Accurately Understanding *Capital*’s Dialectical Negation of Capital

The pursuit of profit is often regarded as the nature of capital, but this understanding implies a conception of capital fetishism, as if capital’s pursuit of profit is an unobjectionable natural phenomenon. This conception hinders people from further exploring the social roots, means and measures, class contradictions, and social consequences of capital’s profit-driven nature. Regarding capital, Marx says: “Since the movement by which it adds surplus-value is its own movement, its valorization is therefore self-valorization. It acquires the occult ability to create value because it is value. It brings forth living offspring, or at least lays golden eggs.” [1]1 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Chapter 4, Section 1. But this cannot prove that Marx believed “capital can valorize.”

逐利通常被视为资本的天性，但这一认识隐含了资本拜物教的观念，似乎资本对利润的追求是一种无可厚非的自然现象。这种观念妨碍着人们继续探索资本逐利本性的社会根源、手段措施、阶级矛盾、社会后果等。关于资本，马克思说：“既然它生出剩余价值的运动是它自身的运动，它的增殖也就是自行增殖。它所以获得创造价值的奇能，是因为它是价值。它会产仔，或者说，它至少会生金蛋。”但这并不能证明马克思就认为“资本能增殖”。

In analyzing the capitalist mode of production, Marx employed the method of scientific abstraction, starting from the chaotic appearance of things, proceeding through step-by-step abstraction, gradually expanding and deepening the understanding of things, and ultimately grasping the true nature of things. This process of abstraction is carried out through several stages; the abstraction formed in the early stage of analysis only captures the most representative identifying attributes of a thing, not its more concealed and more decisive attributes. Therefore, the process of revealing deeper content is a process of negating the one-sidedness that still exists in the general abstract form of a thing. This negation is a dialectical negation, a negation of surface attributes by deeper attributes, of phenomenal attributes by essential attributes, which helps to gradually manifest the essence of a thing and bring understanding closer to the full picture of the thing in essence, achieving a scientific grasp of its attributes.

马克思在分析资本主义生产方式时，运用科学抽象的方法从事物混沌的表象入手，经过一步步抽象，逐步扩展和深化对事物的认识，最终达到对事物真实性质的把握。这个抽象过程是经历若干阶段进行的，在分析的初期阶段形成的抽象只是抓住事物最具代表性的标志属性，而非更隐蔽、更有决定意义的属性。因此，揭示更深刻内容的过程，就是对事物一般抽象形式上仍存在的片面性进行否定的过程。这种否定是辩证的否定，是深层属性对表层属性的否定、本质属性对现象属性的否定，有助于使事物的本质逐步显现、使认识在本质上接近事物的全貌，达到对事物属性的科学把握。

Below, based on Marx’s analytical process of capital in Volume I of *Capital*, I will discuss his dialectical negation of the category of capital. Starting from Part Two, capital enters Marx’s field of investigation. Capital initially appears in the form of money, as “the first form of appearance of capital,” and “every new capital, to begin with, comes on the stage, that is, on the market, in the shape of money.” [2]2 Ibid. Next, by comparing the forms of motion of capital and money, Marx reveals the difference between money as capital and money as ordinary money, thereby negating the understanding that money is capital. This negation is a dialectical negation: it negates that money is capital, but at the same time affirms the connection between capital and money—capital must adopt the form of money to move. Negating that money is capital does not mean that capital has no connection with money; this negation that contains affirmation is the manifestation of dialectical negation. So, how does money become capital? Marx points out, “The first distinction between money as money and money as capital is simply that they have different forms of circulation.” [3]3 Ibid. Thus, Marx leads the analysis to the form of motion of capital, proposing the formula of motion M—C—M’, and then reveals that the purpose and result of money’s motion as capital is to bring forth surplus-value through motion. This identifies the identifying attribute of capital—valorization—and thereby advances the concept of capital one step closer to science.

下面，笔者根据马克思在《资本论》第一卷中对资本的分析过程，谈谈他对资本范畴的辩证否定。从第二篇开始，资本进入了马克思的考察视野。资本最初以货币形式登场，是“资本的最初的表现形式”，“每一个新资本最初仍然是作为货币出现在舞台上，也就是出现在市场上”。接下来，马克思通过比较资本与货币运动形式，揭示出作为资本的货币与作为一般货币的货币的不同，由此否定了货币就是资本的认识。这个否定是辩证的否定，即否定了货币是资本，但同时又肯定了资本与货币的联系，资本要采取货币形式来运动。否定货币是资本并不意味着资本与货币没有关联，这种否定中包含着肯定，就是辩证否定的表现。那么，货币是如何成为资本的呢？马克思指出，“作为货币的货币和作为资本的货币的区别，首先只是在于它们具有不同的流通形式”。这样马克思就把分析引到资本的运动形式上，提出了G—W—G’的运动公式，进而揭示了货币作为资本运动的目的和结果是通过运动带来剩余价值。这就找到了资本的标志属性——价值增殖，进而把资本的概念向科学的方向推进了一步。

However, statements like “capital is value that brings surplus-value, capital is to valorize” and “capital is inherently profit-seeking” do not reveal the source, cause, process, or even social consequences of capital’s valorization. Therefore, “capital can valorize” cannot be taken as the final conclusion in understanding capital. After revealing in Chapter Four that capital brings forth offspring and lays golden eggs, Marx immediately points out the contradiction in the general formula of capital. This is actually a process of dialectical negation of “capital brings forth offspring and lays golden eggs,” i.e., further revealing why capital brings forth offspring and lays golden eggs, and the source of capital’s offspring and golden eggs. Thus, in Section 3 of Chapter Four, Marx points out the reason for the transformation of money into capital—the transformation of labor-power into a commodity. The direct cause of labor-power becoming a commodity is “finding free workers on the commodity market,” and “the possessor of labor-power is compelled to sell the labor-power itself, which exists only in his living body, as a commodity.” [4]4 Ibid., Chapter 4, Section 3. But regarding why free workers appear on the market, Marx only mentions that “this relation has nothing to do with natural history, nor does it have anything to do with the social relations common to all historical periods.” [5]5 Ibid. In Part Seven of Volume I, he uses a large number of historical facts to reveal the process of primitive accumulation of capital that separates laborers from the means of production. Subsequently, in Volume II, he states, “What lies behind M—C (Lp+Pm) is distribution; not distribution in the ordinary sense of distribution of means of consumption, but distribution of the elements of production themselves, where the material factors are concentrated on one side, and labor-power, separated from the material factors, is on the other.” [6]6 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume II, Chapter 1, Section 2. This is the fundamental cause of labor-power becoming a commodity, and also the ultimate cause of money transforming into capital. These analyses lay the foundation for further understanding capital and revealing the mystery of capital’s self-valorization.

但是，“资本是带来剩余价值的价值，资本就是要增殖”“资本天生就有逐利性”等并没有揭示出资本增殖的来源、原因、过程乃至社会后果。所以，不能把“资本能增殖”当成对资本认识的最终结论。马克思在第四章揭示了资本会产仔、会下金蛋后，接着指出了资本总公式的矛盾，这实际就是对“资本会产仔、会下金蛋”的辩证否定过程，即进一步揭示为什么资本会产仔、下金蛋，以及资本幼崽、金蛋的来源。因此，马克思在第四章第三节指出货币转化为资本的原因——劳动力转化为商品。劳动力转化为商品的直接原因就是“在商品市场上找到自由的工人”，“劳动力占有者不得不把只存在于他的活的身体中的劳动力本身当做商品出卖”。但关于市场上为何会出现自由的工人，马克思只提到“这种关系既不是自然史上的关系，也不是一切历史时期所共有的社会关系”。在第一卷第七篇，他用大量历史事实揭示了使劳动者与生产资料分离的资本原始积累过程。随后，他在第二卷讲道，“作为G-W（A+Pm）行为的基础的，是分配。所谓分配，不是通常意义上的消费资料的分配，而是生产要素本身的分配，其中物的因素集中在一方，劳动力则与物的因素相分离，处在另一方”。这才是劳动力转化为商品的根本原因，也是货币转化为资本的终极原因。这些分析为进一步认识资本、揭示资本自行增殖的神秘性奠定了基础。

In Chapter Five, Marx delves into the interior of the capitalist production process, revealing that it is the worker’s surplus labor that creates surplus-value, not capital’s self-valorization. In the production process, the material elements that constitute capital do not valorize at all; rather, it is labor that creates new value containing surplus-value. In Chapter Six, under the headings of constant capital and variable capital, Marx explains the role of different parts of capital in the valorization of capital value, thoroughly negating the notion that “capital can valorize,” and firmly establishing the conclusion that surplus labor creates surplus-value. The analysis in these two chapters shows that, after the production process is completed, the additional value compared with the advanced capital has nothing to do with the constant capital purchased in the preceding stage; in fact, it is not capital that is valorizing at all. In Chapter Seven, Marx further points out that variable capital is also a fixed, unchanging value; the reason it becomes “variable” capital is that this value “is replaced by the living labor-power, dead labor is replaced by living labor, a static magnitude by a fluid one, a constant by a variable.” [7]7 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Chapter 7, Section 1. And this “replacement” is precisely the effect of capitalist relations of production. “Capital can valorize” is negated by surplus labor creating surplus-value; this is a further development of the understanding of capital through negation. From this negation, it can also be seen that the statement “capital can valorize, but the valorized value is not created by capital, it is created by labor” juxtaposes concepts from different stages of understanding, committing the error that Engels criticized: “taking the place where Marx expounds as the place where Marx defines.” [8]8 Friedrich Engels, “Preface to the Third German Edition” of *Capital*, Volume I. Since it has already been clarified that value is created by labor, still insisting that “capital can valorize” is a result of the fact that, in actual life, the relations between people and between people and nature have not yet reached a clear and rational degree, and thus thought is still severely constrained by capital fetishism.

在第五章，马克思深入资本主义生产过程内部，揭示出是工人的剩余劳动创造了剩余价值，并非资本自行增殖。在生产过程中，作为资本的那些物质要素根本没有增殖，而是劳动创造了包含着剩余价值的新价值。在第六章，马克思以不变资本和可变资本为题，说明了资本的不同部分在资本价值增殖中的作用，彻底否定了“资本能增殖”的观念，牢固确立了剩余劳动创造剩余价值的结论。这两章的分析表明，生产过程结束后，与预付资本相比的额外价值，同前置中购买的不变资本毫无关系，实际上根本不是资本在增殖。在第七章，马克思进一步指出，可变资本也是固定不变的价值，之所以成为“可变”资本，是这个价值“为发挥作用的劳动力所代替，死劳动为活劳动所代替，静止量为流动量所代替，不变量为可变量所代替”。而这种“代替”正是资本主义生产关系的作用。“资本能增殖”被剩余劳动创造剩余价值所否定，这是对资本的认识在否定中的进一步发展。从这一否定也可以看出，那种“资本能增殖，但增殖的价值不是资本创造的，是劳动创造”的说法，是把认识不同阶段的概念并列起来了，犯了恩格斯所批评的“认为马克思进行阐述的地方，就是马克思要下的定义”的错误。既然已经明确了价值是劳动创造的，还依然要强调“资本能增殖”，是在实际生活中，人与人之间和人与自然之间的关系还没达到明白而合理的程度，因而思想还被资本拜物教严重束缚的结果。

In Chapters Five and Six, Marx negated the idea that “capital can valorize itself,” but what he negated was “capital as a thing can valorize itself”; he retained the attribute that capital still manifests itself as value that valorizes itself, hence it appears as a dialectical negation. In Chapter Seven, he points out, “From the standpoint of capitalist production, the entire process is the self-motion of the originally constant value that has been transformed into labor-power. The process and its result are both attributable to this value. Therefore, if the expression ‘90 pounds of variable capital, or value that valorizes itself’ seems contradictory, it merely expresses the contradiction inherent in capitalist production.” [9]9 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, Chapter 7, Section 1. The translation follows the Chinese text cited by the author. This requires further explanation of why capital appears to “valorize itself,” thereby uncovering the secret of capital’s valorization. In Chapter Five, when analyzing the labor process, Marx points out the particularity of the capitalist labor process: the capitalist labor process is the process in which the capitalist consumes labor-power. By virtue of their possession of the conditions of production and subsistence, capitalists control the labor process and its results; their means of control—means of production and means of subsistence—are the direct cause of their appropriation of surplus value. The social ideology formed under these circumstances is that “capital can valorize itself.” It can be seen that the attribute of capital’s valorization of value originates from the capitalist relations of production in the labor process (and not from any other relations of production); there is an intrinsic and essential connection between the two. Capitalist relations of production are the essence of capital, and capital is the reified existence of capitalist relations of production. Labor creates value, but it does not necessarily manifest itself as the valorization of capital. Only when capitalists, by virtue of their monopolistic possession of the conditions of production and subsistence, control the labor process and appropriate the results of labor, do the conditions of production they monopolize become capital, and the value created by labor manifests itself as the valorization of capital. It can be seen that valorization of value is not an inherent nature of capital, but a phenomenon generated under the impetus of capitalist relations of production.

马克思在第五、六章否定了“资本能增殖”，但否定的是“资本作为物能增殖”，保留了资本仍表现为自行增殖的价值这个属性，所以体现为辩证的否定。他在第七章指出，“从资本主义生产的观点来看，这全部进程是转变为劳动力的那个原来不变的价值的自行运动。过程及其结果都要归因于这个价值。因此，如果说90镑可变资本或自行增殖的价值这个说法看来是矛盾的，那么它只是表现了资本主义生产固有的矛盾”。这就要求进一步说明为什么资本会表现出“自行增殖”，由此揭开资本增殖的秘密。马克思在第五章分析劳动过程时，指出了资本主义劳动过程的特殊性：资本主义劳动过程是资本家消费劳动力的过程。资本家凭借对生产、生活条件的占有，控制了劳动过程及劳动成果，他们的控制手段——生产资料和生活资料——就是占有额外价值的直接原因。这种情况形成的社会意识形态就是“资本能增殖”。可见，资本价值增殖的属性来自劳动过程中的资本主义生产关系（而不是任何其他生产关系），二者之间有着内在的、本质的联系。资本主义生产关系是资本的本质，资本是资本主义生产关系的物化存在。劳动创造价值，但并不必然表现为资本的增殖。只有在资本家凭借对生产、生活条件的垄断占有，控制劳动过程、占有劳动成果的情况下，他们垄断的生产条件才成为资本，劳动创造的价值才表现为资本的增殖。可见，价值增殖不是资本的天性，而是资本主义生产关系推动下产生的现象。

After revealing that surplus labor creates surplus value, Marx continues to emphasize the attribute of capital’s valorization of value. For example, in Chapter Eight he states, “Capital has only one life instinct, which is to valorize itself, to create surplus value, to suck the greatest possible amount of surplus labor with its constant part, the means of production.” [10]10 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, Chapter 8, Section 1. The translation follows the Chinese text cited by the author. But here, this instinct is spoken of after a clear understanding of the capitalist relations of exploitation. This instinct is not natural, but a property exhibited by the capitalist wage-labor relation in the movement of capital, a property of the fetishism of capital. Therefore, although Marx later continues to emphasize capital’s valorization of value and self-valorization, he is always exposing the class essence of capitalist relations of production; this does not prove that he believes there is a thing in the world called capital that is inherently meant to valorize itself and inherently capable of valorizing itself. The fetishistic consciousness of capital seeks to decouple capital from capitalist relations of production and to argue for the eternal existence of capital, but it fails to recognize Marx’s dialectical negation of the category of capital in the process of scientific abstraction.

在揭示了剩余劳动创造剩余价值以后，马克思仍不断强调资本价值增殖的属性。例如，他在第八章讲道，“资本只有一种生活本能，这就是增殖自身，创造剩余价值，用自己的不变部分即生产资料吮吸尽可能多的剩余劳动”。但这里已经是在对资本主义剥削关系有清晰认识后所说的本能。这种本能不是天然的，而是资本主义雇佣劳动关系在资本运动中表现出的性质，是资本拜物教的性质。因此，虽然马克思后来一直在强调资本价值增殖、自行增殖，但都是在揭露资本主义生产关系的阶级本质，并不证明他认为世间有一种东西叫资本，它天然就是要增殖、天然就会增殖。资本的拜物教意识想使资本与资本主义生产关系脱钩，论证资本永恒存在的努力，并没有认识到马克思在科学抽象过程中对资本范畴的辩证否定。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗