历史唯物主义重建之下的民主观念

伍德把民主视为超越资本主义的一种力量。她虽然肯定在资本主义条件下,政治民主有所发展,但更为根本的是,经济并不是民主的,而是充满压迫与强制的。因此,民主的发展,必然要超出资本主义社会。为此,她对历史唯物主义的一些基本范畴进行了重新思考,包括经济"基础"与上层建筑的关系。她不同意把经济与政治视为截然分离的两个领域,而是把资本主义社会所特有的这种分离视为资本主义本身政治功能的分化。伍德的民主理论,是力图从马克思主义视角来回应当代资本主义的民主理论,与所谓的后马克思主义有着重大的差别。     

Value and Nature: Rethinking Capitalist Exploitation and Expansion

Value is central to the political economy of capitalism, but Marxian value theory has generally been abandoned when it comes to including nature in the analysis. An important exception is the recent work of Jason Moore, and in this paper an effort is made to fill several lacunae in Moore’s approach. I argue for a unified measure of labor-nature time and joint exploitation of surplus value, then explore the significance of that for capitalist growth via rising productivity and cheap inputs, as well as what these mean for geographic expansion in search of labor and resources. I finish on the classic note of the insatiable drive for capital accumulation and its implications for the fate of the earth.     

Capitalism,nature, socialism a theoretical introduction∗

This article expounds the traditional Marxist theory of the contradiction between forces and relations of production, over‐production of capital and economic crisis, and the process of crisis‐induced restructuring of productive forces and production relations into more transparently social, hence potentially socialist, forms. This exposition provides a point of departure for an “ecological Marxist”; theory of the contradiction between capitalist production relations and forces and the conditions of production, under‐production of capital and economic crisis, and the process of crisis‐induced restructuring of production conditions and the social relations thereof also into more transparently social, hence potentially socialist, forms. In short, there may be not one but two paths to socialism in late capitalist society.

While the two processes of capital over‐production and underproduction are by no means mutually exclusive, they may offset or compensate for one another in ways which create the appearance of relatively stable processes of capitalist development. Study of the combination of the two processes in the contemporary world may throw light on the decline of traditional labor and socialist movements and the rise of “new social movements”; as agencies of social transformation. In similar ways that traditional Marxism illuminates the practises of traditional labor movements, it may be that “ecological Marxism”; throws light on the practices of new social movements. Although ecology and nature; the politics of the body, feminism, and the family; and urban movements and related topics are usually discussed in post‐Marxist terms, the rhetoric deployed in this article is self‐consciously Marxist and designed to appeal to Marxist theorists and fellow travelers whose work remains within a “scientific”; discourse hence those who are least likely to be convinced by post‐Marxist discussions of the problem of capital's use and abuse of nature (including human nature) in the modern world. However, the emphasis in this article on a political economic “scientific”; discourse is tactical, not strategic. In reality, more or less autonomous social relationships, often non‐capitalist or anti‐capitalist, constitute “civil society,”; which needs to be addressed on its own practical and theoretical terms. In other words, social and collective action is not meant to be construed merely as derivative of systemic forces, as the last section of the article hopefully will make clear.     

French capitalism ­transformed,yet still a third variety of capitalism

Rather than one or two varieties of capitalism, this paper argues that there are still at least three in Europe, following along lines of development from the three post-war models: market capitalism, characteristic of Britain; managed capitalism, typical of Germany; and state capitalism, epitomized by France. While France’s state capitalism has been transformed through market-oriented reforms, it has become neither market capitalist nor managed capitalist. Rather, it has moved from ‘state-led’ capitalism to a kind of ‘state-enhanced’ capitalism, in which the state still plays an active albeit much reduced role, where CEOs exercise much greater autonomy, and labour relations have become much more market-reliant.     

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.”     

Growth Critique in the 1970s Crisis and Today: Malthusianism,Social Mechanics,and Labor Discipline

This article examines the perspective on labor in two critiques of “growth” as elaborated in the context of two capitalist crises: the Keynesian model of industrial development in the 1970s, and the neoliberal finance capitalist growth model of today. A landmark event for the first critique was the publication of the “Limits to Growth” report, and for the second the emergence of the “degrowth” theoretical current. Both critiques have a Malthusian point of departure, and their view on overpopulation is accordingly discussed. Comparison between them shows that despite their ecological and supposedly socially and politically neutral point of departure, both bodies of critique examined here—that of the 1970s and the contemporary one—prescribe for labor the obligation of social discipline and acceptance of labor-market insecurity, along with the undermining of welfare rights. First, I argue that there is no such thing as an ahistorical critique of growth, but only critiques of different, case-specific models of growth in each particular instance. Second, I argue that the idea of a steady-state economy that predominates in growth critical programs is incompatible with the process of expansion and continual enlargement inherent to capitalism. Finally, I argue that, in the framework of two different crises, both critiques of growth promoted a vision of social pacification and, on the basis of ecological arguments, justified the preservation of capitalist power relations.     

Varieties of hierarchical capitalism: family and state market economies in East Asia

Through an examination of East Asian economies, this paper proposes two new capitalist ideal types: family market economies and state market economies. In contrast to coordinated and liberal market economy types, the new capitalist ideal types proposed here display alternative forms of hierarchical coordination. These ideal types are also genuinely novel models of capitalism because they exhibit distinct and stable institutional structures and comparative advantages.     

Institutional competitiveness in the global economy: Denmark,the United States,and the varieties of capitalism

Despite high taxes, a large welfare state, and much economic regulation, Denmark competes successfully against other advanced capitalist economies. Denmark’s success is based in large part on its institutional competitiveness – its capacity to achieve socioeconomic success as a result of the competitive advantages that firms derive from operating within a particular set of institutions. The institutional basis for successfully coordinating labor markets and vocational training programs are examined for Denmark and the US – two countries that were very different institutionally but very successful in the 1990s and in the 2000s. We show that there is no one best way to achieve success in today’s global economy, except with respect to social inequality; that the mechanisms underlying institutional competitiveness are more complex than often recognized; that institutional hybrids can be as successful as purer political economic cases; and that high taxes and state spending can enhance socioeconomic performance. As such, this paper challenges both neoliberalism and the varieties of capitalism school of comparative political economy.     

Free software production as critical social practice

Abstract

This paper analyses the phenomenon of free and open source software (FOSS) in the light of Luc Boltanski and Ève Chiapello's The new spirit of capitalism. It argues that collaborative FOSS production by volunteer software developers is a species of critical social practice in Boltanski and Chiapello's sense: rooted in resistance to capitalist social relations, and yet also a source of values that justify the new routes to profitability associated with contemporary network capitalism. Advanced via collective projects that are sustained by hacker norms and privately legislated ‘copyleft’ law, the FOSS ethos is apparently antithetical to private property-based accumulation. Yet it can be shown to embody the ‘new spirit of capitalism’ in its most distilled form; moreover FOSS developers have instituted new forms of property and new modes of profit creation around software that are in the process of being adapted for use in other economic sectors. Meanwhile, the private law constraints on profit-seeking that have emerged from the FOSS movement are counteracting some of the social pathologies that accompany network capitalism only to consolidate others. The paper concludes by identifying likely bases for a renewal of critique given these realities.     

马克思“唯灵论”批判思想研究

在马克思的理论视野中，资产阶级在政治与经济领域所持有的观念形态继承了宗教（基督教）以抽象的精神观念能动地把握世界的方式，从而都具有了唯灵论特征。因而，马克思把对宗教唯灵论的批判看作是政治与经济领域批判的前提。在政治领域中，资产阶级思想家把私有财产制度抽象人格化，从简单的经济关系出发来论证自由和平等，从而使建立在这种抽象人格基础上的自由和平等等政治国家的政治理念日益抽象化，并支配着社会成员的头脑且企图实现所谓的普遍利益而具有唯灵论特征；在经济领域中，资本拜物教是商品拜物教、货币拜物教的最高峰，资本这一抽象的“死劳动”借助于雇佣劳动这一“活劳动”得以不断增殖从而具有了支配人的灵性。马克思对这三种唯灵论批判的意图在于提醒人们要搞清楚资本主义制度所包含的矛盾以及资本主义社会的现实形态和观念形态之间的差别，不被抽象观念所支配，从而唤醒工人阶级的彻底的革命意识。     

浅谈卢卡奇与马克思的物化理论——《历史与阶级意识》与《1844年经济学哲学手稿》读后

在马克思主义哲学中,物化和异化是个经常的话题。早在《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中,马克思就提出了物化和异化理论并据此对资本主义社会劳动与人的关系进行了分析和阐述。在《手稿》之后,西方马克思主义理论家卢卡奇秉承马克思的衣钵,在他的《历史与阶级意识》(以下简称《意识》)中再次对物化进行了全面的探讨。但他的物化概念与马克思的物化理论还是有着较大差别的,拟从两人对物化概念的理解、对物化产生根源的论证等四个方面对此进行浅析。     

Thomas Jefferson's Liberal Anticapitalism

This article reassesses Thomas Jefferson's political economy in light of debates about the influence of liberal and republican ideas on his thought. I argue that Jefferson embraced liberal premises, but used them to reach anticapitalist conclusions. He opposed neither commerce nor the prosperity it promised; he opposed working for a wage, and he did so on liberal grounds. The first section of this article shows that John Locke's theory of property turns on the justification of capitalist labor relations. The second section establishes, first, that Locke's argument played a decisive role in the development of Jefferson's own and, second, that Jefferson redefined its terms to fashion a forceful critique of wage labor. An examination of Jefferson's writings elucidates a neglected variant of the liberal tradition, prevalent in the United States until the Populist agitation. Its core is the stigma attached to working for hire as a diminished form of liberty, tantamount to wage slavery.     

‘Democratic Socialism’ and the Concept of (Post)Capitalism

This article explores the ‘democratic socialism’ being proposed by new left movements on either side of the Atlantic, and evaluates its claim to be a form of anti- or postcapitalism. It argues that in the democratic socialist worldview, the line between capitalism and socialism rests on the balance of power between workers and capitalists in the economic sphere. While traditional social democracy seeks to redistribute wealth but leaves relations between workers and capitalists within firms untouched, democratic socialism seeks to abolish private property in the economic sphere. Production is controlled democratically by the workers themselves, in league with a workers’ state. The article critically appraises the claim that such a scenario constitutes a form of postcapitalism. Drawing on the work of critical Marxists such as Moishe Postone, it argues that capitalism is not primarily defined by private property relations in the economic sphere, but rather the peculiar social form of capitalist labour. Unlike in pre-capitalist societies, for labour in capitalism to secure a continued basis on which to reproduce the means of subsistence, it must be socially validated as ‘value-producing’. The criteria for value validation is not set in the workplace, or within a single nation state, but rather on the world market. The article concludes that, for all its merits, the democratisation of workplaces does not overcome the need for this social validation, but rather constitutes an alternative form of managing the process of production in this context. As such, democratic socialism, like social democracy, remains susceptible to the same imperatives and crises as other forms of capitalist production, and so cannot be said to constitute a form of ‘postcapitalism’.     

Beyond the Social Market: Rethinking Capitalism and Public Policy

Despite its worthy motives, social market philosophy provides neither a useful analytical framework for understanding modern capitalism, nor the policy tools to address our present economic and social predicament. The concept of ‘market failure’, with its underlying assumption of market equilibrium, does not capture the systemically adverse outcomes of collective market forces. A more sophisticated understanding of capitalist economies, and the societies in which they exist, would recognise that the market economy is a dynamic but not self‐regulating system. It is embedded in, and impacts on, four other economies – of the natural environment, of family and care, of voluntary association, and of the public sector – which operate under different motivations and allocative principles. The role of government is central, to balance the values created by different kinds of institutions and to constrain the dynamic impacts of market forces. A number of policy conclusions are offered arising from this framework.     

Reproduction of social classes at the level of production relations

This article starts with a discussion of the capitalist production relations which are defined as the relations binding two types of agents of production and the means of production. These relations are considered from the point of view of ownership, expropriation of value, and function performed. The ownership element is given the determinant role in the sense that the owner of the means of production is also the expropriator of surplus value (exploiter) and he who performs the function of capital (non-labourer). Vice versa for the non-owner of the means of production who is also the exploited and the performer of the function of labour (labourer). There is in this case correspondence between the determinant and the determined elements. Thus the two fundamental classes under capitalism are defined in terms of correspondence among the three aspects of the production relations. But the concept of determinantion implies both correspondence and contradiction between the determinant and the determined elements. The middle classes are identified in terms of contradiction among the three aspects of the production relations. Thus, there are agents (‘the new middle class’) who do not own the means of production and who perform either only the global function of capital or both this function and the function of the collective worker. This analysis of the capitalist production relations provides the opportunity for introducing the concept of positions (a fractional unit of the capitalist production process) which has both a technical content (given by the technical division of labour) and a social content (just as the capitalist production process rests on certain production relations, so does each of its fractional units). Thus, an agent of production relations and thus can be placed, at this level of abstraction, in the class structure. Subsequently, the thesis is submitted that the reproduction of classes depends on the production of both positions and agents, where the former has the determinant role. This implies that there can be a discrepancy between positions and agents at the level of the economic, i.e. that there can be a discrepancy between the value of an agent's labour power and the value required by a position. The devaluation of labour power is an important example of such a discrepancy. A distinction is made between two types of devaluation of labour power: wage goods devaluation and devaluation through dequalification. It is the latter which explains the reduction of skilled to average labour (technical dequalification of positions) and thus also the disappearance of the global function of capital (social dequalification of positions). Thus, it is the latter form of devaluation of labour power which must be used to explain the proletarianization of the new middle class. A comparison is drawn between the two types of devaluation of labour power and the circumstances are discussed which can give the dominant role either to one type of devaluation or to the other. The rest of the article uses this conceptual framework to interpret the changes undergone by the Italian new middle class since its origins.     

Radical Reformism and the Marxist Critique

The mainstream environmental movement has tended to accept the continuation of capitalism and the growth economy. A de-materialization is hoped to follow from limits on the use of natural resources. Eco-Marxists have opposed this strategy, claiming environmental problems are intrinsic to capitalism. More recently a tendency which I will call “radical reformism” has been gaining strength. Radical reformists argue that a growth economy is not compatible with environmental limits. They look to regulate capitalism to prevent growth. The overall intention is for a peaceful transition within a broadly capitalist economy. The eco-Marxist critique of mainstream environmentalism can also be applied to radical reformism. While radical reformists may have some answers to this critique, these answers bring further problems.     

马克思对李嘉图地租理论的批判及其方法论意义--以《1861-1863年经济学手稿》为视角

马克思的地租理论是在批判和继承李嘉图地租理论的基础上完成的。马克思在《1861-1863年经济学手稿》中对李嘉图地租理论的劳动价值论基础给予高度肯定，对其地租定义及前提、级差地租、绝对地租等理论错误等进行了分析批判，指出其根源在于对生产关系非历史超历史的理解。马克思从现实的社会再生产出发确立了完备的地租理论，阐明了资本主义地租的社会生产关系本质，彰显出科学的方法论。     

Explaining Capitalism: The Method of Marx's Political Economy

The central thesis of this article is that Marx's explanation of the significant phenomena of the capitalist economy draws upon a basic theoretical syntax of a determinist/latent functionalist type. This conclusion has three consequences. First, it extends the range of functionalist explanation in Marx beyond its traditional loci, namely the theory of history and the analysis of the role of the state and other institutions in stabilizing capitalism, into the very heart of Marx's project, his political economy. Secondly, it has a powerful, though indirect, impact on our understanding of what might loosely be called the normative component of Marx's writings in as much as it identifies a specific sort of unfreedom peculiar to capitalist society. Thirdly, it shows just how great a challenge is mounted against Marx's project by those who seek to recast its method of explanation along methodological individualist lines. For if the first two points are accurate, rational-choice Marxists are drawn into a critique of both the explanatory and normative core of Marxism.     

From reproduction to production

The concepts of liberal economics, derived from the analysis of capitalist societies, are both inadequate and inappropriate for the analysis of precapitalist societies. Marx's analysis of primitive societies focused largely on the historical succession of modes of production rather than on their inner workings. What is needed is an analysis of the type which Marx made of capitalism.

The present analysis starts from Marx's distinction between land as subject of labour and land as instrument of production. Where the latter is the case (as in self-sustaining agricultural communities), the society is dominated by the production and reproduction of the material conditions of existence, of the community's members and of the structural organization; the relations of production and the organisation of the community are based upon control of the means of reproduction (subsistence and women) rather than the means of production.

The article concludes with a brief discussion of the way in which capitalism utilizes agricultural communities to provide, in part, for the reproduction of labour-power in the modern wage-labour economy.     

Performing Counter-Hegemonic Common(s) Senses: Rearticulating Democracy,Community and Forests in Puerto Rico

Political ecologists have developed scathing analyses of capitalism’s tendency for enclosure and dispossession of the commons. In this context commons are analyzed as a force to resist neo-liberalism, a main site of conflict over dispossession, and a source of alternatives to capitalism. In this paper we elaborate a view of the commons as the material and symbolic terrain where performative re-articulation of common(s) senses can potentially enact counter-hegemonic socio-ecological configurations. Expressly drawing on the concepts of hegemony, “common-senses” (inspired by Antonio Gramsci) and “performativity” (developed by Judith Butler), we argue that counter-hegemony is performed through everyday practices that rearticulate existing common senses about commons. Commoning is a set of processes/relations enacted to challenge capitalist hegemony and build more just/sustainable societies insofar as it transforms and rearranges common senses in/through praxis. The paper draws on the experience of an anti-mining movement of Casa Pueblo in Puerto Rico, which for the last 35+ years has been developing a project self-described as autogestion. The discussion pays special attention to Casa Pueblo’s praxis and discourses to investigate how they rearticulate common senses with regard to nature, community and democracy, as well as their implications for counter-hegemonic politics.