The Logical Starting Point of the Political Economy of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics Is the Primary Stage of Socialism

I. Theoretical Divergences and Their Causes

一、理论分歧及其原因

In recent years, the academic community has conducted considerable discussion on the logical starting point of the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics, with a multitude of opinions and no consensus.

近些年来，学界对中国特色社会主义政治经济学逻辑起点作了不少探讨，众说纷纭，莫衷一是。

Some have proposed that scholars use different terms for the starting point: some say the analytical starting point, others the logical starting point, still others the research starting point, and yet others the narrative starting point. [1]1 The “narrative starting point” (叙述起点) refers to the category from which a theoretical system begins its exposition, as distinct from the “research starting point” (研究起点), which is the empirical phenomenon from which investigation begins. The narrative starting point, as opposed to the research starting point, is the process of re-presenting to the reader the content we have derived from research moving from the particular to the general. This starting point should be a very simple category, one with very few determinations. The narrative starting point of the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics might also need to find a simple category with few determinations as its narrative starting point, thereby constructing our theoretical system. He also proposed that, within the system of socialist political economy, is it not also the contradiction between value and use-value, and is it not the process of abstract labor being better allocated as concrete labor? This is the narrative starting point; starting from such a contradiction of value to construct a theoretical system can help people better understand the theoretical system of the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics.

有人提出，大家对起点的提法不一样，有的说分析起点，有的说逻辑起点，有的说研究起点，有的说叙述起点等等。与研究起点相对的叙述起点是把我们从个别到一般的研究出的内容重新展示给读者的过程。这个起点应该是一个非常简单的范畴，一个规定性非常少的范畴。中国特色社会主义政治经济学的叙述起点或许也应该找一个具有很少规定性的简单范畴作为叙述起点，从而构建起来我们的理论体系。他还提出，在社会主义政治经济学的体系下，是不是也是价值和使用价值的矛盾，是不是抽象劳动更好地配置为具体劳动的过程？这是叙述起点，从这样的价值矛盾出发构建起理论体系，能更好地让大家理解中国特色社会主义政治经济学的理论体系。

However, the reason Marx began *Capital* with a very simple category—the commodity—was to avoid “presenting the science before the science.” [2]2 This is a paraphrase of Marx’s remark in the preface to the first edition of *Capital*, Volume I, that the analysis of the commodity form avoids “presenting the science before the science.” And after *Capital* has provided a science rich in content, we no longer need to start over from a very simple category. Moreover, according to Marx’s view, socialist production does not produce commodities, so there cannot be a contradiction between value and use-value in socialist political economy, let alone the non-existent process in capitalist society of abstract labor being allocated as concrete labor. If it is said that commodities exist in today’s socialist economy with Chinese characteristics, and thus the contradiction between value and use-value needs to be expounded in the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics, then we also do not need to repeat what has already been discussed in the capitalist part of political economy; rather, we should highlight the differences between this contradiction in the socialist economy with Chinese characteristics and in the capitalist economy. Here, the first thing to be expounded is why commodities exist in the socialist economy with Chinese characteristics. Thus, we also do not agree with the view that “the logical starting point of the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics is the commodity, with the focus on analyzing the commodities produced by public enterprises.” [3]3 This is a citation from another scholar’s work, referenced in the original text. Clearly, only after explaining why the products produced by public enterprises become commodities can we further analyze these actually particular commodities.

但是，马克思在《资本论》中之所以从一个非常简单的范畴——商品说起，是为了避免“在科学之前把科学提供出来”。而在《资本论》提供了内容十分丰厚的科学之后，我们已经无须再从非常简单的范畴重头开始。而且按照马克思的观点，社会主义生产的不是商品，从而社会主义政治经济学中不可能存在价值和使用价值的矛盾，更不可能存在资本主义社会中也莫须有的抽象劳动配置为具体劳动的过程。如果说，今天的中国特色社会主义经济中存在商品，从而需要在中国特色社会主义政治经济学中阐述价值和使用价值的矛盾，那我们也无须重复政治经济学资本主义部分已经讲过的内容，而是突出这个矛盾在中国特色社会主义经济中与在资本主义经济中的不同之处。在这里，首先要阐述的是中国特色社会主义经济为什么会存在商品的问题。由此可见，我们也不赞同，“中国特色社会主义政治经济学的逻辑起点是商品，重点是分析公有企业生产的商品”[3]的观点。显然，只有在说明完公有企业生产的产品为什么会成为商品的情况下，才能进一步地对这个实际上具有特殊性的商品进行分析。

Others have proposed that “productive forces are the ultimate decisive force driving the existence and development of the entire society, and are the starting point of all political economy.” [4]4 This is a citation from another scholar’s work, referenced in the original text. This essentially negates *Capital*’s practice of taking the commodity as its logical starting point or point of departure. This view cannot hold. This is because any productive force is a productive force for producing some thing; therefore, to explain productive forces, one must first explain this thing, and must take this thing as the starting point. Engels once pointed out in *Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy* that “the first category in which trade appears is value.” [5]5 This is a reference to Engels’s early work *Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy* (1844), which influenced Marx’s own critique.63 Yet Marx still took the commodity rather than value as the logical starting point in *Capital*, also because value must be attached to the commodity.

还有人提出，“生产力是推动整个社会存在和发展的最终决定力量，是整个政治经济学的出发点。”[4]这实际上就是否定了《资本论》以商品为逻辑起点或出发点的做法。这个观点是不能成立的。这是因为，任何生产力都是生产某种物的生产力，因此，要说明生产力，必须先说明这个物，必须以这个物为起点。恩格斯曾经在《国民经济学批判大纲》中指出，“商业形成的第一个范畴就是价值。”[5]63但是马克思在《资本论》还是以商品而不是价值为逻辑起点，也是因为价值必须依附于商品。

Thus it can be seen that disregarding the achievements already made by Marxist political economy is one of the causes of the theoretical divergences concerning the logical starting point of the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics.

由此可见，漠视马克思主义政治经济学已经取得的成绩，是引起关于中国特色社会主义政治经济学逻辑起点理论分歧的原因之一。

Some believe that the research starting point of socialist political economy is economic resources. Their reasoning is that the core of a market economy is the study of the allocation of economic resources, so economic resources will naturally become the research starting point of the theory of socialist political economy. They also believe that, from a historical perspective, the problem of allocating economic resources exists under any social formation and economic system. How to allocate economic resources in a way that effectively utilizes resources to increase human welfare is the first question economics faces and must answer.

有人认为，社会主义政治经济学的研究起点是经济资源。其理由是市场经济的核心是研究经济资源的配置问题，自然经济资源也将成为社会主义政治经济学理论的研究起点。他还认为，从历史的角度来看，任何社会形态和经济体制下都存在着经济资源的配置问题。以什么样的方式配置经济资源才能有效地利用资源以增加人类的福利，这是经济学首先面临和要回答的问题。

However, without first clarifying what economic resources are and why they are economic resources, the allocation of economic resources cannot be clearly explained. Moreover, since he acknowledges that the research starting point of the capitalist part of political economy is the commodity, he should ask himself why he does not take economic resources—something that exists in any social formation and economic system—as the research starting point of the capitalist part of political economy, but only as the research starting point of socialist political economy. If the capitalist part of political economy can take the commodity rather than economic resources as its starting point, then the socialist part of political economy naturally need not take economic resources as its starting point either. More importantly, this person, basing his argument on the views of Western economics, proposes that how to allocate economic resources to effectively utilize resources to increase human welfare is the first question economics faces and must answer. However, Marx long ago pointed out in the *Inaugural Address of the Working Men’s International Association* and in *Capital* that the British Chancellor of the Exchequer Gladstone admitted that “this intoxicating growth of wealth and power … is entirely confined to classes of property.” [6]6 This refers to a speech by British Liberal statesman William Ewart Gladstone (1809–1898), cited by Marx in the *Inaugural Address of the Working Men’s International Association* (1864) and in *Capital*, Volume I. Therefore, the so-called “effectively utilizing resources to increase human welfare” merely caters to the interests of the propertied classes and belongs to bourgeois economics. Thus it can be seen that interference from bourgeois economic doctrines is also one of the causes of the theoretical divergences.

但是，不先说清楚什么是经济资源，为什么是经济资源，也是说不清楚经济资源的配置的。而且既然他也承认政治经济学资本主义部分的研究起点是商品。那么他应当反问自己为什么没有把经济资源这个任何社会形态和经济体制都存在的东西作为政治经济学资本主义部分的研究起点，而只是作为社会主义政治经济学的研究起点。如果政治经济学资本主义部分可以不以经济资源而以商品作为起点，那么政治经济学的社会主义部分自然也可以不以经济资源为起点。更重要的问题，此人以西方经济学的观点作为依据，提出以什么样的方式配置经济资源才能有效地利用资源以增加人类的福利，是经济学首先面临和要回答的问题。但是，马克思早就在国际工人协会成立宣言和《资本论》中指出，英国财政大臣格莱斯顿承认“财富和实力这种令人陶醉的增长……完全限于有产阶级。”因此，所谓“有效地利用资源以增加人类的福利”只是迎合有产阶级的利益，属于资产阶级经济学。可见，受到资产阶级经济学说的干扰也是引起理论分歧的原因之一。

Some have proposed that “consumption needs are the starting point of the socialist part of political economy.” Their reasons are threefold: First, consumption needs are the initial, direct needs. Second, the continuous expansion and increasing satisfaction of the material and cultural needs of the masses under socialism are the purpose and motive of socialist production. Third, social needs have decisive significance for the proportional distribution of social labor, and consumption needs play a decisive role within social needs.

有人提出，“消费需要是政治经济学社会主义部分的始点。”其理由有三：一是消费需要是始初的、直接的需要。二是社会主义下人民群众物质生活和文化生活的需要不断扩大和满足程度不断提高，是社会主义生产的目的和动机。三是社会需要对于按比例分配社会劳动具有决定意义，而消费需要在社会需要中具有决定的作用。

However, their first reason also holds for capitalist society, yet Marx did not take consumption needs as the starting point of the capitalist part of political economy, so this reason does not hold for socialist political economy either. On the contrary, it is the micro part of Western economics that begins with the consumer’s demand curve. Their second reason requires taking motive and purpose as the logical starting point, which is equally invalid for *Capital*. The purpose and motive of capitalist production is the pursuit of surplus value, but surplus value is not the logical starting point of the capitalist part of political economy. Since this does not hold for *Capital*, there is no reason for it to hold for socialist political economy either. Their third reason is more suitable for a communist society based on distribution according to need, but for a socialist society implementing distribution according to labor, it is not yet sufficient to serve as the starting point of its political economy. For a socialist society that must greatly develop productive forces in order to move toward communism, the production of means of production, rather than means of consumption, is more important. Of course, this view was put forward not long after reform and opening up, [7]7 “Reform and opening up” (改革开放) refers to the series of economic and social reforms initiated by the CPC under Deng Xiaoping starting in 1978, which transitioned China from a planned economy to a more market-oriented one. related to the improper proportions among agriculture, light industry, and heavy industry in China’s industrial layout at the time and the shortage of consumer goods in people’s lives, but it should not be overlooked that what reform and opening up emphasized was taking economic construction as the center, not taking the satisfaction of consumption needs as the center. Thus it can be seen that a one-sided emphasis on economic life and economic reality is also one of the causes of the theoretical divergences.

但是，其第一条理由对资本主义社会也成立，而马克思并没有因此把消费需要作为政治经济学资本主义部分的起点，那么这个理由对社会主义政治经济学也不成立。相反地，倒是西方经济学微观部分是以消费者的需求曲线为起点的。其第二条理由要求把动机和目的作为逻辑起点，这一点对《资本论》同样不成立。资本主义生产的目的和动机是追逐剩余价值，但剩余价值并不是政治经济学资本主义部分的逻辑起点。既然这一点对《资本论》不成立，也没有理由对社会主义政治经济学成立。其第三条理由对于按需分配的共产主义社会更合适，但对于实行按劳分配的社会主义社会还不足以成为其政治经济学的起点。对于要极大地发展生产力以便走向共产主义的社会主义社会来说，生产资料而不是消费资料的生产更为重要。当然，这个观点是在改革开放不久的时候提出的，与当时我国经济生活中产业布局的农轻重比例不当、人民的生活消费品短缺有关，但不应当忽视改革开放时强调的是以经济建设为中心，而不是以满足消费需要为中心。可见，对经济生活和经济现实的片面看重也是引起理论分歧的原因之一。

The fourth reason for theoretical divergence is that some people only consider the issue of the logical starting point in isolation, without examining the logical starting point in conjunction with the logical main line that unfolds from it. Consequently, their logical starting point cannot be developed and is beset with difficulties, thus failing to qualify as a starting point. For example, some argue that the Party’s leadership determines the development trend of the relations of production in the primary stage of socialism and the correct direction of socialist modernization. Therefore, the Party’s leadership, as a key element in the formation and development of the socialist economic system with Chinese characteristics, must be the logical starting point for studying this economic system. However, the former Soviet Union also had Party leadership, yet its Soviet-model socialist economy collapsed. In fact, for the Party to lead economic work well, it must master economic laws, and thus must proceed from economic factors rather than political factors. This is also an inevitable requirement of historical materialism. Of course, we can draw conclusions through the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics to demonstrate that the Party’s leadership is indispensable, after all, a main feature of the socialist economy is that it is an organized economy, which cannot do without organizers and leaders. But if we start from the perspective of the Party’s leadership, which belongs to the superstructure, there is no logical main line to deduce the economic base and economic laws of socialism with Chinese characteristics, and the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics cannot be unfolded.

造成理论分歧的第四个原因是，一些人只是孤立地考虑了逻辑起点问题，而没有把逻辑起点与从这个起点展开的逻辑主线联合起来考察，从而其逻辑起点无法展开、举步维艰，也就不成其为起点了。例如，有人认为，党的领导决定着社会主义初级阶段生产关系的发展趋势，以及社会主义现代化的正确方向，因此，党的领导作为中国特色社会主义经济制度形成和发展的关键要素，必然是研究这种经济制度的逻辑起点。但是，前苏联也有党的领导，那里的苏联模式社会主义经济却崩盘了。事实上，党要领导好经济工作，必须掌握经济规律，从而必须从经济要素而不是政治要素出发，这也是唯物史观的必然要求。当然，我们可以通过中国特色社会主义政治经济学得出结论来表明党的领导是不可或缺的，毕竟社会主义经济的主要特征是有组织的经济，离不开组织者和领导者。但是，如果从党的领导这个上层建筑的角度出发，却没有逻辑主线来推导中国特色社会主义的经济基础和经济规律，无法展开中国特色社会主义政治经济学。

Another example: some argue that the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics, on the one hand, reveals the general laws of an open economy under conditions of the market economy, large-scale socialized production, and economic globalization; on the other hand, it also reveals the special laws of motion of the Chinese economy in the primary stage of socialism. They propose that the exploration of upholding and improving the basic socialist economic system should serve as the logical starting point of the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics. However, starting from upholding and improving the basic socialist economic system, can a logical main line be formed to deduce the general laws of an open economy under conditions of the market economy, large-scale socialized production, and economic globalization? If it cannot be deduced, then either the basic socialist economic system cannot be taken as the logical starting point, or the general laws of an open economy under conditions of the market economy, large-scale socialized production, and economic globalization are not the research content of the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics. In fact, the logical starting points discussed by some people are merely the starting points for queuing up various viewpoints and contents in a list, rather than logical starting points that connect these contents through a logical main line.

再例如，有人认为，中国特色社会主义政治经济学，一方面揭示市场经济、社会化大生产和经济全球化条件下开放经济的一般规律；另一方面也揭示处于社会主义初级阶段的中国经济的特殊运动规律。应以坚持和完善社会主义基本经济制度的探索作为中国特色社会主义政治经济学逻辑起点。但是，从坚持和完善社会主义基本经济制度出发，能否形成逻辑主线推导出市场经济、社会化大生产和经济全球化条件下开放经济的一般规律呢？如果推导不出，那就要么不能以坚持和完善社会主义基本经济制度为逻辑起点，要么市场经济、社会化大生产和经济全球化条件下开放经济的一般规律不是中国特色社会主义政治经济学的研究内容。事实上，一些人论述的逻辑起点只是罗列各种观点和内容的排队起点，而不是把这些内容通过逻辑主线串连起来的逻辑起点。

General Secretary Xi Jinping points out, “Socialism with Chinese characteristics is socialism,

习近平总书记指出，“中国特色社会主义是社会主义而不是其他什么主义，科学社会主义基本原则不能丢，丢了就不是社会主义。”因此，中国特色社会主义政治经济学必须从属于社会主义政治经济学，其逻辑起点的设定必须以后者的全部内容为基础，同时参考已经被后者作为基础的政治经济学资本主义部分的内容。

II. The Logical Starting Point of Socialist Political Economy

二、社会主义政治经济学的逻辑起点

Marx pointed out, "The anatomy of man is a key to the anatomy of the ape. On the other hand, the intimations of higher development among the subordinate animal species can be understood only after the higher development is already known. Therefore, the bourgeois economy provides the key to the ancient economy, etc." Similarly, if we compare the socialist economy to the human body, then the economy of the primary stage of socialism is merely that of the ape or the anthropoid. Therefore, the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics must also seek the key from socialist political economy. Below we first examine the issue of the logical starting point of socialist political economy.

马克思指出，“人体解剖对于猴体解剖是一把钥匙。反过来说，低等动物身上表露的高等动物的征兆，只有在高等动物本身已被认识之后才能理解。因此，资产阶级经济为古代经济等等提供了钥匙。”同样地，如果我们把社会主义经济比作人体的话，那么社会主义初级阶段的经济也只是猴体或类人猿体。因此，中国特色社会主义政治经济学也要到社会主义政治经济学那里寻找钥匙。下面我们先来考察社会主义政治经济学逻辑起点的问题。

Some people, on the grounds that socialist commodities are an objective existence in socialist society, propose that "socialist commodities are the logical starting point for studying socialist political economy." This view aligns with the spirit of "a planned commodity economy" put forward later at the Third Plenary Session of the 12th Central Committee of the CPC. However, neither China at that time nor the Soviet Union was a typical socialist society. Basing the formulation of socialist political economy on the existence within a non-typical socialist society is fundamentally different in nature from Marx's choice of the objective existence in a typical capitalist country, namely Britain, when studying the capitalist part of political economy. Of course, some might argue that since no typical socialist society has yet emerged, does that mean socialist political economy cannot be proposed at all? No, it does not.

有人以社会主义商品是社会主义社会的客观存在为理由，提出“社会主义商品是研究社会主义政治经济学的逻辑起点。”这个观点符合后来党的十二届三中全会提出的“有计划的商品经济”的精神。但是，无论当时的中国还是苏联都不是典型的社会主义社会。以非典型的社会主义社会中的存在为依据来提出社会主义政治经济学，这种做法与马克思在研究政治经济学资本主义部分时选择典型资本主义国家即英国中的客观存在有本质的差别。当然，有人可能会提出，直到今天还没有出现典型的社会主义社会，是否就不能提社会主义政治经济学了？不是的。

In fact, Comrade Deng Xiaoping, when discussing a case where a Beijing television factory introduced a Japanese television production line, thereby increasing efficiency, and people then argued for higher bonuses, once pointed out: "If bonuses were paid according to the multiple of the increase in labor productivity, those bonuses could not be afforded. The working people, who are masters of the country, must create more profits for the state and increase the state's fiscal revenue, to be used for other areas, for expanded reproduction, for capital construction, and to further accelerate the pace of our economic development. More work should mean more pay, but the whole society must be taken into account. Taking this factory as an example, with just one production line, even within the factory itself, other workshops must also be considered." Comrade Deng Xiaoping's view reflects the principles of socialist political economy; after all, capitalists would only pocket surplus profits themselves and would not consider caring for society. Marx himself made it very clear that he sought "to discover the new world through the critique of the old world,"[2]2 This is a paraphrase of Marx’s remark in the preface to the first edition of *Capital*, Volume I, that the analysis of the commodity form avoids “presenting the science before the science.”7 and he had already achieved this in his critique of political economy. Therefore, we can fully expound socialist political economy based on Marx's discoveries.

事实上，邓小平同志在谈到北京一个电视机厂因为引进了一条日本的电视机生产线提高了效率而人们就议论要多得奖金时曾经指出，“如果按照它的劳动生产率的增长倍数来发奖金，那个奖金就发不起。当家作主的劳动人民，不能不给国家创造更多的利润，增加国家的财政收入，来用之于其他方面，用之于扩大再生产，用之于基本建设，进一步加快我们发展经济的速度。多劳应该多得，但是必须照顾整个社会。就这个厂的例子说，只是一条生产线，在本厂也要考虑别的车间。”邓小平同志的这个观点，反映的就是社会主义政治经济学的原理，毕竟资本家只会把超额利润装入自己的腰包，不会考虑照顾社会的问题。马克思本人讲的很清楚，他要“通过批判旧世界发现新世界”[2]7，而且他已经在自己的政治经济学批判中做到了这一点。所以，我们完全可以根据马克思的发现来阐述社会主义政治经济学。

Some believe that the socialist part of political economy should follow on from the capitalist part's content on the objective necessity of abolishing private ownership, elaborating on the historical trend of realizing public ownership and its superiority, briefly introducing the process of establishing public ownership rights worldwide, and at the same time mentioning the historical, actual, and possible forms of socialist public ownership rights. Mao Zedong affirmed the approach of the Soviet textbook on socialist political economy, which began writing from the transformation of ownership. If socialist political economy does not take the establishment of socialist public ownership as its starting point but instead attempts to establish some special academic theoretical system, it risks descending into scholasticism and dogmatism. He also believed that the categories and phenomena of the socialist economy are all based on and premised upon public ownership. If the system of socialist political economy does not begin with the common possession of the means of production, it would be difficult to smoothly and scientifically reveal the true theoretical essence of socialist political economy. However, he simultaneously believed that Marx's analysis of capitalist relations of production in *Capital* essentially also started with (capital) ownership, which shows that he did not fully understand *Capital*, unaware that Marx's analysis of capitalist relations of production in *Capital* begins with labor power becoming a commodity. This also indicates that his assertion that public ownership of the means of production is the natural starting point for both socialist political economy and the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics is based on his own inappropriate view of *Capital*, and thus the theoretical basis for this assertion is insufficient. Nevertheless, his view that the socialist part of political economy should follow on from the capitalist part is correct. If the capitalist part of political economy needs to expound science from the very beginning, starting from the most basic elements, then the socialist part of political economy, or socialist political economy, already has a deeper foundation built upon the capitalist part of political economy and does not need to start from scratch.

有人认为，政治经济学社会主义部分应接续政治经济学资本主义部分关于消灭私有制客观要求的内容，阐述实现公有制的历史趋势和公有制的优越性，简要介绍世界范围内公有权所有制的建立过程，同时提及社会主义公有权历史的、现实的及可能的形式。毛泽东就肯定苏联政治经济学教科书社会主义部分从所有制变革开始写起的做法。社会主义政治经济学如果不以社会主义公有制建立为起点而试图建立某种特殊的学术理论体系，则有走向烦琐哲学和经院哲学之虞。他还认为，社会主义经济的范畴和现象，都以公有制为基础和前提。社会主义政治经济学体系如果不以生产资料的共同占有为开端，就很难顺畅科学地展现社会主义政治经济学的理论真谛。但他同时认为，《资本论》对资本主义生产关系的分析，本质上也是以（资本）所有权为起点，却表明他没有看懂《资本论》，不知道《资本论》对资本主义生产关系的分析是从劳动力成为商品开始的，从而也表明，他把生产资料公有权作为社会主义政治经济学和中国特色社会主义政治经济学的当然起点的论断，是以他自己对《资本论》的不恰当的看法为依托的，从而这一论断的理论依据不足。但是，他认为政治经济学社会主义部分应接续政治经济学资本主义部分的看法是正确的。如果说，政治经济学资本主义部分需要从头开始阐述科学，必须从最基本的东西开始，那么政治经济学社会主义部分或社会主义政治经济学已经有了更深厚的建立在政治经济学资本主义部分上的基础，无须从头开始。

Some oppose taking ownership relations as the starting point for the socialist part of political economy, arguing that this “would involve different forms of distribution according to work, commodity production, commodity exchange, and different modes of planned management, etc., thereby bringing many categories yet to be analyzed all at once to the starting point in order to explain the issue of ownership. This leads to obvious logical confusion.” However, on the one hand, distribution according to work and planned management both presuppose public ownership; bringing distribution according to work and planned management to the starting point of the issue of ownership rather than to its endpoint is itself a manifestation of logical confusion. On the other hand, commodity production and commodity exchange have already been analyzed in the capitalist part of political economy. If the political economy of a socialist society, as a higher form, still needs to address them, it is only to explore why these things continue to exist on the basis of public ownership and how their forms differ from or resemble those under the capitalist system. Thus, it remains possible to consider ownership relations as the starting point for the socialist part of political economy.

有人反对把所有制作为政治经济学社会主义部分起点，认为这“要涉及到按劳分配的不同形式，商品生产、商品交换以及计划管理的不同方式等等；以致把许多有待分析的范畴一下都提到开端上来，用以说明所有制的问题。这样就导致了逻辑上的明显混乱”。但是，一方面按劳分配和计划管理都是以公有制为前提的，把按劳分配和计划管理提到所有制问题的开端而不是终端才是逻辑混乱的表现；另一方面，商品生产和商品交换已经在政治经济学资本主义部分中分析过了，作为更高形态的社会主义社会的政治经济学如果还要涉及它们，那也只是探讨这些东西为什么会在公有制的基础上继续存在，它们与其在资本主义制度下的形态有何异同，从而仍然可以考虑把所有制作为政治经济学社会主义部分的起点。

Some propose that “the quota is the economic cell of socialism and can serve as the starting point for the socialist part of political economy.” This effectively takes planning as the starting point of socialist political economy, since quotas are a product of planning. This likewise suffers from the problem they themselves raise, namely that “bringing many categories yet to be analyzed, such as different modes of planned management, all at once to the starting point leads to obvious logical confusion.” Moreover, why do quotas arise? Should not the reason for the emergence of quotas be even more worthy of being the logical starting point?

有人提出，“定额是社会主义的经济细胞，可以作为政治经济学社会主义部分的起点。”这实际上是把计划作为社会主义政治经济学的起点，毕竟定额是计划的产物。这同样存在他们所说的把计划管理的不同方式等等许多有待分析的范畴一下都提到开端上来“导致了逻辑上的明显混乱”的问题。而且为什么会出现定额呢？这个产生定额的原因难道不是更加应该成为逻辑起点吗？

Some argue that the central category of the socialist political economy system should be the category of funds, on the grounds that under conditions of modernized production, the means of production are mainly constituted by objectified labor rather than by natural factors. At the same time, associated labor is the historical premise and logical premise of the socialist category of funds, and is the logical starting point of socialist funds. The logical sequence of development in socialist political economy should be: socialist associated labor, socialist commodity production, socialist funds, socialist land ownership, etc. Therefore, associated labor is the logical starting point, the germ of contradiction, and the essential abstraction of socialist political economy.

有人认为，社会主义政治经济学体系的中心范畴应当是资金范畴，其理由是，在现代化生产条件下，生产资料主要是由物化劳动而不是由自然因素所构成。同时联合劳动是社会主义资金范畴的历史前提、逻辑前提，是社会主义资金的逻辑起点。社会主义政治经济学的逻辑发展顺序应该是社会主义联合劳动、社会主义商品生产、社会主义资金、社会主义土地所有制等。因此，联合劳动是社会主义政治经济学的逻辑起点、矛盾萌芽与本质抽象。

However, funds themselves cannot be used for production; they are not objects of labor or materials of labor, and associated labor itself cannot be separated from the means of production. Therefore, if associated labor is taken as the starting point, it is necessary to analyze in advance how associated labor is possible and necessary, and to explain in advance where the means of production for associated labor come from. Thus, even if associated labor is the starting point, it must simultaneously take as its starting point the associated possession of the means of production indispensable to the labor process. Moreover, it is impossible to logically deduce commodity production from associated labor. In fact, commodity production has never been a theoretical category of Marx’s for the socialist economy; it is only a category of the primary stage of socialism or the transitional period of socialism, and does not belong to socialist political economy.

但是，资金本身不能用于生产，不是劳动对象和劳动材料，而联合劳动本身离不开生产资料。所以，如果以联合劳动为起点，那么就必须事先分析联合劳动何以可能，何以必要，事先说明联合劳动的生产资料从何而来。从而联合劳动即便是起点，它也必须同时以劳动过程所不可或缺的生产资料的联合占有为起点。而且要从逻辑上由联合劳动推导出商品生产也是不可能的。事实上，商品生产从来就不是马克思关于社会主义经济的理论范畴，它只是社会主义初级阶段或社会主义过渡时期的范畴，不属于社会主义政治经济学。

Some argue that the starting category of socialist political economy should be the socially organized commodity, that is, a commodity under the unified organization and management of a social center such as the state. Their reasoning is that communism is a complete product economy, while capitalism is a complete commodity economy. To complete this transformation, an intermediate form is also needed. Of course, this transformation cannot be completed in a single day; it requires a long historical process, a stage in which productive forces and relations of production develop together, and this is the stage of the socially organized commodity.[18] If this is the case, then this intermediate transitional form itself should become the logical starting point, explaining how it differs from communism and capitalism. Only after this explanation can we use the term “socially organized commodity,” rather than using the term “commodity” in a general sense, in order to explain why a social center must uniformly organize and manage commodities, rather than allowing the market to freely organize and manage them. In reality, communism is not only a complete product economy but also an economy of distribution according to need. Socialism, as its earlier stage, implements a planned economy of distribution according to work, which does not include commodity production, let alone the socially organized commodity. The implementation of the socially organized commodity, i.e., the implementation of a planned commodity economy, is a matter for the primary stage of socialism.

有人认为，社会主义政治经济学的起点范畴应是社会组织商品，也就是在一个社会中心如国家统一组织管理下的商品。其理由是，共产主义是一个完全的产品经济，资本主义是一个完全的商品经济。为了完成这一转化同样需要一个中间形式。当然它不可能在一天之内完成这种转变，需要一个漫长的历史过程，需要一个生产力和生产关系共同发展的阶段，这就是社会组织商品的阶段。[18]如果是这样，那么这个中间的过渡形式本身应当成为逻辑的起点，说明它与共产主义和资本主义的不同，在这个说明之后，我们才能使用“社会组织商品”这个词，而不是一般地使用商品这个词，以便说明为什么要由一个社会中心来统一组织管理商品，而不是由市场自由组织管理商品。实际上，共产主义不仅是一个完全的产品经济，而且是按需分配的经济。社会主义作为它的前期阶段实行的是按劳分配的计划经济，并不包括商品生产，也谈不上社会组织商品。进行社会组织商品即实行有计划的商品经济的是社会主义初级阶段的事情。

In fact, Marx in *Capital* has already told us what the logical starting point of socialist political economy should be. There, Marx writes: “Capitalist production begets, with the inexorability of a natural process, its own negation. This is the negation of the negation. This does not re-establish private property, but it does indeed establish individual property on the basis of the achievements of the capitalist era: i.e., on the basis of cooperation and the common possession of the land and of the means of production produced by labor itself.” This means that “cooperation and the common possession of the land and of the means of production produced by labor itself,” or associated labor based on public ownership of the means of production, is the logical starting point of socialist political economy, and the logical main line extending from it is the re-establishment of individual property. The result, that is, the re-established individual property, will become the logical starting point of communist political economy.

实际上，马克思在《资本论》中已经告诉了我们社会主义政治经济学的逻辑起点应当是什么。在那里，马克思写道：“资本主义生产由于自然过程的必然性，造成了对自身的否定。这是否定的否定。这种否定不是重新建立私有制，而是在资本主义时代的成就的基础上，也就是说，在协作和对土地及靠劳动本身生产的生产资料的共同占有的基础上，重新建立个人所有制。”这也就是说，“协作和对土地及靠劳动本身生产的生产资料的共同占有”或者说建立在生产资料公有制之上的联合劳动是社会主义政治经济学的逻辑起点，延伸出去的逻辑主线是重新建立个人所有制。其结果也就是重新建立起来的个人所有制将成为共产主义政治经济学的逻辑起点。

Because a typical socialist economic form is still lacking to this day, we are not yet able to follow historical materialism to establish a complete socialist political economy. However, we are able, on the basis of the scientific critique of capitalism, to judge the core content or core viewpoints of socialist political economy. Based on these viewpoints or contents, together with the historical experience of socialist construction in the former Soviet Union, especially the Soviet Russian period, and the practice of socialist construction and reform and opening up in New China, we already possess sufficient scientific theory and practical experience to establish the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics, and to expound its logical starting point and logical main line.

由于直到今天还缺乏典型的社会主义经济形态，因此，我们还无法遵循历史唯物主义建立起完善的社会主义政治经济学，但是，我们能够根据对资本主义的科学批判，判断出社会主义政治经济学的核心内容或核心观点。根据这些观点或内容，加上前苏联尤其是苏维埃俄国时期的社会主义建设的历史经验和新中国的社会主义建设和改革开放的实践，我们已经拥有足够的科学理论与实践经验来建立起中国特色社会主义政治经济学，阐述其逻辑起点和逻辑主线。

III. The Logical Starting Point of the Political Economy of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics

三、中国特色社会主义政治经济学的逻辑起点

Some propose that the theoretical logic of economics must be summarized from practice and history, and that the theoretical system of socialism with Chinese characteristics should take the summarization of the earliest practice of socialism as its logical starting point. However, on the one hand, we do not create theory out of nothing, nor can we only grope for theory from practice; we already possess the scientific economic theory expounded in *Capital*. Therefore, we are not, or not merely, to summarize the earliest practice of socialism, but to scientifically analyze this practice. On the other hand, summarizing practical experience is the starting point of research, not the logical starting point for unfolding and narrating the results of that summarization along the logical main line.

有人提出，经济学的学理逻辑要从实践和历史中总结出来，中国特色社会主义的理论体系应当从总结社会主义的最初实践作为逻辑起点。但是，一方面，我们不是无中生有地创造理论，不是只能从实践中把理论摸索出来，而是已经拥有了《资本论》中所阐述的科学的经济学理论。因此，我们不是要或者不是仅仅要总结社会主义的最初实践，而是要科学地分析这个实践。另一方面，总结实践经验是研究的起点，而是在总结之后将总结成果按逻辑主线展开来叙述的逻辑起点。

More importantly, although China had just entered the primary stage of socialism in the mid-1950s, the country’s initial practice was carried out according to a model of a more developed socialism not corresponding to the primary stage. For example, Mao Zedong pointed out in 1952 that “after the overthrow of the landlord class and the bureaucratic bourgeoisie, the principal contradiction within China is the contradiction between the working class and the national bourgeoisie; therefore the national bourgeoisie should no longer be referred to as the intermediate class.” [10]10 Mao Zedong, “Contradictions of the Working Class and the National Bourgeoisie Are the Principal Contradiction within the Country” (June 6, 1952), in *Selected Works of Mao Zedong*, vol. 5. Yet what was the level of China’s productive forces at that time? Mao Zedong noted in 1954: “What can we make now? We can make tables and chairs, we can make teacups and teapots, we can grow grain, we can grind flour into noodles, and we can make paper, but we cannot make a single automobile, a single airplane, a single tank, or a single tractor.” [11]11 Mao Zedong, “On the Draft Constitution of the People’s Republic of China” (June 14, 1954), in *Selected Works of Mao Zedong*, vol. 5. This situation in New China was very similar to that in Soviet Russia more than three years after the victory of the October Revolution. Lenin analyzed the various socioeconomic structural components of Russia at that time in accordance with the principles of Marxist political economy, pointing out that “in a small-peasant country, the petty-bourgeois spontaneous forces predominate and cannot but predominate, because the majority, even the overwhelming majority, of the cultivators are small commodity producers.” [12]12 V. I. Lenin, “The Tax in Kind” (April 21, 1921), in *Collected Works*, vol. 32. Consequently, the main manifestation of economic struggle “is not state capitalism versus socialism, but the petty bourgeoisie plus private capitalism combined against both state capitalism and socialism.” [13]13 Ibid. On this, Lenin further stated: “Compared with socialism, capitalism is an evil. But compared with the medieval system, with small production, with the bureaucracy arising from the dispersion of small producers, capitalism is a boon. Since we cannot yet achieve a direct transition from small production to socialism, capitalism—as the spontaneous product of small production and exchange—is to a certain extent inevitable, and we should therefore utilize capitalism (especially by channeling it into the orbit of state capitalism) as the intermediate link between small production and socialism, as a means, a path, a method, and a way of raising the productive forces.” [14]14 Ibid. It can thus be seen that Comrade Mao Zedong’s early elevation of the principal contradiction of New China to the contradiction between the working class and the national bourgeoisie did not grasp but rather departed from the national conditions of the primary stage of socialism. Consequently, when examining the practice of that period, one must pay attention to drawing lessons, and the element of analysis should outweigh that of summary.

更重要的是，尽管当时即上个世纪50年代中期中国刚刚进入社会主义初级阶段，我国的最初实践却是按照非初级阶段的较发达的社会主义模式来进行的。例如，毛泽东在1952年指出，“在打倒地主阶级和官僚资产阶级以后，中国内部的主要矛盾即是工人阶级与民族资产阶级的矛盾，故不应再将民族资产阶级称为中间阶级。”而当时中国的生产力水平是什么样的呢？毛泽东于1954年指出：“现在我们能造什么？能造桌子椅子，能造茶碗茶壶，能种粮食，还能磨成面粉，还能造纸，但是，一辆汽车、一架飞机、一辆坦克、一辆拖拉机都不能造。”新中国的这个情况，与十月革命胜利三年多之后的苏维埃俄国的情况是很像的。列宁对当时俄国的各种社会经济结构成分进行了符合马克思主义政治经济学原理的分析，指出“在一个小农国家内，占优势而且不能不占优势的是小资产阶级自发势力，因为大多数甚至绝大多数耕作者都是小商品生产者。”从而经济斗争的主要表现“不是国家资本主义同社会主义作斗争，而是小资产阶级和私人资本主义合在一起，既同国家资本主义又同社会主义作斗争。”对此，列宁进一步指出，“同社会主义比较，资本主义是祸害。但同中世纪制度、同小生产、同小生产者涣散性引起的官僚主义比较，资本主义则是幸福。既然我们还不能实现从小生产到社会主义的直接过渡，所以作为小生产和交换的自发产物的资本主义，在一定程度上是不可避免的，所以我们应该利用资本主义（特别是要把它纳入国家资本主义的轨道）作为小生产和社会主义之间的中间环节，作为提高生产力的手段、途径、方法和方式。”由此可见，毛泽东同志早早地把新中国的主要矛盾上升到工人阶级与民族资产阶级的矛盾，不是把握了而是脱离了社会主义初级阶段的国情。从而看待那个时期的实践，必须注意吸取教训，分析的成份要大于总结的成份。

Some have proposed that “the ‘people-centered theory’ put forward by the Party Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping at its core since the 18th National Congress of the CPC [15]15 The 18th National Congress of the CPC was held in November 2012, marking the beginning of the New Era of socialism with Chinese characteristics under Xi Jinping’s leadership. constitutes a enrichment and development of Marxist political economy and serves as the logical starting point of the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics.” [4]4 This is a citation from another scholar’s work, referenced in the original text. However, after the 18th National Congress of the CPC, socialism with Chinese characteristics entered the New Era; therefore, at best this can only serve as the logical starting point of the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics for the New Era, and cannot serve as the logical starting point of the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics since reform and opening up. Secondly, although the “people-centered theory” is one of the important theories of socialism with Chinese characteristics for the New Era, taking the people as the subject or regarding the people as the subject has always been a consistent proposition of Marxism. It is not only a viewpoint of Marxist political economy but also a viewpoint of Marxist philosophy and scientific socialism. Just because it is a Marxist viewpoint and is upheld by Marxism in contemporary China and Marxism in the 21st century, it cannot be directly taken as the logical starting point of the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics; otherwise, it could also serve as the logical starting point of Marxist philosophy and of socialism with Chinese characteristics, to the point where the three component parts of Marxism would merge into a single discipline, political economy would no longer exist, and there would be no corresponding logical starting point.

有人提出，“党的十八大以来，以习近平同志为核心的党中央所提出的‘人民主体论’是对马克思主义政治经济学的丰富和发展，构成了中国特色社会主义政治经济学的逻辑起点。”[4]但是，党的十八大以后，中国特色社会主义进入了新时代，因此，充其量这只是新时代中国特色社会主义政治经济学的逻辑起点，而不能作为改革开放以来中国特色社会主义政治经济学的逻辑起点。其次，“人民主体论”虽然是新时代中国特色社会主义的重要理论之一，但是，以人民为主体或者视人民为主体却是马克思主义历来一贯的主张，它不仅是马克思主义政治经济学的观点，也是马克思主义哲学和科学社会主义的观点，不能因为它是马克思主义的观点并为当代中国的马克思主义、21世纪马克思主义所坚持，就把它直接拿来作为中国特色社会主义政治经济学的逻辑起点，否则它也可以作为马克思主义哲学的逻辑起点和中国特色社会主义的逻辑起点，以至于马克思主义三个组成部分合并成了一个学科，政治经济学不再存在，那也就没有相应的逻辑起点了。

Some believe that the “deformed commodity” of socialism should be the starting category of contemporary Chinese Marxist political economy. This person also holds that commodities have undergone three deformations so far. The first deformation is from ordinary simple commodities to capitalist commodity production; the second deformation is from capitalist commodities under many real economic conditions to financial commodities, i.e., financial derivatives; the third deformation is commodities under public ownership in the primary stage of socialism, which differ from both planned-economy commodities and capitalist commodities, being “deformed commodities” under conditions of dual coexistence. However, according to Marxist political economy, commodities possess the dual character of use-value and value, while financial commodities or financial derivatives clearly do not possess this dual character, especially since they cannot meet the needs of production and consumption; therefore, there is no question of real-economy commodities transforming into such so-called commodities, and thus no second deformation exists. As for the first deformation, although it does exist, its main significance lies in the transformation of value into price of production. Regarding the third deformation, since it mentions earlier planned-economy commodities, this deformation should belong to planned-economy commodities, and the deformation of commodities under public ownership in the primary stage of socialism can only be ranked later. Yet this person also holds that these “deformed commodities” come mainly from state-owned enterprises, private enterprises, and foreign-invested enterprises. But the commodities of private enterprises and foreign-invested enterprises are precisely commodities of a capitalist nature, belonging to the first deformation, not the third; only the commodities of state-owned enterprises are deformed from planned-economy commodities. In fact, since he speaks of deformation, it is the deformation itself, rather than the deformed commodity, that is suitable as the (logical) starting point.

有人认为，社会主义“变形的商品”应该是当代中国马克思主义政治经济学的起点范畴。他还认为，迄今为止，商品已经经历了三次变形。第一次变形是从一般的简单商品转化为资本主义商品生产；第二次变形是很多实体经济条件下的资本主义商品，转变为金融商品即金融衍生品；第三次变形是社会主义初级阶段公有制条件下的商品，不同于计划经济商品，也不同于资本主义商品，而是二元并存条件下的“变形的商品”。但是，按照马克思主义政治经济学，商品具有使用价值和价值二重性，而金融商品或金融衍生品显然不具有这种二重性，尤其是它们不能满足生产和消费的需要，因此，谈不上实体经济的商品向这种所谓的商品转变，从而不存在第二次变形。而第一次变形虽然存在，但它的主要意义在于价值转形为生产价格。至于第三次变形，既然提到此前的计划经济商品，那么这次变形应当属于计划经济商品，社会主义初级阶段公有制条件下的商品的变形只能往后排序。然而，此人又认为，这种“变形的商品”主要来自国营企业、民营企业和外资企业。但民营企业和外资企业的商品恰恰是资本主义性质的商品，属于第一次变形，而不是第三次变形，只有国营企业的商品才是从计划经济商品变形而来的。其实，既然他谈到了变形，那么这个变形本身而不是变形后的商品才适合作为（逻辑）起点。

Some propose that the purpose of the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics is to reveal the laws governing the movement of the socialist economy with Chinese characteristics, that is, a system of laws centered on promoting common prosperity for all the people. This, in turn, determines that the logical starting point of the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics must be the surplus product. The surplus product plays an extremely important role in the history of human development; it is the material condition for the development of human society—without surplus, there is no development or progress. In the primary stage of socialism with Chinese characteristics, extensive commodity-money relations exist; developing the socialist economy with Chinese characteristics and achieving common prosperity for all the people still requires the use of commodity-money relations and cannot directly use labor as the measure as Marx and Engels envisioned. There is a need for surplus products with richer content and higher quality to meet the people’s needs for a better life. However, in capitalist society, the surplus product is enjoyed by the exploiting class, while the working class enjoys only the necessary product. Improving the people’s livelihood should mean reducing the surplus product and increasing the proportion of the necessary product. Moreover, the reason the surplus product becomes the material condition for the development of human society is mainly that it can be transformed into the means of production for expanded reproduction, while production capital itself cannot directly meet the people’s needs for a better life. More importantly, the surplus product is called “surplus” precisely because it is secondary, being what remains after deducting the necessary product. Therefore, to explain the surplus product, one must first explain the necessary product. Hence, under no circumstances can the surplus product precede the necessary product as the logical starting point.

有人提出，中国特色社会主义政治经济学的目的，就是要揭示中国特色社会主义经济运动的规律，也就是以促进全体人民实现共同富裕为核心的规律体系。由此，也就决定了中国特色社会主义政治经济学的逻辑起点必然是剩余产品。剩余产品在人类发展史上具有极其重要的作用，是人类社会发展的物质条件，没有剩余就没有发展和进步。中国特色社会主义初级阶段存在着广泛的商品货币关系，发展中国特色社会主义经济，实现全体人民共同富裕还需要借助商品货币关系来实现，还不能像马克思恩格斯设想的那样直接以劳动为尺度来实现。有内容更丰富、品质更高的剩余产品以满足人民对美好生活的需要。但是，在资本主义社会里剩余产品是归剥削阶级所享有的，工人阶级所享有的只是必要产品。改善人民生活就应当减少剩余产品，提高必要产品的比重。另外，剩余产品之所以成为人类社会发展的物质条件，主要在于它能转化为扩大再生产的生产资料，而生产资本本身不能直接满足人民对美好生活的需要。更重要的是，剩余产品之所以称为“剩余”，就在于它是第二位的，是扣除了必要产品之后的东西。因此，要说明剩余产品，必须先说明必要产品。所以，无论如何剩余产品不能抢在必要产品之前成为逻辑起点。

Some believe that the national conditions of the primary stage determine that the starting point of the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics remains capital, except that here capital includes both public capital and private capital; the theoretical foundation must be the labor theory of value, and the theoretical narrative must begin with the commodity, the bearer of value. Otherwise, adhering to the labor theory of value, understanding the economic interest relations in the primary stage of socialism, and revealing the system of economic categories and economic laws in the primary stage of socialism would lose their materialist foundation, and it would be impossible to use a dialectical logical system to deduce the theoretical system. [24] However, if one begins the logical system with the commodity, does this mean repeating *Capital* all over again? But *Capital* belongs mainly to the capitalist part of political economy. Moreover, a logical thread beginning with the commodity cannot lead to public capital; therefore, to explain the existence of public capital, a different logical starting point is necessary.

有人认为，初级阶段的国情决定了中国特色社会主义政治经济学的起点依然是资本，只不过这里的资本既包括公有资本也包括私有资本而已，理论基础必然是劳动价值论，理论叙述必然从价值的载体——商品开始。否则，坚持劳动价值论、认识社会主义初级阶段的经济利益关系、揭示社会主义初级阶段的经济范畴与经济规律体系就失去了唯物主义基础，就无法运用辩证的逻辑体系演绎理论体系。[24]但是，从商品开始展开逻辑体系，难道是要把《资本论》重演一遍么？但《资本论》主要属于政治经济学资本主义部分的内容。而且从商品开始的逻辑主线是不可能引导出公有资本的，从而要说明公有资本的存在，必须另有逻辑起点才行。

Some believe that ownership can be established as the logical starting point of the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics. Their reasons: first, ownership determines the ultimate direction of economic and social development while also determining the basic nature of that society; second, in the practice of China’s economic development, especially during the more than forty years of reform and opening up, the understanding of the economic system of socialism with Chinese characteristics and the socialist market economy system has invariably originated from the deepening of the understanding of ownership and the adjustment of ownership relations; third, the theoretical elaboration of the phenomenon of a dualistic ownership structure has become a basic theoretical requirement for correctly understanding contemporary Chinese economic phenomena, which necessitates starting from ownership and, on the basis of a scientific elaboration of the dualistic ownership structure, constructing other relevant theoretical components of the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics. However, what determines the ultimate direction of economic and social development is not ownership but the contradiction between productive forces and relations of production, and ownership itself is also determined by productive forces and relations of production. Therefore, rather than taking ownership as the logical starting point, it would be better to take productive forces and relations of production as the logical starting point. Moreover, the reason China’s reform and opening up adjusted ownership relations was precisely to use ownership as a means to solve certain problems, and thus these problems, rather than the means of solving them, should be taken as the logical starting point.

有人认为，可以将所有制确立为中国特色社会主义政治经济学的逻辑起点。其理由：一是所有制决定经济社会最终发展方向的同时，也决定着该社会的基本性质；二是在中国经济发展实践中，特别是在改革开放四十多年的发展过程中，对于中国特色社会主义经济制度以及社会主义市场经济体制的认识，无不发轫于对所有制认识的深化以及对所有制关系的调整。三是对二元化所有制结构现象的理论阐述已成为正确理解当代中国经济现象的基本理论诉求，这需要从所有制出发，在对二元化所有制结构进行科学阐述的基础上，构建中国特色社会主义政治经济学的其它相关理论组成部分。但是，决定经济社会最终发展方向的不是所有制，而是生产力与生产关系之间的矛盾，而且所有制本身也是由生产力和生产关系决定的，所以与其拿所有制作为逻辑起点，还不如拿生产力和生产关系作为逻辑起点。而且中国的改革开放之所以会对所有制关系进行调整，也正是把所有制作为一种手段来解决某些问题，从而应当把这些问题而不是把解决问题的手段作为逻辑的起点。

Some propose, drawing on Marx’s theory of the economic cell and following the “people’s standpoint” of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, that “labor for the people” is the theoretical starting point of the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics. But the problem is that the commodity Marx identified as the economic cell of capitalist society is a static carrier of labor and social relations, a thing; whereas “labor for the people” is a dynamic thing, an invisible thing, and only its carrier can count as an economic cell. Furthermore, the phrase “labor for the people” seems to imply that the people are not laborers but recipients of charity, with some other people laboring for the people. Therefore, rather than “labor for the people,” it would be better to say “labor commonly owned, commonly shared, and commonly enjoyed by the people.” And even if “labor for the people” were considered an economic cell, it would still be necessary to answer why this labor is for the people and how it is manifested as being for the people, so it cannot be considered the theoretical or logical starting point but rather the theoretical or logical endpoint or conclusion. This person later changed “labor for the people” to “people’s labor,” but there are still problems with the wording. After all, in which era or society is labor not people’s labor but the labor of some other people?

有人提出，借鉴马克思主义经济细胞学说，遵循习近平新时代中国特色社会主义经济思想的“人民立场”，可以发现，“为人民的劳动”是中国特色社会主义政治经济学的理论起点。但问题是马克思所指出的作为资本主义社会经济细胞的商品，是一个劳动和社会关系的静态载体，是一个物；而“为人民的劳动”是一个动态的东西，是一个看不见的东西，它的载体才能算是经济细胞。更何况，“为人民的劳动”这个说法似乎表明人民不是劳动者，而是施舍的接受者，有其他什么人在为人民劳动。因此，与其说“为人民的劳动”，还不如说“人民共同共有共享的劳动”。而且即使“为人民的劳动”算经济细胞，仍然需要回答，为什么这个劳动是为人民的，怎么体现它是为人民的，从而它也不能算是理论或逻辑的起点，而是理论或逻辑的终点或结论。此人后来将“为人民的劳动”改为“人民劳动”，仍然存在用语上的问题。毕竟哪个时代哪个社会的劳动不是人民劳动而是其他什么人劳动呢？

Some establish the mode of combination of laborers with the means of production under the conditions of socialism with Chinese characteristics and the categorical system of its movement and transformation as the logical starting point, arguing that the abstract category of overall production with Chinese characteristics constitutes the logical starting point of the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics. Obviously, to explain the content of this logical starting point, it is necessary to explain what the Chinese characteristics are. Therefore, if the logical starting point is examined from this perspective, it must also take the Chinese characteristics of overall production as the logical starting point, rather than overall production itself, even if it is overall production with Chinese characteristics.

有人把中国特色社会主义条件下劳动者与生产资料结合方式及其运动转化的范畴体系确立为逻辑起点，认为具有中国特色的总体生产这一抽象的范畴构成了中国特色社会主义政治经济学的逻辑起点。显然，要说明这个逻辑起点的内容必须说明中国特色是什么，因此如果从这个角度考察逻辑起点，也必须以总体生产的中国特色为逻辑起点，而不是以总体生产，即便是中国特色的总体生产作为逻辑起点。

Some believe that the commodity producer with the duality of “consciousness” is the “real person” of socialist society with Chinese characteristics, who engages in material production through the mode of joint labor (division of labor) among people. In the socialist market economy, satisfying one’s own needs for material means of subsistence through the need for altruistic labor and egoistic value (money, commodities) can be attempted as an exploratory direction for the logical starting point of the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics.[29] However, what satisfies people’s needs is use-value, not value. So-called altruistic labor merely reflects the social attribute of labor and is a clumsy way of saying social labor. Taking the real person as the starting point precisely requires first studying well what real persons are like and what their social relations are, after all, the essence of man is “not an abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the social relations.” Thus, it is necessary first to explain why their social relations are as they are. Consequently, the real person can serve as the starting point of research but not as the logical starting point.

有人认为，“自觉性”的二重性商品生产者是中国特色社会主义社会“现实的人”，以人们之间联合劳动（分工）的方式进行物质生产。在社会主义市场经济中，以利他性劳动与利己性价值（货币、商品）需要的方式来满足自身对物质生活资料的需要，可以尝试作为中国特色社会主义政治经济学逻辑起点的探索方向。[29]但是，满足人的需要的是使用价值而不是价值。所谓利他性劳动只不过反映了劳动的社会属性，是社会劳动的蹩脚说法。以现实的人为出发点，恰恰需要先研究好，现实的人是什么样的，他们的社会关系如何，毕竟人的本质“人的本质不是单个人所固有的抽象物，在其现实性上，它是一切社会关系的总和。”这样就要先说明他们的社会关系为什么是这样的。从而现实的人可以作为研究的起点，而不能作为逻辑的起点。

Some believe that under the conditions of socialism with Chinese characteristics, the fundamental interests of the people are unified, and the principal contradiction in society has become the common task and theme of comprehensively building a modern socialist country, thus constituting the logical starting point of the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics.[30] In fact, explaining the current principal contradiction in society, exploring its development and changes, and proposing methods to resolve it are precisely the tasks of political economy, but this does not mean that the principal contradiction in society should be taken as the logical starting point of political economy. Marx did not do this in *Capital*, and it is equally inappropriate for us to do so today.

有人认为，在中国特色社会主义条件下，人民的根本利益是一致的，社会主要矛盾成为全面建设社会主义现代化国家的共同任务和主题，因此构成了中国特色社会主义政治经济学的逻辑起点。[30]事实上，说明当前社会的主要矛盾，探讨它的发展变化，提出解决它的办法恰恰是政治经济学的任务，但并不能因为就把社会主要矛盾作为是政治经济学的逻辑起点。马克思在《资本论》中没有这样做，我们今天同样不适合这些做。

In fact, when examining the logical starting point of the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics, one must first explain why it is necessary to construct a separate political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics outside of the political economy of socialism in general. This means first explaining or manifesting where the difference lies between the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics and the general political economy of socialism. In this regard, Comrade Deng Xiaoping pointed out, “Socialism itself is the primary stage of communism, and China is in the primary stage of socialism, that is, the stage of underdevelopment. Everything must proceed from this reality and formulate plans based on this reality.” For this reason, the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics must first explain that socialism with Chinese characteristics is socialism in the primary stage.

其实，考察中国特色社会主义政治经济学的逻辑起点，首先应当说明为什么要在社会主义政治经济学之外，另建一个中国特色社会主义政治经济学。这意味着首先要说明或表现中国特色社会主义政治经济学与一般的社会主义政治经济学的不同之处所在。对此，邓小平同志指出，“社会主义本身是共产主义的初级阶段，而我们中国又处在社会主义的初级阶段，就是不发达的阶段。一切都要从这个实际出发，根据这个实际来制订规划。”为此，中国特色社会主义政治经济学首先要说明的是，中国特色社会主义是处于初级阶段的社会主义。

It is precisely because socialism with Chinese characteristics is in the primary stage of socialism that the Third Plenary Session of the 11th Central Committee of the CPC, after completing political rectification, decided to shift the focus of the Party’s work to socialist modernization. In this regard, Deng Xiaoping pointed out, “The modernization we are carrying out is Chinese-path modernization. The socialism we are building is socialism with Chinese characteristics.” General Secretary Xi Jinping also pointed out, “Chinese-path modernization is socialist modernization led by the Communist Party of China.” Thus it can be seen that Chinese-path modernization is the logical main line of the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics. The logical starting point of this main line is precisely the starting point of Chinese-path modernization. This starting point is exactly the primary stage of socialism, because only socialism in the primary stage can address the issue of socialist modernization, and thus the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics is to explore how to develop socialism with Chinese characteristics from the primary stage of socialism to a higher stage of socialism through Chinese-path modernization.

正是因为中国特色社会主义处于社会主义的初级阶段，党的十一届三中全会才会在完成政治上的拨乱反正之后，决定把全党的工作重点转移到社会主义现代化建设上来。对此，邓小平指出，“我们搞的现代化，是中国式的现代化。我们建设的社会主义，是有中国特色的社会主义。”习近平总书记也指出，“中国式现代化是中国共产党领导的社会主义现代化”。由此可见，中国式现代化是中国特色社会主义政治经济学的逻辑主线。这条主线的逻辑起点也就是中国式现代化的起点。这个起点恰恰就是社会主义初级阶段，这是因为只有初级阶段的社会主义才谈得上社会主义现代化问题，从而中国特色社会主义政治经济学就是要探讨如何通过中国式现代化使中国特色社会主义从社会主义的初级阶段向社会主义的更高阶段发展。

However, given that a complete political economy of socialism has not yet been established and conditions are not yet in place to do so, while the main views of Marxist classical writers on the socialist social economy are the main principles we must refer to and rely on, therefore, if it is necessary to introduce and present these views when separately constructing the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics, from a logical framework perspective, we can first narrate the general political economy as a principle, then the general political economy of socialism, and then the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics. Thus, such a textbook on the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics would take the general political economy as its logical starting point. If, however, there already exists something like a political economy of socialism or principles of the political economy of socialism, making it unnecessary to re-elaborate these principles, then the logical starting point of the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics would begin from the primary stage of socialism.

不过，鉴于目前还没有也不具备条件建立完善的社会主义政治经济学，而马克思主义经典作家关于社会主义社会经济的主要观点又是我们必须参考和依据的主要原理，因此，如果在单独构建中国特色社会主义政治经济学，有必要引进和介绍这些观点时，从逻辑框架上，我们可以先叙述作为原理的政治经济学一般，再到社会主义政治经济学一般，然后再到中国特色社会主义政治经济学，从而这样的中国特色社会主义政治经济学教材就会以政治经济学一般作为其逻辑起点。而如果已经另有了社会主义政治经济学或社会主义政治经济学原理这样的东西，无须重新阐述这些原理，中国特色社会主义政治经济学的逻辑起点就要从社会主义初级阶段开始。

Online Editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗