行动与理论:哈贝马斯批判——《资本论》中的历史唯物主义问题

Action and Theory: Habermas' s Criticism——the Historical Materialism Problem in Capital

《资本论》文本的一个突出的特质是表达行动内涵。《资本论》中的行动理论在意蕴与模式上和标准的社会学理论相比,特质规定是丰富的阶级实践工作内涵。这种研究具象出"实践态的历史唯物主义"。与之类似但内涵逻辑殊异的是哈贝马斯努力建构的"交往行动的理论"。后者和经济学上的新制度主义理论废墟相类似,其带来了哲学上的"科斯问题":试图从行动图型上抹掉"生产关系—交往关系"的构造。这是对行动与理论统一关系的严重背离。在具体理论构建上:哈贝马斯的问题还在于过多强调了交往和其他行为模式的差别,而较少注意它们的结合和统一;与之相反,通过运用"整体范畴",各种行为模式在《资本论》中艺术地结成一体。因此,是否追循"行动如何可能",从而实现阶级、行动、理论科学的实践统一,是马克思和哈贝马斯进行理论生产的一个根本不同之处。

A prominent trait in Capital is the expression of action's connotation. In compared with the standard social theory,the action theory in Capital attributes that trait is the connotation of abundant class practice in terms of implications and modes. This kind of research, to some extent, is 'the historical materialism in practice'. And 'the theory of communication action' which Haberman manages to construct is similar to but also has some differences in logical connotation. The later is similar to the new institutionalism ruins in economics which brings the philosophical 'Coase problem' : trying to erase the structure of 'relations of production--relations of communication' from the action pattern. And such is a serious departure from the unity of action and theory. Then when it comes to the construction of specific theories, Habermas' s problems lies in paying too much emphasis on the difference between the communication and other action modes, and less on their combination and unity; however, on the contrary various action modes are well-organized as a whole in Capital. Thus, a fundermental difference between the theory production of Marx and Habermas is whether to follow 'how to turn the action into possibility' to achieve the practical unity of class, action and scientific theory.