论文部分内容阅读
霍耐特的“为承认而斗争”和朗西埃的“为平等而斗争”代表了当代西方马克思主义政治批判的两种路径。两者的对话围绕政治的本质界定、政治批判的原则和实现政治的方法展开。在霍耐特看来,朗西埃区分了政治与警治导致政治空无内容,其平等主义欲望的前提是非历史的,其实现政治的方法是一种彻底断裂的外在批判。朗西埃则认为霍耐特的政治批判包含着理想的主体、理想的共同体和历史目的论预设,这种政治批判错失了政治是一个反复斗争的主体化过程,是一个以歧义为出发点的为平等而斗争的过程。两种路径的实质都是从理性批判展开政治批判。复兴现代政治批判的关键不在于遵从当代西方马克思主义的理性批判,而在于回到马克思的政治经济学批判。
Honnett’s struggle for recognition and the fight against Ronalife’s struggle for equality represent two approaches to the political criticism of contemporary Western Marxism. The dialogue between the two centers on the definition of politics, the principle of political criticism and the method of political realization. In Hohnet’s view, Lonissiere made a distinction between political and policing, leading to a political voidlessness. The premise of his egalitarian desire was non-historical. His political method of implementation was a completely broken external criticism. Loncy A thinks that Honnett’s political critique contains the ideal subject, the ideal community and the historical teleological presupposition. This kind of political criticism has missed the political process of being a subjective process of repeated struggles. It is a dialectical starting point The process of fighting for equality. The essence of both approaches is political criticism from rational criticism. The key to rejuvenating modern political criticism lies not in following the rational criticism of contemporary Western Marxism but in returning to Marx’s criticism of political economy.