The Conceptual Logic of the “Critique of Capital”

Marx’s study of political economy aims to reveal, demonstrate, and critique the contradictions, rationale, and rules of the capitalist economic system. “The logic of *Capital*” is the “methodology” of this process of scientific revelation, demonstration, and critique. It therefore possesses the meaning of “Logical Normativity” for the various subsequent discourses of the “critique of capital,” serving as a paradigm that must be followed in constructing new theories and new thinking. The capitalist economic system is a system of contradictions, constituting different aspects, spheres, and links of modern economic life. Correspondingly, the “concepts” (Begriff) that define it must necessarily form a systematic group of concepts, with each level, sphere, and link of economic life being defined by one or several concepts. Moreover, according to the Marxist viewpoint, socio-economic life is organically unified and universally interconnected, and the relations at each level must also be given a “formal” (Formal) generalization through concepts. The core of the group of concepts that reveal and demonstrate the contradictions of the capitalist economic system is the conceptual definition of its systemic essence. This is a generalization of the principal contradictions dominating the different aspects, spheres, and links of economic life. The “movement” (Movement) of concepts and the construction of their system must all unfold around this core concept.

马克思的政治经济学研究，目的在于揭示、论证和批判资本主义经济制度的矛盾、理据与规则，“《资本论》的逻辑”就是这一科学地揭示、论证和批判过程的“方法论”,也因此对继之而起的诸种“资本批判”论述具有“逻辑规范性”(Logical Normativity)意涵，是建构新理论新思维所必须遵循的典范。资本主义经济制度是一个矛盾系统，构成现代经济生活的不同面向、领域和环节，因此，与之对应，对其进行规定的“概念”(Begriff)也必然是一个成体系的概念群，每一个经济生活的层面、领域和环节，都由一个或几个概念予以规定。并且，根据马克思主义的观点，社会经济生活是有机统一且普遍联系的，各个层次的关系也必然要以概念对之进行“形式性”(Formal)概括。揭示和论证资本主义经济制度矛盾的概念群，核心是对其制度本质的概念规定，这是对主导经济生活的不同方面、领域、环节的主要矛盾的概括，概念的“运动”(Movement)及其体系的建构，都要围绕这个核心概念展开。

Historically, clarifying and emphasizing the dominant role of “concept-movement” in the form of thought is a characteristic and contribution of Hegel’s speculative logic. In the stage of “understanding logic” before Hegel, the “concept” itself was not a form of thought with prominent significance; it was merely a theoretical discourse used to define corresponding phenomena, and there was no movement or change inherent in it. Hegel creatively proposed that the concept is a collection of forms of thought, the core and dominant element of thinking, while forms of thought such as judgment (Urteil) and syllogism (Schluss) are merely the ways in which the concept is formed, unfolded, and applied. Hegel believed that “the concept is the truth of substance,” and that “the concept, the nature of the thing itself, moves forward and develops by itself, and this movement is equally the activity of cognition.” Therefore, “concept-movement” becomes the abstraction and subsumption of the “contradiction-movement” of real things. Marx deeply understood this idea of Hegel’s. In his critique of Hegel’s idealist dialectics, he pointed out its defects, and in his systematic critique of the contradictions of the capitalist economic system, he truly overcame Hegel’s error of the “inversion of ideology.” Marx emphasized that the definition and movement of concepts must be based on and take as the primary link the full appropriation of material, analyzing the various developmental forms of the “material” he had appropriated, and exploring the internal connections of these developmental forms. As Mao Zedong said, “Objective contradictions are reflected in people’s subjective thought, forming the contradictory movement of concepts, driving the development of thought, and continuously solving people’s ideological problems.” [1]1 The “five-part structure” refers to Marx’s early plan for *Capital*, which included sections on capital, landed property, wage-labour, the state, and foreign trade. From this, it can be seen that “concept-movement” takes the real “contradiction-movement” as its source of normativity (Source of Normativity), and in the process of narration, reflects the “life of the material” in an ideal form, thereby also proving how “the dialectics of things” creates “the dialectics of ideas” and further guides practice with it. Marx particularly emphasized the reality of “conceptual content” (Conceptual Content), that is, using rigorous theoretical thinking to “re-materialistically regard the concepts in our minds as reflections of real things, rather than regarding real things as reflections of a certain stage of the absolute concept.” And by vividly depicting the real “contradiction-movement” mode of the capitalist economic system through abstract “concept-movement,” “the dialectics of concepts itself becomes merely the conscious reflection of the dialectical movement of the real world, and thus Hegel’s dialectics is turned upside down, or rather, it is no longer standing on its head but is finally standing on its feet again.”

历史地看，明确并强调“概念—运动”在思维形式中的主导作用，是黑格尔思辨逻辑的特点与贡献。在黑格尔之前的“知性逻辑”阶段，“概念”本身并非一个有着突出意义的思维形式，只是用来界定相应现象的理论话语，也不存在自身的运动变化。黑格尔则创造性地提出概念是个思维形式的集合，是思维的核心和主导，而判断(Urteil)和推论(Schluss)等思维形式则不过是概念形成、展开和运用的方式。黑格尔认为，“概念是实体的真理”,并且，“概念，事情的本性自己在向前运动着和发展着，而这个运动同样是认识的活动”,因此，“概念—运动”也就成为对现实事物之“矛盾—运动”的抽象与统摄。马克思深切地理解了黑格尔的这一思想，在对黑格尔唯心主义辩证法的批判中指出其缺陷，在对资本主义经济制度矛盾的系统批判中真正克服了黑格尔“意识形态的颠倒”错误。马克思强调概念的规定和运动都必须以充分占有材料为基础和首要环节，分析其所占有的“材料”的各种发展形式，探寻这些发展形式的内在联系，正如毛泽东所说，“客观矛盾反映人主观的思想，组成了概念的矛盾运动，推动了思想的发展，不断地解决了人们的思想问题。”由此可知，“概念—运动”就是这样以现实的“矛盾—运动”为规范性的来源(Source of Normativity),并在叙述过程中将“材料的生命”在观念上反映出来，从而也就证成了“事物的辩证法”是如何“创造观念的辩证法”并以之进一步指导实践的。马克思尤其重视“概念内容”(Conceptual Content)的现实性，即以严格的理论思维“重新唯物地把我们头脑中的概念看做现实事物的反映，而不是把现实事物看做绝对概念的某一阶段的反映”。而通过抽象的“概念—运动”真切刻画资本主义经济制度的现实“矛盾—运动”模式，由此“概念的辩证法本身就变成只是现实世界的辩证运动的自觉的反映，从而黑格尔的辩证法就被倒转过来了，或者宁可说，不是用头立地而是重新用脚立地了。”

I. The Basic Forms of the “Conceptual Logic” of *Capital*

一、《资本论》“概念逻辑”的基本形态

Before concretely examining the overall “concept-movement” of Marx’s “conceptual logic” in *Capital*—that is, “from the concrete to the abstract, and then from the abstract to the concrete”—we first explore the basic forms of the internal conceptual movement in *Capital*: “critique of old concepts,” “definition of new concepts,” “transformation of concepts,” and “transformation of concepts” [2]2 The “six-book plan” was Marx’s even earlier, more expansive outline for his critique of political economy, which included books on capital, landed property, wage-labour, the state, international trade, and the world market. —these four basic forms.

在具体考察马克思《资本论》“概念逻辑”总体上的“从具体到抽象，再从抽象上升到具体”的“概念—运动”之前，我们首先来探讨《资本论》内在概念运动的基本形式，即“对旧概念的批判”“对新概念的规定”“概念的改造”“概念的转化”这四种基本形态。

1. Critique of Old Concepts

1.对旧概念的批判

Critiquing old concepts is an important condition for Marx to study, understand, and reflect on the theoretical achievements of his predecessors. In the process of continuously enriching, appropriating, and analyzing real material, he discovers their contradictions and defects, thereby defining new concepts and transforming old concepts. Apart from a few, such as the early British socialists and Sismondi, who stood on the side of the workers, the vast majority of political economists before Marx were representatives of the interests of the bourgeoisie. Therefore, for Marx, especially in the early period of his study of political economy, the “old concepts” he critiqued were mainly those defined and successively revised by bourgeois economists such as Smith, Ricardo, Say, and James Mill. It was precisely through the critique of these old concepts that Marx gained an understanding of the contradictions of the capitalist economic system, while also discovering the constraints that the positions and attitudes of these economists placed on their conceptual thinking, as well as the problems in their research methods.

对旧概念进行批判，是马克思学习、理解和反思前人理论成果，在对现实材料的不断充实、占有和分析中，发现其中的矛盾和缺陷，进而规定新概念和改造旧概念的重要条件。马克思之前的政治经济学家，除了少数如英国的早期社会主义者和西斯蒙第等站在劳动者立场之外，绝大多数都是资产阶级利益的代表。因此，对于马克思而言，尤其在他研究政治经济学的初期，他所批判的“旧概念”,主要就是斯密、李嘉图、萨伊、詹姆斯·穆勒等资产阶级经济学家所规定和相继修正过的概念。正是通过对这些旧概念的批判，使马克思对资本主义经济制度矛盾有所认识，同时也发现这些经济学家的立场和态度对其概念思维的制约，以及他们在研究方法上存在的问题。

Marx’s critique of the old concepts of political economy aimed to discover and reveal their defects and contradictions. However, this was by no means an examination in a purely speculative sense. Rather, starting from the standpoint of the wage-laboring class, and based on the analysis of the relevant factual material he had appropriated, he examined the connotation and extension of the old concepts, discovered the problems therein, and thereby deepened his understanding of the capitalist economic system. The critique of old concepts was not a one-time event. In Marx’s study of political economy, which lasted over 20 years, almost every cycle of conceptual movement he achieved began with the appropriation of material and the critique of old concepts, and this critique ran through the entire process of conceptual movement.

马克思对政治经济学旧概念的批判，是要发现和揭示其中的缺陷与矛盾，但这绝非纯粹思辨意义上的考察，而是从雇佣劳动者阶级立论，在分析所占有的相关事实材料的情况下，审视旧概念的内涵与外延，发见其中所存在的问题，由此加深对资本主义经济制度的认识。对旧概念的批判，并不是一次性的，在马克思持续20多年的政治经济学研究中，其所实现的每一次概念运动的循环，几乎都是从占有材料和批判旧概念开始，并且贯彻于概念运动的全过程。

Specifically, in the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, the critique of old concepts mainly focused on concepts such as wages, profit on capital, rent, money, and private property as defined by Smith and others. Through the critique of these concepts, Marx not only initially formed an understanding of the essential contradictions of the capitalist economic system, defined the concept of “alienated labor,” and delineated the essence of the capitalist economic system from the concepts of “alienated labor” and the transformed “private property,” but also clarified the bourgeois stance of Smith and others and their resulting attitude towards the contradictions of the capitalist economic system. He revealed the defects in the connotation and extension of the corresponding old concepts, and thereby demonstrated the problems in their research methods. By the time of writing the *Grundrisse* (1857–1858), Marx had read a significantly larger number of works on political economy and had systematically reflected on and critiqued this quite vast body of texts. This was the basis on which he proposed the new concept defining the essence of the capitalist economic system, namely “surplus value,” and it was also the theoretical prerequisite for him to transform old concepts starting from the concept of “surplus value” and thereby establish his own theory and system of concepts. In the *Economic Manuscript of 1861–1863*, after discussing his further transformed concept of “surplus value,” Marx examined the theory of surplus value in the form of a special treatise. This was a systematic retrospective of earlier classical political economy doctrines and a general critique of the “old concepts” of political economy. It was precisely through this critique that Marx further demonstrated his own theory of surplus value and created the conditions for transforming these old concepts and enriching his own theoretical system. In the process of critiquing old concepts, Marx focused on discovering the defects and limitations in the epistemology and methodology of the bourgeois economists, thereby exploring the ways and details for enriching and developing his own “conceptual logic.”

具体而言，《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中对旧概念的批判主要集中于斯密等人规定的工资、资本利润、地租、货币、私有财产等概念上，通过对这些概念的批判，马克思不仅初步形成了对资本主义经济制度矛盾本质的认识，规定了“异化劳动”概念，并从“异化劳动”和改造了的“私有财产”概念界定了资本主义经济制度的本质，也明确了斯密等人的资产阶级立场以及由此而形成的对待资本主义经济制度矛盾的态度，揭示了相应旧概念在内涵和外延上的缺陷，并由此论证了他们研究方法的问题。而到了《1857—1858年经济学手稿》的写作，马克思阅读的政治经济学著作已经大大增加，对这样一个相当巨大的文本群进行了系统的反思和批判，这是他由以提出规定资本主义经济制度本质的新概念即“剩余价值”的基础，也是他从“剩余价值”概念出发改造旧概念，进而建立自己的学说与概念体系的理论前提。在《1861—1863年经济学手稿》中，马克思在论述其所进一步改造的“剩余价值”概念之后，以专论的形式探讨剩余价值理论，这是对此前的古典政治经济学学说的系统回溯，也是对政治经济学“旧概念”的总批判。正是通过这种批判，马克思进一步论证了自己的剩余价值理论，并且为改造这些旧概念、充实自己的理论体系创造了条件。在对旧概念进行批判的过程中，马克思注重发现资产阶级经济学家们在认识论和方法论上的缺陷与局限，由以探究自己的“概念逻辑”充实和发展的途径与细节。

2. Definition of New Concepts

2.对新概念的规定

Through analyzing and summarizing the materials he had fully amassed, Marx critiqued “old concepts” and defined “new concepts.” This reflects his entirely new understanding of the capitalist economic system and constitutes his historical contribution to the development of political economy. The history of “political economy,” beginning with mercantilism, had by Marx’s time formed a vast constellation of concepts. This constellation was an accumulation of concepts gradually defined by economists of various periods, and also the manifestation of a continuous process of selection, debate, and transformation. In this lengthy process, important bourgeois economists such as Smith, Ricardo, and Say each defined new concepts based on their own research content. This reflected their theoretical viewpoints and methodologies, and marked their status in the history of the development of political economy. Marx’s definition of concepts in political economy involved, first, abstract concepts serving as the core of the conceptual system—that is, concepts defining the essence of the capitalist economic system; second, in the internal “movement” from this abstract core concept to concrete concepts, the definition of antecedent concepts necessary for demonstrating the core concept (which previous thinkers had not defined), along with some trunk concepts and auxiliary concepts through which the core concept unfolds. The core concept of Marx’s political economy “conceptual system” is the definition of the essence of the capitalist economic system, and also a scientific summary of its principal contradiction.

马克思通过分析、概括其充分占有的材料，批判“旧概念”而规定的“新概念”,是他对资本主义经济制度的全新认识的体现，也是其对政治经济学的历史发展贡献所在。从重商主义肇始的“政治经济学”历史，发展到马克思时期已经形成了一个庞大的概念群，它是各个时期的经济学家逐步规定的概念的累积，也是一个不断筛选、辩难、改造过程的体现。在这个漫长的过程中，重要的资产阶级经济学家如斯密、李嘉图、萨伊等，都会根据自己的研究内容来规定一些新概念，这是他们的理论观点和方法论的体现，也是他们在政治经济学发展史上地位的标志。马克思规定政治经济学的概念，一是作为概念体系核心的抽象概念，也就是规定资本主义经济制度本质的概念；二是从这个抽象核心概念到具体概念的内在“运动”进程中，对论证核心概念所必要的(前人没有进行规定的)前导概念和由以展开核心概念的部分主干概念与辅助概念的规定。马克思政治经济学“概念体系”的核心概念是对资本主义经济制度本质的规定，也是对其主要矛盾的科学概括。

In the course of his research into political economy, Marx successively defined two “core concepts.” The first was the concept of “alienated labor” (entfremdete Arbeit) in the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*; the second was the concept of “surplus value” (Surplus Value), initially defined in the *Grundrisse* (1857–1858), subsequently reworked several times, and fully articulated in *Capital*. The definition of the concept of “alienated labor” marks the formation of Marx’s political economy doctrine, while the negation of the concept of “alienated labor” by the concept of “surplus value,” and the latter’s continuous transformation, centrally embody the dialectical development of Marx’s research method and doctrinal system.

在政治经济学研究的进程中，马克思先后规定了两个“核心概念”,一个是《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中的“异化劳动”(entfremdete Arbeit)概念，另一个是在《1857—1858年经济学手稿》中初步规定，之后几经改造后在《资本论》中得以充分表述的“剩余价值”(Surplus Value)概念。“异化劳动”概念的规定标志着马克思政治经济学学说的形成，而“剩余价值”概念对于“异化劳动”概念的否定及其不断的改造，集中体现着马克思的研究方法和学说体系的辩证发展。

The definition of trunk concepts and auxiliary concepts in the “conceptual logic” of *Capital* involves concepts that Marx himself defined because no corresponding old concepts existed that could be critiqued and transformed, as he unfolded the demonstration of contradictions at various levels in the movement from the abstract core concept to concrete concepts. For Marx, the old concepts that had undergone his critique and transformation were already organic components of the conceptual system of *Capital*. However, due to the limitations of the class standpoints, historical conditions, and methodologies of earlier economists, certain levels and links of contradiction in reality had not been conceptually defined. Therefore, Marx could only enrich the conceptual movement and system by defining new concepts himself. These newly defined trunk concepts and auxiliary concepts, together with the old concepts that had been critiqued and transformed by Marx, constitute the trunk and content of Marx’s political economy system, within the conceptual movement that unfolds the essential definition of the abstract core concept and demonstrates the contradictions of the capitalist economic system.

《资本论》“概念逻辑”中对主干概念和辅助概念的规定，是在从抽象的核心概念到具体概念的运动中展开论证各层次矛盾时，因为并不存在相应的可批判改造的旧概念而自行规定的概念。对于马克思来说，经过他的批判和改造的旧概念，已经是《资本论》概念体系的有机组成部分，但是由于此前经济学家阶级立场、历史条件和方法论层面的局限性，对于有些现实中的矛盾层次、环节并没有进行概念上的规定，因此，马克思只能通过自己规定新概念，来充实概念运动和体系。新规定的主干概念和辅助概念，与经由马克思批判、改造的旧概念，在展开抽象核心概念的本质规定、论证资本主义经济制度矛盾的概念运动中，构成马克思政治经济学体系的主干和内容。

3. The Transformation of Concepts

3.概念的改造

The transformation of concepts is a “re-definition” (Re-definition) of existing concepts, and is an important link in the “concept-movement” of *Capital* and its manuscripts. What “the transformation of concepts” in the “conceptual logic” of *Capital* refers to encompasses two parts: the concepts newly defined by Marx, and the old concepts of political economy that had been formed in a stratified manner since mercantilism. The object of Marx’s research is the contradiction of the capitalist economic system, which is historically formed, actually existing, and continuously developing and evolving. In this sense of historical flux, whether it is Marx himself or bourgeois economists such as Smith, Ricardo, and Say, all made rational definitions of this objective contradiction at specific points in time and representing specific classes. Consequently, their definitions inevitably bore the limitations and defects of their standpoints, research methods, and the materials at their disposal. For this reason, it was necessary, in the course of ongoing research, to transform concepts that had already been defined. In the “conceptual logic” of *Capital*, “the transformation of concepts,” as a necessary link, is not completed at one stroke but is carried out continuously in the research process. This is the self-perfection of concepts. Perfection is the goal of transformation, and moreover, the principle of transformation. This includes both Marx’s transformation of the concepts he himself had newly defined, and his transformation of old concepts.

概念改造是对既有概念的“再规定”(Re-definition),是《资本论》及其手稿的“概念—运动”的重要环节。《资本论》“概念逻辑”中“概念的改造”所意指的是马克思新规定的概念和自重商主义以降层累式形成的政治经济学旧概念两个部分。马克思所研究的对象，是资本主义经济制度矛盾，它是历史形成、现实存在并且不断发展演进的。在这个历史流变的意义上，不论是马克思本人，还是斯密、李嘉图、萨伊等资产阶级经济学家，都是在特定的时间点、代表特定的阶级对这个对象性矛盾做出理性规定的，因而也必然都有其立场、研究方法和所占有材料的局限与缺陷。为此，就要在不断持续的研究中，对已经规定的概念进行改造。《资本论》“概念逻辑”中，“概念的改造”作为必要的环节，并非一次性完成的，而是在研究进程中不断进行，这也就是概念的自身完善(Self-Perfection)。完善是改造的目的，更是改造的律则，这其中，既包括马克思对自己所新规定的概念的改造，也包括对旧有概念的改造。

Marx’s transformation of the concepts he himself defined is concentrated on the two concepts that serve as the core of his conceptual system and through which the essence of the capitalist economic system is defined: “alienated labor” and “surplus value.” The concept of “alienated labor” was defined by Marx shortly after he began his research into political economy. It locates the essence of the capitalist economic system in the contradiction between the working class and the bourgeoisie, and then, through analyzing the alienation of labor resulting from their unity of opposites, defines the contradictory essence of this system: labor, as a species-activity of human beings, under the system of capitalist private property, not only has its product alienated into the private property of the capitalist and a means for further compelling labor into a situation of continuous alienation, but the labor process itself also becomes alienated from the worker, leading to the alienation of humanity’s species-being and social relations. Such insight was profound and sharp, but still not precise enough; it still had a certain distance from the rigor required by “rigorous science.” At this time, Marx’s research method was still heavily influenced by Hegel, giving his exposition a distinctly speculative character. From the late 1840s to the early 1850s, in the process of using “alienated labor” as the abstract core concept to critique and transform the concrete concepts of bourgeois economics and to demonstrate concrete, real economic contradictions, Marx gradually discovered the limitations of the concept of “alienated labor.” In the *Grundrisse* (1857–1858), he carried out a negating transformation of it: replacing the concept of “alienated labor” with the concept of “surplus value,” and reconstructing a conceptual system with “surplus value” as its core. And this newly defined concept of “surplus value,” just like the concept of “alienated labor,” had to continuously undergo corresponding speculation, reflection, critique, and transformation.

马克思对自己规定的概念的改造，集中于对作为自己概念体系之核心、由以规定资本主义经济制度本质的“异化劳动”和“剩余价值”两个概念。“异化劳动”概念是马克思在进入政治经济学研究后不久便进行规定的，它将资本主义经济制度的本质定位于工人阶级和资产阶级之间的矛盾，进而通过分析两者的对立统一所导致的劳动异化，界定了这个制度的矛盾本质：劳动作为人的本质性活动，在资本主义私有财产制度之下，不仅其产品异化为资本家的私有财产和进一步迫使劳动陷入不断异化境况的手段，而且劳动过程本身也和劳动者之间产生异化，并导致了人的类本质和社会关系的异化。这样的洞见是深刻的、尖锐的，但仍不够精准，与“严格科学”(Rigorous Science)所要求的严谨性仍有一定的距离。此时的马克思在研究方法上，仍旧受到黑格尔很深的影响，从而使其论述带有明显的思辨性。在19世纪40年代后期至50年代前期，马克思在以“异化劳动”为抽象核心概念对资产阶级经济学的具体概念进行批判和改造，论证具体的现实经济矛盾过程中，逐渐发现了“异化劳动”概念的局限性，并在《1857—1858年经济学手稿》中对其进行了否定性的改造：以“剩余价值”概念取代“异化劳动”概念，重新建构以“剩余价值”为核心的概念体系。而新规定的“剩余价值”概念，也同“异化劳动”概念一样，必须不断接受相应的思辨、反思、批判和改造。

On the other hand, the general principle Marx adopted in transforming old concepts was consistent with his transformation of the non-core concepts he himself had defined. The difference was merely that those “old concepts” came from definitions made by earlier bourgeois economists, had themselves undergone a fairly long process of transformation, and therefore it was necessary to clarify the class standpoints, historical contexts, and characteristics of thought of those who defined and revised these concepts. These important concepts, such as “value,” “capital,” “profit,” “wages,” and “rent,” each have their own history of evolution. The reason these concepts had to be transformed was that Marx believed that although they had one defect or another, the various levels and links of the contradiction of the capitalist economic system that they defined were still very important. As long as, within the conceptual system, one unfolds the essence of the capitalist economic system as defined by its core concept, supplements it with summaries of newly acquired materials, clarifies the particularities of the various levels and links of economic contradiction embodied in these concepts, and unifies them with the essential definition of the economic contradiction, one can adequately explain the systemic contradictions of the capitalist economic system.

而另一方面，马克思在改造旧概念时所采取的总体原则，是与他对自己所规定的非核心概念的改造相一致的，不同之处只是那些“旧概念”来自此前的资产阶级经济学家所做出的规定，其本身也经历了相当长时段的改造进程，进而必须明确这些概念规定和修正者的阶级立场、历史语境和思维特质。这些重要的概念如“价值”“资本”“利润”“工资”“地租”等各有其历史演变的历程，之所以要对这些概念进行改造，是因为马克思认为，这些概念虽然有着这样或那样的缺陷，但是它们所规定的资本主义经济制度矛盾的诸层次、环节，仍然是非常重要的。只要在概念体系中展开依循其所规定的核心概念中的资本主义经济制度本质，并补充对新占有材料的概括，明晰这些概念所体现的经济矛盾诸层次、环节的特殊性，将其与对经济矛盾的本质规定相统一，就可以恰切说明资本主义经济制度的系统性矛盾。

4. The Transformation of Concepts [Note: The original Chinese heading is “概念的转化,” which can mean “transformation of concepts” or “conversion of concepts.” Given the context and the parallel structure with the previous section heading “概念的改造” (The Transformation of Concepts), “transformation” is used here, though “conversion” might also be considered. The author likely intends a different nuance from “改造” (reform/remake), perhaps indicating a shift or transition in the conceptual movement.]

4.概念的转化

The discursive structure of *Capital* is a vast conceptual system, in which no single concept exists in isolation but is rather a necessary link in an organic whole. The “conceptual logic” of *Capital* is the concentrated objectification of Marx’s life and dialectical thinking, and the capitalist economic system, as the object of *Capital*’s critique, is likewise a living organism that moves through contradiction. When Marx objectified his own life and thinking in this living object, he did not rigidly adhere to previously formed conceptual frameworks and systems of ideas; instead, he continuously elevated his own capacity and method of thinking in accordance with the evolution of its contradictions, revealing and demonstrating the essence and laws of this “contradiction-movement” through a developing “concept-movement.” In the “conceptual logic” of *Capital*, the “critique of old concepts,” the “determination of new concepts,” and the “transformation of concepts” are not separate and isolated from one another but are internally unified in the “transformation of concepts” within the process of “concept-movement.”

《资本论》的论述结构是个庞大的概念体系，其中的任何一个概念都不是孤立的存在，而是有机整体的必要环节。《资本论》的“概念逻辑”是马克思的生命和辩证思维的对象化的集中体现，而作为《资本论》批判对象的资本主义经济制度，也是有生命的因矛盾而运动的机体。马克思在将自己的生命和思维对象化于这个活的客体(Objects)的时候，并不是固守于此前形成的概念框架与观念系统，而是依循其矛盾的演化而不断地提升自己的思维能力和方法，通过发展的“概念—运动”来揭示和论证这一“矛盾—运动”的本质与规律。《资本论》“概念逻辑”中“对旧概念的批判”“新概念的规定”和“概念的改造”并不是分立隔绝的，而是内在统一于“概念—运动”进程的“概念的转化”。

The “transformation of concepts” in *Capital* takes two forms: first, the transformation of concrete concepts into abstract concepts; second, the transformation of abstract concepts into concrete concepts. The two forms complement each other, yet each has its own characteristics at the methodological level. The contradictions of the capitalist economic system, as the object of *Capital*’s critical investigation, constitute an organic whole composed of contradictions at multiple levels and links. To effectively reveal, demonstrate, and critique their essence and laws, the “conceptual logic” of *Capital* must construct a system of concepts whose levels and links correspond to the object. Each concept in this system is a concentrated summary of the understanding of the corresponding level and link, thereby forming mutual “co-existential” relations of concreteness and abstraction among them. The general principle of the “conceptual logic” of *Capital* is the form of “transformation” that proceeds “from the concrete to the abstract and then from the abstract to the concrete.” At every level and link of this “concept-movement,” there also exist mutual relations of concreteness and abstraction.

《资本论》中的“概念转化”体现为两种形式：一是具体概念向抽象概念的转化，二是抽象概念向具体概念的转化，两种形式相辅相成，而在方法层面又各有特点。资本主义经济制度矛盾作为《资本论》批判研究的对象，是由多层次、多环节的矛盾构成的有机整体，要切实揭示、论证和批判其本质与规律，《资本论》的“概念逻辑”必须要型构与对象相适应的层次、环节的概念系统，这个系统中的各个概念，都是对相应层次、环节之认识的集中概括，也由此而形成其相互之间具体和抽象的“共在性”关联。《资本论》“概念逻辑”的总原则是“从具体到抽象再由抽象上升到具体”的“转化”形态，在这个“概念—运动”的各个层次、环节上，也都存在着相互之间的具体与抽象关系。

The abstract concept in the overall concept-movement is the core concept that determines the essence of the capitalist economic system. In Marx’s early thought, this was “alienated labor,” while after the *Grundrisse* (1857–1858), it became “surplus value.” However, this does not mean that the “abstract concept” is singular in Marx’s system of economic concepts. In fact, abstract and concrete are relative: concepts that determine different levels and links of the contradictions of the capitalist economic system exhibit relations of abstraction and concreteness depending on the generality and particularity of the object. Relative to “money,” “commodity” is an abstract concept, while “money” is a concrete concept; relative to “capital,” “money” is an abstract concept, while “capital” is a concrete concept. Following this line of thought, when “capital” is set against a system of concepts such as “constant capital,” “variable capital,” “circulating capital,” “fixed capital,” “commercial capital,” and “money-capital,” “capital” is undoubtedly an abstract concept, while the concepts determining its different forms are concrete concepts. In this sense, “surplus value,” as the core concept determining the essence of the contradictions of the capitalist economic system, is an abstract concept relative to the concept of “profit,” but a concrete concept relative to the concept of “value.” The “conceptual logic” of *Capital* is constituted precisely by the internal unity and mutual transformation of abstract and concrete concepts at these different levels and links.

总体概念运动的抽象概念，是规定资本主义经济制度本质的核心概念，在马克思早期思想中是“异化劳动”,而在《1857—1858年经济学手稿》之后是“剩余价值”。但是，这并不意味着在马克思的经济学概念体系中，“抽象概念”是单一的，事实上，抽象与具体是相对而言的，作为规定资本主义经济制度矛盾不同层次、环节的概念，是因对象的一般性和特殊性而表现为抽象与具体的关系的。“商品”相对于“货币”而言，是抽象概念，“货币”则是具体概念；而“货币”相对于“资本”,则“货币”是抽象概念，“资本”是具体概念。根据这一思路，当“资本”相对于“不变资本”“可变资本”“流动资本”“固定资本”“商业资本”“货币资本”等概念系统的时候，“资本”无疑是抽象概念，规定其不同形态的概念则是具体概念。在这个意义上，“剩余价值”作为规定资本主义经济制度矛盾本质的核心概念，其相对于“利润”概念是抽象概念，但相对于“价值”概念又是具体概念。《资本论》“概念逻辑”就是由这样不同层次、环节的抽象概念与具体概念的内在统一与相互转化而构成的。

The transformation of concrete concepts into abstract concepts involves synthesizing the general factors within the particular contradictions determined by concrete concepts, combining this with the analysis of corresponding materials to arrive at a general understanding, thereby forming a conceptual determination of the generality of the contradiction. In the process of Marx’s political-economic research, this form of “transformation” manifests as a series of continuous levels and links of conceptual deduction as “movement.” For example, in the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, Marx first critically analyzed the three concrete concepts of “wages,” “profit of capital,” and “rent,” revealing the paradox embodied in them: “The political economist tells us that everything can be bought with labor and that capital is nothing but accumulated labor; but he tells us at the same time that the worker, far from being able to buy everything, must sell himself and his humanity.” [1]1 The “five-part structure” refers to Marx’s early plan for *Capital*, which included sections on capital, landed property, wage-labour, the state, and foreign trade. That is, under the capitalist system, although the worker is the true creator of “value,” he is “reduced to a machine, to the slave of capital.” [2]2 The “six-book plan” was Marx’s even earlier, more expansive outline for his critique of political economy, which included books on capital, landed property, wage-labour, the state, international trade, and the world market. Thus, by synthesizing the general factors of the capitalist economic system embodied in these concrete concepts, Marx formed the concept of “alienated labor,” which determines the essence of the entire system. Correspondingly, Marx’s later determination of the concept of “surplus value” was also achieved through the transformation of concrete concepts such as “profit” and “wages,” combined with the analysis and generalization of actual materials.

具体概念向抽象概念的转化，是对具体概念规定的特殊矛盾中一般性因素进行综合，结合对相应材料的分析所得到的一般性认识，从而形成对矛盾一般性的概念规定。这种“转化”形态在马克思的政治经济学研究过程中，体现为一系列连续不断的概念性推演的“运动”层次和环节。比如在《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中，马克思先是通过对“工资”“资本利润”“地租”这三个具体概念进行批判性分析，揭示了其中所体现的悖谬：“国民经济学家对我们说，一切东西都可用劳动来购买，而资本无非是积累的劳动；但是，他同时又对我们说，工人不但远不能购买一切东西，而且不得不出卖自己和自己的人性。”也就是说，在资本主义制度下，尽管工人是“价值”的真正创造者，但却“沦为机器，沦为资本的奴隶。”从而，马克思将这些具体概念中体现的资本主义经济制度的一般性因素加以综合，就形成规定整个制度本质的“异化劳动”概念。与此相对应，马克思之后进行的对“剩余价值”概念的规定，也是以对“利润”“工资”等具体概念的转化，同时结合现实材料的分析和概括而达成的。

The transformation of abstract concepts into concrete concepts in the “conceptual logic” of *Capital* is accomplished in the process of research and exposition, a process concentratedly presented in *Capital* and its manuscripts. Examined in terms of its overall process, the transformation of abstract concepts into concrete concepts takes the “abstract-core” concept as its starting point and proceeds through a series of levels and links to gradually determine or transform concrete concepts. Its key point is to unfold the generality of the essence of the contradictions of the capitalist economic system as determined in the relatively “abstract” concept, to combine this with the analysis of the actual materials in hand, to use relatively more “concrete” concepts to determine the particularity of the contradictions at that level and link, and then, through demonstration, to transform this into the determination of the particularity of the contradictions at the next level and link. The “transformation of concepts” proceeds continuously in research and exposition according to this law, thereby systematically constructing “the logical proof of a system of economics.” [3]3 “Heavenly journey” (天路历程) is a classical Chinese allusion, often associated with the Christian allegory *The Pilgrim’s Progress*, used here metaphorically to describe the arduous path of human liberation.

《资本论》“概念逻辑”中抽象概念向具体概念的转化，是在研究论述的过程中完成的，这一进程集中呈现于《资本论》及其手稿之中。抽象概念向具体概念的转化，从其总体进程来考察，是以“抽象—核心”概念为起点，通过一系列层次、环节逐步规定或改造具体概念的过程，其要点是展开相对“抽象”的概念中所规定的资本主义经济制度矛盾本质的一般性，结合对所占有现实材料的分析，以相对而言更为“具体”的概念来规定这一层次、环节矛盾的特殊性，并通过论证再转化为下一个层次、环节的矛盾特殊性的规定。“概念的转化”依此规律而在研究和论述之中连续进行，由此而系统构造“一个经济学体系的逻辑证明”。

III. The Dialectical Construction of the “Conceptual Logic” of *Capital*

三、《资本论》“概念逻辑”的辩证建构

Having comprehensively examined the various basic forms of the “conceptual logic” of *Capital*, we now dynamically investigate the constructive process of its “concept-movement” from the perspective of the “genesis” of Marx’s political-economic thought.

在全面探讨了《资本论》“概念逻辑”的诸种基本形态之后，我们再从马克思政治经济学思想的“发生学”(Genesis)视角动态地考察其“概念—运动”的建构进程。

The embodiment of the dialectical relation between “abstract and concrete” in the “concept-movement” of *Capital*’s conceptual logic takes “from the concrete to the abstract and from the abstract to the concrete” as its principle. Therefore, the “conceptual logic” in *Capital* and its manuscripts can be divided overall into two major stages: from the concrete to the abstract and from the abstract to the concrete, with the center being the complete determination of the concept of “surplus value” in Volume I of *Capital*. Relatively speaking, the overall stage of concept-movement “from the abstract to the concrete” is clear and definite, but the concept-movement in the stage “from the concrete to the abstract” that Marx himself achieved is relatively more complex. It took Marx more than twenty years to finally complete this concept-movement “from the concrete to the abstract,” and during this period he also underwent three “theoretical cycles” of concept-movement from the concrete to the abstract and then from the abstract to the concrete. Each “theoretical cycle” determined a provisional “abstract-core” concept: aside from the determination of the concept of “alienated labor” in the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, the abstract core concepts determined and transformed in the subsequent *Grundrisse* (1857–1858) and the *Economic Manuscript of 1861–1863* were both “surplus value.” Although these three important “theoretical cycles” also included the subsequent concept-movement “from the abstract to the concrete,” their theoretical endpoint remained the perfected determination of the concept of surplus value in Volume I of *Capital*. This is a dialectical process of theoretical construction.

《资本论》概念逻辑的“概念—运动”对于“抽象与具体”关系之辩证性(Dialectical)的体现，是以“从具体到抽象再从抽象到具体”为其原则的。因此，《资本论》及其手稿中的“概念逻辑”从总体上可以区分为从具体到抽象和从抽象到具体两个大的阶段，而其中心就是《资本论》第一卷对“剩余价值”概念的完备规定。相对来说，总体上的“从抽象到具体”的概念运动阶段是清晰明确的，但是马克思本身实现“从具体到抽象”阶段的概念运动，则相对比较复杂。经历20多年的时间，马克思才终于完成“从具体到抽象”这一概念运动，而且其间还经历了三次从具体到抽象再从抽象到具体的概念运动的“理论循环”,每一次的“理论循环”都规定了阶段性的“抽象—核心”概念，除了在《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中规定的是“异化劳动”概念，此后《1857—1858年经济学手稿》和《1861—1863年经济学手稿》中所规定和改造的抽象核心概念都是“剩余价值”。虽然这三次重要的“理论循环”也都包含了继起的“从抽象到具体”的概念运动，但是其理论归结点仍然是《资本论》第一卷中对剩余价值概念的完善规定，这是一个辩证的理论建构过程。

The "motional" process of the "conceptual logic" of *Capital* and its manuscripts began with Marx's study of political economy, which aimed at criticizing and negating bourgeois political economy and revealing and demonstrating the contradictory essence and laws of the capitalist economic system. Therefore, his object of study was also clear and specific, namely, the contradictions of the actually existing capitalist economic system and their representational content in the theoretical thinking of bourgeois economists. In this sense, Marx's study of political economy began precisely from the "concrete." And this horizon of the "concrete" contains two aspects: first, the "concrete" contradictions of the actually existing capitalist economic system; second, the "concrete" manifestation of the contradictions of the capitalist economic system in bourgeois political economy. In this sense, whether it is the appropriation, collation, and analysis of real materials, or the critical transformation of the old concepts of bourgeois political economy, they are all united in the conceptual movement "from the concrete to the abstract and from the abstract back to the concrete."

《资本论》及其手稿“概念逻辑”的“运动性”进程自马克思开始研究政治经济学，就以批判和否定资产阶级政治经济学、揭示和论证资本主义经济制度矛盾本质和规律为目的。因此，他的研究对象也是明确而具体的，即现实存在的资本主义经济制度矛盾及其在资产阶级经济学家理论思维中的表征内容(Representative Content)。从这个意义上说，马克思的政治经济学研究正是从“具体”(Concrete)开始的。而这一“具体”视域又包含两个方面的内容：一是现实存在的资本主义经济制度的“具体”矛盾；二是资本主义经济制度矛盾在资产阶级政治经济学中的“具体”体现。在这个意义下，不论是占有、整理和分析现实材料，还是批判性地改造资产阶级政治经济学的旧概念，都集合于“从具体到抽象再从抽象到具体”的概念运动中。

When writing the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, Marx's critical study of political economy was still in its infancy, and the real materials he had appropriated were not yet sufficient. However, he had already grasped the basic materials needed to reveal the contradictions of the capitalist economic system, and had also developed profound reflections on the internal problems of the capitalist system. In particular, through his critical examination of Hegel's *Elements of the Philosophy of Right*, he gained a deep understanding of bourgeois scholars represented by Hegel who systematically justified capitalist society. And through his acceptance of socialist doctrines and close contact with the working masses, he established his own proletarian standpoint. Precisely on the basis of these conditions, Marx was able, in his critique of the specific concepts of bourgeois economists such as Smith, Ricardo, and Say, to keenly and accurately analyze the general factors within them, and through comprehensive synthesis, to complete the determination of the core concept of the essence of the capitalist economic system—"alienated labor." After transforming the concept of "private property" with "alienated labor," he unfolded the transformation of the various specific concepts of bourgeois political economy. This transformation continued until the late 1840s and early 1850s. Although it was not completed, it initially constructed a conceptual system with the concept of "alienated labor" as its core.

在写作《1844年经济学哲学手稿》时，马克思的政治经济学批判研究仍处于起步阶段，其所占有的现实材料还不够充分，但是他已经掌握了揭示资本主义经济制度矛盾所需的基本材料，并且也对资本主义制度的内在问题有了深刻的思考，特别是他通过对于黑格尔《法哲学原理》的批判性考察，使他对以黑格尔为代表的为资本主义社会系统论证的资产阶级学者有了深入的理解，并在接受社会主义学说和与工人群众的密切联系中，确立了自己的无产阶级立场。正是基于这些条件，马克思得以在对斯密、李嘉图、萨伊等资产阶级经济学家的具体概念的批判中，敏锐而准确地剖析出其中的一般性因素，通过综合概括而完成了对资本主义经济制度本质的核心概念——“异化劳动”的规定。在以“异化劳动”改造了“私有财产”概念之后，展开了对资产阶级政治经济学各具体概念的改造，这种改造一直延续到19世纪40年代末到50年代初，虽然没有能够完成，但也初步建构了一个以“异化劳动”概念为核心的概念系统。

The conceptual movement from the concrete to the abstract and from the abstract back to the concrete, marked by the *Economic Manuscripts of 1857–1858*, had already begun in 1850. During this period, Marx's main work was to extensively and meticulously collect and appropriate concrete real materials on the capitalist economy, while also making extensive excerpts from the works of bourgeois economists for in-depth analysis. After a period of reflection and synthesis, Marx believed he had the intellectual conditions to once again engage in systematic argumentation, and so he began writing the economic manuscript titled *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*, unfolding the "concept-movement" process from the concrete to the abstract. Before determining "surplus value" as the core concept in the *Economic Manuscripts of 1857–1858*, Marx first wrote "Bastiat and Carey. Bastiat on Wages." Marx had planned to begin the overall argumentation of *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy* with a critique of Bastiat's concept of wages, but changed his plan during the writing process. Subsequently, Marx wrote the famous "Introduction," which accurately expounded production and the general relations of production to distribution, exchange, and consumption; the method of political economy; production, means of production and relations of production, relations of production and relations of exchange, state forms and forms of consciousness in relation to relations of production and relations of intercourse, legal relations, and family relations. Immediately following the "Introduction" are the chapter on money and the chapter on capital. Thus, the *Economic Manuscripts of 1857–1858* begins with a critique and transformation of the concept of "money," guided by general economic concepts and the method of political economy, and then completes the transformation of the concept of "capital" (including the two parts "the production process of capital" and "the circulation process of capital"). In discussing "the production process of capital," it determines the new core concept of "surplus value," and from there initiates theoretical exposition, determining and transforming the old specific concepts of classical political economy such as absolute surplus value, relative surplus value, profit, constant capital and variable capital, reproduction and accumulation of capital, primitive accumulation of capital, circulation of capital, fixed capital and circulating capital, interest, and cost of production. This was an imperfect "concept-movement" of "from the concrete to the abstract and from the abstract back to the concrete." Before completing this manuscript, Marx stopped writing the main text and wrote "Supplements to the Chapter on Money and the Chapter on Capital" and "Index to the Seven Notebooks (Part One)," indicating that he once again began to reflect on the connotation and extension of the relevant concepts, and read relevant literature to enrich materials, deepen analysis, and promote further research.

以《1857—1858年经济学手稿》为标志的从具体到抽象、再从抽象到具体的概念运动，早在1850年就开始了，在这一时期马克思的主要工作，就是广泛而详细地收集和占有资本主义经济的具体现实材料，同时大量摘录了资产阶级经济学家的著作内容，进行深入的分析。经过一段时间的思考与概括，马克思认为自己已经具备了再次进行系统论证的思想条件，于是开始撰写题为《政治经济学批判》的经济学手稿，展开从具体到抽象的“概念—运动”过程。《1857—1858年经济学手稿》在规定“剩余价值”作为核心概念之前，先写作了“巴师夏和凯里。巴师夏论工资”,马克思曾计划从批判巴师夏的工资概念开始《政治经济学批判》的总体论证，但是在写作过程中改变了计划。随后，马克思撰写了著名的“导言”,准确阐述了生产及生产与分配、交换、消费的一般关系；政治经济学的方法；生产、生产资料和生产关系、生产关系和交换关系、国家形式和意识形式同生产关系和交往关系、法的关系、家庭关系。紧随“导言”之后的，是货币章和资本章。由此可见，《1857—1858年经济学手稿》是以对一般性经济学概念和政治经济学方法为导引，从“货币”概念的批判和改造开始，进而完成对“资本”概念的改造(包括“资本的生产过程”“资本的流通过程”两部分),并在论述“资本的生产过程”时规定了“剩余价值”这个新的核心概念，并由此开启理论论述，规定和改造了绝对剩余价值、相对剩余价值、利润、不变资本和可变资本、资本的再生产和积累、资本的原始积累、资本流通、固定资本和流动资本、利息、生产费用等古典政治经济学的旧有具体概念。这是一次不完善的“从具体到抽象再从抽象到具体”的“概念—运动”,马克思在还未完成此手稿的情况下，就中止了正文的写作，写了“《货币章》和《资本章》的增补”以及“七个笔记本的索引(第一部分)”,表明他再次开始思考相关概念的内涵与外延，并阅读相关文献，由以充实材料、深入分析，推动进一步的研究。

*A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. Part One* was written and published in 1859. The publication of "Part One" fully demonstrates that Marx had a clearer conception of the overall "conceptual logic." The reason for titling it *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. Part One* is that Marx changed the "five-part structure" proposed in the "Introduction" and formulated a new research system of the "six-book plan." The first book was "Capital," in which the first section, "Capital in General," contained two chapters: Chapter One, Commodity, and Chapter Two, Money or Simple Circulation. The *Economic Manuscripts of 1861–1863* followed immediately, beginning with "Capital in General," starting from the transformation of money into capital. In this part, it transformed the concepts of "surplus value," "absolute surplus value," and "relative surplus value." Subsequently, in the chapter "Capital and Profit," it transformed the concept of "profit" from the concept of "surplus value." In the "Theories of Surplus Value" section, it proceeded from the concept of "surplus value" which he had determined and transformed, to a systematic critique of the old ideas and concepts of previous classical political economy. Marx believed that "all economists share the error of examining surplus value not as such, in its pure form, but in the particular forms of profit and rent."

《政治经济学批判。第一分册》写作并出版于1859年，“第一分册”的出版充分说明马克思对总体的“概念逻辑”有了更为明确的思考。之所以将标题定为《政治经济学批判。第一分册》,是因为马克思改变了在“导言”中提出的“五篇结构”,重新制订了“六册计划”的研究系统，第一册是“资本”,其中第一篇“资本一般”的题目下包含两章，即第一章商品和第二章货币或简单流通。《1861—1863年经济学手稿》紧随其后展开，开篇就是“资本一般”,从货币转化为资本，并在此部分改造了“剩余价值”“绝对剩余价值”“相对剩余价值”概念，并在之后的“资本和利润”章，从“剩余价值”概念改造“利润”概念。而在“剩余价值理论”部分，则是从他规定并改造了的“剩余价值”概念出发，对此前的古典政治经济学旧观念与旧概念的系统批判。马克思认为，此前的“所有经济学家都犯了一个错误：他们不是纯粹地就剩余价值本身，而是在利润和地租这些特殊形式上来考察剩余价值。”

Following this line of reasoning, in the *Economic Manuscripts of 1861–1863*, Marx first critically analyzed the discussions involving "surplus value" in the works of Steuart, the Physiocrats, and Smith, thereby verifying the historicity of the concept of "surplus value." Then, he focused on a critical examination of Ricardo's concepts of "profit" and "rent." From the perspective of the theory of surplus value, he examined the dissolution of the Ricardian school, discussed the theoretical paradoxes of bourgeois political economy concentratedly embodied in Ricardo's doctrine and their evolutionary trends, and from the analysis of the works of early socialists who criticized the capitalist economic system based on Ricardo's doctrine, clarified the design of determining the concept of "surplus value" from the standpoint of the working class and thereby constructing a scientific conceptual system of political economy. Furthermore, starting from the analysis of various revenues and their sources, Marx delved into the discussion of special forms of capital such as commercial capital and money-dealing capital, analyzing the transformed forms of "profit" in these specific forms. Correspondingly, he also analyzed the reflux movement of money and compound interest in capitalist reproduction, and from his historical perspective, critically explored the understanding of "surplus value" by "the proletarian opposition basing itself on Ricardo's theory," Hodgskin, Ramsay, Cherbuliez, Richard Jones, and others, thereby tracing back and demonstrating the theoretical rationality and historical necessity of Marx's own theory of "surplus value" and the theoretical system of political economy established on its basis.

遵循这一理路，马克思在《1861—1863年经济学手稿》中先是批判分析了斯图亚特、重农学派和斯密著作中涉及“剩余价值”的论述，由此验证“剩余价值”概念的历史性，接着集中批判性地考察了李嘉图的“利润”和“地租”概念，并从剩余价值理论的角度，对李嘉图学派的解体进行了考察，论述了李嘉图学说中集中体现的资产阶级政治经济学的理论悖谬及其演化趋势，并从对依据李嘉图学说来批判资本主义经济制度的早期社会主义者著作的分析中，明确了从劳动者阶级立场规定“剩余价值”概念并由此建构科学的政治经济学概念体系的设计。进而，马克思从分析各种收入及其源泉入手，切入对资本的特殊形态如商业资本、货币经营资本的论述，分析“利润”在这些具体形态中的转化形式。与之相应，他也分析了资本主义再生产中的货币回流运动和复利，并从其历史性的视野批判性地探讨了“以李嘉图理论为依据的无产阶级反对派”、霍吉斯金、拉姆塞、舍尔比利埃、理查·琼斯等人对于“剩余价值”的认识，由以回溯和论证马克思本人的“剩余价值”理论及和之为基础而建立的政治经济学理论体系的理论合理性与历史必然性。

As for the "Theories of Surplus Value" section in the *Economic Manuscripts of 1861–1863*, Marx planned to treat it as the "third part—the historical part" of the *Capital* system. In a letter to Sigmund Schott on November 3, 1877, he wrote: "The various parts of my work are written alternately. In fact, the order in which I myself wrote *Capital* is exactly the opposite of the order in which readers will see it (that is, I began with the third part—the historical part); it is just that the first volume, which I finally set about writing, was immediately ready for the press, while the other two volumes still remain in the form of first drafts characteristic of the initial stage of all research work." [1]1 The “five-part structure” refers to Marx’s early plan for *Capital*, which included sections on capital, landed property, wage-labour, the state, and foreign trade. Thus it can be seen that Marx's process of political economy research unfolded precisely in accordance with the principle of "concept—movement" from the concrete to the abstract and then from the abstract to the concrete. Through repeated intellectual-historical investigations from the concrete to the abstract and then from the abstract to the concrete, he had on the whole already completed the determination and transformation of the "abstract—core" concepts, and through the critique, determination, and transformation of the "concrete—trunk" concepts, he constructed a dialectical system that reveals the contradictory essence and laws of the capitalist economic system.

而对于《1861—1863年经济学手稿》中的“剩余价值理论”部分，马克思计划将它作为《资本论》著作体系的“第三部分——历史部分”来处理。在1877年11月3日写给西格蒙特·肖特(Sigmund Schott)的信中说：“我的著作的各个部分是交替着写的。实际上，我本人写作《资本论》的顺序同读者将要看到的顺序恰恰是相反的(即从第三部分——历史部分开始写),只不过我最后着手写的第一卷当即做好了付印的准备，而其他两卷仍然处于一切研究工作最初阶段所具有的那种初稿形式。”由此可见，马克思的政治经济学研究进程，正是依循“概念—运动”的从具体到抽象、再从抽象上升到具体的原则展开的。他通过反复的从具体到抽象再从抽象到具体的思想史考察，在总体上已经完成了对“抽象—核心”概念的规定和改造，并通过对“具体—主干”概念的批判、规定和改造，建构了揭示资本主义经济制度矛盾本质和规律的辩证体系。

IV. The Systematic Deduction of the "Conceptual Logic" of *Capital*

四、《资本论》“概念逻辑”的系统演绎

"Surplus value," which scientifically determines the essence of the contradictions of the capitalist economic system, is the "Core Concept" in the "conceptual logic" of *Capital*. The conceptual movement of the "conceptual logic" of *Capital* "from the concrete to the abstract and then from the abstract to the concrete" takes "surplus value" as its "Hinge Proposition" to unfold the determination of the contradictory essence of the capitalist economic system, to reveal, demonstrate, and critique the particularity and internal connections of each level, domain, and link of the contradictory system of the capitalist economic system, to explain the specific mechanisms of the production and realization of surplus value and its division among the various departments of total capital and its reproduction, thereby demonstrating the contradictions of the capitalist economic system as a whole.

科学规定资本主义经济制度矛盾之本质的“剩余价值”是《资本论》“概念逻辑”中的“核心概念”(Core Concept)。《资本论》“概念逻辑”的“从具体到抽象再从抽象到具体”的概念运动，就是以“剩余价值”为“枢纽命题”(Hinge Proposition)而展开的对资本主义经济制度矛盾本质的规定，揭示、论证和批判资本主义经济制度矛盾系统的各个层面、领域和环节的特殊性与内在联系，说明剩余价值生产与实现及其在总资本各部门间的分割和再生产的具体机制，从而在总体上论证资本主义经济制度的矛盾。

1. The "Concept—Movement" of "The Production Process of Capital"

1.“资本的生产过程”的“概念—运动”

After long and repeated reflection, Marx determined that the first part, "Commodities and Money," of the first volume, first book, "The Production Process of Capital," of *Capital*, through the transformation of the concepts of commodity, value, and money, concentrates his social-historical view and his view of human essence in the labor theory of value, and from there unfolds it within a conceptual system centered on the concept of "surplus value." "Commodity," "value," and "money" are concepts determined by classical liberal economists such as Smith and Ricardo, but they were unclear about, and even did not acknowledge, the special character of the capitalist economic system; consequently, they not only failed to determine the generality of concepts such as commodity, value, and money, but even emphasized the natural rationality of the capitalist economic system. Smith acknowledged that value originates from labor, but at the same time he paradoxically believed that value is jointly created by the three "factors" of labor, capital, and land. Although Ricardo insisted that value originates from labor, his exposition of labor creating value was, due to the limitations of his bourgeois standpoint and method, internally inconsistent, and this led to an irresolvable internal tension in his theory.

经过长期而反复的思考，马克思确定《资本论》第一卷第一册“资本的生产过程”的第一篇“商品和货币”,通过对商品、价值、货币概念的改造，将他的社会历史观和人本质观集中于劳动价值理论，并由此展开于以“剩余价值”概念为核心的概念体系之中。“商品”“价值”“货币”是斯密、李嘉图等古典自由主义经济学家规定的概念，但他们不明确，甚至不承认资本主义经济制度的特殊性质，因而不仅没有规定商品、价值、货币等概念的一般性，更是强调资本主义经济制度的天然的合理性。斯密承认价值来源于劳动，但他同时又悖谬性地认为价值是由劳动、资本、土地三个“要素”共同创造的。虽然李嘉图坚持价值来源于劳动，但他对劳动创造价值的论述又因其资产阶级立场和方法的局限而不能自相融贯，并由此导致其学说不可解消的内在张力。

At the time Marx wrote *Capital*, the mainstream bourgeois political economic view of value was the "factor theory" inherited from Smith and developed by Say. In his critique of the concepts of classical political economy, Marx fully recognized the defects and contradictions in the concepts of commodity, value, and money they used. His transformation of these three concepts not only clarified the generality of their intension and extension, but also, from the standpoint of the worker, adhered to and developed the labor theory of value. Through the labor theory of value, he carried his social-historical view and his view of human essence through the conceptual movement from the abstract to the concrete in the "conceptual logic" of *Capital*. Marx's transformation of the concept of commodity is clearly embodied in the dual character of the labor contained in the commodity, explaining that "the attribute of equal or abstract human labor" forms the value of the commodity, while "the attribute of concrete useful labor" produces use value, emphasizing that "the value objectivity can only be expressed in the social relation between commodity and commodity." [2]2 The “six-book plan” was Marx’s even earlier, more expansive outline for his critique of political economy, which included books on capital, landed property, wage-labour, the state, international trade, and the world market. On this basis, Marx further analyzed and determined the form of value, demonstrated exchange value and the exchange process, and then transformed the concept of "money," determining the functions of measure of value and means of circulation, as well as hoarding, means of payment, and world money.

在马克思写作《资本论》时，资产阶级政治经济学对于价值的主流观点是萨伊从斯密那里继承并发展了的“要素论”,马克思在对古典政治经济学概念的批判中，充分认识到他们所使用的商品、价值、货币概念的缺陷和矛盾所在，他对这三个概念的改造，不仅明确了其内涵和外延的一般性，更从劳动者立场坚持和发展了劳动价值论，通过劳动价值论将他的社会历史观和人本质观贯彻于《资本论》“概念逻辑”的从抽象到具体的概念运动。马克思对商品概念的改造，明确体现于商品中的劳动二重性，说明“相同的或抽象的人类劳动这个属性”形成商品价值，而“具体有用的劳动这个属性”生产使用价值，强调“价值对象性只能在商品同商品的社会关系中表现出来”。在此基础上，马克思进一步分析并规定了价值形式，论证了交换价值和交换过程，进而改造了“货币”概念，规定了价值尺度和流通手段，以及货币贮藏、支付手段、世界货币的职能。

Commodity, value, and money are not only general concepts of the "commodity economy" that includes the capitalist economic form, but are also the basic elements and real preconditions of capitalism. Marx explained this relationship from "the transformation of money into capital," and thereby transformed the concept of capital, deriving the existence of "surplus value" from the analysis of the general formula for capital and its contradictions. On this basis, he determined the concept of "labor power," pointing out that what capital purchases is not "labor," as previous economists had argued, but "labor power." From the buying and selling of labor power as a commodity, he determined surplus value and its source. Marx analyzed the labor process and the valorization process, and divided capital into constant capital and variable capital. From the valorization of the value of the variable capital used to purchase labor power, i.e., the rate of surplus value, he explained the degree of exploitation of labor power by capital, and examined the representation of the product's value in the corresponding parts of the product, in order to determine the quality and quantity of surplus value. Furthermore, he concretely analyzed the necessary labor time and surplus labor time within the working day, examined the production of surplus value, explained the reality of the working day and its historical changes, clarified the absoluteness of "surplus value," and thereby further determined the rate of surplus value and the mass of surplus value. In this way, Marx systematically transformed and demonstrated the concept of surplus value, which had been preliminarily determined in definitional form in the *Economic Manuscripts of 1857–1858* and the *Economic Manuscripts of 1861–1863*, established the core position of the concept of surplus value in the "conceptual logic" of *Capital*, and, using this, unfolded the essence of the capitalist economic system as determined by the concept of surplus value. Through the determination or transformation of a series of concepts, he profoundly demonstrated the contradictory system of the capitalist economic system.

商品、价值、货币不仅是包括资本主义经济形态在内的“商品经济”的一般性概念，更是资本主义经济的基本要素和现实前提。马克思从“货币转化为资本”说明了这种关系，并由此改造了资本概念，从资本总公式及其矛盾的分析中引出了“剩余价值”的存在。在此基础上，规定了“劳动力”概念，指出资本所购买的并不是此前的经济学家所论述的“劳动”,而是“劳动力”。从劳动力作为商品的买和卖规定剩余价值及其来源，马克思分析了劳动过程和价值增殖过程，并将资本分为不变资本和可变资本，从购买劳动力的可变资本价值量的增殖，即剩余价值率来说明资本对劳动力的剥削程度，并考察了产品价值在产品相应部分的表现，以确定剩余价值的质和量。进而，具体分析了工作日中的必要劳动时间和剩余劳动时间，考察了剩余价值的生产，说明工作日的现实及其历史变化，明确了“剩余价值”的绝对性，由此进一步规定了剩余价值率和剩余价值量。这样，马克思就将在《1857—1858年经济学手稿》和《1861—1863年经济学手稿》中以定义形式初步规定的剩余价值概念进行了系统改造和论证，确定了剩余价值概念在《资本论》“概念逻辑”中的核心地位，并以此展开剩余价值概念所规定的资本主义经济制度的本质，通过对一系列概念的规定或改造，深刻论证了资本主义经济制度的矛盾系统。

In the conceptual movement "from the abstract to the concrete" with the concept of "surplus value" as the abstract—core concept, the trunk concepts it determines and transforms include, in Volume I of *Capital*, "relative surplus value," "wages," and "the accumulation of capital"; in Volume II, "the circuit of capital," "the turnover of capital," and "the reproduction and circulation of the total social capital"; and in Volume III, "profit," "average profit," "price of production," "commodity capital and commercial profit," "interest and interest-bearing capital," "rent," and so on.

以“剩余价值”概念为抽象—核心概念的“从抽象到具体”的概念运动，其所规定和改造的主干概念，在《资本论》第一卷中包括“相对剩余价值”“工资”“资本积累”;第二卷有“资本循环”“资本周转”“社会总资本的再生产和流通”;第三卷有“利润”“平均利润”“生产价格”“商品资本和商业利润”“利息和生息资本”“地租”等。

"Relative surplus value" is the first link in the conceptual movement of the concept of "surplus value" from the "abstract" to the "concrete." Marx points out: "I call the surplus value produced by the prolongation of the working day absolute surplus value; on the contrary, I call the surplus value produced by the shortening of necessary labor time and the corresponding change in the quantitative proportion of the two components of the working day relative surplus value." The so-called "prolonged working day" refers to the surplus labor that exceeds the worker's necessary labor time—the time required to produce the value of his labor-power—and the surplus value it produces is absolute, also constituting the essential determination and general form of the capitalist production process. The concept of surplus value is precisely the determination of "absolute surplus value" or the absoluteness of surplus value. Correspondingly, "relative surplus value" is the concrete form of surplus value, characterized by shortening "necessary labor time" to increase surplus value; it manifests in three forms: cooperation, division of labor and manufacture, and machinery and large-scale industry. The collective formed by cooperation can produce surplus value for the capitalist without the latter having to pay for it. Division of labor and manufacture, formed on the basis of writing [cooperation], together with machinery and large-scale industry, are both two forms and two stages of the production of "relative surplus value." Marx examines them at great length, thereby providing ample material analysis and demonstration of the concrete production process of surplus value. Furthermore, Marx analyzes the evolution of absolute surplus value within the production of relative surplus value and their relationship. Wages are the monetary price the worker receives for selling his labor-power; for the capitalist, they are the variable capital he advances. Surplus value is both the value newly produced exceeding the value of variable capital and the value the worker produces during the working day exceeding the value of his wages. In this sense, "wages," as the antithesis of surplus value, are already contained within the determination of the concept of surplus value. As a whole, including the analysis of the purchase and sale of labor-power, the determination of variable capital, and the analysis of necessary labor and surplus labor within the working day, all serve to demonstrate the contradictory unity of capital and wage-labor. Marx criticizes Smith's and Ricardo's view that capital accumulation is merely the consumption of surplus products by productive workers, as well as Senior's "abstinence theory,"[1]1 The “five-part structure” refers to Marx’s early plan for *Capital*, which included sections on capital, landed property, wage-labour, the state, and foreign trade. defining "capital accumulation" as "the conversion of surplus value into capital," thereby also as the process of capitalist expanded reproduction and the reproduction of its relations of production—that is, the concrete demonstration in the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* of the determination of the concept of alienated labor, wherein the worker produces, through his own labor, the conditions that control his own labor and his life. Subsequently, Marx examines the general law of capitalist accumulation, analyzes the bourgeois economists' view that so-called "primitive accumulation of capital" originates from the capitalist's diligence and frugality, and correctly points out the nature of capital's violent plunder. On this basis, he demonstrates the historical tendency of capitalist accumulation, namely, that due to the evolution of its own contradictions, it is necessarily negated by a new economic system.

“相对剩余价值”是“剩余价值”概念由“抽象”向“具体”过渡的概念运动的第一个环节。马克思指出：“我把通过延长工作日而生存的剩余价值，叫做绝对剩余价值；相反，我把通过缩短必要劳动时间、相应地改变工作日的两个组成部分的量的比例而生产的剩余价值，叫做相对剩余价值。”所谓“延长的工作日”,是指超过工人的必要劳动时间——生产其劳动力价值的时间——的剩余劳动，它所生产的剩余价值是绝对的，也是资本主义生产过程的本质规定和一般形式。剩余价值概念就是对“绝对剩余价值”或剩余价值之绝对性的规定。与之对应，“相对剩余价值”是剩余价值的具体形式，其特点是缩短“必要劳动时间”以增加剩余价值，它表现为三种形式：协作、分工和工场手工业、机器和大工业。协作形成的集体不需要资本家付出代价就可以为他生产剩余价值，在写作基础上形成的分工和工场手工业与机器和大工业，即是“相对剩余价值”生产的两种形式，也是两个阶段，马克思以大量篇幅对它们进行了考察，从而以充分的材料分析和论证了剩余价值的具体生产过程。进而马克思又分析了在相对剩余价值生产中的绝对剩余价值的演变及其关系。工资是工人出卖劳动力所得到的货币价格，对资本家来说则是其付出的可变资本。剩余价值既是新生产的价值超过可变资本的价值，也是工人在工作日生产的价值超过其工资的价值。在这个意义上，“工资”作为剩余价值的对立面，已经包含在剩余价值概念的规定中了。作为一个整体，包括劳动力的买和卖、可变资本的规定以及工作日中必要劳动和剩余劳动的分析，都是在论证资本与雇佣劳动的对立统一关系。马克思批判了斯密和李嘉图将资本积累仅仅看做是由生产工人消费的剩余产品的观点，以及西尼尔的“节欲论”,将“资本积累”界定为“剩余价值转化为资本”,从而也是资本主义的扩大再生产及其生产关系的再生产过程，即《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中关于异化劳动概念的规定中的工人以自己的劳动生产控制自己的劳动条件和生命的具体论证。随后，马克思又考察了资本主义积累的一般规律，分析了资产阶级经济学家所谓“资本原始积累”源于资本家勤劳节俭的观点，正确地指出了资本的暴力掠夺本性。在此基础上，论证了资本主义积累的历史趋势，即因其自身矛盾演化而必然被新的经济制度所否定。

2. The "Concept-Movement" of the "Circulation Process of Capital"

2.“资本的流通过程”的“概念—运动”

The writing of Volume II of *Capital* was not originally within the "five-part structure" and "six-book plan"[2]2 The “six-book plan” was Marx’s even earlier, more expansive outline for his critique of political economy, which included books on capital, landed property, wage-labour, the state, international trade, and the world market. given in the earlier economic manuscripts, nor did the *Grundrisse* (1857–1858) develop and demonstrate the relevant content. In the *Economic Manuscript of 1861–1863*, after completing the critical commentary on Smith, Marx wrote an "inserted section" analyzing Quesnay's *Tableau Économique*. In it, Marx points out: "The continuous reflux of money to its point of departure here expresses not only the formal transformation from money to commodity and from commodity to money, as it does in the simple circulation process or simple commodity exchange, but also the continuous reproduction of commodities carried out by the same producer." Through his detailed examination of Quesnay's *Tableau Économique*, Marx gained an important insight: between the concept of surplus value and the concept of profit, there must exist a necessary "mediating" link, namely, the determination of the reproduction and circulation of capital. It was precisely this line of thought that prompted Marx, after completing Volume I of *Capital*, to write "Volume II," i.e., "The Circulation Process of Capital." Through the determinations of "the circuit of capital," "the turnover of capital," and "the reproduction and circulation of the aggregate social capital," it takes up the demonstration of the content of capitalist reproduction—the conversion of surplus value into capital—from the concept of "accumulation of capital" in Volume I, deeply examining the evolution of its forms, thereby providing the theoretical premise for demonstrating the composition of aggregate social capital and its role in the production of surplus value in "The Process of Capitalist Production as a Whole."

《资本论》第二卷的写作，本身并不在此前经济学手稿所给出的“五篇结构”和“六册计划”之中，《1857—1858经济学手稿》中也没有展开论证其中相关的内容。在《1861—1863年经济学手稿》中，完成了对斯密的评论性内容之后，马克思写作了一个分析魁奈《经济表》的“插入部分”,在其中，马克思指出：“货币不断流回它的出发点，在这里，不仅表现从货币到商品和从商品到货币的形式上的转化，像它在简单流通过程或简单商品交换中所表现的那样，同时也表现同一个生产者进行的商品的不断再生产。”马克思通过对魁奈《经济表》的细致考察，得到了一个重要启示，就是在剩余价值概念和利润概念之间，应存在一个必要的“中介”环节，就是对资本的再生产和流通的规定。正是这样的思考，促使马克思在完成《资本论》第一卷后写作了“第二卷”即“资本的流通过程”,通过对“资本循环”“资本周转”“社会总资本的再生产和流通”的规定，承接《资本论》第一卷以“资本积累”概念对资本主义再生产的内容——剩余价值转化为资本——的论证，深入考察其形式的演变，从而为论证“资本主义生产的总过程”中社会总资本的构成及其在剩余价值生产中的作用，提供了理论前提。

"The circuit of capital" is the unfolding of the form of capital accumulation, the determination of the reproduction form of abstract individual capital. The progression from the circuit of capital to the turnover of capital to the reproduction and circulation of aggregate social capital constitutes one level within the overall conceptual movement of *Capital* from the abstract to the concrete, and thus a further realization of "from the abstract to the concrete." "The circuit of capital," as the abstract or general form of the reproduction of individual capital, consists of three stages: money capital, productive capital, and commodity capital. Marx first analyzes money capital as the starting point and point of return, explaining the basic form of the circuit of capital. He then separately analyzes the circuits of capital starting from productive capital and commodity capital as starting points and points of return, synthesizing the three analyses to form a systematic determination of the concept of the circuit of capital. "The turnover of capital" is the unfolding of the circuit of capital, the circuit of capital repeated over and over. Criticizing the views of the Physiocrats, Smith, and Ricardo, Marx defines turnover time and the number of turnovers, transforms the concepts of fixed capital and circulating capital, and then analyzes the influence of the labor period, production time, circulation time, and turnover time on the amount of capital advanced, as well as the turnover of variable capital. He completes the determination of the concept of "turnover of capital" through the circulation of surplus value, and from this transitions to the determination of the reproduction and circulation of aggregate social capital. Through a critical analysis of the "exposition of this problem" by economists such as Quesnay and Smith, Marx recognizes that whether the reproduction and circulation process of capital can proceed—whether for individual capital or social capital—the point of convergence of contradictions lies in the production and realization of surplus value. The circuit and turnover of capital must consider this issue, and the reproduction of social capital must consider it even more. Social capital manifests as numerous enterprises in different industries, whose respective production and realization of surplus value are mutually constraining. "How is the capital consumed in production replaced in terms of its value from the annual product? And how is the movement of this replacement intertwined with the capitalists' consumption of surplus value and the workers' consumption of wages?" He begins with simple reproduction, dividing social production into two departments: the production of means of production and the production of means of subsistence. Through an examination of the exchange between the two departments, he analyzes the relationships among constant capital, variable capital, and surplus value within them. He then discusses accumulation and expanded reproduction, separately examining the accumulation of each department, and finally systematically determines their interrelationship.

“资本循环”是资本积累的形式的展开，是对抽象个别资本再生产形式的规定。从资本循环到资本周转到社会总资本的再生产和流通，是《资本论》总体从抽象到具体的概念运动过程中的一个层次，从而也是“从抽象到具体”的进一步实现。“资本循环”作为个别资本再生产的抽象或一般形式，由货币资本、生产资本、商品资本三个环节构成，马克思先以货币资本作为起点和归结点进行分析，说明资本循环的基本形式，进而又分别分析了从生产资本、商品资本为起点和归结点的资本循环，将三次分析进行综合，形成了对资本循环概念的系统规定。“资本周转”是资本循环的展开，是反复进行的资本循环。马克思批判了重农学派和斯密、李嘉图的观点，从界定周转时间和周转次数，对固定资本和流动资本概念进行了改造，进而分析了劳动期间、生产时间、流通时间、周转时间对预付资本量的影响、可变资本的周转，以剩余价值的流通完成对“资本周转”概念的规定，并由此转入对社会总资本的再生产和流通的规定。马克思通过对魁奈、斯密等经济学家“对这个问题的阐述”的批判性分析，认识到资本的再生产和流通过程能否进行，不论个别资本还是社会资本，矛盾的集合点都在剩余价值的生产与实现，资本循环和资本周转要考虑这个问题，社会资本再生产更要考虑这个问题。社会资本表现为不同行业中众多的企业，它们各自的剩余价值的生产与实现是相互制约的，“生产上消费掉的资本，就它的价值来说，怎样由年产品得到补偿?这种补偿的运动怎样同资本家对剩余价值的消费和工人对工资的消费交织在一起?”他从简单再生产论起，将社会生产区分为生产生产资料和生产生活资料的两部类，在对两部类之间的交换的考察中，分析其中不变资本、可变资本、剩余价值的关系。进而论述积累和扩大再生产，分别考察两个部类的积累，进而系统规定其相互关系。

3. The "Concept-Movement" of the "Total Process of Capitalist Production"

3.“资本生产的总过程”的“概念—运动”

In Volume III of *Capital*, Marx transforms and determines concepts such as "profit," "average profit," "price of production," "commercial profit," "interest," and "rent." These concepts are concrete relative to "surplus value," and among themselves, they constitute a process of conceptual transformation from the abstract to the concrete.

在《资本论》第三卷中，马克思改造和规定了“利润”“平均利润”“生产价格”“商业利润”“利息”“地租”等概念，这些概念相对于“剩余价值”是具体的，而它们之间又是从抽象到具体的概念转化过程。

The concept of “profit” is the first old concept to be transformed in Volume 3 of *Capital*. Through his analysis of cost price and profit, Marx arrives at the determination of the rate of profit, thereby pointing out that, for the capitalist, he does not consider which part of his capital creates surplus value, but only considers how much profit his total advanced capital will yield. “For the capitalist, the two kinds of capital are completely blended together, since he can only exploit labour by advancing constant capital, and can only valorise his constant capital by advancing variable capital. Moreover, since the actual degree of his gain is determined not by the ratio of profit to variable capital, but by the ratio of profit to total capital, i.e. not by the rate of surplus value but by the rate of profit.” Profit is the expression of the relationship between surplus value and total capital, and is therefore the concrete form of surplus value. Social total capital is composed of many individual capitals, each with a different organic composition, yet the profit actually obtained tends to be equalised. Transforming the concept of profit through the concept of surplus value in order to explain the equalisation of profit is a key point of the “ascent from the abstract to the concrete” in the “conceptual logic” of *Capital*. To this end, Marx defines the concepts of “average profit” and “price of production”, transforms the concept of “competition”, and, starting from the organic composition of capital and the price of production—the transformed form of value in the overall demand of the market—as well as the flow of individual capital between different sectors caused by actual intense competition, demonstrates the mechanism by which social total capital coordinates the relations among individual capitals, explaining the equalisation of profit and the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. Marx argues that “average profit” is first manifested in industrial capital, and then extends to commercial capital and interest-bearing capital. These must share in the surplus value from industrial capital, and this sharing is based on their position and function in the reproduction and circulation of social total capital, manifesting as commercial profit and interest. Commercial profit and interest are both concepts defined by bourgeois economists. In their definitions, these two concepts refer only to the operating income of commercial capital and interest-bearing capital, having no connection with the surplus value produced by labourers in industrial capital. Through the conceptual transformation at the two levels of “profit” and “average profit”, Marx concretises the essential determination of “surplus value” within the transformation of the concepts of commercial profit and interest, critically demonstrating the contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the labouring class inherent in these two special forms of capital, commercial capital and interest-bearing capital.

“利润”概念是《资本论》第三卷中第一个被改造的旧概念。马克思通过对成本价格和利润的分析，得出利润率的规定，从而指出对资本家来说，他们并不考虑资本的哪个部分创造剩余价值，而只是考虑他投入的总资本会获取多少的利润，“因为资本家只有预付不变资本才能对劳动进行剥削，因为他只有预付可变资本才能使不变资本增殖，所有在他的心目中，这两种资本就完全混同在一起了。而且，因为他实际获利的程度不是决定于利润和可变资本的比率，而是决定于利润和总资本的比率，即不是决定于剩余价值率，而是决定于利润率”。“利润”是剩余价值与总资本关系的体现，因而是剩余价值的具体形式。社会总资本由众多个体资本构成，每个资本的有机构成不同，但实际上所得到的利润却呈现平均化，通过剩余价值概念对利润概念的改造以说明利润的平均化，是《资本论》“概念逻辑”的“从抽象上升到具体”的一个重点。为此，马克思规定了“平均利润”和“生产价格”概念，改造了“竞争”概念，从资本有机构成与生产价格——价值在市场总体需求中的转化形式，以及现实激烈的竞争所导致的个体资本在不同行业的流动等，论证了社会总资本协调诸个体资本关系的机制，说明了利润的平均化及利润率趋向下降的趋势。马克思认为，“平均利润”首先体现于产业资本，进而扩展到商业资本和生息资本，它们要从产业资本中分割剩余价值，这种分割是以它们在社会总资本再生产和流通中的地位和作用为根据的，表现为商业利润和利息。商业利润、利息都是资产阶级经济学家所规定的概念，在他们的规定中，这两个概念所指涉的只是商业资本和生息资本经营所得，与产业资本中劳动者生产的剩余价值没有关联。马克思则通过“利润”和“平均利润”两个层次的概念转化，将“剩余价值”的本质规定具体化于商业利润和利息概念的改造之中，批判性地论证了商业资本和生息资本这两种资本特殊形式中内蕴的资产阶级与劳动者阶级之间的矛盾。

In the “five-part structure” [1]1 The “five-part structure” refers to Marx’s early plan for *Capital*, which included sections on capital, landed property, wage-labour, the state, and foreign trade. and the “six-book plan” [2]2 The “six-book plan” was Marx’s even earlier, more expansive outline for his critique of political economy, which included books on capital, landed property, wage-labour, the state, international trade, and the world market. that preceded *Capital*, the concept of “rent” was also discussed under “landed property”, which followed “capital”. In the *Theories of Surplus Value* section of the *Economic Manuscripts of 1861–1863*, through his analysis and critique of the concept of “rent” in Ricardo and others, Marx discovered that rent is actually a special form of surplus value. By the time of Volume 3 of *Capital*, through the concretisation from “surplus value” to “profit” and “average profit”, Marx had already clarified the approach of incorporating landed property into the unified study of capital. This approach was to transform the concept of “rent” starting from the concept of “average profit”. Guided by this approach, Marx first analyses and defines the special character of tenant-farming capital from the concepts of average profit and price of production, pointing out that due to this special character, tenant-farming capital produces a portion of “surplus profit” beyond its average profit, which is the source of rent. He then transforms the concept of “rent” from the relationship between the average profit and surplus profit of tenant-farming capital, and further distinguishes between differential rent and absolute rent. Through meticulous examination, Marx points out that the reason the surplus profit of tenant-farming capital goes to the landowner, rather than the agricultural capitalist, is that “to the landowner, the land represents merely a certain money tax, which he levies, by virtue of his monopoly, from the industrial capitalist, the tenant farmer.” After this initial transformation of the concept of “rent”, Marx goes on to explore the origin of capitalist rent, which also becomes an important theoretical link connecting to his concluding critical analysis of “the various sources of revenue”.

在《资本论》之前的“五篇结构”和“六册计划”中，“地租”概念也都是列在“资本”之后的“土地所有制”中被探讨的。在《1861—1863年经济学手稿》的《剩余价值理论》部分，马克思通过对李嘉图等人的“地租”概念的分析与批判，发现地租实际上是剩余价值的一种特殊的形式。到《资本论》第三卷，通过从“剩余价值”向“利润”和“平均利润”的具体化，马克思已经厘清了将土地所有制纳入资本统一研究的思路，这就是要从“平均利润”概念来改造“地租”概念。在这一思路的引领下，马克思先从平均利润和生产价格概念分析和规定租地农业资本的特殊性质，指出由于这种特殊性而导致租地农业资本生产其平均利润之外的一部分“超额利润”,即地租的来源，进而从租地农业资本的平均利润与超额利润的关系来改造“地租”概念，并进一步区分了级差地租和绝对地租。经过细致的审辨，马克思指出，租地农业资本的超额利润之所以要归土地所有者，而非农业资本家，是因为“土地对土地所有者来说只代表一定的货币税，这是他凭他的垄断权，从产业资本家即租地农场主那里征收来的”。在对“地租”概念的初步改造之后，马克思又探讨了资本主义地租的起源，而这也成为衔接其总结性的对“各种收入及其来源”的批判性分析的重要理论环节。

The final chapter of Volume 3 of *Capital*, “The Revenues and Their Sources”, has a theoretical significance that can be compared with Hegel’s “Doctrine of the Concept”, which concludes with the “Absolute Idea”. This chapter is both a summary of the entire theoretical content of *Capital* and a theoretical generalisation of the movement of concepts in “conceptual logic”, “from the concrete to the abstract, and from the abstract to the concrete”. The reason for concluding the entire work with this title is to further explain the actual *Dasein* of the capitalist system from the essence of its contradictions, through a critique of vulgar political economy. Marx points out: “What vulgar economics actually does is nothing more than to interpret, systematise, and defend the notions of the agents of production trapped within bourgeois relations of production as dogmas.” The prominent embodiment of this “apologist” stance is the “trinity formula” in the sense of the “theory of factors” proposed by Say: “Capital—profit (profit of enterprise plus interest), land—rent, labour—wages, this is the trinity form which encompasses all the secrets of the social production process.” Bourgeois economists after Say further modified the corresponding relationship of “capital—profit” to “capital—interest”, thereby deepening the ideological concealment of the contradictory essence of the capitalist economy. Starting from the critique of the “trinity formula”, Marx further exposes the apologetic intentions and erroneous arguments of vulgar economists under the themes of “analysis of the production process” and “the semblance of competition”. In the two chapters “Distribution Relations and Production Relations” and “Classes”, he focuses the problematic on the class relations and overall social contradictions of capitalism, pushing the “conceptual logic” of *Capital* to its highest point. In this process of the ascent of the Idea, guided by the beacon of “surplus value”, the class of wage-labourers obtains its revolutionary insight for transforming the world and achieving free and comprehensive development. That is, they come to recognise “in the spiritual sciences, the self-completing liberation of the self, and in the logical science (a pure concept that grasps itself conceptually) find its own highest concept.” It is in this sense that Marx opens the “heavenly journey” [3]3 “Heavenly journey” (天路历程) is a classical Chinese allusion, often associated with the Christian allegory *The Pilgrim’s Progress*, used here metaphorically to describe the arduous path of human liberation. for “real human beings” towards the future ideal society, that is, by transcending “class” to ultimately complete the fundamental elevation of human beings as such.

《资本论》第三卷最后一篇“各种收入及其源泉”在布局谋篇上与黑格尔的“概念论”最终以“绝对理念”为总结有着可以对勘的理论意涵。这一篇既是对《资本论》全书理论内容的总结，也是对“概念逻辑”的“从具体到抽象，再从抽象到具体”的概念运动的理论概括。而之所以以这一标题作为全书的收束，就是要通过对庸俗政治经济学的批判，进一步从资本主义经济制度矛盾本质说明其现实的境遇此在(Dasein)。马克思指出：“庸俗经济学所做的事情，实际上不过是对局限在资产阶级生产关系中的生产当事人的观念，当作教义来加以解释、系统化和辩护。”而这一“辩护士”立场的突出体现，就是有萨伊所提出的“要素论”意义上的“三位一体”公式。“资本—利润(企业主收入加上利息),土地—地租，劳动—工资，也就是把社会生产过程的一切秘密都包括在内的三位一体的形式。”而萨伊之后的资产阶级经济学者进一步将“资本—利润”的对应性关系修改为“资本—利息”,从而更为深化了对资本主义经济矛盾本质的思想遮蔽。从对“三位一体”公式的批判开始，马克思又以“关于生产过程的分析”、“竞争的假象”为主题进一步揭露了庸俗经济学家的辩护意图和错误论点，并在“分配关系和生产关系”和“阶级”两章中将问题意识集中于资本主义的阶级关系和社会总体矛盾，将《资本论》的“概念逻辑”推向最高点，在这一以“剩余价值”为路标的理念跃升的过程中，雇佣劳动者阶级获得其由以变革世界、达致自由全面发展的革命性洞见(Revolutionary Insight),亦即认识到“在精神科学里依靠自己而完成自己的自由化，并在逻辑科学(即一个对自身进行概念把握的纯粹概念)里找到它自己的最高概念”。正是在这个意义上，马克思为“现实的人”开启了通达未来理想社会的“天路历程”,即通过超越“阶级”而最终完成人之为人的根本性提升。

Centering on the core and backbone of the “concept-movement” from the concrete to the abstract and then from the abstract to the concrete, Marx, through his dialectical thinking, by repeatedly analyzing and theoretically summarizing ever-richer research materials, gradually formed a conceptual system that defines the contradictions of the capitalist economic system. This system is not only an understanding and definition of the essence of the actual capitalist system but also a concentrated summary of its history of emergence, influence, and effects. To unfold a critical study of the current global capitalist “contradiction-movement” through a normative “concept theory” is undoubtedly a question that must be confronted in the domain of thinking about contemporary world “human emancipation”: the systematic, systemic conceptual argumentation centered on “surplus value” rejects “factor theory” and its various variants of “capitalist apologetics,” and is also markedly different from the “restful-harmonious” scene setting of Hegel’s “eternal idea existing in and for itself eternally realizing itself, producing itself, and enjoying itself” as the absolute spirit in the “Absolute Spirit” chapter of the *Philosophy of Spirit*. It will inevitably, through its precise exposition of real economic contradictions and their roots, continuously manifest practical, action-oriented qualities, driving the occurrence of fundamental changes in thought and reality in the critique of unjust and unequal economic and social orders and in the scientific conception of the “Good Life” picture of a future ideal society, because “the world does not satisfy man, and man resolves to change the world through his own actions.” (References omitted)

围绕从具体到抽象再从抽象到具体的“概念—运动”这一核心与主干，马克思以他的辩证思维，通过反复对不断充实的研究材料的论证分析和理论概括，逐步形成了规定资本主义经济制度矛盾的概念体系，它不仅是对现实的资本主义制度本质的认识和规定，也是其发生史、影响史和效果史的集中概括，而以规范性的“概念论”展开针对当前全球资本主义“矛盾—运动”的批判性研究，无疑是思考当代世界“人类解放”的论域所必须直面的问题：以“剩余价值”为核心的系统性、体系性的概念论证，拒斥“要素论”及其种种变体的“资本主义辩护”,也迥异于黑格尔在《精神哲学》“绝对精神”章所给出的终极意义上“永恒的自在自为地存在着的理念永恒地作为绝对精神实现着自己、产生着自己和享受着自己”的“安享—和谐”场景设定，必将因其对现实经济矛盾及其根源的精准论述，不断展现出实践的、行动的特质，在对不公正、不平等的经济社会秩序的批判和对未来理想社会之“美好生活”(Good Life)图景的科学构想中，驱动思想与现实中根本性变革的发生，因为“世界不会满足人，人决心以自己的行动来改变世界”。（注释参考文献略）

(The author is an Assistant Research Fellow in the Research Office of the History of Marxist Development, Institute of Marxism, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, and a Research Fellow in the Research Center for Economic and Social Development, Institute of Marxism.)

（作者系中国社会科学院马克思主义研究院马克思主义发展史研究室助理研究员、马克思主义研究院经济社会发展研究中心研究员）

Online Editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑