The “Doctrine” Disputes in Economics and Their Social-Philosophical Foundations

I. Introduction

一、引言

The fundamental purpose of economic research is to safeguard and enhance people’s good life. The cognition of the good life for humanity is in turn rooted in specific cultural traditions and social philosophies, from which economic doctrines and schools rooted in specific times and spaces are formed. At the same time, the results of the application of economic theory are manifested in promoting changes in social systems and adjustments in social relations; furthermore, social systems and social relations both influence the distribution of social interests, thereby giving rise to struggles over the orientation of doctrines and the right to discourse. In this way, based on different social-philosophical views and the struggle for interests, fierce “doctrine” disputes have arisen within the economics profession. Clearly, although each side usually regards its own cognition as “scientific” and the other side as “ideological,” in reality, the views it holds are merely cognitions of social issues based on a particular dimension, thus embedding obvious preconceptions or ideology. From this perspective, we can deeply understand a notable paradox presented in the economics profession.

经济学研究的根本目的在于保障和提升人们的美好生活。对人类美好生活的认知又根植于特定的文化传统和社会哲学，由此就形成根植于特定时空下的经济学说和流派。同时，经济学理论的应用结果体现为促进社会制度的改变和社会关系的调整；进而，社会制度和社会关系都影响社会利益的分配，由此就产生出对学说导向和话语权的争夺。这样，根基于不同的社会哲学观以及对利益的争夺，经济学界就滋生出凶猛的“主义”之争。显然，尽管每一方通常都将自己的认知看作是“科学的”而将对方看作是“意识形态的”，但实际上，其所持的观点也只是基于特定维度对社会问题的认知，从而嵌入了明显的先入之见或意识形态。基于这一视角，我们可以深刻理解经济学界所呈现的一个显著悖像。

First, the history of economic doctrines presents such a paradox. On the one hand, the relativist view holds that history plays a certain role in the development process of each economic theory, even regarding each past theory more or less as a faithful reflection of the conditions of its time, thus possessing considerable rationality; however, each era has also seen the emergence of heterodox economics with different doctrinal orientations and policy proposals, and even within each major school there exist debates among different factions. Across the world today, the “doctrine” dispute is concentratedly manifested in the opposition between Marxism and neoclassical liberalism, and this is largely the case within China’s economics profession as well. Of course, those who critically reflect on neoclassical liberalism are not necessarily Marxists, and those who disagree with Marxism do not necessarily gravitate toward neoclassical liberalism; even within each “doctrine” there exist sharp debates among different factions. On the other hand, with the rise of “scientism” since the 1930s, and especially since the 1970s, in order to demonstrate the scientific nature of their theories and the rationality of their policies, scholars of various economic schools have devoted themselves to constructing rigorous mathematical models and conducting strict econometric empirical tests, thereby providing ample logical foundations and empirical evidence for the theories they hold; yet the “doctrine” disputes and oppositions have not been eliminated or alleviated as a result.

首先，经济学说史中呈现出这样的悖像。一方面，相对主义观主张历史在每个经济理论的发展过程中都扮演着一定角色，甚至把过去每个理论都或多或少看作是对当时状况的忠实反映，从而具有相当的合理性；但是，每个时代也都出现了不同学说取向和政策主张的非主流经济学，甚至在每个大的流派内部也存在不同派别之间的争论。在当今世界范围内，“主义”之争则集中体现为马克思主义与新古典自由主义之间的对立，这在中国经济学界也大抵如此。当然，对新古典自由主义持批判性反思的并不必然是马克思主义，而不同意马克思主义也并不必然导向新古典自由主义，甚至每种“主义”内部也都存在着不同派别之间的尖锐争论。另一方面，随着20世纪30年代尤其是20世纪70年代以来“科学至上主义”的兴起，为了展示其理论的科学性和政策的合理性，经济学各流派的学者都致力于构建严密的数理模型和进行严格的计量实证，由此来为其所持有理论提供充足的逻辑基础和经验证据，但“主义”之争和对立并没有因此而消除或缓解。

Second, there are two explanations for this paradox. First, the fundamental reason for the persistent debates among different economic schools is that they are rooted in different social-philosophical views: different social-philosophical views give rise to different methodological thinking, which in turn produces different schools and scholarly communities. Precisely because of this, by analyzing the premises and assumptions of a theory or doctrine and the social-philosophical views behind them, we can more deeply understand its theoretical viewpoints and policy proposals, as well as its belief in and support for a particular “doctrine,” and can then critically examine the prevalent concrete practices in the current economics profession. Second, the reason why debates among different economic schools cannot be eliminated by “scientistic” methods is that the mathematical models and econometric analyses of modern economics have degenerated into rhetorical devices used by different economic schools and their corresponding economists to enhance the persuasiveness of their theories or viewpoints, aimed at providing logical or “factual” support for their preconceived notions; a further reason is that so-called rigorous logic is based on specific premises and assumptions, and so-called empirical facts are selected, and the setting of these premises and assumptions and the selection of empirical facts are both rooted in the needs of a priori social-philosophical views, to the extent that the doctrines of each school can appear to be “rigorously” demonstrated by mathematical models and “fully” supported by empirical data. Precisely because of this, although each school strives to prove that its doctrine is scientific, its claims cannot truly be accepted by the other side, and sharp oppositions persist among different viewpoints.

其次，对这一悖像有两方面解释。第一，不同经济学学派之间之所以存在着持久的争论，根本原因在于它们根植于不同的社会哲学观之中：不同的社会哲学观派生出了不同的方法论思维，进而产生出不同的流派和学说共同体。正因如此，通过剖析一个理论或学说的前提假设及其背后的社会哲学观，我们可以更为深刻地认识它的理论观点和政策主张，以及其对“主义”的信念和支持，进而可以批判性审视当前经济学界流行的具象性做法。第二，不同经济学学派之间的争论之所以不能为“科学主义的”方法所消弭，是因为，现代经济学的数理模型和计量分析已经蜕化为不同经济学流派以及相应经济学人为增强其理论或观点之说服力的措辞，目的在于从逻辑上或“事实”上为其所持有的先入之见提供支持；进一步的理由是，所谓的严密逻辑是基于特定的前提假设，所谓的经验事实则是经过选择的，这些前提假设的设定和经验事实的选择都根基于先验社会哲学观的需要，以至于每一流派的学说似乎都可以得到数理模型的“严格”论证以及得到经验数据的“充分”支持。正因如此，尽管每一个流派都努力证明其学说是科学的，但其主张并不能真正为对方所接受，不同主张之间依然存在着尖锐对立。

Based on the above analysis, we can understand two facts: (1) why the mainstream economics of each historical period mostly held a positive attitude toward the social system and economic activities of that era, and why mainstream economics since the marginal revolution has gone to great lengths to defend the capitalist system and its corresponding market economy; (2) why the current Chinese government demands “accelerating the construction of philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics” and places emphasis on building China’s independent disciplinary system, academic system, and discourse system. From this, we can also understand what Paul Romer said: economists themselves are often drawn into academic politics, and “math abuse” [1]1 “Math abuse” (数学滥用) refers to the practice of using mathematical formalism in economics to lend an appearance of scientific rigor to arguments that are actually based on questionable assumptions or ideological commitments, a critique made by economist Paul Romer. provides a scientific cloak for political struggles. As for why neoclassical economics has been more widely accepted and disseminated among modern economists, the key lies in its restriction of the object of study to the engineering field of relations between people and things (including the allocation of scarce resources and individual rational behavior under given institutions), making it more suitable for depiction and testing by mathematical language; correspondingly, this not only attracts more mathematically inclined economists but also receives support from “scientism.”

基于上述分析，我们可以理解这样两点事实：（1）历史上各个时期主流经济学何以大多是对那个时代的社会制度和经济活动持肯定的态度，边际革命以降的主流经济学更是对资本主义体系及其相应的市场经济进行百般维护；（2）当前中国政府为何要求“加快构建中国特色哲学社会科学”，并且将重点放在建设中国自主的学科体系、学术体系、话语体系上。由此还可以理解保罗·罗默所说：经济学家本身经常被卷入到学院政治当中，而“数学滥用”则为政治斗争披上了科学的外衣。至于新古典经济学之所以会得到现代经济学人更为广泛的接受和传播，关键就在于它将研究对象限制在人与物间关系的工程学领域（包括稀缺性资源的配置和既定制度下的个人理性行为），从而更适合数理语言的刻画和检验；相应地，这不仅吸引了更多数理经济学人，而且还得到“科学至上主义”的支持。

Therefore, we must systematically consider a fundamental question: how to understand different “doctrines”? Fundamentally, the “doctrine” disputes in economics reflect differences and oppositions in social-philosophical views, which are concentratedly manifested in how to view and handle the relationship between individual interests and collective interests; the reason is that the interest relations among people concern which mechanism serves as the axis to guide economic behavior and resource allocation, and thus centrally concern the understanding of the roles of the market and the government and the demarcation of their functions. In view of this, in order to facilitate a clear and profound understanding of the increasingly sharp “doctrine” disputes in the current economics profession, this article focuses on exploring three questions: (1) How to understand the deep-seated causes of the “doctrine” disputes? In this regard, this article systematically sorts out the prevalent ideological trends in current society from the perspective of social philosophy, thereby deeply identifying the theoretical viewpoints and policy proposals of the major schools of economics. (2) Why are the “doctrine” disputes concentratedly manifested in the opposition between Marxism and modern mainstream economics? In this regard, this article sorts out the process by which, aside from radicalism, the three major ideological trends gradually merged to form the mainstream trend, from the perspective of social background and academic orientation, thereby gaining a deeper understanding of the formation of the two major branches of modern economics. (3) How to alleviate or eliminate the “doctrine” disputes? In this regard, this article conducts a normative analysis of social philosophy itself, thereby seeking a social foundation for bridging and communicating the current “doctrine” disputes.

由此就要系统地思考一个根本性问题：如何认识不同的“主义”？根本上说，经济学的“主义”之争体现了社会哲学观的差异和对立，这又集中体现在如何看待和处理个体利益与集体利益之间的关系上；究其原因，人与人之间的利益关系关乎以哪种机制为中轴来引导经济行为和资源配置，进而集中关乎对市场和政府作用的认识和功能的界分。有鉴于此，为了便于对当今经济学界日益尖锐的“主义”之争有清晰而深刻的认识，本文集中探究这样三个问题：（1）如何认识“主义”之争的深层原因？就此而言，本文从社会哲学观角度对当前社会的流行思潮展开系统的梳理，由此来深入辨识经济学主要流派的理论观点和政策主张。（2）“主义”之争为何集中体现为马克思主义和现代主流经济学的对立？就此而言，本文从社会背景和学术取向来梳理激进主义之外的三大思潮逐渐融合而形成主流思潮的过程，由此来更深刻地认识现代经济学两大分支的形成。（3）如何缓解或消弭“主义”之争？就此而言，本文对社会哲学本身展开规范分析，由此来为当前“主义”之争的架桥和沟通寻求社会基础。

II. Four Major Doctrinal Trends Arising from Social-Philosophical Views

二、社会哲学观引发的四大学说思潮

Social-philosophical perspectives are concentrated in the relationship between individual interests and between individual and collective interests, from which two basic types emerge: first, the view of harmony and consistency; second, the view of contradiction and conflict. At the same time, these two basic cognitions each give rise to two sub-views. On the one hand, from the view of harmony and consistency derive two such sub-views: the view of natural harmony and consistency, which emphasizes that harmony and consistency are the basic order and law of natural governance, thereby advocating the implementation of free-market neoliberal (Neo-liberalism) policies, often referred to as the transcendental optimists; the view of artificial harmony and consistency, which emphasizes that harmony and consistency in social order can be achieved through appropriate state intervention or human effort, thereby giving rise to New Liberalism, which regulates the market, often referred to as the empirical pragmatists. On the other hand, from the view of contradiction and conflict derive two such sub-views: the view of natural contradiction and conflict, which emphasizes that social contradictions and conflicts are fundamentally irreconcilable and unmitigable, thus relying solely on the law of “natural selection” for coercive resolution, forming the fatalist school of social Darwinism; the view of realistic contradiction and conflict, which emphasizes that social contradictions and conflicts are rooted in ownership, thus requiring fundamental transformation of the unreasonable capitalist system, forming the radical school of social revolutionism. Even when facing the same behavior or the same phenomenon, different scholars, based on different social-philosophical perspectives, will have different interpretations. For instance, regarding voluntary market exchange behavior, some believe it reflects a relationship of harmony and consistency, reasoning that exchange generates surplus and brings gains to each party; others, however, believe it embodies a relationship of contradiction and conflict, reasoning that the exchange surplus is divided into different types and each party strives to seize a larger share of the surplus. Thus, in viewing the prospects of human social development and the attitude toward the capitalist system, Western society has formed four major social-philosophical perspectives: the optimists, the pragmatists, the fatalists, and the radicals.

社会哲学观集中体现在个人利益之间以及个体利益与集体利益之间的关系上，由此产生出了两种基本类型：一是和谐一致观；二是矛盾冲突观。同时，这两大基本认知又各自派生出两种亚观点。一方面，从和谐一致观中派生出了这样两种亚观点：自然和谐一致观，强调和谐一致是自然统治的基本秩序和规律，由此主张实行自由市场的新古典自由主义（Neo-liberalism）政策，这往往被称为先验的乐天派；人为和谐一致观，强调依靠适当的国家干预或人为努力可以实现社会秩序的和谐一致，由此产生了对市场加以规范的新自由主义（New Liberalism），这往往被称为经验的务实派。另一方面，从矛盾冲突观中派生出了这样两种亚观点：天然的矛盾冲突观，强调社会矛盾冲突根本无法调和与缓解，从而只能依靠“物竞天择”规律加以强制解决，由此形成了社会达尔文主义的宿命派；现实的矛盾冲突观，强调社会矛盾和冲突根源于所有制，从而需要对不合理的资本主义制度加以根本性改造，由此形成了社会革命主义的激进派。即使面对同一行为或同一现象，不同学者基于不同社会哲学观也会有不同的解读。譬如，就自愿的市场交易行为，有人认为它反映了和谐一致关系，其理据是，交易会带来剩余且使得每一方都出现了增益；另有人却认为其中体现了矛盾冲突关系，其理据是，交易剩余存在不同类型的分割且每一方都努力争夺更大的剩余份额。由此，在看待人类社会发展的前景以及对待资本主义制度的态度上，西方社会就形成了四大社会哲学观：乐天派、务实派、宿命派和激进派。

1. Different Orientations of Economic Schools

1.不同取向的经济学流派

Rooted in the four major social-philosophical perspectives, the economics community has generated four major currents of thought and formed four basic research routes. In the history of economic thought, each of these four currents has its representative figures, forming schools with classical characteristics. It is generally believed that Smith (Hayek/Marshall’s right), Bentham (Keynes/Marshall’s left), Malthus (Pareto/Veblen’s right), and Marx (Lenin/Veblen’s left) are the iconic representatives of the optimists, pragmatists, fatalists, and radicals, respectively, and they have influenced a large number of followers, forming diversified economic schools. Regarding these four “doctrine” currents, we can also classify them alternatively according to their different propositions and attitudes toward social policy.

根基于四大社会哲学观，经济学界产生出了四大思潮并形成了四条基本研究路线。在经济学说史上，这四大思潮都有各自的代表人物而形成具有经典特色的流派。一般认为，斯密（哈耶克/马歇尔的右边）、边沁（凯恩斯/马歇尔的左边）、马尔萨斯（帕累托/凡勃伦的右边）和马克思（列宁/凡勃伦的左边）分别为乐天派、务实派、宿命派和激进派的标志性代表，他们又影响了一大批跟随者而形成了多元化的经济学流派。对这四种“主义”思潮，我们还可以根据对社会政策的不同主张和态度进行另类归属。

First, an attitude of “non-action” toward social policy. This originates from two types of currents: one is optimism, which holds that individual interests and collective interests are naturally harmonious and consistent, and the fundamental mechanism for achieving this harmony is free competition; accordingly, social continuous progress and even social optimality can be achieved without rational construction and government intervention, thus leading to laissez-faire; the other is pessimism, which believes that there is an irreconcilable conflict between individual interests and collective interests, and competition in human society will inevitably bring about the basic result of the strong ruling the weak as seen in nature; accordingly, all efforts to intervene in this trend are futile, thus leading to fatalism. That is to say, both optimism and pessimism (fatalism) oppose social policies of artificial intervention: the former believes that the natural state without intervention is best, and the latter believes that intervention cannot make it better either. Correspondingly, the two gradually merge, thereby constituting the philosophical foundation of neoliberalism, and both lead to social Darwinism. A typical example is that Pareto was a pessimist, emphasizing the protection of elite rights, but his efficiency theory later became the theoretical cornerstone of neoliberal economics. The difference between the two lies in: optimism believes that social Darwinism will lead to continuous progress and optimization of human society, ultimately achieving an equal and harmonious great harmony of society; pessimism (fatalism) believes that this competitive equilibrium is not ideal, but is dominated by the rules of elites based on power and fraud.

第一，对社会政策持“无为”态度。这源于两类思潮：一是乐观主义，它主张个人利益与集体利益之间是自然和谐一致的，实现这一和谐的根本机制则是自由竞争，相应地，无需理性建构和政府干预就可以实现社会持续进步乃至社会最优，从而就导向了自由放任；二是悲观主义，它认为个人利益与集体利益之间存在不可调和的冲突，人类社会的竞争必然会带来自然界中那种强者统治弱者的基本结果，相应地，试图干预这一趋势的一切努力都无济于事，从而就导向了宿命主义。也就是说，乐观主义和悲观（宿命）主义都反对人为干预的社会政策：前者认为不受干预的自然状态最好，后者认为干预也不可能变得更好。相应地，两者就逐渐相融合，由此构成了新古典自由主义的哲学基础，进而都导向了社会达尔文主义。一个典型的例子是，帕累托是悲观主义者，强调对精英权利的维护，但他的效率理论后来成为新古典自由主义经济学的理论基石。两者的不同之处在于：乐观主义认为，社会达尔文主义将导向人类社会的不断进步和优化，最终可以实现平等和谐的社会大同；悲观（宿命）主义则认为，这个竞争均势并非是理想的，而是受到强权和欺诈之精英规则的支配。

Second, an attitude of activism toward social policy. This originates from the other two types of currents: one is pragmatism, which absorbs some ideas of pessimism on the basis of the optimistic social-philosophical perspective, and believes that although there is some disharmony between individual interests and collective interests, artificial harmony and consistency can be achieved through appropriate intervention by the government or other human forces; the other is radicalism, which introduces more active social policies on the basis of the pessimistic social-philosophical perspective, and believes that capitalist competition pursuing self-interest only stimulates people’s inherent evil and leads to the loss and distortion of social benefits, thus focusing on comprehensive critique and transformation of the competitive capitalist system. Clearly, both pragmatism and radicalism endow society with progressiveness, both advocate correcting the unreasonable “natural order,” and thus introduce active government or organizational functions; correspondingly, the two gradually merge, jointly opposing the conservatism that hinders change. A typical example is that John Stuart Mill both vigorously defended individual freedom and advocated practices leading to socialism, so much so that he is often called a liberal socialist. The difference between the two lies in: pragmatism advocates promoting social change and progress within the capitalist framework that embodies the natural order, in an orderly manner and with minimal disruption, thus endorsing gradual and piecemeal social reform; radicalism believes that only with the aid of great assistance can the historical process be accelerated, thus advocating a more active overall engineering transformation of the existing capitalist system, ultimately developing Marxism and other socialist currents that replace “reform” with “revolution.”

第二，对社会政策持积极态度。这源于另外两类思潮：一是务实主义，它在乐观主义的社会哲学观上吸收了悲观主义的部分思想，并且相信尽管个人利益与集体利益之间存在某种不和谐，但借助政府或其他人类力量的适当干预可以实现人为的和谐一致；二是激进主义，它是在悲观主义的社会哲学观上引入更为积极的社会政策，并且认为追逐私利的资本主义竞争只会激发人的内在恶性并导致社会利益的丧失和扭曲，从而偏重对竞争性的资本主义制度展开全面性批判和改造。显然，务实主义和激进主义都赋予社会以进步性，都主张对不合理的“自然秩序”进行校正，由此也就引入了积极的政府或组织功能；相应地，这两者也就逐渐相融合，共同反对阻碍变革的保守主义。一个典型的例子是，约翰·穆勒既极力维护个人自由，又主张导向社会主义的实践，以至于往往被称为自由主义的社会主义者。两者的不同之处在于：务实主义主张，在体现自然秩序的资本主义框架内以井然有序的方式和最低程度的破坏来推动社会变革和进步，从而推崇渐进和零星式的社会改良；激进主义则相信，只有借助于巨大的援助才可以加快历史进程，从而主张对现有资本主义制度做更为积极的整体工程改造，最终发展出以“革命”代替“改良”的马克思主义及其他社会主义思潮。

Thus, based on the two dimensions of cognition of capitalist interest relations and corresponding social policy propositions, we can briefly classify the main schools of economics, as shown in Table 1. Generally, influenced by the deep-rooted naturalist thinking in the West and modern political philosophy, the doctrines that uphold and develop the view of harmony and consistency constitute the mainstream lineage of Western orthodox economics, and their inheritors and interpreters form the main body of economics in each era. Among them, Smith, Ricardo, Say, Senior, Bastiat, Walras, and other classical and neoclassical economists are generally regarded as transcendental optimists; modern economic schools inheriting this philosophical perspective include the New Austrian School, the Rational Expectations School, the Monetarist School, the Real Business Cycle School, the Supply-Side School, the Public Choice School, as well as branches such as Law and Economics, New Institutional Economics, Property Rights Economics, and Constitutional Economics. Economists in this school believe that the free competitive market is fully effective, thus large-scale economic crises will not occur, and so-called economic crises are precisely the product of artificial intervention. Slightly different from this, Quesnay, Bentham, John Stuart Mill, Lauderdale, Henry Carey, Wieser, Marshall, Pigou, Wicksell, and Keynes, among others, can be regarded as representatives of pragmatism holding that interests have artificial consistency; modern economic schools inheriting this current include New Keynesianism, Post-Keynesianism, and the new corporatism emerging in Scandinavia and Austria that emphasizes social equality and democratic participation. Economists in this school believe that capitalism experiences economic fluctuations and even crises, but these can be resolved through policy fine-tuning and institutional amendments, thus they are also listed among orthodox economic schools.

这样，基于对资本主义利益关系的认知和相应社会政策的主张这两个维度，我们可以对经济学的主要流派作一简要归类，如表1所示。一般地，受西方根深蒂固的自然主义思维及现代政治哲学的影响，坚持和发扬和谐一致观的学说构成了西方正统经济学流脉，相关承袭者和阐释者则构成每个时代的经济学主体。其中，斯密、李嘉图、萨伊、西尼尔、巴斯夏、瓦尔拉斯等古典和新古典经济学家通常都被视为先验乐观主义者，继承这种哲学观的现代经济学流派则包括新奥地利学派、理性预期学派、货币主义学派、真实周期学派、供给学派、公共选择学派以及法和经济学、新制度经济学、产权经济学、宪政经济学等分支。在这一流派的经济学人看来，自由竞争的市场是充分有效的，从而不会出现大规模的经济危机，而所谓的经济危机恰恰是人为干预的产物。与此稍有不同，魁奈、边沁、约翰·穆勒、劳德代尔、亨利·凯里、维塞尔、马歇尔、庇古、维克赛尔以及凯恩斯等人则可以被视为持有利益之间具有人为一致性的务实主义代表，继承这一思潮的现代经济学流派则包括新凯恩斯主义、后凯恩斯主义以及在斯堪的纳维亚和奥地利出现的强调社会平等、民主参与的新组合主义等。在这一流派的经济学人看来，资本主义存在经济震动乃至经济危机，但可以通过政策微调和制度修正而加以解决，从而也列席正统经济学流派。

At the same time, economists who hold a view of contradiction and conflict have been in a non-mainstream and non-orthodox position in almost all periods. These include Malthus, Sismondi, Proudhon, and Marx in the classical economics period; Hobson, Veblen, and Pareto in the neoclassical economics period; and various heterodox schools in modern economics, such as the American Institutional School, feminist economics, radical political economy, and the socio-economics school. Correspondingly, these economists and schools of economics all adhere to a pessimism that firmly believes in the existence of conflicts of interest between different groups. They not only assert that economic development is highly likely to exhibit a trend of involution [3]3 Involution (内卷): A term describing a pattern of development that becomes increasingly complex and competitive without leading to genuine progress or qualitative transformation, often used in Chinese academic discourse to critique stagnant or self-defeating growth., but also recognize the universality of the outbreak of economic crises. Of course, among these pessimists, there are significant differences regarding the causes of economic crises and the means of resolution. Among them, Malthus and Pareto are extreme pessimists, even degenerating into a fatalistic faction of fundamentalist social Darwinism. For example, Malthus fundamentally did not believe in the continuous progress of human society, holding that the perfection of human reason was ultimately nothing but a utopia. Pareto described humans as irrational and driven by emotion, stupidity, fear, and superstition, denying any form of income redistribution to alter the natural laws of income distribution, and advocating for the rule of the strong over the weak through power and fraud, as well as elite rule. In contrast, Sismondi and Proudhon are, to some extent, moderate pessimists, even transforming into a pragmatic faction and becoming theoretical pioneers for the petty bourgeoisie to reform reality. For example, Sismondi believed that capitalist machine-based large-scale production and free competition, which separate producers from the means of production, are the root causes of crises. He thus advocated for the state to adopt a stance of fairness to provide humanitarian relief and intervention, and to return to a pre-capitalist society dominated by small private ownership. At the same time, although Sismondi turned backward to resolve and overcome the defects of the modern market economy, he also pioneered a reformed modern neoliberalism, which led to modern welfare economic thought and Keynesian economic policies.

与此同时，持矛盾冲突观的经济学人几乎在所有时期都处于非主流和非正统地位，这包括古典经济学时期的马尔萨斯、西斯蒙第、蒲鲁东、马克思和新古典经济学时期的霍布森、凡勃伦、帕累托以及现代经济学中的各种非正统经济学派，如美国制度学派、女性主义经济学、激进政治经济学、社会经济学派。相应地，这些经济学人和经济学流派都持有坚信不同利益之间存在某种冲突的悲观主义，不仅认定经济发展很有可能出现内卷化趋势，而且还认识到经济危机爆发的普遍性。当然，在这些悲观主义者中，对经济危机的成因以及解决的方式又存在很大差异。其中，马尔萨斯和帕累托等是极端悲观主义者，乃至退化为原教旨社会达尔文主义的宿命派。例如，马尔萨斯根本不相信人类社会会不断进步，认为人类理性完善终究只是一个乌托邦；帕累托则将人类描述为非理性的并为感情、愚蠢、恐惧和迷信所驱动，否定以任何形式的收入再分配来改变收入分配的自然法则，宣扬强权和欺诈以及由强者压迫弱者的精英规则。与此不同，西斯蒙第、蒲鲁东等在某种程度上则是温和的悲观主义者，乃至朝务实派转化并成为小资产阶级改造现实的理论先驱。例如，西斯蒙第认为生产者和生产资料相分离的资本主义机器大生产和自由竞争是造成危机的根源，从而主张国家站在公正立场予以人道主义的救助和干预，并回归以小私有制为主体的前资本主义社会。同时，尽管西斯蒙第向后转来解决和克服现代市场经济的缺陷，但又开创了改良的现代新自由主义，而这导向了现代福利经济思想和凯恩斯主义经济政策。

2. The Complex Currents of the Contradiction-Conflict View

2.矛盾冲突观的复杂思潮

Among these currents, Marx’s doctrine appears more complex: on the one hand, it holds a pessimistic attitude toward the capitalist system, believing that capitalism can only be destroyed, not improved; on the other hand, it is optimistic about the future development of human society, achieving a harmony of interests on the basis of public ownership of the means of production. Regarding the former, Marx wrote: “Along with the constantly diminishing number of the magnates of capital, who usurp and monopolise all advantages of this process of transformation, grows the mass of misery, oppression, slavery, degradation, exploitation; but with this too grows the revolt of the working-class, a class always increasing in numbers, and disciplined, united, organised by the very mechanism of the process of capitalist production itself. The monopoly of capital becomes a fetter upon the mode of production, which has sprung up and flourished along with, and under it. Centralisation of the means of production and socialisation of labour at last reach a point where they become incompatible with their capitalist integument. This integument is burst asunder. The knell of capitalist private property sounds. The expropriators are expropriated.” [4]4 Karl Marx, *Capital*, Volume I, Chapter 32: “Historical Tendency of Capitalist Accumulation.” Regarding the latter, Mises pointed out: “Marxism appears to be an optimistic doctrine, at least insofar as the social order it aspires to is concerned; it asserts that the interests of all members of society are harmonious.” [5]5 Ludwig von Mises, *Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis* (1922). Therefore, with respect to the historicist morality embedded in Marxism, Raymond Aron also commented: “This doctrine is pessimistic in the short term, but optimistic in the long term.” [6]6 Raymond Aron, *Main Currents in Sociological Thought* (1965). To this end, Marx, on the one hand, believed that the development and accumulation of capitalism itself would intensify its self-contradictions and thus drive it toward collapse; on the other hand, he also advocated for large-scale institutional surgery to promote the transformation of the capitalist system. Thus, Marx developed a systematic theoretical system for transforming the capitalist system, thereby inaugurating the tradition of contemporary socialist and radical economics.

在这些思潮中，马克思学说显得更为复杂：一方面是对资本主义制度持悲观主义态度，认为资本主义只能被摧毁而不能被改进；另一方面则是对人类社会的未来发展又持乐观主义态度，在生产资料公有制基础上实现利益一致。就前者而言，马克思写道：“随着那些掠夺和垄断这一转化过程的全部利益的资本巨头不断减少，贫困、压迫、奴役、退化和剥削的程度不断加深，而日益壮大的、由资本主义生产过程本身的机构所训练、联合和组织起来的工人阶级的反抗也不断增长。资本的垄断成了与这种垄断一起并在这种垄断之下繁荣起来的生产方式的桎梏。生产资料的集中和劳动的社会化，达到了同它们的资本主义外壳不能相容的地步。这个外壳就要炸毁了。资本主义私有制的丧钟就要响了。剥夺者就要被剥夺了。”就后者而言，米塞斯则指出：“马克思主义似乎是一种乐观主义学说，至少就它所向往的社会秩序而言，它主张社会所有成员的利益是一致的。”所以，针对马克思主义中所嵌入的历史主义道德，雷蒙·阿隆也评论说：“这种学说就短期而言是悲观主义的，而从长远来看则是乐观主义的。”为此，马克思一方面认为资本主义的发展和积累本身会强化资本主义的自我矛盾进而促使其走向崩溃，另一方面也主张采取大规模的制度手术来促进资本主义体系的变革；由此，马克思发展出一种系统改造资本主义制度的学说体系，进而开创了当代社会主义和激进主义经济学传统。

The reason Marx derived cognitions and judgments different from those of other classical economists, building on classical economics, lies in his introduction of the mechanisms of capital accumulation and the industrial reserve army, rather than inheriting the classical economic mechanisms of Malthus’s population law and the wages fund doctrine as regulators of employment and wage levels. First, the mechanism of capitalist capital accumulation manifests as follows: on the one hand, capitalists, in order to survive competition, must accumulate ever more capital, thereby purchasing more and more machinery, leading to the displacement of humans by machines; on the other hand, competition also leads to capital concentration, with wealth increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few capitalists, so that the scope and intensity of the suffering endured by people both increase. That is, unlike Smith and others, who believed that capital accumulation would increase labor demand and raise wages, Marx believed that capital accumulation would increase labor demand and the suffering of workers. Second, the role of the industrial reserve army in the capitalist process manifests as follows: on the one hand, the industrial reserve army actively participates in competition in the labor market, exerting downward pressure on wage levels and causing wages to fall continuously; on the other hand, the displacement of workers by machinery creates an ever-larger industrial reserve army, which provides the social basis for the proletariat to launch a social revolution. Sweezy wrote: “(Classical economics) in principle does not involve changes in the methods of production; it observes economic development entirely in terms of quantitative changes (gradual changes) in population, capital, wages, profits, and rent, etc. Social relations remain constant, and the final result is merely a state where the rate of all these changes is zero. Since the Marxist viewpoint primarily emphasizes changes in the methods of production, it implies both qualitative changes in social organization and social relations and quantitative changes in the aforementioned economic variables. Thus, it is convenient to regard the ‘final result’ as a revolutionary reorganization of society, rather than as a simple state of rest.” [7]7 Paul Sweezy, *The Theory of Capitalist Development* (1942). It is precisely due to the profound influence of Marx’s approach to social issues that contemporary left-wing radicals primarily focus on issues such as the environment, race, gender, poverty, distribution, power, the capitalist system, and economic crises.

马克思之所以在古典经济学的基础上得出了不同于其他古典经济学的认知和论断，就在于他引入了资本积累和产业后备军机制，而不是承袭古典经济学中马尔萨斯人口规律和工资基金说等作为就业和工资水平的调节机制。首先，资本主义的资本积累机制表现为：一方面，资本家为了生存而展开竞争，不得不积累越来越多的资本，进而购买越来越多的机器而产生机器对人的替代；另一方面，竞争还导致资本集中，财富越来越集中到少数资本家手中，以至于人们所受苦难的范围和强度都在增长。也就是说，不同于斯密等认为资本积累会带来劳动需求的增加和工资的提高，马克思认为资本积累会导致劳动需求和劳动者苦难的增加。其次，产业后备军在资本主义进程中所起的作用则表现为：一方面，产业后备军积极参与劳动市场的竞争，这会对工资水平施加一种压力而促使工资不断下降；另一方面，机器排挤工人造成了规模越来越大的产业后备军，这为无产阶级发动的社会革命创造了社会基础。斯威齐写道：“（古典经济学）原则上是不涉及生产方法的变革的；它完全是根据人口、资本、工资、利润和地租等的数量变化（渐变）来观察经济发展。社会关系始终不变，最终的结果，仅仅是所有这些变化的速率都等于零的一种事态。由于马克思主义的观点主要是强调生产方法的变革，所以，它既意味着社会组织和社会关系的质变，也意味着上述那些经济变数的量变。这样，就便于把‘最终结果’看作是社会的革命性改组，而不是看作一种单纯的休止状态。”正是受到马克思对社会问题处理方式的深刻影响，当代左派激进主义者主要关注环境、种族、性别、贫困、分配、权力、资本主义制度和经济危机等。

Furthermore, in a broad sense, the American institutional economics pioneered by Veblen also belongs to this stream of thought. It emphasizes the conflicts of interest existing among various social collectives and classes, and, based on a dichotomous mode of thinking, recognizes the normal occurrence of maladjustments in economic life. To a large extent, Veblen’s thought embodies another kind of complexity: on the one hand, early on he was relatively optimistic about the development of capitalism, believing that industrial occupations were conducive to breaking down old customs and habits, that cooperative industrial values would ultimately triumph over predatory business values, and he anticipated that a producer class composed of engineers, scientists, and technical experts would launch a revolution to take over industry from vested interests and absentee owners and reorganize the functions of the production system; on the other hand, in his later years, he held no hope for capitalism being transformed into a decent, humane society, to the point where he considered the prospects for social development to be very bleak. Brue and Grant said: “Veblen did not pin his hopes on reform—the improvement of conditions under capitalism; in fact, he hoped to see capitalism completely replaced. The idea that engineers would carry out social change may have been only a fleeting thought for Veblen. In his later years, he greatly admired the Soviet experiment, which placed high importance on central planning. … But, basically, he remained a pessimist, pessimistic about human nature and the future prospects of humanity.” [8]8 Stanley L. Brue and Randy R. Grant, *The Evolution of Economic Thought* (2007). The deeper reason lies in the fact that Veblen’s evolutionary thought was rooted in Darwin’s theory of natural evolution, where natural change is blind and random; correspondingly, the evolution of human society and institutions is also a purposeless process of natural selection, and thus does not necessarily develop steadily in a good direction. However, Commons began to introduce purpose into the construction and change of social organizations and institutions, thereby viewing the evolution of social organizations and institutions as primarily a process of human selection or elimination, thus providing support for real institutions and the reasonable values they contain.

此外，从广义上说，凡勃伦开创的美国制度经济学也属于这一思想流脉，它强调社会各集体、阶层之间所存在的利益冲突，基于二分法思维认识到经济生活中常态性的失调现象。在很大程度上，凡勃伦的思想体现了另一种复杂性：一方面，早期对资本主义的发展较为乐观，认为工业职业有利于打破旧的风气和习惯，注重合作的工业价值观将最终战胜体现掠夺的商业价值观，并预期由工程师、科学家和技术专家组成的生产者阶级将会发动一场革命从既得利益集团和不在所有者（absentee owner）手中接管工业并重新安排生产体系的职能；另一方面，晚期对资本主义被转变成一个体面的、人性化的社会不抱有希望，以至于认为社会发展前途非常暗淡。布鲁和格兰特说：“凡勃伦并没有寄希望于改革——在资本主义制度下各种条件的改良；事实上，他希望看到资本主义被完全取代。工程师将会进行社会变革的观点对凡勃伦而言可能只是个转瞬即逝的想法。在晚年，他非常赞赏苏联进行的高度重视中央计划的实验。……但是，基本上说，他仍然是一个悲观主义者，他对于人类的本性和人类未来的前景持悲观度。”其深层原因则在于凡勃伦的进化思想根基于达尔文的自然进化论，而自然的变迁是盲目且随机的，相应地，人类社会及制度的演化也是一个没有目标的自然淘汰过程，从而不一定会朝向好的方向稳定发展。不过，康芒斯开始为社会组织和制度的构造和变迁引入目的性，进而将社会组织和制度演化视为更主要是人为选择或淘汰的过程，由此来为现实制度及其内含的合理价值提供支持。

The above analysis shows that, within the intellectual currents that view capitalism as characterized by conflicts of interest, there are generally two basic paths for solving social problems: one is gradual, leading to the New Liberalism advocated by Sismondi; the other is radical, leading to the socialism advocated by Marx. In fact, these two paths have even deeper historical roots in Western society. Generally speaking, the view of contradiction and conflict, along with its corresponding pessimism, can be traced back at least to Plato. Plato believed that even in the smallest city-state there exist two sharply separated cities: one of the rich and one of the poor; moreover, due to the divergence of economic interests, the two are perpetually in a state of war. To fundamentally resolve this problem, Plato proposed two methods: first, the abolition of the system of private property; second, at least the elimination of extreme wealth and extreme poverty. Clearly, the former points toward Marx’s doctrine, while the latter leads to Sismondi’s position.

上面的分析表明，在对资本主义持利益冲突观的思潮中，解决社会问题通常也有两条基本路径：一是渐进的，这导向西斯蒙第倡导的新自由主义（New Liberalism）；二是激进的，这导向马克思主张的社会主义（Socialism）。其实，这两种路径在西方社会还有更为深远的历史渊源。一般地，矛盾冲突观及其相应的悲观主义至少可以追溯到柏拉图。柏拉图认为，即使在最小的城邦中也存在着两个截然分离的城邦：一个是富人的城邦，一个是穷人的城邦；而且，由于经济利益上的不一致，两者永远处于交战状态。为了彻底解决这一问题，柏拉图提出了两种方法：一是必须废除私有财产制度，二是至少要消除极富和极贫现象。显然，前者指向了马克思的学说，后者则导向了西斯蒙第的主张。

3. The Social Views Behind Policy Proposals

3.政策主张背后的社会观

Through a comparative investigation tracing back to origins, it can be found that both the optimists and the pragmatists regard harmony and consistency as the foundation of society, thereby giving rise to an optimistic intellectual current toward capitalist society, and in turn forming the mainstream Western economic tradition from Smith, through Marshall, to Keynes. In fact, the optimistic belief can be traced back to Aristotle’s view that all motion or change is the actualization of potential inherent in the essence of things, and was later reinforced by the rationalism and utilitarianism promoted by the Enlightenment. It holds that once humanity matures and allows itself to be guided by reason, it will move toward light, and progress will raise the material and spiritual welfare of humanity to a level higher than any previous era. In contrast, the common feature of the fatalists and the radicals is that they regard contradiction and conflict as the foundation of society, which gives rise to a pessimistic intellectual current toward capitalist society, and in turn forms the non-mainstream economic tradition from Sismondi, through Marx, to Hobson. In fact, the pessimistic belief can be traced back to Plato’s view of the chaotic and disorderly world brought about by the tyranny of his time, and was later reinforced by the history and reality of the masses’ struggle over scarce material interests, as well as by the corresponding social Darwinism. It holds that for the vast majority of human history, material resources are too limited to meet the needs of all people; without the intervention of state public power, the endless struggles among self-interested individuals will lead human society into Hobbes’s brutal jungle.

通过追根溯源的比较可以发现，乐天派和务实派都将和谐一致性视为社会根本，由此孕育出了对资本主义社会的乐观主义思潮，进而形成了从斯密、马歇尔到凯恩斯的西方主流经济学传统。事实上，乐观主义信念可以追溯到亚里士多德将一切运动或变化视为内在于事物本质中的潜能之实现的看法，后来又为启蒙运动所促兴的理性主义和功利主义所强化。它认为，人类一旦成熟并使自己受理性引导就会走向光明，进步会把人类的物质和精神福利提高到比以往任何时期都更高的水平。与此不同，宿命派和激进派的共同特征则在于将矛盾冲突性视为社会根本，这孕育出对资本主义社会的悲观主义思潮，进而形成从西斯蒙第、马克思到霍布森的非主流经济学传统。事实上，悲观主义信念可以追溯到柏拉图对当时僭主政治带来杂乱无章和混乱不堪之世界的看法，后来又为社会大众对稀缺性物质利益进行争夺的历史和现实以及相应的社会达尔文主义所强化。它认为，人类绝大多数时期的物质资源因有限而无法满足全体人类的需要，如果没有国家公权力的干预，利己的人们之间所产生的无休止的争斗将会引导人类社会进入霍布斯的野蛮丛林。

Clearly, from the perspective of policy proposals, both the optimists who advocate natural harmony and consistency and the fatalists who advocate natural contradiction and conflict advocate limiting or even negating the role of the state and government; however, the former believes that government intervention will destroy the natural order that embodies justice, while the latter believes that government intervention cannot solve unjust social problems and often exacerbates such injustice, producing the opposite effect. In contrast, both the pragmatists (including moderate pessimists) who advocate artificial harmony and consistency and the radicals who advocate eradicating social conflict advocate introducing the positive role of the state and government. However, the focus, method, and intensity of state intervention emphasized by the two are different: the pragmatists focus on mutual benefit and cooperation among people, hoping to promote the development of productive forces through voluntary cooperation and corresponding social organizations; they endorse a system of self-help based on education and positive incentives, and do not advocate compulsory income redistribution. The radicals deny the possibility of humans forming long-term cooperation on a voluntary basis, believing that conflicts between social classes must be regulated by the coercive force of the state; although government intervention cannot achieve a win-win outcome, it can benefit the welfare of a particular class or society as a whole.

显然，从政策主张上看，无论是主张自然和谐一致的乐天派还是主张天然矛盾冲突的宿命派，都主张要限制甚至否定国家和政府的作用；只不过，前者认为政府干预将破坏体现正义的自然秩序，后者则认为政府干预并不能解决不公正的社会问题，往往还会适得其反地加剧这种不公正。与此相反，无论是主张人为和谐一致的务实派（包括温和的悲观派）还是主张根除社会冲突的激进派，都主张引入国家和政府的积极作用。但是，两者所强调的国家干预之着眼点、方式和强度等方面都是不同的：务实派着眼于人们之间的互惠合作，希望通过自愿合作以及相应社会组织来促进生产力的发展，它拥护一种基于教育和积极激励的自助制度，而不主张强制性的收入再分配；激进派则否定人类基于自愿形成长期合作的可能性，认为社会各阶层之间的冲突必须依靠国家的强制力量来调节，尽管政府干预不可能实现双赢结果，却可以有利于某一阶层或社会的整体福利。

Therefore, by combining these two different types of social-philosophical views and policy proposals, we can more deeply understand the different attitudes and policies of different schools of economics toward the early capitalist system. Broadly speaking, criticism and transformation proceeded mainly along two basic paths: one view holds that only by completely overthrowing the capitalist system can a better society be achieved, represented by scholars from France and Germany; the other view emphasizes that the focus should be on adopting some practical steps to improve social conditions, reflecting the tradition of Britain and later the United States. From the history of economic thought, Mill, as a representative of reformism, particularly emphasized expanding the franchise. Marshall, who inherited Mill’s doctrine, also defended the liberal capitalist system on the grounds of its plasticity, thereby shaping the basic stance of neoclassical economics. Even Keynes, who encountered the total exposure of the defects of the capitalist system, still believed that the capitalist system was plastic and only needed some adjustments in specific mechanisms and policies. Joan Robinson, in her book *Marx, Marshall and Keynes*, also pointed out: “Marx was trying to understand the system (referring to capitalism) in order to hasten its overthrow. Marshall was trying to make it appear lovable, so that people would accept it. Keynes was trying to find out what was wrong with the system, so that it would not destroy itself.” In a conversation with students, Joan Robinson said: Marx, Marshall, and Keynes have only one real difference: they observe economic reality through glasses of different colors; Marshall’s lenses are blue, Keynes’s are slightly pink, and Marx’s lenses are distinctly red.

因此，结合这两类不同的社会哲学观和政策主张，我们可以更深刻理解不同经济学派对待早期资本主义制度的不同态度和政策。大体上，这主要沿着两种基本路向进行批判和改造：一种主张认为，只有彻底推翻资本主义制度，才能通向一种更美好的社会，这以法国和德国的学者为代表；另一种主张则强调，应该把重点放在采取一些实用的步骤来改良社会状况，这体现了英国以及后来美国的传统。从经济学说史上看，作为改良主义代表的穆勒特别强调要扩大普选权，承继穆勒学说的马歇尔也以资本主义制度的可塑性为由来为自由资本主义制度进行辩护，由此塑造出了新古典经济学的基本立场；即使凯恩斯遇到了资本主义制度缺陷的总暴露，但他还是相信资本主义制度是可塑的，只需要在具体机制和政策上做些调整就可以了。琼·罗宾逊在《马克思、马歇尔和凯恩斯》一书中也指出：“马克思是在设法了解这个制度（指资本主义）以加速它的倾覆。马歇尔设法把它说得可爱，使它能为人们接受。凯恩斯是在力求找出这一制度的毛病所在，以便使它不至毁灭自己。”在一次与学生的对话中，琼·罗宾逊说：马克思、马歇尔和凯恩斯只有一个真正的不同之处，这就是在观察经济现实时带上不同颜色的有色眼镜，马歇尔的镜片是蓝色的，凯恩斯的稍微带点粉红色，而马克思的镜片则明显偏红。

Finally, it should be pointed out that different economists and different schools of economics hold different “doctrines” and beliefs, which are also largely related to the stage of social development and the historical context in which they lived. For example, Smith, Malthus, Marx, and Keynes, as representatives of the four major intellectual currents—optimists, pessimists, radicals, and pragmatists—toward the capitalist system, each held philosophical and social views with distinct imprints of their times. Heilbroner and Thurow wrote: “The great economists were products of their times: Smith was an ‘optimist’ of the early capitalist stage; Marx cried out for the workers who fell victim to the darkest industrial age; and Keynes, who appeared much later, was the spokesman of the ‘Great Depression.’” From the history of thought, almost all economists who have had a profound influence on the history of economic thought are realists, dedicated to observing and analyzing social phenomena and the problems of their times. Correspondingly, due to differences in the social environments in which they lived, the phenomena and problems they observed also differed, leading to the formation of different social cognitions. Among them, Smith, living in the period of capitalist development and growth, welcomed the stimulation of individual initiative by free competition; Malthus, living in the period when capitalist contradictions and crises were increasingly exposed, saw the dark side of liberal capitalism but felt powerless; Marx, living in the period of capitalism’s zenith and the sharpening of contradictions and conflicts, further revealed the contradiction between the organized nature of private production and the anarchy of social production as a whole; and Keynes, who experienced the continuous self-repair of the capitalist system, advocated introducing government macroeconomic regulation to prevent the sharpening and eruption of contradictions.

最后，需要指出，不同经济学者以及不同经济学派持有不同的“主义”和信念，在很大程度上也与他们所处的社会发展阶段和时代背景有关。譬如，作为针对资本主义制度分别持乐天派、悲观派、激进派和务实派这四大思潮之代表人物的斯密、马尔萨斯、马克思和凯恩斯，他们所持有的哲学社会观就具有鲜明的时代印记。海尔布罗纳和瑟罗写道：“伟大的经济学家都是他们那个时代的产物：斯密是早期资本主义阶段的‘乐天派’；马克思则为沦为最黑暗的工业时代牺牲品的工人大声疾呼；而在更晚些时候出现的凯恩斯，则是‘大萧条’时期的发言人。”从学说史来看，那些在经济学说史上产生深远影响的经济学家几乎都是现实主义者，他们致力于社会现象以及时代问题的观察和剖析；相应地，由于生活的社会环境存在差异，他们所观察到的现象和问题也就存在差异，进而就会形成不同的社会认知。其中，处于资本主义发展和成长时期的斯密更欢迎自由竞争对个人主动性的激发，处于资本主义矛盾和危机日益暴露时期的马尔萨斯则看到自由资本主义的阴暗一面却无能为力，处于资本主义鼎盛且矛盾冲突尖锐化时期的马克思则进一步揭示资本主义存在着私人生产的有组织性和整个社会生产的无政府状态之间的矛盾，经历了资本主义制度自身不断修补之后的凯恩斯就主张引入政府对宏观经济的调控来防止矛盾的尖锐化和爆发。

III. Identifying the Divergence Between the Two Major Branches of Modern Economics

三、辨识现代经济学两大分支的分歧

Based on the identification and comparison of four social-philosophical views, we can clearly recognize that the dispute between Marxist economics and neoclassical economics fundamentally stems from their grounding in different social philosophies: the former asserts that individual interests are full of contradictions and conflicts, while the latter asserts that individual interests are in harmony and consistency. Of course, Marshall himself also declared his support for socialist goals; Marshall’s leading disciple Pigou founded welfare economics and openly declared his support for socialism; Joan Robinson’s pro-socialist orientation was even more pronounced; and even Keynes sharply criticized laissez-faire capitalism. Since this is the case, why does there exist a sharp opposition between Marxist economics and neoclassical economics within the modern economic system? The fundamental reason is that this neoclassical “doctrine” economics has in essence deviated from the neoclassical economics originally founded by Marshall himself. Marshall’s neoclassical economics is grounded in evolutionary rationality and advocates gradual socialism. During this period, there were two major turning points: first, with the arrival of the Great Depression of the 1930s, Marshallian economics, based on partial equilibrium analysis, was transformed by French rationalism [10]10 French rationalism: Refers to the Cartesian rationalist tradition emphasizing deductive reasoning from self-evident principles, which influenced the mathematical formalization of economics. and embedded with strong constructivist rationality, thereby providing further support for (socialist) economic planning; second, with the difficulties encountered by Keynesian economics, grounded in constructivist rationality, in the 1970s, the evolutionary rationality in Marshallian economics was excavated and transformed by “libertarianism,” thereby turning into neoclassical liberal economics that extols laissez-faire. This article sorts through this process and thereby analyzes the divergence between the two major branches of modern economics.

基于四种社会哲学观的辨识和比较，我们可以清楚地认识到，马克思主义经济学和新古典主义经济学之争根本上就在于它们根基于不同的社会哲学：前者认定个人利益之间充满了矛盾和冲突，后者认定个人利益之间是和谐一致的。当然，马歇尔本人也宣称赞成社会主义目标，马歇尔的大弟子庇古开创了福利经济学并公开宣称支持社会主义，琼·罗宾逊的亲社会主义取向则更为明显，即使凯恩斯也对自由放任的资本主义大加批判。既然如此，现代经济学体系中为何存在马克思主义经济学和新古典主义经济学的尖锐对立呢？根本原因在于，这个新古典“主义”经济学实质上已经偏离了马歇尔本人所创立的新古典经济学，马歇尔的新古典经济学根基于演化理性并主张渐进社会主义。期间有两大重要转折：一是，随着20世纪30年代经济大萧条的到来，以局部均衡分析为基础的马歇尔经济学经过法国唯理主义的改造而嵌入了强烈的建构理性，由此也就为（社会主义）经济计划提供了进一步的支持；二是，随着20世纪70年代根基于建构理性的凯恩斯经济学陷入困境，马歇尔经济学中的演化理性又被挖掘出来并经过“自由至上主义”的改造，由此就转化成为推崇自由放任的新古典自由主义经济学。这里就此过程做一梳理，并由此来解析现代经济学两大分支的分歧。

1. The Formation Logic of the Two Branches of Economics

1.两大经济学分支的形成逻辑

Within neoclassical economics, there has always been a dispute between “artificial harmony” and “natural harmony”: the original neoclassical economics affirms “artificial harmony,” while the various schools of neoclassical liberalism later attached to neoclassical economics believe in “natural harmony.” In fact, from the perspective of the history of doctrine, there are clear differences in the social-philosophical foundations on which Marshall’s neoclassical economics and the neoclassical liberal economics later dominated by Hayek, Friedman, Lucas, and others rely. On the one hand, neoclassical economics studies individual rational behavior and the resulting state of social welfare under the long-standing assumption of perfect competition; the affirmative rationality implicitly contained in this is that if human society recognizes this point and designs a social order consistent with perfect competition, it can achieve socialist goals (e.g., maximum output, no profit), and this order design and its implicit rationalism will lead to socialism. On the other hand, neoclassical liberalism holds that laissez-faire and unrestrained market economic development will lead to perfect competition and achieve a Pareto-improving welfare state; the affirmative rationality implicitly contained in this is that the laissez-faire market order and its outcomes are just and efficient (e.g., fair prices, equitable distribution), while the rationalization of the pure market order completely excludes organized intervention, especially government action, from economic activity. From this, it can be seen that successors of neoclassical economics such as Barone and Lange [11]11 Enrico Barone (1859–1924) and Oskar Lange (1904–1965): Economists who developed models of market socialism, arguing that a central planning board could simulate market prices to achieve efficient allocation. devoted themselves to defending the planned economy, especially the economic model of planning simulating the market, while Hayek and others vigorously distinguished the Austrian school’s view of market evolution from neoclassical economics’ market equilibrium theory.

在新古典主义经济学内部一直存在着“人为一致”和“天然一致”之争：作为原初意义上的新古典经济学认定的是“人为一致”，而后来附着在新古典经济学之上的新古典自由主义各流派则相信“天然一致”。事实上，从学说史来看，马歇尔开创的新古典经济学和后来由哈耶克、弗里德曼及卢卡斯等人主导的新古典自由主义经济学所依赖的社会哲学基础存在着明显差异。一方面，新古典经济学在长期因袭的完全竞争条件下研究个人理性行为及其带来的社会福利状态，其中潜含的肯定性理性是人类社会如果认识到这一点并设计出与完全竞争相一致的社会秩序就可以实现社会主义的目标（如产量最大，没有利润），而这种秩序设计及其潜含的唯理主义又会导向社会主义。另一方面，新古典自由主义则认为自由放任以及无节制的市场经济发展将会导向完全竞争并实现帕累托优进的福利状态，其中潜含的肯定性理性是自由放任的市场秩序及其结果是公正有效的（如价格公平、分配公正），而对纯粹市场秩序的合理化则完全将有组织的干预尤其政府行为排除在经济活动之外。由此可以看到，巴龙、兰格等新古典经济学传承者致力于为计划经济尤其是计划模拟市场的经济模式辩护，哈耶克等人则极力区分奥地利学派的市场演进观和新古典经济学的市场均衡论。

Of course, the different evolutions of neoclassical economics can also be understood this way: neoclassical economics is grounded in naturalist thinking and devotes itself to exploring a static equilibrium world, thereby being embedded in the affirmative rationality derived from naturalist thinking; however, when combined with different contents of affirmative rationality, economics is led in different directions. Among these, when embedded with the affirmative rationality that extols human capacity, neoclassical economics lays the theoretical and intellectual foundation for socialist economics characterized by planning; when embedded with the affirmative rationality that extols the natural order, neoclassical economics transforms into neoclassical liberal economics that advocates laissez-faire. Historically, the rationalist factor within affirmative rationality developed relatively rapidly in the first half of the 20th century, especially after World War II; correspondingly, mathematical economics and the corresponding socialist economics developed greatly, to the point where neoclassical economics was regarded by some scholars as socialist market economics. However, since the 1970s, individual freedom and economic freedom have become the political mainstream in Western societies; correspondingly, the evolutionary factor within affirmative rationality received attention and developed in a biased manner, to the point where neoclassical economics, transformed by neoclassical liberalism, became a school within neoclassical liberal economics. It can even be said that the various schools of neoclassical liberalism today have largely developed from neoclassical economics. For this reason, within the modern economic system, neoclassical economics has become the mainstream and orthodox economics, constituting a discipline opposed to (Marxist) socialist economics, which is regarded as “heterodox.”

当然，新古典经济学的不同演化也可以这么理解：新古典经济学根基于自然主义思维而致力探究一个静态的均衡世界，从而也就嵌入在由自然主义思维派生出的肯定性理性之中；不过，在与肯定性理性的不同内容相结合时，却将经济学引向了不同方向。其中，当嵌入推崇人类能力的肯定性理性时，新古典经济学就为以计划为特征的社会主义经济学奠定了理论和思维基础；当嵌入推崇自然秩序的肯定性理性时，新古典经济学就转化为主张自由放任的新古典自由主义经济学。从历史上看，肯定性理性中的唯理因子在20世纪上半叶尤其是“二战”后发展比较迅速，相应地，数理经济学以及相应的社会主义经济学得到极大发展，以至于新古典经济学被一些学人视作了社会主义市场经济学；但自20世纪70年代以降，个人自由和经济自由成为西方社会的政治主流，相应地，肯定性理性中的演进因子受到重视并获得偏至性发展，以至于新古典经济学经过新古典自由主义的改造而成为新古典自由主义经济学的一个流派，甚至可以说现在的新古典自由主义各流派大体上都是由新古典经济学发展而来的。正因如此，在现代经济学体系中，新古典经济学成为主流且正统的经济学，构成了与作为“异端”的（马克思主义的）社会主义经济学相对立的学科。

At the same time, an important social and intellectual basis for why neoclassical economics slid toward neoclassical liberal economics lies in the fact that, from the mid-19th century onward, the three major currents of thought besides radicalism gradually merged and ultimately formed the mainstream current of thought in Western society. First, regarding classical liberalism: although its founder Smith was essentially a pragmatist who clearly saw that the individual interests of the bourgeoisie “were never entirely consistent with the public interest” [12]12 Paraphrase of Adam Smith’s observation in *The Wealth of Nations* that businessmen’s interests often diverge from the public interest., and also assigned to the government tasks and functions far beyond those of a “night watchman,” he was later classified as an optimist who believed in “natural harmony and consistency.” In particular, later classical liberals became increasingly radical in their views on the individual and the market, to the point of regarding the government as a beast that harms the individual and the market, and thus advocating that the state should withdraw from economic life. Second, regarding traditional conservatism: although Burke and others, as pioneers of conservatism, once sharply criticized the reformist currents within classical liberalism at the time, he himself always regarded himself as an “Old Whig” [13]13 Old Whig: A term referring to the 18th-century British Whig party tradition that championed constitutional monarchy, parliamentary supremacy, and property rights; Burke used it to signal his commitment to gradual reform rather than radical change.. In particular, later conservatives increasingly concerned themselves with the whole of society, its moral life and moral character, and crucially devoted themselves to defending liberal traditions such as political freedom and property freedom. For this reason, the two increasingly merged and formed modern conservatism. The major turning point in this combination occurred in the 1970s, when some libertarians devoted themselves to marketizing the increasingly bloated bureaucratic system and government functions, thereby facilitating the rise of neoclassical liberalism. Under the concept of neoclassical liberalism, the term “liberalism” seemed to acquire a meaning completely interchangeable with “conservatism”; both emphasize human autonomy and self-discipline as well as social justice and order, and both advocate maintaining the free capitalist system and the free market economic system. Finally, with the continuous growth of neoclassical liberalism, the Keynesian school, which achieved artificial harmony through the introduction of state intervention, was gradually co-opted by neoclassical liberalism, to the point where the Keynesian general Modigliani declared, “We are all monetarists now.” [14]14 “We are all monetarists now”: A remark attributed to Franco Modigliani (1918–2003), a Keynesian economist, reflecting the influence of Milton Friedman’s monetarist ideas on macroeconomic policy in the 1970s.

同时，新古典经济学之所以会滑向新古典自由主义经济学，一个重要的社会和思想基础则在于，自19世纪中期以后，除激进主义以外的三大思潮逐渐融合并最终形成西方社会的主流思潮。首先，就古典自由主义而言，尽管其开创者斯密本质上是一个务实主义者，清楚地看到资产阶级的个人利益“从来不是和公共利益完全一致”，并且也赋予政府远超出“守夜人”的任务和功能，但后来却被归为相信“自然和谐一致”的乐观主义者；尤其是，后来的古典自由主义者在个人和市场意识上日益激进化，以至于将政府视为危害个人和市场的猛兽，进而主张国家应该退出经济生活。其次，就传统保守主义而言，尽管作为保守主义先驱的柏克等人曾极力批判当时古典自由主义中的改革思潮，但他本人始终以“老辉格党人”自居；尤其是，后来的保守主义者日益关心社会的整体、社会的道德生活和道德面貌，关键是致力于守护政治自由和财产自由等自由传统。正因如此，两者日益融合并构成了现代保守主义。两者结合的重大转折点发生在20世纪70年代，一些自由意志至上主义者致力于对当时日趋庞大的官僚体制以及政府职能进行市场化，由此促成了新古典自由主义的兴起。在新古典自由主义观念下，“自由主义”一词也就似乎取得了与“保守主义”完全相通的含义，两者都强调人的自主和自律以及社会的正义和秩序，都主张维护自由资本主义制度和自由市场经济体制。最后，伴随着新古典自由主义的不断壮大，通过引入国家干预而实现人为和谐一致的凯恩斯学派也逐渐被新古典自由主义收编，以至于凯恩斯学派大将莫迪利安尼也宣称“我们都是货币主义者”。

It is precisely as neoliberal liberalism has become the dominant political philosophy in modern Western society that modern economics has come under the domination of neoliberal liberalism and neoclassical economic methodology. Correspondingly, when modern economists prefer to apply this philosophical thinking and methodology to analyze specific fields, they form different sub-disciplines of modern economics, such as contract economics, property rights economics, transaction cost economics, enterprise economics, antitrust economics, information economics, behavioral economics, incentive economics, consumer economics, collective action economics, welfare economics, public economics, endogenous growth economics, and so on. Furthermore, when modern economists extend this philosophical thinking and methodology to other spheres of social life, new schools of modern economics emerge, such as new institutional economics, new political economy, law and economics, family economics, education economics, discrimination economics, population-resource-environmental economics, and so on. That is to say, modern economics exhibits a clear characteristic of domination by neoclassical economics, with neoclassical economic thinking penetrating different fields to form new economic schools and sub-disciplines. In contrast, socialist economics rooted in radical thought (along with other schools of economics classified as “heterodox” by mainstream Western economics) does not simply identify with social reality, nor does it simply argue for the rationality of market behavior and the effectiveness of market mechanisms. Instead, it consistently insists on appealing to collective forces to promote social progress, and thus increasingly tends to engage in state activities.

正是伴随着新古典自由主义成为现代西方社会占支配地位的政治哲学，现代经济学开始受到新古典自由主义和新古典经济学方法论的统治。相应地，当现代经济学人偏好运用这种哲学思维和方法论来对具体领域展开分析时就形成了现代经济学的不同分支学科，如契约经济学、产权经济学、交易成本经济学、企业经济学、反托拉斯经济学、信息经济学、行为经济学、激励经济学、消费经济学、集体行为经济学、福利经济学、公共经济学、内生增长经济学等；进而，当现代经济学人将这种哲学思维和方法论拓展到其他社会生活领域时就出现了现代经济学的新型流派，如新制度经济学、新政治经济学、法和经济学、家庭经济学、教育经济学、歧视经济学、人口资源环境经济学等。也就是说，现代经济学呈现出明显的新古典经济学的统治特征，新古典经济学思维渗透到不同领域而形成新型的经济学流派和分支学科。与此不同，根基于激进主义思潮的社会主义经济学（以及其他被西方主流经济学归为“异端”的经济学诸流派）却不是简单地认同社会现实，不是简单地论证市场行为的合理性和市场机制的有效性，而是始终坚持诉诸集体力量来推进社会进步，进而日益倾向于从事国家活动。

Consequently, two opposing branches of modern economics have emerged: first, Marxist economics, rooted in radicalism and oriented toward socialism, which perceives interpersonal heterogeneity and social inequality in the real world, thereby profoundly revealing the dark side of the capitalist system, and thus seeks directions and methods for transforming the capitalist system; second, modern mainstream economics, synthesized from the other three major currents of thought [15]15 The “other three major currents of thought” refer to classical liberalism, conservatism, and social democracy, which, alongside radicalism (the source of Marxist economics), are often seen as the four main ideological traditions of modern Western political thought. and grounded in neoclassical economics, which acknowledges the rationality of the existing capitalist system, and then, within the given system, explores rational human behavior, or corrects certain incidental and minor social problems. This mainly includes two tributaries: neoclassical macroeconomics and Keynesian economics. Precisely because they are rooted in different social philosophies, Marxist economics and modern mainstream economics offer different explanations of social relations. On the one hand, rooted in a social philosophy of harmony, modern mainstream neoclassical economics strives to highlight and reveal the harmony and consistency among the parts of society and their mechanisms, thereby reinforcing a functionalist analytical and explanatory approach; correspondingly, modern mainstream economics increasingly exhibits a vulgarizing character, namely, apologetics and abstraction. On the other hand, rooted in a social philosophy of conflict, Marxist economics provides a non-functionalist explanation of social relations, emphasizing contradictions and conflicts within society over the distribution of resources and income; correspondingly, Marxist economics embodies the basic characteristics of traditional scholarship, namely, critique and realism.

由此，现代经济学出现了两大对立性分支：一是根基于激进主义而导向社会主义的马克思主义经济学，它洞察了现实世界中的人际异质性和社会不平等，进而深刻揭示出资本主义制度的阴暗面，由此来寻找对资本主义制度进行改造的方向和途径；二是由其他三大思潮综合而成并以新古典经济学为根基的现代主流经济学，它承认现实资本主义制度的合理性，进而在既定制度下探究人的理性行为，或者对一些偶发性和细微性社会问题进行纠正，这主要包含了新古典宏观经济学和凯恩斯经济学这两大支流。正是根基于不同的社会哲学观，马克思主义经济学与现代主流经济学对社会关系给出了不同的解释。一方面，根基于和谐观的社会哲学观，现代主流的新古典经济学致力于突出并揭示社会各部分之间的和谐一致及其机制，由此强化了功能主义的分析和解释路线；相应地，现代主流经济学也就呈现出越来越强烈的庸俗化特征，即辩护性和抽象性。与此不同，根基于冲突观的社会哲学观，马克思主义经济学对社会关系提供了非功能主义的解释，它强调社会内部在资源和收入分配上的矛盾和冲突；相应地，马克思主义经济学也就体现了传统学术的基本特征，即批判性和现实性。

2. Differences and Communication between the Two Branches of Economics

2.两大经济学分支的分歧沟通

Precisely because they are based on different social philosophies, these two branches of economics have different understandings of real social relations and the exploitative relations embedded within them. Among them, the functionalist analysis of neoclassical economics focuses on experience and phenomena, and thus tends to explore the issue of exploitation from the perspective of differences between subjects and the inequality of related contracts; the non-functionalist analysis of Marxist economics focuses on the essence behind experience and phenomena, and thus strives to excavate the essence of social relations and thereby reveal the substance of supra-empirical exploitation. At the same time, both Marxist economics and modern mainstream neoclassical economics only focus on a specific dimension in understanding human society; correspondingly, the doctrinal insights they obtain and the policies they prescribe based on these insights often imply a certain bias. More importantly, through the scrutiny of speculative logic, it can also be found that these two branches of economics have obvious paradoxes in their doctrinal concepts and policy proposals: on the one hand, regarding the mainstream thought of modern Western society, it reveres nature and believes in the harmony and consistency of human society, yet a series of institutional arrangements such as the separation of powers and checks and balances seem to originate from a social philosophy of conflict, using specific institutional arrangements to constrain, mitigate, and even resolve conflicts of interest among social members; on the other hand, regarding “heterodox” thought including Marxism, it recognizes the defects of the natural order and believes in the conflict within human society, yet the series of institutional arrangements it emphasizes, such as democratic centralism and universal sharing, seem to originate from a social philosophy of harmony, using specific institutional arrangements to translate public preferences into public decisions to promote social welfare. Regarding the differences in how these two branches of economics treat social relations, this article provides an in-depth analysis of their respective views on exploitation, and then, based on knowledge integration, forms a more comprehensive understanding.

正是基于不同的社会哲学观，这两大经济学分支对现实社会关系及其蕴含的剥削关系存在着不同的认知。其中，新古典主义经济学的功能主义分析着眼于经验和现象，进而倾向于从主体差异以及相关契约的不平等去探讨剥削问题；马克思主义经济学的非功能主义分析则关注经验和现象背后的本质，进而致力于挖掘社会关系的本质并由此来揭示超经验的剥削实质。同时，无论是马克思主义经济学还是现代主流的新古典主义经济学，它们都只是侧重于某一特定维度来认识人类社会，相应地，它们所获得的学说认知以及据此开出的政策往往潜含着某种偏颇。更为重要的是，基于思辨逻辑的拷问还可以发现，这两大经济学分支在学说观念与政策主张上都有明显吊诡之处：一方面，就现代西方社会的主流思想而言，它尊崇自然并相信人类社会的和谐一致，但三权分立、权力制衡等一系列制度安排似乎又是起源于社会冲突观，通过特定制度安排来制约、缓和乃至解决社会成员间的利益矛盾；另一方面，就包括马克思主义在内的“异端”思想而言，它认识到自然秩序的缺陷并相信人类社会的冲突，但所强调的民主集中、全民共享等一系列制度安排似乎又是起源于社会和谐观，通过特定的制度安排来将公共偏好付诸公共决策以推进社会福祉。关于这两大经济学分支对待社会关系的认知差异，这里对其相应的剥削观做一深度解析，进而基于知识契合来形成更为全面的认知。

First, the social philosophy of Marxist economics holds that individual interests are fundamentally contradictory and conflictual, which inevitably breeds exploitation and enslavement between people. Then, why does one person (or group) suffer exploitation and enslavement by another person (or group)? Fundamentally, it can be attributed to their possession of different amounts of power. Rigby points out, “Exploitation is not only an ‘economic’ relationship, but also a power relationship.” [16]16 A reference to the British sociologist and Marxist scholar Stephen Rigby, known for his work on Marx’s theory of exploitation and historical materialism. In a market economy, people’s power fundamentally originates from the amount of money or capital they control. But at the same time, Marxist economics inherits Ricardo’s academic thinking, regarding equivalent exchange as the fundamental law of value in a commodity economy, thereby excluding the possibility of exploitation in the sphere of exchange, and instead turning to the sphere of production to explore the roots of exploitation. Here, Marxist economics “discovers” the unique commodity of labor power, emphasizing that the surplus value created by the commodity of labor power in production is appropriated by the owners of capital. Thus, on the basis of equivalent exchange between the value of labor power and wages, it reveals the exploitative relations hidden behind. Then, why can capitalists appropriate the surplus value created by labor power through exchange? Marxist economics attributes this to the capitalists’ ownership of the means of production; workers who own nothing but their labor power are forced to sell it only at its value. Hence, Marxist economics emphasizes that the capitalist mode of production is based on exploitation: the capitalist’s control over the enterprise organization and the production process is not a neutral managerial function, but also bears the function of exploiting the social labor process; the entire production process contains a class division of labor that facilitates the capitalist’s extraction of surplus value created by the workers. Precisely based on this logic, Marx and later orthodox Marxists advocate that to eliminate exploitative relations, it is necessary to abolish this inequality in property ownership; however, this is fundamentally impossible under the capitalist system, thus requiring the replacement of capitalist private property with a new social system or ownership relations, thereby ultimately eliminating exploitation.

首先，马克思主义经济学的社会哲学观认为，个体利益之间根本上是矛盾冲突的，由此必然会孕育出人与人之间的剥削和奴役。那么，一个人（或群体）为何会遭受他人（或群体）的剥削和奴役呢？根本上可归咎于他们拥有大小不同的权力。里格比指出，“剥削不仅是一种‘经济’关系，而且是一种权力关系”。在市场经济中，人们的权力根本上源于所掌握的金钱或资本数量。但与此同时，马克思主义经济学承袭了李嘉图的学术思维，把等价交换视为商品经济的根本性价值规律，从而就排除了交换领域中存在剥削的可能，进而转向在生产领域探寻剥削的根源。在这里，马克思主义经济学“发现”了劳动力这一独特商品，强调劳动力商品在生产中创造的剩余价值被资本所有者占有了，由此就在劳动力价值与工资等价交换的基础上揭示出背后所潜藏的剥削关系。那么，资本家为何能够通过交换而占有劳动力创造的剩余价值呢？马克思主义经济学将之归咎为资本家对生产资料的占有，一无所有而只剩下劳动力的工人就被迫只能按照劳动力价值进行买卖。由此，马克思经济学强调，资本主义的生产方式是以剥削为基础的：资本家对企业组织和生产过程的控制并不是一种中立的管理工作，而且也承担着剥削社会劳动过程的职能，整个生产过程中存在着一种便于资本家攫取工人所创造的剩余价值的阶级分工。正是基于这一逻辑，马克思及后来的正统马克思主义者都主张，要消灭剥削关系，就要取消这种财产占有的不平等；但是，这又是在资本主义制度下根本难以做到的，从而就需要用新的社会制度或所有制关系来取代资本主义的私有制，由此最终消灭剥削。

Secondly, the social-philosophical view of neoclassical economics holds that individual interests are fundamentally harmonious and consistent, thereby inevitably giving rise to cooperative and coexistent relations among people. In fact, from Smith, Ricardo, Say, Senior, Bastiat, Walras, Menger, down to Marshall, they generally belong to this optimistic school; they broadly believe that the interests among people are naturally and harmoniously aligned, and that the “invisible hand” of the market can achieve consistency between individual interests and social interests, so there is no exploitation or enslavement. Furthermore, the optimists provide a theoretical basis for a market economy without exploitation: market subjects are rational and homogeneous atomic individuals; correspondingly, there are no power factors in market operations, and naturally no coercion or exploitation. However, the pragmatic school, originating with Bentham and carried on by Sismondi, Pigou, and Keynes, recognized that the interests among people are not naturally and harmoniously consistent, but that through the introduction of appropriate policy interventions, a man-made harmony of interests can also be achieved in an economy dominated by the market mechanism. Further, the pragmatists base their understanding of exploitative relations in society on the following cognition: on the one hand, the sphere of production is a process in which various factors of production cooperate to create wealth, and each factor of production can obtain its due “labor” income, so exploitation cannot occur; on the other hand, the sphere of exchange is a process of interest distribution, where heterogeneous subjects obtain different shares of interests due to differences in power (such as ability, information, etc.), thereby leading to unequal exchange. This analysis of power has gradually been accepted by neoclassical economics through the development of imperfect competition and game theory. Correspondingly, modern mainstream neoclassical economics holds the following view: on the one hand, it affirms that the existing market economy system is reasonable; on the other hand, it acknowledges the existence of unjust interest divisions in the sphere of exchange. Precisely because of this, modern mainstream economics does not consider the problem of injustice in the starting point of exchange, but only focuses on the problem of injustice in the exchange procedure; further, it explores the roots of exploitation from the sphere of exchange rather than the market sphere, thereby advocating resorting to the construction and deepening of market mechanisms to alleviate exchange exploitation arising from incomplete and asymmetric information. At the same time, since the market itself is based on private property rights, and private property helps to stimulate people to use scarce resources more efficiently, all schools of modern mainstream neoclassical economics firmly advocate maintaining private ownership, and the extreme faction, neoliberal economics, even emphasizes the sacred and inviolable nature of private property.

其次，新古典主义经济学的社会哲学观则认为，个体利益之间根本上具有和谐一致性，从而必然会产生人与人之间的合作和共存关系。事实上，从斯密、李嘉图、萨伊、西尼尔、巴斯夏、瓦尔拉斯、门格尔直到马歇尔大体都属于这种乐天派，他们总体上都认为，人与人之间的利益是自然和谐一致的，市场的“无形的手”可以实现个体利益与社会利益的一致，从而并没有剥削和奴役现象。进一步地，乐天派还为无剥削的市场经济提供了理论基础：市场主体都是理性而同质的原子个体，相应地，市场运行中不存在权力因素，自然也没有强制和剥削。不过，起自边沁并为西斯蒙第、庇古以及凯恩斯所承袭的务实派认识到，人与人之间的利益并非是自然和谐一致的，但通过引入适当的政策干预也可以在以市场机制为主导的经济中实现利益的人为和谐一致。进一步地，务实派将社会中的剥削关系建立在这样的认知上：一方面，生产领域是各种生产要素协作创造财富的过程，每一种生产要素都可以获得其应得的“劳动”收入，从而不可能出现剥削；另一方面，交换领域是利益的分配过程，异质性主体因权力（如能力、信息等）的差异而获得不同的利益份额，从而导致了交换的不等价。这种权力分析通过不完全竞争和博弈理论的发展而逐渐为新古典主义经济学所接受。相应地，现代主流的新古典主义经济学持有这样的观点：一方面认定既定的市场经济制度是合理的，另一方面又承认交换领域中存在不公正的利益划分。正因如此，现代主流经济学并不考虑交换的起点不公正问题，而仅仅关注交换程序的不公正问题；进而，它从交换领域而非市场领域探究剥削的根源，由此主张诉诸市场机制的建设和深化来缓和因信息不完全和不对称产生的交换剥削。与此同时，由于市场本身是建立在私有财产权的基础之上，并且财产私有有助于激发人们更有效地利用稀缺资源，因此现代主流的新古典主义经济学各流派都坚决主张维护私有制，其中的极端派别新古典自由主义经济学更是强调私有财产的神圣不可侵犯。

Since this is the case, how do we understand the phenomenon of exploitation in human society? Dialectics shows that theory is deepened through the logic of thesis–antithesis–synthesis. The understanding of social exploitation is also like this; by identifying and integrating the views on exploitation of the two current major branches of economics, a more comprehensive cognition can be formed. Generally, the key consideration in examining social reality from the perspective of social development is: why does one person suffer exploitation by others? Fundamentally, this stems from power asymmetry. It is the high concentration of power that enables a few people to have the power to dominate others, thereby giving rise to unjust income distribution. Further, we must consider: where does power come from? Generally, this needs to be analyzed from two aspects: first, it is manifested in the socio-political sphere, where public power (social power) is highly concentrated, a few organizations or institutions monopolize decision-making power over public affairs, and thereby dominate the lives of social individuals; second, it is manifested in the socio-economic sphere, where private power (money power) is highly concentrated, a few people control the rules of market transactions, and thereby determine the distribution of wealth in market exchange. That is to say, there are two main types of power concentration that harm individual freedom, manifested in two spheres. From this, it can be seen that Marxist economics and neoclassical economics each focus on one side, thereby forming different beliefs and propositions. For example, Marxist economists focus on the exploitation caused by the concentration of money power in the market economy, but fail to foresee that the concentration of public power allows some people to use their advantages in information and other resources to create new exploitation; conversely, neoclassical scholars consider the despotism and plunder latent in the unfair distribution of public power, but do not deeply analyze the asymmetry of private power caused by information asymmetry and unequal status among market subjects and the exploitation it leads to. Clearly, by integrating the above two views, when considering how to overcome or alleviate the phenomenon of exploitation in society, attention must be paid both to inequalities in the exchange process caused by information asymmetry, unreasonable procedures, etc., and to various direct and indirect inequalities caused by unfair initial property distribution.

既然如此，我们又如何认识人类社会中的剥削现象呢？辩证法表明，理论是通过正—反—合的逻辑而不断深化的。对社会剥削的认识也是如此，通过辨识和契合当前两大经济学分支的剥削观即可以形成更为全面的认知。一般地，基于社会发展角度来审视社会现实的关键思考集中在：一个人为何会遭受他人的剥削？根本上说，这源于权力的不对称。正是权力的高度集中使得少数人拥有了支配他人的权力，由此产生出不公正的收入分配。进而又要思考：权力来自何处？一般地，这需要从两方面入手分析：一是体现在社会政治领域，公权力（社会权力）出现了高度集中，少数组织或机构垄断了公共事务的决策权，并由此支配了社会个体的生活；二是体现在社会经济领域，私权力（金钱权力）出现了高度集中，少数人控制了市场交易的规则，并由此决定了市场交换中的财富分配。也就是说，危害个体自由的权力集中主要有两大类型，并体现在两大领域。由此可知，马克思主义经济学和新古典主义经济学各自偏重于一个侧面，从而形成了不同的信念和主张。譬如，马克思主义经济学者关注市场经济中金钱权力集中所造成的剥削，却没有前瞻到公权力集中使得一些人得以利用其占有的信息和其他资源优势而造成新的剥削；相反，新古典主义学人考虑了公权力分配不公潜伏的专制和掠夺，却没有深入剖析市场主体因信息不对称和地位不平等所存在的私权力不对称及其导致的剥削。显然，通过对上述两种观点的契合，在考虑如何克服或缓和社会中的剥削现象时，既要关注因信息不对称、程序不合理等所造成的交换过程的不平等现象，又要关注因初始财产分配不公所造成的各种直接的和间接的不平等现象。

IV. Delving into the Origins of the “Doctrine” Disputes in Economics

四、洞悉经济学“主义”之争的渊薮

The various schools of modern economics have distinctly different theoretical systems and policy propositions, and the foundation of these differences lies in their social-philosophical views. Neoliberalism is rooted in the social-philosophical view of natural harmony and consistency; correspondingly, the modern mainstream economics it dominates tends to regard capitalism as an embodiment of spontaneous order and believes that the profit-seeking behavior of dispersed individuals will ultimately lead to the maximization of social interests; further, it places its focus of attention on the individual as the behavioral subject, devoting itself to studying the rational behavior of individuals seeking to maximize returns. Modern mainstream economists often fail to see, or even ignore, conflicts of interest among individuals, and also fail to see the fallacy of composition implicit when moving from the individual to the collective and from the short term to the long term. In contrast, rooted in the social-philosophical view of conflict of interests, Marxism focuses on examining the struggle among social subjects who, due to heterogeneity, possess unequal power, thereby discerning the instability and fragility of the capitalist system; further, it pays more attention to the interests of classes and society as a whole, devoting itself to exploring effective ways to achieve maximum social utility. At the same time, Marxist economists often underestimate the self-adjusting and self-learning adaptive capacity of the capitalist system, and in pursuing the general will, they may also sacrifice individual will and even the will of the many. Of course, different social-philosophical views both oppose and continuously merge with each other, thereby forming more complex economic thinking.

现代经济学各流派拥有明显不同的理论体系和政策主张，而这些差异的根基则在于其社会哲学观。新古典自由主义根植于自然和谐一致的社会哲学观，相应地，为其支配的现代主流经济学就倾向于将资本主义视为自发秩序的体现，并相信分散个人的逐利行为最终将导向社会利益的最大化；进而，它将关注的重心就放在作为行为主体的个体身上，致力于探究个体追求收益最大化的理性行为。现代主流经济学人往往看不到乃至无视个体之间的利益冲突，也看不到由个体导向集体以及由即期导向长期时所潜含的合成谬误。与此不同，根基于利益冲突的社会哲学观，马克思主义集中考察因异质性而拥有不平等权力的社会主体之间的斗争，也就洞察出资本主义系统的不稳定和脆弱性；进而，它就更为关注阶级以及社会整体的利益，致力于探究获得社会效用最大化的有效途径。与此同时，马克思主义经济学人往往会低估资本主义体系自我调整和自我学习的适应能力，在追求公意的同时也可能会以牺牲个体乃至众意为代价。当然，不同社会哲学观之间既相互对立又不断融合，由此就形成了更为复杂的经济学思考。

First, the currently popular neoliberalism merges the optimism of natural harmony and consistency with the fatalism of natural contradiction and conflict, thereby further emphasizing the immutability of the natural order; correspondingly, even if there are obvious problems in the real world, one cannot attempt to change them through man-made forces or government policies. A clear example is Pareto, who was himself a pessimist, advocating elite rights and elite rule, and ridiculing people’s belief in the ideals of democracy, progress, and humanitarianism; however, the Pareto efficiency concept and Pareto distribution law he proposed have been accepted by neoliberalism, the former becoming the theoretical cornerstone of modern mainstream economics and welfare economics, and the latter becoming an important theory for neoliberalism to defend the free market. This reflects the inherent contradiction and tension within neoliberal economics: on the one hand, there are different schools within it that debate each other, and these different schools seem to be rooted in different philosophical currents; on the other hand, all schools advocate the natural order, especially the spontaneous order, and all oppose government intervention in the market. Precisely because of this, neoliberalism has gradually merged with conservatism, and correspondingly, modern mainstream economics strives to defend (all) phenomena and behaviors in capitalist society, thereby opposing intervention by external forces, especially the government. In contrast, Marxist economics launches a fierce critique of both blind optimism and a priori fatalism, thereby opposing or rejecting patchwork-style social reform, and thus devoting itself to breaking the old world of capitalism and constructing a new world.

第一，时下流行的新古典自由主义将自然和谐一致的乐观主义和自然矛盾冲突的宿命主义融合在一起，从而进一步强调自然秩序的不可改变性；相应地，即使现实世界存在明显的问题，也不能试图凭借人为力量或政府政策来改变它。一个明显的例子是帕累托，他本人是个悲观主义者，崇尚精英权利和精英统治，嘲笑人对民主、进步和人道主义理想的信念；但是，他提出的帕累托效率概念和帕累托分配定律却为新古典自由主义所接受，前者成为现代主流经济学以及福利经济学的理论基石，后者则成为新古典自由主义维护自由市场的重要理论。这反映出新古典自由主义经济学内在的背反和紧张：一方面，其内部存在着相互争论的不同流派，而这些不同流派似乎还根基于不同的哲学思潮；另一方面，各流派又都推崇自然秩序尤其是自发秩序，都反对政府干预市场。正因如此，新古典自由主义逐渐与保守主义融合，相应地，现代主流经济学则竭力为资本主义社会中的（一切）现象和行为进行辩护，进而反对外来力量尤其是政府的干涉。与此不同，马克思主义经济学则对盲目乐观主义和先验宿命主义都展开了猛烈批判，进而反对或否定修补式的社会改良，由此致力于打破资本主义的旧世界而构造新世界。

Second, although sharp “doctrine” disputes exist because they are rooted in different social-philosophical views, these four major social-philosophical views originating from Western society are all grounded in naturalist thinking, which causes almost all schools of Western economics to be embedded with a strong affirmative rationality. In neoclassical liberal economics, this is mainly manifested as an affirmation of the natural order; in Marxist economics, it is mainly manifested as an affirmation of human rational capacity. Influenced by this, the former often ignores the involution tendency emerging in the evolutionary process of the spontaneous order, while the latter may undermine the social foundation for stable economic development. Precisely because they are based on affirmative rationality, the theoretical cognitions and policy recommendations of various schools of economics all exhibit a tendency toward extremism to a certain extent, so that social policies often cycle and shift between different “doctrines” as social circumstances change. Furthermore, although the social cognitions of these schools differ so greatly, each side believes it has discovered natural laws, and thus devotes itself to revealing or constructing a social order consistent with the natural order. This raises another question: how exactly should the natural order be understood? Broadly speaking, each school of economics attacks the cognitions of the other as originating from “illusions,” and claims that their policies violate the natural order. This essentially reflects each school’s struggle for the right of interpretation, aimed at enhancing the persuasiveness of its doctrine to compete for public opinion or the market of ideas.

第二，尽管因为根植于不同的社会哲学观而存在着尖锐的“主义”之争，但源于西方社会的这四大社会哲学观都根基于自然主义思维之中，这使得西方经济学各流派几乎都嵌入了浓厚的肯定性理性。这在新古典自由主义经济学中主要体现为对自然秩序的肯定，在马克思主义经济学中则主要体现为对人类理性能力的肯定；受此影响，前者往往会无视自发秩序演化过程中出现的内卷化倾向，后者则可能会冲击经济稳定发展的社会基础。正是根基于肯定性理性，经济学各流派的理论认知和政策主张一定程度上都呈现极端化趋向，以至于社会政策往往随着社会情势的变化而在不同“主义”之间循环转换。更进一步地，尽管各流派的社会认知存在如此的不同，但每一方又都自认为发现了自然规律，进而致力于揭示或构建与自然秩序相一致的社会秩序。由此引发出另一问题，即究竟该如何认识自然秩序。大体上，经济学各学派都攻击对方的认知是源于“幻像”，而其政策则违背了自然秩序。这实质上体现出各学派对诠释权的争夺，目的在于增强其学说的说服力以争夺舆论或思想市场。

Third, these social-philosophical views embody differences in cognitive perspective. Correspondingly, among the modern schools of economics based on them, there is no absolute progress or regression; rather, they primarily represent divergent viewpoints. In particular, these schools of economics embedded with different social-philosophical views are broadly suited to specific social conditions and historical backgrounds, and often replace and revive each other as society develops. This provides a profound understanding of the following phenomenon: long-standing debates and even sharp antagonisms exist among schools of economics, yet no school can completely convince another. The root cause lies in their embedding within incommensurable social-philosophical views or “doctrines.” At the same time, because they fundamentally originate from incommensurable cognitive dimensions, these schools of economics of different “doctrines” inevitably each have their own one-sidedness. For instance, interest relations that exhibit intense conflict in the short term often show significant complementarity in the long term; things that appear to evolve spontaneously in the long term are embedded with distinct human rationality in the short term; and interpersonal relations and forms of social exploitation usually undergo major changes as the social power structure shifts. From another angle, this also reflects that there is unity among these different “doctrines” and the schools of economics they give rise to. For this reason, from the perspective of comprehensively understanding human society and promoting the continuous expansion and progress of the social order, we cannot simply choose one among them. Instead, we should recognize their respective one-sidedness and then seek complementarity among different economic theories and social currents. In this regard, we must deeply examine the social-philosophical views underlying each school of economics, identify the cognitive dimensions and social backgrounds on which they are based, and only then can we effectively promote the integration and unification of different schools of economics, advancing the development of economic theory through the convergence of various kinds of knowledge and thinking.

第三，这些社会哲学观体现了认知视角上的差异，相应地，以此为基础的现代经济学各流派之间不存在绝对的进步或退步之说，而更主要体现为观点相殊。尤其是，这些嵌入不同社会哲学观的经济学流派大体上都适应于特定的社会条件和历史背景，并且往往随着社会发展而更替和复兴。由此可以深刻认识这一现象：经济学各流派之间存在着长期的争论乃至尖锐的对立，但并没有哪个流派能够彻底说服另一个流派。其根源就在于，它们嵌入在不可通约的社会哲学观或“主义”之中。同时，由于根本上源于不可通约的认识维度，这些不同“主义”的经济学流派必然各有其片面性。譬如，短期内呈现出强烈冲突的利益关系在长期上往往具有显著的互补性，长期看来呈现自发演化的事物在短期内则嵌入了鲜明的人类理性，人与人之间的关系以及社会剥削形态通常会随着社会权力结构的变动而出现重大变化。这在另一个角度又反映出，不同“主义”及其开出的经济学流派之间又存在统一性。正因如此，基于全面认识人类社会并推动社会秩序持续扩展和进步的视角，我们不能简单地在其中选择其一，而是应该认识到各自的片面性，进而寻求不同经济学说和社会思潮之间的互补。就此而言，我们又必须深刻洞察经济学各流派所根基的社会哲学观，辨识它们所根基的认知维度及其社会背景，由此才可以有效地推动经济学各流派的融合和统一，通过各种知识和思维的契合来推动经济学理论的发展。

Fourth, from a practical standpoint, adherence to different “doctrines” also often reflects social needs in different historical contexts. For example, Susan Strange, a founder of international political economy, pointed out from the perspective of international political and economic relations that human society provides four basic values through social organization: wealth, security, freedom, and justice. Indeed, all societies need to produce food, build housing, and manufacture other material goods to meet people’s living needs; all societies need to be well organized to provide individuals with a greater degree of security; all societies need to formulate laws and regulations to guarantee people’s freedom of action or autonomous choice; and all societies make choices among various arrangements to reflect the justice demanded by the general public. Therefore, every society makes some arrangement to simultaneously provide individuals or groups with some wealth, some security, some choice and freedom, and some justice. However, different societies (or the same society at different times) assign different weights to these four values, thereby forming different social forms. In particular, because people’s aspirations for an ideal society differ based on the specific historical era, there will be differences in the priority given to basic value concepts and the proportional organization of different basic values. For example, feeling the turbulence of troubled times, Plato and Hobbes pursued better order; stirred by indignation at the various inequalities around them, Rousseau and Marx demanded more justice; similarly, Smith, Keynes, and Friedman all believed that creating more wealth was important, while John Stuart Mill and Hayek demanded giving people more freedom. Furthermore, in the real world, what proportional combination do different countries and societies choose? Or which social value is given priority? This depends, on the one hand, on the understanding of the general public, and on the other hand, more importantly, on the structure of social power.

第四，从实践上说，对不同“主义”的坚持也往往体现为不同时代背景下的社会需要。譬如，国际政治经济学奠基人斯特兰奇从国际政治和经济关系的角度指出人类通过社会组织所提供的四大基本价值：财富、安全、自由和正义。事实上，所有社会都需要生产食物、建筑住房和制造其他物质产品以满足人们的生活需要，所有社会都需要很好地加以组织以使个人得到更大程度的安全，所有社会都需要制定法律规章以保障人们拥有自由行动或自主选择权，所有社会对各种不同安排也会进行选择以体现社会大众所需要的公正。因此，每个社会都会做出某种安排以同时为个人或集团提供一些财富、一些安全、一些选择和自由以及一些公正。不过，不同的社会（或同一社会的不同时期）对这四种价值所赋予的权重又是不同的，由此组成了不同的社会形态。尤其是，基于特定时代背景人们对理想社会的诉求不同，从而基本价值观念的优先考虑点和不同基本价值观的组织比例就会存在差异。例如，有感于多事之秋的动荡生活，柏拉图和霍布斯追求更好的秩序；源于周遭种种不平等所激发的愤慨，卢梭和马克思则要求更多的公正；类似地，斯密、凯恩斯和弗里德曼都认为创造更多的财富很重要，约翰·穆勒和哈耶克等则要求给予人们更多的自由。进而，在现实世界中，不同国家和社会又选择何种比例的组合？或者以何种社会价值为优先呢？这一方面取决于社会大众的认识，另一方面更主要取决于社会权力的结构。

Fifth, it should be pointed out that the “doctrine” disputes in economics after the 1980s are mainly manifested in the convergence of the other three social-philosophical views to form a mainstream trend with neoclassical liberalism as its foundation, confronting Marxism nurtured by radicalism. The deep-seated reasons are: (1) The three social-philosophical views other than radicalism broadly accept the existing capitalist order, and all policies are implemented within the capitalist framework; (2) Other radical schools besides Marxism mainly inherit the humanistic ideas of Marxism rather than its revolutionary doctrine, thereby remaining at the academic level and gradually degenerating into a philosophical radical faction, thus not producing direct conflict and sharp contradictions with the above-mentioned mainstream trend in social practice; (3) Marxists have always taken social practice as their orientation, devoting themselves to transforming the capitalist system according to their Marxist doctrine, which contains all the answers to all problems, and thus inevitably come into irreconcilable contradiction with those positions that uphold the existing system or point to different development directions. In this regard, Schumpeter once said: “As long as these doctrines cannot convince anyone that the process of social development will inevitably lead to the realization of socialism, they are beautiful or terrible fantasies, powerless longings born from contact with social reality. As long as they have no definite contact with existing or potential sources of social power, the efforts of socialists are like preaching in the wilderness—Platonic preaching, which no politician needs to worry about, and which no observer of the social process needs to list among the effective factors.” [20]20 Joseph A. Schumpeter, *Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy* (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1942), p. 237. The translation follows the Chinese version cited by the author. For this reason, in capitalist societies that claim to guarantee individual freedom and freedom of speech, Plato’s *Republic*, More’s *Utopia*, Harrington’s *Oceana*, Kropotkin’s *Mutual Aid*, and Proudhon’s anarchism all gained space for survival and dissemination, but Marxism has been subjected to various forms of suppression and even prohibition. Correspondingly, in the current society dominated by capitalism, the field of economics has formed a situation of contention between neoclassical liberal economics and Marxist economics.

第五，需要指出的是，20世纪80年代之后的经济学“主义”之争主要体现为，其他三大社会哲学观汇流形成以新古典自由主义为底色的主流思潮，对抗由激进主义孕育而成的马克思主义。其深层原因在于：（1）激进主义之外的三大社会哲学观大体上都接受了现有的资本主义秩序，所有政策都在资本主义框架下展开；（2）非马克思主义的其他激进主义流派主要承袭马克思主义的人文思想而非革命学说，进而停留在学术层次并逐渐蜕变为一种哲学激进派，从而没有在社会实践上与上述主流思潮产生直接冲突和尖锐矛盾；（3）马克思主义者始终以社会实践为导向，致力于按照其包含所有问题全部答案的马克思主义学说来改造资本主义制度，从而必然会与那些维护现有制度或者指向不同发展方向的主张产生难以调和的矛盾。对此，熊彼特曾说：“只要这些学说没有办法使任何人信服社会发展过程必然导致实现社会主义的话，它们是美丽的或可怕的幻梦，是由接触社会现实产生的无力的渴望。只要它与现存的或潜在的社会力量源泉没有确定的接触，社会主义者的努力等于对着荒野说教——柏拉图式的说教，没有一个政治家需要为之操心，没有一个社会过程的观察家需要把它列入能起作用的要素。”正因如此，在号称保障个人自由和言论自由的资本主义社会，柏拉图的《理想国》、莫尔的《乌托邦》、哈林顿的《大洋国》、克鲁泡特金的《互助论》以及蒲鲁东的无政府主义都获得生存和传播的空间，但马克思主义却遭到各种压制乃至取缔；相应地，在资本主义主导的当下社会中，经济学界也就形成了新古典自由主义经济学与马克思主义经济学之争的局面。

In sum, through a profound dissection of the social-philosophical views behind different schools of economics, we can and should clearly recognize the following points: first, the theoretical viewpoints and policy proposals of all schools of economics are rooted in specific philosophical perspectives and embedded with specific ideologies; second, all kinds of pragmatic policies in the real world are rooted in the structure of social power and embody specific interest orientations; third, the “doctrine” disputes in contemporary society are concentrated in the struggle between “defending Marx” and “opposing Marx,” where “defending Marx” is committed to affirming and developing Marxian economics; fourth, “opposing Marx” is concentrated in the neoliberal classical synthesis formed by the fusion of three major currents of thought apart from radicalism, which occupies a dominant position in modern economics. The fundamental reason why neoliberal classical economics has become the mainstream in Western society is that it is rooted in reductionist thinking and from this develops an atomistic individualist method of analysis: on the one hand, it conforms to the Western ideology that emphasizes individual autonomy, thereby gaining “accuracy” in political philosophy; on the other hand, it helps to convert human action into the mathematical logic and modeling of symbolic operations, thereby gaining “scientificity” in academic research. Clearly, precisely because the basic starting point of analysis is the individual, neoliberal classical economics focuses on individual interests; further, precisely because it believes that the spontaneously generated market order is harmonious, neoliberal classical economics is committed to constructing and demonstrating general equilibrium theory. From this, two points of understanding can be formed: first, neoliberal classical economics fundamentally belongs to the category of commercial science, focusing on utility maximization and profit maximization in the micro sphere; second, neoliberal classical economics confuses the commercial science of “getting rich” with the economics of “enriching the state and benefiting the people,” thereby further leading economics astray.

总之，通过深刻剖析不同经济学派背后的社会哲学观，我们可以且应该清楚地认识到这样几点：一是所有经济学流派的理论观点和政策主张都根基于特定的哲学视角之中并嵌入了特定的意识形态；二是现实世界的各种实用主义政策背后都扎根于社会权力结构之中并体现出特定的利益取向；三是当下社会的“主义”之争集中体现为“保马（克思）”和“非马（克思）”上，“保马”致力于肯定和发展马克思经济学；四是“非马”集中体现为由激进主义之外三大思潮融合而成的新古典自由主义，它在现代经济学中占据统治地位。新古典自由主义经济学之所以成为西方社会的主流，根本上就在于它根基于还原论思维之中并由此发展出原子个体主义分析方法：一方面，它符合西方社会注重个体自主的意识形态，从而获得了政治哲学上的“准确性”；另一方面，它有助于将人类行动转换为符号运算的数理逻辑和建模，从而获得了学术研究上的“科学性”。显然，正是由于分析的基本出发点在个体，新古典自由主义经济学所关注的是个体利益；进而，正是由于相信自生自发的市场秩序是和谐的，新古典自由主义经济学致力于构建和论证一般均衡理论。由此可以形成这样两点认识：一是新古典自由主义经济学根本上属于商学的范畴，关注的是微观领域的效用最大化和收益最大化；二是新古典自由主义经济学又将“发财致富”的商学混同为“富国裕民”的经济学，从而进一步将经济学导向歧途。

V. Conclusion

五、结语

The theoretical viewpoints and policy proposals of various schools of modern economics are all rooted in specific social-philosophical views and the ideologies derived from them. The theories, propositions, laws, and principles in economics are largely logical expressions of social-philosophical views and ideologies, and the so-called proofs and tests are nothing more than “autistic thinking” under preconceived notions. The “doctrine” disputes in the economics community are, behind the scenes, caused precisely by the differences in the social-philosophical views on which each school is based. Generally, based on different understandings of the relationship between individual interests and collective interests and the direction of human social development, Western society has formed four different social-philosophical views—optimism, pessimism (fatalism), pragmatism, and radicalism—which in turn have produced schools of economics with different theoretical doctrines and policy proposals. Since the 1980s, these three currents of thought—optimism, pessimism (fatalism), and pragmatism—have gradually converged in Western society to form a mainstream current of thought. The modern Western mainstream economics embedded in neoliberal classical economics is precisely the product of this convergence, thus forming an increasingly sharp opposition with Marxian economics rooted in the radical current of thought. The debate between these two major branches of economics constitutes the concentrated manifestation of the “doctrine” disputes in contemporary economics. From this, we can profoundly identify the deep foundations of the “doctrine” disputes in the economics community, especially the reason why the “doctrine” disputes in modern economics are concentrated in the struggle between “opposing Marx” and “defending Marx.” In fact, Marxian economics is rooted in a social view of conflicting interests, thereby committed to exposing the dark side of capitalism; neoliberal classical economics is rooted in a social view of natural harmony and consistency, thereby committed to providing a rationalizing explanation for capitalism.

现代经济学各流派的理论观点和政策主张都根基于特定社会哲学观及其派生的意识形态之中，经济学中那些理论、命题、定律和原理大体都是社会哲学观和意识形态的逻辑表述，那些所谓的证明和检验也不过是先入之见下的“我向思考”。经济学界的“主义”之争，背后因由正是各流派所根基于的社会哲学观的差异。一般地，基于对个体利益与集体利益间关系以及人类社会发展路向的不同认知，西方社会形成了四种不同的社会哲学观——乐观主义、悲观（宿命）主义、务实主义和激进主义，进而产生了具有不同理论学说和政策主张的经济学流派。自20世纪80年代以降，乐观主义、悲观（宿命）主义和务实主义这三种思潮又在西方社会逐渐汇合而形成主流思潮，嵌入新古典自由主义的现代西方主流经济学正是由此汇合而成，从而与根基于激进主义思潮的马克思主义经济学存在日益尖锐的对立。而这两大经济学分支的争论，也就构成“主义”之争在当前经济学中的集中体现。由此可以深刻辨识经济学界“主义”之争的深层基础，尤其是现代经济学界的“主义”之争集中体现为“非马”和“保马”之争的原因。实际上，马克思主义经济学根基于利益冲突的社会观，从而致力于发掘资本主义的阴暗面；新古典自由主义经济学则根植于自然和谐一致的社会观，从而致力于为资本主义提供合理性解释。

Although various schools of economics, because they are rooted in different social-philosophical views, have sharp “doctrine” disputes, the four major social-philosophical views originating in Western society are all rooted in naturalist thinking. Generally speaking, naturalist thinking tends to apply the natural principle of “survival of the fittest, elimination of the weak” to society, races, and individuals, thereby forming a pan-social Darwinism. Social Darwinism can defend both individualism, liberalism, and egalitarianism, and collectivism, hierarchism, and anti-egalitarianism, thus becoming the common philosophical foundation of both neoliberal classical economics and conservatism. This deep-rooted naturalist thinking in Western society causes all schools of Western economics to be embedded with a profound affirmative rationality. In neoliberal classical economics, this is mainly manifested in the affirmation of the natural order; in Marxian economics, it is mainly manifested in the affirmation of human rational capacity. Precisely because they are rooted in affirmative rationality, the theoretical understandings and policy proposals of various schools of economics all have a tendency toward extremism to a certain extent, so that social policies often cycle and shift between different “doctrines” as social circumstances change. Through the analysis of the social-philosophical views behind each school of economics, we can free ourselves from the obscuration of specific perspectives and specific social contexts, especially avoiding being misled by modern mainstream economics textbooks embedded with neoliberal classical economics. But at the same time, from the perspective of comprehensively understanding human society and promoting the continuous expansion and progress of social order, we cannot simply adopt a negative attitude toward Western mainstream economics. Instead, on the basis of deeply penetrating the one-sidedness of each school of economics, we need to further excavate and seek complementarity between different economic theories and social currents of thought. In this regard, analysis from the perspective of social philosophy helps to identify the cognitive dimensions and social backgrounds from which schools arise; only thus can we effectively promote the fusion and unification of various schools of economics, and through the integration of different knowledge and thinking, promote the development of economic theory.

尽管经济学各流派因为根植于不同的社会哲学观而存在着尖锐的“主义”之争，但发源于西方社会的四大社会哲学观都根基于自然主义思维之中。一般而言，自然主义思维倾向于把自然界的“优胜劣汰、适者生存”学说运用到社会、种族和个人身上，由此形成泛社会达尔文主义。社会达尔文主义既可以为个人主义、自由主义和平等主义辩护，也可以为集体主义、等级主义和反平等主义辩护，从而成为新古典自由主义和保守主义的共同哲学基础。西方社会这种根深蒂固的自然主义思维，使得西方经济学各流派都嵌入了深厚的肯定性理性。这在新古典自由主义经济学中主要体现为对自然秩序的肯定，在马克思主义经济学中则主要体现为对人类理性能力的肯定。正是根基于肯定性理性，经济学各流派的理论认知和政策主张一定程度上都存在极端化趋向，以至于社会政策往往随着社会情势的变化而在不同“主义”间循环转换。而通过对各经济学流派背后的社会哲学观的辨析，我们可以摆脱特定视角和特定社会情境的蒙蔽，尤其是可以避免为嵌入新古典自由主义的现代主流经济学教材所误导。但同时，基于全面认识人类社会并推动社会秩序持续扩展和进步的视角，我们也不能简单地对西方主流经济学采取否定态度，而是需要在深入洞察经济学各流派的偏至性的基础上，进一步挖掘和寻求不同经济学说和社会思潮之间的互补性，就此而言，社会哲学观视角的剖析有助于辨析流派产生的认知维度及其社会背景，由此才可以有效地推动经济学各流派的融合和统一，通过不同知识和思维的契合来推动经济学理论的发展。

Online Editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗