Shi Ling: Marx and Engels' Critiques of Various Misreadings of *Das Kapital*
The history of the dissemination of Capital is, to a large extent, a history of its misinterpretation. In the century and a half since the publication of the first German edition of Volume I, Capital has remained in a state of being "either attacked or defended, interpreted or distorted." Among these, debates regarding the research methodology, the labor theory of value, the theory of surplus value, and the "transformation problem" have been the most intense and long-standing. These disputes can be traced back to the time of Marx and Engels themselves. The reason Marx and Engels wrote the "Prefaces" and "Afterwords" to Capital was twofold: first, to provide theoretical clarification and self-reflection; and second, to critique viewpoints that distorted, misread, or disparaged the work. In the Afterword to the second German edition of Volume I, Marx critiqued misinterpretations of the methodology of Capital. Engels, in his prefaces to the fourth German edition of Volume I and the first editions of Volumes II and III, critiqued misreadings of the work's primary theories. During this period, Marx and Engels also authored targeted polemical works such as Notes on Adolph Wagner’s "Lehrbuch der politischen Oekonomie", Marx and Rodbertus, The Brentano-Marx Controversy, and The Law of Value and the Rate of Profit, while also guiding other theorists via correspondence to write critical essays. However, the viewpoints critiqued by Marx and Engels have recurred throughout history; some have even repeatedly revived arguments—or even fabrications—concocted by scholars over a century ago to deny the scientific nature of Capital. Precisely for this reason, revisiting Marx and Engels’s critiques of various misreadings of Capital is of great significance for our more accurate grasp of the work's thought and its contemporary value.
I. Capital has been in a state of misinterpretation since its inception
In the Preface to the first German edition of Volume I of Capital, Marx predicted that the work would provoke the most violent criticism and attacks from its enemies. The historical trajectory of Capital has confirmed this.
(1) Attacks from bourgeois scholars from an academic perspective
Since the appearance of the first German edition of Volume I, misinterpretations can be roughly categorized into two types: those regarding the nature of its "dialectics" and those regarding the nature of its "materialism." Failing to understand the nature of "dialectics," some scholars categorized the method of Capital as "deductive." Maurice Block claimed that Capital employed an "analytical method"; Jules Faucher and Karl Eugen Dühring viewed Marx’s method as "Hegelian sophistry"; and Friedrich Albert Lange naively described it as "free movement in the matter" [1]. Because they failed to understand the "materialist" nature of the method in Capital, other erroneous viewpoints reproached Marx for "confining himself to a mere critical analysis of the actual." An article titled "The Standpoint of Karl Marx’s Critique of Political Economy," published by a Russian reviewer, while correctly recognizing the method of Capital as dialectical, failed to understand the internal unity between the method of inquiry and the method of presentation.
From the 1870s until Engels's death, Katheder-Socialists [2] attacked the labor theory of value, the theory of surplus value, and the "transformation problem" in Capital, even going so far as to spitefully malign Marx himself. In his book General or Theoretical Doctrine of National Economy, Adolph Wagner misread the labor theory of value, erroneously interpreted Marx’s concept of "exchange value," and ultimately conflated Marx’s value theory with Ricardo's cost theory. Johann Karl Rodbertus sought to vulgarize the theory of surplus value and fabricated allegations of "plagiarism" to deny the originality of Marx’s theory. Achille Loria’s attacks on Capital persisted from the publication of Volume I through Volume III. After Volume I was published, Loria falsely claimed that Marx never truly intended to write subsequent volumes and was merely using the promise of them to deceive readers. In 1885 and 1894, as Engels successively edited and published Volumes II and III, Loria did not admit defeat; instead, he intensified his attacks on the theory of value. He argued that Marx’s doctrine of value was built on "conscious" sophistry and alleged that there were insurmountable contradictions between Volumes I and III—such as the theory of surplus value contradicting the fact of a general equalization of the rate of profit, or the law of prices of production contradicting the law of value. He even spread rumors that Volumes II and III were fabricated by Engels. To completely negate the scientific status of Capital, the Katheder-Socialist Ludwig Joseph Brentano took a different tack, levelling charges against the work regarding academic norms and scholarly integrity.
(2) Fissures of misinterpretation open within the socialist camp
During the period of the Second International (1889–1914), and especially after Engels’s death, Capital and even Marxist theory as a whole suffered from serious misinterpretation. These misreadings largely originated from theorists who claimed to be "students" of Marx and Engels. Faced with new changes in capitalism and new directions in the practice of proletarian revolution, revisionists represented by Eduard Bernstein sought to "revise" Marxism, largely negating the primary theories concerning labor value, surplus value, and the law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall.
Revisionists like Bernstein viewed Capital as an expired "hypothesis" and used "concrete" reformist theories to gradually deconstruct its revolutionary elements. First, they criticized the philosophical foundations of Marxist political economy—historical materialism and historical dialectics—advocating a "return to Kant" in an attempt to eliminate the revolutionary content and materialist principles of Marxist political economy. Second, they misread the labor theory of value, the theory of surplus value, and the law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. Bernstein asserted that the labor theory of value was a "purely mental construction" lacking realistic feasibility, and that the theory of surplus value had become "a mere formula, a formula resting on a hypothesis." At the same time, Bernstein viewed the average rate of profit only as a contingent "empirical fact" rather than a "theoretical structure" of a lawful nature, arguing that capital does not always pursue profit maximization. This not only exposed Bernstein’s attempt to deny the essence of capitalist exploitation but also demonstrated his ignorance of the "method of scientific abstraction" employed in Capital. Finally, Bernstein argued that Engels’s clarification of the value problem in the supplements to Volume III also "lacked convincing proof."
Conversely, the "Orthodox" camp represented by Karl Kautsky and the "Left" represented by Georgi Plekhanov and August Bebel resolutely critiqued revisionism. The "Orthodox" used extensive statistical material to argue that revisionist rebuttals of Marx’s labor theory of value were groundless, and used the fact of deteriorating conditions for workers' struggles under monopoly conditions to counter revisionist attacks on the equalization of the rate of profit. The "Left" pointed out Bernstein's idealist conception of history and metaphysical mode of thinking, exposing his fundamental methods of opposing Marxism. However, both the "Orthodox" and the "Left" focused their research on the "process of production" in Volume I of Capital and lacked an integrated study of all three volumes, frequently misreading Capital as "economic determinism."
(3) The formation of two distinct paths for interpreting Capital in Eastern and Western Marxism
After the October Revolution, two distinct paths for interpreting Capital emerged. First was "Eastern Marxism" (referring primarily to Soviet Russia and the later Soviet Union), which generated a degree of misinterpretation regarding commodity production, the law of value, and reproduction theory during the process of constructing socialist political economy. Second was the academic research opened by "Western Marxism" under the slogan of "rediscovering Marxism," which, while conducting a humanist reading of Capital, neglected its materialist nature.
Following the victory of the October Revolution, the dissemination and study of Capital in Soviet Russia and the Soviet Union received strong support from the new regime. However, how to apply Capital to guide economic construction in a socialist state was a brand-new challenge. This briefly led to the emergence of the "theory of the vanishing of socialist political economy," which held that since relations of value and commodities no longer existed in socialist economic construction, there was no longer a need to study a political economy centered on those themes. Lenin criticized this view, pointing out: "Even in a pure communal society, would there not be the relationship between Iv+m and IIc? And what about accumulation?" [3] This critique remains of significant guiding importance for the correct understanding and development of socialist political economy.
The victory of the October Revolution also provided the impetus for Western Marxism’s academic interpretation of Capital. In his article "The Revolution Against 'Capital'," Antonio Gramsci argued that the victory of the October Revolution was a "revolution against Karl Marx’s Capital." Gramsci did not intend to completely negate Capital, but rather to oppose the "economic determinism" expounded by Second International theorists, attempting to reread Capital from a subjective dimension. However, this risked stripping away the foundation of historical materialism while emphasizing subjective agency. As founders of early Western Marxism, György Lukács and Karl Korsch focused on interpreting Capital from the starting points of "class consciousness" and "labor," hoping to restore historical dialectics within Marxism. Yet, due to a lack of understanding of dialectical materialism, early Western Marxist interpretations of Capital gradually drifted toward humanism. Subsequently, Western schools, particularly the Frankfurt School, inherited the humanism of early Western Marxist theory and interpreted Capital from the perspective of cultural critique. While such interpretations highlighted the cultural-critical function of Capital, they also risked devolving into mere moralizing.
In the process of "rediscovering" Marxism, Western Marxism placed great emphasis on reading Marx’s original works. On one hand, this provided new avenues for research into Capital; on the other, it provided opportunities for those with ill political intentions. In the 1930s, with the publication of the Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA1), a wave of reinterpreting Marx swept through Western academia. Within this, the publication of the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 had a significant impact on the reappraisal of Capital, with some scholars using it to fabricate a dichotomy of "two Marxs." With the publication of MEGA2, voices appeared in Western academia claiming that the three volumes of Capital never truly existed as a unified whole, arguing that Volumes II and III as edited and published by Engels altered Marx’s original intent, and advocating for an edition of Capital based solely on Marx’s original manuscripts. This was no longer a re-evaluation of Capital, but an attempt to completely dissolve it.
(4) Attempts to "remodel" or "surpass" Capital
Under the impetus of the new technological revolution, capitalist society has undergone immense changes, leading to the emergence of economic phenomena not discussed in Capital. Under the pretext of adapting to "new phenomena," some scholars advocate for "remodeling" Marxism—specifically remodeling the core concepts, primary theories, and research methods of Capital—and some even propose "surpassing" Capital altogether.
First, "redefining" the conceptual terminology of Capital. "Surplus value" is the core concept that distinguishes Capital from classical political economy. Facing current debates surrounding Marxist political economy, some scholars advocate for changing terminology to reduce controversy. Paul Baran and Paul Sweezy attempted to replace "surplus value" with "economic surplus" in Monopoly Capital, while Ernest Mandel attempted to replace "excess surplus value" with "surplus profit" in Late Capitalism.
Second, "transforming" the primary theories in Capital. Since the 1970s, bourgeois economists have launched a new round of attacks on Marx's theory of labor value. Based on changes in the capitalist economy, many scholars have used "marginal productivity," "factors of production," the "supply and demand theory of value," or the "service economy" to "replace" or "transform" Marx's labor theory of value. The "transformation" problem of value into prices of production [4] is a major target for bourgeois scholars attacking Marx’s labor theory of value. Michio Morishima interpreted the reproduction formulas in Volume II of Capital as the core content of the work, setting them in opposition to the labor theory of value in Volume I. The law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall has also been "re-transformed" by bourgeois economists. The rise in the organic composition of capital is the key to Marx's demonstration of this law, but Joan Robinson replaced $c:v$ with $(c+v):(c+v+m)$, distorting the principle of the rising organic composition of capital. Meanwhile, Roy Harrod and others proposed the concept of "neutral technical progress" to oppose Marx's law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall.
Third, "reinterpreting" the research methods of Capital. Some scholars have "reinterpreted" the research methods of Capital in order to "subvert" it, with Christopher Arthur being a representative figure. Based on "New Dialectics," Arthur revised the dialectics in Capital in an attempt to reinterpret the form of value, the labor theory of value, and the theory of surplus value. The so-called "newness" of the "New Dialectics" is defined in contrast to the "old dialectics" of the Soviet textbook system and the "historical dialectics" of early Western Marxism. Arthur mapped the "Doctrine of Being," "Doctrine of Essence," and "Doctrine of the Notion" from Hegel’s Science of Logic onto "value," "money," and "capital" in Capital, viewing the abstract movement of these three as dialectical content to establish a systematic dialectic. Arthur believed this would give the narrative mode of Capital a clearer order and a greater emphasis on totality.
II. The Primary Dimensions of Marx and Engels's Critique of Misreadings of Capital
Summarizing the history of misreadings of Capital over the past century, one finds that misreaders include both opponents and supporters of Marxist political economy. While the objects of misreading have varied at different stages, they can basically be categorized into three aspects: "research methods," "primary theories," and "scholarly attitude." Marx and Engels critiqued misreadings in these three areas during their lifetimes; therefore, it is of great significance to trace their critiques based on the original texts.
(1) Critique of misreadings of the method of Capital
In the Postface to the second German edition of Volume I of Capital, Marx wrote summary-style that "the method employed in Capital has been little understood," and listed various then-prevalent reviews concerning his method. Among these, Marx most appreciated Henry Kaufman's article, "The Standpoint of Karl Marx's Critique of Political Economy," because Kaufman relatively correctly discussed Marx's dialectical materialism and recognized the distinction between the method of inquiry and the method of presentation. However, Kaufman still had certain limitations in his understanding; for instance, he severed the internal unity between the method of inquiry and the method of presentation in Capital, and confused the essential difference between Marx’s dialectic and Hegel’s. Marx responded to Kaufman’s misreadings of Capital primarily from three aspects.
First, proceeding from the perspective of the unity of the method of inquiry and the method of presentation, Marx critiqued Kaufman's distortion of the method of presentation in Capital. Kaufman believed that the research method of Capital was "realism," while the method of presentation was "German dialectics." To respond to Kaufman's misreading, Marx distinguished between the two methods in terms of work content and logical sequence. Regarding work content, research work "has to appropriate the material in detail, to analyze its different forms of development, to trace out their inner connection," while the work of presentation is to show "a mere a priori construction"—that is, the theoretical framework and system. In terms of logical sequence, research is the foundation of presentation and precedes it. However, Marx emphasized that "the method of presentation must differ in form from that of inquiry," which means the two have a substantive internal connection: "Both inquiry and presentation need to follow the general principles of dialectics; the two are fundamentally different aspects of the same cognitive process rather than two severed stages of a process." Simply put, the method of inquiry and the method of presentation are the logical unfolding and historical expression of dialectical materialism.
Second, proceeding from the fundamental difference between materialist dialectics and idealist dialectics, Marx critiqued Kaufman for confusing his dialectic with Hegel's. Facing the charge that "the form of presentation in Capital is German dialectics," Marx did not rush to distance himself from Hegel's dialectic, but instead analyzed the relationship between his form of presentation and Hegel's from the perspective of "sublation" [5]. Marx openly admitted to being a pupil of Hegel: "In the chapter on the theory of value, I even here and there coquetted with the mode of expression peculiar to him." But Marx also emphasized: "My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite." For Hegel, concepts and categories are products of the movement of the Absolute Spirit and possess objective reality. For Marx, the capitalist mode of production and the relations of production and exchange corresponding to it are the objects of study. Although the narrative of Capital is presented through categories and concepts, these are obtained by using the method of abstraction—discarding the dross and selecting the essential, eliminating the false and retaining the true, proceeding from one to the other and from the surface to the core—on the basis of fully appropriating materials from the various parts of the capitalist social organism.
Third, proceeding from the perspective of the rationality of dialectics, Marx critiqued Kaufman's simplistic negation of Hegelian dialectics. In the final part of the Postface to the second German edition of Volume I of Capital, Marx provided a classic exposition of dialectics: "In its rational form it is a scandal and abomination to bourgeoisdom and its doctrinaire spokesmen, because it 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; because 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; because it lets nothing impose upon it, and is in its essence critical and revolutionary." It was precisely because Marx discovered the "rational kernel" of Hegelian dialectics—namely "immanent negativity"—that he was able to use the "immanent negativity of capital" to dissect and analyze the capitalist mode of production and its relations of production and exchange, to grasp and express the existential conditions of humanity in capitalist society, and to expose and debunk the lies of capitalist eternity. Thus, in the preface to Capital, Marx compared materialist dialectics to "Perseus's helmet of invisibility" [6]—unlike bourgeois economists who use a "helmet" to tightly cover their eyes and ears to deny the existence of monsters, Marx intended to use the "helmet" to slay Medusa.
(2) Critique of misreadings of the Labor Theory of Value and the Theory of Surplus Value
The labor theory of value is one of the core theses of Marxist political economy and an important foundation for the discovery of the law of surplus value. Adolph Wagner misread and aggressively attacked Marx's labor theory of value in his Textbook of Political Economy (Lehrbuch der politischen Oekonomie). In response, Marx wrote "Notes on Adolph Wagner's 'Lehrbuch der politischen Oekonomie'" to strike back.
One point was the critique of Wagner's idealist attitude toward basic economic problems. The core concept of Wagner’s economic research was "value in general" (Wert allgemein), believing that "the general concept of 'value' arises from people's relationship to the external objects that satisfy their needs," while people's needs are "guided by reason and conscience." Wagner adhered to the idealist conception of history, which determined that his attitude toward basic economic questions was also idealist. In his Textbook, Wagner played linguistic games, splitting "value" (carrying the meaning of "value in general") from the term "use-value," then declaring that "use-value" is an important content of "value" that determines the exchange-value of commodities, and finally putting the previously omitted word "use" back in front of "value" to arrive at "use-value." Wagner proved his economic theory through conceptual tautology, aiming to show that value has nothing to do with labor, thereby masking the truth of the capitalists' exploitation of the workers' surplus labor.
The second point was pointing out Wagner's erroneous understanding of the views in Capital. Wagner believed that Marx divided commodities into use-value and exchange-value, then discovered a common social substance (the labor of the worker) within exchange-value, and finally replaced exchange-value with value in general. In Wagner's view, the error of Marx’s theory of value lay in "paying one-sided attention to only one factor in determining value... cost, while ignoring the other factor, namely usefulness, utility, the need factor." Based on the above analysis, Wagner believed Marx's theory of value was derived from Ricardo's theory of costs. Facing this misreading, Marx struck back, pointing out that exchange-value is neither value in general nor the price of a commodity; exchange-value is merely the form of value, not value itself. Marx clearly stated that the price of a commodity rarely coincides with its value because, in addition to being influenced by the factor of value, it is influenced by other factors. Marx emphasized that his object of study was not value, but the commodity. Use-value and value are unified in the commodity; one cannot discuss the concept of value in the abstract apart from the commodity. Marx also pointed out the essential difference between his theory and Ricardo's theory of costs: "Ricardo actually treats labor only as a measure of the magnitude of value, and therefore sees no connection between his theory of value and the essence of money." Thus, Ricardo would not, as Marx did, conduct a historical and empirical study of value itself.
When Volume I of Capital was published, Johann Karl Rodbertus falsely claimed that Marx had plagiarized views from his Our Economic Condition (Zur Erkenntniß unserer staatswirthschaftlichen Zustände). Later, in his correspondence, he specified that the plagiarized part was the theory of surplus value, as the problem of the production of surplus value had first been explained more simply and clearly in his Third Social Letter. After Marx's death, bourgeois vulgar economists broadcast these rumors as fact. To defend Marx's reputation, Engels critiqued Rodbertus in the preface to the first German edition of The Poverty of Philosophy. Later, in the preface to Volume II of Capital, Engels "produced decisive evidence" to refute the slander that Marx plagiarized Rodbertus's theory of surplus value.
First, proceeding from the history of economic thought, Engels demonstrated that Rodbertus was not the originator of the doctrine of surplus value. Rodbertus prided himself on being the originator; however, in the history of economic thought, many economists before him had noticed the problem of surplus value. Rodbertus was proud of attributing the production of surplus value to "rent," but this view had already been touched upon by Ricardo and others. Nevertheless, after Marx's death, Rodbertus's followers "had the effrontery to assert that Marx had stolen from Rodbertus what anyone can read in Adam Smith and Ricardo"—a fact that exposed the shocking ignorance of these economists.
Second, from the perspective of the history of economic thought, he demonstrated that Marx’s theory of surplus value was by no means plagiarized from Rodbertus. Proceeding from the timeline of Marx’s creation of the theory of surplus value, Engels refuted the "plagiarism" slanders leveled by Rodbertus and his followers against Marx. He explicitly pointed out that Marx only became aware of Rodbertus's three pamphlets around 1859, and prior to this, Marx knew nothing of Rodbertus's works. In The Poverty of Philosophy and Wage Labour and Capital, Marx had already familiarized himself with and mastered the doctrines of surplus value and labor value. Marx's attitude toward Rodbertus’s general theory of surplus value can be seen in a note within the "Theories of Surplus Value" section of the Economic Manuscripts of 1861–1863. Marx wrote: "Mr. Rodbertus first investigates the state of affairs in a country where landownership and ownership of capital are not yet separated, and here he arrives at the important conclusion that rent (by which he means the entire surplus value) is only equal to unpaid labor, or the quantity of product in which unpaid labor is manifested." It is evident that Rodbertus’s "rent" is extremely indeterminate and is essentially different from Marx’s theory of surplus value.
Third, from the perspective of the developmental history of the doctrine of surplus value, he demonstrated Marx's unique contribution to the theory. To illustrate Marx's contribution to this history, Engels used an analogy involving the process of understanding oxygen in the history of chemistry. The understanding of oxygen underwent a process from the "traditional phlogiston theory" to "Priestley and Scheele isolating oxygen" and finally to "Lavoisier discovering oxygen." The understanding of surplus value underwent a process from the Mercantilists' view that "surplus value arises from a markup on the product's value," through the research of classical and vulgar economists into the concrete forms of surplus value, to Marx's discovery of the secret of capitalist production through a general study of surplus value. Like Lavoisier, the primary difference between Marx and his predecessors was that "where the predecessors thought they had an answer, he saw only a problem." Therefore, Marx researched all existing economic categories on the basis of surplus value. Based on this, Marx for the first time elucidated the difficulties of the Ricardian school, becoming the first economist to clarify the actual formation process of surplus value and to establish a detailed theory of money and a rational theory of wages.
(3) Critique of Misinterpretations Regarding the Internal Relation Between Volumes I and III of Capital
Loria’s primary attacks on Marx included: deceiving readers with promised subsequent volumes of Capital; claiming the theory of surplus value contradicts the equalization of the rate of profit in reality; and asserting that the law of prices of production "negates" the law of value. Engels refuted these one by one.
First, by organizing and publishing Volumes II and III of Capital, he used facts to refute Loria's view that "Marx frequently used the subsequent volumes of Capital to threaten his readers." According to methodological requirements, Marx did not discuss the internal unity between the equalization of the profit rate and the law of value in Volume I of Capital, but left it for discussion in Volume III. Loria and others had claimed with certainty that "the thought of writing this subsequent volume never even flashed through Marx’s mind" and that "this second volume is very likely a ruse used by Marx when he could not provide scientific arguments." In 1885 and 1894, Engels organized and published Volumes II and III of Capital, crushing Loria's slanders against Marx with hard facts. Faced with this reality, Loria still argued: "Marx had no intention of writing any subsequent volumes after publishing his brilliant work. Perhaps he originally intended to leave his great work to his heirs to complete while he himself bore no responsibility." The implication was that the subsequent volumes of Capital were forged by Engels. In response to Loria’s provocation, Engels further elucidated the internal connection between Volumes I and III of Capital: the realization of surplus value in the total process of capitalist production discussed in Volume III is a supplement to and completion of the production of surplus value discussed in Volume I.
Second, he critiqued Loria’s accusation that the theory of value contradicts the reality of the equalization of the rate of profit. After the publication of Volume I of Capital, Loria asserted that the theory of value and the fact of universal equality of profits could not both be true. Yet, when faced with the resolution of the law of value and the rate of profit in Volume III, Loria used commercial profit as a pivot to erroneously believe that through the magic of "unproductive capital," the problem he had declared insoluble ten years prior was "solved in an instant." The preface to Volume III of Capital pointed out Loria’s primary theoretical errors regarding "unproductive capital." First, where does Loria’s "'unproductive capital' get the power that allows it not only to snatch away from the industrialists their extra profit exceeding the average rate of profit, but also to pocket this extra profit as ground rent?" Second, Loria was fundamentally unclear about the relationship between what he called "non-industrial capital" and industrial capital; "unproductive capital" was merely a "pitiful trick" he played when he could no longer sustain his argument.
Third, he used the method of the unity of logic and history to refute Loria’s accusation that the law of prices of production in Capital contradicts the law of value. In 1895, Loria continued to publish the article "The Posthumous Works of Karl Marx," distorting Volume III of Capital by claiming there was a contradiction between the law of prices of production and the law of value, calling it a "major theoretical bankruptcy." In "The Law of Value and Rate of Profit," a supplement to Volume III of Capital, Engels critiqued Loria’s concept of "value." Loria believed that "value is nothing more than the proportion in which one commodity is exchanged for another," thereby equating value with price and viewing value as a phenomenon determined purely by supply and demand. According to this understanding, if two commodities were handed to a third party where no supply-and-demand relationship existed, one could reach the absurd conclusion that value might be "zero." Engels applied the method of the unity of logic and history, combining it with the history of capitalist development, to explain the transformation of the law of value into the law of prices of production through the process of profit equalization. In the period of simple commodity production, the law governing commodity production was still the law of value as described by Marx. By the period of capitalist large-scale machine industry, with the massive use of machinery, the phenomenon would appear where the rate of profit in sectors with a high organic composition of capital is lower than in sectors with a low organic composition of capital. However, "the existence and development of these sectors with high organic composition are necessitated by the development of social production, which determines that commodities at this time can no longer be sold according to their value," thus requiring the transformation of the law of value into the law of prices of production.
(4) Critique of Slanders Against Marx's Scholarly Attitude
In 1872, the Berlin magazine Concordia anonymously published the article "How Karl Marx Quotes," accusing Marx of arbitrarily "adding" a sentence to the illustrative examples used in the discussion of the "general law of capitalist accumulation" in Volume I of Capital: namely, "This intoxicating augmentation of wealth and power... is entirely confined to classes of property." Subsequently, Brentano and his followers launched scholarly accusations against Marx surrounding this citation for over 20 years.
After recognizing that the true purpose of Brentano and others was to disparage the scientific nature of Marx’s economics through an error in a single citation in Capital, Engels refuted the "Marxist citation forgery theory" with iron facts in 1890, so that "no one would dare to doubt Marx's serious attitude toward writing ever again."
First, Engels carefully checked Marx’s works and contemporary news reports to prove that Marx had neither "added" nor "deleted" anything from the author’s speech in both form and substance. Regarding Brentano's accusation that Marx arbitrarily "added" to the citation, Engels, in addition to citing the newspapers Marx had previously listed, continued to list reports from the Daily Telegraph, Morning Herald, Morning Post, Daily News, and Standard. These reports either paraphrased the sentence Marx "added" or paraphrased it in a "formally more succinct" way. Second, regarding Brentano’s shifting accusation that Marx intentionally deleted a subordinate clause from the Times—"and the growth of which I take to be based on data which I consider quite exact"—to make the meaning of the Times report opposite to that of Hansard. Brentano believed this clause was crucial, as it explained that the reason the author mentioned wealth growth being confined to the propertied classes was that the working class was exempt from income tax. Engels extracted the passage from Capital that Brentano accused him of deleting: "From 1842 to 1852, the taxable income of the country increased by 6%... in the eight years from 1853 to 1861, if... it increased by..." This proved that Marx had not deleted the clause.
Second, in the three prefaces to Volume I of Capital, Engels elaborated on Marx’s method and significance of citation, demonstrating its rigor and scientific nature. The citation method in Capital was not well understood, but it was indeed unique. Engels introduced this method in the prefaces to the third edition and the English edition. Where facts were simply narrated or described, citations were merely simple illustrations, such as the references to the British Blue Books. In most cases, the theoretical views of other economists were cited only to determine "where, when, and by whom" an economic theory "was first clearly proposed," illustrating its significant achievements in economic history from the perspectives of time and authorship. The focus of the dispute between Marx and Brentano was: "Should the citation of an official's speech be based on the final draft officially published afterward, or on the speech delivered by the speaker on-site?" Following the principle of starting from primary sources, Marx insisted on using the speech delivered by the speaker on-site as the basis. Later, in the preface to the fourth edition, Engels mentioned that in the process of proofreading the citations in Capital, he found only one instance where the source could not be found, likely because Marx had written the book title incorrectly. It is evident that Marx was extremely rigorous in his citations, and the citations in Capital were fully persuasive. In fact, the reason Brentano clung to this single citation like a leech was precisely because "they knew very well 'how Karl Marx quotes.'"
(5) Critique of Misinterpretations Occurring in the Process of Defending Capital
Faced with the misinterpretations, distortions, and even slanders of Capital by bourgeois scholars and "Socialists of the Chair" [7], some of Marx and Engels’ friends and supporters struck back. However, in the process of responding, because they did not truly understand Capital or were influenced by the opposing views, they also produced a certain degree of misinterpretation of Capital.
In the preface to Volume III of Capital, Engels specifically summarized and evaluated the solutions proposed at the time for the "transformation problem" of value into prices of production. The German Social Democrat Conrad Schmidt was the first to attempt to solve this problem. In his article "The Average Rate of Profit on the Basis of Marx's Law of Value," he tried to start from the "details of market prices" to prove that the law of value does not contradict the phenomenon of the average rate of profit. Schmidt divided the total product into two parts: "compensation for the capital advanced" and "surplus product." He argued that the value and price of the "compensation for capital advanced" part are the same, while the selling price of the "surplus product" is the key to proving the "transformation" problem. He defined the selling price of the surplus product as the product of the general rate of profit and the total capital, believing this would make value and the price of production equal. Engels commented on this: "Schmidt went down this side-track when the problem was already close to a solution, because he believed he must at all costs find a mathematical formula to prove that the average price of every single commodity corresponds to the law of value." This did not defend Marx's political-economic theory; instead, it effectively distorted and abandoned Marx's labor theory of value. In using the conclusions of the first two volumes of Capital to solve the "transformation" problem, George Stiebeling fabricated a so-called theory of a "fixed rate of profit" and argued that this theory should be revised based on practice. While affirming Stiebeling's intentions, Engels pointed out: "If a person wishes to study scientific questions, they must first learn to read the works they wish to utilize exactly as the author wrote them, and above all, not read into those works things that are not there."
In 1884, Paul Lafargue sought Engels's advice for a polemical article. In his letter to Lafargue, Engels pointed out primary errors within it, such as the claim that "profit is the legitimate offspring of living labor." This expression, rather than defending Marx’s political economy, was instead an echo of vulgar economy. Consequently, Engels concluded by suggesting that Lafargue "read Capital carefully from beginning to end, marking all the passages where vulgar economy is discussed."
III. The Wisdom Embodied in Marx and Engels’s Critiques of Various Misreadings of Capital
To this day, some who attack Marxist political economy continue to repeat the same clichés that Marx and Engels long ago critiqued. For this reason, it is of great practical significance to systematically study the critiques leveled by the founders of Marxism against various misreadings of Capital.
(1) Refuting major misreadings of Capital based on texts and reasoned argument
By critiquing misreadings of the methodology of Capital, Marx and Engels elucidated and clarified materialist dialectics. The understanding of and debate over the method of Capital directly concern the comprehension of its research objectives, objects of study, conceptual system, and Marx’s own academic stance. What is the method of Capital? What is the relationship between Marxist dialectics and Hegelian dialectics? Marx already provided the answer in the "Postscript to the Second Edition" of Volume 1 of Capital. We should answer current debates regarding the methodology of Capital according to Marx’s spiritual essence, correctly understanding the relationship between fundamental and specific methods, and the relationship between Marx’s Capital and Hegel’s dialectics.
Through their critiques of misreadings of the core theories of Capital, Marx and Engels defended the cornerstones of Marxist political economy. By critiquing misreadings of the labor theory of value, Marx refuted arguments that equated the value of commodities with exchange value or use value, thereby clarifying the basic categories of Marxist political economy. By critiquing misreadings of the theory of surplus value, Engels rebuffed the absurd "Marxist plagiarism theory," defending the originality and innovativeness of Marx’s surplus value theory. By critiquing the misreading that the theory of prices of production in Volume 3 of Capital "negated" the theory of value in Volume 1, Engels pointed out the ignorance of Marx’s opponents regarding the actual processes of the capitalist commodity economy, and argued for the necessity of the transformation of value into prices of production from the perspective of the unity of logic and history.
By critiquing the fabrication of erroneous citations in Capital, Marx and Engels exposed that the essence of these academic accusations was a political conspiracy. Although that specific accusation ended with Engels’s critique, academic charges that Engels "tampered" with Capital have never disappeared. To address this, we must not only use ironclad facts to refute them from an academic perspective but also expose the hypocrisy of these academic charges from a political perspective.
(2) Establishing a scientific critical attitude in the process of refuting misreadings
The purpose of Marx and Engels’s critiques of various misreadings of Capital was not to prove the authority of Marxist economics, but to defend the scientificity of Marxist political economy.
"The scientificity of theoretical critique lies first in the scientificity of the theory itself." After Marx’s death, faced with the wanton disparagement of the labor theory of value by the "Socialists of the Chair" [8], Engels, while striking back, also supplemented and refined the theory. It is noteworthy that in his critique of Loria, Engels neither considered Marx’s theory to be reached perfection nor the opponent's theory to be entirely worthless. Engels believed that Marx’s historical and logical exposition of the transformation of value into prices of production in Chapter 10 of Volume 3 of Capital provided only a "general outline," noting that "had Marx been able to revise this third volume once more, he would undoubtedly have expanded this passage greatly." As the editor of Volume 3 of Capital, Engels had conducted deep research into the "transformation problem" and naturally took upon himself the task of "speaking on this more in detail." Based on the Economic Manuscripts of 1861–1863, his correspondence with Marx regarding the "transformation problem," and the manuscripts of Volume 3 of Capital, and taking into account the developments in capitalism between 1865 and 1895, Engels wrote the "Supplement" titled Law of Value and Rate of Profit, making several important additions to the "transformation problem."
At the same time, Engels would carefully read his opponents' works before critiquing them. Even when facing Rodbertus, Engels tried as much as possible to find the merit in his theories. In 1884, after reviewing Karl Kautsky’s article "Rodbertus's Capital," Engels wrote in a letter to Kautsky that Our Economic Condition "is indeed the best of all his writings... I was glad to have read it again." When Lafargue sought Engels’s help to write an article critiquing a book by an opponent, Engels did not give immediate advice but wrote back: "I must have the book, and to get it I must know the exact title. Please let me know the title immediately so I can order it." Sufficient possession of materials is the prerequisite for critique and an internal requirement of a rigorous and realistic style of study. It is evident that Engels sought any reasonable points in his opponents’ work to continuously enrich and improve his own theory. Furthermore, in his later years, when facing theoretical tendencies that "dogmatized" and "absolutized" Marxism, Engels sometimes reflected on his own shortcomings: "Marx and I are ourselves partly to blame for the fact that the younger people sometimes lay more stress on the economic side than is due to it. We had to emphasize the main principle vis-à-vis our adversaries, who denied it, and we had not always the time, the place or the opportunity to give their due to the other elements involved in the interaction."
(3) Cultivating a sound academic style in scientific research
Many people harbor numerous misreadings of Capital, largely because they have not read it or have not understood it. In this regard, Xi Jinping clearly pointed out in his speech at the Symposium on Philosophy and Social Sciences: "This is an irresponsible attitude and is contrary to the scientific spirit."
First, study the original works meticulously and in their original form. The classical Marxist authors all attached great importance to reading original works. Sometimes encountering scholars who critiqued blindly without having read or understood, Marx lamented: "Ah, if only these people could at least read!" In Karl Marx, Lenin listed 38 works by Marx and Engels in chronological order and organized relevant literature reviewing Marxism according to three different attitudes toward it. Addressing those who were intimidated by Marxist works, feeling they were profound and obscure, Lenin said: "What you do not understand when you first read it will become clear when you read it again, or when you approach the question from another side later on."
Second, interpret original works by combining historical context with overall connotation. One cause of current misreadings of Marxism is the separation of specific historical context, treating certain principles as the entirety of Marx’s theory. Sometimes principles are merely abstract conclusions; if one knows the what but not the why, misreadings easily occur. For instance, the phrase "I am not a Marxist"—without the historical context, one might misread it as "Marx was against Marxism." However, the reason Marx and Engels rejected the term "Marxism" was that opponents distorted it, leading to misreadings. Only by returning to the original works and understanding the background and historical conditions of the era can one grasp Marxist theory as a whole and avoid relativism and subjectivism.
Third, scientifically grasp the relationship between practical problems and the original works. Mao Zedong attached great importance to reading Marxist classics, but he emphasized that "the purpose of mastery lies entirely in application." This requires us to read original works with questions in mind, so as to consider "how a problem was understood, how it was solved, which parts have been solved, and which remain unresolved." This is how the classical Marxist authors read and researched the works of their predecessors. It is for this reason that a "history of the development of Marxist theory" was formed, rather than merely a "history of the development of Marx’s theory." At present, how to apply Capital to guide the development and improvement of China’s socialist market economy is a major issue. Some believe the research object of Capital was the capitalist economy of the past and its laws of motion, having nothing to do with the modern economy; some believe Capital is a work on the scientific method of human liberation, providing only methods and goals for studying the modern economy; still others "absolutize" Capital, treating individual points as absolute truths. These are all misreadings occurring at the level of applying Capital. The scientific approach should be to correctly recognize the commonalities and differences between China’s socialist market economy and the historical conditions under which Marx wrote Capital. The commonalities have a direct guiding role for current economic construction, while the differences require innovation based on practice, under the premise of upholding the principles of Marxist political economy.