The Ontology Critique Of Political Economy

Since "Capital" published， it caused a lot of controversy, especially therelationship between the Marx and the political economy, which is a hot academicdebate. In general，the academic circles mainly discusses the relationship betweenMarx and the political economy from a purely economic point of view. It is thoughtthat either Marx transcends political economy or Marx does not go beyond politicaleconomy. It is undeniable that in every area of Marx’s researching he had uniquediscovery, especially in the realm of political economy. However, in Feicheer’s view,Marx’s study about political economy is to "the critique of political economy", insteadof "putting forward a kind of brand-new, unique economic theory"; Marx wasconcerned about the practice of criticism, for abandoning the relationship analyzed in"Capital".As we all know that the subtitle of "Capital" is "the critique of politicaleconomy", rather than "political economy", which means that it is not the subjectclassification of "political economy", but "the critique of political economy" withspecial meaning. What’s more, Marx is a revolutionist, and his real mission in life is tomake the modern proletariat be aware of its own position and needs, and be consciousof the conditions of its emancipation. In other words, for Marx, the title of"revolutionary" is the "first", and he is neither the pure economists nor the purephilosophers, but the revolutionary "for the whole human race and work". Therefore,people should not be limited to the economic point of view, and "Capital" is merelyunderstood as the "political economy" for the content of "capital", but should be awareof the starting point that "firstly Marx is a revolutionist" as the "first", giving theunderstanding to "Capital" with the sense of "critique of political economy"; otherwise,it is impossible to understand the real relationship between Marx and politicaleconomy, and people can not grasp the real implication about Marx’s "critique ofpolitical economy". However, why Marx gave the "critique of political economy"?And if Marx’s "critique of political economy" is not "a new, unique economic theory",then what is it? Is it beyond the political economy? And so on, these are the problemsworthy of people’s in-depth study.It is in view of the metaphysical nature of the political economy——"individual is now ruled by the abstract", Hegel and Marx criticize the political economy. Strictlyspeaking, Hegel was the first person confirmed the metaphysical nature of the politicaleconomy, he not only unabashedly describes the reality confrontation of the civilsociety which have been covered by the political economy，but also aware of theobjective aspects of commodity fetishism which exist in the materialized productionrelations. In his opinion, in order to overcome the reality confrontation in the civilsociety and break the fully dependent materialized social connections must go beyondthe economic and social fields, into the more advanced countries of moral politic.Although Hegel tried to criticize and transcend political economy, but he sublates thematerialized person to the concept, that is,"the hat becomes the concept", still falls into"the rule of the abstract"."The rule of the abstract" makes Hegel and political economyform a "holy alliance", he just expresses "the most realistic" living conditions ofpeople in "the most abstract"form——"individual is now ruled by the abstract".Nevertheless, this theoretical contribution of Hegel has a profound impact on Marx, itnot only makes Marx realize that "the secret of existence"of the capitalist society, butalso carry out a "leapfrog criticism",that is, turn the philosophical critique to the"critique of Political Economy ".Since the aim of Marx’s study about political economy is the "critique of politicaleconomy", so what is "critique"? For Marx,"critique" is no longer the purpose in itself,but a means, and its main job is to exposel the "human relationship" under the cover ofthe "matter relationship", and exposes the human "realistic" survival condition incapitalist society, that’s "now personage is in the abstract rule". For that, Marx’s "critique of political economy" is a kind of ontology "critique" to political economy,which not only changed the terms of political economy, but also made it "upright", thatis the sociological category (ontological category) no longer reduces into the economiccategory, even the quantitative relationship between the simple things, but theeconomics category rises the sociological category (ontological category). If "critique"is no longer the purpose in itself, but a means, then where is the purpose for "critique"?For this, Lukacs points out, the purpose of "critique" is to make proletariat its own seethe situation, and after the clear understanding to the situation they have the rightaction according to their class status. So, the real purpose of Marx’s "critique ofpolitical economy" is making the oppressed people be aware of oppression, so that the pressure of reality is heavier, then waking up the proletarian revolutionaryconsciousness and overthrowing everything that makes people insulted, enslaved,abandoned and despised.In Engels’ opinion, Marx found the problem in the place where Smith、Ricardo etcbelieved the answer had been given; The problem is neither to simply confirm aneconomic fact, nor the fact conflict the eternal fair and the true moral, but to"revolutionize all the economics" and "hand the keys that understanding all thecapitalist production to the people who know how to use it". Or rather, Marx’s"problem" is not only to make the political economy "upright", overcome itsmetaphysical nature; but to overthrow the realistic foundation which can produce themetaphysics of political economy. So, Marx’s "critique of political economy" is notjust about "pure scientific knowledge" about the real man and its historicaldevelopment, but it is about the "action" of "human liberation", to "shorten and reducethe pain of childbirth". In a word, Marx’s "critique of political economy" is not to"criticize for criticism", but to "discover the new world by criticizing the old one"; it isnot only the ontology "critique" to political economy, but also transcend the politicaleconomy. This is "firstly it is a revolutionary" Marx’s "real mission in life".However, in order to give the "innovation" of the Marx doctrine and restore itsvitality, people must take Marx as an example and give the analysis of the capitalistsociety and socialist society in twenty-first century, as Marx gave the analysis ofcapitalist society in nineteenth century, namely "Capital" written; otherwise, peoplewill only move towards an imaginary Marx doctrine to another one.