时势抑或人事：简论当下文学困境的历史与观念成因

本文试图通过考察历史与观念的互动关系,一方面进一步厘清八十年代“文学是人学”“文学是语言的艺术”的特定历史内涵;一方面欲通过指明这些在八十年代特定情境中形成的特质论述,若何制约、影响着九十年代以来文学观念、思潮的嬗替与开展。作者指出:时势只是决定文学思潮走向的重要原因,观念反思是否既承担又提升了时代赋予它的课题,才是决定一思潮是否具备历史深刻性和美学有效性的关键所在。而观念的是否成功首先在于它能否既内在于此历史要求,又超越历史事变自然给出的简单力学反应关系。相对于此,对理论与观念的学院式静态衡量,无疑只具有次要的意义。     

重提这个问题：什么是文学？——回应贺照田《时势抑或人事：简论当下文学困境的历史与观念成因》

“什么是文学”的问题毕竟只是刚刚重新提出,其前景如何尚很难预料。如何在充分考虑文学的文学性的同时,重思文学的政治性,从而深化文学超越政治控制的问题,我以为亟需努力。在现代中国几乎从一开始,文学所负载的就毕竟不是“文学”的责任。     

反思与批评——关于《时势抑或人事：简论当下文学困境的历史与观念成因》的笔谈

用“文化”来整合不同形态的文论话语究竟有多大的理论穿透力是令人生疑的。“文化”几乎像空气一样无所不包,用它来作为核心概念进行学术研究,免不了失之空疏、空泛、空洞。如果要综合的话,用“社会学”比用“文化学”似乎更严谨、科学、规范。     

解释历史的力量－现代“文学”的确立与《中国新文学大系（1917－1927）》的出版

本文通过对1935年上海良友图书公司出版的十卷本<中国新文学大系(第一个十年1917-1927)>的研究,指出它那精心撰写的"导言",细致编排的作品、史料,以及颇具权威性的编选者,共同汇聚成一股解释历史的力量,描绘出一幅影响至今的"现代中国文学"发生的图景.进而发现<新文学大系>透过对文学史"分期"的有意识操控,把"现代文学确立"的历史"自然化"了.因此只有把文学史的"阶段划分"重新放置到制度建构的语境中,才可能将已经被"自然化"了的新文学历史再次"历史化".     

当代视野下的马克思主义成本观

文章在解读马克思主义成本观的基础上,以成本为研究起点,对我们党在各历史时期成本观实践进行了回顾和梳理。文章认为:新时期我们党对马克思主义成本观内容的不断丰富和发展,是我们党坚持马克思主义中国化的实践过程。     

生态学马克思主义视野下的中国生态环境问题治理研究

生态学马克思主义是马克思主义在当代西方发展的最新理论形态,生态学马克思主义对当前生态环境问题的研究为当前中国生态环境问题的治理提供了方法论的借鉴:中国存在着生态环境问题,并且呈现出影响局部稳定的新趋势;中国生态环境问题产生的主要原因在于传统价值观的偏移;只有在中国共产党的领导下,在坚持红色建设的同时加强绿色建设,以及借助于群众的力量,才能有效地解决生态环境问题。     

马克思主义生态观与我国西部地区可持续发展研究

马克思、恩格斯围绕人、自然、社会之间的关系形成了科学的马克思主义生态观,马克思主义生态观内在的蕴涵着可持续发展思想,可持续发展思想是对马克思主义生态观的继承、发展和创新。文章从我国西部地区的环境资源状况出发,论证了西部地区可持续发展的必要性与紧迫性,并提出了我国西部地区可持续发展的相关措施.     

Marx, Marxism and the cooperative movement

This paper has a dual aim: first, to draw attention to a numberof passages in which Marx explicitly extolled the cooperativemovement and thereby confute the wrong but widely held assumptionthat Marx was inimical to the market and rejected cooperationas a production mode even for the transition period; second,to argue that the continuing neglect of Marxists both of thecooperative movement and of the passages from Marx (and Engels)that present a system of producer cooperatives as a new productionmode can be traced back in part to the late emergence of aneconomic theory of producer cooperatives.     

Preferences, reductionism and the microfoundations of Analytical Marxism

Analytical Marxism has recommended that Marxian theory shouldconform to ‘normal’ scientific methods and thatthis should involve the development of microfoundations. Thelatter has involved the adoption of rational choice theory andits corresponding assumptions regarding agents' behaviour. Thispaper seeks to question this position and highlight a numberof problems which Analytical Marxism faces, particularly inthe domain of economic theory. The different views of scienceespoused by Analytical Marxists display a tension between ‘positivist’and ‘realist’ perspectives, and the arguments forindividualist and anti-reductionist approaches to social andeconomic theory are also argued to be problematic. The approachof Analytical Marxism, it is suggested, can involve the uncriticaladoption of many of the assumptions of standard economic theoryand, as such, it is subject to a number of substantive criticisms,some of which have been elaborated from within mainstream economictheory.     

Marxism,Crypto-Marxism and the Political Economy of Capitalism

ABSTRACT

This article conducts groundwork for a discussion of Marx’s influence through examining the boundaries of the specifically Marxian school of economics. This Marxian school extends well beyond the bounds of the self-identified Marxian school. Marx’s influence, Marxian themes and effectively Marxian theory can be found in several important heterodox traditions of economics, though this is often unacknowledged. A consideration of the proper boundaries of the Marxian school of economics is essential for a full understanding of Marx’s legacy and could contribute to the emergence of a more unified heterodoxy in economics.     

经济学的现代主义贫困——经济学数学化的哲学思考

经济学数学化促进了经济学的发展,同时也让经济学付出了沉重的代价。经济学要使用数学,但要坚持方法的多元化,数学只是其中之一,如此经济学才能向经济学本身回归。     

Marxism,Neoclassical Economics and the Length of the Working Day

Real business cycle models purport to explain the business cycle as the result of technological change. This paper shows that the commonly used measure of technological change, the Solow residual, does not capture changes in the technology of the production function. The model used in this paper is within the framework of models described in Hansen & Sargent (1990, 1991). Technological change is modeled as a change in the value of one of the 'deep' technology parameters in the production function. The Solow residual is incapable of capturing the effects of this sort of technological change. There is no consistent relationship between the direction and size of a technological change and the sign and size of the Solow residual. The Solow residual often moves in the wrong direction, e.g. a negative technological shock causes a positive residual. Even when the Solow residual has the right sign, its size is not consistent with the size of the technological shock, e.g. a larger positive change in technology does not necessarily cause a larger positive Solow residual.