Why Marxism Fails, Part I: A Flawed Guiding Theory
作者：华言
编辑：周志刚 责任编辑：罗志飞 鲁慧文 翻译：鲁慧文
关键词：马克思主义，马克思哲学，马克思政治经济学，科学社会主义，唯物主义
马克思主义由三部分组成：马克思哲学、马克思政治经济学和科学社会主义。马克思哲学和马克思政治经济学是工具，科学社会主义才是目的，这是我们所要论证的。
一、唯物主义是丑陋的哲学
唯物主义，在哲学基本问题上坚持物质第一性，精神第二性；世界的统一性在于物质性；意识是物质世界发展到一定阶段的产物；人的认识是对客观存在的反映。
唯物主义强调“物质第一性，意识第二性”，极力否定意识的价值，特别否定精神的意义。唯物主义的历史观，即所谓“历史唯物主义”，运用“生产力决定生产关系，经济基础觉定上层建筑”的“公式”，而否定个人的道德因素和精神意志作用。唯物主义的辩证法，“与万物普遍联系”和“按自身规律永恒发展”，唯物辩证法变成了诡辩论，消弭了对与错、是与非、善与恶的界限，变成了一种聪明但有欺骗性的、似是而非的推理和论证。唯物辩证法有时承认事物的永久运动，而否定事物的相对静止，否定概念的确定性，有时又以事物的相对静止否定事物的永久变动，把灵活性视作原则性。在解释命题时，崇尚玩弄概念、故弄玄虚，用华而不实的辞藻美化相对主义的说教。
唯物主义对意识的极度贬抑，乃至根本否定，使社会的精神支柱轰然倒塌，加速了社会道德沦丧。一是金钱崇拜。对物质的绝对肯定，自然导致对物质财富的推崇，也就是金钱崇拜，形成了“金钱万能”的畸形社会观念。二是精神空虚。物质财富不必然带来精神的充实，对物质财富的狂热贪求，所追求的是只有物质，导致精神世界空虚。
生命的意义在精神的意境中实现，精神之花一旦凋落,生命中将只剩下物欲本能,而没有精神的本能是丑陋的。哲学的价值在于,并且只在于摘取生命意义王冠上的明珠。精神之火熄灭了,生命就物化了,丑化了——唯物主义是丑陋的哲学。
二、剩余价值理论没有任何理论价值
马克思的剩余价值学说是马克思主义政治经济学的基石，是使社会主义从空想变为“科学”的奠基石。马克思的剩余价值理论是非常荒谬的，把马克思的荒谬学说作为指导世界无产阶级革命运动的理论基础，更是荒谬绝伦的。
马克思的剩余价值理论体系中有一个结论，创造价值的唯一要素是劳动，其他任何生产要素都不是价值的源泉，进而进一步提示资本“剥削”的本质。一颗钻石两千年前毫无价值，因为人们都不认识。今天价值连城，这中间没有任何“劳动”，产生价值的原因是人们都“想要”钻石。没有劳动而产生巨大的价值，如何解释？所以，创造价值的唯一要素是劳动根本上是错误的。
商品的价值只有在交换时才得到体现。没有交换，就没有商品的价值。因此，市场才是商品价值赖以存在的基础，没有市场也就没有商品的价值。什么是商品的价值？它是在充分而广泛的竞价基础上产生的，由供求关系决定的。生产了没有人要的东西，花费再多的时间也不产生价值；灵光一现的创意，花费少量时间，也可以产生巨大的价值。所以，价值与劳动无必然的关系，与社会必要劳动时间无必然联系，劳动价值论从根本上是错误的。奥地利学派认为，在生产过程中，资本家在提供其它生产要素的时候需要承担风险，而工人不需要承担这种风险。所以资本家获取利润是对于他们承担风险的一种补偿。制度经济学反驳马克思的剩余价值理论：如果其他生产要素毫无价值，那为什么工人要甘心接受资本家的剥削呢？他们完全可以单凭自己那唯一有价值的“劳动”去完成生产过程，去占据所有的“剩余价值”，不让资本家占便宜。
现代分配理论认为：按生产要素分配是按照生产要素的数量和质量以及生产要素贡献的大小。生产要素主要包括：劳动、技术、资本、管理等。各生产要素在国民收入中所占的份额大小，取决于它们各自的均衡价格。因此，工资、利息、地租和利润就是各生产要素的需求价格和供给价格相均衡的价格。工资是劳动的需求和供给均衡时的价格。利息是资本的需求和供给均衡时的价格。地租是由土地的需求状况和供给决定的。利润是资本家组织和管理企业以及冒风险的报酬。
因此，按照马克思定义,剩余价值=劳动价值-工资，劳动价值论是错误的，故而剩余价值论必定错误。
三、科学社会主义的不科学
社会主义就是通过不断革命，实行无产阶级的阶级专政，通过专政达到消灭一切阶级差别和由这些阶级差别产生的一切生产关系，从而进入共产主义。这一论述明确指出了社会主义本身是“过渡阶段”，是由资本主义社会向共产主义社会过渡的历史时期，直至最终实现共产主义。实现共产主义由三个阶段来完成：一是无产阶级暴力革命；二是无产阶级专政和社会主义社会；三是共产主义。
科学社会主义的基本原理和原则：政治上实行无产阶级政党的领导，无产阶级在共产党领导下进行革命和建设；经济上社会化大生产，公有制是社会化大生产的基础，推动社会化大生产的实现和发展的条件；文化上保持文化领导权，坚持文艺为社会主义主义服务，为政治服务，为共产党服务。
各国实施科学社会主义的共同结果是：如前苏共政治局委员、苏联解体后任俄共主席的久加诺夫所反思的那样，形成了苏共在苏联的“三个垄断”：政治垄断、经济垄断、思想垄断。无产阶级政党的领导成为了政治垄断，权力即资源和地位，当党天下成为了现实，党为了一直“为人民（币）服务”，就再也不愿意让他人染指权力，对一切意图获取权力者进行打压，乃至肉体消灭。经济上社会化大生产成为了经济垄断，将一切资源国有化，实质是官僚化，进而领导个人化，通过“二步走”，先是化私为共、再化公为私，让领导率先实现共产主义，让工人、农民成为领导进军共产主义车轮下的尘土，在公有制下，共产党政府对资源的垄断是全面彻底集中的，通过严格的生活资料票证供应制度，排除了任何个人对任何生活资源占有的可能性，人们的衣、食、住、行，每一项物质需求无不仰求于那个垄断者–共产党和无产阶级专政国家。在这种条件下，人们除了对垄断者–共产党彻底的人身依附外，已经没有任何存活的可能性。托洛茨基说：在一个政府是唯一的雇主的国家里，反抗就等于慢慢地饿死。‘不劳动者不得食’这个旧的原则，已由‘不服从者不得食’这个新的原则所代替。保持文化领导权成为了思想垄断，为了保持意识形态的统一性，必须从儿童抓起，不断塑造共产主义的新人，消灭一切异见，从而舆论一律、文艺一律。这“三个垄断”是反人道主义，是对人民的生存状态，对每一个人的社会、经济、政治、文化的价值观的根本控制与操纵，对人性尊严的侮辱和伤害。最后，人民丧失了民主自由，丧失了思想自由，造成新的奴隶制度，工厂成了集中营，农民成了农奴。
马克思高估了无产阶级领导的人性和人品，忘记了他们也是人，有人的一切缺点和不足。马克思高估了无产阶级制度的科学性，为了未来天堂的美好，在人间建设了一个惨无人道、最野蛮、最暴虐的恐怖的人间地狱，美其名曰：科学社会主义社会。
Why Marxism Fails, Part I: A Flawed Guiding Theory
By Hua Yan | Edited by Zhou Zhigang | Chief Editors: Luo Zhifei, Lu Huiwen | Translated by: Lu Huiwen
Keywords: Marxism, Marxist Philosophy, Marxist Political Economy, Scientific Socialism, Materialism
Marxism is composed of three parts: Marxist philosophy, Marxist political economy, and scientific socialism. The first two serve as tools, while scientific socialism is the intended goal. This article aims to demonstrate precisely that.
I. Materialism — An Ugly Philosophy
Materialism holds that matter is primary and consciousness is secondary; that the unity of the world lies in its materiality; that consciousness is a product of matter developed to a certain stage; and that human understanding is merely a reflection of objective existence.
Materialism emphasizes “matter over mind,” aggressively denying the value of consciousness and especially the importance of the spirit. Its historical view—historical materialism—uses a rigid formula of “productive forces determine relations of production; economic base determines the superstructure” to deny the role of individual morality and spiritual will.
Marx’s dialectical materialism, which claims “universal interconnectedness” and “eternal development according to internal laws,” degenerates into sophistry. It blurs the line between right and wrong, good and evil, becoming a deceptive form of pseudo-reasoning. Sometimes it affirms perpetual motion while denying relative stability and the definability of concepts; other times it uses stability to deny change—treating flexibility as a principle.
In interpreting propositions, it delights in conceptual tricks and empty jargon, beautifying relativist doctrines with flowery but hollow language.
This extreme devaluation—and even outright denial—of consciousness by materialism causes the spiritual pillars of society to collapse, accelerating the decay of social morality.
1. Worship of Money: Absolute affirmation of the material inevitably leads to the worship of material wealth, breeding a distorted worldview of “money is everything.”
2. Spiritual Emptiness: Material wealth does not necessarily lead to spiritual fulfillment. The blind pursuit of material gain leads to spiritual hollowness.
The meaning of life is found in spiritual realms. When the flower of the spirit withers, life becomes reduced to material instinct alone—and instinct without spirit is grotesque. The value of philosophy lies in uncovering the pearl that crowns life’s meaning. When the flame of the spirit is extinguished, life becomes commodified and debased—materialism is, therefore, an ugly philosophy.
II. The Surplus Value Theory Has No Theoretical Value
Marx’s surplus value theory is the cornerstone of Marxist political economy—the foundation upon which socialism claims to transform from “utopia” into “science.” But this theory is riddled with absurdities.
According to Marx, labor is the only source of value, and all other production factors contribute nothing to value creation. This underpins the idea of capital’s “exploitation.”
But consider: a diamond 2,000 years ago had no value because people didn’t recognize it. Today, it’s worth a fortune—without any additional labor. Its value arises because people want it. How does one explain the immense value generated without corresponding labor? Clearly, labor as the sole source of value is fundamentally wrong.
The value of a commodity is only realized in exchange. Without exchange, there is no value. Value arises from broad market-based pricing, dictated by supply and demand. A product no one wants has no value regardless of the labor poured into it; a flash of creative inspiration, produced with little labor, may carry immense value.
Thus, value is not inherently tied to labor, nor to so-called “socially necessary labor time.” The labor theory of value is inherently flawed.
Austrian economists argue that in production, capitalists contribute capital and assume risk—something workers do not. Profit, therefore, is compensation for risk. Institutional economists refute Marx’s surplus value theory: If other production factors are truly worthless, why would workers tolerate capitalist “exploitation”? They could use their valuable labor alone to control production and reap all the surplus value themselves.
Modern distribution theory holds that income is allocated according to the quantity, quality, and contribution of production factors—labor, capital, technology, and management. Their share of national income is determined by their equilibrium prices:
• Wages = equilibrium price of labor
• Interest = equilibrium price of capital
• Rent = price based on land supply and demand
• Profit = compensation for organizing, managing, and risking capital
Therefore, by Marx’s logic, surplus value = labor value − wages. But if the labor theory of value is false, then surplus value theory is necessarily false too.
III. The Pseudoscience of Scientific Socialism
Marxist socialism is defined by perpetual revolution, implementing the dictatorship of the proletariat to eliminate all class distinctions and their associated production relations—ultimately reaching communism.
This vision involves three stages:
1. Violent revolution led by the proletariat
2. Proletarian dictatorship and socialist society
3. Realization of communism
The fundamental principles of scientific socialism are:
• Political: Leadership by the proletarian party (i.e., the Communist Party)
• Economic: Public ownership and large-scale socialized production
• Cultural: Cultural control, with art and literature serving socialism, politics, and the Communist Party
But wherever scientific socialism was implemented, the result has been the same. As former Politburo member and post-Soviet Communist Party leader Gennady Zyuganov admitted, it resulted in three monopolies in the Soviet Union:
1. Political monopoly: One-party rule meant power became resource and status. Once the Party held all power “for the people,” it refused to let go, crushing all challengers—even physically eliminating them.
2. Economic monopoly: State ownership evolved into bureaucratic control, then into personal control by leaders. This “two-step” privatization turned “shared property” into tools of personal privilege. While leaders got rich first, workers and peasants were ground into dust under the wheels of this fake communism. All resources were monopolized by the Party through strict rationing systems—leaving individuals no access to basic needs without submission to the Party.
3. Ideological monopoly: Cultural control meant total domination of thought. From childhood, citizens were molded into “new communist men,” while all dissenting thought was erased. Media and art served only one voice—the Party.
These “three monopolies” were anti-humanitarian. They enslaved people spiritually, economically, politically, and culturally—stripping them of dignity and turning society into a new form of slavery. Factories became concentration camps, peasants became serfs.
As Leon Trotsky once said:
“In a country where the government is the sole employer, resistance means starvation. The old slogan ‘He who does not work shall not eat’ has been replaced by a new one: ‘He who does not obey shall not eat.’”
Conclusion
Marx overestimated the moral integrity and character of proletarian leaders—forgetting they are still human, with human flaws. He also overestimated the scientific nature of the proletarian system. In pursuit of a utopian paradise, scientific socialism created a horrifying earthly hell—brutal, inhumane, and tyrannical. And it had the audacity to call itself “scientific.”
