*Theories of Surplus Value* and the Research Method of Marxist History of Economic Thought

From August 1861 to July 1863, Marx planned to write the second part of *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*, namely the section on “capital in general.” The exposition of “capital in general” was divided into three chapters: “The Production Process of Capital,” “The Circulation Process of Capital,” and “The Unity of the Two, or Capital and Profit, Interest.” Following the format of the first part of *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*, Marx intended to append a theoretical-historical supplement to each theoretical section. At the beginning of writing the second part, he successively drafted the following theoretical content: (1) the transformation of money into capital; (2) absolute surplus value; (3) relative surplus value. Marx then planned to examine absolute and relative surplus value in combination, which was to constitute part (4), but this was not yet written at the time. Thus, *Theories of Surplus Value* was to be the final section of “The Production Process of Capital,” namely (5) the theoretical-historical supplement on surplus value.

从1861年8月到1863年7月，马克思计划撰写《政治经济学批判》第二分册，即“资本一般”部分。“资本一般”的论述分成三篇：“资本的生产过程”“资本的流通过程”和“两者的统一，或资本和利润、利息”。马克思沿用《政治经济学批判》第一分册的体例，预备在每一理论部分的最后加上一个理论史的附论。马克思在撰写第二分册的开始阶段时，依次写下了以下理论内容：（1）货币转化为资本；（2）绝对剩余价值；（3）相对剩余价值。之后马克思计划将绝对剩余价值和相对剩余价值相结合考察，这一考察应构成第（4）部分，但当时尚未写成。这样，《剩余价值理论》就应当是“资本的生产过程”的最后一节，即（5）关于剩余价值的理论史附论。

*Theories of Surplus Value* was initially written as a theoretical history of surplus value, taking James Steuart from the mid-18th century as its starting point. However, in the process of writing, the content gradually expanded. Marx traced the trajectory of bourgeois economics from its upward development through its peak period to its decline into vulgar economics. Therefore, in terms of content, *Theories of Surplus Value* already possessed the character of a draft history of bourgeois political economy; the draft on the history of the theory of surplus value thus became a draft history of bourgeois political economy. *Theories of Surplus Value* fully embodies the characteristics of Marx’s approach to studying the history of economic thought and provides a reference for our research on the Marxist history of economic thought.

《剩余价值理论》在开始时是作为剩余价值的理论史来写的，选定了18世纪中叶的詹姆斯·斯图亚特作为起点。但是，在写作的过程中内容逐渐扩展，马克思沿着资产阶级经济学发展的轨迹，从它向上发展写到顶峰时期，再写到它变为庸俗经济学的衰落过程。因此，从内容来看，《剩余价值理论》已经具备了资产阶级政治经济学史的初稿性质，关于剩余价值理论史的初稿就变成了资产阶级政治经济学史的初稿。《剩余价值理论》充分体现了马克思研究经济思想史的特点，为我们开展马克思主义经济思想史的研究提供了参考。

I. The Narrative Method of *Theories of Surplus Value*

一、《剩余价值理论》的叙述方法

Volume I of *Theories of Surplus Value* covers the economic thought of bourgeois political economy from its upward development to its peak period, focusing on the theory of the manufactory-period economist Adam Smith, primarily concerning the relationship arising from the exchange of capital and labor on the basis of the law of value. Volume II of *Theories of Surplus Value* deals with the theory of Ricardo, the completer of classical bourgeois political economy, primarily concerning the completion of the theory of value and the theory of surplus value in a broad sense. Volume III of *Theories of Surplus Value* mainly analyzes the process of decline of bourgeois political economy as a science and its transformation into vulgar economics. Marx narrates the development of bourgeois political economy in historical order, and the discussion centered on the key category of surplus value is closely connected with other basic categories in the field of political economy, such as value, capital, profit, interest, and rent.

《剩余价值理论》第一卷是关于资产阶级政治经济学向上发展直至其顶峰时期的经济学思想，重点是工场手工业时期经济学家亚当·斯密的理论，主要涉及资本主义和劳动在价值规律基础上互相交换所发生的关系。《剩余价值理论》第二卷是关于资产阶级古典政治经济学完成者李嘉图的理论，主要涉及价值理论和广义剩余价值理论的完成。《剩余价值理论》第三卷主要分析了资产阶级政治经济学作为一门科学的衰落过程及其向庸俗经济学的转化。马克思按历史顺序对资产阶级政治经济学的发展进行叙述，围绕剩余价值这一重点范畴展开的讨论又与价值、资本、利润、利息和地租等政治经济学领域的其他基本范畴密切关联着。

“Before the Physiocrats, surplus-value—that is, profit, the profit-form of surplus-value—was explained purely from exchange, the sale of the commodity above its value. Sir James Steuart, on the whole, did not get beyond this narrow view.”[1]1 Marx, *Theories of Surplus Value*, Part I, p. 11. The citation refers to the English edition; the original Chinese text cites the Chinese translation.11 If so, why did Marx choose the mercantilist Steuart as the starting point of his narrative? This is because Steuart distinguished between “absolute profit” and “relative profit.” He argued that profit arising from exchange is “relative profit,” where one party’s gain means another’s loss. “Absolute profit,” on the other hand, implies no loss for anyone; it is created by “an augmentation of labour, industry, and skill.” Although this did not resolve the question of the origin of surplus value, it represented a step forward from the general mercantilist position, showing a tendency to explain the source of profit outside the sphere of exchange, thereby making it possible to discuss value apart from exchange value.

“在重农学派以前，剩余价值——即利润，利润形式的剩余价值——完全是用交换，用商品高于它的价值出卖来解释的。詹姆斯·斯图亚特爵士，总的说来，并没有超出这种狭隘看法；”[1]11既如此，马克思为什么选择重商主义者斯图亚特作为叙述起点？这是因为，斯图亚特区分了“绝对利润”和“相对利润”。他认为从交换中产生的利润是“相对利润”，一方的盈利意味着另一方的亏损。而“绝对利润”对谁都不意味着亏损，它是由“劳动、勤勉和技能的增进”创造的。这虽然不是对剩余价值起源问题的解决，但比一般重商主义的主张前进了一步，出现了离开交换领域来解释利润成因的一种趋势，为离开交换价值来谈论价值提供了可能。

Marx regarded the Physiocrats as “the true fathers of modern political economy” because they “analyse capital within the bourgeois horizon”[1]1 Marx, *Theories of Surplus Value*, Part I, p. 11. The citation refers to the English edition; the original Chinese text cites the Chinese translation.15 and shifted the origin of surplus value from the sphere of circulation to the sphere of production, laying the foundation for the analysis of capitalist production. They argued that only labour that creates surplus value is productive labour, that agricultural labour is the only productive labour, and that rent is the sole and general form of surplus value. Industrial profit and money interest were seen merely as transformed portions of rent. Beginning with Adam Smith, industrial profit was considered the form in which surplus value first appears as capital’s appropriation, and it was regarded as the initial general form of surplus value, with interest and rent seen as branches of industrial profit. Marx believed that Smith actually understood that the labour time expended in reproducing and maintaining labour capacity differs from what labour capacity itself can provide—that is, the “quantity of labour” and the “value of labour” are no longer equivalent. Marx held that the difference between the two constitutes surplus value.

马克思把重农学派视为“现代经济学的真正鼻祖”，这是因为它“在资产阶级视野以内对资本进行分析”[1]15，将剩余价值的起源从流通领域转向生产领域，奠定了资本主义生产分析的基础。他们提出，只有创造剩余价值的劳动才是生产劳动，农业劳动是唯一的生产劳动，地租是剩余价值的唯一形式和一般形式。工业利润和货币利息只是地租份额的转化形式。从亚当·斯密开始，工业利润被认为是剩余价值最初表现为资本占有的形式，并将其看成剩余价值的最初的一般形式，利息与地租则被看成是工业利润的分支。马克思认为斯密实际上清楚，再生产和维持劳动能力所耗费的劳动时间，与劳动能力本身所能提供的劳动是不同的，即“劳动的量”和“劳动的价值”不再等同了。马克思认为两者间的差额便是剩余价值。

Ricardo consistently studied surplus value from its specific forms—profit, interest, and rent. In *On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation*, one frequently encounters views proceeding from the premise of profit rather than from the premise of surplus value. Ricardo’s theory of average profit is based on the idea that profit is proportional to capital, not to the quantity of labour employed. For if average profit were proportional to the quantity of labour employed, equal capitals would yield very unequal profits. In Marx’s view, profit is equal to the surplus value produced in that branch of production; surplus value does not depend on the amount of capital but on the amount of variable capital, that is, on the quantity of labour employed. The equalization of surplus value across different branches of production merely changes its distribution among those branches, without altering the absolute magnitude of total surplus value. Surplus value itself is determined solely by surplus labour time. Ricardo’s error lay in equating average profit with surplus value, “examining profit only in relation to variable capital—that part of capital laid out in wages.”[2]2 Marx, *Theories of Surplus Value*, Part II, p. 420. The citation refers to the English edition; the original Chinese text cites the Chinese translation.420

李嘉图一直是从利润、利息和地租等剩余价值的特殊形态研究剩余价值。在《政治经济学及赋税原理》中随处可见从利润前提出发而非从剩余价值前提出发的观点。李嘉图的平均利润理论是建立在利润与资本成比例，而非与所用劳动量成比例的观点基础上的。因为如果平均利润是与所用的劳动量成比例，那么等量资本就会提供极不相等的利润了。在马克思看来，利润与该生产部分所生产的剩余价值相等，剩余价值并非依存于资本量，而是依存于可变资本的量，也就是依存于所用劳动的量。不同生产部门的剩余价值的平均化，改变的只是其在不同生产部门间的分配，而不会改变总剩余价值的绝对量。剩余价值本身只由剩余劳动时间来决定。李嘉图的错误在于将平均利润看成是剩余价值，“只是从对可变资本即投在工资上的那部分资本的关系来考察利润。”[2]420

Equating surplus value with profit was one of the reasons for the dissolution of classical economics. Its dissolution was mainly due to two points: “(1) The exchange between capital and labour, in accordance with the law of value. (2) The formation of the general rate of profit. The identification of surplus value with profit. The failure to understand the relationship between value and cost-price.”[3]3 Marx, *Theories of Surplus Value*, Part III, p. 208. The citation refers to the English edition; the original Chinese text cites the Chinese translation.208 Malthus severed the inner connection between profit and labour, explaining profit as “profit upon alienation” like the mercantilists, thereby once again tracing the origin of profit back to the sphere of circulation. The Ricardians Robert Torrens, James Mill, and John Ramsay McCulloch, among others, offered vulgarized interpretations of Ricardo’s theory, attempting to make those forms of appearance that do not directly correspond to the essence conform to Ricardo’s fundamental principles. Marx highly praised the Ricardian socialists Piercy Ravenstone, Thomas Hodgskin, and John Francis Bray for their defence of the interests of the proletariat, but he also pointed out that they did not break through the vulgarization process of political economy, did not understand the laws of capitalist society and historical development, and did not recognize the historical mission of the proletariat. They advanced only legal and ethical arguments, and therefore their demands inevitably fell into utopian socialism.

把剩余价值和利润等同起来，是古典经济学走向解体的原因之一。其解体主要在于两点：“（1）资本和劳动之间的交换，与价值规律相一致。（2）一般利润率的形成。把剩余价值和利润等同起来。不理解价值和费用价格之间的关系。”[3]208马尔萨斯隔断了利润与劳动的内在联系，像重商主义者一样把利润解释为“让渡利润”，再次把利润的起源退回到流通领域。李嘉图主义者罗·托伦斯、詹姆斯·穆勒和约·拉·麦克库洛赫等人对李嘉图的理论作了庸俗化解释，企图使那些不直接同本质相符合的表现形式去符合李嘉图的基本原则。马克思对皮·莱文斯顿、托·霍吉斯金和约·弗·布雷等李嘉图派社会主义者为无产阶级利益进行的辩护给予了很高的评价，但也指出他们没有突破政治经济学的庸俗化过程，不懂得资本主义社会和历史发展的规律，也没有认识到无产阶级的历史使命。他们只提出了一些法律的和伦理的论据，因此他们的要求必然陷入空想。

Why did Marx write a history of political economy centered on the category of surplus value? Because surplus value is the core category of Marx’s own theoretical system of economics, and this category contains the main object, basic method, and important conclusions of Marx’s economic research. *Theories of Surplus Value* occupies an important position in the formation history of Marx’s economic theory because it centrally reflects Marx’s new theoretical discoveries and scientific research achievements, marking a new period in the writing process of Marx’s major economic theoretical works. Before this, Marx had already formulated the scientific theory of value and the theory of surplus value, and had essentially explained the origin and characteristics of surplus value in its pure form in the production process. When discussing the history of the theory of surplus value, the task Marx faced was to study and explain the various concrete forms that surplus value assumes on the surface of bourgeois society. Bourgeois economists—including Smith and Ricardo—only studied the concrete forms of surplus value such as profit, interest, and rent, without understanding surplus value in its pure form. Profit, interest, and rent are concrete manifestations at the phenomenal level of capitalist economic operation; surplus value is the basic category behind these concrete forms that reflects the essence of the capitalist mode of production. In *Theories of Surplus Value*, Marx uses these theories to review and critique the views on surplus value in bourgeois political economy. This critique of views on surplus value is combined with the analysis and critique of the bourgeois political economy’s theories of value, profit, rent, and interest, and so *Theories of Surplus Value* became the first draft of the history of bourgeois political economy.

马克思为何围绕剩余价值这一范畴撰写政治经济学史？因为剩余价值是马克思本人经济学理论体系的核心范畴，这一范畴蕴含了马克思经济学研究的主要对象、基本方法和重要结论。《剩余价值理论》在马克思经济学理论形成史中之所以占有重要的地位，是因为它集中反映了马克思崭新的理论发现和科学研究成果，标志着马克思主要经济学理论著作写作过程的一个新时期。在此之前，马克思已经制定了科学的价值理论和剩余价值理论，并从本质上说明了纯粹形态的剩余价值在生产过程中的起源和特点。在论述剩余价值理论史的时候，马克思面临的任务是要研究和说明剩余价值在资产阶级社会表面上表现出来的各种具体形态。资产阶级的经济学家们——包括斯密和李嘉图——都只研究了利润、利息和地租等剩余价值的具体形态，而不了解纯粹形态的剩余价值。利润、利息和地租是资本主义经济运行现象层面的具体表现，剩余价值才是这些具体形式背后反映资本主义生产方式本质的基本范畴。在《剩余价值理论》中，马克思运用这些理论对资产阶级政治经济学关于剩余价值的观点进行了回顾与批判。对这些关于剩余价值的观点的批判又是与对资产阶级政治经济学的价值理论、利润理论、地租理论和利息理论等的分析和批判结合在一起的，于是《剩余价值理论》就成为了资产阶级政治经济学史的初稿。

II. The Research Method of *Theories of Surplus Value* and the Research Method of the History of Economic Thought

二、《剩余价值理论》的研究方法与经济思想史的研究方法

Marx pointed out: “In form, the method of presentation must differ from that of inquiry. The latter has to appropriate the material in detail, to analyze its different forms of development, to trace out their inner connection. Only after this work is done, can the actual movement be adequately described. If this is done successfully, if the life of the subject-matter is ideally reflected as in a mirror, then it may appear as if we had before us a mere a priori construction.” [4]4 Karl Marx, *Capital*, vol. 1, Afterword to the Second German Edition. The citation is from the Chinese edition; the English translation follows the standard Moscow edition.21-22 The method of inquiry and the method of presentation are important components of Marx’s methodology of political economy.

马克思指出：“在形式上，叙述方法必须与研究方法不同。研究必须充分地占有材料，分析它的各种发展形式，探寻这些形式的内在联系。只有这项工作完成以后，现实的运动才能适当地叙述出来。这点一旦做到，材料的生命一旦在观念上反映出来，呈现在我们面前的就好像是一个先验的结构了。”[4]21-22研究方法和叙述方法是马克思政治经济学方法论的重要内容。

(I) The Research Method of Economics and the Research Method of the History of Economic Thought

（一）经济学研究方法与经济思想史的研究方法

One of the research methods of the history of economic thought is to take the research method of economics as the main basis for classifying different economic doctrines, and to organize and synthesize the history of economic thought with the research method of economics as the main thread. From mercantilism and physiocracy to Smith and Ricardo, and then to vulgar political economy, an important basis for *Theories of Surplus Value* to compare and distinguish them lies in the differences in their economic research methods. Philosophical and social trends of thought, historical outlook, and the object of research are three important factors that influence the research method of economics.

经济思想史的研究方法之一，是把经济学研究方法作为对不同经济学说进行分类的主要依据，以经济学研究方法为主线对经济思想史进行整理综合。从重商主义、重农主义到斯密和李嘉图，再到庸俗政治经济学，《剩余价值理论》对其进行比较、区分的重要依据就在于其经济学研究方法上的差异性。哲学社会思潮、历史观和研究对象，是影响经济学研究方法的三个重要因素。

The economic reasoning methods adopted in each historical period are determined by the specific philosophical and social trends of thought of that stage. For example, Descartes’ rationalism provided the philosophical methodological foundation for the physiocratic school, and its emphasis on deductive reasoning, especially mathematical methods, had an important influence on Quesnay’s *Tableau économique*. Mercantilism, on the other hand, was influenced by the British empiricist philosophy represented by Bacon, showing a close attention to real economic problems and seeking economic laws from empirical observation. The greatest influence on classical economics was Bentham’s utilitarianism. The concept of equilibrium and mathematical forms in the natural sciences also had a considerable impact on the mathematical deductive methods of economics. Utilitarianism and the marginalist revolution intertwined, jointly promoting the mathematization of modern economic research methods. At the same time, Hegel’s philosophy influenced the German Historical School, but it was Marx who most prominently absorbed Hegel’s dialectical analytical method in economic research methods. Jameson believed that *Capital* is permeated throughout by a huge duality, namely the sharp opposition between quality and quantity [5]5 Frederic Jameson, *Representing Capital: A Commentary on Volume One* (Verso, 2011). The reference is to Jameson’s discussion of the duality of quality and quantity in Marx’s method.13-14. Marx not only strictly applied Hegel’s dialectical analytical method, but also surpassed Feuerbach’s humanist materialist thought, created historical materialism, and took it as the basic methodological principle of economic research.

各个历史时期所采用的经济推理方法由该阶段特有的哲学社会思潮决定。如笛卡尔的唯理论为重农学派提供了哲学方法论基础，其强调的演绎推理特别是数学方法对魁奈的经济表产生了重要影响。重商主义则受到以培根为代表的英国经验主义哲学的影响，表现出对现实经济问题的密切关注，力图从经验观察中去寻找经济规律。对古典经济学影响最大的还是边沁的功利主义。自然科学中的均衡观念和数学形式对经济学的数理推演方法也产生了较大影响。功利主义和边际主义革命交织，共同推进了现代经济学研究方法的数学化。同时，黑格尔的哲学影响了德国历史学派，但在经济学研究方法中吸收了黑格尔辩证分析方法最突出的是马克思。詹姆逊认为，《资本论》从头到尾都贯穿着一个巨大的二重性，那就是性质和数量之间的鲜明对立[5]13-14。马克思不仅严格运用了黑格尔辩证分析方法，更超越了费尔巴哈人本主义的唯物主义思想，创立了历史唯物主义，并将其作为经济学研究的基本方法论原则。

The study of the history of economic thought is a kind of historical research. The understanding of deep historical laws dominates our method of studying the history of economic thought. All historical theories can be regarded as methodology. Marx’s critique of capitalist relations of production from the perspective of the emancipation of the proletariat has historical implications. Marx saw that the secret of capitalist rule lies in the “value form of the commodity.” Because the production of value is determined by socially necessary labor time, while the realization of value is accomplished through the market, everyone in the market is under a compulsory objective domination. This objective domination strengthens the class domination of capitalists over workers. The class domination of capitalism is internalized within the objective abstract domination of the logic of capital, and only a thorough social revolution can achieve human emancipation. Marx’s economic theory contains rich revolutionary factors and constructive visions for a future society. Before Marx, property and power were the criteria for class division, but Marx, in *Capital* and *Theories of Surplus Value*, proposed the production and distribution of surplus value as a new criterion for division. Capitalist society is essentially an exploitative society based on surplus value, and the contradiction in the production and distribution of surplus value constitutes the root of capitalist inequality. In contrast, socialism aims to realize a cooperative and sharing relationship based on public ownership.

经济思想史的研究是一种历史研究，对深层次历史规律的认识主导着我们研究经济思想史的方法，一切史学理论都可视为方法论。马克思从无产阶级解放的角度对资本主义生产关系进行批判具有历史意蕴。马克思看到资本主义统治的秘密就在于“商品的价值形式”。因为价值的生产由社会必要劳动时间决定，而价值的实现则通过市场来完成，因此，市场中的每个人都处于一种强制的客观统治之中。这种客观统治强化了资本家对劳动者的阶级统治。资本主义的阶级统治是内化于资本逻辑的客观抽象统治之中的，必须进行彻底的社会革命才能实现人类解放。马克思的经济学理论中蕴含着丰富的革命因素和对未来社会的建设性构想。在马克思之前，以财产和权力为阶级划分标准，而马克思在《资本论》和《剩余价值理论》中提出了以剩余价值的生产和分配为新划分标准。资本主义社会实质上是以剩余价值为基础的剥削性社会，剩余价值生产和分配的矛盾构成了资本主义不平等的根源。与此相反，社会主义就是要实现以公有制为基础的合作共享关系。

The definition of the object of economic research also directly determines the research method of economics. The researcher’s own understanding of the object and method of economic research determines their method of studying the history of economic thought. Marx took “the capitalist mode of production, and the relations of production and exchange corresponding to it” [6]6 Karl Marx, *Capital*, vol. 1, Preface to the First German Edition. The citation is from the Chinese edition; the English translation follows the standard Moscow edition.17 as the object of political economy, believing that surplus value is the most abstract category representing this object, centrally embodying all the inherent contradictions of the capitalist mode of production. Surplus value is the “end point” from the concrete to the abstract, and also the “starting point” from the abstract to the concrete. The first three volumes of *Capital* correspond respectively to the production, circulation, and distribution of surplus value, while *Theories of Surplus Value*, known as the fourth volume of *Capital*, is a commentary on the history of the theory of surplus value. The method of the unity of the abstract and the concrete, and the unity of the historical and the logical, is vividly applied in *Theories of Surplus Value*. Marx applied research methods such as historical materialism and materialist dialectics to the concrete analysis of the capitalist mode of production, and also to the commentary on the history of the theory of surplus value.

对经济学研究对象的界定也直接决定了经济学的研究方法。研究者本人对经济学研究对象及研究方法的理解决定了其研究经济思想史的方法。马克思将“资本主义生产方式以及和它相适应的生产关系和交换关系”[6]17作为政治经济学的研究对象，认为剩余价值是代表这一研究对象的最抽象的范畴，集中体现了资本主义生产方式的所有内在矛盾。剩余价值是从具体到抽象的“终点”，也是从抽象上升到具体的“起点”。《资本论》前三卷分别对应剩余价值的生产、流通和分配，被称作《资本论》第四卷的《剩余价值理论》则是对剩余价值学说史的评述。抽象与具体相统一、历史与逻辑相统一的方法在《剩余价值理论》中得到了淋漓尽致的运用。马克思将唯物史观和唯物辩证法等研究方法运用到了资本主义生产方式的具体分析之中，也运用到了对剩余价值理论史的评述之中。

(II) The Research Method of Economic History and the History of Economic Thought

（二）经济史与经济思想史的研究方法

Economic thought is the result of economic reality; the study of economic history and the study of the history of economic thought are inseparable. The second research method of the history of economic thought is to organize and synthesize the history of economic thought with the stage of development of the productive forces and the political-economic system as the main thread. Marx abstracted the evolution and development of the capitalist mode of production into the evolution and development of the forms of surplus value, while the development of the history of the theory of surplus value was directly influenced by the concrete forms in which surplus value appears. The history of the evolution of the capitalist mode of production and the history of the development of the concrete forms of surplus value belong to the category of capitalist economic history, and the direction of economic history determines the direction of the history of economic thought. In his analysis of the history of the theory of surplus value, Marx never discussed the ideas of economists divorced from their historical context. Marx emphasized that all surplus value is based on a certain level of labor productivity [1]1 Marx, *Theories of Surplus Value*, Part I, p. 11. The citation refers to the English edition; the original Chinese text cites the Chinese translation.22, and his analysis of the concrete forms of surplus value and related economic thought was all established on a certain stage of development of the productive forces. In Volume I of *Theories of Surplus Value*, Marx pointed out that the Physiocratic system was “the system which corresponds to bourgeois society emerging from feudalism.” [1]1 Marx, *Theories of Surplus Value*, Part I, p. 11. The citation refers to the English edition; the original Chinese text cites the Chinese translation.23 The Physiocratic system was the first to explain surplus value (rent) by the appropriation of the labor of others, but it also regarded surplus value as merely a gift of nature; its contradictions reflected the contradictions of early capitalism. At that time, capitalist production had just broken free from within feudal society; the Physiocrats had not yet found the form of capitalist production itself and could only offer explanations with a feudal coloration. This fully demonstrates the shaping and constraining of economic thought by economic reality.

经济思想是经济现实的结果，对经济史的研究和对经济思想史的研究是密不可分的。经济思想史的研究方法之二，是以生产力发展阶段和政治经济制度为主线对经济思想史进行整理综合。马克思把资本主义生产方式的演进和发展抽象为剩余价值形式的演进和发展，而剩余价值理论史的发展，又受到剩余价值具体呈现形式的直接影响。资本主义生产方式的演进史和剩余价值具体形式的发展史属于资本主义经济史的范畴，而经济史的走向决定了经济思想史的走向。在对剩余价值理论史的分析中，马克思从未脱离历史背景来谈论经济学家的思想。马克思强调一切剩余价值都是以一定的劳动生产率为基础的[1]22，其对剩余价值具体形式及相关经济思想的分析，均建立在一定的生产力发展阶段上。在《剩余价值理论》第一卷中马克思指出，重农主义体系是“同刚从封建制度中走出来的资产阶级社会相适应的。”[1]23重农主义体系最先用对他人劳动的占有来解释剩余价值（地租），但是又认为剩余价值只是自然的赐予，其矛盾体现了资本主义初期的矛盾。当时的资本主义生产刚从封建社会内部挣脱出来，重农学派还没找到资本主义生产本身的形式，只能给出具有封建色彩的解释。这充分体现出经济现实对经济思想的塑造和制约。

The analysis of Ricardo’s theory of rent in Volume II of *Theories of Surplus Value* concretely presents Marx’s method of linking the development of productive forces and relations of production with the development of economic thought. Ricardo, combining the situation in Britain at the time and under the influence of Anderson’s theory of differential rent, believed that rent was differential rent. At that time, after the completion of primitive accumulation of capital in Britain, industry and agriculture were expanding, grain prices were continuously rising, but the narrowness of the territory limited the growth in demand for grain, thus necessitating the expansion of cultivation onto inferior land, which in turn led to the continuous rise of rent. Under these circumstances, Ricardo accepted Anderson’s theory of differential rent and believed that the expansion of cultivation onto inferior land was absolute. If agricultural production technology could not be improved, then the cultivation of inferior land would continue to expand. Ricardo pointed out, “When a country is first colonized, there is an abundance of fertile land. To support the existing population, only a very small portion needs to be cultivated; in fact, the capital that the existing population can command can only cultivate a very small portion, so there is no rent.” [7]7 David Ricardo, *On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation*, Chapter II, “On Rent.” The passage cited is from the 1817 edition, discussing the absence of rent in newly colonized countries with abundant fertile land.54-55 His view presupposed the absence of landed property. This account of the process is basically accurate for modern colonial movements, but it is no longer appropriate for capitalist production in developed countries; if taken as the historical process of old Europe, it would be erroneous. Marx conducted a historical investigation of landed property, believing that when production is solely ruled by capital, there is no absolute rent; absolute rent arises only when landed property confronts capital and the landowner has the power to restrict capital’s exclusive management right over production. Ricardo applied his theory of rent to landed property in all countries and all epochs, which in effect treated bourgeois relations of production as eternal categories.

《剩余价值理论》第二卷中对李嘉图地租理论的分析，具体呈现了马克思将生产力和生产关系的发展与经济思想的发展联系起来进行研究的方法。李嘉图结合当时英国现状，并在安特生级差地租理论的影响下认为地租就是级差地租。当时英国资本原始积累完成后，工、农业扩大发展，谷物价格不断上升，但领土的狭小限制了谷物的增长需要，因此不得不扩大劣等地的耕种，进而导致了地租的不断上升。此情况下，李嘉图认可了安特生级差地租理论，且认为劣等地耕种的扩大是绝对的。如果农业生产技术得不到提高，那么将会继续扩大劣等地的耕种。李嘉图指出，“一国最初殖民时，肥沃之土甚多。为供养现有人口，只需耕作一极小部，实际上，现有人口所能支配的资本，亦只能耕作极小部分，所以没有地租。”[7]54-55其观点是以没有土地所有权为前提的。这个过程的叙述，对近代殖民运动而言基本是准确的，但对发达国家的资本主义生产来说却已不妥当，如果当作旧欧洲的历史进程看，那便是错误的。马克思对土地所有权进行了历史性考察，认为在生产只由资本统治时，不会有绝对地租；只有在土地所有权与资本相对立、土地所有者有权限制资本对生产的排他管理权时，才产生绝对地租。李嘉图将其地租用于一切国家和时代的土地所有权，实则是把资产阶级的生产关系当成了永恒范畴。

We usually call the study that focuses on the development of economic theory based primarily on the methods of economic research the study of “the history of economic doctrines,” and the study that focuses on the development of economic theory with the stage of development of the productive forces and the political-economic system as the main thread the study of “the history of economic thought.” “The history of economic doctrines” emphasizes the inheritance and evolution of the tradition of economic research methods, while “the history of economic thought” emphasizes the relationship between economic reality and economic theory. However, these two terms, “history of economic doctrines” and “history of economic thought,” are often interchangeable, because the tradition of economic research methods and economic reality jointly act on economic theory, and their effects are difficult to separate completely.

我们通常把侧重于将经济学研究方法作为主要依据对经济理论的发展所进行的研究叫作“经济学说史”研究，把侧重于以生产力发展阶段和政治经济制度为主线对经济理论的发展所进行的研究叫作“经济思想史”研究。“经济学说史”重在强调经济学研究传统的继承和流变，“经济思想史”重在强调经济现实和经济理论之间的关系。但是，“经济学说史”和“经济思想史”这两种说法在很多时候是可以通用的，因为经济学研究方法的传统与经济现实共同作用在经济理论上，两者的作用是难以截然分开的。

(III) Representative Figures and the Research Methods of the History of Economic Thought

（三）代表人物与经济思想史的研究方法

In Volume I of *Theories of Surplus Value*, the discussion of Adam Smith occupies the largest space. Smith was one of the main representatives of British classical political economy and established a relatively complete theoretical system of bourgeois classical political economy. Marx highly praised his achievements but also pointed out the contradictions and errors in his theory, mainly that “on the one hand he regards the value of commodities as determined by the quantity of labor necessary for their production, and on the other hand he regards the value of commodities as determined by the quantity of living labor which can be bought with them.” [1]1 Marx, *Theories of Surplus Value*, Part I, p. 11. The citation refers to the English edition; the original Chinese text cites the Chinese translation.46 Volume II of *Theories of Surplus Value* is in fact only concerned with Ricardo and his *On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation*. Marx pointed out that Ricardo’s great historical significance lies in “having revealed and explained the economic opposition between classes—as shown by the inner connection—so that in economics, the root of historical struggles and the historical process of development is grasped and revealed.” [2]2 Marx, *Theories of Surplus Value*, Part II, p. 420. The citation refers to the English edition; the original Chinese text cites the Chinese translation.184 But the main defect of his theory lies in the transhistorical character of his economic categories. Ricardo ignored the intermediate processes between simple categories and complex categories, directly equating some categories, such as directly equating profit and surplus value, directly equating value and price of production, and directly equating the rate of profit and the rate of surplus value. In Volume III of *Theories of Surplus Value*, Marx’s critique of economics after Ricardo begins with his critique of Malthus. “Malthus not only did not surpass Ricardo, but in his exposition he attempted to drag political economy back to before Ricardo, even back to before Smith and the Physiocrats.” [3]3 Marx, *Theories of Surplus Value*, Part III, p. 208. The citation refers to the English edition; the original Chinese text cites the Chinese translation.12

在《剩余价值理论》第一卷中，对亚当·斯密的论述占据了最大篇幅。斯密是英国古典政治经济学的主要代表之一，创立了较完备的资产阶级古典政治经济学的理论体系。马克思高度评价了其成就，也指出了其理论的矛盾和错误，即主要在于“一方面认为商品的价值决定于生产商品所必要的劳动量，另一方面又认为商品的价值决定于可以用来买进商品的活劳动量。”[1]46《剩余价值理论》第二卷其实只和李嘉图及其《政治经济学及赋税原理》有关。马克思指出李嘉图的巨大历史意义在于“揭示并说明了阶级之间的经济对立——正如内在联系所表明的那样——这样一来，在经济学中，历史斗争和历史发展过程的根源被抓住了，并且被揭示出来了。”[2]184但其理论主要缺点在于其经济范畴的超历史性。李嘉图忽略了简单范畴与复杂范畴的中间过程，直接使一些范畴相等，如使利润和剩余价值直接相等、使价值和生产价格直接相等以及利润率和剩余价值率直接相等。在《剩余价值理论》第三卷中，马克思对李嘉图以后的经济学研究，是从对马尔萨斯所进行的批判开始的。“马尔萨斯不但没有超过李嘉图，反而在他的论述中企图使政治经济学倒退到李嘉图以前，甚至倒退到斯密和重农学派以前。”[3]12

When studying the history of economic thought, the researcher’s unique research method determines the main criteria for selecting representative figures and the selection of historical materials. Smith, Ricardo, and Malthus are the three representative figures Marx selected in his exposition of the history of the theory of surplus value. Marx’s method of distinguishing between classical economics and vulgar economics is the specific basis for his selection of representative figures. “By classical political economy, I understand all economics from William Petty onwards, which, in contrast to vulgar economics, investigates the internal relations of bourgeois relations of production.” [8]8 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Chapter 1, Section 4, “The Fetishism of Commodities and the Secret Thereof.” This is Marx’s definition of classical political economy, distinguishing it from vulgar economics.99 Smith was one of the representative figures of the mature stage of British classical political economy; he developed bourgeois political economy into a complete system. Ricardo pointed out that the law that the value of commodities is determined by labor time governs bourgeois relations of production. If Ricardo represented the interests of the rising bourgeoisie, then Malthus defended the interests of the parasitic classes. According to Malthus, the exchange between capital and workers’ labor is an equal exchange, so profit cannot be realized; although exchanges among capitalists can involve mutual price increases, their gains and losses offset each other, so profit also cannot be realized; only the existence of parasitic classes that consume but do not produce can enable the realization of profit, thereby avoiding the occurrence of crises of overproduction. Marx severely condemned this in *Theories of Surplus Value*, pointing out that the production Malthus desired was merely the production that maintains and strengthens the existing production serving the interests of the ruling class.

在研究经济思想史时，研究者独特的研究方法决定了选取代表人物的主要标准及对历史材料的取舍。斯密、李嘉图和马尔萨斯，是马克思在论述剩余价值学说史时选取的三个代表人物。马克思对古典经济学和庸俗经济学的区分方法，是他选取代表人物的具体依据。“我所说的古典政治经济学，是指从威·配第以来的一切这样的经济学，这种经济学与庸俗经济学相反，研究了资产阶级生产关系的内部联系。”[8]99斯密是英国古典政治经济学成熟阶段的代表人物之一，他把资产阶级政治经济学发展为一个完整的体系。李嘉图所指出的商品价值决定于劳动时间的规律支配着资产阶级生产关系。如果说李嘉图代表上升时期的资产阶级的利益，那么马尔萨斯则维护寄生阶级的利益。按照马尔萨斯的说法，资本与工人劳动的交换是等价交换，利润无从实现；资本家之间的交换虽然可以互相加价，但彼此的得失会相互抵消，利润也无从实现；只有那些只消费不生产的寄生阶级的存在，才能使利润得以实现，从而避免生产过剩危机的发生。马克思在《剩余价值理论》中对此进行了严厉谴责，指出马尔萨斯所希望的生产只是维持和加强现存的服务于统治阶级利益的生产。

When studying the history of economic thought, the researcher’s value orientation and research paradigm serve as the yardstick for selecting representative figures, often choosing figures who can embody the researcher’s understanding of the research object and research method for focused analysis. In *Theories of Surplus Value*, because Marx defined the capitalist mode of production as the main research object of economics, and abstracted the evolution and development of the capitalist mode of production into the evolution and development of the forms of surplus value, he focused his research on economists who had made influential analyses of the concrete forms of surplus value. In our study of the history of Marxist economic thought, we must be guided by its method of historical materialism.

在对经济思想史进行研究时，研究者的价值旨趣和研究范式是选取代表人物的标尺，常选取能够体现研究者对研究对象和研究方法理解的人物进行重点分析。在《剩余价值理论》中，由于马克思把资本主义生产方式界定为经济学的主要研究对象，又把资本主义生产方式的演进和发展抽象为剩余价值形式的演进和发展，所以他把对剩余价值具体形式作出过有影响力分析的经济学家作为研究的重点。我们在研究马克思主义经济思想史的过程中，要以其历史唯物主义研究方法为指导。

III. Research Methods of the History of Marxist Economic Thought

三、马克思主义经济思想史的研究方法

The research method of *Theories of Surplus Value* is rooted in Marx’s theory of historical materialism. We can briefly summarize the specific methods used by *Theories of Surplus Value* to study the history of economic thought into three points: first, grasping the inheritance and evolution of different research methods in economics; second, emphasizing the shaping and constraining of economic reality on economic thought; third, basing the study on important representative figures, using them as points to cover the broader field of the history of economic thought. *Theories of Surplus Value* provides us with a model for studying the history of economic thought, and we should apply these three experiences to the study of the history of Marxist economic thought.

《剩余价值理论》的研究方法植根于马克思的历史唯物主义理论。我们可以把《剩余价值理论》对经济思想史进行研究的具体方法简要概括为三点：第一，掌握经济学不同研究方法的继承和流变；第二，强调经济现实对经济思想的塑造和制约；第三，立足于重要代表人物，以点带面地对经济思想史展开研究。《剩余价值理论》为我们提供了经济思想史研究的范本，我们应把这三点经验落实到对马克思主义经济思想史的研究当中去。

(I) Studying the History of Marxist Economic Thought on the Basis of the Research Method of Marxist Economics

（一）以马克思主义经济学的研究方法为基础研究马克思主义经济思想史

In the “Preface” to *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*, Marx gave a classic formulation of historical materialism, i.e., his own methodological principle of political economy: “In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, … The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life.” [9]9 Karl Marx, “Preface to *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*,” in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 31 (Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1998), p. 412.² Historical materialism understands political and legal institutions as well as moral norms in terms of economic relations corresponding to a given historical stage of development of the productive forces, holding that the mode of production of material life determines the political and intellectual life of the whole society. Economic thought, as a product of people’s intellectual life, must also be conditioned by the mode of production of material life. Therefore, the analysis of the history of Marxist economic thought also needs to start from the evolution of the social mode of production. Works on the history of economic thought, such as E.K. Hunt’s *History of Economic Thought* and Stanley L. Brue and Randy R. Grant’s *History of Economic Thought*, also provide brief analyses of Marx’s economic thought and its relationship with classical economics, but they rarely analyze the specific social and historical era in which it emerged. In the section “Classical Economic Thought and Its Critique” in Harry Landreth and David C. Colander’s *History of Economic Thought*, the discussion begins with Smith and ends with Marx, but it also fails to analyze the overall social and historical era, especially the characteristics of the social mode of production.

马克思在《<政治经济学批判>序言》中对唯物史观即自己的政治经济学方法论原则作了经典表述：“人们在自己生活的社会生产中发生一定的、必然的、不以他们的意志为转移的关系，即同他们的物质生产力的一定发展阶段相适合的生产关系。这些生产关系的总和构成社会的经济结构，……物质生活的生产方式制约着整个社会生活、政治生活和精神生活的过程。”[9]2唯物史观依据与生产力发展的一定历史阶段相适应的经济关系来理解政治和法律的制度以及道德规范，认为物质生活的生产方式决定了整个社会的政治、精神生活。而经济思想作为人们精神生活的成果，也必然受制于物质生活的生产方式。因此，对马克思主义经济思想史的分析也需要以社会生产方式的演进为起点。Hunt E.K.所著的《经济思想史》、Stanley L. Brue和Randy R. Grant合著的《经济思想史》等经济学思想史著作中也对马克思的经济学思想及其与古典经济学之间的关系作出了简要分析，但在探讨前却鲜有对其所处社会历史时代的分析。Harry Landreth和David C. Colander合著的《经济思想史》中“古典经济思想及其批判”部分，从斯密开始，到马克思结束，但也未对其所处的整体社会历史时代尤其是社会生产方式的特点作分析。

From a historical background perspective, economists are influenced by the strong social and intellectual forces of their time. Therefore, when we review the thought of an economist, we must consider both their personal experiences and the salient characteristics of the material and intellectual life of their society. For example, Ricardo was born in 1772 and died in 1823; his life spanned the last quarter of the 18th century and the first quarter of the 19th century. This 50-year period lies between the American Revolution and the end of the Napoleonic era, from the founding of the London Clearing House in 1775 to the economic crisis of 1825, and from the publication of *The Wealth of Nations* in 1776 to the publication of McCulloch’s *Principles of Political Economy* in 1825. For economic historians, this is the 50 years of the Industrial Revolution; for historians of economic thought, this is the flourishing period of classical political economy. Ricardo began engaging in finance and securities trading at a young age, and his economic research activities started with discussions of monetary issues. Ricardo lived in an era when British capitalism was increasingly developing after the Industrial Revolution, and when the antagonism between the working class and the capitalist class was becoming increasingly acute. Ricardo’s theories and policy proposals were all aimed at removing obstacles to the increase of capital profits and the development of productive forces. In discussing the question of value, Ricardo opposed Smith’s abandonment of the “philosophical” measure of value in favor of an “empirical” measure; this was at most a person with a strictly logical mind hoping to correct an erroneous view. However, due to the Corn Controversy from 1815 to 1816, this issue became a non-negligible problem for Ricardo. In *On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation*, a relatively important part is to refute the assertion that high wages necessarily mean high prices, an assertion that was the focal point of the Corn Controversy. It can be seen that the development of economic thought is a reflection of the actual process of development.

从历史背景来看，经济学家受到当时较强烈的社会思想力量的影响。因此，当我们回顾经济学家的思想时，既要考虑到其亲身经历，也要考虑到当时社会物质生活和精神生活的显著特点。例如，李嘉图生于1772年卒于1823年，他的一生跨越了18世纪的最后一个25年和19世纪的第一个25年。这50年的历史介于美洲革命和拿破仑时代的末期，是1775年伦敦票据交换所成立到1825年经济危机的时期，也是1776年《国富论》发表到1825年麦克库洛赫的《政治经济学原理》出版时期。对于经济史学家来说，这是产业革命的50年；对于经济思想史学家来说，这是古典政治经济学的繁荣时期。李嘉图年轻时就开始从事金融和证券交易业务，他从事经济研究活动是从论述货币问题开始的。李嘉图生活的年代正值工业革命后英国资本主义日益发展的时期，也是工人阶级和资本家阶级的对立日趋尖锐化的时期。李嘉图的理论与政策主张均以消除阻碍资本利润提高和生产力发展的因素为宗旨。在论述价值问题时，李嘉图反对斯密放弃“哲学的”价值尺度而采取“经验的”价值尺度，这充其量不过是一个有严格逻辑头脑的人，希望改正一个错误的观点。但由于1815年到1816年的谷物论战，这一问题对李嘉图来说成为了不可忽视的问题。在《政治经济学及赋税原理》中，较为重要的部分便是要反驳高工资必然意味着高物价的论断，而这一论断是谷物论战的焦点问题。可见，经济思想的发展是现实发展过程的反映。

(II) Studying the History of Marxist Economic Thought with the History of Capitalist Economy and the History of Socialist Economy as Clues

（二）以资本主义经济史和社会主义经济史为线索研究马克思主义经济思想史

The emergence and development of Marxist economic thought cannot be separated from the historical conditions and historical processes of the operation of the capitalist mode of production and the socialist mode of production. We must combine the history of world development with the history of Marxism’s own development for in-depth study. Important nodes in the history of the capitalist economy have driven the development of Marxist economic thought. Following the British bourgeois revolution, from the latter half of the 18th century to the mid-19th century, the United States, France, Germany, Russia, and Japan successively carried out bourgeois revolutions and completed the Industrial Revolution, and history recognized capitalism. Between the 1870s and the 1890s, with the changes and development of capitalist society, Marxist economics also faced some new problems requiring urgent solution. Due to the emergence of monopoly organizations such as cartels, syndicates, and trusts, capitalist contradictions were temporarily alleviated, creating the illusion that the fundamental contradictions of capitalism had seemingly disappeared and that Marx’s analysis of the capitalist mode of production had become outdated. Bernstein, starting from a thorough negation of Marx’s labor theory of value, vehemently denounced the theory of surplus value, fundamentally denying the theoretical cornerstone of Marxist economics. Luxemburg therefore proposed the “third market” theory, criticizing Bernstein’s attacks and doubts regarding the theory of “collapse” and crisis theory. Lenin conducted an in-depth analysis of the essence of capitalist development at the time and the new characteristics of class contradictions, proposing that capitalism had developed into a new historical stage characterized by monopoly as its basic feature. Only by combining the analysis of the history of the capitalist economy with the history of Marxist economic thought can we gain a profound understanding of Luxemburg’s theory of capital accumulation and Lenin’s theory of imperialism.

马克思主义经济思想的产生和发展离不开资本主义生产方式和社会主义生产方式运行的历史条件和历史过程，我们必须把世界发展的历史和马克思主义自身发展的历史结合起来进行深入研究。资本主义经济史上的重要节点推动了马克思主义经济思想的发展。继英国资产阶级革命后，从18世纪后半期到19世纪中叶，美国、法国、德国、俄国和日本先后进行了资产阶级革命，并相继完成了产业革命，历史认可了资本主义。19世纪70年代到90年代间，随着资本主义社会的变化发展，马克思主义经济学也面临一些亟待解决的新问题。由于卡特尔、辛迪加、托拉斯等垄断组织的出现，暂时缓解了资本主义矛盾，造成了资本主义基本矛盾似乎已经消失、马克思关于资本主义生产方式的分析已经过时的假象。伯恩斯坦以对马克思劳动价值论的彻底否定为起点，对剩余价值论大加贬斥，从根本上否定马克思主义经济学的理论基石。卢森堡因此提出了“第三市场”理论，批判了伯恩斯坦关于“崩溃”理论和危机理论等的责难和怀疑。列宁对当时资本主义发展的本质及阶级矛盾新特点进行深入分析，提出资本主义已经发展到以垄断为基本特征的新历史阶段。只有把对资本主义经济史和马克思主义经济思想史结合起来分析，才能对卢森堡的资本积累理论和列宁的帝国主义理论作出深刻认识。

The period from 1917 to 1956 was an era in which the course of world history achieved a great turning point. The victory of the October Revolution in Russia realized the leap of socialism from theory to reality. The research thread of the history of Marxist economic thought also developed from the economic history of capitalism to the economic history of both capitalism and socialism; the co-development of the two relations of production became a new starting point for studying the development of Marxist economic thought. Lenin’s exploratory theory on the path of socialist construction in economically and culturally relatively backward countries, Mao Zedong’s basic thought on the general line for the transition period and the theory of socialist transformation, and the new explorations by Western Marxists around the time of the Great Depression concerning the political economy of capitalism became new content in the system of Marxist economic thought. From the end of the Second World War to the 1960s, this period was called the postwar “long boom.” During this period, the theoretical themes of Marxist economics mainly involved the relationship between Marxist economics and Keynesian economics, the theory of monopoly capital, the theory of the falling rate of profit, and the political economy of underdevelopment; all these theoretical themes were closely related to the changes in postwar capitalism. Since the 1970s, on a global scale, many new problems have emerged in the development of socialism and capitalism, bringing new themes and new challenges to the study of Marxist economics. This was mainly manifested in the reflection by Eastern European socialist countries on the shortcomings of the Soviet model, which in turn triggered reforms of the socialist economic system. The core issue of the reform lay in the relationship between plan and market, specifically including how to define the relationship between socialist planned economy and market economy, reflections on the market-oriented orientation in the reform of the socialist economic system, and how to utilize the rational factors within the capitalist economic system. Changes in international economic relations and patterns determined the thematic focus of Marxist economics concerning the socialist economic relations and capitalist economic relations of the past century, as well as the related thematic focus on the basic theories of Marxist economics.

1917年到1956年是世界历史进程实现伟大转折的年代。俄国十月革命的胜利实现了社会主义从理论到现实的飞跃。马克思主义经济思想史的研究线索也从资本主义经济史发展为资本主义和社会主义的经济史，两种生产关系的共同发展成为研究马克思主义经济思想发展的新起点。列宁关于经济文化比较落后国家进行社会主义建设道路的探索性理论、毛泽东关于过渡时期总路线的基本思想和社会主义改造理论、经济大萧条前后西方马克思主义者关于资本主义政治经济学理论的新探讨等，成为马克思主义经济思想体系的新内容。从第二次世界大战结束到20世纪60年代，被称作战后的“长期繁荣”时期。这一时期，马克思主义经济学的理论主题主要涉及马克思主义经济学与凯恩斯主义经济学之间的关系、垄断资本理论、利润率下降理论和不发达政治经济学等，这些理论主题均与战后资本主义的变化息息相关。20世纪70年代以来，在世界范围内，社会主义和资本主义的发展出现了许多新问题，这为马克思主义经济学的研究带来了新的主题和新的挑战。主要表现为东欧社会主义国家对苏联模式弊端的反思，并由此引发了社会主义经济体制的改革。改革的核心问题在于计划和市场的关系问题，具体包括如何界定社会主义计划经济和市场经济的关系、关于社会主义经济体制改革中市场化取向的思考，以及如何利用资本主义经济体制中的合理因素等问题。国际经济关系和格局的变化，确定了马克思主义经济学关于近百年来社会主义经济关系和资本主义经济关系的思想主题，以及与此相关的马克思主义经济学基本理论的思想主题。

(III) Focusing on Representative Figures in the Study of the History of Marxist Economic Thought

（三）以代表人物为重点研究马克思主义经济思想史

The academic figures in the history of Marxist economic thought constitute an extremely complex group, differing from one another in their main viewpoints, methods of thought, and basic conclusions. This is related to the complexity of capitalist economic relations and socialist economic relations themselves. The differentiation of Marxism influenced the divergence of Marxist economic thought. In the 20th century, Marxism split into three main series: first, the Social Democratic Party, taking Bernstein’s theory as its starting point; second, Western Marxism, taking Rosa Luxemburg’s theory as its source; third, Eastern Marxism, taking Leninism as its starting point. Under these three series, further subdivisions into numerous branches occurred. The three series each placed different emphases in their understanding of the object and method of study of Marxist economics. When expounding the history of the development of Marxist economic thought, one inevitably encounters the problem of selection. How should one select representative figures to unfold the study of the history of Marxist economic thought, using specific points to illuminate the whole? In terms of the criteria for selection, it is necessary to follow the following principles: first, the representative figure is a proponent and supporter of Marxist economics, endorsing the basic connotations and overall viewpoints of Marx’s economic thought; second, the representative figure inherited and developed Marx’s economic thought in terms of the object of study, research methods, and research themes; third, the representative figure greatly influenced the subsequent development of Marxist economics.

马克思主义经济思想史上的学术人物，是一个由主要观点、思想方法和基本结论上各自相异的极为复杂的群体组成，这与资本主义经济关系和社会主义经济关系自身的复杂性相关。马克思主义的分化影响了马克思主义经济思想的分野。在20世纪，马克思主义分化成三个主要的系列：一是以伯恩施坦理论为起点的社会民主党；二是以罗莎·卢森堡理论为渊源的西方马克思主义；三是以列宁主义为起点的东方马克思主义，在这三个系列之下又细分为若干支流。三个系列在对马克思主义经济学研究对象和研究方法的认识上各有侧重。阐述马克思主义经济思想的发展历史，不可避免地会遇到筛选问题。如何选择代表人物来以点带面地展开对马克思主义经济思想史的研究？在选择尺度上有必要遵循以下几点原则：一是该代表人物是马克思主义经济学的赞成者和拥护者，认同马克思经济思想的基本内涵和总体观点；二是该代表人物在研究对象、研究方法和研究主题上继承和发展了马克思的经济学思想；三是该代表人物极大地影响了之后马克思主义经济学的发展。

Taking Western Marxism as an example, Rosa Luxemburg’s theory profoundly influenced Lukács, Korsch, Gramsci, and others. Luxemburg’s theory of the “third market” was mainly intended to explain the anti-people nature of imperialist war loans, indicating that voting in favor of war loans was a capitulation to imperialism. Luxemburg raised the question of the relationship between capitalism and the non-capitalist environment. Simply raising such a question was enough to attract considerable attention. Luxemburg fell into difficulty when analyzing the motives driving capitalists to accumulate, mainly because she somewhat neglected Marx’s assumption of a closed capitalism—that all surplus value is realizable. Marx believed that the core of the problem lay in seeking markets in the sense of seeking greater profit, and that seeking greater profit was necessarily constrained by the law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. Marx attributed the direct cause of crises to this, rather than to a lack of demand. In order to mount a profound counterattack against Bernstein’s denial of the theory of the collapse of capitalism, Marxists represented by Luxemburg linked crisis with revolution, using the inevitability of collapse to prove the inevitability of revolution. This move caused the Western Marxist theory of economic crisis to gradually tend towards explaining the inevitability of crisis from a single factor. This process of development caused their theory to gradually move towards economic mechanical determinism, viewing the capitalist economic crisis merely as an abnormal event heralding the end of capitalism. This actually departed from Marx’s analysis of the dynamics of accumulation based on the contradictions of the capitalist mode of production, and its result also deviated from Luxemburg’s original intention. However, it is undeniable that Luxemburg had an important influence on the development of Marxist economic thought and left a deep mark on the history of Marxist economic thought.

以西方马克思主义为例，罗莎·卢森堡的理论深刻影响了卢卡奇、科尔施和葛兰西等人。卢森堡的“第三市场”理论主要是为了说明帝国主义战争贷款的反人民性，指明投票赞成战争贷款是向帝国主义投降。卢森堡提出了资本主义和非资本主义环境之间的关系问题。仅是提出这样的问题，就足以获得较高的关注。卢森堡在分析推动资本家进行积累的动机时陷入了困顿，主要在于其对马克思关于封闭的资本主义的假设——所有的剩余价值都是可实现的——有所忽视，即所有的剩余价值都是可实现的。马克思认为，问题的核心在于在寻求更大的利润这一意义上去寻求市场，而寻求更大的利润又必然受到利润率下降趋势规律的制约，马克思把危机的直接原因归于这一点，而非需求的缺乏。以卢森堡为代表的马克思主义者为了深刻反击伯恩斯坦对资本主义崩溃论的否定，将危机和革命相联系，以崩溃的不可避免来证明革命的不可避免。此举动使西方马克思主义经济危机理论逐渐倾向于从单一因素出发说明危机的必然性。这一发展过程使其理论逐渐走向了经济上的机械决定论，仅把资本主义经济危机看成预示资本主义结局的异常事件，实际上脱离了马克思对资本主义生产方式矛盾基础上积累动力的分析，其结果亦背离了卢森堡的初衷。但是不可否认的是，卢森堡对马克思主义经济思想的发展产生了重要影响，在马克思主义经济思想史上留下了浓重的笔墨。

Online Editor: Tong Xin

网络编辑：同心