中国地质大学学报(社会科学版）

围绕《资本论》第一卷出版后马克思大规模整理自然科学材料是否构成思想“转向”的争论，依托《马克思恩格斯全集》历史考证版(MEGA²)，贯通《1844年经济学哲学手稿》《德意志意识形态》《资本论》及晚期自然科学、人类学摘录，马克思的“新陈代谢”思想在资本批判中承担界定研究对象和从抽象上升到具体的方法论中介功能。马克思由“人化自然”转入历史唯物主义视域，将“自然”界定为现实前提并置于历史生成之中；进而，从商品与劳动二重性出发，经价值形态至生产过程的呈现，自然被系统地纳入为资本分析的前提与限度。在此基础上，“新陈代谢”作为进入自然维度的范畴性入口，被用以将人与自然关系置于总体再生产的视域，并可被界定为三层意涵：本体论层面的自然物质交换、资本主义制度下的社会代谢机制，以及以生态断裂呈现的制度性自然异化。所谓“外延性深化”在两条路径上得以具体化：一方面，借助农业化学、土壤学与地质学等材料，对代谢失衡的生成机制进行刻画；另一方面，在人类学与共同体研究中考察公社等制度性中介在世界市场压力下的变形与可能的再组织，从而探索社会代谢自觉调节的制度通道。由此，晚期自然科学与人类学摘录并非另起议题，而是在既定方法进路内对“人与自然的物质代谢”进行机制层与制度层的具体化，为将物质代谢置于社会性调节法则之下的理论建构提供文本与材料依据。

The debate concerns whether Marx's extensive compilation of natural-science materials after the publication of Volume I of Capital constituted an intellectual “turn”. Drawing on the historical-critical edition of the Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe(MEGA²) and reading across the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, The German Ideology, Capital, and the late excerpts in natural science and anthropology, the argument is that Marx's idea of “metabolism” functions within the critique of capital as both a way to define the object of study and a methodological mediator for the ascent from the abstract to the concrete. First, Marx moves from “humanized nature” into the horizon of historical materialism, defining “nature” as a real premise situated within historical becoming. Next, starting from the commodity and the dual character of labor,through the value-form to the presentation of the production process, nature is systematically integrated as both the precondition and the limit of the analysis of capital. On this basis, “metabolism” serves as a categorical entry into the natural dimension. It situates the human-nature relation within the horizon of overall social reproduction and can be specified in three senses: the ontological level of natural material exchange,the regime of social metabolism under capitalism, institutional natural alienation manifested as ecological rift. The “extensive deepening” becomes concrete along two paths. On one path, materials from agricultural chemistry, soil science and geology are used to delineate the mechanisms that generate metabolic imbalance. On the other path, research in anthropology and on communal forms examines how communes, as institutional mediations, deform under world-market pressures and how they might be reorganized, thereby exploring institutional channels for the conscious regulation of social metabolism. Thus, the late excerpts in natural science and anthropology do not introduce a new topic. They concretize, at the levels of mechanism and institution, the “material metabolism” between humans and nature within an already established methodological course. They furnish textual and empirical bases for constructing a theory that places material metabolism under rules of social regulation.