Marx’s Critique of the “Universal Affluence” of National Economics and Its Implications — Based on the Logical Connection of Labor, Wealth, and Capital

Achieving “universal affluence for all social classes” (hereinafter “universal affluence”) is an important goal of national economics. (Cf. Smith, 1972, p. 13) On the basis of clarifying the specificity of the capitalist mode of production, Marx revealed the impossibility of national economics attaining the goal of “universal affluence,” and then, on the basis of defining core content such as the power of capital and its limits, mapped out a scientific blueprint for the development of communist society that includes “the wealth of all people” (Marx and Engels Collected Works, Vol. 8, p. 200). Marx’s scientific elucidation of the logical connection of labor, wealth, and capital reveals the institutional prerequisites and basic conditions for the sharing of wealth, providing important theoretical support for socialism with Chinese characteristics in the New Era to take solid steps toward promoting the all-round development of the individual and common prosperity for all the people.

实现“社会各阶级普遍富裕”(以下简称“普遍富裕”)是国民经济学的重要目标。(参见斯密，1972年，第13页)马克思在澄清资本主义生产方式特殊性的基础上，揭示了国民经济学达成“普遍富裕”目标的不可能性，继而在界定资本权力及其界限等核心内容的基础上，擘画了包含“所有的人富裕”(《马克思恩格斯文集》第8卷，第200页)在内的关于共产主义社会发展的科学蓝图。马克思关于劳动、财富及资本的逻辑关联的科学阐释，揭示了财富共享的制度前提和基本条件，为新时代中国特色社会主义推动人的全面发展、全体人民共同富裕迈出坚实步伐提供了重要理论支撑。

I. The Theoretical Presupposition of “Universal Affluence” in National Economics

一、国民经济学关于“普遍富裕”的理论预设

Regarding the definition and usage of terms such as national economics and classical political economy, this article will not dwell on the conceptual entanglements between them, but will directly adopt Hegel’s formulation — “this science does honor to thought, for it finds laws for a mass of accidents” (Hegel, p. 233). Marx also called this science national economics. (Cf. Marx and Engels Collected Works, Vol. 1, p. 765) As the founder of national economics, Smith devoted himself to achieving the goal of “universal affluence.” The internal logic of this goal manifests as “three consistencies”: the consistency of labor accumulation [1]1 The Chinese term “劳动积蓄” (láodòng jīxù) refers to the accumulation or stockpiling of the products or value resulting from labor, distinct from the process of capital accumulation. and wealth accumulation, the consistency of wealth accumulation and capital accumulation, and the consistency of labor accumulation and capital accumulation.

关于国民经济学、古典政治经济学等内涵界定及其用法方面，本文不再赘述它们之间的概念纠缠，而直接采用黑格尔的说法——“这门科学使思想感到荣幸，因为它替一大堆的偶然性找出了规律”(黑格尔，第233页)。马克思也将这门科学称为国民经济学。(参见《马克思恩格斯文集》第1卷，第765页)作为国民经济学的奠基者，斯密致力于实现“普遍富裕”的目标。这一目标的内在逻辑表现为“三个一致性”:劳动积蓄(1)与财富积累相一致、财富积累与资本积累相一致、劳动积蓄与资本积累相一致。

First, the argument in national economics concerning the consistency of labor accumulation and wealth accumulation.

第一，国民经济学关于劳动积蓄与财富积累相一致的论证。

Smith developed the labor of early economic thought into “labor in general,” holding that this “labor in general” is the sole source of the creation of wealth. Based on the development of the age of navigation and the American gold and silver mining industry, mercantilism since the 16th century, within the logical thread of labor (mining) accumulation — gold and silver (money) — wealth accumulation, discovered that wealth originates from commercial circulation, holding that labor merely provides some kind of article for commercial circulation, or, in other words, that labor is subordinate to commercial trade activities. The doctrine of French physiocracy can be summarized by the developmental thread of labor — agriculture (net product) — wealth, but here labor is confined solely to agricultural production activities, or to activities that provide the use-value of agricultural products. Smith’s labor — as the foundation for constructing the system of national economics — is neither the trade or mining activities of mercantilism, nor the agricultural activities of physiocracy, but rather points to “labor in general.”

斯密将早期经济思想中的劳动发展为“一般劳动”,认为这种“一般劳动”是财富创造的唯一来源。基于航海时代与美洲金银采矿业的发展实践，16世纪以来的重商主义在劳动(采矿)积蓄—金银(货币)—财富积累的逻辑线索中，发现财富来源于商业流通，认为劳动只是为商业流通提供某种物品，或者说，劳动从属于商业贸易活动。法国重农主义的主张可以用劳动—农业(纯产品)—财富的发展线索来概括，但这里的劳动仅仅局限于农业生产活动，或者指提供农产品使用价值的活动。斯密的劳动——作为构建国民经济学体系的基点，不是重商主义的贸易或者采矿活动，也不是重农主义的农业活动，而是指向“一般劳动”。

The so-called “labor in general” refers to production activities that transcend the boundaries of “concrete labor,” can serve as a measure of value, and can create wages, profit, and rent. Smith liberated labor from the specific fields of mining or agricultural activities; labor “is neither industrial labor, nor commercial labor, nor agricultural labor” (Marx and Engels Collected Works, Vol. 8, p. 28), but should obtain its essential determination in “labor in general” that creates non-specific products, non-specific wealth. Smith held that labor is “the source of all the necessaries and conveniences of life” (Smith, 1972, p. 1). He dissolved the specific occupational differences of labor and, using this as a fulcrum, constructed a relational system of labor — value — wealth, thereby linking labor with the production of things or the production of use-values, prompting the transformation of labor into “labor in general,” and simultaneously prompting the transformation of wealth into “wealth in general.” This theory of national wealth constructed on the basis of “labor in general,” even in Hume’s view, possessed “deep thought, complete exposition, and keen insight” (Mossner and Ross, eds., p. 284), laying the theoretical foundation for the consistency of labor creating wealth and accumulating wealth, i.e., the consistency of labor accumulation and wealth accumulation.

所谓“一般劳动”,是指超越“具体劳动”的界限，能够作为价值尺度且能够创造工资、利润和地租的生产活动。斯密把劳动从采矿业或者农业活动等具体领域中解放出来，劳动“既不是工业劳动，又不是商业劳动，也不是农业劳动”(《马克思恩格斯文集》第8卷，第28页),而应在创造非特定产品、非特定财富的“一般劳动”那里获得它的本质规定。斯密认为，劳动是“一切生活必需品和便利品的源泉”(斯密，1972年，第1页),他消解了劳动的具体行业差别，并以此为支点构建了关于劳动—价值—财富的关系体系，从而把劳动与物的生产或使用价值的生产联系起来，促使劳动向“一般劳动”转变，同时也促使财富向“一般财富”转变。这种以“一般劳动”为基点构建的国民财富理论，即便在休谟看来，也是“有深刻的思想、完整的阐述和敏锐的见解”(莫斯纳、罗斯编，第284页)的，为劳动创造财富且积蓄财富，即为劳动积蓄与财富积累的一致性奠定了理论基础。

Regarding the specific process of labor creating wealth, Smith held that the division of labor plays an important role in increasing labor efficiency and the quantity of wealth. He conducted a comparative analysis of savage society and a society with a higher degree of division of labor. “In a savage society, the work which one person performs alone, in a more advanced society generally becomes the work of several persons” (Smith, 1972, p. 9); this is the state of development of the division of labor in civilized society in modern times. So why does the division of labor contribute to wealth accumulation? (1) Because of the increased dexterity of the worker, efficiency can be raised while output is increased; (2) In the above process, the worker can save time, and can even participate in the production of other industries, increasing opportunities to create wealth; labor accumulation and wealth accumulation manifest as the same process; (3) On the premise of increased efficiency and time savings, the worker can engage in work such as technical improvement and invention; new technology can in turn promote efficiency, thereby creating a continuous stream of new wealth. On the basis of the division of labor and increased efficiency, labor accumulation and wealth accumulation naturally possess consistency.

就劳动创造财富的具体过程来看，斯密认为分工在提高劳动效率、增加财富数量等方面起着重要作用，他将未开化社会和分工发展程度较高的社会进行了比较分析。“未开化社会中一人独任的工作，在进步的社会中，一般都成为几个人分任的工作”(斯密，1972年，第9页),这是近代以来文明社会的分工发展状况。那么，分工为什么有助于财富积累呢?(1)劳动者因技巧的熟练程度增进，可以在提高效率的同时增加产量；(2)劳动者在上述过程中能够节省时间，甚至能够参与其他行业的生产，增加了创造财富的机会，劳动积蓄与财富积累表现为同一个过程；(3)在提高效率、节省时间的前提下，劳动者可以从事技术改进与发明等工作，新技术可以反向促进效率提高，从而创造源源不断的新财富。在分工与效率提高的基础上，劳动积蓄与财富积累天然地具有了一致性。

Second, the argument in national economics concerning the consistency of wealth accumulation and capital accumulation.

第二，国民经济学关于财富积累与资本积累一致性的论证。

Whether considering the income of the hunter-gatherer in savage society, or discussing the income of the peasant and the landowner after land became private property, the national economists represented by Smith always guided their inquiry by empirical observation, holding that things constitute the basic content of income (wealth) and capital. In other words, the process of the worker’s accumulation of wealth is also the process of increasing his own capital. Smith pointed out that the “natural interest” (ibid., p. 99) of the hunter-gatherer in the savage era influenced his income (wealth); under conditions of private property, the peasant’s appropriation of the “natural produce of the land” (ibid., p. 47) was regarded as the basis for paying rent to the landowner; “the income which the people derive from the land is not proportional to the rent of the land, but to the produce of the land” (Smith, 1974, p. 382). In short, people in different occupations all realize the appropriation of natural objects through their own labor activities, and generate their own income (wealth) through this appropriation, i.e., it becomes the capital individually appropriated.

无论是考量未开化社会渔猎者的收入，还是论及土地成为私有财产后农民及土地所有者的收入，以斯密为代表的国民经济学家始终以经验的观察为指导，认为物构成收入(财富)和资本的基本内容，换言之，劳动者财富的积累过程，也就是增加自身资本的过程。斯密指出，未开化时代渔猎者的“自然兴趣”(同上，第99页)影响着他们的收入(财富),私有制条件下农民对“土地的自然生产物”(同上，第47页)的占有，被视为向土地所有者缴纳地租的依据，“人民由土地获取的收入，不与土地地租成比例，而与土地生产物成比例”(斯密，1974年，第382页)。简言之，不同职业者均以自身劳动活动实现对自然物的占有，并以这种占有生成自我收入(财富),即成为个体占有的资本。

The rent paid by the peasant to the landowner does not depend on the subjective will of the landowner, but on the objective quantity of the land’s produce. National economics regards rent as income, still confined to the direct appropriation of natural objects by man; this is a product of empiricism. Sismondi even emphasized, “What is income for one person is capital for another; the same thing changes its name when it changes hands.” (Sismondi, p. 60) From this it can be seen that in the eyes of the national economists there are only occupational differences; these differences do not affect the tendency to exchange between them, the degree to which they satisfy each other’s needs, or their respective incomes. Workers in different occupations can all accumulate income to form their own wealth, which then becomes the capital for them to continue engaging in labor. Or, within the limits of understanding the creations of labor as things or use-values, wealth accumulation and capital accumulation point to the same thing; the two possess consistency.

农民向地主缴纳的地租，不取决于地主的主观意志，而取决于土地生产物的客观数量。国民经济学将地租看作收入，仍然局限于人对自然物的直接占有，这是经验主义的产物。西斯蒙第甚至强调，“对于一个人是收入，对于另一个人则是资本，同样一个东西一转手就具有不同的名称”。(西斯蒙第，第60页)由此可以看出，国民经济学家眼中只有职业差别，这种差别不影响他们之间的交换倾向、相互满足需要的程度以及各自的收入。不同职业的劳动者都可以将收入积累起来形成自身财富，进而成为他们继续从事劳动的资本。或者说，在把劳动创造物理解为物或使用价值的界限内，财富积累与资本积累指向同一个东西，两者具有一致性。

Third, the argument in national economics concerning the consistency of labor accumulation and capital accumulation.

第三，国民经济学关于劳动积蓄与资本积累一致性的论证。

National economics holds that labor and capital are consistent, because the object of labor accumulation and the object of capital accumulation are consistent, and this consistency is related to the definition of capital in national economics. Smith calls the things invested in production activities and expected to yield income capital: “Capital may also be employed in the improvement of land, in the purchase of useful machines and instruments, or in setting up such things as yield a profit without changing hands or further circulation” (Smith, 1972, p. 266). Ricardo believes that “capital is that part of the wealth of a country which is employed in production, and consists of food, clothing, tools, raw materials, machinery, etc., necessary to give effect to labour” (Sraffa, ed., p. 78). From the above definitions of capital, the reason national economists combine capital accumulation with labor accumulation is that they admit “capital and labour are the same thing, because the economists themselves admit that capital is ‘accumulated labour’” (Marx and Engels Collected Works, Vol. 1, p. 67). The new wealth created by labor and the content of capital accumulation both appear as objects or products; thus it can be said that labor and capital are the same thing, and further that the laborer and the owner of capital are also unified, that is, they are regarded as productive classes in an equal position, jointly participating in the labor activity of creating wealth. This is essentially no different from the labor-capital collaborative equality embodied in “the place where labor and capital cooperate” (Clark, p. 49).

国民经济学认为劳动与资本具有一致性，源于劳动积蓄的对象与资本积累的对象具有一致性，这种一致性与国民经济学对资本的界定有关。斯密把投入到生产活动中并获得预期收入的物称为资本，“资本又可用来改良土地，购买有用的机器和工具，或用来置备无须易主或无须进一步流通即可提供利润的东西”(斯密，1972年，第266页)。李嘉图认为，“资本是国家财富中用于生产的部分，包括实现劳动所必需的食物、衣服、工具、原料、机器等等”(斯拉法主编，第78页)。从上述资本的界定来看，国民经济学家之所以把资本积累与劳动积蓄结合起来，是因为他们认为“资本和劳动是同一个东西，因为经济学家自己就承认资本是‘积蓄的劳动’”(《马克思恩格斯文集》第1卷，第67页)。劳动创造的新增财富与资本积累的内容，都表现为物品或产品，因而可以说劳动和资本是同一种东西，进而可以认为劳动者和资本所有者也是统一的，即他们被视为处于平等地位的生产阶级，且共同参与了创造财富的劳动活动。这与“劳动和资本合作的地方”(克拉克，第49页)所体现出的劳资协同平等没有本质性区别。

Smith’s presupposed “universal affluence” also attracted the attention of other national economists. Sismondi advocates working for the welfare of mankind, so that the people enjoy “universal happiness” (Sismondi, p. 17). Ricardo points out that “in this improvement, the whole society immediately obtains the benefit” (Sraffa, ed., p. 286). Ricardo clarifies the distinction between rent, profit, and wages, and points out the problem of the polarization between rich and poor in capitalist society, but he still firmly believes in Smith’s presupposed goal of “common prosperity.” Say holds that laborers can lend their labor to another owner of capital or landowner, thereby realizing the “co-creation” of value by the three parties (see Say, p. 77), and ultimately all three parties can obtain their own income. In the process of continuously increasing income and the three parties co-creating wealth, Smith’s idea of “sharing” wealth is concretized in Say. To fully demonstrate that all social classes can achieve universal affluence, Say even claims that employers and employees are in a mutually supportive relationship of “lips and teeth depending on each other” (ibid., p. 382). List particularly emphasizes natural conditions such as soil fertility, and the view that capital and income can be transformed into each other; in this respect, it is essentially no different from Say’s view of achieving synergy and mutual assistance among laborers, capital owners, and landowners. List even discusses national prosperity and social development prospects from the perspective of “spiritual capital” (see List, p. 193).

斯密预设的“普遍富裕”,还受到其他国民经济学家的关注。西斯蒙第主张为人类谋福利，使人民享受“普遍的幸福”(西斯蒙第，第17页)。李嘉图则指出，“在这种改良中，整个社会立即可以得到利益”。(斯拉法主编，第286页)李嘉图澄清了地租、利润与工资之间的区别，指出资本主义社会的贫富分化问题，但他依然坚信斯密所预设的“共同富裕”目标。萨伊认为，劳动者可以把自己的劳动借给另外的资本所有者或土地所有者，继而实现三方“协同创造”价值(参见萨伊，第77页),最终三方都能得到属于自己的收入。在收入不断增长以及三方协同创造财富的过程中，斯密意义上“共分”财富的思想在萨伊这里具体化了。为了充分说明社会各阶级能够实现普遍富裕，萨伊甚至声称雇主与雇工是“唇齿相依”的互助关系。(同上，第382页)李斯特尤为重视土壤肥力等自然条件，以及资本与收入可以相互转化等观点，就此而言，其与萨伊那种在劳动者、资本所有者和土地所有者之间实现协同互助的观点并无本质区别。李斯特甚至从“精神资本”的视角来讨论国富民裕与社会发展前景。(参见李斯特，第193页)

When discussing the fundamental issue of the source of wealth under capitalism, all branches or representative views of national economics take “general labor” as the main source of wealth. When discussing the relationship between labor and capital, they specifically elaborate the theoretical relationship between factors such as division of labor, wealth, income, and utility and capital, and all advocate the consistency of capital accumulation with social development conditions such as efficiency improvement, wealth increase, and labor accumulation, laying the foundation for proposing the development goal of “universal affluence.” Methodologically, national economists represented by Smith see the promoting effect of division of labor on efficiency improvement and wealth increase, while also seeing the positive effect of natural conditions such as fertile soil on wealth creation. This intuitive or empirical method generalizes the influencing factors of national wealth accumulation and simultaneously reveals the limitations of national economics in explaining “universal affluence.”

在讨论资本主义财富来源这一根本问题时，国民经济学的各个分支或代表性观点，都把“一般劳动”作为财富的主要来源。在讨论劳动与资本的关系时，他们具体阐述了分工、财富、收入以及效用等因素与资本之间的理论关系，都主张资本积累与效率提高、财富增加、劳动积蓄等社会发展状况具有一致性，为提出“普遍富裕”的发展目标奠定了基础。在方法论上，以斯密为代表的国民经济学家看到了分工对于效率提高、增加财富的促进作用，同时看到了土壤肥沃等自然条件对于财富创造的积极作用，这种直观的或者说经验主义的方法泛化了国民财富积累的影响因素，同时显示出国民经济学阐释“普遍富裕”的局限性。

II. The Falsity of “Universal Affluence” under Capitalist Conditions

二、资本主义条件下“普遍富裕”的虚假性

The presupposition of “universal affluence” in national economics is mainly manifested through the consistency of labor accumulation, wealth accumulation, and capital accumulation. National economics generally upholds the following proposition: under capitalist conditions, there is an inevitable connection between labor and capital, and even the accumulation of the entire national wealth. Although various schools of national economics have discovered to varying degrees the contradiction between “universal affluence” and social reality, national economists refuse to acknowledge the defects of their own theoretical system and believe that the goal of “universal affluence” can be achieved under capitalist conditions. In Marx’s view, the national economists’ goal of “universal affluence” is nothing but a “fictitious primordial condition” (Marx and Engels Collected Works, Vol. 1, p. 156). The root cause lies in the consistency they advocate between labor accumulation, wealth accumulation, and capital accumulation, which does not conform to the capitalist relations of production and their developmental trends at the time.

国民经济学的“普遍富裕”预设，主要通过劳动积蓄、财富积累与资本积累相一致体现出来。国民经济学总体上坚持如下主张：在资本主义条件下，劳动与资本，乃至整个国家财富积累之间具有必然联系。尽管国民经济学各派别在不同程度上发现了“普遍富裕”与社会现实之间的矛盾，但国民经济学家拒绝承认自身理论体系的缺陷，并认为资本主义条件下可以实现“普遍富裕”的目标。在马克思看来，国民经济学家关于“普遍富裕”的目标，不过是一种“虚构的原始状态”(《马克思恩格斯文集》第1卷，第156页)。究其根源，在于他们所主张的劳动积蓄、财富积累与资本积累之间的一致性，不符合当时的资本主义生产关系及其发展趋势。

First, the falsity of the consistency between labor accumulation and wealth accumulation.

第一，劳动积蓄与财富积累相一致的虚假性。

Marx believes that the “general labor” of national economics is actually wage labor, that is, capitalist relations of production are manifested as the employment of labor by capital, and further as capital controlling labor and employing laborers to serve itself, revealing the falsity of the consistency between labor accumulation and wealth accumulation. In other words, the two sides of labor and capital cannot participate in labor production collaboratively, nor can they distribute wealth equally. National economists fail to recognize this; they only elaborate “general labor” within the boundaries of natural economy, individual production, and natural division of labor, rather than basing it on the specificity of the capitalist mode of production — the specificity of large-scale machine industry, socialized division of labor, and the maximization of value augmentation — to explain “general labor.” National economists fail to recognize the essence of the process of value augmentation, nor do they grasp the real relationship between labor and wealth, labor and capital, because national economists never touch upon the essential connotation of “general labor.” “The labor that national economics takes as its premise is labor that negates itself and is self-contradictory, yet it is regarded as ‘authentic’ and infinitely self-affirming labor” (Wu Xiaoming, ed., p. 44). That is to say, national economists fail to distinguish between labor for oneself (general labor) and labor for capital under the domination of capital (wage labor). So how does Marx combine “general labor” with the capitalist mode of production to demonstrate that labor accumulation and wealth accumulation do not have an inherent consistency?

马克思认为，国民经济学的“一般劳动”实际上是雇佣劳动，即资本主义生产关系表现为资本对劳动的雇佣，进而表现为资本控制劳动并雇佣劳动者为自身服务，揭示了劳动积蓄与财富积累相一致的虚假性。换言之，劳资双方不能协同参与劳动生产，也就无法平等分配财富，国民经济学家认识不到这一点，他们只是在自然经济、个体生产、自然分工等界限内来阐述“一般劳动”,而不是立足资本主义生产方式的特殊性——立足机器大工业、社会化分工以及价值增殖最大化的特殊性——来阐释“一般劳动”。国民经济学家没能认识到价值增殖过程的本质，也没能把握劳动与财富、劳动与资本之间的真实关系，因为国民经济学家根本就没有触及“一般劳动”的本质内涵。“国民经济学以之作为前提的劳动本身是否定自身并且自相矛盾的劳动，但却被当作是‘本真的’和无限地肯定自身的劳动。”(吴晓明编著，第44页)也就是说，国民经济学家没能把劳动者为自己劳动(一般劳动),与在资本支配下为资本劳动(雇佣劳动)区别开来。那么，马克思是如何把“一般劳动”与资本主义生产方式结合起来，进而说明劳动积蓄与财富积累不具有内在一致性的呢?

Marx believes that the specificity of the capitalist mode of production is manifested through capitalist relations of production. The “three-party collaboration” and “mutual lending of their respective production conditions” spoken of by national economics (see Say, p. 77) in the real situation of capitalist society is that the owner of money transforms into the owner of capital, and the purchasing power of money transforms into the controlling power of capital and the social power to dominate all means of production. Under the absolute control of capital power, laborers no longer have the natural right to use natural resources, and together with other means of production, they become objects dominated by capital. In essence, the relationship between capital and labor is prominently manifested as a relationship of employment and being employed. Under the premise that wages become the remuneration of laborers, labor accumulation is in essence the accumulation of laborers’ wages; under the premise that capital appropriates the surplus value of wage workers, wealth accumulation is manifested as the increase in the profits of capital owners. From this it can be seen that the process of capital owners accumulating wealth is simultaneously the process of laborers losing wealth, that is, the process Marx calls “the loss of the object” (Marx and Engels Collected Works, Vol. 1, p. 157). Thus, wealth becomes an alien existence opposed to the laborer, which indicates that the subject of labor accumulation — the laborer — and the subject of wealth accumulation — the capitalist — must be in a relationship of being employed and employing in the economic sphere, and a relationship of class opposition in the political sphere. Therefore, the idea that they have consistency becomes the most absurd presupposition.

马克思认为，资本主义生产方式的特殊性通过资本主义生产关系体现出来。国民经济学所说的“三方协同”“互相出借自己的生产条件”等(参见萨伊，第77页),在资本主义社会中的真实状况是，货币所有者转变为资本所有者，货币的购买力转变为资本的控制力和支配一切生产资料的社会权力。在资本权力的绝对控制下，劳动者不再拥有自然资源的天然使用权，并且他们与其他生产资料一起，共同成为资本的支配对象。从本质上而言，资本与劳动之间的关系突出地表现为雇佣与被雇佣的关系。在工资成为劳动者报酬的前提下，劳动积蓄在本质上就是劳动者工资的积蓄；在资本占有雇佣工人剩余价值的前提下，财富积累表现为资本所有者利润的增加。由此可知，资本所有者积累财富的过程，同时就是劳动者丧失财富的过程，也就是马克思所说的“对象的丧失”(《马克思恩格斯文集》第1卷，第157页)的过程。如此一来，财富成为与劳动者相对立的异己的存在物，这昭示着劳动积蓄的主体——劳动者，与财富积累的主体——资本家，必然处于经济领域之中的被雇佣与雇佣关系、政治领域之中的阶级对立关系，因而二者具有一致性成为再荒谬不过的预设。

Second, the falsity of the consistency between wealth accumulation and capital accumulation.

第二，财富积累与资本积累相一致的虚假性。

The reason Marx considered the consistency of wealth accumulation and capital accumulation to be a fiction is that after labor was transformed into wage labor, wealth accumulation and its ownership also underwent a fundamental change. The process of wealth accumulation in the era of the natural economy can be summarized as follows: on the basis of a natural state in which humans could directly appropriate natural objects, wealth manifested as individuals regarding the fruits of their labor as “their own things”; the more wealth accumulated, the greater the amount of capital belonging to the laborer. National economists thus observed a consistency between wealth accumulation and capital accumulation. However, under the conditions of capitalist wage relations, labor power is subordinate to capital and its支配权力 [power of domination], so the new wealth created by surplus labor is transformed into “others’ things.” The shift from “one’s own things” to “others’ things” indicates that the subject of wealth accumulation is not the wage laborer but the owner of capital. “Through estranged labor, man not only produces his relationship to the object and the act of production as alien and hostile powers; he also produces the relationship in which other men stand to his production and his product, and the relationship in which he stands to these other men.” (Marx and Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 1, p. 165) [7]7 The citation refers to the Chinese edition of the Collected Works of Marx and Engels (《马克思恩格斯文集》), Volume 1, page 165. The English translation here follows the standard English edition (Marx and Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 1, p. 165). What is referred to here as the laborer producing “the object of production as a hostile power” means the wealth created by the laborer and appropriated without compensation by the capitalist, while “the relationship in which he stands to these other men” refers to the wage relation between capital and the laborer. From this it can be seen that Marx not only expounded the particularity of capitalist relations of production but also clarified the erroneous cognition of the national economists: under the premise that the laborer loses the material wealth he himself creates, the national economists’ view that wealth accumulation and capital accumulation are consistent is nothing but a theoretical fiction lacking imagination.

马克思之所以认为财富积累与资本积累的一致性是一种虚构，是因为劳动转变为雇佣劳动后，财富积累及其所有权也发生根本变化。自然经济时代的财富积累过程可以作如下概述：在能够实现人对自然物直接占有的自然状态基础上，财富表现为个体把劳动所得视为“自己的物”,财富积累越多，属于劳动者的资本数量也就越多，国民经济学家由此观察到财富积累与资本积累具有一致性。但在资本主义雇佣关系的条件下，劳动力从属于资本及其支配权力，因此剩余劳动创造出的新财富就转变为“他人的物”。从“自己的物”转变为“他人的物”,表明财富积累的主体不是雇佣劳动者，而是资本所有者。“通过异化劳动，人不仅生产出他对作为异己的、敌对的力量的生产对象和生产行为的关系，而且还生产出他人对他的生产和他的产品的关系，以及他对这些他人的关系。”(《马克思恩格斯文集》第1卷，第165页)这里所说的劳动者生产出作为“敌对的力量的生产对象”,是指那些由劳动者创造并被资本家无偿占有的财富，而“他对这些他人的关系”则是指资本与劳动者的雇佣关系。由此可知，马克思不仅阐述了资本主义生产关系的特殊性，还澄清了国民经济学家的错误认知，即在劳动者失去自身创造的物质财富的前提下，国民经济学家关于财富积累与资本积累相一致的观点，不过是一种缺乏想象力的理论虚构。

Compared with the enormous wealth accumulated by the capitalist through appropriating surplus labor, the laborer’s wage income is merely that portion of income used to maintain his minimum subsistence level. Between the capitalist and the laborer there appears a directly antagonistic relationship: “In the state presupposed by national economics, this realization of labor appears as the laborer’s de-realization, objectification appears as the loss of the object and as bondage to the object” (Zhang Xiong, p. 10). [8]8 Zhang Xiong is a contemporary Chinese scholar; the reference is to his work cited in the original text. Engels’ analysis of the sharp opposition between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in The Condition of the Working Class in England, and Marx’s dissection of the secret of surplus-value production in Capital and its manuscripts, all reflect the “one rises while the other falls” between the laborer’s wealth accumulation and the capitalist’s capital accumulation. In fact, for the bourgeoisie as a whole, the consistency of wealth accumulation and capital accumulation is an objective description, but for the laboring class, the consistency of wealth accumulation and capital accumulation is merely a subjective illusion.

与资本家占有剩余劳动而积累的巨额财富相比，劳动者的工资收入不过是其用来维持最低生活限度的那部分收入。资本家与劳动者之间呈现为直接的对抗关系，“在国民经济学以之为前提的那种状态下，劳动的这种现实化表现为劳动者的非现实化，对象化表现为对象的丧失和为对象所奴役”(张雄，第10页)。恩格斯在《英国工人阶级状况》中对无产者与资产者之间尖锐对立的分析，马克思在《资本论》及其手稿中对剩余价值生产秘密的剖析，无不体现出劳动者财富积累与资本家资本积累的“此消彼长”。实际上，对于整个资产阶级而言，财富积累与资本积累相一致是一种客观描述，但对于劳动阶级而言，财富积累与资本积累相一致不过是一种主观幻象。

Third, the falsity of the consistency between labor savings and capital accumulation.

第三，劳动积蓄与资本积累相一致的虚假性。

The reason national economists insist that labor savings and capital accumulation are consistent is that they directly call the wealth created by labor — that is, wealth as things — capital. The reason Marx denies the consistency between the two is that capital accumulation only realizes the enrichment of the owner of capital. In fact, what national economics calls labor savings does not accumulate wealth for the laborers themselves. To explain why capital accumulation degenerates into the wealth accumulation of the owner of capital rather than the wealth accumulation of all laborers, one must start from the concept of capital in national economics and its essence. Marx believed that regarding capital as objects put into production — for example, a cow that produces milk becomes capital — is equivalent to regarding the human hands put into production as capital. “According to this way of speaking, the limbs of the human body are also capital,” and “capital would then be merely a new name for something as old as the human race” (Marx and Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 30, p. 213). [9]9 The citation refers to the Chinese edition of the Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Volume 30, page 213. The view that regards cattle, hands, etc., as capital is obviously the result of direct observation of labor activity. Schumpeter discovered that “people always ask this meaningless question: what is capital?” In his view, “the ‘classical writers’ trying to conduct basic analysis in terms of physical objects is a serious loss of direction” (cf. Schumpeter, pp. 400-401). [10]10 Joseph Schumpeter (1883–1950), Austrian-born economist and political scientist, known for his work on capitalism, innovation, and creative destruction. In fact, equating capital with physical objects could still hold in the era of the natural economy, but it cannot stand in the era of modern large-scale industry. Capital, as the starting point of modern large-scale industry, is the social power that dominates all means of production, leading to “the separation of labor and the ownership of the product of labor, the separation of labor and wealth” (Marx and Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 30, p. 266). Thus, capital accumulation is the process by which the capitalist appropriates the worker’s surplus labor without compensation, and Marx thereby denies the consistency of labor savings and capital accumulation.

国民经济学家之所以坚持认为劳动积蓄与资本积累相一致，原因在于他们将劳动创造的财富即作为物的财富直接叫作资本。马克思之所以否定二者之间的一致性，是因为资本积累仅仅实现了资本所有者的富裕。实际上，国民经济学所说的劳动积蓄，并没有为劳动者自己积累财富。要说明资本积累何以蜕变为资本所有者的财富积累，而不是所有劳动者的财富积累，就要从国民经济学的资本概念及其本质说起。马克思认为，把资本视为投入生产中的物品，如生产牛奶的牛成了资本，就相当于把投入生产中的人的双手也视为资本。“按照这种说法，人体的四肢也是资本”,“资本也就只是一个同人类一样古老的事物的新名称了”。(《马克思恩格斯全集》第30卷，第213页)把牛羊、双手等视为资本的观点，显然是对劳动活动直接观察的结果。熊彼特发现，“人们总是问这样一个没有意义的问题：资本是什么”,在他看来，“‘古典作家’试图用实物进行基本分析，是严重的迷失方向”。(参见熊彼特，第400-401页)实际上，把资本与实物等同起来，在自然经济时代尚能成立，但在现代大工业时代就立不住脚了。作为现代大工业起点的资本，是支配一切生产资料的社会权力，导致“劳动和劳动产品所有权的分离，劳动和财富的分离”(《马克思恩格斯全集》第30卷，第266页)。如此一来，资本积累就是资本家无偿占有工人剩余劳动的过程，马克思由此否定了劳动积蓄与资本积累的一致性。

Competition among capitals and the capitalization of landed property ultimately cause capital to become “the支配权力 [power of domination] over labor and its products” (Marx and Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 1, p. 130). [11]11 The citation refers to the Chinese edition of the Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Volume 1, page 130. Under the control of capital, labor is transformed into wage labor, the laborer is transformed into a wage worker, the cooperative and equal relationship between labor and capital is transformed into an antagonistic class relationship between labor and capital, and the worker’s wage is not the result of the three parties “sharing” the newly created wealth, but rather that portion of income that maintains the minimum needs of labor power. Marx emphasized: “Labor is a constantly renewed condition and a constantly renewed means for the worker to obtain, under the name of wages, a part of the value he creates, and thus a part of the social product measured by this part of value, i.e., the necessary means of subsistence” (Marx and Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 7, p. 931). [12]12 The citation refers to the Chinese edition of the Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Volume 7, page 931. This volume corresponds to Capital, Volume 3. Thus, the essence of capitalist relations of production is not the relationship of “unity of labor and capital” and “co-creation” of wealth as national economics claims, but rather a coercive relationship in which capital dominates labor and drives it to serve itself. The complete transformation of national economics’ “general labor” into wage labor under the control of capital is the inevitable result of the operation of capital’s power of domination.

资本竞争与地产资本化最终促使资本成为“对劳动及其产品的支配权力”(《马克思恩格斯文集》第1卷，第130页)。劳动在资本的控制下转变为雇佣劳动，劳动者转变为雇佣工人，劳资协同平等关系转变为劳资对立的阶级关系，工人工资不是三方“共分”新增财富的结果，而是维持劳动力最低需要的那部分收入。马克思强调：“劳动则是一个不断更新的条件和不断更新的手段，使工人在工资的名义下取得他所创造的一部分价值，从而取得社会产品中由这部分价值来计量的一个部分，即必要生活资料。”(《马克思恩格斯文集》第7卷，第931页)如此一来，资本主义生产关系的本质，就不是国民经济学所说的“劳资统一”且“协同创造”财富的关系，而是资本支配劳动并驱使其为自身服务的强制关系。国民经济学的“一般劳动”彻底转变为资本控制下的雇佣劳动，是资本支配权发生作用的必然结果。

From the above “three falsities,” it can be seen that the goal of “universal prosperity” presupposed by the national economists cannot be realized. The reason national economists believe that capitalism can achieve “universal prosperity” is that they think there is no essential difference among the laborer, the owner of capital, and the owner of land; all three participate as factors of production in the process of creating wealth. Marx, however, believed that equating the social positions of the three is itself an abstract theoretical fiction. The real situation is that capital’s power of domination leads to the antagonistic character of capitalist relations of production. In the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, Marx expounded the fundamental opposition between labor and capital; under the premise of a fundamental opposition between the two sides, it is impossible to achieve universal prosperity for all social classes. In the Grundrisse of 1857–1858, he further pointed out that capital “confronts labor capacity, which is in a state of abstract, objectless, purely subjective poverty, as the支配权力 [power of domination] over living labor capacity, as value endowed with its own power and will” (Marx and Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 30, p. 444). [13]13 The citation refers to the Chinese edition of the Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Volume 30, page 444. This volume corresponds to the Grundrisse. The laborer uses his “living labor capacity” to produce the increment of capital and continuously promotes the increase of this increment, while he himself only obtains the wage needed to maintain his subsistence. Marx emphasized: “In the capitalist mode of production, and in the case of capital, which constitutes its dominant category, its decisive relation of production, this bewitched and inverted world develops much more strongly” (Marx and Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 7, p. 936). [14]14 The citation refers to the Chinese edition of the Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Volume 7, page 936. The widening gap in class wealth is the inevitable consequence of the operation of capital’s power of domination.

由上述“三个虚假性”可以看出，国民经济学家预设的“普遍富裕”目标无法实现。国民经济学家之所以认为资本主义能够实现“普遍富裕”,是因为他们认为劳动者、资本所有者与土地所有者不存在本质区别，三者都作为生产要素共同参与财富创造过程。而马克思认为，将三者的社会地位等同起来，本身就是一种抽象的理论虚构，真实的情况在于，资本支配权导致了资本主义生产关系的对抗性。在《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中，马克思阐释了劳动与资本之间的根本对立，在劳资双方处于根本对立的前提下，实现社会各阶级的普遍富裕是不可能的。在《1857—1858年经济学手稿》中他进一步指出，资本“作为对活劳动能力的统治权，作为赋有自己权力和意志的价值而同处于抽象的、丧失了客观条件的、纯粹主体的贫穷中的劳动能力相对立”(《马克思恩格斯全集》第30卷，第444页),劳动者用自己的“活劳动能力”生产出资本的增殖额，并且源源不断地促使资本增殖额提高，而自身仅仅获得维持生存需要的工资。马克思强调：“在资本主义生产方式下和在构成其占统治地位的范畴，构成其起决定作用的生产关系的资本那里，这种着了魔的颠倒的世界就会更厉害得多地发展起来。”(《马克思恩格斯文集》第7卷，第936页)阶级贫富差距日趋拉大，是资本统治权发生作用的必然后果。

Marx also analyzed the impact of the capitalization of landed property on capital competition, in order to explain the basic condition of class antagonism in capitalist society. Marx believed that increasingly fierce market competition and the trend toward concentration of large landed property would lead to monopoly, and as a result, the entire capitalist society would inevitably split into two classes, namely “the class of property owners and the propertyless class of workers” (Marx and Engels Collected Works, Vol. 1, p. 155). After examining the history of the English working class, Engels argued that the property owners or petty bourgeoisie represented by the yeomanry gradually sold or lost their means of production in the process of industrialization, and the proletariat became “the most important product of this industrial transformation” (ibid., p. 402). Marx and Engels combined the history of human existence, the history of wage labor, and the world-historical development process of capital, etc., to clarify the particularity of capitalist relations of production, and thereby revealed the impossibility of national economics achieving the goal of “universal affluence.”

马克思还分析了地产资本化对资本竞争的影响，以此来说明资本主义社会阶级对立的基本状况。马克思认为，愈发激烈的市场竞争以及大地产集中的态势会导致垄断，如此一来，整个资本主义社会必然分化为两个阶级，即“有产者阶级和没有财产的工人阶级”(《马克思恩格斯文集》第1卷，第155页)。在考察英国工人阶级发展史之后，恩格斯认为以自耕农为代表的有产者或小资产阶级，在工业化进程中逐步出卖或丧失自己的生产资料，无产阶级成为“这种工业变革的最重要的产物”(同上，第402页)。马克思恩格斯把人类生存史、雇佣劳动史以及资本的世界历史发展进程等结合起来，阐明了资本主义生产关系的特殊性，进而揭示了国民经济学实现“普遍富裕”目标的不可能性。

III. Contemporary Implications of the Critique of “Universal Affluence” in National Economics

三、国民经济学“普遍富裕”批判的当代启示

The goal of “universal affluence” presupposed by national economics has become a “theoretical fiction,” highlighting the limitations of the theoretical system of national economics itself. The more critical issue is this: Marx’s blueprint for a communist society contains the conception of achieving “the wealth of all people.” Since the internal logic of labor accumulation—wealth accumulation—capital accumulation presupposed by national economics does not correspond to the production conditions of the capitalist era, and since modern capitalist relations of production contain sharp antagonism between labor and capital in the narrative context of labor accumulation—wealth accumulation—capital monopoly, then under what conditions can the conception of achieving “the wealth of all people” contained in communist society be realized? What does capital mean for “the wealth of all people”? Or, how can the role of capital be scientifically and rationally utilized? What is the difference between the “universal affluence” of national economics and Marx’s “wealth of all people”? In the process of responding to the above questions, the contemporary implications of Marx’s critique of the “universal affluence” of national economics gradually emerge.

国民经济学预设的“普遍富裕”目标成为一种“理论上的虚构”,凸显了国民经济学理论体系自身的局限性。更为紧要的问题在于：马克思的共产主义社会发展蓝图包含着实现“所有的人富裕”的构想。既然国民经济学预设的劳动积蓄—财富积累—资本积累的内在逻辑不符合资本主义时代的生产状况，既然现代资本主义生产关系在劳动积蓄—财富积累—资本垄断的叙事语境中蕴含着尖锐的劳资对立，那么共产主义社会包含的实现“所有的人富裕”的构想，在何种条件下有可能实现?资本对于“所有的人富裕”到底意味着什么?或者说，如何科学合理地发挥资本的作用?国民经济学的“普遍富裕”与马克思的“所有的人富裕”有什么区别?在回应上述问题的过程中，马克思批判国民经济学“普遍富裕”的当代启示逐步显示出来。

First, promoting “the wealth of all people.”

第一，促进“所有的人富裕”。

Marx scientifically analyzed the historical movement of capital, arguing that capital exhibits different social functions at different stages of social development. Marx pointed out, “Capital adds this further point: it employs all the means of art and science to increase the surplus labor time of the masses” (Marx and Engels Collected Works, Vol. 8, p. 199). What does capital’s use of advanced scientific means imply? First, the broader the extent and scope of workers’ use of advanced scientific means, the shorter the necessary labor time, and the more capital “creates time for the development of all [members of society] as a whole” (ibid.). Second, the general increase in productive forces no longer takes the appropriation of workers’ surplus labor time as its fundamental means; as workers’ disposable time increases, “production will aim at the wealth of all people, and the free disposable time of all people will also increase” (ibid., p. 200). At this point, what needs to be fundamentally changed is to shift the “capitalist application of machinery” toward serving the workers; correspondingly, the private ownership of the means of production shifts to social ownership, eliminating the social power of capital to dominate everything, which is the same process as “the wealth of all people.”

马克思科学分析了资本的历史运动，认为资本在不同社会发展阶段表现出不同的社会功能。马克思指出，“资本还添加了这样一点：它采用技艺和科学的一切手段，来增加群众的剩余劳动时间”。(《马克思恩格斯文集》第8卷，第199页)资本采用先进科学手段意味着什么?其一，劳动者使用先进科学手段的程度和范围越广，必要劳动时间就越短，资本就越为“全体[社会成员]本身的发展腾出时间”(同上)。其二，生产力的普遍提高不再以占有工人的剩余劳动时间为根本手段，随着劳动者可支配时间的增加，“生产将以所有的人富裕为目的，所有的人的可以自由支配的时间还是会增加”(同上，第200页)。此时，需要从根本上改变的是，将“机器的资本主义应用”转向为劳动者服务；相应地，生产资料的私人所有制转向社会所有制，消灭资本支配一切的社会权力，这与“所有的人富裕”是同一个过程。

Compared with the “universal affluence” of national economics, Marx’s conception of “the wealth of all people” has significant advantages. The “universal affluence” presupposed by national economics refers in essence to “universal affluence” in the material sphere, while other spheres of social reality—such as the spiritual, value, ideological, and moral spheres—have not received the same kind of demonstration as “universal affluence” in the material sphere. The blueprint for future social development sketched by Marx was not limited to the material sphere but involved all spheres of society. When discussing the complete emancipation of humanity, Marx argued that emancipation refers not only to the emancipation of labor but also to emancipation in other spheres. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx proposed transforming the mode of social production and life in order to realize the conditions for “the free development of all” (Marx and Engels Collected Works, Vol. 2, p. 53). The “free development of all” mentioned here must by no means be understood merely as free development in the material sphere, but should be understood as free development in all spheres of society. In other words, the contemporary value of Marx’s critical theory lies in the comprehensiveness of the blueprint it sketches for future social development.

相对于国民经济学的“普遍富裕”而言，马克思关于“所有的人富裕”的构想有着显著优势。国民经济学预设的“普遍富裕”,在本质上是指物质领域的“普遍富裕”,而社会现实的其他领域——诸如精神、价值、思想道德等领域——并没有获得像物质领域“普遍富裕”那样的论证。马克思擘画的未来社会发展蓝图，并没有局限于物质领域，而是涉及社会各个领域。在谈到人的全面解放时，马克思认为解放不仅指劳动解放，也包括其他领域的解放。在《共产党宣言》中，马克思提出变革社会生产和生活方式，以实现“一切人的自由发展”(《马克思恩格斯文集》第2卷，第53页)的条件。这里所说的“一切人的自由发展”,绝不能仅仅理解为在物质领域的自由发展，而应该理解为在社会各领域的自由发展。换言之，马克思批判理论的当代价值，就在于它擘画未来社会发展蓝图时的全面性。

However, when social development is still within the boundaries of capital’s domination and workers have not yet achieved free labor, the measure of wealth still depends on the proportion between necessary labor time and surplus labor, that is, on the controlling power of capital. According to Marx, “Taking labor time as the measure of wealth shows that wealth itself is founded on poverty” (Marx and Engels Collected Works, Vol. 8, p. 200). The developed system of machinery continuously shortens necessary labor time, the “presence” of capital’s controlling power remains strong, and the “increase in surplus labor time” under capital’s control is fundamentally the same thing as workers increasingly falling into a state of “relative poverty.” So, are capital and “the wealth of all people” irreconcilable? Under the structure of social ownership of the means of production, the answer is no. Marx’s scientific plan for future society has already been revealed through his critique of capital: with the disappearance of capitalist private property, the social power of capital to dominate everything gradually vanishes. When capital functions only as a factor of production, the means of production will be returned to the embrace of the workers, and the former wage labor will be restored to labor, accompanying the existence and development of humanity as “the first premise of all human existence” (Marx and Engels Collected Works, Vol. 1, p. 531). Labor accumulation, wealth accumulation, and capital accumulation (capital as a factor of production) can achieve genuine consistency in socialist society, thereby pushing “the wealth of all people” toward reality.

不过，当社会发展仍处于资本支配的界限内，劳动者尚未实现自由劳动时，财富的衡量尺度仍取决于必要劳动时间与剩余劳动之间的比例，即取决于资本的控制力。按照马克思的说法，“以劳动时间作为财富的尺度,这表明财富本身是建立在贫困的基础上的”(《马克思恩格斯文集》第8卷，第200页),发达的机器体系不断缩短必要劳动时间，资本控制力的“在场性”依然强大，资本控制下的“剩余劳动时间增多”,与劳动者日益陷入“相对贫困”状态在根本上是一回事。那么，资本与“所有的人富裕”不可调和吗?在生产资料社会所有制结构中，答案是否定的。马克思关于未来社会的科学谋划，已经通过资本批判理论彰显出来：随着资本主义私有制的消亡，资本支配一切的社会权力逐渐消失，当资本只是作为生产要素发挥作用时，生产资料就会重新划转回劳动者的怀抱中，曾经的雇佣劳动就被还原为劳动，并作为“一切人类生存的第一个前提”(《马克思恩格斯文集》第1卷，第531页)伴随人类生存发展的始终。劳动积蓄、财富积累、资本(作为生产要素的资本)积累，在社会主义社会中能够获得真正一致性，从而促使“所有的人富裕”趋向现实。

Second, transcending the limitations of the “welfare society.”

第二，超越“福利社会”的局限。

The general increase in the income of citizens in modern welfare capitalist states seems to prove that capitalist society can achieve “universal affluence,” and thereby “falsify” Marx’s view that capitalist society and the condition of “universal affluence” cannot coexist. Currently, a few capitalist countries have entered the stage of welfare society. While studying topics such as “the three worlds of welfare capitalism,” some scholars have also discussed the extent to which the welfare state changes capitalist society. Some argue that this issue shows that the “legacy of classical political economy”—that is, the goal of “universal affluence” of national economics—has achieved a fundamental breakthrough in welfare capitalist states. Galbraith, for example, uses the “utility function of supply” to identify changes in modern society: “In modern America, the supply of bread is abundant, and the supply of wheat for making bread is even excessive” (Galbraith, p. 123). Western scholars regard the “welfare society” as an inevitable result of the significant increase in capitalist productive capacity, selectively ignoring the “siphoning effect” of the capitalist production system—exploitative accumulation through external expansion and unequal global exchange. In reality, within the capitalist globalization system, a few central countries control high-value links domestically through industrial outsourcing, capital export, and technological monopoly, while shifting low-value, labor-intensive links abroad, thereby realizing the international transfer of surplus value. This mechanism of “externalizing exploitation” means that the construction of an affluent society by welfare capitalist states is premised on expanding the space of exploitation.

现代福利资本主义国家的市民收入普遍提高，仿佛能够证明资本主义社会可以实现“普遍富裕”,进而“证伪”马克思关于资本主义社会与“普遍富裕”状况不能共存的观点。当前，少数资本主义国家进入福利社会阶段，部分学者在研究“福利资本主义的三个世界”等内容的同时，还讨论了福利国家在多大程度上改变着资本主义社会。有人主张这一问题表明“古典政治经济学的遗绪”即国民经济学的“普遍富裕”目标，在福利资本主义国家有了根本突破，加耳布雷思就以“供给的效用函数”来指认现代社会的变化，“在现代美国，面包的供给是很多的，而做面包的小麦的供给甚至过多了”(加耳布雷思，第123页)。西方学者将“福利社会”视为资本主义生产能力显著提升后的必然结果，选择性地忽视资本主义生产体系的“虹吸效应”——通过对外扩张与全球不平等交换所进行的剥削性积累。实际上，在资本主义全球化体系中，少数中心国家通过产业外包、资本输出、技术垄断等手段，将高价值环节控制在本土，将低价值、劳动密集型环节外移，从而实现剩余价值的国际转移。这种“剥削外部化”机制意味着，福利资本主义国家建构丰裕社会是以扩大剥削空间为前提的。

In fact, welfare capitalist states in the post-industrial structure are filled with contradictions and conflicts. (1) The service economy of the post-industrial era exhibits pronounced polarization, with inequality in wages and welfare becoming increasingly evident. For example, in the United States, “at the bottom of the service economy, wages are close to the poverty line, and fringe benefits are almost nonexistent” (Esping-Andersen, p. 289). (2) To maintain the normal operation of welfare capitalist states, some governments require employees to bear heavier tax burdens. The result is that a shrinking active labor force is forced to support an expanding non-productive group. Germany’s development faces this dilemma, where employees’ “resentment toward taxes may rise, especially since transfers are so clearly flowing from the socially productive part to the non-productive part” (ibid.). (3) To maintain overall employment levels in the welfare state, other governments have had to impose salary caps on public employees, exacerbating conflicts between public-sector unions and private-sector unions. For example, in Sweden, “the centrally controlled solidarity wage policy means that this restriction must be extended to the entire economy, but in fact this is almost impossible to achieve” (ibid., p. 288). It can thus be seen that although post-industrial welfare capitalist states have significantly raised the quality of life and level of affluence for workers, the above social conflicts are solidifying into long-term structural features.

事实上，后工业结构中的福利资本主义国家内部充满了矛盾、冲突。(1)后工业时代的服务经济呈现出明显的两极分化，工资和福利的不平等程度愈发明显，如美国，在其“服务经济的底层，工资和贫困线接近，附加福利几乎不存在”(埃斯平-安德森，第289页)。(2)为了维持福利资本主义国家的正常运转，有些政府要求雇员缴纳更重的税负，结果是不断缩减的积极劳动力被迫支撑膨胀的非生产性群体，德国发展就面临着上述窘境，雇员“对税收的怨恨情绪可能会上升，尤其是转移支付是如此明显地由社会生产性部分流向非生产性部分”(同上)。(3)为了维持福利国家的总体就业水平，还有些政府不得不对公共雇员实施限薪，导致公共部门工会和私人部门工会之间的冲突加重，如在瑞典，“中央控制的团结工资政策意味着这种限制必须扩展到整个经济，但事实是这几乎不可能实现”(同上，第288页)。由此可知，后工业时代福利资本主义国家虽然较大幅度地提高了劳动者的生活质量和富裕水平，但上述社会冲突正在固化为其长期的结构性特征。

In Marx’s view, the general improvement or even great enhancement of workers’ living standards cannot be simplistically equated with “universal affluence.” Marx believed that capital’s endless pursuit of value augmentation must be premised on the comprehensive development of productive forces: “the universal development of productive forces—of wealth in general—as the basis, both in tendency and possibility” (Marx and Engels, *Collected Works*, Vol. 30, p. 541). The development of productive forces in capitalist society does indeed create the possibility of a general increase in the income of wage laborers. Marx used the comparison of a hut—a small house—a palace to illustrate the gap between wage earners’ income and capital’s profit. That is, when wage workers’ income or labor savings enable them to buy a small house and abandon the hut, the capitalist has already taken up residence in a palace. The shift from hut to small house is meant by Marx to show the growth of wage workers’ income, but compared with the increase in capital’s profit—that is, the small house versus the palace—the gap between the two has not narrowed but widened. Within the limits where capital holds the power to dominate everything, no matter how much labor savings grow, this can only indicate a general increase in workers’ income, but it cannot be said that the subjects of labor savings—wage laborers—and the subjects of capital accumulation—capitalists—have joined hands to achieve cross-class “universal affluence.”

在马克思看来，不能简单地将劳动者生活水平普遍提高乃至极大改善等同于“普遍富裕”。马克思认为资本无限追逐价值增殖必须以全面发展生产力为前提，“生产力——财富一般——从趋势和可能性来看的普遍发展成了基础”(《马克思恩格斯全集》第30卷，第541页)。资本主义社会的生产力发展，的确有促使雇佣劳动者收入普遍提高的可能性。雇佣劳动者的收入与资本利润之间的差距，马克思曾用茅舍—小房子—宫殿的比较予以说明，即当雇佣工人收入或劳动积蓄能够买得起小房子从而抛弃茅舍时，资本家已居住于宫殿之中。从茅舍到小房子的变化，马克思意在说明雇佣工人收入的增长，但与资本利润的提高相比，即小房子和宫殿相比，二者之间的差距不是缩小，而是扩大了。在资本拥有支配一切社会权力的界限内，不管劳动积蓄增长到何种程度，都只能说明劳动者收入的普遍提高，但不能说劳动积蓄的主体——雇佣劳动者与资本积累主体——资本家携手实现跨阶级的“普遍富裕”。

Third, dialectically view the role of capital.

第三，辩证看待资本的作用。

Starting from capital’s dominant power, Marx analyzed the specificity of capitalist production, or rather, revealed the fundamental characteristic of social production under the conditions of capitalist private ownership: the accumulation of wealth belongs to the owners of capital, while the accumulation of poverty becomes the fate of workers. The implication of the opposition between this phenomenon of polarization between rich and poor and the goal of “universal affluence” lies in the question of how capital can make “universal affluence” possible. National economics attaches great importance to the role of capital in the process of achieving “universal affluence.” When discussing capital’s participation in modern capitalist production and the creation of wealth, Marx pointed out: “One of the civilizing aspects of capital is that it extorts this surplus labor in a manner and under conditions that are more advantageous to the development of productive forces, to the development of social relations, and to the creation of the elements for a new and higher form, than under the earlier forms of slavery, serfdom, etc.” (Marx and Engels, *Collected Works*, Vol. 7, pp. 927-928). Marx believed that modern large-scale machine production cannot do without the power of capital, yet he also held that modern production under capital’s control, while creating enormous wealth, leads to poverty, thereby revealing the impossibility of “universal affluence” in the process of capitalist modernization. In fact, to enable capital to play a role in promoting “the wealth of all people,” it is necessary to oppose dogmatic interpretations of the concept of capital, and thereby promote the healthy development of modern society while rationally unleashing the power of capital.

从资本的支配性权力出发，马克思分析了资本主义生产的特殊性，或者说，揭示了资本主义私有制条件下社会生产的根本特征：财富积累属于资本所有者，而贫困积累成为劳动者的宿命。这种贫富分化现象与“普遍富裕”目标之间对立的启示在于，资本推动实现“普遍富裕”何以可能。国民经济学十分重视资本在实现“普遍富裕”进程中的作用，马克思在谈到资本参与现代资本主义生产与财富创造时指出，“资本的文明面之一是，它榨取这种剩余劳动的方式和条件，同以前的奴隶制、农奴制等形式相比，都更有利于生产力的发展，有利于社会关系的发展，有利于更高级的新形态的各种要素的创造”(《马克思恩格斯文集》第7卷，第927-928页)。马克思认为现代机器大工业生产离不开资本力量，又认为资本控制下的现代生产在创造巨大财富的同时导致了贫困，进而揭示了资本主义现代化进程中“普遍富裕”的不可能性。实际上，要想发挥资本促进“所有的人富裕”的作用，就必须反对关于资本概念的教条主义解读，进而在合理发挥资本力量的同时推动现代社会良性发展。

The so-called dogmatic interpretation of the concept of capital refers to the view that, when grasping Marx’s critical theory, as soon as capital is mentioned, it is concluded that it possesses the social power to dominate everything; conversely, it is believed that capital that has lost this dominant power is no longer capital. This view, which equates capital with its absolute power, misreads Marx’s exposition of the essence of capital. In fact, Marx explained capital as a “social relation,” or rather, within the context of capitalist relations of production, he explained capital as a monopolistic power that dominates everything. Capital uses this power to seize ownership of the means of production, the right to use labor power, and the power to control the market. In this context, productive forces are in essence the productive forces of capital, and relations of production are social relations constructed around capital’s monopoly power. Capital possesses absolute dominant power, as Marx pointed out: “Capital is the all-dominating economic power of bourgeois society” (Marx and Engels, *Collected Works*, Vol. 30, p. 49). At the same time, Marx emphasized the limits of capital’s own development, and that in a future society it would be possible to “drive people to use capital itself to destroy capital” (ibid., pp. 390-391). This shows that capital’s absolute power is not “eternal”; capital itself contains factors that negate its own development, and this dynamic process of development influences the developmental trend of capitalist society.

所谓对资本概念的教条主义解读，是指在把握马克思的批判理论时，一提到资本，就断定其拥有支配一切的社会权力；反之，认为失去了这种支配权力的资本就不再是资本了。这种把资本与资本的绝对权力等同起来的观点，误读了马克思关于资本本质的阐释。实际上，马克思把资本解释为一种“社会关系”,或者说，在资本主义生产关系的语境内，把资本阐释为一种支配一切的垄断权力。资本凭借这种权力攫取生产资料所有权、劳动力使用权以及市场操控权。在这种语境下，生产力在本质上就是资本的生产力，生产关系就是围绕资本垄断权构建的社会关系，资本拥有绝对的支配权力，正如马克思指出，“资本是资产阶级社会的支配一切的经济权力”(《马克思恩格斯全集》第30卷，第49页)。同时，马克思强调资本自身发展的界限，在未来社会能够达到“驱使人们利用资本本身来消灭资本”(同上，第390-391页)。这说明资本的绝对权力并不是“永恒的”,资本自身包含着否定自身发展的因素，这种动态发展过程影响着资本主义社会的发展趋势。

Developing a socialist market economy is a great pioneering achievement of the Communist Party of China. How to manage capital and better leverage its role is a new issue facing the development of the socialist market economy with Chinese characteristics. We should fully understand and accurately grasp the status, function, and essence of capital in the socialist market economy with Chinese characteristics. General Secretary Xi Jinping points out: “Capital is an important factor of production in the socialist market economy,” and “we must deepen our understanding of the various types of capital and their roles under the new conditions of our era, regulate and guide the healthy development of capital, and bring into play its positive role as an important factor of production” (Xi Jinping, *Selected Economic Works*, Vol. 1, p. 448). Capital has become an important factor of production in the socialist market economy with Chinese characteristics and actively participates in the activities of the socialist market economy. Thus, as a factor of production under socialism, capital can, under the guidance of socialist relations of production, promote the development of social productive forces.

发展社会主义市场经济是中国共产党的伟大创举。如何驾驭资本，更好发挥资本的作用，是中国特色社会主义市场经济发展进程中面临的新问题。我们应充分认识、准确把握资本在中国特色社会主义市场经济中的地位、功能与本质。习近平总书记指出，“资本是社会主义市场经济的重要生产要素”,“必须深化对新的时代条件下我国各类资本及其作用的认识，规范和引导资本健康发展，发挥其作为重要生产要素的积极作用”。(《习近平经济文选》第1卷，第448页)资本成为中国特色社会主义市场经济中的重要生产要素，并积极投入到社会主义市场经济活动之中。由此可见，作为社会主义生产要素，资本能够在社会主义生产关系的引导下促进社会生产力的发展。

At present, China has established the basic socialist economic system, which includes public ownership as the mainstay with diverse forms of ownership developing together, distribution according to work as the mainstay with multiple modes of distribution coexisting, and the socialist market economy system. Capital no longer possesses the social power to dominate everything, nor does it have the status to monopolize all means of production and social resources. Instead, it has been transformed into a factor of production similar to “land, labor, technology, data, etc.” (see ibid., p. 449), jointly serving the development of the socialist market economy with Chinese characteristics. Engels once pointed out: “The relation of capital and labor is the axis around which our entire modern social system revolves” (Marx and Engels, *Collected Works*, Vol. 3, p. 79). In the practical process of promoting common prosperity through Chinese-path modernization, capital also plays an important constructive role. We adhere to the “Two Unswervinglys” [17]17 The “Two Unswervinglys” (两个毫不动摇) refer to the policy of unswervingly consolidating and developing the public sector of the economy, and unswervingly encouraging, supporting, and guiding the development of the non-public sector of the economy., mobilizing the initiative of all factors of production, including the capital factor. In the context of socialist relations of production, when the capital factor is transformed into a factor of production and plays a constructive role, the consistency of labor savings, wealth accumulation, and capital accumulation becomes possible, and the goal of “the wealth of all people” can be transformed into the practical process of “common prosperity for all the people.”

当前我国确立了公有制为主体、多种所有制经济共同发展，按劳分配为主体、多种分配方式并存，社会主义市场经济体制等社会主义基本经济制度。资本不再具有支配一切的社会权力，也没有垄断一切生产资料和社会资源的地位，而是转变为“同土地、劳动力、技术、数据等”类似的生产要素，(参见同上，第449页)共同服务于中国特色社会主义市场经济发展。恩格斯曾指出，“资本和劳动的关系，是我们全部现代社会体系所围绕旋转的轴心”。(《马克思恩格斯文集》第3卷，第79页)在推动共同富裕的中国式现代化实践进程中，资本同样发挥着重要建设性作用，我们坚持“两个毫不动摇”,调动一切生产要素包括资本要素的积极性。在社会主义生产关系的语境中，当资本要素转变为生产要素并发挥建设性作用时，劳动积蓄、财富积累、资本积累的一致性就成为可能，“所有的人富裕”目标就能转变为现实中“全体人民共同富裕”的进程。

Capital initiated the development of modern large-scale industry and became the starting point of modern capitalist development; therefore, it is historically inevitable to discuss capital accumulation in connection with “universal affluence.” Marx believed that in order to carry out social production “with the aim of enriching all people,” it is necessary to abolish capitalist relations of production. This scientific thesis has achieved innovative development in the practice of Chinese-path modernization. Under the socialist system, capital no longer possesses the social power to dominate everything, but has been transformed into a factor of production in the socialist market economy with Chinese characteristics. This requires us to scientifically and rationally utilize all factors of production (including, of course, the capital factor), fully unleash their positive role, and lay a solid foundation for solidly promoting common prosperity for all the people.

资本开启了现代大工业发展进程，并且成为现代资本主义发展的起点，因而把资本积累与“普遍富裕”联系在一起进行讨论具有历史必然性。马克思认为，要想“以所有的人富裕为目的”进行社会生产，就要消灭资本主义生产关系，这一科学论断在中国式现代化实践中获得创新性发展。在社会主义制度下，资本不再具有支配一切的社会权力，而是转变为中国特色社会主义市场经济中的一种生产要素，这就要求我们科学合理地利用一切生产要素(当然包括资本要素),充分发挥其积极作用，为扎实推动全体人民共同富裕奠定坚实基础。

Author’s affiliation: Institute of Philosophy, Shandong Academy of Social Sciences

作者单位：山东社会科学院哲学研究所