马克思、恩格斯与自然管理

IF 0.5 3区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY HISTORY OF POLITICAL THOUGHT Pub Date : 1991-01-01 DOI:10.4324/9781351325646-1
J. Stanley
{"title":"马克思、恩格斯与自然管理","authors":"J. Stanley","doi":"10.4324/9781351325646-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"After viewing the various criticisms of Engels and the attempts to separate him from Marx, one is left with the suspicion that in the texts of Marx there is a close connection rather than a consistent separation among the terms positivism, naturalism, Prometheanism and praxis. Thomas's attempt to separate them on a different axis only leads him to a softening of the supposedly precise distinctions existing among them. While Thomas's views largely typify the New Orthodoxy among Engels critics, his departures from that orthodoxy serve more to illuminate its problems than to solve them. In what follows I argue that Thomas, along with Kolakowski, Schmidt, Carver, Ball and the various Engels critics, despite their differences, have all been unconvincing in their attempts to show consistent distinctions among the four terms in the Marxian texts. Put another way, Marx's references to nature cannot be read as giving precise twentieth-century definitions to the four terms. On the contrary, in Marx's (and Engels') texts, these terms have an ambiguity which leads us to interpret Marx as linking the four terms as much as separating them.","PeriodicalId":51773,"journal":{"name":"HISTORY OF POLITICAL THOUGHT","volume":"12 1","pages":"647-670"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"1991-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Marx, Engels and the Administration of Nature\",\"authors\":\"J. Stanley\",\"doi\":\"10.4324/9781351325646-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"After viewing the various criticisms of Engels and the attempts to separate him from Marx, one is left with the suspicion that in the texts of Marx there is a close connection rather than a consistent separation among the terms positivism, naturalism, Prometheanism and praxis. Thomas's attempt to separate them on a different axis only leads him to a softening of the supposedly precise distinctions existing among them. While Thomas's views largely typify the New Orthodoxy among Engels critics, his departures from that orthodoxy serve more to illuminate its problems than to solve them. In what follows I argue that Thomas, along with Kolakowski, Schmidt, Carver, Ball and the various Engels critics, despite their differences, have all been unconvincing in their attempts to show consistent distinctions among the four terms in the Marxian texts. Put another way, Marx's references to nature cannot be read as giving precise twentieth-century definitions to the four terms. On the contrary, in Marx's (and Engels') texts, these terms have an ambiguity which leads us to interpret Marx as linking the four terms as much as separating them.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51773,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"HISTORY OF POLITICAL THOUGHT\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"647-670\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"1991-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"HISTORY OF POLITICAL THOUGHT\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351325646-1\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"HISTORY OF POLITICAL THOUGHT","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351325646-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

在观察了对恩格斯的各种批评和将恩格斯与马克思分开的尝试之后,人们会怀疑,在马克思的文本中,实证主义、自然主义、普罗米修斯主义和实践主义这些术语之间存在着密切的联系,而不是一致的分离。托马斯试图在不同的轴上分开它们,只会让他软化它们之间存在的所谓精确的区别。虽然托马斯的观点在很大程度上代表了恩格斯批评者中的新正统,但他对正统的背离更多地是为了阐明其问题,而不是解决问题。在接下来的文章中,我认为托马斯,以及科拉科夫斯基、施密特、卡弗、鲍尔和各种恩格斯的批评者,尽管他们之间存在差异,但他们在试图显示马克思文本中四个术语之间的一致区别方面都没有令人信服。换句话说,马克思对自然的引用不能被解读为对这四个术语给出了二十世纪的精确定义。相反,在马克思(和恩格斯)的文本中,这些术语有一种模糊性,导致我们在马克思的解释中把这四个术语联系起来,而不是分开。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Marx, Engels and the Administration of Nature
After viewing the various criticisms of Engels and the attempts to separate him from Marx, one is left with the suspicion that in the texts of Marx there is a close connection rather than a consistent separation among the terms positivism, naturalism, Prometheanism and praxis. Thomas's attempt to separate them on a different axis only leads him to a softening of the supposedly precise distinctions existing among them. While Thomas's views largely typify the New Orthodoxy among Engels critics, his departures from that orthodoxy serve more to illuminate its problems than to solve them. In what follows I argue that Thomas, along with Kolakowski, Schmidt, Carver, Ball and the various Engels critics, despite their differences, have all been unconvincing in their attempts to show consistent distinctions among the four terms in the Marxian texts. Put another way, Marx's references to nature cannot be read as giving precise twentieth-century definitions to the four terms. On the contrary, in Marx's (and Engels') texts, these terms have an ambiguity which leads us to interpret Marx as linking the four terms as much as separating them.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: History of Political Thought (HPT) is a quarterly journal which was launched in 1980 to fill a genuine academic need for a forum for work in this multi-disciplinary area. Although a subject central to the study of politics and history, researchers in this field had previously to compete for publication space in journals whose intellectual centres of gravity were located in other disciplines. The journal is devoted exclusively to the historical study of political ideas and associated methodological problems. The primary focus is on research papers, with extensive book reviews and bibliographic surveys also included. All articles are refereed.
期刊最新文献
Hobbes and the Perpetual Person of the State Leo Strauss, The Latin Averroists and the Eternity of the World Humboldt’s Individualism: Theorizing Social Individuality Rousseau, Franklin and Bourgeois Liberalism Machiavelli’s Warning: The Medici, Florence, Rome and New Princes
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1