馬克思主義已死？──回應周保松

我尊重自由左翼（liberal left） ，尊重社民派，在沒有明顯的革命力量的今日對革命失去信心，的確很能理解，但是周保松的最新文章似乎打算三言兩語就全盤否定社會主義革命這個選項，我實在是不能苟同。[1]



1. 我們應該如何理解由 1917 至 1989 達七十二年的「社會主義實驗」？

蘇聯和中國的經驗與其說是否定了馬克思，倒不如說它們引證了馬克思主義。如果有讀一點托洛茨基（Leon Trotsky），就知道古典馬克思主義者早在 30 年代已經作過蘇聯會重回資本主義的預測，而不是純粹馬後炮。唯物主義地分析，蘇聯革命的失敗究其根本原因在於它未能成功聯合在德法等資本主義先進國的社會主義革命，從而形成全球革命。俄國革命的成功原因在於當時的沙皇和民族資產階級都仍然疲弱，但德法英的資產階級卻實在要強大得多，他們調動國家機器打壓，拉攏自由派和社民派進行分化，甚至不惜資助納粹黨「抗共」，當地的社會主義運動因而失敗告終。由於德法的革命始終未能發生，當時很多馬克思主義者就已經預料到 1917 革命的成就將付之一炬。社會主義革命必須聯合資本主義先進國，並擴散至全球，這不純粹是出於追求世界大同的道德情操，更是因為這是社會主義得以可能的先要條件︰

一、社會主義並非獨立於資本主義的一種選擇，社會主義必須依賴於資本主義階段透過血淋淋的資本積累而發展出的強大生產力，在這種強大生產力的前提下實現生產資料的公有制，從而消除剝削。所以馬克思主義者不會說我們應該剷平屬於資本主義的工廠、運輸系統，而是說讓工人階級奪取工廠的控制權，並自行生產。馬克思從來沒有說過一個工業後進國能在公有制底下完成快速的資本積累，否則在封建主義和社會主義歷史階段之間就不需要一個資本主義了。當時的俄羅斯和中國等工業後進國事實上並沒有條件實行社會主義，因此在革命黨奪取國家權力以後，自然也是無法避免為了加速資本積累而向工人實行血淋淋的剝削。但要注意︰自冷戰以來歐美國家文宣一直都把中國和蘇聯的社會慘況跟共產黨聯繫起來，它們卻刻意忘記了今日的資本主義先進國也一度對工人實行過有過之而無不及的剝削，把長達幾個世紀的奴隸制和十九世紀英國工廠工人和煤礦工人的慘況這些資本主義原罪忘得一乾二淨的話，是不可能對工業後進國有公道、不雙重標準的評價的。這不是說蘇聯做得對，而是說，即使俄羅斯當年沒有變成社會主義國家，情況很可能也不會有很大分別，在資本主義體系中它仍然是要透過殘酷剝削工人來發展國家經濟，分別只是西方文宣不會因此對資本主義大加譴責，或宣佈資本主義因此誠信破產。

二、缺乏德法等資本主義大國的支援，當時的蘇聯立即的面對的是全球資產階級的合力圍剿，也就是所謂的「冷戰」格局。這種格局一來導致蘇聯被排除在全球經濟分工之外，也令得作為工業後進國的蘇聯不得浪費大量資源在軍事競賽上，並使蘇聯無可避免地發展成一個中央集權的官僚國家，以穩定其國家主權。社會主義者心中的結構鬆散、由下而上的政治體系是不可能在冷戰格局下維持的。

以上兩點，說明了為何社會主義革命必須是世界革命，也說明了為何蘇聯陣營的失敗並不在馬克思主義者的意料之外（同樣的分析早在二戰前已經流行）。更重要的是，我們要理解到蘇聯歷史並沒有脫離作為一個歷史體系（historical system）的資本主義，用 Immanuel Wallerstein 的講法就是 [2] ，蘇聯及其陣營代表的不是一個可跟資本主義相比的、業己完成的社會主義選擇（alternative），而只是在世界資本主義中以國家為單位繼續進行革命的革命國家（revolutionary state）。我們在分析這些革命國家時，不應忘記它們其實都身處於資本主義歷史階段之內，對它們的善與惡，我們要區分清楚哪些屬於社會主義原素，哪些屬於資本主義原素，不能一概歸咎於社會主義。我們也不應忘記就算是今日受很多人敬仰的資本主義，當初也有其更不堪回首的原罪，要說社會主義害死人，資本主義其實害死得更多（隨便舉例︰美洲的奴隸制、英法的黑奴貿易、美洲和澳大利亞針對原住民的種族屠殺、圈地運動、工業和礦場工人的大量死傷、童工、早在十九世紀末流行的強制勞動集中營、愛爾蘭大饑荒、對印度、中國、東南亞和中東的帝國主義侵略、作為帝國主義延伸的兩次世界大戰、至今仍然存在於中國、韓國、印度等國對生產線工人的無情剝削、至今仍然存在的巨大貧富差距︰世上八成人口身處於我們這些在冷氣房宣佈資本主義勝利的人所無法想像的環境。）

問題是在冷戰文宣的影響下，我們會輕易地把發生於蘇聯、中國、北韓的悲劇歸因為社會主義的必然結果，但面對資本主義底下的災難我們卻視為可以被改善的個別問題，而這種雙重標準背後，往往缺乏理論分析，只是訴諸這樣的反問句︰「看過蘇聯和中共的經驗後你還能相信社會主義嗎？」那為何我們在看過拉美和非洲的經驗後仍可以對資本主義有信仰？（別忘記，自由派所響往的歐美生活水平是在經濟上無法脫離對拉美等邊陲地區（periphery）的剝削的。）


2. 社會主義是否一定包含計劃經濟？

社會主義的定義很簡單，就是由工人來實際掌握生產資料，也就是在工廠和企業之內實行真正的政治民主和經濟民主，由工人集體經過民主方式決定生產活動和人事按排。這一點其實是跟市場經濟沒有本質上的衝突。而古典經濟學的分析，認為市場能透過價格傳達人手不可能搜集到的複雜訊息，左翼也不需要反對。由此至終資本主義的核心問題都並非在於市場經濟，而在於資本家透過搾取工人勞動的剩餘價值來獲得利潤。

另外一來，正如 Noam Chomsky 所說，市場是一個迷思，你看 08 年美國政府動用國家資金拯救私人企業，就知道國家一直都是資本主義中的重要角色。因此判斷一個社會是資本主義還是社會主義，不能透過「國有」或「私營」之類的區分，即使所有企業名義上都是國有，也不就等於是社會主義；而那些名義上是私營的企業，其實一直都有國家在背後撐腰。我們要看的其實是勞動者在實際的經濟決策上有多大的自主權。

也有社會主義者提出過市場價格體制和中央管制之外的其他方案，例如由各生產部門、消費者、環境監察者等人士透過民主商議在工作場所和地方代表議會決定資源的分配方式。

總而言之，一套方式行不通的話，社會主義者總可以用另一套方式取代之，社會主義的目標不是要教條式地依附於某種社會組織形式，而是要令剝削、令階級消亡。所以計劃經濟的失敗，並不就代表社會主義的失敗。


3. 為什麼在資本主義底下進行改良不能解決問題？

自由左翼認為我們可以透過財富再分配的機制大大改善窮人的處境，而這種透過繳收他人財富來補助另一些人的做法，需要道德證成，於是以 John Rawls 為首的左翼自由主義哲學就大派上場。先不談「道德證成」能否說服資本家乖乖交稅，我們就先看看這種福利國家體制其實是怎樣的一回事。

傳統的馬克思主義分析認為，在資本主義競爭之下，企業要維持利潤率，就必須降低勞動力成本。但如果降低工人薪資，又會導致市場的消費力減弱，總需求下降。這就是資本主義的內在矛盾之一。建立「世界體系理論」（world-system theory）的著名學者 Immanuel Wallerstein 認為 [3] ，這矛盾在歷史上的解決方式，是透過地域區隔（geographical disjuncture）來達成的。任何時候，世界體系中受特別恩典的核心地區（core state，例如美國和西歐）採取了提升總需求的政治措施（例如定立最低工資、提高福利等），在世界體系的邊陲地區（periphery）就會同時增加一堆新的廉價勞動力。可以是將更多郊區農民轉化為城市工廠工人，也可以是將整個世界資本主義體系擴展到之前所未包括的地方，例如一些相對自給自足的郊區經濟體。也就是說，企業透過尋找未開拓的地區，將其轉化為廉價勞動力市場，從而降低了生產成本，而又同時能維持到本國消費市場的總需求。這就是福利國家的運作邏輯︰富國透過向窮國加大剝削來賺取額外資本去購買國內工人階級的認同，所謂的「合法性」。自由派和社民派所響往的西方福利國家，是建立在跨國剝削的前提之上的。透過加大全球性的貧富差距來實現國內的貧富收窄，似乎並不是真的那麼正義。

70 年代開始的新自由主義見證了這個模式的極限︰世界上能夠再被搾取剩餘價值的地方已經開拓得七七八八，於是經濟陷入停滯，福利國家模式再也支撐不下去，我們於是就見證了以戴卓爾為首的右翼政客利用國家機器對工人運動大力鎮壓，並撤銷了很多已有的工人福利及權益。目前希臘、西班牙、愛爾蘭等歐盟國家面對的情況只是七八十年代英國的延續。

道德理論要建立在對現實的正確認知上，現實是資本主義經濟的運作依賴於資本的不斷積累，自由左翼跟社民派主張的「財富再分配」是跟這套運作邏輯矛盾的，無法長遠延續的，而當自由左翼和社民派長期霸佔左翼的輿論陣地，他們所支持的福利國家卻宣告破產時，民眾就會倒向右翼意識形態，找比自己更弱勢的底層和新移民來當代罪羔羊。這在戴卓爾時代已經發生過，今日在歐洲又再重演。我並不反對福利政策，我反對的是自由左翼跟社民派妄顧歷史、妄顧現實地向民眾開空頭支票，承諾他們這種福利國家是長遠有效的，然後又在被經濟現實擊沉後像英國新工黨那樣倒向右翼，為資本主義延命。


結語

政治沒有永遠的敵人，我個人的立場是不反對社會主義者在未有革命條件前跟自由左翼和社民派有限度地、暫時性、策略性地結盟的。但是我們必需不斷提醒在爭取勞工福利的盟友，真正的解放不能建立於對落後地區的忽略，也不能不認清福利體制隨時崩潰、右翼政策將強勢回歸的現實。正如今日很多人崇拜的資本主義也不是一日建成的，而是在幾個世紀的歷程當中，經歷許多錯誤，透過一次又一次的革命來推翻封建制度並取而代之的。要建立新的社會體制，要靠我們一代又一代的人在思想和實踐上不斷傳承，不斷累積經驗。很多前輩也談到，在二十年前的革命低谷談馬克思主義是匪夷所思的，但在今日馬克思主義思想已經開始捲土重來，自由派還能再譏諷「今時今日有多少人還相信馬克思主義？」的日子恐怕不長，社會主義革命的千里之行，始於我們每個人的足下。

--
備注︰

[1] 本文主要針對周文的第 4 點回應，原文為

那麼，政府應該如何介入？一種相當傳統的社會主義左翼觀點認為，問題根源在資本主義的生產和財產制度。只有徹底消滅市場經濟，改行計劃經濟，徹底消滅私有財產制，改行財產公有制，才能從根本處整體地解決問題。只有如此，人民才會有真自由、真平等、真公義、真解放。而要實現這個理想，就要無產階級團結起來，進行階級鬥爭，推翻資本主義制度。階級問題，遂成問題核心。因此，所有在資本主義生產制度下的改良，都是虛偽的，也是虛假的。 

今天還有多少人相信這個姑且稱為教條馬克思主義的左翼立場？我估計不多。社會主義的大實驗，經歷了蘇聯和東歐的社會主義陣營解體及資本主義轉向後，經歷了中國過去三十年的市場經濟改革後，基本上已經難以為繼。最少到目前為止，我相信大部份相信社會主義的理論家，都不得不面對一個現實：計劃經濟和公有制，在歷史實踐中被證明為不可行不可欲，而市場的確有它的作用和位置。（當然，有人會說，以往所有社會主義實踐都不是真正的社會主義。但這種辯護，恐怕沒有太大說服力。） 

1989年後，有許多市場社會主義（market socialism）的討論。但歷史發展到今天，全球資本主義經濟體系成為幾乎牢不可破的霸權，而且仍然享有相當高的正當性 。（想想2008年金融海嘯後，整個資本主義體系基本上不受到任何根本的挑戰即可見一斑。） 

於是，我們的問題是：如果我們既不想要社會主義的公有制和計劃經濟，又不想要放任自由主義（或新自由主義，或自由右翼）所鼓吹的那種無約束的資本主義，那麼有沒有別的出路？這是我們的問題。

 而相對於社會主義革命，周提出的「出路」是「自由民主制下的福利國家模式」（liberal democratic welfare state），或「社會民主主義模式」（social democracy）。
[2] 參考 Wallerstein, Immanuel: Historical Capitalism with Capitalist Civilization
[3] 同上

文明與野蠻，或，文明作為野蠻

前言︰其實我一直都想寫篇有系統地論述文明與野蠻的文章，但發現要把一段段歷史融貫起來實在太難，也很容易簡化了歷史，而這正正是我反對的。所以我決定不寫一個 grand narrative ，而是純粹地把我在 facebook 發表過的三段文字作了一些增補並放在一起，希望可以從這三個角度，帶出對「文明」和「野蠻」這對詞語的反思。

日本的賤民階級

主流的日本文化其實是很 snobbish 的，不講可能不知道，日本有人口約二三百萬、在歷史上社會地位相當於印度既 "untouchable" 的賤民階級，叫「部落民（burakumin）」，他們以前多從事屠夫和劊子手等跟死亡有關的工作，被主流社會視為「不潔（穢れ）」，因此也被稱為「穢多」或「非人」。而這些被否定為人的階層，到今時今日都仍會受到很多歧視和 stigmatisation ，例如結婚前不少「體面」人家會聘私家偵探查親家家宅，確認他們祖宗幾代不能有一個部落民。日本社會一向難以接納外國人融入，很多在日韓國人，即使幾代人出生、成長都在日本，都仍然被視為外國人、暫住者，不是受到無視就是成為右翼的攻擊目標。 而像部落民明明本身都是名正言順的日本人，卻僅僅因為祖先貧窮而被視為「不潔」，要承受異樣的眼光。

我很喜歡戰後的日本電影，但我並不祟日，我覺得一旦你認識夠深，就很難會崇拜任何一個國家。很多人崇日，崇尚日本整潔、禮貌、守秩序，但往往就忽略了日本人保守跟勢利眼的一面。其實，換一個角度想想︰日本對整潔守序禮儀的強烈執著，會否可能就正正是他們無法接納少數族群的「不潔」、「不從眾」和「不懂日本禮儀」的原因呢？文明和野蠻是一體兩面的，如果你讀一讀十七至十九世紀的歐洲文獻，就會發現越是強調自己民族文化優越的人，就越會覺得自己有天賦的權利去搶掠屠殺其他「野蠻人」。結果，歷史上最野蠻的行為，不是黑人做的，不是印第安人做的，也不是伊斯蘭教徒做的，而正正就是白人做得最多最狠（而美其名為「教化」落後民族）。這些「文明人」在外可以如此殘忍，那麼為何他們在自己宗主國時又能養尊處優，發展高尚精緻文化呢？還不正正就是因為他們有從殖民地和半殖民地而來的奴隸為他們賣命，自己不用勞動，那當然有時間發明些餐桌禮儀作為地位身份的象徵。日本人為何能站在高地歧視部落民？還不是因為部落民替日本人做了會「沾污」他們的工作，讓他們可以把人區分為「潔淨」的和「不潔」的。

所謂文明與野蠻，分界線其實很模糊。甚至可以說，所謂文明，就是把野蠻外判，讓你的野蠻來供養我的文明。庖廚養君子，君子遠庖廚，也就是這個意思。

相關電影︰

おくりびと（2008）又譯︰禮儀師之奏鳴曲、Departures
Go (2001)
絞死刑（1968）

**

受野蠻入侵的「文明」

讀完 Liberalism: A Counter-History 一書， 最大的感概並非「原來自由主義以前是如此兇殘的」，而是在於體會到主流的歷史編寫可以多麼誤導。本書的最後幾章就是處理自由主義跟納粹主義的歷史關聯，一般來講，我們習慣的史觀是將法西斯主義和「極權主義」視為突然侵入西方世界的怪物－－我們把前半個二十世紀稱為「極端的年代」。但其實直至十九世紀末，美國和英國及其殖民地都從未停止過跟 Holocaust （納粹大屠殺）有過之而無不及的殘暴屠殺，類似納粹主義般的言論，在美國一點都不陌生，前美國總統 Theodore Roosevelt 就曾提出過針對「低等人」的 "final solution"，

 "I don't go so far as to think that the only good Indians are the dead Indians. But I believe nine out of every ten are, and I shouldn't like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth." 

（譯︰我不會說只有死了的印第安人才是好的印第安人，但我相信十居其九也是這樣，而剩餘的那一個，我不打算調查得太深入。)

對「低等人」進行種族清洗，斬手斬腳示眾，送入集中營強制勞動，根本並不新鮮，直至兩次世界大戰爆發為止都未息止過。 Domenico Losurdo 在書中強調︰

"[I]t is banally ideological to characterize the catastrophe of the twentieth century as a kind of new barbarian invasion that unexpectedly attacked and overwhelmed a healthy, happy society."

（譯︰把二十世紀的災難看成是一個本來健康快樂的社會，突然受到一種新的野蠻力量入侵，這種描繪，平平就是一種意識形態。）

我懷疑在同盟國猛烈譴責納粹的背後，其實是想努力劃清界線，為自己同等殘暴（而並不久遠）的過去洗白白，以「擊退極權」的正義身份示人。因此，對比起針對美洲原住民、澳洲原住民、黑人、愛爾蘭人同等殘暴的系統式屠殺， Holocaust 這一幕在歷史教科書上不成正比的放大了。就跟傳媒一樣，歷史可以欺騙人，而不需要造假，只需要偏頗地報導就行了，這樣就足以傳播一個扭曲的世界觀。完整的真相並非不存在，只是沒有時間或興趣親身深入研究的話，就逃離不了意識形態。就算你有多聰明，也不可能只靠內省就足以 think ourselves out of our own prison 。

**

農業︰文明的起點

走出叢林、定居、建立政府，農業應該是文明的起點，但 Jared Diamond 卻認為這是人類史上最嚴重的錯誤，因為農耕社會使我們的祖先健康變差，玩樂時間被剝奪，而且還創造了財富不平等，讓某些人可以寄生於其他農民的勞動上，因而開啟了人類幾千年的階級壓迫史。那麼為何人類還走上了務農這條路呢？在 The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race 這論文中，他對農耕社會的出現有這種解釋︰農耕並不會提升一個族群的幸福，但會提升它的人口，人口一多了，就需要更多農地，於是就去開墾，沒有地就跟其他族群搶。得利於人口眾多，務農的族群有更強大的兵力，其他族群要麼跟著學習務農，要麼就被消滅。這種博弈就成為了一種推動農耕化的「自然力量」。除了人口所帶來的兵力，論文中未有提到的當然還有人口密集的農耕社會為狩獵採集社會帶來傳染病；農耕也有利資本積累，將一部份人從勞動中解放出來，建立官僚體系，創造了階級社會，從而有利強迫農民每日要花更高工時來生產 surplus（剩餘），再用這些 surplus 供養更多的兵工廠、專業戰士和戰馬。正如生物的演化只依循無情的物競天擇原則，最有利於自我複製的基因並不一定就最有利於基因攜帶者。農耕、資本積累、科技發展、現代政體等等不一定是人類有意識地改善生活的選擇，可以只是無情的經濟定律與政治博弈之下的結果。

**

最後，看看 Immanuel Wallerstein 如何解讀文明與特權的關係︰

"...even if we acknowledge that we can show a range of observance of human rights such that there are better and worse locales, what does this then prove? For it is easy to see there exists a correlation between richer and more powerful states and fewer (or less obvious) violations, and of poorer and weaker states and grosser violations. One can use this correlation in two opposite ways. For some it proves that the more ‘capitalist’ the state, the more the acceptance of human rights, and of course then vice versa. But to others it proves in one more way the concentration of advantages in one zone of the world-system, and the concentration of negative effects in the other, itself seen as the outcome of historical capitalism, in which human rights are precisely not a universal value but a reward of privilege."

(Historical Capitalism, 我為這本書寫過書摘） 

**

延伸閱讀

－文明與壓迫
拙文︰〈切腹〉
拙文︰〈伊朗危險嗎？〉
拙文︰〈面目模糊的弱者〉
Pierre Bourdieu, Distinction
Thorstein Veblen, The Theory of the Leisure Class
David Harvey, Paris, Capital of Modernity
John Berger, Ways of Seeing (and the documentary of the same title)

－發展與殖民
Domenico Losurdo, Liberalism: A Counter-History
Eduardo Galeano, Mirrors: Stories of Almost Everyone

－歷史在進步？
拙文︰〈自由主義是什麼〉
拙文︰〈書摘︰《歷史資本主義》〉
Jared Diamond, The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race
Jared Diamond, Guns, Germs, and Steel
Michel Foucault, Madness and Civilization
Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish

書摘︰《歷史資本主義》

Immanuel Wallerstein （就是在政治經濟學和國際關係裡非常著名的「世界體系理論」的創始人）的小書 "Historical Capitalism" 之前在日本旅行時讀完，書雖小，但理論卻非常宏大。 Wallerstein 雖然深受馬克思的政治經濟學影響，但他的學說對傳統的左翼理論作出了很多修正，例如他認為過往所發生過的社會主義革命／反體制運動都只左右了國際間的權力平衡，並沒有脫離資本主義這個歷史體系，甚至反而加固了資本主義。我把較重要的修正抄下來，嫌太長的可以根據中文詮腳選段來讀。

（一）帝國主義

對於帝國主義擴張的解釋， Wallerstein 認為一般的說法「過剩商品需要尋找新市場」並不合乎事實，較恰當的解釋是資本家需要開發更廉價的勞動力︰

"Areas external to historical capitalism have on the whole been reluctant purchasers of its products, in part because they didn't 'need' them in terms of their own economic system and in part because they often lacked the relevant wherewithal to purchase them. To be sure there were exceptions. But by and large it was the capitalist world that sought out the products of the external arena and not the other way around. Whenever particular loci were militarily conquered, capitalist entrepreneurs regularly complained of the absence of real markets there and operated through colonial governments to 'create tastes'.

The search for markets as an explanation simply does not hold. A much more plausible explanation is the search for low-cost labour forces. It is historically the case that virtually every new zone incorporated into the world-economy established levels of real remuneration which were at the bottom of the world-system's hierarchy of wage-levels."

（二）資本主義革命

對於由封建主義到資本主義的過渡， Wallerstein 認為是同一個統治階級的內鬥和自我轉型，而並非一個新階級推翻舊階級的過程︰

"The economic arena of feudal Europe was going through a very fundamental, internally generated, crisis in this period that was shaking its social foundations. Its ruling classes were destroying each other at a great rate, while its land-system (the basis of its economic structure) was coming loose, with considerable reorganization moving in the direction of a far more egalitarian distribution than had been the norm. [...] Things were indeed falling apart. Had Europe continued on the path along which it was going, it is difficult to believe that the patterns of medieval feudal Europe with its highly structured system of 'orders' could have been reconsolidated. Far more probable is that the European feudal social structure would have evolved towards a system of relatively equal small-scale producers, further flattening out the aristocracies and decentralizing the political structures.

... But it is clear that the prospect must have appalled Europe's upper strata --- appalled and frightened them, especially as they felt their ideological armour was disintegrating too. Without suggesting that anyone consciously verbalized any such attempt, we can see by comparing the Europe of 1650 with 1450 that the following things had occurred. By 1650, the basic structures of historical capitalism as a viable social system had been established and consolidated. The trend towards egalitarianization of reward had been drastically reversed. The upper strata were once again in firm control politically and ideologically. There was a reasonably high level of continuity between the families that had been high strata in 1450 and those that were high strata in 1650."

讀者應該會留意到 Wallerstein 比馬克思主義者更強調政治力量的角色，他認為技術的發展並非資本主義的原因而是其結果，是資本主義為發展科技帶來誘因，因為新發明意味著可以獨市的新商品。

Wallerstein 也談到資本家的內鬥會以「民主」、「自由」等口號包裝，甚至以「革命」形式呈現︰

"Sometimes, however, they have been over larger 'constitutional' issues which determine the rules governing the conduct of shorter-run struggles, and thus the likelihood of one fraction or another prevailing. Whenever these struggles were 'constitutional' in nature, they required greater ideological mobilization. In these cases, we heard talk of 'revolutions' and 'great reforms' and the losing sides were often given opprobrious (but analytically inappropriate) labels. To the extent that the political struggles for, say, 'democracy' or 'liberty' against 'feudalism' or 'traditon' have not been struggles of the working classes against capitalism, they have been essentially struggles among the accumulators of capital for the accumulation of capital. Such struggles were not the triumph of a 'progressive' bourgeoisie against reactionary strata but intro-bourgeois struggles. 

Of course, using 'universalizing' ideological slogans about progress has been politically useful. It has been a way of associating class struggle mobilization to one side of intra-accumulator struggles. But such ideological advantage has often been a double-edged sword, unleashing passions and weakening repressive restraints in the class struggle."

（三）社會主義革命

他也解釋了在資本主義世界中革命造反為何比在先前的歷史階段更困難︰

"...generally speaking, rebellion as a technique has worked only at the margins of central authority, particularly when central bureaucracies were in phases of disintegration." 

"The fact that states were located in an interstate system meant that the repercussions of rebellions or uprisings were felt, often quite rapidly, beyond the confines of the immediate political jurisdiction within which they occurred. So-called 'outside' forces therefore had strong motives to come to the aid of assailed state-machineries. This made rebellions more difficult. On the other hand, the intrusion of the accumulators of capital, and hence of state-machineries, into the daily life of the work-forces was far more intensive in general under historical capitalism than under previous historical systems."

過往的反體制運動，無論是左翼的工人運動，還是右翼的民族運動，都脫離不了一個基本策略，就是奪取國家櫂力。然而， Wallerstein 認為這種策略不可能達到反體制的目的，而只會令後革命的國家再一次落入世界體系的資本主義分工上︰

"The key to the problem may in fact lie in the basic strategic decision to make the seizure of state power the pivot of the movement's activities. The strategy had two fundamental consequences. In the phase of mobilization, it pushed each movement towards entering into tactical alliances with groups that were in no way 'anti-systemic' in order to reach its strategic objective. These alliances modified the structure of the anti systemic movements themselves, even in the mobilization stage. Even more importantly, the strategy eventually succeeded in many cases. Many of the movements achieved partial or even total state power. These successful movements were then confronted with the realities of the limitations of state power within the capitalist world-economy. They found that they were constrained by the functioning of the interstate system to exercise their power in ways that muted the 'anti-systemic' objectives that were their raison d'etre."

「革命黨」奪取國家權力，在整個資本主義體系下，代表的是一場改革，而非革命︰

"This seems so obvious that one must then wonder why the movements based their strategy on such a seemingly self-defeating objective. The answer was quite simple: given the political structure of historical capitalism, they had little choice. There seemed to be no more promising alternative strategy. The seizure of state power at least promised to change the balance of power between contending groups somewhat. This is to say, the seizure of power represented a reform of the system. The reforms in fact did improve the situation, but always at the price of also strengthening the system."

又因為所謂的後革命國家無一倖免都跳不出歷史資本主義的體系之外，其結局往往就是重新啟動資本積累的引擊，繼續剝削工人，於是這些所謂革過命的國家，又會重新出現新的反體制運動︰

"...the so-called post-revolutionary regimes continue to function as part of the social division of labour of historical capitalism. They have thereby operated, willy-nilly, under the relentless pressures of the drive for the endless accumulation of capital. The political consequence internally has been the continued exploitation of the labour-force, if in a reduced and ameliorated form in many in stances. This has led to internal tensions paralleling those found in states that were not 'post-revolutionary', and this in turn has bred the emergence of new anti-systemic movements within these states."

對於國家在資本主義的意義，可以如此總結︰"Changes in state structures have altered the politics of accumulation; they have not yet been able to end them."

--

後半本的 "Historical Capitalism" ，主要處理兩個議題︰意識形態和歷史進步論，而我認為後者尤其重要。跟正統的馬克思主義者不同， Wallerstein 懷疑歷史進步論，他質疑進步論中的兩個觀點－－（1）歷史資本主義比先前的歷史系統較為進步；（2）歷史資本主義終會被更進步的歷史系統（社會主義）所取代－－這兩個觀點彼此相關、互相證成，而 Wallerstein 則透過攻擊觀點（1），解釋進步並非必然，繼而動搖我們對（2）的信仰－－我們決不能只坐等資本主義滅亡，在歷史的交叉點上，我們的行動將會影響歷史的走向。

嫌太長的話可以按中文詮腳選段閱讀。

（四）種族主義

Wallerstein 認為前資本主義時代的恐外情緒跟現代的種族主義是不同的東西，種族主義是資本主義底下的意識形態，被用以合理化不平等的經濟分配。

"What we mean by racism has little to do with the xenophobia that existd in various prior historical systems. Xenophobia was literally fear of the 'stranger'. Racism within historical capitalism was the mode by which various segments of the work-force within the same economic structure were constrained to relate to each other. Racism was the ideological justification for the hierarchization of the work-force and its highly unequal distributions of reward." 

"The ideological statements have been in the form of allegations that genetic and/or long-lasting 'cultural' traits of various groups are the major cause of differential allocation to positions in the economic structures. However, the beliefs that certain groups were 'superior' to others in certain characteristics relevant to performance in the economic arena always came into being after, rather than before, the location of these groups in the work-force. Racism has always been post hoc. It has been asserted that those who have been economically and politically oppressed are culturally 'inferior'. If, for any reason, the locus in the economic hierarchy changed, the locus in the social hierarchy tended to follow."

種族主義除了有利規限受害者對階級流動的期待，也有利分化中層和底層的勞動軍，就像利用囚犯來監管囚犯。

"[Racism] has served to socialize groups into their own role in the economy... Racism, just like sexism, functioned as a self-suppressive ideology, fashioning expectations and limiting them." 

"[Racism] served to keep low-ranking groups in line, and utilize middle-ranking groups as the unpaid soldiers of the world police system. In this way, not only were the financial costs of the political structures reduced significantly, but the ability of anti-systemic groups to mobilize wide populations was rendered more difficult, since racism structurally set victims against victims."

（五）普世主義

Wallerstein 認為資本主義中的兩大意識形態︰種族主義和普世主義，看似互相矛盾，但其實都是依資本主義運作的需要在同一個系統下製造出來的。普世主義主要是菁英的信仰，有利於各國的上層及中層階級的整合。

"Work-forces could not be expected to perform efficiently and continuously unless they were managed by cadres. Cadres too have had to be created, socialized, reproduced. The primary ideology that operated to create, socialize, and reproduce them was not the ideology of racism. It was that of universalism."

"Whereas racism served as a mechanism of world-wide control of direct producers, universalism served to direct the activities of the bourgeoisie of other states and various middle strata world-wide into channels that would maximize the close integration of production processes and the smooth operation of the interstate system, thereby facilitating the accumulation of capital."

"Scientific culture... was a form of socialization of the diverse elements that were the cadres of all the institutional structures that were needed. As a language common to cadres but not directly to the labour-force, it became also a means of class cohesion for the upper stratum, limiting the prospects or extent of rebellious activity on the part of cadres who might be so tempted."

（六）歷史進步論

然後 Wallerstein 也討論了歷史進步論這個意識形態，他先指出左翼的歷史進步論合理化了社會主義，但同時也合理化了資本主義。而根據過往幾十年的經驗，比較蘇聯和美國的物質生活水平，唯物主義進步觀也可以反咬「社會主義實驗」一口，這成了當代左翼其中一個意識形態危機。

至於對進步論本身， Wallerstein 持否定的態度，指出它最大的問題在於 "the one-sidedness of all measures proposed" ，並逐一質疑進步論者提出的各種測量指標︰

1) 科學／科技進步 v.s. 被丟失遺忘的傳統知識

"...we never seriously discuss how much knowledge we have lost in the world-wide sweep of the ideology of universalism. Or if we do, we categorize such lost knowledge as mere (?) wisdom. Yet, at the simple technical levels of agricultural productivity and biological wholeness, we have been discovering of late that methods of human action discarded a century or two ago (a process enforced by enlightened elites upon backward masses) often need to be revived because they turn out to be more, not less, efficacious."

2) 生產效率進步 v.s. 工作負擔增加

"Each input of human energy has been rewarded with steadily greater outputs of products, which is surely true as well. But we do not calculate to what degree this has meant that humanity has reduced or increased the total inputs of energy that individuals separately, or all people within the capitalist world-economy collectively, have been called upon to invest, whether per unit of time or per lifetime. Can we be so sure that the world is less burdensome under historical capitalism than under prior systems?"

3) 物質生活提升 v.s 精神生活墜落

"...doubts in this domain have grown steadily throughout the twentieth century, as our now frequent references to 'quality of life' and mounting concern with anomie, alienation, and psychic maladies indicate."

4) 對人類更安全的環境 v.s. 現代戰爭與核威脅

"Once again this is incontestable at a micro level... But has this really been true at a macro level, even up to now, and even omitting the Damoclean sword of nuclear war?"

Wallerstein 更指出，要說今日的世界對比一千年前有更多的自由、平等和友愛，也至少不是不證自明的。但不要搞錯，他並沒有把前現代的生活想像成田園牧歌，它們也是沒有多少自由平等友愛，但問題是在比較之下資本主義世界真的比以前多嗎？還有一個說法就是殘忍行為（Cruelties）的減少， Wallerstein 回應說，即使不考慮歷史上資本主義對窮人的殘酷，二十世紀的歷史也足以顯示今人的 "unusual talents of refinement in these ancient arts."

提出了對進步論的種種質疑後，Wallerstein 打算要為一種少有的說法辯護︰"the absolute (not relative) immiseration of the proletariat" ，今日的資本主義比二百年前的更差，生活相對改善了的工人只是世界人口的一小部份。

"Surely you can't be serious; surely you mean relative immiseration? Is not the industrial worker strikingly better off today than in 1800? The industrial worker, yes, or at least many industrial workers. But industrial workers still comprise a relatively small part of the world's population. 

The overwhelming proportion of the world's work-forces, who lives in rural zones or move between them and urban slums, are worse off than their ancestors five hundred years ago."
"They unquestionably work harder -- more hours per day, per year, per lifetime. And since they do this for less total reward, the rate of exploitation has escalated very sharply."

他也提到資本主義對社區的破壞，小型的社區結構被大型的政治經濟結構取代，名義上的個人主義和自由主義並沒有為鄉區的窮人帶來「解放」，而是更多的操控和壓迫。

"In many areas, and for long periods, the prior role of the community structures has been assumed by 'plantations', that is, by the oppressive control of large-scale politico-economic structures controlled by 'entrepreneurs'. The 'plantations' of the capitalist world-economy -- whether based on slavery, imprisonment, share-cropping (forced or contractual), or wage-labour -- can scarcely be said to have provide more leeway for 'individuality'." 

"Even where one form or another of direct authoritarian control of agricultural activity (what we have just labelled 'plantations') was not substituted for the prior laxer community structure of control, the disintegration of the community structures in rural zones was not experienced as a 'liberation', since it was inevitably accompanied, indeed frequently directly caused, by a constantly growing control by the emergent state structures which increasingly have been unwilling to leave the direct producer to his autonomous, local decision-making processes."

那為什麼活在城市的我們很容易覺得「世界在變好」？那是因為我們都是受惠於資本主義的中層成員︰

"A good deal of the 'progressive' politics of the past several hundred years of historical capitalism has resulted in the steady diminution of the unequal distribution of the world surplus-value among that small group who have shared in it. The shouts of triumph of this 'middle' sector over the reduction of their gap with the upper one per cent have masked the realities of the growing gap between them and the other eighty-five per cent."

（七）革命的問題

進步論的另一個原素，就是認為在歷史的演化當中，一個新的階級會取代一個舊的階級，而正如上回都指出過， Wallerstein 認為正確的歷史圖像是封建時代的貴族地主階級將自己轉化為布爾喬亞（bourgeoisie），這個轉化是為了維持及擴大他們剝削勞動力的能力。

馬克思主義者對「無產階級革命」的想像一直都是建基於歷史上的「布爾喬亞革命」，但由於「布爾喬亞革命」並不是一個階級推倒另一個階級的革命，馬克思主義者的基本戰略就大有問題了。

更重要的是， Wallerstein 雖然同意資本主義會因其內在矛盾而最終解體，但他提醒我們資本主義的滅亡不一定會帶來社會主義，我們的資產階級可能會透過轉化自身來發展出另一種更有效的階級社會（class society）︰

"Progress is not inevitable. We are struggling for it. And the form the struggle is taking is not that of socialism versus capitalism, but that of a transition to a relatively classless society versus a transition to some new class-based mode of production (different from historical capitalism but not necessarily better).

"The choice for the world bourgeoisie is not between maintaining historical capitalism and suicide. It is between on the one hand a 'conservative' stance, which would result in the continued disintegration of the system and its resultant transformation into an uncertain but probably more egalitarian world order; and, on the other hand, a bold attempt to seize control of the process of transition, in which the bourgeoisie itself would assume 'socialist' clothing, and seek to create thereby an alternative historical system which would leave intact the process of exploitation of the world's work-force, to the benefit of a minority."

這一點尤其重要︰一個新的階級社會可以以「社會主義」的裝扮登場，繼續服務於同一批統治階級，抗爭者決不可以因為資本主義被取代就急於慶祝。

在這一節的最後， Wallerstein 提醒我們無論在分析評價各種反體制運動時，不要忘記這些運動，包括「社會主義國家」，都並非外在於歷史資本主義，它們的存在本身就是歷史資本主義的矛盾展現，他們的負面影響應該歸咎於資本主義，而不是一個尚未存在過的社會主義；「社會主義國家」對工人的剝削，也應該歸咎於他們處於世界資本主義分工的邊陲位置，而跟他們是由共產黨還是親資政黨領導，關係較小。

"The first and most important thing to remember in any such assessment is that the world socialist movement, indeed all forms of anti-systemic movements, as well as all revolutionary and/or socialist states, have themselves been integral products of historical capitalism. They were not structures external to the historical system but the excretion of processes internal to it. Hence they have reflected all the contradictions and constraints of the system. They could not and cannot do otherwise.

"Their faults, their limitations, their negative effects are part of the balance-sheet of historical capitalism, not of a hypothetical historical system, of a socialist world-order, that does not yet exist. The intensity of the exploitation of labour in revolutionary and/or socialist states, the denial of political freedoms, the persistence of sexism and racism all have to do far more with the fact that these states continue to be located in peripheral and semi-peripheral zones of the capitalist world-system."

"They can only be sensibly evaluated by asking how much they have contributed to the world-wide struggle to ensure that the transition from capitalism is towards an egalitarian socialist world-order."

（八）資本主義的矛盾與終結

本書的最後一部份－－ "Future Prospects" －－繼續闡述資本主義的內在矛盾，並嘗試勾劃這個歷史系統的未來。

針對資本主義的內在矛盾， Wallerstein 的分析跟傳統馬克思主義大同小異︰在企業的彼此競爭之下，企業要維持利潤率，就必須降低勞動力成本。但如果降低工人薪資，又會導致市場的消費力減弱，總需求下降。這就是資本主義的內在矛盾之一。 Wallerstein 認為，這矛盾在歷史上的解決方式，是透過地域區隔（geographical disjuncture）來達成的。任何時候，世界體系中受特別思典的地區採取了提升總需求的政治措施（例如定立最低工資、提高福利等），在世界體系的邊陲地區就會同時增加一堆新的廉價勞動力。可以是將更多效區農民轉化為城市工廠工人，也可以是將整個世界資本主義體系擴展到之前所未包括的地方，例如一些自給自足的郊區經濟體。也就是說，企業透過尋找未開拓的地區，將其轉化為廉價勞動力市場，從而降低了生產成本，而又同時能維持到本國消費市場的總需求。

而 Wallerstein 認為，這種策略有其極限︰未被世界資本主義體系編入的地區有限，而且在不斷縮小。實際上，在八十年代，這個極限已經碰頂，資本家再沒有更廉價的勞動力可供開發，在利潤率下跌的情況下，資本家和國家合力向本國人民開刀︰把國有資產私有化，撤銷本國的福利政策，並透過信貸擴張之類手段維持總需求。 Wallerstein 認為廿一世紀將會見證資本主義的矛盾走到極限，進入系統性危機，政治將變得非常不穩定，並有機會向任何一個方向前進。

這個系統性危機將會以什麼方式呈現呢？ Wallerstein 認為其中一個可能，就是來自第三世界的新移民跟核心國家的社會發生「內戰」︰

"...the massive, relentless drive of households to migrate illegally to wealthier climes, to escape from the South to the North. [...] Over the coming twenty-five years, we may expect enormous numbers to succeed in this South-North migration. The double reality of the material conditions gap and the demographic gap makes it highly improbable that any state policy in the North can be seriously effective in stemming the flow."

"The phenomenon of the 'Third World within' in the core zones of the capitalist world-economy will become massive as the demographic balance shifts. "

"The demographic transformation, caused by weakening state structures, will in turn weaken them further. Social disorder will once again become normal in the core zones. In the last twenty years there has been much discussion on this under the false label of increased crime. What we shall be seeing is increased civil warfare. This is the face of the time of troubles. The scramble for protection has already begun. The states cannot provide it. For one thing they do not have the money; for another they do not have the legitimation. We shall see instead the expansion of private protection armies and police structures, by local communities, by religious bodies, and of course by crime syndicates."

（九）資本主義後的未來

這種情況下，歷史將何去何從？ Wallerstein 認為我們頂多可以粗略勾勒出未來的幾種可能性，至於當中的細節，則無從預測。他勾勒了三種可能走向︰

A, 新封建主義

One is a sort of neo-feudalism that would reproduce in a far more equilibrated form the developments of the time of troubles --- a world of parcellized sovereignties, of considerably more autarkic regions, of local hierarchies. This might be made compatible with maintaining (but probably not furthering) the current relatively high level of technology. Endless accumulation of capital could no longer function as the mainspring of such a system, but it would certainly be an inegalitarian system. What would legitimate it? Perhaps a return to a belief in natural hierarchies.

B. 民主法西斯主義

A second formula might be a sort of democratic fascism. Such a formula would involve a caste-like division of the world into two strata, the top one incorporating perhaps a fifth of the world's population. Within this stratum, there could be a high degree of egalitarian distribution. On the basis of such a community of interests within such a large group, they might have the strength to keep the other 80 per cent in the position of a totally disarmed working proletariat.

C. 社會主義

A third formula might be a still more radical worldwide highly decentralized, highly egalitarian world order. [...] The increased political sophistication and technological expertise we now have makes it doable, but not at all certain. It would require accepting certain real limitations in consumption expenditures. But it does not mean merely a socialization of poverty, for then it would be politically impossible to realize.

最後， Wallerstein 提醒我們，歷史還有很多可能，最重要的是我們認清這些可能都存在，而歷史的選擇將會取決於我們未來五十年的集體努力。

害死人的經濟學模型

（原發表於 2013 年 2 月 13 日，本人 facebook）

我經常嘲笑經濟學者亂用數學模型，例如「諾貝爾經濟學獎」 [1] 得獎者 Myron Scholes 的定價模型（Black-Scholes Model），就曾經害死了 LTCM （Long-Term Capital Management） ，讓其損失足足 46 億美元而破產。 [2] 問題不單止在簡化的數學模型預測市場的能力奇弱，把注意力放在表面的資金交易，也掩蓋了本來可以清楚看到的經濟本質。我在 Facebook 上看見了朋友張貼關於銀行如何導致種種經濟問題的文章，有感而發，故撰文寫寫經濟危機和現今中國房地產泡沫的本質，希望提供一個新視角予那些被芝加哥學派洗壞腦的莘莘學子︰

很多人奇怪為何金融市場總是四五年就要來一次風暴，其實這都和銀行的運作有關。銀行的存在意義在於把大眾的儲蓄調動到投資市場，讓企業透過借貸重新將資金投入到下一批的生產。這個資本循環若果不失平衡，經濟就能穩步增長，因為若市場上所有的流動資金都投入在生產，生產後產生的總商品價值一定比投入的總資本高，產品銷售後就會多出盈餘，這些盈餘若透過銀行重新成為下輪生產的資金，企業就可以加大生產量從而獲得更大利潤，再不斷循環下去。但如果沒有銀行，多餘的盈餘因為無法完全消費掉，就會變成非流動儲蓄，一旦資金屯積，企業能夠動用的資金就會不斷減少，造成生產規模縮減，失業上漲，消費意慾進一步下跌而因此進入一個 downward spiral: 經濟衰退。

雖然銀行的角色在資本主義世界非常關鍵，可是銀行的信貸擴張也是一切經濟泡沫的元兇，例如造成 08 年金融海潚的次貸危機，就是因為銀行的存款滯漲，不堪利息成本而不惜降低條件把資金貸款給沒有還款能力的中下階層。但到底是什麼導致到銀行的存款比貸款多？這是因為企業利潤上漲而廣大人口的收入相對下降。透過外判生產線、生產自動化、多年為減稅和降低勞工權益而向政府施壓，企業成功減低勞動力成本而增加利潤。相反，廣大人口就因為失業、工資下調和公共福利縮減而降低了消費能力。也就是說，企業多賺取了的利潤，是從它的消費者口袋來的。企業利潤和工資越不平衡，市場的消費能力就越趨疲弱，因此對企業生產商品的需求就越低，反而會導致企業規模縮減。這看似是企業在拿石頭砸自己的腳，你可能會認為聰明的資本家不會讓自己的顧客失去消費能力，但其實企業間的競爭，會自然迫使企業們必須降低勞動力支出而維持利潤，以求不會在博奕中輸掉。加上較弱的企業淘汰或被併購，利潤向上（最頂尖的大財團）集中是不可避免的趨勢。

既然如此，消費力下降、生產縮減，應該會造成經濟衰退。但銀行的角色拖延了衰退的出現。由於生產減弱，企業的大量盈餘沒有其他重新投入生產的出口，便唯有存入銀行。這樣其實是把尋找資金出口的責任推給了銀行，因為如果銀行不能順利把資金借出來收取利息，就會因為要付存款人利息而要虧損。 07 、 08 年美國的次貸危機，就是銀行以普羅大眾為資金的出口，於是就有了信貸擴張，把貸款借給風險評級高的借款人，例如透過信用卡和次級按揭，然後期望透過複雜的金融工具去調節風險。但由於本質上借款人沒有還款能力就一定會破產，所以金融工具也只能延遲壞賬的日期。一旦壞賬過高，投資者失去對銀行的信心，銀行就會如雪崩一樣一個接一個倒塌。

由此可見，經濟危機的關鍵本質在於利潤分配不均勻，消費者的需求不足以支撐資本正常地循環，結果銀行就錯誤地擔任了重新分配資金，鼓勵消費的角色。這個角色原本應該由政府扮演，透過社會福利和公共建設和減低失業人口、提升消費力。很多讀壞書的經濟學者會告訴你最低工資會如何如何令企業裁員，但是連 IMF 都承認的統計事實是 [3]，定立最低工資不會令就業率下降，反而會令其上升。原因就是市場消費能力增加，總需求隨之增加，對勞動力的需求便會上升，導致良性循環。

今日中國經濟的盲點在於絕大部份利潤集中在極少數人手上，為了資金保值，這大量過剩資金流到了高檔品、黃金和－－尤其重要的－－房地產市場。房地產市場由於這大量熱錢而泡沫不斷擴大，造成大陸有很多新興豪華住宅區交易連連卻無人居住，成為了一個又一個的「空城」。現在中國 GDP 還算穩定增長，泡沫不會爆破。但一旦經濟放緩，富豪隨即拋售物業，將資金向外國調動（他們很多已擁有國外物業甚至居住權），房地產市場將會一夜崩潰，相關行業例如工程、原材料、運輸等也會出現大量失業人口，一如 97 年的泰國的房地產泡沫爆破，連鎖效應下會令整個中國出現大蕭條，介時天下大亂，香港人連想投共搵真銀也沒機會鳥。

[1] 諾獎原不包括經濟學獎，現今的經濟學獎是瑞典銀行自行成立的另一個基金。曾遭到科學界的聯署反對，認為是背叛了諾貝爾的遺囑，即諾貝爾獎應頒予給對世界和平和人類文明進步有貢獻的人。詳見 Hazel Henderson。
[2] 參考著作 When Genius Failed: The Rise and Fall o Long-Term Capital Management - Roger Lowenstein/ Fourth Estate
[3] The Economist: Evidence is mounting that moderate minimum wages can do more good than harm
http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21567072-evidence-mounting-moderate-minimum-wages-can-do-more-good-harm