The Internal Paradox of the Anomalous Survival of Neoliberalism

Neoliberalism is regarded as the culprit behind the financial crises of the 1990s in Asia and Latin America, as well as the 2007–2008 financial crisis in the United States. However, neoliberalism did not perish in these crises that inevitably devour themselves; instead, it became the ideology of mainstream political parties in Western countries over the past few decades. This has led some Western scholars and politicians to exalt neoliberalism as a global strategy for capitalist modernization and a hegemonic principle for global capitalism to dominate the world. Yet, the anomalous survival of neoliberalism has not fundamentally resolved the dilemmas it faces; on the contrary, it has deepened the internal crises of modern Western societies. Therefore, it is inevitably unsustainable.

新自由主义被视为20世纪90年代亚洲、拉丁美洲以及2007—2008年美国金融危机的祸端。但是，新自由主义并未在这些必然反噬自身的危机中消亡，反倒成了过去几十年西方国家主流政党的意识形态。这不禁让西方一些学者和政客将新自由主义奉为资本主义现代化的全球战略、全球化资本主义支配世界的霸权原则。然而，新自由主义的反常存续，未能从根本上解决其面临的困境，反而加深了现代西方社会的内在危机，因此，其必然也就无法持久。

The Predecessor of Neoliberalism and Its Limitations

新自由主义的前世及其局限性

Liberalism was born after crossing the threshold of mercantilism. Mercantilism prevailed in Western societies from the 16th to the mid-18th century, emphasizing the use of territorial spatial planning modeled on the capital as a disciplinary mechanism to ensure the circulation of various economic factors within sovereign space, thereby promoting commercial economic development. Consequently, it exhibited a distinct territoriality and heavy state intervention within sovereign states, which contradicted the system of balance of power prevalent in Europe at the time. At the same time, facing the population as a modern source of national wealth and a political subject, the traditional monarchy and its territorial model proved too narrow, leaving mercantilism without available political experience. Against this backdrop, mercantilism had already shown many limitations contrary to the development of the era.

自由主义是在跨越重商主义这个门槛之后诞生的。重商主义盛行于16—18世纪中期的西方社会，强调把整个领土之上以首都为模板的空间规划作为规训机制，确保诸经济要素在主权空间内的循环流通，进而推动商业经济发展。因此，它在主权国家内部呈现出鲜明的领土性和浓重的国家干预色彩，这与当时欧洲范围内讲究势力均衡的体系特征相矛盾。同时，面对人口这一现代的国富源泉和政治主体，传统的君主制及其领土模式过于狭隘，重商主义因此缺乏可资利用的政治经验。在这种背景下，重商主义已展现出许多与时代发展相悖的局限性。

The French Physiocrats of the mid-18th century proposed a solution entirely different from mercantilism, advocating the use of freedom to eliminate food crises and other population security dilemmas. Thus, Physiocracy became the cradle of liberalism. The market, market mechanisms, and the perspective of *homo economicus* all emerged within Physiocracy. The liberalization of political techniques and the fundamental principles of liberal governmentality—such as the maxim that political techniques should never be separated from actual operations, allowing reality to develop according to its own laws, *laissez-faire*, the idea that “economic governance is the best governance,” replacing moral good and evil with utility as the criterion for judging governance quality, and exercising political power through economic means—were also articulated by the Physiocrats. These factors, which firmly bind Physiocracy to liberalism, all originated from the Physiocrats’ attempt to use the naturalness of population to handle the paradox of freedom and security: the need to both produce freedom and manage freedom, that is, to establish control and eliminate dangers to ensure security. Starting from the naturalness of population, Physiocracy redefined freedom, restructured security, and placed the rationality of governance on the governability of the population, thereby forging the soul of liberalism.

18世纪中期出现的法国重农主义提出了与重商主义截然不同的解困方案，主张用自由来消除粮食危机这样的人口安全困境，重农主义由此成为自由主义的摇篮。市场、市场机制和经济人视角都是在重农主义中出现的。政治技术的自由主义化和自由主义治理术的根本要义，比如，政治技术永远不要与现实运行分离，让现实按照自身规律发展，放任自由，“经济的治理就是最好的治理”，用功利效用取代道德善恶来判断治理优劣，以及用经济方式行使政治权力等，也是重农主义者阐发的。这些将重农主义与自由主义牢牢绑定的因素，都发端于重农主义试图用人口的自然性来处理自由与安全的悖论：既要生产自由又要管理自由，也就是要建立控制，消除危险，从而保障安全。重农主义从人口的自然性出发，重新定义自由，重新架构安全，将治理的合理性安置在人口的可治理性之上，从而铸就了自由主义的灵魂。

Therefore, since the early 19th century, in classical (economic) liberalism, the utility created by market mechanisms used the core concept of interest—which both accommodates freedom and ensures security—to integrate the two key nodes of liberal governance rationale: market exchange and the utility of state public power. Interest became both the principle of exchange and the standard of utility. Liberalism manipulates everything it needs through interest, including individuals, behaviors, language, wealth, property, resources, and power. In short, as the predecessor of neoliberalism, liberalism signifies the truthification of the market, the self-limitation of governance based on utility as the standard, and the unlimited development of Europe with the world as its market and cost.

因此，自19世纪初以来，在古典（经济）自由主义那里，市场机制所创造的效用问题，用利益这一既容纳自由又保障安全的核心概念，将市场交换和国家公共权力的效用这两个自由主义治理理由的关键节点统合起来，利益既成了交换原则又成了效用标准。自由主义通过利益操控其所需的一切，包括个人、行为、语言、财富、财产、资源、权力等。总之，作为新自由主义的前世，自由主义意味着市场的真理化，以效用为标准让治理进行自我限制，以及以世界为市场和代价的无限发展的欧洲。

The Internal Relationship and Competition Between Two Models of Neoliberalism

两种新自由主义模式的内在关联与竞争

The two forms of neoliberalism that emerged after the end of World War II—German ordoliberalism and American neoliberalism—both continued the governmentality and internal logic of liberalism. Regarding the handling of the paradox of freedom and security, although German ordoliberalism profoundly influenced American neoliberalism, in the subsequent development process, it was American neoliberalism that gradually gained dominance, pushing the liberal governmentality of Western societies to its extreme.

第二次世界大战结束之后形成的两种新自由主义——德国秩序自由主义和美国新自由主义，都延续了自由主义的治理术及其内在逻辑。对于处理自由与安全的悖论而言，德国秩序自由主义虽然深刻影响了美国新自由主义，但在后续发展过程中，却是美国新自由主义逐渐占据主导地位，将西方社会的自由主义治理术推向了极致。

If, in Physiocracy, the security mechanism was the free mechanism of commodity exchange, and economic governance was the best governance, then for German ordoliberalism, economic governance was no longer merely a model of governance but had become the source of governance rationality and political legitimacy. The market principle shifted from exchange to competition, and competition inevitably led to monopolies that destroy competition. The state intervened only to ensure market competition, constructing a market-oriented judicial society and an “enterprise society” to prevent monopolies and restore competition. The legitimacy of the security mechanism came from the free mechanism of interest competition. “Governing for the market”—this core principle of neoliberalism—was precisely established during the reconstruction of Germany.

如果说在重农主义那里，安全机制就是商品交换的自由机制，经济的治理就是最好的治理的话，那么，对于德国秩序自由主义而言，经济的治理已不再仅仅是治理的典范，而是变成了治理合理性、政治正当性的源泉，市场原则从交换转变成竞争，竞争必然带来破坏竞争的垄断，国家只是为了确保市场竞争才出面干预，构建起市场导向的司法社会和“企业社会”来防止垄断、恢复竞争。安全机制的正当性来自利益竞争的自由机制，“为了市场而治理”，这一新自由主义的核心原则正是在德国重建过程中奠定的。

By placing the security mechanism under the dominance of the free mechanism, German ordoliberalism weakened state power and its governmentality, thereby prompting American neoliberalism to give rise to anarcho-capitalism, which came to dominate the domestic and foreign policies of most Western capitalist countries. Building on German ordoliberalism, American neoliberalism redefined *homo economicus*, restructured economic factors, inverted the relationship between economy and society, regulated everything through commodity exchange, and pushed the liberal governmentality of modern Western societies to an extreme state.

德国秩序自由主义通过将安全机制置于自由机制的支配之下，弱化国家权力及其治理术，也由此推动美国新自由主义催生出无政府资本主义，主导了大多数西方资本主义国家的内外政策。在德国秩序自由主义的基础上，美国新自由主义重新定义了经济人，重构了经济要素，倒置了经济与社会关系，用商品交换调节一切，将现代西方社会的自由主义治理术推向极端状态。

American neoliberalism transformed the nature of the population from labor commodities into human capital. Every individual is a *homo economicus*, a human capital machine capable of generating a stream of income; the individual is an enterprise and an investor, and the individual’s life conditions are capital returns. American neoliberalism also took the market economy as the principle for identifying social relations and individual behaviors, using economic analysis to examine various social behaviors, including marriage, spouses, families, and parent-child relationships, thereby rewriting demography, sociology, and psychology, and inverting the relationship between economy and society. Finally, and most importantly, American neoliberalism interpreted *homo economicus* as a subject governed by an irreducible and inalienable principle of interest, using market economy analysis to explain all non-commodity relations, including all political actions, thus turning the market into an economic court judging the government.

美国新自由主义将人口的性质从劳动力商品转变成人力资本，每个人都是经济人，都是一架能够产生收益流的人力资本机器，个人即企业、投资者，个人的生命条件即资本收益。美国新自由主义还将市场经济作为社会关系和个人行为的识别原则，用经济行为分析包括婚姻、夫妻、家庭、父母关系在内的各种社会行为，从而改写了人口统计学、社会学、心理学，倒置了经济与社会关系。最后也是最为重要的，美国新自由主义将经济人解释为受不可化约、不可转让的利益原则支配的主体，用市场经济分析解释所有非商品关系，包括一切政治行动，从而把市场变成了审判政府的经济法庭。

The Paradox of “Freedom and Security” in Neoliberalism

新自由主义“自由与安全”的悖论

American neoliberalism means that liberalism returns to Adam Smith’s theory of the “invisible hand,” viewing *homo economicus* as an entrepreneur constantly calculating the cost-benefit flow of their own human capital and as an irreducible and inalienable subject of interest. It regards the economic world as an independent kingdom invisible to *homo economicus* and beyond the comprehension of the political world, which therefore must not intervene. It places the free mechanism in a transcendent position beyond the reach of the security mechanism, and the legitimacy of the economy replaces the legitimacy of history and politics. American neoliberalism re-embeds the principle of *laissez-faire* into liberalism, pushing liberalism to the apex of its own development, and has dominated the domestic and foreign policies of Western countries over the past four to five decades.

美国新自由主义意味着自由主义重新回到亚当·斯密“看不见的手”的理论，将经济人视为时刻计算自身人力资本成本—收益流的企业家和不可化约、不可转让的利益主体，将经济世界视为经济人看不见、政治世界无法看清因而不得干预的独立王国，将自由机制置于安全机制不得干预的超然地位，经济的正当性取代了历史和政治的正当性。美国新自由主义将放任自由原则重新嵌入自由主义，推动自由主义达至其自身发展所能及的顶点，主导着晚近四五十年来西方国家的内外政策。

At the domestic level, the interest mechanism supports the “freedom” factor of liberal governmentality and leads to a growing Matthew effect in income and wealth distribution. At the same time, to prevent itself from declining due to this, biopolitics becomes the security configuration of liberal governmentality. However, traditional social controls, minimum income guarantees, emerging universal basic income, and unemployment relief and livelihood assistance during the COVID-19 pandemic—these population security mechanisms do not touch the free mechanism of unlimited interest competition in core public resource allocations such as political influence, social wealth distribution, education, healthcare, and elderly care. Therefore, in essence, it is not a security mechanism for the population, but a security mechanism for freedom.

在国内层面，利益机制支撑着自由主义治理术的“自由”因素，并导致收入和财富分配的马太效应日益加剧。同时，为了阻止自身因此走向衰亡，生命政治成为自由主义治理术的安全配置。但传统的社会控制、最低收入保障，新兴的全民基本收入，新冠疫情下的失业救济和生活救助，这类人口安全机制并不会触动在政治影响力、社会财富分配、教育医疗养老等核心公共资源配置上展开无限利益竞争的自由机制，所以究其本质，它并不是人口的安全机制，而是自由的安全机制。

At the international level, neoliberalism is essentially a new form of imperialism, which, through the truthification of the market, unabashedly displays the logic of the strong where the fittest survive. The truthified market concept drives the globalization of North Atlantic standards. As James Scott envisioned in a future scenario, a merchant from the North Atlantic, stepping off a plane anywhere in the world, would be greeted by a set of familiar things—from law, commerce, and transportation to property rights, land ownership, and regulation—all originating from their homeland.

在国际层面，新自由主义本质上是一种新的帝国主义，其通过市场的真理化毫不掩饰地展现着优胜劣汰的强者逻辑。真理化的市场观念推动着北大西洋标准的全球化，正如詹姆斯·斯科特所设想的未来场景，来自北大西洋的商人，在世界上任何一个地方走下飞机，迎接他们的都是一套熟悉的东西，从法律、商业、交通到物权、土地所有制和监管，都来自他们的故乡。

Therefore, the anomalous persistence of neoliberalism over the past four or five decades does not mean that it possesses strong vitality and universal applicability; it only means that the neoliberal state, having been reduced to a new container for globalized capital, has once again shelved its inherent paradox of “freedom and security.” In order to preserve the competitive interests based on egoism and the mechanism of freedom defined thereby, and to secure the hegemonic expansion of globalized capitalism, American neoliberalism places the mechanism of freedom above all else. This deepens rather than alleviates the internal crisis of modern Western society.

因此，晚近四五十年来新自由主义的反常存续，并非意味着其具有强大的生命力和普适性，只是意味着，沦为全球化资本新容器的新自由主义国家，再次将其内在的“自由与安全”悖论束之高阁。为了保全以利己主义为出发点的利益竞争及其所定义的自由机制，为了全球化资本主义的霸权增值，美国新自由主义将自由机制置于一切之上，这加深而非缓解了现代西方社会的内在危机。

Web editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗