唯物史观视域中边际主义的三重限度——重新审视边际主义与《资本论》的第一次交锋  

The Triple Constraints of Marginalism from the Perspective of Historical Materialism:Revisiting the First Confrontation between Marginalism and Capital

作　　者：高建民 Gao Jianmin

机构地区：[1]西南政法大学马克思主义学院

出　　处：《哲学研究》2025年第3期21-35,172,173,共17页Philosophical Research

基　　金：国家社会科学基金一般项目“人工智能背景下马克思劳动价值论再研究”(编号24BZX007)的阶段性成果。

摘　　要：19世纪末,威克斯蒂德发动了边际主义与《资本论》的第一次交锋。用马克思的价值形式分析框架和唯物史观重新审视这次交锋,就会发现威克斯蒂德的论证在思维形式、方法论和历史观等维度上存在着诸多错误。思维形式上,他未经批判地使用“抽象效用”等概念,实质上是将资本主义社会的价值形式和“精打细算”的思维形式错置到了无商品交换的社会中;方法论上,他用抽象的个人主义取代马克思的“现实的人”,用“抽象效用”替代“抽象劳动”,混淆货币的“外在尺度”与“内在尺度”,从而难以在“价值原因”与“价值尺度”之间建立必然联系;历史观上,由价值同一性运动建构的非历史主义观使他陷入概念拜物教思维,导致他丧失了对“供需”“边际效用”等经济范畴进行起源追问和社会形式批判的意识自觉和能力。This study reinterprets the 19th-century Wicksteed-Marx debate through Marx's valueform analysis and historical materialism,revealing fundamental flaws in Wicksteed's critique.Three critical failures are identified:(1) Conceptual misapplication:Wicksteed's uncritical deployment of "abstract utility" erroneously transposes capitalist value forms to non-commodity societies,distorting Marx's monetary dialectic.(2) Methodological reductionism:By substituting Marx's historical "real human" with abstract individualism,Wicksteed conflates money's intrinsic-extrinsic measures while severing the necessary connection between value's causation and measurement.(3) A historical fetishism:His value-identity framework fosters conceptual reification,systematically obscuring the sociohistorical genesis of economic categories like supply-demand and marginal utility.The analysis demonstrates how Wicksteed's dual collapse of logical rigor and historical consciousness precludes meaningful engagement with Marx's critique of political economy.These findings challenge conventional interpretations of the marginalist-Marxian dialectic while reaffirming the contemporary relevance of value-form analysis in economic philosophy.

关 键 词：边际主义 《资本论》 抽象效用 

分 类 号：F014.31[经济管理—政治经济学]