He Ping: Intellectual History Topics in the Study of the Dialectics of "Capital"
Since the beginning of the 20th century, research on the dialectics of Capital has primarily unfolded within a framework of pure logical thought. Within this framework, such research has been "Hegelianized," becoming increasingly abstract and hollow. Consequently, how to achieve a de-Hegelianization of research on the dialectics of Capital, restore the authentic thought of Marx’s dialectics, and excavate the contemporary content of these dialectics has become an urgent problem to be solved in today’s scholarship. In 2021, Paul Zarembka, a professor of political economy at the University at Buffalo, State University of New York, and an expert in the study of Capital, published his new work Key Elements of Marx’s Theory of Social Change. In this book, Zarembka uses the philological evidence of the MEGA2 [1] editions of Capital as a basis to historically examine the various editions of Volume I of Capital revised by Marx himself. He explores the intellectual shifts that occurred during Marx’s revision process, reflects on the relationship between the creation of the Russian doctrine of dialectical materialism and the various editions of Volume I, reveals the theoretical roots of the Hegelianization of research on the dialectics of Capital, and proposes a new program for studying these dialectics. His research findings offer important revelatory significance for us to escape the predicament of Hegelianization and to conduct research on the intellectual history of the dialectics of Capital. In light of this, this article intends to review and analyze the main arguments of that book, extract themes in the intellectual history of the dialectics of Capital, and construct an intellectual framework for a historical dialectic that integrates Marx’s critique of political economy with his critique of philosophy, thereby enriching the study of the dialectics of Capital.
I. The Intellectual History Principles for the Philological Investigation of Marx’s Revisions to the Various Editions of Volume I of Capital
In the study of the dialectics of Capital, there has always existed a theoretical difficulty: namely, how to view the relationship between Marx’s philosophy and his political economy. This difficulty is hidden within the discussions regarding the relationship between Marx’s dialectics and Hegelian dialectics. Regarding this relationship, one can perform either a static analysis or a dynamic analysis. The so-called static analysis involves conducting a logical analysis within the theoretical framework of philosophy to explain Marx’s philosophical tradition and its rational constitution. The so-called dynamic analysis involves placing Marx’s philosophical thought within the process of the interaction between philosophy and political economy to conduct a historical investigation, elucidating the path and transformation process of the formation of Marx’s philosophical thought, and revealing the realistic basis of Marx’s practical philosophy and its characteristics that differ from those of his contemporaries. For a long time, researchers at home and abroad, when studying the dialectics of Capital, have adopted a static analysis model, suspending the study of the relationship between Marx’s and Hegel’s dialectics above the theory of political economy, which has led to an abstraction of that relationship. In Key Elements of Marx’s Theory of Social Change, Zarembka questions this research method and advocates studying the dialectics of Capital through a dynamic analysis model. To this end, he takes the discussion of the relationship between Marx’s and Hegel’s dialectics as his problematic [2], examines the development of Marx’s philosophical thought, and elucidates the intellectual history principles for studying the dialectics of Capital.
At the beginning of his book, Zarembka points out: "No one would question Hegel's influence on Marx's early thought; however, some Marxists believe that Hegel remained significant in Marx's mature thought. Of course, the popular practice is to express Hegel’s dialectics in a simple, caricatured way—such as his formula of thesis-antithesis-synthesis—and assume Marx’s dialectics was the same, then attack Marx with a distorted imitation. At the same time, the question is often raised: did Hegel’s influence persist? As Marx’s research deepened, did he continue to defend the necessity of Hegelian philosophy for his political economy research?" In this passage, Zarembka uses Marx’s political economy research as the yardstick for examining the transformation of Marx’s philosophical thought. In his view, from the moment Marx began studying political economy, he gradually moved away from Hegelian philosophy and toward his own philosophical creation. The reason Zarembka says "no one would question Hegel’s influence on Marx’s early thought" is that Marx’s early philosophical research centered on the critique of Hegel’s philosophy of right, which determined that Hegelian philosophy necessarily occupied an important position. This was the situation before Marx researched political economy; naturally, no one would question it. His use of the word "however" to introduce the claim that "some Marxists believe Hegel remained significant in Marx’s mature thought" actually expresses a negative attitude toward these Marxists' views. He believes these scholars hold this belief because they fail to see the decisive significance of political economy research for the turn in Marx’s philosophical critique. Consequently, they fail to examine Marx’s mature philosophical thought in connection with his critique of political economy. In doing so, they artificially sever the relationship between Marx’s political economy research and his philosophical research, merely studying his mature thought according to the paradigm used for his early philosophy. When they cannot find the elements of Hegelian dialectics in Marx’s mature thought, they resort to imagination, providing a caricatured description of the status of Hegelian dialectics in his mature thought, which leads to the Hegelianization of the study of the dialectics of Capital. Zarembka mentions these frequently raised questions to clarify the criteria for studying Marx’s mature thought. This criterion is Marx’s own attitude toward political economy and the resulting process of change in his philosophical thought.
Based on this criterion, he examines the series of critiques Marx leveled at Hegelian philosophy after launching his political economy research: the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 was Marx's first work in this field; in it, he critically analyzed the reality of capitalism, proposed the theory of alienated labor, and on this basis conducted a total critique of Hegel's Phenomenology. The Poverty of Philosophy was Marx’s second work researching political economy; in it, he criticized Proudhon’s metaphysical method and proposed his own historicist dialectical method. Starting from the 1857–1858 drafts of the Critique of Political Economy, Marx’s political economy research reached maturity. He successively wrote the "Introduction to the Critique of Political Economy," the "Preface to the Critique of Political Economy," the "Preface to the First German Edition of Volume I of Capital," and the "Afterword to the Second German Edition of Volume I of Capital," systematically expounding his research methods in political economy and clearly stating that his dialectics were essentially different from Hegel’s. This process shows that the more deeply Marx researched political economy, the further his philosophical research moved away from Hegelian dialectics. By the time the French edition of Volume I of Capital was published, it was already difficult for people to see elements of Hegelian dialectics in it. Through this historical philology, Zarembka concludes that political economy research is the rupture point between Marx’s philosophy and Hegel’s philosophy. Marx’s political economy research cleared the path for the creation of the dialectics of Capital through a continuous critique of Hegelian dialectics. Therefore, starting with Capital, Marx no longer adopted the mode of Hegelian speculative philosophy to discuss his philosophical thought in the abstract, but rather integrated every thesis and method of his philosophy into the themes and categories of political economy. Zarembka thus notes that to approach the dialectics of Capital, one must use the themes and categories of Marx’s political economy research to investigate the various editions of Volume I of Capital he revised. This constitutes Zarembka’s intellectual history principle for investigating these editions. Based on this principle, Zarembka historically examines the various versions of Volume I of Capital revised by Marx himself and their relationships.
First, Zarembka questions existing research findings. Most current studies limit the texts for researching the dialectics of Capital to the "Preface" to the first German edition and the "Afterword" to the second German edition. It was only in recent years that researchers began to pay attention to the French edition of Volume I. This implies that in the eyes of most researchers, there were only three versions of Volume I of Capital revised by Marx himself: the first German edition, the second German edition, and the French edition. As for other editions, they were either simply attributed to Engels’s revision (such as the third German and English editions) or treated as mechanical translations (such as the Russian and Italian editions). Zarembka believes two problems exist with this perception. First, it is incomplete in its philological investigation of the editions. This is manifested in two ways: first, when studying the third German edition of Volume I, researchers only talk about the version edited and published by Engels, ignoring the version revised by Marx, which is inconsistent with the facts. According to Marx’s letters and the findings of MEGA2, in addition to the version edited by Engels, there was a version revised by Marx himself. Although this version was never published, it encapsulated Marx’s late-life conceptions for revising Volume I and is a text that cannot be bypassed in our study of the dialectics of Capital today. That is to say, there are not two, but three German versions of Volume I revised by Marx, and the third version links the French edition of Volume I with the problems of Volume II. Second, besides the first, second, and third German editions and the French edition, Marx also offered suggestions for the translations of the English and second Russian editions. These suggestions revolved around the structure and problems of Volume I, incorporating his intellectual findings from researching the capitalization process of pre-capitalist and non-capitalist countries (such as the Russian peasant communes [3]), and textually emphasized the structure and content of the French edition. All of these reflect changes in Marx’s research thinking while revising Volume I and should be included in the philological investigation of the editions. Consequently, the textual basis for investigating Marx’s own revisions to Volume I should not be the three editions usually identified by current researchers, but six. Second, because existing research attributes the third German edition of Volume I to Engels's editing, it has failed to conduct in-depth research on Marx's own third edition, let alone elucidate the changes and characteristics of Marx’s thought during the revision process by comparing the version revised by Marx with the version edited and published by Engels. It is precisely this point that constitutes a massive gap in the study of Volume I of Capital and its dialectical thought.
Second, Zarembka conducted a textual genealogy of the relationship between the aforementioned six versions of Volume I of Capital. He argues that while Volume I is certainly an integrated whole in terms of content, it exhibits shifts in research themes due to Marx’s continuous revisions. In the first and second German editions of Volume I, the focus of Marx’s research was on the value of commodities and the form of value; correspondingly, his dialectical thinking was primarily characterized by forms of logical thought. This research approach is mainly reflected in the "Preface" Marx wrote for the first German edition and the "Afterword" for the second German edition. Beginning with the French edition, Marx’s research focus gradually shifted toward the theme of the primitive accumulation of capital [4]. Correspondingly, his dialectical thinking became primarily characterized by forms of historical thought. This approach is mainly reflected in Marx’s correspondence with the translators of the English and Russian editions, his daughter, Engels, and others. In these letters, Marx repeatedly mentioned the French edition of Volume I, emphasizing its unique value. Due to these changes, the development of the dialectic in Capital presents roughly two stages: the first stage consists of the mode of research and mode of representation [5] used to explore the problems of commodity value and the form of value; the second stage consists of the posing and theorizing of the problem of the primitive accumulation of capital. Accordingly, a shift formed in the mode of thought from a logical dialectic toward a historical dialectic.
Furthermore, Zarembka deeply analyzed the intellectual shifts Marx experienced while revising the various versions of Volume I, examined the actual influence these revised versions had on the formation of Marxist dialectics, and pointed out existing problems and directions for further study in the research of the dialectic of Capital. These studies constitute two intellectual-historical themes in the research of the Capital dialectic: first, studying the development of Marx’s own dialectical thought in close connection with the changes in his research problems in political economy; and second, studying the influence of the various versions of Volume I on later Marxists, using this as a basis to study the history of the formation of the Capital dialectic. These two intellectual-historical themes were not explicitly proposed by Zarembka, but he addressed them while tracing the intellectual connections between the versions of Volume I, and they merit our further research and reflection.
II. The Difference Between the French and German Editions of Volume I: The Constitution of Marx's Dialectic
In The Accumulation of Capital, Rosa Luxemburg proposed two different schemas of capital accumulation: one under conditions of "pure capitalism," and another under conditions where the capitalist environment coexists with a non-capitalist environment. In her view, Marx’s schema belonged to the former, while hers belonged to the latter. As an expert in Luxemburg studies, Zarembka is well-versed in this idea, but he does not entirely agree with her viewpoint. He argues that while Marx did indeed construct a schema of capital accumulation under conditions of pure capitalism, this research was limited to the first and second German editions of Volume I. In the French edition, Marx had already broken through the framework of a pure capitalist production system and began to incorporate non-capitalist factors into the capitalist production system to study the problem of accumulation. This fact indicates that for Marx, there was not just one schema of capital accumulation, but two: one revealing the motion of capital under pure capitalist conditions, and another exploring the motion of capital under the coexistence of capitalism and non-capitalism. Correspondingly, two methodologies exist: a linear dialectic expressed through the "power of abstraction" [6], and a complex, multi-dimensional, non-linear dialectic expressed through historical research. From this perspective, Zarembka conducted a comparative study of the structure and research methods of the first and second German editions and the French edition of Volume I.
When studying the first and second German editions, Zarembka primarily interpreted the "Preface" to the first edition and the "Afterword" to the second edition. He believes that when Marx discussed the research methods of political economy in the first edition’s "Preface," he focused mainly on solving the difficulties of commodity value and the form of value. Marx wrote, "in the analysis of economic forms, neither microscopes nor chemical reagents are of use. The power of abstraction must replace both." Clearly, the "power of abstraction" Marx speaks of here is the dialectical method for researching the form of value. However, bourgeois economists at the time did not understand Marx’s theory of value, nor, of course, did they understand what he meant by the "power of abstraction." In their view, Marx’s theory of value was merely an application of the empirical methods of classical economics, and the "power of abstraction" was nothing more than Hegelian syllogism. Some bourgeois economists even believed that Marx’s theory of value was constructed according to the Hegelian syllogism. To counter these arguments, Marx specifically discussed the dialectical method of Capital in the "Afterword" to the second German edition, clarifying the essential difference between his dialectic and Hegel’s. Consequently, the "Afterword" to the second edition became the most important textual basis for studying the dialectic of Capital. However, due to the influence of "conceptualism" [7], many people, when reading the "Afterword," only read the sections where Marx discusses the dialectical method and ignore the parts discussing the revisions and rewriting of commodity value and the form of value for the second edition. It is precisely this mode of interpretation that severs the relationship between Marx’s dialectic and his political economy, thereby suspending the dialectic above the principles of political economy in Capital, turning it into a few abstract rules that can be used to explain any of Marx’s economic principles. In contrast to this approach, Zarembka views the "Afterword" as a whole, elucidating the dialectical ideas discussed in the latter part based on the explanations of the revisions provided in the first part. In Zarembka’s view, Marx emphasized two points when explaining the revisions to the second edition: first, the revisions—especially the rewriting of the section on the form of value—were made following the suggestion of his friend Dr. Ludwig Kugelmann, who convinced Marx that "most readers needed a more didactic, supplementary explanation of the form of value"; second, Marx mentioned that while revising the French translation, he "found that some parts of the German original required more thorough revision, others required better stylization or a more careful elimination of some accidental slips." We can draw two conclusions from these two points: first, Marx’s explanation of the revisions to the second edition is essentially a continuation of the methodology of the "power of abstraction" mentioned in the first edition’s "Preface"; both discuss the same problem—the mode of research and mode of representation of commodity value and the form of value. Second, the discourse on the form of the "power of abstraction" in the first edition’s "Preface" became increasingly "weakened" with the rewriting and additions to the form of value in the second edition. This was not an abandonment of the dialectic but rather a highlighting of the intrinsic relationship between the dialectic and the principles of political economy, further enriching the dialectic of Capital. These two conclusions indicate that Marx’s explanation of the second edition's revisions also concerns the dialectic; however, it is expressed not in a purely theoretical form, but in the form of a discussion on the mode of representation regarding commodity value and the form of value. If we read this discourse in conjunction with his later systematic discussion on the dialectical relationship between the "mode of research" and the "mode of representation," we find that the latter is both a theoretical response to the bourgeois economists’ distortions of his dialectic and a supplementary explanation of the "power of abstraction" discussed in the first edition’s "Preface." In short, the "power of abstraction" and the dialectical relationship between the mode of research and mode of representation discussed in the first edition’s "Preface" and second edition’s "Afterword" are the modes of thought Marx used to study commodity value and the form of value, and they thus possess highly specific and unique content.
For Marx, commodity value and the form of value are the "cells" of the capitalist mode of production; therefore, the method he used to study them is also the method for studying the capitalist mode of production. However, this method is only applicable to capital movement under the conditions of a pure capitalist commodity economy. Once one moves beyond this scope into the movement of capital under the coexistence of capitalism and non-capitalism, this method becomes insufficient. Marx encountered this methodological difficulty when studying the Russian peasant commune and the process of capitalization in other non-capitalist countries and regions. Based on his reflections on this problem, while revising the French edition of Volume I, Marx separated Chapter 24, "So-called Primitive Accumulation," from Part VII ("The Process of Accumulation of Capital") of the second German edition and made it a standalone part—Part VIII, titled "Primitive Accumulation." This constitutes the unique value of the French edition. However, this unique value was not recognized by contemporary researchers until the 1980s, when Marx's late Ethnological Notebooks and the MEGA2 version of the French edition of Capital Volume I were published and compiled. Professor Kevin Anderson, the expert responsible for editing the French edition for MEGA2, published the article "Marx and Luxemburg on Non-Western and Pre-capitalist Societies" after completing the editorial work. In this article, Anderson compared the similarities and differences between Luxemburg and Marx on the study of non-Western capitalist societies, proving that Marx adopted a complex, multi-dimensional, and non-linear method when studying the problem of the primitive accumulation of capital. Like Anderson, Zarembka evaluates the unique value of the French edition of Volume I from this perspective. He points out that Marx’s decision to separate "Primitive Accumulation" into its own part was not arbitrary but related to a shift in Marx’s thinking regarding the problem of primitive accumulation. In the second German edition, Marx listed primitive accumulation as a chapter within Part VII ("The Process of Accumulation of Capital") based on his examination of Western European capitalist development, where primitive accumulation was a transitional link from feudal to capitalist society. In the French edition, Marx separated this content to form Part VIII based on his examination of global capitalist development, which already incorporated the results of his study of the Russian peasant commune. In the French edition, "primitive accumulation" is an inherent characteristic of capitalist society. This means that in Marx’s schema of capital accumulation, in addition to pure commodity exchange activities, there are also activities that use violence and colonial rule to maintain and expand capitalist production. It is in this sense that Zarembka views the French edition of Volume I as a crucial juncture where Marx moved from studying the "logical" to studying the "historical."
Furthermore, Zaremka examined Marx's intellectual journey from the revision of the French edition of Capital, Volume I, to the revision of the third German edition of Volume I and the systematization of Volume II. He argues that while the revision of the third German edition of Volume I and the organization of Volume II were works left unfinished by Marx during his lifetime, the theoretical puzzles he proposed therein opened a door for Marxist theorists to study the dialectics of Capital. Zaremka cites letters written by Marx between 1877 and 1882 to Friedrich Adolph Sorge, Nikolai Danielson, his daughters Jenny and Eleanor, and Engels, as well as a letter from Engels to Bernstein in 1882, to demonstrate that the revision of the third German edition and the preparation of Volume II were the most important tasks Marx undertook in his final years. In this work, Marx repeatedly referenced the French edition, suggesting that the English and Russian translations refer to its chapter structure and content. On September 27, 1877, Marx wrote to Sorge that the English translator Douai "must, in addition to the second German edition, compare the French edition," because he "had added some new things in the French edition and that many points were much better presented." The "new things" mentioned by Marx primarily concerned his new reflections on the question of capital accumulation, including predictions regarding capitalist crises. It was these "new things" that constituted the content of Marx’s revision of the third German edition of Volume I and his organization of Volume II. Marx expressed the same ideas in letters to his eldest daughter Jenny on December 7, 1881, to his youngest daughter Eleanor on January 9, 1883, and to Engels on January 10, 1883. By examining this series of correspondence, Zaremka verifies three facts: First, in the French edition and the third German edition of Volume I, the center of gravity in Marx's study of the movement of capital shifted from an initial focus on commodity value and the form of value [8] to a focus on capital accumulation, especially primitive accumulation. Second, starting with the French edition, Marx's study of capital accumulation moved beyond the framework of Western European capitalist society, gradually incorporating his intellectual findings regarding Eastern pre-capitalist societies or non-capitalist nations, thereby forming a research framework for global capitalism. Third, Marx’s work on revising the third German edition of Volume I and organizing the manuscripts for Volume II was carried out concurrently; however, neither task was completed before his death. Precisely for this reason, the questions left behind became an extremely important theoretical starting point for later Marxist theorists to contemplate and develop the dialectics of Capital by linking them to new changes in capitalism.
From the three facts verified by Zaremka, we can conclude that the dialectics of Capital is both concrete and open. It is concrete because it is linked to the problems studied in political economy and possesses highly definite content; it is open because it develops alongside shifts in the problems of political economy. This development is reflected not only in Marx's own process of composing Capital but also in the interpretations of the dialectics of Capital by Marxists after him. Consequently, studying the interpretations of the dialectics of Capital by Marxists becomes the second historiographical thesis in the study of the dialectic in Capital.
III. Differences Between the Russian Edition and the First German Edition of Capital, Volume I: The Formation of Russian Dialectical Materialism
In his book Key Elements of Marx’s Social Theory of Change, Zaremka conducts a comparative study of the dialectical materialism interpreted by Russian Marxists and the historical dialectics interpreted by Rosa Luxemburg. Between these two forms of dialectics, Zaremka favors the non-linear dialectical mode of thinking interpreted by Luxemburg—which took global capitalism as its object of study—yet he by no means disregards the linear dialectical mode of thinking interpreted by Russian Marxists to solve the problems of the Russian proletarian revolution. In his view, the linear dialectical mode of thinking interpreted by Russian Marxists dominated the interpretations of the dialectic in Capital by 20th-century Marxists for a considerable period. Therefore, if we are to achieve the "de-Hegelization" of the study of the dialectics of Capital, we must examine how Russian Marxists interpreted the dialectic, how they expounded this linear mode of thinking, and the relationship between the formation of this mode of thinking and their reading of the German versus the Russian editions of Volume I. Proceeding from this perspective, Zaremka transforms the relationship between the dialectical materialism of the Russian Marxists and the historical dialectics of Luxemburg from a relation of synchronicity to one of diachronicity. He endeavors to discover the contemporary validity of Luxemburg's historical dialectics through the shortcomings of Russian dialectical materialism, arguing that the study of the dialectics of Capital can only truly enter Marx's historical dialectics if it is rooted in his critique of political economy.
Zaremka believes that a key characteristic of the Russian Marxists' interpretation of the dialectics of Capital was the continuous reinforcement of the importance of Hegelian dialectics within the work. While this characteristic was certainly related to the Russian Marxists' need to solve the problems of their own nation's proletarian revolution, it was also linked to the dissemination of various editions of Volume I in Russia. To this end, Zaremka combines the history of the formation of Russian dialectical materialism with the history of the dissemination of Volume I in Russia to examine the intellectual origins of Russian dialectical materialism.
In Russia, Volume I of Capital circulated in multiple versions: the first German edition and the Russian edition—the latter itself having a first and a second edition. Notably, the translator of the second Russian edition accepted Marx's suggestion to adopt the chapter structure of the French edition, which resulted in significant differences in structure and content between the first and second Russian editions. While investigating the influence of different editions of Volume I on Russian Marxists, Zaremka specifically examined the origins and development of the Russian edition. He points out that although Marx did not personally proofread the Russian edition, it was the version he cared about most. The initial reason was that, after the publication of the first German edition, Marx read a review of it by the Russian bourgeois economist Nikolai Sieber [9]. Sieber was the first person to introduce Capital to the Russian public. In 1871, in his major economic work Ricardo's Theory of Value and Capital, Sieber accused the first chapter of Volume I of describing commodities in Hegelian language. To respond to Sieber’s accusation, Marx specifically discussed his dialectical method in the "Afterword" to the second German edition in 1872, declaring that his dialectic was the opposite of Hegel's. Simultaneously, Marx noted the influence of Capital in Russian intellectual circles and began to pay attention to the Russian translation as well as the question of the relationship between the future of Russian peasant communes [10] and socialism. On November 15, 1878, Marx wrote to Nikolai Frantsevich Danielson, the translator of the Russian edition, suggesting that the translation of the second Russian edition should be "treated according to the French edition" regarding chapters and sections. He also noted that "the translator should always carefully compare the second German edition with the French edition, for the latter contains many important revisions and additions." Danielson accepted this suggestion, which gave the second Russian edition the characteristics of the French edition, distinguishing it from the first. Thus, although Marx did not personally revise the Russian edition, his views were absorbed into its translation, playing a vital role in the work's dissemination in Russia. From this perspective, the Russian edition of Volume I should be considered an indispensable version for studying the dialectics of Capital.
In fact, regarding the relationship between Marx and the Russian edition of Volume I, Franz Mehring provided a detailed account in his Karl Marx: The Story of His Life. Discussing the reception of Capital after its publication, Mehring wrote: "The first translation of Volume I appeared in Russia. On October 12, 1868, Marx wrote to Kugelmann that a St. Petersburg publisher had surprised him with the news that the translation was already in print and requested a photograph for the frontispiece. He could not refuse this small favor to his Russian 'good friends,' and he found it a true irony of fate that the very Russians whom he had attacked for twenty-five years in Germany, France, and England had always been his 'patrons.' Nothing he wrote, such as The Poverty of Philosophy written in reply to Proudhon or his A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, was as popular anywhere as it was in Russia." This description fully elaborates on Marx's relationship with the Russian edition. Zaremka’s contribution lies in advancing this research. He examines the relationship not only to treat the Russian edition as a vital version for studying Marx's dialectical thought but also as a crucial version for studying the formation of the dialectical materialism of Russian Marxists.
Zaremka argues that in Russia, both bourgeois economists and Marxists emphasized that Hegelian dialectics occupied an important position in Capital. This made the relationship between Marx’s dialectics and Hegel’s dialectics the core intellectual topic for the Russian study of the dialectics of Capital. However, they derived this topic from reading the German edition of Volume I of Capital rather than the Russian edition. Nevertheless, the paths through which Russian Marxists and Russian bourgeois economists accepted the German edition of Volume I were different, and the attitudes they manifested were diametrically opposed. The Russian bourgeois economist Sieber [11] read the first German edition of Capital, Volume I, but since he was not a Hegelian, he opposed Hegelian dialectics and consequently criticized the use of Hegelian language in the first chapter of Volume I. Distinct from Sieber’s path of acceptance, the Russian Marxist Plekhanov first read the second Russian edition of Volume I, which was translated based on the French edition. Therefore, when he initially read Volume I, he was not at all aware that the dialectics of Capital were related to Hegelian dialectics. It was only later, during his exile in Switzerland, that he read the first German edition and learned of this connection. At that time, he felt that Hegel’s concept of movement could powerfully demonstrate the legitimacy of overthrowing the regime in Russia under conditions of extremely underdeveloped capitalism. Consequently, he held an affirmative attitude toward Hegelian dialectics and sought to argue that it occupied an important position in Capital. He also interpreted Marxist doctrine according to this line of thought, defining it as "dialectical materialism." In 1891, he published an essay in Die Neue Zeit [12] in which he used the term "dialectical materialism" for the first time, attempting to make Marx more Hegelian—a practice that went even further than Marx himself. In 1896, he claimed in a review that Marx was the "father of contemporary dialectical materialism." In 1908, he published a pamphlet titled The Fundamental Problems of Marxism, in which he outlined the importance of Hegel to Marxist doctrine based on the "Afterword" Marx wrote for the second German edition of Volume I. This thought of Plekhanov’s exerted a great influence on Lenin’s research into dialectical materialism. Of course, Lenin’s path of reading Volume I was quite different from Plekhanov’s. According to Krupskaya’s memoirs, Lenin began to learn about Marx in 1893. Having studied German, French, and English, Lenin read many of Marx and Engels' works in their German, French, and English editions. By 1899, in addition to the Russian edition, Lenin had read the German, French, and English editions of Volume I. While reading these versions, Lenin was not interested in the discourse on capital accumulation, but was particularly interested in the section on commodities in the first chapter of the first German edition, which used Hegelian language (this was, of course, primarily influenced by Plekhanov). Lenin maintained this interest until 1914. In that year, Lenin studied Hegel’s works deeply, especially his Science of Logic, and pointed out that it is impossible to understand Capital—especially the first chapter of Volume I—without having read and understood Hegel’s Logic. This understanding of Capital appears consistent with Sieber’s understanding of Chapter 1, but in reality, their views were completely opposite: Sieber held a negative attitude toward the relationship between Capital and Hegelian dialectics, while Lenin held a positive one. Lenin thus wrote Materialism and Empirio-criticism and the Philosophical Notebooks, developing the dialectical materialist philosophical tradition of Russian Marxism initiated by Plekhanov. Because these two works occupied an important position in the development of Lenin’s thought and became the classic texts relied upon by Marxists of various countries when studying Marxist philosophy in the first half of the 20th century, people also interpreted the dialectics of Capital according to the ideas in these two works. This formed the discussion on the relationship between Marx’s dialectics and Hegel’s dialectics, which in turn led to the Hegelianization of research into the dialectics of Capital.
Starting from the 1970s and 1980s, along with the decline of Soviet Marxist philosophy, people began to question this Hegelianization. In 1996, James White proposed in his book Karl Marx and the Intellectual Origins of Dialectical Materialism that the debate surrounding the presence of Hegelian factors in the dialectics of Capital—which had unfolded in Marxist intellectual circles since the late 19th century—was caused by the existence of multiple editions of Volume I. These different editions provided researchers with different intellectual resources, which inevitably influenced their judgments on the relationship between the dialectics of Capital and Hegel. White’s thought provided a new research trajectory for exploring how Russian Marxists Hegelianized the study of dialectics and for analyzing why Luxemburg opposed such Hegelianization. Zaremka fully absorbed White’s ideas and applied them to a comparative study of the different influences the various editions of Volume I had on Russian Marxists and Luxemburg. He points out that the reason Luxemburg denied the significant position of Hegelian dialectics in Capital was that she read the second German edition of Volume I, while also reading the manuscripts for Volume II. It was precisely because she read these versions that Luxemburg was able to gain insight into the new problems Marx raised regarding capital accumulation. She could then study the economic phenomena of imperialism in light of new capitalist developments, research the movement of capital under the conditions of the coexistence of capitalist and non-capitalist sectors in the era of globalization, and develop Marx’s non-linear historical dialectics. From this perspective, studying Luxemburg’s historical dialectics possesses great theoretical and practical significance for our understanding of Marx’s dialectical thought and for uncovering the contemporary content of the dialectics of Capital.
In fact, since the late 1990s, with the rise of Ecosocialism, research into the dialectics of Capital has moved beyond a purely logical framework of thinking. It has delved deeper into the problems and categories of Marxist political economy to develop new content and modes of thinking for the dialectics of Capital. At this juncture, Zaremka’s publication of Key Elements of Marx’s Theory of Social Change can be seen as an endorsement of the methodological path of Ecosocialist interpretations of the dialectics of Capital; it also provides a theoretical and methodological basis for the current demand to de-Hegelianize the study of the dialectics of Capital.
(Affiliations: School of Philosophy, Wuhan University; Hubei Provincial Collaborative Innovation Center of Marxist Theory and Chinese Practice) Online Editor: Tong Xin Source: Marxism & Reality, Issue 1, 2024