Is the Socialist Ideal Being Reborn in the West?

Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Western public opinion has almost formed a consensus that “the socialist system has died.” Yet it is precisely against this backdrop that Thomas Piketty, the French left-wing economist and author of *Capital in the Twenty-First Century*, who points out that the gap between rich and poor under capitalism is sharply widening, published a new book in August 2020—*Vivement le Socialisme!* (*Socialism, Hurry Up!*)—beginning to explore the possible direction of France’s future system. In the preface to this book, he writes: “If someone had said to me in 1990 that in 2020 I would publish a collection of essays titled *Socialism, Hurry Up!*, I would have thought it a bad joke… Yet thirty years later, in 2020, hyper-capitalism has gone too far. I am now convinced that we must rethink how to transcend capitalism and build a new form of socialism that is participatory and decentralized, federal and democratic, ecological, mixed, and feminine… History will judge whether the word ‘socialism’ has died completely and been replaced. For me, I now think this word can still be saved; indeed, it might even be the most suitable term to describe the idea of an alternative economic system to capitalism.”

自苏联解体以来，西方舆论几乎形成一种共识，即“社会主义制度已经死亡”。然而正是在这种背景下，指出今天资本主义贫富差距正在急剧拉大的《21世纪资本论》的作者、法国左翼经济学家托马斯·皮凯蒂（Thomas Piketty）于2020年8月出版了一本新著——《Vivement le Socialisme!》（《社会主义快来吧》），开始探讨未来法国体制的可能走向。他在此书的前言里写道：“如果有人于1990年对我说，我将在2020年出版一本文集，题为《社会主义快来吧》，我一定会认为这是一个恶劣的玩笑……然而30年后的2020年，超级资本主义走得实在太远了，我现在确信，我们必须重新思考如何超越资本主义，建立一种全民参与且分权的、联邦式且民主的、环保的、混合的及女性化的新形式的社会主义……历史将判定‘社会主义’这个词是否已经彻底死亡并被取代。而对于我来说，我现在认为这个词还有救，甚至可以说这个词最适合用来描述资本主义替代经济体系的思想。”

Piketty asserts that merely “opposing” capitalism and neoliberalism is insufficient; one must also “support” something else—that is, what people want to find as a replacement for capitalism, some ideal social form in people’s minds, and what it is called is not that important. He continues: “Our consensus is that the current capitalist system, as long as it continues to widen inequality and drain the earth, has no future.” This is almost saying that capitalism is writing its own termination notice. Of course, Piketty also acknowledges: “As long as no clearly proposed alternative system exists, the current capitalism will continue to exist for a long time.” At this point, China’s rise and success naturally form an “alternative system.” The question is merely when people will recognize and admit this.

皮凯蒂认定，仅仅“反对”资本主义和新自由主义是不够的，还需要“支持”某些其他东西，即人们想寻找出来替代资本主义的东西，某种人们头脑中理想的社会形态，而它究竟叫什么则并不那么重要。他继续写道：“我们的共识是，目前的这种资本主义体系，只要它继续在扩大不平等，并且在榨干地球，那它就是没有前途的。”这几乎是在说，资本主义正在书写其终止符。当然，皮凯蒂也承认：“只要没有明确提出的可替代系统，那么现行资本主义还会继续长久地存在下去。”这时，中国的崛起和成功就会自然而然地形成一个“可替代系统”。问题只是人们将会在何时认识并承认这一点。

So, what is actually happening in the “capitalist system with no future” that Piketty identifies?

那么，皮凯蒂认定的“没有前途的资本主义体系”究竟在发生什么事？

Piketty proposes two conditions for whether the Western capitalist system can continue: one is the issue of equality, and the other is the issue of environmental protection. The environmental issue mainly concerns climate warming. Here, we primarily analyze the causes and consequences of “inequality” and how it is undermining the capitalist system from various angles.

皮凯蒂对西方资本主义体系能否继续下去，提出了两个条件，一个是平等问题，一个是环境保护问题。环保问题更多地涉及气候变暖问题。这里主要先剖析“不平等”的原因与后果，以及它正在从哪个方面摧垮资本主义制度。

Piketty’s findings on the phenomenon of “capitalism widening inequality” are absolutely staggering: the top 1% of the ultra-rich globally own 38.8% of global assets, while the bottom 50% of the poor own only 2% of global assets. From this, we can see that the Western-style “electoral system” [1]1 The author uses “民选体制” (minxuan tizhi, “electoral system”) to distinguish Western procedural democracy from the ideal of substantive democracy, implying that elections alone do not guarantee popular sovereignty. that underpins the capitalist economic system is beginning to raise doubts among scholars like Piketty. In other words, this may be the first time since World War II that the world has truly questioned, at a deep level, the seemingly inherent superiority and rationality of the Western “electoral system.” If the “electoral system” cannot guarantee “equality,” then “liberty, equality, fraternity” [2]2 “Liberty, equality, fraternity” (自由、平等、博爱) is the national motto of France, originating from the French Revolution. is empty talk. In fact, all developed Western countries with “electoral systems” have experienced polarization between rich and poor, and this is rapidly worsening.

皮凯蒂对“资本主义扩大不平等”现象的调查结果是绝对令人咋舌的：全球前1%的超富裕阶层拥有全球资产总量的38.8%，而后50%的贫困阶层仅拥有全球资产总量的2%。由此我们可以看到，保障资本主义经济体系的西式“民选体制”正在开始引发类似皮凯蒂等学者的疑问。换言之，这可能是自第二次世界大战以来世界首次真正从深层次对西方“民选体制”似乎与生俱来的优越性和合理性产生疑虑。如果“民选体制”不能保障“平等”，那么“自由、博爱”就是一句空话。事实上，西方发达的“民选体制”国家都产生了贫富两极分化现象，而且正在急剧恶化的过程中。

The so-called “democratic system” in the West is essentially an “electoral system,” far removed from the ideal of “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” [3]3 “Government of the people, by the people, for the people” (民有、民治、民享) is a phrase from Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, often cited in Chinese political discourse as a standard for genuine democracy. This “electoral system” operates smoothly under two prerequisites: first, its economy must be in a state of sustained development; second, its economic state must far exceed that of other systems. It is now clear that these two prerequisites are on the threshold of collapse due to the polarization between rich and poor and China’s rapid rise. More importantly, just as a century ago, when the truly ruling group behind the scenes of the “electoral system”—capital (including transnational financial capital and national industrial capital)—begins to see a divergence of interests, how to regulate and whether this contradiction can be resolved is becoming the key to the direction of history. We must never forget that both world wars began within Western capitalism.

西方所谓的“民主体制”实质上是一种“民选体制”，与真正的“民有、民治、民享”的理想差之远矣。这种“民选体制”得以顺利运行有两大先决条件，一是其经济必须处于持续发展状态，二是其经济状态必须远远超出其他体制的国家。现在很明显，这两大先决条件正由于贫富两极分化，以及中国的迅猛崛起而处于瓦解的门槛上。更重要的原因，则是如同百年前一样，置身于“民选体制”幕后的真正意义上的统治集团——资本（包括跨国金融资本和民族产业资本）的内部开始出现利益分野的时候，如何调节、能否化解这一矛盾，正在成为历史走向的关键。我们千万不能忘记，两次世界大战都始于西方资本主义内部。

The sign of the divergence of interests and the emergence of sharp contradictions and conflicts between national industrial capital and transnational financial capital within the West is economic globalization. Until the 1980s and 1990s, when economic globalization was sweeping the world with overwhelming force, transnational financial capital and Western national industrial capital were still jointly carrying out “economic colonization” of other regions of the world and profiting together. Their interests converged, and they jointly “harvested” [4]4 “Harvesting” (割韭菜, “cutting leeks”) is a Chinese colloquialism for exploiting a vulnerable group repeatedly, akin to “fleecing.” the vast non-Western developing countries, allowing them to coexist peacefully. Transnational financial capital seeks the free flow of capital globally to maximize profits. Financial capital forms a huge transnational monopoly financial interest group through various means such as cross-border investment, cross-shareholding, and even family marriages, investing in multiple areas and continuously benefiting from economic globalization through controlling shares in other industrial capital globally. In recent years, however, Western industrial capital has been at a disadvantage in product competition due to the rapid rise of developing countries like China, with direct consequences including business closures, rising unemployment, and stagnant economic growth. Therefore, Western industrial capital has begun to turn against economic globalization, attempting to use methods like “deglobalization” and “reindustrialization” to stop the impact of countries like China on Western industrial capital and restore the once far-ahead advantage of Western industrial capital over developing countries like China. The anti-globalization stance of industrial capital has clearly gained support from the Western working class, including the middle class and the proletariat. Consequently, industrial capital and transnational financial capital have become sharply opposed on the issue of economic globalization. This opposition immediately leads to problems in the operation of the “electoral system” itself. Just as a century ago, the “electoral system” countries of the US and Europe have all seen the expansion of the far right.

西方内部民族产业资本和跨国金融资本利益分道扬镳并产生激烈矛盾与冲突的标志就是经济全球化。直到20世纪八九十年代，经济全球化还在以席卷之势遍扫全球时，跨国金融资本与西方各国产业资本依然在共同向世界其他地区实施“经济殖民”、携手获利。两者利益趋同，共同对广大非西方的发展中国家“割韭菜”，因而双方能够和平共处。跨国金融资本寻求的是资本在全球自由流动，从而牟取利益最大化。金融资本通过跨国投资、交叉持股甚至家庭联姻等多种方式，形成一个庞大的跨国垄断金融利益集团，进行多面投资，并通过对全球其他产业资本的控股而持续在经济全球化中受益。而西方产业资本近年来却由于中国等发展中国家迅猛崛起而在产品竞争中处于下风，其直接后果便是企业倒闭、失业率上升、经济增长停滞，等等。因此，西方产业资本开始转向反对经济全球化，试图用“逆全球化”“重新工业化”等方式来阻止中国等国家对西方产业资本的冲击，恢复西方产业资本对中国等发展中国家一度远远超前的优势地位。而产业资本的反全球化明显得到了西方工薪阶层等中产阶级和无产阶级的支持。于是，产业资本与跨国金融资本在对待经济全球化问题上便产生了尖锐对立。这一对立立即导致“民选体制”运行本身出现问题。如同百年前一样，美欧“民选体制”国家都出现了极右翼膨胀的现象。

Industrial capital has national borders, while financial capital has a distinct transnational character. In the past, conflicts between industrial capitals with national borders led to wars, even world wars. Today, what consequences will arise from conflicts between national industrial capital and transnational financial capital is a new question. But we have at least observed that the conflict between the two capitals will be extremely intense. For example, the United States, as a “model” of an “electoral system” country, even saw the losing side storm the Capitol in protest. [5]5 This refers to the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol by supporters of then-President Donald Trump, who sought to overturn the 2020 presidential election results. The 75 million “blue-collar redneck” voters supporting Trump did not even accept the election result. In the past, the reason why two factions in “electoral system” countries could take turns governing was that the backstage bosses of both sides were the same forces—industrial capital and transnational financial capital, hand in hand. However, today, industrial capital has begun to question the legitimacy of transnational financial capital coming to power in the United States. Whether this will lead to more severe consequences, we do not know. In fact, Trump’s election a few years ago can almost be seen as a “coup” by US industrial capital against transnational financial capital in favor of deglobalization. In a very famous speech challenging the “shadow government,” Trump described his opponents as “the Washington establishment funded by big financial and media companies,” called his election “a struggle for the survival of our nation,” and characterized his governance as “determining whether we are a free country or whether we only have the illusion of democracy but are actually controlled by a small group of global special interests.” This “small group of global special interests” undoubtedly refers to transnational monopoly financial capital. The huge latent crisis within Western countries today stems from the fact that forces opposing the “small group of global special interests” are rapidly rising in the Western world in the guise of the far right. This resembles the eve of World War II, when the West, facing comprehensive political, economic, and social crises, is appearing before our eyes.

产业资本是具有国界的，而金融资本则具有鲜明的跨国特性。过去，具有国界的产业资本之间发生冲突时，会导致战争，甚至是世界大战。而今天民族产业资本与跨国金融资本发生冲突会导致什么样的后果，则是一个新的课题。但我们至少已经观察到，两大资本之间的冲突将是极其剧烈的。例如，美国作为一个“民选体制”国家的“样板”，居然也发生败选的一方冲进国会山进行抗议的行动。支持特朗普的7500万“蓝领红脖”选民甚至不接受败选的结果。过去，“民选体制”国家之所以可以两派轮流执政，是因为双方的幕后老板都是同一批力量——手挽着手的产业资本与跨国金融资本。然而，今天产业资本开始质疑跨国金融资本在美国上台执政的合法性。这会不会导致更为严峻的后果，我们不得而知。事实上，几年前特朗普的当选几乎可以说是美国产业资本对跨国金融资本的一次逆全球化“政变”。特朗普曾在一场非常著名的挑战“影子政府”的演讲中将他的对手描述成“由大财团和媒体公司资助的华盛顿当权派”，将他的选举称为“我们国家生死存亡的斗争”，将他的执政形容为“将决定我们是一个自由的国度，还是我们只有民主的假象、实际却被一小撮全球特殊利益集团控制”。这个“一小撮全球特殊利益集团”无疑就是指跨国垄断金融资本。今天西方国家内部潜伏的巨大危机，就是缘于反对“一小撮全球特殊利益集团”的力量正在以极右翼的面目在西方世界迅猛崛起。这类似于第二次世界大战前夕，面临全面政治、经济和社会危机的西方正出现在我们的眼前。

Against this backdrop, we can sense that the global configuration is replaying the situation of a century ago. Will this situation, as Thomas Piketty hopes, lead people to study whether the West could possibly move back toward socialism, or will it lead to a new conflict, war, or even world war or nuclear war—a war of "all against all," as Russian President Vladimir Putin put it? Do not forget that the West's means of resolving internal crises is to launch wars externally! The Russia-Ukraine conflict is not enough, the Israel-Palestine conflict is not enough—will there be new wars? This is a question we must seriously study and consider.

在这种背景下，我们可以预感到，世界格局正在重演百年前的态势。这一态势究竟是如皮凯蒂所希望的那样，导致人们研究西方有无可能重新走向社会主义，还是会导致一场新的就如俄罗斯总统普京所说的“所有人反对所有人”的冲突、战争甚至是世界大战、核战争？不要忘记，西方解决内部危机的手段就是向外发动战争！俄乌冲突不够、巴以冲突不够，是否还会有新的战争？这是我们需要严肃认真去研究、思考的问题。

(Author’s bio: Zheng Ruolin, Senior Research Fellow at Taihe Institute)

（作者简介：郑若麟，太和智库高级研究员）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心