Socialization of Production, Human Development, and Capital’s Self-Preservation – An Analysis Based on Marx and Engels’s Discussion of the Role of Capital

I. Raising the Question

一、问题的提出

In China, with the deepening development of the socialist market economy, capital has increasingly become a hot and focal point of widespread social concern. The Chinese people, with a millennia-old tradition of agrarian civilization, derived their initial understanding of capital primarily from Marxism. Before 1978, influenced by the Soviet model of socialism, China experienced to a certain extent misunderstandings and even distortions of some of Marx and Engels’s theoretical viewpoints, including those on capital. To this day, these influences have not completely disappeared from public opinion and popular perceptions. A notable example is the following passage, quoted by Marx from T. J. Dunning’s *Trades’ Unions and Strikes* (London, 1860), which is directly attributed to Marx to prove the greed of capital: “Capital is said by a Quarterly Reviewer to fly turbulence and strife, and to be timid, which is very true; but this is very incompletely stating the question. Capital eschews no profit, or very small profit, just as Nature was formerly said to abhor a vacuum. With adequate profit, capital is very bold. A certain 10 per cent. will ensure its employment anywhere; 20 per cent. certain will produce eagerness; 50 per cent., positive audacity; 100 per cent. will make it ready to trample on all human laws; 300 per cent., and there is not a crime at which it will scruple, nor a risk it will not run, even to the chance of its owner being hanged.” [1]1 This passage is from T. J. Dunning, *Trades’ Unions and Strikes* (London, 1860), quoted by Marx in a footnote in *Capital*, Volume I. It is often misattributed directly to Marx himself in Chinese public discourse. The cognitive divergences and confusion in society regarding certain issues of capital are largely related to the failure to comprehensively and accurately understand Marx and Engels’s theoretical viewpoints on capital.

在中国，随着社会主义市场经济的深入发展，资本日益成为社会上广为关注的热点、焦点。具有数千年农耕文明传统的中国人，对资本的最初认识主要来自马克思主义。1978年以前，中国受苏联模式社会主义影响，一定程度上存在着误解乃至曲解马克思恩格斯包括资本问题在内的某些理论观点的情况。迄今为止，这些影响并没有在社会舆论和大众观念中完全消失。一个显著例子，就是把下面这段马克思引自托·约·邓宁在《工联和罢工》（1860年伦敦版）的话，直接加之于马克思，以证明资本的贪婪：“资本害怕没有利润或利润太少，就像自然界害怕真空一样。一旦有适当的利润，资本就胆大起来。如果有10%的利润，它就保证到处被使用，有20%的利润，它就活跃起来，有50%的利润，它就铤而走险；为了100%的利润，它就敢践踏一切人间法律；有300%的利润，就敢犯任何罪行，甚至冒绞首的危险。”社会上某些关于资本问题的认知分歧和混乱，与没有全面准确理解马克思恩格斯关于资本的理论观点有很大关系。

*Capital* is Marx’s magnum opus on the issue of capital. In Volume I of *Capital*, Marx analyzed the role of factors such as wars and colonization led by feudal states in the late Middle Ages in Europe during the process of primitive accumulation of capital, stating: “All these methods make use of the power of the state, the concentrated and organized force of society, to hasten, as in a hothouse, the process of transformation of the feudal mode of production into the capitalist mode of production, and to shorten the transition.” [2]2 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Chapter 31: “The Genesis of the Industrial Capitalist.” The primitive accumulation of capital in European history occurred in the late feudal period, when capitalist relations of production had not yet achieved dominance. The aggression, colonization, and other acts led by feudal states undoubtedly brought endless suffering to backward nations and countries. However, from the perspective of the world-historical process of capitalist society replacing feudal society, “If money, according to Augier, ‘comes into the world with a congenital blood-stain on one cheek,’ capital comes dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt.” [3]3 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Chapter 31: “The Genesis of the Industrial Capitalist.” The internal quote is from Marie Augier, *Du Crédit Public* (Paris, 1842). To strengthen the force of his argument, Marx, in a footnote, cited T. J. Dunning’s vivid description of capital.

《资本论》是马克思论述资本问题的集大成之作。在《资本论》第一卷中，马克思分析了欧洲中世纪社会末期封建国家主导的战争、殖民等因素在资本原始积累过程中的作用，提出“所有这些方法都利用国家权力，也就是利用集中的、有组织的社会暴力，来大力促进从封建生产方式向资本主义生产方式的转化过程，缩短过渡时间”。欧洲历史上的资本原始积累，发生在封建社会末期，资本主义生产关系尚未占据统治地位。封建国家主导的侵略、殖民等行为，无疑给落后国家和民族带来了无穷无尽的苦难。然而，从资本主义社会取代封建社会的世界历史进程来看，“要使资本主义生产方式的‘永恒的自然规律’充分表现出来，要完成劳动者同劳动条件的分离过程，要在一极使社会的生产资料和生活资料转化为资本，在另一极使人民群众转化为雇佣工人，转化为自由的‘劳动贫民’这一现代历史的杰作，就需要经受这种苦难”。对封建社会的劳动者而言，失去劳动条件无疑是一种巨大灾难，在这个意义上可以理解马克思接下来的话：“如果按照奥日埃的说法，货币‘来到世间，在一边脸上带着天生的血斑’，那么，资本来到世间，从头到脚，每个毛孔都滴着血和肮脏的东西”。为了增强论证的力度，马克思以页下注释的形式，转引了托·约·邓宁关于资本的形象描绘。

Associating capital with “blood” and “dirt” is a moral critique imbued with strong humanistic sentiment. However, this kind of moral critique is not unique to the doctrines of Marx and Engels. They understood the importance and limitations of moral critique and were deeply aware of the great significance of scientific theory for arming the minds of proletarian parties, formulating revolutionary strategies and tactics, and advancing the revolutionary process. In the Preface to the First German Edition of *Capital*, Volume I (1867), Marx emphasized: “I do not paint the capitalist and the landlord in rosy colors. But here individuals are dealt with only insofar as they are the personifications of economic categories, the bearers of particular class relations and interests. My standpoint, from which the development of the economic formation of society is viewed as a process of natural history, can less than any other make the individual responsible for relations whose creature he remains, socially speaking, however much he may subjectively raise himself above them.” [4]4 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Preface to the First German Edition. Similarly, in Volume I of *Capital*, Marx pointed out that the “motive” of the bourgeoisie, as the personified bearers of capital, is “not use-value and enjoyment, but exchange-value and its augmentation.” [5]5 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Chapter 24: “Conversion of Surplus-Value into Capital.” All this “appears as the operation of a social mechanism, of which the capitalist is merely one of the driving wheels.” [6]6 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Chapter 24: “Conversion of Surplus-Value into Capital.” In these discussions, Marx emphasized the exclusion of moral evaluations (including “rosy colors,” bourgeois “individuals,” “enjoyment,” etc.), highlighting the objectivity and scientific nature of his research on capital and its conclusions. In *Anti-Dühring*, Engels clearly drew the line between moral critique and scientific research: “This appeal to morality and law does not help us a single step forward in science; moral indignation, however justified, cannot serve as an argument in economic science, but only as a symptom. Its task is rather to prove that the social evils which have recently begun to manifest themselves are the necessary result of the existing mode of production, and at the same time the sign of its approaching dissolution; and to reveal, within the dissolving economic form of motion, the elements of the future new organization of production and exchange which will put an end to those evils.” [7]7 Friedrich Engels, *Anti-Dühring*, Part II: Political Economy, Chapter I. The critique of capitalism by Marx and Engels is both a moral critique and a scientific critique—a dialectical unity of moral critique and scientific critique. This is precisely the fundamental point where they surpassed various utopian socialists and petty-bourgeois socialists, who only valued moral critique, did not understand the laws of social development, and therefore could not propose scientific revolutionary strategies and tactics to guide the emancipation of the proletariat.

把资本与“血”“肮脏”联系起来，是一种蕴含着浓厚人文情怀的道德批判。但这种道德批判，并非马克思恩格斯学说独有的。他们了解道德批判的重要性和局限性，更深知科学理论对于武装无产阶级政党头脑、制定革命战略策略、推动革命进程的重大意义。在《资本论》第一卷1867年第一版序言中，马克思强调：“我决不用玫瑰色描绘资本家和地主的面貌。不过这里涉及的人，只是经济范畴的人格化，是一定的阶级关系和利益的承担者。我的观点是把经济的社会形态的发展理解为一种自然史的过程。不管个人在主观上怎样超脱各种关系，他在社会意义上总是这些关系的产物。同其他任何观点比起来，我的观点是更不能要个人对这些关系负责的。”同样在《资本论》第一卷中，马克思指出，作为资本的人格化载体，资产阶级的“动机”并“不是使用价值和享受，而是交换价值和交换价值的增殖”。所有这一切，“表现为社会机制的作用，而资本家不过是这个社会机制中的一个主动轮罢了”。在这些论述中，马克思强调要排除道德评价（包括“玫瑰色”、资产阶级“个人”“享受”等）因素，突出了他的资本研究及其结论的客观性、科学性。在《反杜林论》中，恩格斯更是明确划清了道德批判与科学研究的界限：“这种诉诸道德和法律的做法，在科学上丝毫不能把我们推向前进；道义上的愤怒，无论多么入情入理，经济科学总不能把它看作证据，而只能看作象征。相反，经济科学的任务在于：证明现在开始显露出来的社会弊病是现存生产方式的必然结果，同时也是这一生产方式快要瓦解的征兆，并且从正在瓦解的经济运动形式内部发现未来的、能够消除这些弊病的、新的生产组织和交换组织的因素。”马克思恩格斯的资本主义批判，既是道德批判，更是科学批判，是道德批判与科学批判的辩证统一。这也是他们超越形形色色的空想社会主义者、小资产阶级社会主义者的根本之所在，后者只重视道德批判，不懂得社会发展规律，因而也提不出引导无产阶级解放的科学的革命战略与策略。

Furthermore, even though Marx extended his own argument from Augier’s statement—that “capital comes dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt”—it is also incomplete to use this passage, which describes the brutality of primitive accumulation of capital in Western Europe, in isolation and without distinction, to argue for the “evil” of capital. Doing so not only contradicts the basic views of Marx and Engels on capital but also fails to align with the real role capital has played in history. Moreover, it will bring theoretical and practical confusion to our understanding of capital under socialist conditions, especially the issue of non-public capital—capital under the conditions of socialism with Chinese characteristics differs in its origin, nature, and environment of existence both from capital under capitalist conditions and, even more so, from capital in the late feudal period of Europe, i.e., capital in the stage of primitive accumulation. Accurately understanding the theoretical viewpoints of Marx and Engels on capital holds immense theoretical value and practical significance for us in exploring the laws of capital operation under the conditions of the socialist market economy and fully leveraging the positive role of capital in Chinese-path modernization.

进一步说，纵然马克思借奥日埃的话引申出自己的论述，即“资本来到世间，从头到脚，每个毛孔都滴着血和肮脏的东西”，但孤立地以马克思表述西欧资本原始积累之残酷的这段话，不加区别地来论证资本的“罪恶”，也是不全面的。这样做，既不符合马克思恩格斯关于资本的基本观点，也不符合资本在历史上发挥的真实作用，更会给我们认识社会主义条件下的资本特别是非公有资本问题带来理论和实践上的困惑——中国特色社会主义条件下的资本，就其产生、性质、生存环境而言，既区别于资本主义条件下的资本，更不同于欧洲封建社会晚期即处于原始积累阶段的资本。准确理解马克思恩格斯关于资本的理论观点，对于我们探索社会主义市场经济条件下的资本运行规律，充分发挥资本在中国式现代化中的积极作用，具有极大的理论价值和现实意义。

II. Capital as an Important Vehicle for the Socialization of Production

二、资本是生产社会化的重要载体

Productive labor is the fundamental marker distinguishing humans from animals. The material production of human society has a long history spanning thousands of years, undergoing a lengthy process from isolated, simple individual production to common, interdependent social production. In this process, the epoch-making revolutionary role played by capital was highly praised by Marx: “The appearance of capital marks a new epoch in the process of social production.” [8]8 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Chapter 4: “The General Formula for Capital.”

生产劳动，是人区别于动物的根本标志。人类社会的物质生产，有着数千年的漫长历史，经历了从孤立、简单的个人生产到共同的、相互依赖的社会生产的漫长过程。在这个过程中，资本所发挥的划时代革命作用，马克思曾给予高度评价：“资本一出现，就标志着社会生产过程的一个新时代”。

In pre-capitalist societies, self-sufficient natural economy and small-scale production by laborers held a dominant position. Commodity economies, which developed to varying degrees but were generally subordinate, tenaciously survived in the interstices and gaps of the natural economy. Commodity production and exchange inherently possess a strong social character: production is carried out to meet the needs of others, and exchange itself implies connections between unfamiliar commodity owners. Marx believed that “commodity production and developed commodity circulation, i.e., trade, are the historical preconditions for the emergence of capital.” [9]9 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Chapter 4, Section 1. Money, as the universal equivalent of commodities, is “the initial form of appearance of capital.” [10]10 Ibid. Under natural economic conditions, commodity production and exchange in a subordinate position can be divided into two types: “selling in order to buy,” which is “limited by consumption or the satisfaction of definite needs”; and “buying in order to sell,” where “the beginning and the end are the same, both being money.” [11]11 Ibid. In the former case, money serves as an intermediary in commodity exchange and is not capital. In the latter case, money can generate more money and has already become capital. Marx made a clear distinction between these two cases: “The simple circulation of commodities—selling in order to buy—is a means to a final goal lying outside circulation, namely, the appropriation of use-values, the satisfaction of needs. As against this, the circulation of money as capital is an end in itself, for the valorization of value takes place only within this constantly renewed movement. Therefore, the movement of capital is limitless.” [12]12 Ibid. In the process of commodity production and exchange characterized by “buying in order to sell,” “the conscious bearer of this movement, the money-owner, becomes a capitalist,” and “functions as a capitalist, i.e., as capital personified, endowed with consciousness and a will.” [13]13 Ibid. It is precisely the commodity production and exchange driven by capital in the form of “buying in order to sell” that propels the continuous expansion of human production scale and the constant elevation of the degree of socialization. Of course, in Marx’s view, commodity production and exchange are not yet sufficient conditions for the emergence of capital. For money to transform into capital, it also requires the special commodity of free laborers who have lost their means of production and can only rely on selling their labor power for a living. That is to say, certain elements that give rise to capital had already appeared in pre-capitalist societies, but it was only in the capitalist era that they, together with other elements, gave birth to capital.

在前资本主义社会，自给自足的自然经济与劳动者的小生产占据统治地位。发育程度不同但总体上居于从属地位的商品经济，顽强地生存在自然经济的夹缝和空隙中。商品生产与交换，本身就带有强烈的社会属性：生产是为满足他人需要而生产，交换本身就意味着陌生商品所有者之间的联系。马克思认为，“商品生产和发达的商品流通，即贸易，是资本产生的历史前提。”作为商品一般等价物的货币，是“资本的最初的表现形式”。在自然经济条件下，处于从属地位的商品生产与交换可以分为两种类型：“为买而卖”，以“消费或满足一定的需要为限”；“为卖而买”，“开端和终结是一样的，都是货币”。前一种情况下的货币，是商品交换的中介并非资本。后一种情况下的货币，能够带来更多的货币，已经成为资本。对于这两种情况，马克思进行了明确区分：“简单商品流通——为买而卖——是达到流通以外的最终目的，占有使用价值，满足需要的手段。相反，作为资本的货币的流通本身就是目的，因为只是在这个不断更新的运动中才有价值的增值。因此，资本的运动是没有限度的。”在“为卖而买”的商品生产与交换过程中，“作为这一运动的有意识的承担者，货币占有者变成了资本家”，“作为资本家或作为人格化的、有意志和意识的资本执行职能”。正是资本驱动推动的“为卖而买”的商品生产与交换，推动着人类生产规模的不断扩大与社会化程度的不断提升。当然，在马克思看来，商品生产和交换尚非催生资本的充分必要条件。货币转化为资本，还需要丧失了生产资料、只能依靠出卖自己的劳动力为生的自由劳动者这一特殊商品。也就是说，催生资本的某些要素，在前资本主义社会已经出现，但直到资本主义时代才与其他要素一起，催生了资本。

Beyond commodity production and exchange, the socialization of the means of production, the socialization of the form of labor, and the socialization of the products of labor are all important dimensions for understanding the socialization of human production. The realization of any form of socialization is inseparable from the special role of capital. Before the emergence of the socialist system, the socialization of the means of production meant both that isolated laborers lost their means of production and, freed from numerous pre-capitalist bonds, became free laborers, and that the means of production of laborers, which were previously under their own control, came to be controlled by capital. In the chapter on “So-Called Primitive Accumulation” in *Capital*, Volume I, Marx pointed out that the primitive accumulation of capital “means nothing other than the expropriation of the direct producers, i.e., the dissolution of private property based on the labor of its owner,” [14]14 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Chapter 26. and the dissolution of feudal small-scale production determined by the limitations of individual power: “This mode of production presupposes the fragmentation of the soil and other means of production. It excludes the concentration of these means of production, just as it excludes cooperation, division of labor within the same production process, the social control and regulation of nature, and the free development of the productive forces of society. It is compatible only with a system of production and a society that are narrowly and naturally bounded.” [15]15 Ibid., Chapter 27. Capital, which historically emerged in the interstices of small-scale production, became the material means for eliminating the small producers themselves. With the demise of small-scale production, “the scattered means of production of individuals are transformed into socially concentrated means of production, and thereby the small property of the many is transformed into the large property of the few. The mass of the people is dispossessed of land, means of subsistence, and instruments of labor. This terrible and cruel expropriation of the mass of the people forms the prehistory of capital.” [16]16 Ibid., Chapter 27. “The prehistory of capital” means that at this stage capital had not yet assumed its normal form or played its normal role, including both positive and negative aspects. The positive role of capital in promoting the socialization of human production was clearly elucidated by Engels in *Socialism: Utopian and Scientific*: “Before capitalist production … the instruments of labor—land, agricultural implements, the workshop, the tool—were the instruments of labor of individuals, adapted for the use of one worker, and, therefore, of necessity, small, dwarfish, scanty. … The bourgeoisie, in order to transform these limited instruments of labor into mighty productive forces, had to transform them from individual into social instruments of labor, capable of being used only by a number of people together. … In the same way as the instruments of labor, so also production itself changed from a series of individual acts into a series of social acts, and the product from the product of the individual into the social product.” [17]17 Friedrich Engels, *Socialism: Utopian and Scientific*, Chapter 3. “Socialization” is relative to the “individual” as a relatively isolated producer, meaning “a number of people” producing “together”: the means of production, previously owned and controlled by individuals, are transformed into being used jointly by a certain number of people; production, previously an individual activity, is transformed into a joint activity of a number of people; the product of labor, previously an individual product, is transformed into a product used jointly by a number of people. These expositions by Marx and Engels fully illustrate the revolutionary leap in human social production propelled by capital.

在商品生产与交换之外，生产资料社会化、劳动形式社会化与劳动产品社会化等都是认识人类生产社会化的重要维度。无论哪一种社会化的实现，都离不开资本的特殊作用。在社会主义制度出现之前，生产资料的社会化，既意味着孤立的劳动者丧失生产资料、摆脱诸多前资本主义束缚成为自由劳动者，也意味着劳动者的生产资料由自己支配转变为支配自己的资本。在《资本论》第一卷“所谓原始积累”章，马克思指出，资本的原始积累“意味着直接生产者的被剥夺，即以自己劳动为基础的私有制的解体”，以及由个人力量局限性所决定的封建小生产的解体：“这种生产方式是以土地和其他生产资料的分散为前提的。它既排斥生产资料的积聚，也排斥协作，排斥同一生产过程内部的分工，排斥对自然的社会统治和社会调节，排斥社会生产力的自由发展。它只同生产和社会的狭隘的自然产生的界限相容。”在小生产的缝隙中历史地产生的资本，成为消灭小生产者自身的物质手段。随着小生产的消亡，“个人的分散的生产资料转化为社会的积聚的生产资料，从而多数人的小财产转化为少数人的大财产，广大人民群众被剥夺土地、生活资料、劳动工具，——人民群众遭受的这种可怕的残酷的剥夺，形成资本的前史。”“资本的前史”，意味着此时的资本并没有取得正常形态，发挥应有的包括积极和消极两个方面的正常作用。资本在推动人类生产社会化中的积极作用，恩格斯在《社会主义从空想到科学的发展》中给予明确阐发：“在资本主义生产出现之前，……劳动资料——土地、农具、作坊、手工工具——都是个人的劳动资料，只供个人使用，因而必然是小的、简陋的、有限的。……资产阶级要是不把这些有限的生产资料从个人的生产资料变为社会化的即只能由一批人共同使用的生产资料，就不能把它们变成强大的生产力。……同生产资料一样，生产本身也从一系列的个人行动变成了一系列的社会行动，而产品也从个人的产品变成了社会的产品。”“社会化”是相对于相对孤立的生产者“个人”而言的，意味着“一批人”“共同”生产：生产资料由个人所有并支配，转化为由一定数量的个人共同使用；生产由个人的活动，转变为一批人的共同活动；劳动产品从个人产品，转化为供一批人共同使用的产品。马克思恩格斯的这些论述，是对资本推进人类社会生产实现革命性飞跃的充分说明。

The socialization of the form of labor is another important aspect of capital’s promotion of the socialization of human production. Through the labor process, humans engage in material exchange with nature to satisfy their own survival, which is “common to all social forms of human life.” [18]18 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. I, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works* (Chinese edition), Vol. 5, p. 215. [This is a standard reference to the Chinese edition of Marx and Engels’ works; the English equivalent is *Capital*, Vol. I, Penguin Classics, p. 290.] However, “the distinction between various economic epochs lies not in what is produced, but in how it is produced, and by what means of labor it is produced.” [19]19 Ibid., p. 210. [English equivalent: *Capital*, Vol. I, p. 284.] In pre-capitalist societies, laborers relied on their individual labor power to produce the means of subsistence necessary for their own survival and that of their direct rulers. What the rulers, i.e., the exploiters, extracted was surplus labor in the form of corvée labor, tribute in kind, and the like, rather than surplus value in the form of money under commodity economy conditions. Marx, taking medieval Europe as an example, pointed out: “Here, the natural form of labor, its particularity, is the immediate social form of labor, unlike on the basis of commodity production, where the generality of labor is the immediate social form of labor.” [20]20 Ibid., p. 95. [English equivalent: *Capital*, Vol. I, p. 170.] Unlike pre-capitalist societies where natural economy predominated, “in the society of commodity producers, the general social relation of production is such that producers treat their products as commodities, and hence as values, and through this material form, they relate their private labors to one another as equal human labor.” [21]21 Ibid., p. 97. [English equivalent: *Capital*, Vol. I, p. 172.] That is to say, in pre-capitalist societies, the individual labor or concrete labor of the laborer, without passing through any intermediate link, directly possessed sociality, albeit a low-level sociality manifested in a “natural form.” High-level labor sociality, as “the generality of labor” or “equal human labor,” emerged only when “the same capital simultaneously employs a larger number of workers, so that the labor process expands its scale and provides a larger quantity of products” [22]22 Ibid., p. 374. [English equivalent: *Capital*, Vol. I, p. 439.] — an objective existence that is not purely natural. Therefore, Marx pointed out: “A greater number of workers working simultaneously in the same space (or, if you will, the same workplace), under the command of the same capitalist, to produce the same kind of commodity, constitutes both historically and conceptually the starting point of capitalist production.” [23]23 Ibid., p. 374. [English equivalent: *Capital*, Vol. I, p. 439.] In this historical process, the “immediate social form” of labor increasingly shed its naturally formed “particularity” and came to embody the “generality” that sociality, as befits humanity as a “species,” ought to possess. Compared with the “scattered nature of the independent individual laborer or small master,” the collective production of many people, varying in number and form — including the collective use of means of production and the division of labor and cooperation in the production process — caused labor to “acquire the character of social conditions of labor, or social conditions of labor.” [24]24 Ibid., p. 375. [English equivalent: *Capital*, Vol. I, p. 440.] In the chapter on “Cooperation” in Volume I of *Capital*, Marx specifically discussed the issue of labor cooperation. He stated: “When many people work together in the same production process, or in different but interconnected production processes, in a planned and coordinated manner, this form of labor is called cooperation.” [25]25 Ibid., p. 378. [English equivalent: *Capital*, Vol. I, p. 443.] Like military formations such as a cavalry squadron or an infantry regiment, “the mechanical sum of the forces of individual workers differs essentially from the social force that is unleashed when many hands simultaneously cooperate in the same indivisible operation… Here, the effect of combined labor is either utterly unattainable by individual labor, or can be achieved only over a much longer period, or only on a very small scale. The issue here is not merely that cooperation enhances individual productive power, but that it creates a productive power that is itself necessarily a collective force.” [26]26 Ibid., p. 378. [English equivalent: *Capital*, Vol. I, p. 443.] Compared with individual labor, the “social contact” required by cooperation stimulates workers’ “competitive spirit and a peculiar invigoration of their energy, thereby increasing the efficiency of each individual worker,” [27]27 Ibid., p. 381. [English equivalent: *Capital*, Vol. I, p. 447.] “shortens the labor time necessary for producing the total product,” [28]28 Ibid., p. 382. [English equivalent: *Capital*, Vol. I, p. 448.] and “expands the spatial scope of labor.” [29]29 Ibid., p. 383. [English equivalent: *Capital*, Vol. I, p. 449.] Compared with the individual working day of a solitary worker, the “combined working day” of collective labor, due to factors such as “making individual labor possess the character of socially average labor,” [30]30 Ibid., p. 385. [English equivalent: *Capital*, Vol. I, p. 451.] greatly enhances productivity. The “cooperation itself” led by capital transforms individual productive forces into “social labor productivity, or the productive power of social labor,” [31]31 Ibid., p. 387. [English equivalent: *Capital*, Vol. I, p. 453.] enabling “the worker, in his planned cooperation with others, to shed his individual limitations and develop his species capacities.” [32]32 Ibid., p. 387. [English equivalent: *Capital*, Vol. I, p. 453.]

劳动形式的社会化是资本推动人类生产社会化的另一个重要方面。通过劳动过程与自然界进行物质变换以满足自己的生存，“为人类生活的一切社会形式所共有”。然而，“各种经济时代的区别，不在于生产什么，而在于怎样生产，用什么劳动资料生产”。在前资本主义社会，劳动者凭借个人的劳动力，生产满足自己及直接统治者生存的生活资料。统治者即剥削者所索取的是以劳役、实物贡赋等形式出现的剩余劳动，而非商品经济条件下的以货币形式呈现的剩余价值。马克思以欧洲中世纪为例指出，“在这里，劳动的自然形式，劳动的特殊性是劳动的直接社会形式，而不是像在商品生产基础上那样，劳动的一般性是劳动的直接社会形式”。与自然经济占统治地位的前资本主义社会不同，“在商品生产者的社会里，一般的社会生产关系是这样的：生产者把他们的产品当作商品，从而当作价值来对待，而且通过这种物的形式，把他们的私人劳动当作等同的人类劳动来互相发生关系”。这就是说，在前资本主义社会，劳动者的个人劳动或具体劳动，不需要经过任何中间环节，直接具有社会性，当然是低水平的、以“自然形式”呈现的社会性。高水平的劳动社会性，作为“劳动的一般性”或“等同的人类劳动”，是在“同一个资本同时雇用人数较多的工人，因而劳动过程扩大了自己的规模并提供了较大量的产品”的时候才出现的，是非纯粹自然物的客观存在。因此，马克思指出，“人数较多的工人在同一时间、同一空间（或者说同一劳动场所），为了生产同种商品，在同一资本家的指挥下工作，这在历史上和概念上都是资本主义生产的起点。”在这个历史过程中，劳动的“直接社会形式”日益摆脱自然形成的“特殊性”，而体现为人类作为“类”所具有的社会性应有的“一般性”。与“单干的独立劳动者或者小业主的分散”相比，数量不等、形式多样的众人的集体生产，包括生产资料的集体使用与生产过程中的分工协作，使得劳动“取得了社会劳动的条件或劳动的社会条件这种性质”。在《资本论》第一卷“协作”章中，马克思专门论述了劳动协作问题。他提出，“许多人在同一生产过程中，或在不同的但互相联系的生产过程中，有计划地一起协同劳动，这种劳动形式叫作协作。”与骑兵连和步兵团这样的军事建制一样，“单个劳动者的力量的机械总和，与许多人手同时共同完成同一不可分割的操作……所发挥的社会力量有本质的差别。在这里，结合劳动的效果要么是单个人劳动根本不可能达到的，要么只能在长得多的时间内，或者只能在很小的规模上达到。这里的问题不仅是通过协作提高了个人生产力，而且是创造了一种生产力，这种生产力本身必然是集体力”。较之单个人的劳动，协作所要求的“社会接触”，激发劳动者的“竞争心和特有的精力振奋，从而提高每个人的工作效率”，“缩短制造总产品所必要的劳动时间”，“扩大劳动的空间范围”。与单干的个人工作日相比，共同劳动的“结合工作日”由于“使个人劳动具有社会平均劳动的性质”等多个方面的因素，极大地提高了生产力。资本主导的“协作本身”，把个人的生产力转变为“社会的劳动生产力或社会劳动的生产力”，使得“劳动者在有计划地同别人共同工作中，摆脱了他的个人局限，并发挥出他的种属能力”。

“Since workers cannot directly work together without being together, and since their assembly in a given space is a condition for their cooperation, the same capital, the same capitalist, cannot employ wage-laborers — i.e., simultaneously purchase their labor-power — without simultaneously employing a number of them, and thus cannot set cooperation in motion.” [33]33 Ibid., p. 386. [English equivalent: *Capital*, Vol. I, p. 452.] This passage by Marx truthfully and objectively reproduces the material conditions that gave rise to production cooperation in human history, namely, “the material conditions for transforming many scattered and independent individual labor processes into one combined social labor process.” [34]34 Ibid., p. 386. [English equivalent: *Capital*, Vol. I, p. 452.] Because the cooperative labor of producers is the result of capital using wage labor for the purpose of self-valorization, “cooperation itself appears as a specific form of the capitalist production process, in contrast to the production process of the isolated independent laborer or small master,” [35]35 Ibid., p. 388. [English equivalent: *Capital*, Vol. I, p. 454.] and “the productive power that the worker develops as a social worker is the productive power of capital.” [36]36 Ibid., p. 387. [English equivalent: *Capital*, Vol. I, p. 453.] Precisely for this reason, social production led by capital endogenously harbors defects it cannot overcome: the products of labor exist in a socialized form, but lack the corresponding socialized substance — under capitalist conditions, private ownership of the means of production means that part of the products created by workers, in the form of surplus value, belongs to the bourgeoisie, which owns the means of production. At the end of the chapter on “Cooperation” in Volume I of *Capital*, Marx reveals the duality of the capitalist mode of production: “On the one hand, the capitalist mode of production presents itself as a historical necessity for the transformation of the labor process into a social process; on the other hand, this social form of the labor process presents itself as a method employed by capital to exploit the labor process more effectively by increasing its productive power.” [37]37 Ibid., p. 388. [English equivalent: *Capital*, Vol. I, p. 454.] Of course, the “historical necessity” of the capitalist mode of production is also a temporary “historical necessity.” The theoretical propositions of Marx and Engels on the proletarian revolution are built upon the above logic: abolish capitalist private property, have all workers collectively own and control the means of production, remove the capital attribute of the means of production, and realize the collective ownership and enjoyment of the fruits of workers’ labor.

“既然劳动者不在一起就不能直接地共同工作，既然劳动者集结在一定的空间是他们进行协作的条件，那么，同一个资本，同一个资本家，如果不同时使用雇佣工人，也就是同时购买他们的劳动力，雇佣工人就不能进行协作。”马克思这段论述，真实地、客观地再现了人类历史上催生生产协作的物质条件，即“使许多分散的和互不依赖的单个劳动过程转化为一个结合的社会劳动过程的物质条件”。由于生产者的协作劳动是资本以自行增殖为目的使用雇佣劳动的结果，所以“协作本身表现为同单个的独立劳动者或小业主的生产过程相对立的资本主义生产过程的特有形式”，“工人作为社会工人所发挥的生产力，是资本的生产力”。也正因为如此，资本主导的社会生产，内生着自身无法克服的弊病：劳动产品以社会化形式存在，但缺乏应有的与之匹配的社会化的实质——资本主义条件下的生产资料私有制，使得劳动者创造的部分产品，以剩余价值的形式，归占有生产资料的资产阶级所有。在《资本论》第一卷“协作”章的结尾，马克思揭示了资本主义生产方式的二重性：“一方面，资本主义生产方式表现为劳动过程转化为社会过程的历史必然性，另一方面，劳动过程的这种社会形式表现为资本通过提高劳动过程的生产力来更有力地剥削劳动过程的一种方法。”当然，资本主义生产方式的“历史必然性”，也是一种暂时的“历史必然性”。马克思恩格斯关于无产阶级革命的理论主张，就建立在以上逻辑的基础之上：消灭资本主义私有制，全体劳动者共同占有、共同支配生产资料，祛除生产资料的资本属性，实现劳动者劳动成果的共同占有和享用。

III. The Full Development of Capital Is an Important Material Prerequisite for the Comprehensive Development of the Human Person

三、资本的充分发展是人的全面发展的重要物质前提

Material production is the material production of human beings. According to historical materialism, “productive forces and social relations” are “different aspects of the development of the social individual.” [38]38 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse*, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works* (Chinese edition), Vol. 31, p. 101. [English equivalent: *Grundrisse*, Penguin, p. 706.] Among these, “the highest development of productive forces” coincides with “the richest development of the individual.” [39]39 Ibid., p. 104. [English equivalent: *Grundrisse*, p. 708.] In the process of the development of productive forces and the human person, capital has played an important and extremely complex role. In Volume III of *Capital*, Marx clearly states: “One of the civilizing aspects of capital is that it extracts this surplus labor in a manner and under conditions that are more advantageous for the development of productive forces, for the development of social relations, and for the creation of the elements of a higher new form, compared with earlier forms such as slavery and serfdom.” [40]40 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. III, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works* (Chinese edition), Vol. 7, p. 927. [English equivalent: *Capital*, Vol. III, Penguin, p. 958.] In other words, the development of productive forces and the enrichment of social relations must ultimately be embodied in the development of the human person. The core hallmark of the “higher new form” that will replace capitalism is the development of the human person, founded on highly developed social productive forces and enriched social relations.

物质生产是人的物质生产。依照唯物史观，“生产力和社会关系”，“是社会个人的发展的不同方面”。其中，“生产力的最高发展”，与“个人的最丰富的发展相一致”。在生产力发展和人的发展过程中，资本发挥了重要且极为复杂的作用。在《资本论》第三卷，马克思明确指出：“资本的文明面之一是，它榨取这种剩余劳动的方式和条件，同以前的奴隶制、农奴制等形式相比，都更有利于生产力的发展，有利于社会关系的发展，有利于更高级的新形态的各种要素的创造。”换言之，生产力的发展，社会关系的丰富，归根到底都要体现在人的发展上。取代资本主义的“更高级的新形态”，核心标志就是建立在发达的社会生产力基础上的、具有丰富社会关系的人的发展。

As early as in the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, the young Marx, from the perspective of production, revealed the characteristic of humans being “comprehensive” compared to animals and thus “knowing how to produce according to the measure of every species.” [41]41 Marx, *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 3, p. 277. In the *Theses on Feuerbach*, Marx put forward the scientific thesis on the essence of man: “The essence of man is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its actuality it is the ensemble of the social relations.” This implies that the richness of a person’s social relations determines the degree to which the essence of man is realized. The richer the social relations, the higher the degree of realization of the essence of man, and the more complete the development of man as a creative subject with free will. Marx’s subsequent historical research and political-economic studies show that the development of human social relations and the realization of the essence of man have undergone a rather long historical process. In pre-capitalist societies, human social relations were both singular and narrow, bearing a marked character of natural formation, mainly consisting of blood, family, and clan relations determined by species reproduction, as well as top-down political rule and subordination relations based on blood ties or conquest. On this, Marx pointed out, “Whatever we may think, then, of the parts played by the different classes of people themselves in medieval society, the social relations of individuals in their labour, in this society, still appear as their own personal relations, and are not disguised under the guise of social relations between things, between the products of labour.” [42]42 Marx, *Capital*, vol. 1, in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 35, p. 88. Corresponding to these simple, narrow personal relations was the low-level comprehensiveness of human development determined by the self-sufficient state of existence. “In earlier stages of development the single individual seems to be developed more fully, precisely because he has not yet worked out the full wealth of his relations, and has not yet set them over against himself as independent social powers and relations.” [43]43 Marx, *Grundrisse*, in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 28, p. 411. Capital, which arose historically, fundamentally changed the conditions of human existence and human development. Under the effect of capital, individual, scattered means of production were transformed into social, concentrated means of production, and individual production was transformed into social production. At the same time, human social relations and human development also acquired new characteristics.

早在《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中，青年马克思就从生产的角度，揭示了人较之动物的“全面”因而“懂得按照任何一个种的尺度来进行生产”的特性。在《关于费尔巴哈的提纲》中，马克思提出了关于人的本质的科学论断：“人的本质不是单个人所固有的抽象物，在其现实性上，它是一切社会关系的总和。”这就意味着，人的社会关系的丰富程度，决定着人的本质的实现程度。社会关系越丰富，人的本质实现程度越高，人作为具有自由意志的创造主体的发展就越完善。马克思随后的历史研究和政治经济学研究表明，人的社会关系的发展与人的本质的实现，经历了相当漫长的历史过程。在前资本主义社会，人的社会关系既单一又狭隘，具有显著的自然形成特征，主要是种的繁衍所决定的血缘、家庭、家族关系，以及建立在血缘或征服基础之上的自上而下的政治统治与从属关系。马克思就此指出，“无论我们怎样判断中世纪人们在相互关系中所扮演的角色，人们在劳动中的社会关系始终表现为他们本身之间的个人的关系，而没有披上物之间即劳动产品之间的社会关系的外衣。”与简单、狭隘的个人关系相适应的，是自给自足的生存状态所决定的人的发展的低水平的全面性。“在发展的早期阶段，单个人显得比较全面，那正是因为他还没有造成自己丰富的关系，并且还没有使这种关系作为独立于他自身之外的社会权力和社会关系同他自己相对立。”历史地产生的资本，从根本上改变了人类生存与人的发展状况。在资本的作用下，个人的、分散的生产资料变为社会的使用的、集中的生产资料，个人生产变成了社会生产。与此同时，人的社会关系和人的发展，也具有了新的特点。

Capitalist society is the first social formation in human history where commodity economy holds a dominant position. The fact that products become commodities has a crucial impact on the development of the worker as a human being. The worker, having lost the means of production, can only complete the labor process and maintain his own survival by turning his labor power into a commodity and selling it to the owner of the means of production. The worker’s production is not for his own consumption but, as a commodity, for the consumption of others. Productive labor is no longer a free activity based on the worker’s autonomous will to satisfy his own needs, but becomes a somewhat coercive activity, carried out under the pressure of survival to satisfy the needs of others. “Here, on the one hand, we see how commodity exchange breaks through all the individual and local limitations of direct barter, and develops the metabolic process of human labour. On the other hand, a whole series of natural social relations develop which are beyond the control of the agents involved.” [44]44 Marx, *Capital*, vol. 1, in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 35, p. 113. This constitutes two aspects of the same process of human development. On the one hand, the individual abilities and social connections of the worker increasingly develop and become enriched, although this bears a marked non-autonomous character. That is to say, commodity production and exchange objectively become an important driving force for developing and enriching human social relations. On the other hand, social relations “beyond the control of the agents,” although arising from human commodity production and exchange, replace simple, visible, and controllable social relations—whether blood relations or direct political rule and subordination—in a “natural” (in fact non-natural, a product of human action) form. Under the influence of the laws of large-scale socialized production, neither the worker who sells his labor power nor the capitalist who exploits it can easily determine his own fate. The non-autonomous nature of the worker’s labor causes human development to increasingly show a tendency toward one-sidedness. In pre-capitalist societies, human social relations were simple but human development was relatively comprehensive. Under capitalist conditions, human social relations become increasingly rich, but human development becomes increasingly one-sided. This paradox is rooted in capitalist private property and the increasingly detailed social division of labor. On this, Marx pointed out that in the early period of capitalism, “Manufacture converts the worker into a cripple, a monster, by forcing him to develop his particular dexterity at the expense of a world of productive capabilities and instincts.” [45]45 Marx, *Capital*, vol. 1, in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 35, p. 365. Entering the stage of large-scale machine industry, the worker’s labor power, and thus the worker himself, becomes even more one-sided in development. “Capital’s self-valorization by means of the machine” and “the division of labour makes this labour-power one-sided, giving it the skill of manipulating a particular partial tool.” [46]46 Marx, *Capital*, vol. 1, in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 35, p. 386. From simple, low-level comprehensive development to rich, high-level one-sided development, human historical development advances amidst contradictory antagonisms.

资本主义社会是人类历史上第一个商品经济占统治地位的社会形态。产品成为商品这一事实，对作为人的劳动者的发展，产生了关键影响。劳动者丧失生产资料，只有把自己的劳动力变成商品，售卖给生产资料所有者，才能完成劳动过程，维持自己的生存。劳动者的生产，不是供劳动者自己消费，而是作为商品为他人消费。生产劳动不再是劳动者基于自主意志、满足自己需要的自由活动，而成为迫于生存压力而进行的满足他人需要的带有一定强制性质的活动。“在这里，一方面，我们看到，商品交换怎样打破了直接的产品交换的个人和地方的限制，发展了人类劳动的物质变换。另一方面，整整一系列不受当事人控制的天然的社会联系发展起来了。”这是人的发展的同一个过程的两个方面。一方面，劳动者的个人才能与社会联系，日益发展与丰富起来，尽管带有显著的非自主性质。也就是说，商品生产与交换客观上成为发展和丰富人类社会联系的重要推动力。另一方面，“不受当事人控制”的社会关系，尽管产生于人类的商品生产与交换，但却以“天然”（实则非自然、人的作用的产物）的形式，取代了简单、可视、可控的社会关系，无论是血缘关系还是直接的政治统治和从属关系。在社会化大生产规律的影响下，无论是出卖劳动力的劳动者，还是剥削劳动力的资本所有者，都难以自主地决定自己的命运。劳动者劳动的非自主性质，导致人的发展日益显示出片面化的趋势。在前资本主义社会，人的社会关系简单但人的发展相对全面。在资本主义条件下，人的社会关系日益丰富，但人的发展却日益片面化。这种悖论，根源在于资本主义私有制和日益细化的社会分工。马克思就此指出，在资本主义的早期，“工场手工业把工人变成畸形物，它压抑工人的多种多样的生产志趣和生产才能，人为地培植工人片面的技巧”。进入机器大工业阶段，工人的劳动力从而使工人自身的发展更加片面化。“资本借助机器进行的自行增殖”，“分工使这种劳动力片面化，使它只具有操纵局部工具的特定技能”。从关系简单、低水平的全面发展，到关系丰富、高水平的片面发展，人的历史发展在矛盾对抗中向前推进。

The contradiction in human development under capitalist conditions is even more reflected in the inherent demand of capital-dominated social production for the comprehensive development of man. In pre-capitalist societies, even within relations of rule and subordination (except for slave society, where slaves were regarded as tools rather than people), self-sufficiency in production simultaneously implied a greater degree of mutual independence among people. Commodity production and exchange under capitalist conditions fundamentally changed this state of mutual independence: no single individual (except for the ruler who is supported by tribute) can survive solely on his own labor products; everyone must rely on the labor products of others to live. The mutual independence among people based on the independence of things under natural economy conditions is replaced by the comprehensive dependence on things under capitalist commodity economy conditions. Behind the comprehensive dependence on things lies the comprehensive dependence of the people who produce and consume things—that is, the enrichment and development of human social relations. Regarding the contradiction between one-sided and comprehensive human development, Marx conducted an in-depth analysis from the perspective of large-scale industry and its capitalist character: on the one hand, “Modern industry never views or treats the existing form of a production process as the definitive one,” and “the nature of large-scale industry necessitates the change of labour, the variation of functions, and the complete mobility of the worker.” [47]47 Marx, *Capital*, vol. 1, in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 35, p. 487. On the other hand, “large-scale industry, through its very capitalist form, reproduces the old division of labour with its ossified particularities.” [48]48 Marx, *Capital*, vol. 1, in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 35, p. 488. The crux of the problem lies in the “capitalist form” of large-scale industry. This contradiction confronts capital with two “life-and-death questions”: first, “to recognize the change of labour, and hence the greatest possible development of the worker’s manifold aptitudes, as the universal law of social production, and to adapt the relations to the normal realization of this law”; second, “to replace the detail-worker of today, crippled by lifelong repetition of one and the same trivial operation, and thus reduced to a mere fragment of a man, by the fully developed individual, fit for a variety of labours, ready to face any change of production, and to whom the different social functions he performs are but so many modes of giving free scope to his own natural and acquired powers.” [49]49 Marx, *Capital*, vol. 1, in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 35, p. 488. Clearly, neither the first nor the second question can be fundamentally resolved by capital itself. The inherent contradiction in human development becomes the Achilles’ heel of capital. Capital-dominated social production continuously generates the reality of one-sided human development. The further expansion of this production, in turn, internally demands the comprehensive development of man. In the unity of opposites between one-sided and comprehensive human development, capital struggles to maintain its own operation.

资本主义条件下的人的发展的矛盾，更体现在资本主导的社会生产对于人的全面发展的内在要求上。在前资本主义社会，即便是在统治与服从关系（奴隶社会除外，奴隶被视为工具而非人）中，生产上的自给自足同时也意味着人与人之间更大程度的相互独立。资本主义条件下的商品生产与交换，从根本上改变了人的相互独立的状态：任何一个人（受供奉的统治者除外）都不能单凭自己的劳动产品而存活，都必须依靠他人的劳动产品才能活着。自然经济条件下建立在物的独立基础上的人与人之间的互相独立，被资本主义商品经济条件下的复杂的物与物的全面依赖所取代。物的全面依赖的背后，是生产、消费物的人的全面依赖，也就是人的社会关系的丰富和发展。对于人的发展的片面与全面的矛盾，马克思从大工业生产及其资本属性的角度进行了深入分析：一方面，“现代工业从来不把某一生产过程的现存形式看成和当作最后的形式”，“大工业的本性决定了劳动的变换、职能的更动和工人的全面流动性。”另一方面，“大工业在它的资本主义形式上再生产出旧的分工及其固定化的专业。”问题的关键在于大工业的“资本主义形式”。这个矛盾，使资本面临两个“生死攸关的问题”：一是“承认劳动的变换，从而承认工人尽可能多方面的发展是社会生产的普遍规律，并且使各种关系适应于这个规律的正常实现”；二是“用适应于不断变动的劳动需求而可以随意支配的人，来代替那些适应于资本的不断变动的剥削需要而处于后备状态的、可供支配的、大量的贫穷工人人口；用那种把不同社会职能当作互相交替的活动方式的全面发展的个人，来代替只是承担一种社会局部职能的局部个人”。显然，无论是前一个问题还是后一个问题，都是资本自身无法根本解决的。人的发展上的内在矛盾，成为资本的阿基里斯之踵。资本主导的社会生产，不断产生着人的片面发展的现实。这种生产的进一步扩大，又内在地要求人的全面发展。在人的片面发展与全面发展的对立统一之中，资本艰难地维持着自己的运行。

Liberating people from the narrow relations of capitalist society, causing laborers to lose their means of labor while simultaneously gaining formal freedom of development, enriching the social relations among people, and providing unprecedented possibilities for the comprehensive development of the individual — these are the significant contributions capital makes to human development. At the same time, capital’s essence of chasing surplus value is the fundamental obstacle to the comprehensive development of the individual. According to the theory of Marx and Engels, only after capital has developed to its limit and thereby self-destructed can humanity, on the basis of inheriting the material wealth created by capital, transform the possibility of comprehensive human development into reality. This is the fundamental task of the proletarian revolution.

把人从资本主义社会的狭隘关系中解放出来，使劳动者丧失劳动资料同时获得了形式上的自由发展，丰富了人与人之间的社会关系，为人的全面发展提供前所未有的可能性，是资本对人的发展做出的显著贡献。与此同时，资本追逐剩余价值的本质，又是人的全面发展的根本障碍。依照马克思恩格斯的理论，只有资本发展到极限以至于自我消亡之后，人类在继承资本所创造的物质财富的基础上，才能把人的全面发展的可能性转换为现实性，这就是无产阶级革命的根本任务。

IV. The Demise of Capital and the Essence of Its “Self-Preservation”

四、资本的消亡及其“自我保存”的实质

As a product of history, capital arises together with private ownership of the means of production and commodity production and exchange, and it will also perish along with the latter. On the question of capital’s demise, Marx pointed out in the *Economic Manuscripts of 1857–1859*: “The forcible annihilation of capital — not through external relations of capital, but rather as a condition of its self-preservation — is the most convincing form of the advice to capital to abdicate and make way for a higher state of social production. What is contained in this is not only the growth of scientific power, but also the measure in which scientific power has already manifested itself as fixed capital, the scope and breadth with which scientific power is realized and controls the entire totality of production.” [50]50 Karl Marx, *Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Ökonomie* (1857–1859), in *Marx-Engels-Werke*, vol. 42, p. 601. The English translation follows the standard edition: Karl Marx, *Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy*, trans. Martin Nicolaus (London: Penguin, 1973), p. 700, with minor adjustments for consistency. This passage from Marx contains three extremely important insights: “capital’s self-preservation,” “the forcible annihilation of capital,” and “the scope and breadth with which scientific power is realized and controls the entire totality of production.”

资本作为历史的产物，与生产资料私有制、商品生产与交换相伴而生，也会伴随着后者的消亡而消亡。关于资本的消亡问题，马克思在《1857—1859年经济学手稿》中指出：“用暴力消灭资本——不是通过资本的外部关系，而是被当作资本自我保存的条件——，这是忠告资本退位并让位于更高级的社会生产状态的最令人信服的形式。这里包含的，不仅是科学力量的增长，而且是科学力量已经表现为固定资本的尺度，是科学力量得以实现和控制整个生产总体的范围、广度。”马克思的这段论述，包含着三个极为重要的见解：“资本自我保存”“用暴力消灭资本”与“科学力量得以实现和控制整个生产总体”。

First is “capital’s self-preservation.” Before the formation of capital, the means of production necessary for human production, including tools of labor and the labor power of workers, were merely elements for the completion of labor itself, governed by the autonomous activity of the workers. The formation of capital and its functioning fundamentally changed all of this. Although production dominated by capital achieved an unparalleled expansion and increase in scale and efficiency, its fundamental purpose is not to satisfy human needs for survival and development, but to utilize the special nature of labor power as a commodity to achieve capital’s own valorization. In this situation, the means of production are no longer a purely material existence but become capital or acquire the attribute of capital, transforming from material means for satisfying workers’ survival into means for capital to realize its own valorization. As Marx said, “Capital is not a thing, but a definite social relation of production belonging to a definite historical social formation, which is embodied in a thing and gives that thing a specific social character.” [51]51 Karl Marx, “Capital, Volume III,” in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Collected Works, vol. 37 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1998), p. 804. (Translation adapted.) The relations of production dominated by capital also become distorted into a relation of domination with the core characteristic of things dominating people. The extinction of capital caused by various internal contradictions is not the material extinction of the means of production, including tools of labor, but the extinction of the capital attribute of the means of production and the relations of production dominated by capital. Factories, machinery, etc., which are the achievements of human creation, will not perish; land, minerals, forests, etc., which provide raw materials for human labor, will not perish; labor itself, as the intermediary for the material exchange between humans and nature, will not perish. What perishes can only be the nature of labor and the social relations hidden behind factories, machinery, land, minerals, etc. The “extinction” of capital, i.e., capital’s “self-preservation,” is an important viewpoint of Marx that fully embodies the objective dialectics of capital’s operation. Its scientific connotation lies in eliminating the capital attribute of the means of production, i.e., the attribute of dominating producers, preserving their material existence, and making them serve human needs for survival and development. The reason Marx proposed “capital’s self-preservation” was to further explain the commonly held theoretical proposition of “using violence to abolish capital.” Contrary to common understanding, the extinction of capital as a historical product is fundamentally not caused by any external force, i.e., what Marx called “the external relations of capital,” but is the result of capital’s own movement. Violence, as an external force, can only play an auxiliary role in the historical process of capital’s extinction. This involves the question of the historical conditions for capital’s extinction. As mentioned earlier, capital promoted the socialization of production, liberated and developed the productive forces, and created an important material prerequisite for human freedom and comprehensive development. At the same time, when capital develops to a certain extent, it also begins to limit the exertion of these positive effects. From this perspective, capital is a contradictory unity of self-affirmation and self-negation. The periodic fluctuations of capitalist production are the external manifestation and inevitable result of capital’s contradictory movement. In economic crises, social production is extremely contracted, and a large amount of productive forces are destroyed, making room for capital to maintain its survival. Of course, according to the laws of capital’s operation under capitalist conditions, capital’s self-rescue actions cannot be repeated at the same level. As Marx said, “Catastrophes, crises – at such times labor is temporarily interrupted, a large part of capital is destroyed, and thus capital is forcibly brought back to a level where it can [VII-17] fully utilize its productive forces without committing suicide. But these periodically recurring disasters lead to their recurrence on a higher scale, and ultimately to the forcible overthrow of capital.” [52]52 Karl Marx, “Grundrisse,” in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Collected Works, vol. 29 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1987), p. 127. (Translation adapted.) The key here is that “the development of the productive forces brought about by capital itself in the course of its historical development, after reaching a certain point, will not promote but rather eliminate capital’s self-valorization.” [53]53 Ibid., p. 126. The role of violence is exerted precisely at the “certain point” of capital’s operation and the “development of the productive forces” it causes. However, the arrival of this “certain point” must be tested through a long and tortuous process of production practice. In the history of world socialism after Marx and Engels, socialist countries commonly used violence to abolish capital, commodity production, and exchange, but ultimately, under certain conditions and in some countries, they reestablished commodity production and exchange, restored the existence of capital, and made it function in social production. In other words, although the environment for capital’s existence has changed significantly, the “certain point” or critical point for capital’s extinction has not yet arrived. When Marx discussed “using violence to abolish capital” and “capital’s self-preservation,” he emphasized the role of scientific forces. Since modern times, the rapid progress of human society has largely depended on revolutionary breakthroughs in science (especially natural science) and its application. On the one hand, the deepening understanding of nature has unprecedentedly expanded the objects and scope of human labor. On the other hand, the transformation of science into technology has unprecedentedly enhanced humanity’s ability to engage in material exchange with nature. Driven by science and technology, commodity production has become the universal form of social production, and capital has become the dominant force in commodity production. Conversely, capital’s pursuit of surplus value for production’s sake has, to a certain extent, further promoted the development of science and technology and endowed it with a distinct capital attribute. For this reason, Marx put forward the view that “general social knowledge has become to what extent a direct productive force” [54]54 Ibid., p. 94. and the view that “the transformation of the production process from a simple labor process into a scientific process, i.e., into a process that compels natural forces to serve itself and makes them serve human needs.” [55]55 Ibid., p. 91. Like capital, commodity production, and exchange, science and technology are also historical products. With the further development of science and technology, humanity, which increasingly deeply understands the laws of nature and social development, will gradually break free from the shackles of capital and the domination of the laws of commodity production and exchange, and rationally conduct material production and product exchange according to its own needs for survival and development. Therefore, Marx regarded “the growth of scientific forces” and “the scope and breadth with which scientific forces are realized and control the entire production totality” [56]56 Ibid., p. 94. as the prerequisites and conditions for “using violence to abolish capital” and “capital’s self-preservation.” With the extinction of capital, science and technology also lose their capital attribute and become the common wealth of all members of society. As scientists, Marx and Engels firmly believed in the power of science and in humanity’s ability to understand and utilize nature for its own benefit. The continuous progress of science and technology is an important theoretical and practical basis for the inevitable demise of capitalism and the inevitable victory of socialism. Marx was the founder of the doctrine of dialectical materialism. The extinction of capital is simultaneously the self-preservation of capital; violence plays an important but by no means primary role in the gestation, formation, and extinction of capital; science and technology both promote the growth of capital and play a key role in its extinction – this is the overarching conclusion of Marx and Engels on the question of capital’s extinction. The extinction of capital, like its emergence, is a long historical process. During Marx’s lifetime, he expressed the following idea: in the “workers’ own cooperative factories” that appeared in England, “the opposition between capital and labor” had been “superseded,” taking the form that “the worker as an association is their own capitalist,” and “they use the means of production to valorize their own labor.” [57]57 Karl Marx, “Capital, Volume III,” in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Collected Works, vol. 37, p. 437. Marx also pointed out that “within the stock company system, there already exists the opposite of the old form in which social means of production appear as individual property.” “The capitalist stock company, as well as the cooperative factory, should be regarded as transitional forms from the capitalist mode of production to the associated mode of production, except that in the former the opposition is superseded negatively, while in the latter it is superseded positively.” [58]58 Ibid., p. 438. According to Marx’s discussion, both workers’ cooperative factories and the stock company system negate “the old form in which social means of production appear as individual property,” i.e., the capitalist form, but because they are in an embryonic state, they belong to “transitional forms of the associated mode of production.” “Supersession” is the result of capital’s own movement; what is “superseded” is the minority’s appropriation of the surplus labor of workers based on capital ownership, and what is “preserved” is the common ownership of capital by all members of society and their enjoyment of all the fruits of their own labor. Historically, even if workers’ cooperative factories are a real existence, they have not been a universal existence either in Marx’s time or in today’s developed capitalist countries. The stock company system has become a universal form of production organization in the world today, but the consensus among Chinese and foreign scholars is that the stock company system under capitalist conditions has not changed the nature of capitalism. That is to say, to date, humanity has not found a material carrier for promoting the socialization of production that is more effective than capital or can even replace capital. Even though China implements a socialist system and has a large number of state-owned economies, collective economies, and new types of social ownership economies like Huawei, capital still plays an important role in the operation of the entire national economy. If these judgments are correct, it means that capital, as an important carrier of the socialization of production, cannot be abolished until humanity finds a more effective carrier. This may be an important reason why Marx, when clarifying the “ultimate goal” of communists, emphasized experiencing various “intermediate stations and compromises” brought about by “the process of historical development.” [59]59 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, “Manifesto of the Communist Party,” in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Collected Works, vol. 6 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), p. 506. (Translation adapted.)

首先是“资本自我保存”。在资本形成之前，人类生产所必需的生产资料包括劳动工具以及劳动者的劳动力，只是劳动本身得以完成的要素，受自主活动的劳动者支配。资本形成并发挥作用，从根本上改变了这一切。资本主导的生产，尽管在规模与效率上实现了无可比拟的扩大和提高，但根本目的并非满足人的生存和发展需要，而是利用劳动力商品的特殊性质，实现资本自身的增殖。在这种情况下，生产资料不再是单纯的物质存在，而成为资本或具有了资本属性，由满足劳动者生存的物质手段转变为资本实现自身增殖的手段。正如马克思所说，“资本不是物，而是一定的、社会的、属于一定历史社会形态的生产关系，后者体现在一个物上，并赋予这个物以独特的社会性质。”资本主导的生产关系，也畸变为以物支配人为核心特征的支配关系。由种种内在矛盾导致的资本的消亡，不是生产资料包括生产工具物质上的消亡，而是生产资料资本属性和资本主导生产的生产关系的消亡。属于人类创造成果的工厂、机器等不会消亡，为人类劳动提供原材料的土地、矿产、森林等不会消亡，作为人与自然物质变换中介的劳动本身也不会消亡，消亡的只能是劳动的性质与隐藏在工厂、机器、土地、矿产等背后的社会关系。资本的“消亡”即资本的“自我保存”，马克思的这一重要观点，充分体现了资本运行的客观辩证法，其科学内涵就在于消除生产资料的资本属性即支配生产者的属性，保存其物质实存，使之服务于人的生存与发展需要。马克思之所以提出“资本自我保存”，是为了进一步说明习见的“用暴力消灭资本”的理论主张。与通常的理解不同，作为历史产物的资本的消亡，从根本上说不是任何外来力量即马克思所说的“资本的外部关系”所致，而是资本自我运动的结果。作为外来力量的暴力，在资本消亡的历史进程中只能发挥辅助作用。这就涉及资本消亡的历史条件问题。正如前述，资本推动了生产的社会化，解放和发展了生产力，为人的自由与全面发展创造了重要物质前提。与此同时，资本发展到一定程度，也在限制着上述积极作用的发挥。由此而言，资本是自我肯定与自我否定的矛盾统一体。资本主义生产的周期性波动，是资本矛盾运动的外在表现与必然结果。在经济危机中，社会生产极度萎缩，大量的生产力被损毁，为资本维持生存腾挪空间。当然，依照资本主义条件下的资本运行规律，资本的自救行动，不可能在同一水平上重复上演。正如马克思所说，“灾变，危机，这时，劳动暂时中断，很大一部分资本被消灭，这样就以暴力方式使资本回复到它能够［Ⅶ—17］充分利用自己的生产力而不致自杀的水平。但是，这些定期发生的灾难会导致灾难在更高的程度上重复发生，而最终导致用暴力推翻资本。”这里的关键是“资本本身在其历史发展中所造成的生产力的发展，在达到一定点以后，就会不是造成而是消除资本的自行增殖”。暴力作用的发挥，恰恰在资本运行及其造成的“生产力的发展”的“一定点”上。只不过这个“一定点”的到来，要通过漫长的、曲折的生产实践来检验。在马克思恩格斯以后的世界社会主义发展史上，社会主义国家曾普遍使用暴力消灭过资本，消灭过商品生产与交换，但最终在一定条件下、在一些国家，又重建了商品生产与交换，恢复了资本的存在并使之在社会生产中发挥作用。换言之，尽管资本存在的环境发生了很大变化，但资本消亡的“一定点”即临界点，尚没有到来。马克思在论述“用暴力消灭资本”“资本自我保存”时，强调了科学力量的作用。近代以来，人类社会之所以取得快速进步，很大程度上依赖于科学（尤其是自然科学）及其运用的革命性突破。一方面，对自然界认识的深化，空前地扩大了人类劳动的对象和范围。另一方面，科学转化为技术，空前地提升了人类与自然界进行物质变换的能力。在科学技术的推动下，商品生产成为社会生产的普遍形式，资本成为商品生产的主导力量。反过来，资本追逐剩余价值为生产而生产，在一定程度上进一步推动了科学技术的发展，并赋予其鲜明的资本属性。正因为如此，马克思提出了“一般社会知识，已经在多么大的程度上变成了直接的生产力”的观点，提出了“生产过程从简单的劳动过程向科学过程的转化，也就是向驱使自然力为自己服务并使它为人类的需要服务的过程的转化”的观点。与资本、商品生产与交换一样，科学技术也是历史的产物。随着科学技术的进一步发展，对自然界和社会发展规律的认识越来越深刻的人类，将日益摆脱资本的束缚和商品生产与交换规律的支配，根据自己的生存和发展需要，合理地进行物质生产与产品交换。因此，马克思把“科学力量的增长”“科学力量得以实现和控制整个生产总体的范围、广度”，看成“用暴力消灭资本”“资本自我保存”的前提和条件。随着资本的消亡，科学技术也失去了资本属性，而成为全体社会成员的共同财富。作为科学家，马克思恩格斯坚信科学的力量，坚信人类认识和利用自然界造福自身的能力。科学技术的不断进步，是资本主义必然灭亡、社会主义必然胜利的重要理论和现实依据。马克思是唯物辩证法学说的创立者。资本的消亡同时也是资本的自我保存，暴力在资本的孕育、形成、消亡过程中既扮演了重要但绝非主要角色，科学技术既促进了资本的壮大又在资本消亡中发挥关键作用，是马克思恩格斯关于资本消亡问题的总结论。资本的消亡，正如其产生一样，是一个漫长的历史进程。马克思有生之年，曾表达过下述思想：在英国出现的“工人自己的合作工厂”中，“资本和劳动之间的对立”已经“被扬弃”，采取的形式是“工人作为联合体是他们自己的资本家”，“他们利用生产资料来使他们自己的劳动增殖”。马克思还指出，“在股份制度内，已经存在着社会生产资料借以表现为个人财产的旧形式的对立面”。“资本主义的股份企业，也和合作工厂一样，应当被看作是由资本主义生产方式转化为联合的生产方式的过渡形式，只不过在前者那里，对立是消极地扬弃的，而在后者那里，对立是积极地扬弃的。”根据马克思的论述，工人合作工厂和股份制，都在否定“社会生产资料借以表现为个人财产的旧形式”即资本主义形式，但因处于萌芽状态而属于“联合的生产方式的过渡形式”。“扬弃”是资本自我运动的结果，“弃”的少数人凭借资本所有权而无偿占有劳动者的剩余劳动，“扬”的是全体社会成员共同所有资本并享有自己的一切劳动成果。历史地看，工人合作工厂即便是一种现实存在，但无论在马克思时代还是在当今时代的发达资本主义国家，都不是一种普遍存在。股份制已经成为当今世界普遍存在的生产组织形式，但中外学界的共识是，资本主义条件下的股份制并没有改变资本主义的性质。也就是说，迄今为止，人类尚没有找到比资本更有效甚至可以取代资本的推进生产社会化的物质载体。即便中国实行社会主义制度，存在着大量的国有经济、集体经济以及像华为这样的新型社会所有制经济，资本在整个国民经济运行中依然发挥着重要作用。如果这些判断是正确的，那就意味着，资本作为生产社会化的重要载体，在人类找到更有效的载体之前，是不能废止的。这也许就是马克思在明确共产主义者的“最后目的”时强调要经历种种“由历史发展进程造成的中间站和妥协”的重要原因。

V. The Socialist Market Economy Requires Giving Full Play to the Positive Role of Capital

五、社会主义市场经济要求充分发挥资本的积极作用

Marx founded the scientific view of practice, proposing that “man must prove the truth, i.e., the reality and power, the this-sidedness of his thinking in practice.” [60]60 Karl Marx, “Theses on Feuerbach,” in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Collected Works, vol. 5 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), p. 3. Engels proposed that “in order to make socialism into a science, it must first be placed on a real basis.” [61]61 Frederick Engels, “Socialism: Utopian and Scientific,” in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Collected Works, vol. 24 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1989), p. 287. These views of the founders of Marxism require that the adherents of their doctrine, in advancing the historical process of revolution and construction, proceed from reality in everything, draw objective conclusions that conform to historical conditions, and adopt and implement policy measures that conform to reality. On the issue of capital, socialist countries that take Marxism as their fundamental guiding ideology have had no small number of experiences and lessons.

马克思创立了科学的实践观，提出“人应该在实践中证明自己思维的真理性，即自己思维的现实性和力量，自己思维的此岸性。”恩格斯提出，“为了使社会主义变为科学，就必须首先把它置于现实的基础之上。”马克思主义创始人这些观点，要求他们学说的信奉者，在推进革命与建设的历史进程中，一切从实际出发，得出符合历史条件的客观结论，采取并实施符合实际的政策举措。在资本问题上，以马克思主义为根本指导思想的社会主义国家，有着不少经验教训。

Compared with the individual production of laborers, large-scale socialized production is a great advance for human society. In human history, large-scale socialized production was initiated and led by capital. Marx and Engels lived in the midst of this reality, personally experienced the disasters brought to laborers by their separation from the conditions of labor, discovered the basic laws of the operation of capital, and put forward the theoretical prediction of the demise of capital. In 1848, they pronounced the death sentence of capital based on the revolutionary situation in Europe. In 1895, Engels admitted that “history has also shown us to have been wrong, and has revealed our view at that time to have been an illusion”: “History has made it clear that the state of economic development on the European continent at that time was far from being ripe for the elimination of capitalist production; history has proved this through an economic revolution which, from 1848, seized the whole of the European continent, and which for the first time really established large-scale industry in France, Austria, Hungary, Poland and, recently, in Russia, while it made Germany a first-rate industrial country — all on a capitalist basis, so that in 1848 this basis still had great capacity for expansion.” [62]62 Frederick Engels, “Introduction to Karl Marx’s The Class Struggles in France, 1848 to 1850,” in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Collected Works, vol. 27 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1990), p. 510. More than a hundred years have passed since the deaths of Marx and Engels, and capital has not died out. The large-scale socialized production led by capital, driven by two successive technological revolutions and especially by the new round of technological revolution now vigorously unfolding, is already incomparable with the era of Marx and Engels. Furthermore, the property of the petty bourgeoisie and the small peasant, which existed before the appearance of bourgeois property and which, according to Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto, big capital has already “swept away and is sweeping away every day,” [63]63 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, “Manifesto of the Communist Party,” in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Collected Works, vol. 6 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), p. 487. was still widespread even in the era of Marx and Engels in countries like Germany, not to mention the many developing countries where capitalism had developed to some extent but not enough. The new round of technological revolution, with its diverse forms of production and life, provides an infinitely vast space for the functioning of numerous small capitals, alongside the large-scale socialized production linked by big capital. This is the reality of our era.

相对于劳动者的个人生产，社会化大生产是人类社会的巨大进步。人类历史上社会化大生产，是由资本开启并主导的。马克思恩格斯身处这种现实之中，亲身体验到与劳动条件分离给劳动者带来的灾难，发现了资本运行的基本规律，提出了资本消亡的理论预测。1848年，他们就根据欧洲的革命形势宣判了资本的死刑。1895年，恩格斯承认，“历史表明我们也曾经错了，暴露出我们当时的看法只是一个幻想”：“历史清楚地表明，当时欧洲大陆经济发展的状况还远没有成熟到可以铲除资本主义生产的程度；历史用经济革命证明了这一点，从1848年起经济革命席卷了整个欧洲大陆，在法国、奥地利、匈牙利、波兰以及最近在俄国刚刚真正确立了大工业，并且使德国简直就变成了一个头等工业国——这一切都是以资本主义为基础的，可见这个基础在1848年还具有很大的扩展能力。”马克思恩格斯逝世一百多年了，资本并没有消亡。资本主导的社会化大生产，在接连两次科技革命尤其是在目前正蓬勃展开的新一轮科技革命的推动下，与马克思恩格斯时代早已不可同日而语。此外，马克思恩格斯《共产党宣言》所指认的大资本已经消灭“而且每天都在消灭”的“资产阶级财产出现以前的那种小资产阶级、小农的财产”，即便在马克思恩格斯时代还普遍地存在于德国这样的国家，更不用说资本主义有所发展但又不够发展的众多发展中国家。新一轮科技革命，多样化的生产与生活样态，在以大资本为纽带的社会化大生产之外，更为众多小资本发挥作用提供了无限广阔的空间。这就是我们这个时代的现实。

Unlike Marx and Engels, Lenin was the founder of the world’s first socialist state, personally experiencing and leading both the revolutionary and the construction periods. Shortly after the success of the 1917 revolution, under the combined effect of subjective and objective factors, Soviet Russia entered the so-called “War Communism” period. Eliminating capital and the market, and achieving the nationalization and planning of economic operations, became the main measures of the Bolsheviks to promote the socialization of production. In the spring of 1921, Lenin discovered that in building socialism in a country where small-peasant and small-commodity economies predominated, although the state-owned economy and state planning had clear advantages, capital and the market could not be done without, thus beginning the famous New Economic Policy period. Lenin further proposed that in a country like Russia, led by the proletariat and developing towards socialism, although there were many things similar to those in capitalist society, their nature was fundamentally different. In 1918, when discussing cooperatives, he pointed out: “The cooperative is a shop, and no change, improvement, or reform can alter that. … But the point is that from the moment the proletariat seizes state power, from the moment the proletarian state power systematically begins to build the socialist system, the position of the cooperative undergoes a fundamental, principled change. Here, quantity is transformed into quality.” [64]64 V. I. Lenin, “The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government,” in Collected Works, vol. 27 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1965), p. 248. The key to “quantity is transformed into quality” is that “we now hold the power of rule.” [65]65 Ibid. In 1923, Lenin again pointed out that under conditions such as “the state controls all the large means of production” and “the proletariat holds state power,” the “cooperative, which we despised as a mere shop,” is “everything necessary for building a complete socialist society,” although “this is not yet the building of socialist society, but it is everything necessary and sufficient for building socialist society.” [66]66 V. I. Lenin, “On Cooperation,” in Collected Works, vol. 33 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1966), p. 473. The spiritual essence of Lenin’s these discussions was not scientifically understood and practically implemented by later generations. Shortly after Lenin’s death, the Soviet Union used violent means to eliminate capital, individual small-scale peasant production, commodity production and exchange, and established a socialist planned economic system, which lasted until the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

与马克思恩格斯不同，列宁是世界上第一个社会主义国家的创立者，亲身经历并领导了革命与建设两个历史时期。1917年革命成功后不久，在主客观因素的共同作用下，苏俄进入了所谓“战时共产主义”时期。消灭资本和市场，实现经济运行的国有化与计划化，成为布尔什维克推动生产社会化的主要举措。1921年春，列宁发现，在小农和小商品经济占优势的国家建设社会主义，尽管国有经济和国家计划有着明显的优越性，但却不能没有资本和市场，由此开启了著名的新经济政策时期。列宁进一步提出，在俄国这样的无产阶级领导、向着社会主义发展的国家，尽管存在不少类似于资本主义社会的事物，但性质却有着根本的区别。1918年，他在论及合作社时指出，“合作社是商店，无论什么变动、改善和改革都改变不了这一点。……但是问题也就在于：从无产阶级夺得国家政权的时候起，从无产阶级的国家政权着手有系统地建立社会主义制度的时候起，合作社的地位就起了原则性的根本变化。在这里，量转化为质。”“量转化为质”的关键是“我们现在掌握着统治权”。1923年，列宁再次指出，在“国家支配着一切大的生产资料”“无产阶级掌握着国家政权”等条件下，“曾被我们鄙视为做买卖的合作社”就是“建成完全的社会主义社会所必需的一切”，尽管“这还不是建成社会主义社会，但这已是建成社会主义社会所必需而且足够的一切”。列宁这些论述的精神实质，并没有被后人科学地理解并切实落实。列宁逝世之后不久，苏联就用暴力手段消灭了资本、农民个体小生产、商品生产与交换，建立起社会主义计划经济体制，直到苏联解体。

In the history of world socialism, using violent means to eliminate capital, the individual peasant economy, and small-commodity production was once regarded as the fundamental way to prevent the restoration of capitalism, realize large-scale socialized production, and promote human development. Lenin, based on the fact that capital originated from the simple commodity economy, put forward the view during the “War Communism” policy period that small producers constituted a vast ocean of the bourgeoisie and capitalism. After this, Lenin proposed and actually implemented the New Economic Policy, allowing private capital owners and small producers to play a role within a certain scope and to a certain limit, but he always regarded these economic components as non-socialist factors to be guarded against. During the Stalin leadership period, the Soviet Union used violent means to eliminate the remnants of capital and, through the policy of agricultural collectivization, eliminated the individual peasant economy. Historically, capital did indeed sprout and grow within small-scale production. The enclosure movement in Western Europe, particularly in England, is a typical example. But as discussed above, the process of socialization of production is quite long, has its own internal logic, and external violence plays no fundamental role. The Soviet Union eliminated capital and small-scale production by administrative means, but the Soviet socialist cause ultimately ended in failure. In China after 1949, in the process of eliminating capital, mistakes were also made, such as the “Great Leap Forward” error of upgrading ownership forms, [67]67 The “Great Leap Forward” (1958–1961) was a campaign by the Chinese Communist Party to rapidly industrialize and collectivize agriculture, which led to severe economic mismanagement and widespread famine. whose main theoretical basis was still Lenin’s view that individual peasants constituted a vast ocean of spontaneous capitalist forces. Practice has already proved that this view does not conform to historical facts and has brought serious harm to the world socialist movement. Jiang Zemin once described China’s rural economic form in 1978 as a so-called “collective economy that deprived peasants of their interests and pooled everything together,” and pointed out that “some comrades still exclude the household contract responsibility system from the collective economy, failing to recognize that contracting collective land to households and implementing a two-tier management system is itself the most effective form of realization of the rural collective economy.” [68]68 Jiang Zemin, “Speech at the Symposium on Rural Work,” in Selected Works of Jiang Zemin, vol. 1 (Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, 2010), p. 265. From the perspective of the socialization of production, material production organized from above by the government is, in quite a number of cases, mechanical and one-way, forming only the form and appearance of the socialization of production, “in fact tying the hands and feet of the whole society and the people,” [69]69 Deng Xiaoping, “Emancipate the Mind, Seek Truth from Facts, and Unite as One in Looking to the Future,” in Selected Works of Deng Xiaoping, vol. 2 (Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, 1995), p. 156. severely constraining human development. This is the essence of the problem.

在世界社会主义发展史上，用暴力手段消灭资本、个体农民经济和小商品生产，曾被视为防止资本主义复辟、实现社会化大生产、促进人的发展的根本途径。列宁曾以资本源起于简单商品经济这个事实，在“战时共产主义”政策时期提出了小生产者是资产阶级和资本主义的汪洋大海的观点。在这以后，列宁提出并切实实施了新经济政策，允许私人资本拥有者、小生产者在一定范围内、一定限度上发挥作用，但始终把这些经济成分视为非社会主义因素而加以防范。在斯大林领导时期，苏联用暴力手段消灭了残存的资本，并通过农业集体化政策消灭了农民个体经济。从历史上看，资本的确是在小生产中萌发并成长起来的。西欧特别是英国的圈地运动就十分典型。但正如前述，生产的社会化过程相当漫长，具有自己的内在逻辑，外部暴力起不到根本作用。苏联凭借行政手段消灭了资本和小生产，但苏联的社会主义事业最终也归于失败。1949年以后的中国，在消灭资本的过程中，也曾犯过搞所有制升级的“大跃进”错误，主要理论依据依然是列宁的观点，即个体农民是资本自发势力的汪洋大海。实践已经证明，这种观点不符合历史的事实，给世界社会主义运动带来了严重伤害。江泽民曾经把中国1978年的农村经济形式，称之为“剥夺农民利益、归大堆的所谓‘集体经济’”，并指出“有些同志至今仍把家庭承包经营排除在集体经济之外，没有认识到把集体的土地承包到户、实行双层经营，本身就是农村集体经济最有效的实现形式”。从生产社会化角度看，政府的自上而下组织起来的物质生产，在相当多的情形下都是机械的、单向的，所形成的也只是生产社会化的形式和表象，“实际上是把整个社会和人民的手脚都捆起来了”，严重地束缚了人的发展。这就是问题的实质。

Since reform and opening up, China has established the liberation and development of productive forces as its fundamental task, adhered to taking economic construction as the central task, and built a socialist market economy system. The report of the 13th National Congress of the CPC comprehensively analyzed “the current situation in our country”: on the one hand, the socialist economic system based on public ownership of the means of production had already been established; on the other hand, 80 percent of the total population, the peasants, “were still basically using hand tools to get their meals,” while a portion of modern industry coexisted “with a large amount of industry lagging decades or even a century behind modern levels.” In the history of New China, “many things that were conducive to the development of productive forces and to the commodification, socialization, and modernization of production under socialist conditions were opposed as ‘capitalist restoration.’” [70]70 The 13th National Congress of the CPC was held in 1987. The quoted passage refers to the congress’s assessment of China’s stage of development and the historical errors of the Cultural Revolution period (1966–1976), when market-oriented economic practices were suppressed as “capitalist restoration.” The new historical conditions provided soil for the gestation and vigorous development of capital, especially social capital outside state-owned capital. The long-term stable household contract responsibility system with remuneration linked to output also created relaxed policy space for peasant individual economies and diverse types of small commodity production. Capital, commodity production and exchange, and the autonomous management of market entities are driving a revolutionary leap in the socialization of production and the all-round development of people in contemporary China. China’s specific national conditions differ from the Europe of Marx and Engels’ era and from today’s developed capitalist countries. The most fundamental point is that China implements a socialist system led by the Communist Party. The fundamental purpose of China’s social production is to meet the people’s real needs for a better life and to promote the all-round development of people. Capital under the conditions of the socialist market economy is subordinate to the leadership of the Communist Party and serves the overall goals of socialist material production and economic construction. Therefore, one cannot simply use the critique of capital by Marx and Engels or by today’s Western developed countries to judge China’s reality. Under capitalist conditions, the critique of capital by left-wing social trends is a check on capital’s dominant position. But in socialist China, under the leadership of the Communist Party of China, capital serves the developmental needs of people and does not itself occupy a dominant position in material production. In a certain sense, Marx’s scientific prediction about the demise, i.e., self-preservation, of capital under capitalist conditions is being effectively practiced in contemporary China. Lenin’s view on cooperatives as “quantity transforming into quality” is more suitable for the reality of the role played by capital, commodity production, and exchange in contemporary China. [71]71 Lenin’s “On Cooperation” (1923) argued that under proletarian state power, cooperative enterprises, though based on private commodity exchange, could become socialist in nature when the means of production are publicly owned, representing a quantitative growth that leads to a qualitative transformation of the economic system.

改革开放以来，中国把解放和发展生产力确立为根本任务，坚持以经济建设为中心，建立起社会主义市场经济体制。党的十三大报告，全面剖析了“我国当前的情况”：一方面，以生产资料公有制为基础的社会主义经济制度已经确立；另一方面，占人口总数80%的农民“基本上还是用手工工具搞饭吃”，一部分现代化工业“同大量落后于现代水平几十年甚至上百年的工业”同时并存。在新中国的历史上，“许多在社会主义条件下有利于生产力发展和生产商品化、社会化、现代化的东西，被当作‘资本主义复辟’加以反对。”新的历史条件，为资本尤其是国有资本之外的社会资本的孕育和蓬勃发展提供了土壤。长期稳定的家庭联产承包责任制，也为农民个体经济及类型多样的小商品生产，创造了宽松的政策空间。资本、商品生产与交换、市场主体的自主经营，推动着当代中国生产社会化和人的全面发展的革命性飞跃。中国的具体国情，不同于马克思恩格斯时代的欧洲与当今的发达资本主义国家。最根本的一点，中国实行的是共产党领导的社会主义制度。中国社会生产的根本目的，是满足人民过上美好生活的现实需要，促进人的全面发展。社会主义市场经济条件下的资本，服从共产党的领导，服务于社会主义物质生产和经济建设的总体目标。因而，不能简单用马克思恩格斯以及当今西方发达国家的资本批判理论来评判中国的现实。在资本主义条件下，左翼社会思潮的资本批判是对资本主导地位的牵制。但在社会主义中国，在中国共产党的领导下，资本服务于人的发展需要，自身并不在物质生产中占主导地位。从一定意义上说，马克思关于资本主义条件下资本消亡即自我保存的科学预见，在当代中国得到有效实践。列宁关于合作社“量转化为质”的观点，更适合于当代中国资本、商品生产与交换发挥作用的现实。

General Secretary Xi Jinping has proposed that on the new journey toward comprehensively building a modern socialist country, we must “correctly understand and grasp the characteristics and behavioral laws of capital”: “Building a socialist market economy is a great creation of our Party. Since it is a socialist market economy, various forms of capital will inevitably emerge. Although capital in capitalist society and capital in socialist society certainly have many differences, capital always seeks profit. … We must explore how to bring out the positive role of capital under the conditions of the socialist market economy while effectively controlling its negative role. … This is a major political and economic issue that cannot be evaded.” This statement both emphasizes “the positive role of capital” and recognizes “the negative role of capital,” providing a basic guideline for us to correctly understand and grasp the characteristics and behavioral laws of capital. Having the courage to acknowledge the importance of capital, fully leveraging capital’s role in promoting the socialization of production and human development, regulating and guiding the healthy development of various forms of capital, and making capital serve all the people—this is the proper attitude a socialist state should adopt toward capital.

习近平总书记提出，在迈向全面建设社会主义现代化国家的新征程上，我们要“正确认识和把握资本的特性和行为规律”：“搞社会主义市场经济是我们党的一个伟大创造。既然是社会主义市场经济，就必然会产生各种形态的资本。资本主义社会的资本和社会主义社会的资本固然有很多不同，但资本都是要追逐利润的。……我们要探索如何在社会主义市场经济条件下发挥资本的积极作用，同时有效控制资本的消极作用。……这是一个不容回避的重大政治和经济问题。”这一论述既强调了“资本的积极作用”，又看到了“资本的消极作用”，为我们正确认识和把握资本的特性和行为规律提供了基本遵循。勇于承认资本的重要性，充分发挥资本推进生产社会化和人的发展的作用，规范和引导各类资本健康发展，使资本服务于全体人民，是社会主义国家对待资本的应有态度。

[The author is a professor and doctoral supervisor at the Department of Scientific Socialism, Party School of the Central Committee of the CPC (National Academy of Governance).]

[作者系中共中央党校（国家行政学院）科学社会主义教研部教授、博士生导师]

Online editor: Ma Jingren

网络编辑：马京仁