Toward an ecological society
Toward an ecological society
复制标题
迈向生态社会
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
1974
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Murray Bookchin
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Murray Bookchin
阶级在超越他们的意志甚至他们清楚的理解之外存在的“利益”冲突中相互对抗。马克思把无产阶级设想为一种政治经济学--作为劳动力的“所有者”、资产阶级剥削的对象和工厂制度的产物--反映和理论化了无产阶级在资本主义下的实际片面性，是一种“生产力”，而不是一种革命力量。马克思让我们对这一概念毫不怀疑。作为最不人性化的阶级，无产阶级超越了它的非人化状态，“通过迫切的、不再伪装的、绝对迫切的需要”来体现人的总体性……因此：“问题不是这个或那个无产阶级，甚至整个无产阶级现在认为它的目的是什么。问题是无产阶级是什么，以及由此产生的结果是什么，它将被迫做什么。(贯穿始终的重点是马克思的重点，并就他对无产阶级的非主观化提供了生动的评论。)我将撇开这个公式为精英组织提供的理由。就目前而言，重要的是要注意到，马克思沿袭了古典资产阶级政治经济学的传统，完全对象化了无产阶级，并将其排除为真正的主体。无产阶级的反抗，甚至它的人性化，不再是一种人类现象，而是一种必然的经济规律和“迫切需要”的作用。无产阶级作为无产阶级的本质是它的非人性，它的生物本质是“绝对迫切的需要”--野蛮的“利益”的产物。它的主观性属于严酷必然性的范畴，可以用经济法来解释。无产阶级的心理，实际上就是政治经济学。真正的无产阶级抵制这种将其主观性降低为需要的产物，并越来越多地生活在卡尔·马克思和弗雷德里克·恩格斯的《神圣家庭》的范围内。同上，第52-53页。240种观念可以零碎地同化为传统的生活方式，就像过去如此多的激进思想一样。该计划对这种可能性很敏感。从一开始，它就采取了革命的立场。它在任何设计之前的前提都是一种与主流文化背道而驰的文化--一种强调社区而不是孤立、共享资源和技能而不是私有财产、独立于资产阶级市场而不是依赖于资产阶级市场、热爱关系和互助而不是自私自利和竞争的文化。蓝图清楚地阐明了自由社区的社会前提条件，而其他表面上激进的计划没有得到审查。它是人文主义的，而不是“破坏传统的”；它是激进的，而不是“原创”的。无论规划者是否充分意识到他们的历史先例，他们都呈现了一种希腊式的城市生活愿景。对他们来说，真正的人类城市是一种生活方式(而不仅仅是一种“设计”)，它促进了个人与社会、城镇与乡村、个人需求与社会需求的融合，同时又不否认每个人的完整性。60年代已经过去，辍学青年和激进学生带来的许多厚望也随之而来。一个缺乏安全感的所谓“美国中产阶级”的成年公众，试图从对传统价值观的挑战中获得喘息之机，正试图在现状中站稳脚跟，事实上，这是为了唤起一种归因于过去的“纯真”，这在任何情况下都是杜撰的。在反主流文化成功抵御公开敌对势力的情况下，它不得不与以宗派马克思主义和“第三世界”偷窥狂的形式兜售毒品的政治模式作斗争。在这里，陈旧的意识形态和组织模式给人以“激进主义”的假象，就像有毒的细菌一样，在公众不安和政治压制所造成的伤口中溃烂。然而，即使是这个肯定是大得多的文化和社会发展的退潮阶段，也可能是一个发人深省的成熟期。一个新的世界不会仅仅通过在通往未来的道路上铺满鲜花而获得。很大程度上是出于-
classes confront each other in a conflict of “interests” that exists beyond their will or even their clear comprehension. That Marx conceives the proletariat as a category of political economy — as the “owner” of labour power, the object of exploitation by the bourgeoisie, and a creature of the factory system — reflects and ideologizes its actual one-sided condition under capitalism as a “productive force,” not as a revolutionary force. Marx leaves us in no doubt about this conception. As the class that is most completely dehumanized, the proletariat transcends its dehumanized condition and comes to embody the human totality “through urgent, no longer disguisable, absolutely imperative need...” Accordingly: “The question is not what this or that proletarian, or even the whole proletariat at the moment considers as its aim. The question is what the proletariat is, and what, consequent on that being, it will be compelled to do.”(27) (The emphasis throughout is Marx’s and provides a telling commentary on his de-subjectivization of the proletariat.) I will leave aside the rationale that this formula provides for an elitist organization. For the present, it is important to note that Marx, following the tradition of classical bourgeois political economy, totally objectifies the proletariat and removes it as a true subject. The revolt of the proletariat, even its humanization, ceases to be a human phenomenon; rather, it becomes a function of inexorable economic laws and “imperative need.” The essence of the proletariat as proletariat is its non-humanity, its creature nature as the product of “absolutely imperative need” — of brute “interest.” Its subjectivity falls within the category of harsh necessity, explicable in terms of economic law. The psychology of the proletariat, in effect, is political economy. The real proletariat resists this reduction of its subjectivity to the product of need and lives increasingly within the realm of de(27) Karl Marx and Frederick Engels: The Holy Family, op. cit., pp. 52–53. 240 ments could be assimilated in piecemeal fashion to conventional ways of life as has been the case with so many radical ideas in the past. The plan is sensitive to this possibility. From the outset, it adopts a revolutionary stance. Its premise in advance of any design is a culture that is counter to the prevailing one — one that emphasizes community rather than isolation, the sharing of resources and skills rather than their privatized possession, independence from rather than dependence on the bourgeois market place, loving relations and mutual aid rather than egotism and competition. The Blueprint clearly articulates the social preconditions for a free community that other, ostensibly radical, plans leave unexamined. It is humanistic, not “iconoclastic”; it is radical, not “original.” And whether or not the planners were fully conscious of their historic antecedents, they were presenting a Hellenic vision of urban life. The truly human city, to them, is a way of life (not a mere “design”) that fosters the integration of individual with society, of town with country, of personal needs with social ones without denying the integrity of each. The Sixties have passed — and with them many of the high hopes raised by dropout youth and radical students. An insecure, so-called “middle American” adult public, seeking respite from challenges to traditional values, is trying to entrench itself in the status quo, indeed, to evoke an “innocence” imputed to the past that is apocryphal in any case. Where the counterculture has managed to hold its own against overtly hostile forces, it has had to contend with a political mode of dope-peddling in the form of sectarian Marxism and “Third World” voyeurism. Here, archaic ideologies and modes of organization assume the semblance of “radicalism” and, like toxic germs, fester in the wounds opened by public malaise and political repression. Yet even this ebbing phase of what is surely a much larger cultural and social development could be valuable as a sobering period of maturation. A new world will not be gained merely by strewing the pathway to the future with flowers. The largely intu-