"Capitalism" is a commonly used noun that appears from time to time both in writing and in spoken language.But it is very difficult to give this term a proper definition.Not only are the authors of various books and periodicals sticking to their own opinions, even if we quote the word "capitalism", we may have different intentions before and after, and we are even more afraid of being misunderstood by others.If this issue is not clarified, it may become the source of ideological conflicts in society, and it may also affect everyone's outlook on life, making us feel confused about the world and feel that we have no control over it.

There are so many problems with a commonly used term, probably because capitalism has involved a wide range of areas in the world, lasted a long time, has not stopped so far, and has a close relationship with modern life.Major wars and large-scale turmoil in recent centuries are usually directly or indirectly related to it.Capitalism, as the source of joy and new life, is also the source of so many disappointments and disasters that we cannot ignore it intellectually or emotionally. Although the general writers believe that capitalism forms a phenomenon of economic life, which first appeared in the Italian peninsula between the 13th and 14th centuries, the term capitalism was born several hundred years later.Even so, it has been more than 100 years since it was first used, and with the rapid changes in today's world, it can also be regarded as "once in the sea".For the West, before the Second World War, because the memory of the economic panic in 1929 was still fresh, there were many words criticizing capitalism from all walks of life, organizing trade unions, preventing trusts, proposing social welfare legislation, and advocating capitalism at that time. The position of the author is the opposite.It was not until after the East-West Cold War that anyone took pride in the banner of capitalism and advocated that it was inseparable from freedom in Western society.It can be seen that capitalism in history is a complex polyhedron.

French historian Fernand Braudel has studied capitalism for many years, and his textual research is as follows: Capitalism, the most provocative of these three terms (the others being "capital" [Cap-ita] and "capitalist" [capitalist]), has driven historians and lexicographers to desperately pursue Inconclusive.According to Dauzat, this word was found in the Encyclopedia of 1753, and it is given a peculiar meaning: "the condition of the rich." This statement may not be correct; Later generations found it, and it was only found in the book Enrichissements de la languefrancaise written by JB Richard in 1842.It may be due to the debate between Louis Blanc and Bastiat; it gave the term a new meaning."What I call capitalism," he wrote in 1850, "is the appropriation of capital by some and the exclusion of others." The word "capitalism" was still uncommon at the time.Proud-hon (Proud-hon) used occasionally.He is also right when he says: "The land is still the bastion of capitalism." This is one of his main themes.Proudhon gave a good definition of this term: "an economic and social system in which labor puts capital into effect by labor, making it a source of income, and this capital is not subordinate to these laborers." But Six years later (1867) Marx still did not know of this title.

In fact, it was not until the beginning of the 20th century that the term "capitalism" was vigorously regarded as the opposite of socialism in debates in political forums.Werner Sombart's explosive book Der moderne Kopitalismus (first edition, 1902) introduced it to academia.Naturally, this term, which Marx never used, was subsumed into Marxism's norms.Since then, slave society, feudalism, and capitalism have been regarded as the three-stage evolution of the author of "Das Kapital". The ambiguity of the term's emergence may have been due to its becoming a political term. In the early 20th century, economists such as Gide, Canwas, Marshall, Seligman, and Cassel refused to use it for a long time.It did not appear in the "Dictionary des sci-ences politiques" until after World War II; the "Encyclopedia Britannica" did not give an explanation until the 1926 edition. The "Dictionary of the French Institute" was not introduced until 1936 and gave it a ridiculous definition: "capitalism: capitalists as a whole." This book has not been significantly improved until 1958: "an economic system, internal The goods produced in the middle belong to private or private shops.”——Why not just call it “production tools”?

In fact, since the beginning of the 20th century, capitalism has been heavily pushed with different meanings, especially after the Russian Revolution in 1917, which has embarrassed many people.Reputable historians such as Herbert Heaton have proposed that it be discarded.He once said: "Among all kinds of doctrines, the most disturbing one is capitalism. With such various interpretations and definitions of this word, anyone can say that capitalism is similar to imperialism." Faber Wei ( Lucien Febvre thinks it should be abandoned since it has been overused.But if we do give up, we will immediately feel lost.Andrew Shonfield said it well: "One of the reasons why the term capitalism continues to be used is that no one, including the most severe critics, has come up with a better word to replace it." It can be seen that the occurrence of this term has its own origins.

Former Cambridge University lecturer Maurice Dobb analyzed contemporary thesis on capitalism and summarized it into three schools.A shift that focuses on production relations.With capitalism, producers began to sell their labor power, after which they had no control over finished products.This is the Marxist school.Tao Pu claimed to belong to this group.The second faction focuses on the spirit of capitalism, that is, capitalists in the new era regard the accumulation of capital as a noble cause and endow it with devout religiousness.There is another school that pays attention to the process of transformation of natural economy into financial economy.The characteristic of capitalism is that the organization is prepared to deal with distant markets, so wholesalers pay for goods in advance, and thus also interfere with the business of retailers and producers.

But in the existing works, there is no one school of theory that we can all observe and borrow.Because many theories are not relevant to our time and place, dwelling on them may remain futile, or at least half-effective, for the average reader. For example, when Tao Pu mentioned the formation of industrial capital, he inherited Marx’s statement and pointed out that there are two ways: one is that craftsmen expand their own industry’s manufacturing.They scrape together capital to become capitalists, start hiring labor, create new situations, and generally move forward.Another way is to put commercial capital into manufacturing, suppress production, make things rare and expensive, and make money on a large scale.They are also unwilling to have a high degree of division of labor and cooperation, so they avoid a lot of investment. In short, they are reactionary.The author puts forward countless examples based on different industries in Britain in the 16th and 17th centuries.But in the process of accumulating capital at the initial stage, workers can become merchants, and merchants can also become workers.Even if all the examples given by the author are convincing, today, hundreds of years later, progressive craftsmen and stubborn revolutionary businessmen have passed the test of the market and the elimination of the times, some have gone bankrupt, and some have flourished.Today's undeveloped countries are waiting for PepsiCo to put cheap labor into the international market in order to accumulate capital.The transfer of funds has become internationalized. If you don't borrow money, you will see others take the lead and miss the opportunity.Although any country should try its best to protect the interests of itself and its workers, it is no longer the time to measure the family background and class origin of entrepreneurs.For developed countries, the problems at hand have long gone beyond the scope of centuries ago.Today's major companies not only need to face the competition of the same industry, but also need to guard against professional "corporate raiders".They rely on lobbying to obtain "junk bonds" (junk bonds) from bankers and securities dealers, buy the stocks of several large companies in batches, and then accept each other, lay off their managers, and then sell their business Businesses were withdrawn and merged, some were sold out, and some were strengthened, only focusing on the immediate efficiency and ignoring the needs of long-term poor management.Industrial and commercial people in advanced countries have to deal with such big problems, because the funds involved are often billions or tens of billions, and the employees of the companies to be accepted are also tens of thousands, making the whole society unable to take care of its members in the initial stage of capital accumulation. positivity and negativity.Just like a store with a profit and loss of more than one million a year every year, there is no time to verify whether the numbers after a decimal point in the account books decades ago are really reliable.

Max Weber was the first scholar to actively promote the spirit of capitalism.His writings conflate the Protestant ethic with modern capitalism.On the one hand, the author proposes that the calling of God advocated by Luther (calling, that is, the destiny, which is different for each person) and Calvin's predestina-tion have the same tendency of individualism, because Catholics used to believe in The conscience of collective character has been replaced by the conscience of individualism after the Reformation.From then on, one cannot rely solely on monastery practice as a ladder to salvation, and everyone's livelihood and occupation cannot be unrelated to faith.Lu Deshang only passively tried his best to tie up the destiny of heaven.Calvin encouraged all believers to imagine that they have been selected and saved, so success in career is a symbol of grace, so they are more aggressive.On the other hand, Weber also confirmed the close relationship between the rise of Anglo-American capitalism and the Puritans based on the words and deeds of Franklin and the British non-comformist pastor Richard Baxter.Of particular interest to Chinese readers is Weber's monograph on the reasons why China cannot produce capitalism in his "Essays on the Sociology of Religion".He mentioned that Chinese society is ruled by Confucianism, with only patriarchal bureaucratic organizations and a lack of legally guaranteed social structure.The lower-level organizations depended on the clan (sib) of patriarchal authority, and the imperial examination system handed over all the fame and wealth to the literati, so that other industries lacked proper inductive power.Taoism is regarded as a kind of magic by Chinese society, and it itself has gradually reduced its involvement in the world.Buddhism is also ostracized in China.Weber pointed out that Buddhism, because of its special appeal to women's emotions, has become a creed that is valued in the palace, and often has eunuchs as its patrons, but lacks the power to lead society.

Weber's citations of Chinese data often contain errors and misunderstandings, but on the whole, his comparative observations are decent.He criticizes places where the strict dogma of the old Chinese society cannot be used flexibly, and he usually hits the nail on the head.But Weber was only a sociologist, and his works can be regarded as essays on cultural anthropology. The general psychological analysis is delicate, which is very suitable as a basis for evaluating literature and art, and to explain a certain kind of human economic development. Behavior is like that of a capitalist, and it is inevitable to use abstract judgments to measure specific things. The connection between them is only between whether there is or is not.

In the 16th and 17th centuries, the Western European countries led by the Netherlands and the United Kingdom took advantage of the religious reformation to wipe out the remaining social power of the feudal system and replaced them with the national organization and economic system of the new society.This kind of organization and system is called "capitalism".Among them, Calvinism is the most prosperous, and it uses its fighting power to deal with the old forces.Therefore, the mention of "Protestant ethics" and "spirit of capitalism" in history must have their connection.However, if one thinks that the connection between the two can summarize all the campaigns to remove the old and bring forth the new, or can speculate on the overall picture of the new social organization in the future, it is unavoidable to over-simplify the problem.

Capitalism first emerged in Venice without the infiltration of Protestantism.Later, it was extended to France and Belgium, and these countries have since converted to Catholicism."William the Silent", the leader of the Dutch War of Independence, was originally a Catholic. During the revolution, he first became a Lutheran and then converted to Calvinism (see Chapter 3 for details). So it was Protestant ethics that led the power of?Or was it simply used as a tool in the Revolutionary War?These kinds of problems caused gaps in Weber's theory. Weber also realized that Protestant ethics cannot exist in a vacuum.Capitalism can be promoted, and the maintenance of the rule of law is the primary task. Without the rule of law, commercial capital cannot be planned in advance and cannot be calculated, that is, a modern economic system cannot be produced.However, the author also believes that modern commercial law was also conceived by the Protestant ideology, so it is unavoidable to make a fuss about it.In fact, although modern commercial law can be traced back to the roots of Roman law, it was mainly produced by the free cities of Italy in the Middle Ages.We have to wait until the commercial development of Western European countries, the foundation of the rule of law is mature, and gradually copied and used.Therefore, civil law, commercial law and the theory of the rule of law will not be produced by a certain spirit, but will be enhanced by the promotion of material life.From this we can also see the disadvantages of Weber and others who overemphasized idealism. Weber also knew that his own theory had limitations in its application.His so-called spirit of capitalism is based on the Protestant ethic that even in the pile of money, there is still hard work, indomitable spirit, and the perception of moral sublimation.In his view, it is only rational if it is so.He also mentioned: "Of course this kind of concept did not only exist under the conditions of capitalism. We can also trace its roots back to before capitalism occurred. We can't even say that in modern capitalist enterprises, everyone including entrepreneurs and laborers Still confidently maintaining these ethical creeds. The economic organization of today's capitalism is a vast universe in which each individual is born, and it entrusts him with many immutable things with which he can only coexist. When each individual When it comes to market relations, he can only conform to the rules of capitalism. If the manufacturer continues to violate these conventions, he must be eliminated from economic life, just as the worker must not adapt himself to these conventions. would lose their jobs and wander the streets." From this point of view, the capitalist mode of production and the author’s so-called capitalist spirit are two different things. Although they can lead to the same goal under certain conditions, they may not necessarily coexist and die together.When we try to understand the full picture of capitalism in modern society from the most economical perspective, it will be difficult to find an appropriate path if we follow Weber, and we may be led astray because of his idealism. At the same time as Weber, who also came from the school of German idealism, there is the aforementioned Sombart.Weber believed that the spirit of capitalism came from the Protestant ethics of Christianity, while Sombart believed that it came from Judaism, which is similar to the Puritans mentioned by Weber.He said that after the Jews were expelled from Spain at the end of the 15th century, they came to the Netherlands in the early 16th century, supported the development of capitalism with their capital and credit evidence, and brought this spirit to the Netherlands through Antwerp (now Belgium). to England. "But Judaism never produced a poverty ideal (poverty ideal)".Sombart always believed that before capitalism, human beings were relatively pure, and everyone used himself as the standard to measure external things.Once you accept capitalism, you turn the cart before the horse, adopt a quantitative calculation (quantitative calculation), and use all your energy to calculate how to obtain property, "using force, magic, tricks, new inventions, and money to obtain property."But on the other hand, he also said that every European country has the ability to produce capitalism, only in different degrees.In every country since the fall of the Roman Empire, the greed for gold and the entrepreneurial spirit have emerged, and soon these two forces have coalesced.But when Sombart talked about the weakness of capitalism, there is no time program or space limitation.Even wearing silk, eating sweets, and living with pornography can all be blamed on capitalism. Idealists sometimes regard personal likes and dislikes as good and evil, and even apply this standard to major events in history, and the results may be quite dangerous.When Weber talked about the specialties of the West in "The Protestant Ethic", he had a tendency to racism (see Chapter 5 for details).However, he mentioned that even if he personally believes in the relationship between physiology and genetics, the current scientific development does not allow him to make a conclusion.Sombart assigned titles such as "heroic character" and "trading nation" to different nations.He also proposed a "blood capitalism" (germ-capitalism) name (see Chapter 5).It's no wonder that Sombart joined Hitler's Nazi movement in his last year.But these details make us have to be wary in academic research. Having said that, I would also like to mention a professor RH Tawney who also used religious thought as a clue to investigate the formation of capitalism.However, he does not highly exaggerate ideology. He compares the elements of thought with land occupation and the development of banking business, and they are both external and internal.He also said: "The thinking of the Middle Ages believed that all values ​​​​can be arranged in an orderly hierarchy, including economic matters, and the top end is religion." In this way, the author's attitude is more objective. In fact, this book is also in many places, especially considering that when capitalism was developed in Britain, Taney's theories were referred to many times. In Tao Pu's classification of the three schools of thought, any author who does not belong to the Macson school and the German idealism school may be classified into the third school.We basically agree with this statement.This book looks at history from a technical point of view, which can also be regarded as one of Tao Pu's so-called third schools.However, the author's so-called transformation of the natural economy into a financial economy is too slack in explaining it, and it is easily misunderstood when it is used to understand the situation in China.It turns out that China's modern economic history lacks a large-scale and well-structured system like the West that can be called capitalist.But on the other hand, before modern times, the scope of commercial organizations and inland river commerce in China was more prominent than that of the West; the main reason was that under the Western feudal system, land was not allowed to be bought and sold, and social division of labor and cooperation In a very small circle according to the practice, the use of money is extremely limited, and China has no such historical experience since the pre-Qin period.Therefore, China's business has long been between the two extremes of the West (that is, the extreme closure under the feudal system and the extreme expansion under capitalism).If it is said that business is carried out in a long-distance manner, and wholesalers can be regarded as capitalism if they can intervene in retail and manufacturing, then China has many such examples. However, this kind of development has not become a general phenomenon, and the situation of inconsistency only won the title of "emerging capitalism", so the situation is even more embarrassing.What kind of famous flowers and plants in the world can "sprout" for three or four hundred years, but have not yet blossomed and bear fruit?It can be seen that there are fundamental differences in the social organizations of the two parties. The author did not clearly define the definition of capitalism, so he cut his feet to fit his feet and produced a title that is neither a donkey nor a horse. This point will be discussed in the next section. Due to the lack of a practical definition of such an extremely important historical stage, it has become a burden to the study of Western history.Take Professor Braudel as an example: His "World Civilization and Capitalism" (this book was originally called "Material Civilization, Economy, and Capitalism from the 15th to the 18th Century", and the Chinese translation was published in 1993 by Life·Reading·New Knowledge Joint Publishing ——Editor's Note) There are three huge volumes, with more than one million words, and the richness of citations and examples is unprecedented.It's just that the purpose of his book is to "write a general economic history" and present its "categories, models, and norms."Under this premise, he accommodated the materials vertically and horizontally in a furnace.For example, when it comes to the early stock market, London, Amsterdam, and Paris are all described together. Through the evolution of the century, not only the buildings and maps where the exchange is located are well known, but also the spoken language of shouting and selling stocks and the interruptions of retail coffee boys are also recorded in the book. .As a result, it is messy and messy, and it can be read at leisure, but it is difficult to come up with a compass when studying capitalism.Where is the problem?However, the so-called capitalists really appeared in a "capitalist era" (capitalist era) as Marx and Engels said, which was similar to the feudal society. It was all-encompassing and could not be summarized in the name of "economic history". Of.The first thing we know today is the process of its organization formation, focusing on its dynamics, not on its established categories and models. Of course, Professor Bu is not ignorant of this.He himself said: "In fact, every society according to the old organization opens the door to money, and sooner or later it must lose the balance of its needs and release it from forces that have not been properly controlled. It is good for a few people and bad for others, and every society will have a 'historic' new page when it is impacted by this." He also said: "The success of capitalism is that it is integrated with the country, and it is itself become a country." If so, it is not only economic history, but also military history, political history, social history and intellectual history.Among them, the situation of "turning a new page" is too standard for the new system. Before writing this book, the author also read more than 20 popular books with capitalism as the title.Although opening a book is beneficial and there are always places for inspiration and borrowing, it does not have a deep relationship with the issues we should pay attention to.The general common problem is that they only put forward opinions on the "good" and "bad" of capitalism, lacking the depth of history.According to the above-mentioned Braudel's opinion, since the development of capitalism has undergone drastic changes in various countries, the special books on capitalism should be divided into countries according to the situation of their conflicts.But so far only one such book has been seen by us, and it has been published for 60 years.Again, we cannot regard Brauchner's opinion as incorrect, but the whole of Marx's writings can also be regarded as an accusation of the conflict raised by Professor Braudel.How can one become a capitalist physiologist?In addition to Weber's occasional mention of the importance of the legal system in his book above, there is only one other book that emphasizes the relationship between law and capitalism, and the description is simple, only a theoretical outline, and lacks examples. Therefore, at the end of the 20th century, we hope to make a general review and prospect of capitalism.This important work remains in our own hands. Readers of China Today, faced with the title of capitalism, must also consider: Has the so-called capitalist system ever emerged in China?If it has never been produced in China, can it still be added in time now, and if it is not suitable for China's national conditions, is there a substitute that can be filled? Before answering the first question, we must take into account that capitalism is an epoch-making organization and movement that involves a wide range of areas, so its definition must be quite narrow (it seems that this is also a paradox. Because it involves a wide range , so in the history of human beings, it has been produced across the oceans for centuries. Its definition must also include its specific and unique situation, and it cannot be broadly and generalized in the same way as ordinary things, so that it can be expressed as one a knowledge and a movement).The contribution of capitalism to world civilization can be seen from the effectiveness of the Industrial Revolution.According to the research of an expert, as of the middle of the 19th century, there were only five countries in the world (Britain, the United States, Canada, Switzerland, and the Netherlands) with an average per capita annual income of US$200 (the value between 1952 and 1954) or slightly higher Degree.And if the whole of Europe and all of North America are taken together, the average cannot be much higher than 150 US dollars, that is to say, it is not far from the average poor country today.What a disparity between the present and the past!Although Marx did not use the term "capitalism", he and Engels also admitted that the advent of the "capitalist age" had revolutionary elements for European feudal society.And he said in the third volume of "Das Kapital" that under the "capitalist mode of production", if capitalists continue to accumulate capital, it will inevitably lead to a higher proportion of the cost of investing in factory machinery than wages during production, which will inevitably lead to profits in the long run. fall, workers' real wages rise.This situation is also consistent with the improvement of the living standards of the people in the advanced industrial and commercial countries mentioned above. It can be seen that capitalism has changed the quality of human life. It must have produced a large-scale environmental breakthrough in history, and it is irreversible, that is, after the breakthrough , so far it has not been able to actively or passively roll back into the previous situation. Judging from this special situation, it can be said that capitalism has never taken root in China, let alone blossomed and borne fruit. First, to call China's system before large-scale contact with the West "feudal" is inconsistent with the facts.The "Communist Manifesto" by Marx and Engels pointed out that the bourgeois society in the West was sprout-ed from the ruins of feudal society.The translation of feudal as "feudal" in Chinese does not exactly match, but it is generally not a problem, and it is not the crux of the debate here.According to expert research, the Western feudal system does share the following characteristics with the Chinese feudal system: (1) Fragmentation of authority.Since it is a feudal system, it must crack the soil and seal the grasslands, and public servants cannot control a large area of ​​​​the territory in their own hands. Fiscal power is getting stronger day by day, finally gathering the great achievements of decentralization. (2) Public affairs becoming private domains.Because the fiefdom will always be inherited by descendants through inheritance, it cannot be bought or sold.Otherwise, the feudal system will disintegrate if the money is in contact with each other and the liquidity is high.At the same time, this organization can only allow the administrative system to rely on the affiliation of private individuals. In this way, the government is no different from a private court, tax collection is comparable to rent payment, and the local government pays tribute to the central government.The bunkers under the jurisdiction of European feudal lords were their governments, and the basements were prisons. (3) Warrior tradition: In this situation, civil and military affairs cannot be separated, and the entire government is bound to be a hereditary military government. However, a great empire like the Ming and Qing emphasized civil affairs over military affairs, centralized power, and all legal systems were the same throughout the country. The emperor collected taxes from the whole people, and all official positions with functions could not be inherited.Land can be bought and sold freely, and social mobility is high. These characteristics are completely opposite to the feudal situation listed above.Feudalism in Europe started from the southward invasion of the Germanic nation, and became a practical system with its unique tribal organization and the remnant tradition of the Roman Empire.However, its organizational structure is simple, lacks flexibility and flexibility, so it cannot bear metamorphosis. Under the conditions of population increase, transportation development, and currency circulation, it is completely swept away by new trends.China's autocratic government bureaucracy has its own shortcomings, but it still has enough room to deal with internal abnormalities without opening the door to independent judiciary and keeping businessmen from getting too high.Even in the face of large-scale civil upheavals and alien invasions, the worst result is a change of dynasty and a new start, and there is no need to constantly make fundamental changes in society.From this we can see that the systems of the East and the West are vastly different, and there is no way to combine them into one path. Second, the "Communist Manifesto" mentioned "the increase in means of exchange and in commodities" (the increase in means of exchange and in commodities) is also one of the conditions for promoting a bourgeois society.From the standpoint of Europe, the so-called "instrument of exchange" must include credit documents such as bills of exchange, bills of lading, insurance policies, withdrawal certificates, etc., and it must wait until the height of credit is developed, and the organization of maritime trade and maritime courts is organized. Generally valid.Since Chinese society has not fixed private property rights (details in the next section), it cannot be compared with what Marx and Engels described. Many Chinese writers use "commodity economy" and "financial economy" interchangeably, and when using these terms, they emphasize that China's national economy has been modernized during the same period.But readers must be aware that the currency used in China has always been ahead of Western Europe.However, its currency is based on base metals, and it does not target bulk commerce and long-distance commerce. It is actually two major systems with European precious metal currencies.China's use of banknotes is especially ahead of Western Europe.But the crunch of credit through successive generations of governments (that is, disregard of private property rights, which is also an obstacle to the expansion of capitalism) has failed to encourage its popularization.Since the end of the Ming Dynasty, scrap silver has been widely used in China, but the supply of silver is limited, and ordinary people reuse it to make utensils and decorations. Because of the tightness of money in commerce, and the lack of legal system, the accumulated capital cannot continue to be opened and expanded. .Also burdened by blood relationship (details in the next section), the situation is not optimistic.Under such restrictions, the so-called "commodity economy" and "financial economy" in China cannot be clearly distinguished from the "real economy" and "natural economy", and there is no way for such terms to appear in the modern European economic history. when compared.The proportion of general agriculture in the other side is small, and the "increase of exchange tools and commodities" has begun to operate as Masi said, and changes can occur in a period of time equivalent to the Ming and Qing Dynasties in China. Due to the special background of China, so far The nineteenth century had not yet felt such economic pressure. Third, the word "germination" also appeared in Ma Eng's writings, as mentioned above.But capitalism has indeed taken root and blossomed in the West, and this metaphor makes sense.China has not been able to develop a high-level commodity economy in recent decades, and the income of ordinary citizens is still at the same level as it was several centuries ago. Scholars search everywhere for historical evidence.Britain and the Low Countries (Low Countries, today’s small towns in Belgium, the Netherlands, and northern France) had the so-called “external division of labor” around the 16th century (refer to the previous section), and entrepreneurs sent woolen raw materials door-to-door Distribute it to the weavers, make it in the family without setting up a factory, and then collect the finished products from door to door.This can be seen as a symbol of the germination of capitalism in Western Europe.In recent decades, many scholars have searched for information on the development of China's cotton weaving industry during the Ming and Qing Dynasties, especially all similar arrangements for spinning. Evidence for a "budding" trend.Little do they know that Western Europe has organized trade guilds in various cities and towns since the Middle Ages, and its products are manufactured completely according to the "feudal society's production mode", and everything remains unchanged according to established rules.The guilds determined the qualifications of shopkeepers and workmen, the limits of apprenticeships, so that members of each trade were included in their plans.The guild also determines the manufacturing procedures and standards, and the price it sets is generally considered "fair", that is, there is no profit or loss except for the cost of raw materials and necessary wages and management fees.Personnel in various industries are not allowed to make additional production, close sales, or process goods when they are sold, and go out of business when the recession is bad.As for practices such as expanding the facade, strengthening capital, and introducing new products, it is even more impossible to appear.Therefore, the so-called "profit in command" of capitalism now makes the market price determined by the relationship between supply and demand, and the adventurous spirit of entrepreneurs opens up the situation, which never happened in the Middle Ages.The method of external division of labor is beyond the control of trade associations, and constitutes a transitional stage between the old facade and the new enterprise. This is in line with the so-called germination of capitalism, and it also has the meaning of a historical connection.The development of China's industry and commerce has not been so strictly restricted. The biggest obstacle it has encountered is the lack of judicial protection of private property rights. Therefore, even if there is a way to distribute labor to outsiders, it cannot have the same effect in history. Fourth, to say that China will slowly establish its own original capitalism without the invasion of Western capitalism is pure speculation.It is impossible to predict what has not yet happened.If we refer to Braudel's observations, we can know that capitalism must go through some kind of breakthrough before it can become a system.That is to say, the national economic life is under internal and external pressure, and unprecedented adjustments have been made, so that it is irreversible.The following chapters of this book say that this is all true, in general, contrary to the uninfluenced, spontaneous, slow process of progress of capitalism. Braudel said that the success of capitalism lies in its integration with the state, which highlights the importance of the rule of law.The capitalist or his representative must obtain legislative power, so that the legal provisions can protect the accumulated capital.Only with the assistance of the judiciary can enterprises continue to expand in accordance with the spirit of the legislation.All of the above make the development of capitalism an organization and a movement.If this is not the case, even under special circumstances, if a certain person "connects counties and counties" or a certain family "accumulates huge sums of money", isolated wealth will not be able to guide the masses to participate, let alone transform society.Calling these exceptions and short-lived deeds capitalism will only confuse the hearers and indulge in the effect of propaganda, and it will not be able to stand up for a long time in history. 我们既说资本主义不曾在中国产生，但我们也无法全部缕列不能产生的原因。一走兽有别于一飞禽，其间关系着两方的组织与结构，不能仅以“没有翅膀”作一切之解释。以下提到两方法制之不同，与其说是概括了不能产生的原因，勿宁说是在其重点上暴露着双方组织与结构的差异，作为不能产生的证据。 诺兹及汤姆斯著有《西方世界之兴起》（详上注释），书中说及资本主义的推行，必使债务被尊重，合同必须强迫执行。他们也说：“不论主权谁属，只能在安全、有秩序和在法律保护的商业路线、交易市场和契约关系之下，利润才能增值。”他们不仅一再声明私人财产权之重要，而且财产权还要“有效率”（effi-cient）。即是行使起来费力少而收效大，不致到处被留难，到处被阻滞而增加额外费用。 这样一个条件如何能够成为事实？光是立法详尽还不够。因为一项法律行得通，必有“社会上之强迫力量”（social com-pulsion）为之作张本。也就是十之八九的情形，人民能够而且愿意照立法的条文行事。其条文不是合法（legal）（即一直有成例可援），就是公平（equitable）（中国人常说合乎情理）。所以法官若开庭指正一二，甚或派法警，发出传票，贴封条，强制执行，才没有困难。倘使立法与社会情形及人民向背全部相违，理想与现实在思想上和生活上产生距离，一般民众读其条文有如念外国文，则行不通（inoperative）。如英国剑桥的街道依中世纪的规模，既窄狭又曲折，至今一般行车只能每小时15英里。纵有一位维新的市政专家，要在街头竖立一种时速70英里的限制，吾人可谓之自欺欺人。反过来说，要在美国高速公路上树立一个时速15英里的限制，哪怕有天大的本领，也确实的掌握着了警察权，亦不见得能将如此不顾客观背景的法令推行到底。 这与以上所说资本主义的组成有何相干？ 诺兹和汤姆斯所说“有效率的私人财产权”，隐约指出社会的下层机构里有各种经济因素，已到达了一个能公平而自由交换的程度，因之这样的一个国家才能全部用数字管理，我们也可以想象这国家已进入了资本主义的境界。这一方面有如两位作家所说，是私人资本能继续不断增集，从另方面说来，其所以如此，不仅法律之条文如是，人民一般的思想以及生活习惯也已接受这公平而自由交换的原则。此种情形在传统的中国社会里迄未发生。分析内中原委，属于本书结论之范围。现在我们开卷时即要说明，这种“有效率的私人财产权”之原则，历来不为中国法制所支持。 宋朝的朱熹乃一代大儒，他注释的《四书》，是为以后各朝代开科取士的标准。他在江西任地方官时曾发布“晓谕兄弟争取产事”的一篇公告。内中提及“照对礼经，凡人子不蓄私财，而律文亦有别籍异财之禁”。表面看来，此不过是一位模范官僚不接受亲戚家人争产的诉讼，而责成父兄族长调解以保全“风俗之淳厚”。但骨子里即暴露了传统官僚组织以道德代替法律，不承认私人财产权的特色。我们再看明末模范官僚海瑞，他也曾留下一段文字，提出他审问民事案件的方针：“凡讼之可疑者，与其屈兄，宁屈其弟；与其屈叔伯，宁屈其侄；与其屈贫民，宁屈富民；与其屈愚直，宁屈刁顽。事在争产业，与其屈小民，宁屈乡宦，以救弊也。事在争言貌，与其屈乡宦，宁屈小民，以存体也。”两人之间相去约400年，彼此都不顾及内在的公平（intrinsic justice）。亦即在官僚面前，原告与被告本来在人身上的不平等，因血缘关系、社会身份及道德品质而互有上下。官僚重要的是保存这梯级的社会价值，而可忽视诉讼之性质及提出诉讼之动机。换言之，法庭审案原不是为民服务，可以置案情的经济性格于不顾，而只着意保全中国传统的社会组织。朱熹与海瑞同为传统的好官，可见得他们看来离奇的态度，出于一种千百年以来已成为风俗的思想与信仰，不是单纯的司法问题。 归根结底，西方的封建社会，下端缘始于部落组织，法治（jurisprudence）之传统注重实事之需要，在细微末节之中造成成例，积之而为传统私人财产权自始即受重视。中国则在公元以前，即因防洪救灾及对付北方游牧民族之需要，构成庞大的官僚组织，注重意识形态的一致，各种职掌也强调其一般性，成员才能互相对调。而下层组织又历来由官厅指令造成，如北魏之三长制（邻、里、党）、北宋时之保甲。加上中央政府向全民直接抽税，历来各朝代都有“均田”办法，造成大数量的小自耕农，作为当兵纳税之基础。政府不顾坐视财富之集中，遂致生产单位分割至小，税收杂碎零星，如此一来，小民固然请不起律师，官僚组织也无力创制复杂之法制理论。所以中国社会不能在数目字上管理，由来已久，其以道德代替法律，更以息争的名义，责成里长甲长乡绅族长将大事化小，小事化无。一方面将衙门的工作分量减轻，一方面则阻塞低层社会里各种经济因素公平而自由的交换（因为只有最原始型的交换才能被众目公认，稍带现代型的分工合作，及于较繁复的契约关系，即无社会之保证）。这和诺兹及汤姆斯所说有效率的私人财产权，直是南辕北辙。 有了以上历史之背景，我们再回头提出这问题，“为什么中国不能产生资本主义”，就不难解释了。本来资本主义就是一种出奇的体制，应特殊需要而产生。即是西欧的国家亦要通过一段艰苦的改造，才能成熟而成为今日公认的资本主义国家（见第四章）。亚当·斯密曾谓有两种“系统”，可以增进人民的财富，一是农业的系统，另一则是商业的系统。他接着又说，商业的系统乃是现代的系统。此即资本主义，因为别无他物符合其所形容。克拉克指出，用资本主义这一名词概括现代经济制度是19世纪社会主义者发明的办法。由此可见资本主义虽为一种经济制度，在社会里造成一种系统，促成政治外交法律科技多方面的改革。新宗教思想固然可以视为推进资本主义发展的原因，亦可当作在它羽翼下，这种新社会组织的意识形态。因为它无所不包，牵连甚广，诚如马克思与恩格斯所言，它有革命性格，也有创造新时代的气魄（他们未直接用“资本主义”这一名词，但提到“资本家时代”已是异途同归）。我们再问：为什么中国不能产生资本主义？其答复则是“一只走兽，除非脱胎换骨，否则不能兼任飞禽”。 中国是大陆型的国家，重农抑商已久，是传统政策，重生产而不重分配。不仅整个领域自给自足，而且各府县也要遍种桑稻。加以中央集权，长期实行科举取士，使中国这个国家与社会表现出它独特的性格，所有知识分子的人生观也要根据这高层机构之需要而调整。 为什么中国不能产生资本主义？因为她志不在此。她不仅不能产生，而且一向无意于产生。到鸦片战争战败后她仍不愿放弃中国本位。此种观点要到康梁百日维新之后才有剧烈更变。所以冯友兰著《中国哲学史》，谓韩子至淮南王时代为“子学时化”。自董仲舒至康有为，其间约2000年，则全为“经学时代”。 中国在20世纪亟须将国家和社会的组织重新彻底改造，已不待争辩。这当中也需要使整个组织进入数目字的管理。 这问题无疑的牵涉到资本主义。抗日战争展开前夕，日本由广田弘毅提出中国必须接受三个条件：一为经济提携，二为共同防共，三为承认满洲国。前两个条件是要求中国生存于日本资本主义呼吸之下。其实日本占领东北，制造傀儡满洲国的目的也在掌握大陆之资源，因此所谓广田三原则全有浓重之经济意义。而强邻压境逼入堂奥，即幸有国际正义的支持，亦无法拯救中国于极端危窘的境界。其症结仍在中国农业社会的架构不能与新型商业社会的组织相抗衡，不仅军备与后勤瞠乎其后，人事组织亦捉襟见肘。仓卒之间动员一个军令统一为数几百万的大军，和强敌作战数年，不仅为中国历史之空前未有，而且官方与民间至少尚需准备一个世纪以上的时间来面对这种状况。总而言之，中国下层各种经济因素尚未造成一种可以公平而自由交换的情势。所以征兵筹饷全靠由上向下施加压力，里长、甲长、乡绅、族长则不能脱离垄断、包办、奉承、哄骗各种旧社会恶习（因为过去经理问题简单，只较注重妥协迁就，并未向全民交代，社会之结构如是，无法突然改向）。最下层的数字既不能复实，中上层之经理亦受影响，所谓各种黑暗与腐败，并非全系道德问题，而是有这样一个基本的技术问题存在。 今日中国趋向现代化，必须彻底解决此根本技术问题。前段已经提及陶蒲所谓研究资本主义的三种学派。此时我们若根据刻下中国之需要，再度在三种学说中寻觅可资引用之处，则只有更感到失望。 马克思对中国之出路并无具体指示，《共产党宣言》内提及中国市场之开放，为促进欧洲资本家时代来临的条件之一。《资本论》三卷之中，提及中国10次，可是每一次都以欧美为主体，无一次以中国为讨论之对象。而且内中7次是将中国与印度并列，即针对殖民地性格的市场而言。不仅如此，陶蒲自命为马克思主义的作家，他的专书洋洋400多页，也仅提到中国3次，前后只是表彰中国次殖民地的地位。一个尚待开发的国家徘徊于资本主义及现代社会之外，应当如何决策？马克思始终没有考虑到这个问题。 韦伯所著《中国之宗教》包括广泛，书名如是，其内容亦涉及法律、税收、货币、乡村组织等。可是作者每次都将具体事物概括成抽象的观念和心理状态。读者如果仔细揣摩其结论，则可看出作者认为中国之儒家因为有对传统道德的许托，已参与了修身齐家治国平天下的集体工作，所以虽是个人，其人格已带有集体性格，所以不像现代的西方人，用不着罪愆（sin）观念，并将“获救”这一观念惹起的紧张性降低，换言之，因其修养上不会“心猿意马”，而到了一种“知足常乐”的境界。清教徒则以为个人对“超世俗之神”各有义务，必须照神之安排，不断的在伦理的纪律下尽力将所被支配的工作做好，使神之光荣现实化。这种义务超过人世间任何关系，也容纳着一个“进步”的观念。站在宗教中立的地位来看，我们只能说以上两种心理状态都有其吸引力。如果可以选择的话，我们很难决定何去何从，或可兼取，也可能同一人因心境不同，而出入两者之间。如是看来，东西两方信仰之不同，很不可能是由于个人自行其是而来。集体心理状态之不同是由于政治经济体系之不同使社会上分工合作的程度发生差异所导致。并非先有不同的信仰而使一方只能产生官僚组织的一元经理，另一方则产生资本主义之多元社会。于是韦伯的理论有倒果为因的嫌疑。况且一个待开发的国家要进入资本主义体制，也势必牵动群众。韦伯铺陈叙说以精英分子（elite）为前提，也更减低其书在今日的用场。 前已道及布罗代尔教授的著作，简单而直接的观察，胜于大幅连篇之铺陈。这一点他的立场可谓与韦伯相反。布氏对中国的了解不深，才将湖南误认为一个滨海的省份，又以为中国曾在1644年被“蒙古征服”。虽说技术上的错误不一定会推翻整个观察结果，可是从此也可窥见，布氏提倡“全面历史”（totalhistory）的观念，即先将材料无限制的收入，以缺乏可供证实的假说为主宰作领导，仍是值得批判的。 布罗代尔提到中国商业，他剀切的指出，其欧洲的分析并不适用于西方以外的体系。他说：“其中最离开正道的乃是中国，其帝国的管制阻碍着一种创立商业统治集团之企图。只有最下层的商业，（包括）市镇间的店铺和集场（能够）有功效的作业。” 布氏对中国经济史的了解，大部得自前匈牙利汉学家白乐日（Etienne Balasz）及最近曾将中日两国传统组织作过一段比较的杰可浦斯（Norman Jacobs），两人均强调中国的官僚制度妨碍商业展开。布教授就此指出中国在分裂时，两大部分需要对方的物产，于是大型商业从此出现，有如宋朝。可是一旦统一，有如明清之大帝国，其“窗户及瞭望台”（windows andlookout pists）只存在于边疆，旨在对付夷人，而且或开或闭。即广州十三行之贸易，也在如斯条件下举行，于是贸易有季节性的变化，而不是经常开放。因此中国有效率和有组织的商场与市集，在统一帝国主持之下不复存在。 商业虽与资本主义有密切联系，但二者并非一物。本章前已提及中国官僚组织阻塞了两者的展开，但这仍不是一切的解答，只能算是一个多面体的一面。事实证明，科举制度在1905年废止，大清帝国也于1911年垮台，而中国并未能因此种障碍废除而可以根据资本主义的原则改组。布罗代尔著作中最大的缺陷，是他详尽搜集资料时未能将他自己所发现有关资本主义的原则容纳进去。资本主义在历史上最重大的意义，在于每一个国家进入资本主义体制时的动态，亦即经过某种突破，而使情势不可逆转（详上注释［14］）。只有这类经验，才能对中国目前面临的各种问题获得更切实的解释。 检讨旁人的错误，通常比察觉自己的容易。以上说及诸子百家对资本主义的解释，一般视界太窄，注意力只及于局部。针对20世纪末期的世界，尤其要附带解决中国组织上的问题，我们势必对这名词赋予新的看法。首先必需承认它有超越国界的技术性格（详上注释［18］），更要看清它的展开在世界各国有不同的时间表，于是它才能慢慢累积其成果。如此一来，资本主义才可视为一种绵延好几个世纪，至今尚未中断的全球性庞大组织与运动。 所谓技术性格可以归纳于下列三点： 1.资金广泛的流通（wide extension of credit），剩余之资本透过私人贷款方式，彼此往来。 2.经理人才不顾人身关系的雇用（impersonal manage-ment），因而企业扩大超过所有者本人耳目能监视之程度。 3.技术上之支持因素通盘使用（pooling of service facil-ities），如交通通信、律师事务及保险业务等，因此各企业活动范围又超过本身力之能及。 以上三个条件全靠信用，而信用必赖法治维持。所以资本主义之成立必受政治体系的约束，行之于国界之外则赖治外法权。反面言之，资本家的地位亦必在政治体系中占特殊比重。 以上三个条件的开展必赖社会内低层组织内各类经济因素的配合，盖能公平而自由的交换，然后所有权（ownership）及雇佣关系（employment）才能重重相因，构成一个大罗网。因为生产及分配都以契约关系为主，当中若有一个自由选择的机缘，相对的也鼓励了自由竞争。各人的私利观既为这组织力量的来源，于是利润成为一切事业的试金石。在这种大前提之下，资本主义也有将一切道德标准纳入体制之中的趋势。它在初期存积资本时常带侵略和剥削的性格。这种体制一经展开，不可逆转，只有越做越大，因此资本主义也有纠正本身错误，树立在历史上长期合理性的可能（研究韦伯的学者应从此点着手）。 这样看来，资本主义诚如亚当·斯密所言，是一种“商业的系统”，必在当初各国都在“农业的系统”管制的局面里发生冲击作用（布罗代尔已经指出）。站在资本主义生理学立场，我们也可以说每一个国家经过一段奋斗之后必须将其上层结构（super-structure）改组，以便迎合新法制，通常也要翻转其低层结构（infrastructure），以便产生能够互相交换（interchan-geability）的局面，更要经过一段司法与立法之改革，才能使上下之间密切联系，也才能使以上三个原则顺利发展，通过财政税收币制诸种政策，使公私互为一体，也就是使整个国家能在数目字上管理。 这样说来，一个国家进入资本主义体制和这个国家的“维新”和“现代化”有何区别？在实用的角度说来，如果两种运动凝聚为一，将无法分拆。这也缘于资本主义体制与传统农业体制相去过远，非经过内外煎逼，不会平白的被采用。即使在涉及维新与现代化的运动时，最初总以民权问题、民族成见、国家利益等争端发难，经过一段剧烈冲突迄至和平重现后，经济因素的影响还不一定会十分明显。可是有了历史的纵深，吾人即可领悟：既有全面的动乱，不可能与财富问题无关。而且最后解决的方案，亦必具有处置经济事宜的能力。我们纵不能说法国大革命和德国的统一旨在提倡资本主义，但资本主义在这些国家内实因以上变动而有眉目。 本书为历史读物，叙事时大致根据这些国家产生以上大变动时着手。作者从事搜集资料之前，尚不敢确定这种方法必无舛误。之后看到一位法国名历史家在书中写出，“旧体制已将法国农业史搁置在资本主义的道路上，大革命突然将此工作完成”（见第七章注［1］），又看到一位德国历史家描写俾斯麦敢作敢为的情形，归究于“资本主义推拥他上马”（第六章注［101］）。可见类似的看法早已卷入先进作者之眼帘，本书不过将此类资料前后连缀订正而已。又以下三章，分别包括威尼斯、荷兰及英国，亦在布局之后发觉马克思曾在《资本论》内提及，最初国际资本之转借与开发，确曾通过上述威、荷、英而至美国之次序。更可见资本主义在国际间之发展前后连贯已早被人注意。 倘是如此，我们注重资本主义在一个国家内展开，取得立法权，将资本主义之组织方针通行全国，而至于不可逆转。在此种枢纽之前，如果还有若干资本主义因素，如法国大革命之前巴黎证券交易所已有60多年的历史，苏俄在第一次大战期间军需工业尚由私人主持，军火的购集尚要注意资本家的利润，又如何处置？难道排斥之以为不算数？我们的答案则是它们仍是资本主义因素，只是，注意这些零星情事，和我们企图综合资本主义为一种组织和一种运动的着眼不同。希望不因此中的混淆，颠倒黑白或无中生有。除此之外，我们并无意做字典后面的名学家去计量当中的是非。