It can be seen that Marx's research can never bypass Engels, let alone misinterpret Engels! It is not difficult to understand why Bernstein started revisionism, not only needed Engels as a shield, but also complained to him. Lukacs opened up the road of western Marxism and criticized him. When scholars try to pave the way for subjective dialectics, they also like to dismiss him as an outdated natural science materialist. Everything is based on the premise of belittling historical objectivity and regularity. Whether this premise is correct or not, as long as we carefully read German Ideology and Das Kapital, especially the part about "nature and society" in Engels' Dialectics of Nature, we can make a correct judgment. How untenable Engels' view of "destroying" Marx's theory is. In the 265,438+0 century, the study of Marxism has always faced two historical issues: (65,438+0) enriching and developing Marxist philosophy with new historical practice, thus defending Marxism; (2) Expand the propaganda of Marxism in a form loved by the broad masses of the people, and actively promote the integration of Marxism with new social and historical practice. Both of these points need Engels-style work. It can even be asserted that without Engels, we can't stop the retrogression to pure theory in the process of rebuilding Marxist philosophy, and we can't guarantee the premise of materialism. Therefore, whether it is "returning to Marx" or any other path, it is not to recreate a Marxism without Engels on the premise that Marx and Engels are opposed. If, as a theoretical need, "going back" means that we can't correctly adhere to the basic theories and methods of Marxism without radical work, then when we consciously take the contemporary appearance of Marxism as our theoretical mission, we should consciously take the road pioneered by Engels. It is in this sense that Engels is the expectation of the new era.
Let's take a look at Lenin's what is a "friend of the people" and how did they attack the Social Democratic Party? How to say:
When reading Marxist literature, Mr. Mi Heyrovsk, Jaroslav often encounters "dialectical method" in social science, "dialectical thinking" in the scope of social problems (this is just the scope of discussion) and so on. Because of his simple mind (if it is only simple, that's ok), he thinks that this method is to solve all sociological problems according to Hegel's three-stage law. As long as he looks at the problem a little more carefully, he can't help but be convinced that this view is absurd. The dialectical method mentioned by Marx and Engels (the opposite of metaphysical method) is just a scientific method in sociology. This method regards society as a living organism that is constantly developing (rather than something that is mechanically combined so that various social elements can be matched casually). To study this organism, we must objectively analyze the relations of production that constitute this social form. Studying the activities and development laws of this social form ... No Marxist has ever proved anywhere that Russia "should have" capitalism, because "Western Europe already has capitalism, and so on. No Marxist has ever thought that Marx's theory is a historical and philosophical formula that must be universally observed, and it is something beyond the explanation of a certain social and economic form. Only the subjective philosopher Mr. M. Heyrovsk, Jaroslav didn't understand Marx enough to think that Marx must have some general philosophical theories. So he got a very clear answer from Marx: he was barking up the wrong tree. No Marxists have ever demonstrated their views on the basis of theories that do not conform to the reality and history of social and economic relations, but on the basis of other things … and they can't demonstrate their views on the basis of other things, because the founder of "Marxism" … clearly put forward this requirement for the theory and took it as the basis of all theories. Schmidt also has his formalism view on the law of value. He called the law of value a scientific hypothesis to explain the actual exchange process; This assumption is said to be a necessary theoretical starting point and an indispensable thing to explain these phenomena, even in the face of competitive price phenomena that are completely contradictory on the surface. He believes that without the law of value, it is impossible to have any theoretical understanding of the real economic activities of capitalism. In a private letter that he agreed to quote to me, Schmidt directly declared that the law of value in capitalist production forms is fictitious, even if it is reasonable ... Both Sambat and Schmidt-as for the famous Loria, I just regard him as a ridiculous specimen of vulgar economics by the way here-have not fully noticed that what is involved here is not only a pure logical process, but also a historical process and an idea to explain it.
The decisive factor is a passage on page 196 of Volume III of Marx's Das Kapital: "All difficulties arise from the fact that commodities are exchanged not only as commodities, but also as products of capital. These capitals require a share proportional to their respective amounts from the total surplus value, or an equal share when their amounts are equal. " ..... "Therefore, the exchange of goods according to their value or close to their value requires a much lower development stage than the exchange according to their production price. The exchange according to the production price requires capitalism to develop to a certain height ... Therefore, it is completely appropriate to regard the commodity value as prior to the production price, not only in theory, but also in history, regardless of the fact that prices and price changes are governed by the law of value. This applies to the state that the means of production are owned by workers; This state can be seen by farmers and craftsmen in both the ancient and modern world. This is also in line with what we said before. The development of products into commodities is caused by exchanges between different entities, not by exchanges between members of the same entity. Just as it applies to this primitive state, it also applies to countries based on slavery and serfdom, and it also applies to handicraft guild organizations. At that time, the means of production fixed in various production departments were not easily transferred from one department to another, so the relationship between different departments was like the relationship between different countries or different producers. " ..... Starting from the point that value is determined by labor time, all kinds of relations developed in all aspects of commodity production and the law of value labor are as described in Article 1 of Volume I of Das Kapital; Therefore, especially those conditions that make labor the only factor to form value have developed. Moreover, these conditions work without the knowledge of the parties, and can only be abstracted from daily practice through hard theoretical research. Therefore, they work in the way of natural laws, and Marx also proved that all this is inevitable from the essence of commodity production. The most important and crucial progress is the transition to metal currency. However, this change has also caused the following consequences: the fact that the value is determined by the labor time is no longer visible on the surface of commodity exchange. From a practical point of view, money becomes the decisive measure of value; Moreover, the more kinds of goods enter the transaction, the more people come from far away, so the more difficult it is to check the labor time necessary to produce these goods, and the more this happens. In addition, most of the funds themselves originally came from other places; Even if precious metals are produced locally, on the one hand, farmers and craftsmen still cannot roughly estimate the labor spent on precious metals. On the other hand, for them, because they are used to using money to calculate, the consciousness that labor is a measure of value becomes very vague. In people's minds, money began to represent absolute value.
In short, as long as the economic law works, Marx's law of value is generally applicable to the whole period of simple commodity production, that is, it is generally applicable until the production of simple commodities changes due to the emergence of capitalist production forms. Prior to this, the price was centered on the value determined by Marx's law, and changed around this value. In this way, the more fully the production of simple commodities developed, the more the average price tended to be consistent with the value in a long period of time without being interrupted by external violence, until the difference in quantity was negligible. Therefore, Marx's law of value, from the exchange of products into commodities to the fifteenth century, is universally applicable in economy. However, commodity exchange began before written history. In Egypt, it can be traced back to at least 3.5 thousand BC, maybe 5 thousand years; In Babylon, it can be traced back to 4000 BC, maybe 6000 years; Therefore, the law of value played a leading role in five thousand to seven thousand years. We can appreciate Mr. Loria's profound insights. Mr. Loria actually called the universal and directly applicable value of this period such a value. Commodities have never been sold according to it, nor can they be sold according to it, and it is said that any economist with a slightly sound mind will not study it!
The above is Engels' supplementary explanation to Marx's Capital.
Its significance lies in explaining the "original image of labor" in Marx's My Dialectical Method.
However, people do not regard the ontology of methodology (dialectics) as the stipulation of historical methods, on the contrary, they directly regard it as a logical method, because they did not think of exploring how to obtain scientific methods. After all, they don't know what history is. History is the fundamental law of category, which is not an ontological category in itself, but a concrete development process. In other words, this place was not built by epistemology. Due to the differences of national language habits, the complexity of this problem may be unprecedented, which increases the difficulty of understanding and correcting the deviation. Whoever sees the moon at the first sight by the river will shine at the starting point of the river; Life is endless from generation to generation, and Jiang Yue is only similar year after year. As far as human beings get as much right knowledge as wrong knowledge, human knowledge goes hand in hand with right and wrong, and they go hand in hand. Historical method (ontology) should be attributed to dialectics. Although such a statement seems to have no "logical power", it has "practical strength" and is a fact. In the final analysis, the historical method lies in removing ontology: concepts, concepts and pure logical reasoning. Both dialectical materialism and historical materialism do this. The stipulation of history lies in not having any ontological logic theory. This can be obvious: what is the significance of replacing ontology with methodology? This is to stop the advantage of epistemology. Lenin said that Heyrovsk, Jaroslav relied too much on "logical power", probably because he only attributed the great revolutionary power contained in Marx's works to the level of magical logic (so-called ideological understanding). But in that case, people may soon fall into various intertwined semantic quagmires.