On the Integrality of the Integral Marxism

Research on the integrality of Marxism has produced many results, but most of these results have not examined the integrality of Marxism from an integral perspective.

关于马克思主义整体性的研究，已经有了许多成果，但这些成果大多数都没有从整体上考察马克思主义的整体性。

I. A Brief Account of Discussions on the Integrality of Marxism

一、有关马克思主义整体性论述的简述

Some have proposed that the core of Marxism is precisely the integrality of Marxism, or that the integrality of Marxism is grasped through its core. For example, Wang Xiuge points out that the key to grasping Marxism integrally is to grasp the core part of Marxism. And the core of the Marxist theoretical system is the scientific theory of practice. Li Chongfu believes that “scientific socialism should be taken as the ‘core’ and ‘axis’ to comprehend and grasp the ‘integrality’ of Marxism.” Hou Huiqin believes that only by starting from a scientific world outlook can the problem of the integrality of Marxism be resolved. This in effect takes the scientific world outlook as the core of Marxism. Zhang Shuang and Yin Yue argue that criticality is the theoretical characteristic of Marxism, a key word for understanding Marxism, and an important way for Marxism to respond to reality. The relationship of premise-critique among the various components of Marxism integrates them into a rigorous whole. Therefore, we can take critique as the entry point for understanding the integrality of Marxist theory. We can see that these views all seize upon a particular feature of Marxism to grasp the integrality of Marxism, and there is a problem of neglecting other features. The manifestation of this is that these views are inconsistent in their understanding of the core of Marxism, which precisely shows that none of them grasps the integrality of Marxism from an integral perspective.

有人提出，马克思主义核心就是马克思主义整体性，或者通过核心来把握马克思主义整体性。例如，王秀阁指出，整体性地把握马克思主义，关键是把握马克思主义的核心部分。而马克思主义理论体系的核心当属科学的实践理论。李崇富认为，“应当以科学社会主义作为‘核心’和‘中轴’，来领会和把握马克思主义的‘整体性’。”侯惠勤认为，只有从科学世界观出发才能解决马克思主义的整体性问题。这实际上就是把科学世界观作为马克思主义核心。张爽和阴玥认为，批判性是马克思主义的理论特征，是理解马克思主义的一个关键词，也是马克思主义回应现实的一个重要方式。马克思主义各个组成部分之间的前提批判关系将自身结合为一个严密的整体。所以，我们可以以批判为切入点来理解马克思主义理论的整体性。我们看到，这些观点都是抓住马克思主义的某一特点来把握马克思主义整体性，存在忽视其他特点的问题，其表现就是这些观点对马克思主义核心的理解是不一致的，这恰恰说明它们都没有从整体上来把握马克思主义整体性。

Some have taken a certain theme to govern the integrality of Marxism. For example, Sheng Guorong believes that the integrality of Marxism is not a simple addition of content, but unfolds around a core theme or core basis, which gives the various parts an internal interconnectedness. He also believes that the conclusion that the abolition of private property is the core basis of Marxist theory is beyond doubt. Jia Jianfang believes that integral Marxism is the doctrine of Marx and Engels concerning the liberation and development of the proletariat and all humanity. The main line, theme, and ultimate aim of Marxism are human liberation and development, and the basic principles of Marxism all unfold around this theme as an internally logical whole. Hou Huiqin also believes that the theme of human liberation, with the liberation of the working class as its political form, not only makes the Marxist ideological system a consistent and unified whole, but also makes the founders of Marxism and their successors come down in one continuous line. Li Xiafei, on the other hand, believes that the critique of the logic of capital is the root of the integral generation and advancement of Marxist theory; it generates the overall framework of Marx’s theory and runs through the entire process of the development of Marxist theory. It is based on the above observations and understandings that the critique of the logic of capital becomes the meta-problem in the study of the integrality of Marxism. Zhang Li believes that “the fall of the bourgeoisie and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable,” i.e., the “two inevitables,” [1]1 The “two inevitables” refers to the conclusion in the *Communist Manifesto* that “the fall of the bourgeoisie and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.” embodies the integrality of the three main components of Marxism, embodies the integrality of Marxist theory and practice, and embodies the integrality of the scientific nature and value nature of Marxism. However, these themes, in any case, cannot represent the entire content of Marxism, and likewise do not grasp the integrality of Marxism from an integral perspective.

有人从某一主题出发来统领马克思主义整体性。例如，盛国荣认为，马克思主义整体性不是简单的内容相加，而是围绕一个核心主题或者说是核心基点而展开的，这就使各部分内容之间有着内在的关联性。他还认为，消灭私有制是马克思主义理论核心基点这个结论是毫无疑义的。贾建芳认为，整体性的马克思主义是马克思恩格斯关于无产阶级和全人类解放和发展的学说。马克思主义的主线、主题和旨归都是人的解放和发展，马克思主义基本原理都是围绕这个主题展开的具有内在逻辑的整体。侯惠勤也认为，以工人阶级解放为政治形式的人类解放主题，不仅使马克思主义思想体系成为一以贯之的统一整体，而且使马克思主义创始人和他们的继承者们一脉相承。李霞飞则认为，资本逻辑批判是马克思主义理论整体生成和推进的根源，它衍生了马克思理论的总体构架，贯穿于马克思主义理论发展的全过程。正是基于以上的观察和认识，资本逻辑批判成为马克思主义整体性研究的元问题。张丽认为，“资产阶级的灭亡和无产阶级的胜利是同样不可避免的”即“两个必然”体现着马克思主义三个主要组成部分的整体性，体现着马克思主义理论与实践的整体性；体现着马克思主义科学性和价值性的整体性。但是，这些主题无论如何代表不了马克思主义的全部内容，同样没有从整体上把握马克思主义的整体性。

Some have studied the integrality of Marxism from a single perspective or multiple perspectives. For example, Cheng Enfu and Hu Leming conduct an integral study of Marxism from four definitional levels: the founding subject, academic connotation, social function, and value concept. Zhao Jiaxiang looks at the integrality of Marxism from five aspects: the social and historical conditions of the emergence of Marxism, the theoretical sources of Marxism, the content of the Marxist theoretical system, the historical process of the development of Marxism, and the actual situation of Marxist classical works. Hao Lixin believes that to comprehensively grasp the integrality of Marxist theory, one must think from the dual dimensions of historical development and theoretical logic. Zhang Yan believes that Marxist theory is a logical whole with complete meanings of “content integrality,” “historical integrality,” “value integrality,” and “method integrality.” A multi-dimensional interpretation of integrality marks the scientific nature of Marxist theory as a theoretical whole. Yang Shuangshuang believes that the integrality of Marxist theory can be understood from five dimensions: its growth point, irreducibility, criticality, perceptual practical activity, and human liberation. Du Liying believes that the social practical activity of transforming reality determines the intrinsic essence of the integrality of Marxism; attention to real people and their activities forms the integrality of the theme of Marxism; the critique of Hegelian dialectics and of the whole of philosophy achieves the integrality of the method of Marxism; and the integration and innovation of the “three sources” [2]2 The “three sources” refers to the three classical sources of Marxism: German classical philosophy, British classical political economy, and French utopian socialism. lays the foundation for the integrality of Marxist theory. These views in fact compartmentalize the integrality of Marxism, with each compartment having its own integrality, so they are not yet the integrality of the integral Marxism.

有人从某一视角或多个视角来研究马克思主义整体性。例如，程恩富和胡乐明从创立主体、学术内涵、社会功能和价值观念等四个定义层面对马克思主义进行整体性研究。赵家祥从马克思主义产生的社会历史条件、马克思主义的理论来源、马克思主义理论体系的内容、马克思主义发展的历史过程、马克思主义经典著作的实际情况等五个方面看马克思主义的整体性。郝立新认为，要全面把握马克思主义理论的整体性，必须从历史发展和理论逻辑的双重维度来思考。张妍认为，马克思主义理论，是一个具有完备的“内容整体”“历史整体”“价值整体”“方法整体”性质意义的逻辑整体。多重维度的整体性解读，标识了马克思主义理论作为一个理论整体的科学性。杨双双认为，马克思主义理论的整体性可以从其生长点、不可还原性、批判性、感性的实践性和人的解放五个维度来理解。杜利英认为，变革现实的社会实践活动决定了马克思主义整体性的内在本质，对现实的人及其活动的关注形成了马克思主义主题的整体性，对黑格尔辩证法以及整个哲学的批判成就了马克思主义方法的整体性，对“三大来源”的整合创新奠定了马克思主义理论的整体性。这些观点其实是把马克思主义的整体性分块化了，每一块都具有自己的整体性，从而它们还不是整体的马克思主义整体性。

Some have discussed the integrality of Marxism from the unity of multiple aspects. Liu Zhiming believes that “to grasp what Marxism is from an integral perspective, one must insist on understanding it from the organic unity of its four aspects: its most important theoretical characteristics, its loftiest social ideal, its clearest political stance, and its most important theoretical quality.” Zhao Jiaxiang believes that only by organically combining the history of the development of Marxism, the basic principles of Marxism, and the classical works of Marxism can one master the integrality of Marxism. Zhang Leisheng believes that to deeply study the integrality of Marxism, one must reflect on the problem of the unity of theoretical logic, historical logic, and practical logic. “The unity of the three logics” has methodological significance for our study of the integrality of Marxism and for grasping the nature and direction of the development of socialism with Chinese characteristics from the perspective of integrality. These views examine the integrality of Marxism from the interconnections of different aspects, but interconnection itself does not represent the whole. Only by including all the content of each aspect and their interconnections can we speak of the integrality of the integral Marxism. Moreover, some interconnections exist objectively and do not require us to deliberately connect them.

有人从多个方面的统一来讨论马克思主义整体性。刘志明认为，“从整体上把握什么是马克思主义，必须坚持从它最重要的理论特征、最崇高的社会理想、最鲜明的政治立场和最重要的理论品质这样四个方面的有机统一来理解。”赵家祥认为，只有把马克思主义发展史、马克思主义基本原理、马克思主义经典著作有机结合起来，才能掌握马克思主义的整体性。张雷声认为，要深入研究马克思主义整体性，必须对理论逻辑、历史逻辑、实践逻辑三者相统一问题作出思考。“三个逻辑相统一”对我们研究马克思主义整体性，以及从整体性角度把握中国特色社会主义发展的性质和方向具有方法论意义。这些观点是从不同方面的相互联系来考察马克思主义的整体性，但是联系本身不代表整体。只有把各个方面的全部内容和它们的相互联系全部包含起来才谈得到整体的马克思主义整体性。而且有些相互联系是客观存在的，无须我们刻意去把它们联系起来。

For example, Liu Yongan proposes forming an integral understanding of Marxism from the perspective of the unity of fact and value. He believes that we must not ignore the moral principles and values contained in Marxism, unilaterally interpreting Marxism as a social science unrelated to values. This approach severs the original unity of fact and value in Marxism and destroys the inherent integrality of Marxism. However, Engels points out that “the more ruthlessly and disinterestedly science proceeds, the more it finds itself in harmony with the interests and aspirations of the workers.” [3]3 This quotation is from Engels’s *Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy*. Therefore, the more prominent the scientific nature of Marxism, the more prominent its moral principles and values become. This is the natural manifestation of the integrality of Marxism, and there is no need for us to artificially piece together so-called fact and value and other aspects. The class stance of Marxism does not arise from sympathy for the propertyless working class, but from the fact that only the proletariat is the gravedigger of capitalism and the force capable of liberating all humanity.

例如，刘永安提出，从事实与价值统一的角度对马克思主义形成整体性的理解。他认为，我们绝不能无视马克思主义所蕴含的道义和价值，把马克思主义片面地阐释为是与价值无涉的社会科学，这种做法割裂了事实与价值在马克思主义当中本来的统一性，破坏了马克思主义本有的整体性。但是，恩格斯指出，“科学越是毫无顾忌和大公无私，它就越符合工人的利益和愿望。”因此，马克思主义的科学性越突出，其中的道义与价值也越突出，这是马克思主义整体性的自然体现，无须我们人为地把所谓事实与价值等几个方面捏合在一起。马克思主义的阶级立场不是出于对无产的工人阶级的同情，而是在于只有无产阶级才是资本主义的掘墓人，才是解放全人类的力量所在。

Precisely because of an insufficient understanding of the integrality of Marxist theory itself, some people have proposed the need to deliberately integrate Marxism using non-Marxist methods. For example, Fan Shucheng believes that it is necessary to apply the scientific method of complexity, closely combining philosophical research, political economy research, and scientific socialist research, so that philosophy, political economy, and scientific socialism become an organic whole, rather than isolated disciplines. However, the scientific method of complexity, apart from making problems more complex, cannot accomplish this task of integration.

正因为对马克思主义理论自身的整体性不够理解，有人才会提出，需要用非马克思主义的其它方法来刻意整合马克思主义。例如，范树成认为，需要运用复杂性科学方法，将哲学研究、政治经济学研究和科学社会主义研究紧密结合起来，从而使哲学、政治经济学和科学社会主义成为一个有机的整体，而不是各自孤立的学科。然而，复杂性科学方法除了把问题弄复杂外是完成不了这个整合任务的。

Some grasp the integrity of Marxism from the perspective of completeness. For example, Liang Shufa holds that upholding the integrity of Marxism means, in layman’s terms, neither attaching to Marxism content that does not originally belong to it, nor cutting off theoretical content that does belong to Marxism from the Marxist whole. The basic requirement of Marxist integrity is the completeness of its content composition. Yet he also believes that the understanding that the three component parts of Marxism as delineated by Lenin can only be understood as the main component parts of Marxism and not as the entirety of Marxist content is correct in principle. This in fact narrows the content of the three component parts of Marxism. The relevant content of law, history, literature, military science, and anthropology in the ideological system of Marx and Engels can be respectively classified into or cross-classified among the three component parts of Marxism.

有人从完整性来把握马克思主义整体性。例如，梁树发认为，坚持马克思主义的整体性，通俗地讲，就是既不把本来不属于马克思主义的内容附加到马克思主义上去，也不把属于马克思主义的理论内容从马克思主义整体中割裂出去。马克思主义整体性的基本要求是其内容构成的完整性。但他又认为，那些认为列宁所划分的马克思主义三个组成部分只能被理解为马克思主义的主要组成部分而不能被理解为马克思主义的全部内容的理解在原则上是正确的。这实际上是把马克思主义三个组成部分的内容弄狭窄了。马克思和恩格斯的思想体系中的法学、历史学、文学、军事学和人类学等相关内容是可以分别归入或交叉归入马克思主义的三个组成部分之中的。

Some believe that integrity is not a fundamental attribute of Marxism. For example, Tong Man and Yu Dahuai argue that any theoretical system that can justify itself has its integrity. One might ask: do the philosophical systems of Aristotle, Descartes, Hegel, Hume, and Berkeley not have integrity? Do Christian doctrines not have integrity? However, this integrity is not that integrity. In the preface to *Anti-Dühring*, Engels pointed out, “‘System-creating’ Herr Dühring is no isolated phenomenon in contemporary Germany. Lately, systems of cosmogony, general natural philosophy, politics, economics, and so forth have sprung up like mushrooms in Germany. The most insignificant philosophy doctor, or even student, thinks nothing of creating a complete ‘system’.” The philosophical systems of Aristotle and others, and the Christian doctrines that the Hegelian school, including the young Engels, picked out a host of problems with, are nothing more than such complete “systems”—how can they be said to possess integrity? Engels once reminded the readers of *Anti-Dühring* “not to overlook the inner connections among the various views I have put forward.” Clearly, merely listing and piling up several theories and views like potatoes in a sack does not represent integrity either.

有人认为，整体性不是马克思主义的根本属性。例如，童曼和余达淮认为，大凡能自圆其说的理论体系都有其整体性。试问亚里士多德、笛卡尔、黑格尔、休谟、贝克莱的哲学体系难道没有整体性吗？基督教教义难道没有整体性吗？但是，此整体性非彼整体性。恩格斯在《反杜林论》的序言中指出，“‘创造体系的’杜林先生在当代德国并不是个别的现象。近来，天体演化学、一般自然哲学、政治学、经济学等等的体系如雨后春笋出现在德国。最不起眼的哲学博士，甚至大学生，动辄就要创造一个完整的‘体系’。”亚里士多德等人的哲学体系和被包括青年恩格斯在内的黑格尔派挑出一堆问题的基督教教义无非就是这样的完整的“体系”，谈何整体性？恩格斯曾提醒《反杜林论》的读者，“不要忽略我所提出的各种见解之间的内在联系。”显然，把几个理论和观点像装在袋子里的土豆那样罗列堆砌起来也不代表整体性。

Li Shuangtao proposes that integrity is an important characteristic of Marxism, but integrity is not the purpose of Marxism; one must not fall into “holism” or “systematism” because of an overemphasis on integrity. However, the reason we discuss the integrity of Marxism, especially the holistic integrity of Marxism, is primarily because Comrade Mao Zedong once stated in 1938: “From the perspective of those bearing primary leadership responsibility, if our Party had one hundred to two hundred comrades who had systematically rather than fragmentarily, practically rather than abstractly mastered Marxism-Leninism, it would greatly enhance our Party’s fighting strength and accelerate our work of defeating Japanese imperialism.” Yet on the centenary of the founding of the Communist Party of China, we still cannot list a hundred people from the past century who have mastered Marxism holistically, although such people do exist. The vast majority of Marxists, including professional Marxist scholars and researchers, still have a one-sided grasp of Marxism, though for many it cannot be called fragmentary. Consequently, on matters beyond what they have mastered, they are unable to speak or propose solutions to problems, leading people to believe that Marxism cannot solve practical problems. Some even want to use only the one-sided content they have mastered to understand Marx and solve problems, without noticing that their understanding and solutions are precisely what Marx once opposed, thereby bringing disaster to our practice and Marxist theoretical education. Marxism was once marginalized, and even now it has not fully emerged from this state of marginalization, which is closely related to our past failure to grasp Marxism holistically.

李双套提出，整体性是马克思主义的重要特点，但整体性不是马克思主义的目的，不能因为强调整体性而陷入到“整体主义”或“体系主义”。但是，我们之所以讨论马克思主义的整体性，尤其是整体的马克思主义整体性，主要原因就在于毛泽东同志在1938年时曾提出“在担负主要领导责任的观点上说，如果我们党有一百个至二百个系统地而不是零碎地、实际地而不是空洞地学会了马克思列宁主义的同志，就会大大地提高我们党的战斗力量，并加速我们战胜日本帝国主义的工作。”但在中国共产党建党百年庆典之际，我们仍然列不出百年来100个整体上掌握马克思主义的人的名单，尽管这样的人不是没有。广大马克思主义者包括马克思主义的专业学者和研究者对马克思主义的掌握还是片面的，尽管对于很多人来说，算不上是零碎的，从而在超越他们所掌握的地方，他们就无法发言，无法提出解决问题的方案，让人以为马克思主义解决不了现实问题。有人甚至只想用自己掌握的片面的内容去理解马克思，去解决问题，而没有注意到他们的理解和解决方案恰恰是马克思曾经反对过的，反而给我们的实践和马克思主义理论教育带来灾难。马克思主义一度被边缘化，甚至现在也还没有彻底走出这种边缘化状态，就与我们过去没有整体地把握马克思主义有极大的关系。

Comrade Xi Jinping pointed out: “Marxist views are the scientific understanding of the laws of nature, society, and human thought, and the scientific summation of the laws of nature and the practical experience of human society. They are embodied in the three component parts of Marxist philosophy, political economy, and scientific socialism, and cover a very broad scope.” This in fact requires that when we summarize the integrity of Marxism, the scope must not be narrow, and we must not take a part for the whole. Engels once noted, “Marx’s things are all closely interconnected; nothing can be extracted from them in isolation.” Although this was directed at the issue of separately publishing the chapter on the rate of profit in Volume 3 of *Capital*, it also applies to the fact that when we grasp the integrity of Marxism holistically, we cannot extract the scientific worldview, scientific socialism, the emancipation of the working class, the all-round and free development of the individual, etc., as overarching principles in isolation.

习近平同志指出：“马克思主义观点是马克思主义关于自然、社会和人类思维规律的科学认识，是对自然界规律和人类社会实践经验的科学总结，体现在马克思主义哲学、政治经济学和科学社会主义这三个组成部分之中，涵盖面非常广泛。”这实际上就是要求我们在总结马克思主义整体性时涵盖面不能狭窄，不能以偏概全。恩格斯曾经指出，“马克思的东西都是互相密切联系着的，任何东西都不能从中单独抽出来。”虽然这是针对把《资本论》第三章中关于利润率的那一篇单独刊印的问题，但它也适用于我们在整体上把握马克思主义时，不能把科学世界观、科学社会主义、工人阶级解放、人的全面而自由的发展等单独抽出来统领性。

From the perspective of holistically grasping the integrity of Marxism, we divide the integrity of Marxism into the integrity of Marxist theory and the integrity of Marxist theory and practice.

从整体把握马克思主义整体性的角度，我们把马克思主义整体性分为马克思主义理论的整体性和马克思主义理论与实践的整体性。

II. The Integrity of Marxist Theory

二、马克思主义理论的整体性

From the perspective of the history of the birth or development of Marxism, due to the personal characteristics of the founders of Marxism, the development of Marxist theory preceded Marxist practice. Marxist theory originally arose from the critical analysis of previous theories and practices, while Marxist practice is practice carried out under the guidance of Marxist theory. Therefore, we first discuss the integrity of Marxist theory.

从马克思主义诞生史或发展史的角度来看，由于马克思主义创立者的个人特点，马克思主义理论的发展走在马克思主义实践的前面。马克思主义理论最早源于对前人的理论和实践的批判性分析，而马克思主义实践是在马克思主义理论指导下的实践。所以，我们先来讨论马克思主义理论的整体性。

The integrity of Marxist theory is divided into the integrity of the three component parts of Marxism and the integrity of the classical works of Marxism.

马克思主义理论的整体性分为马克思主义三个组成部分的整体性和马克思主义经典著作的整体性。

Let us first discuss the integrity of the three component parts of Marxism.

我们先来讨论马克思主义三个组成部分的整体性。

Han Qingxiang and others believe that the sign of the birth of Marxism is the elevation of socialism from utopia to science, which in turn depends on the two great discoveries of the materialist conception of history and the theory of surplus value. That is to say, only when the materialist conception of history, the theory of surplus value, and scientific socialism are taken as a whole can Marxism be born. This is actually a metaphysical way of viewing the birth of Marxism, as if saying that a boy is only considered born when he reaches adulthood and has normal male functions. The publication of the *Communist Manifesto* signifies the birth of Marxism; after its birth, Marxism also undergoes a process of growth and maturation; otherwise, there would be nothing to study in the history of Marxist development. However, when we discuss the integrity of Marxism, we are indeed referring to Marxism in its mature form, and we must take Marxist philosophy, Marxist political economy, and scientific socialism as a whole.

韩庆祥等认为，马克思主义诞生的标志是社会主义由空想上升为科学，而这又取决于唯物史观和剩余价值学说两大发现。也就是说，唯物史观、剩余价值学说和科学社会主义只有作为一个整体，马克思主义才能诞生。这实际上是形而上学地看待马克思主义的诞生，就好像说一个男孩成年后具有正常的男性功能了才说诞生了一个男孩一样。《共产党宣言》的发表就意味着马克思主义的诞生，马克思主义诞生后还有一个成长和成熟的过程，否则马克思主义发展史也就没有什么可研究的了。不过，我们在讨论马克思主义整体性时的确是就成熟了的马克思主义而言的，是要把马克思主义哲学、马克思主义政治经济学和科学社会主义作为一个整体的。

Zhao Jiaxiang holds that “in the entire Marxist theoretical system, philosophy is the guiding principle of worldview and methodology, political economy is the analysis of the capitalist mode of production under the guidance of the philosophical worldview and methodology, and scientific socialism is the conclusion drawn from applying philosophy to analyze economic facts. These three interpenetrate and complement each other, forming a unified Marxist theoretical system.” However, this common view is a metaphysical afterthought on the connections among the three component parts of Marxism, and does not grasp the three component parts of Marxism holistically.

赵家祥认为，“在整个马克思主义理论体系中，哲学是世界观和方法论的指导原则，政治经济学是以哲学世界观和方法论为指导对资本主义生产方式的剖析，科学社会主义则是运用哲学分析经济事实得出的结论。这三者之间相互渗透、相互补充，构成统一的马克思主义理论体系。”但是，这种常见的观点是以形而上学的方式对马克思主义三个组成部分之间的联系放的一个马后炮，并没有从整体上来把握马克思主义的三个组成部分。

For example, in Volume 1 of *Capital*, when Marx discusses “the re-establishment of individual property,” he mentions the “negation of the negation.” Later, Dühring accused Marx that, “for lack of a better and clearer method, Hegel’s negation had to perform the function of midwife here, and with its help the future was born from the womb of the past.” In response, Engels pointed out in *Anti-Dühring* that when Marx “calls this process the negation of the negation, he does not dream of attempting to prove by this that it was a historically necessary process. On the contrary: after he has historically proved that this process has in part already actually occurred, and in part is still to occur, he then also characterizes it as a process which develops in accordance with a definite dialectical law.” Clearly, Marx did not use the philosophical “negation of the negation” to dissect capitalism; rather, his dissection of capitalism happened to correspond to the philosophical “negation of the negation.” Therefore, one cannot exaggerate the guiding role of philosophy over political economy. In 1858, after achieving some results in his political economy research, Marx wrote to Engels, “I have again glanced through Hegel’s *Logic*, which was of great service to me in the method of working on the material.” Yet more than a decade earlier, he and Engels had evaluated philosophy in *The German Ideology* as follows: “The relationship of philosophy to the study of the real world is like that of masturbation to sexual love.” Although this refers to old philosophy, not the Marxist philosophy developed by Marx and Engels, it is beyond doubt that Marx placed greater emphasis on the study of the real world, and he continuously collected and cited materials on actual conditions. Moreover, political economy does not merely dissect the mode of production; according to Marx’s preface to Volume 1 of *Capital*, it also studies the relations of production and exchange corresponding to that mode of production. Scientific socialism is not merely a conclusion drawn from analyzing economic facts. Engels long ago pointed out that, regarding the conclusion of communism, “the English reached it through practice, i.e., through the rapid intensification of poverty, moral decay, and pauperism in their own country; the French reached it through politics, i.e., they first demanded political freedom and equality, and then, finding this insufficient, added social freedom and social equality to their political demands; the Germans reached it through philosophy, i.e., they became communists through reflection on fundamental principles.” It is evident that the three sources of Marxism do not correspond one-to-one with the three component parts of Marxism; there is a very complex relationship among them, and it is impossible to explain the connections between these three component parts in just a few sentences.

例如，在《资本论》第一卷中，马克思在谈到“重新建立个人所有制”时提到“否定的否定”，后来杜林指责马克思，“由于缺乏较好的和较明白的方法，黑格尔的否定不得不在这里执行助产婆的职能，靠它的帮助，未来便从过去的腹中产生出来。”对此，恩格斯在《反杜林论》中指出，当马克思把所有制的历史发展过程“称为否定的否定时，他并没有想到要以此来证明这一过程是个历史地必然的过程。相反，他在历史地证明了这一过程一部分实际上已经实现，一部分还一定会实现以后，才又指出，这是一个按一定的辩证法规律完成的过程。”显然，马克思不是用哲学中的“否定的否定”来剖析资本主义，而是他对资本主义的剖析恰好对应上了哲学中的“否定的否定”，因此，不能夸大哲学对政治经济学的指导作用。1858年，马克思在政治经济学研究取得一些成果后，在给恩格斯的信中写道，“我又把黑格尔的《逻辑学》浏览了一遍，这在材料加工的方法上帮了我很大的忙。”而在此之前十多年他和恩格斯在《德意志意识形态》中对哲学的评价是，“哲学和对现实世界的研究这两者的关系就像手淫和性爱的关系一样。”尽管这里谈的是旧哲学，不是马克思和恩格斯发展了的马克思主义哲学，但马克思更加看重对现实世界的研究是无疑的，他也一直在收集和引用各种现实状况的资料。而且政治经济学也不只是剖析生产方式，按照马克思在《资本论》第一卷序言中的说法，还研究与生产方式相适应的生产关系和交换关系。科学社会主义也不仅仅是分析经济事实得出的结论。恩格斯早就指出，对于共产主义这个结论，“英国人达到这个结论是通过实践，即由于自己国内贫穷、道德败坏和赤贫现象迅速加剧；法国人达到这个结论是通过政治，即他们起初要求政治自由和平等，继而发现这还不够，就在政治要求之外又加上社会自由和社会平等的要求；德国人则通过哲学，即通过对基本原理的思考而成为共产主义者。”可见，马克思主义的三个来源并不一一对应马克思主义的三个组成部分，它们之间有非常复杂的关系，想用几句话就说明这三个组成部分之间的联系是做不到的。

As is well known, in his speech at Marx’s graveside, Engels mentioned Marx’s two great discoveries: one is historical materialism, and the other is the theory of surplus value. One of these two great discoveries belongs to philosophy, the other to economics; the former was discovered first, the latter later, but they are parallel, or discovered independently of each other, and one cannot be deduced from the other. Otherwise, Marx would have long ago taught historical materialism to Engels, but Engels still had to rely on Marx to discover the theory of surplus value. In particular, the problem of the transformation of values into prices of production within the theory of surplus value—the transformation problem—was not clarified for Engels until he saw Marx’s manuscript for Volume 3 of *Capital*, even though Volume 1 had already been published for over a decade.

众所周知，恩格斯在马克思墓前的讲话中提到马克思的两大发现：一个是唯物史观，一个是剩余价值理论。这两大发现，一个是属于哲学的，一个是属于经济学的，前者先发现，后者后发现，但它们是并列的，或者说是相互独立发现的，从其中的一个推导不出另一个。否则，马克思早就把唯物史观教给恩格斯了，但恩格斯还得依赖马克思来发现剩余价值理论。尤其是剩余价值理论中剩余价值转化为平均利润的价值转形问题，虽然《资本论》第一卷已经发表10多年了，但恩格斯还是看到马克思《资本论》第三卷的遗稿后才弄清楚。

Probability and statistics teach that when two variables are correlated, one variable contains information about the other, so the information that the other variable can provide is weaker than in the case where the two variables are uncorrelated. The various component parts of Marxism are certainly related, but what is more important is the content they can provide that is mutually complementary and not highly correlated, so that we can acquire more Marxist knowledge. When we speak of the integrity of the three component parts of Marxism, we place greater emphasis on their respective distinct content and on the encyclopedic content formed by their combination.

概率统计学上讲两个变量相关，是说一个变量包含另一个变量的信息，从而另一个变量能够提供的信息，会弱于这两个变量不相关的情况。马克思主义的各个组成部分当然是有关联的，但更重要的是它们能够提供的可以互相补充的不怎么关联的内容，这样我们才能获得更多的马克思主义知识。我们讲马克思主义三个组成部分的整体性，更多的是看重它们各自具有的不同内容，看重它们组合起来的具有百科全书式的内容。

Deng Xiaoping once proposed, “In studying Marxism-Leninism, one must be selective and practical.” But this was what he said to the masses. For us, in grasping the integrity of the overall Marxist whole, studying Marxism-Leninism requires completeness. Nowadays, many people study Marxism-Leninism only by reading a few famous works such as *The Communist Manifesto*, *Theses on Feuerbach*, and *The State and Revolution*, and they even find *Capital* too lengthy to read. However, if the basic principles of Marxism were all contained in these famous works, Engels would not have considered publishing the complete works of Marx and himself during his lifetime, nor would he have set aside a separate fund to preserve their manuscripts.

邓小平曾经提出，“学马列要精，要管用的。”但这是他对群众说的。而对我们从整体上把握马克思主义整体性来说，学马列则要全。现在很多人学马列，只学《共产党宣言》《关于费尔巴哈的提纲》《国家与革命》等几部名篇，甚至连《资本论》也嫌篇幅太厚而不读。但是，如果马克思主义基本原理全在这些名篇中，恩格斯生前也不会考虑出版马克思和他的全集，也不会为保留他们的手稿而单独留下一笔经费。

In today’s Sino-US economic and trade relations, the US trade deficit with China is a major issue. Many Marxist scholars do not understand the causes of this problem, and non-Marxist scholars can only analyze it haphazardly. However, in the *Collected Works of Marx and Engels*, we can see that in articles Marx wrote for newspapers, he once analyzed the problem of the British trade deficit, and the principles involved can be fully applied to analyze today’s US trade deficit with China. Yang Ruilong believes that problems encountered in China’s reform and development practice cannot find answers in the works of Marxist classical writers. But since he has not finished reading the *Collected Works of Marx and Engels* and has not even looked for answers there, how can he be sure that no answers can be found? He may think that as the times have developed and the problems have changed, previous answers are no longer useful today. However, the present era has not eliminated commodities, money, or capital; thus, from a broad perspective, the new forms of commodities, money, and capital today represent only quantitative change, not qualitative change. The principles of Marx concerning commodities, money, and capital remain applicable today. But which part is useful depends on what problems we encounter; a part that was not useful yesterday may become useful when faced with today’s problems. Therefore, for Marxist theoretical workers, we must master in its entirety the complete works of Marxist classical writers, so that when the masses raise needs, we can provide the useful parts.

在今天的中美经贸关系中，中美贸易顺差是一个重大的问题。很多马克思主义学者都不懂得这个问题的成因，非马克思主义学者更是只能胡乱地进行分析。但是，我们在《马克思恩格斯全集》中可以看到在马克思为报纸所写的文章中曾经分析过英国贸易逆差的问题，其原理完全可以用来分析今天美国对中国的贸易逆差。杨瑞龙认为，我国改革发展实践中遇到的问题不能在马克思主义经典作家的论著中找到答案。但是，他又没有读完《马克思恩格斯全集》，都不曾去那里找过答案，他怎么能肯定就找不到答案呢？他也许以为时代发展了，问题不同了，以前的答案在今天没有用了。但是，今天的时代并没有消除商品、货币、资本，从而从大的方面来看，今天商品、货币和资本的新形态只能算是量变而谈不上质变，马克思关于商品、货币和资本的原理在今天仍然适用。但是，哪一部分管用，要看我们会遇到什么问题，昨天不管用的部分，遇到今天的问题也许就管用了。所以，对于马克思主义理论工作者来说，我们必须整体上掌握马克思主义经典作家的全部著作，以便当群众提出需要时，我们能够提出管用的部分。

Many people quote Marx’s statement that “whatever shortcomings my works may have, they have one merit: they are an artistic whole” to illustrate the integrity of Marxist theory. But Marx’s statement refers only to the entirety of *Capital* as an artistic whole; it does not mean that all his works constitute an artistic whole. In fact, his works were not designed as a unified whole, nor could they be an artistic whole. However, these works do constitute a scientific whole. Because as long as his works adhere to scientificity, there cannot be contradictions among them; they must be consistent and thus can be subsumed into the same whole.

有不少人引用马克思所说的“不论我的著作有什么缺点，它们却有一个长处，即它们是一个艺术的整体”来说明马克思主义理论的整体性。但马克思的这句话只是指全部《资本论》是一个艺术的整体，并不代表他的所有著作都是一个艺术的整体。事实上，他的所有著作没有统一的设计，也不可能是一个艺术的整体。但这些著作却是一个科学的整体。因为只要他的著作坚持科学性，那就不可能出现互相冲突的地方，就必然是一致的，从而可以归入同一个整体。

Zhao Jiaxiang believes that “many of the classical works of Marxism closely integrate philosophy, political economy, and the theory of scientific socialism. Even some specialized philosophical or economic works discuss many issues by combining the theories of the three main component parts.” This statement is correct. However, when we speak of the integrity of the classical works of Marxism, we do not mean the integrity of the three component parts within each work, but rather the integrity constituted by the entire body of works.

赵家祥认为，“马克思主义经典著作很多都是把哲学、政治经济学和科学社会主义学说紧密结合在一起的。即使有些是专门的哲学著作或经济学著作，其中不少问题也是把三个主要组成部分的理论结合在一起论述的。”这个说法是正确的，不过，我们讲马克思主义经典著作的整体性不是说每部著作中的三个组成部分的整体性，而是指全部著作所构成的整体性。

In the essay “Conditions and Prospects of a War of the Holy Alliance against France in 1852,” which most people do not read, Engels once discussed Napoleon’s tactics of large troop formations—the same tactic later proposed by Mao Zedong as concentrating superior forces to destroy the enemy one by one. However, because the Comintern and Otto Braun were unaware of Engels’s exposition on this point, they violated the principle of large troop formation tactics, leading to the failure of the Fifth Counter-Encirclement Campaign. [9]9 The Fifth Counter-Encirclement Campaign (1933–1934) was a military operation by the Chinese Communist Party’s Red Army against the Nationalist forces during the Chinese Civil War. Its failure, partly attributed to the military advice of the Comintern advisor Otto Braun (Li De), forced the Red Army to abandon its base areas and begin the Long March. Clearly, when discussing the integrity of Marxist theory, one cannot exclude the military thought of Marxist classical writers; otherwise, it would easily lead people to believe that the basic principles of Marxism are not applicable to the military struggle issues of the Chinese revolution, causing Marxism to bear the blame for Braun’s military ignorance, and leading people to underestimate Marxist theory from the perspective of a specific country’s concrete conditions.

恩格斯在《1852年神圣同盟对法战争的条件与前景》这篇大多数不会去读的文献中曾经讨论过拿破仑的大兵群战术，就是毛泽东后来提出的集中优势兵力各个击破的战术。但由于共产国际和李德不清楚恩格斯的这一论述，违反了大兵群战术的原则，导致第五次反围剿战役的失败。显然，要讲马克思主义理论的整体性是不能把马克思主义经典作家的军事思想排除在外的，否则就容易让人以为马克思主义基本原理不适用于中国革命的军事斗争问题，让马克思主义为李德的军事无知背锅，让人从一国具体国情的角度轻视马克思主义理论。

Finally, Marx’s *Mathematical Manuscripts* fully embody dialectics. Without understanding these *Mathematical Manuscripts*, one cannot properly grasp dialectics, nor even comprehend what Marx meant by 0/0 in the first volume of *Capital*. Therefore, these mathematical manuscripts must also be included in the holistic nature of Marxist theory.

最后，马克思的《数学手稿》充分体现了辩证法，不理解这个《数学手稿》就不能很好地理解辩证法，甚至不明白马克思在《资本论》第一卷中提到的0/0是什么意思。因此，这个数学手稿也要归入马克思主义理论的整体性中。

III. The Holistic Nature of Marxist Theory and Practice

三、马克思主义理论与实践的整体性

Lenin pointed out, “The whole spirit of Marxism, its entire system, requires that each proposition be considered (α) historically, (β) only in connection with others, (γ) only in connection with concrete historical experience.” [10]10 V. I. Lenin, “Once Again on the Trade Unions, the Current Situation and the Mistakes of Trotsky and Bukharin,” *Collected Works*, Vol. 32, p. 94. This indicates that Marxism is holistic not only in theory, but also in the unity of Marxist theory and practice. In fact, Marxist practice is practice carried out under the guidance of Marxist theory, and thus it itself embodies the holistic nature of Marxist theory and practice.

列宁指出，“马克思主义的全部精神，它的整个体系，要求人们对每一个原理只是（α）历史地，（β）只是同其他原理联系起来，（γ）只是同具体的历史经验联系起来加以考察。”这表明，马克思主义不仅在理论上具有整体性，而且马克思主义理论与实践也具有整体性。事实上，马克思主义实践是在马克思主义理论指导下的实践，从而它本身就体现了马克思主义理论与实践的整体性。

When examining the holistic nature of Marxist theory and practice, one must examine all of Marxist practice, not only China’s practice, nor only China’s practice today. Marxist practice begins with the founding of the Communist League and its members’ participation in the German bourgeois democratic revolution of 1848, extends to the founding of the International Workingmen’s Association and its members’ participation in the Paris Commune, to the Russian Revolution and the construction of socialism in the Soviet Union, to the Chinese revolution and socialist construction as well as reform and opening up, and must also include the communist movements in socialist countries such as Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba, and Laos, as well as the former Eastern European socialist countries and countries such as the United States, Europe, Japan, and India. Only by comprehensively examining these practices and fully understanding the experiences and lessons within them can we deeply grasp “the whole spirit of Marxism, its entire system,” and can we grasp the holistic nature of Marxism as a whole.

在考察马克思主义理论与实践的整体性时，要考察马克思主义的全部实践，而不能只讲中国的实践，不能只讲中国今天的实践。马克思主义实践从共产主义者同盟成立和同盟成员参与1848年德国资产阶级民主革命开始，到成立国际工人协会和协会成员参与巴黎公社，到俄国革命和苏联的社会主义建设，到中国革命和社会主义建设以及改革开放，还要包括越南、朝鲜、古巴、老挝等社会主义国家以及前东欧社会主义国家和美国、欧洲、日本、印度等国的共产主义运动。只有全面考察这些实践，充分了解其中的经验和教训，我们才能深刻理解“马克思主义的全部精神，它的整个体系”，才能从整体上把握马克思主义的整体性。

Today, many people, when discussing the holistic nature of Marxism, also speak of adhering to the unity of theory and practice. However, how these two are unified, and how this unity is manifested in concrete issues, is something they either cannot articulate, or they casually take a later theory, such as Deng Xiaoping Theory, and claim it as the unity of theory and practice. Yet how Deng Xiaoping achieved the unity of theory and practice, they again cannot explain. In this way, living Marxism is turned into empty words and clichés.

今天很多人在谈到马克思主义整体性时也讲坚持理论与实践相统一，但是，这两者如何统一，在具体问题上如何体现统一，却是他们要么说不出来的，要么随便拿一个后来的理论比如邓小平理论说成是理论与实践相统一，但邓小平是如何做到理论与实践相统一的，他们又说不出来。这样，就把鲜活的马克思主义变成了空话套话。

The main reason for this phenomenon is that people are unclear about the relationship between theory and practice, mistakenly believing that practice is only used to test theory, and that theory is only used to explain the rationality of practice. However, as is well known, Marx was not satisfied with explaining the world theoretically, but sought to change it through practice. He pointed out, “The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question. Man must prove the truth, i.e., the reality and power, of his this-worldly thinking in practice.” [11]11 Karl Marx, “Theses on Feuerbach,” *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 5, p. 3. Engels also pointed out, “You are a ‘scientist’… you go and study scientific conclusions, and if you are a man of conviction, you fight for the realization of these scientific conclusions.” [12]12 Frederick Engels, “The Parting of the Ways,” *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 6, p. 368. “Therefore, the fundamental significance of practice lies in realizing truth.” This is the very foundation of the unity of Marxist theory and practice and the holistic nature of Marxist theory and practice.

造成这一现象的主要原因是人们不清楚理论与实践的关系，以为实践只是用来检验理论的，以为理论只是用来说明实践的合理性的。但是，众所周知，马克思不满足于从理论上解释世界，而是要在实践中改变世界。他指出，“人的思维是否具有客观的真理性，这不是一个理论的问题，而是一个实践的问题。人应该在实践中证明自己思维的真理性，即自己思维的现实性和力量”。恩格斯也指出，你是“科学家”，“你就去研究出科学的结论，如果你又是一个有信念的人，你就为实现这些科学结论而战斗。” “因此，实践的根本意义就在于实现真理。”这是马克思主义理论与实践相统一和马克思主义理论与实践的整体性的根本所在。

After the October Revolution, Lenin adopted the policy of War Communism, intending to make a direct transition to a socialist economy. However, he discovered that years of war had devastated the domestic economy, and that Party cadres and the masses lacked the capacity for socialist economic management. The Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) sent people “to the countryside to organize communes and collective farms, but they did not know how to manage, because they had no experience of collective work. The experience of these collective farms only provided an example of how not to run things, making the surrounding peasants laugh or angry.” [13]13 V. I. Lenin, “Report on the Tax in Kind,” *Collected Works*, Vol. 32, p. 315. Consequently, Lenin turned to the New Economic Policy, calling on everyone to learn to do economic work. However, Lenin and the Soviet leaders were not satisfied with the New Economic Policy. They did not practice for the sake of practice, nor did they conclude, because of the early failures of the collective farms, that practice had already proven Marx’s theory of public ownership outdated. Instead, after the domestic economy had recovered, they once again used the practice of collective farms to realize Marx’s theory concerning a public-ownership economy. Comrade Deng Xiaoping’s approach was very similar to Lenin’s. After the first leap in China’s rural reform, which implemented the household contract responsibility system with remuneration linked to output, he emphasized the need for a second leap, namely, “to adapt to the needs of scientific farming and the socialization of production, to develop适度规模经营 [14]14 “适度规模经营” (shìdù guīmó jīngyíng) — “operations of an appropriate scale,” a term from Chinese agricultural policy referring to farm sizes large enough to benefit from mechanization and specialization but not so large as to cause inefficiency or social disruption., and to develop the collective economy.” [15]15 Deng Xiaoping, “Excerpts from Talks on the Reform of the Rural Economy,” *Selected Works of Deng Xiaoping*, Vol. 3, p. 355. This second leap was to continue, when conditions were ripe, to realize through practice the truth of Marxism concerning the operation of a socialist economy, thereby adhering to the unity of theory and practice.

列宁在十月革命后采取战时共产主义政策，打算直接过渡到社会主义经济，但是，发现连年战争破坏了国内经济，党员干部和人民群众从事社会主义经济的能力不足，俄共（布）派人“到农村去组织公社、组织集体农庄，却不善于经营，因为他们没有集体工作的经验。这些集体农庄的经验只是提供了一个不该这样经营的例子，让周围农民见笑或者生气。”于是，列宁转而推行新经济政策，号召大家学会做经济工作。但是，列宁和苏联领导人并不满足于新经济政策，他们不是为实践而实践，没有因为集体农庄早期的失败就认为实践已经检验出马克思关于公有制经济的理论过时了，而是在国内经济得到恢复后，重新通过集体农庄的实践去实现马克思主义有关公有制经济的理论。邓小平同志的做法与列宁很相似，在中国农村改革实行家庭联产承包为主的责任制的第一个飞跃后，他强调要有第二个飞跃，即“适应科学种田和生产社会化的需要，发展适度规模经营，发展集体经济。”这第二个飞跃就是要在条件具备时继续通过实践实现马克思主义关于社会主义经济运行的真理，坚持理论与实践相统一。

Therefore, adhering to the unity of theory and practice does not mean using theory to interpret reality, but using practice to realize truth. If truth has not been realized in reality, one should not merely use some “new” formulation to explain the rationality of this failure, thereby abandoning truth and never again considering its realization, nor should one assume that answers to real problems cannot be found in the classical works of Marxism. Instead, one must examine the problems that prevented the realization of truth, correct those problems, and create conditions so as to realize Marxist truth. Only in this way can one speak of being guided by Marxism.

因此，坚持理论与实践相统一，不是拿理论去阐释现实，而是要用实践去实现真理。如果现实中没有做到实现真理，不能只是用“新”的说法来说明没有做到的合理性，进而抛弃真理，永远不再考虑去实现它，反而以为在马克思主义经典著作中找不到现实问题的答案，而是要审查没有做到实现真理的问题何在，改正问题，创造条件，以便去实现马克思主义真理。也只有这样，才谈得上以马克思主义为指导。

On the other hand, practice has also continuously verified the truth of Marxist theory. Lenin pointed out, “What has been proved as objective truth by the entire development of all capitalist countries in recent decades is Marx’s entire socio-economic theory, not some part of it, not some formulation of it, etc.” [16]16 V. I. Lenin, “The Economic Content of Narodism and the Criticism of It in Mr. Struve’s Book,” *Collected Works*, Vol. 1, p. 333. The fact that collective farms did not succeed at first was not a problem with Marxist theory, but lay in the failure to find suitable people to carry out the work and to adopt appropriate methods. Otherwise, the collective farms that later developed could not have supported the Soviet Union’s economic development into a superpower. In the course of leading revolution and construction, Lenin repeatedly encountered problems different from those in Western European countries, problems different from those elaborated by Marx and Engels. Yet he never believed that answers could not be found in the works of Marx and Engels. On the contrary, he frequently cited the works of the classical Marxist writers to explain his own proposed solutions to problems.

另一方面，实践也一直验证着马克思主义理论的真理性。列宁指出，“一切资本主义国家近几十年来的发展进程所证明为客观真理的，是马克思的整个社会经济理论，而不是其中的某一部分、某一表述等等”。集体农庄一开始没有做好，问题不在马克思主义的理论上，而在于没有找到合适的从事这项工作的人，没有采取合适的办法。否则，后来发展的集体农庄也不可能支持苏联经济发展成为超级大国。列宁在领导革命和建设的过程中，多次遇到与西欧国家不同的问题，与马克思和恩格斯所阐述过的问题所不同的问题，但他从来没有认为，不能在马克思和恩格斯的论著中找到答案。反而，他经常引用马克思主义经典作家的论著来说明自己提出的解决问题的方案。

Han Qingxiang and others believe that “philosophical analysis of economic problems and political resolution of economic problems” [17]17 Han Qingxiang et al., *The Holistic Nature of Marxism*, p. 45. interprets the holistic nature of the Marxist method. In fact, philosophical questions, such as whether one is a materialist or an idealist, are precisely resolved through economic practice. Marx pointed out, “One great obstacle (disturbance) that prevented the German bourgeois from pursuing industrial wealth was the idealism he had hitherto adhered to. How could this ‘spiritual’ nation suddenly think of seeking the highest good of humanity in cloth, yarn, self-acting mules, the materialism of the machine, the full moneybags of the factory masters?” [18]18 Karl Marx, “The German Ideology,” *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 5, p. 193. From this it can be seen that materialism’s victory over idealism relied mainly on the development of the capitalist economy. And political questions, such as Lenin’s talk of eliminating the petty bourgeoisie, are also to be resolved through economic development, especially the development of large-scale production. This is the holistic nature of Marxist theory and practice.

韩庆祥等认为，“经济问题哲学分析、经济问题政治解决”诠释了马克思主义的方法的整体性。其实，哲学问题如是唯物主义还是唯心主义，恰恰是通过经济实践来解决的。马克思指出，“妨碍德国资产者追求工业财富的一个巨大障碍（干扰），是他迄今信守的唯心主义。这个‘精神’民族怎么突然想到要在布匹、纱线、自动走锭精纺机、大量的工厂奴隶、机器的唯物主义、工厂主先生满满的钱袋中寻找人类的至善呢？”由此可见，唯物主义得以战胜唯心主义，主要依靠的是资本主义经济的发展。而政治问题如列宁所说的消灭小资产阶级也是要通过经济的发展尤其是大生产的发展来解决的。这才是马克思主义理论与实践的整体性。

Another manifestation of the holistic nature of Marxist theory and practice is the consistency between logic and history. Engels pointed out, “Where history begins, the course of thought must also begin, and its further development is merely the reflection of the historical process in an abstract, theoretically consistent form; this reflection is corrected, but corrected according to the laws that the actual historical process itself provides.” [19]19 Engels, “Karl Marx, *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*,” in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 29 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1987), p. 263. [Translator’s note: This is a standard English edition reference; the Chinese text cites the Chinese edition.] However, some oppose this consistency between logic and history. For example, Meng Jie argues that one consequence of the consistency between logic and history is to understand the commodity that opens *Capital* as a simple commodity, and this understanding does not conform to the dialectical method as defined by Marx. The various mediating connections between the capitalist commodity and the whole on which it depends—namely, the capitalist mode of production—are abstracted away, and the opening commodity appears as a “nothingness.” But the opening commodity of *Capital* is indeed a simple commodity. Marx clearly states in *Capital*, “The commodity that Adam Smith examines is from the outset commodity-capital (which, besides the capital value consumed in its production, contains surplus-value), i.e., a commodity produced in a capitalist manner, the result of the capitalist process of production. Therefore, this process of production, and hence the process of valorization and the process of value formation contained within it, should have been analyzed first. But since the premise of the capitalist process of production is itself commodity circulation, it is necessary, when expounding the capitalist process of production, to set aside this process of production and analyze the commodity beforehand.” [20]20 Marx, *Capital*, vol. 2, in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 36 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1997), p. 14. [Translator’s note: This is a standard English edition reference; the Chinese text cites the Chinese edition.] Marx also criticized Ricardo, “If one wanted to ‘explain’ all phenomena that apparently contradict the law from the very outset, one would have to provide the science before the science.” [21]21 Marx, *Theories of Surplus Value*, part 2, in *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, vol. 31 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1989), p. 165. [Translator’s note: This is a standard English edition reference; the Chinese text cites the Chinese edition.] Engels also, in the Supplement to Volume 3 of *Capital*, used the example of international trade and the development of capitalism to illustrate how exchange according to equal magnitudes of value for simple commodities developed into exchange according to equal prices of production for commodity-capital. Therefore, the consistency between logic and history is precisely a characteristic of the dialectical method as defined by Marx. Meng Jie commits the same error as Adam Smith and Ricardo.

马克思主义理论与实践的整体性的另一个表现是逻辑与历史相一致。恩格斯指出，“历史从哪里开始，思想进程也应当从哪里开始，而思想进程的进一步发展不过是历史过程在抽象的、理论上前后一贯的形式上的反映；这种反映是经过修正的，然而是按照现实的历史过程本身的规律修正的”。但是，有人反对这种逻辑与历史的一致性。例如，孟捷认为，逻辑与历史相一致的后果之一是把 《资本论》的开端商品理解为简单商品，而这一理解与马克思所界定的辩证方法不相符合。资本主义商品和它赖以存在的整体——即资本主义生产方式——之间的各种中介联系被抽象了，开端商品表现为一个 “虚无”。但是，《资本论》的开端商品的确为简单商品，马克思在《资本论》中明确指出，“亚·斯密所要研究的商品，一开始就是商品资本（它除了包含生产商品时消耗的资本价值，还包含剩余价值），也就是以资本主义方式生产的商品，是资本主义生产过程的结果。因此，本应该先分析这个生产过程，从而分析其中包含的价值增殖过程和价值形成过程。但因为资本主义生产过程的前提本身又是商品流通，所以，在阐述资本主义生产过程时，就要撇开这个生产过程，事先分析商品。”马克思还批评李嘉图，“如果想一开头就‘说明’一切表面上和规律矛盾的现象，那就必须在科学之前把科学提供出来。”恩格斯也在《资本论》第三卷增补中用国际贸易和资本主义的发展为例说明了从简单商品的按照相等价值量来进行的交换是如何发展到商品资本的按照相等的生产价格来进行的交换。因此，逻辑与历史相一致恰恰是马克思所界定的辩证方法的特点。孟捷犯了和亚·斯密与李嘉图同样的错误。

Precisely because logic and history are consistent, requiring the further development of the course of thought to be corrected according to the laws of the actual historical process itself, we can continue to develop Marxism after the Marxist classical writers. Here, we set the holistic nature of the theories of the Marxist classical writers as including only the theories of Marx, Engels, and Lenin, i.e., Marxism-Leninism, which is a whole. The holistic nature of Marxist theory and practice, however, includes their three theories and the theories developed by their successors through their respective practices, tested by practice, and supported by the people. This includes Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory, the important thought of the Three Represents, the Scientific Outlook on Development, and Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era from China, as well as in-depth research results on Marxist theory by some Marxist theorists. This allows the holistic nature of the overall Marxism not to be limited to the holistic nature of the thoughts of the Marxist classical writers, but to also incorporate the development of Marxism over time into the holistic nature of Marxism. Here, it should be noted that Marx once indicated that he himself was not a “Marxist” because some people distorted and misrepresented his ideas. Obviously, not all achievements of parties and their leaders that wave the banner of Marxism—such as those of some leaders of the former Soviet Union—nor some individual research results—such as some results of Western Marxist scholars—conform to the basic principles of Marxism and have promoted the liberation of the proletariat and all humanity in practice. Therefore, they cannot be indiscriminately included in the overall Marxism.

正因为逻辑与历史相一致，要求思想进程的进一步发展按照现实的历史过程本身的规律来修正，我们也才能在马克思主义经典作家之后，继续发展马克思主义。在这里，我们把马克思主义经典作家理论的整体性，设定为只包括马克思、恩格斯和列宁的理论，也就是马克思列宁主义，这是一个整体。而马克思主义理论与实践的整体性则包括他们三位的理论与后继者通过各自的实践加以发展并受到实践检验得到人民拥护的理论。这其中就包括中国的毛泽东思想、邓小平理论、“三个代表”重要思想、科学发展观和习近平新时代中国特色社会主义思想以及一些马克思主义理论家对马克思主义理论的深入研究成果。这就使得整体的马克思主义整体性并不局限于只是马克思主义经典作家思想的整体性，而是可以把马克思主义的时代发展也概括到马克思主义的整体性中。在这里，要注意的是，马克思曾经因为有人歪曲和曲解他的思想而表示他本人不是“马克思主义者”。显然，不是所有打着马克思主义旗号的政党及其领导人的成果如前苏联一些领导人的成果以及一些个人研究成果如西方马克思主义学者的一些成果，都符合马克思主义基本原理，都在实践中促进了无产阶级和整个人类的解放，因此，不能笼统地把它们包括进整体的马克思主义之中。

The holistic nature of Marxist theory and practice demonstrates that Marxist theory can provide answers to questions of later generations. If it could not, then there would be no holistic nature. But if one tries to find answers directly from the original works and copy them, without adjusting them according to current practice, this is not a correct or dialectical approach. It is like the questions on the college entrance examination, which, although not found in textbooks, can be completely solved using the theorems in the textbooks. No one would abandon studying textbooks because the exam questions differ from them, or even negate the theorems in the textbooks and create their own set of problem-solving ideas. Lenin pointed out, “Following the path of Marx’s theory, we will draw closer and closer to objective truth (but never exhaust it); while following any other path, we will obtain nothing but confusion and error.” [22]22 Lenin, “Materialism and Empirio-Criticism,” in *Lenin Collected Works*, vol. 14 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1972), p. 143. [Translator’s note: This is a standard English edition reference; the Chinese text cites the Chinese edition.]

马克思主义理论与实践的整体性说明了马克思主义理论能够给后世的问题提供答案，如果提供不了，那就谈不上整体性了。但如果想直接从原著中找到答案照抄，而不根据当前的实践加以调整，这不是正确的或辩证的做法。这就像高考的题目虽然课本上没有，但完全可以用课本上的定理来加以解答一样。没有人会因此高考的题目与课本上的不同而放弃对课本的学习，甚至否定课本上的定理，自创一套答题思路。列宁指出，“沿着马克思的理论的道路前进，我们将愈来愈接近客观真理（但决不会穷尽它）；而沿着任何其他的道路前进，除了混乱和谬误之外，我们什么也得不到。”

(Author’s bio: Yu Bin, Professor at the School of Marxism, University of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Ph.D., Doctoral Supervisor, Academic Committee Member of the School of Economics, University of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Executive Director of the Research Center for Economic and Social Development, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Vice President of the Chinese Society for the Study of Foreign Economic Theories)

（作者简介：余斌，中国社会科学院大学马克思主义学院教授，博士，博士生导师，中国社会科学院大学经济学院学术委员，中国社会科学院经济社会发展研究中心执行主任，中华外国经济学说研究会副会长）

Online Editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心