|
|
这篇文章提出的假说是：中国近来的红卫兵活动的根源（至少是部分地）与他们使用的“资本”这个概念有关，这是一个被精炼了的概念。我设想，如果费雪的《利息理论》三十年前就被翻译成中文，那么毛泽东很可能就会寻求以不同的方式来解决“社会矛盾”（social contradiction）或人民冲突(the people ’s conflict)。
壹
毛是以模糊的语言来陈述“人民冲突”的，但是经济学家却可以更精确地表达这个词汇。如果需求同一种稀缺资源的人不止一个，那么这个世界就必须使用竞争来解决问题。因此，竞争的个体就产生了冲突：谁应该有所得?得到什么？得到多少?如此，则必须建立某种适用于竞争的规则，这就被称为产权。在这一点上，经济学家与毛没有争议。
但是，经济学家有这样一条假定（当然还有许多其它的）：在产权约束的条件下，个人的行为举止是为了最大化财富或效用。给定约束条件下最大化原理，经济理论就可以推演不同产权系统对于收入分配与资源配置而言的不同含义。如果我们忽略交易成本问题，私有产权这一约束会产生一系列均衡条件，这就被定义为经济效率。私有产权的标志是排他的、可转让的（资源）权利。因此，使人有得有失的市场就成为解决人们之间冲突的准则。
考虑以下几点：（１）关于个人行为的假定（偏好方程），（２）资源的私人所有权（一个特定的机会集），（３）有效率的资源配置（即定的、可供选择的目标之下，某种不言而喻的产出）。从根本上说，毛需要的是（３）。然而，受马克思的劳动价值论影响，毛发觉，在（２）之下，人民之间存在冲突。在废除（２）的过程中，毛与经济学家在（１）上产生分歧，他以为辩证唯物主义会使其摆脱困境。
贰
邹谠教授指出，毛跟马列阵营的区别在于如何结束“社会矛盾”。尽管马克思和列宁认为“矛盾”会在共产主义国家中终结，但是毛却不这么认为。毛的逻辑是十分正确的。用经济学家的术语来说，毛思考的是一系列没有终结的非稳定均衡。
如果资本资产的私人所有权被废除，那么个体的行为就必须作相应的改变，以保持社会的理想的产出。然而，尽管毛认为“自利”可以被改变、人民可以按照设想来“塑造”，但是，对于人民的特定的理想行为，毛却知者甚少，或者一无所知。显然，告诉一个人“你不应自私”，并不意味着告诉他“你应该做……”。我们就算能保证人们会按照所塑造的行为行事，那么，去详细地说明这类行为——这类行为要与资源的共有产权跟一个理想的产量相吻合——也是很困难的，假使是有可能说清楚的话。
还剩下另外一种选择：详细说明产出的目标，同时为实现这个目标而对人的行为做出不断的纠正。在这种办法之下，改变政策以“纠正”行为将更加频繁，如果：（ａ）愈加彻底地对资源采用共有产权这种产权形式；（ｂ）人的本性的改变几乎无法有效实现；（ｃ）目标愈加频繁的改变。人民的冲突也就会继续。
也许，这就是，为什么共产中国在这个强人的指导下，规则、计划、政策措施以史无前例的速度发生变化的原因。
叁
人民公社是朝着取消私人资产所有（在土地和其它农场资产方面）更大的“大跃进”，然而在建立人民公社的过程中，“冲突”仍在积累。党的领导者发现，人民是自私和贪婪的；公社的报告完全是谎言；没有政府的同意，人民就退回到私人决策。紧接着，政策的变化被军队所浓缩、提纯，那时，军队表面上是一个独立的组织，运行过程中不需要私人资本。
结果就是红卫兵的产生。
肆
费沙认为，资本资产是有潜力带来未来收入的任何物品，不管它们是土地、建筑、驯顺的动物，还是人类自身。伴随可市场化的权利，资产的价值被衍生出来，即由资产产生的收入流的资本化带来。一种资产存在市场价值就意味着它是私人所有的。即使任何形式的权利让渡都被排除，资本资产仍可能被私人拥有，并为个人创造收入。
因此，在废除私有产权的过程中，禁止财产的私人使用，可能必须首先禁止财产的转让。
伍
从1950年代的北京出版的几卷书中，我发现，主导中国政治领袖经济思维的两个经济学家是李嘉图和马克思。李嘉图的级差地租学说（这意味着“不公平”）和马克思的劳动价值论（和剩余价值）被反复强调。
尽管劳动价值论愚弄了马克思和中国的政治领袖，但是它却完全没有愚弄住红卫兵。
毛坚持废除私人资本带来的收入差别，并且要彻底废除，在这一坚持之下，红卫兵采取了相应的行动。他们的行为表明，如同费沙一样，他们把资本解释成包罗万象的东西，这竟然成了毛所说的“彻底性”的一个自然总结。事实上，他们把级差地租的概念应用到了所有事物之上。阶级差别被看成是租金差别，因之，从优秀的乒乓球运动员到受过教育的医生，只要有人要求比他们更好的生活（也就是更高的收入），红卫兵都发现了抽取租金的好理由。
尽管看起来奇怪，但是他们的作为完全与“资本”这个复杂的概念一致。
陆
但是红卫兵的活动并没有持续多久。级差地租是会下降的。因为当一个红卫兵发现有人位于他之上时，不需多久，他也会发现有人位于他之下。
如果彻底地解释并严格地执行，那么消灭阶级差别就意味着只有唯一的一个人存活下来。
柒
在共产主义国度中，毛发现的人民冲突是真实的冲突。所不真实的是他认为的在私有产权方面的矛盾：所有的问题都体现在劳力方面，并且冲突来源于非劳力资产的私人所有。他的收入分配不公平的观点仅仅是一个逻辑错误的副产品，这是一个来自于马克思的不完善的“资本”概念的错误。
毛比马克思彻底，相应地，年轻的红卫兵就按照费沙的思想来诠释毛的见解了。
Irving Fisher and the red guards
Steven Cheung
The hypothesis to be advanced here is that the recent activities of the red guards in china stem, at least in part, from their use of a refined concept of capital. And it is my conjecture that, had fisher's theory of interest been translated into Chinese thirty years ago. Mao probably would have sought to solve the "social contradiction, "or the people's conflict differently.
I
The “social contradiction, ” which Mao states in vague terms, can be more precisely expressed by the economist. In a world where more than one individual wants the same scarce resources, competition is implied. Hence, there arises among competing individuals the conflict of who gets how much of what, and it is essential to establish some rules for competition known as property rights. On this Mao and the economist agree.
But the economist postulates, among other things, that the individual behaves so as to maximize wealth or utility subject to the property right constraint. Given the constrained maximization, economic theory derives different implications for income distribution and resource allocation from different systems of property rights. If we ignore problems of transaction cost, the constraint of private property rights leads to a set of equilibrium conditions which define economic efficiency. The attributes of private property are exclusive and transferable resource rights. Hence the market, which gives and takes away, is one criterion for solving the peoples's conflict.
Consider the following：(1)postulates on individual behavior (preference functions), (2)private ownership of resources(one specific opportunity set), and (3)efficient resource allocation(some implied outputs given the objects of choice). Basically, Mao wants(3). Influenced by Marx's labor theory of value, however, Mao sees the people's conflict in (2). In doing away with (2), he disagrees with the economist on (1), in the belief that dialectical materialism will bail him out.
This note, written with only casual information on present-day China, was intended for the curiosity of Tsou. Its failure to provoke laughter suggests that it should be made available to a wider audience.
II
Professor Tang Tsou has pointed out to me that Mao and the Marx-Lenin camp differ on the ending of the "social contradiction. " Whereas Marx and Lenin saw an end to the "contradiction" in a communist state, Mao does not. Mao's logic is quite correct. What he sees, in the economist's terminology, is an unending series of unstable equilibria. If private ownership of capital assets is abolished, individual behavior must accordingly be changed in order to maintain a socially desirable output. However, while Mao considers that self-interest is subject to alterations and that the people can be molded as desired, he gives little or no inkling as to what specific behavior he desires of his people. To say that "thou shalt not be selfish" does not, of course, imply what "thou shalt be. "It is indeed difficult, if not impossible, to specify a class of behavior consistent with both communal ownership of resources and a desirable output-even if we grant that behavior can be molded as intended.
There is one alternative left：to specify the goal of output and to make whatever correction of human behavior is needed to satisfy that goal. Under this approach, changes in policy to "correct" behavior will be more extensive (a)the more thorough the adoption of communal ownership over resources, (b)the fewer the alterations of human nature that can be effectively induced, and (c) the more the changes in goals. And the people's conflict continues.
That, perhaps, is why changes in rules, programs, and policy measures in Communist China have occurred at unprecedented speed under the direction of a very powerful man.
III
During the establishment of the people's communes-which was a greater "leap forward" than ever before toward abolishing private asset holdings (that is, in land and other farming assets)-"contradiction" mounted. People were found to be selfish and greedy；commune reports on output were outright lies；and retrogression to individualistic decisions progressed
without government approval. Consequently, the next change in policy was distilled from the army, a seemingly independent organization that functions without private capital.
The outcome was the Ret Guard.
IV
Capital assets, according to Fisher, are all goods with future income potential, be they land, building, craft animals, or human beings. The value of the asset is derived, with marketable rights, by capitalizing the income stream it generates. The existence of a market value for an asset implies that it is privately owned. Even if right transfers in any form are excluded, the capital assets may still be privately held, generating incomes for the individual.
V
The two ecnonmists who dominate economic thinking of China's political leaders, as I discovered from several volumes published in Peking in the 1950's, are Ricardo and Marx, Ricardo's doctrine of differential rent(with its implied "injustice")and Marx's labor theory of value(and surplus value) are emphasized.
While the labor theory of value fooled Marx and China's political leaders, it certainly does not fool the red guards. Under Mao's insistence on doing away with income differentials of private capital, and doing away with them thoroughly, the red guards have performed accordingly. Their behavior indicates that they, like Fisher, interpret capital as all-inclusive, which is a natural generalization of Mao's "thoroughness. "And they apply the notion of differential rent to virtually everything. Class differentials are viewed as rent differentials. Thus from skilled ping-pong players to educated medical doctors, and for that matter to all those who command more comfortable livings(that is, higher incomes) than they, the red guards see good reasons to extract rent.
Odd as it may seem, what they do is in accordance with a sophisticated concept of capital.
VI
But the activities of the red guards will not endure. Differential rent will come into its own. For when one red guard sees someone above him, it will not be long before he also sees someone below him.
Thoroughly interpreted and strictly enforced, the elimination of class differentials implies the survival of one single man.
VII
The people's conflict which Mao sees in a Communist state is a real conflict. What is not real is the conflict he sees in private property：everything comes from labor. and conflict arises if non-labor assets are privately owned. His thesis of unequal income distribution is only a by-product of a logical error, and error which stems from Marx's incomplete concept of "capital. "
Mao is more thorough than Marx, and, by coincidence, the little red guards interpret Mao as Fisher.
http://www.douban.com/group/topic/27401745/ |
|
发表于 2014-12-27 01:54:23