Looking at Western Civilization through the Lens of Western Economics

In the *Brief Introduction to Disciplines and Their Degree Requirements for Graduate Education* published on the official website of the China Society of Academic Degrees and Graduate Education, when discussing the established second-level discipline of Western economics, it states: “Western economics takes the efficient allocation of resources under the constraint of scarcity as its goal, and studies the theory and policy of the market economy. It studies both the economic behavior of micro-level market entities and the overall fluctuations and growth of the market as well as the government’s economic regulation policies; at the same time, it analyzes both the operational principles of the market economy mechanism and the design of related incentive systems, and continuously researches and discovers the causes of market failure and methods for its resolution. Western economics has evolved and integrated from multiple schools and branches. In terms of methodology, modern Western economics increasingly emphasizes mathematical economic analysis and application.” However, the research of Western economics has very serious defects, reflecting some biased characteristics of Western civilization. This is because, although Western economics does not scientifically reflect the operational laws of the capitalist economy like Marxian economics, but rather turns the vulgar notions of capitalists into academic theory, it thereby reflects the mainstream ideology based on the Western economic base, and thus can representatively highlight the prominent features of Western civilization.

在中国学位与研究生教育学会官网上公布的《研究生教育学科专业简介及其学位基本要求》在谈到所设置的西方经济学二级学科时提出，“西方经济学以资源在稀缺性约束下的有效配置为目标，研究市场经济的理论与政策。它既研究市场微观主体的经济行为，也研究市场的整体波动与增长以及政府的经济调控政策；同时既分析市场经济机制的运行原理与相关激励制度设计，也不断研究发现市场机制失灵的原因和解决方法。西方经济学由多个流派与分支演化与融合发展而来。在方法上，现代西方经济学越发突出数理经济学分析与应用。”然而，西方经济学的研究具有非常严重的缺陷，反映了西方文明的一些偏颇的特质。这是因为西方经济学虽然没有像马克思经济学那样科学地反映资本主义经济的运行规律，而只是把资本家的庸俗观念学理化，但却因此反映了建立在西方经济基础上的主流意识形态，从而能够代表性地反映出西方文明的突出特性。

I. Looking at Western Civilization from the Research Goals of Western Economics

一、从西方经济学研究目标看西方文明

The reason Western economics “takes the efficient allocation of resources under the constraint of scarcity as its goal” is that it believes commodities are not readily available but must be produced, and are therefore scarce: “the magnitude of a commodity’s value is determined by scarcity.” But here, the real issue is not scarcity, but the expenditure of labor. Many commodity packaging materials are also produced, and are themselves even produced as commodities, and are therefore also scarce; yet after people open the packaging and take out the goods wrapped inside, they are almost all discarded. How can they still be said to be scarce? Some packaging, such as the bottles of high-end liquor, may be recycled and reused. The high recycling price of these old bottles is indeed related to their scarcity, but this scarcity is closely linked to the illicit intent of using them to package counterfeit liquor. Moreover, since value magnitude is a quantity that requires measurement, and scarcity itself is not a quantity and cannot be measured, how can it determine value magnitude? In comparison, the labor theory of value, which uses measurable labor time to determine value magnitude, is undoubtedly far more scientific. Therefore, Western economics talks about scarcity only to negate or reject the labor theory of value of Marx and even of classical economists like Ricardo, and to eliminate the scientific elements from classical economics in order to defend capitalists. Furthermore, resource allocation is merely a means to achieve some end; taking the means as the goal, allocating resources for the sake of allocating resources, is quite absurd. From this, it can be seen that Western civilization has a prominent absurdity.

西方经济学之所以“以资源在稀缺性约束下的有效配置为目标”，是因为它认为，商品不是唾手可得的，需要生产出来，从而是稀缺的，“商品的价值量取决于稀缺性。” 但是，在这里，问题的根本不是稀缺，而是劳动的付出。很多商品的包装物也是生产出来的，甚至本身也是作为商品生产出来的，从而也是稀缺的，但是人们打开包装取出其中包裹的商品后，它们却几乎都废弃了，又怎么能说它们是稀缺的呢？一些包装物如高档酒类的酒瓶也许可以回收再利用，这些旧酒瓶的高昂回收价的确与其稀缺性有关，但这种稀缺性与人们要用它们来包装假酒的不轨企图有着密切的联系。更何况，价值量作为一种数量是需要计量的，而稀缺性本身不是一个数量，没有办法计量，它又怎么能够决定价值量呢？与之相比，劳动价值论以可以计量的劳动时间来决定价值量，无疑要科学得多。因此，西方经济学谈论稀缺性，只是为了否定或排斥马克思的甚至古典经济学家如李嘉图的劳动价值论，是为了替资本家辩护而消除古典经济学中的科学成分。更何况资源配置只是达到某种目的的手段，把手段作为目标，为配置资源而配置资源，是很荒唐的。由此可以看出，西方文明具有突出的荒唐性。

What Western economics calls the efficient allocation of resources requires that resources belong to capitalists, and moreover to big capitalists. For example, Nobel laureate in economics and world-renowned American economist Ronald Coase argued that “the initial delimitation of legal rights does have an effect on the efficiency of the economic system, and one arrangement of rights may bring about a greater value of output than another.” He demanded that “courts should understand the economic consequences of their decisions and, insofar as this is possible without creating too much uncertainty about the legal position itself, should take these consequences into account when making their decisions. Even when it is possible to change the legal delimitation of rights through market transactions, it is desirable to reduce the need for such transactions and thus reduce the resources required to carry them out.” Consequently, since granting the right to pollute the air to the factory owner who emits waste gases obviously reduces the transaction costs of reaching an agreement between the factory owner and the numerous surrounding residents compared with granting it to those residents, Western economics naturally advocates directly assigning such rights (property rights) to the factory owner in accordance with the goal of efficient resource allocation. This is also considered letting the market play a fundamental role in resource allocation. From this, it can be seen that Western civilization not only has a prominent capital-nature, but is also a civilization of power, with a prominent predatory character. It actually originates from the bandit culture there. Pirates have long been heroized in Western literature and film. Obviously, the transaction costs of piracy are very low.

西方经济学所谓的对于资源的有效配置，就是要求资源归资本家所有，而且是归大资本家所有。例如，诺贝尔经济学奖得主、世界著名的美国经济学家科斯就认为，“最初的合法权力的界定的确会对经济系统的运行效率产生影响，一种权力的安排会比别的安排带来更多的产出价值”，他要求，“法院应当明白他们的决定的经济后果，而且在可能的范围内不要对合法位置本身制造太多的不确定性，要在做出决定时考虑这些后果。即使可能通过市场交易来改变合法的权利界定，也有必要减少这类交易的需要，并因此减少执行它们所需的资源。” 于是，既然把污染空气的权力赋予排放废气的工厂主，显然比把它赋予周边居民，可以减少工厂主与周边众多居民达成协议的交易费用，那么，西方经济学自然就主张按照有效配置资源的目标直接把这样的权力（产权）赋予工厂主，这也算是让市场在资源配置中起根本性作用。从这里，可以看出，西方文明不仅具有突出的资本性，而且是一种强权的文明，具有突出的劫掠性，它其实起源于那里的强盗文化。海盗在西方文学和影视作品中早已被英雄化。显然，海盗打劫的交易费用是很低的。

Western economics claims to “pursue the greatest good for the greatest number.” However, this pursuit is carried out under the constraint of scarcity, that is, under each person’s existing conditions. That is to say, for the poor person, he can only pursue the “greatest” benefit under the resource allocation of having only a single begging bowl and a dog-beating stick; while for the rich person, he can pursue the greatest benefit of not letting excess meat and wine spoil and go to waste. Western economics absolutely does not consider adjusting scarcity, transferring some of the rich person’s surplus meat and wine to the poor, because it believes such an adjustment is not an “efficient” allocation of resources. After all, they long ago recognized that “where property is well secured, it is easier to live without money than without the poor; for who would labor?” [n1] From this, it can be seen that Western civilization has a prominent obscurantist character.

西方经济学声称，“追求最大多数人的最大利益。” 然而，这种追求是在稀缺性约束下也就是在每个人现有条件下进行的。也就是说，对于穷人来说，他只能追求在仅有一个讨饭破碗和打狗棍的资源配置情况下的“最大”利益，而对于富人来说，就可以追求别把酒肉过期放臭了的最大利益。西方经济学决不考虑调整一下稀缺性，把富人的一些多余的酒肉调剂给穷人，因为他们认为这样的调整不是对资源的“有效”配置。毕竟，他们早就认识到，“在财产有充分保障的地方，没有货币还比较容易生活，没有穷人就不行，因为谁去劳动呢？” 由此可见，西方文明具有突出的愚民性。

Based on changes in scarcity, Western economics proposed the theory of diminishing marginal utility, in order to construct a theory of utility value to oppose the labor theory of value. This theory holds that as the quantity of commodities consumed (possessed) increases, the utility brought by a single commodity decreases. Consequently, British economist Arthur Pigou proposed that since the more money one has, the less utility an additional unit of currency brings, then transferring a small amount of money from the rich to the poor who lack it would increase the total utility of society. Western economics naturally could not accept this, but it did not abandon the theory of diminishing marginal utility that led to this conclusion; instead, it supplemented and revised the original theory. To this end, Western economics proposed two revision schemes. One was to advance the theory of constant utility of money, i.e., the marginal utility of money does not diminish. But this still left a problem they were dissatisfied with: the utility of one unit of currency to the rich might be lower than its utility to the poor, so that there still existed the theoretical risk of advocating “robbing the rich to aid the poor.” The second was the theory of the incomparability of utility between individuals, proposed by the Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto. Thus, “a rich man’s view of a dollar may be much more important than that of a street beggar” [n2], so that not only can one not “rob the rich to aid the poor,” but one should instead “rob the poor to aid the rich,” with the actual tax rate for the wealthier being lower. This behavior of Western economics actually reflects the Matthew effect in Western civilization, that is, what the Bible says: “For to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance; but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.” [n3] This “taking from those who have not enough to give to those who have more than enough” is precisely what Laozi in the *Dao De Jing* calls “the way of man.” [n4] Therefore, Western civilization has a prominent “human” character. In comparison, Chinese civilization emphasizes “not worrying about scarcity but about inequality,” and upholds the “way of heaven,” which is “to take from those who have more than enough to give to those who have not enough.” Today, through the Two Integrations [n5], this manifests in Chinese economics as the research goal of achieving common prosperity. The “humanitarianism” emphasized by Western civilization upholds Protestant ethics, which are consistent with the capitalist spirit. Marx once pointed out that “Protestantism, by turning almost all the traditional holidays into workdays, played an important role in the genesis of capital.” [n6] Thus, defending capital and tilting resource allocation toward capital is the “political correctness” of Western economics, which reflects Western civilization. For modern economics, “the question is no longer whether this or that theorem is true, but whether it is useful to capital or harmful, convenient or inconvenient, whether it violates police regulations or not.” [n7]

西方经济学根据稀缺性的变化提出了边际效用递减的理论，以便以此构造出对抗劳动价值论的效用价值论。该理论认为，随着消费（占有）的商品的数量增加，单个商品带来的效用会下降。于是，英国经济学家庇古提出，既然货币越多，一元货币带来的效用越少，那么把少量的货币从富人那里拿来给缺钱的穷人就会提高整个社会的效用。对此，西方经济学自然无法接受，但他们没有抛弃导致这个结论的边际效用递减理论，而是对原有理论进行了补充和修正。为此，西方经济学提出了两个修正方案。一是推出货币效用不变论，也就是货币的边际效用不会递减。但是，这样还是有一个令他们不能满意的问题，那就是一元货币对富人的效用可能比对穷人的效用低，以至于还是存在主张“劫富济贫”的理论风险。二是由意大利经济学家帕累托提出的个人之间的效用不可比论，于是，“一个大富翁的人对一元的看法，可能比一个街头乞丐重要得多” ，从而不仅不能“劫富济贫”，反而要“劫贫济富”，越富有的人的实际税率反而越低。西方经济学的这种做派实际上反映了西方文明中的马太效应，也就是《圣经》中所说的，“凡有的，还要加倍给他叫他多余；没有的，连他所有的也要夺过来”。这种“损不足以奉有余”正是老子在《道德经》中所说的“人之道”。因此，西方文明具有突出的“人道”性。与之相比，中华文明强调“不患寡而患不均”所奉行的则是“损有余而补不足”的“天之道”，它在今天通过“两个结合”表现为中国经济学的研究目标是实现共同富裕。西方文明所强调的“人道主义”奉行的是新教伦理，它与资本主义精神是一致的，马克思就曾指出，“新教几乎把所有传统的假日都变成了工作日，由此它在资本的产生上就起了重要作用。” 从而为资本辩护使资源配置向资本倾斜就是反映西方文明的西方经济学的“政治正确”。对于现代经济学来说，“现在问题不再是这个或那个原理是否正确，而是它对资本有利还是有害，方便还是不方便，违背警章还是不违背警章。”

However, since utilities between individuals are incomparable, and thus one cannot speak of aggregate utility, there can be no talk of the efficient allocation of resources, because each person’s judgment is different. To allocate resources efficiently according to different people’s utility preferences is something that even the most arrogant planner of a command economy has never conceived of. Moreover, since each person’s judgment differs, a hidden core question in the efficient allocation of resources is: for whom are these resource allocations efficient, for whom are they allocated? And who does the allocating? If the market does the allocating, then it is the “invisible hand” that allocates, and there is neither the necessity nor the possibility of conducting academic research on it; otherwise, the “invisible hand” would become a “visible hand.” If expert research is needed to know how to allocate resources efficiently, then the “efficient” allocation of resources can only be realized in a way that follows the instructions of experts, i.e., a non-market way. How, then, can one speak of the market playing a decisive role in resource allocation? This self-contradictory antinomy reflects the prominent antinomian character of Western civilization. In contrast, political economy does not speak of the empty efficient allocation of resources but emphasizes developing the productive forces and improving the relations of production in order to achieve common prosperity.

不过，既然个人之间的效用不可比，从而不能谈论总体的效用，那就谈不上资源的有效配置，因为每个人的评判都是不同的，而要根据不同人的效用偏好来有效配置资源，那是最狂妄的计划经济者也不曾设想过的。更何况，既然每个人的评判不同，那么有效配置资源的一个被隐蔽的核心问题是，这些资源配置对谁是有效的，是为谁配置的？又有谁来配置？如果由市场来配置，那就是“看不见的手”在配置，根本就不存在对其进行学术研究的必要，也不存在研究的可能性，否则“看不见的手”就变成“看得见的手”了。如果需要专家的研究才能知道如何有效配置资源，那就只有按照专家们指令进行的方式也就是非市场的方式才能实现“有效”的配置资源，又谈何市场在资源配置上起决定性作用呢？这种自相矛盾的二律背反，反映了西方文明具有突出的背反性。相反地，政治经济学不讲空洞的有效配置资源，而是强调发展生产力和改善生产关系，以实现共同富裕。

Western economics is also aware that the foregoing formulation cannot withstand scrutiny, so it further proposes that “the aim of economics is to pursue the purchase of happiness at the cost of the least pain, to raise happiness to its highest degree.” Or, in a more explicit formulation, “a temperate life and constant labor are for the poor the road to material happiness <he means the longest possible working day and the smallest possible quantity of means of subsistence> and for the state <i.e., the landlords, capitalists and their political dignitaries and agents> the road to wealth.” The text within the angle brackets is Marx’s annotation. Here we can see that Western economics exercises its prominent obscurantist character to hypocritically speak of happiness to the poor, rather than of (common) prosperity. Western economics also sets up leisure and consumption as decision-making options for the poor: if you want leisure (shortening the working day or merely observing the legal working day), you must reduce consumption (go hungry); if you want money to consume (not go hungry), you must work more and have less leisure (enjoy the “blessings” of working beyond the legal working day). And under the premise of low wages, which Western economics deliberately avoids, this is in fact a choice between starving to death (the smallest possible quantity of means of subsistence) and working oneself to death (the longest possible working day).

西方经济学也清楚前面的提法经不起追问，于是它们又提出，“经济学的目的是追求以最小痛苦的代价来购买快乐，使幸福增至最高度。” 或者，更明白的说法是，“有节制的生活和不断的劳动，对于穷人来说，是通向物质幸福<他是指尽可能长的工作日和尽可能少的生活资料>的道路，而对于国家<即地主、资本家和他们的政界显贵与代理人>来说，是通向富裕的道路。” 其中，尖角符号内的文字是马克思的标注。在这里，我们可以看到，西方经济学发挥其突出的愚民性来虚伪地对穷人讲幸福，而不是讲（共同）富裕。西方经济学也设定休闲与消费作为穷人的决策选项，要想休闲（缩短工作日或仅仅是遵守法定工作日）就要减少消费（饿肚子），要想有钱消费（不饿肚子）就得多干活少休闲（享受超出法定工作日的“福报”）。而在被西方经济学刻意回避的低工资的前提下，这实际上就是在饿死（尽可能少的生活资料）还是累死（尽可能长的工作日）之间进行选择。

More importantly, the bearer of the cost of pain and the enjoyer of pleasure are not the same person. Marx pointed out, “Capital is reckless of the health or length of life of the laborer, unless under compulsion from society. To the outcry as to the physical and mental degradation, the premature death, the torture of over-work, it answers: Ought these to trouble us since they increase our pleasure (profit)?” And Western economics, which follows neoliberalism, naturally opposes any social compulsion that would hinder the increase of capital’s pleasure (profit). Regarding this characteristic of Western civilization as reflected in Western economics, Marx once explained it when discussing the history of the opium trade. He pointed out, “The Chinese Emperor, in order to put a stop to the suicidal policy of his subjects, forbade the importation of the poison by foreigners and its consumption by natives at the same time. The East India Company, however, quickly made the cultivation of opium in India and its clandestine sale to China an integral part of its financial system. The semi-barbarian stood on the principle of morality, while the civilized man opposed him with the principle of selfishness.” The Western civilization’s emphasis on “Après moi, le déluge!” is precisely the “efficient” allocation of resources (the flood) that Western economics strives for; otherwise, no one would regard “dying with money left unspent” as the greatest pain in life. In contrast, the Chinese civilization’s emphasis on “the predecessors plant trees, the descendants enjoy the shade” finds no expression whatsoever in Western economics, which is based on selfishness. Chen Zhiwu, a Western economist at Yale University in the United States, regards the traditional Chinese cultural practice of raising children to provide for old age as an insurance against loss and believes it can be replaced by financial instruments such as pension funds. This shows that Western civilization has a prominent character of being without posterity, as it does not consider future generations.

更重要的是，痛苦的代价的承受者与快乐的享受者并不是同一个人。马克思指出，“资本是根本不关心工人的健康和寿命的，除非社会迫使它去关心。人们为体力和智力的衰退、夭折、过度劳动的折磨而愤愤不平，资本却回答说：既然这种痛苦会增加我们的快乐（利润），我们又何必为此苦恼呢？” 而奉行新自由主义的西方经济学自然是反对任何妨碍增加资本的快乐（利润）的社会关心的。对于西方经济学中所反映的西方文明的这个特点，马克思在谈到鸦片贸易史时曾有过说明。他指出，“中国皇帝为了制止自己臣民的自杀行为，下令同时禁止外国人输入和本国人吸食这种毒品，而东印度公司却迅速地把在印度种植鸦片和向中国私卖鸦片变成自己财政系统的不可分割的部分。半野蛮人坚持道德原则，而文明人却以自私自利的原则与之对抗。” 西方文明所强调的“我死后哪怕洪水滔天！”正是西方经济学所致力的“有效”配置资源（洪水），否则也不会有人把“人死了，钱没有花完”作为人生最痛苦的事。与之相比，中华文明所强调的“前人栽树，后人乘凉”在基于自私自利的西方经济学中就没有任何体现。美国耶鲁大学的西方经济学家陈志武把中国传统文化中的养儿防老视为损失保险，认为可以用养老基金等金融品种来代替。 这表明，西方文明具有不考虑子孙后代的突出的无后性。

The most critical issue is that Engels long ago pointed out, “The science of national economy arose as a natural consequence of the extension of trade, and in its place there appeared a ready-made system of licensed fraud, a complete science of enrichment, in place of the simple, unscientific huckstering.” Therefore, when Western economics takes the efficient allocation of resources as its goal and abandons the fundamental purpose of getting rich, it is no longer something that capitalists care about, unlike Adam Smith’s *An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations* (abbreviated as *The Wealth of Nations*). On this point, Marx long ago reminded us that the capitalist “has befooled us with a long rigmarole of empty phrases. He does not spend a farthing on this. He leaves such hypocritical shifts and empty phrases to the professors of political economy, whom he pays for the purpose. He himself is a practical man, and though he does not always think about what he says outside his business, he always knows what he does within it.” Thus, Western economics, left with nothing but “hypocritical shifts and empty phrases,” reflects the prominent utopian character of Western civilization, especially in its utopian imagining of an ideal capitalist society and a so-called “good” market economy for the purpose of peaceful evolution.

最关键的问题是，恩格斯早就指出，“国民经济学的产生是商业扩展的自然结果，随着它的出现，一个成熟的允许欺诈的体系、一门完整的发财致富的科学代替了简单的不科学的生意经。” 因此，当西方经济学以有效配置资源为目标，抛弃了发财致富这个根本目的时，它就不再像亚当·斯密的《国民财富的性质和原因的研究》（简称《国富论》）那样是资本家们在乎的东西了。对此，马克思早就提醒到，资本家“用一大套冗长无味的空话愚弄了我们。为此他不费一文钱。他把这一类虚伪的遁词和空话都交给他为此目的雇用的政治经济学教授们去讲。他自己是一个讲求实际的人，对于业务范围之外所说的话，虽然并不总是深思熟虑，但对于业务范围之内所做的事，他始终是一清二楚的。” 于是，只剩下“虚伪的遁词和空话”的西方经济学反映了西方文明所具有突出的空想性，尤其是空想出一个理想的资本主义社会和所谓“好的”市场经济来进行和平演变。

II. Looking at Western Civilization through the Research Content of Western Economics

二、从西方经济学研究内容看西方文明

Western economics claims to study the economic behavior of micro-subjects in the market, but what kind of subject is that? It is a subject that Western economics itself hypothesizes, the so-called selfish and rational *homo economicus*. Regarding such a person, Marx long ago pointed out that Western economics “naively and insipidly regards the modern philistine, and especially the English philistine, as the normal man.” That is to say, the so-called micro-subject of the market is merely a hypothetical person abstracted from the petty bourgeoisie, not a person situated in social reality. Such a hypothetical person reflects the prominent utilitarian character of Western civilization. It is precisely out of this utilitarianism that Westerners used military force to dump opium in China and do not care whether there will be a flood after their death. However, this utilitarianism appears quite pitiful in Western economics, where the selfishness of the vast majority of people can only be petty calculation. Because these people, possessing nothing, can only calculate, based on a given wage level, how long to work in order to maximize the utility of leisure and consumption. Western economics never considers improving the premises of these people’s selfishness through means such as “overthrowing the local tyrants and distributing the land” and strikes; on the contrary, it consistently uses unemployment to threaten further reductions in wage levels, arguing that rising wages would lead to the “unfavorable” situation of workers reducing working hours and increasing leisure time. This reflects the prominent oppressive character of Western civilization.

西方经济学号称研究市场微观主体的经济行为，但那是一个什么样的主体呢？那是一个西方经济学自己假设出来的主体，是所谓自私自利的理性经济人。对于这样的人，马克思早就指出，西方经济学“幼稚而乏味地把现代的市侩，特别是英国的市侩说成是标准人。” 也就是说，所谓市场微观主体只是从小资产阶级身上抽象出来的假想人，而不是处于社会现实中的人。这样的假想人反映出西方文明具有突出的功利性。正是出于这种功利性，西方人要用武力在中国倾销鸦片，并且不在乎死后是否洪水滔天。但是，这种功利性在西方经济学中表现得十分可怜，在那里绝大多数人的自私自利只能是穷算计。因为这些人只能在一无所有的情况下，根据既定的工资水平，来算计劳动多长时间以实现休闲和消费的效用最大化。西方经济学决不考虑通过“打土豪、分田地”和罢工等手段来改善这些人自私自利的前提，反而一味地利用失业来恫吓要进一步压低工资水平，认为工资水平升高会导致工人减少工作时间增加休闲时间的“不利”局面。这反映出西方文明具有突出的压迫性。

Apart from these isolated individuals, the micro-market subjects examined by Western economics are the so-called firms. These firms are without exception capitalist enterprises, because the production function of Western economics takes labor and capital as its independent variables. On the one hand, this shows that Western economics “cannot conceive that the various forms developed within the capitalist mode of production could depart from and cast off their antagonistic, capitalist character.”[11]11 Karl Marx, *Capital*, vol. 3, chapter 20, “Historical Material on Merchant’s Capital.” This reflects the fact that Western civilization has a prominent narrowness and lacks foresight. On the other hand, it also shows that these firms have only a factory—that is, only a production enterprise—and have no commerce, no commercial enterprise. After all, Western economics has never proposed a commercial function or a circulation function. Consequently, Western economics, basing distribution on the marginal productivity of factors of production according to the production function, completely excludes the basis for distribution for commercial enterprises and financial enterprises. If commercial enterprises cannot distribute, then they cannot exist, and without commercial enterprises and merchants, there would be no market circulation, and hence no market economy. Therefore, if the early *Wealth of Nations* did indeed study the theory and policy of the market economy, then modern Western economics has long since ceased to be a study of the market economy. If one cannot analyze the source of profit for commercial enterprises and financial enterprises, and lacks the various links of the commercial sphere and the financial sphere, how can one speak of analyzing the operating principles of the market economy mechanism? Hence, Western economics’ claim to study the theory and policy of the market economy reflects the fact that Western civilization has a prominent boastfulness.

除了这些孤立的个人，西方经济学所考察的市场微观主体就是所谓的厂商。这些厂商无一例外都是资本主义企业，因为西方经济学的生产函数就是以劳动和资本作为自变量的。这一方面表明，西方经济学“不能设想各种在资本主义生产方式内部发展起来的形式竟能够离开并且摆脱它们的对立的、资本主义的性质。” 从而反映出西方文明具有突出的狭隘性，缺乏前瞻性。另一方面这也表明，这些厂商只有厂即只有生产企业，而没有商，没有商业企业。毕竟西方经济学没有提出过商业函数或流通函数。从而西方经济学根据生产函数提出按生产要素贡献分配，完全排除了商业企业和金融企业的分配依据。如果商业企业不得分配，那么它们就不能存在，而没有商业企业和商人，就不会有市场流通，也就没有市场经济。所以，如果说早期的《国富论》的确在研究市场经济的理论与政策，那么现代西方经济学早就谈不上对市场经济的研究了。如果分析不了商业企业和金融企业的利润来源，少了商业领域和金融领域的各个环节，又谈何分析市场经济机制的运行原理？因此，西方经济学自称研究市场经济的理论与政策，反映出西方文明具有突出的吹嘘性。

Western economics’ study of overall market fluctuations is mainly aimed at opposing Marx’s theory of surplus value. Before the publication of Marx’s *Capital*, they did not acknowledge that a perfectly perfect capitalist market could experience overall fluctuations; after the publication of Marx’s *Capital*, they opposed attributing overall market fluctuations to the cycle of economic crises caused by overproduction determined by economic laws, instead advocating that they be seen as the result of some individual speculative behavior. After the US financial crisis, Western economics admitted that it had no way to deal with overall market fluctuations, that the government’s economic regulation and control policies were also ineffective, and instead began to advocate “dancing with wolves,” coexisting peacefully with economic crises, reflecting the fact that Western civilization has a prominent compromise.

西方经济学对市场的整体波动的研究，主要是为了反对马克思的剩余价值理论。在马克思的《资本论》发表之前，他们不承认十全十美的资本主义市场会出现整体波动；而在马克思的《资本论》发表之后，他们反对把市场的整体波动归结为由经济规律所决定的生产过剩引起的经济危机周期，而主张把它看成一些个人投机行为的结果。美国金融危机后，西方经济学承认对市场的整体波动毫无办法，政府的经济调控政策也没有作用，改为鼓吹“与狼共舞”，与经济危机安然共存，反映出西方文明具有突出的妥协性。

The growth models of Western economics are based on the theory of the production function, and their purpose is to “prove” that “Marx’s crude slogan, ‘Capital is dead labor, which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking living labor, and lives the more, the more labor it sucks’ can no longer be accepted. Capital itself is productive, not exploitative.”[12]12 This is a paraphrase of a common bourgeois critique of Marx’s theory of exploitation; the specific source is not identified in the original text. However, these “proofs” only show that “there can be a variety of proportional relationships between fixed constant capital and variable capital and output.”[13]13 This is a paraphrase of a critique of neoclassical growth theory; the specific source is not identified in the original text. Therefore, just as the bourgeoisie falsifies history and engages in historical nihilism, Western economics also falsifies science, embodying the tradition of forgery in Western civilization and having a prominent falsity.

西方经济学的增长模型以生产函数理论为基础，其目的是为了“证明”，“马克思主义的粗鲁口号，‘资本是死劳动，它像吸血鬼一样，只有吮吸活劳动才有生命，吮吸的活劳动越多，它的生命就越旺盛’不再能被接受。资本本身是能生产的，而不是剥削的”。 但是，这些“证明”只不过表明，“在固定不变资本与可变资本和产出之间可以有多种多样的比例关系” 。因此，正如资产阶级伪造历史，搞历史虚无主义一样，西方经济学也伪造科学，体现了西方文明善于伪造的传统，具有突出的造假性。

Western economics’ research on growth also serves to cover up the inflation created by financial oligarchs. Political economy holds that an increase in labor productivity leads to a decline in the value of a unit of commodity; in the absence of inflation, this means a decline in the price of the commodity. Western economics, however, holds that as long as the price of a basket of commodities remains unchanged, there is no inflation. Therefore, the so-called economic growth (at constant prices) in Western economics is much faster than actual value growth. This kind of concealed academic fraud is very harmful to ordinary people, because it facilitates the plunder of them by financial oligarchs who overissue banknotes. Western economics also advocates using inflation to solve unemployment problems, devaluing the savings of ordinary people, including the unemployed, which fully embodies the prominent obscurantism of Western civilization. Unemployment is the result of the means of production employing workers rather than workers employing the means of production, and is the breeding ground for the maintenance of the capitalist economy. Without unemployment, capitalists could not hang banners in their factories reading, “If you don’t work hard today, you’ll work hard to find a job tomorrow,” and the involution of hard work would only cause more people to lose their jobs. However, where people see the problem of unemployment, three Western economists who saw only job vacancies won the 2010 Nobel Prize in Economics.[14]14 The 2010 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences was awarded to Peter A. Diamond, Dale T. Mortensen, and Christopher A. Pissarides for their analysis of markets with search frictions, including labor markets with job vacancies and unemployment.

西方经济学对于增长的研究还起着为金融寡头们制造的通货膨胀打掩护的作用。政治经济学认为，劳动生产力的提高会导致单位商品的价值下降，在不存在通货膨胀的情况下，这意味着商品的价格下降。而西方经济学却认为，只要一揽子商品的价格不变就没有通货膨胀，因此，西方经济学所谓的经济增长（不变价）要比实际的价值增长快得多。这种隐蔽的学术造假对于普通民众具有很大的危害性，因为它方便了滥发纸币的金融寡头掠夺他们。西方经济学还鼓吹用通货膨胀来解决失业问题，使普通民众包括失业者不多的储蓄贬值，更是充分体现了西方文明突出的愚民性。失业是生产资料使用工人而不是工人使用生产资料的结果，是资本主义经济的得以维系的温床。没有失业，资本家就不能在自己的工厂里写上“今天工作不努力，明天努力找工作”的条幅，而努力工作的内卷只会造成更多人的失业。但是，在人们看到失业问题的地方，三位只看到岗位空缺的西方经济学家却获得了2010年的诺贝尔经济学奖 。

Although Western economics originated in market economy countries, because of its anti-Marxist stance, it has eradicated the scientific elements of classical economics, and thus it is fundamentally unable to analyze the operating principles of the market economy mechanism. For example, it has never defined money in quantitative terms, only qualitatively as a generally accepted medium of exchange, and thus cannot use money to explain prices, while the price system is the most fundamental mechanism of the market economy. Therefore, only the prominent boastfulness of Western civilization can claim that Western economics has analyzed the operating principles of the market economy mechanism.

西方经济学虽然起源于市场经济国家，但是由于它反马克思主义的做派，根除了古典经济学中的科学成分，从而它根本分析不了市场经济机制的运行原理。例如，它一直没有从量的规定上来定义货币，只是从定性的角度来将货币视为普遍接受的交易媒介，从而无法用货币说明价格，而价格体系是市场经济最根本的机制。因此，只有西方文明突出的吹嘘性，才能标榜西方经济学分析了市场经济机制的运行原理。

As for the design of relevant incentive systems, it is nothing more than studying how to divide the spoils among capitalists and their agents. This is caused by the functional division between capitalists and managers. Capitalists, after exploiting the labor of others, also want to exploit the management of others. However, capitalists must still rely on managers to exploit labor, so they can only share the exploitation of labor with managers. Consequently, even if managers do not belong to the bourgeoisie, they belong to the petty bourgeoisie, and certainly not to the proletariat. Thus, the relationship between capitalists and managers is a relationship between two extremely selfish rational economic men, both of whom will strive to seize benefits for themselves, while managers, who directly control the enterprise, have the advantage of information asymmetry and are in a superior position in the struggle. This situation actually shows that capitalists are increasingly becoming superfluous people, just as landlords have become superfluous people in capitalist agriculture. However, the prominent capital nature of Western civilization requires Western economics to do its utmost to preserve capitalists and their interests, so the design of relevant incentive systems to induce managers to work for the interests of capitalists has become a proper concern of Western economics research. But this design is actually an armchair strategy. After all, why would managers bring to the table for sharing the portion of benefits they could secretly swallow entirely through information asymmetry? Instead, these incentive system designs allow managers to carve out even more benefits openly. People have seen that after the outbreak of the US financial crisis, the managers of those large bankrupt companies received high salaries and compensation packages. On this point, Western economics can be said to be insufficient for success and excessive for failure. This is a manifestation of the absurdity of Western economics itself.

至于相关激励制度设计，无非是研究如何在资本家及其代理人之间分赃。这是由资本家与经理人的职能分割造成的。资本家在剥削他人的劳动之后，还想剥削他人的管理。但是，资本家毕竟还得依靠经理人去剥削劳动，所以只能与经理人分享对劳动的剥削，从而经理人即便不属于资产阶级也是属于小资产阶级的，而不会属于无产阶级。于是，资本家与经理人之间的关系，就是两个都极度自私自利的理性经济人之间的关系，他们都会极力为自己争夺利益，而直接掌管企业的经理人拥有信息不对称的优势，在争夺中处于优势地位。这种状况其实表明，资本家日益成为多余的人，就像在资本主义农业中地主已经成为多余的人一样。但是，西方文明突出的资本性使得西方经济学必须为保留资本家和资本家的利益尽心尽力，于是诱使经理人为资本家的利益而努力的相关激励制度设计就成了西方经济学研究的应有之义。但是，这种设计其实是纸上谈兵。毕竟能够凭借信息不对称私下里全吞的那一部分利益，经理人何必拿到明面上来与人分享呢？而这些激励制度设计反而使经理人还能够在明面上多瓜分不少利益。人们看到，美国金融危机爆发后，那些倒闭的大公司的经理们反而拿到了高额的薪水和补偿金。西方经济学在这一点上可谓成事不足，败事有余。这是西方经济学自身的荒谬性的一个体现。

As for what so-called Western economics says about government economic regulation and control policies, General Secretary Xi Jinping has a clear understanding of them. He points out that

所谓西方经济学对政府的经济调控政策，习近平总书记对其有着清楚的认识，他指出其中的供给学派“强调的重点是减税，过分突出税率的作用，并且思想方法比较绝对，只注重供给而忽视需求、只注重市场功能而忽视政府作用。” 这反映出西方文明突出的僵化性。而西方经济学之所以强调减税，正是西方文明突出的资本性的体现，是为了替资本家争取更多的利益。西方经济学对政府的经济调控政策的研究的出发点就是削弱政府对经济的干预，例如，与呼吁减税相匹配的就是要求削减政府开支，但决不是要求削减政府在军事和战争上的开支，不是要求削减政府在警察等镇压民众的暴力机器上的开支，而是要求减少政府社会福利投入，要求减少失业救济 。习近平总书记自然不会允许和容忍用西方经济学这一套来曲解习近平经济思想，他明确指出，“我们讲的供给侧结构性改革，同西方经济学的供给学派不是一回事，不能把供给侧结构性改革看成是西方供给学派的翻版，更要防止有些人用他们的解释来宣扬‘新自由主义’，借机制造负面舆论。” 只不过，西方经济学作为中国研究生教育的一个“堂堂正正”的学科专业，必然会在课堂上和发表的论文中宣扬“新自由主义”，对抗习近平经济思想，引领负面舆论，否则与西方国家的西方经济学学科相比，就会变得支离破碎。

The governments of capitalist countries, like Western economists, serve the capitalists, so they often comply with the supply-side school’s demands for tax cuts. Some welfare expenditures are naturally saved as well. But the problems that welfare expenditures are meant to solve or alleviate do not automatically disappear simply because Western economists ignore them; hence, “zero-dollar shopping” [n] emerges. Other government expenditures therefore increase, and total spending does not decrease. Consequently, fiscal deficits expand day by day, and government debt grows steadily. Because of the tax cuts, these debt burdens are naturally shifted from the capitalists, especially the big capitalists, onto others who did not enjoy tax cuts or did not enjoy equivalent tax cuts, and are even transferred across generations. Moreover, the intermediary fees for government bond issuance become a source of revenue for financial oligarchs, fully reflecting the outstanding “humanitarian” character of Western civilization.

资本主义国家的政府与西方经济学家一样都是为资本家服务的，所以对供给学派的减税要求，那里的政府是经常照办的。一些福利开支自然也节省了。但是福利开支需要解决或缓解的问题，并不因为西方经济学家的漠视而自动消失，于是，“零元购”出现了。政府的其他方面的支出因此增加了，总支出并没有减少。于是，财政赤字日益扩大，政府债务日渐增长。由于减税，这些债务负担自然从资本家尤其是大资本家那里，转嫁给了没有享受减税或没有享受等额减税的其他人，甚至进行了代际转移，而且政府发债的中介费用也成为金融寡头的收益来源，充分体现了西方文明突出的“人道”性。

Frequently erupting economic crises inflict huge losses on the capitalists, and at the same time, the Marxist critique of economic crises forces Western economics to respond to the problem of market mechanism failure; otherwise, the unscientific nature of Western economics would be too obvious. Hence, the Western economist Keynes, building on the practice of using insufficient effective demand to explain overproduction, proposed that the marginal propensity to consume being less than 1 explains insufficient effective demand, and then, clumsily imitating the Soviet Union’s approach, suggested government-led public works to expand demand and solve the problem of economic crises. This unscientific theory and its application partially led to the stagflation phenomenon of inflation and persistently high unemployment in Western developed capitalist countries, and was later abandoned by subsequent Western economists. To divert attention, Western economics, with its outstanding obscurantist character, redirects market failure toward the realm of public goods, arguing that some services provided by government departments are public goods that the market mechanism cannot effectively supply, thus causing market failure. The natural solution is to shift from the private sector to the public sector. However, the monopolizable interests within the public service sector catch the eye of the capitalists, and Western economics, with its outstanding capitalist character, naturally serves them. Hence, the theory of government failure or government failure is put forward. Public sector services are privatized, i.e., marketized. For example, prisons in the United States have been contracted out to capitalists. The government, by taxing the public, hands over the profits of public service departments directly to the capitalists.

频繁爆发的经济危机给资本家们带来了巨大的损失，同时马克思主义对经济危机的批判，也使得西方经济学不得不回应市场机制失灵的问题，否则西方经济学的不科学性就过于明显了。于是，西方经济学家凯恩斯在沿用以有效需求不足解释生产过剩的做法的基础上，提出边际消费倾向小于1来解释有效需求不足，进而东施效颦地借鉴苏联的做法，提出以政府主导的公共工程来扩大需求以解决经济危机问题。这种不科学的理论及其应用部分地导致了西方发达资本主义国家出现通货膨胀和失业率居高不下的滞胀现象，而被后来的西方经济学家抛弃。为了转移视线，西方经济学以突出的愚民性把市场失灵引导到公共产品领域，认为政府部门提供的一些服务属于公共产品，是市场机制无法有效提供的，从而导致市场失灵。解决的办法自然是由私人部门转向公共部门。然而，公共服务部门中可以垄断的利益被资本家们看中了，具有突出的资本性的西方经济学自然要为之效劳。于是，政府失败或政府失灵的理论提出来了。公共部门的服务被私有化即市场化了。例如，美国的监狱就被资本家们承包了。政府通过从公众手中收税，把公共服务部门的盈利亲手送给资本家们。

In fact, the failure of the market mechanism lies in capitalist private ownership. The capitalists’ pursuit of surplus value (profit) leads to overproduction where supply exceeds demand. After all, for capitalists to make money, they must sell more and buy less, and for workers to earn money under the capitalists, they too must sell more (their commodity, labor power) and earn less, i.e., work more for less pay. Thus, total supply exceeding total demand is inevitable, and this persistent market failure caused by supply-demand imbalance can only be forcibly corrected by a short-term, explosive reverse market failure, namely an economic crisis. This kind of market failure cannot be overcome by the capitalist market mechanism itself, nor can it be resolved by the economic regulation of the capitalist government. This is because the economic regulation of the capitalist government, due to the outstanding capitalist character of Western civilization, must first not hinder the capitalists from making money, and thus cannot fundamentally overcome the supply-demand imbalance. And the most fundamental method for eliminating the failure of the modern market mechanism—namely, abolishing (capitalist) private ownership—is something Western economics will never touch. This is also a manifestation of the outstanding narrowness and outstanding rigidity of Western civilization.

事实上，市场机制的失灵就在于资本主义私有制。资本家对剩余价值（利润）的追逐，导致供给大于需求的生产过剩。毕竟资本家要赚钱就必须卖得多而买得少，而工人要在资本家手下挣钱，也必须（劳动力商品）卖得多而挣得少，也就是多干活少拿钱。从而，总供给大于总需求是不可避免的，这种供求不平衡导致的持续性的市场失灵，只能用短期爆发的反向的市场失灵即一场经济危机来强制纠正。这种市场失灵是资本主义市场机制本身无法克服的，也是资本主义政府的经济调控无法解决的。这是因为，资本主义政府的经济调控，由于西方文明突出的资本性，首先不能妨碍资本家赚钱，从而无法从根本上克服供求不平衡。而消除现代市场机制失灵最根本的办法即消灭（资本主义）私有制，是西方经济学根本不会去触碰的。这也是西方文明突出的狭隘性和突出的僵化性的一种体现。

III. Looking at Western Civilization through the Schools of Western Economics

三、从西方经济学流派看西方文明

Western economics has multiple schools and branches. The evolutionary paths of these schools and branches differ; their rise and fall depend on the rise and fall of the interest groups they represent, not on whether their theories are scientific, thereby reflecting both the outstanding divisiveness of Western civilization and serving as a manifestation of its outstanding capitalist character. The integration of these schools and branches is merely a simple aggregation like a sack of potatoes of varying sizes and shapes, lacking an internally consistent logic.

西方经济学具有多个流派与分支。这些流派与分支的演化途径是不同的，它们的兴衰取决于它们所代表的利益集团的兴衰，而不取决于它们的理论是否科学，从而既反映出西方文明具有突出的分裂性，也是西方文明突出的资本性的一种体现。这些流派与分支的融合只是一袋大小和形状各不相同的马铃薯那样的简单的叠加，缺乏内在一致的逻辑性。

As early as Engels’s *Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy*, mention was made of the then mutually opposing economic viewpoints, whose supporters could be classified into different schools. In comparison, ancient China has the story of “two children arguing about the sun” [n]; those two children could also be seen as two different schools. From this it can be seen that a proliferation of schools only indicates that the discipline has not yet reached a consensus, and thus has not grasped the true laws, and cannot be considered scientific. In 1990, Peking University Press published a translation of a collection of foreign essays, the title of which was *Why Isn’t Economics Yet a Science?* Here, “economics” refers to Western economics, excluding political economy. From this, it is evident that it is highly inappropriate for China’s graduate education to treat Western economics, which Westerners themselves admit is unscientific, as a disciplinary specialty, recruiting large numbers of outstanding students to believe in it.

早在恩格斯所著的《国民经济学批判大纲》中就提到当时相互对立的经济学观点，这些观点的支持者可以归入不同的流派之中。与之相比，中国古代有“两小儿辩日”的故事，那两个小儿也可以看成两个不同的流派。由此可见，流派纷呈只能说明该学科还没有达成共识，从而也就没有把握真正的规律，谈不上科学性。北京大学出版社1990年翻译出版了一本外文论文集，书名就是《经济学为什么还不是一门科学》，这里的经济学指的是西方经济学，不包括政治经济学。由此可见，中国研究生教育将西方人自己都承认不科学的西方经济学作为学科专业，招收大量优秀学生去信奉它们，是非常不妥当的。

In contrast to Western economics, political economy—which the *Brief Introduction to Graduate Education Disciplines and Their Degree Requirements* [n] considers to be “an economic discipline that takes the material production of human society as its starting point, and, while linking productive forces and the superstructure, studies the relations formed among people in the process of production (i.e., relations of production)”—has grasped the true laws of human social production, and is instead the only proper approach for studying the theory and policy of the market economy, a genuine economic science. For political economy, there are only consistent viewpoints and doctrines passed down in a single line, not a jumble of multiple schools. Recently, although some have attempted to “revise” political economy by “integrating” certain erroneous views from Western economics into it, starting from the basic principles of political economy, this erroneous practice can be easily identified and rejected, and the relevant “achievements” are as unwelcome in political economy circles as a rat crossing the street [n].

与西方经济学相反，被《研究生教育学科专业简介及其学位基本要求》认为是“以人类社会物质资料生产为出发点，在联系生产力和上层建筑的前提下，研究人类社会在生产过程中形成的相互关系（即生产关系）的经济学科”的政治经济学，把握了人类社会生产的真正规律，反而是研究市场经济的理论和政策的不二法门，是真正的经济科学。对于政治经济学来说，只有一脉相承的观点和学说，而没有乱七八糟的多个流派。近来，虽然有人企图“修正”政治经济学，把西方经济学的一些错误观点“融合”到政治经济学中去，但是，从政治经济学的基本原理出发，这种错误做法是能够轻易被识别和否定的，相关“成果”在政治经济学界如过街老鼠一样不受人待见。

In fact, the reason why the various schools of Western economics have excluded scientific elements is closely related to Marx’s founding of Marxist political economy. In his later years, Engels pointed out in a letter to the Russian Danielson, “You are surprised that political economy is in such a pitiful state in England. In fact, the situation is the same everywhere. Even classical political economy, and even the most vulgar disseminators of free trade, are despised by the even more vulgar ‘upper-class’ figures who now occupy the university chairs of political economy. In this respect, a great deal of blame attaches to our author, who made people see the dangerous conclusions of classical political economy; so they now think that, at least in this field, the safest course is to have no science at all.” [19]19 Engels, letter to N. F. Danielson, June 18, 1892, in Marx and Engels, *Collected Works*, vol. 50, p. 435. The “our author” is Marx. The “our author” Engels refers to here is Marx. Today, political economy in Chinese universities is also in a pitiful state of marginalization, despised by the returnee Western economists who now occupy the chairs of economics in Chinese universities. The reason is highly similar to that of Engels’s time.

事实上，西方经济学各流派之所以排除了科学成分，与马克思创立马克思主义政治经济学有着极大的关系。恩格斯晚年在给俄国人丹尼尔逊的信件中指出，“您很奇怪，为什么政治经济学在英国处于这么可怜的状况。其实，情况到处都一样。连古典政治经济学，甚至自由贸易的最庸俗的传播者，也受到目前占据大学政治经济学讲台的更庸俗的‘上等’人物的鄙视。在这方面，很大程度上要归罪于我们的作者，他使人们看到了古典政治经济学的各种危险的结论；于是他们现在认为，至少在这个领域内，最保险的是根本没有任何科学。” 恩格斯在这里所说的“我们的作者”是指马克思，而今天政治经济学在中国大学中也处于被边缘化的可怜的状况，被目前占据中国大学经济学讲台的海归西方经济学者鄙视，原因与恩格斯当年具有很强的类似性。

Marx pointed out, “In the domain of political economy, free scientific inquiry meets not only the enemies it meets in all other domains. The peculiar nature of the material it deals with summons into the battlefield the most violent, mean and malignant passions of the human breast, the Furies of private interest, against free scientific inquiry. For example, the English High Church [20]20 The High Church is a faction within the Church of England that emphasizes its Catholic heritage and episcopal authority. would sooner forgive an attack on thirty-eight of its thirty-nine articles than on one thirty-ninth of its cash income. Today, atheism itself is a very small offense compared with criticism of traditional property relations.” [21]21 Marx, *Capital*, vol. 1, Preface to the First German Edition. Western economics and its various schools are precisely the product of opposing Marxist political economy. It is precisely because Western economics represents private interests, and precisely because Western economists are first and foremost the self-interested rational economic men they profess to believe in, that Western economics abandons science for the sake of private gain and splits into various schools contending for interests.

马克思指出，“在政治经济学领域内，自由的科学研究遇到的敌人，不只是它在一切其他领域内遇到的敌人。政治经济学所研究的材料的特殊性质，把人们心中最激烈、最卑鄙、最恶劣的感情，把代表私人利益的复仇女神召唤到战场上来反对自由的科学研究。例如，英国高教会派宁愿饶恕对它的三十九个信条中的三十八个信条进行的攻击，而不饶恕对它的现金收入的三十九分之一进行的攻击。在今天，同批评传统的财产关系相比，无神论本身是一种很小的过失。” 而西方经济学及其各个流派正是反对马克思主义政治经济学的产物。正是由于西方经济学代表私人利益，正是由于西方经济学家首先是他们所信奉的自私自利的理性经济人，西方经济学才会为了私利而抛弃科学，并分为争夺利益的各个流派。

When discussing the major schools of contemporary Western economics, China’s Western economist Li Yining once pointed out, “Despite myriad changes, the core remains the same: from laissez-faire to state intervention.” [22]22 Li Yining, *A Study of the Major Schools of Contemporary Western Economics* (Beijing: Peking University Press, 2015), p. 1. From Western economics textbooks published in the United States, we can see that the school advocating laissez-faire is the classical school, while the school advocating state intervention is the Keynesian school. The reason they hold different positions is that the former represents the interests of industrial capitalists, opposing inflation by financial capital and opposing the government borrowing from financial capital due to fiscal deficits and then shifting the debt repayment responsibility onto the whole society, including industrial capital; the latter represents the interests of financial capital, demanding deficit finance by the government, making the government beholden to financial capital, channeling benefits to financial capital, and even taking away the “wine glass” of industrial capital, using the opportunity to plunder or carve up the wealth of industrial capital. [23]23 This passage summarizes Yu Bin’s own analysis of the class interests behind classical and Keynesian economics. No school of Western economics represents the interests of the working people. The supply-side school mentioned earlier also represents the interests of big capitalists. Western economics admits that many views of the supply-side school were not supported by the economic realities of the 1980s, yet this school was embraced by then-U.S. President Ronald Reagan, who represented monopoly financial capital. The result was high budget deficits and ever-growing government debt—precisely the outcome that financial capital wanted in order to control the U.S. government and the American people. [24]24 The reference is to the economic policies of U.S. President Ronald Reagan (1981–1989), which combined tax cuts, deregulation, and increased military spending, leading to large budget deficits.

中国的西方经济学家厉以宁在谈到当代西方经济学主要流派时曾指出，“万变不离其宗：从自由放任到国家干预” 。从美国出版的西方经济学教科书中，我们可以看到，主张自由放任的是古典流派，主张国家干预的是凯恩斯主义流派。它们之所以持有不同的主张，是因为前者代表产业资本家的利益，反对金融资本搞通货膨胀，反对政府因为财政赤字而向金融资本借债进而把偿债责任推向包括产业资本在内的全社会；而后者代表金融资本的利益，要求政府赤字财政，使政府受制于金融资本，并向金融资本输送利益，还要撤掉产业资本的酒杯，借机掠夺或瓜分产业资本的财富。 没有任何一个西方经济学的流派是代表劳动人民的利益的。前面提到过的供给学派代表的也是大资本家的利益。西方经济学承认，供给学派的许多观点都未得到20世纪80年代的经济现实的支持，但该学派却受到了当时在美国执政的代表垄断金融资本的里根总统的拥护，其结果是高预算赤字和政府债务的不断增长，而这个结果正是金融资本为了控制美国政府和美国民众所希望的 。

Precisely out of research into the interest groups represented by the schools of Western economics, the author once pointed out, “Industrial capitalists will one day discover that they once again stand on the eve of a bourgeois revolution, only this time the object of revolution is not the landed aristocracy but the financial aristocracy.” [25]25 Yu Bin, *Critique of Western Economics* (Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press, 2010), p. 312. Thus, based on the publication date of the verifiable work, the author predicted the U.S. “Occupy Wall Street” movement a year and a half in advance. This shows that under conditions of divided interests, the various schools of Western economics cannot achieve integrated development; so-called integration is merely a forced patchwork of “two skins” [26]26 “Two skins” (两张皮) is a Chinese expression for two things that are superficially combined but fundamentally incompatible. and nothing more.

正是出于对西方经济学流派所代表的利益集团的研究，笔者曾经指出，“产业资本家总有一天会发现，他们再一次站在资产阶级革命的前夕，只是这次革命的对象不是土地贵族而是金融贵族。” 从而按照可以考证的著作出版时间，笔者提前一年半预言了美国的“占领华尔街”运动。由此可见，在利益分裂的情况下，西方经济学的各个流派是不可能融合发展的，所谓的融合只是强行堆砌在一起的“两张皮”而已。

The multitude of schools in Western economics does not signify academic prosperity; on the contrary, it represents academic confusion. What we must do is to subject them to theoretical and practical critique based on the principles of political economy and historical materialism. Only on the basis of such critique can we speak of drawing on them for reference; we must never directly absorb and borrow from them, still less, as some have proposed, engage in some kind of “Sinicization of Western economics.” [27]27 This refers to proposals by some Chinese economists to adapt Western economic theories to Chinese conditions, which Yu Bin rejects. Chinese economics can only be a result of the Sinicization of Marxist political economy, like Xi Jinping’s economic thought, and can only be the product of the Two Integrations. [28]28 The Two Integrations (两个结合) refers to the integration of the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s specific realities and with the best of traditional Chinese culture, a key concept in Xi Jinping Thought.

西方经济学流派众多，并不意味着学术的繁荣，反而代表其学术的迷惘，对此，我们所要做的是，根据政治经济学的原理和唯物史观，对其进行理论与实现的批判。只有在这种批判的基础上，才可以谈到有所借鉴，而决不能直接地吸收和借鉴，更不能像一些人所提出的那样，搞什么西方经济学的中国化 。中国经济学只能是像习近平经济思想那样的马克思主义政治经济学中国化的成果，只能是“两个结合”的产物。

IV. Looking at Western Civilization through the Lens of Western Economic Methodology

四、从西方经济学方法看西方文明

Regarding the Western civilization reflected in the methodology of Western economics, someone has pointed out, “The reverence in economics theory circles for constructing mathematical models for theoretical analysis is rooted in the Pythagorean complex of Western civilization; constructing dynamic theoretical models that both reflect economic behavior and can be tested by actual data has become a difficult problem in economics. At present, economists are still unable to understand the full complexity of real economic structures, and their theories serve needs.” [29]29 The source of this quotation is not identified in the original text. Here, the so-called Pythagorean complex “is the complex of Westerners wanting to ‘legislate’ for the natural world through mathematical logic—to establish a mathematical-determinist world model. From the rigorous logical methods opened up by ancient Greek Euclidean geometry to modern theoretical physics, this complex is reflected.” [30]30 Ibid. However, the fundamental problem with the Pythagorean complex is that it “understands number, i.e., quantitative determination, as the essence of things.” [31]31 This is a reference to the critique of Pythagoreanism in Marxist philosophy, e.g., in Engels, *Dialectics of Nature*. Therefore, whether in geometry, physics, or even political economy, when they merely use mathematical models to express quantitative changes in the movement of things, this is entirely scientific. Only when one attempts to use quantitative changes to confuse qualitative differences can it be called the Pythagorean complex. For example, when Western economics constructs production functions by treating labor and capital as interchangeable independent variables, it is using quantitative changes to confuse the qualitative difference between labor and capital, attempting thereby to show that capital, like labor, can create value. Such mathematical economics analysis is a manifestation of the Pythagorean complex. It serves only to befuddle the people, reflects the prominent befuddling nature of Western civilization, has no scientific significance, and is utterly devoid of practical value.

关于西方经济学方法论所反映的西方文明，有人指出，“经济学理论界崇尚通过构建数理模型来进行理论分析是根植于西方文明的毕达哥拉斯情结；构造既反映经济行为又能被实际数据检验的动态理论模型成了经济学难题。目前，经济学家尚不可能理解现实经济的全部复杂结构，其理论为需要而服务。” 在这里，所谓毕达哥拉斯情结，“是西方人欲以数理逻辑为自然世界‘立法’——建立数学决定论的世界模型的情结，自古希腊欧几里德几何学开辟严密的逻辑方法到现代理论物理学都是这一情结的反映。” 但是，毕达哥拉斯情结的根本问题在于，“把数，即量的规定性，理解为事物的本质。” 因此，无论是几何学，还是物理学，甚至政治经济学，当它们只是用数理模型来表达事物运动中量的变化时，是完全科学的做法。只有企图用量的变化来混淆的质的差别时，才算得上毕达哥拉斯情结。例如，西方经济学在构造生产函数时，把劳动和资本作为可以相互替代的自变量，就是在用量的变化来混淆劳动和资本的质的差别，企图以此说明资本像劳动一样可以创造价值。这样的数理经济学分析就是毕达哥拉斯情结的体现，只有愚民的作用，反映了西方文明突出的愚民性，没有任何科学意义，也毫无应用价值。

When Marx spoke of the French economist Proudhon, he pointed out that “science has become for him a trivial scientific formula; he pursues formulas without end. And it is precisely for this reason that M. Proudhon imagines he has criticized both political economy and communism; in reality, he stands far below both. He is below the economists because, as a philosopher, he thinks he can dispense with delving into the purely economic details by relying on a mysterious formula; he is below the socialists because he lacks both the courage and the foresight to rise above the bourgeois horizon—even if only speculatively.” [32]32 Marx, *The Poverty of Philosophy*, Chapter 2, Section 1. The translation follows the standard English edition. Although the “formula” here does not refer specifically to the mathematical formulas commonly used in Western economics, Marx’s critique of Proudhon is equally applicable to modern Western economics. Today, some authoritative economics journals in China also endlessly chase after trivial mathematical models that in no way penetrate the actual economic reality, believing that possessing such mathematical models constitutes a “high”-level academic achievement. In fact, the main reason the Western economics community today is so keen on mathematical models is simply to raise the entry barrier and reduce the number of people competing for a share of the pie. The Western bourgeoisie, while needing to support some people to do their propagandizing, must also consider costs and limit the headcount. However, the learning of the bourgeoisie is ultimately shallow; when mathematical models are used to propagandize on their behalf, they themselves do not fully understand them, and always feel, more or less, that the impact is insufficient, fearing they are wasting their money. Hence, the American economist and Nobel laureate in economics Samuelson, who once led the way in mathematical modeling, saw the situation clearly and abandoned mathematical models in the economics textbooks he later compiled, thereby achieving long-lasting global popularity. [33]33 Paul Samuelson (1915–2009), American economist and author of the influential textbook *Economics* (first published 1948), which for decades minimized mathematical formalism in its later editions. Meanwhile, the works of Western economists such as Coase, Steven Cheung, and Mankiw, which also lack mathematical models, have been greatly promoted by the bourgeoisie and praised by bourgeois media. The “Cheung fever” that erupted in mainland China in the early 21st century stands as a stain on China’s economics community and academic history. Conversely, those who earnestly work on mathematical models may gain some renown within the small circle of Western economics and secure an academic post, but they remain unknown in the eyes of capitalists and in society at large; their writings, aside from being shelved, have no other fate.

马克思在谈到法国经济学家蒲鲁东时曾经指出，“科学在他看来已成为某种微不足道的科学公式了；他无休止地追逐公式。正因为如此，蒲鲁东先生自以为他既批判了政治经济学，也批判了共产主义；其实他远在这两者之下。说他在经济学家之下，因为他作为一个哲学家，自以为有了神秘的公式就用不着深入纯经济的细节；说他在社会主义者之下，因为他既缺乏勇气，也没有远见，不能超出（哪怕是思辨地也好）资产者的眼界” 。虽然这里的公式并不就是指西方经济学常用的数理公式，但马克思对蒲鲁东的批评对于现代西方经济学也是适用的。今天国内的一些经济学权威期刊也是无休止地追逐一些微不足道的、丝毫没有深入经济实际的数学模型，以为有了这些数学模型就有了“高”水平的学术成果。其实，今天西方经济学界热衷于数学模型的主要原因只不过是为了提高门槛，减少竞争这碗饭的人口而已。西方资产阶级虽然需要养活一些人替他们进行鼓吹，但从成本上考虑也要限制一下人数。但是，资产阶级的学识终归浅薄，用数学模型来替他们鼓吹，他们自己也是不大明白的，多少总会觉得力度不够，怕浪费了钱。因此，曾经在数学模型方面勇领风骚的美国经济学家、诺贝尔经济学奖得主萨缪尔森看清了形势，在其后来编撰的经济学教科书中放弃了数学模型，从而得以长期风靡于世。 而科斯、张五常、曼昆等西方经济学家的东西也由于没有数学模型而大受资产阶级的推崇和资产阶级媒体的吹捧。21世纪初中国大陆爆发的“张五常热”可谓是中国经济学界和学术史上的一个污点。相反地，认认真真做数理模型的人，也许在西方经济学的小圈子里有些名气，能混个教职，但在资本家们的眼里和社会上是没有名气的，其写作出来的东西除了束之高阁，也没有别的下场。

In fact, the famous Western economist Keynes also looked askance at the mathematical economic analysis of Western economics. He pointed out, “Too large a proportion of recent ‘mathematical’ economics are mere concoctions, as imprecise as the initial assumptions they rest on, which allow the author to lose sight of the complexities and interdependencies of the real world in a maze of pretentious and unhelpful symbols.” [34]34 John Maynard Keynes, *The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money* (1936), Chapter 21, Section III. General Secretary Xi Jinping, at a symposium of economic experts, also demanded that “the vast number of experts and scholars go deep into reality, deep into the masses, deep into the grassroots, listen to the voices of the people, grasp the true situation, conduct extensive research, devote themselves to study, and continuously produce results with genuine insight.” [35]35 Xi Jinping, speech at the Economic Experts Symposium, July 8, 2016. The “three deep-goings” (三个深入) refer to going deep into reality, the masses, and the grassroots. Clearly, results with genuine insight can only be produced on the basis of the “three deep-goings,” not through mathematical models designed behind closed doors.

事实上，著名西方经济学家凯恩斯也看不惯西方经济学的数理经济学分析，他曾指出，“在近来的‘数理’经济学中，只能代表拼凑之物的部分实在太多了；这些部分的不精确的程度正和它们赖以成立的假设条件是一样的。假设条件使那些作者们能在矫揉做作和毫无用处的数学符号中，忘掉现实世界的复杂性和相互依赖的性质。” 习近平总书记在经济形势专家座谈会上也要求“广大专家学者深入实际、深入群众、深入基层，倾听群众呼声，掌握真实情况，广泛调研，潜心研究，不断拿出具有真知灼见的成果” 。显然，具有真知灼见的成果只有建立在“三个深入”的基础上，而不是通过闭门造车设计的数理模型，才能拿得出来。

Although Keynes criticized mathematical economics, he himself also made errors in mathematical logic. The Keynesian multiplier model he proposed is a result of reversed causality. The essence of the Keynesian multiplier is multiplier = change in output / change in output not consumed, yet it was treated as multiplier = change in output / change in investment. [36]36 The Keynesian multiplier is conventionally expressed as k = ΔY / ΔI, where ΔY is the change in national income and ΔI is the change in investment. Yu Bin argues that the correct decomposition is ΔY = ΔC + ΔI, so that ΔI implies a corresponding reduction in ΔC, leaving ΔY unchanged. This is because Keynes mistakenly understood the basic formula he proposed, namely income = investment + consumption. This is a decomposition formula, meaning income is decomposed into the part used for consumption and the part used for investment. However, Keynes treated it as an additive formula, where investment and consumption are independent of each other and add up to income. Thus, an increase in investment causes income to increase by a multiple according to the multiplier, whereas from the decomposition formula, an increase in investment merely implies a corresponding decrease in consumption, and income remains unchanged. This error in Western economics reflects the prominent inversion characteristic of Western civilization. Marx had long ago pointed out this inversion: “The surplus value contained in the commodity, or the part of the commodity value that embodies unpaid labor, itself decomposes into different parts, with three different names. But to say that this part of the commodity value is constituted or formed by the sum of the independent values of these three component parts is completely contrary to the truth. … You know how absurd the popular view is, which fails to distinguish between the decomposition of a given quantity of value into three parts and the formation of this value by the addition of three independent values, and thus turns the total value from which rent, profit, and interest arise into an arbitrarily determined magnitude.” [37]37 Marx, *Capital*, Vol. III, Chapter 48, “The Trinity Formula.” Clearly, policies based on mathematical economic analyses that embody such inverted errors can only succeed under relatively rare coincidental circumstances.

凯恩斯虽然对数理经济学进行了批判，但是他本人同样在数理逻辑上犯了错误。他提出的凯恩斯乘数模型就是一个因果倒置的结果。凯恩斯乘数的实质是乘数=产出的变动/没有消费掉的产出的变动，却被当成是乘数=产出的变动/投资的变动。 这是因为，凯恩斯错误地理解了他提出的基础公式即收入=投资+消费。这是一个分解的公式，即收入分解成用于消费的部分和用于投资的部分。但是，凯恩斯把它当成了一个相加的公式，即投资和消费相互独立地相加成收入。于是，投资增加，收入就按照乘数来成倍地增加，而从分解公式来看，投资的增加只意味着消费的相应减少，而收入是不变的。西方经济学的这种错误，反映了西方文明突出的颠倒性。而马克思早就指出过这种颠倒性，“商品中所包含的剩余价值或商品价值中体现无偿劳动的这一部分价值，其本身分解成不同的部分，有三个不同的名称。可是，如果说商品中的这一部分价值是由这三个组成部分的独立价值之和而构成或形成的，那就完全违反真理了。……你们知道，流行的观点分不清一定量的价值分解为三个部分，和三种独立价值相加而形成这个价值这二者的不同，于是就把地租、利润和利息所由产生的总和价值变成一种随意规定的数量，这种观点该是如何荒谬。” 显然，那些建立在体现了颠倒性错误的数理经济学分析基础上的相关政策只能在比较罕见的机缘巧合的情况下才有可能成功。

In any scientific field, including political economy, mathematical analysis is necessary. After all, these fields cannot have only qualitative determinations without quantitative ones. Marx was the first to provide a mathematical economic model. In his analysis of “the reproduction and circulation of the total social capital,” he presented the exchange relationship between the two departments, namely: “In simple reproduction, the sum of v + m in the commodity capital of Department I (and thus the corresponding proportional part of the total commodity product of Department I) must be equal to the constant capital IIc, that is, the corresponding part separated out from the total commodity product of Department II; or, I(v + m) = IIc.” [38]38 Marx, *Capital*, Vol. II, Chapter 20, Section 2. This is the first macroeconomic mathematical model in history. However, Marxist political economy does not have a Pythagorean complex; it does not insist on mathematical formulas, yet it accomplishes a scientific analysis of the substance of value and the magnitude of value—an analysis that, in the more than two thousand years before Marx, human wisdom’s efforts to investigate the value form, whose completed form is the money form, “yielded no result.” [39]39 Marx, *Capital*, Vol. I, Chapter 1, Section 3, on the value form. To this day, Western economics still has not provided a (mathematical) analysis of the quantitative determination of money, and has been unable to answer the extremely contentless and extremely simple question, “What is one dollar?”

在任何一个科学领域，包括政治经济学领域，数理分析都是必要的。毕竟在这些领域不可能只有质的规定性而没有量的规定性。马克思就是最早给出数理经济模型的人。他在关于“社会总资本的再生产和流通”的分析中所提出的两个部类之间的交换关系，即“在简单再生产中，第I部类的商品资本中的v+m价值额（也就是第I部类的总商品产品中与此相应的比例部分），必须等于不变资本IIc，也就是第II部类的总商品产品中分出来的与此相应的部分；或者说，I（v+m）=IIc。” 这是有史以来第一个宏观经济数理模型。但是，马克思主义政治经济学没有毕达哥拉斯情结，不强求数理公式，反而完成对价值实体和价值量的科学分析，而这样的分析，在马克思之前两千多年的时间里，人类智慧对以货币形式为完成形态的价值形式进行探讨的努力，“并未得到什么结果” 。直到今天，西方经济学仍然没有对货币的量的规定性作出（数理）分析，没能回答“什么是一块钱”这个极无内容和极其简单的问题。

Thus, mathematical economic analysis and application are not the same as mathematical analysis and application in the economic field. This is because mathematical economic analysis and application serve as a protective belt to maintain the hard core of Western economics; the setting of its mathematical models must adhere to the basic tenets of Western economics. For example, the typical macroeconomic model of Western economics is the general equilibrium model, and one of its simultaneous equations is total demand = total supply. However, in a capitalist market economy, general equilibrium simply does not exist. Western economics builds models based on economic statistical data; although a calculation result can be obtained, it has no practical significance or theoretical value. This mathematical formalism of mathematical economic analysis and application bears a high degree of similarity to the emphasis in Western civilization on “procedural justice” over “substantive justice.” It can be seen as reflecting the prominent proceduralism of Western civilization, whose purpose is to use nominal justice to cover up substantive injustice, and formal scientificity to cover up substantive unscientificity.

由此可见，数理经济学分析与应用，与经济领域的数理分析与应用不是一回事。这是因为，数理经济学分析与应用是作为保护带以维护西方经济学这个硬核，其数理模型的设定必须遵守西方经济学的基本理念。例如，典型的西方经济学宏观模型就是一般均衡模型，其联立方程中有一个方程就是总需求=总供给。但是，在资本主义市场经济中根本就不存在一般均衡，西方经济学根据经济统计数据来建立模型，尽管可以得到一个计算结果，但毫无现实意义和理论价值。数理经济学分析与应用的这种数理形式主义，与西方文明强调“程序正义”胜过“实体正义”有高度的相似性，可以视为反映了西方文明突出的程式性，其目的是用名义上的正义来掩盖实体上的不正义，用形式的科学性来掩盖实体的不科学性。

There is another extremely absurd aspect of mathematical economic analysis and application: constructing mathematical models for things that are immeasurable, that is, things that do not possess quantitative determination. This is the construction of various utility functions. Among these, some utilities concern preferences for different commodities, while others concern preferences for investment returns and risks. These utilities are all figments fabricated in the minds of Western economists, just as God is a figment fabricated in the minds of believers. They neither exist in reality nor can be measured. Moreover, the utility functions fabricated by different people are not even the same. Consequently, the study of utility functions is like studying the Western religious question, “How many angels can dance on the head of a very fine pin without jostling one another?” [40]40 A medieval theological question debated by scholastic philosophers, often cited as an example of pointless abstract speculation. This reflects the prominent fictitiousness of Western civilization.

数理经济学分析与应用还有一个极为荒唐的地方，就是对不可计量的东西也就是不具有量的规定性的东西建立数理模型。这就是建立各种效用函数。其中，有的效用是关于不同商品的偏好，有的效用是关于投资收益与风险的偏好。这些效用都是西方经济学家在头脑中虚构出来的，就像上帝是教徒们在头脑中虚构出来一样，它们在现实中既不存在，更不能测量，而且不同的人虚构出来的效用函数还不尽相同，因而实际上对于效用函数的研究就像研究“有多少天使可以在一根非常细的针尖上跳舞，而不会互相推挤？”的西方宗教问题一样，反映出西方文明具有突出的虚构性。

Since mathematical economics insists on taking erroneous Western economics as its foundation, it inevitably cannot treat the mathematical tools it employs scientifically, and thus inevitably exhibits phenomena such as false use of mathematics, mistaken use of mathematics, erroneous use of mathematics, and abusive use of mathematics in its analysis and application. For example, “The Western economic proof of the existence of a utility function is a self-referential argument. This is because the assumptions of the utility function existence theorem are based not on facts but on the needs of mathematical proof. To satisfy these assumptions, the existence of the utility function must be presupposed.” [41]41 The source of this quotation is not identified in the original text. This is also a manifestation of the prominent proceduralism and prominent obscurantism [42]42 “Obscurantism” (愚民性) refers to the practice of keeping the people ignorant. of Western civilization as reflected in Western economics.

既然数理经济学坚持以错误的西方经济学为根基，那么它就必然不能科学地对待它所运用的数学工具，从而必然会在分析与应用方面出现假用数学、误用数学、错用数学、滥用数学等现象 。例如，“西方经济学对效用函数存在性的证明，是一种自我循环的论证。这是因为，效用函数存在性定理的那些假设条件，不是基于事实而是基于数学证明的需要。而要满足这些假设条件，就必须事先要求效用函数的存在。” 这也是西方经济学所反映的西方文明突出的程式性和突出的愚民性的一个体现。

The methodology of Western economics, besides its prominent mathematical economic analysis and application, also features prominent individualism. For example, the Western economist Steven Cheung, who fled from Hong Kong, China, to the United States for tax evasion and is wanted by the United States, once pointed out, “‘The individual’ is the basic unit of all economic analysis. That is to say, no economic problem can be analyzed starting from a group, a community, a society, or a country.” [43]43 Steven Cheung (张五常, b. 1935) is a Hong Kong-born economist who studied under Ronald Coase and advocated for property rights economics. He was indicted in the United States for tax evasion in 2013. To support this “almost absurd” foundational assumption of Western economics, he pointed out, “Geometry states: ‘A point is immeasurable!’ If a point cannot be measured, how can there be a measurable straight line? Yet, based on these seemingly true yet false, seemingly false yet true starting points, geometry enabled humanity to build the pyramids in ancient times (although these foundational assumptions were not yet clear at the time) and to build the Bank of China Tower in Hong Kong today. Our conclusion is: almost absurd foundational assumptions can lead to breathtaking scholarship.” [44]44 The source of this quotation is not identified in the original text. However, although “judging from Cheung’s level of mathematics, he naturally cannot understand why, if a point is immeasurable, there can be a measurable straight line. But this problem was solved long ago by higher mathematics. The path to its solution is precisely not to study the straight line (the collection of points) starting from individual points, but to study individual points starting from the straight line.” [45]45 The source of this quotation is not identified in the original text. This is because, starting from isolated points, their length is zero; no matter how many points on a straight line, the sum of infinitely many points is still zero, meaning there is no length, and thus no straight line. But starting from the straight line, the length of each point on it is not zero, but an infinitesimally small quantity approaching zero. When enough such points are gathered, they can form a straight line with a length greater than zero.

西方经济学的方法论，除了突出的数理经济学分析与应用外，还有突出的个人主义。例如，中国香港的因逃税而受到美国通缉的西方经济学家张五常曾经指出，“‘个人’是所有经济分析的基本单位。这是说，任何经济问题不可以从一群人、一个团体、一个社会或一个国家为起点来分析。” 为了支撑这个西方经济学的“近于无稽”的基础假设，他指出，“几何学指明：‘一点是不可以量度的！’一点既不能量度，那又怎会有可以量度的直线呢？但基于这些似是而非、似非而是的起点，几何学使人类在古代建造了金字塔（虽然这些基础假设当时尚未搞清楚），在今天建造了香港的中国银行大厦。我们的结论是：近于无稽的基础假设，可能导致令人叹为观止的学问。” 然而，虽然“从张五常的数学水平出发，他当然不能理解，一点既不能量度，为什么又会有可以量度的直线。但是，这个问题早就被高等数学解决了。其解决的途径恰恰不是从单个的点出发来研究直线（点的集体），而是从直线出发来研究单个的点。” 这是因为，从孤立的点出发，其长度为零，直线上的点再多，无穷的点相加仍然是零，也就是没有长度，从而也就没有直线。但是，从直线出发，其线上的每个点的长度不是零，而是无限接近于零的无穷小量，当这样的点足够多的时候就可以组成长度大于零的直线。

When Marx discussed the French small peasants, he used a metaphor: “The great mass of the French nation is formed by the simple addition of homologous magnitudes, much as potatoes in a sack form a sack of potatoes. … They cannot represent themselves; they must be represented. Their representative must at the same time appear as their master, as an authority standing over them.” [46]46 Karl Marx, *The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte* (1852). Western economics also hopes that the broad masses in reality are such individual potatoes, so that Western economists can stand aloft as scientific authorities to represent them, split them, undermine their unity and solidarity, and turn them into a heap of loose sand, facilitating the rule of a tiny handful of big capitalists over them. Therefore, the methodological individualism of Western economics is also a manifestation of the prominent divisiveness of Western civilization. If this methodology were to hold, the inevitable consequence would be that “each individual obstructs the realization of the interests of every other individual; the result of this war of all against all is not a universal affirmation, but a universal negation.” [47]47 The source of this quotation is not identified in the original text; it likely paraphrases Marx’s critique of bourgeois competition. “It is said that the reason Japan dared to launch a full-scale invasion of China, inflicting countless casualties on our compatriots, was precisely because it regarded China as a sheet of loose sand.” [48]48 The source of this quotation is not identified in the original text.

马克思在谈到法国小农的时候曾经有一个比喻，“法国国民的广大群众，便是由一些同名数简单相加而形成的，就像一袋马铃薯是由袋中的一个个马铃薯汇集而成的那样。……他们不能代表自己，一定要别人来代表他们。他们的代表一定要同时是他们的主宰，是高高站在他们上面的权威” 。西方经济学也希望现实中的广大民众是这样的一个个马铃薯，这样西方经济学家们就能够高高在上地作为科学权威来代表他们，使他们分裂，瓦解他们的团结和联合，成为一片散沙，以方便极少数大资本家对他们实行统治。因此，西方经济学方法论上的个人主义，也是西方文明突出的分裂性的一个体现。如果这个方法论成立，其后果必然是，“每个人都互相妨碍别人利益的实现，这种一切人反对一切人的战争所造成的结果，不是普遍的肯定，而是普遍的否定。” “据称，当年日本之所以敢于全面入侵中国，伤害我同胞无数，也正是因为认定中国是一盘散沙。”

In contrast, Marxists call upon “workers of the world, unite,” forming the proletariat according to collectivism in order to fight for their own liberation and defend their most fundamental class interests. And the Chinese people, who have realized the Two Integrations [49]49 The Two Integrations (两个结合) refers to the integration of the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s specific realities and with the best of China’s traditional culture. and won victories in the War of Resistance against Japan and the War to Resist U.S. Aggression and Aid Korea, naturally adhere to collectivism rather than individualism. General Secretary Xi Jinping has repeatedly emphasized in important speeches the need to strengthen or deepen “education in patriotism, collectivism, and socialism,” stressing “the inheritance and development of the spirit of patriotism, collectivism, and socialism.” [50]50 The source of this quotation is not identified in the original text. We must never separate Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era from the graduate education of economics. We must resolutely discard the individualism in (Western) economic research. We must not casually use the platform of graduate education to instill the individualistic mindset that opposes collectivism into the minds of Chinese graduate students. We must not instill the dregs of Western civilization into the minds of Chinese graduate students under the guise of drawing on the beneficial achievements of human civilization.

与之相反，马克思主义者却号召“全世界无产者，联合起来”，按照集体主义，形成无产阶级，以便争取自身的解决，维护最根本的阶级利益。而实现了“两个结合”，取得了抗日战争和抗美援朝战争等胜利的中国人自然要坚持集体主义而不是个人主义。习近平总书记多次在重要讲话中提到要加强或深化“爱国主义、集体主义、社会主义教育”，强调“爱国主义、集体主义、社会主义精神的传承和发展”。我们决不能把习近平新时代中国特色社会主义思想与经济学的研究生教育割裂开来，必须坚决摒弃（西方）经济学研究中的个人主义，不能随随便便地借助研究生教育的平台，把反对集体主义的个人主义思维定式灌输到中国研究生的头脑中去，不能把西方文明的糟粕，以借鉴人类文明的有益成果的名义，灌输到中国研究生的头脑中去。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗