Analytical Political Economy: The Revival of Analytical Marxism in Economics

Analytical Marxism emerged in the late 1970s and early 1980s as a product of the combination of twentieth-century analytical philosophy and Marxism, emphasizing the use of logical analysis and the analytical tools of modern social science to study the core concepts and propositions of Marxism. Its representative research includes the reconstruction of historical materialism and Marx’s economic theory, as well as explorations of issues such as exploitation, class, distributive justice, and the feasibility of socialism.[1]1 The “September Group” was an informal academic collective of analytical Marxists that met annually in September from 1981 onward; its core members included G.A. Cohen, John Roemer, Jon Elster, Erik Olin Wright, and others. After 1990, with changes in the external environment and shifts in academic interests, analytical Marxism gradually declined.[2]2 Michio Morishima (1923–2004) was a Japanese mathematical economist who applied rigorous mathematical methods to Marxian economics; his 1973 book *Marx’s Economics* was a key text in the analytical Marxist tradition. Entering the twenty-first century, especially after the global financial crisis of 2008, analytical Marxism has shown signs of revival in the field of economics, gradually forming an academic community of analytical political economy and developing into one of the most active schools within foreign Marxist economics. Analytical political economy critically inherits the methodology of analytical Marxism and holds significant reference value for deepening foundational theoretical research in political economy. This article will introduce the methodological characteristics of analytical political economy based on a review of its developmental trajectory, and will explore its shortcomings and directions for further development.

分析的马克思主义兴起于1970年代末和1980年代初，是20世纪分析哲学与马克思主义相结合的产物，强调使用逻辑分析和现代社会科学的分析工具来研究马克思主义的核心概念和命题，其代表性研究包括对历史唯物主义和马克思经济理论的重构，对剥削、阶级、分配正义和社会主义可行性等问题的探讨。①1990年以后，随着外部环境的变化和学术兴趣的转移，分析的马克思主义逐渐衰落。②进入21世纪以来，特别是在2008年全球金融危机以后，分析的马克思主义在经济学领域出现了复兴的迹象，逐步形成了分析政治经济学(Analytical Political Economy)的学术共同体，并发展成为国外马克思主义经济学领域最活跃的流派之一。分析政治经济学批判地继承了分析的马克思主义的方法论，在深化政治经济学基础理论研究方面具有重要的借鉴意义。本文将在梳理分析政治经济学发展脉络的基础上介绍其方法论特点，并探讨其不足之处和进一步发展的方向。

I. The Developmental Trajectory of Analytical Political Economy

一、分析政治经济学的发展脉络

Analytical Marxism has deep historical roots in economics, and the deepening and reconstruction of Marxist economic theory constitute an important component of analytical Marxism. Alongside the political-philosophical turn and decline of analytical Marxism, its influence in the field of economics also gradually waned. Analytical political economy, which emerged in the twenty-first century, inherits the theoretical legacy of analytical Marxism and represents the revival of analytical Marxism in the field of economics.

分析的马克思主义与经济学有着深厚的历史渊源，对马克思主义经济理论的深化与重构是分析的马克思主义的重要组成部分。伴随着分析的马克思主义的政治哲学转向和衰落，其在经济学领域的影响也日渐式微。21世纪兴起的分析政治经济学继承了分析的马克思主义的理论遗产，是分析的马克思主义在经济学领域的复兴。

The starting point of analytical Marxism is generally set at 1978, the year G.A. Cohen published his representative work *Karl Marx’s Theory of History: A Defence*. Its formal formation was marked by the creation of the so-called “September Group” at an academic seminar held in London in September 1981 by scholars including Cohen, John Roemer, and Jon Elster.[1]1 The “September Group” was an informal academic collective of analytical Marxists that met annually in September from 1981 onward; its core members included G.A. Cohen, John Roemer, Jon Elster, Erik Olin Wright, and others. However, its theoretical origins can be traced back to earlier economic research.

分析的马克思主义的起点通常被设定在G.A.柯亨(G.A.Cohen)出版其代表性著作《卡尔·马克思的历史理论——一个辩护》的1978年，而正式形成的标志则是1981年9月柯亨、约翰·罗默(John Roemer)和乔恩·埃尔斯特(Jon Elster)等学者在伦敦召开的学术研讨会上创建了所谓的“九月小组”(September Group),但其理论渊源则可以追溯到更早的经济学研究。(1)

One of the economic origins of analytical Marxism is the study of Marx’s economic theory represented by Japanese mathematical Marxian economics, the most influential figure being the Japanese mathematical economist Michio Morishima, who taught for a long time at the London School of Economics. He introduced the research of Japanese Marxist economists such as Nobuo Okishio to Anglo-American academia and extensively applied mathematical methods to the study of Marx’s economic theory, exerting a profound influence on analytical Marxism. It was Morishima’s 1973 book *Marx’s Economics* that set Roemer on the path of studying Marx’s economic theory.[2]2 Michio Morishima (1923–2004) was a Japanese mathematical economist who applied rigorous mathematical methods to Marxian economics; his 1973 book *Marx’s Economics* was a key text in the analytical Marxist tradition. According to Roemer’s own recollection, he first encountered Morishima’s work in 1975 at the University of California, Davis, was deeply influenced by it, and began using it as a textbook to teach Marxian economics, thereby initiating his analytical reconstruction of Marx’s economic theory. The series of results he produced during this period were eventually collected in his representative work *Analytical Foundations of Marxian Economic Theory*.[3]3 John Roemer (b. 1945) is an American economist and political scientist, a leading figure in analytical Marxism; his *Analytical Foundations of Marxian Economic Theory* (1981) sought to reconstruct Marx’s economics using modern game theory and general equilibrium models. Pioneers of analytical Marxism in the field of economics also include John von Neumann, the founder of multi-sector growth models, and Wassily Leontief, who won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1973 for input-output theory, among other scholars.[4]4 John von Neumann (1903–1957) was a Hungarian-American mathematician and polymath whose work on multi-sector growth models influenced later Marxian economics; Wassily Leontief (1906–1999) was a Russian-American economist who developed input-output analysis, a tool later used in Marxian economic modeling.

分析的马克思主义在经济学方面的渊源之一是以日本的数理马克思经济学为代表的马克思经济理论研究，其中影响最大的就是长期在英国伦敦政治经济学院任教的日本数理经济学家森岛通夫。他把置盐信雄等日本马克思主义经济学家的研究介绍到英美学术界，并广泛运用数学方法研究马克思的经济理论，对分析的马克思主义产生了深远的影响。正是森岛通夫在1973年出版的《马克思经济学》一书使罗默走上了马克思经济理论研究之路。(2)据罗默本人回忆，他于1975年在美国加州大学戴维斯分校最早接触到了森岛通夫的这本著作，深受其影响并开始用它作为教材讲授马克思经济学，从而开启了他对马克思经济理论的分析性重构。他在这期间的一系列成果最终被收录在其代表作《马克思主义经济理论的分析基础》一书中。(3)分析的马克思主义在经济学领域的先驱还包括多部门增长模型的奠基者约翰·冯·诺伊曼(John von Neumann)和因投入—产出理论于1973年获得诺贝尔经济学奖的瓦西里·里昂惕夫(Wassily Leontief)等学者。(4)

Another important theoretical origin of analytical Marxism is the 1960 book *Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities: Prelude to a Critique of Economic Theory* by the Italian economist Piero Sraffa, the founder of “modern classical economics.”[5]5 Piero Sraffa (1898–1983) was an Italian economist whose 1960 book revived the classical political economy tradition of Ricardo and Marx, using a linear production model to critique neoclassical capital theory. On the one hand, Sraffa was well acquainted with the thought of the Italian Marxist thinker Antonio Gramsci in his early years. Later, Sraffa taught for a long time at Cambridge University, had a close relationship with the analytical philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, and exerted a significant influence on Wittgenstein’s philosophical turn; Amartya Sen referred to this as “the Gramsci connection.” Conversely, Wittgenstein’s philosophy of language also influenced Sraffa’s economic thought, and his book *Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities* bears a clear analytical character.[6]6 Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889–1951) was an Austrian-British philosopher whose later work on language games influenced Sraffa’s analytical approach; Amartya Sen (b. 1933) is an Indian economist and philosopher who coined the term “the Gramsci connection” to describe Sraffa’s link to Gramsci. On the other hand, the modern classical economics revived and reconstructed after Sraffa extensively employs modern analytical tools, achieving notable successes not only in criticizing marginalist and neoclassical capital theory but also in promoting the development of Marxist economics through dialogue.[7]7 Ian Steedman (b. 1941) is a British economist whose 1977 book *Marx after Sraffa* argued that Sraffa’s framework could resolve inconsistencies in Marx’s value theory. As Roemer noted in his review of Ian Steedman’s work *Marx after Sraffa*:

分析的马克思主义的另一个重要理论渊源是“现代古典经济学”的开创者、意大利经济学家皮耶罗·斯拉法(Piero Sraffa)在1960年出版的著作《用商品生产商品：经济理论批判绪论》。(5)一方面，斯拉法早年非常熟悉意大利马克思主义思想家安东尼奥·葛兰西(Antonio Gramsci)的思想，后来，斯拉法长期在剑桥大学任教，与分析哲学家路德维希·维特根斯坦(Ludwig Wittgenstein)关系密切，对维特根斯坦的哲学转向产生过重大影响，阿玛蒂亚·森(Amartya Sen)称其为“葛兰西联系”(the Gramsci connection)。而反过来，维特根斯坦的语言哲学也影响了斯拉法的经济思想，其著作《用商品生产商品：经济理论批判绪论》也带有明显的分析色彩。(6)另一方面，斯拉法之后所复兴和重建的现代古典经济学大量地运用现代分析工具，不仅在批判边际主义与新古典的资本理论等方面成绩斐然，也通过对话促进了马克思主义经济学的发展。(7)正如罗默在评论伊恩·斯蒂德曼(Ian Steedman)的著作《按照斯拉法思想研究马克思》时所指出的：

It should be emphasized that the critique of Marx based on Sraffa by Steedman and others is fundamentally different in nature from the critique of neoclassicism based on Sraffa: the latter aims to destroy the foundations of neoclassical distribution and profit theory, while the former aims to provide a consistent and rigorous foundation for Marxist theory.[8]8 Samuel Bowles (b. 1939) is an American economist known for work on inequality and institutional economics; Philippe Van Parijs (b. 1951) is a Belgian political philosopher and economist; Pranab Bardhan (b. 1939) is an Indian development economist.

应该强调的是，斯蒂德曼等人基于斯拉法对马克思主义的批评，与基于斯拉法对新古典主义的批评在性质上有着根本的不同：后者的目的是摧毁新古典主义分配理论和利润理论的根基，而前者的目的是为马克思主义理论提供一致且严谨的基础。(8)

Political economy not only has deep historical roots in analytical Marxism but is also an important component of it. For example, the main members of the “September Group” included economists: in addition to Roemer mentioned earlier, there were the renowned Marxist economist Samuel Bowles, the political philosopher and political economist Philippe Van Parijs, and the development economist Pranab Bardhan, among others.

政治经济学不仅与分析的马克思主义有着深厚的历史渊源，也是分析的马克思主义的重要组成部分。例如，“九月小组”的主要成员就包括经济学家，除了前面提到的罗默，还有著名马克思主义经济学家塞缪尔·鲍尔斯(Samuel Bowles)、政治哲学和政治经济学家菲利普·范帕里斯(Philippe Van Parijs)以及发展经济学家普兰纳布·巴德汉(Pranab Bardhan)等。

At the same time, the deepening and reconstruction of Marx’s economic theory were also representative topics of analytical Marxism, and these studies profoundly influenced the subsequent development of analytical Marxism. For instance, although Cohen and another representative figure of analytical Marxism, Erik Olin Wright, were not economists, they both deeply engaged in debates over the labor theory of value.[9]9 Erik Olin Wright (1947–2019) was an American analytical Marxist sociologist who developed a class theory based on exploitation; the labor theory of value debate concerned whether Marx’s value categories could be consistently defined. Roemer’s theory of exploitation not only influenced Wright’s study of class but also steered analytical Marxism toward philosophical discussions of issues such as distributive justice.[10]10 Roemer’s exploitation theory, developed in works like *A General Theory of Exploitation and Class* (1982), defined exploitation in terms of unequal distribution of productive assets rather than labor extraction, sparking philosophical debates on distributive justice. Meanwhile, the research of Van Parijs, Roemer, and others on the law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall profoundly shaped their understanding of capitalist crises and the transition to socialism.[11]11 The law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall is a Marxian hypothesis that capitalist accumulation leads to a declining profit rate, central to theories of capitalist crisis.

同时，对马克思经济理论的深化和重构也是分析的马克思主义的代表性议题，这些研究深刻地影响了分析的马克思主义的后续发展。例如，柯亨和分析的马克思主义的另一个代表人物埃里克·欧林·赖特(Erik Olin Wright)虽不是经济学家，却都深入地参与到劳动价值论的争论中。(9)罗默的剥削理论不仅影响了赖特对阶级的研究，也把分析的马克思主义导向对分配正义等问题的哲学讨论。(10)而范帕里斯、罗默等对利润率下降趋势规律等问题的研究则深刻地影响了他们对资本主义危机以及向社会主义过渡的理解。(11)

After the 1990s, analytical Marxism began to decline. With changes in the external environment and the withdrawal of some representative figures, coupled with the advancing age of early researchers and a lack of younger scholars, the influence of this school has greatly diminished. At the same time, the turn of analytical Marxism toward political philosophy[12]12 The “political philosophy turn” refers to the shift of analytical Marxists like G.A. Cohen and John Roemer from economic analysis to normative questions of justice and equality, beginning in the late 1980s. further put its economic theory into a period of dormancy. In fact, from the late 1980s onward, Roemer, who originally came from an economics background, had already shifted his focus to issues of economic philosophy such as equality of opportunity and distributive justice, and no longer engaged in research on Marxian economic theory. When the Japanese mathematical Marxian scholar Naoki Yoshihara visited Yale University at Roemer’s invitation from 2001 to 2003, his host unit was Yale’s Department of Political Science rather than the Department of Economics (Roemer taught in both departments). During the visit, Roemer pessimistically told Yoshihara, “Marxian economics as a field of research is dead.” As early as 1986, Elster had already made a similar declaration.[13]13 Jon Elster, a leading analytical Marxist, declared Marxian economics obsolete in his 1985 book *Making Sense of Marx*.

1990年代以后，分析的马克思主义开始走向衰落。随着外部环境的变化和一些代表性人物的退出，加之早期的研究人员年事渐高、年轻一代学者的缺乏，这一学派的影响力已大不如前。同时，分析的马克思主义的政治哲学转向(12),进一步使得其在经济理论方面进入了蛰伏期。事实上，自1980年代后期开始，经济学者出身的罗默就已经开始转向了机会平等、分配正义等经济哲学议题，不再从事马克思经济学理论的研究。日本数理马克思主义学者吉原直毅在2001—2003年期间应罗默的邀请访问耶鲁大学时，接待单位是耶鲁大学的政治科学系而非经济系(罗默同时在两个系任教)。在访问期间，罗默曾悲观地向吉原直毅表示，“马克思经济学作为一个研究领域已经死亡”。而早在1986年，埃尔斯特就已经作过类似的宣告。(13)

Apart from changes in the external environment and shifts in research interests, the decline of analytical Marxism in the field of political economy is also related to its methodology, particularly the exclusive adherence of some of its representatives (such as Elster) to rational choice theory and methodological individualism. This narrow methodology led to a dead end in their reconstruction of Marxian economic theory and is also a major point of criticism against analytical Marxism.[14]14 Methodological individualism is the principle that social phenomena must be explained solely in terms of individual actions and intentions, which critics argue neglects structural and relational aspects of Marxian theory. Some Marxian economic studies that adopt analytical methods have deliberately avoided the controversial or even negative label of “analytical Marxism.”[15]15 The label “analytical Marxism” became controversial due to its association with rational choice theory and perceived departure from classical Marxian commitments.

除了外部环境的变化和研究兴趣的转移，分析的马克思主义在政治经济学领域的式微也与其方法论有关，特别是其中一些代表人物(如埃尔斯特)排他性地坚持理性选择理论和方法论个人主义。这种狭隘的方法论导致他们对马克思经济理论的重构走到了尽头，也是分析的马克思主义饱受诟病的地方。(14)一些采用分析方法所进行的马克思主义经济学研究，也有意避开“分析的马克思主义”这一具有争议性甚至是负面的标签。(15)

In fact, internal reflections and external critiques of analytical Marxism have always existed within the foreign Marxian economics community. Some scholars recognize the use of various modern analytical tools in Marxian economic research while opposing the equation of “analytical methods” with extreme individualism and rational choice theory. This tradition has been revived in the 21st century, giving rise to a more pluralistic and inclusive analytical political economy.

事实上，国外马克思主义经济学界对分析的马克思主义的内部反思和外部批判一直都存在，一部分学者认可在马克思主义经济学研究中运用各种现代分析工具，同时反对把“分析的方法”等同于极端的个人主义和理性选择理论。这一传统在21世纪得到了复兴，形成了更为多元和包容的分析政治经济学。

The emergence of analytical political economy as an academic community can be traced back to the “Analytical Political Economy Workshop” (APE) held at the University of Notre Dame in the United States in March 1991.[16]16 The University of Notre Dame is a private Catholic research university in Indiana, USA. This conference was initiated by Notre Dame economist Amitava Krishna Dutt, with the aim of opposing the view that political economy should exclude mathematical methods. Dutt argued that although mathematical models cannot truly reflect reality, they help in understanding certain aspects of the real world. He defined analytical political economy as “non-neoclassical economic theory that adopts formal, mathematical analytical methods.”[17]17 Non-neoclassical economic theory refers to approaches that reject the core assumptions of mainstream neoclassical economics, such as perfect competition and rational expectations. In the following years, scholars in the field of analytical political economy held three more conferences at other locations and published two collections of papers.[18]18 The two collections are *Analytical Political Economy* (1992) and *New Directions in Analytical Political Economy* (1994), both edited by Amitava Krishna Dutt. These activities brought together numerous research results in analytical political economy. Participants and contributors included Lance Taylor of the New School for Social Research in the United States, Peter Skott of the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and Robert Blecker of American University, among others. Their research covered various traditions, including structuralist macroeconomics, Marxian economics, and post-Keynesian economics.[19]19 Structuralist macroeconomics emphasizes institutional and historical factors in economic dynamics; post-Keynesian economics focuses on effective demand, uncertainty, and non-ergodic processes. In the early 21st century, the activities of analytical political economy again entered a low ebb, until a new turning point arrived in 2007.[20]20 The 2007 global financial crisis sparked renewed interest in Marxian and heterodox economic theories.

分析政治经济学作为一个学术共同体的出现可以追溯到1991年3月在美国圣母大学举办的“分析政治经济学研讨会”(Analytical Political Economy Workshop, APE)。(16)这次会议由圣母大学经济学家阿米塔瓦·克里希纳·达特(Amitava Krishna Dutt)发起，其目的在于反对政治经济学应当排斥数学化的观点。达特认为，数理模型尽管不能真实反映现实，但却有助于理解现实世界的某些方面。他把分析政治经济学界定为“采用形式化、数学分析方法的非新古典经济理论”(17)。随后几年，分析政治经济学领域的学者还在其他地点举办了三次会议，并出版了两部论文集。(18)这些活动汇集了分析政治经济学领域的众多研究成果，参会和投稿的学者包括美国新学院大学的兰斯·泰勒(Lance Taylor)、美国马萨诸塞大学阿默斯特分校的彼得·斯科特(Peter Skott)和美利坚大学的罗伯特·布莱克(Robert Blecker)等人，他们的研究涵盖了结构主义宏观经济学、马克思主义经济学，以及后凯恩斯主义经济学等多种研究传统。(19)21世纪初期，分析政治经济学的活动再次进入低潮，直到2007年迎来新的转机。(20)

In 2007, the Analytical Political Economy Workshop was held at Queen Mary College, University of London (now Queen Mary University of London), organized by the renowned Marxian economist Simon Mohun and the emerging young economist Roberto Veneziani. Participants included early contributors such as Dutt and Skott, as well as the Marxian economist Gilbert Skillman. Since then, they have held regular annual workshops and invited other relevant scholars, including the aforementioned Japanese mathematical Marxian scholar Naoki Yoshihara. The core members of these analytical political economy workshops have also become representative figures in the field. As Dutt and others have aged, Skott, Yoshihara, and Veneziani have gradually taken their place as the central figures of analytical political economy. Later, Yoshihara moved from Hitotsubashi University in Japan to the Department of Economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, where Skott was based. Also teaching in the same department were Marxian scholars such as Bowles, a member of the “September Group” mentioned earlier. They regularly hold academic activities such as the “Analytical Political Economy Workshop” for doctoral students, making the university one of the academic strongholds of analytical political economy.[21]21 The “September Group” (also known as the “September Group on Analytical Marxism”) was a regular meeting of analytical Marxists including G.A. Cohen, Jon Elster, and John Roemer, active from the late 1970s to the 1990s.

2007年，分析政治经济学研讨会在英国伦敦大学玛丽皇后学院(现名伦敦玛丽女王大学)举办，由该校著名马克思主义经济学家西蒙·莫汉(Simon Mohun)和新生代经济学者罗伯托·韦内齐亚尼(Roberto Veneziani)组织，参会成员包括早期的参与者达特、斯科特，以及马克思主义经济学者吉尔伯特·斯基尔曼(Gilbert Skillman)。自此以后，他们每年定期举办研讨会，并邀请其他相关学者，包括前文提到的日本数理马克思主义学者吉原直毅。这些分析政治经济学研讨会的核心成员也成为了该领域的代表人物。随着达特等人年事渐高，斯科特、吉原直毅和韦内齐亚尼逐渐取而代之，成为分析政治经济学的核心人物。后来，吉原直毅从日本一桥大学转入斯科特所在的美国马萨诸塞大学阿默斯特分校经济系。同时在该系任教的还有前文提到的“九月小组”成员鲍尔斯等马克思主义学者，他们定期举办面向博士生的“分析政治经济学工作坊”等学术活动，使得该校成为分析政治经济学的学术大本营之一。(21)

The revival and development of analytical political economy after 2007 is related not only to the changes in the external environment in the post-crisis era but also to the participation of many new-generation Marxian economists. The new generation of scholars, represented by Yoshihara and Veneziani, has strengthened the critical analysis of the theoretical legacy of analytical Marxism, reversing the early dominance of post-Keynesian economists in analytical political economy. After more than a decade of development, analytical political economy has gradually become one of the main schools of foreign Marxian economics. In 2018, the collection *Analytical Political Economy*, edited by Veneziani and others, included 11 review articles that provide a detailed overview of the latest developments in analytical political economy. The topics covered include macroeconomic growth and distribution theory, agent-based models and stock-flow consistent models, financialization, Marxian price and value theory, exploitation theory, trade theory, and empirical research on Marxian economics. This collection is an important text for understanding the latest developments in analytical political economy.[22]22 The collection *Analytical Political Economy* (2018) was edited by Roberto Veneziani, Naoki Yoshihara, and Peter Skott.

分析政治经济学在2007年以后的复兴和发展，既与后危机时代外部环境的转变有关，也得益于众多新一代马克思主义经济学者的加入。以吉原直毅和韦内齐亚尼为代表的新一代学者加强了对分析的马克思主义理论遗产的批判性分析，扭转了分析政治经济学初期的研究者以后凯恩斯主义经济学者为主的局面。经过10多年的发展，分析政治经济学逐步成为国外马克思主义经济学的主要流派之一。2018年，韦内齐亚尼等编辑出版的《分析政治经济学》文集收录了11篇综述文章，详细概述了分析政治经济学的最新发展，主题包括宏观经济的增长和分配理论、基于主体模型和存量流量一致模型、金融化问题、马克思的价格与价值理论、剥削理论、贸易理论，以及马克思经济学的实证研究，是了解分析政治经济学最新发展的重要文本。(22)

II. Methodological Characteristics of Analytical Political Economy

二、分析政治经济学的方法论特点

Analytical political economy critically inherits the methodology of analytical Marxism, forming three characteristics: adhering to a broad conception of analytical methods, emphasizing the precision of theoretical expression and the rigor of argumentation; valuing the microfoundations of macro-phenomena while also stressing the dialectical interaction between the macro and micro levels; and adopting a pluralistic and inclusive attitude toward specific analytical tools and analytical paradigms.

分析政治经济学批判性地继承了分析的马克思主义的方法论，形成了三个特点，即：坚持广义的分析方法，强调理论表达的精确性和论证的严密性；重视宏观现象的微观基础，同时强调宏观与微观之间的辩证互动；对具体的分析工具和分析范式采取多元主义的包容态度。

Analytical political economy has carried out a methodological “liquidation” of analytical Marxism by distinguishing between broad and narrow conceptions of analytical methods. Different scholars have different understandings of the methodology of analytical Marxism, and their views on what constitutes an analytical method also vary. For example, Elster strongly opposed the functional explanation advocated by Cohen, while Cohen and Wright disagreed with Elster, Roemer, and Adam Przeworski’s exclusive adherence to rational choice theory. Therefore, neither functional explanation nor rational choice theory should be regarded as the common methodology of analytical Marxism. To properly analyze and inherit the theoretical legacy of analytical Marxism, one cannot simply criticize it in general terms. Instead, a further distinction must be made among analytical methods in order to explore which aspects should be retained and which should be revised.

分析政治经济学通过区分广义与狭义的分析方法，对分析的马克思主义作了方法论上的“清算”。不同的学者对分析的马克思主义的方法论有着不同的理解，对于什么是分析的方法，看法也不尽相同。例如，埃尔斯特强烈反对柯亨所提倡的功能性解释，而柯亨和赖特则不赞同埃尔斯特、罗默和亚当·普沃斯基(Adam Przeworski)等人对理性选择理论的排他性坚持。所以，不论是功能性解释还是理性选择理论，都不应该被视为分析的马克思主义共同的方法论。要合理地分析和继承分析的马克思主义的理论遗产，就不能笼统地加以批判，而是要对分析的方法作进一步的区分，以便探讨哪些方面应当坚持，哪些方面应当加以修正。

In fact, the distinction between broad and narrow approaches has a long history, and many analytical Marxist scholars had already adopted it when discussing what constitutes an analytical method. Cohen understood the narrow analytical method as a form of methodological individualism opposed to holism, while the broad analytical method refers broadly to the use of various analytical tools. The application of these tools either requires and promotes the precision of statements, or necessitates and strengthens the rigor of arguments, and is therefore considered analytical.[23]23 G. A. Cohen, *Karl Marx’s Theory of History: A Defence* (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978), pp. 1-27.

事实上，区分广义与狭义的思路由来已久，很多分析的马克思主义学者在讨论何为分析方法时就已采用。柯亨就把狭义的分析方法理解为与整体主义相反的某种形式的方法论个人主义，而广义的分析方法泛指对各种分析性工具的运用。这些工具的运用要么要求并促进陈述的精确性，要么需要并加强论证的严谨性，因而被认为是分析性的。(23)

Some economists refer to all Marxist research that extensively employs generally recognized analytical tools in academia as analytical Marxism (whether it uses pure microeconomic models, short-term or long-term macroeconomic models, or applied econometric tools), and they single out research specifically focused on the microfoundations of macroeconomic phenomena. These scholars are known as the “Marxian Microfoundations” school. The latter can be further divided into two categories: one is represented by Roemer’s methodological individualists, who primarily use neoclassical economics (especially Walrasian rational choice models) to reconstruct Marx’s economic theory; the other consists of independent scholars who are not members of the “September Group” and generally adopt models different from Walrasian rational choice, aiming to deepen the understanding of the contradictory development of capitalism.[24]24 For a discussion of the “Marxian Microfoundations” school, see John E. Roemer, *Analytical Foundations of Marxian Economic Theory* (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981); and Duncan K. Foley, “Recent Developments in the Labor Theory of Value,” *Review of Radical Political Economics* 32, no. 1 (2000): 1-39.

有的经济学者把所有广泛运用学术界普遍认可的分析工具进行的马克思主义研究都称为分析的马克思主义(无论采用的是纯微观模型、短期或长期的宏观模型，还是应用计量经济学的工具),并把其中专门探讨宏观现象的微观基础的研究单列出来，这些学者被称为“马克思主义微观基础”(Marxian Microfoundations)学派。后者又可以进一步分为两类：一类是以罗默为代表的方法论个人主义者，主要采用新古典经济学(特别是瓦尔拉斯式的理性选择模型)重构马克思的经济理论；另一类是那些不属于“九月小组”的独立学者，他们一般采用不同于瓦尔拉斯式的理性选择模型，旨在加深对资本主义矛盾发展的理解。(24)

Similarly, Veneziani distinguishes the characteristics of the analytical method summarized by Wright as a broad definition, differentiating it from the narrow definition of “Rational Choice Marxism.”[25]25 Roberto Veneziani, “Analytical Marxism,” *Journal of Economic Surveys* 26, no. 4 (2012): 649-673. Wright believes that the broad analytical method mainly has the following characteristics: first, adhering to general scientific norms in theoretical exposition and research processes; second, emphasizing the importance of systematic conceptualization, especially the systematic treatment of core concepts in Marxist theory, which requires careful examination of the definitions and logical consistency of concepts; third, valuing the detailed explanation of theoretical argumentation steps, whether these arguments involve causal processes in explanatory theories or logical connections in normative theories; fourth, emphasizing the status of purposeful individual action in both explanatory and normative theories.[26]26 Erik Olin Wright, “What is Analytical Marxism?” *Socialist Review* 19, no. 4 (1989): 35-56.

类似地，韦内齐亚尼把赖特所概括的分析方法特征当作广义的定义，与“理性选择马克思主义”(Rational Choice Marxism)这种狭义的定义相区别。(25)赖特认为，广义分析方法主要有以下几个方面的特点：一是在理论阐述和研究过程中坚持遵循一般的科学规范；二是强调系统概念化的重要性，尤其是对马克思主义理论核心概念的系统化处理，这要求认真检视概念的定义及其逻辑一致性；三是重视对理论论证步骤的细致说明，无论这些论证是解释性理论中的因果过程，还是规范性理论中的逻辑联系；四是强调个体有目的性的行动在解释性和规范性理论中的地位。(26)

The greatest difference between narrow rational choice Marxism and the broad analytical method lies in the last point. Rational choice Marxism not only values purposeful individual action but further insists on methodological individualism and rational choice theory. The broad analytical method only emphasizes that starting from individual action may be useful, but does not consider it the only reasonable method, nor does it specify the paradigm to be adopted for studying individual action. Methodological individualism, however, holds that “all social phenomena—whether their structure or change—can in principle be explained solely through methods involving individuals and their characteristics, goals, beliefs, and actions,”[27]27 Jon Elster, *Making Sense of Marx* (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), p. 5. even considering this the only way, and insists on adopting the rational choice paradigm, namely:

狭义的理性选择马克思主义与广义分析方法的最大区别在于最后一点。理性选择马克思主义不只是重视个体有目的性的行动，更进一步坚持方法论个人主义和理性选择理论。广义分析方法只强调从个体行动出发可能是有用的，但并不认为这是唯一合理的方法，也没有指定研究个体行动要采取的范式。而方法论个人主义则认为“所有社会现象——无论其结构还是变化——原则上都可以通过只涉及个体及其特性、目标、信念和行动的方式来解释”(27),甚至认为这是唯一的方式，并且坚持采用理性选择的范式，即：

Demonstrating that behavior is rational and is performed because of its rationality. Behavior is rational means that, according to the actor’s beliefs, the behavior is the best way to achieve their plans or desires. Therefore, rationality accompanies some form of maximizing behavior.[28]28 Jon Elster, *Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences* (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), p. 13.

证明行为是理性的，并且是因为其理性而执行的。行为是理性的意味着，根据行为主体的信念，该行为是实现其计划或愿望的最佳方式。因此，理性伴随着某种形式的最大化行为。(28)

This narrow understanding of the analytical method fully adopts a reductionist stance, holding that all social relations and social phenomena can be reduced to individual rational action.

这种对分析方法的狭义理解完全采用了还原论(reductionism)的立场，认为一切社会关系和社会现象都可以还原到个人的理性行动上。

Analytical political economy holds that the decline of analytical Marxism in economic theory stems from the narrow methodology of rational choice Marxism. Through a critical inheritance of analytical Marxism, analytical political economy generally accepts the broad analytical method and exhibits the following three methodological characteristics.

分析政治经济学认为，分析的马克思主义在经济理论上的式微根源在于理性选择马克思主义的狭隘方法论。通过对分析的马克思主义的批判性继承，分析政治经济学普遍接受广义分析方法，在方法论上呈现以下三个方面的特点。

First, analytical political economy accepts the broad analytical method, follows general scientific norms, and emphasizes the precision of concepts and the rigor of arguments. Analytical political economy inherits the first generation of analytical Marxist scholars’ pursuit of precision and rigor in theoretical expression, but weakens their insistence that there is no unique Marxist method (such as dialectics), understanding general scientific norms more as requirements in theoretical expression. A typical example best embodying this methodological characteristic is the use of axiomatic methods in analytical political economy. Although axiomatic methods are often adopted by welfare economics and social choice theory, they themselves do not possess any characteristics of neoclassical economics, rational choice theory, methodological individualism, or reductionism, nor do they even necessarily require the use of any mathematical models.[29]29 For a discussion of axiomatic methods in welfare economics, see Amartya Sen, *Collective Choice and Social Welfare* (San Francisco: Holden-Day, 1970). In fact, the essential feature of axiomatic methods lies in requiring a clear definition of the theoretical intuitions and value orientations behind assumptions or definitions, and clearly presenting the internal logical structure of propositions. For example, when sorting out debates on the transformation problem, Mohun and Veneziani use axiomatic methods to clearly define different connotations of the labor theory of value, clearly presenting the exact nature of different arguments and their reliance on specific interpretations of Marx’s value theory and specific axiomatic structures (i.e., a set of assumptions and definitions).[30]30 Simon Mohun and Roberto Veneziani, “The Transformation Problem,” in *The Oxford Handbook of Karl Marx*, ed. Matt Vidal et al. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019), pp. 123-145. This axiomatic argumentation approach fully reflects the methodological characteristics of analytical political economy in emphasizing conceptual precision and argumentative rigor.

第一，分析政治经济学接受广义的分析方法，遵循一般科学规范，强调概念的精确性和论证的严谨性。分析政治经济继承了第一代分析的马克思主义学者对理论表达的精确性和严谨性的追求，但弱化了他们对不存在独特的马克思主义方法(如辩证法)的坚持，更多地把一般科学规范理解为在理论表达上的要求。最能体现这一方法论特点的典型就是分析政治经济学中运用公理化方法的研究。公理化方法虽常为福利经济学和社会选择理论所采用，但其本身并不具备任何新古典经济学、理性选择理论、方法论个人主义或还原论的特点，甚至没有必要采用任何数学模型。(29)事实上，公理化方法的本质特征在于要求明确定义或假设背后的理论直觉和价值导向，清楚地呈现命题的内部逻辑结构。例如，在梳理转形问题的相关争论时，莫汉和韦内齐亚尼运用公理化的方法对劳动价值理论的不同内涵进行明确界定，清晰地呈现了不同论证的确切性质及其所依赖的对马克思价值理论的特定解释和特定公理结构(即一套假设和定义)。(30)这种公理化的论证思路充分体现了分析政治经济学强调概念精确性和论证严谨性的方法论特点。

Second, analytical political economy agrees to focus on the purposeful action of micro-level agents, but opposes the reductionist stance of methodological individualism and rational choice theory, emphasizing the dialectical interactive relationship between the micro and macro levels. Analytical political economy does not oppose seeking microfoundations for macro-phenomena; it simply does not endorse the reductionist stance of rational choice Marxism. For example, independent scholars with relatively moderate positions within the “Marxian Microfoundations school,” while generally emphasizing microfoundations, reject the reductionist demands of rational choice models because they deny the priority of the micro level, believing that the micro and macro/social levels are mutually determining and dialectically interactive. Therefore, they require micro-models to have a certain flexibility and realism to depict the underlying contradictions of social interaction.[31]31 For a moderate position within the Marxian Microfoundations school, see Duncan K. Foley, *Understanding Capital: Marx’s Economic Theory* (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986). This dialectical interactive relationship between the micro and macro levels is well reflected in the following two aspects: first, the structural constraints on individual action, i.e., the coercive frameworks imposed on individual action by past history, such as social systems and class relations, or constraints faced only by groups as a whole;[32]32 For a discussion of structural constraints, see Erik Olin Wright, *Class, Crisis and the State* (London: New Left Books, 1978). second, the social formation of individuals, i.e., the shaping of individuals’ so-called rational behavior by specific relations of production, because beliefs and preferences are socially determined. Analysis of structural constraints on individual behavior can, on one hand, explain the origins and changes of structural constraints and their impact on individual and collective behavior, and on the other hand, help reveal the emergence of social contradictions and social change. The emphasis on the reversibility of human preferences and the social formation of individuals is considered an important distinction between Marxist economics and neoclassical economics, and its importance is also acknowledged by rational choice Marxists.[33]33 For the importance of the social formation of preferences, see Jon Elster, *Sour Grapes: Studies in the Subversion of Rationality* (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983). However, these core issues of political economy and even the entire social sciences lie beyond the scope of what rational choice theory can discuss. Therefore, when dealing with specific problems, rational choice models often abstract away structural constraints on individual action and must assume that preferences are exogenously given.[34]34 For a critique of exogenously given preferences in rational choice theory, see Amartya Sen, “Rational Fools: A Critique of the Behavioral Foundations of Economic Theory,” *Philosophy & Public Affairs* 6, no. 4 (1977): 317-344. Analytical political economy, through internal critique, sublates the methodology of the first generation of analytical Marxism, recognizing the importance of microfoundations while emphasizing the dialectical interactive relationship between the macro and micro levels, particularly focusing on the analysis of structural constraints on individual behavior and the social formation of individuals.

第二，分析政治经济学同意关注微观主体有目的性的行动，但反对方法论个人主义和理性选择理论的还原论立场，强调微观与宏观之间的辩证互动关系。分析政治经济学并不反对为宏观现象寻找微观基础，只是不认同理性选择马克思主义的还原论立场。例如，“马克思主义微观基础学派”中立场相对温和的独立学者虽然普遍重视微观基础，但拒绝理性选择模型还原的要求，因为他们否认微观层面的优先性，认为微观与宏观/社会层面是相互决定、辩证互动的，所以他们要求微观模型要有一定的灵活性和现实性，以便刻画社会互动的潜在矛盾。(31)这种微观与宏观的辩证互动关系很好地体现在以下两个方面：一是个体行动的结构性约束，即社会制度、阶级关系等过去历史加诸个体行动的强制性框架，或者说是群体作为一个整体才会面临的约束；(32)二是个体的社会形成，即特定生产关系对个人的所谓理性行为本身的塑造，因为信念和偏好都是社会地决定的(socially determined)。对个体行为结构性约束的分析一方面可以解释结构性约束的起源、变化及其对个人和集体行为的影响，另一方面也有助于揭示社会矛盾和社会变革的产生。而对人类偏好的可逆性和个体社会形成的强调，更被认为是马克思主义经济学与新古典主义经济学的重要区别，其重要性也为理性选择马克思主义者所承认。(33)但是，这些政治经济学乃至整个社会科学的核心议题超出了理性选择理论所能讨论的范围。因此，在处理具体问题时，理性选择模型往往抽象掉对个体行动的结构性约束，并不得不假定偏好是外生(exogenously)给定的。(34)分析政治经济学通过内部批判扬弃了第一代分析的马克思主义的方法论，在认可微观基础重要性的同时强调宏观与微观层面的辩证互动关系，尤其重视对个体行为的结构性约束和个人的社会形成的分析。

Third, analytical political economy adopts a pluralistic and inclusive stance in the selection of specific analytical tools and analytical paradigms. First, the adherence of analytical political economy to general scientific norms is not exclusive to certain specific analytical methods, which leaves sufficient room for methodological pluralism. At the same time, although analytical political economy critiques the methodological defects of rational choice Marxism, it in fact only negates the exclusivity of methodological individualism and rational choice theory, rather than completely opposing the use of rational choice models in concrete research. Regarding theoretical reconstructions based on rational choice theory, analytical political economy advocates substantive discussion through concrete analysis, in order to reveal possible rational components and specific limitations therein. In other words, analytical political economy recognizes that critiques of specific models may not be universal, and does not hold that adopting neoclassical economic models or game theory necessarily leads to non-Marxist conclusions. Research that uses neoclassical economic models to reconstruct Marxian economic theory should be viewed dialectically through concrete analysis. For example, when Roemer used the general equilibrium analysis method to reconstruct Marx’s theory of exploitation, he completely overlooked the distinction between labor and labor power, thus being unable to consider the extraction of labor in the production process—a methodological limitation he himself acknowledged[35]35 John E. Roemer, *A General Theory of Exploitation and Class* (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982), p. 20.; however, the “class-exploitation correspondence principle” he proved under the perfect competition model well captures an important aspect of Marx’s theory of exploitation and is undoubtedly worthy of affirmation. In fact, many critics of analytical Marxism also admit that analytical tools such as game theory can be effectively applied to Marxist economics.[36]36 See, for example, Jon Elster, “Marxism, Functionalism, and Game Theory,” *Theory and Society* 11, no. 4 (1982): 453–482. Broadly speaking, analytical political economy includes not only theoretical analysis but also considerable empirical research. It pursues precision and rigor in theoretical expression, but does not restrict its mode of expression; it can adopt formalized mathematical models or, like Cohen, elaborate through textual argumentation. Even when using formalized mathematical expression, there is sufficient flexibility and diversity in the choice of specific models, ranging from rigorous proofs of relevant propositions based on analytical solutions of models to computational methods such as numerical simulations for illustration.[37]37 See, for example, Duncan K. Foley, “Recent Developments in Analytical Political Economy,” *Review of Radical Political Economics* 51, no. 3 (2019): 347–360. In terms of analytical paradigms, it allows for the absorption and reference of theories and methods from different schools, including neoclassical economic theory, complexity economics, and post-Keynesian economics. From the participants and papers of the annual analytical political economy conferences over the years, we can clearly observe this methodological diversity. The collection *Analytical Political Economy* mentioned earlier brings together political economy research adopting different research methods and perspectives, fully reflecting the openness and inclusiveness of analytical political economy toward different analytical paradigms.[38]38 See the introduction to *Analytical Political Economy*, ed. Roberto Veneziani and Luca Zamparelli (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 2018).

第三，分析政治经济学在具体分析工具和分析范式的选择上持多元主义的包容性立场。首先，分析政治经济学对遵循一般科学规范的坚持，并不专属于某些特定的分析方法，这为方法论多元主义留下了足够的空间。同时，分析政治经济学虽然批判了理性选择马克思主义的方法论缺陷，但实际上只是否定了对方法论个人主义和理性选择理论的排他性，而非完全反对在具体研究中采用理性选择模型。对待以理性选择理论为基础所进行的理论重构，分析政治经济学主张通过具体分析展开实质性讨论，以揭示其中可能的合理成分和具体的局限性。换言之，分析政治经济学认识到对具体模型的批判未必具有普遍性，不认为采用新古典经济模型或博弈论就一定会得出非马克思主义的结论。对运用新古典经济模型重构马克思经济理论的研究，应通过具体分析辩证看待。例如，罗默在运用一般均衡分析方法对马克思的剥削理论进行重构时完全忽略了劳动与劳动力的差别，从而无法考虑生产过程中对劳动的榨取，这是他自己也承认的方法论局限(35),但他在完全竞争模型下证明的“阶级—剥削对应原理”很好地刻画了马克思剥削理论的一个重要面向，无疑是值得肯定的。事实上，许多分析的马克思主义的批评者也承认，博弈论等分析工具可以卓有成效地应用于马克思主义经济学。(36)广义地说，分析政治经济学不仅包括理论分析，也有不少经验研究。它在理论表达上追求精确和严谨，但并不限制其表达方式，既可以采用形式化的数学模型，也可以像柯亨一样通过文字论证进行阐述；即便采用形式化的数学表达，在具体模型的选择上也有足够的灵活性和多样性，既可以围绕模型的解析解给出相关命题的严格证明，也可以采用数值模拟等计算方法加以说明。(37)在分析范式上，它允许吸收借鉴包括新古典经济理论、复杂经济学、后凯恩斯主义经济学等不同学派的理论和方法。从历年分析政治经济学研讨会的参与者和参会论文中，我们可以明显观察到这种方法论的多样性。前文提到的《分析政治经济学》文集汇聚了采用不同研究方法和视角的政治经济学研究，也充分体现了分析政治经济学对不同分析范式的开放性和包容性。(38)

III. Reflections on Analytical Political Economy

三、对分析政治经济学的反思

Analytical political economy critically inherits the methodology of analytical Marxism, emphasizing the precision and rigor of theoretical expression, valuing the dialectical interactive relationship between micro and macro levels, and extensively employing multiple analytical tools and paradigms. It holds significant reference value for deepening foundational theoretical research in political economy. However, while absorbing and drawing on analytical political economy, we should also recognize its shortcomings.

分析政治经济学批判地继承了分析的马克思主义的方法论，强调理论表达的精确性和严谨性，重视微观与宏观之间的辩证互动关系，广泛运用多种分析工具和分析范式，在深化政治经济学基础理论研究方面具有重要的借鉴意义。但是，我们在吸收借鉴分析政治经济学的同时，也应当认识到其不足之处。

First, analytical political economy includes a large amount of non-Marxist research but lacks a Marxist research program. Rational choice Marxism’s reconstruction of Marxian economic theory once hollowed out the research program of Marxist political economy, ultimately leaving only the value pursuit of economic equality and socialism, leading to a reconstruction of Marxian economic theory that fell into the predicament of “the surgery succeeded but the patient died.”[39]39 This phrase is often used to describe the outcome of rational choice Marxism’s reconstruction of Marxian theory: while achieving formal rigor, it lost the substantive content of Marx’s critique of capitalism. It is on this basis that analytical political economy, in dialogue with other schools, absorbed a large amount of content from other schools such as post-Keynesian economics and modern classical economics, forming its pluralistic methodological characteristics. Although this objectively expanded and accelerated the development of analytical political economy, it undoubtedly weakened the dominant position of Marxism. Therefore, analytical political economy needs to strengthen the Marxist scientific research program, following Marx’s line of thought to study the mode of production of contemporary society and its laws of motion. As American philosopher Daniel Little states:

第一，分析政治经济学中包括了大量非马克思主义的研究，但却缺少马克思主义的研究纲领。理性选择马克思主义对马克思经济理论的重构，一度掏空了马克思主义政治经济学的研究纲领，最后只剩下对经济平等和社会主义的价值追求，导致对马克思经济理论的重构最终陷入了“手术成功但病人死了”的困境。(39)正是在这样的基础上，分析政治经济学在与其他学派的对话中吸收了大量后凯恩斯主义经济学、现代古典经济学等其他学派的内容，形成了多元主义的方法论特点。这虽然客观上壮大和加速了分析政治经济学的发展，但也无疑削弱了马克思主义的主体地位。因此，分析政治经济学有必要强化马克思主义的科学研究纲领，沿着马克思的思路研究当代社会的生产方式及其运动规律。正如美国哲学家李丹(Daniel Little)所言：

In *Capital*, one of Marx’s core concerns is to reveal the systemic consequences arising from specific features of capitalist relations of production. He argues that different modes of production have unique historical “imprints,” and the unique laws of motion of these modes of production originate from the basic attributes of their economic structures. By using the analytical tools of political economy to study the essential characteristics of the capitalist economic structure, Marx sought to reveal the institutional logic of the capitalist system: what unique organizational forms and development patterns do these structural and functional essential features endow the capitalist economy with? What are the “laws of motion” of the mode of production defined by these conditions?[40]40 Daniel Little, “Analytical Marxism and the Critique of Capitalism,” in *The Oxford Handbook of Karl Marx*, ed. Matt Vidal et al. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019), p. 112.

在《资本论》中，马克思的一个核心关注点是揭示资本主义生产关系特定特征所导致的系统性后果。他认为，不同的生产方式具有独特的历史“印记”,而这些生产方式的独特运动规律源自其经济结构的基本属性。通过运用政治经济学的分析工具研究资本主义经济结构的本质特征，马克思试图揭示资本主义制度的制度逻辑(institutional logic):这些结构性和功能性的本质特征赋予资本主义经济哪些独特的组织形式和发展模式?由这些条件定义的生产方式又有怎样的“运动规律”?(40)

Marx’s discussion of large-scale machine industry in *Capital* provides us with a model: he discussed how, during the First Industrial Revolution, the development of productive forces caused changes in the organizational form of production in one industrial sector, which in turn led to changes in the mode of production in other sectors, resulting in adjustments to the social superstructure, and ultimately establishing the dominant position of this new mode of production throughout society.[41]41 Karl Marx, *Capital*, vol. 1, ch. 15, “Machinery and Large-Scale Industry.” Correspondingly, analytical political economy should return to the core issues of Marxist economic theory, combining the new changes in contemporary monopoly capital to further study the transformation, diffusion, and impact of new production organizational forms represented by platforms, triggered by digital information technology.

马克思在《资本论》中对机器大工业的讨论就为我们提供了一个典范，他讨论了第一次工业革命时期生产力的发展如何在一个产业部门引起生产组织方式的变革，进而引起其他部门生产方式的变革，并导致社会上层建筑的调整，最终在全社会中确立这种新生产方式的主导地位。(41)相应地，分析政治经济学应当回归马克思主义经济理论的核心问题，结合当代垄断资本的新变化进一步研究数字信息技术引发的以平台为代表的新生产组织方式的变革、扩散及其影响。

Second, analytical political economy places excessive emphasis on general scientific norms in theoretical expression, pays insufficient attention to Marxist methodology, and fails to properly handle the relationship between analytical methods and dialectics. The first generation of analytical Marxist scholars tended to highlight the differences between analytical methods and traditional Marxist methods, opposing the view of dialectics as a unique Marxist methodology. Although analytical political economy has weakened this stance, it still emphasizes precision and rigor in theoretical expression, with insufficient attention to the methodology of theoretical exploration, especially Marxist materialist dialectics. In fact, the broad analytical methods upheld by analytical political economy are not in conflict with dialectics; the two are not substitutes but complementary. This is because dialectics is not an alternative logic but a methodological guide for theoretical research, which neither intends nor is able to replace concrete research and argumentation. Dialectics is not a procedural method for solving concrete practical problems, but rather “a set of warning signs,” reminding us to pay attention to the universal connections and developmental changes of things and not to fall into dogmatism. As Marxist biologists Richard Levins and Richard Lewontin point out:

第二，分析政治经济学过多地强调在理论表达上的一般科学规范，对马克思主义的方法论重视不足，没有进一步处理好分析方法与辩证法之间的关系。第一代分析的马克思主义学者倾向于突出分析方法与传统马克思主义方法的区别，反对把辩证法视为马克思主义独特的方法论。分析政治经济学虽然弱化了这一立场，但依然强调在理论表达上的精确性和严谨性，对理论探索的方法论特别是马克思主义的唯物辩证法的重视不足。事实上，分析政治经济学所坚持的广义分析方法与辩证法并不冲突，二者不是替代关系，而是互补的关系。因为，辩证法并不是一种替代性的逻辑，而是一种理论研究的方法论指引，无意也不可能取代具体的研究和论证。辩证法不是解决具体实际问题的程序化方法，而是“一套警示标志”,提醒我们关注事物的普遍联系和发展变化，不要陷入教条主义。正如马克思主义生物学家理查德·莱文斯(Richard Levins)和理查德·勒旺廷(Richard Lewontin)所指出的：

“Remember that conditions change, and the conditions required for the initiation of some processes may be destroyed by the processes themselves. Remember to pay attention to real objects in time and space, and not to become completely lost in idealized abstractions. Remember that when phenomena are isolated, the qualitative effects of context and interaction may be lost.” Most importantly: “Remember that all other precautions are only reminders and warnings, and their application in different contexts of the real world is conditional.”[42]42 Richard Levins and Richard Lewontin, *The Dialectical Biologist* (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985), p. 192.

“要记住，条件会发生变化，并且某些过程启动所需的条件可能会被过程本身所破坏。要记住关注时空中的真实对象，不要完全迷失在理想化的抽象中。要记住，当现象被孤立时，情境和互动的质变效果可能会丧失。”最重要的是：“要记住，所有其他的注意事项只是提醒和警示，它们在现实世界不同环境中的应用是有条件的。”(42)

Dialectics seeks to place an object or category within the dynamic process of a higher-level unity in order to obtain a more comprehensive understanding. Marxist economist Duncan Foley, when criticizing the methodology of analytical Marxism, once used the example of a moraine and an iceberg to illustrate: a moraine can be regarded as a collection of rocks moving deterministically according to the laws of mechanics, but it may be more helpful to view it as a manifestation of geological processes occurring on a grand timescale. By shifting perspective to understand a category as an aspect of mutual interaction within a unity, we can provide a more comprehensive explanation of phenomena.[43]43 Foley, D. K. (1993). “The Strange History of the Economic Agent.” *New School Economic Review*, 1(1): 1-15. In this regard, economist James Devine offers a good case study: from a dialectical perspective, he critically discusses different micro-models that characterize the capitalist labor process, including the production model based on division of labor and control that he proposed with Michael Reich, Roemer’s general equilibrium model, and the competitive exchange model of Bowles and others. Devine points out that any one of these three theories is one-sided or even erroneous, and that a comprehensive understanding of the capitalist labor process requires synthesizing the perspectives of all three, supplemented by research at different levels such as macro-dynamics, history, and institutions.[44]44 Devine, J. (1989). “What Is ‘Simple Labour’? A Re-Examination of the Value-Creating Capacity of Skilled Labour.” *Capital & Class*, 13(3): 113-131. In short, clarifying the relationship between analytical methods and dialectics, rationally employing dialectics as a scientific methodological guide, and combining it with various analytical tools of contemporary social science will help analytical political economy more comprehensively and systematically reveal the laws of economic operation in contemporary society.

辩证法寻求把某一对象或范畴放到更高层级的统一体的动态过程中以得到更全面的理解。马克思主义经济学家邓肯·弗利(Duncan Foley)在批评分析的马克思主义方法论时曾经以冰碛与冰山为例加以说明：冰碛可以被视为根据力学定律进行确定性移动的岩石的集合，但是把它看作是在宏大时间尺度上发生的地质过程的表现，可能更有帮助。通过变换视角把某一范畴作为统一体内部彼此相互作用的一个方面来理解，有助于我们为现象提供更加全面的解释。(43)对此，经济学家詹姆斯·戴维恩(James Devine)给我们提供了一个很好的案例，他从辩证法的视角批判性地讨论了刻画资本主义劳动过程的不同微观模型，包括他与迈克尔·里奇(Michael Reich)提出的基于分工和控制的生产模型、罗默的一般均衡模型，以及鲍尔斯等人的竞争性交换模型。戴维恩指出，这三种理论中的任何一种都是片面甚至错误的，全面理解资本主义劳动过程需要综合三者的视角，并结合宏观动态、历史、制度等不同层面的研究加以补充。(44)总之，厘清分析方法与辩证法之间的关系，合理地把辩证法作为一种科学研究的方法论指引，并与当代社会科学的各种分析工具结合起来，将有助于分析政治经济学更全面系统地揭示当代社会的经济运行规律。

Third, analytical political economy focuses too much on fundamental theoretical issues and should strengthen research on practical problems. For a long time, analytical Marxism’s research on economic theory has mainly concentrated on fundamental theoretical issues such as the labor theory of value (the transformation problem) and the law of the tendential fall in the rate of profit (the Okishio theorem), often reaching conclusions contrary to Marx’s own views, sparking major debates. As the revival of analytical Marxism in the 21st century, analytical political economy naturally also pays attention to these theoretical issues and re-examines them, resulting in a large amount of analytical political economy research concentrated on fundamental theories, such as issues of technological progress and income distribution, as well as debates on the reasonable definition of exploitation and its persistence.[45]45 See, for example, Veneziani, R. (2007). “Exploitation, Inequality, and the Labor Theory of Value.” *Philosophy & Public Affairs*, 35(2): 127-157; Yoshihara, N. (2010). “Class and Exploitation in General Convex Economies.” *Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization*, 74(3): 192-209. Even the empirical research within it is mostly an extension of fundamental theoretical research, for example, the measurement of deviations between value and price, and discussions on the trend of the profit rate.[46]46 See, for example, Guerrero, D. (2008). “The Quantitative Relation between Prices and Values: A New Method of Estimation.” *Cambridge Journal of Economics*, 32(5): 749-770; Basu, D., & Vasudevan, R. (2013). “Technology, Distribution and the Rate of Profit in the US Economy: Understanding the Current Crisis.” *Cambridge Journal of Economics*, 37(1): 57-89. Excessive focus on fundamental theoretical issues means insufficient research on practical problems, which is detrimental to the development and dissemination of analytical political economy itself and also misses opportunities for dialogue with progressive left-wing currents in contemporary Western economics. As Roemer pointed out in an interview:

第三，分析政治经济学过于关注基础理论问题，应当加强对现实问题的研究。分析的马克思主义对经济理论的研究在很长一段时间内主要集中在劳动价值论(转形问题)、利润率下降趋势规律(置盐定理)等基础理论问题上，并且往往得出与马克思本人观点相悖的结论，引发巨大争论。分析政治经济学作为分析的马克思主义在21世纪的复兴，自然也会关注这些理论问题并加以重新清理，这就使得分析政治经济学的大量研究都集中在基础理论上，如关于技术进步与收入分配的问题以及剥削的合理定义和剥削的持续性的相关争论等。(45)即便是其中的经验研究，大部分也是基础理论研究的延伸，例如，对价值与价格偏离的测算，对利润率变化趋势的讨论。(46)对基础理论问题的过度关注意味着对现实问题的研究不足，这既不利于分析政治经济学自身的发展和传播，也错失了与当前西方经济学中进步左翼的对话机会。正如罗默在一次访谈中所指出的：

The most creative work among progressive economists today is empirical research: such as Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez’s research on inequality, Raj Chetty and his research team at Harvard University on inequality of opportunity in the United States, and the creative work in economic history by young scholars like Columbia University’s Suresh Naidu and Stanford University’s Avidit Acharya.[47]47 Roemer, J. E. (2019). “Interview with John E. Roemer.” *Analytical Political Economy*, 1(1): 1-12.

当今进步经济学家中最具创意的工作是经验研究：如托马斯·皮凯蒂(Thomas Piketty)和埃马纽埃尔·赛兹(Emmanuel Saez)关于不平等的研究，拉吉·切蒂(Raj Chetty)及其在哈佛大学的研究团队关于美国机会不平等的研究，以及像哥伦比亚大学的苏雷什·奈杜(Suresh Naidu)和斯坦福大学的阿维迪特·阿查里亚(Avidit Acharya)等年轻学者在经济史上的创造性研究。(47)

Therefore, while deepening fundamental theoretical research, analytical political economy should pay more attention to the new characteristics and new phenomena of contemporary capitalist economies and strengthen dialogue with relevant empirical research. Specifically, analytical political economy should closely monitor issues such as changes in monopoly power and their macro-level impacts, new types of labor relations in the digital platform economy, the connection between capital accumulation and climate change, and the impact of technological changes like automation and artificial intelligence on industrial organization and income distribution. It should broadly understand the evidence provided by relevant empirical research and promote the integration of fundamental theory with contemporary reality through exchange. In terms of research methods, analytical political economy should seize the opportunities brought by innovations in quantitative analysis methods in the digital age, actively explore the reasonable application of new empirical research tools such as big data analysis, machine learning, and causal inference within political economy, and enhance the credibility and validity of research. In short, only by responding to the concerns of the times, under the scientific guidance of the Marxist research program and dialectics, fully drawing on the research achievements of contemporary social sciences, and rationally using various analytical tools to deeply study practical problems, can analytical political economy more effectively promote theoretical innovation and continuously enhance its theoretical vitality and explanatory power.

因此，在深化基础理论研究的同时，分析政治经济学应更多关注当代资本主义经济体的新特点和新现象，加强与相关经验研究的对话。具体来说，分析政治经济学应当密切关注垄断力量变化及其宏观影响、数字平台经济中的新型劳动关系、资本积累与气候变化的关联，以及自动化与人工智能等技术变革对产业组织和收入分配的影响等议题，广泛了解相关经验研究提供的证据，通过交流推动基础理论与当代现实的结合。在研究方法上，分析政治经济学应当抓住数字时代定量分析方法革新带来的机遇，积极探索在政治经济学中合理运用大数据分析、机器学习、因果推断等实证研究的新工具，提高研究的可信度和有效性。总之，分析政治经济学只有回应时代关切，在马克思主义研究纲领和辩证法的科学指引下，充分借鉴当代社会科学的研究成果、合理运用多种分析工具深入研究现实问题，才能更有效地推动理论创新，持续增强分析政治经济学的理论活力和解释力。

Online editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑