The “Concept” Thinking of Marx’s Critique of Political Economy

In the preface to *A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy*, Marx indicates that he began his study of political economy in Paris. The *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* (hereinafter referred to as the *Manuscripts*) is an important achievement of this period. Although some scholars extend the perspective of the critique of political economy to the works of the *Rheinische Zeitung* period, the concern with material interests during that period can only constitute the prehistory of the critique of political economy.

马克思在《〈政治经济学批判〉序言》中提示，他是在巴黎开始研究政治经济学的。《1844年经济学哲学手稿》（以下简称《手稿》）便是他这一时期的重要成果。尽管有学者将政治经济学批判视角延伸到《莱茵报》时期的著作，但《莱茵报》时期对物质利益的关切，只能构成政治经济学批判的史前史。

The task orientation of the critique of political economy

政治经济学批判的任务指向

The critique of political economy begins with the *Manuscripts*. Some of its tasks are also set forth therein. And the most fundamental task is to “comprehend” (*begreifen*) the laws and categories of political economy. This task runs through the entire critique of political economy.

政治经济学批判肇始于《手稿》。它的某些任务也是在其中提出的。而最根本的任务便是“理解”（begreifen）政治经济学的规律和范畴。这一任务贯穿了政治经济学批判的始终。

This task of the critique of political economy has a specific orientation, namely, the failure of bourgeois economics to comprehend its own categories and laws. First, it fails to comprehend the premise of these categories, that is, private property itself. Private property is taken as something given. Second, it fails to comprehend the necessary connection between private property and its derivative categories, “it does not indicate how these laws arise from the nature of private property.” Finally, it fails to comprehend the connections between categories and between laws, often “opposing the doctrine of free trade to the doctrine of guilds, the doctrine of the division of landed property to the doctrine of large-scale landed property.” These “three” failures to comprehend are, rather, three dimensions of the same “failure to comprehend”; its fundamental determination lies in the ahistorical identification of the bourgeois mode of production. Therefore, all economic categories, such as wages, landed property, competition, etc., are taken as given economic facts. Its examination of economic categories cannot constitute a “critique” of that premise.

政治经济学批判的这一任务有其特定指向，即资产阶级经济学对自身范畴、规律的不理解。首先，它不理解这些范畴的前提，即私有财产本身。私有财产被当成既定的东西接受下来。其次，它不理解私有财产与其派生范畴间的必然联系，“它没有指明这些规律是怎样从私有财产的本质中产生出来的”。最后，它不能理解范畴与范畴之间、规律与规律之间的联系，常常把“经营自由的学说同同业公会的学说，地产分割的学说同大地产的学说对立起来”。这“三种”不理解，毋宁说是同一种“不理解”的三个维度；其根本规定在于对资产阶级生产方式非历史性的指认。因此，一切经济范畴，如工资、地产、竞争等等，都被作为既定的经济事实接受下来了。它对经济范畴的考察不可能构成对该前提的“批判”。

Behind this uncritical mode of examination lies an empiricist stance. On the one hand, when political economy regards the bourgeois mode of material production as its eternal form, the determination of things is confused with the determination of social relations. Certain unique socio-historical determinations belonging to the capitalist mode of production are then identified as material elements of social production. On the other hand, the uncritical mode of examination of political economy fails to reveal the necessary connection between the theoretical premise and the various categories of economics. The essential relations of the bourgeois mode of production and its surface phenomena are not only often separated but also often confused. Marx says: “If the form of appearance and the essence of things directly coincided, all science would be superfluous.” Whether classical political economy or vulgar economics, neither has been able to scientifically explain the surface phenomena of society starting from essential relations.

这种非批判考察方式的背后是经验主义的立场。一方面，当政治经济学把物质生产的资产阶级方式看作其永恒的形式时，物的规定便同社会关系的规定混淆起来。某些属于资本主义生产方式的独特社会历史规定，便被指认为社会生产的物质要素。另一方面，政治经济学非批判的考察方式，未能揭示理论前提与各类经济学范畴的必然关联。资产阶级生产方式的本质关系及其表面现象不仅时常被割裂，而且时常被混淆。马克思说：“如果事物的表现形式和事物的本质直接合而为一，一切科学就成为多余的了。”无论古典政治经济学抑或庸俗经济学，都未能从本质关系出发科学地说明社会的表面现象。

The empiricist manifestations of political economy

政治经济学的经验主义表现

The errors of empiricism in political economy are concentrated in three types, namely, the Smithian type, the Ricardian type, and the vulgar economics type; different types have different exemplars.

政治经济学经验主义的谬误集中表现为三种类型，即斯密型、李嘉图型和庸俗经济学型；不同的类型又有不同的范例。

Smithian empiricism manifests itself in that, on the one hand, he studied the inner connections of the economic categories of bourgeois society; on the other hand, he “sets forth the surface connections as seen by the unscientific observer side by side with the above-mentioned inner connections.” These two are not mutually independent. On the question of whether the magnitude of commodity value is determined by the quantity of labor expended or by the quantity of labor commanded, Smith’s empiricism reveals its defect. According to Smith’s view, in pre-civilized society, commodity exchange was based on the quantity of labor expended in producing the commodity. In civilized society, the real value of a commodity is “measured by the quantity of labor which it can command or purchase”; labor income no longer equals labor output, and social wealth is distributed in three forms: wages, profit, and rent. Therefore, Smith not only mistakenly regards rent and profit as sources of exchange value, but also mistakenly regards the “quantity of labor commanded” as the ultimate measure of actual value. In this way, the determination of value by the quantity of labor expended, as the “inner connection,” is confused with the exchange value of labor, as the “surface connection.”

斯密型经验主义表现为，一方面，他研究了资产阶级社会经济范畴的内在联系；另一方面，他又把非科学观察者眼中的表面联系“与上述内在联系并列地提出来”。这两者并非互不干扰。在商品价值量是由投入劳动量还是由支配劳动量决定的问题上，斯密的这种经验主义便展现出了它的缺陷。按照斯密的见解，在前文明社会，商品交换是以生产商品的劳动量为基础的。在文明社会，商品的真实价值则“由各自所能购买或所能支配的劳动量来衡量”；劳动所得不再等于劳动产出，社会财富以工资、利润、地租三种形式进行分配。因此，斯密不仅误把地租、利润看作交换价值的来源，并把“支配的劳动量”误看作衡量实际价值的最终尺度。这样，作为“内在联系”的投入劳动量决定价值，同作为“表面联系”劳动的交换价值便混为一谈。

Ricardian empiricism manifests itself in that he attempts, on the basis of the labor theory of value, “to directly prove the consistency of various economic categories with one another.” The inner connections of bourgeois society are not directly identical with its external connections; explaining external phenomena from inner connections requires many categories as mediations. Because Ricardo adopted a “direct” method to reveal the connection between inner connections and external phenomena, he ultimately took the surface phenomena or mediations that needed to be explained as given premises. For example, he regarded the movement of reducing “market price” to “natural price” as the movement of reducing “commodity price” to “commodity value.” Here, on the one hand, Ricardo directly understands “natural price” as the “commodity price” determined by commodity value; on the other hand, he takes average profit as a premise within “natural price,” effectively making it into “price of production.” Furthermore, he bypasses the process of value transforming into market value within the same sphere of production; he directly discusses the movement of market values in different spheres of production averaging into prices of production. He completely confuses the process of reducing commodity prices to commodity values, market prices to market values, and market values averaging into prices of production. Due to the defect in Ricardo’s methodology, the narration from essential relations to economic phenomena ultimately leads to the confusion of essence and appearance.

李嘉图型经验主义表现为，他企图站在劳动价值论的基础上，“直接证明各种经济范畴相互一致”。资产阶级社会的内在联系与外部联系并非直接同一的；从内在联系阐明外在现象需要诸多范畴作为中介。由于李嘉图采用了“直接”的方式来揭示内在联系与外在现象的关联，最终把有待说明的表面现象或中介作为前提接受下来。如他把“市场价格”还原为“自然价格”的运动看成了“商品价格”还原为“商品价值”的运动。在这里，李嘉图一方面将“自然价格”直接理解为商品价值决定的“商品价格”；另一方面把平均利润作为前提放入“自然价格”之内，将它实际上做成了“生产价格”。进而，他绕开了在相同生产领域价值转化为市场价值的过程；直接讨论了不同生产领域市场价值平均化为生产价格的运动。他把商品价格还原为商品价值、市场价格还原为市场价值、市场价值平均化为生产价格的过程，全然地混为一谈。从本质关系到经济现象的叙述，由于李嘉图方法论的缺陷，最终导致本质和表象的混淆。

The empiricism of vulgar economics manifests itself in that it develops Smith’s description of the surface phenomena of capitalist society and merely stops at these descriptions. If Ricardo attempted to directly explain forms of appearance from inner relations, vulgar economics directly takes the economic forms of appearance as inner relations. Vulgar economists favor using capital–interest to express the valorization of capital, because this formula obscures the real connection between capital and profit, thereby concealing the inner relation between capital and surplus value. The valorization of capital is ultimately attributed to the role of the material form of capital. “Vulgar economics does not reveal the inner connection of things, but arrogantly asserts that things are not as they appear from the phenomena”; ultimately, it reduces the social relations that need to be explained to material entities. In vulgar economics, the empiricist error of economics reaches its peak.

庸俗经济学经验主义表现在，它发挥了斯密对资本主义社会表象的描述，并仅仅停留在这些描述上。假如说，李嘉图试图从内在关系直接解释表现形式，庸俗经济学则直接把经济的表现形式当作内在关系。庸俗经济学家偏爱用资本—利息来表达资本增殖，因为该公式掩盖了资本同利润的现实关联，进而遮蔽了资本同剩余价值的内在关系。资本的增殖，最终归结为资本物质形态的作用。“庸俗经济学家不去揭示事物的内部联系，却傲慢地断言事物从现象上看不是这样”；最终，它将有待说明的社会关系归结为物质实体。在庸俗经济学那里，经济学的经验主义谬误达到了顶点。

The establishment of “concept” thinking in the critique of political economy

“概念”思维在政治经济学批判中的确立

The reason Marx was able to see through the empiricist errors of political economy is that he adopted “concept” (*Begriff*) thinking. The “concept” thinking of the critique of political economy is an achievement that Marx inherited from Hegelian philosophy and transformed on the basis of historical materialism.

马克思之所以能够洞穿政治经济学的经验主义谬误，是因为他采取了“概念”（Begriff）思维。政治经济学批判的“概念”思维，是马克思从黑格尔哲学承接，在唯物史观的基础上加以改造的成果。

In Hegelian philosophy, “concept” has a unique connotation. First, “concept” can be seen as the subjective form of thinking. Admittedly, Hegel opposes the understanding’s logic of merely regarding concepts as subjective forms of thinking; but subjectivity indeed constitutes an inner moment of the concept. That the concept is an element of thinking, a form of thinking, is also confirmed in Hegel. However, “concept” in Hegel is not merely a form of subjective thinking. “When thought attempts to form a concept of a thing, this concept cannot be composed of determinations and relations that are foreign to the thing and external to it”; as objective thought, the concept is also the expression of the essence of things. Therefore, “concept” contains the unity of subjectivity and objectivity. Finally, the truth (*Wahrheit*) of a thing depends on whether that thing corresponds to its own concept. Hegel points out: “Bad and untrue things exist only because their actuality still corresponds in some way to their concept.” Thus, Hegel’s “concept” contains at least three layers of meaning: first, the concept is the subjective form and element of thinking; second, this concept inherently contains the essentiality of the thing, and is therefore objective thought; finally, the concept grasps the essentiality of the thing, constituting the inner ground of the truth of the thing.

在黑格尔哲学中，“概念”具有独特的内涵。首先，“概念”可以被看作思维的主观形式。诚然，黑格尔反对知性逻辑将概念单纯看作思维的主观形式；但主观性确乎构成了概念的内在环节。概念是思维要素、思维形式，在黑格尔那里同样是得以确证的。然而，“概念”在黑格尔那里又不只是主观思维的形式。“在思想试图对事物造成一个概念时，这个概念不是能由那些对事物陌生的、在事物之外的规定和关系构成的”；作为客观思想的概念亦是事物本质的表达。所以，“概念”便包含了主观性与客观性的统一。最后，事物的真理性（Wahrheit）取决于该事物是否符合自身的概念。黑格尔指出：“坏的和不真的东西之所以存在，也仅仅是因为它的实在性还以某种方式符合于它的概念。”所以，黑格尔的“概念”至少包含三层内涵：首先，概念是思维的主观形式和要素；其次，这种概念内在地包含事物的本质性，因而是客观思想；最后，概念把握到了事物的本质性，构成事物真理性的内在根据。

However, Hegel’s determination of the “concept” is set against the background of absolute idealism. Absolute spirit provides the transcendental guarantee for the unity of subjectivity and objectivity within the concept. After Marx accepted Hegel’s “conceptual” thinking, he gradually transformed it into a materialist theoretical category. For Marx, “the ideal is nothing other than the material world reflected in the human mind and translated into forms of thought.” Marx’s transformation of Hegel’s “concept” was accomplished through Feuerbach’s philosophy of “sensuousness.” Feuerbach held that sensuous things precede universals or essences; material existence precedes thought and the concept. On this point, Marx and Feuerbach are in agreement. But unlike Feuerbach’s “intuition,” Marx incorporated consciousness into the category of social consciousness. The determining role of social being over social consciousness can no longer be grasped in the sense of a “theory of reflection.” Individual consciousness is itself social consciousness, and social consciousness is in turn the self-reflection of social being through many mediations. It is in this sense that people “create the corresponding principles, ideas, and categories in accordance with their social relations”; theoretical categories reflect “forms of determinate being” and “determinations of existence.”

不过，黑格尔的“概念”规定，是以绝对唯心论为背景的。绝对精神为概念内部主观性与客观性的统一提供了先验保证。马克思接纳黑格尔的“概念”思维后，逐渐将之改造成了唯物主义的理论范畴。在马克思那里，“理念的东西（das Ideele）无非是移入人脑并在人脑中被改造过的物质的东西”。马克思对黑格尔“概念”的改造，是通过费尔巴哈的“感性”哲学完成的。费尔巴哈认为，感性的事物先于共相或本质；物质的存在先于思维和概念。就这一点而言，马克思与费尔巴哈是一致的。但不同于费尔巴哈的“直观”，马克思把意识纳入了社会意识的范畴。社会存在对社会意识的决定作用完全不能再从“反映论”的意义上加以把握。个人意识本身是社会意识，而社会意识又是社会存在经由许多中介的自我反映。正是在这个意义上，人们“按照自己的社会关系创造了相应的原理、观念和范畴”；理论范畴才反映“定在形式”“实存规定”。

On the foundation of materialism, Marx established “conceptual” thinking for the critique of political economy. In Marx’s writings, categories and concepts are sometimes used interchangeably. But the “concept” has a particularity: it marks a type of category that grasps the essential determinations of social relations. Only on the basis of the “concept” can the old economic categories be scientifically criticized. When we examine Marx’s “concept,” we can discern its Hegelian origins. Marx points out that capital is “the basic concept of modern economics, just as capital itself—whose abstract reflection is its concept—is the foundation of bourgeois society.” On the one hand, the concept is a subjective form of thought, i.e., an “abstract reflection”; on the other hand, the concept must be a social relation that occupies an essential position. The concept grasps and understands social relations in a “pure” and “immanent” manner. By “pure” is meant that the determination of the concept excludes all contingent factors; by “immanent” is meant that the content of the concept constitutes the inner ground of things. Like Hegel, Marx also holds that when a thing attains its own concept, it assumes its most appropriate form, i.e., a form that corresponds to its own inner determination.

在唯物论的基地上，马克思为政治经济学批判确立了“概念”思维。在马克思的行文中，范畴、概念有时会被混淆使用。但“概念”具有特殊性，它标志着把握社会关系本质规定的一类范畴。以“概念”为基础，才能对旧有的经济学范畴予以科学批判。当我们透视马克思的“概念”时，便能够洞悉到它的黑格尔渊源。马克思指出，资本是“现代经济学的基本概念，正如资本本身——它的抽象反映就是它的概念——是资产阶级社会的基础一样”。一方面，概念是主观的思维形式，即“抽象反映”；另一方面，概念务必是占有本质性地位的社会关系。概念以“纯粹性”和“内在性”的方式把握、理解社会关系。所谓纯粹性，意指概念的规定排除了一切偶然因素；所谓内在性，意指概念的内容构成了事物的内在根据。与黑格尔一样，马克思也认为当事物达到自身概念时，便采取了最适当的形式，即同自己内在规定相符合的形式。

It is in the above sense that Marx applies “conceptual” thinking to the critique of political economy: “In this general investigation, we always presuppose that the actual relations correspond to their concept, or, what is the same, that the actual relations described are only the expression of their own general type.” On this basis, Marx saw through the various political-economic categories based on empiricism. Old categories such as “wages” and “circulating capital” either failed to grasp social relations in their most appropriate form or confused the inner determination of social relations with empirical phenomena. Only by grasping the essential determination of social relations through “conceptual” thinking, passing through the necessary mediating links contained in the “concept” itself, and finally reaching the surface phenomena of society, can the critical exposition of political-economic categories be completed.

马克思正是在上述意义上将“概念”思维运用到政治经济学的批判中去：“在进行这种一般研究的时候，我们总是假定，各种现实关系是同它们的概念相符合的，或者说，所描述的各种现实关系只是表现它们自身的一般类型。”以此为基础，马克思才洞穿了以经验主义为基础的各色政治经济学范畴。诸如“工资”“流动资本”等旧有范畴，要么没有以最适当的形式把握到社会关系，要么将社会关系的内在规定同经验现象混为一谈。只有用“概念”思维对社会关系的本质规定加以把握，“经过概念”本身包含的必然中介环节，最终通达社会的表面现象，对政治经济学范畴的批判叙述才得以完成。

Web editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗