The Essence, Crisis, and Alternatives of Neoliberal Globalization

From May 24 to 26, 2023, David Lane, Fellow of the British Academy, Emeritus Professor of Sociology at the University of Cambridge, and Honorary Fellow of Emmanuel College, delivered several high-quality special lectures at Peking University, respectively titled “Capitalism: From Classical to Diverse,” “Capitalism in the Neoliberal Period,” and “Capitalism as a World System.” [1]1 David Lane (born 1933) is a British sociologist known for his work on state socialism, post-communist transitions, and comparative capitalism. Lane’s main research areas include the politics of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, the capitalist transformation of post-communist states, diverse forms of capitalism, and globalization and the capitalist world system. He pays particular attention to current geopolitical conflicts, world changes, and alternatives to capitalism. Lane’s representative academic works include *Rethinking the “Coloured Revolutions,”* *The Capitalist Transformation of State Socialism,* and *Changing Regional Alliances for China and the West.* His representative academic papers include “The Post-Socialist Region in the World System,” “The Significance of the October Revolution,” and “The Decoupling of National Economic and Political Elites: A Comparison of Russia and the UK.” In 2023, Lane published a new book, *Global Neoliberal Capitalism and the Alternatives: From Social Democracy to State Capitalisms.*

2023年5月24日至26日，英国社会科学院院士、剑桥大学社会学系荣休教授、伊曼纽尔学院名誉研究员大卫·莱恩(David Lane)分别以“资本主义：从古典到多样”“新自由主义时期的资本主义”“作为世界体系的资本主义”为题，在北京大学做了几场高质量的专题讲座。1莱恩的主要研究领域包括苏联和东欧的政治、后共产主义国家的资本主义转型、多种样态的资本主义、全球化与资本主义世界体系等，他尤其关注当下的地缘政治冲突、世界变局以及资本主义的替代方案。莱恩的代表性学术著作主要有《反思“颜色革命”》(Rethinking the “Coloured Revolutions”)、《国家社会主义的资本主义转型》(The Capitalist Transformation of State Socialism)、《变革中的区域联盟：中国与西方》(Changing Regional Alliances for China and the West)等，代表性学术论文包括“世界体系中的后社会主义地区”“十月革命的意义”“国家经济精英与政治精英的脱钩：俄罗斯与英国的比较”等。2023年，莱恩出版了新著《新自由主义的资本主义全球化及其替代方案：从社会民主主义到国家资本主义》(Global Neoliberal Capitalism and the Alternatives: From Social Democracy to State Capitalisms)。

In this series of lectures, Lane primarily analyzed the essence, crisis, and alternatives of neoliberal globalization. He pointed out that capitalism, after World War II, underwent a process of development from internationalism to globalization, and that neoliberalism is the ideology of globalized capitalism. Neoliberal globalization is full of internal contradictions; it is both a technological process and, as a capitalist framework, it maintains the global domination of the transnational capitalist class, intensifying its dispossession of society. Regarding alternatives to neoliberal globalization, Lane advocates using “center–semi-periphery–periphery” to describe the internal structure of the world system, and argues that the rise of the “semi-periphery,” represented by China, has to some extent overcome the adverse effects of neoliberal globalization, creating conditions for the realization of socialist globalization.

在本次系列讲座中，莱恩主要分析了新自由主义全球化的实质、危机及其替代方案。他指出，资本主义在二战后经历了从国际主义(Internationalism)到全球化(Globalization)的发展过程，新自由主义是全球化资本主义的意识形态。新自由主义全球化充满内部矛盾，它既是技术过程，又作为资本主义框架维护了跨国资本家阶级的世界统治，加剧了其对社会的剥夺。关于新自由主义全球化的替代方案，莱恩主张以“中心—半中心—边缘”来描述世界体系的内部结构，并认为以中国为代表的“半中心”的崛起在一定程度上克服了新自由主义全球化的不利影响，为社会主义全球化的实现创造了条件。

I. The Essence of Neoliberal Globalization

一、新自由主义全球化的实质

Lane believes that during the internationalist stage, economic borders were maintained between capitalist countries, and capitalism itself had multiple development models, such as coordinated market economies and social democracy. With the rise of neoliberalism, the borders of nation-states were broken, and transnational corporations and the transnational capitalist class behind them used neoliberal ideology and policy systems to expand globally. The history of the emergence and development of neoliberal globalization shows that it is, in essence, a modern form of imperialism.

莱恩认为，在国际主义阶段，资本主义国家之间维持着经济边界，资本主义本身具有协调市场经济、社会民主主义等多种发展模式。随着新自由主义的兴起，民族国家的边界被打破，跨国公司及其背后的跨国资本家阶级利用新自由主义意识形态和政策体系走向全球扩张。新自由主义全球化产生和发展的历史表明，其在本质上是帝国主义的现代形式。

From the end of World War II to the 1970s, capitalism had multiple forms of development. Lane suggests that the predecessor of capitalism in the neoliberal period was the competitive market capitalism practiced in countries such as the UK and the US. In addition, after World War II, the Western world also saw models such as coordinated market economies and social-democratic welfare capitalism. Different development models ensured the ruling position of the capitalist class within their countries and guaranteed capital’s exploitation of labor by adjusting capitalist relations of production and social relations. The coordinated market economy model, represented by countries such as Germany, France, and Japan, advocated that the state should take the lead in constructing the economic system to weaken the anarchic state of the market. In this model, the government, corporate capital, and political parties formed a stable, mutually cooperative triangular structure as a common ruling bloc. The social-democratic welfare capitalism model, represented by countries such as Sweden and Denmark, typically provided high-standard welfare guarantees for the populace, including education, healthcare, housing, and pensions, because trade union forces and the working class were its important political foundation. Although competitive market capitalism adjusted the public functions of the state to a certain extent and strengthened the state’s role in areas such as the construction of emerging industries and the reconstruction of basic industrial sectors, it primarily advocated free markets and free competition. Based on differences in development models, individual nation-states could still control the relationship between the transnational flow of capital and the state, making capitalism appear as internationalism in spatial form. [2]2 Internationalism here refers to a phase of capitalism where nation-states retained significant control over cross-border economic flows, distinct from the later, more borderless globalization. Overall, the above models achieved certain development results before the 1970s.

资本主义在二战结束后至1970年代具有多种发展样态。莱恩提出，新自由主义时期的资本主义的前身是英美等国实行的竞争性市场资本主义。除此之外，二战后，西方世界还出现了协调市场经济、社会—民主型福利资本主义等模式。不同的发展模式通过调整资本主义生产关系和社会关系来保障资本家阶级在国内的统治地位，保障资本对劳动力的剥削。协调市场经济的模式以德国、法国和日本等国为代表，主张由国家主导构建经济体制，削弱市场的无政府状态。其中，政府、企业资本和政党作为共同的统治集团，形成了稳定的、相互合作的三角形结构。社会—民主型福利资本主义以瑞典、丹麦等国为代表。由于工会力量和工人阶级是其重要的政治基础，因此这些国家通常为民众提供高标准的福利保障，包括教育、医疗、住房、养老金等。竞争性市场资本主义虽然在一定程度上调整了国家的公共职能，强化了国家在新兴产业建设和基础工业部门重建等领域的作用，但它主要倡导自由市场和自由竞争。基于发展模式的差异，单个民族国家仍然能够掌握资本的跨国流动与国家之间的关系，使资本主义在空间类型上表现为国际主义。2从总体上看，上述模式在1970年代之前取得了一定的发展成果。

Since the end of the 1970s, the development of capitalism has entered the neoliberal period. As the capitalist world fell into economic crisis, Keynesianism failed, and social contradictions intensified. A comprehensive liberalization trend, primarily promoted by British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and US President Ronald Reagan, arose worldwide, initiating a new round of capitalist development. Lane argues that neoliberalism is a comprehensive ideology; it is first and foremost an economic principle, taking the self-interested individual as its theoretical starting point. In the neoliberal view, “there is no such thing as society”; spontaneous exchange or spontaneous order is the basis for the effective functioning of economic life, and it is precisely the intentional actions and reactions of economic agents driven by personal interests that ensure economic equilibrium. Therefore, to ensure the smooth progress of transactions, the free market does not concern itself with an individual’s race, gender, religious belief, or skin color, only with what people can buy and sell. At the same time, neoliberalism advocates for the unrestricted flow of factors of production, especially capital, and advocates for the right of enterprises to have “establishment rights” globally—that is, the right to set up companies and establish branches worldwide—which led to the rapid development of transnational corporations at the end of the 20th century. Transnational corporations mobilize capital, arrange production and operations in various places, and promote the expansion of the international division of labor and exchange systems on the basis of organizing global production networks. To ensure that economic strategies truly take effect, neoliberalism also encompasses a complete set of institutional arrangements in politics, society, culture, and international relations, aimed at weakening economic barriers between countries to the greatest extent possible. Accordingly, Lane defines globalization as “a process that erodes national borders, integrates the economies, cultures, technologies, and governance of various countries, and produces complex relationships of interdependence.” This process pushes capitalism beyond the form of interaction between national economies, and a capitalist world system is established through globalization.

1970年代末以来，资本主义的发展进入了新自由主义时期。随着资本主义世界陷入经济危机，凯恩斯主义失灵，社会矛盾激化。以英国首相玛格丽特·撒切尔(Margaret Thatcher)和美国总统罗纳德·里根(Ronald Reagan)为主要推动者的一场全盘自由化思潮在世界范围内兴起，开启了资本主义的新一轮发展进程。莱恩认为，新自由主义是一种综合性的意识形态，它首先是一种经济原则，以自利的个人为理论出发点。在新自由主义看来，“没有社会这种东西”,自发交换或自发秩序是经济生活有效运转的基础，并且，正是受个人利益驱动的经济主体的有意的行为和反应保障了经济均衡。因此，为了确保交易的顺利进行，自由市场不关注个人的种族、性别、宗教信仰、肤色，只关注人们能够购买和出售什么。同时，新自由主义主张生产要素，尤其是资本不受限制的流动，主张企业在全球范围内都享有“建制权”,即在全球成立公司并建立分支机构的权利，这使得跨国公司在20世纪末迅速发展。跨国公司在各地动员资本，布局生产和经营，在组织全球生产网络的基础上推动国际分工和交换体系的扩大。为了推动经济策略真正发挥作用，新自由主义还囊括了一整套在政治、社会、文化和国际关系等方面的制度安排，以最大程度地削弱国家之间的经济壁垒。据此，莱恩将全球化定义为“一个侵蚀国界，整合各国经济、文化、技术和治理，并产生相互依赖的复杂关系的过程”。这个过程推动资本主义突破国家经济体之间的互动形式，一个资本主义的世界体系通过全球化建立起来。

The dominant force of neoliberal globalization is transnational capital. Lane argues that neoliberal globalization embodies the accumulation logic of capitalism. Liberals typically view modern capitalism as a continuous process of pursuing profit through rational enterprise activities. Marxist researchers, however, not only focus on the technological changes brought about by globalization to the material production process but also advocate analyzing the dominant forces of the globalization process from a class perspective. As Marx and Engels pointed out in *The Communist Manifesto*: “The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilization. … In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations.” [3]3 Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, *The Communist Manifesto* (1848), Part I: Bourgeois and Proletarians. Globalization is not subjectless. At the end of the 20th century, neoliberal ideology provided perhaps the best “protective shell” for the global expansion of capital. On the one hand, relying on the electronic information, transportation, and communication revolutions, globalization achieved remote action, time-space compression, and cross-regional interconnection, ensuring the efficient operation of the market mechanism. On the other hand, technological achievements themselves are the result of capital driving a value revolution. The monopoly of transnational corporations over high technology and intellectual property rights, their plunder of social wealth in late-developing countries, and the dominance of international organizations over the formulation of rules for the world economy are all realized in this process. Therefore, in Lane’s view, globalized capitalism is “a system of production of goods and services through unrestricted international market exchange … although states operate within the global market, transnational institutions not only limit state power but also replace it in many respects (though not all).” Neoliberal globalization is a transnational form of ownership and market production.

新自由主义全球化的支配力量是跨国资本。莱恩认为，新自由主义全球化蕴含着资本主义的积累逻辑。自由主义者通常将现代资本主义视为以持续的、理性的企业活动为手段不断追求利润的过程。而马克思主义研究者不仅关注全球化为物质生产过程带来的技术变革，还主张从阶级的视角分析全球化进程的主导力量。正如马克思恩格斯在《共产党宣言》中所指出的：“资产阶级，由于开拓了世界市场，使一切国家的生产和消费都成为世界性的了。……过去那种地方的和民族的自给自足和闭关自守状态，被各民族的各方面的互相往来和各方面的互相依赖所代替了。”3全球化并不是无主体的。在20世纪末，新自由主义意识形态为资本的全球扩张提供了可能是最好的“保护壳”。一方面，依托电子信息、交通运输和通信革命，全球化实现了远程行动、时空压缩及跨区域互联互通，保障了市场机制的高效率运作。另一方面，技术成果本身是资本推动价值革命的结果。跨国公司对高新技术和知识产权的垄断以及对后发国家社会财富的攫取，国际组织对世界经济运行规则制定的主导权，都在这一过程中实现。所以，在莱恩看来，全球化资本主义是“一种通过不受阻碍的国际市场交换进行的商品和服务生产体系……国家虽然在全球市场中运作，但跨国机构不仅限制了国家的权力，还在很多方面取代了它(尽管不是所有方面)”。新自由主义全球化是一种跨国形式的所有制和市场生产。

II. The Defects and Crisis of Neoliberal Globalization

二、新自由主义全球化的缺陷与危机

Neoliberalism is an ideology and policy system adapted to the global dominance of transnational corporations and the transnational capitalist class behind them. Therefore, in its actual operation, neoliberal globalization cannot avoid economic crises; moreover, by safeguarding the transnational capitalist expropriation of society, it intensifies the polarization of wealth and social antagonism both within individual countries and worldwide, plunging neoliberal globalization into a predicament. This situation is specifically manifested in the following three aspects.

新自由主义是与跨国公司及其背后的跨国资本家阶级的全球统治相适应的意识形态和政策体系。因此，新自由主义全球化在实际运行中不仅无法避免经济危机，而且还会因为保障跨国资本家对社会的剥夺而加剧一国内部乃至世界范围内的贫富分化和社会对抗，使新自由主义全球化陷入困境，这种情况具体表现在以下三个方面。

First, neoliberal globalization ensures the global accumulation of transnational capital but cannot avoid economic crises.

第一，新自由主义全球化保障了跨国资本的全球积累，无法避免经济危机。

Lane points out that neoliberalism claims the “spontaneous order” among economic units will lead to economic equilibrium, but this is not the case. On the one hand, neoliberalism exacerbates the polarization of wealth between countries. In the late Cold War period, the neoliberal policy system profoundly influenced the socialist countries of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, leading some Eastern European countries to become members of the European Union after the dissolution of the socialist camp. However, compared to the hegemonic members of the EU, the reforms of liberalization, privatization, and marketization have kept these Eastern European countries in a subordinate position within the capitalist world economic system. [4]4 The reference is to the post-1989 transition of former Soviet-bloc states in Eastern Europe, which adopted neoliberal reforms (privatization, deregulation, marketization) as part of their integration into the European Union and the global capitalist economy. Furthermore, institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization are also controlled by major capitalist countries like Britain and the United States, which use means such as providing loans to incorporate more and more countries into the capitalist world economic system. On the other hand, neoliberal globalization has changed the internal structure of the ruling class. In the process of globalization, the sphere of influence of the ruling class has broken through individual nation-states, and a transnational capitalist class, based on hegemonic states yet possessing global influence, has ascended the political stage. Lane argues that the transnational capitalist class includes: owners and controllers of transnational financial/non-financial corporations; officials of some countries and regions, such as a country’s president or prime minister; administrative-technical groups, such as board members and senior executives of the IMF, World Bank, and WTO; ideological groups, such as members of some political think tanks and academic institutions; and the “consumerist” group, namely businessmen and the media. These groups can not only closely integrate with the global economic operation through international economic organizations but also seize state power, using the media tools they control to further influence domestic ideology and suppress critical voices against neoliberalism. Neoliberal globalization leads to unrestricted accumulation of transnational capital, and the outbreak of the 2007–2008 financial crisis is a powerful example refuting the neoliberal “spontaneous equilibrium” order.

莱恩指出，新自由主义宣称经济单位之间的“自发秩序”会导向经济均衡，而事实并非如此。一方面，新自由主义加剧了国家间的贫富分化。在冷战后期，新自由主义的政策体系深刻影响了苏联和东欧的社会主义国家，使一些东欧国家在社会主义阵营解体后成为欧盟的成员国。然而，相较于欧盟的霸权成员，自由化、私有化和市场化改革却使这些东欧国家始终处于资本主义世界经济体系的从属地位。4此外，国际货币基金组织、世界银行、世界贸易组织等机构也由英美等主要资本主义国家控制，它们以提供贷款等途径将越来越多的国家纳入资本主义世界经济体系。另一方面，新自由主义全球化改变了统治阶级的内部结构。在全球化进程中，统治阶级的势力范围突破了单个民族国家，一个基于霸权国家又有全球影响力的跨国资本家阶级登上了政治舞台。莱恩认为，跨国资本家阶级包括：跨国金融/非金融公司的所有者和控制者；部分国家和地区的官员，如一国的总统、总理等；行政技术集团，如国际货币基金组织、世界银行和世界贸易组织的董事会成员和高管；意识形态集团，如部分政治智库、学术机构的成员；“消费主义”集团，即商人和媒体。这些群体不仅能够通过国际经济组织与全球经济运行紧密结合，还能够掌握国家政权，借助自身所控制的舆论工具进一步影响本国的意识形态，压制对新自由主义的批判声音。新自由主义全球化造成跨国资本不受限制的积累，2007—2008年金融危机的爆发就是驳斥新自由主义“自发均衡”秩序的有力例证。

Second, neoliberal globalization weakens national sovereignty, plunging these countries into a public welfare crisis.

第二，新自由主义全球化削弱了国家主权，使这些国家陷入公共福利危机。

Lane points out that, on the one hand, neoliberal policies limit the state’s ability to perform public functions. Compared to social democracy or coordinated market economies, countries implementing neoliberal policies no longer have a positive role in ensuring the welfare of the people; any attempt to establish a cooperative economy is seen as a violation of the principles of individual self-sufficiency and social autonomy. In these countries, the private sector replaces the state as the provider of public services. Transnational capitalists, on the one hand, intensify the expropriation of people’s wealth through various means such as adjusting employment and pricing power, and on the other hand, limit people’s struggle for their rights by cutting welfare and establishing a minimal state, leading these countries gradually toward a public welfare crisis and a legitimacy crisis. Within a country, the antagonistic nature of neoliberal political system design with democracy is increasingly evident. As Friedrich Hayek stated, democracy is not superior to law and tradition. In the West, freedom and the rule of law are the core values of capitalism, and democracy is merely regarded as a “procedural principle for defending freedom.” This means that the state must be bound by laws subject to “democratic choice,” and people have no right to oppose market mechanisms and neoliberal economic measures by majority decision, as this violates the freedom of private property. On the other hand, the state’s role as an active defender of the liberal order has significantly strengthened. In classical liberalism, the individual’s pursuit of private interests is believed to benefit public welfare and social interests. Neoliberalism further extends this conclusion to globalization. In the neoliberal view, if the pursuit of private interests can safeguard social interests, then this is equally beneficial to the interests of the whole world and all people; therefore, the whole world has a responsibility to defend this ideology. Even after the 2007–2008 financial crisis, Western governments prioritized spending huge sums to bail out large financial institutions, further worsening the situation for the people.

莱恩指出，一方面，新自由主义政策限制了国家履行公共职能的能力。相较于社会民主主义或协调性市场经济，实行新自由主义政策的国家不再具有保障民众福利的积极作用，任何建立合作经济的尝试都被视为对个体自足、社会自治原则的侵犯。在这些国家，私营部门取代国家成为公共服务的提供者。跨国资本家一面通过调整就业、定价权等各种手段强化对民众财富的剥夺，一面又通过削减福利、建立最小国家限制民众对自身权利的争取，导致这些国家逐渐走向公共福利危机和合法性危机。在一国内部，新自由主义的政治制度设计与民主对立的本质日益凸显。正如弗里德里希·哈耶克(Friedrich Hayek)所说的那样，民主并不优于法律和传统。在西方，自由和法治才是资本主义的核心价值，民主仅被视为“捍卫自由的过程性原则”。这意味着国家必须受到“民主选择”的法律的约束，人们无权以多数决定来反对市场机制和新自由主义经济措施，因为这违反了私有财产的自由。另一方面，国家作为自由主义秩序的积极捍卫者的角色显著增强。在古典自由主义看来，个体对私人利益的追求将有利于公共福祉和社会利益。新自由主义进一步把这个结论引向全球化。在新自由主义看来，如果追求私人利益能够保障社会利益，那么这同样有利于全世界的利益、所有人的利益，因此，全世界都有责任捍卫这种意识形态。即便在2007—2008年金融危机之后，西方政府也优先投入高额费用救助大金融机构，使民众的处境进一步恶化。

Third, neoliberal globalization intensifies social contradictions, leading to the rise of new populism.

第三，新自由主义全球化激化了社会矛盾，导致了新民粹主义的兴起。

Lane points out that since the financial crisis of 2007–2008, deindustrialization, unemployment, and depression have led Western countries to face more profound social contradictions. In the UK, approximately four million people currently require government health benefits; they have no jobs and have lost other sources of income. Yet the proletariat in the Western world has lost its representation. In Lane’s view, the Western working class is currently organized by very weak socialist parties. Constrained by electoral democracy, these parties have nearly ceased to function and have lost their influence. The revolutionary party envisioned by Lenin no longer exists in these countries. Furthermore, changes in the occupational structure of the working class, internal class stratification, and deterritorialization have severely affected the development of its class consciousness. A “creative” stratum of workers, primarily engaged in computers, architecture, law, and other industries, has risen, and “the labor force is mainly composed of a non-proletarian working class.”[5]5 David Lane, “Global Neoliberal Capitalism and the Alternatives: From Social Democracy to State Capitalisms,” *The Political Quarterly*, Vol. 92, No. 3, 2021, p. 473. Moreover, even if the working class were to develop its own political forces in Western countries, these forces would be far from able to counterbalance the close collaboration formed by transnational corporations, international institutions, and the transnational capitalist class. Consequently, the influence of socialist parties in the Western world is extremely limited, and traditional left-wing parties, having declined, are unable to support popular movements. Against this backdrop, new populism has emerged as a political trend and social movement that has gradually come to the fore since the financial crisis. In the UK, the Brexit movement is a typical manifestation of new populism, to some extent revealing popular resistance to globalized capitalism. South Wales is an important steel-producing region in the UK and one of the areas with the strongest desire to leave the EU, because the large amounts of EU funding allocated to it have been used to build roads and social activity centers rather than to support local industrial development, resulting in high rates of alcoholism, divorce, suicide, and population outflow in South Wales. Lane argues that although new populism calls for national sovereignty and for the people to regain control over the state, it neither touches the foundations of global capital rule nor proposes constructive plans for restructuring society; instead, it intensifies the fragmentation and confrontation within Western societies. New populism arises within the framework of neoliberalism and does not constitute a challenge to neoliberal globalization; rather, it is a continuation of neoliberalism.

莱恩指出，自2007—2008年金融危机之后，去工业化、失业和萧条已导致西方国家面临更为深刻的社会矛盾。在英国，目前约有400万人需要接受政府的健康补助，他们没有工作，也失去了其他收入来源。然而，无产阶级在西方世界失去了自己的代表。在莱恩看来，西方的工人阶级目前是由非常弱小的社会主义政党来组织的。受选举民主制度的制约，这些政党也几乎停止运作，丧失了影响力。列宁所设想的革命型政党在这些国家已不存在。此外，工人阶级职业结构的变化、内部阶层分化和去地域化的状况也严重地影响了其阶级意识的发展。一个“创造性”的、主要从事计算机、建筑、法律等行业的工人阶层崛起，“劳动力主要由非无产阶级的工人阶级组成”。5进一步而言，即使工人阶级在西方国家有了自己的政治力量，这些力量也远远无法与跨国公司、国际机构与跨国资本家阶级形成的紧密协作相抗衡。因此，社会主义政党在西方世界的影响极为有限，传统左翼政党也因衰落而无力支持民众运动。在此背景下，新民粹主义成为金融危机后逐步走向前台的政治思潮和社会运动。在英国，脱欧运动是新民粹主义的典型表现，在一定程度上显示出民众对全球化资本主义的反抗。南威尔士是英国重要的钢铁产地，也是英国脱欧意愿最强烈的地区之一，因为欧盟为之提供的大量拨款均被用于修建道路和社会活动中心，而非用来支持当地的工业发展，导致南威尔士存在着很高的酗酒率、离婚率、自杀率和人口流出率。莱恩认为，尽管新民粹主义呼唤国家主权，呼唤民众对国家的重新控制，但它既不触及资本全球统治的根基，也没有提出重构社会的建设性方案，反而激化了西方社会的撕裂和对抗。新民粹主义是在新自由主义的框架内产生的，并不构成对新自由主义全球化的挑战，而是新自由主义的延续。

III. Alternatives to Neoliberal Globalization

三、新自由主义全球化的替代方案

At present, new populism is leading the world down the dangerous path of deglobalization and anti-globalization. In Lane’s view, this merely means that the globalization process from the end of the 20th century to the present must be qualified with the adjective “capitalist,” and that it is necessary to explore alternatives to neoliberal globalization without negating globalization itself. Among these, China’s constructive proposal regarding globalization offers a beneficial option for the construction of a future global order.

当下，新民粹主义正将世界引向逆全球化、反全球化的危险道路。在莱恩看来，这仅仅意味着20世纪末至今的全球化进程必须加上“资本主义”这一限定词，意味着必须探索对新自由主义全球化的替代道路，而不能否定全球化本身。其中，中国针对全球化提出的建设性方案为未来的全球秩序建构提供了一种有益的选择。

Lane believes that the crisis of neoliberal globalization cannot be resolved within the capitalist world system. Neither the core countries nor the peripheral countries of the capitalist world system can drive institutional change in globalization. On the one hand, core countries can adjust certain aspects of neoliberal policies, but the state always remains the agent of the will of the transnational capital group. For example, to counter neoliberalism, France has strengthened the nationalization of enterprises and control over state-owned enterprises. Similarly, to protect the welfare of agricultural populations in member states and maintain existing industrial structures, the EU has imposed high tariffs on products from other countries to prevent their markets from being occupied by cheap North African agricultural products. These partial adjustments only serve the political and economic interests of specific countries. On the other hand, neoliberalism has created the dependence of peripheral countries on core countries, depriving them of economic sovereignty and substantive political sovereignty. Neoliberalism recognizes the rules of interaction between states as equal legal subjects, but at the same time, through its policy system, it provides support for the expansion of the capitalist world system. Institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, dominated by the hegemonic power, not only have the power to promote the neoliberal social model worldwide but can also legitimize political intervention by liberal states in “non-liberal” states, defining such intervention as actions to “ensure freedom, the rule of law,” or “peacekeeping.” The transformation of the global order requires a structural change in the capitalist world system. Just as there is capitalist industrialization and socialist industrialization, we can equally conceive of capitalist globalization and socialist globalization.

莱恩认为，新自由主义全球化的危机无法在资本主义世界体系内部得到解决。无论是资本主义世界体系的中心国家还是边缘国家，都无法推动对全球化的制度变革。一方面，中心国家可以调整新自由主义政策的部分内容，但国家始终是跨国资本集团意志的代理人。例如，为了对抗新自由主义，法国加强了对企业的国有化和对国有企业的管控；再如，为了保护成员国农业人口的福利，维持现有的产业结构，欧盟对其他国家的产品设置了高关税，以避免其被北非的廉价农产品占据市场。这些局部调整仅维护了特定国家的政治经济利益。另一方面，新自由主义造成了边缘国家对中心国家的依附，使其丧失了经济主权和实质上的政治主权。新自由主义承认国家作为平等法权主体的交往规则，但同时又以其政策体系为资本主义世界体系的扩展提供支撑。由霸权国支配的世界银行、国际货币基金组织等机构不仅具有在世界范围内推广新自由主义社会模式的权力，还能够将自由主义国家对“非自由”国家的政治干预合法化，并将其界定为“确保自由、法治”或“维和”的行动。全球化秩序的更迭需要资本主义世界体系的结构性变迁。正如存在着资本主义工业化和社会主义工业化一样，我们同样可以设想资本主义全球化和社会主义全球化。

In Lane’s view, socialism with Chinese characteristics contributes a beneficial globalization proposal. He argues that China has not chosen to become dependent on the capitalist world economic system dominated by the hegemonic power, but has consistently adhered to a socialist development path with Chinese characteristics, offering a new model of globalization. Economically, China has introduced market relations and a mixed-ownership economy, regulating the market through the socialist system, and has explored an institutional form that combines state power with market forces. Between 1990 and 2017, China’s foreign direct investment remained at a relatively low level, lower than that of Latin America and the Caribbean, indicating that China’s development was not the result of completely opening up its markets.[6]6 David Lane, “Global Neoliberal Capitalism and the Alternatives: From Social Democracy to State Capitalisms,” *The Political Quarterly*, Vol. 92, No. 3, 2021, p. 477. Lane divides China’s development since reform and opening up into three stages: the peripheral dependence stage, the competitive symbiosis stage, and the new equilibrium stage. He proposes that in the first stage, China was merely a provider of labor-intensive manufactured goods in the world market; in the second stage, with domestic economic growth, industrial development, and technological innovation, China and Western countries moved toward a relationship of both competition and interdependence; in the current, third stage, countries represented by China have formed relatively autonomous economic and political systems, becoming a “semi-core” force interacting with the dominant core countries.[7]7 David Lane, “Global Neoliberal Capitalism and the Alternatives: From Social Democracy to State Capitalisms,” *The Political Quarterly*, Vol. 92, No. 3, 2021, p. 477. The socialist market economy has ensured that China can integrate into the world economic system and benefit from it, while maintaining a considerable degree of independence and avoiding the predicament of marginalization. Politically, China has shaped a strong state representing public power, a state that focuses not only on individual freedom but more on the unity of society as a whole and the realization of collective interests. The government has the capacity to reverse the negative impacts of the globalization process through policy adjustments and to protect the welfare of more people. In the field of international relations, China actively establishes regional political and economic organizations, advocates for building a community with a shared future for mankind, and strives to achieve genuine sovereign equality among nations.

在莱恩看来，中国特色社会主义贡献了有益的全球化方案。他认为，中国并未选择依附于由霸权国家主导的资本主义世界经济体系，而是始终坚持有中国特色的社会主义发展道路，提供了一种新的全球化方案。在经济上，中国引入市场关系和混合所有制经济，并以社会主义制度调控市场，探索出了一种将国家力量与市场力量结合起来的制度形式。在1990—2017年间，中国的外国直接投资一直保持在较低水平，低于拉美和加勒比地区，体现了中国的发展并不是完全放开市场的结果。6莱恩将改革开放以来中国的发展划分为三个阶段，即边缘依附阶段、竞争共生阶段和新均衡阶段。他提出，在第一阶段，中国在世界市场中只是劳动密集型制造业的提供者；在第二阶段，随着国内的经济增长、工业发展和技术创新，中国与西方国家走向了既相互竞争又相互依存的关系；在当下，即第三阶段，以中国为代表的国家形成了相对自主的经济政治体系，成为与主导性中心国家互动的“半中心”力量。7社会主义市场经济保证了中国融入世界经济体系并从中获益，同时又能够具备相当程度的独立性，避免了被边缘化的困境。在政治上，中国塑造了一个强大的代表公共权力的国家，这个国家不只关注个人自由，更关注社会整体的团结和集体利益的实现。政府有能力通过政策调整来扭转全球化过程的负面影响，保护更多民众的福祉。在国际关系领域，中国积极组建区域性政治和经济组织，倡导构建人类命运共同体，致力于实现国与国之间真正的主权平等。

Lane acknowledges the positive role China plays in the construction of the global order. He argues that the representative scholars of world-systems theory, such as Immanuel Wallerstein, typically divide the world economy into three parts—core, semi-periphery, and periphery—and that this model has limitations. In Wallerstein’s view, the core mainly refers to capitalist hegemonic states, along with the political and military organizations and multinational corporations they dominate; the semi-periphery consists of states that possess state-owned companies while simultaneously being exploited by multinational corporations; and the periphery is dependent on the core in all aspects, including economics and politics. Due to the accumulation advantages of the core, the semi-periphery is unstable; it will either transition into the core or fall into the periphery.[8]8 Immanuel Wallerstein (1930–2019) was an American sociologist and a key figure in world-systems theory. The core-semiperiphery-periphery model describes the hierarchical structure of the capitalist world-economy, where the core exploits the periphery and semi-periphery through unequal exchange. Lane emphasizes that this theory cannot explain the diversity within core states and their mutual conflicts, nor can it account for the rise of states and regional organizations that challenge the hegemonic status of core states. In fact, globalization since the late 20th century has provided conditions for the economic growth of late-developing countries. Taking the BRICS countries as an example, in 1980, the total gross domestic product (GDP) of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa accounted for only about 11% of the world’s total and 38% of the Americas’ total; by 2015, the total GDP of these five countries accounted for 30% of the world’s total; and by 2020, the total GDP of the Americas was only about 58% of that of the BRICS five.[9]9 BRICS is an acronym for the grouping of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, originally coined in 2001 by economist Jim O’Neill to highlight their potential as emerging economies. It can be seen that, compared with the economic growth rates of emerging market countries, the economic status of capitalist core states has relatively declined. Changes in economic power have further influenced geopolitics, prompting emerging market countries to no longer occupy the periphery or semi-periphery of the world system, but instead to form an interdependent competitive relationship with capitalist hegemonic states.[10]10 “Semi-core” (半中心) is a term Lane introduces to modify Wallerstein’s model, suggesting that some states, like China, occupy a position between core and semi-periphery, challenging the traditional binary. Thus, Lane advocates replacing the concept of “semi-periphery” with “semi-core” and regards China as the main representative of “semi-core” forces. It should be noted that although the above viewpoint elaborates on how the Chinese path transcends the neoliberal globalization model, its structural analysis of the world system is inaccurate. This is because, according to Wallerstein’s prediction, market relations are the dominant form regulating the world economy, and all states will eventually join a single capitalist world system; therefore, China cannot simply be incorporated into the capitalist-dominated world system through the concept of “semi-core.” Furthermore, “core” and “semi-core” focus on examining the competitive and confrontational relationship between late-developing countries and capitalist hegemonic states, but under the historical conditions where socialism coexists with transnational capitalism, cooperation and exchange between the two also constitute one aspect of the contradiction.

莱恩认可中国在全球化秩序建构中发挥的积极作用。他认为，伊曼纽尔·沃勒斯坦(Immanuel Wallerstein)等世界体系理论的代表性学者通常将世界经济划分为中心—半边缘—边缘三部分，这一模型是有局限的。在沃勒斯坦那里，中心主要指资本主义霸权国，以及由这些国家支配的政治、军事组织和跨国公司，半边缘由一些既拥有国有公司、同时又受到跨国公司剥削的国家组成，边缘则在经济、政治等各方面都依附于中心。由于中心的积累优势，半边缘形态是不稳定的，它或者会转为中心，或者会进入边缘。8莱恩强调，这种理论无法解释中心国家内部的多样性及其相互冲突，也无法解释那些挑战中心国家霸权地位的国家和区域性组织的兴起。事实上，20世纪后期以来的全球化为后发国家的经济增长提供了条件。以金砖国家为例，在1980年，巴西、俄罗斯、印度、中国和南非的国内生产总值(GDP)总额仅占世界的11%和美洲的38%左右，而在2015年，这五个国家的GDP总额占到了世界的30%,至2020年，美洲的GDP总额仅为金砖五国的58%左右。9可见，相较于新兴市场国家的经济增速，资本主义中心国家的经济地位相对下降。经济权力的变化进一步影响了地缘政治，促使新兴市场国家不再处于世界体系的边缘或半边缘地带，而是与资本主义霸权国构成相互依存的竞争关系。10由此，莱恩主张以“半中心”替代“半边缘”概念，并把中国视为“半中心”力量的主要代表。应该注意的是，上述观点虽然阐述了中国道路对新自由主义全球化模式的超越，但其对世界体系的结构分析是不准确的。因为按照沃勒斯坦的预测，市场关系是调节世界经济的主导形式，所有国家最终都将加入一个单一的资本主义世界体系，因此，并不能简单地以“半中心”的概念将中国纳入由资本主义主导的世界体系。此外，“中心”和“半中心”侧重考察后发国家与资本主义霸权国的竞争和对抗关系，但在社会主义与跨国资本主义并存的历史条件下，两者之间的合作、交流同样构成矛盾的一个方面。

IV. Conclusion

四、结语

In summary, Lane’s lecture explored the historical process of post-war capitalist development, the dominant forces of neoliberal globalization, its internal contradictions, and the possibility of constructing a new model of globalization. After World War II, and especially since the 1970s, capitalism, driven by neoliberal ideology, broke through the economic and political boundaries of individual states and gradually developed into a global system with powerful influence. On the basis of technological changes in the production process, it established transnational forms of ownership relations, making the transnational capitalist class a ruling class capable of dominating the world’s economic and political operations. Under the rule of transnational capital, neoliberal globalization cannot avoid economic crises within individual states and on a global scale, nor can it guarantee the economic and social rights and interests of the people in Western countries, leading to increasingly intense social contradictions in the West. In the face of the difficulties confronting neoliberal globalization, China’s constructive proposals for globalization will provide a positive alternative to neoliberal globalization.

综上所述，莱恩在讲座中对战后资本主义发展的历史进程、新自由主义全球化的主导力量、内部矛盾以及新型全球化模式的建构可能进行了探讨。在二战后，尤其是1970年代以来，资本主义在新自由主义意识形态的推动下突破了一国的经济、政治边界，逐渐发展为一个具有强大影响力的全球系统。它在实现生产过程技术变革的基础上建立起了跨国形式的所有制关系，使跨国资本家集团成为有能力主导世界经济、政治运行的统治阶级。在跨国资本的统治之下，新自由主义全球化无法避免一国内部与世界范围内的经济危机，无力保障西方国家民众的经济社会权益，导致西方的社会矛盾日趋激烈。而在新自由主义全球化面临的困境面前，中国对全球化提出的建设性方案将为新自由主义全球化提供一种积极的替代性选择。

Online editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑