资本论论文参考题目

Capital Punishment Many distinctive doctrines in criminal law originated in efforts to restrict the number of capital crimes and executions. For instance, in the late 18th century, when all murder in the United States was punishable by death, Pennsylvania pioneered in dividing murder into two categories. The state enacted laws that authorized punishment of first-degree murder by death, while second-degree murder was punishable by imprisonment only. Elsewhere, penal codes uniformly required death for certain serious crimes. In these jurisdictions, discretionary powers to commute death sentences gradually expanded. (A commutation substitutes a lesser penalty for a more severe one—for example, replacing execution with a life sentence.) Today in many nations, including Turkey and Japan, the death penalty remains legal but the number of executions has declined over time. Although many jurisdictions limited imposition of the death penalty, no government had formally abolished capital punishment until Michigan did so in 1846. Within 20 years Venezuela (1863) and Portugal (1867) had formally eliminated the practice as well. By the beginning of the 20th century the death sentence had been abolished in a handful of nations, such as Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Norway, and The Netherlands. Although not formally eliminated, it had fallen into disuse in many others, including Brazil, Cape Verde, Iceland, Monaco, and Panama. The defeat of the Axis powers provided a foundation for the elimination of the death penalty in Western Europe. Some of the nations involved in the war saw abolition of capital punishment as a way to disassociate themselves from the atrocities that had taken place. Italy formally abolished the death penalty in 1947 and the Federal Republic of Germany did so in 1949. The British government instituted a Royal Commission to study capital punishment in 1950 and abolished the death penalty in 1965. (Northern Ireland did not abolish capital punishment until 1973.) By the early 1980s every major country in Europe had stopped executing criminals. Coincident with this trend in Western Europe, many countries belonging to the Commonwealth of Nations, an association of countries formerly affiliated with the British Empire, eliminated capital punishment. For instance, Canada conducted its last execution in 1962 and abolished the death penalty in 1976. New Zealand held its last execution in 1957 and Australia stopped executing criminals ten years later. A similar burst of abolitionist activity coincided with the breakup of the Soviet Union. East Germany, the Czech Republic, and Romania all outlawed capital punishment between 1987 and 1990. Throughout the former Communist countries, abolition of the death penalty was a political act far removed from the usual domain of criminal justice policy-making. Eliminating the death penalty was one of many ways the citizens of these countries rejected unlimited state power over individual life. For example, in Romania the overthrow of dictator Nicolae Ceausescu was followed by his execution and that of members of his family. Shortly thereafter, the new government abolished capital punishment, which was associated with Ceausescu’s brutal, tyrannical rule. Critics of capital punishment contend that it is brutal and degrading, while supporters consider it a necessary form of retribution (revenge) for terrible crimes. Those who advocate the death penalty assert that it is a uniquely effective punishment that deters crime. However, advocates and opponents of the death penalty dispute the proper interpretation of statistical analyses of its deterrent effect. Opponents of capital punishment see the death penalty as a human rights issue involving the proper limits of governmental power. In contrast, those who want governments to continue to execute tend to regard capital punishment as an issue of criminal justice policy. Because of these alternative viewpoints, there is a profound difference of opinion not only about what is the right answer on capital punishment, but about what type of question is being asked when the death penalty becomes a public issue. Execution by Guillotine During the French Revolution (1789-1799), King Louis XVI of France was tried as a traitor and condemned to death. His execution by guillotine, which took place in a crowded plaza in Paris, was a public spectacle. Early opponents of the death penalty opposed such brutal methods of criminal punishment.Corbis Early opponents of capital punishment objected to its brutality. Executions were public spectacles involving cruel methods. In addition, capital punishment was not reserved solely for the most serious crimes. Death was the penalty for a variety of minor offenses. The allegations of brutality inspired two different responses by those who supported executions. First, advocates contended that capital punishment was necessary for the safety of other citizens and therefore not gratuitous. Second, death penalty supporters sought to remove some of the most visibly gruesome aspects of execution. Executions that had been open to the public were relocated behind closed doors. Later, governments replaced traditional methods of causing death—such as hanging—with what were regarded as more modern methods, such as electrocution and poison gas. Lethal injection is now the preferred method of execution in the majority of U.S. states. The search for less brutal means of inflicting death continues to recent times. In 1977 Oklahoma became the first U.S. state to authorize execution by lethal injection—the administration of fatal amounts of fast-acting drugs and chemicals. Lethal injection is now the preferred method of execution in the majority of U.S. states. However, modern opponents of capital punishment contend that sterilized and depersonalized methods of execution do not eliminate the brutality of the penalty. In the debate about execution and human dignity, supporters and opponents of the death penalty have found very little common ground. Opponents of capital punishment assert that it is degrading to the humanity of the person punished. Since the 18th century, those who wish to abolish the death penalty have stressed the significance of requiring governments to recognize the importance of each individual. However, supporters of capital punishment see nothing wrong with governments deliberately killing terrible people who commit terrible crimes. Therefore, they see no need to limit governmental power in this area. Early opponents of capital punishment also argued that inflicting death was not necessary to control crime and properly punish wrongdoers. Instead, alternative punishment—such as imprisonment—could effectively isolate criminals from the community, deter other potential offenders from committing offenses, and express the community's condemnation of those who break its laws. In his Essay on Crimes and Punishments, Beccaria asserted that the certainty of punishment, rather than its severity, was a more effective deterrent. Supporters of capital punishment countered that the ultimate penalty of death was necessary for the punishment of terrible crimes because it provided the most complete retribution and condemnation. Furthermore, they argued that the threat of execution was a unique deterrent. Death penalty supporters contended that capital punishment self-evidently prevents more crime because death is so much more feared than mere restrictions on one’s liberty. Supporters and opponents of capital punishment still debate its effectiveness. Social scientists have collected statistical data on trends in homicide before and after jurisdictions have abolished capital punishment. They have also compared homicide rates in places with and without the death penalty. The great majority of these statistical comparisons indicate that the presence or absence of capital punishment or executions does not visibly influence the rate of homicide. Opponents of capital punishment maintain that these studies refute the argument that the death penalty deters crime. Many capital punishment opponents consider the deterrence argument fully negated and no longer part of the debate. However, supporters of the death penalty dispute that interpretation of the statistical analyses of deterrent effect. Capital punishment advocates note that because the death penalty is reserved for the most aggravated murders, the deterrent effect of capital punishment on such crimes may not be apparent in data on homicide rates in general. Supporters also urge that the conflicting results of various studies indicate that the deterrent effect of the death penalty cannot not be proven or disproven with any certainty. They maintain that in the absence of conclusive proof that the threat of execution might not save some people from being killed, capital punishment should be retained. A unique facet of the modern debate about capital punishment is the characterization of the death penalty as a human rights issue, rather than a debate about the proper punishment of criminals. Modern opposition to the death penalty is seen as a reaction to the political history of the 20th century, most notably the Holocaust—the systematic mass killing of Jews and others during World War II (1939-1945). All the major nations in Western Europe utilized capital punishment prior to World War II. After the defeat of the National Socialist (Nazi) and Fascist governments of Germany and Italy, those two nations became the first major powers in Europe to abolish capital punishment. The postwar movement to end capital punishment, beginning in Italy and Germany and then spreading, represented a reaction to totalitarian forms of government that systematically violated the rights of the individual. The human rights focus on the death penalty has continued, especially in settings of dramatic political change. When people view capital punishment as a human rights issue, countries that are becoming more democratic have been eager to abolish the death penalty, which they associate with the former regime and its abuses of power. For example, a number of former Communist nations abolished capital punishment shortly after the dissolution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in 1991. Similarly, the multiracial government of South Africa formed in 1994 quickly outlawed a death penalty many associated with apartheid, the official policy of racial segregation that had been in place since the late 1940s. Bibliography: Megivern, James J. The Death Penalty: An Historical and Theological Survey. New York: Paulist Press, 1997. Rourke, Thomas R. “The Death Penalty in Light of the Ontology of the Person: The Significance of Evangelium Vitae.” Communio: International Catholic Review 25 (Fall, 1998), 397-413 Simson, Gary J. and Stephen P. Garvey, "Knockin' on Heaven's Door: Rethinking the Role of Religion in Death Penalty Cases," 86 Cornell Law Review 1090 (2001). Yoder, John Howard The Christian and Capital Punishment. Newton, KS., Faith and Life Press, 1961. Böckle, Franz and Jacques Pohier. eds. The Death Penalty and Torture. New York: Seabury Press, 1979. “Outrageous Atrocity or Moral Imperative?: The Ethics of Capital Punishment” in Studies in Christian Ethics 6.2 (1993). Strark, J., Abnormal Psychology, Stanton Brothers, New York, 1978 2IntroductionNowadays, in most of the Western world, capital punishment is considered an unacceptable, barbaric sentence that cannot be morally or philosophically justified. In the UK, it has been abolished since 1969, while Protocol six of the European Convention on Human Rights obliged the forty six member states of the Council of Europe to scribe off the death sentence from their penal codes. However, a number of US states retain the sentence with few politicians and theorists claiming that it has a strong deterrent effect. The purpose of this essay is to critically reflect upon this argument.Is capital punishment a worthwhile deterrent?The punishment theory of deterrence – which belongs to the utilitarian philosophy – is composed of two elements. The first is called specific/individual deterrence and is directed towards convicted offenders. In broad terms it aims to discourage them for their transgressions and thereby convincing them that crime does not pay. The second is called general deterrence and is directed towards potential offenders. It seeks to persuade them by the threat of anticipated punishment from engaging in unlawful conduct by illustrating the unsavoury consequences of offending.Therefore, by definition, capital punishment cannot fulfil the first element of deterrence since after its passing, the convicted offender dies. As for the second element of passing a lesson to the rest of the society, the views are mixed; although there is evidence to suggest that the impact of capital sentence is not as great as it would justify it. For example, according to Katz et al, the so far studies on capital punishment produce erratic and contradictory results, while most of them find that there is no deterrent effect. In fact, Shepherd’s 2004 study showed that executions are as likely to increase homicides in states following execution as there are states where there seems to be a reduction.In addition, a number of research experts have heavily criticised the so far positive studies on capital punishment for being methodologically unviable. For instance, Maltz recent evaluation showed that most of US studies ignored large amounts of missing data, relying only on two sources: the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the US Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Even more importantly, studies that directly examine the reactions of individuals to punishment threats constituently show the limits of the assumptions of rationality that underlie deterrence. In fact, according to the Annual Statistical Report of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, most offenders who are convicted to a capital sentence have cognitive impairments. This makes it even more unlikely that they are actually aware of executions.On the other hand, states without capital punishment such as New York enjoy declining homicide rates. The Uniform Crime Reports showed that over the last decade there was a 65.5% decrease in homicide rates. Similarly, Dugan et al showed that since the early 1970s intimate or domestic homicides have been declining at a steady pace regardless of fluctuations in the number of executions. Finally, according to the forthcoming study by Professor Berk, nearly all of the presumed deterrent effects of capital punishment are confined in one state – Texas – and only for a handful of years when there were more than 5 executions. Overall, the study proved that eliminating Texas eliminates any hint of deterrence from the relationship between execution and crime.Moving beyond the statisticsHowever, it is not just the negative statistics that make capital punishment increasingly unfamiliar. Carter showed that offenders who are convicted to capital punishment usually come from poor backgrounds introducing an element of class discrimination in the sentencing system. Similarly, Keil and Vito’s study reported that blacks who kill whites seem to have the greater odds of receiving the death penalty than whites who kill blacks”. To conclude, the last two year research data show that capital punishment has hardly any deterrence effect, while a number of other side issues such as discrimination and selectivity reinforce the argument against its use.

马克思主义哲学是否有自己的理论体系？是否需要体系？近20年来，在哲学界的争论持续不断。一些学者认为，马克思主义哲学在本质上是反体系的。他们认为，马克思、恩格斯十分强调他们的哲学是方法，是“行动的指南”，而不是教条；传统的苏联模式的马克思主义哲学正是因为没有贯彻马克思、恩格斯的这一思想，才导致了马克思主义哲学被体系化、教条化。他们认为要使马克思主义哲学真正发挥其作用，避免重蹈传统的苏联模式的马克思主义哲学被僵化、凝固化的覆辙，重建的马克思主义哲学不应体系化。 笔者认为，理论与体系不是绝对对立的，成熟的理论都需要体系；马克思、恩格斯反对的是近代欧洲绝对真理式的体系，而不是任何理论体系，传统的苏联模式的马克思主义哲学被教条化有其深刻的政治原因。因此，马克思主义哲学在本质上并不是反体系的，重建的马克思主义哲学需要体系。 一、我国哲学界反体系倾向的由来 众所周知，我国传统的马克思主义哲学是从前苏联演绎过来的。20世纪30年代，在斯大林的指导下，苏联的马克思主义学者在缺乏马克思、恩格斯的哲学原著，无充分理论依据的情况下，编写了马克思主义哲学教科书。从此，这一“先天不足”的教科书就成为马克思主义哲学的标准表述，它不仅在苏联，而且在整个社会主义阵营中成为马克思主义哲学的唯一标准本。20世纪50年代，我国按照苏联马克思主义哲学教科书模式的主要内容和框架，补充了毛泽东的一些哲学思想，由艾思奇主编了《辩证唯物主义和历史唯物主义原理》。几十年来，这一哲学内容和框架在我国一直视为标准的马克思主义哲学被传授和运用。 20世纪70年代末以后，随着现实与教科书理论的矛盾日益明显，随着西方马克思主义哲学思想的传入，随着我国学者对马克思原著越来越多的接触和研究，我国哲学界开始了对苏联模式的马克思主义哲学教科书的反思。通过对马克思主义哲学的深入研究和分析，我国哲学界已基本达成共识，即传统的苏联模式的马克思主义哲学教科书没有反映出马克思主义哲学的本真，没有体现出马克思主义哲学在欧洲哲学史上实现的伟大的革命变革。这一系列的研究为在我国重建马克思主义哲学打下了坚实的基础，但同时也引发了我国哲学界反体系倾向的产生。一些人认为：在知识爆炸的今天，“传统哲学所担负的阐示世界普遍本质和规律的任务还有多大必要，虽然综合和整合学科知识的必要性依然存在，但已不可能以建构哲学体系的方式来进行”〔1〕。 哲学就其本性“是没有发展顶峰的，是反对哲学体系化的，顶峰使哲学发展终结，体系化则使哲学走向自我封闭”〔2〕。 由此认定我们已经处在“后体系时代”。笔者认为，我国哲学界对苏联模式的马克思主义哲学的反思是有成绩的，对苏联模式的马克思主义哲学体系的质疑也是有一定依据的，但由此推出反体系的观点则是值得商榷的。综观反体系者的论述，他们的理由不外以下几个方面： 其一，经过几十年的实践和我国哲学界对越来越多的马克思主义经典作家第一手资料的“文本核对”，苏联模式的马克思主义哲学教科书的缺陷愈加明显。除带有旧唯物主义的痕迹、没有反映出马克思主义哲学的本质外，苏联模式的马克思主义哲学还使马克思主义哲学体系化、教条化了，几十年来，马克思主义哲学只是作为僵化的教条和公式被运用，任何对马克思主义哲学的发展都被视为对马克思主义哲学的背叛，使得传统的马克思主义哲学越来越背离时代、远离现实。于是我国哲学界的一些学者把这一问题归罪于体系，认为是苏联模式马克思主义哲学的严密体系窒息了马克思主义哲学的发展，严密的教科书体系使马克思主义哲学的发展找不到切入点，体系是制约马克思主义哲学发展的罪魁。 其二，马克思、恩格斯都对黑格尔唯心主义哲学体系与方法的矛盾进行了揭露和批判，可以说，马克思主义哲学就是在批判和克服黑格尔哲学体系和方法的矛盾的基础之上建立起来的，因此，认为马克思主义哲学从它产生时起就是与体系相对立的。反体系者还以恩格斯在《反杜林论》中对杜林的哲学体系和当时一些德国大学生动辄就建立体系的狂热进行批判为由，认为马克思、恩格斯是反体系的，马克思主义哲学理论不可能以体系的形式来表现。 其三，马克思、恩格斯虽然创立了马克思主义哲学，实现了欧洲哲学史上的伟大变革，但他们并没有去建立一个哲学体系，他们的丰富的哲学思想都内涵于他们的各类论著之中。所以，反体系者认为马克思主义哲学在本质上是反体系的，象传统的苏联模式的马克思主义哲学教科书那样，把马克思主义哲学体系化完全违背了马克思、恩格斯的本意。 正是基于以上几方面理由，我国哲学界一些学者对用理论体系去重建马克思主义哲学十分反感，甚至发出了“少点体系意识，多点问题意识”的呼吁，使我国哲学界对马克思主义哲学是否需要体系的争论持续不断。 二、马克思、恩格斯对体系的态度 马克思、恩格斯从来没有提出哲学理论可以不需要体系，他们反对的是绝对真理式的体系。 在近代欧洲，人们认为一种理论是否科学要以它的体系是否具有完整性和严密性来衡量，理论研究追求的目标就是力求建立终结某一学科的绝对真理式的体系。正是因为如此，在近代欧洲才会出现象牛顿那样伟大的科学家也不得不借助于“上帝的第一推动力”来完善自己的理论体系；才会出现象黑格尔那样伟大的辩证法家，虽然通过他的辩证法宣布了绝对真理的不可能，但依然无法抗拒体系化传统的影响，不得不去建立一个绝对真理式的严密的体系。所以，在马克思以前的欧洲，严密的理论体系与绝对真理、教条紧密相联，这种绝对真理式的体系一旦建立就成为现成的教条和公式。马克思、恩格斯批判的就是这种绝对真理式的体系，而这种无所不包的体系到黑格尔哲学达到了顶峰。 恩格斯在《路德维希·费尔巴哈和德国古典哲学的终结》一文中，对黑格尔哲学的方法和体系的矛盾进行了深入的分析和批判，这些批判是引导我国哲学界得出恩格斯反对建立哲学体系的重要理论依据。然而，如果我们细致分析就会发现恩格斯反对的是近代欧洲绝对真理式的体系，而不是反对任何理论体系。恩格斯在《路德维希·费尔巴哈和德国古典哲学的终结》中指出：黑格尔“不得不去建立一个体系，而按照传统的要求，哲学体系是一定要以某种绝对真理来完成的。所以，黑格尔，特别是在〈逻辑学〉中，虽然如此强调这种永恒真理不过是逻辑的或历史的过程本身，但是他还是发现自己不得不给这个过程一个终点，因为他总得在某个地方结束他的体系。……这样一来，黑格尔体系的全部教条内容就被宣布为绝对真理，这同他那消除一切教条东西的辩证方法是矛盾的；这样一来，革命的方面就被过分茂密的保守的方面所闷死。”〔 3〕从恩格斯的这一论述中我们可以看出，首先，恩格斯并没有反对建立任何理论体系，他反对的是近代欧洲传统的绝对真理式的体系，这种体系要求有严密的逻辑结构，为了达到理论体系的严密和完整，甚至借助于强制性的结构，所以，黑格尔“不得不给这个过程一个终点，因为他总得在某个地方结束他的体系”。其次，由于近代欧洲体系化思维方式的特点就是把具有严密完整体系的理论视为绝对真理，在马克思、恩格斯的论述中，体系、绝对真理、教条成为批判传统体系化哲学的同义语，马克思和恩格斯在批判这种体系化哲学时，时常只提到“体系”，这就使一些学者误认为马克思、恩格斯批判的是建立理论体系，这显然是一种误解。这一点在恩格斯的《反杜林论》中可以得到印证。 恩格斯在《反杜林论》中指出：“‘创造体系的’杜林先生，在当代德国并不是个别现象。近来在德国，天体演化学、自然哲学、政治学、经济学等等体系，雨后春笋般地生长起来。最蹩脚的哲学博士，甚至大学生，不动则已，一动至少就要创造一个完整的‘体系’。”〔4 〕从恩格斯的这段论述中，首先，我们可以看到近代体系化思维方式影响之深，虽然马克思、恩格斯对以黑格尔为代表的体系化哲学进行了批判，但人们依然以追求完整严密的体系为目标；其次，我们可以看到，恩格斯十分细致地把这种绝对真理式的体系打上了引号，以示它是传统意义的体系。在《反杜林论》中，恩格斯还指出：“这书的目的并不是以另一个体系去同杜林先生的‘体系’相对立，可是希望读者也不要忽略我所提出的各种见解之间的内在联系。”〔5 〕这段论述是引导我们许多学者认为恩格斯反对建立哲学体系的重要理论依据，但是只要我们了解杜林哲学就会发现杜林和黑格尔一样建立的是无所不包的绝对真理式的体系，但是由于批判的需要，恩格斯不得不跟着杜林先生走，为了避免人们因此认为恩格斯也在建立与杜林一样的无所不包的体系，所以，恩格斯才特别声明他“不是以另一个体系去同杜林先生的‘体系’相对立”，可见，恩格斯在此反对的仍然是传统的绝对真理式的体系。 马克思也十分反感欧洲近代流行的体系化哲学传统，他深切地感受到片面追求完整严密的体系对近代哲学的制约，尤其是在黑格尔哲学中所暴露出来的体系与方法的冲突。马克思的新哲学正是在冲破黑格尔的体系并拯救其辩证方法的基础上建立起来的。马克思指出：“辩证法，在其合理形态上，引起资产阶级及其夸夸其谈的代言人的恼怒和恐怖，因为辩证法在对现存事物的肯定的理解中同时包含对现存事物的否定的理解，即对现存事物的必然灭亡的理解；辩证法对每一种既成的形式都是从不断的运动中，因而也是从它的暂时性方面去理解；辩证法不崇拜任何东西，按其本质来说，它是批判的和革命的。”〔6 〕在创立他的新哲学之初，马克思就明确了他的理论与传统的体系化哲学不同，指出：“我不主张我们竖起任何教条主义的旗帜。……新思潮的优点就恰恰在于我们不想教条式的预测未来，而只是希望在批判旧世界中发现新世界。”〔7〕 基于以上的分析，笔者认为，马克思、恩格斯并没有反对建立哲学理论体系，也没有宣称他们的哲学不需要体系，他们的所谓“反体系”的论述仅仅是针对近代欧洲僵死的体系化哲学而言的。马克思主义哲学本质上并不是反体系的。 三、传统的马克思主义哲学教科书的体系问题 引发我国哲学界反体系倾向的直接原因是传统马克思主义哲学教科书体系几十年来一直处于封闭、僵化和凝固状态，并长期被视为绝对真理式的公式和教条。从表面上看，这似乎是由于体系所致，似乎是严密的体系制约了马克思主义哲学的发展，但只要我们深入研究就会发现传统的马克思主义哲学教科书体系被变成凝固不变的教条并不是体系本身之过，而是政治原因所导致的。 如前所述，20世纪30年代，在斯大林的授意和指导下，前苏联的马克思主义学者编写了马克思主义哲学教科书，从此，苏联模式的马克思主义哲学教科书所表述的马克思主义哲学成为各个社会主义国家的主流意识形态。然而，斯大林没有处理好坚持马克思主义与发展马克思主义的关系，苏联模式的马克思主义哲学教科书体系在斯大林时期被绝对化、教条化和神圣化了，马克思主义哲学的观点被简单化为政治公式，只能应用，不能有任何发展。斯大林不允许任何人的观点有别于他的模式，否则，不仅在理论上、政治上遭到排斥，甚至受到残酷镇压，被列宁称为“党的最宝贵的和最大的理论家”的布哈林在“大清洗”中被杀害就是一个典型。从此，苏联哲学界出现了“万马齐暗”的局面。在社会主义阵营里，苏联作为社会主义国家的老大哥，也不允许其他社会主义国家对马克思主义哲学有新的理解，其它社会主义国家的哲学教科书只能是苏联模式的马克思主义哲学教科书的翻版，对马克思主义哲学的任何发展都被视为异端遭到批判和排斥，如匈牙利的卢卡契和德国的科尔施的哲学就被指责为修正主义，南斯拉夫的实践派哲学被指责为反马克思列宁主义。对于西方现代哲学，更是用绝对的政治对立和阶级对立的标准去衡量，所有的西方现代哲学都被斥之为唯心主义、资产阶级哲学、帝国主义哲学加以绝对排斥。这样，在前苏联和其他社会主义国家，苏联模式的马克思主义哲学教科书体系被视为绝对真理，马克思主义哲学发展的道路被堵死了，变成了封闭和僵化的教条。正如有的学者所说，“斯大林把马克思主义理论教条化、神圣化，主要有两大‘创造’。一是把马克思主义哲学观点简单化为政治公式，使哲学和政治混同起来。……斯大林的另一个创造，是把无产阶级政党的最高领袖说成是发展马克思主义理论的唯一人选”〔8〕。可见， 政治干预是使传统马克思主义哲学教科书体系被绝对真理化和教条化的主要原因。 就体系而言，苏联模式的马克思主义哲学教科书确实存在问题。苏联模式的马克思主义哲学教科书体系实际上依然受到近代欧洲传统的体系化思维方式的影响，加之当时苏联马克思主义学者没有掌握更多的马克思主义文本，对马克思新哲学的内容和体系特点缺乏全面的认识，不知道马克思哲学的本质所在。苏联模式的马克思主义哲学教科书存在的主要问题，一是在理论体系上完全是欧洲传统的体系化哲学的翻版，依然是抽象的“解释世界”的哲学，依然是从自然到历史再到思维的无所不包的知识论体系；二是把马克思主义哲学理解为辩证唯物主义和历史唯物主义两大块，完全忽视了马克思主义哲学的历史唯物主义实质。正是由于这种缺陷，所以，重建的马克思主义哲学决不能仅仅在传统的体系内进行修补。 从上述分析可以看出，传统的马克思主义哲学教科书体系虽然存在问题，但它并不是导致马克思主义哲学变成绝对真理和教条的主要原因，而是斯大林时期的政治干预才使得传统的马克思主义哲学教科书的内容成为教条。可见，传统的马克思主义哲学教科书体系所存在的问题也不应成为哲学与体系对立的理由。 四、马克思主义哲学需要体系 马克思主义哲学作为对客观世界本质和规律的科学认识，需要通过系统的理论体系来体现。 首先，哲学研究对象的相互联系决定了理论和体系不是绝对对立，而是密切联系的。体系虽然不是我们理论研究的目的，但体系却是理论所不可缺少的，它是理论的载体和组成形式，一切成熟的理论都需要体系。我们知道，哲学是人们对世界或人类历史的一般本质和规律的认识，而世界是普遍联系的，作为对普遍联系的对象的揭示和反映，哲学理论本身必须要有系统的逻辑体系，否则，理论就是凌乱的、随意的拼凑。 马克思在有生之年，由于忙于现实的哲学斗争和写作《资本论》，没有对他的哲学思想进行整理和系统的阐述，但这并不能证明马克思拒斥理论体系，马克思写作的巨著《资本论》就是理论与体系结合的最好典范。在《资本论》中，马克思从资本主义最微小的细胞——商品入手，对资本主义的经济现象进行逐步深入的分析，从而发现了剩余价值规律和资本主义基本矛盾，得出了资本主义社会必然灭亡的科学结论。可见，科学、合理的体系有助于理论的准确阐述，理论与体系并不是绝对对立的，马克思主义哲学作为对世界和人类历史的一般本质和规律的科学探究，同样需要体系。 其次，马克思、恩格斯强调他们的哲学是方法，但方法与体系也不是绝对对立的。在认识和理解马克思主义哲学的过程中，一直存在体系或方法之争，即马克思主义哲学是理论体系或是方法？笔者认为，这是由于泛化了马克思、恩格斯对黑格尔哲学的批判所导致的。马克思、恩格斯强调他们的新哲学是方法，而不是教条，是针对旧哲学，尤其是黑格尔哲学而言的。黑格尔哲学的方法和体系的对立不是方法与一般体系的对立，而是方法与强制性的绝对真理式的体系的对立，这是马克思、恩格斯坚决反对的，马克思、恩格斯也正是在这个意义上提出自己的哲学是方法，而不是教条。所以，超出了这个批判的范围，体系就不能等同于教条，方法和体系也不能绝对对立起来。方法并不是孤立的、与理论体系相对立的，方法与理论体系是密切联系的，没有科学的理论体系也不会有科学的方法。注重于“改造世界”的马克思主义哲学依然需要体系。 再次，哲学的学科特点也决定了马克思主义哲学必须要有体系。马克思主义哲学与其它哲学一样都是抽象思维的结果，而抽象思维所借助的工具就是范畴，哲学正是通过范畴、范畴与范畴的关系以及范畴与范畴之间的推演来揭示世界的本质和规律的。但任何哲学的范畴都不是机械地拼凑的，而是有机统一的，这就决定了哲学的范畴有其逻辑的顺序性和层次性，即要求哲学要有逻辑体系。马克思主义哲学也不例外。 最后，马克思主义哲学在我国的特殊地位决定了它需要理论体系。马克思主义哲学作为我国社会主义社会的主流意识形态，它不仅仅是学术界研究的对象，也是我国进行社会主义建设的理论基础和实践指导，是人们面对现代生活所必须的理性参照。马克思主义哲学必须普及到群众中去，成为指导广大人民群众进行实践的思维方式，因此，今天作为意识形态的马克思主义哲学就不能象马克思当年那样一系列论战性的著作来表述，它必须整合成系统的理论体系才能为群众所理解和接受。 综上所述，马克思主义哲学在本质上不是反体系的。对待体系问题，一方面，我们必须注意 克服近代欧洲体系化哲学的弊端。任何建立绝对完满体系的企图都是不切实际的，体系只是理论的系统的逻辑形式，它只有是否准确之分，而无是否完满之别。另一方面，我们也不能走向另一个极端——拒斥理论体系。马克思主义哲学需要体系。重建的马克思主义哲学体系应该反映马克思哲学的实质，应该以马克思的历史唯物主义为主干，吸取东西方一切古代的和现代的哲学的精华，并以时代主题为基础。重建的马克思主义哲学体系必须是开放的，只有坚持开放才能保证马克思主义哲学的发展。