马克思法哲学批判视域中的政治国家与市民社会

发布时间：2018-05-20 14:26

本文选题：理性神学 + 自由国家　；参考：《复旦大学》2013年博士论文

【摘要】：就政治国家、市民社会的性质及其相互关系而言,学术界对此一直争论不休。有契约论和功利主义的争论,有凯恩斯和哈耶克关于福利国家和自由市场的争论,有诺齐克和科恩关于自由主义和社会主义的争论等等。在这些相互争论的国家学说和社会学说中,马克思一直被视为社会主义的派别而受到指责或辩护。然而,这些国家学说和社会学说却忽视了马克思的政治批判和社会批判的本质性那一度,即政治国家作为权利和权威的运作体系以及市民社会作为资产主义的生产和交往体系本身是需要批判的。本文的写作目的正是要澄清马克思对政治国家和市民社会的本质性地批判,并以此来彰显各种政治思潮和社会思潮围绕这一争论的局限性和本质上的非批判性。本文的导言部分梳理了政治国家和市民社会“双重生活”问题的思想史脉络。这一问题始于近代西方政治的正当性从政治神学转变为社会契约。契约社会在古典经济学家那里被表达为自组织的经济社会。黑格尔明确界分了市民社会和政治国家,并以“国家”的实体性扬弃了市民社会的形式的普遍性。然而,马克思却指出在政治国家形成的地方,人们仍然过着“双重生活”。第一章论述了马克思法哲学批判的起因。马克思在柏林大学攻读法学时,试图以康德的法权“纲目”为框架,把费希特的法的形而上学原理和萨维尼的罗马成文法条例结合起来构建某种法哲学体系,却遭遇了“现实的东西和应有的东西的对立”。受青年黑格尔派的影响,马克思在《博士论文》中以自我意识的自由哲学来反对宗教神学的统治。受黑格尔交互主体的自由观的影响,马克思在《莱茵报》中以人民意志为基础的理性自由国家来反对普鲁士的专制政府。然而,顽固的私人利益又给马克思所主张的“永恒的”法和自由提出了尖锐地挑战。第二章阐述了马克思对黑格尔将市民社会的特殊利益和国家的普遍利益的同一性落实为新教国家的批判,以及对黑格尔没有解决政治国家和市民社会外在必然性和内在目的性的二律背反的指证。这一批判又分为两个维度,一是对黑格尔法哲学的理性神学实质的批判,一是对黑格尔法哲学的君主立宪制的批判。通过对黑格尔既没有实现政治国家和世俗社会的和解,又没有实现个体和共同体的和解的批判,马克思确立了市民社会的基础地位,并阐明了其激进民主主义的立场。第三章以犹太人问题为例,论述了近代资产阶级政治解放运动中的极权主义倾向,并指明了马克思以其对法国和美国宪法的进步性的洞察而避免了极权主义的指责。但是,马克思批判了美法等自由主义国家所宣称的非政治差别仍然保留了实际的差别,政治解放无法同时满足平等原则和自由原则。政治解放的这一悖论的根源被马克思深化为市民社会的犹太精神,“政治人”的抽象源于“经济人”的利己主义和金钱拜物教。第四章以马克思对私有财产不平等状况的探寻为切入点,探讨了马克思对以亚当·斯密、詹姆斯·穆勒为代表的自由主义古典经济学家的批判。马克思指证了古典经济学家不仅没有解决市民社会的贫困问题,反而在追求资本增殖的过程中使市民社会陷入生产过剩、资本利润率下降以及周期性商业危机的泥淖之中。这一状况的根源在于人对物的占有关系的异化,而其结果必然是世界分化为两大阶级。马克思继而通过对有产和无产的实质性对立——资本和劳动对立的追问,揭示了异化劳动的本质,但是,马克思同时也确证了生产生活就是类生活,并将人的类特性转移到了经济和社会领域。第五章阐释了马克思对黑格尔思辨方法的批判,对于其政治批判和社会批判的意义在于,马克思以此规避了自由主义的政治倾向以及实证主义的经济决定论。马克思一方面批判了黑格尔的辩证法仅仅作为思想上的扬弃,在现实中并没有触动自己的对象,从而表现为非批判的唯心主义和非批判的实证主义；另一方面,马克思又吸纳了黑格尔辩证法中作为推动原则和创造原则的否定性,并使其在合理的现实形态上,表现出批判性和革命性。第六章以历史唯物主义为基础,探讨了马克思对政治国家和市民社会双重生活之所以产生的根源性分析。马克思通过对政治国家和市民社会的内涵及其关系再分析,以共产主义社会为基础来解决政治国家和市民社会的双重生活问题,并指明了共产主义社会既不是理想的乌托邦也不是历史决定论的宿命论,而是经由无产阶级现实革命运动的自由人联合体。
[Abstract]:In terms of the nature and relationship of the political state and the civil society, the academic circles have been arguing about this. There are debates between the contract theory and the utilitarianism, the debate between Keynes and Hayek about the welfare state and the free market, and the debate between Nozick and Cohen about liberalism and socialism. In the theory of family and society, Marx has been accused or defended as a socialist factions. However, these doctrines and social doctrines ignore the essence of Marx's political criticism and social criticism, that is, the operating system of the political state as a right and authority and the civil society as a bourgeois. The production and communication system itself needs to be criticized. The purpose of this article is to clarify Marx's essential criticism of the political and civil society, and to highlight the limitations and non critical nature of the political and social trends of thought around this debate.
The introduction of this article has combed the ideological history of "double life" in political and civil society. This problem began in modern western political legitimacy from the political theology to the social contract. The contract society was expressed as a self-organized economic society in the classical economists. Hagel clearly divided the civil society. The political state, and the entity of the "state", has discarded the universality of the form of civil society. However, Marx pointed out that in the place where the political state was formed, people still lived a "double life".
The first chapter discusses the cause of the critique of Marx's philosophy of law. When Marx studied law in Berlin University, he tried to combine the metaphysical principle of Fichte's law with the Rome statute regulations of Savigny to construct a certain jurisprudential system of jurisprudence with the framework of the "Outline" of Kant's right of law. The opposition of the West. Influenced by the young Hagel school, Marx opposed the rule of religious theology in the free philosophy of self consciousness in the doctoral thesis. Influenced by the freedom of the intersubjectivity of Hagel, Marx opposed the despotic government of Prussia in the Rhine newspaper, which was based on the will of the people's will. The private interests of Marx put forward a sharp challenge to the "eternal" law and freedom advocated by him.
The second chapter expounds Marx's criticism on the implementation of Hagel's special interests in civil society and the common interests of the state as a Protestant state, as well as the proof of the negative two law that Hagel does not solve the external inevitability and intrinsic purpose of the political and civil society. This criticism is divided into two dimensions, one is black. The critical of the rational theological essence of the philosophy of gel law is the criticism of the constitutional monarchy of Hagel's law philosophy. Through the criticism that Hagel has not realized the reconciliation between the political and the secular society, and does not realize the reconciliation between the individual and the community, Marx established the basic status of the civil society and clarified its radical democratic Lord. A righteous position.
The third chapter, taking the Jewish problem as an example, expounds the totalitarianism in the modern bourgeois political liberation movement, and points out that Marx avoided the accusation of totalitarianism with his insight into the progress of France and the American Constitution. However, Marx criticized the non political differences, such as the United States law, which were claimed by the states of the United States. The political emancipation can not meet the principle of equality and freedom at the same time. The root of the paradox of political emancipation is deepened by Marx as the Jewish spirit of the civil society, and the abstract of "political man" is derived from the egoism and money fetishism of the "economic man".
The fourth chapter, based on Marx's exploration of the inequality of private property, explores Marx's criticism of the liberal classical economists represented by Adam Smith and James Muller. Marx points out that the classical economists not only did not solve the problem of poverty in the civil society, but they were pursuing the process of capital multiplication. The root of this situation is the alienation of human possessive relationship, and the result must be that the world is divided into two classes. Marx then through the substantive opposition to production and production, the opposite of capital and labor. After questioning, it reveals the essence of alienated labor, but Marx also confirms that production and life is a kind of life, and the characteristics of human beings are transferred to the economic and social fields.
The fifth chapter explains Marx's criticism of Hagel's speculative method. The significance of his political criticism and social criticism lies in Marx's evasion of the political tendency of liberalism and the economic determinism of positivism. Marx, on the one hand, criticizes Hagel's dialectics only as an ideological sublation, and is not in reality. On the other hand, Marx also absorbs the negativity of Hagel's dialectics as a driving principle and the principle of creation, and makes it critical and revolutionary in a reasonable realistic form.
The sixth chapter, based on historical materialism, explores Marx's root cause analysis of the dual life of political and civil society. Through the reanalysis of the connotation and relations of political and civil society, Marx solves the dual life problems of political and civil society on the basis of communism. It also indicates that the Communist society is neither an ideal Utopia nor a fatalism of historical determinism, but a free man consortium through the proletarian revolutionary movement.
【学位授予单位】：复旦大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：A811;D90;D032

【参考文献】