赵玉琳赵玉琳，吉林省社会科学院研究员，《经济纵横》杂志社编委会副主任，吉林省财政学会、价格协会常务理事，吉林省社会科学研究系列高级职称评审委员会委员，吉林省社科基金项目学科组评审专家，国家社科基金项目学科组评审专家。传统或经典的马克思主义经济学，是指马克思主义创始人的经济学说，最具代表意义的经济学理论范本当属马克思的《资本论》。经典马克思主义经济学当代性与中国化这个选题不仅意义重大，而且涉及经济学理论范畴、科学原理、理论体系乃至研究方法等许多理论问题，应该说一个经济学者哪怕投入毕生精力也未必能够解决其中涉及的所有问题。贾后明教授的《论马克思主义经济学的当代性与中国化》这部新作，可以说是他对这个问题进行探讨的阶段性成果，着重对其中的几个重要问题进行了较为系统的探讨与思考。据我理解，在这部著作中，作者主要试图回答以下几个问题：（1）研究经典马克思主义经济学的当代性与中国化的重要意义；（2）实现经典马克思主义经济学中国化的基本路径；（3）如何实现价值、资本、所有制、分配等重大经济理论的传承与创新；（4）怎样看待社会主义与市场经济的关系；（5）怎样看待当代资本主义的新变化；（6）实现经典马克思主义经济学中国化的基本方法。一 研究经典马克思主义经济学的当代性与中国化的意义贾后明教授这部著作讨论的问题，可以说是国内经济理论界许多学者都十分关注的一个重大课题。那么，为什么要研究马克思主义经济学的当代性与中国化这个问题呢？作者认为，这是由经典马克思主义经济学的历史时代特征和批判性特征决定的。众所周知，18世纪后期到19世纪中期，以英国为代表的西方国家产业革命迅速兴起，使一些国家步入了工业化时期，不仅推动了经济发展，也促使工场手工业时期的社会经济关系发生了巨大变化，工人阶级逐渐登上了历史舞台，劳资矛盾逐渐上升为社会各阶层之间的主要矛盾。经典马克思主义经济学就是在这样的历史背景下产生的。从18世纪后期到19世纪中后期，伴随着西方国家工业化步伐的加快，工人阶级受剥削受奴役的程度也在逐步加深，在推进工业化加快经济发展的过程中，如何认识乃至改变处于社会最底层的工人阶级的生活状况，成为当时经济发展中面临的十分重大的社会问题。这个问题不但引起了社会有识之士的关注和担忧，也引起了众多经济理论学者的思考和探索，有的学者特别关注经济增长，有的学者格外关注福利改善，从而形成了不同的经济理论流派和不同的经济思想，占据主流地位的是自由资本主义的经济思想。马克思为了揭露劳资之间矛盾的实质，批判资本主义制度，批判自由资本主义的经济思想，耗费了大约40年的时间，完成了饱含他毕生心血的经济学理论巨著《资本论》。他依据唯物史观，发现了任何社会经济形态的产生、发展、衰落、消亡都具有历史必然性的一般规律，因而他证明了资本主义社会经济形态产生和发展既有客观必然性，又有历史暂时性，不是永恒的。他通过科学的劳动价值论和剩余价值理论的确立揭示了利润的本质，从而深刻地揭示了资产阶级是怎样利用资本来剥削工人阶级的奥秘。以《资本论》为标志的经典马克思主义经济学在经济学说史上的划时代的里程碑意义，是一百多年来国内外学者普遍认可的，所以，马克思才成为一位最伟大的千年思想家。任何人的任何一部著作都不可能终结真理，即使是最伟大的思想家最经典的著作，也只是人类在探寻真理过程中的一个阶段性成果。马克思毕竟是处于自由资本主义时代的工人阶级的代言人，他的研究目的只是揭示劳资之间尖锐对立的一面，而不是研究如何解决劳资矛盾。他所处的时代市场经济尚未充分发展，因而他的理论不可能回答当今时代日趋成熟的市场经济发展中遇到的新问题。中国改革开放以来，在发展社会主义市场经济过程中遇到的许多新问题，也很难在《资本论》中找到现成的答案。正如贾后明教授所说的那样：“传统马克思主义经济学的核心任务是批判资本主义制度，而资本主义实行的是市场经济。要用批判市场经济的马克思主义经济学传统理论来指导中国的市场经济建设，传统马克思主义经济学理论是难以承担这一任务的。”正因为经典马克思主义经济学具有鲜明的历史时代特征和批判性特征，所以，我们才要研究经典马克思主义经济学的当代性和中国化问题，才要继承和发展经典马克思主义经济学，努力构建符合当代中国现代化建设需要的马克思主义经济学理论新体系，为深化经济体制改革和扩大对外开放服务，为完善社会主义市场经济体制提供有力的理论指导，为促进经济发展和社会进步提供强大的理论支撑。二 经典马克思主义经济学中国化的基本路径对于这个问题，作者从经典马克思主义经济学与一般经济理论、西方经济学、中国实践的关系等方面进行了探讨。他认为，经典马克思主义经济学属于描述自由资本主义时代经济关系的特殊经济理论，不属于一般的经济理论。因而他指出：“从现实和理论上看，马克思经济学只能说是现代经济学理论中的一个流派，难以成为一个基础性的理论。一方面，社会接受马克思主义经济学的程度有限，只有一部分人接受和运用马克思主义经济学理论去研究社会经济问题；另一方面，传统的马克思主义经济学只是在经济学理论的部分领域作了分析和探讨，没有形成指导经济活动的系统理论体系。此外，传统马克思主义经济学主要是批判资本主义经济制度的，虽然对资本主义的制度分析有意义，但难以实现对经济决策的具体指导。”“事实上，马克思主义经济学不是现代经济学的范式，尚未成为主流经济学，马克思主义经济学的历史定位和自身逻辑也决定了它不可能成为现代经济学的范式。”贾后明教授说：“马克思主义经济学要发展和创新，其动力既来自中国的社会主义市场经济实践，也来自各种思想和理论的交锋与碰撞。”“马克思主义经济学批判西方经济学，不等于彻底否定和取代西方经济学。在具体的微观领域，马克思主义经济学不可能也没有必要创造出一套完全不同于西方经济学的概念和理论的新体系。西方经济学在微观领域所做的研究要早于马克思主义经济学，总结的内容要比马克思主义经济学更全面，不能因为这些结论是西方经济学做出的就要另外创立一套不同的理论来代替它们。”作者强调指出：“马克思主义经济学之所以要中国化，是因为中国的社会主义市场经济实践提出了许多新课题，而传统的马克思主义经济学不能解决这些新课题，这就要求创新马克思主义经济学，从而必然会使马克思主义经济学实现中国化。”“我们不仅要挖掘马克思的市场经济思想，还要科学地对待马克思经济思想中与现代经济发展存在矛盾的内容，从历史唯物主义的角度科学地理解和运用这些思想。对传统的马克思主义经济学理论，要从对资本主义批判和对社会主义建设两个方面的统一需要角度加以转换，克服马克思主义经济学体系中的矛盾，重新构建马克思主义经济学体系的新框架，体现马克思主义经济学中国化的理论价值。”这就不难看出，在作者看来，只有从中国的国情出发，继承和发展经典马克思主义经济学的理论成果，借鉴和吸收西方经济学理论体系的科学成分，才能构建当代中国的马克思主义经济学理论体系，从而实现经典马克思主义经济学中国化。三 如何实现价值、资本、所有制、分配等重大经济理论的传承与创新关于价值理论。作者对国内外有关价值理论不同观点的争论作了较为系统的梳理和点评，为深化这方面的研究提出了一些值得思考的问题和研究方向。在作者看来，价值理论的争论之所以旷日持久，难以达成共识，主要是因为我们赋予了价值理论不该承担的任务，对价值理论的期望值过高。劳动价值论强调的是劳动是创造价值的唯一要素，因此，其他生产要素参与分配就是对劳动创造的价值的剥削，就是不合理的。劳动价值论为社会分配关系的合理性提供了客观标准和根本的价值判断。无论是效用价值论还是生产费用价值论，或者是生产要素价值论，强调的是各种生产要素因为共同创造财富，所以才共同创造价值，因此，各种生产要素参与财富分配都是合理的。严格说来，西方经济学的价值理论所说的价值实际上就是效用，只要是对人有用的物品（财货），就有价值，就是财富。他们并有严格区分使用价值和价值，或者说，他们的价值概念与马克思所说的使用价值概念更为相似。劳动创造的价值因为各种劳动质的差别而无法比较，因而体现在商品中的价值量是不可能直接量化的。同样的道理，各种物品的使用价值质的差别也无法比较，因而效用的价值量也是无法衡量的。如果试图直接对各种不同使用价值和价值进行量化及比较，都是徒劳的，也是毫无意义的。因为现实的商品交换和收入分配都是通过价格形式实现的，现实的分配是财富的分配，不是价值的分配，而是价格的分配，价值不过是在背后更深层次上起作用的因素，不能把价值理论与分配政策直接挂钩。我们只要清楚一点就足够了，那就是：两种不同的价值理论只不过是为社会财富分配关系提供了两种根本不同的价值评判标准而已，不能赋予价值理论更多的使命。关于资本理论。作者通过对资本理论的全面梳理和分析，在深入挖掘已有理论成果的基础上，提出了自己的见解。认为：资本在组织生产、优化资源配置、优化劳动组合、节约成本和费用、促进技术创新等方面具有重要作用，通过资本一般性质的分析，论述了资本在市场经济中存在的必然性与合理性。这就提出了一个很重要的问题，资本不是资本主义社会中特殊的经济关系，并非仅仅具有“从头到脚，每个毛孔都滴着血和肮脏的东西”马克思：《资本论》第一卷，人民出版社2004年版，第871页。的阶级属性，而是市场经济中一般的经济关系，探讨资本的一般属性，对于发展社会主义市场经济具有十分重要的理论价值和应用价值，为深化资本理论研究拓展了新视野。关于所有制理论。作者不但理清了相关争论的来龙去脉，还抓住了争论的关键所在，强调对公有制效率必须历史、全面、辩证地加以认识，“不能把历史价值与现实价值混淆”，“不能把制度因素与自身经营相混淆”，“不能把公共领域与竞争领域相混淆”，“不能把理论效率与现实效率相混淆”，从而为深化对公有制的认识进一步理清了思路。至于民营资本存在和外国资本引入的现实必然性与合理性问题，作者也是从市场经济一般属性的视角进行解释的：“如果不把社会主义定位为一种纯粹的计划经济，不定位为完全的公有经济，而是以市场作为资源配置的一种经济模式，那么，私有资本与外来资本不仅有存在的空间，还有存在的必要。市场就是要不同的主体进行竞争才能发挥效率，才能发现价值并最终实现资源的有效配置。而私有资本的存在不仅是解决经济发展中的资本稀缺问题，而且还提供了竞争主体和竞争模式，促使各种主体以市场为导向来进行资源配置，促进整个社会效率提升和资源的合理利用，使整个社会的经济得到更快发展。”这种超越某些已然固化了的思想意识束缚的研究视角和分析结论，令人觉得更能彰显学术的味道和学者的风范。关于分配理论。正如作者分析的那样，价值理论是分配理论的思想基础。按照马克思的劳动价值论，既然劳动是创造价值的唯一要素，那么，社会财富只有实行按劳分配才是合理的。按照西方经济学的效用价值论，社会财富既然是土地、资本、劳动、技术等生产要素共同创造的，那么，这些要素共同参与分配就是合理的。由于人们的立场不同，如果站在劳动者的角度，就会强调按劳分配的合理性；如果站在投资者或生产要素所有者的角度，就会强调按生产要素分配的合理性，所以，这两种分配理论因为包含着根本不同的价值判断，不可能在学界乃至全社会形成统一的思想认识。现实的财富分配关系是按生产要素自发形成的价格进行的分配。在市场经济条件下，社会生产规模取决于货币资本的规模，社会生产和再生产规模随着货币资本规模的增减而扩大或缩小，工资水平随着投资规模的增减而上升或下降，资本决定着生产和分配。市场经济内在的运行机理决定了资本在生产和分配中居于支配地位，起着主导作用，导致社会财富不断地向投资者手中积聚，而劳动者拥有的财富逐渐相对减少，最终形成两极分化的分配格局。西方许多学者也不认为这种分配结果就是合理的。但是，由于他们在理论上不承认劳动价值论的科学性，而是以效用价值论为基础，强调按生产要素分配的合理性，实质上也就间接地肯定了资本在市场经济分配关系中占据统治地位的合理性。无论是社会主义国家还是资本主义国家，只要是实行市场经济的国家，都面临着收入分配不公乃至两极分化问题，都不能不通过各种制度和政策手段对国民收入进行调节。作者依据生产决定分配的经济学原理，阐明了如果不把蛋糕做大，不通过财富增量的调节，就不可能改善分配结构，所以，要坚持效率优先的原则，在把蛋糕不断做大的前提下，适时调整和改善社会财富的分配格局，逐步缩小收入分配的差距。作者特别关注社会财富的市场分享机制问题，国内有些学者也在探讨利润分享问题，难点在于发现或找到财富或利润分享的路径、手段和方法。在实践层面上，北欧一些高福利国家在不同的经济发展阶段，调整社会财富分配关系的具体制度和政策，或许对我们更有借鉴意义，可能更值得我们研究和思考。四 怎样看待社会主义与市场经济的关系正如作者所说的那样，如果教条式地把社会主义理解为“社会主义＝公有制（全民和集体 国有）+计划经济+按劳分配”，把资本主义理解为“资本主义＝私有制+市场经济+按资（要素）分配”，那么，“当我们今天出现私有制时，当实行市场经济时，当按要素分配时，就会被人们认为不是在搞社会主义，而是在搞资本主义”。如果摆脱传统的思维定式，重新认识社会主义的本质，就会发现，社会主义与市场经济是可以相容的。因而作者从“更加广泛的社会联系和丰富的社会消费”、“更加有效的社会协调”、“共同富裕和发展的社会奋斗目标”三个方面重新阐释了社会主义的本质特征，进而论述了社会主义与市场经济的内在统一性：“生产发展与效率提升是社会主义与市场经济的共同目标”，“分配公平与社会协调是社会主义与市场经济的内在要求”。当然，作者这些带有创新意义的思想观点未必能为学者们普遍接受，还有很大的探索空间。五 怎样看待当代资本主义的新变化资本主义社会经历了几百年的发展而没有很快走向衰落乃至消亡，这也是众多学者思考的一个重大的实践问题和理论问题。作者认为，资本主义之所以能够持续发展，是因为“资本主义制度内在的扬弃”。依作者之见，当代资本主义的新变化主要体现在四个方面：一是资本集中、集聚和垄断；二是资本集中社会化的方式更加广泛；三是国家不断强化对经济的宏观调节；四是资本主义国家不断调整制度形态，推动科技创新和组织创新。作者指出，资本主义发展过程中遇到的诸多矛盾，“既不断带来各种冲突，也促使社会各个方面寻找解决办法，社会不断扬弃一些旧的体制和方法，通过新的手段和方法从某种程度上缓解矛盾。资本主义虽然不能从根本上来解决这些矛盾，但找到了化解的办法，化解了一次次的危机，实现了新旧更替，使资本主义得到了一定的发展，实现了资本主义内部的多次质变”。作者进一步指出：“随着资本主义制度进一步的巩固和发展，资本主义社会中的统治阶级，包括资本家和资产阶级学者，开始认识到必须自觉主动地对其制度中不适应生产力发展，尤其是不利于社会保持稳定的因素进行调整，因此对社会中存在的各种矛盾和出现的问题进行自觉地研究，力求通过体制创新来解决社会矛盾。这种自觉调整使资本主义制度有了弹性，使这种制度有了一定的应变性。”但是，“资本主义制度的内在扬弃不可能直接导致资本主义向社会主义的转变”。六 实现经典马克思主义经济学中国化的基本方法长期以来，我们在坚持和发展马克思主义经济学时总是强调，不能拘泥于马克思主义经典著作中的具体结论，而是应该坚持马克思主义经济学的立场和方法。马克思主义经济学的立场是为了无产阶级和整个人类的自由和全面发展，而马克思主义经济学的方法则并没有清晰明确的总结。有的学者从社会经济结构和制度层面总结马克思主义经济学的特征，有的学者则坚持马克思主义经济学是历史演化过程方法的开端。而贾后明教授则充分肯定了马克思的历史与逻辑统一研究方法是马克思主义经济学的精髓，强调在研究经济问题过程中，要把科学的理论抽象与实践经验总结有机结合起来。他认为，现阶段坚持历史与逻辑统一的方法，很重要的一点就是要把社会主义社会的发展看作是一个动态的历史发展过程，不回避前进中的问题和矛盾，坚持“马克思主义者对待现实社会主义社会的科学态度，要用发展的眼光来看待现实社会，对问题进行分析和批判”，并“把这种分析批判作为推动事物进步的力量，作为建构社会主义经济制度的一个部分”。同时，作者还指出，“马克思主义经济学要向应用化方向发展，需要学习借鉴西方经济学的方法，包括边际分析方法”；“相比马克思主义经济学，西方主流经济学对数学的运用更加显著和有成效”，这也是值得学习和借鉴的。作者旗帜鲜明地反对以教条主义的态度看待经典马克思主义经济学理论，特别强调要突破那些背离科学精神的意识形态的局限，指出：“从改革开放到今天，我们实践和创新着属于中国的马克思经济学，这种经济学的特点就是：超越意识形态对具体经济的价值评判，根据中国改革开放以来社会主义经济建设的实践经验，建立中国特色的社会主义市场经济理论。”综观全书，贾后明教授这部著作的一个突出特点就是对相关理论不同观点争论的梳理较为系统，对每个问题的探讨都尽可能先弄清楚理论演进的脉络。这不但为他提出自己的观点奠定了坚实的基础，也可以为学者们继续深入探讨这些问题提供一些有重要参考价值的资料，有利于同类研究节约时间、节省成本。这部著作的另一个显著特点就是充分体现了作者对这些问题的独立思考。经典马克思主义经济学的当代性与中国化的目的是把经典马克思主义经济学化为当代中国的马克思主义经济学。实现这个目标，既要破也要立，既要传承也要创新，要对经典马克思主义经济学的方法、概念、原理、体系进行全方位的解读、辨识和评价，在此基础上，继承和发展经典马克思主义经济学，为构建当代中国的马克思主义经济学理论新体系夯实基础。贾后明教授在这方面作了有益的探索，在本书中提出了许多新见解，这种善于独立思考和勇于探索的科学精神是值得赞赏和推崇的，相信他会继续发扬这种科学态度和探索精神，坚持不懈地深入进行研究，把更多的马克思主义经济学的当代性与中国化的新成果奉献给读者。

Zhao Yulin Zhao Yulin, researcher of Jilin Academy of Social Sciences, deputy director of the editorial board of Economic Magazine, standing director of Jilin Finance Society and Price Association, member of Jilin Social Science Research Series Senior Title Evaluation Committee, Jilin Provincial Social Science Foundation Project Discipline Group Review Expert, National Social Science Foundation Project Discipline Group Review Expert. Traditional or classical Marxist economics refers to the economic theory of the founder of Marxism, and the most representative model of economic theory is Marx's "Capital". The topic of the contemporaneity and sinicization of classical Marxist economics is not only of great significance, but also involves many theoretical issues such as the scope of economic theory, scientific principles, theoretical systems and even research methods. Professor Jia Houming's new work "On the Contemporaneity and Sinicization of Marxist Economics" can be said to be the phased result of his discussion on this issue, focusing on several important issues in a more systematic discussion and reflection. As far as I understand, in this work, the author mainly tries to answer the following questions: (1) the importance of studying the contemporaneity and sinicization of classical Marxist economics; (2) the basic path to realize the sinicization of classical Marxist economics; (3) how to realize the inheritance and innovation of major economic theories such as value, capital, ownership, and distribution; (4) how to view the relationship between socialism and market economy; (5) how to view the new changes in contemporary capitalism; (6) The basic method of sinicizing classical Marxist economics. I. Studying the Contemporaneity of Classical Marxist Economics and the Significance of Sinicization in Professor Jia Houming's work can be said to be a major topic of great concern to many scholars in the field of domestic economic theory. Why, then, should we study the contemporaneity and sinicization of Marxist economics? According to the author, this is determined by the historical epochal characteristics and critical characteristics of classical Marxist economics. As we all know, from the late 18th century to the mid-19th century, the industrial revolution of Western countries represented by Britain rose rapidly, making some countries enter the industrialization period, which not only promoted economic development, but also promoted the social and economic relations in the workshop handicraft period underwent tremendous changes, the working class gradually entered the historical stage, and the labor-capital contradiction gradually rose to the main contradiction between all social strata. Classical Marxist economics was born in this historical context. From the late 18th century to the middle and late 19th century, with the acceleration of industrialization in Western countries, the degree of exploitation and enslavement of the working class was gradually deepening, and in the process of promoting industrialization and accelerating economic development, how to understand and even change the living conditions of the working class at the bottom of society became a very important social problem faced in economic development at that time. This issue has not only aroused the attention and concern of people of insight in society, but also caused the thinking and exploration of many economic theorists, some scholars pay special attention to economic growth, and some scholars pay special attention to welfare improvement, thus forming different schools of economic theory and different economic thoughts, occupying the mainstream position is the economic thought of liberal capitalism. In order to expose the essence of the contradictions between labor and capital, criticize the capitalist system, and criticize the economic thought of liberal capitalism, Marx spent about 40 years to complete the masterpiece of economic theory "Capital" full of his life's work. Based on the materialist view of history, he discovered the general law that the emergence, development, decline and demise of any social and economic form have historical necessity, so he proved that the emergence and development of capitalist social and economic forms have both objective inevitability and historical temporality, not eternity. He revealed the nature of profit through the establishment of the scientific labor theory of value and the theory of surplus value, thus profoundly revealing the mystery of how the bourgeoisie uses capital to exploit the working class. The epoch-making milestone significance of classical Marxist economics in the history of economic theory marked by Capital has been widely recognized by scholars at home and abroad for more than a hundred years, so Marx has become the greatest thinker of the millennium. No single work of anyone can put an end to the truth, and even the most classic works of the greatest thinkers are only a stage in the process of mankind's search for truth. After all, Marx is the spokesman of the working class in the era of liberal capitalism, and the purpose of his research is only to reveal the sharp opposition between labor and capital, not to study how to solve the contradiction between labor and capital. He lived in an era when the market economy was not yet fully developed, so his theory could not answer the new problems encountered in the increasingly mature market economy development of the current era. Since China's reform and opening up, many new problems encountered in the process of developing the socialist market economy have also been difficult to find ready-made answers in Capital. As Professor Jia Houming said: "The core task of traditional Marxist economics is to criticize the capitalist system, and capitalism implements a market economy." To use the traditional Marxist economic theory that criticizes the market economy to guide China's market economy construction, traditional Marxist economic theory is difficult to undertake this task. It is precisely because classical Marxist economics has distinct characteristics of the historical era and critical characteristics that we should study the contemporaneity and sinicization of classical Marxist economics, inherit and develop classical Marxist economics, strive to build a new system of Marxist economic theory that meets the needs of contemporary China's modernization construction, serve the deepening of economic structural reform and opening wider to the outside world, and provide powerful theoretical guidance for improving the socialist market economic system." Provide strong theoretical support for promoting economic development and social progress. II. The Basic Path of Sinicization of Classical Marxist Economics For this issue, the author discusses the relationship between classical Marxist economics and general economic theory, Western economics, and Chinese practice. He believes that classical Marxist economics belongs to the special economic theory that describes economic relations in the era of liberal capitalism, and does not belong to the general economic theory. Therefore, he pointed out: "From the perspective of reality and theory, Marxian economics can only be said to be a school of modern economic theory, and it is difficult to become a basic theory." On the one hand, the degree of social acceptance of Marxist economics is limited, and only some people accept and apply Marxist economic theory to study social and economic issues; On the other hand, traditional Marxist economics has only been analyzed and discussed in some areas of economic theory, and has not formed a systematic theoretical system to guide economic activities. In addition, traditional Marxist economics mainly criticizes the capitalist economic system, and although it is meaningful to the institutional analysis of capitalism, it is difficult to achieve specific guidance for economic decision-making. "In fact, Marxist economics is not the paradigm of modern economics, it has not yet become mainstream economics, and the historical positioning and logic of Marxist economics also determine that it cannot become the paradigm of modern economics." Professor Jia Houming said: "The impetus for the development and innovation of Marxist economics comes not only from the practice of China's socialist market economy, but also from the confrontation and collision of various ideas and theories. "The criticism of Western economics by Marxist economics does not mean completely denying and replacing Western economics. In the specific micro field, Marxist economics cannot and does not need to create a new system of concepts and theories completely different from Western economics. The research done by Western economics in the micro field predates Marxist economics, and the content of the summary is more comprehensive than that of Marxist economics, and it is not possible to create a different set of theories to replace them because these conclusions are made by Western economics. The author emphatically pointed out: "The reason why Marxist economics needs to be sinicized is because the practice of China's socialist market economy has put forward many new topics, and traditional Marxist economics cannot solve these new topics, which requires innovative Marxist economics, which will inevitably make Marxist economics Chinese." "We must not only dig into Marx's market economy thought, but also scientifically treat the contents of Marx's economic thought that contradict modern economic development, and scientifically understand and apply these ideas from the perspective of historical materialism." The traditional Marxist economic theory should be transformed from the perspective of the unified need for the two aspects of criticism of capitalism and socialist construction, overcome the contradictions in the Marxist economic system, reconstruct the new framework of the Marxist economic system, and embody the theoretical value of the Sinicization of Marxist economics. It is not difficult to see that in the author's view, only by proceeding from China's national conditions, inheriting and developing the theoretical achievements of classical Marxist economics, and borrowing and absorbing the scientific components of the Western economic theoretical system, can we build a Marxist economic theoretical system in contemporary China, so as to realize the sinicization of classical Marxist economics. 3. How to realize the inheritance and innovation of major economic theories such as value, capital, ownership, and distribution. The author systematically sorts out and comments on the debates of different views on value theory at home and abroad, and puts forward some questions and research directions worth thinking about for deepening the research in this regard. In the author's view, the reason why the debate on value theory is protracted and difficult to reach a consensus is mainly because we have given value theory tasks that should not be undertaken, and our expectations of value theory are too high. The labor theory of value emphasizes that labor is the only factor that creates value, so the participation of other factors of production in distribution is the exploitation of the value created by labor, which is unreasonable. The labor theory of value provides objective standards and fundamental value judgments for the rationality of social distribution relations. Whether it is the theory of utility value, the theory of production cost of value, or the theory of value of production factors, it emphasizes that various factors of production create value together because they jointly create wealth, so it is reasonable for various factors of production to participate in the distribution of wealth. Strictly speaking, the value theory of Western economics says that value is actually utility, as long as it is useful to people (goods), there is value, that is, wealth. They also have a strict distinction between use value and value, or their concept of value is more similar to Marx's concept of use value. The value created by labor cannot be compared because of the difference in the quality of labor, so the amount of value embodied in commodities cannot be directly quantified. In the same way, the qualitative difference in the use value of various items cannot be compared, and therefore the value of utility cannot be measured. Attempts to quantify and compare different use values and values directly are futile and pointless. Because the actual commodity exchange and income distribution are realized in the form of prices, the actual distribution is the distribution of wealth, not the distribution of value, but the distribution of prices, and value is only a factor that plays a deeper role behind it, and cannot directly link the theory of value with the distribution policy. It is enough to be clear that two different theories of value only provide two fundamentally different value judgments for the distribution of social wealth, and cannot give value theory more mission. About the theory of capital. Through a comprehensive combing and analysis of capital theory, the author puts forward his own insights on the basis of digging deep into the existing theoretical achievements. It is believed that capital plays an important role in organizing production, optimizing resource allocation, optimizing labor combination, saving costs and expenses, and promoting technological innovation, and discusses the inevitability and rationality of capital in the market economy through the analysis of the general nature of capital. This raises a very important question, capital is not a special economic relationship in capitalist society, it is not just "from head to toe, every pore dripping with blood and dirt" Marx: Capital, vol. 1, People's Publishing House, 2004, p. 871. Discussing the general attributes of capital has very important theoretical and applied value for the development of socialist market economy, and expands new horizons for deepening the study of capital theory. About the theory of ownership. The author not only clarifies the ins and outs of the relevant controversy, but also grasps the key point of the controversy, emphasizing that the efficiency of public ownership must be understood historically, comprehensively and dialectically, "historical value cannot be confused with actual value", "institutional factors cannot be confused with one's own operation", "public domain cannot be confused with competition field", "theoretical efficiency cannot be confused with practical efficiency", thus further clarifying ideas for deepening the understanding of public ownership. As for the practical inevitability and rationality of the existence of private capital and the introduction of foreign capital, the author also explains from the perspective of the general attributes of the market economy: "If socialism is not positioned as a pure planned economy, not as a complete public economy, but as an economic model with the market as the allocation of resources, then private capital and foreign capital not only have space for existence, but also have the necessity of existence." The market is to compete with different subjects in order to exert efficiency, discover value and ultimately achieve effective allocation of resources. The existence of private capital not only solves the problem of capital scarcity in economic development, but also provides competitive subjects and competition models, prompts various subjects to allocate resources market-oriented, promotes the improvement of social efficiency and the rational use of resources, and makes the economy of the whole society develop faster. "This kind of research perspective and analysis conclusion, which transcends the shackles of some ideological shackles that have been solidified, makes people feel that it can better highlight the taste of scholarship and the style of scholars." On distributive theory. As the author analyzes, the theory of value is the ideological basis of distributive theory. According to Marx's labor theory of value, since labor is the only factor that creates value, then social wealth can only be rationalized by the distribution according to work. According to the utility theory of value of Western economics, since social wealth is jointly created by production factors such as land, capital, labor, and technology, it is reasonable for these factors to participate in the distribution. Due to people's different positions, if you stand in the perspective of workers, you will emphasize the rationality of distribution according to work; If we stand in the perspective of investors or owners of production factors, they will emphasize the rationality of distribution according to production factors, so because these two distribution theories contain fundamentally different value judgments, it is impossible to form a unified ideological understanding in the academic circles and even the whole society. The actual wealth distribution relationship is the distribution according to the spontaneous price of the factors of production. Under the conditions of market economy, the scale of social production depends on the scale of money capital, the scale of social production and reproduction expands or shrinks with the increase or decrease of the scale of money capital, the wage level rises or falls with the increase or decrease of the scale of investment, and capital determines production and distribution. The intrinsic operating mechanism of the market economy determines that capital occupies a dominant position in production and distribution, plays a leading role, resulting in the continuous accumulation of social wealth in the hands of investors, while the wealth owned by workers gradually decreases relatively, and finally forms a polarized distribution pattern. Many scholars in the West also do not believe that this distribution result is reasonable. However, because they do not recognize the scientific nature of the labor theory of value in theory, but rely on the utility theory of value, emphasizing the rationality of distribution according to production factors, in essence, they indirectly affirm the rationality of capital dominating the distribution relationship in the market economy. Whether it is a socialist country or a capitalist country, as long as it is a country that implements a market economy, it is facing the problem of unfair income distribution and even polarization, and it is impossible not to regulate national income through various systems and policy means. Based on the economic principle that production determines distribution, the author clarifies that if the cake is not enlarged and the adjustment of wealth increment is not possible, it is impossible to improve the distribution structure, so we must adhere to the principle of efficiency first, and under the premise of continuously expanding the cake, adjust and improve the distribution pattern of social wealth in a timely manner, and gradually narrow the gap in income distribution. The author pays special attention to the market sharing mechanism of social wealth, and some scholars in China are also discussing the problem of profit sharing, and the difficulty lies in discovering or finding the path, means and methods of wealth or profit sharing. At the practical level, the specific systems and policies of some Nordic high-welfare countries at different stages of economic development to adjust the social wealth distribution relationship may be of more reference significance to us and may be more worthy of our study and consideration. IV. How to view the relationship between socialism and market economy As the author said, if socialism is dogmatically understood as "socialism = public ownership (owned by the whole people and collective state) + planned economy + distribution according to work" and capitalism as "capitalism = private ownership + market economy + distribution according to capital (factors)", then, "when we have private ownership today, when we implement a market economy, when we distribute according to factors, we will be considered not to be engaged in socialism, but in capitalism." If we get rid of the traditional mindset and re-understand the essence of socialism, we will find that socialism and the market economy are compatible. Therefore, the author reinterprets the essential characteristics of socialism from three aspects: "wider social ties and rich social consumption", "more effective social coordination", and "social struggle goal of common prosperity and development", and then discusses the intrinsic unity of socialism and market economy: "production development and efficiency improvement are the common goals of socialism and market economy", and "distribution fairness and social coordination are the inherent requirements of socialism and market economy". Of course, the author's innovative ideas may not be generally accepted by scholars, and there is still a lot of room for exploration. V. How to view the new changes in contemporary capitalism, and capitalist society has undergone hundreds of years of development without soon declining or even dying out, which is also a major practical and theoretical issue that many scholars ponder. The author argues that capitalism has been able to sustain its development because of the "inherent renunciation of the capitalist system." According to the author, the new changes in contemporary capitalism are mainly reflected in four aspects: first, capital concentration, agglomeration and monopoly; Second, the way of socialization of capital concentration is more extensive; Third, the state has continuously strengthened macro-regulation of the economy; Fourth, capitalist countries constantly adjust their institutional forms and promote scientific and technological innovation and organizational innovation. The author points out that the many contradictions encountered in the process of capitalist development "not only constantly bring about various conflicts, but also prompt all aspects of society to find solutions, and society continues to abandon some old systems and methods, and alleviate the contradictions to some extent through new means and methods." Although capitalism cannot fundamentally solve these contradictions, it has found a way to resolve them, resolved crises one after another, achieved the replacement of old and new, enabled capitalism to achieve certain development, and realized multiple qualitative changes within capitalism." The author further pointed out: "With the further consolidation and development of the capitalist system, the ruling class in capitalist society, including capitalists and bourgeois scholars, began to realize that it is necessary to consciously and actively adjust the factors in its system that are not adapted to the development of productive forces, especially those that are not conducive to maintaining social stability, so they consciously study the various contradictions and problems that exist in society, and strive to solve social contradictions through institutional innovation." This conscious adjustment has made the capitalist system flexible and made this system resilient. However, "the internal renunciation of the capitalist system cannot directly lead to the transformation of capitalism into socialism." VI. The Basic Method for Sinicizing Classical Marxist Economics For a long time, when adhering to and developing Marxist economics, we have always stressed that we should not stick to the specific conclusions in the classic works of Marxism, but should adhere to the stance and method of Marxist economics. The position of Marxist economics is for the free and comprehensive development of the proletariat and mankind as a whole, while the method of Marxist economics does not have a clear and unambiguous summary. Some scholars summarize the characteristics of Marxist economics from the socio-economic structure and institutional level, while others insist that Marxist economics is the beginning of the method of historical evolution. Professor Jia Houming fully affirmed the essence of Marx's unified research method of history and logic, and emphasized that in the process of studying economic issues, it is necessary to organically combine scientific theoretical abstraction with practical experience summary. He believes that at the present stage, to adhere to the method of unifying history and logic, it is very important to regard the development of socialist society as a dynamic historical development process, not to evade problems and contradictions in the process of progress, to adhere to "the scientific attitude of Marxists towards the actual socialist society, to look at the real society from the perspective of development, to analyze and criticize the problems", and to "regard this analysis and criticism as a force for promoting the progress of things and as a part of the construction of the socialist economic system." At the same time, the author also pointed out that "in order to develop Marxist economics in the direction of application, it is necessary to learn from the methods of Western economics, including marginal analysis methods"; "Compared with Marxist economics, the use of mathematics in mainstream economics in the West is more significant and effective", which is also worth learning and learning. The author takes a clear-cut stand against a dogmatic attitude towards classical Marxist economic theory, especially emphasizes the need to break through the limitations of those ideologies that deviate from the scientific spirit, and points out: "From the reform and opening up to today, we have practiced and innovated Marxian economics belonging to China, and the characteristics of this kind of economics are: transcending the value judgment of ideology on specific economies, and establishing a socialist market economy theory with Chinese characteristics based on the practical experience of socialist economic construction since China's reform and opening up." Throughout the book, one of the outstanding features of Professor Jia Houming's work is that it is more systematic in combing the different views and debates of related theories, and the discussion of each issue is as far as possible to clarify the context of theoretical evolution. This not only lays a solid foundation for him to put forward his own views, but also provides some important reference materials for scholars to continue to discuss these issues in depth, which is conducive to saving time and cost in similar research. Another distinctive feature of this work is that it fully reflects the author's independent thinking on these issues. The purpose of the contemporaneity and sinicization of classical Marxist economics is to turn classical Marxist economics into Marxist economics in contemporary China. To achieve this goal, it is necessary to both break and stand, inherit and innovate, and carry out an all-round interpretation, identification and evaluation of the methods, concepts, principles and systems of classical Marxist economics, and on this basis, inherit and develop classical Marxist economics, and lay a solid foundation for the construction of a new system of Marxist economic theory in contemporary China. Professor Jia Houming has made useful explorations in this regard, and put forward many new insights in this book, this scientific spirit of independent thinking and courage to explore is worthy of appreciation and respect, I believe he will continue to carry forward this scientific attitude and exploration spirit, unremittingly carry out in-depth research, and dedicate more contemporary Marxist economics and new achievements of Sinicization to readers.（AI翻译）