“自我所有”问题：柯亨与马克思

发布时间：2018-08-22 11:12

【摘要】：右翼自由主义者诺奇克在其著作《无政府、国家和乌托邦》中提出“自我所有”理论,其简要观点为:人对自己本身及其能力具有所有权,在未签订契约的条件下,任何个人或者组织不得支配或者强迫他人做任何事情。这一理论的核心要义旨在为资本主义的不平等做辩护。而作为坚定的社会主义的信仰者G.A.柯亨,则试图对自我所有理论加以反驳,为马克思的理论做辩护。本文试以右翼自由主义者诺奇克的“自我所有”原则为切入点,论述“自我所有”同“所有权”的起源与内涵,澄清两者的内在关联。在此基础上,阐明“自我所有”理论对马克思和马克思主义的挑战,进而阐述柯亨作为坚定的“社会主义信仰者”对于这些来源于自由主义者的“诘难”的尝试回应,最终柯亨没有从根本上驳倒自我所有理论,反而他认为“直接否认自我所有并不意味着赞成奴隶制,取消人的自主权,不把人视为目的而把人视为手段。而肯定自我所有则会危及自主权,根本不能防止功利主义地利用他人的行为”,同时,柯亨也提出,虽然无法将自我所有理论完全驳倒,但是可以通过逻辑例证祛除其魅力,从某种意义上讲,柯亨对自我所有理论持有妥协的态度,亦或者说柯亨试图悬搁“自我所有”这一理论以作权宜之计。在诺奇克语境中,“自我所有”理论暗含外部世界原始占有原则,即外部资源人人可得,此原则可能形成大量分配不平等问题。柯亨对此展开反驳,柯亨提出了一个命题“世界所有权”即“外部世界所有人共有”,以此代替诺奇克“外部世界人人共有”的假设,以达到条件平等目的。他发现,通过这一假设,一方面他达到批判的预期目的即令自由主义者陷入矛盾之中,“因为在这种经济之下,很多人的自我所有权也没有什么实质内容”。另一方面,他的假设也在意料之外形成了对马克思和马克思主义者的驳难,即马克思主义者要平等和自主,就必须以某种程度上放弃自我所有,与“左翼自由主义者”区别开来。柯亨指出马克思和马克思主义在两个领域没有同左翼自由主义者拉开距离,第一个领域是马克思对于资本主义制度的不公正的批判,柯亨对此部分的批判主要集中在劳动价值论与剥削概念上。第二个领域是马克思对于未来理想社会的构想,而柯亨对此部分的批判更多的集中于理想社会实现的物质基础和革命主体上。通过对两个领域的批判,柯亨得出结论:马克思非但没有意识到自我所有理论是自由主义的内在依据,反而将自我所有理论当成了自身的理论前提。在柯亨看来,马克思似乎在“自我所有”上始终保持着暧昧的态度,毋庸讳言,马克思对“自我所有”保持有某种赞成的态度。马克思所反对的“自我所有”是抽象的“自我所有”概念和理论,所赞成的“自我所有”是以现实的历史为前提的对商品实现占有的基础即劳动力所有权。明确了马克思在何种意义上承认“自我所有”,我们可以展开对柯亨在两个领域的批判的反批判。在第一个领域中,柯亨在劳动价值论、剥削理论等方面对马克思进行了批评。事实上,柯亨的指责是不公正的。其一,柯亨割裂了“价值实体”和“价值量”关系,混淆了使用价值和价值,剥削理论的批判作用是毋庸置疑的。其二所谓“清白的资本主义”不过是柯亨的误判,清白的资本主义并非“清白”。在第二个领域中,柯亨对“美好社会”实现的现实根基和理论基础进行批判。然而,实质上,马克思的理想社会的构想并非是一种静止的状态而是一种历史的革命的批判的不断趋向美好彼岸的运动。因而,柯亨对于“美好社会”设想的批判也就自动消解了。
[Abstract]:In his book Anarchy, State, and Utopia, the right-wing liberal Nokic puts forward the theory of "self-ownership". His brief view is that man has ownership of himself and his abilities, and no individual or organization can dominate or force others to do anything without a contract. G.A.Cohen, a firm believer in socialism, tries to refute the theory of self-ownership and defend Marx's theory. This paper attempts to discuss the two concepts from the perspective of the right-wing liberal Nokic's "self-ownership" principle. On this basis, it clarifies the challenge of the theory of "self-ownership" to Marx and Marxism, and then elaborates Cohen's response as a firm "socialist believer" to these "heckling" attempts originating from liberals, and finally Cohen does not fundamentally refute himself. All theories, on the contrary, argue that "denying self-ownership directly does not mean approving slavery, abolishing people's autonomy, not regarding people as ends but as means, while affirming self-ownership endangers autonomy and does not prevent utilitarianism from exploiting other people's behavior." Cohen also argues that, although it is impossible to place oneself in the right to be The theory is completely refuted, but its charm can be dispelled by logical illustration. In a sense, Cohen has a compromising attitude towards the theory of self-ownership, or Cohen tries to suspend the theory of "self-ownership" for expediency. In the Nokic context, the theory of "self-ownership" implies the primitive possession of the outside world. Cohen disputes that this principle may lead to a large number of inequalities in the distribution of external resources. Cohen argues that the proposition of "ownership of the world" is "ownership of the outside world" instead of Nokic's "ownership of the outside world" assumption, in order to achieve the goal of equality of conditions. One hypothesis, on the one hand, that he achieved the desired purpose of criticism is to plunge liberals into contradictions, "because in this economy, many people have no real content of self-ownership." On the other hand, his hypothesis also unexpectedly formed a refutation of Marx and Marxists, that is, Marxists want to. Equality and autonomy, to some extent, must give up self-ownership, and distinguish from the "left-wing liberals." Cohen pointed out that Marx and Marxism did not distance from the left-wing liberals in two areas, the first area is Marx's unfair criticism of the capitalist system, Cohen's criticism of this part. The second area is Marx's conception of the future ideal society, and Cohen's criticism of this part focuses more on the material basis of the realization of the ideal society and the revolutionary subject. In Cohen's view, Marx seems to have always maintained an ambiguous attitude towards "self-ownership". Needless to say, Marx maintained a certain attitude in favor of "self-ownership". "Self-ownership" is an abstract concept and theory of "self-ownership". The "self-ownership" is the basis of realizing the possession of commodities on the premise of realistic history, that is, the ownership of labor force. In fact, Cohen's criticism is unfair. First, Cohen separates the relationship between "value entity" and "value quantity" and confuses the use value and value. The critical role of the theory of exploitation is beyond doubt. Second, the so-called "innocent assets" In the second field, Cohen criticized the realistic and theoretical basis for the realization of a "good society." However, in essence, Marx's idea of an ideal society is not a static state but a historical and revolutionary criticism. The movement toward the better shore ceased, and Cohen's critique of the idea of a "better society" was automatically dispelled.
【学位授予单位】：吉林大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：B0-0

【相似文献】