Prole

作者/吳挺鋒

2-3﹑自由化與私有化

　　除了上述兩個發展﹐自由化與私有化也在差不多的時期開始進行。在1987年﹐菸酒專賣雖然繼續維持﹐但已在美方壓力下先行開放菸酒市場而完成了“消費自由化”﹙公賣局今已改制為台灣菸酒公司﹐並即將進一步私有化﹚。此外﹐公營事業的私有化也幾乎是在同一時間被端上了議程﹐同年則成立了“行政院公營事業民營化推動小組”為私有化敲槌定音。儘管當時的籌謀尚未到立即行動的地步﹐但實際上﹐私有化可說是日後必然兌現。因為對資本而言﹐要想挽救下滑的利潤率﹐則必須要有新的市場﹐若捨外移﹐則只好內求。在這樣的情況下﹐存在著大規模公營事業的台灣可說是一個不充分的市場﹐故公營事業遂成他們亟待拓荒的“大西部”。從1990年後﹐被官方牢牢掌握﹐且視為金雞母行業的銀行業開始自由化﹐16家新銀行獲准申設﹐不但證明覬覦者眾﹐同時這種高獲准率也說明了國家有意“放權讓利”。值得注意的是﹐私有化往往給了資本家之間一個合縱連橫的操兵機會﹐故在效果上等於讓資本家得以實質集結而逐漸培養出不同於以往的政治力量。此外﹐包括國家與其政治侍從—地方派系的關係也在這樣的情況下發生了改變﹐靠地方客運﹑信合社等區域寡占起家的老派系注定是這個新浪頭下的慢性淘汰者﹐唯有能夠打開地方格局﹐甚至向上擴張者才能佔領權力高地﹐取得全國性商銀﹙泛亞銀行﹚的長億楊天生家族可說是當時變局的箇中寫照﹐當時如日中天的長億再也不是屈居一地的土霸王﹐而是得以四方擴張的資本集團。誠然日後長億集團爆發了財務危機﹐而泛亞銀行也隨之易主﹐但這也說明了當初開放新銀行來試圖解決資本利潤率危機的作法只有短線刺激﹐長期的結構性問題並未真正獲得解決﹐故衍生了今日人人皆謂的銀行過度競爭﹙over-banking﹚問題﹐然而從RTC的例子我們還是可以看到雖然財政補貼不會是斧底抽薪的萬靈丹﹐但卻絕對無法撒手﹐甚至還有劑量加重的必要。

表二﹑債務存量﹙債務未償餘額占GDP比重﹚

年度 債務未償餘額 債務未償餘額／國內生產毛額
76 88,250 2.88%
77 138,425 4.11%
78 190,082 5.10%
79 198,843 4.83%
80 264,726 5.84%
81 566,117 11.14%
82 798,732 14.22%
83 915,310 14.79%
84 1,102,440 16.38%
85 1,225,592 16.71%
86 1,384,382 17.35%
87 1,384,062 15.95%
88 1,334,764 14.61%
88下半年及89 2,477,650 25.64%
90 2,807,718 29.42%
91 2,963,852 30.27%

資料來源﹕財政部國庫署﹐網址﹕ http://www.dnt.gov.tw/


表三﹑國債的流量指標﹙當年度舉借債務數占年度支出比重﹚

年度 當年度舉借債務數 支出總額 當年度舉借債務數／支出總額
　 不列入債限
單位﹕新台幣百萬元﹔％ 　 　 　 　

78 73,282 　 562,240 13.03%
79 44,386 　 726,014 6.11%
80 111,008 　 875,813 12.67%
81 340,266 1,098,361 30.98%
82 284,990 　 1,179,194 24.17%
83 174,078 　 1,098,333 15.85%
84 230,480 　 1,155,113 19.95%
85 214,202 　 1,204,279 17.79%
86 265,294 　 1,385,082 19.15%
87 109,671 　 1,260,039 8.70%
88 74,835 　 1,430,688 5.23%
88下半年及89 392,632 80,000 2,622,762 14.97%
90 277,000 99,160 1,826,577 15.17%
91 255,000 　 1,61,583 15.35%
資料來源﹕國庫署﹙2002/05/27﹚﹐網址﹕http://www.dnt.gov.tw/business/business208.asp
1﹑本表76年度至88年度下半年及89年度為審定決算數﹐90年度為院編決算數。
2﹑本表當年度舉借債務數及其占支出總額之計算不含債務基金為償還舊債而新舉借部分。
3﹑88下半年及89年為因應九二一震災依緊急命令舉借之800億元﹐及90年度九二一重建特別預算舉借之991.60億元排除排除公共債法規定限制。


三﹑國債危機

　　1990年代後﹐無論國民黨或民進黨所共同信奉的“本土化”其實是上述積累危機的政治反映。以所謂“本土菁英”作為甄補來源的國會﹙全面﹚改選則是這個新的權力關係歷經1980年代解嚴真空後的洗牌結果。這也是為什麼國民黨的技術官僚連番在證所稅復徵與土增稅改革二案慘遭“民意”痛擊的原因之一。不是郭婉容等人的能耐不如李國鼎﹐而是彼此所面對的環境已經截然有別。

　　這十多年來﹐台灣的減稅愈加頻繁﹐而且幅度愈來愈大﹐也說明了當時的資本積累危機實際上並未抒解﹐甚至還已經結構性地陷入到不透過財政機器扶一把便危機叢生的地步。1990年代後﹐台灣經濟成長率由早期的高度成長下滑到近年的中低度成長﹐甚至步上衰退皆為其證﹐而這也再次迫使國家非得以更大的力道進行財政補貼作為護持。

　　瞭解了這一點﹐則國債的鉅額累積便是必然的財政結果﹙見表二﹑三﹚。面對這筆還在滾的國債﹐事實上根本無從清償。癥結倒是非關財政調控的意願﹐而是一旦清償﹐則對下列兩個對象而言都意味了嚴重損失﹕一﹑持有國債的資本集團。特別是壽險等金融資本都持有大量的公債﹐一旦喪失了這個可靠﹑安全的孳息﹐則勢必對這個食利的金融資本構成打擊。二﹑原先被財政補貼的資本。清償國債對他們而言等於停止﹙同等程度的﹚補貼﹐而這將讓他們原先的利潤率縮水﹐其影響則是投資將進一步地緊縮﹐故最後的結果必然是更嚴重的經濟衰退﹐而這也是資本主義國家機器所無法坐視的。也因此﹐面對這個病情加重的資本主義﹐國家只能持續以財政補貼來緩和這個利潤率下降的危機。

　　如前所述﹐台灣的真實“貧富差距”早該重新換把量尺來檢驗﹐而朝向兩極分化的趨勢迄今更未停歇。若是再加計國債這個財政剝削機制﹐則我們務必理解到這筆國債總額的分攤絕非個人主義式的“每個納稅人平均負擔多少國債額”﹐或某種錯誤的世代政治口號﹐像是“債留子孫”。實際上﹐這筆國債之所以產生﹐係是因應台灣資本主義危機所衍生的財政產物﹐故環繞著國債的的利得與負擔其實是一個嚴肅的階級分配問題。資產階級根本無須負擔國債﹐因為他們是國家機器運用財政補貼的受益者與國債的製造者﹐反之勞工階級﹙包括他們的下一代﹚才是真正要面對國債償還的強制債務人。殊為明顯﹐當財政補貼走到了求助於國債這一步時﹐也意味了原有的稅收早已不敷這個補貼黑洞﹐此為勞工階級這個實際稅基同樣遭受到竭澤而漁的困境。

　　這個悲觀的圖像當然是台灣的不祥兆頭﹐其社會結果不只是貧富差距的加劇﹐而且還是兩極分化。惟若我們將層次放大到國際﹐則無論是西方的OECD國家或第三世界國家其實也都﹙也是更早﹚面臨到財政赤字高築的國債危機現象。換言之﹐這些現象都共同地指向了作為世界體系的資本主義恐怕已經到了被推進加護病房的階段。


from 《批判與再造》第三期

作者/吳挺鋒


一﹑前言

　　1980年代中晚期是台灣社會鉅變的分水嶺﹐斯時政治﹑經濟與社會等面向的議題紛至沓來﹑齊頭並進﹐在在讓當時的台灣得以一新。如今回顧﹐這個被打開來的解嚴空間一度讓政治﹑經濟﹑社會這三個領域對於未來的詮釋充滿了各種不確定的競逐。惟這個歷史機會卻是異常地短暫﹐並且從1990年代起便逐漸明朗化。由於社會運動的自身挫敗﹙例如遠化罷工慘遭撲滅﹐以及工黨的分裂﹚與國家機器的系統性鎮壓﹙例如郝柏村擔任閣揆期間對於“社運流氓”的掃蕩﹚﹐社運首先成為1990年代的敗部一員﹐而這也讓之後的台灣失去了對資本主義邏輯進行挑戰的活潑動能。
　
　　事後回顧﹐社運的燦爛一時與急遽失去能量﹐使得政治本土化﹙被等同於民主化﹔國民黨的李登輝與民進黨則是該符號的代表﹚與經濟自由化成為1990年代後的共識論述﹐而這兩者也試圖將社運所可能鼓動的不滿規訓成某種體制內爭餅的遊說﹑立法等壓力行動﹐並盡可能地使其對結構性的變遷無從發言與著力。面對這樣的變局﹐財政機器自然無法自外於這個新的圖像﹐而其財政狀況盛極而衰地由先前的財政平衡轉為經常性的赤字﹐則是這個新的社會權力關係角逐後的示意訊號。要言之﹐從1980年代末以降﹐台灣的財政機器愈來愈靠舉債賒借作為自身物質基礎的融通﹐而這也正是政治本土化與經濟自由化的財政調控共識所致。

　　政治本土化與經濟自由化之間所存在的親近性不只是邊緣化了曾經竄起的社運﹐同時也是受惠於舊的國民黨政府的統治基礎的瓦解。如果代表勞工﹑農民﹑婦女﹑生態等運動變得消沈﹐而成為難以撼動體制的耳邊雜音﹐則不難想見所謂政治“本土化”所希望召喚的歷史正當性基礎在有效排除上列後﹐真正甄選的對象便是他們的對立面﹕資本﹐以及“自由化”的利益。歷史地看﹐這毋寧是個大改變。因為在此之前﹐戰後國民黨政府的權力來源並不特別著重於與台灣社會本身的互動﹐甚至無須在正當性的經營上乞求於特定社會階級的認同首肯。關於這一點﹐我們可以從“中華民國在台灣”之所以延續乃首先受惠於美援所代表的政治支持瞭解一二。同時﹐我們也可以看到像李國鼎那種技術官僚出身的背景幾乎在政策制訂與執行上罕受當時社會的摯肘﹐根本無須顧慮社會的可能反映與抵制的情形得到另一旁證﹙反之﹐作為美援會要員的李國鼎往往扮演了蔣介石與美援團的核心中間人﹐這是他得以施展的彈性優勢位置﹚。此外﹐既然國府的正當性授權來源非來自於社會內部﹐故也讓政治上的有限選舉與軍事鎮壓的配套處在一個相對長期安枕無虞的狀況。也因此﹐即便是布爾喬亞階級也未必有意願質疑這樣的威權體制﹐而寧可選擇與之合作。最後﹐相對於台灣社會﹐國府所駕馭的國家機器之所以看似“凌空”﹐擁有高度的相對自主性﹐更見諸於財政調控模式。特別是菸酒專賣利益與公營事業盈餘對於財政收入貢獻的功能卓著﹙直到1980年代﹐兩者合佔財政收入比重約兩成﹚﹐致使國府得以透過這個龐大的國家資本﹙實際上為官僚資本﹚的控制與管理直接在財政上造血﹐而此情形在在不同於西方的賦稅國家﹙tax state﹚的存在需以市場布爾喬亞階級的支持為前提。

　　對於以反共復國為念的國民黨政府而言﹐誠如其宣示的台灣意象是一個“反共跳板”。在這樣的情形下﹐專賣的財政壟斷與公營事業部門可說是一種戰爭財政的動員形式﹐故與其倡議的“民生主義經濟”實際上是風馬牛不相及。或許拜戰爭之賜﹐國家資產與公營事業因此而被大規模地保留下來﹐儘管所託非人﹐但無論如何這都使得國府在推動資本主義發展或鞏固其統治基礎時﹐都享有了相對充裕的政治迴旋空間。關於這點﹐我們可以從台灣經濟快速發展時期的中小企業“向外做生意”﹐以及地方派系僅被容許擁有區域性的寡占事業﹙例如信合社﹑地方客運﹚可以獲得印證。


二﹑分水嶺

　　就財政觀察﹐從黑字轉為赤字的1980年代中晚期業已徵候性地說明了上述的情勢不再﹐而所謂“台灣經濟奇蹟”的色澤盡褪﹐以及利潤率的下滑所導致的積累危機則是其中關鍵。值此時刻﹐逐漸壯大卻遇瓶頸的資本則選擇了﹙1﹚從生產轉向貨幣投機﹔﹙2﹚資本外移與勞工輸入﹔﹙3﹚自由化與私有化三方並進的作法。而這也使得從1990年代起﹐國債愈滾愈大﹐財政補貼成了愈來愈難避免的支持手段。

2-1﹑所得與財富的分化與兩極化

　　從1980年代起﹐匯率的大升值﹑美國貿易報復與其他新興工業國家的工業競爭…都在當時構成了台灣外銷工業化積累的瓶頸。在這樣的情況下﹐我們看到了不堪利潤率降低的資本抽離出實質生產的投資而成為閒置貨幣﹐並對應了台灣史上頭一遭的股市﹑房市的雙雙狂飆。股﹑房市的旱地拔蔥與投機化使得我們對於貧富差距這個概念必須重新理解。官方所根據的“可支配所得”早已不敷現實﹐儘管我們仍可從官方的統計資料裡看出這個可支配所得的差距正在擴大中。但更細緻地講﹐靠薪資所得的藍﹑白領勞工階級與無須依賴所得﹐而是大量擁有股﹑房資產來構成財富的資產階級才是1990年代以後真實的“貧富”加劇的新推力之一﹐貧者賴之所得﹙當然﹐失業等同於所得的喪失與歸零﹚﹐而富者透過財富增值﹙誠如鴻海集團董事長郭台銘所說的﹐他每月只領16萬元。然而﹐他卻是台灣的科技首富﹐僅鴻海一年(2003)股利便約有135億元﹚。對應於財稅的反映﹐台灣雖然國民租稅負擔率年年滑落﹙2003年跌破13％創歷史新低﹚﹐但這並不意味薪資所得階級的財政負擔有所減輕﹐因為台灣的稅收主要來自所得稅﹐而其繳納者更有八成來自於薪資所得階級。反之﹐與土地﹑股市有關的財富形成﹑累積的賦稅政策如土增稅的按實價課徵與證所稅的免徵﹐皆使得這些財富的擁有罕受財政機器的干擾﹐甚至受其保護。是以﹐若說所得與財富之間的不同乃1990年代後的“貧富差距”的推力之一﹐則其財政機器則為其添加柴火助燃﹐而各擁所得與財富所導致的懸殊化也說明了台灣社會階級的兩極分化趨勢。不只如此﹐更由於台灣遺產稅的課徵效果淪為形式﹐因此也導致了富者的內部再生產甚至以準世襲的方式延續下來。

2-2﹑資本輸出與勞動力輸入

表一﹕我國產業賦稅減免概況

民國紀元 總計 占當年度稅收比重
80年度 464億元 5.7％
81年度 449億元 4.6％
82年度 461億元 4.4％
83年度 297億元 2.6％
84年度 225億元 1.8％
85年度 240億元 2.0％
86年度 308億元 2.4％
87年度 489億元 3.5％
88年度 554億元 4.4％
89年度﹙1﹚906億元 4.7％
90年度 696億元 5.5％

*此處所指的產業賦稅減免包括了外銷沖退稅﹑獎勵投資條例﹑促進產業升級條例。
資料來源﹕主計處第三局國情統計通報

　　資本遭受到利潤率降低的困境另有資本輸出與勞動力輸入作為替代應對。1980年代末也是台灣產業開始外移而引發“產業空洞化”爭議的序幕。如前所述﹐對於社運的鎮壓當然是國家試圖替資本力挽利潤率的作為之一﹐畢竟像是工運﹑環保運動都是資本邏輯擴張的阻礙。與此同時﹐財政手段的運用則是另一個重要的利潤率補貼來源﹐作為資本“根留台灣”﹑“投資台灣”的吸引。主要集中於公共建設﹐支出規模達五兆八千億的六年國建以高額舉債的方式來支應所需財源﹐率先開啟了赤字的閘門﹐其性質就像歐康諾﹙O’Connor, James﹚所說的該“社會投資”﹙social investment﹚使得資本所需負擔的成本得以外部化﹐進而成為私人資本的利潤率的財政輔助手段。除了內需公共建設的財政支出外﹐1990年尚有〈促進產業升級條例〉的通過﹐而這種具有隱藏性減稅效果的稅式支出更是對資本利潤率的系統性補貼﹙表一﹚。

　　除了財政手段的補貼外﹐廉價勞動力的供應也是另一緩和利潤率下降的來源。外籍勞工從1980年代進入台灣即是如此背景的產物﹐而1992年〈就業服務法〉的通過更意味了這個新勞動力政策被體系化地認可﹐並被細緻地操作。如果我們把外籍勞工政策當作國家對資本的補貼形式之一﹐那麼為了避免功虧一簣﹐則國內勞工也同樣是這個情境下的祭品﹐從職位的部分工時化﹑勞動條件的彈性化與基本工資的數年凍結都是如是對應下的衍生產物。


from 《批判與再造》第三期

【左看】 法利賽人東來　英日同盟孽種
文 趙萬來／大學教授

洋教，無論是羅馬公教或誓反新教來到東方，都是夥同殖民主義者的船堅砲利而橫柴入灶，從而發生很多「教案」，在在令人髮指。台灣亦然，不乏「上帝的選民」挾著約翰牛的威勢而對土著同胞大加糟蹋，血淚斑斑，並且隨著英日國同盟之成形，日軍據台獲得基督教長老教會大力支援，甚至台南首由洋牧師開城稱降，不但個人獲得天皇頒台唯二的旭日勳章，並且在底下50年的日據時代，基督教長老教會在總督府奧援下也得到大發展。

這是台灣人的一頁痛史，也是基督教長老教會欠台灣人一個道歉。哪想到，賣台突變為愛台，居然長老教會儼似台灣的守護神，倡導台獨，一次不夠，再一次鞭策民進黨政府，好像愛台第一名，牧師晉陞為國師。

天知道，長老教會傳福音無方，教友日益萎縮，青年團契遍湊不足，教堂未來要關閉的正有多多，不過是台灣宗教市場的一個零頭，還比不上佛道的任何一支小宗派，就憑這點能耐，不究既往，有什麼資格拉大嗓門，指點台灣前途？尤令人不屑的是，近20年在為台獨禮贊哈利路亞時，何曾為島上日益淪落並擴大的窮人說過公道話？這是一群法利賽人，從耶路撒冷流竄到這裡來，真是台灣的大不幸！

from 台灣立報《言論廣場》【左右看】2005-02-24

【左看】 販仔擅利，無惠於農
文 趙萬來／大學教授

宛如棄民的台灣農民時來運轉，連連受到北京大頭的點名示惠，胡錦濤、溫家寶、回良玉以及陳雲林都眾口一聲，頓成「寄望台灣人民」的標竿。時間發生在申請世貿組織12年終獲准入，並又屆滿3年過渡期的當口，也就是台灣農民盡遭放水，行將洪峰滅頂的緊要關頭，竟然出現我丟人撿的奇遇，真叫人仰天長嘆，這是救生圈？或徒然的一根稻草？抑是匪幫謀我的釣餌？

實在講，台北當局不用慌，北京當局不必喜，因為開門接納台灣水果進口，以及招徠台灣農民西渡種植的兩項政策很難得到預期效果。請兩岸的決策者睜眼看，台灣農產品的內銷市場從來不是農民所能涉足、訂價的，五十年如一日，就是「販仔」在操弄，極盡盤剝層朘之能事，務農淪為血牛，這是昭昭在人耳目的事實。如今面對遙遠而又廣闊的海外市場，更隔農民一萬重，不過是讓商販獨擅其利，北京爭取農心的意圖怕要落空。尤為反諷的是，今年在商人炒作下，果價翻高，只怕要得罪消費大眾。

至於農民移植大陸之事，歷有年矣！多是鎩羽而歸，蓋小農進入中國的農村大海，運途乖桀可想而知，這是10年來中南部由藍轉綠的內在動力，倘若中共不檢討前失，不澄清基層政府的吏治，理順土地產權關係，是則招農只會招怨。

from 台灣立報《言論廣場》【左右看】2005-03-17

為什麼要社會主義 (3)
阿爾伯特.愛因斯坦

現在，我已經可以簡要地說明，什麽構成了我們時代危機的實質，它涉及到個人對社會關係。如今，個人比以往更意識到他對社會的依賴性。但是，他不把這種依賴性當作一份堅實的資産、一條有機的紐帶和一種保護的力量，而是當作對他的天賦權利和經濟生活的威脅。另外，他的社會地位導致了利己傾向不斷加強，而天生較軟弱的社會傾向則進一步衰敗了。所有的人，不管他的社會地位如何，都在忍受著社會衰敗過程的煎熬。他們不自覺地做了利己主義的俘虜，他們感到不安全、孤獨，生活中失去了天真、樸實、單純和快樂。所以，人只有獻身於社會，才能找到短暫而充滿風險的生命的意義。

我的看法是：資本主義社會的經濟無政府狀況－－就像今天存在著的那樣，是問題的真正根源。我們看到，我們面對著龐大的工商集團，其成員之間不斷掠奪勞動的成果，這種掠奪不是訴諸武力，而是使人們忠誠地服從合法建立起來的規則。在這方面，重要的問題是認識生産資料，也就是說，生産消費品和作爲資本的物品所需要的整個生産能力，可以合法地、並且絕大部分是個人的私有財産。

爲了使問題更簡單明瞭，我把不享有生産資料所有權的那些人稱爲“工人”，儘管這不十分符合這個詞的習慣用法。生産資料的所有者處在購買工人勞動力的地位。工人使用生産資料，生産新的産品，産品變成了資本家的私有財産。這一過程的要害是，工人生産什麽和工人得到什麽之間的相互關係，兩者都依據真正的價值來衡量。在勞動合同是自由的情況下，工人所得並不取決於他所生産的産品的真正價值，而是取決於他的最低社會所需，以及資本家對勞動的需求同就業競爭中的工人數量的關係。工人的報酬不是由他所生産的産品價值決定的，在理論上懂得這一點是非常重要的。

私人資本趨向于集中在少數人手裏，其原因部分是由於資本家之間的競爭，部分是由於技朮的發展和勞動不斷加快的分工刺激著較大規模的生産單位的形成，犧牲了較小的生産單位。這樣發展的結果就是私人資本的寡頭政治，其巨大的權力根本不可能受到民主地組織起來的政治社會的有效控制。這是千真萬確的。因爲，立法機構的成員由政黨挑選，政黨的大量經費由私人資本家提供，其他方面也受私人資本家的影響。這樣，資本家實際上就把立法機構和選民分離幵來。結果，人民的代表不能充分保護沒有特權的那部分人的利益。還有，私人資本家必然直接或間接地控制著報紙、電臺和教育等等重要資訊來源的載體。一個公民想要得出客觀結論和理智地運用他的政治權利，是極端困難的，在大多數情況下是完全不可能的。

在資本私人佔有制經濟中，普遍遵循的主要原則是：首先，生産資料（資本）被私人佔有，佔有者們按他們認爲最適當的辦法來處置它們。其次，勞動合同是自由的。當然，不存在純粹意義上的資本主義社會，尤其應該注意到，工人經過長期艱苦的政治鬥爭，某些行業的工人已經稍稍稍改進了“自由勞動合同”的形式。但從整體來看，目前的經濟同“純粹”資本主義沒有太大的差別。生産是爲了利潤，不是爲了使用。沒有這樣的規定，即那些能夠工作和想要工作的人總是有就業的機會。一支“失業大軍”幾乎總是存在著。工人經常擔心失業。因爲失業和低收入的工人提供不了一個獲利的市場，因此後果是消費品的生産受到限制和社會承受著巨大的艱難困苦。技朮的進步常常導致更多的失業者，而不是在整體上減輕勞動負擔。資本家之間的競爭和與此相聯繫的利潤刺激，應該對資本積累和使用的不穩定性負責，它造成了日趨嚴重的衰退。無限制的競爭造成了勞動的大量浪費﹔也造成了對個人的社會意識的摧殘，這一點我已提到過了。

我認爲，摧殘人是資本主義的最大罪惡。我們的整個教育制度深受其害。它以誇張的姿態教學生去競爭，訓練他們崇尚物欲的成功，而這些都當作爲學生的未來生涯作準備。

我相信，只有一種辦法可以消滅這種邪惡的災禍，那就是建立社會主義經濟，同時建立以社會爲目標的教育制度。在社會主義經濟中，生産資料歸社會自身所有，並有計劃地利用。計劃經濟調節生産來適應社會需要，保障每個男人、女人和兒童的生活。個人所受的教育，加上激勵他的天賦才能，都會設法發展他對同類－－人們的責任感，從而取代當今社會對權力和功利的讚揚。

然而必須記住，僅有計劃經濟還不是社會主義。計劃經濟完全可能滋生出對個人的奴役。社會主義的建成，還需要解決若干及其困難的社會－政治問題。鑒於政治權力和經濟權力的高度集中，如何才能防止行政官員具有無限權力和傲慢自負？個人的權利如何得到保障和如何確保民主力量制約行政權力？

在當前向社會主義過渡的時代，釐清社會主義的目標與問題具有頭等的重要性。由於在目前的環境下，對這些問題的自由且不受阻礙的討論已被列為禁忌，我認為這本雜誌的創刊將是對公眾的重要幫助。


I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society.

The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor—not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production—that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods—may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals.

For the sake of simplicity, in the discussion that follows I shall call "workers" all those who do not share in the ownership of the means of production—although this does not quite correspond to the customary use of the term. The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist. The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms of real value. Insofar as the labor contract is "free," what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists' requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product.

Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.

The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized by two main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the "free labor contract" for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present day economy does not differ much from "pure" capitalism.

Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an "army of unemployed" almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers' goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.

This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.

I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?

Clarity about the aims and problems of socialism is of greatest significance in our age of transition. Since, under present circumstances, free and unhindered discussion of these problems has come under a powerful taboo, I consider the foundation of this magazine to be an important public service.

from Monthly Review

為什麼要社會主義 (2)
阿爾伯特.愛因斯坦

提出這樣的問題是容易的，但是有把握地回答這樣的問題是困難的。不過，我一定要盡我最大的努力。雖然我非常明白，我們的想法和努力常常是抵觸和模糊的，不能用簡易的公式表達出來。

人是一個單個的存在，同時又是一個社會的存在。作爲單個的存在，人設法維護他自己和他的親人的生存，滿足他個人的願望，發展他個人的天賦才能。作爲社會的存在，人想要得到他的同類－－人們的承認和愛戴，分享他們的快樂，慰籍他們的痛苦，改善他們的生活條件。這些經常衝突的各種努力說明了一個人所能達到的內在平衡程度和所能貢獻於社會利益的程度。這兩種努力的相對強度主要是由遺傳決定的。但人最終呈現出來的人格個性在很大程度上是由環境造成的，處於一定的環境，人在發展過程中發現了自身﹔人格個性也是由人所生長的社會結構造成的，由社會的傳統和對社會行爲的特殊方式的社會評價造成的。“社會”這樣的抽象概念，對人的個體來說，是指他與其同輩和所有前輩的直接或間接關係的全部總和。一個人能夠自己思想、感覺、奮鬥和工作，而他的身體、智力和感情是如此依賴於社會，以至不可能在社會框架之外想到他和理解他。正是“社會”供給人以食、宿、工具、語言、思考方式和大量的思想內容，他的生活才由於過去和現在億萬人的勞動及其成就而成爲可能，這億萬人就隱藏在小小的“社會”這個字眼的後面。

所以，個人對社會的依賴很明顯是一個不能抹煞的事實－－就像螞蟻和蜜蜂。然而，螞蟻和蜜蜂的整個生活進程、連同細微末節都由不變的遺傳本能所確定。而社會類型和人類的內在聯繫卻是很不固定地變化著。在受命于生物必然律的人類中，記憶力、聯繫組合的能力和口頭交流的能力已經取得了令人滿意的發展。這樣的發展體現在傳統、風俗習慣和社會組織系統中，體現在文學、科學和工程的成就中，體現在藝朮品中。這還在一定程度上解釋了，人如何能夠影響人自己的生活，在這個過程中有意識的思想和欲望如何能夠起作用。

人在出生時，通過遺傳獲得生物學素質包括人類種群特徵的自然衝動，我們肯定它是不變的。此外，人在一生中，還通過交往和許多其他方式的影響獲得了一種文化素質。文化素質隨著時間而變化，並在很大程度上決定著個人和社會之間的關係。現代人類學告訴我們，通過所謂原始文化的比較調查，根據流行的文化方式和主要的社會組織類型的不同，人類的社會行爲方式可能有很大的差異。正是在這一點上，那些努力改善人的命運的人們就能升起他的希望：人類不是由於生物學素質而注定要相互殘殺的，不是注定無法擺脫殘暴和自我傷害的命運的。

如果我們自問，爲了盡可能滿足人類的生活，社會結構和人的文化態度應該如何變化？那麽，我們要經常意識到，我們無力改變某些條件，正像上面提到的，人的生物性實際上是不易改變的。另外，近幾個世紀以來，技朮和人口統計學的發展所能創造的條件也已到此爲止了。對擁擠的人口及其維持生存的必需品來說，勞動的精細分工和高水準的生産設備是絕對必要的。回顧過去，似乎是田園式的，個人或小群體完全能夠自給自足，但這樣的時代已經一去不復返了。稍稍誇張一點說，人類在現在就構成了一個生産消費的星球社區。

Why Socialism (2)
by Albert Einstein

It is easy to raise such questions, but difficult to answer them with any degree of assurance. I must try, however, as best I can, although I am very conscious of the fact that our feelings and strivings are often contradictory and obscure and that they cannot be expressed in easy and simple formulas.

Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting, strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept "society" means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society—in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence—that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is "society" which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word "society."

It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished—just as in the case of ants and bees. However, while the whole life process of ants and bees is fixed down to the smallest detail by rigid, hereditary instincts, the social pattern and interrelationships of human beings are very variable and susceptible to change. Memory, the capacity to make new combinations, the gift of oral communication have made possible developments among human being which are not dictated by biological necessities. Such developments manifest themselves in traditions, institutions, and organizations; in literature; in scientific and engineering accomplishments; in works of art. This explains how it happens that, in a certain sense, man can influence his life through his own conduct, and that in this process conscious thinking and wanting can play a part.

Man acquires at birth, through heredity, a biological constitution which we must consider fixed and unalterable, including the natural urges which are characteristic of the human species. In addition, during his lifetime, he acquires a cultural constitution which he adopts from society through communication and through many other types of influences. It is this cultural constitution which, with the passage of time, is subject to change and which determines to a very large extent the relationship between the individual and society. Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation of so-called primitive cultures, that the social behavior of human beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns and the types of organization which predominate in society. It is on this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate.

If we ask ourselves how the structure of society and the cultural attitude of man should be changed in order to make human life as satisfying as possible, we should constantly be conscious of the fact that there are certain conditions which we are unable to modify. As mentioned before, the biological nature of man is, for all practical purposes, not subject to change. Furthermore, technological and demographic developments of the last few centuries have created conditions which are here to stay. In relatively densely settled populations with the goods which are indispensable to their continued existence, an extreme division of labor and a highly-centralized productive apparatus are absolutely necessary. The time—which, looking back, seems so idyllic—is gone forever when individuals or relatively small groups could be completely self-sufficient. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that mankind constitutes even now a planetary community of production and consumption.

from Monthly Review

為什麼要社會主義
阿爾伯特.愛因斯坦

一個不是經濟和社會問題的專家，要對社會主義問題發表意見，這是否可以呢？我的回答是肯定的，有以下一些理由。

首先，讓我們從科學知識的角度來考慮問題。天文學和經濟學之間似乎不存在方法上的根本不同，兩個領域的科學家爲了盡可能弄清楚一定範圍內現象之間的內在聯繫，都設法發現相應的一般規律。但實際上，方法上的不同的確存在。經濟領域中一般規律的發現是困難的，觀察到的經濟現象常常受難以單獨估計的許多因素的影響。此外，衆所周知，自人類歷史的所謂文明時期幵始以來，經濟的積累也一直極大地受到非經濟原因的影響和制約。例如，歷史上的多數大國，靠征服別國而存在，征服民族在法律上和經濟上是被征服國家的特權階級，他們自己掠奪了土地所有權的壟斷權。從自己的階層中委派教士，教士們控制教育，使社會的階級分化變成一種永久的制度。他們還創造了一套價值體系。從此，人們在很大程度上就不知不覺地遵循著這種社會行爲規範。

但是，就像人們所說的那樣，歷史傳統只是具有“昨天”。無論何地，我們還沒有真正克服了索爾斯坦﹒凡勃倫（1857-1929，美國經濟學家，主要著作有《有閑階級論》、《企業論》、《工程師與價格體系》－－譯者注）所稱作的人類發展的“掠奪階段”。觀察到的經濟事實全部屬於這個階段，以至我們從中推導出來的規律也不能用於其他階段。因爲社會主義的真正目的是要在克服和超越人類發展的掠奪階段，所以經濟學的目前狀況就不能說明未來的社會主義社會。

其次，社會主義還有一個社會倫理的目的。然而，科學不能創造目的，更不能把它們灌輸給人。科學最多能夠提供達到一定目的的手段。而目的本身是由具有崇高倫理觀念的人構想出來的。只要這些目的不是胎死腹中而是有生機和活力的，那麽它們將被許多人所接受並推向前進，這些人就會有意無意地決定著社會的逐步進化。

基於以上理由，我們應該注意：在涉及有關人類的難題時，不要過高估計科學和科學方法。我們也不應該設想，專家是唯一有權對影響社會組織的問題發表意見的人。一段時間以來，無數意見認爲，人類社會正經歷著一種危機，它的穩定性正遭到嚴重的損害。其特徵是：個人對他們所屬的大大小小的集體漠不關心甚至懷有敵意。爲了說清我的意思，讓我在這裏講一段我個人的經歷。前不久，我同一位聰明且友善的人討論未來戰爭的威脅。我的意見是，它將嚴重地危及人類的生存。我強調說，只有一個超國家的組織才能提供遠離危險的保護。我的客人若無其事，冷淡地對我說：“你爲什麽如此根深蒂固地反對人類毀滅呢？”

我敢說，在短暫的一個世紀以前，沒有人如此輕率地說出此類話。正是這類話說明了，他求得內心平衡的努力是徒勞的，他已或多或少失去了取得成功的希望。這表達了如今許多人正在痛苦地忍受著孤獨和隔絕。那麽，它的原因是什麽呢？人類還有沒有出路？


Why Socialism?
by Albert Einstein

This essay was originally published in the first issue of Monthly Review (May 1949).

Is it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express views on the subject of socialism? I believe for a number of reasons that it is.

Let us first consider the question from the point of view of scientific knowledge. It might appear that there are no essential methodological differences between astronomy and economics: scientists in both fields attempt to discover laws of general acceptability for a circumscribed group of phenomena in order to make the interconnection of these phenomena as clearly understandable as possible. But in reality such methodological differences do exist. The discovery of general laws in the field of economics is made difficult by the circumstance that observed economic phenomena are often affected by many factors which are very hard to evaluate separately. In addition, the experience which has accumulated since the beginning of the so-called civilized period of human history has—as is well known—been largely influenced and limited by causes which are by no means exclusively economic in nature. For example, most of the major states of history owed their existence to conquest. The conquering peoples established themselves, legally and economically, as the privileged class of the conquered country. They seized for themselves a monopoly of the land ownership and appointed a priesthood from among their own ranks. The priests, in control of education, made the class division of society into a permanent institution and created a system of values by which the people were thenceforth, to a large extent unconsciously, guided in their social behavior.

But historic tradition is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have we really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called "the predatory phase" of human development. The observable economic facts belong to that phase and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future.

Second, socialism is directed towards a social-ethical end. Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends. But the ends themselves are conceived by personalities with lofty ethical ideals and—if these ends are not stillborn, but vital and vigorous—are adopted and carried forward by those many human beings who, half unconsciously, determine the slow evolution of society.

For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society.

Innumerable voices have been asserting for some time now that human society is passing through a crisis, that its stability has been gravely shattered. It is characteristic of such a situation that individuals feel indifferent or even hostile toward the group, small or large, to which they belong. In order to illustrate my meaning, let me record here a personal experience. I recently discussed with an intelligent and well-disposed man the threat of another war, which in my opinion would seriously endanger the existence of mankind, and I remarked that only a supra-national organization would offer protection from that danger. Thereupon my visitor, very calmly and coolly, said to me: "Why are you so deeply opposed to the disappearance of the human race?"

I am sure that as little as a century ago no one would have so lightly made a statement of this kind. It is the statement of a man who has striven in vain to attain an equilibrium within himself and has more or less lost hope of succeeding. It is the expression of a painful solitude and isolation from which so many people are suffering in these days. What is the cause? Is there a way out?

from Monthly Review

【左看】金牌舉起，勞工倒下
李亮（文字工作者）

圍繞著金牌的榮光，中國派出了奪金精英團前往香港等地，更積極為2008北京奧運鼓動富強國家的氣氛；而台灣這邊，則是台灣正名、國旗外交、承認台灣國家等等話題，撲天蓋地而來，進一步昇溫台灣「愛國主義」。

在這種團結一致的快感中，傳來了新竹興達員工與重慶3403廠職工抗爭的消息。新竹的興達公司員工許多工齡都已有十多年，但因為老闆反覆非法資遣員工、涉嫌違法掏空公司資產及職福金，終於被迫進行抗爭，已歷月餘。幾經波折，雖於日前達成協議，但協議內容不利於勞方，更突顯出整個體制親資壓勞的問題。

對岸，重慶3403機械廠原為國有，近年因商官勾結掏空了公司資產，最終又欲以十分之一的價錢賤賣給指定的唯一一家公司。工廠的3000多職工為了保衛公產同時也是自己賴以維生的企業，奮起抗爭，卻引來資方與官方合作的暴力鎮壓……

這裡與那裡的資方與官方，在勞工倒下、或試圖反抗之際，共同舉起了金牌，唱起了國家的頌歌，要求團結一致。但如果社會已經分裂為兩個階級，國家也就只是統治階級的國家機器；掛上幾個金牌，又怎樣？


原載於<台灣立報>

【左看】疑雲重重，小心駕駛
李亮（文字工作者）

謝長廷上任閣揆，提出了「經濟─生態─社會福利的等邊三角形」之說，強調這三者必須保持等距平衡，才能共同發展。這種說法聽來四平八穩，但恐怕暗藏不少玄機。

首先，為什麼是這三個課題而不是其他？尤其是，很多重大議題根本無法用這種三分法來定位，比如當前爭議中的租稅上的公平正義。其次，就算我們退一步不去質疑這個三分法本身，我們還是不知道為什麼這三者要等邊？必須維持等邊意味著這三者之間具有某種連動或牽制關係，即經濟好其他也好，或社福太糟，經濟也會遭殃；但這實際並不成立，比如美國經濟超強，但社福極糟，有三千萬人活在貧困線以下。

同樣啟人疑竇的是，謝長廷在一場歡送會上說，希望自己的政績能反映在股市與國民所得上。以謝的聰明才智，當然不會不知道，國民所得不過是個平均數字，跟貧富差距、實質生活水平並不相干；而股市的漲跌主要取決於各種「信心」因素，並非實質經濟的榮枯。

因此，面對謝長廷拋出的這個疑雲重重的三角形，我們最好還是把它當成交通標誌裡的那個正三角形，即警告標誌，注意看看它後頭跟著些什麼東西。

原載於:台灣立報左右看 2005/2/2
http://www.lihpao.com/

I learned the earthquake calamity across south Asia region through the TV news few days ago, then get shock and very worried about the people there. After setting on the TV for a while, however, I found that one can really know very little about the local people there through the medias.

What those Western controled madias most concerned is the western tourists, added Taiwanese here. Some reporters are even busy on comparing the tsunami with some Hollywood's movies. Excepting this is the news about ambulance corps take off from whatever developed countries, who were been looked forward deadly by the helpless victims to "save" them, according to those medias. A friend said she remembered one BBC reporter saying, sri lanka is now on her knees waiting for international assistance to arrive....!!!

Well, those victims do need help. But they alreadly doing it, not just waiting there. To say somethings like that just exposes their superior imaginations of themselves. Western tourists are also victims, of course, but they are surely not the main ones. Why their experiences won so many close-up shots while the much much more local people were treated like simple objects, or even background, and mostly showed in the form of figures?

Even the earthquake itself is a natural disaster, people’s responses are not.