马克思与斯密:关于投机行为的不同看法

发布时间：2018-06-20 07:31

本文选题：投机 + 马克思　；参考：《经济评论》2012年03期

【摘要】：本文强调马克思与斯密对投机的认识存在分歧,主张把这种分歧追溯到他们秉持的不同的个人观念。斯密在对个人进行抽象时只强调了自利性和理性,马克思则把相互依赖、相互制约也看作个人的行为特征。因为强调人们彼此间的依赖和制约,马克思没有忽视彼此依赖和制约着的任意一方行为主体,他正视选择投机的资本家的存在,承认投机还会对资产价格进而对日常生活和生产经营活动造成冲击,在他笔下,选择投机的资本家、选择投资的资本家和雇佣工人总是结成一定的关系借以制约彼此的行为选择。因为没有把个人理解为彼此依赖和制约着的。斯密轻易忽视了选择投机的资本家的存在,他否认投机及其对资产价格进而对日常生活和生产经营活动造成的冲击,无法正确理解选择投机的资本家与他人结成的关系。
[Abstract]:This paper emphasizes that Marx and Smith have different views on speculation, and advocates that the differences can be traced back to the different personal concepts they hold. Smith only emphasizes self-interest and rationality in abstracting the individual, while Marx regards interdependence and mutual restriction as the characteristics of individual behavior. Because he emphasized the dependence and restriction between people, Marx did not ignore any of the actors who depended on and restricted each other. He faced up to the existence of the capitalist who chose to speculate. Acknowledging that speculation would also have an impact on asset prices and on daily life and production and business activities, he wrote of the capitalist who chose to speculate. The capitalist who chooses to invest and the employed worker always form a certain relationship to restrict each other's behavior choice. For there is no understanding of the individual as mutual dependence and restraint. Smith easily ignored the existence of the capitalist who chose to speculate. He denied that speculation and its impact on the asset price and on daily life and production and business activities, and could not correctly understand the relationship between the capitalist who chose to speculate and others.
【作者单位】：南开大学经济学院;
【基金】：中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金资助项目“马克思经济分析方法及其应用探讨——一个从个人出发的研究视角”(项目编号:NKZXB10051)的资助
【分类号】：F091.3

【参考文献】