From the Complete *Capital* to the Open "Critique of Political Economy"

The second section of the Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA²), comprising 15 volumes in 23 books, was published from 1976 to 2012. It presents all extant manuscripts by Marx in the field of critique of political economy from the late 1850s onward, along with multiple editions of *Capital* of independent scholarly value and Engels' editorial manuscripts, providing an unprecedentedly rich documentary foundation for research in this area. With the publication of MEGA² materials, German scholars, leveraging their native-language advantage, have fully utilized new sources and proposed many new viewpoints, driving related research in the international academic community and offering insights for deepening our study of Marx's critique of political economy.

《马克思恩格斯全集》历史考证版第二版（以下简称“MEGA2”）第二部分共15卷23册，自1976年开始出版，至2012年全部出齐，呈现了马克思自19世纪50年代末起在政治经济学批判领域的全部现存手稿，以及《资本论》的多个具有独立学术价值的版本、恩格斯的编辑稿，为该领域相关研究提供了空前丰富的文献支撑。伴随MEGA2文献的出版，德国学者依托母语优势，充分运用新资料，提出了不少新观点，带动了国际学界的相关研究，对我们深化马克思政治经济学批判思想研究具有借鉴意义。

In terms of documentary support, the contribution of MEGA² Section II lies mainly in two aspects: first, the first-time publication of a batch of economic manuscripts, including the *Gold Weighing Machine* and the index of citation notes for the second installment of *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy* written between 1857 and 1861; much of the content of the *Economic Manuscripts of 1861–1863*; dozens of manuscripts of varying lengths for Volumes 2 and 3 of *Capital* written between 1863 and 1882; and manuscripts for supplementary revisions to Volume 1 of *Capital* from 1871 to 1872. Second, the independent publication of representative editions and editorial drafts of *Capital*, including six representative editions of Volume 1, the official editions of Volumes 2 and 3, and Marx's original manuscripts alongside Engels' editorial drafts, providing favorable conditions for comparative research. Based on these new documents, German scholars have made research progress in the following areas over the past few decades.

就文献支撑而言，MEGA2第二部分的贡献主要在于两个方面：一方面是一批经济学手稿的首次出版，包括1857—1861年间撰写的《金称量机》《政治经济学批判》第2分册引文笔记索引；《1861—1863年经济学手稿》中的许多内容；1863—1882年间撰写的《资本论》第2、3册的几十份篇幅不一的手稿；1871—1872年间补充修改《资本论》第1卷的手稿。另一方面是《资本论》各代表性版本和编辑文稿的独立发表，包括第1卷的6个代表性版本，第2、3卷的正式版本，马克思原稿与恩格斯的编辑稿，为比较研究提供了有利条件。基于这些新文献，过去几十年来，德国学者在如下方面取得了研究进展。

In terms of periodization of thought, the intellectual trajectory of Marx's critique of political economy has been reconstructed on the basis of MEGA² Section II. MEGA² Section II was initially titled "*Capital* and Its Preparatory Texts," with the implicit premise that all of Marx's late economic research fell under the writing plan for *Capital*. However, the progress of document publication changed many people's views. Carl-Erich Vollgraf, the main editor responsible for MEGA² Section II, proposed that, with 1863 as the dividing line, Marx's relevant texts belong to two separate writing plans—*A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy* and *Capital*—and that the "six-book plan" [1]1 The "six-book plan" refers to Marx's original outline for his critique of political economy, which he announced in the preface to *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy* (1859), covering capital, landed property, wage labor, the state, foreign trade, and the world market. associated with the former was more a publishing strategy statement; Marx no longer intended to realize this plan during the creation of *Capital*. This view has gained considerable support, with some scholars providing evidence by tracing the formation history of different types of texts and analyzing the disappearance of the concept of "capital in general." The current project director of MEGA², Hubmann, also argued that the publication of Section II proves that neither a completed *Capital* exists nor can all of Marx's economic manuscripts be understood as preparatory texts for *Capital*. Unlike the conception at the start of publication, MEGA² Section II ultimately records an unfinished research process; Marx constantly engaged with new objects of study and attempted new methods of exposition. In short, MEGA² Section II reveals Marx's exploratory process of continuously deepening research around key issues based on full mastery of primary sources and real-world dynamics, never hastily drawing conclusions for the sake of publication deadlines or system-building, reflecting the scientific and open character of his thought.

在思想分期上，基于MEGA2第二部分重建了马克思政治经济学批判的思想历程。MEGA2第二部分起初被命名为“《资本论》及其准备性文本”，其隐含前提是，马克思晚期的经济学研究全部归于《资本论》的写作计划。但文献出版的推进改变了很多人的看法。MEGA2第二部分编辑工作主要负责人福尔格拉夫（Carl-Erich Vollgraf）提出，以1863年为分界，马克思的相关文本分属于《政治经济学批判》和《资本论》两个写作计划，而且与前者相关的“六册计划”更多是一种出版策略表述，马克思在《资本论》创作期间已经不打算实现这一计划。这一观点得到不少支持，有些学者通过梳理和比较不同类型文本的形成史、解析“资本一般”概念的消隐等方式，为这一观点提供了支撑。MEGA2项目现任负责人胡布曼也提出，第二部分的出版证明，既不存在一部完成的《资本论》，也不能将马克思的全部经济学手稿都理解为《资本论》的准备性文稿。与出版之初的构想不同，MEGA2第二部分最终记录了一段未完成的研究过程，马克思总是不断涉及新的研究对象，尝试新的论述方法。总之，MEGA2第二部分展现了马克思在充分掌握一手资料与现实动态的基础上，围绕关键问题不断深化研究，绝不为出版进度和体系建构的需要，轻易作出定论的探索过程，反映出其思想的科学性与开放性。

In terms of textual positioning, new scholarly judgments have been made regarding several important documents in MEGA² Section II. Ingo Stützle proposed that the *Grundrisse* written in 1857–1858 is a text of Marx's "self-understanding," not intended for publication, nor a key to understanding the later *Capital*, but possessing its own independent themes, with its views being provisional. Michael Heinrich divided the writing of *Capital* beginning in 1863 into three phases: 1863–1865, the first draft of Book 1 and Books 2 and 3; 1866–1871, the revision of Volume 1 and the second draft of Book 2; and 1871–1881, the third draft phase. Regarding the issue of the "history of theory" in Book 4 of *Capital*, MEGA² documents show that Marx never began writing this book. Therefore, the previously independently published *Theories of Surplus Value* is now widely considered to be placed back into the *Economic Manuscripts of 1861–1863* in its original form.

在文本定位上，对MEGA2第二部分中若干重要文献作出新的学术判断。施蒂策勒（Ingo Stützle）提出，1857—1858年写作的《大纲》是一份马克思“自我理解的文本”，不是为出版而作，也不是理解后来的《资本论》的钥匙，而是有其独立主题，其中的观点也是阶段性的。海因里希（Michael Heinrich）把1863年开始的《资本论》写作分为三个阶段：1863—1865年是第1册及第2、3册第一稿阶段；1866—1871年是第1卷修订、第2册第二稿阶段；1871—1881年是第三稿阶段。关于《资本论》第4册的“理论史”问题，MEGA2文献表明，马克思始终没有动笔写作这一册。因此，过去曾经独立出版的《剩余价值理论》被普遍认为应该按原样放回《1861—1863年经济学手稿》之中。

In terms of theoretical method, based on new documents, the relational and logical character of Marx's method in the critique of political economy is more clearly reflected. Wolfgang Fritz Haug proposed that Marx's surpassing of Ricardo lies in his pointing out that value is not a substantive attribute of a single commodity but a "common element" manifested in the exchange relations of commodities in the plural; the analysis of relations between commodities constitutes the "philosophical essence" behind Marx's economics. Helmut Reichelt, drawing on the "first draft" of the first installment of *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*, argued that Marx critically analyzed the abstract domination of capital logic over the subject through conceptual analysis, and that his category of value, as a "thought-thing," reflects the process of commodities transforming into value objects. Dieter Wolf disagreed with this; through a comparison of various editions of Volume 1 of *Capital*, he pointed out that Marx distinguished between theoretical thought abstraction and the actual commodity relations in reality, with the former unable to encompass the latter, which is also where Marx surpasses Hegel's dialectics. Hans-Georg Backhaus objected to Engels' view of "simple commodity production" proposed in the preface to Volume 3 of *Capital*; he argued that the commodities Marx discusses are not the historical premise of capitalist production but are always situated within capitalist society, and that what Marx undertakes is not empirical historical analysis but logical dialectical analysis.

在理论方法上，基于新文献，更加明晰地反映出马克思政治经济学批判方法的关系性、逻辑性的特质。豪格（Wolfgang Fritz Haug）提出，马克思超越李嘉图之处在于，他指出价值不是单个商品具有的实体属性，而是在作为复数的商品的交换关系中表现出的“共同的东西”，对商品之间关系的分析构成马克思经济学背后的“哲学精要”。莱希尔特（Helmut Reichelt）基于《政治经济学批判》第1分册“初稿”等指出，马克思以概念分析的方式批判了资本逻辑对主体的抽象支配，他的价值范畴作为“思维之物”反映了商品转变为价值对象的过程。沃尔夫（Dieter Wolf）不同意这一点，他通过对《资本论》第1卷各个版本的比较指出，马克思区分了理论视角下的思维抽象与现实中的商品关系，前者不能涵盖后者，这也是马克思超越黑格尔辩证法之处。巴克豪斯（Hans-Georg Backhaus）对恩格斯在《资本论》第3卷前言中提出的“简单商品生产”观点提出异议，他认为马克思讨论的商品并不是资本主义生产的历史前提，而是始终处于资本主义社会之中，马克思所作的不是经验性的历史分析，而是逻辑性的辩证分析。

In terms of theoretical content, based on new documents, new research is being conducted on Marx’s theory of value, crisis theory, and so forth. In value theory, first, the critical connotations contained in the concepts of “general labor” and “abstract labor” are given a philosophical interpretation, highlighting their transcendence of classical political economy’s labor theory of value; second, the roles of the two links of production and exchange in the formation of value are re-understood, reflecting on previous substantialist understandings of commodity value; third, with “value-form” as the core, the theoretical logic from the dual character of the commodity to the critique of fetishism is reconstructed, thereby providing innovative interpretations of issues such as the epistemological effects of the logic of capital. In these respects, the research of the “Neue Marx-Lektüre” [New Marx Reading] trend is the most representative; given the length of this article and the fact that special introductions have been provided previously, it will not be elaborated upon here. In addition, Bertram Schefold, who once wrote the introduction to Volume 3 of *Capital* in the MEGA² [2]2 MEGA²: The Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (Marx-Engels Complete Edition), a historical-critical edition of the complete works of Marx and Engels, the second section of which is devoted to *Capital* and its preparatory manuscripts., integrated the main viewpoints of past Marxian value theory research, placed value-form theory within the multiple assumptions about actors in different schools of economics, and proposed that value-form theory is neither absurd nor a definite truth, but rather an analytical method, an “ideal type” in the Weberian sense that needs to prove its explanatory power and boundaries in reality. He regards Marx’s critique of political economy as “a unity derived from value-form theory”; within this theoretical edifice, the analysis of commodities and value is the “foundation,” the theory of exploitation, the production of absolute and relative surplus value, accumulation, and circulation constitute the “pillars,” and the transformation of surplus value into profit, interest, and rent, along with the formation of income, is the “dome.” Value-form theory not only plays a role in the initial analysis of commodities and value but also continues to play an important role up to the transformation problem of value into price in Volume 3 of *Capital*, because Marx uses it precisely to prove that profit is merely the redistribution of surplus value. In crisis theory, Heinz D. Kurz, through a comparison of several manuscripts before and after related topics, demonstrates that several of Marx’s views did not form a consistent final conclusion, including the law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall and judgments about the development trend of the organic composition of capital. Christoph Henning, on the other hand, regards the aforementioned law as the core of Marx’s crisis theory; he believes that the reason for people’s doubt about this law is the “translation” of Marx’s theory into completely different paradigms such as neoclassical economics, or a failure to acknowledge the problems Marx confronted. From the background Marx set, his model still has explanatory power today. Herfried Münkler, combining Marx’s extensive late research in the natural sciences, raises the question of the relationship between Marx’s natural science research and his study of *Capital*, the core of which is whether Marx intentionally sought to deepen his understanding of the limits and laws of capitalism through natural science research. However, he himself does not provide a definitive answer to this.

在理论内容上，基于新文献，对马克思的价值理论、危机理论等展开新的研究。在价值理论方面，一是对“劳动一般”“抽象劳动”概念蕴含的批判性内涵予以哲学阐释，凸显其对古典政治经济学劳动价值论的超越；二是重新理解生产和交换两个环节对于价值形成的作用，反思以往对商品价值的实体主义理解；三是以“价值形式”为核心，重构从商品二重性到拜物教批判的理论逻辑，进而对资本逻辑的认识论效应等问题予以创新阐释。在这些方面，“新马克思阅读”（Neue Marx-Lektüre）思潮的研究最具代表性，鉴于本文篇幅和此前已有专题介绍，此处不再展开。此外，曾为MEGA2版《资本论》第3卷撰写导言的谢弗德（Bertram Schefold）整合过往马克思价值理论研究的主要观点，将价值形式理论置于不同经济学流派对行动者的多重假设中，提出价值形式理论既不荒谬也不是确定的真理，而是一种分析方法，一种需要在现实中证明其解释力与边界的韦伯意义上的“理想型”。他将马克思的政治经济学批判视为“由价值形式理论引出的统一体”，在这一理论建筑中，对商品和价值的分析是“基础”，剥削理论、绝对和相对剩余价值的生产、积累以及流通构成“支柱”，剩余价值向利润、利息、地租的转化以及收入的形成则是“穹顶”。价值形式理论不仅在最初的商品和价值分析中发挥作用，直到《资本论》第3卷中价值转换为价格的转形问题仍然发挥重要作用，因为马克思正是借此证明，利润不过是剩余价值的重新分配。在危机理论方面，库尔茨（Heinz D. Kurz）通过对涉及相关主题的前后多部手稿的对比，说明马克思的若干观点并没有形成一致性的最终结论，包括平均利润率趋于下降的规律，以及关于资本有机构成发展趋势的判断。亨宁（Christoph Henning）则把上述规律视为马克思危机理论的核心，他认为造成人们怀疑这一规律的原因是将马克思的理论“翻译”成新古典经济学等完全不同的范式，或不承认马克思所面对的问题。从马克思设定的背景来看，他的模型直到今天仍然具有解释力。明克勒（Herfried Münkler）结合马克思晚期大量的自然科学研究，提出马克思的自然科学研究与《资本论》研究的关系问题，其核心在于马克思是否有意通过自然科学研究深化对资本主义之极限与规律的认识。不过，他本人并未对此给出定论。

On the question of the relationship between Marx and Engels, the MEGA² second section provides rich new material for research in this area. Michael Heinrich believes that, with regard to *Capital*, one cannot simply assume that Marx was the author and Engels the editor. For example, “whether Marx actually wrote a separate chapter on crisis theory, or whether he intended to deal with the problem of the tendency to crisis at different levels of abstraction, we do not know.” But Engels, in his editing, highlighted this theory with considerable space. Taking credit theory as another example, Marx once clearly stated that a description of the credit system exceeded his plan, but Engels relativized this statement by Marx, thereby incorporating credit theory into Volume 3 of *Capital*. Some of Marx’s late letters also indicate that the incompleteness of *Capital* is not only quantitative but also qualitative, meaning that many new economic phenomena had not yet been fully studied. Regina Roth argues that Heinrich’s view contains the assumption that Marx would narrow his perspective. She emphasizes that Engels was very cautious about the word “law,” which frequently appears in Marx’s manuscripts; he only speaks in introductory passages about discussions of all cases “from which the law of the rate of profit can be derived,” ultimately leaving it to the reader to interpret what should or can be regarded as a “law.” In short, “Engels did not alter Marx’s text arbitrarily or with strong strokes, but carried out this work carefully.” From this, it can be seen that the understanding of the relationship between Marx and Engels in the texts of the MEGA² second section is always linked to scholars’ understanding of major issues and even fundamental methodologies of the critique of political economy. Another example in this regard is that Michael Krätke proposes that Engels’s understanding of *Capital*, although containing historical characteristics, did not distort Marx’s original meaning. Marx understood capitalism as an open system with specific historical premises, not an absolute one, possessing an internal dynamic mechanism and a future full of possibilities. Therefore, Engels’s conceptual and historical understanding of Marx’s logical narration of the historical development of capitalism is not a distortion. Ingo Elbe, however, argues that Krätke puts forward good arguments to refute past accusations against Engels, but he is immersed in the plan to rehabilitate Engels, neglecting the significant methodological and thematic differences between Marx and Engels. He emphasizes that while the narration of a logical system certainly contains historical content, this does not mean that the logical-systematic analysis of historical content can be transformed into a historical analysis. The history contained within the systemic interconnections of the capitalist mode of production is an immanent history, that is, a “structurally conditioned” historical dynamics. It can be seen that many scholars’ discussions of the differences between Marx’s and Engels’s thoughts are not intended to deconstruct the Marxist theoretical system, but rather to deepen the understanding of its theoretical content and methods themselves, and to activate the contemporary potential of related ideas.

在马克思与恩格斯关系问题上，MEGA2第二部分为这一领域的研究提供了丰富的新素材。海因里希认为，就《资本论》而言，不能简单认为马克思是作者，而恩格斯是编辑者。例如，“马克思是否真的单独写了一个关于危机理论的章节，或者他是否想在不同的抽象论述层次上处理危机趋势问题，我们并不知道”。但恩格斯在编辑中用较大篇幅凸显了这一理论。再以信用理论为例，马克思曾经明确表示，对于信用系统的描述超出了他的计划，但恩格斯却将马克思的这一陈述相对化了，从而将信用理论纳入《资本论》第3卷。马克思晚期的一些书信也表明，《资本论》的未完成性不只体现在量的方面，也体现在质的方面，即还有很多新的经济现象未能得到完整研究。罗特（Regina Roth）认为，海因里希的观点包含着假设，即马克思会窄化其观点。她强调，恩格斯对经常出现在马克思手稿中的“规律”一词十分谨慎，他只在介绍性段落中谈到对所有案例的讨论“可以从中得出关于利润率的规律”，而把什么应该或者可以被视为“规律”最终交给读者去解释。总之，“恩格斯并没有随意地、也没有用强烈的笔触改动马克思的文本，而是小心翼翼地进行这项工作”。由此可以发现，对MEGA2第二部分文本中马克思与恩格斯关系的理解，总是与学者们对政治经济学批判重大问题乃至根本方法论的理解联系在一起。这方面的另一个例子是，克莱特克（Michael Kr?覿tke）提出，恩格斯对《资本论》的理解虽然包含历史性特征，但并未歪曲马克思的原意。马克思把资本主义理解为一个开放的、带有特定历史前提的、并非绝对的系统，具有内在动力机制与充满可能性的未来。因此，恩格斯从概念上和历史上来理解马克思对资本主义历史发展的逻辑叙述，并不是一种曲解。而埃尔贝（Ingo Elbe）认为，克莱特克为反驳过往对恩格斯的指责提出了好的论点，但他沉浸于为恩格斯平反的计划中，忽视了马克思与恩格斯在方法论和主题方面的重大差异。他强调，逻辑系统的叙述中固然包含历史内容，但这不代表对历史内容的逻辑系统性分析能够转化为一种历史性分析。在资本主义生产方式的系统性关联中所包含的历史，是一种内在的历史，即一种“受结构制约的”历史性动力学。可见，许多学者对马克思与恩格斯思想差异的讨论，并不是为了解构马克思主义理论体系，而是为了深化对其理论内容和方法本身的认识，激活相关思想的当代潜能。

In summary, since the 21st century, especially since the financial crisis, research in German academia on Marx’s critique of political economy has already shown a quite different character from 20th-century Western “Marxology.” Most scholars focusing on the MEGA² second section are not aiming to distort the image of Marxism, deny the value of Marx’s thought, or deny Engels’s editorial contributions, but rather, through a meticulous examination of the development process of Marx’s critique of political economy and a comparison of the differences in thought between different versions of works and manuscripts, to liberate the philosophical wisdom of historical materialism and the methodological essentials of the critique of political economy from the fixed image of *Capital* and original dogmatic understandings, in order to respond to contemporary capitalist problems. In recent years, some of their academic achievements have gradually had a positive impact on domestic research. As long as we adhere to the Marxist stance and method, and rationally utilize the relevant MEGA² documents with a scientific and open attitude, we can move beyond teleological traditional understandings, reconstruct Marx’s path of the critique of political economy in the study of intellectual history, and lay the foundation for achieving higher-level academic dialogue and realistic analysis.

总之，21世纪以来，尤其是金融危机以来，德国学术界关于马克思政治经济学批判的研究已经展现出与20世纪西方“马克思学”颇为不同的性质。大部分关注MEGA2第二部分的学者不是为了扭曲马克思主义的形象、否定马克思的思想价值或者恩格斯的编辑贡献，而是为了通过细致考察马克思政治经济学批判思想的发展历程、对比不同版本著作和手稿间的思路差异，把历史唯物主义的哲学智慧、政治经济学批判的方法论要义从《资本论》的固定形象与原本教条式的理解中解放出来，以回应当代资本主义问题。近年来，他们的一些学术成果也逐渐对国内研究产生积极影响。只要我们坚持马克思主义的立场和方法，以科学、开放的心态合理利用MEGA2相关文献，就可以走出目的论式的传统理解，在思想史研究中重建马克思的政治经济学批判之路，为实现更高水平的学术对话与现实解析奠定基础。

Online Editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗