论马克思政治经济学的理解方法及其性质

马克思政治经济学方法内容丰富且成体系,概括性提法是“解剖典型”,理解方法是其中的有机组成部分.理解方法是马克思主体、客体及二者之间辩证关系这一哲学分析框架的方法论化,实质是主体性.理解方法与资产阶级经济学科学方法论主张判然有别,主体性质、批判性质、过程性质、逆溯性质、革命性质和整体性质是题中应有之义.鉴于此,在马克思主义政治经济学教科书、专著和论文中应给予理解方法以表示存在的机会.     

Remarks on the theoretical significance of Marx's Grundrisse

In recent years much play has been made with the significance of the Grundrisse for the reinterpretation of Marx's thought. The text has been represented as a vindication of those who have treated Marx's work as a relatively direct development from the early writings of 1843 and 1844, and a rebuttal of those who have sought to establish that Marx's later works constitute a radically distinct project from that of his youth, the two projects being separated by an epistemological break. This paper examines the theoretical structure of the Grundrisse, the kind of concepts that it contains and the objects constructed by these concepts. I argue that the result of such an examination demonstrates that the latter of the two positions outlined here is the correct one. The Grundrisse is shown to be an incoherent, transitional work, and its ambiguities an index of the presence of a number of theoretical obstacles.     

马克思政治经济学批判的生态意蕴及其启示

马克思在《资本论》及其手稿中运用唯物史观对资本主义展开的政治经济学批判,从社会制度层面探讨了人类与自然、社会协同发展的规律性,触及到资本主义生产方式的反生态本质,提出了以"物质变换"为特征、以合目的性与合规律性相统一为原则的劳动实践观,基于劳动价值论的物质财富观,注重自然资源循环利用的经济生态观,倡导节约消费的适度消费观,超越资本逻辑、解决社会各种利益矛盾的社会正义观.从马克思的政治经济学批判中发掘经典马克思主义生态思想资源,可以拓展马克思主义政治经济学研究的生态视域,为推进绿色发展和社会主义生态文明建设提供有益的启迪.     

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.     

Critique of Marx's 1857 Introduction

A group of leading critical writers in the school of govenrmentality studies have recently called for a debate over the methoddological and political direction of studies of complex mode of government beyond confines of the State. This paper traces the divisions within the field to Foucault's ambiguous methodological legacy, in paraticular to an impoverished theorization of sovereignty. Rather, this paper emphasizes its centripetal function, within and between nation states, in maintaining hybrid forms of liberal rule in the effort to manage the centrifugal tendencies endemic in a pluralist liberal order. These modes of rule operate in tension with the role of liberalism as critique. On the basis of this analysis, it is argued that radical critique within this field is limited, erroneuously distances critique from liberlism and would be unduly restrictive for governmentality theorists who with to perform a more central role as public intellectuals. Liberalism could once more be the principal focus for a normatively comitted form governmentality studies, which in turn, could emerge as its principal vehicla for immanent critque and renewal.     

马克思对资本主义理性化的分析和批判

马克思作为影响后现代理论家对资本主义批判的无法绕过的重要人物,虽然他没有使用过“理性化”或“工具理性”等词语,但他的著作中也蕴涵着对资本主义理性化批判的丰富思想。本文拟从工具理性张扬及其导致的非理性后果,资本主义价值理性的发展和局限,理性化与对内奴役和对外侵略扩张在逻辑上的互补、一致,理性化导致非理性的根源及其解决等方面进行挖掘和梳理,从而与韦伯的理性化思想进行比较,以回应西方学者对马克思的批评．对当前的全球化形势有更清醒的理解。     

An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital

Daniel P. Liston, CAPITALIST SCHOOLS: EXPLANATION AND ETHICS IN RADICAL STUDIES OF SCHOOLING (New York: Routledge, 1988), and Henry A. Giroux, SCHOOLING AND THE STRUGGLE FOR PUBLIC LIFE: CRITICAL PEDAGOGY IN THE MODERN AGE (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1988).

Ernest L. Boyer, COLLEGE: THE UNDERGRADUATE EXPERIENCE IN AMERICA (New York: Harper &; Row, 1987; first paperback edition 1988).

Elzbieta Ettinger, ROSA LUXEMBURG: A LIFE (Boston: Beacon, 1986).

Stanley Aronowitz, SCIENCE AS POWER: DISCOURSE AND IDEOLOGY IN MODERN SCIENCE (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1988).

Shoshana Zuboff, IN THE AGE OF THE SMART MACHINE: THE FUTURE OF WORK AND POWER (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1988)

Carol Gould, RE‐THINKING DEMOCRACY, FREEDOM AND SOCIAL COOPERATION IN POLITICS, ECONOMY AND SOCIETY (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988).

Seyla Benhabib, CRITIQUE, NORM, AND UTOPIA: A STUDY OF THE FOUNDATIONS OF CRITICAL THEORY (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986)

Burton Zwiebach, THE COMMON LIFE: AMBIGUITY, AGREEMENT, AND THE STRUCTURE OF MORALS (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1988)     

The Political Foundations of the Eurocracy

This article explores the politics behind the design of EU regulatory institutions. The EU has established an extensive ‘Eurocracy’ outside of the Commission hierarchy, including over 30 European agencies and a number of networks of national regulatory authorities (NRAs). The article examines the politics of institutional choice in the EU, explaining why EU policy-makers create agencies in some policy areas, while opting for looser regulatory networks in others. It shows that the design of EU regulatory institutions – ‘the Eurocracy’ – is driven not by functional imperatives but by political considerations related to distributional conflict and the influence of supranational actors.     

On the Critique of Negotiated Economy

A critical debate on the concept of negotiated economy has to start from a mutual recognition of fundamental methodological and epistemological differences between the various research positions in the field. In reply to a recent critical comment by P. M. Christiansen on our use of the concept of negotiated economy, we argue that Christiansen not only mispresents our theoretical, empirical, and critical ambitions; most importantly, he also fails to grasp the basic methodological differences between our constructivist strategy of institutional analysis, and the more conventional non-constructivist approach that he propagates.     

The Political Significance of the Face: Deleuze's Critique of Levinas

While Levinas famously claims that ethics precedes ontology and emanates from the concrete experience of the other's face, it is often forgotten that Deleuze also discusses the face in numerous writings. The purpose of this paper is to briefly outline Levinas's arguments regarding the constitution of the face to chart its ethical importance, before engaging with Deleuze's critique of Levinas's position. I show that, by distinguishing between two systems of signification – the head-body system and the face system – Deleuze agrees with Levinas that the face is an important signifier delineating the other, but destructs the notion of face to show that it: (1) is more complex and multi-dimensional than Levinas realizes; (2) emanates from a specific semiotic relationship; and (3) emanates from specific socio-historical circumstances. Showing the face is a semiotic construct based in and emanating from a specific socio-historical configuration allows Deleuze not only to conclude that the face is related to politics not ethics as Levinas claims, but also to claim that it entails the inhuman in the human. This clarifies the nature of the face in Deleuze, offers a critique of Levinas's influential thinking on ethics, brings us to a discussion of the relationship between ethics and politics and reveals what Deleuze takes the political to entail.