On Marx’s Critique and Transcendence of Ricardo’s Political Economy

Marx’s critique of David Ricardo always occupies a core seat in the chain of his critique of political economy. Ricardo, as the pinnacle of classical political economy, implemented the labor theory of value and revealed the class antagonism of capitalist society. However, because he could not see the contradictions in the essential dimension of capitalism, he fell into a non-historical naturalist rut in his understanding of the capitalist mode of production, making it difficult to resolve the two theoretical difficulties of the exchange between capital and labor and the equal profit on equal capital, and ultimately leading to the disintegration of the Ricardian school and the end of classical political economy. Marx formed his own political economy on the basis of his critique of Ricardo, but as soon as his theory emerged, it faced two kinds of questioning. On the one hand, there was questioning of the scientific nature of the labor theory of value. The Austrian school economist Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk accused Marx’s theory of the average rate of profit and prices of production of contradicting the definition of value. Western economists represented by Paul A. Samuelson proposed that the transformation of value into price of production was a superfluous step, denying the necessity of the labor theory of value. They crudely abandoned the labor theory of value and were satisfied only with the superficial description of economic laws, in fact regressing to the level of Ricardo or even pre-Ricardian levels. On the other hand, there was questioning of the revolutionary nature of Marx’s political economy. Economic historians such as Joseph Alois Schumpeter regarded Marx as a direct continuation of classical economics, claiming that his monetary theory and labor theory of value did not surpass his teacher Ricardo, ignoring the revolutionary transformation Marx achieved in political economy. Questioning and debate cannot bypass Ricardo. Therefore, returning to Marx’s critique of Ricardo’s political economy is very necessary and of great significance.

马克思对李嘉图（David Ricardo）的批判始终占据其政治经济学批判链条中的核心席位。李嘉图作为古典政治经济学的巅峰，贯彻了劳动价值论并揭示了资本主义社会的阶级对立，但由于他看不到资本主义本质维度的矛盾，在资本主义生产方式认知中陷入非历史的自然主义窠臼，难以解决资本与劳动交换、等量资本获取等量利润这两个理论困难，并最终导致李嘉图学派走向解体、古典政治经济学走向终结。马克思在批判李嘉图的基础上形成了自己的政治经济学，但其理论一经问世便面临两个方面的质疑：一方面是对劳动价值论科学性的质疑。奥地利学派经济学家庞巴维克（Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk）指责马克思的平均利润率和生产价格理论与价值的定义相矛盾，以萨缪尔森（Paul A. Samuelson）为代表的西方经济学家提出价值转化为生产价格是多余步骤，否定劳动价值论的必要性，他们粗率地抛弃劳动价值论而只满足于经济规律的表象描述，事实上是退回到了李嘉图甚至是李嘉图之前的水平；另一方面是对马克思政治经济学革命性的质疑。约瑟夫·熊彼特（Joseph Alois Schumpeter）等经济史学者将马克思视为古典经济学的直接延续，声称其货币理论和劳动价值论并未超越其老师李嘉图，忽视了马克思在政治经济学上实现的革命性转变。质疑与争论都绕不开李嘉图。因此，重回马克思对李嘉图政治经济学的批判，十分必要且意义重大。

I. Marx’s Cognitive Process Regarding Ricardo’s Political Economy

一、马克思对李嘉图政治经济学的认识历程

Marx began to devote himself to the study of political economy in 1843, and “critique of political economy” was always the central work of his “golden age.” Regarding Marx’s “critique of political economy,” General Secretary Xi Jinping once said: “The critique referred to here is not the narrow sense of refutation as we previously understood it, not the ‘criticism’ of holding a ‘criticism meeting,’ but rather the elevation and deepening of the classical political economy theories and logic of Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and others; it is annotation, commentary, and judgment.” Following this understanding, returning to the developmental process of Marx’s thought, his cognitive process regarding Ricardo’s political economy can be divided into four stages: the stage of negation, the stage of affirmation, the stage of preliminary questioning, and the stage of comprehensive critique and transcendence.

马克思于1843年开始致力于研究政治经济学，“政治经济学批判”一直是他“黄金时代”的中心工作。关于马克思的“政治经济学批判”，习近平总书记曾说：“这里说的批判不是我们以前理解的狭义上的批驳，不是开‘批判会’那种‘批判’，而是对亚当·斯密、大卫·李嘉图等人的古典政治经济学理论和逻辑的提高和深化，是批注、评论、判断。”循此理解，回到马克思思想发展进程，可以将他对李嘉图政治经济学的认知历程划分为四个阶段：否定阶段、肯定阶段、初步质疑阶段、全面批判与超越阶段。

(1) The First Stage (October 1843 – February 1845) was the stage when Marx, influenced by Feuerbach’s humanist standpoint, was in a stage of simple negation of Ricardo

（一）第一阶段（1843年10月—1845年2月）是马克思受费尔巴哈的人本主义立场影响，对李嘉图的认识处于简单的否定阶段

At this time, Marx studied the works of Smith, Ricardo, List, MacCulloch, and others in Paris and made nine notebooks of excerpts, namely the *Paris Notebooks*. In the fourth and fifth notebooks of the *Paris Notebooks*, Marx excerpted Ricardo’s *On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation* (hereinafter referred to as *Principles*). From these notebooks, it can be seen that Marx had already taken great interest in Ricardo and his theory of value. He paid attention to G. Prévost’s *Critique of Ricardo’s System* and made many annotations. However, he had not yet recognized Ricardo’s true position in the history of political economy and did not understand Prévost’s praise of Ricardo as a “profound economist.” When discussing “value,” Marx noted the difference between Ricardo and Say: “In the determination of value, Ricardo firmly grasps the cost of production, while Say grasps only utility (usefulness).” But he did not go further to understand the labor theory of value basis of Ricardo’s “cost of production.” After excerpting Ricardo’s “Labor… is the source of all value – its relative quantity… is the measure that regulates the relative value of commodities,” he did not further elaborate but turned to Say and Proudhon. This was because at that time Marx had not yet paid much attention to the theoretical content of economics such as “wages, profit, rent,” and could only view bourgeois economic doctrines from a humanist standpoint, from the perspective of abstract human nature. When commenting on views such as “the value of the worker is limited to the cost of production,” he made indignant condemnations, believing that political economy used “abstraction” to deny “all meaning of life itself,” and adopted a negative attitude toward Ricardo’s economic theory.

马克思此时在巴黎研读了斯密、李嘉图、李斯特、麦卡库洛赫等人的著作并做了九册的摘录，即《巴黎笔记》。《巴黎笔记》第四、第五册中摘录了李嘉图的《政治经济学及赋税原理》（下称《原理》）。从这些笔记可以看到，马克思已经对李嘉图及其价值理论提起了很大的兴趣，他关注到吉·普雷沃撰写的《评李嘉图体系》并做了较多的评注，然而他尚未认识到李嘉图在政治经济学史中的真正地位，没有理解普雷沃对李嘉图“深邃的经济学家”的称赞。在谈论“价值”时，马克思注意到李嘉图和萨伊的区别：“在价值规定中，李嘉图紧紧抓住生产费用，萨伊仅仅抓住效用（有用性）”，但他并没有进一步去理解李嘉图“生产费用”的劳动价值论基础，在摘抄了李嘉图的“劳动……是一切价值的源泉——它的相对量……是调节商品相对价值的尺度”之后没有进一步阐释便转向萨伊和蒲鲁东。这是因为当时马克思对“工资、利润、地租”等经济学的理论内容还没有过多的关注，只能从人本主义立场，从抽象人性的角度来看待资产阶级的经济学说，在评论“工人的价值仅限于生产费用”等观点之时他作出义愤的谴责，认为国民经济学用“抽象”去否定“生活本身的一切意义”，对李嘉图的经济理论采取了否定态度。

(2) The Second Stage (February 1845 – March 1848) was the stage when Marx highly affirmed Ricardo’s theory of value

（二）第二阶段（1845年2月—1848年3月）是马克思对李嘉图价值理论进行高度肯定的阶段

During this period, Marx wrote a series of works that touched upon or specifically elaborated on issues of political economy, such as *The Holy Family*, *The German Ideology*, *The Poverty of Philosophy*, *Wage Labour and Capital*, and *The Communist Manifesto*. His discussions of Ricardo’s political economic doctrines were numerous, and the passages concerning his labor theory of value were not few. The main text for concentrated discussion was *The Poverty of Philosophy*. Marx and Engels had already established the materialist conception of history as early as the period of *The German Ideology*. Therefore, when writing *The Poverty of Philosophy*, Marx already had a scientific historical outlook, understood the important position of Ricardo’s economic theory, accepted the labor theory of value, and made extensive use of it in his critique of Proudhon. In *The Poverty of Philosophy*, Marx made his first positive comment on Ricardo. He criticized the “antinomy” of Proudhon’s constituted value theory and highly praised Ricardo’s theory of value as “the scientific interpretation of modern economic life.” At this time, a qualitative change occurred in Marx’s political economic viewpoint. He transformed from a rejecter of the labor theory of value into a “defender of the labor theory of value,” and the value problem became a new starting point for Marx to construct a scientific political economy. At this stage, Marx’s understanding of Ricardo’s theory of value mainly had two points. First, Marx highly affirmed Ricardo’s critique of Smith’s dual theory of value. Smith sometimes regarded the labor time necessary to produce a commodity as the measure of value, believing that “the real price of any article, that is, what it actually costs to obtain it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it,” but sometimes regarded the quantity of labor purchased as the measure of value: “For a person who possesses wealth and wishes to exchange it for some new product, its value is exactly equal to the quantity of labor it enables him to purchase or command.” Ricardo exposed Smith’s error, believing that the labor embodied in a commodity and the labor that commodity can command are not equal, and that only labor time is the appropriate measure. Second, Marx realized that after labor becomes a commodity, its value differs from the value of the commodity it creates. He agreed with Ricardo’s law of wages, believing that the relative value of labor is equal to the value of the means of subsistence necessary to reproduce labor, while the value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of labor required to produce it. However, he also discovered the fact that “the use of labor time as the measure of value is utterly incompatible with the existing class antagonism and the unequal distribution of the product of labor between the direct producer and the appropriator of accumulated labor.” This distinction became an important germ for Marx’s discovery of surplus value.

其间，马克思写下《神圣家族》《德意志意识形态》《哲学的贫困》《雇佣劳动与资本》和《共产党宣言》等一系列涉及或专门阐述了政治经济学问题的著作，对李嘉图政治经济学说的论述可谓星罗棋布，关于其劳动价值论的篇幅更不在少数，集中论述的主要文本是《哲学的贫困》。马克思和恩格斯早在《德意志意识形态》时期就确立了唯物主义的历史观，因而写作《哲学的贫困》时马克思已经有了一个科学的历史观，理解了李嘉图经济学理论的重要地位，接受了劳动价值论，并大量运用在对蒲鲁东的批判中。马克思在《哲学的贫困》中第一次对李嘉图作出正面评论，他批判了蒲鲁东构成价值论的“二律背反”，高度称赞李嘉图的价值论是“对现代经济生活的科学解释”。此时马克思政治经济学观点发生了质的转变，他由劳动价值论的拒斥者成为“劳动价值论的辩护人”，价值问题成为马克思构建科学的政治经济学的崭新出发点。此阶段马克思对李嘉图价值理论的认识主要有两点。其一，马克思高度肯定李嘉图对斯密二元价值论的批评。斯密有时把生产商品所必要的劳动时间当作价值尺度，认为“任何一个物品的真实价格，即要取得这物品实际上所付出的代价，乃是获得它的辛苦和麻烦”，有时却又把购买到的劳动量当做价值尺度：“对于占有财富并愿用以交换一些新产品的人来说，它的价值，恰恰等于使用它使他们能够购买或支配的劳动量”。李嘉图揭露了斯密的错误，认为投在一种商品内的劳动量和该种商品所能换得的劳动量并不相等，只有以劳动时间为尺度才是恰当的。其二，马克思意识到劳动成为商品之后，其价值与其创造的商品价值有所区别。他同意李嘉图的工资定律，认为劳动的相对价值等于再生产劳动所必需的生活资料的价值，而商品价值则由生产该商品所需的劳动量决定，但也发现了“劳动时间作为价值尺度这种做法和现存的阶级对抗、和劳动产品在直接劳动者与积累劳动占有者之间的不平等分配是多么不相容”的事实。这一区分成为马克思发现剩余价值的重要萌芽。

(3) The Third Stage (August 1850 – end of 1853) was the stage when Marx began to preliminarily question Ricardo and analyze the fundamental contradictions of his theory

（三）第三阶段（1850年8月—1853年底）是马克思对李嘉图进行初步质疑，并析出其理论基本矛盾的阶段

During this period, Marx resided in London and began to engage in deep reflection on many debates then current in British political economy, producing the *London Notebooks*. This notebook excerpted the works of many economists of the time and constitutes “the original source material group for Marx’s creation of his own original scientific political economy theory, and therefore the direct premise of thought for the initial theoretical construction of Marxist political economy.” [1]1 The *London Notebooks* (Londoner Hefte) are a set of 24 notebooks of excerpts and comments written by Marx between 1850 and 1853 during his exile in London, covering works on political economy, history, and technology. Europe had just experienced the economic crisis of 1847 and the European revolutions of 1848; in the midst of actual revolution, Marx’s understanding of capitalist economic crises and class contradictions deepened continuously, and he began to re-examine classical political economy and Ricardo’s doctrine. Marx once again made extensive excerpts from Ricardo’s *Principles* and raised challenges to his quantity theory of money, his theory of rent, and his theory of value, recognizing that Ricardo’s quantity theory of money was “very confused,” that his theory of differential rent was “highly problematic,” and analyzing that Ricardo’s fundamental problem lay in two “difficulties” in his labor theory of value that were hard to overcome, namely the exchange of capital for labor and the problem of equal amounts of capital obtaining equal amounts of profit. Consequently, at this stage Marx began to break free from his “superstition” about Ricardo, laying an important foundation for establishing his own scientific labor theory of value.

其间，马克思侨居伦敦，开始对当时英国政治经济学界的许多争论进行深度思考，形成了《伦敦笔记》。该笔记摘录了当时许多经济学家的著作，是马克思“创立自己原创性的科学政治经济学理论的原始资料群，因此也是马克思主义政治经济学最初理论建构的直接思考前提”。当时欧洲刚经历了1847年经济危机与1848年欧洲革命，马克思在现实革命中对资本主义经济危机与阶级矛盾的认识不断加深，他开始重新审视古典政治经济学和李嘉图学说。马克思对李嘉图《原理》一书再次进行大篇幅的摘录，并对其货币数量论、地租理论和价值理论发起了质疑，意识到李嘉图的货币数量论是“非常混乱的”，其级差地租理论“是大有问题的”，分析出李嘉图的根本问题在于其劳动价值论存在两个难以克服的“困难”，即资本与劳动交换、等量资本获取等量利润的难题。因而，这个阶段马克思开始破除对李嘉图的“迷信”，为建立自己科学的劳动价值论奠定重要基础。

(4) The Fourth Stage (1857–after 1867) Is the Stage of Marx’s Comprehensive Critique and Transcendence of Ricardo

（四）第四阶段（1857年—1867年之后）是马克思全面批判超越李嘉图的阶段

This stage can be further divided into two time periods. The first period is from 1857 to July 1863, when Marx wrote two famous manuscripts for *Capital*: the *Economic Manuscripts of 1857–1858* and the *Economic Manuscripts of 1861–1863*. Marx explored the object and method of research in political economy, as well as the structure of the theoretical system of political economy, overcame the methodological defects of classical political economists such as Smith and Ricardo, and made preliminary expositions of labor value, monetary theory, surplus value, and the developmental trends of the capitalist economy, laying the foundation for his political economy. In 1859 Marx publicly published *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy* (First Part), systematically exploring the theory of commodities and money. In July 1863, out of the need to write the Second Part, Marx completed the *Economic Manuscripts of 1861–1863*, further advancing the labor theory of value toward perfection, while at the same time elucidating the theory of social capital reproduction, the theory of average profit and prices of production, the theory of absolute rent, and other content, more deeply dissecting the laws of motion of the capitalist economy, and completing a comprehensive critique and transcendence of Ricardo. The second period is from August 1863 to after 1867. Marx wrote a series of manuscripts on the production process of capital, the circulation process of capital, and the various forms of the total process, proposing the plan for the “three volumes, four books structure” of *Capital*. In 1865 Marx discussed with Engels: “I need to write three more chapters to finish the theoretical part (the first three books). Then I still have to write the fourth book, the historical-literary part, which is the easiest part for me, because all the problems have been solved in the first three books, and this last book is for the most part a repetition in historical form. … Whatever defects my works may have, they have one merit: they are an artistic whole.” [2]2 Marx’s letter to Engels, 31 July 1865, in which he describes the planned structure of *Capital* as an “artistic whole.” This “artistic whole” first appeared as Volume I of *Capital*, published in 1867. In the preface Marx announced the four-volume plan: “The second volume of this work will treat the circulation process of capital (Book II) and the various forms of the total process (Book III); the third and final volume (Book IV) will treat the history of the theory.” [3]3 Marx’s preface to the first German edition of *Capital*, Volume I (1867), outlining the four-book plan. The preparation for the printing of the history of the theory was undertaken by Engels; regrettably, Engels was unable to realize this plan, and it was Kautsky who published it in German under the title *Theories of Surplus Value* from 1905 to 1910. Because Kautsky made substantial deletions and rearrangements of the original text, the editorial method of separating the history of the theory from *Capital* sparked controversy in academic circles. From 1954 to 1961, the Soviet Institute of Marxism-Leninism re-edited it based on Marx’s original manuscripts, producing the Russian edition *Theories of Surplus Value*, published as Volume IV of *Capital*. The Soviet edition strictly followed the original order and content of Marx’s manuscripts, restored the parts deleted by Kautsky, and supplemented notes on the critique of classical political economy, the history of technology, and other content, becoming the authoritative version widely cited in academic circles. Although the publication of Volume IV of *Capital* went through many twists and turns, Marx’s critical approach and content regarding the history of theory were already essentially embodied in the writing of his manuscripts.

这个阶段又可以分为两个时间段。第一个时间段是1857—1863年7月，马克思写了关于《资本论》的两部著名手稿：《1857—1858年经济学手稿》和《1861年—1863年经济学手稿》。马克思对政治经济学研究对象、研究方法，以及政治经济学理论体系的结构作了探讨，克服了斯密和李嘉图等古典政治经济学家的方法论缺陷，对劳动价值、货币理论、剩余价值和资本主义经济发展趋势等问题作了初步论述，奠定了其政治经济学的基础。1859年马克思公开出版《政治经济学批判》（第一分册），系统探讨了商品和货币理论。1863年7月，出于撰写第二分册的需要，马克思完成了《1861—1863 年经济学手稿》，进一步将劳动价值论推向完善，同时阐明社会资本再生产理论、平均利润及生产价格理论、绝对地租理论等内容，更深入剖析了资本主义经济的运动规律，完成对李嘉图的全面批判与超越。第二个时间段是1863年8月到1867年之后。马克思撰写了有关资本主义的生产过程、资本主义的流通过程和总过程的各种形式的一系列手稿，提出《资本论》的“三卷四册结构”计划。马克思在1865年曾跟恩格斯讨论过：“再写三章就可以结束理论部分（前三册）。然后还得写第四册，即历史文献部分，对我来说这是最容易的一部分，因为所有的问题都在前三册中解决了，最后这一册大半是以历史的形式重述一遍。……不论我的著作有什么缺点，它们却有一个长处，即它们是一个艺术的整体”。这个“艺术的整体”最先呈现为1867年出版的《资本论》第一卷，在序言中马克思公布了四卷计划：“这部著作的第二卷将探讨资本的流通过程（第二册）和总过程的各种形式（第三册），第三卷即最后一卷（第四册）将探讨理论史。”理论史的付印准备工作由恩格斯担任，遗憾的是，恩格斯未能实现这个计划，而是由考茨基以“剩余价值学说史”为题分别于1905年至1910年用德文出版。由于考茨基对原文进行了大幅删改和重新编排，将理论史独立于《资本论》之外的编撰方式引发学界争议。1954—1961年由苏联马列研究院根据马克思原始手稿再次重新编辑，形成俄文版《剩余价值理论》，作为《资本论》（第四卷）出版。苏联版严格遵循马克思手稿的原始顺序和内容，恢复被考茨基删改的部分，补充了关于古典政治经济学批判、技术史等内容的注释，成为学界广泛引用的权威版本。虽然《资本论》第四卷的出版历经波折，但马克思对理论史的批判思路和内容已经基本体现在其手稿的写作中。

Marx’s process of coming to know Ricardo is unified with the process of the formation of Marx’s political economy. It was precisely on the basis of inheriting and developing Ricardo’s labor theory of value and overcoming the “two difficulties” in his theory of value that Marx established his own labor theory of value. On the foundation of a scientific labor theory of value, Marx revealed the secret of capital’s exploitation of surplus value, carried out a comprehensive critique and transcendence of Ricardo’s theory of rent, monetary theory, and theory of surplus value, completed the “breakout” from classical political economy, and established a scientific Marxist political economy.

马克思认识李嘉图的过程与马克思政治经济学的形成过程相统一。正是在继承发展李嘉图的劳动价值论，克服其价值论中的“两个困难”的基础上马克思建立了自己的劳动价值论，在科学的劳动价值论基础上，马克思揭示了资本剥削剩余价值的秘密，对李嘉图的地租理论、货币理论、剩余价值理论等进行了全面的批判与超越，完成对古典政治经济学的“突围”，建立起科学的马克思主义政治经济学。

II. Marx’s Critique and Transcendence of the Main Content of Ricardo’s Political Economy

二、马克思对李嘉图政治经济学主要内容的批判与超越

In *Theories of Surplus Value*, published with the vision of being Volume IV of *Capital*, Marx concentrated his critique on the basic views of the Physiocrats, Smith, Ricardo, vulgar economists, and others, demonstrating in detail the process by which Marx constructed the theory of surplus value through the combination of “breaking down” and “establishing.” Volume IV of *Capital* consists of three books in total, of which the entire second book revolves around a comprehensive critique and transcendence of the main views of Ricardo’s political economy.

在以《资本论》第四卷为愿景出版的《剩余价值理论》中，马克思对重农学派、斯密、李嘉图、庸俗经济学家等人的基本观点进行了集中批判，展现了马克思如何通过“破”与“立”的结合，构建剩余价值理论的详细过程。《资本论》第四卷全卷共三册，其中第二册整册围绕着李嘉图政治经济学的主要观点展开了全面的批判与超越。

(1) Solving the “Two Difficulties” in Ricardo’s Theory of Value

（一）破解李嘉图价值论中的“两个困难”

In the “Historical Comment,” Marx summarized the two difficulties of Ricardo’s system: “The first difficulty of Ricardo’s system is how the exchange of capital for labor can be consistent with the ‘law of value.’ The second difficulty is that equal amounts of capital, regardless of their organic composition, yield equal profit, or, in other words, yield a general rate of profit. Actually, this is an unrecognized problem: how value is transformed into cost price.” [4]4 Marx, *Theories of Surplus Value*, Part II, Chapter 10, “Ricardo’s and Adam Smith’s Theory of Cost Price (Refutation).” The “cost price” (Kostpreis) here refers to what Marx later called the price of production. Consequently, solving the “Ricardian difficulties” became Marx’s primary task.

在“历史的评论”中，马克思总结了李嘉图体系的两个困难：“李嘉图体系的第一个困难是资本和劳动的交换如何同‘价值规律’相符合。第二个困难是等量资本，无论它们的有机构成如何，都提供相等的利润，或者说，提供一般利润率。实际上这是一个没有被意识到的问题：价值如何转化为费用价格。”因而，破解“李嘉图困难”成为马克思的首要任务。

1. Reshaping the Series of Concepts of the Labor Theory of Value to Solve the First Difficulty of Ricardo’s System

1.重塑劳动价值论系列概念，破解李嘉图体系的第一个困难

There are two main reasons for the first difficulty in Ricardo’s system. First, Ricardo skipped all intermediate links and directly equated value with exchange value. Although Ricardo distinguished between use value and exchange value, when he discussed the method of determining value, he often confused the price of a commodity with its value. When he mentioned that “gold, though of little use compared with air or water, will exchange for a great quantity of other goods,” exchange value was defined as “the power of purchasing other goods.” And when he stated that “in the early stages of society, the exchangeable value of these commodities, or the rule which determines how much of one shall be given in exchange for another, depends almost exclusively on the comparative quantity of labour expended on each,” exchange value (relative value) was defined as “the comparative quantity of labour expended” (value). Thus, Ricardo used the concepts of exchange value, relative value, and value indiscriminately. Second, his treatment of the relationship between value and labour was only quantitative in expression, lacking qualitative analysis. He proposed value monism: “Labour is the foundation of all value, and the comparative quantity of labour is almost the sole determinant of the relative value of commodities.” He believed that the estimation of labour mainly depended on the relative degree of skill of the labourer and the intensity of the labour performed, that the exchange ratios between different types of labour were stable, and that the value-determining factors included not only the labour directly bestowed on the commodity but also the labour bestowed on the instruments, tools, and buildings that assist labour. The quantity of value of a commodity was determined not by the individual quantity of labour but by the necessary quantity of labour (i.e., the quantity of labour that must be expended to produce a commodity under the least favourable conditions of production). However, Ricardo’s “necessary labour” was merely a self-evident existence; it did not consider its social character and thus did not reach the level of “socially necessary labour.” The direct equation of value with exchange price and the confused relationship between value and labour led Ricardo, when analysing the exchange between labour and capital, to directly understand the value of the worker’s labour as the wages paid by the capitalist, proposing that wages and profit were in a trade-off relationship, yet he could not explain the phenomenon that the value of the product created by the worker’s labour was usually higher than wages.

造成李嘉图体系第一个困难的原因主要有两个。其一，李嘉图跳过一切中介环节，直接将价值等同于交换价值。尽管李嘉图对使用价值与交换价值进行了辨别，但他谈到价值的决定方法时常常混淆物品的价格与价值，当他提到“黄金与空气或水相比时，用处虽然很少，却可以交换大量的其他财货”时，交换价值被规定为“购买其他货物的能力”。而当他谈到“在社会的早期阶段，这些商品的交换价值，即决定这一商品交换另一商品所应付出的数量的尺度，几乎完全取决于各商品上所费的相对劳动量”时，交换价值（相对价值）被规定为“耗费的相对劳动量”（价值）。可见，李嘉图不加区分地运用着交换价值、相对价值和价值这几个概念。其二，对价值和劳动的关系只有量的表现，没有质的分析。他提出价值一元论：“劳动是一切价值的基础，相对劳动量是几乎唯一决定商品相对价值的因素”认为劳动的估价主要取决于劳动者的相对熟练程度和所完成的劳动的强度，不同劳动之间的交换比例具有稳定性，决定价值的除了直接投在商品中的劳动以外，还包括协助劳动的器具、工具和工场建筑等劳动资料上投入的劳动。决定商品价值量的并非是个别劳动量，而是必要劳动量（即最不利的生产条件下生产某商品所必须耗费的劳动）。但是，李嘉图的“必要劳动”只是一个不证自明的存在，没有考虑到它的社会属性，也就没有达到对“社会必要劳动”的高度。价值和交换价格的直接等同、价值与劳动关系混乱导致李嘉图在分析劳动与资本的交换之时把工人劳动的价值直接理解为资本家所支付的工资，提出工资与利润是一个此消彼长的关系，却无法解释工人劳动创造的产品价值通常高于工资的现象。

Marx reshaped the concepts of the two factors of the commodity and the dual character of labour, building a bridge from value to exchange value. Although Smith, Ricardo, and others all proposed that commodities have two factors—use value and value—they did not study the contradiction between these two factors, merely confirming them as a known property. By examining the immense accumulation of commodities under the capitalist system, Marx pointed out that one should not, like Ricardo, strip value and value relations away from the “economic concrete thing”—the commodity itself—to study the law of value. He argued that the usefulness of a commodity that satisfies some human need is its use value, the natural attribute of the commodity, while value “is the social relation of the commodity, the economic quality of the commodity.” In calculation or accounting, the material and natural attributes of the commodity are usually abstracted away and transformed into a value symbol, i.e., the commodity is fixed as pure exchange value. Hence, “the value of the commodity must necessarily acquire an existence qualitatively distinguishable from the commodity; this separability must become an actual separation, because the natural difference of the commodity must come into contradiction with the economic equivalence of the commodity. The two can coexist only because the commodity acquires a dual existence: besides its natural existence, it also acquires a purely economic existence.” In summary, use value is the material bearer of value relations, value is the abstract form of the relations of production of use value, and the commodity is the unity of opposites of the two. Marx further verified that the two factors of the commodity embody the dual character of the labour that produces the commodity. Use value is the natural attribute of the commodity. If the use value of the commodity body is set aside, only one attribute of the commodity body remains: that of being a product of labour. As the useful character of the labour product disappears, the various concrete forms of labour are dissolved into identical human labour; what remains is merely “the same ghostly objectivity, a mere congelation of undifferentiated human labour,” i.e., abstract human labour. The value of a commodity originates from the congelation of objectified or materialised abstract human labour. The magnitude of value is measured by the quantity of the “value-forming substance,” i.e., labour, and the quantity of labour itself is measured by its duration. However, this labour time is not the time expended by individual labour, but the average labour time based on a given level of productive forces, i.e., socially necessary labour time. Thus, the “expended labour” that Ricardo left undifferentiated became the socially necessary labour time expended by abstract human labour. Once the conceptual bridge was built, the determinants and measure of value became clear: commodity value is the coagulation of the materialised form of undifferentiated human labour—this is the qualitative determination of value, meaning that all commodities are exchangeable because they are homogeneous as value entities; socially necessary labour time determines value—this is the quantitative determination of value. The concept of value is the unity of quality and quantity. Ricardo only defined value from the quantitative side, so he could not truly grasp the “labour theory of value” nor clearly state which type of labour creates value. Marx began precisely where Ricardo had neglected, clarifying the differences between use value and value, and between value and exchange value, and then proceeded to the analysis of the dual character of labour. The proposal of the dual character of labour became the pivot for understanding political economy.

马克思重塑了商品二因素、劳动二重性概念，搭建了从价值到交换价值的桥梁。尽管斯密和李嘉图等人都提出了商品具有使用价值和价值两个因素，但他们都没有研究这两个因素之间的矛盾性，而仅仅将其当作一种已知的性质加以确认而已。马克思通过对资本主义制度下庞大的商品堆积现象进行了考察，指出不应当像李嘉图那样把价值、价值关系剥离开“经济的具体物”——商品本身——来研究价值规律。其认为商品中能够满足人某种需要的有用性即使用价值，是商品的自然属性，而价值则“是商品的社会关系，是商品的经济上的质”，在计算或记账时，通常把商品的物质和自然属性抽象掉，转化为价值符号，即把商品当作单纯交换价值固定下来，因而“商品的价值必然取得一个在质上可以和商品区别的存在，这种可分离性必然变成实际的分离，这是因为商品的自然差别必然和商品的经济等价发生矛盾。两者所以能够并存，只是由于商品取得了二重存在，除了它的自然存在以外，它还取得了一个纯经济存在。”概言之，使用价值是价值关系的物质承担者，价值是使用价值的生产关系的抽象形式，商品就是二者的对立统一体。马克思进一步验证商品的二因素体现着生产商品的劳动的二重性。使用价值是商品的自然属性，如果把商品体的使用价值撇开，商品体就只剩下一个属性，即劳动产品这个属性。随着劳动产品的有用性质的消失，各种劳动的具体形式被消解为相同的人类劳动，剩下的东西只是“同一的幽灵般的对象性，只是无差别的人类劳动的单纯凝结”，即抽象人类劳动。商品的价值就源于有对象化或物化的抽象人类劳动的凝结。价值量由“形成价值的实体”即劳动的量来计量，劳动本身的量又是用劳动的持续时间来计量的，但这个劳动时间并非是个体劳动的耗费时间，而是基于一定生产力水平的平均劳动时间，即社会必要劳动时间。如此，在李嘉图那里不加区分的“耗费劳动”变成了抽象人类劳动所耗费的社会必要劳动时间。概念的桥梁搭建起来之后，价值的决定因素与尺度都清晰了起来：商品价值是无差别人类劳动物化形态的凝聚，这是价值质的层面的规定性，意味着一切商品可交换是因为它们作为价值实体具有同质性；社会必要劳动时间决定价值，这是价值量的层面的规定性。价值概念是质与量的统一，李嘉图仅从量的方面规定价值，故无法真正领悟“劳动价值论”，也难以言明是何种劳动创造了价值。马克思正是从李嘉图所忽略的地方开始，厘清了使用价值和价值、价值和交换价值的不同，进而进入到劳动二重性的分析。劳动二重性的提出成为理解政治经济学的枢纽。

After distinguishing clearly between use value and value, and between concrete labour and abstract labour, Marx proposed the concept of the commodity “labour power,” resolving the first difficulty of Ricardo’s system. In the *Grundrisse* (1857–1858), Marx revealed the illusion of “equivalent exchange” by analysing the exchange process between labour and capital. The exchange between capital and labour consists of two qualitatively different stages. The first stage takes place in the sphere of circulation, where “on one side is capital, on the other is labour, and they confront each other as independent forms; hence they also confront each other as alien things.” When simple exchange value first appears, the product produced by the labourer is not directly a use value for satisfying his own needs. If the product were a direct use value, the labourer would produce only a product, not a commodity, and there would be no exchange value. Therefore, the labourer does not exchange his concrete labour (use value) with capital, but provides a possibility of production, which becomes reality only “at the demand and under the impetus of capital.” In other words, the use value that the worker provides to the capitalist is not Ricardo’s concrete labour, but the worker’s labour capacity—“the worker’s life force itself, manifested in a certain form for a certain purpose.” What the worker sells is a commodity capable of creating a value greater than itself. After the “equivalent exchange” in which capital pays wages to purchase the worker’s labour is completed, the right to dispose of the worker’s labour power falls into the hands of the capitalist, and the exchange enters the second stage, the labour process. The value created in the labour process is necessarily greater than the wages paid by capital in the exchange process, and the surplus value created by the concealed living labour thus emerges. Starting from the simplest fact, Marx truthfully described how capital increases its value through exchange, discovering that the “exchange between capital and labour” is essentially the “exchange between capital and the commodity labour power,” thereby overcoming the first difficulty of Ricardo’s system. Understanding the relationship between capital and labour means understanding “the axis around which the entire modern social system turns.”

区分清楚使用价值与价值、具体劳动与抽象劳动后，马克思提出了“劳动力”商品的概念，解决了李嘉图体系的第一个困难。在《1857—1858年手稿》中，马克思通过分析劳动和资本间的交换过程揭示了“等价交换”的迷障。资本和劳动交换分为两个性质上不同的阶段：第一个阶段在流通领域中进行，在这里，“一方是资本，另一方是劳动，两者作为独立的形态互相对立；因而两者也是作为异己的东西互相对立。”在简单交换价值首次出现时，劳动者所生产的产品并非直接作为满足自身需求的使用价值。如果产品是直接的使用价值，劳动者所生产的就只是产品而非商品，也就不会有交换价值。因而劳动者并非用自身的具体劳动（使用价值）在跟资本进行交换，而是提供一种生产的可能性，这样的可能性一经“资本的要求，推动下，才能变成现实”。换言之，工人向资本家提供的使用价值不是李嘉图的具体劳动，而是工人的劳动能力——“是工人的用于一定目的的、因而是在一定的形式下表现出来的生命力本身。”工人出卖的是一种能够创造比自身价值更大的价值——资本付出工资购买工人劳动的“等价交换”结束后，对工人劳动力的支配权落入资本家手中，交换进入第二阶段，即劳动过程。劳动过程所创造出来的价值必然大于资本在交换过程所付出的工资，被遮蔽的活劳动所创造的剩余价值也就浮现出来。马克思从最简单的事实出发，如实描述了资本家通过交换而增殖了他的资本的价值，发现“资本与劳动的交换”本质上是“资本与劳动力商品的交换”，由此克服了李嘉图体系的第一个困难。理解资本和劳动的关系也就理解了“现代社会体系所依以旋转的轴心”。

2. Clarifying the relationship between surplus value and profit, proposing the theory of prices of production to resolve the second difficulty

2.厘清剩余价值与利润的关系，提出生产价格理论破解第二个困难

The cause of the second difficulty in Ricardo’s system lies in two equations within his theory of distribution: the first equation is profit (average profit) = surplus value. Following the “Smithian dogma,” Ricardo constructed a distribution model of the relationship among rent, wages, and profit on the basis of the labor theory of value: the value of a commodity is divided into three parts—wages, profit, and rent—and the various sectors are opposed to one another; wages are mainly affected by rent, the higher the rent the higher the wages, and profit is mainly affected by wages, the higher the wages the lower the profit. Taking the rise and fall of profit as his point of concern, Ricardo directly understood the part of commodity value remaining after wages as profit: “The whole value of the commodity is divided into two portions only: one constitutes the profit of capital, the other the wages of labour.” [7]7 David Ricardo, *On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation*, Chapter 6, “On Profits.” Consequently, his discussion of the organic composition of capital is limited to explaining the differences in the organic composition of capital (i.e., fixed capital and circulating capital) handed down from Smith (especially from the physiocrats) and arising from the circulation process. In this way, the organic composition of capital becomes the ratio of fixed capital to profit, rather than the ratio of fixed capital to wages, which conflicts with the basic view that value is determined by labor expended.

造成李嘉图体系第二个困难的原因在于其分配理论中存在两个等式：第一个等式是利润（平均利润）=剩余价值。李嘉图沿袭了“斯密教条”在劳动价值论的基础上构建了地租、工资和利润三者关系的分配模型：商品的价值被分割为工资、利润和地租三部分，各个部门之间是对立的，工资主要受地租影响，地租越高工资越高，利润主要受工资影响，工资越高利润越低。李嘉图以利润的涨落为关切点，直接把商品价值除去工资以外的部分理解为利润：“商品的全部价值只分成两部分：一部分构成资本利润，另一部分构成劳动工资”。因此，他对资本有机构成的论述只限于说明从斯密 （特别是从重农学派）那里传下来的，由流通过程产生的资本有机构成的差别（即固定资本和流动资本），这样一来，资本有机构成就变成了固定资本与利润的比例，而不是固定资本和工资的比例，这与耗费劳动决定价值的基本观点冲突。

The second equation is value = price of production. Ricardo confused surplus value with profit, focusing only on the circulation process, and never addressed—or was simply unaware of—the differences in the organic composition of capital within the production process itself, namely the ratio of constant capital (C, used to purchase means of production) to variable capital (V, used to pay for labor power) (C/V). For this reason, he conflated value with cost price. Ricardo directly equated the value of a commodity with its price of production (i.e., cost price plus average profit), but failed to realize that in industries with different organic compositions of capital, the generation of surplus value depends solely on variable capital. According to the labor theory of value, if equal amounts of capital are invested in two industries, the industry with higher variable capital (lower organic composition) creates more surplus value by exploiting more living labor, while the industry with lower variable capital creates less surplus value; if value = price of production, the profits of the two industries should be unequal, but in reality, competition among capitals forces the equalization of profit rates, causing the price of production to deviate from labor value. This contradiction is essentially a direct conflict between the labor theory of value and the law of the average rate of profit under the assumption of “value = price,” exposing the inability of Ricardo’s system to explain the equalization of profits under differing capital structures.

第二个等式是价值=生产价格。李嘉图混淆了剩余价值与利润，只关注到了流通过程，而对于生产过程本身内部的资本有机构成的差别，即不变资本（C，用于购买生产资料）与可变资本（V，用于支付劳动力）的比例（C/V），李嘉图在任何地方都没有涉及，或者根本就不知道。由于这个缘故，他把价值和费用价格混淆起来了。李嘉图将商品价值直接等同于生产价格（即成本价格加平均利润），但未意识到在资本有机构成不同的行业中，剩余价值的产生仅依赖可变资本。如果按照劳动价值论来看，若两行业投入等量资本，可变资本高的行业（有机构成低）因剥削更多活劳动而创造更多剩余价值，可变资本低的行业剩余价值较少；若价值=生产价格，则两行业利润本应不等，但现实中资本竞争迫使利润率平均化，导致生产价格偏离劳动价值——这种矛盾本质是劳动价值论与平均利润率规律在“价值=价格”假设下的直接冲突，暴露了李嘉图体系无法解释资本结构差异下利润均等化的现象。

How can the law that equal capitals (regardless of their organic composition) obtain equal profits in the same period of time be explained on the basis of the law of value? Marx mainly resolved this question in Volumes 3 and 4 of *Capital*. Marx believed that in the stage of developed commodity economy under capitalism, the transformation of the law of value into the law of the price of production is an indisputable fact. Ricardo confused various different determinations of “value” and did not understand the form of value, so his construction of a “cost-price theory” to solve the problem was riddled with flaws. First, Ricardo thought that differences in cost prices were mainly due to differences in the reproduction time caused by different proportions of fixed capital and circulating capital, ignoring that the value of fixed capital (e.g., machinery, tools) is gradually transferred to commodities, while the value of circulating capital (e.g., raw materials, wages) is transferred all at once. This misunderstanding led Ricardo to fail to fully recognize the essential difference between fixed capital and circulating capital in the process of value formation. Second, Ricardo directly assumed a general rate of profit. In fact, “since a general rate of profit is assumed, the existence of cost prices different from values is also assumed.” [8]8 Karl Marx, *Theories of Surplus Value*, Part 2, Chapter 10. By ignoring the difference between value and cost price, Ricardo could not see the source of surplus value and could not understand that the formation of the general rate of profit is actually the result of capital competition and the redistribution of surplus value among different sectors. Third, Ricardo believed that a rise in wages would directly lead to a fall in profit, and a fall in wages would raise profit. Marx, however, saw that profit is the transformed form of surplus value, and the magnitude of surplus value depends on the degree of exploitation of workers’ labor time by the capitalist, not on the absolute level of wages. A rise or fall in wages affects the distribution of profit but does not change the total amount of surplus value. In short, when assuming a general rate of profit (average profit), Ricardo ignored the difference between value and cost price (price of production), did not distinguish between the rate of profit and the rate of surplus value, and mistakenly regarded a rise in wages as the cause of a falling rate of profit, thus being unable to correctly explain the tendency of the rate of profit to fall theoretically.

怎样在价值规律的基础上说明等额资本（不管其有机构成如何）会在同一时间内平均地获得等量利润的规律？对于这个问题马克思主要在《资本论》第三卷和第四卷中进行解决。马克思认为，资本主义发展到发达商品经济阶段，价值规律转化成生产价格规律是一个不可争辩的事实，李嘉图把各种不同的“价值”规定混淆了起来，也不懂价值形式，因此他在构建“费用价格理论”以解决问题的时候就显得漏洞百出。第一，李嘉图认为费用价格的差别主要是在于固定资本与流动资本比例不同导致的再生产时间的不同，而忽略了固定资本（如机器、工具）的价值是逐步转移到商品中，而流动资本（如原料、工资）的价值则一次性转移到商品中。这种误解导致李嘉图未能充分认识到固定资本和流动资本在价值形成过程中的本质区别；第二，李嘉图直接设定了一个一般利润率。事实上“既然假定有一般利润率，也就假定了有不同于价值的费用价格的存在”，李嘉图无视价值与费用价格的差异，也就看不到剩余价值的来源，理解不了一般利润率的形成实际上是资本竞争和剩余价值在不同部门之间再分配的结果；第三，李嘉图认为工资的提高会直接导致利润的降低，而工资的降低会提高利润。马克思则看到，利润是剩余价值的转化形式，而剩余价值的大小取决于资本家对工人劳动时间的剥削程度，而不是工资的绝对水平。工资的提高或降低会影响利润的分配，但不会改变剩余价值的总量。概言之，李嘉图设定一般利润率（平均利润）时忽视了价值同费用价格（生产价格）的差别，没有区分利润率和剩余价值率，错误地把工资上涨看作利润率下降的原因，也就不可能正确地从理论上解释利润率下降的趋势。

Through his analysis of Ricardo’s errors, Marx further observed that the total profit of the entire capitalist class cannot exceed the total surplus value, and the different rates of profit in various production sectors are necessarily equalized into a general rate of profit through competition among those sectors. Therefore, the general rate of profit is the result of the redistribution of the total surplus value created in all capitalist sectors according to the size of the capital invested in each sector. Due to this process of equalization, the prices at which commodities are sold diverge from their values—in some sectors they are above their values, in others below. The transformation between the law of value and the price of production is formed through two types of competition: the first is competition among enterprises within the same industry, which drives the individual values in that field to be integrated into a unified market value through competition. The second is competition between different industrial sectors. In this competition, capital always tends to be withdrawn from sectors yielding less profit and invested in sectors offering the greatest profit. The different rates of profit in various production sectors are equalized into an average rate of profit (or general rate of profit) amid the fluctuations of withdrawal and investment, and market value is transformed into price of production. When competition reaches a dynamic equilibrium, products in all production sectors are sold on the basis of the price of production, obtaining the same average profit. “This is nothing but the capitalists’ endeavor (and this endeavor is competition) to distribute among themselves the unpaid labor extracted from the working class… not according to how much surplus labor each particular capital directly produces, but according to: first, what share this particular capital constitutes of the total capital; and second, the total amount of surplus labor produced by the total capital itself. The capitalists act both as comrades and as rivals in dividing the booty—the labor of others they have appropriated—so that each of them appropriates, on average, as much unpaid labor as any other capitalist.” [9]9 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume 3, Chapter 10, “Equalization of the General Rate of Profit through Competition.” Competition transforms the value of commodities into an average price, in which part of the surplus value created by one commodity is transferred to another. For social production as a whole, the level of average profit is affected by the degree of exploitation of all capitalist enterprises, so the opposing sides are no longer a single worker and a single capitalist, but the working class as a whole and the capitalist class as a whole. Once average profit and price of production are formed, the law of value is transformed into the law of the price of production. At this point, the center of market price fluctuations is no longer based on commodity value (c + v + surplus value), but fluctuates around the price of production (c + v + average profit). This deformation of the law of value does not abolish the labor theory of value; it is merely a redistribution of surplus value. The total amount of surplus value still equals the total amount of average profit, and the total amount of commodity value still equals the total amount of prices of production. By clarifying the concept of the average rate of profit, Marx depicted the distribution picture of total capital and total surplus value, revealed the transformation process from value to price of production, and scientifically explained the unity between the appearance of “equal capital obtaining equal profit” and the labor theory of value.

通过对李嘉图谬误的分析，马克思进一步观察发现：整个资本家阶级的利润总额不可能超过剩余价值总额，各个生产部门的不同的利润率，由于各个生产部门之间的竞争，必然地平均化为一般利润率。因此，一般利润率是所有资本主义部门中创造的全部剩余价值按各个部门所投资本的大小重新分配的结果。由于这种平均化的过程，商品出售时的价格与它们的价值不一致，在一些部门高于它们的价值，在另一些部门低于它们的价值。价值规律与生产价格之间的转化通过两种竞争方式形成：第一种是同一行业内企业间的竞争，推动该领域的个别价值通过竞争整合为统一的市场价值。第二种是不同产业领域之间的竞争。在这种竞争中，资本总是趋向从获取较少利润的部门抽出，投入能提供最大利润的部门。各个生产部门的不同的利润率在抽出和投入的波动中平均化为平均利润率（或一般利润率），市场价值转变为生产价格。在竞争趋向动态平衡时，所有生产部门的产品都以生产价格为基准来进行销售，获得相同的平均利润。“这无非是资本家们努力（而这种努力就是竞争）把他们从工人阶级身上搾取的无酬劳动量……在他们相互之间进行分配，而且这种分配不是根据每一个特殊资本直接生产多少剩余劳动，而是根据：第一，这个特殊资本在总资本中占多大部分；第二，总资本本身生产的剰余劳动总量。资本家们既作为同伙又作为敌手来瓜分赃物——他们所占有的他人劳动，于是他们每个人占有的无酬劳动，平均说来，同其他任何一个资本家占有的一样多。”竞争使得商品的价值转变为平均价格，在这个平均价格里，一件商品所创造的剩余价值的一部分会转移到另一件商品上。对于全社会生产而言，平均利润的高低受所有资本主义企业剥削程度的影响，所以，处于对立面的不再是单一的工人与单一的资本家，而是工人阶级整体与资本家阶级整体。当平均利润和生产价格形成后，价值规律会转化为生产价格规律。这时候，市场价格波动的中心点不再是以商品价值（c + v +剩余价值）为基准，而是围绕生产价格（c + v +平均利润）波动。价值规律的这种变形并没有取消劳动价值论，它只是剩余价值的再分配，剩余价值的总量仍然等于平均利润的总量，商品价值的总量仍然等于生产价格的总量。马克思厘清平均利润率的概念，描绘出总资本与剩余价值总量的分配图景，揭露了价值到生产价格的转型过程，科学解释了“等量资本获得等量利润”的表象与劳动价值论的统一性。

(II) Perfecting and Transcending Ricardo’s Theory of Rent

（二）完善超越李嘉图的地租理论

The theory of rent is the core content of Ricardo’s theory of distribution. Ricardo was the first to systematically expound the concept of “differential rent,” pointing out that rent originates from differences in natural conditions such as soil fertility and location. However, Ricardo’s erroneous understanding of the organic composition of capital and his confusion of the price of production (“cost price”) with value persisted throughout his study of agricultural production, so that his theory of differential rent still contained defects.

地租理论是李嘉图分配理论的核心内容，李嘉图首次系统阐述了“级差地租”概念，指出地租源于土地肥力、位置等自然条件的差异。但李嘉图对于资本有机构成错误的理解、混淆生产价格（“费用价格”）和价值的错误一直贯彻到农业生产的研究中，使得其级差地租理论依然存在缺陷。

1. Ricardo’s Theoretical Contribution to Differential Rent and Its Defects

1.李嘉图级差地租的理论贡献及其缺陷

Ricardo held that rent is “that portion of the produce of the earth which is paid to the landlord for the use of the original and indestructible powers of the soil.” [10]10 David Ricardo, *On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation*, Chapter 2, “On Rent.” The emergence of rent originates from the differential productivity of land. As population grows, society needs to cultivate inferior land, and superior land, because of its higher productivity, yields a surplus income, which is transformed into rent. Ricardo also analyzed the second form of differential rent, namely, rent arising from the intensive cultivation of the same piece of land through the additional application of more capital and labor. When inputs are continuously increased on the same piece of land, output may initially rise considerably, but as inputs continue to increase, the increment in output gradually diminishes; when the income brought by the increase in output exceeds the cost of the additional inputs, differential rent arises. Ricardo’s specific reasoning is as follows: First, population growth (Malthus’s population theory plays a role here) leads to a rise in demand for agricultural products, necessitating the cultivation of inferior land. Second, the production cost on marginal land is higher, so the price of agricultural products rises accordingly. Third, the money wages necessary for workers’ subsistence must rise (because of the increase in grain prices), but real wages still only suffice for basic subsistence. Finally, capitalists’ profits are compressed by the rise in wage costs, leading to a decline in the rate of profit. In this process, rent plays a key role: the rent on superior land rises continuously with the increase in agricultural product prices; the landlord class becomes the beneficiary of economic growth, while capitalist profits are squeezed. Through this, Ricardo reveals the conflict of interests among the three major classes of capitalist society (landlords, capitalists, and workers): the rise in rent is essentially the landlord’s uncompensated appropriation of surplus value, while the decline in the rate of profit will ultimately lead to the stagnation of capital accumulation and the economy will fall into long-term stagnation. Compared with the naive views of Anderson and others, Ricardo’s analysis took a step forward both theoretically and practically: theoretically, it made the determination of the value of commodities, etc., and clarified the nature of landed property; practically, it opposed the necessity of landed property on the basis of bourgeois production, and more directly opposed all measures by which the state promoted the development of such landed property, such as the Corn Laws. [11]11 The Corn Laws were British tariffs and restrictions on imported grain, in force from 1815 to 1846, which protected domestic landowners by raising grain prices. Ricardo’s theory of rent is linked to his labor theory of value, attempting to explain how rent arises without relying on labor input, and providing an important analytical framework for theories of resource allocation and price formation.

李嘉图认为地租是“为了使用土地的原有和不可摧毁的生产力而付给地主的那一部分土地产品”。地租的产生源于土地的级差生产力，随着人口增长，社会需要开垦更劣等的土地，而优等土地因其更高的生产率会产生超额收益，这部分收益转化为地租。李嘉图还分析了级差地租的第二形态，即在同一块土地上，由于更多地追加了资本和劳动，实现了集约耕种而产生的地租。当在同一块土地上不断增加投入，最初可能会使产量有较大幅度的提高，但随着投入的继续增加，产量的增加幅度会逐渐减小，当产量增加所带来的收益超过追加投入的成本时，就会产生级差地租。李嘉图具体推论是这样的：首先，人口增长（马尔萨斯的人口理论在此起到作用）导致对农产品的需求上升，需开垦更劣等的土地。其次，边际土地的生产成本更高，农产品价格随之上涨。再次，工人维持生存的货币工资必须提高（因粮食价格上升），但实际工资仍仅够维持基本生活。最后，资本家利润因工资成本上升被压缩，导致利润率下降。在此过程中，地租扮演了关键角色：优等土地的地租因农产品价格上涨而不断攀升，地主阶级成为经济增长的既得利益者，而资本家利润则被挤压。李嘉图借此揭示了资本主义社会三大阶级（地主、资本家、工人）的利益冲突：地租的上涨本质上是地主对剩余价值的无偿占有，而利润率的下降将最终导致资本积累停滞，经济陷入长期停滞。李嘉图的分析相较于安德森等人的朴素观点，在理论上和实践都向前迈进了一步：在理论上，作出商品的价值规定等，并阐明土地所有权的性质；在实践上，反对资产阶级生产基础上的土地所有权的必要性，并且更直接地反对国家促进这种土地所有权发展的一切措施，如谷物法。李嘉图地租理论与其劳动价值论相衔接，试图解释地租如何在不依赖劳动投入的情况下产生，为资源分配和价格形成等理论提供了重要的分析框架。

The contradiction in Ricardo’s differential rent is also obvious. If the price of agricultural products yields not only profit but also rent, providing a constant surplus above the average profit, then the price of agricultural products is higher than their cost price. If the price of agricultural products is higher than their cost price, necessarily yielding a surplus profit, then, according to the above premise, the price of agricultural products is also higher than their value. The value produced in agriculture by the same quantity of labor (direct labor and accumulated labor)—taking into account all the equalizations arising from differences among capitals in the circulation process—would be higher than the value produced in industry. Thus, the value of a commodity would no longer be determined by the quantity of labor contained in it. In this way, the entire foundation of political economy would be overturned. Ricardo himself was aware that the emergence of rent placed the labor theory of value in a difficult position. Later, in a letter to McCulloch, he stated frankly: “It must be acknowledged that the question of value has become entangled in great difficulties. … The great questions of Rent, Wages, and Profits must be explained by the proportions in which the whole produce is divided between landlords, capitalists, and labourers, and which proportions are essentially not connected with the doctrine of value. … Take away rent, and the division between capitalists and labourers becomes much simpler.” [12]12 Letter from Ricardo to McCulloch, 13 June 1820. The crux of the contradiction lies in the fact that land, as a natural endowment, is not a product of labor, yet differences in its productivity directly affect the distribution of value. Although Ricardo emphasized that rent is the result of price, not its cause, this explanation did not completely eliminate the logical loophole. For if the scarcity of land forces society to invest more labor in inferior land, then the value of agricultural products is actually determined by the labor cost on marginal land, while the rent on superior land is a “surplus profit” conferred by natural conditions. This implies that natural factors have an influence on value formation, shaking the purity of the labor theory of value. This problem was not resolved until Marx proposed the theory of absolute rent.

李嘉图级差地租的矛盾也是显而易见的，如果农产品的价格不仅提供了利润还提供地租，提供一个超过这个平均利润的经常余额，那么农产品的价格就高于它们的费用价格。如果农产品的价格高于它们的费用价格，必然提供一个超额利润，那么，按照上述前提，农产品的价格也就高于它们的价值。同量劳动（直接劳动和积累劳动）——把各个资本之间由于它们在流通过程中产生的差别而发生的一切平均化现象都考虑进去——在农业中生产的价值就会比在工业中生产的价值高。因而商品的价值就不是由商品中包含的劳动量来界定了。这样一来，政治经济学的整个基础就被推翻了。李嘉图也意识到地租的出现让劳动价值论陷入窘境，后来在给麦卡库洛赫的信中直言：“必须承认，价值这一问题已陷入重重困难。……地租、工资和利润这些重大问题，毕竟必须用全部产品在地主、资本家和劳动者之间分配的比例来阐明，而比例基本上与价值学说无关。把地租去掉，资本家和劳动者之间的分配就简单得多了。”矛盾的关键在于土地作为自然禀赋并非劳动产物，其生产力的差异却直接影响了价值分配。尽管李嘉图强调地租是价格的结果而非原因，但这一解释未能完全消除逻辑漏洞。因为若土地的稀缺性迫使社会投入更多劳动于劣等地，那么农产品的价值实际上由边际土地上的劳动成本决定，而优等土地的地租则是自然条件赋予的“超额利润”。这暗示了自然因素对价值形成的存在影响，动摇了劳动价值论的纯粹性。这个问题直到马克思提出绝对地租理论才得以解决。

2. Marx’s Proposal of “Absolute Rent” Transcends Ricardo’s Differential Rent

2.马克思提出“绝对地租”超越李嘉图的级差地租

As early as the period of the *London Notebooks*, Marx recognized the problem with Ricardo’s differential rent: Starting from the labor theory of value, Ricardo held that rent is determined by the quantity of labor expended on cultivating the worst land, but then turned around and proposed the “law of diminishing returns from land,” arguing that the rise in agricultural product prices caused by population and demand growth leads to an increase in rent, forcing people to cultivate increasingly worse land, and that the worst land cannot yield any rent, thereby causing agricultural commodity prices to rise; after prices rise, capital flows into agriculture, supply and demand change again, and finally the profits of agriculture and industry tend toward equalization. Marx saw that these assertions were “in every respect in contradiction to history” [13]13 Karl Marx, *Theories of Surplus Value*, Part 2, Chapter 9. — in reality, although the prices of agricultural products do not always rise, rent always rises. At this time, Marx had not yet formed the concept of “absolute rent,” but he had already raised related content. He pointed out: Improvements to a part of the land are the achievement of an entire epoch, costing no one anything; even uncultivated land shares in the modern means that make cultivation and reclamation ten times easier; the worst land today is still relatively good compared with the worst land of the past, so the overall productivity of agriculture is rising. Therefore, “the main problem remains to make the law of rent consistent with the increase in the overall fertility of the soil; only then can historical facts be explained.” [14]14 Karl Marx, *London Notebooks*, Notebook VII, 1851. Ricardo’s theory of rent implicitly presupposes the law of diminishing marginal returns from land, i.e., that technological progress cannot long resist the constraints of natural conditions, so that the decline in the rate of profit is seen as a historical necessity. Marx, by contrast, focused on the historical reality that rent increases along with land monopoly and technological progress, giving rise to the phenomenon of “surplus profit,” and the existence of surplus profit points to the existence of absolute rent.

马克思早在《伦敦笔记》时期就意识到了李嘉图级差地租的问题：李嘉图从劳动价值论出发认为地租是由耕种最劣等土地的劳动耗费量决定，转而却又提出“土地收益递减论”，认为人口和需求的增长导致的农产品价格上涨导致地租提高，人们不得不耕种越来越坏的土地，最坏的土地无法收取相当地租，由此农业商品价格上涨，价格上涨后吸引资本流入农业，供需再次发生变化，最后农业和工业的利润趋向平衡。马克思看到了这些论断实际上“处处都是和历史相矛盾的”——现实中，农产品的价格虽然并非总是上涨的，但地租却总是上涨的。马克思此时还没有形成“绝对地租”的概念，但已经提出相关的内容，他指出：某部分的土地改良，是整个时代的成果，不向任何人支付报酬，甚至未耕地也分享到了那些使耕作和开荒容易十倍的现代手段，现在最坏的土地跟以前最坏的土地相比还是相对好的，因而整个农业生产率是提高的，所以“主要问题仍然是使地租规律与整个土地肥力的提高相符合；只有这样，才能解释历史事实”。李嘉图的地租理论隐含了土地边际收益递减规律的前提，即技术进步无法长期对抗自然条件的限制，因此利润率下降被视为一种历史必然，而马克思却关注地租随着土地垄断、技术进步的历史现实，出现了“超额利润”的现象，超额利润的存在提示着绝对地租的存在。

In Chapters 11 to 13 of *Theories of Surplus Value*, Marx dissects in detail the defects of Ricardo’s theory of rent. First, Marx acknowledges that Ricardo’s explanation of differential rent is more thorough and accurate than that of his predecessors; Ricardo’s integration of rent theory with the labor theory of value is his main contribution. Second, Marx points out that Ricardo errs in his definition of rent. Ricardo classifies all payments made by the farmer to the landlord as rent, whereas in fact part of these payments should be interest or profit on investment in the land. His definition fails to accurately reflect the essential nature of land, treating it as an “original” and “indestructible” productive force, without fully considering that land is a product of natural-historical processes. Moreover, Ricardo mistakenly believes that payments for timber and mining do not fall within the category of rent, whereas Marx argues that these payments should also be classified as rent, albeit not agricultural rent. Third, Marx points out that the emergence of differential rent has nothing to do with the order in which land is brought into cultivation; regardless of the order of land use, differential rent can exist. “Ricardo’s assumption of a descending progression from more fertile to less fertile land is entirely smuggled in.” [15]15 Karl Marx, *Theories of Surplus Value*, Part 2, Chapter 11. Fourth, Marx criticizes Ricardo for denying the existence of absolute rent. Ricardo repeatedly emphasizes that the worst land yields no rent, thereby denying absolute rent. The causes of this error are threefold: first, a lack of historical perspective, which overlooks the reality that land has already been appropriated under capitalist society; second, adherence to the labor theory of value without recognizing the distinction between value and price of production, thus rendering him unable to explain the source of absolute rent; third, equating the organic composition of capital in agriculture with that in industry, failing to see that the organic composition of capital in agriculture is lower, and that greater reliance on labor input can create more surplus value. The emergence of absolute rent is precisely rooted in this.

马克思在《剩余价值理论》第十一至十三章中详尽地剖析了李嘉图地租理论的缺陷。第一，马克思认可李嘉图对于级差地租的阐释相较于前人更为深入且准确，李嘉图将地租理论与劳动价值论相互结合，这是他的主要贡献。第二，马克思指出李嘉图在地租定义上存在谬误。李嘉图将农场主支付给地主的所有款项一概称为地租，实则其中部分款项应为土地投资所获得的利息或利润。他的定义未能精准反映土地的本质属性，还把土地当作“原有的”“不可摧毁的”生产力，未充分考虑土地是自然历史进程的产物。此外，李嘉图错误地认为支付给伐木和采矿的报酬不属于地租范畴，马克思则认为这些报酬也应归为地租，只是并非农业地租。第三，马克思指出级差地租的产生与利用土地的先后顺序无关，土地无论利用顺序如何，级差地租都有可能存在，“李嘉图的从比较肥沃地区向比较不肥沃地区这个按下降序列推移的假定，完全是偷运进来的。”第四，马克思批判李嘉图否定绝对地租的存在。李嘉图多次强调最差土地上无地租，以此否认绝对地租。造成这种错误的原因有三：其一是缺乏历史视角，忽视了资本主义社会土地已被占有的现实；其二是坚持劳动价值论，却未认识到价值与生产价格的区别，因而无法解释绝对地租的来源；其三是将农业资本有机构成与工业等同，看不到农业资本有机构成较低，依赖更多劳动力投入也就能创造更多的剩余价值。绝对地租的产生也正是根源于此。

Marx’s theory of absolute rent was formed by applying the theory of average profit and price of production to the agricultural sector. He first points out that the essence of capitalist rent is a transformed form of surplus value. Second, through analysis of a large body of combined data on differential rent and absolute rent, he demonstrates that even the worst land and the least productive investment must yield absolute rent, the reason being the monopoly of land ownership and the lower organic composition of capital in agriculture compared to industry. The organic composition of capital in the agricultural sector is lower than the social average; the more labor is invested, the higher the value of agricultural products relative to their price of production, and the monopoly of private land ownership hinders the free flow of capital, so that the surplus profit formed by this difference is fixed as rent. Specifically, because agricultural production relies more on human labor (a higher proportion of variable capital), under the same investment, agriculture can create more surplus value than industry. Assuming industrial products are sold at their price of production, agricultural products, because capital cannot freely flow into agriculture to participate in the equalization of profits, can be sold at a higher “value” rather than “price of production”; the difference between the two constitutes surplus profit. By virtue of their monopoly ownership of land, landlords compel tenant capitalists to pay this portion of surplus profit as rent, thereby forming “absolute rent.” This mechanism does not require raising the market price of agricultural products; it is realized directly through the relations of production of private land ownership. With this, Marx criticizes Ricardo’s limitation of attributing rent to “natural properties,” pointing out that rent is essentially a product of relations of production—even the most barren land, under conditions of private ownership, can extract surplus value through monopoly power. In modern agriculture, although technological progress may raise the organic composition of capital, land scarcity and private ownership still cause absolute rent to exist in variant forms; even land on the urban fringe can still forcibly collect rent. The formulation of “absolute rent” is of great significance; for example, in the current digital-intelligence era, variant forms of rent theory still exist—the platform economy. The platform economy reconstructs absolute rent through data monopoly, algorithmic control, and ownership of digital infrastructure, extracting surplus profit based on the structural advantages of technological power and institutional empowerment; its essence remains a special form of distribution of surplus value. Marx’s rent theory can still serve as an important approach to analyzing contemporary issues.

马克思的绝对地租理论是在将平均利润和生产价格理论应用于农业领域后形成的。他首先指出资本主义地租的本质是剩余价值的一种转化形式。其次，通过对大量的级差地租和绝对地租的组合数据进行分析说明，指出最差土地和生产率最低的投资也需提供绝对地租，原因在于土地所有权的垄断以及农业资本有机构成低于工业。农业部门的资本有机构成低于社会平均水平，投入的劳动力越多，农产品价值便高于生产价格，而土地私有权的垄断阻碍了资本自由流动，使得这一差额形成的超额利润被固化为地租。具体而言，由于农业生产更依赖于人力（可变资本占比高），在相同投资下，农业比工业能创造更多剩余价值。假设工业品按生产价格出售，农产品则因资本无法自由流入农业参与利润平均化，得以按更高的“价值”而非“生产价格”出售，两者的差额即超额利润。地主凭借对土地的垄断所有权，强制租地资本家支付这部分超额利润作为地租，由此形成“绝对地租”。这一机制无需抬高农产品市场价格，而是通过土地私有制的生产关系直接实现。马克思以此批判了李嘉图将地租归因于“自然属性”的局限，指出地租本质上是生产关系的产物——即使最贫瘠的土地，在私有制条件下都能通过垄断权榨取剩余价值。在现代农业中，尽管技术进步可能提高资本有机构成，但土地稀缺性和私有制仍使绝对地租以变体形式存在，就算是城市边缘的土地依旧能够强制收取租金。“绝对地租”的提出具有重要意义，比如在当下的数智时代中仍然存在着地租理论的变体形式——平台经济。平台经济就是通过数据垄断、算法控制及数字基础设施的所有权重构了绝对地租，基于技术权力和制度赋权的结构性优势收取超额利润，其本质仍是剩余价值的特殊分配形式。马克思的地租理论依然能成为分析当下问题的重要途径。

(III) Other Aspects of Critique and Transcendence of Ricardo

（三）对李嘉图的其他方面的批判与超越

Beyond value theory and distribution theory, Marx’s critique of Ricardo also extends to international trade, accumulation theory, and the view of machinery. In terms of international trade thought, Ricardo proposed the famous “principle of comparative advantage,” holding that even if a country is at an absolute disadvantage in the production of all commodities, it can still benefit from trade by specializing in and exporting goods with relatively lower costs. During the period of *The German Ideology* and *The Communist Manifesto*, Marx had already put forward his theory of world history, revealing that the formation of world history is the result of the contradictory movement between productive forces and relations of production; the rise of large-scale industry broke the closure of nation-states, promoted the globalization of division of labor and intercourse, and the bourgeoisie, in pursuit of surplus value, “compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production” through cheap commodities and capital export, ultimately establishing a global system linked by the world market. Later, in writing *Capital*, Marx treated the “world market” as the final part of his analysis of the capitalist economy, revealing that free trade is essentially a tool of capital expansion; developed capitalist countries exploit backward countries through technological monopoly and capital advantages, forming a dependent economic structure, rather than pure reciprocity: “Or the ratio between the working days of different countries may be like that between skilled, complex labor and unskilled, simple labor within a country. In this case, the richer country exploits the poorer one.” [16]16 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume 1, Chapter 22. Marx incorporated international trade into the analysis of the global capitalist system, exposing the violent nature of colonial plunder and primitive accumulation under the “civilized” cloak of capitalist free trade, emphasizing the class character and historicity of international trade, thereby transcending the static analysis of Ricardo’s international trade theory and laying the foundation for the later theory of imperialism by Lenin and others.

除了价值理论和分配理论，马克思对李嘉图的批判还涉及国际贸易、积累理论、机器观等方面。在国际贸易思想方面，李嘉图提出了著名的“比较优势原理”，认为即使一国在所有商品的生产上均处于绝对劣势，仍可通过专业化生产并出口其相对成本更低的商品与他国贸易互惠。马克思在《德意志意识形态》与《共产党宣言》时期就提出了世界历史理论，揭示世界历史的形成是生产力与生产关系矛盾运动的结果，大工业的兴起打破了民族国家的封闭性，推动了分工和交往的全球化，资产阶级为追求剩余价值，通过廉价商品和资本输出“迫使一切民族采用资产阶级的生产方式”，最终建立以世界市场为纽带的全球体系。后来马克思在写作《资本论》时将“世界市场”作为资本主义经济分析的最后部分，揭示了自由贸易本质上是资本扩张的工具，发达的资本主义国家通过技术垄断和资本优势剥削落后国家，形成依附性经济结构，而非纯粹互惠：“或者说，不同国家的工作日相互间的比例，可能象一个国家内熟练的、复杂的劳动同不熟练的、简单的劳动的比例一样。在这种情况下，比较富有的国家剥削比较贫穷的国家”。马克思将国际贸易纳入全球资本主义体系分析，揭露了资本主义自由贸易“文明”外衣下的殖民掠夺和原始积累的暴力本质，强调国际贸易的阶级性与历史性，超越了李嘉图国际贸易理论的静态分析，为后来列宁等人的帝国主义理论奠定基础。

In terms of accumulation theory, Ricardo simplistically equates capital accumulation with the accumulation of variable capital, treating the essence of capital accumulation as the process of converting revenue into wages, believing that the condition for capital accumulation is merely the saving of revenue and the use of capital, that capital accumulation always brings an increase in wealth, that demand is always balanced, and denying the possibility of general crises of overproduction. In Chapter 17 of *Theories of Surplus Value*, Marx comprehensively criticizes this, pointing out that Ricardo simplistically equates the accumulation of surplus value with the accumulation of variable capital, ignoring the important role of constant capital in the accumulation process. Ricardo fails to fully recognize the role of depreciation of fixed capital (constant capital) in capital accumulation; the depreciation of fixed capital not only affects the reproduction of capital but also provides an important material basis for capital accumulation. Marx points out the essence, conditions, and effects of capital accumulation: the essence of capital accumulation lies in the continuous capitalization of surplus value and the consequent intensification of capitalist relations of production; the conditions for capital accumulation are consistent with the conditions for the reproduction of capital, and must consider the reproduction of means of production and labor power; the economic effects of capital accumulation depend on changes in the organic composition of capital and labor productivity; capital accumulation may lead to a fall in the rate of profit, thereby limiting further accumulation. Ricardo, following “Say’s Law,” insists on the balance of supply and demand, failing to see the contradiction between production and consumption under capitalist conditions, and denies the possibility of overproduction and crisis. Marx, on the other hand, sees that the accumulation process includes production and reproduction, production and consumption, and that the inherent contradiction between commodities and money contains the possibility of crisis, pointing out that Ricardo’s accumulation theory and his views on crisis are full of an apologetic character.

积累理论方面，李嘉图简单地将资本积累等于可变资本的积累，将资本积累的本质视为收入转化工资的过程，认为资本积累的条件仅仅是收入的节约和资本的使用，认为资本积累总是带来财富的增加，需求之间始终是平衡的，否认普遍的生产过剩危机的存在。马克思在《剩余价值理论》的第十七章中对此进行了全面批判，指出李嘉图将剩余价值的积累简单地等同于可变资本的积累，忽视了不变资本在积累过程中的重要作用。李嘉图没有充分认识到固定资本（不变资本）的折旧在资本积累中的作用，固定资本的折旧不仅影响资本的再生产，还为资本积累提供了重要的物质基础。马克思指出资本积累的本质、条件与效果：资本积累的本质在于剩余价值的不断资本化，以及由此带来的资本主义生产关系的强化；资本积累的条件与资本再生产的条件是一致的，必须考虑生产资料和劳动力的再生产；资本积累的经济效果取决于资本的有机构成和劳动生产率的变化，资本积累可能导致利润率的下降，从而限制资本的进一步积累。李嘉图遵循“萨伊定律”坚持供需平衡而没有看到资本主义条件下生产和消费的矛盾，否认生产过剩和危机的可能性。马克思则看到积累过程包含了生产与再生产、生产与消费，在商品和货币的内在矛盾中包含了危机的可能性，指出了李嘉图的积累理论和关于危机的观点充满了辩护论色彩。

In terms of the view of machinery, when Ricardo discussed the impact of machinery on workers in the chapter “On Machinery,” he revised his earlier optimistic attitude toward the application of machinery, for the first time putting forward the view that the substitution of machinery for labor might harm the interests of the working class. Although Ricardo corrected his previous mistaken views, demonstrating “scientific honesty,” his new formulation of the problem still implicitly contained an apologetics — the view he advanced that the increase in net income brought about by the invention of machinery and the long-term benefits of the application of machinery would compensate for short-term unemployment was in fact nothing more than a “beautiful prospect” fabricated by the bourgeoisie for the workers, in order to conceal the fact that “the bourgeois perpetuates the wage-slavery by the adoption of machinery.” Marx also underwent a clear process of transformation in his understanding of machinery: as early as the “Fragment on Machines” in the *Grundrisse* (1857–1858), he discussed the role of the system of machinery in production and its impact on society; in *Theories of Surplus Value* and *Capital*, he not only analyzed in detail the process of the evolution of machinery and its impact on social relations, but also, based on the formation of relative surplus value, analyzed production in the era of large-scale machine industry and its effects on workers’ production, family life, agriculture, and other aspects, pointing out that the large-scale application of science and technology in production and the further invention of machinery would inevitably intensify the exploitation of surplus value, lead to the alienation of workers’ labor, create a “surplus population,” form an industrial reserve army, and ultimately trigger a revolution of the working class. Marx always placed the theory of machinery within the discussion of capitalist relations of production, penetrating into the category of socio-historical development, thereby transcending the contradictory views and apologetics in Ricardo’s “On Machinery.”

在机器观方面，李嘉图在“论机器”一章讨论机器对工人的影响时，修正了自己早期对机器应用的乐观态度，首次提出机器替代劳动可能损害工人阶级利益的观点。李嘉图虽然修正了以往的错误看法，表现出“科学上的诚实”，但是在对问题的新提法中依旧隐含着辩护论——他提出机器发明带来的纯收入增加，机器运用的长期效益会补偿短期失业的观点实际上不过是资产阶级为工人制造的“美妙的前景”，以掩盖“资产者把采用机器使雇佣奴隶制永久化”的事实。马克思对机器的认识也有一个清晰的转变历程：早在《1857—1858年经济学手稿》的“机器论片段”中他就论述了机器体系在生产中的作用及其对社会的影响；在《剩余价值理论》和《资本论》中不仅详细地分析了机器演变的过程及其对社会关系的影响，而且还基于相对剩余价值的形成去分析了机器大工业时代的生产及其对工人生产、家庭与农业等方面的影响，指出了科学技术在生产中大规模应用、机器的进一步发明必然引起剩余价值剥削的加剧，导致工人劳动异化，造成“过剩人口”，形成产业后备军，最终将爆发工人阶级的革命。马克思始终将机器理论放置在资本主义生产关系之中讨论，深入了社会历史发展的范畴，超越了李嘉图“论机器”中矛盾观点与辩护论。

Marx’s critique and transcendence of the content of Ricardo’s political economy manifest the following characteristics: First, Marx always stood on solid economic facts, finding loopholes in Ricardo’s theory from the deviation between observed phenomena and theory, and analyzing the reasons for the difficulties in his system; second, after grasping the rich economic facts as a whole, he carried out appropriate abstraction, extracting the essential laws behind the phenomena, thereby achieving the goal of clarifying premises and drawing clear boundaries; third, Marx’s critique always revolved around the core that “relations of production determine relations of distribution,” elevating economics from the level of “things” to the level of “relations between people,” providing a profound dialectical framework for analyzing capitalism; fourth, Marx’s critique required the construction of a theoretical system that is both scientific and revolutionary, aiming at the practice of proletarian revolution while pursuing theoretical revolution.

马克思对李嘉图政治经济学内容的批判与超越彰显了以下特点：其一，马克思始终立足于坚固的经济事实，在观察现象与理论的偏差中找到李嘉图理论中的漏洞，分析其体系产生困难的原因；其二，在整体把握丰富的经济事实后进行适当的抽象，提取现象背后的本质规律，达到澄清前提、划清界限的目的；其三，马克思的批判始终围绕“生产关系决定分配关系”这一核心，将经济学从“物”的层面提升到“人与人的关系”层面，为分析资本主义提供了深刻的辩证框架；其四，马克思的批判要求构建一种科学性与革命性的理论体系，在追求理论革命的同时指向无产阶级革命的实践。

III. Marx’s Critique and Transcendence of Ricardo’s Method of Political Economy

三、马克思对李嘉图政治经济学方法的批判与超越

Ricardo not only provided an important foundation for Marx in terms of the labor theory of value and the revelation of class antagonism, but also made contributions in methodology: he abandoned the contradictions in Smith’s methodology, began to use the abstract method to strip away the surface of economic phenomena and extract general laws, providing a methodological basis for analyzing the inherent contradictions of capitalism. On the one hand, Marx highly evaluated this method, calling it “forcing science to abandon its old conventional ways”; on the other hand, he also saw that its abstract method had the limitations of ahistoricalness and class standpoint. Adhering to the principle of historical materialism, Marx used dialectics to critique and transcend Ricardo’s research method, forming a scientific research method for political economy.

李嘉图不仅在劳动价值论、阶级对立的揭示方面为马克思提供了重要基石，在方法论上有所贡献：他摒弃了斯密方法论中的矛盾，开始采用抽象法剥离经济现象的表层，提炼出一般规律，为分析资本主义内在矛盾提供了方法论基础。马克思一方面高度评价这一方法，称其“迫使科学抛弃原来的陈规旧套”，另一方面也看到其抽象方法存在非历史性和阶级立场的局限。马克思坚持唯物史观的原则，运用辩证法批判并超越了李嘉图的研究方法，形成了科学的政治经济学研究方法。

(I) Characteristics and Defects of Ricardo’s Research Method

（一）李嘉图研究方法的特点及缺陷

Ricardo’s research method had two main characteristics: First, he abandoned Smith’s method of describing phenomena and insisted on using the method of abstract deduction to penetrate the texture of capitalist economic appearances. In Smith’s works, two methods coexisted peacefully: the internal observation method and the external observation method. The former, through abstract deduction, deeply studied the physiology of the bourgeois system; the latter only saw things externally presented in the process of life, focusing only on describing and narrating phenomena, classifying them into simple and general conceptual definitions. These two methods plunged Smith’s theory into contradictions, leaving a gap for the later development of vulgar economics. Ricardo clearly recognized that this wavering methodology would inevitably lead to confusion in the theoretical system. He resolutely abandoned Smith’s external observation method, pushed the abstract deductive method to its extreme, and established a consistent logical system in the field of value theory: “At last Ricardo came forward and cried to science: ‘Halt!’ The foundation, the starting point for the physiology of the bourgeois system — for the understanding of its internal organic coherence and life process — is the determination of value by labor time.” Starting from this, Ricardo demanded that science explain the internal connection between economic phenomena and bourgeois society. This break with Smith’s dual method was particularly evident in the theory of rent: facing the controversy over the British “Corn Laws” in the early 19th century, Ricardo did not fall into the quagmire of specific policy details; instead, starting from the theory of differential rent, he constructed an abstract model of the relationship between the law of diminishing returns on land and population growth. Pure theoretical deduction completely stripped away realistic factors such as the historical forms of land ownership and agricultural technological progress, successfully expressing the conflicts of interest between the bourgeoisie, the landlord class, and the proletariat in the process of capitalist development, “finally making the opposition of class interests, the opposition of wages and profits, the opposition of profits and rent, the starting point of his research.” Ricardo’s scientific attitude of being faithful to economic facts and his theoretical courage made him the highest achievement and final expression of classical economics.

李嘉图的研究方法主要有两个特点：其一，摒弃了斯密的现象描述法，坚持以抽象演绎的方法深入资本主义经济表象的肌理。在斯密的著作中安然并存着两种方法：内在观察法与外在观察法，前者通过抽象演绎深入研究资产阶级制度的生理学，后者则只看到生活过程中外部呈现出来的东西，只注重对现象的描写、叙述，分类至简单概括的概念规定中。这两种方法使得斯密的理论陷入矛盾，为后来庸俗经济学的发展留下缺口。李嘉图清醒认识到，这种摇摆不定的方法论必然导致理论体系的混乱。他毅然摒弃斯密的外在观察法，将抽象演绎法推向极致，在价值理论领域建立起首尾一贯的逻辑体系：“李嘉图终于在这些人中间出现了，他向科学大喝一声：‘站住！’资产阶级制度的生理学——对这个制度的内在有机联系和生活过程的理解——的基础、出发点，是价值决定于劳动时间这一规定。”李嘉图由此出发，要求科学讲清楚经济现象与资产阶级社会的内在联系。这种对斯密二重性方法的决裂在地租理论中表现得尤为明显：面对19世纪初英国“谷物法”争议，李嘉图没有陷入具体政策细节的泥潭，而是从级差地租理论出发，构建起土地报酬递减规律与人口增长关系的抽象模型。纯粹的理论推演完全剥离了土地所有权历史形态、农业技术进步等现实因素，成功表述了资本主义发展过程中资产阶级与地主阶级、无产阶级的利益冲突，“终于有意识地把阶级利益的对立、工资和利润的对立、利润和地租的对立当做他的研究的出发点”。李嘉图忠实于经济事实的科学态度和理论勇气使其成为古典经济学最高成就和最后的表现。

Second, Ricardo’s research method had the metaphysical defects of “incomplete abstraction” and “ahistoricalness.” Ricardo’s defect of “incomplete abstraction” was particularly exposed in his value theory. When he tried to use the labor theory of value to explain the impact of differences in the organic composition of capital on the law of value, he had to introduce empirical concepts such as fixed capital and circulating capital in the sphere of circulation. This compromise with empirical facts led to his failure to further understand constant capital and variable capital in the sphere of production. This contradiction was essentially a manifestation of the incomplete application of the abstract method — wanting to maintain theoretical purity while being unable to completely free oneself from the entanglements of real economic phenomena. The characteristic of “ahistoricalness” originated from Ricardo’s metaphysical cognition of the capitalist mode of production. He abstracted the relations of production of a specific historical stage into eternal natural laws, falling into the metaphysical “Stoic spirit.” He produced for the sake of production, pursuing “production” uncritically, which led him to regard bourgeois relations of production as natural and eternal relations. As Schumpeter evaluated: “Ricardo’s mind was not of the type that is primarily interested in fundamental principles or in broad generalizations. … His interest was in definite results that had direct practical significance. To obtain these results, he cut the general system into pieces, bundled up as much of it as possible, and put it into cold storage, so that as much as possible was frozen and became ‘given.’” The tendency to eternalize the categories of capitalist economy made his theory appear pale and weak in explaining the economic crisis of the 1830s. It can be seen that “Ricardo’s research method, on the one hand, had scientific rationality and great historical value; on the other hand, its scientific defects were also very obvious.”

其二，李嘉图的研究方法存在“不彻底的抽象”与“非历史性”的形而上学缺陷。李嘉图的“不彻底抽象”缺陷在其价值理论中暴露得尤为明显。当他试图用劳动价值论解释资本有机构成差异对价值规律的影响时，不得不引入固定资本、流动资本等在流通领域的经验性概念，这种向经验事实的妥协导致他没有进一步理解到生产领域中不变资本与可变资本。这种矛盾本质上是抽象法运用不彻底的表现——既想保持理论纯粹性，又无法完全摆脱现实经济现象的纠缠。“非历史性”特征源于李嘉图对资本主义生产方式的形而上学认知。他将特定历史阶段的生产关系抽象为永恒的自然规律，陷入形而上学的“斯多亚精神”中，他为了生产而生产，对“生产”不加批判地追逐，使他将资产阶级的生产关系视为自然的、永恒的关系，正如熊彼特的评价：“李嘉图的头脑不是那种主要对根本原理或是对广泛性的概括感兴趣的头脑。……他的兴趣在于具有直接实际意义的明确的结果。为了获得这种结果，他把那个总的体系切成片一片的，尽可能把它的大部分包捆起来，放进冷藏室里，以便使尽可能多的东西冻结起来，成为‘既定的’”。将资本主义经济范畴永恒化的倾向使其理论在解释19世纪30年代经济危机时显得苍白无力，可见，“李嘉图的研究方法，一方面具有科学的合理性和巨大的历史价值，另一方面，它在科学上的缺陷也是很明显的”。

The defect in Ricardo’s research method stems from the limitation of his theoretical standpoint. Although the “production” he pursued was essentially for “the purpose of developing the wealth of human nature itself,” which Marx considered correct, because Ricardo’s theoretical construction was based on “a natural law whereby compliance brings blessings and defiance brings calamity,” he could not see the inevitable crisis inherent in bourgeois relations of production, and therefore regarded capitalist production as an eternal system for developing the productive forces. Consequently, his research is everywhere implicitly tinged with an apologetic character for the bourgeoisie; his doctrine is “the doctrine of the unlimited development of capitalist production.” [19]19 Marx, *Theories of Surplus Value*, Part 2, Chapter 10. The scientificity that still remained in Ricardo’s system was gradually abandoned later, replaced by the rise of apologetics and conciliationism. The bourgeois economists after Ricardo—the Ricardian school represented by James Mill and McCulloch, and the vulgar economics represented by Say, Malthus, Bastiat, Carey, and others—unable to resolve the two difficulties of Ricardo’s system, began to employ means such as superficial analysis, conceptual confusion, and class conciliationism, thereby dissolving the scientificity contained in Ricardo’s system, and ultimately reducing political economy to an apologetic tool for capitalism.

李嘉图研究方法上的缺陷源于其理论立场的局限。虽然他所追求的“生产”本质上是为了“发展人类天性的财富这种目的本身”，这在马克思看来是正确的。但由于李嘉图的理论构建依据的是“顺之则福、逆之则祸的自然法则”，看不到资产阶级生产关系存在的必然危机，便将资本主义生产当成发展生产力的永恒制度。因此，他的研究处处隐含着为资产阶级辩护的色彩，他的学说是“论述资本主义生产无限制的发展的学说”。李嘉图体系尚存的科学性在后来逐渐被抛弃，取而代之的是辩护论、调和论的兴起，李嘉图之后的资产阶级经济学家们——以詹姆斯・穆勒、麦卡库洛赫为代表的李嘉图学派和以萨伊、马尔萨斯、巴师夏、凯里等人为代表的庸俗经济学，由于无法解决李嘉图体系的两个困难，开始借助表面化分析、概念混淆以及阶级调和论等手段，消解了李嘉图体系中蕴含的科学性，最终使得政治经济学沦为资本主义的辩护工具。

(2) Marx’s Research Method: The Principle of Historical Materialism and Dialectics

（二）马克思的研究方法：唯物史观原则与辩证法

Marx’s critique of political economy is condensed with methodological wisdom, presenting a “method group of internal connections.” [20]20 This phrase refers to the interconnected set of methodological tools Marx employed in his critique of political economy. Specifically, the principle of this “method group” is historical materialism. Historical materialism, as a fundamental method for understanding social and historical development, was expounded in *The German Ideology* and developed through its application in the study of political economy. Its core idea emphasizes that “the mode of production of material life conditions the whole process of social, political, and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.” [21]21 Marx, *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*, Preface. It is precisely on the basis of historical materialism that the critique of political economy and the general laws it establishes are no longer confined to the simple intuitiveness and naturalistic character of bourgeois economics, but are able to stand on a larger historical space—surveying the dynamic development of society’s economic structure and economic laws from within the inherent contradictions of human history. In this broad perspective, principles such as Ricardo’s absolute and immobile “production” are dissolved, and “capital,” “the capitalist system,” “private property,” and so forth reveal their transitory nature precisely where history advances and where crises manifest.

马克思的政治经济学批判凝结着方法智慧，呈现出一个“内在关联的方法群”。具体而言，其“方法群”的原则是唯物史观。唯物史观作为一种理解社会与历史发展的根本方法，在《德意志意识形态》中被阐发，在政治经济学研究中得到运用发展，其核心思想强调“物质生活的生产方式制约着整个社会生活、政治生活和精神生活的过程。不是人们的意识决定人们的存在，相反，是人们的社会存在决定人们的意识。”正是在唯物史观的基础上，政治经济学批判及其所确立的一般规律，不再局限于资产阶级经济学的简单直观性与自然主义特性，而是能够立足于一个更大的历史空间——从人类历史内在的矛盾运动中俯瞰社会的经济结构和经济规律的动态发展。在这种宏阔的视野中，诸如李嘉图那种绝对的、不动的“生产”原则被消解，“资本”、“资本主义制度”、“私有制”等等也就在历史前进的地方、在危机表露的地方展示出它们的暂时性。

The soul of this “method group” is dialectics. On the principle of historical materialism, Marx inherited Hegel’s “great sense of history” and sublated the idealist part of his dialectics, completing the materialist transformation of dialectics. Engels pointed out that the formulation of this method “was an achievement whose significance is no less than that of the materialist basic outlook.” [22]22 Engels, *Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy*. In the analysis of real society and economy, a scientific and revolutionary materialist dialectics was formed. The concrete applications of dialectics mainly include: the method of rising from the abstract to the concrete, the method of the unity of the logical and the historical, “the method of human anatomy,” “the method of retrospective thinking,” “the method of the illuminating light,” and so on.

其“方法群”的灵魂是辩证法。在唯物史观的原则上，马克思继承了黑格尔的“巨大历史感”并扬弃其辩证法中的唯心主义部分，完成了辩证法的唯物主义改造。恩格斯指明，这个方法的制定“是一个其意义不亚于唯物主义基本观点的成果。”在现实社会与经济分析中形成了科学的、革命的唯物主义辩证法。辩证法的具体应用主要有：抽象到具体的方法、逻辑与历史相统一的方法、“人体解剖法”“向后思索法”“普照光方法”等。

“Rising from the abstract to the concrete” is the most basic analytical method Marx used in his study of political economy. As early as in the *Economic Manuscripts of 1857–1858*, Marx analyzed the “two paths” of the economists’ “abstract” method, pointing out that “the path from the concrete to the abstract” is one that gradually extracts from concrete representations to form empty determinations, while “the path from the abstract to the concrete” is “the scientifically correct method”: [23]23 Marx, *Grundrisse*, Introduction. “abstracting” a representation of a chaotic whole (for example, the commodity), then, through closer determinations, reaching increasingly simple concepts in analysis (for example, the twofold character of the commodity), and then proceeding from the concrete in the representation to increasingly thin abstractions (for example, the dual character of labor, the concept of abstract labor, the concept of labor power), until reaching some simplest determinations (for example, the determination that “it is abstract labor that creates value”). Thus, in the back-and-forth movement between the “abstract” and the “concrete,” what is obtained is no longer a chaotic representation of the whole, but a rich totality with many determinations and relations. Marx not only criticized the Hegelian type of abstraction but also proposed two forms of “abstraction” as an analytical tool: abstraction of commonality and abstraction of essence. Abstraction of commonality forms concepts by extracting the commonality or general features of things, while abstraction of essence, on the basis of abstraction of commonality, further extracts the particularity and essential differences of things. Besides abstraction as an analytical tool, there is a third form of “abstraction,” namely, “abstraction that directly describes reality.” “Real abstraction” refers to a real activity analogous to the mental process of removing or extracting features of things; it is a direct reflection or description of reality that possesses abstract characteristics. For example, the abstractness of exchange value and the abstractness of valorization are two main aspects of real abstraction; they reveal the real roots of abstract characteristics in capitalist society. These three forms of “abstraction”—abstraction as an analytical tool, abstraction corresponding to the concrete, and abstraction that directly describes reality—enable Marx to start from the most basic elements of the capitalist economy and gradually construct a complete theoretical system of political economy, clearly presenting the internal logical structure and laws of motion of the capitalist economy.

“从抽象到具体”是马克思进行政治经济学研究最基本的分析方法。早在《1857—1858年经济学手稿》中马克思就对经济学家们的“抽象”方法的“两条道路”进行过辨析，指出“从具体到抽象”是一条将具体表象逐步抽取后形成空洞规定的路径，而“从抽象到具体”则是“科学上正确的方法”：“抽象”出一个关于整体混沌的一个表象（例如商品），然后可以通过更切近的规定在分析中达到越来越简单的概念（例如商品的二因素），进而从表象中的具体达到越来越稀薄的抽象（例如劳动的二重性、抽象劳动、劳动力概念的提出），直到达到一些最简单的规定（例如“创造价值的是抽象劳动”等规定）。于是在“抽象”与“具体”的往复行程中，得到的就不再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。马克思不仅批判了黑格尔式的抽象，还提出“抽象”作为分析工具的两种形式：共性抽象和本质抽象。共性抽象通过抽取事物的共性或一般特征来形成概念，而本质抽象则在共性抽象的基础上，进一步提取事物的特殊性和本质差别。除了作为分析工具的抽象，还存在“抽象”的第三种形式，即“直接描述现实的抽象”。“现实抽象”指的是类似于思维进程中对事物特征进行抽去和抽取的现实活动，是对具有抽象性特征的现实的直接反映或描述。例如，交换价值的抽象性和价值增殖的抽象性是现实抽象的两个主要方面，它们揭示了资本主义社会中抽象性特征的现实根源。作为分析工具的抽象、与具体对应的抽象、直接描述现实的抽象这三种形式的“抽象”使马克思能够从资本主义经济的最基本元素出发，逐步构建起完整的政治经济学理论体系，清晰地呈现资本主义经济内在的逻辑结构和运动规律

“The method of the unity of the logical and the historical” is a basic method that fully embodies the dialectical combination of Marx’s conception of history and his methodology. This method emphasizes that the unfolding of theoretical logic must correspond to the objective historical process, but the two are not a mechanically corresponding mirror image; rather, through a dialectical movement of constant correction, they reveal the inherent laws of social development. In the construction of *Capital*, Marx starts from the “commodity,” this “economic cell.” This starting point is both the starting point of logical deduction (the simplest economic relation) and the starting point of historical evolution (the embryonic form of commodity exchange). However, as the theoretical system unfolds, the logical order begins to sublate the historical order: when analyzing the leap from money to capital, Marx does not rigidly adhere to the historical appearance that commercial capital predates industrial capital; instead, through the essential determination that “labor power becomes a commodity,” he abstracts the capitalist relations of production at the logical level. The key to this dialectical unity lies in grasping the “movement of internal contradictions” in the historical process. When Marx analyzes capitalist ground rent, he both presents the historical trajectory of the transformation from feudal rent to capitalist rent and, through the logical mechanism of the “transformation of surplus profit,” exposes the special form of exploitation of landed property within the capitalist system. This methodology breaks through the mystical shell of Hegelian idealist dialectics, rooting the movement of logical categories in the historical soil of material production practice. It thereby avoids both the non-historical abstraction of the Ricardian type and overcomes the superficial tendency of the empiricism of classical economics represented by Ricardo.

“逻辑与历史相统一的方法”则是充分体现马克思历史观与方法论辩证结合的基本方法。这一方法强调理论逻辑的展开必须与客观历史进程相契合，但二者并非机械对应的镜像关系，而是通过不断修正的辩证运动，揭示社会发展的内在规律。在《资本论》的构建中，马克思从“商品”这一“经济细胞”出发，这一出发点既是逻辑演绎的起点（最简单的经济关系），也是历史演进的起点（商品交换的萌芽形态）。但随着理论体系的展开，逻辑顺序开始对历史顺序进行扬弃：当分析从货币向资本的飞跃时，马克思并未拘泥于历史上商业资本早于产业资本出现的表象，而是通过“劳动力成为商品”这一本质规定，在逻辑层面抽象出资本主义的生产关系。这种辩证统一的关键在于把握历史进程中的“内在矛盾运动”——当马克思剖析资本主义地租时，既呈现了封建地租向资本主义地租转型的历史轨迹，又通过“超额利润转化”的逻辑机制，揭露了土地所有权在资本主义体系中的特殊剥削形态。该方法论突破了黑格尔唯心主义辩证法的神秘外壳，将逻辑范畴的运动扎根于物质生产实践的历史土壤，既避免了李嘉图式的非历史性抽象，又克服了以李嘉图为代表的古典经济学经验主义的表象化倾向。

Marx’s critique and transcendence of Ricardo indicate that he not only intended to carry out thorough negative work, but also to establish the general principles of political economy, that is, to grasp the proletariat through thorough theory for revolutionary practice, thereby achieving the goal of “changing the world.” This reflects the theoretical value of Marx’s comprehensive critique of Ricardo: first, the demand for human emancipation. Marx described the alienation of humans by “commodity fetishism,” exposed the suppression of human essential forces by the logic of capital, emphasized the leap from the “realm of necessity” to the “realm of freedom,” and pointed toward labor emancipation and the all-round development of humans; second, serving the historical task of proletarian revolutionary practice. By revealing the institutional roots of the impoverishment of the proletariat, breaking the myth of the eternity of the bourgeoisie, and demonstrating the historical inevitability of social change, it provides a scientific basis for class struggle; third, exploring the practical path of communism. In his analysis of the inherent contradictions of capitalism, Marx revealed the fundamental conflict between socialized large-scale production and private ownership, demonstrated the process of maturation of the material conditions for the replacement of private ownership by public ownership, and depicted the social vision of a “community of free individuals.” These theoretical objectives show that Marx’s political economy is entirely heterogeneous to Ricardo’s and possesses its unique theoretical significance and value in the history of economics.

马克思对李嘉图的批判与超越指明了其不仅要做彻底的否定工作，更要建立政治经济学的一般原理，即通过彻底的理论掌握无产阶级进行革命实践，从而实现“改变世界”的目的。由此折射出马克思对李嘉图进行全面批判的理论价值：第一，实现人的解放的诉求。马克思描述了“商品拜物教”对人的异化，揭露资本逻辑对人类本质力量的压制，强调从“必然王国”向“自由王国”的飞跃，指向劳动解放与人的全面发展；第二，服务于无产阶级革命实践的历史任务。通过揭示无产阶级贫困化的制度根源，打破资产阶级永恒性神话，论证社会变革的历史必然性，为阶级斗争提供科学依据；第三，探索共产主义的实践路径。在资本主义内在矛盾分析中，马克思揭示了社会化大生产与私有制的根本冲突，论证公有制取代私有制的物质条件成熟过程，描绘“自由人联合体”的社会图景。这些理论旨归表明了马克思的政治经济学完全异质于李嘉图，在经济史上具有其独特的理论意义与价值。

IV. Conclusion

四、结语

The comprehensive critique and transcendence of Ricardo’s political economy is an important link in Marx’s realization of his economic revolution. In the process of cognition, Marx’s theory of Ricardo went through four stages: negation, affirmation, preliminary questioning, and comprehensive critique and transcendence. This process is also the gradual formation of Marx’s political economy. In terms of theoretical content, Marx not only criticized Ricardo’s ideological character of eternalizing and naturalizing capitalism and concealing exploitation, but also directly targeted the foundations of capitalist private ownership and wage labor, described the phenomenon of extracting surplus value under the capitalist system, exposed the irreconcilable inherent contradiction between the socialization of capitalist production and private ownership, and elucidated its historical transience. In terms of research method, using historical materialism and dialectics, starting from the “cell” of the commodity, he perfected the logical chain from the commodity to the extraction of surplus value, forming a logically rigorous theoretical system. The difference from Ricardo shows that Marx’s political economy is by no means a “Ricardian” theory as identified by Schumpeter and others, but a scientific theory with revolutionary transformation in the history of economics. Its ultimate value lies in providing a scientific basis for the proletarian revolution, pointing toward the communist path of eliminating exploitation and realizing human freedom and all-round development.

对李嘉图政治经济学的全面批判与超越，是马克思实现其经济学革命的重要环节。在认识历程中，马克思对李嘉图的理论经历了否定、肯定、初步质疑、全面批判与超越四个阶段，这一过程也是马克思的政治经济学逐步形成的过程。在理论内容上，马克思既批判了李嘉图将资本主义永恒化、自然化并掩盖剥削的意识形态特质，更直指资本主义私有制和雇佣劳动的根基，描述资本主义制度下榨取剩余价值的现象，揭露资本主义生产社会化与私有制之间不可调和的内在矛盾，阐明了其历史暂时性。在研究方法上，运用唯物史观和辩证法，从商品这一“细胞”出发，完善了从商品到剩余价值攫取的逻辑链条，形成了逻辑严密的理论体系。与李嘉图的差异表明，马克思的政治经济学绝不是熊彼特等人所指认的“李嘉图式”的理论，而是经济史上具有革命性转变的科学理论，其终极价值在于为无产阶级革命提供科学依据，指向消灭剥削、实现人的自由与全面发展的共产主义道路。

Online Editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗