知识分子、民工、下岗工人的阶级关系(9)
2017-08-19 05:51
导读：B. 马克思主义与自由主义在历史上的搭接和今天的新对抗 十九世纪，保守主义、自由主义和马克思主义是三大思想主流，马克思的从德国向法国、英国的
B. 马克思主义与自由主义在历史上的搭接和今天的新对抗
十九世纪，保守主义、自由主义和马克思主义是三大思想主流，马克思的从德国向法国、英国的流亡也象征着他与自由主义的交锋的不断尖锐化。今天的新左和新自由主义的对立，是这两大思想遗产之间的争锋的后续。
华勒斯坦这样来勘定十九世纪三大思想潮流对我们过去200年的社会科学研究的统治和它们在今天的流向：They were all world-systemic ideologies. It was no accident that conservatism was the first to emerge institutionally. It is clear that the new recognition of the normality of change posed urgent dilemmas to those of a conservative bent. Edmund Burke and Joseph de Maistre saw this clearly and quickly…Liberalism is the natural ideology of normal change. But it needed to become an ideology only after conservatism had emerged. It was English Tories who first called their opponents ‘liberals’ in the early 19th century. To be sure, the idea of the individual’s right to be free from the constraints of the state had a long history that predates this moment. The rise of the absolutist state brought in its train the advocates of constitutional government. John Locke is often considered the symbolic incarnation of this line of thought. But what emerged in the 19th century was liberalism as an ideology of consciously enacted reform, and this did not really existed in the 17th and 18th centuries. This is also why I believe the oft-cited difference between early 19th century ‘minimal state’ liberalism and late 19th century ‘social state’ liberalism misses the point. The exponents of both had the same conscious political agenda: legislative reform that would abet, channel, facilitate ‘normal change’.
Marxism then came along quite late as the third ideology of the 19th century world. Perhaps some would prefer to think of socialism as the third ideology. But over time the only variety of socialist thought that became truly distinguishable from liberalism as an ideology was in fact Marxism. What Marxism did, as an ideology, was to accept the basic premise of liberal ideology (the theory of progress) and add to it two crucial specifications. Progress was seen as something realised not continuously but discontinuously, that is, by revolution. And in the upward ascent to the good or perfect society the world had reached not its ultimate but its penultimate state. These two amendments were sufficient to produce an entirely different political agenda…
（转载自中国科教评价网http://www.nseac.com）
What is important is that the three ideologies were all statements about how politically to deal with ‘normal change’. They probably exhausted the range of possibilities for plausible ideologies to be insitutionalized in the 19th century capitalist world-economy.〖《脱思社会科学》，同上，16－17页〗实际上，在今 天可能也是如此，除了在马克思主义和自由主义之间折腾外，我们还能找到哪些新的政治空间、新的论争话语储备？也许，从今以后，我们的社会科学的任务压根就不在于为我们找到一种新的说得通的、可行的意识形态了？
自由主义者和马克思主义者真有那么对立，那么互相反对得旗帜鲜明？华勒斯坦继续写道〖《脱》，同上，53页〗：十九世纪的三大意识形态都把进步神话当真。They merely argued about the implications of this organizing myth （指那个进步神话）for political action. Liberals were those who celebrated the rise of the middle classes as the bearer of human freedom. They advocated extending the benefits of human progress to groups and countries which had to that point been left behind. Conservatives were those who deplored the decline of the aristocracy (a reality they would not accept) and argued that individualism was not freedom bit a license for rapacity. Freedom was to be found in the restoration of tradition and authority. Marxists too believed that the middle classes had risen and defeated the aristocracy. They argued with liberals that the bourgeoisie had been the bearer of human freedom but they also argued that bourgeois freedom was, as the conservatives said, license for rapacity. However, they added, through the inevitable dialectics of history at a higher state of progress, the proletariat would, in turn, overthrow the bourgeoisie as the bourgeoisie had overthrown the aristocracy.
