Re-examining the Concept of “Labour Ownership” in the Context of the Critique of Political Economy

“Labour ownership” is a far-reaching political proposition put forward by Locke in his *Two Treatises of Government*. Its meaning is that, whether by natural reason or by divine revelation, “the fruit, or venison, which nourishes the wild Indian, who knows no enclosure, and is still a tenant in common, must be his, and so his, i.e., a part of him, that another can no longer have any right to it, before it can do him any good for the support of his life.” [1]1 The original Chinese text quotes Locke’s *Two Treatises of Government* in a Chinese translation. The English rendering here follows the standard English edition (Locke, *Two Treatises of Government*, ed. Peter Laslett, Cambridge University Press, 1988, II, §26, p. 286), with the page reference adjusted to the Chinese edition cited by the author.(P18) [n1] How, then, do these things, enjoyed in common by all humanity, become individual property? Locke’s answer is twofold. First, “every man has a property in his own person”; “the labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his.” [1]1 The original Chinese text quotes Locke’s *Two Treatises of Government* in a Chinese translation. The English rendering here follows the standard English edition (Locke, *Two Treatises of Government*, ed. Peter Laslett, Cambridge University Press, 1988, II, §26, p. 286), with the page reference adjusted to the Chinese edition cited by the author.(P19) Second, “whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property.” [1]1 The original Chinese text quotes Locke’s *Two Treatises of Government* in a Chinese translation. The English rendering here follows the standard English edition (Locke, *Two Treatises of Government*, ed. Peter Laslett, Cambridge University Press, 1988, II, §26, p. 286), with the page reference adjusted to the Chinese edition cited by the author.(P19) Clearly, in Locke’s view, ownership is grounded in natural law; ownership is rooted in the essence of man, and labour is its important manifestation, as well as the starting point of a representative theory of ownership. But labour is by no means merely an anthropological concept; what is more prominent is its social attribute. From an anthropological perspective, it can easily be transformed into a basis for defending the capitalist mode of production. These defences “like to confuse their own form of property and appropriation — which in its development is based on appropriating the labour of others and in its origin on expropriating the direct producers — with a mode of production which, on the contrary, presupposes that the direct producer is the private owner of his own conditions of production.” [2]2 The reference “[4]” is to Marx’s *Theories of Surplus Value* (Volume 4 of *Capital*), and “[5]” and “[6]” are to Adam Smith’s *An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations* and Marx’s *Capital* respectively, as cited in the original Chinese text.(P159) Now, we need to distinguish two different connotations of “labour ownership,” namely, “the first is the identity of labour and property; the second is that labour appears as negated property.” [3]3 The “Two Determinations of Value” refers to Adam Smith’s distinction between value determined by the labor embodied in a commodity and value determined by the labor the commodity can command in exchange. Marx critiques this as a confusion.(P463) It is precisely Marx’s distinction between these “two laws” that enables him not only to transcend the liberal political philosophy of Locke and others, but also to transcend the British classical political economy of Smith and others influenced by Locke. In this twofold transcendence, he achieves a critique of political economy and forms a scientific understanding of the capitalist mode of production. To this end, we attempt, based on the texts of the critique of “labour ownership” in *Capital* and the manuscripts of the critique of political economy, to present Marx’s critique of “labour ownership” in a concentrated manner. This will help people consciously grasp Marx’s political philosophy and its contemporary value through the method of the critique of political economy.

“劳动所有权”是洛克在其《政府论》中提出的一个影响深远的政治命题，其含义是，无论依凭自然理性还是上帝的启示，“土地上所有自然生产的果实和它所养活的兽类，既是自然自发地生产的，就都归人类所共有，而没有人对于这种处在自然状态中的东西原来就具有排斥其余人类的私人所有权”。[1](P18)那这些为全人类共同享用的东西，是如何变为个人财产的呢？洛克的回答是：其一，“每人对他自己的人身享有一种所有权”，“他的身体所从事的劳动和他的双手所进行的工作，我们可以说，是正当地属于他的”。[1](P19)其二，“只要他使任何东西脱离自然所提供的和那个东西所处的状态，他就已经掺进他的劳动，在这上面参加他自己所有的某些东西，因而使它成为它的财产”。[1](P19)显然，在洛克看来，所有权的基础奠定在自然法之上，所有权根植于人的本质，劳动便是其重要的体现，也是具有代表性的所有权理论的出发点。但劳动绝非仅仅是人类学概念，更为突出的是其社会属性，从人类学角度出发，很容易转化成为资本主义生产方式辩护的基础。这些辩护“喜欢把自己的所有制形式和占有形式（这种形式在自己的发展过程中以占有他人劳动为基础，并且在自己的起源上以剥夺直接生产者为基础）与这样一种生产方式混为一谈，这种生产方式恰恰相反，它是以直接生产者对自己的生产条件的私有制为前提的”。[2](P159)现在，我们需要区分两条不同的“劳动所有权”内涵，即“第一条是劳动和所有权的同一性；第二条是劳动表现为被否定的所有权”。[3](P463) 正是马克思的“两条规律”的区分，使其不仅超越了洛克等人的自由主义政治哲学，而且超越了受洛克影响的斯密等人的英国古典政治经济学，在这双重超越中实现了政治经济学批判，形成了对资本主义生产方式的科学认识。为此，我们试图以《资本论》及政治经济学批判手稿中对“劳动所有权”批判的文本为基础，集中地呈现马克思对“劳动所有权”的批判，这将有助于人们自觉地以政治经济学批判的方式，深刻地把握马克思的政治哲学及其当代价值。

I. The Contradiction between “the Identity of Labour and Property” and the “Second Determination” of Exchange Value

一、“劳动和所有权的同一性”与交换价值“第二种规定”的矛盾

In the second part of the *Economic Manuscripts of 1861–63*, “Theories of Surplus Value,” Marx affirms that the Physiocrats advanced the discussion of the origin of surplus value from the sphere of circulation into the sphere of production. The Physiocrats held that labour in agriculture, the initial production sector, was “the only labour which creates surplus value, and ground-rent is the only form of surplus value they know.” [4]4 “Labor ownership” (劳动所有权) is a concept in classical political economy, particularly associated with John Locke and Adam Smith, asserting that individuals have a natural right to the products of their own labor. Marx critiques this as an ideological illusion under capitalism.(P19-20) Thus, ground-rent, as agricultural labour, is the “general form” of surplus value. But the condition for the formation of ground-rent, namely the separation of land ownership from the labourer, is the prerequisite for the development of the bourgeoisie. In this way, their understanding of capitalism is endowed with the contradictory form of a feudal appearance. The Physiocrats believed that ground-rent was merely the “surplus” produced by the labourer beyond his own “absolute necessities,” but they could not understand that “the labourer works longer than the labour-time necessary for the reproduction of his labour capacity, and therefore the value he creates is greater than the value of his labour capacity.” [4]4 “Labor ownership” (劳动所有权) is a concept in classical political economy, particularly associated with John Locke and Adam Smith, asserting that individuals have a natural right to the products of their own labor. Marx critiques this as an ideological illusion under capitalism.(P24) Hence, their view ultimately remained on the track of “aggregate quantity” — “the total quantity of use-values consumed by the labourer in production is smaller than the total quantity of use-values he produces.” [4]4 “Labor ownership” (劳动所有权) is a concept in classical political economy, particularly associated with John Locke and Adam Smith, asserting that individuals have a natural right to the products of their own labor. Marx critiques this as an ideological illusion under capitalism.(P24) In this regard, the Physiocrats’ view of surplus value was not based on the “surplus part” of the labourer’s own consumption of labour capacity, but rather regarded it as the assistance or gift of nature: “a certain quantity of organic matter (plant seeds, herds of animals) enables labour to transform more inorganic matter into organic matter.” [4]4 “Labor ownership” (劳动所有权) is a concept in classical political economy, particularly associated with John Locke and Adam Smith, asserting that individuals have a natural right to the products of their own labor. Marx critiques this as an ideological illusion under capitalism.(P24) Clearly, the Physiocrats never touched on the question, from the perspective of the “value form,” of why the labourer possesses the value form. More importantly, they treated surplus value as an anthropological economic category; that is, surplus value here is not yet discussed as the social form of existence of labour.

在《政治经济学批判（1861—1863年手稿）》的第二部分“剩余价值理论”中，马克思肯定了重农学派把关于剩余价值起源问题的讨论从流通领域推进生产领域。重农学派认为，农业这个最初的生产部门的劳动是“惟一创造剩余价值的劳动，而地租是他们所知道的剩余价值的惟一形式”。[4](P19-20)因而，作为农业劳动的地租便是剩余价值的“一般形式”。但地租的形成条件，即土地所有权与劳动者的分离则是资产阶级发展的前提条件，这样一来，他们对于资本主义的理解就被赋予了封建主义的形式外观这一矛盾的方式。重农学派认为地租只是劳动者生产出来的多于自身的“绝对必需品”的“余额”，但他们无法理解的是，“劳动者是超过再生产他的劳动能力所必需的劳动时间进行劳动的，所以他创造的价值大于他的劳动能力的价值”，[4](P24)所以，其观点终停留在“总量”的思路上——“劳动者在生产时消费的使用价值的总量小于他所生产的使用价值的总量”。[4](P24)对此，重农学派对剩余价值的看法不是基于劳动力自身消耗的“多余部分”，而是认为它是自然的协助、赐予，“一定量的有机物（植物种子、畜群）使劳动能够把更多的无机物变为有机物”。[4](P24)显然，重农学派根本没有触及从“价值形式”的视角去追问：为什么劳动者拥有价值形式？更重要的是，它将剩余价值作为一个人类学的经济学范畴，也就是说，此处的剩余价值还不是作为劳动的社会存在形式被讨论。

If the Physiocrats fully acknowledged the “identity of labour and ownership” and on this basis understood surplus value and its critique, Adam Smith put forward the “labour theory of value” and began to question the possibility of the “identity of labour and ownership”, only he could not find the real point of entry for his questioning. Specifically, Smith held that general labour is the sole source of value or wealth, and that “in that early and rude state of society which precedes both the accumulation of stock and the appropriation of land, the proportion between the quantities of labour necessary for acquiring different objects seems to be the only circumstance which can afford any rule for exchanging them for one another.”[5]5 “Critique of the premises” (前提批判) refers to Marx’s method of interrogating the fundamental assumptions (e.g., private property, commodity exchange) that classical political economy takes as natural and eternal.(P45) In this social form, the entire product of labour belongs to the labourer himself, and the quantity of labour determines the exchange relation. But in another social form, namely, “as soon as stock has accumulated in the hands of particular persons, some of them will naturally employ it in setting to work industrious people, whom they will supply with materials and subsistence, in order to make a profit by the sale of their work, or by what their labour adds to the value of the materials.”[5]5 “Critique of the premises” (前提批判) refers to Marx’s method of interrogating the fundamental assumptions (e.g., private property, commodity exchange) that classical political economy takes as natural and eternal.(P46) In this way, the entire product of the labourer’s work “does not always belong to the labourer. He must in most cases share it with the owner of the stock who employs him.”[5]5 “Critique of the premises” (前提批判) refers to Marx’s method of interrogating the fundamental assumptions (e.g., private property, commodity exchange) that classical political economy takes as natural and eternal.(P47) In capitalist production, the labourer must perform not only necessary labour but also additional labour, thereby creating a value exceeding the worker’s labour remuneration, i.e., surplus value. This is clearly far more profound than the Physiocrats’ “gift of nature” theory. Surplus value also exists in multiple forms: profit obtained from production, rent obtained from land leasing, and interest obtained from loans are all in essence surplus value appropriated by the capitalists who own the means of production. This view laid the foundation for the later Marxist theory of surplus value, thereby revealing the nature of labour exploitation in capitalist relations of production. However, there is also a contradiction in Smith’s view. Marx believed that Smith’s view on the determination of value was “vacillating”: the first determination is that the value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of labour required to produce it. It emphasizes the process in which labour time is directly transformed into commodity value during production. The second determination is that the value of a commodity can also be determined by the quantity of living labour for which the commodity can be exchanged on the market. It implies that the value of a commodity depends on how much labour or how many other commodities it can obtain in exchange on the market. This is clearly a concept of value in exchange; it focuses on the value of the commodity in the process of market exchange, not on its value in the process of production.[6]6 Sun Liang: Re-examining the Concept of “Labour Ownership” in the Context of the Critique of Political Economy. The original Chinese text has four paragraphs; the fourth paragraph begins with “三、‘拜物教批判’：‘劳动所有权’批判中的方法论”, which is translated as “III. ‘Critique of Fetishism’: The Methodology in the Critique of ‘Labour Ownership’”. No further notes are required for this translation.(P451) It should be noted that the “identity of labour and ownership” changes in these two different determinations of value. In the second determination, the “identity of labour and ownership” gives rise to a paradox: not only is there no “identity”, but on the contrary, the “identity of labour and ownership” becomes the greatest constraint on the labourer. Smith’s theory proceeds from the exchange value of labour, that is, it takes wages as the measure of the value of labour as a commodity. When labour is expressed in terms of wages, and the labour purchased is expressed as the value that labour creates for this commodity, a circular argument inevitably arises, namely, the tautology “labour = labour”. In terms of the direct connection between labour and the origin of surplus value, Smith was undoubtedly correct in direction; he saw the economic extension of the classic political-philosophical proposition of the “identity of labour and ownership” initiated by Locke. But he did not conduct a more detailed analysis of the second determination. His vacillation and his frequent conflation of the two determinations actually stem from his inability to distinguish the basis of the paradox of the two determinations of value, namely, the historicity of the capitalist mode of production.

如果说重农学派完全承认了“劳动和所有权的同一性”，并在此基础上理解剩余价值及其批判的话，亚当·斯密则提出了“劳动价值论”，开始质疑“劳动和所有权的同一性”的可能性，只是他找不到质疑的真正切入点。具体来说，斯密认为一般劳动是价值或财富的唯一源泉，在“资本累积和土地私有尚未发生以前的初期野蛮社会，获取各种物品所需要的劳动量之间的比例，似乎是各种物品相互交换的唯一标准”。[5](P45)在这一社会形式中，劳动的全部生产结果都属于劳动者自己所有，劳动量决定着交换关系。但在另一种社会形式中，即“资本一经在个别人手中积聚起来，当然就有一些人，为了从劳动生产物的售卖或劳动对原材料增加的价值上得到一种利润，便把资本投在劳动人民身上，以原材料与生活资料供给他们，叫他们劳作”。[5](P46)这样一来，劳动者的全部生产结果，“未必都属于劳动者，大都须与雇用他的资本所有者共分”。[5](P47)在资本主义生产中，劳动者不仅要完成必要劳动，还要进行额外的劳动，从而创造了超过工人劳动报酬的价值，即剩余价值，显然这比重农学派的“自然赐予说”要深刻得多。剩余价值还以多种形式存在：从生产中获得的利润、从土地租赁中获得的地租，以及从借款中获得的利息，在本质上都是拥有生产资料的资本家占有的剩余价值，这种观点为后来的马克思主义剩余价值理论奠定了基础，从而揭示了资本主义生产关系中劳动剥削的本质。但是，斯密这一看法中也存在着矛盾。马克思认为，斯密关于价值规定性的看法“摇摆不定”：第一种规定是，商品的价值决定于生产它所需的劳动量。它强调的是生产过程中，劳动时间直接转化为商品价值的过程。第二种规定是，商品的价值也可以由商品在市场上可以交换到的活劳动量来决定。它意味着商品的价值取决于它在市场上能够换取多少劳动或其他商品。这显然是交换中的价值观念，它关注的是商品在市场交换过程中的价值，而不是在生产过程中的价值。[6](P451)需要注意的是，“劳动和所有权的同一性”在两种不同的价值规定中发生了变化，在第二种规定中，“劳动和所有权的同一性”产生了悖论，不仅不是“同一性”的，反而，“劳动和所有权的同一性”成为对劳动者最大的束缚。斯密的理论是从劳动的交换价值出发，也就是把工资作为劳动这一商品的价值尺度。当劳动以工资来表示，购买的劳动表现为劳动创造这一商品的价值时，这必然会出现一个循环论证，即“劳动=劳动”的同义反复。从劳动与剩余价值的起源之直接关联性来说，斯密在方向上无疑是正确的，他看到了“劳动和所有权的同一性”这一由洛克开启的政治哲学经典命题的经济延伸。但它没有对第二种规定进行更为细致的分析，他的摇摆不定和将两种规定时常混为一谈的做法，其实来自于他无法分清两种价值决定的悖论的基础，即资本主义生产方式的历史性。

To be specific, when simple commodity production is transformed into capitalist production, the corresponding exchange value has already undergone enormous changes. The wages the labourer receives in the labour process are expressed as a certain quantity of money, and this money is the value form in which social labour time is expressed. The capitalist uses money to purchase the worker’s labour, and the quantity of labour or labour time contained in the remuneration paid is less than the quantity of labour actually contained in the commodity produced by the worker. In other words, the capitalist not only pays the worker’s wages but also obtains additional labour value through this exchange process; this part is the worker’s surplus labour that the capitalist does not pay for at all, i.e., it exceeds the worker’s labour contained in the wages paid, and it is precisely through this surplus labour that the capitalist obtains excess surplus value. This directly challenges the first determination of commodity exchange, namely, that in the process of commodity exchange, the two exchange parties should exchange equivalents, i.e., equal quantities of labour should exchange for equal quantities of commodities. However, Marx pointed out that in capitalist relations of production, the exchange between “living labour” in the second determination of value and capital is completely different from the first determination of value; it contains elements of exploitation and inequality.

具体言之，从简单商品生产转变为资本主义生产时，相应地交换价值已经发生了巨大的变化。劳动者在劳动过程中获得的工资表现为一定量的货币，这些货币便是社会劳动时间表现的价值形式。资本家用货币购买工人的劳动，支付报酬所包含的劳动量或劳动时间要少于工人生产的商品实际包含的劳动量。换句话说，资本家不仅支付了工人的工资，还通过这种交换过程获得了额外的劳动价值，这部分是资本家没有支付任何费用，即超出了支付的工资所包含的工人的剩余劳动，而资本家正是通过这种剩余劳动获取了超额的剩余价值。这直接挑战了商品交换的第一种规定，即在商品交换过程中，交换双方应该是等价交换的，即等量的劳动应该交换等量的商品。然而，马克思指出，在资本主义生产关系中，第二种价值规定中的“活劳动”和资本之间的交换与第一条价值规定是完全不同的，它包含了剥削和不平等的因素。

Nevertheless, Marx still affirmed that Adam Smith pointed out an important problem existing in the capitalist economic system, namely, that after simple commodity exchange is transformed into the exchange relation between labour and capital, an exchange that violates the first determination is bound to occur. Smith did not adequately discuss the exchange of objectified labour and living labour, i.e., the exchange relation between the labour the labourer invests in the production process and the remuneration he receives. The second determination of commodity exchange is the exchange between capital and wage labour, i.e., the process in which the capitalist pays wages to hire workers, and the workers produce more commodities through labour. Smith attempted to explain the origin of profit and rent in capitalist society as a whole, and he also saw that in capitalism there exists an unequal exchange relation: the worker expends a larger quantity of labour but receives only a smaller quantity of labour remuneration. Correspondingly, the capitalist expends a smaller quantity of labour but receives a larger quantity of the fruits of labour. This unequal exchange relation essentially elucidates precisely the cause of the generation of surplus value. As Marx believed, Smith had instinctively sensed the contradiction between the two determinations of commodity value that appears in the capitalist exchange relation; this is a major contribution of Smith. “With the accumulation of capital and the rise of landed property — hence with the independentisation of the conditions of labour as opposed to labour itself — a change takes place. The law of value seems to become (and from the point of view of the result it actually does become) transformed into its opposite.”[4]4 “Labor ownership” (劳动所有权) is a concept in classical political economy, particularly associated with John Locke and Adam Smith, asserting that individuals have a natural right to the products of their own labor. Marx critiques this as an ideological illusion under capitalism.(P64) Undoubtedly, the law of value has essentially become a dogma of economic life that conceals the facts. Therefore, when Smith discovered that the law of value had already become invalid in the exchange between capital and wage labour, he realized that this dogma had problems. Unfortunately, he was unable to give the correct answer. He merely stared at the law of value, without thinking about how the actual changes in the content of the exchange between capital and wage labour actually occurred, and even less was he able to think deeply about the relationship between the law of value and the capitalist social structure.

不过，马克思依然肯定了亚当·斯密指出资本主义经济体系中存在的一个重要问题，即简单商品交换转向劳动与资本之间的交换关系之后，违背第一种规定的交换是必然会发生的。斯密没有很好地讨论物化劳动与活劳动的交换，即劳动者在生产过程中投入的劳动与他们获得的报酬之间的交换关系。商品交换的第二种规定是资本与雇佣劳动的交换，即资本家支付工资以雇佣工人，工人通过劳动生产出更多商品的过程。斯密试图从总体上解释资本主义社会中利润和地租的起源，也看到了在资本主义中存在一种不平等的交换关系：工人付出了较大量的劳动，但只得到较小量的劳动报酬。相应地，资本家付出了较小量的劳动，却得到了较大量的劳动成果，这种不平等的交换关系，实质上恰好阐明剩余价值产生的原因。正如马克思所认为的那样，斯密已经本能地感觉到资本主义交换关系中出现的商品交换的两种价值规定的矛盾，这是斯密的一个重大贡献。“随着资本积累和土地所有权的产生，因而随着同劳动本身相对立的劳动条件的独立化，发生了一个新的转变，价值规律似乎变成了（从结果来看，也确实变成了）它的对立面。”[4](P64)无疑，价值规律实质上已经成为一种掩盖事实的经济生活的教条，所以，斯密在发现价值规律在资本与雇佣劳动之间的交换中已然失效的时候，他就意识到这个教条是存在问题的，可惜的是，他没有能够给出正确的答案。他仅仅盯着价值规律，而不去思考资本与雇佣劳动之间的交换的实际内容的变化到底是如何发生的，更没能够深入思考价值规律与资本主义社会结构之间的关系。

Of course, the reason Smith conflated the two determinations of value in commodity exchange lies in his confusion of labor with the product of labor, or rather, his inability to grasp the essence of modern wealth — the appropriation of labor. “The equalization of my labor and the labor of others brought about by the division of labor and exchange value — in other words, the equalization of social labor (Adam overlooks the fact that even my labor, or the labor contained in my commodity, is already socially determined and has fundamentally changed its character) — and not at all the difference between objectified labor and living labor or the specific laws of their exchange.”[4]4 “Labor ownership” (劳动所有权) is a concept in classical political economy, particularly associated with John Locke and Adam Smith, asserting that individuals have a natural right to the products of their own labor. Marx critiques this as an ideological illusion under capitalism.(P52) Smith fundamentally ignored the social character of labor, that is, the entirely new value form of labor conferred by capitalist relations of production. The distinction between the value form of labor and the value form of the product of labor is manifested as follows: First, items exchanged in commodity form — as long as these commodities are exchanged according to their value — are in fact exchanging equal quantities of objectified labor. Second, a certain quantity of living labor can be exchanged for an equal quantity of objectified labor congealed in a commodity. This is because, on the one hand, living labor is transformed through the worker’s labor process into a product, i.e., objectified labor congealed in a commodity; on the other hand, this commodity can then be exchanged for another commodity containing an equal quantity of labor. Thus, in reality, a certain quantity of living labor is exchanged for an equal quantity of objectified labor. This means that commodity exchange is not only based on the labor time they contain, but living labor itself can also be exchanged through the commodity form for an equal quantity of objectified labor. However, “in all modes of production where the objective conditions of labor belong to one class or several classes, and only labor capacity belongs to another class, the class of workers — especially under the capitalist mode of production — the situation is exactly the opposite.”[4]4 “Labor ownership” (劳动所有权) is a concept in classical political economy, particularly associated with John Locke and Adam Smith, asserting that individuals have a natural right to the products of their own labor. Marx critiques this as an ideological illusion under capitalism.(P48) Smith could not see this. Relying on his empiricist understanding, he only saw that under the actual conditions of capitalist production, the “identity of labor and ownership” had become invalid, and the unequal phenomenon occurring in the exchange relationship between objectified labor and living labor directly struck at the dogma of “labor ownership.” In the end, Smith could only attribute the source of this phenomenon to a violation of the law of value, without pointing out that it was caused by the condition of “the capitalist mode of production.” Naturally, he could not carry out a “critique of the premises” of this determination.

当然，斯密之所以会产生商品交换的两种价值规定混淆的看法，在于他对劳动与劳动产品的混淆，或者说，是他无法理解现代财富的本质——对劳动的占有——所造成的。“分工和交换价值引起的对我的劳动和他人劳动的同等看待，换句话说，对社会劳动的同等看待（亚当忽略了一点：连我的劳动，或者我的商品中包含的劳动，也已经被社会地规定，已经根本改变了自己的性质），而绝不在于对象化劳动同活劳动之间的差别和两者交换的特殊规律。”[4](P52)斯密从根本上忽视了劳动的社会属性，即资本主义生产关系赋予的全新的劳动的价值形式，劳动的价值形式与劳动产品的价值形式的区分体现为：其一，以商品形式相交换的物品——只要这些商品按照它们的价值进行交换——实际上是在交换等量的物化劳动。其二，一定量的活劳动可以与等量的凝结在商品中的物化劳动相交换。这是因为，一方面，活劳动通过劳动者的劳动过程转化为产品即商品中凝结了物化劳动；另一方面，这个商品又可以与包含等量劳动的另一个商品进行交换。因此，实际上是一定量的活劳动与等量的物化劳动相交换。这意味着，商品的交换不仅是基于它们所包含的劳动时间，而且活劳动本身也可以通过商品的形式与等量的物化劳动进行交换。但是，“在劳动的物的条件属于一个阶级或几个阶级，而只有劳动能力属于另一个阶级即劳动者阶级的一切生产方式下——特别是在资本主义生产方式下——情况正好相反”。[4](P48)对此，斯密是看不到的。他依凭其经验主义的认识，只看到在资本主义生产的现实条件下“劳动和所有权的同一性”已经无效，物化劳动和活劳动交换关系所发生的不平等的现象直接冲击了“劳动所有权”这一教条，斯密最后只能将这种发生的根源归结为违背了价值规律，而没有指出它是由“资本主义生产方式”这一条件所造成的，当然就不可能对这一种规定进行“前提批判”了。

II. Ownership of “Appropriating Others’ Labor”: The Antinomy of “Labor Ownership”

二、“占有他人劳动”的所有权：“劳动所有权”的悖反

Lacking “the power of abstraction,” Smith could only see that workers sell labor, not labor power. Therefore, he could not see the root of the unequal exchange between living labor and an equal quantity of objectified labor in the exchange process. The exchange between the worker and the capitalist is labor power — money — commodity. After selling their labor power, the worker does not receive the entire product of their labor, but wages in the form of money. At this point, the worker, as an ordinary commodity buyer, stands opposed to the commodity of labor power purchased by the capitalist. There are two stages here: “A—G” (labor power → money) and “G—W” (money → commodity). After labor power is sold, it enters the “production process.” It is precisely in this process that the worker, as the owner of the commodity of labor power, sells their labor power to the capitalist. Subsequently, the worker, as the actual producer, creates new value in the production process by using their labor power. As mentioned above, although Smith confused the two determinations of exchange value, he still questioned the situation where money in the form of wages, when purchasing the capitalist’s commodities, contained a greater quantity of labor than that contained in these commodities. Although both stages are “purchases,” their natures are completely different. The key here lies in how to understand labor power becoming a commodity.

斯密缺乏“抽象力”，只能看到劳动者出卖的是劳动，而非劳动力。所以，他无法看到在交换过程中活劳动与等量的物化劳动不平等交换的根源。劳动者与资本家的交换是劳动力—货币—商品，劳动者在出卖劳动力之后得到的并非劳动的全部产品，而是货币形式的工资，这时，劳动者作为普通的商品购买者与资本家购买的劳动力商品是相对立的。这里存在着两个阶段：“A—G”(劳动力→货币)与“G—W”(货币→商品)。劳动力出卖之后进入的是“生产过程”，正是在这一过程中，劳动者作为劳动力商品的拥有者，将自己的劳动力出卖给资本家，随后，劳动者作为实际的生产者，通过使用劳动力在生产过程中创造出新的价值。如上文所说，斯密虽然混淆了交换价值的两种规定，但他还是质疑了作为工资形式的货币在购买资本家的商品时，出现了比这些商品中包含的更多的劳动量的状况，虽然两个阶段都是“购买”，但是性质完全不同，对此，关键就在于应该如何理解劳动力成为商品。

According to Marx’s view, “If the strength of Adam Smith’s theory lies in his sensing and emphasizing this contradiction, its weakness lies in the fact that this contradiction confuses him even when he examines how the general law applies to simple commodity exchange; he does not understand that this contradiction arises because labor capacity itself becomes a commodity, and as this specific commodity, its use value itself (hence having nothing to do with its exchange value) is a capacity to create exchange value.”[4]4 “Labor ownership” (劳动所有权) is a concept in classical political economy, particularly associated with John Locke and Adam Smith, asserting that individuals have a natural right to the products of their own labor. Marx critiques this as an ideological illusion under capitalism.(P64-65) It is precisely through analyzing labor power as a specific commodity that Marx explains the secret of labor being confined within “ownership.” “By labor power or labor capacity we understand the aggregate of those mental and physical capabilities existing in the physical form, the living personality, of a human being, capabilities which he sets in motion whenever he produces a use value of any kind.”[7]7 Sun Liang (孙亮) is a professor at the School of Philosophy, East China Normal University. The original Chinese text was published in *Jiangsu Social Sciences* (《江苏社会科学》) in 2024.(P434) What the worker provides to the capitalist is “labor power” as a use value. After it is “purchased,” the worker no longer possesses “ownership” of their labor power. At this point, it is capital’s ownership that negates labor. The worker is completely separated from ownership and becomes dependent on it. Wages are the result of this dependence, while surplus value is the ultimate purpose of capital’s ownership of labor. “As opposed to money (or value in general) as objectified labor, labor capacity appears as the capacity of the living subject; the former is past, previously performed labor, the latter is future labor, whose existence can only be the living activity of the living subject itself.”[8](P45) In capitalist society, the exchange of objectified labor (labor already transformed into a commodity) and living labor (ongoing labor) formally follows the rules of general commodity exchange. But from the perspective of substantive content, for the capitalist, it is the ownership of the means of production accumulated through others’ labor that directly determines the mode and purpose of the worker’s production. For the worker, they can only create new value through the exercise of their own use value. Undoubtedly, the precondition of this labor is the established capitalist mode of production aimed at pursuing surplus value. The use value of labor power manifests in the production process as the creation of surplus value, which is a necessary requirement for the continuous reproduction of its capitalist relations of production. In a society of commodity production, all commodities, including labor power, are transacted according to the same laws of exchange. The significance of private labor also needs to be conferred through exchange, so that it can be socially recognized as possessing use value and exchange value.

按照马克思的看法，“如果说，亚·斯密的理论的长处在于，他感觉到并强调了这个矛盾，那么，他的理论的短处在于，这个矛盾甚至在他考察一般规律如何运用于简单商品交换的时候也把他弄糊涂了；他不懂得，这个矛盾之所以产生，是由于劳动能力本身成了商品，作为这种特殊的商品，它的使用价值本身（因而同它的交换价值毫无关系）是一种创造交换价值的能力”。[4](P64-65)马克思正是通过分析劳动力作为一种特殊的商品，解释了劳动被限定在“所有权”之中的秘密。“我们把劳动力或劳动能力，理解为人的身体即活的人体中存在的、每当人生产某种使用价值时就运用的体力和智力的总和。”[7](P434)劳动者提供给资本的是作为使用价值的“劳动力”，在其被“购买”之后，劳动者则不再对劳动力拥有“所有权”。此时是资本对劳动否定的所有权，劳动者与所有权完全分离，并且依附于所有权，工资是这种依附的结果，剩余价值则是资本对劳动的所有权的最终目的。“与作为对象化劳动的货币（或价值一般）相反，劳动能力表现为活的主体的能力，前者是过去的、以前进行的劳动，后者是将来的劳动，它的存在只能是活的主体本身的活的活动”，[8](P45)在资本主义社会中，物化劳动（已经转化为商品的劳动）和活劳动（正在进行的劳动）的交换在形式上遵循一般商品交换的规则。但从实质内容上看，对资本家来说，它以对他人劳动积累起来的生产资料的所有权，直接规定了劳动者的生产方式和生产目的。而对于劳动者来说，只能以自身的使用价值的发挥去创造新价值。毫无疑问，这种劳动的前提条件就是既定的以追求剩余价值为目的的资本主义生产方式。劳动力的使用价值在生产过程中表现为剩余价值的创造，这是不断复制其资本主义生产关系的必然要求。在商品生产的社会中，所有商品，包括劳动力，都是按照同样的交换规律进行交易的。私人劳动的意义也需要交换才能被赋予，从而才能被社会认可为具有使用价值和交换价值。

In order to better clarify that the “identity of labour and ownership” does not exist in capitalist society, Marx argues that we need to conduct a more detailed examination of the exchange between labour-power and capital: “In the exchange between capital and labour, two essentially different but mutually conditioning moments must be distinguished.” [9](P327) “The first exchange between labour and capital is a formal process, in which capital appears as money and labour-power appears as a commodity. In this first process, the sale of labour-power is a conceptual or legal sale, even though payment for labour is not made until after it is completed, that is, at the end of a day, a week, etc.” [9](P327) Formally, this is neither just nor unjust; those who seek a normative basis for justice here clearly miss the point. After the commodification of labour-power, the worker’s concrete labour becomes the bearer of abstract labour, and labour must obtain its form of expression through value. At this point, labour is “labour which produces exchange-value,” “a specific social form of labour.” [6]6 Sun Liang: Re-examining the Concept of “Labour Ownership” in the Context of the Critique of Political Economy. The original Chinese text has four paragraphs; the fourth paragraph begins with “三、‘拜物教批判’：‘劳动所有权’批判中的方法论”, which is translated as “III. ‘Critique of Fetishism’: The Methodology in the Critique of ‘Labour Ownership’”. No further notes are required for this translation.(P429) Therefore, the exchange here is not a simple commodity exchange, such as when A sells mineral water to B; what they exchange is the labour objectified in the mineral water and the money. However, when we see labour transformed into labour that produces exchange-value, the situation is completely different. In the “A—G” (labour-power → money) stage, it is an exchange between money (as the general social form of objectified labour) and labour-power (potential labour not yet actually performed). Although the worker sells the right to use labour-power, what the capitalist actually purchases is the ownership of labour-power for a certain period of time. Therefore, what occurs here is an exchange between objectified labour and the ownership of living labour. Precisely because it is an exchange of labour ownership, wages become the value form of labour ownership; in concrete transactions, wages appear as the price of labour (the direct purchase price of labour). “In this first moment, the relationship between worker and capitalist is that of seller and buyer of a commodity. The capitalist pays the value of labour-power, that is, the value of the commodity he has purchased.” [9](P328) This process demonstrates the essential distinction between labour and labour-power in capitalist society; wages as the form of expression of the price of labour, and the roles and positions of workers and capitalists in economic exchange, can thus be reasonably understood. Through this analysis, Marx, by taking the commodification of labour-power as his切入点, not only resolves the question of the origin of surplus value but also directly reaches the foundation of the commodification of labour-power—the capitalist mode of production, the social form in which labour-power is “owned” and dominated by capital.

为了更好地阐明“劳动和所有权的同一性”在资本主义社会中是不存在的，马克思认为，我们需要针对劳动力与资本交换进行更细致地考察，“在资本同劳动的交换中，应该区别两个互相制约但本质上不同的环节”。[9](P327)“劳动同资本的最初交换是一个形式上的过程，其中资本作为货币出现，劳动能力作为商品出现。在这第一个过程中，劳动能力的出卖是观念上或法律上的出卖，尽管劳动要等到完成之后，也就是要在一日、一周等等末了才支付报酬。”[9](P327)这在形式上无所谓公正与否，那些从这里找寻正义规范性依据的看法显然是不得要领的。劳动力商品化之后，工人的具体劳动成为抽象劳动载体，劳动则必须以价值获得自身的表现形式，此时的劳动是“生产交换价值的劳动”，“它是劳动的一种特有的社会形式”。[6](P429)因此，这里的交换并不是简单的商品交换，比如A把矿泉水卖给B，他们交换的是物化在矿泉水和货币中的劳动。然而，当我们看到劳动转变为生产交换价值的劳动时，情况完全不同了。在“A—G”(劳动力→货币)阶段，是货币（作为物化劳动的一般社会形式）与劳动力（还未实际执行的潜在劳动）之间的交换。虽然劳动者出卖的是劳动力的使用权，但资本家实际购买的是一定时间内劳动力的所有权。因此，这里发生的是物化劳动与活劳动所有权的交换。正是因为是对劳动所有权的交换，工资成为劳动所有权的价值形式，在具体交易中，工资则表现为劳动的价格（劳动的直接购买价格）。“在这第一个环节中，工人和资本家的关系是商品的卖者和买者的关系。资本家支付劳动能力的价值，即他所购买的商品的价值。”[9](P328)这一过程表明资本主义社会中劳动和劳动力的本质区别，工资作为劳动价格的表现形式，以及工人和资本家在经济交换中的角色和地位也能够得到合理的理解。通过这一分析，马克思以劳动力商品化这一分析切入不仅解决了剩余价值起源问题，也直抵劳动力商品化的基础——资本主义生产方式，这是劳动力被资本“所有”、支配的社会形式。

Further examining the relationship between labour and ownership in capitalist society, it can be divided into two types: the appropriation of others’ labour and the appropriation of one’s own labour; they are completely different. If ownership in its original sense is the appropriation of one’s own labour, then under the capitalist system, ownership evolves into the right to appropriate others’ labour. Needless to say, “labour ownership” is directly transformed into the ownership of others’ labour, which is a reversal of the original “labour ownership.” The exchange of equivalents in capitalist society appears on the surface to follow the legal relations of exchange, i.e., both parties possess “ownership.” However, because the exploitative relationship between labour and capital has already been established in the primitive accumulation of capital, ownership is merely a predetermined legal principle in which labour is continuously negated. As long as we enter the market, it means our labour is implanted into a social form dominated by the value form; body, cognition, desire, emotion—everything will be absorbed by capital. “Labour → value-form labour” is the reality of production in capitalist society and the basic condition of human existence. Proponents of the concept of “labour ownership” are clearly unwilling to reflect on why labour must be transformed into value-form labour. Thinking about this question inevitably leads to asking what the conditions for this transformation are. “Labour ownership” is a “legal relation” based on the capitalist mode of production, a legal relation of capital’s appropriation of labour. Hence, the social form of labour is the foundation for understanding this legal relation. It is precisely along this path that Marx advanced beyond the contradictions Smith failed to penetrate. He “for the first time determined what labour forms value, why it forms value, and how it forms value, and determined that value is nothing but the coagulation of this labour.” [10](P21) From an empiricist perspective, Smith accepted capitalist ownership as a given “prior premise” and naturally would not ask why labour must take the form of ownership, let alone consider how much labour is expended to measure the “degree of possession” of ownership. The critique of political economy, by persistently questioning why “labour appears as value,” finally found that the foundation of the entire social form of labour is the capitalist mode of production. “Labour ownership” is then the result of the reshaping of the capitalist social form. From the perspective that the legal relation of “labour ownership” conceals the essence of capitalist exploitation of workers, Marx’s conclusion is that ownership in capitalist society is by no means the ownership of the products of one’s own labour, but rather the right to appropriate the products of others’ labour, concealed under the guise of institutionalized exchange of equivalents. The exchange of equivalents in capitalist production is merely the way things “appear.” Capital itself is accumulated through the alienated labour of “others”; it is the result of “appropriating others’ labour.” The exchange of equivalents is nothing but an ideological “rhetoric.” Therefore, the exchange relationship essentially disappears: “The second moment in the exchange between capital and labour is in fact completely unrelated to the first moment; strictly speaking, this moment is not an exchange at all.” [9](P328)

进一步看，资本主义社会中劳动与所有权之间的关系分为两种类型：占有他人劳动与占有个人劳动，它们是完全不同的。如果说所有权在其原初意义上是占有个人劳动，那么在资本主义体系下，所有权则演变为占有他人劳动的权利，不消说，“劳动所有权”直接转变为占有他人劳动的所有权，这是对原初“劳动所有权”的悖反。资本主义社会中的等价物交换，表面上看似遵循交换的法权关系，即双方都拥有着“所有权”，但由于劳动与资本之间的剥削关系在资本的原始积累中已经定型。所以，所有权只是劳动不断地被否定的先定的法权原则，只要我们进入市场，也就意味着我们的劳动被植入价值形式主导的社会形式中，身体、认知、欲望、情感等一切都将被资本吸纳。“劳动→价值形式化的劳动”就是资本主义社会生产的现实，也是人的存在的基本境遇，“劳动所有权”观念的持有者显然不愿意去反思为什么劳动要转变成价值形式化的劳动。对这个问题的思考必定会追问进入这一转变的条件是什么，“劳动所有权”是在资本主义生产方式基础之上的“法权关系”，是资本对劳动占有的法权关系，故而，劳动的社会形式是理解这个法权关系的基础。马克思正是依循这个路径推进了斯密没有深入的矛盾，他“第一次确定了什么样的劳动形成价值，为什么形成价值以及怎样形成价值，并确定了价值不外就是这种劳动的凝固”。[10](P21)斯密从经验主义的角度看，资本主义所有权被当作既定的“先在前提”接受，自然不会去追问为什么劳动要表现为所有权的形式，更不会去考虑付出多少劳动来考量所有权的“拥有程度”。政治经济学批判则始终追问“劳动表现为价值”的原因，才找到了整个劳动的社会形式的基础是资本主义社会的生产方式，“劳动所有权”便是在资本主义社会形式重塑之后的结果。从“劳动所有权”的法权关系掩盖资本家对工人剥削的实质来看，马克思的结论是，资本主义社会的所有权绝不是占有个人劳动成果的所有权，而是通过制度化的等价交换掩盖下对他人劳动产品的占有权。资本主义生产中的等价物交换只是“表现”出来的样子。资本本身是通过“别人”的异化劳动积累起来的，是“占有他人劳动”的结果，等价交换不过是一套意识形态的“说辞”。因此，交换关系在本质上消失了，“资本同劳动的交换的第二个环节，实际上同第一个环节毫无关系，严格地说，这个环节根本不是交换”。[9](P328)

We know that the capitalist mode of production takes “the primitive accumulation of capital” as its precondition, which determines the different situations of both parties in the exchange between capital and labour. Individual workers may not actively choose to work for capital, but when we examine the exchange relationship between capitalists and wage-workers, the surface appearance of this exchange relationship and the structure behind it become evident: workers have no choice at all. Capital is the result of “capital accumulation,” formed primarily through the appropriation of the surplus value created by workers, and certainly not through the capitalist’s appropriation of his own objectified labour. This is even clearer from the history of primitive accumulation. Capitalists form capital by controlling the means of production (i.e., controlling dead labour) and accumulating the “dead labour” within workers’ labour. Those who fail to see this focus only on the act of exchange, paying attention only to the sphere of circulation while ignoring the production process, which is precisely where additional surplus value occurs. On this, Marx says: “Ownership, it seemed to us, is based on one’s own labour. At least we must admit this assumption. For only commodity owners with equal rights confront each other; the only means of appropriating another’s commodity is to alienate one’s own commodity, and one’s own commodity can only be created by labour. Now, however, ownership appears to the capitalist as the right to appropriate the unpaid labour of others or its product, and to the worker as the impossibility of appropriating his own product.” [11](P673-674) Marx explains here with utmost clarity that capitalists accumulate capital by appropriating the surplus value previously created by workers, and the accumulated capital then becomes the basis for the capitalist to continue exploiting workers. What “labour ownership” strives to obscure is precisely this. Capitalists no longer need to rely on their own personal objectified labour; they only need to use accumulated capital to purchase labour-power and put it into the production process to complete capital accumulation. This cycle allows capital to continuously expand, and the unpaid labour of workers is thereby absorbed and appropriated by capital in an even more intrinsic manner. This is by no means “labour ownership”; it is a profound irony directed at the concept of “labour ownership.”

我们知道，资本主义生产方式以“资本的原始积累”为前提条件，决定了资本和劳动力交换时双方的不同处境。个体劳动者或许并不是主动选择为资本劳作，但当我们从资本家和雇佣工人的交换关系来看，这种交换关系的表象及其背后的结构就显现出来了，劳动者根本没有选择权。资本是“资本积累”的结果，主要通过占有工人创造的剩余价值形成，绝不是由资本家占有自身的物化劳动形成的，从原始积累的历史更容易看清楚这一点。资本家通过控制生产资料（即控制死劳动），积累工人劳动中的“死劳动”而形成资本。看不到这一点的人主要是将眼光停留在交换行为上，只关注流通领域，而忽略了生产过程，生产过程才是额外的剩余价值的发生场所。对此，马克思说：“在我们看来，所有权似乎是以自己的劳动为基础的。至少我们应当承认这样的假定。因为互相对立的仅仅是权利平等的商品占有者，占有他人商品的手段只能是让渡自己的商品，而自己的商品又只能是由劳动创造的。现在，所有权对于资本家来说，表现为占有他人无酬劳动或它的产品的权利，而对于工人来说，则表现为不能占有自己的产品。”[11](P673-674)马克思在这里再清楚不过地说明了，资本家通过占有工人过去所创造的剩余价值积累资本，积累的资本又成为资本家继续剥削工人的基础。而“劳动所有权”极力要遮蔽的正是这一点。资本家无需再通过个人的物化劳动，只需利用积累的资本购买劳动力，将他们投入生产过程便能够完成资本积累，这一循环使得资本不断增殖，工人的无酬劳动也随之被资本家以更内在的方式吸纳与占有，这绝不是“劳动所有权”，而是对“劳动所有权”意味十足的讽刺。

III. “Critique of Fetishism”: The Methodology in the Critique of “Labour Ownership”

三、“拜物教批判”：“劳动所有权”批判中的方法论

Based on the above, the key to critiquing “labour ownership” lies in determining whether it is willing to uncover the social structure behind the “labour–capital” exchange. To do this, we need to recognise at the methodological level the fundamental reason for the obscuring of the capital-dominated mode of production. “The bourgeois economists regard capital as an eternal and natural (not historical) form of production, and then they do their utmost to defend capital, treating the conditions of capital’s genesis as the conditions of capital’s present realisation.” [3]3 The “Two Determinations of Value” refers to Adam Smith’s distinction between value determined by the labor embodied in a commodity and value determined by the labor the commodity can command in exchange. Marx critiques this as a confusion.(P452) This mode of thinking is precisely the fetishism that Marx criticises in *Capital*. Generally speaking, criticising fetishism means warning people to see, beneath the relations between things, the relations between people that are concealed. But how is one to see them? The vulgar answer is “to see the essence through the phenomena”, but how this “seeing” is to be carried out remains vague. In the author’s view, fetishism involves two levels: first, the epistemological level of the subject, which treats phenomena as essence, or, in other words, uses a methodology that substitutes the particular for the universal, thereby flattening the “historicity” of the capitalist mode of production itself and instead regarding it as a “natural attribute” of society; second, the ontological level of the object, where “in a commodity economy, social relations of production necessarily take the form of things, and cannot manifest themselves otherwise. The structure of the commodity economy causes things to play an especially important role, thereby endowing them with a unique social attribute.” [12](P8-9) According to the view of the critique of political economy, “labour ownership” has been thoroughly disguised as fetishism. The reason is this: the narrative of modern political philosophy traces ownership that “appropriates the labour of others” back to a natural law of humanity, and understands it as homogeneous with the so-called ownership principle of “appropriating one’s own labour”, thereby defending the political form of bourgeois society. The historical transformation of the concept of ownership is abolished; as a principle of natural law in the anthropological sense, it ceases to be an object of our reflection. Consequently, we see that in capitalist society, the freedom and equality of every commodity owner and producer when they engage in commodity exchange are taken as self-evident, innate human characteristics, becoming the juridical relations of modern people. This freedom and equality are regarded as naturally existing, not as products of social or historical development, but as part of human nature. The power relations in capitalist society also regress to a point where they require no thought; what needs to be thought about is only how to perfect and patch up some trivial juridical institutions within the premise of these rights relations, the ultimate aim being to defend the most fundamental ownership system of the capitalist mode of production. Now, from the perspective of the critique of fetishism, we understand the methodology of critiquing “labour ownership”, that is, to ask: why must labour be appropriated in the form of ownership? Such a questioning necessarily leads to an examination of the capitalist mode of production and its social form, and this is precisely the main task of historical materialism.

依上所述，对“劳动所有权”批判的关键是判断其是否愿意揭开“劳动—资本”交换背后的社会结构，对此，我们需要在方法论层面去认识遮蔽资本主导的生产方式的根本原因。“资产阶级经济学家们把资本看作永恒的和自然的（而不是历史的）生产形式，然后又竭力为资本辩护，把资本生成的条件说成是资本现在实现的条件”，[3](P452)这种思维方式就是马克思在《资本论》中批判的拜物教。一般来说，批判拜物教是告诫人们要在物与物的关系下看到被掩盖了的人与人之间的关系，但是要怎么才能看到呢？流俗的答案是，“透过现象看本质”，但这里的“看”如何操作则语焉不详。在笔者看来，拜物教涉及两个层面：一是主体的认识论层面，它是指把现象当作本质，或者说，它是以特殊置换普遍的方法论，这种方式抹平了资本主义生产方式自身的“历史性”，反而将其看作社会的“自然属性”；二是客观的存在论层面，“在商品经济中，社会生产关系必然采取物的形式，除此之外，社会生产关系不可能表现出来。商品经济的结构促使物扮演了一种特别重要的角色，进而使其获得了独特的社会属性”。[12](P8-9)按照政治经济学批判的看法，“劳动所有权”已经彻底地伪饰成拜物教，理由在于：近代政治哲学的叙事将“占有他人劳动”的所有权回溯为人类的自然法则，和所谓的“占有个人劳动”的所有权法则同质化加以理解，从而为资产阶级社会的政治形式作辩护。所有权观念的历史变革被取消了，作为人类学意义上的自然法原则也就意味着它不再成为我们思考的对象，于是，我们才会看到，在资本主义社会中，每个商品所有者和生产者在进行商品交换时的自由和平等，这一切是天经地义的、与生俱来的人类特性，成为现代人的法权关系。这种自由和平等被认为是自然存在的，不是社会或历史发展的产物，而是人类本性的一部分，资本主义社会中的权力关系也退行到无须思考，要思考的只是在这种权利关系的前提下如何完善、修补一些细枝末节的法权制度，目的还是要捍卫资本主义生产方式中最根本的所有权制度。现在，我们从拜物教批判的角度理解“劳动所有权”批判的方法论，也就是思考，为什么劳动要以所有权的形式占有？而这样的追问必然要对资本主义生产方式以及它的社会形式进行考察，这正是历史唯物主义的主要任务。

First, the theories that defend the capitalist mode of production confuse two essentially different forms of ownership. Mainstream political economists and political philosophers often conflate the capitalist form of ownership — a form based on appropriating the labour of others and established historically through the expropriation of direct producers — with a completely different form of ownership, the latter premised on the direct producer’s ownership of his own conditions of production. This confusion strives to defend the capitalist form of ownership as natural, that is, as rooted in human nature. Consequently, these theorists naturally turn their gaze to Locke, who was the first to regard ownership as a natural attribute of human beings, based on natural law and the innate equality of humans. Labour is not only the means of acquiring ownership but also the natural measure of ownership. When people imagine living in a state of nature characterised by equality and freedom, everyone has an equal right to obtain resources from nature. At this point, labour and the conditions of labour are not separated; all people equally enjoy natural rights vis-à-vis natural conditions. It is precisely in this postulated state of nature that, as long as people obtain through their own labour the fruits of labour they need from nature, their labour is naturally legitimate, and the property they acquire does not exceed the scope of their actual labour, and is therefore also legitimate. It is within this logic that Locke provides a natural-law foundation for the legitimacy of private property. From the perspective of the defence of the bourgeois mode of production by Smith and others, they precisely use Locke to naturalise the capitalist mode of production. Locke holds that individual labour determines the natural limit or “measure” of ownership. Classical economists such as Smith can also see that this concept of ownership based on labour will change with the introduction of money. For instance, initially the accumulation of personal property should be limited by one’s consumption needs; excessive accumulation of property can hardly undergo large-scale substantive changes within such limits. However, when consumable commodities are formalised as value in the market through money, the emergence of money enables personal accumulation to exceed actual consumption needs. Moreover, because money is durable, easy to store, and no longer subject to natural decay, when money becomes the form of value in exchange, it not only expands exchange but also leads to the expansion of the scope of private property. Accompanied by power struggles in feudal society, this further creates disparities in money and land resources. Due to disparities in wealth, those who possess more money and land can, through forms such as loan interest and land rent, transfer the surplus portion produced by some labourers’ labour into their own pockets. Thus, those who own capital and land resources need not accumulate wealth bit by bit through their own labour. This means that the accumulation of wealth increasingly depends on the appropriation of others’ labour. As long as one has ownership of others’ labour, the path to wealth accumulation is unobstructed. At this point, individual concrete labour as the “natural measure” of ownership necessarily loses its dominant position and “must” be replaced. Once the new form of ownership based on appropriating others’ labour is established and becomes the “transcendental structure” of social development, it is no longer brought into cognition for questioning. The “labour ownership” conceptually based on appropriating one’s own labour does not disappear after people enter civil society from the state of nature; rather, it is formally absorbed into the legal and institutional systems of civil society, becoming a private right recognised and protected by law, enabling everyone to enjoy the right to freely dispose of their property. In the view of classical bourgeois economists and political philosophers, this “natural” “labour ownership” is conducive to “the accumulation of capital” and, even more, to the fullest expression of human freedom.

第一，为资本主义生产方式辩护的理论混淆了两种本质不同的所有权形式。主流的政治经济学和政治哲学家们往往将资本主义的所有权形式——一种以占有他人劳动为基础，并通过历史上剥夺直接生产者建立起来的形式——与另一种完全不同的所有权形式混为一谈，后者是以直接生产者对其生产条件的所有权为前提的。这种混淆极力为资本主义所有权形式辩护是自然的，也就是根植于人的本质。因而，这些理论家们当然会自觉地将目光朝向洛克，最初正是洛克将所有权视为人的自然属性，认为它是基于自然法和人的天生平等之上的，劳动不仅是获得所有权的方式，也是衡量所有权的自然尺度。当人们设想在平等与自由的自然状态中生活时，每个人都拥有从自然界中获取资源的平等权利，此时劳动与劳动的条件并没有分离，所有人面对自然条件都是平等地享有自然权利，也正是在这样设定的自然状态下，只要人们通过自己的劳动从自然界获取自身所需要的劳动成果，他们的劳动自然是正当的，获得财产也没有超出他实际劳动的范围，也是具有正当性的。洛克正是在这样的逻辑下为个人财产的合法性提供自然法的基础。从斯密等人为资产阶级生产方式的辩护方案看，他们正是借助洛克去实现将资本主义生产方式自然化的目的。洛克认为个人劳动是决定所有权的自然界限或“尺度”，古典经济学家如斯密等人也能够看到这种基于劳动的所有权观念会随着货币的引入发生变化。譬如，起初个人财产的积累应受限于其消费需求，过度的财产积累在这样的限度下很难发生大规模实质性的变化。然而，当消耗性的商品在市场上被价值形式化为货币后，货币的产生造成了个人积累可以实现超出其实际的消费需求，加之货币具有持久性，它易于储存，也不再受制于自然消耗的影响。货币在交换中成为价值形式时，不仅使交换扩大，也导致私有财产范围的扩张，伴随着封建社会的权力争夺，随后也进一步造成货币和土地资源上的悬殊。由于财富的悬殊，拥有更多货币和土地的人能够通过借贷利息和地租等形式，从而将一部分劳动者的劳动中产生的多余部分转移到自己的腰包里，这样占有资本与土地资源的人根本不需要自己劳动去一点点积累财富，这意味着，财富的积累越来越依赖于对他人劳动的占有，只要拥有对他人劳动的所有权，那么财富的积累道路就是通畅的。这时候，具体个人劳动作为所有权的“自然尺度”必然失去其主导地位，“必须”被取而代之。新的以占有他人劳动为基础的所有权形式一经确立，并成为社会发展的“先验结构”，就不会被纳入认识中加以质疑了。在观念上占有个人劳动的“劳动所有权”在人们从自然状态进入了市民社会之后，也并没有消失，而是在形式上被吸收进市民社会的法律和制度体系中，成为法律承认和保护的私有权，使得每个人都能够享有对其财产的自由支配权。在古典资产阶级经济学家和政治哲学家们看来，这种“自然”的“劳动所有权”有利于“资本的积累”，更利于人的自由的最大的展现。

As noted above, the “property in one’s own labour” identified by classical bourgeois economists and political philosophers is not “property in one’s own labour” in the sense of “the identity of labour and property.” When they abstract from the entire social structure, the opposition within capitalist society between a system of property based on appropriating the labour of others and a system of property based on appropriating one’s own labour disappears. On the contrary, if we proceed from the production structure of capitalist society, what we see is a historical process of transformation in which the system based on appropriating one’s own labour is destroyed and superseded. “Political economy confuses, in principle, two very different kinds of private property, one of which rests on the producer’s own labour, the other on the exploitation of the labour of others. It forgets that the latter not only is the direct opposite of the former, but grows on the latter’s tomb.” [11](P876) On this point, Marx, through his analysis of “primitive accumulation,” presents even more clearly “the historical process of divorcing the producer from the means of production,” [11](P822) which powerfully refutes the notion held by bourgeois society — that property ownership does not originate from coercion or exploitation but is based on the individual’s own labour. The actual historical fact is that “the history of this expropriation is written in the annals of mankind in letters of blood and fire.” [11](P822) Moreover, once the conditions for capitalist production are established, it continuously reproduces these relations of production through the accumulation of capital: “the process which creates the capital-relation can be nothing other than the process which divorces the worker from the ownership of the conditions of his own labour.” [11](P822) Separation (estrangement, alienation) is the greatest characteristic of capitalism; it is both the condition that makes possible the capitalist’s unpaid appropriation of the worker’s labour product and its use for the continued expansion of capital, and the most important mode in which exploitation and oppression are actually manifested in capitalism. The critique of fetishism impels people to proceed from the structure of the commodity economy and to examine the specific social form acquired by the categories of political propositions.

古典资产阶级经济学家和政治哲学家们所指认的“劳动所有权”如上所说，它并不是“劳动和所有权的同一性”意义上的“劳动所有权”。当他们抽离整个社会结构，资本主义社会中占有他人劳动的所有制与以占有个人劳动为基础的所有制直接对立的状况也就消失了，相反，如果我们从资本主义社会的生产结构出发，看到的将是以占有个人劳动为基础的破坏和取代的历史变革过程。“政治经济学在原则上把两种极不相同的私有制混同起来了。其中一种以生产者自己的劳动为基础，另一种以剥削他人的劳动为基础。它忘记了，后者不仅与前者直接对立，而且只是在前者的坟墓上成长起来的。”[11](P876)对此，马克思以“资本的原始积累”更进一步清晰地呈现了“生产者和生产资料分离的历史过程”，[11](P822)这有力地驳斥了资产阶级社会持有的观念——财产所有权并非源自强制或剥削，而是基于个人的劳动成果。现实的历史事实是，“他们的这种剥夺的历史是用血和火的文字载入人类编年史的”。[11](P822)而且，资本主义生产条件一旦形成，它将不断地通过资本的积累来维护这种生产关系的再生产，“创造资本关系的过程，只能是劳动者和他的劳动条件的所有权分离的过程”。[11](P822)分离（疏远、异化）是资本主义的最大特质，既是资本家对工人劳动成果的无偿占有得以可能并将其用于继续扩大资本的条件，也是资本主义现实呈现的剥削、压制的最重要的方式。拜物教批判促使人们从商品经济的结构出发，考察政治命题范畴所获得的独特的社会形式。

Second, theories that defend the capitalist mode of production treat abstract labour (general, socialised labour) and concrete labour (specific, tangible labour) as identical, and this identity necessarily leads them, theoretically, to confuse social relations with natural relations. From the perspective of bourgeois theory itself, property is not its object of study; it is merely a ready-made rhetoric used for self-justification. For classical political economy and political philosophy, the key to uncovering this rhetoric lies in the theory of the dual character of labour. In the process of commodity production, on the one hand, there is concrete labour in the anthropological sense: “labour as a creator of use-values, as useful labour, is a condition of human existence which is independent of all forms of society; it is an eternal natural necessity which mediates the metabolism between man and nature, and therefore human life itself.” [11](P56) But on the other hand, because production is aimed at exchange, the product of labour necessarily takes the commodity form; it appears as an object with an independent social attribute, but in reality this attribute is not inherent to the commodity itself but originates from the social relations of human labour. The commodity form conceals the social relations behind it, leading people to mistakenly believe that the value and social attributes of the commodity are inherent to the commodity itself, rather than bestowed by the social relations among labourers. However, in classical political economy and political philosophy, which defend the capitalist mode of production, labour is endowed with a dual character only in a functional sense: on the one hand, it is regarded as the basis for establishing exchange relations between people, that is, the core constituting social relations — but here social relations are defined only at the level of the abstract “species”; on the other hand, labour serves as the basis for the interactive relationship between humans and nature, whereby individuals appropriate natural resources through labour and make them the source of private property. Labour is not understood here as embedded within the entire social form of capitalism, because, on the basis of capitalist production, the actual condition of labour is that the product of production (the commodity) comes to dominate the producer — “the domination of dead labour over living labour.” The means of production appear as capital, existing in the form of things; labour, in its manifestation in the value-form, although it acquires the value-form and is imbued with social attributes, ultimately “represents its social character as something inherent in the product.” [2]2 The reference “[4]” is to Marx’s *Theories of Surplus Value* (Volume 4 of *Capital*), and “[5]” and “[6]” are to Adam Smith’s *An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations* and Marx’s *Capital* respectively, as cited in the original Chinese text.(P72) But the defenders of the capitalist mode of production, from the perspective of fetishism, are unwilling to discuss the mechanism of “representation”; they merely remain at the level of the attributes of things and identify the thing as the essence of labour. Therefore, no matter how these theories classify labour, as long as they refuse to discuss the social form of labour (abstract labour) and its natural attribute (concrete labour), they will never find the entry point from labour into the analysis of social structure.

第二，为资本主义生产方式辩护的理论将抽象劳动（一般的、社会化的劳动）和具体劳动（具体的、有形的劳动）视为同一，这种同一导致了他们在理论上必然混淆社会关系和自然关系。从资产阶级理论自身来说，所有权并不是其研究的对象，只是用来作为自身辩护的一套既定的说辞。对于古典政治经济学和政治哲学，揭开这套说辞的根本就在于劳动的二重性理论。在商品生产过程中，一方面包含我们常说的人类学意义上的具体劳动，这种“劳动作为使用价值的创造者，作为有用劳动，是不以一切社会形式为转移的人类生存条件，是人和自然之间的物质变化即人类生活得以实现的永恒的自然必然性”。[11](P56)但是，另一方面由于以交换作为生产的目的，劳动产品必然要采取商品形式，它看起来像是一种具有独立社会属性的物品，但实际上，这种属性并不是商品本身所固有的，而是源自人类劳动的社会关系。商品形式掩盖了它背后的社会关系，使得人们误以为商品的价值和社会属性是商品本身所固有的，而不是源自劳动者之间社会关系的赋予。但是为资本主义生产方式辩护的古典政治经济学和政治哲学中，劳动只是在功能的意义上被赋予了双重性：一方面，它被视为人与人之间建立交换关系的基础，也就是构成社会关系的核心，而这里的社会关系只是在作为抽象的“类”层面上被界定的；另一方面，劳动作为人类与自然之间互动关系的基础，个人通过劳动占有自然资源，并将其作为私有财产的来源。劳动在这里并没有被嵌入整个资本主义社会形式当中去理解，因为，在资本主义生产的基础上，劳动的现实状况是，生产的结果（商品）成为生产者的统治，“死劳动对活劳动的统治”，生产资料表现为资本，以物的方式存在，劳动在价值形式的表现之中，它也虽然拥有了价值形式，布满了社会属性，但最终还是将其“社会形式表现为物的属性”。[2](P72)但是，拜物教视野中的资本主义生产方式的辩护者不愿意去谈论“表现为”的机制，而是只停留在物的属性层面将物指认为劳动的本质。所以，不管这些理论如何给劳动分类，只要他们不去谈论劳动的社会形式（抽象劳动）和自然的属性（具体劳动），就永远不会找到从劳动进入社会结构分析的入口。

Consequently, classical political economists mistakenly believe that, in a hypothetical state of nature, private property, freedom and equality are natural outcomes — this is, in fact, an abstract way of discussing the issue. This state of nature is not “natural” at all; it is merely Locke, Smith and others projecting their own social reality backwards onto humanity’s “original condition.” In a word, this state of nature is only a “reflection” of their own social reality. Thus, their understanding of labour naturally blurs the boundary between social relations and natural relations, making it impossible to see the complexity of labour in capitalist society; labour can, of course, only be understood as a natural, universal means for appropriating and dominating natural resources. Once we base our analysis on social form, labour is not only a tool for obtaining material resources but also a way of establishing exchange relations through the value-form of the labour product. As the congealed form of labour, it becomes alienated from the producer and controls the producer; the commodity appears as an independent entity that can be freely exchanged on the market. This obviously conceals the historical process of labour, and its social character is likewise erased.

由此，古典政治经济学家错误地认为，在假设的自然状态中，私有财产和自由平等是自然的结果，这其实是抽象地谈论问题。这种自然状态并非“自然的”，也只是洛克、斯密等人基于其所处社会现实，并将之反推为人类的“原初状态”，一句话，这种自然状态只是他们的社会现实的“映现”。所以，他们理解劳动自然模糊了社会关系和自然关系的界限，看不到劳动在资本主义社会中的复杂性，劳动当然只能被理解为一种自然的、普遍的手段，用于占有和支配自然资源。一旦立足社会形式分析，劳动不仅是获取物质资源的工具，也是通过价值形式化的劳动产品来建立交换关系的方式，作为劳动的凝结物，疏离生产者并控制生产者，商品表现为可以在市场上自由交换的独立存在物，这显然掩盖了劳动的历史过程，其社会性质也一同被抹去。

Classical political economists and political philosophers paradoxically believe that, in the model of simple commodity production, each individual is both a labourer and the owner of his own labour product, and they universalise the commodity-exchange relation that treats labour and things equally, regarding it as an ideal state. However, this assumes an impossible situation: the coexistence of the identity of producer and appropriator with the universalisation of commodity relations — a paradox akin to a “round square.” Capitalist producers typically do not own their own labour products; the relationship between the producer and his product is one of “separation” and “inversion.” For the productive labourer, the market is a place of self-suppression and labour for a livelihood; for the owner of the means of production, the market is a stage for creating wealth and demonstrating success. Clearly, the freedom and equality posited by the state of nature do indeed appear in capitalist society, but the actually existing exploitation and inequality are also co-present; the former is the form, the latter the content. It is precisely within capitalist relations of production that the original “property in one’s own labour” is distorted and inverted, giving rise to labour manifesting as the negation of property, or property manifesting as the appropriation of the labour of others. On the surface, property seems to be based on the individual labour of the owner, as if everyone obtains property through their own efforts. In reality, however, its accumulation is based on the appropriation of the fruits of others’ labour — that is, the expropriation of others’ labour products.

古典政治经济学家和政治哲学家们矛盾地认为，简单商品生产的模式中的每个人既是劳动者，又是自己劳动产品的所有者，并将劳动与物平等对待的商品交换关系普遍化，视其为理想状态。然而，它假设了一种不可能的情形：生产者和占有者的同一性与商品关系的普遍化并存，这是一种“圆的正方形”似的悖论。资本主义生产者通常并不拥有自己的劳动产品，生产者与其产品之间是“隔离”的、“颠倒”的关系。对于生产劳动者来说，市场是一个压抑自我、谋生劳动的地方；而对于生产资料的所有者来说，市场则是一个创造财富、彰显成功的舞台。显然，自然状态设定的自由和平等的方式在资本主义社会中确实是出场的，只是实际存在的剥削和不平等也是共同在场的，前者是形式，后者则是内容。正是在资本主义生产关系中，原先的“劳动所有权”被扭曲和颠倒，形成了劳动表现为被否定的所有权，或所有权表现为对他人劳动的占有。所有权表面上似乎是基于所有者的个人劳动，仿佛每个人都通过自己的努力获得了财产。然而，实际上，它的积累是基于对他人劳动成果的占有，即对他人劳动产品的剥夺。

IV. Conclusion

四、结语

Marx’s critique of political economy always anchors itself in the contradictory relationship between categories and reality, and tears open this contradictory relationship to present it to people. The political economists, by contrast, have sutured categories and reality together; categories have become the apologia for reality. They do not want to break the closure that categories impose on reality, to find a space of possibility for reality to break through; they are only willing to do some repair work within the given conditions of reality’s existence. “Property” is precisely such a category. In the manner of the critique of political economy, Marx judges that there is a huge contradiction between “property” and the “reality” to which it points, and the most important cause of this contradiction comes from the capitalist mode of production. Only by revealing how, under the capitalist system, “property in one’s own labour” is transformed into its opposite form can the foundations of the theoretical edifice of classical political economy and Western political philosophy be dismantled.

马克思的政治经济学批判始终锚定范畴与现实的矛盾关系，并将这种矛盾关系撕裂开来呈现给人们。政治经济学家们却将范畴与现实作了缝合，范畴成了现实的辩护词，他们不想破除范畴对现实的封闭，为现实找寻突破的可能性空间，而只愿意在现实的既定存在条件下，做一些修缮工作。“所有权”正是这样的范畴，马克思以政治经济学批判的方式，判定“所有权”与其所指向的“现实”之间存在的巨大的矛盾，而这种矛盾的最重要原因来自于资本主义生产方式，揭示在资本主义制度下中“劳动所有权”如何转变为其对立形式，才能够拆解古典政治经济学和西方政治哲学理论大厦的基础。

References

参考文献

[1]1 The original Chinese text quotes Locke’s *Two Treatises of Government* in a Chinese translation. The English rendering here follows the standard English edition (Locke, *Two Treatises of Government*, ed. Peter Laslett, Cambridge University Press, 1988, II, §26, p. 286), with the page reference adjusted to the Chinese edition cited by the author. [British] Locke. *Two Treatises of Government*, Second Treatise [M]. Ye Qifang, Qu Junong, trans. Beijing: The Commercial Press, 1996.

[1] [英]洛克. 政府论，下篇[M]. 叶启芳，瞿菊农译. 北京：商务印书馆，1996.

[2]2 The reference “[4]” is to Marx’s *Theories of Surplus Value* (Volume 4 of *Capital*), and “[5]” and “[6]” are to Adam Smith’s *An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations* and Marx’s *Capital* respectively, as cited in the original Chinese text. *Complete Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 38 [M]. Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2019.

[2] 马克思恩格斯全集，第38卷[M]. 北京：人民出版社，2019.

[3]3 The “Two Determinations of Value” refers to Adam Smith’s distinction between value determined by the labor embodied in a commodity and value determined by the labor the commodity can command in exchange. Marx critiques this as a confusion. *Complete Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 30 [M]. Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1995.

[3] 马克思恩格斯全集，第30卷[M]. 北京：人民出版社，1995.

[4]4 “Labor ownership” (劳动所有权) is a concept in classical political economy, particularly associated with John Locke and Adam Smith, asserting that individuals have a natural right to the products of their own labor. Marx critiques this as an ideological illusion under capitalism. *Complete Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 33 [M]. Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2004.

[4] 马克思恩格斯全集，第33卷[M]. 北京：人民出版社，2004.

[5]5 “Critique of the premises” (前提批判) refers to Marx’s method of interrogating the fundamental assumptions (e.g., private property, commodity exchange) that classical political economy takes as natural and eternal. [British] Adam Smith. *An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations*, Vol. I [M]. Guo Dali, Wang Yanan, trans. Beijing: The Commercial Press, 2014.

[5] [英]亚当·斯密. 国民财富的性质和原因的研究，上卷[M]. 郭大力，王亚南译. 北京：商务印书馆，2014.

[6]6 Sun Liang: Re-examining the Concept of “Labour Ownership” in the Context of the Critique of Political Economy. The original Chinese text has four paragraphs; the fourth paragraph begins with “三、‘拜物教批判’：‘劳动所有权’批判中的方法论”, which is translated as “III. ‘Critique of Fetishism’: The Methodology in the Critique of ‘Labour Ownership’”. No further notes are required for this translation. *Complete Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 31 [M]. Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1998.

[6] 马克思恩格斯全集，第31卷[M]. 北京：人民出版社，1998.

[7]7 Sun Liang (孙亮) is a professor at the School of Philosophy, East China Normal University. The original Chinese text was published in *Jiangsu Social Sciences* (《江苏社会科学》) in 2024. *Complete Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 21 [M]. Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2003.

[7] 马克思恩格斯全集，第21卷[M]. 北京：人民出版社，2003.

[8] *Complete Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 32 [M]. Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1998.

[8] 马克思恩格斯全集，第32卷[M]. 北京：人民出版社，1998.

[9] *Complete Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 37 [M]. Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2019.

[9] 马克思恩格斯全集，第37卷[M]. 北京：人民出版社，2019.

[10] *Complete Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 45 [M]. Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2003.

[10] 马克思恩格斯全集，第45卷[M]. 北京：人民出版社，2003.

[11] *Complete Works of Marx and Engels*, Vol. 44 [M]. Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2001.

[11] 马克思恩格斯全集，第44卷[M]. 北京：人民出版社，2001.

[12] [Soviet] Isaak Ilich Rubin. *Essays on Marx’s Theory of Value* [M]. Cao Jiangchuan, trans. Beijing: Central Compilation and Translation Press, 2024.

[12] [苏]伊萨克·伊里奇·鲁宾. 马克思价值理论研究[M]. 曹江川译. 北京：中央编译出版社，2024.

(The author is a professor and doctoral supervisor in the Department of Philosophy and the Institute of Modern Chinese Thought and Culture at East China Normal University.)

（作者系华东师范大学哲学系暨中国现代思想文化所教授、博士生导师）

Online editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑