20世纪六七十年代德法历史主义与结构主义之争——一场基于《资本论》阅读的思想争锋
发布时间：2018-10-25 11:39
【摘要】：20世纪六七十年代,德法两国学者在对马克思思想尤其是《资本论》的解读上形成了历史主义的和结构主义的模式,两种解读模式之间曾发生过激烈而有趣的论争。普兰查斯和德国学者在1967年发生的理论交锋,成为这一论争的标志性事件。在此之前,阿尔都塞在《读资本论》中,就已经明确地批判了对马克思的历史主义解读模式;在此之后,施密特在《历史与结构》之中,又系统回应了结构主义的批判,捍卫了历史主义的观点和立场。两种解读模式争论的焦点集中在对《资本论》中的辩证方法的理解,黑格尔与马克思方法的关系以及对葛兰西的历史主义的评价上。在今天重新审理这段思想史公案具有重要的意义。
[Abstract]:In the sixties and seventies of the 20th century, German and French scholars formed a historical and structuralist model on the interpretation of Marx, especially Capital, and there was a heated and interesting debate between the two modes of interpretation. The theoretical confrontation between Pranchais and German scholars in 1967 became the iconic event of this controversy. Prior to this, Althusser had clearly criticized the historical interpretation model of Marx in "read Capital"; after that, Schmidt responded systematically to the criticism of structuralism in History and structure. He defended the historical views and positions. The two modes of interpretation focus on the understanding of dialectical methods in Capital, the relationship between Hegel and Marx's methods and the evaluation of Gramsci's historicism. It is of great significance to retry this case in the history of thought today.
【作者单位】： 南京大学马克思主义学院;
【基金】：国家社科基金重大项目“当代国外马克思主义研究”(编号:2015MZD026)阶段性成果
【分类号】：A811
本文编号：2293595
[Abstract]:In the sixties and seventies of the 20th century, German and French scholars formed a historical and structuralist model on the interpretation of Marx, especially Capital, and there was a heated and interesting debate between the two modes of interpretation. The theoretical confrontation between Pranchais and German scholars in 1967 became the iconic event of this controversy. Prior to this, Althusser had clearly criticized the historical interpretation model of Marx in "read Capital"; after that, Schmidt responded systematically to the criticism of structuralism in History and structure. He defended the historical views and positions. The two modes of interpretation focus on the understanding of dialectical methods in Capital, the relationship between Hegel and Marx's methods and the evaluation of Gramsci's historicism. It is of great significance to retry this case in the history of thought today.
【作者单位】： 南京大学马克思主义学院;
【基金】：国家社科基金重大项目“当代国外马克思主义研究”(编号:2015MZD026)阶段性成果
【分类号】：A811
【相似文献】
相关期刊论文 前2条
1 高章存;试评尼科斯·普兰查斯相对自主的国家观[J];学术论坛;1992年04期
2 长久理嗣;尚晶晶;;“新马克思主义”和科学的社会主义[J];中共中央党校学报;1988年01期
，本文编号：2293595
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/shekelunwen/makesizhuyiyanjiu/2293595.html
