User:WuJunnan/分析马克思主义
Analytical Marxism is an approach to Marxist theory that was prominent amongst English-speaking philosophers and social scientists during the 1980s. It was mainly associated with the September Group of academics, so called because of their biennial September meetings to discuss common interests. Described by G. A. Cohen as "non-bullshit Marxism",[1] the group was characterized, in the words of David Miller, by "clear and rigorous thinking about questions that are usually blanketed by ideological fog."[2] Members of this school seek to apply the techniques of analytic philosophy, along with tools of modern social science such as rational choice theory, to the elucidation of the theories of Karl Marx and his successors.
分析马克思主义是一种20世纪80年代在英语世界的哲学家和社会科学家中间流行的马克思主义方法。它主要与名为 ‘‘‘九月小组’’’ 的学术团体有关——这个团体因为每两年的九月开会讨论有共同兴趣的话题而得此名。正如G. A. Cohen描述为“不胡说八道的马克思主义”[1]那样，用David Miller的话来说，这个小组的特点是“清晰严格地思考那些通常被意识形态迷雾遮蔽的问题。”[2]这一学派试图运用分析哲学以及理性选择理论等现代社会科学方法来阐明卡尔·马克思和他的继承者的思想。
There is general agreement that the three leading exponents of analytical Marxism were the philosopher G. A. Cohen, the social scientist Jon Elster, and the economist John Roemer. Cohen's book, Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defence (1978), is generally regarded as having started the analytical Marxist approach. In that book, Cohen attempted to apply the tools of logical and linguistic analysis to the elucidation and defence of Marx's materialist conception of history.[3] Other prominent analytical Marxists include the sociologist Erik Olin Wright and the political scientist Adam Przeworski.
分析马克思主义的三位公认的代表人物是哲学家G. A. Cohen、社会科学家Jon Elster和经济学家约翰·罗默（John Roemer）。Cohen的著作《卡尔·马克思的历史理论：一种辩护》通常被认为是分析马克思主义的开山之作。在书中，Cohen试图使用逻辑分析和语言分析的工具来阐明马克思的历史唯物主义理论[3]，并为之辩护。其他的著名分析马克思主义者还包括社会学家埃里克·奥林·赖特（Erik Olin Wright）和政治科学家Adam Przeworski。
Origin
[编辑]Analytical Marxism is understood to have originated with the publication of G. A. Cohen's Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defence (1978).[4] [查证请求] Cohen's book was, from the outset, intended as a defence of historical materialism.[5] Cohen painstakingly reconstructed historical materialism through a close reading of Karl Marx's texts, with the aim of providing the most logically coherent and parsimonious account. For Cohen, Marx's historical materialism is a technologically deterministic theory, in which the economic relations of production are functionally explained by the material forces of production, and in which the political and legal institutions (the "superstructure") are functionally explained by the relations of production (the "base"). The transition from one mode of production to another is driven by the tendency of the productive forces to develop. Cohen accounts for this tendency by reference to the rational character of the human species: where there is the opportunity to adopt a more productive technology and thus reduce the burden of labour, human beings will tend to take it. Thus, human history can be understood as a series of rational steps that increase human productive power.
起源
[编辑]分析马克思主义被认为起源于Cohen的著作《卡尔·马克思的历史理论：一种辩护》(1978)。Cohen
Analytical Marxism is understood to have originated with the publication of G. A. Cohen's Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defence (1978).[4]
[查证请求] Cohen's book was, from the outset, intended as a defence of historical materialism.[5] Cohen painstakingly reconstructed historical materialism through a close reading of Karl Marx's texts, with the aim of providing the most logically coherent and parsimonious account. For Cohen, Marx's historical materialism is a technologically deterministic theory, in which the economic relations of production are functionally explained by the material forces of production, and in which the political and legal institutions (the "superstructure") are functionally explained by the relations of production (the "base"). The transition from one mode of production to another is driven by the tendency of the productive forces to develop. Cohen accounts for this tendency by reference to the rational character of the human species: where there is the opportunity to adopt a more productive technology and thus reduce the burden of labour, human beings will tend to take it. Thus, human history can be understood as a series of rational steps that increase human productive power.
Theory
[编辑]Exploitation
[编辑]At the same time as Cohen was working on Karl Marx's Theory of History, the American economist John Roemer was employing neoclassical economics to defend the Marxist concepts of exploitation and class. In his A General Theory of Exploitation and Class (1982), Roemer employed rational choice and game theory to demonstrate how exploitation and class relations may arise in the development of a market for labour. Roemer would go on to reject the necessity of the labour theory of value to explain exploitation and class. Value was in principle capable of being explained in terms of any class of commodity inputs, such as oil, wheat, etc., rather than being exclusively explained by embodied labour power. Roemer was led to the conclusion that exploitation and class were thus generated not in the sphere of production but of market exchange. Significantly, as a purely technical category, exploitation did not always imply a moral wrong (see section Justice below).
Rational choice Marxism
[编辑]By the mid-1980s, "analytical Marxism" was being recognized as a "paradigm".[6][页码请求] The September Group had been meeting for several years, and a succession of texts by its members were published. Several of these appeared under the imprint of Cambridge University Press's series Studies in Marxism and Social Theory, including Jon Elster's Making Sense of Marx (1985) and Adam Przeworski's Capitalism and Social Democracy (1985). Among the most methodologically controversial were these two authors, and Roemer, due to their use of rational-actor models. Not all analytical Marxists are rational-choice Marxists, however.[7][页码请求]
Elster's account was an exhaustive examination of Marx's texts in order to ascertain what could be salvaged out of Marxism employing the tools of rational choice theory and methodological individualism (which Elster defended as the only form of explanation appropriate to the social sciences). His conclusion was that – contra Cohen – no general theory of history as the development of the productive forces could be saved. Like Roemer, he also rejected the labour theory of value and, going further, virtually all of Marxian economics. The "dialectical" method is rejected as a form of Hegelian obscurantism. The theory of ideology and revolution continued to be useful to a certain degree, but only once they had been purged of their tendencies to holism and functionalism and established on the basis of an individualist methodology and a causal or intentional explanation.
Przeworski's book uses rational choice and game theory in order to demonstrate that the revolutionary strategies adopted by socialists in the twentieth century were likely to fail, since it was in the rational interests of workers to strive for the reform of capitalism through the achievement of union recognition, improved wages and living conditions, rather than adopting the risky strategy of revolution.[來源請求] Przeworski's book is clearly influenced by economic explanations of political behaviour advanced by thinkers such as Anthony Downs (An Economic Theory of Democracy, 1957) and Mancur Olson (The Logic of Collective Action, 1965).[來源請求]
- ^ 1.0 1.1 Cohen 2000，第xxv–xxvi頁.
- ^ 2.0 2.1 D. Miller 1996.
- ^ 3.0 3.1 Farmelant, James. G. A. Cohen, 1941–2009. MR Online. New York: Monthly Review Foundation. 8 August 2009 [16 January 2020].
- ^ 4.0 4.1 Levine & Wright 1980.
- ^ 5.0 5.1 Cohen 1978，第ix頁.
- ^ Roemer 1986.
- ^ Veneziani 2012.