反社会主义的三个来源:哈耶克《政治学》规范基础的批判性探究

A. Gallas
{"title":"反社会主义的三个来源:哈耶克《政治学》规范基础的批判性探究","authors":"A. Gallas","doi":"10.1515/zksp-2015-0009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Lenin once said that the three sources of Marxism were â��German philosophy, English political economy, French socialismâ��. He thereby gave the mistaken impression that Marxist social theory was merely an eclectic mixture of incompatible approaches. It is not without irony that the spirit of Leninâ��s bons mots in fact captures more accurately the thought of one of the most outspoken opponents of socialism, Friedrich A. Hayek. The normative dimension of Hayekâ��s work, as I will argue in my paper, is marked by an anti-socialist eclecticism that is grounded in an incoherent moral framework. His work draws on three sources of moral reasoning that deeply conflict with one another: (1) evolutionist relativism, (2) utilitarianism and (3) a Kantian conception of liberty. Hence he can be accused of attacking socialism whatever the costs â�� he tolerates fundamental inconsistencies in order to uphold his political position. This leads me to conclude that he fails to offer convincing justification of either the desirability of the neoliberal social order favoured by him, or the undesirability of socialism.","PeriodicalId":250691,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift für kritische Sozialtheorie und Philosophie","volume":"379 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Three Sources of Anti-Socialism: A Critical Inquiry into the Normative Foundations of F.A. Hayek’s Politics\",\"authors\":\"A. Gallas\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/zksp-2015-0009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Lenin once said that the three sources of Marxism were â��German philosophy, English political economy, French socialismâ��. He thereby gave the mistaken impression that Marxist social theory was merely an eclectic mixture of incompatible approaches. It is not without irony that the spirit of Leninâ��s bons mots in fact captures more accurately the thought of one of the most outspoken opponents of socialism, Friedrich A. Hayek. The normative dimension of Hayekâ��s work, as I will argue in my paper, is marked by an anti-socialist eclecticism that is grounded in an incoherent moral framework. His work draws on three sources of moral reasoning that deeply conflict with one another: (1) evolutionist relativism, (2) utilitarianism and (3) a Kantian conception of liberty. Hence he can be accused of attacking socialism whatever the costs â�� he tolerates fundamental inconsistencies in order to uphold his political position. This leads me to conclude that he fails to offer convincing justification of either the desirability of the neoliberal social order favoured by him, or the undesirability of socialism.\",\"PeriodicalId\":250691,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Zeitschrift für kritische Sozialtheorie und Philosophie\",\"volume\":\"379 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Zeitschrift für kritische Sozialtheorie und Philosophie\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/zksp-2015-0009\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zeitschrift für kritische Sozialtheorie und Philosophie","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/zksp-2015-0009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

列宁曾经说过,马克思主义的三个来源是:德国哲学、英国政治经济学、法国社会主义经济学。因此,他给人一种错误的印象,即马克思主义社会理论仅仅是各种不相容方法的折衷混合。具有讽刺意味的是,列宁·马克思主义名言的精神实际上更准确地反映了社会主义最直言不讳的反对者之一弗里德里希·a·哈耶克的思想。正如我将在我的论文中论证的那样,hayek作品的规范维度以一种反社会主义的折衷主义为标志,这种折衷主义建立在一个不连贯的道德框架之上。他的著作借鉴了三种彼此严重冲突的道德推理来源:(1)进化相对主义,(2)功利主义,(3)康德的自由观。因此,人们可以指责他不计代价地攻击社会主义,因为他为了维护自己的政治立场,容忍了根本的矛盾。这使我得出结论,他既没有提供令人信服的理由来证明他所支持的新自由主义社会秩序的可取性,也没有提供令人信服的理由来证明社会主义的不可取性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Three Sources of Anti-Socialism: A Critical Inquiry into the Normative Foundations of F.A. Hayek’s Politics
Lenin once said that the three sources of Marxism were �German philosophy, English political economy, French socialism�. He thereby gave the mistaken impression that Marxist social theory was merely an eclectic mixture of incompatible approaches. It is not without irony that the spirit of Lenin�s bons mots in fact captures more accurately the thought of one of the most outspoken opponents of socialism, Friedrich A. Hayek. The normative dimension of Hayek�s work, as I will argue in my paper, is marked by an anti-socialist eclecticism that is grounded in an incoherent moral framework. His work draws on three sources of moral reasoning that deeply conflict with one another: (1) evolutionist relativism, (2) utilitarianism and (3) a Kantian conception of liberty. Hence he can be accused of attacking socialism whatever the costs � he tolerates fundamental inconsistencies in order to uphold his political position. This leads me to conclude that he fails to offer convincing justification of either the desirability of the neoliberal social order favoured by him, or the undesirability of socialism.
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