How to Understand the Vulgarity of Vulgar Economics? — An Analysis Based on *Capital* and Its Manuscripts

I. Introduction

一、引言

Marx used the concept of “vulgar” (vulgar; vulgär) to judge the bourgeois economics of the post-classical economics era, and revealed the evolution of bourgeois economics from classical economics to vulgar economics. However, for a long time, Marx’s critique of vulgar economics has suffered many fierce counter-criticisms, and the concept of “vulgar” has become a “focal point” for the anti-Marxist camp to attack Marx. For example, the Austrian School, represented by Ludwig von Mises and his followers, believes that judging bourgeois economics as “vulgar” is a narrow, anti-scientific slander, whose internal logic and theoretical foundation are both seriously flawed. Essentially, this view aims to completely negate Marx’s economic theory, marginalizing or even completely drowning out his critique of vulgar economics, thereby paving the way for the intellectual-historical narrative of mainstream economics. Setting aside the irrational factors involved, such criticisms seriously misread the concept of “vulgar.” To respond to them, it is necessary to clarify a series of questions, such as: what exactly does this concept mean? How to understand the vulgarity of vulgar economics? And how to view Marx’s theoretical critique of vulgar economics? And so on.

马克思以“庸俗”(vulgar;vulgär)概念评判后古典经济学时代的资产阶级经济学,并揭示了资产阶级经济学由古典经济学向庸俗经济学的演化。但长期以来,马克思对庸俗经济学的批判遭受了诸多激烈的反向批判,“庸俗”概念更是反马克思主义阵营朝马克思发难的“集火点”。譬如,以路德维希·米塞斯(Ludwig von Mises)及其拥趸为代表的奥地利学派认为,以“庸俗”评判资产阶级经济学,是一种狭隘的、反科学的诋毁,其内在逻辑和理论基础均存在严重缺陷。本质上,这种观点旨在彻底否定马克思的经济理论,将其对庸俗经济学的批判边缘化乃至彻底淹没,从而为主流经济学的思想史叙事铺平道路。抛开其中的非理性因素不谈,此类质疑严重误读了“庸俗”概念。要回应之,就需要澄清一系列问题,如这一概念究竟意味着什么?如何理解庸俗经济学之庸俗性?又如何看待马克思对庸俗经济学的理论批判?等等。

Although the Marxist theoretical camp at home and abroad has made important contributions to defending and elucidating Marx’s critical theory directed at bourgeois economics, the existing theoretical achievements are clearly insufficiently precise and in-depth regarding how to understand and interpret the “specific analytical content and meaning” of the concept of “vulgar.” Some commentators understand the concept of “vulgar” only at the literal level, interpreting it as a “phenomenalism” that is superficial, shallow, and fails to touch the essence of things. This interpretation makes it difficult to distinguish vulgar economics from “superficial socialism,” which adheres to the proletarian standpoint but also remains at the level of appearances. It not only easily leads to ambiguity but also fails to accurately present the critical orientation of the concept of “vulgar.” A more influential mainstream interpretation holds that the vulgarity of vulgar economics encompasses the dual meanings of phenomenalism and apologetics; Marx used this concept to expose the ideological essence of vulgar economics in using economic phenomena to defend bourgeois interests. This view summarizes the value orientation of the concept of “vulgar” from the theoretical standpoint of apologetics, specifically interpreting the phenomenalist characteristics framed by the concept of “vulgar” as a bourgeois ideology, which is clearly superior.

在保卫和阐释马克思指向资产阶级经济学的批判理论上,虽说国内外马克思主义理论阵营作出了重要贡献,但就如何理解和阐释“庸俗”概念所具有的“特定分析内容和意义”来说,已有的理论成果明显不够精细和深入。部分论者对“庸俗”概念的理解仅仅停留在字面上,将其解读为表面、肤浅且未触及事物本质的“现象主义”。此种解读难以区分庸俗经济学与持守无产阶级立场但同样流于表象的“肤浅的社会主义”,不仅易于引发歧义,还无法准确呈现“庸俗”概念的批判性指向。更具影响力的一类主流阐释则认为:庸俗经济学的庸俗性涵盖现象主义和辩护论的双重含义;马克思使用这一概念,旨在揭露庸俗经济学利用经济现象为资产阶级利益辩护的意识形态实质。这种观点用辩护论的理论立场概括“庸俗”概念的价值取向,将“庸俗”概念所框定的现象主义特征具体地解释为一种资产阶级意识形态,明显更胜一筹。

However, the “dual meaning” theory also has its inherent defects. First, treating apologetics as the only type of vulgar economics does not conform to the established textual facts. Because Marx explicitly juxtaposed conciliationism with apologetics, establishing them as the two major schools of vulgar economics. Therefore, the author disagrees with equating vulgar economics, as a bourgeois ideology, solely with apologetics. Second, although this theory points out the ideological essence and class standpoint of vulgar economics, in Marx’s view, class structure is built on a certain economic structure. As a transformed form of economic relations on the aspect of social subjects, class relations themselves are the object to be explained, not a decisive explanatory factor. Only based on economic relations with specific historical forms can one truly understand the spiritual production of a given era and the “ideological components of the ruling class.” Similarly, explaining the theoretical nature of a specific economics solely by class standpoint does not have sufficient explanatory power. Only by delving into the level of economic relations and examining the basic concepts of vulgar economics regarding the capitalist mode of production can one grasp the deep-seated determinations of its vulgarity. In Marx’s view, this determination manifests as the inherent tendency of vulgar economics to naturalize, absolutize, and eternalize the capitalist mode of production, that is, “to regard the capitalist system not as a historically transitional stage of development, but as the absolute and final form of social production.” This is both a distinctive mark of bourgeois economics and the core purpose of bourgeois ideology. Because the economic interests of the bourgeoisie are rooted in the continuously reproduced capitalist economic relations. Moreover, this theoretical tendency upheld by vulgar economics differs significantly from classical economics. Because in the historical stage in which the former is situated, not only has class struggle taken on a new appearance, but the inherent antagonism and historical transience of the capitalist mode of production have also gradually revealed themselves through sharp class conflicts, periodic economic crises, and the tendency of the average rate of profit to fall. Clearly, to accurately interpret the vulgarity of vulgar economics, these specific historical factors cannot be ignored.

不过,“双重含义”说也有其内在缺陷。第一,把辩护论视作庸俗经济学的唯一类型,并不符合既定的文本事实。因为,马克思曾明确地把调和论同辩护论并列,将二者确立为庸俗经济学的两大派别。因此,笔者不同意将作为资产阶级意识形态的庸俗经济学仅仅等同于一种辩护论。第二,虽然该说法指出了庸俗经济学的意识形态实质及其阶级立场,但在马克思看来,阶级结构建立在一定的经济结构基础上。作为经济关系在社会主体面相上取得的转化形式,阶级关系本身是被解释的对象,而非具有决定性的解释项。只有基于具有特殊历史形式的经济关系,才能真正理解一定时代的精神生产以及“统治阶级的意识形态组成部分”。同理,仅凭阶级立场来说明特定经济学的理论性质,并不具有充分的解释效力。只有深入到经济关系层面,考察庸俗经济学关于资本主义生产方式的基本理念,才能把握其庸俗性的深层规定。在马克思看来,这一规定就表现为庸俗经济学将资本主义生产方式自然化、绝对化和永恒化的内在倾向,也就是“把资本主义制度不是看做历史上过渡的发展阶段,而是看做社会生产的绝对的最后的形式”。这既是资产阶级经济学的显著标志,又构成了资产阶级意识形态的核心旨归。因为,资产阶级的经济利益根植于不断再生产的资本主义经济关系。并且,庸俗经济学所持守的这一理论倾向,与古典经济学相比具有显著差异。因为在前者所处的历史阶段中,不仅阶级斗争呈现出新的面貌,而且资本主义生产方式的内在对抗性和历史暂时性,也通过尖锐的阶级冲突、周期性的经济危机以及平均利润率的下降趋势而逐渐显露出来。显然,要准确解读庸俗经济学的庸俗性,就不能无视这些具体的历史因素。

Based on the above considerations, relying on the textual ideas of *Capital* and its manuscripts, the author intends to re-explicate and interpret the theoretical determinations and logical connections of the concept of “vulgar” in the context of Marx’s critique of political economy from the following three aspects: (1) theoretical content that remains at the level of describing phenomena and opposes the analysis of essences; (2) theoretical essence as a scholarly bourgeois ideology (including two types: apologetics and conciliationism); (3) theoretical purpose of naturalizing, absolutizing, and eternalizing the capitalist mode of production.

基于上述考量,依托《资本论》及其手稿的文本思想,笔者拟从以下三个方面出发,对马克思政治经济学批判语境中“庸俗”概念的理论规定及其逻辑关联进行重新开解和阐释:(1)流于现象描述并反对本质分析的理论内容;(2)作为学理化的资产阶级意识形态(包括辩护论与调和论两种类型)的理论实质;(3)将资本主义生产方式自然化、绝对化和永恒化的理论旨归。

II. Theoretical Content: Remaining at the Level of Describing Phenomena and Opposing the Analysis of Essences

二、理论内容:流于现象描述并反对本质分析

Marx believed that classical economics had a theoretical interest and tendency to strive to reveal the inner connections of economic relations, whereas vulgar economics only stops at the surface connections of economic relations, contenting itself with “plausible explanations of the most superficial phenomena,” and vigorously attempts to scholarly and dogmatize the daily notions of bourgeois economic agents. In other words, the materials of vulgar economics come from economic phenomena, while its viewpoints originate from the daily notions formed by the bourgeoisie based on economic phenomena. This explains the basic determination of vulgar economics from the level of theoretical content. And this determination is mainly embodied in two aspects: confusing economic phenomena with economic essences, and opposing the analysis of essences based on the description of phenomena.

马克思认为,古典经济学有努力揭示经济关系的内部联系的理论旨趣和倾向,而庸俗经济学只是停留于经济关系的表面联系,满足于对“最粗浅的现象作出似是而非的解释”,竭力将资产阶级经济当事人的日常观念加以学理化和教义化。换言之,庸俗经济学的材料来源于经济现象,其观点则出自资产阶级基于经济现象而形成的日常观念。这从理论内容层面解释了庸俗经济学的基本规定。而该规定主要体现在混淆经济现象与经济本质、基于现象描述反对本质分析两方面。

(A) Confusing Economic Phenomena with Economic Essences

(一)混淆经济现象与经济本质

From the basic characteristics of theoretical content, the vulgarity of vulgar economics is first manifested in remaining at the level of describing phenomena, confusing economic phenomena with economic essences. Here, the author takes the influential theory of utility value in vulgar economics as an example to specifically examine and illustrate the theoretical manifestation of vulgar economics confusing economic phenomena and economic essences.

从理论内容的基本特征来看,庸俗经济学之庸俗性首先体现为流于现象描述,把经济现象与经济本质混为一谈。在此,笔者以庸俗经济学中影响深远的效用价值论为例,对庸俗经济学混淆经济现象和经济本质的理论表现予以具体考察和说明。

As is well known, the theory of utility value can be divided into two basic types: objective utility theory and subjective utility theory. Proponents of objective utility theory believe that value is an objective material attribute, and the usefulness of a commodity constitutes the basis of its value. Proponents of subjective utility theory, on the other hand, advocate understanding value as the relationship between a commodity and human desires, attempting to define the magnitude of value by the degree to which subjective desires are satisfied. Although the two differ in their understanding of utility, both believe that the utility of a commodity is the cause and measure of value. Among them, the objective utility theory expounded by Jean-Baptiste Say, the founder of vulgar economics, relatively systematically presents the basic logic of the theory of utility value, and can be regarded as a model of this value theory.

如所周知,效用价值论可分为客观效用论和主观效用论两种基本类型。客观效用论者认为价值是一种客观的物质属性,商品的有用性构成其价值的基础。主观效用论者则主张把价值理解为商品同人类欲望的关系,试图以主观欲望的被满足程度来界定价值的大小。二者虽然对效用的理解有所不同,但都认为商品的效用是价值的原因和尺度。其中,由庸俗经济学的鼻祖让·萨伊(Jean-Baptiste Say)所阐述的客观效用论较为系统地呈现了效用价值论的基本逻辑,堪称这一价值理论的典范。

In Say’s view, wealth consists of objects with intrinsic value, and political economy must determine the measure of value through observation of reality and everyday experience. Based on this method, he offers the following analysis of commodity value: First, the value of a commodity does not depend on the arbitrary evaluation of its owner, i.e., it is not a purely subjective product. Before exchange is realized, its value is always unclear. To determine the value of a commodity, it must receive recognition from other commodity owners in the exchange relation. In this sense, the value of a commodity equals the value of the other commodity for which it is exchanged. Second, in the exchange relation, people’s evaluation of the value of the object of exchange is based on the utility of the article. Utility is the intrinsic power of an object to satisfy human needs, including sustaining life, warding off cold and wind, and satisfying desires. Since people are unwilling to exchange for articles without use, “the utility of articles is the basis of their value,” and the magnitude of value expressed by price thus also becomes the measure of the magnitude of utility. Third, on this basis, when a commodity owner sells a commodity, “he is in fact selling the utility of the thing.” In other words, exchange between different commodities is equivalent to exchange between utilities. According to this stipulation, if one party in the exchange relation provides the other with a price greater than the utility received, that is equivalent to paying for a non-existent utility. However, the freer commodity production and exchange are, the closer the exchange value of a commodity approaches its actual value. In short, Say holds that commodity value requires recognition by another exchanger, i.e., it can only be confirmed in the exchange relation. In the exchange relation, people’s evaluation of commodity value is based on utility, and utility serves as the foundation of value. Therefore, exchange between commodities is equivalent to exchange between different utilities.

在萨伊看来,财富就是具有内在价值的物品,而政治经济学要通过观察现实和日常经验来确定价值的尺度。基于这一方法,他对商品价值做出了如下分析:第一,一件商品的价值并不取决于它的所有者的任意评估,即不是纯粹主观决定的产物。在实现交换之前,它的价值总是不明确的。而要确定一件商品的价值,就需要在交换关系中得到其他商品所有者对它的承认。在此意义上,一件商品的价值就等于它交换到的另一件商品的价值。第二,在交换关系中,人们对交换对象之价值的评估,是以物品的效用为根据的。而效用是一物满足人类需要的内在力量,包括维持生命、抵御风寒和满足嗜好等内容。由于人们不愿换取没有用途的物品,所以,“物品的效用就是物品价值的基础”,由价格所体现的价值之大小因而也成为衡量效用大小的尺度。第三,在此基础上,当一个商品所有者将一件商品出卖时,“事实上等于把这东西的效用卖给人”。换言之,不同商品之间的交换等同于效用与效用之间的交换。按照这一规定,如果交换关系中的一方给另一方提供了多于其所取得之效用的价格,那就相当于对不存在的效用付费。不过,商品生产和交换越是自由,商品的交换价值就越接近于其实际价值。总之,萨伊认为商品价值需要得到另一个交换者的承认,就是说,只有在交换关系中才能得到确证。在交换关系中,人们对商品价值的评估以效用为根据,效用充当着价值的基础。因此,商品与商品的交换相当于不同效用之间的交换。

However, from Marx’s analysis, first, use-value and value constitute the two factors of a commodity as a commodity. Among them, use-value lies at the phenomenal level, because use-value refers to the usefulness of a thing, i.e., a thing, by virtue of its own properties, can satisfy some human need. Regardless of what kind of need this is, or how this need is satisfied. The use-value of a commodity is visible, in Marx’s words “palpable,” and can be observed directly or indirectly through human senses or with the aid of tools, such as a yard of cloth, a watch, or a ton of iron. In contrast, the value of a commodity lies at the essential level, because value is impalpable and cannot be observed, “abounding in metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties.” The utility theory of value reduces value to utility, i.e., the usefulness of an article, which is tantamount to conflating use-value and value, conflating essence and phenomenon. For political economy, the crucial question is precisely to explain the essential distinction between use-value and value, thereby fundamentally distinguishing a product of labor from a commodity, rather than conflating use-value and value.

然而,从马克思的分析来看,第一,使用价值和价值构成商品之为商品的两个因素。其中,使用价值处于现象层面,因为,使用价值指的是物的有用性,即一种物依靠自身的属性可以满足人的某种需要。不论这是一种什么样的需要,也不论这种需要是如何得到满足的。商品的使用价值是可见的,用马克思的话说是“可以捉摸的”,它可以通过人的感官或者借助于工具直接或间接地被观察到,如一码布、一打表或一吨铁。与此不同,商品的价值则处于本质层面,因为,价值是不可捉摸和无法被观察到的,“充满形而上学的微妙和神学的怪诞”。效用价值论把价值归结为效用即一种物品的有用性,无异于把使用价值和价值混为一谈、把本质和现象混为一谈。对于政治经济学而言,关键问题恰恰在于说明使用价值和价值的本质区别,从而把劳动产品和商品本质地区别开来,而不是把使用价值和价值混为一谈。

Second, taking a single commodity alone, one can by no means discern its value; or rather, it cannot express its intrinsic value by itself. Once it forms an exchange relation with another commodity, its intrinsic value is expressed, because through this relation it shows that it is “worth” something, i.e., it contains a certain value or possesses the attribute of value. The exchange relation between two different commodities is the exchange relation between two different use-values. In this relation, the intrinsic value of one commodity is expressed through the “commodity body,” i.e., the use-value, of the other commodity. Marx calls the “quantitative relation or proportion” between the two different commodities constituting the exchange relation, i.e., the “quantitative relation or proportion” between two different use-values, exchange-value. Therefore, exchange-value is the commodity value expressed in the exchange relation or through exchange. Clearly, commodity value lies at the inner, essential level, while exchange-value lies at the outer, phenomenal level; exchange-value is the external form of expression of commodity value. Since exchange-value is a quantitative relation and proportion between two different use-values, and value expressed externally differs from value itself, or rather, value differs from the expression of value, the utility theory of value conflating value with utility, i.e., use-value, is tantamount to conflating phenomenon with essence.

第二,单就一种商品而言,人们无论如何也看不出它的价值,或者说,它无法把自己的内在价值表现出来。而一旦它与另一种商品形成交换关系,其内在价值便得到表现,因为通过这种关系,它表明自己是有所“值”的,即包含了一定的价值或具有价值属性。两种不同商品之间的交换关系,就是两种不同使用价值之间的交换关系。在这种关系中,一种商品的内在价值是通过另一种商品的“商品体”即使用价值表现的。马克思把构成交换关系的两种不同商品之间的“物量比”,即两种不同使用价值之间的“量的关系或比例”叫作交换价值。因此,交换价值就是在交换关系中或者说通过交换而表现出来的商品价值。显然,商品价值处于内在的本质层面,而交换价值则处于外在的现象层面,交换价值是商品价值的外在表现形式。由于交换价值是两种不同使用价值之间的量的关系和比例,并且表现于外的价值不同于价值本身,或者说,价值不同于价值的表现;所以,效用价值论把价值混同为效用即使用价值无异于把现象混同为本质。

Third, Marx’s analysis of commodity value is a process from phenomenon to essence, or rather a process of revealing and grasping essence through phenomenon. First, a commodity must possess use-value; a thing without use-value will not become a commodity. Second, the use-value of a commodity must be the bearer of exchange-value, i.e., it must enter into an exchange relation with other articles, thereby forming a material quantitative relation and proportion. If an article is not produced for exchange or is ultimately not exchanged, it is merely a product of labor and not a commodity. Finally, the exchange relation between two different commodities and the exchange-value thus formed indicate that these two commodity bodies contain some “common element,” because without this homogeneous content, the two articles cannot be compared, and thus cannot be exchanged. And this homogeneous content is the value of the commodity. Moreover, after abstracting from the superficial, mutually heterogeneous use-values of commodities, or after abstracting from the concrete labor producing different commodities, as products of human labor, value is and can only be the general or undifferentiated human labor congealed in the commodity. Marx, starting from use-value at the phenomenal level, through the analysis of the exchange relation between two different use-values and the exchange-value thus formed, reveals and abstracts the value of the commodity at the essential level. In this sense, the utility theory of value reducing value to the utility of commodities is tantamount to conflating phenomenon with essence.

第三,马克思对商品价值的分析是一个从现象到本质的过程,或者说是一个透过现象揭示和把握本质的过程。首先,商品必须具有使用价值,没有使用价值的东西不会成为商品。其次,商品的使用价值必须是交换价值的承担者,也就是说,必须与其他物品发生交换关系,从而形成一种物质的量的关系和比例。一种物品不是为了交换而生产出来或者最终并没有交换出去,它就仅仅是劳动产品而不是商品。最后,两种不同商品的交换关系和由此形成的交换价值表明,这两种商品体中包含着某种“共同的东西”,因为没有这种同质性的内容,两种物品就无法进行比较,从而也就无法进行交换。而这种同质性的内容,就是商品的价值。并且,在抽去商品表面的、彼此异质的使用价值后,或者说抽去生产不同商品的具体劳动后,作为人类的劳动产品,价值是也只能是凝结在商品中的一般的或无差别的人类劳动。马克思从现象层面的使用价值入手,通过对两种不同使用价值的交换关系和由此形成的交换价值的剖析,揭示和抽象出本质层面的商品的价值。在此意义上,效用价值论把价值归结为商品的效用无异于把现象混同为本质。

(2) Opposing Essential Analysis Based on Phenomenal Description

(二)基于现象描述反对本质分析

Vulgar economics does not merely engage in a simple description of economic phenomena; it also attempts to oppose and replace essential analysis with crude phenomenal description, “seizing upon the appearance of phenomena to oppose the law of phenomena.” In the history of the genesis of vulgar economics, this is concentratedly manifested in vulgar economics’ direct or indirect resistance to and opposition against the labor theory of value.

庸俗经济学并非只对经济现象进行单纯的描述,还试图以粗浅的现象描述反对和取代深入的本质分析,“抓住了现象的外表来反对现象的规律”。在庸俗经济学的生成史上,这集中体现为庸俗经济学对劳动价值论的直接或间接抵制和反对。

First, represented by the opponents of David Ricardo’s economics, it attempts to seize upon the surface differences between the labor theory of value and various empirical phenomena, directly questioning the correctness of the labor theory of value.

其一,以大卫·李嘉图(David Ricardo)经济学的反对派为代表,试图抓住劳动价值论与各种经验现象的表面差异,直接质疑劳动价值论的正确性。

For example, in reality, due to the tendency toward equalization of profit, value first transforms into price of production, and market price fluctuates around price of production. Therefore, equal capital can obtain equal profit, and different products consuming equal amounts of labor often sell at different prices. Thomas R. Malthus, exploiting this surface phenomenon, attacked Ricardo’s labor theory of value. He hypothesized two different products of labor: one is a brick wall built by a bricklayer using materials on site, whose value consists mainly of the worker’s labor; the other is wine stored in a barrel, whose value at the time of barreling is equivalent to that of the brick wall. But when the wine is stored for two years, an additional profit must be provided to satisfy its supply conditions. Therefore, the selling price of the wine must exceed its price before storage. These two commodities, which cost equal labor, thus have different values because they contain different amounts of profit. To this, Malthus asked and answered himself: “How then can it be asserted that commodities exchange with each other according to the quantity of labor expended on them? As far as our senses can judge, the fact is obviously not so.” Based on “sensory judgment,” he appealed to the vulgar elements in Smith’s value theory, holding that “the labor which a commodity can command may be properly regarded as the standard of value.” And in Malthus’s view, the quantity of labor a commodity can command is directly equated to the amount of money the buyer pays for the commodity. In other words, Malthus holds that the selling price of a commodity equals its value.

例如,在现实中,由于利润的平均化趋势,价值首先转化为生产价格,市场价格则围绕生产价格上下波动。因此,等量资本能够取得等量利润,耗费同量劳动的不同产品也往往售价不同。托马斯·马尔萨斯(Thomas R.Malthus)利用这一表面现象,攻击李嘉图劳动价值论。他假设了两种不同的劳动产品,一种是泥水匠利用现场材料修筑的砖墙,其价值主要由工人的劳动构成;另一种则是被放入桶中贮藏的酒,它在放入桶时价值与砖墙相当。但当酒被贮藏两年后,要满足其供应条件则需要额外提供一份利润。因此,酒的售价就必须超过贮藏前的价格。而这两种花费同等劳动的商品,由于包含的利润量不同,就具有不同的价值。对此,马尔萨斯自问自答道:“那么,怎么能断言商品是按照其中所耗费的劳动量相互交换的呢?就我们的感官判断而言,事实显然并非如此。”基于“感官判断”,他诉诸斯密价值理论中的庸俗成分,认为“商品所能支配的劳动可以被恰当地视作衡量价值的标准”。而在马尔萨斯那里,商品所能换得的劳动量又被直接等同为买者对商品支付的货币额。换言之,马尔萨斯认为商品的出售价格就等于商品的价值。

In Marx’s view, Malthus seized upon the contradictions in Ricardo’s labor theory of value “not in order to resolve them, but in order to regress to completely absurd ideas, to pass off the disclosure of the contradictions in phenomena—that is, the expression of these phenomena in language—as the resolution of the contradictions.” [1]1 Marx, *Theories of Surplus Value*, Part 3, Chapter 19. Specifically, Malthus, like Ricardo, did not understand the transformation of value into price of production, and thus could not explain the basis of market prices. The difference is merely that Ricardo erred in attempting to resolve the problem through forced abstraction, forcibly arguing for the consistency of value and market prices in the absence of mediating categories. Malthus, however, clung tenaciously to surface phenomena, using the description of phenomena to evade explaining them. On the one hand, he directly equated the value of a commodity with its exchange value, which is nothing more than using the external form of manifestation of value as the intrinsic measure of value, without offering any explanation of the basis of market prices. On the other hand, the money paid by the buyer is itself a commodity. He used money to explain the measure of value, yet overlooked that the value of the money commodity itself is also an object requiring explanation, thus falling into a circular argument of using value to determine value. Therefore, Malthus’s questioning not only failed to promote the refinement of theory but also replaced progressive views with regressive ones.

在马克思看来,马尔萨斯抓住李嘉图劳动价值论中的矛盾,“不是为了解决矛盾,而是为了倒退到完全荒谬的观念上去,为了把披露矛盾的现象,即把这些现象用语言表达出来,冒充为解决矛盾”。具体而言,马尔萨斯与李嘉图一样,不理解价值向生产价格的转化,从而无法解释市场价格的基础。只不过李嘉图错在试图以强制抽象的方式解决问题,在缺乏中介范畴的条件下强行论证价值与市场价格的一致。马尔萨斯却牢牢抓住表面现象,以现象描述规避解释现象。一方面,他把商品的价值直接等同于交换价值,无非是以价值的外在表现形式充当价值的内在尺度,并未对市场价格的基础给出任何解释。另一方面,买者支付的货币本身也是一种商品。他用货币来说明价值的尺度,却忽视了货币商品的价值本身也是需要解释的对象,陷入了用价值决定价值的循环论证。因此,马尔萨斯的质疑非但没有促进理论的完善,反而以倒退观点取代了进步观点。

Second, represented by a host of disciples of Ricardo’s economics (i.e., the Ricardian school), they indirectly undermined the labor theory of value. Although they intended to defend Ricardo’s economics, because they were unable to resolve the two major difficulties faced by Ricardo’s labor theory of value, in the process of annotation and argumentation, they became trapped by various economic phenomena and moved to the opposite side of the labor theory of value, ultimately leading to the disintegration of the Ricardian school.

其二,以李嘉图经济学的一众门徒(即李嘉图学派)为代表,间接瓦解劳动价值论。他们虽然有意为李嘉图经济学提供辩护,但由于无力解决李嘉图劳动价值论所面临的两大难题,所以在注释和论证的过程中,囿于各种经济现象而走向了劳动价值论的反面,并最终导致李嘉图学派的解体。

For example, in the face of the “old wine problem” raised by opponents of Ricardo’s economics such as Malthus, James Mill did not understand the transformation of value into price of production, nor why the market price of old wine is higher than that of new wine. To solve this problem, he considered capital, as “accumulated labor,” to also be a kind of labor capable of creating value. Therefore, compared with new wine, the extra part of the value in the selling price of old wine that appears as profit on capital is actually “the wages of labor performed indirectly by means of tools produced by hand.” [2]2 James Mill, *Elements of Political Economy*. In contrast, John R. McCulloch attempted to interpret Ricardo’s economics in a more “radical” manner. In his view, the process of a shoemaker making shoes and the process of aging old wine in a cellar are both processes in which labor plays a role. The only difference is that the former is labor mediated by human hands, while the latter is labor mediated by natural forces. Moreover, for products involving the participation of machinery, whether it is the role of machinery, or the role of fermentation in the aforementioned aging process of old wine, or any other natural process, they are all essentially labor. This means that McCulloch further broadened the standard of labor, incorporating natural forces into the scope of the labor subject.

例如,面对马尔萨斯等李嘉图经济学反对派提出的“陈葡萄酒问题”,詹姆斯·穆勒(James Mill)并不理解价值向生产价格的转化,不明白陈葡萄酒的市场价格为何高于新葡萄酒。为了解决这一问题,他认为作为“积累起来的劳动”,资本也是一种劳动并能够创造价值。因此,相较新葡萄酒而言,在陈葡萄酒的出售价格中作为资本的利润而多出来的那部分价值,实际上是“间接运用由手生产出来的工具所完成的劳动的工资”。相比之下,约翰·麦克库洛赫(John R.McCulloch)试图以更“激进”的方式诠释李嘉图经济学。在他看来,鞋匠制鞋的过程和陈葡萄酒窖藏的过程一样,都是劳动发挥作用的过程。只不过前者是以人手为媒介的劳动,后者是以自然力为媒介的劳动。并且,对于机器参与生产的产品来说,无论是机器的作用,还是前述陈葡萄酒窖藏过程中发酵的作用,或者说其他一切自然过程,在本质上都属于劳动。这意味着,麦克库洛赫进一步拓宽了劳动标准,把自然力也纳入劳动主体的范围中。

Regarding James Mill, Marx criticized him for solving problems by “fabricating terminology.” [3]3 Marx, *Theories of Surplus Value*, Part 3. Because he confused the human subject with the object—the thing that embodies objectified labor—and identified the latter as another kind of labor subject, and also attempted to explain the material changes experienced by old wine during the aging process as the labor product of objectified labor. This view eliminated the uniqueness of the labor subject, generalized the concept of labor, and indirectly dissolved the proposition that living labor creates value. Regarding McCulloch, Marx sharply pointed out that he “calls the various operations that a commodity undergoes as a use value, the various services it provides in production as a use value, labor.” [4]4 Marx, *Theories of Surplus Value*, Part 3. In other words, McCulloch further deviated from the theoretical stipulation that living labor creates value, equating labor with the use value of animals, machines, and even natural forces, and with the role played at the phenomenal level by various material elements in the production process. This is similar to the theory of factors of production expounded by Say. The difference is that Say merely called the roles played by the three means of production (capital, labor, and natural forces) in the production process “productive services,” while McCulloch directly called them labor. In response, Marx pointed out: “This undermines the entire foundation of Ricardo’s theory far more seriously than all the attacks of his opponents.” [5]5 Marx, *Theories of Surplus Value*, Part 3.

对于詹姆斯·穆勒,马克思批评他以“捏造用语”的方式来解决问题。因为,他把人—主体同凝结了对象化劳动的物—客体混淆起来,并将后者认定为另一种劳动主体,还试图把陈葡萄酒在窖藏过程中经历的物质变化解释为对象化劳动的劳动产物。这一观点取消了劳动主体的唯一性,泛化了劳动概念,间接消解了活劳动创造价值这一命题。对于麦克库洛赫,马克思则犀利地指出,他把“商品作为使用价值所经历的各种操作,把它们作为使用价值在生产中提供的各种服务,称为劳动”。换言之,麦克库洛赫进一步偏离了活劳动创造价值的理论规定,将劳动同动物、机器乃至自然力的使用价值等同起来,同生产过程中各种物质要素在现象层面所起到的作用等同起来。这与萨伊所阐述的生产要素论有类似之处。所不同的是,萨伊只是把三种生产手段(资本、劳动、自然力)在生产过程中发挥的作用称为“生产性服务”,而麦克库洛赫却直接将其称作劳动。对此,马克思指出:“它比反对者的一切攻击更严重得多地破坏了李嘉图理论的整个基础”。

In summary, although the starting points of the above two lines of thought differ, they lead to the same end. The former attacked Ricardo’s labor theory of value with economic phenomena that are completely different from essential determinations, while the latter attempted to prove the correctness of the labor theory of value directly from economic phenomena. But both ultimately dissolved the scientific foundation of the labor theory of value, becoming typical cases of vulgar economics opposing essential analysis based on the description of phenomena.

总之,以上两条路线的出发点虽不同,但殊途同归。前者以与本质规定截然不同的经济现象向李嘉图劳动价值论发起冲击,后者则试图直接从经济现象出发证明劳动价值论的正确性,但二者最终都消解了劳动价值论的科学基础,成为庸俗经济学基于现象描述反对本质分析的典型案例。

III. Theoretical Essence: Scholasticized Bourgeois Ideology

三、理论实质:学理化的资产阶级意识形态

In fact, the phenomenalist characteristic of being confined to the surface phenomena of things is not the fundamental divergence between vulgar economics and other schools of economics. For example, classical economists did not strictly separate surplus value from its forms of manifestation, and some socialists, because they were blinded by economic phenomena, degenerated into “superficial socialism.” [6]6 Marx, *Theories of Surplus Value*, Part 3. These all exhibit a certain degree of phenomenalist characteristics. Therefore, to understand the vulgarity of vulgar economics, it is also necessary to inquire into the theoretical essence behind it. In *Theories of Surplus Value*, Marx called vulgar economists such as Germain Garnier the “ideological stratum” subordinate to the bourgeoisie, because they strove to proceed from the everyday notions by which the bourgeoisie rationalizes its own interests, to prove the eternal rationality of the bourgeoisie as non-laborers. [7]7 Marx, *Theories of Surplus Value*, Part 3. It is precisely this that distinguishes vulgar economics from other phenomenalist theories. And according to the different ways of safeguarding and realizing bourgeois interests, vulgar economics can be further divided into two types: apologetics and eclecticism.

其实,流于事物表面现象的现象主义特征,并不是庸俗经济学与其他经济学的根本分歧。例如,古典经济学家都没有将剩余价值同剩余价值的表现形式严格地区分开来,一些社会主义者也因为受经济现象的蒙蔽而沦为“肤浅的社会主义”。这些都表现出一定程度的现象主义特征。因此,理解庸俗经济学之庸俗性,还需要追问其背后的理论实质。在《剩余价值理论》中,马克思将热尔门·加尔涅(Germain Garnier)等庸俗经济学家称为从属于资产阶级的“意识形态阶层”,因为,他们力求从资产阶级将自身利益合理化的日常观念出发,证明资产阶级作为非劳动者的永恒合理性。正是这一点将庸俗经济学与其他现象主义理论区分开来。而根据维护和实现资产阶级利益的不同方式,庸俗经济学又可划分为辩护论和调和论两种类型。

(A) Apologetics: Exhausting Every Means to Defend Bourgeois Interests

(一)辩护论:为资产阶级利益极尽辩护之能

As a form of presentation of bourgeois ideology, the hallmark of apologetics is that it directly stands on the side of the bourgeoisie, providing arguments and justifications for bourgeois interests. What it cares about is not whether a theory is scientific, but whether it is favorable to capital, and whether it violates the “police regulations” formulated by the bourgeois government. [8]8 “Police regulations” (警章) refers to state regulations or ordinances aimed at maintaining social order, here used by Marx to denote the legal and administrative framework of the bourgeois state. If science takes the pursuit of truth as its purpose and is disinterested, then apologetics is a viewpoint and argument formed from special interests, even from the “malice of the apologist,” and stands in opposition to scientific research that challenges and resists certain special interests. [9]9 “Malice of the apologist” (辩护士的坏心恶意) is a phrase Marx uses in *Capital* to characterize the deliberate bad faith of vulgar economists. Apologetic vulgar economics, as bourgeois economics, centers on capital and provides justifications for bourgeois interests. This is concentratedly manifested in many views that justify profit on capital. Among them, Nassau W. Senior, for proposing the “abstinence theory” based on the capitalist’s notion of abstinence, is a representative of apologetics. Because, in Marx’s view, “it replaces economic categories with flattering phrases,” and is “the unsurpassable specimen of the ‘discoveries’ of vulgar economics.” [10]10 Marx, *Capital*, Volume 1, Chapter 24, Section 3.

作为资产阶级意识形态的一种呈现形式,辩护论的标志在于,其直接站在资产阶级的立场上,为资产阶级利益提供论证和辩解。其关心的内容不是理论的科学与否,而是它是否有利于资本,以及它是否违背资产阶级政府所制定的“警章”。如果说科学以求真为宗旨,具有无私性,那么辩护论则是从特殊利益乃至“辩护士的坏心恶意”出发形成的观点和论证,与挑战和抵制一些特殊利益的科学研究相对立。辩护论庸俗经济学作为资产阶级经济学,则以资本为中心,为资产阶级利益提供辩护。这集中体现在诸多为资本利润进行辩护的观点中。其中,纳索·西尼耳(Nassau W.Senior)因提出基于资本家节欲观念的“节欲论”堪称辩护论的代表。因为在马克思看来,“它用阿谀的词句来替换经济学的范畴”,是“庸俗经济学的‘发现’的不可超越的标本”。

Specifically, Senior disagreed with regarding labor as the sole source of value, instead advocating defining the elements of value or wealth from three aspects: utility, limited supply, and transferability. He believed that limited supply was the most important element, because commodities with more limited supply often possess higher value. Supply itself, in turn, is constrained by three means of production: labor, natural elements, and abstinence. So-called abstinence means deferring enjoyment and investing wealth that could be consumed into productive activities. If all capitalists consumed without restraint, society would have no capital at all. Therefore, capital is the result of capitalists’ abstinence. However, abstinence must be combined with other means of production to become wealth that produces wealth. Since everyone can obtain the assistance of natural elements, labor and abstinence constitute the main constraints on commodity production. On this basis, Senior defined the production cost of a commodity as “the sum of labor and abstinence necessary for production.” Workers sacrifice ease and rest to perform labor, while capitalists sacrifice enjoyment and consumption, using the wealth they possess for production. Thus, at the level of distribution, wages are the reward for labor, and profit is the “reward for abstinence.”

具体而言,西尼耳不同意将劳动视作价值的唯一源泉,而主张从效用、供给有限性以及可转移性这三方面来界定价值或者说财富的要素。他认为,供给有限性是最重要的要素,因为供给越有限的商品往往具备越高的价值。而供给本身又受到三种生产手段的制约,包括劳动、自然要素和节欲(abstinence)。所谓节欲,就是推迟享受,将可以消费的财富投到生产活动中。如果所有资本家都无节制地消费,社会将不会有任何资本存在。因此,资本是资本家节欲的结果。不过,节欲还需要与其他生产手段相结合,才能成为生产财富的财富。由于所有人都能取得自然要素的协助,所以劳动和节欲构成了商品生产的主要限制。在此基础上,西尼耳以“生产所必要的劳动与节欲的总和”来界定商品的生产成本。劳动者放弃了安乐与休息而付出劳动,资本家则放弃了享受和消费,将自己所拥有的财富用以生产。因此,在分配层面,工资是劳动的报酬,利润则是“节欲的报酬”。

It can be seen that the theory of abstinence packages capital profit as the product of some “fine quality,” thereby granting the interests of the bourgeoisie absolute, transhistorical economic legitimacy in the theory of abstinence. Marx, however, criticized the fallacies of the theory of abstinence from multiple angles, while revealing the historical rationality and historical transience of capital accumulation. First, “every action of a man can be regarded as the ‘abstinence’ from its opposite action,” so all people are subjects of abstinence. Since abstinence is so universal, why is it that only the abstinence of capitalists can obtain profit as a reward? Clearly, as a broad descriptive term for behavior, abstinence does not possess scientific explanatory power. Second, profit is in essence the surplus value created by wage workers during surplus labor time, not the product of the individual will of the capitalist. Moreover, as the personification of capital, the capitalist’s abstinence, or drive for accumulation, is itself merely a product of the capitalist mode of production. Because the inherent expansive nature of capital, through competition among capitals, becomes an external coercive force, compelling the capitalist to constantly expand capital in order to preserve it; “the capitalist is merely a cog in this social mechanism.” Third, under the conditions of the modern credit system, on the one hand, capitalists do not all use their own private capital, so within a certain scope, capitalists do not need to practice abstinence, only “requiring others to save for him”; on the other hand, extravagance, rather than abstinence, is precisely the means by which capitalists obtain credit and a powerful tool for realizing the valorization of capital. Because capitalists need both to show lenders a sound asset position and to maintain various interpersonal relationships through high social expenses. Fourth, all social formations have simple reproduction and expanded reproduction, and capital accumulation is merely a precondition for expanded reproduction in a specific historical form, thus possessing historical transience. If the means of production did not confront workers as capital, then expanded reproduction would not take capital accumulation as its precondition, “and hence would not appear as a function of the capitalist.” Fifth, under capitalist conditions, the capitalist’s zeal for profit is the way in which capital’s “civilizing aspect” and historical mission are realized. Because this forces humanity to “produce for the sake of production,” constantly developing social productive forces, thereby creating the material conditions for a higher form of society. In this sense, capital accumulation undoubtedly possesses a certain historical rationality. Nevertheless, whether in understanding the source of capital profit or in understanding capital accumulation itself, the “theory of abstinence” is clearly one-sided.

可见,节欲论将资本利润包装成某种“美好品质”的产物,资产阶级的利益因而在节欲论中获得了绝对的、超历史的经济正当性。而马克思从多方面批判了节欲论的谬误,同时揭示了资本积累的历史合理性和历史暂时性。第一,“人的一切行动都可以看做他的相反行动的‘节欲’”,所有人都是节欲的主体。既然节欲如此普遍,那么为什么只有资本家的节欲能够取得利润作为报酬呢?显然,作为一个宽泛的行为描述词,节欲并不具备科学上的解释效力。第二,利润在本质上是雇佣工人在剩余劳动时间中所创造的剩余价值,而非资本家个人意志的产物。并且,作为资本的人格化,资本家的节欲或者说积累欲本身也不过是资本主义生产方式的产物。因为,资本内在的扩张本性会通过资本之间的竞争而成为外在的强制力量,迫使资本家不断扩张资本以保存资本,“资本家不过是这个社会机制中的一个主动轮”。第三,在现代信贷制度条件下,一方面,资本家使用的并非都是自己的私人资本,所以在一定范围内,资本家并不需要节欲,只“要求别人为他而节约”;另一方面,挥霍而非节欲恰恰是资本家取得信贷的手段,也是资本家实现资本增殖的得力工具。因为,资本家既需要向出借人展现优良的资产状况,又需要通过高昂的交际费用来维持各类人际关系。第四,所有社会形态都存在简单再生产和扩大再生产,而资本积累不过是一种特殊的历史形式的扩大再生产的前提条件,因而具有历史暂时性。如果生产资料不作为资本同工人相对立,那么,扩大再生产就不会以资本积累作为前提条件,“因而也不会表现为资本家的职能”。第五,在资本主义条件下,资本家的逐利热忱是资本“文明面”和历史使命的实现方式。因为,这迫使人类“为生产而生产”,不断发展社会生产力,从而为更高级的社会形式创造物质条件。在此意义上,资本积累无疑具有一定的历史合理性。尽管如此,无论是对资本利润来源的理解,还是对资本积累本身的理解,“节欲论”都明显失之偏颇。

(2) The Theory of Reconciliation: Striving to Reconcile and Obscure Class Contradictions and Class Antagonism

(二)调和论:竭力调和与抹杀阶级矛盾和阶级对立

The ideological theorization that maintains and realizes the interests of the bourgeoisie is not limited to the form of the theory of apologia. After bourgeois economics gradually transformed from classical economics into vulgar economics, the European revolution of 1848 [11]11 The European Revolutions of 1848, a series of republican revolts against European monarchies, which in the German states included the March Revolution that Marx and Engels observed closely. The failure of these revolutions deepened Marx’s analysis of the class positions of the bourgeoisie and proletariat. made the bourgeoisie fully realize that the proletariat was no longer merely an appendage joining them in the bourgeois revolution. The proletariat’s voice in defending its own interests grew increasingly louder, and the means and strength for realizing its class interests also matured. On this basis, Marx identified the important role this revolution played in the internal differentiation of bourgeois economics: “Those who still claimed scientific status and did not want to simply serve as the sophists and sycophants of the ruling class tried to reconcile the political economy of capital with the demands of the proletariat, which could no longer be ignored.” Thus, vulgar bourgeois economics further split into two schools: one was the apologist vulgar economics represented by Claude F. Bastiat, and the other was the conciliatory vulgar economics represented by John S. Mill. Unlike the theory of apologia, the theory of reconciliation does not directly provide justification for bourgeois interests, but rather attempts to reconcile class interests and mitigate conflicts between different classes within the limits permitted by the capitalist mode of production.

维护和实现资产阶级利益的学理化意识形态不只有辩护论一种形式。在资产阶级经济学由古典经济学逐渐转变为庸俗经济学之后,1848年的欧洲革命让资产阶级充分认识到,无产阶级不再仅仅是随同他们参加资产阶级革命的附庸。无产阶级捍卫自身利益的呼声日益高涨,他们实现阶级利益的手段和力量也日渐成熟。基于此,马克思指认了这场革命对于资产阶级经济学内部的分化所起的重要作用:“那些还要求有科学地位、不愿单纯充当统治阶级的诡辩家和献媚者的人,力图使资本的政治经济学同这时已不容忽视的无产阶级的要求调和起来。”由此,资产阶级庸俗经济学进一步分成了两派,一派是以克洛德·巴师夏(Claude F.Bastiat)为代表的辩护论庸俗经济学,另一派则是以约翰·穆勒(John S.Mill)为代表的调和论庸俗经济学。不同于辩护论,调和论并非直接为资产阶级利益提供论证,而是试图在资本主义生产方式允许的限度内调和阶级利益,缓和不同阶级之间的矛盾冲突。

John Stuart Mill’s theory of “profit-sharing” is undoubtedly a typical example of the theory of reconciliation. He believed that the laboring class indeed suffered unfair treatment in distribution, but this could by no means be attributed to private property. On the contrary, as long as the economy was regulated through national legislation, it could be proven that “there is no necessary connection between the principle of private property and natural or social disasters.” Moreover, although the laws of production of wealth are immutable, the system of distribution can be designed arbitrarily. Therefore, the current situation of laborers could be improved by adjusting the distribution system, and partnership operations centered on profit-sharing became an important path for social reform. This includes two forms: partnership between laborers and capitalists, and partnership among laborers themselves. Regarding the former form, its core principle is to allow contributing laborers to also enjoy the benefits of partners, “rewarding those particularly trustworthy individuals with a certain proportion of the profit.” Through case studies, he believed that because profit-sharing connects the interests of capitalists and workers, the labor enthusiasm of workers would generally rise. In this way, the enterprise’s revenue increases, and workers’ income can also be raised. Additionally, although workers’ cooperatives had successful precedents, he believed the private enterprise system was superior to the collective enterprise system. Because under private enterprise conditions, capitalists could not only share profits with workers, but were often willing to take risks and make correct decisions. However, regardless of the form of cooperative operation, it would promote workers’ sharing of capital profits, ultimately realizing a moral revolution in society, thereby “resolving the long-standing dispute between capital and labor.”

约翰·穆勒的“分享利润”说无疑是调和论的典型。他认为,劳动阶级在分配中的确受到了不公待遇,但决不能将之归咎于私有制。相反,只要通过国家立法对经济进行调节,就能证明“私人财产的原则与自然和社会灾难之间没有必然的关系”。并且,尽管财富的生产法则不可改变,但分配制度可以任人设计。因此,可以通过调整分配制度来改良劳动者的现状,而以分享利润为核心的合伙经营就成为社会改良的一种重要途径。这包括劳动者与资本家合伙经营以及劳动者之间合伙经营两种形式。就前一种形式而言,它的核心原则是,让部分做出贡献的劳动者也享有合伙人的利益,“按利润的一定比例来酬谢那些特别值得信赖的人”。通过个案考察,他相信,由于利润共享将资本家和工人的利益连接起来,所以劳动者的劳动积极性会普遍高涨。这样一来,企业的收益增加了,劳动者的收入也能有所提升。另外,虽然工人合作社也有成功先例,但他认为私人经营制度优于集体经营制度。因为,在私人经营条件下,资本家不仅可以同工人分享利润,而且往往敢于冒险、能够做出正确决策。不过,不论是哪种形式的合作经营,都会推动劳动者对资本利润的分享,最终实现社会的道德革命,从而“解决资本与劳动之间的长期争端”。

The above content presents John Stuart Mill’s conception of reconciling class contradictions. However, from Marx’s perspective, the “profit-sharing” thesis is extremely absurd. First, it is evident that maintaining private ownership of the means of production and the capitalist mode of production constitutes the logical premise of the profit-sharing thesis. This shows that it does not deviate from the fundamental interests of the bourgeoisie and does not breach the theoretical bottom line of bourgeois economics. Second, the partial “successful cases” mentioned by John Stuart Mill are merely special conditions in specific industries. In periods of greater fluctuation in business operations and income, replacing the fixed wage system with a profit-sharing system is merely a distribution strategy by which the capitalist makes the wage worker share the operational risks. He himself also admits that under the profit-sharing system, the income of wage workers is unstable, and they are forced to live on credit for long periods. Third, raising workers’ income within certain limits through so-called dividends, bonuses, or employee stock ownership merely means that “the golden chain the wage worker has forged for himself is already long and heavy enough to allow it to be slightly loosened.” [12]12 Karl Marx, *Capital*, vol. 1, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 35 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1996), p. 618. Moreover, many bonuses, dividends, and stock dividends are merely deducted from the workers’ wages, being only nominal additional income. The indisputable fact is that, regardless of the form in which workers receive wages, the income and consumption of wage workers as a whole are merely a link in the reproduction of labor power, serving the continuous reproduction of capitalist relations of production. Fourth, in essence, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat are in “antagonistic” relations of production, meaning that the fundamental interests of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat are mutually conflicting and incompatible. This is concentratedly manifested in the mutually exclusive relationship between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat in the distribution of the product of labor, while in the production process this relationship is further embodied in the inverse proportional relationship between the worker’s necessary labor and surplus labor, where one increases at the expense of the other. The capitalist always hopes to extend the wage worker’s surplus labor time and to depress workers’ wages as much as possible; the wage worker hopes to reduce surplus labor time as much as possible and to obtain a larger share of the product of labor. This conflict and contradiction fully demonstrate that the interests of the laborers who have lost the means of production and the non-laborers who monopolize the means of production are fundamentally opposed; in other words, the interests of the laborers as the exploited class and the non-laborers as the exploiting class are fundamentally opposed. Therefore, the contradiction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat is actually rooted in the irreconcilable antagonistic contradictions of capitalist relations of production.

上述内容展现了约翰·穆勒调和阶级矛盾的构想。但是,从马克思的观点来看,“分享利润”说是极为荒谬的。第一,显而易见,维护生产资料私有制和资本主义生产方式构成了分享利润说的逻辑前提。这说明它并未背离资产阶级的根本利益,没有突破资产阶级经济学的理论底线。第二,约翰·穆勒所提及的部分“成功案例”,只是特定产业中的特殊状态。在企业经营和收入波动较大的时期,以分享利润制取代固定工资制,不过是资本家让雇佣工人一同承担经营风险的一种分配策略。他本人也坦承,在分享利润制下,雇佣工人的收入不稳定,他们不得不长期靠赊账生活。第三,在一定限度内通过所谓分红、奖金或者员工持股等方式提高工人收入,只不过意味着“雇佣工人为自己铸造的金锁链已经够长够重,容许把它略微放松一点”。更何况,许多奖金、分红和股息不过是从工人的工资中扣除得来的,只是名义上的额外收入。不争的事实是,不论工人以何种形式取得工资,在整体上,雇佣工人的收入和消费都不过是劳动力再生产的一个环节,服务于资本主义生产关系的不断再生产。第四,在本质上,资产阶级与无产阶级处于“对抗性”的生产关系中,也就是说,资产阶级与无产阶级的根本利益是互相冲突、无法兼容的。这集中表现在,资产阶级与无产阶级在劳动产品分配上的互斥关系,而在生产过程中这种关系则进一步体现为工人的必要劳动与剩余劳动之间此消彼长的反比关系。资本家总是希望延长雇佣工人的剩余劳动时间,并尽量压低工人工资;雇佣工人则希望尽可能地减少剩余劳动时间,并能够分到更多的劳动产品。这一冲突和矛盾充分表明,失去生产资料的劳动者与垄断生产资料的非劳动者之间的利益是根本对立的,换言之,作为被剥削阶级的劳动者和作为剥削阶级的非劳动者之间的利益是根本对立的。因此,资产阶级和无产阶级的矛盾实际上植根于资本主义生产关系的不可调和的对抗性矛盾中。

Therefore, John Stuart Mill attempted to reconcile class contradictions, but because he ignored the antagonistic nature of the capitalist mode of production and was even less able to touch upon the fundamental transformation of the mode of production, the “profit-sharing” thesis, which is essentially linked to the continuous reproduction of capitalist relations of production, is merely a beautification and packaging of a special form of realization of the capitalist wage system, a theorized ideology for maintaining and realizing the interests of the bourgeoisie. For example, shortening the working day or raising workers’ wages within certain limits through means such as national legislation, ensuring the smooth reproduction of labor power, is merely an important condition for the continuous progress of capital accumulation. From the perspective of the relationship between bourgeois economics and the capitalist mode of production, incorporating the demands of the proletariat into bourgeois economics within certain limits also conforms to the inherent requirements of the continuous operation of the capitalist mode of production, although the antagonistic nature of the capitalist mode of production draws an insurmountable boundary for bourgeois economics. It can be said that the emergence of the conciliationist tendency within vulgar economics is merely a self-adjustment by bourgeois economics based on practical needs, and also an ideological reproduction realized by capitalist society in its specific form. This is not a “discovery of conscience” by bourgeois economists, nor does it prove that the interests of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat can be reconciled or harmonized.

因此,约翰·穆勒试图调和阶级矛盾,但由于无视资本主义生产方式的对抗性质,更不可能触及生产方式的根本变革,所以,与资本主义生产关系不断再生产本质地联系在一起的“分享利润”说,不过是对资本主义工资制度的一种特殊实现形式的美化和包装,是维护和实现资产阶级利益的学理化的意识形态。例如通过国家立法等方式,在一定限度内缩短工人工作日或提高工人工资,保障劳动力的顺利再生产,不过是资本积累得以持续进行的重要条件。从资产阶级经济学与资本主义生产方式的关系来看,在一定限度内将无产阶级的诉求纳入资产阶级经济学中,也符合资本主义生产方式持续运行的内在要求,尽管资本主义生产方式的对抗性质为资产阶级经济学划定了一条不可逾越的边界。可以说,庸俗经济学内部调和论的出现,不过是资产阶级经济学基于现实需要所作出的自我调整,也是资本主义社会以其特有的形式实现的意识形态再生产。这并非资产阶级经济学家的“良心发现”,也没能证明资产阶级利益与无产阶级利益可以调和或和谐一致。

IV. Theoretical Purport: Naturalizing, Absolutizing, and Eternalizing the Capitalist Mode of Production

四、理论旨归:将资本主义生产方式自然化、绝对化和永恒化

From Marx’s exposition, the vulgarity of vulgar economics cannot be traced merely to the level of bourgeois ideology; only by appealing to the inherent tendency of vulgar economics in its treatment of the capitalist mode of production — naturalizing, absolutizing, and eternalizing the capitalist mode of production — can we truly understand the deep-seated determination of its vulgarity. This is because the ownership of the means of production and the right to distribute the product of labor constitute the underlying structure of bourgeois interests. Maintaining the class position that the bourgeoisie obtains in this one-sided, unequal power-dominance relationship is inseparable from the continuous operation of the capitalist mode of production and the continuous reproduction of capitalist economic relations. It can be said that this inherent tendency embodies the core appeal or fundamental intention of bourgeois ideology; it is the primary principle by which the bourgeoisie safeguards its class interests at the level of ideas and concepts. So, how should we understand this theoretical purport and its specific manifestations?

从马克思的论述来看,不能仅仅将庸俗经济学的庸俗性追溯至资产阶级意识形态层面,只有诉诸庸俗经济学对待资本主义生产方式的内在倾向———将资本主义生产方式自然化、绝对化和永恒化,才能真正理解其庸俗性的深层规定。因为,生产资料所有权和劳动产品分配权构成了资产阶级利益的底层结构。要维持资产阶级在这种单向度、不平等的权力—支配关系中所获得的阶级地位,离不开资本主义生产方式的持续运行,也离不开资本主义经济关系的不断再生产。可以说,这一内在倾向体现了资产阶级意识形态的核心诉求或根本意图,它是资产阶级在思想观念层面维护其阶级利益的首要原则。那么,应该如何理解这一理论旨归及其具体表现呢?

First, its basic connotation is “to make the capitalist form of production into an eternal natural form of production,” thereby “to regard the capitalist system not as a historically transitional stage of development, but as the absolute and final form of social production.” [13]13 Karl Marx, *Capital*, vol. 1, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 35 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1996), p. 93, n. 1. If “naturalizing” refers to regarding the capitalist mode of production as a product of the natural attributes of objects-entities or the natural instincts of human-subjects, without understanding that the capitalist mode of production is a social economic relation, then through this “naturalizing” treatment, the capitalist mode of production is also “absolutized” and “eternalized.” In other words, if the capitalist mode of production is not seen as a product of the development of social productive forces to a certain stage, then its historical specificity and transience are simultaneously conceptually eliminated. This is because the natural attributes of things and the natural instincts of humans run through all historical periods and do not change with the advance of historical stages.

第一,其基本内涵是“把生产的资本主义形式变成生产的一种永恒的自然形式”,从而“把资本主义制度不是看做历史上过渡的发展阶段,而是看做社会生产的绝对的最后的形式”。如果说“自然化”指将资本主义生产方式看作物—客体的自然属性或人—主体的自然本性的产物,而不理解资本主义生产方式是一种社会的经济关系;那么,经由这种“自然化”的处理,资本主义生产方式也就被“绝对化”和“永恒化”了。换言之,如果不是把资本主义生产方式看作社会生产力发展至一定阶段的产物,那么,其历史特殊性和暂时性就同时被观念地取消了。因为,物的自然属性和人的自然本性贯穿于一切历史时期,不因历史阶段的推进而改变。

This theoretical tendency is concentratedly manifested in the concept of capital in vulgar economics, mainly including two types: (1) Equating capital with material entities such as means of production or means of subsistence. For example, Say understands capital as wealth that produces wealth, holding that the utility of instruments of labor, raw materials, and the necessities of life for workers constitutes productive capital. McCulloch disagrees with defining capital merely from the perspective of production. He holds: “The capital of a country may be defined as that portion of the produce of labour existing in it which can be directly employed either to support human existence or to facilitate production.” [14]14 John Ramsay McCulloch, *The Principles of Political Economy* (Edinburgh: William and Charles Tait, 1825), p. 92. In this way, he further broadens the extension of capital. (2) Associating capital with human subjective psychology or willpower and character. For example, Bastiat holds that material entities are not the key to the formation and accumulation of capital; rather, the three willpower and character traits of “foresight, wisdom, and frugality” are the source of capital. [15]15 Frédéric Bastiat, *Economic Harmonies*, trans. W. Hayden Boyers (Irvington-on-Hudson, NY: Foundation for Economic Education, 1996), p. 183. Specifically, to raise capital, the capitalist must be able to predict the future, sacrifice the present, and exercise self-control, and must also have causal thinking and be familiar with the means of utilizing nature to serve production. Moreover, in an atmosphere full of “activity, frugality, and security,” capital can grow by itself. Therefore, people need to apply abundant emotional care to their compatriots through public opinion and create a sufficient atmosphere of security in order to promote the accumulation of capital.

这一理论倾向集中体现在庸俗经济学的资本观中,主要包括两种类型:(1)将资本等同于生产资料或生活资料等物质实体。例如,萨伊把资本理解为生产财富的财富,认为劳动工具、劳动原料以及劳动者生活必需品的效用构成了生产性资本。麦克库洛赫则不同意仅仅从生产的角度来界定资本。他认为:“一个国家的资本可以定义为这个国家现存的、可以直接用来维持人类生存或促进生产的那一部分劳动产品”。这样,他就进一步拓宽了资本的外延。(2)将资本与人的主观心理或意志品质联系在一起。例如,巴师夏认为,物质实体并非资本形成和积累的关键,“远见性、智慧和节俭”这三种意志品质才是资本的根源。具体言之,为了筹集资本,资本家必须能够预测未来、牺牲现在和自我控制,还必须有因果思维,熟稔利用自然为生产服务的手段。并且,在充满“能动性、节俭和安全”的氛围下,资本靠自身就能增长。因此,人们需要通过公众舆论对同胞施以丰沛的情感关怀,营造充足的安全氛围,才能推动资本的积累。

Clearly, the above conceptions of capital either resort to material substances such as tools, raw materials, and articles of daily use to understand capital, or explain the existence and movement of capital from the perspective of subjective psychology and willpower. They all strip capital of its social, historical, and transitory character, absolutizing and eternalizing capital from the natural attributes of things or the natural nature of human beings. In Marx’s view, however, capital is value that can preserve and augment itself. For capital to realize the augmentation of value, it must hire labor, or, in other words, it must enter into a wage-labor relationship with the worker. The worker must be free to sell his labor-power as a commodity to the capitalist, and, beyond producing the value of his own labor-power, provide the capitalist with surplus labor and surplus value. At the same time, to ensure the existence of workers who are “free in the double sense” [i.e., free from means of production and free to sell their labor-power], capital must confront them as an alien and independent power, with the ownership of the means of production and the right to distribute the products of labor constituting the core content of this economic power. In this one-dimensional, unequal power-dominance relationship, it is not the worker who dominates capital in the form of the means of production, but the means of production as the form of appearance of capital that dominates the worker; it is not people who dominate things, but things that dominate people. Historically, this form of capital’s dominance over wage labor differs both from the slave owner’s direct possession of the slave’s person and from the feudal lord’s binding and constraining of the feudal peasant; the three belong to the power-dominance relationships of different social formations. Therefore, capital is neither a naturally existing material entity nor a product of subjective psychology; its essence “is a definite, social, production relation belonging to a definite historical social formation.” [16]16 Marx, *Capital*, Vol. III, Chapter 48.

显然,以上资本观或者诉诸工具、原料、生活用品等物质资料来理解资本,或者从主观心理、意志品质的视角来解释资本的存在和运动。它们都剥离了资本的社会性、历史性和暂时性,从物的自然属性或人的自然本性出发将资本绝对化、永恒化了。而在马克思看来,资本是能够保存并增殖自身的价值。资本要实现价值增殖,就必须雇佣劳动,或者说,必须与劳动者发生雇佣关系。劳动者需要自由地将劳动力作为商品出卖给资本家,并在生产出自身的劳动力价值之外,再为资本家提供剩余劳动和剩余价值。同时,要保证“自由得一无所有”的劳动者的存在,资本就必须作为一种异己而独立的权力同其相对立,而生产资料所有权和劳动产品分配权构成该种经济权力的核心内容。在此单向度、不平等的权力—支配关系中,不是劳动者支配表现为生产资料的资本,而是作为资本的表现形式的生产资料支配劳动者;不是人支配物,而是物支配人。而历史地看,资本对雇佣劳动的这一支配形式既不同于奴隶主对奴隶人身的直接占有,也不同于封建地主对封建农民的捆绑和束缚,三者分属于不同社会形态的权力—支配关系。因此,资本既不是天然存在的物质实体,更不是主观心理的产物,其本质“是一定的、社会的、属于一定历史社会形态的生产关系”。

Second, from the perspective of its theoretical origins, this tendency already existed in classical economics. We can also see this in their conception of capital. For example, in the Physiocrat François Quesnay, agricultural capital was limited to various concrete material existences. Among them, capital advanced once a year, as “annual advances,” was used to purchase agricultural consumables for short-term use; capital advanced at the beginning of production and compensated over a cycle of several years, as “original advances,” was used to purchase long-term agricultural equipment, including, of course, various agricultural consumables needed for the first year of production. Here, Quesnay first equates capital with the money used to purchase various means of production, and then equates capital with the means of production themselves. After the Physiocrats, Ricardo also held that capital is merely “accumulated labor” used in production, including “food, clothing, tools, raw materials, machinery, etc., necessary to give motion to labour.” The capitalist mode of production was also regarded by Ricardo as “the mode of production most favorable to production, most favorable to the creation of wealth.” It can be seen that among the classical economists, whether the early pioneers or the later synthesizers, capital was understood as a material entity, thereby naturalizing, absolutizing, and eternalizing the capitalist mode of production. However, in Marx’s view, “the Physiocrats are not to be blamed” [17]17 Marx, *Theories of Surplus Value*, Part I, Chapter 2. and classical economics is not to be blamed either. The reason is, first, that the capitalist mode of production was still in its infancy, and its internal contradictions and historical transience had not yet manifested themselves through class conflicts, periodic economic crises, and the long-term tendency for the average rate of profit to fall; therefore, “for them, the bourgeois form of production necessarily appeared as the natural form of production.” [18]18 Marx, *Theories of Surplus Value*, Part II, Chapter 17. Second, Ricardo endowed the capitalist mode of production with absolute, transhistorical progressiveness, which stemmed from “scientific honesty” and “scientific necessity.” [19]19 Marx, *Theories of Surplus Value*, Part II, Chapter 17. Because, in the historical period in which he lived, the capitalist mode of production was more capable than the feudal mode of production of adapting to and promoting the improvement of the level of social productive forces, and thus was consistent with the direction of material production and historical development. Finally, because this theoretical tendency still played a historical role in the struggle against the feudal landed aristocracy at the time, it “even if it had no scientific significance, still had historical significance.” [20]20 Marx, *Theories of Surplus Value*, Part II, Chapter 17. Moreover, classical economics had already, to a certain extent, exposed the fetishistic character of capitalist economic relations.

第二,从其理论渊源来看,该倾向在古典经济学中就已存在。我们同样可以在其资本观中看到这一点。例如,在重农学派弗朗斯瓦·魁奈(François Quesnay)那里,农业资本就被限定为各种具体的物质存在。其中,每年预付一次的资本作为“年预付”,用以购置短期使用的农业消耗品;在生产之初预付、并以数年为周期进行补偿的资本作为“原预付”,则用以购置长期使用的农业设备,当然,其中也包括首年生产所需要的各种农业消耗品。在此,魁奈先是将资本与购买各种生产资料的货币等同起来,进而将资本与生产资料本身等同起来。在重农学派之后,李嘉图也认为,资本仅仅是用于生产的“积累劳动”,包括“推动劳动所必需的食物、衣服、工具、原料、机械等等”。资本主义生产方式也被李嘉图视作“最有利于生产、最有利于创造财富的生产方式”。可见,在古典经济学家那里,不论是早期的开先河者,还是晚期的集大成者,都把资本理解为物质实体,从而将资本主义生产方式自然化、绝对化和永恒化。不过,在马克思看来,“决不能责备重农学派”和古典经济学。原因在于,首先,资本主义生产方式尚处于幼年时期,其内在矛盾和历史暂时性还没有通过阶级冲突、周期性的经济危机以及长期的平均利润率下降趋势等体现出来;因此,“对于他们来说,生产的资产阶级形式必然表现为生产的自然形式”。其次,李嘉图赋予资本主义生产方式以绝对的、超历史的进步性,这是出于“科学上的诚实”和“科学上的必要”。因为,在其所处的历史时期,资本主义生产方式比封建生产方式更能适应和促进社会生产力水平的提高,因而与物质生产和历史发展的方向是一致的。最后,由于这一理论倾向在当时还起着与封建土地贵族作斗争的历史作用,所以,它“即使没有科学的意义,毕竟也有历史的意义”。更何况,古典经济学已经在一定程度上揭穿了资本主义经济关系的拜物教性质。

Third, compared with classical economics, vulgar economics is situated under different historical conditions, and its adherence to this erroneous tendency has a fundamentally different character. After the 1820s, the transitory nature of the capitalist mode of production gradually became apparent. Starting in 1825, the capitalist mode of production began to “leave its infancy,” [21]21 Marx, *Capital*, Vol. I, Chapter 25. and correspondingly, capitalist economic crises, characterized by relative overproduction, began to erupt periodically. Severe economic imbalances revealed the profound contradiction between the law of value based on commodity production and the law of surplus value based on capitalist commodity production. At the same time, the generalization of large-scale machine industry meant a substantial increase in the organic composition of capital, and the resulting tendency for the general rate of profit to fall also left bourgeois economists at a loss. Simultaneously, the antagonistic character of the capitalist mode of production was fully exposed. On the one hand, the bourgeoisie not only seized political power from the feudal landed aristocracy, definitively proclaiming the victory of capitalist economic relations over feudal economic relations; on the other hand, the conflict and antagonism of interests between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat began to intensify continuously, and the class struggle of the proletariat to defend its own interests “assumed an increasingly pronounced and threatening form.” [22]22 Marx, *Capital*, Vol. I, Preface to the First German Edition. Under these circumstances, the erroneous tendency adhered to by vulgar economists was both a deliberate opposition to and suppression of the proletarian movement and socialist ideas based on the self-interest of the bourgeoisie, and a non-scientific attempt to deliberately obscure the historical transience of the capitalist mode of production, in order to entrench the capitalist mode of production and make it eternal and everlasting.

第三,与古典经济学相比,庸俗经济学处于不同的历史条件下,其对这一错误倾向的持守也具有截然不同的性质。19世纪20年代后,资本主义生产方式的暂时性已逐渐显现出来。自1825年起,资本主义生产方式开始“脱离幼年时期”,相应地,以生产相对过剩为本质特征的资本主义经济危机开始周期性地爆发。严重的经济失衡状态暴露出基于商品生产的价值规律与基于资本主义商品生产的剩余价值规律之间的深刻矛盾。同时,机器大工业的普遍化意味着资本有机构成的大幅提高,由此产生的一般利润率下降趋势也让资产阶级经济学家无所适从。同时,资本主义生产方式的对抗性也充分暴露出来。一方面,资产阶级不仅从封建土地贵族手中夺得政权,彻底宣告了资本主义经济关系对封建主义经济关系的胜利;另一方面,资产阶级与无产阶级之间的利益冲突和对抗开始不断激化,无产阶级捍卫自身利益的阶级斗争“采取了日益鲜明的和带有威胁性的形式”。在此情况下,庸俗经济学家所持守的错误倾向,既是基于资产阶级的自身利益而刻意对抗、压制无产阶级运动和社会主义思潮,又是以非科学的态度刻意遮蔽资本主义生产方式的历史暂时性,以图固守资本主义生产方式,使其永世不变、万古长存。

Take Bastiat as an example. On the one hand, Bastiat did not acknowledge overproduction under the capitalist system. Faced with socialist criticism that large-scale machine industry led to overproduction, he believed there was no need to be uneasy about this progress in production. In his view, overproduction was merely an absurd formula that treated human needs as a constant quantity while ignoring their infinitely expansive nature. If one observed and summarized the economic activities of an “isolated individual,” one would derive many universal natural laws. And a series of aphorisms commonly regarded as axioms by people, such as overproduction, luxury creating wealth, machinery destroying labor, etc., precisely could not be confirmed in this way. On the other hand, Bastiat strongly opposed the socialists. He believed that the existing social order, i.e., the capitalist system, was based on general laws and represented the “natural order” of human society; whereas the social transformation plans proposed by socialists belonged to an “artificial order,” one that was imagined, fabricated, and disregarded laws. [23]23 Frédéric Bastiat, *Economic Harmonies*, Chapter 1. As for the former, it was based on the natural human nature of seeking benefit and avoiding harm, on general laws such as property, exchange, and inheritance, with the economic law of “exchange of services for services” at its core. As for the latter, to make people abandon the existing order and accept the artificial order, only two methods—coercion and persuasion—could be relied upon, but both were impracticable. Through a series of arguments, Bastiat believed that socialists ignored the fact that social progress depended on the formation and growth of capital, and that only by allowing capital to conform to human nature and grow naturally could social welfare be increased.

以巴师夏为例。一方面,巴师夏不承认资本主义制度下的生产过剩。面对社会主义者对机器大工业导致生产过剩的批评,他认为没有必要对这种生产的进步感到不安。在他看来,生产过剩只不过是一个荒谬的公式,它把人的需要视作一个不变的量,而忽视了其无限扩张的性质。如果对“孤独的人”的经济活动进行观察和总结,就会得出许多普适性的自然规律。而一系列被人们普遍视作公理的警句,如生产过剩、奢侈创造财富、机器消灭劳动等等,恰恰不能在其中得到印证。另一方面,巴师夏极力反对社会主义者。他认为,现存的社会秩序即资本主义制度建立在一般的规律之上,并且代表着人类社会的“自然秩序”;而社会主义者提出的社会改造方案则属于“人为秩序”,是想象的、臆造的和无视规律的。10就前者而言,它基于趋利避害这一人类的自然本性,基于财产、交换以及继承等一般规律,以“服务交换服务”的经济法则为核心。就后者而言,要使人们抛弃现有秩序而接受人为秩序,就只有依靠强制力和说服这两种办法,但它们都是行不通的。通过一系列论证,巴师夏认为社会主义者忽视了社会进步要依赖资本的形成和增长,只有让资本顺应人心和自然地增长,才能促进社会福利的增加。

In this regard, Marx points out that Bastiat’s doctrine is entirely “unhistorical and anti-historical,” and that what he provides are merely some outdated views and one-sided materials. On the one hand, the “isolated individual” he cites as a “Robinsonade” is an “imagination lacking in creativity” inherited from Smith and Ricardo. This abstract individual, regarded as the historical starting point, is in reality a distorted reflection in the economist’s mind of the individual within modern commodity production and exchange relations. In Bastiat’s hands, however, such erroneous intuition becomes a theoretical tool for concealing the problem of overproduction. On the other hand, the natural order he defends, centered on “the exchange of services for services,” is merely a specific historical form of the proportional distribution of social labor. He borrows widely existing facts from everyday notions of exchange relations and reduces all economic categories to a single category, thereby arguing that only “one unique economic relation” exists, namely, the simple commodity exchange relation. The reason for doing so is that Bastiat clearly understands that socialists have found their theoretical foundation in classical economics, and therefore he must attack their correct understandings of capitalist society “as errors.” Only in this way can he achieve the goal of naturalizing, absolutizing, and eternalizing the capitalist mode of production. Here, “naturalization,” “absolutization,” and “eternalization” refer to regarding the capitalist mode of production as something that is natural (rather than constructed through the practical activities of real human beings), transcending (rather than being based on or relying on) specific historical conditions and environments, and accompanying the entire development of human society (rather than being temporary at a specific stage of historical development). Moreover, it is precisely because of the disregard for the role of human practical activity that the relative and historically transient nature of the existence of the capitalist mode of production is overlooked. In other words, naturalization necessarily leads to absolutization, and absolutization necessarily leads to eternalization.

对此,马克思指出,巴师夏的学说完全是“非历史的和反历史的”,他所提供的不过是一些陈旧的观点和片面的材料。一方面,他所举证的“孤独的人”作为“鲁滨逊一类的故事”,是从斯密、李嘉图那里承继过来的一种“缺乏想象力的虚构”。这一被视作历史起点的抽象个人,实际上是现代商品生产和交换关系中的个人在经济学家头脑中的歪曲反映。而在巴师夏那里,此类错误的直观却成为他掩盖生产过剩问题的理论工具。另一方面,他所维护的以“服务交换服务”为核心的自然秩序,只不过是按比例分配社会劳动的一种特殊历史形式。他从日常观念中借用交换关系中广泛存在的事实,并将所有经济范畴都归结为同一范畴,进而论证只存在“唯一的经济关系”即简单商品交换关系。之所以要这样做,是因为巴师夏清楚地了解社会主义者从古典经济学中找到了理论基础,因此必须把他们对资本主义社会的一些正确认识“当作谬误来加以抨击”。唯其如此,才能达到把资本主义生产方式自然化、绝对化和永恒化的目的。在此,所谓“自然化”“绝对化”和“永恒化”,指的是把资本主义生产方式看作一种自然而然的(而非通过现实的人的实践活动而建构的)、超越(而非基于或依托于)特定历史条件和环境的、伴随人类社会发展始终的(而非在历史发展的特定阶段上暂时的)存在。并且,正是由于无视人的实践活动的作用,才导致对资本主义生产方式存在的相对性和历史暂时性的忽视。换言之,自然化必然导致绝对化,绝对化必然导致永恒化。

V. Conclusion

五、结语

To deeply understand the truly critical implications behind the concept of “vulgarity” and even the profound meaning of Marx’s historical view of economic thought, it is necessary to base oneself on the perspective and method of historical materialism, to explore the intrinsic connection between the capitalist mode of production and vulgar economics, and to explain the way in which vulgar economists construct a bourgeois ideology that serves the logic of capital. The structural interpretation of the vulgarity of vulgar economics aims to show that the concept of “vulgarity” used by Marx is not a simple intuitive term that can be understood from its literal meaning or from the perspective of class reductionism, nor is it a term of abuse or slander stemming from an unscientific attitude. Rather, it contains three progressively layered theoretical determinations, reflecting Marx’s unique approach to analyzing and evaluating economic theories.

要深入理解“庸俗”概念背后真正的批判性含义乃至马克思经济思想史观的深蕴,需要基于历史唯物主义的视野和方法,探寻资本主义生产方式与庸俗经济学的内在关联,说明庸俗经济学家以何种方式建构一种服务于资本逻辑的资产阶级意识形态。对庸俗经济学之庸俗性的结构化阐释旨在说明,马克思所使用的“庸俗”概念并非一个可以简单从字面含义或阶级还原论角度来理解的直观词汇,更不是出于非科学态度的谩骂和诋毁之词,而是包含三重递进式的理论规定,折射出马克思分析和评判经济学理论的独到路径。

Specifically, the three determinations are not in a state of mutual unrelatedness. The process of transitioning from the preceding determination to the succeeding one is a process of gradual logical progression and deepening analysis. In terms of theoretical content, vulgar economics manifests itself as a phenomenalist theory that stays at the level of describing phenomena while opposing essential analysis. To grasp the deeper determination of its phenomenalist theory, it is necessary to start from the perspective of class analysis and reveal the ideological nature of vulgar economics in serving the interests of the bourgeoisie. However, class structure and class interests are, in Marx’s system of categories, actually objects to be explained and do not possess fundamental explanatory power. This is because class structure is always built upon a definite, historical, and specific economic structure and is maintained through the continuous reproduction of economic relations. Therefore, it is also necessary to focus on the basic conception of the capitalist mode of production held by vulgar economics, and to grasp its theoretical aim or core appeal. This is embodied in the inherent tendency to naturalize, absolutize, and eternalize the capitalist mode of production. In summary, if the determination at the level of theoretical content depicts the specific epistemological level at which vulgar economics is situated, then the determination at the level of theoretical essence embodies the class attributes and class interests behind vulgar economics, and the determination at the level of theoretical aim reveals the mode of production and economic relations that vulgar economics defends and upholds. The logical relationship among the above three determinations also reflects Marx’s historical materialist methodology: a definite economic structure determines the corresponding class structure, and class interests rooted in economic interests shape definite ideas and concepts.

具体而言,三项规定之间并非处在互不相关的状态中。从前项规定过渡到后项规定的过程,是逻辑逐渐递进、分析逐渐深入的过程。在理论内容上,庸俗经济学体现为一种流于现象描述而反对本质分析的现象主义理论。而要把握其现象主义理论的深层规定,就需要从阶级分析的视角出发,揭示庸俗经济学为资产阶级利益服务的意识形态性质。不过,阶级结构和阶级利益在马克思的范畴体系中实际属于被解释的对象,并不具备根本性的解释效力。因为阶级结构总是建立在一定的、历史的、特殊的经济结构之上,通过经济关系的不断再生产而得到维系。所以,还需要聚焦于庸俗经济学看待资本主义生产方式的基本理念,把握其理论旨归或者核心诉求。这就体现为将资本主义生产方式自然化、绝对化和永恒化的内在倾向。总而言之,如果说理论内容层面的规定刻画了庸俗经济学所处的特定认识层次,那么理论实质层面的规定体现的就是庸俗经济学背后的阶级属性和阶级利益,理论旨归层面的规定则揭示了庸俗经济学所维护和固守的生产方式和经济关系。上述三重规定之间的逻辑关系也体现了马克思的历史唯物主义方法论:一定的经济结构决定着相应的阶级结构,根源于经济利益的阶级利益则塑造出一定的思想观念。

The history of thought is a battlefield of ideas, and the flames of ideological warfare continue in the contemporary era. If we carefully examine contemporary mainstream Western economics, we will find that vulgar economics is far from being a thing of the past. As Western left-wing scholar David Harvey says, “the framework of neoclassical economics is almost identical to the vulgar political economy that Marx sharply criticized,” because both treat capital, land, and labor as factors of production and argue that the income forms of the three major social classes possess natural necessity and eternal rationality. Marx’s critical theory directed at vulgar economics inspires us that we cannot equate vulgar economics merely with an inverted conception or erroneous understanding, and thus criticize it only at the level of ideas and concepts. For example, the critique of medieval religion cannot be achieved on the basis of idealism; only by discovering the intrinsic connection between medieval religion and the feudal mode of production can the social foundation and historical limits of medieval religion be revealed. It must be seen that spiritual production is always based on a specific form of material production. The continuous reproduction of capitalist economic relations determines the continuity of capitalist spiritual production. This means that as long as capital relations persist for a long time, vulgar economics itself will be continuously produced and reproduced. In this regard, reflecting on and criticizing the vulgarity of vulgar economics, and resisting the erosion and infiltration of vulgar economics into Marxist economics and the socialist cause, is destined to be a protracted ideological war. This requires us to firmly grasp the “weapon of critique” that Marx forged and bequeathed to posterity, to deeply analyze and expose the contemporary features of vulgar economics and its social foundation, thereby demonstrating the contemporary value of Marx’s thought.

思想史是思想的战场,思想的战火仍在当代延续。如果我们认真考察当代西方主流经济学,就会发现庸俗经济学远非明日黄花。一如西方左翼学者大卫·哈维(David Harvey)所说的,“新古典经济学的框架与马克思尖锐批判过的庸俗政治经济学几乎完全相同”,因为他们都把资本、土地和劳动作为生产要素,并论证三大社会阶级的收入形式具有自然的必然性和永恒的合理性。马克思指向庸俗经济学的批判理论启发我们,不能把庸俗经济学仅仅等同于一种颠倒的观念或错误的认识,从而只在思想观念层面对其展开批判。例如对中世纪宗教的批判不能在观念论的基地上实现,只有发现中世纪宗教与封建主义生产方式的内在联系,才能揭示中世纪宗教的社会基础和历史限度。必须看到,精神生产总是奠基于特定形式的物质生产。资本主义经济关系的不断再生产决定了资本主义精神生产的持续性。这意味着,只要资本关系长期存在,庸俗经济学自身也会不断地得到生产和再生产。就此而言,反思并批判庸俗经济学的庸俗性,抵御庸俗经济学对马克思主义经济学和社会主义事业的侵蚀和渗透,注定是一场思想的持久战。这需要我们牢牢把握马克思锻造并交付给后人的“批判的武器”,深入剖析和揭橥庸俗经济学的当代面相及其社会基础,以此展示马克思思想的当代价值。

Author Biographies: Wang Fengming, Professor and Doctoral Supervisor, School of Marxism, Tsinghua University; Qin Yifan, Doctoral Candidate, School of Marxism, Tsinghua University.

作者简介：王峰明，清华大学马克思主义学院教授、博士生导师；秦一帆，清华大学马克思主义学院博士研究生。