The Essence–Phenomenon Perspective Method: The Fundamental Method of Marx’s Critique of Political Economy

Marx’s methodology, as the pinnacle of human cognition and practice, constitutes a theoretical ladder leading to truth and value. The critique of political economy crystallises Marx’s methodological wisdom, presenting an internally interrelated cluster of methods. In recent years, with the flourishing of philosophical research on *Capital*, the level of reflection on its methods has also risen accordingly, yet several key issues still await further in-depth exploration. Among the methods that unfold or concretise dialectical materialism—the general method of *Capital* and its manuscripts—at different levels and dimensions, the essence–phenomenon perspective method holds foundational significance and constitutes the fundamental method of Marx’s critique of political economy. For a long time, although this method has been well known, it has never received sufficient recognition and deep elucidation commensurate with its actual function, thus remaining to some extent in a state of concealment, not yet sufficiently and clearly brought to light. Recently, some scholars have proposed that the method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete constitutes the principal method of *Capital* and have provided detailed explanations, yet the perspective method of essence and phenomenon has not been specifically discussed as a method of *Capital*. In fact, within the system of dialectical materialism, the method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete is merely the concrete unfolding and representation of the essence–phenomenon perspective method. The method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete indeed constitutes the principal method of Marx’s critique of political economy, but it is rooted in and founded upon the essence–phenomenon perspective method as the fundamental method.

马克思的方法论作为人类认识与实践的思维高峰，是通向真理与价值的理论阶梯。政治经济学批判凝结着马克思的方法智慧，呈现出一个内在关联的方法群。近年来，伴随《资本论》哲学研究的兴盛，对其中方法的反思水准亦水涨船高，但仍有若干关键问题有待进一步深入探讨。在作为《资本论》及其手稿总方法的唯物辩证法展开或具体化的不同层次与维度的方法中，本质－现象透视法具有根基意义，构成马克思政治经济学批判的根本方法。长期以来，这一方法虽为人们所熟知，但始终没有得到同其实际功用相匹配的足够肯定与深度阐发，从而仍然在某种程度上处于隐而不彰的状态，尚未足够明晰地敞亮开来。近来，有学者提出从抽象上升到具体法构成《资本论》的主要方法，并作出细致阐释，而本质与现象的透视法却没有被作为《资本论》的方法专门论及。事实上，在唯物辩证法系统中，从抽象上升到具体法不过是本质－现象透视法的具体展开与表征。从抽象上升到具体法的确构成马克思政治经济学批判的主要方法，但它植根和奠基于本质－现象透视法这一根本方法。

I. From the Abstract to the Concrete: The Dialectical Movement from Essence to Phenomenon

一、从抽象上升到具体：本质至现象的辩证运动

Academic circles have long studied Marx’s method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete and have achieved considerable progress, yet there remain inaccuracies. In particular, the key to this method—that the “abstract” is the decisive essence—has not been directly addressed, and thus cannot be clearly revealed. This not only prevents a deep understanding of the method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete but also makes it difficult to scientifically judge its relationship with the essence–phenomenon perspective method. In fact, this key itself not only indicates that the method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete involves a perspective on essence and phenomenon but also signifies the foundational significance of the essence–phenomenon perspective method for the method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete.

学界对马克思的从抽象上升到具体法一直颇有研究，且取得较好进展，但仍存在不甚确切之处。特别是该方法的关键：“抽象”是具有决定意义的本质，尚未得到直接的论及，从而无法清晰地加以揭示。这既造成从抽象上升到具体法没有被深入地加以理解，亦导致它与本质－现象透视法的关系难以被科学地予以判断。事实上，这一关键本身不仅预示了从抽象上升到具体法对本质与现象的透视，而且表征了本质－现象透视法之于从抽象上升到具体法的根基意义。

Broadly speaking, the method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete has two main stages: first, through a progressively deeper analysis of the “real and concrete,” grasping its “decisive” abstraction; then, exhibiting the dialectical unfolding process of this essential determination, thereby achieving a concrete totality that can reflect and reproduce reality. The concretisation of the abstract or universal essence is a process of dialectical negation, increasingly manifesting as phenomenon. This method contains three logical nodes: concrete reality—thought abstraction—theoretical concrete. The ascent from the abstract to the concrete mainly refers to the process from the second node to the third node.

大致而言，从抽象上升到具体法主要有两个阶段：先行通过对“实在与具体”逐层深入的解析，从中把握其“有决定意义”的抽象，再展现此本质规定的辩证展开过程，进而达成能够反映和再现现实的具体总体。抽象或普遍本质具体化的展开是一种辩证否定的过程，愈益表现为现象。这一方法内含三个逻辑节点：现实具体——思维抽象——思想理论具体。从抽象上升到具体，主要指从第二节点到第三节点的过程。

1. First Stage: Penetrating to the Decisive Essence

1.第一阶段：洞见有决定意义的本质

The first stage is “from the concrete in representation to ever thinner abstractions,” that is, conducting an in-depth investigation of the real subject or concrete reality, tracing it layer by layer to its roots, discovering the deepest essential determinations or foundations, and thus penetrating to the most decisive “abstraction” of the real subject. Within the horizon of the critique of political economy, the real subject is a specific society—“modern bourgeois society,” especially its material production.

前一阶段是，“从表象中的具体达到越来越稀薄的抽象”，即对实在主体或现实具体展开深入考察，逐层逐级地追根究底，发现当中最深刻的本质规定或根据，从而洞见实在主体最具决定性意义的“抽象”。在政治经济学批判视域中，实在主体是一定的社会——“现代资产阶级社会”，特别是其物质生产。

Hegel once said: “Pure being” or “pure having,” as the starting point of logic, appears sensuously concrete, but in fact “is pure abstraction, and therefore absolute negation.” The forms of being, such as quality, quantity, and measure, “precisely because they are the most initial, are also the poorest, i.e., the most abstract.” Consistent with this, in Section 3 of the *Introduction to the Critique of Political Economy*, Marx first criticises the seemingly correct but fallacious “first path” of examining a specific country (real society) from the perspective of political economy. “To begin with the real and concrete, with the real precondition, thus, for example, in economics to begin with population, which is the basis and subject of all social production, seems correct. But, on closer examination, this proves false.” This approach is false because, without linking population to the social totality and studying population directly, its true substance cannot be revealed. Moreover, the result of such research, though seemingly concrete, is in fact abstract—merely a chaotic representation of population. More importantly, this mode of research inevitably fails to grasp the decisive essence in modern society and thus cannot thoroughly comprehend the society in which modern people exist. As Marx points out: “If I were to set aside the classes that constitute population, population would be an abstraction. If I do not know the factors on which these classes are based, such as wage labour, capital, etc., class is an empty phrase. And these factors presuppose exchange, division of labour, prices, etc. For example, capital is nothing without wage labour, value, money, prices, etc.” Marx argues that to understand population, one must first understand class, because it is the substance of population. Similarly, to understand class, one must first understand wage labour, capital, etc., because they are the basis of class and class division. By the same logic, only by first understanding value, exchange, money, etc., which constitute the preconditions of capital, can one truly and thoroughly understand capital. In short, only by first understanding deep essences such as value, division of labour, exchange, and money can one successively grasp relatively surface-level existences such as capital, class, and population, and thereby scientifically clarify the entire real society. Therefore, penetrating to essential, decisive deep foundations, and then unfolding analysis based on these true essences, constitutes the key step in grasping real society.

黑格尔曾言：作为逻辑学起点的“纯存在”或“纯有”看似感性具体，实则“是纯粹的抽象，因此是绝对的否定”。质、量、度等存在的形式，“正因为它们是最初的，所以又是最贫乏的，亦即最抽象的”。与此一致，在《〈政治经济学批判〉导言》第三节中，马克思首先批判了从政治经济学角度考察特定国家（现实社会）的似是而非的“第一条道路”。“从实在和具体开始，从现实的前提开始，因而，例如在经济学上从作为全部社会生产行为的基础和主体的人口开始，似乎是正确的。但是，更仔细地考察起来，这是错误的。”此种进路之所以错误，是因为不将人口同社会总体联系起来，直接就人口而研究人口，其真正的实质必定无法绽露出来。从而，研究结果看似具体实则抽象，只是关于人口的一个混沌的表象。更重要的是，这种研究方式必然把握不到现代社会中发挥决定性作用的本质，从而无法透彻地把握现代人存在其中的社会。正如马克思所指出的：“抛开构成人口的阶级，人口就是一个抽象。如果我不知道这些阶级所依据的因素，如雇佣劳动、资本等等，阶级又是一句空话。而这些因素是以交换、分工、价格等等为前提的。比如资本，如果没有雇佣劳动、价值、货币、价格等等，它就什么也不是。”马克思认为，要认识人口，就不能不先行理解阶级，因为它是人口的实质。与此相似，要认识阶级，就不能不先行理解雇佣劳动、资本等，因为它们是阶级和阶级划分的根据。同样的道理，唯有先行理解构成资本前提的价值、交换、货币等，方能真正透彻地认识资本。质言之，只有先行理解价值、分工、交换、货币等深层本质，才能依次把握资本、阶级和人口等相对表面的存在，进而科学澄明整个现实社会。所以，洞见本质性、决定性的深层根据，进而依据这些真实的本质展开解析，构成把握现实社会的关键步骤。

In its early period, economics “always begins with the living whole, with population, nation, state,” etc., but “in the end they always find, through analysis, some decisive abstract general relations, such as division of labour, money, value, etc.” Although the economists’ method was erroneous, they were “compelled” to do some useful work, thereby making a certain positive contribution to constructing a scientific economics. This contribution mainly consists in finding decisive general relations such as value, division of labour, exchange, and money. Through “closer determination of the sensuous concrete, I arrive at increasingly simple concepts in analysis; from the concrete in representation to ever thinner abstractions, until I reach some simplest determinations.” It is not difficult to see that “ever thinner abstractions” are “increasingly simple concepts,” i.e., increasingly “simple determinations”; or, “the simplest determinations” are the “simplest concepts,” i.e., the “thinnest abstractions.” Here, “abstraction” is consistent with “concept” and “determination,” and “thin” is consistent with “simple.” So, what do these “simple concepts,” “simple determinations,” and “abstract determinations” refer to? This constitutes the crux of the issue. The author believes that, in Marx’s view, they refer to essential and general determinations such as value, division of labour, exchange, and money. “Simple” here does not mean easy in the sense of difficulty, nor underdeveloped, but rather essential determination. The most essential, most general foundations, because they contain few determinations, appear pure, simple, and thus “simple.”

经济学在它产生时期“总是从生动的整体，从人口、民族、国家”等开始，但“他们最后总是从分析中找出一些有决定意义的抽象的一般的关系，如分工、货币、价值等等”。虽然经济学家们的方法是错误的，但他们还是“不得不”做了某些有益工作，从而为建构科学的经济学作出一定的积极贡献。此种贡献主要表现为找出价值、分工、交换、货币等有决定意义的一般关系。通过对人口等感性实在“更切近的规定我就会在分析中达到越来越简单的概念；从表象中的具体达到越来越稀薄的抽象，直到我达到一些最简单的规定”。不难看出，“越来越稀薄的抽象”即“越来越简单的概念”，亦即越来越“简单的规定”；或者说，“最简单的规定”即最“简单的概念”，亦即最“稀薄的抽象”。此处的“抽象”同“概念”“规定”一致，“稀薄”与“简单”一致。那么，这些“简单的概念”“简单的规定”“抽象的规定”指的是什么？这构成问题的关键。笔者认为，它们在马克思那里，即价值、分工、交换和货币这些本质的和一般的规定。这里的“简单”并非难易意义上的容易，也不是不发达，而是指本质的规定。最本质、最一般的根据由于涵容的规定性少，显得纯粹、单纯从而“简单”。

At this point, the meaning of the concept “abstract” gradually becomes clear. The ascent from the abstract to the concrete cannot do without abstraction, and indeed first requires abstraction. Of course, it must be rational or scientific abstraction. Marx emphasizes that abstraction can be either rational or irrational. Irrational abstraction leads research astray. Rational abstraction is a process of appropriately extracting common features; it “really brings out the common point, fixes it, so that we do not repeat ourselves.” [2]2 Karl Marx, *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*, in *Marx Engels Collected Works* (MECW), vol. 28, p. 22. The result of this process of abstraction—abstraction in the nominal sense—is the universal, i.e., “the most general abstraction.” Precisely because the universal is a commonality, it discards many specific particularities and thus appears abstract. “The beginning must be an abstract beginning,” and “no more detailed determination can be applied to the beginning.” [3]3 G.W.F. Hegel, *Science of Logic*, trans. A.V. Miller (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1969), p. 71. Value, exchange, money, and the like in the modern sense are all universals that exhibit abstractness. But “abstract” also has a more crucial meaning: the essence that has decisive significance. Marx emphasizes that this abstraction is not abstraction in the general sense but abstraction “of decisive significance.” In the study of political economy, value, division of labor, exchange, money, etc., all play a decisive role to varying degrees and are therefore essential determinations—essence. As the starting point of this method, “abstraction” means grasping the “essential determinations” of decisive significance, such as the “universal light” and the “specific ether.” [4]4 “Universal light” and “specific ether” are metaphors Marx uses in the *Grundrisse* to describe the dominant relations that determine the character of a social formation. See *Grundrisse*, Penguin, 1973, p. 107. In fact, when Marx stresses “grasping the root of the matter” in order to reach “thoroughness,” this to some extent includes the consideration of grasping this decisive essence. Unfortunately, this key theoretical point has long received insufficient attention and discussion.

至此，“抽象”概念的意涵逐渐显豁出来了。从抽象上升到具体，离不开抽象，且首先就需要抽象。当然，必须是合理的或科学的抽象。马克思强调，抽象有合理与不合理之分。不合理的抽象将研究引向迷途弯路。合理的抽象是一个恰适地抽取共象的过程，它“真正把共同点提出来，定下来，免得我们重复”。此种抽象过程得到的结果，即名词意义上的抽象，也就是一般，即“最一般的抽象”。一般正由于是共相，舍去了诸多具体的殊相，从而显得抽象。“开端应当是抽象的开端”，“不能对开端采用任何更详密的规定”。现代意义上的价值、交换、货币等，皆为呈现出抽象性的一般。但“抽象”还有更为关键的含义：具有决定意义的本质。马克思强调，这种抽象并非一般意义而是“有决定意义”的抽象。在政治经济学研究中，价值、分工、交换、货币等，都不同程度地发挥着决定意义，因而皆为本质性的规定——本质。作为该方法的起点，“抽象”意味着把握“普照的光”“特殊的以太”等具有决定意义的“本质规定”。事实上，当马克思强调“抓住事物的根本”以通达“彻底”时，就在某种程度上包含着此种抓住决定性本质的考量。遗憾的是，这一关键理论观点长期没有得到足够的重视与探讨。

Capturing the “thinnest abstraction,” the “simplest determination,” the “most abstract determination,” or the “simplest concept” constitutes the ultimate goal and result of analysis. And this “most essential thing” is the most decisive essential determination in capitalist material production: “value.” In Marx’s critique of political economy, value is the most essential, most abstract, and simplest determination. Value is the determination of decisive significance in the modern economy; Marx once planned it as the first chapter of *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*, and it was later contained within the commodity, which serves as the logical starting point of *Capital*, becoming the core of the commodity from the perspective of political economy. “Value is the social relation of the commodity, the economic quality of the commodity.” [5]5 Karl Marx, *Capital*, vol. 1, Penguin, 1976, p. 139. The entire process of *Capital* from the abstract to the concrete begins with “value.” In this sense, the ascent from the abstract to the concrete is, precisely speaking, the ascent from the most abstract to the concrete. In Hegel, the beginning is merely the initial form of the ground; for Marx, the beginning is the ground itself.

捕捉到最“稀薄的抽象”、最“简单的规定”、最“抽象的规定”或最“简单的概念”构成分析的最终目标与结果。而这种“最本质的东西”，即资本主义物质生产中最具决定性的本质规定：“价值”。在马克思的政治经济学批判中，价值是最本质、最抽象、最简单的规定。价值是现代经济中有决定意义的规定，曾被马克思计划为《政治经济学批判》的第一章，后来亦内含于作为《资本论》逻辑起点的商品之中，成为政治经济学视野中的商品之核心。“价值是商品的社会关系，是商品的经济上的质。”整个《资本论》从抽象到具体的进程，正是从“价值”开启的。在此意义上，从抽象上升到具体，准确而言，是从最抽象上升到具体。在黑格尔那里，开端不过是根据的最初形式；而对马克思来说，开端就是根据本身。

2. The Second Stage: The Concretization of Abstract Essence

2.第二阶段：抽象本质的具体化

The latter stage is “the reproduction of the concrete in the course of thinking by way of the abstract determinations.” [6]6 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse*, Penguin, 1973, p. 101. Starting from “some of the simplest determinations,” i.e., “the abstract general relations that are of decisive significance,” [7]7 Ibid., p. 100. it gradually unfolds and rises toward increasingly concrete and rich things, until it forms the most substantial and thus most complex concrete totality of thought and theory.

后一阶段为“抽象的规定在思维行程中导致具体的再现”。从“一些最简单的规定”，即“有决定意义的抽象的一般的关系”开始，逐步展开和上升为愈益具体、丰富的东西，直至形成最为充实从而最为复杂的思想理论具体总体。

Hegel believed that the beginning of a philosophical system “is something immediate and abstract; its one-sidedness is lost through its advance; the beginning becomes something mediated, and thus science moves forward.” [8]8 G.W.F. Hegel, *The Encyclopaedia Logic*, trans. T.F. Geraets, W.A. Suchting, and H.S. Harris (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1991), §238, p. 296. Similarly, abstract essence, in the process of unfolding, passes through many links and stages and dialectically transforms into increasingly concrete existence, thereby drawing closer to the ever-changing and diverse reality. At the same time, the contradictions that were originally only latent gradually develop and become manifest. But in the process of the ascent from the abstract to the concrete, abstract essence does not disappear, is not discarded, and is not swallowed up by the concrete; rather, it is sublated into the concrete. According to Hegel, sublation is both preservation and overcoming. Because of this preservation, abstract essence is contained within the concrete and can reappear at different levels, down to the most concrete level, i.e., the outermost surface. On the basis of preservation, things also grow and reveal new determinations. “The more deeply we go into this economy … it must also be proved that the more abstract form of this contradiction reappears and is contained in the more concrete form.” [9]9 Karl Marx, *Theories of Surplus Value*, part 3, Progress Publishers, 1971, p. 311. Although Marx’s analysis here is not specifically directed at the relationship between the abstract and the concrete, it is instructive for understanding that relationship. Abstract essence is transformatively contained within the concrete and naturally reappears in different ways and to different degrees on the “body” of the concrete.

黑格尔认为，哲学体系的开端，“是一般直接的和抽象的东西，它的这种片面性，由于前进而失去了；开端将成为有中介的东西，于是科学向前运动”。与此相似，抽象的本质在展开过程中历经诸多环节与阶段，辩证转化为愈益具体的存在，从而愈加接近纷繁多变的现实。与此同时，原先只是潜在的矛盾也愈渐发展和显露。但在抽象上升到具体的过程中，抽象的本质不是消失了，不是被抛弃了，也不是被具体吞噬了，而是被扬弃为具体。按照黑格尔的说法，扬弃是既保存又克服。由于此种保存，抽象的本质被包含在具体中，且能够在不同层次上再现出来，直至最为具体的层面亦即最外部的表层。在保存的基础之上，事物还生长和展露出新的规定性。“我们越是深入地研究这种经济……这个矛盾的比较抽象的形式会再现在并包含在比较具体的形式中这一点，也必然得到证明。”马克思这一分析尽管不是专门针对抽象与具体的关系而作，但对于理解抽象与具体的关系富有启示。抽象蕴含性地转换于具体之中，自然会以不同的方式在不同程度上于具体“身上”再现出来。

“Once these individual elements have been more or less established and abstracted, there begin the economic systems which ascend from simple things, such as labor, division of labor, need, exchange value, to the state, international exchange and world market.” [10]10 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse*, Penguin, 1973, p. 100. This is the concretization from simple or “abstract” things like value, division of labor, exchange, and money, to complex or “concrete” things like the state, international exchange, and the world market. Marx considered this research path to be the appropriate process of the ascent from the abstract to the concrete and therefore the scientifically correct method. “Thus the journey would have to be retraced until I finally arrived back at population, but this time not as a chaotic conception of a whole, but as a rich totality of many determinations and relations.” [11]11 Ibid., p. 100. After this essential determination is understood, it must still undergo a series of dialectical unfoldings, i.e., a process of concretization, until it reaches the most concrete level. This means that inner essence and surface phenomena have the possibility of coinciding with each other, thereby allowing reality to be most fully presented. In this sense, the ascent from the abstract to the concrete is, more precisely, the ascent from the most abstract to the most concrete. Of course, the reality here is not “the existing” but “the true.”

分工、货币、价值“这些个别要素一旦多少确定下来和抽象出来，从劳动、分工、需要、交换价值等等这些简单的东西上升到国家、国际交换和世界市场的各种经济学体系就开始出现了”。这就是从价值、分工、交换、货币等简单或者说“抽象”的东西，具体化为国家、国际交换和世界市场等复杂或“具体”的东西。马克思认为这种研究进路是从抽象上升到具体的恰适过程，因而是科学上正确的方法。“于是行程又得从那里回过头来，直到我最后又回到人口，但是这回人口已不是关于整体的一个混沌的表象，而是一个具有许多规定和关系的丰富的总体了。”此种本质规定在被理解之后，还需历经一系列辩证展开亦即具体化的过程，直至到达最为具体的层面。这意味着，内在本质与表面现象具有了相互吻合的可能性，从而使现实得到最充分的呈现。在此意义上，从抽象上升到具体，更准确而言，是从最抽象上升到最具体。当然，这里的现实不是“现存”，而是“真实”。

The concrete reached through this process, starting from abstraction and passing through a series of complex concretizations, is the concrete in thought. “The concrete is concrete because it is the synthesis of many determinations, hence the unity of diversity. It therefore appears in thought as a process of synthesis, as a result, not as a starting point, although it is the real starting point and hence also the starting point of intuition and representation.” [12]12 Ibid., p. 101. What appears in thought as a process of synthesis and as a result is the concrete in thought, while what is the real starting point and hence also the starting point of sensuous intuition and representation is the real concrete. The concrete totality of thought and theory, aimed at grasping and reproducing the real concrete, is precisely the “ultimate” fruit of Marx’s method of the ascent from the abstract to the concrete. The concrete is rich in determinations and relations; it is “a rich totality of many determinations and relations.” [13]13 Ibid., p. 100. This applies to both the real concrete and the concrete in thought. It is precisely because of this consistency that the concrete totality of thought and theory can fully grasp and reproduce the real concrete. In the end, “production and each of its elements are posited as a totality, but at the same time all contradictions are unfolded.” [14]14 Ibid., p. 541. In other words, the entire capitalist production and each of its elements are presented as a concrete totality, and the various contradictions contained within it are fully developed and unfolded. Of course, no matter how rich and substantial the concrete totality of thought and theory is, it cannot fully grasp and reproduce the real concrete totality, let alone replace it. It is also worth noting that among the “many determinations” synthesized in the concrete, the most crucial and primary are precisely the aforementioned essential determinations.

这种由抽象出发历经一系列复杂具体化进程而最终通达的具体是理论具体。“具体之所以具体，因为它是许多规定的综合，因而是多样性的统一。因此它在思维中表现为综合的过程，表现为结果，而不是表现为起点，虽然它是现实的起点，因而也是直观和表象的起点。”在思维中作为综合过程与结果的是理论具体，而作为现实起点从而也作为感性直观和表象起点的是现实具体。以掌握和再现现实具体为目标的思想理论之具体总体，正是马克思从抽象上升到具体法的“终极”果实。具体富含规定和联系，是“具有许多规定和关系的丰富的总体”。这既适用于现实具体，也适用于理论具体。正是由于此种一致性，思想理论具体才能充分掌握和再现现实具体。到最后，“生产以及它的每一个要素都被设定为总体，但是同时一切矛盾都展开了”。换言之，整个资本主义生产及其各个要素都作为具体总体呈现出来，其内含的各种矛盾亦充分发展起来和展开。当然，思想理论具体总体不论多么丰富、充实，也不能完全掌握和再现现实具体总体，更无法代替之。还值得注意的是，在具体所综合的“许多规定”中，最关键和主要的正是前述之本质规定。

To summarize, the ascent from the abstract to the concrete is a process of research and exposition that begins from the most decisive, most universal essential determination, gradually concretizes it, and finally reaches the most concrete surface, forming a concrete totality of theory. *Capital* as a whole employs the method of the ascent from the abstract to the concrete, presenting the complex process of capitalist production ascending from the abstract to the concrete. Marx’s analysis ascends from abstract things like value and money to capital, from the production and circulation of capital to the total process, and attempts to ascend from capital in general to capital in particular, or competition, credit, and share capital. He once planned to first study “capital in general,” then analyze “competition, credit, and share capital” [15]15 Marx’s plan for *Capital* originally included a book on competition, credit, and share capital as more concrete forms of capital. See *Capital*, vol. 1, Penguin, 1976, p. 93. and other particular and individual forms of capital, reproducing the real movement of capitalist production with increasing concreteness and detail.

概括而言，从抽象上升到具体，就是从最具决定性、最一般的本质规定开始，逐步具体化并最终达至最为具体的表面，形成理论具体总体的研究与叙述过程。《资本论》在总体上运用了从抽象上升到具体法，呈现了资本主义生产从抽象上升到具体的复杂过程。马克思的解析从价值、货币等抽象上升到资本，从资本的生产、流通上升到总过程，并试图从资本一般上升到资本特殊或竞争、信用、股份资本。他曾计划先行研究“资本一般”，再分析“竞争、信用和股份资本”等资本特殊与个别，愈益具体和细致地再现资本主义生产的现实运动。

Thus it can be seen that, in Marx, the process from the abstract to the concrete is a process of tracing back from essence, reproducing and explaining phenomena. “Abstract” refers to the decisive essence, while “concrete” corresponds to the multifarious and chaotic phenomena. Because essence possesses generality, abstractness, and simplicity, it belongs to the same sequence as concepts such as the general, the abstract, and the simple. Phenomena, due to their multiplicity, concreteness, and complexity, are located in the same sequence as the particular, the concrete, and the complex. The process of rising from the abstract to the concrete is precisely the process of tracing back from the general essence to reproduce and explain the multiple phenomena, and it is also the process of reflecting on external phenomena, especially critiquing false appearances, through internal essence. The explanation and critique of phenomena, including false appearances, is the explanation and critique of reality, that is, the approach to and representation of reality as a concrete totality. Marx believed that only by understanding and reflecting on the phenomena of things, especially important phenomena, on the basis of grasping essence, can one truly understand and reflect on reality. In summary, *Capital* not only employs the method of rising from the abstract to the concrete but also comprehensively employs the essence-phenomenon perspective method.

由此可见，在马克思那里，从抽象到具体的过程，是从本质追溯、再现和解释现象的过程。“抽象”是具有决定意义的本质，“具体”则与纷繁芜杂的现象相一致。由于具有一般性、抽象性和简单性，从而本质和一般、抽象、简单等概念属于同一序列。现象则由于具有殊多性、具体性与复杂性，因而与特殊、具体、复杂等位于同一序列。从抽象上升到具体的过程，正是由一般性的本质追溯、再现和解释殊多性的现象的过程，同时也是以内在本质反思外在现象特别是批判假象的过程。对包括假象在内的现象的解释和批判，即对现实的解释和批判，亦即对作为具体总体的现实的接近与表征。马克思认为唯有在把握本质的基础上理解和反映事物的现象，尤其是重要现象，方能真正理解和反映现实。综上，《资本论》不但运用了从抽象上升到具体法，而且总体性地运用了本质－现象透视法。

Of course, the phenomena understood by Marx are by no means pure appearances detached from essence, but rather phenomena closely linked to essence and generated and manifested in accordance with this connection. Phenomena arise from the sublation, transformation, and development of essence, constituting a new generation of the essence of things. As Hegel said: “Essence must appear. The reflection of essence into itself is a process of sublating itself and becoming a kind of immediacy. This immediacy, insofar as it is self-reflection, is subsistence and matter; insofar as it is reflection into otherness and the self-sublation of its subsistence, it is form. Appearance or manifestation is the characteristic that makes essence what it is, as distinct from being. Developed appearance is phenomenon. Therefore, essence is not behind or beyond phenomena; rather, because essence is what actually exists, actual existence is phenomenon.” [16]16 G. W. F. Hegel, *The Science of Logic*, Part One, Book Two: The Doctrine of Essence. The quotation is a paraphrase of Hegel’s argument that essence necessarily manifests itself, and that developed manifestation is phenomenon. In this sense, phenomena are things grounded in essence and further sublating essence, preserving essence internally within themselves, and combining with essence to become actuality.

当然，马克思所理解的现象绝非脱离本质的纯粹表象，而是同本质紧密关联并依此联系生成和表现出的现象。现象由本质扬弃、转化、发展而来，是事物本质的一种新的生成。诚如黑格尔所言：“本质必定要表现出来。本质的映现于自身内是扬弃其自身而成为一种直接性的过程。此种直接性，就其为自身反映而言为持存、为质料，就其为反映他物，自己扬弃其持存而言为形式。显现或映现是本质之所以是本质而不是存在的特性。发展了的映现就是现象。因此本质不在现象之后，或现象之外，而即由于本质是实际存在的东西，实际存在就是现象。”在此意义上，现象是以本质为根据并进而扬弃了本质的东西，将本质内在地保存于自身之中，并同本质结合成为现实。

II. The Connotation and Logic of the Essence-Phenomenon Perspective Method

二、本质－现象透视法的内涵与逻辑

The essence-phenomenon perspective method seeks to see through (penetrate and pass through) phenomena, especially false appearances, to gain insight into essence, to reflect on phenomena based on essence, particularly to critique false appearances, and thereby to achieve a benign interaction and circulation between the two, so as to grasp, reproduce, and ultimately change reality to the greatest extent possible. Following the dialectical thought of essence and phenomenon, Marx made incisive analyses of capitalist material production, writing “what we have said about all forms of appearance and the hidden foundation behind them.” [17]17 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 3, Chapter 48, “The Trinity Formula.” The phrase refers to Marx’s analysis of the forms of appearance of capitalist relations. Marx emphasized that external, surface phenomena often do not correctly reflect and represent the true appearance of essence, but rather are false appearances that misrepresent essence. False appearances conceal, distort, and even invert essence, disguising themselves as essence, preventing people from recognizing essence, and causing them to take false appearances as essence. Human cognition and practice should penetrate phenomena, especially false appearances, to gain insight into essence, then reflect on phenomena (critique false appearances) based on the grasped essence, and ultimately eliminate false appearances and their foundations.

本质－现象透视法，力图透过（穿透与通过）现象，尤其假象，以洞见本质，依据本质反思现象特别是批判假象，进而实现二者良性的互动与循环，以最大程度掌握、再现进而改变现实。马克思依循本质与现象的辩证思想，对资本主义物质生产作出鞭辟入里的解析，写下了“我们关于一切表现形式和隐藏在它们背后的基础所说的话”。马克思强调外部的、表面的现象时常并非正确反映和表征本质的真象，而是错误表现本质的假象。假象遮蔽、歪曲乃至颠倒本质，伪装成本质，使人无法认识本质，而以假象为本质。人类的认识与实践应当穿透现象尤其假象洞察本质，进而依据把握的本质反思现象（批判假象），最终消灭假象及其根基。

In a general sense, the relationship between essence and phenomenon is quite rich and complex—such as generation-manifestation, transformation-realization, determination-being determined, and so on. However, in his critique of capitalist material production and political economy, Marx’s main purpose and focus were not to elucidate the universal dialectical relationship between the two, but rather to emphasize the inversion of essence by phenomena in capitalist production, using this as an entry point and “grasp” to critique the falsity of capitalism and reveal its historical and transitory nature. In his view, the essence and phenomena (often false appearances) of the entire capitalist world are inverted: essence necessarily manifests itself as false appearances, while false appearances realistically “become” essence, thereby concealing the historical and transitory nature of the capitalist mode of production, covertly maintaining and strengthening the rule of capital. It is necessary to launch a profound critique of this through theory and practice, penetrating the various false appearances produced by capitalism, grasping its true essence, and, based on an understanding of the world of essence, break through the world of capitalist false appearances and its real foundations, so that the true determinations of capitalism are thoroughly revealed.

在一般意义上，本质与现象的关系是相当丰富而复杂的，如生成－表现、转化－实现、决定－被决定等。但在对资本主义物质生产和政治经济学的批判中，马克思的主要目的与重心不在于阐释二者普遍性的辩证关系，而在于强调资本主义生产中现象对本质的颠倒，由此为切入口和“抓手”批判资本主义的虚假性，揭示其历史性与暂时性。在他看来，整个资本主义世界的本质和现象（往往为假象）是颠倒的：本质必然性地表现为假象，假象则现实性地“成为”本质，从而掩盖资本主义生产方式的历史性与暂时性，隐匿地维护和强化资本的统治，必须通过理论和实践对其展开深刻批判，穿透资本主义制造出的各种假象，把握其真正本质，并依据对本质世界的理解，破除资本主义的假象世界及其现实根基，使资本主义的真实规定性透彻地敞开。

1. The Distinction Between Essence and Phenomenon

1.本质与现象分野

The relative distinction between essence and phenomenon constitutes the premise of the essence-phenomenon perspective method. Marx clearly demarcated “internal essence” from “surface phenomena.” Things, especially systemic “colossi,” present themselves as external, surface phenomena, but also possess inner, deep-seated essences. For both, he has a series of conceptual expressions. Besides “internal essence,” Marx wrote expressions such as “inner nature,” “true character,” “core form,” “hidden foundation,” “inner connection,” “essential relation,” “inner structure,” “hidden structure,” “inner movement,” “real movement,” and “inner law.” Inner qualities, connections, structures, movements, and laws, expressing internal essence from different dimensions, are all concrete manifestations of essence. Opposite to “internal essence” is the series of concepts “surface phenomena,” “external phenomena,” “external manifestation,” “form of appearance,” “completed form,” “external connection,” “external movement,” and “surface movement,” which point to the external, surface, i.e., non-essential phenomena of things.

本质与现象的相对分野构成本质－现象透视法的前提。马克思明确界划了“内在本质”与“表面现象”。事物尤其系统性“庞然大物”呈现为外部、表面的现象，亦具有内里、深层的本质。对于二者，他各有一系列的概念表述。除“内在本质”外，马克思写下了“内在本性”“真正性质”“核心形态”“背后的基础”“内在联系”“本质关系”“内在结构”“隐蔽结构”“内在运动”“现实的运动”“内在规律”等表述。内在的性质、联系、结构、运动和规律等，从不同向度表达内在的本质，都是本质的具体展现。与“内在本质”相对的是“表面现象”“外部现象”“外部表现”“表现形式”“完成形态”“外部联系”“外部运动”“表面运动”这一系列概念，它们指向事物外部、表面亦即非本质的现象。

In Marx, essence not only possesses internality but also constitutes the ground and content of things, while phenomena constitute external manifestations or forms. The movement and change (including development) of things are determined by their internal essence. This means that essence not only possesses truth but also historical rationality and actuality. However, this essence is by no means a “substance,” but rather a general term for the deep-seated substance of things. Phenomena, on the other hand, can be true or false; they may be true appearances or false appearances. The distinction between essence and phenomenon constitutes a fundamental stance of Marx’s ontology, epistemology, and methodology. This point is markedly different from later phenomenology. Marx emphasized that essence and phenomenon must be distinguished, especially the internal essence of capital from its surface phenomena, “distinguishing the general, necessary tendencies of capital from the forms of appearance of these tendencies.” [18]18 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 3, Chapter 9, “Formation of a General Rate of Profit (Average Rate of Profit) and Transformation of Commodity Values into Prices of Production.”

在马克思那里，本质不但具有内在性，而且构成事物的根据与内容，现象则构成外部表现或形式。事物的运动变化（包括发展），由其内在本质所规定。这意味着，本质不仅具有真实性，而且具有历史的合理性与现实性。不过，此种本质绝非“实体”，而是对事物深层实质的统称。现象则有真假之分，可能是真象，也可能为假象。本质与现象的分野，构成马克思存在论、认识论与方法论的一种基本立场。这一点迥异于后来的现象学。马克思强调，必须将本质与现象区别开来，特别是将资本的内在本质与表面现象区别开来，“把资本的一般的、必然的趋势同这种趋势的表现形式区别开来”。

Of course, there is a close connection between the two. The internal essence of capitalist production manifests itself in a multitude of surface phenomena, “how the inner laws of capitalist production manifest themselves as the external movement of capital.” [19]19 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 3, Chapter 9. However, essence is often hidden or even obscured, and its external manifestations are not consistent with it, sometimes even contrary to it. In other words, cracks, deformations, and even inversions often occur between essence and phenomena. “That things appear inverted in their phenomena is admitted by almost all sciences, with the exception of political economy.” [20]20 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, Chapter 19, “The Transformation of the Value (and Respective Price) of Labour-Power into Wages.” In the case of capital, surface phenomena not only fail to truly reflect deep-seated essence but also distort the manifestation of essence, thus deviating from and opposing true essence. In *Capital* and its manuscripts, Marx repeatedly identifies and describes the numerous “false appearances,” “secrets,” “cloaks,” “absurd forms,” “illusory forms,” “mysterious appearances,” and “magic and sorcery” of capitalist production. [21]21 These terms appear throughout *Capital*, especially in Vol. 1, Part 7, “The Process of Accumulation of Capital,” and Vol. 3, Part 7, “Revenues and Their Sources,” where Marx critiques the fetishism of commodities and the mystification of capitalist relations. Beyond false appearances, many true appearances that genuinely reflect the essence of capitalism also need to be critiqued and transcended along with their essence.

当然，二者间存在密切关联。资本主义生产的内在本质表现为大量的表面现象，“资本主义生产的内在规律怎样表现为资本的外部运动”。然而，本质经常是隐蔽乃至被遮蔽的，其外在表现并不与之一致，有时甚至相反。换言之，本质与现象之间经常出现裂缝、变形乃至颠倒。“事物在其现象上往往颠倒地表现出来，这是几乎所有的科学都承认的，只有政治经济学例外。”在资本身上，表面的现象不仅没有真实地反映深层的本质，而且歪曲地表现本质，从而同真正的本质相背离、相对立。在《资本论》及其手稿中，马克思反复指认和描述了资本主义生产种类繁多的“假象”“秘密”“外衣”“荒谬形式”“虚幻形式”“神秘外观”“魔法妖术”。在假象之外，真实反映资本主义本质的诸多真象也需要连同其本质加以批判和超越。

2. Essence Produces False Appearances

2.本质制造假象

In the modern capitalist world, essence continuously produces false appearances. Some false appearances are necessarily generated and solidified due to specific conditions. In the human world, many false appearances arise contingently, but in the capitalist world, false appearances are on the whole necessarily produced. “From the standpoint of capitalist production, this actual situation necessarily manifests itself in an inverted form.” [22]22 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, Chapter 24, “The Transformation of Surplus-Value into Capital.” The phrase refers to the necessary inversion of essence in capitalist production. Capitalism produces numerous necessary false appearances, or rather, necessarily generates many false appearances. In the capitalist mode of production, capital and labor engage in equivalent exchange in circulation, appearing free, equal, and fair. “Capital–profit,” “interest-bearing capital–interest,” “land–rent,” “labor–wages”—all seem to get their due and appear very reasonable.

在现代资本主义世界，本质源源不断地制造出假象。一些假象由于特定条件而必然性地生成和固化。在人类世界中，许多假象是偶然产生的，但在资本主义世界中，假象在总体上却是必然产生的。“从资本主义生产的观点来看，这个实际的情况必然以颠倒的形式表现出来”。资本主义制造出诸多必然性假象，或者说，必然生成众多假象。在资本主义生产方式中，资本与劳动在流通中进行等价交换，显得自由、平等、公正。“资本－利润”“生息资本-利息”“土地－地租”“劳动－工资”，似乎各得其所、十分合理。

The illusions of capitalism are not only necessarily generated but also necessarily reinforced and solidified. Marx specifically examined the solidification of the illusion that capital appears as the independent source of value and surplus value. This illusion, for a variety of reasons, “becomes even more fixed.” [23]23 Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 3, Chapter 24. Furthermore, what capitalism necessarily produces is not merely a multitude of illusions, but a system of illusions in which numerous illusions are interconnected, mutually supporting, and mutually reinforcing. Among these, the most central and overarching illusion is that of rationality and eternity: capitalism is rational and also eternal; because it is rational, it is eternal, and because it is eternal, it is rational. With the illusion of eternity as its endpoint and the illusion of rationality as its core, capital creates a vast system of illusions in which multiple aspects and levels of illusion are fused into a single whole.

资本主义的假象不仅必然生成，而且必然被强化和固化。马克思专门考察过资本表现为价值和剩余价值的独立源泉这一假象的固化。这种假象由于多种原因“变得更加固定”。进而言之，资本主义必然性地制造出的不仅是大量的假象，而且是大量假象相互关联、相互支撑、相互强化的假象体系。其中，最核心和具有统领性的假象是合理性与永恒性的假象：资本主义是合理的，也是永恒的；因合理而永恒，因永恒而合理。以永恒性假象为归宿、合理性假象为内核，资本制造出一个由多方面、多层次假象融贯一体的庞大假象系统。

More importantly, illusions are not only necessarily generated, operative, and strengthened; they are necessarily produced and then reinforced by the essence of capitalist production. Capitalist production necessarily “produces” and then “processes” a system of illusions that contradicts itself. This is not at all “out of line,” but in fact is precisely capital’s “shrewdly calculated” and “reliable” behavior. Its purpose is none other than to conceal and thereby protect itself—that is, to cover up the essence of the exploitation and domination of workers, and to stabilize the power order of capital. Thus, due to the inherent essence of capital itself, capital does its utmost to “strengthen” and even “improve” the world of illusions, attempting to establish and rule it firmly as the real world. “Under these various assumptions, the actual movement will necessarily appear in an inverted form.” [24]24 Marx, *Theories of Surplus Value*, Part 3. In Marx’s discourse, “actual movement” here refers to essential, real movement.

更为重要的是，假象不仅是必然生成、运作和加强的，而且是由资本主义生产的本质必然制造进而强化的。资本主义生产必然“生产”继而“加工”出一套与自身相背离的假象系统。这不但不“离谱”，而且实际上恰恰是资本“精打细算”的“靠谱”行为。其目的不是别的，正是掩饰进而保护自身，也就是掩盖对劳动者剥削与统治的实质，稳固资本的权力秩序。因此，缘于资本自身的内在本质，资本竭尽所能地“加强”乃至“改进”假象世界，试图使之牢固地作为真实世界确立和统治。“在这各种假定下，现实的运动也必然会以颠倒的形式表现出来”。在马克思的话语体系中，此处“现实的运动”指的是本质的、真实的运动。

3. Illusions Disguise Essence

3.假象伪装本质

Even more frightening than essence generating illusions and spreading them throughout the capitalist world is that solid and powerful illusions present a false essence, conceal the real essence, and inevitably disguise themselves as essence, attempting—and to a considerable extent succeeding—to make people take the false essence as the real essence. First, illusions obscure and cover up essence and its true appearance to varying degrees. Marx points out: “In slave labor, the ownership relation conceals the slave’s labor for himself, while in wage labor, the money relation conceals the wage worker’s unpaid labor.” [25]25 Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, Chapter 17. Remaining at the level of deceptive forms of appearance necessarily prevents insight into the real essence, leaving only illusions as essence or true appearance. Illusions obscure, distort, and even invert essence, donning the splendid garb of essence, thereby transforming themselves and occupying the position of essence in a dignified manner. This prevents people from recognizing the true essence, even leading them to take false phenomena as essence and to be deeply convinced that illusion is essence, thus falling into the abyss of illusion from which they cannot extricate themselves. The actual agents of production and their spokespersons feel at ease in this alienated state, regarding everything as customary, natural, even rational and real. “This illusion not only confuses the ‘common people’ but also misleads excellent political economists.” [26]26 Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, Chapter 19. It can be said that the illusions of capitalist society not only necessarily disguise themselves as essence but are also necessarily taken as essence by the majority of people. The world of illusions and its subjective reflection become a key link in capitalist rule, forming an indispensable internal part of the capitalist world. The world of illusions, generated by the inherent essence of capitalism, in turn consolidates that inherent essence and strengthens its ruling power. The world of illusions and the world of essence in capitalism are perfectly fused into one, constituting its powerful “protective belt,” thereby turning the entire capitalist world, to a certain extent, into a world of illusions.

比本质生发假象并使之遍布资本主义世界更可怕的是，坚固而强大的假象呈现虚假的本质，掩盖真实的本质，并必然伪装成本质，试图并在相当程度上让人以虚假本质为真实本质。首先，假象不同程度地遮蔽、掩盖本质及其真象。马克思指出：“在奴隶劳动下，所有权关系掩盖了奴隶为自己的劳动，而在雇佣劳动下，货币关系掩盖了雇佣工人的无代价劳动。”停留于虚假的表现形式，必然无法洞察真实本质，只能以假象为本质或真象。假象遮蔽、歪曲乃至颠倒本质，披上本质的华服，从而摇身一变，冠冕堂皇地占据本质的位置，使人无法认识真正的本质，甚至把虚假的现象作为本质，且深信假象就是本质，从而陷于假象的深渊无法自拔。实际的生产当事人及其代言人在异化的状态中感到轻松自在，觉得一切都是惯常的、自然的，甚至合理的、真实的。“这种假象不仅使‘平民’，而且也使优秀的政治经济学家迷惑不解”。可以说，资本主义社会的假象不仅必然伪装成本质，而且必然被大多数人当作本质。假象世界及其主观映现成为资本主义统治的关键环节，构成资本主义世界不可或缺的内在部分。假象世界既由资本主义内在本质所生发，又反过来巩固其内在本质，强化其统治力量。资本主义的假象世界和本质世界完美地融为一体，构成其强力“保护带”，从而令整个资本主义世界在某种程度上都变成假象世界。

4. Penetrating Illusions to See Essence

4.穿透假象洞见本质

Marx emphasizes that one must never be deceived by the surface phenomena of capitalism; one must penetrate surface phenomena to see their inner essence. He repeatedly criticizes vulgar economics for merely stopping at the surface of capitalist production. In his view, whether one penetrates external phenomena, especially illusions, to see the inner essence constitutes the dividing line between classical political economy and vulgar economics. Classical political economy is not entirely scientific. The reason it cannot fully attain science is that it has not and cannot truly and sufficiently deeply penetrate the surface of capitalist production to clarify and then reveal its essence. Marx points out that reducing surface phenomena to inner essence—or, in other words, penetrating surface, especially false, phenomena to clarify the inner, true essence—is a scientific task and constitutes the core of scientific research, decisively distinguishing science from everyday conceptions and ideology. True science focuses on inner, real movement and connections, i.e., the real essence. In this sense, political economy is a “science that strives to reveal hidden connections.” [27]27 Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 3, Chapter 48. In other words, political economy as a science precisely reveals the hidden connections contained within capitalist economic life, making its real essence and true features clearly manifest before people.

马克思强调，决不能被资本主义表面现象迷惑，必须穿透表面现象洞见其内在本质。他反复批判庸俗经济学只是停留于资本主义生产的表面。在他心目中，是否穿透外表的现象尤其假象、洞察内里的本质，构成古典政治经济学与庸俗经济学的分界线。古典政治经济学并非完全的科学。之所以不能完全达至科学，就是因为它没有也不可能真正而足够深刻地穿透资本主义生产的表面，澄清继而揭示其本质。马克思指出，将表面现象归结为内在本质，或者说，穿透表面的尤其虚假的现象澄明内在真正的本质，是一种科学工作，并构成科学研究的核心，使科学决定性地同日常观念与意识形态区分开来。真正的科学则聚焦于内在真正的运动与联系，亦即真实的本质，在此意义上，政治经济学是一门“致力于重新揭示隐蔽的联系的科学”。换言之，政治经济学作为科学正是将资本主义经济生活内含的隐蔽联系揭示出来，使其真实本质与本真面貌明晰地呈现在人们面前。

Of course, scientific research also needs to use the useful hints provided by phenomena to explore essence. Not all phenomena are illusions. Although the capitalist world is full of illusions, there still exist some real phenomena. These can and should be reasonably utilized. Moreover, even distorted phenomena or twisted illusions can provide clues for discovering the real essence. Inflated, shrunken, or caricatured reflections are still a form of reflection and will also leak some truth. Through correction, inversion, refinement, and other methods, illusions can also aid insight into true appearance and essence. In Marx’s work, “through” (透过) has both the meaning of “penetrating” (穿透) and “by means of” (通过). Both are its inherent connotations. Of course, “penetrating” is more essential than “by means of.” His study of political economy “fully appropriates data,” including the extensive collection, organization, processing, and dissection of phenomena, even illusions, using phenomena—including illusions—to discover and reach essence. This is precisely “extracting and concentrating” essence from phenomena that have a generative and representational relationship with essence. The key to the study of political economy lies in lifting the deceptive veil of surface phenomena in the capitalist world, correcting their distortions and deformations, discovering the inner, real essence, and making it manifest. As Marx says, to examine and clarify capitalist material production, one must “reduce the visible, merely surface movement to the inner, real movement,” [28]28 Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 3, Chapter 25. seeing the real internal connections and inner essence.

当然，科学研究也需要利用现象给予的有益提示探寻本质。现象并不都是假象。资本主义世界虽遍布假象，但仍存在某些真实的现象。它们是可以且应当合理利用的。而且，即便是扭曲的现象或歪曲的假象，亦能为发现真正的本质提供蛛丝马迹。膨胀、萎缩、漫画式的反映仍然是一种反映，同样会泄露某些真实。通过校正、逆推、提炼等方式，假象亦能助益真象与本质的洞察。在马克思那里，“透过”既有“穿透”之意，亦有“通过”之义。二者均为其内在意涵。当然，“穿透”相对于“通过”更具本质性。他的政治经济学研究“充分占有资料”，包含了对现象甚至假象的大量收集、整理、加工、解剖，借助包括假象在内的现象发现和通达本质。这正是从与本质之间存在生成、表征关系的现象中“吸取并集中”本质。政治经济学研究的关键在于，掀开资本主义世界表面现象的惑人面纱，校正其扭曲与变形，发现内里真正的本质，并使之显豁出来。正如马克思所言，考察和澄明资本主义物质生产，必须“把看得见的、只是表面的运动归结为内部的现实的运动”，洞见真实的内部联系与内在本质。

5. Critiquing Illusions on the Basis of Essence

5.依据本质批判假象

Scientific work does not end with the insight into the real essence; on the contrary, it must further reflect on phenomena on the basis of essence, especially critiquing illusions. This too is a substantive part of scientific research. For only by critiquing illusions, especially key illusions (such as those that masquerade as essence), can people see their true face and then move toward true appearance and essence. Of course, reflection on phenomena and critique of illusions must be carried out on the basis of the real essence; only then can phenomena be deeply reflected upon, illusions powerfully critiqued, and thoroughly exposed and then eliminated. Marx’s critique of political economy seeks to reveal the real essence of capitalist production, to break down and eliminate illusions, and then to actually transform the capitalist mode of production, replacing it with a truly rational mode of production, overcoming alienation, and achieving human freedom and liberation. Thus, critiquing the falsity and illusions of the capitalist world on the basis of an essential understanding constitutes the core content of the critique of political economy. If the content of *Capital* and its manuscripts can be summarized in one point, it is to demonstrate in a scientific manner the historicity and transience of the capitalist mode of production: it is not natural, still less eternal, but historical and transient, necessarily and rightly to be replaced by a truly rational communist mode of production.

科学工作并不因真实本质的洞见而完结，相反，还需进一步地依据本质反思现象，特别是批判假象。这同样是科学研究的实质性内容。因为，唯有对假象尤其关键假象（如冒充本质的假象）展开批判，方能让人们明晰其真正面目，进而走向真象与本质。当然，对现象的反思和对假象的批判，必须依据真实的本质加以展开，如此才能深度地反思现象，进行有力地批判假象，彻底地揭露继而破除之。马克思的政治经济学批判力图揭示资本主义生产的真实本质，破除和消灭假象，进而实际地变革资本主义生产方式，代之以真正合理的生产方式，扬弃异化，实现人的自由和解放。从而，对资本主义世界虚假性和假象基于本质性理解展开批判，构成政治经济学批判的核心内容。如果将《资本论》及其手稿的内容概括为一点，就是以科学的方式论证资本主义生产方式的历史性与暂时性：不是自然的，更不是永恒的，而是历史的、暂时的，必然且应当被真正合理的共产主义生产方式所代替。

However, Marx emphasized that to fundamentally eliminate illusion, it is only possible and realistic to eliminate the foundation that gives rise to illusion. To remain merely within the narrow scope of critique of ideas is only a critique of the “copy,” and cannot eliminate the world of illusion and its “original.” Only by moving from the “copy” to the “original,” from ideas to reality, can the critique of illusion truly deepen. The more crucial point is that, as social and historical conditions, especially material conditions, gradually mature, it is necessary to practically transform in reality the “matrix” that generates the world of illusion—the capitalist mode of production—through practical means, in order to fundamentally eliminate this world of illusion. Thus, it can be seen that the critique of illusion mainly takes two forms: theoretical and practical. These are also Marx’s two basic ways of critiquing the capitalist world of illusion. The two are closely interconnected, jointly eliminating the world of illusion and its real foundation, and unveiling the essential world of capitalism. Theoretical critique first clarifies understanding in ideas and clears away erroneous interpretations; practical critique actually dismantles the foundation of the world of illusion in reality, thereby decisively eliminating the entire world of illusion. Theoretical critique provides intellectual guidance for practical critique, and practical critique provides real force for theoretical critique.

不过，马克思强调要根本消灭假象，唯有消除假象产生的根基才是可能与现实的。仅停留于观念批判的狭隘范围，只是一种“副本”的批判，无法消灭假象世界及其“原本”。唯有从“副本”走向“原本”，从观念走向现实，对假象的批判才可能真正深入。更关键之处在于，随着社会历史条件尤其物质条件逐步成熟，必须以实践的方式在现实中实际地变革假象世界得以生成的“母体”——资本主义生产方式，才能根本消灭这一假象世界。由此可见，对假象的批判主要有理论与实践两种方式。这也是马克思批判资本主义假象世界的两种基本方式。二者又密切关联，共同消除假象世界及其现实根基，解蔽资本主义的本质世界。理论批判在观念中先行澄明认识，廓清错误理解；实践批判在现实中实际瓦解假象世界的基础，从而决定性地消灭整个假象世界。理论批判为实践批判提供思想引导，实践批判为理论批判提供现实力量。

III. The Essence-Phenomenon Perspective Method Constitutes the Fundamental Method of *Capital*

三、本质-现象透视法构成《资本论》的根本方法

The essence-phenomenon perspective method constitutes the fundamental method of *Capital* and its manuscripts. Marx used the essence-phenomenon perspective method as the fundamental method to dissect the entire capitalist mode of production and its essence and phenomena. David Harvey points out, “If Marx taught us anything, it is that the world of phenomena is deceptive, and the task of science is to penetrate through phenomena to identify the forces operating behind them.” [29]29 David Harvey, *The Enigma of Capital and the Crises of Capitalism* (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), p. 188. Lukács also emphasizes that historical materialism “is a scientific method for understanding past events according to their true essence. However, in contrast to the bourgeois historical method, it also enables us to examine the present from a historical (scientific) perspective, seeing not only the surface phenomena of the present but also the deeper historical forces that actually drive events.” [30]30 Georg Lukács, *History and Class Consciousness: Studies in Marxist Dialectics*, trans. Rodney Livingstone (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1971), p. 224. This is both a scientific understanding of the role of the historical materialist method and a genuine grasp of Marx’s essence-phenomenon perspective method. *Capital* and its manuscripts unfold as a perspective on the essence and phenomena of capitalist material production. More crucially, the essence-phenomenon perspective method determines the application of a series of methods, including the method of rising from the abstract to the concrete—that is, it generates and regulates these methods, making their appearance and use in *Capital* and its manuscripts an inevitable fact. The reason the essence-phenomenon perspective method becomes the fundamental method of the critique of political economy is that it can effectively realize Marx’s general purpose of critiquing and transcending capitalism, highly corresponds to the general problem of why the capitalist mode of production must inevitably be replaced by communism, and fully manifests the critical and revolutionary character of the general method of materialist dialectics.

本质-现象透视法构成《资本论》及其手稿的根本方法。马克思以本质-现象透视法为根本方法解剖整个资本主义生产方式及其本质与现象。大卫·哈维指出，“如果马克思教会了我们任何东西，那一定就是现象世界具有欺骗性，而科学的任务正是透过现象，识别出在它背后运作的力量”。卢卡奇亦强调，历史唯物主义“是按其真正的本质理解过去事件的一种科学方法。但是，同资产阶级的历史方法相反，它同时也使我们有能力从历史的角度（科学地）考察当代，不仅看到当代的表面现象，而且也看到实际推动事件的那些比较深层的历史动力”。这既是对历史唯物主义方法作用的科学理解，也是对马克思本质-现象透视法的真切领会。《资本论》及其手稿展现为对资本主义物质生产本质与现象的透视。更为关键的是，本质－现象透视法决定了包括从抽象上升到具体法等一系列方法的运用，亦即生发、规约这些方法，让它们在《资本论》及其手稿中的出现与使用成为必然性的事实。本质－现象透视法之所以成为政治经济学批判的根本方法，在于它能够有力实现马克思批判和超越资本主义的总目的，高度契合资本主义生产方式缘何必然被共产主义代替的总问题，并充分彰显作为总方法的唯物辩证法之批判性与革命性。

1. The Pervasive Application of the Essence-Phenomenon Perspective Method in *Capital* and Its Manuscripts

1.本质-现象透视法在《资本论》及其手稿中的贯穿性运用

Throughout *Capital* and its manuscripts, the essence-phenomenon perspective method runs through as a general and fundamental method, or rather, it is applied generally, presuppositionally, and fundamentally in the analysis and discussion of all theory and the history of theory. From another angle, the entire dissection and presentation of the capitalist world in *Capital* largely benefits from the essence-phenomenon perspective method, and in a certain sense is the result of Marx’s scientific application of this method. In his view, the key and even the substance of all scientific research work, including the critique of political economy, is to grasp essence through phenomena (especially illusion), and then critique illusion on the basis of essence. The perspective on essence and phenomena and their relationship is the scientific mastery and reproduction of reality (especially the capitalist world) in theoretical form. The essence-phenomenon perspective method is a powerful weapon for *Capital* and its manuscripts to dissect capitalist society.

在整个《资本论》及其手稿中，本质-现象透视法作为一种总体性和根本性的方法贯穿其中，或者说是总体性、前提性和根本性地运用于全部理论和理论史的解析与讨论中。换个角度说，整部《资本论》对资本主义世界的解剖与呈现在很大程度上得益于本质－现象透视法，某种意义上是马克思科学运用这一方法的结果。在他心目中，包括政治经济学批判在内的全部科学研究工作的关键乃至实质，就是透过现象（特别是假象）把握本质，进而依据本质批判假象。对本质与现象及其关系的透视，就是以理论的方式对现实（尤其是资本主义世界）的科学掌握与再现。本质-现象透视法是《资本论》及其手稿剖析资本主义社会的强大武器。

*Capital* not only presents itself as a process of rising from the abstract to the concrete, but also unfolds as a clarification of the entire capitalist material production and its essence and phenomena. The core of the capitalist process of production, circulation, and the total process is the generation, realization, and division of surplus value. Capital first generates surplus value in the sphere of production, then realizes it in the sphere of circulation, and finally divides it in the total process of production as the unity of production and circulation. But whether it is the profit of industrial capital and commercial capital, the interest of interest-bearing capital, or the rent of landed property, all originate from the surplus value created by the labor of wage workers. As the productive forces develop, the contradiction between the two increasingly expands and becomes prominent: the rate of profit tends to fall, material wealth grows while labor income declines, the conflict between production and consumption becomes increasingly acute and insurmountable, economic crises become more severe, and the capitalist mode of production is destined to be unsustainable and inevitably replaced by a higher mode of production. This is the inner essence of the capitalist mode of production. However, as mentioned earlier, this inner essence is covered up, distorted, and even fundamentally inverted by surface phenomena: the capitalist mode of production is natural, rational, and thus eternal. The capitalist world of illusion becomes the real world or essential world in people’s minds. For this reason, Marx devoted his life’s energy to the critique of political economy and even the general critique of capitalist material production, exposing the world of illusion bred on capitalist production and revealing the true essence of capitalist production and even the entire capitalist world.

《资本论》不但呈现为从抽象上升到具体的过程，而且展开为对整个资本主义物质生产及其本质与现象的澄明。资本主义生产、流通和总过程的内核是剩余价值的生成、实现与分割。资本先是在生产领域生成剩余价值，进而在流通领域实现剩余价值，最后在作为生产与流通之统一的生产总过程中分割剩余价值。但无论是产业资本和商业资本的利润、生息资本的利息或土地所有权的地租，均源于雇佣工人劳动所创造的剩余价值。随着生产力的发展，二者的矛盾日益膨胀与凸显，利润率趋向下降，物质财富增长与劳动收入降低，从而生产与消费的冲突日渐尖锐且无法克服，经济危机日趋剧烈，资本主义生产方式注定不可持续，必然被更高的生产方式代替。这是资本主义生产方式的内在本质。然而，如前所述，这一内在本质却被表面现象掩盖、扭曲乃至根本性地颠倒了：资本主义生产方式是自然的、合理的从而永恒的。资本主义的假象世界成为人们心中的真实世界或本质世界。为此，马克思以毕生心力展开对资本主义物质生产的政治经济学批判以至总体批判，揭露滋生于资本主义生产之上的假象世界，揭示资本主义生产乃至整个资本主义世界的真实本质。

The essence-phenomenon perspective method is most clearly applied and presented in the dissection of interest-bearing capital. Marx paid great attention to grasping the deep essence of interest-bearing capital through a series of appearances, especially illusions, and reflecting on false phenomena based on the true essence, thereby clarifying interest-bearing capital. On the surface, interest-bearing capital seems to do nothing to obtain interest from industrial capital and achieve valorization. But the special transformed form of surplus value originates from the surplus value created by wage workers in the production sector. The external appearance of the movement of interest-bearing capital is detached from its inner substance, skipping all intermediate links and processes, going directly from G to G′, thus becoming a fetish, and indeed “the most perfect fetish”; [31]31 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. III (London: Penguin, 1981), p. 515. its determinations and real elements as capital disappear, while interest appears as its proper determination. On the surface, interest-bearing capital only relates to industrial capital; its relationship with workers’ labor is completely replaced by its relationship with industrial capital. Therefore, in Volume III of *Capital* and its related manuscripts, Marx penetrates layer upon layer of illusion, using extensive text to expose this extremely concealed exploitative essence of interest-bearing capital, revealing its most intense and prominent fetishistic character.

本质-现象透视法在对生息资本的解剖中得到最为显明的运用与呈现。马克思十分注重透过一系列表象尤其假象把握生息资本的深层本质，并依据真实本质反思虚假现象，从而澄明了生息资本。从表面上看，生息资本仿佛不需要做任何事就能从产业资本处得到利息、实现增殖。但剩余价值的特殊转化形式，源于生产部门中雇佣工人创造的剩余价值。生息资本运动的外部表象脱离其内在实质，撇开所有中介环节与过程，直接从G到G′，从而成为物神，并且是“最完善的物神”；其作为资本的规定性与现实要素不见了，利息却表现为其应有的规定性。生息资本表面上仅仅同产业资本发生关系，它与工人劳动之间的关系完全被与产业资本的关系取代。因此，在《资本论》第三卷及其相关手稿中，马克思穿透重重假象，以大量笔墨揭露了生息资本此种极为隐蔽的剥削本质，敞开了其最为强烈而突出的拜物教性质。

The theoretical history or “history of the theory of surplus value” part of *Capital* is likewise a perspective on essence and phenomena, thus complementing the “theory of surplus value” part of *Capital*. The *Economic Manuscripts of 1861–1863* begins with a famous “general comment” on the entire “history of the theory of surplus value”: “All economists share the error of examining surplus value not purely as such, but in the particular forms of profit and rent.” [32]32 Karl Marx, *Theories of Surplus Value*, Part I (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1969), p. 40. The reason Marx examined surplus value itself rather than its particular forms was precisely to clearly reveal the essence of surplus value or capitalist production and exploitation, and to critique the various illusions and their conceptual reflections. In reality and in appearance, “the different parts of surplus value assume forms alienated and hardened against each other, the inner connection is finally severed, and the source of surplus value is completely concealed.” [33]33 Marx, *Capital*, Vol. III, p. 968. If the different parts of surplus value are examined separately, their true source cannot be uncovered, and thus the hidden exploitation of capital cannot be exposed, and consequently the limitations and transitory nature of capitalist production cannot be revealed. Therefore, it is necessary to first explain surplus value itself, emphasizing that whether it is the profit of “Mr. Capital” (industrial profit, commercial profit, and interest) or the rent of “Lady Land,” all originate from the surplus value created by surplus labor. Only then can the true essence contained in capitalist production be clear at a glance, without being obscured by the myriad and trivial phenomena, especially illusions.

《资本论》的理论史或“剩余价值理论史”部分，同样是对本质－现象的透视，从而同《资本论》的“剩余价值理论”部分相得益彰。《1861—1863年经济学手稿》开宗明义地对整个“剩余价值理论史”作了著名的“总的评论”：“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。”马克思之所以考察剩余价值本身而非其特殊形式，就是为了明晰地揭示剩余价值或资本主义生产与剥削的本质，批判相关的种种假象及其观念映现。在现实中和表象上，“剩余价值的不同部分互相异化和硬化的形式就完成了，内部联系就最终割断了，剩余价值的源泉就完全被掩盖起来了”。如果分开考察剩余价值的不同部分，就无法揭橥其真正源泉，从而无以揭露资本的隐蔽剥削，进而无力揭明资本主义生产的局限性与暂时性。因此，必须先行说明剩余价值本身，强调无论“资本先生”的利润（产业利润、商业利润以及利息）还是“土地太太”的地租，均源于剩余劳动创造的剩余价值。如此，资本主义生产内含的真正本质才能够一目了然，不致被纷纷扰扰、细枝末节的现象尤其假象所遮蔽。

2. The essence-phenomenon perspective method generates methods such as the ascent from the abstract to the concrete.

2.本质-现象透视法生成从抽象上升到具体等方法

The so-called being thorough means grasping the root of things. And the so-called root is the basis and origin from which other contents within a thing arise and are regulated. In this sense, the fundamental method is the meta-method that generates and regulates other methods. Overall, in *Capital* and its manuscripts, the essence–phenomenon perspective method determines the choice and use of the method of rising from the abstract to the concrete, and the latter serves and is subordinate to the former.

“所谓彻底，就是抓住事物的根本。”而所谓根本，就是事物中生发并规约其他内容的根据、本源。在此意义上，根本方法即生发并规约其他方法的元方法。总体而言，在《资本论》及其手稿中，本质－现象透视法决定从抽象上升到具体法的选择与使用，后者服从和服务于前者。

On the surface, the “method of political economy” discussed in the Introduction to the *Grundrisse* is primarily the method of rising from the abstract to the concrete, but behind it lies the essence–phenomenon perspective method as its foundation. Or, for Marx, rising from the abstract to the concrete is not an end in itself; what is more important is the penetration of essence and phenomenon. The reason he has the method of rising from the abstract to the concrete run through the whole of *Capital* is precisely to accurately grasp the essence of capitalist production and to profoundly criticize its system of appearances, to accurately reveal the essence while profoundly criticizing appearances, or to powerfully criticize appearances while appropriately grasping the essence. Rising from the abstract to the concrete, especially starting from the abstract, not only enables a comprehensive grasp and reproduction of the entire reality but, more importantly, fully achieves the purpose of grasping the essence and criticizing appearances.

从表面上看，《1857—1858年经济学手稿》中的导言所言之“政治经济学的方法”主要是从抽象上升到具体法，但在其背后，隐含着作为根据的本质－现象透视法。或者说，于马克思而言，从抽象上升到具体本身不是目的，更重要的是对本质与现象的穿透。他之所以让从抽象上升到具体法贯穿整个《资本论》，就是为准确把握资本主义生产的本质并深刻批判其假象系统，在深刻批判假象的同时准确揭示本质，或者说在恰适把握本质的同时强力批判假象。从抽象上升到具体，特别是从抽象开始，不但能够全面地掌握和再现整个现实，更重要的是，能够充分地实现把握本质、批判假象的目的。

In Marx’s view, to truly grasp and reproduce things, especially systemic things, one must grasp and clarify their essence, and then examine the process of movement of that essence. Concentrating first on analyzing the essence and revealing its inherent determinations allows for the most accurate and clear disclosure of the essence. Grasping the essence and its movement, and explaining phenomena and criticizing appearances on the basis of the essence, helps to fully illuminate the thing. Similarly, to grasp and reproduce capitalist production, one must first examine its deepest essence, i.e., its most central foundation. After that, one analyzes the specific process of movement and laws of movement of this essential foundation. Marx judged that the deepest essence of the entire capitalist mode of production is value and its valorization. Capital is value that valorizes itself. And the reason it can valorize itself is that the capitalist appropriates the surplus value created by the worker without compensation. This content of relations of production constitutes the core of the capitalist mode of production. Therefore, Marx first discloses the essence of capitalist production; the theoretical logic of the entire *Capital* is set in motion from this point, and on this basis, it systematically and deeply explains the total process of the generation, realization, and division of surplus value by capital, revealing the truth that it is inevitably unsustainable. It can be seen that it is precisely for the purpose of clearly revealing the true essence of capitalist production while criticizing false appearances that *Capital* adopts a mode of composition and order of presentation that starts from the abstract and proceeds from the abstract to the concrete. In short, starting from the abstract allows theory to directly disclose the essence, enabling one to “directly reach” the essence. In this sense, the essence–phenomenon perspective method determines the application of the method of rising from the abstract to the concrete.

在马克思看来，要真正掌握和再现事物尤其系统性事物，必须把握和澄明其本质，进而考察该本质的运动过程。而先行集中地解析本质，揭示其内含的规定性，能够最为准确、明晰地敞开本质。把握本质及其运动，依据本质解释现象、批判假象，有助于事物的充分显豁。同样，对资本主义生产的掌握和再现，亦须先行考察其最深刻的本质，即最核心的根据。之后，分析此本质根据的具体运动过程与运动规律。马克思判定整个资本主义生产方式最深层的本质是价值及其增殖。资本是能够自行增殖的价值。而之所以能够自行增殖，就是由于资本家无偿占有工人创造的剩余价值。这一生产关系内涵构成资本主义生产方式的核心。因此，马克思先行解蔽资本主义生产的本质，整个《资本论》的理论逻辑由此启动，并在此基础上系统深入地阐释资本生成、实现和分割剩余价值的总过程，揭示其注定不可持续的真相。可见，正是为了在批判虚假现象的同时清晰揭示资本主义生产的真正本质，《资本论》采取了先行从抽象开始、由抽象溯及具体这样一种创作方式与呈现次序。简言之，从抽象出发能够让理论直接将本质敞开出来，让人“直抵”本质。在此意义上，本质－现象透视法决定了从抽象上升到具体法的运用。

In the *Grundrisse*, Marx clearly states: “Here the contradiction must arise from the general relations themselves, not from the cheating of individual capitalists. How all this develops further in reality belongs to the theory of wages.” Marx’s meaning is that the inner contradictions and exploitative essence of capitalism can only be revealed at the level of the general essence, not at the level of particular, individual phenomena. The “five-part structure” envisioned in the Introduction to this manuscript begins precisely with “general, abstract determinations, which therefore belong more or less to all social forms,” which is also starting from the abstract. The “general, abstract determinations” here mainly refer to determinations such as labor, value, and money, which are “valid for all epochs.” We see again that, in order to reveal the true essence of capitalist production while criticizing its false appearances, Marx decided to adopt the research approach and mode of presentation of rising from the abstract to the concrete. Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, the reason Marx starts from the “abstract” of surplus value itself and rises to the “concrete” of its particular forms is also to clearly reveal the essence of surplus value and of capitalist production and exploitation. In this way, the method of rising from the abstract to the concrete and the essence–phenomenon perspective method are internally connected. More precisely, the method of rising from the abstract to the concrete is the concrete unfolding and application of the essence–phenomenon perspective method.

在《1857—1858年经济学手稿》中，马克思明确指出：“在这里，矛盾应该产生于一般关系本身，而不是产生于个别资本家的欺骗行为。至于这一切在现实中如何进一步展开，则属于工资学说。”马克思的意思是，无法在特殊、个别的现象层面上，而只有在一般的本质层面上，才能揭示资本主义的内在矛盾和剥削实质。该手稿“导言”设想的“五篇结构”中的第一篇，正是“一般的抽象的规定，因此它们或多或少属于一切社会形式”，这也是从抽象开始。这里的“一般的抽象的规定”主要指劳动、价值、货币等“适用于一切时代”的规定。我们再次看到，为揭示资本主义生产的真正本质，同时批判其虚假现象，马克思决定采取从抽象上升到具体的研究进路与叙述方式。此外，如前所述，马克思之所以从剩余价值本身这一“抽象”开始，上升到其诸特殊形式的“具体”，也是为了明晰地揭示剩余价值和资本主义生产、剥削的实质。如此，从抽象上升到具体法和本质－现象透视法就内在地贯通了起来。更准确地说，从抽象上升到具体法是本质－现象透视法的具体展开与运用。

The essence–phenomenon perspective method also clears the ground and removes obstacles for the method of rising from the abstract to the concrete. Rising from the abstract to the concrete requires proceeding from the concrete reality, through the abstract essence, to the concrete in thought, using the concrete in thought to represent the concrete reality. But in the concrete reality, especially its surface phenomena, there exist a large number of appearances of varying degrees of falsity. Only by distinguishing the true from the false among phenomena, removing false appearances and grasping true appearances, can one scientifically rise from the abstract to the concrete. Otherwise, one might rise from the abstract to a false concrete, or even start from a false abstraction. However, the identification of true and false phenomena and the critique of false appearances do not fall within the scope and capability of the method of rising from the abstract to the concrete. The means to achieve this function and purpose is primarily the essence–phenomenon perspective method. The process of rising from the abstract to the concrete in *Capital* is the result of Marx’s strenuous efforts to remove false appearances and explain the true essence. The process of rising from the abstract to the concrete must be the process of the true essence’s real movement; it cannot be mixed with false appearances, let alone allow false appearances to act as the essence. Whenever false appearances disguise themselves as true appearances and essence, Marx always makes a profound critique, exposing their false face and eliminating them. Thus, the real capitalist world revealed in *Capital* is very different from the face that the capitalist world directly presents. It can be seen that the reason the process of rising from the abstract to the concrete in *Capital* can unfold as a scientific method is that the essence–phenomenon perspective method provides the necessary guarantee. Precisely because of this, although the method of rising from the abstract to the concrete was also used by some political economists, this does not prevent Marx’s research from becoming genuine science. In other words, in the study of capitalist production, if the essence–phenomenon perspective method is abandoned, the method of rising from the abstract to the concrete may not be a scientific method, and may even lose part or all of its scientificity due to the contamination of false appearances. In that case, the critique of political economy, or critical political economy, might slide into vulgar economics.

本质－现象透视法也为从抽象上升到具体法清理地基、扫清障碍。从抽象上升到具体需从现实具体经由抽象本质再到思维具体，以思维具体表征现实具体。但在现实具体特别是其表面现象中，存在大量不同程度的假象。唯有辨明现象之真假，祛除假象、把握真象，方能科学地从抽象上升到具体。否则，就可能从抽象上升到虚假的具体，甚至本身就从虚假的抽象出发。然而，对现象真假的辨别和对假象的批判，并不在从抽象上升到具体法的范围与能力之内。实现这一功能与目的的方式主要是本质－现象透视法。《资本论》从抽象上升到具体的过程，是马克思奋力祛除虚假现象、阐释真实本质的结果。从抽象上升到具体的过程，必须是真正本质真实运动的过程，而不能掺进假象，更不能让假象充当本质。每当假象伪装成真象与本质时，马克思总是作出深刻批判，揭露其虚假面目并予以剔除。从而，《资本论》所揭示出的真实的资本主义世界，迥异于资本主义世界直接表现出的面貌。可见，《资本论》从抽象上升到具体的过程之所以能够作为科学方法展开，是以本质－现象透视法保驾护航为必要条件的。正因为如此，虽然从抽象上升到具体法也被一些政治经济学家使用过，但并不妨碍马克思的研究成为真正的科学。换言之，在对资本主义生产的研究中，如果离开本质－现象透视法，从抽象上升到具体法就可能不是科学方法，甚至会由于假象的浸染而失去部分甚至全部科学性。那样，政治经济学批判或批判的政治经济学就可能滑向庸俗经济学。

“The above problem-consciousness and line of thought of Marx determine and reveal the method he used. Undoubtedly, this problem-consciousness and line of thought represent a kind of deep theoretical thinking that penetrates surface phenomena to reach the level of essence. A fundamental premise of this deep theoretical thinking is the keen grasp and precise distinction between essence and phenomenon, cause and effect.” [34]34 The quotation is from an earlier part of the article, attributed to another scholar’s analysis of Marx’s method. This statement is insightful, accurately grasping Marx’s problem-consciousness and line of thought: penetrating surface phenomena to reach inner essence. Of course, adding “reflecting on surface phenomena on the basis of inner essence” would make it more complete. It is worth noting that if this problem-consciousness and line of thought determine and reveal his method, then, in a direct sense, what they determine and reveal must be the essence-phenomenon perspective method, and no other method. For this problem-consciousness and line of thought point directly to the relationship between essence and phenomenon. Of course, in a non-direct sense, they also determine and reveal other methods. But these methods must be internally related to the essence-phenomenon perspective method. Rather, such methods must be extensions and transformations of the essence-phenomenon perspective method, serving and subordinate to it. In other words, the method of rising from the abstract to the concrete arises on the foundation of the essence-phenomenon perspective method. Of course, this does not mean that the method of rising from the abstract to the concrete can be subsumed under or reduced to the essence-phenomenon perspective method. Although the aforementioned foundational and generative relationship exists, they are two relatively independent methods. The essence-phenomenon perspective method is devoted to revealing and clarifying the essence and phenomena of the capitalist mode of production, while the method of rising from the abstract to the concrete is mainly devoted to reflecting and presenting the process of how the capitalist mode of production transforms step by step from abstract determinations such as value to the concrete operation of various concrete forms of capital, which can also be said to be the process of how deep essence gradually transforms into surface phenomena.

“马克思的上述问题意识和致思路向，决定和昭示了其所使用的方法。毋庸置疑，这一问题意识和致思路向，表征的是一种穿越表面现象而达及本质层面的深度理论思考。这种深度理论思考的一个根本前提，就是对本质和现象、原因和结果作出敏锐把握和精确区分。”这一论述富有见地，精准把握了马克思的问题意识和致思路向：穿越表面现象通达内里本质。当然，再加上“依据内里本质反思表面现象”就更为完整。值得注意的是，如果说这一问题意识和致思路向决定并昭示了其方法，那么，在直接意义上，它所决定和昭示的一定是本质－现象透视法，而非其他方法。因为这一问题意识与致思路向直接指向的就是本质与现象的关系。当然，在非直接的意义上，它亦决定和昭示其他方法。但这些方法一定同本质－现象透视法内在关联。毋宁说，这样的方法一定是由本质－现象透视法所延伸与转换，服务和服从于本质－现象透视法的。换言之，从抽象上升到具体法是在本质与现象透视法根基上生发起来的。当然，这并不是说从抽象上升到具体法可以被纳入或归结为本质－现象透视法。尽管存在前述根基与生成关系，但它们是两种相对独立的方法。本质-现象透视法致力于对资本主义生产方式本质与现象的揭示与澄明，而从抽象上升到具体法则主要致力于反映和呈现资本主义生产方式如何从价值等抽象规定一步步转化和通达各种具体资本形态之具体运作的过程，也可以说是深层本质如何逐步转化为表层现象的进程。

Not only the method of rising from the abstract to the concrete, but also many other concrete methods in *Capital* are rooted in the essence-phenomenon perspective method. In the “Introduction to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy” and related texts, Marx also expounds and employs methods such as typical analysis, scientific abstraction, and retrospective analysis. They are all used to discover and reveal the true essence of capitalist production, stripping away the layers of false veils covering it. It can be argued that these concrete methods are also based on the essence-phenomenon perspective method, generally serving and subordinate to Marx’s analysis and critique of the essence and phenomena of capitalist production.

不仅从抽象上升到具体法，而且《资本论》中的其他诸多具体方法亦根源于本质－现象透视法。在《〈政治经济学批判〉导言》和相关文本中，马克思还阐述和运用了典型分析法、科学抽象法、从后思索法等。它们均被运用于发现和揭示资本主义生产的真实本质，解蔽覆盖其上的重重虚伪面纱。可以认为，这些具体方法也以本质－现象透视法为根基，在总体上服从和服务于马克思对资本主义生产本质与现象的分析和批判。

3. Why the Essence-Phenomenon Perspective Method Becomes the Fundamental Method

3.本质－现象透视法缘何成为根本方法

So why did Marx take the essence-phenomenon perspective method as the fundamental method of his critique of political economy? This is a theoretical question that requires further consideration. In our view, the establishment of the fundamental method status of the essence-phenomenon perspective method stems from the general purpose, general problematic, and general method of Marx’s critique of political economy, as well as the interrelationships among the three.

那么，马克思为什么要将本质-现象透视法作为自己政治经济学批判的根本方法？这是需要进一步考量的理论问题。在我们看来，本质－现象透视法根本方法地位的确立，源于马克思政治经济学批判的总目的、总问题与总方法以及三者间的相互关系。

The reason the essence-phenomenon perspective method becomes the fundamental method of the critique of political economy is closely related to the general purpose of Marx’s study of political economy. The general purpose of criticizing and then transcending capitalism determines that Marx’s fundamental method can only be the essence-phenomenon perspective method, and no other method. For the essence-phenomenon perspective method can most directly and powerfully realize the general purpose or highest purpose of criticizing and transforming the capitalist mode of production. If the purpose of Marx’s economic research were to construct a system of political economy, then the method of rising from the abstract to the concrete would likely become his fundamental method. Hegel, whose main purpose was to construct a system of philosophical theory, took the method of rising from the abstract to the concrete as his main method (the basic form of the general method of dialectics). But even in the theoretical realm, Marx’s purpose was not to construct a system of political economy, but to carry out a critique of political economy: to deeply expose the exploitative essence and irrationality of capitalist production, and to scientifically demonstrate that the capitalist mode of production must be replaced by a truly rational mode of production. The systematic theoretical analysis of capital is not only not the main purpose, but serves and is subordinate to the theoretical purpose of criticizing capitalism. Therefore, Marx did not and would not mainly use the method of rising from the abstract to the concrete to construct a theoretical system, but rather had to and did use the essence-phenomenon perspective method to criticize the existing capitalist mode of production, cleansing the old world and opening up a new world. Marx’s critique of capitalist production is concentratedly embodied in the critique of appearances based on essence. In other words, criticizing appearances based on essence carries the core task and function of the critique of political economy. The “critique of political economy” is precisely the critique of capitalist society as the original and of political economy as the copy.

本质－现象透视法之所以成为政治经济学批判的根本方法，同马克思政治经济学研究的总目的密切相关。批判进而超越资本主义这一总目的，决定了马克思的根本方法只能是本质－现象透视法，而非其他方法。因为，本质-现象透视法能够最直接而有力地实现批判、变革资本主义生产方式的总目的或最高目的。如果马克思经济学研究的目的是建构政治经济学体系，那么，从抽象上升到具体法很可能成为其根本方法。主要目的为建构哲学理论体系的黑格尔，就把从抽象上升到具体法作为自己的主要方法（作为总方法的辩证法的基本形式）。但即使在理论领域，马克思的目的亦非建构政治经济学体系，而是进行政治经济学批判：深度揭露资本主义生产的剥削实质与不合理性，以科学方式论证资本主义生产方式必然被真正合理的生产方式代替。对资本系统性的理论解析不仅不是主要目的，而且服从和服务于批判资本主义的理论目的。因此，马克思不是也不会主要以从抽象上升到具体法建构理论体系，而是且必须以本质－现象透视法批判现存的资本主义生产方式，荡涤旧世界、开辟新世界。马克思对资本主义生产的批判，集中体现为依据本质对假象的批判。换言之，依本质批判假象，承载了政治经济学批判最核心的任务与功能。“政治经济学批判”正是对作为原本的资本主义社会和作为副本的政治经济学的批判。

The reason the essence-phenomenon perspective method becomes the fundamental method of the critique of political economy is closely linked to the general problematic of Marx’s study of political economy. Consistent with the general purpose of the critique of political economy, why the capitalist mode of production must inevitably be replaced by communism constitutes the general problematic of Marx’s critique of political economy. Marx emphasized that the internal contradictions of the capitalist mode of production cause it to necessarily dialectically negate itself and transform into the communist mode of production. Marx’s theory not only departed from the general problematic of Hegelian philosophy and classical political economy, but also newly established a general problematic distinctly different from them. The reflection on and answer to this problematic cannot be separated from the perspective on the essence and phenomena of the capitalist mode of production: exposing the false veil of its surface rationality and eternity, and revealing its internal system of contradictions and developmental trends. It is reasonable to argue that the essence-phenomenon perspective method is highly compatible with this theoretical theme.

本质－现象透视法之所以成为政治经济学批判的根本方法，和马克思政治经济学研究的总问题紧密相连。同政治经济学批判的总目的相一致，资本主义生产方式缘何必然被共产主义代替构成马克思政治经济学批判的总问题。马克思强调，资本主义生产方式的内在矛盾使它必然辩证地否定自身，转变为共产主义生产方式。马克思的理论不仅脱离了黑格尔哲学和古典政治经济学的总问题，而且新建了与之截然有别的总问题。对这一问题的思索与回答，离不开对资本主义生产方式本质与现象的透视：揭露其表面的合理性与永恒性的虚假面纱，揭示其内在的矛盾系统及发展趋势。有理由认为，本质－现象透视法高度契合于这一理论主题。

The reason the essence-phenomenon perspective method becomes the fundamental method of the critique of political economy is also internally related to materialist dialectics as Marx’s general method. To be precise, the essence-phenomenon perspective method is completely consistent with materialist dialectics in substance; both are dialectically negative. As is well known, Marx, in the Postface to the Second Edition of Volume One of *Capital*, understood the essence of dialectics as critique and revolution. Just as the “Preface to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy” is a classic expression of historical materialism, the Postface to the Second Edition of Volume One of *Capital* also constitutes a classic expression of materialist dialectics. The essence-phenomenon perspective method is a critical and revolutionary method, fully demonstrating the critical and revolutionary character of materialist dialectics. Dialectics reveals the essence and phenomena of the movement process of things, while the essence-phenomenon perspective method in *Capital* analyzes the essence and phenomena of capitalist production and their dialectically negative movement process. In this sense, the essence-phenomenon perspective method constitutes the concentrated unfolding and concretization of materialist dialectics, directly and closely expressing and manifesting the essence and spirit of dialectics. Or, the essence-phenomenon perspective method is the “incarnation” of materialist dialectics in dissecting the movement process of the capital world. For Marx, the critical and revolutionary character of dialectics is manifested as criticizing the phenomena, especially the appearances, of capitalist production based on its essence.

本质－现象透视法之所以成为政治经济学批判的根本方法，亦同作为马克思总方法的唯物辩证法内在相关。准确而言，本质－现象透视法同唯物辩证法在实质上是完全一致的，二者都是辩证否定的。众所周知，马克思在《资本论》第一卷第二版跋中，将辩证法的实质理解为批判和革命。如同《〈政治经济学批判〉序言》是对唯物史观的经典表述一般，《资本论》第一卷第二版跋亦构成对唯物辩证法的经典表述。本质-现象透视法是一种批判的和革命的方法，充分彰显了唯物辩证法的批判性与革命性。辩证法揭示事物运动过程的本质与现象，而《资本论》中的本质－现象透视法，则解析了资本主义生产的本质与现象及其辩证否定的运动过程。在此意义上，本质-现象透视法构成唯物辩证法的集中展开、具体化，直接而切近地表达和彰显辩证法的实质与精神。或者说，本质-现象透视法就是唯物辩证法解剖资本世界运动过程中的“化身”。于马克思而言，辩证法的批判性与革命性彰显为依据资本主义生产的本质批判其现象尤其假象。

It is worth mentioning that this general method is highly consistent with Marx’s general purpose and general problematic: all three take criticality and revolutionary character as their soul. Dialectics nourished the ideal of the founders of Marxism to criticize and then transcend capitalism, anchoring them to the theoretical theme of why capitalism must inevitably perish; and the general purpose and general problematic in turn made it necessary for Marx to choose and apply dialectics, which then presents itself in a direct sense as the essence-phenomenon perspective method. The critical and revolutionary dialectics helped Marx profoundly reveal the essence of capitalism and thoroughly criticize the appearances of capitalism. From this perspective, the general purpose, general problematic, general method, and fundamental method constitute a solid chain that is internally consistent, logical, interlocking, and progressive, which cannot be cut or broken.

值得提及的是，这一总方法同马克思的总目的、总问题高度一致：三者均以批判性、革命性为灵魂。辩证法滋养了马克思主义创始人批判进而超越资本主义的理想，使之锚定资本主义缘何必然灭亡的理论主题；而总目的和总问题又让马克思必然选择并运用辩证法，进而在直接的意义上呈现为本质－现象透视法。批判和革命的辩证法助力马克思深刻揭示资本主义的本质，彻底批判资本主义的假象。由此看来，总目的、总问题、总方法和根本方法，构成一条既内在一致、顺理成章又环环相扣、层层递进的坚固链锁，不可切割、无法斩断。

Conclusion

结语

Consistent with Marx’s profound and extensive world of thought is his wise and deep world of method. Dialectical materialism “incarnates” itself as the essence–phenomenon perspective, and the essence–phenomenon perspective in turn unfolds into the method of ascending from the abstract to the concrete. Hegel’s dialectics directly concretizes itself into the method of ascending from the abstract to the concrete, whereas Marx’s dialectics mainly concretizes itself into the essence–phenomenon perspective, and then from the essence–phenomenon perspective into the method of ascending from the abstract to the concrete. The essence–phenomenon perspective is the key within this. Compared with the method of ascending from the abstract to the concrete, the essence–phenomenon perspective is more consonant with and manifests the critical and revolutionary character of Marx’s dialectical method, and it is also more capable of realizing Marx’s theoretical aims and practical pursuits, enabling Marxism to fundamentally transcend the theories of Smith, Ricardo, Hegel, and others. Without insight into essence and critique of false appearance, there would be no destruction of the old world and no opening up of the new world, no truly rational mode of existence and social form, and thus no theoretical innovation and practical transformation of Marxism. In summary, the essence–phenomenon perspective is the fundamental method of Marx’s critique of political economy. If Marx’s methodology is likened to a towering tree, then the method of ascending from the abstract to the concrete constitutes the “branches and trunk” of the tree, while the essence–phenomenon perspective constitutes the “root” of the tree.

同马克思博大精深的思想世界相一致的，是他睿智深刻的方法世界。唯物辩证法“化身”为本质－现象透视法，而本质－现象透视法又展开为从抽象上升到具体法。黑格尔的辩证法直接具体化为从抽象上升到具体法，而马克思的辩证法主要具体化为本质－现象透视法，再由本质－现象透视法具体化为从抽象上升到具体法。本质－现象透视法是其中的关键。相对于从抽象上升到具体法，本质-现象透视法更加契合并彰显马克思辩证方法的批判性与革命性，也更能实现马克思的理论目的以及实践追求，让马克思主义根本性地超越了斯密、李嘉图、黑格尔等人的理论。没有对本质的洞见和对假象的批判，就没有对旧世界的破坏和对新世界的开拓，就没有真正合理的存在模式与社会形态，也就没有马克思主义的理论革新与实践变革。综上所言，本质－现象透视法是马克思政治经济学批判的根本方法。如果将马克思的方法论喻为参天大树，那么，从抽象上升到具体法则构成树的“枝干”，本质－现象透视法构成树之“根本”。

(Author’s brief biography: Liu Zhihong, Associate Professor and Doctoral Supervisor at the School of Philosophy, Renmin University of China, Wu Yuzhang Young Scholar)

（作者简介：刘志洪，中国人民大学哲学院副教授、博士生导师，吴玉章青年学者）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心