A Study of Debt and the Mode of Human Existence from the Perspective of the Critique of Political Economy

What is debt? When a creditor transfers his own property (including funds, bonds, etc.) to another person, debt arises. Debt and credit are closely linked. In the relationship between creditor and debtor, credit refers to the creditor’s transfer to the debtor of a certain social power belonging to the creditor himself, granting the latter the actual power to command others; debt, by contrast, refers to the consequence that arises when the debtor is unable to repay the social power the creditor once transferred, at the moment the creditor seeks to reclaim it. Going further, debt is the product of social intercourse that people engage in during material production and daily life, and it signifies a specific form of social relations. As Marx put it, “People’s existence is their actual life-process” (Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 1, p. 525). Once debt arises, it will have one kind of influence or another on people’s actual lives, and it will also exert a substantive influence on the mode of human existence. In this regard, Graeber’s identification of “human relations defined by debt” (Graeber, p. 6) is no empty claim. If we confine our understanding of debt to the above scope [1]1 The author refers to the definition of debt given in the first two sentences of this paragraph: debt as the consequence of a creditor transferring property to another person., then grasping the relationship between debt and the mode of human existence should properly be sought in the critique of political economy. This is because, if debt is viewed solely from the moral domain, all attention will be poured into a moral examination of creditor and debtor, while the real power that debt, as a specific form of objective social relations, exerts on human development is overlooked; in economics, by contrast, the understanding of debt often lacks a critical dimension, treating debt merely as a concept in accounting or lending, and failing to see its practical effects on human existence. This article will demonstrate through analysis that, from the perspective of the critique of political economy, the influence of debt on the mode of human existence is manifested primarily in its impact on people’s moral existence and economic existence, as well as on the texture of people’s existence. In this way, we can set aside the purely moral critique or the purely economic understanding of debt that has prevailed in the past, and grasp debt from a perspective that is more pragmatic and closer to the perception of the actual life-process.

何谓债务?当债权人让渡自身的财物(包括资金、债券等)给他人时，便产生了债务。债务和信贷紧密相连。在债权人和债务人的关系中，信贷指的是债权人将属于自身所有的某种社会权力让渡给债务人，赋予后者实际的支配他人的权力；而债务则是指当债权人要收回他曾经让渡的社会权力时，债务人无力兑付所产生的后果。更进一步而言，债务是人们在物质生产和生活中发生的社会交往的产物，表征着社会关系的特定形式。正如马克思所言，“人们的存在就是他们的现实生活过程”。(《马克思恩格斯文集》第1卷，第525页)债务一旦发生，便会对人们的现实生活产生这样或那样的影响，对人的存在方式也会产生实质性影响。就此而言，格雷伯所指认的“被债务定义的人类关系”(格雷伯，第6页)并非虚妄之言。如果把对债务的理解限定在以上范围内(1),那么对债务与人的存在方式的关系的把握，则理应到政治经济学批判中去寻求。这是因为，如果仅从道德领域来看待债务，则只会把全部的注意力倾注在对债权人和债务人的道德审视上，而忽略债务作为一种客观的社会关系的特定形式对人的发展所具有的现实力量；而在经济学中，对债务的理解往往缺乏批判性的维度，把债务仅仅看作会计意义或借贷意义上的概念，看不到它对人的存在的实践效应。本文将通过分析表明：在政治经济学批判的视域中，债务对人的存在方式的影响主要表现为对人的道德存在和经济存在的影响，以及对人的存在质感的影响。由此，我们可以一改以往对债务所作的纯粹道德批判或纯粹经济学的理解，以一种更为务实和更加贴近现实生活过程感知的视角来把握债务。

I. Debt and People’s Moral Existence

一、债务与人的道德存在

In discussions of primordial debt, one theory holds that debt as the essence of society is expressed through religion, the gist of which is to regard the debt relation as the secular foundation of human morality. Hindu scriptures, such as the Vedas and the Brahmanas, contain hymns, prayers, and poems that reflect the essence of debt. In these records, debt is treated as synonymous with sin. The prayers in religious texts express people’s desire to be freed from the shackles of debt. Some exegetes even argue that human existence itself is a form of debt. Correspondingly, some scholars point out that in all Indo-European languages, debt and original sin or guilt are synonyms; for example, in German, Schuld (indebtedness) carries both the meaning of guilt and that of debt. These indicate a certain intrinsic connection among religion, repayment, and sacred/unclean money, which can be indirectly confirmed through linguistic evidence: words such as money (German Geld), compensation or sacrifice (Old English Geild), tax (Gothic Gild), and guilt (guilt) share interrelated roots. (For relevant discussion, see Graeber, Debt: The First 5,000 Years, Chapter 3, on “primordial debt.”) Thus, this interpretation of primordial debt is not groundless; it reveals the internal logic between debt and people’s moral existence, namely, that debt, as a form of expression of social relations, defines the mode of people’s moral existence.

在关于原始债务的讨论中，有一种理论认为债务作为社会的本质是通过宗教来表现的，其要旨在于将债务关系看作人类道德的世俗基础。印度教的文献，如《吠陀》和《梵书》等，记有反映债务本质的圣歌、祈祷词和诗歌。在这些记录中，债务被视为罪行的同义语。宗教中的祈祷词则表明了人们渴求从债务的枷锁中被解救出来的愿望。甚至，有些解经者认为，人类的存在本身就是一种债务形式。与此相照应，有学者指出，在所有的印欧语系中，债务和原罪、有罪是同义词，如在德语中，Schuld(亏欠)既有罪责之义，也有债务之义。它们表明宗教、偿还和神圣的/不洁的货币之间的某种内在联系，这可以通过语言学的证据来间接证实，如货币(德语Geld)、赔偿或牺牲(古英语Geild)、税收(歌特语Gild)、有罪(guilt)等词汇具有相互联系着的词根。(相关的讨论参见格雷伯《债——5000年债务史》第三章关于“原始债务”的研究。)可见，这种对原始债务的解释并非子虚乌有，它表明了债务与人的道德存在之间的内在逻辑，即债务作为一种社会关系的表现形式，定义着人的道德存在方式。

Nietzsche put this even more incisively. He argued that in the conceptual world of morality, moral categories such as “indebtedness,” “conscience,” “duty,” and “the sacredness of duty” originate in the domain of the law of debt. “The debtor, in order to inspire trust in his promise of repayment, in order to give a guarantee of the seriousness and sanctity of his promise, in order to impress upon his own conscience the duty and obligation of repayment, pledges to the creditor, by means of a contract, something he still ‘possesses’ and can still dispose of, as security in case he fails to repay…” (Nietzsche, p. 65). Here, Nietzsche speculatively infers the moral situation of the debtor before the creditor: the degree to which they fulfill their promise of repayment determines the extent to which they bear their obligations and duties. If the promise of repayment cannot be fulfilled, then the debtor’s body, wife, freedom, life, and even soul will serve as collateral to guarantee the fulfillment of that promise. From this, Nietzsche draws a basic conclusion about the relationship between debt and people’s moral existence: the origin of the sense of guilt and the sense of personal obligation lies in the oldest and most primitive personal relationship, namely, the relationship between buyer and seller, between creditor and debtor. In this relationship, people measure themselves by setting prices, estimating values, conceiving equivalents, and exchanging. Based on the principle that “everything has its price; everything can be paid for” (Nietzsche, p. 74), the oldest and most primitive moral law of justice is revealed: those of roughly equal power can reciprocate with one another, while those of lesser power are compelled to show a good will to repay before them.

对此，尼采说得更加透彻，他认为在道德的概念世界中，“亏欠”“良心”“义务”“义务的神圣”等道德范畴发源于债法的领域。“欠债者，为了让他偿还的诺言得到信任，为了给他诺言的严肃与神圣提供一个保证，为了在自己这里把偿还作为义务和职责向良心反复叮咛，便借助一份契约，把自己尚且‘占有’、尚可处置的某种东西，抵押给债权人，作为对不还债的情况的担保……”(尼采，第65页)在这里，尼采基于猜测推断出债务人在债权人面前的道德境况，即他们兑现偿还债务许诺的程度，决定了他们对义务、职责的担负程度。如果兑现不了偿还债务的许诺，那么债务人的身体、女人、自由、生命甚至灵魂，都将作为抵押物来担保这种许诺的实现。由此，尼采对债务与人的道德存在的关系得出一个基本结论：负罪感、个人义务感的起源存在于最古老和最本源的个人关系中，即在买家和卖家、债权人和债务人之间的关系中。在这种关系中，人们通过制定价格、估量价值、设想等价物、交换等方式来衡量自身。基于“物物皆有其价格；一切皆可被偿付”(尼采，第74页)的原则，正义的最古老和最质朴的道德法则得以被揭示，即权势大致相当者之间能够相互报偿，而权势较小者在他们面前被迫作出某种偿还的善良愿望。

Clearly, Nietzsche’s inference that morality originates in debt is merely a theoretical hypothesis of his own. Even if some anthropological evidence confirms that certain details did indeed exist, it is difficult for us to fully endorse Nietzsche’s conjecture about debt based on an egoistic theory of human nature. Because Nietzsche assumes that people in social relations are rational calculating machines, beings capable of estimating their own value and thereby estimating the value of others, he necessarily arrives at the conclusion that debt is the essence of society and the origin of morality. But as Graeber argues, Nietzsche’s hypothesis is insane, because his inference “is conducted within the boundary conditions of bourgeois thought, and does not touch on anything that exists outside those boundary conditions” (Graeber, p. 86). The implication here is that Nietzsche’s inference proceeds from the bourgeois assumption about human nature and arrives at an extreme conclusion. In fact, based on anthropological experience, not everyone would agree that what makes a person a person is the capacity to perform economic calculations: on the one hand, throughout human history, primitive communities that rejected calculation and adhered to the principle of egalitarianism did not define human nature in this way; on the other hand, the so-called egoistic view of human nature is itself a product of the development of human society. Therefore, although Nietzsche, from a critical perspective, offered a profound analysis of the relationship between debt and morality in modern bourgeois society, his extension of this analysis to the whole of human history is a practice that warrants caution. In other words, he has in fact already touched upon a crucial grasp of the foundation of human morality.

显然，尼采关于道德发源于债务的推断，仅是他的一种理论假设。即使有部分人类学的经验证明其中的一些细节确实存在，我们也难以完全赞同尼采基于利己的人性论对债务作如此这般的猜想。由于尼采假设处于社会关系中的人都是理性的计算机器，是能够估量自身价值并以此来估量其他人价值的存在物，因此其必然推出债务作为社会的本质及其道德的起源这一结论。但是正如格雷伯所言，尼采的这种假设是疯狂的，因为他的推断“是在资产阶级的想法边界条件下进行的，不涉及任何存在于边界条件之外的东西”(格雷伯，第86页)。这里的言外之意在于，尼采的推断是从资产阶级的人性假设出发而得出的一种极端结论。事实上，基于人类学的经验，人们并非都会认可，人之所以成为人，是因为具有完成经济计算的能力：一方面，在人类历史长河中，拒绝计算、以平等主义为原则的原始共同体并没有依此定义人性；另一方面，所谓利己主义的人性观本身就是人类社会发展的产物。所以，尽管尼采立足于批判的视角对现代资产阶级社会中的债务与道德关系作了深刻的分析，但是他由此将其延伸到整个人类历史中去的做法值得警惕。换言之，其实际上已然触及了对人类道德基础的关键性把握。

Marx and Nietzsche share considerable consistency in their view of the relationship between debt and the moral existence of human beings: both examine debt in connection with the moral alienation of human beings, and thereby offer an unsparing critique of the moral condition of bourgeois society. Unlike Nietzsche, however, Marx, from the perspective of the critique of political economy and relying on credit as a modern economic element, provides a profound elucidation of the relationship between debt and the moral existence of human beings within the logic of the alienation of intercourse. In the *Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844*, Marx points out: “Credit is the economic judgment on the morality of a man.” (Marx, p. 169) This judgment at least indicates that the moral existence of human beings is not itself a metaphysical existence; in modern society, it is measured by the credit relationship between the rich and the poor. In this way, Marx rejects Nietzsche’s metaphysical assumptions about human nature and precisely sets the scope of discussion within modern bourgeois social relations. Marx points out that when the rich lend money to the poor, the poor’s diligence and creditworthiness serve as the guarantee; the poor person’s life itself, labor capacity, and industrious efforts are all guarantees of repayment: “All the social virtues of the poor man, the whole content of his vital activity, his existence itself, represent for the rich man the guarantee that his capital will be repaid together with the customary interest.” (Marx, p. 168) Here, the moral existence of human beings itself becomes both a medium through which the debtor promises repayment to the creditor and a prerequisite element for the creditor to lend to the debtor. Of course, in the other case—lending among the rich—such guarantees do not exist, because the content of their credit is money itself, which serves merely as a medium of exchange, existing as a purely ideal form.

马克思与尼采在看待债务与人的道德存在时具有相当的一致性，即都把债务与人的道德异化联系起来考察，进而对资产阶级社会的道德状况作了无情批判。但是与尼采不同的是，马克思立足政治经济学批判的视域，依托信贷这一现代经济要素，在交往异化逻辑的范围内对债务与人的道德存在关系作了深刻阐明。在《1844年经济学哲学手稿》中，马克思指出：“信贷是对一个人的道德作出的国民经济学的判断。”(马克思，第169页)这一判断至少表明，人的道德存在本身并不是一种形而上学的存在，在现代社会中，它以富人与穷人之间的信贷关系为准绳。这样一来，马克思就拒绝了尼采对人性的形而上学假设，并将讨论的射程精准地设定在现代资产阶级社会关系中。马克思指出富人贷款给穷人，是以穷人的勤劳和信用为担保的，穷人的生命本身、劳动才能和勤勉努力都是他们还款的保证，“穷人的全部社会美德，生命活动的全部内容，他的存在本身，在富人看来也都是偿还他的资本连同普通利息的保证”(马克思，第168页)。于此，人的道德存在本身既成了债务人对债权人承诺还款的一种中介，又是债权人向债务人借款的一种前提性要素。当然，另外一种情况，即富人之间的借贷，则不存在此类保证，因为其信贷的内容是货币本身，它仅是交换的中介，作为一种纯粹观念形式的东西而存在。

Going further, Marx argues that in the credit business, the relationship between creditor and debtor is not, as the Saint-Simonians believed, a sublation of the alienation of relations between human beings, a gradual overcoming of the separation of human beings from things, capital from labor, private property from money, and money from human beings. On the contrary, he regards this credit relationship as a more base and extreme form of self-alienation, because its so-called content of credit becomes the moral existence, social existence, and inner life of human beings. The moral existence of human beings becomes the medium of economic intercourse, signifying a state of dehumanization and complete alienation. As he incisively points out: “In the credit relationship, it is not money that is transcended in the human being, but the human being himself is turned into money, or money is incorporated in him. The human individuality, the human morality, has become both an article of trade and the material in which money exists. Instead of money, paper, it is my own personal existence, my flesh and blood, my social virtue and reputation, that constitute the material, the corporeal form of the money soul.” (ibid., p. 169) Thus, in moral practice, those who cannot obtain credit are regarded as unworthy of recognition, as social outcasts and bad people. That is to say, whether a person can gain moral recognition is entirely externally manifested in the form of credit. This fully reveals the basic relationship between the modern credit industry and the moral existence of human beings. Here, moral recognition is fundamentally based on immoral conduct—it is moral immorality. In Marx’s view, this is the hypocrisy, egoism, and false benevolence hidden in the modern debt relationship.

更进一步而言，马克思认为在信用业中，债权人和债务人的关系并非像圣西门主义者认为的那样，是对人与人之间关系异化的扬弃，是逐渐扬弃人同物、资本同劳动、私有财产同货币、货币同人的分离。反之，他认为这种信贷关系是更加卑劣和极端的自我异化，因为其所谓的信贷内容变成了人的道德存在、社会存在和内在生命。人的道德存在成了经济交往的中介，表征着人的非人化和完全异化的状态。正如他一针见血地指出：“在信贷关系中，不是货币被人取消，而是人本身变成货币,或者是货币和人并为一体。人的个性本身、人的道德本身既成了买卖的物品，又成了货币存在于其中的物质。构成货币灵魂的物质、躯体的，是我自己的个人存在、我的肉体和血液，我的社会美德和声誉，而不是货币、纸币。”(同上，第169页)由此，在道德实践中，那些不能获得信贷的人，会被视为不配得到承认的人，被视为社会的贱民和坏人。也就是说，一个人在道德上是否能够获得承认，完全外在地表现为信贷形式。这充分表明了现代信用业与人的道德存在的基本关系。在这里，道德上的承认是以不道德的行为为根本的，是道德上的不道德行为。在马克思看来，这就是现代债务关系中所隐藏的虚情假意、利己主义和假仁假义。

Undoubtedly, the Marx of 1844, standing at the height of the critique of political economy and grounding his analysis in modern economic elements such as money, credit, and banks, grasped the social essence of debt in a way different from previous thinkers, and more profoundly revealed the alienating effect of debt on the moral existence of human beings. However, we cannot therefore deny that Marx at that time adopted a humanist theoretical stance to critique the moral existence of human beings within the debt relationship. As the credit industry and banking gradually come to dominate the operation of the modern economy, how to further examine the moral existence of human beings within the debt relationship becomes an even more pressing issue. From an economic perspective, the essence of debt is credit, the inevitable result and manifestation of capital’s pursuit of profit. To imagine returning to the original direct relationship between human beings in order to critique the moral scrutiny of human beings by the credit relationship is unrealistic. On the one hand, this does not align with the diverse needs of debtors for borrowing, and to a certain extent it would hinder economic development. Therefore, constructing moral elements compatible with the modern credit economy—such as honesty—becomes imperative. Of course, this in turn promotes the self-reproduction of the moral existence of modern human beings, incorporating honesty into the inner links of moral construction, thereby revealing the positive role of the debt relationship in the moral existence of human beings, rather than merely viewing it as a manifestation of self-alienation. On the other hand, this also does not align with creditors’ claims to their legitimate rights and interests. In modern economic activities, the protection of creditors’ legitimate rights and interests is an important component of modern private property rights. Therefore, viewing creditors’ moral scrutiny of debtors entirely from the debtor’s perspective is biased and out of place. In fact, what we are now more concerned about is the moral conduct of creditors when they press debtors for repayment—such as using malicious harassment, improper collection methods, text message threats, and leaking personal information to pressure debtors. At the same time, this also indicates the necessity and importance of improving and perfecting the social credit investigation system for the moral reconstruction of both creditors and debtors, rather than merely engaging in a purely moral critique within the logic of alienation.

毋庸置疑，1844年的马克思站在政治经济学批判的高度，立足于货币、信用和银行等现代经济要素，对债务的社会本质作了不同于以往的把握，更为深刻地揭示了债务对人的道德存在的异化作用。然而，我们不能因此否定那时的马克思以一种人道主义的理论立场来批判债务关系中的人的道德存在。随着信用业和银行业在现代经济运行中逐渐占据支配地位，如何进一步审视债务关系中人的道德存在，是一个更为紧迫的问题。从经济学的角度来说，债务的实质是信用，是资本逐利的必然结果和表现形态。倘若设想通过回到最初的人与人之间的直接关系来批判信用关系对人的道德审查，则是不切实际的。一方面，这与债务人对借贷的多样性需求不符，在一定程度上也会妨碍经济的发展，所以建构与现代信用经济相匹配的道德要素如诚实就势在必行。当然，这也反过来促进现代人的道德存在的自我再生产，将诚实纳入道德建设的内在环节之中，从而显示出债务关系对人的道德存在的积极作用，而不仅仅将其看作自我异化的表现。另一方面，这也与债权人对自身合法权益的主张不符。在现代经济活动中，对债权人合 法权益的保护是现代私有财产权的一个重要组成部分，因此完全立足于债务人的视角来看待债权人对他们的道德审查是有偏颇的、不合时宜的。其实，我们现在更为关注的是债权人在向债务人催收还款时的道德行为，如以恶意骚扰、不良催收、短信威胁、泄露个人信息等方式来向债务人施压。同时，这也表明改进和完善社会征信体系对于债权人和债务人的道德重建的必要性和重要性，而非仅仅局限于在异化的逻辑中作一种纯粹的道德批判。

It is reasonable to create a moral code rooted in honesty in accordance with the requirements of modern economic development. For example, the establishment of the modern personal bankruptcy system is based on the debtor being “honest but unfortunate.” [2]2 The phrase “honest but unfortunate” (诚实而不幸) is a standard term in Chinese personal bankruptcy law discourse, referring to debtors who are insolvent due to genuine misfortune rather than fraud or bad faith, and who are therefore eligible for discharge of debts. That is to say, not all debtors who are unable to repay their debts can use a bankruptcy application as a shield to evade corresponding responsibilities. The modern personal bankruptcy system requires confirming the debtor’s moral honesty, taking economic misfortune beyond one’s capacity as the boundary, and providing a practical relief pathway for those trapped in debt difficulties, so as to prevent them from falling into an inescapable debt abyss. It is conceivable that this will place higher demands on debtors’ moral beliefs and practices, such as honesty. In fact, the determination of being “honest but unfortunate” is not a subjective presumption but follows strict procedures. For example, through the debtor’s declaration of assets, the creditor’s declaration of claims, the administrator’s investigation and verification, the creditors’ meeting’s deliberation, repayment according to the reorganization plan or settlement agreement, or through the observation period for discharge, subject to social supervision, the court will only then rule to grant discharge and recognize the debtor as an “honest but unfortunate” person. Conversely, if a debtor applies for bankruptcy through improper means such as transferring assets, maliciously evading debts, damaging others’ credit, making false statements, or providing false evidence, these actions will be regarded as dishonest and immoral conduct unworthy of legal protection. From this, it can be seen that the moral existence of the debtor itself has important practical significance for resolving debt problems.

根据现代经济发展的要求创建一种以诚实为根基的道德规范是合理的。比如现代个人破产制度的建立，就是以债务人的“诚实而不幸”为基准的。也就是说，并非所有的债务人在无力偿还债务时都能以破产申请为盾牌来逃避相应的责任。现代个人破产制度要求通过确认债务人在道德上的诚实，以经济上超出自身能力的不幸遭遇为边界，为陷入债务困境的人提供一种切实的救济途径，以免其掉入万劫不复的债务黑洞之中。可以想象，这将对债务人的诚实等道德信念和道德实践提出更高的要求。事实上，对“诚实而不幸”的认定并非一种主观推定，而是遵循严格的程序。例如，通过债务人申报财产，债权人申报债权，管理人调查核实，债权人会议审议，按重整计划、和解协议清偿，或者通过免责期考察，经过社会监督等，法院才会裁定许可免责，才能认定债务人为“诚实而不幸”的人。反之，如果债务人通过转移财产、恶意逃避债务、损害他人信誉、虚假陈述、提供虚假证据等不正当手段申请破产，那么这些行为会被认为是不诚实且不值得法律保护的非道德行为。由此可以反观，债务人的道德存在本身对债务问题的解决具有重要实践意义。

II. Debt and the Economic Existence of Human Beings

二、债务与人的经济存在

In the perspective of previous moral critique, debt was understood more as a condition of forced indebtedness, in which the handling of marriage and funeral expenses were important reasons for people falling into debt traps. In addition, poverty caused by contingent events such as serious illness or natural disasters could also lead to the occurrence of debt. Thus, the debtor often appeared as a suffering figure and was regarded as an object of sympathy. In fact, in a debt relationship, failing to repay a debt as agreed is considered immoral. However, under modern economic conditions, debt exhibits diverse characteristics; it is closely linked to people’s economic existence and more profoundly expresses the mode of existence of modern people defined by debt. In terms of the purpose of debt, besides part of it being needed for survival, there is also wealth production and consumption. In terms of the subject of debt, besides individuals, there are also households, enterprises, states, etc. In terms of the object of debt, its content extends to all aspects of life, such as mortgages, car loans, educational debt, medical debt, and so on. It can be said that modern society has already taken on the appearance of a debt society, far exceeding the debt relationship with the individual as debtor. Clearly, this is determined by the economic existence of modern people, that is, by their economic life needs and business activities.

以往道德批判视域中所理解的债务，更多地指向一种被迫负债的状况，其中处理婚姻和丧葬事由是人们深处债务陷阱的重要原因。此外，一些偶然事件，如重大疾病、自然灾害等，引起的贫困也会导致债务的发生。由此，债务人往往以一种受苦者的形象出现而被视作同情的对象。其实，在债务关系中，不能按照约定偿还债务会被认为是不道德的。然而，在现代经济条件下，债务呈现出多样性特征，它与人的经济存在紧密相连，更深刻地表现出被债务定义的现代人的存在方式。在债务目的方面，除了部分维持生存所需外，还有财富生产和消费；在债务主体方面，除了个人外，还有家庭、企业、国家等；在债务对象方面，其内容扩展到生活的方方面面，比如房贷、车贷、教育债务、医疗债务，等等。可以说，现代社会已然呈现为债务社会的面貌，远远超出以个体为债务人的债务关系。显然，这是由现代人的经济存在，即由其经济生活需求和经营活动所决定的。

From the perspective of the purpose of debt, modern debt is increasingly profit-seeking, and this profit-seeking has become one of its essential dimensions. That is to say, apart from those debtors who are forced to borrow to make ends meet (they are the sufferers in the debt relationship), more borrowers are actively taking on debt for the purpose of obtaining profit. In this sense, the latter may be both sufferers and beneficiaries. Marx, in Volume III of *Capital*, deeply analyzed this kind of debt relationship through the concept of interest-bearing capital. He argued that for the possessor of money to increase the value of his money as interest-bearing capital, he must transfer it to a third party, put it into the sphere of circulation, and make it function as a commodity that is capital. In this way, the money in the hands of the money possessor “is capital not only for him who alienates it, but also for others; it is capital not only for the person who alienates it, but it is given over to the third party from the outset as capital, that is, as a value that possesses the use-value of creating surplus-value, of creating profit” (Marx and Engels, *Collected Works*, Vol. 46, p. 384). Of course, Marx grasped their debt relationship in the opposition between money capitalists and industrial capitalists. On the one hand, the money capitalist, as creditor, receives interest; through the ceaseless movement of money-lending, while continuously recovering his own money, he also obtains possession of a portion of profit. On the other hand, the industrial capitalist, as debtor, realizes the use-value of the borrowed money and profits by appropriating the surplus-value created through the labor-power of hired workers. According to Marx’s analysis, the source of profit for both creditor and debtor lies in the unpaid appropriation of the profit produced by hired workers. This analysis can be extended to more debt relationships in modern business activities, indicating that the image of the debtor as beneficiary exists as an objective fact.

从债务目的来说，现代债务越来越具有逐利性，并且这种逐利性成为其本质的一度。也就是说，除了那些被迫举债度日的债务人(他们在债务关系中是受苦者)之外，更多的借债者是奔着获取利润的目的而主动负债。在这个意义上，后者既可能是受苦者，也可能是受益者。马克思在《资本论》第三卷中通过生息资本概念深度剖析了这种债务关系。他认为货币占有者要把自己的货币作为生息资本来增殖，就要把它让渡给第三者，把它投入流通领域，使它成为一种作为资本的商品而发挥其职能。这样一来，货币占有者手中的货币“不仅对他自己来说是作为资本，而且对他人来说也是作为资本；它不仅对把它让渡出去的人来说是资本，而且它一开始就是作为资本交给第三者的，这就是说，是作为这样一种价值，这种价值具有创造剩余价值、创造利润的使用价值”(《马克思恩格斯全集》第46卷，第384页)。当然，马克思是在货币资本家和产业资本家的对立中来把握他们的债务关系的。一方面，货币资本家作为债权人获得的是利息，他们通过永不停息的货币借贷运动，在源源不断地将自身货币收回的同时，也取得对部分利润的占有；另一方面，产业资本家作为债务人发挥所借来的货币的使用价值，通过雇佣工人 的劳动能力创造出来的剩余价值而获利。按照马克思的分析，这种债权人和债务人获利的源头其实都在无偿占有雇佣工人所生产出来的利润之中。他的这种分析可以延伸至更多的现代经营活动的债务关系中，并表明债务人的受益者形象是作为一种客观事实而存在的。

In fact, besides debt in the sphere of production aimed at profit, debt in the sphere of circulation aimed at consumption has also played a role in boosting the modern economy. As Stelter pointed out in *The 21st Century Debt Thesis*, most economists underestimated the importance of debt, especially consumer debt, which plays an increasingly important economic role. “Given the stagnant incomes of the broad middle class since the 1980s, consumers no longer consume based on income but rely on credit to maintain demand and the corresponding rate of return on capital. This situation has intensified over the past thirty years, so the wealth growth we have experienced in these years would have been absolutely impossible without a corresponding debt expansion” (Stelter, p. 78). He also noted that in European and American countries, over the past thirty-plus years (up to 2014), an increasing proportion of debt did not lead to more production; consumption, speculation, and paying off old debt with new debt became mainstream. Admittedly, this consumer debt is also a manifestation of the profit-seeking nature of money capital. However, it objectively raises the debtor’s consumption level, improves their standard of living to a certain extent, while also making them potentially fall into a debt crisis at any time. Therefore, for debt aimed at consumption, if economic development is viewed apart from the production of wealth, it will inevitably transform into an economic crisis, thereby effectively transferring the debt predicament onto the individuals burdened with consumer loans, plunging them into a deeper state of existential alienation. Hence, reasonable indebtedness becomes a basic limit for consumer debt.

实际上，除了生产领域中以逐利为目的的债务外，流通领域中以消费为目的的债务对现代经济的发展也起到了助推作用。正如施特尔特在《21世纪债务论》中指出，大多数经济学家低估了债务的重要性，尤其是消费债，扮演着越来越重要的经济角色。“鉴于1980年代以来广大中产阶层停滞的收入，消费者不再靠收入，而是依赖信贷进行消费，才能维持需求及相应的资本收益率。这种情况在过去三十年愈演愈烈，因此，我们在这些年所经历的财富增长，如果没有相应的债务膨胀，是根本不可能实现的。”(施特尔特，第78页)他还指出，在欧美国家，近三十多年来(至2014年),比例越来越大的债务没有导致更多的生产，消费、投机和借新债还旧债的利息成为主流。诚然，这种消费债也是货币资本逐利的表现形态，然而，它在客观上提升了债务人的消费水平，一定程度上改善了其生活水平，同时也使他们随时可能陷入债务危机之中。由此，对于以消费为目的的债务来说，如果离开财富的生产来看待经济的发展，那么其必将转化为经济危机，进而将债务困境切实地转移到背负消费贷的个体身上，使其陷入更深层次的生存异化状态。所以，合理负债成为消费债的一个基本限度。

In terms of the subject of debt, the traditional debt relationship, with individuals as the main debtors and banks as the main creditors, has been replaced by multiple subjects of modern economic activity. As capital increasingly occupies a dominant position in the economy and society, especially after industrial capital and bank capital merged into finance capital to dominate economic development, the subject of debt has undergone a fundamental change, giving rise to diverse types of debt related to this, mainly manifested in the following aspects.

就债务主体而言，以个人为主要债务人和以银行为主要债权人的传统债务关系，被现代经济活动的多重主体取代。随着资本在经济社会中越来越占据支配地位，尤其是产业资本和银行资本融合成金融资本主导经济发展之后，债务主体发生了根本性的变化，从而产生了与此相关的多样化债务类型，主要表现在以下方面。

First, individual debt. With the promotion of credit cards and internet consumer finance credit products, the convenience of individual credit has been greatly enhanced, which has significantly promoted the generation of individual debt. In addition, the influence of consumption concepts such as超前消费[n], conspicuous consumption, and status consumption has also given rise to individual debt problems, with the individual debt of young groups being particularly noteworthy. In the era of finance capital, this tendency towards the privatization of debt is an inevitable trend. It is secured by the debtor’s creditworthiness, social relations, income, etc., and has a relatively high recovery rate and rate of return.

一是个人债务。随着信用卡和互联网消费金融信贷产品的推广，个人信贷的便捷性得到了极大提升，这在很大程度上推动了个人债务的产生。除此之外，超前消费、炫耀性消费、身份消费等消费理念的影响，也催生了个人债务问题，年轻群体的个人债务尤其值得关注。在金融资本时代，债务的这种私人化倾向是一种必然趋势，它以债务人的信誉、社会关系、收入等作为担保，具有较高的回收率和回报率。

Second, household debt. The debt incurred by modern households in their common material production and life is mainly manifested as spousal debt. From the perspective of the two main indicators for measuring household debt risk—the leverage ratio (the ratio of a country or region’s household sector debt to GDP) and the debt-to-income ratio (the ratio of debt balance to household disposable income)—the level of household debt in major Western developed countries began to rise rapidly in the 1980s. Thereafter, this level remained high; in 2008, the ratio of US household debt to GDP had risen to 97%, and the UK’s ratio reached 106%. Following the financial crisis of the same year, household debt levels worldwide also began to rise rapidly. A notable feature of modern household debt is the continuously strengthening attribute of financial investment, especially mortgages, in addition to consumer loans such as car loans, medical loans, and educational loans, as well as business loans aimed at profit. Economically reasonable household debt helps enhance the household’s economic vitality and its members’ sense of gain and happiness. Conversely, it can trigger a serious household economic crisis, endangering the stability and sustainability of the household.

二是家庭债务。现代家庭在共同的物质生产和生活中所负债务主要表现为夫妻债务。从杠杆率(一国和地区居民部门的债务与GDP之比)和债务收入比(债务余额与家庭可支配收入之比)这两个衡量家庭债务风险的主要指标来看，20世纪80年代西方主要发达国家的家庭债务水平开始迅速提高。此后，该水平居高不下，2008年，美国的家庭债务与GDP之比已升至97%,英国的这一比例更是达到106%。同年的金融危机之后，世界范围内的家庭债务水平也开始快速提升。现代家庭债务的一个显著特征是，金融投资属性不断增强，尤其是房贷，除此以外还包括车贷、医疗贷、教育贷等消费贷和以盈利为目的的经营贷。经济上合理的家庭债务有助于增强家庭的经济活力和成员的获得感、幸福感。反之，则会引发严重的家庭经济危机，危及家庭的稳定性和可持续性。

The third is enterprise debt. If personal debt and household debt are primarily carried on the economic activities of natural persons, then enterprise debt, state debt and international debt are primarily carried on the economic activities of legal persons; the main purpose of such debt is to raise the profitability and level of specific interest groups. As far as enterprise debt is concerned, Marx believed that credit between them is mediated by money existing in the form of an idea, and does not need to be mediated by human life-activity, social virtue, etc., as in the case of personal credit activities, because the profits created by the money that enterprises borrow will be returned to the operators of money, such as banks, in the form of interest. If in Marx’s time bank interest depended mainly on enterprise profits, then in more modern economic activities the creation of enterprise profits increasingly depends on credit from banks or other financial institutions. On the one hand, in order to pursue short-term gains and high rates of return, real enterprises are more inclined to obtain debt financing from financial institutions, thereby diverting capital that should have been invested in physical assets into the virtual economy; this hollows out the profit-making entities of enterprise debt subjects, producing a “crowding-out effect” in which the virtual economy squeezes out the real economy. On the other hand, through debt financing, enterprises can alleviate operational difficulties and relieve economic distress when facing an economic crisis, thus allowing enterprise debt to exert a “reservoir effect.” In this sense, moderate enterprise debt aimed at industrial production has a positive economic effect on enterprise operations. Conversely, it can trigger an enterprise’s economic crisis and thereby endanger the vital interests of its employees.

三是企业债务。如果说个人债务和家庭债务主要是以自然人的经济活动为载体，那么企业债务、国家债务和国际债务则主要是以法人的经济活动为载体，其债务的主要目的在于提高特定利益群体的盈利能力和水平。就企业债务而言，马克思认为它们之间的信贷以观念形式存在的货币为中介，而不必像个人信贷活动那样，以人的生命活动、社会美德等为中介，因为企业通过借贷而来的货币创造出的利润，将会以利息的方式返还给货币的经营者如银行。如果说在马克思所处的时代，银行利息主要依赖于企业利润，那么在更为现代的经济活动中，企业利润的创造则越来越依赖于银行或其他金融机构的信贷。一方面，实体企业为了追逐短期利益和高额回报率，更倾向于向金融机构取得债务融资，进而把本应投向实物资产的资本转投于虚拟经济，这使得企业债务主体盈利实体空心化，导致虚拟经济排挤实体经济的“挤出效应”;另一方面，企业通过债务融资，能够在面临经济危机时缓解经营困难、纾解经济困境，从而让企业债务发挥出“蓄水池效应”。从这个意义上说，适度的、以实业生产为目的的企业债务对于企业经营来说，具有积极的经济效应。反之，则会引发企业的经济危机，进而危及员工的切身利益。

The fourth is state debt and international debt. Adopting a more pragmatic attitude toward modern state debt and international debt is an inherent requirement for observing the modern state and international relations from the grand perspective of history’s transformation into world history. Although Marx once conceived of the five-part plan and the six-book plan for writing *Capital*, he revised his writing plan and did not conduct in-depth research on modern-world topics such as the state and international trade. For later Marxist studies of state debt and international debt, this is undoubtedly a great theoretical regret. Nevertheless, in the “Introduction” to the *Grundrisse* (1857–1858), Marx clearly expressed the following view: the modern state takes wealth itself and the production of wealth as its purpose, so it itself is regarded merely as a means of producing wealth. (See *Marx-Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 30, pp. 49–50) From the perspective of today’s state debt, this judgment of Marx’s can still enlighten us. On the one hand, economically developed countries are increasingly tending toward consumption- and financialization-based debt, increasingly departing from the original purpose of wealth production itself, thereby leading to economic hollowing-out; the financial debt crises thus triggered cannot be underestimated. On the other hand, state debt centered on developing countries is mainly concentrated in the secondary sector, such as investment in industrial infrastructure construction and engineering project construction; the occurrence of this debt is a necessary measure to promote economic growth and create real profits, and therefore has important economic significance. In the contemporary state debt system, debt joins the international division of labor as a factor of production; thus, the international debt chain based on profit distribution reveals its prototype. That is to say, state debt and international debt in the modern world market are in fact organically linked. The governance of state debt affects the corresponding governance of international debt, and conversely, the governance of international debt also has practical effects on the governance of state debt. Some have pointed out: “International debt governance is in fact a very complex and difficult agenda, and cannot be simply measured by whether to provide relief or by moral standards.” (Zhou Yuyuan, p. 36) But no matter how complex and difficult, the debt problem is fundamentally an economic problem; in the final analysis, it must be solved by enhancing the productive capacity of real wealth, not by increasing virtual financialized products; otherwise, the economy will only fall into the illusion of self-prosperity, waiting for the bubble to burst.

四是国家债务和国际债务。以更加务实的态度来看待现代的国家债务和国际债务，是立足于历史向世界历史转变的宏大视野来观察现代国家和国际关系的内在要求。尽管马克思曾设想过《资本论》写作的五篇计划和六册计划，但他修改了写作计划而没有对其中的国家和国际贸易等现代世界议题展开深入研究。这对后来的马克思主义研究国家债务和国际债务来说，无疑是一种巨大的理论遗憾。尽管如此，在《1857—1858年经济学手稿》的“导言”中，马克思还是明确表达了如下观点，即现代国家以财富本身和财富的生产为目的，所以它本身被看成只是生产财富的手段。(参见《马克思恩格斯全集》第30卷，第49-50页)从当今的国家债务来看，马克思的这一判断依然能给予我们启示。一方面，经济发达国家越来越趋向于消费和金融化的债务，越来越背离财富生产本身的初衷，从而导致经济的空心化，由此引发的金融债务危机不可小觑；另一方面，以发展中国家为主体的国家债务主要集中在第二产业上，如工业基础设施建设和工程项目建设投资等，这些债务的发生是推动经济增长、创造实质利润的必要举措，因此具有重要的经济意义。在当代国家债务体系中，债务是作为生产要素而加入国际分工中的，由此，基于利润分配的国际债务链条便显现出了它的原型。也就是说，现代世界市场中的国家债务和国际债务其实是有机联系在一起的。国家债务的治理牵动着相应的国际债务治理，反过来说，国际债务的治理也会对国家债务治理产生实践效应。有观点指出：“国际债务治理事实上是一项非常复杂、艰难的议程，并不能简单地以救助与否或道德标准来衡量。”(周玉渊，第36页)但无论如何复杂、艰难，债务问题就其根本而言是经济问题，归根结底要通过提高实体财富的生产能力来解决，而不是通过增加虚拟的金融化产品来解决，否则只会使经济陷入自我繁荣的虚幻之中，等待泡沫破灭。

In terms of the objects of debt, unlike ancient societies, where debt was mainly concentrated on borrowing for weddings, funerals, or poverty caused by major natural disasters, the objects of debt in modern society cover a wider range, such as business loans, housing loans, car loans, education loans, medical loans, etc.—of course, this is caused by the diversity and refinement of modern people’s needs for life and production. As mentioned above, debt in modern society has played an important driving role in both production-oriented and consumption-oriented material life and production practices. Smith once imagined in *The Wealth of Nations* increasing a society’s land and labor product by “saving” income into capital—that is, by managing this capital or the frugality of those with idle capital, investing the saved surplus into improving the productive capacity of useful labor and increasing the quantity of useful labor. As he put it, “The direct cause of the increase of capital is frugality, not industry.” (Smith, p. 311) Here, Smith discusses productive lending, but he reduces such monetary lending to frugality. In Marx’s view, “To regard all profit as the capitalist’s ‘revenue’ is itself a mistaken view. On the contrary, the law of capitalist production requires that part of the surplus labor performed by the worker—i.e., unpaid labor—be transformed into capital.” (*Marx-Engels Collected Works*, Vol. 33, p. 156) Beyond this, Smith also denied the consumption of the rich, while affirming the consumption of groups such as workers, manufacturers, and artisans, on the premise that it could further generate profit. Marx criticized Smith for also regarding workers’ consumption of means of subsistence as part of productive consumption, pointing out the “inhuman” dimension of his economics.

在债务对象方面，与古代社会的债务主要集中在婚丧嫁娶或遇到重大自然灾害导致贫困而借债不同，现代社会的债务对象涉及范围更广，比如经营贷、房贷、车贷、教育贷、医疗贷等，当然这是由现代人的生活和生产需求的多样性以及精细化造成的。正如上述所言，现代社会的债务在以生产为目的和以消费为目的的物质生活和生产实践中都发挥了重要的推动作用。斯密曾经在《国富论》中设想通过把收入“节俭”为资本来增加一个社会的土地和劳动产品，即通过管理这种资本的人或有闲置资本的人的节约，把节约下来的余额投入到改善有用劳动的生产能力和增加有用劳动的量当中，正所谓“资本增加的直接原因，是节俭，不是勤劳”(斯密，第311页)。于此，斯密谈及生产性的借贷，只不过他把这种货币的借贷归结为节俭。在马克思看来，“把全部利润看成资本家的‘收入’,这种看法本身就是错误的。相反，资本主义生产的规律要求把工人完成的剩余劳动即无酬劳动的一部分转化为资本”。(《马克思恩格斯全集》第33卷，第156页)除此以外，斯密还否定了富人的消费，而在能进一步带来利润的前提下肯定了劳动者、制造者和技工等群体的消费。马克思则批判斯密把工人的生活消费也看作生产消费的一部分，指出了其经济学“非人性”的一度。

As is well known, Smith’s economic principles have had a huge influence. However, the practice of taking the production of wealth as the sole purpose, thereby suppressing consumption, and even increasing wealth through the so-called frugality of capitalists, actually limits economic development. Keynes pointed out: “The classical economists extolled the virtue of frugality because of their implicit assumption that the rate of interest could always be maintained at a level consistent with full employment.” (Keynes, p. 116) That is to say, when the interest rate can be controlled at a level that maintains full employment, frugality still has an important impact on economic development, and the speed of capital accumulation must still be increased by restraining consumption. However, when the opposite situation occurs, suppressing consumption will reduce the speed of capital accumulation, i.e., affect the speed of wealth increase. In response, Keynes raised the issue of the relationship among investment, consumption, and employment, pointing out the driving effect of consumption on the economy, which became the precursor to the later “troika” theory [4]4 The “troika” (三驾马车) refers to the three drivers of economic growth: investment, consumption, and net exports. This is a standard term in Chinese macroeconomic discourse.. Here, what continues is no longer the “theory of frugality” but the “theory of consumption.” Indeed, the practical policy of achieving overconsumption and excess consumption through credit to drive economic development still influences people’s basic views and practices regarding debt and consumption. Thus it can be seen that consumption, as an important mode of human economic existence, by combining with debt, has shaped the basic mode of operation of the modern economic society.

众所周知，斯密的经济学原理影响巨大。然而，一切以财富的生产为目的，进而压抑消费，甚至靠资本家的所谓节俭来增加财富的做法，实际上限制了经济的发展。凯恩斯指出：“古典学派经济学者之所以颂扬节俭的美德，其原因还是由于他们暗中作出的假设条件，即：利息率总是被控制在能维持充分就业的水平。”(凯恩斯，第116页)也就是说，当利息率能被控制在维持充分就业的水平时，节俭对于经济的发展仍然具有重要影响，资本积累的速度还是要通过消费的节制来提高。然而，当相反的情况出现时，抑制消费就会降低资本积累的速度，即影响财富增加的速度。对此，凯恩斯提出投资、消费和就业的关系问题，指出消费对经济的拉动作用，这成为后来“三驾马车”理论的先导。其中，消费是“马”,投资是“车”。当然，这里延续的不再是“节俭论”,而是“消费论”。诚然，通过信贷来实现超前消费、超额消费从而带动经济发展的实践政策至今依然影响着人们对债务和消费的基本看法与做法。由此可见，消费作为人的经济存在的重要方式，通过与债务相结合，造就了现代经济社会的基本运转方式。

III. Debt and the Texture of Human Existence

三、债务与人的存在质感

Through the above discussion of the relationship between debt and human moral existence and economic existence, we can further recognize the profound contemporary significance of Marx’s assertion that “the essence of man is not an abstraction inherent in each single individual, but in its reality it is the ensemble of social relations” (Marx/Engels Collected Works, Vol. 1, p. 505). In terms of profundity, it indicates that the essential attribute of being human lies in social relations. Although these are formed under the drive of individual subjective initiative (such as passion, desire, etc.), once formed they become passive factors that promote and constrain human development. Debt, as an important representation of economic relations between people in modern society, objectively has both positive practical effects on human existence—to a certain extent improving the quality of people’s lives and providing conditions for their development—and negative practical effects—to a certain extent aggravating the crisis of human existence, reducing people’s sense of well-being in life, placing people in the tension and anxiety of repaying debts, and further solidifying the gap and opposition between rich and poor. People constrained by debt relationships gasp for breath between the straitened circumstances of today and the overdrawn tomorrow, hoping to improve their survival and promote development through debt while simultaneously being helplessly bound by the pressure of debt repayment and the constraints of credit crises. This is the existential texture of modern people shaped by debt. The existential texture here refers to modern people’s psychological perception or feeling of existing in such a contradictory manner. Below we will analyze this from both macro and micro levels.

通过以上论述债务与人的道德存在和经济存在的关系，我们可以更进一步地认识到马克思关于“人的本质不是单个人所固有的抽象物，在其现实性上，它是一切社会关系的总和”(《马克思恩格斯文集》第1卷，第505页)这一论断所显示出的深刻的当代意义。就深刻性而言，其指明了人之为人的本质属性在于社会关系，它虽然受个体主观能动性(如激情、欲望等)的驱使缔结而成，但一旦结成便会成为推动和制约人发展的受动性因素。债务作为现代社会中人与人之间经济关系的重要表征，从客观来说，既对人的存在产生了积极的实践效应，在一定程度上改善了人的生存质量，为人的发展提供了条件；也给人的存在带来了消极的实践效应，在一定程度上加重了人的存在危机，降低了人的生活幸福感，使人处于还债的紧张焦虑之中，进一步固化了贫富之间的差距和对立。掣肘于债务关系中的人，在捉襟见肘的今天与被透支的明天中间喘息，在希望通过债务改善生存、促进发展的同时，又无奈于债务催逼和信用危机的束缚。这便是债务所塑造的现代人的存在质感。这里的存在质感也就是现代人对自身以如此这般矛盾的方式存在的心理感知或感受性。下面我们将从宏观和微观两个层面展开分析。

At the macro level, the existential texture of human beings is significantly and enormously affected by economic crises. The social consequences of every major economic crisis in history ultimately fall upon the participants in economic activity, whether creditors or debtors, who are inevitably constrained by them. Regarding economic crises, Marx conducted a profound analysis in Volume 3 of Capital, using the credit system as an intermediary. He argued that the inevitable formation of the credit system served as an intermediary in the formation of the average rate of profit, and that the entire capitalist production is based on the movement of the equalization of profit rates caused by this credit system. Therefore, the emergence of economic crises is inseparable from the formation and development of the credit system. As the credit system manifests itself as the main lever of overproduction and excessive commercial speculation, the reproduction process of capitalism will also manifest itself as an inherent extreme state of tension. “Here the maximum of credit is the same as the fullest employment of industrial capital, i.e., the utmost tension of its reproductive power, regardless of the limits of consumption. These limits of consumption are extended by the tension of the reproduction process itself; on the one hand, this increases the consumption of revenue by workers and capitalists, on the other hand it is identical with the tension of productive consumption as such” (Marx/Engels Collected Works, Vol. 46, p. 546). That is to say, the overproduction brought about by the maximization of credit will break through the boundaries of consumption, plunging the reproduction process of industrial capital into contradiction: on the one hand, insufficient consumption leads to restrictions on capital investment in reproduction; on the other hand, the unlimited expansion of credit leads to the unrestricted pursuit of maximum profit by capital. The result of this contradiction inevitably further stimulates the consumption of workers and capitalists, further expanding the boundaries of consumption, and thereby causing the economy to fall into a vicious cycle of the reproduction process established by credit. In this sense, Marx further pointed out the inherent duality of the credit system: first, it enriches itself by appropriating the labor of others without compensation, serving as the driving force of capitalist production, and thus the credit system “develops into the purest and most colossal system of gambling and swindling, and increasingly restricts the number of the few who exploit social wealth” (Marx/Engels Collected Works, Vol. 46, p. 500); second, the credit system accelerates the outbreak of the inherent contradictions of the capitalist mode of production, that is, accelerates the outbreak of economic crises, and promotes the transition from the old mode of production to the new one. Therefore, Marx believed that the main propagandists of credit are both swindlers and prophets!

在宏观层面，人的存在质感受经济危机的影响显著而巨大。历史上的历次重大经济危机所造成的社会后果，其实最终都落到经济活动的参与者身上，无论是债权人还是债务人，都不可避免地受其制约。关于经济危机，马克思在《资本论》第三卷中以信用制度为中介作了深刻分析。他认为信用制度的必然形成，对平均利润率的形成起了中介作用，而整个资本主义生产就是建立在这个由信用制度引起的利润率平均化的运动基础之上的。所以，经济危机的产生与信用制度的形成和发展密不可分。随着信用制度表现为生产过剩和商业上过度投机的主要杠杆，资本主义的再生产过程也将表现为一种内在的极致的紧张状态。“在这里，信用的最大限度，等于产业资本的最充分的运用，也就是等于产业资本的再生产能力不顾消费界限而达到极度紧张。这些消费界限也会因再生产过程本身的紧张而扩大：一方面这种紧张会增加工人和资本家对收入的消费，另一方面这种紧张和生产消费的紧张是一回事。”(《马克思恩格斯全集》第46卷，第546页)也就是说，由信用最大化带来的生产过剩，将会突破消费的边界，使产业资本的再生产过程陷入矛盾之中：一方面，消费不足导致再生产的资本投入受限；另一方面，信用无限扩张导致资本对利润最大化的无限制追逐。这种矛盾的结果必然进一步刺激工人和资本家的消费，使得消费的边界进一步扩大，进而导致经济陷入由信用建立起来的再生产过程的恶性循环之中。在这个意义上，马克思进一步指出信用制度固有的二重性，一是通过无偿占有他人劳动的办法来发财致富，以此作为资本主义生产的动力，进而信用制度将“发展成为最纯粹最巨大的赌博欺诈制度，并且使剥削社会财富的少数人的人数越来越减少”(《马克思恩格斯全集》第46卷，第500页);二是信用制度将加速资本主义生产方式内在矛盾的爆发，即加速经济危机的爆发，促进旧生产方式向新生产方式的过渡。所以，马克思认为信用的主要宣传者们既是骗子，也是预言家!

Through the intermediary of the credit system, Marx perceived the opposition between rich and poor in a society dominated by capital. On the one hand, wealth gradually accumulates in the hands of a few, leading to a situation where a minority possesses the majority of wealth; on the other hand, the masses gradually become impoverished, leading to an increase in the number of people who can only sell their labor power to survive—this “absolute poverty.” Clearly, this is the silent penetration and abstract domination of capital over the entire world. Unlike Marx, who grasped economic crises from the perspective of the sphere of production of wealth, Piketty, in Capital in the Twenty-First Century, mainly grasps economic crises caused by the polarization of rich and poor from the perspective of the sphere of distribution of wealth. He argues that the rate of return on capital (r = net profit / paid-in capital × 100%) is structurally higher than the economic growth rate (g), leading to the self-reinforcement and continuous intensification of the divergence of income and wealth, ultimately causing insufficient demand and triggering crises. Therefore, he advocates redistributing wealth through a Robin Hood-style approach—taking from the rich to give to the poor—in an attempt to avoid economic crises and achieve economic democratization. In response, Stelter, in The 21st Century Debt Thesis, points out that although Piketty’s attribution of the cause of economic crises to the unequal distribution of income and wealth has some rationality, his grasp of the root of the crisis is incomplete—that is, he is completely ignorant of excessive debt, and thus cannot provide a theory or solution with realistic explanatory power for economic crises. On the one hand, Stelter points out that Piketty only examines net assets, that is, the difference between total assets and liabilities, while turning a blind eye to debt itself. Without the additional demand supported by debt, net assets would be far less than Piketty calculates. The increase in the concentration of assets and wealth is only one side of the coin; the other side is the growth of debt. The main part of assets consists of own funds and claims, of which the latter accounts for a larger proportion. Changes in wealth over the past 40 years show that “the real problem is the debt of the 21st century” (Stelter, p. 11). On the other hand, unsustainable high levels of debt and excess wealth are important causes of unjust wealth distribution. If we ignore the significance of debt for changes in the concentration of assets and wealth, especially the impact of government and private debt on asset changes, then solutions to economic crises will miss the correct direction. Therefore, simply emphasizing the use of a one-time wealth tax—that is, confiscatory taxation on high incomes and huge fortunes—to solve the debt problem cannot address the root cause, because the defects of the modern economy caused by widespread excessive debt cannot be remedied by increasingly cheap money. They must be remedied by adopting economic policies that increase investment in education and innovation, thereby promoting economic development and achieving substantial growth in wealth.

通过信用制度这个中介，马克思洞见到了在以资本为主导的社会中贫富的对立，一方面，财富逐步地积聚在少数人手里，导致少数人拥有大多数财富的状况；另一方面，大众逐步地贫困化，导致只能靠出卖劳动力为生这种“绝对贫穷”人数的增加。显然，这是资本对整个世界的无声渗透和抽象统治。与马克思立足于财富的生产领域来把握经济危机不同，皮凯蒂在《21世纪资本论》中主要立足于财富的分配领域来把握由贫富分化引发的经济危机，认为资本收益率(r=净利润/实收资本×100%)结构性地高于经济增长率(g),导致收入与财富分化的自我强化与不断加剧，最终造成需求不足，引发危机。所以，他主张通过劫富济贫的方式，让财富重新分配，从而试图避免经济危机，实现经济的民主化。对此，施特尔特在《21世纪债务论》中指出，尽管皮凯蒂把经济危机的原因归结为收入与财富的分配不均具有合理性，但是他对危机的根源却把握不全面，即他对过度负债一无所知，进而对经济危机无法给出具有现实解释力的理论和解决方案。一方面，施特尔特指出皮凯蒂只考察了资产净值，即总资产和负债的差额，而对债务本身视而不见。假如没有债务支持的附加需求，资产净值就会远比皮凯蒂计算的少。资产及财富集中度的增加只是硬币的一面，硬币的另一面是债务的增长。资产的主要部分由自有资金和债权构成，其中后者占比更大。过去40年来的财富变化表明，“真正的问题是21世纪的债务”(施特尔特，第11页)。另一方面，不可持续的高额债务和过剩的财富是导致财富分配不公正的重要原因，如果我们忽视债务对于资产和财富集中变化的意义，尤其是政府与私人债务对资产变化的影响，那么经济危机的解决方案将错失正确的方向。所以，一味地强调借助一次性资产税即对高收入和巨额财富的充公型征税来解决债务问题不能触及根本，因为普遍的过度负债所导致的现代经济缺陷不能靠越来越廉价的货币来弥补——要通过采取加大教育和创新投入的经济政策来弥补，进而促进经济发展，实现财富的实质性增长。

In fact, the above-mentioned problem of the polarization between rich and poor arising from the debt issue can be reduced to two explanatory paths. One is the path of wealth production, which seeks a fundamental solution to the problem through the development of productive forces and the transformation of the relations of ownership of the means of production. The other is the path of wealth distribution, which alleviates the crisis by levying higher taxes on high-income earners and those who hold enormous wealth. From the perspective of the critique of political economy, the former concerns the problem at its source, because debt is the economic expression of the credit system and an inevitable product of capital’s drive to maximize profit. Hence the ultimate resolution of debt is also the result of capital’s own development, i.e., its self-negation, and simultaneously the result of the replacement of the old mode of production by a new one. The latter concerns the problem of the manifestation of economic crisis, which has an important impact on the qualitative texture of existence for real human beings. If, by means of debt, more resources are channeled into public sectors such as education and innovation, then for the people living within that system, they can enhance their own labor capacity, improve their conditions of survival, and raise their level of social intercourse — this is a positive social effect. At the macro level, these two paths express a profound anxiety about the crisis of human existence and an urgent desire to resolve it. However, their modes of resolution each bear the characteristics of their own era, and their concrete social effects should be tested against the specific practices of each country.

其实，以上关于由债务问题而产生的贫富分化问题，可以归结为两种解释路径，一种是财富生产路径，即通过生产力的发展和生产资料所有制的变革来力求问题的根本解决；另一种是财富分配路径，也就是通过向高收入和掌握巨额财富的人多征税来缓解危机。从政治经济学批判的观点看，前者涉及的是源头问题，因为债务是信用制度的经济表现，是资本实现利润最大化的必然产物，所以债务的最终解决也是资本自身发展即自我否定的结果，同时是新生产方式取代旧生产方式的结果。后者涉及的是经济危机的表现问题，它对于现实的人的存在质感具有重要影响。如果借助于债务而把更多的资源投向教育和创新等公共部门，那么对于生活其中的人们而言，他们就能够提升自身的劳动能力、改善生存条件、提高社会交往水平，这是一种积极的社会效应。从宏观层面来看，这两种路径表明了对人的存在危机的高度忧思和迫切解决，但是其解决方式具有各自的时代特点，其具体社会效应也应根据各国的具体实践来检验。

At the micro level, modern economics, law, and psychology have already conducted relatively in-depth research into the relationship between debt and the qualitative texture of human existence, such as happiness and mental health. Needless to say, whether it is personal debt, household debt, enterprise debt, national debt, or international debt, each affects human life and production in its own way, as well as the psychological perception of existence itself. There is no doubt that a purely empirical observational method can detect the “trouble” and “worry” that borrowing brings to the debtor, and at the same time can detect the “coldness” and “urgency” of the creditor when collecting debts and craving returns. This manifests the lively and intense internal tension between creditor and debtor. The continuous increase in debt in modern society makes this tension long-lasting and ever-intensifying. In Dalio’s view, the fundamental reason for the continuous increase in total debt lies in human drives, because “people always like to borrow money and spend it, and are unwilling to repay debt — this is human nature” (Dalio, p. 10). This “theory of human nature” perceives the difference in the internal motivations of creditors and debtors, but it fails to see the profound impact of the socio-economic mechanism behind borrowing and lending on the debtor. Marx once used the words of Bell, a director of the Bank of Scotland, in *The Philosophy of Joint-Stock Banking*, to expound this impact: “The banking system is a religious and moral institution. Is not the young merchant often deterred from associating with friends given to eating, drinking, and merrymaking by the fear of being seen by the vigilant, censorious eye of his banker? Does he not strive to earn the banker’s good opinion by always behaving properly? A frown from the banker has a greater effect on him than a friend’s advice; he is always on tenterhooks, afraid of being thought a cheat or of being in the least dishonest, which might arouse suspicion and cause the banker to restrict or even cancel his loan! To him, the banker’s advice is more important than the pastor’s.” (Marx and Engels, *Collected Works*, Vol. 46, p. 618) At the same time, we should recognize that different debt behaviors — such as reasonable debt versus excessive debt, good debt versus bad debt, long-term debt versus short-term debt, productive debt versus consumer debt, and active debt versus passive debt — have different impacts on the qualitative texture of human existence. They cannot be lumped together, and their positive and negative effects should be treated differently.

从微观层面来看，现代经济学、法学和心理学对于债务与人的幸福感、心理健康等存在质感的关系已经有了较深入的研究。其实，无论是个人债务、家庭债务，还是企业债务、国家债务和国际债务，它们都会以各自的方式影响人的生活与生产，以及对存在本身的心理感知。毫无疑问，以纯粹的经验观察方法就能感受到借贷给债务人带来的“麻烦”与“操心”,同时也能感受到债权人在催收债务、渴望回报时的“冷酷”与“急迫”。这体现出了债权人和债务人活泼泼的内在紧张关系。现代社会债务的持续增加使这种紧张关系长期存在并不断增强。在达利欧看来，债务总额持续增加的根本原因在于人的推动，因为“人总是喜欢借钱、花钱，而不愿意还债，这是人的本性”(达利欧，第10页)。这里的“人性论”洞察到了债权人与债务人内在动力的不同，但是没有看到借贷背后的社会经济机制对债务人的深刻影响。马克思曾借用苏格兰银行董事贝尔在《股份银行业哲学》中的话阐述了这种影响：“银行制度是宗教的和道德的制度。青年商人不是往往由于害怕被他的银行家的警戒的、非难的眼睛看见而不敢结交吃喝玩乐的朋友吗?他渴望博得银行家的好评，总是表现得规规矩矩!银行家皱皱眉头，也比朋友的忠告对他的作用更大；他总是提心吊胆，怕人说他是在骗人，或者有一点点不老实，以致引起怀疑，因而可能使银行家限制甚至取消对他的贷款!对他来说，银行家的忠告比牧师的忠告更为重要。”(《马克思恩格斯全集》第46卷，第618页)与此同时，我们应该看到合理负债与过度负债、良性债务与不良债务、长期负债与短期负债、生产性债务与消费性债务、主动负债与被动负债等不同债务行为，对人的存在质感的不同影响，不能一概而论，也应该区别对待其积极效应与消极效应。

Going further, it is actually very difficult for us to ascertain, from specific data, the relative proportions of the different debt behaviors mentioned above. The complexity of the roots of debt, the intertwining of debt chains, and the fragmentation of debt governance make it even harder for us to make a purely moral or purely economic judgment about the various debt behaviors of today. But debt, as an important economic category, is fundamentally a theoretical reflection of modern social relations. What it links is not merely borrowing and lending, but also credit — that is, the modern socio-economic system dominated by capital. As Marx put it: “In earlier states of society there was also borrowing and lending, and usury is even the most ancient form of capital, antedating the Flood, but borrowing and lending do not constitute credit, just as various kinds of labor do not constitute industrial labor or free wage labor.” (Marx and Engels, *Collected Works*, Vol. 30, p. 534) For credit is the product of the separation of money’s value symbol from its substance; its essence lies in ensuring the continuity of the capitalist production process, and it is the guarantee that money capital obtains the right to the worker’s future labor. In this sense, the modern debt relation is capital’s definition, by means of a future that has not yet arrived, of how a person must exist in the present. Hence, when we examine the relationship between debt and the qualitative texture of human existence from the micro level of the individual who bears the debt, we must not forget the more fundamental essential relation of modern debt. In any case, what debt embodies is the straitened circumstances of the present for contemporary people, while at the same time it foreshadows an already overdrawn tomorrow. For the individual, this is an era in which the mind, emotions, and mentality are tested by debt. The many empirical — indeed, daily unfolding — “ordeals” of debt show that, after penetrating the logic of capital and credit behind debt, we must still forcefully balance the real relationships between desire and wealth, enjoyment and ability, and the future and the present. Only in this way can debt, as a product of human self-alienation, better serve the development of humanity itself. Thus, the truth that “the transcendence of self-alienation follows the same path as self-alienation” (Marx, p. 78) can all the more manifest its real power to interpret the world and to change the world.

进一步而言，我们其实很难在具体的数据上知悉上述不同债务行为的相对比例。债务根源的复杂化、债务链条的交叉性，以及债务治理的碎片化，使得我们对当今形形色色的债务行为更加难以作出一个纯粹道德的或纯粹经济学的判断。但债务作为一个重要的经济范畴，根本上是现代社会关系的理论反映。它所链接的并不仅仅是借贷，还有信用，即以资本为主导的现代社会经济体系。正如马克思所言：“在以前的状态下也有过借和贷的事情，而高利贷甚至是洪水期前的资本形式中最古老的形式，但是借贷并不构成信用,正如各种劳动并不就构成产业劳动或自由的雇佣劳动一样。”(《马克思恩格斯全集》第30卷，第534页)因为信用是货币的价值符号和它的实体相分离的产物，其实质在于确保资本主义生产过程的连续性，是货币资本获得劳动者的未来劳动所有权的保证。从这个意义上说，现代债务关系是资本以人尚未到来的未来定义了人当前必须如此这般地存在。由此，当我们从承载债务的个体这一微观层面考察债务与人的存在质感的关系时，也一定不要遗忘了更为根本的现代债务的本质关系。无论如何，债务所体现的是当代人捉襟见肘的今天，同时也预见了当代人已被透支的明天。对个人而言，这是一个经历债务考验心智、情绪、心态等主观状态的时代。诸多经验上的，甚至每天都在上演的债务“劫难”表明，当洞悉债务背后的资本信用逻辑后，我们依然要有力地平衡好欲望与财富、享受与能力、未来与现在的现实关系。这样，债务作为人类自我异化的产物，才能更好地造福于人类自身的发展。由此，“自我异化的扬弃同自我异化走的是一条道路”(马克思，第78页)这一真理性认识才能更加彰显出它解释世界和改变世界的现实力量。