Nine Theses on Socialism in the 21st Century

In his book *How to be an Anti-capitalist in the 21st Century*, Erik Olin Wright does not pose the question, "What might a socialist society look like?" He argues that as popular forces penetrate the rule of the capitalist class, capitalism and socialism may coexist for a period of time. Nevertheless, we can say with certainty that Wright has, in his work, sketched a sufficiently clear vision of a future socialist society. If Wright were still alive, he might not agree with some of what I am about to discuss, but I believe my theses are guided by his theoretical views on capitalism and socialism.

在《如何在21世纪做一个反资本主义者》（How to be an Anti-capitalist in the 21st Century）一书中，埃里克·欧林·赖特（Erik Olin Wright）并没有提出“社会主义社会可能会是什么样的社会”这一问题。他认为，随着民众的力量渗入资本家阶级的统治，资本主义与社会主义有可能会共存一段时间。然而，我们可以肯定地说，赖特在其著作中已经足够清晰地描绘了未来社会主义社会的愿景。如果赖特仍然健在的话，他或许不会同意我接下来要谈到的一些内容，但我认为我的论题是以他对资本主义和社会主义的理论观点为指导的。

Wright's conception of eroding capitalist power holds that a broad and powerful political alliance will accomplish the real task of eroding capitalism in the following ways: taming capitalism through stricter regulation, escaping capitalism by creating alternative organizations (such as employee cooperatives), resisting capitalism through struggles in workplaces and communities, and dismantling capitalism by forcefully pushing through major structural reforms.

赖特关于对资本主义权力进行侵蚀的构想认为，一个广泛而强大的政治联盟将会采取以下方式完成侵蚀资本主义（eroding capitalism）的现实任务：通过更严格的监管来驯服资本主义，通过创建替代组织（如雇员合作社）来摆脱资本主义，通过厂区和社区的斗争来抵制资本主义，通过强行推动重大的结构性改革来瓦解资本主义，等等。

Wright was acutely aware that over the past 40 years, the left in the United States and globally has suffered serious defeats. He acknowledges: the distribution of income and wealth has become increasingly unequal; the global climate crisis has become more severe; far-right forces openly support racism and misogyny; and in an era where the political spending of billionaires has reached disgusting levels and potential authoritarians are on the rise, defending democratic institutions and practices has also become increasingly difficult.

赖特敏锐地意识到，在过去的40年里，美国和全球的左翼都遭遇到严重的失败。他承认：收入和财富的分配变得越来越不平等；全球气候危机变得越来越严重；极右翼势力公开支持种族主义和女性歧视；在这个亿万富翁的政治支出达到令人厌恶的程度和潜在的威权主义者崛起的时代，捍卫民主制度和实践也变得越来越艰难。

At the same time, Wright also saw that these pathological symptoms are giving rise to more powerful protest movements. These movements have the potential to integrate a broader range of people, resisting the worsening climate crisis, resisting authoritarianism, and resisting an economic system where profits are monopolized by a small group of wealthy individuals. Wright was inspired by movements such as Occupy Wall Street, the 2011 Egyptian Revolution, and similar large-scale protests elsewhere, as well as by the immense power contained in Bernie Sanders' 2016 presidential campaign. In short, he believed it was possible to develop broader, more organized, and more enduring popular movements to challenge the rule of capitalism.

与此同时，赖特也看到了这些病态症候正在引发更强大的抗议运动。这些运动具备了整合更广泛的民众的潜能，他们反抗日益严重的气候危机，反抗专制，反抗被一小群富人垄断利润的经济体系。赖特受到了诸如占领华尔街运动、2011年埃及革命以及其他地方类似的大规模抗议活动的鼓舞，也受到了2016年伯尼·桑德斯在总统竞选活动中所蕴含的巨大力量的鼓舞。总而言之，他相信有可能开展更广泛、更有组织、更持久的民众运动，以挑战资本主义的统治。

However, he also acknowledged that such movements must find a way to bridge the historical tension between two types of political actors. On one side are pragmatic reformers, whose motivation is primarily the hope of solving several pressing problems, such as the climate crisis and the systemic exclusion and marginalization of certain important groups. On the other side are the inheritors of the revolutionary tradition, who believe that unless the existing order is fundamentally transformed, doing anything else constitutes an unacceptable compromise with a morally illegitimate system.

但是，他也承认，此类运动必须找到一种方式，以弥合两类政治角色之间的历史性紧张关系。在这两类角色中，一方是务实的改革者，他们的动力主要是希望解决若干迫在眉睫的问题，比如气候危机以及针对部分重要群体的系统性排斥和边缘化。另一方是革命传统的继承者，他们认为，除非对现有秩序进行彻底变革，否则做任何事情都是同道德上不合法的制度进行不可接受的妥协。

Historically, when the left has been able to build loose alliances between these two distinct political factions, it has already had the upper hand. Without such alliances, the left continuously loses ground and cedes it to the right. I believe Wright's intention in his "Real Utopias Project" was to elaborate a future vision acceptable to both groups. On the one hand, he tells pragmatic reformers that reforms which cannot erode the power of capitalism will eventually be co-opted and reversed, just like many reforms of Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal. On the other hand, he tells supporters of radical change to take the long view and be patient, because the existing order cannot magically transform overnight, but with sufficient effort and patience, it is possible to build a completely different new society over time.

从历史上看，当左翼能够在这两种截然不同的政治派别之间建立松散的联盟时，就已经胜券在握了。倘若没有这样的联盟，左翼就会不断地失去自己的阵地，并将其拱手让给右翼。我认为，赖特在其“真实的乌托邦计划”（Real Utopias Project）中的意图是要详细阐述一个上述两个群体都可以接受的未来愿景。一方面，他告诉务实的改革者，那些无法侵蚀资本主义力量的改革终将被反噬和逆转，就像富兰克林·罗斯福新政中的许多改革一样。另一方面，他告诉激进变革的支持者，要着眼长远，从长计议，因为现有秩序不可能在一夜之间发生神奇的转变，但只要有足够的努力和耐心，那么随着时间的推移，就有可能建立一个完全不同的新社会。

In a sense, Wright is answering the question posed by Ira Katznelson in one of his articles: "Is liberal socialism possible?" Wright's answer is yes. He believes it is possible to construct a liberal socialist order that, while protecting individual freedom, can also deepen democratic self-governance. However, to give an affirmative answer, Wright had to reimagine socialism in a way that is not typically considered socialist within the Marxist tradition.

从某种意义上说，赖特是在回答艾拉·卡茨尼尔森（Ira Katznelson）在他的一篇文章中提出的问题：“自由社会主义是可能的吗？”赖特的答案是肯定的。他相信有可能构建一种自由的社会主义秩序，在保护个人自由的同时，也能够深化民主自治。但是，为了给出肯定的答案，赖特不得不在马克思主义传统中以一种通常被视为社会主义的方式来重新想象社会主义。

This is the implicit part of Wright's argument, and I will attempt to make it explicit by elaborating nine theses from his work. My aim is not to describe socialism as some ideal endpoint of history, but rather to articulate socialism as a set of procedures and institutional arrangements that open a path towards creating a society fundamentally more democratic, more just, and more sustainable than the existing order. I hope both pragmatic reformers and radical revolutionaries can see the value inherent in these conceptions.

这是赖特的主张中隐而不彰的一部分，我将尝试通过阐述其著作中的九个论题来明确这部分内容。我的目的不是将社会主义描述为历史的某种理想的终点，而是想将社会主义阐发为一套程序和制度化安排，为从根本上创造一个比现有秩序更民主、更公正、更可持续的社会开辟道路。我希望务实的改革者和激进的革命者都能看到这些构想中蕴含的价值。

Like Wright's work, much of the discussion below is rooted in the politics of the United States and Western Europe, but I hope it can be linked to plans for social transformation in other parts of the world. Ultimately, socialist construction must be a global project. The assumption here is that the process of socialist transformation is uneven; some countries or regions will take the lead, while others will lag behind. The leading countries or regions have a responsibility to challenge the global structures designed to reconstitute the power of the capitalist class. In doing so, they will open up more space for successful struggles elsewhere.

与赖特的著作一样，下文所讨论的大部分内容都植根于美国和西欧的政治，但我希望这些讨论能够与世界其他地区的社会转型计划关联起来。总而言之，社会主义建设必须是一项全球性工程。此处的假设是：社会主义变革的过程是不均衡的，一些国家或地区将处于领先地位，而另一些国家或地区则相对滞后。领先的国家或地区有责任挑战旨在再造资本家阶级权力的全球结构。届时，它们将会为其他地区的成功斗争开辟更为广阔的空间。

Essentially, describing socialism through nine theses is arbitrary, as there could also be eleven or fifteen theses. The first four theses are basic design principles, aimed at distinguishing the vision of 21st-century socialism from the ways socialist concepts have been constructed within the Marxist tradition. The next four theses are dedicated to describing how a more socialist economic system might operate. The final thesis points out that the demand for a global Green New Deal is a path through which socialists can and should intervene in current politics.

从本质上说，以九大论题来描述社会主义是武断的，因为社会主义还可能有11个或15个论题。前四个论题属于基本的设计原则，旨在区分21世纪社会主义的愿景与马克思主义传统中构建社会主义概念的方式。接下来的四个论题致力于描述一个更具社会主义性质的经济体系将如何运行。最后一个论题指出，人们对全球绿色新政的需求是社会主义者能够且应当介入当前政治的一条路径。

I. If socialism can be realized, it will be a truly good society

一、如果社会主义能够实现，它将是一个真实的美好社会

Wright's approach to constructing the "Real Utopias Project" has always been a double-edged sword. On the one hand, he responded to the hegemony of market fundamentalism, whose notorious claim is that "there is no alternative" (TINA) to free-market capitalism. Wright sought to demonstrate that, in fact, many alternatives exist, some of which have already become real institutions or practices in contemporary society. The alternatives he admired include participatory budgeting, Wikipedia, and public libraries.

赖特构建“真实的乌托邦计划”的方案一直都是一把双刃剑。一方面，他对市场原教旨主义的霸权做出了回应，后者臭名昭著的主张是：除了自由市场资本主义之外“别无选择”（there is no alternative，TINA）。赖特则试图阐明，事实上存在着许多可替代的方案，其中一些方案已经成为当代社会中的现实制度或实践。他所赞赏的方案包括参与式预算、维基百科和公共图书馆。

On the other hand, however, Wright also criticized the unrealistic utopias of some leftists. These leftists imagine that overthrowing the capitalist system will quickly bring about a society without any form of oppression or coercion. Although Wright believed human nature is malleable, he was highly skeptical that a "new socialist person" would shed selfishness, in-group preferences, or the impulse to coerce others overnight. Instead, he argued that racism, sexism, and other forms of domination would persist and require continuous efforts to challenge these unjust hierarchies. Furthermore, he believed that the democratization of society would not make those who use power to oppress others disappear. Rather, expanding the scope of democracy is more conducive to containing and controlling such people.

然而，另一方面，赖特也抨击了部分左翼人士的不真实的乌托邦。这些左翼人士设想，推翻资本主义制度将会很快带来一个没有任何形式的压迫与强制的社会。尽管赖特认为人性具有可塑性，但他高度怀疑社会主义新人会在一夜之间摒弃利己主义、内群体偏好（in-group preferences）或强迫他人的冲动。相反，他认为种族主义、性别歧视和其他类型的统治形式仍将继续存在，需要采取持续不断的举措去挑战这些不合理的等级制度。此外，他认为社会的民主化并不会使那些以权压人者销声匿迹。更确切地说，扩大民主的范围更有利于遏制和控制这类人。

In sum, the arrival of socialism is not the end of history. Rather, it is a moment when human beings can acquire greater capacities, thereby being able to use collective power to shape society. Yet this offers no guarantee that new forms of domination will not emerge. Private ownership of property is only one of many foundations for building an unjust society; even if private property is completely abolished, we must still remain vigilant against new forms of domination and oppression. Robust democratic institutions and the public’s firm belief in democratic norms are the best mechanisms for maintaining effective vigilance.

总之，社会主义的到来并非历史的终结。毋宁说，这是一个让人类可以获得更大能力的时刻，从而可以运用集体的力量来塑造社会。但是，这并不能保证不会出现新的支配形式。财产私有制只是建立一个不公正社会的众多基础之一，即使私有财产被彻底消灭，我们也仍然需要继续保持警惕，以防出现新的支配和压迫。强大的民主制度以及公众对民主规范的坚定信念，是保持有效警惕的最佳机制。

The transition to socialism is not only a lengthy process in most regions but will inevitably unfold unevenly across the world, just as the global expansion of democracy has done. Nevertheless, by changing the rules and institutions of global economic governance, the pace of global transformation can be accelerated. When multiple countries move toward socialism at the national level, these countries will drive global change. Existing rules and institutions have consistently worked to strengthen capitalist domination, obstructing any reforms that would tilt the balance of power away from the propertied classes by supporting austerity policies and facilitating capital flight. However, strategic reforms at the global level can strengthen the forces of socialism and make capital flight incapable of serving as a tool to undermine the socialist process. Such a shift at the global level will certainly occur gradually, but as socialist forces grow stronger, global change will make it easier to build powerful socialist movements in those regions that have lagged behind.

向社会主义过渡不仅在大多数地区是一个漫长的过程，而且必然会不均衡地在世界各地上演，正如民主制度在全球的扩展一样。然而，通过改变全球经济治理的规则和制度，可以加快全球转型的速度。当多国在国家层面上向社会主义迈进时，这些国家将会推动全球变革。现有的规则与制度一直致力于加强资本主义统治，通过支持紧缩政策与方便资本外逃来阻碍任何会使权力天平偏离有产者的改革。但是，全球层面的战略改革可以增强社会主义运动的力量，并使资本外逃无法成为破坏社会主义进程的工具。全球层面的这种转变固然会逐步发生，但是随着社会主义力量的增强，全球变革将更容易在那些原本滞后的地区构建强大的社会主义运动。

Finally, the purpose of this article is not to describe an ideal socialist society, but rather to elucidate the basic principles that underpin a program of social transformation. Our assumption is that designing the political and economic institutions for a mature socialist society will require decades of experimentation and research. These theses should be understood in the following way: they resemble a designer’s preliminary sketches, not a detailed blueprint that can be handed over to construction workers.

最后，本文的目的并非描述一个理想的社会主义社会，而是阐释作为社会转型方案之基础的基本原则。我们的假设是，为一个成熟的社会主义社会设计政治和经济制度需要数十年的试验和研究。这些论题应该这样来理解：它们类似于设计师的初步草图，而不是能够交付给建筑工人的详细蓝图。

II. Socialism Will Have Multiple Forms of Ownership

二、社会主义将拥有多种形式的所有制

Historically, our understanding of socialism has often been monolithic, namely, the abolition of private property and its replacement with some form of collective ownership of the means of production. In some socialist countries, ownership has been vested in the state; in others, ownership has been vested in the workers. But the common idea in both cases is that there will be one dominant form of ownership for the important assets on which the whole society depends. This conception of a single form of ownership arose from the need to counter capitalist irrationality. In capitalist society, market actors overestimate the potential demand for their products and then swing to the opposite extreme; thus, the dispersion of ownership generates business cycles of boom and bust. Consequently, it was recognized that, in order to advance a plan capable of balancing production and consumption, the form of ownership of the means of production had to be singular.

历史上，我们对社会主义的理解往往是单一的，即消灭私有制，以某种集体所有制的生产方式取而代之。在一些社会主义国家，所有权归国家所有；而在另一些社会主义国家，所有权则归工人所有。但是，这两者的共同理念在于，对于全社会所依赖的重要资产，将有一种占主导地位的所有制形式。这种单一所有制的构想产生于对抗资本主义非理性的需要。在资本主义社会，市场行为体过高地估计了人们对其产品的潜在需求，随之走向另一个极端，因此，所有权的分散造就了繁荣与萧条交替出现的经济周期。于是，人们认识到，为了推进一种能够平衡生产与消费的计划，生产资料所有制的形式必须是单一的。

The problem is that a single form of ownership arrangement tends to lead to a concentration of power, and concentrated power is difficult to place under democratic control. When the state controls the means of production, the concentration of power is obvious: enormous power is concentrated in the hands of top-level economic planners. However, even in a highly decentralized system where employees own and control all important enterprises, the administrative bodies responsible for allocating investment capital to these enterprises are likely to experience a concentration of power. When these bodies choose to refuse funding to a particular worker-owned enterprise, that choice could very well put the enterprise out of business.

问题在于，单一的所有制安排往往会导致权力的集中，而集中的权力很难被置于民主的控制之下。当国家掌管生产资料时，权力的集中显而易见，巨大的权力会集中在顶层的经济计划者手中。然而，即使是在一个由雇员拥有并控制所有重要企业的高度分权体制中，那些负责向这些企业分配投资资本的行政机构也很可能会出现权力集中。当这些机构选择拒绝向某家劳动者拥有的企业提供资金时，这一选择很可能会将该企业置于死地。

Adopting multiple forms of ownership helps prevent the concentration of power and can also avoid the cyclical pattern of boom and bust. First, many of the “irrational expansions” that create economic booms are triggered by speculative behavior in financial markets; such speculation can be curbed by replacing for-profit financial institutions with non-profit ones and by implementing tax systems that reduce speculative profits. Second, governments possess numerous powerful means to dampen economic fluctuations by raising or lowering their own spending and by increasing or decreasing the supply of credit to households and different types of enterprises. Because these measures are applied at the macro level, they are more easily subjected to democratic control.

采取多种形式的所有制则有助于防止权力集中，并且可以避免繁荣与萧条的周期性循环。首先，创造经济繁荣的许多“非理性扩张”都是由金融市场的投机行为所引发的，通过以非营利性金融机构取代营利性金融机构，以及实施减少投机利润的税收制度，就可能抑制这种投机行为。其次，政府拥有大量强有力的手段，可以通过提高或降低自己的支出，以及增加或减少对家庭和不同类型企业的信贷供给，来抑制经济波动。由于这些手段会在宏观层面上使用，因而更容易受到民主控制。

When we break free from the conception of a single form of ownership, we can envision various types of ownership coexisting within the same socialist economic system. This could be a mixed economy, including state-owned enterprises, worker-owned enterprises, non-profit enterprises, small private enterprises, and large joint-stock companies with representatives of employees, local communities, and shareholders. A long-term experiment can be conducted to observe which type of enterprise performs best in different sectors of the economy. When we can demonstrate that a particular type of enterprise has a significant advantage in providing specific goods or services, the law can be amended to support that type of enterprise in that specific area.

当我们从单一的所有制构想中跳脱出来时，就可以设想各种类型的所有权共存于同一个社会主义经济体系之中。这可能是一种混合经济体，包括国有企业、劳动者所有企业、非营利性企业、小型私营企业，以及拥有雇员、当地社区和股东代表的大型股份公司。我们可以进行一项长期试验，以便观察在不同的经济环节中哪种类型的公司运行得最好。当我们能够证明某一特定类型的公司在提供特定商品或服务方面具有巨大的优势时，就可以修改法律，以便能够支持特定领域中的这类公司。

However, all these enterprises will be subject to regulations that limit various destructive behaviors, including mistreatment of workers, price-fixing, bribery, environmental damage, and consumer fraud. For for-profit enterprises, whether large or small, the relevant restrictions will be extremely stringent. Laws and regulations will mandatorily restructure for-profit enterprises that engage in illegal operations or go bankrupt, requiring them to operate under a different form of ownership.

然而，所有这些公司都将受制于限制各种破坏性行为的规章制度，这些行为包括虐待劳动者、操纵价格、贿赂、破坏环境和欺骗消费者等。对于营利性公司，无论大小，相关限制都将是极其严格的。法律法规会强制性地对存在违法操作或破产的营利公司进行重组，以不同的所有制形式开展运营。

Across all these different organizational forms, public policy will support workplace democratization, the upgrading of employee skills, and the reduction of full-time working hours. For jobs that cannot be upgraded through technology and the reorganization of tasks (for example, certain types of agricultural labor or cleaning work), employees will receive additional compensation or be paid a full-time wage for shorter hours.

在所有这些不同的组织形式中，公共政策将为工作场所民主化、提高雇员技能、减少全职工作劳动时间提供支持。对于无法通过技术和调整职责分工进行工作升级的情况（例如某些类型的农业劳动或清洁工作），雇员将获得额外报酬或以更短的工时获得全职报酬。

Logically, socialism with multiple forms of ownership aligns with Wright’s conception of eroding capitalism. For-profit enterprises will continue to exist, but they will gradually change their single-minded pursuit of profit maximization. On the one hand, when corporate boards are expanded to include representatives of employees and community members, companies will adopt longer investment horizons and strive to avoid generating negative externalities for society. On the other hand, more effective regulation will require companies to pay greater attention to issues such as employee welfare and environmental sustainability.

从逻辑上看，拥有多种所有制形式的社会主义符合赖特关于侵蚀资本主义的观点。营利性公司将继续存在，但是它们将逐渐改变一味追求利益最大化的情况。一方面，当董事会代表扩容到包括雇员和社区成员时，公司将会制定更长的投资期限，并且努力避免对社会产生外部性（externalities）影响。另一方面，更有效的规制将要求公司更加关注员工的福利和环境的可持续发展等问题。

At the same time, because many products and services will be provided by worker cooperatives, non-profit organizations, and public institutions, for-profit enterprises will lose their dominant position in the economic system. As the normal working week and working year gradually shorten, the scope of voluntary labor will also expand, allowing some care work to return to the family and community. Although no assumption is made about who will perform this work, it still falls on women, or families must cope on their own.

与此同时，由于很多产品和服务都将由员工合作社、非营利组织以及公共机构提供，因此营利性公司也将会失去其在经济体系中的统治地位。随着正常的工作周和工作年的逐渐减少，志愿劳动的范围也将扩大，以便让部分照料护理工作回归家庭和社区，尽管并没有设想这些工作由谁来承担，但它们还是落在了女性身上，或者必须由家庭自行应付。

III. Socialism Will Have Multiple Forms of Participatory Institutions

三、社会主义将拥有多种形式的参与性机构

According to Wright’s conception, a socialist society will strive to realize the promise of liberal democracy — a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. This means that some institutions of parliamentary democracy can be retained, including competitive elections, one person one vote, the separation of powers, and a constitutional court or supreme court to adjudicate disputes. However, as a way to make parliament function more effectively, participatory democratic institutions will also be greatly expanded. This participatory system will operate in numerous workplaces, local communities, subnational levels, and even within state administrative bodies.

根据赖特的设想，社会主义社会将致力于实现自由民主的承诺——一个民有、民治、民享的政府。这意味着可以保留一些议会民主制度，包括竞争性选举、一人一票、政府分权以及裁决争端的宪法法院或最高法院。然而，作为推动议会更加有效运行的一种方式，参与性民主机构也将大大扩展。这种参与性体系将会在众多工作场所、地方社区、次国家层面、甚至国家管理机构中运行。

But first, major changes are needed to overcome the common defects of liberal democracy. Most crucially, a new set of regulations must be introduced that can strictly limit the role of money in elections at all levels of government. One possible mechanism that can both promote competition in elections and limit the influence of large donations is a voucher scheme, which provides all citizens with election vouchers; candidates can use these vouchers to run their campaigns and gain free access to mass media.

但是，首先需要进行重大变革，以克服自由民主制的常见缺陷。最关键的是，要推出一套新法规，能够严格限制金钱在各级政府选举中的作用。既能促进选举领域竞争、又能限制大额捐款对选举的影响的一种可能机制是代金券计划，该计划向所有公民提供选举代金券，候选人可以使用这些代金券开展竞选活动，并获得免费使用大众媒体的资格。

Similarly, the common defects of existing democratic systems in the West will also be corrected. In elections, various obstacles to participation will be eliminated, proportional representation may replace the "winner-takes-all" electoral system, and the U.S. Congress will be restructured — the Senate will be abolished or reformed to conform to the principle of one person, one vote. The central bank will be subordinate to the parliament and executive bodies, assuming the responsibility of maintaining a high level of employment.

同样，西方现有民主制度的常见缺陷也将得到纠正。在选举中，参加选举的各种障碍将会消除，比例代表制或将取代“胜者全得”的选举制度，美国国会将会被重组——废除或改革美国参议院，使之符合一人一票的选举原则。央行将从属于议会和行政机构，承担起维持高水平就业的责任。

However, a substantial expansion of participatory democracy is also necessary. Wright devotes considerable attention to the issue of "empowered participatory governance," proposing the establishment of new institutions and systems to shift policy-making into such participatory bodies. Employee councils, independent of ownership structures, will exist in most workplaces and will wield significant influence over work organization or corporate investment and production decisions. Similar participatory institutions will also exist at the community and city levels, with the capacity to negotiate with local governments on decisions regarding infrastructure and service provision.

但是，大幅扩展参与性民主也是必要的。赖特在“被赋权的参与式治理”（empowered participatory governance）这一问题上着墨甚多，他建议建立新的机构与制度，将政策制定转移到此类参与性机构中来。独立于所有制结构的员工委员会将存在于大多数工作场所，并将在工作组织问题或者企业投资和生产决策问题上拥有巨大的影响力。类似的参与性机构也将存在于社区和城市层面，并有能力就基础设施和服务提供的决策问题同地方政府进行协商。

These participatory institutions will also function as mechanisms for political education. Many citizens will learn basic political skills within these institutions and acquire the discernment to evaluate the state of political operations. At all political levels where major changes can be effectively won — local, subnational, national, and supranational — the nature of politics will begin to transform. Consequently, the current distrust of the political class and low participation rates will give way to substantially increased participation, and the vast chasm between ordinary people and the political class will gradually disappear.

这些参与性机构还将作为政治教育机制运行。许多公民将在这些机构中学习基本的政治技能，并获得评判政治运行状况的鉴别力。在能够有效赢得重大变革的各级——地方的、次国家的、国家的和超国家的——政治舞台上，政治的本质将开始发生转变。由此，当前对政治阶层的不信任和低参与率将让位于大幅提高的参与率，普通民众与政治阶层之间的巨大鸿沟也将逐渐消失。

There will still be different political parties and organizations advocating different paths forward. Those who advocate for restoring traditional capitalism have the right to express their views, but if they no longer possess a huge wealth advantage, they will likely be marginalized. Of course, there will always be the danger that economic difficulties or unexpected challenges could bring to power those who seek to obstruct socialist progress. The only way to prevent this is for the public to recognize the dangers of restoring old forms of domination and long-term inequality.

未来仍会有不同的政党和组织主张不同的前进道路。那些主张复辟传统资本主义的人有权提出自己的观点，但届时如果他们不再拥有巨大的财富优势，将很可能会被边缘化。当然，这样一种危险也会一直存在，即经济困难或意料之外的挑战可能会使那些图谋阻碍社会主义进步的人获得权力。防止这种情况发生的唯一办法，就是让公众认识到恢复旧的统治和长期不平等的危险性。

IV. Socialism Pursues Complex Equality

四、社会主义追求复合平等

Historically, socialists have envisioned a form of equality in which everyone would receive roughly the same economic benefits and services. Michael Walzer calls this form of equality "simple equality." However, socialism is based on the recognition that people are different, and that what different people desire is also different. Clearly, not every desire of every person can be satisfied; those who dream of dominating others will be disappointed. But in a socialist society, people's lifestyles, life goals, and forms of consumption will be diverse.

在历史上，社会主义者曾设想了这样一种平等形式，在这种形式的平等中，每个人将会获得大致相同的经济利益与服务。迈克尔·沃尔泽（Michael Walzer）将这种形式的平等称为“简单平等”（simple equality）。然而，社会主义是建立在这种认识之上的，即，人各不相同，且不同之人的所欲之物也不尽相同。显然，并不是人的每一种欲望都能得到满足，那些梦想着统治他人的人将会感到失望。但是，在社会主义社会中，人们的生活方式、人生目标以及消费形式将会是多种多样的。

Walzer further argues that a future society should be able to accommodate both the aforementioned diversity and adhere to the goal of equality. His solution is to conceptualize the goal as "complex equality." People can divide society into relatively independent spheres and distribute different rewards — money, political power, healthcare, education, social status, and respect for individual creativity. Walzer's vision is that a society can achieve complex equality by establishing rules that prevent a person from using one type of reward to trade for the ability to obtain other rewards.

沃尔泽进一步认为，未来的社会应既能容纳上述多样性，也能坚持平等的目标。他的解决方案是将目标概念化为“复合平等”（complex equality）。人们可以把社会划分为相互独立的领域，并给予不同的回报——金钱、政治权力、医疗保健、教育、社会地位以及对个人创造力的尊重。沃尔泽的设想是，一个社会可以通过建立规则来阻止一个人以一种回报交易其他回报的能力，从而实现复合平等。

For example, regardless of how much money or political power people possess, they can only receive the same medical care. Similarly, regardless of the social status of their parents, all children will have the same educational opportunities; their ability to receive better education will depend entirely on their personal talent and work ethic. Strict campaign finance rules will prevent those with more money from gaining greater political influence than others, and various anti-corruption measures will prevent those holding political office from using their political power to exchange for other rewards.

例如，无论人们拥有多少金钱或多大的政治权力，他们都只能获得相同的医疗护理。同样，无论父母在社会中的地位如何，所有子女都将拥有同样的受教育机会，他们接受更好的教育的能力将完全取决于他们的个人才能和职业道德。严格的竞选融资规则将阻止那些拥有更多金钱的人获得比其他人更大的政治影响力，各种反腐措施将阻止那些拥有政治职务的人利用其政治权力换取其他回报。

In short, complex equality means that those whose primary desire is to accumulate wealth or a large quantity of material goods will have some opportunity to satisfy their desires, but their ability to pass on privileges or wealth to their children will be severely restricted. Most importantly, their ability to use wealth to dominate others will be limited by the employment system and regulations designed to prevent them from gaining political influence.

简而言之，复合平等意味着那些主要欲望是积累财富或大量物质产品的人将有一定的机会满足其欲求，但是他们将特权或财富传给子女的能力将会受到严格限制。最重要的是，他们利用财富支配他人的能力将会受到雇佣制度和旨在阻止他们获取政治影响力的规定的限制。

To be sure, complex equality still requires setting minimum and maximum living standards. On the one hand, medical care, education, basic housing, and food will become universally held rights, as will a monthly basic income. This will ensure that no one is forced to seek employment to avoid hunger or homelessness, and everyone will have the resources needed for full political participation, such as access to media. On the other hand, complex equality also implies that taxes on the rich will increase, effectively setting a cap on how much income each person can receive in a given year.

可以肯定的是，复合平等仍然要求设置最低与最高生活标准。一方面，医疗保障、教育、基本住房和食品将成为人们普遍拥有的权利，每月的基本收入也是如此。这将确保没有人会为了避免饥饿或无家可归而被迫寻求就业，每个人都将获得充分参与政治所需的资源，比如接触媒体的机会。另一方面，复合平等也意味着对富人的税收将会增加，以便有效地为每个人在既定的一年内能获得多少收入设定一个上限。

In the transition to socialism, how to treat those who have amassed enormous wealth will be a severe challenge. Nevertheless, three legitimate expedients can help address this issue: First, by gradually increasing what Thomas Piketty calls a comprehensive wealth tax, a certain degree of redistribution can be enforced; second, by implementing inheritance taxes in a stricter and more effective manner, closing loopholes that allow the rich to transfer resources tax-free to their heirs; third, by strictly enforcing regulations concerning foundations and non-profit organizations to draw a clear line between charitable activities and political activities. For example, a foundation's efforts to reshape primary and secondary education would be redefined as illegal interference in a critical public policy issue, but a private foundation paying for tutors for poor children or funding poor children would remain legal.

在向社会主义过渡的过程中，如何对待那些聚敛了巨额财富的人将是一个严峻的挑战。尽管如此，仍有三种合法的权宜之计有助于解决这一问题：第一，通过逐步提高托马斯·皮凯蒂（Thomas Piketty）所说的综合财富税，可以强制实施一定程度的再分配；第二，以一种更加严格有效的方式征收遗产税，堵住富人向其继承人免税转让资源的漏洞；第三，严格执行针对基金会和非营利性组织的法规，以便划清慈善活动与政治活动的界线。例如，基金会重塑中小学教育的努力，将被重新界定为对一个至关重要的公共政策问题的非法干预，但私人基金会为贫困儿童支付家庭教师的工资以及资助贫困儿童的行为仍是合法的。

In short, the resources of the rich will be gradually stripped away, and new tax systems will prevent the emergence of new tycoons. New rules will prevent another Mark Zuckerberg from building a startup into a multi-billion dollar corporate empire. Once a newly founded company reaches a certain scale, the founder's ownership share will be limited, and the board of directors will be restructured to include representatives of employees and other corporate stakeholders.

简而言之，富人的资源将逐渐被剥夺，新税制将防止新富豪的产生。新规则将阻止另一位马克·扎克伯格将一家初创公司打造为数十亿美元的企业帝国。一旦新创立的公司达到一定的规模，其开创者的所有权份额将会受到限制，董事会将会被重组，以便将员工和其他的企业赞助者代表纳入其中。

It is extremely difficult to achieve these redistribution goals by pushing through legislation and public policy, because the rich will certainly resist. However, in the 20th century, due to sustained pressure from left-wing movements, significant successes were indeed achieved in using taxation to reduce income and wealth inequality. In the 21st century, as more people recognize that the concentration of income and wealth is both unjust and dangerous, fair distribution may become achievable once again.

通过推动立法和公共政策来实现这些再分配目标是极其困难的，因为富人一定会加以抵制。但是，在20世纪，由于左翼运动持续施压，在利用税收减少收入和财富不平等方面确实取得了重大成功。在21世纪，随着越来越多的人认识到收入和财富集中现象既是不公正的也是危险的，公平分配有可能再次实现。

To be sure, Walzerian complex equality is a goal that can never be fully realized. For example, it is difficult to imagine a society in which a world-class scientist does not receive better medical care than an ordinary citizen. The persistence of personal relationship networks means that even the best-designed rules can be breached. Nevertheless, by continuously improving ordinary citizens' access to medical care, while setting boundaries to significantly reduce the phenomenon of using personal connections to cut in line, we can approach this ideal goal.

可以肯定的是，沃尔泽式的复合平等是一个永远无法完全实现的目标。例如，很难想象在一个社会中，某位世界级的科学家得不到比普通公民更好的医疗护理。个人关系网络的持续存在会导致：即使是设计最好的规则，也有被突破界线的可能。然而，通过不断改善普通公民获取医疗护理的条件，同时设置界线以大大减少利用私人关系走后门的现象，我们就有可能接近这一理想的目标。

V. Socialism Will Build an Economy Focused on Quality Improvement and Full of Vitality

五、社会主义将构建一种注重质量提升且充满活力的经济

In many people’s imagination, socialism is seen as a steady-state economy that can eliminate the continuous technological disruption characteristic of the capitalist era. However, in the 21st century, when we face climate disasters and other environmental challenges, this is not a satisfactory vision. We urgently need new technologies that can substantially reduce greenhouse gases, thereby reversing the process of climate change. Even if we overcome this challenge, we will still need other new technologies to reduce or reverse the negative impact of the population on the environment. Moreover, technology continuously reduces the labor time required to build a house or produce a bushel of wheat, thereby liberating many people from heavy toil. Therefore, a socialist society will continue to carry out technological innovation, pursuing the production of more products in less time. Increasing free time is crucial for expanding participation and building solidary and inclusive communities.

在许多人的想象中，社会主义被视为一种稳态（steady-state）经济，可以消除资本主义时代持续出现的由技术造成的破坏。然而，在我们面临气候灾难和其他环境挑战的21世纪，这并不是一个令人满意的愿景。我们迫切需要能大幅减少温室气体的新技术，从而扭转气候变化的进程。即使我们战胜了这一挑战，也仍然需要其他新技术来减少或扭转人口对环境的负面影响。此外，技术使得建造一座房屋或生产一蒲式耳小麦所需的劳动时间不断降低，从而将许多人从繁重的劳动中解放出来。因此，社会主义社会将持续进行技术革新，追求以更少的时间生产更多的产品。增加自由时间对于扩大参与和建设团结包容的社区而言至关重要。

Admittedly, under the existing system, new technologies are considered harmless until one day they are proven to have destructive social and economic consequences. This consequence is: we tend to replace a dangerous chemical with a new compound, only to discover twenty years later that this compound is even worse. This problem can be resolved through a regulatory mechanism that measures the actual costs and benefits of a new technology, without any adverse influence from those who benefit from the introduction of the new technology.

诚然，在现有的体制下，新技术被认为是无害的，直到有一天它被证明具有破坏性的社会和经济后果。这个后果是：我们倾向于用一种新化合物来取代一种危险的化学物质，而20年后我们却发现这种化合物更糟。这个问题可以通过一种监管机制来解决，该机制会衡量一项新技术的实际成本和收益，而不会受到那些从新技术的引进中获益的人的任何不良影响。

Some people believe that such a regulatory mechanism can never be sufficient to prevent harm, and that a socialist society must completely reject the historical project of promoting economic growth. However, here it is crucial to distinguish between the quantitative growth reflected in GDP and the qualitative improvements often overlooked by economic statistics. Qualitative improvements encompass the enhancement of human well-being, benefiting from a more sustainable environment, continuously increasing average life expectancy, more desirable leisure, a higher degree of economic security, and more inclusive and vibrant community life.

一些人认为，这样的监管机制永远不足以防止危害的发生，社会主义社会必须完全拒绝推动经济增长的历史性计划。然而，在这里，区分GDP所反映的数量增长与经常被经济统计所忽视的质量提升是至关重要的。质量提升包含了改善人类福祉，这得益于更加可持续的环境、不断延长的人均寿命、更合乎期待的休闲、更高程度的经济保障以及更具包容性和充满活力的社区生活。

The planning of a socialist society should support those technological advances that contribute to qualitative improvements, while maintaining or reducing human labor time and inputs of capital and raw materials. In other words, the end of growth will occur on the input side, not the output side. Humanity will continuously innovate and introduce new technologies in order to conserve resources and improve the quality of life.

社会主义社会的计划应该支持那些有助于质量提升的技术进步，同时维持或减少人的劳动时间以及资本和原材料的投入。换句话说，增长的终结将发生在输入端，而不是输出端。人类将会不断地创新和引入新技术，以便节约资源和提高生活质量。

VI. Socialism Aspires to Create a Habitable Society

六、社会主义渴求创造一个宜居的社会

In the industrial era, creating and sustaining communities that organize people’s lives was set against the background of prioritizing employment. However, today the proportion of the labor force working on farms or in factories has declined sharply. Most paid and unpaid work is related to places of residence — construction, education, health care, social services, retail trade, local government, and the provision of care in family and non-family settings. Although most of us work where we live, we still have very little say in deciding how our communities should be organized. In short, we still live within the institutional and ideological structures of the industrial era, an era in which residential issues were resolved outside the political agenda.

在工业时代，创建一个组织并维持人们生活的社区是以优先考虑就业为背景的。然而，如今在农场或工厂工作的劳动力比例已经急剧下降。大多数有薪和无薪的工作都同居住地相关——建筑、教育、卫生保健、社会服务、零售贸易、地方政府以及在家庭和非家庭环境中提供护理。尽管我们大多数人都在居住地工作，但在决定我们的社区该如何组织的问题上，我们仍然没有多少发言权。简而言之，我们仍然生活在工业时代的制度与意识形态结构中，在那个年代，居住问题都是在政治议题之外解决的。

We can understand socialism as a project to democratize residential issues. We will have the right to decide how to create our communities and how to gradually improve them over time. We will also have the right to decide what priority to give to environmental protection issues and what terms a fair employment contract should include. Obviously, major disagreements will continue to exist on all these issues, but there will be a democratized process of consultation and decision-making. Moreover, we will also establish mechanisms, such as courts, to ensure that the democratization process does not trample on the rights of specific groups.

我们可以将社会主义理解为一项使居住问题民主化的计划。我们将有权决定如何创建我们的社区，以及如何随着时间的推移去逐渐完善它。我们也将有权决定赋予环境保护问题以多大的优先性，以及决定一份公平的雇佣合同应该包括哪些款项。显然，在所有这些问题上，重大分歧仍将继续存在，但会有一个民主化的协商和决策过程。此外，我们还将设立一些机制，比如法院，以确保民主化进程不会践踏某些特定群体的权利。

Thereafter, we will improve the environment of our places of residence through new infrastructure construction and continuous innovation in products and processes. But here, we will leave greater space for democratic voices. Larger-scale infrastructure construction plans will only be implemented after people have engaged in continuous discussion of various alternatives, so that the public can clearly see the pros and cons of different options. Similarly, innovations with destructive potential will no longer be unilaterally decided upon for implementation by entrepreneurs but will be widely discussed. If the decision is made to proceed with implementing these innovative plans, they will be introduced in a way that minimizes chaos or disruption.

此后，我们会通过新的基础设施建设以及产品和工艺的持续创新来改善我们的居住地的环境。但在此处，我们将会为民主的声音留下更大的空间。更大规模的基础设施建设计划只有在人们就各种备选方案进行持续的讨论后才会付诸实施，以便公众能够清楚地看到不同方案的利弊得失。同样，具有破坏性潜能的创新将不再仅由企业家单方面决定实施，而会得到广泛讨论。如果决定继续推进实施这些创新方案，则会以尽量减少混乱或破坏程度的方式引入。

The concept of a “habitation society” is crucial for understanding how a socialist economy would operate. Capitalism relies on market competition to find more efficient ways of producing goods and services. In a habitation society, democratic consultation and active participation will continuously improve the living environment. Since most people will produce and consume around their places of residence, stronger democratic institutions will become an effective mechanism to help them collectively obtain more crucial goods.

“宜居社会”（a habitation society）这一概念对于理解社会主义经济如何运行至关重要。资本主义依靠市场竞争来寻找生产商品和服务的更有效方式。在一个宜居的社会中，民主协商和主动参与将会持续地改善居住环境。由于大多数人都将围绕着居住地进行生产和消费，更强有力的民主制度将会成为一种有效机制，帮助他们以集体的形式获取更多至关重要的物品。

Finally, residential issues prepare the ground for people to think about and take action against racial discrimination and gender exclusion. As we have seen during the COVID-19 pandemic, many wealthy people responded to the pandemic crisis by moving to residences or resorts far from those infected with the virus. Those who could not escape should have seen that their risks increased when the virus spread through prisons, meatpacking plants, and communities predominantly populated by Black and Brown people. In other words, it is impossible to create a safe, resilient habitable place when specific groups are excluded or dominated.

最后，居住问题为人们思考和采取行动来应对种族歧视和性别排斥准备了条件。正如我们在新冠肺炎疫情中所看到的那样，许多富人通过前往远离病毒感染者的居所或度假村的方式来应对疫情危机。而那些无法逃脱的人应该看到，当病毒遍布了以黑色和棕色人种为主的监狱、肉类加工厂和社区时，他们的风险增加了。换句话说，当特定的人群被排斥或被支配时，是不可能创造出一个安全的、有韧性的宜居地的。

These forms of exclusion and domination will not simply disappear on their own. The project of building 21st-century socialism needs to confront and challenge these structural inequalities. At the same time, we must have a clear vision of the society we are striving to create. On this issue, the concept of a habitation based on equality, inclusion, and democracy can help us. All those who oppose police violence, oppose environmental degradation, fight for affordable housing, fight for a living wage, and fight for reproductive rights should be able to understand what has been explained above; these contents are part of the project of “democratizing habitation.”

这些排斥和支配的形式不会简单地自行消亡。建设21世纪社会主义的计划需要直面并挑战这些结构上的不平等。与此同时，我们必须对我们正在努力创造的社会有一个清晰的愿景。在这个问题上，平等、包容和民主的宜居理念可以帮助到我们。所有那些反对警察暴力、反对环境退化、争取保障性住房、争取可维持生活的工资以及争取生育权利的人应该都能够理解上文所阐释的内容，这些内容是“居住民主化”计划的一部分。

VII. Under Socialism, Innovation Will Flourish

七、在社会主义条件下，创新将蓬勃发展

A representative anti-socialist view is that, lacking entrepreneurs with the motivation to innovate, a socialist society will be a stagnant society. This view represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the history of technological innovation. The fact is that, in most historical periods, war and war preparation have been the main drivers of innovation. Emperors, kings, and elected leaders have devoted resources and specialized talent to war and war preparation, obtaining military advantages through innovative technologies, thereby producing many key modern technologies.

一种反社会主义的代表性观点是：由于缺少具备创新动机的企业家，社会主义社会将是一个停滞不前的社会。这种观点代表了人们对技术创新史的根本性误解。事实是，在大多数历史时期，战争和备战一直是创新的主要动力。皇帝、国王和民选的领导人将资源和专业技术人才投入到战争和备战中，通过创新技术获得军事优势，由此产生了许多现代化的关键技术。

In fact, even a socialist country like the Soviet Union, when it devoted itself to developing military technology, demonstrated quite considerable technological capability. This strongly suggests that a public and non-profit innovation system can also be productive. Since this system can be used to develop military technology, it should also be usable for developing civilian technology. In fact, we have already observed that, in the United States, many major innovations originated in government laboratories. In recent decades, most successful macromolecular drugs have been developed by government-funded scientists, typically working at the National Institutes of Health or at universities receiving federal research funding.

事实上，即使是苏联这种社会主义国家，当其致力于发展军事技术时，也展现出相当强大的技术能力。这就强有力地表明，一种公共的和非营利的创新体系也可以是富有成效的。既然这一体系可以用于发展军事技术，那么它也应该可以用于发展民用技术。事实上，我们已经观察到，在美国，许多重大创新都源于政府的实验室。近几十年来，大多数成功的大分子药物都是由政府资助的科学家研发的，这些科学家一般就职于美国国立卫生研究院或者获得联邦研究经费资助的大学。

In fact, under current conditions, key technological advances require cooperation among different groups of scientists and engineers, and the pursuit of private interest has become one of the main factors hindering technological progress. Competition to obtain patents for new technologies undermines the cooperation needed among technical personnel from different organizations. In a system where the results of new technologies are widely shared, scientists and engineers can cooperate more effectively, and the pace of technological innovation will be greatly accelerated.

事实上，在目前的情况下，关键的技术进步需要不同的科学家与工程师群体开展合作，追求私人利益已经成为阻碍技术进步的主要因素之一。争先获得新技术专利的竞争破坏了来自不同组织的技术人员之间所需要的合作。在一个新技术成果得到广泛分享的体系中，科学家与工程师能够更有效地开展合作，技术创新的步伐也将大大加快。

In the case of different programmer communities jointly developing “open-source software,” certain signs of the above vision have already dimly emerged. On this basis, the public sector can help grassroots groups acquire the computer programming skills necessary for sharing ride services, conducting environmental monitoring, and creating more dynamic public news platforms. Similarly, publicly funded “makerspaces” can provide access to precision mechanical tools and expertise, thereby making invention and innovation ubiquitous.

在不同的程序员群体共同开发“开放源代码软件”的事例中，上述愿景的某些迹象已经隐约浮现出来。在此基础上，公共部门可以帮助草根群体获得共享拼车服务、开展环境监测、创造更具活力的公共新闻平台所必需的计算机编程技术。同样，公共部门资助的“创客空间”可以提供获取精密机械工具和专业知识的途径，从而让发明和创新无处不在。

Eight: Socialism requires a democratized financial system

八、社会主义需要一个民主化的金融体系

Along with sustained investment in productive capacity, infrastructure, and innovation, a socialist society needs a financial system capable of allocating capital to meet different types of investment needs. Small businesses, cooperatives, communities hoping to improve their living environments, and government laboratories wishing to invest in new technologies all need access to capital. Moreover, not all projects seeking financing can be satisfied at the same time. This requires a management system that prioritizes different projects; some projects may be excluded from the funding system because they violate environmental or social justice principles, or simply because they are deemed to have low priority.

随着对生产能力、基础设施和创新的持续投资，社会主义社会需要一个能够分配资本以满足不同类型投资需求的金融体系。小企业、合作社、希望改善居住环境的社区以及希望投资新技术的政府实验室都需要获得资本。此外，并不是所有想要融资的项目都能在同一时间得到满足。这就要有一个对不同项目进行优先性排序的管理体系，一些项目可能会因为违反环境或社会正义原则、又或者仅仅被认为优先性不高而被排除在资助体系之外。

The complexity of such financial design lies in this: the more centralized the financial system, the more power is concentrated in the hands of a few financial institutions. These institutions decide issues such as which communities need a new public transport system and which do not. Consequently, it becomes very difficult to constrain key decision-makers from using their power to seek gains in other spheres of social life. However, if we consider the opposite direction—establishing a highly decentralized financial management system composed of multiple competing financial institutions—problems of overinvestment or underinvestment in specific periods may arise.

这种金融设计的复杂性在于：该金融系统的集中化程度越高，权力就越是会集中在少数金融机构手中。这些金融机构决定着诸如哪些社区需要、哪些社区不需要建设一个新公共交通体系之类的问题。如此一来，约束关键决策者使用手中权力在其他社会生活领域中谋取收益，就变得十分困难。但是，如果从相反的方向考虑，即建立一种由多元竞争的金融机构组成的高度分权型金融管理体系，又会出现特定时期内投资过度或投资不足的问题。

The way out of this dilemma is to establish financial institutions at different levels, each with its corresponding responsibilities. Financial institutions at the first level focus on investing in large-scale infrastructure projects; those at the second level focus on large-scale investment in state-owned or private large enterprises; those at the third level focus on investing in small enterprises, including non-profit organizations and cooperatives; and those at the final level focus on investing in household needs, such as mortgage loans, renovations, and new business start-ups.

解决这一困境的方法是，建立不同层级的金融机构，每一层级都有其相应的职责。第一层级的金融机构专注于投资大型基础设施项目，第二层级的金融机构专注于国有或私营大型企业的大规模投资，第三层级的金融机构专注于投资包括非营利组织和合作社在内的小型企业，最后一个层级的金融机构则专注于投资家庭需求，比如房屋抵押贷款、装修和新业务启动。

Within each level, there should be some competition. Thus, even if a project is rejected by one investment institution, there will be other potential funders who appreciate the project’s value. At the same time, each level should have a dedicated regulatory body responsible for confining lending at that level within certain parameters, so as to keep the economy operating near full capacity. Coordination among regulatory authorities will also be necessary to ensure that the overall volume of funding remains at an appropriate level.

在每一层级内部都要有一些竞争。因此，即使某个项目受到某个投资机构的拒绝，也会有其他可能的资助者欣赏这个项目的价值。与此同时，每一层级都要有一个专门的监管机构，负责将该层级的贷款限定在一定的参数范围内，以保持经济接近满负荷运行。监管当局之间也将进行协调，以确保大量的资助处于适当的水平。

At all levels, financial institutions will operate as non-profit organizations, with executive and staff compensation similar to that of the highest-ranking civil servants. Eliminating any type of excess financial profit will help minimize the temptation to use funds for speculative bets on the appreciation of certain types of assets. Decision-makers will then conduct rigorous assessments of projects based on economic, social, and environmental impacts.

在所有层级中，金融机构都将作为非营利组织运作，高管员工的薪酬将与最高级别公务员的薪酬类似。削减任何类型的超额金融利润都将有助于最大限度地减少诱惑，即利用资金对某些类型资产的升值进行投机性押注的诱惑。决策者们则会根据经济、社会和环境影响对项目作出严格评估。

Nine: A global green new deal is a hopeful path toward socialism

九、全球绿色新政是通往社会主义的希望之路

At present, Western democracy seems to be retreating on a global scale. When safeguarding democratic institutions and practices becomes a major challenge, it is natural to doubt the possibility of moving toward socialism. However, the severe climate crisis has changed this way of thinking. Scientists have predicted for years that continued burning of fossil fuels would trigger disasters; now we are witnessing the serious consequences of rising temperatures: droughts, melting polar ice caps, and uncontrollable wildfires.

当前，西方民主似乎正在全球范围内退却。当守护民主制度与实践变成一项重大挑战时，人们自然会对迈向社会主义的可能性产生怀疑。然而，严重的气候危机改变了人们的这种想法。科学家们多年来一直预测继续燃烧化石燃料将会引发灾难，如今我们正目睹着气温升高的严重后果：干旱、极地冰层融化和无法控制的火灾。

The moment has come for people around the world to form a united front to address climate change. The united front must be as broad as possible and include important business interests. The challenge we currently face is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as much as possible, while accelerating the deployment of renewable energy and using new agricultural, industrial, construction, and transportation technologies to minimize energy consumption. However, all of this must be achieved in a way that is socially and economically inclusive and that strengthens democratic institutions. Without inclusion and democracy, it will be impossible to mobilize the active participation of people worldwide—participation that is indispensable for making progress on climate governance at the necessary speed.

全世界人民组成统一战线以应对气候变化的时刻已经到来。统一战线必须尽可能地广泛，并且包括重要的商业利益集团。目前我们面临的挑战是，尽可能地减少温室气体的排放，同时加快部署可再生能源，使用新型农业、工业、建筑和运输技术，最大限度地减少能源消耗。但是，所有这一切都必须以一种具有社会和经济包容性以及能够强化民主制度的方式来实现。如果缺乏包容和民主，就不可能促使全世界人民积极参与，而这种积极参与对于以必要的速度来取得气候治理进展而言是必不可少的。

This is precisely the vision envisioned by the call for a global green new deal. First, it requires large-scale investment in reducing greenhouse gas emissions in both developing and developed countries. Although much of this investment must be provided by public institutions and non-profit financial institutions at the national and global levels, many of the actual reform efforts will take place at the local level. For example, buildings need insulation, roofs must be fitted with solar panels, farmers need to enable soils to absorb more carbon, and cities must be restructured to reduce car use and facilitate the transition to electric vehicles. To turn these ideas into reality, thousands of people must be mobilized, and those who face risks due to these changes must be protected—including workers in coal mines or oil refineries, as well as those made homeless by rising sea levels and raging wildfires.

这正是全球绿色新政（global green new deal）的吁求所设想的愿景。首先，它需要对发展中国家和发达国家减少温室气体排放进行大规模投资。尽管其中许多投资必须由国家和全球层面的公共机构和非营利金融机构提供，但是很多实际的改革工作将发生在地方层面。例如，建筑物需要隔热，屋顶必须安装太阳能电池板，农民需要让土壤吸收更多的碳，城市必须重组以减少汽车的使用并实现向电动汽车的过渡。为了让这些想法变成现实，必须动员成千上万的人，也必须保护那些因这些变化而面临风险的人，包括在煤矿或炼油厂工作的劳动者，以及海平面上升和野火肆虐造成的无家可归者。

Admittedly, the degree of inclusion and democracy achieved by green new deals in different regions may vary. But the key point is that the values upheld by the people’s front to address climate change are solidarity, inclusion, democracy, and the use of government authority to solve problems. These are very similar to the values that Wright invoked when he argued that capitalist hegemony is being eroded. In short, formulating a global green new deal is a logical and feasible path toward 21st-century socialism.

诚然，不同地区的绿色新政在实现包容与民主的程度上可能会有所不同。但关键在于，应对气候变化的人民阵线所秉持的价值观是团结、包容、民主以及利用政府权威来解决问题。这些与赖特在提出资本主义霸权正受到侵蚀时所援引的价值观十分相似。简而言之，制定全球绿色新政是一条迈向21世纪社会主义的合乎逻辑且切实可行的路径。

(Author: Fred Block, Department of Sociology, University of California, Davis; Translators: Zhang Yingkui, Xu Caiqin, School of Marxism, Qufu Normal University; Zhang Congzhi, Department of Asian Policy Studies, The Education University of Hong Kong; Proofreader: Zhao Chao, Information and Data Center, Institute of Party History and Literature of the CPC Central Committee)

（作者：弗雷德·布洛克（Fred Block），美国加州大学戴维斯分校社会学系；译者：张英魁、徐彩勤，曲阜师范大学马克思主义学院；张聪知，香港教育大学亚洲政策研究系；校译者：赵超，中央党史和文献研究院信息资料馆）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心