唯物史观何以言规范?——从“内在批判”解释回应当代马克思主义的“正义论争”

How does Historical Materialism Justify Normativity:A Response of“Immanent Critique”to the Contemporary Marxism’s“Debates on Justice”

“塔克-伍德命题”的严肃意义在于,揭示了从当代规范政治哲学范式理解马克思正义观念的缺陷。然而,反驳“塔克-伍德命题”的主要学者通常会采取一种“外在批判”策略以解释马克思的正义批判立场。其中,由胡萨米与布坎南等人提供的两种代表性方案,非但无法同时避免“道德批判谬误”与“道德范畴消除论”的双重困境,反而重新陷入了当代规范政治哲学的解释困境。伍德随后为此提出的修正观点,由于混淆了马克思理解剩余价值占有和意识形态观念的内在层次差异,导致其过于抽象地排除了马克思正义观念的批判性意涵。马克思在“元伦理”层面对正义的二阶反思,提供了一种从内在角度批判资本主义的正义观念,进而使唯物史观实现了传统规范性范畴的形式引导与历史阶段的内在合目的性反思的统一。

The academic contribution of the“Tucker-Wood Thesis”is that reveals the weakness of interpreting Marx’s ideas of justice from the perspective of normative political philosophy.However,scholars who disagree with the“Tucker-Wood Thesis”usually take an approach of“external critique”to interpret Marx’s stand on the debate of justice.Two representative schemes provided by Ziyad Husami and Allen Buchanan.But instead of avoiding the double dilemma of“the fallacy of moral criticism”and“the elimination of morality”simultaneously,they have fallen back into the interpretation dilemma of contemporary normative political philosophy.Allen Wood later revised his view.However,Allen Wood does not distinguish the levels at which Marx discusses the possession of surplus value and ideology,he cannot see the critical implications of Marx’s ideas of justice.This paper argues that Marx’s two-stage reflections on justice at the level of“metaethics”provide a theory of justice that criticizes capitalism from an immanent perspective.Then the historical materialism realized the unity of the formal guidance of traditional normative form and the intrinsic purposive reflection of the historical stage.