福利国家的解构与工作缺位

G. Esping-Andersen, J. Kolberg
{"title":"福利国家的解构与工作缺位","authors":"G. Esping-Andersen, J. Kolberg","doi":"10.1080/15579336.1991.11770014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Marx's theory of alienation was premised on the argument that capital ist society destroys the connection between man's productive life and his social being. This theme also guided Polanyi's (1957) analysis of why an economy based on the fictitious commodity status of labor is inviable in the long run. Even within the harshest epoch of laissez-faire capitalism, the pure commodity status of the worker was probably rarely, if ever, fully operational. The concept is better regarded as an ideal-typical construct that in varying degrees was approximated in real life. Ideal-typically, the pure commodity status of labor entails that a human being has no rights to income or need satisfaction outside the cash nexus. The market, not the family or community, is thus the ultimate dictator of social choice. Both Polanyi and Marx argued that this kind of subordination of civil society could be upheld only by the assertion of power; as Lindblom (1977) puts it, the pure \"free\" market assumes, in fact, the status of a prison. The contradiction of such a system is that, if individuals can opt out, they will cease to follow the rules of the cash nexus; but, if they cannot, civil society will be de stroyed. Here lies the roots of the 44social question\" that came to permeate late nineteenth-century political discourse. The social question was, in reality, a conflict over the extension of social rights in a market economy. It nurtured highly diverse models for social policy. The conservative tradition was, not surprisingly, a","PeriodicalId":430159,"journal":{"name":"Between Work and Social Citizenship","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1991-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Decommodification and Work Absence in the Welfare State\",\"authors\":\"G. Esping-Andersen, J. Kolberg\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/15579336.1991.11770014\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Marx's theory of alienation was premised on the argument that capital ist society destroys the connection between man's productive life and his social being. This theme also guided Polanyi's (1957) analysis of why an economy based on the fictitious commodity status of labor is inviable in the long run. Even within the harshest epoch of laissez-faire capitalism, the pure commodity status of the worker was probably rarely, if ever, fully operational. The concept is better regarded as an ideal-typical construct that in varying degrees was approximated in real life. Ideal-typically, the pure commodity status of labor entails that a human being has no rights to income or need satisfaction outside the cash nexus. The market, not the family or community, is thus the ultimate dictator of social choice. Both Polanyi and Marx argued that this kind of subordination of civil society could be upheld only by the assertion of power; as Lindblom (1977) puts it, the pure \\\"free\\\" market assumes, in fact, the status of a prison. The contradiction of such a system is that, if individuals can opt out, they will cease to follow the rules of the cash nexus; but, if they cannot, civil society will be de stroyed. Here lies the roots of the 44social question\\\" that came to permeate late nineteenth-century political discourse. The social question was, in reality, a conflict over the extension of social rights in a market economy. It nurtured highly diverse models for social policy. The conservative tradition was, not surprisingly, a\",\"PeriodicalId\":430159,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Between Work and Social Citizenship\",\"volume\":\"32 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1991-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Between Work and Social Citizenship\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/15579336.1991.11770014\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Between Work and Social Citizenship","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15579336.1991.11770014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

马克思的异化论是以资本主义社会破坏了人的生产生活与其社会存在之间的联系为前提的。这一主题也指导了波兰尼(1957)的分析,即为什么基于虚构的劳动商品地位的经济从长远来看是不可行的。即使在自由放任资本主义最严酷的时代,工人的纯粹商品地位可能很少(如果有的话)完全发挥作用。这个概念最好被看作是一个理想的典型结构,在不同程度上近似于现实生活。理想的——典型的,劳动的纯粹商品地位意味着一个人没有收入的权利,也没有现金关系之外的需求满足。因此,市场,而不是家庭或社区,才是社会选择的最终独裁者。波兰尼和马克思都认为,市民社会的这种从属关系只能通过权力的主张来维持;正如林德布洛姆(Lindblom, 1977)所言,纯粹的“自由”市场实际上就像一座监狱。这种制度的矛盾在于,如果个人可以选择退出,他们将不再遵守现金关系的规则;但是,如果他们不能,公民社会将被摧毁。这就是“社会问题”的根源所在,这个问题开始渗透到19世纪晚期的政治话语中。社会问题实际上是市场经济中社会权利扩展的冲突。它培育了高度多样化的社会政策模式。保守的传统,毫不奇怪,是一个
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Decommodification and Work Absence in the Welfare State
Marx's theory of alienation was premised on the argument that capital ist society destroys the connection between man's productive life and his social being. This theme also guided Polanyi's (1957) analysis of why an economy based on the fictitious commodity status of labor is inviable in the long run. Even within the harshest epoch of laissez-faire capitalism, the pure commodity status of the worker was probably rarely, if ever, fully operational. The concept is better regarded as an ideal-typical construct that in varying degrees was approximated in real life. Ideal-typically, the pure commodity status of labor entails that a human being has no rights to income or need satisfaction outside the cash nexus. The market, not the family or community, is thus the ultimate dictator of social choice. Both Polanyi and Marx argued that this kind of subordination of civil society could be upheld only by the assertion of power; as Lindblom (1977) puts it, the pure "free" market assumes, in fact, the status of a prison. The contradiction of such a system is that, if individuals can opt out, they will cease to follow the rules of the cash nexus; but, if they cannot, civil society will be de stroyed. Here lies the roots of the 44social question" that came to permeate late nineteenth-century political discourse. The social question was, in reality, a conflict over the extension of social rights in a market economy. It nurtured highly diverse models for social policy. The conservative tradition was, not surprisingly, a
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信