A Reading of “The Revenues and Their Sources,” the Final Chapter of Marx’s *Capital*

Marx’s thought on technology provides the fundamental guidance for scientifically understanding the essential attributes and socio-historical effects of artificial intelligence, and for correctly handling the relationship between artificial intelligence and ideological and political education. As a key driving force and strategic technology of the new round of scientific and technological revolution and industrial transformation, artificial intelligence profoundly affects the threefold socio-historical relations between humanity and nature, between human beings, and between humanity and itself, and gradually evolves into a unity of “technical means,” “infrastructure,” and “civilizational marker.” For ideological and political education, artificial intelligence, as an endogenous force, is embedded in and influences its foundational basis, principal contradictions, and practical forms. Promoting the deep integration of artificial intelligence and ideological and political education is an inherent requirement and rational choice for following the laws of technological transformation and escaping the paradox of technological tools and the danger of technological domination. This integration deeply contains the symbiotic relationship and interactive logic of “technology–ideological and political education,” which is concentratedly manifested in two interconnected and mutually reinforcing processes and mechanisms: “the ideological and political education-ization of AI” and “the AI-ization of ideological and political education.”

马克思工艺学思想为科学认识人工智能的本质属性和社会历史效应，正确处理人工智能与思想政治教育关系提供了根本遵循。人工智能作为新一轮科技革命和产业变革的重要驱动力和战略性技术，深刻影响人和自然、人和人、人和自身三重社会历史关系，并逐步演化为“技术手段”“基础设施”“文明标识”的统一体。对思想政治教育来说，人工智能作为一种内生性力量嵌入并影响思想政治教育的发生基础、基本矛盾和实践形态。推动人工智能与思想政治教育深度融合，是遵循工艺学变革规律，摆脱技术工具悖论与技术宰制之虞的内在要求和理性选择。这种融合深层蕴含着“技术—思政”的共生关系和互动逻辑，集中表现为“人工智能思政化”与“思政人工智能化”两个相互连接、相辅相成的过程和机制。

In 1894, the third volume of Marx’s *Capital*, edited by Engels, was published, and in 1895 Engels died. At the time of Engels’s death, Lenin, in his remembrance of Engels’s lifelong revolutionary and scientific undertakings, specifically noted: “After the death of his friend, Engels undertook the arduous work of sorting out and publishing Volumes 2 and 3 of *Capital*. In 1885 he published Volume 2, and in 1894 Volume 3 (he did not have time to prepare Volume 4). Sorting out these two volumes of *Capital* was very laborious work. The Austrian Social Democrat Adler was quite right: in publishing Volumes 2 and 3 of *Capital*, Engels erected a majestic monument to his gifted friend, and unintentionally inscribed his own name indelibly upon it.” On the occasion of the 130th anniversary of the publication of the third volume of *Capital* and of Engels’s death, rereading the third volume of *Capital* is not only of great significance for research on Marx’s thought and its contemporary value, but also a lofty tribute to Engels’s great contribution to erecting this “majestic monument” of *Capital*.

1894年由恩格斯编辑的马克思《资本论》第三卷出版，1895年恩格斯逝世。在恩格斯逝世时，列宁在对恩格斯毕生从事的革命和科学事业的追思中特别提到：“恩格斯在他的朋友逝世后就从事整理和出版《资本论》第2卷和第3卷的艰巨工作。1885年他出版了第2卷，1894年出版了第3卷（他没有来得及把第4卷整理好）。整理这两卷《资本论》，是一件很费力的工作。奥地利社会民主党人阿德勒说得很对：恩格斯出版《资本论》第2卷和第3卷，就是替他的天才朋友建立了一座庄严宏伟的纪念碑，无意中也把自己的名字不可磨灭地铭刻在上面了。”在《资本论》第三卷出版和恩格斯逝世130周年之际，重读《资本论》第三卷，不仅对马克思思想及其当代价值的研究具有重要意义，也是对恩格斯为建立《资本论》这座“庄严宏伟的纪念碑”作出的伟大贡献的崇高敬礼。

This article focuses on interpreting the seventh part of the third volume of *Capital*, “The Revenues and Their Sources,” so as to appreciate the intellectual essence and scholarly charm contained in this final chapter of the three theoretical volumes of *Capital*.

本文集中对《资本论》第三卷第七篇“各种收入及其源泉”进行解读，从中感悟作为《资本论》理论部分三卷终篇所蕴含的思想精粹和学术魅力。

I. The Initial Elaboration of “Various Revenues and Their Sources” in the Process of Capitalist Production

一、对资本生产过程中“各种收入及其源泉”的最初阐释

At the end of 1862, Marx mentioned in a letter to Kugelmann that the economic manuscript he was writing was the “continuation” of the first installment of *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy* published in 1859, “which will be published separately under the title *Capital*, with *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy* only as a subtitle. In fact, it includes only what should have constituted the third chapter of the first part, namely, *Capital in General*. Thus, the competition of capitals and credit are not included here.” Marx made the decision to shift from writing *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy* to composing *Capital*, but *Capital* was still based on the first volume *Capital* of the “six-book structure plan” of *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*, taking as its object the first part “Capital in General” of the *Capital* volume, and excluding the content of the second to fourth parts of the *Capital* volume concerning competition or many capitals, credit capital, and joint-stock capital.

1862年年底，马克思在给库格曼的信中提到，他正在写作的经济学手稿是1859年出版的《政治经济学批判》第一分册的“续篇”，“将以《资本论》为标题单独出版，而《政治经济学批判》只作为副标题。其实，它只包括本来应构成第一篇第三章的内容，即《资本一般》。这样，这里没有包括资本的竞争和信用”。马克思作出了从《政治经济学批判》写作转向《资本论》创作的决定，但《资本论》还是以《政治经济学批判》“六册结构计划”第一册《资本》为基础，以《资本》册中第一篇“资本一般”为对象，不包括《资本》册第二篇至第四篇关于竞争或许多资本、信用资本以及股份资本等方面的内容。

In January 1863, Marx for the first time proposed the three-part (volume) structure of the theoretical part of *Capital*, namely, “The Process of Production of Capital,” “The Process of Circulation of Capital,” and “Capital and Profit.” Marx proposed that the third part, “Capital and Profit,” after discussing “the transformation of surplus value into profit. The rate of profit differing from the rate of surplus value” and “the transformation of profit into average profit. The formation of the general rate of profit. The transformation of value into price of production,” should specifically explore the problem of “revenues and their sources,” including “the question of the relationship between the process of production and the process of distribution.”

1863年1月，马克思首次提出《资本论》理论部分的三篇（册）结构，分别为“资本的生产过程”“资本的流通过程”和“资本和利润”。马克思提出，第三篇“资本和利润”在对“剩余价值转化为利润。不同于剩余价值率的利润率”“利润转化为平均利润。一般利润率的形成。价值转化为生产价格”论述之后，要专门探讨“收入及其源泉”问题，其中包括“生产过程和分配过程之间的关系问题”等。

In fact, before January 1863, Marx had already made an initial specialized discussion of the problem of “various revenues and their sources” in the *Economic Manuscripts of 1861–1863* (hereinafter referred to as the *Manuscripts*). In this *Manuscripts*, in the ten notebooks numbered VI to XV by Marx himself, Marx made an in-depth elaboration of the core viewpoints in the history of the theory of surplus value, proposing that “all economists have committed the error of examining surplus value not purely as such, but in the particular forms of profit and rent.” In these ten notebooks, under the general heading “Theories of Surplus Value,” Marx offered critiques of the main “schools” in the history of economic thought: first, a critique of James Steuart as “the rational expression of monetarism and mercantilism”; second, an analysis of the Physiocrats’ claim that “the origin of surplus value was shifted from the sphere of circulation to the sphere of direct production itself, thereby laying the foundation for the analysis of capitalist production” [4]4 The Physiocrats: a school of French economists in the 1750s–1770s, led by Quesnay, who held that agriculture was the sole source of wealth and surplus value.(P16); third, a critique of Smith’s establishment of the system of political economy and his understanding of the theory of surplus value; fourth, a critique of the explorations of surplus value theory by economists after Smith and before Ricardo, such as Necker and Linguet; fifth, a critique of Rodbertus’s general understanding of surplus value as a “certain phenomenon” in the appearance of the unpaid labor product of “rent”; sixth, an analysis of the gains and losses in Ricardo’s understanding of the theory of surplus value; seventh, a critique of Malthus’s views, which took as their starting point opposition to Ricardo’s theory; eighth, a critique of the disintegration of the Ricardian school, involving critiques of Torrens, James Mill, Prévost, several polemical works, McCulloch, Wakefield, Stirling, John Stuart Mill, and others; ninth, a critique of the theories of the “proletarian opposition to the political economists, based on Ricardian theory,” mainly including the theories of the anonymous author of the pamphlet *The Source and Remedy of the National Difficulties*, Bray, Ravenstone, Hodgskin, and others. On this basis, Marx also made a specialized elaboration of “various revenues and their sources” in the form of a “supplementary section.”

其实，在1863年1月之前，马克思已经在《政治经济学批判（1861—1863年手稿）》（以下简称《手稿》）中，对“各种收入及其源泉”问题作过最初的专门论述。在这部《手稿》中，由马克思本人作了编号的第Ⅵ到第XV共10个笔记本中，马克思对剩余价值思想史的核心观点作出了深入阐释，提出“所有经济学家都犯了一个错误：他们不是纯粹地就剩余价值本身，而是在利润和地租这些特殊形式上来考察剩余价值”。在这10个笔记本中，马克思在“剩余价值理论”的总标题下，对经济思想史中的主要“流派”作出批判：一是对詹姆斯·斯图亚特作为“货币主义和重商主义的合理的表达者”的批判；二是对重农学派主张“把关于剩余价值起源的研究从流通领域转到直接生产本身的领域，这样就为分析资本主义生产奠定了基础”[4](P16)的分析；三是对斯密关于政治经济学体系建立及其剩余价值理论理解的批判；四是对斯密之后、李嘉图之前的经济学家奈克尔、兰盖等关于剩余价值理论探讨的批判；五是对洛贝尔图斯在“租”这一无酬劳动产品现象上关于剩余价值“一定的现象”一般理解的批判；六是对李嘉图关于剩余价值理论理解上得失的分析；七是对马尔萨斯以反对李嘉图理论为出发点的观点的批判；八是对李嘉图学派的解体的批判，其中涉及对托伦斯、詹姆斯·穆勒、普雷沃、几部论战著作、麦克库洛赫、威克菲尔德、斯特林、约翰·穆勒等的批判；九是对以李嘉图理论为依据的“反对政治经济学家的无产阶级反对派”的理论，主要包括《国民困难的原因及其解决办法》小册子的匿名作者、布雷、莱文斯顿、霍吉斯金等人理论的批判。在此基础上，马克思还以“补充部分”的形式，对“各种收入及其源泉”作出专门阐释。

In notebook XV of this *Manuscripts*, Marx pointed out: “The forms of revenue and the sources of revenue express the capitalist relations of production in their most fetishistic form.” This fetishistic form, in appearance, makes “land the source of rent, capital the source of profit, and labor the source of wages”; and because “the existence of the capitalist relations of production as they appear on the surface is separated from their hidden connections and mediating links,” especially in the connection between “the forms of revenue and the sources of revenue,” it is severed and distorted, and finally, in a “distorted form” inverted with reality, “is reproduced in the consciousness of the agents of this mode of production.”

在这部《手稿》的第XV笔记本中，马克思指出：“收入的形式和收入的源泉以最富有拜物教性质的形式表现了资本主义生产关系。”这种拜物教形式，在现象上使“土地成了地租的源泉，资本成了利润的源泉，劳动成了工资的源泉”；并由于“资本主义生产关系从外表上表现出来的存在，它同潜在的联系以及中介环节是分离的”，特别是在“收入的形式和收入的源泉”的联系中被割裂并歪曲，最后以一种与现实相颠倒的“歪曲形式”，在“这种生产方式的当事人的观念中再现出来”。

In the *Manuscript*, Marx had already clarified that these “distorted forms” of the revenues and their sources are the product of the relations among many capitals and their process of interaction in the total process of capital. In the fully developed form of the capitalist mode of production: first, “interest appears as the surplus value produced by capital as capital, by mere ownership of capital; capital obtains this surplus value from the production process because it enters the production process as capital, that is, this surplus value accrues to capital itself, independently of the production process”; second, among the various forms of capital, although surplus value is only generated in the production process, this surplus value is “already potentially contained in capital as capital itself”; third, surplus value in industrial profit “appears as that part of surplus value which accrues not to the capitalist as owner of capital, but to the capitalist as functioning owner, i.e., to the capital that performs the function”; fourth, in the capitalist mode of production, “as everything appears inverted, this final inversion in the relation between interest and profit also finally appears, so that the part of profit set aside as a special item [interest] appears rather as the product of capital’s inherent attribute, while industrial profit is merely an increment added to this part.” Clearly, Marx had already moved from surplus value in general to the transformed forms of surplus value in particular—industrial profit, commercial profit, loan interest, rent, etc.—revealing the source and essence of surplus value as the so-called “revenues” of various forms of capital, and the inner relationship between these and the process by which various forms of capital obtain so-called “revenues” based on ownership of the means of production. This already indicates that the exploration of the problem of the various revenues and their sources is not limited to the scope of “capital in general” as defined by “capital and profit,” but will also extend to the scope of the “forms of the total process” of capital.

在《手稿》中，马克思已经搞清楚，各种收入及其源泉的这些“歪曲形式”，是资本总过程中许多资本的关系及其相互作用过程的结果。在完成形态的资本主义生产方式中，一是“利息表现为由作为资本的资本，由单纯的资本所有权产生的剩余价值，资本之所以从生产过程中得到这个剩余价值，是因为资本作为资本进入生产过程，也就是说，这个剩余价值归于资本本身，而不以生产过程为转移”；二是在资本的各种形态中，尽管剩余价值只是在生产过程中得以产生，但这个剩余价值是“资本作为资本就已经潜在地包含于自身中的”；三是剩余价值在产业利润上，“表现为不是归于作为资本所有者的资本家，而是归于作为执行职能的所有者的资本家，即归于执行职能的资本的那一部分剩余价值”；四是在资本主义生产方式中，“一切看来都颠倒地表现出来那样，在利息和利润的关系上的这种最后的颠倒也终于出现了，以致利润中划为特殊项目［利息］的部分反而表现为资本固有属性的产物，而产业利润却不过是在这个部分上增长起来的追加额”。显然，马克思已经从剩余价值一般向剩余价值特殊——产业利润、商业利润、借贷利息、地租等转化形式上，揭示了剩余价值作为各种资本形态所谓“收入”的来源和本质、同各种资本形态依据生产资料所有权获得所谓的“收入”过程之间的内在关系。这里已经显示，各种收入及其源泉问题的探索，不只属于“资本和利润”所限定的“资本一般”的范围，还将扩展到资本“总过程的各种形态”的范围。

II. Exploration of “The Revenues and Their Sources” at the Level of “The Forms of the Total Process”

二、“总过程的各种形态”上对“各种收入及其源泉”的探索

In the *Capital (Manuscript of 1863–1865)*, Marx states at the outset: “This Part is to reveal and explain the specific forms which the capital process—considered as a whole—produces. [In their actual movement, capitals confront each other in these specific forms, and for these specific forms, the forms capital takes in the direct production process and in the circulation process appear only as particular elements. Therefore, the forms of capital we are to elucidate in this Part approach step by step the forms in which capital appears on the surface of society, in the ordinary consciousness of the agents of production, and finally, in the interaction of various capitals, in competition.]” The “this Part” here refers to Volume III of *Capital*, whose overall title is “The Forms of the Total Process” (die Gestaltungen des Gesamtprozesses). Thus, although Volume III still takes “capital in general” as its object, in its exposition of “the forms of the total process” it will partially go beyond the scope of “capital in general,” further touching on content within the scope of “competition or many capitals” and “credit.”

在《资本论（1863—1865年手稿）》中，马克思一开始就指出：“这一册要揭示和说明资本过程——作为整体考察时——所产生的各种具体形式。〔资本在其现实运动中就是以这些具体形式互相对立的，对这些具体形式来说，资本在直接生产过程中采取的形态和在流通过程中采取的形态，只是表现为特殊的要素。因此，我们在本册中要阐明的资本的各种形态，同资本在社会表面上，在生产当事人自己的通常意识中，以及最后，在各种资本的相互作用中，在竞争中所表现出来的形式，是一步一步地接近了。〕”这里的“这一册”指的就是《资本论》第三卷，这一卷的总标题就是“总过程的各种形态”（die Gestaltungen des Gesamtprozesesses）。这样，第三卷虽然还是以“资本一般”为对象，但在“总过程的各种形态”论述中将部分地超出“资本一般”范围，进一步涉及“竞争或许多资本”和“信用”范围的内容。

In Volume III of *Capital*, edited by Engels, Part Four is titled “Conversion of Commodity Capital and Money Capital into Commercial Capital and Money-Dealing Capital (Merchant’s Capital),” explaining commercial capital and commercial profit; Part Five is titled “Division of Profit into Interest and Entrepreneurial Income. Interest-Bearing Capital,” explaining loan capital and interest, bank capital and bank profit; Part Six is titled “Transformation of Surplus Profit into Ground Rent,” explaining landed property and rent. In the exploration of commercial capital, loan capital, and the relations of landed property in Parts Four through Six, Marx fully clarified the essence and sources of “revenues” such as industrial profit, commercial profit, bank profit, loan interest, and rent, and also fully elucidated that these “revenues,” which appear on the surface as produced by the factors of production themselves, are in fact “returns” in distribution obtained by virtue of ownership of those factors of production, and are in essence all specific transformed forms of surplus value.

在恩格斯编辑的《资本论》第三卷中，第四篇为“商品资本和货币资本转化为商品经营资本和货币经营资本（商人资本）”，对商业资本和商业利润问题作出阐释；第五篇为“利润分为利息和企业主收入。生息资本”，对借贷资本和利息、银行资本和银行利润作出阐释；第六篇为“超额利润转化为地租”，对土地所有权和地租作出阐释。在第四篇至第六篇对商业资本、借贷资本和土地所有权关系的探索中，马克思完全搞清了产业利润、商业利润、银行利润、借贷利息及地租等“收入”的本质及其来源，也完全阐明了这些“收入”在表象上呈现的生产要素本身产生的，实际上是凭借其生产要素所有权获取的分配上的“收益”，在本质上都是剩余价值的具体转化形式。

Combining the initial exposition of the problem of the various revenues and their sources in the *Manuscript*, and continuing the new understanding of the various forms of capital and the essence of their “revenues” developed before Chapter 48 of Part Seven of Volume III of *Capital*, Marx provides a further exposition of the “Trinity Formula.” This constitutes sections “I” and “II” of Chapter 48 of Part Seven of Volume III of *Capital*, edited by Engels. At the same time, following Marx’s indication, Engels moved relevant discussion from Chapter 46 of Part Six, on “Ground Rent for Building Sites. Mining Rent. Land Price,” to serve as the content of section “III” of Chapter 48. After these three sections, Marx then provides an overview of the problem of “the revenues and their sources” from four aspects:

结合《手稿》中对各种收入及其源泉问题的最初阐释，承续《资本论》第三卷第七篇第四十八章之前对资本的各种形态及其“收入”本质的新的理解，马克思对“三位一体公式”作出进一步阐释。这就是恩格斯编辑的《资本论》第三卷第七篇第四十八章的“Ⅰ”和“Ⅱ”。同时，根据马克思的提示，恩格斯把马克思在第六篇第四十六章对“建筑地段的地租。矿山地租。土地价格”中的相关论述，移作第四十八章“Ⅲ”的内容。在这三个部分之后，马克思才从整体上，对“各种收入及其源泉”问题作出四个方面的概述：

First, the so-called “Trinity Formula” conceals all the secrets of the capitalist production process; the vulgar economists’ distorted understanding of the “Trinity Formula” is in fact “the interpretation, systematization, and defense of the notions of the agents of production confined within bourgeois relations of production as dogmas”; the vulgar economists never think that “the trinity from which they start—land–rent, capital–interest, labor–wages or the price of labor—are three apparently impossible combinations.” Marx points out: “Like capital, wage labor and landed property are historically determined social forms; one is the social form of labor, the other the social form of monopolized land. And both are forms corresponding to capital and belonging to the same economic social formation.” In Marx’s view, only by deeply grasping the generation and essence of surplus value can one understand that factors of production such as land and capital obtain “revenues” based on their “ownership.”

第一，所谓“三位一体公式”，把资本主义生产过程的一切秘密都隐蔽其中，庸俗经济学对“三位一体公式”的歪曲的理解，实际上是“对于局限在资产阶级生产关系中的生产当事人的观念，当做教义来加以解释、系统化和辩护”；庸俗经济学丝毫没有想到，“被它当做出发点的这个三位一体：土地—地租，资本—利息，劳动—工资或劳动价格，是三个显然不可能组合在一起的部分”。马克思指出：“像资本一样，雇佣劳动和土地所有权也是历史规定的社会形式；一个是劳动的社会形式，另一个是被垄断的土地的社会形式。而且二者都是与资本相适应的、属于同一个经济的社会形态的形式。”在马克思看来，只有深刻把握剩余价值的产生及其本质，才能理解土地、资本等生产要素是依据其“所有权”取得“收入”的。

Second, following Marx’s methodological principle that “if the form of appearance and the essence of things directly coincided, all science would be superfluous,” what must be deeply grasped is: the social production process is at once a process of producing the material conditions of human existence, a process carried out within specific, historical, and economic relations of production, and a process that continuously produces and reproduces the bearers of this process and their specific economic social form. These three dimensions of the process in its material conditions constitute the “totality” of social relations of production, constituting “society from the perspective of its economic structure.” In this situation, “these material conditions, like these social relations, are on the one hand the premises of the capitalist production process, and on the other hand its results and creations; they are produced and reproduced by the capitalist production process.” In Marx’s view, only in the overall grasp of the “total process” can one understand the transformation process of the “various forms” of capital and their “revenues.”

第二，依循马克思提出的“如果事物的表现形式和事物的本质会直接合而为一，一切科学就都成为多余的了”的方法论原则，要深刻把握的是：社会生产过程既是人类物质生存条件的生产过程，又是一个在特殊的、历史的和经济的生产关系中进行的生产过程，还是一个不断地生产和再生产这一过程的承担者及其一定的经济的社会形式的过程。这一过程在物质条件上的三重维度，构成社会生产关系的“总体”，构成“从社会经济结构方面来看的社会”。在这种情况下，“这些物质条件，和这些社会关系一样，一方面是资本主义生产过程的前提，另一方面又是资本主义生产过程的结果和创造物；它们是由资本主义生产过程生产和再生产的”。在马克思看来，只有在对“总过程”的整体把握中，才能理解资本“各种形态”及其“收入”的转化过程。

Third, the essence of the capitalist relations of production lies in the extraction of surplus value. Compared with earlier forms such as slavery and serfdom, the mode and conditions of this extraction of surplus labour exhibit three “conducive” characteristics, namely, that it is “more conducive to the development of productive forces, conducive to the development of social relations, and conducive to the creation of the various elements of a higher new form.” At the same time, however, this mode of extracting surplus value remains in essence “a phenomenon in which one part of society forces and monopolises social development (including the material and spiritual benefits of that development) at the expense of another part.” Consequently, it also possesses its historical transitoriness and necessarily creates new material conditions for the emergence of “a higher social form.” The basic features of this “higher social form” are: “Socialised man, the associated producers, will rationally regulate their material interchange with nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as a blind force; accomplishing it with the least expenditure of energy, under conditions most worthy of and most suitable for their human nature.”

第三，资本主义生产关系的本质在于榨取剩余价值，这种榨取剩余劳动的方式和条件，同以前的奴隶制、农奴制等形式相比较，呈现三个方面“有利于”的特征，即“更有利于生产力的发展，有利于社会关系的发展，有利于更高级的新形态的各种要素的创造”，但同时，这种榨取剩余价值的方式，在本质上仍然是“社会上的一部分人靠牺牲另一部分人来强制和垄断社会发展（包括这种发展的物质方面和精神方面的利益）的现象”，因而也有其历史的过渡性，也必然为“一个更高级的社会形式”的产生创造新的物质条件。这种“更高级的社会形式”的基本特征就在于：“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”。

Fourth, the capitalist relations of production conceal the essential determination of “the various forms of revenue and their sources” in the most extreme manner. Their “mysterious character” lies in “transforming the social relations, which are borne by the various material elements of wealth in production, into properties of these things themselves (commodities), and even more directly transforming the relations of production themselves into a thing (money).” This “inversion” exists in all social forms where commodity production and monetary circulation have already emerged, but under the capitalist mode of production, “this bewitched and inverted world develops to an even much greater extent.”

第四，资本主义生产关系以最为极端的形式掩盖了“各种收入及其源泉”的本质规定，其“神秘性质”在于“把在生产中由财富的各种物质要素充当承担者的社会关系，变成这些物本身的属性（商品），并且更直截了当地把生产关系本身变成物（货币）”。在一切已经有商品生产和货币流通的社会形式中“都有这种颠倒”，但在资本主义生产方式中，“这种着了魔的颠倒的世界就会更厉害得多地发展起来”。

III. Analysis of “the Various Forms of Revenue and Their Sources” in Relation to Competition within the “Total Process”

三、“总过程”及其竞争关系上对“各种收入及其源泉”的分析

The “analysis of the production process” expounded in Chapter 49 of the Seventh Part of Volume III of *Capital* is a “production process” that unifies the direct production process and the circulation process; it is also an integration at the level of the “total process.” This process of integration is one in which the “abstraction” from the direct production process and the capital circulation process is further elevated to the “concrete” within the “total process,” thereby further revealing the essential determination of “the various forms of revenue and their sources.”

《资本论》第三卷第七篇第四十九章阐释的“生产过程的分析”，是直接生产过程和流通过程相统一的“生产过程”，也是“总过程”上的集成。这一集成过程是直接生产过程和资本流通过程中的“抽象”，进一步上升为“总过程”中的“具体”，并由此进一步揭示“各种收入及其源泉”本质规定性的过程。

First, an examination of the product value of total social capital within the direct production process of capital reveals that “profit (enterprise income plus interest) and rent are nothing but the particular forms assumed by the various special parts of the surplus value of commodities.” At this point, “the magnitude of surplus value is the limit of the sum of the parts into which surplus value can be divided. Therefore, average profit plus rent equals surplus value.” That is to say, within the integration of the “total process,” the entire new value created by wage workers in one year includes not only the portion of wage income but also the various portions of income derived from surplus value transformed into profit, interest, rent, and so forth. The total amount of surplus value constitutes the “limit” of the total amounts of profit, interest, rent, and other incomes.

首先，在资本直接生产过程中对社会总资本的产品价值进行考察可以发现，“利润（企业主收入加上利息）和地租，不外是商品剩余价值的各个特殊部分所采取的独特形式”；这时，“剩余价值的大小，是剩余价值可以分割成的各个部分的总和的界限。因此，平均利润加上地租就等于剩余价值”。这就是说，在“总过程”集成中，雇佣工人在一年内创造的全部新价值，既包括工资收入部分，也包括由剩余价值转化而来的利润、利息和地租等各种收入部分，剩余价值总量是利润、利息和地租等收入总量的“界限”。

Second, within the circulation process of capital, particularly in the realisation of social reproduction, it can be seen that the value of commodities is divided into various special components. “These value components are further developed into various forms of revenue, transformed into relations of different owners of different factors of production to these individual value components, and distributed among these owners according to definite categories and titles.” Within the integration of the “total process” of capital, this “neither cancels the total value of the commodity as the source of these different price components” nor “alters in the slightest the law of value determination and the law of value determination itself.” What may change is merely the quantitative relative variation in the “revenue” of surplus value and average profit among different owners of capital and landowners.

其次，在资本流通过程特别是在社会资本再生产的实现中可以看到，商品价值分成各个特殊的组成部分，“这些价值组成部分进一步发展成各种收入形式，转化为不同生产要素的不同所有者对这些个别的价值组成部分的关系，并按一定的范畴和名义在这些所有者之间进行分配”；在资本“总过程”集成中，既“不会把作为这些不同价格组成部分的源泉的商品总价值取消”，也丝毫“不会改变价值决定和价值决定的规律本身”，可能改变的只是其中剩余价值和平均利润在不同资本所有者和土地所有者之间“收入”上的量的相对变化。

Finally, the examination of the circulation process of capital leads to an exploration of the competitive relations among the various forms of capital. The circulation process, as a process in which competition operates, is dominated by its contingency. Within the integration of the “total process” of capital, it is precisely “through these contingencies that the internal laws that force their way and regulate these contingencies can be seen, and only on the basis of a broad generalisation of these contingencies.” The exploration of “the semblance of competition” in Chapter 50 is precisely the discovery of its necessity through the exploration of the contingency of the competitive process within the “total process,” thereby revealing the essential determination of competition and its regular changes.

最后，对资本流通过程的考察会引入对资本各种形态之间竞争关系的探索。流通过程作为竞争作用过程，是以其偶然性占统治地位的；在资本“总过程”集成上，正是“通过这些偶然性来为自己开辟道路并调节着这些偶然性的内部规律，只有在对这些偶然性进行大量概括的基础上才能看到”。第五十章对“竞争的假象”的探索，就是在对“总过程”中竞争过程偶然性的探索中发现其必然性，从而揭示竞争的本质规定及其规律性变化。

Through the “semblance of competition,” Marx makes a new exploration of the essential determination of “the various forms of revenue and their sources” within the “total process” in two aspects:

透过“竞争的假象”，马克思对“总过程”中“各种收入及其源泉”的本质规定作出两个方面的新的探索：

First, from the perspective of the theory of value and surplus value, deeply understand the essential determination of “the various forms of revenue and their sources.” Marx argues that to reveal the “semblance of competition,” the most important thing is to understand how surplus value is further transformed into various independent forms corresponding to the various forms of capital. These independent forms simultaneously directly manifest as “forms of revenue” linked to the various forms of capital, primarily including “capital profit (interest on capital itself, and the enterprise income of capital as functioning capital) and rent (belonging to the owner of the land participating in the production process).” Here, Marx holds: “Commodity value, insofar as it represents newly added labour, constantly decomposes into three parts, which form three forms of revenue, namely, wages, profit, and rent, each of whose magnitude, i.e., the share each occupies in the total value, is determined by different, specific, previously explained laws. But conversely, it is wrong to say that the value of wages, the rate of profit, and the rate of rent are independent elements constituting value, and that the value of the commodity (if the constant part is set aside) is composed of the combination of these elements; in other words, it is wrong to say that they are components of the commodity’s value or price of production.”

其一，从价值和剩余价值理论上，深刻理解“各种收入及其源泉”的本质规定。马克思认为，揭示“竞争的假象”，最重要的是理解剩余价值如何进一步转化为与资本各种形态相适应的各种独立的形式，这些独立的形式同时又直接表现为与资本的各种形态相联系的“收入的形式”，其中主要如“资本利润（资本本身的利息，和资本作为职能资本的企业主收入）和地租（属于参与生产过程的土地的所有者所有）的形式”。在这里，马克思认为：“商品价值就其代表新追加的劳动来说，不断分解为三个部分，这三个部分形成三种收入形式，即工资、利润和地租，它们各自的价值量，即它们各自在总价值中所占的部分，是由不同的、特有的、以前已经说明过的规律决定的。但是反过来，说工资的价值、利润率和地租率是构成价值的独立要素，而商品的价值（如果把不变部分撇开不说）就是由这些要素结合而成，却是错误的；换句话说，说它们是商品价值或生产价格的组成部分，是错误的。”

Second, from the perspective of the theory of value and surplus value, Marx made five critiques and clarifications of the “confusion” in understanding the issue of “the various forms of revenue and their sources.” First, in terms of appearance, the various component parts of the value of a commodity confront each other as independent forms of revenue, and they also correspond to three completely different factors of production—labor, capital, and land—so that they appear to be generated by these things. Marx held that, in essence, “the ownership of labor-power, capital, and land is the reason why these different value components of the commodity belong respectively to their owners and are transformed into their revenues. But value does not arise because it is transformed into revenue; it must already exist before it can be transformed into revenue and assume this form.” [7]7 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 3, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 46, p. 992. The citation refers to the Chinese edition; the English translation follows the standard English edition of *Capital*. Second, in terms of appearance, under otherwise identical conditions, a general rise or fall in wages will cause a movement in the opposite direction in the general rate of profit, and consequently, the production prices of different commodities will rise or fall according to the different average compositions of capital in the respective branches of production. The “illusion” created by this phenomenon is that the rise and fall of wages appear to be the source of the rise and fall of the average prices of commodities. Third, in reality, under competitive conditions, the wages actually paid do not always directly correspond to the value of labor-power, the profits actually realized do not always directly correspond to that portion of total surplus value which, according to the average rate of profit, should belong to the individually functioning parts of total capital, and the actual rent does not always directly correspond to the limits which rent cannot normally exceed on this basis. In reality, “revenues” including wages, profit and interest, and rent, are all realized through the effects and processes of competition on the basis of the capitalist mode of production. Fourth, on the basis of the capitalist mode of production, the determination of value is from the outset a process that takes place behind the scenes, driven by forces related to various other circumstances; the determination of value itself interests the individual capitalist and capital in each particular branch of production only because a rise or fall in the cost price of each particular branch of production directly affects the competitiveness of these branches themselves. Fifth, on the basis of the capitalist mode of production, the value representing newly added labor is divided into the three revenue forms of wages, profit, and rent. However, if the specifically capitalist character of wages and surplus value, i.e., necessary labor and surplus labor, is removed, then the revenue forms into which surplus value is ultimately divided “are merely the foundation common to all social modes of production.” [8]8 Ibid. (P992)

其二，从价值和剩余价值理论上，马克思对“各种收入及其源泉”问题理解上的“混乱”，作出了五个方面的批判和澄清。一是在现象上，商品价值的各个组成部分是以独立的收入互相对立的，而且还与劳动、资本和土地这三种彼此完全不同的生产要素相互对应，因而好像它们就是由这些东西产生的。马克思认为，在本质上“对劳动力、资本和土地这三者的所有权，就是商品的这些不同的价值组成部分所以会分别属于各自的所有者，并转化为他们的收入的原因。但价值并不是因它转化为收入而产生的，它在能够转化为收入，能够取得这种形式以前，必须已经存在”。二是在现象上，在其他条件相同的情况下，工资的一般提高或降低会使一般利润率发生方向相反的变动，随之而来的是，不同商品的生产价格也会按照各有关生产部门的资本平均构成的不同情况出现上涨或者下降。由这种现象而造成的“假象”就是工资上涨和下跌似乎成为商品的平均价格上涨和下跌的根源。三是在现实中，在竞争的情况下，实际支付的工资不总是与劳动力的价值直接相一致的，实际实现的利润也不总是与总剩余价值中按平均利润率应归总资本的各个独立执行职能的部分所有的那部分剩余价值直接相一致的，实际的地租也不总是与在这个基础上地租通常不能超出的界限直接相一致的。在现实中，包括工资、利润和利息、地租等在内的“收入”，都是在资本主义生产方式基础上的竞争作用和过程中实现的。四是在资本主义生产方式基础上，价值决定一开始就已经是某种在其背后、靠各种和它无关的关系的力量来进行的过程，价值决定本身之所以会使每个特殊生产部门的单个资本家和资本感兴趣，只是因为每个特殊生产部门的成本价格的提高或降低，会直接影响这些生产部门本身的竞争力。五是在资本主义生产方式基础上，体现新追加的劳动的价值会分割为工资、利润和地租这几种收入形式。但是，如果把工资和剩余价值即必要劳动和剩余劳动的独特的资本主义性质去掉，那么，有剩余价值最后分割的收入形式，就“只是它们的为一切社会生产方式所共有的基础”。[8](P992)

IV. Analysis of “the Various Forms of Revenue and Their Sources” in Terms of Relations of Production and Relations of Distribution

四、生产关系和分配关系上对“各种收入及其源泉”的分析

In Chapter 51 of the Seventh Part, in a general examination of relations of production and relations of distribution, a further analysis is made of “the various forms of revenue and their sources” in the various forms of capital.

第七篇第五十一章在对生产关系和分配关系的总体考察中，对资本的各种形态上的“各种收入及其源泉”作出进一步分析。

In the *Introduction to a Critique of Political Economy*, Marx had already proposed, in his discussion of relations of production and relations of distribution, that: on the one hand, production determines distribution; “the structure of distribution is completely determined by the structure of production. Distribution itself is a product of production, not only in terms of the object, but also in terms of the form. In terms of the object, only the results of production can be distributed; in terms of the form, the specific mode of participation in production determines the specific form of distribution, determines the form of participation in distribution.” On the other hand, the position of social members in production is determined by the laws of distribution in society; the distribution of the means of production and the factors of production becomes the premise and foundation of production. At this point, “the distribution which is contained in the production process itself and which determines the structure of production—the distribution of products is obviously merely the result of this distribution.”

在《〈政治经济学批判〉导言》中，马克思在对生产关系和分配关系的探讨中已经提出：一方面，生产对分配起着决定作用，“分配的结构完全决定于生产的结构。分配本身是生产的产物，不仅就对象说是如此，而且就形式说也是如此。就对象说，能分配的只是生产的成果，就形式说，参与生产的一定方式决定分配的特殊形式，决定参与分配的形式”。另一方面，社会成员在生产中的地位，是由社会的分配规律所决定的，生产资料及生产要素的分配成为生产的前提和基础。这时，“包含在生产过程本身中并且决定生产的结构，产品的分配显然只是这种分配的结果”。

In the Seventh Part, in his analysis of the capitalist mode of production, Marx proposed: “The capitalist mode of production is a specific mode of production with a unique historical determination; like any other given mode of production, it takes a given stage of social productive forces and their form of development as its historical condition, and this condition is itself the historical result and product of a prior process, and is the given basis from which the new mode of production arises; the relations of production corresponding to this unique, historically determined mode of production—i.e., the various relations in which people are placed in their social life process, in the production of their social life—have a unique, historical, and transitory character; finally, the relations of distribution are essentially identical to these relations of production, being the reverse side of the relations of production, so that both share the same historical and transitory character.” The historical necessity of the relations of production is the basis for the existence of the corresponding relations of distribution, and the historical necessity of the existence of the corresponding relations of distribution is grounded in the essential characteristics of the relations of production.

在第七篇中，马克思在对资本主义生产方式的分析中提出：“资本主义生产方式是一种特殊的、具有独特历史规定性的生产方式；它和任何其他一定的生产方式一样，把社会生产力及其发展形式的一个既定的阶段作为自己的历史条件，而这个条件又是一个先行过程的历史结果和产物，并且是新的生产方式由以产生的既定基础；同这种独特的、历史地规定的生产方式相适应的生产关系——即人们在他们的社会生活过程中、在他们的社会生活的生产中所处的各种关系——，具有一种独特的、历史的和暂时的性质；最后，分配关系本质上和这些生产关系是同一的，是生产关系的反面，所以二者共有同样的历史的暂时的性质。”生产关系的历史必然性是相应的分配关系存在的基础，相应的分配关系历史存在的必然性则是以生产关系的本质特征为根据的。

In the analysis of “the various forms of revenue and their sources,” the fundamental determination of the capitalist relations of production and relations of distribution that should be established lies in the following: “If the capitalist mode of production presupposes this definite social form of the conditions of production, it constantly reproduces this form. It not only produces material products, but also constantly reproduces the relations of production in which the products are produced, and hence also constantly reproduces the corresponding relations of distribution.” Ultimately, this is determined by two fundamental characteristics of the capitalist mode of production: on the one hand, in the capitalist mode of production, “the commodity is the dominant and determining character of its products”; labor-power becomes a commodity, and the relationship between capital and wage-labor “determines the entire character of this mode of production”; on the other hand, in the capitalist mode of production, “the production of surplus value is the direct purpose and determining motive of production.” This mode of production, carried out for the sake of value and surplus value, contains a constantly operating tendency to reduce the labor time necessary for the production of commodities, i.e., the value of commodities, to the prevailing social average below it. The effort to reduce cost price to its minimum becomes the most powerful lever for raising the social productivity of labor; at this point, “the increase in the social productivity of labor appears only as the constant increase in the productivity of capital.”

在对“各种收入及其源泉”的剖析中，应该确定的资本主义生产关系与分配关系的根本规定性就在于——“如果说资本主义生产方式以生产条件的这种一定的社会形式为前提，那么，它会不断地把这种形式再生产出来。它不仅生产出物质的产品，而且不断地再生产出产品在其中生产出来的那种生产关系，因而也不断地再生产出相应的分配关系”。归根结底，这是由资本主义生产方式的两个根本特征所决定的：一方面，在资本主义生产方式中，“商品是它的产品的占统治地位的、决定的性质”，劳动力成为商品，以及资本和雇佣劳动的关系“决定着这种生产方式的全部性质”；另一方面，在资本主义生产方式中，“剩余价值的生产是生产的直接目的和决定动机”。这种为了价值和剩余价值而进行的生产方式，包含着一种不断发生作用的趋势，就是要把生产商品所必需的劳动时间，即把商品的价值，缩减到当时的社会平均水平以下。力求将成本价格缩减到它的最低限度的努力，成为提高劳动社会生产力的最有力的杠杆，这时“劳动社会生产力的提高只是表现为资本生产力的不断提高”。

Thus, the so-called relations of distribution are adapted to, and arise from, the historically determined specific social form of the production process and the relations in which people are placed with each other in the reproduction process of their human life. The historical character of the relations of distribution is the historical character of the relations of production. Marx held: “The relations of distribution are merely the expression of one aspect of the relations of production. Capitalist distribution differs from the forms of distribution arising from other modes of production, and each form of distribution disappears with the disappearance of the specific form of production from which it arises and to which it corresponds.”

可见，所谓的分配关系，是同生产过程的历史地规定的特殊社会形式，以及人们在他们的人类生活的再生产过程中相互所处的关系相适应的，并且是由这些形式和关系产生的。分配关系的历史性质就是生产关系的历史性质，马克思认为：“分配关系不过表现生产关系的一个方面。资本主义的分配不同于各种由其他生产方式产生的分配形式，而每一种分配形式，都会随着它由以产生并且与之相适应的一定的生产形式的消失而消失。”

On the question of the status and function of relations of distribution in the object of political economy, Engels, before editing Volume III of *Capital*, had already given a systematic exposition at the beginning of the second part, “Political Economy,” of *Anti-Dühring*, in the section on “Object and Method.” Engels held that “political economy, in the widest sense, is the science of the laws governing the production and exchange of the material means of subsistence in human society.” Production and exchange (circulation) are two distinct functions, each having its own relatively independent specific laws; at the same time, “these two functions are at every moment continually acting upon and influencing each other, so that they might be called the abscissa and ordinate of the economic curve.” The processes of production and exchange (circulation), as the “abscissa and ordinate of the economic curve,” are the direct embodiment of the “total process” of the mode of production. Engels also held that “with the emergence of the mode and method of production and exchange of a given historical society, and with the emergence of the historical preconditions of that society, there also emerges the mode and method of distribution of products.” Clearly, relations of distribution are “not merely the passive product of production and exchange; they in turn react upon production and exchange.” In Engels’s view: “A new mode of production and form of exchange must go through a long struggle before it acquires a distribution corresponding to itself. But the more active and capable of growth and development a given mode of production and form of exchange is, the more rapidly does distribution reach the stage of surpassing its parent, the stage of coming into conflict with the then prevailing mode of production and form of exchange.”

关于分配关系在政治经济学对象中的地位和作用问题，恩格斯在编辑《资本论》第三卷之前，在《反杜林论》第二编“政治经济学”一开始关于“对象和方法”中就作过系统阐释。恩格斯认为：“政治经济学，从最广的意义上说，是研究人类社会中支配物质生活资料的生产和交换的规律的科学。”生产和交换（流通）是两种不同的职能，都有自己各自的相对独立的特殊规律；同时，“这两种职能在每一瞬间都互相制约，并且互相影响，以致它们可以叫做经济曲线的横坐标和纵坐标”。生产过程和交换（流通）过程作为“经济曲线的横坐标和纵坐标”，是生产方式“总过程”的直接体现。恩格斯还认为：“随着历史上一定社会的生产和交换的方式和方法的产生，随着这一社会的历史前提的产生，同时也产生了产品分配的方式方法。”显然，分配关系并“不仅仅是生产和交换的消极的产物；它反过来也影响生产和交换”。在恩格斯看来：“新的生产方式和交换形式必须经过长期的斗争才能取得和自己相适应的分配。但是，某种生产方式和交换方式越是活跃，越是具有成长和发展的能力，分配也就越快地达到超过它的母体的阶段，达到同当时的生产方式和交换方式发生冲突的阶段。”

V. Analysis of “The Revenues and Their Sources” from the Perspective of Class Relations and Its Implications

五、阶级关系上对“各种收入及其源泉”的分析及其意蕴

The study of class relations in capitalist society is an important subject of Marx’s political economy and also an important subject of Marx’s *Capital*. In the “Introduction” to *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*, Marx, from the perspective of the “division into parts” of the structure of *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*, proposed that after the “general abstract determinations” belonging to all social forms, the theoretical system of political economy should first unfold the study of “the categories which form the internal structure of bourgeois society and are the basis of the principal classes. Capital, wage-labour, landed property. Their interrelations. Town and country. The three great social classes. Exchange between them. Circulation. Credit (private),” and so on. In this manuscript, Marx, in constructing the “six-book plan,” further expanded the “three great social classes” into the first three books of the “six books,” namely, Book I: *Capital*, Book II: *Landed Property*, and Book III: *Wage-Labour*; the originally relatively independent “general abstract determinations” became “introductory chapters.”

对资本主义社会阶级关系的研究是马克思政治经济学的重要课题，也是马克思《资本论》研究的重要课题。在《〈政治经济学批判〉导言》中，马克思就从《政治经济学批判》“分篇”结构上，提出政治经济学理论体系在对属于一切社会形式的“一般的抽象的规定”之后，首先要展开研究的就是 “形成资产阶级社会内部结构并且成为基本阶级的依据的范畴。资本、雇佣劳动、土地所有制。它们的相互关系。城市和乡村。三大社会阶级。它们之间的交换。流通。信用事业（私人的）”，等等。在这部手稿中，马克思在“六册结构计划”构建中，进一步把“三大社会阶级”拓展为“六册”中的前三册，即第一册《资本》、第二册《土地所有制》和第三册《雇佣劳动》；原来相对独立的“一般的抽象的规定”成为“绪论性的章节”。

In this manuscript, when analyzing the relations of the three great social classes in capitalist society, Marx had already proposed: “Capital is the creator of modern landed property, and from a certain aspect it appears as the creator of modern agriculture. Therefore, in the economic relations of modern landed property, which manifest themselves as a process of rent—capital—wage-labour (this syllogistic form can also be expressed otherwise as: wage-labour—capital—rent; but capital must always appear as the active middle term), is contained the internal structure of modern society, or capital in the totality of its various relations.” Marx not only gave a profound explanation of the class relations and social contradictions between the capitalist class and the working class, but also made an in-depth analysis of the relations between industrial capitalists and money capitalists from the perspective of the distribution relations of profit and interest. Marx held that: “Money capitalists and industrial capitalists can only form two special classes because profit can be divided into two branches of revenue. The two kinds of capitalists are merely the reflection of the fact itself; but a split must occur, that is, profit must be divided into two special forms of revenue, before two special classes of capitalists can grow up on this basis.” In Marx’s view, the actual distinction between profit and interest “exists as a distinction between the class of money capitalists and the class of industrial capitalists,” and moreover, “these two classes can confront each other; the dual existence of the capitalist presupposes the decomposition of the surplus value created by capital.”

在这部手稿中，马克思在对资本主义社会三大阶级关系进行分析时已经提出：“资本是现代土地所有权的创造者，从某一方面来看，它表现为现代农业的创造者。因此，在表现为地租—资本—雇佣劳动这样一个过程（这个三段论的形式也可以另外表达为：雇佣劳动—资本—地租；不过资本必须总是作为活动的中项出现）的现代土地所有权的经济关系中，包含着现代社会的内在结构，或者说包含着处在资本的各种关系的总体上的资本。”马克思不仅对资本家阶级和工人阶级的阶级关系和社会矛盾作出深入阐释，而且还从利润、利息的分配关系上，对产业资本家和货币资本家的关系作出深入分析。马克思认为：“货币资本家和产业资本家所以能形成两个特殊的阶级，只是因为利润能够分为两种收入部门。两种资本家只是事实本身的反映；但是，必须发生分裂，即利润必须分为两种特殊的收入形式，两个特殊的资本家阶级才能在此基础上成长起来。”在马克思看来，利润和利息之间的实际区别是“作为货币资本家阶级和产业资本家阶级之间的区别而存在的”，而且“这两个阶级能够互相对立，资本家的二重存在，要以资本所创造的剩余价值的分解为前提”。

In the Preface to the first German edition of Volume I of *Capital* (1867), Marx proposed that in the study of the capitalist mode of production, the persons involved are “only the personifications of economic categories, the bearers of definite class relations and interests,” and because the development of the economic formation of society is understood as a process of natural history, “the individual, whatever his subjective transcendence of these relations, is always, in a social sense, their product.” In the Postface to the second German edition of Volume I of *Capital* (1873), Marx, in connection with the history of economic thought, further elucidated the characteristics of class relations in the historical process of political economy. From the 1830s onward, “the bourgeoisie had conquered political power in France and England. From that time on, the class struggle took on increasingly distinct and threatening forms, both in practice and in theory. It sounded the death knell of scientific bourgeois economics.”

在1867年《资本论》第一卷德文第一版《序言》中，马克思提出，在对资本主义生产方式研究中涉及的人，“只是经济范畴的人格化，是一定的阶级关系和利益的承担者”，而且由于把经济的社会形态的发展理解为一种自然史的过程，这时“不管个人在主观上怎样超脱各种关系，他在社会意义上总是这些关系的产物”。在1873年《资本论》第一卷德文第二版《跋》中，马克思结合经济思想史过程，进一步阐明了政治经济学历史过程的阶级关系的特征，19世纪30年代及以后，“资产阶级在法国和英国夺得了政权。从那时起，阶级斗争在实践方面和理论方面采取了日益鲜明的和带有威胁性的形式。它敲响了科学的资产阶级经济学的丧钟”。

“Classes,” as the content of the final chapter of the seventh part, “The Revenues and Their Sources,” consists only of a brief opening section, which Engels edited as Chapter 52 of Volume III of *Capital*. Engels noted: “The last chapter consists of only a beginning. In this chapter, the three great classes of developed capitalist society corresponding to the three great forms of revenue—rent, profit, and wages—namely, the landowners, capitalists, and wage-workers, as well as the class struggle necessarily arising from their existence, were to be treated as the actual result of the capitalist period. This concluding summary Marx usually left for final polishing just before going to press, because the latest historical events would then, with unfailing regularity, provide the most appropriate concrete illustrations for his theoretical exposition.” In the brief manuscript on “Classes,” Marx raised two fundamental questions:

“阶级”作为第七篇“各种收入及其源泉”最后一章的内容，只有一个简短的开头部分，恩格斯将其编辑为《资本论》第三卷的第五十二章。恩格斯提到：“最后一章只有一个开头。在这一章，同地租、利润、工资这三大收入形式相适应的发达资本主义社会的三大阶级，即土地所有者、资本家、雇佣工人，以及由他们的存在所必然产生的阶级斗争，应该当做资本主义时期的实际存在的结果加以论述。这种结论性的总结，马克思通常总要留到快付印的时候再作最后的加工，因为那时最新的历史事件会按照永不失效的规律性为他的理论阐述提供最恰当的现实例证。”在关于“阶级”的简短手稿中。马克思提出了两个基本问题：

First, from the integration of the “total process,” an overview of the three great classes of capitalist society and their “revenues” is given. Marx proposed: “The owners of mere labor-power, the owners of capital, and the owners of land—whose respective sources of revenue are wages, profit, and rent—that is, wage-workers, capitalists, and landowners, form the three great classes of modern society based on the capitalist mode of production.” The “three great classes” form their class basis on the relations of “ownership” of labor-power, capital, and land, respectively, and this also serves as the basis for the distribution of “revenues.”

其一，从“总过程”集成中，对资本主义社会三大阶级及其“收入”的关系作出概述。马克思提出：“单纯劳动力的所有者、资本的所有者和土地的所有者——他们各自的收入源泉是工资、利润和地租——，也就是说，雇佣工人、资本家和土地所有者，形成建立在资本主义生产方式基础上的现代社会的三大阶级。”“三大阶级”是以各自在劳动力、资本和土地的“所有者”关系上形成阶级基础的，也是以此作为取得“收入”分配根据的。

The theoretical exposition of *Capital* takes England as its example. During the period of Marx’s composition of *Capital*, the economic structure of English capitalist society had undoubtedly reached its “highest and most typical development”; but in terms of “class structure,” it had not yet manifested itself in a “pure form,” and “some intermediate and transitional strata everywhere blur the boundaries (although this is much less the case in the countryside than in the towns).” Nevertheless, Marx held that: “We have already seen that the constant tendency and law of development of the capitalist mode of production is to separate the means of production more and more from labor, to concentrate the scattered means of production into ever larger aggregations, and thus to transform labor into wage-labor and the means of production into capital. On the other hand, corresponding to this tendency, landed property becomes independent of capital and labor, or, in other words, all landed property is transformed into a form of landed property corresponding to the capitalist mode of production.”

《资本论》的理论阐释是以英国为例证的。在马克思创作《资本论》的时期，英国的资本主义社会的经济结构无疑已经达到“最高度的、最典型的发展”；但在“阶级结构”上还没有以“纯粹的形式表现出来”，“一些中间的和过渡的阶层也到处使界限规定模糊起来（虽然这种情况在农村比在城市少得多）”。尽管如此，马克思认为：“我们已经看到，资本主义生产方式的经常趋势和发展规律，是使生产资料越来越同劳动分离，使分散的生产资料越来越大量积聚在一起，从而，使劳动转化为雇佣劳动，使生产资料转化为资本。另一方面，适应于这种趋势，土地所有权同资本和劳动相分离而独立，换句话说，一切土地所有权都转化为同资本主义生产方式相适应的土地所有权形式。”

Second, from the perspective of the “total process” and the “various forms” of capital, it explains what forms classes, and in particular what forms the three great social classes of wage-laborers, capitalists, and landowners. On the surface, these three classes and their members live respectively on the “revenues” of wages, profit, and ground-rent—that is, respectively on their labor-power, their capital, and their landed property. But in reality, what must be clarified is that the source of all so-called “revenues” is not created by various forms of “ownership,” but is entirely created by the wage-laboring class.

其二，从“总过程”及其资本的“各种形态”关系上，对什么形成阶级，特别是什么形成雇佣工人、资本家和土地所有者这社会三大阶级作出阐释。从表面上看，这三大阶级及其成员，分别靠工资、利润和地租的“收入”来生活，也就是分别靠他们的劳动力、他们的资本和他们的土地所有权来生活；但实际上，要搞清楚的是，全部的所谓“收入”的源泉，并不是各种“所有权”创造的，而都是雇佣工人阶级创造的。

Under the operation of the absolute law of surplus-value production in the capitalist mode of production, the necessary labor and surplus labor of the wage-laboring class manifest themselves in the popular form of paid and unpaid labor. The wages paid by the capitalist class to the wage-laborer, as the transformed form of the value or price of labor-power, “obtain in exchange the command over living labor-power itself.” [12]12 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. I, Chapter 17, Section I. [Translator’s note: The English translation follows the standard edition; the Chinese text cites a specific edition.] The utilization of living labor-power is divided into two periods: first, the period of necessary labor, in which the wage-laborer creates a value equal to the value of his labor-power, thus producing only an equivalent; second, the period of surplus labor, in which the wage-laborer creates for the capitalist a value that costs the latter nothing—that is, “the use of this labor-power is obtained gratuitously.” [13]13 Ibid. In essence, this is “the command over unpaid labor.” [14]14 Ibid. Marx’s conclusion is: “All surplus-value, whatever particular form (profit, interest, rent, etc.) it may subsequently crystallize into, is in substance the materialization of unpaid labor-time. The secret of the self-valorization of capital resolves itself into the fact that capital has command over a definite quantity of unpaid labor of others.” [15]15 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. I, Chapter 17, Section II.

在资本主义生产方式剩余价值生产绝对规律的作用下，雇佣工人阶级的必要劳动和剩余劳动以有酬劳动和无酬劳动这一通俗形式表现出来。资本家阶级支付给雇佣工人的劳动力价值或价格转化形式的工资，就“在交换中取得对活劳动力本身的支配权”。对活劳动力的利用分为两个期间：一是必要劳动期间，雇佣工人创造了一个等于他的劳动力价值的价值，因而只生产了一个等价物；二是在剩余劳动期间，雇佣工人为资本家创造出无须他付出代价的价值，即“无偿地获得了劳动力的这种利用”，就其本质来说，这就是“对无酬劳动的支配权”。马克思的结论就是：“一切剩余价值，不论它后来在利润、利息、地租等等哪种特殊形态上结晶起来，实质上都是无酬劳动时间的化身。资本自行增殖的秘密归结为资本对别人的一定数量的无酬劳动的支配权。”

VI. The Essence of Thought and Theoretical Conception of Part Seven in the Sense of the Final Chapter of *Capital*

六、《资本论》终篇意义上第七篇的思想精粹和理论意境

The above interpretation of Part Seven of Volume III of *Capital* shows that Part Seven is not only the “final chapter” of Volume III, but also the “final chapter” of the three theoretical volumes of *Capital*. In his exposition of “The Revenues and Their Sources,” Marx provides a systematic integration of the theoretical logic of *Capital* in three respects.

以上对《资本论》第三卷第七篇的解读说明第七篇不只是第三卷的“终篇”，更是《资本论》理论部分三卷的“终篇”。马克思在对“各种收入及其源泉”的阐释中，从系统集成上对《资本论》的理论逻辑作出了三个方面的阐释。

First, the determination of the theme of “The Forms of the Total Process” in Volume III of *Capital* elevates the theoretical realm of Part Seven, “The Revenues and Their Sources.” The analysis of the production process expounded in Chapter 49 of Part Seven of Volume III is a “production process” that unifies the direct production process and the circulation process; it is an integration of the investigation of “the forms of the total process.” In the first German edition of Volume I of *Capital*, when expounding the connotation of the “direct production process,” Marx proposed that the “direct production process” is a category linked to capital accumulation and reproduction. Marx believed that when moving from the exposition of the production of surplus-value to that of capital accumulation and reproduction, two “assumptions” or “abstractions” must necessarily be made: on the one hand, although “the process of accumulation of capital presupposes a process of circulation,” here “we do not examine the new forms which capital assumes in the sphere of circulation, nor do we examine the concrete conditions of reproduction which are implied by these forms”; [16]16 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. I, Chapter 23, Section I. [Translator’s note: The Chinese text cites the first German edition; the English follows the standard edition.] on the other hand, here we also do not examine the process by which “other capitalists, who perform other functions in social production, together with the landowners, etc., share in the surplus-value,” but rather “treat the capitalist producer as the owner of the entire surplus-value.” [17]17 Ibid. The capital production process in this sense is the “direct production process” examined “abstractly.”

第一，《资本论》第三卷对“总过程的各种形态”主题的确定，升华了第七篇“各种收入及其源泉”的理论境界。《资本论》第三卷第七篇第四十九章阐释的生产过程的分析，是直接生产过程和流通过程相统一的“生产过程”，是对“总过程的各种形态”探索的集成。《资本论》第一卷德文第一版在阐释“直接生产过程”的内涵时提出：“直接生产过程”是与资本积累和再生产相联系的范畴。马克思认为，在从剩余价值生产转向资本积累和再生产阐释时，必然作出两个方面的“假定”或“抽象”：一方面，虽然“资本的积累过程以它的流通过程为前提”，但在这里“既不研究资本在流通领域里所采取的那些新形式，也不研究这些形式所包含的再生产的具体条件”；另一方面，在这里也不研究“在整个社会生产中执行其他职能的资本家，同土地所有者等等，共同瓜分剩余价值”的过程，只是“把资本主义的生产者当做全部剩余价值的所有者”。在这一意义上的资本生产过程就是进行“抽象地考察”的“直接生产过程”。

In Marx’s view, of the two “assumptions” or “abstractions” of the “direct production process,” the former—the examination of the circulation process of capital—is the object of Volume II of *Capital*, “The Circulation Process of Capital”; the latter—the examination of “the capitalist producer as the owner of the entire surplus-value”—is the object of Volume III of *Capital*, “The Forms of the Total Process.” That is to say, Part Seven is in fact an integrated analysis of the “direct production process,” the circulation process, and the “total process”: “The actual process of production, as a unity of the direct production process and the circulation process, gives rise to new configurations, in which the threads of internal connection are increasingly lost, the relations of production become increasingly independent of one another, and the value components become ossified into forms independent of one another.” [18]18 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. III, Chapter 48, Section III. In the integration of the “total process” of capital, the “abstraction” at the level of the “direct production process” gradually ascends to the “concrete” at the level of “the forms of the total process.”

在马克思看来，“直接生产过程”的两个方面的“假定”或“抽象”，前一方面对资本流通过程的考察，是《资本论》第二卷“资本的流通过程”的对象；后一方面对“资本主义的生产者当作全部剩余价值的所有者”的考察，是《资本论》第三卷“总过程的各种形态”的对象。这就是说，第七篇实际上是对“直接生产过程”、流通过程和“总过程”的集成分析，即“现实的生产过程，作为直接生产过程和流通过程的统一，又产生出种种新的形态，在这些形态中，内部联系的线索越来越消失，各种生产关系越来越互相独立，各种价值组成部分越来越硬化为互相独立的形式”。在资本“总过程”集成上，“直接生产过程”上的“抽象”逐步上升为“总过程的各种形态”的“具体”。

In the manuscript of Volume III of *Capital*, Marx explicitly designated the theme of this volume as “the forms of the total process” (die Gestaltungen des Gesamtprozesses); in the 1867 first German edition of Volume I of *Capital*, Marx again proposed that the themes of the three theoretical volumes (books) of *Capital* are, respectively: “The Production Process of Capital,” “The Circulation Process of Capital,” and “The Forms of the Total Process” (die Gestaltungen des Gesamtprozesses). The logic of the three theoretical volumes of *Capital* is realized in “The Revenues and Their Sources,” and is also manifested in the sense of the “final chapter” of the three theoretical volumes of *Capital*.

在《资本论》第三卷手稿中，马克思把这一卷的主题明确为“总过程的各种形态”（die Gestaltungen des Gesamtprozesesses）；在1867年《资本论》第一卷德文第一版中，马克思再次提出，《资本论》理论部分三卷（册）的主题分别是：“资本的生产过程”“资本的流通过程”和“总过程的各种形式”（die Gestaltungen des Gesamtprozesesses）。《资本论》理论部分三卷的逻辑，在对“各种收入及其源泉”中得到落实，也在《资本论》理论部分三卷“终篇”意义上得以展现。

Second, from the “six-book plan” of *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy* [19]19 The “six-book plan” was Marx’s initial outline for his critique of political economy, announced in the 1859 Preface to *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*, covering capital, landed property, wage-labor, the state, foreign trade, and the world market. up to the three-part structure of *Capital* proposed in January 1863, Marx consistently expounded the theory of capital and the theory of surplus-value within the scope of “capital in general,” following the logic from “The Production Process of Capital” to “The Circulation Process of Capital” to “Capital and Profit.” In the initial exposition of “The Revenues and Their Sources” in the *Manuscript*, [20]20 The *Manuscript* refers to the *Economic Manuscript of 1861–63*, which Marx wrote as part of the preparatory work for *Capital*. Marx began to touch upon the content from industrial capital to commercial capital to interest-bearing capital, and finally to landed property; at the same time, he also began to address the transformation of surplus-value in general into profit, interest, and ground-rent. In the *Manuscript of Capital (1863–1865)*, the theme of the third part of *Capital* was no longer “Capital and Profit,” but was changed to “The Forms of the Total Process.” At the same time, Volume III of *Capital* also began to gradually expand the logic from “capital in general” to “competition, or many capitals.” Finally, in Part Seven, it not only unfolds the transformation of surplus-value in general into the specific forms of surplus-value, but also embodies the transformation of capital in general into various specific forms of capital, including the relation of landed property; it ultimately expands into the “final chapter” of the three theoretical volumes of *Capital*, and not merely the “final chapter” of Volume III of *Capital*.

第二，从《政治经济学批判》“六册结构计划”开始，一直到1863年1月《资本论》三篇结构提出，马克思都是按照从“资本的生产过程”到“资本的流通过程”再到“资本和利润”的逻辑，在“资本一般”范围内对资本理论和剩余价值理论作出阐释的。《手稿》在对“各种收入及其源泉”的最初阐释时，开始涉及产业资本到商业资本再到借贷资本、最后到土地所有制的内容，同时也开始涉及剩余价值一般向利润、利息和地租转化问题。在《资本论（1863—1865年手稿）》中，《资本论》第三篇的主题不再是“资本和利润”，而改作“总过程的各种形态”。同时，《资本论》第三卷也开始从“资本一般”逐渐向“竞争或许多资本”的逻辑拓展。到最后第七篇，既展开了剩余价值一般向剩余价值特殊的具体形态的转化，也体现了资本一般向具体的各种资本形态，包括土地所有制关系的转化；最后拓展为《资本论》理论部分三卷的“终篇”，而不只是《资本论》第三卷的“终篇”。

Third, the exposition of “various revenues and their sources” in Part Seven, as the “final chapter” of the theoretical part of *Capital* in three volumes, is also a comprehensive extension of the logic of the labor theory of value and the theory of surplus value that govern *Capital*: First, from the political-economic “pivot” of the dual character of labor, it logically extends the principle that abstract labor creates new value while concrete labor transfers old value. When labor creates new value, it simultaneously transfers the old value of constant capital; here, the old value is preserved rather than being reproduced anew. Second, from the organic composition of capital in terms of constant and variable capital, it logically extends the essence of surplus value, the production and circulation of surplus value, the transformation of surplus value into profit and average profit, and the transformation of average profit into forms of revenue such as profit, interest, and rent, thereby deepening the systematic understanding of the entire foundation of the capitalist mode of production. In these logical extensions, it further clarifies that the value of a commodity comprises three parts: the value of constant capital, the value of variable capital, and surplus value; all new value created by the living labor of workers includes both paid and unpaid labor, and the surplus value created by unpaid labor becomes the source of various “revenues” such as profit, interest, and rent. Third, from the “realization” relationship of total social capital in the reproduction process, it logically unfolds the principle that the total amount of newly added labor is realized as wages and surplus value, that the new value created by labor is not the sum of commodity values, and that the total value of commodities also includes the old value transferred from constant capital in the form of means of production. The crux of the issue lies in “analyzing reproduction and the relationships among its various components from both the material and value perspectives.” [21]21 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 3, Chapter 49, “On the Analysis of the Process of Production.” Fourth, it clarifies that the process of transforming surplus value into average profit and value into price of production is also the process by which industrial capital in general transforms into multiple special forms of capital that are independent of each other, such as commercial capital and loan capital, and simultaneously the process by which surplus value in general transforms into specific “revenue” forms that differ in form, such as profit, interest, and rent. Fifth, it clarifies that the process of transforming value into price of production is also the process by which the essential determinations of value and capital are continuously obscured, and the process by which the “confusion” of the externalized phenomena of capital continuously conceals the inner essential determinations of capital. Marx argues: “Due to the transformation of surplus value into special, mutually independent revenue forms that are related to the various factors of production—namely, into profit and rent—further confusion arises.” [22]22 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 3, Chapter 51, “Relations of Distribution and Relations of Production.” The “revenues” obtained in distribution by the various factors of production by virtue of ownership rights ultimately appear “confusedly” as the process of creating value in the self-reproduction of these factors of production.

第三，第七篇对“各种收入及其源泉”的阐释，作为《资本论》理论部分三卷的“终篇”，还是统摄《资本论》的劳动价值论和剩余价值论逻辑的全面延伸：一是从劳动二重性的政治经济学“枢纽”上，逻辑地延伸了抽象劳动创造新价值、具体劳动转移旧价值的道理。劳动创造新价值的同时也转移了不变资本的旧价值，这里是保存旧价值而不是把这个旧价值重新生产出来。二是从不变资本和可变资本的资本有机结构上，逻辑地延伸了剩余价值的本质，剩余价值的生产和流通，剩余价值向利润、平均利润的转化，以及平均利润向利润、利息和地租等收入形式的转化，深化了对资本主义生产方式整个基础的系统理解。在这些逻辑延伸中，进一步阐明商品的价值包含不变资本价值、可变资本价值和剩余价值三个部分；工人活劳动创造的全部新价值，包括有酬劳动和无酬劳动两个部分，无酬劳动创造的剩余价值成为利润、利息和地租等各种“收入”的源泉。三是从再生产过程中社会总资本的“实现”关系上，逻辑地展开新追加劳动的总额实现为工资和剩余价值，劳动创造的新价值不是商品价值的总和，商品总的价值还包括生产资料形式上的不变资本转移来的旧价值等道理。问题的关键在于，“对再生产以及再生产的各个组成部分之间的关系从物质性质和价值关系两方面来进行分析”。四是阐明剩余价值转化为平均利润、价值转化为生产价格过程，也是产业资本一般转化为商业资本、借贷资本等互相独立的多种特殊的资本形态的过程，同时还是剩余价值一般转化为形式相异的利润、利息以及地租等具体的“收入”形式的道理。五是阐明价值转化为生产价格过程，也是价值和资本的本质规定性不断被掩盖的过程，还是资本的外在化现象不断掩盖资本内在本质规定的“混乱”过程的道理。马克思认为：“由于剩余价值转化为各个特殊的、互相独立的并且同各个生产要素有关的收入形式，即转化为利润和地租，还会出现进一步的混乱。”资本各生产要素凭借所有权获取的分配上的“收入”，最后“混乱”地表现为资本各生产要素自身再生产中创造价值的过程。

(Author’s bio: Gu Hailiang, Director of the Center for Compilation and Research of the *Mazang* [Marxist Canon] at Peking University, and Director of the Xi Jinping Economic Thought Research Center)

（作者简介：顾海良，北京大学《马藏》编纂与研究中心主任、习近平经济思想研究中心主任）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心