定形式，那么各个交换关系都必须以某种标准进行匹配。”换言之，如果我能用一件外套换一把椅子或100个鸡蛋，那么也可以用100个鸡蛋换一把椅子。在这里，海因里希对价值的关系性理解是明确的：价值不是由交换行为本身产生的，而是来自可交换性的事实。

3. The magnitude of value is determined by socially necessary labor time. Socially necessary labor time represents the generalization of the labor time required to produce a specific use value, and the formation of this standard depends on the degree of prevalence of production conditions.

3.价值量是由社会必要劳动时间决定的。社会必要劳动时间代表的是生产特定使用价值所需劳动时间的一般化，这个标准的形成有赖于生产条件的普及程度。

In the concept of the universal equivalent, through his interpretation of Marx’s thought, Heinrich elucidates the difference between his position and Sohn-Rethel’s psychological logic of value, and establishes his anti-substantialist stance. Heinrich argues: “The magnitude of a commodity’s value is not merely the relationship between the individual labor of the producer and the product (this is what the ‘substantialist’ conception of value means), but rather the relationship between the individual labor of the producer and the total social labor.” Furthermore, the relationship between individual labor and the totality of social labor is constructed by exchange through the form of money. Broadly speaking, Heinrich’s relational interpretation of the abstract and concrete dimensions of value echoes Marx’s assertion in *Capital*: “In the value relation and the value expression contained in it, it is not that the abstract universal is taken as an attribute of the concrete, sensibly real thing; on the contrary, the sensibly concrete thing is taken as merely the form of appearance or a determinate form of realization of the abstract universal.”

在一般等价物的概念上，通过对马克思思想的解读，海因里希阐明了其与索恩-雷特尔价值心理逻辑的不同，并且确立了他的反实体主义立场。海因里希认为：“商品的价值大小不仅仅是生产者的个别劳动与产品之间的关系（这就是‘实体主义’价值观的含义），而是生产者的个别劳动与整个社会劳动之间的关系。”此外，个别劳动与社会劳动整体之间的关系是交换借由货币形式建构起来的。大体上讲，海因里希对价值的抽象维度和具体维度的关系性解读与马克思在《资本论》中的断言相呼应：“在价值关系及其所包含的价值表现中，并不是抽象的一般的东西被当做具体的、可感觉的现实的东西的属性，而是相反，可感觉的具体的东西被当做只是抽象的一般的东西的表现形式或一定的实现形式。”

We can think about the problem of value and exchange from the perspective of potentiality. Trenkle’s critique of Heinrich is confined to a dichotomous understanding of exchange: either something has potential value (not yet entered the sphere of exchange) or it has actual value (already entered the sphere of exchange). This article argues that this is a simplification of philosophical methodology. Aristotle once pointed out that there are two forms of potentiality, or potency: the first form is the capacity to produce change; the second form refers to the possibility of existing in a more fully developed state. In this sense, potentiality is not only what can become actual, but is also a mode of being, even if it may not be realized. Potentiality (value linked to the material entity) and actuality (value linked to the commodity in a broad sense) are not only separable in the temporal dimension—i.e., potential value needs to be realized in exchange—but can also exist simultaneously. For example, an architect possesses the capacity to build, whether or not he is currently exercising that capacity. All matter (such as wood) harbors an irreducible potential form (e.g., as a table, an oar, a bowl), and commodities likewise always retain their potential value. As Heinrich states, value can be regarded as the potential essence of an unexchanged commodity. Therefore, linking value to exchange does not mean that production becomes an independent, pre-capitalist sphere. Both production and exchange are uniformly subsumed under the overall relations of capitalism. Within this, the potentiality and actuality of labor and capital are uniformly regulated.

我们可以从潜在性出发来思考价值与交换的问题。特伦克尔对海因里希的批判囿于对交换的二分理解：要么某物具有潜在价值（尚未进入交换领域），要么具有实际价值（已进入交换领域）。本文认为，这是对哲学方法论的简化。亚里士多德曾经指出，存在两种形式的潜在性，或者说潜力：第一种形式是产生变化的能力；第二种形式是指以更充分发展的状态存续的可能性。从这个意义上说，潜在性不仅是可能成为现实的事物，它同样是一种存在的方式，即便可能无法实现。潜在性（价值与物质实体联系在一起）与现实性（价值与广义的商品联系在一起）不仅在时间维度上是可分的，即潜在价值需要在交换中得到实现，而且是可以同时存在的。例如，一个建筑师拥有建造的能力，无论他是否正在展现这种能力。所有的物质（譬如木材）都蕴藏着一种不可归约的潜在形态（比如作为桌子、桨、碗等），而商品也始终保有其潜在价值。正如海因里希所言，价值可以被视为未交换商品的潜在本质。因此，将价值与交换联系在一起并不意味着生产成为了一个独立的、前资本主义的领域。无论是生产还是交换，它们都共同统摄于资本主义的总体关系之下。在其中，劳动和资本的潜在性与现实性都得到了统一的调节。

(II) Production, Circulation, and Exchange

（二）生产、流通与交换

With regard to capitalism as a whole, although production, circulation, and exchange play different roles in the activity of value creation, these links are interconnected. This can be illustrated through two pairs of relations: first, the distinction between fixed capital and circulating capital; second, the difference between the sphere of production and the sphere of circulation.

就资本主义整体而言，尽管生产、流通和交换在价值创造活动中的作用不尽相同，但这些环节是共通的。这一点可以通过两对关系加以说明：一是固定资本与流动资本之间的区别；二是生产领域与流通领域之间的差异。

The distinction between fixed capital and circulating capital can be defined according to the manner in which value circulates within them. Circulating capital includes the raw materials and fuel used in production, which must be replaced in every production cycle. Fixed capital includes the value of factory buildings and machinery, which is gradually transferred to the product over multiple production cycles; although machines and buildings also need to be replaced after wear and tear, this does not occur quickly.

固定资本与流动资本之间的区别可以根据价值在其中的流通情况进行界定。流动资本包括生产中使用的原料和燃料，它们在每个生产周期都必须被替换。而固定资本包括厂房及其机器的价值，会在多个生产周期内逐渐转移到产品上，虽然机器和厂房在磨损后也需要被替换，但是这种情况并不会很快发生。

As a necessary link in the circuit of capital, the distinction between production and circulation can be illustrated through M-C-M′. In the first stage (M-C), money capital is exchanged for commodities. Here, the materiality of the purchased commodities is crucial. For a merchant, he is willing to buy any product that can be sold at a higher price. For a capitalist, however, what he buys are specific types of commodities: means of production and labor power. That is, the function of the capitalist is to transform money into productive capital.

作为资本循环的必要环节，生产与流通之间的区别可以通过M-C-M′加以说明。在第一阶段（M-C），货币资本被换成商品。其中，至关重要的是所购买商品的物质性。对于商人来说，他愿意购买任何可以以更高价格出售的产品。而就资本家而言，他所购买的是特定类型的商品：生产资料和劳动力。也就是说，资本家的功能是将货币转化为生产资本。

In the second stage, the productive capital obtained through the first stage is consumed in the production of new commodities. As a form of capital valorization, this new set of commodities differs from the previous one in both quality and quantity. It differs in quality because it transforms productive capital into commodity capital; it differs in quantity because the value of the commodity capital is higher than that of the productive capital.

在第二阶段，通过第一阶段获得的生产资本在生产新商品的过程中得到消耗。作为资本增殖的一种形式，这组新商品在质量和数量上都与从前不同。在质量上不同，是因为它将生产资本转化为商品资本；而在数量上不同，是因为商品资本的价值比生产资本要高。

In the third stage (C-M′), the capitalist re-enters the market, converting part of the commodity capital back into money capital. At that point, the valorized money capital enables the capitalist to accomplish two things: first, to replace the productive capital consumed in the first stage; second, to retain the difference between M (the initially invested money capital) and M′ (the money capital existing in valorized form) as profit.

在第三阶段（C-M′），资本家重新进入市场，将部分商品资本转化回货币资本。届时，增殖后的货币资本使资本家完成两件事：一是替换第一阶段中消耗的生产资本；二是保留M（最初投入的货币资本）与M′（以增殖形式存在的货币资本）之间的差额作为利润。

The capitalist’s goal is to maximize profit by organizing the three stages of the circuit of capital. From their perspective, the first and third stages constitute the sphere of circulation, while the second stage constitutes the sphere of production. However, from the perspective of the totality of capital, these three stages are undifferentiated; they are unified under the goal of creating surplus value. As Marx states: “Industrial capital is the only mode of existence of capital in which the function of capital is not only the appropriation of surplus value or surplus product, but also simultaneously its creation. Therefore, industrial capital determines the capitalist character of production; the existence of industrial capital entails the existence of the class antagonism between capitalists and wage-laborers. As industrial capital comes to dominate social production, the technology and social organization of the labor process undergo transformation, and thereby the socio-economic historical type of society is also transformed.” [2]2 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 2, Chapter 1, Section 1. The English translation follows the standard edition.

资本家的目标是通过组织资本循环的三个阶段使利润最大化。从他们的角度来看，第一和第三阶段构成了流通领域，第二阶段则组成了生产领域。然而，从资本整体性的角度看，这三个阶段是没有差别的，它们统一在创造剩余价值的目标之下。正如马克思所言：“产业资本是惟一的这样一种资本存在方式，在这种存在方式中，资本的职能不仅是占有剩余价值或剩余产品，而且同时是创造剩余价值或剩余产品。因此，产业资本决定了生产的资本主义性质；产业资本的存在，包含着资本家和雇佣工人之间的阶级对立的存在。随着产业资本支配社会的生产，技术和劳动过程的社会组织就会发生变革，从而社会的经济历史类型也会发生变革。”

In other words, production cannot be understood as an isolated sphere. Production activities and their technical and social conditions are continuously revolutionized within the valorization process that encompasses both production and circulation. Since the “logistics revolution” occurred, the transformed form of capital accumulation has further strengthened the connection between production and circulation. For example, Fordism simplified production itself, while the Toyota model (“just-in-time” production) increased circulation efficiency. The boundary between production and circulation becomes increasingly blurred; indeed, factory products are already ordered to some extent. To a certain degree, by utilizing emerging logistics technologies such as containerization, “just-in-time” can minimize inventory levels, thereby eliminating the spatiotemporal boundary between production and exchange. Regarding the three stages of the circuit of capital, the two stages belonging to the sphere of circulation can already be completed before the production stage.

换言之，生产不能被理解为一个孤立的领域。生产活动及其技术和社会条件均在包含生产和流通的增殖过程中不断地革新。自“物流革命”发生以来，变革后的资本积累形式进一步加强了生产与流通之间的联系。例如，福特主义简化了生产本身，丰田模式（“准时制”生产）提高了流通效率。生产与流通之间的界线愈发模糊，甚至工厂的产品都是已经被订购的。从一定程度上讲，利用集装箱化等新兴物流技术，“准时制”能够将存货量降到最低，从而消除生产与交换之间的时空界线。就资本循环的三个阶段来说，属于流通领域的两个阶段已经能够在生产阶段之前完成。

The platform capitalism that has emerged in the past two years has further shed its reliance on fixed capital, and this type of business model has even established new forms of employment relations. As Tom Goodwin states: “The world’s largest taxi company, Uber, owns no vehicles. The world’s most popular social media site, Facebook, itself never creates any content. The most competitive retailer, Alibaba, carries no inventory. The globally renowned accommodation provider, Airbnb, owns no property.” [3]3 Tom Goodwin, “The Battle Is for the Customer Interface,” TechCrunch, March 3, 2015. With regard to wage labor, there is a clear boundary between production and circulation, because capitalists adjust their hiring strategies based on changes in demand, and the network economy model is erasing this boundary. It goes without saying that the platform’s “independent contractors” are entirely dependent on market fluctuations, and their situation is perpetually unstable.

近两年出现的平台资本主义进一步摆脱了对固定资本的依赖，这类业务模式更是建立了新型的雇佣关系。正如汤姆·古德温（Tom Goodwin）所言：“作为世界上最大的出租车公司，优步不拥有任何车辆。作为世界上最受欢迎的社交网站，脸书平台本身从不创建任何内容。作为最具竞争力的零售商，阿里巴巴甚至没有任何库存。作为全球知名的住宿提供商，爱彼迎没有任何一处房产。”就雇佣劳动而言，生产与流通之间存在着明显的界线，因为资本家要根据需求的变化调整雇佣策略，而网络经济模式正在抹除这种界线。不言而喻，平台的“独立承包商”完全依赖市场变化，他们的处境时刻处于不稳定状态。

Networked development seems to confirm that the relationship between production, circulation, and exchange is undergoing a qualitative change. As Jasper Bernes states: “The logistics revolution maps onto the transformation of capitalism, and the development of digital and platform capitalism is converting all fixed capital into circulating capital, which is more in line with the pure form of capital movement—money.” [4]4 Jasper Bernes, “Logistics, Counterlogistics, and the Communist Prospect,” *Endnotes* 3 (2013): 172.

网络化发展似乎证实了生产、流通与交换之间的关系正在发生质变。正如贾斯珀·伯内斯所言：“物流革命映射了资本主义的转型，数字和平台资本主义的发展正在将所有的固定资本转化为流动资本，这更符合纯粹的资本流动形式——货币。”

To illustrate this point, we can further distinguish between two types of circulation costs. Transportation companies generate circulation costs by delivering goods to consumers, but this activity of moving products increases the value of the commodity. However, the platform services provided by network companies like Airbnb and Uber do not add value to the commodity; their positioning is closer to that of a cashier facilitating product exchange rather than a capitalist. Therefore, their circulation costs should be defined as pure circulation expenses. [5]5 Pure circulation expenses refer to costs that do not add value to the commodity, such as bookkeeping or advertising, as distinct from productive circulation costs like transport.

为了说明这一点，我们可以对流通成本的两种类型作进一步的区分。运输公司通过将商品带给消费者产生了流通成本，但是这种运送产品的活动会增加商品价值。然而，以爱彼迎和优步为代表的网络公司所提供的平台服务并不会附加商品价值，它们的定位更接近促进产品交换的收银员，而不是资本家，因此它们的流通成本应该被定义为纯粹流通费用。

Joshua Clover once pointed out that the transformation of the sphere of circulation, and even the shift in accumulation cycles, reflects the collapse of value production at the core of the world system, and it is for this reason that capital’s center of gravity is shifting toward the sphere of circulation. [6]6 Joshua Clover, *Riot. Strike. Riot: The New Era of Uprisings* (London: Verso, 2016), p. 45. This change may help explain the rapid rise of various network companies after the 2008 global financial crisis; these companies also profited handsomely during the COVID-19 pandemic by promoting online shopping, and their successful model is forming a long-term mechanism. Furthermore, these companies also reconfigure existing service industries (such as taxis, hotels, news media, and retail stores) by exploiting vulnerable groups (and deliberately expanding their scale). However, this practice does not create new value.

乔舒亚·克洛弗曾经指出,流通领域的变革乃至积累周期的转变反映了世界体系核心的价值生产的崩溃,也正是出于这个原因，资本的重心正在向流通领域转移。这种变化可能有助于解释各类网络公司在2008年全球金融危机后迅速崛起的原因，这些公司在新冠疫情中通过促进在线购物同样获利颇丰，它们的成功模式正在形成一种长效机制。此外，这些公司还通过剥削弱势群体（并有意扩大其规模），重新配置现有的服务业（如出租车、酒店、新闻媒体和零售商店）。然而，这种做法并不能创造新价值。

(III) Value, Substance, and Crisis

（三）价值、实体与危机

The new changes in capitalism confirm Marx’s prediction, which is also the core of Kurz’s theory: that the application of science and technology will gradually replace human labor in certain spheres of production. This change is not accidental but irreversible. Capitalism’s ever-expanding competition catalyzes new forms of surplus value creation and exploitation, built on a foundation of technological rationalization. In a historical sense, the logistics revolution is not just an innovative business strategy but a solution to overcome the tendency of the rate of profit to fall.

资本主义的新变化验证了马克思的预判，这同时也是库尔茨理论的核心，即科学技术的应用会在某些生产领域逐步取代人的劳动。这种变化不是偶然的，而且是不可逆转的。资本主义不断扩大的竞争催化了全新的剩余价值创造和剥削形式，它建立在一种技术合理化的基础之上。从历史意义上讲，物流革命不只是创新的商业战略，更是一种克服平均利润率下降的方案。

Overall, the development of just-in-time and platform capitalism provides a new focus for the debate between substantialist and non-substantialist theories of value. In Kurz’s view, extracting labor from the production process necessarily leads to a reduction in value, which is precisely the signal of capitalism’s ultimate crisis. While Heinrich agrees with the view that capital is comprehensively excluding labor from production, he does not believe that this change necessarily leads to an ultimate crisis. In Heinrich’s view, capital’s separation from the material basis on which it depends is not an insoluble problem. In his words, “For the capitalist, what matters is not the absolute value of the commodity, but the surplus value (or profit) that this commodity brings him. As long as relative surplus labor continues to increase, a reduction in the production time of the commodity and its total value is acceptable.” [7]7 Michael Heinrich, *An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx’s Capital*, trans. Alexander Locascio (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2012), p. 152. Therefore, Heinrich believes that it is currently impossible to prove that capitalism will reach its limit.

整体而论，准时制和平台资本主义的发展为实体主义与非实体主义的价值论争辩提供了新的焦点。在库尔茨看来，将劳动从生产过程中抽离出来必然导致价值的缩减，这正是资本主义终极危机的信号。虽然海因里希赞同资本正在全面将劳动从生产中排除的观点，但是他并不认为这种变化必然会导致终极危机的出现。在海因里希看来，资本使自身与其赖以存在的物质基础相分离并不是一个无解的隐患。用他的话来讲，“对于资本家来说，重要的不是商品的绝对价值，而是这种商品带给他的剩余价值（或利润）。只要相对剩余劳动保持增加，商品的生产时间及其价值总量的减少是可以接受的”。因此，海因里希认为，目前还无法证明资本主义将到达极限。

Although Kurz and Heinrich examine capitalism starting from the same fact, they arrive at opposing conclusions. Based on the analysis above, we can find that their opposition stems from different understandings of the concept of value; whether the ultimate crisis can be confirmed depends on whether value is understood as a material substance or as a relation. If, like Kurz, value is understood as a material substance congealed from labor, then when labor is excluded from production, the value of the commodity approaches zero. Further, market competition depends on the continuous improvement of productive forces, which requires replacing human labor through technological means. As labor diminishes, value is increasingly lost, until social labor is reduced to the limit, the value of commodities becomes incalculable, and capitalism reaches its end. Whether value is regarded as a material substance is crucial for judging the ultimate crisis. Although Kurz once defined value as a “negative substance,” he was still emphasizing the material attribute of value. And if value is defined as a substance that can be absolutely quantified within the commodity, then the exclusion of labor would cause value to physically disappear. On the one hand, capital establishes labor time as the sole measure and source of value and wealth; on the other hand, capital constantly attempts to reduce labor time to a minimum. Marx deconstructed this riddle of capital in his critique of political economy, but the real contradiction still exists. Systematically speaking, the logic of capital is both the fundamental principle that relative surplus value production must follow and a historical limit to the production of surplus value.

尽管库尔茨和海因里希从同一个事实出发对资本主义进行考察，但是他们得出了对立的结论。根据前文的分析，我们可以发现，他们的对立源于对价值概念的不同理解，终极危机是否能被确证取决于价值究竟被理解为物质实体还是一种关系。如果像库尔茨一样将价值理解为由劳动凝结而成的物质实体，那么当劳动被生产所排斥时，商品的价值就会趋近于零。进一步讲，市场竞争有赖于生产力的持续提高，而这需要通过科技手段替代人类劳动来实现。劳动愈益减少，价值不断丧失，直到社会劳动减至极限，商品的价值将无从估量，资本主义也就走到了尽头。是否将价值视为一种物质实体对于研判终极危机是极为关键的。尽管库尔茨曾经把价值定义为一种“负面实体”（negative substance），但他依然是在强调价值的物质属性。而如果价值被定义为商品内部可以被绝对量化的物质，那么对劳动的排斥就会使价值在物理意义上消失。一方面，资本将劳动时间确定为价值和财富的唯一尺度和来源；另一方面，资本又一直尝试将劳动时间缩减到最低限度。马克思在政治经济学批判中解构了资本的这个谜团，但是现实的矛盾依然存在。系统地讲，资本逻辑既是相对剩余价值生产需要遵循的根本原则，又是生产剩余价值的一种历史性限制。

However, if value is constituted by the sum total of abstract relations among commodities, then the substitution of labour by machinery is no longer an absolute limit but can be understood as a tendency that reconfigures and sustains value relations. Within Heinrich’s theoretical framework, the exclusion of human labour from production is merely a tendency that can induce crisis. Changes in the relations among production, circulation, and exchange do reshape the process of value constitution, but value as a relative magnitude is not thereby abolished.

然而，如果价值是由商品之间的抽象关系总和构成的，那么机器替代劳动就不再是绝对的限制，而可以被理解为一种重新配置和维持价值关系的趋势。在海因里希的理论框架中，人的劳动被从生产中排除只是一种可能诱发危机的趋势。生产、流通与交换之间的关系变化确实重塑了价值的构成过程，但是作为相对量的价值并不会因此而丧失。

II The Politics of Crisis

二 危机政治学

To further interpret the debate between Kurz and Heinrich, we need to revisit Marxist crisis theory. In the view of Marx and Engels, capitalist crises are not only cyclical but also have cumulative long-term effects.

为了进一步解读库尔茨与海因里希的争论，我们需要回溯马克思主义危机理论。在马克思恩格斯看来，资本主义危机不仅是周期性的，而且具有累积性的长期影响。

In the *Communist Manifesto* they point out: “And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand by the enforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented.” For Marx and Engels, the economic crisis of 1847–1848 and the subsequent revolutions proved to a certain extent that the cumulative effect of capitalist crises was inevitable. In his 1850 article “The English Ten Hours’ Bill,” Engels wrote that the English industrialists “are rapidly approaching a period when their means of relief will be exhausted, when the period of prosperity that now still intervenes between one crisis and the next will disappear entirely under the pressure of overgrown productive forces,” and “then the proletarian revolution will be inevitable, and its victory will be beyond doubt.” In a letter to Marx in 1857, Engels again remarked: “Since the New York crash I have not been able to be quiet in Jersey, and in this general collapse I feel quite cheerful. For the last seven years, the filth of the bourgeoisie has stuck to me a little; now it is washed off, and I am another man. The crisis will do me as much good as a sea bath, and I already feel that.”

他们在《共产党宣言》中指出：“资产阶级用什么办法来克服这种危机呢？一方面不得不消灭大量生产力，另一方面夺取新的市场，更加彻底地利用旧的市场。这究竟是怎样的一种办法呢？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。”对于马克思恩格斯来说，1847至1848年的经济危机及其后续的革命在一定程度上证明了资本主义危机的累积效应是不可避免的。恩格斯在1850年发表的《英国的十小时工作日法》一文中写道，英国工业家“正迅速地走向这样的时期，那时，他们的补救手段将会用尽，现在还处于一次危机和下次危机之间的繁荣时期在过分增长的生产力的高压下将完全消失”，“那时无产阶级革命将是不可避免的，而且革命的胜利也是毫无疑问的”。在1857年写给马克思的信中，恩格斯再次谈到：“自从纽约的投机崩溃以来，我在泽稷再也不能安静，而在这普遍崩溃的情况下，我感到非常愉快。最近七年来，资产阶级的污秽毕竟多少沾了一些在我身上；现在，这些污秽被冲洗掉了，我又变成另一个人了。危机将象海水浴一样对我的身体有好处，我现在已经感觉到这一点了。”

Beyond the above, Marx in the *Grundrisse* (1857–1858) seems to retain a prognosis of ultimate crisis and provides it with a more solid philosophical foundation. In the so-called “Fragment on Machines,” he points out that automation brought about by the application of science replaces “direct labour,” thereby undermining the source of wealth. Further, “As soon as labour in the direct form has ceased to be the great well-spring of wealth, labour time ceases and must cease to be its measure, and hence exchange value [must cease to be the measure] of use value. The surplus labour of the mass has ceased to be the condition for the development of general wealth, just as the non-labour of the few has ceased to be the condition for the development of the general powers of the human head. Consequently, production based on exchange value breaks down.” Here Marx predicts the collapse of the capitalist mode of production, and the *Grundrisse* thereby becomes the textual basis for Marx’s hypothesis of ultimate crisis. However, capitalism after 1858 did not collapse as Marx and Engels predicted, nor did political revolution erupt. On the contrary, capital revived and expanded rapidly, and capitalists found new forms of creating surplus value. In his later *Capital* and its manuscripts, Marx revisited the concept of crisis, but he still did not clarify the relationship between crisis and the collapse of capital. Even in the *Theories of Surplus Value* (1861–1863), Marx noted: “World market crises must be regarded as the real concentration and forcible adjustment of all the contradictions of bourgeois economy.” This formulation echoes the argument of Marx’s earlier texts, such as the assertion in the *Communist Manifesto* that commercial crises “in the periodic repetition … threaten the existence of the entire bourgeois society.” Even so, Marx did not explicitly link the “concentration” and “adjustment” of contradictions with permanent collapse.

除了以上的内容，马克思在《政治经济学批判（1857—1858年手稿）》中似乎保留了关于终极危机的预判，并为其塑造了更加坚实的哲学基础。他曾经在“机器论片段”中指出，科学应用带来的自动化取代了“直接劳动”，从而破坏了财富的来源。进一步讲，“一旦直接形式的劳动不再是财富的巨大源泉，劳动时间就不再是，而且必然不再是财富的尺度，因而交换价值也不再是使用价值的尺度。群众的剩余劳动不再是一般财富发展的条件，同样，少数人的非劳动不再是人类头脑的一般能力发展的条件。于是，以交换价值为基础的生产便会崩溃”。在这里，马克思预判了资本主义生产方式的崩溃，《政治经济学批判（1857—1858年手稿）》也由此成为马克思终极危机假说的文本依据。然而，1858年之后的资本主义并没有如马克思恩格斯预测的那般崩溃，也没有爆发政治革命。相反，资本再次复苏并迅速扩张，资本家们找到了创造剩余价值的新形式。马克思在后来的《资本论》及其手稿中曾经重提危机概念，但是他依然没有阐明危机与资本崩溃之间的关系。包括在《政治经济学批判（1861—1863年手稿）》中，马克思也曾指出：“世界市场危机必须看做是资产阶级经济一切矛盾的现实的综合和暴力方式的平衡。”这种表述呼应了马克思早期文本的论点，譬如《共产党宣言》中商业危机“在周期性的重复中越来越危及整个资产阶级社会生存”的断言。即便如此，马克思并没有明确地将矛盾的“综合”和“平衡”与永久性崩溃联系在一起。

In Peter Osborne’s view, Marx’s understanding of crisis is multifaceted. “On the one hand, his theory of crisis is a critique of political economy directed at capitalist production; but on the other hand, the crisis he speaks of has political implications, embodying the logic of social revolution that transcends the historical process of capitalism.” In a sense, crisis theory can be divided into two types: one concerns how to overcome capitalism’s own limits; the other concerns how to realize the transformation of the capitalist mode of production. Among these, the political dimension is the focus of debate among Marxist scholars. Osborne argues: “Interpreting crisis from the political dimension is a logical continuation of both types of crisis theory. In dealing with cyclical crises, the revolution in the mode of production also involves certain changes at the political level.”

在彼得·奥斯本看来，马克思对危机的认识是多方面的。“一方面，他的危机理论是针对资本主义生产的一种政治经济学批判；但是另一方面，他所谓的危机又具有政治意蕴，体现出超越资本主义历史进程的社会革命逻辑。”从某种意义上讲，危机理论可被划分为两种类型：一是关于如何克服自身极限的危机理论；二是关于如何实现资本主义生产方式变革的危机理论。其中，政治维度是马克思主义学者们争论的焦点。奥斯本认为：“从政治维度出发阐释危机是对两种类型危机理论的逻辑续接。在应对周期性危机的问题上，生产方式的革命也关系到一些政治层面的变化。”

Influenced by Hegelian dialectics (where the negation of the old itself constitutes a productive synthesis), crisis theory often contains a logic: the inherent cyclical crises of capitalism will not only end capitalism itself but also bring about a brighter post-capitalist future. This vision may be realized directly through the objective logic of history, or by activating the historical subjectivity of the proletariat—that is, uniting all proletarians exploited by capitalists to launch a revolution.

由于受到黑格尔辩证法的影响（对旧事物的否定本身构成了一种富有成效的综合），危机理论往往会存在这样一种逻辑：资本主义固有的周期性危机不仅会终结其自身，还会带来更光明的后资本主义未来。这种愿景可能会在历史的客观逻辑下直接实现，也可以通过激活无产阶级的历史主体性来实现，即联合所有被资本家剥削的无产者发动革命。

Broadly speaking, Kurz does not touch on the political dimension of crisis theory; he insists on examining capitalist crisis from the perspective of value-critique. According to Anselm Jappe’s summary, Kurz’s core argument is: “After two centuries of development, the capitalist mode of production has reached its historical limit. The rationalization and automation of production, including the substitution of labour by technology, has undermined the basis of value production. As the sole goal of the commodity economy, the foundation for producing surplus value is being eroded.” In Kurz’s view, because the innovation of the mode of production is mistakenly judged as a change external to the capitalist social formation, the contradiction of value production is concealed by superficial transformations. However, starting from the logic of value production, it can be argued that capitalism has entered an inevitable ultimate crisis.

大体上讲，库尔茨没有触及危机理论的政治维度，他坚持从价值批判出发考察资本主义的危机。根据安塞尔姆·雅普的总结，库尔茨的核心观点是：“经过两个世纪的发展，资本主义生产方式已经达到其历史极限。生产的合理化和自动化，包括技术对劳动的替代，破坏了价值生产的基础。作为商品经济的唯一目标，生产剩余价值的根基正在被瓦解。”在库尔茨看来，由于将生产方式的革新错误地判定为一种外在于资本主义社会形态的变化，价值生产的矛盾为表面的变革所掩盖。然而，从价值生产的逻辑出发可以论证资本主义已经进入不可避免的终极危机。

If value-critique is understood as a crisis theory based on the political dimension, then two points require further clarification. On the one hand, because labour is a form in which value relations are manifested, political activities centred on labourers (such as establishing trade unions, carrying out labour movements, implementing profit redistribution, etc.) often only reproduce the existing order. Moreover, as Kurz puts it, “since the process of individualization, as a manifestation of crisis, destroys the social filter, every atomized subject in society is from the outset linked to the global value chain.” In short, labour is a component of the current capitalist order, and political change cannot be achieved solely by relying on it. On the other hand, compared with political programmes based on labour, a concrete, historical value-critique is more conducive to promoting social development, because it can penetrate to the core of social contradictions and thus identify the crux of the problem. As Trenkle states: “Marx never attempted to propose a theory demonstrating the effectiveness of economic policy. On the contrary, what concerned him was proving that a value-based society contains irrational internal contradictions and a tendency that it will ultimately be unsustainable.” It is worth noting that Trenkle’s interpretation overlooks some important issues. What Marx focused on in his works was not the contradictory relationship between “economic critique” and “economic policy,” but rather the relationship between the critique of political economy and social revolution.

如果基于政治维度将价值批判理解为一种危机理论，那么有两点内容需要进一步说明。一方面，因为劳动是展现价值关系的一种形式，所以以劳动者为主体的政治活动（如建立工会组织、开展劳工运动、实施利润再分配等）往往只能复制现行秩序。除此以外，如库尔茨所言，“由于个体化进程作为危机的一种表现会破坏社会过滤器，社会上每一个原子化的主体都会在一开始就与全球价值链关联起来”。总而言之，劳动是当前资本主义秩序的一个组成部分，政治变革无法仅仅依托它来实现。另一方面，与基于劳动的政治纲领相比，具体的、历史的价值批判更有助于推动社会发展，因为它能深入社会矛盾的核心，进而找到问题的关键。正如特伦克尔所言：“马克思从未试图提出一种论证经济政策有效性的理论。相反，他所关心的是证明一个以价值为基础的社会存在非理性的内在矛盾，以及这个社会终将难以维系的趋向。”值得注意的是，特伦克尔的解读忽略了一些重要的问题。马克思在其著作中所关注的并不是“经济批判”与“经济政策”之间的矛盾关系，而是政治经济学批判与社会革命之间的关系。

In Kurz’s view, these two points should be understood within the framework of historical materialism. “According to analytical argumentation, the commodity-economy-dominated capitalism and bourgeoisification initially emerged in feudal society in embryonic form, and subsequently capitalism underwent a long process of development under conditions where feudal forces still held sway.” And he believes that the node between the critical concept of crisis and the political concept of socioeconomic transformation does not lie in seizing power through revolution. On this, Kurz points out: “The emergence of capitalism did not begin with a political revolution (such as the French Revolution), but much earlier. In fact, capitalism only proved itself to be a class-conscious force after a long process of development, with its own intentions and purposes regarding the question of political power.”

在库尔茨看来，这两点内容应该被置于历史唯物主义的框架内进行理解。“根据分析论证，由商品经济主导的资本主义和资产阶级化最初是在封建社会中以胚芽的形式出现的，随后，资本主义在封建势力依然占据支配地位的条件下经历了漫长的发展过程。”并且他认为，危机的批判性概念与社会经济转型的政治概念之间的节点不在于用革命夺取权力。对此，库尔茨指出：“资本主义的出现并不是肇始于政治革命（例如法国大革命），而是在更早之前。事实上，资本主义是在经历了漫长的发展过程之后才被证明是有阶级意识的力量，对于政治权力的问题有着自己的意图和目的。”

In other words, political revolution is not the starting point but an endpoint; it cannot give birth to an entirely new social concept, but can only reveal the already established new social form by smashing the “shell” of the old society. In Kurz’s words, “The supersession of reproduction under the commodity form is not a technical and organizational matter to be dealt with more or less after the (political and legal) ‘expropriation’ of the capitalists, but the supersession of all relations and social ideologies constituted by value or by the ‘value split’ between the sexes.” In short, social revolution is not a re-planning of politics and economics, but demands a critical separation from capitalist relations and their ideology in their entirety. On the one hand, a political program based on the unique advantages of the existing society will only reproduce that society, not transform it; on the other hand, a critical theory of crisis helps to uncover new social factors in the process of stripping away the characteristics of the old society. Overall, no ontological principle points to a scientific path of social liberation; only through a concrete, historical critique of capitalism can the transcendence of the capitalist social formation be achieved.

换句话讲，政治革命并不是起点，而是一个终点，它无法孕育一种全新的社会理念，而只能通过打碎旧社会的“外壳”来揭示已经建立起来的新社会形式。用库尔茨的话来说，“商品形式下对再生产的取代，不是(在政治上和法律上)对资本家的‘剥夺’之后或多或少要进行的技术和组织事务，而是对由价值或由两性之间的‘价值分裂’构成的所有关系和社会意识形态的取代”。简而言之，社会革命并不是对政治和经济进行重新规划，而是要求彻底与资本主义关系及其意识形态完成批判性的分离。一方面，以现存社会的独特优势为基础的政治纲领只会再现而不是变革这个社会；另一方面，批判性的危机理论有助于在剥离旧社会特质的过程中发掘新社会因素。总体上讲，任何本体论原则都没有指明社会解放的科学路径，只有通过具体的、历史的资本主义批判才能实现对资本主义社会形态的超越。

III. The Historicity of “Crisis”

三 “危机”的历史性

Objectively speaking, Kurz’s theory of transcending capitalism through “concrete, historical critique” has clear limitations. Specifically, to arrive at the conclusion of capitalism’s ultimate crisis through value critique, it is insufficient to merely conduct academic research on current crisis dynamics; value critique also needs to grasp future crisis tendencies. Predicting crisis tendencies is not only the research goal of Kurz and other value-critique scholars but also the core content of modern crisis theory.

客观上讲，库尔茨关于通过“具体的、历史的批判”超越资本主义的理论具有明显的局限性。具体而言，为了通过价值批判得出资本主义终极危机的结论，只对当前的危机动态进行学理研究是不够的，价值批判还需要把握未来的危机趋向。预测危机趋向不仅是库尔茨及其他价值批判学者的研究目标，也是现代危机理论的核心内容。

(1) The Historical Origins of the Concept of Crisis

（一）危机概念的历史渊源

Like any other concept, “crisis” is also a historical concept. According to the conceptual genealogy compiled by Reinhart Koselleck, from the end of the 18th century onward, “crisis” emerged as a term for defining historical periods. Just as a defining symbol is used to characterize a certain situation, calling a certain stage a “crisis” is meant to highlight the abnormal conditions of that historical period. However, to conceptually define an abnormal stage, it is also necessary to determine the normal form relative to the abnormal form. In other words, when the concept of “crisis” is generated, the concept of “non-crisis” simultaneously appears. The distinction between the two may be synchronic or diachronic. In any case, their logic is to determine crisis outside of crisis.

与其他任何概念一样，“危机”也是一个历史性的概念。根据莱因哈德·科泽莱克（Reinhardt Koselleck）整理的概念谱系，从18世纪末开始，“危机”作为界定历史分期的术语而出现。正如用标志性符号定义某种情境，将某个阶段称为“危机”是为了突出该历史时期的异常情况。但是，如果要从概念上界定某个异常阶段，还需要确定相对于异常形态的正常形态。换句话说，当“危机”概念生成时，也就同时出现了“非危机”概念。两者的区别可能是共时性的，也可能是历时性的。无论如何，它们的逻辑都是在危机之外确定危机。

In Janet Roitman’s view, a new type of historical consciousness can be generated around crisis. “For this historical consciousness, crisis is the measure of history. Crisis implies change, to the extent that crisis becomes part of history, even referring to ‘history’ itself. Thus, crisis becomes a concept of the philosophy of history; it begins to be used as a yardstick for locating, recognizing, understanding, and even judging history.” In short, crisis can be used both to name events or processes occurring in history and is itself a construction of history. Crisis is not only a yardstick for locating history; it also makes history transcend the primary definition of “past events.” Furthermore, the separable historicity that crisis exhibits and its existence as a historical concept are both related to the ideological liberation of the Enlightenment. At that time, the progressive bourgeoisie put forward a dual conception of the concept of crisis. By presupposing a concept of crisis closely linked to the development of social history, the bourgeoisie was able to judge the state of development in various fields. In other words, the bourgeois revolution was the result of the coupling of crisis and critique.

在珍妮特·罗伊特曼看来，围绕危机可以生成一种新型历史意识。“对于这种历史意识来说，危机是衡量历史的标准。危机意味着变化，以至于危机成为历史的一部分，甚至指代‘历史’本身。由此，危机成为历史哲学的概念，它开始被作为定位、认识、理解甚至研判历史的标尺。”总之，危机既可以被用来命名在历史中发生的事件或过程，它本身也是一种对历史的建构。危机不仅是定位历史的标尺，它还使历史超越了“过去事件”的初级定义。此外，危机所表现出来的可分离的历史性及其作为一个历史概念的存在，都与启蒙运动的思想解放有关。彼时，进步的资产阶级提出了关于危机概念的双重构想。通过预先设定一个与社会历史发展紧密相关的危机概念，资产阶级得以判定各个领域的发展情况。换言之，资产阶级革命是危机与批判耦合的结果。

Today, we can capture the “normal/abnormal” logic surrounding crisis in various fields. During the COVID-19 pandemic, people often spoke of “returning to normal.” Furthermore, scientists examining the climate crisis also use terms like “normal” to describe current atmospheric levels. The distinction between “normal” and “abnormal” is not merely descriptive but also prescriptive, indicating what characteristics reality possesses under normal circumstances. Therefore, the emergence of the concept of crisis prompts us to pursue a “normal” development model and brings with it the warning that abnormal development will ultimately face historical judgment. Since then, crisis has become one of the core discourses of the modern state.

如今，我们可以在各个领域捕捉到围绕危机展开的“正常/异常”逻辑。在新冠疫情期间，人们总是会提到要“回归正常”。此外，科学家们在考察气候危机时也会使用“正常”之类的话语来描述当前的大气水平。关于“正常”与“异常”的区分不仅是描述性的，还表现为某种规定，即正常情况下的现实具有怎样的特征。因此，危机概念的出现促使我们追求“正常”的发展模式，并且带来了畸形发展终将遭受历史审判的警示。自此，危机已然成为现代国家的核心话语之一。

Tracing the conceptual history of crisis helps to understand the uniqueness of Marx’s concept of crisis. When Marx elucidated that crisis is an inherent feature of capitalism, he not only proposed another definition of crisis but also changed the essence of the concept. Through the concept of crisis, Marx established an entirely new material dynamic, pioneeringly constructing a connection between synchronic differentiation (changes in the mode of production) and diachronic differentiation (changes in historical stages). In his system of thought, crisis is neither an event nor a state of affairs, but a dynamic process of rupture and regeneration. Thus, the concept of crisis began to be used to interpret history. By elucidating that crisis is an inherent feature of capitalism, Marx transformed “crisis” from a normative concept into a concept of historical science.

梳理危机概念史有助于理解马克思危机概念的独特性。当马克思阐明危机是资本主义的固有特征时，他不仅提出了另一种关于危机的定义，而且改变了这个概念的本质。透过危机概念，马克思确立了一种全新的物质动态，开创性地构建了共时性区分（生产方式变化）与历时性区分（历史阶段变化）之间的联系。在他的思想体系中，危机既不是事件也不是事物的状态，而是一种动态的断裂和再生过程。由此，危机概念开始被用来诠释历史。通过阐明危机是资本主义的固有特征，马克思使“危机”从规范性概念转变为历史科学概念。

Marx’s dialectical reshaping of the concept of crisis has two levels. First, Marx elucidates that crisis is the consequence of the true concentration and forced adjustment of capitalism’s inherent contradictions. The driving force of historical change is not external forces, but changes in the system’s internal contradictions. Second, crisis is seen as a transitional stage into the next historical period. For Kurz, the ultimate crisis of capitalism likewise manifests as a transitional form of historical development; the crisis of capitalist society and the rational critique that gave birth to it will also lead to its demise.

马克思对危机概念的辩证重塑具有两个层次。首先，马克思阐明了危机是资本主义内在矛盾真正集中和强制调整的后果。推动历史变革的动力并不是外部力量，而是系统内在的矛盾变化。其次，危机被看作是进入下一个历史时期的过渡阶段。对于库尔茨来说，资本主义的终极危机同样表现为历史发展的过渡形式，孕育了资本主义社会的危机和理性批判亦将致使其灭亡。

(2) The Argument for the Ultimate Crisis of Capitalism

（二）对资本主义终极危机的论证

Although Marx provided a theoretical paradigm for demonstrating the inherent crisis form of capitalism, constructing a new line of reasoning is necessary to argue that capitalism will inevitably move toward an ultimate crisis. Before arguing, we need to distinguish between the following two lines of thought: first, logically speaking, capitalism itself breeds the preconditions for the outbreak of an ultimate crisis; second, from the perspective of historical tendency, capitalism can no longer create new modes of valorization to reverse its collapse. The first line of thought is based on capital’s destruction of the source of value, following the fact of capitalism’s ever-expanding crisis. However, for the concept of ultimate crisis to hold, the key lies in the second line of thought, i.e., demonstrating the possibility of its future occurrence. Trenkle argues: “A crisis theory based on value critique… can provide academic and empirical evidence; it can confirm that no new long-term wave of accumulation will emerge, and that capitalism has irreversibly entered a barbaric era full of decline and disintegration.” Overall, arguing for the ultimate crisis of capitalism requires not only examining the conditions for the generation of this crisis but also proving that these conditions will persist in the future.

虽然马克思提供了论证资本主义固有危机形态的理论范式，但若要论证资本主义必然走向终极危机还需要建构新的思路。在论证之前，我们需要区分以下两种思路：一是从逻辑上讲，资本主义自身孕育了终极危机爆发的前提条件；二是从历史趋向上看，资本主义无法再创造新的增殖方式以扭转其崩溃局面。第一种思路基于资本对价值源泉的破坏，遵循了资本主义危机日益扩大的事实。然而，为了使终极危机的概念成立，关键还在于第二种思路，即论证其未来发生的可能性。特伦克尔认为：“基于价值批判的危机理论……可以提供学理和经验上的证据，它能够证实不会再出现新的长期积累的浪潮，资本主义已经无可挽回地步入了充斥着衰落和解体的蛮荒时代。”整体而论，对资本主义终极危机进行论证不仅要考察这种危机的生成条件，还要证明这些条件在未来会持续存在。

Specifically, there are two main lines of argument on the question of ultimate crisis. The first is to examine all variables that might affect ultimate crisis, which is difficult to achieve from the perspective of historical materialism. The second is to determine the future trend of ultimate crisis by establishing the decisive factors that have influenced crises in history. As Guglielmo Carchedi and Michael Roberts put it: "If we can prove that the same factors that determined the development of events in the past can continue to function in the future, then we can foresee the repetition of history." To this end, they borrow a basic physical analogy for illustration: when a stone is thrown, the reason we can accurately predict that it will inevitably fall to the ground is that we have inferred that the gravity that caused the stone to fall in the past can still play the same role in the future. In this sense, Marx's theory remains applicable when arguing about the future of ultimate crisis.

具体来讲，在终极危机这个问题上主要有两条论证路径。一是考察可能影响终极危机的所有变量，这在唯物史观的视域下是很难实现的。二是通过确立在历史上影响危机的决定性因素来判定终极危机的未来趋向。正如古列尔莫·卡尔凯迪和迈克尔·罗伯茨所言：“我们如果证明了在过去决定事件发展的相同因素能够在未来继续发挥作用，那么就可以预见历史的重演。”对此，他们借用了一个基本的物理类比加以说明：当一块石头被抛下后，我们之所以能够准确地预测它将不可避免地落到地面上，是因为我们已经推断出，在过去致使石头落地的重力依然能够在未来发挥同样的作用。从这个意义上讲，马克思的理论在论证终极危机的未来时依旧适用。

However, in Heinrich's view, we have equal reason to believe that Marx himself might not have endorsed granting universality to his crisis theory. Faced with the near-global economic crisis of 1873, Marx once pointed out that "the phenomenon this time is quite peculiar and differs in many respects from previous ones," and therefore "we must pay attention to the progress of current events until they are fully mature, and only then can we 'consume them in production,' meaning 'theoretically'." [17]17 Marx's comment on the 1873 economic crisis, which he saw as unusually complex and requiring careful observation before theoretical analysis.

然而，在海因里希看来，我们同样有理由相信，马克思本人可能并不赞同为其危机理论赋予普适性。面对1873年那场近乎席卷全球的经济危机，马克思曾经指出，“这一次的现象十分特殊，在很多方面都和以往不同”，“因此，必须注意目前事件的进展，直到它们完全成熟，然后才能把它们‘消费到生产上’，我的意思是‘理论上’”。

IV. Conclusion

四 结 语

If value is a substance, then, as Kurz explains, value has a fixed and measurable endpoint. Further, only when value becomes a material substance that can be transferred in a literal sense can it truly approach zero. Value as substance can serve as a "marker point" in Kurz's theory of the limits of capitalism. At the same time, in Kurz's theory, crisis appears as a transition of history. When the potential social base is on the verge of collapse, crisis leads to the replacement of social formations. We can grasp the essence of this historical change by examining the process of the hidden demise of the material base of capitalism.

如果价值是实体，那么就如库尔茨所阐释的那样，价值具有一个固定且可测量的终结点。进一步讲，只有当价值成为一种可以在字面意义上被转移的物质实体时，它才有可能真正地趋近于零。作为实体的价值能够在库尔茨研判资本主义极限的理论中起到“标识点”的作用。同时，在库尔茨的理论中，危机表现为过渡的历史。当潜在的社会基础濒临崩塌，危机就会导致社会形态的更迭。对此，我们可以通过考察资本主义物质基础隐性消亡的过程来把握这种历史变化的本质。

On the one hand, treating value as a specific "marker point" helps to locate crisis. For Kurz, Trenkle, and other value-critique scholars, crisis is a clear concept that represents the limit of capitalism, and the end of capitalism is due to the complete exclusion of human labor from the process of capital valorization. On the other hand, this definition of value transforms crisis itself into a transhistorical category, marking the transition from one historical stage to the next, the outcome of which is determined by the variable factor of value substance. Capitalism (or any other historical stage) will gradually come to an end, and the ultimate realization of its potential is self-destruction. For such an assertion, the only thing needed is a critical analysis of those real factors that temporarily curb the outbreak of ultimate crisis.

一方面，把价值视为特定的“标识点”有助于定位危机。对于库尔茨、特伦克尔以及其他价值批判学者来说，危机是一个明确的概念，它代表了资本主义的极限，而资本主义的终结是由于人的劳动被从资本增殖过程中彻底排除。另一方面，这种对价值的定义使危机本身转变为超历史的范畴，它标志着从一个历史阶段向下一个历史阶段的过渡，而过渡的结果是依靠价值实体这一可变因素来判定的。资本主义（或任何其他历史阶段）会逐步走向终结，其潜力的最终实现就是自我毁灭。对于这样的断言，唯一需要做的就是对那些暂时遏制了终极危机爆发的现实因素进行批判性的分析。

When the above theoretical framework is applied respectively to the cases of the 2008 global financial crisis and the COVID-19 crisis, it shows completely different theoretical efficacy. Kurz's theory has obvious advantages in interpreting the financial crisis. Generally speaking, economists failed to predict this crisis, and even after its outbreak, they only offered superficial causes (such as bankers' greed, corporate corruption, regulatory failure, etc.). In contrast, Kurz's value critique provides a solid theoretical basis for analyzing the financial crisis, helping to clarify why the 2008 global financial crisis developed into a far-reaching global disaster. From a concrete, historical perspective, Kurz argues that the financial crisis originated from a "lack of actual capital valorization." He not only developed a research paradigm for analyzing financial crises within the historical framework of capitalism but also revealed why stimulus plans and bailout measures cannot solve the underlying problems. In addition, Kurz's value critique theory laid a theoretical foundation for subsequent research clarifying the relationship between social reproduction and capitalist crisis. Compared with the 2008 global financial crisis, the COVID-19 crisis shows obvious heterogeneous characteristics, converging multiple forms of crisis, including ecological, social, political, and economic dimensions. Therefore, Kurz's value critique framework may face more difficulties in analyzing the COVID-19 crisis and similar cases in the future.

当上述理论框架被分别套用到2008年全球金融危机和新冠疫情危机的案例中时，会显现出完全不同的理论效力。库尔茨的理论在解读金融危机的问题上具有明显的优势。一般而言，经济学家们未能成功预测这场危机，即便是在危机爆发后，他们也只是提出了一些粗浅的成因（如银行家的贪婪、企业腐败、监管失职等）。相比之下，库尔茨的价值批判为剖析金融危机提供了切实的理论基础，有助于阐明2008年的全球金融危机缘何发展成为一场影响深远的全球灾难。库尔茨从具体的、历史的角度出发，论证了金融危机源于“缺乏实际的资本增殖”。他不仅发展了在资本主义历史框架中剖析金融危机的研究范式，还揭示了刺激计划和纾困措施无法解决潜在问题的原因。除此以外，库尔茨的价值批判理论为澄清社会再生产与资本主义危机之间关系的后续研究奠定了理论基础。相对于2008年的全球金融危机，新冠疫情危机呈现出明显的异质化特征，它汇合了多种危机形态，包括生态、社会、政治、经济等各个层面。因此，库尔茨的价值批判框架在分析新冠疫情危机以及未来的同类案例时可能会面临更多困难。

According to the laws of development of human society, capitalism will eventually be replaced by a new social formation. It needs to be made clear that rejecting the "ultimate crisis hypothesis" neither supports the "end of history thesis" nor affirms that social development is unpredictable. The theory of ultimate crisis does have limitations, namely, it can only narrowly understand crisis as a pre-set program, as if ultimate crisis would not occur as long as we ignore the potential drawbacks of capitalism. Furthermore, to determine the future trend of capitalist crisis, Kurz incorporates historical dialectics into a timeline with clear stage markers, thereby systematizing the current capitalist crisis as a historical repetition of pre-capitalist crises. He profoundly critiques categories such as labor, value, and money from the perspective of historical materialism, thereby developing a historical materialist theory of crisis. The view of this article is consistent with Marx's view when facing the economic crisis of 1873: we are currently in a unique historical period.

按照人类社会的发展规律，资本主义终将被新的社会形态所取代。需要明确的是，否定“终极危机假说”既不代表支持“历史终结论”，也不意味着肯定社会发展是不可预测的。关于终极危机的理论确实具有局限性，即只能把危机狭义地理解为一个预先设定的程序，似乎只要我们忽视资本主义潜在的弊端，终极危机就不会出现。此外，为了研判资本主义危机的未来趋向，库尔茨将历史辩证法纳入具有明确阶段标识的时间轴上，从而使当前的资本主义危机体系化为前资本主义危机的历史复写。他在历史唯物主义的视域下对劳动、价值、货币等范畴进行了深刻的批判，进而发展了历史唯物主义的危机理论。本文的观点与马克思在面对1873年经济危机时的观点一致，我们当前正处在一个独一无二的历史时期。

[David Janzen: Department of New Media, University of Lethbridge, Canada; Xu Tianyi: School of Marxism Studies, Renmin University of China]

［大卫·詹森（David Janzen）：加拿大莱斯布里奇大学新媒体系；徐天意：中国人民大学马克思主义学院］

Translator: Xu Tianyi

译者：徐天意

This article was originally published in *Historical Materialism*, Volume 30, Issue 2, 2022. The translation has been abridged.

本文原载《历史唯物主义》（Historical Materialism）2022年第30卷第2期，译文有删减。

Online Editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑