Marx's original theoretical contributions to Das Kapital

Abstract

Purpose

This paper expounds three theoretical contributions of Das Kapital from a new perspective.

Design/methodology/approach

First, Karl Marx’s scientific labor theory of value encompasses both abstract and concrete forms; second, the dialectics in Das Kapital serves not only as a methodology but as a theory, and the third is the organic structure of Das Kapital, hailed as “a triumph of German science”.

Findings

The organic structure of Marx’s Das Kapital is not only a remarkable achievement of German science but also a brilliant accomplishment of human science that is hard for future generations to surpass. It serves as an exemplar and illuminates the path and objectives for constructing a scientific system of political economy with Chinese characteristics.

Originality/value

These three theoretical contributions have practical guiding significance in the research on the socialist market economy and the construction of the socialist political economy system with Chinese characteristics.

Citation

Li, J. (2024), "Marx's original theoretical contributions to Das Kapital", China Political Economy, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 2-14. https://doi.org/10.1108/CPE-06-2024-037

Many insightful analyses have been presented regarding the significant theoretical contributions of Das Kapital. Leveraging my four-decade experience of studying this seminal work, I aim to elucidate the multifaceted contribution of Das Kapital from three distinct perspectives. Any constructive criticisms are welcomed.

1. The abstract and concrete forms of the labor theory of value

Overall, the labor theory of value established by bourgeois classical economists is not scientific because it fails to distinguish between the abstract and concrete forms of the labor theory of value and treats them as the same. By contrast, Marx makes a clear distinction between the two, thus far outpacing classical economists and making a revolutionary change in the labor theory of value.

1.1 The meaning of the labor theory of value in abstract and concrete forms

The labor theory of value in the abstract form, mainly presented in A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy and Das Kapital Vol. 1 Part 1, focuses on examining the simplest and the most abstract and generic determinations while temporarily excluding more complex factors, such as market competition and supply–demand relationship. The concept of capital, in particular, has not yet appeared at this stage. This form of the labor theory of value applies to all eras with commodity production and exchange and fails to solve real economic problems directly due to its simplicity, abstractness and generality. However, it lays the foundation of Marx’s economic edifice and is the starting point for further study. When criticizing David Ricardo, Karl Marx (1973, p. 183) says, “The basis, the starting point for the physiology of the bourgeois system—for the understanding of its internal organic coherence and life process—is the determination of value by labor-time. Ricardo starts with this … This then is Ricardo’s great historical significance for science.” This remark also applies to Marx’s labor theory of value in the abstract form.

In my opinion, the basics of the labor theory of value in its abstract form can be summarized into the following five main theories: the theory of commodities, the theory of labor, the theory of value, the theory of money, and the theory of fetishism (Li, 2015).

The labor theory of value in the concrete form is mainly reflected in Das Kapital Vol. 1, Chapter 3 to Vol. 3, Chapter 7. It includes theories on the transformation of money into capital, the production of surplus-value, the wage in capitalism, the accumulation of capital, the circuit and turnover of capital, the reproduction and circulation of the aggregate social capital, the average profit and the price of production, the commercial capital and commercial profit, interest-bearing capital and interest, and the capitalist ground-rent. Three characters feature the labor theory of value in concrete form: First, it no longer only focuses on “pure form”, and factors previously excluded, such as market competition and supply-demand relations, have gradually entered the scope of the study, with capital becoming a primary focus. Second, it aligns more closely with the real economic life of capitalist society, as Marx (2004b, p. 30) pointed out at the beginning of Das Kapital Vol. 3, “The various forms of capital, as evolved in this book, thus approach step by step the form which they assume on the surface of society, in the action of different capitals upon one another, in competition, and in the ordinary consciousness of the agents of production themselves.” Third, it carries a distinct feature of class consciousness, as evidenced in the letters of Marx to Ferdinand Lassalle on September 15, 1860, “… I think that Part II (the second book of A Critique of Political Economy, i.e., Capital, noted by the author) may very likely come out before Easter … Not, of course, as a result of impulse from within myself, but, first, because Part II has an expressly revolutionary function, and, second, because the conditions I describe are more concrete” (Marx, 1976d, p. 155), and to Johann Philipp Becker on April 17, 1867, in which Marx considers that the publication of Das Kapital “is without question the most terrible missile that has yet been hurled at the heads of the bourgeoisie (landowners included)” (Marx, 1976g, p. 209), which mainly refers to the labor theory of value in the concrete form.

In my opinion, to accurately and fully understand the labor theory of value in Das Kapital, one should categorize the labor theory of value into abstract and concrete forms with their corresponding fundamental essence, as intended by Marx. The relationship between the two is that the abstract form is the core and foundation of the labor theory of value, and the labor theory of value in the concrete form is the logical deduction, extension and concretization of the abstract form. They are interconnected and inseparable, forming the organic whole of the labor theory of value together.

1.2 The basis for proposing two forms of the labor theory of value

First, this division adheres to the principles of capitalist commodity production, which progresses from emergence and underdevelopment to the developed phase. I refer to the stage of underdevelopment in capitalist commodity production as the primary stage while considering the comparatively developed stage as the advanced stage. The concept of capital did not emerge in Part 1 of Das Kapital Vol. 1, and certain complex factors, such as market competition and supply–demand relationships, were temporarily excluded. This “pure form” aligns broadly with the primary stage of capitalist commodity production. Starting from the second part of the first volume of Das Kapital, money transforms into capital, making capital the main actor in social economic life. Subsequently, various complex factors related to capital came into Marx's focus of study. This complex situation generally corresponds to the advanced stage of capitalist commodity production, reflected in Marx’s arguments in Das Kapital and his economic manuscripts multiple times. For example, in Das Kapital Vol. 3, when analyzing production prices, Marx (2004b) says: “The whole difficulty arises from the fact that commodities are not exchanged simply as commodities, but as products of capitals (p. 196) … The exchange of commodities at their values, or approximately at their values, thus requires a much lower stage than their exchange at their prices of production, which requires a definite level of capitalist development (p. 197).”

Second, such division is based on Marx’s summary of errors in classical economics regarding theory. Marx thinks highly of bourgeois classical economics and argues that it is somewhat scientific; however, restrictions posed by the time, the class and the theories prevent classical economics from sticking to the correct theories and leading them to the theoretical dilemma and disintegration. Taking David Ricardo as an example, Marx pointed out the following point:

How from the mere determination of the ‘value’ of the commodities their surplus-value, the profit and even a general rate of profit are derived remains obscure with Ricardo. … He postulates the rate of profit to be law …. One can see that though Ricardo is accused of being too abstract, one would be justified in accusing him of the opposite: lack of the power of abstraction, inability, when dealing with the values of commodities, to forget profits, a factor which confronts him as a result of competition.

Because Ricardo, instead of deriving the difference between cost-prices and values from the determination of value itself, admits that ‘values’ themselves are determined by influences that are independent of labor-time and that the law of value is sporadically invalidated by these influences, this was used by his opponents, such as Malthus, in order to attack his whole theory of value. … so that one would arrive at Adam Smith’s standpoint, that the determination of value by labor-time was no longer applicable to ‘civilized’ times.

Marx (1973, p. 211)

From Marx’s discourse, it can be seen that David Ricardo’s theoretical error lies in analyzing the capitalist economy with the abstract form of value determination, skipping many necessary intermediate steps, attempting to prove the consistency of various economic categories directly, that is, trying to achieve everything in one go. He mixed the abstract and concrete forms of the labor theory of value and ended up in a theoretical dilemma.

Third, this division embodies Marx’s dialectical method of rising from the abstract to the concrete in Das Kapital. As early as in the Introduction to the Critique of Political Economy in 1857, Marx pointed out that there were two methods of presentation for political economy: one begins with the real and the concrete, such as the analysis of population, nation and state, etc. the other begins with certain decisive, abstract and general relations, such as value and money. The first, Marx argued, was the path that bourgeois classical economics had taken during its emergence. Though it had proven historically sound, it also had obvious flaws, while the latter is as follows:

… obviously the correct scientific method. The concrete concept is concrete because it is a synthesis of many definitions, thus representing the unity of diverse aspects. It appears therefore in reasoning as a summing-up, a result, and not as the starting point, although it is the real point of origin, … whereas the method of advancing from the abstract to the concrete is simply the way in which thinking assimilates the concrete and reproduces it as a concrete mental category.

Marx (1979, p. 38)

As reflected in chapters from Das Kapital Vol. 1, Part 2 to Vol. 3, Marx, employing the latter method with the labor theory of value in the abstract form as the foundation and the point of departure, gradually solved several perplexities that led to the dissolution of the Ricardian school through a series of intermediate links, unraveled many enigmas and achieve an overhaul of the political economy.

1.3 The implications of abstract and concrete forms of the labor theory of value

Firstly, it is necessary to accurately and fully understand Marx’s labor theory of value. Prominent economist Yan Zhijie (2001) once asserted the following point:

The labor theory of value proposed by Marx should be considered as a principle that elucidates the determination of a ratio of simple barter exchange, based on Marx’s analysis of preconditions, understanding, and inference. If Marx has restricted the application of this law to this extent or if people’s comprehension of the characteristics and scope of application for the labor theory of value does not surpass this point, no objections should arise regarding the theory. However, it remains unproven or requires further substantiation whether the labor theory of value retains its soundness in other fields beyond the conditions upon which Marx (and the classical economists) established the theory.

Yan (2001)

He adopted a skeptical and negative stance toward the theory of surplus-value based on the law of value, completely separating Marx’s arguments in and after the “Transformation of Money into Capital” chapter from that in the first chapter of Das Kapital Vol. 1, namely, the labor theory of value in the concrete and the abstract forms. As Marx (1976i, p. 282) indicates, science consists precisely in demonstrating how the law of value asserts itself. For example, when it comes to the market profit and the price of production, “if one did not take the definition of value as the basis, the average profit, and therefore also the cost-prices (i.e., price of production, noted by the author) would be purely imaginary and untenable” (Marx, 1973, p. 210). Therefore, Yan’s argument that Marx should not analyze phenomena in other fields beyond the scope of value determination is actually a negation of Marx’s entire economic science.

Secondly, the development of the labor theory of value in its abstract form necessitates a rigorous approach. It is imperative to adopt a serious and meticulous attitude toward deepening our comprehension of the labor theory of value, particularly when endeavoring to develop it in its abstract manifestation, for the following reasons: First, the labor theory of value in the abstract form is built upon Marx’s long-term criticism and sublation of bourgeois classical political economy and his in-depth examination of multitudes of historical and contemporary materials; in other words, it has a solid foundation. Engels once mentioned that Karl Marx sometimes delayed the publication of his economic works mainly because of rigor, “… I also know that the delay is due mainly to your own scruples” (Engels, 1976, p. 154). This “rigorous” attitude towards science should be adopted in the current understanding and development of the labor theory of value. Furthermore, it is the “most abstract part of political economy” (Marx, 1976c, p. 143) and the stem of capitalist economy. The labor theory of value in its abstract form applies not only to capitalist societies but also to other societies in which commodity production exists, because it remains qualitatively stable despite changes in certain historical conditions, just as the cells of a human being 150 years ago are not significantly different from those of a contemporary human being. In addition, the labor theory of value in the abstract form is the foundation of Marx’s entire political economy, and if the foundation is shaken, the entire political economy is at risk of collapse. That is why bourgeois economists vehemently attacked the abstract value determination in the past 150-plus years.

Thirdly, efforts should be made to develop the labor theory of value in its concrete form based on the new historical conditions. Starting from Das Kapital Vol. 1, Part 2: The Transformation of Money into Capital, Marx studied the “more concrete economic definitions” (Marx, 1976b, p. 132), such as the commodity of labor-power, constant and variable capitals, absolute and relative surplus-value production, wages, capital accumulation, the circulation and turnover of capital, social reproduction, average profit and production prices, commercial profit, interest and ground-rent. On the surface, the above “more concrete economic determinations” seem inconsistent with the value determinations and may even appear entirely contradictory. However, Marx indicates the following point:

Where science comes in is to show how the law of value asserts itself. … The vulgar economist thinks he has made a great discovery when, faced with the disclosure of the intrinsic interconnection, he insists that things look different in appearance. In fact, he prides himself in his clinging to appearances and believing them to be the ultimate. Why then have science at all?

Marx (1976i, pp. 282–283)

Marx extensively compiled historical and contemporary materials on capitalist production in the UK and other countries, conducting meticulous research for years based on the labor theory of value in its abstract form and guided by dialectical materialism. Ultimately, he successfully addressed the unresolved issues of classical economists by establishing the theory of surplus-value, which reveals the inherent characteristics and fundamental contradictions within the capitalist mode of production during that era, providing robust theoretical support for proletarian liberation. In the present era, over a century and a half has transpired since the initial publication of Das Kapital, during which substantial transformations have occurred in the global economic and political landscapes. While Marx’s labor theory of value retains its general applicability in an abstract sense, its concrete manifestation must adapt to evolving social practices to effectively address contemporary economic circumstances and issues. Chinese President Xi Jinping (2017, p. 344) indicates, “Chinese philosophy and social sciences should focus on the country’s current undertakings, and delve into China’s experience of reform and development to forage for new materials, identify new problems, create new ideas, and found new theories.” Therefore, in order to explore new laws of economics in the socialist market economy and advance the contemporary Chinese Marxist political economy, it is crucial to comprehensively analyze the novel changes, forms and characteristics of the labor theory of value in the concrete form under the socialist market economy based on the labor theory of value in the abstract form.

2. The dialectics as a method-cum-theory

2.1 Dialectics is the primary method of Das Kapital

After the publication of the first volume of Das Kapital in 1867, there were diverse and even contradictory comments regarding the methodologies employed in Das Kapital, which indicated a lack of comprehension on behalf of the critics. However, the remarks made by Russian economist Kaufman particularly captured Marx’s attention. As Marx (2004a, p. 21) points out: “… Whilst the writer pictures what he takes to be actually my method, in this striking and [as far as concerns my own application of it] generous way, what else is he picturing but the dialectic method?”

As early as 1859, when Marx published A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Engels indicated in the review “Karl Marx, ‘A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy’” the following point:

Marx was and is the only one who could undertake the work of extracting from the Hegelian logic the nucleus containing Hegel’s real discoveries in this field, and of establishing the dialectical method, divested of its idealist wrappings, in the simple form in which it becomes the only correct mode of conceptual evolution. … the method … underlies Marx’s critique of political economy.

Engels (2012a, p. 13)

After the first volume of Das Kapital was published, Marx, in a letter to Engels, asserts that this marked the “first attempt at applying the dialectic method to political economy”

(Marx, 1976h, p. 239).

2.2 Dialectics is also a theory

When writing the first draft of Das Kapital, Marx, in a letter to Engels on January 14, 1858, acknowledged the immense value of Hegelian dialectics in his processing and organization of political economy materials. He further expressed his intention to “make accessible to the ordinary human intelligence, in two or three printer’s sheets, what is rational in the method which Hegel discovered but at the same time enveloped in mysticism” (Marx, 1976a, p. 121). This notion of accessibility entails a critical transformation of the Hegelian idealistic approach and mystical dialectical method into a systematic and popularized form. As Engels (2012a, p. 13) remarked, this achievement is “hardly less significant than the basic materialist conception.” From my perspective, the “basic materialist conception” refers to the historical materialism established by Marx and Engels in the mid-1840s.

Influenced by Karl Marx, Engels dedicated a significant amount of time in the 1870s to studying dialectics. In his manuscript on Dialectics in 1879, Engels proposes to elucidate “the general nature of dialectics to be developed as the science of interconnections, in contrast to metaphysics” and posits that “it is, therefore, from the history of nature and human society that the laws of dialectics are abstracted. For they are nothing but the most general laws of these two aspects of historical development, as well as of thought itself” (Engels, 2012b, p. 901).

In Karl Marx (A Brief Biographical Sketch with an Exposition of Marxism) completed in November 1914, Lenin (2003, pp. 10–11) expounds “dialectics” as an important part of “Marx’s doctrine” and asserts that “according to Marx, dialectics is ‘the science of the general laws of motion, both of the external world and of human thought’” and it is “far more comprehensive, far richer in content than the current idea of evolution”.

2.3 The basics of dialectics in Das Kapital as a methodology-cum-theory

Firstly, the method employed in Das Kapital is a dialectical methodology based on historical materialism, which cannot be simply summarized as a singular method, such as the so-called scientific abstraction or several methods. Instead, it constitutes a rigorous systemic approach encompassing the following four levels.

• (1)

  Based on historical materialism. Marx (2004a, p. 20), in the afterward to the second edition of Das Kapital Vol. 1, explicitly affirms that the basic principles of historical materialism expounded in the Preface to the Critique of Political Economy (1859) is the materialistic basis of his method.

• (2)

  Consisting of objective dialectics and subjective dialectics. Engels argues that “Dialectics, so-called objective dialectics, prevails throughout nature, and so-called subjective dialectics, dialectical thought, is only the reflection of the motion through opposites which asserts itself everywhere in nature” (Engels, 2012b, p. 908). The subjective dialectic mainly refers to dialectical logic and epistemology. The dialectics at this level contains a series of laws and categories of both objective dialectics (far more than those listed in the current philosophy textbooks) and subjective dialectics, such as rising from abstract to concrete and logical and historical consistency.

• (3)

  Formal logic and dialectics. In Das Kapital, which examines the historical process of the emergence and development of the capitalist mode of production from a dynamic perspective, dialectics featuring development and connection are predominantly employed. However, this does not negate the necessity to adhere to specific thinking rules and apply the fundamental principles of formal logic in the presentation. Marx greatly emphasizes incorporating mathematical methods into the study of political economy, as he believes that true perfection can only be achieved when a science successfully applies mathematics. He places importance on both qualitative and quantitative analyses, evidenced by various mathematical methods adopted, such as models, charts and formulas, as well as meticulous calculations in Das Kapital.

• (4)

  Marx “transplants” research methods employed in concrete sciences, particularly natural sciences, into the political economy, such as the abstraction method employed in Das Kapital, which is an idealization method commonly used in natural sciences, and cell-form analysis.

Secondly, the dialectics in Das Kapital is mainly drawn upon Hegelian idealistic dialectics

In the afterward to the second edition of Das Kapital Vol. 1, Marx made a poignant statement about Hegel:

The mystifying side of Hegelian dialectic I criticized nearly thirty years ago, at a time when it was still the fashion. But just as I was working at the first volume of “Das Kapital”, it was the good pleasure of the peevish, arrogant, mediocre ‘Epigonoi who now talk large in cultured Germany, to treat Hegel in same way as the brave Moses Mendelssohn in Lessing’s time treated Spinoza, i.e., as a ‘dead dog.’ I therefore openly avowed myself the pupil of that mighty thinker … The mystification which dialectic suffers in Hegel’s hands, by no means prevents him from being the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner.

Marx (2004a, p. 22)

Besides being greatly inspired by Hegel’s thoughts, the dialectics in Das Kapital also benefitted from the rich philosophical heritage spanning over two millennia in Europe.

Thirdly, Marx’s critical analysis, transformation, application and development of Hegelian idealist dialectics.

As early as the 1840s, Marx criticized the idealism and mysticism inherent in Hegelian dialectics in works such as the Paris Manuscripts and The Poverty of Philosophy. However, unlike philosophers such as Feuerbach, who completely negated Hegelian dialectics, Marx acknowledged the rational elements within Hegelian dialectics. After the mid-1850s, Marx applied a transformed version of Hegelian dialectics to his study of political economy, thereby contributing to both his own accomplishments and those of Hegel. As Engels pointed out in the following statement:

He (i.e., Marx, noted by the author) was the first to have brought to the fore again the forgotten dialectical method, its connection with Hegelian dialectics and its distinction from the latter, and at the same time to have applied this method in Das Kapital to the facts of an empirical science, political economy. And he did it so successfully …

Engels (2012b, p. 878)

Fourthly, Marx’s views on the essence and nature of dialectics.

Regarding the essence and nature of dialectics, Marx made an incisive summary as follows:

It (i.e., dialectics, noted by the author) includes in its comprehension and affirmative recognition of the existing state of things, at the same time also, the recognition of the negation of that state, of its inevitable breaking up; it regards every historically developed social form as in fluid movement, and therefore takes into account its transient nature not less than its momentary existence; it lets nothing impose upon it, and is in its essence critical and revolutionary.

Marx (2004a, p. 22)

Therefore, the genuine dialectical method belongs to the proletariat and the broad masses of laborers, and no wonder it is “a scandal and abomination to bourgeoisdom and its doctrinaire professors” (Marx, 2004a, p. 22).

2.4 The theoretical and practical implications of dialectics of Das Kapital

Lenin has three critical views on the theoretical value of the dialectics of Das Kapital.

Firstly, only through a thorough grasp of Hegelian dialectics can one truly understand Das Kapital. In the Philosophical Notebooks, Lenin (1993a, p. 151) asserts that, “Aphorism: It is impossible completely to understand Marx’s Das Kapital, and especially its first chapter, without having thoroughly studied and understood the whole of Hegel’s Logic. Consequently, half a century later none of the Marxists understood Marx!!” Lenin refers to this paragraph as “Aphorism”, concluding it with two exclamation marks. However, for unknown reasons, many quotations omitted the latter sentence! I have included it in my citation because of my reverence for Lenin’s original text.

Secondly, the dialectics of Das Kapital should be fully utilized to address contemporary questions. Lenin (1993b, p. 290) once emphasized: “If Marx did not leave behind him a Logic (with a capital letter), he did leave the logic of Das Kapital, and this ought to be utilized to the full in this question. In Das Kapital, Marx applied to a single science logic, dialectics and the theory of knowledge of materialism … which has taken everything valuable in Hegel and developed it further.” In addition to drawing upon, it is imperative to develop the valuable elements of dialectics through practice.

Thirdly, a conscious dialectical materialist should delve into dialectics applied in Das Kapital. In 1922, Lenin asserted the following point in “On the Significance of Militant Materialism” on Under the Banner of Marxism:

A conscious adherent of the materialism represented by Marx, i.e., he must be a dialectical materialist. In order to attain this aim, … must arrange for the systematic study of Hegelian dialectics from a materialist standpoint, i.e., the dialectics which Marx applied practically in his Das Kapital and in his historical and political works, and applied so successfully, … Unless it sets itself such a task and systematically fulfills it, materialism cannot be militant materialism.

Lenin (2004, pp. 652–653)

Lenin passed away less than two years after writing this article; hence this article is also referred to as Lenin’s “philosophical legacy”.

In 2019, Chinese President Xi Jinping delivered an important speech at the opening ceremony of the special seminar for key provincial and ministerial-level leaders on insisting on bottom-line thinking and focusing on preventing and resolving major risks, which emphasized that:

Leading cadres must strengthen their theoretical cultivation, make an in-depth study of the basic theories of Marxism, learn, understand, apply, and practice the ideology of socialism with Chinese characteristics for the new era, master the worldview and methodology of dialectical materialism that permeates this ideology, improve their capabilities of strategic thinking, historical thinking, dialectical thinking, innovative thinking, rule of law thinking, and bottom-line thinking, be adept at grasping the laws from within the complicated contradictions, and continue to accumulate experience and increase their talents. … should respond to every major risk and challenge and earnestly do a good job in reform, development, and stability work.

Xi (2020, p. 223)

The study of the dialectics of Das Kapital is crucial for us to effectively undertake the tasks of reform, development and stability in contemporary times.

3. A triumph of German science: the organic structure of Das Kapital

3.1 Marx thinks highly of the structure of Das Kapital

There are two common perspectives on the structure of Das Kapital. The first one focuses on the composition of Das Kapital. For example, the first volume of Das Kapital consists of prefaces, afterwords and seven parts (25 chapters), and each further is divided into several subsections. Ordinary readers who aim to understand the content would make no effort to scrutinize the inherent connection between each part, chapter and subsection and consider it a simple matter of form. The structure of Das Kapital, recognized from such a perspective, can be regarded as external or inorganic. Alternatively, Das Kapital can be viewed as an organically integrated whole with various parts organized with specific methods, and each component is intricately interwoven with each other, forming a coherent whole. It is the latter structure that Marx strived for when he created Das Kapital and can be regarded as an internal and organic structure.

On July 31, 1865, Marx wrote to Engels:

… regarding my work, I will tell you the plain truth about it. There are three more chapters to be written to complete the theoretical part (the first three books). Then there is still the 4th book, the historical-literary one, to be written, … Whatever shortcomings they may have, the advantage of my writings is that they are an artistic whole, and this can only be achieved through my practice of never having things printed until I have them in front of me in their entirety.

Marx (1976e, p. 196)

And on February 20, 1986, Marx was so excited that he told Engels:

You will understand, my Dear Fellow, that in a work such as mine, there are bound to be many shortcomings in the detail. But the composition, the structure, is a triumph of German science, which an individual German may confess to, since it is in no way his merit but rather belongs to the nation.

Marx (1976f, p. 202)

3.2 Basic characteristics of the organic structure of Das Kapital

Firstly, the categories that constitute the organic structure of Das Kapital are internally interconnected, with each subsequent category logically derived from the preceding one rather than being mechanically arranged without any principles.

Secondly, the logical points of departure and ending are intricately connected through many intermediaries, forming an inseparable and exquisite “artistic whole” that is truly awe-inspiring.

Thirdly, this “artistic whole” is a living organism. When it comes to the connection and difference between the method of presentation and that of inquiry, Marx, in the Afterword to the Second German Edition of Das Kapital Vol. 1, Marx (2004a, p. 22) says that, “… if the life of the subject-matter is ideally reflected as in a mirror, then it may appear as if we had before us a mere a priori construction.” That is to say, the materials integrated into Das Kapital were actually lifeless but appeared to acquire a sudden vitality, becoming autonomous and free to move. They are interrelated and systematically combined, presenting an “a priori structure” as described by Kant.

Fourthly, the organic structure of Das Kapital adheres to the principle of logical and historical consistency. Although the organic structure of Das Kapital is solely based on logic, it is not arbitrary or whimsical. As Engels states in his review of A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy:

The point where this history begins must also be the starting point of the train of thought, and its further progress will be simply the reflection, in abstract and theoretically consistent form, of the historical course. Though the reflection is corrected, it is corrected in accordance with laws provided by the actual historical course, since each factor can be examined at the stage of development where it reaches its full maturity, its classical form.

Engels (2012a, p. 14)

Unlike Hegel’s idealistic dialectics, the organic structure of Das Kapital by Karl Marx is completely based on dialectical materialism.

3.3 How Marx established the organic structure of Das Kapital

From A Critique of Politics and of Political Economy, written in the mid-1840s, to The Poverty of Philosophy criticizing Proudhon, published in 1847, and then to the first, second, and third drafts of Das Kapital composed in the 1850s and 1860s, Marx not only made significant breakthroughs in political economic theories but also strived for an optimal presentation method that would achieve a perfect harmony between content and form. History has demonstrated that Marx has reached “luminous summits” (Marx, 2004a, p. 24) regarding both substance and form.

Marx’s statement about the methods of inquiry and presentation has delineated the fundamental pathway to constructing the organic structure of Das Kapital.

Firstly, the inquiry “has to appropriate the material in detail” (Marx, 2004a, p. 21). It is remarkable how many wide-ranging and professional materials Marx appropriated and how long it took him to write Das Kapital.

Secondly, “to analyze its different forms of development, to trace out their inner connexion” (Marx, 2004a, p. 21), which is extremely arduous and meticulous but indispensable in inquiry.

Thirdly, choose the appropriate logical starting point – commodities, which possess the following characteristics: it is an “economic concrete object” and thus is objective reality; it embodies the specific social production relations and therefore holds historical significance; it is the most simple, abstract and general form in the bourgeois society in terms of the value form and bourgeois production; it reflects the germ of all contradictions in capitalist society; as the logical starting point, it is consistent with the starting point of commodity production; it is both the starting point and end of capital movement.

Finally, to combine multiple unique methods for presentation, including rising from abstract to concrete, unity of opposites and the negation of negation, i.e. spiral development.

3.4 Previous research worldwide on the organic structure of Das Kapital

Many works and papers have been published worldwide on the structure of Das Kapital. However, most of them focus on the external structure of Das Kapital and are essentially interpretations of the content rather than analyses of the structure. The earliest study on the organic structure system of Das Kapital in China was conducted by Professor Zhang Xunhua at Fudan University. In his article titled “The Application of Dialectics in Das Kapital”, published in the seventh issue of Academic Monthly in 1980, Zhang (1980) astutely observes that “Hegel’s logic is adopted in Das Kapital for presentation. While Hegel’s logic commences with conception and embodies idealistic dialectics, the presentation methods employed in Das Kapital are grounded upon materialist inquiry methods, thus embodying materialist dialectics” and argues that the composition of Das Kapital can be visualized through a circle of circles: “By mastering this circular approach when studying Das Kapital, one can comprehend its organic system and elucidate its principal structure.” Professor Zhang’s insights are still applicable when this article, published forty years ago, is reviewed.

In the early 1980s, I published an article in Academic Monthly, engaging in a scholarly debate regarding the structural composition of Chapter 3 of Das Kapital Vol. 1 (i.e., Money, Or the Circulation of Commodities), in which I claim that the mystery of the structure of this chapter can be attributed to Marx’s “coquetting” with “the modes of expression peculiar to Hegel”, particularly the law of the negation of the negation, and the development of the functions of money follows the law of the negation of the negation, which entails a progression from abstract to concrete, and grasping Marx’s dialectics contributes to a more rational comprehension of the intricate structure presented in the third chapter (Li, 1983).

My research findings on the organic structure of Das Kapital Vol. 1 have been primarily documented in “Exploration of Dialectics of Das Kapital (I)” first published by Fujian People’s Publishing House in 1986, which was renamed “Exploration of Dialectics of Das Kapital Vol. 1” when republished.

3.5 Implications of studying the organic structure of Das Kapital for constructing the socialist political economy with Chinese characteristics in a scientific way

In his speech at the Symposium on Philosophy and Social Sciences, which is of historical significance, Xi Jinping points out the following statement:

History has shown that times of great social change are also times of great development in the philosophical and social sciences. China is currently undergoing the most extensive and profound social transformation in its history, as well as conducting the most grand and unique practice innovations in human history. This unprecedented great practice will undoubtedly provide powerful momentum and vast space for theoretical creation and academic prosperity. This is an era that needs theories and thoughts and will definitely give rise to them. We must not let this era down.

Xi (2016, p. 8)

In this speech, Xi, for the first time, proposed to focus on building the disciplinary system, academic system and discourse system of socialist social sciences with Chinese characteristics, fully reflecting the cultural confidence and cultural pursuit of a great country.

The organic structure of Marx’s Das Kapital is not only a remarkable achievement of German science but also a brilliant accomplishment of human science that is hard for future generations to surpass. It serves as an exemplar and illuminates the path and objectives for constructing a scientific system of political economy with Chinese characteristics.

First, it is essential to follow the guidance of Marxism and critically examine, adapt and incorporate all economic research achievements from both domestic and foreign predecessors, gaining valuable insights that can be applied in our own context.

Second, it is crucial to refine new economic perspectives, theories and laws from the rich practical experiences accumulated over the past century since the founding of the Communist Party of China, the more than seventy years since the establishment of the People’s Republic of China, and especially the over forty years of reform and opening up. This involves discerning the essential from the superficial, distinguishing truth from falsehood, moving from the particular to the general, and from the surface to the essence to extract valuable insights while rejecting unscientific elements.

Third, efforts should be made to formulate a series of concepts and categories that are scientific, foundational and pertinent to the contemporary era to explore various laws governing the dynamics of China’s socialist economy.

Additionally, it is important to discover the intrinsic connections between these concepts, categories and various laws, allowing them to undergo dialectical transformation and development in accordance with the principles of abstract-to-concrete progression and logical and historical consistency. At this stage, the author does not advocate for hastily determining the logical starting point of the scientific system of political economy with Chinese characteristics, as it would be a futile endeavor for now.

Finally, the political economy with Chinese characteristics should be a scientific system built upon the rich experiences of China’s economic construction. It must be conceptually clear, structurally rigorous, logically coherent and relatively comprehensive while embodying the unique characteristics of China, capable of withstanding the test of time and history.

This is a translation of an article original post at: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1674-7542.2021.01.002