Termination or Mutation

Since the international financial crisis of 2008, neoliberalism has begun to lose its former edge and “halo,” becoming an object of reflection, discussion, or even controversy. Currently, as the global pandemic continues to spread, the drawbacks and essence of neoliberalism are further exposed, and this controversy has become more intense and diversified. Some viewpoints hold that neoliberalism has already declined or even terminated. So, what has actually become of neoliberalism? How will it develop in the future? This article attempts, on the basis of analyzing the latest foreign research findings and representative viewpoints on neoliberalism, to follow the logic of history, theory, and practice, and to make a judgment on the characteristics and future development of neoliberalism at present.

2008年国际金融危机以来，新自由主义便开始失去既有的锋芒与“光环”,成为人们反思、讨论甚或争议的对象。当前，全球疫情持续蔓延，新自由主义的弊端与本质进一步暴露，这种争议更趋白热化、多元化，有观点认为新自由主义已经衰败甚至终结。那么，新自由主义到底怎样了?未来又将如何发展?本文试图在分析国外关于新自由主义的最新研究成果和代表性观点的基础上，按照历史、理论与实践的逻辑，对当下新自由主义的特征和未来发展作出判断。

I. Representative Viewpoints of the “Termination Thesis”

一、“终结论”的代表性观点

A comprehensive overview of European and American academic circles shows that whether it is the Nobel Prize-winning renowned economist Joseph Stiglitz or the famous ecological Marxist John Bellamy Foster, they have successively made similar assertions such as “capitalism has failed,” “neoliberalism has ended,” “we are facing a regression of the liberal global order,” and “people’s confidence in both neoliberalism and democracy is declining.” It seems that the “termination of neoliberalism” has become a consensus among a considerable number of Western scholars. The current representative viewpoints on the “neoliberalism termination thesis” can be delineated from three aspects: social, economic, and political.

综观欧美学界，无论是获得过诺贝尔奖的著名经济学家约瑟夫·斯蒂格利茨(Joseph Stiglitz),还是著名生态马克思主义者约翰·贝拉米·福斯特(John Bellamy Foster),都相继作出“资本主义已经失败”“新自由主义已经终结”“我们正面临自由主义全球秩序的倒退”“人们对新自由主义和民主的信心同时下降”等类似的论断，似乎“新自由主义终结”已经成为相当数量的西方学者的共识。当前关于“新自由主义终结论”的代表性观点可以从社会、经济、政治三个方面进行界说。

(I) Neoliberalism that Extols “Inequality” Inevitably Causes Social Rifts

(一)推崇“不平等”的新自由主义必然造成社会撕裂

From a social perspective, representative viewpoints are as follows: Neoliberalism regards competition as the main feature of social relations, holding that “competition is freedom,” advocating for reducing taxes and regulation, privatizing public services, while “union bargaining” is described as distorting the market and hindering the natural formation of “winners” and “losers”; the “rich” are considered to have obtained wealth through effort, while other factors such as education, inheritance, and class are ignored, and the inability of the “poor” to change their own situation is attributed to “lack of effort,” with unemployment being explained as “lack of initiative.” In this way, “inequality” is instead extolled. In a world dominated by this “philosophy of inequality,” those who lag behind are the losers. Therefore, neoliberalism is fundamentally a “philosophy of inequality,” to a large extent a 21st-century reprint of “evolutionism” and “social Darwinism.”

从社会角度来看，代表性观点如下：新自由主义将竞争视为社会关系的主要特征，认为“竞争即自由”,主张减少税收和监管，公共服务私有化，而“工会谈判”则被描述为扭曲市场，阻碍“赢家”和“输家”的自然形成；“富人”被认为是通过努力获得财富，其他因素如教育、继承、阶级等则被忽视了，而“穷人”无法改变自身处境则被归结为“不努力”,失业被解释为“缺乏进取心”。这样一来，“不平等”反而被推崇。在这种“不平等哲学”主导的世界中，落后者即失败者。所以，新自由主义从根本上说就是一种“不平等哲学”,很大程度上是“进化论”“社会达尔文主义”在21世纪的翻版。

In such a society, faced with the sudden outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, chaos abounds in the West. “The pandemic has revealed the structural defects of the social system… inequality is constantly expanding… these are all consequences of the system’s own imbalance and instability.” This defect itself indicates that neoliberalism is on the verge of collapse. If treatment for COVID-19 becomes feasible, the gap between the rich and the poor will undoubtedly widen further. Therefore, some scholars cannot help but ask: “Will the COVID-19 virus lead to the collapse of neoliberalism and reshape global civilization?”

在这样的社会中，面对突如其来的新冠肺炎疫情，西方乱象丛生，“疫情揭示了社会系统的结构性缺陷……不平等不断扩大……这都是系统本身不平衡、不稳定的后果”。这一缺陷本身就表明新自由主义正处在崩溃边缘，如果新冠肺炎的治疗变得可行，那么富人和穷人之间的鸿沟无疑将进一步拉大。因此，有学者不禁发出疑问：“新冠病毒是否会导致新自由主义的崩溃，重塑全球文明?”

This is indeed the case. When the interests of capital are above all else, the middle class is heading towards extinction, and social inequality is intensifying, the “American Dream” is also becoming increasingly distant. One of the most important problems currently facing the United States and many countries around the world is growing inequality. As the pandemic spreads, people feel inequality even more. From the perspective of the vertical social structure, i.e., different classes and strata, when the pandemic arrived, the rich “moved into” yachts and other places far from the epidemic, fleeing to safe “second homes”; the middle class at home simultaneously bore the dual burden of disciplining their children and working long hours; the poor either lost their jobs or risked their lives in low-income jobs, with their families also isolated in cramped dwellings. From the perspective of the horizontal social structure, i.e., different ethnicities and genders, people of color have higher unemployment rates, lower wages, and often engage in dangerous work; female workers are mainly concentrated in sectors such as healthcare, social work, and retail. Against this backdrop, intersecting class and ethnic antagonisms, and even polarizing sentiments, are rising across society, making social rifts, turmoil, and instability the norm.

事实也的确如此。当资本的利益高于一切、中产阶级正在走向消亡、社会不平等加剧之时，“美国梦”也变得越来越遥远了。美国和世界许多国家目前面临的最重要问题之一，就是日益加剧的不平等。随着疫情蔓延，人们更加感受到不平等。从社会纵向结构即不同阶级阶层来看，疫情到来时，富人们“搬进”了游艇等远离疫情的地方，逃到了安全的“第二个家”;中产阶级在家同时承担起管教子女和长时间工作的双重负担；穷人要么失业，要么冒着生命危险从事低收入工作，其家人也被隔离在狭小的住所里。从社会横向结构即不同族裔、不同性别来看，有色人种的失业率较高，工资也较低，而且往往从事危险性工作；女性劳动者主要集中在卫生保健、社会工作和零售等部门。在这一背景下，社会纵横交错的阶级、族裔对立乃至极化情绪不断上升，社会撕裂、动荡不安成为常态。

(II) Neoliberalism Built on “Unrestrained Free Markets” Amplifies Social Inequality

(二)建立在“不受约束的自由市场”之上的新自由主义放大了社会不平等

From an economic perspective, representative viewpoints are as follows: Neoliberalism is built on “unrestrained free markets.” Laissez-faire, minimal government intervention, widespread privatization, and the state’s transformation from a provider of public welfare to a promoter of competitive free markets are its main characteristics. It is an economic system widely implemented over the past 40-plus years. In other words, neoliberalism is usually associated with the liberalization of international capital flows; it restricts union power, dismantles state-owned enterprises, sells off public assets, and allows the logic of the free market to dominate.

从经济角度来看，代表性观点如下：新自由主义建立在“不受约束的自由市场”之上，自由放任、最低限度的政府干预、广泛的私有化、国家从公共福利的提供者转变为竞争性自由市场的推动者等，是新自由主义的主要特征，它是过去40余年普遍施行的一种经济制度。换言之，新自由主义通常与资本的国际流动自由化有关，它限制工会权力、解散国有企业、出售公共资产，使自由市场逻辑占据主导地位。

Currently, scholars mostly use “malfunction” and “failure” to argue that the “unrestrained free market” is unsustainable, believing that a complete break with neoliberalism is necessary. This is both because the times are different and because recent solutions are no longer applicable. This is manifested both in “the market’s inability to meet people’s needs” and in the fact that the authority of so-called “groups that drive social progress,” such as “professors, legislators, or jurists, comes more from the market than from humanistic values like public spirit, conscience, or the desire for justice.” The driving force of the free market for social progress is gradually drying up, and social inequality is constantly intensifying.

当下，学者多以“失灵”“失效”来论证“不受约束的自由市场”之难以持续，认为需要与新自由主义彻底决裂，这既是因为时代不同了，也因为最近的解决方案都不再适用了。这既表现为“市场无法满足人民的需求”,也表现为所谓“推动社会进步的群体”,如“教授、立法者或法学家的权威更多来自市场而非人文价值观，如公德心、良心或对正义的渴望”, 自由市场推动社会进步的动力逐渐枯竭，社会不平等正不断加剧。

The COVID-19 pandemic has further amplified the limitations of the free market and allowed people to see more clearly the inequality brought about by the free market. Some scholars denounce: Since the pandemic, Western governments have provided relief services through banks, but the relief targets have first and foremost been large enterprises. The market has been “re-dedicated” to financial institutions and enterprises. The government still agrees with propositions such as “granting privileges to the private market will enhance efficiency and promote growth,” “the private sector will provide better solutions,” and “private investment will boost productivity and labor compensation,” and even believes that excessive help for the poor will lead to “moral hazard.” This is mutually reinforcing with the lack of public awareness among the leadership and the trend of further disappearance of public power (democracy and popular forces). Since the pandemic, the $660 billion loan program launched by the U.S. government has been mainly carved up by the big bourgeoisie at the center of power, without truly benefiting the small businesses in urgent need of funding.

新冠肺炎疫情更是放大了自由市场的局限性，也让人们进一步看清了自由市场带来的不平等。有学者控诉：疫情以来，西方政府通过银行提供救助服务，但救济对象却首先是大型企业，市场被重新“奉献”给金融机构和企业，政府仍认同“给予私人市场特权，将提升效率、促进增长”及“私营部门会提供更好解决方案”“私人投资将提升生产力和劳动力薪酬”等主张，甚至还认为过度帮助穷人将导致“道德风险”。这与领导层缺乏公众意识以及公共权力(民主和民众力量)进一步消失的趋势互为表里。疫情以来，美国政府推出的6600亿美元贷款计划主要为处于权力中心的大资产阶级所瓜分，而并未使急需资助的小企业真正获利。

(III) Neoliberalism, Loudly Proclaiming “Liberal Democracy,” Has Reached Its End

(三)高调宣称“自由民主”的新自由主义已经走到了尽头

From a political perspective, neoliberalism often claims to be synonymous with democracy, extolling a universal suffrage system based on individualism. However, data from the Pew Research Center in the United States shows that Americans’ trust in the federal government has generally shown a trend of declining year after year, never exceeding 30% after 2007, and dropping below 20% in recent years, with over 80% of voters distrusting the federal government. Some scholars believe that neoliberal democracy is actually nothing more than “audience democracy” or theatrical democracy. Phenomena such as Trump’s rise to power and the rise of populism and nationalism in Western societies are the results of this “audience democracy.” Therefore, some foreign scholars also regard this as the end of neoliberal democracy and liberal democratic values, as well as evidence of the failure of neoliberalism: lacking necessary political guarantees and democratic legitimacy support, neoliberalism naturally finds it difficult to sustain itself, and Biden’s assumption of office has not brought about fundamental change.

从政治角度看，新自由主义往往号称与民主划等号，颂扬基于个人主义的普选制度。但美国皮尤研究中心的数据却显示，美国人对联邦政府的信任度总体上呈现连年下降的趋势，2007年以后从未超过30%,近年来更是下降到20%以下，超过80%的选民不信任联邦政府。有学者认为，新自由主义的民主实际上不过是“观众民主”或剧目化民主。特朗普的上台以及西方社会民粹主义、民族主义兴起等现象，就是这种“观众民主”的结果。所以，一些国外学者也将此视为新自由主义民主和自由民主价值观的终结，以及新自由主义失效的证据：缺乏必要的政治保障和民主合法性支撑，新自由主义自然难以为继，拜登的上台也并未带来根本改变。

This is indeed the case. Formally speaking, neoliberalism, which loudly proclaims democracy and universal values, appears to have reached its end. Right-wing forces have assumed dominant or even leading positions in many countries around the world, to a large extent utilizing and fueling confrontational sentiments. In particular, standing on the ground of the middle and lower strata of the so-called nation's primary ethnic group, they attack values such as pluralism, compromise, equality, and fraternity, advocate that immigrants and ethnic minorities are the cause of damage to the interests of the existing primary ethnic group, and simultaneously attack nations and ethnic groups that have benefited from external globalization. They portray themselves as "being on the side of the masses," constantly mobilizing and exploiting confrontational sentiments. Using the fear and discontent caused by economic frustration and cultural anxiety among the populace in the context of globalization, they combine the political blueprint of reshaping national interests with the political logic of populism, attempting to bridge the divide between the upper financial monopoly capitalists and the lower white blue-collar strata, constructing a cross-class, heterogeneous class alliance. They exploit crises, directing the discontent of the people and contradictions toward ethnic minorities, illegal immigrants, different cultures and ethnicities, portraying the latter as the culprits of social inequality, deteriorating security, economic decline, and the global spread of the pandemic. At the same time, using so-called alternative facts as evidence, they stir up fear and anxiety in American society regarding different races, ethnicities, and civilizations, and disguise themselves as representatives of public sentiment.

事实也确实如此，从形式上看，高调宣称民主和普世价值的新自由主义似乎走到了尽头。右翼力量在全球不少国家都占据重要乃至领导地位，在很大程度上利用、推动着对立情绪，尤其是站在所谓本国主要种族的中下层立场上，攻击多元、妥协、平等、博爱等价值观，鼓吹移民和少数族裔是造成本国既有主要种族利益受损的原因，同时攻击外部全球化得利的民族和国家。他们将自己塑造为“处于大众的一方”,不断调动并利用对立情绪，利用全球化背景下民众经济失意和文化焦虑所造成的恐惧与不满等情绪，将重塑国家利益的政治蓝图与民粹主义的政治逻辑相结合，试图弥合上层金融垄断资本家和下层白人蓝领阶层之间的分歧，建构跨阶级、异质性的阶层联盟。他们利用危机，将民众的不满情绪和矛盾引向少数族裔、非法移民、不同文化和民族等，将后者塑造为社会不平等、安全问题恶化、经济日趋衰退、疫情全球扩散的罪魁祸首，同时以所谓的另类事实作为论据，挑起美国社会对不同种族、民族和文明的恐惧与不安，并把自己装扮成大众情绪的代表。

II. Formal Termination and Substantive Mutation

二、形式上的终结与实质上的异变

Based on the above examination, it is not difficult to see that, at least in public discourse, "the end of neoliberalism" has become a relatively common view. However, some argue that neoliberalism "can fully utilize its own failures and continuously progress," undergoing diverse changes amidst the sound of its "constant demise." If we trace the changes of neoliberalism from historical, theoretical, and practical levels to grasp its essence, then we will see that this change may not truly mean termination.

基于上述考察不难看出，至少在舆论中，“新自由主义终结”已经成为一种较为普遍的看法。但也有观点认为，新自由主义“能充分利用自身的失败并不断进步”,正在“不断消亡”的声音中发生着多样的变化。如果从历史、理论和实践等诸多层面来追溯新自由主义的变化，进而把握其实质的话，那么我们就会看出这种变化也许并非真的意味着终结。

First, the refutation of the "inequality thesis" is insufficient to prove the end of neoliberalism, because the current "regulatory mechanism" within liberalism has malfunctioned, and neoliberalism has gradually become a hybrid of multiple ideas.

第一，对“不平等论”的批驳难以证明新自由主义的终结，因为当下自由主义内部“调节机制”失灵，新自由主义逐渐成为多种理念混合的产物。

The aforementioned view holds that neoliberalism, which advocates the "philosophy of inequality," has already caused social撕裂 [tearing apart], and the consequences of widening social inequality have made neoliberalism unsustainable. However, proving the end of neoliberalism by refuting inequality often overlooks two points: first, the "regulatory mechanism" within liberalism against the "inequality thesis" has gradually dissolved; second, contemporary neoliberalism has gradually become a mixture of various ideas, even becoming a member of the opposition to the "inequality thesis."

前文观点认为，推崇“不平等哲学”的新自由主义已然造成社会撕裂，社会不平等逐步扩大的恶果已经使新自由主义难以为继。但通过批驳不平等论证新自由主义终结，往往忽视了两点：一是自由主义内部存在的对“不平等论”的“调节机制”逐渐消解；二是当下的新自由主义逐渐成为多种理念的混合物，甚至成为反对“不平等论”的一员。

Theoretically, the philosophy of Friedrich August von Hayek and others is precisely the "inequality thesis." In their view, on the one hand, "men are born different," that is, "the infinite diversity of human nature—the vast differences in individual capabilities and potential—is one of the most unique facts about humanity." The inherent differences between people also determine that achieving wealth redistribution and equality of wealth through government leads to actual inequality among people, and even inequality before the law. Regarding equality before the law and equality of material conditions, liberalism can only achieve the former. To protect individual freedom, material equality must never be achieved through government power and state coercion. On the other hand, inequality is the driving force of social progress. The rich promote social progress by trying new ways of life. Without the rich making these unattainable "contributions," social progress would be slow. Therefore, in the process of overall social progress, the lead of the rich is only relative, and poverty is also only relative. "As long as inequality is not the result of deliberate design or the decision of power institutions, but is brought about by impersonal market processes, then this inequality is entirely reasonable."

从理论上看，弗里德里希·奥古斯特·冯·哈耶克(Friedrich August von Hayek)等人的哲学就是“不平等论”。在他们看来，一方面，“人生而不同”,即“人性有着无限的多样性——个人的能力及潜力存在着广泛的差异——乃是人类最具独特性的事实之一”。人与人之间固有的差异也决定了通过政府实现财富再分配和财富平等会导致人与人之间实际的不平等，甚至会导致人们在法律面前的不平等。对于法律面前的人人平等和物质面前的人人平等，自由主义只能实现前者，而为了保护个人自由，决不能通过政府权力和国家强制力实现物质平等。另一方面，不平等是社会进步的动力。富者以尝试新的生活方式而推动社会进步，如果没有富者去做这些难以企及的“贡献”,那么社会进步就会迟缓。因而，在整个社会进步的进程中，富者的领先只是相对的，贫困也只是相对的。“只要不平等不是人为设计的结果，也不是权力机构决定的结果，而是由非人格化的市场进程所带来的，那这种不平等完全具有合理性。”

Historically, what Hayek endorsed and opposed corresponds to what Isaiah Berlin summarized as "negative liberty" and "positive liberty." Positive liberty (liberty to) can be seen as "affirmative liberty," affirming that a thing or individual has the right to decide what others should do; negative liberty (liberty from) can be seen as "negative liberty," denying the power of others to interfere with the self. In the sense of property rights, negative liberty advocates that "protecting the right to private property is the only effective means of protecting freedom," while positive liberty advocates "ensuring the livelihood of the majority of people through state intervention." Since the birth of liberalism, scholars who advocate "negative liberty" have mostly advocated the freedom of individuals to pursue wealth, equating freedom with protecting private property and maintaining market competition, believing that the demand for equality in wealth redistribution hinders freedom.

从历史上看，哈耶克所赞同和反对的实际上是以赛亚·伯林(Isaiah Berlin)概括的“消极自由”和“积极自由”。积极自由(liberty to)可被视为“肯定性自由”,肯定了一个事物或个体有权决定其他人应该去做什么事；消极自由(liberty from)可被视为“否定性自由”,否定了他者干涉自我的权力。在财产权的意义上，消极自由主张“保护私有财产权利是保护自由的唯一有效手段”,积极自由主张“通过国家干预保障多数民众生活”。从自由主义诞生以来，但凡主张“否定性自由”的学者，多主张个人追求财富的自由，将自由与保障私有财产、维护市场竞争相等同，认为财富再分配的平等要求会妨碍自由。

In practice, liberals who advocate "positive liberty" saw the consequences of the initial "negative liberty." In Britain at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, the "self-regulation" within liberalism gave rise to new liberalism. Subsequently, utilitarianism, Keynesianism, etc., became its important supports. Together with democratic socialism in Western Europe and the New Deal across the Atlantic, they constituted the so-called "progressive" politics, jointly shaping the welfare states and societies of post-WWII Western Europe, practically implementing "positive liberty."

从实践上看，推崇“积极自由”的自由主义者看到了最初“消极自由”带来的恶果。19世纪末20世纪初的英国，自由主义内部的“自我调节”产生了新自由主义(new liberalism),其后，功利主义、凯恩斯主义等均成为其重要支撑，并与西欧的民主社会主义、大西洋彼岸的罗斯福新政一道，构成所谓的“进步主义”政治，共同塑造了二战后西欧的福利国家与社会，实际践行了“积极自由”。

Since the stagflation crisis of the 1970s, Keynesianism failed, and neoliberal [neoclassical liberal] thought ascended the stage. At this time, the tension between new liberalism and neoliberalism [neoclassical liberalism] manifested in the debate between John Rawls, Ronald Myles Dworkin, and others who defined positive liberty, advocated justice, supported the welfare state, and asserted socio-economic rights and civil liberties, and Hayek and others who emphasized negative liberty, prioritizing market economy and private property. In the 1990s, this tension showed a trend of convergence in the "Third Way" or "New Middle Way" advocated by Tony Blair, Bill Clinton, Gerhard Schröder, and others. In the process of convergence, the economic foundation of new liberalism was gradually dissolved. It accepted the neoliberalism [neoclassical liberalism] of Margaret Hilda Thatcher and Ronald Wilson Reagan, reduced market regulation, and shaped universal values such as pluralism, respect, and compromise, thereby humanizing neoliberalism [neoclassical liberalism]. On the other hand, neoliberalism [neoclassical liberalism] continuously consolidated its position through neoconservatism, advocating market capitalism, the libertarianism of reducing government intervention, religious conservatism, social conservatism, nationalism, etc. Therefore, in practice, positive liberty accepted negative liberty in the economic sphere, causing the internal regulatory mechanism of liberalism to gradually malfunction, converging with negative liberty, retreating to the cultural sphere, and the economic foundation of "progressive" politics gradually dissolved. Substantive positive liberty became de facto negative liberty; while opposing inequality, it also promoted inequality.

20世纪70年代滞胀危机以来，凯恩斯主义失灵，新古典自由主义登上舞台。此时，新自由主义(new liberalism)和新古典自由主义的张力表现为约翰·罗尔斯(John Rawls)、罗纳德·迈尔斯·德沃金(Ronald Myles Dworkin)等人界说积极自由、倡导正义、支持福利国家、申张社会经济权利及公民自由，与哈耶克等人强调消极自由、优先考虑市场经济、私有财产之间的争论。20世纪90年代，二者的张力在托尼·布莱尔(Tony Blair)、比尔·克林顿(Bill Clinton)、格哈德·施罗德(Gerhard Schroder)等倡导的“第三条道路”“新中间道路”中呈现融合态势。在融合过程中，新自由主义(new Liberalism)的经济基础逐渐被消解，接纳了玛格丽特·撒切尔(Margaret Hilda Thatcher)、罗纳德·里根(Ronald Wilson Reagan)的新古典自由主义，减少了对市场的监管，塑造多元、尊重、妥协等普世价值观，以此推动新古典自由主义人道化。另一方面，新古典自由主义通过新保守主义不断巩固自身地位，提倡市场资本主义、减少政府干预的自由意志论、宗教保守主义、社会保守主义、民族主义等。因此，从实践上看，积极自由在经济领域接纳了消极自由，使自由主义内部调节机制逐步失灵、与消极自由逐渐趋同、退居文化领域、“进步主义”政治的经济基础逐渐消解，实质上的积极自由成为事实上的消极自由；在反对不平等的同时也在推崇不平等。

Therefore, the current neoliberalism has evolved into a combination of a neoliberalism that retreats into the cultural sphere and a neoclassical liberalism that dominates the economic sphere. This causes the current neoliberalism to undergo a mutation, becoming a "mutated neoliberalism": by absorbing "progressive" ideas through the originally center-left neoliberalism in the political spectrum, it makes itself an advocate of "equality" or even "extreme equality," and then implements economic policies with the characteristics of "neoclassical liberalism." More importantly, neoliberalism has already lost the economic discursive power that Keynesianism once had, and can only carry out formal changes in the cultural sphere that do not touch the essence of the "theory of inequality," while being economically dependent on neoclassical liberalism. Therefore, it is still premature to argue that neoliberalism has ended or is heading toward an end through the "theory of inequality."

因而，当下的新自由主义演化成退居文化领域的新自由主义(new liberalism)与在经济领域占据统治地位的新古典自由主义相结合的事物。这就使当下的新自由主义发生了异变，成为一种“异变的新自由主义”:通过在政治光谱中原本处于中左翼的新自由主义(new liberalism),吸收“进步主义”理念，使自身成为“平等”甚至是“极端平等”的推崇者，进而推行具有“新古典自由主义”特征的经济政策。更为重要的是，新自由主义(new liberalism)已然失去昔日凯恩斯主义的经济话语权，仅能在文化领域进行不触动“不平等论”实质的形式变革，在经济层面依附于新古典自由主义。因而，通过“不平等论”论证新自由主义已经或正走向终结，还为时尚早。

Second, arguing the "theory of free market failure" likewise cannot prove the end of neoliberalism, because the mutated neoliberalism is gradually picking up the historical intellectual resources of government intervention.

第二，论证“自由市场失灵论”同样无法证明新自由主义终结，因为异变的新自由主义正逐渐拾起政府干预的历史思想资源。

As mentioned above, people often define neoliberalism by the unconstrained free market, and take the harmful consequences brought by the free market as evidence that neoliberalism has ended or must end, and then advocate measures such as government intervention. But in reality, neoclassical liberalism does not advocate an unconstrained free market; it is also a reflection on the laissez-faire liberalism of the 19th century, focusing on the use of government power. Therefore, the harmful consequences of an unconstrained free market do not signify the end of neoliberalism, but rather serve as a driving force for it to further seize government power, and then carry out new adjustments and reconstruction of the free market.

如前文所述，人们往往以不受约束的自由市场来定义新自由主义，并以自由市场所带来的恶果作为新自由主义终结或必将终结的证据，进而主张采取政府干预等措施。但实际上，新古典自由主义并非倡导不受约束的自由市场，它也是对19世纪自由放任的自由主义的反思，注重对政府权力的运用。因而，不受约束的自由市场带来的恶果并不意味着新自由主义的终结，而是推动其进一步掌握政府权力，进而对自由市场进行新的调试和重建的动力。

From a historical and theoretical perspective, neoclassical liberalism has its own developmental lineage. From this lineage, it can be clearly seen that the mutated neoliberalism cannot be simply defined as the theory of the free market or laissez-faire. From the perspective of developmental history, the birthplace of neoclassical liberalism was the Vienna Chamber of Commerce, where Hayek assisted Ludwig Heinrich Edler von Mises in his first study concerning the Treaty of Saint-Germain, aimed at ensuring market order through international legal institutional arrangements; hence, neoclassical liberalism is sometimes also called legal interventionism. Some scholars use the word "encase" to describe legal interventionism, meaning to "encase" the competitive market order through top-level domestic and international legal designs by a minority, protecting the global market so as to shield it from the influence and intervention of democratic politics.

从历史和理论角度看，新古典自由主义有自身的发展谱系，从这一谱系中能够明显看到，不能将异变的新自由主义简单定义为自由市场论或自由放任论。从发展史上看，新古典自由主义的发源地在维也纳商会，其中，哈耶克协助路德维希·海因里希·艾德勒·冯·米塞斯(Ludwig Heinrich Edler von Mises)进行的第一项研究就是关于《圣·日耳曼条约》的，目的在于通过国际性的法律制度安排来保证市场秩序，因而新古典自由主义有时也被称为法律干预主义。有学者用“包裹”(encase)一词形容法律干预主义，即通过少数人的国内国际法律顶层设计，把市场竞争秩序“包裹起来”,保护全球市场，以使其免受民主政治的影响与干预。

France is also an important origin of current neoclassical liberalism. In 1938, the Walter Lippmann Colloquium was held in France. The "Liberal Manifesto" adopted at the meeting first emphasized the legal intervention of the state, i.e., the state must construct a legal framework for the free development of economic activities; second, it held that government power must be expanded, and a liberal state must secure national defense through taxation, provide social services, guarantee scientific research, etc.; finally, it proposed that the government should exercise broader intervention powers. Even earlier, French neoclassical liberals called themselves the "third way" between laissez-faire and planned economy: different from the former's "letting cars drive in any direction," and different from the latter's "telling each car its driving direction," but formulating laws that allow "cars to drive freely."

法国也是当下新古典自由主义的重要起源地，1938年沃尔特·李普曼(Walter Lippman)座谈会在法国召开，会议通过的“自由主义宣言”首先强调国家的法律干预，即国家必须建构经济活动自由发展的法律框架；其次认为必须扩大政府权力，一个自由主义国家必须通过税收稳固国防、进行社会服务、保障科学研究等；最后提出政府应当行使更广泛的干预权。而在更早时候，法国新古典自由主义者就称自己是自由放任和计划经济之间的“第三条道路”:既不同于前者“让汽车朝向任何方向行驶”,也不同于后者“告知每辆汽车的行驶方向”,而是制定让“汽车能够自由行驶”的法律。

After World War II, the so-called social market economy system of West Germany was sometimes regarded as an alternative to neoclassical liberalism. However, this obscures the similarity between the post-war West German government's economic policies and neoclassical liberalism, as well as the design of West Germany's economic and social policies by the Mont Pelerin Society. The main theoretical supplier of the social market economy system was undoubtedly ordoliberalism, and ordoliberalism and legal interventionism clearly share commonalities in their understanding of the relationship between law and economics.

二战后，联邦德国所谓的社会市场经济体制有时也被视为新古典自由主义的替代品。然而，这掩盖了战后联邦德国政府经济政策与新古典自由主义的相似性，以及朝圣山学派对联邦德国经济社会政策的设计。社会市场经济体制的主要理论供应者无疑是秩序自由主义，而秩序自由主义与法律干预主义在对法律与经济学关系的理解方面是明显存在共性的。

Neoclassical liberalism, detached from Anglo-American centrism, is not entirely equivalent to laissez-faire or the free market; rather, it has very rich intellectual resources and practical experiences of playing the role of government intervention. Therefore, the failure of laissez-faire or the free market cannot prove the end of classical neoliberalism. On the contrary, from a lineage perspective, neoliberalism is, to a certain extent, a prescription for the unconstrained free market. Thus, the failure of the free market does not mean the failure of current neoliberalism; instead, it is picking up government power to rebuild the free market through government intervention. Currently, legal interventionism remains a sharp tool for the United States. Both Trump and Biden are reshaping the government to enhance national capacity, increase government power, and continuously shape the superiority of the American system and enhance competitiveness. On this basis, the United States continuously uses means such as "long-arm jurisdiction" to extend the jurisdiction of US law to non-US enterprises and individuals, continuously shaping the legal system through national capacity and government power, constructing jurisdiction over multinational corporations and individuals in globalization, and forming so-called "just acts" to maintain the free market.

脱离了英美中心主义的新古典自由主义与自由放任或自由市场并不完全等同，而是具有十分丰富的发挥政府干预作用的思想资源和现实实践。因而，自由放任或自由市场的失灵并不能证明古典新自由主义的终结，恰恰相反，从谱系上看，新自由主义在一定程度上是不受约束的自由市场的药方。因而，自由市场失灵并不意味着当下新自由主义的失败，相反，其正在拾起政府权力，通过政府干预再建自由市场。当下，法律干预主义仍是美国的利器。特朗普和拜登都在重塑政府，以期提高国家能力、增加政府权力、不断形塑美国制度的优越性、提升竞争力。在此基础上，美国通过不断使用“长臂管辖”等手段使美国法律的管辖权能够延伸到非美国的企业和个人，不断通过国家能力和政府权力塑造法律体系，建构对全球化中的跨国公司和个人的管辖权，形成所谓的维护自由市场的“正义行为”。

Third, whether "democracy" has failed or not is not the criterion for judging the end of neoliberalism, because the mutated neoliberalism is gradually combining with various political forms.

第三，“民主”失效与否不是判定新自由主义终结的标准，因为异变的新自由主义正逐渐与各类政治形态相结合。

As mentioned above, some argue that the rise of figures like Trump and the failure of democracy largely signify the failure of current neoliberalism. But in fact, a series of events like Trump's rise do not mean the end of neoliberalism. Historically, neoclassical liberalism could combine with various political forms; "democracy" is a tool for neoclassical liberalism to impose its hegemony. When democracy fails, "illiberal democracy" becomes a temporary substitute for the political hegemony of neoclassical liberalism.

如前文所述，有观点认为特朗普等人的上台以及民主的失效在很大程度上意味着当下新自由主义的失败。但是事实上，特朗普上台等一系列事件并不意味着新自由主义的终结。从历史上看，新古典自由主义就可以与各类政治形态相结合，“民主”是新古典自由主义推行自身霸权的工具，当民主失效后，“非自由的民主”就成为新古典自由主义政治霸权暂时的替代品。

Theoretically, whether democracy fails or not is also not the key to the survival of neoclassical liberalism. On the one hand, neoclassical liberalism inherently opposes the regulation of markets and the distribution of wealth; on the other hand, neoclassical liberalism needs to rely on government power and intervention to guarantee the global free flow of capital and corporate funds. Therefore, the main function of democracy is to maintain the political authority and hegemony of neoclassical liberalism and to whitewash the pluralistic values required by capital or financial globalization. This is especially reflected in the market's transformation of democracy: neoclassical liberalism, through competitive markets and the exercise of government power, has changed the function of democracy. Democracy, an institutional system originally capable of safeguarding the rights of the majority of the people and preventing them from being eroded during social change and development, has gradually transformed into a stage unrelated to the immediate economic interests of the majority of the people. Politicians become actors, no longer focusing on the economy, but on culture. People can clearly feel that a subversive transformation has occurred in the public and private spheres: elements long considered part of the public sphere, especially welfare and taxation, have gradually transformed into the market and the private sphere; elements long considered part of the private sphere have entered public life, especially those related to personal identity such as religion, ethnicity, gender, region, and lifestyle, becoming topics of constant debate in public settings. Therefore, when economic crises release inequality, the relationship between the market and democracy becomes imbalanced, and the democratic agenda gradually shifts to non-economic fields, economic inequality can easily erupt mixed with cultural issues.

从理论上看，民主失效与否也不是新古典自由主义存续的关键。一方面，新古典自由主义本就反对对市场的监管和对财富的分配；另一方面，新古典自由主义需要依靠政府权力和干预为资本和企业资金的全球自由流动提供保障。因而，民主的主要作用在于维系新古典自由主义的政治权威与霸权、粉饰资本或金融全球化所需的多元价值观。这尤其体现在市场对民主的改造之中：新古典自由主义通过竞争性市场和发挥政府权力改变了民主的功能，民主这一原本能够保障社会多数民众权利、防止其在社会变迁和发展中被侵蚀的制度体系，也就逐渐转变为与多数民众切身经济利益无关的舞台。政治家变成演员，已经不再关注经济，而关注文化。人们明显能够感受到，公共领域和私人领域发生了颠覆性转变：长期被视为公共领域的要素，尤其是福利和税收，逐步转变为市场和私人领域；长期被视为私人领域的要素，则进入公共生活，尤其是与个人身份相关的宗教、族裔、性别、地域、生活方式，开始成为公共场合不断论辩的议题。因而，当经济危机释放了不平等，市场与民主关系失衡，且民主议程逐渐转向非经济领域时，经济不平等就很容易夹杂着文化问题喷薄而出。

From a practical perspective, the mutated neoliberalism continues to weaken labor rights, impose strict limits on fiscal deficits, implement large-scale tax cuts for big capital, sacrifice local production for transnational supply chains, and privatize public sector assets at one-off prices. More importantly, after the failure of democracy, the mutated neoliberalism requires a new political pillar. Although people’s free movement is restricted by factors such as sharply increased income inequality and the outbreak of epidemics, capital can cross international borders with relative ease. In fact, global financial sovereignty and the corresponding sovereignty of enterprises in various countries still exist or are even strengthening.

从实践上看，异变的新自由主义仍在削弱劳工权利，对财政赤字施加严格限制，对大资本进行大规模减税，为跨国供应链牺牲本地生产，并以一次性价格将公共部门资产私有化，等等。更为重要的是，在民主失效后，异变的新自由主义需要一个新的政治支柱，尽管人民的自由流动受到收入不平等急剧增加、疫情暴发等因素的限制，但资本可以相对轻松地跨越国际边界。实际上，全球金融主权以及与之对应的各国企业主权仍然存在甚至在强化。

Around Trump’s election victory and during his administration, there was pervasive support from neoclassical liberal groups, such as David Koch in the United States, whose family’s fundamental ideology combined racism, nationalism, and the ideas of Hayek and others. Trump also received strong backing from the Tea Party [1]1 The Tea Party is a conservative political movement within the US Republican Party that emerged in 2009, advocating for lower taxes, reduced government spending, and a strict interpretation of the US Constitution.. His working-class and petty-bourgeois supporters were united through racism, nationalism, religious faith, and patriotism, forming a cross-class cultural alliance with the Tea Party. Similar situations exist in Nordic countries like Denmark and Norway, as well as in Western European countries such as the Netherlands, France, and Germany. In Central and Eastern Europe, neoclassical liberalism has also strangely combined with right-wing forces to continuously promote related economic policies. At the societal level, disaffected people increasingly hope for an anti-establishment charismatic leader who can express their demands in a way different from any political elite who came to power through the democratic system in the past. Consequently, at the political level, “inclusive authoritarianism” and illiberal democracy have emerged. Globally, right-wing leaders have almost all taken related actions. Currently, neoliberalism has actually evolved into an updated “conservatism + neoclassical liberalism.”

在特朗普胜选前后及其执政时期，就充斥着新古典自由主义团体的支撑，例如美国的大卫·科赫(David Koch),其家族的根本理念就是种族主义、民族主义并结合了哈耶克等人的理念。特朗普更是得到了茶党的鼎力支持，其工人阶级和小资产阶级支持者也通过种族主义、民族主义、宗教信仰和爱国主义凝聚在一起，与茶党形成了跨阶级的文化同盟。此外，北欧的丹麦和挪威，西欧的荷兰、法国、德国也存在类似情况。在中东欧，新古典自由主义也奇特地与右翼力量结合在一起，不断推行相关经济政策。在社会层面，失意民众更希冀有一个反建制派的克里斯玛型领袖，将其诉求以不同于过去任何通过民主制度上台的政治精英的方式表达出来。因而，在政治层面，“包容性威权主义”、非自由主义民主(illiberal democracy)出现了，在全球范围内，右翼领导人几乎都采取了相关行动。当下，新自由主义实际上演变为更新后的“保守主义+新古典自由主义”。

However, if right-wing leaders cannot alleviate social inequality, it may lead to electoral defeat, as Trump’s loss to Biden illustrates. Although these right-wing leaders may fail in the short term, as long as the successor government still adheres to neoliberal economic policies, they remain strong contenders for regaining power. In the absence of an effective alternative model, neoliberalism will continue to persist within the cycle of various value-based regimes.

但是，右翼领导人若无法缓解社会不平等，则可能会导致选举的失败，特朗普输给拜登正说明了这一点。这些右翼领导人尽管会在短期内失败，但只要继任政府仍坚持新自由主义经济政策，那么他们仍是重新掌权的有力竞争者，在没有有效替代模式的前提下，新自由主义仍会在各类价值形态政权的循环中存续。

III. It is a mutation, but even more so a return

三、是异变，更是复归

Based on the above, it is not difficult to see that the current neoliberalism encompasses many different ideas, making it difficult to clearly define through a single principle or a few elements. However, if we examine the development history of neoliberalism, especially the history of its policies since it officially entered the historical stage in the 1970s, we may be able to further clarify the origin of the current mutation of neoliberalism. In this regard, foreign theoretical circles mostly divide its development history into three or four stages, with the difference being whether Trump’s administration is considered a separate stage. Here, the analysis is mainly conducted from three historical periods.

基于上文不难看出，当下的新自由主义囊括了许多不同理念，很难通过单一原则和少数要素对其进行清晰界定。但是，如果考察新自由主义的发展历史，尤其是考察其自20世纪70年代正式登上历史舞台以来的政策发展历史，也许可以进一步看清新自由主义当下的异变从何而来。对此，国外理论界多将其发展历史划分为三或四个阶段，其不同点在于是否将特朗普执政视为一个单独的阶段。这里，主要从三个历史时期对其进行分析。

First, from the 1970s to 1985, mainly reflected in the neoclassical liberal propositions of Reagan and Thatcher.

第一，20世纪70年代到1985年，主要体现为里根和撒切尔的新古典自由主义主张。

During this period, neoclassical liberalism developed in practice, mainly reflected in the following aspects: At the economic level, it encompassed multiple concepts such as monetarist policies, liberalization, privatization, deregulation, small government, and new public management. It has been interpreted by many scholars as the extension of the interests of specific capital and classes globally, initiating a process of transforming state and government power, with multinational corporations becoming the biggest beneficiaries of globalization. At the socio-political level, both Reagan and Thatcher emphasized national traditions and patriotism. Thatcher particularly focused on the power of family, religion, community, and traditional morality, emphasizing the state and government’s role in educating and disciplining the people. Reagan insisted on “the American spirit,” “America First,” anti-communism, racism, and other propositions, waging trade wars with Japan and other countries, and exhausting the Soviet Union through the “Star Wars” program [2]2 The “Star Wars” program, officially the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), was a US missile defense system proposed by President Ronald Reagan in 1983, intended to protect the US from attack by strategic nuclear weapons.. In the earlier periods of the UK, US, and the entire Western world, liberalism was on the “left” of the political spectrum, while conservatism was on the “right.” The former, progressive liberalism, emphasized the role of government, state, and society in shaping material equality; the latter opposed the welfare state and government redistribution functions, advocating for enterprises to freely determine economic activities. From this period onwards, liberalism began to merge with conservatism, and neoclassical liberalism is the result of this fusion.

这一时期，新古典自由主义在实践上发展起来，主要体现在以下方面：在经济层面囊括了货币主义政策、自由化、私有化、放松管制、小政府、新公共管理等多重理念，它被不少学者解读为特定资本和阶级的利益向全球延伸，开启了转变国家和政府权力的发展进程，跨国企业开始成为全球化进程中最大的受益者。在社会政治层面，里根和撒切尔都强调本国传统和爱国主义，撒切尔特别注重家庭、宗教、社区与传统道德的力量，强调国家和政府对民众的教化和规训作用；里根更是坚持“美国精神”“美国优先”与反共产主义、种族主义等主张，与日本等国开展贸易战，通过“星球大战”计划拖垮苏联。在此前的英美乃至整个西方世界，自由主义处于政治光谱的“左”边，而保守主义则处于“右”边。前者即进步主义的自由主义，强调政府、国家和社会对塑造物质平等的作用；后者则反对福利国家和政府再分配等职能，主张企业自由决定经济活动。从这一时期起，自由主义开始和保守主义融合，新古典自由主义便是这种融合的结果。

By the time the Plaza Accord [3]3 The Plaza Accord was a 1985 agreement among the finance ministers of the US, Japan, West Germany, France, and the UK to depreciate the US dollar relative to the Japanese yen and the German mark. was signed in 1985, the radical and polarized liberalization measures of Thatcher and Reagan not only triggered domestic conflicts but also stimulated increasingly fierce competition in the world economy, releasing a large amount of antagonistic sentiment. Their attacks on measures protecting labor and society, along with their “capital-centered” ideology, faced growing opposition, forcing neoclassical liberalism to reform itself from within through new combinations of ideas and policies.

到1985年《广场协定》签订，撒切尔和里根激进、极化的自由化措施不仅引发了国内矛盾，更激发了世界经济日益激烈的竞争，释放了大量对立情绪。他们攻击保障劳工和保护社会的措施，及其“以资本为中心”的理念，遭到越来越多人的反对，新古典自由主义不得不以新的思想和政策组合从内部进行改造。

Second, from 1986 to 2006, mainly reflected in the “humanization” transformation of neoclassical liberalism.

第二，1986—2006年，主要体现为对新古典自由主义的“人道化”改造。

During this period, neoclassical liberalism underwent significant changes. The “Third Way” [4]4 The “Third Way” is a political and economic ideology that emerged in the 1990s, seeking a middle ground between traditional capitalism and socialism, associated with leaders like Bill Clinton and Tony Blair. represented by Clinton and Blair, and the “(Post-)Washington Consensus” [5]5 The Washington Consensus refers to a set of neoliberal economic policy prescriptions promoted by Washington-based institutions (IMF, World Bank, US Treasury) in the 1980s-90s, emphasizing fiscal discipline, privatization, and trade liberalization. The “Post-Washington Consensus” emerged later, acknowledging the need for stronger state institutions and social safety nets., gradually became the ideological propositions and policy paths leading world development over these 20 years. Its main idea was to make the market “humane,” gaining widespread recognition at the political and social levels. Markets and capital remained central to wealth creation and maintaining economic growth, but it was necessary to ensure the quality of government services and avoid market disorder. After the drastic changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, democratic socialism transformed into social democracy, emphasizing “progressive” politics rather than socialism, and emphasizing compromise with neoclassical liberalism. The “Third Way” was a repair of the contradictions of the first phase of neoliberalism. Formally, it emphasized rebalancing public and private interests, combining market-based modern government management with private capital, etc. Essentially, after losing the economic discourse power based on Keynesianism, it represented a compromise with neoclassical liberalism in the economic sphere and a shaping of neoclassical liberalism in the superstructure sphere. Unlike the first phase, in the superstructure sphere, although neoconservatism briefly gained the upper hand in military and foreign affairs in the United States, it quickly withdrew following the moral issues of the Iraq War. The “humanized” neoclassical liberalism increasingly identified with globalization, pluralism, and democratization, gradually forming the universal values of “liberal democracy.”

这一时期，新古典自由主义发生了重要变化，以克林顿和布莱尔为代表的“第三条道路”和“(后)华盛顿共识”,逐渐成为这20年引领世界发展的理念主张与政策道路。其主要理念是使市场“人性化”,使之在政治社会层面得到广泛认可。市场和资本仍是财富创造和维持经济增长的中心，但需要确保政府服务的质量，避免市场失序。苏东剧变后，民主社会主义转变为社会民主主义，更多强调“进步主义”政治而非社会主义，强调与新古典自由主义相妥协。“第三条道路”是对新自由主义第一阶段矛盾的修复，形式上强调重新平衡公共利益与私人利益，以市场为基础的现代政府管理与私人资本相结合等；本质上是在失去以凯恩斯主义为基础的经济话语权之后，在经济领域对新古典自由主义的妥协、在上层建筑领域对新古典自由主义的型塑。与第一阶段不同，在上层建筑领域，尽管在美国，新保守主义曾短暂在军事外交领域占据上风，但很快便随着伊拉克战争的道义问题而退出。“人性化”的新古典自由主义更加认同全球化、多元化、民主化，逐渐形成了“自由民主”的普世价值。

Third, from the outbreak of the US subprime mortgage crisis in 2007 to the present, mainly reflected in the polarized development trend of neoliberalism.

第三，2007年美国次贷危机爆发至今，主要体现为新自由主义的极化发展趋势。

This period is the mutation phase of neoliberalism, showing characteristics of returning to its first phase and repolarizing. The outbreak of the international financial crisis posed a major challenge to the “common sense” and “universal values” formed in the second phase of neoliberalism. In the context of globalization, individuals’ sense of insecurity in turbulent markets triggered widespread discontent, from economic chaos such as unemployment, wealth shrinkage, and the polarization between rich and poor to the rapid fermentation of social inequality issues, prompting people to reflect on the development of the past 20 years. However, in public discourse, the current neoliberalism is often equated with the “neoliberalism” of the second phase and taken as the object of reflection, but three points are overlooked: first, the pre-history of “neoliberalism” and its ideological origins; second, the “neoliberalism” of the first phase; third, that neoliberalism has developed into a new phase, possessing characteristics of the second phase while also being similar to the “neoliberalism” of the first phase.

这一时期是新自由主义的异变阶段，呈现出向其第一阶段复归并重新极化的特征。国际金融危机的爆发，对新自由主义第二阶段形成的“常识”和“普世价值”提出了重大挑战。在全球化背景下，个体在动荡市场中的不安全感引发了普遍不满，从失业、财富缩水与贫富分化等经济混乱到社会不平等问题的迅速发酵，要求人们反思过去20年间的发展。但在公共话语中，多将当下的新自由主义等同于第二阶段的“新自由主义”,并将其作为反思对象，但是忽略了三点：一是“新自由主义”的历史前史及其思想渊源；二是第一阶段的“新自由主义”;三是新自由主义已经发展到新阶段，既有第二阶段的特征，又与第一阶段的“新自由主义”具有相似性。

Based on the foregoing, it is not difficult to see that the current neoliberalism shares many of the same characteristics as its first stage, which is also the historical source of the current mutation of neoliberalism. Since 2008, neoliberalism has remained active in the economic sphere: the transformation of government power, further tax cuts for enterprises and the wealthy, further deregulation of finance, and further cuts to public services, among other things. At the social level, a series of sentiments such as patriotism, nationalism, and even racism, as well as a return to religious and historical traditions, bear the imprint of the 1970s and 1980s. At the political level, taking Trump’s election in 2016 as a boundary, before this, center-left parties adopted neoliberal economic policies to varying degrees, while center-right parties committed to “progressive” politics in exchange for center-left support for neoliberal economic policies; after this, center-right parties began to turn toward alliances with populism, nationalism, religious conservatism, and even racism, showing a tendency toward polarization. This is also similar to the era of Thatcher and Reagan, meaning that the political form through which neoliberal economic policies are peddled has changed. The current neoliberalism has become a “chameleon,” capable of appearing in the guise of “progressive” politics, returning to its original conservative shell, or allying with populism, among other things.

基于前述不难看出，当下的新自由主义与第一阶段有着诸多相同的特征，这也是当前新自由主义异变的历史来源。2008年以来，新自由主义仍活跃在经济领域：政府权力转变，进一步对企业和富人减税、更加放松对金融的管制、更多地削减公共服务等。在社会层面，一系列爱国主义、民族主义乃至种族主义情绪，一系列对宗教和历史传统的复归等都带有20世纪七八十年代的影子。在政治层面，以2016年特朗普上台为界限，之前，中左翼政党不同程度地采取了新自由主义经济政策，中右翼政党则致力于“进步主义”政治以换取中左翼政党对新自由主义经济政策的支持；之后，中右翼政党开始转向与民粹主义、民族主义、宗教保守主义甚至与种族主义结盟，出现了极化倾向，这也与撒切尔、里根时代类似，意味着兜售新自由主义经济政策的政治样态发生了变化。当下的新自由主义已经成为“变色龙”,既可以以“进步主义”政治的面貌出现，可以回归自身原初的保守主义躯壳，也可以与民粹主义等联盟。

Unlike the 1980s, the external pressure of liberalism has been largely lifted. After the decline of Keynesianism, new liberalism has found it difficult to exert a substantial influence on the economic sphere, and center-left forces have struggled to make breakthroughs in economic theory compared to “neoclassical liberalism.” Within European and American countries, after the neoliberalization of social democracy, it is now difficult for any center-left force to once again “humanize” neoliberalism. More importantly, unlike opposing Keynesianism and resolving the stagflation crisis, the current neoliberalism faces a mess it created itself. “Progressive” politics in the political and cultural sphere and neoclassical liberalism in the economic sphere have both become objects of opposition, but neoliberalism will not oppose itself in the economic sphere; instead, it largely uses the antagonistic sentiments released from the political and cultural sphere to cover up the fundamental problems in the economic sphere.

与20世纪80年代不同的是，自由主义的外部压力在很大程度上解除了。在凯恩斯主义消退后，新自由主义(new liberalism)较难对经济领域产生实质影响，中左翼在经济理论层面相较“新古典自由主义”难有突破。在欧美国家内部，在社会民主主义新自由主义化后，现阶段很难再有中左翼力量能够使新自由主义再次“人道化”。更为重要的是，与反对凯恩斯主义和解决滞胀危机不同，当下的新自由主义面对的是自己造成的烂摊子。政治文化领域的“进步主义”政治和经济领域的新古典自由主义一并成为应当反对的对象，但新自由主义不会在经济领域自己反对自己，更多地是通过政治文化领域释放出来的对立情绪掩盖经济领域的根本问题。

Therefore, in the foreseeable future, based on a philosophy of inequality, reshaping the free market through government power, and combining with various political forms, the social, ethnic, and inter-state antagonistic sentiments caused by the mutated neoliberalism will persist and may even amplify.

因而，在可见的未来，立足不平等哲学、通过政府权力重塑自由市场以及与各类政治形态相结合，异变的新自由主义造成的社会、族裔、国家间的对立情绪仍会持续存在，甚至会不断放大。

IV. Summary

四、小结

The current series of phenomena in the capitalist world, especially in developed capitalist countries, that run counter to the common sense and values of “liberal democracy” are not signs of neoliberalism’s decline or even termination, but rather manifestations of its development to a new stage. They are the product of the continuous recovery of neoclassical liberalism’s historical theoretical origins and its continuous fusion with neoliberalism. In essence, the rise of neoclassical liberalism on the historical stage was caused by the periodic economic crises resulting from the basic contradictions of capitalism, but it has not and cannot fundamentally resolve these basic contradictions; instead, it continuously shifts contradictions and undergoes mutation. The inequality and antagonistic sentiments induced by current neoliberalism are expressed and amplified in various forms. Based on the foregoing, a summary can be made from the following four aspects.

当前资本主义世界尤其是发达资本主义国家出现的一系列有悖于“自由民主”常识和价值观的现象，并非是新自由主义走向衰退乃至终结的标志，而是当下发展到新阶段的表现，是新古典自由主义不断找回历史理论渊源、与新自由主义不断融合后的产物。从本质上看，新古典自由主义(new liberalism)登上历史舞台，是由资本主义基本矛盾导致的周期性经济危机造成的，但其并没有也不可能从根本上解决资本主义的基本矛盾，而是不断转移矛盾、发生异变。当下新自由主义引致的不平等和对立情绪以各种形式表现、放大出来。基于前述，可以从以下四方面进行总结。

At the political level, a bizarre combination of “negative liberty” and “positive liberty” has formed. After absorbing the ideas of new liberalism, the political representatives of neoclassical liberalism can instead “hijack” new liberalism, using the “theory of equality” to confuse the masses who have lost material interests in processes such as globalization and industrial restructuring. Thus, we can see actions that pursue equality in extreme ways under the banners of “protecting society” and “safeguarding national and ethnic interests.”

在政治层面，形成了“消极自由”与“积极自由”的怪异结合，在吸收新自由主义(new liberalism)的理念后，新古典自由主义的政治代言人反而能“劫持”新自由主义(new liberalism),以“平等论”迷惑在全球化、产业结构调整等进程中失去物质利益的民众。因而也就能看到打着“保护社会”“维护国家民族利益”等旗号，以极端方式追求平等的行为。

At the economic level, under the premise of the failure of liberalism’s internal regulatory mechanisms, the economic policies of neoclassical liberalism will persist for a long period. Although there are attempts to “bury” neoclassical liberalism, countries like the United States are still trying to solve problems with old methods, continuously strengthening the role of government as a rational agent for markets and enterprises, further cutting taxes for enterprises and the wealthy, deregulating finance, and cutting public services. On the other hand, so-called stimulus plans to increase government public spending will face neoclassical liberal attacks triggered by deficits, debt, overheating, and inflation. Therefore, some foreign scholars suggest that although actual policies and institutional operating mechanisms do not align with it, the influence of neoclassical liberalism persists: it has rich historical and theoretical origins, economic policies still revolve around it, and the United States will maintain its rentier state characteristics and rely on the globalized financial sector.

经济层面，在自由主义内部调节机制失灵的前提下，新古典自由主义的经济政策仍将在很长一段时期内存在。尽管试图“埋葬”新古典自由主义，但当前美国等国家仍在试图用老办法解决问题，不断强化政府作为市场和企业理性代理人的角色，进一步对企业和富人减税、放松对金融的管制、削减公共服务等。另一方面，所谓增加政府公共开支等刺激计划又将面对赤字、债务、过热和通胀等诱发的新古典自由主义式攻击。因而一些国外学者提出，尽管实际政策与机构运作机理与之不符，但新古典自由主义的影响依然存在：它具有丰富的历史理论渊源，经济政策还在围绕其展开，美国仍将维系食利者国家特征、仰仗全球化的金融部门等。

At the cultural level, neoclassical liberalism has always been closely linked to theories and social sentiments such as patriotism and populism. The current neoliberalism is even more so. Against the backdrop of widening interest gaps and continuous release of emotional conflicts among different identity groups, patriotism, populism, nationalism, and even racism have become means for neoliberalism to seek vitality, thereby maintaining cultural leadership and covering up essential issues like economic inequality.

在文化层面，新古典自由主义本就与爱国主义、民粹主义等理论和社会情绪具有密切联系。当下的新自由主义更是如此，在利益鸿沟扩大和不同身份群体情绪冲突不断释放的背景下，爱国主义、民粹主义、民族主义甚至种族主义已然成为新自由主义寻求生机进而保持文化领导权和掩盖经济不平等等各种本质问题的手段。

At the international level, the current neoliberalism is recovering many characteristics of its first stage of development, manifested as increasing government power, strengthening government force, and enhancing government capacity. To safeguard national interests, especially the interests of big capital, it does not hesitate to provoke various conflicts and competitions, such as trade wars and technology wars. In particular, the United States uses means like “long-arm jurisdiction” to strive for legal actions that maintain the free market, the essence of which is to continuously use government power and legal intervention to sustain its own interests.

在国际层面，当下的新自由主义正在寻回自身发展第一阶段的诸多特征，表现为增加政府权力、强化政府力量、提高政府能力，为维护本国利益尤其是大资本利益不惜挑起各类冲突、竞争，如贸易战、科技战等。尤其是美国用“长臂管辖”等手段，争取维护自由市场的法律行为，其实质就是不断运用政府权力和法律干预等手段维系自身利益。

Looking further, understanding the current neoliberalism should also be summarized from the perspective of cyclical movements. Within the cyclical movements of the entire capitalist system, neoliberalism itself has its own cyclical movements, continuously developing itself through combinations with conservatism and progressivism.

更进一步看，理解当下的新自由主义，还应从周期性运动出发进行总结。在整个资本主义的周期性运动中，新自由主义也存在自身的周期性运动，不断在与保守主义和进步主义的结合中发展自身。

From the historical development of the three stages, it is not difficult to see that neoliberalism always seems to find new living space in crises and exhibits distinct stage-specific characteristics. During the “recovery–boom” period of capitalism, the basic contradictions of capitalism shrink, productive forces rise, relatively more wealth is created, the role of the market is prominent, and the public’s demand for changing relations of production and social relations decreases. A series of values and universal values characterized by progressivism are thus expressed. During the “crisis–depression” period of capitalism, the basic contradictions of capitalism amplify, productive forces decline, wealth shrinks, social demands for protection rise, and the demand for changing relations of production and social relations increases. A series of values characterized by conservatism and social antagonistic sentiments are thus amplified.

从三个阶段的历史发展不难看到，新自由主义似乎总能在危机中找到新的生存空间，并呈现明显的阶段性特征。在资本主义处于“复苏—高涨”期，资本主义的基本矛盾会缩小，生产力上升，财富创造相对较多，市场作用凸显，民众对改变生产关系和社会关系的要求降低，一系列以进步主义为表征的价值观和普世价值也就表现出来；在资本主义处于“危机—萧条”期，资本主义的基本矛盾会放大，生产力下降，财富缩水，社会要求保护的呼声高涨，对改变生产关系和社会关系的要求提高，一系列以保守主义为表征的价值观和社会对立情绪就会不断放大。

From a longer historical cycle, under the premise that various social protection systems in Western developed capitalist countries are gradually being dismantled, neoliberal economic policies continue to be implemented, and liberalism’s internal self-regulatory mechanisms have failed, the social demand for self-protection will not decrease. However, because democracy is in decline and failure, and the forces of socialism and communism are still at a low ebb, the public’s demand for changing the status quo of inequality is mostly expressed in the form of polarizing ideologies such as populism, nationalism, and even racism. Therefore, in the face of current various crises, neoliberalism represented by the United States has also entered a development stage characterized by new, polarizing forms of conservatism. It cannot be simply considered that it has reached its termination.

从更长的历史周期上看，当前，西方发达资本主义国家在诸种社会保护制度逐渐被拆毁、新自由主义经济政策仍在继续推行、自由主义内部自我调节机制失灵的前提下，社会要求自我保护的呼声不会降低。但人们要求改变不平等现状的呼声则因为民主衰退、失效以及社会主义、共产主义力量仍处于低潮，而多以民粹主义、民族主义乃至种族主义等极化思潮的形式表现出来。因此，面对当前种种危机，以美国为代表的新自由主义也进入了以新的、极化的保守主义形式为特征的发展阶段，不能简单认为它已走向终结。

Therefore, based on a realistic and historical perspective, a basic conclusion can be drawn: the current neoliberalism cannot be simply equated with neoclassical liberalism or confused with neoliberalism; rather, it is more the product of the fusion of these two. This fusion has also led to the loss of the ability of “positive liberty” to constrain, regulate, and replace “negative liberty” in the economic sphere, while “negative liberty” is able to use the concept of “positive liberty” to sustain its own survival. From this perspective, it can be argued that neoliberalism has not come to an end and is unlikely to do so easily. Formally, only when “positive liberty” creates an effective economic theory and gains discursive power and dominance in the economic sphere will neoliberalism undergo a fundamental change; essentially, as long as capitalism and liberalism have not come to an end, neoliberalism will not end. Only by fundamentally identifying, proposing, and advancing a path and concept capable of replacing capitalism and liberalism can neoliberalism be fundamentally terminated. At present, what we should do is persist in criticizing the polarizing and conservative trends of neoliberalism, expose its essence, and, in response to the cyclical changes of capitalism and neoliberalism, continuously elaborate on the socialist path and concept capable of replacing capitalism and liberalism, thereby continuously contributing to the development of human society.

因而，基于现实和历史视角可以得出基本结论：当下的新自由主义不能简单等同于新古典自由主义或与新自由主义相混淆，更多是这两者互相融合的产物。融合也导致“积极自由”失去了在经济领域约束、调节、替代“消极自由”的能力，“消极自由”也能够利用“积极自由”的理念维系自我生存。从这一视角出发可以认为，新自由主义并未走向终结也很难走向终结，从形式上看，当“积极自由”创造出有效经济理论并在经济领域占据话语权和主导权时，新自由主义才会发生基本变化；从本质上看，在资本主义、自由主义没有走向终结的前提下，新自由主义并不会终结。唯有从根本上找出、提出、走出能够替代资本主义、自由主义的道路和理念，新自由主义才能在根本上被终结。当前，我们应该做的就是坚持批判新自由主义的极化、保守化趋势，揭露其本质，并针对资本主义和新自由主义的周期性变化，不断阐释能够替代资本主义、自由主义的社会主义道路和理念，不断为人类社会发展作贡献。

(Fund: Phased results of the 2017 National Social Science Fund Major Project “Research on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics under the Broad Vision, Grand Structure, and Major Trends of World Socialist Development” (Project No. 17ZDA004))

（基金：2017年度国家社会科学基金重大项目“世界社会主义发展大视野大格局大趋势下的中国特色社会主义研究”（项目编号：17ZDA004）的阶段性成果）

(Author’s brief biography: Lai Qingli, Associate Researcher at the Institute of Chinese Marxism, Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences; Deputy Director of the Editorial Department of *Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping Theoretical Research*; Council Member of the Shanghai Society of Scientific Socialism)

（作者简介：来庆立，上海社会科学院中国马克思主义研究所副研究员、《毛泽东邓小平理论研究》编辑部副主任、上海市科学社会主义学会理事）

Online Editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心