商品拜物教可以还原为符号拜物教吗?--马克思与鲍德里亚关于政治经济学批判的分歧  

Can the Fetishism of Commodities Be Reduced to the Fetishism of Signs?Divergence over the Critique of Political Economy between Marx and Baudrillard

作　　者：陆晨浩 LU Chenhao(Department of Philosophy,East China Normal University,Shanghai 201315,China)

机构地区：[1]华东师范大学哲学系,上海201315

出　　处：《常熟理工学院学报》2021年第6期75-80,共6页Journal of Changshu Institute of Technology

摘　　要：鲍德里亚在《符号政治经济学批判》中提出了一种基于符号价值交换的拜物教概念。在他看来,马克思的拜物教概念忽略了使用价值背后预设的符号价值,因而对消费社会意识形态批判效力有限,甚或不再有效。然而,商品拜物教并不能还原为符号拜物教。在区分符号差异与使用价值的身份(identities)的基础上,符号价值仅仅表现为商品等价形式的衍生环节。一个以符号价值为对象的拜物教概念是无法对资本主义社会中真实存在的剥削现象进行批判的。我们有理由质疑鲍德里亚所给出的批判图景的有效性。In his For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign,Baudrillard gave a picture of the concept of fetishism on the basis of sign-value exchange.In his view,Marx's concept of fetishism ignored the sign-value behind the use-value,which resulted in the limitation or decline of validity of his critique towards modern consumer society.However,the commodity-fetishism cannot be reduced to the sign-fetishism in this way.Given the distinction between identities of use-value and symbolic distinctions,sign-value is merely some derivation of equivalent form of commodity,which means that nothing with respect to the former can achieve beyond the limitations of the latter.The concept of fetishism with sign-value as its content is unable to take the responsibility for criticizing the existing phenomenon of exploitation in capitalist society.Therefore,we are in a position to shed doubts upon Baudrillard's concept of sign-fetishism.

关 键 词：拜物教 《符号政治经济学批判》 价值形式 剥削 

分 类 号：B089.1[哲学宗教—哲学理论]