Revisiting the Wealth Concepts of Mercantilism and the Physiocratic School and Their Reflection on the Subject

In the section “Private Property and Labor” of Notebook III of the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844* (hereinafter referred to as the *Paris Manuscripts*), Marx, following the principle of the unity of logic and history, expounds the relationship between private property and labor, namely, the question of the intrinsic relationship of labor to private property. He argues that it is only since Smith that labor has been regarded as the subjective essence of private property, as activity existing for itself, as the subject, as the private property of the individual. Thus, this subjective essence of private property altered the state of thought that regarded private property as something external to the human being. Of course, this was a product of modern industrial development, but it was Smith’s economics that turned it into a power of consciousness. Taking Smith as a reference, Marx critically examines the theoretical views of the monetary system adherents and the supporters of the mercantilist system, as well as the Physiocratic school, on the relationship between private property and labor. On the one hand, he argues that mercantilism and the monetary system regard private property as an objective essence for the human being, implying that they understand private property as an existence external to human labor, that private property is the external world of labor. On the other hand, he points out that the Physiocratic school, represented by Quesnay, reduces all wealth to land and agricultural cultivation. However, because land exists for the human being and is realized as wealth only through the cultivation of agricultural labor, labor has thereby already entered into wealth, and thus labor exists as the subjective essence of wealth. Consequently, a rather popular view has formed: within the logical progression of political economy from mercantilism to the Physiocrats to Smith, the relationship between wealth and labor exhibits the following strong logical transformation: mercantilism places labor outside wealth; the Physiocrats bring labor (agricultural labor) into wealth and make it the subjective essence of wealth; and Smith further takes general labor, rather than agricultural labor, as the universal essence of wealth. We believe that if one relies solely on Smith’s exposition of mercantilism and the Physiocrats, the above transformation process is largely valid. However, if one returns to the discourses of mercantilism and the Physiocrats themselves, and then combines them with the research materials and related judgments of later economic history, such an understanding is perhaps overly simplistic and stereotyped, and is therefore open to question.

在《1844年经济学哲学手稿》(以下简称《巴黎手稿》)笔记本III的“私有财产和劳动”一节中，马克思按照逻辑与历史一致的原则阐述了私有财产和劳动的关系，即劳动对私有财产的内在关系问题。他认为自斯密伊始，劳动才被视为私有财产的主体本质，它才作为自为地存在着的活动、作为主体、作为个人的私有财产。由此，这种私有财产的主体本质改变了把私有财产看作是处于人之外的思想状态。当然，这是现代工业发展的产物，然而是斯密的经济学使其变成了意识的力量。以斯密为参照，马克思批判性地审视了货币主义体系者和重商主义体系拥护者，以及重农学派关于私有财产和劳动的关系的理论观点。一方面，他认为货币主义和重商主义把私有财产看作是对于人而言的对象性本质，言外之意，他们所理解的私有财产是外在于人的劳动的存在，私有财产是劳动的外部世界；另一方面，他指出以魁奈为代表的重农学派把全部财富归结为土地和农业耕作，但是因为土地只有通过农业劳动的耕作才能对人存在，才能实现为财富，所以劳动就已经移入了财富之中，进而劳动也就作为财富的主体本质而存在。于此，一种颇为流行的观点便形成了，即在从重商主义到重农学派再到斯密的政治经济学逻辑中，财富和劳动的关系呈现出如下一种强逻辑的转换：重商主义把劳动置于财富之外，重农学派则把劳动(农业劳动)移入了财富之中，并将其作为财富的主体本质，而斯密进一步把一般劳动而非农业劳动作为财富的普遍本质。我们认为，如果仅根据斯密对重商主义和重农学派的阐述，那么上述转换过程大体上是成立的。但是，如果回到重商主义和重农学派本身的论述中去，进而结合后来经济学史的研究材料及其相关论断来说，这样的理解未免过于标签化和简单化了，因而是值得商榷的。

I. Labor as the Subjective Element of the Mercantilist Concept of Wealth

一、劳动作为重商主义财富观的主体要素

What is mercantilism? From the perspective of its genesis and evolution, its content is broad and its ideas complex, possessing unique insights in economic theory, policy practice, and worldview. As it stands, it has become a concept with diverse interpretations. According to Lyubimov’s view, the term “mercantilism” was first applied by Adam Smith. In the “Introduction” to Book IV, “Of Systems of Political Economy,” of *An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations*, Smith states: “That different states of different ages and nations have given rise to two different systems of political economy for enriching the people. One may be called the mercantile system; the other, the agricultural system.” [1]1 Adam Smith, *An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations*, Book IV, Introduction. In fact, he devotes eight full chapters in this section to criticizing the commercial or mercantile system, which attests to its special status. However, this status is not positive but negative, because it is precisely through his critique of mercantilism that Smith clears the path for his own system of economic liberalism, exerting an important and far-reaching influence on how later generations understood mercantilism. At the same time, the simplistic and stereotyped treatment of mercantilism has also aroused the vigilance and criticism of many historians and economists. Swedish economic historian Lars Magnusson, through textual research, argues: “It is now clear that the term ‘mercantilism’ first appeared in Mirabeau’s *Philosophie Rurale* (1763), where the term ‘mercantile system’ was used.” [2]2 Lars Magnusson, *Mercantilism: The Shaping of an Economic Language* (Routledge, 1994), p. 1. Thus, although Smith was the one who made the mercantilist system famous, he was not the first to use the term. Clearly, such academic textual research is not a pointless dispute over the origin of a word, but signifies a re-examination of the system of thought and theoretical views of mercantilism established by Smith.

何谓重商主义(Mercantilism) 从其生成和演变历程而言，它的内容广泛且思想繁杂，并在经济理论、政策实践和世界观等方面具有独特的见解。从目前看来，它已成为一个众说纷纭的概念。按照卢森贝的看法，“重商主义”这一名称是由亚当·斯密第一个应用的。在《国民财富的性质和原因的研究》第四篇“论政治经济学体系”的“序论”中，斯密认为：“不同时代不同国民的不同富裕程度，曾产生两种不同的关于富国裕民的政治经济学体系。其一，可称为重商主义；其二，可称为重农主义。”其实，他在此专门用了八章的篇幅来批判商业主义或重商主义原理，足见其特殊地位。但这个地位不是积极的，而是消极的，因为斯密正是通过批判重商主义为自身的经济自由主义体系开辟了道路，并对后世所理解的重商主义产生了重要而深远的影响。与此同时，重商主义被简单化、标签化的做法也引起了诸多历史学家和经济学家的警觉和批判。瑞典经济史学家拉斯·马格努松就通过考证认为：“现已清楚，‘重商主义’这个术语首先见于米拉波的《农村哲学》(1763年),当时用的是‘重商体系’。”可见，斯密虽然是使重商主义体系名扬天下之人，但并非第一个使用该词的人。显然，学术界的这种考证不是对该语词来历的无谓之争，而是意味着对斯密所建立起来的重商主义思想体系和观点学说的重新审视。

First, the mercantilist view on money and wealth. Smith argues that the basic view of mercantilism is that “wealth consists of money, or of gold and silver.” Because money has a dual function: it is both the medium of exchange and the measure of value, money therefore constitutes the substance of wealth. Consequently, on the one hand, maximizing the acquisition of money becomes the focus of economic policy, and the theory of the favorable balance of trade or the discovery of new gold and silver mines becomes the guide for people’s economic behavior. On the other hand, as the measure of the value of other commodities, money makes those who possess more of it rich, and those who possess less of it poor. In short, so-called enrichment means possessing enough money. In this sense, Smith believes that according to the mercantilist view, “wealth and money, from any point of view, are synonymous.” [3]3 Adam Smith, *The Wealth of Nations*, Book IV, Chapter I. Thus, mercantilism is labeled with the tag “the view that confuses money with wealth.” This thesis has been criticized by later economics and historical circles: first, such a judgment lacks basic common sense, because not all mercantilists recognized the view that money is wealth. If such a naive and direct view existed in early mercantilism, it no longer existed when late mercantilism shifted towards industrial policy. Second, even if one identifies such a view among early mercantilists, it lacks corresponding textual support. For instance, Joseph Schumpeter once pointed out: “As far as I know, no such proposition is to be found in ‘mercantilist’ writers. To interpret these propositions—however erroneous they may be—one must assume that ‘mercantilist’ writers identified wealth with money or gold and silver ‘treasure,’ or that they confused money with the goods that money can purchase.” [4]4 Joseph Schumpeter, *History of Economic Analysis* (Oxford University Press, 1954), p. 362. In other words, even early mercantilists could distinguish between money and the goods it could purchase, and their understanding of wealth was not fundamentally different from the general understanding of wealth today; it was either property, or means of production, or means of subsistence, in short, things that ensure people’s survival and enjoyment.

首先，重商主义关于货币与财富的见解。斯密认为，重商主义的基本观点是“财富由货币或金银构成”。因为货币有两重作用：既是交易的媒介，又是价值的尺度，所以货币便构成财富的实质。从而，一方面，最大限度地获取货币成为经济政策的重点，贸易顺差论或发现新的金银矿产成为指导人们经济行为的指南；另一方面，货币作为衡量其他商品价值的尺度，使得拥有较多货币的人成为富人，而拥有较少货币的人就是穷人。总之，所谓发财就是占有了足够的货币。在这个意义上，斯密认为按照重商主义的观点来说，“财富与货币，无论从哪一点看来，都是同义语”。于此，重商主义就被贴上了“货币与财富相混淆的观点”的标签。这一论点后来被经济学和历史学界所诟病：一是这样的判断缺乏基本的常识，因为并非所有重商主义者都认可货币即是财富的观点。如果说，在早期重商主义那里还存在这种幼稚和直接的观点的话，那么当晚期重商主义转向工业政策后则不再存在这样的看法；二是即使指认早期重商主义者有此类观点，但也缺乏相应的文本支撑，比如约瑟夫·熊彼特就曾指出：“就我所知，在‘重商主义’作家那里找不到这样的命题，要解释这些命题——不管它们多么错误——必须假定‘重商主义’作家把财富与货币或金银‘财宝’看作是同一东西，或者假定他们把货币同货币可以购买的东西混淆在一起。”言外之意，即使是早期重商主义者，他们也能把货币和由其可购买的货物区分开来，而对于财富的理解，则与我们今天所理解的一般的财富并没有根本区别，它或是财产，或是生产工具，或是生活物资等，总之是保证人们得以存活和享受的东西。

Constrained by the aforementioned misunderstandings of mercantilism, we have long regarded the view that labor is external to wealth as its basic tenet. At the same time, we also need to recognize that we should not, in order to highlight the physiocratic view that labor is internal to wealth, forcibly dress up the mercantilist conception of wealth as one that ignores human labor. Thus, this view needs to be changed: the mercantilist understanding of the relationship between labor and wealth requires reassessment. The early mercantilist representative William Stafford, in *A Compendious or Brief Examination of Certain Ordinary Complaints of Divers of Our Countrymen in These Our Days*, records the complaints uttered by a knight when encountering inequality: “My farming neighbors, merchant gentlemen, dear coppersmiths and other handicraftsmen! You can more easily maintain your own interests. For the more expensive everything becomes, the higher you raise the prices of your commodities and of your own labor products sold abroad. Yet we have nothing to sell at a high price, and thus cannot compensate for the losses we suffer when purchasing goods.” From this it can be seen that whether they were farming peasants, merchants, or handicraftsmen, their interests or wealth lay in the commodities they produced or traded, not in money itself. The late mercantilist representative Thomas Mun, in *England’s Treasure by Forraign Trade*, when discussing the different consequences arising from natural wealth and artificial wealth, points out that natural wealth, though valuable and most advantageous, because it is inexhaustible and never-ending, leads to being uncherished, unvalued, and even wasted, whereas “artificial wealth is wealth obtained by human effort, which makes people vigilant and promotes the development of literature, arts, and politics.” Here, Thomas Mun clearly distinguishes between natural wealth and artificial wealth, which echoes William Petty’s saying—land is the mother of wealth, labor is the father of wealth. From a philosophical perspective, whether it is William Stafford or Thomas Mun, their understanding of the essence of wealth does not actually detach from the subject of human labor activity; they also regard wealth as the product of the subject’s transformation of the object.

受制于对重商主义的上述误解，我们长期以来也把将劳动视为外在于财富的观点作为其基本见解。与此同时，我们也需要认识到，不能为了突显重农主义把劳动移入财富之内的观点，而硬把重商主义的财富观打扮成是忽视人的劳动的观点。可见，这样的观点需要被改变了，即重商主义关于劳动与财富的关系的理解需要被重新评估。早期重商主义的代表人物威廉·司塔福特在《对本国同胞若干不平意见之批判的记述》中，记述了骑士在遭遇不平等时吐露的怨言：“我的种田的邻人、商人先生、亲爱的铜匠和其他手工业者们!你们能够比较容易地保持自己的利益。因为一切物价愈比以前贵，你们就把你们的商品和对外出售的你们自己的劳动生产品的价格提得愈高。然而，我们却没有一件可以高价出售的东西，因此就无法弥补我们购进商品的时候所受的损失。”从此可以看出，无论是种田的农民，还是经商者，抑或手工业们，他们的利益或财富在于他们所生产或经营的商品，而非货币本身。晚期重商主义的代表人物托马斯·孟在《英国得自对外贸易的财富》中论源自自然财富和人为财富的不同后果时指出，源自自然的财富，虽是可贵的和最有优势的，但因为它取之不尽且用之不竭，所以会导致不被珍惜和不被重视甚至是浪费，而“人为财富是靠人的努力而得来的财富，它使人产生警觉心，促进了文学、艺术和政治的发展”。在此，托马斯·孟明确区分了自然财富和人为财富，与配第所言——土地乃财富之母，劳动乃财富之父——具有异曲同工之妙。从哲学的观点看，无论是威廉·司塔福特，还是托马斯·孟，对财富本质的理解其实都没有脱离人这一劳动活动的主体，他们也都把财富视为主体对客体进行改造的产物。

Secondly, the mercantilist view on circulation and wealth. From the course of capitalist development, the first to occupy a dominant position was commercial capital. As is well known, commodity circulation is the premise of commercial capital, i.e., G—W—G′ presupposes W—G—W′, but the contradiction between dispersed production and concentrated sales is resolved within commercial capital. Thus, the magical multiplication of money, G—G′, also arises, causing commercial capital to seemingly forget commodity production and discard the process of combining laborers with the means of labor. As Marx states: “All development of merchant capital tends to give production more and more the character of production for exchange-value, to turn products more and more into commodities.” [5]5 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 3, Chapter 20. In Smith’s view, this is the basis for mercantilism adopting the principle that wealth lies in gold and silver and the principle of a favorable balance of trade—that a country must export more in value than it imports in order to bring in gold and silver. “The great object of the political economy of this kind is then to diminish as much as possible the importation of foreign goods for home consumption, and to increase as much as possible the exportation of the produce of domestic industry. Its two great engines for enriching the country, therefore, are restraints upon importation, and encouragements to exportation.” [6]6 Adam Smith, *An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations*, Book IV, Chapter 1. The “political economy” here refers to mercantilism in Smith’s sense, and through his hand, this partially immature view of early mercantilism became a representative view with universal significance, plastered onto the faces of all mercantilists.

其次，重商主义关于流通与财富的见解。从资本主义发展的历程来说，最先占据主导地位的是商业资本。众所周知，商品流通是商业资本的前提，即G—W—G′以W—G—W′为前提，但生产分散和销售集中的矛盾是在商业资本中得到解决的。由此，货币增殖的魔法G—G′也随之产生了，这使得商业资本似乎遗忘了商品的生产，丢掉了劳动者与劳动资料相互结合的过程。正如马克思所言：“商人资本的一切发展都会促使生产越来越具有面向交换价值的性质，促使产品越来越转化为商品。”在斯密看来，这是导致重商主义采取财富在于金银原则以及贸易顺差政策原则——一国输出的价值要超过输入的价值才能输入金银——的根据。“那么，政治经济学的巨大目的就一定变成尽量减少供国内消费的外国商品的输入，尽量增加国内产业产品的输出了。因此，使国家致富的两大手段就是限制输入和奖励输出。”这里的“政治经济学”所指的就是斯密意义上的重商主义，而且经他之手，这种部分早期重商主义的不成熟观点便成了具有普遍意义的代表性观点，被贴在所有重商主义者的脸上。

In fact, from later research, not all early mercantilists believed that wealth could only be obtained through commodity circulation or a favorable balance of trade. On the one hand, this relates to some early mercantilists’ understanding of wealth, as mentioned above, they recognized the unreality of the view that “wealth is money”; on the other hand, they also correctly saw that the source of wealth lies in industry or manufactured goods, i.e., the sphere of production, not the sphere of circulation. The most typical example at the time was Spain, which first discovered the Americas rich in gold and silver, thereby obtaining large quantities of precious metals and becoming suddenly wealthy. But the good times did not last long; within less than a century, despite possessing vast wealth in gold and silver, Spain’s economy declined, and its foreign trade was in a chronic deficit from which it could not extricate itself. After this incident, from the late 16th century onward, more and more mercantilist thinkers recognized that the essence of wealth does not lie in gold and silver, and its fundamental means of acquisition does not lie in the sphere of circulation either, but in production; manufacturing value-added goods and selling them to obtain a differential is the basis for realizing wealth. On this point, the late mercantilist Thomas Mun also provided a precise analysis, arguing that even by formulating and promulgating various domestic prohibitions, Spain could not guarantee that its wealth would not flow to other countries. “Any country (a country without its own gold and silver mines) that wishes to become rich and possess more gold and silver can only rely on one method and means, which is what we mentioned earlier: obtaining a favorable balance of foreign trade.” [7]7 Thomas Mun, *England’s Treasure by Forraign Trade*, Chapter 4. What Thomas Mun calls “obtaining a favorable balance of foreign trade” here refers to achieving a trade surplus with Spain through the manufacture and sale of necessities and materials. At this point, if one still insists on lumping all mercantilism into the view that wealth originates from the circulation of gold and silver, then it is clearly too biased. For our research, reassessing the mercantilist understanding of the relationship between wealth and circulation not only provides another perspective for interpreting this issue but also helps correct the misconception that the mercantilist understanding of the act of wealth circulation is external to the subjective activity of labor.

其实，从后来的研究看，并非所有的早期重商主义者都认为通过商品流通或贸易顺差才能获得财富。一方面，这与部分早期重商主义者对财富的认识有关，如上所述，他们认识到“财富即货币”的观点具有非现实性；另一方面，他们也正确地看到财富的来源在于工业或制造品，即生产领域，而非流通领域。当时最典型的例子就是西班牙，它最先发现富藏金银的美洲大陆，进而获得了大量贵金属，暴富起来。但是好景不长，西班牙在占有大量金银财富的情况下，不到一个世纪的时间，经济转向凋敝，对外贸易长期处于赤字状态而难以摆脱出来。经此一事，从16世纪后期开始，便有越来越多的重商主义之士认识到财富的本质不在于金银，其根本的取得途径也不在于流通领域，而是在于生产，制造具有附加值的物品并将其出售进而获得差额才是实现财富的根据。对此，晚期重商主义者托马斯·孟也有过精到的分析，他认为依靠制定和颁布各种国内禁令的方法，西班牙也无法保证其财富不流入其他国家。“任何国家(自己没有金银矿藏的国家)要想使自己变得富裕，拥有更多的金和银，只能依靠一种方式和手段，那就是我们在前面所说的获取对外贸易的顺差。”托马斯·孟这里所说的“获取对外贸易的顺差”,即是指通过制造和销售生活必需品和物资来实现对西班牙的贸易顺差。至此，如果还要执意把重商主义统统划入财富来源于金银流通的观点，那么它显然是过于偏颇的。对我们的研究来说，重估重商主义关于财富和流通关系的理解，不仅提供了解读该问题的另一视角，而且有助于纠偏这样一种认识，即认为重商主义所理解的财富流通行为是外在于劳动这种主体活动的。

Thirdly, the influence of the mercantilist-era conception of wealth on the mode of existence of the subject. From the above discussion, it can be seen that the mercantilist conception of wealth is not, as previously identified, a doctrine that sees things but not people; labor as the subjective element of its conception of wealth indicates that the mercantilist-era conception of wealth had an important influence on the mode of existence of the subject. In terms of time span, mercantilism emerged in the 15th century, flourished in the 16th and 17th centuries, and began to decline in the second half of the 18th century, but as an economic policy, it actually persisted until the completion of the British Industrial Revolution in the 1830s. In terms of social system, mercantilism spanned the late feudal period of Western Europe and the early stage of capitalist society, with the dissolution of feudal society on one side and the gradual establishment of capitalist society on the other. From this, it can be seen that the mode of existence of people living in the mercantilist era also underwent important changes, exhibiting diverse characteristics. It should be noted that the mercantilists of the time were mainly composed of merchants and government officials, who had practical and rich experience and could use this as a basis to formulate corresponding mercantilist theories. However, their writings often fail to adequately present the mode of existence of the subject embedded in wealth. The French historian Fernand Braudel, in his work *Civilization and Capitalism, 15th–18th Century*, through an examination of the long historical period, describes the structure of people’s daily life in that era, diverse forms of exchange, and changes in world history, thereby more clearly revealing the influence of the mercantilist-era conception of wealth on the mode of existence of the subject.

再次，重商主义时代的财富观对主体存在方式的影响。通过以上论述可知，重商主义的财富观并不像以往人们所指认的那样是见物不见人的学说，劳动作为其财富观的主体要素便能表明，重商主义时代的财富观对主体的存在方式有着重要影响。就时间跨度而言，重商主义产生于15世纪，兴盛于16世纪和17世纪，在18世纪下半叶转向没落期，但是作为一种经济政策，它其实一直持续到19世纪30年代英国工业革命完成之时。从社会制度来说，重商主义横跨西欧封建社会晚期和资本主义社会早期阶段，一面是封建社会的解体，另一面是资本主义社会的逐步确立。由此可知，身处重商主义时代的人的存在方式也会随之发生重要变化，呈现出多样化的特征。需要说明的是，当时的重商主义者们主要是由商人和政府官员构成，他们具有切实而丰富的实践经验，并能以此为根据提炼出与之相适应的重商主义理论。但是，他们的著作对蕴含于财富中的主体存在方式的阐述往往不足以呈现其面貌。而法国历史学家费尔南·布罗代尔在其著作《十五至十八世纪的物质文明、经济和资本主义》中，通过对长历史时段的考察，描述了那个时代人们日常生活的结构、多样化的交换形式以及世界历史的变迁，更加清晰地揭示了重商主义时代的财富观对主体存在方式的影响。

In Fernand Braudel’s view, the pre-industrial world and the people within it did not have a single mode of existence; rather, a sluggish and rigid primary economy coexisted with a narrow but vibrant modern development: “On one side, there are peasants in the villages, living an almost self-sufficient and free life; on the other side, there is a market economy and capitalism spreading outward like oil droplets, and the gradual development of manufacturing begins to show the embryonic form of today’s world. Thus, there are at least two worlds, two different but mutually explanatory ways of life on the whole.” It can be said that in the mercantilist era—the period before industrial capital established its dominant position—it was not commercial capital alone that governed people’s activities; moreover, commercial capital, as the advanced economic form of that era, mostly exerted its influence only on merchants and government officials. Braudel therefore argues that until the eighteenth century, market economy and capitalism were activities of a minority, while the majority of human activities remained in or were submerged in the vast ocean of material life: “The so-called capitalism of the old era (whether the term I use is reasonable is another matter), this advanced economic form, though novel and striking, was still small in scale and did not control the entire economic life; with few exceptions, it did not constitute a unique ‘mode of production’ but merely spread and popularized spontaneously.” The capitalism of the old era here refers to commercial capitalism or the mercantilist era. Thus, when we attempt to grasp the mode of existence of the subject in the mercantilist era, we cannot take for granted that they arranged the world with commercial capital as the core, as the mercantilists did, unaware that commercial capital only displayed its power at the upper levels of society.

在费尔南·布罗代尔看来，前工业时期的世界以及其中的人并非只有一种存在方式，而是迟钝刻板的初级经济与范围狭小但又生气勃勃的现代化发展并存着：“一方面是村庄中的农民，他们几乎过着自给自足、自由自在的生活；另一方面是如油珠一般向四处扩散的市场经济和资本主义，制造业的逐渐发展开始显现今日世界的雏形。可见，这里至少有两个天地，两种不同的但在总体上又互为解释的生活方式。”可以说，在重商主义时代即产业资本确立其统治地位前的时期，支配人们活动的并非仅是商业资本，更何况商业资本作为那个时代的高级经济形式，大多时候也仅在商人和政府官员身上发挥影响。布罗代尔由此认为，直到18世纪，市场经济和资本主义这两类活动尚属少数人，而人类的多数活动仍停留在或淹没在物质生活的汪洋大海中，“旧时代存在的所谓资本主义(我用的这个术语是否合理姑且不谈),这种高级经济形式虽然新奇和引人注目，但它的规模还小，控制不了整个经济生活；除个别例外，它不构成独特的‘生产方式’,而只是自发地普及和推广而已”。这里的旧时代的资本主义指的便是商业资本主义或重商主义时代。由此可见，当我们试图把握重商主义时代主体的存在方式时，不能想当然地认为他们就如重商主义者那般以商业资本为核心来安排这个世界，殊不知商业资本只是在社会的上层显示自己的力量。

Nevertheless, we cannot forget that the market economy based on money and circulation had already permeated the social operations of the time and greatly influenced and altered the mode of existence of the subject. That is, people who had undergone the process of accumulating wealth through money underwent significant changes in social strata, occupations, intelligence and talent, and temperament. In terms of social strata, as mentioned above, great merchants and government officials were at the upper levels of wealth circulation, while lower-level merchants such as those carrying goods on their shoulders or backs, transporting by cart or boat, and small shopkeepers were at the bottom, and various brokers, usurers, and wholesalers were somewhat higher. This was a significant change brought about by the division of labor and specialization in the commodity circulation system. Besides the hierarchy of wealth, people at that time were also situated within religious, political, and military hierarchies. In terms of occupational changes, with the unfolding of economic activities such as money, commercial capital, commodity circulation, industry, and manufacturing, commerce began to become a respected occupation, and money management, product manufacturing, and the like gradually became important professions. In terms of intelligence and talent, people in the early mercantilist era linked wisdom with wealth. Because acquiring wealth through commerce inevitably involved methods that violated the social habits and customs of the time, such as unequal exchange, this was regarded as a manifestation of wisdom. Thus, people with wisdom in commerce were generally considered good people, i.e., virtuous people, as the famous humanist Leonardo Bruni said in his essay “The Morality of Science”: “No one can be wise who is not good,” and further argued that “the view that wisdom is linked to wealth is correct.” In fact, with the reflection on the early mercantilist over-worship of the idea that “money is wealth,” people’s intelligence and talent also developed in areas such as production, education, and the arts. In terms of changes in temperament, this was mainly manifested in people’s greed for wealth, a condition unavoidable in the mercantilist era and even today. Although this change in temperament originated in the early mercantilist era, once baptized by the commercial world, it spread like a spell, becoming uncontrollable.

尽管如此，我们不能遗忘了以货币和流通为基础的市场经济，在当时的社会运转中已经渗透开来，同时也极大地影响和改变了主体的存在方式。也就是说，经受过由货币而积累财富过程洗礼的人们，在社会阶层、职业、聪明才智、心性等方面都发生了显著变化。在社会阶层方面，正如上文所言，大商人和政府官员处于财富流通的高层，其他的诸如手提肩背、车装船载的低等商人、小店主等则处于社会底层，而各色各样的经纪人、高利贷者和批发商则要比他们更高一些。这是由商品流通体系中的分工和专业化带来的显著变化。除了财富等级之外，当时的人们也还处在宗教等级、政治等级和军事等级的序列中。在职业变化方面，随着货币、商业资本、商品流通和工业、制造业等经济活动的展开，经商开始成为人们崇尚的职业，而货币经营、产品制造等也逐渐成为人们的重要职业。在聪明才智方面，早期重商主义时代的人们把智慧和财富联系在一起。因为通过商业获取财富，就必然会采取违背当时社会习惯和风俗的方式，比如非等价交换，而这被视为有智慧的表现，所以在商业方面有智慧的人一般被看作是好人即有德性的人，正如著名的人文主义者布鲁尼在《科学的道德》一文中所言：“非好人成不了有智慧的人”,进而认为“智慧与财富相联系的观点是正确的观点”。其实，随着对部分早期重商主义过度崇拜“货币即财富”这一观点的反思，人们的聪明才智也在生产、教育、艺术等方面发展起来。在心性改变方面，主要表现为人们对财富的贪婪状态，这是重商主义时代乃至当今都不可避免的一种状况。这种心性的改变，虽然肇始于早期重商主义时代，但是一经商业世界的洗礼，就像被施了魔法一般蔓延开来，一发不可收拾。

By re-examining the above views, we can further judge that the notion that the mercantilist system regarded wealth as external to labor actually contains, to some extent, a certain misunderstanding. On the one hand, this is caused by the enormous influence of Adam Smith’s stereotypical interpretation of mercantilism. Even the young Marx was no exception; for instance, in his “Supplement to Notebook II, Page XXXVI” in the *Paris Manuscripts*, he regarded mercantilism as a theoretical system that advocated money as wealth, stating that “the mercantilist system knows only precious metals as the existence of wealth.” This view actually laid the groundwork for the following logic of political economy: first, it identified that the mercantilist conception of wealth lacked the subjective element of labor; then it transitioned to the stage where the Physiocratic School moved labor into wealth; and finally, it developed into Smith’s stage where general labor was regarded as the universal essence of wealth. We believe that this logical construction lacks historical support, or rather, lacks a basic understanding of the multiple facets of mercantilism.

通过对上述观点的重新审视，我们可以进一步判断那种认为重商主义体系把财富视为外在于劳动的见解，其实或多或少地存在某种误解。一方面，这是由斯密对重商主义的标签化解读所带来的巨大影响造成的。甚至青年时期的马克思也不例外，如他在《巴黎手稿》“对笔记本II第XXXVI页的补充”中，就把重商主义看作是主张货币即财富的理论体系，认为“重商主义体系只知道贵金属是财富的存在”。这种观点其实是在为政治经济学的下列逻辑做铺垫，即首先指认重商主义的财富观缺乏劳动这一主体要素，然后过渡到重农学派把劳动移入财富之中的阶段，再发展到斯密把一般劳动视为财富的普遍本质阶段。我们认为，这种逻辑建构是缺乏历史支撑的，或者说是缺乏对重商主义多重面相的基本认知。

On the other hand, over the three to four hundred years of mercantilist development, the center of the economic world underwent multiple shifts, from Venice in the 1380s to Antwerp, then to Genoa, subsequently to Amsterdam, and finally to London in the late eighteenth century. In this process, mercantilism relied on the particularities of national and ethnic economies to accumulate wealth, and its conception of wealth was not limited solely to precious metals. Of course, the conditions for this particularity also included the natural resources and labor productivity of each region. It can be said that the spirit of pursuing wealth in mercantilism could never have been achieved solely by the worship of external objective money by some early mercantilists. In terms of the dissemination of the conception of wealth, the exploration of ways to realize wealth in combination with specific realities, and the use of the universal form of wealth to dominate people, mercantilism actually played a pivotal role, laying an important foundation for private property to later complete its domination over people and “become a world-historical force in its most universal form.” To achieve this, judging from the historical process of mercantilism, it is unimaginable without the subjective elements contained in its conception of wealth!

另一方面，在重商主义的三四百年发展历程中，经济世界的中心经历了多次转移，从14世纪80年代的威尼斯到安特卫普，再到热那亚，随后迁至阿姆斯特丹，并最终在18世纪晚期转移到伦敦。在这一过程中，重商主义依赖于各国和民族经济的特殊性来积累财富，其财富观念并非仅仅局限于贵金属。当然，这种特殊性的条件还包括各地区的自然资源、劳动生产力等。可以说，重商主义追求财富的精神，绝不仅是依赖部分早期重商主义对外在的对象性货币的崇拜就能达成的。它在财富观念传播、财富实现方式上结合特殊实情的探索，以及借助于财富的普遍形式对人进行统治等方面，实际上起到了举足轻重的作用，为后来的私有财产完成对人的统治，并“以最普遍的形式成为世界历史性的力量”做了重要奠基。而要做到这一点，从重商主义的历史进程来看，离开它的财富观所蕴含的主体要素是不可想象的!

II. Labor as the Subjective Constitution of the Physiocratic School’s Conception of Wealth

二、劳动作为重农学派财富观的主体构成

As its name suggests, Physiocracy is a system of doctrine based on agriculture. Because agriculture relies on natural things such as land, it also signifies the rule of nature, or the natural order. Unlike mercantilism, which spanned the 15th to the 18th centuries, Physiocracy took less than 20 years to form, flourish, and disintegrate, i.e., from the publication of Quesnay’s *Tableau économique* in 1758 to the resignation of Turgot, Louis XVI’s finance minister and Quesnay’s most outstanding follower, in 1776. Relatedly, the development and influence of mercantilism were broad and profound across Europe, whereas Physiocracy was mainly confined to France, did not spread to other regions, and its influence did not last long. This is why Smith made the following observation: “That system, which represents the produce of land as the sole source of the revenue and wealth of every country, has, so far as I know, never been adopted by any nation, and it at present exists only in the speculations of a few men of great learning and ingenuity in France. It would not, surely, be worth while to examine at length the errors of a system which never has done, and probably never will do, any harm in any part of the world.” [11]11 Adam Smith, *An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations*, Book IV, Chapter IX. The translation follows the Chinese text’s rendering of Smith’s passage. Indeed, in *An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations*, the discussion of Physiocracy occupies only about one-tenth the length of that on mercantilism. In it, we can see that Smith’s “disdain” for Physiocracy was not without reason: standing on the eve of the completion of British industrial capital, he sharply criticized the Physiocratic doctrine that the produce of land is the sole source of wealth, thereby excluding merchants, manufacturers, and artisans from the ranks of wealth producers. As he said, this criticism was pertinent. But to dismiss the Physiocratic conception of wealth as entirely worthless is also biased. Doing so clearly overlooks the progressive aspect of the Physiocratic conception of wealth, namely, the important historical significance of their analysis of the real composition of wealth.

顾名思义，重农学派(Physiocracy)是以农业为本的一种学说体系。因为农业所倚重的是土地之类的自然物，所以它又意指自然的统治，或自然的规则。与重商主义横跨15世纪到18世纪不同，重农学派从形成到兴盛再到解体仅用了不到20年的时间，即从1758年魁奈的《经济表》发表开始，到1776年路易十六的财政大臣、魁奈最杰出的信徒杜尔高卸任为止。与此相关，重商主义的发展及其影响对于整个欧洲都是广泛和深刻的，而重农主义主要局限于法国国内，并未扩散到其他地区，而且其影响也没有持续太长时间。这也就难怪斯密会发出如下感慨：“据我所知，把土地生产物看作各国收入及财富的唯一来源或主要来源的学说，从来未被任何国家所采用；现在它只在法国少数博学多能的学者的理论中存在着。对于一种未曾、也许永远不会危害世界上任何地方的学说的谬误，当然不值得长篇大论去讨论。”的确如此，《国民财富的性质和原因的研究》中讨论重农学派的篇幅大约只有重商主义的十分之一。在其中，我们可以看到斯密对重农学派的“轻视”不是没有理由的，因为他站在英国产业资本即将完成的前夜，尖锐地批评了重农学派关于土地生产物是财富的唯一来源，进而把商人、制造业者和工匠的劳动排除在财富的生产者之外的学说。诚其所言，这种批评是中肯的。但是把重农学派的财富观说得一无是处，也是偏颇的。因为这样做显然忽视了重农学派财富观的进步性，即他们对财富真实构成的分析所具有的重要历史意义。

Those holding the above view were not only Smith but also those who had already abandoned and forgotten it at the time. It was not until the latter half of the 19th century that the excavation and study of Physiocracy gradually received academic attention. The new materials and new perspectives they provided laid an important theoretical foundation for later people to re-understand the Physiocratic conception of wealth. In this regard, Marx’s research and evaluation are invaluable. As Rosenburg said: “Marx was the first person to make Physiocracy an object of renewed study, and only he gave it a correct appraisal.” [12]12 Isaak Ilich Rubin (Люксембург in Chinese transliteration, likely referring to the Soviet economist Isaak Ilich Rubin, though the name given is “卢森贝” which is a standard Chinese transliteration for the Marxist economist often cited in Chinese scholarship; the note clarifies the reference). Coincidentally, Joseph Schumpeter believed that Smith could not fully understand the significance of Quesnay’s *Tableau économique* and gave it a negative evaluation, arguing that “only Marx was the first-rate economist who gave Quesnay his due.” [13]13 Joseph Schumpeter, *History of Economic Analysis*. Clearly, this correct appraisal includes both a critique of the historical limitations of Physiocracy and a positive evaluation of its theoretical creations. For the young Marx, who had just begun his critique of political economy, in the section “Private Property and Labor” of Notebook III of the *Paris Manuscripts*, he had already correctly discerned the Physiocrats’ understanding of the essence of wealth, represented by Quesnay. In Marx’s view, the Physiocrats reduced all wealth to land and agricultural labor. On the one hand, because land is a universal natural element, “the object of wealth, the material of wealth, immediately receives the highest universality within the bounds of nature”; on the other hand, because land exists only through labor and cultivation, “the subjective essence of wealth has already been transferred into labor.” [14]14 Karl Marx, *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, “Private Property and Labor.” Here, Marx grasped the inherent contradiction in the Physiocratic definition of wealth: the Physiocrats regarded only agricultural labor as the sole labor that produces wealth, which essentially meant they regarded nature as the sole source of wealth. For land is not an element of labor, but labor is an element of land. Nevertheless, Marx believed that the Physiocrats had announced to humanity the great view that labor is the essence of wealth, thereby negating that particular, external conception of wealth based solely on precious metals. Consequently, Marx later further pointed out in *Theories of Surplus Value*: “The Physiocrats transferred the inquiry into the origin of surplus value from the sphere of circulation into the sphere of direct production, and thereby laid the foundation for the analysis of capitalist production,” [15]15 Karl Marx, *Theories of Surplus Value*, Chapter 2, “The Physiocrats.” thus they can be called the true founders of modern economics.

持有上述看法的人，当然不仅仅是斯密，还包括当时就已经抛弃和遗忘它的人，直到19世纪后半期，对重农学派的挖掘和研究才逐渐受到学界的重视。他们所提供的新材料和新观点，为人们后来重新认识重农学派的财富观奠定了重要的理论基础。在这方面，马克思的研究和评价是弥足珍贵的。正如卢森贝所言：“马克思是第一个把重农主义作为重新研究的对象的人，而且只有他给了重农主义以正确的评论。”无独有偶，约瑟夫·熊彼特认为斯密不能充分理解魁奈《经济表》的重要意义，而对他予以否定性的评价，认为“只有马克思是唯一给予魁奈以正确评价的第一流经济学家”。显然，这种正确评价既包括对重农学派历史局限性的批判，同时也包括对它的理论创造的积极评介。对于刚从事政治经济学批判不久的青年马克思来说，他在《巴黎手稿》笔记本Ⅲ的“私有财产和劳动”部分，就已经正确地洞见了以魁奈为代表的重农学派对财富本质的理解。在马克思看来，重农学派把全部财富归结为土地和农业劳动，一方面是因为土地作为一种普遍的自然要素，所以他们所理解的“财富的对象、财富的材料立即获得了自然界范围之内的最高普遍性”;另一方面又因为土地只有通过劳动、耕作才能存在，所以“财富的主体本质已经移入劳动中”。在此，马克思把握到了重农学派对财富规定的内在矛盾，即重农学派只把农业劳动看作是生产财富的唯一劳动，实质上也就意味着他们把自然界看作财富的唯一来源。因为土地不是劳动的要素，而劳动却是土地的要素。尽管如此，马克思认为重农学派还是向人类宣布了这样一个伟大的观点，即劳动是财富的本质，进而也就否定了那种特殊的、外在的、仅仅是以贵金属为对象的财富观。由此，马克思后来在《剩余价值学说史》中进一步指出：“重农主义派，把剩余价值起源的研究，由流通领域推移到直接的生产领域，并由此立下了资本主义生产的分析的基础”,从而他们称得上是近代经济学的真正的鼻祖。

From Marx’s relevant discussions, it can be seen that the Physiocrats’ analysis of the real composition of wealth possesses great tension: on the one hand, they regarded agricultural labor as the only form of labor that creates wealth; on the other hand, they regarded labor merely as an element of land, with the real source of wealth lying in land itself. So, for the Physiocrats, what status does labor actually occupy in the composition of wealth? To delve deeper into this issue, we need to return to the relevant discussions of Quesnay, the founder of Physiocracy, for examination.

从马克思的相关论述可以看出，重农学派对财富真实构成的分析有着巨大的张力，即一方面认为农业劳动是创造财富的唯一劳动形式，另一方面又认为劳动仅是土地的要素，财富的真实来源其实在土地本身。那么，对于重农学派来说，劳动在财富的构成中到底占有什么样的地位呢?于此，为了深入讨论该问题，我们需要返回重农学派的创始者魁奈的相关论述中予以考察。

First, the Physiocrats’ understanding of the essence of wealth. Similar to the result of the later 16th-century mercantilist reflection on the view that “money is wealth,” Quesnay also believed that although Spain possessed rich gold and silver mines in Peru, it was extremely deficient in necessities of production and life, which led to its subsequent impoverishment. In stark contrast, Britain maintained its prosperity through real wealth. On this point, Quesnay shared similarities with later mercantilists, but also significant differences. The similarity is that both distinguished between monetary wealth and real wealth, which is where they surpassed bullionism, but neither denied the rationality of the existence of monetary wealth. In *Grains*, Quesnay argued that wealth must consist of two elements: first, it must be something necessary for people; second, it must be used for exchange, i.e., it becomes wealth only in buying and selling. Thus, he held: “Agricultural products, as commodities, are a synthesis of monetary wealth and real wealth.” [16]16 François Quesnay, “Grains” (article in the *Encyclopédie*). In *Taxation*, he further defined the relationship between the two, pointing out that monetary wealth is not reproduced annually; in trade, it is merely a representative of real wealth, and without real wealth, monetary wealth is non-productive and useless wealth. However, monetary wealth is also very useful; as potential wealth, its value can serve as a measure for various kinds of real wealth and can also help people obtain real wealth. Regarding real wealth, Quesnay made a distinction that Marx later regarded as a major breakthrough: “Among real wealth, one must distinguish between productive wealth that can yield income and non-productive consumption wealth, i.e., wealth that satisfies people’s needs.” [17]17 François Quesnay, “Taxation” (article in the *Encyclopédie*). Only this distinction confined productive wealth that can yield income to the products of land and agricultural labor, while regarding industrial and handicraft manufactures as non-productive consumption wealth. Clearly, this is also a major difference between Physiocracy and mercantilism. As mentioned above, later mercantilists precisely regarded industry and handicraft manufacturing as important sources of monetary wealth.

其一，重农学派对财富本质的理解。与16世纪后期的重商主义对“货币即财富”的观点反思的结果一样，魁奈也认为西班牙虽然拥有秘鲁的金银富矿，但是生产和生活的必需品却极缺，这导致了它后来的贫瘠。与此形成鲜明对比的是，英国依靠实物财富维持着它的富裕。在这一点上，魁奈和后来的重商主义者有相似之处，但也有重大区别。所谓相似之处，就是他们都把财富区分为货币财富和实物财富，这是超越货币主义的地方，但是也都没有否定货币财富存在的合理性。在《谷物论》中，魁奈认为所谓财富必须由两个要件构成：一是它是为人所必需的东西；二是它必须用作交换，即在买卖时它才能成为财富。所以，他认为：“作为商品来看的农产物，是货币财富和实物财富的综合体。”在《赋税论》中，他对两者的关系又做了进一步界定，指出货币财富不是每年都再生产的，在贸易中它仅是实物财富的代表，如果没有实物财富，货币财富只是非生产性的和无益的财富。然而，货币财富又是十分有用的，它作为潜在财富的价值可以充当衡量各种实物财富的尺度，也可以帮助人们获得实物财富。关于实物财富，魁奈做了一个后来在马克思看来具有重大突破的区分，即“在实物财富中，应当把能提供收入的生产性财富同非生产性的消费财富，也就是满足人们需要的财富加以区别”。只是这种区分把能提供收入的生产性财富仅划定在土地和农业劳动的产物范围内，而把工业和手工业制造品视为非生产性的消费财富。显然，这也是重农学派和重商主义的重大区别所在。如上所述，后来的重商主义者恰恰把工业和手工制造业看作是取得货币财富的重要源泉。

Quesnay’s analysis of the nature of wealth, especially his distinction between productive and unproductive material wealth, and his further classification of agricultural production as productive and industrial and manufacturing production as unproductive, were regarded by Smith as bizarre and incomprehensible. However, if we delve deeper into the philosophical thought on which the Physiocratic School relied, namely natural law, we can more reasonably grasp this seemingly peculiar concept of wealth. In *Natural Right*, Quesnay argued that to understand the scope of the natural rights of people united in society, one must, as far as possible, base this on the natural laws that serve as the best foundation for governance. Furthermore, this natural law includes two types of rules: one is the laws of physical objects, i.e., the rules governing the operation of all actual events that clearly arise from the natural order most beneficial to humanity; the other is the laws of morality, i.e., the rules governing all human behavior that clearly arise from the moral order most beneficial to humanity. Clearly, for Quesnay, these laws were immutable, unalterable, and the best possible; only by obeying these supreme laws could humanity fully increase wealth. On the one hand, production must follow the physical laws of nature, cultivating in accordance with the natural growth laws of the land, especially the soil, to promote the production of wealth, while industry and manufacturing merely process the products of the land and cannot increase wealth. On the other hand, if each person’s natural rights (the right to objects suitable for their enjoyment) are respected on the basis of the natural order, they can be proportionally extended. This natural law not only does not restrict human freedom but is the best choice for human freedom. Thus, it can be seen that the basis for Quesnay’s distinction between productive and unproductive wealth and their sources of activity is actually the natural law as he understood it. In other words, according to this natural law, Quesnay’s distinction can be understood. However, although Quesnay, through the construction of natural law, demonstrated the material content and naturalness of wealth production, he did not, like Smith, develop the intellectual height of regarding labor as the subjective essence of wealth; he merely placed labor under the natural and moral orders most beneficial to humanity.

魁奈对财富本质的分析，尤其是他把实物财富区分为生产性财富和非生产性财富，进而把农业生产和工业、制造业的生产区分为生产性和非生产性的，在斯密看来都是一些奇谈怪论，不可理喻。但是如果我们进一步深入重农学派所倚重的哲学思想即自然法，就可以较为合理地把握这种看似怪论的财富观了。在《自然权利》中，魁奈认为，为了认识结合成社会的人的自然权利范围，必须尽可能以作为最好统治基础的自然法则为依据。进言之，这种自然法包括两类规律：一种是物体的规律，即明显地从对人类最有利的自然秩序中产生的一切实际事件的运行规则；另一种是道德的规律，也就是明显地从对人类最有利的道德秩序中产生的一切人类行为的规律。显然对于魁奈来说，这些规律都是坚定不移的、不可更改的，而且也是最优良的，人类只有遵守这些最高的规律，才可以充分地增加财富。一方面，人们的生产要遵循物理的自然法则，按照自然界尤其是土地的自然生长规律来耕作促进财富的生产，而工业和制造业只是对土地产物的加工，是不能增进财富的；另一方面，每一个人的自然权利(人们对于适合他们享用的物件的权利)如果能在自然秩序的基础上得到遵守，那么它们则能成比例地得到伸展。这种自然法不仅不限制人的自由，而且是人们自由的最好选择。由此可知，魁奈区分生产性财富和非生产性财富及其活动来源的根据，其实是他所理解的自然法。换言之，根据这种自然法，魁奈的区分是可以被理解的。然而，魁奈虽然通过自然法的建构论证了财富生产的物质内容及其自然性，但他并没有像斯密那样展现出把劳动视为财富的主体本质的思想高度，而只是将劳动置于对人类最有利的自然秩序和道德秩序之下。

Second, the Physiocratic School’s grasp of the composition of wealth. The most distinctive feature of the Physiocratic School’s assertions about wealth is undoubtedly their judgment on the composition of wealth. In *Taxation Theory*, Quesnay introduced the concept of “net product” to elucidate the true composition of wealth. He argued that net product is “the product remaining after deducting all expenses from the gains obtained from the land, which constitutes the annually created wealth of national income.” Thus, land is the sole source of net product. Whether it is the costs incurred in production, the expenses paid to cultivators, or the surplus product, all originate from the land. In other words, he believed that only the products of the land are the most original, purely obtained, and constantly renewed wealth, used by people to pay for all other goods they purchase. It can be said that this is the core idea with which Quesnay laid the foundation for the Physiocratic School. As he clearly stated in *General Maxims for the Economic Governance of an Agricultural Kingdom*: “Land is the sole source of wealth; only agriculture can increase wealth.” In卢森贝’s view, Quesnay’s so-called net product is actually nothing more than the surplus of the value of the reproduced commodity over the cost of production, which mainly includes the expenses for seeds and the means of subsistence for workers. If production costs are fixed, then net product is also fixed; thus, the magnitude of net product depends on the level of wages. The result is that “net product is originally not the ‘pure’ product of nature, but is determined by wages.” Hence, Marx affirmed that the Physiocratic School laid the foundation for analyzing capitalist production. In fact, in *On Tenant Farmers*, Quesnay elaborated in detail that only large-scale farming operations yield net product, while small-scale farming does not, because the former involves tenant farmers hiring cultivators for production, whereas the latter rarely employs others to work. Therefore, when analyzing the composition of net product, although Quesnay identified land as the sole source, he had to acknowledge the pivotal role and significance of labor within it. However, this also reveals the internal contradictions in the Physiocratic School’s understanding of the composition of wealth.

其二，重农学派对财富构成的把握。重农学派关于财富的论断最具特色的地方莫过于对财富构成的判断。在《赋税论》中，魁奈提出“纯产品”概念用以阐明财富的真实构成问题。他认为所谓纯产品就是“从土地取得的盈利扣除了一切支出以后，所余的产品就是构成国家收入的每年创造的财富”。所以，土地是纯产品的唯一来源。无论是生产中所产生的费用，还是支付给耕作者的费用，抑或是剩余的产品，都来源于土地。换言之，他认为只有土地的产品才是最原始的、纯粹得到的、经常在更新的财富，人们在购买其他一切物品时都是用它来支付的。可以说，这是魁奈为重农学派奠基的核心思想。正如他在《农业国经济统治的一般准则》中所明确表述的那样：“土地是财富的唯一源泉，只有农业能够增加财富。”在卢森贝看来，魁奈所谓的纯产品其实不过是重新生产出来的商品价值超过生产费用的那个余额而已，这里的生产费用主要包括种子和工作者的生活费。如果生产费用是一定的，那么纯产品也就是一定的，所以纯产品的量的大小取决于工资的多少，“结果是：纯产品原来不是自然界的‘纯’产品，而是受工资所决定的”。由此，马克思才肯定地认为重农学派为分析资本主义的生产奠定了基础。实际上，魁奈在《租地农场主论》中详细论述了大农场经营才会带来纯产品，而小农场经营是不会带来纯产品的，因为前者是租地农场主通过雇佣耕作者来生产的，而后者则很少雇佣他人来劳作。所以，魁奈在分析纯产品构成时，虽然指认土地为唯一来源，但也不得不承认劳动在其中具有举足轻重的地位和意义。然而，这也显示了重农学派在理解财富构成时所存在的内在矛盾。

Third, the Physiocratic School’s concept of wealth and its understanding of the mode of existence of the subject. For Quesnay, how people exist is consistent with how they produce wealth. Therefore, when examining the Physiocratic School’s concept of wealth, it must be closely integrated with its understanding of the mode of existence of the subject, so as to further grasp the issue of the composition of the subject embedded within it. Broadly speaking, he elaborated on this mainly in *On Population* and in writings related to the *Economic Table*. At the beginning of *On Population*, Quesnay pointed out that the factor constituting a nation’s strength is people; national wealth grows with the growth of people’s needs, because the more people consume products, the more they promote the production of products, and thus the price and vast quantity of products generate income and increase national wealth. Therefore, “in increasing the production and consumption of products, people themselves become the first creative factor of their own wealth.” [18]18 Quesnay, *On Population*, in *Quesnay’s Economic Writings*, vol. 1, p. 103. Unlike his earlier claim that land is the sole source of wealth, Quesnay here regards people themselves as the primary factor in wealth creation. We know that people and their labor were actually in a passive position in Quesnay’s concept of wealth, subordinate to the land. But in any case, the view that people themselves become the first creative factor of wealth indicates that he came closer to the later classical economic understanding of the essence of wealth. In addition, he also expressed similar views: a nation’s strength is maintained by its wealth, and wealth is created by the people who produce it; everything people spend from their wages or profits benefits others and becomes a source for regenerating and restoring wealth, and so on. Thus, it can be seen that there is considerable tension in the Physiocratic School’s understanding of the mode of existence of the subject. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, Quesnay in *On Population* also regarded people as existing in the mode of consumers and producers, thereby arguing for the increase of wealth. In this regard, he elevated the status of people to a position seemingly capable of surpassing the land, which is clearly a vague yet novel assertion. Quesnay’s ambivalent attitude may also explain why many researchers of the Physiocratic School pay less attention to *On Population*.

其三，重农学派的财富观对主体存在方式的理解。对于魁奈而言，人是怎样存在的，是和他怎样生产财富相一致的。所以，在考察重农学派的财富观时，也必须将它与其对主体存在方式的理解紧密结合起来，从而进一步把握蕴含于其中的主体构成问题。大体来说，他主要是在《人口论》和有关《经济表》的著述中对此进行了阐述。在《人口论》的开篇，魁奈就指出构成国家强大的因素是人，国家财富是由于人的需要的增长而增长的，因为人们对生产品消费的越多，就越会促进产品的生产，进而产品的价格和巨大的数量就会产生收入并增进国民财富。所以，“在增加产品的生产和消费方面，人们本身就成为自己财富的第一个创造性因素”。与他之前把土地视为财富的唯一来源的主张不同，魁奈在此把人本身作为财富创造的首要因素。我们知道，人及其劳动其实在魁奈的财富观中是处于被动地位的，是受制于土地的。但无论如何，人本身成为财富的第一个创造性因素的观点表明，他更接近后来古典经济学对财富本质的理解。除此以外，他还谈到类似的观点：一个国家的力量靠它的财富来维持，而财富是由生产这些财富的人们创造的；人们从自己的工资或盈利收入中花费的一切，能为别人带来好处，并且重新成为产生和恢复财富的来源，等等。由此可见，重农学派对主体存在方式的理解存在着相当大的张力。不论是有意，还是无意，魁奈在《人口论》中还把人看作是以消费者和生产者的方式存在的，从而为财富的增进做论证。于此而言，他把人的地位提升至一个似乎能超越土地的地位，显然是一个虽然模糊但又崭新的论断。魁奈的这种摇摆态度，或许也可以解释为什么很多重农学派的研究者较少重视《人口论》。

In the *Tableau Économique*, Quesnay offered a highly original understanding of real human beings as existing in the form of classes. Mirabeau, a staunch believer in the Physiocratic School, once boasted that the *Tableau Économique* was the third great invention of humanity after writing and money. Marx considered this an obvious exaggeration by Mirabeau, but he also affirmed that “the ‘Tableau Économique’ was always a stroke of genius.” [19]19 Karl Marx, *Theories of Surplus Value*, Part 1, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 31 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 293. In this table, Quesnay for the first time regarded the whole of society as an organism for the production and circulation of wealth, in which every individual exists as a member of a class, and the complex circulation behaviors of each individual constitute the circulation among the economic and social classes. As Marx put it, in it “the innumerable individual acts of circulation are at once brought together in their characteristic social mass movement—the circulation between great and functionally determined economic classes of society.” [20]20 Karl Marx, *Capital*, vol. 2, in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 36 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 175. According to Joseph Schumpeter, “it describes the flow of expenditures and products among the social classes, which here become the actors in the economic drama.” [21]21 Joseph A. Schumpeter, *History of Economic Analysis* (New York: Oxford University Press, 1954), p. 242. Indeed, Quesnay here divided the entire nation into three classes based on the distinction between the productive and unproductive nature of wealth: the productive class, the class of landowners, and the sterile class. Among them, the productive class consists of the cultivators of the land, who reproduce wealth year after year, bear all the advances in agricultural labor, and provide the annual revenue for the landowners; the class of landowners includes the sovereign, the landowners, and the tithe collectors, who live off the net product provided to them by the productive class; the sterile class is composed of those engaged in work and other types of labor outside agricultural labor [22]22 François Quesnay, *Tableau Économique*, in *Quesnay’s Tableau Économique*, ed. Marguerite Kuczynski and Ronald L. Meek (London: Macmillan, 1972), p. 33., and their expenditures are provided by the productive class and the class of landowners. Based on this class division, the *Tableau Économique* made a highly ingenious conception of the circulation process and results among the social classes within an agricultural country. Undoubtedly, this was the inevitable result of the Physiocratic School’s shift in the creation of wealth from the sphere of circulation to the sphere of production. In this regard, the ontological significance of real human beings and their mode of existence was finally given a preliminary theoretical revelation.

在《经济表》中，魁奈对现实的人以阶级的方式存在做了极富创见的理解。重农学派的坚定信仰者米拉波曾豪言，《经济表》是人类在文字和货币以后的第三大发明。马克思认为，这显然是米拉波的夸大其词，但他也肯定了“‘经济表’总是一个极有天才的创见”。在该表中，魁奈第一次把整个社会看作是财富生产和流通的有机体，处于其中的每一个人都以阶级成员的方式存在，每一个人的纷繁复杂的流通行为构成了经济社会阶级之间的流通。正如马克思所言，在其中“无数单个的流通行为，从一开始就被概括为它们的具有社会特征的大量运动，——几个巨大的、职能上确定的、经济的社会阶级之间的流通”。按照约瑟夫·熊彼特的说法则是，“它所描述的是社会各阶级之间支出与产品的流动，这些阶级在这里变成经济剧本中的演员”。的确如此，魁奈在这里根据财富的生产性与非生产性的区分，把整个国民分为三个阶级，即生产阶级、土地所有者阶级和不生产阶级。其中，生产阶级是土地的耕作者，逐年地把财富再生产出来，并承担农业劳动上的所有预付，为土地所有者提供每年的收入；土地所有者阶级则包括君主、土地所有者和什一税的征收者，他们靠生产者阶级为其提供的纯产品而生活；不生产阶级由从事农业劳动以外的其他工作和别种劳动的人组成(33),他们的支出由生产阶级和土地所有者阶级提供。《经济表》正是基于这样的阶级划分，对农业国内部社会阶级之间的流通过程和结果做了极具天才的创想。毋庸置疑，这是重农学派把财富的创造从流通领域转向生产领域的必然结果。就此而言，现实的人及其存在方式的本体论意义终于在理论上得到了初步揭示。

However, one point that needs to be clarified is that Quesnay never acknowledged labor as the sole source of wealth; instead, he insisted that land is the sole source of wealth, and that labor merely shapes and transforms the products of land and nature. In other words, he always held that labor only adds its own value to the products of land and nature. From this, it can be seen that in Quesnay’s conception of wealth, labor did not manifest its status as the subjective essence of wealth. Although in the *Tax Treatise*, Quesnay made a statement that appears to conflict with this, namely, “the wealth produced by land is itself determined by human labor, so the labor of those who make wealth from the land should be distinguished from the labor of workers who manufacture various manufactured goods in factories.” [23]23 François Quesnay, “Tax Treatise,” in *Quesnay’s Œuvres Économiques Complètes et Autres Textes*, ed. Christine Théré, Loïc Charles, and Jean-Claude Perrot (Paris: INED, 2005), p. 587. However, what he meant here by “the wealth produced by land is determined by human labor” does not refer to agricultural labor as the source of wealth, but merely affirms the active subjective role of agricultural labor in the production of wealth. In fact, Quesnay believed that wealth is constituted on the one hand by the object of land, and on the other hand by the subjective activity of the cultivator’s labor, but the role of land as the object is far greater and more fundamental than that of agricultural labor as the subject. Therefore, it cannot be simply concluded that in the Physiocratic School, the subjective essence of wealth lies in labor itself. In the final analysis, they believed that agricultural labor constitutes an element of wealth only by shaping the products of land and nature. Thus, the author argues that in the Physiocratic School, agricultural labor is the subjective component of wealth, not its subjective essence.

然而，有一点需要明确的是，魁奈无论如何都没有承认劳动是财富的唯一来源，而是坚持主张土地是财富的唯一来源，劳动只是对土地和自然界的产物加以塑形和改造而已。换言之，他始终认为，劳动只是把自身的价值附加于土地和自然界的产物之中。由此可知，劳动在魁奈的财富观中并没有彰显出其作为财富的主体本质的地位。尽管在《赋税论》中，魁奈有与此貌似冲突的论述，即“土地生产的财富本身决定于人的劳动，所以应当把使从土地生产财富的人们的劳动同在工厂里制造各种制造品的工人的劳动加以区别”。但他在这里所说的土地生产的财富取决于人的劳动，并非指农业劳动是财富的来源，而是仅仅肯定了农业劳动在财富生产中的主体能动作用。事实上，魁奈认为，财富一方面由土地这一客体构成，另一方面也由劳动者的耕作这一主体活动构成，但是作为客体的土地的作用要远远比作为主体的农业劳动更大、更根本。所以不能简单地认为，在重农学派那里，财富的主体本质在于劳动本身。归根结底，他们认为农业劳动是通过对土地和自然界的产物加以塑造才构成财富要素的。由此，笔者认为在重农学派那里，农业劳动是财富的主体构成，而非主体本质。

III. Conclusion

三、结语

According to Smith’s understanding of mercantilism and the Physiocratic School, simplifying and labeling their relationship between wealth and labor is extremely biased. As for mercantilism, it is inappropriate to take its early bullionist views as its entire theoretical gist and reject it outright. Smith seems justified in belittling it to elevate his own theoretical construction, but as research on the original texts of mercantilism unfolds, it becomes clear that the mercantilist understanding of “wealth as money” was not mainstream; instead, through the practice of economic policy, they recognized the important value of manufacturing and industry for wealth production. Hence, their conception of wealth contains subjective elements—this is an inevitable conclusion. As for the Physiocratic School, Smith also “disdained” it strongly, because he believed it unreasonably excluded industry and manufacturing as the subjective forces of wealth production. However, Marx, starting from the essential determination of surplus value production, fully affirmed the historical status and ideological value of the Physiocratic School, and also clearly revealed its contradictory understanding of the relationship between wealth and labor: on the one hand, it declared labor as the essence of wealth; on the other hand, it regarded labor as an element of land, denying labor as the determination of the essence of wealth. From Quesnay’s own exposition, although there are some conflicting statements in the understanding of the two, the gist remains that land, not labor, is the sole source of wealth, and labor is the subjective component of wealth, not its subjective essence in the true sense.

根据斯密对重商主义和重农学派的理解，进而对二者关于财富与劳动的关系做简单化和标签化的处理，是极为偏颇的。对重商主义而言，不能把它早期的货币主义观点当作其全部理论要旨而对其全盘否定。斯密为了抬高自身的理论创建而对它加以贬低似乎是有理由的，但是随着对重商主义返本研究的展开，可以知晓重商主义者对“财富即货币”的理解并不占据主流，反而他们通过经济政策的实践认识到制造业和工业对于财富生产的重要价值，所以他们的财富观中蕴含着主体要素，这是一个必然的结论。对于重农学派而言，斯密也是极力“蔑视”的，因为他认为重农学派毫无道理地排斥了工业和制造业作为财富生产的主体力量，但是马克思从剩余价值生产的本质规定出发充分肯定了重农学派的历史地位和思想价值，而且也明确揭示了重农学派对财富与劳动关系的矛盾性理解，即：一方面宣布劳动作为财富的本质，另一方面又把劳动看作是土地的要素，否定劳动作为财富本质的规定。从魁奈本身的论述来看，尽管对二者的理解存在着一些相互冲突的表述，但是其要旨还在于土地而非劳动是财富的唯一来源，劳动是财富的主体构成而非真正意义上的主体本质。

Clarifying the above views helps us further update the basic judgments of traditional history of political economy on them, more reasonably grasp Marx’s complete understanding of them in his early and late periods, and also helps us understand the diversified characteristics of the modes of existence of the subject in those eras and their future development trends. For traditional history of political economy, especially in the history of political economic doctrines represented by Luzenberg, Smith’s understanding of mercantilism still dominates, mainly reflected in the following aspects: First, it follows Smith’s identification that mercantilism confuses wealth with money. For instance, Luzenberg states: “In the doctrines of the mercantilists, money is confused with capital and wealth, i.e., form is confused with content, and the circulation process is confused with production.” [24]24 I. I. Luzenberg, *A History of Economic Doctrines*, vol. 1 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1964), p. 78. Moreover, he also portrays Thomas Mun as a late mercantilist who confuses wealth and money. [25]25 Thomas Mun (1571–1641) was a late English mercantilist writer, author of *England’s Treasure by Forraign Trade*. Second, if it is somewhat reasonable to identify such confusion in some early mercantilists or bullionists, then it is difficult to understand why Luzenberg also interprets the late mercantilists’ shift toward wealth production in manufacturing and industry as a mere pursuit of money, and still regards them as proponents of “money is wealth”! Does interest-bearing capital, when it achieves its own purpose through the formula G–G′, thereby detach itself from money? Can it also be called bullionism? In this sense, this understanding also obliterates the historical significance and practical value of mercantilist research on labor mediation and its forms, such as industry and manufacturing. Following the theoretical process of mercantilism itself and placing labor within wealth as its subjective element can at least avoid the above bias. As for the Physiocratic School, Luzenberg believes that “Quesnay’s merit lies in his having shifted value and surplus value from the mercantilist category of circulation to the category of production.” [26]26 I. I. Luzenberg, *A History of Economic Doctrines*, vol. 1 (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1964), p. 145. This point itself is correct, but one cannot deduce from it, as he does, that the value understood by Quesnay is created within the sphere of production. As discussed above, in Quesnay’s economics, land is the true source of wealth, and labor is merely the processing of land’s creations. Although Quesnay’s view is worthy of criticism, we should first follow his own exposition rather than forcibly change it to fit the modifier’s logic. It can be said that Quesnay’s emphasis on land seems to have disappeared in Luzenberg’s work—this is indeed a regrettable omission. Therefore, clarifying the Physiocratic School’s understanding of the relationship between wealth and labor—i.e., labor as the subjective component of wealth rather than its subjective essence—undoubtedly promotes the updating of the above judgments in traditional political economy.

对于以上观点的澄清，有助于我们进一步更新传统政治经济学史对它们的基本判断，更合理地把握马克思早期和晚期对它们的完整理解，也有助于我们理解那些时代中主体存在方式的多样化特征及其未来发展趋势。对于传统的政治经济学史而言，尤其是在以卢森贝为代表的政治经济学说史中，斯密所理解的重商主义仍旧占据主导地位，主要体现在以下方面：一是沿袭了斯密所指认的重商主义把财富和货币混为一谈的观点，如卢森贝就认为：“在重商主义者的学说中，把货币跟资本和财富混为一谈，即把形式跟内容混为一谈，把流通过程跟生产混为一谈。”而且他把托马斯·孟也打扮成一个混淆财富和货币的晚期重商主义者。二是如果指认在部分早期重商主义者或重金主义者那里，还存在这样混淆的观点，具有一定合理性的话，那么卢森贝把晚期重商主义者转向制造业、工业的财富生产行为也理解成是单纯地对货币的追求，并认为他们仍然是货币即财富的主张者，这是令人难以理解的!难道当生息资本以G—G′的公式实现自身目的时，它就脱离了货币吗?难道它也可以被称之为货币主义吗?从这个意义上说，这种理解也抹杀了重商主义研究工业、制造业等劳动中介及其形式的历史意义和实践价值。而遵循重商主义自身的理论进程，把劳动置入财富中并作为其主体要素来看待，则至少可以避免上述偏颇。就重农学派来说，卢森贝认为“魁奈的功绩就在于他把价值和剩余价值从重商主义者的流通范畴变成了生产范畴”,这一点本身是正确的，但是不能像他那样便由此推出魁奈所理解的价值是在生产范围中创造出来的。正如上文所述，在魁奈的经济学中，土地才是财富的真正来源，而劳动仅是对土地创造物的加工而已。尽管魁奈的这一观点值得批判，但是我们应该首先遵循他本身的论述，而非要强行改变它，并让其符合修改者的逻辑。可以说，魁奈对土地的重视，在卢森贝那里似乎消失不见了，这不得不说是一种遗憾。所以，澄清重农学派对财富与劳动的关系的理解，即劳动作为财富的主体构成而非主体本质，对于我们更新传统政治经济学的上述判断无疑具有推动作用。

Marx’s analysis of mercantilism and the physiocratic school can be viewed in two periods: first, Marx’s early period, that is, the period of the *Paris Manuscripts* of 1844, when his critique of mercantilism and the physiocratic school still relied primarily on Smith’s understanding and thus had not yet formed his own judgment. This was because at that time he had just come into contact with political economy and had not yet conducted systematic research; in particular, he had not yet formed a scientific theory of value and a theory of surplus value, making it difficult to make scientific judgments. For example, he completely regarded mercantilism as holding the view that “wealth is money,” and he also believed that the physiocratic school had already moved labor into wealth and made it the essence of wealth. These views were actually deeply influenced by Smith, because he had made a kind of “strong logic” interpretation of the transformative relationship between wealth and labor: in mercantilism, labor was external to wealth, while in the physiocratic school, labor began to enter wealth and serve as its subjective essence. Smith himself transformed the physiocratic school’s agricultural labor into general labor, making it the universal essence of wealth. The author believes that this “strong logic” interpretation does not conform to the theoretical facts of mercantilism and the physiocratic school themselves. In their case, the transformative relationship between wealth and labor follows a “weak logic”: in mercantilism, labor was not external to wealth but existed as its subjective element; in the physiocratic school, labor was not the subjective essence of wealth but existed as its subjective component. In this way, labor as an intrinsic attribute of wealth can be understood consistently. This point was scientifically elucidated in Marx’s later period, that is, the period of *Capital* and its manuscripts: on the one hand, he divided mercantilism into an early and a late period, holding that early mercantilism represented monetarism, while late mercantilism shifted toward manufacturing and industrial labor, which roughly conforms to the historical process; on the other hand, he held that the physiocratic school moved the study of surplus value into the category of production, thereby laying the foundation for analyzing capitalism, which is also a scientific judgment. In this regard, the author’s analysis of the relationship between wealth and labor in mercantilism and the physiocratic school helps people view Marx’s intellectual process of studying political economy more dialectically.

关于马克思对重商主义和重农学派的分析，可以分为两个时期来看：一是马克思的早期，也就是1844年的《巴黎手稿》时期，他对重商主义和重农学派的批判，还主要借助于斯密的理解，因而也就没有形成自身的判断。这是由于那时他刚接触政治经济学，还没有系统的研究，尤其是还没有形成科学的价值理论和剩余价值理论，所以难以做出科学的判断。比如把重商主义完全看作是“财富即货币”这一观点的持有者，还比如认为重农学派已将劳动移入财富之中并作为其本质。这些观点其实深受斯密的影响，因为他就是这样对财富和劳动的转换关系做了一种“强逻辑”的解释，即在重商主义那里，劳动是外在于财富的，而到了重农学派，劳动开始进入财富之中并作为其主体本质。斯密自身则将重农学派的农业劳动改造为一般劳动，使其成为财富的普遍本质。笔者认为，这种“强逻辑”的解释并不符合重商主义和重农学派自身的理论事实。在他们那里，财富与劳动的转换关系遵循的是一种“弱逻辑”,即在重商主义那里，劳动并非是外在于财富而是作为其主体要素存在的，到了重农学派那里，劳动并非是财富的主体本质而是作为其主体构成存在的。这样一来，劳动作为财富的内在属性便能得到一以贯之的理解。这一点在马克思的晚期即《资本论》及其手稿时期得到了科学的阐明：一方面，他把重商主义分为早期和晚期，认为早期重商主义是货币主义的代表，而晚期重商主义则向制造业、工业劳动转变，这大致是符合历史进程的；另一方面，他认为重农学派把剩余价值移入生产范畴中来研究，从而为分析资本主义奠定了基础，也是科学的判断。就此而言，笔者对重商主义和重农学派关于财富与劳动的关系的分析，有助于人们更辩证地看待马克思研究政治经济学的思想进程。

Within the horizon of political economy, the conception of wealth in a given era is closely related to the mode of existence of the subjects in that era; this is also true for mercantilism and the physiocratic school. First, if we understand the mercantilist conception of wealth merely as the view that money is wealth, then it becomes difficult to explain the multiple modes of existence of people in that era, scattered across agriculture, commerce, handicrafts, and manufacturing. It can be said that it is precisely the view that money is wealth that often leads us to imagine people of that era as existing in a singular, one-sided manner. In this sense, the work of Braudel mentioned earlier opens up the imprisonment of such imagination for us. Furthermore, the historical process by which people in the mercantilist era, extending from the early 15th century to the mid-to-late 18th century, entered the era of industrial capital as modern laborers can only then be reasonably grasped. Second, if we completely regard labor as the subjective essence of the physiocratic school’s conception of wealth, then it becomes difficult to explain why they only regarded agricultural labor as the productive class while excluding other laborers. This is because, if labor is already regarded as the subjective essence of wealth, then clearly the labor here cannot be merely identified as agricultural labor but should include forms of labor such as commerce, industry, and manufacturing. Therefore, understood from the perspective that labor is the subjective component of wealth, the physiocratic school’s grasp of the mode of existence of the subject was only confined to agriculture, bound to the land. Obviously, this is a mode of existence that needed to be negated by modern industry. In this regard, the mercantilist and physiocratic schools’ understanding of the mode of existence of the subject has historical limitations, which naturally relate to their understanding of the source, production, and distribution of wealth. However, by analyzing the status of labor and the characteristics of the mode of existence of the subject embedded in their conceptions of wealth, we can further reveal the internal logic and real path by which people of those eras moved toward the modern world and toward world history: that is, real people began to gradually break free from the mystical domination of God and advance along the modern path where labor serves as the universal essence of wealth.

在政治经济学的视域中，某一个时代的财富观与身处该时代中的主体的存在方式是息息相关的，对于重商主义和重农学派而言也是如此。首先，如果我们把重商主义的财富观仅仅理解为货币即财富的观点，那么也就难以解释那个时代的人散布在农业、商业、手工业以及制造业中的多种存在方式。可以说，正是财富即货币的观点，使得我们往往将那个时代的人想象成以单一化、片面化的方式存在。在这个意义上说，前文所论及的布罗代尔的著作为我们打开了这种想象的禁锢。进而，从15世纪初延展到18世纪中下叶的重商主义时代中的人们，以现代劳动者的方式进入产业资本时代这一历史进程才能被合理地把握。其次，如果我们把劳动完全看作是重农学派财富观的主体本质，那么也就难以解释他们为什么只把农业劳动看作是生产性阶级，而把其他劳动者排除之外。这是因为，如果劳动已然被视为财富的主体本质，那么显然这里的劳动则不能仅仅被指认为农业劳动，而应包括商业、工业、制造业等劳动形式。所以，从劳动是财富的主体构成来理解的话，重农学派对主体存在方式的把握就仅是局限在农业之中、束缚于土地之中的。显然，这是需要进一步被现代工业否定的一种存在方式。于此，重商主义和重农学派对主体存在方式的理解是具有历史局限性的，这自然与他们所理解的财富的来源、生产和分配等相关。然而，通过辨析蕴含于他们财富观中的劳动的地位以及主体存在方式的特征，可以进一步揭示那些时代的人们迈向现代世界、走向世界历史的内在逻辑和现实道路，即现实的人开始逐步摆脱神的神秘统治，朝向劳动作为财富的普遍本质的现代之路迈进。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗