The Evolution of Value-Form Theory – The Historical Thread of the “New Marx Reading”

The research focus of the “New Marx Reading” lies in the problem of the value form. Viewed within the development of Western Marxism, a thread of progression centered on this theme can be discerned. This thread is of some help for our understanding of the theoretical content and significance of value-form theory.

“新马克思阅读”的研究重点在价值形式问题上，放到西方马克思主义发展历程中看，可以发现一条以之为主题的推进脉络，这条脉络对我们理解价值形式理论的理论内涵和意义具有一定帮助。

Marx’s Foundation of Value-Form Theory

马克思对价值形式理论的奠基

Marx’s purpose in putting forward value-form theory was to find a scientific starting point for the logical unfolding of the narrative mode of his critique of political economy; this starting point is simultaneously the scientific starting point for understanding the capitalist mode of production. In the *Economic Manuscripts of 1857–1858*, Marx founded a scientific theory of value, that is, he recognized that the essence of value is a grasp of the category of capitalist relations of production, with money as its form of appearance. Marx’s specific attention to the value form, however, occurred in the *Economic Manuscripts of 1861–1863*. Inspired by the critique of Ricardo’s labor theory of value by scholars represented by Bailey, Marx became aware of the importance of the “form” of the value of money. Thus, after seeing the social content of the concept of value, Marx further deepened his understanding of the necessity of the formal expression of this social content, which provided the basis for constructing the logical structure of commodity, value, and money.

马克思提出价值形式理论的目的，是为其政治经济学批判在逻辑上展开的叙述方式找到一个科学的起点，这一起点同时就是理解资本主义生产方式的科学起点。在《1857—1858年经济学手稿》中，马克思创立了科学的价值理论，即认识到价值的本质是对资本主义生产关系范畴的把握，货币是其表现形式。而马克思对价值形式的具体关注，则是在《1861—1863年经济学手稿》中，受到以贝利为代表的学者对李嘉图劳动价值论批判的启发，马克思意识到货币的价值“形式”的重要性。这样，马克思在看到了价值概念的社会内容后，进一步深化了对这种社会内容的形式表现必然性的理解，这为建构商品、价值、货币的逻辑结构提供了基础。

On this basis, in the first edition of *Capital* (Volume I), Chapter 1, Marx elaborated in detail the process of value formation in commodity exchange, the fundamental nature of value, and the logical relationship between value and the value form. However, before publication, Marx accepted Engels’s suggestion and added a clearer appendix on the “value form.” Later, when publishing the second edition of *Capital*, Marx reworked this appendix and incorporated it into the main text. Marx’s handling of the texts on the value form laid the groundwork for subsequent debates surrounding the problem of the value form.

在此基础上，马克思在《资本论》德文第一版第一章中，细致地论述了在商品交换过程中价值形成的过程、价值的根本性质，以及价值与价值形式之间的逻辑关系。但在刊印前，马克思接受了恩格斯的建议，增添了更为清晰明了的“价值形式”一节作为附录。此后，在出版《资本论》第二版时，马克思又将这一附录加工，并入第一篇之中。马克思在价值形式相关文本上的处理方式，为此后围绕价值形式问题的争论埋下了伏笔。

After Marx’s death, Engels and some bourgeois economists engaged in a “debate on the theory of value” concerning the problem of value and the transformation problem, but this debate remained largely within the field of economics. The dimension of social-historical philosophy contained in Marx’s emphasized value-form theory had not yet been brought into sharp focus. We can regard Marx’s research as the first phase of value-form theory.

在马克思去世后，围绕价值问题和转型问题，恩格斯和一些资产阶级经济学家进行过“关于价值理论的争论”，但这一争论还更多停留在经济学领域，在马克思那里被强调过的价值形式理论所蕴含的社会历史哲学维度还未被集中凸显出来。我们可以把马克思的研究看作价值形式理论的第一阶段。

The Rediscovery of Value-Form Theory

价值形式理论的重新发现

The second historical phase of research on value-form theory occurred in the 1920s. Under new historical conditions in which monopoly capitalism was mired in crisis and the socialist movement was surging, the interpretation of Marx’s philosophy and social theory also entered a completely new phase. Correspondingly, the study of the value form began to enter the field of vision of this period’s research, becoming an important object.

价值形式理论研究的第二个历史阶段，发生在20世纪20年代。在垄断资本主义陷入危机、社会主义运动风起云涌的新历史条件下，人们对马克思哲学和社会理论思想的解读也迎来了全新的阶段。相应地，价值形式的研究开始进入这一时期研究的视野，成为一个重要对象。

The exploration of Marx’s value-form theory during this period was concentrated in three different directions. The first was the Neo-Kantian direction. The German scholar Franz Petry, in his 1916 doctoral dissertation *The Social Content of Marx’s Theory of Value*, was the first to point out, using the philosophical method of Neo-Kantianism, the difference between Marx and Ricardo on the theory of value. He argued that Marx, within a dualistic framework, revealed the social content and form of appearance of value by means of cultural science, “emphasizing the cultural-scientific content as the distinctive element of Marx’s theory of value.”

这一时期对马克思价值形式理论的探索，主要集中在三个不同的方向上。第一个是新康德主义的方向。德国学者弗兰茨·佩特里1916年出版的博士论文《马克思价值理论的社会内容》，最早以新康德主义的哲学方法指出了马克思在价值理论上区别于李嘉图之处。他认为，马克思在一种二元论的框架下，以文化科学的方式揭示价值的社会内容和表现形式，“将这种作为马克思价值理论的独特的东西的文化科学的内容强调出来”。

The second direction was the early Soviet academic study of value-form theory, represented by the economist Isaak Rubin. Rubin clearly pointed out that the theme of Marx’s *Capital* is the critique of social forms, and that the social form of capitalism manifests itself as fetishism; therefore, the critique of fetishism is the theme of *Capital*. On this basis, Rubin proposed an exploration of political economy under socialist conditions, that is, how to understand commodities and money under socialism, and how to understand the problems of law and the state under socialism. It was precisely on the problems of law and the state that the contemporary Marxist legal theorist Pashukanis developed his study of the commodity form, the bourgeois legal form, and the state form, which also became an important intellectual resource for subsequent value-form research.

第二个方向是当时苏联学界早期对价值形式理论的研究。其中，以经济学家伊萨克·鲁宾为代表。鲁宾明确指出，马克思《资本论》的主题就是对社会形式的批判，而资本主义的社会形式就表现为拜物教，因此，拜物教批判是《资本论》的主题。在此基础上，鲁宾提出对社会主义条件下的政治经济学进行探索，即在社会主义条件下，如何理解商品和货币，以及如何理解社会主义条件下的法律和国家问题。也正是在法律和国家问题上，同时期的马克思主义法学家帕舒卡尼斯展开了对商品形式、资产阶级法律形式和国家形式的研究，这一研究也成为此后价值形式研究的重要思想资源。

The third direction was the study of value-form theory represented by Western Marxism, with main representatives including Lukács, Sohn-Rethel, and Pollock. This direction was, in terms of its form, not actually very concentrated. Lukács focused on the problem of the commodity form, deriving the viewpoint of reification through the analysis of the commodity form. But Lukács in fact did not grasp the value form from the dimension of the social relations of the object; rather, based on the dimension of the subject-object relation, he studied the problem of the relationship between reification brought about by the commodity form and the subject. This was internally consistent with his subsequent self-criticism. Sohn-Rethel also began during this period his study of the internal relationship between the value form and the form of thought, attempting to understand the Western rational tradition from the perspective of the real abstraction represented by value, which received a positive evaluation from Adorno. Pollock, also an important member of the Frankfurt School, took Marx’s problem of money as his object of study, emphasizing the social-philosophical content of the money problem, and to a certain extent established the basic understanding of the critique of political economy within Frankfurt School critical theory. It can be said that the second phase of value-form theory research was very crucial, because many of the basic problems in Marx’s value-form theory were elucidated at this time.

第三个方向则是以西方马克思主义为代表的价值形式理论研究，其主要代表有卢卡奇、索恩－雷特尔和波洛克等人。这一方向从形式上看其实并不十分集中。卢卡奇集中于从商品形式的问题切入，通过商品形式分析，得出物化的观点。但卢卡奇事实上没有从客体的社会关系维度把握价值形式，而是立足主客体关系的维度，研究了商品形式所带来的物化与主体的关系问题。这与他此后所作的自我批判是内在一致的。索恩－雷特尔在这一时期也开始了对价值形式与思维形式之间内在关系的研究，他试图从价值所代表的现实抽象理解西方理性传统，这受到了阿多诺的积极评价。而同样作为法兰克福学派重要成员的波洛克，则以马克思货币问题为研究对象，强调货币问题的社会哲学内涵，一定程度上确定了法兰克福学派批判理论在政治经济学批判上的基本理解。可以说，价值形式理论研究的第二个阶段非常关键，因为马克思价值形式理论中诸多基本问题都在此时得到了阐发。

The Upsurge in Value-Form Theory Research

价值形式理论研究的热潮

The third historical phase of research on value-form theory occurred from the 1960s to the 1980s. An important impetus driving the analysis of the value form during this period was the reflection and critique of the welfare state as a new form of state monopoly capitalism. The shared social-historical conditions prompted scholars from different countries and with different methodological traditions to arrive at highly similar viewpoints when confronting Marx’s value-form theory. In this historical phase, value-form theory research reached an unprecedented level in scope and depth, and Western Marxist researchers achieved certain results in value-form theory.

价值形式理论研究的第三个历史阶段，发生在20世纪60年代到80年代。推动这一时期价值形式分析的重要诱因，就是对福利国家这一国家垄断资本主义的新形式所展开的反思和批判。共同面对的社会历史条件，促使这一阶段不同国家、不同方法论传统的学者在面对马克思的价值形式理论时，获得了高度相近的观点。在这一历史阶段，价值形式理论在研究范围和深度上达到了前所未有的水平，西方马克思主义研究者在价值形式理论上取得了一定成果。

Among these, the most representative is the “New Marx Reading” that grew out of the Frankfurt School. Its representatives, Backhaus and Reichelt, resolutely criticized in the field of economics the utility theory of value represented by Böhm-Bawerk and Schumpeter, as well as the economic doctrines of the Neo-Ricardian school represented by Joan Robinson, thereby defending the unique philosophical methodology of Marx’s critique of political economy. This philosophical methodology was precisely what Backhaus and Reichelt had learned from Adorno’s social philosophy. In the field of social theory, the “New Marx Reading” also criticized the turn in critical theory represented by Habermas. They argued that the social theory and state theory of Habermas and Offe had completely abandoned the foundation of Marx’s critique of political economy, thereby moving toward a revisionist viewpoint.

其中，最具代表性的就是法兰克福学派中生长出的“新马克思阅读”。其代表人物巴克豪斯和莱希尔特在经济学领域坚决批判了以庞巴维克、熊彼特为代表的效用价值论，以及以琼·罗宾逊为代表的新李嘉图学派的经济学说，从而捍卫马克思政治经济学批判的独特的哲学方法论。这种哲学方法论，正是巴克豪斯和莱希尔特从阿多诺的社会哲学那里习得的。而在社会理论领域，“新马克思阅读”又对哈贝马斯为代表的批判理论转向给予批判，他们认为哈贝马斯以及奥菲的社会理论和国家理论完全丢掉了马克思的政治经济学批判根基，从而走向了一种修正主义观点。

Apart from German academia, almost simultaneously, the Uno School, represented by Kōzō Uno and Tomohiko Sekine, and the Regulation School, represented by Michel Aglietta, both developed investigations of the value form. Although their angles of emphasis on the problem of the value form differed—for example, the Uno School focused on criticizing the textbook system of political economy, using value-form theory to construct a theoretical model for understanding capitalism, while the Regulation School focused mainly on monetary theory and economic policy—they both emphasized the logical priority of the sphere of exchange in Marx’s critique of political economy. Since the 1980s, scholars in the English-speaking academic world, represented by Chris Arthur, on the basis of integrating the intellectual resources of value-form theory research, formed a “New Dialectical School” of value-form research for the critique of analytical Marxism, thereby pushing the study of value-form theory to a new climax.

除德国学界以外，几乎在同一时期，以宇野弘藏、关根友彦为代表的宇野学派和以阿格里塔为代表的调节学派，都展开了对于价值形式的探究。尽管在价值形式问题上的侧重角度不同，比如宇野学派侧重于批判政治经济学教科书体系，利用价值形式理论建构对资本主义理解的理论模式，而调节学派则主要侧重于货币理论以及经济政策，但是，他们都强调交换环节在马克思政治经济学批判中所具有的逻辑优先性。20世纪80年代以来，以克里斯·亚瑟为代表的英语学界学者，又在整合价值形式理论研究资源的基础上，为批判分析主义的马克思主义形成了价值形式研究的“新辩证法学派”，从而将价值形式理论的研究推向了新的高潮。

Value-Form Theory Research and the Latest Developments of Contemporary Capitalism

价值形式理论研究与当代资本主义最新发展

From the 1990s to the present, this can be regarded as the fourth stage of research on value-form theory. The monetization of production driven by neoliberalism, together with the process of financial capitalism that gradually began after the collapse of the Bretton Woods system, has made the abstract character of capital’s domination, realized through monetary means and financial derivatives, particularly prominent. The logic of capital has begun to powerfully dominate and direct material production, fundamentally transforming the time and space of contemporary society, while capital’s extraction of surplus value from labor has reached an unprecedented level of efficiency.

20世纪90年代至今，可以被视作价值形式理论研究的第四个阶段。新自由主义所推动的生产的货币化，与布雷顿森林体系瓦解后逐渐开启的金融资本主义进程，使得借助货币手段和金融衍生品实现的资本统治抽象性尤为突出地表现出来。资本逻辑开始有力地支配和主导物质生产，并从根本上改造了当今社会的时间与空间，而资本对劳动的榨取也达到了前所未有的高效率。

At this stage, research on the value form, viewed from its external form, often involves the utilization and reinterpretation of intellectual resources from the three preceding historical stages. However, with regard to the social-historical issues it confronts, it is fundamentally different from the earlier three stages. Thus, at this stage, research on the value form has grasped, at a higher level, the most abstract social reality that value-form theory is capable of grasping. It is in this sense that understanding the financial capitalism represented by the money form on the basis of value-form analysis becomes an important attempt to respond to the theoretical challenges posed by the latest developments of contemporary capitalism.

这一阶段的价值形式研究，从外在形式上看，往往是对前面三个历史阶段相关思想资源的利用与重释。但在面对的社会历史问题上，与前面三个阶段已经有了根本差异，所以在这一阶段对于价值形式的研究，已经在更高层次上把握住了价值形式理论所能够把握的最为抽象的社会现实。正是在这个意义上，以价值形式分析为基础理解货币形式所代表的金融资本主义，就成为回应当代资本主义最新发展所提出的理论挑战的重要尝试。

Reviewing the historical logic of value-form theory, we can arrive at the following several points. First, value-form theory has always been discussed under specific social-historical conditions and for different theoretical purposes; different contexts and perspectives are the background from which we cannot separate ourselves when examining value-form theory. Second, the tradition of value-form analysis in foreign Marxism helps us to grasp, at a deep theoretical level, the theoretical structure of foreign Marxism, especially its interdisciplinary research—conducted within the framework provided by value-form analysis—across multiple disciplines such as Marx’s critique of political economy, philosophy, and sociology. This has, to a certain extent, enriched Marxist theory. Finally, by understanding the social-historical background in which discussions of value-form theory are rooted, we can know that although many researchers and discussants of value-form theory often address this issue in speculative, abstract forms, if one is misled by this mode of discussion, one will fall into a non-historical labyrinth.

回顾价值形式理论的历史逻辑，我们可以得出这样几个观点。首先，价值形式理论从来都是在具体的社会历史条件下出于不同的理论目的而被加以讨论的，不同的语境和视角是我们看待价值形式理论时所离不开的背景。其次，国外马克思主义的价值形式分析传统，有助于我们从理论的深层把握国外马克思主义的理论结构，特别是它在价值形式分析所提供的框架之上所做的对马克思政治经济学批判与哲学、社会学等多个学科之间的跨学科研究，这在一定程度上丰富了马克思主义的理论。最后，理解价值形式理论的讨论所根植的社会历史背景，我们便可得知，价值形式理论的许多研究者和讨论者尽管常常在思辨的、抽象的形式中讨论这一问题，但如果被这种讨论方式所迷惑，就会陷入非历史的迷途中。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗