首页> 外文期刊>Journal of political power >Thinking improperly about property and democracy
【24h】

Thinking improperly about property and democracy

机译:关于财产和民主的不正当思考

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

The publication of Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe's Hegemony and socialist strategy in 1985 marked something of an event in political theorising. In that text, Laclau and Mouffe argued that all forms of social objectivity - i.e. 'society' - are radically contingent and the effect of a form of power they called hegemony. Their political theory centred the ontological dimension of politics, in which the logic of hegemony theorised the institution of the social as 'the political'. For Laclau and Mouffe, hegemony is dependent upon the articulation of a plurality of political identities as equivalent in their shared antagonistic opposition to their constitutive outside (1985). Central to this 'post-Marxist' project was a deconstructive reading of Marx, and in particular the insistence in Marx's philosophy on the determinacy of the economy in the final instance. Having deconstructed Marx - thereby offering a new lease of life for Left political theory in coming to terms with the diminished centrality of the working classes to progressive and radical democratic politics - Laclau and Mouffe never returned to Marx in order to rethink the economy and the politics of property from a post-structuralist perspective. The whole question of property thus became but one dimension of the articulated 'ensemble' of relations which constitute hegemonic order (Laclau and Mouffe 1985, p. 102). In this way the central role that property relations play in securing the dominant unequal mode of production was displaced. By shifting the focus of Left political theorising away from relations of production and towards the struggles of political identities in securing hegemony, Laclau and Mouffe downplayed the centrality of the politics of property to the maintenance of hegemony and the proper.
机译:1985年,Ernesto Laclau和Chantal Mouffe的霸权和社会主义战略的出版物标志着政治理论中的活动。在那篇文章中,LaClau和Mouffe认为,所有形式的社会客观性 - 即'社会' - 是完全偶然的,他们称为霸权的力量的效果。他们的政治理论集中了政治的本体主义方面,其中霸权理论为“政治”理解社会的机构。对于Laclau和Mouffe,霸权依赖于对他们的共同对立反对的多种政治身份的关节,同等对抗他们的本构外(1985年)。致命这一“后马克思主义者”项目的核心是对马克思的解构读数,特别是在最终案例中对马克思哲学的坚持。解构的马克思 - 从而为左政治理论提供了新的生活租约,以便在逐步和激进的民主政治中减少的工作课程减少的条件 - 拉拉和穆斯芬从未回到马克思以重新思考经济和政治从后结构主义的观点的财产。因此,财产的整个问题是构成霸权秩序的铰接性“合奏”的一个层次(Laclau和Mouffe 1985,第102页)。通过这种方式,财产关系在确保主导的不平等生产模式方面的核心作用流离失所。通过将左政治理论主义的重点转移到远离生产关系以及在保护霸权,拉特拉夫和Mouffe的政治身份中的斗争下,使财产政治的中心落下,以维持霸权和适当的。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Journal of political power》 |2020年第3期|305-312|共8页
  • 作者

    Liam Farrell;

  • 作者单位

    Department of Politics and Public Administration University of Limerick Limerick Ireland;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号