马克思与韦伯的政党理论比较研究

马克思政党理论与韦伯政党理论在政党本质、政党社会基础、政党政治立场、政党使命任务和政党民主等方面存在着不同,这是基于两人所处的时代背景、开展政党研究的目的及采用的研究方法等多种原因形成的。开展马克思政党理论和韦伯政党理论比较研究对丰富政党理论研究和指导我国政党建设具有重大的学术价值和实践意义。     

丹尼尔·贝尔对马克思的三重误读

基于所处时代哲学任务的需求,马克思恩格斯在阐述其理论时强调经济基础的作用,而鲜有对文化领域的观照。而马克思逝世后,科技理性所带来的巨大影响、国际工人运动的走向、资本主义和社会主义社会结构的发展以及现代性危机的涌现,似乎与马克思理论的阐述都有所不同。如此种种,引发了西方学者对于马克思文化观、社会发展理论的误读,以及对现代性问题实质的误判,出现了经济决定论、唯物史观过时论等论调。其中,丹尼尔·贝尔则是这种思潮的代表,他以“意识形态终结论”“资本主义文化矛盾”“后工业社会”等大观念为基础,构建了西方社会发展的理论体系,却无不映现其曲解、否定马克思主义,宣扬历史唯心主义观念论的错误。从马克思的社会发展理论、文化观和现代性问题三个层面对贝尔的误读进行梳理和回应,可澄明马克思主义理论的生命力和解释力。     

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.     

略论中国生态文明的发展战略

生态文明突出生态的重要,强调尊重和保护环境,实现人与自然的和谐、人与人之间的和谐。中国的生态文明发展战略必须以马克思的物质变换理论为指导。在现代化建设中必须实施可持续发展战略,消除物质变换的裂缝。建立生态示范区和建设生态工业园是倡导循环经济实现可持续发展的中国生态文明发展战略的具体实践。促进碳交易、发展低碳经济和碳减排是中国生态文明发展战略的新进展。     

马克思恩格斯意识形态理论精髓及其当代启示

马克思恩格斯在创立历史唯物主义的过程中,不仅科学地阐释了意识形态的含义和实质,还深刻地揭示了意识形态的本质特征,认为意识形态具有鲜明的阶级性、系统的理论性、强烈的实践性、相对的独立性和历史的继承性,这些构成了马克思主义意识形态理论精髓.马克思主义意识形态理论是认识和变革社会的重要工具,我们应全面理解和认识全球化态势下意识形态的内涵和特性,科学把握当代中国社会主义意识形态的鲜明特征,进一步发挥我国主流意识形态在社会主义现代化建设中的作用和功能.     

马克思对启蒙主义自由观的继承与改造——马克思书报检查问题文献的哲学解读

马克思关于普鲁士书报检查问题有三份重要文献,由于1842年之前马克思的成长环境的特殊文化因素,马克思的这组文献是对启蒙主义自由观的继承和改造:马克思将自由视为人的天性、本质;不同于启蒙主义者的是,马克思一开始就能够从社会历史的视角去观察自由的实际形态,认为自由必须采取"法律形式"而存在.马克思在感性上看到了阶级或者阶层...     

马克思历史哲学的当代意义(上)

随着中国走向市场经济,没有任何问题能比马克思主义的历史命运更能引起人们的关注。本文结合《资本论》三大手稿.以与传统哲学教科书不同的方式,围绕以下十二个问题,展示马克思历史哲学的当代意义:关于市场经济的历史地位;商品经济的两大历史阶段;商品经济的重要历史作用;货币的历史地位;资本的文明面;关于交往方式;关于资本的有限性;关于竞争;关于社会主义所有制;关于重建个体所有制;关于共产主义的历史前提;关于历史唯物主义。我的结论是,马克思是研究市场经济的第一人,他的无穷的思想遗产依然是我们改革开放的指路明灯,马克思在当代依然是不可超越的。     

对马克思《1844年经济学哲学手稿》人的本质思想的再认识

马克思在《手稿》中从探讨人的生命活动之自由的有意识的活动本质入手,揭示了这种活动所表现的生产、劳动或实践的实质是人的本质力量的对象化,由此将实践确定为人的本质特征,这为实现伟大的哲学变革打造了第一块坚固的基石。同时,《手稿》虽然正确指出了劳动是人的本质,第一次从劳动出发去说明社会历史,但由于从想象的人的本质出发去研究人类历史的发展规律,并没有从根本上超出费尔巴哈人本主义的藩篱。     

马克思的世界历史理论与胡锦涛的时代观

在资本主义全面发展的大工业时代,马克思提出了世界历史理论。新世纪,胡锦涛继承和发展了马克思世界历史理论与我党关于时代问题的基本战略思想,创造性地提出了新的时代观。其主要内容包括：深刻变革论、和谐世界论、共同发展论、共担责任论及积极参与论。胡锦涛时代观是在新时期对马克思关于世界历史发展趋势论、世界历史发展动力论及世界历史发展道路论的发展,具有深刻的世界历史意义。     

The Politics of Postcapitalism: Labour and our Digital Futures

This article introduces the special issue on the politics of postcapitalism. Considering the theoretical foundations, empirical perspectives and political ramifications of claims made about a coming ‘post-work’ or ‘postcapitalist’ society, it maps existing debates through a discussion of two key recent texts, Paul Mason’s Clear Bright Future and Aaron Bastani’s Fully Automated Luxury Communism. It first surveys how the relationship between labour market trends, technological change and wider political-economic shifts is articulated in the postcapitalist literature. It then explores how concepts from Marx are deployed to depict social relations as a constraint on technological development and its utopian potentialities, leading to political demands for new class actors and electoral blocs centring on the new forms of economic and political activity associated with digital networks. It also considers the role of the state and how this theoretical and political approach envisions historical change, situating utopian visions of an incipient postcapitalist alternative to capitalism within the contemporary political context of authoritarian populism and challenges to liberal democracy. Finally, it explores the continuing relevance of humanism as a critical counterpoint to the social and philosophical agenda of present day ‘posthumanism’. It concludes that, in unfavourable political conditions, it would be strategically unwise to stake too much on an over-optimistic approach to the unfolding future. This outlook, it is suggested, carries considerable risks and consequences for a contemporary left in search of a viable electoral coalition and route back to power.