大国崛起国际法的角度:资本主义的大问题

Why did it take so long? It is over four years since the financial crisis began. Yet only now are anti-capitalist protests emerging, including at St Paul's Cathedral. So is this the beginning of a resurgent leftwing politics? I doubt it. Are the protesters raising some big questions? Yes, they are.

为什么如此之久？金融危机爆发至今已有4年多的时间，但直到现在，才兴起反资本主义抗议（抗议波及到了圣保罗大教堂）。那么，这是不是左翼政治复兴的开端呢？我对此表示怀疑。抗议者是否提出了一些重大问题？是的，的确如此。

For this to be the beginning of a new leftwing politics, two things have to occur: first, a credible new ideology must emerge; second, some social force must march behind it.

这股浪潮要成为新左翼政治的开端，必须具备两个因素：第一，必须出现一种令人信服的新意识形态；第二，在这种意识形态的背后必须存在着某种社会力量。

In the 19th and early 20th centuries, the ideology was socialism and the force was organised labour. Socialism failed as a way of running economies. It did, however, succeed in establishing welfare states. Socialism is a conservative force, dedicated to defending entitlements built up over a century. Meanwhile, organised labour is only strongly entrenched in the public sector. This gives it the same conservative agenda: defending the welfare state. Strikes by UK public sector workers against the fiscal cuts will demonstrate this.

19世纪到20世纪初，新涌现的意识形态是社会主义，背后的力量则是有组织的工人。社会主义作为一种经济管理方式以失败告终，但它成功地建立起了福利国家。社会主义是一股保守力量，致力于捍卫一个多世纪以来逐步争取到的权利。另一方面，工人组织仅在公共部门确立起了牢固的地位。这赋予它同样的保守使命：维护福利国家。英国公共部门工人针对财政削减计划发起的罢工，就可说明这一点。

If the traditional left offers no answer, can the free market right return to business as usual? No. People who believe in the marriage of democratic politics with market economics need to address what has happened. They need to do so, above all, because there are darker forms of politics waiting in the wings: nationalism, chauvinism and racism. That is what happens when the conventional elites fail and frustration takes over. We do not need to watch this tragedy again.

如果从传统左翼身上找不到答案，自由市场能够像往常一样立刻恢复运转吗？不能。相信民主政治与市场经济联姻的人士必须解决当前的事态。这首先是因为有一些更加阴暗的政治思想正蠢蠢欲动：国家主义、大国沙文主义和种族主义。当传统上层集团失败了、民众的失望情绪高涨时，就会发生这种情况。我们不能眼看着这种悲剧重演。

The response to the crisis among those in the pro-market camp is much on the lines of the 1930s. On one side are those who blame what has gone wrong entirely on government. The Tea Party, in the US, has taken that position, with some success. In the UK, this strand is weaker. But there, too, some argue that the crisis is the result of Gordon Brown’s fiscal incontinence, over-regulated markets or incompetent central banks. In this, they follow the Austrian economists, Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek, in the 1930s. Against them are those who, following John Maynard Keynes, argue for a managed capitalism.

亲市场阵营应对危机的策略，大体上因循的是上世纪30年代的套路。他们中有些人把所有的过错都归咎于政府。美国的“茶党”便是如此，他们取得了一些成功。在英国，这股势力比较弱，但也有一些人认为，这场危机是戈登?布朗(Gordon Brown)在财政上恣意挥霍、政府对市场监管过度或央行无能等因素导致的。他们沿袭了上世纪30年代奥地利经济学家路德维格?冯?米塞斯(Ludwig von Mises)和弗里德里希?哈耶克(Friedrich Hayek)的思想。与他们相对立的人士，则奉行约翰?梅纳德?凯恩斯(John Maynard Keynes)，主张实行“有管理的资本主义”(managed capitalism)。

Once again, much of this debate is over use of macroeconomic policy tools: should one tighten or loosen fiscal policy in a recession? Are unconventional monetary policies a path to hyperinflation or effective policies in extreme circumstances? Again, just as radical Keynesians emerged in the 1930s and afterwards, proponents of more intervention in markets are now emerging.

这场辩论主要又是围绕宏观经济政策工具的应用：在衰退中应该收紧、还是放宽财政政策？在极端环境下，非常规货币政策是通往恶性通胀之路，还是有效的政策？正如上世纪30年代激进凯恩斯主义者的逐渐兴起一样，一个支持加强市场干预的派别也正粉墨登场。

This is a debate we need. In my view, both perspectives are useful. The Tea Party is wrong on the future of government. Even the

这场辩论正是我们所需要的。依我看，两种观点都有用。茶党关于未来政府角色的看法是错误的。即使是美国也不可能回到19世纪。但茶党中比较有头脑的人士则是对的（并且与当今的抗议者所见略同），他们认为，我们已经缔造了一种内幕人资本主义(an insider form of capitalism )，它利用、事实上也制造了补贴和税收上的漏洞，让内幕人士得以从中渔利、大发横财。不得不拯救银行这一点令人惊恐。金钱在政治中的角色令人不安。危险在于，我们正从诺贝尔经济学奖获得者道格拉斯?诺斯(Douglass North)所说的“开放介入秩序”走向它的对立面——这是一种政治起决定性作用的体制。

US is not going back to the 19th-century state. But its more coherent members are right – and even agree with today’s protesters – that we have promoted an insider form of capitalism which exploits and indeed creates subsidies and tax loopholes on which the insiders prosper. The need to rescue banks was horrifying. The role of money in politics is disturbing. The danger is that we are moving from what the Nobel?laureate economic historian, Douglass North, calls an “open-access order” to its opposite, a system in which political influence is decisive.

这不仅是低效率的，也是不公正的。绝大部分人都不会妒忌史蒂夫?乔布斯(Steve Jobs)的财富。但对于从接受纾困企业中涌现出来的富人，人们则抱着不一样的眼光。纾困必须到此为止。改革金融业使其能够取信于人，对于未来至关重要。但这还不够。市场资本主义造就了内在的困难，其中最明显的两种是宏观经济的不稳定性和极端的不平等。市场导向的金融体系自我消耗的倾向再次隆重亮相。说起自由市场，右翼人士声称，如果我们回到金本位制、或者结束银行部分准备金制度，那就万事大吉了。我对这些说法表示怀疑。对未来进行押注，必然就会有不稳定性。人类的乐观和悲观思潮似乎具有自我实现的倾向。减轻不稳定性、缓解相关后果的方法从来都有待于寻找。

This is not merely inefficient. It is unjust. Few begrudged Steve Jobs his fortune. The view on those who emerged rich from rescued businesses is very different. The era of bail-outs must end. Restructuring finance to make this credible is of huge importance for the future. Yet this is not all. Market capitalism creates inherent difficulties. The two most obvious are macroeconomic instability and extremes of inequality. The tendency of a market-oriented financial system to run away with itself has, again, been demonstrated on a large scale. On the free?market right people argue that if only we went back to the gold standard or ended fractional reserve banking, all would be well. I question such claims. Instability is inherent in the game of betting on the future. Humans seem prone to self-fulfilling waves of optimism and pessimism. Ways of mitigating the extent and the consequences of such instability always need to be found.

什么程度的不平等是可接受的？我们找不到标准。只要大家认为富人们是通过操纵、而非通过诚实竞争发家致富的，这样的不平等就是有害的。随着不平等的程度上升，公民人人平等的感觉就会淡化。最终，民主被卖给出价最高的投标人。这是共和政体历史上常见的现象。和平抗议是自由公民的权利。更重要的是，抗议使问题进入了我们的视线。左翼不知如何取代市场。但亲市场者还是必须认真对待这些抗议。眼下并非事事顺遂。

It is impossible to define an acceptable level of inequality. Any inequality is corrosive if those with wealth are believed to have rigged the game rather than won in honest competition. As inequality rises, the sense that we are equal as citizens weakens. In the end, democracy is sold to the highest bidder. That has happened often before in the history of republics. Peaceful protest is the right of free people. More important, it is a way to bring issues to our attention. The left does not know how to replace the market. But

译者/何黎