现在分工越来越细，固然有利于精深研究，但不利于这种通才的成熟。老马活到今天，想在这么多的领域里发表著作，光资质要求就会使其湮没。可叹

马克思本人从来没有用过“资本主义”一词吗？

象布罗代尔这样的学者，虽然对马克思的思想有一定的理解，但是，从其文章中指出：“‘资本主义’一词也应该算在里面，尽管马克思本人从来没有用过。”仅就这一点足以看到其肤浅的表现。

在马克思《资本论》第一卷第一章商品，开头是这样写的：

“资本主义生产方式占统治地位的社会的财富，表现为“庞大的商品堆积”，单个的商品表现为这种财富的元素形式。因此，我们的研究就从分析商品开始。”

“The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as "an immense accumulation of commodities," [1]its unit being a single commodity. Our investigation must therefore begin with the analysis of a commodity. ”

在马克思《资本论》第三卷第三十七章导论，开头是这样写的：

“对土地所有权的各种历史形式的分析，不属于本书的范围。我们只是在资本所产生的剩余价值的一部分归土地所有者所有的范围内，研究土地所有权的问题。因此，我们假定，农业和工业完全一样受资本主义生产方式的统治，也就是说，农业是由资本家经营；这种资本家和其他资本家的区别，首先只在于他们的资本和这种资本推动的雇佣劳动所投入的部门不同。对我们来说，租地农场主生产小麦等等，和工厂主生产棉纱或机器是一样的。资本主义生产方式已经支配农业这样一个假定，包含着这样的意思：资本主义生产方式已经统治生产的和资产阶级社会的一切部门，因此它的下列条件，如资本的自由竞争、资本由一个生产部门转入另一个生产部门的可能性、同等水平的平均利润等等，都已经十分成熟。我们所考察的土地所有权形式，是土地所有权的一个独特的历史形式，是封建的土地所有权或小农维持生计的农业(在后一场合，土地的占有是直接生产者的生产条件之一，而他对土地的所有权是他的生产方式的最有利的条件，即他的生产方式得以繁荣的条件)受资本和资本主义生产方式的影响而转化成的形式。如果说资本主义生产方式是以工人的劳动条件被剥夺为前提，那末，在农业中，它是以农业劳动者的土地被剥夺，以及农业劳动者从属于一个为利润而经营农业的资本家为前提。因此，如果有人提醒我们说，曾经有过，或者说，现在还有其他的土地所有权形式和农业形式，那末，这对我们的阐述来说，只是一种完全无关的指责。只有对那些把农业中的资本主义生产方式及与之相适应的土地所有权形式不是看作历史的范畴，而是看作永恒的范畴的经济学家来说，这种指责才会有意义。”

“The analysis of landed property in its various historical forms is beyond the scope of this work. We shall he concerned with it only in so far as a portion of the surplus-value produced by capital falls to the share of the landowner. We assume, then, that agriculture is dominated by the capitalist mode of production just as manufacture is; in other words, that agriculture is carried on by capitalists who differ from other capitalists primarily in the manner in which their capital, and the wage-labour set in motion by this capital, are invested. So far as we are concerned, the farmer produces wheat, etc., in much the same way as the manufacturer produces yarn or machines. The assumption that the capitalist mode of production has encompassed agriculture implies that it rules over all spheres of production and bourgeois society, i.e., that its prerequisites, such as free competition among capitals, the possibility of transferring the latter from one production sphere to another, and a uniform level of the average profit, etc., are fully matured. The form of landed property which we shall consider here is a specifically historical one a form transformed through the influence of capital and of the capitalist mode of production, either of feudal landownership, or of small-peasant agriculture as a means of livelihood, in which the possession of the land and the soil constitutes one of the prerequisites of production for the direct producer, and in which his ownership of land appears as the most advantageous condition for the prosperity of his mode of production. Just as the capitalist mode of production in general is based on the expropriation of the conditions of labour from the labourers, so does it in agriculture presuppose the expropriation of the rural labourers from the land and their subordination to a capitalist, who carries on agriculture for the sake of profit. Thus, for the purpose of our analysis, the objection that other forms of landed property and of agriculture have existed, or still exist, is quite irrelevant. Such an objection can only apply to those economists who treat the capitalist mode of production in agriculture, and the form of landed property corresponding to it, not as historical but rather as eternal categories. ”

资本主义:capitalism。（德语：der Kapitalismus）