The basic controversy remains unchanged. One view holds that Marxist political economy is economics, and the main reasoning process is as follows: Marxist political economy is political economy and political economy is economics, so Marxist political economy is economics, but the content of Marxist political economy cannot be completely equal to political economy. "Contemporary popular economics and political economy are generally considered as theoretical economics. They are disciplines that discuss the basic concepts and principles of economics and the general laws of economic operation and development, and provide basic theories for all other economic disciplines. Although the names are different at this time, they are actually synonymous. " [1] Comrade Wang Zhenzhong used a lot of materials to prove that political economics and economics are consistent, pointing out that "the so-called' economics' that is popular in the world now is actually' political economics'". Comrade Wang Zhenzhong also quoted this view from Marshall to Samuelson's related articles and works. The conclusion is: "In China's socialist countries, can we develop political economy by weakening or belittling the study of Marxist economics? The answer is obviouslyno. " [2] There should be quite a few comrades who hold this view.
Other scholars think that economics is different from political economy or Marxist political economy. In China, political economy has specifically referred to Marxist political economy or Marxist economics, and Marxist political economy specifically refers to two ways: one is political economy represented by Marx's Das Kapital; One is the political economy represented by the capitalist part of the Soviet political economy textbook (this is the case with the Marxist political economy theory course resumed by the Ministry of Education in colleges and universities since 1998). Mr. Gu Shutang of Nankai University basically holds this view. In his article "On the Future Development of Economics in China", he pointed out that the practice of reform and opening up has greatly threatened the status of political economy as a basic theory, and there has been a phenomenon of "absence" of basic theory [3]. "Traditional political economy (Marxist political economy-author's note) cannot provide theoretical support for applied economics due to the limitations of its own theoretical system, so that its basic position cannot be ignored. This is an unacceptable objective reality for scholars who have been engaged in theoretical research in this field. " [3] At present, many domestic scholars are creating China economics, trying to get rid of the entanglement between Marxist political economy and economics. In fact, these comrades still think that Marxist political economy and economics are different, otherwise it would be unnecessary.
When discussing the relationship between Marxist political economy and economics, the former mainly refers to the capitalist part of Soviet textbooks and Marx's Das Kapital and related economic thoughts or theories. Without this point, the discussion is meaningless. We don't advocate infinitely expanding one's theory and ideological content, and generalize all the development of later generations as Marx or Marxism, which is also mechanical, idealistic and against one's will. Otherwise, there is no need to establish Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought and Deng Xiaoping Theory.
two
We believe that Marxist political economy cannot be simply equated with economics. But for a long time, there are two kinds of understandings: one thinks that distinguishing Marxist political economy from economics shows that economics has got rid of class and enhanced its scientific nature. Another view is that combining the two can fully demonstrate the role and significance of Marxist economics, and prove that Marxism or Marx's economic thought is still the basic guiding ideology of China's economic construction, so that China's economic construction will not make directional mistakes. Moreover, I think these two understandings are one-sided, which is not conducive to understanding the relationship between Marxist political economy and economics, nor to the development of socialist economic theory and practice. In a sense, our socialist economic construction has not formed a good economic theory in time, and the phenomenon that theory lags behind reality often appears, which is related to these two one-sided understandings.
Marxist political economy cannot be simply equated with economics, because it has its own unique research object, unique research purpose and destination, which can be said to be determined by the historical mission entrusted by Marx and Engels' era. This understanding will not weaken the position of Marxist political economy at all, let alone affect the role of Marxist economic thought. The truth should be just the opposite.
Marxist political economy studies the relations of production, that is, the relationship between people in economic activities (Zhang Rende, 1999). First of all, the relationship between people exists in economic activities and is the most basic relationship. Isolated production activities do not exist. Modern social and economic relations are extensive, and it is more and more difficult for individuals to survive. Marx grasped the basic relations and interpersonal relationships in social and economic activities, and then showed his economic theory incisively and vividly, which should be said to be the best in economic activities. Through the analysis of the relationship between people in economic activities, Marx introduced the analysis of social economic system (based on the arrangement of property rights), the analysis of the state of economic activities (the economic operation between enterprises and society), the assumption of economic structure balance (the theory of social capital reproduction and structural equilibrium collapse under the condition of private ownership-economic crisis) and the discussion of class opposition among members of social groups.
The problem is that in addition to the relationship between people, there is also the relationship between people and things in economic activities, that is, according to Marx's social productive forces. Marx involved this point in his economic thought, but he did not study productivity for the sake of studying productivity, nor did he expand the basic contents of productivity itself too much, such as laws, elements, levels and distribution. Just as Marx studied use value, he regarded it as "the undertaker of commodity value". Studying productivity is not his original intention. The purpose he wants to study and reveal is the inevitability and motive force of the development of human society from low level to high level, and the factual process of the evolution of production relations from low level to high level. What Marx always wanted to grasp was the main aspect of contradiction in the movement of social relations of production.
In addition, there is the relationship between things in economic activities, which is almost not discussed in Marxist economics. The relationship between things in economic activities is manifested in the production of substitutes, the relationship between competing goods and the balance of industrial structure. Marx touched on the relationship between things in two kinds of economic activities, but strictly speaking, it did not explain from the perspective of production and industrial structure adjustment, so it was far from the needs of social production development.
There is also a distinct thought in the immortal Marxist economic works, that is, the relationship between people is a class relationship, which is the occupation and oppression of one group to another, and class struggle is the direct cause of human evolution. It should be said that class and class struggle exist objectively. We cannot deny the existence of history just because of the easing of class struggle today. Farmers are exploited and oppressed by landlords, workers are exploited and oppressed by capitalists and slaves are exploited and oppressed by slave owners. There is class struggle, but the problem is that people's economic activities are not only class relations, but also blood relations and some movable property relations. Relatives and family members participate in economic activities, and their different interests are often difficult to explain by class struggle. The chattel relationship we are talking about here refers to the later social relations, such as classmate relationship, friend relationship, neighbor relationship and so on. In China, a people-oriented society, the quality of dealing with chattel relations will be considered more important than anything else. In order to gain the recognition of relatives and friends and society, the amount of property possession often becomes insignificant.
Furthermore, in Marxist economics, the existence of class relations means the existence of antagonistic relations. The opposition between the oppressor and the oppressed is inevitable, and this analysis is more in line with historical development than the gap. The continuous uprising and struggle of the oppressed shows the correctness of the analysis. The problem is that going to extremes is not enough. Just as there are opposites in class relations, there are also aspects of coordination and even cooperation. In a short time, coordination and cooperation are more than opposition and struggle. The basis of self-coordination and cooperation in class relations is mutual adaptation. According to Marx's view, the emerging class is still progressive during its rising period, and other classes are willing to cooperate with it. But it is this idea that has been neglected in the traditional political economy theory. When the era is dominated by class cooperation, it is easy to doubt the scientific nature of this theory.
When Marxist political economy was founded, such problems inevitably existed because of the insufficient appearances of market economy; Later generations deviated from Marx's spirit of seeking truth from facts in the process of development. Due to the complex mentality of confusion, speculation and revolution, inheritance is more than development, and rigidity is more than innovation, so that some people defend the viewpoint of Marxist political economy not in spirit, but in words. Many articles today are always explaining how Das Kapital was foreseen. Marx's Das Kapital analyzed the market economy, which we are engaged in today. The theory of socialist market economy was explained there, and the viewpoint of Capital is still our guidance. They actually ignored the basic knowledge that Marx did not think that socialism should engage in a market economy. Marx analyzed the capitalist market economy, which is one of the economic roots leading to the demise of capitalism. It seems that the result of defending Marxist economics is not to correctly publicize Marxist political economy, but to block it. In a popular phrase, Marxist economic theory will not be overthrown by anyone in the future, but it is terrible that it will be strangled by some people who look like Marxism. "Left" is the main harm, and this shocking word should still be in my ear.
three
In the past century, the degree of socialization of productive forces has increased rapidly, science and technology have developed, and international division of labor and contacts have become increasingly extensive. No one can deny the fact that Marxist political economy needs to develop. Why do you want to develop? Explain that the original theory has shortcomings and defects. How to deal with this is likely to be another focus of the problem. We believe that from the perspective of traditional political economy theory, it is necessary to "supplement the new" and revise, both of which are necessary. The main task of Marxist political economy is to analyze the evolution of capitalist economic relations (we also know that there is political economy in a broad sense), but since the war, the evolution of capitalist economic relations has been "derailed", and we should be able to understand this. First, the capitalist's economic man nature has changed, and the capitalist's pure economic man identity has begun to change to a rational economic man. A pure economic man is the only one who let himself be dragged down by the pursuit of profit, dare to hang himself, exploit workers by hook or by crook, and treat competition with deadly deception. The capitalists analyzed by Marx at that time absorbed Adam Smith's view of pure economic man: at all costs for the benefit. Rational capitalists are the main characteristics of modern capitalists. The so-called rational capitalist can be seen from these aspects: ① accepting the macro-control of the government. From this perspective, there will be a requirement that "local interests obey the overall interests", and the interests of individual capitalists will be "sacrificed"; ② Pay attention to social welfare and pay taxes for welfare. In enterprise behavior, welfare undertakings are good enterprises to save poor enterprises, and profitable enterprises to help meager profits or even bankrupt enterprises; ③ Care about public welfare undertakings and invest in social, cultural and educational undertakings. Judging from the current situation in China, after the reform and opening up, it has attracted a lot of capital investment in this field. Although their motives may be various; The rational analysis of economic operation avoids some blindness in economic operation. Mature market players have become the main force for the sustained and balanced development of society. Marx pointed out at that time that the anarchy of enterprise production and social production under capitalist conditions was avoided to some extent because of the maturity of market players in today's capitalist world.
The second important change is the enterprise system and enterprise organization form. The dominant enterprise system of modern capitalism is the shareholding system, which has many forms, including mutual shareholding and holding between capitalists, mutual shareholding and holding between the state and capitalists, and some of its shares are even in the hands of workers. From a regional perspective, equity participation and holding have transcended national boundaries, forming mutual equity participation and holding between countries and enterprises of different natures. Joint-stock enterprises in socialist countries include private capitalists at home and abroad, and socialist countries also set up enterprises in capitalist countries to engage in equity participation and holding. The diversification of the shareholding system not only shows that the degree of socialization of productive forces is unprecedented, but also shows that the form of enterprise system has been divorced from a certain social nature. The capitalist enterprise system, the original form of capitalist private ownership, which is considered to be completely owned, completely owned, completely profitable and completely risky, is no longer suitable for the needs of today's capitalist social productive forces, nor is it the typical or economic foundation of capitalism. In view of the era in which Marx lived, Marx took the analysis of the initial capitalist enterprise system as an example. In fact, such an enterprise system, as Marx said, cannot adapt to socialized mass production, and its "death knell has sounded". Since Marx made an incisive exposition on the enterprise system based on the capitalist economy, the successive economic crises of capitalism have forced bourgeois economists to admit the disadvantages of the system (Keynes), and some even pointed out the historical and inevitable destruction of this system. There is an inherent tendency of self-destruction within the capitalist system, which may be clearly manifested in the form of hindering progress in its early days. [4] The great crisis of1929-1933 dealt a heavy blow to scholars and bureaucrats. Roosevelt's New Deal (1936) and Keynes's classic theory Employment, Interest and Monetary Communication (1939) were finally published. It can be said that these policies, measures and theories are actually prescriptions for trying to save capitalism on the basis of Marx's diagnosis of early capitalism. Capitalist ownership was forced to change from "clear individual private ownership" (Hu Daiguang, 1998) to a joint-stock system shared by the society, in order to meet the needs of the socialization of productive forces and seek benefits and risks. Capitalist shareholding system is a form of socialization of capital, management, interests and risks. Because of the continuous improvement of its socialization and the constant change of its organizational form, the joint-stock system has a strong digestion in the process of greatly improving capitalist productive forces and has played a positive role in the development of capitalist economy.
From here, we can say that the foundation of capitalist economic system has changed greatly, and the sublation of private ownership of the shareholding system (Engels) has become the foundation of capitalist economic system.
On the Relationship between Marxist Political Economy and Economics
Third, the diversity of personal identity in today's society has played a certain role in reconciling class relations. This is another rapid change since the post-war and even since the 1990s. With the emergence of new knowledge economy, a generation of high-tech talents organically combine capital operation with intellectual operation. They mainly use their own intelligence as capital, and with the help of appropriate monetary capital (including the use of credit), they quickly occupy and expand the market and become the leaders of the new economy. These people become rich through their own wisdom, so that they hire some intellectual workers to participate in the operation of the knowledge economy. They all hire others to work, and they are often the most important workers and responsible. For such enterprises, once these people no longer participate in labor, the enterprise capital is likely to be worthless. Another situation is that some people are both employers and employees. At present, this situation is quite common in China, both in universities and private enterprises. A person is employed by an enterprise, but he has his own company and hires others to work. It is difficult to tell whether a person is a capitalist or a worker, an employer or an employee, or something else. Therefore, the diversity of personal identity blurs the boundary of class distinction to some extent, which shows that simple class analysis method can not solve this problem.
In fact, the problem is not the difference between the content of Marxist political economy and reality. As mentioned above, no matter who it is, it is acknowledged that Marxist theory needs to be developed. The key is to explain whether the difference between Marxist political economy and reality means denying the theories of Marxism and Marx and Engels. We don't think so. Marxism, as the theory guiding the early proletarian struggle and the bible of the working class, has irreplaceable historical significance and function. It has a far-reaching impact on revealing the disadvantages of the capitalist system, pointing out the disorder of market competition and the necessity of social intervention and deployment, and promoting the economic prosperity and civilization in today's world. As Marx and Engels whose responsibility is to overthrow the old capitalist system, the spirit and foresight of their theory can not be denied by any impartial scholar. Whether showing fear or admiration for this theory, it shows the scientific nature of this theory. The problem is that more than a hundred years of practice and social changes, especially the society that has experienced the transformation of the initial institutional form and resource allocation mode during the period of free competition of capitalism, are facing new construction and development tasks. Especially in our socialist country which is in the primary stage, the allocation of resources is based on the market economy. It is impossible to simply copy the principles of Marxist political economy by continuing to focus on economic construction. Our market economy is essentially different from the capitalist market economy analyzed by Marx. The socialism conceived by Marx (Marx himself never positively affirmed socialism) is a planned economy (some people attribute it to Lenin's invention), and there is no commodity or currency. It is easy to find some words from Marx's works to prove a certain point of view, but Marxism is a system, a value tendency and even a spirit, and a few words cannot represent Marxism.
From here, let's go back to the beginning. Whether Marxist political economy equals economics, and whether economics equals political economy. Obviously, Marxist political economy has its unique content. If it is equal to political economics, then political economics is not equal to economics in the general sense. Economics in a broad sense should include more contents, more extensive analysis of operational functions and quantitative operations. If our economics can't explain the basic economic problems of contemporary capitalism and solve the practical problems in the construction of the primary stage of socialism systematically and profoundly, we will be sorry for Marxism and the economic thoughts and theories created by Marx and Engels for us. If Marxist political economics is Marx and Engels' economic theory on the analysis of the relationship between economy and politics, and they have their own characteristics and contents, then we think that economics and political economics can be equated. "Since the birth of Marxist economics, it has become one of the blood of modern economics" [2]. Marxist political economy is an important aspect of economics, which studies the relationship between people in economic activities. In the real society, economics is inseparable from politics (Wang Zhenzhong, 1999), especially in the modern society, economics will not become a big mistake because of adding the word "politics". In addition, Marxist political economy is essentially "a historical science", Engels said, "Political economy is essentially a historical science. It involves history and ever-changing materials. It first studies the special laws of each development stage of production and exchange. Only after completing this research can it establish one of the few most common laws applicable to all production and exchange. " [5]. As a historical science, Marxist political economy does not want to solve all economic problems in all societies. If we must let a Marxist political economy, which is essentially a historical science, take the responsibility of solving all economic problems in reality, it is really against the original intention of Marxist classical writers.
So far, pure, pure and universally applicable economics has not appeared.
Many concepts, categories and principles in western economics are not fully applicable to China's economic construction, or even to the western countries themselves. Now some people try to get rid of the influence of politics by dividing economics into macroeconomics and microeconomics, and establish an economics that transcends national boundaries and time and space. This attempt is commendable, but its effect is futile. China's socialist economic construction should not only be based on Marxism, but also absorb the methods of western economics. More importantly, we should establish different economic theories in different periods based on the self-operation of China's economy. Hoping to establish a China economics once and for all is tantamount to hanging a tree and seeking fish.