What is consequence theory?

[15] the agricultural school is a faction of bourgeois classical political economy, which was founded by Vladimir Quesnay in France in the 1950s. This school advocates a laissez-faire economic policy and opposes state intervention in the economy. This is the source of wealth and surplus labor. From circulation to production, the law of reproduction and distribution of social total products is discussed for the first time in the history of economic thought. Quesnay's Economic Table shows the whole process of capitalist reproduction attempt. The physiocrats don't understand that the value of an entity is the general labor of human beings and put forward the so-called "pure" theory. Industry can only change the original form of material wealth-agriculture to create "pure products", that is, the total output exceeds the production cost (actually surplus value) and "pure products", but the gift of nature is -6 1.

[16] Lenin formulated the surplus value theory of Engels and Marx, which is called the fourth volume of Das Kapital. Engels wrote the prefaces to Das Kapital and Volume II, which are the key parts of this manuscript, but many of them have been included in Volume II and Volume III, and I intend to keep them, because Das Kapital is a three-volume publication (see the Complete Works of Marx and Engels, Volume 24, No.4, Theory of Surplus Value, and the Complete Works of Marx and Engels, Volume 26). - 64。

[17] The neo-Kantian school of bourgeois philosophy was born in Germany in the 1960s and was popular in the 1990s, especially in the 20s. Austrian founders Lippmann and Vladimir A. Langer, etc. 1865, lippmann first put forward the slogan of "returning to Kant", hence the name of neo-Kantianism. Igor Kant's correct criticism of neo-Kantism negates the Kantian factor in materialistic philosophy and further develops the epistemological irrelevance of subjective idealism. They claim that natural science has proved that matter can be reduced to abstract mathematical formulas to study the real world, but in this mathematical and logical ideological structure, Kant's "thing itself" is only a "limit concept". They believe that nature is the product of the objective law of "pure thought" that does not exist in nature and society. Neo-Kant's theory of scientific socialism and attacking socialism should not be based on dialectical materialism and historical materialism. They advocate the so-called "ethical socialism" and declare the socialist moral ideal that human beings strive to pursue, but they fail to live together. Neo-Kantianism is a "revision" of Marxism of Einstein, Kang Schmidt and others. Russian orthodox Marxism, talent recruitment, Stuart Luwei, and bulgakov's neo-Kantian follower Sergei Engels' Feuerbach and German Classical Philosophy, and Lenin's Marxism and Revisionism and Criticism of Materialism and Empiricism criticized neo-Kantian (see Complete Works of Lenin by Marx and Engels, second edition, p. 17,/kl

Don't, Wiltoff Doug Plekhan? Noff's alias. According to the famous works, this refers to the monist viewpoint in the development history of his book (1895 published in St. Petersburg). Forum on Historical Materialism refers to plekhanov's works here. - 67。

[19] Lenin refers to his criticism of the content and theme of populist economy, the works of Mr. Stuart Luwei (the reflection of Marxism in bourgeois works) (see Complete Works of Lenin, 2nd edition, vol./kloc-0, pp. 297-465) -75.

Understanding of the problem

(65438+0899 in the first half of March)

In June 5438+10 (1899), Science Review published an article on the evaluation of market theory (see the debate between Mr. Dugong-Balanovschi and Mr. bulgakov), followed by his article Capitalist Production under Market Conditions (Evaluation of bulgakov's Book and Irene's Article). Si Tuleideng Luwei "mainly refutes the theories of Dugong-Balanovschi, bulgakov and Irene" (Article 63), and introduces his own Marxist view of realization.

In my opinion, the above argument of Stuart Luvi is not so much due to major differences of opinion as due to Stuart Luvi's misunderstanding of the content of their defense. First of all, the market theory of bourgeois economists and Stuart Luwei confused Marx's theory. Bourgeois economists say that this product is suitable for production and consumption when it is changed. Marx's analysis shows that the reproduction and circulation of social total capital in capitalist society, that is, how to realize this product [Note: "17 and other pages see my notes (see the second edition of Complete Works of Lenin, Volume 2, 122). The comparative argument between Marx and Stuart Luwei expounds the Marxist theory, which is not only the coordination of production and consumption, but also the conclusion drawn from such analysis. On the contrary, they all emphasize the inherent contradictions of capitalism and cannot be lost? The defeated capitalism is manifested in its implementation [Note: ibid., 20, 27, 24 and other webpages (see Lenin, 2nd edition, Volume 2 (125- 126, 133- 134,/kloc-0). Second, Si Tuleideng Luwei's abstract realization principle (his opponent is to examine the specific historical conditions of this theory and the realization of a country's capitalist products in a certain period) is chaotic. Some people regard the abstract theory and the specific situation of land rent as the development of a country's agricultural capitalism. Two basic fallacies of Stuart Luvi have caused a series of misunderstandings. This paper analyzes the parameters in his article to clarify these misunderstandings.

1, I think the narrative realization theory must talk about Adam Smith, and Si Tuleideng Luwei disagrees with this statement. What he wrote can be traced back to Adam, so it should be Smith, but it is in the physiocratic school [15]. No, this is wrong. Adam Smith not only admits that products are the truth of product exchange (physiocrats know the truth), but also puts forward various components of social capital and social product value [Note: Yes, my articles are in Science Review and Value (стоимос). I think terms or terms that are not used are particularly important, but it must be pointed out that I used and still use the word "value" ("стоимост11000"). ] The problem of compensation (realization). Because of this, although Marx fully recognized the theory of the physiocratic school (such as Quesnay's Economic Table), "some principles at that time were genius" [Noe: Engels and eugen dooling, The Science of Change (Anti-Turin Theory) 3. Marx wrote a chapter on page 270 (see Complete Works of Marx and Engels, Volume 20, 251-editor's note). Acknowledge the reproduction process analyzed by Adam Smith, even in some steps of the pro-agriculture faction (Das Kapital, 2nd edition,No. 1 Volume, footnote 32)[ Note: See Complete Works of Marx and Engels, Volume 23, footnote 648 (32). -Editor's Note However, he outlined the historical issues and realized that the physiocratic school only took one and a half years (Das Kapital, first edition, volume 2, page 350-35 1) [Note: See the Complete Works of Marx and Engels, volume 24, pages 398-399. -Editor's Note] Adam Smith spent more than 30 pages (ibid., pp. 3565438 +0-383) [Note: ibid., pp. 399-434. -Editor's Note] Later, he inherited Adam Smith's detailed analysis of the basic mistakes of the whole political economy. Look, the reason must be talking about Adam Smith, just to explain the bourgeois economist Smith's repeated mistakes.

Mr. bulgakov said in his book that bourgeois economists also confused the simple circulation of goods with capitalist goods, and Marx determined the difference between them. Stuart Lurvy believes that Mr. bulgakov's assertion is based on misunderstanding. What I saw was the opposite. Mr. bulgakov misunderstood, but Stuart Luvi. As a matter of fact, Mr. Stuart Lurvy, bulgakov, how to refute it? It's strange to lower him. He repeated bulgakov's argument to refute bulgakov. Stuart Luvey said: "You can't think that Marx is an advocate of the realization of products in society, because Marx is" strictly distinguishing between simple commodity circulation and mobile capitalism "(! 48)。 But you know, this is what Mr. bulgakov said! Because of this, it is not the exchange product of the truth product of Marx's theory repetition. Mr bulgakov is absolutely right. Bourgeois economists and petty-bourgeois economists think that the possibility of overproduction is an "empty, academic debate", because both sides of the debate think that the circulation of goods and the cycle of capitalism are repeated mistakes, which Adam Smith confused.

3 Stuart Luwei's unreasonable realization principle is called proportional distribution theory. This is inaccurate and will inevitably lead to misunderstanding. Summary of the reproduction and circulation of the realized social total capital [Note: Please refer to Article 37 of my scientific review (see page 40-4 1 of this volume-editor's note). Theory. Abstractfrom it? A necessary premise of abstract theory: first, foreign trade and foreign markets. However, abstracted from foreign trade, it has never been said that a capitalist society without foreign trade exists or may exist [note: ibid., article 38 (see page 4 1-42 of this volume-editor's note). See Review No.25 (see Lenin, Volume 2, 2nd Edition132-Editor's Note): "Do we deny foreign market capitalism? Not in the course. But there is absolutely no difference between the problems in foreign markets and the problems in implementation. " ]。 Second, distribute products in proportion between the theoretical hypothesis of abstract realization and the capitalist production departments that should bear it. However, the realization theory does not advocate that it is always distributed in proportion or proportion in capitalist society [Note: "We should not only compensate the products of extra value and variable capital ... and constant capital. ..... only in the "difficulties", with the development of capitalism and frequent fluctuations ... to achieve. In May, Stuart Luvi will say another paragraph of these words, for example, article 3 1 (see Lenin, second edition, volume 133). -editor's note) said: "... capitalists can realize added value, isn't that contradictory?" ..... This contradiction is only a superficial phenomenon, because we are talking about an abstract realization principle (and the flowing populist abstract theory is an impossible added value). We must realize that this is a possible conclusion, but when describing the abstract theory, we must point out the internal contradictions in the actual implementation process, which I pointed out in my article is the key point. Mr bulgakov's understanding and axiology are completely correct. The hypothesis of axiology, but supply and demand should be balanced, but the theory of value cannot be asserted, always appearing in capitalist society, or achieving this balance. " And all other laws of capitalism "only work" (Stuart Luvi's article 56 quotes bulgakov). The theory of average profit rate essentially assumes that production is distributed among production departments in proportion. Stuart Lurvy doesn't call this theory proportional distribution theory!

In my opinion, Ricardo, the defendant of Marx, is just a repeated mistake. Adam Smith and Stuart Luvey don't agree with me. Stuart Luvi wrote, "Marx was wrong." However, Marx adopted it directly from the works quoted by Ricardo. ("Das Kapital" Volume 2, 65438th Edition+0,383) [Note: See "The Complete Works of Marx and Engels", page 24432. -Editor's Note] Stuart Luvey ignored these words. Marx quoted Ramsey's opinion on the next page, and Ramsey only found this mistake in Ricardo's opinion. I also pointed out another passage for Ricardo's works. He said bluntly here: "All countries with land and labor are divided into three parts: piece-rate wages, profits and land rent." (The constant capital is missed here. This passage also avoids the translation of Ricardo's complete works in Seoul, 22 1) Si Tuleideng. For example, he said that there is only one footnote, Ricardo, footnote, Zaire is absurd to say, the difference between total income and net income. Marx's Das Kapital (Volume III, Chapter III) leads to the conclusion in Ricardo's footnote: "In addition, our future" (obviously referring to the fact that Das Kapital in Volume IV has not been published by nuen [16]), we will see that Ricardo has never refuted Adam Smith's wrong analysis of commodity prices and commodity price decomposition as follows. Ricardo's mistakes in this analysis, if you don't mind, and his own analysis, are correct as long as the value of some commodities remains unchanged. Sometimes, he thinks in the same way "(that is, Smith's thinking). "Das Kapital" Volume 3, Volume 2, page 377, Russian translation, page 696) [Note: same as above, 25,951. -editor's note]. What's the reader's comment? Marx Stuart Lurvy: Marx said Ricardo repeated Smith's mistake [Note: Ricardo's fallacy recognized Smith's single capital accumulation, especially from this incident, I clearly saw Marx's correctness, such an evaluation. Ricardo's value-added accumulation part is dedicated to wages. In fact, it is: (1) constant capital, and (2) salary. Das Kapital 2nd edition, vol. 1, pp. 61-613, chapter 22, section 2 (see Complete Works of Marx and Engels, vol. 23, pp. 645-648-editor's note. Please refer to the footnote on page 29 (see Lenin, 2nd Edition, Volume 2, Page 136-Editor's Note). Stuart Luvi said that "unconsciously Ricardo" is completely

Stuart Lurvy not only did not refute Marx's paper that Ricardo Smith inherited the mistake, but also repeated the mistake in his article. Stuart Luvi wrote: "I don't know ... in fact, I think that if we divide social products of one kind or another into different regions, we can get a general understanding, especially in the process of realization, the important thing of products is to realize the income of each part (total income), the income of classical school." (Page 48) In the form of unrealized income (total income), this kind of mistake is exactly what Smith pointed out when he expounded Marx, who pointed out that he never participated in the form of products and income. This is to compensate the constant capital, which is part of the production and manufacturing of social products (Marx's condition is the first class of constant capital). For example, agricultural seeds never consider the form of income, and coal mining never gets them, and so on. If income is not separated from the total product as capital, it will never be a form, which is incomprehensible in the process of reproduction and circulation of social total capital. [Note: See "Das Kapital" Volume 3, Part 2, pp. 375-376 (translated in Russian, 696) (see "The Complete Works of Marx and Engels" Volume 25, pp. 950-95 1-editor's note), the difference of total product income. In the developing capitalist society, these social products must grow faster than any other social products. Only with this law can we explain one of the most profound contradictions of capitalism, that is, the wealth of a country grows very rapidly, while the consumption growth of people is very slow.

6。 Stuart Luvi "fully understands" why Marx's theory of dividing into constant capital and variable capital is necessary, and why I especially insist on this division.

Stuart did not understand, on the one hand, because of a simple misunderstanding. Stuart Luwei also admitted that one advantage of this division of labor is that it includes all products, not just a diversified income. Another advantage is that in the implementation process, the analysis and analysis of the production process are linked by a single capital logic. What is the task of realizing it? It is to explain how to reproduce and circulate the total social capital. In this case, the functions of constant capital and variable capital should be fundamentally different. Is it clear at a glance? Compensation for variable capital, finally, it should be transformed into consumer goods for workers to meet their daily consumption. Finally, constant capital should be compensated, and it should be transformed into production and used as production capital. Therefore, the independent theory of constant capital and variable capital is absolutely necessary. Second, Stuart Luvey is misleading, because he is completely arbitrary, and he mistakenly understands the theory as a proportional distribution theory (see 50-5 1 page). As we have discussed, it is incorrect to realize the understanding of the content.

Si Tuleideng Luwei doesn't understand, because he thinks that the fields of "sociology" and "economics" of Marx's theory must be independent, and this theory has made some general criticisms. At this point, I said: first, these theoretical problems have been realized and nothing has been done. Secondly, I think Stuart Fluffy, the difference is not obvious, and I don't see any practical use of this difference. First, Si Tuleideng Luwei said, "There is no doubt that Marx was confused by himself". What is the "relationship" between Principles of Sociology and Capital? [Note: I am preparing karl kautsky's latest exposition on value theory. As a comparison between Stuart Luwei and Kaucki, I point out that the law of average profit rate points out that "it does not destroy the law of value, but changes its shape" (Land Issues, pp. 67-68). We might as well mention the preface of Kaucki's very interesting remark: "If I put forward a new and useful idea in this book, I would like to thank my two great teachers first. What I want to emphasize most is that recently even among our own people. In other words, the views of Marx and Engels are a bit outdated ... I don't think there are so many controversial theories that form such doubts. This is due to the characteristics of skepticism. It is not only the analysis of the results that leads to such a conclusion, nor is it against skepticism, but based on my personal experience. ..... Early activities, I fully sympathize with Marxism. Marxism is critical and unbelieving, just like those who are a little dogmatic look down on me. After some struggle, I became a Marxist. However, no matter whether it is time or later, whenever I doubt a principled question, I always end up confident: I am wrong, but it is not a problem that my tutor has studied deeply, so I have to admit it. Every time I reconsider my point of view, I use this theory, my understanding theory, and the spread and use of this theory to strengthen my belief and consolidate my life. " I think his statement is not only debatable, but even fundamentally wrong. Stuart, this sentence is nonsense. This is not a demonstration, but an order. This neo-Kantian deliberately criticized Marx's theory [note: talk about the "criticism" of Stuart Louvre's so obsessed method (future). Of course, no sane person is against criticism, but it is obvious that Si Tuleideng Luwei's repetition of his favorite thoughts is a rich Marxist critical philosophy. Of course, since I have no desire, I will not talk about the content of Marxist philosophy here, so I can only make the following comments. Did the students of Marx's "Back to Kant" provide anything to prove the necessity of this change, nor did they provide anything to make it clear that Marx's theory could benefit from the new Kant's [17]. They even fell on their shoulders before completing their first task. Engels' negative evaluation, detailed analysis and refutation of Kantianism. On the contrary, those who don't recite Kant's and Marx's philosophical materialism and dialectical materialism later made a very perfect and valuable exposition of students' but later dialectical materialism, pointing out the inevitability of dialectical materialism and the rationality of the latest development of philosophy and social sciences. I just need to quote Mr. Wiltoff's historical materialism books, Russian documents and other famous books and the Stuttgart Forum in Germany (1896 edition). [18] Early results. What kind of effect will this criticism have after a period of time, but we think this criticism is a theoretical problem and has no effect.

The meaning of Das Kapital and Marx's formula, Si Tuleideng Luwei said, dividing social products in the same way can well explain the abstract realization principle. This surprising conclusion is completely divorced from Stuart Luvey's basic misunderstanding. In theory, it can be realized by products, in exchange for the platitudes of "in-depth exposition" (! ) Because of this misunderstanding, Stuart Luvey wrote: "These

8 Stuart Luvi said, I said, Ricardo's theory of bourgeois defense (52)-(565,438+0 pages) is the same as Marx's theory of absolute contradiction in the development of capitalism to its final demise (565,438+0-52 pages). Therefore, in volumes 2 and 3,

Si Tuleideng Luwei's paper is also incorrect, which is also caused by the above misunderstanding.