Abstract

"Taubert said," that Marx's "Mill summary" write in "44 years of manuscripts," notebook after Ⅲ, and "Lo Yang said," that "James Mill" was written in "44 years of manuscripts," notebook Ⅲ before. In this paper, "Taubert said," and "Luo Yang said," the demonstration process was examined in detail. Concludes: "Taubert said," Having become accepted by the editorial board MEGA2 philology conclusion should be the Chinese scholars interpret the text of Marx in Paris during the scientific basis of the literature. According to Taubert's argument, Marx's Comments on James Mill was written after the third manuscript of Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 while according to Rojahn's it was written before the third manuscript. This paper aims at an investigation into the very processes in which Taubert and Rojahn conducted their researches respectively with the conclusion that Chinese scholars should base their textual studies of Marx's early Manuscripts during his Paris period on Taubert's argument, given that it has been accepted by the Editorial board of MEGA2