“资本的洪水期前的条件” ——对马克思的“资本的原始积累”问题再考察

“Pre-Flood Conditions of Capital”：Further Investigation on Marx’s Problem of“Primitive Accumulation of Capital”

中文关键词:  资本主义生产方式；资本的原始积累；资本的形成史；资本的现代史

英文关键词:capitalist production mode；primitive accumulation of capital；history of capital formation；modern history of capital

中文摘要:

      西方学术界始终逗留于“资本的现代史”视野去谈论解放、主体，一直无法寻找突破资本主义围城的出口，最终徘徊于资本逻辑派与劳动逻辑派两种话语之间。当然，这一困境也影响了汉语学术界的讨论。之所以如此，在于研究者遗忘了对“资本的形成史”的研究。通过厘清“资本的原始积累”的三重内涵：资本主义生产方式本质、资本主义科学认识论起点、新社会制度创造历史前提，可以看到，马克思的“资本的原始积累”所分析的“资本的形成史”，着重强调了资本主义本质中的“分离”与“颠倒”，以及为如何瓦解资本主义提供出路的方向，这些内涵无疑为摆脱当下资本主义批判仅仅局限于“资本的现代史”的拜物教视野、实现从批判理论提升到解放理论的研究路向提供必要的思想支撑。

英文摘要:

      During the early post-war，Ara Masahito，as the major role who planned and advanced numerous debates within the post-war Japanese literary arena，spearheaded plenty discussions such as“Politics and Literature Debate”in influential plat? forms under his guidance like Kindai Bungaku. Beyond the left-right divide，Ara Masahito positioned himself as the spokesper? son for the thirties and launched a comprehensive critique of literary predecessors. Ara Masahito，through the ideological transfor? mation of human body and taking experiences related to tenko?(conversion)and the war as the medium，emphasized unthinking the ideological assertions the people in their forties who either abandoned their faith before and during the war or collaborated with militarism. He adamantly refused blind faith and adherence to doctrines，in order to achieve the double sublation of both Japa? nese Marxism and Liberalism before and during the war，and also point straightly at the fight for dominance of post-war litera? ture. By referring to Japan’s defeat as“Shu?matsu no hi”(the final days)，he questioned developmentalism and progressivism， based on his war experiences and the inevitability of defeat. He also stressed a positive cognitive attitude towards the“Shu?matsu no hi”，willingly bidding farewell to tradition and starting anew. Ara Masahito，representing the members of Kindai Bungaku， questioned the war responsibilities of literary predecessors on the moral level based on established facts and the across-war coher? ence of thought and actions，urging each individual to engage in self-revolution and self-reflection. This stands in stark contrast to Shin Nihon Bungakkai，who directed their self-criticism towards others based on their assumed leadership as a self-evident premise and faction as a feature，inevitably leading to hostility between the two sides. Since the post-war，the issue of war respon? sibilityhasgraduallybeendilutedinJapan. Therefore，itisessentialtoreturntotheoriginsofthepost-warperiodandempirical? ly examining this path of dilution，by which this paper also hopes to offer a new perspective for the study of post-war Japanese lit? erary arena history and intellectual history.