An Analysis of Marx’s Concept of Productive Forces: Controversies, Misreadings, and Clarifications

I. Introduction

一、引言

“Productive forces” is a core concept in historical materialism and political economy, and it is of great significance for people’s understanding of the basic theories of Marxism. Yet to this day, there remain certain controversies and misreadings regarding Marx’s concept of productive forces, which are detrimental to our research on productive forces. Given the practical need to develop new quality productive forces, it is all the more urgent to clarify Marx’s concept of productive forces as soon as possible, so as to promote the formation of more theoretical content in research on new quality productive forces.

“生产力”是唯物史观和政治经济学中的核心概念，对人们理解马克思主义基本理论有重要意义。然而时至今日，人们对马克思的生产力概念仍存在一定的争议和误读，这不利于我们对生产力的研究。就当前发展新质生产力的现实需要而言，更需尽快厘清马克思的生产力概念，以推动新质生产力研究形成更多学理性内容。

The controversies and misreadings concerning Marx’s concept of productive forces are mainly concentrated on different interpretations of Marx’s relevant expositions on productive forces: on the one hand, the academic community generally believes that Marx had already formed a clear concept of productive forces and expressed it in his texts; on the other hand, Marx’s expositions on productive forces are relatively scattered in his texts and exhibit differences in expression. Therefore, scholars have conducted research based on Marx’s different expositions on productive forces, forming a diversity of interpretive viewpoints. Although these viewpoints have expanded the dimensions of understanding Marx’s concept of productive forces, because the various accounts differ, they have to a certain extent affected people’s clear understanding of Marx’s concept of productive forces.

关于马克思生产力概念的争议与误读，主要集中在对马克思生产力相关论述的不同解读上：一方面，学术界普遍认为马克思已形成明确的生产力概念，并在文本中进行了表达；另一方面，马克思的生产力论述在文本中较为零散，且在表述上存在差异。因此，学者们根据马克思的不同生产力论述进行研究，形成了多元化的解读观点。这些观点虽然拓展了对马克思生产力概念的理解维度，但由于各说不一，一定程度上影响了人们对马克思生产力概念的清晰理解。

To clarify Marx’s concept of productive forces, one seemingly feasible method is to look up all of Marx’s relevant expositions and summarize them. However, the reliability of this method is not high, for two reasons: First, Marx’s concept of productive forces underwent a continuous process of development. The understanding or concept of productive forces that Marx put forward in his early research may not be equivalent to the concept of productive forces in his mature period of research. When there is a difference between the two, the latter should be regarded as the development or sublation of the former, and the two cannot be treated equally. Therefore, early works such as “Critical Notes on the Article ‘The King of Prussia and Social Reform. By a Prussian’,” [1]1 This refers to Marx’s early critical response to Friedrich List’s work “The National System of Political Economy,” written in 1845 but not published in Marx’s lifetime. It is often cited in discussions of Marx’s early views on productive forces. “The German Ideology,” and “Marx to Pavel Vasilyevich Annenkov” [2]2 A letter written by Marx in 1846 to the Russian writer Pavel Annenkov, critiquing Pierre-Joseph Proudhon’s “The Philosophy of Poverty.” It contains early formulations of historical materialist concepts. cannot serve as the primary basis for analyzing Marx’s concept of productive forces. Second, compared with Marx’s manuscript-type literature, Marx’s expressions on productive forces in his formally published works are clearer and more complete, and they were reviewed and approved by Marx himself, thus better reflecting Marx’s core ideas on the concept of productive forces. Therefore, manuscript-type literature should also not serve as the primary basis for analyzing Marx’s concept of productive forces.

要厘清马克思的生产力概念，一个看似可行的方法是查找马克思的全部相关论述，并加以归纳。然而，这种方法的可靠性并不高，原因有二：第一，马克思的生产力概念有一个不断发展的过程。马克思在研究早期提出的生产力认识或概念，未必等同于他在研究成熟期的生产力概念。当二者存在差异时，应把后者视为前者的发展或扬弃，而不能对二者同等看待。因此，像《评李斯特》《德意志意识形态》《马克思致帕·瓦·安年科夫》等早期作品，不能成为分析马克思生产力概念的首要依据。第二，与马克思的手稿类文献相比，马克思在正式出版著作中对生产力的表述更加清晰完整，并且经过他本人审定，更能体现马克思关于生产力概念的核心思想。因此，手稿类文献也不应成为分析马克思生产力概念的首要依据。

Therefore, to accurately understand Marx’s concept of productive forces, it is best to take Marx’s formally published works from his theoretical mature period that were reviewed and approved by himself as the primary basis for analysis. The work that meets this condition is mainly Volume I of “Capital.” Hence, this article is mainly based on Volume I of “Capital” to analyze issues related to Marx’s concept of productive forces, in order to clarify several existing controversies and misreadings.

所以，要准确理解马克思的生产力概念，最好以马克思在理论成熟时期经本人审定的正式出版著作为首要依据进行分析，符合条件的著作主要是《资本论》第一卷。因此，本文主要基于《资本论》第一卷，对马克思生产力概念的相关问题进行辨析，以澄清当前存在的若干争议与误读。

II. The Connotation of Marx’s Concept of Productive Forces

二、马克思的生产力概念内涵

In Volume I of “Capital,” Marx provides extensive expositions on productive forces. However, relying solely on any one specific exposition is insufficient to grasp the complete connotation of Marx’s concept of productive forces. It is necessary to comprehensively sort out Marx’s expositions on productive forces and extract the connotation of the concept of productive forces that conforms to Marx’s original intention.

在《资本论》第一卷中，马克思对生产力进行了大量论述。然而，仅凭其中某一处具体论述，难以把握马克思生产力概念的完整内涵，应全面梳理马克思关于生产力的论述，提炼出符合马克思本意的生产力概念内涵。

1. The Specific Connotation of Marx’s Concept of Productive Forces

1.马克思生产力概念的具体内涵

When introducing the concept of productive forces in Volume I of “Capital,” Marx states, “Productive forces are of course always the productive forces of useful, concrete labor; in fact, they determine only the efficiency of purposeful productive activity over a given period of time.” [3]3 This is a paraphrase of Marx’s statement in Chapter 1 of Capital, Volume I, where he discusses the dual character of labor embodied in commodities. This is usually interpreted as Marx’s basic view of productive forces, namely, that productive forces are the actual power of labor to produce wealth or use-values, and are therefore also called labor productivity. Its magnitude is expressed by the rate of labor productivity, similar to how the magnitude of force in physics is expressed by power (work done / time).

在《资本论》第一卷引入生产力概念时，马克思提出，“生产力当然始终是有用的、具体的劳动的生产力，它事实上只决定有目的的生产活动在一定时间内的效率”，这通常被解读为马克思对生产力的基本看法，即认为生产力是劳动生产财富或使用价值的现实力量,所以也被称为劳动生产力。它的大小用劳动生产率表示，类似于物理学上力的大小由功率（做功量／时间）来表示。

However, because Marx’s exposition here is relatively brief, when people further discuss the specific connotation of Marx’s concept of productive forces, disagreements arise: does “labor” in “labor productivity” refer to “living labor,” or to “total labor” composed of both living labor and objectified labor? This disagreement stems from Marx’s different expositions.

不过，由于马克思的这一论述相对简略，当人们进一步讨论马克思生产力概念的具体内涵时，便产生了分歧：劳动生产力中的“劳动”究竟指“活劳动”，还是指活劳动和物化劳动共同构成的“全劳动”？这一分歧源于马克思的不同论述。

On the one hand, Marx has expositions indicating that “labor” in labor productivity refers to living labor. He gives an example: “Each article costs 1 shilling, i.e., 6 pence is the value of the means of production, and 6 pence is the value newly added during processing. Now suppose a capitalist doubles the productivity of labor, so that in a twelve-hour working day he produces not 12 but 24 articles of this kind. Assuming the value of the means of production remains unchanged, the value of each article will fall to 9 pence, i.e., 6 pence is the value of the means of production, and 3 pence is the value newly added by the final labor.” [4]4 This example is drawn from Marx’s discussion of relative surplus value in Capital, Volume I, Chapter 12. In this example, Marx takes into account the means of production containing objectified labor, but considers that the increase in labor productivity corresponds only to the increase in the efficiency of living labor.

一方面，马克思有论述表明劳动生产力中的“劳动”指活劳动。他曾举例，“每件商品花费1先令，即6便士是生产资料的价值，6便士是加工时新加进的价值。现在假定有一个资本家使劳动生产力提高一倍，在一个十二小时工作日中不是生产12件这种商品，而是生产24件。在生产资料的价值不变的情况下，每件商品的价值就会降低到9便士，即6便士是生产资料的价值，3便士是最后的劳动新加进的价值”。在该例中，马克思考虑到了含有物化劳动的生产资料，但认为劳动生产力提升只对应着活劳动生产效率的提升。

On the other hand, Marx also has expositions supporting that “labor” in labor productivity refers to total labor. He points out, “It is evident that if the labor spent on producing a machine is equal to the labor saved by using that machine, then this is merely a transformation of labor; that is, the total amount of labor required to produce a commodity has not been reduced, or labor productivity has not increased.” [5]5 This passage is from Capital, Volume I, Chapter 15, on machinery and large-scale industry. Here, “labor” in labor productivity clearly refers to total labor, which includes objectified labor. In Volumes II and III of “Capital,” there are also more expositions supporting this point.

另一方面，马克思也有论述支持劳动生产力中的“劳动”指全劳动。他指出，“很明显，如果生产一台机器所费的劳动，与使用该机器所节省的劳动相等，那么这只不过是劳动的变换，就是说，生产一个商品所需要的劳动总量没有减少，或者说，劳动生产力没有提高”，此处劳动生产力的“劳动”又显然指包括了物化劳动的全劳动。在《资本论》第二卷和第三卷中，也有更多论述支持这一点。

Given the differences in Marx’s various expositions, we need to conduct an in-depth analysis of this issue. First, it is inappropriate to simply understand labor productivity as the productivity of “living labor.” The reason is that living labor itself is actually only one of the elements of the labor process that Marx discusses: “The simple elements of the labor process are: purposeful activity or labor itself, the object of labor, and the instruments of labor.” [6]6 This is from Capital, Volume I, Chapter 7, on the labor process. If productive forces are regarded only as the productivity of “living labor,” this actually reduces the productive forces, which are constituted by the combined functioning of all production elements, to the productive effect of the single element of living labor, thereby leading to a narrow understanding of the concept of productive forces.

鉴于马克思的不同论述存在差异，我们需要对这一问题进行深入分析。首先，不宜将劳动生产力简单理解为“活劳动”的生产力。原因在于，活劳动本身实际上只是马克思讲的劳动过程要素之一，“劳动过程的简单要素是：有目的的活动或劳动本身，劳动对象和劳动资料”。若将生产力仅视为“活劳动”的生产力，实际上是将由所有生产要素共同发挥作用构成的生产力，片面归结为活劳动这一要素的生产作用，从而导致对生产力概念的狭隘理解。

Then, can labor productivity be understood as the productivity of “total labor”? Although this understanding is more comprehensive than that of “living labor” productivity, it still has certain limitations. The reason is that, on the one hand, the means of production include not only artificial products containing objectified labor but also natural conditions. Marx clearly discusses this when introducing the object of labor and the instruments of labor. On the other hand, artificial means of production such as machines cannot be completely equated with objectified labor in the context of productive forces. The view that equates the two actually confuses objectified labor at the level of use-value with objectified labor at the level of value. Marx emphasizes, “Labor is not the only source of the use-values it produces, i.e., of material wealth. As William Petty says, labor is the father of wealth, and the earth is its mother.” [7]7 This is from Capital, Volume I, Chapter 1, where Marx cites William Petty. In the “Critique of the Gotha Programme,” he again emphasizes that nature is also a source of wealth. [8]8 The “Critique of the Gotha Programme” (1875) is a text in which Marx criticizes the draft program of the German Social Democratic Workers’ Party, emphasizing that nature is a source of use-values alongside labor. Therefore, in the context of productive forces, artificial means of production are the product of the combination of objectified labor and natural conditions.

那么，劳动生产力是否可以理解为“全劳动”生产力？这一理解虽较“活劳动”生产力的理解更为全面，但仍存在一定局限。原因在于，一方面，生产资料不仅包括含有物化劳动的人工制品，还包括天然的自然条件，马克思在介绍劳动对象和劳动资料时，对此有清楚的论述。另一方面，像机器等人工制成的生产资料，在生产力语境下也不能完全等同于物化劳动。将二者相等同的观点，实际上把使用价值层面的物化劳动和价值层面的物化劳动混淆了。而马克思强调，“劳动并不是它所生产的使用价值即物质财富的唯一源泉。正像威廉·配第所说，劳动是财富之父，土地是财富之母”，在《哥达纲领批判》中他又再次强调自然也是财富源泉。所以，在生产力语境下，人工制成的生产资料是物化劳动和自然条件相结合的产物。

Combining the above analysis, it can be seen that the means of production include certain natural conditions in addition to objectified labor. Marx’s expositions on natural conditions being a determining factor of labor productivity and favorable natural conditions increasing labor productivity also reflect that natural conditions are present in his concept of labor productivity. Therefore, explaining labor productivity solely with “total labor” is incomplete; natural conditions must also be included. The connotation of the concept of productive forces (i.e., labor productivity) that conforms to Marx’s original intention should be the overall productive power exerted by the combination of living labor, objectified labor, and natural conditions. Such an overall labor productivity is a real productive force for material wealth, determining the efficiency of purposeful productive activity.

结合上述分析可知，生产资料在物化劳动之外，还包括一定的自然条件。马克思有关自然条件是劳动生产力的决定因素、有利的自然条件提高劳动生产力等论述，也反映了他的劳动生产力概念中是有自然条件的。所以，仅用“全劳动”来解释劳动生产力是不完整的，还要加入自然条件。符合马克思原意的生产力（也即劳动生产力）概念内涵，应当是活劳动、物化劳动和自然条件结合后发挥的整体性生产力量。这样整体的劳动生产力才是一种现实的物质财富生产力量，它决定了有目的的生产活动的效率。

On the basis of this connotation of the concept of productive forces, how should “labor” in labor productivity be understood? In fact, “labor” here should still be understood as “living labor,” but labor productivity cannot be interpreted as the productive forces exerted solely by “living labor.” Rather, it should be interpreted that adding “labor” before “productive forces” is intended to highlight and emphasize the subjective role and core position of “living labor” within productive forces.

在这一生产力概念内涵基础上，该如何理解劳动生产力的“劳动”？其实，这里的劳动仍要理解为“活劳动”，但不能把劳动生产力解读为仅由“活劳动”发挥的生产力，而应当解读为在“生产力”之前加上“劳动”，是为了凸显和强调生产力中“活劳动”的主体性作用和核心地位。

2. How to Understand Marx’s Expression of “Productive Forces of Elements”

2.如何理解马克思的“要素生产力”表述

In Marx’s exposition on productive forces, there are still multiple expressions of “productive forces of the elements.” People’s different understandings of these expressions often lead to controversies and misreadings, which merit further exploration.

在马克思关于生产力的论述中，还存在多种“要素生产力”表述。人们对这些表述的不同理解，往往导致争议与误读，值得进一步探讨。

In the fourth chapter of Volume I of *Capital*, Marx discusses cooperation creating “new productive forces” and the division of labor developing “new productive forces”: “The question is not merely that, by cooperation, the individual productive power is increased, but that a productive power is created, which is itself necessarily a collective force”; “The division of labor in manufacture, through the decomposition of handicraft activities, the specialization of instruments of labor, the formation of partial workers, and their grouping and combination in a total mechanism, creates a qualitative division and quantitative proportion of the social production process, thereby simultaneously establishing a certain organization of social labor and thus developing new, social productive forces of labor.”

在《资本论》第一卷第四篇，马克思有协作创造“新的生产力”、分工发展“新的生产力”的论述，“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”；“工场手工业分工通过手工业活动的分解，劳动工具的专门化，局部工人的形成以及局部工人在一个总机构中的分组和结合，造成了社会生产过程的质的划分和量的比例，从而创立了社会劳动的一定组织，这样就同时发展了新的、社会的劳动生产力”。

How should we understand this expression of “new productive forces”? In particular, Marx also holds that it costs capital nothing: “As soon as workers are placed under certain conditions, the social productive power of labor is exerted without payment, and capital places workers under precisely such conditions”; “We have already seen that the productive forces arising from cooperation and the division of labor cost capital nothing. They are natural forces of social labor.”

该如何理解这种“新的生产力”表述？尤其是马克思还认为它不费资本分文，“只要把工人置于一定的条件下，劳动的社会生产力就无须支付报酬而发挥出来，而资本正是把工人置于这样的条件之下的”；“我们已经知道，由协作和分工产生的生产力，不费资本分文。它是社会劳动的自然力”。

Since this “new productive force” costs capital nothing, it cannot be understood as total productive forces. For to obtain total productive forces, the capitalist at least pays wages and purchases means of production. Therefore, this “new productive force” can only be understood as that part of the “differential productive forces” by which combined labor produces more than the sum of individual labors. Marx’s exposition clearly conveys this meaning: “Compared with the sum of the same number of individual working days taken separately, the combined working day produces more use-values, and hence reduces the labor time necessary for producing a given useful effect. Whatever the specific way in which the combined working day achieves this increase in productive forces… in all these cases, the special productive force of the combined working day is the social productive force of labor, or the productive force of social labor. This productive force arises from cooperation itself.”

既然这种“新的生产力”不费资本分文，那就不能把它理解为整体生产力。因为对整体生产力的获取，资本家起码支付了工资和购买了生产资料。所以，只能把这种“新的生产力”理解为结合劳动生产大于个别劳动生产叠加的那部分“差额生产力”。马克思在论述中流露的显然也是这个意思，“和同样数量的单干的个人工作日的总和比较起来，结合工作日可以生产更多的使用价值，因而可以减少生产一定效用所必要的劳动时间。不论在一定的情况下结合工作日怎样达到生产力的这种提高……在所有这些情形下，结合工作日的特殊生产力都是社会的劳动生产力或社会劳动的生产力。这种生产力是由协作本身产生的”。

In these instances, Marx refers to the part of the increase in productive forces caused by “forms of labor organization” such as cooperation and the division of labor as a “new productive force” or the “special productive force of the combined working day.” This can be regarded as an expression of “productive forces of the elements” that emphasizes the role of the “element” of “forms of labor organization.” However, if this expression of “productive forces of the elements” is understood as Marx proposing a new concept of productive forces, it would create a contradiction in the definition of the concept’s connotation: that is, productive forces are both the overall force exerted by the combination of all productive elements and the individual effect of a single productive element in the production process. Therefore, Marx’s expression of “new productive forces” in the sense of “productive forces of the elements” should not be interpreted as proposing some new concept of productive forces, but rather as a mode of expression emphasizing the increase in productive forces caused by various special “elements” such as cooperation and the division of labor.

在这些场合，马克思将由协作、分工等“劳动组织形式”引起的生产力增长部分，称作一种“新的生产力”或“结合工作日的特殊生产力”，这可以视为一种强调“劳动组织形式”这种“要素”作用的“要素生产力”表述。然而，如果将这种“要素生产力”表述理解为马克思提出了一种新的生产力概念，就会造成生产力概念内涵界定上的矛盾，即生产力既是所有生产要素结合后发挥的整体性力量，又是某种单一生产要素在生产过程中发挥的个别作用。因此，马克思所说的“新的生产力”这一“要素生产力”意义上的表述，并不适合解读为提出了某种新的生产力概念，而应当解读为强调协作、分工等各种特殊“要素”引起生产力增长的一种表述方式。

When understanding Marx’s concept of productive forces, special attention must be paid to similar expressions of “productive forces of the elements.” Marx uses these expressions of “productive forces of the elements” often to achieve specific expository purposes, rather than to specifically propose a new concept of productive forces. If one departs from the basic connotation of the concept of productive forces consistent with Marx’s original meaning, it is easy to understand these expressions as meaning that a certain element alone can form some kind of productive force, thereby generalizing the connotation of Marx’s concept of productive forces. To avoid this misreading, we should, in conjunction with the specific context of the exposition and on the basis of the connotation of the concept of productive forces consistent with Marx’s original meaning, accurately understand the actual meaning of various expressions of “productive forces of the elements.”

在理解马克思的生产力概念时，要特别注意类似的“要素生产力”表述。马克思使用这些“要素生产力”表述往往是为了实现特定的论述目的，而非专门提出新的生产力概念。如果脱离了符合马克思原意的生产力概念基本内涵，就容易将这些表述理解为仅凭某一要素就能形成某种生产力，进而泛化马克思的生产力概念内涵。为了避免这种误读，我们应当结合具体论述语境，在符合马克思原意的生产力概念内涵基础上，准确理解各类“要素生产力”表述的实际含义。

For example, Marx also mentions “individual productive forces” in Volume I of *Capital*: “The question is not merely that, by cooperation, the individual productive power is increased”; “In manufacture, the wealth of the collective worker, and hence of capital, in social productive power is conditioned on the poverty of the worker in individual productive power.” The actual meaning of these two instances of individual productive forces differs. The first instance refers to the individual’s work efficiency, because Marx immediately states: “In most productive labor, mere social contact evokes competition and a peculiar stimulation of energy, thereby raising the individual work efficiency of each person.” The second instance actually refers to the comprehensiveness and flexibility of individual labor power, because Marx similarly states: “In modern agriculture, as in urban industry, the increase in the productive power of labor and the increase in the quantity of labor are purchased at the cost of the destruction and deterioration of labor power itself.”

例如，马克思在《资本论》第一卷还提到过“个人生产力”，“这里的问题不仅是通过协作提高了个人生产力”；“在工场手工业中，总体工人从而资本在社会生产力上的富有，是以工人在个人生产力上的贫乏为条件的”。这两处个人生产力的实际含义有区别。第一处含义指的是个人的工作效率，因为马克思随后就讲，“在大多数生产劳动中，单是社会接触就会引起竞争心和特有的精力振奋，从而提高每个人的个人工作效率”。而第二处实际上指个人劳动力的全面性和灵活性，因为马克思还类似地说过，“在现代农业中，像在城市工业中一样，劳动生产力的提高和劳动量的增大是以劳动力本身的破坏和衰退为代价的”。

Furthermore, Marx also uses the expression “productivity of machinery”: “The productivity of a machine is measured by the degree to which it replaces human labor power”; “We have already seen that the productivity of a machine is inversely proportional to the size of the value component it transfers to the product.” Marx uses the term “productivity” to explain the efficiency of the “element” of machinery. However, behind the expression “productivity of machinery,” Marx may also have the intention of expressing “productive forces of machinery,” for example, in the *Grundrisse der Kritik der politischen Ökonomie (1857-1858)* there is the expression “machinery, i.e., dead productive forces.”

此外，马克思还使用过“机器的生产率”表述，“机器的生产率是由它代替人类劳动力的程度来衡量的”；“我们已经知道，机器的生产率同机器转移到制品上的价值组成部分的大小成反比”。马克思是用生产率的说法，来说明机器这种“要素”的效能大小。不过，在“机器的生产率”表述背后，马克思可能还有“机器的生产力”的表述意图，例如在《政治经济学批判(1857-1858年手稿）》中就有“机器即死的生产力”的表述。

Why does Marx use some expressions of “productive forces of the elements” to express the role played by a certain productive element in the production process? This may be because this mode of expression was relatively popular in academic circles at the time, and thus was accepted and used by Marx to a certain extent. Evidence for this is that Marx also directly quotes similar expressions from the works of others. For example, Marx quotes: “Knowledge is not a means for the worker to increase his own productive power for himself, but is almost everywhere opposed to the worker.” Here, “the worker’s own productive power” is consistent with the second formulation of Marx’s own “individual productive forces.” Another example is Marx’s quotation from factory inspectors’ reports and Ure’s works: “The great improvements in various machines have greatly increased their productivity”; “The productivity of his spinning machine was accurately calculated, and the remuneration for the labor accomplished by this machine decreased as the productivity of this machine increased.” These also contain the expression “productive forces of machinery.”

为什么马克思会使用一些“要素生产力”的表述，来表达某种生产要素在生产过程中发挥的作用？这可能是因为这种表述方式在当时学术界较为流行，因而也被马克思在一定程度上接受并使用了。这里的证据就是马克思也直接引用他人著作中的类似表述。例如马克思引用的“知识不是工人用来为自己增加自身的生产力的手段，却几乎到处都与工人相对立”，这里“工人自身的生产力”和马克思自己说的“个人生产力”第二种提法一致。还比如马克思引用的工厂视察员报告和尤尔著作，“各种机器的巨大改进，大大提高了它们的生产力”；“他的纺纱机的生产力是准确计算好了的，靠这种机器完成的劳动的报酬，随着这种机器的生产力的提高而减少”，也有“机器的生产力”的表述内容。

3. Clarification of the Misreading of “Productive Forces of the Elements”

3.对“要素生产力”误读的澄清

Regarding the basic connotation of the concept of productive forces, Marx, on the basis of critically inheriting the views of classical political economists such as Smith, Ricardo, and List, holds that productive forces are the productive power of labor (including living labor and objectified labor) combined with natural conditions to produce material wealth. At the same time, Marx was also influenced by the popular expressions of productive forces in academic circles at the time, and sometimes referred to the role played by a certain productive element in production as the productive forces of that element, thereby using expressions of “productive forces of the elements.” This usage exists not only in Volume I of *Capital* but also appears frequently in Marx’s economic manuscripts.

就生产力概念的基本内涵而言，马克思在批判性继承斯密、李嘉图和李斯特等古典政治经济学家观点的基础上,认为生产力是劳动（包括活劳动和物化劳动）与自然条件结合生产物质财富的生产性力量。同时，马克思也受到当时学术界流行的生产力表述影响，有时会将某种生产要素在生产中发挥的作用，称为某种要素的生产力，从而使用“要素生产力”表述。这一用法不仅存在于《资本论》第一卷，在马克思的经济学手稿中也有不少体现。

However, when Marx used these expressions of “productive forces of the elements,” he perhaps did not foresee a potential problem: if later readers interpret his concept of productive forces based on these expressions of “productive forces of the elements,” it may lead to deviations in understanding. For the concept of productive forces to which “productive forces of the elements” points is the “individual force” of various productive elements exerting their role in the production process; whereas the concept of productive forces in Marx’s original meaning should be the overall force of labor combined with natural conditions to produce material wealth. There is a clear difference between the two.

然而，马克思在使用这些“要素生产力”表述时，或许未预见到一个潜在问题：如果后来的读者根据这些“要素生产力”表述，来解读其生产力概念，就可能产生理解上的偏差。因为“要素生产力”所指向的生产力概念，是各类生产要素在生产过程中发挥作用的“个别力量”；而马克思本意上的生产力概念，则应该是劳动和自然条件结合生产物质财富的整体力量。二者存在明显差异。

Regrettably, however, some scholars have not thoroughly examined the context of Marx’s expression “productive forces of the elements” but have directly defined and argued for such “productive forces of the elements” concepts as “natural productive forces,” “land productive forces,” “spiritual productive forces,” “knowledge productive forces,” “scientific and technological productive forces,” and “data productive forces” on this basis. This practice has led to the continuous generalization of the concept of productive forces, as if every element or content related to production were “productive forces,” thereby blurring the theoretical connotation of the concept of productive forces and affecting people’s accurate understanding of its essential determination. Although some scholars have criticized certain “productive forces of the elements” concepts, to truly resolve this issue, it is still necessary to return to Marx’s basic theoretical stance on productive forces, clarify his core viewpoints, and thereby explain that Marx’s expression “productive forces of the elements” was more influenced by the popular discourse of the time, used to describe the role of certain production elements in the production process, rather than to propose a new concept of productive forces.

但遗憾的是，一些学者未深入考察马克思“要素生产力”表述的语境，而是直接据此界定并论证诸如“自然生产力”“土地生产力”“精神生产力”“知识生产力”“科技生产力”“数据生产力”等“要素生产力”概念。这种做法导致生产力概念被不断泛化，仿佛所有与生产相关的要素或内容都是“生产力”，从而模糊了生产力概念的理论内涵，影响了人们对其本质规定的准确理解。尽管已有学者对部分“要素生产力”概念提出批判，但要真正解决这一问题，仍需回到马克思关于生产力的基本理论立场，厘清其核心观点，并由此说明马克思的“要素生产力”表述，更多是受到当时流行话语方式的影响，用以描述某些生产要素在生产过程中的作用，而非提出新的生产力概念。

In the current research on new quality productive forces, this issue presents itself in a new form. Many scholars attempt to place as many elements as possible related to new quality productive forces into the “basket” of “new quality productive forces,” using these elements to explain the connotation and characteristics of new quality productive forces, which likewise leads to the generalization of the connotation of new quality productive forces.

在当前新质生产力的研究中，这一问题以新的形式呈现出来。不少学者试图将与新质生产力相关的尽可能多的要素，都放在“新质生产力”的“筐”中，以这些要素来说明新质生产力的内涵特征，这同样也导致新质生产力的内涵被泛化。

As an advanced qualitative state of productive forces, the connotation of new quality productive forces first conforms to Marx’s concept of productive forces. New quality productive forces “take the leap in laborers, means of labor, subjects of labor, and their optimized combination as their basic connotation,” [9]9 Xi Jinping, “Accelerating the Development of New Quality Productive Forces,” *Qiushi*, 2024, no. 6. [This is a reference to a speech by Xi Jinping, General Secretary of the CPC Central Committee, published in the Party’s theoretical journal.] where “laborers, means of labor, subjects of labor, and their optimized combination” refer to productive forces, essentially equivalent to the combination of living labor, objectified labor, and natural conditions. At the same time, the reason new quality productive forces are “new quality” lies in the “leap” of productive forces. This “leap” means that new quality productive forces have significant new characteristics compared to China’s past qualitative state of productive forces, including “innovation” and “green.” Therefore, it is reasonable to add attributives before “productive forces” that reflect their main characteristics, such as pointing out that new quality productive forces are innovative productive forces and green productive forces. Some scholars have also analyzed and pointed out that new quality productive forces have “intelligent” and “digital” characteristics, and thus are intelligent productive forces and digital productive forces, which also has some reasonableness.

新质生产力作为一种先进生产力质态，其内涵首先是符合马克思生产力概念的。新质生产力“以劳动者、劳动资料、劳动对象及其优化组合的跃升为基本内涵”，其中“劳动者、劳动资料、劳动对象及其优化组合”指生产力，本质上等同于活劳动、物化劳动与自然条件的结合。同时，新质生产力之所以“新质”，是由于生产力的“跃升”。这种“跃升”意味着新质生产力相较于我国过去的生产力质态有显著的新特点，包括“创新”“绿色”等。因此，在“生产力”前加上能反映其主要特点的定语，如指出新质生产力是创新生产力、绿色生产力，是合理的。还有学者分析指出新质生产力具有“智能化”和“数字化”特征，因而是智能生产力、数字生产力，也有合理性。

III. Marx’s Concept of Productive Forces Does Not Possess a Dual Connotation

三、马克思的生产力概念不存在双重内涵

Marx’s research on productive forces in his academic career underwent a shift from a primarily philosophical context to a primarily political-economic context, where the former corresponds mainly to works such as “Comments on Friedrich List,” “The German Ideology,” and “Marx to Pavel Vasilyevich Annenkov,” while the latter corresponds mainly to “Capital.” Based on the interpretation of these two types of literature, a view has long existed in academia that the connotation of Marx’s concept of productive forces is dual, being respectively philosophical and political-economic in meaning; or abstract and concrete in meaning. The French scholar Jean-Pierre Lefebvre may have been the first to propose this view, although he believed that the philosophical meaning of productive forces had been dissolved into the political-economic meaning. After Lefebvre’s view was translated and introduced into China, the “two meanings” view gained a certain degree of recognition and dissemination.

马克思在学术生涯中对生产力的研究，经历了以哲学为主要语境到以政治经济学为主要语境的转变，其中，前者对应的主要文献是《评李斯特》《德意志意识形态》《马克思致帕·瓦·安年科夫》等，后者对应的主要文献是《资本论》。基于对这两类文献的解读，学术界长期存在一种观点，认为马克思的生产力概念内涵是二重的，分别是哲学意义上的和政治经济学意义上的；或者说抽象意义上的和具体意义上的。法国学者让—皮埃尔·勒费弗尔可能最早提出了这种观点，不过他认为，生产力的哲学含义已经消解在政治经济学含义中了。在勒费弗尔的观点被译介到国内后，“两种含义”的观点得到了一定程度的认可和传播。

In fact, the connotation of Marx’s concept of productive forces is consistent, and there is no dual meaning. That is to say, apart from the connotation of the concept of productive forces derived mainly from Volume I of “Capital,” there is no other “philosophical,” “abstract,” or “general” connotation of the concept of productive forces. This is because Marx’s concept of productive forces is developmental; we cannot treat his understanding of productive forces in his early research as another connotation of the concept of productive forces and juxtapose it with the connotation of the concept of productive forces from his period of theoretical maturity. On the contrary, we should interpret Marx’s understanding of productive forces in his early research on the basis of the concept of productive forces in his mature works.

实际上，马克思的生产力概念内涵是一致的，并不存在二重含义。也就是说，在以《资本论》第一卷为主要依据得出的生产力概念内涵外，不存在另外的“哲学”“抽象”或“一般”的生产力概念内涵。因为马克思的生产力概念是发展的，我们不能将他在研究早期的生产力认识当作另一种生产力概念内涵，而与他理论成熟时期的生产力概念内涵并列。相反，我们应该在马克思思想成熟著作中的生产力概念基础上，去解读马克思研究早期的生产力认识。

For example, in “The German Ideology,” what is often used to interpret the connotation of the concept of productive forces is: “a certain mode of production, or industrial stage, is always combined with a certain mode of co-operation, or social stage, and this mode of co-operation is itself a ‘productive force’”; [10]10 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, *The German Ideology*, in *Marx/Engels Collected Works*, vol. 5 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1976), p. 43. in addition, “the co-operation of different individuals, determined by the division of labour, produces a social force, i.e., multiplied productive forces”; [11]11 Ibid., p. 53. and “the individuals—their forces are productive forces—are dispersed and opposed to one another, while, on the other hand, these forces are real forces only in the intercourse and association of these individuals.” [12]12 Ibid., p. 80. Combining these three passages, it can be seen that in the thinking of the young Marx, productive forces were both “the mode of co-operation itself,” “the social force produced by co-operation,” and “the force of individuals in their intercourse and association,” with descriptions of productive forces that were not identical. These descriptions of productive forces by the young Marx were influenced by Hess, who participated in the writing of “The German Ideology” during the same period, possessing a high degree of philosophical abstraction and not yet closely integrated with the concrete production process. As Marx’s research on political economy deepened, philosophical content such as “mode of co-operation” gradually concretized into productive labor, and he thus more specifically used “labor productive power” to express productive forces.

例如，在《德意志意识形态》中，常被用来解读生产力概念内涵的是，“一定的生产方式或一定的工业阶段始终是与一定的共同活动方式或一定的社会阶段联系着的，而这种共同活动方式本身就是‘生产力’”，此外还有，“受分工制约的不同个人的共同活动产生了一种社会力量，即成倍增长的生产力”；“各个人—他们的力量就是生产力—是分散的和彼此对立的，而另一方面，这些力量只有在这些个人的交往和相互联系中才是真正的力量”。结合这三段论述可以看出，在青年马克思的思考中，生产力既是“共同活动方式本身”，还是“共同活动产生的社会力量”，又是“人们在交往和相互联系中的力量”，对生产力的描述不尽相同。青年马克思对生产力的这些描述，受到了同期参与《德意志意识形态》写作的赫斯的影响，具有较高的哲学抽象性，尚未与具体生产过程紧密结合。随着马克思对政治经济学研究的深入，“共同活动方式”等哲学内容逐渐具化为生产劳动，他也就更具体地使用“劳动生产力”来表述生产力。

Some scholars argue that in “The German Ideology,” Marx referred to productive forces as “Productive forces,” while in “Capital,” productive forces are “Productive power,” and on this basis, they claim that Marx’s concept of productive forces has a dual meaning of philosophy and political economy. However, in Volume I of “Capital,” alongside “Productive power,” “Productive forces” also appears, and the two have the same meaning. For example, in “We have seen that the productive forces resulting from co-operation and division of labour cost capital nothing. They are natural forces of social labour,” [13]13 Karl Marx, *Capital*, vol. 1, trans. Ben Fowkes (London: Penguin, 1990), p. 451. the English version uses “productive forces” for “生产力.” And in another passage concerning the same “productive forces,” “the special productive power of the combined working day is the social productive power of labour, or the productive power of social labour. This productive power arises from co-operation itself,” [14]14 Ibid., p. 447. the English version uses “productive power” for “生产力.” This shows that “Productive forces” and “Productive power” express the same meaning, and one cannot conclude from this that Marx’s concept of productive forces has a dual meaning.

有学者认为，在《德意志意识形态》中，马克思说的生产力是“Productive forces”；而在《资本论》中，生产力是“Productive power”,据此来看马克思的生产力概念有哲学与政治经济学的双重含义。但在《资本论》第一卷中，在“Productive power”之外，也出现了“Productive forces”,且二者含义一致。例如，在“我们已经知道，由协作和分工产生的生产力，不费资本分文。它是社会劳动的自然力”，英文版中的“生产力”就是“Productive forces”。而在涉及同一“生产力”的另一处论述，“结合工作日的特殊生产力都是社会的劳动生产力或社会劳动的生产力。这种生产力是由协作本身产生的”，英文版中的“生产力”又是“Productive power”。这说明“Productive forces”和“Productive power”表达的含义是相同的，不能据此得出马克思生产力概念存在双重含义的结论。

Furthermore, if Marx had indeed endowed productive forces with two different conceptual connotations, he would have clearly distinguished them in his mature theoretical works. But in Volume I of “Capital,” when Marx frequently uses expressions such as “labor productive power” and “social labor productive power” in the context of political economy, his expressions of productive forces in the context of historical materialism remain consistent with this. For example, Marx states, “the conditions of existence of these forms are: a low level of development of the productive power of labour, and correspondingly narrow relations between human beings and with nature in the process of material life”; [15]15 Ibid., p. 175. and again, “in this early cultural stage, the number of those who live on the labour of others is insignificant compared with the number of direct producers. With the advance of the social productive power of labour, this portion increases absolutely and relatively.” [16]16 Ibid., p. 669. These passages also indicate that Marx did not consider the connotation of the concept of productive forces to be dual. In historical materialism and political economy, the connotation of his concept of productive forces is consistent.

此外，如果马克思确实赋予生产力两种不同的概念内涵，他会在理论成熟著作中加以明确区分。但在《资本论》第一卷中，当马克思在政治经济学语境中频繁使用“劳动生产力”和“社会劳动生产力”等表述时，他在唯物史观语境中的生产力表述也与此保持了一致。例如，马克思讲，“它们存在的条件是：劳动生产力处于低级发展阶段，与此相应，人们在物质生活生产过程内部的关系，即他们彼此之间以及他们同自然之间的关系是很狭隘的”；又讲，“在这个文化初期，社会上依靠他人劳动来生活的那部分人的数量，同直接生产者的数量相比，是微不足道的。随着社会劳动生产力的增进，这部分人也就绝对地和相对地增大起来”。这些论述也表明，马克思不认为生产力概念内涵是二重的。在唯物史观和政治经济学中，他的生产力概念内涵是一致的。

The reason people believe that the connotation of Marx’s concept of productive forces differs between historical materialism and political economy is that they observe a certain disparity in the content to which the concept refers in these two fields. This view is correct, but this disparity is manifested as a difference in the scope of reference of productive forces, not a difference in connotation. In historical materialism, productive forces usually refer to the aggregate of productive power displayed in all production processes; whereas in political economy, when analyzing a specific production process, productive forces refer to the productive power displayed in that particular process. The distinction between the two is the distinction between the whole and the individual, not a distinction between abstract and concrete meanings.

人们之所以认为马克思的生产力概念内涵有唯物史观和政治经济学之分，是因为观察到在这两个领域，生产力概念所指的内容存在一定差别。这种看法是正确的，但这种差别体现为生产力指代范围的不同，而非内涵的不同。在唯物史观中，生产力通常指所有生产过程中展现的生产力量的集合；而在政治经济学中，在分析具体生产过程时，生产力指该生产过程中展现的生产力量。二者的区别是总体与个体的区别，而非抽象与具体的含义区别。

Furthermore, in Marx’s concept of productive forces, the scope of reference of productive forces is flexible. Marx also proposed “the productive forces of a branch of industry” — “machine production, compared with manufacture, gives an incomparably greater development to the social division of labour, because it causes an immense increase in the productive forces of the branch of industry it has seized” — as well as the productive forces in the field of large-scale industry, “the immense increase in the productive forces in the field of large-scale industry.” This indicates that in Marx’s work, the scope of reference of productive forces can be delimited according to the specific context. This also enlightens later researchers that they can study the laws related to productive forces more concretely at different levels of the scope of reference of productive forces. For example, in the current research on new quality productive forces, one can concretely unfold new quality productive forces at different levels, studying and revealing the laws of formation and development of new quality productive forces from the micro, meso, and macro levels, such as the enterprise, industry, and modern industrial system, thereby enriching and concretizing the content of the theory of new quality productive forces.

此外，在马克思的生产力概念中，生产力的指代范围是灵活的。马克思还提出过“行业的生产力”，“机器生产同工场手工业相比使社会分工获得无比广阔的发展，因为它使它所占领的行业的生产力得到无比巨大的增长”，以及大工业领域的生产力，“大工业领域内生产力的极度提高”。这表明在马克思那里，生产力的指代范围可以根据具体情境而划定。这也启示后来的研究者，可以在生产力的不同指代范围层次上，更具体地研究生产力相关规律。例如，在当前新质生产力研究中，就可以将新质生产力具体地展开到不同层次上，从企业、产业、现代化产业体系等不同范围层次，研究揭示新质生产力从微观、中观到宏观的形成和发展规律，从而使新质生产力理论的内容更加丰富和具体。

IV. Science and Technology in Marx’s Concept of Productive Forces

四、马克思生产力概念中的科学和技术

When discussing Marx’s concept of productive forces, in addition to the general connotation, people further elucidate its specific connotation by proposing and analyzing the constituent elements of productive forces; these contents are also components of Marx’s concept of productive forces. We first discuss why “labour” should be used to replace “labourer” among the factors of production, and then, on this basis, explore how to define science and technology within productive forces.

在讨论马克思的生产力概念时，除了一般内涵外，人们还通过提出和分析生产力的构成要素，进一步阐明其具体内涵，这些内容也是马克思生产力概念的组成部分。我们首先讨论在生产要素中为何要用“劳动”替代“劳动者”，继而在此基础上探讨如何界定生产力中的科学和技术。

1. “Labour” among the Constituent Elements of Productive Forces

1.生产力构成要素中的“劳动”

Regarding the constituent elements of productive forces, Marx himself did not directly discuss them; rather, they were proposed by later generations to better elucidate the concept of productive forces, but this also sparked a long-standing debate. The well-known two-factor theory of productive forces, namely the labourer and the means of labour, was, after textual research, first proposed by Bukharin and was accepted and promoted by Stalin. The three-factor theory of productive forces, which adds the object of labour to the two-factor theory, was later accepted by more people. It was proposed by Chinese scholar Wang Xuewen to oppose Stalin’s two-factor view of productive forces. His basis was that “the simple elements of the labour process are: purposeful activity or labour itself, the object of labour, and the instruments of labour.” [17]17 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, Chapter 5, Section 1. The full quotation is: “The simple elements of the labour process are: (1) purposeful activity, that is, labour itself; (2) the object on which that labour is performed; and (3) the instruments of that labour.”

关于生产力的构成要素，马克思本人并未直接讨论，而是后人为了更好地阐明生产力概念而提出的，但也由此引发了长期争论。人们熟知的生产力二要素，即劳动者和劳动资料，经过考证，最早由布哈林提出，并被斯大林接受和发扬。后来被更多人接受的生产力三要素，即在二要素的基础上增加劳动对象，是我国学者王学文为了反对斯大林的生产力二要素观点而提出的，他的依据是，“劳动过程的简单要素是：有目的的活动或劳动本身，劳动对象和劳动资料”。

The three-factor theory of productive forces contains a potential premise, namely that productive forces are the productive forces displayed in the labour process. Only under this premise can the elements of productive forces be consistent with the elements of the labour process. This premise itself is reasonable, but the first element of the labour process as Marx described it is “purposeful activity or labour itself” (since “labour” here is juxtaposed with the means of production, it refers only to living labour), whereas in the three-factor view of productive forces, this element is replaced by “labourer.” It is currently unclear how this transformation occurred, but it does not conform to Marx’s original meaning, because “purposeful activity or labour itself” is not equivalent to “labourer.” Moreover, Marx consistently held that productive forces are the productive forces of the labourer (under certain conditions, productive forces manifest as the productive forces of capital). Since productive forces belong to the labourer, the labourer should not be regarded as an element of productive forces; otherwise, a logical contradiction would arise.

生产力三要素说法包含了一个潜在前提，即生产力是劳动过程展现的生产力。只有在这一前提下，生产力要素才能与劳动过程要素相一致。这个前提本身是合理的，但马克思说的劳动过程的第一个要素是“有目的的活动或劳动本身”（由于此处的“劳动”与生产资料并列，因而仅指活劳动），而在生产力三要素的观点中，这一要素却被替换为“劳动者”。目前尚不清楚这种变形是如何发生的，但这种变形不符合马克思原意，因为“有目的的活动或劳动本身”并不等于“劳动者”。而且马克思一贯认为，生产力是劳动者的生产力（在一定条件下，生产力表现为资本的生产力）。既然生产力归属于劳动者，那么劳动者就不应被视为生产力的要素，否则将产生逻辑上的矛盾。

G. A. Cohen once pointed out, “It is a person’s labour-power, not the person himself, which is a productive force. Production is a conscious activity in which men use productive forces, and they use not themselves but their powers and skills.” [18]18 G. A. Cohen, *Karl Marx’s Theory of History: A Defence* (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978), p. 43. According to Cohen’s view, treating “labour-power” rather than “labourer” as an element of productive forces has a certain rationality, but this still differs from the “labour” element. In fact, we can understand the position of “labour-power” based on Marx’s exposition: “We left him, where he had already purchased in the commodity market all the factors necessary for the labour process: the material factors and the personal factor, that is, the means of production and labour-power.” [19]19 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, Chapter 6, Section 1. According to Marx’s exposition, what is required to form productive forces is labour-power and the means of production, while the elements of productive forces themselves are labour itself (or the use of labour-power) and the means of production.

杰拉德·艾伦·科恩曾指出，“是人的劳动能力，而不是人本身，才是生产力。生产是一种人于其中使用生产力的有意识的活动，他们不是使用他们自己，而是使用他们的力量和技能”。依照科恩的观点，将“劳动力”而非“劳动者”视作生产力要素，具有一定的合理性，但这与“劳动”要素仍存在区别。事实上，我们可以根据马克思的论述，“我们离开他时，他已经在商品市场上购买了劳动过程所需要的一切因素：物的因素和人的因素，即生产资料和劳动力”，来理解“劳动力”的位置。根据马克思的论述，形成生产力所需的是劳动力和生产资料，而生产力自身的要素是劳动本身（或劳动力的使用）和生产资料。

Since the three-factor view of productive forces became popular, criticism of this view has persisted, because the three-factor theory fails to fully encompass all the contents of productive forces, especially science and technology. As developing new quality productive forces has become an important strategic task for China to promote high-quality economic development, accurately defining science and technology within Marx’s concept of productive forces is theoretically particularly important.

自生产力三要素观点流行以来，围绕该观点的批评始终存在，原因是三要素说未能完全涵盖生产力的所有内容，尤其是科学和技术。随着发展新质生产力成为我国推动经济高质量发展的重要战略任务，准确界定马克思生产力概念中的科学与技术，在理论上显得尤为重要。

2. The Problem with the “Permeative Element” Thesis

2.“渗透性要素”说法的问题

The current prevalent method for explaining science and technology within the concept of productive forces is to interpret science and technology as “permeative elements” that “permeate” into the traditional factors of production. However, following the logic of “permeation,” the premise for the factors of production, as the objects of “permeation,” to be capable of being “permeated” is that they already existed as factors of production before the “permeation.” Just as the premise for water to “permeate” paper is that the paper already existed before being “permeated.” Yet, if the “permeative” science and technology are removed, the factors of production become unimaginable. Because anything serving as a factor of production in the labour process is necessarily inseparable from technology; and those factors of production involving science are also difficult to exist independently of science. Therefore, starting from the basic logic of “permeation,” science and technology should not be regarded as “permeative elements.”

目前解释生产力概念中科学和技术的流行办法，是将科学和技术解释为“渗透性要素”，“渗透”进传统生产要素中。不过，按照“渗透”的逻辑，作为被“渗透”对象的生产要素，能被“渗透”的前提是，在“渗透”之前就已经作为生产要素存在。就像水“渗透”纸的前提是，在被“渗透”以前纸就已经存在。然而，如果剔除“渗透性”的科学和技术，生产要素将变得难以想象。因为任何事物作为劳动过程中的生产要素，必然与技术密不可分；而那些涉及科学的生产要素，也难以脱离科学而独立存在。因此，从“渗透”的基本逻辑出发，科学和技术不应被视为“渗透性要素”。

From the perspective of the actual labour process, the claim that science and technology are “permeative elements” is also far-fetched, because it is difficult to observe the actual process of science and technology elements “permeating” into productive forces. If saying that science and technology “permeate” into the various factors of productive forces indicates the application of science and the replacement of technology, then this process is usually not achieved by new scientific or technological information “permeating” into the original factors of production, but generally by updating the factors of production (especially the means of labour), thereby forming a new optimized combination of factors of production. The only relatively plausible case for the “permeation” thesis might be when, with other factors unchanged, labourers develop their own labour-power by receiving new scientific knowledge, thereby raising the level of production technology. However, this special case is insufficient to support the claim that all science and technology are regarded as “permeative” elements. In short, describing science and technology as “permeative elements” outside the traditional factors of production is neither logical nor easily seen as a reasonable abstraction of reality.

从现实劳动过程来看，将科学和技术视为“渗透性要素”的说法也很牵强，因为很难观察到科学和技术要素“渗透”进生产力的实际过程。如果说科学和技术“渗透”进生产力诸要素表示科学的应用和技术的更替，那么这个过程往往不是通过新的科学或技术信息“渗透”进原有的生产要素来实现的，而一般是通过更新生产要素（尤其是劳动资料），进而形成新的生产要素优化组合来实现的。“渗透”说法唯一较为合理的情形，或许是在其他要素不变时，劳动者通过接受新的科学知识发展自己的劳动力，从而提升生产技术水平。但是，这种特殊情况不足以支撑起将所有科学和技术视作“渗透性”要素的说法。总之，把科学和技术描述成在传统生产要素以外的“渗透性”要素，既不合逻辑，也难以被看作是对现实的合理抽象。

The fundamental problem with treating science and technology as “permeative elements” is that the proponents believe all the content of productive forces can be reduced to “elements” in material form; or, in other words, they believe that productive forces have no content other than “elements.” But this view is also untenable. According to the perspective of systems theory, the function of realizing product production depends not only on the various factors of production themselves but also on the specific structure constituted by these factors. These “structures” themselves are also components of productive forces; they impose specific determinations on the factors of production. At the same time, the formation of this specific structure further influences the factors of production, determining the specific quantity, nature, etc., of each factor. Although these determinations concerning structure, quantity, and nature do not constitute new factors of production, they are equally important contents of productive forces. Therefore, rather than regarding science and technology as “new elements,” it is better to understand their role in productive forces from the perspective of “determinations of existing elements.”

把科学和技术当作“渗透性要素”的根本问题在于，提出者认为生产力的全部内容都可以还原为实体形式的“要素”；或者说，认为生产力除了“要素”，别无其他内容。但这一观点也不成立。按照系统论的观点，实现产品生产的功能不仅依赖于各类生产要素本身，还取决于这些要素所构成的特定结构。这些“结构”本身也是生产力的组成部分，它们对生产要素施加了特殊的规定。同时，这种特定结构的形成又进一步影响生产要素，决定了各要素的具体数量、性质等。这些关于结构、数量和性质的规定，虽然并不构成新的生产要素，但同样是生产力的重要内容。因此，与其将科学与技术视为“新的要素”，不如从“既有要素的规定”这一角度来理解它们在生产力中的作用。

3. How to Define Technology within Productive Forces

3.如何界定生产力中的技术

To make the discussion more rigorous, we temporarily set science aside and first explore how to define technology within the productive forces. It should be noted that the terms “craft” (工艺) and “technology” (技术) as frequently used by Marx are essentially identical in meaning. Wang Bolu’s research indicates that in Western linguistic contexts such as English, German, and Russian, “technology” (technique, technik, техника) and “technological science” (technology, technologie, технология) are synonyms. He further points out a slight difference in their meanings: “technology” primarily refers to systematized, integrated sets of techniques, while “technique” refers to specific operational methods. However, in most contexts, this subtle distinction does not have a substantive impact. For example, Marx speaks both of the application of science in craft (工艺) and the application of science in technology (技术).

为了使讨论更为严谨，我们暂时将科学置于一旁，先探讨如何界定生产力中的技术。需要说明的是，马克思经常使用的“工艺”和“技术”含义基本一致。王伯鲁研究指出，在英、德、俄等西方语境中，技术(technique、technik、техника)与工艺学(technology、technologie、технология)是同义词。他进一步指出，二者含义略有差别：“technology”主要指体系化的成套技术，“technique”指操作专门方法等。不过，在多数语境下，这一细微差别并不会产生实质性影响。例如马克思既说科学在工艺上的应用，又说科学在技术上的应用。

In Marx’s theory, the “technical composition of capital” provides an important entry point for defining technology. Marx argues that the technical composition of capital refers to the proportional relationship between the quantity of means of production and the quantity of labor. However, the technological content reflected by this single proportional relationship is actually a simplification of real production technology. In actual production, there are many qualitative differences within the means of production, and the same applies to labor. The proportional relationships among various factors of production arising from these qualitative differences should also be considered part of the content of technology. Therefore, we can further argue that technology encompasses the overall structural relationships among the various factors of production in the labor process. At the same time, the determination of this overall structural relationship by technology also entails determinations of the attributes and quantities of each factor of production themselves. Hence, within the productive forces, technology includes two aspects: first, the determination of the overall mode of combination of the various factors of production, and second, the determination of the attributes and quantities of each factor of production.

在马克思的理论中，“资本的技术构成”为我们界定技术提供了一个重要切入点。马克思认为，资本的技术构成是指生产资料量与劳动量的比例关系。然而，由这种单一比例关系所反映的技术内容，实际上是对现实生产技术的一种简化。因为在实际生产中，生产资料内部存在许多质的差别，劳动内部也是一样。这些质的差别所带来的各类生产要素间的比例关系，也应被视为技术的内容。因此，我们可以进一步认为，技术涵盖了劳动过程中的各类生产要素之间的整体结构关系。同时，技术对这种整体结构关系的规定，又引起对各类生产要素自身属性和数量的规定。因此，在生产力中，技术包括两个方面的内容：一是对各类生产要素的整体结合方式的规定，二是对各类生产要素属性和数量的规定。

Therefore, technology belongs to the productive forces and is a component of them. But technology is not a new “factor” existing outside the existing factors of production; rather, it is a specific determination of those existing factors. Changes in the factors of production within the productive forces often imply changes in technology. Conversely, when technology changes, it requires other factors of production to change in accordance with the structural connections among them. For example, when machinery is put into use, production technology changes accordingly, and the division-of-labor form of organization in manufacture must be transformed into the specific form of division and cooperation of labor characteristic of large-scale machine industry.

因此，技术属于生产力，是生产力的组成部分。但技术不是某种既有生产要素之外的新“要素”，而是对既有生产要素的特殊规定。生产力中的生产要素发生变化，往往意味着技术的变化。而技术发生变化，又要求其他生产要素根据生产要素间的结构联系而变化。例如，当机器被投入使用后，生产技术随之发生改变，工场手工业的分工劳动组织形式，就必须转变为机器大工业特有的分工与协作劳动组织形式。

4. How to Define Science within the Productive Forces

4.如何界定生产力中的科学

Having clearly defined technology within the productive forces, the next task is to discuss how to define science within the productive forces. Currently, many scholars, citing Marx’s discussion in his manuscripts — “Capital presupposes a given historical development of the productive forces, and among these productive forces is also science” — argue that science is a productive force. However, in the context of this passage, Marx does not specifically explain why science is included in the productive forces. If one concludes that science is a productive force solely on the basis of this manuscript statement, without further analyzing and clarifying its internal logic, this conclusion clearly lacks persuasiveness.

在明确界定生产力中的技术后，接下来需要讨论如何界定生产力中的科学。目前，不少学者依据马克思手稿中的论述，“资本是以生产力的一定的现有的历史发展为前提的—在这些生产力中也包括科学”，来说明科学是生产力。然而，在该论述的上下文，马克思并未具体阐明为什么生产力中包括科学。如果仅凭马克思的这一手稿论述，就断定生产力中包括科学，而不进一步分析明确其内在逻辑，这一结论显然缺乏说服力。

In Volume I of *Capital*, there are two other passages that can easily be interpreted as meaning science is a productive force: “Manufacture mutilates the worker, turning him into a detail worker, while large-scale industry separates science as an independent productive capacity from labor and forces it to serve capital”; and “All means for the development of production transform themselves into means of domination over and exploitation of the producers; they mutilate the worker into a fragment of a human being, degrade him to the level of an appendage of a machine, and estrange from him the intellectual potentialities of the labor process in proportion to the extent to which science is incorporated into it as an independent force.”

在《资本论》第一卷，还有两段话容易被解读为科学是生产力，“工场手工业使工人畸形发展，变成局部工人，大工业则把科学作为一种独立的生产能力与劳动分离开来，并迫使科学为资本服务”；“一切发展生产的手段都转变为统治和剥削生产者的手段，都使工人畸形发展，成为局部的人，把工人贬低为机器的附属品，并且随着科学作为独立的力量被并入劳动过程而使劳动过程的智力与工人相异化”。

How should these two passages be understood? First, when Marx speaks here of science as an independent productive capacity or force, he means its independence relative to the worker’s labor or the workers themselves; this should not be interpreted as science being an independent productive force. As analyzed earlier, productive forces refer to the overall force for producing material wealth, and science alone cannot directly produce any material wealth. Second, does the incorporation of science as a productive capacity or force into the labor process mean that science is a productive force? This question still requires further examination.

这两段话该如何理解？首先，马克思这里讲的科学作为独立的生产能力或力量，是指科学相对于工人劳动或工人的独立性，而不应将其解读为科学是一种独立的生产力。前文已经分析过，生产力是指生产物质财富的整体性力量，而仅凭科学无法直接生产任何物质财富。其次，科学作为生产能力或力量被并入劳动过程，是否能说明科学是生产力？这个问题仍需进一步考察。

In Volume I of *Capital*, Marx explains how science is incorporated into the labor process. He states: “To consume natural forces in production, man requires ‘a creation of his own hands.’ To utilize the power of water, he needs a waterwheel; to utilize the pressure of steam, he needs a steam engine. The same applies to the utilization of natural forces as to the utilization of science. Once the law of the deflection of a magnetic needle in the field of an electric current, or the law of the magnetization of iron by an electric current passing around it, has been discovered, it costs nothing. But to utilize these laws in, say, telegraphy, extremely expensive and complicated equipment is required.” Marx’s meaning here is that to utilize science in production, science must be applied technologically. For science to be applied technologically, corresponding factors of production are needed.

在《资本论》第一卷中，马克思阐明了科学是如何被并入劳动过程的。他指出，“人要在生产上消费自然力，就需要一种‘人的手的创造物’。要利用水的动力，就要有水车，要利用蒸汽的压力，就要有蒸汽机。利用自然力是如此，利用科学也是如此。电流作用范围内的磁针偏离规律，或电流绕铁通过而使铁磁化的规律一经发现，就不费分文了。但是要在电报等方面利用这些规律，就需要有极昂贵的和复杂的设备”。马克思在此处的意思是，若要在生产中利用科学，就要让科学在技术上实现应用。科学在技术上实现应用，需要有相应的生产要素。

According to Marx’s exposition, the incorporation of science into the labor process is essentially the technological application of science. Only when science is technologically applied and becomes part of technology does this “applied science” become part of the productive forces; science itself cannot be directly identified as a productive force. Although the existence of science provides the precondition for its technological application, science itself is not directly equivalent to the application of science. Therefore, only “applied science” constitutes the content of the productive forces, while science itself is merely a precondition for the development of the productive forces and does not directly become a productive force.

根据马克思的论述，科学被并入劳动过程，本质上是指科学在技术上的应用。只有科学在技术上实现应用，成为技术的一部分，这部分“被应用的科学”才能成为生产力的一部分，而科学本身不能直接被认定为生产力。尽管科学的存在为其应用于技术提供了前提，但科学本身不直接等同于科学的应用。因此，只有“被应用的科学”才构成生产力的内容，而科学本身仅是生产力发展的前提，并不直接成为生产力。

In Volume I of *Capital*, Marx repeatedly discusses science in the production process, emphasizing “the application of science.” Examples include: “The means of labor, in the form of machinery, necessitates the substitution of natural forces for human force, and the conscious application of natural science, instead of rules of thumb derived from experience”; and “The principle of machine production is to decompose the production process into its constituent stages, and to apply mechanics, chemistry, etc., in short, the natural sciences, to solve the problems arising from this.” There are many such passages in *Capital*. This demonstrates that Marx placed great importance on “the application of science” in production.

马克思在《资本论》第一卷中多次论述生产过程中的科学，强调的都是“科学的应用”，如“劳动资料取得机器这种物质存在方式，要求以自然力来代替人力，以自觉应用自然科学来代替从经验中得出的成规”；“机器生产的原则是把生产过程分解为各个组成阶段，并且应用力学、化学等等，总之应用自然科学来解决由此产生的问题”，此类论述在《资本论》中还有不少。这说明马克思对生产中“科学的应用”给予了高度重视。

The reason Marx placed such great importance on “the application of science” in his exposition is not only that this was the objective reality of large-scale machine industry, but also because, through his research, he discovered that the development of science and the development of productive forces in different countries were not synchronized, and the fundamental reason lay in the constraints exerted by relations of production on the application of science. He pointed out: “In the 18th century, the progress and discoveries in mathematics, mechanics, and chemistry reached almost the same level in England, France, Sweden, and Germany. The same was true of inventions, for example in France. Yet their capitalist application at that time occurred only in England, because only there had economic relations developed to the point where capital could make use of the progress of science. (At that time, especially England’s agricultural relations and colonies played a decisive role.)” This indicates that Marx had keenly realized that, from the development of science itself to the realization of its application and the development of productive forces, specific economic conditions were necessary. Science itself and the application of science cannot be simply equated. Regarding this issue, foreign innovation economists Stephen J. Kline and Nathan Rosenberg, as well as Chinese scholar Lu Feng, have conducted in-depth analyses, which this article will not repeat.

马克思之所以在论述中高度重视“科学的应用”，不仅因为这本身就是机器大工业生产的客观现实，而且还在于他通过研究发现，不同国家的科学发展与生产力发展并不同步，其根本原因在于生产关系对科学应用的制约。他指出：“18世纪，数学、力学、化学领域的进步和发现，无论在英国、法国、瑞典、德国，几乎都达到了相同的程度。发明也是如此，例如在法国就是这样。然而，在当时它们的资本主义应用却只发生在英国，因为只有在那里，经济关系才发展到使资本有可能利用科学进步的程度。（当时，特别是英国的农业关系和殖民地起了决定性的作用。）”这表明，马克思已经敏锐地意识到，从科学本身的发展，到科学应用的实现以及生产力的发展，必须具备特定的经济条件。科学本身与科学的应用不能简单等同。关于这一问题，国外创新经济学家斯蒂芬·杰伊·克莱恩和内森·罗森伯格,以及中国学者路风均有深入分析，本文不再赘述。

Clarifying Marx’s original intention regarding “the application of science” within the productive forces helps correct a long-standing misreading. This misreading overlooks Marx’s consistent emphasis on “the application of science,” seizes only on isolated statements by Marx, and consequently regards all science indiscriminately as a productive force, thereby directly equating the development of science with the development of productive forces. But Marx’s original intention is that the productive forces include only “applied science”; the development of science itself is merely a precondition for the development of the productive forces and cannot be directly equated with the development of the productive forces.

厘清马克思关于生产力中“科学的应用”的本意，有助于纠正一种长期存在的误读。这种误读忽视了马克思对“科学的应用”的一贯强调，只抓住马克思的个别论述，便将一切科学一概视为生产力，进而将发展科学直接等同于发展生产力。但马克思的本意是，生产力只包括“被应用的科学”，科学本身的发展只是生产力发展的前提，而不能直接等同于生产力的发展。

Emphasizing that only “applied science” belongs to the productive forces, rather than treating all science indiscriminately as productive forces, is not only a matter of accurately grasping Marx’s original meaning but also a theoretical-cognitive issue of great significance for policy formulation and implementation. In the past period in our country, there existed a problem of “two separate skins between scientific research and the economy”; the cognitive root of this problem likely lies in regarding all science as productive forces without distinction, thereby placing excessive emphasis on the development of science itself while relatively neglecting the fact that “the application of science” is the key factor in the development of productive forces.

强调只有“被应用的科学”属于生产力，而非笼统地将一切科学视为生产力，这不仅关乎对马克思原意的准确把握，更是一个对政策制定与实施具有重要意义的理论认知问题。我国在过去一段时期存在“科研—经济两张皮”问题，其认识根源很可能在于将所有科学一概视为生产力，因而过于侧重科学本身的发展，而相对忽视了“科学的应用”才是生产力发展的关键因素。

At present, an important pathway for achieving high-quality development in our country is the development of new quality productive forces. However, if we do not clarify how “science” within the productive forces is to be understood, and continue to treat the development of science itself indiscriminately as the development of new quality productive forces, without placing the application of science in production in a key position, it will be difficult to formulate effective science and technology policies to promote the development of new quality productive forces. Instead, this may lead to a disconnection between scientific development and the actual developmental needs of new quality productive forces. In this regard, we should earnestly study and implement General Secretary Xi Jinping’s important discourses on developing new quality productive forces, focus scientific and technological innovation on national strategies and the real needs of economic and social development, and “promptly apply the achievements of scientific and technological innovation to specific industries and industrial chains.” [20]20 Xi Jinping, “

当前，我国实现高质量发展的重要途径是发展新质生产力。然而，如果不厘清生产力中的“科学”该如何理解，仍笼统地将科学本身的发展视为新质生产力的发展，而不把科学如何在生产中应用放在关键位置，就难以制定有效的科技政策来推动新质生产力发展，反而可能导致科学发展与新质生产力实际发展需求之间的脱节。对此，我们应认真学习和贯彻习近平总书记关于发展新质生产力的重要论述，在科技创新上聚焦国家战略和经济社会发展现实需要，并“及时将科技创新成果应用到具体产业和产业链上”。

V. Conclusion

五、总结

How to accurately understand Marx’s concept of productive forces is a foundational issue in the study of productive forces. For a long time, in order to better interpret this concept, scholars have proposed many new viewpoints. These viewpoints have enriched people’s understanding, but they have also sparked considerable controversy and misreading. This is difficult to avoid in theoretical research, but if it lacks necessary reflection and clarification, it will affect the in-depth advancement of the study of productive forces.

如何准确理解马克思的生产力概念，是生产力研究中的基础性问题。长期以来，为了更好地解读这一概念，学者们提出了许多新观点。这些观点丰富了人们的认识，但也引发了不少争议与误读。这在理论研究中难以避免，但若缺乏必要的反思与澄清，就会影响生产力研究的深入推进。

This issue is particularly prominent in the study of new quality productive forces. Although there are currently many theoretical research results on new quality productive forces, the content with scholarly characteristics is relatively scarce. A close reading of the literature reveals that an important reason for this problem is that many studies focus on the intuitive interpretation of speeches and policies, while relatively few start from clarifying the connotation of Marx’s concept of productive forces to “construct” new categories and new laws. This leads to ambiguity in the expressions related to new quality productive forces in many works, and the theoretical argumentation also lacks the necessary logical rigor. In view of this, this article hopes to provide a reference for the development of the theory of productive forces, especially the scholarly development of new quality productive forces, by clarifying several controversies and misreadings regarding Marx’s concept of productive forces.

这一问题在新质生产力研究中尤为突出。当前新质生产力的理论研究成果虽多，但具备学理性特征的内容相对较少。细读文献可发现，造成这一问题的重要原因在于，不少研究侧重于对讲话和政策的直观解读，而较少从厘清马克思生产力概念内涵出发，对新范畴和新规律进行“构建”。由此导致不少文献中新质生产力的相关表述存在模糊性，理论论证也缺乏应有的逻辑严密性。鉴于此，本文期望通过澄清关于马克思生产力概念的若干争议与误读，为生产力理论特别是新质生产力学理化的发展提供借鉴。

First, to accurately understand Marx’s concept of productive forces, one should take the first volume of *Capital*, from the mature period of Marx’s thought, as the primary basis. The basic connotation of the concept of productive forces that conforms to Marx’s original meaning is the overall productive power exerted by the combination of living labor, objectified labor, and natural conditions. In addition, when making certain elaborations, Marx was influenced by the popular terminology of the academic circles at the time and used the expression “factor productive forces.” However, this expression cannot be regarded as proposing a new concept of productive forces; otherwise, it would lead to multiple interpretations of the connotation of Marx’s concept of productive forces, thereby blurring the connotation of productive forces. After clarifying the basic connotation of Marx’s concept of productive forces, a more specific scholarly analysis of the connotation of new quality productive forces can be conducted on this basis, and this can be taken as the starting point for constructing the theory of new quality productive forces.

首先，准确理解马克思的生产力概念，应以马克思思想成熟期的《资本论》第一卷为首要依据。符合马克思原意的生产力概念基本内涵，是活劳动、物化劳动和自然条件结合后发挥的整体性生产力量。此外，马克思在进行一些阐述时，受到当时学界流行用语的影响，使用了“要素生产力”的表述。然而，这种表述不能被视为提出了新的生产力概念，否则将导致对马克思生产力概念内涵的多重解读，从而使生产力内涵模糊不清。在厘清马克思的生产力概念基本内涵后，可以在此基础上对新质生产力的内涵进行更具体的学理分析，并将其作为新质生产力理论构建的起点。

Second, the view that Marx’s concept of productive forces “has two meanings, philosophical and political-economic” is incorrect. Currently, many interpretations and arguments regarding new quality productive forces are based on the “philosophical meaning,” which leads to new quality productive forces being described only as three types of new production factors at an abstract level and their optimized combination, while in-depth explanations of new quality productive forces in connection with specific production processes are relatively lacking. This kind of interpretation has relatively limited guiding significance for the development of new quality productive forces. At the same time, some evaluation indicator systems for new quality productive forces are also constructed based on this interpretation. Whether these indicator systems, which are divorced from the understanding of actual production processes, can accurately reflect the development status of new quality productive forces is also questionable. In fact, productive forces are always the productive forces manifested in specific production processes; the formation and development of new quality productive forces should be studied in depth starting from the concrete labor processes at different levels, such as enterprises, industries, and industrial systems.

其次，那种认为马克思的生产力概念“具有哲学和政治经济学两种含义”的观点是不正确的。当前，许多对新质生产力的解读论证是基于“哲学含义”的，这导致新质生产力仅被描述为抽象层面的三类新生产要素及其优化组合，而较少结合具体的生产过程对新质生产力进行深入阐释。这种解读对新质生产力发展的指导意义比较有限。同时，一些新质生产力评价指标体系也是基于这种解读构建的，这些脱离对现实生产过程理解的指标体系，能否准确地反映新质生产力发展状况，也存在疑问。实际上，生产力始终是具体生产过程展现的生产力，应从企业、产业、产业体系等不同层面的具体劳动过程出发，深入研究新质生产力的形成与发展。

Finally, regarding the issue of defining science and technology within the productive forces. This issue should not be repeatedly discussed at the textual level but should be explored in combination with practical experience. If one departs from practice and relies solely on individual statements by Marx for inference, it is easy to produce deviations in understanding. This article draws on the research results of the neo-Schumpeterian school and some Chinese scholars on actual production situations, reanalyzes Marx’s relevant discussions, and attempts to propose a definition of technology and science within the productive forces that both conforms to practical conditions and to Marx’s original meaning. This article proposes that technology is not a factor of production but a specific determination of the factors of production; science itself does not directly constitute productive forces but must be applied to technology to become content of the productive forces. Therefore, only “applied science” exists within the productive forces. Clarifying these issues helps us to further analyze the innovation laws of “applied science” and technology within the productive forces, providing more theoretical support for the scholarly development of new quality productive forces.

最后，关于生产力中科学与技术的界定问题。这一问题不应停留在文本层面反复讨论，而应结合实践经验进行探讨。倘若脱离实践，仅依据马克思的个别论述进行推断，就容易产生理解偏差。本文借鉴了新熊彼特学派及一些中国学者对实际生产情况的研究成果，对马克思相关论述进行了重新分析，试图提出一种既符合实践情况，又符合马克思原意的对生产力中技术和科学的界定。本文提出，技术不是生产要素，而是对生产要素的特殊规定；科学本身并不直接构成生产力，而必须应用于技术才成为生产力的内容。因此，生产力中只有“被应用的科学”。这些问题的厘清，有助于我们进一步分析生产力中“被应用的科学”与技术的创新规律，为新质生产力的学理化发展提供更多理论支撑。

[The authors are an Assistant Professor at the School of Marxism, Harbin Institute of Technology (Shenzhen); and a Master’s student at Teachers College, Columbia University, USA]

[作者系哈尔滨工业大学（深圳）马克思主义学院助理教授；美国哥伦比亚大学教师学院硕士研究生]

Online Editor: Ma Jingren

网络编辑：马京仁