【中文标题】为什么中国不开展民主化进程？因为它还不是真正的资本主义国家。
【原文标题】Why Isn’t China Democratizing? Because It’s Not Really Capitalist
【登载媒体】美国人
【原文作者】Dan Blumenthal
【原文链接】http://www.american.com/archive/2011/april/why-isn2019t-china-democratizing-because-it2019s-not-really-capitalist
市场化和经济改革的出现并不意味着一个国家进入了资本主义。
为什么中国不开始民主化进程呢？中国共产党对政治权力的持续垄断让我们的政策制定者们疑惑不解：中国在抛弃了毛泽东思想的共产主义之后，本应走上自由解放的道路。华盛顿在中国民主化问题上押的赌注可不小，它的假设是，如果中国被鼓励加入世界经济合作大家庭，中国将首先变成资本主义国家，然后成为民主国家。因此，华盛顿着力帮助中国进入自由的国际秩序中，可是中国的民主进程到目前为止依然无迹可寻。
一些分析人士试图用中国的政治经济体系现状来解释缺少民主的原因。他们认为中国实行的是一种新形式的“国家资本主义”或者“专制资本主义”，执政党已经找到了一种可以让自身获利的方法——既能够致富，又可以继续专制。如果这种观点是正确的，那么其对民主和资本主义的未来所产生的影响则是深远的。一种崭新的、成功的、被称作“专制资本主义”的“北京模式”会让自由市场与政治解放之间的关系彻底消失。如果北京已经找到一种方法，能让资本主义与民主之间没有相互促进的关系，那么美国就应当重新思考其大部分外交和经济政策。但幸运的是，在民主和资本主义的支持者们看来，中国并没有发明出一种新的“专制资本主义”政治经济体系。中国绝对是专制的，但并非货真价实的资本主义。
粗看之下，说中国不是资本主义似乎很荒唐。中国大部分经济都在围绕市场规律运作，这个国家已经深深投入到国际贸易和国际生产的大环境中。但是，仅有市场规律和经济交流并不能说明这个国家进入了资本主义。资本主义的“创立者”认为这其实是一个道德和社会范畴的概念——经济与社会生活同样有秩序的一种状态。
从根本上来看，资本主义社会应当为其公民提供三个方面的便利。首先，它应当让所有公民有机会致富。其次，资本主义鼓励最大化的个人自由。公民有权力选择他们喜欢的工作，他们得到的报酬取决于其事业成就和进取心，而不是与生俱来的权力。这个概念的核心在于所有权的神圣不可侵犯性。人们购买或者制造出的物品归其所有，他们可以随意投资、储蓄或捐献。第三，资本主义应当推崇公共道德，鼓励公民间自由的交流，鼓励自我发展的机会。资本主义让个人有充分的自由提升“人性中美好的一面”——同情、慷慨、正直、自立和自制。所有这些美德都有助于社会向政治解放和民主的方向发展，这就是为什么民主论者和决策者们认为自由市场是民主的充分条件，或者至少是必要条件。
但是中国的体制仅在其中一个方面取得了进展，尽管取得的是长足进展。自从这个国家放弃了毛泽东思想之后，几乎所有中国人的生活境况都已经转好，这不是微不足道的成就。在中国领导人允许市场按照中国经济规律运作之后，数亿中国人脱离了贫困。但是，与资本主义制度紧密相关的个人自由则处于严重欠发展的状态。实物财产和知识财产都归国家所有，党给中国公民设制了严格的投资、储蓄和捐赠限制。“私人”企业则是党心血来潮的产物，目的是借助这样的手段来攫取资源——资金、土地、强制执行合同。更过分的是，中国公民居然被规定生育后代的数量。一个强制执行计划生育政策的国家与资本主义核心价值观是完全背离的。
资本主义所涉及的最后一个特点——崇尚道德——也被中国大大地削弱。缺少结社和宗教信仰的自由、缺少对个人权力的保护，就很难让公民道德变得更加高尚。中国政府禁止那些它无法掌控的组织，因此压制慈善团体。在资本主义社会中，类似慷慨、公益心和同情心等美德通常是通过宗教行为表现出来的，可是中国政府也对宗教机构进行压制。而且，失去了对所有权和合同效力的保护，中国企业家很难有正直的心态。因此中国的腐败和欺骗横行也就不足为奇了。由于国家掌握了企业所需的资源，自立也就无从谈起。
很明显，中国人民自身具有伟大的魄力和慷慨心态。实际上，就是在中国这种压抑的社会和经济环境下，中国企业家也做出了令人瞩目的贡献。四川地震后出现的巨额慈善捐助说明中国人民具有踊跃的公益心。尽管中国政府极力压制，但是中国宗教信仰的发展表明，中国人在超越邓小平的口号“致富光荣”来寻求更深层次的价值观。对很多中国人来说，致富不是一切，但是中国的压制行动在腐蚀资本主义的核心理念——让人民在物质和道德层面发展自己。这不仅仅是寻求更伟大的生命价值的中国人所遇到的问题，也是资本主义发展中的问题。越来越多的人对于那种只实现了资本主义三种特点其中之一的“资本家”表示出怀疑的态度。
最近，有报道称温家宝总理提到他对亚当史密斯——最著名的资本主义理论家——的赞赏。但是，如果温总理继续专制统治，那么史密斯的理论恐怕会吓倒他。史密斯在他的作品中并未用到“资本主义”这个词，而是说“一种自然解放制度”。这个今天被称为资本主义的制度之所以成功地成为自治的温床，恰恰是因为它允许人民自由追求自我发展和自立，并且用自制和同情心等道德因素来调和其中的冲突。资本家在向民主转变过程中扮演了领导者的角色，他们是社会变化的强大力量，他们对国家的不公和巧取豪夺行为发出了坚强的反抗声音。但是在中国，企业家依靠政府而生存，甚至政府会赋予企业一些特权。形成一个不断发展的民主人士“阶层”的诱因和机会根本不存在。如果没有这样一个与国家利益经常发生冲突的阶层存在，民主的出现几乎是不可能的。
中国共产党试图借助一些能让中国经济发展的市场规律来获益，并最终通过物质利益来收买大部分人心。但是这种社会契约让越来越多的中国人感到不满意，他们在追求超越物质的一些东西。中国目前的经济状态不是资本主义，或许是“专制”、“国有”或其它什么东西。而且，中国在市场中混入了大量重商主义和社团主义的因素，这种社会经济结构只会让国家更强大，不会让个人更富有。如果温总理和他的同志们不让亚当史密斯的资本主义理论在中国生根发芽，中国只会维持一个繁荣的专制国家的状态。
原文：
The presence of markets and economic exchange does not make a country capitalist.
Why isn’t China democratizing? The Chinese Communist Party’s continued firm monopoly on political power is particularly puzzling to policy makers: China was supposed to liberalize after its abandonment of Maoist Communism. For Washington the stakes are high: it made a huge bet on Chinese democratization, assuming that if China was encouraged to enter the international economy it would become capitalist and then democratic. Accordingly, Washington has helped integrate China into the liberal international order. Yet Chinese democracy is nowhere to be found.
Some analysts have tried to explain the absence of Chinese democracy by describing China’s political-economic system as a new form of “state” or “authoritarian” capitalism. This argument holds that the Party has found a way to have its cake and eat it too: it can be wealthy and authoritarian. If this argument is correct, the implications for the future of democracy and capitalism are profound. A new, successful “Beijing Model” of what some call “authoritarian capitalism” would break the relationship between free markets and political liberty. If Beijing has found a way to sever the capitalism-democracy link then the United States should re-think many of its foreign and economic policy assumptions. But fortunately for proponents of democracy and capitalism, China has not invented a new political-economic system of “authoritarian capitalism.” China is definitely authoritarian but it is not really capitalist at all.
At first glance, the notion that China is not capitalist seems preposterous. Much of China’s economy is organized around market principles and the country is deeply embedded in the international trading and production system. But the presence of markets and economic exchange does not make a country capitalist. The “founding fathers” of capitalism conceived of it as a moral and social order—a way of ordering economic as well as social life.
At base, the capitalist order is supposed to provide its citizens with three things. First, it provides the opportunity for all citizens to become wealthier. Second, capitalism encourages maximum individual liberty. Citizens are free to pursue the work they want and are rewarded based on enterprise and initiative rather than birthright. At the core of this idea is the notion that property rights are sacrosanct. Individuals own what they buy or make, and are then free to invest, save, and give away charity as they please. Third, capitalism is supposed to ennoble public virtues by encouraging free exchange among citizens and opportunities for self-betterment. Capitalism frees individuals to develop the “better angels of their nature”—sympathy, generosity, integrity, self-reliance, and self-restraint. All of these virtues are conducive to a system of political liberty and democracy. That is why democracy theorists and policy makers assume that free markets are a necessary if not sufficient condition of democracy.
But the Chinese system has made good on only one of these promises, albeit on a massive scale. Almost all Chinese citizens are better off since the abandonment of Maoism. This is no small achievement. Since Chinese leaders allowed markets to operate in the Chinese economy, hundreds of millions of Chinese people have been lifted out of poverty. But individual liberty consistent with a capitalist order is severely curtailed. Physical and intellectual property are owned by the state and the Party puts stringent restrictions on where a Chinese citizen can invest and save money or give away acquired wealth. “Private” entrepreneurs are at the whim of the Party for the resources they require to form and run enterprises: financing, land, and the enforcement of contracts. Most remarkably, a Chinese citizen is even told how many children to have. A state that engages in forced family planning is shockingly at variance with capitalism’s core tenets.
The last of capitalism’s promises—the ennobling of virtue—has also been undermined by the Chinese state. Absent freedom of association, freedom of religion, and the protection of individual rights, it is very difficult for citizens to be virtuous. The Chinese state prohibits the formation of organizations that it cannot control, thus suppressing charity. In capitalist societies, virtues such as generosity, public spiritedness, and sympathy are often expressed through religious practice. But the Chinese state has repressed religious institutions as well. Moreover, without the protection of property rights or contracts, it is difficult for a Chinese entrepreneur to maintain integrity. It is therefore no surprise that corruption and cheating are endemic to China. And since the state controls the resources the entrepreneur needs, self-reliance cannot flourish.
The Chinese people are obviously very enterprising and capable of great generosity. Indeed, under China’s repressive social and economic arrangements, it is remarkable that Chinese entrepreneurs have done as well as they have. And the outpouring of charity after the Sichuan earthquake showed that the Chinese people can be animated by public-spiritedness. The growth of religion in China despite efforts to repress it means Chinese are searching for deeper meaning and values beyond Deng Xiaoping’s famous admonition to his people that “to get rich is glorious.” For many Chinese, getting rich is not enough. But China’s repressiveness is corrosive of the spirit of capitalism—the empowering of citizens to better themselves morally as well as materially. This is not just a problem for Chinese people searching for greater meaning in their lives. It is a problem for capitalism. Masses of people have become cynical about a “capitalist” system that makes good on only one of capitalism’s three promises.
Recently, Premier Wen Jiabao has taken to mentioning his admiration for Adam Smith, capitalism’s most prominent theorist. But if Premier Wen wants China to remain a dictatorship, then Smith’s teaching should scare him. Smith never used the word capitalism in his writing—he spoke of “a system of natural liberty.” This system, today called capitalism, has been a successful training camp for self-government precisely because it has permitted citizens the liberty to pursue self-betterment and self-reliance tempered by virtues such as restraint and sympathy. Capitalists have thus played leading roles in democratic transitions. They have been powerful forces for change, making ever greater claims against state injustice and rapaciousness. But in China, entrepreneurs are dependent upon or given special privileges by the state. The incentive or even opportunity to form a distinct “class” of burgeoning democrats does not yet exist. Absent the existence of such a class whose interests sometimes clash with the state, the formation of democracy is very unlikely.
The Chinese Communist Party has managed to benefit from the employment of some market principles to grow the Chinese economy and essentially buy off many of its people through the provision of material gains. But this social compact is increasingly unsatisfactory to many Chinese, who are searching for meaning beyond riches. The current economic arrangements in China are not capitalist—“authoritarian,” “state,” or otherwise. Rather, China mixes markets with heavy doses of mercantilism and corporatism. This socioeconomic order is meant to strengthen the state rather than the individual. Until Premier Wen and his comrades allow Adam Smith’s capitalism to take root, China will simply remain a more prosperous dictatorship.
|
狗仔卡
发表于 2011-5-16 15:52
提升卡
变色卡
抢沙发
千斤顶
显身卡
发表于 2011-5-16 16:11
这捧的太恶心了
