资本、生态与自由：安德烈·高兹生态马克思主义思想研究

【作者】 温晓春；

【导师】 陈学明；

【作者基本信息】 复旦大学 ， 马克思主义哲学， 2010， 博士

【摘要】 本文对高兹生态马克思主义思想的主要线索进行深入挖掘,始终围绕资本、生态与自由的总的逻辑轴心展开文本解读,试图从总体上把握高兹思想发展和转折的逻辑脉络,初步探寻高兹的生态马克思主义思想在当今马克思主义研究境域中的理论价值和现实意义。论文共有六个部分,包括导论、四个章节和结语,各部分的内容简介如下：导论解决如下三个问题：第一,为什么以高兹作为论题?第二,高兹思想的几个主要特征；第三,本文研究高兹的主要方法和思路。为什么以高兹作为论题的答案应当从生态马克思主义发展的历史现象当中去寻找。在生态马克思主义运动中,为什么无论在西方还是在中国对高兹的研究都是比较零碎的和浅尝辄止的呢?马克思主义发展的后现代环境可能是造成这一状况的主要原因之一,而在思想和实践上都显得“正统”的高兹及其思想显然无法引起“学术消费”的充分关注。而高兹的正统的“乌托邦精神”却正是在后学时代要努力保留的。当然,高兹的意义不仅仅在于他的乌托邦精神,更重要的在于他用政治生态学的方法在某种程度上对历史唯物主义实现了更新,提供了一种在后工业社会如何实践我们的生活,如何实现真正属于社会的政治的方法；他用经济理性批判的政治经济学批判成果重建马克思意义上的真正的社会和真正的人及其工作；从而他在对资本的经济理性批判和对生活和社会的政治生态学建构的基础之上,为当代社会主义运动乃至左派运动都提供了一个“具体乌托邦”的实践路径和理论蓝图。第一章：存在主义焦虑：一个叛逆者的思想履历。本章要解决的问题是,在一个总体的和全景的视角下把握高兹及其思想履历,为后面四个部分的具体论述做好前提准备。由于本文没有企图把高兹的全部思想作一个巨细无遗的一一梳理工作,而这是一个思想地图的制作者的工作。按照高兹思想当中最具学术价值的生态马克思主义思想主要脉络——即通过对资本的批判,对政治生态学方法的建构达到对社会和工作的重建——来安排对高兹思想履历的有侧重的回顾。本章在理论方面着重论述对高兹生态马克思主义思想的存在主义底色和基调的渊源,在历史方面着重论述高兹在1968年五月风暴后的政治转身,在这个转身当中,高兹所受到的来自萨特、列斐伏尔和卡斯托利亚蒂斯的综合影响。马克思主义在60-70年代的危机同时也是高兹存在主义的马克思主义的转机,他对马克思主义的更新一方面坚持对“正统”马克思主义的强烈批判,另一方面寻求新的方法论路径为历史唯物主义寻找新的生长点。而这个动机也是高兹自称自己为“后马克思主义者”的原因所在,而危机之后,高兹走向政治生态学,走向生态马克思主义就成为一种非常合乎逻辑的结果了。第二章：政治生态学：一种生态和谐的生存方式。本章主要解决的问题是,高兹为什么将生态与政治相结合?他又是如何将二者结合在一起的?高兹的政治生态学究竟是一种政治实践方式和政治策略,还是一种改造传统马克思主义的思想方法?在《劳工战略》中,高兹运用存在主义现象学,并延续马克思的政治经济学批判剖析了资本主义社会中逐渐显露出来的新的需要。他揭示,需要的历史形式遮蔽了真正的历史需要,正是因资本逻辑的运作产生出来的需要的历史形式造成了生态资源的日益破坏,人自身也受资本逻辑的操控。此时,高兹已对资本展开了准生态地批判。在1968年五月风暴为标志的政治革命终结之后,生态运动风起云涌,这些使得高兹在实践方面更加牢固地建立了对资本主义全面地生态学批判路径。对于自由与异化的问题,高兹极力提倡以自我管理来克服在工厂中,乃至整个社会中的异化问题,而这一点的实现需要非中心化和工人的自治。但是当代的国际分工所具有的极高程度的专业化特征造成了必须具有一个高于工厂层面或者至少在工厂层面的决策权力的存在,这种决策权力的集中化却与非中心化和自治的策略根本相抵触。在生产的技术分工和工人的自治之间的矛盾方面,无限制发展的资本主义技术对人类解放和自然解放的实现产生了本质的和具有必然性的影响。当代资本主义的技术不仅支配着自然,而且支配着工人。资本逻辑由压抑人的自由升级到否定人的自由。在高兹思想的这个逻辑节点上,资本与自由之间的死结,应当而且必须由生态学方法来打开。高兹继承马克思的历史唯物主义和政治经济学批判的思想与方法从生态学内部挖掘出一种具有政治意蕴的生态学的方法,即政治生态学的方法,它是一种生态和谐的存在方式。具体而言,这种方法必然拒绝建立在对个体和自然的支配基础上的资本主义工业技术,取而代之的是创造一种建立在“个体之间的合作以及与自然的合作”基础之上的“后工业”技术。这恰恰是高兹的生态马克思主义范式异于北美的奥康纳和福斯特的生态马克思主义范式之处。第三章：重建工作与社会：经济理性帝国主义的批判。本章要解决的问题是,高兹究竟通过什么样的路径来达到自由和解放的实现?这个路径是具体的还是抽象的?高兹仅仅是如一些评论者所谓的抽象的乌托邦主义者吗?其实,高兹没有像后来的一些后马克思主义者一样,放弃对资本主义的政治经济学批判,事实上高兹虽然宣称自己是“后马克思主义者”但是他仍然孜孜于对马克思政治经济学批判方式的当代更新,而他的成果就是以经济理性批判为基础的对新社会的政治经济学规划,即重建工作与社会。之所以肯定高兹不是一个耽于浪漫的乌托邦想象的抽象哲学家,原因就在于他以极细致和具体的经济理性批判证明了一个结论,即社会和政治是可以通过对经济理性的限制来恢复人的工作的本质,恢复作为社会人的自由道德选择,从而恢复真正的社会。第四章：时间解放的社会：自由的乌托邦。高兹的生态马克思主义思想最终落脚在对真正的社会和真正的人的双重设想上。这种设想是乌托邦的浪漫主义想象吗?高兹真的能够将乌托邦精神与具体的自由和具体的解放真正的实现结合起来吗?高兹解决这个问题的核心概念是对自由与时间关系的考量。在高兹看来,时间不是中性的,时间存在着客观的时间和存在的时间。自由的概念在高兹的思想中有一个由抽象的自由到可经验的个体自由的转变过程。他认为自由的可支配时间是个体自由实现的根本条件,要通过微电子技术的革命替代传统的技术革命以不断增加自由时间,这种技术替代方式在根本上是“生态”的。自由的可支配的时间的增加意味着工作时间与自由时间的界限的消除,一个时间解放的社会得以建立。通达这样的社会的实践主体就是高兹所指称的“非工人的非阶级”,随着资本主义社会的社会矛盾冲突的改变,即由原先的劳动与资本之间的冲突转变为资本逻辑渗入人类社会的各个领域,他们实行的革命战略由单一的“生产革命”发展到了全方位的“文化革命”。于是“资本、生态与自由”被合理地沟通起来,而对三者关系的哲学—政治经济学思考就形成了独特的高兹的生态马克思主义范式。结语：与北美生态马克思主义代表的批判性对话。无论是奥康纳,还是福斯特与高兹,三位学者都以马克思的历史唯物主义和自然观作为自己资本主义条件下生态问题批判范式的基础,但是他们的研究方法、阶级立场和实践路径的选择则具有根本性的差异。更多还原

【Abstract】 This dissertation tries to dig up the logic of the ecological Marxism thought while revolving around the axis of capital, ecology and freedom in order to grasp the logical thread of the develop and transition point of Andre Gorz’s writings pursuing the academic value and practical meaning of gorzian ecological Marxism in the context of contemporary Marxism studies. This dissertation consists of six parts including introduction, four chapters and epilogue. The main ideas of every part are stated as follows:The introduction tries to solve three problems which are:1.why choosing Andre Gorz as my thesis? 2. The distinguishing features of Andre Gorz’s thoughts; 3. The methodology and logic of this kind of study, The answer to why choosing Andre Gorz as my thesis should be sought in the practical history background of ecological Marxism, Why did the studies on Andre Gorz, whether in the west or in china, always appear fragmented and shallow in the movement of ecological Marxism. The postmodernism environment of the development of Marxism contributed to this outcome. Because the "orthodox" Gorz and his thought can not get the attention of the academic consumption, Gorz’s orthodox spirit of Utopia is the very valuable parts we should conserve. The significance of Andre Gorz would surely be not only the spirit of utopia but also his updating of historical materialism in his political ecological methodology to some extent, and offered us a way of how to live our life and a political way of how to fulfill a real society. He reconstructed the Karl Marx’s real society, real man and real work by applying his political economy critique of economy reason in the base of which offer a practical road and theoretical blueprint.Chapter 1:The existentialist anxiety:the academic resume of a traitor. What this chapter is about to solve is that what is the panorama of Andre Gorz’s life and thought resume which is the preparation of the following four parts, I don’t plan to go through all the details of Andre Gorz’s thought at large which is an intellectual cartographer’s work. I choose the key logic of his thought——by critique of capital, establishment of political ecology and reconstruction of real society and work——to arrange the academic resume. This chapter focuses on the existentialist background and origins of gorzian ecological Marxism, and in the light of history I focus on the political turning point of Andre Gorz after the May 1968 movement in which his thought was deeply affected by Sartre, Lefebvre and Castoriadis. Marxism undertook crisis in 1960s and 1970s meantime gorzian existentialist Marxism also undertook a turning point, his updating of Marxism insisted on the intense critique of traditional Marxism, on the other hand he resorted to a new methodology to find the growing soil of historical materialism. This motivation made him to call himself "post-Marxist". And after that crisis he went forward to political ecology which is a very logical outcome of him going to ecological Marxism.Chapter 2:political ecological:an ecologically harmonious way of life. What I am meant to solve is why Andre Gorz combines ecology and politics and how. Is this political ecology a political praxis way and political strategy or a transformed traditional Marxist method? In strategy for labor he used existentialist phenomenology and continued Marxist political economy critique to analyze the new needs in capitalism society. He concluded that the history of needs has obscured the real historical needs, because the movement of capital logic yielded out historical forms of and damages the ecological resources, and man himself was manipulated by capital logic. And this time Andre Gorz started to criticize in a quasi-ecological way. In the end of political revolution of May 1968, ecological movement emerged which made Andre Gorz firmly establish the thorough critique frame of political ecology. As for freedom and alienation, Andre Gorz tried hard to promote self-management to overcome the alienation not only in factory but also in society which is only achieved by decentralization and autonomy of workers. But contemporary international division undergoes sophisticated specialization and creates a decision maker which is superior to factory and at least at the same level of factory. The centralization of decision maker contradicts with decentralization and autonomy fundamentally. In the contradictions between technological division of production and the autonomy of worker, the unlimited development of capitalist technology imposed inevitable effects on human emancipation and the liberation of nature. Contemporary capital dominated nature and workers. Capital logic oppresses the freedom of man and moreover it negates the freedom of man. In this linking point of his thought, the deadlock of capital and freedom should and must be untied by a way of ecology. Andre Gorz inherited Marxist historical materialism method and political economy critique to develop a way of political ecology which is an ecologically harmonious way of life which denies capitalist industrial technology based upon the domination of individual and nature and tries to establish a post-industrial technique based upon "the cooperation of individuals and nature". This is the distinguishing part of gorzian ecological Marxism paradigm from O’Connor and Foster’s paradigms.Chapter 3:reconstruction of work and society:the critique of imperialism of economic reason. What I am about to solve is in what way Gorz come to freedom and emancipation. Is this way concrete or abstract? Is Gorz only an abstract utopian as some critics called? Actually Gorz did not abort the critique of political economy of capitalism as some post-Marxist did? Although Gorz calls himself a post-Marxist, he is eager to update the critique of political economy of Marxism which is in Gorz’s writings called reconstruction of work and society. The reason of why I confirm that Andre Gorz is not an abstract philosopher pondering in romantic utopia imagination is that he concretely concluded that society and politics could restore human nature by confinement of economic reason, restore social person’s free moral option and thus restore real society.Chapter 4:the society of freedom of time:the utopia of freedom. Gorz’s ecological Marxism set ultimately his feet on double imaginations of real society and real person. Is this imagination a utopia one? Can Andre Gorz really relate his spirit of utopia to concrete freedom and concrete emancipations? What he is about to solve is the consideration on the relation of time and freedom. In Gorz’s opinion, time is never neutral, and time is defined objective time and existential time. The concept of freedom takes a process from abstract freedom to experienced individual freedom. He thinks that free time is the fundamental condition for man to achieve individual freedom, we should displace traditional technique with microelectronics technology in order to increase free time. The displacement is essentially ecological. The increasing free time means that the limit is disappearing between work time and free time. A time free society thus is founded. The subject to this kind of society is what Gorz called "non-class of non-workers", with the change of social contradictions of capitalist society, the contradictions between labor and capital switch to capital logic to penetrate into every aspects of human society. Their revolutionary strategy change from single" production revolution" to full dimensional " culture revolution", so " capital, ecology and freedom" is communicated logically, and the philosophical thinking of the relationship of three of them shape the paradigm of exceptional Andre Gorz’s ecological Marxism.Epilogue:The critical dialogue with representative of north-American ecological Marxism. Whether O’Connor or Gorz and Foster, these scholars’ critical paradigms about ecological problem based on Marx’s historical materialism and nature view, but there is essential difference in their study method, class position and choosing of practical road.更多还原