翻译：危机理论、利润率趋于下降规律和马克思1870年代的研究（一）

前言：前一段时间准备毕业论文时读了一些有意思的论文/著作，有些目前尚无中译文，在论文提交后打算抽空慢慢翻译/整理出来（我不想许愿！！）。Heinrich2013年在美国左派旗帜《每月评论》杂志（Monthly Review）的论文Crisis Theory, the Law of the Tendency of the Profit Rate to Fall, and Marx's Studies in the 1870s. 此文与其说是政治经济学，不如说是经济思想史，正如谢富胜老师所说，“一时间，问题似乎已经不在于趋于利润率下降理论是否正确，而在于马克思到底是否打算坚持这个理论本身。” （参见《马克思放弃利润率趋于下降理论了吗 ———ＭＥＧＡ２ Ⅱ出版后引发的新争论》谢富胜，汪家腾，2014）。这篇文章一些术语稍显晦涩，又很长，不知要多久译完。为便于理解，意译为主，译者基础薄弱，一切错讹由本人负责。欢迎批评指正。如果有侵犯到《每月评论》版权，请赶紧通知本人提前删库跑路。

Crisis Theory, the Law of the Tendency of the Profit Rate to Fall, and Marx’s Studies in the 1870s危机理论、利润率趋于下降规律和马克思1870年代的研究

by Michael Heinrich 迈克尔-海因里希 (Apr 01, 2013) (2013年4月1日)

Topics: Economic Theory , Marxism , Political Economy , Stagnation

关键词：经济理论 马克思主义 政治经济学 停滞

Michael Heinrich teaches economics in Berlin and is the author of An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx’s Capital (Monthly Review Press, 2012) and The Science of Value: Marx’s Critique of Political Economy Between Scientific Revolution and Classical Tradition (Brill, translation forthcoming in 2014). This is an abridgment of an article which will appear in Marx and Crises of Capitalism: Interpretations and Interventions, Marcello Musto, ed. (Palgrave Macmillan, forthcoming in 2014). It is translated from the German by Alex Locascio.

迈克尔-海因里希在柏林讲授经济学，著有《卡尔·马克思<资本论>三卷导读》（每月书评出版社，2012年）和《价值的科学: 马克思在科学革命和古典传统夹缝中对政治经济学的批判》（Brill出版社，将于2014年出版英译本）。这是一篇文章的节选，该文出自《马克思与资本主义危机：阐释与介入》一书，该书由马塞洛-穆斯托主编。(Palgrave Macmillan出版社，将于2014年出版)。本文由Alex Locascio译自德文。

The development of crisis theory within the Marxian tradition has been central to much of our work in the last several years. The view that the various fragmentary references to crisis theory in the three volumes of Capital constitute a fully developed coherent structure, which only requires diligent exegesis, is a view that has never seemed sensible to us.

编者按：在马克思传统中，危机理论的发展是我们这几年关注的重点。我们从不认为，三卷《资本论》中对危机理论的各种零散的提法有一个完全连贯的结构，因此我们只需对这本圣书不断加上笺注罢了。

Recent research into the evolution of Marx’s manuscripts in connection with the production of the Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA), the historical-critical edition of the complete writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, has confirmed our understanding in a very exciting way. It is now clear that Marx never ceased to develop his thinking on the phenomena of crises in capitalism, and never ceased to discard earlier formulations; for example, at the end of his life he was focused on questions of credit and crisis. Monthly Review rarely presents its readers with discussions of economic theory at a relatively high degree of abstraction; this, however, is such an occasion. We trust that the author’s exemplary clarity will permit ready access to readers with any degree of interest in Marx’s theory; for those who wish to become familiar with the conceptual outline of Marx’s work, we cannot do better than to recommend the author’s An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx’s Capital (Monthly Review Press, 2012). —The Editors

近来对马克思手稿如何演进的研究，结合《马恩全集历史考证版》(MEGA)，令人振奋地证实了我们的理解。现在真相大白：马克思一直在深化对资本主义危机现象的思考，也一直在扬弃早期的表述；比如临终前他关注的是信用和危机问题。 相对而言，《每月评论》很少刊登较抽象的经济理论；但是这篇文章是一个契机。我们相信，作者说得非常清楚，任何对马克思理论或多或少有兴趣的读者都能读懂；对于那些希望了解马克思的概念框架的读者，我们强烈推荐作者的《卡尔·马克思<资本论>三卷导读》（每月书评出版社，2012）。

In Marx’s work, no final presentation of his theory of crisis can be found. Instead, there are various approaches to explain crises. In the twentieth century, the starting point for Marxist debates on crisis theory was the third volume of Capital, the manuscript of which was written in 1864–1865. Later, attention was directed towards the theoretical considerations on crisis in the Theories of Surplus-Value, written in the period between 1861 and 1863. Finally, the Grundrisse of 1857–1858 also came into view, which today plays a central role in the understanding of Marx’s crisis theory for numerous authors. Thus, starting with Capital, the debate gradually shifted its attention to earlier texts. With the Marx Engels Gesamtausgabe (MEGA), all of the economic texts written by Marx between the late 1860s and the late 1870s are now available. Along with his letters, these texts allow for an insight into the development of Marx’s theoretical considerations on crisis after 1865.

马克思的著作中没有他对危机理论的结论性表述。相反，有各种危机的解释路径。在20世纪，马克思主义关于危机理论争论的起点是《资本论》第三卷，其手稿写于1864-1865年。后来，关注点转移至《剩余价值理论》（1861-1863年写成）中关于危机的理论思考。最后，1857-1858年的《大纲》也进入了人们的视野，在今天，它在许多学者对马克思的危机理论的理解中起到了核心作用。于是，从《资本论》开始，争论的焦点逐渐转移到了稍早的文本上。随着《马恩全集历史考证版》(MEGA)的出版，马克思在19世纪60年代末至19世纪70年代末所写的所有经济文本都已面世。这些文本与他的信件一起，有助于我们深入了解1865年后马克思关于危机的理论考虑的发展。

Hope, Experience, and the Changing Analytical Framework of Marx’s Theory

希望、经验与马克思不断变化的理论分析框架

In the first half of the nineteenth century, it became clear that periodic economic crises were an inevitable component of modern capitalism. In the Communist Manifesto, they were regarded as a threat to the economic existence of bourgeois society. Crises first took on a special political meaning for Marx in 1850 when he attempted a closer analysis of the failed revolutions of 1848–1849. He now regarded the crisis of 1847–1848 as the decisive process which led to revolution, from which he drew the conclusion: “A new revolution is possible only in consequence of a new crisis. It is, however, just as certain as this crisis.”【注释1：Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Collected Works (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1975), vol. 10, 135 (henceforth MECW).】

在19世纪上半叶，人们清楚地认识到，周期性经济危机是现代资本主义必然的一部分。在《共产党宣言》中，危机被认为是对资产阶级社会的经济存在的威胁。当马克思在1850年更仔细地分析1848-1849年失败的革命时，他第一次发现危机有特殊的政治意义。现在他认为1847-1848年的危机是导致革命的决定性过程，并从中得出结论："一场新的革命只有在新的危机下才有可能发生。但是它和这场危机一样必然发生。 "

In the following years, Marx eagerly awaited a new deep crisis. It finally came in 1857–1858: all capitalist centers experienced a crisis. Whereas Marx acutely observed the crisis and analyzed it in numerous articles for the New York Tribune, he also attempted to work out his critique of political economy, which he had planned for years.【注释2：These observations can be found in his Book on Crisis, a collection of materials about the crisis ordered according to countries. The Book on Crisis will be published in Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Gesamtausgabe (MEGA) (Berlin: Dietz-Verlag, later Akademie-Verlag, 1975), II/14 (henceforth MEGA; the MEGA is divided in four sections: the Roman number stands for the section, and the Arabic number for the volume in this section.)】 The result was the untitled manuscript which is known today as the Grundrisse.

接下来几年马克思热切地等待着新的深层危机的到来。当它终于在1857-1858年到来时，所有资本主义中心都经历了一场危机。马克思敏锐地观察到了这场危机，并在《纽约论坛报》上发表了许多文章进行分析，同时，他还想写完他计划多年的政治经济学批判。这份未命名的手稿就是今天的《大纲》。

In the Grundrisse, the theory of crisis bears the stamp of the expected “deluge” that Marx wrote about in his letters.【注释3：See Marx to Engels, Dec 8, 1857, MECW, vol. 40, 217.】 In an early draft for the structure of the manuscript, crises come at the end of the presentation, after capital, the world market, and the state, where Marx fashions a direct connection to the end of capitalism: “Crises. Dissolution of the mode of production and form of society based upon exchange value.”【注释4：MECW, vol. 28, 195.】

在《大纲》中，正如马克思在信中所预告的那样，危机理论是资本主义的末日洪水。在早期草稿中，危机出现在资本、世界市场和国家之后，马克思在这里直接把危机与资本主义末日联系起来："危机。以交换价值为基础的生产方式和社会形式的解体 "。

In the so-called “Fragment on Machines,” one finds an outline of a theory of capitalist collapse. With the increasing application of science and technology in the capitalist production process, “the immediate labour performed by man himself” is no longer important, but rather “the appropriation of his own general productive power,” which leads Marx to a sweeping conclusion: “As soon as labour in its immediate form has ceased to be the great source of wealth, labour time ceases and must cease to be its measure, and therefore exchange value [must cease to be the measure] of use value. The surplus labour of the masses has ceased to be the condition for the development of general wealth, just as the non-labour of the few has ceased to be the condition for the development of the general powers of the human head. As a result, production based upon exchange value collapses.”【注释5：MECW, vol. 29, 91.】

在所谓的 "论机器片段 "中，可以发现资本主义崩溃理论的轮廓。随着科技在资本主义生产过程中的应用越来越多，"人本身所从事的直接劳动 "已不再重要，更重要的是 "人对自己的一般生产力的占有"，这使马克思得出了如下结论。"只要直接形式的劳动不再是财富的巨大源泉，劳动时间就不再是、也必然不再是它的尺度，因此交换价值[必然不再是使用价值的尺度]。群众的剩余劳动已经不再是一般财富发展的条件，正如少数人的非劳动已经不再是人类智力一般力量发展的条件一样。因此以交换价值为基础的生产就崩溃了 "。

These lines have often been quoted, but without regard for how insufficiently secure the categorical foundations of the Grundrisse are. The distinction between concrete and abstract labor, which Marx refers to in Capital as “crucial to an understanding of political economy,” is not at all present in the Grundrisse.【注释6：Karl Marx, Capital, vol. 1 (London: Penguin, 1976), 132.】And in Capital, “labor in the immediate form” is also not the source of wealth. The sources of material wealth are concrete, useful labor and nature. The social substance of wealth or value in capitalism is abstract labor, whereby it does not matter whether this abstract labor can be traced back to labor-power expended in the process of production, or to the transfer of value of used means of production. If abstract labor remains the substance of value, then it is not clear why labor time can no longer be its intrinsic measure, and it’s not clear why “production based on exchange value” should necessarily collapse. When, for example, Hardt and Negri argue that labor is no longer the measure of value, they do not really refer to the value theory of Capital but to the unclear statements of the Grundrisse.【注释7：Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Empire (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000).】

这句话常被人引用，但从没人想过《大纲》的这个断言有多不牢靠。马克思在《资本论》中提到对具体劳动和抽象劳动的区别 "对理解政治经济学至关重要"，但《大纲》中却根本没提。而且在《资本论》中，"直接形式的劳动 "也不是财富的来源。物质财富的来源是具体的、有用的劳动和自然。在资本主义中，财富或价值的社会实质是抽象劳动，而这种抽象劳动是否可以追溯到生产过程中所消耗的劳动力，或者说是否可以追溯到使用过的生产资料的价值转移，却并不重要。如果抽象劳动仍是价值的实质，那就没说清楚为什么劳动时间不能再成为它的内在尺度，也没说清楚为什么 "以交换价值为基础的生产 "必然要崩溃。举个例子，当哈特和内格里认为劳动不再是价值的尺度时，他们其实并不是指《资本论》的价值理论，而是指《大纲》的模糊表述。

Marx indirectly addresses this set of problems from the Grundrisse in the first volume of Capital, when dealing with the concept of relative surplus-value: there Marx makes fun of the notion that the determination of value by labor is called into question by the fact that in capitalist production, the point is to reduce the labor time required for the production of an individual commodity—and that was the argument upon which the theory of collapse in the Grundrisse was based. 【注释8：Marx, Capital, vol. 1, 437. A more detailed critique of Marx’s arguments in the machine fragment can be found in Michael Heinrich, “The Fragment on Machines: A Marxian Misconception in the Grundrisse and its Overcoming in Capital,” in Riccardo Bellofiore, Guido Starosta, and Peter D. Thomas, eds., In Marx’s Laboratory: Critical Interpretations of the Grundrisse (Leiden: Brill Academic Press, 2013).】

在《资本论》第一卷中，马克思在论述相对剩余价值的概念时，间接地论述了《大纲》中的这一系列问题：马克思当时讽刺了如下想法：资本主义生产的重点是减少生产单个商品所需的劳动时间，所以劳动价值论出了问题。而这个想法正是《大纲》中的资本主义崩溃理论的论据。

The crisis of 1857–1858 was over quickly. It did not lead, economically or politically, to the shaking up of conditions that Marx had hoped for: the capitalist economy emerged strengthened from the crisis, and revolutionary movements did not arise anywhere. This experience was integrated into Marx’s theoretical development: after 1857–1858, Marx no longer argued in terms of a theory of final economic collapse, and he no longer made out a direct connection between crisis and revolution.

1857-1858年的危机很快就结束了。无论在经济还是政治上，它都没有带来马克思渴望的摇摇欲坠：资本主义经济从危机中得到加强，哪里都没发生革命。这一经验融入了马克思的理论发展：1857-1858年后，马克思不再用经济最终崩溃的理论来论证，他也不再把危机和革命直接联系起来。

Marx’s hopes in the crisis were disappointed, but at least he had begun to formulate his critique of political economy. This project would grip him until the end of his life, and the theory of crisis would play an important role within it. Although Marx had in no way finished with the process of research, he made numerous attempts at an adequate presentation. Starting in 1857, three comprehensive economic manuscripts emerged: after the Grundrisse of 1857–1858, the Manuscript of 1861–1863 (which contains the Theories of Surplus-Value) and the Manuscript of 1863–1865 (which among other things contains the manuscript used by Engels as the foundation for his edition of the third volume of Capital). In the MEGA, where these manuscripts have been published in their entirety, they are referred to as “the three drafts of Capital.” This widely used description is problematic: it suggests a seamless continuity and conceals the shifts in the theoretical framework of Marx’s analysis.

在经济危机中，马克思的希望变成失望。但至少他已开始规划对政治经济学的批判。他对这个事业孜孜不倦直至生命最后一刻。而危机理论将在其中发挥重要作用。虽然马克思绝非完成了研究，但他尝试充分表述了许多种可能性。1857年开始，马克思陆续写成了三部综合性的经济学手稿：在1857-1858年的《大纲》，《1861-1863年经济学手稿》（其中包括《剩余价值理论》）和《1863-1865年经济学手稿》（其中包括恩格斯用来作为他的《资本论》第三卷版本基础的手稿）。在《马恩全集历史考证版》中，这些手稿已全部出版，它们被称为"《资本论》第三稿"。这个描述被广泛应用，但实际上是有问题的：它暗示了一种无缝的连续性，掩盖了马克思分析的理论框架的变化。

One result of the Grundrisse was the six-book plan announced in the preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (capital, landed property, wage-labor, the State, foreign trade, the world market).【注释9：MECW, vol. 29, 261.】 Fundamental for the first book is the distinction between “capital in general” and the “competition of many capitals”: everything that merely manifests at the level of appearance in competition was to be developed in the section on “capital in general,” abstracted however from any observation of individual capitals or a particular capital.【注释10：Cf. MECW, vol. 28, 236, 341; MECW, vol. 29, 114–15.】

《大纲》的成果之一是在《政治经济学批判》序言中宣布的六册计划（资本、土地所有制、雇佣劳动、国家、对外贸易、世界市场）。第一册书的关键是区分"资本 一般"和 "资本竞争 "：一切仅仅表现在竞争的表层上的东西，都要用 "资本一般 "发展，但要从任何对个别资本或特殊资本的观察中抽象出来。

In the Manuscript of 1861–1863, where Marx attempts to implement this concept, the theory of crisis is dealt with under new considerations. Crises are no longer an indication of the dissolution of the capitalist mode of production, but are rather the constant and completely normal accompaniment of this mode of production, which provide a “forcible adjustment of all the contradictions.” Correspondingly, the theory of crisis no longer constitutes the endpoint of the presentation. Rather, individual moments of crisis are to be dealt with at different levels of the presentation. Marx makes the programmatic declaration:

马克思在阐释此概念的《1861-1863年经济学手稿》中重新思考了危机理论。危机不再是资本主义生产方式解体的标志，而是这种生产方式的持续的、完全正常的现象，它提供了 "一切矛盾的强制调整"。相应地，危机理论不再是理论的终点。相反，个别的危机时刻有多层解释。马克思对此做了原则性的判断：

The world trade crises must be regarded as the real concentration and forcible adjustment of all the contradictions of bourgeois economy. The individual factors, which are condensed in these crises, must therefore emerge and must be described in each sphere of the bourgeois economy and the further we advance in our examination of the latter, the more aspects of this conflict must be traced on the one hand, and on the other hand it must be shown that its more abstract forms are recurring and are contained in the more concrete forms.【注释11：MECW, vol. 32, 140.】

必须把世界贸易危机看作是资产阶级经济一切矛盾的真正集中和强制调整。因此，凝结在这些危机中的各个因素，必然出现在资产阶级经济的每一个领域中，而且必须被加以说明。我们对后者的考察越深入，就越一方面必须追踪到这种矛盾的更多的方面，另一方面必须表明，其更抽象的形式反复以更具体的形式出现。

However, Marx had a problem determining which moments of crisis are to be developed at which level. He still had not found the proper structure of the presentation. In the course of his work on the Manuscript of 1861–1863, Marx had to accept two dramatic results: (1) the six-book plan was too comprehensive, he would not be able to carry it out completely. Marx announced that he would restrict himself to the book on “Capital,” eventually he intended to get around to writing the book on the state, but all the rest had to be done by others on the basis of the foundation that he would provide.【注释12：See his letter to Kugelmann, December 28, 1862, MECW, vol. 41, 435.】 (2) It would soon become clear, however, that the strict separation between “capital in general” and “competition” could no longer be maintained.【注释13：The double requirement posed by Marx with regard to “capital in general,” of presenting a specific content (everything that appears in competition) at a certain level of abstraction (abstracted from individual capitals and the particularities of capital) proved to be unfeasible. The presentation of the process of capitalist reproduction as a whole and the constitution of the social average rate of profit is not possible at this level of abstraction; the distinction between particular sectors of social production and the competition of individual capitals are required. However the process of capitalist reproduction as a whole and the average rate of profit have to be developed before interest-bearing capital can be presented, and the latter has to be presented before the real movement of competition can be dealt with (for a more extensive discussion of this point, see Michael Heinrich, Die Wissenschaft vom Wert. Die Marxsche Kritik der politischen Ökonomie zwischen wissenschaftlicher Revolution und klassischer Tradition [The Science of Value: Marx’s Critique of Political Economy Between Scientific Revolution and Classical Tradition], 5th edition (Münster: Westfälisches Dampfboot, 2011); an English translation will be published by Brill in 2014.】 For the book on capital that Marx now planned, the concept of “capital in general” no longer played a role. Whereas from 1857 to 1863 in the manuscripts as well as in Marx’s letters, Marx often referred to “capital in general” when discussing the structure of the planned work, this term no longer showed up anywhere after the summer of 1863.

然而，马克思在确定哪些危机时刻会发展到何种程度遇到了困难。他仍未找到合适的结构来表述。在写作《1861-1863年经济学手稿》的过程中，马克思不得不接受两个意想不到的结果。(1)六册计划太宏大了,他将无法完全完成。马克思宣布，他主要花时间写资本分册，写完后他打算国家分册，但其余的书都得由他人在他的基础上完成（2）然而，马克思很快就发现，无法再严格区分"资本一般 "和 "资本竞争 "。对于马克思现在计划的关于资本的书来说，"资本一般 "的概念已经没用了。从1857年到1863年，在手稿以及信件中，马克思在讨论计划中的著作的结构时，经常提到 "资本一般"，但1863年夏天以后，这个术语消失了。

So we are not dealing with three drafts for the final version of Capital, but rather with two different projects: the plan followed between 1857 and 1863 for a six-book Critique of Political Economy, and after 1863, the four-book work on Capital (three “theoretical” volumes and one on the history of theory). The Grundrisse and the Manuscript of 1861–1863 are the two drafts for the book on capital from the original six-book Critique of Political Economy, whereas the Manuscript of 1863–1865 is the first draft for the three theoretical volumes of the four-book Capital. If we consider the Manuscript of 1863–1865, then it becomes clear not only that the concept of “capital in general” is missing, but also that the structure of presentation does not anymore correspond to the opposition between capital in general and competition. Instead, a central role is played by the relationship between individual capital and the total social capital, which is dealt with at the different levels of abstraction of the process of production, the process of circulation, and the process of capitalist production as a whole. The strict separation of the presentation of capital, wage-labor, and landed property could also no longer be maintained: in the newly conceptualized Capital, one finds theoretically fundamental sections of the previously planned books on landed property and wage-labor. All that remains are the special studies mentioned in the text.【注释14：cf. Marx, Capital, vol. 1, 683; Karl Marx, Capital , vol. 3 (London: Penguin, 1981), 751.】 So overall, Capital corresponds to the material of the first three books of the earlier six-book plan, but within an altered theoretical framework. The planned presentation of the history of theory had also been altered: a history of economic theory in its entirety replaces the history of individual categories intended for the old book on capital. Here as well, the originally planned separation cannot be maintained.

因此，我们面对的不是《资本论》定本的三个草稿，而是两本不同的著作：1857年到1863年的计划是六卷本的《政治经济学批判》，1863年之后是四卷本的《资本论》著作（三卷 "理论 "和一卷理论史）。《大纲》和《1861-1863年经济学手稿》是原六卷本《政治经济学批判》中《资本分册》的两个草稿，而《1863-1865年经济学手稿》则是四卷本《资本论》中三卷理论的初稿。若我们考察《1863-1865年经济学手稿》则会发现，不仅没有 "资本一般 "的概念，而且在表述结构上也不再符合一般资本与竞争的对立。相反，在抽象的生产过程、流通过程和整个资本主义生产过程的不同层次上，个别资本和社会总资本之间的关系起到了核心作用。也无法再严格区分资本、雇佣劳动和土地所有制了：在新的《资本论》中，可以找到之前计划的关于土地所有制和雇佣劳动的理论基础。因此，总体而言，《资本论》对应的是早期六本书计划中前三本书的材料，但在理论框架上有所改变。原计划的理论史表述方式也发生了改变：经济理论史取代了原用于《资本分册》的各范畴的个别史。因此无法按原计划中区分。

The first draft for this new Capital is the Manuscript of 1863–1865. The first printing of the first volume of Capital from 1866–1867, the “Manuscript II” for book II of Capital from 1868–1870,【注释15：Included in MEGA, II/11.】 as well as the smaller manuscripts for book II and book III created in the same time period【注释16：MEGA, II/4,3.】: all of these constitute a second draft (1866–1871) of Capital. The manuscripts written between the end of 1871 and 1881 including the second German edition of the first volume of Capital from 1872–1873 (which exhibits considerable changes from the first edition) and the French edition of 1872–1875 (which contains further changes) constitute a third draft of Capital. So instead of three drafts and the final Capital, we have two different projects with a total of five drafts.【注释17：For a more detailed account on this point, see Michael Heinrich, “Reconstruction or Deconstruction? Methodological Controversies about Value and Capital, and New Insights from the Critical Edition,” in Riccardo Bellofiore and Roberto Fineschi, eds., Re-reading Marx: New Perspectives After the Critical Edition (Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009), 71–98.】

这部新的《资本论》的初稿是《1863-1865年经济学手稿》。1866-1867年《资本论》第一卷第一次印刷，1868-1870年写完的《资本论》第二卷的 "手稿二 "，以及同一时期创作的第二卷和第三卷的更小规模的手稿：所有这些都构成了《资本论》的第二稿（1866-1871年）。1871年底至1881年间写成的手稿，包括1872-1873年《资本论》第一卷的德文第二版（与第一版相比有相当大的改动）和1872-1875年的法文版（有进一步的改动），构成了《资本论》的第三稿。因此，马克思不是由三个草稿形成的《资本论》定稿，而是有两个不同的著作，共五稿。