无论是从人与动物的差异性来指责马克思是物种歧视主义者的本顿,还是从人与动物的相似性来为马克思进行辩护的福斯特,控辩双方都缺乏有力证据。马克思是将人与动物在生态圈中的“差异中的统一”这种“关系”事实作为动物解放的本体论依据的。当然,马克思也的确阐述了人与动物的差异,但与基督教教义中明确的人类中心主义倾向以及阿甘本的主观过程视角不同,马克思以历史唯物主义方式书写了人与动物的“统一中的差异”。在对不同社会生产方式下人与动物关系的历史性变迁解读中,马克思揭示了动物在资本主义生产方式下作为固定资本或者流动资本所起到的资本增殖作用以及由此导致的生存状态。唯有在社会主义生产方式的根本前提下,特别是唯有坚持野生动物的公有属性和满足人民对优质生态产品需要的生产目的,才能实现动物的彻底解放。
A Historical Materialist Analysis of ''Animal Liberation''
Cai Huajie,Wang Yue(Fujian Normal University)
Abstract Neither Benton, who accuses Marx of being a speciesist by describing the differences be‐ tween humans and animals, nor Foster, who defends Marx by describing the similarities between humans and animals, has provided sufficient evidence for both the prosecution and the defense. Marx took the fact of the "relationship" of "unity in difference" between humans and animals in the ecological circle as the ontological basis for animal liberation. Of course, Marx did elaborate on the differences between humans and animals, but unlike the explicitly anthropocentric tendencies of Christian doctrine and Agamben's subjective process perspective, Marx wrote about the "differences in unity" between humans and animals in a historical materialist manner. Furthermore, in his interpretation of the historical changes in the relationship between humans and animals under different social production modes, Marx revealed the capital proliferation effect of animals as fixed capital or circulating capital under the capitalist mode of production and the resulting state of existence. Therefore, the complete liberation of animals can only be achieved under the fundamental premise of the socialist mode of production, especially by adhering to the public ownership of wild animals and the production purpose of meeting the people's needs for high-quality ecological products.
Key words Marx;animal liberation;historical materialism;species discrimination;the difference between humans and animals
■ 作者简介 蔡华杰,法学博士,福建师范大学马克思主义学院教授、博士生导师,福建省习近平新时代中国特色社会主义思想研究中心特约研究员;福建 福州 350117;王 越,福建师范大学马克思主义学院博士研究生。