Marxism, coloniality and ontological assumptions
Marxism, coloniality and ontological assumptions
复制标题
马克思主义、殖民性和本体论假设
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2021
影响因子：
1.6
通讯作者：
Lara Montesinos Coleman
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lara Montesinos Coleman
在全球资本主义、全球战争、全球危机的核心是对拜物教的反抗：对抽象范畴的呼吁，将概念视为它们指的是世界上存在的东西，独立于社会关系)。人们经常注意到，对国际关系的研究经常崇拜一种从历史和维持国家权力的社会关系、实践和意识形态中抽象出来的“主权”国家制度。比勒和莫顿强调的是，即使是“左派”的分析，也会例行公事地对概念--“国家”、“市场”、“安全”、“生产”、“金融”、“知识”--进行拜物崇拜，这些概念被视为事物本身，在具体的社会关系中与人无关。比勒和莫顿的批评与马克思自己对古典政治经济学传统的批评非常一致，古典政治经济学传统受制于现代对统一性和普遍性的痴迷，以至于它强行通过资产阶级意识形态(抽象的个人在市场中互动等)的类别来解读历史，这些类别看起来像是“所有生产的一般前提条件”。2对于《全球资本主义、全球战争、全球危机》的作者来说，这些担忧在以全球经济危机为标志的关键时刻显得尤为紧迫。新兴经济体的发展“追赶”和全球政治经济动态塑造的国家间竞争。3我们最不需要的是更多的拜物教，更多地盲目重复“国家”、“市场”、“安全”等抽象的范畴。所有这些都是使现有秩序自然化，并使其免受批评。相反，比勒和莫顿坚持认为，我们必须正视
At the heart of Global Capitalism, Global War, Global Crisis is a revolt against fetishism: the appeal to abstract categories, treating concepts as if they referred to things ‘out there’ in the world, independent of social relations). It is commonplace to note that studies of international relations routinely fetishise a system of ‘sovereign’ states, abstracted from history and the social relations, practices and ideologies that sustain state power. What Bieler and Morton emphasise is that even ‘Left’ analyses routinely make fetishistic appeal to concepts – ‘the state’, ‘the market’, ‘security’, ‘production’, ‘finance’, ‘knowledge’ – which are treated as things-in-themselves, devoid of human beings in their concrete social relations.1 Despite some scholars’ careless applications of the label ‘Marxist’ to such work, Bieler and Morton’s critique is very much in line with Marx’s own critique of a tradition of classical political economy so beholden to the modern obsession with uniformity and universality that it forcibly read history through the categories of bourgeois ideology (abstract individuals interacting in ‘the market’ and so on) that were made to look like ‘general preconditions of all production’.2 For the authors of Global Capitalism, Global War, Global Crisis, these concerns take on particular urgency at a juncture marked by global economic ‘crisis’, the developmental ‘catch-up’ of emerging economies and inter-state rivalry shaped by the dynamics of global political economy.3 The last thing we need is more fetishism, more mindless repetition of abstract categories like ‘states’, ‘markets’, ‘security’ and so on. All this does is naturalise the existing order and insulate it from critique. Instead, Bieler and Morton insist, we must confront the historical contingency of
翻译即擦除：对现代性认知暴力的思考
影响因子：
0.5
作者：
VÁZQUEZ R
通讯作者：
VÁZQUEZ R