{"title":"马克思《资本论》中的死与生:一种伦理考察","authors":"Ted Stolze","doi":"10.1163/9789004280984_010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this talk I seek to reclaim Karl Marx’s distinction in Volume I of Capital between what, following Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, we might call the “conceptual personae” of living and dead labor. For example, in chapter ten on “The Working Day,” Marx memorably and hauntingly observes that “Capital is dead labour which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking living labour, and lives the more, the more labour it sucks.” My aim is to make visible an important implied feature of Marx’s ethics (as opposed to his moral philosophy) of flourishing. Along the way, I draw on, as well as propose an ethical supplement to, William Clare Roberts’s recent reconstruction of Marx’s political theory in Capital . Moreover, I argue that such a supplement ought to be grounded in the human and nonhuman life-values that, as John McMurtry and Jeff Noonan have compellingly argued, are ceaselessly undermined by the capitalist mode of production. To be precise, in the concluding words of chapter fifteen on “Machinery and Large-Scale Industry,” Marx insists that “capitalist production … only develops the techniques and the degree of the social process of production by simultaneously undermining the original sources of all wealth – the soil and the worker.” In the twenty-first century, I suggest, we should expand on Marx’s point and speak of the capitalist assault on both humanity and the Earth System. As an ethical alternative to G. A. Cohen’s call for an “egalitarian ethos,” I conclude my talk by urging socialists to embrace and cultivate an “ethos of non-domination” in everyday life.","PeriodicalId":373437,"journal":{"name":"Becoming Marxist","volume":"89 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Death and Life in Marx’s Capital: an Ethical Investigation\",\"authors\":\"Ted Stolze\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/9789004280984_010\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this talk I seek to reclaim Karl Marx’s distinction in Volume I of Capital between what, following Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, we might call the “conceptual personae” of living and dead labor. For example, in chapter ten on “The Working Day,” Marx memorably and hauntingly observes that “Capital is dead labour which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking living labour, and lives the more, the more labour it sucks.” My aim is to make visible an important implied feature of Marx’s ethics (as opposed to his moral philosophy) of flourishing. Along the way, I draw on, as well as propose an ethical supplement to, William Clare Roberts’s recent reconstruction of Marx’s political theory in Capital . Moreover, I argue that such a supplement ought to be grounded in the human and nonhuman life-values that, as John McMurtry and Jeff Noonan have compellingly argued, are ceaselessly undermined by the capitalist mode of production. To be precise, in the concluding words of chapter fifteen on “Machinery and Large-Scale Industry,” Marx insists that “capitalist production … only develops the techniques and the degree of the social process of production by simultaneously undermining the original sources of all wealth – the soil and the worker.” In the twenty-first century, I suggest, we should expand on Marx’s point and speak of the capitalist assault on both humanity and the Earth System. As an ethical alternative to G. A. Cohen’s call for an “egalitarian ethos,” I conclude my talk by urging socialists to embrace and cultivate an “ethos of non-domination” in everyday life.\",\"PeriodicalId\":373437,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Becoming Marxist\",\"volume\":\"89 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-10-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Becoming Marxist\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004280984_010\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Becoming Marxist","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004280984_010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
在这次演讲中,我试图重申卡尔·马克思在《资本论》第一卷中对吉尔·德勒兹(Gilles Deleuze)和菲利克斯·瓜塔里(Felix Guattari)的区分,我们可以称之为活劳动和死劳动的“概念人格”。例如,在《工作日》第十章中,马克思指出:“资本是死劳动,它像吸血鬼一样,只有吮吸活劳动才有生命,而且吮吸的活劳动越多,它就活得越多。”我的目的是让人们看到马克思关于繁荣的伦理学(与他的道德哲学相反)中隐含的一个重要特征。在此过程中,我借鉴了威廉·克莱尔·罗伯茨(William Clare Roberts)最近在《资本论》中对马克思政治理论的重构,并提出了一个伦理补充。此外,我认为这种补充应该以人类和非人类的生命价值为基础,正如约翰·麦克默特里和杰夫·努南令人信服地指出的那样,这些价值不断地被资本主义生产方式所破坏。确切地说,在第十五章“机器和大工业”的结语中,马克思坚持认为“资本主义生产……只有通过同时破坏一切财富的原始源泉——土地和工人,才能发展社会生产过程的技术和程度。”在21世纪,我建议,我们应该扩展马克思的观点,谈论资本主义对人类和地球系统的攻击。作为g·a·科恩(G. A. Cohen)呼吁的“平等主义精神”的伦理选择,我在演讲的最后敦促社会主义者在日常生活中拥抱和培养一种“非统治精神”。
Death and Life in Marx’s Capital: an Ethical Investigation
In this talk I seek to reclaim Karl Marx’s distinction in Volume I of Capital between what, following Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, we might call the “conceptual personae” of living and dead labor. For example, in chapter ten on “The Working Day,” Marx memorably and hauntingly observes that “Capital is dead labour which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking living labour, and lives the more, the more labour it sucks.” My aim is to make visible an important implied feature of Marx’s ethics (as opposed to his moral philosophy) of flourishing. Along the way, I draw on, as well as propose an ethical supplement to, William Clare Roberts’s recent reconstruction of Marx’s political theory in Capital . Moreover, I argue that such a supplement ought to be grounded in the human and nonhuman life-values that, as John McMurtry and Jeff Noonan have compellingly argued, are ceaselessly undermined by the capitalist mode of production. To be precise, in the concluding words of chapter fifteen on “Machinery and Large-Scale Industry,” Marx insists that “capitalist production … only develops the techniques and the degree of the social process of production by simultaneously undermining the original sources of all wealth – the soil and the worker.” In the twenty-first century, I suggest, we should expand on Marx’s point and speak of the capitalist assault on both humanity and the Earth System. As an ethical alternative to G. A. Cohen’s call for an “egalitarian ethos,” I conclude my talk by urging socialists to embrace and cultivate an “ethos of non-domination” in everyday life.