论文部分内容阅读
编者按：这里刊发两篇关于《回到马克思；经济学语境中的哲学话语》的评论，以给读者。尽管本书的副标题已经明白无误地规定了“回到马克思”是什么意思，但人们还是对“回到马克思”究竟是什么意思聚讼纷纭、莫衷一是。虽然从表面看来，争议似乎无中生有，但争议至今犹存也说明了这里确有本身来由、决非空穴来风。本书的正标题，未必很妥帖，容易使人产生误解，但这本书给我们起供了一个研究马克思和马克思主义的新视角。即使马克思本人，从早年到思想成熟期，也有个从哲学到经济一哲学的转变，但前此的马克思研究鲜有从哲学与经济学的结合上研究马克思思想的，一般还是分别把它们当做不同的学科分开来做个别的研究。把二者联系起来研究，以此书为起点，所以起了一个与这一内容相对应的书名来表示。正如马克思当年并不因为发现了唯物史观、科会价值学说而宣称发现了终极真理一样，本书也没有因此而满足于马克思文本、语境、话语的“复真”，而是借鉴马克思主义的方法、力图在新的事件下，对社会主义的建设事业的发展，有所推进。本刊刊发的两篇文章基本上是《回到马克思》一书的理论贡献的阐发，对其实践意义未及展开。我们希望本书作者或本书读者能在后一方面有所作为；理论视角转换固然重要．实践发?
Editor’s Note: Two articles on “Back to Marx; Philosophical Discourses in Economic Context” are published here for readers. Although the subtitle of this book has unambiguously stipulated what it means to “return to Marx,” people still have different opinions about what exactly “returning to Marxism” means. Although on the face of it the dispute seems to have nothing in common, the controversy so far shows that there is indeed a reason here and it is by no means groundless. The positive title of this book may not be very apt to be misleading, but this book gives us a new perspective on the study of Marxism and Marxism. Even though Marx himself, from his early years to maturity of his thinking, had a shift from philosophy to economy and philosophy, there is little Marxist study of the former to study Marxism from a combination of philosophy and economics, either generally or separately Discipline separately to do individual research. The two linked to study, the book as a starting point, so played a title corresponding to this content to represent. Just as Marx did not discover the ultimate truth because of the discovery of the historical materialism and the scientific theory of value in that year, the book did not satisfy the “complex truth” of Marx’s texts, contexts and discourses, but borrowed Marxism In a bid to try to push forward the development of the socialist construction under the new incident. The two articles published in this magazine are basically the elucidation of the theoretical contribution of “Back to Marx”, which is of less practical significance. We hope that the author of this book or reader of this book can make a difference in the latter aspect; the transformation of the theoretical perspective is of course important. Practice hair?