对保罗·格雷对《重访马克思的自由主义批判》的评论的回应

Igor Shoikhedbrod
{"title":"对保罗·格雷对《重访马克思的自由主义批判》的评论的回应","authors":"Igor Shoikhedbrod","doi":"10.1017/s0008423923000136","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"E. P. Thompson, who argues for the historical significance of struggles for rights and laws. Shoikhedbrod, using his interpretation of Marx’s critique of liberalism, provides a more systematic account of the importance of constitutionalism and the rule of law in constraining arbitrary power, providing essential space for contestation in egalitarian struggles, and forming crucial preconditions for the communism that will achieve right and legality in a higher form. The clear strength of Shoikhedbrod’s work is his engagement with the legal and juridical aspects of these debates. He offers an important corrective to the dismissive attitude found in some schools of Marxism. Shoikhedbrod also provides persuasive arguments for the enduring importance of rights, whatever the form of the society. If there is a limitation to the book, it is that Shoikhedbrod describes as “orthodox” the interpretation that Marx ultimately dismisses right and legality. This discounts the variety of disagreements between commentators and the different schools of thought in the long-running debates about Marx and justice. For example, Marx asserts, “As far as right is concerned, we with many others have stressed the opposition of communism to right, both political and private, as also in its most general form as the rights of man.” Shoikhedbrod contends that this assertion, like other similar assertions by Marx, has often been “taken out of context.” But Shoikhedbrod does not provide enough contextual evidence to refute common-sense interpretations of this passage as Marx’s plain disavowal of rights as such. (Admittedly, there are other passages where Marx does seem to affirm some notion of rights.) This book is unlikely to persuade many of the commentators who think that Marx regards his critique of capitalism, as well as his theory of communism, as beyond appeals to justice, though Shoikhedbrod might convince some of them that Marxism needs a robust theory of rights and, indeed, that Marx provides some resources for such a theory. Shoikhedbrod offers a spirited critique of liberalism and a good case for why no theory or practice, whether communist or otherwise, can dispense with rights and legality. Although Habermas once called himself “the last Marxist,” Shoikhedbrod’s book shows that, in our age of rising global inequality, this is not the last we have heard from Marx.","PeriodicalId":9491,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Political Science","volume":"7 1","pages":"491 - 492"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Response to Paul Gray's review of Revisiting Marx's Critique of Liberalism\",\"authors\":\"Igor Shoikhedbrod\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s0008423923000136\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"E. P. Thompson, who argues for the historical significance of struggles for rights and laws. Shoikhedbrod, using his interpretation of Marx’s critique of liberalism, provides a more systematic account of the importance of constitutionalism and the rule of law in constraining arbitrary power, providing essential space for contestation in egalitarian struggles, and forming crucial preconditions for the communism that will achieve right and legality in a higher form. The clear strength of Shoikhedbrod’s work is his engagement with the legal and juridical aspects of these debates. He offers an important corrective to the dismissive attitude found in some schools of Marxism. Shoikhedbrod also provides persuasive arguments for the enduring importance of rights, whatever the form of the society. If there is a limitation to the book, it is that Shoikhedbrod describes as “orthodox” the interpretation that Marx ultimately dismisses right and legality. This discounts the variety of disagreements between commentators and the different schools of thought in the long-running debates about Marx and justice. For example, Marx asserts, “As far as right is concerned, we with many others have stressed the opposition of communism to right, both political and private, as also in its most general form as the rights of man.” Shoikhedbrod contends that this assertion, like other similar assertions by Marx, has often been “taken out of context.” But Shoikhedbrod does not provide enough contextual evidence to refute common-sense interpretations of this passage as Marx’s plain disavowal of rights as such. (Admittedly, there are other passages where Marx does seem to affirm some notion of rights.) This book is unlikely to persuade many of the commentators who think that Marx regards his critique of capitalism, as well as his theory of communism, as beyond appeals to justice, though Shoikhedbrod might convince some of them that Marxism needs a robust theory of rights and, indeed, that Marx provides some resources for such a theory. Shoikhedbrod offers a spirited critique of liberalism and a good case for why no theory or practice, whether communist or otherwise, can dispense with rights and legality. Although Habermas once called himself “the last Marxist,” Shoikhedbrod’s book shows that, in our age of rising global inequality, this is not the last we have heard from Marx.\",\"PeriodicalId\":9491,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Canadian Journal of Political Science\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"491 - 492\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Canadian Journal of Political Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0008423923000136\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Political Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0008423923000136","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

e.p.汤普森,他认为争取权利和法律的斗争具有历史意义。Shoikhedbrod运用他对马克思对自由主义批判的解释,更系统地阐述了宪政和法治在限制专制权力方面的重要性,为平等主义斗争中的争论提供了必要的空间,并为共产主义在更高形式中实现权利和合法性形成了关键的先决条件。Shoikhedbrod作品的明显优势在于他对这些辩论的法律和司法方面的参与。他对某些马克思主义流派的轻蔑态度提出了重要的纠正。《Shoikhedbrod》也为权利的持久重要性提供了有说服力的论据,无论社会形式如何。如果说这本书有什么局限性的话,那就是Shoikhedbrod将马克思最终摒弃权利和合法性的解释描述为“正统”。这忽略了评论家和不同思想流派在关于马克思和正义的长期辩论中存在的各种分歧。例如,马克思断言:“就权利而言,我们和其他许多人都强调共产主义反对政治权利和私人权利,也反对最一般形式的人权。”Shoikhedbrod认为,这一论断和马克思的其他类似论断一样,经常被“断章取义”。但Shoikhedbrod并没有提供足够的背景证据来反驳对这段话的常识性解释,即马克思对权利的明确否定。(诚然,在其他一些段落中,马克思似乎确实肯定了某些权利概念。)这本书不太可能说服许多评论家,他们认为马克思认为他对资本主义的批判,以及他的共产主义理论,超越了正义的诉求,尽管Shoikhedbrod可能会说服他们中的一些人,马克思主义需要一个强有力的权利理论,事实上,马克思为这样一个理论提供了一些资源。Shoikhedbrod对自由主义进行了激烈的批判,并很好地说明了为什么任何理论或实践,无论是共产主义的还是其他的,都不能放弃权利和合法性。尽管哈贝马斯曾称自己为“最后的马克思主义者”,但Shoikhedbrod的书表明,在我们这个全球不平等加剧的时代,这并不是我们最后一次听到马克思的声音。
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
Response to Paul Gray's review of Revisiting Marx's Critique of Liberalism
E. P. Thompson, who argues for the historical significance of struggles for rights and laws. Shoikhedbrod, using his interpretation of Marx’s critique of liberalism, provides a more systematic account of the importance of constitutionalism and the rule of law in constraining arbitrary power, providing essential space for contestation in egalitarian struggles, and forming crucial preconditions for the communism that will achieve right and legality in a higher form. The clear strength of Shoikhedbrod’s work is his engagement with the legal and juridical aspects of these debates. He offers an important corrective to the dismissive attitude found in some schools of Marxism. Shoikhedbrod also provides persuasive arguments for the enduring importance of rights, whatever the form of the society. If there is a limitation to the book, it is that Shoikhedbrod describes as “orthodox” the interpretation that Marx ultimately dismisses right and legality. This discounts the variety of disagreements between commentators and the different schools of thought in the long-running debates about Marx and justice. For example, Marx asserts, “As far as right is concerned, we with many others have stressed the opposition of communism to right, both political and private, as also in its most general form as the rights of man.” Shoikhedbrod contends that this assertion, like other similar assertions by Marx, has often been “taken out of context.” But Shoikhedbrod does not provide enough contextual evidence to refute common-sense interpretations of this passage as Marx’s plain disavowal of rights as such. (Admittedly, there are other passages where Marx does seem to affirm some notion of rights.) This book is unlikely to persuade many of the commentators who think that Marx regards his critique of capitalism, as well as his theory of communism, as beyond appeals to justice, though Shoikhedbrod might convince some of them that Marxism needs a robust theory of rights and, indeed, that Marx provides some resources for such a theory. Shoikhedbrod offers a spirited critique of liberalism and a good case for why no theory or practice, whether communist or otherwise, can dispense with rights and legality. Although Habermas once called himself “the last Marxist,” Shoikhedbrod’s book shows that, in our age of rising global inequality, this is not the last we have heard from Marx.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Beyond Rights: The Nisga'a Final Agreement and the Challenges of Modern Treaty Relationships Carole Blackburn, Vancouver: UBC Press, 2021, pp. 184 Categorical Inequalities and Canadian Attitudes toward Positive and Negative Rights Marx on Leisure: An Aristotelian Interpretation Democracy and Exclusion Patti Tamara Lenard, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2023, pp. 232 Toward A (Not The) Political Philosophy Of Populism: Democracy, Moral Dualism And Minimalst Theory In Christopher Lasch
×
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