摘要总结Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844.doc

Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 18441844年经济学哲学手稿economic ,iknmk adj. 经济的，经济上的；经济学的Philosophic ,flsfk adj. 哲学的；贤明的manuscript mnj,skrpt n. 手稿；草稿Paris Manuscripts 巴黎手稿 Karl Marx 卡尔马克思Friedrich Von Engels 弗里德里希冯恩格斯本书简介（我试写得）Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 (also referred to as The Paris Manuscripts) are a series of notes written between April and August 1844 by Karl Marx. Not published by Marx during his lifetime, they were first released in 1927 by researchers in the Soviet Union.The manuscripts are for summa-rizing his thoughts and make clear questions.It is to research political economy and philosophy.In the part of alienation laborand communism,it contains rich economic thought. 1844年经济学哲学手稿（又名巴黎手稿）是马克思于1844年四月到八月写得一系列笔记。在马克思的有生之年手稿并没有被发表直到1927年被苏联学者出版。手稿是马克思为了总结思想、弄清问题而写的。它为了研究政治经济学和哲学。尤其异化劳动和共产主义两部分，它包含着丰富的经济学思想。political economy 政治经济学philosophy 哲学alienation labor elne()n leb(r) 异化劳动有的版本也称（Estrangedstrenddadj.疏远的Labor）communism kmjnz()m 共产主义critique krtikn. 批评；评论文章 vt. 批判；评论criticism krtsz()m n. 批评；考证；苛求Preface（前言）|XXXIX| I have already announced in the Deutsch-FranzsischeJahrbcher the critique of jurisprudence and political science in the form of a critique of the Hegelian philosophy of law. While preparing it for publication, the intermingling of criticism directed only against speculation with criticism of thevarious subjects themselves proved utterly unsuitable, hamperingthe development of the argument and rendering comprehension difficult. Moreover, the wealth and diversity of the subjects to be treated could have been compressed into one work only in a purely aphoristic style; whilst an aphoristic presentation of this kind, for its part, would have given the impression of arbitrary systematism. I shall therefore publish the critique of law, ethics, politics, etc., in a series of distinct, independent pamphlets, and afterwards try in a special work to present them again as a connected whole showing the interrelationship of the separate parts, and lastly attempt a critique of the speculative elaboration of that material. For this reason it will be found that the interconnection between political economy and the state, law, ethics, civil life, etc., is touched upon in the present work only to the extent to which political economy itself expressly touches upon these subjects.我在德法年鉴上曾预告要以黑格尔法哲学批判的形式对法学和国家学进行批判。在加工整理准备付印的时候发现，把仅仅针对思辨的批判同针对各种不同材料本身的批判混在一起，十分不妥，这样会妨碍阐述，增加理解的困难。此外，由于需要探讨的题目丰富多样，只有采用完全是格言式的叙述，才能把全部材料压缩在一本着作中，而这种格言式的叙述又会造成任意制造体系的外表。因此，我打算连续用不同的单独小册子来批判法，道德，政治等等，最后再以一本专着来说明整体的 联系，各部分的关系并对这一切材料的思辨加工进行批判。由于这个理由，在本著作中谈到的国民经济学同国家，法，道德，市民生活等等的关系，只限于国民经济学本身所专门涉及的范围。 In the first paragraph, Karl Marx told us the manuscripts involved area-the extent to which political economy itself expressly touches upon these subjects and explained why didthat.Estranged Labor We have proceeded from the premises of political economy.We have accepted its language and its laws. We presupposed private property, the separation of labor, capital and land,and of wages, profit of capital and rent of land likewise division of labor, competition, the concept of exchange value, etc. On the basis of political economy itself, in its own words, we have shown that the worker sinks to the level of a commodity and becomes indeed the most wretched of commodities; that the wretchedness of the worker is in inverse proportion to the power and magnitude of his production; that the necessary result of competition is the accumulation of capital in a few hands, and thus the restoration of monopoly in a more terrible form; and that finally the distinction between capitalist and land rentier, like that between the tiller of the soil and the factory worker,disappears and that the whole of society must fall apart into the two classes property owners and propertyless workers.我们是从国民经济学的各个前提出发的 。我们采用了它的语言和它的规律。我们把私有财产，把劳动，资本，土地的相互分离，工资，资本利润，地租的互相分离以及分工，竞争，交换价值等概念当作前 提。我们从国民经济学本身出发，用它自己的话指出，工人降低为商品，而且是最贱的商品：工人的贫困同他的产品的力量和数量成正比；竞争的必然结果是资本在 少数人少中积累起来，也就是垄断的更可怕的恢复：最后，资本家和他靠地租生活的人之间，农民和工人之间的区别消失了，而整个社会必然分化为两个阶级，即有产者阶级和没有财产的工人阶级。 本段大意In this paragraph,Karl Marx have proceeded from the premises of political economy and used its language and its laws.He explained the economic phenomena why the property owners is becoming richer and the propertyless workers is becoming poorer.Political economy starts with the fact of private property; it does not explain it to us. It expresses in general, abstract formulas the material process through which private property actually passes,and these formulas it then takes for laws. It does not comprehend these laws i.e., it does not demonstrate how they arise from the very nature of private property. Political economy throws no light on the cause of the division between labor and capital, and between capital and land. When,for example, it defines the relationship of wages to profit, it takes the interest of the capitalists to be the ultimate cause, i.e., it takes for granted what it is supposed to explain. Similarly, competition comes in everywhere. It is explained from external circumstances. As to how far these external and apparently accidental circumstances are but the expression of a necessarycourse of development, political economy teaches us nothing. We have seen how exchange itself appears to it as an accidental fact. The only wheels which political economy sets in motion are greed, and the war amongst the greedy competition. 国民经济学从私有财产的现实出发，但是，它没有给我们说明这个事实。它把私有财产在现实中所经历的物质过程，放进一般的，抽象的公式，然后又把这些公 式当作规律。它不理解这些规律，也就是说，它没有指明这些规律是怎样从私有财产的本质中产生出来的。国民经济学没有给我们提供一把理解劳动和资本分离的钥 匙。例如，当它确定工资和资本利润之间的关系时，它把资本家的利益当作最后的根据：也就是说，它把应当加以论证的东西当作前提。同样，竞争到处出现，却用外部情况来说明。国民经济学也根本没有告诉我们，这种似乎偶然的外部情况在多大程度上仅仅是一种必然的发展过程的表现。我们已经看到，交换本身在它看来是 偶然的事实。贪欲以及贪欲者之间的战争即竞争，是国民经济学家所推动的唯一的车轮。本段大意Private property is a fact,but political economy did not explain it to us.Departure from private property,the political economyis inexistent.The whole political economy will build on a foundation which does not have a necessity.(私有财产是一个事实，但国民经济学并没有解释他。离开了私有财产这个前提，国民经济学将不再存在。整个国民经济学将会建立在一个没有必然性的基础上。)Precisely because political economy does not grasp the way the movement is connected, it was possible to oppose, for instance, the doctrine of competition to the doctrine of monopoly, thedoctrine of the freedom of the crafts to the doctrine of the guild, the doctrine of the division of landed property to the doctrine of the big estate for competition, freedom of the crafts and the division of landed property were explained and comprehended only as accidental, premeditated and violent consequences of monopoly, of the guild system, and of feudal property, not as the