为什么只有中国成功拒绝了新自由主义?

type

status

date

slug

summary

category

icon

标签

参考标签

为什么只有中国成功拒绝了新自由主义？ Why only China has successfully rejected neoliberalism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPK0qjwBTcU&type=snipo

I will say the reason why, or the major reason why, China has developed into the largest economy in the world and the strongest industrial economy in the world by a very substantial margin is that it did not follow the neoliberal prescriptions. Although there's a strong inroads of neoliberalism in Chinese academic thinking, the reality of Chinese policy so far has been largely pragmatic and has been largely oriented toward specific problems as they arose and confronted the state in one way or another. And then that's one step at a time and, generally speaking quite cautious. And that has been proven to serve China very well.

💡

在David Harvey的《Neoliberalism》一书中，认为中国的改革开放也是新自由主义改革，并将邓小平与撒切尔夫人和里根总统等人并列为新自由主义改革的代表人物。改革开放确实具有新自由主义改革的特征，比如强调市场机制，减少政府的直接干预，逐步建立市场经济体制；实施对外开放政策（贸易自由化），吸引外资（开放资本流动），减少贸易壁垒，促进国际贸易；进行国有企业改革，鼓励私营经济的发展，推动经济控制权从政府向私营部门转移，逐步实现所有权多元化。这释放了新自由主义（及资本主义）创造财富的强大潜力，带来惊人的经济增长，但也伴随着收入不平等加剧和贫富差异恶化的副作用。中国官方明确反对将改革开放与新自由主义划等号，改革开放也不能简单等同于西方新自由主义。中国始终以计划经济为主、市场调节为辅，政府在经济中仍发挥重要作用，而非完全放任市场。改革开放是在社会主义制度下进行的，强调共产党的领导和社会主义方向；中国也仍然注重社会保障体系的完善和社会福利的提升，而非像其它新自由主义革命的国家一样，削减政府在福利项目上的开支。总体而言，中国的改革开放是务实的，注重实际问题的解决和逐步推进。中国采取了渐进和实验性的策略，避免了激进的经济改革可能带来的社会动荡和经济崩溃。例如，设立经济特区（如深圳）作为试验田，逐步推广成功经验。改革开放的指导思想是“解放思想，实事求是”，强调根据实际情况调整政策，而不是盲目照搬他国经验。中国政府在改革开放过程中扮演了积极的角色，既推动市场化改革，又在必要时进行宏观调控，确保经济的稳定和可持续发展。虽然改革开放具有一定的新自由主义特征，但中国始终坚持社会主义制度和政府在经济中的重要作用，从而避免了完全放任市场所带来的负面影响。邓小平当年提出的“让一部分人先富起来，先富带动后富”也是中国改革开放以“缩小贫富差距”作为终极目标的佐证。

My sense is that what has happened in the US as a result of neoliberalism has been the effective destruction of the ability of the government in the United States to monitor, supervise, provide guidance, and provide leadership for major technological initiatives. That really has to have an independent capacity, one that is not completely under the control of private companies and that is able to set directions, like what we had with the Manhattan Project, the space program, and a number of things in the middle of the 20th century, or in fact considered to be quite earlier too, even in the 19th century, were things that the government did and did quite capably.

But all of that was wiped out in the last 40 years. So it's very hard for me to see that the US is going to actually use these tools or be able to make these tools pay in an effective way.

💡

新自由主义改革的本质特征就是将公权力向私人部门和私有资本转移，让政府成为无行政权、无控制权、无监管权的没牙老虎。尤其是涉及民生和基础建设的公共部门的私有化，比如水力、电力、网络、通信、铁路、公路、甚至是监狱等等，这些领域的私有化往往带来一系列问题。首先，私有化可能导致服务质量的下降，因为私营企业的主要目标是利润最大化，而不是提供高质量的公共服务。私营企业为了节约成本，可能会削减维护和运营的开支，从而导致基础设施的老化和故障率的增加。其次，私有化还可能导致价格的上涨，因为私营企业需要通过提高收费来实现盈利，这对于低收入群体来说无疑是一个沉重的负担，可能使他们无法负担基本的服务费用。再者，私有化可能导致基础设施投资的减少，因为私营企业可能不愿意在短期内无法获得高回报的项目上投入资金，从而影响长期的基础设施建设和更新。最后，私有化还可能导致社会不平等的加剧，因为低收入群体可能无法负担高昂的服务费用，从而无法享受到基本的公共服务，进一步扩大了贫富差距。此外，私有化还可能带来垄断问题。由于基础设施建设和运营需要巨大的投入，市场上的竞争者较少，私营企业一旦获得垄断地位，就可能利用其市场支配力来操纵价格，损害消费者的利益。另外，私有化还可能导致公共服务的区域不平衡发展。私营企业往往更愿意在经济发达地区投资，而忽视经济欠发达地区，这会导致资源分配的不均衡，进一步加剧区域发展的不平衡。因此，尽管私有化在某些情况下可以提高效率和促进经济发展，但在涉及民生和基础建设的公共部门，完全的私有化可能带来诸多负面影响，需要政府在其中扮演积极的角色，通过政策和监管来确保公共服务的质量和公平性。

Countries which have maintained that sort of autonomous capacity to think about new technologies are in a much stronger position.

If I were China, I would not be terribly worried about US sanctions. I mean, really seriously, China is four times larger than the US. It's perfectly capable of doing without at this stage, practically anything that the US might be supplying to China. I don't know what there is that's of any great significance.

In the case of Russia, the idea that was promoted in the West two years ago was that Russia was so dependent on Western technology, and Western finance, that sanctions would simply both cripple the Russian economy and turn the Russian people and also the so-called oligarchs against the Russian state. First of all, a very silly idea that Russia somehow needs Western money. What for? For everything that's related to the military and most things that are related to civilian life, Russia uses its own money. The second point was Russia really needs Western components. They need Western technologies. For what? Yes, they were using a lot of Western components, aircraft, automobiles, appliances and all kinds of things, and they were buying a lot of food, cheese, wine, poultry, and so on and so forth. In the case of things like cheese and wine, these can be easily substituted for quite readily. In the case of durable things, machinery and so forth, they had been discovering for a decade that they could substitute things they could produce themselves. They didn't really need to buy things from Germany or Japan, let alone from the United States. And so they continued to do this.

And at the same time, cutting off the flow of natural gas to Europe or cutting it back meant that the energy prices inside Russia were stable so that there could be good raw materials for Russian business. Russian markets for Russian business expanded because of less Western competition. So an economy which had been deeply colonized by the West was largely decolonized and the Russian economy after a short period of adjustment has taken off.

So the effect of sanctions on Russia was, in many ways, I've said, the equivalent of a gift, really. These were steps that the Russian government would not have taken on its own. They would not have kicked out Western funds. They would not have imposed capital controls. There were lots of things that the oligarchs didn't want to have to choose between Russia and the West and the sanctions forced them to choose. And all these things have worked to strengthen the Russian economy and weakened the European economy.

💡

自俄乌冲突以来，美国率先对俄罗斯实施制裁，欧洲各国以及日韩、加拿大和澳大利亚也纷纷跟进。然而，各类制裁措施的效果却不尽如人意。尽管这些国家希望通过经济制裁来削弱俄罗斯的经济实力，并迫使其改变政策，但实际情况却显示出制裁的效果远不如预期。俄罗斯不仅没有在经济上崩溃，反而在一定程度上实现了经济的自给自足和多样化。俄罗斯通过加强与其他非西方国家的经济合作，寻找新的贸易伙伴，成功避开了许多制裁带来的负面影响。例如，俄罗斯加大了与中国、印度等国的贸易往来，扩大了能源出口渠道，确保了经济的稳定。此外，俄罗斯还通过内部政策调整，加强了对本国企业的支持，推动了技术自主化和国产替代，从而减少了对西方技术和产品的依赖。俄罗斯央行出台的一系列宏观调控政策也让卢布汇率平稳着陆，把俄罗斯国内的通胀有效控制下来。这些政策包括提高基准利率、加强外汇储备管理以及实施资本管制等措施。这些举措有效地稳定了金融市场，防止了资本外流。此外，俄罗斯政府还通过财政刺激政策支持国内经济，加强对关键行业的投资，以降低对外部经济环境变化的依赖。这一系列综合措施不仅成功遏制了通胀上升的趋势，还为俄罗斯经济的长期稳定奠定了基础。与此同时，制裁对欧洲国家自身也带来了不小的冲击。能源价格上涨、供应链中断以及市场不确定性增加，都使得欧洲经济面临新的挑战。许多欧洲企业不得不调整业务策略，以应对制裁带来的各种困境。由于能源价格高涨和美国的产业政策，欧洲的制造业正面临外流的压力。许多企业选择将生产线迁往能源价格较低或政策更为优惠的国家，以降低成本和提高竞争力，其中相当大一部分企业迁往美国和中国。这种趋势不仅对欧洲的工业基础构成挑战，也对其经济前景带来了不确定性。美国实施的一系列金融制裁手段，也让美国的公信力大打折扣，尤其是将俄罗斯踢出SWIFT体系和冻结俄罗斯外汇储备。这些行为不仅引发了国际社会对美国金融体系可靠性的质疑，也让许多国家开始重新审视其外汇储备和国际结算体系的安全性。许多国家担心，如果与美国发生政治或经济上的冲突，它们的资金和交易也可能会受到类似的制裁和冻结。因此，越来越多的国家开始寻求去美元化和金融多样化的途径，以减少对美国金融体系的依赖。这一趋势不仅对全球金融体系产生深远影响，也对美国的全球经济霸权构成挑战。总之，虽然制裁措施在一定程度上对俄罗斯经济造成了压力，但并未达到预期的效果。

So there is behind this idea of sanctions a certain amount of condescension about the capacity of Russia or China.

I think that there are some industries these days which cannot be de-globalized.

If you really had a full decoupling, I think the most likely thing is that some of these major industries would simply not be viable, they would collapse, which would have very serious consequences. If you want to see a smaller scale of the same phenomenon, think about what happened in Yugoslavia, which had an automobile industry. When the country broke up, the automobile industry collapsed. That was also true when the Soviet Union broke up, and you had suddenly international borders and certain kinds of activity simply fell apart because they couldn't be sustained that were sustainable as a single unit but they couldn't be sustainable across these kinds of contexts.

So the decoupling of the United States from China is going to have some consequences of that kind. And I hope it doesn't happen. I hope it can be forestalled. Sensible policies would prevail. There's absolutely no reason for conflict between the US and China.

To interpret US policy toward China, really going back to 1949 in a different way. It's substantially oriented to trying to destabilize China internally. I think about it, I'll tell you that my father was posted to India as an ambassador in the early 1960s. At that time, the US, and the CIA, were dropping guerrilla units into Tibet to try and upset Chinese control over Tibet. That didn’t succeed. Now you think of Xinjiang or Hong Kong or Taiwan. These are all part and parcel. At some point, people need to grow up and realize that this is not going to destabilize China anymore.

I think that is sensible people to realize that there's no problem that can't be resolved peacefully between the US and China. So it strikes me that part of what's going on here inside the US is a political matter. There’s always been a need to have an adversary to support the military budget. And you can see that shifting all the time from, you know, it largely a question of internal politics and propaganda.