Critical notes of democracy, the state and economic  and social progress in the western world

论评西方世界民主、国家和经济社会进步

Michael Dunford

迈克尔·邓福德（Michael Dunford）

Institute of Geographical Sciences and Natural Resources Research and School of Global Studies, University of Sussex

萨塞克斯大学地理科学和自然资源研究所和全球化研究学院

‘Every kingdom divided against itself will become desolate; and every city or house divided against itself will not stand’ (Matthew 12: 25).

“凡一国自相分争，就成为荒场，一城一家自相分争，必站立不住”（马太福音 12:25）

Democracy is an abstract concept that can assume many forms

民主是一个抽象的概念，它可以有多种形式

In western civilization the term democracy derives from two Greek words, namely ‘demos’ meaning the people and ‘kratos’ meaning power. Plato and Aristotle distinguished rule by the many from rule by the few (oligarchy or timocracy) and rule by one or a very few (monarchy or aristocracy), of which all (Plato) or some (Aristotle) are distinguished from tyranny (rule by fear or greed).

在西方文明中，民主一词来源于两个希腊词，demos和kratos，“demo”意为人民，“kratos”意为权力。柏拉图和亚里士多德将由多数人统治的政治制度与由少数人统治的政治制度（寡头制或军事制）以及由一人统治的政治制度或由极少数人统治的政治制度（君主制或贵族制）区分开来，但所有这些政治制度（柏拉图）或其中的部分政治制度（亚里士多德）都不同于暴政（充满恐惧或贪婪的统治）。

This concept of democracy is in fact extremely abstract. As with all abstractions of a high degree of generality, it can embrace a multitude of more specific arrangements. And yet a particular political and legal system that developed slowly alongside a capitalist economic order in economically advanced western capitalist countries (essentially western Europe and a group of countries settled by white Europeans) is claimed by these countries to be the only form that democracy can assume. This model, it is said, is a ‘universal value’ which (with a capitalist economy) these countries have the right to impose (selectively) on other countries.

这种民主的概念实际上极其抽象。与所有具有高度概括性的抽象概念一样，它包含众多更具体的内容。然而，经济领先的西方资本主义国家（主要是西欧和一些欧洲白人国家）声称，要实现民主，唯一可以采取的形式就是与资本主义经济秩序一起缓慢发展起来的特定政治和法律制度。据说，这种形式有一种“普世价值”，（凭借着资本主义经济）这些国家有权（有选择地）将民主强加给其他国家，尽管选择性民主表明，推动这种野心的不是某些价值（民主和自由）或某些原则（如保护责任和人道主义干涉），而是凭借着这些价值和原则实现合法化的某些利益。

The practice of selectivity indicates, however, that what drives this ambition is not the universal application of certain universal values (democracy and freedom) or certain universal principles (such as responsibility to protect and humanitarian interventionism) but certain interests, which these values and principles serve to legitimize.[1] Moreover the consequences of western interventions legitimized in this way have proved devastating for the countries that experienced them.

然而，选择性民主的实践表明，推动这种野心的不是某些普世价值（民主和自由）或普世原则（如保护责任和人道主义干涉）的普遍应用，而是凭借着这些价值和原则实现合法化的某些利益。此外，事实证明，以这种方式合法化的西方对其他国家干预的后果对经历这些的国家来说是毁灭性的。

If democracy means the rule of the people, it must presuppose the sovereignty of a nation or community, in the sense sovereign jurisdiction and the right of the citizens of a country to manage its domestic affairs without external interference. For this reason colonialism, imperialism and other types of interference in the internal affairs of other communities are all violations of democratic principles.

如果民主意味着人民的统治，那么它必须以一个国家或社区的主权为前提，即主权和一个国家的民众管理其国内事务而不受外来干涉的权利。出于这个原因，殖民主义、帝国主义和对其他国家内部事务的其他类型的干涉都违反了民主原则。

In January 2021 Xi Jinping (Xi, 2021) spoke of the ‘common values of humanity, namely peace, development, equity, justice, democracy and freedom.’ The word common is perhaps consciously used to denote a critical distinction between a generic concept (gōng yì) and a specific case (gè yì), and challenges the way western liberalism conflates the generic concept of democracy with specific a western system (a ‘universal value’) when democracy and the power of the people can assume many different forms.

2021年1月，习近平（习，2021）谈到了“坚守和平、发展、公平、正义、民主、自由的全人类共同价值。”共同这个词也许是有意识地用来表示一般概念（公义）和具体案例（个义）之间的区别，并对西方自由主义将民主的一般概念与西方的具体制度（“普世价值”）混为一谈的方式做出挑战，在这种方式之下，民主和人民的权力可以采取许多不同的形式。

It cannot be stated often enough that if liberal democracy is in fact democratic (and it can in fact be said that it is an oligarchy in which a capitalist class rules) it is certainly not the only way in which the people can exercise power over their own existence. No compelling arguments show that democracy necessarily entails representation or even the existence of multiple political parties. Instead it simply requires that sovereignty and power reside in the people as a whole and, as I shall suggest, that what governments do reflect the will of the people (democracy of outcomes).

如果自由主义民主事实上是民主的（事实上可以称其为一个资本主义阶级统治的寡头政治），那它肯定不是人民行使生存权的唯一方式，这一点怎么强调都不为过。没有任何令人信服的论据表明，民主必然需要代表制，甚至需要多个政党的存在。相反，它只是要求主权和权力掌握在人民手中。正如我所建议的那样，政府的所作所为要反映人民的意愿（结果的民主）。

The general concept of democracy does not specify the roles of the people and of governments, and, where the relationship is not direct (the entire citizenry does not participate directly in making decisions and passing laws or government does not rely on delegation), the concept does not address the relationship between them. More specifically, it does not identify the economic, political and cultural rights and responsibilities of the people, the ways in which the will of the people is expressed, determined, communicated and acted upon, and the ways in which the people ensure that governments implement their will. Nor does it specify the ways in which governmental power is exercised: organization of a system of government, the methods of administration, and ways in which legislative and executive power is exercised, conflicts are resolved, consensus is reached, goals are attained, and social cohesion is ensured. Different theorists and different societies have answered these questions in different ways.[2] As a result systems that call themselves democratic vary over time and across space.

原因在于，民主的一般概念没有明确人民和政府的作用，而且在无直接关系的情况下（全体公民不直接参与决策和立法，或者政府不依靠授权），这个概念无法明确他们之间的关系。更具体地说，它没有确定人民的经济、政治和文化权利与责任，以及人民表达意愿、交流和行动的方式（人民拥有哪些经济、政治和文化权力和权利，以何种方式确定民主的内容和表达人民的意愿，人民以何种方式确保政府执行其意愿，政府是否合法化）。它也没有具体说明政府权力的行使方式（政府系统的组织，行政管理的方法，以及立法和行政权力的行使方式，冲突的解决，共识的达成，目标的实现或条件，社会凝聚力的保证）。不同的理论家和不同的社会以不同的方式回答了这些问题。因此，那些自称为民主的制度会随着时间和空间的变化而变化。

Evolution of the concept in the west

民主概念在西方的演变

In the words of Aristotle (Politics, IV,4) ) ‘a democracy is a state where the freemen and the poor, being in the majority, are invested with the power of the state’. In Plato’s Republic (VIII,10) Socrates was made to say that ‘democracy comes into being after the poor have conquered their opponents, slaughtering some and banishing some, while to the remainder they give an equal share of freedom and power’ (Williams, 1983).

用亚里士多德的话说（《政治学》，IV,4），“民主是一种状态，在这种状态下，占多数的自由人和穷人被赋予了国家的权力”。^[3]在柏拉图的《共和国》（VIII,10）中，苏格拉底曾说，“在穷人征服了他们的对手，屠杀了一些人并驱逐了一些人之后，民主就产生了，而对于剩下的人，他们给予了同等的自由和权力”（威廉姆斯，1983）。

In early modern Europe, in the French Revolution and in the Paris Commune democracy was also seen as rule of the popular classes, the ordinary people, the multitude or the overwhelming majority. In 1793 Robespierre declared that ‘democracy is a state wherein the sovereign people, guided by laws of their own making, does all that it can properly do on its own, and does by delegates all that it cannot do itself’ (Robespierre, 1958 [1793], p. 113).

在近代早期的欧洲，在法国大革命和巴黎公社中，民主也被看作是民众阶层、普通人、大众或绝大多数人的统治。直到1793年，罗伯斯庇尔宣布，“民主是一种状态，在这种状态下，主权人民在他们自己制定的法律的指导下，做所有力所能及的事情，并通过代表完成其自身无法完成的事情”（罗伯斯庇尔，1958 [1793],p.113）。

In the European Enlightenment (concerned with freedom from the state) however a new definition emerged. In the socialist tradition, democracy continued to mean popular power: a state in which the interests of the majority of the people were paramount and were exercised and controlled by the majority. In a new liberal tradition, however, instead of rule by the people democracy came to mean rule by elected representatives and certain underlying conditions, while the concept of the people was confined to a group of citizens who were entitled to participate in elections and which was extended over the course of time to include larger sections of the population (Williams, 1983, pp. 93-98). As far as the conditions were concerned the major seventeenth and eighteenth century Enlightenment theorists (Hobbes, Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau) advocated a social contract defining the rights and duties of rulers and the ruled, on whose substance however they disagreed.

然而，在欧洲启蒙运动中（与国家自由有关）出现了一个新的定义。在社会主义传统中，民主仍然意味着人民的权力：在这种状态下，大多数人的利益才是最重要的，民主由大多数人行使和控制。但是，在新的自由主义传统中，民主意味着由选举产生的代表和某些基本条件来进行统治，而人民的概念仅限于有权参加选举的公民群体，随着时间的推移，人民的概念扩大到更多的人口（威廉姆斯，1983，pp.93-98）。就条件而言，十七和十八世纪的主要启蒙理论家（霍布斯、洛克和让·雅克·卢梭）主张社会契约，界定了统治者和被统治者的权利和义务，但他们对契约的内容持不同意见。

In this system (liberal or bourgeois democracy) individuals and especially representatives of political parties compete in elections. The elections are designed to select legislators who represent their parties and citizens who have the right to vote. The political parties with a majority of legislators (requiring perhaps the support of only some one-third of the electorate) assume legislative and executive power. At its core multi-party representative democracy involves the selection of leaders with no obligation to act righteously.

在这个系统中（自由或资产阶级民主），个人，特别是政党代表参加选举。选举旨在选出代表其政党的议员和有选举权的公民。立法者占多数的政党（可能只需要约三分之一选民的支持）拥有立法和行政权力。多党代议制民主的核心是选举领导人，而没有义务正确行事。

In liberal theories the state is seen as being 'charged with the representation of society as a whole, as standing above particular and necessarily partial interests, groups and classes, and as having the special function of ensuring that competition between these interests, groups and classes remains orderly and that the national interest is not impaired' (Miliband, 1977: 66). For these reasons it is largely procedural (rather than substantive where the question is whether the will of the people is in actuality implemented).

在自由主义理论中，国家被视为“承担着代表整个社会的责任，凌驾于特定和必然的局部利益、群体和阶级之上，并具有确保这些利益之间竞争的特殊功能、团体和阶级保持有序，国家利益不受损害”（米利班德，1977：66）。由于这些原因，国家在很大程度上是程序性的（而不是实质性的，因为根本问题是人民的意愿是否真正得到执行）。

Individualism and Enlightenment liberalism

个人主义和启蒙运动中的自由主义

Enlightenment liberalism emerged as a response to the terrible civil wars of religion that convulsed Europe in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. It was founded on two premises. First, it was claimed that human beings are not social animals but self-interested individuals (‘Man to Man is an arrant Wolfe’ in the words Hobbes reiterated (Hobbes, 1983 [1642], p. 24). Second, it was argued that human beings are incapable of agreement on any definition of the common good (where any such claim is merely a mask to conceal individual self-interest).

启蒙自由主义的出现，是对十六和十七世纪席卷欧洲的可怕宗教内战的回应。它建立在以下两个前提之上。首先，它声称人类不是社会动物，而是自利的个体（霍布斯重申：“人对人是狼”（霍布斯，1983[1642]，p. 24）。其次，有人认为人类不可能就共同利益的任何定义达成一致（任何此类主张都只是掩盖个人利益的面具）。

Accordingly a quest for a good society was abandoned in favour of the least unsatisfactory mode of peaceful co-existence: humankind must live and let live. If a state exists, it must remain axiologically neutral (values are objects on which it does not pass prescriptive judgements) and not impose particular ways of life. All moral, religious and philosophical values are confined to private spheres leaving only liberty or freedom as a universal value (along perhaps with democracy). No limits are placed on what any individual can do other than insofar as they are required to prevent harm or infringement of the same liberty of others. All norms are considered arbitrary constructions, designed to dominate or stigmatize, and must be deconstructed and eventually swept away in the name of the rights of man and the struggle against discriminations. All can however complain, giving rise to a war of all against all, mediated by lawyers.

因此，人们放弃了对美好社会的追求，而选择了最不令人满意的和平共处模式：人类必须生存，让自己活下去。如果一个国家存在，它必须保持价值上的中立（价值观是它不能通过规定性判断的对象），并且不强加特定的生活方式。所有的道德、宗教和哲学价值都被限制在私人领域，只留下自由作为一种普世价值（也许还有民主），不限制任何个人的行为，除非是为了防止伤害或侵犯他人的同样自由。所有规范都被视为专横，旨在支配或污名化，必须以人权和反对歧视的斗争的名义予以解构并最终消除。然而，所有的人都可以抱怨，这就产生了一场由律师进行调解的所有人对所有人的战争。

As Marx indicated in bourgeois societies, liberty or ‘the right of man to freedom is not based on the association of man with man but rather on the separation of man from man … The right to private property is therefore the right to enjoy and dispose of one’s resources as one wills, without regard to other men and independently of society …: the right of self-interest. … It leads each man to see in other men, not the realization, but rather the limitation of his own freedom’ (Marx, 1975 [1843], pp. 229-230).

正如马克思所指出的那样，在资产阶级社会自由或“人的自由权利不是基于人与人的联系，而是基于人与人的分离……因此，私有财产权是按照自己的意愿享受和处置自己的资源的权利，不必考虑他人，独立于社会……：自我利益的权利。……它导致每个人在其他人身上看到的不是实现自由，而是限制自由。”（马克思，1975年[1843年]，第229-230页）

Collective life of necessity requires, however, some shared moral values and practices and a shared culture. The solution of common problems requires a model of democracy and politics and a political community at whose centre is the principle of collectivism. The privatization of all values other than liberty means, however, that only the market can bring together people that the law separates. Beyond it individuals are increasingly isolated entities outside of society (Michéa, 2018) as is reflected in the decline in social cohesion and the atomization of individuals.

然而，集体生活必然需要一些共同的道德价值观和实践以及共同的文化。要解决共同的问题则需要一种民主和政治的模式，以及一个以集体主义原则为中心的政治共同体。然而，除自由之外的所有价值的私有化意味着，只有市场才能将法律所分离的人聚集在一起。除此之外，个人越来越成为社会之外的孤立实体（Michéa，2018），这体现在社会凝聚力下降和个人原子化上。

Against this preoccupation with the individual rather than the groups and communities in which human beings largely spend their lives, Rousseau sought to ‘outline a social order where morals, virtue and human character rather than commerce and money were central to politics’ and claimed that the way to protect liberty or freedom was through the general equality of all subjects and the subordination of the individual to a community (Mishra, 2017, pp. 107, 110).

针对这种对个人而不是对群体和社区（人类大部分时间都在其中度过）的关注，卢梭试图“勾勒出一种社会秩序，在这种秩序中，政治的核心是美德和人性，而不是商业和金钱”，并声称只有实现所有主体的普遍平等和个人对社区的服从，才能保护自由（米什拉, 2017, pp.107，110）。

Another critic of liberalism was Hegel who argued that (Wood, 1991, pp. xii-xiii) ‘a rational society is one where the demands of social life do not frustrate the needs of individuals, duty fulfils individuality.’ Individuals are free when they 'identify’ themselves with the institutions of their community and where ‘the institutions of the community … truly harmonize the state's universal or collective interest with the true, objective good of individuals, and individuals … [are] conscious of this harmony.’[4]

另一位自由主义批评家是黑格尔，他认为（Wood，1991，pp.xii-xiii）“理性社会是社会生活的需求不会阻碍个人需求的社会，责任满足了个人的需求。”当个人“认同”他们社区的机构，并且“社区的机构……真正使国家的普遍或集体利益与个人的真正的、客观的利益相协调，并且个人……意识到这种协调的时候，个人就是自由的。”

Western democracy, the representative state and oligarchy

西方民主、代议制国家和寡头政治

In a variety of Marxist theories of the state its is suggested that western representative politics amounts to oligarchy. According to these theories, in class societies the interests of different classes are fundamentally and irrevocably at odds with one another, and the state itself is a form of class domination.

在各种马克思主义的国家理论中，有人认为西方代议制政治相当于寡头政治。根据这些理论，在阶级社会中，不同阶级的利益从根本上说是不可逆转的，而国家本身就是一种阶级统治的形式。

This conclusion derives from Marx's early writings and two interconnected ideas. First the way in which the state is separated from society and appears as a separate sphere of public interests was explained. Second the possibility of such a separation was challenged: according to Marx the real basis and content of the state remains the unequal class relations of the underlying social system.

这一结论来自于马克思的早期著作和两个相互关联的观点。首先解释了国家与社会分离并作为公共利益的独立领域出现的方式。其次，这种分离的可能性受到了挑战：根据马克思的观点，国家的真正基础和内容仍然是基本社会制度的不平等阶级关系。

The object analysed by Marx was the modern representative state distinguished by three characteristic features. One is parliamentary government, with its source of sovereignty in the popular mass. The second is the division of spheres of action and of powers and rights into systems of general and particular interests. The third is state-guaranteed equality before the law.

马克思所分析的对象是现代代议制国家，它有三个特点。一个是议会制政府，其主权来源于人民群众。第二是将行动领域以及权力和权利划分为一般和特殊利益关系。第三是国家保证法律面前人人平等。

In the view of Marx the modern state was a product of modern civil society. In civil society, however, individuals were divided from and independent of one another: civil society was a sphere in which self-interest and competitive individualism held sway and involved a kind of bellum omnium contra omnes (see Colletti, 1975: 28-37).

在马克思看来，现代国家是现代公民社会的产物。然而，在公民社会中，个人彼此分离和独立：公民社会是一个自我利益和竞争性个人主义占主导地位的领域，涉及到一种所有人对所有人的战争（见科莱蒂，1975：28-37）。

In order, in these circumstances, to represent the common or general interest the state must be made independent of all interested parties and assume a separate existence, as a common interest can only arise if one abstracts from the real divisions in society and denies them value and significance in political life. Civil society is, accordingly, deemed as being composed of independent politically and juridically equal individuals. The liberty and equality of individual citizens can, however, only be established by abstracting from class divisions in society (to establish an almost entirely artificial equality). In this way class divisions can be presented as mere social differences in private life which are of no consequence in political life. As Marx said, 'The difference between the member of civil society and the member of political society is the difference between the [tradesperson] and the citizen, between the wage-earner and the citizen, between the landowner and the citizen, between the living individual and the citizen' (Marx, 1975: 220-1).

在这种情况下，为了代表共同或普遍的利益，国家必须独立于所有利益相关方并独立存在，因为只有当人们从社会的实际分歧中抽象出来，并否认它们在政治生活中的价值和意义时，才会产生共同利益。因此，公民社会被认为是由政治上和法律上平等的独立个人组成的。然而，公民个人的自由和平等只能在摆脱社会阶级划分之后才能建立（建立几乎完全人为的平等）。这样一来，阶级划分就可以仅仅表现为私人生活中的社会差异，对政治生活影响并不大。正如马克思所说，“公民社会的成员和政治社会的成员之间的差别是商人和公民之间的差别，工薪阶层和公民之间的差别，农场主和公民之间的差别，生命体和公民之间的差别”（马克思，1975：220-1）。

The modern representative state rests, in other words, on a separation of state from society, of politics from economics, and of the sphere of public interests from the sphere of private interests. In the words of Poulantzas 'the people is itself erected as a principle of determination of the state not as agents of production distributed in social classes but as a collection of individual citizens' (Poulantzas, 1973: 123). Since the resulting general interest of society as a whole is only arrived at by abstracting from reality, the real basis and content of political society must however remain civil society with all its economic and social divisions (see Colletti, 1975: 35). In other words the class divisions and conflicts in civil society are not transcended.

换句话说，现代代议制国家建立在国家与社会、政治与经济、公共利益领域与私人利益领域的分离上。用尼科斯·普兰查斯的话说，“人民本身不是作为分配在社会阶级中的生产要素，而是作为个体公民的集合，作为国家的决定原则而建立起来的”（尼科斯·普兰查斯，1973：123）。由于由此产生的整个社会的普遍利益只有通过从现实中抽象出来才能得出，因此政治社会的真正基础和内容必须仍然是公民社会及其所有经济和社会部门（见科莱蒂，1975：35）。换句话说，公民社会中的阶级分化和冲突并没有被超越。

Indeed the political constitution of the modern representative state is, claims Marx, the constitution and guarantee of private property. Yet the property rights and the formal equality and freedom of private individuals are the foundations on which the fragmentation of civil society and socio-economic inequality are based. In guaranteeing these rights, the state itself plays an active role in perpetuating conflict and inequality. Individual citizens are granted the right to pursue their own interests independently of society and sometimes against it. Accordingly one of the state's goals is in actuality that of guaranteeing the reproduction of the class divisions and conflicts in civil society which it appears to be mediating. In short the war of each against all is reproduced through the actions of the state. The state should not therefore be seen as a neutral instrument whose activities can do good or ill according as to who controls and uses it.

事实上，马克思声称，现代代议制国家的政治宪法是私有财产的宪法和保障。然而，财产权和私人的形式上的平等和自由是公民社会的分裂和社会经济不平等的基础。在保障这些权利时，国家本身在延续冲突和不平等方面发挥着积极的作用。公民个人有权独立于社会追求自身利益，有时甚至是反对社会的权利。因此，国家的目标之一实际上是保证（其似乎正在调解的）公民社会中的阶级分化和冲突的再现。简而言之，每个人对所有人的战争是通过国家的行动来再现的。因此，国家不应该被看作是一个中立的工具，其活动的好坏取决于谁控制和使用它。

Development and the double movement of Polanyi

波兰尼思想的发展和双重运动

In the past capital-centred societies have created considerable material wealth, and the material living standards of working people increased significantly. These transformations reflect in part the way western economies led global development and the roles of colonialism and imperialism and their counterpart in domestic nationalism. And yet social progress also stemmed from the ways in which states were compelled to adopt measures to address what Polanyi called a double movement. As Polanyi noted ‘a self- regulating market system implies … markets for the elements of production-labor, land, and money.Since the working of such markets threatens to destroy society, the self-preserving action of the community was meant to prevent their establishment or to interfere with their free functioning, once established’ (Polanyi, 2001 [1944], p. 210). In the nineteenth and again in the second quarter of the twentieth century self-preserving reforms were adopted, although many measures were eroded once neo-liberalism extended the realm and reign of markets (Munck, 2020).

在过去，以资本为中心的社会创造了相当多的物质财富，劳动人民的物质生活水平也显著提高。这些转变反映了西方经济引领全球发展的方式，以及殖民主义和帝国主义及其在国内民族主义中的相应作用。然而，社会进步也源于国家被迫采取措施来解决波兰尼所谓的双重运动的方式。 由于这种市场的运作有可能对社会造成破坏，社区的自我保护行动是为了防止它们的建立，或者在它们建立后干预其自由运作（Polanyi, 2001 [1944], p. 210）。正如波兰尼所指出的那样“自我调节的市场体系意味着……生产要素——劳动、土地和货币的市场。由于此类市场的运作可能会破坏社会，因此社区的自我保护行动旨在阻止其建立或者在建立后干预它们的自由运作。”（波兰尼，2001[1944], p. 210）在十九世纪和二十世纪的第二季度，尽管新自由主义扩大了市场的领域和统治，许多措施被削弱，但仍对自我保护进行了改革（Munck，2020）。

At the same time it is important to remember that economic progress in the countries that sought to come from behind (late industrialization in the US, Germany, Japan, the Asian Tigers) was not associated with the adoption of liberal institutions and liberal economic paths. In an examination of the specific characteristics of the Japanese developmental state (Johnson, 1982) pointed out that a ‘regulatory or market rational state concerns itself with rules and procedures of market competition and does not concern itself with substantive issues.’ The aim is so-called efficiency in the use of resources. The ends are determined by preferences supported by purchasing power.

同时，我们必须记住，那些试图从落后国家（美国、德国、日本、亚洲四小龙的后期工业化）的经济进步与采用自由制度和自由经济道路无关。在考察日本发展型国家的具体特征时（Johnson，1982）指出，‘监管型或市场理性型国家关注的是市场竞争的规则和程序，而不关注实质性问题。’其目的是所谓的资源使用效率。而目的是由购买力支持的偏好决定的。

Yet countries that industrialized late did not adopt this course. Instead they were developmental states. The developmental or plan rational state concerns itself with setting social and economic goals. In other words it is concerned with the determination of goals and the ability to achieve goals (industrial development, poverty alleviation, common prosperity, ecological civilization) in an effective manner. To this end it requires a clear plan/investment plan and while markets may be used as instruments they do not solely or perhaps even mainly determine ends, what is done and what is not done. A market does not discriminate between spurious and non-spurious uses of resources. In many ways democratic centralization, planning and regulation expand the realm of democracy to embrace economic life (Tabak, 2000, p. 88).

然而，工业化较晚的国家并没有采取这种路线，所以它们仍然是发展型国家。相比之下，发展型或计划理性型国家关注的是制定社会和经济目标。换句话说，它关注的是目标的确定和以有效方式实现目标（工业发展、扶贫、共同繁荣、生态文明）的能力。为此，它需要一个明确的计划/投资计划，虽然市场可以作为工具，但它并不完全或可能主要决定目的、做什么和不做什么。市场不区分虚假和非虚假的资源使用。在许多方面，民主集权、计划和监管将民主领域扩展到经济生活（Tabak，2000, p.88）。

Table 1 Western economic evolutions

表1西方经济的演变

Table 2 Trends in income inequality in the US, 1914-2017

表2 美国收入不平等的趋势，1914-2017

The most successful phase of western development occurred in the post-war Golden Age when the incomes of low-income groups grew faster than those of high income groups (Piketty, 2014). This outcome is one of the principal reasons for the attractiveness in the past of the western economic and political order, and yet it was a result of an economic and political compromise, a great transformation, deriving from increased political mobilization and ascendancy of working class people, movements and parties and the challenge of Communism (which brought social justice and rapid growth in the western world). In that era trades union wage bargaining saw real wages increase steadily with productivity growth, while welfare/social security states combined in many cases with state capital co-existed with the capitalist mode of production. Welfare funded principally out or taxation paid by the wage earning classes provided citizens with significant minimum rights and life guarantees (Dunford, 1990). At the same time Keynesian macroeconomic regulation served to prevent the mass unemployment to which a liberal order had led in the 1930s.

西方发展最成功的阶段是战后的黄金时代，当时低收入群体的收入增长快于高收入群体（皮凯蒂，2014）。这一结果是过去西方经济和政治秩序具有吸引力的主要原因之一，然而，这是经济和政治妥协的结果，源于工人阶级人民、运动和政党的政治动员和地位的提高，以及共产主义的挑战（在西方世界带来社会正义和快速增长）。在那个时代，工会的工资谈判使实际工资随着生产力的增长而稳步增长，而福利国家/社会保障与资本主义生产方式并存。福利的资金主要来自工资收入阶层支付的税收，为公民提供了重要的最低权利和生活保障（邓福德，1990）。同时，凯恩斯主义的宏观经济调控有助于防止20世纪30年代自由主义秩序导致的大规模失业。

This era was however exceptional, and since the 1970s the competitive accumulation of private capital along with governments that principally serve capitalist interests are the main reasons for the polarization of income and wealth and the expanded reproduction of income and wealth gaps in capitalist countries. As wealth and income accumulate at one end of the spectrum, the promises of wealth and status for the masses were not delivered. Instead they were reserved for the few, a rich oligarchy.

然而，这个时代是个例外，自20世纪70年代以来，私人资本与主要为资本主义利益服务的政府的竞争性积累，是资本主义国家收入和财富两极分化以及收入和贫富差距扩大的主要原因。随着财富和收入在非所有者这一端的积累，对大众的财富和地位的承诺并没有兑现。相反，它们被保留给了少数人——富有的寡头集团。

Figure 1 G7 productivity and profitability, 1950-2020

In the west growth and real productive investment stagnated from the 1970s and after the financial crisis, despite successive rounds of QE to stabilize developed country financial systems and disenchantment was rife. Neoliberal governance had restricted the resources and instruments at the disposition of governments to the great advantage of corporate elites. Digital technologies, offshoring and the concentration and centralization of capital had reduced middle class career paths for young people and secure employment opportunities for the former working class, helping create a vast precariat. Globalization saw extraordinary increases in inequality and a transfer of economic authority from nation states to global corporations and supranational organizations such as the EU, World Bank and International Monetary Fund.Globalization eroded the sovereignty of almost all nation states but to different degrees, establishing a global constitution of capital and of economic liberty largely beyond the reach of the nation state, protecting private property rights from governments and from popular democratic forces (Slobodian, 2018). At an international scale attempts to establish a western liberal order in a post-Cold War world saw a succession of conflicts, destructive wars and large-scale refugees movements, with other population movements driven by a lack of development (Dunford & Qi, 2020).

在西方，从1970年代开始，到金融危机后，尽管有连续几轮的量化宽松政策来稳定发达国家的金融体系，但增长和实际生产性投资仍然停滞不前，人们普遍对此感到失望。新自由主义治理限制了政府可支配的资源和工具，使企业精英们受益匪浅。数字技术、离岸外包和资本的集中化，减少了年轻人的中产阶级职业道路，保障了前工人阶级的安全就业机会，帮助创造了一个庞大的“岌岌可危阶级”。全球化使不平等现象显著增加，经济权力从民族国家转移到全球公司和超国家组织，如欧盟、世界银行和国际货币基金组织。 全球化在不同程度上侵蚀了几乎所有民族国家的主权，建立了一个支持资本和经济自由的全球宪法（这基本上超出了民族国家的范围），这个宪法旨在保护私有产权不受政府和民众民主力量的影响（Slobodian，2018）。在国际范围内，为了在冷战后的世界中建立西方自由主义秩序，出现了一连串的冲突、破坏性的战争和大规模的难民流动，以及其他因缺乏发展而导致的人口流动（邓福德 & Qi, 2020）。

Atomization, the erosion of social solidarity, increased vulnerability of individuals separated from society versus subjectivity and creativity of the people

原子化、社会团结的侵蚀、与社会分离的个人相对于人民的主观性和创造性更加脆弱

Governments often receive the support of only 50% or less of the electorate and often of those who participate in elections (do not represent a majority) but what is important are the outcomes. In a study however of 1,779 United States policy issues Gilens and Page (2014) found that the ‘the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy, and that instead public policy reflected the preferences of economic elites and organized interest groups[l1] ’, an oligarchy.

政府通常只能得到50%或更少选民（即那些参加选举的人）的支持，这种支持并不能代表多数人，但结果才是最重要的。然而，在对1,779个美国政策问题的研究中，杰伦斯和佩奇（2014）发现，“普通美国人的偏好似乎对公共政策的影响很小，几乎为零，在统计数据上并不显著，相反，公共政策反映了经济精英和有组织的利益集团（寡头政治）的偏好。”

In western countries corporate power drives the domestic and international agendas of the state: corporate wealth funds political parties and the political classes that serve as representatives/executives and drive state policies, corporate media controls the channels of communication and the messages they transmit, and state functions are outsourced to corporate interests. All states are authoritarian. The universal citizenship rights that were established after the Second World War and underpinned the attraction of the western social order have been eroded. As already mentioned. globalization has eroded nation-state sovereignty, transferring sovereign power to unaccountable international organizations (Brown, 2011).

在西方国家，企业的力量推动着国家的国内和国际议程：企业、财富为政党和作为代表/高管的政治阶层提供资金，并推动国家政策，企业媒体控制着沟通的渠道及其传递的信息，国家职能外包给企业利益。选举变得市场化，并被精心管理。二战后建立的、支撑着西方社会秩序吸引力的普遍公民权利已经被侵蚀。全球化侵蚀了民族国家的主权，将主权权力转移给不负责任的国际组织（布朗，2011）。

A state can be authoritarian and democratic. All states are dictatorships. A state can be a dictatorship and democratic. The contemporary US state and the states in advanced capitalist countries are authoritarian and oligarchic.

一个国家可以是威权的，也可以是民主的。所有的国家都是专政体。一个国家的政体可以是独裁制，也可以是民主制[l2] 。当代美国和发达资本主义国家的政体都是独裁制和寡头制。

At the centre of liberal (post-Enlightenment) concepts of democracy and politics is not just the rule of capital but also individualism. In some ways politics and economics in the western world are market places in which individuals vote for competing political parties that seek their support with their manifestos and expensive interest group funded, marketized and carefully managed election campaigns and consumers spend their income on goods and services offered by competing suppliers. A danger of this path is the atomization of individuals, the erosion of social solidarity and an increase in the vulnerability of individuals isolated from one another. This problem points to the need for a model of democracy and politics at whose centre is the principle of collectivism and the political community.

自由主义（后启蒙时代）民主和政治的中心，不仅仅是资本统治，还有个人主义。从某些方面来说，西方世界的政治和经济都是市场化的。个人要投票给那些相互竞争的政党，而这些政党则通过宣言和昂贵的利益集团资助、市场化和精心管理的选举活动来寻求这些个人的支持，就像消费者将收入用于互相竞争的供应商所提供的商品和服务。这条道路的危险之一是个人原子化，社会团结的侵蚀，以及相互孤立的个人变得更加脆弱。这个问题表明以集体主义和政治共同体原则为核心的民主和政治模式是必不可少的。

A meaningful concept of democracy must surely involve the participation and prosperity of all to which Sandel alluded when he wrote:

‘Social well-being … depends upon cohesion and solidarity. It implies the existence, not merely of opportunities to ascend, but of … a strong sense of common interests, equality of condition that enables those who do not achieve great wealth or prestigious positions to live lives of decency and dignity— developing and exercising their abilities in work that wins social esteem, sharing in a widely diffused culture of learning, and deliberating with their fellow citizens about public affairs (Sandel, 2020).

一个有意义的民主概念必然涉及所有人的参与和繁荣，桑德尔提到：

“社会福祉……取决于凝聚力和团结。它意味着不仅存在上升的机会，而且存在……强烈的共同利益意识，平等的条件，使那些没有获得巨大财富或声望的人能够过上体面和有尊严的生活--在赢得社会尊重的工作中发展和锻炼自己的能力，分享广泛传播的学习文化，并与他们的同胞一起商讨公共事务”。（桑德尔，2020）

A substantive OUTCOME of this kind is surely what marks out a democracy and reflects the power of all of the people over their livelihoods and happiness.

这种实质性的结果无疑是民主的标志，也反映了全体人民拥有生计和幸福的权力。

The divisions in western civil society are rooted ultimately in the private ownership of the means of production and exchange, the concentration of income and wealth and the accumulation of political power that reproduces social divisions. Only a transformation of the relations of production, collective ownership and control of the means of collective existence the merging of the political and civil existences of civil society, and the development of qualitatively new types of political institution can lay the foundations for human freedom and development and ensure that outcomes are democratic.

西方公民社会的分裂最终都是源于生产和交换手段的私有制、收入和财富的集中以及政治权力的积累，这些都是社会分裂的再现。只有转变生产关系，集体所有制和控制集体生产资料的手段，才能使公民社会的政治存在和公民存在相融合，同时，发展高质量的新型政治机构，才能为人类自由和发展奠定基础，并确保结果民主。

References参考书目

Brown, W. (2011). In G. Agamben, A. Badiou, D. Bensaïd, W. Brown, J.-L. Nancy, K. Ross, & S. Žižek (Eds.), Democracy in what state? New York, Chichester, West Susses: Columbia University Press.

Dunford, M. (1990). THEORIES OF REGULATION. Environment and Planning D-Society & Space, 8(3), 297-321. doi:10.1068/d080297

Gilens, M., & Page, B. I. (2014). Testing theories of American politics: Elites, interest groups, and average citizens. Perspectives on Politics, 12(3), 564-581. doi:10.1017/S1537592714001595

Hobbes, T. (1983 [1642]). De cive: the English version. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Johnson, C. (1982). MITI and the Japanese miracle: The growth of industrial policy, 1925-1975. Stanford, CA.: Stanford University Press.

Marx, K. (1975 [1843]). On the Jewish question (R. a. B. Livingstone, Gregor, Trans.). In K. Marx (Ed.), Early Writings (pp. 211-241). Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

Michéa, J. C. (2018). Le loup dans la bergerie. Droit, libéralisme et vie commune. Paris: Climats.

Mishra, P. (2017). Age of anger: A history of the present Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

Munck, R. (2020). On Polanyi. Area Development and Policy, 5(3), 243-249.

Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century (A. Goldhammer, Trans.). Boston MA.: Harvard University Press.

Polanyi, K. (2001 [1944]). The great transformation: The political and economic origins of our time. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Robespierre, M. (1958 [1793]). Sur les principes de morale politique qui doivent guider la convention nationale dans l’administration intérieure de la république [On the moral political principles that must guide the National Convention in the internal administration of the Republic]. In J. Poperen (Ed.), Robespierre: Textes choisis (Vol. 3, April 1793-July 1794, pp. 110-131). Paris: Editions Sociales.

Sandel, M. J. (2020). The tyranny of merit. What's become of the common good? Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

Tabak, M. (2000). A Marxian theory of democracy. Socialism and Democracy, 14(2), 87-113. doi:10.1080/08854300008428266

Weber, M. (1946 [1918]). Politics as a vocation. In H. H. Gerth & C. Wright Mills (Eds.), From Max Weber: Essays in sociology (pp. 77-128). New York: Oxford University Press.

Williams, R. (1983). Key words. A vocabulary of culture and society (Revised edition ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Wood, A. W. (1991). Editors' introduction (H. B. Nisbet, Trans.). In G. W. F. Hegel (Ed.), Elements of the philosophy of right. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Xi, J. (2021). Full Text: Special address by Chinese President Xi Jinping at the World Economic Forum Virtual Event of the Davos Agenda. Qiushi(2). Retrieved from http://en.qstheory.cn/2021-01/26/c_585204.htm