|
烏海翻譯公司關(guān)鍵字：Another example, on Marxist political economy in the use value of goods and the scope. In the Marxist "political economy" part of capitalism, commodity is a "starting point" nature of the category. In "Das Kapital", it is as a "capitalist mode of production in the dominant social wealth" (in German Der Reichtum der Gesellschaften, in welchen kapitalistische Produktionsweise herrscht) form of expression to look for. In this sense, the "commodity" (German der Ware) actually contains all the "for sale items." However, many of China's "political economics textbooks," the former Soviet Union has continued to follow the "textbook of political economy" in the statement, to "define" is "used to exchange the products of labor." This on the one hand the exclusion of those "goods are not the products of labor", on the other hand confused with the "exchange" and "sell" (in the currency as a medium). Finally, put some with "direct barter" or "direct exchange of products," the nature of the product (or "semi goods") confused with the "commodity" was. As for the "use value", Marx's "Das Kapital" is clearly said: "the usefulness of the material as use value. ... Thus, the commodity body itself (in German der Warenk?rpers selbst, English a commodity), such as iron , wheat, diamonds, etc., is the (German ist, English is) use value, or property. "(emphasis added who is cited). However, some of our "political economics textbooks", have so far insisted that "the usefulness of" the so-called "commodity to meet the people some kind of property" as "use value." Which in fact is the Marx called "use value" confused "utility" of the. How can better and bourgeois economics "utility theory of value" to compete it?
Again, the so-called "law of growth of production priorities." In fact, as Lenin said, from Marx's "Das Kapital" and "formula", is "simply was not" "means of production priority growth" conclusions. To Lenin and the "populist" and "legal Marxists' debate, the use of his own" digital formula ", pointed out the existence of the capitalist conditions of such a" may "and" inherent contradictions. " But he is definitely opposed to say this is a "universal law" and to attempt such criticism as "nonsense." But Stalin, Khrushchev and the Soviet "political economics textbooks", treat it as "the basic principles of Marxism" and "the realization of communism unshakable basic general line." Mao Zedong from the practice, and by means of dialectics, cleverly resisted and criticized this one-sided theory, but not from the perspective of political economy itself to be completely negative. In fact, this so-called great men have their own limitations. The majority of our "political economics textbooks", has so far remained up only those in the thesis of Comrade Mao Zedong on. Is this how to adapt to economic prosperity and development of Marxist theory demands it?
Finally, on the "property", "system" and "ownership" and "ownership" and so on. Marxist economics (especially the "Capital") mentioned in the "capitalist system" (in German das kapitalistische System), in fact, refers to the "capitalist economy" or "capitalist economic system", that is, capitalist economic movement, economic relations or the economic base of the "general." Marxist economics called "ownership" (in German das Eigentum, English property), also referred to the reality of economic relations. They all belong to the scope of the economic base. Western economics in the word "system" (in English institution, rather than the system) and "property rights" (in English property rights, rather than property), is a matter superstructure. The latter, with Marx's criticism of Proudhon's words, is the reality of these economic relations into a
|