激进抑或保守——拉克劳、墨菲与理查德·罗蒂政治思想比较

Radical Or Conservative——The Comparative Analysis about Political Thought between Laclau-Mouffe and Richard Rorty

拉-墨以话语为起点"瓦解"了经典马克思主义革命理论的基础,罗蒂以反讽为基点建构了最低纲领的自由主义。话语和反讽的哲学基础都是反实在论。拉-墨和罗蒂在此基础上构筑的后现代政治景象异曲同工。前者由多元决定、霸权争夺的逻辑走向了"激进民主",后者则从强调民主政治的偶然性滑向保守主义。拉-墨的激进民主扩展了民主的内涵,把民主放在优先于社会主义的位置;罗蒂认为进步依靠不同文化共同体成员之间的对话,坚持实用主义的政治观。在何为政治本质的问题上,他们的立场殊为不同,前者强调对抗的意义,后者推重协同性。其实表面上不同的政治立场预设了同样的目标:放弃总体性革命,退向微观领域的改进。其批判资本主义的力度相比经典社会主义者和杜威皆有减退。

Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe deconstruct the basis of revolutionary theory of classic Marxism by means of theory of discourse. Theories of discourse was named by someone an anti-realism, a philosophy like this has certain resemble with theory of irony which held by Richard Rorty who always appeals to new pragmatism for long time since 1980s. They respectively attempt to reconstruct theory for revolution in post-industry era. One is to be radical democracy, the other retreats into conservative politics. Laclau and Mouffe advise us to accept a new radical democracy, and Rorty urge his reformism. The same goal underlying them is to give up revolution in macro-space, and towards meliorate in micro-field. In a word, if comparatives their political position with classic socialism and John Dewey, you can easily find out that the former is more conservative than the later.