论阿伦特对马克思劳动理论的解读

发布时间：2018-07-09 14:30

本文选题：马克思 + 劳动　；参考：《南京大学》2013年硕士论文

【摘要】：劳动问题在马克思的哲学中占有重要的地位。马克思的劳动概念的内涵非常丰富,且有一个变化发展的过程,既包含了人类学意义上的抽象的劳动,也包括了基于具体历史条件下展开的劳动。前者指的是对象化的劳动,体现了人对自然界的改造和占有,也构成了人类生存和发展的永恒的自然物质基础,是人区别于动物的基本特征。后者指的是不同历史条件下的具体劳动形式,而马克思的主要着眼点就是资本主义条件下的特殊劳动形式——雇佣劳动的形成、发展和消灭。汉娜·阿伦特基于其自身理论研究的需要对马克思的劳动理论进行了考察,首先她从宏观的层面提出马克思的劳动理论是对西方政治思想传统的挑战,因为在古代,劳动是受到蔑视的,而当马克思宣称,劳动创造了人类,这无疑对劳动进行了极大的赞扬。但同时她发现,马克思的劳动概念本身存在一定的矛盾,既把劳动看作是自然强加的永恒必然性,又认为自由的领域是在劳动终结的时候开始的,并进一步指出,马克思正是因为对自由的强调才导致了其学说的根本矛盾。最后她对马克思的劳动理论关于未来的构想提出了质疑,集中在两个方面：一是马克思想在未来理想社会废除劳动是否可能；二是劳动生产力的发展能否带来人的自由的实现。而要理解阿伦特为什么如此解读马克思的理论就要回到阿伦特自己的理论框架中,她在区分劳动与工作的基础上,把劳动看作是服务于人类生存所必需的活动,是生命本身,所以它是属于私人领域的活动,而劳动被必然性所奴役的状况不仅在古代生活中存在,在现在、未来都将一直存在。而与劳动相联系的工作的目的在于制造一个客观的人造物的世界,它成为介于人与自然之间的东西,并在一定意义上构成了行动所需的公共空间。而去行动则是阿伦特劳动理论的真正旨趣所在,人们正是通过言说和行动来向他人表明他们是“谁”,使自己显现在人类世界中。然而进入现代以后,积极生活内的这三种活动的等级秩序发生了变化,随着劳动的解放,劳动最后上升到最高级的位置,但劳动生产力的发展最后带来的只是消费者社会。事实上,劳动在阿伦特与马克思的学说中扮演着不同的角色,劳动理论构成了马克思的核心理论,而在阿伦特这里只是其行动理论的基础。正是基于各自的理论体系,他们关于劳动的具体内涵也有所差异。为什么阿伦特一方面承认马克思关于劳动的论述在很大程度上是真实地描绘了现代社会的状况,一方面又否认从中得出的结论,这是因为归根结底,作为思想家,两者对自由的理解有着本质性的区别。马克思的自由理论是奠基于高度发达的劳动生产力之上的,而自由的实现意味着个人的全面发展。而阿伦特对自由的理解是与政治密切联系在一起的,自由就是“去行动”。然而自由与政治在现代发生的双重嬗变使得阿伦特的自由丧失了现实的基础。
[Abstract]:The labor problem occupies an important position in Marx's philosophy. The connotation of Marx's labor concept is very rich, and there is a process of change and development, which includes abstract labor in the sense of Anthropology and the labor under specific historical conditions. The former refers to the work of objectification, which embodies human to nature. The transformation and possession of the boundary also constitute the eternal natural material foundation of human existence and development, the basic characteristic of human being distinguished from the animal. The latter refers to the specific form of labor under different historical conditions, and the main point of Marx is the special form of labor under the condition of capitalism, the formation, development and elimination of the employment labor. Extinguish.
Hannah Arendt, based on the needs of his own theoretical research, made an investigation of Marx's labor theory. First of all, she proposed that Marx's labor theory was a challenge to the western political and ideological traditions from the macro level, because in ancient times, labor was disdain, while Marx claimed that labor created human, which undoubtedly entered into labor. But at the same time, she found that there was a certain contradiction in the concept of labor in Marx, which not only regarded labor as an eternal necessity of natural force, but also thought that the field of freedom began at the end of labor, and further pointed out that Marx was the fundamental spear of his theory because of his emphasis on freedom. At last, she questioned Marx's labor theory about the future, concentrating on two aspects: one is whether Marx wants to abolish labor in the future ideal society, and the two is whether the development of labor productivity can bring about the realization of human freedom. And it is necessary to understand why Ahrendt interprets Marx so on the theory. Back to Ahrendt's own theoretical framework, on the basis of the distinction between labor and work, she regards labor as a necessary activity for the survival of human beings. It is a life itself, so it is an activity in the private sphere, and the condition of labour being enslaved by necessity exists not only in ancient times, but also in the future. The purpose of the work associated with labor is to create an objective world of human creation, which becomes something between man and nature, and in a sense the public space required for action, and action is the real purport of Ahrendt's labor theory, and people are telling others through words and actions. They are "who" and make themselves appear in the human world. However, after entering the modern world, the rank order of the three activities in the active life has changed. With the liberation of labor, labor finally rises to the most advanced position, but the development of labor productivity is the end of the consumer society.
In fact, labor plays different roles in the theory of Ahrendt and Marx. Labor theory constitutes Marx's core theory, and Ahrendt is only the basis of his theory of action. It is based on their respective theoretical systems that their specific connotation of labor is also different. Why Ahrendt admits Mark on the one hand. To a great extent, the discussion of labor is a real description of the state of the modern society, and on the one hand, it denies the conclusions drawn from it. It is because, in the final analysis, that as a thinker, the two have an essential distinction between the understanding of freedom. Marx's Theory of freedom is based on the highly developed productivity of labor, and is self - founded. The realization means the all-round development of the individual. And Ahrendt's understanding of freedom is closely linked with politics, and freedom is "going to action". However, the double evolution of freedom and politics in modern times makes Ahrendt's freedom lost the foundation of reality.
【学位授予单位】：南京大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：B712.5;A811

【共引文献】