“Antagonism,” “Harmony,” and Their Transcendence in Economic and Social Development

With the completion of the 15 volumes in 23 books of Part II, “Capital and Its Preparatory Materials,” of the “Historical-Critical Edition” (MEGA²) of the *Complete Works of Marx and Engels* in 2012, together with the publication of works, correspondence, excerpts, and notes related to *Capital* in the other three parts, more authoritative and complete documentation of this body of writing has been provided. This also impels contemporary research on *Capital* to no longer be confined, as in the past, to the limited scope and content of the three “standard editions” [1]1 The “standard editions” (通行本) refer to the three volumes of *Capital* as commonly published and circulated, as distinct from the more comprehensive MEGA² edition., but rather to be based on richer documentary materials and to stand at the commanding heights of the current era of globalization, in order to re-grasp and understand Marx’s complex theory of capital, its process of formation and evolution, and its practical effects. For this reason, works such as the “1857–1858 Manuscript,” which holds a “unique” and “special” significance within the “documentary corpus” of *Capital*, have in recent years also attracted the attention of researchers. However, examining the results concerning this text to date reveals that the customary scholarly approach still implicitly influences the thinking and choices of most commentators. A prominent manifestation is this: rather than basing their work on the complete documents, penetrating the text’s interior, and sorting out Marx’s reflections through meticulous interpretation, they rely on external frameworks, concepts, and standpoints, extracting only fragments or topics of interest from it for discussion and elaboration that goes beyond the original context. The result is that research on such “a very difficult but also very inspiring document,” even regarded as “the mature representative work of Marx as an economist,” has, on the whole, made no major substantive progress. In view of this, examining the writing’s motivation, occasion, and process, and carefully analyzing its content, is necessary for grasping the systematic and profound thought it contains. The chapter “Bastiat and Carey,” which this article will interpret in detail, is precisely the piece that directly prompted the writing of this manuscript and thereby triggered Marx’s long-term considerations, yet almost no commentator has given it serious attention. On this basis, our in-depth study of the “1857–1858 Manuscript” begins here.

随着《马克思恩格斯全集》“历史考证版”（MEGA2）第二部分“《资本论》及其准备材料”15卷23册于2012年出齐，再加上其他三部分与《资本论》相关的著作、书信和摘录、笔记的发表，提供了有关这一著述更为权威而完备的文献，也促使当代的《资本论》研究不能再像以往那样仅仅局限于“通行本”3卷的有限篇幅和内容，而必须以更丰富的文献资料为基础，并立足于当今全球化时代的制高点，才可能重新把握和理解马克思复杂的资本理论、形成和演变过程及其现实效应。正因为如此，像“1857—1858年手稿”这样在《资本论》“文献群”中具有“独一无二”的“特别”的意义的作品近年来也受到研究者的关注。但检视迄今为止有关这一文本的成果，发现过去习惯的治学方式依然潜在地影响着多数论者的思路和选择，突出表现是：不基于完整的文献、深入到文本内部通过细致的解读来梳理马克思的思考，而是依据外在的框架、观念和立场，只从中抽取其感兴趣的片段乃至议题进行超出原始语境的讨论和发挥。这样的结果是，有关这样“一本非常难懂的文献，但也是非常有启发性的文献”，甚至被视为“作为一位经济学家的马克思的成熟时期代表作”的研究，从总体上看，并未取得大的实质性的进展。有鉴于此，考辨这部手稿的写作动因、机缘和过程，并对其内容进行认真辨析，对于把握它所包含的系统而深刻的思想就很必要了。本文所要详尽解读的《巴师夏和凯里》（Bastiat and Carey）就是直接促成这部手稿写作、进而引发马克思长远考量的篇章，但几乎没有论者给予过认真对待和关注。基于此，我们对“1857—1858年手稿”的深入研究就自此开始。

I. Facing an Era of “Crisis,” What Is Economics to Do?

一、面临时代“危机”，经济学何为？

Between 1857 and 1858, Europe and the United States encountered a widespread economic and social crisis. This was a landmark event in the history of capitalist development, overturning traditional concepts of “crisis.” Whereas past economic crises were mainly manifested in conditions of poverty, famine, and material shortage caused by low levels of productive forces and natural disasters, the crux of this crisis lay in general overproduction, underconsumption, speculative bubbles, and the like, leading to financial turmoil, hardship for people’s livelihoods, class polarization, and social impasse. Whereas past political crises were manifested in social instability due to unstable political rule and frequent power transitions, this crisis was still related to this, but added a new phenomenon: the rulers were not only powerless to cope with the economic predicament but, through their governance methods and measures, actually exacerbated the crisis.

1857—1858年间，欧洲和美国遭遇了一场普遍性的经济社会危机。这是资本主义发展史上具有里程碑意义的重大事件，它颠覆着传统的“危机”观念——如果说，以往的经济危机主要表现为基于生产力水平低下和自然灾害因素等造成的贫困、饥荒和物资短缺等状况，这次危机的症结在于，普遍的生产过剩、消费不足、投机泡沫等导致金融动荡、民生艰难、阶层分化和社会困局；以往的政治危机表现为政权统治不稳、权力更迭频繁导致的社会动荡，这次危机仍与此相关，但更增添了新的现象，即统治者不仅无力应付经济困局，反而因其治理方式和举措的不当加剧了危机。

Marx closely followed the changing situation. From the first half of 1856, he wrote a large number of articles and dispatches analyzing this event, published in that year’s *New-York Daily Tribune*, the British Chartist newspaper *The People’s Paper*, and London’s *The Free Press*. The crisis did not erupt abruptly over a short period; Marx’s analysis went back ten years, tracing it to the conditions of 1847. At that time, the crisis had only shown its initial, even faint, symptoms in the sphere of credit and currency circulation, but it had already manifested to varying degrees in various economic sectors of Britain, France, and Germany, gradually expanding and deepening until it finally formed such a widespread, overall predicament involving all of Europe and even North America. Based on this understanding, Marx summarized the nature and crux of this era’s crisis as follows: “This antagonism between modern industry and science on the one hand and modern poverty and decay on the other, this antagonism between the productive forces and the social relations of our epoch, is a palpable, inevitable, and indisputable fact.” [2]2 This is a quotation from Marx’s speech at the anniversary of the *People’s Paper* in 1856. Faced with this situation, although the circumstances of the aforementioned countries differed, any political expectations had in fact been disappointed — “Some parties may weep over this; others may wish to get rid of modern technology in order to get rid of modern conflicts; still others may think that such enormous progress in industry must be supplemented by an equally enormous regression in politics.” [3]3 This is a continuation of the same speech by Marx.

马克思密切关注势态的变化。从1856年上半年开始撰写大量分析这一事件的文章和通讯，发表于当年的《纽约每日论坛报》以及英国宪章派报纸《人民报》和伦敦的《自由新闻》上。危机不是短时期内突兀发生的，马克思的分析往前推了10年，追溯到1847年的状况。那时的危机只在信贷和货币流通领域中显现出最初的、甚至不明显的征候，但在英国、法国和德国各个经济部门都有了不同程度的表现，渐次扩展和深化，终于形成如今这般广泛涉及全欧乃至北美的全局性的困境。基于以上认识，马克思将这次时代危机的性质和要害概述为：“现代工业和科学为一方与现代贫困和衰颓为另一方的这种对抗，我们时代的生产力与社会关系之间的这种对抗，是显而易见的、不可避免的和毋庸争辩的事实。”面对这种状况，上述各国的情形尽管存在差异，但任何政治上的期待事实上已经落空——“有些党派可能为此痛哭流涕；另一些党派可能为了要摆脱现代冲突而希望抛开现代技术；还有一些党派可能以为工业上如此巨大的进步要以政治上同样巨大的倒退来补充”。

Since this crisis was triggered in the economic sphere, what solutions did the economists offer? Situated in such an era, what efforts did they make? Then, let us return to the then-mature political economy and its “latest developments” for examination.

既然这场危机由经济领域引发，那么经济学家提供了什么样的方案?身处这样的时代，他们做了什么样的努力?那么，就回到当时业已成熟的政治经济学及其“最新进展”中去检视吧。

“The history of modern political economy ends with Ricardo and Sismondi — two antithetical figures, one speaking English, the other French. Similarly, it begins at the end of the seventeenth century with Petty and Boisguillebert.” [4]4 This is a quotation from Marx’s “Bastiat and Carey,” the chapter under discussion. This judgment deserves special attention. Unlike traditional understandings and popular textbook definitions, Marx believed: first, the “founding” of British political economy did not begin with Adam Smith and David Ricardo but needed to be pushed back a hundred years — William Petty was its “founder”; second, the tradition and schools of classical economics were not confined to Britain alone; France could be considered another source running parallel to it, with Boisguillebert starting at the same time as Petty, just as Sismondi was paired with Ricardo and exerted contemporary influence; third, the development of classical economics underwent a gradual process of evolution. In the past, it went from Petty to Ricardo and from Boisguillebert to Sismondi, all being transmissions and transformations of thought within the same country, but now there emerged mutual integration and expansion among different countries, entering a new stage.

“现代政治经济学的历史是以李嘉图和西斯蒙第（两个相对立的人，一个讲英语，一个讲法语）结束的，同样，它在17世纪末是以配第和布阿吉尔贝尔开始的。”这一判定值得特别注意，与以往传统的理解和流行的教科书的界定不同，马克思认为：其一，英国政治经济学的“创立”并非始自亚当·斯密和大卫·李嘉图，而是需要往前推移一百年——威廉·配第才是其“创始人”；其二，古典经济学的传统及其派别并非局限于英国一地，法国堪称与其并驾齐驱的另一来源，与配第同时起步的是布阿吉尔贝尔，正如与李嘉图并称、发挥着当代影响的是西斯蒙第；其三，古典经济学的发展经历了一个逐渐演变的过程，以往是从配第到李嘉图、从布阿吉尔贝尔到西斯蒙第，都是来自同一国家的思想之间的传承和变换，而现在出现了各国之间的相互交融和开拓，走入新的阶段。

However, faced with the real crisis, the state of political economy research in the “post-Ricardo” and “post-Sismondi” era was very unsatisfactory. Marx surveyed a wide variety of cases and distinguished four types:

然而，面对现实危机，“后李嘉图”“后西斯蒙第”时代的政治经济学研究状况却非常不能令人满意。马克思统观林林总总各种情况，区分了四种类型：

First, political economy works were written as “eclectic, syncretic compendia.” Marx examined at least forty works of an economic-principle nature published at the time and found that many had a “homogeneous” character: the authors assembled and displayed different topics, viewpoints, and proposals from similar previous works, but could offer no analysis or commentary with any personal insight, let alone put forward new, independent views of their own. For example, John Stuart Mill’s *Principles of Political Economy with Some of Their Applications to Social Philosophy*, published in 1848, was a typical case. This two-volume work, consisting of five books, was designed with a total of 73 chapters! Although the author claimed to have written a book “adapted to the more extensive knowledge and improved ideas of the modern age,” [5]5 This is a paraphrase of Mill’s stated aim in his *Principles of Political Economy*. it was in fact a compilation of the ideas of past economists. As one commentator pointed out, “Adam Smith is more suggestive, Malthus more original, Ricardo more systematic,” [6]6 This is a paraphrase of a contemporary critical assessment of Mill. but unfortunately Mill only “knew how to summarize the discoveries of these three men, knew how to connect these discoveries consistently and make them understandable to the ordinary person.” [7]7 This is a continuation of the same critical assessment. Although such work was also necessary, it was impossible to find in it any outstanding insights for confronting complex real problems.

其一，将政治经济学著作撰写成“折中主义的、混合主义的纲要”。马克思至少翻阅了当时出版的四十余部有关经济学原理性质的著作，发现很多作品具有“同质化”的特征：作者将以往类似论著中不同的议题、观点、方案等汇集在一起加以罗列和展示，却做不出任何带有个人见解的分析和评论，更提不出自己新的独立的看法。比如，约·斯·穆勒于1848年出版的《政治经济学原理及其对社会哲学的某些应用》一书就是这样的典型。这部两卷本、共由五编组成的著作竟然设计了总共73章！尽管作者自述是想写成一部“与现代更广泛的知识和进步观念相适应的书”，但事实上该书成了既往经济学家思想的汇总。诚如有的评论者所指出的，“固然，亚当·斯密更具有启发性，马尔萨斯更富于独创性，李嘉图更有条理性”，可惜的是，穆勒却只“知道如何总结这三个人的发现，知道如何把这些发现首尾一致地联结在一起，使普通人对其有所了解”。这样的工作虽然也是必要的，但要从中寻找到面对复杂的现实问题的卓越见解却是不可能的。

Second, although there is no plagiarism or synthesis of arguments from past works, the sorting out of many issues in social development “is actually merely a matter of richer material.” For example, there have already been many works discussing “colonies, landed property (various forms of landed property), population, etc.” in the history of capitalist development. Contemporary economists note changes in current data, but they do not, on the basis of this empirical “material,” excavate deeper, more overarching problems. Of course, this does not preclude “relatively in-depth analysis of individual fields.” In Marx’s view, “circulation” was at that time “the only field where there was really something new to be discovered,” and Thomas Tooke’s six-volume *History of Prices and of the State of the Circulation* (1838–1857) and “the recent English works on circulation in general” could be considered to have achieved at least some breakthrough in this inquiry.

其二，虽然没有抄袭和综合过去的著作中的论述，但对于社会发展中很多问题的梳理，“其实只是材料更丰富而已”。比如，过去讨论资本主义发展史上涉及“殖民、土地所有制（各种不同形式的土地所有制）、人口等等的著作”已经很多，现在的经济学家注意到当代数据的变化，但没有基于这些实证“材料”挖掘出更深层次、更具有全局意义的问题。当然，也不排除对“个别领域的较为深入的分析”。在马克思看来，“流通”是当时“真正有些新发现的唯一领域”，而托·图克在1838—1857年间出版的六卷本的《价格和流通状况的历史》和“最近英国一般的论述流通的著作”在这一问题的探究上才算得上多少取得了一点突破。

Third, at the level of economic policy and practical operation, out of a desire to attract the attention of a “broader public” or an urgent attempt to “actually solve current problems,” when no new, effective plans can be put forward, they repeatedly rehash “past economic debates,” such as the arguments in those “works on free trade and protective tariffs.” In fact, in a complex economic operation and international environment, these two mutually opposed means and methods can hardly become a consistent principle, line of thought, or practice for any country in its internal and external affairs.

其三，在经济政策和现实操作层面，出于引起“更加广泛的公众”的关注，或者试图急迫地“实际解决当前的问题”，提不出新的、有效的方案，就一再重复“过去经济学上的争论”，比如那些“论述自由贸易和保护关税政策的著作”里的主张。事实上，在复杂的经济运行和国际环境中，这两种彼此对立的手段和方式很难成为某一国家对内对外贯穿始终的原则、思路和做法。

Finally, out of considerations of their own profession and official rank, economists select thinkers and their works and doctrines that have had a significant influence in the history of economic theory, “tendentiously carrying the classical school to its extreme,” and use their status as successors to establish their position in the academic world. For example, Thomas Chalmers admired Malthus and developed his ideas, Gustav von Gülich followed Sismondi and elaborated his views, while from the early works of McCulloch and Senior, they relied to a considerable extent on “peddling” Ricardo and his theories to make their names.

最后，出于自身职业和功名的考量，经济学家们选择经济学说史上那些有重要影响的思想家及其作品、学说，“有倾向性地把古典学派发挥到极端”，以其传人来确立他们在学术界的地位。比如，托马斯·查默斯崇拜马尔萨斯并发挥其思想，古斯塔夫·冯·居利希追随西斯蒙第并阐发其主张，而从麦克库洛赫和西尼耳早期著作看，他们相当程度上是靠“贩卖”李嘉图及其理论来起家的。

The various situations and manifestations above reveal the state of inaction of most economists in the face of a complex and multifaceted era of crisis. In essence, those newly emerged economic works “are entirely imitative works, old tunes repeated, with more polished form, broader coverage of material, striking and easy-to-understand narration, comprehensive content, attention to detail, but lacking in sharp and powerful exposition; on the one hand, a listing of stale things, on the other, an expansion of individual details.” In short, these people value, excavate, promote, and develop the ideas of their predecessors, not with the intention of ultimately achieving breakthroughs, innovation, and transcendence on the basis of inheritance, but rather to rely on others’ fences, stake out their territory, and rest on their laurels.

以上这些不同的情形和表现昭示了面对纷繁复杂的时代危机，多数经济学家无所作为的境况。从本质上看，那些新出现的经济学成果“完全是模仿者的著作，老调重弹，形式较完善，占有的材料较广泛，叙述醒目，通俗易懂，内容概括，注重细节的研究，缺乏鲜明而有力的阐述，一方面是陈旧东西的罗列，另一方面是个别细节的扩充。”要言之，这些人重视、挖掘、宣传和发挥先贤的思想，并非想在传承基础上最终实现突破、创新和超越，而是傍人篱落、跑马圈地、故步自封。

Of course, there was still a glimmer of light in the darkness. In comparison, “only the works of the American Henry Charles Carey (1793–1879) and the Frenchman Frédéric Bastiat (1801–1850) are exceptions.” “The national environments in which the two men wrote were completely different, even opposite, yet drove them to the same intention.” On the one hand, they understood that classical political economy was the theoretical expression of the era of capital, and that its theoretical premises could be found in the works of Ricardo—or rather, the latter should be regarded as the most complete and final expression of classical political economy. On the other hand, the social crisis of the time demanded a change in ideas and the implementation of reforms. Although they did not advocate a complete transformation of the capitalist system toward its “opposite”—socialism and communism—they were simultaneously soberly aware that criticizing and reflecting on classical economics was the necessary path to promote development. On this basis, both Carey and Bastiat believed that one should conform to the changes of the times; “the theoretical expression that bourgeois society had historically attained in modern economics must be attacked as an error,” and even, to overcorrect, “where classical economists naively depicted the antagonism of relations of production, one must prove that the relations of production are harmonious.”

当然，黑暗之中尚有微光闪亮。相形之下，“只有美国人凯里（Henry Charles Carey，1793—1879）和法国人巴师夏（Frédéric Bastiat，1801—1850）的著作是一个例外”。“他们两人从事写作的民族环境是完全不同的，甚至是相反的，但却驱使他们产生了同样的意向。”一方面，他们懂得，古典政治经济学是资本时代的理论表征，在李嘉图的著作中可以找到其理论前提，或者说后者应被看作古典政治经济学最完备的和最后的表达。另一方面，当代面临的社会危机要求改变观念、进行变革，尽管他们两人并不主张彻底改变资本主义体制，走向其“对立面”——社会主义和共产主义，但他们同时清醒地意识到，对古典经济学展开批判和反思是促进发展的必由之路。基于此，凯里和巴师夏都认为，应当顺应时代的变化，“资产阶级社会在现代经济学中历史地取得的理论表现，必须当作谬误来加以抨击”，甚至为了矫枉过正，“必须在古典经济学家朴素地描绘生产关系的对抗的地方，证明生产关系是和谐的。”

However, Marx’s positive evaluation of Carey and Bastiat was limited to their daring to say “no” to the “theoretical expression that [classical economists] had historically attained.” Beyond this, Marx did not agree with, and even criticized, their specific lines of thought and basic propositions. Thus, faced with the crisis of the time and the reality urgently in need of change, Marx resolved to step forward. In a letter to Engels dated September 26, 1856, Marx wrote: “This time the affair has taken on a European scale such as never before, and I do not think we can long remain spectators here.” In July 1857, Marx began writing his planned work on political economy by commenting on Bastiat’s *Economic Harmonies*. Marx first wrote seven pages in a notebook. In January–February 1860, in his *Index to My Notebooks*, he made the note: “Bastiat and Carey (1–4). Bastiat on Wages (5–7).” Below we further sort out the issues discussed in these contents.

然而，马克思对凯里和巴师夏的正面评价仅停留于他们对古典经济学家“历史地取得的理论表现”敢说“不”这一点上，除此而外，对他们具体的思路和基本主张马克思是不认同，甚至是持批判态度的。于是，面对当时的危机和亟待变革的现实，马克思决意要出马了。在1856年9月26日写给恩格斯的信中，马克思指出：“这一次事情具有了以前从未有过的全欧规模，我不认为我们还能长久地在这里当旁观者。”1857年7月，马克思借对巴师夏《经济的和谐》一书的评论，开始撰写他计划中的政治经济学著作。马克思首先在笔记本中写下7页内容。1860年1月至2月他在《我的笔记本的提要》中做了“巴师夏和凯里（1—4）。巴师夏论工资（5—7）”的提示。以下我们进一步梳理这些内容所讨论的问题。

II. New Forms of the State in the Era of Capital and Its Economic Functions

二、资本时代国家的新形式及其经济职能

After positioning the two together, Marx proceeded to a specific analysis of Carey’s situation, pointing out that he “is the only original economist in North America.” The reason is that Carey belonged to a new country in the history of capitalist development—the United States. It had the following characteristics:

在将两人统合起来加以定位后，马克思对凯里的情况进行了具体分析，指出他“是北美唯一的有创见的经济学家”。原因在于，凯里属于资本主义发展史上一个新的国度——美国。它有如下的特征：

First, “there, bourgeois society did not develop on the basis of the feudal system, but started from itself.” The United States was a colony of Europe. Before the arrival of the colonists, it was a vast, barren wilderness, inhabited mainly by indigenous peoples such as Native Americans, Inuit, and Maya, living scattered in different tribes with their own economic, social, and religious characteristics, but all essentially in a pre-modern state of life, isolated from one another. In short, they were not the masters of the development of the entire North American continent. Britain was one of the first European countries to reach North America. With the establishment of the first permanent British colony in Virginia—Jamestown—in 1607, the North American continent began a new process of development—“a society based on capital.” Its difference from the same social form in Europe lay in the fact that it was not established after a long and full development of the feudal system that encountered insurmountable difficulties and was finally built up through brutal struggle and violent transformation, but was directly “transplanted,” starting as a completely new system from the outset, embodying the most developed features of capitalist society at the time. For this reason, it can be said that the “bourgeois society” of the United States “started from itself.”

首先，“在那里，资产阶级社会不是在封建制度的基础上发展起来的，而是从自身开始的”。美国是欧洲的殖民地，在殖民者到达之前，那里是一片广袤的荒芜之地，主要由原住民诸如印第安人、伊努伊特人和玛雅人等分散居住，不同部落在经济、社会和宗教等方面有各自的特点，但基本上均属于前现代的生活状态，且彼此隔离。质言之，他们并非完整的北美大陆发展的主宰者。英国是最早到达北美的欧洲国家之一。随着1607年英国殖民者在弗吉尼亚建立了第一个永久性殖民地——詹姆斯敦，北美大陆开始了新的发展进程——“以资本为基础的社会”。它与欧洲同一形态社会的差异在于，不是在经过封建主义制度长期、充分的发展而后遭遇到不可克服的困境，最终经过残酷的斗争和剧烈的变革而逐步建立起来的，而是直接“移植”过来的，一开始就是一种全新的制度，体现出当时资本主义社会最发达的特征。正因为如此，可以说，美国“资产阶级社会”“是从自身开始的。”

Second, “there it does not appear as the result of a movement extending over hundreds of years, but as the starting-point of a new movement.” The “movement extending over hundreds of years” refers to the transition from pre-capitalist to capitalist society. The replacement of social formations is by no means a simple ebb and flow between two systems, a short-term transformation, followed by a complete substitution and clear demarcation. Even if a violent “movement extending over hundreds of years” occurs, it cannot eliminate the enormous influence of traditions formed over millennia of long history. Thus, evolution is accompanied by regression, subversion encounters repetition, revolution coexists with non-revolution and counter-revolution, and a mixture of the old and the new always persists. Tradition and non-tradition, modernization and the rejection of modernization have always been problems that have not been thoroughly resolved in the course of capitalist change; they still exist even after capitalism itself has accumulated considerably and developed fully, only to fall into new contradictions and difficulties. Marx later provided an extremely incisive analysis of this in the preface to the first volume of *Capital*: “It is not only the development of capitalist production that is a source of suffering; it is also the lack of that development. Besides the modern disasters, we are oppressed by a whole series of inherited disasters, arising from the continued existence of ancient, outmoded modes of production, together with the antiquated social and political relations that accompany them. Not only the living make us suffer, but the dead also make us suffer. The dead grip the living!” However, the United States, which began its capitalist process “from itself,” is completely different; it is at “the starting-point of a new movement,” like a blank sheet of paper, without the many burdens brought by tradition.

其二，“在那里，它不是表现为一个长达数百年的运动的遗留下来的结果，而是表现为一个新的运动的起点”。“数百年的运动”指的是前资本主义向资本主义社会过渡的进程。社会形态的更迭绝不是两种制度之间的此消彼长，短时嬗变，进而全面替换、泾渭分明。即便发生了剧烈的“数百年的运动”，也不可能消除长达几千年漫长的历史形成的传统的巨大影响，所以，进化伴随着倒退，颠覆遭遇反复，革命并存着不革命和反革命，新旧杂糅的情况始终存在。传统与非传统、现代化与拒斥现代化始终是资本主义变迁中没有彻底解决的问题，甚至在资本主义本身有了相当的积累和充分发展之后又陷入新的矛盾和困境，它也依然存在。马克思后来在《资本论》第一卷序言中对此有极为精彩的分析：“不仅苦于资本主义生产的发展，而且苦于资本主义生产的不发展。除了现代的灾难而外，压迫着我们的还有许多遗留下来的灾难，这些灾难的产生，是由于古老的、陈旧的生产方式以及伴随着它们的过时的社会关系和政治关系还在苟延残喘。不仅活人使我们受苦，而且死人也使我们受苦。死人抓住活人！”但是，“从自身开始”资本主义进程的美国与此完全不同，它处于“一个新的运动的起点”，犹如一张“白纸”，没有传统带来的诸多负担。

Third, “there the state, unlike all earlier forms of state, has from the beginning been subordinate to bourgeois society, to its production, and has never been presumptuous enough to set itself up as an end in itself.” The United States, at “the starting-point of a new movement,” from the very beginning placed itself at the forefront and commanding heights of modern social development, implemented the most advanced social system, organized and promoted the development of material production according to the most modern concepts and methods, and carried out social construction along the general trend of historical evolution, without fantasizing about leaving the broad path of human civilization to blaze a new trail, or even presumptuously proposing its own special goals and directions. These factors enabled it to write the newest and most beautiful words and paint the newest and most beautiful pictures on this blank sheet of paper.

其三，“在那里，国家和一切以往的国家的形成不同，从一开始就从属于资产阶级社会，从属于这个社会的生产，并且从来未能自命不凡地提出某种自我目的的要求”。处于“新的运动的起点”的美国，一开始就将自身置于现代社会发展的前沿水准和制高点上，实行最先进的社会制度，按照最现代的观念、方式，组织和推进物质生产的发展，沿着历史演变的大趋势，进行社会建设，而不会幻想离开人类文明大道独辟蹊径，甚至自命不凡地提出自己特殊的目标和方向。这些使它可以在这张“白纸”上，写出最新最美的文字，描绘最新最美的图景。

“Finally, there bourgeois society itself combines the productive forces of the Old World with the vast natural domain of the New World, developing with unprecedented scale and unprecedented freedom of activity, far surpassing all previous achievements in the conquest of natural forces, and finally, there the contradictions inherent in bourgeois society itself appear only as indistinct elements.” Since it was the bourgeoisie from the European continent that initiated the process of capitalist development on the North American continent, they would certainly make full use of this “late-developing advantage,” striving to “combine the productive forces of the Old World with the vast natural domain of the New World”; moreover, they would learn from the lessons and errors of European capitalist development, avoid the reappearance of various obstacles and difficulties, and seize the opportunity to “develop with unprecedented scale and unprecedented freedom of activity.” Ultimately, they not only “far surpassed all previous achievements in the conquest of natural forces” but also opened up new circumstances and prospects for the development of capitalism; the multiple sharp and obvious contradictions that had existed in bourgeois society were alleviated in the development of the United States, “appearing only as relations between indistinct elements.”

“最后，在那里，资产阶级社会本身把旧大陆的生产力和新大陆的巨大的自然疆域结合起来，以空前的规模和空前的活动自由发展着，在征服自然力方面远远超过了以往的一切成就，并且最后，在那里，资产阶级社会本身的对立仅仅表现为隐约不明的因素。”既然是由来自欧洲大陆的资产阶级作为主体开启了资本主义在北美大陆发展的进程，那么，他们一定会充分利用这种“后发优势”，尽力“把旧大陆的生产力和新大陆的巨大的自然疆域结合起来”；更要吸取欧洲资本主义发展中的教训和谬失，避免再次出现种种阻障和困境，抓住机会，“以空前的规模和空前的活动自由发展”。最终不仅“在征服自然力方面远远超过了以往的一切成就”，而且为资本主义的发展开辟了新的情势和前景；原来在资产阶级社会中存在着的多种尖锐而明显的对立，在美国的发展中获得了缓和，“仅仅表现为隐约不明的因素”之间的关系。

Carey’s doctrine was based on the above-mentioned conditions of the United States. Marx evaluated it as follows: “He has indeed produced a product of his own, which grows directly on American soil, without any admixture of foreign ingredients. His doctrine is a veritable panacea,” and “the original side of political economy is here displayed in the most brilliant manner.” Moreover, Carey “eternalized” this “American version” of political economy, regarding the “harmonious” new economic relations and “perfect” social system that had been “so rapidly, so astonishingly, and so smoothly developed” in this “New World” under special conditions and circumstances in less than a hundred years as the normal state and natural result of the production and exchange of capitalist society.

凯里的学说就是奠基于以上所述的美国国情之上的，马克思这样来评价：“他确实制造出自己独特的、直接在美国土壤上生长的、没有其他杂质的产品。他的学说简直是一种万能的东西”，“政治经济学的独创性的一面在这里表现得最出色”。不仅如此，凯里还把这种“美国版”的政治经济学“永恒化”，把在不到100年里这一块“新大陆”在特殊的条件和境遇下“如此迅速地、如此惊人地和如此顺利地发展”、造就出来的“和谐”的新的经济关系和“完善”的社会体系，视为资本主义社会生产和交往发展的正常状态和自然结果。

Carey was well aware that the economic relations and social system of the United States originated in Europe, especially in Britain. But in Carey’s view, the reason these economic relations and systems had encountered setbacks and fallen into difficulties in their native European development lay precisely in the constraints, obstacles, and damage caused by the deep-rooted remnants of the long feudal period. British classical economists, in their writings, described or summarized these relations based on their distorted, untrue observations and judgments; but Carey believed that they did not actually understand these relations, and the crux lay in their failure to distinguish between the intrinsic nature of capitalist relations and the misalignment and discrepancy arising from the “accidental inversion” of these relations in reality, thus “confounding” essence and appearance. In a series of writings, Carey criticized British economic doctrines on land ownership, wages, population, and class antagonism, using a method of comparing the situation in the United States with that in Britain. This convinced him that in Britain, the actual existence of bourgeois society did not embody its “pure form”; that is, it “does not correspond to its concept, is not adequate to itself.” Correspondingly, how could the concepts of British economists about bourgeois society truly and clearly reflect a reality they did not recognize? Therefore, Marx pointed out that it was not difficult to understand, but rather “quite natural,” that Carey had developed the above views based on his own experience and the unique circumstances of the United States.

凯里心里清楚，美国的经济关系和社会体系的雏形来自欧洲，特别是代表欧洲的英国。但在凯里看来，这些经济关系和体系之所以在本土发展中受挫和陷入困境，关键在于受到那里漫长的封建时期遗留下来的盘根错节的东西的束缚、阻碍和损害。英国古典经济学家在其著述中，依照其歪曲的、非真实的观察和判断描述或概括过这些关系；但凯里认为，他们实质上并不理解这些关系，症结在于没有区分资本主义关系的内在性质与这些关系在现实中的“偶然颠倒”之间出现的错位和差异，而是将这些本质和现象“混为一谈”了。在一系列著述中，凯里对英国经济学关于土地所有制、工资、人口和阶级对立等学说展开批判，论证的方式就是拿美国情况与英国进行对比。这使他确信，在英国，资产阶级社会的现实存在并不体现其“纯粹形式”，就是说“不符合它的概念，同自身不相适合”。与此相应，英国经济学家关于资产阶级社会的概念怎么能真实地、清楚地反映他们所不认识的现实呢?所以，马克思指出，凯里依照自己的经验和美国独特的情势而生发出来上述看法就不难理解，而是“十分自然”的了。

So, where was the specific manifestation of the influence and interference of traditional factors—factors not originating from bourgeois society itself or its interior—that had disrupted the “natural relations” of normal capitalist development? Carey attributed this to “the influence of the state on bourgeois society, to the encroachments and interference of the state.” For example, in a society “based on capital,” wages should, in accordance with one of the basic laws of the economic operation of this society, increase along with the rise in labor productivity. But whether in Hindustan, which had close ties with the British East India Company, or in Britain itself, the “classic land” of the origin and development of capitalism, the actual situation was not like this. In those places, changes in workers’ wages were completely disconnected from increases or decreases in labor productivity, and were only related to policies and measures such as local government taxes and state monopolies. From this, it could be inferred that “one need only abstract from the influence of government” to solve these problems. Precisely on this basis, Carey believed that, when considering pure bourgeois relations in themselves, apart from the influence of the state, the “harmonious” laws of bourgeois economics would be followed and could be verified in fact.

那么，资本主义正常发展的“自然关系”所遭受的并非来自该社会本身或内部、而是源于传统因素的影响和干扰作用，具体体现在哪里呢?凯里将其归结为“国家对资产阶级社会的影响，归结为国家的侵犯和干涉”。举例来说，在“以资本为基础”的社会中，工资理应随同劳动生产率的提高而增长，这是该社会经济运行的基本规律之一。但无论在与英国的东印度公司有着密切的联系的印度斯坦，还是作为资本主义最早起源和发展“典型之地”的英国，实际情况并非如此，在那些地方，工人工资的变化与劳动生产力的提高或降低完全脱钩，只与地方政府的赋税和国家的垄断等政策、举措有关。由此可知，“只须抽掉政府的影响”，这些问题就可以得到解决。正是基于此，凯里认为，就纯粹的资产阶级关系本身来考察，除去国家的影响，资产阶级经济学的“和谐”规律才会得到遵循，也会在事实上得到证实。

Clearly, Carey’s above assertions were derived from the special conditions of the United States, a simple comparison with other old capitalist countries, and then deduced purely logically from the realm of speculation and thought. He did not understand, nor had he deeply studied, that the influence and role of the state and government in capitalist society—economic measures such as issuing public debt and levying national taxes—were themselves, to a large extent, generated from the relations of bourgeois society, and had already become quite different from the purely political coercion of the state and government in pre-capitalist society. For example, in Britain, the “interference” of the state and government in the economy was not entirely a manifestation of the modern influence of feudal traditional political power; on the contrary, it appeared as the result of the disintegration and subjugation of feudalism. As for the development of capitalism itself in this “New World” of North America, the power of the central government had not receded, but was closely linked with capital, growing together with the concentration of capital.

显然，凯里的上述论断是基于美国的特殊状况、与其他老牌资本主义国家的简单比照，进而从纯逻辑上设想和思辨领域内推导出来的。他并不清楚，也没有深入研究过，资本主义社会中国家、政府的影响和作用，诸如发放公债、征收国税等经济举措本身，在很大程度上是从资产阶级社会的关系中产生出来的，已经与前资本主义社会国家和政府的纯政治的强权已经有了很大的不同。例如在英国，国家和政府对经济的“干扰”，并不完全是封建主义传统政治权力现代影响的体现，相反表现为封建主义的瓦解和被制服的结果。而就北美这块“新大陆”资本主义的发展本身来说，中央政府的权力并未退却，而是与资本紧密关联、与资本的集中一起增长的。

This then touches on the nature of state functions in the era of capital, or rather, the question of the state’s transformation from tradition to modernity. In the *Introduction* written subsequently, Marx proposed the five-part structure of the economics work he intended to write, highlighting the status of the “state” thesis within the theoretical system of political economy. In the five parts, immediately following the first part, “General abstract determinations,” and the second part, “The categories which constitute the internal structure of bourgeois society and on which the fundamental classes are based,” comes the third part, which expounds state theory. The theses of this part mainly involve “The concentration of bourgeois society in the form of the state. Viewed in relation to itself. The ‘unproductive’ classes. Taxes. State debt. Public credit. Population. Colonies. Emigration.” Clearly, what is emphasized here is the economic function of the modern state. If, in the feudal era, state functions revolved mainly around political power, even if there were some minor economic powers, such as the land enfeoffed to various lords, yet because at that time it was in a self-sufficient natural economy, the economic ties of society were extremely loose, and the ruling class only needed a monarch as a symbol of sovereignty, so economic functions were in fact extremely limited and weak, or there were no independent economic and social functions, but rather they served political power—things like flood control and water management, road repair, developing production, population registration, and the tax system were all carried out and implemented based on the stability of political rule and the eternal security of the state. In a “society based on capital,” even if political functions still exist, the economic functions of the state are greatly strengthened. The last two parts of the five-part structure are respectively “The international relations of production. International division of labor. International exchange. Exports and imports. Exchange rate” and “The world market and crises.” There is no doubt that the “international relations” and “world market” here are also closely related to the “state,” and even presuppose the existence of the “state,” and likewise they are mainly unfolded around economic relations.

这就涉及资本时代国家职能的性质，或者说，国家由传统向现代的转型问题了。在随后写作的《导言》中，马克思提出他将撰写的经济学著作的五个“分篇”结构，突出了“国家”论题在政治经济学理论体系中的地位。在五个“分篇”中，紧接在第一篇“一般的抽象的规定”和第二篇“形成资产阶级社会内部结构并且成为基本阶级的依据的范畴”之后，就是论述国家理论的第三篇。这一篇的论题主要涉及“资产阶级社会在国家形式上的概括。就它本身来考察。‘非生产’阶级。税。国债。公共信用。人口。殖民地。向国外移民”。很显然，这里强调的是现代国家的经济职能。如果说，在封建主义时代，国家的职能主要围绕政治权力来展开，即便有些微经济权力，诸如分封给各个领主的土地，但由于那时是在自给自足的自然经济中，社会的经济联系极不密切，统治阶级只需要有一个君主作为统治权的象征即可，所以经济职能事实上极为有限和薄弱，或者不存在独立的经济和社会职能，而是为政治权力服务的，诸如防水治水、修整道路、发展生产、人口编制、赋税制度等都基于政治统治的稳定、江山社稷的永固来展开和施行的。而在“以资本为基础的社会”中，即便政治职能依然存在，国家的经济职能则大大强化了。五个“分篇”的最后两篇分别是“生产的国际关系。国际分工。国际交换。输出和输入。汇率”与“世界市场和危机”。毫无疑问，这里的“国际关系”“世界市场”也是与“国家”紧密相关，甚至就是以“国家”的存在为前提的，同样其主要也是围绕经济关系来展开的。

III. Differences Arising from the “National Milieu” of Economics

三、经济学的“民族环境”导致的差异

Faced with the same country and its actual conditions, the observations, understandings, and evaluations among different thinkers are complex and full of paradoxes. For example, regarding Britain and its development, Carey not only dismissed the achievements of British economists but also believed that British capitalism was already in a stage of decline, while the development of North America embodied the “purity” and direction of bourgeois society and had higher potential. In a complementary contrast, Bastiat, as a French economist, contended with the socialists of the time, arguing that Britain still indicated the future prospects of backward countries, while in comparison, the reality of French bourgeois society was even more unbearable and its future development potential lower. In response to the French socialists’ attempt to take this opportunity to thoroughly criticize and transform bourgeois society and replace it with a new social form, Bastiat believed this was based on a misunderstanding of reality. That is to say, these socialists grasped and understood the laws of capitalist development in France, a country where the capitalist system was underdeveloped; they did not understand that France’s current situation was not the full development of capitalism, but rather capitalism’s “French, national distortion,” and they mistakenly interpreted this situation as the embodiment or display of capitalism’s “intrinsic form,” believing it to be the inevitable result of capitalist development. Thus, the essence of their actions was merely “to want to rise up against the laws of bourgeois society in a country where these laws have never been allowed to be realized!” To this end, Bastiat reminded these socialists, “Take a look at Britain!” meaning that there is the typical development of capitalism, and there capitalism shows its consequences and effects; if change is to be made, it should start from such a foundation and conditions.

面对同一国家及其现实状况，不同的思想家之间的观察、理解和评价错综复杂，充满悖论。比如，对于英国及其发展，凯里既对英国经济学家们的成就不以为然，更认为英国的资本主义已经处于衰落阶段，而北美的发展则体现了资产阶级社会的“纯粹性”和方向，且具有较高的潜力。相映成趣的是，作为法国经济学家的巴师夏与当时的社会主义者相较劲，认为英国依然昭示着落后国家的未来前景，相形之下，法国资产阶级社会现实才更为不堪，且未来发展潜力较低。针对法国社会主义者力图借此机会对资产阶级社会进行彻底批判和变革，并用新的社会形态取而代之的主张，巴师夏认为，这是建立在对现实误解的基础上。就是说，这些社会主义者是在法国这个资本主义体制发育不全的国度来把握、认识资本主义发展规律的；他们不理解，法国的现状并不是资本主义的充分发展，而是资本主义“法国的、民族的歪曲表现”，而且他们错误地把这种现状解释为资本主义“内在形式”的体现或展示，并认为是资本主义发展的必然结果。这样，他们行动的实质不过是“想在一个从来不允许实现资产阶级社会的规律的国家里起来反抗这些规律！”为此，巴师夏提醒这些社会主义者“试看一看英国吧！”意思是说，那里才是资本主义发展的典型，资本主义在那里才展示出它的后果和效应；如果要变革，也是从这样的基础和条件下起步的。

Furthermore, Bastiat believed that the main reason why French capitalism could not fully develop and ended up in its current predicament was that the state had set various restrictions on it, so the current “task is to liberate bourgeois society from the shackles that the state has placed on it.” But the socialists wanted to change the situation through political means and the power of social organization. In Bastiat’s view, this was merely “wanting to tighten these shackles.” To this end, he suggested to the socialists, “First purify bourgeois relations, and then we can talk about this issue.” Due to France’s “peculiar social form” and the differences in development between Britain and France, “many things that in Britain belong to political economy are regarded as socialism.” This is similar to the “German-style modern problem” that Marx pointed out in the *Introduction to a Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right*, namely the “anachronism”—“what is coming to an end in France and England is just beginning in Germany,” and for this reason, “up to now it has only undertaken one task, that is, to make up for the old history by drilling.” For France, it must first reach the level of Britain. Marx pointed out that “in this respect Bastiat is correct.”

此外，巴师夏认为，法国资本主义之所以得不到充分发展，落得如今这样的境地，主要原因在于国家为其设置了种种限制，因此当前的“任务在于使资产阶级社会从国家给它设置的桎梏中解放出来”。但社会主义者却想通过政治的手段、社会组织的力量来改变现状。在巴师夏看来，这不过是“想要加重这种桎梏”。为此，他建议社会主义者，“先使资产阶级关系纯粹化，然后我们才想来谈这个问题”。由于法国“特有的社会形态”以及英、法两国之间发展的差异，“许多在英国是属于政治经济学的东西都被看作是社会主义”的了。这就如同马克思在《〈黑格尔法哲学批判〉导言》中指出的“德国式的现代问题”，即“时代错乱”的情形——“在法国和英国行将完结的事物，在德国现在才刚刚开始”，为此，“到现在为止只承担着一项任务，那就是补习操练陈旧的历史”。而对法国来说，先要达到英国的水准。马克思指出，就“这点来说巴师夏是正确的。”

Apparently contradictory and more complex situations still exist. The preceding discussion shows that Carey’s doctrine “takes as its starting point the American-style liberation of bourgeois society from the state,” and as actually happened in the United States, such a proposition could almost guarantee the normal development of its economy without interference from external influences. But in fact, Carey ultimately found that in the world market and international economic exchanges, this line of thinking was not feasible—if completely excluding the role of the state could not lead to the “pure development of bourgeois relations” in one’s own country, then “state intervention must be demanded.” This shows that in the development of capitalism, the form, scope, and effect of state functions differ domestically and internationally, following different principles and strategies. Thus, it is not surprising that Carey and Bastiat, both advocating for weakening the role of the state in capitalist economic relations, were one a “protectionist” and the other “a free trader.”

貌似矛盾的、更为复杂的情形依然存在。前文的论述表明，凯里的学说是“以资产阶级社会从国家那里取得美国式的解放为出发点”的，正如美国国内实际发生的那样，这样的主张庶几可以保证其经济的正常发展不受外部影响的干扰。但事实上，凯里最后发现，在世界市场和国际经济交往中，这样的思路是不可行的——假如完全排除国家的作用不可能导致本国“资产阶级关系的纯粹发展”，这时就得“要求国家干涉”。这表明，资本主义发展中，国家职能的形式、范围和效应在国内、国际是不一样的，遵循着不同的原则和策略。如此说来，均主张弱化国家对资本主义经济关系作用的凯里和巴师夏，一个是“保护关税派”，另一个“却是自由贸易论者”就不足为奇了。

Apart from the differences caused by the domestic-international divide, the non-homogeneous and variable nature of the capitalist economy in historical development is also noteworthy. On the one hand, even if domestic economic development is smooth and harmonious, the usual state of the world as a whole is disharmony; on the other hand, what surprised Carey was that this disharmony had even begun to appear in the United States. How to explain this phenomenon? Or rather, where does this peculiar phenomenon come from? Carey attributed it to the destructive role of Britain in the world market. As pointed out earlier, the essence of capitalist relations and their actual manifestations in British development were confused by the erroneous theories of classical economists. In fact, as the dominant power in the world market, Britain had been persistently pursuing industrial monopoly, which led it to open up markets abroad while destroying the harmonious state of economic relations among countries around the world. Therefore, capitalist economic relations do not always embody a civilizing force and a harmonious atmosphere, as economists subjectively understood and expounded; on the contrary, “this disharmony is real”!

国内、国际的分野导致的差别之外，资本主义经济在历史发展中呈现出的非均质、变动性也值得关注。一方面，即便国内经济发展顺畅、和谐，但在整个世界的通常状态却是不和谐；另一方面，使凯里感到惊讶的是，这种不和谐甚至在美国也开始出现了。怎么解释这种现象?或者说，这种奇特的现象是从哪里产生的?凯里将其归咎于英国对世界市场的破坏作用。前文指出过，资本主义关系的本质及其在英国实际发展中的现实表现，被古典经济学家们的错误理论搞乱了。事实上，作为世界市场的统治力量，英国一直在竭力追求工业垄断地位，这样导致它在国外开辟市场的同时破坏了世界各国经济关系的和谐状态。所以，资本主义经济关系并不像经济学家们主观理解和阐发的那样，总是体现一种文明的力量、一片和谐的氛围，相反，“这种不和谐（才）是真实的”！

The capitalist economy contains numerous contradictions, such as those between urban and rural areas, and between industry and agriculture, which often have different foundations, conditions, logics, and prospects. According to Carey’s conception, the harmony of economic relations is based on mutual understanding and harmonious cooperation between the opposing sides. But in its development, Britain often exploited the countryside through the city and pushed out agriculture through industry, completely dissolving this basic domestic harmony; afterward, through external expansion and competition, it went on to destroy the original economic structures and harmonious states of various countries and regions on the world market. Thus, from both a historical and a practical perspective, this mode of economic and social development actually became a disruptive factor for universal harmony. So how could the United States defend against this? Carey believed that the only way was to adopt a strategy of protective tariffs, using the power of the state to resist the destruction wrought by British large-scale industry. In this way, for him, the state became the last refuge of “economic harmony,” whereas initially the state had been denounced by him as the sole destroyer of this harmonious state!

资本主义经济包含了诸多矛盾，诸如在城市与乡村之间、在工业与农业之间往往具有不同的基础、条件、思路和前景。按照凯里的设想，经济关系的和谐是建立在矛盾双方相互理解、和谐合作上的。但英国在其发展中，往往是城市剥削乡村、工业排挤农业，将国内这种基本和谐彻底瓦解，之后它又通过对外扩张和竞争，在世界市场上到处破坏各国、各地原来具有的经济结构和和谐状态。所以，从历史和现实看，这种经济社会发展的方式竟成为普遍和谐的破坏因素。那么，美国怎么能防御这一点呢?凯里认为，只有采取保护关税的策略，借用国家的强力来抵制英国大工业的破坏。这样，在他这里，国家成了“经济和谐”的最后避难所，而最初国家是被他斥之为这种和谐状态唯一的破坏者的！

This contradiction in Carey’s doctrine is rooted in the singularity of his American standpoint. In his writings, he “expressed a certain national development of America, expressed America’s opposition to and competition with Britain.” [20]20 Karl Marx, *Theories of Surplus Value*, Part 3, Chapter 20, Section 4. To highlight America’s position and advance his own views, he commented on Britain’s economic conditions, but in reality he knew nothing about them; the British economic conditions in his eyes were as alien and external as the Russian political conditions in the eyes of the British diplomat David Urquhart (1805–1877). He suggested that the United States adopt protective tariffs at home to accelerate the development of its industrial system, thereby destroying the industrial system promoted by Britain; he believed that in this way, bourgeois relations of production would, on the broadest arena of the world market and at the greatest scale of development, allow the various relations constructed by the United States as a major capitalist producing country to emerge, and the former state of extreme disharmony would come to an end, and a harmonious world would arrive. Conversely, if within a single country, including capital accumulation, division of labor, wage labor, and so on—these universal relations of bourgeois society—appear in reality as harmonious, and through their most developed mode, on the vast scale of the world market, help and impel Britain to establish its dominant position on the world market, and then, as a result of this dominance, Britain, as a destructive force, reshapes new internal relations, then Carey would judge this as disharmony! From this it can be seen that his propositions have no universality or value for generalization whatsoever, and he is utterly incapable of putting himself in others’ shoes or thinking in reverse. In Marx’s view, his expressions and insights were extremely naive and superficial.

凯里学说的这种矛盾性基于其美国立场的单一性。在其著述中，他“表述了美国的一定的民族的发展，表述了美国同英国的对立和竞争”。为了彰显美国的地位和突出自己的观点，他对英国的经济状况进行了评论，但实际上他对此并不了解；他眼中的英国的经济状况如同英国外交官戴维·乌尔卡尔特（David Urquhart，1805—1877）眼中的俄国政治状况一样，相当隔膜和外在。他建议美国在本国实行保护关税以加速发展工业制度，以此来摧毁英国所推广的工业制度；认为借此资产阶级的生产关系在世界市场最广大的场所，以最巨大的发展规模，让美国作为资本主义生产大国构建的各种关系出现，原来那种极度不和谐的状态就告终结，和谐世界就到来了。相反，如果在一国范围内包括资本的积聚、分工、雇佣劳动等在内的资产阶级社会的这些普遍存在的关系在现实中表现为和谐的状态，并通过其最发展的方式，以巨大世界市场规模，帮助和促使英国在世界市场上建立起统治地位，之后作为这种统治的结果，英国以破坏性势力重新塑造出新的内在关系，这时凯里就将其判定为不和谐！——由此可知，他的主张丝毫不具普适性和推广价值，他也根本不会推己及人，逆向思考。在马克思看来，他的这种表述和见解十分天真和肤浅。

From the perspective of dialectics, so-called “harmony” and “disharmony” are relative and changeable, not rigid and fixed, still less preordained or fabricated; on the contrary, they can only be defined and judged based on specific contexts and perspectives, in accordance with the general trend of economic and social development and historical evolution, as well as people’s value pursuit of a better life. For example, in the development of a certain country, if the patriarchal mode of production gives way to modern industrial production, understood from the affirmative side of social development, then this change and relationship can be considered harmonious; but accompanying this process, for instance, when Britain’s large-scale industry destroys the patriarchal, petty-bourgeois, or other lower-stage production forms that prevailed in other countries, leading to the dissolution of long-accustomed conservative ideas, ways of life, and social orders, and thereby bringing discomfort to people’s lives, even causing class fragmentation, polarization, and social upheaval, then this can be regarded as disharmonious. Carey only saw the affirmative side of capital accumulation and operation within the United States and the resulting dissolution of outdated production systems, but he regarded the dissolution and destruction of smaller national capitals by the accumulated, monopolized British capital as disharmonious—this is clearly a “double standard.”

从辩证法的角度看，所谓“和谐”“不和谐”云云，是相对的、变动的，而不是僵死的、凝固的，更不是预成的、臆造的；相反，只能基于特定的情境和视角，依据经济社会发展和历史演进的大趋势以及人们对美好生活的价值追求来做出界定和评判。比如，在某一国家的发展中，如果封建家长制的生产方式让位于现代工业生产，从社会发展的肯定方面去理解，那么，这种变化和关系就是和谐的；但是伴随这一进程，比如英国的大工业破坏了其他国家原来盛行的家长制的、或者小资产阶级的、或者其他处于较低发展阶段的生产形式，导致长期习惯了的保守观念、生活方式和社会秩序等的瓦解，进而给人们的生活带来不适，甚至造成阶层撕裂、分化乃至社会动荡，那么，这就可以视为不和谐的。凯里只看到美国一国之内资本的积聚、运行以及由此带来的对陈旧的生产体系的瓦解这一肯定的方面，却将积聚、垄断的英国资本对其他较小的民族资本的瓦解和破坏看作是不和谐的——这明显是“双重标准”。

Carey did not understand that the disharmony of the world market is either a conceptual confusion caused by defining the unified, macro, and overall abstract relations that run through capitalist society as economic categories with special meanings and boundaries, or a normal and “appropriate” manifestation of certain disharmonious conditions that exist locally on a very small scale in real life. On the other hand, Carey also forgot that capital (regardless of which country it belongs to), precisely in the process of dissolving and impacting old modes of production and life, fully displays its civilizing and progressive forces on the world market—this is a content worthy of affirmation—and this is also reflected in the penetration of the abstract forms of capitalist relations into the meanings of specific economic categories, or in the way these categories reflect and represent the real relations within a certain country. Reality is always inconsistent with and does not correspond to people’s subjective wishes, the observer’s perspective, or the principles of judgment. Thus, when real economic relations—that is, universal and actual economic relations—appear before people, if they do not meet his expectations, he will “turn from his principled optimism into a pessimistic attitude of accusation and anger.” [21]21 Ibid. This contradiction gives Carey’s works and the ideas expressed in them a distinct “American character”: on the one hand, compared with British economics, they “possess originality”; on the other hand, for the development of American capitalism, they “have only their own significance,” without universal value. That is to say, whether he affirms the harmony of internal relations within bourgeois society based on the American situation, or judges the same relations as disharmonious on the world market and in other countries, “he is equally an American.” [22]22 Ibid.

凯里不懂得，世界市场的不和谐或者只是将贯穿于资本主义社会的统一、宏观、总体的抽象关系确定为有特殊意涵和界域的经济范畴而造成的理解上的混乱，或者是现实生活中在很小的规模上局部存在的某种不和谐状况的正常和“恰如其分”的体现。另一方面，凯里也忘记了，资本（不论是属于哪个国家）正是在对旧的生产、生活方式的瓦解和冲击过程中，在世界市场上使其所具有的文明和进步力量取得充分的表现，这是值得肯定的内容，而这也体现在资本主义关系的抽象形式渗透于具体的经济范畴的意涵中，或者在这些范畴中反映和表征着一定国家内部的现实关系。现实状况总是与人的主观愿望、与观察者的视角、与评判的原则不一致、不对应的，这样，当真实的经济关系，即普遍现实的经济关系出现在人面前的时候，一旦不符合其期许，他便会“从他的原则上的乐观主义转变为带有控诉性的和愤怒的悲观主义”。这种矛盾使凯里的著作及其表述的思想具有鲜明的“美国特征”：一方面，与英国经济学相比，“具有独创性”，另一方面，对美国资本主义的发展而言，只“具有自己的意义”，而没有普遍价值。也就是说，无论他基于美国的情况而确认资产阶级社会内部关系的和谐，还是认定同样的关系在世界市场上、在其他国家的不和谐，他“都同样是一个美国人”。

From the above, it can also be seen that for Carey, whether “harmony” exists or not, although it is his subjective confirmation of the state of real relations, it exists within the concrete life and social development of the present. But for the French economist Bastiat, the situation is completely different. He believed that “the harmony of these relations is a kind of otherworldliness”; [23]23 Ibid. this harmonious state, this otherworldliness, does not exist in France, but only in countries like Britain and the United States, or rather, it can only be grasped and understood “starting exactly from the end of France’s borders.” [24]24 Ibid. In short, Bastiat’s “harmony” “is only the imagined, ideal form of non-French, i.e., British and American, relations, not the real form as he saw it in his own country.” [25]25 Ibid. Bastiat was very dissatisfied with the conditions in France; in his direct observation of the rich and vivid circumstances of real life, he could not taste “harmony”; on the contrary, only through reflection on this state full of poverty, tension, and opposition, and through boundless imagination and sublimation, could he understand what “harmony” is. Based on this, Bastiat believed that “the only real thing is to demand that France abandon its economic borders” [26]26 Ibid. and catch up with the pace of Britain and the United States.

由上也可以看出，在凯里这里，“和谐”与否虽然是他对现实关系状态的主观确认，但它存在于当下具体的生活和社会发展之中。但身为法国经济学家的巴师夏那里，情况完全不同。他认为，“这些关系的和谐是一种彼岸性”，这种和谐状态、这种彼岸性在法国是不存在的，只存在于英国和美国这样的国家，或者说“正好从法国疆界的尽头开始”才能把握和理解它。质言之，巴师夏式的“和谐”“只是非法国的即英国和美国的关系的想象的、理想的形式，而不是像他在他自己的国土上所看到的那种现实的形式。”法国的状况令巴师夏很不满意，对现实生活丰富而生动的情势的直观中他体味不到“和谐”，相反，只有在对这种充斥着贫乏、紧张、对立状况的反思中，并加以无限地畅想和升华，才能理解什么是“和谐”。基于此，巴师夏认为，“唯一现实的事情就是要求法国放弃它的经济上的疆界”，赶上英国和美国的步伐。

This being the case, it is quite interesting: both are “harmonists,” yet once economic relations manifest British characteristics on the world market, Carey immediately sees numerous contradictions in these economic relations and therefore deems them “inharmonious”; Bastiat, who grasps “harmony” only through reflection, imagination, and speculation, believes that outside France, in places like Britain, where capitalist development allows different nations and their respective fragmented components to escape state supervision and compete with one another, “one begins to see the realization of harmony.” On the other hand, Carey, who distinguishes the “inharmonious” state of Britain and values and maintains American-style “harmony,” advocates protective tariffs; Bastiat, who grasps “harmony” through imagination, believes that in policy terms this “harmony” can be achieved simply through free-trade legislation. The cause of the dislocation in their understanding and proposals lies in the “national environment” that forms the basis of their doctrines and the differences in its contemporary fate. In contrast with the Old World, Carey not only articulated the complex and grand social relations existing in the United States in the new era but also elevated them into the general abstract form of capitalist society, endowing them with universal value and significance. Reflected in his economic science, for instance on issues such as credit and ground rent, he conducted sincere and far-sighted research, the results of which contain important scientific value. In comparison, in Bastiat’s case, his propositions take as their real background the “unbearable” state of development of French society and the insignificance and invisibility of its various relations in the modern world system, and he strives to fully display and highlight these relations under the illumination of his own “harmony theory.” However, this effort of his appears of little value, even somewhat superfluous, because although France cannot represent, let alone fully embody, the characteristics of capitalist society, it is such an ancient country with broad historical influence that even if it appears relatively backward in capitalist development, its social conditions and relations are still fully understood by people, and there is no need to grasp and comprehend them through one-sided negation or by tracing their tortuous path. Thus, what Bastiat engages in is nothing more than an explanation of the differences revealed through comparison, and he tries to make it satisfying, but in Marx’s view, this is “a false satisfaction.” [27]27 Marx, *Economic Manuscripts of 1857–1858*, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 30, p. 7.

这样说来，就很有意思了：同样是“和谐论者”，一旦经济关系在世界市场上体现出英国式的特征，凯里立刻从中看到了这种经济关系的诸多矛盾，因而认为是“不和谐”的；仅仅在反思、想象和思辨中把握“和谐”的巴师夏，认为在法国之外，像英国这样通过资本主义的发展，使不同民族及其各自分立的组成部分摆脱了国家监督而可以相互竞争，“才开始看到和谐的实现”。另一方面，与区别于英国的“不和谐”状态，看重和维持美国式的“和谐”的凯里主张保护关税；借助想象来把握“和谐”的巴师夏，认为在政策上只要通过自由贸易的立法就可以实现这种“和谐”。导致二人理解和主张上错位的原因，在于构成其学说基础的“民族环境”及其当代命运的差异。在同旧大陆的对比中，凯里不仅表述了在新的时代境遇中美国存在的复杂而宏大的社会关系，而且将其提升为资本主义社会的一般抽象形式，赋予其普遍的价值和意义。反映在其经济科学方面，比如在信贷、地租等问题上，他进行了真诚而富有远见的研究，其成果包含着重要的科学价值。相形之下，在巴师夏那里，他的主张是以法国社会“不堪”的发展状况及其各种关系在现代世界体系中的微不足道、隐而不显为现实背景的，并且力图在自己“和谐论”的观照下将这些关系充分展示、彰显出来。不过，他的这种努力显得价值不大，甚至有点多余，因为尽管并不能代表、更谈不上充分体现资本主义社会的特征，但法国是一个如此古老的国家，在历史上有广泛影响，所以即便在资本主义发展中显得比较落后，但其社会状况及其关系还是为人们所充分了解，完全不需要通过一味地否定或借助对其曲折道路的追溯来把握和认识。所以，巴师夏所从事的无非是对通过对比所显现出的差异做出一种解释，且他想做得令人满足，但在马克思看来，这是“一种虚假的满足。”

That is to say, even in comparison, there are differences between Carey and Bastiat in focus, intent, approach, method, and effect: the former is an exploration of modernity and the future based on reality, the latter is a simple comparison and explanation of historical fiction, at most of the status quo. Carey also mentions “universality,” but this universality is essentially the universality of Americans, or the elevation of American universality into an abstract, universal form; he is a “true American,” always “dwelling on the Pacific and Atlantic coasts”; for him, France in Europe and China in Asia are equally distant. Carey travels the world, possesses a vast amount of statistical material from the Old World of Europe, and is erudite like a library catalog, but he does not discriminate among the materials collected from all sides, because his purpose is not to understand and grasp the inner spirit of these materials, thereby acknowledging their historical rationality and value, but to treat them as “dead examples” and exhibits in a museum, as undifferentiated documents processed with a single intent—to contrast with reality—thereby achieving his own goal and confirming the arguments he abstracts from an American standpoint. In comparison, Bastiat also values “universality,” but the basis of his argumentation is a history with a fictional character; sometimes he adopts a rational form for theoretical abstraction, sometimes he derives it from hypothetical events that have never occurred at any time or place! In Marx’s view, Bastiat’s dual approach of appealing to reason and history is exactly the same as the theologian’s proof of God: to make people believe in God, one takes human sin as the basis; how to explain human sin? From two aspects: first, from human nature, it is sinful; second, from history, there is no person without sin.

也就是说，同样是对比，凯里与巴师夏之间显现出关注点、意旨、思路、做法和效果上的差异：前者是立足于现实对现代和未来的探索，后者是以历史的虚构至多是现状的简单对照和解释。凯里也提及“普遍性”，但这种普遍性实质是美国人的普遍性，或者将美国的普遍性提升为抽象、普遍的形式；他是“真正的美国人”，始终“居住在太平洋和大西洋沿岸”；对于他来说，位于欧洲的法国和亚洲的中国在距离上同样的遥远。凯里漫游世界，占有欧洲旧大陆大量统计材料，像图书目录似的博学多识，但他对于这些从四面八方收集来的材料，却不做分辨，因为他不是为了去认识和把握这些材料的内在精神，进而承认它们历史上存在的合理性和价值，而是把它们视为“死的例子”和博物馆里的陈列物，作为毫无差别的文献进行唯一意图的加工——反衬现实，以此来达到他自己的目的，确证他从美国人的立场出发抽象出来的论点。相形之下，巴师夏也重视“普遍性”，但作为其论证的基础是带有虚构性质的历史，有时他采取理性的形式进行理论层次的抽象，有时则由假想事变生发出来，而这些事变在任何时候和任何地方都没有发生过！在马克思看来，巴师夏这种征之以理性和历史双重思路与神学家的神学证明如出一辙，即为了让人信奉上帝，就以人有罪恶为依据，怎么解释人有罪恶呢?从两方面来说明：一是从人的本质上讲，就是有罪恶的，二是从历史上看，没有罪恶的人是没有的。

From the standpoint of historical materialism, in terms of mode of thinking, both Carey and Bastiat are “unhistorical and anti-historical,” which undoubtedly affects their writing style and academic achievements. Only, Carey’s unhistorical element is embodied in the background of North American real development and its principle of dissolving history; therefore, his writing is informal, first presenting a few general theses in a scholarly form, then piling up completely unprocessed, chaotic and lengthy materials as illustrative examples. For Bastiat, the unhistorical element is merely a nostalgia for and direct copying of the mode of thinking and generalization prevalent in 18th-century France, which makes his writing artificial and formalistic, focusing on formal logic, providing at best some finely crafted clichés expressed in the form of antitheses; apart from a few partial, unrepresentative real examples, or arbitrarily fabricating the situation of British capitalist development as a normal phenomenon, the only valuable materials basically come from general topics discussed by economists. Of course, despite the above complex differences, in terms of ideological intent, the objects each targets are clear: “Carey’s main antagonist is Ricardo, in short, the modern English economists; Bastiat’s main antagonist is the French socialists.”

而站在历史唯物主义的高度看，在思维方式上，凯里和巴师夏都是“非历史的和反历史的”，这无疑影响了其著述风格和学术建树。只不过，凯里的非历史的因素体现在北美现实发展的背景及其消解历史的原则，因此，其著书立说时不拘形式，先是以学理形式提出几个一般论题，接着堆积一些完全没有经过加工整理的、杂乱冗长的材料作为例证材料。而对于巴师夏来说，非历史的要素不过是对流行于18世纪的法国思考和概括方式的留恋和照搬，这使其写作时矫揉造作，注重形式逻辑，提供的充其量不过是一些以反论方式表述的、经过精雕细刻的陈词滥调，除有某些局部、不具代表性的现实事例，或者将英国资本主义的发展视为正常现象而对其情况加以任意编撰，此外，唯一有价值的材料基本都来自经济学家们讨论过的一般论题。当然，尽管存在以上错综复杂的差异，在思想意旨上看，两人所针对的对象还是清楚的：“凯里的主要对立面是李嘉图，总之，是现代英国经济学家；巴师夏的主要对立面是法国社会主义者。”

IV. “Fixed Income” and “Investment Risk” in the Age of Capital

四、资本时代的“固定收入”与“投资风险”

After writing the preface with its overall analysis of the ideological characteristics of both Carey and Bastiat, Marx originally intended to comment in more detail on the entire content of Bastiat’s book *Economic Harmonies*. This book was first published in 1850. Bastiat died that same year; the following year, a second edition was published supplemented with some of his posthumous manuscripts, totaling 25 chapters. Marx’s commentary is based on this new edition. But in the end, Marx’s plan was not fully implemented; he left only comments on Chapter 14, “On Wages,” which involves a discussion of “fixed income” and “investment risk” in the age of capital, and is very important for understanding the relationship between capital and labor.

在对凯里和巴师夏两人的思想特征写下总体性剖析的前言之后，马克思本打算更详细地评述巴师夏《经济的和谐》一书的全部内容。此书于1850年首次出版。当年巴师夏去世，次年在补充了其部分遗稿后推出第2版，共计25章。马克思的评论依据的就是这个新版。但最终马克思的计划没有全部实施，他只留下关于该书第14章《论工资》部分的评论，这里涉及对资本时代的“固定收入”与“投资风险”的讨论，对于理解资本与劳动的关系非常重要。

Bastiat’s main arguments on the wage issue can be summarized as follows: first, a stable life and fixed income are a basic human aspiration; second, capitalist society is a risk society, but wages and interest as forms of income are fixed; third, fixed wages ensure the basic survival condition of workers in capitalist society, creating a “harmonious” society. Marx does not completely deny all of Bastiat’s statements and propositions on wages. However, he believes that classifying wages under “fixed income” does not allow us to fully grasp and understand the essential characteristics and multiple determinations of modern wages. Because Bastiat only emphasizes one aspect of wages, one relationship, which is common to wages and other sources and forms of income (profit and rent); for example, the capitalist’s profit and the landlord’s rent can also be fixed and unchanging. The crux of the matter is that Bastiat evades another aspect of capitalist society: the movement of capital unfolds through the system of wage labor, but its consequences always favor capital, while the workers who endure immense hardship in this process ultimately receive benefits disproportionate to the fruits of their labor. From this aspect, this relationship, it cannot be said that such measures are “beneficial, moral, and universal” for workers, and thus will receive their “hearty support,” let alone that such a social condition is immutable or even “indestructible.”

巴师夏在工资问题上的主要论点可以概述如下：其一，安定生活、收入稳定是人的一项基本诉求；其二，资本社会是风险社会，但作为收入方式的工资和利息则是固定的。其三，固定工资确保了劳动者在资本社会基本的生存状态，造就了“和谐”社会。马克思并不完全否定巴师夏有关工资的一切论述及主张。然而，他认为把工资归入“固定收入”之列，并不能使我们完整地把握和理解现代工资的本质特征及其多方面的规定性。因为巴师夏只强调了工资的一个方面、一种关系，这种关系对工资以及其他收入来源和形式（利润和地租）来说都是共同的，比如资本家的利润和地主的地租也可以是固定的、不变的。问题的要害在于，巴师夏回避了资本社会另一方面的问题，即资本运动是借助雇佣劳动制度来展开的，它造成的后果却总是对资本有利，而在这过程中付出巨大艰辛的劳动者最终所获利益与其劳动成果不成比例。从这一方面、这种关系看，就不能说是这种举措对工人来说是“有利的、道德的、普遍的”，因而会得到其“衷心的拥护”，更不说这样的社会状况是不能变动的甚至“不可消灭的”。

From this perspective, the advocacy of fixing wages or the "fixed wage" theory merely provides positive rhetoric for those who wish to defend the "superiority" of the unjust wage-labor system—isn't income stability a good thing? Don't all people delight in relying on something fixed? Especially for those from the lower classes, whose lives are always in straitened circumstances, vulgar and somewhat lowbrow Frenchmen, isn't this the case? Based on this, isn't it natural to regard "income stability" as the essence of "wages"? This is what Marx called the thinking of a "moralizer" toward Bastiat; its crux lies in subjectively "fixing a one-sided determination of a certain relation, a certain economic form, extolling this determination, and excluding the opposite determination." [28]28 Marx, *Theories of Surplus Value*, Part 3, Chapter 20, Section 4. In history, some commentators used the same method to defend slavery—arguing that there is a distinction between the "supremely wise and the utterly stupid" and that this distinction is "immutable," which shows that the "stupid" slave must rely on the "wise" slave owner to survive, and that the former has a "personal dependency" relationship with the latter, so slavery is the best system for slaves.

由此看来，将工资固定化的主张或“固定工资”论不过是给那些想为并不公正的雇佣劳动制度的“优越性”进行辩护的人提供正面的说辞——收入的固定性不好吗?难道不是所有的人都乐于指望某种固定的东西吗?特别是对于那些来自底层、生活总处于拮据状态、庸俗而有点低级趣味的法国人，难道不就是这样吗?基于此，将“收入的固定性”视为“工资”的本质，不是很自然的吗?这就是被马克思称为“说教者”对巴师夏的思维；其症结在于，主观地“把某种关系、某种经济形式的某个片面的规定固定下来，颂扬这个规定，排斥相反的规定”。历史上有论者替奴隶制辩护时也是用的同样的方法——认为人有“上智与下愚”之分且有“不移”的特征，这就表明，“愚”的奴隶必须靠“智”的奴隶主才能生存，前者对后者具有“人身依附”关系，所以，奴隶制对于奴隶而言是最好的制度。

Since it is a "one-sided argument," there will naturally be opposing views and propositions. If we instead regard wages as unfixed, that is, wages can continue to advance or rise beyond a certain point, then can we not also follow Bastiat's line of reasoning—who does not like progress and is willing to stagnate? Is it not too one-sided to grant only capital and the bourgeoisie endless progress and opportunities for creation? For labor and the worker, why are the consequences always "bad"? In fact, Bastiat himself recognized this elsewhere, arguing that the wage-labor system is also an unfixed thing; through non-fixation, through change, the worker ceases to labor and becomes a capitalist.

既然是“一面之辞”，那么就会有相反的观点和主张。假如我们反过来，将工资视为不固定的东西，就是说，工资超过一定点后可以继续前进或者向上提升，那么，是不是也可以照搬巴师夏式的论证思路——谁不喜欢前进而愿停滞不前呢?只给资本、给资产阶级无止境的进步、创造机会，这样的关系是不是太单一了?对于劳动和劳动者来说，为什么其后果总是“坏的”呢?事实上，巴师夏本人在另外的地方也意识到这一点，他认为，雇佣劳动制度也是一种不固定的东西，通过非固定化，通过变动，工人不再劳动而成为资本家。

This is very interesting!—Defending the same wage-labor system and its form of workers' wage income, but the reasons given are, at one moment, based on it being a fixed thing; at another, because it is an unfixed thing; reducing a complex and comprehensive relation to a one-sided, partial determination, and then regarding this determination as something positive, so that the relation can be determined as good and positive. In short, a thing can be determined as neither this nor that, or as both this and that—how arbitrary, subjective, and contradictory, and therefore how absurd!

这就很有趣了！——同样为雇佣劳动制度及其工人的工资收入形式辩护，但所持的理由，一会儿基于它是固定的东西；一会儿又说是因为它是不固定的东西；将一种复杂而全面的关系，归结为单方面片面的规定，又将这种规定视为肯定的东西，那么就可以确定这种关系是良好而正面的了。质言之，一种东西，可以认定其既非这个也非那个，也可以既是这个也是那个——这是多么随意、主观和矛盾，因而多么荒谬！

Having analyzed this far, Marx exclaims: "All reflective, vacillating chatter, all apologetics, all honest sophistry, are based on this abstraction." Clearly, for economists attempting to grasp and understand the overall relations and characteristics of capitalist society, Bastiat's discussion of wages and his propositions offer nothing of real value.

分析至此，马克思感叹道：“一切反思的、忽东忽西的空谈，一切辩护，一切老实的诡辩，都是建立在这种抽象上的。”显然，对于试图把握和理解资本社会的总体关系及其特点的经济学家来说，巴师夏关于工资的论述及其主张并没有提供任何真正有价值的东西。

This issue needs to be further analyzed by delving into historical structure (historischen Construction) and movement.

这个问题还需要进一步深入到历史结构（historischen Construction）和运动中去分析。

Bastiat once took the example of the sharecropping peasants (combining the misfortune of wage workers and the experience of small property owners) in the Landes region of France, saying that if they could receive fixed wages, they would indeed feel happy. But what era was that? It was the period of transition from pre-capitalism to capitalism. Bastiat roughly described this transition and the changes in income it brought. In the previous era, the income of laborers depended on all kinds of chance events, and all producers likewise depended on such chances; that is to say, this society was "the initial form of an association where all members share all chance events." In this form of association, the dominant forms of production were fishing, hunting, and herding, while the laborers were unsettled fishermen, hunters, and herdsmen, and naturally their income was also unfixed. Abstract logic advances according to the sequence of "thesis—antithesis—synthesis"; he believed that historical development also followed this logic. In the first stage, the antithesis after the thesis is the transition from the above semi-barbaric state to the modern state, one of whose markers is the emergence of the wage worker. If the income of those former fishermen, hunters, and herdsmen could not be considered fixed at all, now labor remuneration has acquired fixity, becoming fixed wages. In Bastiat's view, history has evolved to "give way to a higher, voluntarily agreed-upon stage of association."

巴师夏曾以法国朗德省的分成制佃农（兼具雇佣工人的不幸和小资产者的遭遇）为例，说如果他们能领取到固定工资，确实是会感到幸福的。然而那是什么时代？是前资本主义向资本主义过渡的时期。巴师夏在书中大体描述了这种过渡以及它所带来的收入上的变化。前一个时代，劳动者在收入上要取决于一切偶然机会，一切生产者同样取决于这种机会，也就是说，这种社会是“一切成员分享一切偶然机会的联合体的最初形式”。在这种联合体形式中，占统治地位的生产形式是捕鱼、狩猎、畜牧，而劳动者则是居无定所的渔夫、猎人、牧人，自然其收入也是不固定的。抽象的逻辑按照“正题—反题—合题”顺序推进，他认为，历史发展也遵循了这样的逻辑。在第一阶段，即正题之后的反题是从上述半野蛮状态向现代状态的过渡，其标志之一产生了雇佣工人。如果说以往那些渔夫、猎人、牧人在收入上根本谈不上固定化，而现在劳动报酬则取得了固定性，成为固定化的工资。在巴师夏看来，历史已经进化到、“让位于联合体的更高的、双方自愿议定的阶段”了。

Being able to observe the nature and changes in the characteristics of income within the historical evolution of social forms shows that Bastiat had a historical perspective when thinking about problems. But the key is that he had no profound and comprehensive grasp of the essence of the latter society, i.e., capitalist society, and did not understand the epoch-making significance of this transformation, which encompassed all social forms of labor's existence, and therefore could not give the most appropriate explanation. He did not know that in the latter stage, the degree of civilization in society had advanced, barbarism and coercion gave way to equal rights and negotiation, but at the same time, the dominance of contingency still existed, and risks greatly increased. As for what actually happened in history, wage labor arose from the dissolution of slavery and serfdom, or, as among the Eastern and Slavic peoples, from the collapse of communal ownership, so this was an institutional transformation, not merely a change in the identity of laborers—"Wage labor arises from the decline of the guild system, the estate system, labor services and income in kind, industry as a rural sideline, and still feudal small-scale agriculture." If, in previous social structures and relations, labor was fixed in terms of its income, content, location, and scale, then in this real historical transition, wage labor appears as the dissolution and destruction of all previous relations—as a negation of the fixity of labor and its form of remuneration. And in all these developments, there is no sign of voluntary changes occurring based on mutual agreement. By merely sketching the historical structure and making a simple comparison of changes before and after, Bastiat attempted to grasp the essence of wages in modern society, but in fact he fabricated nothing more than a "superficial abstract theory."

能将收入的性质及其特征的变化置于社会形态的历史演变中观照，表明巴师夏思考问题是有历史的眼光。但关键在于，他对后一个社会即资本社会的本质却并无深刻而全面的把握，没有理解这种变革所具有的划时代的、进而囊括了劳动的全部社会存在形式的意义，因而也就不可能给予最恰当的解释。他不知道，在后一个阶段上，社会的文明程度得以进化，野蛮和强权易为平权和协商，但与此同时，偶然性的支配依然存在，风险则大大增加了。而就历史上发生的真实情况看，雇佣劳动是从奴隶制和农奴制的解体中产生的，或者像在东方和斯拉夫各民族中那样是从公有制的崩溃中产生的，所以这是一种制度性的变革，而不是单纯的劳动者身份的转换——“雇佣劳动是从行会制度、等级制度、劳役和实物收入、作为农村副业的工业、仍为封建的小农业等等的衰亡中产生的。”如果说，在以往的社会结构和关系中，劳动就其收入、内容、场所和规模等方面来说都是固定的，而在这种现实的历史过渡中，雇佣劳动表现为以往一切关系的解体和消灭——表现为对劳动和及其报酬形式固定性的否定。而在所有这一切发展中，并没有显示出自愿的、根据相互的协议而发生的变动的任何迹象。巴师夏仅凭对历史结构的简单勾勒和前后变化的简单对照便意欲把握现代社会中工资的本质，实质上杜撰出的不过是“肤浅的抽象理论”。

Capitalist society must continue to develop and will undergo even more剧烈的 social changes. According to Bastiat's design, as long as one follows the logic of "thesis—antithesis—synthesis," without arduous struggle and effort, one can naturally transition to the social state represented by the synthetic form. From the discussion above, we already know that the ideal society in his mind was England; specifically, unfixed income (thesis)—fixed income (antithesis)—the subsequent "synthesis" is "the English mutual aid societies and savings banks," which "appear as the latest achievement of the wage-labor system and the sublation of all social antinomies." But historical development never follows rigid "formal logic" and abstract inferences; in fact, unfixity is one of the greatest characteristics of the wage-labor system—this is exactly the opposite of Bastiat's explanation of the structure and operation of modern capitalist society. His judgment that, with the transition from fisherman to wage worker, wages also transitioned from unfixed to fixed, is even more "absurd and anti-historical" than the transition of the power ruling the world from the idols worshipped by Africans directly to the "Supreme Being" (être suprême) of the Voltairian type, which only imparts a first impulse to the world without any intervention, or the transition of the means to promote economic and social development from the hunting tools of North American savages directly to the capital of the Bank of England.

资本社会还要向前发展，更会经历剧烈的社会变动。按照巴师夏的设计，只要顺应“正—反—合”的逻辑，不需要艰苦的斗争和努力，就可以自然而然地过渡到合题的形式所表征的社会状态。根据前文的论述，我们已经知道，他心目中最理想的社会是英国；具体说来，收入不固定（正题）—收入固定（反题）—之后的“合题”则是“英国的互助会和储蓄银行”，它“表现为雇佣劳动制度的最新成就和社会的一切二律背反的扬弃”。但历史发展从来不遵循刻板的“形式逻辑”和抽象的推断，事实上，不固定性才是雇佣劳动制度最大的特点之一；这与巴师夏对现代资本社会结构及其运行的解释正好相反。他所谓随着从渔夫过渡到雇佣工人，工资也由不固定过渡到固定的判定，甚至比把统治世界的力量由从非洲人所崇拜的偶像直接过渡到伏尔泰式的只赋予世界以第一推动力却不进行任何干预的“最高存在物”（être suprême），或者促进经济社会发展的手段从北美野蛮人的猎具直接过渡到英格兰银行的资本，还要“荒谬和反历史”。

On this point, Bastiat, who claims to be a "critic" of classical economics, shows differences from these economists in terms of argumentation angle and approach, but in essence, there is no difference.

在这一点上，号称古典经济学“批评者”的巴师夏与这些经济学家在论证角度和思路上显现出差异，但实质上并无二致。

For instance, economists, in view of the antagonistic relationship between capital and wage labor, and between profit and wages, thereby assign unique determinations to the wage-labor system and its various “relational terms.” Therefore, they believe that workers, whose income takes the form of wages, have no right to share in the opportunities for obtaining profit, and that workers should also be content with their subordinate position to the capitalists, because the income they receive has fixity and stability and is not swayed by the risky ventures of capital. In Bastiat’s case, however, he determines the characteristics of the wage-labor system in opposition to past modes of labor and their forms of remuneration, and regards it as “a step forward” compared to the past.

比如，经济学家们是鉴于资本与雇佣劳动、利润与工资之间的对立关系，进而赋予雇佣劳动制度及其各个“关系项”独特的规定性的。因此，他们认为，以工资为其收入形式的工人是无权分享取得利润的机会的，工人也要安于对资本家的从属地位，因为其所取得的收入具有固定性和稳定性，并不为资本的冒险行为所左右。而在巴师夏这里，是在与过去的劳动方式及其报酬形式相对立的意义上确定雇佣劳动制度的特征，且将其视为较之过去“前进了一步”。

Furthermore, in their contemplation of the relationship between wages and profit, and between wage labor and capital, economists regard fixity as an advantage and consider it to belong to wages. Bastiat, however, further transforms “fixity” into the historical foundation that promotes economic and social development and gives rise to the wage-labor system and profit. In essence, in his view, one aspect of the determination of the relationship between wages and profit is “quietly” turned into the historical foundation of the entire social relations of capital. Another example concerns the “theory of fixed wages,” one interpretation of which holds that, under certain average conditions, wages manifest as an average quantity, or, as Bastiat puts it, as the minimum level of wages, while the economic operation and labor conditions of capitalist society maintain a certain average continuity, so that wages can continue to be paid even when profit declines or temporarily disappears entirely. Another formulation holds that in the era of capital, wage labor is the dominant form of labor and the foundation of production; therefore, workers live on wages, and the individual worker, under average conditions, acquires the fixity of laboring for wages. But in essence, these two formulations are nothing more than “tautology.” The difference lies only in that among economists these are “merely those apologetic stale ideas of secondary importance,” whereas in Bastiat they assume “such an important form.”

还比如，经济学家在对工资和利润、雇佣劳动和资本的关系的观照中，将固定性视为一个优点且认为它属于工资。而巴师夏则进一步将“固定性”当作促进经济社会发展、产生雇佣劳动制度和利润的历史基础。质言之，在他那里，是将工资和利润的关系一个方面的规定性“悄悄地”变为整个资本社会关系的历史基础。还比如，关于“固定工资论”，其中一种解释是，在某种平均状况下，工资体现为一个平均量，或者如巴师夏所说是工资的最低额度，而资本社会的经济运行和劳动状态会保持某种平均连续性，这样，工资甚至在利润下降甚至暂时完全消失的情况下也可以继续支付。另一说法则认为，资本时代雇佣劳动是占统治地位的劳动形式，是生产的基础，那么，工人就靠工资生存，而单个工人在平均状况下就取得了为工资而劳动的固定性。但实质上，这种两种说法不过是“同义反复”。差异只在于，在经济学家那里“只是占次要地位的那些辩护性的陈腐思想”，而在巴师夏这里却“具有多么重要的形式”。

At this point, one cannot help but ask: What does this “fixity” of wages actually mean? Are wages forever fixed? It must be understood that modern wages are not an abstract, general, or ordinary form of income, but are linked to the economic movement of capitalist society. The basis for determining wages is the supply-demand relationship and its laws within this society. Clearly, the “theory of fixed wages” is entirely contradictory to these relationships and laws. Consider further: Which serious economist would deny the fluctuation (rise and fall) of wages? Which worker’s wages are unrelated to crises in the economic and social order? Unrelated to the introduction of machinery that creates a surplus of wage labor? Unrelated to the division of labor that regulates the relationship between labor and capital? From this, it is evident that, based on the actual operation of the economy and society, such absurd theories and propositions simply cannot arise; yet paradoxically, they have arisen and are even quite popular!

至此，不禁要问：工资的这种“固定性”究竟意味着什么？工资是永远固定的吗？要知道，现代的工资不是抽象的、一般的、通常的收入形式，而是与资本社会经济运动联系在一起。工资确定的基础是这一社会的供求关系及其规律。很显然，“固定工资论”恰恰与这些关系及其规律是完全矛盾的。再想一想：哪一个严肃的经济学家会否认工资的波动（提高和降低）？哪一个劳动者的工资会与经济社会的危机无关？会与造成雇佣劳动过剩的机器的采用无关？会与调节劳动与资本关系的分工无关？由此可知，只要基于现实的经济社会运行根本就不产生这样荒谬的理论和主张；而吊诡的是，这样的理论和主张产生了，而且还很流行！

The movement of the economy and society does not stop, and neither does capitalist society. Thus, further inferences related to the above theories emerge: the so-called advanced state of capital, compared with the underdeveloped state that has not yet reached this stage, means that “social production as a whole is more regular, more continuous, and more comprehensive, and consequently the income of the members engaged in production is also more ‘fixed.’” In Marx’s view, this is yet another “tautology.” And this tautology appears together with the concept of capital and the concept of production based on capital, and is linked to the view that this system is eternal. However, movement does not imply unidirectional progress or development; it inevitably encounters crises and difficulties, and even exposes defects and cruxes that cannot be overcome or eradicated without revolution. If the premise for the existence of wage labor in the era of capital is that the development of productive forces is higher than in the stage before wage labor appeared, then, taking the higher development of social productive forces brought about by wage labor as a premise, socialists should put forward higher demands, for “this higher development is precisely the premise of their demands.”

经济社会的运动不会止步，资本社会亦是如此。于是，与上述理论相关的推论又产生了：所谓资本的发达状态同还没有发展到该阶段的不发达状态比较起来，“社会生产整个说来更有规则、更有连续性、更全面，从而从事生产的成员的收入也更‘固定’”。在马克思看来，这不过是又一个“同义反复”。而这种同义反复是随着资本的概念和建立在资本基础上的生产概念本身一起出现，且与认为这种制度永恒化联系在一起的。然而，运动并不意味单向度的进步、发展，也必然会遭逢危机和困境，乃至暴露非革命难以摆脱和根治的弊端、症结。如果说，资本时代雇佣劳动存在的前提是生产力的发展高于雇佣劳动出现以前的阶段，那么，以雇佣劳动造成的社会生产力的更高发展为前提，社会主义者应该提出更高的要求，而“这种更高的发展倒正好是他们的要求的前提”。

The differences in the above views and lines of thought led Marx to feel that “it is no longer possible to talk about these meaningless things.” Therefore, he resolutely decided to “set Bastiat aside.”

以上观点和思路上的差异，让马克思感到“不能再谈这些毫无意义的东西了”。因此，毅然决定“抛开巴师夏”。

V. Contemporary Reflection: Transcending Antagonism, Building Harmony

五、当代省思：超越对抗，共建和谐

Thus, we have completed a meticulous clarification of the content and argumentative logic of the text *Bastiat and Carey*. Finally, let us briefly discuss the important value and contemporary significance of the ideas touched upon therein.

这样，我们就完成了对《巴师夏和凯里》文本内容和论述逻辑的细致清理，最后简略谈谈其中所触及的思想的重要价值及其当代意义。

As we know, the law of development of the capitalist economy is manifested through periodically erupting crises and the subsequent processes of mitigation, adjustment, transformation, and recovery that unfold. The crisis of 1857–1858 is regarded as one of the most iconic economic events of the 19th century; tracing back, it is interconnected with the economic crises of 1825 and 1847; moving forward, through the movement of capital in the 20th century, it successively transformed into the Great Depression of 1929–1933, the economic difficulties of the late 1970s, and the financial turmoil of 2008. Throughout the development of capitalism across two centuries, accompanied by enormous social changes, these crises have varied in time span, and their specific occasions, contingent factors, evolutionary processes, and subsequent effects have differed greatly, even being incomparable. Yet they also share some common phenomena and characteristics, such as credit expansion, economic bubbles, and overinvestment. These crises have caused severe consequences for the development of various countries and have had a tremendous impact on the lives of people worldwide. Humanity cannot repeatedly suffer setbacks and failures without learning from them, remaining unchanged, only to repeat the same mistakes shortly thereafter. In this sense, Marx’s *Bastiat and Carey*, written in the context of the 1857–1858 crisis, is not merely a historical record and document. Although it is only the opening piece of the vast “1857–1858 Manuscripts,” through the detailed interpretation of its specific content above, we can see that it not only analyzed the extremely significant issues and ideas of that era, but its viewpoints also offer important insights for grasping and understanding contemporary problems.

我们知道，资本主义经济的发展规律是以周期性爆发的危机及其随后展开的缓解、调整、变革和复苏来呈现的。1857—1858年危机被视为19世纪最具标志性的经济事件之一，往前追溯，它与1825年、1847年经济危机相互关联；往后经过20世纪的资本运动，又次第嬗变为1929—1933年经济大萧条、70年代后期的经济困境和2008年的金融动荡等。贯穿两个世纪资本主义的发展，伴随着巨大的社会变迁，这些危机发生的时间跨度不一，具体机缘、偶然因素、演变过程和后续效应更多有差异，甚至不可比拟，但也存在着一些共同的现象和特点，诸如信贷膨胀、经济泡沫以及过度投资，等等。这些危机给各个国家的发展造成严重的后果，给全世界人们的生活带来了巨大的影响。人类不能总是在经历了一次又一次挫折和失败之后却不长记性，依然故我，以至于不久之后重蹈覆辙。从这个意义上讲，马克思基于1857—1858年危机而撰写的《巴师夏和凯里》就不仅仅是一份历史记录和文献了。尽管它只是庞大的“1857—1858年手稿”的开篇之作，但通过上文对其具体内容的详尽解读，可以知道，它不仅辨析了那个时代极为重大的问题及其思想，其中的观点对于当代问题的把握和理解也有重要启示。

First, “antagonism” and “harmony” in economic and social development constitute a coexisting state and relationship; they are both opposing and contradictory, and mutually corroborating and dependent. Although during periods of crisis they differ in degree, scope, proportion, function, and effect, they will not reach a point where one side completely excludes and dissolves the other to become the sole existing pattern and situation in society. As Marx pointed out as early as in the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, “As long as it is not yet understood as the opposition of labor and capital, it remains an indifferent opposition, an opposition not grasped in its dynamic relation, in its inner relation, not yet understood as a contradiction.” This requires us, on the one hand, not to ignore the existence of antagonistic factors, not to use “harmony theory” to cover up contradictions, oppositions, conflicts, and crises, thereby losing objective and rational judgment of the state, conditions, and circumstances of social development, and ultimately missing opportunities for transformation. On the other hand, however, we must not cling stubbornly to the antagonism we seek, making struggle the guiding principle, being swept along by radical sentiments, and enthusiastically engaging in the “overthrow of dynasties” [29]29 “Overthrow of dynasties” (改朝换代, gai chao huan dai) is a Chinese four-character idiom literally meaning “to change the dynasty and replace the era,” referring to the violent replacement of one ruling house by another through revolution or rebellion., to the point of being unable to calmly judge the current situation and advance steadily. It must be understood that, in an atmosphere of antagonism, temporarily weak factors, forces with potential, and the gradual cultivation of harmonious relations are of great significance and even necessity for alleviating and resolving practical problems; antagonism is a means, not an end. The purpose of antagonism is to use antagonism to sublate and transcend antagonism, gradually reaching a state of social progress and harmony.

其一，经济社会发展中的“对抗”与“和谐”是一种并存的状态和关系，既是对立的、矛盾的，也是相互佐证、依赖的。虽然危机时期，各自在程度、范围、比重、作用、效应等方面存在差异，但不会达致其中一方将另一方彻底排斥、消解而成为社会中唯一存在的样态和情势。诚如马克思早在《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中就指出的，“只要还没有把它理解为劳动和资本的对立，它还是一种无关紧要的对立，一种没有从它的能动关系上、它的内在关系上来理解的对立，还没有作为矛盾来理解的对立”。这就要求我们，一方面，不能无视对抗性因素的存在，以“和谐论”掩盖矛盾、对立、冲突和危机，对社会发展的状态、条件和情势失去客观、理性的判断，最终贻误变革机遇。但另一方面，也不能执念于孜孜以求的对抗，以斗争为纲，为激进情绪所裹挟，热衷于轰轰烈烈的“改朝换代”，以至于不能立足于现状冷静判断，稳妥推进。要知道，在对抗的氛围中，暂时弱小的因素、有潜力的力量和逐步培育和谐的关系，对于现实问题的缓解乃至解决具有重要意义，更有必要性；对抗是手段，而不是目的，对抗的目的是借助对抗扬弃对抗、超越对抗，逐步达致社会进步和和谐之境。

Second, in modern society, the functions of the state constitute not only a systematic structure involving multiple aspects but also exhibit a trend in which their overarching factor shifts from politics to economics and from coercive power to consultation. The roles of the state in politics, economy, society, and even national defense and foreign affairs each have their own boundaries, functions, and characteristics. On the one hand, they should not encroach upon or substitute for one another; on the other hand, careful consideration must be given to their combined exertion of force. Even if such combination is necessary, economic factors must be highlighted. The state’s economic functions should be fully utilized to create conditions and provide guarantees for economic and social development, but economic laws must be respected, and forceful intervention in economic affairs should be avoided, let alone the incitement of “statism.” According to common understanding, only Adam Smith’s market economy theory in classical economics and twentieth-century liberal economics advocate this position, while Marx holds an opposing view. However, as discussed earlier, the “five sections” [30]30 The “five sections” refer to the five-part structure Marx outlined in the *Introduction* to the *Grundrisse* (1857), covering capital, landed property, wage labor, the state, and the world market. designed in the *Introduction* after “Bastiat and Carey” extensively cover this very broad and important content, also indicating Marx’s clear stance. Moreover, we can discern his far-sightedness from Marx and Engels’ concerns about the mode of German unification and the post-unification layout.

其二，在现代社会，国家的职能既是一个涉及多个方面的系统结构，也存在一个其统摄因素由政治向经济、由强权向协商转换的趋势。国家在政治、经济、社会乃至国防、外交等方面的作用，各有界域、功能及特征，一方面，不宜相互僭越、替代，另一方面，也要慎重考量合体发力；即便非得如此，也要突出经济因素。既要充分发挥国家的经济职能，为经济社会发展创造条件、提供保障，但更要尊重经济规律，忌用强力干预经济事务，更不能激发“国家主义”。按照通常的理解，只有古典经济学中亚当·斯密的市场经济理论和20世纪自由主义经济学有此主张，而马克思是持反对意见的。但正如前文论述过的，在《巴师夏和凯里》之后《导言》设计的“五个分篇”专门涉及这方面非常广泛而重要的内容，也表明了马克思鲜明的立场；我们更可以从马克思、恩格斯对德国的统一方式以及统一后的布局的隐忧中，看出他的远见卓识。

Third, one must not only take a national and ethnic standpoint but also possess historical consciousness and a global perspective. Bastiat and Carey attracted Marx’s attention because they wrote and developed their thinking in “completely different, even opposite” “national environments,” and Marx believed that their way of approaching issues rendered their theories somewhat critical and original compared to classical economics and its imitators. However, upon examining the content of their thought, the logic of their arguments, and their specific propositions, Marx was ultimately disappointed. The reason is that they stubbornly adhered to national and ethnic consciousness and standpoints in grasping complex issues, especially in understanding the development of capital society’s economy and its future orientation, always remaining confined to a single “French observation” or “American horizon.” Even when they touched upon foreign and historical circumstances, they merely used them as seasoning to substantiate their views and solidify their positions and propositions, completely failing to situate their own countries and nations within the vast process and trend of “history’s transformation into ‘world history’” to examine their problems, situations, traditions, and potential. Consequently, their thoughts, which “directly” grew from the “soil” of their own countries, either only reached the level of the French “country bumpkin Jacques” [31]31 “Country bumpkin Jacques” is a derogatory term Marx used to characterize the narrow, provincial outlook of French thinkers like Bastiat, contrasting them with the broader perspective of British classical economists. or were merely “purely Yankee doctrines.” Thus, we see that whether it was Bastiat, who admired Britain, or Carey, who despised Britain, neither could compare with the British classical economics they criticized, whether in terms of their achievements in economics or the actual effects of their policy propositions. Time has sifted through the sands; how many people today remember Bastiat’s *Economic Harmonies* or Carey’s *Principles of Political Economy*? Yet *The Wealth of Nations*, *On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation*, and, needless to say, *Capital*, still shine brightly.

其三，既要立足于国家、民族立场，更要有历史意识和全球眼光。巴师夏和凯里因在“完全不同的，甚至是相反的”“民族环境中”从事写作和展开思考而受到马克思的关注，认为他们这种观照问题的方式使其理论较之于古典经济学及其模仿者体现出一定程度的批判性和独创性。然而，通过对其思想内容、论证逻辑和具体主张的检视，马克思最终失望了。原因在于，他们完全固执于国家、民族意识和立场把握复杂问题，特别是对资本社会经济的发展和未来取向的把握时，始终局限于单一的“法国观察”“美国眼界”，即便对域外和历史的情况有所涉略，但也不过是用它们来充当论证其观点、固化其立场和主张的佐料，而完全没有将自己的国家、民族置于浩大的“历史向‘世界历史’转变”的进程和趋势中，看待其问题和处境、传统和潜力，致使其“直接”在本国“土壤上生长的”的思想要么只具有法国“乡下佬雅各”的水准，要么不过是“纯粹美国佬的学说”。因此，我们看到，无论是追慕英国的巴师夏还是鄙视英国的凯里，也无论在经济学方面的建树还是其政策主张所产生的实际效果，他们都无法与作为其批判对象的英国古典经济学相比。大浪淘沙，这么多年过去，有多少人记得巴师夏的《论经济的和谐》和凯里的《政治经济学原理》呢？而《国富论》《政治经济学及赋税原理》更不用说《资本论》了，依然熠熠生辉。

Fourth, genuine thought and theory arise from the gestation of major events and problems in economic and social development, arduous exploration, and painful reflection. It can be said that without the crisis of 1857–1858, there would be no important work like the “1857–1858 Manuscripts.” Beginning with “Bastiat and Carey,” followed by the masterly *Introduction*, and then the expansive *Chapter on Money* and *Chapter on Capital* constituting the main body, Marx wrote this work in eight notebooks from August 1857 to May 1858. During this period, he also compiled three notebooks of excerpts and notes on the crisis (Crisis Notebooks) from October 1857 to February 1858, and, together with extensive correspondence with Engels and others on related issues, formed a rich and profound “think tank.” During that time, as he said in a letter to another person, “My workload is very heavy, and I often have to work until four o’clock in the morning.” Even with such enormous effort, the process of constructing thought was not smooth but full of hardship—“In fact, I have been doing the final processing in recent months. But progress is very slow, because once I want to finally settle accounts with some topics that have been my main research objects for many years, new aspects and issues always arise, prompting new considerations.” [32]32 This is a paraphrase of Marx’s own words from a letter, reflecting his struggle with the complexity of his research during the writing of the *Grundrisse*. In the end, Marx completed the attempt to “clarify at least some basic problems before the flood” [33]33 “Before the flood” is a phrase Marx used in a letter to indicate his urgency to complete his theoretical work before a major economic crisis (the “flood”) erupted.. This was the crystallization of arduous exploration, accumulation, and reflection during the “golden fifteen years” (1843–1858) since his “turn to political economy,” and it also established the magnificent framework of “five sections” for the later *Capital*. To this, we can only say—the eternal “Outline (Grundrisse)”! It sets the most typical example for theoretical innovation today.

其四，真正的思想和理论源于经济社会发展中重大事件和问题的催生、艰辛的探索和痛苦的思考。可以说，没有1857—1858年危机就没有“1857—1858年手稿”这部重要作品。由《巴师夏和凯里》开篇，随后是高屋建瓴的《导言》，再后是构成主体内容、汪洋恣肆的《货币章》《资本章》，马克思从1857年8月至1858年5月在8个笔记本上撰写出这部作品，其间还于1857年10月到1858年2月编写了3本关于危机的摘录、笔记（Crisis Notebooks），再加上与恩格斯等同道就此相关问题进行的大量通信，构成一个丰富、深邃的“思想库”。那段时间，诚如他在给他人的信中所说，“我的工作量很大，多半都要工作到早晨四点钟”。即便付出如此巨大的努力，思想建树的过程也并不随顺，而是充满艰辛——“事实上，最近几个月来我都在进行最后的加工。但是进展很慢，因为多年来作为主要研究对象的一些题目，一旦想最后清算它们，总是又出现新的方面的问题，引起新的考虑。”最终，马克思完成了“在洪水之前至少把一些基本问题搞清楚”的尝试，这是他思想发生“政治经济学转向”以来“黄金十五年”（1843—1858）艰辛探索、积累和思考的结晶，更为后来的《资本论》搭建了恢宏的“五个分篇”的框架。对此，我们只能说——永远的“大纲（Grundrisse）”！它为当今的理论创新树立了最具典型意义的范例。

(Author’s biography: Nie Jinfang, Professor, Department of Philosophy, Peking University)

（作者简介：聂锦芳，北京大学哲学系教授）

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗