商业社会的证成：斯密论证方案再审视
A Critique of Smith's Argumentation Schemes for Commercial Society
-
摘要: 曼德维尔以“私利即公益”的悖论式命题肯定现代商业社会的积极意义，但卢梭从“自然状态”出发否定现代商业社会的文明价值，斯密则从“财富之道”与“美德之道”的同一性出发论证商业社会的正当性。“斯密方案”后来被德国历史学派曲解为“斯密问题”，由此引发了奥地利经济学派的批评并以“回到斯密”的口号予以反拨。如果沿着唯名论革命之后的意志主义路线重新阐发“斯密方案”的理论背景、哲学根据与历史回响，则不仅可以超越曼德维尔与卢梭的对立、德国历史学派与奥地利经济学派的分歧，还能明确斯密作为“经济学领域的牛顿”的奠基人地位。而商业社会之证成的“斯密方案”中所无法摆脱的“普遍性”与“特殊性”纠缠，既是任何科学无法回避的基本问题，也是推进马克思主义深度中国化、建构中国自主知识体系的前提性问题，应予以认真对待。Abstract: Mandeville affirmed the positive significance of modern commercial society through the paradoxical proposition of “private vices, public benefits”. Rousseau, starting from the “state of nature”, negated the civilizational value of modern commercial society. In contrast, Smith justified commercial society by linking the “path to wealth” to the “path to virtue”. The German Historical School later misinterpreted Smith's argumentation schemes as the “Adam Smith Problem”, which in turn provoked critiques from the Austrian School of Economics and a counter-reaction under the slogan “Back to Smith”. Revisiting the theoretical background, philosophical foundations, and historical repercussions of Smith's argumentation schemes along the voluntarist path after the Nominalist revolution, we can achieve a new perspective. This re-examination allows us to transcend not only the opposition between Mandeville and Rousseau but also the divergence between the German Historical School and the Austrian School. This re-examination clarifies Smith's foundational status as the “Newton of the economic field”. The question of universality versus particularity in Smith's argumentation schemes is a basic issue for any science. It deserves serious consideration as a prerequisite question for adapting Marxism to the Chinese context and constructing China's independent knowledge system.
-
Key words:
- commercial society /
- nominalism /
- voluntarism /
- Smith /
- science
-
点击查看大图
计量
- 文章访问数: 1442
- HTML全文浏览量: 187
下载:
沪公网安备 31010102003103号