同中国经济学界这些年来所出现的被刘国光先生批评为“马克思主义严重边缘化”的现象形成对照，西方学界则出现了“重回马克思”的状况。众所周知，东欧剧变、苏联解体后的一段时期，“马克思主义过时”论在西方世界甚嚣尘上，以至有人作出“历史终结”的判断。而自2008年美国次贷危机爆发以来，六七年间，西方许多国家先后陷入空前严重的经济危机之中。“大萧条”成为西方世界的普遍景象。这使不少西方学者在危机中“重新发现”了马克思，认为现在应当学习马克思，运用马克思的方法去剖析现实中所发生危机的原因并谋划应对之策。他们充分强调马克思主义理论在现今的时代性、现实性和实践性，并一再强调：“马克思还活着”，“是我们当中的一员”，“仍是我们的同时代人”。众多学者不同程度地认识到“马克思的全部思想都仍然有生命力”，“依然是当今世界的真理”；马克思的方法“已经成为我们时代的方法”，“可以增进对资本主义运作方式的理解，它能消除自我蒙昧，并助力政治实践”。正如德国哲学家汉斯·梅因茨·雷尔茨在2008年5月7日的德国《青年世界报》载文所说：“马克思还活着，因为他的理论今天依旧适用，其思想对我们的鼓舞并未停顿。马克思是我们当中的一员，为我们照亮了当代社会，指明了未来的道路。”亦如美国进步行动基金中心研究员马特·伊格雷斯亚在美国《外交政策》2009年5月号所发表的《这才是一个回到马克思的时代》文中所说：“这是一个向马克思的意识形态学习的时代，没有其他的时代能与之相比。”本来，很长一段时间以来，我一直在思考一个问题，就是我们早已处于21世纪，社会生产、生活实践方式以及在这实践中产生发展起来的时代问题等都已发生了很大变化，产生于近一个半世纪前的马克思主义是否还有其价值意义？我们今天是否还需以马克思主义的科学方法和基本原理来分析研究当下社会，或者仅仅是把马克思主义作为思想史研究的对象？而西方学术界近几年出现的上述“重回马克思”的现象，在一定程度上解决了我所思考着的这个问题。毫无疑问，我们今天仍须坚持以马克思主义的科学方法和基本原理来分析研究当下社会，而要坚持马克思主义基本方法和基本原理，就须首先花气力对马克思主义的经典著作进行深入研析。马克思主义著作浩繁，而最具经典意义的，无疑是被列宁称之为“工人阶级圣经”的《资本论》。《资本论》是具有划时代意义的经济学经典，同时又是运用唯物辩证法的活的教科书，并且为科学社会主义提供了理论基础。学习《资本论》当然具有极为重要的意义，但这部巨著又是很不易读懂的。刘伟博士好学善思，不畏艰难地反复研读《资本论》，又由研读《资本论》而阅读了大量西方哲学、经济学名著，又对当下社会经济等方面情况进行深入研究，终于写成这部近三十万言的《论科学的经济学》。这是部很值得推荐的好书。在这部书的写作过程中，刘伟博士每写成一章即发给我征求意见，所以我成了这部书的第一读者。全书撰写修改完毕，他又诚邀我作序，虽然我非经济学研究者，但还是很乐意谈点我的读后感。刘伟博士这部新著给我的首要感受，是其透过对《资本论》原典的深入研读，彰显了马克思的方法论。在该书“导论”中，他揭示马克思所叙述的历史运动的规律不是抽象的规律，而是矛盾从简单到复杂的发展过程，思维把握矛盾运动过程的方法则是叙述概念从抽象上升到具体的过程。概念是对矛盾的描述，矛盾运动的过程在思维中反映为概念从抽象上升到具体的运动。恩格斯后来将此方法总结为“逻辑与历史相统一”。这是符合马克思方法论实际的。“导论”又对“经济学与社会历史科学的关系”进行了专门讨论，提出了一些很有意义的观点，如谓：在历史唯物主义的视野中，哲学通过理论思维对现实的历史活动进行理论的描述和概括，而经济学则在现实之中考察现实活动的最基本的关系。二者之间是反映与被反映的关系，并且哲学对经济学的反映具有能动性。没有经济学对现实的研究，哲学就成为无的之矢。没有哲学的前提性批判，经济学扎根于现实而囿于有限的现实，难以从现实性中发现必然性，必因缺乏方法论的自我批判使研究成为无矢之的。哲学与经济学的关系体现为在社会历史研究中“矢”与“的”的关系：二者的共同对象是社会的现实，因为经济学以现实研究为己任，因而它更接近于“的”；二者的共同目的是要在社会现实中发现、揭示历史的必然，因为哲学是辩证的、批判的方法的总汇，因而它更接近于“矢”。更进一步来讲，哲学见长于理论思维，集中体现出人类思维活动的精华；经济学见长于实践活动，突出地表现出人类实践活动的基本关系；而人的理论活动与实践活动向来不能分割，人向来是在知与行的矛盾中遵循知行合一的方向改变着世界。因此，哲学研究与经济学研究只有达到合一的状态，才能完整地描述人类活动的基本面貌。以哲学排斥经济学，或以经济学排斥哲学，依思辨轻视实践，或依经验忽视反思，从而造成哲学与经济学之间的互相歧视、互相分裂，最后的结果只能是对人类活动进行盲人摸象般的揣测和争论。在社会历史科学的内部，哲学与经济学的关系是其中最基本的关系或者说是最基本的矛盾。这一矛盾折射出人类在社会历史活动中思维与存在、主体与客体、理论与实践等深层次矛盾。对哲学与经济学合一性的认识，要上升到思维与存在相统一、主体与客体相统一、理论与实践相统一的高度。因而，对于历史科学“人对历史必然性的主观认识究竟是否符合客观的历史存在”这一命题的探索，现在已内化为“哲学与经济学的合一性如何实现”这一理论问题。此说颇契吾心。尽管学科自有分野，但学者不能自囿其思，而要能有所会通，哲学与经济学有机结合，即理论与现实的有机统一性，并以此探索“人对历史必然性的主观认识究竟是否符合客观的历史存在”这一问题的答案，由此而进入到历史科学领域。这是马克思曾作过成功实践的极富科学价值的方法论。这种科学方法论曾经深刻地影响过我国老一辈著名历史学家、思想家侯外庐先生。侯先生曾在回忆录《韧的追求》中自述其“为译读《资本论》下十年苦功夫，由此而奠定的对马克思主义的信仰，是一种对科学的信仰；由此所把握的方法论，则是科学的方法论。它无论是对我的政治观点和学术观点，都产生了深刻的影响，使我得益匪浅。早在北平、山西的那些年里，我已经深入史学境地，当发现，《资本论》使我如有利刃在手，自信敢于决疑，我曾是何等的喜悦”。又说：“马克思说的‘在科学的入口处，正像在地狱的入口处一样’这句名言，从翻译《资本论》开始，真正使我领悟到它的深刻含义，故而终生服膺。”他对于中国历史的大胆探索，以及开辟出马克思主义中国思想史学，绝非仅仅依靠“敢于入地狱”的理论勇气，其所凭借的更是马克思《资本论》体现的科学方法论。我们今天效法前贤，无疑应立足于当下现实实践，切实体会、把握马克思《资本论》的科学方法论，深入分析古今中外，创新性地形成发展出中国的哲学学派、中国的经济学派、中国的历史学派、中国的思想文化学派……刘伟博士是位目光敏锐、关注现实的青年才俊。他在南开大学做哲学博士论文期间，恰逢欧美世界金融危机爆发。他即敏锐地注意到此，并在后来出版的博士论文中对之作了专节论析。这几年，他追踪西方由金融危机引发的全面而又愈益深刻的“大萧条”式的经济危机，深入研究，并在这本书中运用马克思的科学方法论进行专门论析，提出了一系列不同时俗的自得之见。如其基于《资本论》的经济危机理论，联系当今实际，判定当前金融、经济危机之根源，在于资本主义生产关系与交换关系的矛盾。又说：“2008年以来的世界经济危机显示出资本主义全球化中经济危机的新特点。本次危机已经历次贷危机、金融危机和经济危机三个阶段，危机波及全球，广泛而深刻地改变着世界的经济、政治格局。在本次危机中，土地私有权、生息资本的结合与矛盾达到历史空前的程度，而虚拟经济和现实经济的矛盾亦达到历史空前的强度。而以上的矛盾是在资本主义全球化高速发展的背景下发展起来的，本次危机也可以说是当代资本主义全球化总体矛盾的集中显示：它揭开了笼罩在全球产业等级体系面貌上的面纱，也显露出全球资本组织的有机结构。本次危机是上一轮资本主义全球化的总结，又是下一轮世界经济全球化的开启。”他的这些运用马克思主义的方法论及相关原理而得出的观点，不仅符合实际，而且与前述西方学界近年“重回马克思”潮流相合，很值得正在全面深化改革的中国各界人士深体其义。最后，我想再谈一点，就是如刘伟博士在本书中所说：历史唯物主义是马克思哲学革命的理论成果。在马克思学习、批判旧哲学的过程中，他牢牢地把握住“自由”和“辩证法”两条线索。自由是哲学的永恒主题，更是资本主义社会以来社会解放的精神旗帜。可以说，近代以来的哲学所从事的工作正是为自由而作论证。马克思当仁不让地继承了这一传统，但他与众不同的地方在于，他的立场扎根于贫苦大众之中，他在哲学的世界化与世界的哲学化、批判的武器与武器的批判的矛盾中，正确地把握到理论决定于实践这一真理。所以，马克思对自由的认识须臾不曾离开对现实中的不自由——异化的批判，他以扬弃异化的历史必然来检验以往一切哲学自由论，揭露出旧哲学因思想的异化而不能发现异化的根源和实现自由的历史必然，他在实践哲学的基础上重建新的自由论——共产主义，完成了对旧哲学自由论的批判。马克思之所以是马克思，最关键的就在于“他的立场扎根于贫苦大众之中”。刘伟博士由对马克思此一精神立场的深刻体认而在“自序”中提出“经济学与劳动者的关系，是经济学学习和研究中大根大本的问题”。这是个十分重要并亟待解决的大问题。他说：时至今日，在经济学充分“专业化”之后，非经济学家已经成为局外人，“非专业”者挑战“专业”者将沦为理论的非法闯入者。在广大的劳动群众面前，“专业化”成为经济学外围的铁网，任何企图穿越此网的探险者都将被拒以千里之外。但是，无论经济学“专业化”的铁网阵如何骇人，自有打破和穿越它的“钩镰枪”和“圈金甲”。任何经济学理论和方法都必须接受劳动者作为经济活动的主体对它进行检验和评判，劳动者起而检验和评判经济学，这是经济学中的革命，而革命的发生则是经济学发展的历史必然。事实上，只要我们深入到经济思想史中，我们就会发现，经济学革命的萌芽已经在经济理论批判与自我批判的历史中生发着。其实，岂是仅仅表现在经济学界，整个思想文化界无不如此。艾思奇同志曾经指出：“哲学的主要任务是要能够真正解决人类生活上事实上的问题，要能真正解决这些问题，才足以证明它是事实上的真理。我们说哲学是人类对于事物的根本认识和根本态度，其意义也就在此，哲学不能单只是说得好听的东西，还要能指导我们做事。”（艾思奇：《艾思奇文集》第1卷，人民出版社1983年版，第139—140页。）他的《大众哲学》就是使哲学由哲学家书斋里的抽象玄思回归现实社会生活，尤其以通俗易懂、深入浅出的语言将马克思主义哲学大众化、普及化的典范之作。这部书在中国现代史上曾对几代人，尤其是普通劳动民众产生过重大影响，有人曾将这种影响力称为胜过雄师百万。确实，理论，尤其是科学理论，一经为民众所掌握，就一定能产生意想不到的巨大作用。而艾思奇同志所以能做到这一点，最重要的原因就在于他深深扎根于劳动民众立场上而解决了哲学特别是马克思主义哲学同劳动人民的关系问题。正确解决好思想文化同普通劳动者的关系，确乎是关乎大根大本的问题。譬如，自20世纪20年代梁漱溟等力倡以来，经过三四代人薪火相传的不懈努力，现代新儒学蔚然成潮，在学术和思想理论上、在不断推进中国哲学和中国思想文化传统的近现代化上作出重要贡献。但另一方面，从现实层面看，现代新儒学对现实社会生活作用很小，对作为现实社会生产生活实践之主体的普通劳动民众影响甚微。究其原因，大约在于现代新儒家未能正确解决儒学同普通劳动者的关系问题，他们总是将自己视为高踞于人民之上的精英。这就使得现代新儒学始终难以走出书斋深入社会，在民众中产生广泛影响。近年，在学术文化界和现实社会生活不同层面上都形成了一浪高于一浪的以儒学为核心的“国学热”，这自然是很可喜的现象。但要使这种现象可持续性地发展下去，须将学术文化界和现实社会生活这两个不同层面的“国学热”合流，须切实解决好作为中国思想文化传统之核心的儒学与当代中国社会生产生活实践之主体的普通劳动者的关系问题，并在此基础上实现儒学传统的现代转化，创新性地发展起现代平民儒学。唯有如此，才能实现儒学以及以儒学为核心的中国思想文化的复兴。亦唯有这样复兴起来的儒学以及以儒学为核心的中国思想文化，才能为当代中国社会主义核心价值提供坚实的民族文化土壤。这段话虽已越出本书所论科学的经济学的主旨，却是我由读这本书而引发出的感想。拉杂写来，就教方家。是为序。陈寒鸣2014年9月21日于津寓

In contrast to the phenomenon in Chinese economics circles that has been criticized by Mr. Liu Guoguang as "seriously marginalized by Marxism" over the years, Western academic circles have "returned to Marx". As everyone knows, in the period after the drastic changes in Eastern Europe and the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the theory of "Marxism being outdated" was so popular in the Western world that some people made a judgment on the "end of history." Since the outbreak of the subprime mortgage crisis in the United States in 2008, many Western countries have fallen into unprecedented economic crises in the past six or seven years. The Great Depression became a common sight in the Western world. This has led many Western scholars to "rediscover" Marx in the crisis, believing that it is time to learn from Marx and use Marx's methods to analyze the causes of the crisis in reality and plan countermeasures. They fully emphasized the modernity, reality, and practice of Marxist theory in the present day, and repeatedly stressed: "Marx is still alive," "one of us," and "still our contemporary." Many scholars have realized to varying degrees that "all of Marx's ideas are still alive" and "still the truth of today's world"; Marx's methods "have become the methods of our time" and "can improve the understanding of how capitalism works, it can eliminate self-obscurantism and help political practice." As the German philosopher Hans Meinz Reerz wrote in the German newspaper Youth World on May 7, 2008: "Marx is alive because his theories are still relevant today, and his ideas have not stopped inspiring us." Marx is one of us, illuminating our contemporary society and showing us the way forward. As Matt Igresya, a researcher at the Center for Progressive Action in the United States, said in the May 2009 issue of Foreign Policy, "This is a Time Back to Marx": "This is an era of learning from Marx's ideology, and no other era can compare with it." "Originally, for a long time, I have been thinking about a question, that is, we are already in the 21st century, social production, the way of life practice, and the problems of the times that have emerged and developed in this practice have undergone great changes, and whether Marxism, which was born nearly a century and a half ago, still has its value? Do we still need to use the scientific methods and basic principles of Marxism today to analyze and study the current society, or do we just take Marxism as the object of intellectual history research? The above-mentioned phenomenon of "returning to Marx" in Western academia in recent years has solved the problem I am thinking about to a certain extent. There is no doubt that today we must still persist in analyzing and studying the current society with the scientific methods and basic principles of Marxism, and in order to adhere to the basic methods and basic principles of Marxism, we must first devote efforts to in-depth study and analysis of the classic works of Marxism. Marxist writings are voluminous, but the most classic is undoubtedly Das Kapital, which Lenin called the "Bible of the working class." Capital is an epoch-making economic classic, a living textbook using materialist dialectics, and provides a theoretical basis for scientific socialism. Of course, studying Capital is of great significance, but this magnum opus is very difficult to read. Dr. Liu Wei was studious and thoughtful, and he repeatedly studied Capital despite difficulties, read a large number of Western philosophical and economic masterpieces from studying Capital, and conducted in-depth research on the current social and economic situation, and finally wrote this "On the Economics of Science" with nearly 300,000 words. This is a good book to recommend. During the writing of this book, Dr. Liu Wei sent me every chapter he wrote for advice, so I became the first reader of this book. After the book was written and revised, he invited me to write the foreword, and although I am not an economics researcher, I am still happy to talk about my feelings after reading. The first impression I have about Dr. Liu Wei's new book is that it highlights Marx's methodology through an in-depth study of the original canon of Capital. In the "Introduction" of the book, he reveals that the law of historical movement described by Marx is not an abstract law, but the development process of contradiction from simple to complex, and the way for thinking to grasp the process of contradiction movement is to describe the process of rising concept from abstract to concrete. Concept is the description of contradiction, and the process of contradictory movement is reflected in thinking as the movement of concepts from abstraction to concreteness. Engels later summarized this method as "logic and history unify". This is in line with the reality of Marx's methodology. The "Introduction" also discusses the "relationship between economics and social historical science" and puts forward some very meaningful views, such as: in the perspective of historical materialism, philosophy describes and summarizes the actual historical activities through theoretical thinking, while economics examines the most basic relationship between real activities in reality. The relationship between the two is the relationship between reflecting and being reflected, and philosophy has the agency to reflect economics. Without the study of reality in economics, philosophy becomes the target of nothingness. Without the premise criticism of philosophy, economics is rooted in reality and confined to limited reality, and it is difficult to find inevitability from reality, and research must be made useless due to the lack of methodological self-criticism. The relationship between philosophy and economics is embodied in the relationship between "ya" and "of" in the study of social history: the common object of the two is the reality of society, because economics takes the study of reality as its own responsibility, so it is closer to "of"; The common purpose of the two is to discover and reveal historical inevitability in social reality, because philosophy is a collection of dialectical and critical methods, so it is closer to "target". Furthermore, philosophy is better than theoretical thinking, and concentrates on the essence of human thinking activities; Economics is good at practical activities, and prominently shows the basic relationship between human practical activities; People's theoretical activities and practical activities have always been inseparable, and people have always changed the world by following the direction of the unity of knowledge and action in the contradiction between knowledge and action. Therefore, only when philosophical research and economic research reach a state of unity can they fully describe the basic picture of human activities. Philosophy rejects economics, or economics rejects philosophy, speculation despises practice, or ignores reflection based on experience, resulting in mutual discrimination and division between philosophy and economics, and the final result can only be blind speculation and debate on human activities. Within the socio-historical sciences, the relationship between philosophy and economics is the most basic relationship or contradiction. This contradiction reflects the deep-seated contradictions between human thinking and existence, subject and object, theory and practice in social and historical activities. The understanding of the unity of philosophy and economics should rise to the height of unity between thinking and existence, unity of subject and object, and unity of theory and practice. Therefore, the exploration of the proposition of historical science "whether people's subjective understanding of historical inevitability is in line with objective historical existence" has now been internalized into the theoretical question of "how to realize the unity of philosophy and economics". That's a good statement. Although the discipline has its own division, scholars cannot be self-conscious, but must be able to understand, philosophy and economics organically combined, that is, the organic unity of theory and reality, and explore the answer to the question of "whether people's subjective understanding of historical inevitability is in line with objective historical existence", and thus enter the field of historical science. This is a methodology of great scientific value that Marx has successfully practiced. This kind of scientific methodology has profoundly influenced Mr. Hou Wailu, a famous historian and thinker of the older generation in China. Mr. Hou once described himself in his memoir "The Pursuit of Tenacity" that "the belief in Marxism laid down by the hard work of translating Capital for the next ten years is a kind of belief in science; The methodology grasped in this way is a scientific methodology. It has had a profound impact on my political and academic views, and I have benefited a lot. As early as those years in Peiping and Shanxi, I had gone deep into the realm of historiography, and when I found that Capital made me feel like a blade in my hand, confident and daring to make a decision, how joyful I was." He also said: "Marx's famous saying that 'at the entrance of science is like at the entrance to hell,' began with the translation of Das Kapital, which really made me understand its profound meaning, so I obeyed it for the rest of my life." His bold exploration of Chinese history and the development of Marxist Chinese intellectual historiography did not rely solely on the theoretical courage of "daring to go to hell", but also on the scientific methodology embodied in Marx's Capital. Today, following the example of our predecessors, we should undoubtedly base ourselves on the current practical practice, earnestly understand and grasp the scientific methodology of Marx's "Capital", deeply analyze ancient and modern, Chinese and foreign, and innovatively form and develop the Chinese philosophical school, Chinese economic school, Chinese historical school, and Chinese ideological and cultural school... Dr. Liu Wei is a young talent with keen eyes and attention to reality. During his doctoral thesis at Nankai University, he coincided with the outbreak of the European and American world financial crises. He was keenly aware of this and devoted a section to it in his later doctoral dissertation. In recent years, he has traced the comprehensive and increasingly profound "Great Depression" economic crisis in the West caused by the financial crisis, conducted in-depth research, and used Marx's scientific methodology in this book to make special analysis, and put forward a series of self-satisfied views that are different from the times. For example, based on the economic crisis theory of "Capital", it is judged that the root cause of the current financial and economic crisis lies in the contradiction between capitalist production relations and exchange relations in light of today's reality. He added: "The world economic crisis since 2008 has shown the new characteristics of the economic crisis in capitalist globalization. The crisis has gone through three stages: subprime mortgage crisis, financial crisis and economic crisis, and the crisis has affected the whole world, extensively and profoundly changing the economic and political pattern of the world. In this crisis, the combination and contradiction of private land ownership and interest-bearing capital have reached an unprecedented level in history, and the contradiction between the virtual economy and the real economy has also reached an unprecedented intensity in history. The above contradictions have developed in the context of the rapid development of capitalist globalization, and this crisis can also be said to be a concentrated display of the overall contradictions of contemporary capitalist globalization: it has unveiled the veil shrouded in the global industrial hierarchy and also revealed the organic structure of the global capital organization. This crisis is the summary of the previous round of capitalist globalization and the beginning of the next round of world economic globalization. His views on the use of Marxist methodology and related principles are not only in line with reality, but also in line with the aforementioned trend of "returning to Marx" in Western academic circles in recent years, and are worthy of deep appreciation by people from all walks of life in China who are comprehensively deepening reform. Finally, I would like to talk about one more point, that is, as Dr. Liu Wei said in this book: historical materialism is the theoretical achievement of Marx's philosophical revolution. In the process of Marx's study and criticism of old philosophy, he firmly grasped the two clues of "freedom" and "dialectic". Freedom is the eternal theme of philosophy, and it is also the spiritual banner of social emancipation since capitalist society. It can be said that the work of philosophy in modern times is precisely to make arguments for freedom. Marx undeservedly inherited this tradition, but what made him different was that his position was rooted in the poor masses, and he correctly grasped the truth that theory is determined by practice in the contradiction between the cosmopolitanization of philosophy and the philosophization of the world, and between the weapon of criticism and the criticism of weapons. Therefore, Marx's understanding of freedom has never left the criticism of the unfreedom - alienation in reality, he tests all previous philosophical freedom theories with the historical necessity of abandoning alienation, exposes the old philosophy due to the alienation of ideas and cannot find the source of alienation and the historical necessity of realizing freedom, he reconstructs a new theory of freedom - communism on the basis of practical philosophy, and completes the criticism of the old philosophical theory of freedom. The most important reason why Marx is Marx is that "his position is rooted in the poor masses." Dr. Liu Wei, from his profound understanding of Marx's spiritual position, proposed in the "Self-Order" that "the relationship between economics and workers is a fundamental problem in the study and research of economics". This is a big issue that needs to be addressed urgently. He said: Today, after the full "specialization" of economics, non-economists have become outsiders, and those who challenge "professional" will become illegal intruders of theory. In front of the broad masses of the working masses, "specialization" has become an iron net on the periphery of economics, and any explorer who tries to cross this network will be kept away. However, no matter how terrifying the iron network array of "specialization" in economics is, it has its own "hook and sickle" and "circle gold armor" that breaks and crosses it. Any economic theory and method must accept laborers as the main body of economic activities to test and judge it, and laborers test and judge economics, which is a revolution in economics, and the occurrence of revolution is a historical necessity of economic development. In fact, if we delve into the history of economic thought, we will find that the germ of the economic revolution has been born in the history of economic theory criticism and self-criticism. In fact, this is not only the case in the field of economics, but also in the entire ideological and cultural circle. Comrade Aischi once pointed out: "The main task of philosophy is to be able to truly solve the factual problems of human life, and only by being able to truly solve these problems can it be enough to prove that it is a de facto truth." We say that philosophy is the fundamental understanding and fundamental attitude of human beings to things, and its significance is here, philosophy can not only be a good thing, but also can guide us to do things. (Aischi: The Collected Works of Aischi, vol. 1, People's Publishing House, 1983, pp. 139-140.) His "Popular Philosophy" is a model for returning philosophy from the abstract mysteries of philosophers to real social life, especially popularizing and popularizing Marxist philosophy in easy-to-understand and simple language. The book has had a major impact on generations, especially ordinary working people, in modern Chinese history, and some have called this influence better than the millions. Indeed, theories, especially scientific theories, once mastered by the people, are bound to have an unexpected and enormous effect. The most important reason why Comrade Aischi was able to do this was that he was deeply rooted in the position of the working people and solved the problem of the relationship between philosophy, especially Marxist philosophy, and the working people. Correctly resolving the relationship between ideology and culture and ordinary laborers is indeed an issue that has a bearing on the root of the foundation. For example, since the initiative of Liang Shuming and others in the 20s of the 20th century, after three or four generations of unremitting efforts to pass on the torch, modern neo-Confucianism has become a wave, making important contributions to academic and ideological theory, and to the continuous modernization of Chinese philosophy and Chinese ideological and cultural traditions. On the other hand, from a practical point of view, modern neo-Confucianism has little effect on real social life, and has little impact on ordinary working people as the main body of production and life practice in real society. The reason for this is probably that modern neo-Confucianism has failed to properly address the relationship between Confucianism and ordinary workers, who have always seen themselves as elites above the people. This makes it difficult for modern neo-Confucianism to go out of the book fast and penetrate into society, exerting a wide influence among the people. In recent years, a wave of "Chinese Studies fever" with Confucianism as the core has formed at different levels in academic and cultural circles and real social life, which is naturally a very gratifying phenomenon. However, in order for this phenomenon to develop sustainably, it is necessary to merge the two different levels of "Chinese Studies fever" in academic and cultural circles and real social life, and effectively solve the problem of the relationship between Confucianism, which is the core of China's ideological and cultural tradition, and ordinary laborers, who are the main body of production and life practice in contemporary Chinese society, and realize the modern transformation of Confucian tradition on this basis, and innovatively develop modern civilian Confucianism. Only in this way can Confucianism and the revival of Chinese thought and culture with Confucianism as the core be realized. Only such a revived Confucianism and Chinese ideology and culture with Confucianism as the core can provide a solid national cultural soil for the core values of contemporary Chinese socialism. Although this passage goes beyond the main thrust of the scientific economics discussed in this book, it is my impression from reading this book. When Laza writes, he will teach the Fang family. is the order. Chen Hanming in Tianjin on September 21, 2014（AI翻译）