亚瑟的“新辩证法”与马克思的“新唯物主义”

Arthur’s "New Dialectic" and Marx’s "New Materialism"

在《新辩证法与马克思的<资本论>》中,亚瑟注意到价值形式同黑格尔的逻辑所具有的同一性,为我们进一步研究“抽象统治”奠定了学理基础。亚瑟把《资本论》与黑格尔逻辑学的结构作了对比,突出了抽象劳动的理念特征,这有助于我们把握马克思主义认识论既超越传统经验论、又超越传统唯理论的特质。但是,由于对马克思的“新唯物主义”缺乏了解,亚瑟陷入了唯心主义、形式主义和非历史主义的错误,这使他无法把《资本论》作为“政治经济学批判”的科学性质,重新回到了马克思早已超越的哲学批判甚至是道德批判的立场。亚瑟的这一教训不仅在西方马克思学中,而且在当代中国马克思主义哲学界对《资本论》的研究中,都具有典型意义。

In The New Dialectic and Marx’s Capital, Arthur emphasizes the identity of value form and Hegel’s logic,which lays a theoretical foundation for further study of "the rule of abstractions".Arthur highlights the ideal characteristics of abstract labor by contrast the structure of Capital with Hegel’s logic,which helps us to grasp the nature of Marxist epistemology beyond both traditional empiricism and rationalism. However, Arthur falls into errors of idealism, formalism and non—historicism due to the neglect of Marx’s "new materialism".This makes him unable to grasp the scientific nature of Capital as "critique of political economy " and hence makes him trapped back into the position of philosophical critique especially of moral philosophy, which has been transcended by young Marx long before. This is a serious lesson not only for western Marxology, but also for contemporary Capital research of Chinese Marxist philosophy circle.