The Transcendence of Marxist Political Economy over Robbins's Economic Philosophy

Marx explicitly stated that the object of study of *Capital* is the capitalist mode of production and the relations of production and exchange corresponding to it. Since its inception, Marxist economics has been continuously subjected to criticism by Western economists. The British economist Lionel Robbins also opposed Marx's definition of economics and formally proposed the scarcity definition of economics. The critique of Robbins's economic philosophy explored in this article points out the following: first, Robbins failed to correctly handle the dialectical relationship between matter and consciousness, and between ends and means, whereas Marx succeeded in doing so; second, the object of study of Marxist political economy is the mode of production, while the object of study of Western economics is mainly the problem of resource allocation, and the mode of resource allocation is subordinate to the category of the mode of production and is influenced and constrained by it. Adhering to the analysis of relations of production in Marxist economics is crucial for accelerating the construction of China's independent system of economic knowledge, while the rationality of Robbins's economics can be dialectically absorbed into Marxist political economy.

马克思明确提出《资本论》的研究对象是资本主义生产方式以及和它相适应的生产关系和交换关系。马克思主义经济学自问世以来不断受到西方经济学家的批判。英国经济学家罗宾斯也反对马克思的经济学定义，正式提出了经济学的稀缺定义。本文所探讨的对罗宾斯经济哲学思想的批判指出：一是罗宾斯没有正确处理好物质和意识、目的和手段的辩证关系，而马克思做到了；二是马克思主义政治经济学的研究对象是生产方式，西方经济学的研究对象主要是资源配置问题，而资源配置方式从属于生产方式范畴，并受其影响和制约。坚持马克思主义经济学关于生产关系的分析对于加快构建中国自主的经济学知识体系是至关重要的，而罗宾斯经济学的合理性可以被辩证地吸纳到马克思主义政治经济学之中。

From the perspective of the dialectical relationship between matter and consciousness, Robbins's critique of Marx's materialism is erroneous

从物质和意识辩证关系看，罗宾斯对马克思唯物主义的批判是错误的

Robbins regarded Marx's historical materialism as the economic conception of history. Robbins classified Marx's definition of economics under the materialist definition that "economics studies the causes of material welfare," adopting a skeptical attitude toward Marxist doctrine. However, Robbins's appreciation and evaluation of Marx in *A History of Economic Thought: The LSE Lectures*, as well as his analysis of Marx's economic theory, indicate that Robbins was directly influenced by Marx.

罗宾斯认为马克思的唯物史观就是经济史观。罗宾斯把马克思的经济学定义归到“经济学研究的是物质福利的原因”的唯物主义定义之中，对马克思主义学说采取怀疑态度。但罗宾斯在《经济思想史：伦敦经济学院讲演录》中对马克思的赞赏与评价以及对马克思经济理论的分析等则表明：罗宾斯直接受到了马克思的影响。

Robbins pointed out that although material things such as machinery and capital equipment remain, since people's needs and ends have changed, these material things are no longer connected to people's needs and ends, and thus have already lost their economic significance or economic value. Therefore, Robbins called Marx's materialism "crude materialism" and opposed it. Robbins believed that this materialism neglected the role of spiritual factors such as human ends and needs, overemphasized that matter is an objective reality independent of human will, and did not acknowledge the counteracting effect of spirit on matter.

罗宾斯指出，虽然机器、资本设备等物质仍在，但是由于人的需要、目的变了，这些物质和人的需要、目的没有联系了，因而就已经失去了经济意义或经济价值。所以，罗宾斯把马克思的唯物主义称为“粗浅的唯物主义”，并加以反对。罗宾斯认为这种唯物主义忽视了人的目的、需要等精神因素的作用，过分强调物质是不以人的意志为转移的客观实在，不承认精神对物质的反作用。

It can be seen that the "crude materialism" opposed by Robbins is old materialism, especially metaphysical materialism. Robbins characterized Marx's materialism as old materialism, but Marx's dialectical materialism opposes old materialism. Therefore, it can be said that Robbins misunderstood Marx's materialism. Although Robbins recognized the interconnection between matter and human ends and other forms of consciousness, he did not comprehensively, systematically, and scientifically resolve the dialectical relationship between matter and consciousness, falling far short of Marx's height and depth. Robbins's dialectical thought remained at the level of naive dialectics and did not reach the height of Marx's dialectics at the conceptual level.

可见，罗宾斯所反对的“粗浅的唯物主义”是旧唯物主义，尤其是形而上学唯物主义。罗宾斯把马克思的唯物主义说成是旧唯物主义，但马克思的辩证唯物主义是反对旧唯物主义的，因此可以说，罗宾斯误解了马克思的唯物主义。罗宾斯虽然认识到物质和人的目的等意识的相互联系，但是没有全面、系统、科学地解决物质和意识的辩证关系，远没有达到马克思的高度和深度，罗宾斯的辩证法思想还只处于朴素辩证法层次，没有达到马克思概念层次的辩证法高度。

Marx not only emphasized his distinction from old materialism and idealism but also emphasized that understanding all things should proceed from the unity of subject and object and from its foundation—practice. Regarding the relationship between the measure of things and the measure of humans, old materialism exaggerated the measure of things while neglecting the measure of humans; idealism exaggerated the measure of humans while neglecting the measure of things. Marx's dialectical materialism was founded precisely on the sublation of old materialism and idealism, holding that the measure of things and the measure of humans are dialectically unified, thereby drawing a clear line of demarcation from old materialism and idealism. Clearly, although Robbins recognized the interconnection between matter and consciousness, he fell far short of the height of Marx's dialectical materialism.

马克思不仅强调了其与旧唯物主义、唯心主义的区别，而且还强调了认识万事万物应从主体与客体相统一及其统一的基础——实践出发。在物的尺度与人的尺度关系上，旧唯物主义夸大了物的尺度，而忽视了人的尺度；唯心主义夸大了人的尺度，而忽视了物的尺度。而马克思的辩证唯物主义思想就是在扬弃旧唯物主义与唯心主义基础上创立的，认为物的尺度与人的尺度是辩证统一的，从而与旧唯物主义、唯心主义划清了界限。显然，罗宾斯尽管认识到了物质和意识的相互联系，但是，远没有达到马克思辩证唯物主义思想高度。

Since Marx and Engels correctly resolved the problem of the relationship between matter and consciousness, they also correctly resolved the relationship between social being and social consciousness. Proceeding from the dialectical relationship between social being and social consciousness, Marx opposed "economic determinism," and therefore Marx's historical materialism cannot be reduced merely to the economic conception of history. It can be seen that Marx opposed the materialist definition of economics that Robbins described.

马克思恩格斯既然正确地解决了物质和意识关系问题，也就正确地解决了社会存在和社会意识的关系问题。马克思从社会存在和社会意识的辩证关系出发，反对“经济决定论”，因此不能把马克思的唯物史观仅仅归结为经济史观。可以看出：马克思反对罗宾斯所说的经济学的唯物主义定义。

The historical materialism founded by Marx and Engels correctly resolved the dialectical relationship between social being and social consciousness, as concentratedly expressed in Engels's "parallelogram of forces" law. Marx and Engels held that the dialectical relationship between social being and social consciousness is manifested as follows: first, social being determines social consciousness. Second, social consciousness has a counteracting effect on social being. It can be seen that the overall social history is not a simple aggregation of individual histories, but is constituted by the evolution of the cognitive and practical activities of certain groups, and is a process of social formation and evolution based on a certain material mode of production, possessing objectivity and necessity. Historical development is also the result of a resultant force formed by the interaction of various forces in the social sphere, which inevitably contains human subjectivity and contingency.

马克思恩格斯创立的历史唯物主义正确地解决了社会存在和社会意识的辩证关系，集中表现在恩格斯所提出的“力的平行四边形法则”上。马克思恩格斯认为社会存在和社会意识的辩证关系表现在：一是社会存在决定社会意识。二是社会意识对社会存在有反作用。可以看出，整体的社会历史并非个体的历史的简单堆砌，而是一定群体的认识活动和实践活动的演进构成的，是以一定的物质生产方式为基础的社会形成和演进过程，具有客观性、必然性。历史发展也是社会领域中各种力量交互作用形成的合力的结果，必然蕴含着人的主观性、偶然性。

Apart from economic factors, class struggle, various ideologies, and their interactions also exert influence on the process of historical development. Therefore, understanding historical materialism as the economic conception of history is erroneous. Because Robbins failed to correctly resolve the dialectical relationship between social being and social consciousness, he misunderstood Marx's historical materialism.

除经济因素之外，阶级斗争、各种意识形态以及它们之间的相互作用等也对历史发展进程发生影响。因此，把唯物史观理解为经济史观是错误的。罗宾斯由于没有正确地解决社会存在和社会意识的辩证关系，因而误解了马克思的唯物史观。

From the perspective of the dialectical relationship between ends and means, Marx's definition of economics possesses greater theoretical confidence than Robbins's definition of economics

从目的和手段辩证关系看，马克思经济学定义比罗宾斯经济学定义更具有理论自信

When Robbins criticized the materialist definition of economics as "crude materialism," he pointed out that economics should study not only the aspect of material welfare but also the aspect of non-material welfare; not only the aspect of economic activity but also the aspect of non-economic activity. He believed that economics is the study of how choices are made within these relationships, and that economics is the science of choice. From this, he held that the materialist definition of economics studies only the first aspect of these relationships and is therefore wrong.

在罗宾斯批判经济学的唯物主义定义是“粗浅的唯物主义”时，指出经济学不仅要研究物质福利方面，而且要研究非物质福利方面；不仅要研究经济活动方面，而且要研究非经济活动方面等。他认为经济学就是要研究在这些关系中如何做出选择的问题，经济学是选择科学。由此，他认为，经济学的唯物主义定义只研究这种关系中第一方面的内容，所以是错的。

In handling the relationship between ends and means, Robbins held: "Economics is the science which studies human behaviour as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses. Economics is therefore completely neutral with respect to ends... Economics does not concern itself with ends as such." The reason the ends of economics are taken as given is that the condition of private property is given. Thus, under the condition of private property, the ends of human behavior are also given, that is, the ends of the rational economic man are given. Therefore, Robbins's scarcity definition of economics is subordinate to the condition of capitalist private property.

在处理目的和手段关系时，罗宾斯认为：“经济学研究的是用稀缺手段达到既定目的所引发的行为。因此，经济学对于各种目的而言完全是中立的……经济学并不关注目的本身。”而经济学的目的之所以是既定的，是因为私有制条件是既定的，这样，在私有制条件下人的行为的目的也是既定的，即理性经济人的目的是既定的，所以，罗宾斯的经济学稀缺定义从属于资本主义私有制这一条件。

The political economy founded by Marx and Engels shows that under the condition of capitalist private property, the then-prevailing national economy [Nationalökonomie] took the pursuit of surplus value as its end from the standpoint of capital. This is both the consistent standpoint and end upheld by Western economics and the reason why Western economics has consistently upheld the principle of the "rational economic man."

马克思恩格斯创立的政治经济学表明，在资本主义私有制条件下，当时的国民经济学是在资本立场下以追逐剩余价值为目的。这既是西方经济学一贯坚持的立场和目的，也是西方经济学一贯坚持“理性经济人”法则的原因所在。

In discussing the "hypothesis of rational behavior" and the "myth of the economic man," Robbins "upheld the orthodoxy" of John Stuart Mill's views in *On the Definition of Political Economy and on the Method of Investigation Proper to It*, without transcending the human-nature principle of the "rational economic man" assumption. According to Robbins's view, under given ends, economics is the science of studying how scarce means achieve given ends, with the focus on the study of scarce means.

罗宾斯在论述“理性行为假设”“经济人的神话”时，“守正”的是穆勒在《政治经济学的含义及其适当的研究方法》中的观点，没有跳出“理性经济人”假定的人性法则。依据罗宾斯的观点，在既定目的条件下，经济学就是研究稀缺手段达到既定目的的科学，重点就在研究稀缺手段上。

Although Robbins advocated "value neutrality," he did not absolutely exclude the study of given ends; he merely held that economics "does not concern itself with ends as such. It is only concerned with ends insofar as they affect the allocation of means." In dialectical terms, Robbins held that "value neutrality" is both absolute and relative. But Robbins's dialectics is spontaneous and naive, not yet the dialectics of a conscious theoretical level. In discussing the dialectical relationship between ends and means, Marx held that "through man" treats man as a means, while "for man" treats man as an end, and the two are unified. Clearly, under capitalism (the condition of private property) and communism (the condition of public ownership), the ends of human behavior are different.

罗宾斯虽然主张“价值中立”，但并没有绝对排斥对既定的目的进行研究，只是认为经济学“根本不关心目的本身。只有当目的影响手段的配置时，经济学才关心目的”。按照辩证法的说法，罗宾斯认为“价值中立”既是绝对的，又是相对的。但罗宾斯的辩证法是自发的、朴素的，还不是自觉的理论层次的辩证法。马克思在论述目的和手段的辩证关系时认为，“通过人”是将人看成工具，“为了人”是将人看成目的，两者是统一的。显然，在资本主义（私有制条件）和共产主义（公有制条件）下，人的行为目的是不同的。

Under the conditions of private ownership, capital pursues surplus value; whereas under the conditions of public ownership, what is pursued from the "people's standpoint" is common prosperity and the free and comprehensive development of the human person. Robbins's economics takes the maximization of the interests of the "rational economic man" as its end, while Marx's political economy takes the free and comprehensive development of the human person as its end; the two are fundamentally different. Therefore, from the dialectical relationship between ends and means, Marx's political economy and Robbins's economics differ in essence, and in comparison, Marxist political economy possesses greater confidence in the theory.

在私有制条件下，资本追逐剩余价值；而在公有制条件下，“人民立场”下追求的是共同富裕和人的自由全面发展。罗宾斯经济学是以“理性经济人”的利益最大化为目的，而马克思政治经济学是以人的自由全面发展为目的，二者是根本不同的。所以，从目的和手段的辩证关系来看，马克思的政治经济学和罗宾斯的经济学有着本质区别，在比较中马克思主义政治经济学更具有理论自信。

Revelations from the Critique of Robbins's Economic Philosophy

对罗宾斯经济哲学批判的启示

Although Robbins recognized that there is a certain connection between matter and consciousness, and also recognized that ends and means cannot to a certain degree be separated, he fell far short of the height of Marx's dialectical materialism. This also proves from one angle that Robbins's economics and Marxist political economy share certain points of convergence.

罗宾斯虽认识到了物质和意识存在一定联系，也认识到了目的和手段在一定程度也是不能分割的，但远没有达到马克思的辩证唯物主义高度。这也从一个角度证明，罗宾斯经济学和马克思主义政治经济学存在一定相通之处。

Robbins's definition of economics provided a foundation for discussions of economic philosophy or economic methodology, while also provoking considerable controversy. In fact, there are also many economists in Western economics circles who have criticized Robbins's definition of economics.

罗宾斯的经济学定义为对经济哲学或经济学方法论的讨论提供了基础，同时也引发了诸多争议。事实上，西方经济学界也有不少经济学家对罗宾斯的经济学定义进行了批判。

The object of study of Marxist political economy is the mode of production, while the object of study of Western economics is mainly the problem of resource allocation, and the mode of resource allocation is subordinate to the category of the mode of production and is influenced and constrained by it. Therefore, the research content of Marxist political economy must never be understood merely as the problem of resource allocation.

马克思主义政治经济学的研究对象是生产方式，西方经济学的研究对象主要是资源配置问题，而资源配置方式从属于生产方式范畴受其影响和制约。因此，绝不能把马克思主义政治经济学的研究内容仅仅理解为资源配置问题。

The rationality of Robbins's economics can be absorbed into Marxist political economy. Robbins's definition of economics can also bring us much reflection and inspiration regarding the definition of economics, and Robbins himself did not completely negate Marx's economics; in his *Lectures on the History of Economic Thought: The London School of Economics Lectures*, Robbins praises Marx in many places. Therefore, we can dialectically sublate and extend Robbins's definition of economics—the scarcity definition—into Marx's definition of economics.

罗宾斯经济学的合理性可以吸纳到马克思主义政治经济学之中。罗宾斯的经济学定义也可带给我们关于经济学定义的诸多思考和启发，并且罗宾斯本人对马克思的经济学并没有完全否定，罗宾斯在其《经济思想史：伦敦经济学院讲演录》中有不少地方赞赏马克思。因此，我们可以将罗宾斯的经济学定义——稀缺定义辩证扬弃地扩展到马克思的经济学定义之中。

At present, China is in the new stage of the new journey of comprehensively building a modern socialist country. At this new historical starting point, accelerating the construction of China's independent knowledge system of economics is an inevitable requirement of the development of the times, an inevitable reflection of the essence of Chinese civilization in economic practice, and a theoretical requirement for guiding the great practice of socialism with Chinese characteristics in the future. Only by taking Marxism as the guide, Xi Jinping's economic thought as the fundamental principle to follow, the advancement of Chinese-path modernization as the goal, adhering to the scientific method of the Two Integrations, and on the basis of comparative research on Marxist political economy and Western economics, continuously endowing China's economic knowledge system with a distinct national character and contemporary character, can an independent Chinese economics be constructed. Therefore, we can draw on Robbins's definition of economics, and with an open and inclusive attitude and a dialectical and prudent spirit, integrate it into the construction of China's independent knowledge system of economics.

当前中国正处于全面建设社会主义现代化国家新征程的新阶段，在新的历史起点上加快构建中国自主的经济学知识体系是时代发展的必然要求，是中华文明精髓本体在经济实践中的必然反映，是指导今后中国特色社会主义伟大实践的理论要求。只有以马克思主义为指导，以习近平经济思想为根本遵循，以推进中国式现代化为目标，坚持“两个结合”的科学方法，在比较研究马克思主义政治经济学与西方经济学的基础上，不断赋予中国经济学知识体系鲜明的民族性和时代性，才能构建出自主的中国经济学。所以，可以借鉴罗宾斯的经济学定义，以开放包容的态度和辩证审慎的精神，将之融入中国自主的经济学知识体系构建之中。

(About the authors: Zhu Chengquan, professor and doctoral supervisor at the School of Marxism, Dongbei University of Finance and Economics; Guo Zhijuan, doctoral student at the School of Economics, Dongbei University of Finance and Economics)

（作者简介：朱成全，东北财经大学马克思主义学院教授、博士生导师；郭志娟，东北财经大学经济学院博士研究生）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心