The Method of Abstraction in Marx’s Critique of Political Economy

When expounding the research method of political economy, Marx once pointed out: “In the analysis of economic forms, neither microscopes nor chemical reagents are of use. The force of abstraction must replace both.” [1]1 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Preface to the First German Edition. The method of abstraction is the essence of Marx’s critical methodology in political economy. It is precisely through the scientific method of abstraction that Marx endows the critique of political economy with scientificity, enabling *Capital* to penetrate the fog of capitalist phenomena, transcend the superficial description of economic activities, and profoundly reveal the inner mechanism and essential laws of capitalist motion.

马克思在阐释政治经济学研究方法时曾指出：“分析经济形式，既不能用显微镜，也不能用化学试剂。二者都必须用抽象力来代替。”抽象法是马克思政治经济学批判方法论的精髓，正是通过科学的抽象方法，马克思赋予政治经济学批判以科学性，使得《资本论》能穿透资本主义的现象迷雾，超越对经济活动的表层描述，深刻揭示了资本主义运动的内在机理与本质规律。

At the methodological level, Marx’s critique of political economy runs through the typical characteristics of the method of abstraction. Specifically, in his research and writing centered on *Capital*, Marx comprehensively applied the dialectical method of “proceeding from the concrete to the abstract, and then from the abstract to the concrete.” In the postface to the second German edition of *Capital*, Volume I (1873), Marx made a clear and distinct distinction between the method of inquiry and the method of presentation, pointing out: “Of course the method of presentation must differ in form from that of inquiry. The latter has to appropriate the material in detail, to analyze its different forms of development, to trace out their inner connection. Only after this work is done, can the actual movement be adequately described.” Understanding Marx’s method of abstraction must be unfolded from two different perspectives: the method of inquiry and the method of presentation. “Proceeding from the concrete to the abstract” is the method of inquiry in Marx’s critique of political economy. In this context, the “concrete” primarily refers to sensuous activity, empirical facts, and the lifeworld; it refers to the real, existing, complex and chaotic reality of capitalist society that serves as the starting point of inquiry. “Proceeding from the concrete to the abstract” means that Marx, through meticulous and scientific mental activity, analyzes numerous and complex economic phenomena, filtering, extracting, and distilling from them the simplest and most fundamental economic categories. The opening of *Capital* takes “the commodity” as its starting point; this is precisely the simplest and most important “economic cell” of capitalist society, extracted by Marx through repeated mental filtering and distillation. However, the concrete in reality is not a chaotic heap of sensuous activity and empirical facts. To be absorbed as “the concrete in reality,” it must be a totality that, in the thought-concrete, contains rich determinations and internal connections, a whole that embodies the essential connections and internal contradictions of the capitalist mode of production. Sohn-Rethel pointed out sharply that Marx’s “concrete” is both sensuous empirical material and the social relations in productive activity. [2]2 Alfred Sohn-Rethel (1899–1990), a German Marxist philosopher known for his work on the relationship between commodity exchange and the forms of thought.

从方法论层面而言，马克思政治经济学批判贯穿着典型的抽象法特征。具体而言，就是马克思在围绕着以《资本论》为中心的研究与写作中综合运用了“由具体到抽象，再由抽象到具体”的辩证方法。马克思在《资本论》第一卷德文第二版跋（1873年）中对研究方法与叙述方法做了明确而清晰的区分，指出：“在形式上，叙述方法必须与研究方法不同。研究必须充分地占有材料，分析它的各种发展形式，探寻这些形式的内在联系。只有这项工作完成以后，现实的运动才能适当地叙述出来。”理解马克思的抽象法必须从研究方法与叙述方法两种不同视域来展开，而“由具体到抽象”是马克思政治经济学批判的研究方法。就其语境而言，“具体”首要的是感性活动、经验事实与生活世界，是指作为研究出发点而真实存在的、纷繁复杂的资本主义社会现实。“由具体到抽象”意指马克思通过缜密科学的思维活动来解析繁多、复杂的经济现象，从中过滤、萃取与提炼出最为简单、最为根本的经济范畴。《资本论》开篇将“商品”作为出发点，正是马克思经过思维的反复过滤与萃取而提炼出来的资本主义社会中最简单最重要的“经济细胞”。但现实具体并不是杂乱无章的感性活动、经验事实的任意堆砌，能被吸纳为“现实具体”必须是在思维具体中包含丰富规定和内在联系的总体，是蕴含着资本主义生产方式本质联系与内在矛盾的整体。索恩·雷特尔就一针见血地指出马克思的“具体”既是感性的经验材料，也是生产活动中的社会关系。

In Marx’s context, “abstraction” is not only a mode of thinking but also possesses specific connotations and essential attributes. Abstraction is first of all an essential determination, the theoretical process that mental analysis aims to reach, meaning the “simplest determination” or “simplest concept” that mental activity can grasp. Such things as commodity, value, capital, and labor-power are all results of abstraction. Marx often used “abstraction” and “simple,” “abstract category” and “simple category” synonymously, and also put forward the expression “the simplest abstraction.” In the *Grundrisse* (1857–1858), Marx explicitly proposed the concept of “labor in general,” pointing out: “‘Labor,’ ‘labor as such,’ the abstract category of labor pure and simple, the starting point of modern economics, thus becomes actually true. So the simplest abstraction, which modern economics places at the forefront and which expresses an ancient relation valid for all forms of society, appears actually true in this abstraction only as a category of the most modern society.” [3]3 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse*, “Introduction,” section on the method of political economy. In addition, Marx also put forward basic categories formed by the method of abstraction, such as “production in general,” “capital in general,” and “wealth in general.” Together, they constitute the theoretical foundation and logical starting point of Marx’s critique of political economy. These simplest categories are the “cells” or “elements” with which Marx dissects modern society. Then, in the mental process of “proceeding from the abstract to the concrete,” they are continuously concretized and determined, ultimately reconstructing in thought a “concrete totality” rich in determinations, that is, a more complete reproduction of capitalist society, full of internal contradictions and crises.

马克思的语境中的“抽象”不仅是一种思维方式，也具有特定内涵与本质属性。抽象首先是一种本质性规定，是思维分析所要达到的理论过程，意指思维活动所能把握到的“最简单的规定”或“最简单的概念”。诸如商品、价值、资本、劳动力等都属于抽象的结果。马克思常将“抽象”与“简单”、“抽象范畴”与“简单范畴”同等意义使用，也提出过“最简单的抽象”这一说法。马克思在《1857—1858年经济学手稿》中明确提出“劳动一般”概念，指出“‘劳动’、‘劳动一般’、直截了当的劳动这个范畴的抽象，这个现代经济学的起点，才成为实际上真实的东西。所以，这个被现代经济学提到首位的、表现出一种古老而适用于一切社会形式的关系的最简单的抽象，只有作为最现代的社会的范畴，才在这种抽象中表现为实际上真实的东西”。此外，马克思还提出过“生产一般”“资本一般”“财富一般”等由抽象方法所形成的基本范畴，它们共同构成了马克思政治经济学批判的理论基石与逻辑起点。这些最简单的范畴是马克思解剖现代社会的“细胞”或“元素”，然后在“由抽象到具体”的思维进程中不断被具体化规定，最终在思维中重构出一个包含丰富规定性的“具体的总体”，也即更加完整地再现了充满内在矛盾与危机的资本主义社会。

When confronting the complex and chaotic economic phenomena of capitalism, “proceeding from the concrete to the abstract” is the method of inquiry in the critique of political economy, a process of delving into details, analyzing and summarizing, and revealing essences. It was precisely by deeply and concretely studying economic phenomena such as ground rent, profit, exchange, and wage-labor in capitalist society, tracing their origins, developmental changes, and forms of manifestation, that Marx extracted the most basic concepts of the commodity and the category of value. This is completely different from the position of classical political economy, which from the outset regarded commodities, value, property, etc., as natural and eternal categories. Similarly, the method of presentation follows the logical order of “proceeding from the abstract to the concrete,” starting from the simplest and most basic categories and gradually deducing, reconstructing, and reproducing in mental activity the economic operation and concrete picture of capitalism. Regarding the relationship between the two, the method of inquiry is the logical premise and theoretical foundation of the method of presentation; without fully appropriating and deeply analyzing concrete material, there can be no scientific theoretical narrative. Likewise, the method of presentation is the systematic summary and theoretical sublimation of the research results, presenting them with coherent logic, clear argumentation, and sufficient explanation. If “proceeding from the concrete to the abstract” is the first mental journey of the method of abstraction, embodying an analytical approach of tracing backward from the effect to the cause, then “proceeding from the abstract to the concrete” is the second mental journey of the method of abstraction, embodying an analytical approach moving forward from the cause to the effect. Only mental activity that completely contains both journeys can be called a genuine process of abstraction.

在面对资本主义纷繁复杂的经济现象之际，“由具体到抽象”是政治经济学批判的研究方法，是一个深入细节、分析归纳、揭示本质的过程。马克思正是深入而具体地研究了资本主义社会的地租、利润、交换、雇佣劳动等经济现象，追溯其生成来源、发展流变与表现形态，才提炼出最基本的商品概念与价值范畴，这与古典经济学从一开始就将商品、价值、财产等视为天然的、永恒的范畴的立场完全不同。同样，叙述方法则遵循“由抽象到具体”的逻辑顺序，从最简单、最基本的范畴出发，逐步在思维活动中推演、重构与再现资本主义的经济运行及其具体图景。就二者关系而言，研究方法是叙述方法的逻辑前提与理论基础，没有充分地占有与深刻地分析具体材料，就不可能有科学的理论叙事。同样，叙述方法是对研究成果的系统总结与理论升华，将其以连贯的逻辑、清晰的论证、充分的解释呈现出来。如果说“由具体到抽象”是抽象方法的第一个思维行程，体现出从后向前追溯的分析进路，那么“由抽象到具体”则是抽象方法的第二个思维行程，体现出从前向后的分析进路。只有完整地包含了两个行程的思维活动，才能被称为真正的抽象过程。

In the second journey, i.e., “proceeding from the abstract to the concrete,” the “concrete” has evolved from the original concrete in reality into the thought-concrete. As the concrete in thought, it is no longer sensuous, chaotic representation, but the multiple determinations and theoretical integration of the concrete object in mental activity. In the bidirectional process of “proceeding from the concrete to the abstract” and “proceeding from the abstract to the concrete,” “abstraction” serves as the intermediary and bridge connecting the “concrete in reality” and the “thought-concrete.” Abstract analysis penetrates the complex and chaotic concrete phenomena, filters out accidental, arbitrary, and external manifestations, and extracts the internal, necessary essential connections. It was precisely through the abstract analysis of the rich and complex commodity exchange relations of capitalism that Marx extracted the category of “value,” which became the key to the theory of surplus value. Therefore, “abstraction” is a crucial link in mental activity, providing a rational fulcrum and analytical tool for theoretical research. The mental journey of “proceeding from the abstract to the concrete” advances continuously, and from it are deduced a series of richer and more concrete economic categories, such as money, capital, profit, and ground rent. Each subsequent concept internally contains the abstract determinations of the categories “commodity” and “value,” but on this basis adds newer, more specific mental determinations. Marx defined “money” as the form of the universal equivalent of value, while “capital” is value that produces surplus value.

在第二个行程即“由抽象到具体”中，“具体”已从原初的现实具体演变为思维具体。作为思维中的具体，它不再是感性、杂乱的表象，而是在思维活动中对具体对象的多重规定与理论整合。在“由具体到抽象”与“由抽象到具体”的双向进程中，“抽象”充当了连接“现实具体”与“思维具体”的中介与桥梁。抽象分析透过纷繁复杂的具体现象，过滤掉偶然的、任意的、外在的表现，提炼出内在的、必然的本质联系。马克思正是通过对资本主义丰富而复杂的商品交换关系的抽象分析，才提炼出“价值”范畴，成为通向剩余价值理论的关键。因此，“抽象”是思维活动的关键环节，为理论研究提供了理性支点与分析工具。“由抽象到具体”的思维行程不断推进，并由此推导出一系列诸如货币、资本、利润、地租等更加丰富、更加具体的经济范畴。每一个后续的概念都内在地包含着“商品”与“价值”范畴的抽象规定，但又在此基础上增加了更新的、更具体的思维规定。马克思将“货币”定义为价值的一般等价物形式，而“资本”则是能带来剩余价值的价值。

*Capital* starts from the commodity, the “economic cell” of capitalist society, analyzes the inherent contradiction between its use-value and exchange-value, excavates the essential concept of the value-form, and then analyzes the measure of the magnitude of value and the process of its realization, thereby revealing the production of surplus value as the driving mechanism of capital accumulation. On the basis of sorting out and analyzing the above “concrete in thought,” Marx follows the thought-path “from the abstract to the concrete” to continue examining the phenomena of capital circulation—the transformation of money-capital into productive capital, productive capital into commodity-capital, and commodity-capital back into money-capital—analyzes the tendency of the rising organic composition of capital and the falling rate of profit, and reveals the crisis tendency inherent in the capitalist mode of production and the root of periodic economic crises. Overall, starting from concrete economic activity, Marx abstracts the simplest category, “the commodity,” through layer-by-layer deduction and meticulous analysis; then, starting from the abstract category of the commodity, he proceeds through layer-by-layer deduction of concrete links, forming a complete logical process of “concrete—abstract—concrete.” This not only reconstructs the complete picture of the operation of the capitalist economy but also demonstrates the inherent crisis and historical limitations of the capitalist process.

《资本论》从商品这一资本主义社会的“经济细胞”出发，分析其内在的使用价值与交换价值的矛盾，挖掘出价值形式这一本质概念，进而分析价值量的度量方式及其价值实现过程，揭示出剩余价值生产这一资本积累的动力机制。在梳理与分析上述“思维具体”的基础之上，马克思沿着“由抽象到具体”的思维路径继续考察货币资本转化为生产资本、生产资本转化为商品资本、商品资本再转化为货币资本的资本循环现象，分析资本有机构成变化增加与利润率下降的趋势，揭示出资本主义生产方式内蕴的危机倾向与周期性经济危机的根源所在。整体而言，马克思从具体的经济活动出发，通过层层推演、抽丝剥茧而抽象出“商品”这一最简单的范畴，而后从抽象的商品范畴出发，再通过具体环节的层层推演，形成了一个完整的“具体—抽象—具体”的逻辑进程。这不仅重构了资本主义经济运行的完整图景，也展示了资本主义进程的内在危机与历史局限。

(This article is a phased result of the National Social Science Fund major project “Marx’s Philosophical Methodology and the Transformation of Modern Humanities and Social Sciences Methodology” [24&ZD322].)

（本文系国家社科基金重大项目“马克思哲学方法论与现代人文社会科学方法论变革”（24&ZD322）阶段性成果）

(The author is a professor in the Department of Philosophy at East China Normal University and a researcher at the Key Research Base for Humanities and Social Sciences of the Ministry of Education, the Institute of Modern Chinese Thought and Culture.)

（作者系华东师范大学哲学系教授、教育部人文社科重点研究基地中国现代思想文化研究所研究员）

Online editor: Tong Xin

网络编辑：同心