马克思恩格斯的使命观及其当代价值

马克思恩格斯的使命观揭示了无产阶级及其政党的使命,认为使命主体和使命内容具有内在规定性,无产阶级及其政党的使命是由其阶级属性、社会地位以及社会基本矛盾的运动规律决定的。无产阶级的使命是消灭剥削阶级,实现从必然王国到自由王国的飞跃;无产阶级政党承担组织和教育无产阶级,完善和发展科学社会主义的使命。马克思恩格斯的使命观为新时代中国特色社会主义的伟大使命提供了理论支持,对中国共产党全面从严治党以保持初心使命和促进青年使命担当具有重要价值。     

马克思恩格斯正义思想的反思和追问

<正>义思想是马克思恩格斯社会历史哲学重要的组成部分。在批判资产阶级公平正义观的过程中马克思恩格斯阐释了自己的正义思想:不存在理想中永恒绝对的正义——正义是一个历史范畴,有其阶级属性;现实中的社会正义以生产力的高度发展为必要基础,是一定社会生产关系的集中反映,离不开人的内在需要。理解把握马克思恩格斯的这些思想对于建构当代中国社会正义有重要启示意义。     

马克思恩格斯生态理论及其当代意义

19世纪40年代,马克思恩格斯在对资本主义生态状况质疑的基础上,形成了马克思主义的生态理论.关于人、社会和自然内在统一的辩证思想,关于资本主义是导致生态破坏的总根源,共产主义是实现生态文明的最终归宿等论述,构成了马克思恩格斯生态理论的核心论点.马克思恩格斯生态理论为当代人转变发展模式,保护生态环境,从人类社会走向生态社会提供了理论与实践依据.     

马克思主义妇女观及其意义

马克思主义妇女观是马克思理论体系的组成部分,是马克思主义基本原理在妇女问题上的运用。马克思恩格斯考察了人类历史上家庭、婚姻的形式,勾勒并分析了妇女地位的变迁,指出妇女被压迫是人类历史发展到一定阶段上的产物。妇女为人类社会的发展作出了重要贡献。妇女解放是历史发展的必然,妇女解放的程度是衡量普遍解放的天然尺度。马克思主义妇女观对全球妇女解放作出了重大贡献。     

马克思恩格斯国家学说形成中的批判进路

马克思恩格斯深入考察了资本主义社会现实，对古典自由主义国家观、黑格尔理性国家观、鲍威尔政治解放思想和无政府主义国家观进行了深刻分析和批判，从人类社会形态发展和人的解放的高度探讨了国家相关的一系列基本问题，并从历史唯物主义出发形成了科学的国家理论，奠定了马克思主义国家学说的基石。     

试论马克思恩格斯的未来发展观及其现实意义

马克思恩格斯的未来发展观揭示了人类社会发展的基本规律,预示着人类社会发展的必然趋势,描绘了人类社会发展的宏观图景。具有整体性、辩证性、科学性、人民性、创新性、国际性等六大特征。对于我们今天贯彻和落实科学发展观、构建社会主义和谐社会、促进国民经济又好又快发展以及中华民族的伟大复兴事业具有十分重要的现实意义。     

试论马克思恩格靳的未来发展艰及其现实意义

马克思恩格斯的未来发展观揭示了人类社会发展的基本规律,预示着人类社会发展的必然趋势,描绘了人类社会发展的宏观图景。具有整体性、辩证性、科学性、人民性、创新性、国际性等六大特征。对于我们今天贯彻和落实科学发展观、构建社会主义和谐社会、促进国民经济又好又快发展以及中华民族的伟大复兴事业具有十分重要的现实意义。     

基于商品三重属性的"系统价值论"

西方价值理论将价值定义在"效用"之上,强调商品的自然属性,其分配制度为"按要素分配";劳动价值论将价值定义在"劳动"之上,强调商品的社会属性,其分配制度为"按劳分配".但随着人类社会的发展,生态环境日益遭到破坏,仅强调商品的自然属性和社会属性,已远远不能解决现实问题.从人类社会可持续发展角度看,商品应该具有三重属性:自然属性、社会属性和生态属性,因此,经济学的价值理论也应该是"系统价值论"."系统价值论"充分考虑了西方价值理论和马克思主义价值理论的合理成分,为人类从理论上理性地思考经济的可持续发展奠定了思想基础.在一定程度上拓展了价值理论的学术视野.     

马克思恩格斯的个人观探析——兼论保守自由主义者对马克思主义的批评

马克思恩格斯的个人观以辩证唯物史观为基础。它认为人是社会历史发展的主体,社会发展的目的是人的自由全面发展。在马克思恩格斯的社会发展决定论思想中,个人的主观能动性具有非常突出的地位。因此,保守自由主义者所批评的马克思主义扼杀个人、不承认个人的主体性和独立性的论点是不成立的。     

马克思恩格斯女性观的生成逻辑及哲学理路

马克思恩格斯的女性观确切地说是历史唯物主义的女性观,它有其自身的生成逻辑,并非一定是系统的理论。其中,异化理论是马克思恩格斯女性观的唯物史观基础,女性解放是马克思恩格斯女性观的认识论目的,两性和谐是马克思恩格斯女性观的辩证法诉求,人的自由全面发展是马克思恩格斯女性观的哲学归宿,这四方面内容互相依托共同构成了马克思恩格斯女性观的哲学理路,在一定程度上丰富了马克思主义基本理论体系。     

习近平生态文明思想的理论内涵与时代价值

习近平生态文明思想是着眼于人类文明形态转换的历史视野的一种文明观,它涉及经济社会发展全局以及人类社会发展的总体性方向,具有深刻的理论内涵,主要包括"人与自然和谐共生"的生态自然观、"绿水青山就是金山银山"的生态发展观、"五位一体"的生态社会观、"环境就是民生"的生态民生观。习近平生态文明思想具有巨大的时代价值,它为新时代中国特色社会主义生态文明建设指明了实践路径,极大地推动了我国经济社会的全面发展;把环境需要纳入人民的美好生活需要之中,极大地拓展了人民美好生活的内涵;把人与自然的生命共同体纳入人类命运共同体之中,为全人类的生态文明建设提供了中国智慧和中国方案。     

Marx,Engels, and Ecology*

The following is a brief survey of Marx and Engels’ views on ecology, from the viewpoint of their relevance for 21th-century ecosocialism. While there are some serious limitations in the way both consider the “development of productive forces,” there are powerful insights in their discussion of the destructive consequences of capitalist expansion for the environment—an expansion that generates a disastrous metabolic rift in the exchanges between human societies and nature. Some ecological Marxists distinguish between “first stage ecosocialists”—who believe that Marx analyses on ecological issues are too incomplete and dated to be of real relevance today—and “second stage ecosocialists,” who emphasize the contemporary methodological significance of Marx’s ecological critique of capitalism. This paper tries to argue for a third position (which probably could be accepted by several people of the two groups above): Marx and Engels’ discussion on ecological issues is incomplete and dated but despite these shortcomings it does have real relevance and methodological significance today.     

资源节约型社会构建的生态伦理基础

当代全球性的生态环境问题,从根本上说是由于人类在谋求社会发展的过程中,没能正确地处理好人类活动与自然生态的关系问题而导致的。因此,人类需要创建一种新的文明方式,即构建资源节约型社会来促进人与自然的和谐统一,其内动力是生态伦理制约。     

Post-capitalist property

When writing about property and property rights in his imagined post-capitalist society of the future, Marx seemed to envisage ‘individual property’ co-existing with ‘socialized property’ in the means of production. As the social and political consequences of faltering growth and increasing inequality, debt and insecurity gradually manifest themselves, and with automation and artificial intelligence lurking in the wings, the future of capitalism, at least in its current form, looks increasingly uncertain. With this, the question of what property and property rights might look like in the future, in a potentially post-capitalist society, is becoming ever more pertinent. Is the choice simply between private property and markets, and public (state-owned) property and planning? Or can individual and social property in the (same) means of production co-exist, as Marx suggested? This paper explores ways in which they might, through an examination of the Chinese household responsibility system (HRS) and the ‘fuzzy’ and seemingly confusing regime of land ownership that it instituted. It examines the HRS against the backdrop of Marx’s ideas about property and subsequent (post-Marx) theorizing about the legal nature of property in which property has come widely to be conceptualized not as a single, unitary ‘ownership’ right to a thing (or, indeed, as the thing itself) but as a ‘bundle of rights’. The bundle-of-rights idea of property, it suggests, enables us to see not only that ‘individual’ and ‘socialized’ property’ in the (same) means of production might indeed co-exist, but that the range of institutional possibility is far greater than that between capitalism and socialism/communism as traditionally conceived.     

Value,Nature, and Labor: A Defense of Marx

In this theoretical intervention, I argue that Karl Marx’s theory of value remains a powerful way to understand nature–society relations under capitalism. I suggest environmentalist critiques often misunderstand Marx’s value theory as a theory that “values” workers over nature. His critical theory is better understood as an explanation of how capitalist value exploits both workers and the environment. My defense of Marxian value theory is articulated through five “theses.” I provide empirical illustration based on recent research into the nitrogen fertilizer industry. (1) Value theory does not refer to all values. (2) Marx’s contention that nature does not contribute to value helps us explain its degradation under capitalism. (3) Marx’s value theory rooted in production allows for a critique of environmental economic valuation schemes (e.g. payments for ecosystem services) which are based on neoclassical value theories rooted in consumption/exchange. (4) Value is abstract social labor, but that means it also abstracts from nature. (5) Capital does value certain parts of nature and that matters. I conclude by advocating a “value theory of nature” in the spirit of Diane Elson’s powerful articulation of Marx’s “value theory of labor.”     

Productive forces,the passions and natural philosophy: Karl Marx, 1841–1846

ABSTRACT

This article explores the emergence of Karl Marx’s concept of history over the period 1841 to 1846. Whereas in Marx’s view the productive forces shaped human history, it is argued in this article that Marx believed the productive forces in their turn were fuelled by psychological drives; in effect, Marx made the passions the deepest motive force of history. ‘Historical materialism’ as it crystallized in those early years was a theory of materialized subjectivity. Marx’s comments on various Antique and Modern philosophies of nature evince that he discerned important parallels between the developmental processes of human history and of nature. If Marx traced the dynamism of the productive forces to the human passions, he was adhering to an essentially Romanticist ontology of self-creative, impassioned nature.     

全面准确地理解马克思早年的“跨越”思想

马克思早年的“跨越”思想和晚年的“跨越”思想一样,指的都是“跨越”资本主义的经济制度,而不是指“跨越”政治革命和政治解放,直接实现社会革命和人类解放。马克思早年“跨越”思想的理论基础是“共同胜利论”和“发达国家带动论”。19世纪40年代,德国的社会性质是半封建半资本主义社会,德国的资本主义制度已经存在并正在发展。马克思、恩格斯把此时代的德国看作是“支配着世界市场”,并能首先进行无产阶级革命,建立共产主义社会的国家,因此认为德国能把前资本主义国家或非资本主义国家带到共产主义新社会中去,因而也不存在跨越“资本主义制度的卡夫丁峡谷”问题。     

自然价值的疏离与回归--论生态现象学“生活世界化的自然”

人类要想实现与自然的真正和解,就必须解决一个前提性问题,即如何看待和理解“自然”。对于这个问题的回答也是将不同生态哲学流派区分开来的根本标志。生态现象学作为一种反传统知识论哲学的现代哲学,它试图通过建构一种自然意义、社会意义和文化意义相统一的“自然”概念——“生活世界化的自然”,将自然原初的被隐匿了的价值意义重新凸显出来,以引导人类走上通往与自然和解的道路。生态现象学的自然观念既不同于生态中心主义所主张的脱离人的生活世界来谈生态保护,也区别于人类中心主义所主张的将自然仅仅看作是工具价值层面“为我而生”的对象性存在。“生活世界化的自然”在“此在”的意义上来理解自然,是在日常生活中与“我”照面的,承载着各种价值意义,能够为人类的生命活动中所真切体验到的活生生的自然。生态现象学试图借助“生活世界化的自然”的“基底样式”,推动人类在“遭遇自然”—“体验自然”—“审美自然”的交往过程中,赋予自然以人性的同时,重新唤醒人性的生态化一面,进而引导饱受工具理性摧残的现代人类实现与自然的真正和解。     

Nation,nature, purity: extreme-right biodiversity in Germany

ABSTRACT

In this article, Forchtner investigates the construction of an ‘ideal’, extreme-right, ecologically sensitive subject. A concern for the natural environment is in no way new to the extreme right, and has long been part of its ideological make-up. In particular, claims that the laws of nature are applicable to the social world and that a community is embedded in an ecosystem have long been features of a right-wing ecological imaginary. Through an analysis of all the articles on a paradigmatic ecological issue, biodiversity, published in Germany’s exemplary extreme-right magazine preoccupied with ecology, Umwelt & Aktiv (Environment & Active), this cultural imaginary is reconstructed. Included in it as key themes are human responsibility for environmental degradation, the ecological value of flora and fauna, and criticism of modernity’s levelling tendencies (both biologically and culturally). Taking responsibility for the community’s Heimat (homeland) is, consequently, a crucial element for this subject: a subject who aims for purity, order and the stability of ecosystems.     

解读民主：一种人性的视角

民主作为一种制度和文化，它的发展有许多原因。但从根本上来看，应归囚于它与人性之间有着密不可分的联系．本文即从人性的角度入手，对民主的实质进行了深刻地剖析，从而揭示民主体现人的自然属性与社会属性、集体主义与个人主义平衡的本质特性．