Paul Blackledge 保罗-布莱克利奇
Abstract 摘要
In
this paper I examine the pre-history of Alasdair MacIntyre’s contemporary moral
philosophy. In the 1950s and 1960s MacIntyre was a leading member of the
British New Left, from whence he gravitated towards a form of heterodox
Trotskyism. During this period he began to formulate a Marxist ethics which
both compares with and informs the thesis of his magnum opus After Virtue. As the conclusion of After Virtue is premised upon a dismissal
of Marxism, it is of some interest to explore the exact route through which MacIntyre
came to replace his earlier with his later framework. In this essay, after
reconstructing MacIntyre’s Marxist ethics, I trace the trajectory through which
he came to reject Marxism, and show that while MacIntyre’s mature critique of
Marxism first took shape in the 1960s, his political pessimism was built upon
two assumptions – that Marx’s economic theory was outdated, and that a
defensible theory of human nature did not exist – which he has recently
questioned. I conclude that MacIntyre’s rethinking of these assumptions has
opened a space for a renewed dialogue between himself and Marxists.
本文探讨了阿拉斯戴尔-麦金太尔当代道德哲学的前史。20 世纪 50 年代和 60 年代，麦金太尔是英国新左派的主要成员，并由此转向一种异端托洛茨基主义。在此期间，他开始提出马克思主义伦理学，这既与他的巨著《追寻美德》（After Virtue）相比较，也为其论述提供了参考。由于《追寻美德》的结论是以否定马克思主义为前提的，因此探讨麦金太尔以其后期框架取代其早期框架的确切路径具有一定的意义。在这篇文章中，我在重构麦金太尔的马克思主义伦理学之后，追溯了他开始否定马克思主义的轨迹，并表明尽管麦金太尔对马克思主义的成熟批判最初形成于 20 世纪 60 年代，但他的政治悲观主义是建立在两个假设之上的，即马克思的经济理论已经过时，以及不存在可辩护的人性理论，而他最近对这两个假设提出了质疑。我的结论是，麦金太尔对这些假设的反思为他本人与马克思主义者之间重新对话开辟了空间。
Introduction 导言
While Alasdair
MacIntyre is best known today as the foremost exponent of what Kelvin Knight has
labelled ‘revolutionary Aristotelianism’,[2] there
was another MacIntyre, only dimly perceptible in the footnotes of his more
recent books, whose contribution to social and ethical theory bears comparison
with that of the author of After Virtue
and other subsequent works. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, MacIntyre made a
fundamental contribution to Marxist ethical theory which repays reading today. Nevertheless,
despite its power, MacIntyre’s period as a Marxist has been unduly neglected by
students of his work.[3] This
is unfortunate, for an analysis of the totality of MacIntyre’s Marxist essays
of the time is not only interesting in and of itself, it can also illuminate
the process through which his thought began to evolve towards his more recent
conclusions.
尽管阿拉斯戴尔-麦金太尔（Alasdair MacIntyre）是凯尔文-奈特（Kelvin Knight）所称的 "革命亚里士多德主义 "的最重要代表，[2] 但还有另一位麦金太尔，只是在其近期著作的脚注中朦胧可见，他对社会和伦理理论的贡献可与《追寻美德》（After Virtue）及其他后续著作的作者相提并论。20 世纪 50 年代末和 60 年代初，麦金太尔对马克思主义伦理理论做出了根本性的贡献，今天读来仍有价值。然而，尽管麦金太尔的贡献巨大，但他作为马克思主义者的时期却被研究其著作的学生们不适当地忽视了。[3] 这是令人遗憾的，因为对麦金太尔当时的全部马克思主义论文进行分析，不仅本身就很有趣，而且还能阐明他的思想开始向其最新结论演变的过程。
MacIntyre
famously concluded After Virtue with
the suggestion that ‘we are waiting not for Godot, but for another – doubtless
very different – St.Benedict’, and premised this suggestion on a prior dismissal
of the adequacy to the modern world of Marxist politics. He suggested that, first,
Trotsky’s late political optimism was based upon subsequently falsified
predictions for the future of the Soviet Union; while, second, Trotsky’s
analysis of Stalinism ‘entailed that the Soviet Union was not socialist and
that the theory which was to have illuminated the path to human liberation had
in fact led to darkness.’ Consequently, MacIntyre argued, ‘a Marxist who took
Trotsky’s last writings with great seriousness would be forced into a pessimism
quite alien to the Marxist tradition, and in becoming a pessimist he would in
an important way have ceased to be a Marxist.’[4] A
decade later, MacIntyre outlined what was if anything an even more devastating
critique of Marxism. Marx failed to recognise, he argued, ‘that while
proletarianisation makes it necessary for workers to resist, it also tends to
deprive workers of those forms of practice through which they can discover
conceptions of a good and of virtues adequate to the moral needs of
resistance.’[5]
麦金太尔在《追寻美德》一书中提出了一个著名的结论："我们不是在等待戈多，而是在等待另一个--无疑是截然不同的--圣本尼迪克特"。他认为，首先，托洛茨基晚期的政治乐观主义是建立在后来对苏联未来的预测被证伪的基础上的；其次，托洛茨基对斯大林主义的分析'意味着苏联不是社会主义的，本应照亮人类解放道路的理论实际上却走向了黑暗'。因此，麦金太尔认为，"一个马克思主义者如果非常认真地对待托洛茨基的遗著，就会被迫陷入一种与马克思主义传统格格不入的悲观主义，而在成为悲观主义者的过程中，他在很大程度上就不再是一个马克思主义者了。[4]十年后，麦金太尔对马克思主义进行了更具毁灭性的批判。他认为，马克思没有认识到，"虽然无产阶级化使工人有必要进行反抗，但它也往往剥夺了工人的实践形式，而通过这些实践形式，工人可以发现善的概念和美德，以满足反抗的道德需要。[5]
As we shall see,
MacIntyre first elaborated versions of these arguments in the 1960s when he was
still a member of the revolutionary left. What set MacIntyre aside from his
comrades in this period was not his criticism of Trotsky or his analysis of the
fragmentation of working class struggles. Rather, MacIntyre differentiated
himself from more orthodox members of the far-left through his disputation of
Marx’s theory of economic crisis, and his rejection of any theory of human
nature. Interestingly, while these underlying arguments informed the growing
political pessimism that was to become most apparent in After Virtue, in his more recent work MacIntyre has gone some way
to reversing these arguments; suggesting that the gap between his contemporary
thought and his earlier Marxism is not as wide as it once was.
我们将看到，麦金太尔在 20 世纪 60 年代首次阐述了这些论点，当时他还是革命左派的一员。在这一时期，麦金太尔与他的同志们的区别并不在于他对托洛茨基的批评，也不在于他对工人阶级斗争四分五裂的分析。相反，麦金太尔通过对马克思经济危机理论的争论以及对任何人性理论的否定，将自己与更正统的极左派成员区分开来。有趣的是，虽然这些基本论点在《追寻美德》（After Virtue）一书中体现得淋漓尽致，但麦金太尔在其近期的著作中却在某种程度上扭转了这些论点；这表明，他的当代思想与早期马克思主义之间的差距已不像以前那么大了。
Marxism and Morality 马克思主义与道德
Marx, famously, had an ambivalent
relationship to ethical theory. On the one hand, in some of his more mechanical
formulations, his ‘science’ of history appeared to explain behaviour rather
than act as a guide to it. Indeed, in his Critique
of the Gotha Programme, he explicitly dismissed certain moral criticisms of
capitalism. He argued that the demand for the ‘fair distribution of the
proceeds of labour’ ignored the truth of the bourgeois assertion ‘that the
present-day distribution is “fair”’, so long as “fair” was understood in terms
of ‘distribution on the basis of the present-day mode of production’.[6] Commenting
upon these arguments, Wood has claimed that Marx rejected the concept of
justice because he understood it to be tied up with, and to sanction,
particular historical modes of production.[7] It
is a problem for Wood’s argument that Marx, palpably, did make a number of
claims as to the injustice of capitalism, such that Peffer is able to argue,
with some justification, that he held to a ‘deontological’ ethics.[8] Certainly,
in his Notes on Indian History, Marx
sounded ‘conventionally’ moralistic when he wrote of ‘the blood sucking English
scoundrels’, who ‘shamelessly annexed’ part of the country, and ‘atrociously’
or ‘foully murdered’ many of its inhabitants.[9]
众所周知，马克思与伦理理论有着矛盾的关系。一方面，在他的一些较为机械的表述中，他的历史 "科学 "似乎是为了解释行为，而不是作为行为的指南。事实上，他在《哥达纲领批判》中明确否定了对资本主义的某些道德批判。他认为，"公平分配劳动所得 "的要求忽视了资产阶级断言 "当今的分配是'公平的'"这一真理，只要 "公平 "被理解为 "在当今生产方式基础上的分配"。[6]伍德在评论这些论点时声称，马克思之所以拒绝接受正义的概念，是因为他认为正义是与特定的历史生产方式联系在一起的，并认可这种生产方式。[7]伍德的论点存在一个问题，那就是马克思确实就资本主义的不公正性提出了一些主张，以至于佩弗能够不无道理地认为他坚持的是一种 "道义论 "伦理学。[8]当然，马克思在《印度史笔记》中写到 "吸血的英国恶棍"，他们 "无耻地吞并 "了印度的一部分，并 "残暴地 "或 "粗暴地杀害 "了印度的许多居民，这听起来 "传统 "上是道德主义的。[9]
Lukes has attempted to make sense
of this ‘paradox’ in Marx’s oeuvre by distinguishing between two types of moral
claims which Marx unfortunately conflated: the morality of emancipation and the
morality of justice or Recht. ‘The
paradox in marxism’s attitude to morality is resolved once we see that it is
the morality of Recht that it
condemns as ideological and anachronistic, and the morality of emancipation
that it adopts as its own’.[10] In
opposition to Lukes, Geras has argued that this distinction between a morality
of justice and one of self-realisation is ‘unfounded’, for individuals can only
realise their true potential within a political context. Thus, following remarks
made by Marx in volume III of Capital,
Geras argues that if post-revolutionary societies are not to be understood in a
utopian manner, then they must include some conception of distributive justice.[11]
Geras insists that, rather than distinguish a morality of self-realisation from
one of justice in Marx, it is better to distinguish two conceptions of justice,
one implicit and one explicit, which can help explain that while ‘Marx did
think that capitalism was unjust … he did not think he thought so’. Whereas
Marx therefore dismissed justice in its narrow ‘legal positivist fashion’, he
subscribed to a broader distributive justice based upon the principle that each
should receive according to their needs.[12]
Such a principle, Geras suggests, would not act merely as a benchmark against
which capitalism is seen to be wanting, but would continue to operate in a
socialist society as a distributive standard of ‘reasonable’ need in a system
without absolute abundance.[13] While
Geras’ account of a Marxist approach to justice is exemplary as far as it goes,
beyond an implicit link to the development of the productive forces, he does
not discuss the actual processes through which this abstract concept of justice
can be made concrete.
卢克斯试图通过区分马克思不幸混为一谈的两类道德主张：解放的道德和正义的道德或 "Recht"，来理解马克思作品中的这一 "悖论"。一旦我们看到马克思谴责 "Recht "道德是意识形态的、不合时宜的，而将 "解放 "道德视为自己的道德，那么马克思主义在道德态度上的悖论就迎刃而解了。[10]与卢克斯相反，格拉斯认为，正义道德与自我实现道德之间的这种区别是 "毫无根据的"，因为个人只有在政治环境中才能实现其真正的潜能。因此，按照马克思在《资本论》第三卷中的论述，格拉斯认为，如果不以乌托邦的方式来理解革命后的社会，那么它们就必须包含某种分配正义的概念。[11]格拉斯坚持认为，与其区分马克思的自我实现道德与正义道德，不如区分两种正义概念，一种是隐性的，一种是显性的，这有助于解释为什么 "马克思确实认为资本主义是不正义的......但他并不认为自己是这样认为的"。因此，马克思否定了狭隘的'法律实证主义方式'的正义，而他赞同一种更广泛的分配正义，其基础是各取所需的原则。[12]格拉斯认为，这样一个原则不会仅仅作为资本主义被视为不足的一个基准，而是会作为一个没有绝对富裕的制度中 "合理 "需求的分配标准，在社会主义社会中继续发挥作用。 [13]虽然格拉斯对马克思主义正义观的阐述堪称典范，但除了与生产力发展的隐含联系之外，他并没有讨论将这一抽象的正义观具体化的实际过程。
MacIntyre’s Marxist Morality
麦金太尔的马克思主义道德观
By contrast with this formal
solution to the paradox posed by Marx’s ambiguous relationship to morality,
MacIntyre, in the 1950s and 1960s, sought to relate claims for justice to the
proletariat’s developing struggle for freedom. MacIntyre’s first contribution
to the Marxist literature on ethics was articulated in his book Marxism: An Interpretation, which, while
it was written at the height of the Cold War and from a radical Christian
perspective, succeeded in prefiguring many of the themes that were to emerge
three years later with the birth of the New Left.[14]
In particular, MacIntyre began to explode the shared Stalinist and Liberal myth
of Marxism as a mechanical model of historical progress.
麦金太尔在 20 世纪 50 年代和 60 年代试图将对正义的诉求与无产阶级为自由而进行的斗争联系起来，与此形成对照的是，他从形式上解决了马克思与道德之间模棱两可的关系所带来的悖论。麦金太尔对马克思主义伦理学文献的第一个贡献是在他的《马克思主义》一书中阐述的：虽然这本书是在冷战高峰时期从激进的基督教视角写成的，但它成功地预示了三年后随着新左派的诞生而出现的许多主题。[14]尤其是，麦金太尔开始揭穿斯大林主义和自由主义的共同神话，即马克思主义是一种机械的历史进步模式。
MacIntyre was drawn, as a
Christian, towards Marxism because, as he saw it, Marx’s political theory converged
with his vision of critical Christian ethics: ‘Marxism is of first-class
theological significance as a secularism formed by the gospel which is
committed to the problem of power and justice and therefore to themes of
redemption and renewal which its history can but illuminate’.[15] Specifically, he perceived a parallel between
the situation faced by Marx in the early 1840s, and that encountered by
contemporary radical Christians. For just as Marx ‘was faced with a stark
antithesis’ between both Hegel’s and Feuerbach’s visions of human freedom, and
the reality of the world of work and suffering, so contemporary Christianity
accepted a split between the sacred and the secular such that it had lost any critical
perspective on the world. Indeed, he argued, bourgeois Christianity, because it
had been reduced to a matter of personal taste to be practiced at the weekend,
no longer concretely criticised social injustice and thus did not interfere with
daily secular existence.[16]
MacIntyre believed that radical Christians would do well to learn from Marx’s
turn to politics as a means of overcoming the gap between reality and the
vision of freedom in Hegel’s system. He thus concluded Marxism: An Interpretation with the suggestion that the key text
that should be read by Christians, alongside St Mark’s Gospel, was Marx’s ‘National
Economy and Philosophy’; for it was in this early essay that Marx was at his
prophetic, moral best; before he succumbed to the allure of pseudo-scientific
prediction that is evident in his work from The
German Ideology onwards.[17]
麦金太尔作为基督徒被马克思主义所吸引，因为在他看来，马克思的政治理论与他对批判性基督教伦理的看法不谋而合："马克思主义具有一流的神学意义，它是由福音形成的世俗主义，致力于解决权力与正义的问题，因此也致力于其历史所能照亮的救赎与复兴的主题"。[15]具体而言，他认为马克思在 19 世纪 40 年代初所面临的处境与当代激进基督徒所面临的处境有相似之处。正如马克思 "面临着黑格尔和费尔巴哈的人类自由愿景与工作和苦难世界的现实之间的对立 "一样，当代基督教也接受了神圣与世俗之间的分裂，从而失去了对世界的批判视角。事实上，他认为，资产阶级的基督教由于沦为了在周末奉行的个人趣味，不再具体地批判社会不公，因而也就不干涉日常的世俗生活。[16]麦金太尔认为，激进的基督徒最好学习马克思转向政治的做法，以此来克服现实与黑格尔体系中的自由愿景之间的差距。因此，他在《马克思主义：他在总结《马克思主义：诠释》一书时建议，除了《圣马克福音书》之外，基督徒应该阅读的重要著作是马克思的《国民经济学与哲学》；因为正是在这篇早期的文章中，马克思的预言性和道德性发挥得淋漓尽致；在他屈服于伪科学预测的诱惑之前，这在他从《德意志意识形态》开始的作品中是显而易见的。[17]
Unfortunately, while MacIntyre
was at this time both a practicing Christian and a member of the Communist
Party, this interpretation of Marxism failed to provoke much interest in either
Communist or Christian circles. It was the emergence of the New Left three
years later that provided MacIntyre both with an audience for his ideas, and a
practical source of inspiration from which he deepened these ideas. Therefore,
while it is true to say, as does McMylor, that MacIntyre’s early work
prefigured many of the themes that dominated New Left thinking, it is also
important to remember that, without the New Left, MacIntyre’s project would
have remained abstract and disconnected from practical politics.
遗憾的是，尽管麦金太尔当时既是一名虔诚的基督徒，又是一名共产党员，但他对马克思主义的这一阐释在共产党和基督教界都没有引起多大兴趣。三年后，新左派的出现为麦金太尔的思想提供了受众，也为他深化这些思想提供了实际的灵感来源。因此，诚如麦克米勒所言，麦金太尔的早期作品预示了主导新左派思想的许多主题，但同样重要的是要记住，如果没有新左派，麦金太尔的项目将仍然是抽象的，与实际政治脱节。
The
events of 1956 – Khrushchev’s secret speech, his invasion of Hungary and the
Anglo‑French invasion of Egypt – together created a space for widespread
criticism of the world order as a totality. In striking deep at the heart of
the international system these actions created a space within which independent
political forces could grow in Britain. In response to these events a ‘New
Left’ emerged which sought to map a third way between Eastern Communism and
Western Capitalism, and their left‑wing political allies: Stalinism and social
democracy.[18] Nevertheless,
the New Left, as Peter Sedgwick pointed out, was less a coherent movement than it
was a milieu, within which many very diverse political perspectives were aired.[19]
Interestingly, this spectrum of political positions found expression through a
debate on the moral critique of Stalinism; and it was through his contribution
to this debate that MacIntyre signalled both the trajectory of his future research,
and his embrace of revolutionary Marxism.
1956 年发生的事件--赫鲁晓夫的秘密讲话、入侵匈牙利和英法入侵埃及--共同为广泛批判整个世界秩序创造了空间。这些行动深入国际体系的核心，为英国独立政治力量的发展创造了空间。作为对这些事件的回应，"新左派 "应运而生，它试图在东方共产主义和西方资本主义及其左翼政治盟友之间找到第三条道路：斯大林主义和社会民主主义。[18] 然而，正如彼得-塞奇威克（Peter Sedgwick）所指出的，新左派与其说是一个连贯的运动，不如说是一个环境，在这个环境中出现了许多非常不同的政治观点。[有趣的是，这些政治立场通过一场关于斯大林主义道德批判的辩论得到了表达；麦金太尔正是通过对这场辩论的贡献，表明了他未来研究的轨迹，以及他对革命马克思主义的拥护。
Edward Thompson articulated the
most sophisticated New Left critique of Stalinism in his essay ‘SocialistHumanism: An Epistle to the Philistines’.
This essay was a brilliant and original contribution not just to the analysis
of Stalinism specifically, but also to Marxist moral theory more generally. At
its heart, however, Thompson’s essay embraced a fatal contradiction, which even
his grand rhetorical flourishes were unable fully to conceal. He opened his
essay with the claim that one quarter of the earth’s surface was controlled by
a new society, which, despite its many abhorrent features, represented a
qualitative break with capitalism: ‘The instruments of production in the Soviet
Union are socialised. The bureaucracy is not a class, but is parasitic upon
that society. Despite its parasitism, the wave of human energy unleashed by the
first socialist revolution has multiplied the wealth of society, and vastly
enlarged the cultural horizons of the people’.[20] However,
in contrast to this characterisation of the Soviet system as being at once
socialist while yet morally unpalatable, elsewhere, he insisted that ‘the “end”
of Communism is not a “political” end, but a human end’.[21] This
formulation suggested a tremendous gap between the human ends of the Soviet
experiment and the inhuman means through which these ends were, at least
partially, being realised. So while Thompson implied that a plurality of means
could be utilised to achieve the end of communism, he was aware that these
means were not morally equivalent. Concretely, in the Soviet case, he argued
that the flaws of the Stalinist system could best be understood as a
consequence of the inadequate model of Marxism that had guided the Bolsheviks.
They, or so he claimed, had embraced a mechanical interpretation of Marx’s
base/superstructure metaphor such that agency, in the form of the conscious
activity of the masses, was increasingly disregarded, only to find expression
through the monolithic party which became the guardian of true socialist
consciousness. Following this, the ‘immorality’ of replacing the actions of
real individual with those of cardboard abstractions became ‘embodied in
institutional form in the rigid forms of “democratic centralism”’.[22] Consequently,
Thompson’s moral critique of Stalinism involved a call both for a more flexible
interpretation of Marx’s theory of history, and a rejection of the Leninist
form of political organisation.
爱德华-汤普森（Edward Thompson）在他的文章《社会主义人道主义：致非利士人的书信》一文中，对斯大林主义进行了最精辟的新左派批判。这篇文章不仅对斯大林主义的具体分析，而且对更广泛的马克思主义道德理论都做出了杰出的原创性贡献。然而，汤普森这篇文章的核心是一个致命的矛盾，即使是他华丽的辞藻也无法完全掩盖这个矛盾。他在文章的开头声称，地球表面四分之一的土地被一个新社会所控制，尽管这个新社会有许多令人憎恶的特征，但它代表了与资本主义质的决裂："苏联的生产工具是社会化的。官僚机构不是一个阶级，而是寄生于这个社会。尽管它是寄生的，但第一次社会主义革命释放出的人类能量浪潮使社会财富成倍增长，并极大地扩展了人民的文化视野"。[20]然而，与苏联制度既是社会主义的又是道德上令人不快的这一特点相反，他在其他地方坚持认为，"共产主义的'目的'不是'政治'目的，而是人的目的"。[21]这一表述表明，苏联实验的人类目的与实现这些目的的非人道手段（至少部分是）之间存在巨大差距。因此，尽管汤普森暗示可以利用多种手段来实现共产主义的目的，但他意识到这些手段在道德上并不等同。具体到苏联的情况，他认为斯大林体制的缺陷最好被理解为指导布尔什维克的马克思主义模式不完善的结果。 他认为，他们对马克思的基础/上层建筑隐喻进行了机械化的诠释，以至于以群众自觉活动为形式的能动性越来越被忽视，只能通过成为真正社会主义意识守护者的一元化政党来体现。随后，用纸牌抽象概念取代真实个人行动的 "不道德"，"以制度的形式体现在'民主集中制'的僵化形式中"。[22]因此，汤普森对斯大林主义的道德批判既要求对马克思的历史理论做出更灵活的解释，也要求摒弃列宁主义的政治组织形式。
For all its undoubted power, Thompson’s
thesis was susceptible to two distinct, but related, criticisms. First, could a
mechanical version of Marxism as embodied in a democratic centralist
organisation bear the weight of his explanation of the rise of Stalinism? Second,
what, if any, were the relations between socialism and Communism in his model,
and if the latter was a human ‘end’, then what could be said of the abhorrent
means through which the Stalinists had at least gone some way to achieving the this
end? Thompson’s implicit answers to these questions suggested that he had not
broken with as much of the common sense of his age as he imagined. Indeed,
paralleling traditional consequentialist ethics, which included, for the little
they were worth, the ethical justifications of their actions deployed by the Stalinists,
Thompson appeared to agree that that good ends could come from bad means.
Moreover, in common with both the dominant liberal and Stalinist histories of
the Soviet system, Thompson agreed that Leninism entailed Stalinism. In tacitly
accepting both of these positions, Thompson opened his moral critique of
Stalinism to an immanent critique from those who saw a contradiction between
his humanist claim that socialism represented the realisation of historically
(self) created human potentialities,[23]
and any suggestion that the Stalinist system might represent, in however
distorted form, a progressive break with capitalism. This is more or less the
form of the critique that was formulated by Harry Hanson in the next issue of The New Reasoner.
尽管汤普森的理论无疑具有强大的力量，但它也容易受到两种截然不同但又相互关联的批评。首先，民主集中制组织所体现的机械版本的马克思主义能否承受他对斯大林主义崛起的解释之重？其次，在他的模式中，社会主义与共产主义之间的关系是什么（如果有的话）？如果后者是人类的 "目的"，那么斯大林主义者至少在某种程度上实现了这一目的的可恶手段又是什么呢？汤普森对这些问题的含蓄回答表明，他并没有像自己想象的那样打破那个时代的常识。事实上，汤普森与传统的结果论伦理学（其中包括斯大林主义者为其行为所做的伦理辩护，但这些辩护并不值得一提）一样，似乎同意好的目的可能来自坏的手段。此外，与主流的自由主义和斯大林主义的苏联制度史一样，汤普森也认为列宁主义必然导致斯大林主义。由于默认了这两种立场，汤普森对斯大林主义的道德批判受到了那些认为他的人道主义主张（即社会主义代表了历史上（自我）创造的人类潜能的实现）[23] 与任何认为斯大林主义制度可能代表（无论其形式如何扭曲）与资本主义的进步决裂之间存在矛盾的人的内在批判。哈里-汉森（Harry Hanson）在下一期《新理性者》（The New Reasoner）中提出的批判大致就是这种形式。
Hanson argued that ‘Communism, in
the modern world, is not the creed of the proletariat. First and foremost, it
is a technique, operated by a revolutionary elite, for pushing forward the
economic development of an underdeveloped country at the fastest possible rate
… [which] is a very painful process’.[24] Furthermore,
he insisted that, for all Thompson’s rhetoric, and his indisputable honesty,
his was an untenable critique of Stalinism, as it shared with the Stalinists,
and Marxism more generally, a consequentialist moral framework which, despite
fine talk of the interdependence of means and ends, tended to subordinate the
former to the latter, thus offering an unsatisfactory basis from which to
criticise Stalinist immorality. In place of such a moral framework, Hanson suggested
that the left should look to Kant as a guide to action.[25] However,
in so doing he dehistoricised morality in a way that was obviously alien to
Marx’s conception of history. This argument thus demanded some reply for the
Marxists within the New Left, and it was MacIntyre who came to the defence of a
sophisticated version of socialist humanism, which, while building on
Thompson’s insights, began to outline a project capable of offering a powerful
alternative to both Hanson’s Kantianism and to Stalinist consequentialism.
Moreover, in developing this perspective, MacIntyre also began to outline one
of the most sophisticated defences of revolutionary politics of his day.
汉森认为，"在现代世界，共产主义不是无产阶级的信条。首先，它是一种技术，由革命精英操作，以尽可能快的速度推动欠发达国家的经济发展......[这是]一个非常痛苦的过程"。[24]此外，他还坚持认为，尽管汤普森夸夸其谈，他的诚实也无可争议，但他对斯大林主义的批判是站不住脚的，因为他与斯大林主义者以及更普遍的马克思主义一样，都有一个结果主义的道德框架，尽管他高谈阔论手段与目的的相互依存，但却倾向于让前者从属于后者，从而为批判斯大林主义的不道德提供了一个不能令人满意的基础。汉森建议，左派应将康德作为行动指南，以取代这种道德框架。[25]然而，在这样做的过程中，他将道德非历史化，这显然与马克思的历史观格格不入。因此，新左派中的马克思主义者需要对这一论点做出一些回应，而正是麦金太尔为一个复杂版本的社会主义人文主义进行了辩护，该版本在汤普森见解的基础上，开始勾勒出一个能够有力替代汉森的康德主义和斯大林的结果主义的计划。此外，在发展这一观点的过程中，麦金太尔也开始勾勒出他那个时代对革命政治最复杂的辩护之一。
MacIntyre’s critique of Hanson’s
reply to Thompson’s moral critique of Stalinism, ‘Notes From the Moral
Wilderness’, while written as a defence of Thompson’s general perspective, was
simultaneously an implicit critique of the weaknesses of Thompson’s own exposition
of the doctrine of socialist humanism. MacIntyre opened this essay with a classically
Marxist critique of the implied Kantianism of Hanson’s morality: ‘The
ex-Communist turned moral critic of Communism is often a figure of genuine
pathos … They repudiate Stalinist crimes in the name of moral principle; but
the fragility of their appeal to moral principles lies in the apparently
arbitrary nature of that appeal’.[26]
MacIntyre was just as critical of those apologists for Stalinism, for whom
socialism’s moral core was lost amidst a mechanical theory of historical
progress. As to their theory of history, while MacIntyre acknowledged that it
was understood by both Stalin and Popper as being authentically Marxist, he could
not accept that it could truthfully be read into either Marx’s younger or,
changing his position since 1953, his more mature writings. Rather, he
suggested, Engels had played a negative role in the history of Marxism, when,
through his comparison of Marx with Darwin, he had helped foster a mechanical
interpretation of historical materialism which reduced human history to a special
case of natural history.[27]
In place of the orthodox interpretation of historical materialism, MacIntyre
insisted that if the moral core of Marxist political theory was to be retrieved
and reconstructed from the fragments that Marx had written on the subject then
it must be carried out alongside a similar reconstruction of Marx’s theory of
history.
麦金太尔对汉森回应汤普森斯大林主义道德批判的文章《道德荒野笔记》的批判，虽然是为汤普森的总体观点辩护，但同时也隐含着对汤普森本人阐述社会主义人道主义学说弱点的批判。麦金太尔在这篇文章的开头对汉森道德中隐含的康德主义进行了经典马克思主义的批判："前共产主义者转而成为共产主义的道德批判者往往是一个真正悲怆的人物......他们以道德原则的名义斥责斯大林主义的罪行；但他们对道德原则的诉求的脆弱性在于这种诉求的明显任意性"。[26] 麦金太尔同样批评那些为斯大林主义辩护的人，对他们来说，社会主义的道德内核在机械的历史进步理论中丧失殆尽。至于他们的历史理论，虽然麦金太尔承认斯大林和波普尔都将其理解为地道的马克思主义，但他不能接受将其真实地解读为马克思年轻时的著作，或自 1953 年以来改变立场的马克思更成熟的著作。相反，他认为恩格斯在马克思主义历史上扮演了一个负面角色，他通过将马克思与达尔文相提并论，助长了对历史唯物主义的机械解释，将人类历史简化为自然史的一个特例。[27]麦金太尔坚持认为，如果要从马克思关于这一主题的著作片段中找回并重建马克思主义政治理论的道德核心，就必须对马克思的历史理论进行类似的重建，以取代对历史唯物主义的正统解释。
MacIntyre
suggested that it was the Stalinists, who, through the medium of a teleological
vision of historical progress, identified ‘what is morally right with what is
actually going to be the outcome of historical development’, such that the
‘“ought” of principle is swallowed up in the “is” of history’.[28]
It was thus not enough to add something like Kant’s ethics to this existing
Stalinist theory of historical development if one wished to reassert moral
principle into Marxism, for this theory of history negated moral choice.
However, neither was it right to reject, as immoral, any historical event from
some supposed higher standpoint, as ‘there is no set of common, public
standards to which [one] can appeal’. Indeed, any such manoeuvre would tend to
gravitate to an existing tradition of morality which, because these had
generally evolved to serve some particular dominant class interests, would
‘play into the hands of the defenders of the status quo’.[29] Therefore,
MacIntyre suggested, apologists for both the East and the West in the Cold War
based their arguments upon inadequate theoretical frameworks. If this was true,
what would be the structure of an alternative ‘third moral position’?
MacIntyre’s answer was that such a position could only be built by ‘replacing a
misconceived but prevalent view of what Marxism is by a more correct view’.[30]
麦金太尔认为，正是斯大林主义者通过历史进步的目的论观点，确定了 "道德上正确的东西与历史发展的实际结果"，从而 "原则的'应该'被历史的'是'所吞没"。[28]因此，如果想在马克思主义中重新确立道德原则，仅仅在现有的斯大林历史发展理论中加入类似康德伦理学的东西是不够的，因为这种历史理论否定了道德选择。然而，从某种假定的更高立场出发，将任何历史事件视为不道德而加以否定也是不对的，因为 "没有一套共同的、公共的标准可以诉诸"。事实上，任何这种做法都会倾向于现有的道德传统，而由于这些传统一般都是为某些特定的统治阶级利益服务的，因此会'落入现状维护者的手中'。[29]因此，麦金太尔认为，冷战中东西方的辩护者都是以不恰当的理论框架为基础进行论证的。如果这是真的，那么另一种 "第三道德立场 "的结构又是什么呢？麦金太尔的答案是，只有 "用一种更正确的观点取代对马克思主义的错误理解和普遍看法"，才能建立这样一种立场。[30]
The Stalinist
insistence that history’s general course was predictable rested, or so
MacIntyre insisted, on a misconception of the role of the base/superstructure
metaphor in Marxist theory. What Marx suggested when he deployed this metaphor
was neither a mechanical nor a causal relationship. Rather, he utilised
Hegelian concepts to denote the process through which the economic base of a
society provides ‘a framework within which superstructures arise, a set off
relations around which the human relations can entwine themselves, a kernel of
human relationships from which all else grows’. Indeed, MacIntyre wrote that in
‘creating the basis, you create the superstructure. These are not two
activities but one’. Thus the Stalinist model of historical progress, within
which political developments were understood to follow automatically from
economic causes, could not be further from Marx’s model; for in Marx’s view
‘the crucial character of the transition to socialism is not that it is a
change in the economic base but that it is a revolutionary change in the relation
of base to superstructure’.[31]
Moreover, as the essence of the human condition is historically conditioned
freedom, while general predictions can reasonably be made as to the tendency of
people to revolt against capital and other oppressive systems; Marxists would
be mistaken to mechanically predict either revolts or successful revolutions as
the automatic consequence of any particular economic process. Hence, where both
Stalin’s teleology of historical progress and Kant’s ahistorical categorical
imperative were found to be wanting, MacIntyre suggested that we look for a
‘theory which treats what emerges in history as providing us with a basis for
our standards, without making the historical process morally sovereign or its
progress automatic’.[32]
In his search for a basis from which to reconstruct a Marxist ethics, MacIntyre
insisted, contrary to ‘the liberal belief in the autonomy of morality’, that it
was the purposive character of human action that could both distinguish human
history from natural history, and which could provide a historical and materialist
basis for moral judgements.[33]
斯大林主义者坚持认为，历史的一般进程是可以预测的，这是对马克思主义理论中基础/上层建筑隐喻作用的误解。马克思在使用这一隐喻时所暗示的既不是机械关系，也不是因果关系。相反，他利用黑格尔的概念来表示这样一个过程，即社会的经济基础提供了 "一个框架，在这个框架内产生了上层建筑，一套关系，围绕着这套关系，人与人之间的关系可以缠绕在一起，人与人之间关系的内核，其他一切都从这个内核中生长出来"。事实上，麦金太尔写道，"在创造基础的同时，你也创造了上层建筑。这不是两项活动，而是一项活动"。因此，斯大林主义的历史进步模式，即把政治发展理解为经济原因的自动结果，与马克思的模式相去甚远；因为在马克思看来，"向社会主义过渡的关键特征不在于它是经济基础的变化，而在于它是基础与上层建筑关系的革命性变化"。[31]此外，由于人类状况的本质是受历史条件制约的自由，虽然可以合理地对人们反抗资本和其他压迫制度的趋势做出一般预测，但马克思主义者机械地预测任何特定经济进程会自动导致起义或革命成功，则是错误的。 因此，在斯大林的历史进步目的论和康德的非历史绝对命令都被认为是不可行的情况下，麦金太尔建议我们寻找一种 "理论，这种理论将历史中出现的东西视为为我们提供标准的基础，而不使历史进程成为道德上的主权或其进步的自动过程"。[32] 麦金太尔在寻找重建马克思主义伦理学的基础时，与 "自由主义对道德自主性的信念 "相反，他坚持认为，人类行动的目的性特征既能将人类历史与自然历史区分开来，又能为道德判断提供历史唯物主义基础。[33]
MacIntyre suggested that Marxists
should follow Aristotle specifically, and the Greeks more generally, in making
a link between ethics and human desires: ‘we make both individual deeds and
social practices intelligible as human actions by showing how they connect with
characteristically human desires, needs and the like’.[34]
He thus proposed to relate morality to desire in a way that was radically at
odds with Kant; for where, in Kant, ‘the “ought” of morality is utterly
divorced from the “is” of desire’, MacIntyre insisted that to divorce ethics
from activities which aim to satisfy needs and desires in this way ‘is to make
it unintelligible as a form of human action’. While MacIntyre therefore sought
to relate morality to human desires and needs, his reading of Freud had taught
him that desires could be ‘redirected’ by a ‘variety of inhibitions’.[35]
Moreover, he followed Marx in radically historicising human nature, without
loosing sight of its biological basis: ‘it is only with Hegel that Man begins
to possess and with Marx that Man achieves a real history’, for in Marx,
history ‘becomes one with the history of men’.[36]
It is in thus historicising Man that Marx’s greatness lies, for he refuses to
follow either Hobbes into a melancholic model of human needs and desires, or
Diderot into a utopian counterposition of the state of nature against
contemporary social structures. Instead, Marx comprehends the limited
historical truth of Hobbes’s insight, but counterposes to it, not a utopia, but
the real movement of workers in struggle through which they realise that
solidarity is a fundamental human desire.
麦金太尔建议，马克思主义者应特别效仿亚里士多德，更广泛地效仿希腊人，在道德与人类欲望之间建立联系："我们通过说明个人行为和社会实践如何与人类特有的欲望、需求等相联系，使其作为人类行为而具有可理解性"。[在康德那里，"道德的'应当'与欲望的'是'完全割裂开来"，而麦金太尔则坚持认为，以这种方式将伦理与旨在满足需求和欲望的活动割裂开来，"就是使伦理作为一种人类行动形式变得不可理解"。因此，麦金太尔试图将道德与人类的欲望和需要联系起来，而他对弗洛伊德的阅读则告诉他，欲望可以通过 "各种抑制 "来 "重新定向"。[35] 此外，他追随马克思，将人性彻底历史化，同时又不忘其生物学基础：只有在黑格尔那里，人才开始拥有人，而在马克思那里，人才实现了真正的历史"，因为在马克思那里，历史 "与人的历史融为一体"。[36]马克思的伟大之处就在于这样将人历史化，因为他既拒绝追随霍布斯进入人类需求和欲望的忧郁模式，也拒绝追随狄德罗进入自然状态与当代社会结构的乌托邦对立。相反，马克思理解了霍布斯洞察力的有限历史真实性，但与之相对应的不是乌托邦，而是工人在斗争中的真实运动，他们通过这一运动认识到团结是人类的基本愿望。
MacIntyre sought to ground this
suggestion of Marx’s through a peculiar rewriting of the history of ethics. He argued
that such a history could be written as a synthesis of three strands: first, a
‘history of moral codes’; second, ‘a history of human attitudes to desire’; and
third, a history of ‘human nature’. While moral codes initially related to human
desires, with the Protestant reformation the connection between desire and
morality is broken. Indeed, for the Protestants, as humanity is by nature
corrupt, then human desires cannot act as the basis for moral codes. Moreover,
as men are finite beings, then they cannot hope to understand the mind of God,
and thus cannot hope to fathom His moral code. Consequently, ‘the moral law becomes
a connection of divine fiats’, which are ‘so far as we are concerned totally
arbitrary’.[37] In such
a world, ‘desire becomes something anarchic and amoral’, and, indeed, once
moral codes lose their religious colouration and take on a secular form, they
are seen to act, for instance in Hobbes, as ‘at best an uneasy truce or peace
between warring desires’.[38]
To counterpose desires, in their natural state, to these moral codes, as did Diderot,
was an inadequate response to the post-reformation view because this strategy
failed to acknowledge that ‘in class society desire itself is remoulded, not
simply repressed’.[39] Two
questions necessarily arose from this claim: could this remoulding be absolute,
and if this process of remoulding was not absolute, was it possible that it might
be transcended? To understand these issues historically we must ask if a form a
human nature could emerge such that the needs and desires of individuals are
not felt to be in simple atomised opposition one to the other? Marx, according
to MacIntyre, comprehended both the deep historical and sociological content to
this question when he suggested that ‘the emergence of human nature is
something to be comprehended only in terms of the history of class-struggle.
Each age reveals a development of human potentiality which is specific to that
form of social life and which is specifically limited by the class-structure of
that society’. In particular, under advanced capitalism, according to Marx and
MacIntyre, ‘the growth of production makes it possible [for man] to
reappropriate his own nature’. This is true in two ways: first, the increasing
productivity of labour produces the potential for us all to lead much richer
lives, both morally and materially; and second, capitalism also creates an
agency – the proletariat – which, through its struggles for freedom, embodies a
new collectivist spirit, through which individuals come to understand both that
their needs and desires can best be satisfied through collective channels, and
that they do in fact need and desire solidarity.[40] According
to MacIntyre, the proletariat, in its struggles against capital, begins to create
the conditions for the solution of the contemporary problems of morality: it
begins to embody the practice which could overcome the ‘rift between our
conception of morality and our conception of desire’.[41] Indeed,
in acting in this way the proletariat comes to realise that solidarity is not
simply a useful means through which its individual members struggle to meet their
needs, but it is in fact what they naturally desire.[42]
麦金太尔试图通过对伦理学史的独特重写，为马克思的这一建议奠定基础。他认为，这样一部历史可以写成三个方面的综合：第一，"道德规范史"；第二，"人类对欲望的态度史"；第三，"人性 "史。虽然道德规范最初与人类欲望相关，但随着新教改革的进行，欲望与道德之间的联系被打破了。事实上，在新教徒看来，人类的本性是堕落的，因此人类的欲望不能作为道德规范的基础。此外，由于人是有限的存在，他们不可能理解上帝的思想，因此也不可能理解上帝的道德准则。因此，"道德法则就成了神的命令"，而 "就我们而言，这些命令是完全武断的"。[37] 在这样一个世界里，"欲望变成了无政府和非道德的东西"，而事实上，一旦道德规范失去了宗教色彩而采取世俗的形式，它们就会被视为 "充其量是交战欲望之间不稳定的休战或和平"，比如在霍布斯那里。[38]像狄德罗那样将自然状态下的欲望与这些道德规范对立起来，是对改革后观点的一种不恰当的回应，因为这种策略没有承认 "在阶级社会中，欲望本身是被重塑的，而不仅仅是被压制的"。[39] 从这一主张中必然会产生两个问题：这种重塑是否是绝对的；如果这种重塑过程不是绝对的，那么它是否有可能被超越？要从历史的角度来理解这些问题，我们必须要问，是否会出现一种形式的人性，使个人的需求和欲望不再被认为是简单的原子化对立？ 麦金太尔认为，马克思理解了这一问题的深层历史学和社会学内涵，他提出 "人性的产生只能从阶级斗争的历史中去理解。每个时代都揭示了人类潜能的发展，这种发展是该社会生活形式所特有的，并受到该社会阶级结构的具体限制"。马克思和麦金太尔认为，特别是在发达资本主义下，'生产的增长使[人]有可能重新占有自己的本性'。这体现在两个方面：首先，劳动生产率的不断提高为我们所有人提供了在道德和物质上过上更富裕生活的可能性；其次，资本主义还创造了一个机构--无产阶级--它通过争取自由的斗争，体现了一种新的集体主义精神，通过这种精神，个人开始明白，他们的需求和欲望最好通过集体渠道得到满足，而且他们实际上需要并渴望团结。[麦金太尔认为，无产阶级在与资本的斗争中，开始为解决当代道德问题创造条件：它开始体现能够克服 "我们的道德观念与我们的欲望观念之间的裂痕 "的实践。[41]事实上，无产阶级通过这种方式认识到，团结不仅仅是无产阶级成员为满足自身需要而奋斗的有用手段，事实上也是他们的自然愿望。[42]
MacIntyre therefore understood
the history of morality as ‘the history of men ceasing to see moral rules as
the repression of desire and as something that men have made and accepted for
themselves’; which concretely culminates in the socialist struggles of the
proletariat against its alienation, and against reified ways of perceiving the
world. Conversely, ‘both the autonomy of ethics and utilitarianism are aspects
of the consciousness of capitalism; both are forms of alienation rather than
moral guides’.[43] So,
once the political left has rid itself both of the myth of the inevitable triumph
of socialism, and of the reification of socialism as some indefinite end which
justifies any action taken in its name, then socialists will truly comprehend
the interpenetration of means and ends through the history of class struggle,
and will understand Marxist morality to be, as against the Stalinists, ‘an
assertion of moral absolutes’, and ‘as against the liberal critic of Stalinism
it is an assertion of desire and history’.[44]
因此，麦金太尔将道德史理解为 "人们不再将道德规则视为对欲望的压制，不再将道德规则视为人们为自己制定和接受的东西的历史"；这一历史在无产阶级反对异化、反对重新认识世界的方式的社会主义斗争中具体地达到了顶峰。相反，"伦理的自主性和功利主义都是资本主义意识的方面；两者都是异化的形式，而不是道德的指南"。[43]因此，一旦政治左派摆脱了社会主义必然胜利的神话，摆脱了将社会主义重新定义为某种不确定的目的，从而证明以社会主义名义采取的任何行动都是正当的，那么社会主义者就会真正理解手段与目的在阶级斗争历史中的相互渗透，就会理解马克思主义道德，相对于斯大林主义者而言，是 "对道德绝对性的断言"，而 "相对于斯大林主义的自由主义批评者而言，是对欲望和历史的断言"。[44]
Unfortunately,
far from seeming inevitable, the proletariat’s struggle for socialism appeared
to be almost non-existent in the late 1950s: and it was to this pressing
problem of apathy that the New Left turned its attention. Indeed, as part of
its project of building a new socialist movement, the New Left published a
collection, edited by Edward Thompson, entitled Out of Apathy in 1960. As its title suggests this collection was
designed to be both an analysis of, and a counter to, the exiting culture of
apathy. In his introductory essay, Thompson overviewed two different explanations
for the rise of apathy, which he defined as the tendency for people to look to
‘private solutions to public evils’, and countered to them his
own alternative. First, he rejected the view that apathy had grown because
‘prosperity leaves no room for discontent’; while, second, he accepted the
partial truth of the view that apathy was ‘an expression of the impotence of
the individual in the face of contemporary institutions’, but noted that this
was a universal truth, whereas apathy was not. In place of these models,
Thompson believed that the key cause of the contemporary malaise was that
people ‘do not believe that there is any workable alternative, or they very
much dislike any alternative (such as Communism) which is proposed’.[45]
He thus argued that the New Left should aim to demonstrate the practicality of
a preferable political system. Indeed, he insisted that so over-ripe was
Britain for socialism that ‘any vigorous initiative which probes beyond the
conventional limits of party controversy calls into question the continuance of
the capitalist system’.[46]
The rest of the book was then designed to explore this possibility. Moreover,
while the New Left did not hold to a ‘party line’, most of the contributors to
the volume worked within a broadly shared framework, and, as Thompson wrote, MacIntyre
‘as a Trotskyite differs in some ways from all other contributions’.[47]
不幸的是，无产阶级争取社会主义的斗争在 20 世纪 50 年代末期似乎几乎不存在，而新左派正是将其注意力转向了这一紧迫的冷漠问题。事实上，作为其建设新社会主义运动项目的一部分，新左派于 1960 年出版了一本由爱德华-汤普森（Edward Thompson）编辑的文集《走出冷漠》（Out of Apathy）。正如书名所示，这本文集旨在分析和抵制当前的冷漠文化。汤普森在序言中概述了对冷漠兴起的两种不同解释，他将冷漠定义为人们倾向于寻求 "公共罪恶的私人解决方案"，并提出了自己的替代方案。首先，他驳斥了冷漠的增长是因为 "繁荣没有给不满留下空间 "的观点；其次，他接受了冷漠是 "个人面对当代制度无能为力的表现 "这一观点的部分真理，但指出这是一个普遍真理，而冷漠则不是。取而代之的是，汤普森认为，当代人萎靡不振的主要原因是人们 "不相信有任何可行的替代方案，或者他们非常不喜欢提出的任何替代方案（如共产主义）"。[45] 因此，他认为新左派应致力于展示一种更可取的政治制度的实用性。事实上，他坚持认为，英国对社会主义的需求已经过度成熟，"任何超越政党争论传统界限的有力倡议都会对资本主义制度的持续性提出质疑"。[46]本书的其余部分就是为了探讨这种可能性。 此外，虽然新左派并不坚持 "党的路线"，但该卷的大多数撰稿人都在一个广泛认同的框架内工作，正如汤普森所写，麦金太尔 "作为托洛茨基主义者，在某些方面不同于其他所有撰稿人"。[47]
Whatever his
disagreements with his New Left comrades, MacIntyre agreed with them that
apathy was a pressing political concern which demanded serious consideration;
and so, in his essay ‘Breaking the Chains of Reason’, he set himself the task
of uncovering the intellectual culture that reinforced political apathy by
denigrating the very concept of commitment. Pointing out that at the cusp of
the modern era intellectuals were wont to identify themselves as radicals,
MacIntyre noted that the dominant reason given by contemporary intellectuals to
excuse their own lack of political commitment was to note the apathy of the
workers. Yet, as he argued, ‘an addiction to ITV is perhaps no more likely to
reduce one to being an impotent spectator of life than is an habitual reading
of The Times or The Guardian. The grooves of conformism are different for different
social groups. What unites all those who live within them is that their lives
are shaped and driven forward by events and decisions which are not their own
making’.[48] So what
had happened to the radical intelligentsia, to cause the growth in its apathy
over the last two centuries?
无论麦金太尔与他的新左派同志有什么分歧，他都同意他们的观点，即冷漠是一个迫切的政治问题，需要认真思考；因此，在《打破理性的枷锁》一文中，他为自己设定了一个任务，即揭示通过诋毁承诺这一概念本身来强化政治冷漠的知识分子文化。麦金太尔指出，在现代社会的风口浪尖，知识分子习惯于将自己定位为激进分子，而当代知识分子为自己缺乏政治献身精神找借口的主要理由是注意到了工人的冷漠。然而，正如他所指出的那样，"沉迷于ITV也许并不比习惯性地阅读《泰晤士报》或《卫报》更容易使人沦为无能的生活旁观者。对于不同的社会群体来说，顺应潮流的方式是不同的。将所有生活在其中的人联系在一起的是，他们的生活是由并非由他们自己造成的事件和决定所塑造和推动的"。[48] 那么，激进知识分子到底发生了什么，导致他们在过去两个世纪里变得越来越冷漠？
In answer to
this question, MacIntyre sought to trace the intelligentsia’s trajectory from
the Enlightenment to the modern age. ‘The inheritors of the Enlightenment are
in their different ways Hegel and Marx’; and these two used a bevy of concepts
that are still of the utmost value to contemporary thinkers: freedom, reason,
human nature, and history.[49]
MacIntyre then reiterated much of what he had written in ‘Notes from the Moral
Wilderness’ on the importance of purposive action to satisfy developing, but
biologically rooted, needs, wants and desires through history. Indeed, he
claimed that human history ‘is a series of developing purposes, in which,
through the action of reason in the overcoming of conflicts, freedom is
attained’.[50]
Unfortunately, he noted, ‘post-Hegelian discussions of freedom have not often
preserved this vital link between freedom and reason’. Instead, tyrannies have
been instituted in the name of positive freedoms; while, ‘in the name of
negative freedom men have been called free when enclosed by ignorance and their
natural situation’.[51]
Moreover, as the ideals of classical education declined, education became
fragmented and therefore lost sight of the totalising conception of human
potential through which the link between freedom and reason could be maintained.
This process left intellectuals, operating within that fragmented culture, ill
equipped to respond to the ‘moulding pressures of industry and the state’.[52]
In this context, the human sciences were overwhelmed by the imperialistic
method of natural science, such that the search for mechanical explanations of
social processes became ‘the dream that still haunts and informs the human
sciences’.[53] This
process was double-edged, for while it became the model for the rat
psychologists and their ilk, those who rejected its method tended to
counterpose to it the impossibility of ever developing adequate general models
of society. Thus Popper rejected the mechanical model of the human sciences;
and took Marxism as the prime modern incarnation of this disease, despite the
fact that ‘Marx himself had first indicted it’.[54]
在回答这个问题时，麦金太尔试图追溯知识分子从启蒙运动到现代的轨迹。启蒙运动的继承者是黑格尔和马克思，他们以不同的方式继承了启蒙运动"；这两个人使用了大量对当代思想家仍具有重要价值的概念：自由、理性、人性和历史。[49] 麦金太尔随后重申了他在《道德荒野笔记》中所写的大部分内容，即有目的的行动对于通过历史满足不断发展但植根于生物的需求、愿望和欲望的重要性。事实上，他声称人类历史 "是一系列不断发展的目的，在这些目的中，通过克服冲突的理性行动，自由得以实现"。[50] 不幸的是，他指出，"后黑格尔主义关于自由的讨论往往没有保留自由与理性之间的这一重要联系"。相反，暴政是以积极自由的名义建立起来的；而'在消极自由的名义下，当人们被无知及其自然处境所禁锢时，却被称为自由'。[51]此外，随着古典教育理想的衰落，教育变得支离破碎，因而忽视了人类潜能的总体概念，而自由与理性之间的联系正是通过这种概念得以维系的。在这一过程中，在支离破碎的文化中活动的知识分子没有能力应对 "工业和国家的塑造压力"。[52] 在这种情况下，人文科学被自然科学的帝国主义方法所压倒，以至于寻求对社会进程的机械解释成了 "至今仍困扰着人文科学并为其提供信息的梦想"。 [53]这一过程是双刃剑，因为当它成为老鼠心理学家及其同类的楷模时，那些拒绝接受其方法的人则倾向于反驳它，认为不可能发展出适当的社会一般模式。因此，波普尔反对人文科学的机械模式，并将马克思主义视为这种病症在现代的主要体现，尽管 "马克思本人首先对其提出了控诉"。[54]
MacIntyre’s
critique of Popper’s classification of Marxism as a form of mechanical
materialism allowed him to reject, as a false dichotomy, the opposition that he
constructed between Marx’s pseudo-scientific collectivism, and methodological
individualism. By contrast, MacIntyre insisted that ‘the characterisation of
individuals and classes has to go together. Essentially these are not two
separate tasks’. therefore, while Popper ‘is right to stress that there is no
history and no society which is not the history or society of concrete
individuals; but equally there are no individuals who exist apart from their
history or apart from their society’.[55] Whereas
MacIntyre rejected clockwork models of human behaviour, he continued to believe
that general models of human action could, adequately, be postulated; for he
refused to accept the atomistic alternative of the methodological
individualists. In opposition to Popper’s false alternatives, MacIntyre
repeated his claim for the importance of purposive action: for both mechanical
rule governed behaviour, and lawless individual action broke the link between
‘understanding and action’. The problem with both of these approaches to social
action is that they entail political fatalism: ‘Either men can discern the laws
which govern social development or they cannot. If they can, then they must
avow that their own behaviour is subject to these laws and consequently they
must admit that they have discovered themselves to be not agents, but victims,
part of a social process which occurs independently of human mind, feeling and
will. If they cannot discern such laws, then they are necessarily helpless, for
they have no instruments of change at their hands. So in any case human agency
is bound to be ineffective. Of course, so far as small-scale changes are
concerned, it may be otherwise. All sociologists leave room for reformist
manoeuvre’.[56]
麦金太尔批判了波普尔将马克思主义归类为机械唯物主义的做法，这使他能够拒绝接受波普尔在马克思的伪科学集体主义与方法论个人主义之间构建的对立，认为这是一种虚假的二分法。相比之下，麦金太尔坚持认为 "个人和阶级的特征描述必须同时进行。因此，波普尔'正确地强调，没有任何历史和社会不是具体个人的历史或社会；但同样，也没有任何个人脱离其历史或社会而存在'。[55]尽管麦金太尔拒绝接受人类行为的钟表模型，但他仍然相信，人类行为的一般模型是可以充分假设出来的；因为他拒绝接受方法论个人主义者的原子论替代方案。为了反对波普尔的错误替代方案，麦金太尔重申了他对有目的的行动的重要性的主张：因为无论是机械的规则支配行为，还是无法无天的个人行动，都打破了 "理解与行动 "之间的联系。这两种社会行动方法的问题在于，它们都包含政治宿命论："要么人们能够发现支配社会发展的规律，要么他们不能。如果他们能，那么他们就必须承认，他们自己的行为受制于这些规律，因此他们必须承认，他们发现自己不是行动者，而是受害者，是独立于人的思想、情感和意志而发生的社会进程的一部分。如果他们不能辨别这些规律，那么他们就必然束手无策，因为他们手中没有改变的工具。因此，在任何情况下，人的能动性必然是无效的。 当然，就小规模变革而言，情况可能并非如此。所有社会学家都为改革派留有余地"。[56]
This ideology, MacIntyre reminded
us, did not exist in some pure state divorced from the world of work and
routine, but rather grew out of this world: ‘our social life and our
intellectual visions reinforce each other. Our social life is one in which
human activity is rendered uncreative and sterile. We live in a society of …
predetermined lives’.[57]
Indeed, so sterile is our social life, that even when intellectuals reach
beyond it, their work is neutered through the most conformist interpretation:
thus the radical implications of both Wittengenstein and Freud were, or so
MacIntyre argued, castrated in interpretation. How then to break from these
predetermined pathways? In opposition to crude vanguardism, MacIntyre insisted
that freedom cannot be won by telling the masses to do what the elite desires
it do, but only by helping ‘them move where they desire. The goal is not
happiness, or satisfaction, but freedom. And freedom has to be both means and
ends. The mechanical separation of means and ends is suitable enough for human
manipulation, not human liberation’.[58]
And for MacIntyre, emancipatory politics emerge spontaneously through the
struggles of the working class against capitalism.[59]
This insight allowed him to move from a standard Marxist critique of
Kantianism, to a powerful break with vestigial influence of consequentialism
that had been felt as a burden on Marxist approaches to ethics in the century
before MacIntyre made his contribution. Thus, because freedom was both the
means and the ends of socialist activity, such activity, contra the Kantians,
required a strong anchorage in contemporary history, while, contra the
consequentialists, it was not a reified end that could be inaugurated by a
variety of means. Therefore, MacIntyre concluded, ‘the philosophers have
continued to interpret the world differently; the point remains, to change it’.[60] Nevertheless,
while he signalled his allegiance to Trotskyism at the end of this essay, it
was less than clear from the text what this allegiance actually entailed.
Fortunately, he put some meat on these bones in a number of essays published in
the journals of the Trotskyist left in the early 1960s.
麦金太尔提醒我们，这种意识形态并非存在于某种脱离工作和日常事务的纯粹状态中，而是从这个世界中生长出来的："我们的社会生活和我们的思想观念相互促进。在我们的社会生活中，人类活动没有创造性，也没有活力。我们生活在一个......预定生活的社会中"。[事实上，我们的社会生活是如此毫无生气，以至于即使知识分子超越了这种生活，他们的作品也会被最循规蹈矩的阐释所阉割：因此，维滕根斯坦和弗洛伊德的激进意义都被阐释所阉割，麦金太尔就是这么认为的。那么，如何摆脱这些预设的路径呢？与粗暴的先锋主义相反，麦金太尔坚持认为，要赢得自由，就不能告诉大众去做精英们想做的事，而只能帮助'他们朝着自己希望的方向前进'。目标不是幸福或满足，而是自由。自由既是手段，也是目的。手段与目的的机械分离只适合于人类的操纵，而不适合于人类的解放"。[在麦金太尔看来，解放政治是通过工人阶级反对资本主义的斗争自发产生的。[麦金太尔的这一洞察力使他得以从对康德主义的标准马克思主义批判转向与结果论的残余影响的有力决裂，在麦金太尔做出贡献之前的一个世纪里，结果论一直是马克思主义伦理学方法的负担。因此，由于自由既是社会主义活动的手段，也是社会主义活动的目的，因此，与康德主义者相反，这种活动需要在当代历史中牢牢立足，而与结果主义者相反，自由不是一个可以通过各种手段开启的被重新定义的目的。 因此，麦金太尔总结道，"哲学家们继续以不同的方式解释世界；问题的关键仍然是改变世界"。[60]然而，虽然他在这篇文章的结尾表示效忠托洛茨基主义，但文中并没有明确说明效忠的具体内容。幸运的是，他在 20 世纪 60 年代初托洛茨基左派期刊上发表的多篇文章中对这些问题进行了阐述。
Perhaps the most substantial of
these essays was ‘Freedom and Revolution’. This essay was in large part a
continuation and deepening of his previous humanist reinterpretation of
Marxism. It opened with a reiteration of his defence of Hegel’s conception of
freedom as the essence of man, and Marx’s deepening of this notion through his
insistence that ‘the achievement of freedom and the achievement of a classless
society are inseparably united’. As a Hegelian, MacIntyre refused to reify
freedom as the endpoint of history, but rather historicised it as a series of
moments moving towards this end. Thus, the free man ‘in every age is that man
who to the extent that it is possible makes his own life his own’.[61]
Within bourgeois society, MacIntyre located the freedom of the bohemian as an
inauthentic model of freedom; ‘a mere inversion of bourgeois values’, and
counterposes to this model the Marxist argument that as we exist as individuals
through our relations with other people then the achievement of ‘freedom is not
a problem of individual against society but the problem of what sort of society
we want and what sort of individual we want to be’. Given the validity of this
claim, it was only logical for MacIntyre to conclude that ‘to assert oneself at
the expense of the organisation in order to be free is to miss the fact that
only within some organisational form
can human freedom be embodied’. Further, as capitalism emasculates freedom,
then to be free means to involve oneself in some organisation that challenges
capitalist relations of production: ‘The topic of freedom is also the topic of
revolution’.[62] At this
point, MacIntyre introduced a crucial mediating clause into his argument: while
the working class, through its struggles against capital, might spontaneously
generate emancipatory movements, workers have proved incapable of spontaneously
realising the potential of these struggles. However, if freedom cannot be
handed to the working class from above, how then might it be realised from such
unpromising material? MacIntyre answered that socialists must join
revolutionary parties, whose goal is not freedom itself, but rather to act in
such a way so as to aid the proletariat to achieve freedom. ‘The path to
freedom must be by means of an organisation which is dedicated not to building
freedom but to moving the working class to build it. The necessity for this is
the necessity for a vanguard party’.[63]
Moreover, and as against those socialists such as Thompson and the rest of the
majority within the New Left, who rejected the goal of building a socialist
party, MacIntyre suggested that they suffered from ‘the illusion that one can
as an isolated individual escape from the moulding and the subtle enslavement
of the status quo’. Indeed, ‘the individual who tries most to live as an
individual, to have a mind entirely of his own, will in fact make himself more
and more likely to become in his thinking a passive reflection of the socially
dominant ideas; while the individual who recognizes his dependence on others
has taken a path which can lead to an authentic independence of mind’. Thus,
MacIntyre concluded, ‘the road to socialism and democratic centralism are …
inseparable’.[64] More
specifically, MacIntyre turned theory into practice when he joined the
Trotskyist movement in the late 1950s.
这些论文中最有分量的也许是《自由与革命》。这篇文章在很大程度上延续并深化了他之前对马克思主义的人文主义重新诠释。文章开篇重申了他对黑格尔关于自由是人的本质这一概念的辩护，以及马克思通过坚持 "自由的实现与无阶级社会的实现是不可分割地结合在一起的 "这一观点对这一概念的深化。作为黑格尔主义者，麦金太尔拒绝将自由作为历史的终点，而是将其历史化为一系列走向这一终点的时刻。因此，自由的人 "在每个时代都是在可能的范围内使自己的生活成为自己的生活的人"。[61]在资产阶级社会中，麦金太尔将波希米亚人的自由定位为一种不真实的自由模式；"仅仅是资产阶级价值观念的倒置"，并将马克思主义的论点与这一模式相提并论，即由于我们是通过与他人的关系而作为个体存在的，因此 "自由的实现并不是一个个人与社会对抗的问题，而是我们想要什么样的社会以及我们想要成为什么样的个人的问题"。鉴于这一主张的正确性，麦金太尔顺理成章地得出结论："为了获得自由而牺牲组织来维护自己的利益，就是忽略了这样一个事实，即只有在某种组织形式中，人类的自由才能得到体现"。此外，由于资本主义阉割了自由，那么自由就意味着让自己参与到某种组织中去，挑战资本主义的生产关系：'自由的主题也是革命的主题'。 [62]在这一点上，麦金太尔在他的论证中引入了一个关键的中介条款：虽然工人阶级通过与资本的斗争可能会自发地产生解放运动，但事实证明，工人无法自发地实现这些斗争的潜力。然而，如果自由不能从上而下地交给工人阶级，那么又如何从这种不被看好的材料中实现自由呢？麦金太尔的回答是，社会主义者必须加入革命政党，其目标不是自由本身，而是以这样一种方式帮助无产阶级实现自由。通往自由的道路必须借助一个组织，这个组织不是致力于建设自由，而是推动工人阶级建设自由。这就是先锋党的必要性"。[63]此外，对于汤普森等社会主义者以及新左派中的其他大多数人来说，他们拒绝接受建立社会主义政党的目标，麦金太尔则认为，他们患上了'幻想症，以为自己可以作为孤立的个体摆脱现状的塑造和微妙的奴役'。事实上，'一个人如果极力想作为一个独立的个体生活，想拥有完全属于自己的思想，那么他在思想上就会越来越有可能成为社会主导思想的被动反映；而一个人如果认识到自己对他人的依赖性，那么他就走上了一条能够实现真正思想独立的道路'。因此，麦金太尔得出结论，"通往社会主义的道路与民主集中制......是不可分割的"。[64] 更具体地说，麦金太尔在 20 世纪 50 年代末加入托洛茨基运动时将理论付诸实践。
Towards MacIntyre’s Rejection of Marxism
迈向麦金太尔对马克思主义的否定
But what did remaining true to
the spirit of Trotskyism imply in the early 1960s? Knight suggests that it
involved embracing dogma: by which he most probably means the dogmatic
assertion that the working class could become the agency of the socialist
revolution. However, MacIntyre, at least in the mid-1960s, did not understand
his allegiance to Marxism in such crude terms. Rather, as is readily apparent
from his review of Lucien Goldmann’s The
Hidden God, he did not believe that the working class would, at some point
in the future, certainly be transformed into a revolutionary agency, but rather
he wagered that it might. According to Goldmann’s model, Marxists could not
guarantee the victory of socialism, but must make a wager on the revolutionary
potential, and indeed triumph, of the proletariat in the struggle against
capital. [65]
MacIntyre accepted this argument, and indeed developed it when he wrote that
‘one cannot first understand the world and only then act on it. How one
understands the world will depend in part on the decision implicit in ones
already taken actions. The wager of action is unavoidable’.[66]
To label MacIntyre’s wager as dogmatic is thus to miss the point: he believed
that one way or another we all make the wager, and those who do not bet on the
workers are compelled to retreat back to the tragic vision: if we reject Marx
then we fall back to Kant. To fully comprehend MacIntyre’s break with Marxism
we must therefore ask not, what made him drop the dogma, but rather what made
him change his bet?
但在20世纪60年代初，忠实于托洛茨基主义精神意味着什么呢？奈特认为，这意味着接受教条：他很可能指的是教条式地断言工人阶级可以成为社会主义革命的机构。然而，麦金太尔，至少在 20 世纪 60 年代中期，并没有以如此粗暴的方式来理解他对马克思主义的忠诚。相反，从他对吕西安-戈德曼（Lucien Goldmann）的《隐蔽的上帝》（The Hidden God）一书的评论中不难看出，他并不相信工人阶级在未来的某个时刻一定会转变为革命机构，相反，他打赌工人阶级可能会转变为革命机构。根据戈德曼的模式，马克思主义者不能保证社会主义的胜利，而必须对无产阶级在反对资本的斗争中的革命潜力乃至胜利下注。[65] 麦金太尔接受了这一论点，并在他写道 "一个人不能首先理解世界，然后才采取行动。一个人如何理解世界，部分取决于他已经采取的行动中所隐含的决定。行动的赌注是不可避免的"。[66] 因此，给麦金太尔的赌注贴上教条主义的标签是没有抓住重点的：他认为，我们都在以这样或那样的方式进行赌注，而那些不在工人身上下注的人则不得不退回到悲剧性的视野：如果我们拒绝马克思，那么我们就会退回到康德。因此，要充分理解麦金太尔与马克思主义的决裂，我们必须问的不是：是什么让他放弃了教条，而是什么让他改变了赌注？
One fact that
did not entail MacIntyre’s break with the revolutionary left was his
realisation, noted at the close of After
Virtue, that Trotsky’s late political perspectives had been refuted by
history. In contrast to his later pessimistic reading of the failings of
Trotsky’s analysis of Stalinism, in a review of the third volume of Deutscher’s
biography of Trotsky, MacIntyre insisted that Trotskyism was a contested
tradition, whose ossification in the hands of Deutscher stood in stark contrast
to its living force in the work of those such as Alfred Rosmer and Trotsky’s
widow Natalya. The general thrust of this analysis was borrowed from International Socialism, the group with
which MacIntyre had become associated from 1960. In line with the perspectives
of this organisation, MacIntyre insisted that orthodox Trotskyism, through its
reification of one moment of Trotsky’s evolving attempt to achieve a scientific
analysis of the Soviet Union, was built upon an indefensible and incoherent
foundation; for Trotsky had linked his characterisation of the Soviet social
formation, and the future of classical Marxism, to a number of predictions
which had been refuted by history. To maintain an allegiance to classical
Marxism after this refutation of Trotsky’s predictions, thus implied a
necessary break with the letter, if not the spirit, of Trotskyism. Indeed, in
holding to the letter of their master’s thought, the orthodox Trotskyists, or
so MacIntyre claimed, necessarily broke with the revolutionary spirit of his
thought.[67]
麦金太尔没有与革命左派决裂的一个事实是，他在《追随美德》一书的结尾处意识到，托洛茨基晚期的政治观点已被历史驳倒。与他后来对托洛茨基分析斯大林主义失败的悲观解读不同，麦金太尔在评论《多伊切尔托洛茨基传》第三卷时坚持认为，托洛茨基主义是一个有争议的传统，其在多伊切尔手中的僵化与阿尔弗雷德-罗斯默和托洛茨基遗孀娜塔莉亚等人作品中的鲜活力量形成了鲜明对比。这一分析的主旨借鉴了麦金太尔从 1960 年开始加入的国际社会主义组织。与该组织的观点一致，麦金太尔坚持认为，正统托洛茨基主义将托洛茨基为实现对苏联的科学分析而不断发展的尝试中的某一时刻重新整合，是建立在一个站不住脚且不连贯的基础之上；因为托洛茨基将他对苏联社会形态的描述以及经典马克思主义的未来与一系列已被历史驳斥的预言联系在了一起。因此，在托洛茨基的预言遭到驳斥之后，仍然坚持对经典马克思主义的忠诚，就意味着必须与托洛茨基主义的文字（如果不是精神的话）决裂。事实上，正统的托洛茨基主义者在坚持其大师思想的文字时，也就是麦金太尔所说的，必然与大师思想的革命精神决裂。[67]
Despite this powerful defence of
the relevance of heterodox Trotskyism to the modern world, within a few years
MacIntyre had broken both with International
Socialism specifically and Marxism more generally.[68] The
first suggestion that MacIntyre had begun to rethink the role of the working
class as a potential agent of socialist revolution came in 1962. A year
earlier, in a review of Raymond Williams’ The
Long Revolution, he had criticised Williams for losing sight of the tension
in an individual’s life between ‘his unrealised potentialities and the barriers
which confront their realisation’.[69]
However, in ‘The Sleepwalking Society’ he bemoaned the lack of impact of the
latest of CND’s Aldermaston demonstrations, and explained this as a consequence
of the power of the mass media in inculcating, within the working class, ‘an
attitude of apathy and acceptance towards the political status quo’. Moreover,
he sought to explain proletarian susceptibility to this power with a claim that
the ‘working class has been effectively divided into the oppressed but helpless
and the strong but bribed’. Indeed, he insisted that in conditions of
‘continually expanding investment and continually expanding consumption’, the
struggles of the working class, or at least part of it, had been
‘institutionalised’.[70]
尽管麦金太尔为非正统托洛茨基主义与现代世界的相关性进行了有力的辩护，但在几年之内，他就与国际社会主义以及更广泛的马克思主义决裂了。[1962年，第一次有人提出麦金太尔开始重新思考工人阶级作为社会主义革命潜在推动者的作用。一年前，他在评论雷蒙德-威廉斯（Raymond Williams）的《漫长的革命》（The Long Revolution）时批评威廉斯忽视了个人生活中 "未实现的潜能与实现潜能所面临的障碍 "之间的紧张关系。[69] 然而，在《梦游社会》一书中，他对全国保卫人民大会（CND）最近在奥尔德马斯顿（Aldermaston）举行的示威活动缺乏影响力表示遗憾，并将此解释为大众传媒在工人阶级中灌输'对政治现状的冷漠和接受态度'的力量所致。此外，他还试图用 "工人阶级实际上已被分为被压迫但无助的群体和被收买的强势群体 "来解释无产阶级对这种力量的易感性。事实上，他坚持认为，在'不断扩大的投资和不断扩大的消费'条件下，工人阶级的斗争，或至少是部分工人阶级的斗争，已被'制度化'。[70]
While MacIntyre therefore seems
to have responded pessimistically to the decline of CND, in the short term he
continued to defend revolutionary politics. Thus, in ‘Rejoinder to Left
Reformism’, he took issue with Henry Collins’ defence of a left reformist
strategy for Labour. Like Bernstein and the revisionists of the 1890s, Collins,
according to MacIntyre, accepted a mechanical separation of the economic
structure of the world, from ideas about it. Consequently, Collins failed to
see that reformism was less a coherent response to the problems that beset the
working class, than it was a reflection of a particular moment in the history
of capitalism, which arose ‘within a capitalism which has learnt some degree of
rationalisation and control’.[71]
因此，麦金太尔似乎对 CND 的衰落做出了悲观的反应，但在短期内，他继续捍卫革命政治。因此，在《对左翼改良主义的反驳》一文中，他对亨利-柯林斯为工党左翼改良主义战略所做的辩护提出了异议。麦金太尔认为，与伯恩斯坦和 19 世纪 90 年代的修正主义者一样，柯林斯接受了将世界的经济结构与有关经济结构的思想机械地分离开来的做法。因此，柯林斯没有看到，改良主义与其说是对困扰工人阶级的问题的一致回应，不如说是对资本主义历史上某一特殊时刻的反映，它是 "在资本主义学会了某种程度的合理化和控制的情况下 "产生的。[71]
However, while
the ideology of revisionism reflected a specific moment in the evolution of
capitalism, it was less apparent that revolutionary politics would replace it as
the hegemonic ideology within the working class. Accordingly, MacIntyre
suggested in his essay ‘Prediction and Politics’, published in International Socialism in 1963, that
contemporary economic trends had created barriers to the diffusion of socialist
class consciousness across the working class. He opened this essay with a
critique of the use by socialists of the word inevitable: indeed, he insisted
that as socialism was premised on the rejection of the inevitability of the
continuation of capitalism, it was somewhat ironic that many socialists merely
inverted the dominant ideology referring to the inevitability of the victory of
socialism, rather than the inevitable continuation of capitalism. Moreover, while
he noted that a minority of Marxists had rejected the argument that socialism
was inevitable, most notably Lenin and Trotsky, none of these had produced a
‘coherent substitute’ to the mechanically deterministic interpretation of
historical materialism; rather they had merely rejected a form of ‘automism’
for ‘substitutionism’.[72]
MacIntyre opened his attempt to move beyond these two inadequate
interpretations of Marxism with the suggestion that post-war capitalism had
been transformed by the ‘conscious, intelligent innovation’ of the bourgeoisie
and its representatives: ‘If capitalists had behaved in the forties and fifties
as they did in the twenties the apparently mechanical laws of the economy would
have issued in slump. But there are no longer slumps for the same reason that
the pig-cycle is no longer with us: the changed self-consciousness of the
participants’.[73]
然而，虽然修正主义的意识形态反映了资本主义演变过程中的一个特定时刻，但革命政治是否会取代它成为工人阶级的霸权意识形态却不那么明显。因此，麦金太尔在 1963 年发表于《国际社会主义》的《预测与政治》一文中提出，当代经济趋势为社会主义阶级意识在工人阶级中的传播制造了障碍。他在文章开头批评了社会主义者对 "必然 "一词的使用：事实上，他坚持认为，社会主义的前提是反对资本主义不可避免地继续存在，而许多社会主义者只是颠倒了主流意识形态，提到了社会主义胜利的必然性，而不是资本主义不可避免地继续存在，这多少有些讽刺意味。此外，虽然他注意到少数马克思主义者拒绝了社会主义不可避免的论点，其中最著名的是列宁和托洛茨基，但他们都没有对历史唯物主义机械决定论的解释提出 "一致的替代"；相反，他们只是用 "替代主义 "拒绝了一种形式的 "自动主义"。[72] 麦金太尔在试图超越这两种对马克思主义的不恰当解释时，首先提出战后资本主义是由资产阶级及其代表的 "有意识的、明智的创新 "所改变的：如果资本家在四五十年代的行为方式与二十年代相同，经济的机械规律就会导致不景气。但现在不再有不景气了，原因与猪周期不再存在一样：参与者的自我意识发生了变化"。[73]
However, if this
argument implied that economic crises on the scale of the 1930s could be
managed out of existence, then, while MacIntyre’s break with mechanical Marxism
was plain, it was not obvious how his own politics could avoid the trap of
substitutionism: for if capitalism had overcome its tendency towards crises,
then what force would push workers to question their position in society? In
1959 he had avoided this trap through his insistence on the necessary
relationship between his theory of human nature, and his understanding of human
reactions to economic processes: ‘Marx’s explanation of capitalist crisis is
not a matter of underconsumption, but of falling return on profit which leads
the capitalist to lower his investment. And this explanation, like the
explanation of proletarian reactions to such crisis, rests on his view of what
has happened to human nature under capitalism’.[74]
Moreover, he reasserted and deepened this argument in 1961, when he suggested
that revolutionaries should develop a programme that sought ‘to bring together
three elements in our social life’: ‘the deep and incurable dissatisfaction
with social life which capitalism breeds’; ‘the recurrent state of objective
crisis in capitalist social order’; and ‘socialist theory’.[75]
However, by the time he wrote ‘Prediction and Politics’ he no longer accepted
that economic crises were inevitable. This is not to suggest that he understood
the ‘objective’ terrain upon which socialists operated to be much more static
than was traditional amongst Marxists. On the contrary, the dynamic economic
processes associated with capitalism tended to fragment rather than to unify the
working class: ‘there is a sad case for saying that being in an economically
strong position today against the employers in certain industries at least,
means that the issues on which you are likely to fight and even possibly win
are just the issues that are going to divide you from less skilled workers’.[76] Interestingly,
this argument was not a particularly heretical analysis within the International Socialism group. Nevertheless,
elsewhere in the group this ‘cause of concern, though not for pessimism’, was
combined with an analysis of a ‘definite cause for optimism’: the shop-floor
confidence of many ordinary workers. Moreover, as the Wilson Government was reacting
to the ‘stop-go’ crises by launching a generalised challenge to sectional
confidence through the medium of incomes policy, then it was suggested that the
contradiction between sectional strength and the general attack opened a series
of opportunities for the left to influence the emergence of a genuinely
socialist consciousness within the working class.[77]
In contrast to this perspective, as MacIntyre argued that Marx’s theory of
economic crisis was inapplicable to the modern world, his analysis of
contemporary trends within the working class ended on the pessimistic note of the
working class’s growing fragmentation. Consequently, his understanding of the
one hope for socialism was limited to the feeling, found within the working
class, that capitalism was constraining their potential for free development:
‘The germ of his liberation lies in the twin facts that capitalism cannot
prevent him from recognising that he is unfree and from combining with other
workers to free himself’.[78]
然而，如果这一论点意味着 20 世纪 30 年代那种规模的经济危机是可以消除的，那么，尽管麦金太尔与机械马克思主义的决裂是显而易见的，但他自己的政治学如何避免替代主义的陷阱却并不明显：因为如果资本主义已经克服了它的危机倾向，那么是什么力量促使工人质疑他们在社会中的地位呢？1959 年，他通过坚持他的人性理论与他对人类对经济过程的反应的理解之间的必然联系，避免了这一陷阱："马克思对资本主义危机的解释不是消费不足的问题，而是利润回报率下降导致资本家降低投资的问题。而这种解释，就像对无产阶级对这种危机的反应的解释一样，是建立在他对资本主义下人性发生了什么变化的看法之上的"。[74]此外，他在 1961 年重申并深化了这一论点，提出革命者应制定一项计划，力求 "将我们社会生活中的三个因素结合起来"："资本主义滋生的对社会生活的深刻而不可救药的不满"；"资本主义社会秩序中客观危机的反复出现"；以及 "社会主义理论"。[75] 然而，在他撰写《预测与政治》一书时，他已不再认为经济危机是不可避免的。这并不是说他认为社会主义者赖以生存的 "客观 "环境比马克思主义者的传统理解要静止得多。 相反，与资本主义相关的动态经济进程往往会分裂而不是团结工人阶级：有一种可悲的说法是，至少在某些行业中，今天处于经济强势地位并与雇主对立的工人，意味着你有可能进行斗争甚至有可能获胜的问题，恰恰是会使你与技术水平较低的工人产生分歧的问题"。[76]有趣的是，这一论点在国际社会主义组织内部并不是一种特别异端的分析。不过，在该团体的其他地方，这种 "担忧（尽管不是悲观）的原因 "与对 "乐观的明确原因 "的分析相结合：许多普通工人在车间的信心。此外，威尔逊政府为了应对 "停产 "危机，通过收入政策对部门信心发起了全面挑战，因此有观点认为，部门力量与全面攻击之间的矛盾为左翼提供了一系列机会，以影响工人阶级内部真正社会主义意识的形成。[与这一观点相反，麦金太尔认为马克思的经济危机理论不适用于现代世界，他对工人阶级内部当代趋势的分析以工人阶级日益分裂的悲观论调收尾。因此，他对社会主义唯一希望的理解仅限于工人阶级内部的感觉，即资本主义限制了他们自由发展的潜力："他的解放的萌芽在于资本主义无法阻止他认识到自己是不自由的以及无法阻止他与其他工人联合起来解放自己这两个事实。[78]
Problematically, if economic
crises were not going to play the role of fanning the flames of rebellion
against this feeling of enslavement, and indeed acted to retard them, then MacIntyre
was at a loss to explain what forces, beyond the general tendency of capitalism
to expand the size of the working class, would act upon human nature to
generate the collective revolts upon which socialists could base their practice.
Bereft of an objective tendency towards revolutionary consciousness, MacIntyre
increasingly came to view the subjective role of socialist activists as the
crucial catalyst to the development of socialist consciousness within the
working class. Thus ‘Prediction and Politics’ concluded with the argument that
as the condition for the fall of capitalism was the growth in socialist class
consciousness within the proletariat, and, as this growth was neither
inevitable nor impossible, it ‘depends upon us’ to make that change in
consciousness: ‘because with our working class allies we may yet learn both
what now makes us behave as we do, and what may transform our action until we
become capable of making the transition to socialism’.[79]
有问题的是，如果经济危机不能起到煽起反抗这种被奴役感的火焰的作用，甚至会起到延缓这种反抗的作用，那么麦金太尔就无法解释，除了资本主义扩大工人阶级规模的普遍趋势之外，还有什么力量会作用于人性，从而产生社会主义者可以作为其实践基础的集体反抗。由于缺乏革命意识的客观趋势，麦金太尔越来越将社会主义活动家的主观作用视为工人阶级发展社会主义意识的关键催化剂。因此，《预测与政治》在结尾处提出，资本主义衰落的条件是无产阶级内部社会主义阶级意识的增长，而这种增长既不是不可避免的，也不是不可能的，因此 "取决于我们 "在意识上做出改变："因为与我们的工人阶级盟友在一起，我们既可以了解是什么使我们现在的行为如此，也可以了解是什么改变了我们的行动，直到我们有能力过渡到社会主义"。[79]
MacIntyre
followed this general argument with a more concrete application of his
understanding of historical materialism in his next essay for International Socialism: ‘Labour Policy
and Capitalist Planning’. In this essay he argued that while socialists should
reject, as unfeasible, the goal of winning over the Labour Party to socialism,
they should aim to ‘recreate a political trade unionism out of the existing
links between the Labour Party and the unions’. Indeed, MacIntyre was keen to
point to the positive potential inherent in the emergence of a new form of
capitalism: for where most sociologists interpreted the growth of a new layer
of brain workers as a sign of the embourgeoisification of the working class,
MacIntyre noticed that the conditions of work of these supposedly middle-class
professionals were becoming increasingly proletarianised, such that, not only
could they be won over to socialism, but also that they could add to the
intellectual capital of the workers’ movement. Moreover, he envisaged a
socialist perspective for this new enlarged proletariat. However, to realise
this potential would involve a political strategy that, initially, involved
placing a series of demands on the incoming Labour Government: first, to ‘side
with the workers and against the employers’; then to insist that education be
designed to equip ‘workers to control their own lives and to take power’; and thirdly,
to abolish ‘the bomb’. Subsequently, as these demands were being made, a new
form of political trade unionism might organise strikes, not as reactions to
managerial pressures, but as planned attempts to break capitalism at its points
of greatest vulnerability. However, the prerequisite for the success of this
project, was that ‘almost every worker is able to understand and assent to this
strategy’.[80]
麦金太尔在为国际社会主义撰写的下一篇文章《劳工政策与资本主义计划》中，更加具体地运用了他对历史唯物主义的理解，提出了上述一般性论点。在这篇文章中，他认为社会主义者应该拒绝争取工党加入社会主义这一不可行的目标，但他们应该致力于 "从工党与工会之间现有的联系中重建政治工会主义"。事实上，麦金太尔敏锐地指出了新形式资本主义的出现所蕴含的积极潜力：大多数社会学家将新的脑力劳动者群体的增长解释为工人阶级资产阶级化的标志，而麦金太尔则注意到，这些本应属于中产阶级的专业人士的工作条件正日益无产阶级化，因此，不仅可以争取他们加入社会主义，还可以增加工人运动的知识资本。此外，他还为这个扩大了的新无产阶级设想了社会主义前景。然而，要实现这一潜能，就必须采取一种政治策略，起初是向即将上台的工党政府提出一系列要求：首先，"站在工人一边，反对雇主"；其次，坚持教育的目的是让 "工人掌握自己的生活，掌握权力"；第三，废除 "炸弹"。随后，在提出这些要求的同时，一种新形式的政治工会主义可能会组织罢工，这不是对管理压力的反应，而是有计划地试图在资本主义最脆弱的地方打破它。 然而，该项目的成功前提是 "几乎所有工人都能理解并同意这一战略"。[80]
Unfortunately, there were two
obvious sets of problems with these strategic suggestions. First, and least
seriously, there was a problem of coherence involved in denying that the Labour
Party could be won to socialism, whilst simultaneously demanding that it
essentially act as a socialist, or at least as an anti-capitalist, government,
in respect to three key areas of policy. This problem was not too serious
because, in practice, the demands could easily be interpreted as a series of
‘lines in the sand’ over which the left was preparing to struggle against the
incoming government: and indeed, this is exactly how MacIntyre imagined them.[81]
However, there was a second, and far more serious problem with MacIntyre’s formulation
of a strategy for socialists: by suggesting that the only hope for the
realisation of this strategy was that ‘almost every worker is able to
understand and assent’ to it, MacIntyre essentially confused the ends of a
revolutionary process with its means; for once the working class acted as a
united anti-capitalist force, then the success of the socialist revolution
would be guaranteed, indeed it would have been achieved. How then did MacIntyre
envisage the movement from the existing class consciousness of the mass of
workers to a future socialist consciousness?
遗憾的是，这些战略建议存在两组明显的问题。首先，也是最不严重的一个问题是，一方面否认工党可以被争取到社会主义，另一方面又要求工党在三个关键政策领域从根本上充当社会主义政府，或至少是反资本主义政府，这就涉及到一个连贯性问题。这个问题并不严重，因为在实践中，这些要求很容易被理解为一系列 "沙线"，左翼准备在这些沙线上与即将上台的政府进行斗争：事实上，这正是麦金太尔对这些要求的想象。[81]然而，麦金太尔为社会主义者制定的战略还有第二个更为严重的问题：麦金太尔认为，实现这一战略的唯一希望是 "几乎每个工人都能理解并同意 "这一战略，这实质上混淆了革命进程的目的和手段；因为一旦工人阶级作为一支团结一致的反资本主义力量行动起来，那么社会主义革命的成功就有了保障，事实上它已经实现了。那么，麦金太尔是如何设想从工人群众现有的阶级意识到未来的社会主义意识的运动的呢？
MacIntyre had
addressed this issue in ‘Breaking the Chains of Reason’, but only tangentially
and at a very general level: ‘Our deep need is … to provide all the growing
points of human activity against the present social order with coherent
theoretical expression, so that they may be rationally guided and effective’.[82]
He added some weight to this framework in an unpublished paper presented to an International Socialism day-school in
1963. In this essay, implicitly drawing upon Trotsky’s Transitional Programme, he argued that revolutionary leadership
involved formulating a series of political demands which could be made upon the
incoming Labour government, and which, while being formally reformist, could,
in practice, only be realised through a revolutionary transformation of
society. His suggestion was that in fighting for the realisation of these
demands workers would develop the socialist consciousness necessary to make
that revolution[83]. However,
as the effectiveness of Trotsky’s model of transitional demands depended on the
circumstances within which they were made, unfavourable circumstances would
negate their revolutionary content. As Duncan Hallas has argued, ‘If at a given
time ‘today’s consciousness of wide layers’ is decidedly non-revolutionary,
then it will not be transformed by slogans’.[84]
Unfortunately, the context within which MacIntyre wrote was characterised by
decidedly non-revolutionary working-class consciousness; and no amount of
transitional demands were going to change this. If MacIntyre’s transitional
demands were not adequate to the task of relating to workers in a period of
economic boom and relative depoliticisation, it is easy to imagine how he might
move from an ultra-optimistic to an ultra-pessimistic interpretation of the
potential of workers’ struggle to generate socialist consciousness, especially
given his belief that at the economic level the class struggle tended to divide
workers more than it united them.
麦金太尔曾在《打破理性的枷锁》一书中论述过这个问题，但只是在非常笼统的层面上进行了切入："我们的深切需要是......为人类反对当前社会秩序的所有日益增长的活动点提供连贯的理论表达，使它们能够得到理性的指导并发挥有效的作用"。[82] 1963 年，他在国际社会主义日校发表了一篇未公开的论文，为这一框架增添了一些分量。在这篇文章中，他隐晦地借鉴了托洛茨基的《过渡纲领》，认为革命领导权涉及制定一系列政治要求，这些要求可以向即将上台的工党政府提出，虽然形式上是改良主义的，但实际上只有通过社会的革命性变革才能实现。他的建议是，在为实现这些要求而斗争的过程中，工人们将培养出进行革命所需的社会主义意识[83]。然而，托洛茨基过渡性要求模式的有效性取决于提出这些要求的环境，不利的环境会否定这些要求的革命性内容。正如邓肯-哈拉斯（Duncan Hallas）所言，"如果在某一特定时期，'今天广大阶层的意识'明显是非革命性的，那么它就不会被口号所改变"。[84] 不幸的是，麦金太尔写作的时代背景就是工人阶级意识明显不革命的时代；无论提出多少过渡性要求，都无法改变这一现状。 如果麦金太尔的过渡性要求不足以完成在经济繁荣和相对非政治化的时期与工人建立联系的任务，那么我们不难想象，他是如何对工人斗争产生社会主义意识的潜力从极端乐观的解释转向极端悲观的解释的，尤其是考虑到他认为在经济层面上，阶级斗争倾向于分裂工人而非团结工人。
Hence, without any model of
objective tendencies that might facilitate the political unification of the
working class, then the workers’ cry for freedom was destined to be atomised
and hopeless. This is the conclusion implied in his works of the later 1960s,
which, while written when he was still nominally an editor of International Socialism, universally
suggested no hope for revolution. So, in his introduction to Marx’s ideas for
an academic audience, while he powerfully argued that ‘the most crucial later
activity of Marx’, was not to write Capital,
but was rather through his actions in ‘helping to found and guiding the
International Working Men’s Association’, he concluded that Marx ‘still leaves
the question of working-class political growth obscure’.[85]
Whether this observation was correct of Marx, it certainly appeared to be true
of MacIntyre’s interpretation of Marxism, for his contemporary strategic
insights seemed increasingly abstract and divorced from the practice of a mass
movement that could bring them to life.
因此，如果没有任何客观趋势的模式可以促进工人阶级的政治统一，那么工人们对自由的呼喊注定是原子化的和无望的。这就是他在 20 世纪 60 年代后期的著作中所暗示的结论，虽然他在写作这些著作时名义上还是《国际社会主义》的编辑，但却普遍认为革命没有希望。因此，他在为学术界读者介绍马克思的思想时，虽然有力地论证了 "马克思晚年最关键的活动 "不是撰写《资本论》，而是通过他 "帮助创建和指导国际工人协会 "的行动，但他得出结论说，马克思 "仍然对工人阶级的政治成长问题感到模糊不清"。[不管马克思的这一观点是否正确，但麦金太尔对马克思主义的阐释似乎确实如此，因为他的当代战略见解似乎越来越抽象，而且脱离了能够将其付诸实践的群众运动的实践。
The feeling that
MacIntyre’s social theory was divorced from any sense that immanent forces
within contemporary capitalism might develop into a transformative agency was
reinforced in a series of lectures originally given in 1964, but published some
three years later as Secularisation and
Moral Change. In this book he deployed his sophisticated Marxist method to
outline a comparative history of religious and secular beliefs in modern
Britain and America. On the basis of this history he argued that Engels had
been mistaken in his overly optimistic perspective for the future
secularisation of British society, as a corollary of his overly optimistic
perspectives for socialism. However, MacIntyre went beyond a critique of Engels
to suggest that ‘the inability of men to discard Christianity is part of their
inability to provide any post-Christian means of understanding their situation
in the world’. And while he suggested that this failure was by no means
‘ultimate’, he noted no inherent tendencies with which socialists might engage
that could, belatedly, help them to prove Engels correct.[86]
麦金太尔的社会理论脱离了当代资本主义内在力量可能发展成为变革机构的意识，这种感觉在一系列最初于 1964 年发表、但约三年后以《世俗化与道德变革》为名出版的演讲中得到了强化。在这本书中，他运用精深的马克思主义方法，概述了现代英国和美国的宗教和世俗信仰比较史。在这一历史的基础上，他认为恩格斯对英国社会未来的世俗化过于乐观的看法是错误的，这是他对社会主义过于乐观看法的必然结果。然而，麦金太尔超越了对恩格斯的批判，他认为 "人们无法摒弃基督教，是因为他们无法提供任何后基督教的方法来理解他们在世界上的处境"。虽然他认为这种失败绝不是'终极'的，但他也指出，社会主义者可能会有一些固有的倾向，而这些倾向迟早会帮助他们证明恩格斯是正确的。[86]
If MacIntyre’s
rejection of the applicability of Marx’s economic theory to post-war capitalism
opened the door to his increasing sense of political pessimism, this tendency
was reinforced in the mid-1960s when he moved to reject Marx’s (and indeed any
other) model of human nature as a basis upon which a coherent theory of the
struggle for socialism could be based. For instance, in his classic A Short History of Ethics, despite some
tangential remarks as to the relationship between morality and desire, his own
moral standpoint seemed disjoined from either any historical or materialist
premises to which he had earlier been so committed.[87]
Thus, he rejected the idea of human nature as a benchmark from which to
adjudicate moral claims, and consequently reduced individual morality to an
existential choice.[88] While
he chose Marxism in 1966, at least in as far has he did not publicly break with
the editorial board of International
Socialism, he refused any criteria such that this choice could be defended
against any alternative. Moreover, without a theory of human nature with which
to underpin it, his theory of revolution, at least as he had outlined it in
‘Freedom and Revolution’, was left baseless. MacIntyre’s socialist morality, in
this context, could boast no more compelling foundation than any competing
moral claim. In fact, by the late 1960s, it appeared that he had ceased to view
Marxism as either a science or as a guide to action, but rather as just one of
many competing worldviews. As a result, when he republished a new edition of Marxism: An Interpretation in 1968,
under the new title of Marxism and
Christianity, he removed any suggestion that the original text might have been
written to inform a committed Christian-socialist practice. Therefore, where, in the second edition, Marx’s
relationship to Christianity through Feuerbach and Hegel was still there, gone
was the call to action; as indeed was most of the Christianity.[89] Indeed,
while the second edition, as a work of theory, was formally closer to Marxism
than was the first, the reviewer for International
Socialism bemoaned the re-write, and proclaimed that the activist core of
the first edition had made that much the better of the two books.[90]
如果说麦金太尔拒绝马克思的经济理论适用于战后资本主义为他日益增长的政治悲观主义意识打开了大门，那么在 20 世纪 60 年代中期，当他转而拒绝接受马克思（以及任何其他）的人性模式作为为社会主义而斗争的连贯理论的基础时，这种倾向得到了加强。例如，在他的经典著作《伦理学简史》（A Short History of Ethics）中，尽管他对道德与欲望之间的关系作了一些切题的论述，但他自己的道德观点似乎与他早先所坚持的历史主义或唯物主义前提都不相干。[87] 因此，他拒绝接受以人性为基准来评判道德主张的观点，并因此将个人道德归结为一种存在主义的选择。[88]虽然他在 1966 年选择了马克思主义，至少他没有公开与《国际社会主义》编辑部决裂，但他拒绝接受任何标准，使这一选择无法与任何其他选择相抗衡。此外，如果没有人性理论作为支撑，他的革命理论，至少是他在《自由与革命》中所阐述的革命理论，就会变得毫无根据。在这种情况下，麦金太尔的社会主义道德并不比任何其他道德主张更有说服力。事实上，到 20 世纪 60 年代末，他似乎已不再把马克思主义视为一门科学或行动指南，而只是将其视为众多相互竞争的世界观之一。因此，当他在 1968 年重新出版新版《马克思主义：1968年，当他以《马克思主义与基督教》为新书名重新出版新版《马克思主义：一种解释》时，他删除了任何关于原文可能是为了指导坚定的基督教社会主义实践而写的暗示。 因此，在第二版中，马克思通过费尔巴哈和黑格尔与基督教的关系依然存在，但对行动的呼吁却消失了；事实上，基督教的大部分内容也消失了。[89] 事实上，虽然作为理论著作，第二版在形式上比第一版更接近马克思主义，但《国际社会主义》的评论员却对重写表示遗憾，并宣称第一版的行动核心使其成为两本书中更好的一本书。[90]
Whatever the theoretical roots of
MacIntyre’s break with International
Socialism in 1968, at the time he remained silent as to his personal
motives. However, something of his mind-set can be gleaned from his book Marcuse, published 1970. In this essay
MacIntyre emphasised his own continuing allegiance to the concepts of human
liberation and freedom. However, he also held to something of a performative
contraction in as far he simultaneously rejected the argument that an ideal
pure Marxism can be deployed as an alternative to the reality of Marxism’s
history, while accepting an implicitly idealised vision of the struggle for
liberation. Thus, he denounced the contemporary student struggles as ‘the first
parent-financed revolts’ that were ‘more like a new version of the children’s
crusade than a revolutionary movement’.[91]
This elitist critique of the movement of 1968 allowed MacIntyre to maintain a
formal allegiance to the emancipatory politics of the left, whilst dismissing
real struggles as they happened around him: so, against the disruptive
influence of ‘Marcuse’s students’, MacIntyre extolled, in 1970, the virtues and
‘authority’ of the university as a seat of learning.[92]
无论麦金太尔在 1968 年与国际社会主义决裂的理论根源是什么，当时他对自己的个人动机保持沉默。不过，我们可以从他 1970 年出版的《马尔库塞》一书中了解到他的一些心态。在这篇文章中，麦金太尔强调了自己对人类解放和自由理念的忠诚。然而，他也坚持某种表演性的收缩，因为他同时拒绝接受理想的纯粹马克思主义可以用来替代马克思主义历史现实的论点，同时接受一种隐含的理想化的解放斗争愿景。因此，他谴责当代学生斗争是 "第一次由家长资助的起义"，"与其说是一场革命运动，不如说是一场新版的儿童十字军东征"。[91]这种对 1968 年运动的精英主义批判使麦金太尔得以在形式上效忠左派的解放政治，同时对发生在他身边的真实斗争不屑一顾：因此，面对 "马尔库塞的学生 "的破坏性影响，麦金太尔在 1970 年大肆宣扬大学作为学习场所的美德和 "权威"。[92]
Conclusion 结论
The power of
MacIntyre’s Marxism in the period of the first New Left was rooted in his argument
that any moral claim, if it was to be universalised in the modern world, must
be rooted both in a historically conceived theory of human nature, as
actualised within the real historical struggles for freedom of the oppressed.
To this end, he played a key role in retrieving the revolutionary kernel of
Marx’s theory of history from the deadening grip of Stalinism, and thus in
releasing historical materialism from the cage of Stalinist determinism. However,
despite this contribution to Marxist theory, MacIntyre progressively distanced
himself from the Marxist left through the 1960s. While, this tendency was
brought to a head in 1968, when he played a minor role as ‘policeman’ to the
students of Essex, it had much deeper roots than this. On the one hand, the
context was unpropitious for the left, and MacIntyre’s trajectory can be read
as a response to the decline of the New Left and CND. However, this context
demanded interpretation, and MacIntyre’s pessimistic reading of it was informed
by, first, his rejection of the idea of an essential human nature, and second, by
his dismissal of Marx’s theory of economic crisis. Together, these two
revisions of Marxism meant that he read the contemporary fragmentation of the
class struggle as a much more profound barrier to the struggle for socialism
than was implied by the ‘cause for concern’ noted by other members of International Socialism. Indeed, as the
1960s wore on, the tension between the optimism of MacIntyre’s will and the
pessimism of his intellect became so great that it eventually had to give.
Since then, while MacIntyre has remained a firm critic of international
capitalism, a deep sense of pessimism has coloured his moral theory.
麦金太尔的马克思主义在第一批新左派时期的力量源于他的论点，即任何道德主张，如果要在现代世界得到普遍化，就必须既植根于历史上构想的人性理论，又在被压迫者争取自由的真实历史斗争中得到实现。为此，他在将马克思历史理论的革命内核从斯大林主义的束缚中解救出来，从而将历史唯物主义从斯大林决定论的牢笼中释放出来方面发挥了关键作用。然而，尽管麦金太尔对马克思主义理论做出了这一贡献，但在 20 世纪 60 年代，他逐渐疏远了马克思主义左派。1968年，麦金太尔在埃塞克斯的学生中扮演了一个 "警察 "的小角色，这使他与马克思主义左派渐行渐远。一方面，当时的环境对左翼不利，麦金太尔的发展轨迹可以解读为对新左派和全国保卫理事会衰落的回应。然而，这种背景需要解读，麦金太尔对其进行悲观解读的原因，首先是他拒绝接受人性本质的观点，其次是他对马克思经济危机理论的否定。这两点对马克思主义的修正加在一起，意味着他将当代阶级斗争的支离破碎视为社会主义斗争的深层障碍，而不是国际社会主义其他成员所指出的 "担忧的原因 "所暗示的那样。事实上，随着 20 世纪 60 年代的到来，麦金太尔意志的乐观主义与理智的悲观主义之间的张力变得如此之大，以至于最终不得不做出让步。 从那时起，麦金太尔虽然一直坚定地批判国际资本主义，但一种深刻的悲观主义情绪却给他的道德理论蒙上了一层阴影。
Nonetheless, in
his most recent works, MacIntyre has moved some way towards rejecting the two
fundamental assumptions that informed his earlier pessimism. For instance, in
his introduction to the 1995 edition of Marxism
and Christianity, he suggests that he had previously been too harsh on Marx’s
value theory – which itself underpins his theory of crisis. Moreover, in Dependent Rational Animals he argues
that he had been mistaken, in After
Virtue and A Short History of Ethics,
to suppose that ‘an ethics independent of biology to be possible.’[93]
In thus reappraising his relationship to Marx’s economic theory and more
general theories of human nature, MacIntyre has significantly reduced the
theoretical space between himself and Marxism. Indeed, in a new preface to his 1958
study of Freud, MacIntyre reasserts the necessity of a linkage between
psychoanalysis and politics in a way that would have made perfect sense to his
earlier Marxist self.[94] And
while a large gap remains between Marxism and his contemporary moral and
political thought, MacIntyre’s changed perspective at least opens up the
possibility of a renewed dialogue between his ideas and Marxism.
尽管如此，麦金太尔在其最新著作中，还是在一定程度上摒弃了他早期悲观主义的两个基本假设。例如，他在 1995 年版《马克思主义与基督教》的导言中指出，他以前对马克思的价值理论过于苛刻，而这一理论本身就是他的危机理论的基础。此外，在《依存的理性动物》一书中，他认为自己在《德性之后》和《伦理学简史》中认为 "独立于生物学的伦理学是可能的 "是错误的。[这样，麦金太尔重新评估了他与马克思的经济理论以及更一般的人性理论之间的关系，从而大大缩小了他与马克思主义之间的理论空间。事实上，麦金太尔在其 1958 年弗洛伊德研究的新序言中重申了精神分析与政治之间联系的必要性，而这对早年的马克思主义者来说是完全合情合理的。[尽管马克思主义与麦金太尔当代的道德和政治思想之间仍存在巨大差距，但麦金太尔视角的改变至少为他的思想与马克思主义之间重新对话提供了可能。
[1] Thanks to Neil
Davidson for his comments on a draft of this essay.
[1] 感谢 Neil Davidson 对本文草稿提出的意见。
[2] A. MacIntyre ‘Politics, Philosophy and the Common
Good’ in K. Knight ed. The MacIntyre
Reader (Cambridge, 1998), p.235
[2] A. MacIntyre 'Politics, Philosophy and the Common Good' in K. Knight ed. The MacIntyre Reader (Cambridge, 1998, p.235).The MacIntyre Reader》（剑桥，1998 年），第 235 页。
[3] Indeed, the two
collections that have been published on his ideas do not address his early
Marxism except tangentially (J, Horton & S. Mendus eds. After MacIntyre
(Cambridge 1994), M. Murphy ed. Alasdair
MacIntyre (Cambridge, 2003)). This failing is magnified in Knight’s
selection of MacIntyre’s work: The
MacIntyre Reader. For, while Knight is to be congratulated for his
inclusion of MacIntyre’s 1958-9 essay ‘Notes From the Moral Wilderness’ in this
selection, he misrepresents the power
of that essay through his decision to locate it simply as a misguided precursor
to his later arguments, rather than as a key constituent of a very different
project. In contrast to the bulk of MacIntyre scholarship, McMylor’s introduction
to MacIntyre’s moral theory does engage with his early Marxism, but only though
a very limited reading of his output in the late 1950s and early 1960s (P.
McMylor Alasdair MacIntyre: Critic of
Modernity (London, 1994))
[3] 事实上，已出版的两本关于其思想的文集都没有涉及他早期的马克思主义，只是略有涉及（J. Horton & S. Mendus eds.After MacIntyre (Cambridge 1994)，M. Murphy ed.阿拉斯戴尔-麦金太尔》（剑桥，2003 年））。在奈特的麦金太尔作品选中，这一缺陷被放大了：The MacIntyre Reader.因为，尽管奈特将麦金太尔 1958-9 年的论文《道德荒野笔记》纳入该选本值得祝贺，但他却将这篇文章仅仅定位为其后来论点的误导性先驱，而非一个截然不同的项目的关键组成部分，从而歪曲了这篇文章的力量。与麦金太尔的大部分学术研究不同，麦克米勒对麦金太尔道德理论的介绍确实涉及到了他早期的马克思主义，但只是通过对他在 20 世纪 50 年代末和 60 年代初的成果进行非常有限的解读（P. McMylor Alasdair MacIntyre: Critic of Modernity (London, 1994)）。
[4] A. MacIntyre After Virtue Second Edition (London
1985), pp. 262-3
[4] A. MacIntyre《美德之后》第二版（伦敦，1985 年），第 262-3 页
[5] A. MacIntyre ‘The Theses on Feuerbach: A Road
Not Taken’ in K. Knight ed. The MacIntyre
Reader (Cambridge, 1998), p.232
[5] A. MacIntyre "Theses on Feuerbach：A Road Not Taken" in K. Knight ed. The MacIntyre Reader (Cambridge, 1998, p. 232).麦金太尔读本》（剑桥，1998 年），第 232 页。
[6] K. Marx Critique of the Gotha Programme (Peking,
1972), p. 12
[K. 马克思《哥达纲领批判》（北京，1972 年），第 12 页。
[7] A. Wood Karl
Marx (London, 1981), pp. 130-132.
[7] A. Wood Karl Marx（伦敦，1981 年），第 130-132 页。
[8] R. Peffer Marxism,
Morality and Social Justice (Princeton University Press, 1990), p.46
[R. Peffer 《马克思主义、道德与社会正义》（普林斯顿大学出版社，1990 年），第 46 页。
[9] K. Marx Notes on Indian History (London, 1950),
pp. 110; 124; 127; 163
[9] K. Marx Notes on Indian History（伦敦，1950 年），第 110、124、127、163 页。
[10] S. Lukes Marxism
and Morality (Oxford, 1985), p. 29
[10] S. 卢克斯《马克思主义与道德》（牛津，1985 年），第 29 页。
[11] N. Geras ‘The Controversy about Marx and Justice’ in
A. Callinicos ed. Marxist Theory
(Oxford, 1989), p. 232. Geras is commenting upon Marx’s claim that ‘the realm
of freedom really begins only where labour determined by necessity and external
expediency ends … The reduction of the working day is the basic prerequisite’
(K. Marx Capital Vol. III
Harmondsworth, 1981), p. 959.
[11] N. Geras 'The Controversy about Marx and Justice' in A. Callinicos ed., Marxist Theory (Oxford, 1989, p. 232)。马克思主义理论》（牛津，1989 年），第 232 页。Geras 评论了马克思的主张，即 "只有在由必要性和外部权宜之计决定的劳动结束的地方，自由的领域才真正开始......工作日的缩短是基本前提"（K. Marx Capital Vol. III Harmondsworth, 1981），第 959 页。
[12] Geras ‘The
Controversy about Marx and Justice’, p.
245
[12] 格拉斯《关于马克思与正义的争论》，第 245 页
[13] ibid., p. 264
[13] 同上，第 264 页
[14] McMylor Alasdair MacIntyre, p. 12
[14] McMylor Alasdair MacIntyre, 第 12 页
[15] A. MacIntyre Marxism:
An Interpretation (London, 1953), p. 18
[15] A. MacIntyre Marxism：解释》（伦敦，1953 年），第 18 页
[16] ibid., pp. 45; 10
[16] 同上，第 45 页；第 10 页
[17] ibid., pp. 109;
69
[17] 同上，第 109 页；第 69 页
[18] P. Blackledge
‘Reform, Revolution and the Problem of Organisation in the First New Left’ Contemporary Politics Vol. 10, No. 1
2004, pp. 21-36, p.23
[18] P. Blackledge《第一代新左派的改革、革命和组织问题》，《当代政治》2004 年第 10 卷第 1 期，第 21-36 页，第 23 页。
[19] P. Sedgwick ‘The Two New Lefts’ D. Widgery, D. ed. The Left in Britain (Harmondsworth,
1976). This essay was originally published in International Socialism 17, 1964.
[19] P. Sedgwick 'The Two New Lefts' D. Widgery, D. ed. The Left in Britain (Harmondsworth, 1976)。本文最初发表于 1964 年《国际社会主义》第 17 期。
[20] E.P. Thompson ‘Socialist Humanism’ The New Reasoner 1 Summer 1957, pp. 105;
138
[20] E.P. Thompson《社会主义人文主义》，《新推理者》1957 年夏季第 1 期，第 105 和 138 页。
[21] ibid., p. 125
[21] 同上，第 125 页
[22] ibid., p. 121
[22] 同上，第 121 页
[23] ibid., p. 124
[23] 同上，第 124 页
[24] H. Hanson ‘An Open Letter to Edward Thompson’ The New Reasoner 2 Autumn 1957, p. 88
[24] H. Hanson《致 Edward Thompson 的公开信》，The New Reasoner 2 Autumn 1957，第 88 页。
[25] ibid., p. 79
[25] 同上，第 79 页
[26] A. MacIntyre
(1998a) ‘Notes from the Moral Wilderness’ in Knight ed The MacIntyre Reader, pp. 31-2.
Originally published in two parts in New Reasoner, No.7 (Winter 1958-9),
pp. 90-100 and New Reasoner, No.8 (Spring 1959), pp. 89-98.
[26] A. MacIntyre (1998a) 'Notes from the Moral Wilderness' in Knight ed The MacIntyre Reader, pp.原分两部分发表于《新理性》第 7 期（1958-9 年冬），第 90-100 页和《新理性》第 8 期（1959 年春），第 89-98 页。
[27] Ibid., p. 38
[27] 同上，第 38 页
[28] ibid., p. 32
[28] 同上，第 32 页
[29] ibid., pp. 34-5
[29] 同上，第 34-5 页
[30] ibid., p. 37
[30] 同上，第 37 页
[31] ibid., p. 39
[31] 同上，第 39 页
[32] ibid. p. 40
[32] 同上，第 40 页
[33] ibid., p. 41
[33] 同上，第 41 页
[34] ibid., pp. 43; 41
[34] 同上，第 43 页；第 41 页
[35] A. MacIntyre The Unconscious Second Edition (London,
2004), p. 62. The first edition of this book was published in 1958 – the new
edition contains a substantial new preface.
[35] A. MacIntyre《无意识》第二版（伦敦，2004 年），第 62 页。本书第一版出版于 1958 年，新版包含一篇内容丰富的新序言。
[36] MacIntyre ‘Notes from the Moral
Wilderness’, p. 46
[36] 麦金太尔《道德荒野笔记》，第 46 页。
[37] ibid., p. 43
[37] 同上，第 43 页
[38] ibid., p. 44
[38] 同上，第 44 页
[39] ibid., p. 43
[39] 同上，第 43 页
[40] ibid., p. 46
[40] 同上，第 46 页
[41] ibid., p. 45
[41] 同上，第 45 页
[42] ibid., p. 48
[42] 同上，第 48 页
[43] ibid., p.42; 49
[43] 同上，第 42 页；49
[44] ibid., p. 47
[44] 同上，第 47 页
[45] E.P. Thompson ‘At the Point of Decay’ in E.P.
Thompson ed. Out of Apathy (London,
1960), pp. 5-8
[45] E.P. Thompson 'At the Point of Decay' in E.P. Thompson ed. Out of Apathy (London, 1960, pp.走出冷漠》（伦敦，1960 年），第 5-8 页
[46] ibid., p.10 [46] 同上，第 10 页
[47] ibid., p. 14
[47] 同上，第 14 页
[48] A. MacIntyre
‘Breaking the Chains of Reason,’ inE. P. Thompson ed. Out of Apathy (London, 1960) pp.
195-240, p. 198
[48] A. MacIntyre "Breaking the Chains of Reason," inE.P. Thompson ed.走出冷漠》（伦敦，1960 年），第 195-240 页，第 198 页
[49] ibid., p. 199
[49] 同上，第 199 页
[50] ibid., p. 200
[50] 同上，第 200 页
[51] ibid., p. 201
[51] 同上，第 201 页
[52] ibid., p. 208
[52] 同上，第 208 页
[53] ibid., p. 210
[53] 同上，第 210 页
[54] ibid., p. 217
[54] 同上，第 217 页
[55] ibid., p. 220
[55] 同上，第 220 页
[56] ibid., p. 225
[56] 同上，第 225 页
[57] ibid., p. 230
[57] 同上，第 230 页
[58] ibid., p. 235
[58] 同上，第 235 页
[59] ibid., pp. 230;
238
[59] 同上，第 230 页；第 238 页
[60] ibid., p. 240
[60] 同上，第 240 页
[61] A. MacIntyre ‘Freedom and Revolution,’
Labour Review, Feb./Mar. 1960, pp. 19-24, p. 20
[61] A. MacIntyre "自由与革命"，《劳动评论》，1960 年 2 月/3 月，第 19-24 页，第 20 页。
[62] ibid., p. 22
[62] 同上，第 22 页
[63] ibid., p. 23
[63] 同上，第 23 页
[64] ibid., p. 24
[64] 同上，第 24 页
[65] L. Goldmann The
Hidden God (London, 1964), p. 301
[L. 戈德曼《隐藏的上帝》（伦敦，1964 年），第 301 页。
[66] A. MacIntyre ‘Pascal and Marx: On Lucien Goldmann’s Hidden God’ in A. MacIntyre Against the Self-Images of the
Age: Essays on Ideology and Philosophy (London, 1971), pp. 76-87, p.
84
[66] A. MacIntyre "Pascal and Marx：On Lucien Goldmann's Hidden God" in A. MacIntyre Against the Self-Images of the Age: Essays on Ideology and Philosophy (London, 1971), pp.
[67] A. MacIntyre
‘Trotsky in Exile’ in MacIntyre Against
the Self-Images of the Age pp. 52-59, pp. 57-8. This essay was first
published in Encounter in 1963. For International Socialism’s reading of
Trotsky see T. Cliff [1948] ‘The Nature of Stalinist Russia’ in T. Cliff Marxist Theory after Trotsky (London,
2003), p. 1.
[67] A. MacIntyre《流亡中的托洛茨基》，载于《MacIntyre 反对时代的自我形象》第 52-59 页，第 57-8 页。这篇文章首次发表于 1963 年的《相遇》杂志。关于国际社会主义对托洛茨基的解读，见 T. Cliff [1948] 'The Nature of Stalinist Russia' in T. Cliff Marxist Theory after Trotsky (London, 2003), p. 1。
[68] While MacIntyre’s
name was removed from the list of editors of International Socialism in 1968 – as the organisation sought to
disassociate itself from his actions against student radicals in Essex – he had
in fact ceased to involve himself with the organisation some two or three years
earlier.
[68] 1968 年，麦金太尔的名字被从《国际社会主义》的编辑名单中删除--因为该组织试图与他在埃塞克斯针对学生激进分子的行动撇清关系--但事实上，他早在两三年前就不再参与该组织的活动了。
[69] A. MacIntyre ‘Culture and Revolution’ International Socialism 5, 1961, p. 28
[69] A. MacIntyre "文化与革命"，《国际社会主义》，1961 年第 5 期，第 28 页。
[70] A. MacIntyre ‘The Sleepwalking Society’ Socialist Review May 1962, p. 5
[70] A. MacIntyre《梦游社会》，《社会主义评论》，1962 年 5 月，第 5 页。
[71] A. MacIntyre ‘Rejoinder to Left Reformism’ International Socialism 6, 1961, pp.
20-23, p. 21
[71] A. MacIntyre《对左翼改良主义的反驳》，《国际社会主义》1961 年第 6 期，第 20-23 页，第 21 页。
[72] A. MacIntyre ‘Prediction and Politics’ International Socialism 13, 1963, p. 17
[72] A. MacIntyre《预测与政治》，《国际社会主义》第 13 期，1963 年，第 17 页。
[73] ibid., p. 18
[73] 同上，第 18 页
[74] MacIntyre ‘Notes
from the Moral Wilderness’ pp. 39-40
[74] 麦金太尔《道德荒野笔记》第 39-40 页
[75]MacIntyre ‘Rejoinder to Left Reformism’, p. 23
[75]麦金太尔 "对左翼改良主义的反驳"，第 23 页。
[76] A. MacIntyre Unpublished paper given to International Socialism day school 1963,
p. 6. A. MacIntyre ‘Herbert Marcuse’ Survey No 62, Jan 1967, p. 43.
[76] A. MacIntyre 1963 年在国际社会主义日学校发表的未发表论文，第 6 页。A. MacIntyre《赫伯特-马尔库塞》，《调查》第 62 期，1967 年 1 月，第 43 页。
[77] T. Cliff & C. Barker Incomes Policy, Legislation and Shop Stewards (London, 1966), pp.
128-136. For an earlier elaboration of a similar argument, see M. Kidron
‘Rejoinder to Left-Reformism’ International
Socialism 7, 1961, p. 15. Kidron’s aim in this essay was to bolster
MacIntyre’s critique of Collins noted above. Thanks to Chris Harman for this
reference.
[77] T. Cliff & C. Barker Incomes Policy, Legislation and Shop Stewards (London, 1966), pp.关于类似论点的早期阐述，见 M. Kidron 'Rejoinder to Left-Reformism' International Socialism 7, 1961, p. 15。基德伦在这篇文章中的目的是支持上文提到的麦金太尔对柯林斯的批判。感谢 Chris Harman 提供此参考文献。
[78] MacIntyre ‘Rejoinder to Left Reformism’ p. 23. A. MacIntyre Marcuse (London, 1970), p. 72
[A. MacIntyre Marcuse（伦敦，1970 年），第 72 页。
[79] MacIntyre ‘Prediction and Politics’ , p. 19
[MacIntyre 'Prediction and Politics' , p. 19
[80] A. MacIntyre
‘Labour Policy and Capitalist Planning’ International
Socialism 15, 1963, p. 8
[80] A. MacIntyre《劳动政策与资本主义规划》，《国际社会主义》第 15 期，1963 年，第 8 页。
[81] MacIntyre Unpublished paper, p. 20
[MacIntyre 未发表的论文，第 20 页。
[82] MacIntyre
‘Breaking the Chains of Reason’, p. 238
[麦金太尔《打破理性的枷锁》，第 238 页。
[83] MacIntyre
Unpublished paper, p. 20
[MacIntyre 未发表的论文，第 20 页。
[84] D. Hallas Trotsky’s Marxism (London, 1979), p. 104
[84] D. Hallas Trotsky's Marxism（伦敦，1979 年），第 104 页。
[85] A. MacIntyre
‘Marx,’ inM. Cranston ed. Western Political
Philosophers: A Background Book, (London, 1964) pp. 99-108, p. 106.
[85] A. MacIntyre 'Marx,' inM.Cranston ed.西方政治哲学家：A Background Book, (London, 1964) pp.
[86] A. MacIntyre Secularization and Moral Change (London, 1967), p. 75
[87] A. MacIntyre A Short History of Ethics (London, 1966), pp. 210-214. cf
P. Sedgwick ‘The Ethical Dance – A Review of Alasdair MacIntyre’s After Virtue’ in M. Eve & D. Musson
eds. The Socialist Register (London,
1982).
[87] A. MacIntyre A Short History of Ethics (London, 1966), pp.The Socialist Register》（伦敦，1982 年）。
[88] MacIntyre A Short History of Ethics pp. 268-9
[MacIntyre A Short History of Ethics pp.
[89] A. MacIntyre Marxism
and Christianity (London, 1968)
[89] A. MacIntyre 《马克思主义与基督教》（伦敦，1968 年）
[90] R. Kuper ‘Marxism and Christianity’ International Socialism 42, 1970, p. 35
[R. Kuper，《马克思主义与基督教》，《国际社会主义》，第 42 期，1970 年，第 35 页。
[91] MacIntyre Marcuse,
pp. 61; 89
[91] MacIntyre Marcuse, pp.
[92] ibid., p. 91
[93] A. MacIntyre Marxism and Christianity (London, 1995), p. xx. A. MacIntyre Dependent Rational Animals (London, 1999), p. x.
[94] MacIntyre The Unconscious, pp. 27; 114