回应诺奇克对马克思剥削理论的挑战
发布时间：2018-11-08 11:09
【摘要】：诺奇克在《无政府、国家和乌托邦》一书中对马克思剥削理论的挑战主要围绕两个问题展开,一是工人出卖自身劳动力究竟是被迫的还是自愿的?二是竞争市场上究竟是谁承担了风险?诺奇克认为,一方面工人选择出卖自身劳动力给资本家是自愿的,这是通过自由自愿的市场交易实现的。他从基于个人的权利的自愿和基于一个假设(生产资料公有制和私有制并存)下的自愿证明了这一点;另一方面,资本家承担了竞争性市场的风险,工人没有承担风险,因此资本家获取利润是对资本家承担风险的一种补偿,诺奇克从消解马克思的劳动价值的角度证明了这一点。面对诺奇克对马克思剥削理论的挑战,分析学派马克思主义均从重构经典剥削理论的角度去回应,如罗默的非劳动价值论的剥削理论,主张抛弃劳动价值论,用社会必要劳动时间来重新定义剥削,回到资本主义生产资料的最原初的不平等分配来诠释剥削的不公正;埃尔斯特的市场剥削理论,重新捍卫了马克思剥削理论中的强迫概念,论证了工人被迫出卖自己劳动力的事实;而科亨的规范性剥削理论,用一种规范的理论重新定义资本主义生产资料原初分配的不公正和现行分配制度的不公正。分析学派马克思主义的这种重构式回应,对于丰富和发展马克思的剥削理由有着重要的意义,但是这种重构本身包含着对马克思剥削理论的误解,因此回到马克思剥削理论的本身是有必要的。通过对马克思经典文本,如《1844年经济学哲学手稿》、《德意志意识形态》、《哲学的贫困》、《雇佣劳动和资本》、《1857-1858年经济学手稿》和《资本论》中的剥削概念的分析和厘清,证明马克思的剥削理论是历史唯物主义意义上的,而非纯粹伦理学和非纯粹经济学意义。在历史唯物主义视域下,去回应诺奇克对马克思的剥削理论的挑战,主要有三个方面:一是诺齐克价值性的辩护和马克思历史性的分析:马克思是在客观历史进程中分析资本主义制度的内在矛盾,而诺齐克则是为资本主义制度永恒性进行的价值性辩护。二是诺齐克分配领域的反驳和马克思生产领域的剥削:诺奇克的反驳是针对分配领域数量关系平衡与否的质疑,而马克思的剥削是主要涉及私有制生产领域。三是诺奇克个人角度的反驳和马克思阶级角度的剥削:诺奇克对马克思剥削理论的反驳,都是基于个人自愿选择的角度去反驳,而马克思原本的剥削理论则是基于阶级的角度。因此,诺奇克对马克思剥削理论的挑战是对马克思剥削理论的误解,这种挑战是不能成立的。研究马克思历史唯物主义视域下的剥削理论,对于分析当今世界全球剥削体系的发生和发展有着借鉴意义,同时对我们社会主义国家社会中存在的不平等现象的解决有着重要的启示意义。
[Abstract]:Nozick's challenge to Marx's theory of exploitation in Anarchy, State and Utopia revolves around two questions: is it forced or voluntary for workers to sell their labour? Second, who took the risk in the competitive market? On the one hand, Knochke believes that workers' choice to sell their labour to capitalists is voluntary, through free and voluntary market transactions. This is demonstrated by his willingness based on the rights of the individual and on the assumption that public and private ownership of the means of production coexist; On the other hand, the capitalist bears the risk of the competitive market, the worker does not take the risk, so the capitalists' profit is a kind of compensation for the capitalist to bear the risk, which Notchick proves from the angle of dispelling Marx's labor value. In the face of Norchick's challenge to Marx's theory of exploitation, the analytic school of Marxism responds from the angle of reconstructing the classical theory of exploitation, such as Romer's theory of exploitation of non-labor value, which advocates abandoning the theory of labor value. Redefine exploitation with the necessary labor time of society, return to the original unequal distribution of capitalist means of production to explain the injustice of exploitation; Elster's theory of market exploitation reupholds the concept of coercion in Marx's theory of exploitation and proves the fact that workers are forced to sell their labor force. Kohern's theory of normative exploitation redefines the injustice of the original distribution of capitalist means of production and the injustice of the current distribution system with a kind of normative theory. This reconstructive response of the analytic school of Marxism is of great significance for enriching and developing Marx's exploitative reasons, but the reconstruction itself contains a misunderstanding of Marx's exploitative theory. Therefore, it is necessary to return to Marx's theory of exploitation. Through the classical texts of Marx, such as the manuscripts of Economics and philosophy in 1844, the German ideology, the Poverty of philosophy, wage Labor and Capital, The analysis and clarification of the concept of exploitation in the manuscripts of Economics from 1857 to 1858 and the Theory of Capital proves that Marx's theory of exploitation is in the sense of historical materialism rather than pure ethics and non-pure economics. From the perspective of historical materialism, to respond to Norchick's challenge to Marx's theory of exploitation, There are three main aspects: first, the defense of Nozick's value and Marx's historical analysis; Marx's analysis of the inherent contradictions of the capitalist system in the process of objective history. Nozick, on the other hand, defends the value of the permanence of the capitalist system. The second is the refutation of Nozick's distribution field and the exploitation of Marx's production field: Nozick's refutation is aimed at the question of the balance of quantitative relationship in the assigned field, while Marx's exploitation mainly involves the field of private ownership production. The third is the refutation of Knochke's personal angle and Marx's class's theory of exploitation: the refutation of Marx's theory of exploitation is based on the angle of individual's voluntary choice, while Marx's original theory of exploitation is based on the angle of class. Therefore, Knochke's challenge to Marx's theory of exploitation is a misunderstanding of Marx's theory of exploitation. The study of the exploitation theory in the view of Marx's historical materialism is of great significance for the analysis of the occurrence and development of the global exploitation system in today's world. At the same time, it is of great significance to solve the inequality in our socialist society.
【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】：B712.59
本文编号：2318301
[Abstract]:Nozick's challenge to Marx's theory of exploitation in Anarchy, State and Utopia revolves around two questions: is it forced or voluntary for workers to sell their labour? Second, who took the risk in the competitive market? On the one hand, Knochke believes that workers' choice to sell their labour to capitalists is voluntary, through free and voluntary market transactions. This is demonstrated by his willingness based on the rights of the individual and on the assumption that public and private ownership of the means of production coexist; On the other hand, the capitalist bears the risk of the competitive market, the worker does not take the risk, so the capitalists' profit is a kind of compensation for the capitalist to bear the risk, which Notchick proves from the angle of dispelling Marx's labor value. In the face of Norchick's challenge to Marx's theory of exploitation, the analytic school of Marxism responds from the angle of reconstructing the classical theory of exploitation, such as Romer's theory of exploitation of non-labor value, which advocates abandoning the theory of labor value. Redefine exploitation with the necessary labor time of society, return to the original unequal distribution of capitalist means of production to explain the injustice of exploitation; Elster's theory of market exploitation reupholds the concept of coercion in Marx's theory of exploitation and proves the fact that workers are forced to sell their labor force. Kohern's theory of normative exploitation redefines the injustice of the original distribution of capitalist means of production and the injustice of the current distribution system with a kind of normative theory. This reconstructive response of the analytic school of Marxism is of great significance for enriching and developing Marx's exploitative reasons, but the reconstruction itself contains a misunderstanding of Marx's exploitative theory. Therefore, it is necessary to return to Marx's theory of exploitation. Through the classical texts of Marx, such as the manuscripts of Economics and philosophy in 1844, the German ideology, the Poverty of philosophy, wage Labor and Capital, The analysis and clarification of the concept of exploitation in the manuscripts of Economics from 1857 to 1858 and the Theory of Capital proves that Marx's theory of exploitation is in the sense of historical materialism rather than pure ethics and non-pure economics. From the perspective of historical materialism, to respond to Norchick's challenge to Marx's theory of exploitation, There are three main aspects: first, the defense of Nozick's value and Marx's historical analysis; Marx's analysis of the inherent contradictions of the capitalist system in the process of objective history. Nozick, on the other hand, defends the value of the permanence of the capitalist system. The second is the refutation of Nozick's distribution field and the exploitation of Marx's production field: Nozick's refutation is aimed at the question of the balance of quantitative relationship in the assigned field, while Marx's exploitation mainly involves the field of private ownership production. The third is the refutation of Knochke's personal angle and Marx's class's theory of exploitation: the refutation of Marx's theory of exploitation is based on the angle of individual's voluntary choice, while Marx's original theory of exploitation is based on the angle of class. Therefore, Knochke's challenge to Marx's theory of exploitation is a misunderstanding of Marx's theory of exploitation. The study of the exploitation theory in the view of Marx's historical materialism is of great significance for the analysis of the occurrence and development of the global exploitation system in today's world. At the same time, it is of great significance to solve the inequality in our socialist society.
【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】：B712.59
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前10条
1 林育川;;强迫、剥削的不正义性与全球资本主义剥削体系的未来[J];中国人民大学学报;2014年05期
2 贺来;;历史唯物主义的辩证本性[J];中国社会科学;2012年03期
3 张盾;;财产权批判的政治观念与历史方法[J];哲学研究;2011年08期
4 陆杰荣;;从多重性视角理解和诠释马克思主义哲学[J];马克思主义与现实;2011年01期
5 孙正聿;怎样理解马克思的哲学革命[J];吉林大学社会科学学报;2005年03期
6 王南n\;马克思的自由观及其当代意义[J];现代哲学;2004年02期
7 鲁克俭;当代西方剥削理论评析[J];教学与研究;2003年08期
8 徐友渔;关于自由和平等的当代思考[J];云南大学学报(社会科学版);2003年03期
9 俞吾金;解读罗默的“一般剥削理论”[J];上海交通大学学报(社会科学版);2002年03期
10 高清海;正确理解马克思的社会主义观[J];人民论坛;1998年02期
，本文编号：2318301
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/zhexuezongjiaolunwen/2318301.html
