在理论批判中实现理论建构与超越，是马克思政治经济学批判理论的重要特征。作为19世纪小资产阶级社会主义的杰出代言人，蒲鲁东基于唯心史观和系列辩证法阐发的经济思想与社会改良方案，严重影响和破坏着无产阶级的思想认识与革命运动，成为马克思的思想论敌。可以说，蒲鲁东在马克思思想历程中如影随形，不了解蒲鲁东就难以把握马克思。对此，本文基于思想史视角，运用文本研究与比较研究等方法，从价值、货币、资本和正义诉求以及方法论基础等方面，就蒲鲁东的经济理论及马克思的批判与超越予以概括和阐释。在价值理论上，蒲鲁东将使用价值和交换价值视为价值二重性，将自由意志视为价值矛盾的根源，提出只要运用“正—反—合”的逻辑公式，就能使价值达到构成进而实现社会平等。马克思指出，蒲鲁东混淆了价值、交换价值与使用价值，主观臆造了价值矛盾，造成了对劳动价值论的反向解构。只有立足于劳动二重性，站在生产资料私有制的高度，才能区分并把握价值的本质规定。在货币理论上，蒲鲁东将金银视为货币的唯一代表，认为这种唯一性造成了金钱崇拜与社会灾难，而只要使劳动时间成为直接的货币计量单位，就能解决由此引发的社会问题。马克思指出，蒲鲁东曲解了货币的起源与本质，混淆了货币形式与货币关系，取消了劳动的私人性与社会性矛盾。只有立足于劳动价值论，站在生产关系的高度，才能揭示货币的起源与本质，揭露货币拜物教的秘密。在资本理论上，蒲鲁东将资本等同于产品，将利息与借贷资本视为剥削的根源，认为只要消灭利息、实行无息信贷，就能恢复资本的非剥削性。马克思指出，蒲鲁东误解了资本的本质规定，混淆了简单商品货币关系与资本关系，歪曲了资本剥削及其实质。只有深入资本主义的生产过程，把握资本的悖论本性，才能实现对资本剥削与经济危机的内在机理的正确回答。在正义理论上，蒲鲁东将正义视为社会基础并归结为财产的绝对平等，主张通过等量劳动的直接交换和分配来重建正义社会。马克思指出，蒲鲁东颠倒了正义及其现实基础的关系，只是一种试图停留于简单商品生产和交换关系的小资产阶级幻想。只有坚持历史唯物主义的观点与方法，从现实的物质生产过程与社会历史发展中去探寻正义，才能获得科学的正义观。而从这些理论殊异中，也正体现出马克思与蒲鲁东在理论研究方法上的本质区别。

It is a key feature of Marx‘s critical theory of political economics that realizing theoretical construction and transcendence in theoretical criticism. As an outstanding spokesman of the French petty bourgeoisie socialism in the 19th century, Proudhon‘s various economic thoughts and social improvement programs elaborated on the basis of historical idealism and a series of dialectics have seriously affected and destroyed the proletariat‘s ideological understanding and revolutionary movement, made he becomes Marx‘s lifelong ideological opponent. It can be said that Proudhon followed closely in the course of Marx‘s thought, and it is difficult to grasp Marx without understanding Proudhon. In this regard, based on the perspective of intellectual history, this paper uses methods such as textual research and comparative research to summarize and explain Proudhon‘s economic theory and Marx‘s criticism and transcendence from the aspects of value, currency, capital, justice appeals, and methodological foundations.In terms of value theory, Proudhon regards value of use and value of exchange as the duality of value, regards free will as the source of value contradictions, and proposed that social equality can be achieved on the basis of reaching the constitutive state of value as long as "positive - negative - combination" is the logical formula. Marx pointed out that Proudhon confused value, value of exchange and value of use, subjectively created value contradictions, and caused a reverse deconstruction of the labor theory of value. Only based on the dual nature of labor and the height of private ownership of the means of production can we distinguish and grasp the essential provisions of value.In theory of monetary, Proudhon regards gold and silver as the only representative of currency, and believes that this uniqueness has caused money worship and social disasters, and as long as labor time becomes a direct monetary unit of measurement, the resulting social problems can be solved . Marx pointed out that Proudhon misinterpreted the origin and essence of money, confused the form of money and the relationship between money, and canceled the contradiction between private and social labor. Only by basing ourselves on the labor theory of value and at the height of production relations can we reveal the origin and essence of money and the secret of money fetishism.In the theory of capital, Proudhon equates capital with products, regards interest and loan capital as the source of exploitation, and believes that as long as interest is eliminated and interest-free credit is implemented, the non-exploitation of capital can be restored. Marx pointed out that Proudhon misunderstood the essential regulation of capital, confused the relationship between simple commodity money and capital, and distorted the exploitation of capital and its essence. Only by going deep into the production process of capitalism and grasping the paradoxical nature of capital can we realize the correct answer to the inner mechanism of capital exploitation and economic crisis.In the theory of justice, Proudhon regarded justice as the basis of society and attributed it to the absolute equality of property, and advocated the reconstruction of a just society through the direct exchange and distribution of equal labor. Marx pointed out that Proudhon reversed the relationship between justice and its real basis, which is just a petty bourgeois fantasy trying to stay in the simple commodity production and exchange relationship. Only by adhering to the viewpoint and method of historical materialism, and exploring justice from the actual material production process and social and historical development, can we obtain a scientific concept of justice. And from these theoretical differences, it also reflects the essential difference in theoretical research methods between Marx and ProudhonAn in-depth analysis of Marx‘s critique and transcendence of Proudhon‘s economic theory and its methodological foundation is conducive to identifying, examining and responding to various Proudhon‘s thoughts and phenomena in contemporary society based on the standpoint and method of Marxism, and highlighting the realistic interpretation of Marx‘s thought strength and vitality.