Debates and Reflections on the Logical Starting Point of the Political Economy of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics

Currently, academic circles have produced a relatively rich body of research on the issue of the logical starting point of the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics. Overall, although the period of research is short, the viewpoints present a state of “letting a hundred flowers bloom, letting a hundred schools of thought contend.” [1]1 The “one industrialization, three transformations” (一化三改) refers to the general line for the transition period (1953-1956), which called for socialist industrialization and the socialist transformation of agriculture, handicrafts, and capitalist industry and commerce. Different theories of the logical starting point have emerged in academic circles, including commodity, the socialist economic system, public ownership, relations of interest, the people as subject, human development, the state, consumption, the category of surplus product, and others, and it seems difficult to form a consensus. The beneficial explorations made by these studies have laid a good foundation for further deepening research on this proposition.

当前,学术界围绕中国特色社会主义政治经济学的逻辑起点问题形成了比较丰富的研究。从整体上看,虽然研究的时限较短,但观点却呈现出“百花齐放、百家争鸣”的状态。学术界出现了商品、社会主义经济制度、公有制、利益关系、人民主体、人的发展、国家、消费、剩余产品等范畴等不同的逻辑起点论,并且似乎很难形成共识。这些研究所做出的有益探索,为进一步深化此命题的研究奠定了良好的基础。

The choice of a logical starting point is not an isolated issue; its determination is often closely related to the specific object of study of a discipline and its complete theoretical system. When discussing the logical starting point of the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics, one must absolutely not discuss the starting point in isolation, but rather systematically and profoundly explore and demonstrate the logical starting point in conjunction with the unfolding of the entire theoretical system. Only by discussing the issue of the logical starting point in this way can we understand and grasp the starting-point category within the entirety of the theoretical system, and thereby truly understand the reasons for choosing that logical starting point. As the inheritance and development of Marxist political economy, the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics must necessarily take Marx’s *Capital* as an important theoretical reference. In view of this, this article, based on the establishment of the logical starting point of Marx’s *Capital*, summarizes and re-discusses the relevant debates in current academic circles, in order to further promote a profound understanding of this issue.

逻辑起点的选择并不是一个孤立的问题,其确定往往与一门学科的特殊的研究对象、完整的理论体系等紧密相关。在探讨中国特色社会主义政治经济学逻辑起点时,绝不能只就起点谈起点,而是要将逻辑起点与整个理论体系的展开作系统而深刻的探讨和论证。只有以这样的方式探讨逻辑起点问题,才能够在理论体系的整体上认识和把握起点范畴,从而真正理解选择该逻辑起点的理由。作为马克思主义政治经济学的继承和发展,中国特色社会主义政治经济学必然要以马克思的《资本论》为重要理论参照。有鉴于此,本文以马克思《资本论》逻辑起点的确立为基础,对当前学术界的相关争论进行总结和再讨论,以期进一步推动对这一问题的深刻认识。

I. Relevant Debates in Academic Circles

一、学术界的相关争论

Currently, the discussion on the basic issue of the logical starting point of the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics seems far from over. The existing viewpoints on the logical starting point appear noisy, yet they also exhibit certain regularities, namely, that these logical starting points are all directly and indirectly related to the logical starting point in Marx’s *Capital*. Based on this, this article summarizes the existing representative viewpoints into three major categories.

当前,关于中国特色社会主义政治经济学逻辑起点这一基本问题的讨论,似乎远远没有结束。现有的关于逻辑起点的观点看似嘈杂,实际上也存在某些规律性,即这些逻辑起点都是与马克思在《资本论》中的逻辑起点有着直接和间接的联系。本文据此,将现有的代表性观点概括为三大类。

The first category of scholars directly borrows from or imitates the logical starting point of Marx’s *Capital*; they can be called the “imitation school.” The mainstream view in Marxist political economy circles holds that, from the overall system of *Capital*, the “commodity” is the narrative starting point of *Capital*. Therefore, some scholars advocate directly or indirectly borrowing the category of “commodity” from *Capital* as the logical starting point of the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics. However, in terms of specific expression, academic understanding still differs slightly. (1) The commodity starting point theory. For example, Liu Mingyuan believes that the labor theory of value remains the foundation of the theoretical system of the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics, and the order of its logical unfolding is the same as Marx’s “six-book plan” (capital, landed property, wage labor, the state, foreign trade, the world market). [2]2 Marx’s “six-volume plan” was his original outline for *Capital*, which envisioned volumes on capital, landed property, wage labour, the state, foreign trade, and the world market. Only the first volume of *Capital* was completed in his lifetime. Therefore, the starting-point category remains the commodity. Duan Xuehui and Cheng Enfu believe that “the logical starting point of the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics is still the commodity, with the focus on analyzing commodities produced by public enterprises.” (2) The deformed commodity starting point theory. Yan Pengfei believes that the logical starting point of the system of political economy with Chinese characteristics is a special deformed commodity under the conditions of the dual-level ownership structure of the primary stage of socialism and constraints from multiple laws or mechanisms. (3) The commodity under socialism with Chinese characteristics starting point theory. Zhou Shaodong and Wang Song believe that the concept of the commodity remains the logical starting point of the theoretical system of the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics, but this commodity is a commodity under the conditions of socialism with Chinese characteristics. Viewpoints such as the “commodity theory,” the “deformed commodity theory,” and the “commodity under socialism with Chinese characteristics theory” are essentially consistent; that is, they all believe that only by taking the most abstract and simplest category as the logical starting point of the theoretical system of the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics, and then continuously enriching and substantiating it, can the edifice of a scientific theoretical system ultimately be constructed.

第一类学者直接借鉴或模仿马克思《资本论》的逻辑起点,可以称为“模仿派”。马克思主义政治经济学界的主流观点认为,从《资本论》的整体体系来看,“商品”是《资本论》的叙述起点,因此一些学者主张直接或间接借鉴《资本论》的“商品”范畴作为中国特色社会主义政治经济学的逻辑起点。但在具体的表述上,学界的认识还略有不同。(1)商品起点说。如刘明远认为,劳动价值论依旧是中国特色社会主义政治经济学理论体系的基础,其逻辑的展开顺序一如马克思的“六册计划”(资本、地产、雇佣劳动、国家、对外贸易、世界市场)。因此起点范畴依然是商品。段学慧、程恩富认为,“中国特色社会主义政治经济学的逻辑起点依然是商品,重点是分析公有企业生产的商品”。(2)变形商品起点说。颜鹏飞认为,中国特色政治经济学体系的逻辑起点是社会主义初级阶段双层所有制结构以及多种规律或者机制制约条件下的特殊的变形商品。(3)中国特色社会主义商品起点说。周绍东、王松认为,商品概念仍然是中国特色社会主义政治经济学理论体系的逻辑起点,但这个商品是中国特色社会主义条件下的商品。“商品论”“变形商品论”以及“中国特色社会主义商品论”等观点在本质上具有一致性,即他们都认为,只有将最抽象、最简单的范畴作为中国特色社会主义政治经济学理论体系的逻辑起点,并进而不断丰富充实,才能最终构建起科学的理论体系大厦。

This type of viewpoint essentially emphasizes that the establishment of the logical starting point of the theoretical system of the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics must follow the special narrative method of “proceeding from the abstract to the concrete” employed by Marx in *Capital*. The main textual basis for this method is Marx’s 1857 “Introduction to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy” and the postface to the second edition of *Capital*. According to the “two paths” expounded by Marx, the narrative method of a theoretical system should follow the principle of “proceeding from the abstract to the concrete.” Therefore, the logical starting-point category of this theoretical system should be abstract and simple, rather than concrete and complex. On the one hand, only by starting from an abstract and simple category can the historical logic of proceeding from the simple to the complex be well reflected. Following such a logical starting point, one can understand the origin and root of the economic relations reflected by the category. For example, the logical starting-point category of *Capital* is the simple commodity, because the capitalist commodity evolved precisely from the simple commodity. On the other hand, starting from an abstract, simple category embodies Marx’s dialectical logic. Because concrete and complex categories necessarily contain rich connotations and particularities, which can interfere with the understanding of the category itself, only abstract and simple categories are general categories. The category of the capitalist commodity itself contains the specific determinations of the capitalist mode of production; therefore, this category is incapable of serving as the logical starting point. Only by starting from the simple commodity, i.e., the general commodity, and through the evolution of the internal contradictions of the commodity, can the internal contradictions of the capitalist mode of production be logically deduced. In this sense, Marx’s *Capital*, as an “artistic whole,” represents the highest achievement of dialectics. From this, we can also understand why the aforementioned viewpoints advocate considering *Capital* as the standard for the issue of the logical starting point of the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics.

这类观点实际上是强调中国特色社会主义政治经济学理论体系的逻辑起点的确立要遵循马克思在《资本论》中所采用的“从抽象到具体”的特殊叙述方法。这一方法的主要文本依据是马克思的1857年《<政治经济学批判>导言》和《资本论》第二版跋。根据马克思所阐述的“两条道路”,理论体系的叙述方法应该遵循“从抽象到具体”的原则,因此该理论体系的逻辑起点范畴应当是抽象的、简单的而非具体的、复杂的。一方面,只有从抽象的、简单的范畴出发,才能够很好地体现从简单到复杂的历史逻辑,沿着这样的逻辑起点,才能够理解范畴所反映的经济关系生成的发端和根源。如《资本论》的逻辑起点范畴是简单商品,这是因为资本主义商品正是从简单商品发展演化而来的。另一方面,从抽象的简单范畴出发,体现了马克思的辩证逻辑。由于具体的复杂的范畴必然包含着丰富的内涵和特殊性,这会干扰对范畴本身的理解,只有抽象的简单的范畴才是一般的范畴。资本主义商品范畴本身就包含着资本主义生产方式特殊的规定,因此该范畴无法胜任逻辑起点的角色。而只有从简单商品即一般商品出发,通过商品内在矛盾的演化,才能从逻辑上推演出资本主义生产方式的内在矛盾。在这个意义上说,马克思的《资本论》作为一个“艺术的整体”,代表了辩证法的最高成就。由此我们也能够理解,上述观点何以主张要以《资本论》为标准来考虑中国特色社会主义政治经济学的逻辑起点问题。

The second category of viewpoints holds that the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics cannot directly borrow from or imitate the logical starting point of Marx’s *Capital* and should develop a new logical starting point; these viewpoints can be called the “opposition school.” The representative viewpoints of this category include: (1) The state starting point theory. Qiu Haiping believes that “modern Chinese history begins with the founding of New China, and all of China’s existing economic systems were premised on the formation of the ‘modern state’ from the very beginning. Even today, almost no phenomenon in Chinese society can be reasonably explained without the state.” Therefore, theoretically, the state should be taken as the logical starting point. (2) The people as subject theory. Bai Baoli believes that the “people as subject theory” proposed by General Secretary Xi Jinping is philosophically based on Marx’s historical materialism and represents a certain inheritance of the viewpoint on the logical starting point of *Capital*. Similar views include Cheng Hao and Cheng Yanjun’s “human-centered property rights theory.” These viewpoints all hold that Marxist political economy is an economic theory of human liberation, and therefore its starting point must necessarily be the human being. (3) The productive power of labor theory. Rong Zhaoxi advocates setting “productive power of labor” as the logical starting point of the narrative system of the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics; similar views include Hong Yuanpeng’s “associated labor” and Fang Min’s “mode of production and mode of labor that are socialist or serve the purpose of socialist production.” (4) The special relations of interest theory. Ma Yan and others believe that Marx constructed his theoretical system in *Capital* starting from the special relations of interest of capitalism. Following this logic, the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics should take “China’s special relations of interest” as its logical starting point. (5) The surplus product theory. Wang Chaoke believes that the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics aims to study the laws of economic movement in a socialist society, and the core of these laws of economic movement is to promote the realization of common prosperity for all the people. Therefore, its logical starting point must necessarily be the surplus product. Similar views include the “labor product” theory proposed by Huang Ying and Lin Jinzhong.

第二类观点认为,中国特色社会主义政治经济学无法直接借鉴和模仿马克思《资本论》的逻辑起点,应该发展新的逻辑起点,这类观点可以称为“反对派”。这类观点的代表性观点有:(1)国家起点论。邱海平认为,“中国现代历史以新中国的成立为起点,而且中国现有的全部经济制度,一开始就是以‘现代国家’的形成为前提的。直到今天,中国社会的所有现象离开了国家,几乎都无法得到合理的解释”,因此,在理论上应该以国家作为逻辑起点。(2)人民主体说。白暴力认为,习近平总书记提出的“人民主体论”是以马克思历史唯物主义为哲学基础,是对《资本论》的逻辑起点观点进行一定的继承。类似的还有程昊、程言君的“人本产权论”,这些观点都认为马克思主义政治经济学是作为人的解放的经济学说,因而其出发点必然是人。(3)劳动生产力说。荣兆梓主张将“劳动生产力”设定为中国特色社会主义政治经济学叙述体系的逻辑起点;与此观点类似的还有洪远朋的“联合劳动”,方敏的“社会主义或者服务于社会主义生产目的的生产方式、劳动方式”。(4)特殊的利益关系说。马艳等认为,马克思在《资本论》中是以资本主义的特殊利益关系为出发点来构建理论体系的,遵循这一逻辑,中国特色社会主义政治经济学应当以“中国特殊的利益关系”为逻辑起点。(5)剩余产品说。王朝科认为,中国特色社会主义政治经济学旨在研究社会主义社会的经济运动规律,这一经济运动规律的核心是促进全体人民实现共同富裕,由此,其逻辑起点必然是剩余产品。类似的观点还有黄莹、林金忠提出的“劳动产品”说。

This type of view correctly criticizes that discussions on the logical starting point cannot simply apply and imitate *Capital*, nor can they be merely a one-sided interpretation of a particular aspect of the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics. This is because socialist economic relations, represented by the basic economic system of the primary stage of socialism, possess distinct "Chinese characteristics." When establishing the logical starting point, this important premise of "Chinese characteristics" should also be upheld and embodied. Therefore, compared with the category of the commodity in Marx's *Capital*, categories such as the people and the state can better highlight the most essential features of the institutional system of socialism with Chinese characteristics, and can also better highlight the originality and creative development of the theory of the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics. However, the scholarly and rational factors of categories such as the people, the state, equal labor, special interests, and surplus products still require further discussion. It is worth noting that when considering the logical starting point, some scholars also emphasize the need to better critically absorb the scientifically reasonable components of Western economics. For example, Xu Min and others advocate taking "human property rights" as the logical starting point, and Liu Xingang advocates taking "people in dynamic development who have a collective concept and pursue private interests" as the logical starting point. The correctness of these views themselves still requires further exploration, but how to better critically absorb the reasonable components of Western economics when considering the logical starting point and the construction of the entire theoretical system of the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics is indeed a major key issue that academia needs to consider.

这类观点正确地批评了关于逻辑起点的讨论不能单纯套用和模仿《资本论》,或者只是对中国特色社会主义道路某一个方面的片面解读。因为,以社会主义初级阶段基本经济制度为代表的社会主义经济关系等具有鲜明的“中国特色”。在确立逻辑起点时,也应当坚持和体现“中国特色”这一重要前提。因此相较于马克思《资本论》中的商品范畴,人民、国家等范畴更能彰显中国特色社会主义制度体系最本质的特征,也更能彰显中国特色社会主义政治经济学理论的独创性和创造性发展。但是对于人民、国家、平等劳动、特殊利益、剩余产品等范畴的学理性因素,目前仍有待进一步商榷。值得注意的是,在思考逻辑起点时,也有一些学者强调要更好地批判性吸收西方经济学的科学合理成分。如徐敏等主张以“人力产权”为逻辑起点,刘新刚主张以“动态发展中的有集体观念且追求私利的人”为逻辑起点。这些观点本身的正确性仍然有待进一步探讨,但如何在思考逻辑起点以及整个中国特色社会主义政治经济学理论体系的建构时,更好地批判性吸收西方经济学的合理成分,的确是学术界需要考虑的重大关键问题。

The third type of scholar believes that the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics requires a new logical starting point, but it cannot completely deviate from the method of determining the logical starting point in *Capital*. Relative to the first two types of scholars, this type can be called the "eclectic school," characterized by opposing the direct application of the logical starting point of *Capital*, but hoping to maximize the use and achieve an organic connection with the theoretical resources of Marx's *Capital*. The most typical view of this type of scholar is to advocate taking the economic system of the primary stage of socialism as the logical starting point. For example, Wei Xinghua believes that the logical starting point of political economy should be grasped from the perspective of "the light that illuminates all other lights," [1]1 The “one industrialization, three transformations” (一化三改) refers to the general line for the transition period (1953-1956), which called for socialist industrialization and the socialist transformation of agriculture, handicrafts, and capitalist industry and commerce. and "public ownership and public ownership as the main body are the 'light that illuminates all other lights' of socialism with Chinese characteristics at the present stage." Therefore, the logical starting point of the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics should be the basic economic system of the primary stage of socialism. Liu Qian and Pei Xiaoge believe that the logical starting point of the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics should be a dualistic ownership structure. It is worth noting that representative textbooks published in recent years, such as *The Political Economy of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics* by Zhang Yu and others, *A General Theory of the Political Economy of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics* by Pang Jinju and others, and *A New Textbook on the Political Economy of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics* edited by Hong Yinxing, all in fact take the basic economic system as the logical starting point. However, before and after the Fourth Plenary Session of the 19th Central Committee of the CPC, [2]2 Marx’s “six-volume plan” was his original outline for *Capital*, which envisioned volumes on capital, landed property, wage labour, the state, foreign trade, and the world market. Only the first volume of *Capital* was completed in his lifetime. the connotation of the basic economic system of the primary stage of socialism was expressed differently.

第三类学者认为中国特色社会主义政治经济学需要一个新的逻辑起点,但是也不能完全偏离《资本论》关于逻辑起点的确定方法。相对于前两类学者,这类学者可以称之为“折中派”,其特点是反对直接套用《资本论》的逻辑起点,但又希望能够最大限度地利用并实现对马克思《资本论》理论资源的有机衔接。这类学者最典型的观点就是主张以社会主义初级阶段经济制度作为逻辑起点。如卫兴华认为,应当从“普照的光”的视角把握政治经济学的逻辑起点,而“公有制和公有制为主体是现阶段中国特色社会主义的‘普照的光’”,因此,中国特色社会主义政治经济学的逻辑起点应是社会主义初级阶段基本经济制度。刘谦、裴小革认为,中国特色社会主义政治经济学的逻辑起点应该是二元化的所有制结构。值得注意的是,近年来出版的代表性的教科书如张宇等著的《中国特色社会主义政治经济学》,逄锦聚等的《中国特色社会主义政治经济学通论》,洪银兴主编的《新编中国特色社会主义政治经济学教程》事实上都是以基本经济制度作为逻辑起点的。只不过,党的十九届四中全会前后,关于社会主义初级阶段基本经济制度的内涵表述不同。

This type of view actually advocates that, on the one hand, the narrative method and theoretical logic of *Capital* should be systematically borrowed and applied as much as possible. For example, in terms of the overall disciplinary nature, adhere to and develop dialectical materialism and historical materialism; in terms of methodology, draw on the methodological principles that Marx adhered to when constructing his economic system, namely the "light that illuminates all other lights" method, the essence of which is to emphasize that the order of arranging economic categories should correspond to the relationships that play a decisive role within society. On the other hand, when considering the logical starting point and specific system construction of the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics, it must be able to reflect the distinct Chinese characteristics of this discipline. Synthesizing the above basic principles, the reasons for choosing the basic socialist economic system as the logical starting point of the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics are as follows: First, according to the dialectical materialism that the economic base determines the superstructure, the basic economic system is the "light that illuminates all other lights" of the primary stage of socialism, determining the social nature and development direction of the primary stage of socialism. Second, the basic economic system of the primary stage of socialism is a great creation of the Party and the people, deepening the understanding of the laws of socialist development; the development and maturation of the basic socialist economic system in practice constitutes the essence of Chinese characteristics. Finally, to correctly understand the complex economic phenomena of contemporary China, it is urgently necessary to provide a profound theoretical explanation of the formation and development of the basic economic system of the primary stage of socialism and the related issues arising therefrom.

这类观点实际上是主张,一方面要尽可能系统借鉴和运用《资本论》的叙述方法和理论逻辑。如在学科整体性上坚持和发展唯物辩证法和历史唯物论;在方法论方面,要借鉴马克思在构建其经济学体系时所坚持的方法论原则,即“普照光”法,这种方法的实质是强调安排经济范畴的顺序时应该与他们在社会内部起决定性作用的关系相对应。另一方面,在思考中国特色社会主义政治经济学逻辑起点和具体的体系构建时必须能够反映这一学科鲜明的中国特色。综合以上基本原则,选择社会主义基本经济制度作为中国特色社会主义政治经济学逻辑起点的原因在于:首先,根据经济基础决定上层建筑的唯物辩证法,基本经济制度是社会主义初级阶段“普照的光”,决定着社会主义初级阶段的社会性质和发展方向。其次,社会主义初级阶段的基本经济制度是党和人民的伟大创造,深化了对社会主义发展规律的认识;社会主义基本经济制度在实践中的发展与成熟,构成了中国特色之所在。最后,要正确理解当代中国的复杂经济现象,迫切需要对社会主义初级阶段的基本经济制度的形成、发展以及由此而引发的相关问题作出深刻的理论说明。

The three types of views mentioned above, combining the disciplinary characteristics of Marx's *Capital* and the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics, respectively expound their different logical starting points. These different insights have both consensus and debate, together constituting the main theoretical landscape on the issue of the logical starting point, and have made very beneficial and necessary explorations for deepening the understanding of this topic.

上述三类观点结合马克思《资本论》和中国特色社会主义政治经济学的学科特征,分别阐发了各自不同的逻辑起点。这些不同的见解,既有共识也有争论,共同构成了关于逻辑起点问题的主要理论图景,对深化这一议题的认识做出了十分有益且必要的探索。

II. The Logical Starting Point of the Political Economy of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics: Divergences in Methodology

二、中国特色社会主义政治经济学逻辑起点:方法论上的分歧

It is not difficult to find that when discussing the issue of the logical starting point, the aforementioned scholars all claim to adhere to and implement the methodology of Marxist political economy, yet the basic conclusions of their research are vastly different. Investigating the reasons, the author believes that a key point causing this theoretical divergence is the difference in understanding the methodological issue of how Marx determined the logical starting point of *Capital*.

不难发现上述学者在讨论逻辑起点问题时,都声称自己坚持和贯彻了马克思主义政治经济学的方法论,但其研究的基本结论却大相径庭。究其原因,笔者认为,造成这种理论分歧的关键一点就是在对马克思如何确定《资本论》逻辑起点的方法论问题上出现了理解上的差异。

Regarding the choice of the category of the logical starting point of *Capital*, Marx clearly pointed out, "The economists of the seventeenth century, for example, always took as their starting point the living whole, the population, the nation, the state, several states, etc.; but they always ended by discovering through analysis a small number of determinant, abstract, general relations, such as division of labor, money, value, etc. As soon as these individual moments had been more or less firmly established and abstracted, there began the economic systems which ascended from the simple relations, such as labor, division of labor, need, exchange value, to the state, international exchange and world market." [3]3 The “illuminating light” (普照的光) is a methodological concept from Marx’s *Grundrisse*, referring to the dominant mode of production in a given society that determines the character and relations of all other forms of production within that society. Marx's important exposition here shows that only the method of "ascending from the abstract to the concrete" is the "scientifically correct method." In Marx's view, constructing a theoretical system of economics starting from concrete categories such as population, nation, and state is not feasible, because these concrete categories are only the "chaotic conception of the whole" and the "concrete in the imagination." Starting from these chaotic whole categories can only lead to "ever more attenuated abstractions" and "ever simpler concepts" from the "concrete in the imagination," thus failing to explain the capitalist mode of production with its many determinations and relations. Then, according to this method of "ascending from the abstract to the concrete," the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics must also require its logical starting point to be an abstract, simple category, while categories such as the state, the people, the socialist economic system, and surplus products clearly do not conform to this stipulation and therefore cannot serve as the logical starting point.

关于《资本论》逻辑起点范畴的选择,马克思明确指出,“17世纪的经济学家总是从生动的整体,从人口、民族、国家、若干国家等等开始;但是他们最后总是从分析中找出一些有决定意义的抽象的一般的关系,如分工、货币、价值等等这些个别要素一旦多少确定下来和抽象出来,从劳动、分工、需要、交换价值等等这些简单的东西上升到国家、国际交换和世界市场的各种经济学体系就开始出现了”。马克思在这里的重要论述表明,只有“从抽象到具体的”方法才是“科学上正确的方法”。在马克思看来,构建经济学理论体系,从人口、民族、国家等实在和具体范畴出发是不行的,因为这些具体范畴只是整体的“混沌的表象”和“表象中的具体”,从这些混沌的整体范畴出发,只能“从表象中的具体达到越来越稀薄的抽象”和“越来越简单的概念”,从而无法说明具有许多规定和关系的资本主义生产方式。那么依据这种“从抽象到具体”的方法,中国特色社会主义政治经济学也必然要求其逻辑起点是抽象的简单的范畴,而国家、人民、社会主义经济制度、剩余产品等范畴明显都不符合这一规定性,从而不能作为逻辑起点。

The method of "ascending from the abstract to the concrete" is precisely the methodological basis for the first type of scholar listed above who advocates taking the commodity and its transformed forms as the logical starting point. This type of view essentially hopes to forge the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics into an "artistic whole" like Marx's *Capital*, thereby implementing the principles of dialectics. Although this idea has its correct side, it is idealistic at the current stage. The simplest, most abstract meta-category can be understood as the "cell" form in a biological sense, and examining the "cell" form is only practically meaningful for mature social formations. The formation of socialism with Chinese characteristics is still in a process of continuous development and has not yet fully matured. Therefore, hoping to take the simplest, most abstract category as the logical starting point of the theoretical system, as in Marx's *Capital*, is undoubtedly an over-demand. While adhering to the classical theories of Marxist political economy, we must also pay attention to the practical applicability of these classical theories. Embodied in the key theoretical issue of choosing the logical starting point, this means adhering to the dialectical unity of principle and practical applicability.

“从抽象到具体”的方法正是前文所列第一类学者主张以商品及其变形形式作为逻辑起点的方法论基础。这类观点实际上是希望将中国特色社会主义政治经济学打造成如马克思的《资本论》般“艺术的整体”,从而贯彻辩证法的原则。这种想法虽然有其正确性的一面,但是在目前阶段却是理想化的。最简单、最抽象的元范畴可以理解为生物学意义上的“细胞”形式,而考察“细胞”形式只对于成熟的社会形态才具有实际的意义。中国特色社会主义形态还处于不断发展过程中,尚未完全成熟。因此,希望像马克思《资本论》那样以最简单、最抽象的范畴作为理论体系的逻辑起点,无疑是一种苛求。我们在遵循马克思主义政治经济学经典理论的同时,也要注重这些经典理论的现实适用性。体现在逻辑起点选择这个关键理论问题上,就是要坚持原则性和现实适用性的辩证统一。

The second type of view holds that the determination of the logical starting point of the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics must follow the principle of “the unity of the logical and the historical.” For instance, Qiu Haiping’s “state as starting point” thesis is a typical representative of this type of view. Qiu Haiping argues that, in accordance with the methodological principle of the unity of the logical and the historical, the logical category of the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics should be the state. Lin Guangbin also holds the same view; he contends that, following the principle of the unity of the logical and the historical, the category of “state” should serve as the logical starting point and general outline, thereby enabling the construction of a systematic theoretical system of the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics. Pei Changhong argues that the theoretical system of socialism with Chinese characteristics should take the summation of the earliest practices of socialism as its logical starting point, that is, taking the Party’s general line and general tasks of the “one industrialization, three transformations” [1]1 The “one industrialization, three transformations” (一化三改) refers to the general line for the transition period (1953-1956), which called for socialist industrialization and the socialist transformation of agriculture, handicrafts, and capitalist industry and commerce. during the transition period as the logical starting point. Although the author does not state it explicitly, the methodology implied in this view is also the unity of the logical and the historical.

第二类观点认为,中国特色社会主义政治经济学逻辑起点的确定要遵循“逻辑与历史相一致”的原则。如邱海平主张的“国家起点论”就是这类观点的典型代表。邱海平认为,按照逻辑与历史相统一的方法论原则,中国特色社会主义政治经济学的逻辑范畴应该是国家。林光彬也持同样的观点,他认为按照逻辑与历史相一致的原则,“国家”范畴应该成为逻辑起点和总纲,以此可以构建一个系统的中国特色社会主义政治经济学理论体系。裴长洪认为,中国特色社会主义的理论体系应该从总结社会主义的最初实践作为逻辑起点,即以党在过渡时期的“一化三改”总路线和总任务为逻辑起点。作者虽未明言,但这种观点暗含的方法论也是逻辑与历史相一致。

Two points of clarification are needed regarding this type of view. First, the principle of the unity of the logical and the historical was never Marx’s method of exposition in *Capital*, that is, it was not Marx’s method for arranging the order of economic categories. Many scholars, both domestically and internationally, have already engaged in critical reflection on this point. The present author has also previously written to point out that regarding the principle of the unity of the logical and the historical as an important methodology of Marxist economics originated with Engels. Marx arranged the order in which categories appear according to the specific internal structure of a given society; this logical order has nothing to do with the historical order of the categories. Focusing on whether the logical and the historical are consistent has led to misunderstandings of important issues such as the commodity category, which is the logical starting point of *Capital*, and the law of value. Professor Meng Jie has also explicitly pointed out that deviating from the “six-volume plan” [2]2 Marx’s “six-volume plan” was his original outline for *Capital*, which envisioned volumes on capital, landed property, wage labour, the state, foreign trade, and the world market. Only the first volume of *Capital* was completed in his lifetime. left by Marx and constructing a state economic theory under the guidance of the so-called principle of the unity of the logical and the historical might be a rather rash rather than a serious theoretical attempt. Second, when constructing the theoretical system of the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics, one can attempt to apply the principle of the unity of the logical and the historical. The unity of the logical and the historical, as a methodology in itself, is valid, and therefore it is equally applicable to Marxist political economy and the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics. The key is where it is used. The reason the present author opposes taking the state as the logical starting point based on this approach is that, in the socialist market economy, the economic role of the state is not only exogenous but also endogenous. That is, in the socialist market economy, the economic role of the state also manifests in overcoming market failures, and the state often needs to combine with market mechanisms to function effectively. This characteristic determines that the role of the state can only be systematically elucidated after the basic economic relations of the socialist market economy have been clarified.

对于这类观点需要做两点说明。第一,逻辑与历史相一致原则从来就不是马克思《资本论》的叙述方法,即不是马克思安排经济范畴顺序的方法。关于这一点已经有国内外很多学者进行了批判性的反思。笔者也曾撰文指出,将逻辑与历史相一致原则视为马克思主义经济学的重要方法论,发端于恩格斯。马克思是按照特定社会内部结构来安排范畴出现的顺序,这一逻辑顺序与范畴的历史顺序无关。聚焦于逻辑与历史是否一致,造成了对作为《资本论》逻辑起点的商品范畴和价值规律等重要问题的误解。孟捷教授也曾明确指出,偏离马克思所遗留下的“六册计划”,而在所谓逻辑与历史相一致原则的指导下构造国家经济理论,也许只是一种较为轻率而非严肃的理论尝试。第二,在构建中国特色社会主义政治经济学理论体系时,可以尝试运用逻辑与历史相一致原则。逻辑与历史相一致本身作为一种方法论,是成立的,因而也同时适用于马克思主义政治经济学和中国特色社会主义政治经济学,关键是看用在什么地方。笔者之所以反对根据这种方式将国家作为逻辑起点,是因为在社会主义市场经济中国家的经济作用不仅具有外生性,还具有内生性。即在社会主义市场经济中,国家的经济作用还表现为克服市场失灵,并且国家往往需要和市场机制相结合才能有效发挥作用。这种特征就决定了国家的作用只有在社会主义市场经济的基本经济关系被阐明之后,才可能进一步获得系统的阐释。

Taking the basic system of the primary stage of socialism as the logical starting point is, in fact, based on Marx’s elucidated method of the “illuminating light.” [3]3 The “illuminating light” (普照的光) is a methodological concept from Marx’s *Grundrisse*, referring to the dominant mode of production in a given society that determines the character and relations of all other forms of production within that society. Marx emphasized, “In all forms of society there is one specific kind of production which predominates over the rest, whose relations thus assign rank and influence to the others. It is a general illumination which bathes all the other colours and modifies their particularity.” This important exposition by Marx indicates that, in studying the economic systems of different societies, one should first grasp the “illuminating light” that exists in each respective society. For feudal society, this is ground rent; for bourgeois society, it is capital. At the same time, from a broad perspective, political economy is not just Marx’s *Capital*, but includes all content, including the “six-volume plan.” According to the arrangement of Marx’s “six-volume plan,” the “volume on capital” constitutes the de facto true logical starting point of the entire system of Marxian economics. For the primary stage of socialism, the “illuminating light” is precisely the basic socialist economic system. Therefore, the logical starting point of the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics should be the basic economic system of the primary stage of socialism.

以社会主义初级阶段基本制度作为逻辑起点,实际上依据的是马克思所阐发的“普照的光”法。马克思强调,“在一切社会形式中都有一种一定的生产决定其他一切生产的地位和影响,因而它的关系也决定其他一切关系的地位和影响。这是一种普照的光,它掩盖了一切其他色彩,改变着它们的特点”。马克思的这一重要论述表明,研究不同社会的经济制度,应该首先抓住各自社会存在的“普照的光”。这一点,对于封建社会来说是地租,对于资产阶级社会中来说是资本。同时从广义上看,政治经济学不只是马克思的《资本论》,而是包括“六册计划”在内的所有内容。根据马克思“六册计划”的安排,“资本篇”构成了整个马克思经济学体系事实上真正的逻辑起点。而对于社会主义初级阶段而言,“普照的光”正是社会主义基本经济制度。因此,中国特色社会主义政治经济学的逻辑起点应该是社会主义初级阶段基本经济制度。

The advantage of taking the economic system of the primary stage of socialism as the logical starting point is that it first allows for a full understanding and clarification of the basic characteristics embodied by this system and the system of economic categories and economic laws it contains. However, the choice of this logical starting point also limits the application of the scientific method of abstraction, meaning it is impossible to deduce, according to the logical sequence of “from the abstract to the concrete,” a more concrete system of categories and laws with internal connections. Consequently, it has attracted criticism from many scholars. For example, Liu Mingyuan has criticized that the basic socialist economic system itself is a complex totality of economic relations, an object that itself should be dissected. This criticism actually represents the first type of scholar who advocates the scientific method of proceeding from the abstract to the concrete; that is, in their view, the category serving as the logical starting point must be the most abstract, simplest, and most general category, a “cellular” form. The present author believes that the “illuminating light” method is Marx’s correct method for determining the logical starting point of political economy. As to whether this category must necessarily be the most abstract, simplest, and most general category depends on the degree of maturity of the social formation itself. If it were possible to combine the “illuminating light” method with the scientific method of proceeding from the abstract to the concrete, to find a most abstract, simplest, and most general category as the logical starting point, and thereby construct a logically rigorous theoretical system of the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics that could be called an “artistic whole,” that would naturally be the best option. However, from the current perspective, this approach remains overly idealistic. Following the “illuminating light” method, which is the primary principle for determining the logical starting point, the view that takes the basic socialist economic system as the logical starting point of the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics is both a practical approach consistent with reality and one that conforms to the basic viewpoints of Marxism.

以社会主义初级阶段经济制度作为逻辑起点的好处在于,首先能够充分认识和阐释清楚这一制度体现的基本特征及其所包含的经济范畴体系和经济规律体系。但是,这一逻辑起点的选择也限制了科学抽象法的发挥,即无法按照“从抽象到具体”的逻辑顺序演绎更加具体的具有内在联系的范畴与规律体系,因而也招到了不少学者的批评。如刘明远就曾批评到,社会主义基本经济制度本身就是一个复杂经济关系总体,本身就属于应该被解剖的对象。这种批评实际上代表了第一类主张从抽象到具体的科学方法的学者,也即在他们眼里,作为逻辑起点的范畴必须是最抽象、最简单、最一般的范畴,必须是“细胞”形式。笔者认为,“普照光”法是马克思确定政治经济学逻辑起点的正确方法,至于这种范畴是否一定要是最抽象、最简单、最一般的范畴,还要取决于这个社会形态本身的成熟程度。如果能够将“普照光”法和从抽象到具体的科学方法结合起来,寻找到一个最抽象、最简单、最一般的范畴作为逻辑起点,并进而构建一个逻辑严密的堪称“艺术上整体”的中国特色社会主义政治经济学理论体系,当然是最好不过的。但是从目前看来,这种做法仍然过于理想化。遵循“普照光”法这个确定逻辑起点的第一原则,以社会主义基本经济制度作为中国特色社会主义政治经济学逻辑起点的观点,既是一种符合实际的务实做法,也是符合马克思主义基本观点的。

III. The Logical Starting Point of the Political Economy of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics: Differences in the Object of Study

三、中国特色社会主义政治经济学逻辑起点:研究对象的差异

The political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics and Marx’s *Capital* exhibit significant differences in their objects of study; consequently, the choice of their logical starting points must follow different internal logics. The political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics should select a logical starting point that aligns with its specific object of study, which will help to better integrate its research content and fulfill its research purpose. The object of study defined by *Capital* is the capitalist mode of production and the relations of production and exchange corresponding to it. However, the object of study defined by the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics is the economic categories, economic laws, economic policies, and economic strategies of the primary stage of socialism. The objects of study of the two exhibit the following typical differences.

中国特色社会主义政治经济学与马克思的《资本论》在研究对象上具有显著的差异,因而其逻辑起点的选择必然遵循不同的内在逻辑。中国特色社会主义政治经济学应当选择与其特殊的研究对象相契合的逻辑起点,这将有助于更好地统领其研究内容,并完成其研究目的。《资本论》所界定的研究对象是资本主义生产方式及其与之相适应的生产关系和交换关系,但中国特色社会主义政治经济学所界定的研究对象,是社会主义初级阶段的经济范畴、经济规律、经济政策和经济战略。两者的研究对象具有如下典型的差别。

First, the object of study of Marx's *Capital* is capitalism in its mature form. The eighteenth-century British Industrial Revolution laid the productive-force foundation for the capitalist economic and social formation, and by the nineteenth century, when Marx was writing *Capital*, this economic and social formation had already undergone further development and refinement. Faced with such a mature form of capitalism, Marx was able to employ the method of ascending from the abstract to the concrete to dissect the "cell" of capitalist society (the commodity) with the power of abstraction. The political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics is a theoretical reflection of the economic relations of the primary stage of socialism. Although China's economic and social development has entered a new stage of development, this new stage still belongs to the primary stage of socialism, and the primary stage of socialism will still have to undergo a fairly long period of development. In the primary stage of socialism, on the one hand, the task of industrialization must be completed, and on the other hand, the task of laying the productive-force foundation for socialist relations of production must also be accomplished. The manifestation of this dual task in the New Era is the promotion of the development of new quality productive forces and the realization of Chinese-path modernization through the continuous transformation of relations of production and the superstructure. This also fully demonstrates that socialism with Chinese characteristics, this "new form of human civilization," is still in a process of gradual maturation, and the three-in-one dual structure displayed by the basic economic system of the primary stage of socialism will be further optimized and upgraded in the course of institutional change. Faced with such a dynamically changing economic and social formation, it is clearly impossible to abstract a "cell" analogous to the "commodity" in *Capital*, and thereby complete the logical deductive process from the abstract to the concrete.

第一,马克思《资本论》的研究对象是成熟形态的资本主义。18世纪的英国工业革命,为资本主义的经济社会形态奠定了生产力基础,到19世纪马克思创作《资本论》时,这一经济社会形态已经得到了进一步的发展和完善。面对这样一个成熟形态的资本主义,马克思才能够运用抽象到具体的方法对资本主义社会的“细胞”(商品)进行抽象力的解剖。中国特色社会主义政治经济学是对社会主义初级阶段经济关系的理论反映。虽然,中国的经济社会发展已经进入新发展阶段,但新发展阶段依然隶属于社会主义初级阶段,并且社会主义初级阶段还要经历一个相当漫长的发展时期。在社会主义初级阶段,一方面要完成工业化的任务,另一方面也要完成为社会主义生产关系奠定生产力基础的任务。这一双重任务在新时代的体现就是通过不断变革生产关系和上层建筑,来促进新质生产力的发展,实现中国式现代化。这也充分说明中国特色社会主义这一“人类文明新形态”还处于逐步成熟的过程当中,社会主义初级阶段基本经济制度所展现的三位一体的二元结构将在制度变迁中得到进一步优化升级。面对这样一个动态变化的经济社会形态,显然无法抽象出一个类似于《资本论》中“商品”这样的“细胞”,进而完成由抽象到具体的逻辑演绎过程。

Second, in *Capital*, Marx examined a purely private capitalist economy. In this economic and social formation, the state basically played the role of a "night watchman" in the Adam Smithian sense, and economic operation displayed a market logic dominated by capital, with essentially no consideration of state intervention in the market economy. However, with the development of the times, the market economy itself also underwent a transformation from free competition to government intervention. In the course of the development of the market economy, the role of the state in the modern market economy underwent major changes. In particular, in the socialist market economy, a new type of market economy, the state plays an irreplaceable and important role. The state and the market together become two different mechanisms for coordinating the economy and allocating resources, manifesting the particularity of the socialist market economy. The reason Marx chose the volume on *Capital* as the logical starting point in his "plan of six volumes" to construct his system of political economy is that his object of study was an organic whole in which relations of production were homogeneous. In this organic whole as articulated by Marx, the market naturally became the sole regulatory mechanism. However, the socialist market economy is not an organic whole in a similar sense, because in the socialist market economy there not only exist heterogeneous relations of production, but also two regulatory mechanisms of different natures, the market and the state, which together constitute a situation of "variations on a double theme." This particularity of the socialist market economy determines that one cannot mechanically imitate Marx's "plan of six volumes" or *Capital* in arranging the logical starting point and narrative structure of the theoretical system. In other words, compared with Marx's *Capital*, which takes capital as the sole theoretical main line, the theoretical system of the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics simultaneously possesses two theoretical main lines, the state and the market. Therefore, only by taking the basic economic system of the primary stage of socialism as the logical starting point can one simultaneously encompass the socialist party-state, public ownership, and non-public ownership. In this sense, those scholars who advocate taking the basic economic system of the primary stage of socialism as the logical starting point are evidently more reasonable.

第二,在《资本论》中,马克思考察的是纯粹的私人资本主义经济。在这个经济社会形态中,国家基本上扮演了一个亚当·斯密意义上的“守夜人”角色,经济运行展示的是以资本为主导的市场逻辑,基本上没有涉及国家对市场经济的干预。但是,随着时代的发展,市场经济本身也经历了从自由竞争到政府干预的转变。在市场经济的发展过程中,国家在现代市场经济中的作用发生了重大变化。特别是在社会主义市场经济这一新型的市场经济中,国家发挥着不可替代的重要作用。国家与市场一起成为两种不同的协调经济和配置资源的机制,彰显了社会主义市场经济的特殊性。马克思之所以在“六册计划”里,选择《资本》册作为逻辑起点构建了他的政治经济学体系,是因为其研究对象是一个生产关系具有同质性的有机整体。在马克思所表述的这一有机整体中,市场自然成为唯一的调节机制。但是,社会主义市场经济并不是类似意义上的有机整体,因为在社会主义市场经济中不仅存在着异质化的生产关系,而且同时存在着市场和国家这两种不同性质的调节机制,且两种调节机制构成了“双重旋律变奏”的态势。社会主义市场经济这种特殊性,决定了不能机械地模仿马克思的“六册计划”或《资本论》来安排理论体系的逻辑起点和叙述结构。换言之,与马克思《资本论》以资本为唯一理论主线相比,中国特色社会主义政治经济学理论体系同时存在国家和市场两根理论主线。因此只有以社会主义初级阶段基本经济制度为逻辑起点,才能够同时将社会主义政党—国家和公有制以及非公有制一起包纳进来。从这个意义上说,那些主张以社会主义初级阶段基本经济制度为逻辑起点的学者显然更加具有合理性。

It is precisely the notable differences in the object of study that determine that the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics cannot simply copy or imitate Marx's method of determining the logical starting point in *Capital*. At most, this aspect of Marx can be applied only in certain partial respects or within relatively limited content. Of course, with the maturation of the socialist economy with Chinese characteristics, that is, upon reaching a fully mature "new form of human civilization," the logical starting point of the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics will inevitably undergo corresponding changes, but at present it has not yet reached such a height.

正是研究对象上的显著差异,决定了中国特色社会主义政治经济学不能简单照搬或模仿马克思《资本论》确定逻辑起点的方法。对于马克思的这一方面充其量只能在某些局部或在相对有限的内容上加以运用。当然,随着中国特色社会主义经济的成熟,即达到完全成熟的“人类文明新形态”,那时关于中国特色社会主义政治经济学的逻辑起点也必将发生与之相适应的变化,只是在目前还达不到那样的高度。

IV. The Logical Starting Point of the Political Economy of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics: Differences in the Level of Research

四、中国特色社会主义政治经济学逻辑起点:研究层次的不同

From the perspective of the level of research, the economic analysis from the abstract to the concrete can be viewed as a three-tiered "pyramid" structure. The first tier is pure theoretical research, the second tier is historical-institutional analysis, and the third tier is policy research. The degree of abstraction also differs across these three different levels of research. Pure theoretical research has the highest degree of abstraction, historical-institutional analysis comes next, and policy research has the lowest. The main body of Marx's *Capital* belongs to the first tier of pure theoretical analysis, aiming to reveal the general laws of the capitalist mode of production, such as the law of surplus value. After Marx, the French Regulation School and the American Social Structure of Accumulation School further proposed "intermediate-level analysis," aiming to further combine the specific historical and institutional forms of capitalism and examine the concrete mechanisms by which the general laws revealed in *Capital* are realized at different stages of social development. The political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics is a theoretical system encompassing research at all three levels, and therefore its different theoretical parts exhibit notable differences in the degree of abstraction.

从研究层次上看,经济学从抽象到具体的分析可以看作一个三层的“金字塔”结构。第一层次是纯理论研究,第二层次是历史制度分析,第三层次是政策研究。这三个不同层次的研究,其抽象程度也不同。纯理论研究抽象程度最高,历史制度分析次之,政策研究最低。马克思《资本论》的主体属于第一层次的纯理论分析,旨在揭示资本主义生产方式的一般规律如剩余价值规律。在马克思以后,法国调节学派和美国社会积累结构学派又进一步提出了“中间层次的分析”,旨在进一步结合资本主义特殊的历史制度形式,考察《资本论》揭示的一般规律在不同社会发展阶段的具体实现机制。中国特色社会主义政治经济学是一个包含所有三个层次研究的理论体系,因此,其不同的理论部分抽象程度具有显著的差异。

Since Marx's *Capital* studies highly abstract pure theory and reveals the most general basic principles, one can proceed from the elemental forms constituting the capitalist economic system, follow the basic principle of the scientific method of abstraction of "ascending from the abstract to the concrete," and finally return to the "concrete in thought," completing the narrative of the entire theoretical system of political economy. The arrangement of the categories of the entire economic theoretical system appears as a multi-level progressive deduction from the general, to the particular, to the individual. In this deductive process imbued with the flavor of "systematic dialectics," the economic categories that appear subsequently are all transformed and derived from the economic categories that appeared previously, manifesting the characteristic of development from the general toward the particular and the individual. From the perspective of extension, although the economic categories that appear subsequently are smaller than those that appeared previously, they nevertheless contain new developments of content that was still in embryonic form in the previously appearing economic categories. By the same logic, the logical deduction from the subsequently appearing economic categories to even later economic categories will in turn become a new deduction from the new general to the new particular and individual. The theoretical system of political economy displayed by Marx's "six-volume structure" begins precisely from the simplest and most abstract economic categories and continues until returning to the most concrete economic categories, that is, abstract determinations leading to the reproduction of the concrete in the course of thought, ultimately forming a complete theoretical system.

由于马克思《资本论》研究的是高度抽象的纯理论,所揭示的是最一般的基本原理,因此可以从构成资本主义经济制度的元素形式出发,遵循“从抽象到具体”的科学抽象法的基本原则,最后回到“思维的具体”,完成整个政治经济学理论体系的叙述。整个经济学理论体系的范畴的安排表现为从一般、特殊到个别的多层级递进演绎。在这个充满“体系辩证法”味道的演绎过程中,后续出现的经济学范畴都是之前出现的经济学范畴经过转化、引申而来的,体现出由一般向特殊、个别发展的特征。从外延上看,后续出现的经济学范畴虽然比之前出现的经济学范畴要小,但它却包含着之前出现的经济学范畴尚处萌芽状态时的内容的新发展。以此类推,后续出现的经济学范畴再向更后经济学范畴的逻辑演绎,又将成为新的一般向新的特殊、个别的演绎。马克思的“六册结构”所展现的政治经济学理论体系正是从最简单、最抽象的经济学范畴开始,直至回到最具体的经济学范畴,即抽象的规定在思维行程中导致具体的再现,最终形成一个完整的理论体系。

Although, in terms of the level of research, the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics simultaneously attends to theoretical content at three levels, the main body of its theory is nevertheless concentrated primarily in the second and third levels. The reason for this is as follows: first, the fundamental principles expounded by Marx in *Capital*, once the capitalist coloration contained in the theory is stripped away, can be appropriately adapted and applied to the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics. For example, the theory of surplus value revealed in *Capital* as its most core and also most important element—particularly the theory of relative surplus value—not only discloses the special economic laws of the capitalist market economy but also, to a certain extent, reflects the general economic laws of the market economy. Through creative transformation and innovative development, this important theory can also be fully applied to understanding the socialist market economy. Therefore, the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics need not engage in original creation on these fundamental principles. Second, the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics is an economic theoretical system possessing the qualities of modern institutional economics. From the perspective of historical materialism, understanding the process of institutional change along the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics, and elucidating the law of institutional change in socialist society whereby relations of production and the superstructure are transformed to liberate and develop the productive forces, constitute important theoretical issues for the historical-institutional analysis of the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics. Third, practicality is an important feature of the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics, which determines that its theoretical system is not only a pure theory of a high degree of abstraction but also includes other levels such as historical-institutional analysis and policy analysis. As a guide for directing China's economic development, the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics needs, on the basis of adhering to the scientific methodology of Marxism, to proceed in all things from China's actual conditions and creatively apply Marxist political economy theory to analyze the major and critical issues in contemporary Chinese economic practice. This requires persistently upholding a problem-oriented approach and strengthening research at the policy level, so as to further guide the development of practice. The research levels involved in the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics mean that the process of its logical deduction cannot become a spiral forward movement like that of *Capital* and the "six-volume plan." [6]6 Marx's planned "six-volume plan" for his critique of political economy, which he never completed, was to cover capital, landed property, wage labor, the state, foreign trade, and the world market, extending beyond the three volumes of *Capital* that were actually published. The economic policies, basic strategies, and basic tactics of the primary stage of socialism belong to economic relations at the concrete level, and hence the theoretical generalizations of these economic relations are also more concrete. For this reason, only by taking the basic economic system of the primary stage of socialism as the logical starting point of the entire theoretical system can in-depth research and analysis of this concrete system be conducted.

虽然从研究层次上看,中国特色社会主义政治经济学同时兼顾了三个层次的理论内容,但其理论的主体内容却主要集中在第二和第三层次。之所以如此是因为:第一,马克思在《资本论》中所阐发的原理论,在剥去其理论中包含的资本主义色彩之后,适当地加以改造就可以适用于中国特色社会主义政治经济学。如《资本论》所揭示的最核心的同时也是最重要的剩余价值理论,特别是相对剩余价值理论,就不仅揭示了资本主义市场经济的特殊经济规律,也在某种程度上反映了市场经济的一般经济规律。对这一重要理论进行创造性转化和创新性发展,也是完全可以运用于理解社会主义市场经济的。因此,中国特色社会主义政治经济学无需在这些基本原理上进行原创。第二,中国特色社会主义政治经济学是具有现代制度经济学特质的经济学理论体系。从历史唯物主义的视角看,理解中国特色社会主义道路的制度变迁过程,阐发变革生产关系和上层建筑以解放和发展生产力这一社会主义社会的制度变迁规律是中国特色社会主义政治经济学历史制度分析的重要理论议题。第三,实践性是中国特色社会主义政治经济学的重要特征,这决定了其理论体系不仅是抽象程度很高的纯理论还包括历史制度分析和政策分析等其他层次。作为指导中国特色社会主义经济发展的指南,中国特色社会主义政治经济学需要在坚持马克思主义的科学方法论的基础上,一切从中国实际出发,创造性地运用马克思主义政治经济学理论来分析当代中国经济实践中的重大关键问题。这就需要始终坚持以问题导向,加强政策层面的研究,以便进一步指导实践的发展。中国特色社会主义政治经济学所涉及的研究层次使得其逻辑演绎的过程无法成为像《资本论》和“六册计划”那样的螺旋形的前进运动。社会主义初级阶段的经济政策、基本方略、基本策略等属于具体层面的经济关系,因而对这些经济关系的理论概括也就更具体。由此,只有将社会主义初级阶段基本经济制度作为整个理论体系的逻辑起点,才能对这个具体制度进行深入研究和分析。

Conclusion

结语

As an organic component of the independent knowledge system of Chinese economics, the construction of the theoretical system of the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics must seek a logical starting point that fits its own systemic structure. At present, the practical character of the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics determines that the exploration of its theoretical system must uphold the basic principle of a problem-oriented approach. This means that, starting from different major problems, there may exist different logical starting points, and these logical starting points are often relatively concrete categories. From a philosophical perspective, a concrete category necessarily simultaneously contains many concrete determinations and relations; the more concrete determinations there are, the more different categories there are, which in turn also means that the unfolding of the theoretical system can have multiple different logical starting points. If the system is unfolded along these different categories, it will form many theoretical systems existing side by side simultaneously, so that the unfolding of the theoretical system presents a special "segmented structure." As mentioned above, most current mainstream textbooks on the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics adopt this structure. Although, compared with the "artistic whole" of *Capital*, a theoretical system with a "segmented structure" cannot achieve the tight interlocking of links in terms of logic, and thus has certain deficiencies in rigor, it is nevertheless not without merit as a relatively pragmatic theoretical approach. In sum, the diversity of the theoretical system of the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics also determines the diversity of its logical starting points. Recognizing this, it is necessary to adopt a more inclusive and more optimistic attitude toward the current academic debate on logical starting points, namely, to recognize that the theoretical system of the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics does not have a single uniquely correct logical starting point, but rather can have different logical starting points. The theoretical community cannot remain perpetually stuck only in debates over logical starting points, but rather must, along different logical starting points, accelerate the construction of the theoretical system of the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics.

作为中国经济学的自主知识体系的有机组成部分,构建中国特色社会主义政治经济学理论体系必须寻找契合自身体系结构的逻辑起点。当前,中国特色社会主义政治经济学的实践性特征,决定了其理论体系的探索要坚持问题导向的基本原则。这意味着,从不同的重大问题切入就可能存在着不同的逻辑起点,并且这些逻辑起点往往都是较为具体的范畴。从哲学上看,具体范畴必然同时包含着许多具体的规定和关系,有多少重具体的规定性就意味着有多少个不同的范畴,这进而也意味着理论体系的展开可以有多个不同的逻辑起点。如果沿着这些不同的范畴进行展开,就会形成许多个同时并列的理论体系,从而使得理论体系的展开呈现出特殊的“板块型结构”。如前所述,当前主流的中国特色社会主义政治经济学教科书多数采取了这种结构。虽然“板块型结构”的理论体系与《资本论》那样一个“艺术的整体”相比,在逻辑性上达不到环环相扣,从而在严谨性上存在一定的不足,但其却不失为一种较为务实的理论进路。综上,中国特色社会主义政治经济学理论体系的多样性也决定了其逻辑起点的多样性。认识到这一点,就需要对当前关于逻辑起点的学术争论采取更加包容和更加乐观的态度,即认识到中国特色社会主义政治经济学理论体系不存在唯一正确的逻辑起点,而是可以存在不同的逻辑起点。理论界不能始终只停留在逻辑起点的争论上,而是要沿着不同的逻辑起点,加快中国特色社会主义政治经济学理论体系的建构。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗