阿尔都塞学派生产方式理论的演进逻辑及其误区——从阿尔都塞、巴里巴尔到普兰查斯  

The evolutionary logic and misunderstanding of Althusserians’ Theory of Production Mode: From Louis Althusser, Etienne Balibar to Nicos Poulantzas

作　　者：黎华楠 王浩斌 LI Huanan;WANG Haobin(School of Marxism,Nanjing University,Nanjing 210093,China)

机构地区：[1]南京大学马克思主义学院,江苏南京210093

出　　处：《中南大学学报（社会科学版）》2022年第5期157-166,共10页Journal of Central South University：Social Sciences

基　　金：教育部人文社会科学基地重大项目“马克思主义文化政治学研究”(15jjd710005)。

摘　　要：生产方式是历史唯物主义的重要概念。由于马克思并未明确界定这一概念,西方马克思主义在重构生产方式过程中产生多种理论路径,以阿尔都塞、巴里巴尔与普兰查斯为代表的重构,是其中最具典型的路径之一。这一条路线在重构的过程中,先表现为以多元决定的因果论替代对立统一的辩证因果论,再以权力斗争取代基于生产关系的阶级斗争,最后以话语取缔生产力与生产关系对社会形态的赋型。这条重构的路径对批判以第二、第三国际为代表的“经济—技术”决定论有显著效果,却陷入了一种背离历史唯物主义的“偶然性”历史观,走向后马克思主义的理论误区,对西方左翼思潮产生了深远的理论效应。The mode of production is an important concept of historical materialism. As Marx did not give it a clear definition, Western Marxism produced various theoretical ways in the process of reconstructing the mode of production, of which the reconstructive way represented by Althusser, Balibar and Poulantzas is one of the most typical. In the process of reconstruction, the path is first manifested by the dialectical causality of the unity of opposites substituted by the causality theory of over-determination, then by power struggle replacing class struggle based on relations of production, and finally by discourse taking the place of the determination of productive forces and production relations to the social formation. Although this way of reinterpretation has a significant effect on the critique of the "economic-technical" determination represented by the Second and Third Internationals, it slid into a "occasionality" view of history that departed from historical materialism and toward to the theoretical misunderstanding of Post-Marxism. What is more, it has a profound theoretical effect on the western left-wing.

关 键 词：生产方式 多元决定 权力斗争 意识形态 话语 

分 类 号：B089.01[哲学宗教—哲学理论]