期刊文献+

劳动—工资的弹性与积累模式的盲目性——试析罗伯特·博耶对资本主义调节机制的解读 被引量:1

Flexibility of Labor-wage and Blindness of Accumulation Regime——On Robert Boyer's Study of Capitalist Regulation Process
原文传递
导出
摘要 劳动—工资的弹性以及积累模式的发展问题是博耶解读资本主义调节机制的重要视角。他首先从生产组织的适应性等五个方面对劳动—工资的弹性进行了解读,并进而认为这种"弹性"是否合理的问题并不是一个抽象的问题,而是一个必须跟经验实践语境中各种因素的相互作用结合在一起加以考虑的问题。当他把劳资关系仅仅理解为劳动与工资之间的关系并把这一关系的双方即劳动与工资割裂开来,分别阐述其所具有的弹性时,其观点的经验主义特性就已经被注定了。以此为基础,博耶对积累模式的特征进行了剖析,并认为在具体的历史过程中,一种新的积累模式的出现,决不是一种自主的过程,而毋宁说是一种盲目的过程,它具有无限的开放性及偶然性。客观地说,博耶的解读思路中缺失一条生产关系的理论线索。他所谈的积累模式与其说是资本积累的模式,还不如说是财富积累的模式,他根本没有看到资本积累与财富积累之间的区别。 Robert Boyer approaches capitalist regulation from both the flexibility of labor-wage relation and the blindness of accumulation regime's development.His interpretation of the flexibility of labor-wage relation begins with five such aspects as adaptability of productive organization,based on which flexibility of this kind is no metaphysical question of being reasonable or not,but what must be put into the empirical context so to be understood.It is obvious that Boyer's theory is doomed to be empiricist for his treatment with labor-wage relation only as that between labor and wage,so consequently to separate these two from each other.Boyer explicates the five features which characterize the accumulation regime.In his analysis,the emergence of new accumulation regime is not at all an autonomous process,but one with blindness.To be more exact,the theory of productive relations is missing in his interpretation.As a result,the accumulation regime in his analysis is not the accumulation regime of capital,but of wealth.He deplorably missed the difference between the two.
作者 唐正东
出处 《南京大学学报(哲学.人文科学.社会科学)》 CSSCI 北大核心 2009年第1期11-19,共9页 Journal of Nanjing University(Philosophy,Humanities and Social Sciences)
基金 国家哲学社会科学基金项目(06BKS028)
  • 相关文献

参考文献15

  • 1Robert Boyer, “ Labour Flexibilities: Many Forms, Uncertain Effects,” Labour and Society, Vol. 12, No. 1, January 1987.
  • 2Robert Boyer, “Labour Flexibilities : Many Forms, Uncertain Effects”.
  • 3《马克思恩格斯全集》.第46卷.第940页.北京,人民出版社,2003.
  • 4Robert Boyer, “The Eighties: The Search for Alternatives to Fordism,” in Bob Jessop, Hans Kastendiek, Klaus Nielsen and Ove K. Pedersen (eds), The Politics of Flexibility: Restructuring State and Industry in Britain, Germany and Scandinavia, Aldershot: Edward Elgar, 1991 ,p107.
  • 5Robert Boyer, “The Eighties: The Search for Ahernatives to Fordism,” in Bob Jessop, Hans Kastendiek, Klaus Nielsen and Ore K. Pedersen ( eds), The Politics of Flexibility: Restructuring State and Industry in Britain, Germany and Scandinavia, Aldershot: Edward Elgar, 1991 ,p109.
  • 6Robert Boyer, “Hybridization and Models of Production: Geography, History, and Theory,” in Robert Boyer, Elsie Charron, Ulrich Jorgens, Steven Tolliday ( eds), Between Imitation and Innovation, New York: Oxford University Press, 1998, pp26 - 27.
  • 7Robert Boyer,“Hybridization and Models of Production: Geography, History, and Theory,”in Robert Boyer, Elsie Charron, Ulrich Jurgens, Steven Tolliday ( eds), Between Imitation and Innovation, New York : Oxford University Press, 1998, p27.
  • 8沃尔夫格·豪格.《十三个尝试--对马克思主义思想的再阐释》.朱毅译,北京:东方出版社,2008年,第63页.
  • 9曼弗雷德.·弗兰克.《理解的界限--利奥塔和哈贝马斯的精神对话》,先刚译,北京:华夏出版社,2003年.第12页.
  • 10曼弗雷德·弗兰克.《理解的界限--利奥塔和哈贝马斯的精神对话》,第14页.

二级引证文献2

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部