Marx’s Historical Consciousness and Class Consciousness in Examining the Transformation of Money into Capital

The scientific research in *Capital* on labour-power becoming a commodity and money transforming into capital provides us with a profound perspective and explanatory framework for examining the birth history and world history of capital. The first section of Volume I of *Capital*, “Commodities and Money,” lays the scientific foundation of the labour theory of value; the second section, taking “The Transformation of Money into Capital” as an intermediary form, turns to the study of the theory of surplus value in the sense of the unity of history and logic. Chapter 2 of Volume II of *Capital*, “The Circuit of Money Capital,” once again conducts an in-depth historical investigation and logical deduction on the issue of money transforming into capital. Based on the organic unity of historical consciousness and class consciousness in the critique of capital and the critique of political economy, Marx outlines the basic forms of the birth history of capital and the world history of capital.

《资本论》关于劳动力成为商品与货币转化为资本的科学研究，为我们考察资本的诞生史和世界史提供了深刻的透视视角和解释框架。《资本论》第一卷第一篇“商品和货币”奠定了劳动价值论的科学基础，第二篇以“货币转化为资本”作为中介形式，在历史与逻辑相统一的意义上转向了剩余价值理论研究。《资本论》第二卷“货币资本的循环”章再一次就货币转化为资本问题作了深入的历史考察和逻辑推论。马克思基于资本批判和政治经济学批判的历史意识与阶级意识的有机统一，勾勒了资本的诞生史和资本的世界史的基本形态。

I. The Transformation of Money into Capital: The Precondition for the Transition of the Mode of Production from Tradition to Modernity

一、货币转化为资本：生产方式从传统向现代过渡的前提条件

In the second section of Volume I of *Capital*, Marx takes the transformation of money into capital as the intermediary link in the transition from the labour theory of value to the theory of surplus value, elucidating the historical process and logical mechanism of the transformation of the mode of production from tradition to modernity.

在《资本论》第一卷第二篇中，马克思把货币转化为资本作为从劳动价值论向剩余价值论过渡的中介环节，阐明了生产方式从传统向现代转变的历史过程和逻辑机制。

First, the birth history and world history of capital: Marx’s historical consciousness and world-historical consciousness in examining capital.

第一，资本的诞生史和世界史：马克思考察资本的历史意识和世界历史意识。

Marx’s investigation of the socio-historical preconditions or socio-historical conditions for the emergence of capital unfolds within the relational context of tradition and modernity, nation and world. Marx regards capital as a historical category and organically integrates commodity circulation, commodity production, and the emergence of capital into a single historical investigation. “The circulation of commodities is the starting-point of capital. The production of commodities and their circulation in their developed form, i.e., trade, form the historical presuppositions under which capital arises. World trade and the world market date from the sixteenth century and from then on the modern history of capital starts to unfold.”[1]1 The citation refers to Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Part II, Chapter 4, “The General Formula for Capital.” The page numbers correspond to the Chinese edition referenced by the author.(P171) This concise passage by Marx elucidates, in the historical-temporal sense, that commodity production and developed commodity circulation are the starting point of capital and the historical presuppositions for its emergence, containing a historical consciousness concerning the birth history of capital; it also elucidates, in the geographical-spatial sense, the world trade and world market of capital, containing a historical consciousness concerning both the birth history and the world history of capital.

马克思关于资本产生的社会历史前提或社会历史条件的考察，是在传统与现代、民族与世界的相互关系的历史语境中展开的。马克思把资本看作一个历史范畴，并把商品流通、商品生产与资本的产生，内在地贯通在一起进行历史性考察。“商品流通是资本的起点。商品生产和发达的商品流通，即贸易，是资本产生的历史前提。世界贸易和世界市场在16世纪揭开了资本的现代生活史。”[1](P171）马克思这段简明扼要的文字，从历史—时间意义上阐明了商品生产和发达的商品流通，是资本的起点和资本产生的历史前提，蕴含着关于资本诞生史的历史意识；从地理—空间意义上阐明了资本的世界贸易和世界市场，蕴含着关于资本的诞生史和世界史的历史意识。

Marx regards landed power based on personal relations and the power of money based on impersonal relations as economic categories that distinguish two different modes of production. Landed power and the power of money embody two different socio-economic relations, implying a historical opposition between economic forms in tradition and modernity. “The opposition between the power of landed property, which is based on personal relations of domination and servitude, and the impersonal power of money is clearly expressed by two French proverbs: ‘No land without a lord,’ and ‘Money has no master.’”[1]1 The citation refers to Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Part II, Chapter 4, “The General Formula for Capital.” The page numbers correspond to the Chinese edition referenced by the author.(P171-172) Marx’s vivid metaphor concerning landed power and the power of money profoundly indicates the different characteristics of the two socio-economic relations, signifying the historical evolution of the socio-economic form from feudalism to modernity. In examining complex socio-economic relations, Marx always employs vivid linguistic expressions to convey the highly abstract concepts and categories of political economy, embodying the theoretical charm and intellectual vitality of the critique of capital and the critique of political economy.

马克思把人身的地产权力与非人身的货币权力，视为区分两种不同生产方式的经济范畴。地产权力与货币权力包含着两种不同的社会经济关系，意味着经济形式在传统与现代之间的历史性对立，“以人身的奴役关系和统治关系为基础的地产权力和非人身的货币权力之间的对立，可以用两句法国谚语明白表示出来：‘没有一块土地没有地主’，‘货币没有主人’”。[1](P171-172）马克思关于地产权力与货币权力的生动比喻，深刻地指明了两种社会经济关系的不同特征，意味着社会经济形式从封建到现代的历史演变。在考察复杂的社会经济关系的过程中，马克思总是使用形象的语言文字表达政治经济学抽象性极强的概念和范畴，体现了资本批判和政治经济学批判的理论魅力和思想生机。

From the historical analysis of the relations among commodities, money, and capital, Marx elucidates the historical logic and forms of expression of the birth of capital. Commodity circulation comprises two interdependent aspects: material content and economic form. Money, as the final product of commodity circulation, becomes the initial form of appearance of capital. “If we disregard the material content of commodity circulation, i.e., the exchange of the various use-values, and consider only the economic forms brought into being by this process, we find that money is its final product. This final product of commodity circulation is the first form of appearance of capital.”[1]1 The citation refers to Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Part II, Chapter 4, “The General Formula for Capital.” The page numbers correspond to the Chinese edition referenced by the author.(P171)

马克思从商品、货币与资本之间关系的历史分析中，阐明了资本诞生的历史逻辑和表现形式。商品流通分为物质内容和经济形式相互依存的两个方面。货币作为商品流通的最后产物，成为资本最初的表现形式。“如果撇开商品流通的物质内容，撇开各种使用价值的交换，只考察这一过程所造成的经济形式，我们就会发现，货币是这一过程的最后产物。商品流通的这个最后产物是资本的最初的表现形式。”[1](P171)

In Marx’s view, the various monetary forms, as the initial historical forms of capital, were from the very beginning formed in opposition to feudal landed property. Historically, capital initially confronted landed property in the form of money or money-property, as merchant’s capital and usurer’s capital. However, “in order to recognize that money is the first form of appearance of capital, we need not go back into the history of the formation of capital. This history is daily enacted before our eyes. Every new capital, to begin with, steps onto the stage, i.e., the market, whether it is the commodity market, the labour market, or the money market, still in the form of money; it is through definite processes that this money is transformed into capital.”[1]1 The citation refers to Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Part II, Chapter 4, “The General Formula for Capital.” The page numbers correspond to the Chinese edition referenced by the author.(P171-172) The history of the emergence of capital unfolds in the process of opposition to feudal landed property. The form of existence of capital after its emergence, i.e., the emergence of each new individual form of capital in the modern history of capital, is also a microcosm or repetition of the entire birth history of capital, just as, after the emergence of humanity, the birth of each individual human being repeats the birth history of humanity.

在马克思看来，作为资本最初的历史形态的各种货币形式，一开始就是在同封建地产相对立的过程中形成的，资本在历史上起初是以货币形式或货币财产，作为商人资本和高利贷资本与地产相对立。然而“为了认识货币是资本的最初的表现形式，不必回顾资本产生的历史。这个历史每天都在我们眼前重演。现在每一个新资本最初仍然是作为货币出现在舞台上，也就是出现在市场上——商品市场、劳动市场或货币市场上，经过一定的过程，这个货币就转化为资本”。[1](P171-172）资本的产生史是在与封建地产相对立的过程中展开的，资本产生之后的存在形式，即资本现代史中每一种新的个别资本形式的产生，也是整个资本诞生史的一个个缩影或重演，就如同在人类诞生之后，每个个体的人的诞生都要重演一次人类的诞生史一样。

Second, simple commodity circulation and the circulation of money as capital mark two different epochs of the socio-economic formation.

第二，简单的商品流通和资本的货币的流通标志着社会经济形态的两个不同时代。

Through a detailed discussion of two different forms of circulation, namely simple commodity circulation W—G—W and the circulation of money as capital G—W—G, Marx distinguishes between two different modes of production: the production of use-values and the production of exchange-values. Simple commodity circulation W—G—W is not the focus or purpose of Marx’s investigation and discussion; it merely serves as the historical frame of reference or precondition for elucidating the circulation of money as capital G—W—G. Examining and defining the nature and characteristics of each economic phenomenon and economic category of the modern mode of production in the historical contrast between tradition and modernity embodies the inner unity of Marx’s historical consciousness and class consciousness in the critique of capital.

马克思通过详细讨论两种不同的流通形式，即简单的商品流通W—G—W与资本的货币的流通G—W—G，把使用价值的生产与交换价值的生产这两种不同的生产方式区分开来。简单商品流通W—G—W不是马克思考察和讨论的重心和目的，它只是阐明资本的货币的流通G—W—G的历史参照系或前提性条件。在传统与现代的历史性对比中考察和规定现代生产方式的每一种经济现象和经济范畴的性质和特征，体现了马克思资本批判的历史意识与阶级意识的内在统一。

In the circuit of simple commodity circulation W—G—W, the two ends possess the same economic element; both the starting point and the terminus are commodities, and the ultimate purpose of the circuit is the use-value that satisfies needs, i.e., consumption. The two ends are commodities of equal value. In contrast, the circuit of the circulation of money as capital, i.e., G—W—G, is the opposite: the two ends possess the same economic form, i.e., money, and the decisive motive and purpose of the circuit is exchange-value itself, i.e., surplus value. Unlike W—G—W, the two poles of G—W—G are not qualitatively different but quantitatively different; the latter withdraws more money from circulation than was initially thrown in. “The complete form of this process is therefore G—W—G’, where G’ = G + ∆G, i.e., the original sum advanced plus an increment. This increment or excess over the original value I call ‘surplus value’… It is this movement that transforms value into capital.”[1]1 The citation refers to Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Part II, Chapter 4, “The General Formula for Capital.” The page numbers correspond to the Chinese edition referenced by the author.(P176) W—G—W is selling in order to buy, the purpose being the means to satisfy consumption needs, i.e., use-value; while G—W—G’ is buying in order to sell, the purpose being the realization of value augmentation in an unceasingly renewed movement. The process of value augmentation, i.e., the movement of capital, knows no limits; capital continuously augments itself in an infinite circuit. This is a movement process driven by the fundamental purpose and inner motive force of extracting surplus value.

在简单的商品流通W—G—W循环中，两端具有同样的经济要素，开端和终端都是商品，循环的最终目的是满足需要的使用价值即消费。两端是价值量相等的商品。而资本的货币的流通形式即G—W—G的循环则相反，两端具有同样的经济形式即货币，循环的决定性动机和目的是交换价值本身即剩余价值。与W—G—W不同，G—W—G的两极并非有质的区别，而是有量的不同，后者从流通中取出的货币多于起初投入的货币。“这个过程的完整形式是G—W—G’。其中的G’=G+∆G，即等于原预付货币额加上一个增殖额。我把这个增殖额或超过原价值的余额叫做剩余价值……正是这种运动使价值转化为资本。”[1](P176)W—G—W是为买而卖，目的在于满足消费需要的手段即使用价值；而G—W—G’是为卖而买，目的是在不断更新的运动中实现价值增殖，价值增殖过程即资本的运动是没有限度的，即资本在无限循环中持续不断地增殖自身。这是以获取剩余价值为根本目的和内在动力的运动过程。

Marx examined the formula for the circulation of money as capital, G—W—G’, and emphasized that the key and driving force for the transformation of money into capital lies in the repeated realization, within the cyclical movement of this circulation form, of the ever-increasing valorization of commodities. From this, he elucidated the internal mechanism by which the possessor of money becomes a capitalist, and revealed the class essence of the capitalist’s pursuit of surplus value: the capitalist’s moneybag “is the point of departure and the point of return of the money. The objective content of this circulation—valorization—is his subjective purpose, and it is only when the ever-increasing appropriation of abstract wealth becomes the sole motive of his activity that he functions as a capitalist, or as personified capital endowed with will and consciousness. Hence, use-value must never be treated as the direct aim of the capitalist.”[1]1 The citation refers to Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Part II, Chapter 4, “The General Formula for Capital.” The page numbers correspond to the Chinese edition referenced by the author.(P178-179) The ceaseless movement of extracting surplus value is the capitalist’s sole motive. The pursuit of value is a motive common to the hoarder of money and the capitalist, but the former is a mad capitalist, while the latter is a rational hoarder of money. Based on his profound analysis of the circulation form G—W—G’, Marx revealed that the appropriation of ever more abstract wealth is the sole motive of the capitalist’s economic activity. The capitalist, as conscious, willful personified capital, embodies the intrinsic essence and basic characteristics of the capitalist mode of production.

马克思考察了资本的货币的流通G—W—G’这个公式，强调货币转化为资本的关键和动力，就在于在这种流通形式的往复循环中，一次又一次地实现着商品的日益增大的价值增殖，并由此阐明了货币占有者变成资本家的内在机制，揭示了资本家追逐剩余价值的阶级本质：资本家的钱袋“是货币的出发点和复归点。这种流通的客观内容——价值增殖——是他的主观目的，只有在越来越多地占有抽象财富成为他的活动的唯一动机时，他才作为资本家或作为人格化的、有意志和意识的资本执行职能。因此，决不能把使用价值看做资本家的直接目的”。[1](P178-179）谋取剩余价值的无休止的运动是资本家的唯一动机。追逐价值是货币贮藏者和资本家所共有的动机，但前者是发狂的资本家，后者则是理智的货币贮藏者。马克思基于对流通形式G—W—G’的深刻剖析，揭示了占有越来越多的抽象财富是资本家进行经济活动的唯一动机，资本家作为有意识、有意志的人格化的资本，体现了资本主义生产方式的内在本质和基本特征。

In simple commodity circulation and in the circulation of money as capital, the value of the commodity assumes two completely different forms of existence, and the two types of acting subjects bear completely different economic functions: the money form assumed by the value of the commodity in W—G—W is merely the intermediary of commodity exchange, disappearing once the movement is concluded; whereas “in the circulation G—W—G, both the commodity and the money are merely different modes of existence of value itself: money is its general mode of existence, the commodity its particular, one might say disguised, mode of existence. Value constantly passes from one form into the other, never disappearing in this movement, and thus it transforms itself into an automatic subject.”[1]1 The citation refers to Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Part II, Chapter 4, “The General Formula for Capital.” The page numbers correspond to the Chinese edition referenced by the author.(P179-180) In W—G—W, money as an intermediary does not increase its own quantity and is transient; in G—W—G, however, money as the purpose manifests itself as an ever-valorizing, never-vanishing active subject. Value changes its quantity in the constant transformation between the money form and the commodity form, and surplus value constantly separates itself from the original value and valorizes itself. That is to say, the purpose of simple commodity circulation is use-value, consumption for the satisfaction of needs; the purpose of the circulation of money as capital is exchange-value, the entity-subject that maintains its own identity while ceaselessly creating surplus value. The movement that produces surplus value is its own movement, and its valorization is its continuous self-valorization.

在简单的商品流通和资本的货币的流通中，商品的价值采取了两种完全不同的存在形式，两种行为主体承载着完全不同的经济功能：商品的价值在W—G—W中所采取的货币形式只是商品交换的中介，运动一结束就消失了；而“在G—W—G流通中，商品和货币这二者仅仅是价值本身的不同存在方式：货币是它的一般存在方式，商品是它的特殊的也可以说只是化了装的存在方式。价值不断地从一种形式转化为另一种形式，在这个运动中永不消失，这样就转化为一个自动的主体”。[1](P179-180）在W—G—W中，货币作为中介其自身的量没有增加且转瞬即逝；而在G—W—G中，作为目的的货币则表现为不断增殖自身的永不消逝的行动主体，价值在货币形式和商品形式的不断变换中改变着自己的量，剩余价值在同原价值不断地分离出来而自行增殖着自身。也就是说，简单的商品流通的目的是使用价值，是满足需要的消费；资本的货币的流通的目的是交换价值，是保持自身同一性而又不断创造剩余价值的实体—主体。产生剩余价值的运动是它自身的运动，它的增殖是它的持续不断的自我增殖。

These two different forms of circulation and purposes of circulation mark two different socio-economic formations and characterize two different socio-historical epochs. Therefore, whether money can be transformed into capital is the historical boundary and watershed that distinguishes the pre-modern mode of production from the modern mode of production. It signifies whether society’s mode of production has already undergone a historical transformation from the traditional to the modern.

两种不同的流通形式和流通目的，标志着两种不同的社会经济形态，表征着两个不同的社会历史时代。因此货币能否转化为资本，是区分前现代生产方式与现代生产方式的历史界碑和分水岭，它意味着社会的生产方式是否已经发生了从传统向现代的历史性转变。

Third, labor-power becoming a commodity: the prerequisite for the transformation of money into capital and the resolution of the contradiction of the general formula for capital.

第三，劳动力成为商品：货币转化为资本的前提条件与资本总公式矛盾的解决。

Marx discussed the problem of the contradiction of the general formula for capital. The formula G—W—G’ is applicable to all forms of capital; it summarizes the basic process and common characteristics of the movement of commercial capital, industrial capital, and interest-bearing capital. Hence it is the general formula for capital. On the surface, the general formula for capital appears to contradict the law of value. The exchange of commodities according to the principle of equivalence is a basic requirement of the law of value, but money-capital undergoes valorization in the process of circulation. This is the contradiction of the general formula for capital. In this formula, surplus value appears as the result of circulation, but surplus value cannot arise from circulation. Marx, with irrefutable logical reasoning, emphasized that whether exchange is equivalent or not, surplus value cannot be produced.

马克思讨论了资本总公式的矛盾问题。G—W—G’这个公式对一切形式的资本都是适用的，它概括了商业资本、产业资本和借贷资本运动的基本过程和共同特点，因此它是资本的总公式。资本总公式从形式上看与价值规律存在着矛盾。商品交换按等价原则进行是价值规律的基本要求，但货币资本在流通过程中却发生了价值增殖，这就是资本总公式的矛盾。在这个公式中，剩余价值表现为流通的结果，但剩余价值不可能在流通中产生。马克思以无可争辩的逻辑推理，强调无论是否是等价交换，都不可能产生剩余价值。

Surplus value must take the circulation process as its medium. Therefore, resolving the contradiction of the general formula for capital can only be elucidated through a further examination of this contradictory circulation process. That is to say, valorization—the generation of surplus value—can only occur when the capitalist purchases, in the sphere of circulation, a special commodity with a particular use-value. This special commodity can not only create value but also create a value greater than its own. This special commodity is labor-power. Labor-power becoming a commodity thereby becomes the prerequisite for the transformation of money into capital. Marx’s investigation of labor-power becoming a commodity as the prerequisite for the transformation of money into capital fully embodies his conscious theoretical mission and critical class consciousness in his critique of capital and critique of political economy.

剩余价值必须以流通过程为中介，因此解决资本总公式的矛盾，只能从对这种矛盾的流通过程的进一步考察中加以阐明。也就是说，价值增殖即剩余价值的产生，只能是资本家在流通领域中购买了具有某种特殊使用价值的特殊商品，这种特殊商品不仅能够创造价值，而且还能够创造大于自身价值的价值，这种特殊商品就是劳动力。劳动力成为商品由此成为货币转化为资本的前提条件。马克思关于劳动力成为商品是货币转化为资本的前提条件的考察，充分体现了他进行资本批判和政治经济学批判的自觉的理论使命和批判的阶级意识。

Marx’s critique of economic relations always goes hand in hand with his critique of bourgeois political economy. In Marx’s view, although bourgeois economists such as McCulloch were aware of the capitalist’s execrable frenzy for profit, “this insight does not prevent McCulloch and his ilk, when they get into theoretical difficulties—for example, when examining the problem of overproduction—from turning the capitalist into a good citizen, as if he were concerned only with use-value, as if his truly wolfish greed were only for boots, hats, eggs, calico, and other extremely common kinds of use-value.”[1]1 The citation refers to Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Part II, Chapter 4, “The General Formula for Capital.” The page numbers correspond to the Chinese edition referenced by the author.(P179) The McCullochs, due to their class instinct and class standpoint, are determined to be unable to see the class essence of the capitalist’s pursuit of surplus value; instead, they always portray the capitalist as a good citizen producing use-values to meet social needs. The reason bourgeois economists always confuse use-value and exchange-value is both their bourgeois class nature and their ahistorical, anti-historical mode of thinking—that is, their failure to see the historical distinction between the mode of production aimed at producing use-values and the mode of production aimed at producing exchange-values.

马克思对经济关系的批判与对资产阶级政治经济学的批判总是如影随形。在马克思看来，尽管资产阶级经济学家如麦克库洛赫意识到资本家的可诅咒的追逐利润的狂热，但“这种见解并不妨碍麦克库洛赫之流，在理论上陷入困境的情况下，例如在考察生产过剩问题时，还是把资本家变成了善良的市民，好像他关心的只是使用价值，好像他真正像狼一般贪求的，只是皮靴、帽子、鸡蛋、印花布以及其他各种极为平常的使用价值”。[1](P179）麦克库洛赫们由于其阶级本能和阶级立场，决定了他们看不到资本家追逐剩余价值的阶级本质，反而总是把资本家看作生产使用价值以满足社会需要的善良市民。资产阶级经济学家们之所以总是混淆使用价值和交换价值，既是由于他们的资产阶级的阶级本性，也是由于他们的非历史的、反历史的思想方式，即看不到以生产使用价值为目的的生产方式与以生产交换价值为目的的生产方式之间存在着历史性区别。

The organic combination of empirical, concrete historical investigation with the study of abstract, specific economic categories, and the use of different economic categories to distinguish historically different socio-economic forms, is a basic feature of Marx’s examination of the evolution of socio-economic formations. By distinguishing whether the producer takes use-value or exchange-value as the ultimate purpose of production, Marx elucidated the basic characteristics of the traditional mode of production and the modern mode of production respectively, embodying Marx’s conscious historical consciousness and class consciousness. It is precisely within the tension-filled theoretical structure where historical consciousness and class consciousness mutually support each other that Marx continuously advanced and realized the dual theoretical mission of the critique of capital and the critique of political economy.

把经验的具体的历史考察与抽象的特定的经济范畴的研究有机结合，使用不同的经济范畴区分历史上不同的社会经济形式，是马克思考察社会经济形态演变的一个基本特征。马克思通过区分生产者是以使用价值还是以交换价值作为生产的最终目的，阐明了传统生产方式与现代生产方式各自具有的基本特征，体现了马克思自觉的历史意识和阶级意识。正是在历史意识与阶级意识的相互支撑的充满张力的理论结构中，马克思不断推进和实现了资本批判和政治经济学批判的双重理论使命。

II. The Emergence of Capital and the Free Worker Contains the Secret of the Birth History of Capital and World History

二、资本与自由工人的产生蕴含着资本的诞生史和世界史的秘密

Marx’s historical investigation of the different modes of combination of the laborer and the means of production is one of his basic perspectives for making a historical distinction, in terms of socio-economic formations, between the traditional and the modern, and between history and world history.

马克思关于劳动者和生产资料的不同结合方式的历史考察，是他从社会经济形态上把传统与现代、历史与世界历史进行历史性区分的基本视角之一。

The emergence of capital and the free worker contains a world history and marks a new epoch in the social process of production. Investigating the specific socio-historical conditions for the emergence of capital and the free worker occupies an important place in Marx’s *Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Ökonomie (1857–1858)* and *Zur Kritik der politischen Ökonomie (Manuskript 1861–1863)*. Through a historical comparison between the Middle Ages and the modern period, Marx examined in detail the historical conditions for the emergence of the capitalist and the free worker, and elucidated the historical distinction between the relationship of the capitalist and the wage-laborer under bourgeois social conditions and the relationship of the guild master to the journeyman and apprentice in the Middle Ages. In the historical transition from the European Middle Ages to early modern society, what is of great significance for examining the formation of the capitalist and the free worker is that narrow, and therefore still unsuitable, form of the capital-wage-labor relation.

资本和自由工人的产生包含着一部世界史，标志着社会生产过程的一个新时代。考察资本和自由工人产生的特定的社会历史条件，在马克思《政治经济学批判（1857—1858年手稿）》和《政治经济学批判（1861—1863年手稿）》中占有重要地位。马克思从中世纪与现代的历史性对比中，详细考察了资本家与自由工人产生的历史条件，阐明了资产阶级社会条件下资本家和雇佣工人的关系，与中世纪行会师傅与帮工、学徒的关系的历史性区别。在欧洲中世纪向现代社会早期的历史过渡中，对考察资本家和自由工人的形成具有重要意义的，是资本和雇佣劳动关系的那种狭窄的，因而还尚不适合的形式。

In Marx’s view, under the specific historical conditions of medieval guild relations, the relationship between capital and labour was manifested merely as the relationship between the master craftsman and the journeyman or apprentice. Here, capital, as fettered capital, had not yet attained a free form; the journeyman and apprentice were not yet free workers freed from the bonds of guild relations; capital had not yet manifested itself as a definite quantity of objectified labour, nor was it value in general. Objectified labour or value, when capital freely exchanges with any form of living labour in order to appropriate surplus labour, can freely assume the form of any condition of labour. The emergence of free capital and free workers can only take shape on the basis of the elimination of feudal relations of personal dependence, in the process of the rise of urban handicrafts accompanied by the gradual separation of the labourer from the objective conditions of labour. That is to say, only under the conditions of the gradual extinction of the feudal mode of production and relations of production can the capitalist transform his money into capital — that is, he not only uses this money as a means for his own labour, but also as a means for exploiting the labour of wage-workers.

在马克思看来，在中世纪行会关系的特定的历史状况下，资本与劳动的关系仅仅体现为手工业师傅与帮工、学徒的关系。在这里，资本作为被束缚的资本尚未取得自由形态，帮工和学徒还不是摆脱了行会关系束缚的自由工人；资本尚未表现为一定量的对象化劳动，还不是价值一般。而对象化的劳动或价值，在资本为了占有剩余劳动而自由地同任何一种活劳动形式相交换时，能够自由地采取任何一种劳动条件的形式。自由资本和自由工人的产生，只有在消除了封建人身依附关系的基础上，在城市手工业产生并伴随着劳动者与劳动的客观条件逐渐分离的过程中才能形成。也就是说，只有在封建的生产方式和生产关系逐渐消亡的情况下，资本家才能把自己的货币转化为资本，即他不仅把这些货币用做他自身劳动的手段，而且也把它用做剥削雇佣工人劳动的手段。

Marx regards the emergence of capital and the generation of free workers as a landmark historical event in the transformation of the social mode of production from the traditional to the modern, fully embodying the basic characteristics of the tension-filled historical dialectic between the historical consciousness and class consciousness of the critique of capital. Marx’s theory of capital is the主干 (mainstay) of his social-historical theory; without understanding the conscious historical consciousness and critical class consciousness of Marx’s critique of capital, it is impossible to truly grasp the inner secret and basic characteristics of his social-historical theory.

马克思把资本的出现和自由工人的产生，看作社会生产方式从传统向现代转变的具有标志性意义的重大历史事件，充分体现了资本批判的历史意识与阶级意识的充满历史辩证法张力的基本特征。马克思的资本理论是其社会历史理论的主干部分，不理解马克思资本批判的自觉的历史意识和批判的阶级意识，就不可能真正地把握其社会历史理论的内在秘密和基本特征。

Historical materialism is the basic theoretical form that connects empirical history with philosophical history for investigation and inference. Based on the intellectual wisdom and methodological principles of the historical dialectic, and grounded in profound theoretical knowledge of the history of economic systems and the history of economic doctrines, Marx, through scientific empirical investigation, theoretical analysis, and logical inference, eloquently demonstrates that neither buying cheap nor selling dear is the fundamental cause of the generation of surplus value: in the sphere of circulation, whether exchange is equivalent or not, surplus value cannot arise, because, taken as a whole, “the whole bourgeoisie of a country cannot enrich itself by cheating itself.” [1]1 The citation refers to Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Part II, Chapter 4, “The General Formula for Capital.” The page numbers correspond to the Chinese edition referenced by the author.(P190) The problem of the generation of surplus value is embodied in the following paradoxical thesis, full of dialectical character and features: “Capital cannot arise from circulation, and it is equally necessary that it should not arise from circulation. It must arise both in circulation and not in circulation.” [1]1 The citation refers to Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Part II, Chapter 4, “The General Formula for Capital.” The page numbers correspond to the Chinese edition referenced by the author.(P193) “The transformation of money into capital must be explained on the basis of the immanent laws of commodity exchange, so that the exchange of equivalents is the starting point.” [1]1 The citation refers to Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Part II, Chapter 4, “The General Formula for Capital.” The page numbers correspond to the Chinese edition referenced by the author.(P178-179) The crux of the matter is that the money-owner, as the “larva” of the capitalist, must buy and sell commodities according to the market laws of equivalent exchange, yet at the end of the exchange process he must obtain a value greater than the value he advanced. The resolution of this difficulty and paradox is the key to understanding the transformation of money into capital and to elucidating the source of surplus value.

历史唯物主义是把经验的历史与哲学的历史贯通在一起进行考察和推论的基本理论形态。马克思基于历史辩证法的思想智慧和方法论原则，以经济制度史和经济学说史的深厚理论知识为基础，通过科学的实证考察、理论分析和逻辑推论，雄辩地指明了无论是贱买还是贵卖，都不是剩余价值产生的根本原因：在流通领域中，无论是否等价交换，都不可能产生剩余价值，因为从整体上说，“一个国家的整个资产阶级不能靠欺骗自己来发财致富”。[1](P190）剩余价值的产生问题，体现在如下充满辩证法性质和特征的悖论式论断中：“资本不能从流通中产生，又不能不从流通中产生。它必须既在流通中又不在流通中产生。”[1](P193)“货币转化为资本，必须根据商品交换的内在规律来加以说明，因此等价物的交换应该是起点。”[1](P178-179）问题的关键在于，作为资本家“幼虫”的货币占有者，必须根据等价交换的市场规律买卖商品，但在交换过程结束时又必须得到比他投入的价值更大的价值。这个难题和悖论的解决，是理解货币转化为资本、阐明剩余价值来源的关键所在。

Marx penetrates the surface forms of capitalist economic relations and economic categories to point to their inherent essence, emphasizing that the change and valorisation of value in the transformation of money into capital cannot occur in money itself, because in the first act of circulation, money as a means of purchase and payment merely realizes the price of the commodity it purchases or pays for; similarly, in the second act of circulation, the resale of the commodity, such a change cannot occur, because this act merely transforms the commodity from its natural form back into the money form. This change can only arise from the commodity purchased in the first act, G—W, but since equivalents are exchanged and the commodity must be paid for at its value, it does not arise from the value of this commodity either. Therefore, “this change can only arise from the use-value of this commodity as such, i.e., from its consumption. To obtain value from the consumption of a commodity, our money-owner must be lucky enough to find within the sphere of circulation, on the market, a commodity whose use-value itself possesses the peculiar property of being a source of value, whose actual consumption is therefore itself an objectification of labour, and hence a creation of value. The money-owner finds such a peculiar commodity on the market: the capacity for labour, or labour-power.” [1]1 The citation refers to Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Part II, Chapter 4, “The General Formula for Capital.” The page numbers correspond to the Chinese edition referenced by the author.(P194-195) Through an essential investigation of the economic relations and class relations behind the surface appearance of equivalent exchange in the two ends of the exchange act G—W—G’, Marx lays the scientific foundation for the theory of surplus value. This is a confirmation of the critical, thoroughgoing, revolutionary class consciousness of Marx’s theory of capital, and thereby strictly distinguishes it from bourgeois political economy.

马克思穿透资本主义经济关系和经济范畴的表象形式而指向它们所包含的内在本质，强调货币转化为资本在价值上的变化和增殖，不可能发生在货币本身上，因为在流通的第一个行为即货币本身作为购买手段和支付手段，只是实现它所购买或支付的商品的价格；同样，在流通的第二个行为即商品的再度出卖上，也不可能发生这种变化，因为这一行为只是使商品从自然形式再转化为货币形式。这种变化只能发生在第一个行为G—W所购买的商品上，但由于互相交换的是等价物，商品必须按它的价值支付，所以也不是发生在这种商品的价值上。因此“这种变化只能从这种商品的使用价值本身，即从这种商品的消费中产生。要从商品的消费中取得价值，我们的货币占有者就必须幸运地在流通领域内即在市场上发现这样一种商品，它的使用价值本身具有成为价值源泉的独特属性，因此，它的实际消费本身就是劳动的对象化，从而是价值的创造。货币占有者在市场上找到了这样一种独特的商品，这就是劳动能力或劳动力”。[1](P194-195）马克思通过对G—W—G’前后两端交换行为等价交换表象背后的经济关系和阶级关系的本质性考察，奠基了剩余价值理论的科学前提。这是马克思资本理论的批判的彻底的革命的阶级意识的一个确证，并由此与资产阶级政治经济学严格地区别开来。

For the money-owner to find on the market labour-power as a special commodity freely disposable by the worker himself — i.e., for labour-power to become a commodity — specific socio-historical conditions must be met. Unlike the formally unequal economic relations of extra-economic coercion in pre-capitalist societies, these specific socio-historical conditions must guarantee, both economically and legally, a relationship of ownership of equal exchange between the money-owner and the owner of labour-power. “The owner of labour-power and the money-owner meet in the market, and enter into relations with each other as owners of commodities of equal status, the only difference being that one is a buyer and the other a seller; both are therefore legally equal persons. … In alienating his labour-power, he does not renounce his ownership of it.” [1]1 The citation refers to Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Part II, Chapter 4, “The General Formula for Capital.” The page numbers correspond to the Chinese edition referenced by the author.(P195-196) The formation and existence of a labour market where the owner of labour-power and the money-owner can exchange as equals — i.e., a labour market that conforms to the law of value and legal contractual relations — is the socio-historical condition for labour-power to become a commodity. That is to say, only under socio-historical conditions where the worker must be a free person rather than a slave or serf can the money-owner find this special commodity, labour-power, on the market. “For the transformation of money into capital, the money-owner must find the free worker on the commodity market. Here ‘free’ has a double meaning: on the one hand, the worker is a free person, able to dispose of his labour-power as his own commodity; on the other hand, he has no other commodity to sell, he is free of all things, possessing nothing necessary for the realization of his labour-power.” [1]1 The citation refers to Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Part II, Chapter 4, “The General Formula for Capital.” The page numbers correspond to the Chinese edition referenced by the author.(P197)

货币占有者能够在市场上找到劳动者自己可自由支配的作为特殊商品的劳动力，即劳动力成为商品，必须具备特定的社会历史条件。与前资本主义社会超经济强制的形式不平等的经济关系不同，这种特定的社会历史条件无论在经济上还是在法律上，都必须保障货币占有者与劳动力占有者之间平等交换的所有权关系。“劳动力占有者和货币占有者在市场上相遇，彼此作为身份平等的商品占有者发生关系，所不同的只是一个是买者，一个是卖者，因此双方是在法律上平等的人。……他在让渡自己的劳动力时不放弃自己对它的所有权。”[1](P195-196）形成和存在一个劳动力所有者与货币占有者能够平等交换的劳动力市场，即能够符合价值规律和法律契约关系的劳动力市场，是劳动力成为商品的社会历史条件。也就是说，只有在劳动者必须是自由人而不是奴隶或农奴的社会历史条件下，货币占有者才能够在市场上找到劳动力这种特殊的商品。“货币占有者要把货币转化为资本，就必须在商品市场上找到自由的工人。这里所说的自由，具有双重意义：一方面，工人是自由人，能够把自己的劳动力当做自己的商品来支配，另一方面，他没有别的商品可以出卖，自由得一无所有，没有任何实现自己的劳动力所必需的东西。”[1](P197)

Marx’s rich historical knowledge and profound historical insight enable him always to keenly capture the “historical traces” of every economic phenomenon and economic category. Marx conducts a historical investigation of the two specific preconditions required for the transformation of money into capital, emphasizing that neither the emergence of the money-owner nor that of the free worker is a relationship of equal exchange prepared in advance by natural history, nor is it a relationship common to all socio-economic formations: “This relation has nothing to do with natural history, nor is it a social relation common to all historical periods. It is clearly the result of past historical development, the product of many economic transformations, the product of the extinction of a series of older forms of social production.” [1]1 The citation refers to Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Part II, Chapter 4, “The General Formula for Capital.” The page numbers correspond to the Chinese edition referenced by the author.(P197) The money-owner and the free worker are not eternal economic phenomena and categories that have always existed; rather, they are historical, transitory economic phenomena and categories formed under specific socio-historical conditions, on the basis of a series of profound and complex social transformations in the fields of the mode of production, the economic base, and the superstructure.

马克思丰厚的历史知识和深刻的历史眼光，使他总是能够敏锐地捕捉到每一种经济现象和经济范畴的“历史痕迹”。马克思对货币转化为资本所需要的两个特定的前提条件加以历史性考察，强调无论是货币占有者还是自由工人的出现，都不是自然史上事先准备好了的一种对等交换的关系，也不是一切社会经济形态中共同具有的关系：“这种关系既不是自然史上的关系，也不是一切历史时期所共有的社会关系。它本身显然是已往历史发展的结果，是许多次经济变革的产物，是一系列陈旧的社会生产形态灭亡的产物”。[1](P197）货币占有者和自由工人不是从来就有的永恒的经济现象和经济范畴，而是在生产方式、经济基础和上层建筑诸领域发生一系列深刻而复杂的社会变革的基础上，在特定的社会历史条件下所形成的历史的、暂时的经济现象和经济范畴。

Therefore, the emergence of economic phenomena and categories such as commodities and money, money-owners and free workers, are all historical events in the process of the evolution of socio-economic formations, and all bear the characteristics of historicity and transience. The transformation of a product into a commodity requires specific socio-historical conditions, namely, that for a product of labor to become a commodity, the producer must produce not for himself but for society as means of subsistence. Marx clearly points out that for all or at least the majority of products to take the form of commodities, “this can only happen on the basis of a very specific mode of production, the capitalist mode of production.” [1]1 The citation refers to Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Part II, Chapter 4, “The General Formula for Capital.” The page numbers correspond to the Chinese edition referenced by the author.(P197-198) But under historical conditions where, in simple commodity production and commodity circulation, the vast majority of products are directly used to meet the producers’ own needs, and the social production process, in both its breadth and depth, is still far from being governed by the logic of exchange value, the socio-historical conditions for the transformation of money into capital cannot exist. Only when developed commodity production and commodity circulation have been established, the process of separation between use-value and exchange-value has been completed, and all or at least the majority of products have taken the commodity form, does the emergence of capitalists and free workers change from a possibility into a reality of historical significance.

因此商品和货币、货币占有者和自由工人等经济现象和经济范畴的出现，都是社会经济形态演变过程中的历史性事件，都具有历史性和暂时性的特征。产品转化为商品，需要具备特定的社会历史条件，即劳动产品要成为商品，生产者必须不是为自己，而是为社会生产生存资料。马克思明确指出，全部产品或至少大部分产品采取商品的形式，“这种情况只有在一种十分特殊的生产方式即资本主义生产方式的基础上才会发生”。[1](P197-198）但在绝大多数产品直接用于满足生产者自己需要的简单的商品生产和商品流通中，产品还没有转化为商品，社会生产过程按其广度和深度来说都还远远没有为交换价值的逻辑所支配的历史条件下，不可能具备货币转化为资本的社会历史条件。只有在发达的商品生产和商品流通已经确立，使用价值和交换价值的分离过程已经完成，全部产品或至少大部分产品采取了商品形式的时候，资本家和自由工人的产生，才会由可能性变成具有历史性意义的现实。

In examining the specific socio-historical conditions required for the emergence of the capitalist mode of production, Marx emphasizes that commodity circulation and monetary circulation are the historical preconditions for the emergence of modern capital. However, commodity circulation and monetary circulation have long existed, so the emergence of capital also requires certain specific socio-historical conditions. That is, the development of the socio-economic form must have reached a historical stage where the money-owner can find on the market free workers who can sell their own labor-power, and where this formally equal exchange relation becomes a dominant exchange relation and legal-contractual relation. Only then does the transformation of money into capital change from a possibility into a reality. “The existence of commodity circulation and monetary circulation by no means constitutes the historical conditions for the existence of capital. Capital arises only when the owner of the means of production and subsistence finds free workers on the market as sellers of their own labor-power. And this one historical condition comprises a world history. Therefore, capital’s emergence marks a new epoch in the social production process.” [1]1 The citation refers to Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Part II, Chapter 4, “The General Formula for Capital.” The page numbers correspond to the Chinese edition referenced by the author.(P198) Marx thereby reveals the inner secret and logical mechanism of the birth history of capital and the world history of capital.

马克思在考察资本主义生产方式的产生所需要的特定的社会历史条件时，强调商品流通和货币流通是现代资本产生的历史前提，但商品流通和货币流通早已存在，因此资本的产生还需要某种特定的社会历史条件，即社会经济形式的发展只有达到了这样的历史阶段，在这里货币占有者在市场上能够找到可以出卖自己劳动力的自由工人，并且这种形式上平等的交换关系成为一种占主导地位的交换关系和法律契约关系的时候，货币转化为资本才会由可能变成现实。“有了商品流通和货币流通，决不是就具备了资本存在的历史条件。只有当生产资料和生活资料的占有者在市场上找到出卖自己劳动力的自由工人的时候，资本才产生，而单是这一历史条件就包含着一部世界史。因此，资本一出现，就标志着社会生产过程的一个新时代。”[1](P198）马克思由此揭示了资本的诞生史与资本的世界史的内在秘密和逻辑机制。

Marx’s critical examination of the specific socio-historical conditions for the transformation of money into capital demarcates two different socio-economic epochs. Marx links the historical conditions for the emergence of capital with the appearance of free workers and the commodification of the products of labor, and, based on the class relation of opposition between capital and labor, on the one hand elucidates, from the historical-temporal dimension, the historical significance of the transition of the mode of production from tradition to modernity, revealing the inner mechanism of the birth history of capital; on the other hand, from the geographical-spatial dimension, elucidates the world-historical significance of the emergence of capital and free workers, revealing the formation logic of the world history of capital.

马克思关于货币转化为资本的特定社会历史条件的批判性考察，划分了两种不同的社会经济时代。马克思把资本产生的历史条件与自由工人的出现，以及劳动产品的商品化联系在一起，并基于资本与劳动对立的阶级关系，一方面从历史—时间维度上阐明了生产方式从传统向现代演变的历史意义，揭示了资本的诞生史的内在机制；另一方面又从地理—空间维度上阐明了资本和自由工人的产生具有世界历史性意义，揭示了资本的世界史的形成逻辑。

The universalization of commodity production is the inner mechanism of the transformation of the mode of combination of laborers and the means of production from direct unity to separation. Marx’s historical examination and class analysis of the transformation of money into capital holds great significance in his theory of capital, serving as a link between the preceding and the following. The emergence of the capitalist mode of production requires specific socio-historical conditions. In the historical process of primitive accumulation of capital, which leads to the separation of laborers from the objective conditions of labor, i.e., the means of production, the basic conditions necessary for the birth of the capitalist mode of production gradually take shape: laborers, having lost their means of production, can only survive by selling their labor-power; money-owners can purchase workers’ labor-power on the labor market; wage workers and wage labor thus become universal economic phenomena and economic relations. With the increasing development of the universalization of commodity production aimed at exchange-value, the mode of combination of laborers and the means of production undergoes a transformation from direct unity to separation, and the labor-power of laborers thereby becomes a special commodity that can be sold. This is the fundamental reason leading to the transition of all forms of commodity production to capitalist commodity production.

商品生产的普遍化是劳动者和生产资料的结合方式从直接统一到分离发生转变的内在机制。马克思关于货币转化为资本的历史考察和阶级分析，在其资本理论体系中具有承前启后的重大意义。资本主义生产方式的产生需要特定的社会历史条件。在资本的原始积累所导致的劳动者与劳动的客观条件即生产资料发生分离的历史过程中，逐渐形成了资本主义生产方式诞生所需要的基本条件，即劳动者由于失去了生产资料而只能靠出卖自己的劳动力才能生存，货币占有者可以在劳动力市场上购买工人的劳动力，雇佣工人和雇佣劳动由此成为普遍存在的经济现象和经济关系。随着以交换价值为目的的商品生产的普遍化进程的日益发展，劳动者和生产资料的结合方式随之发生了从直接统一向两者分离的转变过程，劳动者的劳动力由此成了可以出卖的特殊商品。这是导致一切形式的商品生产过渡到资本主义商品生产的基本原因。

Marx points out: “The characteristic feature of the capitalist epoch is that labor-power takes on the form of a commodity belonging to the worker himself, and hence his labor takes the form of wage-labor. On the other hand, it is precisely from this point onward that the commodity form of the products of labor becomes universal.” [1]1 The citation refers to Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Part II, Chapter 4, “The General Formula for Capital.” The page numbers correspond to the Chinese edition referenced by the author.(P198) Therefore, once the basic conditions of capitalist production are in place—that is, simple commodity production evolves into developed commodity production, a separation occurs between laborers and the objective conditions of their labor, i.e., the means of production, and laborers, able to survive only by selling their labor-power, become free workers employed by capitalists—then these historical conditions will lead to the disintegration of all traditional modes of production and propel the social mode of production to complete its historical evolution from tradition to modernity. Human history thereby enters a new epoch of social history and world history.

马克思指出：“资本主义时代的特点是，对工人本身来说，劳动力是归他所有的一种商品的形式，因而他的劳动具有雇佣劳动的形式。另一方面，正是从这时起，劳动产品的商品形式才普遍化。”[1](P198）因此一旦具备了资本主义生产的基本条件，即简单的商品生产演变为发达的商品生产，发生了劳动者与其劳动的客观条件即生产资料的分离，劳动者只能靠出卖自己的劳动力才能生存而成为被资本家雇佣的自由工人，那么这种历史条件就会导致一切传统的生产方式趋于瓦解，并推动社会生产方式完成从传统到现代的历史演变，人类历史由此就进入了一个新的社会历史和世界历史时代。

Marx thus points out that the specific social mode of combination of laborers and the means of production, as the basic elements of social production, becomes a fundamental basis for judging and distinguishing different socio-economic formations. “Whatever the social form of production, laborers and the means of production always remain its factors. But in a state of separation from each other, these factors are only potentially factors of production. For production to take place, they must be combined. The particular manner and method of this combination distinguishes the different economic epochs of the social structure.” [2]2 The reference is to Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume 1, Chapter 4, Section 1: “The General Formula for Capital.” The page numbers cited correspond to the Chinese edition.(P44) Based on this unique perspective and explanatory framework of the mode of combination of laborers and the means of production, Marx provides us with a fundamental basis for distinguishing different modes of production and their interrelations, as well as a scientific historical-methodological principle for examining the transition of socio-economic formations from tradition to modernity.

马克思由此指出，作为社会生产基本要素的劳动者与生产资料的特定的社会结合方式，就成为对不同的社会经济形态进行判断和区分的一个基本依据。“不论生产的社会的形式如何，劳动者和生产资料始终是生产的因素。但是，二者在彼此分离的情况下只在可能性上是生产因素。凡要进行生产，它们就必须结合起来。实行这种结合的特殊方式和方法，使社会结构区分为各个不同的经济时期。”[2](P44）马克思基于劳动者与生产资料的结合方式这一独特的透视视角和解释框架，为我们提供了区分不同生产方式及其相互关系的基本依据，以及考察社会经济形态从传统向现代过渡的科学的历史方法论原则。

III. The Socio-Historical Conditions Required for the Circuit of Money Capital and the Establishment of New Class Relations

三、货币资本循环所需要的社会历史条件与新的阶级关系的确立

Marx’s examination of the issue of the purchase and sale of labor-power as a commodity appears respectively in Volume I and Volume II of *Capital*. The reason Marx examines the purchase and sale of labor-power—a form of exchange occurring in the sphere of circulation—in Volume I, which studies the production process of capital, is that it is the precondition for the capitalist production process to proceed. In Volume II, which studies the circulation process of capital, Marx once again examines the issue of the purchase and sale of labor-power. That both Volume I and Volume II of *Capital* examine this same issue is by no means Marx’s oversight or repetition, but an inevitable requirement for elucidating the historical origin and class essence of capitalism. Although Volume I of *Capital* has already systematically expounded that labor-power becoming a commodity is the indispensable socio-historical precondition for the capitalist mode of production aimed at producing surplus-value, in Volume II, out of the historical and logical need to examine the circuit of money capital, Marx once again details, from the specific perspective of the circuit of money capital, the specific socio-historical conditions required for labor-power to become a commodity, and makes a series of important judgments and conclusions imbued with a conscious historical consciousness regarding issues such as the transition of the mode of production from tradition to modernity.

马克思关于劳动力商品的买卖问题的考察，分别出现在《资本论》第一卷和第二卷中。马克思之所以在研究资本的生产过程的第一卷中考察劳动力的买卖这一发生在流通领域的交换形式，是因为它是资本主义生产过程得以进行的前提条件。马克思在研究资本流通过程的第二卷中再一次考察了劳动力的买卖问题。《资本论》第一卷和第二卷都考察这同一个问题，决不是马克思的遗忘或重复，而是阐明资本主义历史起源和阶级本质的必然要求。尽管《资本论》第一卷已经系统地阐明了劳动力成为商品是以生产剩余价值为目的的资本主义生产方式的不可缺少的社会历史前提，但在第二卷中，马克思出于考察货币资本循环的历史的和逻辑的需要，依然从货币资本循环的特定视角上再次详述了劳动力成为商品所需要的特定的社会历史条件，并就生产方式从传统向现代的过渡等问题，作出了一系列富有自觉历史意识的重要判断和结论。

First, the Historical Consciousness and Class Consciousness in the Formula of the Circuit of Money Capital G—W…P…W’—G’.

第一，货币资本循环G—W…P…W’—G’公式中的历史意识与阶级意识。

Marx points out that the circuit of capital passes through three interconnected stages, forming the following sequential pattern in the time and space of the circulation process and the production process: the first stage, the capitalist appears on the commodity market and the labour market as a buyer, and his money is transformed into commodities, i.e., G—W; the second stage, the capitalist productively consumes the purchased commodities, carrying out the production process of capital, and the value of the commodities produced is greater than the value of the productive elements invested, i.e., W…P…W’; the third stage, the capitalist returns to the market as a seller, transforming his commodities into money, i.e., W’—G’. This forms the complete circuit of money-capital: G—W…P…W’—G’. W’ and G’ denote W and G that have increased in magnitude after the valorisation process of surplus-value production.

马克思指出，资本循环过程经过三个相互联系的阶段，在流通过程和生产过程的时间和空间中形成如下序列形式：第一阶段，资本家作为买者出现在商品市场和劳动力市场上，其货币转化为商品，即G—W；第二阶段，资本家用所购商品从事生产消费，进行资本的生产过程，生产出来的商品价值大于所投入的生产要素的价值，即W…P…W’；第三阶段，资本家作为卖者再回到市场上，使其商品转化为货币，即W—G。由此形成了货币资本循环的完整过程：G—W…P…W’—G’。W’和G’表示经历了剩余价值生产的增殖过程后而在量上增大了的W和G。

In order to pursue surplus-value, the capitalist must, as a buyer, purchase in the sphere of circulation the commodity W that can produce surplus-value, which includes two parts: the means of production Pm and labour-power A, i.e., G—W. “G—A is the characteristic element in the transformation of money-capital into productive capital, because it is the essential condition for the actual transformation of the value advanced in the money-form into capital, into value that produces surplus-value. G—Pm is necessary only in order to realise the quantity of labour purchased in G—A.”[2]2 The reference is to Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume 1, Chapter 4, Section 1: “The General Formula for Capital.” The page numbers cited correspond to the Chinese edition.(P36) Yet in the vision of bourgeois political economists, “G—A is generally regarded as the characteristic feature of the capitalist mode of production.”[2]2 The reference is to Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume 1, Chapter 4, Section 1: “The General Formula for Capital.” The page numbers cited correspond to the Chinese edition.(P36) However, they fail to see that behind the formal appearance of a free contract of purchase and sale between capitalist and worker lies an exploitative process in which the quantity of labour provided by the worker is greater than that necessary to compensate the price of labour-power, i.e., wages, and this is precisely “the fundamental condition for the capitalisation of the value advanced, or the production of surplus-value.”[2]2 The reference is to Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume 1, Chapter 4, Section 1: “The General Formula for Capital.” The page numbers cited correspond to the Chinese edition.(P36) They see only its form, i.e., they regard labour as being purchased with money in the form of wages, and take this as a hallmark of the money economy. Therefore, the reason why the buyer-seller relationship G—A between capitalist and worker is regarded as the characteristic feature of the capitalist mode of production lies not in the irrationality of its contractual form, but in the substantive inequality of exploitation in the production process that lies behind the appearance of formal equality in this free buyer-seller relationship. “This irrationality consists in the fact that labour itself, as a value-forming element, cannot possess any value… Wages are merely a disguised form.”[2]2 The reference is to Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume 1, Chapter 4, Section 1: “The General Formula for Capital.” The page numbers cited correspond to the Chinese edition.(P36-37) Based on a conscious historical consciousness and critical class consciousness in his critique of capital and political economy, Marx, while revealing the inner essence behind the phenomena of capitalist economic relations, also criticises the ahistorical abstract notions of bourgeois economists, exposing their class essence of circling on the surface without touching the substance of exploitation. The key to Marx’s critique of political economy lies in his possession of a class viewpoint and class analysis method capable of piercing the surface forms of economic relations to directly reach the essence.

资本家为了追求剩余价值，必须作为买者在流通领域购买到能够生产剩余价值的商品W，包括生产资料Pm和劳动力A两部分，即G—W <。“G—A是货币资本转化为生产资本的一个具有特征性质的因素，因为它是以货币形式预付的价值得以实际转化为资本，转化为生产剩余价值的价值的本质条件。G—Pm所以必要，只是为了实现在G—A中购买的劳动量。”[2](P36）而在资产阶级政治经济学家们的视野中，“G—A一般被看做是资本主义生产方式的特征”。[2](P36）然而他们没有看到在资本家和工人之间自由买卖的契约表象形式的背后，存在着工人提供的劳动量大于补偿劳动力价格即工资所必需的量的剥削过程，而这恰恰是“预付价值资本化或者说剩余价值生产的根本条件”。[2](P36）他们仅仅看到了它的形式，即认为劳动是以工资的形式用货币购买的，并把这一点看作货币经济的标志。因此资本家与工人的买卖关系G—A之所以被当作资本主义生产方式的特征，不在于它的契约形式的不合理，而在于在这种自由买卖关系的形式平等的表象背后，存在着在生产过程中被剥削的实质上的不平等。“这种不合理在于：作为价值形成要素的劳动本身不能具有价值……工资只是一个伪装的形式。”[2](P36-37）马克思基于资本批判和政治经济学批判的自觉的历史意识与批判的阶级意识，在揭示资本主义经济关系现象背后的内在本质的同时，又批判了资产阶级经济学家们非历史的抽象观念，揭穿了他们在表面上兜圈子而不触及剥削实质的阶级本质。马克思政治经济学批判的关键所在，是他具有击穿经济关系的表面形式而直透本质的阶级观点和阶级分析方法。

Marx points out that although the buyer-seller relationship between the possessor of money and the possessor of labour-power is regarded by bourgeois economists as a characteristic and hallmark of the money economy, historically money had already appeared as a buyer of services long before, and in all pre-modern societies where wage-labour had not yet emerged, money only served as the universal equivalent form of all commodities to express the prices of all commodities; it did not thereby transform into money-capital, and the general nature of the economic form had not yet undergone a historical transformation. Therefore, only under the specific socio-historical conditions where labour-power appears on the market as a commodity disposable by the free worker, and the sale of labour-power takes the form of wages, does the motive of the circuit of money-capital that produces surplus-value, i.e., G—W…P…W’—G’, continuously valorising in its ongoing circuit, change from a latent possibility into a real process.

马克思指出，货币占有者和劳动力占有者之间的买卖关系，虽然被资产阶级经济学家们认为是货币经济的特征和标志，但在历史上货币很早就已经作为服务的买者出现了，而在雇佣劳动尚未出现的一切前现代社会中，货币还只是作为一切商品的一般等价形式去表现一切商品的价格，它并没有因此转化为货币资本，经济形式的一般性质还没有发生历史性变革。因此只有在劳动力作为自由工人可支配的商品出现在市场上，劳动力的出卖采取工资形式的特定的社会历史条件下，生产剩余价值的货币资本的循环，即G—W…P…W’—G’在持续循环中不断增殖的动机，才会从潜在的可能性变成现实过程。

Marx points out that the buyer-seller relationship G—A, which occurs in the labour market, is formally a free and equal buyer-seller relationship consistent with the spirit of contract. But behind this formally free and equal buyer-seller relationship consistent with contractual principles lies a substantive economic relation: the capitalist is the possessor of the means of production, while the worker’s labour-power can only be disposed of and used by the capitalist. The class antagonism embodied in this buyer-seller relationship arises because a historical separation has already occurred between the possessor of labour-power and the objective conditions of labour. Primitive accumulation of capital is precisely the historical process in which the possessors of the means of production and labour-power become separated, i.e., the historical process in which the means of production and the direct producers change from a direct combination to a separation. Volume One of *Capital* devotes a special chapter, “So-Called Primitive Accumulation,” to this investigation, embodying the organic integration of Marx’s historical consciousness and class consciousness in his critique of capital and political economy. It is precisely through the organic integration of these two forms of consciousness that Marx can thoroughly dispel the false appearances and dense mists of capitalist economic relations, exposing the ahistorical myth of the eternity of capital and the false ideology of equality in labour-capital relations upheld by bourgeois political economy.

马克思指出，G—A这种发生在劳动力市场的买卖关系，形式上是符合契约精神的自由平等的买卖关系，但这种形式上符合契约原则的自由平等的买卖关系背后，存在着一种实质性的经济关系，即资本家是生产资料的占有者，而工人的劳动力只能归资本家支配和使用。这种买卖关系所体现的阶级对立之所以发生，是因为已经发生了劳动力的占有者与劳动的客观条件的历史性分离。资本的原始积累实际上就是生产资料与劳动力的占有者发生分离的历史过程，即生产资料与劳动者从直接结合到发生分离的历史过程。《资本论》第一卷设“所谓原始积累”章进行专门考察，体现了马克思资本批判和政治经济学批判的历史意识与阶级意识的有机结合。正是这两种意识的有机结合，马克思才能彻底拨开资本主义经济关系的虚假表象和重重迷雾，揭穿资产阶级政治经济学关于资本永恒的非历史的神话和劳资关系平等的虚假意识形态。

Based on his investigation of the specific socio-historical conditions required for the circuit of money-capital, Marx draws an irrefutable historical conclusion: “Only on the basis of already developed capitalist production does the formula of the circuit of money-capital, G—W…P…W’—G’, become the natural form of the circuit of capital, because it presupposes the existence of the wage-working class on a social scale. … Capitalist production does not merely produce commodities and surplus-value; it also reproduces and reproduces on an ever-increasing scale the wage-working class, transforming the vast majority of direct producers into wage-workers.”[2]2 The reference is to Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume 1, Chapter 4, Section 1: “The General Formula for Capital.” The page numbers cited correspond to the Chinese edition.(P41)

马克思基于对货币资本循环所需要的特定的社会历史条件的考察，得出了无可辩驳的历史性结论：“只有在已经发展的资本主义生产的基础上，货币资本循环的公式，G—W…P…W’—G’，才是资本循环的当然形式，因为它是以雇佣工人阶级的社会规模的存在作为前提的。……资本主义生产不仅生产商品和剩余价值；它还再生产并且以越来越大的规模再生产雇佣工人阶级，把绝大多数直接生产者变为雇佣工人。”[2](P41)

The establishment of the seemingly purely formal formula of the circuit of money-capital, G—W…P…W’—G’, must in fact presuppose the prior process of the separation of the means of production from the direct producers. Once this historical separation process is completed, the historical conditions required for the circuit of money-capital, i.e., the class antagonism between capitalist and worker, are produced. The separation of the means of production from the direct producers that occurs in the process of primitive accumulation of capital creates the specific socio-historical conditions for the emergence and existence of the circuit of capital. The establishment of the socio-economic form represented by the formula G—W…P…W’—G’ is a historical event in the evolution from simple commodity production to developed commodity production, a historical transformation of the social mode of production from tradition to modernity. It not only marks a new epoch in the social production process but also signifies the opening of a world-historical era of capitalist colonial expansion.

货币资本循环G—W…P…W’—G’这一看似纯粹形式的公式的确立，实际上必须以生产资料与劳动者发生分离的先行过程为前提，而这一历史分离过程一旦完成，货币资本循环所需要的历史条件即资本家和工人之间的阶级对立就产生了。在资本原始积累过程中发生的生产资料与劳动者的分离，创造了资本循环得以产生和存在的特定的社会历史条件。G—W…P…W’—G’这一公式所代表的社会经济形式的确立，是从简单的商品生产向发达的商品生产演变的历史性事件，是社会生产方式从传统向现代飞跃的历史性变革，它既标志着社会生产过程的一个新时代，也包含着资本殖民扩张的世界历史时代的开启。

Second, capitalist commodity production is “an epoch-making mode of exploitation.”

第二，资本主义商品生产是“一个划时代的剥削方式”。

Based on the historical consciousness and class consciousness of his critique of capital, Marx elucidates the socio-historical preconditions that make the circuit of capital and the accumulation of capital possible. Only after undergoing the bloody process of primitive accumulation of capital, which leads to the separation of the means of production from the direct producers, and thus to the class antagonism between the possessor of money and the possessor of labour-power, can the mere function of money be transformed into the function of capital. This is the specific socio-historical condition that makes the circuit of capital G—W…P…W’—G’ possible, i.e., the condition required for the accumulation of capital. Therefore, “once capitalist production is established, it not only reproduces this separation in its development, but also expands it on an ever-increasing scale, so that it becomes the universally dominant social state. … Only on the basis of capitalist production does commodity production appear as the standard, dominant character of production.”[2]2 The reference is to Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume 1, Chapter 4, Section 1: “The General Formula for Capital.” The page numbers cited correspond to the Chinese edition.(P40) Only at this specific historical stage, when commodity production has developed into capitalist production occupying universal dominance, can the socio-historical condition of the separation of the means of production from the direct producers be formed; and primitive accumulation of capital, as the historical process leading to this separation, becomes the socio-historical precondition that makes the circuit of capital and the accumulation of capital possible. That is to say, the emergence of surplus-value and wage-labour can only be the product of a major transformation of specific socio-economic relations; they are economic categories peculiar to capitalist society.

马克思基于资本批判的历史意识和阶级意识阐明了资本循环和资本积累何以可能的社会历史前提。只有经历了资本血腥的原始积累过程，导致了生产资料与劳动者的分离，从而导致了货币所有者与劳动力所有者的阶级对立，单纯的货币职能才能转化为资本职能。这就是资本循环G—W…P…W’—G’成为可能，即资本积累所需要的特定的社会历史条件。因此“资本主义生产一经确立，就会在它的发展中不仅使这种分离再生产出来，而且使之以越来越大的规模扩大，以致成为普遍占统治地位的社会状态。……只有在资本主义生产的基础上，商品生产才表现为生产的标准的、占统治地位的性质”。[2](P40）只有在商品生产发展到占普遍统治地位的资本主义生产这个特定的历史阶段，生产资料与劳动者分离的社会历史条件才能形成；而资本原始积累作为导致生产资料与劳动者分离的历史过程，就成为资本循环和资本积累之所以可能的社会历史前提。也就是说，剩余价值和雇佣劳动的出现，只能是特定的社会经济关系发生重大变革的产物，它们是资本主义社会所特有的经济范畴。

Unlike the direct combination of laborers and means of production in the mode of production prior to the emergence of capitalism, in the capitalist mode of production the mode of combination of laborers and means of production has undergone a profound transformation, namely, the separation of laborers from the means of production becomes the established point of departure; laborers, having lost the means of production, become wage-workers of the capitalist, become formally free workers. Under these circumstances, laborers and means of production are combined in the hands of the capitalist as elements of the form of capital production. “The actual process in which the human and the material elements of commodities are brought together in this way and enter into the process together, i.e., the production process, itself becomes a function of capital, becomes the capitalist production process. … Every kind of commodity production simultaneously becomes a kind of exploitation of labor-power, but only capitalist commodity production becomes an epoch-making mode of exploitation, which, in its historical development, through the organization of the labor process and the great achievements of technology, transforms the entire economic structure of society and surpasses all previous periods in an incomparable way.”[2]2 The reference is to Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume 1, Chapter 4, Section 1: “The General Formula for Capital.” The page numbers cited correspond to the Chinese edition.(P44) This transformation of the socio-economic structure and the emergence of an epoch-making mode of exploitation not only marks a new era in the social production process, but also marks the formation of the world market of capital and the arrival of the era of world history.

与资本主义产生之前生产方式中劳动者和生产资料的直接结合不同，在资本主义生产方式中，劳动者和生产资料的结合方式已经发生了深刻变革，即劳动者与生产资料的分离成为既定的出发点，劳动者由于失去了生产资料而成为资本家的雇佣工人，成为形式上的自由工人。在这种情况下，劳动者和生产资料在资本家手中是作为资本生产的要素形式而结合在一起的。“形成商品的人的要素和物的要素这样结合起来一同进入的现实过程，即生产过程，本身就成为资本的一种职能，成为资本主义的生产过程。……商品生产的每一种经营都同时成为剥削劳动力的经营，但是，只有资本主义的商品生产，才成为一个划时代的剥削方式，这种剥削方式在它的历史发展中，由于劳动过程的组织和技术的巨大成就，使社会的整个经济结构发生变革，并且不可比拟地超越了以前的一切时期。”[2](P44）这种社会经济结构的变革和划时代的剥削方式的产生，不仅标志着社会生产过程的一个新时代，而且标志着资本的世界市场的形成和世界历史时代的到来。

The separation of laborers from the means of production from their direct unity, and the consequent reduction of laborers to having nothing and becoming free workers who can only sell their labor-power, determines the exploitative nature of the capitalist production process; it can only be a universalized, developed commodity production aimed at producing surplus value. Unlike simple commodity production, in which laborers and means of production are directly combined and which aims at producing use-values, modern capitalist production, due to the historical separation of free workers from the means of production, has brought about a major transformation in the economic structure and class relations of society; correspondingly, the organization and technological application of the social labor process have also undergone enormous changes. This is an epoch-making historical evolution of the social mode of production and mode of exploitation from pre-modern to modern times, a worldwide transformation in which the economic structure and class relations of the modern bourgeoisie move toward globalization through colonial expansion.

劳动者与生产资料从直接统一到发生分离，并由此变得一无所有而成为只能靠出卖自己劳动力的自由工人，决定了资本主义生产过程的剥削性质，它只能是以生产剩余价值为目的的普遍意义上的发达的商品生产。与劳动者和生产资料直接结合的、以生产使用价值为目的的简单的商品生产不同，现代资本主义生产由于自由工人与生产资料发生了历史性分离，而使社会的经济结构和阶级关系发生了重大变革，与之相对应，社会的劳动过程在组织形式和技术应用上也随之发生了巨大变化。这是社会生产方式与剥削方式从前现代到现代的一种划时代的历史性演变，是现代资产阶级的经济结构和阶级关系在殖民扩张中走向全球的世界性变革。

IV. Conclusion

四、结语

Marx’s examination of the historical consciousness and class consciousness in the transformation of money into capital, as a theoretical structure full of the tension of historical dialectics, scientifically examines the social-historical conditions under which labor-power becomes a commodity, the condition for the transformation of money into capital, reveals the intermediary forms and historical mechanisms of the evolution of the mode of production from traditional society to modern capitalist society, and elucidates the logic of the formation history of capital and the genesis of world history. Proceeding from a critical and revolutionary class consciousness, i.e., the class viewpoint and class analysis method, Marx pierced the veil of the false form of free and equal exchange relations in bourgeois political economy, and revealed the class essence of capital’s exploitation, domination, and enslavement of labor hidden behind the surface forms of capitalist economic relations. This is the fundamental reason why Marx arrived at the historical conclusion that capitalist commodity production is an epoch-making mode of exploitation.

马克思考察货币转化为资本的历史意识与阶级意识作为一个充满历史辩证法张力的理论结构，科学地考察了劳动力成为商品这一货币转化为资本的社会历史条件，揭示了生产方式从传统社会向现代资本主义社会演变的中介形式和历史机制，阐明了资本的形成史和世界史的发生逻辑。马克思从批判的革命的阶级意识即阶级观点和阶级分析方法出发，击穿了资产阶级政治经济学关于自由和平等交换关系的虚假形式之幕，揭示了资本主义经济关系表象形式背后隐藏着的资本剥削、支配和奴役劳动的阶级本质。这是马克思得出资本主义商品生产是一个划时代的剥削方式的历史性结论的基本原因。

(Author’s brief introduction: Liu Jingdong, Professor and Doctoral Supervisor, School of Marxism, Tsinghua University)

（作者简介：刘敬东，清华大学马克思主义学院教授、博士生导师）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心