The Consciousness of Real Problems in the Study of Marxist Texts

The study of Marxist texts in the strict sense is not a philological investigation aimed at restoring the context of creation, the state of the documents, and the main details, but should be a unity of textual verification, textual interpretation, and ideological elucidation. Among these, ideological elucidation, as the ultimate goal of Marxist textual study, mainly includes the following four levels of content: first, the internal logic presented on the basis of textual verification and textual interpretation; second, the evolutionary process of textual thought, i.e., the critique, inheritance, and development of thought; third, the reinterpretation of basic principles and important propositions, i.e., the "living" exposition of principles or propositions distilled from the sorting of intellectual history; fourth, the resolution of real problems or the revelation of practical significance, because thought, as the result of mental activity produced by the reflection of objective reality in human consciousness, itself falls within the scope of objective reality, i.e., reality. It can be seen from this that the consciousness of real problems is an inherent part of the study of Marxist texts. Taking Marx's classic work *Capital* as an entry point, a certain reasonable explanation of the above views can be provided.

严格意义上的马克思主义文本研究，并非以还原创作情境、文献状况及主要细节为内容的文献学研究，而应是版本考证、文本解读和思想阐释的统一。其中，思想阐释作为马克思主义文本研究的最终目的，主要包括以下四个层次的内容：一是基于版本考证和文本解读而呈现的内在逻辑；二是文本思想的演进过程，即思想的批判、传承与发展；三是基本原理与重要命题的重释，也就是从思想史梳理中提炼出来的原理或命题的“鲜活”论述；四是现实问题的解决或现实意义的揭示，因为思想是作为客观实在反映在人的意识中经过思维活动而产生的结果，本身属于客观实在即现实的范围。由此可见，现实问题意识是马克思主义文本研究的题中应有之义。以马克思主义经典著作《资本论》为切入点，可以对上述观点作出一定的合理性解释。

A New Definition of the Philosophical Connotation and Textual Nature of Real Problems

现实问题的哲学内涵和文本性质的新界定

"Reality" in the philosophical sense, in layman's terms, is "facts" plus "essence." In other words, like the two sides of a coin, "thought" and "reality" themselves exist as two interdependent aspects of the same thing. Correspondingly, the philosophical connotation of "real problems" should include the following aspects: first, not everything that exists is real; only social phenomena or events that characterize the features of the era and its developmental trends can be called "real problems"; second, it is not only problems of the present era that are "real problems"; every era has its own "real problems"; third, as abstract expressions of the developmental trends and main problems of their respective eras, some important ideological currents and theoretical trends also fall within the scope of "real problems."

哲学意义上的“现实”，通俗地讲就是“事实”加“本质”。换言之，如同一枚硬币的正反面，“思想”和“现实”本身作为同一事物相互依存的两个方面而存在。相应地，“现实问题”的哲学内涵应包括以下几个方面：其一，现存的不都是现实的，唯表征时代特征及其发展趋向的社会现象或事件方可谓“现实问题”；其二，并非现时代的问题才是“现实问题”，每个时代都有自己的“现实问题”；其三，作为对其所处时代的发展动向与主要问题的抽象表达，一些重要的思想潮流及理论动向亦属“现实问题”的范围。

According to the above understanding, to redefine *Capital*, it is by no means merely an abstract theoretical expression, or a summary of Marx's empirical facts about his own life experience, but rather his distillation, analysis, and resolution of the real problems of his era, and moreover, a profound inquiry into the basic real problem that runs through almost all human eras—the laws of social-historical development. In view of this, researchers of *Capital* should first trace back its creative process, clarify the social reality and its developmental conditions at that time to identify the main real problems; then compare the relevant discussions in *Capital* with them, examining whether it closely follows the pulse of the times, whether it can comprehensively and objectively present the real problems, whether it has clearly recognized the crux of the real problems, and then form unique and profound solutions, etc.; finally, distill the ideological viewpoints contained therein that can be elevated to the level of methodology.

按照上述理解来重新界定《资本论》，它绝不仅仅是抽象的理论表达，或者马克思关于自身生命体验这一经验事实的总结，而是他对其所处时代的现实问题的提炼、分析、解答，更是对几乎贯穿人类全部时代的基本现实问题——社会历史发展规律——的深入探究。有见及此，《资本论》研究者应首先回溯它的创作历程，明确当时的社会现实及其发展状况以厘清主要现实问题；再将《资本论》中的相关论述与之进行对照，检视其是否紧扣时代发展的脉搏、可否全面而客观地呈现出现实问题、有未清楚地意识到现实问题的症结所在，进而形成独到且深刻的解决思路等；最后提炼出蕴含其中的、可以上升到方法论层面的思想观点。

In addition, *Capital*, as the theoretical expression of the real problem of Marxist thought, should be examined within the intellectual landscape of its era and the various complex theoretical events. Only through comparison with the different interpretations of the same real problems by currents of thought that had direct or indirect connections with Marx, such as German classical philosophy, British classical political economy, French socialist doctrines, etc., and even extending the comparative study to the evolution of intellectual history and the development of social practice after Marx, can *Capital* manifest its transcendence and profundity of thought. The immense changes in time and space prevent people from finding ready-made answers to current real problems in *Capital*. However, the present era has not yet departed from the process of "the transformation of history into world history" revealed by Marx, which in turn determines that *Capital* can provide important methodological references for interpreting and grasping the real problems of the present era.

除此之外，《资本论》作为马克思主义思潮这一现实问题的理论表达，理应置于其所处时代的思想图景及各种错综复杂的理论事件中加以考察。只有在同马克思发生过直接或间接关联的思潮，如德国古典哲学、英国古典政治经济学、法国社会主义学说等，对同一现实问题的不同阐释的比较中，乃至将比较研究扩展到马克思之后的思想史演进和社会实践发展，《资本论》才能彰显出思想的超越性与深邃性。时空的巨大变迁使人们无法从《资本论》中寻得解决当前现实问题的现成答案。然而，现时代仍未脱离马克思揭示的“历史向世界历史转变”的进程，这又决定了《资本论》能够为诠释与把握现时代的现实问题提供重要的方法借鉴。

The Decisiveness of the Transformation of Real Problems for the Change in Textual Structure

现实问题转变之于文本结构变迁的决定性

Existing documents show that the chapter arrangement of *Capital* is an open structure that Marx continuously adjusted according to changes in real problems. This can be seen from the different chapter divisions of the first volume—the six-chapter structure of the first German edition, the seven-part, twenty-five-chapter structure of the second German edition, and the seven-part, thirty-three-chapter structure of the first French and first English editions. As for the reasons why Marx did not complete the final drafts of Volumes 2 and 3 of *Capital*, aside from health reasons, it was not due to a decline in his thinking ability in his later years or a serious underestimation of his own procrastination, but rather because the profound changes in real problems greatly exceeded Marx's original conception. That is to say, although the historical development and social transformation process, taking Britain as a typical case, was bound to affect Western European society and even the entire capitalist world, the laws of modern social development thus revealed could not be fully applicable to other countries.

既存的文献表明，《资本论》的篇章安排是马克思根据现实问题的变化而不断调整的开放结构。从第一卷不同版本的篇章划分——德文初版的六章结构、德文二版的七篇二十五章结构、法文初版和英文初版的七篇三十三章结构——中可见一斑。至于马克思没有完成《资本论》第二、三卷定稿工作的原因，除却健康方面之外，并非晚年思维能力下降、严重低估自身拖延症等，而是现实问题的深刻变化大大超过了马克思的原有构想。这就是说，以英国为典型的历史发展和社会变革过程，虽然势必波及西欧社会乃至整个资本主义世界，但由此揭示的现代社会发展规律并不能完全适用于其他国家。

In fact, the world economic crisis of 1873, lasting several years, had still not reached its peak, and with the adjustment of various monetary policies, it was continuously alleviated, never developing to the point of "triggering" a proletarian revolution. The failure of the Paris Commune indicated that international forms of organization had become a fetter on the workers' movement, and coupled with the "confusion" caused by various erroneous ideological currents, the world proletarian revolution fell into a trough. In view of this, Marx expanded his research perspective to the "prehistory" of capitalism. By analyzing major historical events in Western European society and the development processes of different nation-states, he revealed the shaping role of economic, political, and religious factors in capitalist civilization, thereby achieving, to a certain extent, a reflection and reconstruction of the theoretical framework of historical materialism, i.e., the philosophical foundation of the critique of political economy represented by *Capital*.

事实上，1873年世界经济危机历时数年仍未达到顶点，并且随着各种货币政策的调整而得到不断缓解，始终无法发展到“引爆”无产阶级革命的程度。巴黎公社的失败则表明国际性的组织形式已成为工人运动的桎梏，加之各种错误思潮的“混淆视听”，使得世界性的无产阶级革命陷入低谷。有鉴于此，马克思将研究视野拓展到资本主义的“史前史”，通过剖析西欧社会的重大历史事件和不同民族国家发展历程，揭示出经济因素、政治因素、宗教因素等之于资本主义文明的塑造作用，从一定程度上实现了对唯物史观的理论框架，即对《资本论》所代表的政治经济学批判之哲学基础的反思与重构。

Moreover, Marx also focused on the development path of Eastern societies, especially the Russian rural commune. He analyzed and pointed out the necessary conditions for backward Russia to leap over the "Caudine Forks" of capitalism, such as actively absorbing the advanced achievements of capitalism, excluding the adverse effects of capitalist relations of production, promoting internal self-revolution, and receiving support from the entire European revolution. He also emphatically stressed the limits of explanation of *Capital*. In Marx's view, completely ignoring the social-historical environments of different nation-states and turning "the historical sketch of the genesis of capitalism in Western Europe into a historico-philosophical theory of the general path of development" would not only fail to help interpret historical phenomena but would also fail to achieve the goal of becoming a philosophy of history due to its ahistorical nature.

不仅如此，马克思还重点关注东方社会尤其俄国农村公社的发展道路问题，分析指出了落后的俄国跨越资本主义“卡夫丁峡谷”的必要条件，如积极吸收资本主义的先进成果、排除资本主义生产关系的不利影响方面、内部自我革命的推动和整个欧洲革命的支持，并着重强调了《资本论》的解释限度。在马克思看来，全然无视不同民族国家所处的社会历史环境，把《资本论》中“关于西欧资本主义起源的历史概述彻底变成一般发展道路的历史哲学理论”，非但无助于历史诸象的诠释，反而由于超历史性而无法达到成为历史哲学的目的。

The Methodology Contained in the Textual Interpretation Centered on Real Problems

围绕现实问题的文本阐释所蕴含的方法论

If one does not connect with real problems and only measures the social-historical picture depicted by Marx in *Capital* from a single disciplinary division and its methods, one will inevitably fall into a misunderstanding. On the surface, money is a symbolic representation of social wealth and a common economic phenomenon. In reality, under the capitalist mode of production, it can be transformed into capital with powerful creative force, becoming a thing that reflects the living conditions and historical destinies of various social strata. In other words, the transformation of the external form of money and the evolution of its internal relations themselves exist as real problems. Similarly, commodities, the form of value, wage labor, capital in general, capital in particular, property rights, primitive accumulation of capital, etc., are not simple economic categories but manifestations of social relations of production. In the analysis of these real problems, Marx's profound thinking is condensed, especially viewpoints that can be elevated to the level of methodology.

不联系现实问题，仅从单一的学科划分及其方法出发，去衡量马克思在《资本论》中描绘的社会历史图景，势必陷入认识的误区。表面看来，货币是社会财富的象征符号、司空见惯的经济现象。它实际上可以在资本主义生产方式下转化为具有强大创生力量的资本，成为折射社会各阶层之生存境遇和历史命运的事物。易言之，货币的外在形式转换及内在关系演变，本身作为现实问题而存在。同样，商品、价值形式、雇佣劳动、资本一般、资本特殊、所有权、资本原始积累等，亦非简单的经济范畴，而是社会生产关系的表现。在对这些现实问题的分析中，凝结着马克思的深邃思考，特别是可以上升到方法论层面的观点。

Based on this, the following can be observed: real individuals and their material production carried out within certain social relations are the starting point of the critique of political economy; the relationship between economic categories and concrete reality, including the dialectical relationship between simple categories and concrete categories, the applicability of economic categories to a given social form, and the differences of the same economic categories in different social forms; the method of the unity of the logical and the historical for observing and grasping the complex social system, and the dialectic of production as a totality; revealing the laws of economic movement of modern society from the dimension of the social organism, in order to shorten or alleviate the "birth pangs" of social transformation; the necessity and possibility of communism lie in the free and comprehensive development of the individual.

基于此，可见以下情况：现实的个人及其在一定社会关系中进行的物质生产，是政治经济学批判的出发点；经济范畴与具体实在的关系，包括简单范畴与具体范畴的辩证关系、经济范畴之于一定社会形式的适用性、相同的经济范畴在不同社会形式中的差别等方面；观照与把握社会复杂系统的逻辑与历史相统一方法、生产总体辩证法；从社会有机体的维度揭示现代社会的经济运动规律，以便缩短或减轻社会变革带来的“阵痛”；共产主义的必要性和可能性在于人的自由全面发展。

From the analysis of real problems in *Capital*, one can also extract methodology by resorting to a comparative study of Marx and his contemporary thinkers. At bottom, how to view the relationship between philosophy and political economy, and thereby achieve their internal integration, was a common real problem facing Marx, Hegel, Smith, Ricardo, and others. As Engels said: “Here another problem had to be solved, one that had nothing to do with political economy as such. What method should be used to treat science?” [1]1 Friedrich Engels, “Karl Marx, *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*,” in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, *Collected Works*, vol. 16 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1980), p. 469. Among them, Hegel did not, like Smith, use moral philosophy to subsume political economy; instead, taking freedom—as the inner determination of ethical spirit—as the main thread, he unified the family, civil society, and the political state, thereby possessing a powerful foundation of historical sense. This grand historical view, which processed economic materials from a certain connection with history, although it “stood on its head” the true relationship between the evolution of thought and historical development, nonetheless provided a starting point for the logical method. Marx stripped the above “rational kernel” from its idealist “shell,” established dialectics in its simple form as the correct form, and applied it to the critique of political economy, achieving a result no less significant than the materialist conception of history. This result is by no means merely a corroboration of the method of the unity of the logical and the historical; it also contains the deeper meaning of how history leads reality—such as how history, under the determination of objectivity and regularity, manifests its own original features; in what way history should be narrated to better achieve an effective connection with the present era; and how theory derived from practice can make an expression distinct from history so as to reveal its true intent. All these contents await further excavation.

从《资本论》的现实问题分析中提炼出方法论，还可以诉诸马克思处于同时代的思想家的比较研究。究其实，如何看待哲学与政治经济学的关系、进而实现它们的内在整合，是马克思、黑格尔、斯密、李嘉图等面临的共同现实问题。正如恩格斯所说：“在这里必须解决与政治经济学本身无关的另外一个问题。应该用什么方法对待科学？” 其中，黑格尔没有像斯密那样用道德哲学统摄政治经济学，转而以作为伦理精神之内在规定的自由为主线，将家庭、市民社会、政治国家统一起来，从而具有强大的历史感基础。这种从同历史的一定联系中加工经济学材料的宏大历史观，虽把思想演进与历史发展的真正关系“头足颠倒”，却为逻辑方法提供了一个出发点。马克思将上述“合理内核”从其唯心主义“外壳”中剥离出来，把辩证法在其正确形式的简单形态上建立起来，并运用于政治经济学批判中，得出了一个不亚于唯物主义世界观的成果。这一成果绝非止于逻辑与历史相统一方法的佐证，更蕴含着历史如何引领现实的深层意义，诸如历史在客观性与规律性的决定下如何彰显自身的本来面貌、历史以何种方式进行叙述才能更好地实现与现时代的有效接榫、源于实践的理论怎样才能作出有别于历史的表达从而显现真正意旨等，这些内容皆有待进一步挖掘。

The Contemporary Value of the Text and the Resolution of Real Problems of the Present Era

文本的当代价值与现时代现实问题的破解

As early as when *Capital* first gained widespread influence, Marx perceived the consequences of reducing it to a general historical-philosophical theory, and accordingly emphasized the importance of the specific analysis of different socio-historical conditions for the methodological reference of *Capital*. By the same token, systematically investigating vastly different and complex social environments is a prerequisite for combining *Capital* with the resolution of today’s real problems. From the perspective of the historical development of human society and the evolution of civilizational forms, *Capital* seeks to solve the following real problem: when capitalist society emerges as a form of human civilization, why is it that capital gains independence while real individuals do not achieve free individuality? How can modern society, dominated by the logic of capital, be transformed to realize the free and comprehensive development of human beings? As time advances to the 21st century today, facing the real problem that the logic of capital still dominates human life, further inquiries into the nature of capital, whether capital is necessary, how to steer the logic of capital, the relationship between artificial intelligence and the logic of capital, how ecological civilization development can escape the domination of capital, and where the free individuality of human beings will go—all these can fully draw on the relevant discussions in *Capital*.

早在《资本论》最初获得广泛影响力之际，马克思就觉察到将它归结为一般历史哲学理论的后果，并据此强调不同社会历史条件的具体分析之于《资本论》方法借鉴的重要性。同理可知，系统考察迥异而复杂的社会环境，是结合《资本论》求解当今现实问题的前提。从人类社会历史发展与文明形态演进的角度来看，《资本论》力图解决这样的现实问题：当资本主义社会以人类文明形态的方式出现时，为什么是资本获得了独立性而不是现实的人实现自由个性？如何变革由资本逻辑主导的现代社会，实现人的自由全面发展？时间推进到21世纪的今天，面对资本逻辑仍然主导人类生活的现实问题，进一步追问资本的本性为何、是否需要资本、如何驾驭资本逻辑、人工智能与资本逻辑的关系几何、生态文明发展何以摆脱资本的支配、人的自由个性将何去何从等，皆可以充分借鉴《资本论》中的相关探讨。

*Capital* pushed the real problem of the critique of capital to the peak of Marx’s era. The profound changes in the capitalist world thereafter have meant that people have never ceased to dissect and critique capital. While inheriting the “edge” of the critique of capital in *Capital*, later generations have deeply recognized the various adjustments, transformations, and even mutations of capital. It is thus evident that *Capital* must be placed within the developmental sequence of the critique of capital in order to fully manifest the contemporary value of the intellectual transformation Marx achieved.

《资本论》将资本批判这一现实问题推向了马克思所处时代的顶峰。其后资本主义世界的深刻变化，使人们从未停止对资本的剖析与批判。后人在传承《资本论》中资本批判之“锋芒”的同时，深刻认识到资本的各种调整、转型乃至变异。由此可见，必须将《资本论》置于资本批判的思想发展序列中，方可充分彰显马克思所实现的思想变革的当代价值。

Moreover, the rapid development of globalization since the 1980s directly concerns the reassessment of the theoretical status of *Capital*. The real problems involved in *Capital*—such as wage labor, the fetishism of money, the fetishism of capital, and the deep-rooted “trinity formula”—still emerge in the process of capital globalization. Compared with Marx’s era, the real consequences, economic roots, and social essence of the above problems have not formed substantive differences. Relying on their strong economic power and monopoly over advanced technology, capitalist multinational corporations and state capital have created an increasingly extensive international division of labor and international competition. From this perspective, the analysis of real problems in *Capital* possesses a broad space for theoretical value. Not only that, but the gradual manifestation of the world-historical significance of the Chinese path urgently requires us to base ourselves on China’s national conditions and development path, to reveal new characteristics, new functions, and new trends from them, and to elevate practical experience into intellectual achievements. This undoubtedly provides a historical opportunity for re-examining the contemporary significance of *Capital*.

此外，20世纪80年代以来迅猛发展的全球化态势，直接关乎《资本论》理论地位的重估。《资本论》中涉及的雇佣劳动、货币拜物教、资本拜物教、“三位一体”神圣公式的根深蒂固等现实问题，仍然浮现于资本全球化的进程中。相比于马克思所处的时代，上述问题的现实后果、经济根源和社会本质等并没有形成实质性的差别。凭借着雄厚的经济实力和对先进技术的垄断，资本主义的跨国公司、国家资本造就出越来越广泛的国际分工与国际竞争。从这个角度来说，《资本论》的现实问题分析具有广阔的理论价值空间。不仅如此，中国道路之世界历史意义的逐步显现，迫切要求我们立足中国的国情与发展路径，从中揭示新特点、新作用、新趋势，把实践经验升华为思想建树。这无疑为重新检视《资本论》的当代意义提供了历史契机。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗