资本论课程论文参考题目

21世纪是资本主义和社会主义两种制度并存的世纪，资本主义的变化与发展直接影响其历史命运和社会主义理论与实践的全面发展。下面是我为大家整理的资本主义发展论文，供大家参考。

众所周知，马克思主义最大的贡献是发现了唯物史观和剩余价值学说。如果说唯物史观主要通过揭示整个人类社会的发展规律，破解了人类历史发展之谜;那么剩余价值学说则主要是研究并发现了资本主义社会发展的规律，破解了资本主义社会发展之谜，尤其是对资本主义初期的发展有重要影响。

资本主义的发展大致分为三个阶段，即原始积累、自由竞争、垄断资本主义，资本主义初期的发展也就是资本原始积累的阶段。

资本主义初期就是原始积累的过程，而马克思揭示了资本积累就是剩余价值资本化的实质，分析了资本积累的必然性和决定资本积累量的因素。马克思从资本积累回溯到资本原始积累，并在对资本原始积累的考察中，揭示出资本主义积累的历史趋势，即资本主义社会生产力和生产关系的矛盾运动。马克思指出：资本积累提高了生产水平，资本主义生产实现了社会化;生产资料日益集中，生产规模扩大;劳动社会化，每件产品都成为许多人共同劳动的结果;生产过程社会化，社会分工越来越细，各项生产活动联系紧密;市场规模日益扩大，国际市场形成，各资本主义国家的生产成为世界性的生产。生产的社会化要求生产资料由社会占有，并由社会对生产实行统一的计划管理，对产品在全社会范围内根据劳动者的利益进行分配。

随着社会的进步，各方各面都会有新的变化，当代的资本主义也不例外。无论是从生产力、生产关系、上层建筑或者阶级结构上来说，都有了很大程度的改变。比如对于现在的社会现实状态来讲，当代的资本主义与马克思、列宁时代相比，就已经有了很大程度的变化。对于这种情况，我国的学者都各自从不同的角度对其进行了解读与分析。

从生产力的角度来看，学者们普遍认为，在现在这个科学技术快速发展以及产业结构不断变化的现代，资本主义在生产力的方面得到了长久的发展与进步，主要表现为劳动生产率以及社会财富都得到了快速的增长，信息化、服务化、高科技化的产业结构趋势逐渐显现，脑力劳动增加、体力劳动相应的减少，其劳动工具也随着科技的发达而得到了全面的扩展。

从生产关系层面上来看，当代的资本主义也随之而进行了相对应的调整与改变，在很多方面呈现出了新的特点。比如资本社会化的所有制关系趋势增显，社会福利政策的分配关系得以出现等等。学者将其概括描述为：政府对微观经济和宏观经济进行干预;推行雇员持股计划;实行福利政策;用税收调节收入再分配。另外，在有关生产关系新变化而进行的讨论的问题中，国家、国际垄断资本主义以及全球化和资本主义世界体系的讨论等也都得到了一定的涉及。

从上层建筑来看，大部分研究者都认为在以下四方面资本主义有着显著的变化。(1)政治制度与法制实现了有效结合;(2)国家管理经济和社会的职能增强，国家的调节作用越发突出;(3)资产阶级的民主形式进一步扩大;(4)意识形态中左翼与右翼的分歧逐渐减弱，主流意识形态的地位虽然未变，但多元化的价值取向却更加鲜明。而从我们的角度来看，则认为里面的核心主要是资本主义政治统治形式变得更加完善以及精巧，而这样的变化是与其自身所创造出的再生产的条件密不可分的。

在这里，之所以对当代资本主义的新发展变化进行研究，其最根本的目的是为了要预测当代资本主义在历史上的一个发展趋向。针对于此，学术界开展了积极的研讨，并且形成了一些具有代表性的观点，其中，最具有代表性的是以下三种观点。一种观点是这样表达的，资本主义自身仍具有较强的社会适应性和发展潜能。第二种观点认为，当代资本主义的新变化并没有消除其基本矛盾，社会主义代替资本主义是历史的必然。第三种观点这样描述，当代的资本主义要看到其中所具有的两面性，一方面要看到这些新变化在缓解资本主义社会的矛盾、维护资本主义社会的稳定和促进资本主义社会的生产力继续发展等方面所发挥的作用，又要看到这种作用的限制，乃至酝酿和加剧资本主义矛盾方面的作用;既要看到这些新变化在延缓资本主义的覆灭、延长资本主义的寿命方面所发挥的作用，又要看到它并没有也不可能改变在经过一个长过程的发展后，资本主义被社会主义所取代的历史命运。

从我个人角度来说还是赞成第三种观点的，首先来说资本主义就目前来说还有很大的发展空间，还有很大的活力，但这恰恰又符合马克思主义关于社会发展规律的科学论断，所以资本主义最终被社会主义所取代成为历史的必然趋势。

摘要：笔者沿着马克斯•韦伯在《新教伦理与资本主义精神》阐发的观点做了进一步的研究，发现了与马克斯•韦伯不同的一些观点，同时深入挖掘历史现象解释了被马克斯•韦伯忽略的一些史实，借助马斯•韦伯同时代的朋友桑巴特的著作对新教伦理的资本主义精神提出了新的解读。

关键词：资本主义 人口压力 东西方文明

一、引 言

德国社会学家马克斯•韦伯的《新教伦理与资本主义精神》无疑是一本相当重要的社会学著作，该书初稿在1940年和1950年分两次发表于那个时代最有影响力的刊物《社会科学与社会政治学文献》，表达了一个德意志帝国的公民在国家统一后迅速壮大扩张，成为继英法美等国家之后的一等强国所具有的民族自豪感，这种感情深深印刻在他所推崇的新教伦理对资本主义精神形成过程中所起的重大作用，因此，有理由把《新教伦理与资本主义精神》看做马克斯•韦伯在二十世纪初业已成熟的资本主义精神、秩序、发了和制度所做的一种理论 总结 和提供了一种新的原理解读。然而在此文发表之初就引发了强烈争论，包括马克斯•韦伯共同编辑《社会科学与社会政治学文献》的维尔纳•桑巴特就持有不同看法。随着马克斯•韦伯在学界的影响深入，再次分析讨论此书以及马克斯•韦伯其他著作中涉及到的宗教观点对于我们今天研究整体社会价值观有新的意义，比如我们想要确定，资本主义在本质的形成过程中以及后来在全球扩张的过程中，作为宗教力量的新教伦理是否或者在大多程度上起到了哪些作用、为什么东西方在1500年以后分别沿着不同的道路发展以及亚细亚文明能否单独发展成功资本主义。另外本人在研读马克斯•韦伯的《新教伦理与资本主义精神》之时，也有一些不同的看法意愿与方家商榷，并愿意做更进一步的钻研。

二、马克斯•韦伯赞扬的“新教伦理与资本主义精神”

马克斯•韦伯在书籍开篇“作者导论”中开宗明义地阐明了自己的立场“为什么在西方文明中，而且只有在西方文明中，出现了一个(我们认为;原文如此)其发展具有世界意义和价值的 文化 现象”，从这一个立足点出发，笔者认为马克斯•韦伯在开初就否定了其他国家和地区的不同文化现象和生存状态是与他所欣赏的具有世界意义和普世价值的西方文明具有可以同等看待的水平，似乎只有西方社会给世界人民提供了可以学习借鉴的模板，别人只要学习照搬就可以了，甚至于可能如果不接受这样的西方文明和价值观遭遇种族屠杀灭绝也是有道理的!因为在整本书籍当中，我们只看到马克斯•韦伯对欧洲移民，他所称道的新教徒开发了美洲大陆，而够小了对原著民族的掠夺和屠杀。无可否认马克斯•韦伯称赞新教伦理和资本主义精神是有物质基础和科学根据的，正如《韦伯转》作者描述的那样，马克斯•韦伯是有道理自豪的，1904年仲夏他在纽约看到了“耸入云天的摩天大楼和矗立于海岸的自由女神像”。所以马克斯•韦伯再一次被“资本主义精神的巨大创造力量”所震撼。因为此时马克斯•韦伯生活在统一后的德意志帝国已经抛弃了普鲁士时代的诸侯纷争、小邦林立、俯首听认大国宰割的邦国时代成为继英法美之后的一等世界强国，所以有此种民族自豪感情有可原。然而带着这样的心态撰写《新教伦理与资本主义精神》我们就要发现许多当今重视世界多元文化结构很不一样的东西在里面，所以笔者愿意对该书做出一些新的解读，请方家指正。

三、对“新教伦理和资本主义精神”的中心解读

马克斯•韦伯先生在《新教伦理与资本主义精神》总结出的受新教伦理影响的资本主义精神主要有如下一些：1、“职业责任是资本主义文化的社会伦理的重要特征;而现在，一定意义上也是资本主义文化的根本基础。”2、“只要干得合法，赚钱就是职业美德和能力的结果与表现”，这里可以比较孔子教导弟子的“君子爱财，取之以道，用之有度”;3、该书第19-22页大段引用本杰明•富兰克林的话，最后断言资本主义精神无疑在资本主义秩序出现之前就出现了。而本杰明•富兰克林总结的美国人具有的那种精神无非就是：禁酒、默言、有序、坚定、借鉴、勤勉、诚挚、公正、节制、干净、宁静、贞洁和谦逊。死还没有对屠戮原著居民的忏悔，其他思想家则从完全不同的角度阐释所谓“美国精神”：“在美国，清教精神沦落为一种执拗的小镇精神，只讲究所谓的图面。而世俗霍布斯注意滋养了现代性的主要动机------对无限制 经验 的贪求;乃至于“追求赋予的冲动取代了禁欲苦行，享乐主义的生活方式淹没了天职召唤。”

因此我们能否做这样的假设和推断，第一、新教伦理是否一定催生资本主义精神?或者没有新教徒侵润的国家和地区从无可能出现资本主义和资本主义精神?第二、新教伦理或资本主义精神一定优于其他民族或宗教精神乃至于可以对秉承其他人类文化遗产的所谓“异教徒”给以彻底铲除甚至肉体消灭，是全世界人类俯伏与《圣经》的教导之下?第三、如果马克斯•韦伯足够长寿，当他看到了他推崇的资本主义精神哺育下的国家和地区经历了二十世纪二十年代末三十年代出经济大萧条和随后的希特勒崛起及第二次世界大战，他会作何感想?

仔细分析上面的问题，第一个是充分条件，即新教伦理一定催生资本主义精神，或者马克斯•韦伯自己肯定的那种资本主义精神，实际上他在《新教伦理与资本主义精神》中已经断言“资本主义精神无疑在资本注意秩序出现之前就出现了”。我们也知道宗教改革之前，鄂州的强国如荷兰、西班牙以及地中海沿岸贸易频繁，充分展现了即将统治世界经济的资本主义精神的活动能力，而那时候还没有所谓的新教徒!更遑论新教伦理!

第二个命题则是必要条件，即使没有新教伦理的国家和地区不可能有“资本主义精神的巨大创造力量”，也就是不会有马克斯•韦伯先生惊叹的“耸入云天的摩天大楼和矗立于海岸的自由女神像”，那么几乎与卑斯麦统一德国听一时期，通过明治维新而与西方列强争雄的东亚国家日本又是怎样的情况?日本自然是“衣冠唐制度，礼义汉文化”属于儒家文化圈，没有新教伦理侵润的撮尔岛国也能发展出资本主义精神和制度，呢么马克斯•韦伯先生如何解释?至少我们在《新教伦理与资本主义精神》得不到解释，至于后来马克思•韦伯先生后来不曾看到的亚洲四小龙等经济实体腾飞就不必说了。从此也看到没有新教伦理侵润照样可以有资本主义精神和秩序，如果更仔细地研究东南亚华侨拓殖开发的 种植 园经济，仿佛可以与美国南北战争时期的南方经济模式相比拟。

至于第三个命题是后来灾难性的事例，资本主义学者都有补充性的说明，至少对于某些坚信资本主义市场放任自由竞争的理论家们是个惊醒;至于更有其甚的希特勒叫嚣优势民族至上论，是否得自于马克斯•韦伯先生的影响，我们难于落实，姑且放在一边。至少从有良心的学着看，马克斯•韦伯不会同意希特勒对犹太诸民族做有理论准备的计划新屠杀;而我们知道那些新教徒的学说很多来自他们反叛过的宗教版《圣经》，而《圣经》可是古代以色列人用希伯来语撰写的犹太民族血泪奋斗历史。当然，里面以上帝正义的名义下动辄灭绝一个城邦，动动手指头就要灭杀一些所谓异教徒的描述他们是不会在教堂传道布教的时候做讲道的引用。

四、对中国没有原发产生资本主义的 反思

英国人李约瑟(Joseph Needham,1900-1995)在研究中国科学技术史与欧洲对比的时候，即深深被丰富灿烂、历史悠久的黄河长江农耕文明所吸引，又怀着一种莫名的惊诧何以中国农耕文明为代表的亚细亚生产方式没有产生出近现代资本主义生产方式，故而提出了著名的“李约瑟之谜”;法国人伏尔泰研究各国历史进程和科技演变，也有同样的疑问;当代著名的美国汉学家马克•伊文(Mark Elvin)则在专著《The pattern of the Chinese past : a social and economic interpretation》给出了“高水平陷阱”的诠释;后来不少学者又从中国科举选拔制度在明清两代走入束缚人类思想的角度给与了多重解读。限于篇幅笔者不在此处展开讨论。

综上所述，如果马克斯•韦伯只想表明新教伦理对资本主义的发展有过重要影响—仅仅将这种思想作为一种尝试性的假说提出来，把资本主义精神及其后来的制度法律作为欧洲长期孕育发生的一个十分复杂历史过程来看，新教伦理起到了重要的作用，那么过分对这一作用的夸大则是有待商榷，因此我们是否可以试着做如下的陈述：任何社会现象的存在和发展过程，都是现实与意识的统一。清教徒的宗教、契约与法律观念的生成与演化过程同样也概莫能外，从此演变出的资本主义精神只有立足于清教徒当时的现实处境，才能有助于我们更好地理解其相应观念的形成与变迁;同样，资本主义精神的许多优秀品质在各民族的传统中多有体现。恰好是欧洲某个阶层的生存空间和权利诉求在宗教改革之后不能在自己地域上得到满足，随着人口压力增加和财富欲望的不断追求，他们随着远航的帆船漂洋过海传播到世界各地。在这个征服世界、体现所谓“主的意志”过程中，一直以宗教作为理论支持并逐渐成为主导世界的力量就是马克斯•韦伯所称颂的新教伦理和资本主义精神，很幸运的是他没有看到后来的经济大萧条和希特勒崛起……

参考文献：

1.〔德〕马克斯•韦伯著，彭强，黄晓京译：《新教伦理与资本主义精神》〔M〕西安：陕西师范大学出版社，2002。

2.〔美〕斯塔夫里阿诺斯著，吴象婴，梁赤民译：《全球通史：1500年以后的世界》〔M〕上海：上海社会科学院出版社，1992。

3. 姬金铎著：《韦伯传》〔M〕石家庄：河北人民出版社，1998。

摘 要：资本主义作为一种经济社会制度，从16世纪产生以来到现在已经经历了五个世纪之久。尤其二战以后，尽管世界上一些国家已脱离资本主义世界体系，但是资本主义世界的中心部分，即发达资本主义国家不但生存而且空前发展，表现出较高水平的科技、经济和社会发展，甚至占据全球发展的主导地位。但是，由于资本主义的固有矛盾和本质，资本主义终究是不合理的社会制度，我们在肯定其积极历史作用的同时，也要认识到其固有的矛盾和弊端始终存在的客观现实。

关键词：资本主义;矛盾;社会主义;生产关系

一、“两个必然”的坚定认识

资本主义是一个不断发展变化的社会形态，所以对资本主义的认识也要不断深化。马克思恩格斯指出，资本主义是私有制基础上的雇佣劳动剥削制度，是以一种剥削制度代替另一种剥削制度。资本主义社会的基本矛盾即生产的社会化与生产资料的资本主义私人占有之间的矛盾，而正是这种矛盾导致了越来越严重的资本主义的经济危机。

生产社会化和生产资料的资本主义私人占有之间的矛盾，使资本主义生产无限扩大的趋势和广大劳动人民日益贫困的趋势同时增长。恩格斯在《反社林论中》指出：“机器的改进就造成人的劳动的过剩。如果说，机器的采用和增加意味着成百万的手工劳动者为少数机器劳动者所排挤，那么，机器的改进就意味着越来越多的机器劳动者本身受到排挤，而归根到底就意味着造成一批超过资本在经营上的平均需要的、可供支配的雇佣劳动者，一支真正的产业后备军。”[1]随着资本积累的发展，私有规模不断壮大，社会化程度提高，他们的矛盾也会加深。这就预示了资本主义生产关系已经严重阻碍了生产力的发展，必然为新的生产关系所代替。马克思在《资本论》中清楚地表明：“生产资料的集中和劳动的社会化，达到了同它们的资本主义外壳不能相容的地步。这个外壳就要炸毁了。资本主义的丧钟就要响了。剥夺者就要剥夺了。”[2]邓小平在南方谈话中也曾指出：“社会主义本质，是解放的生产力发展生产力，消灭剥削，消灭两极分化，最终达到共同富裕。”[3]在很长的一个历史时期内，社会主义将处于一种量的积累或量变中的部分质变的发展状态，这表明与之相关的资本主义的灭亡也是一个演进的过程。所以，按照生产力发展水平等社会指标，社会主义在很大程度上还不能跟当今资本主义国家相比，社会主义取代资本主义是一个长期的过程。

二、资本主义的本质特征――私有制基础上的剥削制度

马克思指出，不论生产的社会形式如何，劳动者和生产资料始终是生产的因素。在资本主义社会，两者的结合是少数具有组织大规模生产的物质条件而又不依靠自身劳动来满足生产的资本家，以等价交换的方式从市场上找到那些丧失了一切生产资料、一无所有的无产者，并把它们的劳动力作为商品购买回来，投入到生产中而实现的。所以，资本主义是生产资料归资本家私人占有基础上的雇佣劳动制度，它是资本主义的剥削基础。

在以私有制为基础的雇佣劳动制度下，资本和雇佣劳动之间的关系是一种剥削与被剥削的关系，但在现实生活中，它却被资本与雇佣劳动之间的等价交换关系所掩盖。资本家与工人之间进行的等价交换只是一种形式，这种形式的掩盖下的内容和结果则是不平等交换。工人并不是属于某一个资本家而是属于整个资本家阶级。马克思一针见血的指出：“罗马的奴隶是由锁链，雇佣工人则由看不见的线系在自己的所有者手里的。”[4]

三、正确认识资本主义在历史上的进步作用

虽然资本主义有其本质的弊端，但其在历史发展中是具有进步作用的。马克思在《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中特别强调，工业资本家战胜封建大土地所有者以及工业战胜农业是历史的进步。由封建土地所有制向资本主义所有制过渡是不可抗拒的必然历史过程，任何阻止资本主义发展的行动，都是徒劳的。

资本主义在促进人类社会文明进步上曾发挥的历史作用也具有不可替代性：第一，资本主义生产方式适应了生产力的性质，促进了生产力的发展。“过去哪一个世纪料想到在社会劳动里会蕴藏着这样的生产力呢。”[5]第二，资产阶级把一切封建的宗法的和田园诗般的关系都破坏了，它无情的斩断了把人们束缚于天然尊长的形形色色的封建羁绊，消除了一切固定的古老的关系以及与之相适应的传统观念和见解，确立了以“自由、平等、博爱”为核心的人本主义的新观念，科学文化的光明冲破了中世纪宗教统治黑暗时代。第三，资产阶级创立并开拓了国际市场，它迫使一切国家的生产和消费都成为世界性的了。马克思恩格斯对于资本主义的原始积累以及为了开拓世界商品销售市场和获得原料基地所进行的侵略战争，进行了深刻的揭露、抨击和谴责。但同时又辩证的看到这种侵略在客观上又给被侵略国家带来了西方进步文明，尽管这对于被侵略国家和人民来说是极其痛苦和耻辱的。第四，资产阶级日甚一日的消灭生产资料。财产和人口的分散状态，造成了经济的集中，进而又带来了政治的集中。它摧毁了封建割据的壁垒，使各自独立的、几乎只有同盟关系、各自有着不同利益、不同法律、不同政府、不同关税的各个地区，结合为一个统一的政府、统一的法律、统一的民族阶级利益和统一的关税的民族，实现了民族和国家的统一。

四、社会主义应该理性继承和发展资本主义文明成果

从历史发展的逻辑历程来看，人类社会是一个由低级向高级的发展过程。各个社会形态都依据社会发展的客观要求发挥了自己的历史作用，创造了有利于社会前进的文明成果。这些成就必然为下一个社会形态所继承和借鉴，成为社会进步和发展的基础因素。社会主义革命消灭资本主义私有制和雇佣劳动制度后，要采取多种方式继承和运用资本主义社会遗留下来的物化的生产力，充分吸取和借鉴资本主义生产，经营的现代化管理经验和先进的科学技术。这反映了生产发展和经济繁荣的一般规律，是全人类的共同财富，不能一昧祛除。其中，资产阶级思想家培根提出了“知识就是力量”的 口号 ，资产阶级用科学反对封建的迷信，并第一次引起了人类科学观念的更新，人类对客观世界产生了飞跃性的认识。资产阶级在科学上的革命也引起了技术上的革命。另外，资本主义在反封建的斗争中建立了民主共和国形式，虽然这种民主共和形式带有明显的阶级性质，是为资产阶级服务的，但它确实比封建专制度进步很多。无产阶级在取得政权后都要保留资产阶级政治统治的成熟形式。

虽然当时的资本主义国家特别是西方发达国家，在最后的一百年中，生产力具有明显加速度的发展的趋势。可见，生产力的资本主义社会内部还有很大的发展空间，资本主义对生产力的促进作用还没有彻底用尽，那么我们认为的资本主义很快灭亡不符合社会发展规律。但是，正如马克思恩格斯认为的资本主义是一种历史的暂时的社会形态。它将不可避免地被更高级的社会形态所取代。因此，随着生产力的发展，生产关系会过快过慢的发生着变化，正如量变引起质变，这种改变最终会达到极限，旧的社会形态灭亡，新的社会形态会随之产生，资本主义正随着生产力的发展不断调整着生产关系，即当代资本主义正一步一步迈向社会形态的高级阶段，为更先进更合理的社会主义制度所取代。

参考文献：

[1] 马克思，恩格斯.马克思恩格斯选集.第3卷[M].北京：人民出版社，1995：748.

[2] 马克思，恩格斯.马克思恩格斯选集.第2卷[M].北京：人民出版社，1995：269.

[3] 邓小平.邓小平文选.第3卷[M].北京：人民出版社，1993：382.

[4] 马克思，恩格斯.马克思恩格斯选集.第2卷[M].北京：人民出版社，1995：232.

[5] 马克思，恩格斯.马克思恩格斯选集.第1卷[M].北京：人民出版社，1995：277.

猜你喜欢：

1. 资本主义论文

2. 论资本主义的新变化论文

3. 当代资本主义发展趋势分析论文

4. 试论马克思与韦伯对资本主义精神的解读论文

5. “资本主义必然灭亡”的论断及启示

6. 当代资本主义的新变化论文

关于资本论的这个标题哟有，礼貌真诚，诚信，友善 ，工作认真 ，负责坚持到底 等

题名又称题目或标题。题名是以最恰当、最简明的词语反映论文中最重要的特定内容的逻辑组合。论文题目是一篇论文给出的涉及论文范围与水平的第一个重要信息，也是必须考虑到有助于选定关键词不达意和编制题录、索引等二次文献可以提供检索的特定实用信息。论文题目十分重要，必须用心斟酌选定。有人描述其重要性，用了下面的一句话：“论文题目是文章的一半”。对论文题目的要求是：准确得体：简短精炼：外延和内涵恰如其分：醒目。(二)作者姓名和单位(Authoranddepartment）这一项属于论文署名问题。署名一是为了表明文责自负，二是记录作用的劳动成果，三是便于读者与作者的联系及文献检索(作者索引)。大致分为二种情形，即：单个作者论文和多作者论文。后者按署名顺序列为第一作者、第二作者……。重要的是坚持实事求是的态度，对研究工作与论文撰写实际贡献最大的列为第一作者，贡献次之的，列为第二作者，余类推。注明作者所在单位同样是为了便于读者与作者的联系。(三)摘要(Abstract）论文一般应有摘要，有些为了国际交流，还有外文(多用英文)摘要。它是论文内容不加注释和评论的简短陈述。其他用是不阅读论文全文即能获得必要的信息。摘要应包含以下内容：①从事这一研究的目的和重要性;②研究的主要内容，指明完成了哪些工作;③获得的基本结论和研究成果，突出论文的新见解;④结论或结果的意义。(四)关键词(Keywords）关键词属于主题词中的一类。主题词除关键词外，还包含有单元词、标题词的叙词。主题词是用来描述文献资料主题和给出检索文献资料的一种新型的情报检索语言词汇，正是由于它的出现和发展，才使得情报检索计算机化(计算机检索)成为可能。主题词是指以概念的特性关系来区分事物，用自然语言来表达，并且具有组配功能，用以准确显示词与词之间的语义概念关系的动态性的词或词组。

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 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 . states. The search for less brutal means of inflicting death continues to recent times. In 1977 Oklahoma became the first . 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 . 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 (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 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 , 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 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 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 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 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.