论埃尔斯特对马克思生产力概念的重建

On Elter’s Reconstruction of Marx’s Concept of Productive Forces

埃尔斯特在柯亨理论的基础上重建了生产力概念。他提出了两个关于生产力外延的重要论点:第一,在大多数情况下,数学和自然科学方面的基础知识作为生产力具有"可被有效控制"的特征,而不具有"可被从法律上宣示所有权"的特征,并且不能解释资本主义生产关系的形成和性质;第二,关系本身不是生产力,但关于物质的劳动关系的知识是生产力,而关于生产的社会关系的知识不是生产力。关于生产力的内涵,他认为,对于生产关系来说生产力应当是中立的。在考察人口与生产力的关系时,埃尔斯特误读了马克思的有关论断。这种误读的逻辑根源在于,他把马克思的实证性描述、超越性批判和独立的人类学视角进行机械对比,从而把马克思表述上的差别定性为逻辑上的矛盾和混乱。

Jon Elster reconstructs the concept of productive forces after G. A. Cohen. He makes two main arguments concerning the extension of productive forces. First, basic knowledge in mathematics and the natural sciences in most cases resists being legally possessed, but can be effectively controlled, so the ownability constraint should be replaced by a constraint of effective controllability. In addition, science can＇t satisfy the explanatory constraint. Second, relations themselves are not productive forces, but knowledge of ways of organizing labor is a productive force. However, knowledge of social relations is not a productive force. Concerning the intension of productive forces, he argues that the productive forces should be neutral with respect to the relations of production. However, there is some misreading of Marx＇s works in Elster＇s reconstruction. In the area of relations between population and productive forces, Elster misreads Marx＇s three literally different arguments, which he thinks are logically inconsistent and disordering. The misread- ing is rooted in his rigid contrast among Marx＇s empirical description, transcendental criticism and independent standpoint of philosophical anthropology.