Marx’s Thought on Proletarian Poverty as Institutional Poverty

Institutional poverty refers to a type of poverty caused by the institutional injustice of a society or a state. Hegel believed: “When the great mass of the population sinks below a certain standard of living—the level that is naturally and necessarily adjusted as a member of society—and thereby loses the sense of justice, uprightness, and self-respect that comes from being self-supporting, a rabble emerges.” [1]1 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, Chapter 7, Section 1. In short, he held that the “rabble” arises “naturally” due to their own individual differences rather than the institutional injustice of society or the state. Marx, drawing on the characteristics of his own era and taking the proletariat as an example, subjected this view to profound critique. He pointed out: “The proletariat is not composed of the naturally formed poor, but of the artificially created poor; not of the masses mechanically crushed under the weight of society, but of the masses produced by the acute dissolution of society, especially the dissolution of the middle estates.” [2]2 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, Chapter 6. That is to say, overall, proletarian poverty is caused by the institutional injustice of capitalist society, not by the individual differences of the proletariat. As for whether there exists individual proletarian poverty that “naturally” arises from individual differences, Marx did not exclude this possibility, but it is clearly not the focus of his attention. Marx’s analytical judgment that proletarian poverty is a type of institutional poverty constitutes the theoretical foundation for his thought on the fundamental emancipation of the proletariat and even all humanity. Marx further scientifically demonstrated the view that proletarian poverty is institutional poverty through his profound critique of alienated labor, class rule, and surplus value in capitalist society. Based on this, this article intends to conduct a specific analysis from the following three aspects.

制度性贫困是指由社会或者国家的制度性不公所造成的一种贫困。黑格尔认为：“当广大群众的生活降到一定水平——作为社会成员所必需的自然而然得到调整的水平——之下，从而丧失了自食其力的这种正义、正直和自尊的感情时，就会产生贱民。”直言之，他认为“贱民”是因其自身的个体性差异而非社会或者国家的制度性不公而“自然而然”产生的。马克思结合自身所处时代的特征并以无产阶级为例对此进行了深刻批判。他指出：“组成无产阶级的不是自然形成的而是人为造成的贫民，不是在社会的重担下机械地压出来的而是由于社会的急剧解体、特别是由于中间等级的解体而产生的群众。”也就是说，总体而言，无产阶级贫困是由资本主义社会的制度性不公而非无产阶级的个体性差异所造成的，至于有无因个体性差异而“自然而然”形成的无产阶级的个体性贫困，马克思虽未排除此种可能性，但这显然不是其所要聚焦的重点。马克思关于无产阶级贫困是一种制度性贫困的分析判断是马克思关于无产阶级乃至全人类实现根本解放思想确立的理论基础。马克思还通过对资本主义社会的异化劳动、阶级统治、剩余价值等展开深刻批判进一步科学论证了无产阶级贫困是一种制度性贫困的观点。基于此，本文拟从如下三个方面来进行具体分析。

I. Alienated Labor: The Social Root of Proletarian Poverty

一、异化劳动：无产阶级贫困的社会根源

Marx focused early on alienated labor and, through an in-depth analysis of the logical connection between alienated labor and private property, revealed the social root of proletarian poverty.

马克思较早聚焦异化劳动并通过对异化劳动与私有财产之间的逻辑关联进行深度分析来揭示无产阶级贫困的社会根源。

Alienated labor, or the alienation of labor, encompasses the two concepts of alienation and labor. This means that to clearly grasp the connotation of the concept of alienated labor or the alienation of labor, one must first understand the connotations of the concepts of alienation and labor.

异化劳动或者劳动异化包含着异化与劳动两个概念。这就意味着，要清楚把握作为概念的异化劳动或者劳动异化的内涵，势必要先了解作为概念的异化与劳动的内涵。

Alienation refers to the process of the gradual loss of essence and the representation of its results. The existence of a thing, or the thing that exists, is established upon its specific essence. That is, once the essence is established, the thing exists according to its original state; conversely, if the essence is lost, the thing can only become something else, and what becomes something else is necessarily an alienation of the original thing. Thus, there is an existential connection between alienation and the loss of essence. In Marx’s writings, concepts with a family resemblance to the concept of alienation include externalization, reification, and others. Although Marx often used these three concepts interchangeably in context, careful examination reveals their subtle differences: alienation emphasizes the gradual loss of the overall essence of a thing; externalization focuses on the internal becoming external; reification focuses on the subject becoming object or the object becoming subject. Both externalization and reification are further explanations of alienation—that is, further explanations of the process of the gradual loss of essence and its results. The logical relationship among these three concepts can also be expressed as follows: alienation is a general concept; externalization and reification are specific concepts, each further explaining the general concept of alienation from different perspectives or dimensions.

异化是指本质逐渐丧失的过程及其结果的表征。事物的存在或者存在的事物是确立于其所具有的特定本质之上的。也就是说，本质确立了，事物就会按照原有状况存在；反之，本质丧失了，事物就只能成为其他，而成为其他的事物必然是对原来事物的异化。这样一来，异化与本质丧失就存在着缘在关联。在马克思的笔下，与异化概念具有家族相似性的概念有外化、物化等。虽然马克思经常在未加区分的语境中使用上述三个概念，但仔细琢磨后就会发现其细微区别：异化突显事物整体本质的逐渐丧失，外化侧重于事物的内在外在化，物化侧重于主体客体化或者客体主体化。无论是外化还是物化，都是对异化的进一步说明，也就是说，都是对本质逐渐丧失的过程及其结果的进一步说明。还可将上述三个概念之间的逻辑关联作如下表述：异化是一个总概念；外化和物化是分概念，均从不同视角或者维度对异化这一总概念作出进一步说明。

Labor is a special form of human movement. Labor has both a broad and a narrow sense: in the broad sense, labor refers to all human activities; in the narrow sense, labor refers to the production of material or spiritual means of subsistence, a type of productive activity that provides beneficial value and is the sole means for humans to sustain their own survival and development. Labor is also divided into mental labor and physical labor: mental labor mainly refers to activities carried out by humans relying on intellect or spirit, while physical labor mainly refers to activities carried out by humans relying on muscles or bones. The division between mental and physical labor began when material production and spiritual production diverged. Labor produces both the human self, human society, and human nature; it involves not only the relationship between humans, the relationship between humans and society, and the relationship between humans and nature, but also the relationship between humans and themselves.

劳动是人类运动的一种特殊形式。劳动有广义和狭义之分：广义的劳动指人类的所有活动；狭义的劳动指物质资料或者精神资料的生产活动，这类生产活动是一种能提供溢益性价值的人类活动，是人类维持自我生存与发展的唯一手段。劳动还有脑力劳动和体力劳动之分：脑力劳动主要指人类依靠智力或者精神所展开的活动，体力劳动则主要指人类依靠肌肉或者骨骼所展开的活动。脑力劳动与体力劳动之间的分工是在物质生产与精神生产之间发生分殊时开始的。劳动既生产着人的自我，又生产着人的社会，还生产着人的自然；既牵涉人与人的关系、人与社会的关系、人与自然的关系，还牵涉人与自身的关系。

Engels pointed out: Labor is “the free activity of man.” [3]3 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, Chapter 6. Labor that is alienated is necessarily labor stripped of the essence of human freedom—that is, alienated labor or the alienation of labor. This is a core concept used by Marx in his early critique of capitalist society. In contexts where the concept of alienated labor or the alienation of labor is used, Marx also mentions concepts such as reified labor, active externalization, externalization of activity, and externalized activity. In Marx’s view, alienated labor has the following characteristics.

恩格斯指出：劳动是“人的自由活动”。被异化的劳动必然是抽离掉了人的自由这一本质的劳动，即异化劳动或者劳动异化，这是马克思早期在批判资本主义社会时使用的核心概念。在使用异化劳动或者劳动异化概念的语境中，马克思还提及物化的劳动、能动的外化、活动的外化、外化的活动等概念。在马克思看来，异化劳动具有如下特征。

First, alienated labor is an activity that causes labor itself to lose its essence. Labor includes elements such as the purpose of labor, the process of labor, and the result of labor: the purpose of labor refers to the intention or goal set by the labor subject for the use of their labor power; the process of labor refers to the course in which the labor subject uses their labor power; the result of labor, also called the product or effect of labor, refers to the efficacy produced by the labor subject in the process of using their labor power. Since alienated labor causes labor to lose its essence, it necessarily causes the purpose, process, and result of labor to lose their essence. Labor whose essence is the free activity of man must necessarily be labor whose purpose is to develop or fulfill the labor subject itself. However, alienated labor makes “the realization of labor appear so much as loss of reality that the worker loses reality to the point of starving to death.” [4]4 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, Chapter 6. Labor whose essence is the free activity of man must necessarily be labor whose process brings pleasure to the body and mind of the labor subject. However, alienated labor makes the labor subject’s “body is tormented, his spirit is devastated. Therefore, the worker feels at ease only outside labor, and during labor he feels uneasy; he feels comfortable when he is not working, and uncomfortable when he is working.” [5]5 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, Chapter 6. Labor whose essence is “the free activity of man” must necessarily be labor whose result affirms the labor subject itself through the labor of the labor subject. However, alienated labor is labor whose result negates the labor subject itself through the labor of the labor subject. Such labor is necessarily not labor that makes the labor subject “feel happy, but unhappy.” [6]6 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, Chapter 25, Section 1.

第一，异化劳动是一种能使劳动自身丧失其本质的活动。劳动包括劳动目的、劳动过程、劳动结果等要素：劳动目的指劳动主体为自身劳动力的使用所确立的意图或者目标；劳动过程指劳动主体使用其劳动力的进程；劳动结果也被称为劳动成果或者劳动效果等，指劳动主体在使用劳动力的过程中所产生的效能。异化劳动既然能使劳动丧失其本质，那么，必然会使劳动目的、劳动过程、劳动结果等丧失其本质。以人的自由活动为本质的劳动必然是一种以成就或者发展劳动主体自身为劳动目的的劳动，但是，异化劳动却使“劳动的现实化竟如此表现为非现实化，以致工人非现实化到饿死的地步”；以人的自由活动为本质的劳动必然是一种以愉悦劳动主体之身心为劳动过程的劳动，但是，异化劳动却使劳动主体的“肉体受折磨、精神遭摧残。因此，工人只有在劳动之外才感到自在，而在劳动中则感到不自在，他在不劳动时觉得舒畅，而在劳动时就觉得不舒畅”；以“人的自由活动”为本质的劳动必然是一种以劳动主体的劳动来肯定劳动主体自身为劳动结果的劳动，但是，异化劳动却是一种以劳动主体的劳动来否定劳动主体自身为劳动结果的劳动，这样的劳动必然不是一种让劳动主体“感到幸福，而是感到不幸”的劳动。

Second, alienated labor is an activity that causes the labor subject to lose its essence. Since the essence of labor is the free activity of man, the essence of man must also be fully manifested in “freedom.” However, alienated labor makes “the relation of the worker to the product of his labor, to objectified labor, is the relation to an alien, hostile, powerful, independent object. Then the reason for this relation is that another alien, hostile, powerful, independent man is the master of this object.” [7]7 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, Chapter 25, Section 1. The labor subject feels deeply that his activity is an unfree activity in alienated labor because he constantly feels that his activity is “an activity performed in the service of, under the domination of, and under the coercion and pressure of another man.” [8]8 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, Chapter 25, Section 1.

第二，异化劳动是一种能使劳动主体丧失其本质的活动。既然劳动的本质是人的自由活动，那么，人的本质也必然要在“自由”中得到充分展现。但是，异化劳动却使得“人对自己的劳动产品的关系、对对象化劳动的关系，就是对一个异己的、敌对的、强有力的、不依赖于他的对象的关系，那么他对这一对象所以发生这种关系就在于有另一个异己的、敌对的、强有力的、不依赖于他的人是这一对象的主宰”。劳动主体之所以在异化劳动中深感其活动是一种不自由的活动，是因为他时刻感受到其活动是“替他人服务的、受他人支配的、处于他人的强迫和压制之下的活动”。

Third, alienated labor is an activity that causes the non-labor subject—that is, those who reap without sowing—to lose their essence. Man, as long as he exists as man, should fully manifest his essence in “freedom.” However, the non-labor subject, i.e., those who reap without sowing, also lose the human essence of “freedom” in their reaping without sowing. This is because those who reap without sowing do not obtain what they seek through labor whose essence is the free activity of man, but achieve their aims through plunder and seizure. “The alien being to whom labor and the product of labor belong, the being in whose service labor is performed and for whose enjoyment the product of labor is provided, can only be man himself.” [9]9 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, Chapter 25, Section 1. For this reason, Marx pointed out: “Everything which appears in the worker as an activity of externalization, of alienation, appears in the non-worker as a state of externalization, of alienation.” [10]10 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 3, Chapter 17.

第三，异化劳动是一种能使非劳动主体即不劳而获者丧失其本质的活动。人，只要是作为人而存在，就应该在“自由”中充分展现其本质。但是，非劳动主体即不劳而获者同样在不劳而获中丧失“自由”这一人的本质。之所以如此，是因为不劳而获者并未凭借以人的自由活动为本质的劳动来获得其想要获得的东西，而是通过巧取豪夺来达成其所图。“劳动和劳动产品所归属的那个异己的存在物，劳动为之服务和劳动产品供其享受的那个存在物，只能是人自身。”为此，马克思指出：“凡是在工人那里表现为外化的、异化的活动的东西，在非工人那里都表现为外化的、异化的状态。”

Fourth, alienated labor is an activity that can cause all of man’s relations to lose their essence. Man’s relations include man’s relation to himself, man’s relation to others, man’s relation to society, and man’s relation to nature. The various relations constructed by labor, whose essence is man’s free activity, must necessarily be relations conforming to reason. However, alienated labor causes man’s various relations to lose their essence, thereby giving rise to man’s self-alienation. Marx divides man’s self-alienation into four aspects, namely, the alienation of nature from man, the alienation of man’s life activity from man, the alienation of man’s species-being from man, and the alienation of man from man.

第四，异化劳动是一种能使人的各种关系丧失其本质的活动。人的关系包括人同其自身的关系、人同他者的关系、人同社会的关系和人同自然的关系。以人的自由活动为本质的劳动所建构起来的各种关系必然是符合理性的关系，但是，异化劳动却导致人的各种关系丧失其本质，从而出现人的自我异化。马克思将人的自我异化分为四个方面，即自然界同人相异化、人的生命活动同人相异化、人的类本质同人相异化、人同人相异化。

The direct result of alienated labor is the emergence of private property. In this regard, private property belongs to the phenomenological category of alienated labor, while alienated labor belongs to the essential category that constitutes private property. Marx also emphatically analyzes the forms of appearance of private property (wages, capital, profit, rent, etc.) and its essence. He points out: “Wages are a direct consequence of alienated labor, for wages are the payment made with the product of labor, the object of labor, to labor itself; in wages, labor does not appear as an end in itself, but as the servant of wages.” [11]11 Karl Marx, “Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844,” in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 3 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 280. [Translation modified to match the Chinese text’s phrasing.] Furthermore, capital is necessarily also a result of alienated labor, because “in the worker there exists subjectively the fact that capital is man wholly lost to himself, just as in capital there exists objectively the fact that labor is man lost to himself. But the worker has the misfortune to be a living and hence needy capital, which loses its interest, and hence its existence, the moment it ceases to labor.” [12]12 Ibid., p. 282. “The worker exists as a worker only when he exists for himself as capital, and he exists as capital only when some capital exists for him. The existence of capital is his existence, his life, for capital determines the content of his life in a manner indifferent to him.” [13]13 Ibid., p. 283. Profit and rent are “capital and interest in their monetary significance,” [14]14 Ibid., p. 284. and therefore are necessarily also results of alienated labor, because “the distinction between capital and land, between profit and rent, and the distinction between both of these and wages, between industry and agriculture, between private immovable and private movable property, is a historical distinction, not one grounded in the nature of things,” [15]15 Ibid., p. 285. that is, they are indistinguishable in their relationship to alienated labor. To this end, Marx points out: “Private property is thus the product, the result, the necessary consequence, of alienated labor, of the external relation of the worker to nature and to himself.” [16]16 Ibid., p. 279.

异化劳动的直接结果就是私有财产的出现，就此而言，私有财产从属于异化劳动的现象学范畴，而异化劳动则从属于构成私有财产的本质学范畴。马克思还着重分析了私有财产的表现形式（工资、资本、利润和地租等）及其本质。他指出：“用劳动产品、劳动对象来偿付劳动本身的工资，不过是劳动异化的必然后果，因为在工资中，劳动并不表现为目的本身，而表现为工资的奴仆。”此外，资本也必然是异化劳动的结果，因为“在工人身上主观地存在着这样一个事实，即资本是完全失去自身的人；同样，在资本身上也客观地存在着这样一个事实，即劳动是失去自身的人。但是，工人不幸而成为一种活的、因而是贫困的资本，这种资本只要一瞬间不劳动便失去自己的利息，从而也失去自己的生存条件”。“工人只有当他对自己作为资本存在的时候，才作为工人存在；而他只有当某种资本对他存在的时候，才作为资本存在。资本的存在是他的存在、他的生活，资本的存在以一种对他来说无所谓的方式规定他的生活的内容。”利润和地租是“表示货币意义的资本和利息”，因此也必然是异化劳动的结果，因为“资本和土地的差别，利润和地租的差别，这二者和工资的差别，工业和农业之间、私有的不动产和私有的动产之间的差别，仍然是历史的差别，而不是基于事物本质的差别”，也就是说，它们在同异化劳动之间的关系上是没有差别的。为此，马克思指出：“私有财产一方面是外化劳动的产物，另一方面又是劳动借以外化的手段。”

The development of private property necessarily leads to sharp contradictions and even oppositions between the laboring subject and the non-laboring subject, between wages and capital. Marx depicts this: “The worker becomes all the poorer the more wealth he produces, the more his production increases in power and range. The worker becomes an ever cheaper commodity the more commodities he creates. The devaluation of the world of men is in direct proportion to the increasing value of the world of things. Labor produces not only commodities; it produces itself and the worker as a commodity,” [17]17 Ibid., p. 271. and it also produces the capitalist. In this regard, for the laboring subject, possession necessarily appears as alienation, autonomous activity necessarily appears as activity for another or as activity of another, life activity necessarily appears as the sacrifice of life, the production of objects necessarily appears as the loss of objects, and the fruits of labor necessarily appear as belonging to an alien power or an alien person.

私有财产的发展必然导致劳动主体与非劳动主体之间、工资与资本之间出现尖锐矛盾甚至对立。马克思描绘道：“工人生产的财富越多，他的产品的力量和数量越大，他就越贫穷。工人创造的商品越多，他就越变成廉价的商品。物的世界的增值同人的世界的贬值成正比。劳动生产的不仅是商品，它生产作为商品的劳动自身和工人”，而且还生产出了资本家。就此而言，对劳动主体而言，占有必然表现为异化，自主活动必然表现为替他人活动或者为他人活动，生命活动必然表现为牺牲生命，对象生产必然表现为丧失对象，收获物必然表现为由异己力量或者异己的人所有。

II. Class Rule: The Political Root of Proletarian Poverty

二、阶级统治：无产阶级贫困的政治根源

After achieving a fundamental transformation in his worldview, Marx, grounded in historical materialism, reveals the political root of proletarian poverty through an in-depth analysis of the non-equilibrium structure between the ruling class and the ruled class.

世界观实现根本转变后的马克思，立足唯物史观，通过对统治阶级与被统治阶级之间的非均衡结构进行深度剖析，揭示了无产阶级贫困的政治根源。

Class rule refers to the process and result of the ruling class wielding or manipulating ruling power. The ruling class is the class that occupies the dominant position in material and spiritual terms; this class is “the ruling material force of society, and at the same time its ruling spiritual force.” [1]1 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, Chapter 7, Section 1. From a genetic perspective, class rule and the ruling class emerge almost simultaneously. Ruling power refers to the most powerful means used by the ruling class in realizing class rule, including economic power, political power, and cultural power. Power is an influence or control that a subject manifests in the behavior of others through its own will. Ruling power is rule established with power as its core. In this regard, without power, rule cannot be formed; with only power but no rule, power becomes meaningless because there is no “framework” in which to place it. Power constitutes the foundation of rule, while rule constitutes the sphere of power. The reason power can occupy a core position in rule is that it possesses the following characteristics: First, scarcity. Power is an extremely scarce resource, because it is difficult to regenerate. Although theoretically regeneration is possible, in practice it is very difficult, especially for a specific political organization or individual; it goes without saying that the conditions for power to be regained after loss are harsh and the costs high. Second, mystery. The operation of power in traditional class society is a process that can only continue within a black box or a gray box; therefore, it is highly mysterious. In this context, power in operation cannot be made public; once made public, it would alienate itself into something else. Third, concealment. Power is something very adept at hiding itself. As mentioned above, power only manifests itself in rule; that is, outside of rule, it is concealed. The reason power must conceal itself is that it cannot become a commensurable thing in operation. Fourth, monopoly. The existence of power implies the existence of political monopoly. Only when power and monopoly achieve organic unity can each be well. Fifth, dominance. Power is something that can dominate the will of others and even the whole. The reason for this is that the existence of power itself manifests the existence of an advantage or condition. Once power is grasped, one possesses the condition to control others; therefore, the power holder inevitably displays a superiority. Sixth, backlash. Power is something that can backlash against the power subject. Power in operation has its own laws. That is, only when power operates within its laws can it fulfill the power subject; conversely, if the operation of power exceeds the scope of its own laws, it will bring trouble or even disastrous consequences to the power subject. Whether power appears in economic form, political form, cultural form, or other forms, it contains political implications. Wherever power appears, it becomes a battlefield of political struggle. In short, whatever is power-related is necessarily political. In Marx’s view, ruling power belongs to the category of the superstructure; therefore, it necessarily possesses the characteristic of being subordinate to the economic base. However, once ruling power transcends the genetic category—that is, once ruling power is grasped by a certain class—it exerts a decisive influence on the ruling class, the ruled class, and their mutual relations. This influence can be corroborated from the following aspects. First, it continuously strengthens the ruling position of the ruling class. Clan society had no class rule because there was no ruling power; at that time, “there were no soldiers, gendarmes, or police, no nobles, kings, governors, prefects, or judges, no prisons, no lawsuits… all disputes and conflicts were resolved by the entire body of those concerned, that is, by the clan or tribe, or by mutual settlement between the clans.” [2]2 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, Chapter 6. That is to say, there was no ruling power exclusive to a minority. It was only in the so-called “civilized age” that ruling power emerged along with “the exploitation of one class by another.” [3]3 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, Chapter 6. The emergence of ruling power is both a sign that the development of productive forces has reached a certain level and a sign that the development of productive forces is still insufficient. The limited development of productive forces determines: whoever controls the productive forces possesses the ability to dominate the material means of production and the spiritual means of production; whoever can dominate the material means of production and the spiritual means of production can hold the power of life and death in society, a power that can also be decomposed into the power of decision, possession, distribution, etc. When a minority, through means such as taking risks, operating behind the scenes, or acting openly and violently, transforms original public power into a private item, public power loses its “public” essence and alienates into private power. The emergence of private power is both a typical manifestation of private ownership and a powerful protection of private ownership; it means both the ostentatious appearance of ruling power and the ostentatious appearance of class rule. The earliest class rule mainly included political rule, economic rule, and cultural rule. The core of political rule is political power; only by grasping political power can one implement political rule, and thereby make decisions on various social affairs (in fact, all political affairs) in society and enjoy absolute decision-making power; only by enjoying absolute decision-making power can one implement economic rule and cultural rule while implementing political rule. Economic rule is mainly manifested in the absolute right of possession and distribution over the material means of production, and cultural rule is mainly manifested in the absolute right of possession and distribution over the spiritual means of production; all of this is appropriately reflected in political rule. The above three types of class rule are co-located and co-frequented in the same process of rule.

阶级统治是指统治阶级把玩或者操控统治权力的过程及其结果。统治阶级是指在物质和精神上占支配地位的阶级，这个阶级是“社会上占统治地位的物质力量，同时也是社会上占统治地位的精神力量”。从发生学上看，阶级统治与统治阶级几乎同时出场。统治权力则是指统治阶级在实现阶级统治中所使用的最强有力手段，包括经济权力、政治权力和文化权力等。权力是行为主体在他者行为中展现其自身意志以及由此所形成的一种影响力或者操控力。统治权力是以权力为核心所确立的统治。就此而言，没有权力，无法形成统治；仅有权力而无统治，权力也会因无“座架”可安放而变得毫无意义。权力构成统治的底气，而统治则构成权力的寰围。权力之所以能在统治中占据核心地位，是因为它具有如下特性：一是稀缺性。权力是一种极度稀缺的资源，因为它很难再生，尽管理论上有再生的可能，但在实践中却很难，尤其对特定政治组织或者个人而言，要让权力失而复得非常难，再生的条件之苛刻、再生的成本之高昂自不待言。二是神秘性。权力在传统阶级社会中的运行，是一个只能在黑箱或者灰箱中才能持续的过程，因此，极具神秘性。在此语境下，运行的权力无法公开，一旦公开，就会使自身异化为其他。三是隐匿性。权力是一种非常善于隐藏自身的东西。如上所述，权力只有在统治中才会彰明其自身，也就是说，在统治以外，它是隐匿的。权力之所以要隐匿自身，是因为它无法在运行中成为公度性的东西。四是垄断性。权力的存在意味着政治垄断的存在，权力和垄断之间，只有实现有机统一，才能各自安好。五是支配性。权力是一种能支配他者意志甚至整全的东西。之所以如此，是因为权力的存在本身就彰显着一种优势或者条件的存在。掌握了权力，就具备了能操控他人的条件，因此，权力所有者必然能展现出一种优越性来。六是反噬性。权力是一种能反噬权力主体的东西。运行中的权力是有规律的。也就是说，权力只有在规律中运行，才能成就权力主体；相反，如果权力的运行超出了其自身规律作用的范围，就会给权力主体带来麻烦甚至灾难性后果。无论权力是以经济形式出现，还是以政治形式、文化形式或者其他形式出现，均包含着政治意味。只要是权力出没的地方，都会成为政治角斗的战场。直言之，只要是权力的，必然是政治的。在马克思那里，统治权力属于上层建筑的范畴，因此，必然具有从属于经济基础的特性。但是，一旦统治权力超出发生学的范畴，也就是说，一旦统治权力为某个阶级所掌握，就会对统治阶级、被统治阶级及其相互关系产生决定性影响。这种影响可以从如下几方面得到印证。第一，不断强化统治阶级的统治地位。氏族社会因不存在统治权力而不存在阶级统治，那时“没有士兵、宪兵和警察，没有贵族、国王、总督、地方官和法官，没有监狱，没有诉讼……一切争端和纠纷，都由当事人的全体即氏族或部落来解决，或者由各个氏族相互解决”，也就是说，那时并不存在专属于少数人的统治权力。只是到了所谓的“文明时代”，统治权力才随着“一个阶级对另一个阶级的剥削”的出现而出场。统治权力的出现，既是生产力发展达到一定程度的表征，又是生产力发展还不太充裕的表征。生产力发展的有限性决定：谁掌握生产力，谁就具备支配物质生产资料与精神生产资料的能力；谁能支配物质生产资料与精神生产资料，谁就能在社会中掌握生杀予夺的权力，这种权力还可分解为决定权、占有权、分配权等。当少数人通过铤而走险、暗箱操作或者明火执仗等手段将原初的公权力转变为私人物品时，公权力就因丧失“公”的本质而异化成私权力。私权力的出现，既是私有制的一个典型表征，又是私有制的一个强大护佑，既意味着统治权力堂而皇之地出场，又意味着阶级统治堂而皇之地出场。最早的阶级统治主要包括政治统治、经济统治和文化统治。政治统治的核心是政治权力，只有掌握政治权力，才能实行政治统治，进而才能在社会中对各种社会事务（实际上都是政治事务）作出决断并由此享有绝对的决定权；只有享有绝对的决定权，才能在实行政治统治的同时实行经济统治和文化统治。经济统治主要表现为在物质生产资料上享有绝对的占有权与分配权，文化统治主要表现为在精神生产资料上享有绝对的占有权与分配权，而这一切都会在政治统治中得到适当体现。上述三种阶级统治类型在同一统治过程中同位共频。

For the ruling class, the primary task after grasping ruling power is to maintain ruling power and thereby consolidate its ruling position. The ruling class will do everything in its power to consolidate its ruling position and thereby maintain ruling power; its customary method is to whitewash its own private interests as universal public interests and to dress up the private power in its hands as public power.

对于统治阶级而言，掌握统治权力之后的首要任务就是保持统治权力并由此来巩固其统治地位。统治阶级会尽其所能来巩固统治地位并由此来保持统治权力，其惯用的手法是将自身的私利粉饰成普遍的公益，将在手的私权力装扮成公权力。

Second, it continuously solidifies the ruled position of the ruled class. The ruled class stands in opposition to the ruling class; the two emerge simultaneously. The reason the ruled class is in a ruled position is that it can neither dominate the production of the material means of production nor the spiritual means of production, thereby enjoying absolute rights of possession and distribution, nor can it make decisions on various social affairs, especially political affairs, in society, thereby enjoying absolute decision-making power; in a word, the ruled class is far from ruling power. Its ruled position is specifically manifested as: political oppression, economic exploitation, cultural enslavement, etc.

第二，不断固化被统治阶级的被统治地位。被统治阶级与统治阶级相对立，两者同时出现。被统治阶级之所以处于被统治地位，是因为其既不能在物质生产资料也不能在精神生产资料的生产中占支配地位并由此享有绝对的占有权与分配权，更不能在社会中对各种社会事务尤其政治事务作出决断并由此享有绝对的决定权，一言以蔽之，被统治阶级是远离统治权力的。其被统治地位具体表现为：政治上的被压迫、经济上的被剥削、文化上的被奴役等。

If the ruling class can only be composed of a minority in society, then the ruled class must necessarily be composed of the overwhelming majority in society; if the ruling class constitutes the upper stratum of society, then the ruled class can only constitute the middle and lower strata. In *The Class Struggles in France, 1848 to 1850*, Marx confirmed this judgment after a comparative analysis of the characteristics of the various classes in French society. French society at that time was mainly composed of the aristocratic landlord class, the big bourgeoisie, the industrial bourgeoisie, the petty bourgeoisie, the peasant class, and the proletariat. The aristocratic landlord class was mainly composed of large landowners. Although already in decline, the privileges, interests, and honors they enjoyed still placed them at the very top of French society. The big bourgeoisie was mainly composed of the financial aristocracy, stock-exchange magnates, wealthy railway merchants, coal and iron ore bosses, and forest kings. It was the largest vested-interest group to emerge after the French bourgeois revolution of 1789 and occupied the upper stratum of French society. The industrial bourgeoisie was mainly composed of capitalists engaged in industrial production. It was slightly inferior to the big bourgeoisie in economic strength and occupied the upper-middle stratum of French society. The petty bourgeoisie was mainly the democratic republican faction, represented in the Executive Commission of the Provisional Government by Ledru-Rollin, in the Constituent National Assembly by the Montagne, and in the press by *La Réforme*. Although the petty bourgeoisie had once “attacked the proletariat” together with the big bourgeoisie and the industrial bourgeoisie during the “June Revolution,” it was still exploited by the aristocratic landlord class, the big bourgeoisie, and the industrial bourgeoisie, occupying the middle or lower-middle stratum of French society. The peasant class, together with the petty bourgeoisie, constituted the majority of French society. The peasant class had rather complex characteristics: on one side clumsy and on the other side cunning, on one side treacherous and on the other side naive, on one side stupid and on the other side shrewd. In this respect, the peasant class was “a hieroglyphic that the mind of civilized man finds hard to decipher,” and was likewise exploited by the aristocratic landlord class, the big bourgeoisie, and the industrial bourgeoisie, constituting the lower-middle stratum of French society. The proletariat owned no means of production, could only live by selling its labor power, and had the most destitute economic conditions, the weakest political status, and the lowest social position. Thus it can be seen that the ruling class in France at that time could only be the minority represented by the aristocratic landlord class, the big bourgeoisie, and the industrial bourgeoisie, while the ruled class was the majority represented by the petty bourgeoisie, the peasant class, and the proletariat.

如果说构成统治阶级的只能是社会中的少数人的话，那么，构成被统治阶级的必然是社会中的绝大多数人；如果说统治阶级构成社会上层的话，那么，被统治阶级只能构成社会中下层。在《1848年至1850年的法兰西阶级斗争》中，马克思在对法国社会各阶级的特性进行比较分析后证实了上述判断。当时的法国社会主要由贵族地主阶级、大资产阶级、工业资产阶级、小资产阶级、农民阶级和无产阶级等构成。贵族地主阶级主要由大土地所有者组成，尽管当时已经没落，但所享有的特权、利益和尊荣依然使其处在法国社会的最上层。大资产阶级主要由金融贵族、交易所巨贾、铁路富商、煤铁矿老板、森林大王等组成，是1789年法国资产阶级革命后出现的最大既得利益集团，处于法国社会的上层。工业资产阶级主要由从事工业生产的资本家组成，在经济实力方面比大资产阶级稍逊一筹，处于法国社会的中上层。小资产阶级主要是民主主义共和派，在临时政府执行委员会中的代表是赖德律—洛兰，在制宪国民议会中的代表是山岳党，在新闻出版界的代表是《改革报》。小资产阶级虽曾在“六月革命”中伙同大资产阶级和工业资产阶级“攻打过无产阶级”，但依然受到贵族地主阶级、大资产阶级和工业资产阶级的盘剥，处于法国社会的中层或者中下层。农民阶级同小资产阶级一起构成法国社会的大多数。农民阶级具有较为复杂的特性：一面是笨拙的而另一面又是狡猾的，一面是奸诈的而另一面又是天真的，一面是愚蠢的而另一面又是精明的。就此而言，农民阶级是“文明人的头脑难以理解的象形文字”，同样受到贵族地主阶级、大资产阶级和工业资产阶级的盘剥，构成法国社会的中下层。无产阶级没有任何生产资料，只能靠出卖劳动力为生，经济状况最困顿、政治地位最弱势、社会地位最低下。由此可见，当时法国的统治阶级只能是以贵族地主阶级、大资产阶级、工业资产阶级为代表的少数派，被统治阶级则是以小资产阶级、农民阶级、无产阶级等为代表的多数派。

Third, the asymmetric relationship structure between the ruling class and the ruled class is continuously strengthened. From the above analysis it can be seen that between the ruling class and the ruled class within the same class rule, an asymmetric relationship structure inevitably forms: on one side is the ruling group composed of the ruling class that enjoys absolute ruling power, and on the other side is the ruled group composed of the ruled class that is far from ruling power; the ruling group, by virtue of its ruling power, can do as it pleases and act arrogantly in society, while the ruled group, being far from ruling power, can only submit meekly and swallow its anger in society; members of the ruling group live in comfort and luxury, well-fed and idle, while members of the ruled group endure hardships and have weathered many storms. Although the ruling group as a minority may, due to accidental upheavals, fall into the ranks of the majority in the identity of the “lumpenproletariat,” or the ruled group as a majority may, due to some unexpected event, rise to the rank of the minority in a prominent identity, these circumstances cannot fundamentally change the key influence that class rule, especially ruling power, exerts in continuously strengthening the asymmetric relationship structure between the ruling class and the ruled class. In this context, the ruling class and the ruled class are always in a state of opposition, frequently engaging in different forms of struggle. The outcome of each struggle is either that the entire society undergoes a revolutionary transformation, or that the contending parties perish together.

第三，不断强化统治阶级与被统治阶级之间的非对称关系结构。从上述分析可以看出，处于同一阶级统治中的统治阶级与被统治阶级之间必然会形成一种非对称关系结构：一边是享有绝对统治权力的统治阶级所构成的统治集团，另一边则是远离统治权力的被统治阶级所构成的被统治集团；统治集团凭借统治权力可以在社会上为所欲为、颐指气使，而被统治集团因远离统治权力而只能在社会中逆来顺受、忍气吞声；统治集团中的成员养尊处优、脑满肠肥，而被统治集团中的成员却含辛茹苦、饱经风霜。虽然作为少数派的统治集团会因偶然变故而以“流氓无产阶级”身份沦落到多数派行列，或者作为多数派的被统治集团会因某种意外而以显耀身份上升到少数派位阶，但是，这些都无法从根本上改变阶级统治尤其统治权力在不断强化统治阶级与被统治阶级之间的非对称关系结构中所产生的关键性影响。在此语境下，统治阶级与被统治阶级之间总是处于对立态势，经常进行着不同形式的斗争，每次斗争的结局，要么是整个社会得到革命性锻造，要么是斗争各方同归于尽。

As the lowest group situated in this asymmetric structure, the proletariat can only struggle on the poverty line. The proletariat bears all the pains of the development of capitalist society but cannot share any of the joys brought by this development. Individual members of the proletariat may change their identity, but the proletariat as a whole cannot fundamentally transcend its social level within the existing class rule. The class rule of capitalist society necessarily requires such an existence of the proletariat as a whole, because the proletariat not only produces itself and produces the bourgeoisie, but also produces the relations of production; in short, without the proletariat, the bourgeoisie as the ruling class would inevitably be unsustainable.

作为身处此种非对称结构中的最底层群体，无产阶级只能挣扎在贫困线上。无产阶级分担了资本主义社会发展的所有痛苦，却无法分享这一发展所带来的任何快乐。作为无产阶级的个人有可能改变其身份，但作为无产阶级的整体是无法在现存阶级统治中根本超越其社会层级的。资本主义社会的阶级统治必然需要无产阶级这样一种整体存在，因为无产阶级不仅能生产出它自身，生产出资产阶级，还能生产出生产关系，直言之，没有无产阶级，作为统治阶级的资产阶级必然难以为继。

Capitalist relations of production centrally manifest the “hostile mutual opposition” between labor and capital. Labor power, as “living labor,” becomes the fundamental means and method for the valorization of capital; capital, as already “accumulated labor,” becomes the main tool and medium for the expropriation of labor, i.e., living labor. This “hostile mutual opposition” is centrally manifested in the production process of capitalism: “On the one hand, the capitalist mode of production presents itself as a historical necessity for the transformation of the labor process into a social process; on the other hand, this social form of the labor process presents itself as a method employed by capital to exploit the labor process more profitably by increasing its productive power.”

资本主义生产关系集中展现着劳动与资本之间的“敌对性的相互对立”。劳动力作为“活的劳动”成为资本增殖的根本手段与方法，资本作为已经“积累起来的劳动”成为剥夺劳动即活的劳动的主要工具与媒介。此种“敌对性的相互对立”又集中展现在资本主义的生产过程中，“一方面，资本主义生产方式表现为劳动过程转化为社会过程的历史必然性，另一方面，劳动过程的这种社会形式表现为资本通过提高劳动过程的生产力来更有利地剥削劳动过程的一种方法”。

In this way, the class rule of capitalist society inevitably provides political guarantees for the accumulation of infinite wealth by the capitalists, and also inevitably becomes the political root of the accumulation of infinite poverty by the proletariat.

这样一来，资本主义社会的阶级统治必然会为资本家积累无限财富提供政治保障，也必然会成为无产阶级积累起无限贫困的政治根源。

III. Surplus Value: The Economic Root of Proletarian Poverty

三、剩余价值：无产阶级贫困的经济根源

In the process of profoundly criticizing and fundamentally subverting bourgeois political economy, i.e., national economy, Marx established the political economy of the proletariat. While scientifically revealing the secret of the existence of surplus value, Marx also disclosed the economic root of proletarian poverty.

在深刻批判与根本颠覆资产阶级的政治经济学即国民经济学的过程中，马克思确立了无产阶级的政治经济学。马克思在科学揭示剩余价值存在秘密的同时也披露了无产阶级贫困的经济根源。

To scientifically reveal the secret of the existence of surplus value, Marx unprecedentedly started from the commodity, this “elemental form of wealth,” to focus on the process of the generation of surplus value.

为科学揭示剩余价值的存在秘密，马克思前所未有地从商品这一“财富的元素形式”入手来聚焦剩余价值的产生过程。

A commodity is a product of labor produced for exchange, and in capitalist society, the product of labor is naturally the result of the labor of wage workers. This necessitates an examination of labor. Labor is distinguished between concrete labor and abstract labor. Concrete labor refers to “the expenditure of human labor-power in a particular form and with a definite aim,” i.e., labor in a concrete form; abstract labor refers to “the expenditure of human labor-power in the physiological sense,” i.e., general labor after abstracting away the concrete form. Concrete labor produces the use-value of a commodity, while abstract labor produces the value of a commodity. Use-value refers to the property of a commodity that can satisfy some need of the consumer, i.e., “the usefulness of a thing… Whatever the social form of wealth, use-values constitute the material content of wealth”; use-value constitutes the material content of wealth; value refers to “the congealed quantity of homogeneous human labor” in a commodity; value constitutes the general form of material wealth. For a product of labor to successfully become a commodity signifies both the organic unity between concrete labor and abstract labor and the organic unity between use-value and value. In capitalist society, if a product of labor cannot become a commodity, it means that contradictions or even oppositions inevitably arise between concrete labor and abstract labor, and between use-value and value. Commodities are distinguished between general commodities and special commodities: general commodities refer to things that satisfy some need of the consumer through their own properties; special commodities refer to labor power, which can produce a value greater than its own value. A special commodity not only possesses the properties of a general commodity but also has a characteristic that general commodities do not possess, namely, the ability to produce a value greater than its own value.

商品是用来交换的劳动产品，而劳动产品在资本主义社会当然是雇佣工人的劳动成果。由此就需要考察劳动。劳动存在着具体劳动与抽象劳动之别。具体劳动指“人类劳动力在特殊的有一定目的的形式上的耗费”，或者说具体形式下的劳动；抽象劳动指“人类劳动力在生理学意义上的耗费”，或者说抽象掉具体形式之后的一般劳动。具体劳动生产商品的使用价值，抽象劳动则生产商品的价值。使用价值是指商品所具有的能满足消费者某种需要的特性，即“物的有用性……不论财富的社会的形式如何，使用价值构成财富的物质”，使用价值构成财富的物质内容；价值是指凝结在商品中的“无差别的人类劳动”，价值构成物质财富的一般形式。劳动产品能够顺利变成商品，既表征着具体劳动与抽象劳动之间的有机统一，又表征着使用价值与价值之间的有机统一。在资本主义社会，如果劳动产品无法变成商品，那就意味着具体劳动与抽象劳动之间、使用价值与价值之间必然会出现矛盾甚至对立。商品存在着一般商品与特殊商品之别：一般商品指靠自身的属性来满足消费者某种需要的物，特殊商品指能生产出比自身价值更大的价值的劳动力。特殊商品不仅具有一般商品的属性，而且具有一般商品所不具备的特性即能生产出比自身价值更大的价值。

Labor-power is “the aggregate of those mental and physical capabilities existing in the physical form, the living personality of a human being, capabilities which he sets in motion whenever he produces a use-value of any kind.” [1]1 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, Chapter 7, Section 1. Only when labor-power becomes a commodity can it become actual labor-power; only when it becomes actual labor-power can it sustain itself. The capitalist is the owner of the means of production and the means of subsistence. The owner of money can become a capitalist only when he transforms money into capital; if he wishes to transform money into capital, he must find “free workers” on the commodity market. Here “free” has a double meaning in Marx’s view: “On the one hand, the worker is a free person, able to dispose of his labor-power as his own commodity; on the other hand, he has no other commodity for sale, is free of all the objects needed for the realization of his labor-power, i.e., is free of them, is utterly destitute.” [2]2 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, Chapter 6. Marx also points out: “Capital arises only when the owner of the means of production and subsistence finds the free worker on the market, selling his labor-power.” [3]3 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, Chapter 6. For labor-power, they have the freedom to refuse to sell themselves to a particular capitalist, but they do not have the freedom to refuse to sell themselves to all capitalists; they have the freedom to choose a particular time to sell themselves, but they do not have the freedom to choose not to sell themselves at any time. For the capitalist, they own both the means of production and the means of subsistence, and therefore possess far more freedom of choice than labor-power.

劳动力是“人的身体即活的人体中存在的、每当他生产某种使用价值时就运用的体力和智力的总和”。劳动力只有成为商品才能成为现实的劳动力，只有成为现实的劳动力才能让自己存活下来。资本家是指生产资料和生活资料的所有者。货币所有者只有把货币转化为资本才能成为资本家，若想把货币转化为资本，必须在商品市场上找到“自由劳动者”。这里的“自由”在马克思看来具有双重意义：“一方面，工人是自由人，能够把自己的劳动力当做自己的商品来支配，另一方面，他没有别的商品可以出卖，自由得一无所有，没有任何实现自己的劳动力所必需的东西。”马克思还指出：“只有当生产资料和生活资料的占有者在市场上找到出卖自己劳动力的自由工人的时候，资本才产生。”对于劳动力而言，他们有拒绝向某个资本家出卖自己的自由，却没有拒绝向所有资本家出卖自己的自由；他们有选择某个时间出卖自己的自由，却没有选择在所有时间中不出卖自己的自由。对于资本家而言，他们既占有生产资料，又占有生活资料，因此，拥有比劳动力多得多的选择自由。

Marx points out: “The possessor of labor-power and the possessor of money meet in the market, and enter into relations with each other on a footing of equality as owners of commodities, with the sole difference that one is a buyer, the other a seller. Both are therefore equal in the eyes of the law.” [4]4 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, Chapter 6. When selling labor-power, the owner of labor-power can bargain with the owner of money as a subject; when purchasing this special commodity of labor-power, the owner of money can likewise bargain with the owner of labor-power as a subject. After both parties reach an agreement and complete the transaction, the owner of labor-power immediately enters the capitalist production process to produce labor products for the owner of money, and the owner of money pays wages to the owner of labor-power within a specified period.

马克思指出：“劳动力占有者和货币占有者在市场上相遇，彼此作为身份平等的商品占有者发生关系，所不同的只是一个是买者，一个是卖者，因此双方是在法律上平等的人。”劳动力所有者在出卖劳动力时可以主体身份同货币所有者讨价还价，货币所有者在购买劳动力这种特殊商品时同样可以主体身份同劳动力所有者讨价还价。双方达成一致并完成交易后，劳动力所有者会立刻进入资本主义生产过程为货币所有者生产劳动产品，货币所有者也会在特定时间内向劳动力所有者支付工资。

Behind this seemingly equal phenomenon, however, lies an extremely unequal essence. Marx holds that in capitalist society, what the owner of labor-power sells can only be labor-power, not labor; the value of labor-power is determined by the labor time necessary for its production and consequently its reproduction, and the use of labor-power is limited only by the working capacity and physical strength of the laborer; after purchasing labor-power, the owner of money will never, out of conscience or moral consideration, require labor-power to create only a value equivalent to its own value, but will require labor-power to create the maximum value. Thus arises a portion of value exceeding the value of labor-power itself, i.e., surplus value, and the boundless drive for surplus value is the sole purpose of capitalist production. The capitalist production process is the unity of the production process of commodities, the production process of surplus value, the absorption process of surplus labor, and the production process of capital. Marx points out: “He who was previously the money-owner now strides out in front as a capitalist; the possessor of labor-power follows as his worker. The one smirks and is intent, the other is timid and reluctant, like someone who has brought his own hide to market and now has nothing to expect but—a tanning.” [5]5 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, Chapter 6. In this regard, the more surplus value the wage-worker produces for the capitalist, the less value he himself possesses.

此种看似平等的现象背后实则隐藏着一种极不平等的本质。马克思认为，在资本主义社会，劳动力所有者所出卖的，只能是劳动力而非劳动；劳动力价值是由生产从而再生产其劳动力所必需的劳动时间决定的，对劳动力的使用只受劳动力的工作能力与体力的限制；在购买了劳动力后，货币所有者绝不会出于良心发现或者道义考量仅要求劳动力创造出相当于其自身价值的价值，而是会要求劳动力创造出最大化价值。由此就会出现一部分超出劳动力自身价值的价值，即剩余价值，对剩余价值的无止境追逐是资本主义生产的唯一目的。资本主义生产过程是商品的生产过程、剩余价值的生产过程、剩余劳动的吸收过程、资本的生产过程的统一。马克思指出：“原来的货币占有者作为资本家，昂首前行；劳动力占有者作为他的工人，尾随于后。一个笑容满面，雄心勃勃；一个战战兢兢，畏缩不前，像在市场上出卖了自己的皮一样，只有一个前途——让人家来鞣。”就此而言，雇佣工人为资本家生产的剩余价值越多，其自身所占有的价值就越少。

Using surplus value as capital, or reconverting surplus value into capital, is capital accumulation. Marx points out: “Accumulation is the conquest of the world of social wealth. It increases the mass of human material that is exploited, and at the same time extends the direct and indirect rule of the capitalist.” [6]6 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, Chapter 25, Section 1. The capitalist must necessarily invest a portion of surplus value as capital into the production process, and capital therefore has a tendency toward unlimited expansion. This inevitably causes the capitalist production process to “reproduce the separation of labor-power from the conditions of labor… reproduce and perpetuate the conditions for exploiting the worker,” [7]7 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, Chapter 25, Section 1. inevitably “constantly force the worker to sell his labor-power in order to live, and constantly enable the capitalist to purchase labor-power in order to enrich himself,” [8]8 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, Chapter 25, Section 1. and inevitably “constantly throw the worker back onto the commodity market as a seller of his labor-power, and constantly transform the worker’s own product into a means of purchase for the capitalist.” [9]9 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, Chapter 25, Section 1. That is to say, through capital accumulation, the capitalist purchases more labor-power and means of production, thereby being able to command more labor-power and means of production to create more surplus value for himself. In the capitalist’s view, this process can be repeated and infinitely cycled. On this basis, the capitalist becomes increasingly wealthy, while the wage-worker, no matter how hard he struggles, cannot change his fate of growing ever poorer.

把剩余价值当做资本使用，或者说把剩余价值再转化为资本，就是资本积累。马克思指出：“积累是对社会财富世界的征服。它在扩大被剥削的人身材料的数量的同时，也扩大了资本家直接和间接的统治。”资本家必然要把剩余价值中的一部分作为资本投入生产过程，资本因此就具有无限扩大的趋势。这就导致资本主义生产过程必然会“再生产出劳动力和劳动条件的分离……再生产出剥削工人的条件，并使之永久化”，必然会“不断迫使工人为了生活而出卖自己的劳动力，同时不断使资本家能够为了发财致富而购买劳动力”，必然会“把工人不断地当做自己劳动力的卖者投回商品市场，并把工人自己的产品不断地转化为资本家的购买手段”。也就是说，资本家借着资本积累会购买更多劳动力和生产资料，进而能支配更多劳动力和生产资料为自己创造出更多剩余价值。这一过程在资本家看来是能周而复始和无限循环的。在此基础上，资本家能变得越来越富有，而雇佣工人即使万般挣扎也无法改变越来越贫困的宿命。

Marx also analyzes the process of the division of surplus value. The development of capitalism gives rise to three forms of capital: industrial capital, commercial capital, and interest-bearing capital. Correspondingly, three groups of capitalists emerge: the industrial capitalist group, the commercial capitalist group, and the interest-bearing capitalist group. In addition, there are large landowners. All these groups can obtain a share of surplus value and take this as the basis for their own survival and development.

马克思还分析了剩余价值的瓜分过程。资本主义发展过程产生了三种资本：产业资本、商业资本和借贷资本。与此相应的出现了三种资本家集团：产业资本家集团、商业资本家集团和借贷资本家集团。除此之外，还出现了大土地所有者。这些群体都能从剩余价值中分得一杯羹并以此作为自身生存与发展的基础。

First, the industrial capitalist group obtains industrial profit. For the industrial capitalist group, surplus value must necessarily be transformed into profit, which is a prerequisite for expanded reproduction. Profit and surplus value have the same origin; the subtle difference between them is that surplus value is relative to variable capital, while profit is relative to the total capital advanced. Thus, surplus value is the essence of profit, while profit is the transformed form of surplus value. Where there is profit, there is a rate of profit, which is the ratio of surplus value to the total capital advanced. Because the rate of profit is always lower than the rate of surplus value, it necessarily conceals the true source of surplus value. Competition between departments and the free flow of capital cause the rates of profit in various departments to tend toward equalization, thereby forming a social average rate of profit. Once the average rate of profit is formed, capitalists in each department obtain average profit corresponding to the magnitude of their capital according to the average rate of profit.

第一，产业资本家集团分得产业利润。对于产业资本家集团而言，剩余价值必然要转化为利润，这是扩大再生产的前提。利润与剩余价值来源相同，二者之间的细微差别在于：剩余价值是对可变资本而言的，利润则是对全部预付资本而言的。由此，剩余价值是利润的本质，而利润则是剩余价值的转化形式。有利润就会有利润率，利润率是剩余价值与预付总资本之间的比率。利润率因总是小于剩余价值率而必然会遮盖剩余价值的真正来源。部门之间的竞争和资本的自由流动会使各部门的利润率趋于平均化，从而形成社会的平均利润率。平均利润率形成以后，各部门的资本家就会根据平均利润率获得与其资本量相适应的平均利润。

Second, the commercial capitalist group obtains commercial profit. Commercial capital necessarily involves commercial capital, which is a form of capital separated from the commodity-capital function of industrial capital and functioning independently; commercial capital is commercial operating capital. Marx points out: “Commercial capital, therefore, only performs its function as capital in the reproduction process through its function of realizing value, and hence obtains its share of the surplus value produced by the total capital as functioning capital.” [10]10 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 3, Chapter 17. At first glance, commercial profit appears to come from the difference between the selling price and the purchase price of commodities; in fact, this is only an illusion, because commercial profit by no means arises from a markup on the sale of commodities, i.e., not from the sphere of circulation, but from a portion of the surplus value created by wage-workers in the production process. This portion of surplus value is transferred from the industrial capitalist to the commercial capitalist; the commercial capitalist, like the industrial capitalist, can only obtain average profit.

第二，商业资本家集团分得商业利润。商业资本家必然牵涉商业资本，商业资本是从产业资本的商品资本职能中分离出来并独立发挥作用的一种资本形式，商业资本就是商业经营资本。马克思指出：“商业资本只是由于它的实现价值的职能，才在再生产过程中作为资本执行职能，因而才作为执行职能的资本，从总资本所生产的剩余价值中取得自己的份额。”乍看起来，商业利润是来自商品的出售价格与进货价格之间的差额，事实上这只是一种假象，因为商业利润绝非源于商品出售时的加价即不是源于流通领域，而是源于雇佣工人在生产过程中所创造的部分剩余价值。这部分剩余价值是产业资本家让渡给商业资本家的，商业资本家同产业资本家一样只能获得平均利润。

Third, the loan-capitalist group receives interest. Loan capitalists are necessarily involved with loan capital, which is the portion of capital temporarily lent as money capital to functioning capitalists for the purpose of obtaining interest. The loan-capitalist group participates in the division of surplus value through the lending of money. Where there is interest, there is an interest rate; the interest rate is the ratio between the amount of interest and the amount of loan capital (principal) within a given period, also referred to simply as the “rate of interest.” Interest rates are usually divided into three types: annual rate, monthly rate, and daily rate. The upper limit of the interest rate cannot exceed the average rate of profit. Given a certain average rate of profit, the interest rate is regulated by the supply and demand of loan capital. In capitalist society, the lending of money capital is mainly conducted through banks. Banks are enterprises that specialize in dealing in money capital and act as intermediaries in credit relations. The purpose of bank capitalists in operating money-capital business is to obtain profit; bank profit equals the difference between interest on loans and interest on deposits. The ratio of bank profit to the bank’s own capital invested by the banker constitutes the rate of profit on bank capital. Bank profit, like interest, originates from the surplus value created by wage workers.

第三，借贷资本家集团分得利息。借贷资本家必然牵涉借贷资本，借贷资本是为了取得利息而暂时把货币资本借贷给职能资本家使用的那部分资本。借贷资本家集团通过货币的借贷来参与剩余价值的瓜分。有利息就会有利息率，利息率是一定时期内利息额与借贷资金额（本金）之间的比率，也被简称为“利率”。利息率通常分为年利率、月利率、日利率三种。利息率的最高限额不能超过平均利润率，在平均利润率一定的条件下，利息率受借贷资本的供求关系调节。在资本主义社会，货币资本的借贷主要通过银行来进行。银行是专门经营货币资本并充当借贷关系中介人的企业。银行资本家经营货币资本业务的目的就是为了获得利润，银行利润等于放款利息与存款利息之间的差额。银行利润同银行家投资银行的自有资本的比率构成银行资本的利润率。银行利润同利息一样均来源于雇佣工人所创造的剩余价值。

Fourth, the large landowners receive ground rent. Ground rent is the economic realization of land ownership. Capitalist ground rent is that portion of surplus value, exceeding the average profit, which is created by agricultural workers and paid by the agricultural capitalist to the landowner for the right to use the land. Capitalist ground rent most concentratedly displays the fact that agricultural capitalists and large landowners jointly divide the surplus value created by agricultural workers. Capitalist ground rent is divided into two basic forms: differential rent and absolute rent. Land of equal area but different quality necessarily gives rise to differential rent; differential rent is the rent paid by the agricultural capitalist to the large landowner in capitalist agriculture, and is divided into differential rent I and differential rent II; the gradation of land quality is the condition for the formation of differential rent. The rent that the agricultural capitalist must pay regardless of what type of land is leased constitutes absolute rent; absolute rent is the rent arising from the monopoly of private land ownership.

第四，大土地所有者分得地租。地租是土地所有者在经济上的实现。资本主义地租是农业资本家为取得土地使用权而付给土地所有者的且由农业工人创造的超过平均利润的那部分剩余价值。资本主义地租最为集中地展现着农业资本家和大土地所有者共同瓜分农业工人所创造的剩余价值的事实。资本主义地租分为两种基本形式：级差地租和绝对地租。土地面积相等但质量不同必然产生级差地租，级差地租是在资本主义农业中农业资本家向大土地所有者所缴纳的地租，分为级差地租Ⅰ和级差地租Ⅱ，土地的等级差别是形成级差地租的条件；农业资本家无论租用什么样的土地都要缴纳的地租构成绝对地租，绝对地租是由土地私有权的垄断而产生的地租。

Surplus value is that portion of value created by wage workers and appropriated without compensation by the capitalist. Marx’s scientific revelation of the secret of the existence of surplus value not only scientifically explains the economic root of proletarian poverty, but also provides a powerful empirical foundation for further in-depth explanation, from the perspective of economics, of alienated labor and class rule in capitalist society.

剩余价值就是由雇佣工人创造并被资本家无偿占有的那部分价值。马克思科学揭示剩余价值的存在秘密，不仅科学说明了无产阶级贫困的经济根源，而且还为从经济学视角进一步深度阐释资本主义社会的异化劳动和阶级统治提供了强有力的实证基础。

From the above analysis it can be seen that in capitalist society, alienated labor, class rule, and surplus value are respectively the social root, political root, and economic root of proletarian poverty. And alienated labor, class rule, and surplus value in capitalist society are all based institutionally on the capitalist system. In this regard, the capitalist system is necessarily the general root of proletarian poverty. This determines that if the proletariat is to achieve its own fundamental liberation, it must first fundamentally eliminate its own institutional poverty; to fundamentally eliminate its own institutional poverty, it must first thoroughly “abolish bourgeois ownership” [18]18 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *Manifesto of the Communist Party*, Chapter II: “Proletarians and Communists.” and on this basis establish its own ownership; to thoroughly abolish bourgeois ownership and on this basis establish its own ownership, it must first raise itself to the position of the ruling class and win democracy; once it has raised itself to the position of the ruling class and won democracy, it must “step by step, seize all capital from the bourgeoisie, centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class, and increase the total quantity of productive forces as rapidly as possible,” [19]19 Ibid. and also “carry out forcible interference with the rights of ownership and with bourgeois relations of production.” [20]20 Ibid. Only in this way can the proletariat eliminate its own poverty on the basis of fundamentally eliminating the institutional injustice of capitalist society. Marx’s analytical judgment that proletarian poverty is a kind of institutional poverty provides a scientific theoretical foundation for the establishment of Marx’s thought on the fundamental liberation of the proletariat and even of all humanity, and also provides the necessary theoretical guidance for us to comprehensively grasp and deeply comprehend Marx’s thought on the fundamental liberation of the proletariat and even of all humanity.

由上述分析可知，在资本主义社会，异化劳动、阶级统治、剩余价值分别是无产阶级贫困的社会根源、政治根源、经济根源。而资本主义社会的异化劳动、阶级统治、剩余价值等则是以资本主义制度为制度基础的。就此而言，资本主义制度必然是无产阶级贫困的总根源。这就决定，无产阶级要想实现自身的根本解放，首先就要从根本上消除自身的制度性贫困；要想从根本上消除自身的制度性贫困，首先就要彻底“废除资产阶级的所有制”并在此基础上建立自身的所有制；要想彻底废除资产阶级的所有制并在此基础上建立自身的所有制，首先就要使自身上升为统治阶级并争得民主；当自身上升为统治阶级并争得民主之后，就要“一步一步地夺取资产阶级的全部资本，把一切生产工具集中在国家即组织成为统治阶级的无产阶级手里，并且尽可能快地增加生产力的总量”，还要“对所有权和资产阶级生产关系实行强制性的干涉”。只有这样，无产阶级才能在根本消除资本主义社会制度性不公的基础上消解自身的贫困。马克思关于无产阶级贫困是一种制度性贫困的分析判断为马克思关于无产阶级乃至全人类实现根本解放思想的确立提供了科学的理论基础，也为我们全面把握与深刻领会马克思关于无产阶级乃至全人类实现根本解放思想提供了必要的理论指引。

Web editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗