【作者】 李博；

【导师】 蒋南平；

【作者基本信息】 西南财经大学 ， 政治经济学， 2012， 博士

【摘要】 2007年因次贷危机而引发的全球经济、金融危机重新激活了学术界对经济危机理论的讨论。与以往不同的是,在此次的学术交锋中,新古典经济学由于在对危机根源解释上的闪烁其辞引发了自身的“理论危机”,马克思主义的危机和周期理论的价值得以再次彰显,国内外涌现出大量具有创新价值和理论意义的研究成果。这些研究大多具有一个共同的特点,即强调金融化在触发当前危机中的核心作用；部分学者甚至由此断定资本主义已经进入到了一个新的发展阶段——(国际)金融垄断资本主义阶段。现实地看,金融化的确构成了20世纪以来资本主义世界经济发展的显著特征。但从世界体系的马克思主义,特别是其代表人物之一——乔万尼·阿瑞吉(Giovanni Arrighi)对资本主义世界体系的发展和演变所做的详尽的历史梳理来看,金融扩张并不构成资本主义发展的新阶段,而是自世界资本主义在中世纪晚期的欧洲萌芽以来,不断地周期性重现的现象。阿瑞吉进一步地将这种周期性现象进行理论化的解读,构建起资本主义体系积累周期理论。该理论也构成了本文的理论基础。体系积累周期理论以资本积累为中心,体系规模的资本积累进程则由处于资本主义世界体系核心地位的国家(政府)及企业所组成的综合体所推动。每一个周期按资本积累方式和积累来源的不同可划分为物质扩张和金融扩张两个阶段；并且在每一个阶段的结束阶段都将发生显著的危机。具体而言,在物质扩张的结束阶段,将发生一次“信号危机”。信号危机的爆发表明贸易和生产领域已经不能将资本积累进程继续向前推进,因而积累的主要方式从剥削式积累向剥夺式积累转化,资本活动的主要领域从物质扩张向金融扩张转化。这种转化,一方面使现有的积累中心能够把对自身霸权形成挑战的竞争加剧的负担,转嫁到国内外从属群体的身上,从而延续了当时的积累周期；但另一方面,这种转化并不是对当时积累体系矛盾的解诀,只是延缓和恶化,其结果就是在金融扩张的结束阶段爆发当时积累周期的“临终危机”。这一危机与“信号危机”具有完全不同的性质,它将导致当时世界资本主义体系秩序的崩溃。体系秩序的重建要求体系结构和权力分配在世界范围内的重组,形成新的积累中心、体系秩序和积累机制。正是通过这种前后相继的体系积累周期,资本主义从中世纪末期在西欧萌芽以来,已经延续了5个多世纪。因此,要对作为资本主义世界体系基本矛盾总爆发的危机作出透彻的理解,就必须从历史和体系的层面来展开；并且分析的范围也将超越单纯的经济层面,涉及政治和经济及其他社会历史进程的互动。因而,在本文的写作框架中,当前的危机、甚至危机本身就成为一个切入点,文章的主要内容也相应地转换为以体系积累周期为中心对资本主义世界体系发展历史进程及其未来发展趋势的分析。对当前危机根源的探讨则包含在了周期分析之中。作者期待这样一种分析路径在揭示危机的动因和未来发展趋势方面,其收益能够更甚于对某一次危机单独展开的分析,也期望通过这种方法,能在马克思主义的危机和周期理论中增加一种新的视角。围绕上述内容,本文主要按照以下两条逻辑线索展开：一是在资本主义体系积累各周期中,资本逻辑-领土逻辑(或者经济逻辑-政治逻辑)在不同阶段的融合、冲突与矛盾关系。通过这种辩证的互动,在每一个体系积累周期中都形成了特定的积累中心及其起主导作用的政府和企业的综合体。这种综合体而非单纯的资本主义企业推动着资本主义向全球的扩张,最终使之从西欧之一隅发展为一种全球性的存在。在论文的第3章中,我们对历史资本主义前三大体系积累周期中各自形成的这种综合体及其积累战略进行了简单的梳理,并对其演变的内在逻辑进行了揭示；通过这一过程,资本逻辑(资本权力)逐渐地凌驾于政治逻辑(国家权力)之上,将国家的政治和军事力量转化为资本积累和资本主义扩张的工具。而在本文的最后两章中则将这种分析运用于对美国和中国积累体制的分析,并着重指出了中国积累体制的独特性。另一条逻辑线索以资本积累为中心展开,也是本文对体系积累周期理论中缺失环节所做的理论补充。虽然阿瑞吉的资本积累理论具有深厚的马克思主义基础,但其理论体系却更多地受主要作为历史学家的布罗代尔的启发。因此,在阿瑞吉对资本积累的相关分析中,其深度和力度都出现了倒退。在涉及到体系内跨国家的资本转移时,主要通过论证资本的“灵活性”和“兼容性”来解释,与沃勒斯坦的“中心-半边缘-边缘”三层次模型比较起来都显得薄弱。对于不同阶段资本积累机制、积累方式的变化和积累中心的转移如何实现等缺乏系统的分析。在本文的第4章中,我们以马克思的资本积累理论为基础,对体系积累周期各阶段占主导地位的积累方式、积累机制,以及从一种方式向另一种方式的转移逻辑,从马克思主义政治经济学的角度进行了理论上的补充和完善。本文将资本积累划分为剥削式积累和剥夺式积累两大类,其中剥削式积累又分为建立在雇佣劳动基础上的国内剥削和主要通过不平等交换进行的国际剥削两种。它们构成了英国体系积累周期及之后物质扩张阶段最主要的积累方式。对于国内剥削马克思在《资本论》中已经进行了详尽的分析。依附论,尤其是伊曼纽尔、阿明和弗兰克等学者则对国际剥削做出了开创性的贡献。本文在伊曼纽尔不平等交换理论的基础上,建立了一个新的不平等交换的数理模型,在更一般化的条件下讨论了外围国家通过不平等交换向中心国家进行的剩余转移。阿瑞吉的体系积累周期理论可以较好地解释体系积累周期从一个阶段向另一个阶段的过渡,但不能很好地解释体系向外部的扩张。我们的理论补充则较好地解释了这种扩张的机制。在第4章中,还通过对金融资本变化多端的行为的分析,实现了体系积累周期理论与新熊彼特长波理论的协调。一方面弥补了体系积累周期理论对技术进步的忽视,另一方面也增强了新熊彼特长波理论的适用范围。在该章的其余部分,则讨论了建立在武力和殖民主义基础上的剥夺式积累。在马克思的理论中,这类剥夺式积累被称为“原始积累”,具有资本主义“史前史”的性质,但从资本主义世界体系的历史发展进程来看,它是与资本主义相伴始终的。第5章集中于对美国体系积累周期的考察,是前述两条逻辑线索的进一步展开。在分析当前经济、金融危机的根源时,着重强调了金融化剥夺机制在其中所起的作用。但与现有多数针对当前危机的研究成果不同,我们坚持,在对当前危机的性质和根源及其未来发展趋势的分析中,必须从体系和历史的角度来展开,对金融化进行解读时也同样如此。在本章的最后,依据金融剥夺的不可持续性得出了当前危机很可能是美国体系积累周期“临终危机”的结论。文章的最后一章则聚焦于对中国崛起以及世界体系未来发展趋势的分析上。它以中国为中心,但却是将中国经济的发展放置在资本主义世界体系的历史与现实背景之下而得以展开。一方面,我们希望从这种视角出发,能够更加全面而客观地审视这个国家,在以积极的姿态参与到现代世界体系30多年后的成败得失。既强调中国资本积累进程中有别于西方资本积累的内在特性；也分析了中国在与世界体系发生联系时其积累体制所经历的深刻变化,以及由之取得的巨大成就和产生的相关问题。在中华人民共和国成立60多年,改革开放30多年之后,中国已经成为世界第二大经济体,并在发展中坚持了社会主义制度。自20世纪90年代开始,以中国为中心的东亚地区日益成为全球经济最富活力的地区。阿瑞吉将中国的崛起视为改变当前不平等的资本主义世界体系积累机制而走向一个更加平等的世界格局的关键性力量。在文章的结束部分,我们将回到这一命题,但与阿瑞吉不同的是,本文提供了一种建立在区域化基础上的世界体系来作为对当前不平等的世界体系的替代,以响应其创建一个更加平等的世界体系的倡议。更多还原

【Abstract】 The global financial crisis triggered by the Subprime Crisis in2007, revived the academic discussion on the theory of economic crisis. Unlike in the past, in this academic exchange, the Neoclassical economics caused theory crisis on itself resulting from evasive issues when it was applied to explain the source of crisis. As a result, the crisis and cycle theory of Marxism was again shown great value, and a lot of research findings which were of great innovative value and theoretical consequences emerged. Most of these research shared a common characteristic that emphasized the key role of financialization in current crisis. Some scholars even concluded that the capitalism had entered a new stage, namely international financial monopoly capitalism. From the actual situation, financialization indeed demonstrated marked features of global capitalism economic development since20th century. However, from the World System of Marxism, especially from the views of Giovanni Arrighi, the financial expansion could not be regarded as a new stage of capitalism, but a constant and periodic recurrence since the capitalist sprout in late medieval Europe. Giovanni Arrighi further expounded the periodic recurrence and constructed the theory of systemic Accumulation Cycles(SCA) of capitalism, which constituted the theoretical basis of this article.The theory of SCA focused on capital accumulation. The systemic capital accumulation was pushed forward by the alliance of core countries (or governments) and it’s enterprises. Each cycle could be divided into two stages according to the modes and source of capital accumulation, namely material expansion stage and financial expansion stage, In addition, the whole system would occur serious crisis at the end of each stage. Specifically, a signal crisis would occur at the end of material expansion. The signal crisis indicates that capital accumulation could not be moved forward continuously by trading and production, which caused the main, way of accumulation to change from exploitative accumulation to depriving accumulation. Therefore, on one hand, the change could make current accumulation centrality transfer the burden, given by the intensifying competition on challenging its hegemony, to domestic and foreign subordinate groups, resulting in a continuation of present accumulation cycle. On the other hand, this change was not a solution, but a delay and deterioration to the Contradiction of present accumulation system. As a result, the terminal crisis of accumulation cycle would occurred at the end of financial expansion stage. This crisis was completely different from the signal crisis, it would lead to collapse of world system. The reestablishment of system order requires a worldwide reconstruction of system structure and division of powers so as to form a new accumulation centre, system order and accumulation mechanism. It is by this successive system accumulation cycle that capitalism has lasted for over five centuries since it emerged in Western Europe in Middle Ages. Consequently, In order to get a thorough understanding of the crisis owing to fundamental problems in global capitalist system, it is necessary to expound from the perspective of history and system first. Moreover, the analysis will have to go beyond the range of economy, and involve factors as politics, economy and social history.Therefore, by analyzing the current crisis, the major subject of the article is changed to study on the development of world system focused on the SACs. The author expected this way could be more effective in revealing the cause and development trend of crisis than analyzing a certain crisis separately.Concentrating on the above, the thesis would be organized following two logic clues. One is the relation of capital logic and territory logic when they reconciled, conflicted, and contradicted with each other in each SAC. By this kind of dialectical interaction, a specific accumulation center and a complex were formed. The complex, in which the government and enterprise played a leading role, was not the capitalist enterprises drove capitalism to expand globally. In the third chapter, we would briefly summarize the first three system accumulation cycles of historical capitalism, and reveal its logic of evolution. Through this process, the capital logic is gradually outweighing political logic to ultimately convert the country’s political and military power to tools for capital accumulation and capitalist expansion. In the last two chapters, we apply this analysis in explaining accumulation system in America and China, and especially point out the uniqueness of China’s accumulation system.The other logic clue centers on capital accumulation. Although Arrighi’s theory of capital accumulation had profound Marxist base, his theory was mostly inspired by Fernand Braudel, a historian, and therefore, retrogression was found in the depth and strength of analysis made by him. For instance, when relating to transnational capital transfer within system, he explained it mostly by proving flexibility and compatibility of capital, which made it less convincing compared with Immanuel Wallerstein’s Three Hierarchical Model. It did not give sufficient analysis about the mechanism of capital accumulation, change of accumulation means in different periods,In the fourth chapter, we improve analysis on means and mechanism of accumulation which play a leading role in each period, and the change of accumulation means from the perspective of Marxist political economics.Capital accumulation is divided into two types in the article. They are exploitative and depriving accumulation. Exploitative accumulation consists of domestic exploitation which is based on wage-labor and international exploitative that is conducted on unequal exchange. They are the major accumulation means in material expansion period. Marx has given a detailed analysis on domestic exploitation in Capital. In the Theory of Dependency, some scholars as Emmanuel、Armin and Frank made pioneering contribution to international exploitation. Based on the theory of unequal exchange, the writer built a new mathematical model to discuss how the periphery countries transferred surplus to central countries by unequal exchange under general conditions.In the fifth chapter, the article focuses on the study of American systemic accumulation cycle. When analyzing the source of current economic and financial crisis, it emphasizes the importance of financial depriving system. The thesis insists that we should carry on analysis from the perspective of system and history when analyzing the nature, source and development trend of current crisis. At the end of this chapter, the paper concludes that current crisis is probably the terminal crisis in American systemic accumulation cycle.The last chapter concentrates on analysis of China’s rise up and the development of world system. Although it focuses on China, it gives a picture of how China’s economy develops under the historical and practical background of capitalist world system. By understanding that perspective, the writer hopes to give a comprehensive and objective view of the country on what it achieved and lost during past thirty years since it actively joined in modern world system. The article emphasizes the characteristics existing in Chinn’s capital accumulation different from western capital accumulation, and analyzes the profound changes Chinn’s capital accumulation system experienced, great achievements as well as related problems after joining world system. China has become world’s second-largest economy unit and insists developing socialist system after the People’s Republic of China has been founded for over sixty years and the policy of reform and openness to the outside has been implemented for over thirty years. Since1990s, East Asia, with China as the centre, is gradually becoming the most vigorous economic area. Arrighi regarded China’s rise up as the key factor that changed current unequal capitalist accumulation mechanism to a more equitable world order. In the ending part of the paper, we will come back to this topic, but unlike Arrighi, we replace current unequal world system with the one established on regionalization in order to respond to the proposal of establishment of a more equitable world system.更多还原