抽象劳动在马克思主义价值理论中的中心地位似乎暗示了一种本质主义立场,与埃内斯托·拉克劳(Ernesto Laclau)的后结构主义霸权理论不相容。但是本文认为,马克思主义价值理论,在莫伊舍.普殊同(Moishe Postone)的解释中实际上与拉克...抽象劳动在马克思主义价值理论中的中心地位似乎暗示了一种本质主义立场,与埃内斯托·拉克劳(Ernesto Laclau)的后结构主义霸权理论不相容。但是本文认为,马克思主义价值理论,在莫伊舍.普殊同(Moishe Postone)的解释中实际上与拉克劳对社会偶然性的关注非常兼容,因为他将抽象劳动理解为社会关系的框架。因此,本文的中心观点是将抽象劳动解释为一种偶然的霸权形态,这种霸权形态是建立在对直接有用的工作的对抗性排斥之上的。The centrality of abstract labor in the Marxist theory of value seems to suggest an essentialist position incompatible with Ernesto Laclau’s theory of poststructuralist hegemony. However, this paper argues that the Marxist theory of value in Moishe Postpone’s interpretation is actually very compatible with Laclau’s concern for social contingencies, as he understands abstract labor as a framework for social relations. Thus, the central point of this paper is to interpret abstract labor as an accidental form of hegemony based on the antagonistic rejection of work that is directly useful.展开更多
文摘抽象劳动在马克思主义价值理论中的中心地位似乎暗示了一种本质主义立场,与埃内斯托·拉克劳(Ernesto Laclau)的后结构主义霸权理论不相容。但是本文认为,马克思主义价值理论,在莫伊舍.普殊同(Moishe Postone)的解释中实际上与拉克劳对社会偶然性的关注非常兼容,因为他将抽象劳动理解为社会关系的框架。因此,本文的中心观点是将抽象劳动解释为一种偶然的霸权形态,这种霸权形态是建立在对直接有用的工作的对抗性排斥之上的。The centrality of abstract labor in the Marxist theory of value seems to suggest an essentialist position incompatible with Ernesto Laclau’s theory of poststructuralist hegemony. However, this paper argues that the Marxist theory of value in Moishe Postpone’s interpretation is actually very compatible with Laclau’s concern for social contingencies, as he understands abstract labor as a framework for social relations. Thus, the central point of this paper is to interpret abstract labor as an accidental form of hegemony based on the antagonistic rejection of work that is directly useful.