“非他主义”——论西方马克思主义对中国社会主义的一些歪曲

IF 0.4 Q4 POLITICAL SCIENCE
R. Boer, P. Yan
{"title":"“非他主义”——论西方马克思主义对中国社会主义的一些歪曲","authors":"R. Boer, P. Yan","doi":"10.1080/21598282.2021.1923171","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This study tackles four Western Marxist misrepresentations of socialism with Chinese characteristics, particularly as it has developed with the reform and opening-up. Each of these misrepresentations sets in opposition the economy and the state, with the former being seen as “capitalist” (in some form) and the latter as variously “authoritarian,” “bureaucratic” or simply as “interventionist.” In other words, “Chinese characteristics” designates the superstructural feature that determines—incorrectly in light of Marxist analysis—the economic base, which is mistakenly seen as capitalist. While each misrepresentation has its own distinct problems, they also have common problems: a voluntarist position on political decisions, which fails to provide any reason for a “capitalist turn”; the assumption that a “market economy,” wherever and whenever it appears, is by definition capitalist; the deployment of neocolonial and “Orientalist” assumptions coupled with a Western “betrayal narrative”; and a systemic neglect of Chinese language research. The conclusion provides a summarising assessment that focuses on the empirical flaws and methodological presuppositions of these misrepresentations. We emphasise that our focus is primarily on the internal problems and inconsistencies of these misrepresentations, although we also offer—where needed—some constructive alternatives.","PeriodicalId":43179,"journal":{"name":"International Critical Thought","volume":"56 1","pages":"171 - 189"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"“Not Some Other -ism”—On Some Western Marxist Misrepresentations of Chinese Socialism\",\"authors\":\"R. Boer, P. Yan\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/21598282.2021.1923171\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT This study tackles four Western Marxist misrepresentations of socialism with Chinese characteristics, particularly as it has developed with the reform and opening-up. Each of these misrepresentations sets in opposition the economy and the state, with the former being seen as “capitalist” (in some form) and the latter as variously “authoritarian,” “bureaucratic” or simply as “interventionist.” In other words, “Chinese characteristics” designates the superstructural feature that determines—incorrectly in light of Marxist analysis—the economic base, which is mistakenly seen as capitalist. While each misrepresentation has its own distinct problems, they also have common problems: a voluntarist position on political decisions, which fails to provide any reason for a “capitalist turn”; the assumption that a “market economy,” wherever and whenever it appears, is by definition capitalist; the deployment of neocolonial and “Orientalist” assumptions coupled with a Western “betrayal narrative”; and a systemic neglect of Chinese language research. The conclusion provides a summarising assessment that focuses on the empirical flaws and methodological presuppositions of these misrepresentations. We emphasise that our focus is primarily on the internal problems and inconsistencies of these misrepresentations, although we also offer—where needed—some constructive alternatives.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43179,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Critical Thought\",\"volume\":\"56 1\",\"pages\":\"171 - 189\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Critical Thought\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/21598282.2021.1923171\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Critical Thought","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21598282.2021.1923171","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

摘要本文探讨了西方马克思主义对中国特色社会主义,特别是改革开放以来中国特色社会主义发展的四种歪曲。这些错误的表述都将经济和国家对立起来,前者被视为“资本主义”(某种形式),后者被视为各种“威权主义”、“官僚主义”或简单地称为“干预主义者”。换句话说,“中国特色”指的是上层建筑的特征,它决定了——根据马克思主义的分析是错误的——经济基础,这被错误地视为资本主义。虽然每一种歪曲都有其独特的问题,但它们也有共同的问题:在政治决策上的唯意志论立场,未能为“资本主义转向”提供任何理由;假设“市场经济”无论何时何地出现,根据定义都是资本主义的;新殖民主义和“东方主义”假设的部署,加上西方的“背叛叙事”;以及对汉语研究的系统性忽视。结论提供了一个总结性的评估,侧重于这些虚假陈述的经验缺陷和方法论前提。我们强调,我们主要关注的是这些虚假陈述的内部问题和不一致之处,尽管我们也提供了一些建设性的替代方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
“Not Some Other -ism”—On Some Western Marxist Misrepresentations of Chinese Socialism
ABSTRACT This study tackles four Western Marxist misrepresentations of socialism with Chinese characteristics, particularly as it has developed with the reform and opening-up. Each of these misrepresentations sets in opposition the economy and the state, with the former being seen as “capitalist” (in some form) and the latter as variously “authoritarian,” “bureaucratic” or simply as “interventionist.” In other words, “Chinese characteristics” designates the superstructural feature that determines—incorrectly in light of Marxist analysis—the economic base, which is mistakenly seen as capitalist. While each misrepresentation has its own distinct problems, they also have common problems: a voluntarist position on political decisions, which fails to provide any reason for a “capitalist turn”; the assumption that a “market economy,” wherever and whenever it appears, is by definition capitalist; the deployment of neocolonial and “Orientalist” assumptions coupled with a Western “betrayal narrative”; and a systemic neglect of Chinese language research. The conclusion provides a summarising assessment that focuses on the empirical flaws and methodological presuppositions of these misrepresentations. We emphasise that our focus is primarily on the internal problems and inconsistencies of these misrepresentations, although we also offer—where needed—some constructive alternatives.
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
International Critical Thought
International Critical Thought POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
20.00%
发文量
41
×
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