在康德与谢林之间:《资本论》“鲁宾难题”新解及其当代意义

Between Kant and Schelling:A New Interpretation of the"Rubin's Conundrum"in Capital and Its Contemporary Relevance

在《资本论》中,马克思对抽象劳动的理解具有生理耗费与社会建构的双重维度。苏联学者鲁宾认为这种理解蕴含着内在的张力,如何解释它构成了“鲁宾难题”。这一难题深刻地指出了劳动的物质基础与社会形式之间的关系问题,也指向了马克思对李嘉图与贝利的超越。因此,解答此难题就关乎马克思劳动价值论的理论合法性。在康德与黑格尔之间,鲁宾借助于形式与内容相同一的方法论提供了一种近黑格尔的解答路径,但却因为仅仅肯定抽象劳动的社会建构维度,制造了掩盖矛盾的封闭体系。而借助于谢林的黑格尔批判可以看到,“鲁宾难题”所揭示的内在张力其实指向了资本主义生产方式的内在矛盾,马克思对“价值形式何以可能”的追问则为超越资本主义打开了思想缺口。

In Capital,Marx's understanding of abstract labor has a dual dimension of physiological expenditure and social construction.According to the Soviet scholar Isaak Ilich Rubin,this understanding contains an inherent tension,and how to explain it constitutes the"Rubin's Conundrum".This conundrum profoundly points to the problem of the relationship between the material basis of labor and its social form,and to Marx's transcendence of David Ricardo and Samuel Bailey.Therefore,the answer to this conundrum is related to the theoretical legitimacy of Marxist labor theory of value.Between Kant and Hegel,Rubin offers a near-Hegelian path to answer this conundrum by means of a methodological approach identifying form and content,but creates a closed system that conceals contradictions by only affirming the socially constructed dimension of abstract labor.And with the help of Schelling's Hegelian critique,it can be seen that the inner tension revealed by the"Rubin's Conundrum"points to the inherent contradictions of the capitalist mode of production,while Marx's question of"how is the form of value possible"opens an ideological gap for transcending capitalism.