CAJ | 학술논문

马克思和阿伦特都对资本主义意识形态问题提出了尖锐的批判。马克思指出资本主义意识形态具有＂虚假性＂特征,其＂虚假性＂根源在于实践意义的失落,他批判的旨归是唯物史观的确立;阿伦特以＂行动＂出发的两种政治生活对比,通过意识形态批判揭露现代资本主义＂虚假政治＂问题,并指出意识形态问题是造成极权主义的重要原因之一。对于如何超越资本主义意识形态问题,马克思走的是一条更为深刻的＂变革生产方式＂的道路,而阿伦特将希望寄托于回归＂行动＂意义以重塑＂真正的政治＂。相比之下,马克思的批判更为彻底。
마극사화아륜특도대자본주의의식형태문제제출료첨예적비판。마극사지출자본주의의식형태구유＂허가성＂특정,기＂허가성＂근원재우실천의의적실락,타비판적지귀시유물사관적학립;아륜특이＂행동＂출발적량충정치생활대비,통과의식형태비판게로현대자본주의＂허가정치＂문제,병지출의식형태문제시조성겁권주의적중요원인지일。대우여하초월자본주의의식형태문제,마극사주적시일조경위심각적＂변혁생산방식＂적도로,이아륜특장희망기탁우회귀＂행동＂의의이중소＂진정적정치＂。상비지하,마극사적비판경위철저。
Both Karl Marx and Arendt sharply criticized capitalist ideological issues. Marx pointed out that this ideology has ＂falsity＂ feature, the ＂falsity＂ is established because the practical significance of ideology has lost its critique of materialism; while Arendt discussed from the ＂action＂ distortion departure, criticized the capitalist ideology of ＂false political＂ issue, and noted that the issue of ideology is the important cause of totalitarianism. When it comes to how to solve the capitalist ideology problem, Marx is took a more radical ＂change the mode of production＂, while Arendt pinned their hopes on the return of ＂action＂ in order to reshape the meaning of ＂real politics＂. In contrast, Karl Marx＇s critique is of greater thoroughness.