论文部分内容阅读
首先逐一对乌家培引以为据的“一系列有关的产业定义和国内外产业分类实例”进行了剖析,指出他在引用时存在不应有的倾向性,并不能构成“一系列”支持他割裂产业与商品关系的错误论点的论据。接着对产业和产业分类的发展与商品经济的发展的关系作了简要阐述,指出乌家培的产业分类特别是“第三产业”思想,来源于克拉克产业分类思想,而这一产业分类思想在理论上的根本缺陷在于混淆了经济基础与上层建筑、生产劳动与非生产劳动、公益资金与生产资金(或资本)、产业与事业的原则界限,因而用之以分析“信息产业”只能带来认识上的混乱。作者引用国内外材料,指出在信息产业理论上并不存在乌家培所说的“信息产业约定俗成的称谓”。最后简单回答了乌家培所说辩论手法问题。
First of all, it analyzes Wujiapei’s “a series of related industrial definitions and examples of industrial classification at home and abroad”, pointing out that there is an undue tendencies in his quotation and can not form a “series of” support He dismissed the argument that the wrong argument about the relationship between industry and goods. Then the article gives a brief exposition of the relationship between the development of industrial and industrial classification and the development of commodity economy. It points out that Wu Jiapei’s industrial classification, especially the “tertiary industry” thought, comes from Clarke’s industrial classification thought. The fundamental theoretical flaw lies in the confusion between the economic base and the superstructure, the production of labor and non-productive labor, the commonweal funds and capital (or capital), the boundaries between industries and undertakings, and the analysis of the “information industry” To understand the chaos. The author quotes domestic and foreign materials and points out that in the theory of information industry, there is no such thing as Wujiapei’s “common convention of information industry”. In the end, I simply answered the question of the way of saying Wu Jiapei said.