论文部分内容阅读
一、第一次明确区划了作为法学范畴的财产权与作为政治经济学范畴的所有制所有制范畴在马克思、恩格斯的许多前人及其一些同时代人那里,被弄得十分混乱:他们要么将所有制视为人的意志、心理、道德观念的产物,进而归结为法权关系;要么就是把所有制比作海狸、蚂蚁、蜜蜂生息所占的巢穴一类的东西,从而否认所有制范畴的社会性。前种观点的主要代表蒲鲁东在1846年出版的《贫困的哲学》第二卷中提出了资产阶级的土地所有权(制)就是某种永恒的征收地租的法权关系,来源于某种超经济的原因的论点。认为:地租和所有权一样,它根源于同财富生产极少关系的心理上和道德上的考虑。马克思看了《贫困的哲学》一书后,在给布鲁塞尔共产主义通讯委员会驻巴黎的通讯员巴·瓦·安年柯夫的信中指出,作为反映各个时代的所有制,“是在一系列完全不同的社会关系中发展起来的”。而蒲鲁东
For the first time, it was the first time that the property rights as a category of jurisprudence and the categories of ownership as the category of political economy were unequivocally confused among many of the predecessors of Marx and Engels and some of their contemporaries: they either The product of man's will, psychology, and moral values, and then to the relation of legal power; or, to compare it to beings like beavers, ants and bees to deny the sociality of the category of ownership. Proudhon, the main representative of the former viewpoints, proposed in the second volume of The Philosophy of Poverty published in 1846 that the bourgeois right of land ownership is some kind of eternal legal right to rent, derived from some kind of super-economic Reason argument. Argues that rent, like ownership, is rooted in the psychological and moral considerations that have little to do with the production of wealth. After reading the book Philosophy of Poverty, Marx wrote in his letter to Pakistani-Vatyankov, correspondent for the Brussels Communists Communique in Paris, that as a system of ownership that reflects the various times, “it is a series of completely different Developed in social relations. ” Proudhon