【作者】 常晶；

【导师】 何中华；

【作者基本信息】 山东大学 ， 马克思主义哲学， 2012， 博士

【摘要】 伴随全球化进程的不断推进,自由主义在我国日益成为显学。这使马克思主义与自由主义的对话变得迫切而必要。伯林作为西方自由主义的典型代表,把前苏联社会主义实践映射出来的极权主义根源简单的归结到马克思身上,并由此展开了对马克思自由观的责难。在伯林看来,马克思主义理论的核心特征在于历史决定论。历史决定论以消解人类的自由选择为前提,以历史规律为本质内容,以建构无所不包的终极体系为根本归宿。历史决定论指导下的社会实践不可避免的具有专制主义的色彩。伯林对马克思的批判引发了立场不坚定者的动摇,进而影响着人们对现实做出明智的判断与理性的选择。因此,回应伯林的责难,历史的再现马克思自由观的真实本色,不仅是一项理论要求,而且具有十分重要的现实意义。伯林对马克思责难的历史源头在于国际共产主义运动,尤其是前苏联的社会主义实践。伯林认为前苏联的马克思主义者秉承了马克思的核心理念,并且在事实上全面的展开了马克思的理论。由此得出的逻辑就是：前苏联的历史错误就是马克思的错误,对前苏联极权主义的批评就是对马克思的批评。从这一推论出发,伯林始终将对极权主义者的批判与对马克思的批判杂糅在一起。因为在伯林看来,马克思不但充当了极权主义的理论来源,而且马克思与马克思主义者在剥夺个人自由的本质层面上是完全等价的。二者都以一套先验的理念,将个人置于国家与社会的框架之中,以历史规律的客观性取代个人的自主选择性,从而达到操纵历史发展的个人目的。基于这种蔑视人性的认识,伯林以极权主义者的理论预设建构了马克思狭隘的个人形象。从高傲自大的“德国校长”到冷漠无情的“硬心肠”,马克思的整个人格毫不例外地遭到了伯林的否定。伯林这种不加区分的批判从内容上抹杀了马克思哲学的独立立性,从方法上违背了逻辑与历史的辩证统一,而且在形式上令人难以接受。然而只有我们深入到伯林思想的构成及其援引的哲学基础上,伯林的质疑尚可得到解释。尽管伯林坚持两种自由的“制衡说”,但是个人主义、经验主义以及人性多样化的形而上学基础内在的决定了伯林不可避免的倾向于消极自由的合法性。从贡斯当到密尔,现代人的自由方式在伯林这里得到了充分展现。对私人领域的维护与对国家干涉的警惕性促使伯林对一切极权主义的学说采取了极其敌视与厌恶的态度。以国家理性为表征的极权主义在伯林的视野中正是以积极自由形式存在的膨胀了的个人理性。个人理性的自主要求为国家理性的侵犯提供了可能。因此伯林对积极自由的担心与对极权主义的批判是同步的。尽管伯林站在自由主义的立场上对妨碍自由的一切因素进行了坚决的批判,但是这种批判在彰显自由的同时,却不断生成着自身无法克服的矛盾。对积极自由的批评,一方面导致了两种自由的内在冲突,另一方面,也使自由主义与价值多元论之间呈现出紧张的态势。相对于自由主义的特定价值取向而言,多元主义是一种价值中立的平等论。多元论以价值的不可公度性为前提,在诸多价值之间试图寻求一条价值调和的道路。多元论者承认各种价值的不可通约性,而每一次价值的选择则意味着其它价值的丧失。这是价值多元论者极力反对价值选择的内在根据。虽然伯林一再申明自己的多元论立场,但是对消极自由的偏爱已经清晰的凸显了其自由主义的原则,并且造成了自由主义与多元论之间的内在张力,从而暴露了其难以掩饰的理论困境。与伯林个人主义的自由观截然相反,马克思始终将自由的主体定位于广大的人民群众。在马克思看来历史的主宰既不是任意的“个人”,也不是抽象的“一般人”,而是从事现实活动的人民群众。“现实的人”构成马克思自由观的历史起点与逻辑起点。在现实的维度中把握人的自由,也就赋予了自由以生存论的内涵,从而使马克思更加注重自由的现实性与内容性。以此为主线,纯粹形式的自由与原子的个人自由被形式与内容统一、个人与社会统一的自由所扬弃。自由在实践的基础上,在个体与类、存在与本质、有限与无限统一的历史合题中获得了真实而丰富的内涵。通过马克思自由观的历史展现,我们看到的其实是伯林对马克思真实思想的扭曲。一方面,对马克思与教条化、庸俗化的马克思主义者的混淆导致伯林将对后继马克思主义者的批判替换为对马克思的批判。另一方面,伯林对历史唯物主义缺乏充分了解,抽空了马克思主义辩证法的合理性,从而使马克思主义理论后退到机械决定论的水平。鉴于这种误解,伯林简单的把社会主义实践的弊端归咎到马克思理论上,并以后继马克思主义者的不足指责了马克思本身。因此在马克思与后继马克思主义者之间,在辩证决定论与机械决定论之间做出明确的区分,是澄清马克思的真实面相,并有效回应伯林责难的迫切需要。综上所述,形形色色的马克思主义为伯林解读马克思提供了历史的可能性,但事实上却遮蔽了马克思理论的真实性。尽管伯林对马克思的责难具有很大的偏颇性,但是作为一种批判的视野,伯林的责难仍然具有积极的启发价值。从伯林对社会主义实践的责难来看,伯林的批判并非没有道理。社会主义实践的失误在于对马克思主义采取了僵化的理解方式,从而扭曲了马克思主义的精神实质。这就启示我们在对待马克思主义的态度上,既应该立足于文本,更应该站在时代的语境中,对马克思主义作出创造性的阐释。只有这样才能避免马克思主义重新陷入教条主义的泥潭,才能为马克思主义的发展注入青春的生机与活力。更多还原

【Abstract】 With the the continuous advance of globalization, liberalism has become an increasingly hot topic among Chinese scholars. Therefore, it’s increasingly necessary for Marxism to make a dialogue with liberalism. As a typical western liberalist, Berlin attributed the origin of totalitarianism reflected by the former Soviet Union socialist practice to Marxism. Then he blamed the Marxism liberalism. In Berlin’s opinion, the core character of Marxism lies in the historical determinism, which is based on the denial of the freedom of humans, regards the law of history as the core content and treats the construction of inclusive ultimate system as the fundamental destination The social practice,which is under the guide of historical determination, has some traits of autocracy unavoidably. The criticism of Berlin results in the doubt of Marxism by some people without their own position and influences people’s wise judgment and reasonable choice of reality. Therefore, making response to his blame and make historical recurrence of Marxist liberalism is not only a theoretical requirement, but also of vital reality importance.Berlin’s criticism of Marx mainly originates from the international communist campaigns historically, especially the socialist practice of former Soviet Union. Berlin believes that the Marxists in former Soviet Union have acted in accordance with the core concepts of Marx and developes the Marxism theory on the basis of facts comprehensively. The logic resulted from this is that the historical mistakes made by former Soviet Union is those of Marx and the criticism of its totalitarianism is that of Marx. Proceeding from the deduction, Berlin has always been blended the criticism of totalitarian with that of Marx. Because as for Berlin, Marx not only acts as the theoretical origin of totalitarianism, but Marx and Marxists are totally the same on the natural level of depriving personal freedom. They both put individuals within the framework of country and society on the basis of a set of transcendental ideas. They try to realize the individual purpose of managing history development by replacing the personal autonomous selection with the objectivity of historical law. Based on the idea of despising humanity, Berlin constructed the narrow personal image of Marx by using the totalitarian theory. From the arrogant "German headmaster" to the cold-blooded "hard heart", the whole personality of Marx was denied by Berlin with no exception.The indiscriminate criticism of Berlin erases the independence of Marxist philosophy in aspect of content, violates dialectical unity of logic and history in aspect of method and is unacceptable in aspect of form. However, only when we go deep into the construction of Berlin’s thought and the philosophical basis cited by it, can Berlin’s questioning be explained. Despite Berlin believes in the "check and balance theory" of the two kinds of freedom, the individualism, empiricism and the metaphysic basis of humanity diversification determines the fact that Berlin has a tendency towards the legitimacy of negative liberty unavoidably. From Constant to Mill, the style of liberty in modern people has been fully demonstrated here. The safeguard of private sector and the vigilance of interference in state propels Berlin to take extremely hostile and offending attitudes towards all totalitarianism doctrines. The totalitarianism, which is characterized by state reason, is the expanded individual reason existed in the positive liberal form in Berlin’s perspective. The independent requirement of individual reason has provided possibilities of the violation of state reason. Therefore, the concern about positive liberty of Berlin and the criticism of totalitarianism are synchronous.Although Berlin makes firm criticism of all the factors hindering freedom in the perspective of liberalism, this kind of criticism not only demonstrates freedom, but also generates contradictions that cannot be overcome by itself. The criticism of positive freedom leads to not only the internal conflict of two kinds of freedom but also the nervous tendency of liberalism and value pluralism. As for the particular value orientation of liberalism, pluralism is a kind of equality theory with neutral value. Regarding the incommensurability of value as the premise, pluralism attempts to find a path of balancing values among various values. The pluralists acknowledge the incommensurability of various kinds of values and every choice of value means the lose of its value. This is the inherent foundation of extreme objection to value choice from value pluralists. Despite Berlin has declared his point of pluralism repeatedly, his favor for negative freedom has explicitly demonstrated his liberalist principle and resulted in the inner tension between liberalism and pluralism, thus revealing his theoretical dilemma that is difficult to conceal.Distinct from Berlin’s individualist liberalism, Marx has always set the main body of freedom as the populous masses of the people. Because as for Marx, the master of history is neither the random "individual" nor the abstract "common people", but the masses who engage in realistic activities."Practical persons " constitutes the starting points both historically and logically. To grasp the freedom of people in the dimension of reality gives freedom the content of existentialism, thus making Marx put more emphasis on the reality and content of freedom. Taking this as a main line, the freedom, which combines form and content as well as individual and society, develops what is useful in the pure form of freedom and atomic individual freedom and discards the opposite aspects in them. The freedom, which is based on practice, has achieved real and rich characteristics in the historical combination of individual and humans, existence and essence, as well as definiteness and indefiniteness.Through the concept of freedom of Marx, what we see in fact is the distortion by Berlin of the true thought of Marx. On the one hand, the confusion of Marx and the Marxist who have become dogmatized and vulgarized leads to the possible fact that Berlin would replace the criticism of Marx with that of the later Marxists. On the other hand, due to the lacking in full understanding of historical materialism, Berlin evacuates the rationality of Marxist dialectics, thus pushing the Marxist theory back to the level of mechanistic determinism. In view of this misunderstanding, Berlin blames the shortages of socialist practices to the Marxist theory and criticizes Marx himself for the shortcomings of the later Marxists. Therefore, in order to give explicit and true appearance to Marx and make response to Berlin’s blame, it is urgently necessary to make distinctions between Marx and later Marxists as well as dialectical determinism and mechanistic determinism.From the above, various Marxisms make it possible historically for Berlin to get a better understanding of Marx, the truth of whose theory is actually overshadowed by such theories. Judging from his criticism of the socialistic practice, Berlin’s arguments hold water. The failure of socialistic failure was attributed to the stereotyped understanding of Marxism, thereby distorting the spiritual core of the Marxism. Therefor, we are inspired to take into consideration not only his texts, but also the context of the time so as to make creative explanations of Marxism when treating the theory. Only in this way can we avoid making Marxism mire in the trouble of doctrinairism again and inject vigor and vitality into the development of Marxism.更多还原