In contrast to the phenomenon in Chinese economics circles that has been criticized by Mr. Liu Guoguang as "seriously marginalized by Marxism" over the years, Western academic circles have "returned to Marx". As everyone knows, in the period after the drastic changes in Eastern Europe and the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the theory of "Marxism being outdated" was so popular in the Western world that some people made a judgment on the "end of history." Since the outbreak of the subprime mortgage crisis in the United States in 2008, many Western countries have fallen into unprecedented economic crises in the past six or seven years. The Great Depression became a common sight in the Western world. This has led many Western scholars to "rediscover" Marx in the crisis, believing that it is time to learn from Marx and use Marx's methods to analyze the causes of the crisis in reality and plan countermeasures. They fully emphasized the modernity, reality, and practice of Marxist theory in the present day, and repeatedly stressed: "Marx is still alive," "one of us," and "still our contemporary." Many scholars have realized to varying degrees that "all of Marx's ideas are still alive" and "still the truth of today's world"; Marx's methods "have become the methods of our time" and "can improve the understanding of how capitalism works, it can eliminate self-obscurantism and help political practice." As the German philosopher Hans Meinz Reerz wrote in the German newspaper Youth World on May 7, 2008: "Marx is alive because his theories are still relevant today, and his ideas have not stopped inspiring us." Marx is one of us, illuminating our contemporary society and showing us the way forward. As Matt Igresya, a researcher at the Center for Progressive Action in the United States, said in the May 2009 issue of Foreign Policy, "This is a Time Back to Marx": "This is an era of learning from Marx's ideology, and no other era can compare with it." "Originally, for a long time, I have been thinking about a question, that is, we are already in the 21st century, social production, the way of life practice, and the problems of the times that have emerged and developed in this practice have undergone great changes, and whether Marxism, which was born nearly a century and a half ago, still has its value? Do we still need to use the scientific methods and basic principles of Marxism today to analyze and study the current society, or do we just take Marxism as the object of intellectual history research? The above-mentioned phenomenon of "returning to Marx" in Western academia in recent years has solved the problem I am thinking about to a certain extent. There is no doubt that today we must still persist in analyzing and studying the current society with the scientific methods and basic principles of Marxism, and in order to adhere to the basic methods and basic principles of Marxism, we must first devote efforts to in-depth study and analysis of the classic works of Marxism. Marxist writings are voluminous, but the most classic is undoubtedly Das Kapital, which Lenin called the "Bible of the working class." Capital is an epoch-making economic classic, a living textbook using materialist dialectics, and provides a theoretical basis for scientific socialism. Of course, studying Capital is of great significance, but this magnum opus is very difficult to read. Dr. Liu Wei was studious and thoughtful, and he repeatedly studied Capital despite difficulties, read a large number of Western philosophical and economic masterpieces from studying Capital, and conducted in-depth research on the current social and economic situation, and finally wrote this "On the Economics of Science" with nearly 300,000 words. This is a good book to recommend. During the writing of this book, Dr. Liu Wei sent me every chapter he wrote for advice, so I became the first reader of this book. After the book was written and revised, he invited me to write the foreword, and although I am not an economics researcher, I am still happy to talk about my feelings after reading. The first impression I have about Dr. Liu Wei's new book is that it highlights Marx's methodology through an in-depth study of the original canon of Capital. In the "Introduction" of the book, he reveals that the law of historical movement described by Marx is not an abstract law, but the development process of contradiction from simple to complex, and the way for thinking to grasp the process of contradiction movement is to describe the process of rising concept from abstract to concrete. Concept is the description of contradiction, and the process of contradictory movement is reflected in thinking as the movement of concepts from abstraction to concreteness. Engels later summarized this method as "logic and history unify". This is in line with the reality of Marx's methodology. The "Introduction" also discusses the "relationship between economics and social historical science" and puts forward some very meaningful views, such as: in the perspective of historical materialism, philosophy describes and summarizes the actual historical activities through theoretical thinking, while economics examines the most basic relationship between real activities in reality. The relationship between the two is the relationship between reflecting and being reflected, and philosophy has the agency to reflect economics. Without the study of reality in economics, philosophy becomes the target of nothingness. Without the premise criticism of philosophy, economics is rooted in reality and confined to limited reality, and it is difficult to find inevitability from reality, and research must be made useless due to the lack of methodological self-criticism. The relationship between philosophy and economics is embodied in the relationship between "ya" and "of" in the study of social history: the common object of the two is the reality of society, because economics takes the study of reality as its own responsibility, so it is closer to "of"; The common purpose of the two is to discover and reveal historical inevitability in social reality, because philosophy is a collection of dialectical and critical methods, so it is closer to "target". Furthermore, philosophy is better than theoretical thinking, and concentrates on the essence of human thinking activities; Economics is good at practical activities, and prominently shows the basic relationship between human practical activities; People's theoretical activities and practical activities have always been inseparable, and people have always changed the world by following the direction of the unity of knowledge and action in the contradiction between knowledge and action. Therefore, only when philosophical research and economic research reach a state of unity can they fully describe the basic picture of human activities. Philosophy rejects economics, or economics rejects philosophy, speculation despises practice, or ignores reflection based on experience, resulting in mutual discrimination and division between philosophy and economics, and the final result can only be blind speculation and debate on human activities. Within the socio-historical sciences, the relationship between philosophy and economics is the most basic relationship or contradiction. This contradiction reflects the deep-seated contradictions between human thinking and existence, subject and object, theory and practice in social and historical activities. The understanding of the unity of philosophy and economics should rise to the height of unity between thinking and existence, unity of subject and object, and unity of theory and practice. Therefore, the exploration of the proposition of historical science "whether people's subjective understanding of historical inevitability is in line with objective historical existence" has now been internalized into the theoretical question of "how to realize the unity of philosophy and economics". That's a good statement. Although the discipline has its own division, scholars cannot be self-conscious, but must be able to understand, philosophy and economics organically combined, that is, the organic unity of theory and reality, and explore the answer to the question of "whether people's subjective understanding of historical inevitability is in line with objective historical existence", and thus enter the field of historical science. This is a methodology of great scientific value that Marx has successfully practiced. This kind of scientific methodology has profoundly influenced Mr. Hou Wailu, a famous historian and thinker of the older generation in China. Mr. Hou once described himself in his memoir "The Pursuit of Tenacity" that "the belief in Marxism laid down by the hard work of translating Capital for the next ten years is a kind of belief in science; The methodology grasped in this way is a scientific methodology. It has had a profound impact on my political and academic views, and I have benefited a lot. As early as those years in Peiping and Shanxi, I had gone deep into the realm of historiography, and when I found that Capital made me feel like a blade in my hand, confident and daring to make a decision, how joyful I was." He also said: "Marx's famous saying that 'at the entrance of science is like at the entrance to hell,' began with the translation of Das Kapital, which really made me understand its profound meaning, so I obeyed it for the rest of my life." His bold exploration of Chinese history and the development of Marxist Chinese intellectual historiography did not rely solely on the theoretical courage of "daring to go to hell", but also on the scientific methodology embodied in Marx's Capital. Today, following the example of our predecessors, we should undoubtedly base ourselves on the current practical practice, earnestly understand and grasp the scientific methodology of Marx's "Capital", deeply analyze ancient and modern, Chinese and foreign, and innovatively form and develop the Chinese philosophical school, Chinese economic school, Chinese historical school, and Chinese ideological and cultural school... Dr. Liu Wei is a young talent with keen eyes and attention to reality. During his doctoral thesis at Nankai University, he coincided with the outbreak of the European and American world financial crises. He was keenly aware of this and devoted a section to it in his later doctoral dissertation. In recent years, he has traced the comprehensive and increasingly profound "Great Depression" economic crisis in the West caused by the financial crisis, conducted in-depth research, and used Marx's scientific methodology in this book to make special analysis, and put forward a series of self-satisfied views that are different from the times. For example, based on the economic crisis theory of "Capital", it is judged that the root cause of the current financial and economic crisis lies in the contradiction between capitalist production relations and exchange relations in light of today's reality. He added: "The world economic crisis since 2008 has shown the new characteristics of the economic crisis in capitalist globalization. The crisis has gone through three stages: subprime mortgage crisis, financial crisis and economic crisis, and the crisis has affected the whole world, extensively and profoundly changing the economic and political pattern of the world. In this crisis, the combination and contradiction of private land ownership and interest-bearing capital have reached an unprecedented level in history, and the contradiction between the virtual economy and the real economy has also reached an unprecedented intensity in history. The above contradictions have developed in the context of the rapid development of capitalist globalization, and this crisis can also be said to be a concentrated display of the overall contradictions of contemporary capitalist globalization: it has unveiled the veil shrouded in the global industrial hierarchy and also revealed the organic structure of the global capital organization. This crisis is the summary of the previous round of capitalist globalization and the beginning of the next round of world economic globalization. His views on the use of Marxist methodology and related principles are not only in line with reality, but also in line with the aforementioned trend of "returning to Marx" in Western academic circles in recent years, and are worthy of deep appreciation by people from all walks of life in China who are comprehensively deepening reform. Finally, I would like to talk about one more point, that is, as Dr. Liu Wei said in this book: historical materialism is the theoretical achievement of Marx's philosophical revolution. In the process of Marx's study and criticism of old philosophy, he firmly grasped the two clues of "freedom" and "dialectic". Freedom is the eternal theme of philosophy, and it is also the spiritual banner of social emancipation since capitalist society. It can be said that the work of philosophy in modern times is precisely to make arguments for freedom. Marx undeservedly inherited this tradition, but what made him different was that his position was rooted in the poor masses, and he correctly grasped the truth that theory is determined by practice in the contradiction between the cosmopolitanization of philosophy and the philosophization of the world, and between the weapon of criticism and the criticism of weapons. Therefore, Marx's understanding of freedom has never left the criticism of the unfreedom - alienation in reality, he tests all previous philosophical freedom theories with the historical necessity of abandoning alienation, exposes the old philosophy due to the alienation of ideas and cannot find the source of alienation and the historical necessity of realizing freedom, he reconstructs a new theory of freedom - communism on the basis of practical philosophy, and completes the criticism of the old philosophical theory of freedom. The most important reason why Marx is Marx is that "his position is rooted in the poor masses." Dr. Liu Wei, from his profound understanding of Marx's spiritual position, proposed in the "Self-Order" that "the relationship between economics and workers is a fundamental problem in the study and research of economics". This is a big issue that needs to be addressed urgently. He said: Today, after the full "specialization" of economics, non-economists have become outsiders, and those who challenge "professional" will become illegal intruders of theory. In front of the broad masses of the working masses, "specialization" has become an iron net on the periphery of economics, and any explorer who tries to cross this network will be kept away. However, no matter how terrifying the iron network array of "specialization" in economics is, it has its own "hook and sickle" and "circle gold armor" that breaks and crosses it. Any economic theory and method must accept laborers as the main body of economic activities to test and judge it, and laborers test and judge economics, which is a revolution in economics, and the occurrence of revolution is a historical necessity of economic development. In fact, if we delve into the history of economic thought, we will find that the germ of the economic revolution has been born in the history of economic theory criticism and self-criticism. In fact, this is not only the case in the field of economics, but also in the entire ideological and cultural circle. Comrade Aischi once pointed out: "The main task of philosophy is to be able to truly solve the factual problems of human life, and only by being able to truly solve these problems can it be enough to prove that it is a de facto truth." We say that philosophy is the fundamental understanding and fundamental attitude of human beings to things, and its significance is here, philosophy can not only be a good thing, but also can guide us to do things. (Aischi: The Collected Works of Aischi, vol. 1, People's Publishing House, 1983, pp. 139-140.) His "Popular Philosophy" is a model for returning philosophy from the abstract mysteries of philosophers to real social life, especially popularizing and popularizing Marxist philosophy in easy-to-understand and simple language. The book has had a major impact on generations, especially ordinary working people, in modern Chinese history, and some have called this influence better than the millions. Indeed, theories, especially scientific theories, once mastered by the people, are bound to have an unexpected and enormous effect. The most important reason why Comrade Aischi was able to do this was that he was deeply rooted in the position of the working people and solved the problem of the relationship between philosophy, especially Marxist philosophy, and the working people. Correctly resolving the relationship between ideology and culture and ordinary laborers is indeed an issue that has a bearing on the root of the foundation. For example, since the initiative of Liang Shuming and others in the 20s of the 20th century, after three or four generations of unremitting efforts to pass on the torch, modern neo-Confucianism has become a wave, making important contributions to academic and ideological theory, and to the continuous modernization of Chinese philosophy and Chinese ideological and cultural traditions. On the other hand, from a practical point of view, modern neo-Confucianism has little effect on real social life, and has little impact on ordinary working people as the main body of production and life practice in real society. The reason for this is probably that modern neo-Confucianism has failed to properly address the relationship between Confucianism and ordinary workers, who have always seen themselves as elites above the people. This makes it difficult for modern neo-Confucianism to go out of the book fast and penetrate into society, exerting a wide influence among the people. In recent years, a wave of "Chinese Studies fever" with Confucianism as the core has formed at different levels in academic and cultural circles and real social life, which is naturally a very gratifying phenomenon. However, in order for this phenomenon to develop sustainably, it is necessary to merge the two different levels of "Chinese Studies fever" in academic and cultural circles and real social life, and effectively solve the problem of the relationship between Confucianism, which is the core of China's ideological and cultural tradition, and ordinary laborers, who are the main body of production and life practice in contemporary Chinese society, and realize the modern transformation of Confucian tradition on this basis, and innovatively develop modern civilian Confucianism. Only in this way can Confucianism and the revival of Chinese thought and culture with Confucianism as the core be realized. Only such a revived Confucianism and Chinese ideology and culture with Confucianism as the core can provide a solid national cultural soil for the core values of contemporary Chinese socialism. Although this passage goes beyond the main thrust of the scientific economics discussed in this book, it is my impression from reading this book. When Laza writes, he will teach the Fang family. is the order. Chen Hanming in Tianjin on September 21, 2014（AI翻译）