论文部分内容阅读
在对马克思历史唯物主义的传统研究中,生产力概念往往通过劳动者、劳动对象和劳动资料三个实体性要素加以说明。这种“要素说”解释已经深入人心,以至于人们一提到生产力就会联想起人才、资源和先进机器等非常具象的实体性的东西。但实际上,这是对马克思生产力概念的一种根本性误读,其来源是苏联教科书对《资本论》第一卷中马克思用于描述劳动过程中三个构成因素的任意挪用。~①这种误读在后来的解释性传播中,使我们愈加远离马克思确立生产力概念的原始语境。因此,本文将从赫斯和李斯特两条德文文献中的主要线索出发~②,剖析生产力概念历史生成中“共同活
In the traditional study of Marxist historical materialism, the concept of productive forces is often illustrated by three substantive elements: workers, objects of labor and labor data. This interpretation of ”elementalism" has become so popular that people, when it comes to productivity, are reminded of very concrete and substantive things like talent, resources and advanced machines. In practice, however, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the notion of Marx’s productive forces stemming from the Soviet textbook’s arbitrary appropriation of the three elements Marx used to describe the process of labor in Volume I of Capital. This misreading in the later interpretative transmission moved us further and further away from the original context in which Marx established the concept of productive forces. Therefore, this article starts from the main clues in two German literatures of Hess and Liszt, and analyzes the historical production of the concept of productive forces.