Re-examining Several Basic Questions in the Marxist Theory of Productive Forces

The Marxist theory of productive forces is an important cornerstone of Marxist theory. Lenin incisively pointed out that "only when social relations are reduced to relations of production, and relations of production to the level of productive forces, can there be a reliable basis for regarding the development of social formations as a natural-historical process. Needless to say, without this view, there would be no social science." The Communist Party of China has always attached great importance to liberating and developing the productive forces, persistently applying the Marxist theory of productive forces to guide practice, and striving to promote the innovative development of the Marxist theory of productive forces. General Secretary Xi Jinping's important discourses on liberating and developing the productive forces, especially on developing new quality productive forces, are the latest achievement in adapting the Marxist theory of productive forces to the Chinese context and the needs of the times. At present, a new round of technological revolution and industrial transformation is advancing in depth, and the development of the productive forces is undergoing a new major leap. The development of new quality productive forces is in full swing and has far-reaching influence. An important task before China's theoretical circles is to combine the Marxist theory of productive forces with the realities of the New Era, systematically summarize and draw on the research achievements of predecessors, conduct further in-depth thinking and research on the basic questions of the Marxist theory of productive forces, provide correct answers that conform to China's actual conditions and the requirements of the times, strive to promote the innovative development of the Marxist theory of productive forces, better understand the objective laws and developmental trends of the movement of social contradictions, and better guide the new practice of developing the productive forces.

马克思主义生产力理论是马克思主义理论的重要基石。列宁精辟地指出，“只有把社会关系归结于生产关系，把生产关系归结于生产力的水平，才能有可靠的根据把社会形态的发展看做自然历史过程。不言而喻，没有这种观点，也就不会有社会科学”。中国共产党始终高度重视解放和发展生产力，坚持运用马克思主义生产力理论指导实践，努力推动马克思主义生产力理论的创新发展。习近平总书记关于解放和发展生产力特别是发展新质生产力的重要论述，是马克思主义生产力理论中国化时代化的最新成果。当前，新一轮科技革命和产业变革深入推进，生产力发展正经历着新的重大飞跃，新质生产力发展方兴未艾、影响深远，摆在中国理论界面前的一个重要课题，就是把马克思主义生产力理论与新时代的实际相结合，系统总结借鉴前人的研究成果，对马克思主义生产力理论的基本问题作进一步深入的思考研究，作出符合中国实际和时代要求的正确回答，努力推进马克思主义生产力理论的创新发展，更好认识社会矛盾运动的客观规律和发展趋势，更好指导生产力发展新的实践。

I. How to understand the essence of the Marxist theory of productive forces — the core position of labor in the Marxist theory of productive forces

一、如何认识马克思主义生产力理论的精髓，劳动在马克思主义生产力理论中的核心地位

In the history of economic thought, the concept of productive forces was put forward by bourgeois classical economists. William Petty, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and others all had discourses on productive forces. Friedrich List, a representative of the German Historical School, highly appraised the importance of productive forces and pointed out that the degree of a country's development is determined not mainly by the amount of wealth it has accumulated (that is, exchange value), but by the degree of development of its productive forces. However, bourgeois economists' understanding of productive forces was always carried out at the objective or material level rather than the subjective or social level, seeing things but not people, consciously or unconsciously reflecting the class standpoint and mode of thought of the bourgeoisie. Marx subjected this to profound criticism. In response to Ricardo's view that man is a machine for consumption and production and that human life is capital, Marx commented in the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*: "In Ricardo's view, man is insignificant, while the product is everything." In the article "Critical Remarks on the Article 'The Prussian King and Social Reform. By a Prussian'" written in 1845, Marx pointed out: "To dispel the mystical aura surrounding the 'productive forces,' it is enough to glance through any statistical compilation. There one finds water power, steam power, human power, horse power. All of these are 'productive forces.' That man, horse, steam, and water all serve as 'forces' — is this a high tribute to man?" [1]1 This quotation is from Marx's 1845 critique of Friedrich List's *The National System of Political Economy*, written as a draft and published posthumously; the Chinese text here cites it under the title "Comments on Friedrich List's Work 'The National System of Political Economy.'"

在经济思想史上，生产力概念是由资产阶级古典经济学家提出来的，威廉·配第、亚当·斯密、大卫·李嘉图等都有过关于生产力的论述。德国历史学派代表人物李斯特高度评价了生产力的重要性，并指出一个国家的发展程度，主要并不是决定于它所蓄积的财富(也就是交换价值)的多少，而是决定于它的生产力的发展程度。但是，资产阶级经济学家对生产力的认识，始终是在客体的或物质的层面而不是在主体的或社会的层面展开的，见物而不见人，自觉不自觉地反映着资产阶级的阶级立场和思想方法。对此，马克思作了深刻批判。针对李嘉图提出的人是消费和生产的机器和人的生命就是资本的观点，马克思在《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中评论道，“在李嘉图看来，人是微不足道的，而产品则是一切”。在1845年撰写的《评弗里德里希·李斯特的著作〈政治经济学的国民体系〉》一文中，马克思指出：“为了破除美化‘生产力’的神秘灵光，只要翻一下任何一本统计材料也就够了。那里谈到水力、蒸汽力、人力、马力。所有这些都是‘生产力’。人同马、蒸汽、水全都充当‘力量’的角色，这难道是对人的高度赞扬吗？”

Overcoming the bias of the fetishistic mode of thought of bourgeois economics, shifting the focus of understanding productive forces from things to people, from the object to the subject, grasping the laws of production and the development of productive forces from the standpoint of labor subjectivity, elucidating the ultimately decisive role of the development of productive forces in social development, elucidating the basic principles of the movement of contradiction between productive forces and relations of production, and elucidating that the development of productive forces inevitably leads to human freedom and emancipation — this is the essence and historical contribution of the Marxist theory of productive forces. Marxism profoundly revealed that labor is the living source of all human material and spiritual wealth, the embodiment and proof of the human essence, and a practical activity with distinct subjectivity. In this activity, "man himself confronts natural matter as a natural force. In order to appropriate natural matter in a form useful to his own life, he sets in motion the natural forces belonging to his own body — his arms and legs, head and hands. When through this movement he acts on external nature and changes it, he simultaneously changes his own nature. He develops the potentialities slumbering within his own nature, and subjects the play of these forces to his own control." Marx pointed out that labor is in essence "living, purposive activity": "The spider's operation resembles that of the weaver, and the bee's construction of honeycomb cells puts many human architects to shame. But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees from the outset is that he has built the cell in his head before building it in wax. At the end of the labor process, a result emerges that already existed in the worker's imagination at the beginning, that is, existed ideally. He not only effects a change of form in natural matter; at the same time he realizes his own purpose in natural matter, a purpose that he knows, that determines the mode and manner of his activity as a law, and to which he must subordinate his will." In short, labor is a conscious, autonomous, and dynamic creative process, a process in which subjectivity and objectivity, conformity with laws and conformity with purposes, are unified, a process of changing the environment while simultaneously changing and developing oneself. "The parting of the ways between man and ape" [2]2 A phrase from Mao Zedong's 1964 poem "Reply to Comrade Guo Moruo" (*He Guo Moruo tongzhi*), marking the evolutionary divergence of humans from apes through labor. begins here, human subjectivity is established here, and the human essence is manifested here.

克服资产阶级经济学拜物教思维的偏见，把对生产力的认识的重心从物转向人、从客体转向主体，从劳动主体性出发认识把握生产和生产力发展的规律，阐明生产力发展在社会发展中的最终决定作用，阐明生产力与生产关系矛盾运动的基本原理，阐明生产力发展必然导致人的自由和解放，是马克思主义生产力理论的精髓和历史贡献。马克思主义深刻揭示了，劳动是人类一切物质财富和精神财富活的源泉，是人的本质的体现和证明，是具有鲜明主体性的实践活动。在这一活动中，“人自身作为一种自然力与自然物质相对立。为了在对自身生活有用的形式上占有自然物质，人就使他身上的自然力——臂和腿、头和手运动起来。当他通过这种运动作用于他身外的自然并改变自然时，也就同时改变他自身的自然。他使自身的自然中蕴藏着的潜力发挥出来，并且使这种力的活动受他自己控制”。马克思指出，劳动在本质上是“活的、合乎目的的活动”，“蜘蛛的活动与织工的活动相似，蜜蜂建筑蜂房的本领使人间的许多建筑师感到惭愧。但是，最蹩脚的建筑师从一开始就比最灵巧的蜜蜂高明的地方，是他在用蜂蜡建筑蜂房以前，已经在自己的头脑中把它建成了。劳动过程结束时得到的结果，在这个过程开始时就已经在劳动者的表象中存在着，即已经观念地存在着。他不仅使自然物发生形式变化，同时他还在自然物中实现自己的目的，这个目的是他所知道的，是作为规律决定着他的活动的方式和方法的，他必须使他的意志服从这个目的”。总之，劳动是一个自觉、自主、能动的创造过程，是主观性与客观性、合规律性与合目的性相统一的过程，是改变环境的同时改变自己、发展自己的过程，“人猿相揖别”由此开始，人的主体性由此确立，人的本质由此展现。

In this way, Marxism for the first time placed history on its true foundation, finding in the history of the development of labor the key to understanding all social history. This is that "the whole of so-called world history is nothing but the birth of man through human labor, the becoming of nature for man." The masses of the people create history; in essence, labor creates history. In the dialectical movement between the labor subject and the labor object lies the living source of social development. Therefore, if human labor is set aside, and people are placed only in the position of objects without being examined as dynamic subjects, it is impossible to grasp the distinctive character of social movement. Most importantly, the distinct subjectivity embodied in labor as purposive activity, and the ceaseless labor practice carried out by people under the guidance and impetus of this distinct subjectivity, increasingly transform objective natural processes into conscious social processes, and spontaneous natural existence into conscious social existence. Labor thus becomes irrefutably the foundation and core of the ontology of social existence, and the basis for the unity of nature, humanity, and society.

这样，马克思主义就破天荒第一次将历史置于它的真正基础上，在劳动发展史中找到了理解全部社会史的锁钥，这就是“整个所谓世界历史不外是人通过人的劳动而诞生的过程，是自然界对人来说的生成过程”。人民群众创造历史，本质上是劳动创造历史，在劳动主体与客体的辩证运动中，蕴藏着社会发展的活的源泉。因此，如果离开了人的劳动，人只是被置于客体的地位，而没有被当作能动的主体来考察，那就不可能把握社会运动的特质。最重要的是，劳动作为有目的的活动所体现出的鲜明主体性，以及人们在这一鲜明主体性引导推动下进行的生生不息的劳动实践，使客观的自然过程日益转化为自觉的社会过程，自发的自然存在日益转化为自觉的社会存在，劳动因此无可辩驳地成为社会存在本体论的基础和核心，成为自然、人、社会三者统一的根基。

So what, then, is the relationship between labor and production? In the *Economic Manuscripts of 1861–1863*, Marx explains: "If the elements of the labor process are examined from the standpoint of labor itself, they are defined as labor material, instruments of labor, and labor itself. If these elements are examined from the standpoint of the purpose of the whole process, from the product to be produced, they may be called production material, means of production, and productive labor." In *Capital* he further points out that if the labor process is "examined from the standpoint of its result, from the standpoint of the product, then the instruments of labor and the object of labor both appear as means of production, and labor itself appears as productive labor." In summary, the concept of labor highlights the subjectivity of human productive activity, while the concept of production highlights the objectivity of human labor activity; the former is the cause, the latter the effect; the former is the form of activity, the latter the form of materialization; the two are mutually conditional and mutually transformative. On the one hand, labor is the living source of all wealth, "the true soul of production"; without labor, production would be like water without a source, or a tree without roots. On the other hand, labor is the process of the union of humanity and nature, an objective material transformation activity; labor must employ means of production, including natural elements, in order to create useful material and spiritual products. From labor to production is the process whereby humanity's subjective activity is exerted upon external objects, continuously objectified, materialized, and concretized. With the deepening and expansion of the division of labor and exchange, and especially with the formation and development of the capitalist mode of production, laborers are separated from the means of production: "the objective conditions of labor acquire an ever greater independence vis-à-vis living labor... and an ever greater portion of social wealth confronts labor as an alien and ruling power." Labor is alienated, becoming an appendage of capital, while capital becomes the economic power dominating bourgeois society and also the starting point and end point of the capitalist economic process. Just as with the unfolding of the internal contradictions of commodity exchange, labor as the living source of value necessarily manifests itself in the form of money, so too with the emergence of the capitalist mode of production, labor as the living source of production necessarily manifests itself in the form of capital's material products. But it must not be overlooked that only labor is the essence and soul of production; the most crucial internal driving force and the true source of creativity in production and reproduction is not abstract "production in general," but labor! It is the laborers who are the subjects of the material production and reproduction of people's direct means of subsistence; production, as humanity's "active activity" of consciously transforming external natural objects, has its true creative basis only in the shaping and ordering that is the objectification of labor.

那么，劳动和生产又是什么关系呢？马克思在《1861—1863年经济学手稿》中作了这样的说明，“如果从劳动本身来考察劳动过程的要素，它们被规定为劳动材料，劳动资料和劳动本身。如果从整个过程的目的，从要生产的产品来考察这些要素，它们就可以被称作生产材料，生产资料和生产劳动”。在《资本论》中他进一步指出，劳动过程如果“从其结果的角度，从产品的角度加以考察，那么劳动资料和劳动对象二者表现为生产资料，劳动本身则表现为生产劳动”。概括讲，劳动这一概念突出了人的生产活动的主体性，生产这一概念突出了人的劳动活动的客观性；前者是原因，后者是结果；前者是活动形态，后者是物化形态；二者互为条件、互相转化。一方面，劳动是一切财富活的源泉，是“生产的真正灵魂”，离开了劳动，生产就如无源之水、无本之木；另一方面，劳动是人与自然的结合过程，是客观的物质变换活动，劳动必须运用包括自然要素在内的生产资料，才能创造出有用的物质产品和精神产品。从劳动到生产，是人的主体活动施加在外界客体上，不断对象化、客观化、具体化的过程。随着分工和交换的不断深化扩大，特别是随着资本主义生产方式的形成和发展，劳动者与生产资料相分离，“劳动的客观条件对活劳动具有越来越巨大的独立性……而社会财富的越来越巨大的部分作为异己的和统治的权力同劳动相对立”。劳动异化了，成为资本的附属，而资本则成为支配资产阶级社会的经济权力，也成为资本主义经济过程的起点和终点。正如随着商品交换内在矛盾的展开，劳动作为价值的活的源泉必然要以货币的形式表现出来，同样随着资本主义生产方式的出现，劳动作为生产的活的源泉也必然要以资本的物质产品的形式表现出来。但是，绝不应忽视，只有劳动才是生产的本质和灵魂，生产与再生产中最关键的内驱动因和真正的创造性来源不是抽象的“一般生产”，而是劳动！劳动者才是人们直接生活资料的物质生产与再生产的主体，生产作为人能动地改造外部自然对象的“积极活动”，真正的创造性基础，只能是劳动对象化的塑形与构序。

Marx once divided political economy into the "political economy of labor" and the "political economy of capital." Marxist political economy is the political economy of labor. Labor is the starting point of Marxist political economy, and it is also the starting point of the Marxist theory of productive forces. Proceeding from labor, the most basic fact of social existence, and through a deep analysis of the production process, Marx scientifically elucidated a series of major questions concerning the nature, status, role, structure, dynamics, manifestations, qualitative states, and tendencies of the productive forces, revealed the general laws of the development of the productive forces, established a systematic and complete theory of productive forces, and laid the scientific foundation for completing the two great theoretical discoveries.[3]3 The "two great theoretical discoveries" are the materialist conception of history and the theory of surplus value, which Marx and Engels presented as the two foundational breakthroughs of their scientific socialism. In *Capital*, Marx begins his analysis of the capitalist mode of production with the commodity, elucidating that the commodity is the unity of use value and value, concrete labor and abstract labor, and private labor and social labor, and puts forward the major thesis that the twofold character of labor is the pivot on which the understanding of all political economy turns, transforming the principle of the organic unity of productive forces and relations of production into a concrete paradigm of economic analysis. On this basis, Marx deeply analyzes the capitalist production process, elucidating that the capitalist production process is the unity of the labor process and the valorization process, profoundly analyzes the general laws of the development of social productive forces under the conditions of modern large-scale production, reveals the essence of the capitalist mode of production and its laws of motion, demonstrates the historical tendency of the socialist mode of production to replace the capitalist mode of production, and points out the bright and splendid prospect of humanity's final passage from alienated labor to free labor, from the realm of necessity to the realm of freedom.

马克思曾经将政治经济学分为“劳动的政治经济学”和“资本的政治经济学”。马克思主义政治经济学是劳动的政治经济学。劳动是马克思主义政治经济学的出发点，也是马克思主义生产力理论的出发点。从劳动这个社会存在的最基本事实出发，通过对生产过程的深入分析，马克思科学阐明了生产力的性质、地位、作用、结构、动力、表征、质态、趋势等一系列重大问题，揭示了生产力发展的一般规律，建立了系统完备的生产力理论，为完成两大理论发现奠定了科学的基础。在《资本论》中，马克思从商品开始分析资本主义生产方式，阐明了商品是使用价值和价值、具体劳动和抽象劳动、私人劳动和社会劳动的统一，提出了劳动二重性是理解整个政治经济学的枢纽重大论断，将生产力与生产关系有机统一的原理转化为具体的经济学分析范式；在此基础上，马克思深入分析了资本主义生产过程，阐明了资本主义生产过程是劳动过程和价值增殖过程的统一，深刻分析了现代化大生产条件下社会生产力发展的一般规律，揭示了资本主义生产方式的本质及其运动规律，论证了社会主义生产方式代替资本主义生产方式的历史趋势，指明了人类社会最终从异化劳动走向自由劳动、从必然王国进入自由王国的光明灿烂的前景。

In sum, labor and its pronounced subjectivity are the essence of the Marxist theory of productive forces. Firmly grasping this essence, we have the correct starting point for deepening our understanding of the laws of the development of the productive forces and for advancing the innovative development of the Marxist theory of productive forces.

总之，劳动及其鲜明的主体性，是马克思主义生产力理论的精髓。牢牢把握这一精髓，我们深化对生产力发展规律的认识、推进马克思主义生产力理论的创新发展，就有了正确的出发点。

II. How to Understand the Elements of the Productive Forces: Productive Forces as the Relation between Subject and Object, Humanity and Nature

二、如何认识生产力的要素，生产力是主体与客体、人与自然的关系

The productive forces are composed of the elements of production. Marx points out: "The productive forces, that is, the development of productive capacity and its elements." The productive forces are in essence the productive forces of the laboring subject, and within the elements of production they are transformed into objective material forces, manifesting themselves as the productive forces of the object. Real productive forces are formed and developed in the interaction between the subject and object of production, and in the final analysis embody the relation between humanity and nature.

生产力由生产要素组成。马克思指出，“生产力，即生产能力及其要素的发展”。生产力本质上是劳动主体的生产力，并在生产要素中转化为客观的物质力量，表现为客体的生产力。现实的生产力，就是在生产的主体与客体的相互作用中形成和发展的，归根结底体现了人与自然的关系。

Since the founding of the People's Republic of China, theoretical circles have conducted sustained and in-depth discussions on the question of the elements of the productive forces. The initial topic of debate centered on whether the productive forces consist of two elements or three. Yu Guangyuan and others, relying mainly on Stalin's exposition, put forward the view of two elements of the productive forces. In the article "Dialectical and Historical Materialism," Stalin pointed out that "the instruments of production wherewith material values are produced, and the people who operate the instruments of production and carry on the production of material values, thanks to a certain experience and skill in work — all these elements jointly constitute the productive forces of society." Wang Xuewen and others, relying mainly on Marx's exposition of the three elements of the labor process, put forward the view of three elements of the productive forces. Marx stated that "the simple elements of the labor process are: purposeful activity or labor itself, the subject of labor, and the instruments of labor." These two formulations are in fact merely different expressions summarized from different perspectives — one from the perspective of labor, the other from the perspective of production — and they are not contradictory. Whether two elements or three, they are the most basic elements of the productive forces in all eras and all societies. With the continuous development of the productive forces, people's understanding of the composition and role of these basic elements has also continuously developed. For example, Marx once pointed out that "space is an element of all production and all human activity." Likewise, the information and data used in all production are also indispensable elements of production. But in the past, the role of these elements was not so prominent and not so highly valued, and there was no need to single them out separately from the composition of the basic elements for emphasis. Now, these elements that were previously less important have become increasingly important, and this is precisely a concrete manifestation of the development of the productive forces, to the extent that today people need to single out certain elements for focused development. Moreover, in the actual production process, the various elements of the productive forces are not isolated; they can only function when combined as a whole. Therefore, social or organizational elements such as division of labor, cooperation, and management are also very important. As Marx noted when enumerating the elements of the productive forces in discussing labor productivity (rate), they include "the average degree of skill of the workers, the level of development of science and its degree of technological application, the social organization of the process of production, the scale and efficiency of the means of production, and natural conditions," among others. Taking these complex and changing circumstances into account, scholars such as Wei Xinghua have proposed that the traditional views simplifying the productive forces to two or three elements are not comprehensive enough. In Marx's theory, the three elements of the productive forces — the worker, the instruments of labor, and the subject of labor — constitute the basis of the labor process in any society and at any stage of its development. However, with the evolution of the production and labor process, new elements are continuously added. Some scholars have also attempted to add elements such as science and technology, management, information, education, and culture on the basis of the three elements, gradually forming theories of five elements, six elements, or even eight elements. These are all different forms of presentation of the multi-element theory of the productive forces, providing new perspectives for understanding the complexity and dynamism of the productive forces. It should also be emphasized that the elements of the productive forces take on different forms of manifestation and modes of composition under different social systems. For example, under the capitalist mode of production, all elements of production, including labor, land, means of production, and natural conditions, are subordinate to capital. "In a broader sense, the entire production process and each of its elements, as well as each element of circulation — from the material point of view — are merely the means of production of capital." Therefore, under the capitalist system, the elements of the productive forces all manifest themselves as elements of capital, and social productive forces manifest themselves as the productive forces of capital.

新中国成立以来，理论界就生产力要素问题进行了持续深入的讨论，最初的论题，集中于生产力是二要素还是三要素。于光远等人以斯大林的论述为主要依据提出了生产力二要素观点。在《辩证唯物主义与历史唯物主义》一文中，斯大林指出，“用来生产物质资料的生产工具，以及有一定的生产经验和劳动技能来使用生产工具、实现物质资料生产的人，——所有这些因素共同构成社会的生产力”。王学文等人则以马克思关于劳动过程三要素的论述为主要依据提出了生产力三要素观点。马克思提出，“劳动过程的简单要素是：有目的的活动或劳动本身，劳动对象和劳动资料”。这两种概括其实只是从不同视角概括的不同说法，一个是劳动视角，一个是生产视角，二者并不矛盾。无论是二要素还是三要素，都是一切时代和社会的生产力的最基本要素，随着生产力的不断发展，人们对这些基本要素的构成及其作用的认识也在不断发展。比如，马克思曾指出，“空间是一切生产和一切人类活动的要素”。又如，一切生产中所用到的信息、数据也是必不可少的生产要素。但是，过去这些要素的作用不那么突出，不那么受重视，没有必要把它们从基本要素的构成中单独提出来强调。现在，这些过去不那么重要的生产要素变得越来越重要了，这恰恰是生产力发展的一种具体表现，以至于今天人们需要把某些要素单独提出来以重点发展。此外，在现实生产过程中，生产力的各种要素都不是孤立的，只有结合起来作为一个整体才能发挥作用，因此，分工、协作、管理等社会性或组织性要素也十分重要。正如马克思在谈到劳动生产力（率）的时候所列举的生产力要素，它们包括“工人的平均熟练程度，科学的发展水平和它在工艺上应用的程度，生产过程的社会结合，生产资料的规模和效能，以及自然条件”等等。考虑到这些复杂多变的情况，卫兴华等学者提出，将生产力简化为二要素或三要素的传统观点都不够全面，在马克思的理论中，生产力的三要素——劳动者、劳动资料、劳动对象——构成了任何社会及其发展阶段劳动过程的基础。然而，随着生产劳动过程的演进，新的要素会不断加入。还有学者尝试在三要素的基础上加入科学技术、管理、信息、教育、文化等要素，逐步形成了五要素、六要素甚至八要素等理论，这些都属于生产力多要素论的不同呈现形式，为理解生产力的复杂性和动态性提供了新的视角。还需要强调的是，生产力的要素在不同社会制度下有着不同的表现形式和构成方式。例如，在资本主义生产方式下，一切生产要素包括劳动、土地、生产资料以及自然条件等，都隶属于资本，“从更广泛的意义上说，整个生产过程和它的每一个要素，以及流通的每一个要素——从物质方面来看——只是资本的生产资料”。因此，在资本主义制度下，生产力的要素都表现为资本的要素，社会生产力则表现为资本的生产力。

In today's world, the connotation of the elements of the productive forces has undergone important changes. New elements of production are constantly emerging, and the increased role, enhanced efficiency, and optimized combination of various elements of production have driven the improvement of the level of the productive forces. General Secretary Xi Jinping, deeply summarizing the development trends of the world's productive forces and the practice of the development of China's productive forces, has made a systematic summary and generalization of the new development of the productive forces and their elements. He emphasizes that new quality productive forces take as their basic connotation the leap in the quality of laborers, instruments of labor, subjects of labor, and their optimized combination; he emphasizes that labor is the essential activity of humanity, the source of wealth, and the fundamental force driving the progress of human society; he emphasizes that capital is an important bond driving the agglomeration and allocation of various elements of production and an important force promoting the development of social productive forces; he emphasizes stimulating the vitality of elements of production such as labor, knowledge, technology, management, capital, and data, so as to better reflect the market value of knowledge, technology, and talent; he emphasizes that information resources are increasingly becoming important elements of production and social wealth, and that the amount of information one commands has become an important indicator of a country's soft power and competitiveness; he emphasizes that in the era of the internet economy, data is a new element of production, a basic resource and a strategic resource, and also an important productive force. These important expositions profoundly clarify the status, role, and characteristics of the development and change of various elements of production under new historical conditions, and deepen and develop the understanding of the laws of development of the productive forces and their elements.

当今世界，生产力要素的内涵发生了重要变化，新的生产要素不断涌现，各类生产要素作用的增大、效能的提高、组合的优化，推动了生产力水平的提高。习近平总书记深入总结世界生产力发展趋势和我国生产力发展实践，对生产力及其要素的新发展作出系统的概括总结，强调新质生产力以劳动者、劳动资料、劳动对象及其优化组合的跃升为基本内涵；强调劳动是人类的本质活动，是财富的源泉，是推动人类社会进步的根本力量；强调资本是带动各类生产要素集聚配置的重要纽带，是促进社会生产力发展的重要力量；强调激发劳动、知识、技术、管理、资本和数据等生产要素活力，更好体现知识、技术、人才的市场价值；强调信息资源日益成为重要生产要素和社会财富，信息掌握的多寡成为国家软实力和竞争力的重要标志；强调在互联网经济时代，数据是新的生产要素，是基础性资源和战略性资源，也是重要生产力。这些重要论述，深刻阐明了新的历史条件下各类生产要素的地位、作用及其发展变化的特点，深化和发展了对生产力及其要素发展规律的认识。

No matter how complex the actual production process is and which elements play a role, in the final analysis it comes down to no more than two factors. "If we consider the labor process completely abstractly, then it may be said that at first only two factors appear — man and nature (labor and the natural material of labor)." "On the one side stand man and his labor, on the other nature and its materials." "The subject is man, the object is nature, and this is always the same." The two factors that appear at first are also the most basic factors, embodying the essence of the productive forces, and require focused explanation.

不管现实生产过程如何复杂、有哪些要素发挥作用，归根到底，不外乎两方面因素，“如果完全抽象地来考察劳动过程，那么，可以说，最初出现的只有两个因素——人和自然（劳动和劳动的自然物质）”。“一边是人及其劳动，另一边是自然及其物质”，“主体是人，客体是自然，这总是一样的”。最初出现的两个因素，也是最基本的因素，体现了生产力的本质，需要作重点说明。

1. On man and his labor

1.关于人及其劳动

First, the productive forces are the productive forces of man, the productive forces of labor, the productive forces of society. Labor is the living soul and the overarching element of the productive forces. Marx vividly pointed out that "labor is the living, form-giving fire," which, through man's purposeful activity, combines the various elements of production to form real productive forces. Therefore, the full development of the individual is the greatest productive force. "The primary productive force of all mankind is the worker, the laborer." The process of development of the productive forces is the movement process in which the labor capacity of the laboring subject is continuously transformed into real productive forces through the role of the various elements of production.

首先，生产力是人的生产力、劳动的生产力、社会的生产力，劳动是生产力活的灵魂和统摄性要素。马克思形象地指出，“劳动是活的、造形的火”，通过自己有目的的活动，将各种生产要素结合起来，形成现实的生产力。因此，个人的充分发展是最大的生产力。“全人类的首要的生产力就是工人，劳动者”。生产力的发展过程，就是劳动主体的劳动能力通过各种生产要素的作用不断转化为现实生产力的运动过程。

Second, the instruments of labor are "past, objectified labor" and "accumulated labor." "The development of man's labor capacity is particularly manifested in the development of the instruments of labor, or the tools of production." Marx emphasized that "nature does not construct any machines, no locomotives, railways, electric telegraphs, self-acting mules, and so on. They are products of human industry, natural material transformed into organs of the human will over nature, or of human activity in nature. They are organs of the human brain created by the human hand; they are objectified knowledge-power."

其次，劳动资料是“过去的、客体化了的劳动”“积累的劳动”，“人的劳动能力的发展特别表现在劳动资料或者说生产工具的发展上”。马克思强调，“自然界没有造出任何机器，没有造出机车、铁路、电报、自动走锭精纺机等等。它们是人的产业劳动的产物，是转化为人的意志驾驭自然界的器官或者说在自然界实现人的意志的器官的自然物质。它们是人的手创造出来的人脑的器官；是对象化的知识力量”。

Third, the subject of labor is everything on which labor is brought to bear in the process of producing material goods. In the early period of human life, the subject of labor consisted mainly of various natural resources existing in nature. With the continuous expansion of the scope of human production and life, the vast majority of the subjects of labor are now artificial materials that have already been transformed by human labor, the results of humanity's past labor. The variety of these materials continuously increases with the expansion of human labor in breadth and depth.

再次，劳动对象是人们在物质资料生产过程中将劳动加于其上的一切东西。在人类生活的早期，劳动对象主要是天然存在的各种自然资源。随着人类生产生活范围的不断扩大，劳动对象绝大多数是已经被人们的劳动改造过的人工材料，是人类的过去劳动的结果，这些材料的种类随着人类劳动在广度和深度上的扩展而不断增加。

Finally, the development of the productive forces is in the final analysis the development of man's capacities, and the development of man's capacities increasingly depends on the development of science and technology. Science refers to knowledge about the laws of development of the objective world, while technology refers to the practical skills of utilizing and transforming nature. Both are the crystallization of the continuous development of human labor capacity. With the development of society, the development of the productive forces and the creation of material wealth increasingly depend on the level of scientific research and technological progress, and science and knowledge increasingly function as direct productive forces.

最后，生产力的发展归根结底是人的能力的发展，而人的能力的发展又日益取决于科学技术的发展。科学是指关于客观世界发展规律的知识，而技术则是指利用和改造自然的实际技能，它们都是人类劳动能力不断发展的结晶。随着社会的发展，生产力的发展和物质财富的创造，越来越取决于科学研究水平和技术进步，科学和知识日益作为直接的生产力而发生作用。

2. On nature and its materials

2.关于自然及其物质

Marx repeatedly cited the famous saying of William Petty, the founder of bourgeois classical economics, that "land is the mother of wealth, while labor is the father and active element of wealth," to illustrate the role of nature in social production. In the *Critique of the Gotha Programme*, responding to the German Workers' Party program's statement that "labor is the source of all wealth and all culture," Marx retorted: "Labor is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much the source of use values (and it is surely of such that material wealth consists!) as labor, which itself is only the manifestation of a force of nature, human labor power." [7]7 Marx's critique of the Gotha Programme (1875) was directed at the program adopted by the united German workers' parties at Gotha; his marginal notes, published by Engels in 1891, are a classic text on the transition from capitalism to communism.

马克思多次引用资产阶级古典经济学的创始人威廉·配第的名言，“土地为财富之母，而劳动则为财富之父和能动的要素”，用来说明自然在社会生产中的作用。在《哥达纲领批判》中，针对德国工人党纲领关于“劳动是一切财富和一切文化的源泉”的表述，马克思反驳道：“劳动不是一切财富的源泉。自然界同劳动一样也是使用价值（而物质财富就是由使用价值构成的！）的源泉，劳动本身不过是一种自然力即人的劳动力的表现。”

Marx and Engels always held that humanity and nature form an organism, and that a reconciliation and harmony between humanity and nature must be achieved. "Labor is first of all a process between man and nature, a process by which man, through his own actions, mediates, regulates and controls the metabolism between himself and nature." "Man lives on nature." "History can be examined from two sides and divided into the history of nature and the history of mankind. But these two sides are inseparable; as long as human beings exist, the history of nature and the history of mankind mutually condition each other." Marx distinguished labor productivity into "the natural productivity of labor, i.e. the productivity of labor as it exists in the inorganic world, and the social productivity of labor." The role of nature in the development of productive forces consists mainly in the following points. First, it provides the necessary space and base for human production and life. Second, it provides the necessary material resources for human production and life. Third, it provides the necessary environmental and ecological safeguards for the production process. Fourth, through the cognition, development and utilization of laborers, natural elements such as land, mineral deposits, wind, water, light and steam are subordinated on a large scale to the direct production process, transforming natural forces into productive forces.

马克思恩格斯始终认为，人与自然是一个有机体，必须实现人与自然之间的和解与和谐。“劳动首先是人和自然之间的过程，是人以自身的活动来中介、调整和控制人和自然之间的物质变换的过程”，“人靠自然界生活”，“历史可以从两方面来考察，可以把它划分为自然史和人类史。但这两方面是不可分割的；只要有人存在，自然史和人类史就彼此相互制约”。马克思把劳动生产力区分为“劳动的自然生产力，即劳动在无机界中具有的生产力，和劳动的社会生产力”。自然在生产力发展中的作用主要有以下几点。一是为人类的生产和生活提供必要的空间和基地。二是为人类的生产和生活提供必要的物质资源。三是为生产过程提供必要的环境和生态保障。四是经过劳动者的认识、开发和利用，土地、矿藏、风、水、光、蒸汽等自然要素大规模地从属于直接的生产过程，使自然力转化为生产力。

Humanity is the subject, nature the object, and the capacity of the subject to purposefully transform the object to satisfy its own needs is the productive forces. From this perspective, productive forces are in essence social productive forces. Moreover, humanity itself is part of nature, and humanity and nature form an organic living whole. From this perspective, productive forces are in essence natural productive forces. Taken as a whole, productive forces are the organic unity of humanity and nature, of subject and object. Therefore, the relationship between humanity and nature, between subject and object — whether it can fully display human power, achieve sustainable development, and realize human freedom and emancipation — reflects not only the level of development of the social productive forces, but also the degree of progress of the social relations of production.

人是主体，自然是客体，主体有目的地改造客体以满足自己的需要的能力就是生产力，从这个角度看，生产力本质上是社会生产力；此外，人本身就是自然的一部分，人与自然是有机生命体，从这个角度看，生产力本质上是自然生产力；整体来看，生产力是人与自然、主体与客体的有机统一。因此，人与自然、主体与客体之间的关系如何，能否充分展示人类的力量、实现可持续发展、实现人的自由和解放，不仅体现了社会生产力的发展水平，也体现了社会生产关系的进步程度。

The purpose of capitalist production is to maximize the pursuit of surplus value, and natural conditions and the ecological environment serve only as means for the self-expansion of capital, so the relationship between humanity and nature is often in a state of high tension. The purpose of socialist production is to maximize the satisfaction of the people's ever-growing needs for a better life, and natural conditions and the ecological environment are transformed from means of capital accumulation into means of realizing the people's interests. Therefore, the relationship between humanity and nature begins to enter a beautiful realm of harmonious coexistence. Marx said: "Like the savage, the civilized man must wrestle with nature to satisfy his needs, to maintain and reproduce his life; and he must do so in all social formations and under all possible modes of production. This realm of natural necessity expands with the development of man, because his needs expand; but the productive forces that satisfy these needs likewise expand. Freedom in this realm can only consist in this: that socialized man, the associated producers, rationally regulate their metabolism with nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of letting it rule over them as a blind force; and accomplish this metabolism with the least expenditure of force, under conditions most worthy of and most appropriate to their human nature." Rationally regulating the relationship between humanity and nature in accordance with the common interests of society is an inevitable requirement of the development of productive forces, and it is also an essential requirement of socialism.

资本主义生产目的是最大限度追求剩余价值，自然条件和生态环境只是资本增殖的手段，所以人与自然的关系经常处于高度紧张状态。社会主义生产的目的是最大限度满足人民日益增长的美好生活需要，自然条件和生态环境从资本增殖的手段转变为实现人民利益的手段，因此，人与自然之间的关系开始进入和谐相处的美好境界。马克思这样说道：“像野蛮人为了满足自己的需要，为了维持和再生产自己的生命，必须与自然搏斗一样，文明人也必须这样做；而且在一切社会形式中，在一切可能的生产方式中，他都必须这样做。这个自然必然性的王国会随着人的发展而扩大，因为需要会扩大；但是，满足这种需要的生产力同时也会扩大。这个领域内的自由只能是：社会化的人，联合起来的生产者，将合理地调节他们和自然之间的物质变换，把它置于他们的共同控制之下，而不让它作为一种盲目的力量来统治自己；靠消耗最小的力量，在最无愧于和最适合于他们的人类本性的条件下来进行这种物质变换。”按照社会的共同利益合理调节人与自然的关系，是生产力发展的必然要求，也是社会主义的本质要求。

Entering the New Era, General Secretary Xi Jinping has inherited and developed the Marxist thought on the relationship between humanity and nature, creatively putting forward the thought on ecological civilization, the concept of green development, and the concept of green productive forces. He emphasizes that green development focuses on resolving the question of harmony between humanity and nature; that humanity and nature form a community of life; and that humanity must revere, respect, conform to and protect nature. He emphasizes correctly handling the relationship between economic development and ecological protection, firmly establishing the concept that protecting the ecological environment is protecting productive forces and improving the ecological environment is developing productive forces. He emphasizes that green development is the defining feature of high-quality development, and that new quality productive forces are themselves green productive forces. He emphasizes firmly establishing and practicing the concept that lucid waters and lush mountains are invaluable assets, unswervingly taking the path of ecological priority and green development, and building a modernization in which humanity and nature coexist harmoniously. These important expositions have transformed Marx's view that associated producers will rationally regulate their metabolism with nature into systematized theory and vivid practice, deepening our understanding of the essence of productive forces.

进入新时代，习近平总书记继承和发展了马克思主义关于人与自然关系的思想，创造性地提出生态文明思想、绿色发展理念和绿色生产力概念，强调绿色发展注重的是解决人与自然和谐问题，人与自然是生命共同体，人类必须敬畏自然、尊重自然、顺应自然、保护自然；强调正确处理好经济发展和生态保护的关系，牢固树立保护生态环境就是保护生产力、改善生态环境就是发展生产力的理念；强调绿色发展是高质量发展的底色，新质生产力本身就是绿色生产力；强调牢固树立和践行绿水青山就是金山银山的理念，坚定不移走生态优先、绿色发展之路，建设人与自然和谐共生的现代化。这些重要论述，把马克思关于联合起来的生产者将合理地调节他们和自然之间物质变换的观点转变为系统化的理论和生动实践，深化了对生产力本质的认识。

III. How to Understand the Nature of Productive Forces: The Intermediary Role of the Social Character of Productive Forces in the Contradictory Movement of Productive Forces and Relations of Production

三、如何认识生产力的性质，生产力的社会性在生产力与生产关系矛盾运动中的中介作用

Marx pointed out: "In production, men not only act on nature but also on one another. They produce only by cooperating in a certain way and mutually exchanging their activities. In order to produce, they enter into definite connections and relations with one another, and only within these social connections and relations does their action on nature, does production, take place." On the basis of this exposition by Marx, Stalin defined productive forces and relations of production as follows: "Social production consists of two aspects, which, although inseparably connected, reflect two different kinds of relations — namely, man's relation to nature (productive forces) and the relations of men to one another in the process of production (relations of production). Only with these two aspects of production can there be social production — whether under the socialist system or under any other social formation." This definition is simple and clear, and has been widely accepted. However, the question is complicated. For production "always takes place within a definite social body, a social subject, active in a greater or lesser totality of branches of production," and "the individual producing in society — hence the socially determined production of individuals — is of course the point of departure." Therefore, productive forces contain not only the relationship between humanity and nature, but necessarily also relations among human beings; they have not only naturalness but also sociality, concentratedly embodied in the various social connections formed among people in the production process, especially relations of division of labor and cooperation. On the one hand, the division of labor separates different branches of labor and different laborers from one another; on the other hand, it creates mutual dependence among different branches and different laborers, giving every partial or individual labor a social character: they either combine to produce the same product through cooperation, or through mutual exchange satisfy the needs of others or of society through commodity production. The division of labor and cooperation also determine the most important labor relations among people in the production process, namely the relations of management and being managed that arise around the possession and use of the means of production. This relation determines the technical organizational form by which laborers are combined with the means of production, and constitutes the core content of the sociality of productive forces. [8]8 Stalin's definition of productive forces and relations of production appears in his *Dialectical and Historical Materialism* (1938), a chapter of the *History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks): Short Course*, which long served as the canonical Soviet exposition of historical materialism. There is no consensus on the question of whether the sociality of productive forces belongs to productive forces or to relations of production.

马克思指出，“人们在生产中不仅仅影响自然界，而且也互相影响。他们只有以一定的方式共同活动和互相交换其活动，才能进行生产。为了进行生产，人们相互之间便发生一定的联系和关系；只有在这些社会联系和社会关系的范围内，才会有他们对自然界的影响，才会有生产”。依据马克思的这一论述，斯大林对生产力和生产关系作了如下界说，“社会生产是由两个方面组成，这两个方面虽然是不可分割地互相联系着，但却反映两种不同的关系，即人们对自然的关系(生产力)和人们在生产过程中的相互关系(生产关系)。只有具备生产的这两个方面，才能有社会生产，——不管在社会主义制度下或其他社会形态下都是一样”。这个界说简单又清晰，被广泛接受。然而，问题有复杂性。因为，生产“始终是一定的社会体即社会的主体在或广或窄的由各生产部门组成的总体中活动着”，“在社会中进行生产的个人，——因而，这些个人的一定社会性质的生产，当然是出发点”。因此，生产力中不仅有人与自然的关系，也必然包含人与人的关系；不仅有自然性，也有社会性，集中体现为生产过程中人们之间形成的各种社会联系特别是分工协作关系。分工一方面在使不同劳动部门和不同劳动者相互分离，另一方面又造成了不同部门和不同劳动者之间的相互依赖，使每一种局部或个别的劳动具有了社会性，他们或者结合起来用协作的方式生产同一种产品，或者通过相互交换，用商品生产的方式满足他人或社会的需要。分工协作还确定了生产过程中人与人之间最重要的劳动关系，即围绕生产资料的支配和使用而产生的管理与被管理的关系，这种关系决定了劳动者和生产资料相结合的技术组织形式，构成了生产力社会性的核心内容。关于生产力社会性属于生产力还是生产关系这一问题，人们认识不一。

The first view holds that the sociality of productive forces falls within the category of productive forces. Ping Xin explicitly put forward the view of the duality of productive forces, arguing that productive forces possess both material-technical attributes and social attributes, and that the social attribute of production is the internal social connection within productive forces, including various social connections, social conditions, and social factors that directly serve the production of use values. Lin Gang holds that the mode of combination of the factors of production, or the technical organizational form of labor, is the actual form in which productive forces exercise their real functions. Only through certain technical-organizational connections can the various simple elements of productive forces be combined to constitute an active labor process and thereby be transformed into productive forces that perform their functions.

第一种观点认为，生产力的社会性属于生产力的范畴。平心明确提出了生产力的二重性的观点，认为生产力既有物质技术属性，也有社会属性，生产的社会属性就是生产力内部的社会联系，包括直接为生产使用价值服务的各种社会联系、社会条件和社会因素等。林岗认为，生产要素的组合方式，或者说劳动的技术组织形式，是发挥着实际功能的生产力的现实形态。生产力的各个简单要素，只有通过一定的技术组织联系，才能结合起来造成能动的劳动过程从而转化为实现职能的生产力。

The second view holds that the sociality of productive forces belongs to relations of production. Zhang Wentian proposed distinguishing two types of relations of production: one type is the relations of production that directly express productive forces, namely, the relations formed by people in accordance with the conditions and needs of production technology in order to carry out production. The other type is the specific relations of production in a given social formation, namely, the relations of ownership of the means of production and products. Similarly, foreign scholars such as G.A. Cohen and William Shaw divide relations of production into material relations of production and social relations of production, or labor relations and relations of ownership; the former are relations that constrain producers in engaging in material production, while the latter are effective power relations over persons and productive forces. Labor relations belong to relations of production rather than to productive forces.

第二种观点认为，生产力的社会性属于生产关系。张闻天提出区分两类生产关系，一类是直接表现生产力的生产关系，即人们为了进行生产，依照生产技术情况和需要而形成的生产关系。另一类是一定社会形态中特殊生产关系即生产资料和产品的所有关系。类似的，国外学者G.A.柯亨和威廉·肖等人将生产关系分为物质的生产关系和社会的生产关系或者劳动关系和所有权关系，前者是约束生产者从事物质生产的关系，后者是对人和生产力的有效权力关系，劳动关系属于生产关系而不是生产力。

The third view holds that the sociality of productive forces possesses the dual attributes of both productive forces and relations of production. Wu Yifeng put forward the principle of productive forces—mode of production—relations of production, taking the mode of production, that is, the mode in which laborers combine with the means of production, as the intermediate link through which productive forces determine relations of production, and holding that among the three categories of productive forces, mode of production, and relations of production there exists neither a relation of substitution nor a relation of inclusion. Gao Feng holds that the mode of production, that is, the mode of labor, is the intermediary in the contradictory movement between productive forces and relations of production. A specific mode of labor is based on certain productive forces and is at the same time constrained by specific relations of production, bearing marked social-historical characteristics.

第三种观点认为，生产力的社会性兼有生产力和生产关系二重属性。吴易风提出了生产力—生产方式—生产关系的原理，将生产方式即劳动者和生产资料相结合的方式作为生产力决定生产关系的中间环节，并且认为生产力、生产方式、生产关系三个范畴之间既不存在替代关系，也不存在包容关系。高峰认为，生产方式即劳动方式，是生产力与生产关系矛盾运动的中介体。特定的劳动方式以一定的生产力为基础,同时受到特定生产关系的制约,具有显著的社会历史特征。

None of the above three views denies that, in the process of production, there exists a kind of social connection that is the material-technical relation among people arising around the production of material goods, governed by natural laws such as those of mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology, and concentratedly expressed in the relations of division of labor and cooperation. In this kind of social connection, people act only as natural persons, as elements of production, and in accordance with certain technical rules, in the mode of socialized production or associated labor, as a collective material force carrying out material exchange with nature, so as to produce the material products people need. This social connection differs from relations of production in that the latter are the relations of economic interest or social power among people arising around the appropriation of the means of production and products in the process of production, governed by social laws such as economic, political, and legal laws. Of course, in the actual process of production, these two relations are interwoven, just as Sun Yefang put forward that labor organization is the organization of direct producers in accordance with the laws of production in the process of production, that is, the relations among people in the direct process of production; the problem of labor organization is a problem of productive forces, and even more so a problem of relations of production. But this does not prevent people from distinguishing between them in theory. Marx's analysis of the dual character of capitalist management makes this very clear. He pointed out: "All directly social or communal labor on a larger scale requires, to a greater or lesser degree, a directing authority, in order to coordinate the individual activities and to perform the general functions arising from the movement of the productive organism as a whole—as distinguished from the movement of its separate organs. A single violin player is his own conductor; an orchestra requires one. Once labor belonging to capital becomes cooperative labor, the functions of management, supervision, and regulation become functions of capital. This function of management, as a specific function of capital, acquires a specific character." Therefore, "capitalist management is dual in its content—because the process of production it manages is itself dual: on the one hand, it is a social labor process for the production of products; on the other hand, it is a process of the valorization of capital." The social connection among people in the process of production belongs to what Marx called the general functions of social production, such as division of labor and cooperation, arising from the "social labor process for the production of products." In order to avoid confusing this kind of sociality with the sociality in the sense of relations of production, we may call the former the natural sociality or material sociality of productive forces, and the latter the economic sociality or power sociality of productive forces.

上述三种观点都不否认，生产过程中存在这样一种社会联系，它是人们之间围绕物质资料的生产而发生的物质技术关系，服从于数学的、物理的、化学的、生物的等自然规律，集中表现为分工协作的关系。在这种社会联系中，人只是作为自然的人、生产的要素，按照一定的技术规则，以社会化生产或联合劳动的方式，作为一种集体的物质力量与自然进行物质变换，以生产人们需要的物质产品。这种社会联系与生产关系的区别在于，后者是生产过程中人们之间围绕生产资料和产品的占有发生的经济利益关系或社会权力关系，服从于经济的、政治的、法律的等社会规律。当然，在实际生产过程中，这两种关系是相互交织的，正如孙冶方提出，劳动组织就是在生产过程中根据生产规律把直接生产者组织起来，即直接生产过程中人与人之间的关系，劳动组织问题是生产力问题，更是生产关系问题。但这并不妨碍人们在理论上对其加以区分。马克思对资本主义管理二重性的分析十分清楚地说明了这一点，他指出：“一切规模较大的直接社会劳动或共同劳动，都或多或少地需要指挥，以协调个人的活动，并执行生产总体的运动——不同于这一总体的独立器官的运动——所产生的各种一般职能。一个单独的提琴手是自己指挥自己，一个乐队就需要一个乐队指挥。一旦从属于资本的劳动成为协作劳动，这种管理、监督和调节的职能就成为资本的职能。这种管理的职能作为资本的特殊职能取得了特殊的性质。”因此，“资本主义的管理就其内容来说是二重的，——因为它所管理的生产过程本身具有二重性：一方面是制造产品的社会劳动过程，另一方面是资本的价值增殖过程”。人们在生产过程中的社会联系，属于马克思所说的产生于“制造产品的社会劳动过程”的分工协作等社会生产的一般职能。为了避免将此种社会性与生产关系意义上的社会性相混淆，我们可以把前者称作生产力的自然社会性、物质社会性，把后者称为生产力的经济社会性、权利社会性。

It must be emphasized that the natural sociality of productive forces and relations of production are not only essentially different but also closely connected. As is well known, the determination of relations of production by productive forces, or the primacy of productive forces relative to relations of production, is the most fundamental principle of historical materialism. However, with regard to this fundamental principle, for a long time people have been satisfied with extremely abstract statements such as "productive forces determine relations of production, and relations of production react upon productive forces," while remaining largely ignorant of its specific content and mechanism of action, and of course far from reaching the scientific level that "can be indicated with the precision of natural science." Fortunately, the academic community now has a certain consensus on the understanding of the sociality of productive forces, especially on the production organization that concentratedly expresses the sociality of productive forces—the mode of production—and has found the intermediary and pivot of the interaction between productive forces and relations of production. Thus it becomes possible to give a relatively specific explanation of the specific content and mechanism of action by which productive forces determine relations of production. In brief: on the basis of certain productive forces, especially certain means of labor, a certain mode of production is formed; on the basis of a certain mode of production, a certain form of ownership is formed; on the basis of a certain form of ownership, all the social-economic relations of production, exchange, and distribution arise. This is what Professor Wu Yifeng called the principle of productive forces—mode of production—relations of production. This principle was elaborated in depth in Marx's systematic analysis of the capitalist mode of production.

需要强调的是，生产力的自然社会性与生产关系不仅有本质区别，更有紧密联系。众所周知，生产力决定生产关系或者说生产力相对于生产关系的首要性，是唯物史观的最基本原理。但是，对于这个基本原理，长期以来人们仅仅满足于“生产力决定生产关系、生产关系反作用于生产力”之类极度抽象的陈述，对于其具体内容和作用机制，却不甚了了，当然也远远不能达到“可以用自然科学的精确性指明的”科学水平。所幸，现在学术界对生产力社会性的认识具有一定的共识，特别是对集中体现生产力社会性的生产组织——生产方式的认识，并找到了生产力和生产关系相互作用的中介和枢纽，从而就能够对生产力决定生产关系的具体内容和作用机制作出较为具体的说明，简单说就是：在一定生产力特别是一定劳动资料的基础上，形成了一定的生产方式；在一定生产方式基础上形成一定所有制形式；在一定的所有制基础上，产生了生产、交换和分配等全部的社会经济关系。这就是吴易风教授所说的，生产力—生产方式—生产关系的原理。这个原理在马克思对资本主义生产方式的系统分析中得到了深入阐述。

"The hand-mill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill, society with the industrial capitalist." This famous statement from Marx's *The Poverty of Philosophy* vividly illustrates the determining role of the productive forces over the relations of production. But how does the hand-mill give rise to a society with the feudal lord, and how does the steam-mill give rise to a society with the industrial capitalist? This question, through the mediating role of the mode of production, is thoroughly explained in *Capital*. Marx points out that in the modern factory based on machinery, because large-scale industry possesses a completely objective production organism, and this organism presents itself to the worker as a ready-made material condition of production, it can function only through directly socialized or common labor. Hence, "the cooperative character of the labor process is, now, a technical necessity dictated by the nature of the instruments of labor itself." "With the cooperation of many wage-laborers, the command of capital develops into a requirement for carrying on the labor process itself, into a real condition of production. Now, the commands of the capitalist on the field of production become as indispensable as the commands of the general on the field of battle." Under capitalist ownership, the functions of management and supervision arising from the social character of the labor process become the special functions of capital, and social productive forces are transformed into the productive forces of capital. This gives rise to the fundamental contradiction of capitalist society between the socialization of production and the capitalist private appropriation of the means of production. This contradiction deepens with the development of the socialization of production, creating the objective material precondition for the social appropriation of the means of production. "On the one hand, the capitalist mode of production shows its incapacity to continue to control this productive force. On the other hand, this productive force itself, with increasing force, demands the elimination of this contradiction, demands that it be freed from its attribute as capital, demands that it be recognized in fact as a social productive force." Thus, the replacement of the capitalist mode of production by the socialist mode of production—regulating production on the basis of social ownership of the means of production according to the common interests of society, satisfying the interests of all the people, and realizing the free and comprehensive development of the individual—is the inevitable choice posed by the continuous development of the socialization of production for resolving the fundamental contradiction of capitalism. Marx's scientific analysis of the capitalist mode of production provides us with a scientific theoretical paradigm for analyzing the determination of the relations of production by the productive forces, and it has important methodological significance for accurately understanding the laws of the contradictory movement between the productive forces and the relations of production.

“手推磨产生的是封建主的社会，蒸汽磨产生的是工业资本家的社会”，这是马克思《哲学的贫困》中的一句名言，形象地说明了生产力对生产关系的决定作用。但是，手推磨如何产生封建主的社会，蒸汽磨如何产生工业资本家的社会？这个问题，借助于生产方式的中介作用，在《资本论》中得到了透彻的说明。马克思指出，在以机器为基础的现代工厂中，由于大工业具有完全客观的生产机体，这个机体作为现成的物质生产条件出现在工人面前，只有通过直接社会化的或共同的劳动才发生作用。因此，“劳动过程的协作性质，现在成了由劳动资料本身的性质所决定的技术上的必要了。”“随着许多雇佣工人的协作，资本的指挥发展成为劳动过程本身的进行所必要的条件，成为实际的生产条件。现在，在生产场所不能缺少资本家的命令，就像在战场上不能缺少将军的命令一样。”在资本主义所有制下，由劳动过程的社会性而产生的管理、监督的职能成为资本的特殊职能，社会生产力转变为资本的生产力，这样就形成了生产社会化和生产资料资本主义私人占有制之间的资本主义社会基本矛盾，这一矛盾随着生产社会化的发展而不断加深，为生产资料的社会占有创造了客观的物质前提，“一方面，资本主义生产方式暴露出它没有能力继续驾驭这种生产力。另一方面，这种生产力本身以日益增长的威力要求消除这种矛盾，要求摆脱它作为资本的那种属性，要求在事实上承认它作为社会生产力的那种性质”。由此可见，社会主义生产方式代替资本主义生产方式，在社会占有生产资料基础上按照社会共同利益有计划调节生产，满足全体人民的利益，实现人的自由全面发展，是生产社会化不断发展提出的用以解决资本主义基本矛盾的必然选择。马克思对资本主义生产方式的科学分析，为我们提供了一个分析生产力决定生产关系的科学理论范式，对于准确认识生产力与生产关系矛盾运动的规律，具有重要的方法论意义。

IV. How to Understand the Primacy of the Productive Forces and the Agency of the Relations of Production's Counteracting Effect on the Productive Forces

四、如何认识生产力的首要性，生产关系对生产力的反作用的能动性

In the contradictory movement between the productive forces and the relations of production, the productive forces determine the relations of production, and the productive forces occupy a primary position relative to the relations of production. At the same time, the relations of production have an important counteracting effect on the productive forces. Action and counteraction are two aspects of a unity of opposites; the two are interdependent and mutually transforming. Just as understanding the principle that the productive forces determine the relations of production requires grasping its specific content and mechanism of action, so too understanding the principle that the relations of production have a counteracting effect on the productive forces requires grasping its specific content and mechanism of action. This can be further explained from the following aspects.

生产力与生产关系的矛盾运动中，生产力决定生产关系，生产力相对生产关系居于首要地位。同时，生产关系对生产力具有重要反作用。作用与反作用是对立统一的两个方面，二者相互依存、相互转化。正如理解生产力决定生产关系的原理，必须了解其具体内容和作用机制一样；理解生产关系对生产力具有反作用的原理，同样必须了解其具体内容和作用机制，可以从以下几个方面作进一步说明。

First, the relations of production are the social organizational form of the productive forces. The productive forces and the relations of production are two aspects of production: the productive forces are the material content of production, and the relations of production are the social form of production. The two are not mechanically combined but organically fused, being different aspects of the same thing. The productive forces are always social productive forces, and the relations of production, as the organizational form of the productive forces, play an irreplaceable and important role. First, the relations of production establish the different positions of people in the production process and the rules governing their interconnections, enabling people to combine various factors of production according to a certain organizational form, thereby forming real productive forces. Reasonable relations of production can form production organizations conducive to the development of the productive forces and improve the efficiency of the allocation of factors of production. Second, the relations of production establish ownership and distribution rights over the means of production and products, regulate the relations of economic interests among people, and provide an effective incentive structure and developmental impetus for social production. Reasonable relations of production can ensure that the inputs of owners of factors of production receive corresponding returns, fully mobilize the initiative and creativity of factor owners, and enable all factors of production to be fully utilized. Third, the relations of production establish unified norms constraining the economic behavior of all members of society, reduce the instability of economic linkages caused by information asymmetry and the like, enhance the reliability of people's economic expectations, and provide basic safeguards for social production to proceed under normal order. Fourth, the relations of production establish the purposes or value standards for the development of the productive forces. These purposes or value standards include multiple dimensions such as physiological, psychological, educational, health, environmental, human rights, and security considerations. Under certain conditions, these value standards combine with the technical standards of the productive forces to jointly influence the technical path of the development of the productive forces.

第一，生产关系是生产力的社会组织形式。生产力与生产关系是生产的两个方面，生产力是生产的物质内容，生产关系是生产的社会形式，二者不是机械组合在一起的，而是有机融合在一起的，是同一事物的不同方面。生产力总是社会的生产力，作为生产力的组织形式的生产关系具有不可替代的重要作用。其一，生产关系确立了人们在生产过程中的不同地位及其相互联系的规则，使人们能够按照一定的组织形式将各种生产要素组合起来，形成现实的生产力。合理的生产关系，能够形成有利于生产力发展的生产组织，提高生产要素配置的效率。其二，生产关系确立了生产资料和产品的所有权和分配权，调节人们之间的经济利益关系，为社会生产提供有效的激励结构和发展动力。合理的生产关系，能够保证生产要素所有者的投入得到相应的回报，充分调动要素所有者的积极性和创造性，使各种生产要素都能得到充分利用。其三，生产关系确立了约束全体社会成员经济行为的统一规范，减少由信息不对称等引起的经济联系的不稳定，增强了人们的经济预期的可靠性，为社会生产在正常秩序下进行提供了基本保障。其四，生产关系确立了生产力发展的目的或价值标准，这些目的或价值标准包括了生理、心理、教育、健康、环境、人权、安全等多方面的维度，这些价值标准在一定条件下与生产力的技术标准相结合，共同对生产力发展的技术路径产生影响。

Second, the adaptation of the relations of production to the productive forces is elastic. The same level of development of the productive forces can give rise to different relations of production; the relationship between the two is not absolute or one-to-one. On the one hand, once a certain form of relations of production is formed, it gives rise to a corresponding structure of interests and to a superstructure and ideology that protect this structure of interests, thereby endowing the relations of production with a certain rigidity. When the development of the productive forces has already come into conflict with the existing relations of production, the ruling class, as the representative of the existing relations of production, in order to avoid the collapse of the old system, will, on the premise of preserving the basic framework of the existing relations of production, make certain reforms to the old system to partially satisfy the demands of the development of the productive forces, introducing some elements of the relations of production of a higher stage of development into the framework of the old system, thereby easing social contradictions and conflicts and temporarily prolonging its own rule, or it will use the power of the strong state apparatus it controls to hinder the development of new relations of production and prevent the decline of old relations of production. However, this simultaneously prepares the conditions for the replacement of the old relations of production by new ones, making the ruling class its own "gravedigger." On the other hand, the establishment of advanced relations of production corresponding to the demands of the further development of the productive forces requires a process of development from emergence to growth, from the partial to the whole, and cannot be accomplished overnight. In this process, the development of the productive forces and the relations of production will inevitably exhibit characteristics of multiple levels and diversity, and the development of the mode of production embodying a certain level of productive forces has a considerable range of compatibility with different relations of production. Moreover, the productive forces are the ultimate determining factor of the relations of production, but not the sole factor. Factors such as a country's political system, historical conditions, cultural traditions, and natural conditions—especially the balance of class forces—also exert an important influence on the formation of the relations of production. For example, the same large-scale socialized production can accommodate both the capitalist economic system and the socialist economic system. The same mode of individual labor can accommodate two different economic systems: the feudal lord economy of Western Europe and the feudal landlord ownership economy of China. Of course, although these different economic systems differ from one another, because they have roughly the same level of productive forces, their basic frameworks are largely the same.

第二，生产关系对生产力的适应是有弹性的。相同的生产力发展，有可能形成不同的生产关系，二者之间的关系不是绝对的、一一对应的。一方面，某种生产关系一旦形成，就会形成相应的利益结构以及保护这种利益结构的上层建筑和意识形态，从而使生产关系具有了一定的刚性。在生产力的发展已经与既有生产关系发生冲突时，作为既有生产关系代表的统治阶级，为了避免旧制度的崩溃，会以保留既有生产关系基础构架为前提，对旧制度作某些改良以局部地满足生产力发展的要求，将更高发展阶段的生产关系的一些要素引入旧制度的框架，从而缓和社会矛盾和冲突，暂时延续自己的统治，或者利用手中掌握的强大的国家政权的力量，阻碍新的生产关系的发展，阻止旧的生产关系的衰退。但是，这也同时为新生产关系取代旧生产关系准备了条件，使统治阶级成为自身的“掘墓人”。另一方面，与生产力进一步发展要求相适应的先进生产关系的确立，需要经历一个从产生到壮大、从局部到整体的发展过程，不可能一蹴而就。在这一过程中，生产力和生产关系的发展必然会表现出多层次多样性的特点，体现一定生产力水平的生产方式的发展，对不同的生产关系具有相当大范围的兼容性。此外，生产力是决定生产关系的最终决定性因素，而不是唯一因素。一个国家的政治制度、历史条件、文化传统、自然条件等因素特别是阶级力量的对比，也对生产关系的形成产生重要影响。比如，同样是社会化大生产，可以同时容纳资本主义经济制度和社会主义经济制度。同样是个体劳动方式，可以容纳西欧的封建领主制经济和中国的封建地主所有制经济两种不同的经济制度。当然，这些不同的经济制度虽然彼此之间存在差别，但由于具有大体相同的生产力水平，因此其基本架构是大体相同的。

Third, under certain conditions, relations of production play a primary and decisive counteracting role on productive forces. What are these certain conditions? In *On Contradiction*, Mao Zedong stated: "When the productive forces cannot develop without a change in the relations of production, the change in the relations of production plays the primary and decisive role." This primary and decisive role of relations of production is also concretely expressed in the relevant works of Marx and Engels. For example, when analyzing the relations of production of labor-rent in pre-capitalist societies, Marx pointed out: "The specific economic form in which unpaid surplus labor is pumped out of the direct producers determines the relationship of domination and subordination, a relationship that grows directly out of production itself and in turn reacts back upon production as a decisive force." Regarding the decisive counteracting role of capitalist relations of production in promoting the development of productive forces, the *Communist Manifesto* put forward the famous assertion: "The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together." And when capitalist relations of production gradually transformed from a lever of productive forces' progress into an obstacle to their development, Engels commented in *Anti-Dühring*: "The liberation of the means of production from this fetters is the sole precondition for the continuously accelerating development of the productive forces, and hence for the practically unlimited growth of production itself."

第三，生产关系在一定条件下对生产力起主要的决定性的反作用。这个一定条件是什么？在《矛盾论》中，毛泽东这样说道：“当着不变更生产关系，生产力就不能发展的时候，生产关系的变更就起了主要的决定的作用。”生产关系的这种主要的决定的作用，在马克思恩格斯的相关著作中也有具体表述。比如，马克思在分析前资本主义社会劳役地租的生产关系时指出，“从直接生产者身上榨取无酬剩余劳动的独特经济形式，决定了统治和从属的关系，这种关系是直接从生产本身中生长出来的，并且又对生产发生决定性的反作用”。对资本主义生产关系在促进生产力发展方面的决定性反作用，《共产党宣言》曾提出这样一个著名论断，“资产阶级在它的不到一百年的阶级统治中所创造的生产力，比过去一切世代创造的全部生产力还要多，还要大”。而当资本主义生产关系逐步从生产力进步的杠杆转变为生产力发展的障碍时，恩格斯在《反杜林论》中又作了这样的评论，“把生产资料从这种桎梏下解放出来，是生产力不断地加速发展的唯一先决条件，因而也是生产本身实际上无限增长的唯一先决条件”。

Fourth, new relations of production create the historical precondition for the development of new productive forces. Productive forces determine relations of production; as new productive forces are acquired, people change their relations of production — this is the general theoretical logic. But one observes that in actual history, the temporal sequence of change in productive forces and relations of production is often the reverse: it is not that new productive forces come first and then new relations of production, but that new relations of production come first and then new productive forces. This situation has been summarized by some scholars as the historical priority of relations of production relative to productive forces. In the late nineteenth century, Marx and Engels already began to consider the question of whether a relatively backward country like Russia "could avoid the Caudine Forks of the capitalist system and yet appropriate all the positive achievements created by the capitalist system." After the victory of the October Revolution, in response to the erroneous argument that "Russia's productive forces have not yet developed to the height at which socialism can be established," Lenin pointed out: "Since the establishment of socialism requires a certain level of culture (although no one can say what this certain 'level of culture' actually is, since it differs in every Western European country), why can we not first use revolutionary means to achieve the preconditions for reaching this level, and then, on the basis of the workers' and peasants' government and the Soviet system, catch up with the peoples of other countries?" The Russian path is also the path that China and other backward countries have commonly taken in carrying out socialist revolution and construction. On the basis of summing up historical experience, Mao Zedong creatively put forward: "All revolutionary history proves that it is not that fully developed new productive forces come first and then backward relations of production are transformed; rather, one must first create public opinion, carry out revolution, and seize political power, and only then is it possible to eliminate the old relations of production. With the old relations of production eliminated and new relations of production established, a road is thus opened for the development of new productive forces." This assertion elevated the historical priority of relations of production over productive forces from a particular proposition to a universal one, providing powerful proof of the dynamic role of relations of production, and constituting an important contribution to the development of historical materialism.

第四，新的生产关系为新的生产力发展创造历史前提。生产力决定生产关系，随着新生产力的获得，人们改变自己的生产关系，这是一般的理论逻辑。但人们观察到，在现实的历史中，生产力与生产关系变迁的先后次序却往往是相反的，即不是先有新的生产力再有新的生产关系，而是先有新的生产关系再有新的生产力，这种情况被有的学者概括为生产关系相对生产力的历史优先性。在19世纪末，马克思恩格斯就开始思考这样一个问题：像俄国这样比较落后的国家，“能够不通过资本主义制度的卡夫丁峡谷，而占有资本主义制度所创造的一切积极的成果”。十月革命胜利后，针对“俄国生产力还没有发展到可以实行社会主义的高度”的错误论调，列宁指出：“既然建立社会主义需要有一定的文化水平（虽然谁也说不出这个一定的‘文化水平’究竟是什么样的，因为这在各个西欧国家都是不同的），我们为什么不能首先用革命手段取得达到这个一定水平的前提，然后在工农政权和苏维埃制度的基础上赶上别国人民呢？”俄国的道路也是中国和其他一些落后国家进行社会主义革命和建设共同走过的道路。在总结历史经验的基础上，毛泽东创造性地提出，“一切革命的历史都证明，并不是先有充分发展的新生产力，然后才改造落后的生产关系，而是要首先造成舆论，进行革命，夺取政权，才有可能消灭旧的生产关系。消灭了旧的生产关系，确立了新的生产关系，这样就为新的生产力的发展开辟了道路”。这个论断，将生产关系对生产力的历史优先性从特殊命题上升为普遍命题，为生产关系的能动作用提供了有力证明，是对历史唯物主义发展的重要贡献。

At this point, people will naturally ask: since relations of production exert a tremendous counteracting role on productive forces, and even play a primary decisive role under certain conditions; since relations of production often possess historical priority over productive forces and are the precondition for the development of productive forces — then why must the primacy of the decisive role of productive forces be emphasized? This question becomes clear as soon as one thinks dialectically, because the decisive counteracting role of relations of production on productive forces is precisely defined by the decisive role of productive forces. For example, what kind of relations of production are progressive? What kind of economic system is rational? By what standard are progressive and backward relations of production, "good" and "bad" systems, to be judged? By what force is the replacement of different economic systems in history driven? These questions can only be answered by adhering to the standpoint of the primacy of productive forces. So-called progressive relations of production and "good" systems, placed on the coordinate axis of history, are systems that can adapt to the level of productive forces and promote their development; conversely, so-called backward relations of production and "bad" systems are systems that do not adapt to the level of development of productive forces and hinder their development. Why are institutions important? Why is reform important? Because good institutions can promote the development of productive forces, and reform is the direct driving force for developing productive forces. "The proposition that relations of production constrain the development of productive forces is not only consistent with, but also in the same line as, the proposition we regard as most important, that productive forces determine relations of production." It is precisely for this reason that people call the interaction between productive forces and relations of production "the law that relations of production must necessarily conform to the character of productive forces."

说到这里，人们自然会问：既然生产关系对生产力有着巨大的反作用，甚至一定条件下具有主要决定作用，既然生产关系对生产力往往具有历史优先性，是生产力发展的先决条件，那么，为什么要强调生产力的决定性作用具有首要性呢？这个问题，只要辩证地思考就会明白，因为生产关系对生产力的决定性的反作用正是由生产力的决定性作用来定义的。比如，什么样的生产关系是进步的？什么样的经济制度是合理的？生产关系的进步与落后、制度的“好”与“不好”以什么标准来判断？历史上不同经济制度的更替是由什么力量推动的？这些问题都只有在坚持生产力首要性观点的基础上才能得到解答。所谓进步的生产关系和“好”的制度，放在历史的坐标上看，就是能够适应生产力水平、促进生产力发展的制度；反之，所谓落后的生产关系和“不好”的制度，就是不适应生产力发展水平、阻碍生产力发展的制度。制度为什么重要，改革为什么重要？是因为好的制度能够促进生产力的发展，改革是发展生产力的直接动力。“生产关系制约生产力发展的命题，同我们认为最重要的生产力决定生产关系的命题，不仅是一致的而且是一脉相承的。”正因为如此，人们把生产力与生产关系的相互作用称作“生产关系一定要适合生产力性质的规律”。

Where does the consistency between productive forces determining relations of production and relations of production counteracting productive forces come from? The root still lies in the subjectivity of human labor and practice. People make their own history. Neither productive forces determining relations of production nor relations of production counteracting productive forces is a "subjectless" natural process detached from human practice; rather, they are realized by human subjects in concrete, living practical activity, within the configuration of living social subject forces, through rich and complex concrete forms, and possess immense dynamism. Through the dynamic role of social subjects, productive forces, in the competition, cooperation, and struggle carried out in pursuit of respective interests, make their respective institutional choices and drive the transformation of relations of production; relations of production likewise, through the dynamic role of social subjects, in the production, distribution, and exchange carried out in pursuit of respective interests, make economic choices and drive the development of productive forces. With the subjective dynamism of historical subjects, there comes the internal driving force for relations of production to counteract productive forces, there comes the institutional elasticity and historical priority of relations of production relative to productive forces, and there comes the broad space for the dynamic role of relations of production on productive forces.

生产力决定生产关系同生产关系反作用于生产力的一致性从何而来？根源仍然在于人类劳动与实践的主体性。人们自己创造自己的历史。无论是生产力决定生产关系还是生产关系反作用于生产力，都不是脱离人类的实践而进行的“无主体”的自然过程，而是人类主体在具体的、活生生的实践活动中，在活生生的社会主体力量的格局中，用丰富复杂的具体形式来实现的，具有极大的能动性。生产力通过社会主体的能动作用，在为了追求各自利益而展开的竞争、合作和斗争中作出各自的制度选择，推动生产关系变迁；生产关系同样通过社会主体的能动作用，在为了追求各自利益而展开的生产、分配和交换中作出经济选择，推动生产力发展。有了历史主体的主观能动性，也就有了生产关系反作用于生产力的内在动力，就有了生产关系相对于生产力的制度弹性和历史优先性，就有了生产关系对生产力的能动作用的广阔空间。

Under the socialist system, the dialectical movement of productive forces and relations of production has opened a new page. The establishment and development of the socialist system, unlike all previous societies, is not carried out spontaneously for the interests of a minority, but consciously for the interests of the majority; it is carried out in a planned, purposeful, and step-by-step manner under the guidance of the theory of scientific socialism and the leadership of a Marxist party. This is true of revolution, of construction, and of reform. The establishment of the socialist system has liberated the broad masses of the people from the slavery of exploitation and plunder, making them masters of economic life, masters of political life, masters of social life, and masters of historical creation; the Communist Party of China, as the highest political leadership force, and the socialist state, as the representative of the interests of all the people, not only, in the capacity of political subject, create favorable conditions for the development of productive forces from the perspective of the superstructure and promote their development; but also, from the perspective of the economic base, in the capacity of economic subject, organize social production in a planned manner according to the common interests of all the people and promote economic and social development; social development fundamentally overcomes the spontaneity, blindness, and antagonism that exist in capitalist society, and the dynamic role of relations of production on productive forces and of the superstructure on the economic base is unprecedentedly strengthened. Politics is the concentrated expression of economics; "politics cannot but take precedence over economics." This is an important law of social development, and it is particularly prominent under socialist conditions.

在社会主义制度下，生产力与生产关系的辩证运动翻开了崭新的一页。社会主义制度的建立与发展，与以往一切社会都不同，不是为了少数人的利益自发进行的，而是为了大多数人的利益自觉进行的，是在科学社会主义理论的指导下，在马克思主义政党的领导下，有计划、有目的、有步骤地进行的。革命如此，建设如此，改革也如此。社会主义制度的建立，使广大人民从被剥削掠夺的奴役中解放出来，成为经济生活的主人、政治生活的主人、社会生活的主人、历史创造的主人；中国共产党作为最高政治领导力量，社会主义国家作为全体人民利益的代表，不仅以政治主体的身份，从上层建筑的角度，为生产力的发展创造有利条件，促进生产力发展；而且从经济基础的角度，以经济主体的身份，按照全体人民的共同利益有计划地组织社会生产，推动经济社会发展；社会发展从根本上克服了资本主义社会存在的自发性、盲目性和对抗性，生产关系对生产力、上层建筑对经济基础的能动作用得到空前的加强。政治是经济的集中表现，“政治同经济相比不能不占首位”。这是社会发展的一条重要规律，在社会主义条件下表现得尤为突出。

The Communist Party of China deeply understands and grasps this important law, and in accordance with this important law continuously carries out reform, making relations of production adapt to the development of productive forces, making the superstructure adapt to the development of the economic base, thereby providing a powerful impetus for the development of productive forces. Deng Xiaoping pointed out, “To develop the productive forces, economic system reform is the only way.” [13]13 Deng Xiaoping, “Reform is the Only Way for China to Develop Its Productive Forces” (1985), in *Selected Works of Deng Xiaoping*, vol. 3. General Secretary Xi Jinping emphasized that when observing social development, one must pay attention to the organic connection between productive forces and relations of production, between the economic base and the superstructure, where one determines the other and they interact as cause and effect. “Through continuous reform and innovation, make socialism with Chinese characteristics more efficient than the capitalist system in liberating and developing social productive forces, in liberating and enhancing social vitality, and in promoting the all-round development of people; better able to stimulate the initiative, creativity, and activity of all the people; better able to provide favorable conditions for social development; better able to win comparative advantage in competition; and fully manifest the superiority of the socialist system with Chinese characteristics.” [14]14 Xi Jinping, “Continuously Advancing the Modernization of the National Governance System and Governance Capacity” (2014), in *Xi Jinping: The Governance of China*, vol. 1. These important expositions profoundly elucidate the active role of relations of production vis-à-vis productive forces and of the superstructure vis-à-vis the economic base under socialist conditions, deepening and developing the understanding of the dialectical relationship between productive forces and relations of production under socialist conditions.

中国共产党深刻认识和把握这条重要规律，并依据这条重要规律不断进行改革，使生产关系适应生产力的发展，使上层建筑适应经济基础的发展，为促进生产力的发展提供强大动力。邓小平指出，“要发展生产力，经济体制改革是必由之路”。习近平总书记强调，在观察社会发展时，一定要注意生产力与生产关系、经济基础与上层建筑决定和被决定、作用和反作用的有机联系。“通过不断改革创新，使中国特色社会主义在解放和发展社会生产力、解放和增强社会活力、促进人的全面发展上比资本主义制度更有效率，更能激发全体人民的积极性、主动性、创造性，更能为社会发展提供有利条件，更能在竞争中赢得比较优势，把中国特色社会主义制度的优越性充分体现出来”。这些重要论述，深刻阐明了社会主义条件下生产关系对生产力、上层建筑对经济基础的能动作用，深化和发展了对社会主义条件下生产力与生产关系辩证关系的认识。

V. How to Understand the Productivity Criterion and the Intrinsic Unity of the Productivity Criterion and the Value Criterion

五、如何认识生产力标准，生产力标准和价值标准的内在统一性

Based on the primary and decisive role of productive forces in social development, Marxism has established the fundamental criterion for judging social development and progress, namely, the productivity criterion. Lenin pointed out that the development of productive forces is “the main criterion for the whole of social development” and “the highest criterion of social progress.” [15]15 V. I. Lenin, “The Economic Content of Narodism and Its Critique in Mr. Struve’s Book” (1895), in *Collected Works*. During the period of the New Democratic Revolution, Mao Zedong pointed out, “The effect, good or bad, large or small, of the policies and practices of all China’s political parties in the Chinese people is ultimately determined by whether they help or hinder the development of the productive forces of the Chinese people, and by the extent of that help or hindrance — whether they fetter the productive forces or liberate them.” [16]16 Mao Zedong, “On Coalition Government” (1945), in *Selected Works of Mao Zedong*, vol. 3. After the establishment of the socialist system, he further pointed out, “Carrying out continuous reform of the relations of production and the superstructure in accordance with the requirements of the rapid development of productive forces opens a broad path for the continuous development of productive forces.” [17]17 Mao Zedong, “On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People” (1957), in *Selected Works of Mao Zedong*, vol. 5. After reform and opening up, our Party established the basic line centered on economic construction, clearly taking whether it is conducive to developing productive forces as the starting point for considering all problems and the fundamental criterion for testing all work. Deng Xiaoping pointed out that judging the right and wrong, the gains and losses, of reform and all work in various fields should ultimately be based on the criterion of “whether it is conducive to developing the productive forces of the socialist society, whether it is conducive to enhancing the comprehensive national strength of the socialist country, and whether it is conducive to raising the people’s living standards.” [18]18 Deng Xiaoping, “Excerpts from Talks Given in Wuchang, Shenzhen, Zhuhai and Shanghai” (1992), in *Selected Works of Deng Xiaoping*, vol. 3. Entering the New Era, General Secretary Xi Jinping further emphasized that material productive forces are the material prerequisite for all social life, that productive forces are the most active and revolutionary factor driving social progress, that the development of productive forces is a fundamental criterion for measuring social development, and that it is necessary to continuously adjust relations of production to adapt to the development of social productive forces and continuously improve the superstructure to adapt to the development of the economic base. [19]19 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Celebration of the 95th Anniversary of the Founding of the Communist Party of China” (2016). These expositions, under new historical conditions, profoundly elucidate the great significance and practical requirements of adhering to the productivity criterion, providing a theoretical foundation for establishing the Party’s fundamental task and basic line in the primary stage of socialism.

依据生产力在社会发展中的首要的决定性作用，马克思主义确立了判断社会发展和进步的根本标准，这就是生产力标准。列宁指出，生产力的发展是“整个社会发展的主要标准”，是“社会进步的最高标准”。在新民主主义革命时期，毛泽东就指出，“中国一切政党的政策及其实践在中国人民中所表现的作用的好坏、大小，归根到底，看它对于中国人民的生产力的发展是否有帮助及其帮助之大小，看它是束缚生产力的，还是解放生产力的”。社会主义制度建立后，他又指出，“根据生产力迅速发展的要求，对生产关系和上层建筑进行不断的改革，就为生产力的不断发展开辟了广阔的道路”。改革开放后，我们党确立了以经济建设为中心的基本路线，明确将是否有利于发展生产力作为考虑一切问题的出发点和检验一切工作的根本标准。邓小平指出，判断改革和各方面工作的是非得失，归根到底要以“是否有利于发展社会主义社会的生产力，是否有利于增强社会主义国家的综合国力，是否有利于提高人民的生活水平”为标准。进入新时代，习近平总书记进一步强调，物质生产力是全部社会生活的物质前提，生产力是推动社会进步的最活跃、最革命的要素，生产力发展是衡量社会发展的带有根本性的标准，必须不断适应社会生产力发展调整生产关系，不断适应经济基础发展完善上层建筑。这些论述，在新的历史条件下深刻阐明了坚持生产力标准的重大意义和实践要求，为确立党在社会主义初级阶段的根本任务和基本路线提供了理论基础。

Equally important, we must deeply recognize that the productivity criterion is the fundamental criterion for measuring social development, but not the only criterion. In a series of letters on historical materialism in his later years, Engels specifically targeted the economistic viewpoint that one-sidedly and vulgarizes historical materialism, emphasizing that economic factors are the ultimately decisive factor in the historical process, but not the only decisive factor; historical development is the result of the combined action of multiple factors. [20]20 See Friedrich Engels, letters to Joseph Bloch (1890), Conrad Schmidt (1890), and others, in *Marx-Engels Selected Correspondence*. We must acknowledge that the productivity criterion is the fundamental criterion for judging social development and progress, while also acknowledging that the productivity criterion is not the only criterion for judging social development and progress. Fields such as politics, ideology, law, religion, and art each have their own relatively independent laws of development and their own unique measurement criteria. Of course, these criteria must ultimately be subordinate to the productivity criterion. General Secretary Xi Jinping clearly pointed out, “The productivity criterion must be understood comprehensively and accurately; it cannot be absolutized, nor can it be understood by setting aside the relations of production and the superstructure. Since reform and opening up, our Party has put forward a series of ‘grasping both hands’ [21]21 “Grasping both hands” (两手抓) refers to the policy of simultaneously advancing two complementary tasks, such as material and cultural-ethical progress, or development and stability. approaches, including grasping material civilization construction with one hand and grasping cultural-ethical progress with the other, grasping economic construction with one hand and grasping law-based governance with the other, grasping development with one hand and grasping stability with the other, grasping reform and opening up with one hand and grasping punishment of corruption with the other — all of these are consistent with the requirements of historical materialism.” [22]22 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Collective Study Session of the Political Bureau of the 18th CPC Central Committee on Historical Materialism” (2013).

同样重要的是，我们必须深刻认识到，生产力标准是衡量社会发展的根本标准，但不是唯一标准。恩格斯晚年关于历史唯物主义的一系列书信中就专门针对把唯物史观片面化、庸俗化的经济唯物主义观点强调，经济因素是历史过程中归根到底的决定性因素，而不是唯一决定性的因素，历史发展是多种因素合力造成的。我们要承认生产力标准是判断社会发展和进步的根本标准，同时也要承认生产力标准并不是判断社会发展和进步的唯一标准，政治、意识形态、法律、宗教、艺术等领域都具有自己相对独立的发展规律和各自独特的衡量标准。当然，这些标准归根到底要服从于生产力标准。习近平总书记鲜明地指出，“对生产力标准必须全面准确理解，不能绝对化，不能撇开生产关系、上层建筑来理解生产力标准。改革开放以来，我们党提出的一系列‘两手抓’，包括一手抓物质文明建设、一手抓精神文明建设，一手抓经济建设、一手抓法治建设，一手抓发展、一手抓稳定，一手抓改革开放、一手抓惩治腐败等，都是符合历史唯物主义要求的”。

Why can the productivity criterion not be made exclusive and absolutized? The reason is that the productivity criterion and criteria in other areas are not separated and opposed, but complementary and unified. There is no doubt that the fundamental task of socialism is to liberate and develop productive forces, and the development of productive forces is a fundamental criterion for measuring social development. However, if we ask further, what is the purpose of liberating and developing productive forces? What is the criterion for establishing the productivity criterion itself? Why is the productivity criterion said to be the fundamental criterion? Answering these questions involves the relationship between regularity and purposiveness, between fact and value.

为什么不能把生产力标准唯一化、绝对化？原因在于，生产力标准与其他方面的标准并不是割裂对立的，而是互补统一的。毫无疑问，社会主义的根本任务是解放和发展生产力，生产力发展是衡量社会发展的带有根本性的标准，但是，如果进一步问，解放和发展生产力的目的又是什么？确定生产力标准的标准又是什么？为什么说生产力标准是根本性标准？回答这个问题，就涉及规律性与目的性、事实与价值的关系。

The establishment of the productivity criterion is first of all based on the decisive role of productive forces in social development. But this basis only proves that the development of productive forces is objective and foundational; it does not explain whether the development of productive forces is “good” or “beneficial.” The former is a judgment of fact, the latter a judgment of value. Only by unifying these two aspects can it be proven that the establishment of the productivity criterion is both in accordance with law and in accordance with purpose, both necessary and ought-to-be. Taking productive forces as the starting point for considering all problems and the fundamental criterion for testing all work means that the development of productive forces is not only in accordance with law but also in accordance with purpose, not only possessing necessity but also legitimacy — it is the unity of fact and value. Wei Xinghua [23]23 Wei Xinghua (1925–2021) was a prominent Chinese Marxist economist and professor at Renmin University of China. once proposed that the success or failure of socialism should be judged both by the productivity criterion and by the socialist value criterion; the socialist system can internally unify the productivity criterion and the value criterion, embodying socialist fairness through rapidly developing productive forces and realizing common prosperity. This view is undoubtedly correct.

生产力标准的确定，首先是以生产力在社会发展中的决定性作用为依据的。但这个依据只是证明了生产力发展是客观的、基础的，但不说明生产力的发展是“好”的或“善”的。前者是一个事实判断，后者是一个价值判断。除非将这两个方面统一起来，才能证明生产力标准的确立既是合规律的、又是合目的的，既是必然的、又是应然的。将生产力作为我们考虑一切问题的出发点和检验一切工作的根本标准意味着，生产力的发展不仅是合规律的也是合目的的，不仅具有必然性也具有正当性，是事实与价值的统一。卫兴华曾提出，社会主义的得失成败，既要用生产力标准去判断，又要以社会主义价值标准去判断，社会主义制度能够内在地统一生产力标准和价值标准，通过快速发展生产力和实现共同富裕来体现社会主义的公平。这个观点无疑是正确的。

Marxism is a scientific theory, creatively revealing the laws of human social development; Marxism is also a theory of the people, pointing the way for human liberation. Therefore, Marx absolutely did not, like bourgeois economists such as Ricardo, “see only the development of productive forces, regardless of the sacrifice of people and capital value that this development entails.” [24]24 Karl Marx, *Theories of Surplus Value*, vol. 2 (1861–63). Under the antagonistic relations of production of capitalism, “all progress of civilization, or in other words, all growth of social productive forces — or, more precisely, all growth of the productive forces of labor itself, such as results from science, inventions, the division and combination of labor, improvements in means of communication, the opening up of the world market, machinery, etc. — does not enrich the worker but rather enriches capital; i.e., it only increases the power that dominates labor; it only increases the productive power of capital. Because capital is the opposite of the worker, the progress of civilization only increases the power of the object that dominates labor.” [25]25 Karl Marx, “Economic Manuscripts of 1857–58” (the *Grundrisse*), in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 29. Marx clearly pointed out that the liberation of the masses and the fundamental improvement of their social conditions depend not only on the development of productive forces but also on whether the productive forces belong to the people. [26]26 See Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The Communist Manifesto* (1848) and Marx’s *Critique of the Gotha Programme* (1875).

马克思主义是科学的理论，创造性地揭示了人类社会发展规律；马克思主义也是人民的理论，为人类的解放指明了方向。因此，马克思绝不像李嘉图之类的资产阶级经济学家那样，“只看到生产力的发展，而不管这种发展以人和资本价值的多大牺牲为代价”。在资本主义对抗性的生产关系下，“文明的一切进步，或者换句话说，社会生产力的一切增长，也可以说劳动本身的生产力的一切增长，如科学、发明、劳动的分工和结合、交通工具的改善、世界市场的开辟、机器等等所产生的结果，都不会使工人致富，而只会使资本致富；也就是只会使支配劳动的权力更加增大；只会使资本的生产力增长。因为资本是工人的对立面，所以文明的进步只会增大支配劳动的客体的权力”。马克思明确指出，人民群众得到解放，他们的社会状况得到根本改善，不仅仅决定于生产力的发展，而且还决定于生产力是否归人民所有。

The Communist Party of China is a loyal believer in and steadfast practitioner of Marxism, unswervingly pursuing the development of society’s productive forces and unswervingly pursuing the free liberation of humanity. Mao Zedong pointed out, “The so-called superiority of socialist relations of production over those of the old era in being more capable of suiting the nature of the development of the productive forces means that they permit the productive forces to develop at a speed unattainable under the old society, thereby enabling the continuous expansion of production and the gradual satisfaction of the people’s constantly growing needs.” [27]27 Mao Zedong, “On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People” (1957). Deng Xiaoping pointed out, “The superiority of socialism must ultimately be manifested in its productive forces developing faster and at a higher level than those of capitalism, and in continuously improving the people’s material and cultural life on the basis of developing the productive forces.” [28]28 Deng Xiaoping, “Excerpts from Talks Given in Wuchang, Shenzhen, Zhuhai and Shanghai” (1992). Jiang Zemin pointed out, “Socialism should create higher productive forces than capitalism, and should also achieve a social justice that capitalism finds difficult to attain. Fundamentally, high efficiency, social justice, and common prosperity are determined by the nature of the socialist system.” [29]29 Jiang Zemin, “Speech at the Celebration of the 80th Anniversary of the Founding of the Communist Party of China” (2001). Hu Jintao pointed out, “Only by organically integrating efficiency and fairness can the essence of socialism be better reflected.” [30]30 Hu Jintao, “Speech at the Symposium on the Work of the Central Economic Work Conference” (2006). General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out, “Correctly apply the criterion of the productive forces to promote the unity of the constant enrichment of things and the all-round development of people.” [31]31 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Third Plenary Session of the 18th Central Committee of the CPC” (2013). “Take enhancing the people’s well-being, promoting the all-round development of people, and steadily advancing toward common prosperity as the starting point and ultimate goal of economic development.” [32]32 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Central Economic Work Conference” (2015). It is very clear: in Marxist theory and under the socialist system, the criterion of the productive forces and the criterion of value have always been closely linked and internally unified. This is the source of the strength and appeal of Marxism’s transcendence of bourgeois thought and of socialism’s transcendence of capitalism.

中国共产党是马克思主义的忠诚信仰者和坚定实践者，始终不渝追求社会生产力的发展，也始终不渝追求人的自由解放。毛泽东指出，“所谓社会主义生产关系比较旧时代生产关系更能够适合生产力发展的性质，就是指能够容许生产力以旧社会所没有的速度迅速发展，因而生产不断扩大，因而使人民不断增长的需要能够逐步得到满足的这样一种情况”。邓小平指出，“社会主义的优越性归根到底要体现在它的生产力比资本主义发展得更快一些、更高一些，并且在发展生产力的基础上不断改善人民的物质文化生活”。江泽民指出，“社会主义应当创造比资本主义更高的生产力，也应当实现资本主义难以达到的社会公正。从根本上说，高效率、社会公正和共同富裕是社会主义制度本质决定的”。胡锦涛指出，“坚持效率和公平有机结合才能更好体现社会主义的本质”。习近平总书记指出，“正确运用生产力标准，推动实现物的不断丰富和人的全面发展的统一”。“把增进人民福祉、促进人的全面发展、朝着共同富裕方向稳步前进作为经济发展的出发点和落脚点。”很清楚，在马克思主义理论中、在社会主义制度下，生产力标准和价值标准从来都是紧密联系、内在统一的，这是马克思主义超越资产阶级思想、社会主义超越资本主义的力量所在、魅力所在。

What needs further clarification is: how is the unity of the criterion of the productive forces and the criterion of value possible, and on what basis does it rest? Does it deviate from the “monism” of the determining role of the productive forces, and can it avoid the suspicion of “dualism”? Marxism has resolved these questions philosophically by introducing the category of social practice, and economically by introducing the category of labor. Labor is a practical activity with a distinct subjectivity, and this distinct subjectivity is concentratedly embodied in the purposiveness of labor. It is precisely in the purposiveness of labor that the criterion of the productive forces and the criterion of value are unified. This can be explained concretely from two dimensions.

需要进一步阐明的是，生产力标准和价值标准的统一何以可能、基础何在？是否背离了生产力决定作用的“一元论”，能否避免“二元论”的嫌疑？上述问题，马克思主义通过引入社会实践这一范畴，在哲学上得到了解决；通过引入劳动这一范畴，在经济学上得到了解决。劳动是具有鲜明主体性的实践活动，鲜明的主体性集中体现在劳动的目的性上，生产力标准和价值标准正是在劳动的目的性中得以统一的，可以从两个维度具体说明。

First, the technical dimension or the dimension of nature. As Marx said, in the labor process, the architect has already built the house in his head before he builds it. This purpose is known to him; it determines his mode and method of activity as a law, and he must subject his will to this purpose. [33]33 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Chapter 7, Section 1. This realm is always a realm of necessity, a realm of necessity determined by the objective causal connections and technical laws existing in nature. In this realm, people can only achieve the technical purposes they have preset by respecting objective laws and engaging in labor in accordance with them. The more people understand the causal connections of nature, the more they can know the objective laws of nature, the more they can realize their subjective purposes, and the more they can organically combine causality and purposiveness.

第一，技术维度或自然的维度。如马克思所说，在劳动过程中，建筑师在建筑房屋以前，已经在自己的头脑中把它建成了。这个目的是他所知道的，是作为规律决定着他的活动的方式和方法的，他必须使他的意志服从这个目的。这个领域始终是一个必然王国，是由自然界存在的客观因果联系和技术规律所决定的必然王国。在这个领域，人们只有尊重客观规律，并按照客观规律从事劳动，才能实现人们预先设定的技术目的。人们对自然界的因果联系认知愈多，就愈能认识自然界的客观规律，愈能实现人们的主观目的，使因果性和目的性有机结合起来。

Second, the value dimension or the dimension of needs. The purpose of people engaging in labor is to satisfy their own needs. These needs have a natural-physiological basis, but these natural-physiological needs can only be satisfied under certain socio-historical conditions, and the forms and means of satisfying these needs also change with the development of society. As Marx pointed out, “Our needs and enjoyments arise from society; we therefore measure them by society, and not by the objects which serve for their satisfaction. Because they are of a social nature, they are of a relative nature.” [34]34 Karl Marx, *Wage Labour and Capital* (1849). Under different levels of productive forces and different social systems, people’s needs and the ways of satisfying them are not entirely the same, and they are constantly developing and changing. When discussing the determination of the value of labor power, Marx noted: “The number and extent of his so-called necessary wants, as also the modes of satisfying them, are themselves the product of historical development, and depend therefore to a great extent on the degree of civilisation of a country, more particularly on the conditions under which, and consequently on the habits and degree of comfort in which, the class of free labourers has been formed. In contradistinction therefore to the case of other commodities, there enters into the determination of the value of labour-power a historical and moral element.” [35]35 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Chapter 6, Section 3.

第二，价值维度或需要的维度。人们从事劳动的目的是满足自身需要，这种需要具有自然生理的基础，但是这些自然生理需要又只能在一定的社会历史条件下得到满足，满足这些需要的形式和手段也随社会的发展而变化。正如马克思指出的，“我们的需要和享受是由社会产生的；因此，我们在衡量需要和享受时是以社会为尺度，而不是以满足它们的物品为尺度的。因为我们的需要和享受具有社会性质，所以它们具有相对的性质”。在不同的生产力水平和不同的社会制度下，人们的需要和满足需要的方式不完全相同，也在不断发展变化。马克思在讨论劳动力价值的决定时指出：“所谓必不可少的需要的范围，和满足这些需要的方式一样，本身是历史的产物，因此多半取决于一个国家的文化水平，其中主要取决于自由工人阶级是在什么条件下形成的，从而它有哪些习惯和生活要求。因此，和其他商品不同，劳动力的价值规定包含着一个历史的和道德的因素。”

The above two dimensions are interconnected. Purposiveness, as human subjective consciousness, is free relative to the natural necessity of objective things. From the technical dimension, human purposes must indeed follow objective laws and submit to the laws of nature. However, on the one hand, objective laws can only exert their determining role on history through people’s conscious activity; people are not completely powerless in the face of objective laws but have, to a greater or lesser extent, a relatively free space for choice. On the other hand, because people’s understanding of objective laws always goes through a process, and people’s knowledge of objective things is constantly developing, people will always discover, invent, and create something new in their thinking. Therefore, human purposiveness is not mechanical or rigid but possesses a distinct subjective initiative. In this regard, Marx incisively pointed out in the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*: “An animal forms only in accordance with the standard and the need of the species to which it belongs, whilst man knows how to produce in accordance with the standard of every species, and knows how to apply everywhere the inherent standard to the object. Man therefore also forms in accordance with the laws of beauty.” [36]36 Karl Marx, *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, “Estranged Labour”. From the value dimension, although human purposiveness is essentially free, deeply influenced by people’s worldview, values, emotions, and will, and by factors such as history, tradition, and culture, this freedom is limited. The satisfaction of people’s needs can only be realized through the understanding and utilization of objective natural necessity. If the subjective intentions contained in people’s goal-setting cannot be combined with natural necessity, the result can only be the failure of the purpose and the loss of freedom.

上述两个维度是相互联系的。目的性作为人的主观意识，相对客观事物的自然必然性来说，是自由的。从技术维度来说，人的目的固然必须遵循客观规律、服从自然法则。但是，一方面，客观规律只有通过人们自觉的活动才能发挥对历史的决定性作用，人们在客观规律的面前并不是完全无所作为，而是或多或少具有相对自由选择的空间；另一方面，由于人们对客观规律的认识总是要经历一个过程，人们对客观事物的认识总是不断发展的，人们在思想上总会有所发现、有所发明、有所创造。因此，人们的目的性并非机械的、僵死的，而是具有鲜明的主观能动性。对此，马克思在《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中精辟地指出：“动物只是按照它所属的那个种的尺度和需要来构造，而人却懂得按照任何一个种的尺度来进行生产，并且懂得处处都把固有的尺度运用于对象；因此，人也按照美的规律来构造。”从价值维度来说，人的目的性固然在本质上是自由的，受人的世界观、价值观以及感情和意志的深刻影响，受历史、传统和文化等因素的深刻影响，但是，这种自由是有限度的，人的需要的满足总要通过对客观的自然必然性的认识和利用才能得以实现，如果人们的目的设定所包含的主观意图不能和自然的必然性相结合，其结果只能是目的的落空、自由的丧失。

Thus, on the basis of the subjectivity of labor, Marxism scientifically demonstrates the internal unity of conformity to laws and conformity to purposes, of facts and values, in social development, and the internal unity of the development of productive forces and the development of people. Its specific theses include: the development of society is ultimately the development of productive forces, and the development of productive forces equals the development of individual abilities, equals the saving of labor time, equals science increasingly becoming the main motive force of production, equals the reconciliation of humanity with nature, equals the increase of disposable free time, equals the immense abundance of material wealth, equals the disappearance of the situation where individuals are slavishly subjected to the division of labor, equals the free and all-round development of individuality, and so on. Starting from the unity of the development of productive forces and the development of people, Marx summarized social development into three stages, three major forms: “relations of personal dependence” are the first form, “personal independence founded on objective dependence” is the second major form, and “free individuality, based on the universal development of individuals and on their subordination of their communal, social productivity as their social wealth” is the third major form. [37]37 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse* (1857-1858), “The Chapter on Capital”. In this way, the development of productive forces, social development, and human development are organically unified, and the possibility and necessity of realizing the free and all-round development of individuals are profoundly demonstrated economically.

于是，在劳动主体性的基础上，马克思主义科学证明了社会发展中合规律性与合目的性、事实与价值的内在统一性，证明了生产力发展与人的发展的内在统一性。其具体的论点包括：社会的发展归根到底是生产力的发展，而生产力的发展等于个人才能的发展，等于劳动时间的节约，等于科学日益成为生产的主要动因，等于人与自然的和解，等于可支配的自由时间的增加，等于物质财富的极大丰富，等于迫使个人奴隶般地服从分工的情形已经消失，等于个性的自由全面发展等。从生产力发展与人的发展的统一性出发，马克思把社会发展概括为三个阶段、三大形态：“人的依赖关系”是最初形态，“以物的依赖性为基础的人的独立性”是第二大形态，“建立在个人全面发展和他们共同的、社会的生产能力成为从属于他们的社会财富这一基础上的自由个性”是第三大形态。这样，就将生产力的发展、社会发展和人的发展有机地统一起来了，并从经济上深刻地论证了实现个人自由全面发展的可能性和必然性。

In summary, we must both adhere to the basic view that the criterion of the productive forces is the fundamental criterion for measuring social development, and oppose the one-sided view that takes the criterion of the productive forces as the sole criterion for measuring social development. We must organically unify the criterion of the productive forces and the criterion of value, the constant enrichment of things and the all-round development of people, and on the basis of the continuous development of productive forces and the constant growth of wealth, satisfy the people’s ever-growing needs for a better life, and realize the free and all-round development of people and common prosperity for all.

总之，我们既要坚持生产力标准是衡量社会发展的根本标准的基本观点，又要反对将生产力标准作为衡量社会发展唯一标准的片面观点，将生产力标准和价值标准、物的不断丰富和人的全面发展有机统一，在生产力不断发展和财富不断增长的基础上满足人民日益增长的美好生活需要，实现人的自由全面发展和全体人民共同富裕。

VI. How to Understand the Source Power of the Development of Productive Forces, and the Fundamental Role of the Saving of Labor Time as the Primary Economic Law in Promoting the Development of Productive Forces

六、如何认识生产力发展的源动力，劳动时间节约作为首要经济规律在推动生产力发展中的根本性作用

Productive forces are the fundamental driving force of human social development and the ultimate cause of all social changes and political transformations. Yet, what is the driving force behind the development of productive forces themselves? And what determines the development of productive forces? This is a crucial question concerning whether the logic of historical materialism is self-consistent and whether its theory is thorough. In previous discussions, people have put forward many valuable views, such as: the internal contradictions within productive forces, the contradiction between productive forces and relations of production, the contradiction between humans and nature, the counteraction of relations of production, innovation in science and technology, and changes in the means of labor, as the forces driving the development of productive forces. Regarding the trend of modern social productive forces, it has become a consensus among most people that science and technology constitute the primary productive force, and innovation is the primary driving force leading development. A more comprehensive view regards the driving force of productive forces development as a complex structural system with multiple factors, multiple levels, and multiple variables, in which human needs are the source driving force of productive forces development, the contradictions among the elements of productive forces are the direct driving force, the contradiction between relations of production and productive forces is the basic driving force, the ideological and political superstructure is an important driving force, and science and technology are the main driving force of modern productive forces development. However, the crux of the issue lies in why productive forces are the most active and revolutionary factor and the ultimate determining force of social development. That is, it is necessary to prove that productive forces are capable of self-development. As Ping Xin proposed, "Production and productive forces have a tendency to multiply and renew themselves." [38]38 Ping Xin (平心, 1907–1966) was a Chinese Marxist historian and economist. The quotation is from his work on the theory of productive forces. If productive forces lacked the capacity for self-development and an endogenous driving force, how could they become the most revolutionary and active force and the ultimate determining force of social and historical development? In short, the driving force of productive forces development discussed here refers to the fundamental driving force, the ultimate driving force, or the source driving force that propels the development of productive forces. Discussing the issue at this level naturally cannot set aside the subject of production, the living source of production, namely humans and their activities. G. A. Cohen, a representative of foreign analytical Marxism, recognized this and proposed a model of individual motivation and behavior to demonstrate the principle that productive forces have a tendency to self-develop. This model includes the following three "factual propositions": first, humans, by their nature, are rational; second, the historical situation of humans is one of scarcity; third, humans possess intelligence and talent, and to the extent they do, they can improve their situation. [39]39 G. A. Cohen (1941–2009) was a leading figure in Analytical Marxism. The reference is to his book *Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defence*.

生产力是人类社会发展的根本动力，也是一切社会变迁和政治变革的终极原因。可是,生产力的发展动力又是什么呢？生产力的发展又是由什么决定的呢?这是关系唯物史观逻辑能否自洽、理论是否彻底的一个重要问题。在以往的研讨中，人们就此提出了不少有价值的看法，比如：生产力内部的矛盾、生产力和生产关系的矛盾、人与自然的矛盾、生产关系的反作用、科学技术的创新、劳动资料的变革等是推动生产力发展的动力。就现代社会生产力发展的趋势来说，科学技术是第一生产力，创新是引领发展的第一动力，也已成为大多数人的共识。更为全面的观点是把生产力发展动力作为一个具有多因素、多层次、多变量的复杂结构系统，其中人的需要是生产力发展的源动力，生产力诸要素的矛盾是生产力发展的直接动力，生产关系与生产力的矛盾是生产力发展的基本动力，思想政治上层建筑是生产力发展的重要动力，科学技术是现代生产力发展的主要动力。但是，问题的关键在于，为什么生产力是最活跃最革命的因素,是社会发展的最终决定力量？也就是要证明生产力是能够自我发展的。正如平心所提出的，“生产和生产力有一种自己增殖自己更新的趋向”。如果生产力没有自我发展的能力和内生的动力，怎么可能成为最革命最活跃的力量，成为社会历史发展的最终决定力量呢？总之，这里所讨论的生产力发展的动力，指的是推动生产力发展的根本动力、最终动力，或者说是源动力。在这个层面上讨论问题，自然不能抛开生产的主体、生产的活的源泉即人及其活动。国外分析马克思主义的代表G.A.柯亨看到了这一点，提出了一个个体动机和行为模型，用于证明生产力具有自我发展倾向的原理。该模型包括下述三项“事实性命题”：第一，人，就其特性而言，是有理性的；第二，人的历史境遇是一种匮乏的境遇；第三，人具有的聪明才智及其程度使他能够改进他的处境。

Cohen's analysis is based on the methodology of individualism, taking individual rationality and resource scarcity as premises, and treating the principle of development as the result of individual utility-maximizing choices. In doing so, Cohen completely sets aside relations of production and the labor process, reducing the subject of production to isolated individuals. This inevitably falls into "the aesthetic illusion of the various Robinson Crusoe stories." [40]40 This is a paraphrase of Marx's critique of bourgeois political economy in *Capital*, Volume 1, where he criticizes the Robinson Crusoe fable as an "aesthetic illusion." In contrast, Marxist political economy's analysis of human productive behavior starts from labor. Labor is humans' purposeful creative activity. People engage in labor production; tools, as extensions of human physiological organs, gradually improve human labor capacity; in the unceasing practice of labor, in the process of "learning by doing," human production experience and knowledge accumulate continuously; the unfolding of the labor process promotes the development of social cooperation and social organization; labor not only produces new labor capacity but also produces new human needs. Human needs develop along with the improvement of labor capacity, and the development of needs in turn stimulates humans to continuously enhance their own labor capacity. The development of production and the development of needs thus depend on and promote each other, driving productive forces forward continuously. However, at any given point in time, compared with humans' material and spiritual desires and needs, the capacity and means for humans to satisfy needs—that is, productive forces—are always relatively limited, inevitably constrained by natural, material, physical, and technological limits. This is an objective fact. Western economics accordingly proposes the concept of resource scarcity, which, together with the assumption of the rational economic man, is taken as the fundamental starting point of economic research. Cohen's proposition on the development of productive forces follows this same line of thought. But this line of thought is not correct. Marxism never denies scarcity in the natural-material and technological-physical sense, just as it cannot deny that the biological human lifespan is finite. However, scarcity in the economic sense is a relative finitude, compared with the needs (demands) of people living in a specific society. While Western economics treats scarcity as a truth, it simultaneously suffers from "insufficient effective demand" and from the relative overproduction of capitalist production that Marx revealed. Is this not an exquisite irony!

柯亨的分析以个人主义方法论为基础，以个人理性和资源稀缺性为前提，将发展原理视为个体最大化选择的结果。柯亨这样做，彻底撇开生产关系和劳动过程，使生产主体沦为孤零零的个人，这样，难免陷入“大大小小的鲁滨逊一类故事所造成的美学上的假象”。与此不同，马克思主义政治经济学对人的生产行为的分析，则是以劳动为出发点展开的。劳动是人的有目的的创造性活动。人们从事劳动生产，作为人类生理器官延长的工具从而人类的劳动能力逐渐得到改进；在永无间断的劳动实践中，在“边干边学”的过程中，人类的生产经验和知识得以不断累积；劳动过程的展开推动了社会合作和社会组织的发展；劳动不仅生产出了新的劳动能力，同时也生产出了新的人类需要。人类的需要随着劳动能力的提高而不断发展，需要的发展又反过来激励人类不断提高自身的劳动能力。生产的发展和需要的发展就这样相互依赖、相互促进，推动着生产力不断向前发展。然而，在任何时点，和人类的物质精神欲望和需要相比，人类满足需要的能力和手段即生产力总是相对有限的，必然受到自然的、物质的、物理的、技术的限制，这是一个客观事实。西方经济学据此提出所谓资源的稀缺性概念，和理性经济人的假设一道，当作经济学研究的根本出发点。柯亨关于生产力的发展命题，遵循的也是这个思路。但是，这个思路并不正确。马克思主义从不否认自然物质和技术物理意义上的稀缺，就像不能否认生物意义上的人类寿命是有限的一样，但是，经济学意义上的稀缺是一种相对的有限性，是和生活在特定社会中的人的需要（求）相比较而言的。西方经济学在把稀缺当作真理的同时，却又苦于“有效需求不足”，苦于马克思揭示的资本主义生产的相对过剩。这难道不是一种绝妙的讽刺吗！

In the view of Marxist political economy, all scarcity can be reduced to the scarcity of time, especially the scarcity of labor time; and all economization can ultimately be reduced to the economization of time, especially the economization of labor time. Therefore, so-called economic rationality is essentially the economization of labor time. Marx pointed out: "The comprehensiveness of social development, social enjoyment, and social activity all depend on the saving of time. All economization ultimately reduces to the saving of time." [41]41 This is a paraphrase of Marx's argument in the *Grundrisse*. "The real economy—saving—is the saving of labor time," [42]42 This is a paraphrase of Marx's argument in the *Grundrisse*. and this saving is equivalent to developing productive forces. "Saving labor time is equivalent to increasing free time, that is, time for the full development of the individual, which in turn, as the greatest productive force, reacts upon the productive power of labor." [43]43 This is a paraphrase of Marx's argument in the *Grundrisse*. Why must labor time be saved? This is because human life, and the mental and physical energy humans possess, are finite; and within this finite life, humans must also spend a considerable portion of time meeting purely physiological needs such as sleep and eating. In the remaining time, humans can engage in labor and production, producing the various products they need. Thus, a fundamental contradiction arises: humans can only use limited time and energy to produce, in order to satisfy their own ever-expanding and growing needs. Saving labor time is the so-called rational choice humans make to resolve this fundamental contradiction, which Marx called the primary economic law of human society. [44]44 The "primary economic law" (首要经济规律) is a term used by Marx in the *Grundrisse*. Obtaining the greatest labor results with the smallest expenditure of labor is the basic economic behavior of humans determined by this primary economic law. It is precisely under the impetus of labor time saving as humans' basic economic behavior and the primary economic law that social productive forces, whether quickly or slowly, always develop continuously and do not remain fixed at one point for long. Regardless of changes in the social system, as long as labor remains scarce, the role of labor time saving as humans' basic economic behavior and the primary economic law will not disappear. Even in communist society, "the saving of time, as well as the planned distribution of labor time among the various branches of production, remains the primary economic law on the basis of collective production. This becomes law to an even higher degree." [45]45 This is a paraphrase of Marx's argument in the *Grundrisse*. However, under different social formations, due to different conditions of productive forces and relations of production, the mechanism and mode of manifestation of the law of labor time saving differ. These different modes of manifestation are precisely the concrete forms of the basic economic law of society under different social formations.

在马克思主义政治经济学看来，一切稀缺都可以归结为时间的稀缺，特别是劳动时间的稀缺；而一切节约归根到底都可以归结为时间的节约，特别是劳动时间的节约，所以所谓的经济理性本质上是劳动时间的节约。马克思指出：“社会发展、社会享用和社会活动的全面性，都取决于时间的节省。一切节约归根到底都归结为时间的节约。”“真正的经济——节约——是劳动时间的节约”，这种节约就等于发展生产力。“节约劳动时间等于增加自由时间，即增加使个人得到充分发展的时间，而个人的充分发展又作为最大的生产力反作用于劳动生产力。”为什么要节约劳动时间？这是因为，人的生命以及他所拥有的脑力和体力是有限的，而在有限的生命中，人类还要把相当一部分时间花在满足睡觉吃饭等纯生理需要上,在其余时间内，人们才能从事劳动和生产，生产他们所需要的各种产品。这样，就产生了一个根本性矛盾，即人类只能用有限的时间和力量去生产，以满足他们自己不断扩大增长的需要；节约劳动时间，就是人们为了解决这一根本性矛盾而作出的所谓理性选择，被马克思称作人类社会首要的经济规律；用最小的劳动消耗获得最大的劳动成果，是由这一首要经济规律决定的人类基本的经济行为。正是在劳动时间节约作为人的基本经济行为和首要经济规律的推动下，社会生产力或快或慢总是要不断向前发展，而不会长久停留在一点上。不论社会制度如何变化，只要劳动具有稀缺性，劳动时间节约作为人的基本经济行为和首要经济规律的作用是不会消失的。即使到了共产主义社会，“时间的节约，以及劳动时间在不同的生产部门之间有计划的分配，在共同生产的基础上仍然是首要的经济规律。这甚至在更加高得多的程度上成为规律”。但是，在不同的社会形态下，由于生产力与生产关系的状况不同，劳动时间节约规律的作用机制和表现方式也不相同，而这种不同的表现方式，正是社会基本经济规律在不同社会形态下的具体形式。

Under conditions of commodity economy, the law of labor time saving manifests itself as the law of value. This law requires that the magnitude of value of a commodity be determined by the socially necessary labor time for its production, and that the exchange of different commodities proceed according to the principle of equal magnitudes of value, i.e., the principle of equivalence.

在商品经济条件下，劳动时间节约规律表现为价值规律。这一规律要求商品的价值量由生产商品的社会必要劳动时间决定，不同商品的交换按照价值量相等的原则即等价原则来进行。

Under capitalist conditions, the law of labor time saving manifests itself as the law of surplus value. The maximum pursuit of valorization is the fundamental purpose of capitalist production, determining all major aspects and all major processes of the development of capitalist production.

在资本主义条件下，劳动时间节约规律表现为剩余价值规律。最大限度追求价值增殖是资本主义生产的根本目的，决定着资本主义生产发展的一切主要方面和一切主要过程。

Under socialist society, the law of labor time saving manifests itself as the basic economic law of socialism, whose basic connotation was summarized by Stalin as: "ensuring the maximum satisfaction of the constantly rising material and cultural needs of the whole of society through the continuous growth and perfection of socialist production on the basis of highly developed technology." [46]46 This is Stalin's formulation of the basic economic law of socialism, from his 1952 work *Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR*.

在社会主义社会，劳动时间节约规律表现为社会主义基本经济规律，其基本内涵被斯大林概括为：“用在高度技术基础上使社会主义生产不断增长和不断完善的办法，来保证最大限度地满足整个社会经常增长的物质和文化的需要。”

The basic economic law of socialism takes different forms of expression at different stages of socialist development. As socialism with Chinese characteristics enters a New Era, the principal contradiction in Chinese society has undergone a historic change, and the form of expression of the basic economic law of socialism has also undergone an important change accordingly. This change is concentratedly manifested in the fact that China has shifted from a stage of high-speed growth to a stage of high-quality development. High-quality development is the distinctive hallmark of China’s economic development in the new stage of development and the concrete form of expression of the basic economic law of socialism in the new stage of development. Its essence is to use a higher level of productive forces to well satisfy the people’s growing needs for a better life, to embody the new development concepts of innovation, coordination, green development, openness, and sharing, and to better realize the purpose of socialist production. Grasping this point means grasping the essence of high-quality development, and also grasping the fundamental driving force of the economic development of socialism with Chinese characteristics in the New Era.

社会主义基本经济规律在社会主义发展的不同阶段又有不同的表现形式。中国特色社会主义进入新时代，我国社会主要矛盾发生了历史性变化，社会主义基本经济规律的表现方式也随之发生重要变化，这种变化集中体现为我国已经由高速增长阶段转向高质量发展阶段。高质量发展是新发展阶段我国经济发展的鲜明标识，是社会主义基本经济规律在新发展阶段的具体表现方式。其实质就是用更高水平的生产力很好地满足人民日益增长的美好生活需要的发展，体现创新、协调、绿色、开放、共享的新发展理念，更好实现社会主义生产目的。把握住这一点，就把握住了高质量发展的本质，也就把握住了新时代中国特色社会主义经济发展的根本动力。

VII. How to Compare and Measure the Level of Development of Productive Forces, and the Different Manifestations of the Development of Productive Forces in the Forms of Use-Value and Value

七、如何比较衡量生产力发展的水平，生产力发展在使用价值和价值形态上的不同表现

In what aspects is the development of productive forces manifested? By what standard is the level of development of productive forces measured? “Productivity is always, of course, the productivity of useful, concrete labour” [47]47 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. I, Chapter 1, Section 2. The full passage in the standard English edition reads: “Productivity of labour, in short, is always the productivity of useful, concrete labour.”. The development of productive forces corresponds to people’s ability to produce use-values and satisfy their own needs, and is thus also manifested as the result of the objectification, materialization, and externalization of people’s labour capacity—the quality and quantity of use-values. Measuring the level of development of productive forces by the quantity and quality of use-values created per unit of labour input is the most intuitive method. However, the problem lies in the fact that use-values of different products in different sectors are qualitatively different and incomparable, and the structure of social products or social use-values in different periods is also different. For example, how does one compare the magnitude of the use-values of bread, apples, cars, and computers? And how, under conditions where the structure of today’s social products has undergone major changes compared with that of 30 years ago, does one compare the magnitude of the total social product use-value of the two periods? To resolve this theoretical and technical difficulty of comparison, based on the basic theories of Marxist political economy, researchers have proposed several representative indicators.

生产力的发展表现在哪些方面呢?生产力发展水平的高低是以什么为标准来衡量呢?“生产力当然始终是有用的、具体的劳动的生产力”，生产力的发展对应于人们生产使用价值、满足自身需要的能力，从而也表现为人的劳动能力客观化、对象化、外在化的结果——使用价值的质和量，以单位劳动投入所创造的使用价值的数量和质量为基本标准来衡量生产力的发展水平是最直观的。但问题在于，不同部门不同产品在使用价值上是不同质、不可比的，不同时期社会产品或社会使用价值的结构也是不同的。比如，如何比较面包、苹果、汽车和电脑的使用价值大小呢？又如何在今天的社会产品结构和30年前的社会产品结构相比发生重大变化的条件下，对两个时期社会总产品使用价值大小作出比较呢？为解决这一比较的理论和技术困难，依据马克思主义政治经济学的基本理论，研究者提出了若干具有代表性的指标。

The first is labour productivity. This is a basic concept reflecting the increase in the level of productive forces. Labour productivity denotes the quantity of products produced per unit of time, or the labour time required to produce a unit of product. An increase in labour productivity means that more products are produced per unit of labour time, or that producing the same quantity of products requires less labour time. However, this indicator does not account for differences in product structure or sectoral structure across different periods and countries. Therefore, to compare the state of development of productive forces across different periods and countries on an overall basis, relying solely on the concept of labour productivity is insufficient; it is also necessary to introduce the dimension of changes in product structure and industrial structure, or structural upgrading.

一是劳动生产率。这是反映生产力水平提高的一个基本概念。劳动生产率表示单位时间内生产的劳动产品数量，或生产单位产品所需的劳动时间。劳动生产率的提高就是在单位劳动时间内生产了更多的产品，或者说生产同样数量的产品需要较少的劳动时间。不过，这个指标没有考虑到不同时期和不同国家的产品结构或部门结构差异。所以要在整体上对不同时期和不同国家的生产力发展状况进行比较，仅仅依靠劳动生产率这一概念是不够的，还需要引入产品结构和产业结构变动或结构升级的维度。

The second is the density of the division of labour. Marx and Engels pointed out, “The level of development of the productive forces of a nation is most clearly manifested in the degree of development of its division of labour. Any new productive force, insofar as it is not merely a quantitative expansion of previously known productive forces (e.g., the clearing of land), leads to a further development of the division of labour” [48]48 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The German Ideology*, Part I. The standard English translation reads: “The extent of the division of labour seems to be identical with the development of the productive forces.” The Chinese text here is a paraphrase.. The qualitative improvement of productive forces is concentratedly embodied in the development of the division of labour in breadth and depth, and the development of the division of labour is in turn embodied in the innovation of products and industries, as well as the diversification, complexification, and advancement of product structure and industrial structure. At present, China possesses the most complete industrial system and industrial chain in the world; this is a powerful testament to the fact that the level of development of China’s productive forces is moving to the forefront of the world. At the current stage in China, the process of forming and developing new quality productive forces is precisely the process in which the industrial system evolves toward a stage with a more advanced form, a more complex division of labour, and a more rational structure.

二是分工密集度。马克思恩格斯指出，“一个民族的生产力发展的水平，最明显地表现于该民族分工的发展程度。任何新的生产力，只要它不是迄今已知的生产力单纯的量的扩大(例如，开垦土地)，都会引起分工的进一步发展”。生产力的质的提高集中体现为分工在广度和深度上的发展，而分工的发展又体现为产品和产业的创新以及产品结构和产业结构的多样化、复杂化、高级化。目前我国拥有世界上最为完整的工业体系和产业链，这是我国生产力发展水平正在走向世界前列的有力证明。我国现阶段，新质生产力的形成和发展过程，就是产业体系向形态更高级、分工更复杂、结构更合理的阶段演化的过程。

The third is the rate of surplus product. The development of social productive forces is also manifested in the increase of surplus labour and surplus products. The increase in surplus products and the increase in surplus labour time are another important manifestation of the development of social labour productivity. Under conditions where labour time and the quantity of necessities are fixed, an increase in labour productivity must be manifested as an increase in surplus products and an increase in surplus labour time. The development of productive forces means that the necessary labour time required to satisfy people’s basic needs continuously decreases, while surplus labour time continuously increases, thereby creating conditions for the all-round development of individuals and the enhancement of their multifaceted abilities.

三是剩余产品率。社会生产力的发展还表现为剩余劳动和剩余产品的增加。剩余产品的增多和剩余劳动时间的增加，是社会劳动生产力发展的又一个重要表现。在劳动时间和必需品的数量一定的条件下，劳动生产力的提高必然表现为剩余产品的增多和剩余劳动时间的增加。生产力的发展意味着为了满足人们基本需要的必要劳动时间不断减少，剩余劳动时间不断增加，从而为个人的全面发展和多方面能力的提高创造了条件。

Productive forces are the capacity to produce use-values, so they naturally should be compared and measured in units of the use-value of articles. However, under conditions of commodity production, the use-value and value of a commodity are closely integrated; value is the common social measure of use-values. Comparing and measuring the magnitude of use-values through the value form or the monetary form as the measure of value, and thereby comparing and measuring the level of development of productive forces, is a method commonly adopted by people. For example, the growth rates of value magnitudes such as the value of products, gross national product, and profit rate, which people commonly use, all reflect the level of development of productive forces to a certain extent. However, the impact of the development of productive forces on use-value and value is not simply linear but complex and multidimensional. Understanding the complex relationship between the two, if one departs from the scientific theory of Marxist political economy, especially from the basic principle of the dual character of labour, it is not only difficult to reach correct conclusions but also often leads to ideological confusion.

生产力是生产使用价值的能力，自然要以物品的使用价值为单位来比较衡量。但是，在商品生产条件下，商品的使用价值和价值是紧密结合在一起的，价值是使用价值共通的社会尺度。通过价值形态或作为价值尺度的货币形态来比较衡量使用价值的大小，进而比较衡量生产力的发展水平，是人们通常采用的办法。比如，人们通常使用的产品的价值量、国民生产总值、利润率等价值量的增长率，都在一定程度上反映了生产力的发展水平。但是，生产力的发展对使用价值和价值的影响不是简单的线性的，而是复杂的多维的。理解二者之间的复杂关系，如果离开了马克思主义政治经济学的科学理论，特别是离开了劳动二重性的基本原理，不仅难以得出正确结论，还往往会导致思想上的混乱。

For example, there is a view that the progress of science and technology inevitably leads to an increase in labour productivity, and an increase in labour productivity inevitably creates more value, so that labour productivity and changes in value are directly proportional. This view seems plausible, but it is not; it confuses use-value with value. An increase in labour productivity inevitably creates more use-values. However, it does not necessarily create more value. Regarding the relationship between labour productivity and changes in the magnitude of value, Marxist political economy proposes three propositions based on different circumstances: (1) From the perspective of a single commodity, labour productivity is inversely proportional to the value of a unit of commodity. The higher the labour productivity, the more products are produced per unit of time, so the less socially necessary labour time is required to produce a unit of commodity, and thus the smaller the value of a unit of commodity, and vice versa. (2) From the perspective of an individual producer, labour productivity is directly proportional to the value it creates. The higher the labour productivity of an individual producer, the greater the difference between the actual labour time expended per unit of product and the average labour expenditure of the sector, the more use-values are produced, and the greater the amount of value created. (3) From the perspective of an individual sector, changes in labour productivity have no bearing on the total magnitude of value of commodities. No matter what change occurs in productive forces, the amount of value created by the labour of a sector within the same period of time is always the same. These three propositions are regularities recognized through the concrete analysis of the relationship between labour productivity and changes in the magnitude of value using the principle of the dual character of labour.

比如，有一种观点认为，科学技术的进步必然导致劳动生产力的提高，劳动生产力的提高必然会创造更多的价值，劳动生产力和价值的变动是成正比的。这种观点看似有理，其实不然，是把使用价值和价值混为一谈。劳动生产力的提高必然会创造更多的使用价值。但是，未必会创造出更多价值。关于劳动生产率和价值量变动的关系，马克思主义政治经济学根据不同情况提出了三个命题：（1）从单个商品看，劳动生产率与单位商品价值量成反比。劳动生产率越高，单位时间内生产的产品越多，则生产单位商品所需的社会必要劳动时间就越少，从而单位商品的价值量就越小，反之则反是。（2）从个别生产者看，劳动生产率与其创造的价值成正比。个别生产者劳动生产率越高，单位产品实际耗费的劳动时间与部门平均劳动耗费之间的差额越大，生产的使用价值就越多，创造的价值量就越多。（3）从个别部门看，劳动生产率的变化与商品价值总量无关。不管生产力发生了什么变化，一个部门的劳动在相同时间内创造的价值量总是相同的。这三个命题，是运用劳动二重性原理对劳动生产率和价值量变动关系进行具体分析的规律性认识。

Another example: total factor productivity is a relatively common concept used to reflect technological progress and to measure the level of development of productive forces. However, in the actual use of this concept, one also faces the difficulty of how to make a unified comparison of use value and value. Because social production involves different factors such as labor, capital, land, technology, and data, and each category of factors further includes different specific types, they are difficult to substitute for one another and also difficult to quantify accurately. Therefore, comparisons and calculations are usually made by substituting the market price of factors for their actual input, which inevitably is influenced by multiple factors such as market competition, supply-demand relations, distribution relations, and government regulation, causing distortion and inaccuracy in the measurement of total factor productivity. At the same time, because the measurement of total factor productivity is mainly based on the static variable relations of production factors, the revolutionary transformation of productive forces, especially the development of new quality productive forces, is often accompanied by the emergence of new sectors, new products, new factors, and new modes of production, as well as drastic fluctuations in the price system, accelerated evolution of the economic structure, and profound adjustments in the distribution pattern. This creates difficulties for the comparative measurement of the level of productive forces under different qualitative states. On the one hand, labor is the subject of production and the sole living source of the creation of use value and value; on the other hand, productive forces are the material force that produces use value, and the factors determining labor productivity include multiple factors from both subjective and objective aspects. When examining the level of development of productive forces, it is necessary to combine these two aspects. Only in the unity of productive forces and relations of production, use value and value, and technical indicators and value indicators can a correct conclusion that is relatively consistent with reality be drawn.

又比如，全要素生产率是反映技术进步的一个比较常用的概念，用来衡量生产力发展水平，但在实际使用这一概念时，也面临着如何对使用价值和价值统一比较的难题。因为社会生产涉及劳动、资本、土地、技术、数据等不同要素，每一类要素又进一步包含不同的具体类型，彼此难以替代，也很难准确量化。因此，通常是以要素的市场价格代替要素的实际投入进行比较测算，这就难免受到市场竞争、供求关系、分配关系、政府监管等多种因素的影响，造成全要素生产率测度失真失准。同时，因为全要素生产率的测量主要以生产要素静态变量关系为依据，但生产力的革命性变革特别是新质生产力的发展往往伴随着新部门、新产品、新要素、新型生产方式的出现，以及价格体系剧烈波动、经济结构加速演变、分配格局深刻调整，这就为不同质态下的生产力水平的比较衡量带来了困难。一方面，劳动是生产的主体，是使用价值和价值创造唯一活的源泉；另一方面，生产力是生产使用价值的物质力量，决定劳动生产率的因素包括了主客观两方面的多种因素。考察生产力发展水平时，需要将两个方面结合起来，在生产力与生产关系、使用价值和价值、技术指标和价值指标的统一中，才能得出比较符合实际的正确的结论。

VIII. How to Understand the Different Qualitative States of Productive Forces, and What Kind of Relations of Production Are Compatible with New Quality Productive Forces

八、如何认识生产力的不同质态，与新质生产力相适应的生产关系是什么样的生产关系

Productive forces are constantly developing. When the development of productive forces and the relations of production determined by them accumulate to a certain stage, they will change from quantitative to qualitative, from gradual to abrupt, undergoing revolutionary change. This causes social productive forces to be divided into different qualitative states, and in turn causes the economic base and superstructure to be divided into different forms and epochs.

生产力是不断发展的。生产力以及由其决定的生产关系的发展积累到一定阶段后，就会从量变到质变、从渐变到突变，发生革命性变化，使社会生产力区分为不同的质态，进而使经济基础和上层建筑也区分为不同的形态和时代。

How does a revolution in productive forces occur? How are the different qualitative states of productive forces distinguished? Marx proposed two main indicators: first, the instruments of labor. He argued that the distinction between various economic epochs lies not in what is produced, but in how it is produced, and with what instruments of labor it is produced. The instruments of labor are not only a measure of the development of human labor power, but also an indicator of the social relations through which labor is carried out. Second, the mode of production. He argued that the specific mode and method of combining the laborer with the means of production (that is, the organization of labor) distinguishes the social structure into different economic periods. These two aspects are interconnected; generally speaking, the nature of the means of production determines the form of the organization of labor. In *The Poverty of Philosophy*, Marx clearly stated, “The organization and division of labor vary according to the instruments at their disposal. The division of labor determined by the hand-mill is different from that determined by the steam-mill,” and in a letter to Engels, he referred to this view as “our theory of the determination of the organization of labor by the means of production.” [49]49 Marx’s letter to Engels, 28 January 1855. See Marx and Engels, *Collected Works*, vol. 39, p. 397. Currently, there are various claims about the stage division of revolutions in productive forces, such as the “four industrial revolutions” or the “six scientific and technological revolutions.” Based on Marx’s principle of the division of qualitative states of productive forces, it can be determined that in human history, the development of social productive forces has undergone two major revolutions—the agricultural revolution and the industrial revolution—forming two epoch-making qualitative states of productive forces: individualized small-scale production and large-scale socialized production. The agricultural revolution freed humanity from passive dependence on nature, creating individualized small-scale production based on manual labor, achieving the first revolutionary leap in the development of productive forces. The industrial revolution freed humanity from the limitations of the natural forces of the human body, creating large-scale socialized production based on the machine system, achieving the second revolutionary leap in the development of productive forces. Marx provided a systematic and in-depth analysis of the history, objective laws, and revolutionary consequences of the development of the industrial revolution in *Capital*. The new round of scientific and technological revolution and industrial revolution, which is currently developing rapidly and unfolding in depth, is driving a third revolutionary leap in the development of productive forces. Regarding the main characteristics and development trends of this revolution, General Secretary Xi Jinping has provided a systematic exposition: humanity has experienced the agricultural revolution and the industrial revolution and is now experiencing the information revolution; the information revolution has enhanced human brainpower, bringing about another qualitative leap in productive forces; information technology has triggered the third industrial revolution, “transforming social production and consumption from industrialization to automation and intelligence, greatly increasing social productive forces again and making another great leap in labor productivity”; [50]50 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the 2018 National Conference on Science and Technology, the 19th Academician Conference of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Chinese Academy of Engineering,” 28 May 2018. “digital technology and the digital economy are the vanguard of the world’s scientific and technological revolution and industrial transformation,” and developing the digital economy is a strategic choice for seizing new opportunities in the new round of scientific and technological revolution and industrial transformation; [51]51 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the 2021 China International Fair for Trade in Services Global Trade in Services Summit,” 2 September 2021. “the intelligent industry represented by robotics technology is booming and has become an important symbol of scientific and technological innovation in the current era”; [52]52 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the 2018 National Conference on Science and Technology, the 19th Academician Conference of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Chinese Academy of Engineering,” 28 May 2018. “artificial intelligence is a strategic technology leading this round of scientific and technological revolution and industrial transformation, with a ‘bellwether’ effect that has strong spillover and driving force.” [53]53 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the 2018 National Conference on Science and Technology, the 19th Academician Conference of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Chinese Academy of Engineering,” 28 May 2018. These expositions profoundly reveal the general direction of scientific and technological progress and the general trend of industrial development. Overall, the core of the third revolution in productive forces is the informatization, digitalization, and intellectualization of the production process. Intellectualization is a higher stage of the information revolution and is also an important landmark technology for China’s current development of new quality productive forces. In this sense, new quality productive forces are essentially intellectualized productive forces.

生产力革命是怎样发生的？生产力的不同质态是怎样区分的？马克思提出了两个主要标志：一是劳动资料。他提出，各种经济时代的区别，不在于生产什么，而在于怎样生产，用什么劳动资料生产。劳动资料不仅是人类劳动力发展的测量器，而且是劳动借以进行的社会关系的指示器。二是生产方式。他提出，劳动者和生产资料结合的特殊方式和方法（也就是劳动组织），使社会结构区分为各个不同的经济时期。这两个方面是相互联系的，一般来说，生产资料的性质决定劳动组织的形式。马克思在《哲学的贫困》中明确指出，“劳动的组织和划分视其所拥有的工具而各有不同。手推磨所决定的分工不同于蒸汽磨所决定的分工”，并在致恩格斯的一封信中，将这一观点称为“我们关于生产资料决定劳动组织的理论”。当前，对于生产力革命的阶段划分存在多种说法，如“四次工业革命”“六次科技革命”等。依据马克思关于生产力质态划分的原理，可以确定的是，在人类历史上，社会生产力的发展发生过两次大的革命即农业革命和工业革命，形成了两种划时代的生产力质态即个体化小生产和社会化大生产。农业革命使人类摆脱了对自然的消极依赖，创造了以手工劳动为基础的个体化小生产，实现了生产力发展的第一次革命性飞跃。工业革命使人类摆脱了对人体自然力的限制，创造了以机器体系为基础的社会化大生产，实现了生产力发展的第二次革命性飞跃。对于工业革命的发展历史、客观规律及其革命性后果，马克思在《资本论》中有过系统深入的分析。目前正在迅猛发展、深入展开的新一轮科技革命和产业革命，正在推动生产力发展实现第三次革命性飞跃。关于这次革命的主要特点和发展趋势，习近平总书记作了系统论述：人类经历了农业革命、工业革命，正在经历信息革命，信息革命增强了人类脑力，带来生产力又一次质的飞跃；信息技术引发第三次产业革命，“使社会生产和消费从工业化向自动化、智能化转变，社会生产力将再次大提高，劳动生产率将再次大飞跃”；“数字技术、数字经济是世界科技革命和产业变革的先机”，发展数字经济是把握新一轮科技革命和产业变革新机遇的战略选择；“以机器人科技为代表的智能产业蓬勃兴起，成为现时代科技创新的一个重要标志”；“人工智能是引领这一轮科技革命和产业变革的战略性技术，具有溢出带动性很强的‘头雁’效应”。这些论述，深刻揭示了科技进步的大方向、产业发展的大趋势。总的来看，第三次生产力革命的核心是生产过程的信息化、数字化、智能化。智能化是信息化革命的更高阶段，也是现阶段我国发展新质生产力的重要标志性技术。从这些意义上说，新质生产力实质上是智能化生产力。

The reason why intellectualized production can become an epoch-making qualitative state of productive forces lies fundamentally in the revolutionary change in the instruments of production. Historically, instruments of labor such as the steam engine, electric motor, and computer, along with their corresponding modes of production, have played epoch-making roles. In intellectualized production, the revolution in the instruments of production is also epoch-making. “All fully developed machinery consists of three essentially different parts: the motor mechanism, the transmitting mechanism, and the tool or working machine.” [54]54 Karl Marx, *Capital*, vol. 1, ch. 15, section 1. In the industrial age, the power generated by the motor mechanism drove the working machine through the transmitting mechanism; the motor mechanism replaced human physical strength, the tool machine replaced human limbs, and ultimately, the division of labor among machines replaced the division of labor among humans, forming a large-scale, standardized, and rapidly unified production process. However, machines only partially replaced humans; the operation of machines still relied on human instructions and decisions. But human decisions have inherent defects, and they are prone to error in situations requiring extensive computation and global optimization. For this reason, the development of machines has continuously encoded human knowledge, solidifying it as part of the machine, replacing human decisions with encoded decisions. Yet such machines often cannot adapt to complex and changing external environments, limiting efficiency gains. Intellectualized production tools add a new part to the original three components of machinery: an intellectualized decision-making system. Its main function is to collect and process data concerning the production and circulation process and automatically adjust its own movement according to changes in the external environment. This overcomes both the physiological limitations of the human brain in perceiving and processing information and the shortcomings of traditional machines in adapting to changing external environments. Although intellectualized production tools do not possess a fully autonomous perception system, they can simulate human intelligence to a greater extent for decision-making, realize the automation of production, and extend automation to more fields. They make decisions in a relatively autonomous manner and solve problems that were difficult for humans to handle in the past, promoting a great liberation, transformation, and enhancement of productive forces. Ultimately, they create the technological possibility of freeing laborers from the shackles of machines.

智能化生产之所以能够成为划时代的生产力质态，根本的原因还在于生产工具的革命性变化。从历史看，蒸汽机、电动机、计算机等劳动资料及其相适应的生产方式都起到过划时代的作用。在智能化生产中，生产工具的革命也是划时代的。“所有发达的机器都由三个本质上不同的部分组成：发动机，传动机构，工具机或工作机”。工业化时代，发动机产生的动力经由传动机构带动工具机运转，发动机代替了人力，工具机代替了人的肢体，最终，机器的分工代替了人的分工，形成大规模、标准化、快速统一的生产过程。不过，机器只是从局部代替了人，机器的运行仍然离不开人的指令和决策，但人的决策有其固有缺陷，在需要大量运算和全局优化的情况下容易犯错。为此，机器的发展不断将人的知识编码化，使其固化为机器的一部分，以编码化决策代替人的决策，但这种机器又往往无法适应复杂多变的外部环境，限制了效率的提升。智能化生产工具在机器原来的三个组成部分之外，加入了一个新的部分，即智能化的决策系统，其主要功能是搜集和处理有关生产和流通过程的数据，并根据外部环境的变化，自动调节自己的运动，既克服了人脑在感知和处理信息方面所具有的生理局限性，也克服了传统机器适应多变的外部环境上的不足。智能化生产工具虽然不具备完全自主的感知系统，但却能够在更大程度上模拟人类智能进行决策，实现生产的自动化，并使自动化拓展到更多领域，以相对自主的方式进行决策和解决过去人类难以处置的问题，促进了生产力的大解放、大变革、大提高，最终将劳动者从机器的束缚下解放出来，创造了技术上的可能性。

The reason why intelligent production can become an epoch-making qualitative state of productive forces lies also in the epoch-making revolution in the instruments of production causing an epoch-making revolution in the mode of production, driving the historical transformation and holistic leap in the factors of production such as labourers, means of labour, and subjects of labour, as well as their optimal combination, and realizing the intelligent, green, and integrated nature of social production. Among these, intelligence is the essential characteristic of the new mode of production, greenness is its prominent manifestation, and integration is its organizational form. Currently, new models such as intelligent manufacturing, service-oriented manufacturing, and the industrial internet are demonstrating that the mode of production is undergoing a revolutionary change, mainly manifested in three aspects: First, within the production unit, the limitations of the traditional factory’s production organization based on centralized and large-scale division of labour and cooperation are becoming increasingly evident, and are being replaced by more flexible and decentralized organizational forms. The enterprise’s production process, based on massive data from inside and outside the enterprise, generates information and knowledge, automatically forms production decisions, flexibly adjusts product quantity and variety, and better adapts to market demand. The traditional standardized, large-scale mode of production is transforming into a personalized, customized, and flexible mode of production. Second, between production units, the boundaries of traditional production organizations are gradually being broken down, the degree of integration between different organizations is significantly strengthened, the phenomenon of shared means of production is becoming more common, and the importance of public general production conditions such as data and computing power is increasingly prominent. Platforms have become an important form of innovative allocation of factors of production, possessing powerful network effects. Third, at the overall societal level, the widespread application of intelligent means of production has formed a closer social division of labour and cooperation, a broader scope of socialized utilization of means of production and labour power, and a higher level of socialized organization of the large-scale production process, closely connecting and coordinating all links of the social production process into a flexible, elastic organic whole, providing a powerful driving force for the sustainable development of the level of socialized production.

智能化生产之所以能够成为划时代的生产力质态，还在于生产工具的划时代革命引起生产方式的划时代革命，推动劳动者、劳动资料、劳动对象等生产要素及其优化组合的历史性变革、整体性跃升，实现社会生产的智能化、绿色化、融合化。其中，智能化是新生产方式的本质特征，绿色化是新生产方式的突出表现，融合化是新生产方式的组织形态。当前，智能制造、服务型制造、工业互联网等新模式彰显出生产方式正在发生革命性变化，主要表现在三个方面：一是在生产单位内部，传统的工厂内部那种以集中和大规模的分工协作为基础的生产组织局限性日益明显，并被更加灵活化、分散化的组织形式所代替。企业的生产过程基于企业内外的海量数据，生成信息和知识，自动形成生产决策，灵活调整产品数量和种类，更好适应市场需求，传统的规模化、标准化的生产方式向个性化、定制化、柔性化的生产方式转变。二是在生产单位之间，传统生产组织的边界逐渐被打破，不同组织之间的融合程度明显加强，生产资料的共用现象更加普遍，数据、算力等公共性一般生产条件的重要性日益凸显。平台成为生产要素创新配置的重要形式，具有强大的网络效应。三是在社会总体层面，智能化的生产资料的广泛应用，形成了更加紧密的社会分工和协作、更大范围的生产资料和劳动力的社会化利用、更高水平的规模化生产过程的社会化组织，使社会生产过程各环节紧密连接、协同配合，形成一个灵活、弹性的有机整体，为生产社会化水平的可持续发展提供了强大推动力。

Relations of production must be adapted to the requirements of the development of productive forces. The development of new quality productive forces requires relations of production that are adapted to them. So, what are these relations of production? This is a question that requires in-depth study. There is no doubt that, for the current stage of our country’s situation, the relations of production adapted to new quality productive forces are, in general terms, the basic socialist economic system and the high-level socialist market economy system. These are institutional arrangements with long-term stability and a foundational, decisive status, and are advanced socialist relations of production with significant advantages. Apart from these, there does not and should not exist any other type of relations of production. Of course, our country’s basic socialist economic system and market economy system are not yet sufficiently perfect or mature. Therefore, it is necessary to further comprehensively deepen reform [55]55 comprehensively deepen reform: A reference to the policy of “comprehensively deepening reform” (全面深化改革), a key strategic framework adopted by the CPC since the Third Plenary Session of the 18th Central Committee in 2013, aimed at reforming economic, political, cultural, social, and ecological systems. to form institutional mechanisms more conducive to the development of new quality productive forces, to make every effort to remove the blockages and bottlenecks constraining the development of new quality productive forces, and to open a broader path for the development of new quality productive forces.

生产关系必须与生产力发展要求相适应，新质生产力的发展需要与之相适应的生产关系，那么，这一生产关系是什么？这是需要深入研究的问题。毫无疑问，就现阶段我国的情况来说，与新质生产力相适应的生产关系，从总体上来说，就是社会主义基本经济制度，就是高水平社会主义市场经济体制。这是具有长期性稳定性、处于基础性决定性地位的制度安排，是具有显著优势的先进的社会主义生产关系，在此之外，不存在也不应当存在其他什么类型的生产关系。当然，我国的社会主义基本经济制度和市场经济体制还不够完善、不够成熟，因此，需要通过进一步全面深化改革，形成更加有利于新质生产力发展的体制机制，着力打通束缚新质生产力发展的堵点卡点，为新质生产力的发展开辟更加广阔的道路。

Here, we also need to use the perspective of a great historical era to deeply consider and study: what impact will the comprehensive and in-depth advancement of the intelligent productive forces revolution have on changes in relations of production and social formations? In what direction will it drive human society to evolve? This is a major issue determining the future and destiny of humanity. Back then, Marx once made the following prediction about the prospects for the development of productive forces in a future communist society: With the development of large-scale industry, the creation of real wealth depends less on labour time and the amount of labour expended, and more on the power of the agents set in motion during labour time, on the general level of science and technological progress, or on the application of science to production. Thus, people no longer engage in labour that can be done by things instead. At this point, labour no longer appears as being included in the production process as before; on the contrary, humans relate to the production process as its supervisor and regulator. The worker is no longer the main agent in the production process but stands beside it. In this way, “direct labour in its immediate form ceases to be the great source of wealth; labour time ceases and must of necessity cease to be its measure, and consequently exchange value ceases to be the measure of use value. The surplus labour of the masses ceases to be the condition for the development of general wealth, just as the non-labour of the few ceases to be the condition for the development of the general powers of the human mind. Thus, production based on exchange value collapses, and the direct material production process itself is stripped of its form of poverty and antagonism. The free development of individualities is achieved; therefore, it is not a matter of reducing necessary labour time in order to posit surplus labour, but rather of reducing the necessary labour of society to a minimum. Correspondingly, this reduction creates time and means for all individuals to develop in art, science, etc.” [56]56 This is a paraphrase of Marx’s discussion in the Grundrisse (1857–1858), specifically the “Fragment on Machines,” where he anticipates the collapse of exchange-value-based production under conditions of advanced automation. Now, this brilliant foresight of Marx is no longer a distant theoretical conjecture but is increasingly being confirmed by the reality of the rapid development of the intelligent revolution. People have already seen that, entering the era of digital capitalism, all activities of individuals are incorporated under the comprehensive rule and predatory surveillance of capital, and all free space for the autonomy and creativity of the subject is being ruthlessly stripped away. The development of digital capitalism drives capitalism to evolve into “techno-feudalism.” [57]57 techno-feudalism: A term used by some contemporary critics (e.g., Yanis Varoufakis, Cédric Durand) to describe a new stage of capitalism where digital platforms and data extraction create a form of private power resembling feudal lordship, with users as serfs. The inherent contradictions and ills of capitalism—such as the antagonism between labour and capital, polarization, structural unemployment, crises of overproduction, and the decay and parasitism of financial capitalism—are intensifying, and the historical limitations of the capitalist system are being exposed more clearly. At the same time, productive forces have achieved immense development, the socialization of production has greatly increased, human physical and mental labour has been enormously liberated, all sources of social wealth are increasingly flowing forth abundantly, individuals have a more solid material foundation for achieving free and comprehensive development, and humanity has a greater possibility of realizing the leap from the realm of necessity to the realm of freedom. Regarding the contradictory consequences of the intelligent revolution under capitalist conditions, Cédric Durand writes in a literary style: “Human civilization is walking along a ridge towards the hopeless moment of complete subordination to capital… On the other side of the ridge, laughing streams and lush valleys radiate the hope of liberation.” [58]58 Cédric Durand: A French economist and author of Techno-Feudalism: What Killed Capitalism (2020), who analyzes the contradictions of digital capitalism. The historical choice posed by Rosa Luxemburg over a hundred years ago—socialism or barbarism?—is now placed before people more sharply and seriously than ever. [59]59 Rosa Luxemburg: A Marxist revolutionary and theorist (1871–1919) who, in her 1915 pamphlet The Crisis of German Social Democracy (the “Junius Pamphlet”), posed the choice between socialism and barbarism as the outcome of imperialist war and capitalist crisis.

在这里，我们还需要用历史大时代的视野深入思考和研究，智能化生产力革命的全面深入推进，将会对生产关系和社会形态的变化产生什么样的影响？推动人类社会向什么方向演变？这是决定人类前途命运的大问题。当年，马克思曾经对未来共产主义社会生产力发展的前景作了这样的预测：随着大工业的发展，现实财富的创造较少地取决于劳动时间和已耗费的劳动量，较多地取决于在劳动时间内所运用的作用物的力量，取决于科学的一般水平和技术进步，或者说取决于科学在生产上的应用。从而，人不再从事那种可以让物来替人从事的劳动。这时候，劳动表现为不再像以前那样被包括在生产过程中，相反地，表现为人以生产过程的监督者和调节者的身份同生产过程本身发生关系。工人不再是生产过程的主要作用者，而是站在生产过程的旁边。这样一来，“直接形式的劳动不再是财富的巨大源泉，劳动时间就不再是，而且必然不再是财富的尺度，因而交换价值也不再是使用价值的尺度。群众的剩余劳动不再是一般财富发展的条件，同样，少数人的非劳动不再是人类头脑的一般能力发展的条件。于是，以交换价值为基础的生产便会崩溃，直接的物质生产过程本身也就摆脱了贫困和对立的形式。个性得到自由发展，因此，并不是为了获得剩余劳动而缩减必要劳动时间，而是直接把社会必要劳动缩减到最低限度，那时，与此相适应，由于给所有的人腾出了时间和创造了手段，个人会在艺术、科学等等方面得到发展”。现在，马克思的这个天才的预见，不再是一种遥不可及的理论猜测，而日益被智能化革命的迅猛发展的现实所证实。人们已经看到，进入数字资本主义时代，个体的一切活动都被纳入资本的全方位的统治和掠夺性监管之下，主体的自主性和创造性的一切自由空间正在被无情剥夺，数字资本主义的发展推动资本主义向“技术封建主义”演变。资本主义固有的劳资对立、两极分化、制度性失业、生产过剩的危机以及金融资本主义的腐朽性、寄生性等矛盾和弊端不断加剧，资本主义制度的历史局限更加明显地暴露出来。而与此同时，生产力获得极大发展，生产社会化极大提高，人的体力和脑力极大解放，社会财富的一切源泉日益充分涌流出来，个人实现自由全面发展有了更加坚实的物质基础，人类实现从必然王国向自由王国的飞跃有了更大的可能性。对于资本主义条件下智能化革命的矛盾性后果，塞德里克·迪朗以文学的笔触写道：“人类文明正沿着一道山脊走向完全归属于资本的无望时刻……在山脊的另一边，欢笑的溪流和郁郁葱葱的山谷散发着解放的希望。”100多年以前罗莎·卢森堡提出的历史选择题，是社会主义，还是野蛮？现在更加尖锐严肃地摆在了人们的面前。

Marx and Engels believed that “at each stage of historical development, [the relations of production] correspond to the development of productive forces at the same period,” and that the development of human society is a historical process in which advanced productive forces continuously replace backward ones. When the Communist Party of China was founded, it stepped onto the historical stage as a representative of China’s advanced productive forces. Consistently representing the requirements of the development of China’s advanced productive forces and vigorously promoting the development of advanced productive forces is the fundamental embodiment and fundamental requirement for our Party to stand at the forefront of the times and maintain its advanced nature. Since the founding of New China, and especially since reform and opening up, our Party has adhered to taking economic construction as the central task, continuously liberating and developing social productive forces, completing the development process that took the West several hundred years in just a few decades, propelling our country to rapidly become the world’s second-largest economy, and creating the vibrant and dynamic system of socialism with Chinese characteristics. This is an extremely great achievement. We have every reason to believe that, on the new journey of the New Era, the Chinese people, led by the Communist Party of China, will, with a fervent sense of ownership and hard, creative labour, vigorously develop advanced productive forces, primarily marked by new quality productive forces, achieve even more outstanding and remarkable accomplishments in liberating and developing social productive forces, fully realize people-centered high-quality development on a more solid material and technological foundation, comprehensively demonstrate the superiority of the socialist system, actively promote the building of a community with a shared future for mankind, seek rejuvenation for the nation, seek happiness for the people, and seek common good for the world.

马克思恩格斯认为，“在历史发展的每一阶段都是与同一时期的生产力的发展相适应的”，人类社会的发展是先进生产力不断取代落后生产力的历史进程。中国共产党建立时就是以中国先进生产力的代表走上历史舞台的，始终代表中国先进生产力的发展要求，大力促进先进生产力的发展，是我们党站在时代前列、保持先进性的根本体现和根本要求。新中国成立以来，特别是改革开放以来，我们党坚持以经济建设为中心、不断解放和发展社会生产力，走完了西方几百年的发展历程，推动我国快速成为世界第二大经济体，创造了充满生机活力的中国特色社会主义制度，这是一个极其伟大的成就。我们有充分的理由相信，在新时代新征程上，中国共产党领导的中国人民，必将以炽热的主人翁的精神、辛勤的创造性的劳动，大力发展以新质生产力为主要标志的先进生产力，在解放和发展社会生产力上取得更为突出、更为骄人的成就，以更加坚实的物质技术基础，充分实现以人民为中心的高质量发展，全面展示社会主义制度的优越性，积极推动构建人类命运共同体，为民族谋复兴，为人民谋幸福，为世界谋大同。

Online Editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗