|
| 文章编号：1672-3104(2015)04-0001-05 |
| |
|
“宿命论”诘难之贫困——《马克思为什么是对的·第三章》的辩护逻辑 |
| |
谭希培，杨竞雄 |
| |
|
（中南大学马克思主义学院，湖南长沙，410083） |
| |
| 摘 要： 在《马克思为什么是对的》一书的第三章中，伊格尔顿从辨析马克思主义中的“独到之处”入手，认为生产力和生产关系的结合没那么简单；阶级斗争既是必然的亦是自由的；社会形态之更替是统一的、多样的、有代价的；社会历史趋向与人们主体选择性的邂逅并不完美。这些观点给予了那些认为“马克思主义是宿命论”的论调以有力反驳。 |
| |
| 关键词： 生产方式；阶级斗争；社会形态；历史趋向；主体选择 |
| |
|
| |
The paleness of fatalistic criticism:defense logic in Why Marx was right’ 2011·Chapter 3 |
| |
TAN Xipei, YANG Jingxiong |
| |
（School of Marxism, Central South University, Changsha 410083, China） |
| |
| Abstract: In Chapter 3 of Why Marx Was Right, Eagleton firstly analyzes “the uniqueness“ of Marxism, and then insists that the combination of productive forces and productive relations is not so simple, that the class struggle is both inevitable and free, that the replacement of the social forms is unified, diverse, also costly, and that the encounter of the social-historical trend and the subject selectivity of people is not perfect. These views function as effective refute against those arguments which hold that Marxism is fatalistic. |
| |
Key words: mode of production; class struggle; social forms; historical trend; people’s subject selectivity |
| |
|
