Chapter 11 "Social Capitalism"

The previous article mentioned that capitalism has entered the period of "social capitalism" due to the implementation of the policy of capital socialization. What this section will explain is "social capitalism", emphasizing the capital connotation of social relations. For quite a long time in the past, although China has been engaged in socialist construction, "society" has been in a state of confiscation and decline.China's original community organizations and social rules have become obsolete in the stormy transformation, and the ubiquitous state system, as well as the fanaticism and hostility derived from ideology, have turned capital into a bad thing.

Since the reform and opening up, people have gradually realized that not every pore of capital is dripping with blood and dirty things when it comes to the world.Today, in the eyes of some Western politicians and scholars, China is slipping into "barbaric capitalism", and some local Chinese scholars also call this new trend the "Capital-bureaucracy".Obviously, all these criticisms are not against capital, but against its mutation. At the same time, it is worth noting that when China is gradually opening up and finally abandoning the debate of "surname society or capitalism", the interpretation of "capital" theory in the international academic circle has already undergone new developments.In a sense, China's modernization also coincides with the modernization of the concept of "capital".As for the modernization of this concept, one of the keys to China's transformation lies in how to improve the understanding of "social capital" by the government and society.

The emergence of "human capital" in the 1960s made the materialized part of capital return to human value.A few years later, French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu first distinguished capital into "economic capital", "cultural capital" and "social capital", and "social capital" has gradually become the focus of international academic circles.Although there is not yet a complete and authoritative definition of social capital, there is a consensus that social capital is a new form of capital after physical capital, technical capital and human capital, and a social resource that can be utilized. The implication is that by strengthening or reshaping social relations (social contract), society can benefit from it.Furthermore, acknowledging the existence of social capital will provide a good way out for the allocation of social resources.For the country and society, investing in the transformation and cultivation of social relations can not only benefit individuals and groups, but also benefit the country.

American sociologist Robert Putnam pointed out that "compared with physical capital and human capital, social capital refers to the characteristics of social organization, such as trust, norms and networks, which can improve social efficiency by promoting coordination and action. Social capital enhances the return on investment in physical and human capital." As early as several decades ago, when talking about why he opposed class struggle, Liang Shuming analyzed China's social organization structure from a cultural perspective, and believed that in different types of cultures, social structures are different.Because "Western" people value group life, Chinese people value family life, so China deduces the ethical standard from family life, and at the same time moves towards career separation, forming a society composed of family ethical relationships.However, "Western" has evolved from group life to class antagonism, so "Western" can be called a society of class antagonism, while China is a society of career separation.Although modern China cannot be called an equal and classless society, classes have not yet been formed. This is the particularity of Chinese society.From this, Liang Shuming believed that China's road to self-help lies in the construction of a new social organization structure.It is the communication and harmony between the inherent Chinese spirit and the strengths of "Western culture", that is, to learn "Western" group organization and science and technology, so as to cultivate and develop the inherent spirit of China, that is, the spirit of ethical friendship and life. . "To transform China's politics, we must start from the basics. The national constitutional government must be based on local autonomy. Starting from the basics, we must start from the lowest level and engage in rural self-government. Once the self-government of each township and village is done well, The foundation of constitutional government will also be in place...the whole country will have a strong and stable foundation, and a progressive new China can be established." (Liang Shuming, "Recalling the Rural Construction Movement I Engaged in")

Also opposed to class struggle is the philosopher Zhang Dongsun. On August 20, 1932, Zhang Dongsun published the article "Class Issues" in the first volume of "Rebirth" magazine, No. 4, focusing on criticizing the theory of class and class struggle, and the dictatorship of the proletariat.Zhang Dongsun believes that class consciousness is completely different from class interests. Class interests are common and common interests of a class. There are class interests, because this is a fact. But the facts force me to admit that all classes in China already have class consciousness. So we can say that any class in China, whether it is the bourgeoisie, the petty bourgeoisie, or the proletariat, is still It has not reached the level of creating class consciousness, and as for the remnants I mentioned, they are self-made people who do not become a class, let alone class consciousness!" He concluded: "Our political ideas do not have to be based on Any class. This is the meaning of the first point. There is also the second point: we must pay attention to all classes. The implication of this sentence is that we must not build on the above-mentioned so-called remnants (hooligans) .”

In recent years, people have often been asked the following questions: Why does Chinese society have an "ultra-stable structure"?Why do the dynasties collapse again and again while the country remains?Why do Chinese people always come back to life in the end after experiencing "the people are in dire straits"?In China's transitional period, when social injustice is at its limit and government relief is weak, why hasn't Chinese society experienced the "collapse" predicted by the world?There are thousands of reasons.In the author's opinion, one of the important reasons is that the family, as an "organization", partially resolves various ills and crises caused by government failure or market failure.

For example, for a poor family in rural areas, the children have improved their lives through studying or going out to work, and they will continue to support the family, playing the role of a "small government" or "temporary government" to a certain extent.In addition to not being responsible for taxation, they are responsible for almost all expenses in the family, including education for younger siblings, medical care for parents, and pensions.And those parents who are clenching their teeth to support their children's reading also pin their hopes on future generations.In this respect, although the cultivation of social organizations in the modern sense of China is very underdeveloped, the existence of the family has made up for this deficiency to some extent.

In the autocratic or closed era, running a family is the only legal self-government.However, in extreme times, even family self-government was "confiscated." During the Great Leap Forward, all the iron pots used for cooking in commune members' homes were taken to make steel.Of course, this Chinese-style family self-help is not social self-help in the modern sense. In the 21st century, China's social self-help should have a broad prospect. Putnam noted that the democratic process depends on many factors, but the mass grassroots activities of ordinary citizens in civil society affect the performance of democratic institutions. The quantity and quality of social capital are decisive factors for democratic progress. Democratic reformers must start from Beginning at the grassroots level, we should effectively encourage non-governmental agreements among ordinary citizens, encourage the development of non-governmental organizations and non-governmental networks, that is, promote the accumulation of social capital, maintain the original stock of social capital, and achieve incremental growth.

Just as marriage creates a family, free association is also an important source of social capital.As early as the nineteenth century, Tocqueville praised the spirit of American citizenship in "On Democracy in America".In his view, free association and enthusiastic participation are the salient features of American civil society and the necessary conditions for modern democratic politics.In "Bowling Alone: ​​America's Declining Social Capital," Putnam also noticed another phenomenon. Since the 1960s, as American society changed, this kind of civic spirit was weakening. .Take voting as an example. In 1960, some people voted for Kennedy and Nixon, but thirty years later only a few people voted for Clinton, Dole, and Perot.Likewise, public expressions of citizens, such as submitting petitions and writing letters to parliamentarians, are also on the decline.Americans today are so independent (individualistic) that they would rather go bowling on their own in their free time, or stay at home and watch TV alone than chat with their neighbors or participate in community group activities.

Of course, most Chinese people do not "play bowling alone", but "play mahjong together".But often getting together to play mahjong does not mean that they are involved in public affairs.China and the United States seem to be in two seasons. If the social capital of the United States is partially withering, then China's social capital needs to be cultivated and needs to take root.Today, "investing in social capital", like "global governance" and "civil society", is gradually becoming familiar to the government and the public.It should be noted that, for the government, the so-called "investment in social capital" does not require any investment environment, nor can it be said to wait for any mature opportunity.If the government lets go of the spontaneous growth of social capital, not only does the government not need to spend a single coin, but it can receive huge benefits from the social relief government.The boundary between the two is that the government belongs to the government, and the society belongs to the society.Obviously, dividing the boundaries of civil society does not lie mainly in the boundaries of rights in the sense of class, but in determining the boundaries between private rights in society and public power in the government.

Nationalism and individualism that go to extremes are both a kind of isolationism. The former puts the society in a state of being swallowed up, while the latter turns the society into a mess. Both mean the disintegration of social power or social capital.Because of this, the author believes that two important values ​​to measure human progress are independence and cooperation.A society, from closed to open, is essentially a process of recovery or regeneration of social organizations, a process of growth and reconfiguration of social capital.It is precisely because of the creative power and buffering power of society that Giddens discovered society, which is understood as finding a "third way" between the individual and the state. Historian Huang Renyu wrote a short article in "Ten Thousands of Relationships", referring to the unique Chinese "relationship culture" in the world, pointing out that the term "Guanxi" can appear in foreign newspapers from time to time, and has almost become a foreign language absorbed by English. One of the words, "has the appearance of being half-public and half-private, in the middle ground between legal and illegal." Huang Renyu clarifies the tens of thousands of relationships into the three most important ones. The first is the relationship of survival, the second is the relationship of sex, and the third is the relationship of economy.In ancient China, it was King Qi Xuan who best interpreted these three relationships. King Qi Xuan said to Mencius that "a widow has a disease" are these three important relationships: "a widow is lustful" (sexual relationship), a widow is a "good guy". " (economic relationship), widows "good courage" (life-death relationship).As for how to better express the triple relationship faced by Chinese people, Huang Renyu believes that we should ask Freud (sexual relationship), Darwin (survival relationship) and Marx (economic relationship) respectively. It should be said that the essence of social capital is also "relationship".People tend to understand it as a benign social network where citizens trust each other and grow cooperatively.It is also critical to the functioning of a democracy and to a society's recovery from the dilemma of collective action.For example, scholar Yan Jirong pointed out: “A person, an organization or a group’s income depends on its stock of social capital, and the stock of social capital comes from his (it) social network relationship.” (Investment Society Capital—A New Dimension of Political Development") Although social capital appears in the form of autonomy, it should also have a certain openness, otherwise it may turn to alienation due to closure.On this point, it is not difficult for Chinese people who are well versed in the suffering of "relationships" colluding between officials and businessmen to understand.Some social capital's "negative externalities" are valued—closed social capital may also play a role in kidnapping or isolating the public. According to Porter, a professor of sociology at Princeton University, if the goal of a group is anti-social, then the social capital within the group will inevitably have a harmful effect on society, precisely because of the existence of the "external negative effect" of social capital , so that the investment and cultivation of social capital should make a difference.However, the question is, how to cultivate social capital, should the government invest through intervention, or should citizens invest through their own actions and ideas, and thus obtain social returns? Adam Smith said: "People in the same industry seldom get together, but when they talk, they either plan a conspiracy against the public or concoct a plan to raise prices to cover people's ears." Some interest groups may also form a kind of Collusion with the public.For example, the high housing prices that have been adjusted but not controlled in recent years are undoubtedly related to the tacit collusion between developers and between developers and the government.When the government half-heartedly began to regulate housing prices, real estate tycoons also held closed-door meetings, and some real estate developers even threatened them with the excuse of "not building houses."The pursuit of interests is not only an attribute of economic capital, but also an attribute of social capital.Capital will be value-added and strengthened due to reproduction. It is worth noting that the "external negative effect" of social capital is not the fatal point of social capital.The real shortcoming is that in a society, some people can build their social capital while others are forbidden; Neighbors drop by.In this sense, if Ren Zhiqiang's "no housing initiative" is a stunning flower gun, then the short-lived folk "no housing movement" left people with a kind of sadness of "shaking the tree". It is an elegy that partially witnesses the powerlessness of Chinese society. In 2008, at the "Principals Forum" held by Peking University, President Ji Baocheng of Renmin University of China sharply criticized the current problem of "universities revolve around the market".Ji Baocheng said that the market economy is "driven by material interests", but the university's mission and spirit require it to keep a certain distance from the market.The university is noisy, impetuous, worshiping money, academic fraud, eager for quick success.Some university teachers have become the spokespersons of some specific interest groups, making it difficult for academic masters to emerge, and high-level scientific research results have been seriously affected.At the same time, Ji Baocheng also expressed his dissatisfaction with some people who regard the university as an appendage of a government agency and as a workshop of a factory to conduct command. What Ji Baocheng mentioned here is nothing more than two issues: one is marketization, and the other is officialdom.The former is the problem of "the market overpowers the university", and the latter is the problem of "the officialdom overwhelms the university".However, as long as you have a little understanding of China's current university system, you will know that it is the officialdom rather than the market that really hurts Chinese universities and makes the university's ills linger. Looking back at China's social development in recent years, it is obviously not a bad thing for market factors to enter universities, and it will not necessarily lead to the loss of university mission and university spirit.Theoretically speaking, one of the biggest achievements of the thirty years of reform and opening up is the continuous strengthening of social horizontal linkages, accompanied by the continuous weakening or even disintegration of vertical linkages linked by power.And this top-down power control is precisely the key to restraining universities from running their own schools and actively creating.In this sense, universities and professors continue to go to the market, which can be regarded as a symbolic event of the growth of Chinese society.From the perspective of fairness, market behavior is at least based on horizontal and equal contracts, which is also an improvement compared to the "power contract" of strong buying and selling in the past.When universities or scholars can find a market to save themselves from the society, the emergence of the market also objectively completes the reconstruction and decentralization of officialdom (power). Some people accuse some university professors of being "in collusion" with vested interest groups in society, willing to become the spokespersons of the interest groups for their own benefit, and become the advocates, propagandists and mouthpieces of the interest groups.Critics who hold this do not know that the first point is that "viewpoints balance the world", as long as they are not collectively forced to speak for the interests of a certain group, the world still has hope; It's just rare, and the vast majority of scholars are just the "silent majority" in the ivory tower.They receive insufficient and humane salaries, and although they have a lot of leisure time, they often have to bow down to technocrats for "repeatedly defeated" projects. examine. Due to the need to accept the top-down guidance of power or the allocation of resources, many scholars can only do research that is expected to be approved when conducting research. Such research will inevitably be branded as "research by order".Under such conditions, if scholars can obtain the support of the market (society) outside the officialdom (power system), not only will the university spirit not be lost, but the worn-out university spirit can be repaired to some extent.On the other hand, if one understands the publishing history of the Age of Enlightenment and the key role played by the market in the advancement of concepts, one will find that scholars who go to the market and actively engage in the business of the progress of the times can also make great contributions. Obviously, it is not the market that is really hurting universities now, but the ubiquitous officialdom.The university is the epitome and witness of how the 30-year pursuit of "small government and big society" has changed.Today's Chinese universities have long been bloated administrative institutions.Administrative management and clericalism have made many scholars who work on ideas and creations miserable.The ever-expanding administrative department within the university is more like a Trojan horse to support the "attack" of the higher administrative unit on the university, and the professors who sacrificed their lives for management work have to "academic abandonment" for the rest of their lives because of the endless "form filling work". cost.The huge grinding machine composed of administrative evaluation, approval, review, etc. has made all universities lose their luster and edges in front of technocrats. Why come out of the "building" and not the "master"?Why go out of the "government" and not the "school"?When it comes to the solution of Chinese universities, I believe that many people already know it well, such as separating academics from administration, allowing universities to return to the tradition of professors running schools, and regaining "free thought and independent spirit" and so on.If the decision-makers really have the ambition to build a Chinese university, they don’t need to waste money and money to go to Harvard or Oxford to learn some scriptures. In fact, they only need to buy a train ticket to Kunming and walk around the ruins of the Southwest Associated University. There are all kinds of answers. Since the essence of rebuilding social capital is to rebuild social relations, we must first know what kind of social relations need to be established to suit the creativity of the people and the growth of an open society.Obviously, in a political omnipotent society, in a star-shaped structure with only one central connection point, there is no real society to speak of.Because here, all ties need to be connected through central power, not right.The danger is that when power fails, the whole structure collapses at once. Sociologists tend to divide the organizational forms of social capital into vertical and flat.The former is columnar, while the latter is mesh; the former is hierarchical, while the latter runs through a spirit of equality. As Putnam points out, any society, modern or traditional, autocratic or democratic, feudal or capitalist, is made up of a series of networks of interpersonal communication and exchange, both formal and informal.Some of them are mainly "horizontal", linking actors with the same status and aspirations.Others are predominantly “vertical,” combining unequal actors into asymmetric hierarchies and dependencies. Obviously, this columnar hierarchical structure still represents a closed and fractured social structure.Although this dense but separated vertical network can barely maintain the cooperation within each group, it will not bring the whole society into a state of trust and cooperation. In essence, China's transformation is the transformation of Chinese society.Since society has been in a state of repression or confiscation in the past, society must first find and redeem its proper boundaries.The advantage of an open society is that the state is obliged to recognize the value of individual citizens prior to the value of the state, and citizens can follow their own rights rather than bonds set by politics or power to form their own relationships, or to develop their own society capital, and on this basis, maximize the social capital of a country.