Since the publication of the first volume of the capital theory in 1867, and particularly the second and third volumes of the capital theory in 1885 and 1894, respectively, which were edited by engus following the death of marx, scholars have generally looked at the three paths of economics, sociology and philosophy。
The economics way forward
When marx was alive, russian economists like tiber and kaufman had published articles commenting on capitalism. Following the death of marx, and in response to the challenge of robert tuss (i. E. Accusing marx of stealing his theory of residual value), in the preamble to volume ii of the capitalism (1885), engus challenged the perpetrators in counter-challenges, namely, “a prize contest”. The competition, which lasted until 1894, dealt with the compatibility of average profit margins with value patterns and, ultimately, the “transformation” of well-known values to prices. In the preamble to volume iii of the capitalism act (1894), engus provided a brief commentary on the papers presented at the competition。
Following the publication of volume 3 of the capitalism, the first wave of capitalism came to an end. Sambat of the new history school in germany commented on volume 3 of the capitalism (1894). Engles later in the year maintained a communication link with sambat and schmidt on the “conversion”. As early as 1884, the austrian marginalist pompavik in his book capital and interest made a violent attack on the first volume of the capitalism, arguing that the value of labour was difficult to establish, both in terms of methods of interpretation and empirical evidence. In the book carl marx and the end of his system, published in 1896, the contradiction between volume i and volume iii of the capital act was clearly raised, with the central focus on the “turning”. In 1904, the austrian marxist hifatin counter-criticized pombavik with "marx of pombavik". In 1907, russian economist botketkevitz published two important papers on the transformation, which had a significant impact on subsequent research。
Following the death of engus, the scholars ' economic interpretation of the way forward can be summarized as follows: capitalism, represented by pompavik; counter-criticism, represented by shifatin; and maxian economic thought history studies, represented by lusenberg. All three studies are based on the interpretation of the capital doctrine by professional economists, who, although occasionally involved philosophical approaches in the capital doctrine, are essentially economic studies. In the case of the first two paths of progress, the critical party to the capitalist doctrine has seized on the issue of the transformation, while the party defending the capitalist doctrine has had to respond to the problem of the transformation. The 100-year history of research on the transformation problem shows that it is an incomprehensible problem. The harm lies in the fact that marx capitalism is not empirical economic science, but political economics. A quantitative economic approach and a view of capitalism can lead to a misreading of capitalism, a trap in the discourse of contemporary western mainstream economics, and ultimately a rejection of labour values. The concept of the value of labour values, to be used as a scientific delimitation standard in popul, lies not in the veritable science (perjury), but in its interpretation of capitalist production methods。
Research expert in capitalism, lÜssenberg, published in 1954 after his death in 1950, opened the way for marx's economic thought history of interpretation of capitalism. The history of the great discovery of karl marx in vigotsky: the creation of the capitalist doctrine (1965) and the history of the capitalist creation (1970) have given rise to this research path in the soviet union. In almost the same period, rossdorski's " marx capitalism " (1969) was a representative of western scholars in the creative history of marx capitalism. French scholar lubber, for his part, focused on marx's “six-volume plan”. After the 1980s, capitalism creative history research became the hot spot for domestic capitalism research, and in addition to the publication of chinese translations of the works of lusenberger, wigotsky, rosdorski and others, related research monographs by national scholars were published successively, such as chen chen, quantified research on the history of capitalism (1983), ma ken, guo and quan, the history of capitalism (1983), and the land and land army, compendium of capitalist creative history (1992). With the completion of the second part of the historical appraisal edition of the marx engles encyclopedia (mega2), the “capitalism” and its manuscripts and all preparatory materials,” it seems to the author that marx’s study of the history of economic thinking or the history of the creation of the capitalism should be the way forward in the economic interpretation of capitalism today。
The path to sociology
The response of shifatin to pombavik is not merely in the economic sense, but more in the sociological sense. In “marx in pombavik”, shifatin was keen to find that pompavik’s criticism of marx’s theory of value begins with individual relationships between people and things, not with social relationships between people. The economics of pombavik belong to the marginal economic paradigm of bourgeois mediocre economics, which marx criticized. From the point of view of shifatin, pombavik confused the value of the use of values and as a form of value. Shifatin agrees with marx, which views the use of values as a natural form of goods, and values as a form of value of goods, which is the expression of social relations among independent producers. According to shifatin, the focus of marx's attention was not economic history or productive technological development, but rather the social form of commodity production and its impact on capitalist societies。
Shifatin’s counter-criticism against pombavik has opened the way to social studies on capitalism. As the soviet economist rubin put it in his famous marx theory of values (1923), it was only after the two papers by shifatin that “the sociological nature of marxian values theory began to be understood accurately”. Since then, german scholar petri has reinforced this path in his social content of marx values theory (1916). In its introductory remarks to the book, petri, based on the presentation of methodology in the marx introduction to the political economy criticism, highlighted the methodological dualism of the marxist economics theory system, namely, the “unnatural integration” of the hegel spiritual philosophy approach with the materialist natural science approach. According to petritte, materialism — naturalism — is the dominant factor in marx's general theory, and in history's philosophy in particular, while in marx's economics, hegel's philosophy (cultural science) is dominant. Petritte deliberately distinguished the “historic” dimension from the “social” dimension of the marx approach and viewed the social dimension as the starting point of marx's general social science methodology. Petrie also tried to tap into the “social content” of marx values theory from the scientific perspective of the german philosopher lee celtic neo-kontas. In petritte's view, marx defined the “social relationship” perspective of his theory of values in the process of refining the classical economics values theory and in criticizing the classical economic values theory that emerged from the dissolution of the ligatu school. And the book " the history of marxist economics (1883-1929) " at the end of the twentieth century wrongly classified petritte and rubin's research as “philosophical thinking on value theory”. In fact, petritte's social content of marx values theory adopted a sociological approach to the reading of capitalism。
In particular, shifatin stressed that the marx capitalism deals with commodities as “the natural and superstitious aspect of the commodity; the former with private labour; and the latter with social labour (social necessity). It was also pointed out that the concept of physical history and the basic concept of marx economics were consistent. In his book review of petritte, shifatin specifically referred to the methodological theory of sociology as a key point in countering the difficulties of the marx economics system, which is the starting point of petritte's work. However, in the view of shifatin, there is no such thing as the so-called approach dualism of petri, imposed on marx by petri. Shifatin also commented that petritte was not studying methodological issues as an economist but as a philosopher. According to two papers by shifatin and a book review of petri, shifatin has a clear self-consciousness to the path of social studies that he has started on capitalism。
Rubin, in his “form of value” study, clearly proposed a “sociological” approach to the capital theory. Rubin also mentioned that petri was interested not only in political economics, but also in philosophy, and that the sociological aspects of marx theory were set out in the article by shifatin on the construction of karl marx theoretical economics。
Rubin's study of value forms was directly inspired by shifatin, and he also found compatriot and compatriot at petri's. The path of social studies of rubin's forms of value is not, as both generations and generations have misunderstood, mired in an exchange of decisions. Rubin looks at the forms of value from the perspective of private and social labour. This “value form” is not the form of exchange of value noted by lusenberg in the capitalism note, but rather the expression of the entity of value that already exists in the field of production. In other words, if value is seen only as a product of exchange, then it falls into the wrong zone of modern western economics marginalists. The austrian economics community, represented by mengel and his successors, wiesel and pombavik, is based on the theory of subjective marginal utility; neoclassical economics, represented by marshall, combines marginal utility with supply and demand theory, and constructs a framework of balanced price theory. While rubin inherited the idea that shifatin criticized pombavik from sociology, he did not go to another extreme, namely, neoclassical economics based on balanced price theory based on the exchange of supply and demand. The idea of balanced prices necessarily leads to price substitution for value, which is seen as a redundant concept of marxism。
The theoretical point of departure for shifatin's access to sociology is marx's materialist history. Both shifatin and rubin have spoken clearly about this. As far back as 1894, lenin wrote “what is the friends of the people and how do they attack the social democrats?” in one book, emphasis was placed on the fact that the objectorography had changed from fiction to science in capitalism. In carl marx, written in 1913, lenin explicitly viewed materialistic history as a “sociological” and historical view of science. Lenin can therefore be described as another pioneer of the " capitalist " path to sociology。
Philosophy leads the way
After the twentieth century, the first philosophical advance in the reading of the capitalism study was the capitalism study from the perspective of dialectic (or dialectic logic). It can be said that lenin began a truly philosophical study of capitalism. In the philosophy note, lenin has begun to understand marx's capitalism on the basis of hegel's logicals, which makes it clear that “the marx's capitalism cannot be fully understood without studying and understanding the entire logic of hegel” and that “in the capitalism, the logic of materialism, dialectics and understandings [necessary three words: they are the same thing] apply to one science”. Based on lenin's vision, the soviet union and eastern european scholars, such as rosenthal, ilinkov and zeleni, attempted to rebuild marx's altruistic law (or dialectic logic)。
Ilinkov recast marx capitalism and the abstract and specific dialectic in his manuscript. The french translation of chapter 3 of the book " the abstract and specific dialectics of the marx capitalism " , published in russian in 1960, directly affects the reading of the capitalism in artusa. Indeed, as early as 1950, the italian neo-evidence marxist dra volpe focused on what he called the “specific — abstract — specific methodological cycle” of marx. The czech scholar zeleni's monograph, the logic structure of marx capitalism, was directly motivated by the dialectic logic of the construction of capitalism. To this end, zeleni has not only absorbed hegel's dialectics, but has also drawn on the logic of modern logicalists, such as tarski。
The logic of capital theory is not only self-conscious by the marxist scholars of the soviet socialist countries of the cold war, but also affects the western world. The rubin study of “value forms” inspired the west german “capital logic” (later renamed “marx new reading”) and the english-language “new dialectics” (or systemic dialectics) that prevailed after the twenty-first century. The “capital logic” is not intended to construct a dialectic logic that goes hand in hand with the form logic, but rather to inherit the critical theory of the frankfurt school, which is committed to recasting the economic dimension and concepts of marx’s capitalism with hegel’s logic, and from which the conclusion of the demise (or collapse) of capitalism can be derived. Thus, the “capital logic” of the “capital logic school” is not the logic of the “structure” of the alducer-style super-stable stability, but the inherent logic of the demise of capitalism. The english-language world, represented by arthur's “new dialectical jurisprudence”, has a hard tie between marx capitalism and hegel logicals, and the entire marx capitalism is seen as a mechanical reproduction and application of hegel logicals。
The reading of the book of capital is a second philosophical advance in the reading of capital theory. Under the influence of la briola, crozi had a brief period (1895-1900) as marxist. In historic materialism and carl marx's economics, published in 1900, crozit read from capitalism historical materialism as “general economic science”. Crozi also argued that from the historical, materialistic history of capitalism, socialism as an ethical one could not be excluded, so that crozig would highlight the issue of the nobility, which was “never should”。
Whether based on the argumentary logic or the basic principles of material history from the capitalist text, it has generated great interest and interest in the chinese academic community since the 1980s. Some chinese scholars have argued that the second and third volumes of marx’s capitalism were abandoned in the late years because the development and refinement of the materialistic history took up too much of max’s time; and that chinese scholars have not only read the materialistic history of capitalism, but have also further developed the ethical dimension of the materialistic history inherent in capitalism。
In contrast to this, the third philosophical path of the study on the interpretation of capitalism is the treatment of capitalism as a “dematerialist”. Petrie, referred to earlier, is actually cutting off marx's historical philosophy and marx's economics theory. Marx's new reading schools and the new dialectic law schools, representatives of the nearly half-century “materialistic” philosophical reading of capitalism, have emphasized that the economics of marx's capitalism apply only at the historical stage of “capitalism” and do not recognize what engles calls “general political economics”. To that end, they also strongly criticized the concept of the “simplified commodity economy” of engus and the proposition of “consistent logic with history”. In fact, objectoricalism inherently encompasses both the dimensions of history (i. E., temporality) and of society (i. E., intertemporality), and the “capitalism” of “materialisticism” is interpreted as one-sided。
The construction of marx labour philosophy is the fourth philosophical advance in the reading of capitalism. Lukach wrote late in the year " on the ontology of social existence " in an attempt to construct marx's ontology of labour. Lukach emphasizes marx's work as a material exchange between man and nature, the distinction between alienated and targeted work, and the ultra-historical nature of marx's targeted work (as distinct from the historical character of capitalism). Thus, there is no “break-up” of marx from the “production logic” to the “capital logic”, from the alienation of the 1844 philosophy of economics, to the “materialist history-based production” of the german ideology, to the “capitalism”, which combines labour with labour philosophy, which is the backbone of the development of marx's life-long thinking。
The labour philosophy of marx capitalism is highly relevant. In the german ideology, marx wrote: “the level of productive development of a people is most evident in the level of development of the division of labour among that people”. According to marx's labour philosophy, productivity is the total productivity of the division of labour rather than the partial productivity of the division of labour, so the whole industrial chain is an important expression of a country's “mass” and “quantity” of productivity; in the four stages of economic activity, production is the decisive link; and productive labour, the “real economy” (especially manufacturing), is an aspect of the core competitiveness of a society. It can be said that labour philosophy is the new direction of the current chinese philosophy of capitalism。
(author: lucretia, professor, maxianist college, henan university)
