在当代重读了马克思的阶级理论后,我们对民工问题的讨论需从下面的问题开始:什么是无产阶级?巴利巴在《马克思主义哲学》〖同上,54-5页〗作了一个对于我们认识中国新无产阶级、民工问题很有启发意义的讨论:In reality, the concept of the proletariat is not so much that of a particular ‘class’, isolated from the whole of society, as of a non-class, the formation of which immediately precedes the dissolution of all classes and primes the revolutionary process. For this reason, when speaking of it, Marx employs, for preference, the term ‘Masse’ which he turns round against the contemptuous use made of it by bourgeois intellectuals in his days. Just as the proletarian masses are fundamentally propertyless (eigentumslos),they are fundamentally ‘without illusions’(illusionslos) about reality, fundamentally external to the world of ideology, whose abstractions and ideal representations of the social relation ‘do not exist ’for them. The Manifesto will say the same thing, illustrating the idea with phrases which have since become fanous, but which today seems derisory, such as ‘the working men have no country.’ Similarly, they are free of the beliefs, hopes or hypocrisies of religion, morality and bourgeois law. For the same reason, they could not have ‘idologues’ proposing to instruct or guide them—‘organic intellectuals’, as Gramsci would later term them. (Marx certainly did not see himself as anything of the kind and this produced increasing difficulties when it came to conceptualizing the function of his own theory within revolutionary practice. Here again, Engels was to make the decisive step by bringing the expression ‘scientific socialism’ into general use. 我们必须象巴利巴那样从马克思的阶级理论出发在当代形成自己的关于什么是当代新无产阶级的一种‘理论’,来分析民工的阶级地位问题,否则,一动口,就会落进现存意识形态的框架和腔 调里。民工问题使我们必须重新斟酌和敲定与马克思主义的阶级分析理论的关系。
B. 马克思主义与自由主义在历史上的搭接和今天的新对抗
十九世纪,保守主义、自由主义和马克思主义是三大思想主流,马克思的从德国向法国、英国的流亡也象征着他与自由主义的交锋的不断尖锐化。今天的新左和新自由主义的对立,是这两大思想遗产之间的争锋的后续。
华勒斯坦这样来勘定十九世纪三大思想潮流对我们过去200年的社会科学研究的统治和它们在今天的流向:They were all world-systemic ideologies. It was no accident that conservatism was the first to emerge institutionally. It is clear that the new recognition of the normality of change posed urgent dilemmas to those of a conservative bent. Edmund Burke and Joseph de Maistre saw this clearly and quickly…Liberalism is the natural ideology of normal change. But it needed to become an ideology only after conservatism had emerged. It was English Tories who first called their opponents ‘liberals’ in the early 19th century. To be sure, the idea of the inpidual’s right to be free from the constraints of the state had a long history that predates this moment. The rise of the absolutist state brought in its train the advocates of constitutional government. John Locke is often considered the symbolic incarnation of this line of thought. But what emerged in the 19th century was liberalism as an ideology of consciously enacted reform, and this did not really existed in the 17th and 18th centuries. This is also why I believe the oft-cited difference between early 19th century ‘minimal state’ liberalism and late 19th century ‘social state’ liberalism misses the point. The exponents of both had the same conscious political agenda: legislative reform that would abet, channel, facilitate ‘normal change’.