视频库 / REC_024
--:--
点击播放，这里会跟随视频显示当前句的中英字幕。
第 24 期 · 回应 Ⅲ·10「自由还存在吗？」
Capitalism vs. Socialism: A Soho Forum Debate
ReasonTV章节 · 点击跳转视频
0:00
预告与辩论规则说明
2:25
沃尔夫：美国为何七十年不谈社会主义
8:09
资本主义三宗罪：不稳定、不平等、不民主
15:24
新社会主义：工作场所民主化
20:10
爱泼斯坦：合作社本就是资本主义选项
25:21
社会化金融与劳动配置的知识难题
30:07
多数暴政、创新受阻与稀缺借口
37:43
反驳交锋：定义之争与书的归属
49:11
观众问答：学术排斥与不侵犯原则
61:30
死亡人数之争与蒙德拉贡案例
66:30
增长、工时与医疗产业复合体
77:08
国家角色与技术决定论
83:15
结语：社会主义复数形态 vs 对照实验
本期讲者
Richard Wolff马萨诸塞大学阿默斯特分校经济学荣休教授，哈佛、斯坦福、耶鲁出身的马克思主义经济学家，Democracy at Work 组织创办人，著有《工作场所的民主：资本主义的一剂良方》，主张以工人自主管理企业取代雇佣制。
Gene EpsteinSoho Forum 辩论系列创办人兼主席，曾任《巴伦周刊》经济编辑近 25 年，纽约证券交易所前高级经济学家，奥地利学派倾向的自由意志主义者，母亲为美共党员。
Nick Gillespie《理性》（Reason）杂志特约编辑、前主编，Reason 播客主持人，美国自由意志主义媒体的代表人物，本场辩论主持人。
01预告与辩论规则说明
0:00
Capitalism is unstable, capitalism is unequal, and capitalism is fundamentally undemocratic. I want people to make their own choices about how they live their lives, the professions they lead, where they want to work, and what they do. And capitalism offers that potential. Slavery it did it with masters and slaves, feudalism did it with lords and serfs, capitalism does it with employers and employees. Capitalism, private property, is necessary although not sufficient to a free and open society.
资本主义是不稳定的，资本主义是不平等的，而且资本主义从根本上说是不民主的。我希望人们能够自己选择如何生活、从事什么职业、在哪里工作、做什么事。而资本主义提供了这种可能。奴隶制是通过主人和奴隶来实现的，封建主义是通过领主和农奴来实现的，资本主义则是通过雇主和雇员来实现的。资本主义、私有财产，对于一个自由开放的社会来说是必要的，尽管还不够充分。
0:41
Please come up to the stage debaters two young men in the prime of their lives, Richard Wolff, who will be who will be defending the proposition socialism is preferable to capitalism as an economic system that promotes freedom equality and prosperity. Gene Epstein will be taking the negative on that. Each candidate, the way this will work is that each debater will have 17 and a half minutes, and that last thirty seconds when it comes you'll understand why it's there, but each of them will have 17 minutes and 30 seconds to lay out an initial case. They'll do five minutes each of rebuttal.
请两位正值壮年的年轻辩手上台，理查德·沃尔夫将为这个命题辩护：作为一种促进自由、平等与繁荣的经济制度，社会主义优于资本主义。吉恩·爱泼斯坦将持反方观点。规则是这样的：每位辩手有17分半钟，最后那30秒到时候你们就会明白它为什么存在，但每人有17分30秒来陈述开篇立论。然后每人做五分钟的反驳。
1:24
I'm gonna beat them up a little bit with a moderators prerogative on some questions, then we're gonna open it up to 30 minutes or more of audience Q&A. Five minutes each of closing statements—seven and a half and again those 30 seconds, you know this is where the world changes in those 30 seconds, and then we will take another vote, and we'll see who is the big winner. Gene could you please—and if you haven't voted yet, you've got about five seconds to go. Please make a vote. Either vote for the proposition, against it, or undecided.
我会以主持人的特权，用一些问题稍微为难他们一下，接着我们会开放30分钟或更长时间的观众问答。然后每人五分钟的结语——七分半，再加上那30秒，要知道，世界就是在那30秒里改变的，之后我们会再投一次票，看看谁是最大的赢家。吉恩，能不能请你——如果你还没投票，你还有大约五秒钟。请投票。要么支持这个命题，要么反对，要么弃权。
1:58
You need to vote now in order to vote later. And without further ado let's have Richard Wolff come up and explain to us why socialism is preferable to capitalism as an economic system that promotes freedom, equality, and prosperity. Richard Wolff you have the stage.
你必须现在投票，才有资格稍后再投。闲话少说，有请理查德·沃尔夫上台，向我们解释为什么作为一种促进自由、平等与繁荣的经济制度，社会主义优于资本主义。理查德·沃尔夫，台上交给你了。
02沃尔夫：美国为何七十年不谈社会主义
2:25
Thank you all for coming I assume that socialism is the reason that you came either for it or against it and I hope that the things I have to say will make some sense of it for you I did want to comment on the notion that Reason magazine is free and that the understanding Marxism book costs money and I want to urge you not to invert from the price what the values of these things are that would be a mistake it would be confusing the price with the value and for those of you that know something about socialist theory that's something you want to avoid okay socialism preferable to capitalism my basic argument is that's a very low bar that's not asking much and I want to make that case as strongly as I know how but I have a problem in the very beginning as I always do traveling around this country talking about this and that is we are like bears in this country coming out of a hibernation about seventy years of it since 1945 when everything changed from in a society in which socialists communists
感谢各位到场，我想社会主义就是你们前来的原因，无论是支持还是反对，我希望我要说的这些话能让你们对它有些理解。我确实想评论一下这个说法：《理性》杂志是免费的，而那本讲马克思主义的书是要花钱的，我要提醒各位，不要从价格反推这些东西的价值，那会是个错误，那是把价格和价值混为一谈，对于懂一点社会主义理论的人来说，这是你们要避免的。好，社会主义优于资本主义，我的基本论点是，这个门槛非常低，这要求并不高，我要尽我所能有力地论证这一点。但一开始我就有个问题，就像我在这个国家四处演讲谈论这个话题时总会遇到的那样：在这个国家，我们就像刚从冬眠中醒来的熊，冬眠了大约七十年，从1945年开始，那时一切都变了。在此之前，社会主义者、共产主义者、马克思主义者占据着社会中各种寻常的位置：教师、
3:57
Marxists occupied all the normal positions in society as teachers and workers and bureaucrats and unionists when we had a new deal that celebrated many of the objectives socialists have always supported it is across the United States had a big picture over the war the clerk's office where you bought stamps and there was Uncle Sam with his hat arm and arm with Uncle Joe which stood for Joseph Stalin after that there was not so surprisingly a terrible reaction the business community and the right-wing in America was horrified that for the 1930s we had had a program of raising taxes on corporations and the rich in order to fund the creation for the first time in American history of Social Security unemployment compensation the first minimum wage and a public employment project that hired fifteen million people the rich had to pay and the mass of the Americans got the benefits this was so horrific it freaked out the forerunners of the Koch brothers and then an alliance with the Soviet Union
工人、公务员、工会成员；那时我们有一场新政，它推崇许多社会主义者一贯支持的目标；全美国各地，在你买邮票的邮局办事处里，都挂着一幅战时的大幅画像，画的是山姆大叔戴着帽子，和乔大叔手挽着手，乔大叔代表约瑟夫·斯大林。在那之后，并不令人意外地出现了可怕的反弹，美国的商界和右翼被吓坏了，因为整个1930年代我们经历了推行了一项对企业和富人加税的政策，用这些钱在美国历史上第一次创建了社会保障制度失业救济、第一部最低工资法，还有一个雇用了一千五百万人的公共就业项目——富人出钱，而大多数美国人得到好处。这太可怕了，把科赫兄弟的前辈们吓坏了，随后与苏联结盟
5:24
finished off whoever wasn't freaked out already and so in 1945 everything had to be undone New Deal coalition for those of you who remember your history socialists communists the CIO unions representing tens of millions of American workers they're the ones that made all that happen they are the ones that made Roosevelt do all those things and they had to be defeated and they were the way you break up a coalition is you find the weakest link or what you can make out to be the weakest link and suddenly communists and socialists who had been the militants making the 1930s the greatest unionization period in American history they never had anything like it before we've never had anything like it since communists had to be transformed and likewise socialists from the great allies in the war from the great Vanguard of social programs in the 30s they became agents of a foreign power likely to be interested in strangling your cat and they had to be driven out of a unions at nineteen forty-seven taft-hartley driven out of their
更是把那些原本还没被吓到的人也彻底激怒了。于是到了1945年，一切都必须被推翻——新政联盟，对于你们这些还记得历史的人来说：社会主义者、共产主义者、代表数千万美国工人的产业工会联合会，正是他们促成了这一切正是他们逼着罗斯福做了那些事。所以他们必须被击垮，而他们确实被击垮了。瓦解一个联盟的办法，就是找出最薄弱的环节，或者你能把它塑造成最薄弱的环节。于是突然之间，那些让1930年代成为美国历史上最伟大工会化时期的激进分子——共产主义者和社会主义者——那样的时期此前从未有过，此后我们也再没有过。共产主义者必须被重新定义社会主义者也一样：他们从战时的伟大盟友、三十年代社会项目的伟大先锋，变成了外国势力的代理人仿佛还会有兴趣掐死你家的猫。他们必须被赶出工会——1947年的《塔夫脱-哈特利法》——被赶出他们的
6:44
teaching jobs driven out of the consciousness of the American people who were terrorized about being interested in those things as they have mostly been in the last 40 50 60 70 years a personal note when I went to college as a young person I was interested in learning about Marxism and I asked my teachers in the university what course can I take to learn about Marxism half my teachers explained to me there isn't any nobody here knows anything about it the other half said oh we know about it but we're way too scared we're not going to teach you anything about it in my undergraduate and my graduate years and I majored in economics I'm an economics professor here's a fact no one ever in any economics course assigned me one word of Karl Marx is that because he had nothing to teach us don't be silly they were just afraid 75 years of fear there's nothing smart and nothing excusable in any of that oh and let me mention since it might be of some interest to you the three schools I attended were
教职，被赶出美国人民的意识，人们被吓得不敢对这些东西产生兴趣，而这基本上就是过去四五十、六七十年的状况。说点个人经历：我年轻上大学时，很想学习马克思主义。我问大学里的老师，我能选哪门课来学马克思主义？一半老师告诉我，没有这样的课，这儿没人懂这个；另一半说，哦，我们懂，但我们太害怕了，我们什么都不会教你。在我的本科和研究生阶段，我主修经济学，我现在是经济学教授。事实是：从来没有任何一门经济学课程给我指定过卡尔·马克思的一个字。是因为他没什么可教给我们的吗？别傻了，他们只是害怕。七十五年的恐惧。这里头没有任何聪明之处也没有任何可以原谅的地方。哦，顺便提一句，你们也许会感兴趣：我念过的三所学校是
03资本主义三宗罪：不稳定、不平等、不民主
8:09
Harvard Stanford and Yale and if they don't have the courage what can you expect from Eastern Kentucky so I have a problem to talk to you about socialism because unless you are a very unusual American and there are some or a foreigner because the situation is different abroad you don't know much about socialism or what you do know is 75 years out of date because it's changed a lot as I'm going to point out to you as I go through the argument ok let's do it socialists disagree they always have from the beginning socialism is a product of capitalism it always was there was no socialism before capitalism came into being why because capitalism in the French and American revolutions made a big fat promise when it asked people to leave the feudalism that existed before and shift over to capitalism it made the promise as in the French Revolution that capitalism would bring with it liberty equality fraternity and let's add democracy and prosperity socialism is the movement that recognizes that what
哈佛、斯坦福和耶鲁。如果连它们都没有这个勇气，你还能指望东肯塔基怎么样呢？所以我要跟你们讲社会主义就有个难题因为除非你是个非常特别的美国人——确实有这样的人——或者是个外国人，因为国外情况不同，否则你对社会主义了解不多，或者你所知道的那些已经落后了七十五年，因为它变化很大，接下来我论证的过程中会一一指出。好我们开始。社会主义者们意见不一，从一开始就是如此。社会主义是资本主义的产物，一直都是。在资本主义出现之前，并不存在社会主义为什么？因为资本主义在法国大革命和美国革命中许下了一个天大的承诺。当它要人们离开此前的封建制度转向资本主义时，它承诺——就像法国大革命那样——资本主义将带来自由、平等、博爱，再加上民主与繁荣。社会主义就是这样一场运动：它认识到资本主义所承诺的自由、平等、博爱和民主并没有
9:32
capitalism promised liberty equality fraternity and democracy wasn't delivered and never was and the socialism is a movement which if it has anything in common among its different tendencies is a notion that we can do better than capitalism it's a yearning to do better it's the kind of yearning slaves had to go beyond slavery or serfs to go beyond feudalism employees and the people who empathize with them figure we can go better and do better than capitalism that's what socialism is beyond that socialists agree about three four floors failures of capitalism and again briefly to go through them but they're three capitalism is unstable capitalism is unequal and capitalism is fundamentally undemocratic let me briefly explain unstable every 47 years in every capitalist country on average there's an economic downturn not due to nature and not due to war just built into the system it's called the business cycle because it always comes back millions of people lose work businesses go out of business a crazy crash you know what it's like if you pick up the
兑现，也从来没有兑现过。社会主义这场运动，如果说它内部各种不同流派有什么共同点，那就是这样一个信念：我们能做得比资本主义更好。这是一种想要做得更好的渴望，就像奴隶渴望超越奴隶制、农奴渴望超越封建制那样。雇员们，以及同情他们的人认为，我们能超越资本主义、做得比它更好。这就是社会主义。除此之外，社会主义者们还在三四条资本主义的弊病上有共识。简单说一下，其实是三条：资本主义不稳定，资本主义不平等，而且资本主义从根本上不民主。我简单解释一下。不稳定：平均而言，每个资本主义国家每四到七年就会出现一次经济衰退，这不是因为天灾，也不是因为战争，而是内嵌在这个体制里的。它叫做商业周期，因为它总会卷土重来。数百万人失去工作，企业倒闭，疯狂的崩盘。你们知道那是什么样子。如果你翻翻财经媒体，就知道我们正等着下一次冲击，今年或者
11:01
financial press you know we're waiting for the next one to hit this year or next mr. Trump's biggest worry about being reelected is that it'll happen too soon he worries as we all do it's an unstable system that's crazy to live in a Sun stable system if you live with a roommate as unstable as capitalism you would have moved out long ago what an amazing thing to accept a system that every four to seven years threatens millions of people with unemployment lost income interrupted vacation interrupted education lost mortgage you name it then let's do the next one inequality Oxfam in England keeps track of these things and the latest number from them summarizes it all the 80 or 90 richest people in the United States together excuse me in the world have more wealth than the bottom half of the population three and a half billion people that's the achievement of capitalism that kind of distribution if you took away half the wealth of those eighty to a hundred people guess what they'd still be the richest people in
明年。特朗普先生对连任最大的担忧，就是它来得太早。他跟我们所有人一样担心。这是个不稳定的体制，太荒唐了活在一个不稳定的体制里。如果你的室友像资本主义这么不稳定，你早就搬走了。多么惊人的事情——竟然接受一个每四到七年就威胁数百万人失业、收入损失、假期中断、教育中断、房贷断供的体制，等等等等。那么说下一条：不平等。英国的乐施会一直在追踪这些数据，他们最新的数字就把一切都概括了：美国——抱歉，是全世界——最富有的八九十个人，他们的财富总和超过了底层一半人口，也就是三十五亿人。这就是资本主义的成就，这样一种分配。如果你拿走那八十到一百个人一半的财富，你猜怎么着？他们仍然是世界上最富有的人，只不过你现在有了一大笔钱可以用来解决
12:29
the world only you'd now have a vast amount of money to deal with the sickness the lack of education the absence of water the insufficiency of food of the vast majority of people what an achievement such inequality and now finally the lack of democracy the part of it you probably know and thought about is the buying of our political process on display every day everywhere you all see it you all know it but here's a part of the lack of democracy you might not have thought about long ago we got rid of kings queens we decided we didn't need somebody sitting at the top of society telling us all what to do so that we would all be or let's call it subjects that's what they called us so we got rid of the kings and queens and we said no you know we can we run this in a different way this political system we can all get together we can periodically vote and take steps and collectively make the decisions that used to be in the hands of the kings and the queens how interesting we democratized at least a little the politics and what we didn't do was to
绝大多数人的疾病、教育缺失、缺水、食物不足的问题。多了不起的成就啊，这样的不平等。现在最后一条：缺乏民主。其中你大概已经知道、也想过的那一部分，是我们政治进程被金钱收买，每天到处都在上演你们都看得见，你们都知道。但缺乏民主还有一部分你可能没想过。很久以前我们废除了国王和王后，我们认定不需要有个人坐在社会顶端命令我们所有人该做什么，让我们全都成为——姑且叫做臣民吧，他们当时就是这么称呼我们的。所以我们废掉了国王和王后，我们说，不，我们可以用另一种方式来运作这个政治体制，我们可以聚在一起我们可以定期投票、采取行动，集体做出那些过去掌握在国王和王后手里的决定。有意思的是我们至少在政治上稍微民主化了一点，但我们没有做的是把经济民主化。那么每一家企业内部有什么呢？一个小
13:52
democratize the economics so what do we have inside each enterprise a little king an owner a manager a Board of Directors a king in his Court who run everything will make all the key decisions what to produce how to produce where to produce and what to do with the profits everybody in the enterprise helps to produce if it's too difficult for you to hear me out then it's a sign that I'm getting to you thanks we're good please keep going please please hear a professor wolf please respect professor wolf we don't have democracy in our workplaces we never did the commitment to democracy is verbal in this society limited to that voting activity where we live but not where we work and as adults that's where we spend most of our time going to work being at work and recuperating from work in the workplace no democracy at all we do what we're told what we produce belongs to somebody else and we have no say over what they do with it how this is organized what the technology is and socialists therefore have said my god we can do
国王：一个老板、一个经理、一个董事会，一个国王和他的宫廷，掌管一切，做出所有关键决定——生产什么、怎么生产在哪里生产、利润怎么处理。企业里每个人都参与生产。如果你实在听不下去我说话，那正说明我说到你心里去了。谢谢。没事，请继续讲。拜托，拜托，听沃尔夫教授讲。请尊重沃尔夫教授。我们的工作场所里没有民主，从来就没有。这个社会对民主的承诺只停留在口头上，仅限于我们居住地的投票活动，而不在我们工作的地方。而作为成年人，我们大部分时间都花在那儿——去上班、在上班、从上班中缓过来。在工作场所根本没有民主。我们被吩咐做什么就做什么，我们生产的东西属于别人，我们对他们拿它做什么毫无发言权，对怎么组织、用什么技术也毫无发言权。所以社会主义者说，天哪，我们能做得比资本主义更好。这就是他们想要的，这就是他们的共识
04新社会主义：工作场所民主化
15:24
better than capitalism and that's what they want and that's what they agree on but here's where the disagreements how do you go about it what do you do and we have a benefit socialists do today we have some experiments that were made in the 20th century Russia China Cuba and so on and we learned from those experiments what works and what doesn't what should be pursued and what should be set aside and so the new socialism and if you're not aware of it that has to go back to what I said at the beginning you haven't been keeping up which is hard to do in a society which makes socialism a taboo what has happened to socialism is a refocusing of itself it's not interested so much in the state doing things that achieved rapid rates of economic growth true enough but it also left too much power in the hands of too few people and that has to be addressed and dealt with which socialists have been doing and the new focus a new focus of socialism is to do something at the workplace that was never done to go beyond capitalism in the
但分歧就在这儿：你要怎么做？你具体做什么？而我们今天的社会主义者有个优势：我们有二十世纪做过的一些实验俄国、中国、古巴等等。我们从这些实验中学到了什么行得通、什么行不通，什么该继续推进、什么该放到一边。于是有了新社会主义——如果你不知道这些，那就回到我一开始说的：你没有跟上而在一个把社会主义视为禁忌的社会里，跟上是很难的。社会主义发生的变化，是它重新聚焦了。它不再那么关心由国家出面去做事——那确实实现了快速的经济增长，没错，但它也把太多权力留在了太少数人手里，这一点必须被正视和解决，社会主义者们一直在做这件事。而新的焦点，社会主义的新焦点，是在工作场所做一件从未做过的事：在工作场所的组织方式上超越资本主义，让工作场所民主化，让
16:39
organization of the workplace to democratize the workplace to make where we spend most of our adult lives at work a place where democracy reigns where all the people who work in an enterprise participate in making the decisions of what to produce how to produce where to produce and what to do with the profits because if they all together made those decisions we wouldn't give some people a hundred and fifty billion dollars and other people have to borrow money to get their kid through college we wouldn't have the inequality we certainly wouldn't allow the irrationality of every four to seven year instability everybody together would choose a technology that isn't dangerous to the health of all of us at the workplace we could go beyond the capitalism but we have to have the courage to do what was not yet done not in Roosevelt's New Deal and not in Russia or China either the transformation at the base of society into a Democrat eyes workplace that's the new direction of socialism that's where socialism will be in 21st century that we are now entering
我们成年后大部分时间所待的工作场所，成为一个民主当家作主的地方，让企业里所有工作的人都参与决定生产什么、怎么生产、在哪里生产、利润怎么处理。因为如果他们一起做这些决定，我们就不会给某些人一千五百亿美元，而另一些人却要借钱才能供孩子读完大学。我们不会有这样的不平等，我们当然也不会容忍每四到七年一次的不稳定这种荒谬。大家一起就会选择那种对我们所有人在工作场所的健康没有危害的技术。我们本可以超越资本主义，但我们必须有勇气去做那些还没有做过的事——罗斯福的新政没做过俄国和中国也没做过：把社会的基层改造成民主化的工作场所。这就是社会主义的新方向这就是社会主义在我们正步入的二十一世纪的样子。它是一种新的、不同的社会主义，它从自己早期的
17:59
it's a new and a different socialism it has learned from its own earlier experiences and experiments two little footnotes capitalism did not emerge out of feudalism all finished in one swell foop did it if you know the history you'll know that capitalism started in this town in that town in that village in that area often it didn't last more than a few weeks or a few months sometimes a few years and then it was crushed by feudalism and they had to figure out how to survive and they had to get together it took centuries socialism isn't born all at once either it makes its early experiments it had won in the Paris Commune in 1870 and then it had some other experiments in the 20th century that I've mentioned and just like with capitalism you learn from your experiments how to make it better next time how to correct the mistakes you made in the project that has animated socialists from the beginning we can do better than capitalism and there is no reason that the human progress that took us beyond ancient villages and tribes and slavery and
经历和实验中吸取了教训。两点小注脚：资本主义并不是从封建制度中一举脱胎、一次性完成的，对吧？如果你了解历史你就会知道，资本主义在这个镇、那个镇、那个村、那片地区先后出现，往往维持不了几个星期或几个月有时几年，然后就被封建势力碾碎了。他们必须想办法生存下来，必须联合起来，这花了好几个世纪社会主义也不是一夜之间诞生的。它做过早期实验：1870年的巴黎公社赢过一次，然后在二十世纪还有我提到的另外一些实验。就像资本主义一样，你从自己的实验中学习，学会下一次怎么做得更好，怎么纠正你犯下的错误，去完成那个从一开始就激励着社会主义者的事业：我们能做得比资本主义更好。而且没有理由认为那个带我们走出古代村落、部落、奴隶制和封建制的人类进步，会自以为到此为止。其他每一种制度
19:19
feudalism should imagine itself to have stopped at this point every other system was born evolved and died capitalism we know was born and evolved I'll leave it to your inference as to what it is doing now thank you
都曾诞生、演变、消亡。资本主义，我们知道，已经诞生并演变过了，它现在正在做什么，我留给你们自己去推断。谢谢
19:46
right thank you Richard Wolffe follow him follow him on Twitter at at Richard D wolf with two EPs and now taking the opposite side is Jean Epstein follow him at Gina at Jean Soho for him Jean Upstate what is he
好，谢谢理查德·沃尔夫。关注他，在推特上关注他，@RichardDWolff，两个f。现在站在对立面的是吉恩·爱泼斯坦，关注他@GeneEpstein，Soho论坛的吉恩·爱泼斯坦。他是……
05爱泼斯坦：合作社本就是资本主义选项
20:10
by the way there are seats up front for people who are in the back and I want to apologize to professor Wolff for that outburst that was very brewed we don't run the Scylla forum that way and and thank you for professor Wolff for being gracious about that well let me start it is a pleasure to share a stage with Richard Wolff who I consider my alter ego in a parallel universe we both came of age as socialists in my case from age 1 since my mother was a card-carrying member of the Communist Party and I have our FBI file to prove it you could always tell who the FBI agents were in the party because they were the only ones who paid their dues on time Richard Richard paid his dues by getting an economics PhD at Yale followed by a career advocating socialism I paid my dues by evolving into a different kind of radical a bleeding-heart freedom-loving advocate of capitalism I believe that even the deeply flawed capitalism we have now heavily distorted by a government interference on behalf of the powerful is preferable by far to Richard's socialism in promoting freedom
顺便说一下，前面还有空座，后面站着的朋友可以往前坐。我要为刚才那次打断向沃尔夫教授道歉，那太没礼貌了，我们办Soho论坛不是这么办的。也谢谢沃尔夫教授对此的大度。好，我开始了。很荣幸能与理查德·沃尔夫同台，我把他看作平行宇宙里的另一个我。我们都是作为社会主义者长大的——就我而言是从一岁开始，因为我母亲是共产党的正式党员，我手上有我们家的FBI档案可以为证。在党内你总能认出谁是FBI的探员，因为他们是唯一按时交党费的人。理查德是通过在耶鲁拿到经济学博士学位、然后一辈子鼓吹社会主义来还他的“会费”的。我还“会费”的方式，是演变成另一种激进派：一个心肠软、热爱自由的资本主义拥护者。我相信，即便是我们现在这种严重有缺陷、被政府为强者服务的干预大大扭曲了的资本主义，在促进自由、
21:30
prosperity and equality Richard bears a very heavy burden of proof because his socialism has never existed he repudiates my mother's Soviet Union my mother's favorite Cuba he has indeed called these systems state capitalist I'm glad he's learned from their mistakes since their mistakes has in fact of course cost the blood of tens of millions of innocent people he wants the economy as he explains in his book democracy at work a cure for capitalism he wants the economy reorganized around workers self-directed enterprises in which employees owned and democratically run companies and keep the broadly defined profits or surplus that normally go to the employers I fully support what Richard calls employees becoming their own employers so long as people freely choose that arrangement Richard thinks such firms are a substitute for capitalism but there are actually just another option that capitalism offers nothing about the system of practicing of protecting property rights of firms in a free market dictates how these
繁荣与平等方面，也远远优于理查德的社会主义。理查德背负着非常沉重的举证责任，因为他的那种社会主义从未存在过。他否定我母亲的苏联，否定我母亲最爱的古巴，他甚至把这些制度称为国家资本主义。我很高兴他从它们的错误中吸取了教训，因为那些错误当然实实在在地让数以千万计的无辜者流血。他希望的经济——正如他在《工作场所的民主：资本主义的一剂良方》一书中所阐述的——是围绕工人自主管理企业重新组织的经济：由雇员拥有并民主管理公司，并保留通常归雇主所有的广义利润或剩余。我完全支持理查德所说的“雇员成为自己的雇主”，只要人们是自由选择这种安排。理查德认为这样的企业是资本主义的替代品，但它们其实只是资本主义提供的另一种选项。自由市场中保护企业产权的那套制度丝毫没有规定这些企业必须如何组织。理查德自己就写到过，引用他的话，工作场所中已经存在的
22:50
firms must be structured Richard himself has written about the quote varying kinds and degrees of democracy in the workplace which already exist based on these cases he observes quote workplace democracy responds to deep needs and desires unquote but these deep needs and desires seem to run only skin-deep Richard has written that in today's worker owned enterprises quote it might be legally possible for worker owners to transform the enterprise so that they become not only owners but also collectively directors however he concedes that has very rarely happened well no doubt it very rarely happens because workers very rarely want it to happen but the move to workers self-directed enterprises can happen in the capitalist system if workers do want it to happen start with the fact that the bottom half of the population accounts for one third of all consumer spending the bottom four fifths for nearly two-thirds give adding up to trillions of dollars per year on the investment side there's over a trillion
“各种类型和程度的民主”。基于这些案例，他观察到，引用：“工作场所民主回应了深层的需要与渴望。”引用完毕。但这些深层的需要与渴望似乎只是浮于表面。理查德写道，在今天的工人所有制企业里，引用：“工人所有者在法律上或许有可能改造企业，使他们不仅是所有者，也集体成为管理者。”然而他也承认，这种情况极少发生。这当然极少发生，因为工人极少希望它发生。但如果工人确实希望它发生，那么转向工人自主管理企业在资本主义制度下是可以实现的。先看这个事实：底层一半人口占全部消费支出的三分之一，底层五分之四的人口占将近三分之二，加起来每年是数万亿美元。在投资端，国内工会养老基金有超过一万亿美元，全球养老基金持有的资产估计有
24:04
dollars in labor union pension funds domestically and an estimated forty 40 trillion a worldwide held by living in pension funds all this financial firepower could be marshaled to make workers self-directed enterprises the dominant mode of production and it would be true to the 1960s view that radical change must be implemented by the same people who seek to be the embodiment of that radical change but being willing of workers to follow the Marxist playbook is as old as Marxism itself around 1980 democratic socialists like Michael Harrington and Tom Hayden advocated a bottom-up socialism similar to Richards but they acknowledged that without the coercive power of government worker owned enterprises quote are almost impossible to get off the ground as two of them wrote Richard might argue that it's okay to use government power to try to jumpstart workers self-directed firms since government often rigs the game anyway but a Marxist like Richard should be deeply troubled by the old contradiction of radical
四十万亿美元。所有这些财力都可以被调动起来，让工人自主管理企业成为主导的生产方式。而且这也符合1960年代的观念：激进变革必须由那些寻求成为这种变革化身的人自己去实现。但工人是否愿意照马克思主义的剧本走，这个问题和马克思主义本身一样古老大约在1980年，迈克尔·哈林顿、汤姆·海登这样的民主社会主义者主张一种与理查德类似的自下而上的社会主义，但他们承认没有政府的强制力，工人所有制企业，引用，“几乎不可能起步”，这是他们其中两人写下的。理查德也许会说既然政府本来就经常在操纵这场游戏，那么用政府权力去启动工人自主管理企业也无妨。但一个像理查德这样的马克思主义者，本应对这个由来已久的矛盾深感不安：自下而上的激进变革，却要靠自上而下的政府力量来
06社会化金融与劳动配置的知识难题
25:21
change from below being being implemented by the force of government from above and beyond that he would use government to socialize finance and the allocation of labor that's why he and I are taking opposite sides in this debate he advocates a full-blown form of socialism that will put freedom prosperity and equality under siege just like the old socialism's did but let's go all the way with Richard and assume that a socialist political party wins at the ballot box with two-thirds of the electorate voting for its candidates since two-thirds is normally interpreted in politics as a mandate the government makes Richards socialism a reality but voting for a radical idea in a voting booth is very different from a full and active commitment to that idea so let's not assume that the 2/3 have anticipated the real consequences of what they voted for Richard writes that apart from doing our assigned jobs workers would each be quote democratically and collectively given fully equal participation in
实现。而且除此之外，他还要用政府来把金融和劳动力配置社会化。这就是为什么他和我在这场辩论中站在对立面他主张的是一种彻头彻尾的社会主义，它会像旧社会主义那样，让自由、繁荣与平等陷入围困。不过我们不妨顺着理查德的思路走到底，假设一个社会主义政党在选举中获胜，三分之二的选民投票支持它的候选人既然三分之二在政治上通常被解读为民意授权，政府就把理查德的社会主义变成了现实。但在投票间里为一个激进主张投票，和对这个主张作出全面而积极的承诺，完全是两回事。所以我们别假定这三分之二的人预料到了他们所投的票会带来的真实后果。理查德写道，除了完成分配给我们的工作之外，每个工人还将，引用，“民主地、集体地获得完全平等的参与权，
26:35
decision-making over their own enterprise and over the broad economy unquote he adds somewhat ominously quote no one could work without engaging in both roles there will be a need for financing under Richard socialism both to create new worker owned companies and to provide funds for enterprises that want to expand they quote obvious alternative writes Richard to the existing sources of finance is quote socialized banking consisting of quote workers self workers self-directed enterprises where workers and communities affected by bank policies together direct and operate banks so Richard would shut down the nearly fifty billion raised annually through crowdfunding and the several hundred billion raised through various forms of venture capital and Finance is not the only function he would relegate to the power of politics he also proposes a quote specialized agency that would quote always know from constant monitoring monitoring which existing enterprises need more laborers which have registered the wish to commence new
来决定自己企业以及整个宏观经济的事务”，引用完毕。他还有点不祥地补充道，引用：“任何人都不能不同时承担这两种角色。”在理查德的社会主义下会需要融资，既要创办新的工人所有制公司，也要为希望扩张的企业提供资金。理查德写道，取代现有融资渠道的“显而易见的替代方案”，是“社会化银行业”它由“工人自主管理企业”构成，受银行政策影响的工人和社区共同指挥和运营银行。所以理查德会关停每年通过众筹募集的近五百亿美元，以及通过各种形式的风险资本募集的数千亿美元。金融还不是他唯一要交给政治权力去掌管的职能。他还提议设立一个，引用，“专门机构”它将，引用，“通过持续监测始终知晓”：哪些现有企业需要更多劳动力，哪些企业登记了想要开始新
27:49
production all the relevant skill and experience requirements and where effective laborers and enterprises are located unquote he adds that the agencies reports would be submitted to all workers to aid them in making their decisions notice that he's talking about knowledge of the relevant skill and experience of 160 million workers in the US across hundreds of thousands of firms that's information the specialized agency will quote always know from constant monitoring from my work experience I can tell Richard that those constant monitors who keep coming around will be the butt of jokes and the information they come away with will be superficial when it isn't totally misleading so in Richards world will be recorded to our assigned jobs attend meetings about company matters and vote on the outcomes will also have to pour over the reports of the labor allocation financial agencies and then discuss their recommendations with many others and vote on those outcomes I submit that only in a dystopian nightmare can most of us imagine
生产的意愿，所有相关的技能和经验要求，以及有效的劳动者和企业分别位于何处，引用完毕。他还补充说，该机构的报告将提交给所有工人，帮助他们做决定。请注意，他谈的是掌握全美一亿六千万工人、横跨数十万家企业的相关技能和经验信息——而这些信息，那个专门机构将，引用，“始终知晓”，来自不断的监督——以我的工作经验，我可以告诉Richard，那些老是跑来监督的人只会成为大家的笑柄，而且他们得到的信息就算不是完全误导人的，也是浮于表面的。所以在Richard的世界里，我们要去做分配给我们的工作、参加关于公司事务的会议并对结果投票，还得仔细研读劳动力分配机构和金融机构的报告，然后和很多人讨论他们的建议，再对那些结果投票。我认为，我们大多数人只有在反乌托邦式的噩梦里，才能想象
28:56
ourselves spending our waking hours in this way is since the vote of any of us any one of us can hardly determine the outcome anyway Richard approvingly uses the 1960s term participatory democracy in which we each get to participate actively in democratic decision-making in a 1970 book called after the revolution sociologist Robert Dowell explained the arithmetic --all unworkability of this idea if each attendee at a meeting were given just ten minutes to address the issue of being voted on it would take ten hours to move on to the next issue provided there were only 60 people at the meeting but let's take this leap and assume the participatory democracy would be functional many firms seeking to expand their operations will have to borrow funds from their democratically run financial agencies while also applying to the democratically run run labor allocation agency for more workers and these democratically run agencies will be ruled by the vote of the majority but to pick up on an objection raised by
自己把醒着的时间都花在这种事情上——因为我们当中任何一个人的那一票，几乎都决定不了结果反正如此。Richard赞许地使用了1960年代的说法“参与式民主”，也就是我们每个人都能积极参与民主决策在1970年出版的《革命之后》一书中，社会学家罗伯特·达尔（Robert Dahl）从算术上说明了这个想法根本行不通：如果每位与会者只有十分钟来就要表决的议题发言，那么要进入下一个议题就得花上十个小时，而这还得假设会上只有60个人。不过，让我们大胆假设参与式民主是可行的。许多想要扩大经营规模的企业，将不得不向民主运作的金融机构借款，同时还要向民主运作的劳动力分配机构申请更多工人，而这些民主运作的机构由多数人的投票说了算。但接着说一个反对意见，是由
07多数暴政、创新受阻与稀缺借口
30:07
Atlantic magazine journalist Conor freeters Dorf we might ask how easy will it be to get the democratically run finance and labor allocation agencies to support the expansion plans of firms that produce muslim prayer rugs and quran's and the building of new mosques freeters Dorf goes on to ask would you prefer a socialist society in which birth control is available if and only if a majority of workers exercising their democratic control a sense or would you prefer a society in which private businesses can produce birth control in part because individuals possess economic rights as producers and consumers the preferences of a majority of people around them be damned unquote freedom self question applies to the related issue of freedom of speech and press would you prefer a socialist society in which dissenting journalism is available if and only if a majority of workers exercising their democratic agrees or would you prefer a society in which private enterprises can produce dissenting journalism the preferences of a majority of people around them be
《大西洋月刊》记者Conor Friedersdorf提出的：我们可以问，要让民主运作的金融和劳动力分配机构去支持那些生产穆斯林祷告毯和《古兰经》的企业的扩张计划、支持新建清真寺，会有多容易？Friedersdorf接着问：你会更愿意生活在这样一个社会主义社会里——只有当行使民主控制权的多数工人同意时，避孕用品才能提供；还是你更愿意生活在这样一个社会里——私人企业可以生产避孕用品，部分原因在于个人作为生产者和消费者拥有经济权利，周围多数人的偏好见鬼去吧。引文结束。同样的问题也适用于相关的言论和出版自由问题：你更愿意生活在这样一个社会主义社会里——只有当行使民主权利的多数工人同意时，异见新闻才能存在；还是你更愿意生活在这样一个社会里——私人企业可以做异见新闻，周围多数人的偏好
31:25
damned so at best our freedoms would be circumscribed by the tyranny of the majority but we don't have to press this decisive objection since the overwhelming likelihood is that elected representatives and their appointees will have most of the real power there won't be enough hours in the day for us to even be aware of the thousands of decisions being made each day on our behalf special interests will form around these centres of power and as Friedrich I act accurately predicted about conventional socialism the worst will get on top because power-hungry people are mainly the ones who end up on top our most beloved living ex President Barack Obama was called by the New York Times journalist James risen quote the greatest enemy of press freedom in a generation unquote as left-wing journalist Glenn Greenwald has pointed out Obama used the archaic 1917 Espionage Act to prosecute more journalists including James risen than all previous presidents combined so freedom of speech and press is a fragile
见鬼去吧。所以，我们的自由充其量也会被多数人的暴政所限制。不过我们不必死抓着这个决定性的反对意见不放，因为压倒性的可能性是，真正的权力大部分会落在民选代表和他们任命的人手里。我们一天当中根本没有足够的时间去了解每天以我们的名义作出的成千上万个决定。特殊利益集团会围绕这些权力中心形成。正如哈耶克（Friedrich Hayek）对传统社会主义所作出的准确预言：最坏的人会爬到最上面，因为渴望权力的人往往才是最终掌权的那些人。我们最受爱戴的在世前总统巴拉克·奥巴马，被《纽约时报》记者James Risen称为“一代人当中新闻自由最大的敌人”。正如左翼记者Glenn Greenwald指出的，奥巴马动用了1917年那部老掉牙的《间谍法》来起诉记者——包括James Risen在内——起诉的人数比此前所有总统加起来还多。所以言论和出版自由是很脆弱的
32:39
thing constantly being Assent assaulted on all sides and especially by government if you magnify the reach and power of government under Richards plan politicians in power can stifle dissent by stealthily denying funds and labor to enterprises that put out information that government doesn't want published now take the issue of prosperity take the force that brings prosperity innovation or what economist Joseph Schumpeter called creative destruction Richard thinks that as long as people can be offered another job they'll agree to giving up their current job to allow creative destruction to happen but since people naturally resist change efforts at major or even minor change would likely be thwarted by special interests reluctant reluctant to give up their established positions imagine the response if Steve Jobs sought funding for a smartphone that would also replace a flashlight a watch a camera a compass a calculator a recorder CD player and GPS navigator threatening the industries that turn out those products the pattern of
东西，不断受到各方面的攻击，尤其是来自政府的攻击。如果按照Richard的方案去放大政府的触角和权力，当权的政客就可以暗中不给那些发布政府不想公开的信息的企业提供资金和劳动力，从而扼杀异见再说繁荣的问题。看看带来繁荣的那股力量——创新，也就是经济学家约瑟夫·熊彼特所说的“创造性破坏”Richard认为，只要能给人们提供另一份工作，他们就会同意放弃现有的工作，让创造性破坏得以发生但由于人天生抗拒变化，重大甚至微小的变革努力，都很可能被那些不愿放弃既得地位的特殊利益集团所阻挠。想象一下，如果史蒂夫·乔布斯为一款智能手机寻求资金，而这款手机还会取代手电筒、手表、相机、指南针、计算器、录音机、CD播放机和GPS导航仪，威胁到生产这些产品的行业，会是什么反应。这种
33:55
obstruction will be emboldened by the malla by the knowledge that most new ideas fail and few succeed in a big way anyway policies toward imports could make Donald Trump look like a free trader Wednesday when consumers voted with their dollars to buy Japanese cars because the cars were better made and lasted longer there was a market in place that made it hard to stop the imports but in a politicized environment the threatened industries would find it easy to prevent the foreigners from selling us the cars the planners will have a perfect excuse for rejecting any project or proposals they don't like the economic reality of scarcity by yesterday I mean the fact that what everybody wants always adds up to more than there is so they can reject proposals they don't like on the reasonable grounds that the resources are simply not available so freedom and prosperity would both be under siege in Richards system of socialism on inequality as Noam Chomsky has pointed out you can find income equality in a
阻挠还会因为“反正大多数新点子都会失败、真正大获成功的很少”这种认知而更加有恃无恐对进口的政策会让唐纳德·特朗普看上去像个自由贸易者。当年消费者用手里的钞票投票去买日本车，因为那些车做工更好、更耐用，当时有一个市场机制在，使得进口很难被阻止。但在一个政治化的环境里，那些受到威胁的行业会很容易就阻止外国人把车卖给我们。计划者会有一个绝佳的借口来否决任何他们不喜欢的项目或提案，那就是稀缺这一经济现实——我指的是，所有人想要的东西加起来，总是超过现有的数量。于是他们可以用“资源根本不够”这个听上去合情合理的理由，否决他们不喜欢的提案。所以自由和繁荣在Richard的社会主义制度下都会受到围攻。至于不平等，正如诺姆·乔姆斯基指出的，你在监狱里也能找到收入平等，
35:01
prison where power is quite unequal and political power will be more unequal than even under a flawed system of capitalism the floor system we have is preferable by far to what Richard proposes in terms of freedom prosperity and equality because we have so many avenues of private funding dis dissident publications like the intercept Jacobin magazine Reason magazine books like by Richard Wolff and a debate series like the solo forum can persist because we have private funding and reasonably functionally consumer in capital markets innovation that brings prosperity can persist and even flourish and on income inequality the turned toward capitalism in countries like China and India has lifted hundreds of millions out of grinding poverty and is therefore meant a narrowing of income inequality globally but I began by saying this is a flawed system riddled with with crony capitalism Richard mentioned the instability of the US economy indeed it is unstable I read Richards analysis and as far as I can understand he believes that the
而那里的权力却极不平等。政治权力的不平等，甚至会超过一个有缺陷的资本主义制度。我们现有的这个有缺陷的制度，在自由、繁荣和平等方面都远比Richard提出的方案更可取，因为我们有那么多私人融资渠道。像The Intercept、《雅各宾》杂志、《理性》杂志这样的异见出版物，像Richard Wolff写的这类书，还有像Soho Forum这样的辩论系列，之所以能延续下去，是因为我们有私人资金；因为我们有运转得还算不错的消费市场和资本市场，带来繁荣的创新才能延续甚至蓬勃发展至于收入不平等，中国和印度这些国家转向资本主义，已经让数亿人摆脱了赤贫，因此在全球范围内意味着收入不平等的缩小。但我一开始就说过，这是一个有缺陷的制度，充斥着裙带资本主义。Richard提到了美国经济的不稳定。它确实不稳定。我读了Richard的分析，就我的理解，他认为
36:17
Great Recession was triggered by the fact that the consumer was tapped out the consumers could no longer afford what they were buying well if he looks at the data he'll find that just before the recession happened consumer spending continued to rise that was in the fourth quarter of 2007 what he ignores what he ignores was the crony capitalist policy of government through the Federal Reserve that brought that awful event so I I'm Jean Epstein and I'm here to recruit you yes we have yes we had a flaw at capitalism but in order to make it a better capitalism we have to do a lot of radical things including including reining in the power of the Federal Reserve that does indeed cause a bank banking cart cartel and brings instability in this economy maybe we can talk more about those things later on thank you very much all right Thank You Jean I've seen the debate is joined now we're going to have five minutes of rebuttal each gentleman I'll suggest that you say seated and use hand microphones you want to go to the podium okay we can we
大衰退的触发原因是消费者已经被榨干了，消费者再也买不起他们正在买的东西。可是如果他去看数据，他会发现就在衰退发生之前，消费支出还在继续上升——那是2007年第四季度。他忽略的是政府通过美联储推行的裙带资本主义政策，正是它带来了那场糟糕的事件。所以，我是Gene Epstein，我今天是来招募你们的。是的，我们有一个有缺陷的资本主义，但要让它变成更好的资本主义，我们必须做很多激进的事情，包括包括约束美联储的权力——它确实造就了一个银行卡特尔，给这个经济带来了不稳定。也许我们可以稍后再多谈谈这些事情。非常感谢好的，谢谢Gene。辩论正式交锋了。现在每人有五分钟的反驳时间。两位先生，我建议你们就坐着用手持麦克风——你想上讲台？好吧，我们按不住这两位，那就不按了。Richard，你可以自己选。我只是
08反驳交锋：定义之争与书的归属
37:43
cannot keep these guys down so we won't try Richard you have your option I just want to remind people of a couple things one is remember that the proposition the resolution under debate is socialism is preferable to capitalism as an economic system that promotes freedom equality and prosperity follow Richard Wolff at Richard d Wolfe with two F's follow Jean Epstein Jean sohe form follow me at Nick Gillespie follow the sohe form at the so a forum follow Reason magazine at reason Richard Wolff please you have five minutes to rebut listening to gene makes me realize that a book that you write is a little bit like a child that you have you think it's yours and then you watch as it becomes its own thing and is understood by other people in ways you never imagined I cannot recognize 3/4 of what he said it sounded to me like quotes of somebody I didn't even want to meet I'm not proposing a kind of socialism I don't believe in looking into the future and telling you what the society ought to be people who tell you the future are
想提醒大家几件事。第一，记住今天辩论的命题是：作为一种促进自由、平等和繁荣的经济制度，社会主义优于资本主义。关注Richard Wolff，账号是@RichardDWolff（两个f）；关注Gene Epstein，@GeneSohoForum；关注我，@NickGillespie；关注Soho Forum，@TheSohoForum；关注《理性》杂志，@reason。Richard Wolff，请开始，你有五分钟反驳时间听Gene讲话让我意识到，你写的一本书有点像你生的孩子：你以为它是你的，然后你眼看着它变成了它自己的东西，被别人以你从未想象过的方式理解。他说的东西有四分之三我都认不出来，听起来像是在引用一个我压根不想认识的人。我并不是在提出某一种社会主义。我不相信可以窥视未来，然后告诉你社会应该是什么样子。那些告诉你未来的人通常在嘉年华里才找得到——你给他们一点钱，他们就告诉你
39:02
usually found in carnivals you pay them a little bit of money they tell you who you'll be sleeping with in two weeks and you giggle if you actually take seriously what they've proposed you need help I'm not proposing what a socialism would look like number one I'm talking about how you get beyond what we have because like in all societies you are either satisfied with the way things are or you're looking for how to make them better if there's a genius in the United States it's been that we've been willing in many areas to do better but there's a taboo when it comes to economics represented by what gene said that you really shouldn't look at that because it's only going to get worse those nasty politicians will do all the terrible things that should make you stay with what you have oh yes tinker with the Federal Reserve or here but don't change the fundamentals where did that come from where did the economic system get a pass we debate about family life we debate education we debate our transportation system but debate the fundamental
两周后你会跟谁上床，然后你咯咯地笑。如果你真把他们说的当真，那你得去看医生了。我并不是在提出社会主义会是什么样子。第一，我谈的是你如何超越我们现有的东西。因为跟所有社会一样，你要么满足于现状，要么在寻找如何让它变得更好。如果说美国有什么天才之处，那就是我们在许多领域都愿意做得更好。但一涉及经济学就有一个禁忌，Gene刚才说的就是这种禁忌：你真的不该去碰它，因为只会变得更糟，那些讨厌的政客会干出各种可怕的事，这应该让你守着你已有的东西。哦对，可以修修美联储什么的，但别去动根本。这是从哪儿来的？经济制度凭什么被放过？我们辩论家庭生活，我们辩论教育，我们辩论交通系统，但辩论资本主义的根本结构——它不是关于市场，也不是关于
40:17
structure of capitalism which is not about markets and not about the government but how you organize the production and distribution of the goods and services without which you cannot live slavery did it with masters and slaves feudalism did it with lords and serfs capitalism does it with employers and employees and the whole purpose of my book and the work that we do and the New Directions of socialism is to question and transform that no more group of employers telling us all what to do and employees living in that undemocratic workplace and the whole notion of controlling the government so it doesn't oppress you in all the ways that Jean likes to enumerate is to create a social force at the base of society that could possibly prevent that and making the mass of people in the workplace have the final say and power over what that workplace does means you don't have a small group of people in a government cutting a deal with a small group of people called employers at the expense of a large group of people called
政府，而是关于你如何组织那些你离不开的商品和服务的生产与分配。奴隶制是用主人和奴隶来组织的，封建制是用领主和农奴，资本主义则是用雇主和雇员。而我这本书、我们所做的工作，以及社会主义的新方向，其全部目的就是质疑并改变这一点：不再由一小群雇主告诉我们所有人该做什么，也不再让雇员生活在那种不民主的工作场所里。而所谓控制政府、使它不会以Gene喜欢一一列举的那些方式压迫你，办法就是在社会的基层创造一种社会力量，让它有可能阻止这种压迫。让工作场所里的大多数人对这个工作场所做什么拥有最终发言权和权力，就意味着不会出现政府里的一小撮人跟一小撮被称作雇主的人做交易，牺牲一大群被称作雇员的人。这就是社会基层的变革，它将成为
41:30
employees that's the transformation at the base of society that will mark the 21st century's socialism so that all the old arguments against the social isms of the passed arguments predicated on what's wrong with the government and the overwhelming power of the government they're not relevant anymore because the thrust of socialism is at the base of society not at the level of government there's a reason Karl Marx wrote no books about the state and endlessly studied the production and distribution of goods and services because that's the core of the economy he wanted to take us beyond and that's the problem we have we have let that go as if there's something necessary or holy or sacrosanct about that way of organizing production so we all take it for granted we shouldn't we never should have the impulse to democracy ought to have been applied in the workplace and as for the arguments gee you wouldn't want to go to all those meetings those were the arguments of the Kings we don't need democracy the mass of people haven't the time or the interest
21世纪社会主义的标志。因此，所有那些针对过去各种社会主义的老论点——那些以政府有什么毛病、政府权力过大为前提的论点——都不再相关了，因为社会主义的着力点在社会基层，而不在政府层面卡尔·马克思没有写过关于国家的书，却没完没了地研究商品和服务的生产与分配，这是有原因的——因为那才是他想带我们超越的那个经济的核心。而这正是我们的问题：我们把它放过了，好像那种组织生产的方式有什么必然、神圣、不可侵犯之处，于是我们都把它当成理所当然。我们不该这样，从来就不该。民主的冲动本应被应用到工作场所里。至于那种“哎呀，你可不会想去参加那么多会议”的论调，那是当年国王们的论调：我们不需要民主，老百姓没时间、没兴趣、没智力、没受过教育、没受过训练，也没有——拜托，我们应该
42:49
or the intellect or the educate or the training or the come on we ought to recognize those kinds of arguments against change for what they are they're fearful so we're going to stay with what we have the capitalism that we have producing the very humorous takes on mr. Trump or mr. Johnson in England as the expressions of a system spinning out of control in part because we don't face that the basic organization of production has been given a free pass and is what's holding us back thank you thank you Richard gene please you've got five minutes well Richard wrote a book called democracy at work a cure for capitalism it was published seven years ago I read it quite recently Richard probably hasn't read it very recently that's where at least commendably commendably he's written a whole book a book by the way that Karl Marx never did write about the socialism that he wants and I quoted copiously from that book in my initial talk if Richard is now going to say oh well you know that book it's a
看清这类反对变革的论点到底是什么：它们是出于恐惧。于是我们就守着现有的东西，守着我们这个资本主义，它生产出了特朗普先生、或者英国约翰逊先生这类很好笑的角色，这些都是一个失控体系的表现，部分原因就是我们不去正视生产的基本组织方式被放行、被免检，而这正是拖住我们的东西。谢谢。谢谢Richard。Gene，请，你有五分钟。好，Richard写过一本书，叫《民主在工作：资本主义的一剂良方》，七年前出版的。我最近才读过，Richard大概没有最近重读过。至少值得称道的是，他写了一整本书——顺便说一句，卡尔·马克思从来没有写过这样一本关于他所想要的社会主义的书。我在开场发言里大量引用了那本书。如果Richard现在要说：哦，那本书嘛，那是
44:18
chun-yan forget that book just you know try to recognize that socialism is preferable to some of the crap that goes on now then we'd have to say Richard we've been hearing that for over a century you know from socialists then we had the Soviet Union this Stalin and we had in mouth we had we've had a lot of mess from your socialism you got to be a little bit more specific before we get the least bit interested in something that has been so disastrous for humankind so I want to get Richard back on the straight and narrow and take him seriously that he's proposing something with a nuts and bolts definition workers self-directed into and the embarrassing thing for Richard as it was for Marxist right back to the time of Marx is that they're selling something that workers don't seem to want we we had socialism in Israel we had 5% of the other the other country who really was socialist I trust that Richard would agree that the kibbutzim of Israel were five percent of them live really worst socialist in a true sense
老黄历了，忘了那本书吧，你只要承认社会主义比现在这些破事儿更可取就行——那我们只能说，Richard，这话我们从社会主义者那里已经听了一个多世纪了。后来我们有了苏联、有了斯大林，我们还有过毛，我们从你们的社会主义那里得到了一大堆烂摊子。你得说得更具体一点，我们才会对一个对人类如此灾难性的东西产生哪怕一丁点兴趣。所以我想把Richard拉回正题，认真对待他确实提出了一个有具体定义的东西：工人自主管理的企业。而让Richard尴尬的地方，就跟马克思主义者从马克思那个年代起就一直尴尬的地方一样：他们在推销一个工人似乎并不想要的东西。以色列曾经有过社会主义，那个国家有5%的人是真正的社会主义者。我相信Richard会同意，以色列的基布兹——大约5%的人生活在其中——是真正意义上的社会主义，
45:27
the bottom up cents and that's what I'm proposing now of course what also happened to Israel as Richard probably knows as you probably know is that those kid would seem just fell apart they don't exist anymore people lose interest in it but again what we are saying we libertarians are saying go for it workers self-directed enterprises you do have coops Richard Richard in another mood say hey look you've got coops it speaks to to were to needs and desires and indeed maybe it does then go for it but then let's build it from the ground up just like I'm proposing and then we have a system of capitalism do I want to keep the flawed system of capitalism the system that fights that the political system that protects the powerful no capitalism is a system of profit and loss profits encourage risk-taking losses encourage proves that prudence that's the system now we abrogate that for the counter crony capitalist system that's what brought about the housing bubble that caused the Great Recession the week I'm quoting Noam Chomsky a guy I also like by the way even though he's
是自下而上的那种，也正是我现在所主张的。当然，正如Richard大概知道、你们大概也知道的，以色列后来发生的是，那些基布兹就这么散了，它们不复存在了，人们对它失去了兴趣。但同样，我们自由意志主义者要说的是：去干吧，工人自主管理的企业。你们确实有合作社，Richard在另一种情绪下会说：嘿，你看，我们有合作社，它满足了人们的需要和愿望，也许确实如此。那就去干吧，但让我们像我主张的那样从头开始建起来，而我们仍然有一个资本主义制度。我想不想保留这个有缺陷的资本主义制度，这个保护权势者的政治制度？不想。资本主义是一个盈亏并存的制度：利润鼓励冒险，亏损促成审慎。这才是那个制度。而现在我们为了裙带资本主义制度把它给废掉了，正是它造成了房地产泡沫，进而引发了大衰退。我引用诺姆·乔姆斯基的话——顺便说，我也挺喜欢这个人，尽管他是
46:36
a socialist we we to to a to great extent we privatize profits and we socialized losses that's what the Federal Reserve does that's what it's all about do I want to sit back and like in a system by God no we have a crony capitalist system by the way that shafts people of limited means most of all that defends the rich and powerful and there have been victories against it we we used to have an airline cartel prepped protected by the Civil Aeronautics Board then somebody noticed that where the CA B didn't dominate a flight between LA and San Francisco in the same state cost half what it cost to fly from Washington to Boston or Washington DC rather to Boston same distance twice as expensive because of government so then they abolished the CA via the CA B and they and and there was competition in the airlines and that was a huge victory for middle-income people so victories can be one of Richard I want to recruit you to change this system of capitalism if you'll excuse the expression that my socialist uncle Abe used to use as a but I use it as a
个社会主义者——我们在很大程度上把利润私有化，把亏损社会化。这就是美联储在做的事，这就是它的全部名堂。我想不想袖手旁观、乐在其中？天哪，不想。我们有一个裙带资本主义制度，顺便说，它最坑的就是那些收入有限的人，它维护的是有钱有势的人。而反对它是有过胜利的。我们以前有一个受民用航空委员会（CAB）保护的航空业卡特尔，后来有人注意到，在CAB管不着的地方——比如同一个州内洛杉矶到旧金山的航班——票价只有从华盛顿飞波士顿的一半，确切说是华盛顿特区到波士顿，距离一样，价格却贵一倍，就因为政府。于是后来他们废除了CAB，航空业有了竞争，这对中等收入人群是一个巨大的胜利。所以胜利是可以争取到的。Richard，我想招募你来改变这个资本主义制度——请原谅我用这个说法，我那位社会主义者Abe叔叔以前常用它，不过我把它当作
47:50
contraction for crony capitalism we need more capital some yet not less we need to change things Richard could join us or he could focus on building his workers self-directed enterprises from the ground up building on top of the co-op movement the employee ownership movement which by the way already gets tax breaks that I don't necessarily object to that already gets those breaks go for it turn everybody onto worker self-directed enterprises and they're perfectly compatible it's just like being in business for yourself that's all it is it's a great idea it hasn't really caught on but maybe it has potential I welcome it thanks very much right Thank You Jean Epson and Richard Wolffe we're now ready to do the audience Q&A we have a couple of microphones set up please walk up to them I am going to be I realize that each of you probably on some level view the other as a Nazi I am going to be which is wrong on both counts but I'm gonna be a Nazi I'm gonna ask you to state a question we don't want to hear a lot of speeches we want to hear questions direct them to either
“裙带资本主义”的简称来用。我们需要的是更多资本主义，而不是更少。我们需要改变现状。Richard可以加入我们，或者他也可以专注于从头开始建立他的工人自主管理企业，在合作社运动、员工持股运动的基础上去建设——顺便说，这些已经享受了税收优惠，我也不一定反对它们享受这些优惠。去干吧，把所有人都拉进工人自主管理的企业里来，它们跟资本主义完全兼容。这就跟自己做生意是一回事，仅此而已。这是个好主意，只是一直没真正流行起来，但也许它有潜力。我欢迎它。非常感谢好，谢谢Gene Epstein和Richard Wolff。现在我们准备进入观众提问环节，我们设了几支麦克风请走过去。我知道你们两位在某种程度上可能都把对方看成纳粹——这两边都是错的——不过我要当一回纳粹：我要求你们提一个问题。我们不想听一大堆演讲，我们想听问题。可以提给两位中的任何一位
09观众问答：学术排斥与不侵犯原则
49:11
or both people debaters so let's go and we're gonna start right now go first question hello my name is I'm from Germany native German and it took me 35 years and winning the green card Audrey for learning what libertarianism is I studied social science and okay thank you what's it I would like to know from mr. wolf why he thinks that it was not possible for me to learn about libertarianism and to many of the majority even though I studied social science and taught it for several years at high school yeah I'm not 38 years old and it took me moving here but you learn it obviously before you you learned about Marxism before you even left high school because if you if you know about the term when you start studying I would say it was much easier for you to find out about the other side than me okay that studied social science and thank you hearted okay thank you Richard please use a microphone hold one up and I I guess the it should be on could you can you hear me yes okay so the question was basically all in BS on the idea that you
或者两位都提。那我们开始吧，现在就开始。第一个问题。你好，我叫……我来自德国，是土生土长的德国人，我花了35年，还中了绿卡抽签，才搞明白什么是自由意志主义。我学的是社会科学，然后……好的，谢谢谢谢。我想请问这位先生沃尔夫，为什么他觉得我不可能了解到自由意志主义，对大多数人来说也是这样，尽管我学的是社会科学，还在高中教了好几年 是啊，我现在都不止38岁了，我是搬到这儿之后才学到的，但你显然是在更早之前就学到的，你还没高中毕业就已经知道马克思主义了，因为如果你一开始学的时候就知道这个词，我觉得你要去了解另一边，比我容易得多，好吧，而我学的就是社会科学，谢谢 好的，谢谢，理查德，请用一下麦克风，举起来，我想它应该是开着的，能听见吗？你们能听见吗？能，好的 那这个问题基本上都是建立在那个说法上的：说你
50:40
couldn't learn about Marxism and the question was that I really could or that you want to know why okay so he took a long time he said you took a very short time libertarianism is harder to learn about that Marxism and I never indicated the number of years it took me to learn Marxism okay Richard can I uh can I uh I'm sorry it took you a long time if that helps do you do you feel like there is not a free flow of information in in contemporary America I think that it blows my mind that you could even say that okay all right thanks okay let me explain economics departments which is what I know around the United States is where you might learn Marxian economics you have to go first of all the vast majority of economics departments in the United States have no person in them who knows of or teaches a course in Marxian economics number one they don't have them at all number two the vast majority subscribe to a basic kind of mainstream economics that's called neoclassical economics which is the dominant tradition there is a small dissenting group that are called
不可能了解到马克思主义，而问题是我其实完全可以，还是说你想知道为什么 好吧，他花了很长时间，他说你花的时间很短，自由意志主义比马克思主义更难了解到，而我从来没说过我花了多少年才学会马克思主义 好的，理查德，我能不能，呃，我能不能，很抱歉你花了很长时间，如果这话有帮助的话 你是不是觉得当代美国的信息不能自由流通？我觉得你居然能这么说，真让我难以置信 好的，行，谢谢 好，让我解释一下，全美国的经济学系——这是我了解的领域——是你有可能学到马克思主义经济学的地方 首先你得知道，美国绝大多数经济学系里根本没有一个人懂马克思主义经济学，或者能开这门课 第一，他们根本就没有这样的人；第二，绝大多数人信奉一种基础的主流经济学，叫新古典经济学，那是占统治地位的传统 还有一小撮持异议的群体，被称为
52:05
Keynesian economics because of something that happened in the Great Depression and the new development of a critical perspective that has nothing to do with socialism the there's tremendous fights between the neoclassical who are the majority and the Keynesian who are minority one of the very few things the two groups can get together on is excluding Marxists that's the way the American economic system works and since it's the economic economics departments of our universities that train the politicians who deal with economics the journalists who do economics and and the people in the top of reaches of business you have a solid kind of mask if you like of uniformity in which the kinds of things that a Marxist economist talks about or bizarre for them not because of their complexity or their newness but because they have no experience whatsoever in dealing with these things and that has been true for the entirety of my experience in the American academic environment where I've been a professor all my life it is a it is a systematic
凯恩斯主义经济学，这源于大萧条时期发生的事情，以及一种批判视角的新发展，而这跟社会主义毫无关系 占多数的新古典派和占少数的凯恩斯派之间争斗激烈，而这两派为数不多能达成一致的事情之一，就是把马克思主义者排除在外 美国的经济体制就是这么运作的，而正是这些大学里的经济学系培养了处理经济事务的政客、报道经济的记者，还有商界高层的那些人所以你会看到一层结结实实的、如果你愿意这么说的话，同质化的面具，在这层面具下，马克思主义经济学��谈的那些东西对他们来说很怪异，不是因为这些东西复杂或者新颖，而是因为他们在处理这类问题上毫无经验，而这一点贯穿了我在美国学术界的全部经历——我一辈子都在当教授 这是一种系统性的
53:16
exclusion of the kinds of ideas that I represent that makes students to this day not encounter it or if they have a lot of fortitude to have little study groups on the side at their own expense to learn this kind of material because this country remains afraid of dealing with that kind of thinking and that kind of tradition even though the literature for it is massive okay thank you Richard and and wait Jean I'm sorry hold on can i Richard can I ask does it complicate that scenario at all that we have at least one major candidate for president Bernie Sanders who identifies as socialist and has a large turnout I mean the idea that socialism is somehow suppressed seems like a reach to be quite honest Bernie Sanders is the first candidate in 75 years not to disown that title as part of the requirement not to commit political suicide and you want me in the first time in 2016 that he dared do it breaking that blue I'm supposed to pretend that the one person so far done it in 75 years undoes what I just said
排斥，排斥我所代表的那类思想，以至于学生们到今天都接触不到它，或者说，如果他们够有毅力，就自己在课外办小型学习小组，自掏腰包去学这类材料，因为这个国家至今仍然害怕面对那种思维方式和那种传统，尽管相关的文献浩如烟海 好的，谢谢理查德，还有，等一下，吉恩，抱歉，稍等，理查德我能问一下吗，这个说法会不会有点站不住脚——我们至少有一位重要的总统参选人，伯尼·桑德斯，他自认是社会主义者，而且支持者众多，我是说说社会主义被压制了，老实讲有点牵强 伯尼·桑德斯是75年来第一个没有为了避免政治自杀而撇清这个标签的候选人，2016年是他第一次敢这么做，打破了那个禁忌，而你要我假装这75年来唯一一个这么做的人就推翻了我刚才说的话？你在开玩笑吧 好的，理查德，我倒是很期待哪天有一位主要
54:34
you got to be kidding okay and Richard I look forward to the first time a major party candidate actually explicitly as libertarian Jean do you have a comment I agree with Richard yes yes it's on yeah I agree with Richard that that there's a lot of mind rot in in in the academic departments on economics most of them most of these economists basically want to run the world they want to pretend that economics is a branch of mathematics it's it's a waste of time for the most part in the age of the Internet don't let school get in the way of your education there's no excuse not to inform yourself about a whole range of things including Austrian economics with which I identify or Marxist economics with which Richard identifies the Internet offers just an incredible amount lectures from Richard Wolff himself on the Internet I appear regularly on part of the problem Dave Smith's show so you want to catch that to learn economics the the intelligent way that whatever you really learn you teach yourself anyway don't
政党的候选人明确自称自由意志主义者 吉恩，你有什么要说的吗？我同意理查德 是的，开着呢，是的，我同意理查德的看法，经济学的学术院系里确实有大量的思想腐坏，他们中的大多数、这些经济学家中的大多数基本上是想去管理这个世界，他们想假装经济学是数学的一个分支，这在很大程度上是浪费时间 在互联网时代，别让学校妨碍了你的教育 你没有理由不去了解各种各样的东西，包括我所认同的奥地利学派经济学，或者理查德所认同的马克思主义经济学 互联网上有海量的资源，理查德·沃尔夫本人的讲座网上就有，我也经常上戴夫·史密斯的节目《Part of the Problem》，你们可以去看看，用聪明的方式学经济学 反正你真正学到的东西都是自学来的，别让学校妨碍你 谢谢，另外这可能，呃，可能会
55:48
write school get in the way thank you and there's it might uh it might be interesting we're gonna go to the next question to think there's by my count I think there's two Marxist economics departments in the country there's one at Notre Dame and one at UMass Amherst there's about two Austrian programs of now maybe three so we're as Dave Smith pointed out we're all losers in this room we have that in common we're in the same club okay question let me just briefly correct it there was at Notre Dame a department that program was destroyed about eight or nine years ago and doesn't exist and the program at University of Massachusetts where I taught has ejected most of the Marxist that were there there were half a dozen and so it is now really better described as a Keynesian or left-wing Keynesian program thank you there is no Marxist department in the United States there are only scattered old one you're in there get those workers building up from the ground let's go ok question sir no preamble no we don't care where you're from for all
挺有意思的，我们接着下一个问题——据我统计，我觉得全国有两个马克思主义经济学系，一个在圣母大学，一个在马萨诸塞大学阿默斯特分校；奥地利学派的项目大概有两个，现在也许三个 所以正如戴夫·史密斯指出的，我们这屋子里全是失败者，我们有这个共同点，我们是同一个俱乐部的 好，提问 让我简单更正一下，圣母大学曾经有过一个系，那个项目大概八九年前就被摧毁了，已经不存在了；而我任教过的马萨诸塞大学的那个项目，也已经把原来那里的大部分马克思主义者赶走了，本来有六七个人，所以现在更准确的描述是一个凯恩斯主义或者左翼凯恩斯主义的项目 谢谢美国已经没有马克思主义的系了，只剩下零散的老一辈 你在那儿好好干，让工人们从基层建起来我们继续 好，提问，先生，别铺垫，不用，我们不在乎你从哪儿来，在这儿大家都是陌生人，这是法国外籍军团，直接问问题就行 这个
56:50
strangers here it's the French Foreign Legion just ask the question this question is for Richard in there 100% capitalist society laissez-faire capitalist arty burners there's no federal reserve you would be well within your rights to be a socialist all you need to do is band together with other socialists and form your own community whereas if I want to be a capitalist in a social society I would be forbidden from doing so why why do you want to force everyone to be a socialist why not let the capitalist be capitalist let the socialist be socialist everyone's happening thank you which first of all in whatever socialist societies you're referring to and the major one in the world today is the People's Republic of China that uses that name they are busily encouraging people to form and develop capitalist enterprises so the premise of your question is is wrong number one number two I never said and would not argue that in a society that is in transition as I believe capitalism is there are all kinds of
问题是问理查德的 在一个100%资本主义、自由放任资本主义的社会里，没有美联储，你完全有权利做一个社会主义者，你只需要跟其他社会主义者联合起来，组建你们自己的社区；而反过来，如果我想在一个社会主义社会里做资本家，我就会被禁止这么做 为什么你想强迫所有人都当社会主义者？为什么不让资本家做资本家，让社会主义者做社会主义者，大家都开开心心呢？谢谢 首先，无论你指的是哪些社会主义社会，当今世界上最主要的那个、也用这个名字的，是中华人民共和国，而他们正在积极鼓励人们创办和发展资本主义企业，所以你这个问题的前提就是错的，这是第一点 第二，我从来没说过、也不会主张说，在一个处于转型中的社会里——我认为资本主义正处于转型——不应该有各种空间容纳按旧的传统
57:54
spaces for them to be enterprises organized in the old traditional capitalist way and enterprises organized as worker cooperatives in the new direction I would expect that kind of coexistence to continue to be filled with tensions and difficulties much as capitalist enterprises began in feudalism and existed in a tense relationship until the transition happened further so my presumption is there will be coexisting different structures in whatever name you give to these societies in transition look in in line with the Jones question again under capitalism property rights of firms are protected so if there's a worker co-op owned democratically by the workers and they're all directing it their property rights will be protected if it catches on and the entire economy is worker coops I say that's great that sounds terrific I'll run your own enterprise some of the other things richard proposes which would be the iron fist to the state having to do with finance that I object to however it was an article in the National Review well under William F
资本主义方式组织的企业，以及按新方向组织的工人合作社 我预计这种共存会持续充满紧张和困难，就像资本主义企业最初在封建制度中诞生、并在紧张关系中存在，直到转型进一步完成一样 所以我的设想是，不管你给这些转型中的社会起什么名字，都会有不同的结构并存 你看，顺着刚才那位的问题说，在资本主义下，企业的财产权是受保护的，所以如果有一家由工人民主所有的工人合作社，由他们自己来管理，他们的财产权会受到保护 如果这种模式流行开来，整个经济都变成工人合作社，我会说那太好了，听起来棒极了，你们自己经营自己的企业 理查德提出的另外一些主张，那些涉及金融的、相当于国家铁拳的东西，那我是反对的 不过，《国家评论》上曾经有一篇文章，就在右翼人士小威廉·F·巴克利主政的时候，是欢迎工人所有制的，我对那篇文章很
59:03
Buckley the right-winger welcoming worker ownership I know that article well because I wrote it and so again we're not arguing about that what Richard doesn't really want to do I know for example he likes jeremy corbyn's idea another kind of top-down plan where you can sneaked up this kind of thing through the back door go for it there are co-ops they'll already exist so in line with whether gentlemen said we already have what you're talking about we have worker coops we have a huge blend and if it tilts toward more worker ship wonderful okay next question please sir hi my question is for Richard as well one of the core tenants of libertarianism and capitalism or true capitalism is the non-aggression principle so my question for you is do you think that socialism intrinsically violates the non-aggression principle and if so how can you explain how committing aggression leads to greater freedom and equality do you want to do a quick description of the definition of the non-aggression okay all right you want me to yeah sure
熟悉，因为就是我写的 所以我们在这一点上并没有分歧，理查德真正想做的其实不是这个——我知道，比如说，他喜欢杰里米·科尔宾的那种想法，另一种自上而下的方案，从后门把这种东西偷偷塞进来 去干吧，合作社已经存在了，所以顺着这位先生说的，我们已经有你说的那些东西了，我们有工人合作社，我们有一个庞大的混合体，如果它更偏向工人所有制，那太好了 好，下一个问题，请，先生 你好，我的问题也是问理查德的 自由意志主义和资本主义、或者说真正的资本主义的核心信条之一是不侵犯原则，所以我想问你的是，你认为社会主义本质上是否违反了不侵犯原则？如果是的话，你怎么解释实施侵犯反而带来更多的自由和平等？你要不要简单说明一下什么叫不侵犯原则？好的，行，你想让我说？嗯，好的 不侵犯原则就是这样一个原则：你基本上
60:16
so the non-aggression principle is the principle that you're essentially allowed to do whatever you want as long as you do not commit violent you do not initiate violence against another person okay I believe Jean Richard okay oh gosh me too answering please thank you Nick this is Jean Epstein of one-man show look what's Richards answer Richards answer is well you know you're free to starve you know under capitalism you know if you don't work you don't get a job you're gonna starve you know I mean that's so that's aggression you know so what again you know forgive me but you know you're coming out at Richard left from left field because he's gonna say that that clearly the capital system commits aggression because you're gonna starve unless you get a job and and then of course we have a lot of answers to that somehow rather well the starvation tends to happen in socialist countries not in this country but I think I got Richard fired up he's gonna answer you now you're famous stop I just jumped yes the this remarkable tendency in a
可以做任何你想做的事，只要你不实施暴力、不主动对他人使用暴力 好的，我想吉恩，理查德，好的，哦天哪我也来回答 请讲 谢谢，尼克，这是吉恩·爱泼斯坦的独角戏 你看，理查德的回答是什么？理查德的回答是，你知道，你有挨饿的自由 在资本主义下，如果你不工作、找不到工作，你就会挨饿，我是说，那就是侵犯 所以，恕我直言，你这一击对理查德来说是从左路外野打过来的，因为他会说资本主义制度显然实施了侵犯，因为你不找工作就会饿死，然后我们当然对此有很多回应总之，饥荒往往发生在社会主义国家，而不是这个国家 不过我觉得我把理查德点着了，他现在要回答你了你出名了 打住，我只是插一句 是的，一个惊恐的社会里这种把饥饿或者死亡人数拿来算账的显著倾向，这大概是
10死亡人数之争与蒙德拉贡案例
61:30
frightened society to assign starvation or deaths I it's the only place in American culture we're counting dead people seems to be way to make an argument Jean mentioned it before now it's starving people before he mentioned the disasters of socialism where millions died what an interesting argument we're going to count millions dead well what is it that capitalism's history shows us the worst two wars in human history world war 1 & 2 these were products of competition among capitalist economies weren't they 400 years of colonialism destroying two-thirds of the world were products of capitalist accumulation and competition what kind of jerk what what kind of money finish what kind of mentality picks a few examples of admittedly horrible things that deserve to be criticized but a comparison of death counts the first book I ever wrote and published Yale University Press was called the economics of colonialism it studied what Britain did in Kenya Britain arrived in Kenya in night in 1895 and set up the East Africa
美国文化里唯一一个我们要数死人数目的地方，居然被当成一种论证方式 吉恩刚才提过一次，现在又说饿死的人在那之前他提到社会主义的灾难、死了几百万人 多有意思的论证方式啊，我们要来数几百万死人 那么资本主义的历史给我们展示了什么？人类历史上最惨烈的两场战争，第一次和第二次世界大战，这些不正是资本主义经济体之间竞争的产物吗？四百年的殖民主义摧毁了世界的三分之二，那是资本主义积累和竞争的产物 什么样的混蛋，什么样的——算了——什么样的心态，会挑几个确实糟糕、确实该被批判的例子，然后去做死亡人数的比较？我写并出版的第一本书，耶鲁大学出版社出的，叫《殖民主义经济学》，研究的是英国在肯尼亚做了什么英国1895年到了肯尼亚，建立了东非保护地，30年后，1931年，大萧条来了 我研究了那段时间
62:53
Protectorate and 30 years later 1931 the Depression hit I studied what happened in Kenya at that time when the British arrived they did a census 4 million people in 1930 they did another census two and a half million people British colonialism killed millions of people in one small country multiply that if you want to do the death count analysis which I find bizarre you're in very shaky ground attacking socialism on the basis of capitalism and the same kind of cherry-picking of your examples came with Gene and kibbutzim in in Israel to work a co-op sometimes fail of course they do do capitalist enterprises sometimes fail you bet they do all the time this what is this strange remote kind of choosing your example let me give you a counter example in 1956 a group of workers we a Catholic priests in the north of Spain in a little town called Mondragon made a worker co-op the priest led them six workers 1956 today something called the Mondragon cooperative corporation has over a hundred thousand workers it's the biggest worker co-op on the
肯尼亚发生了什么 英国人刚到的时候做了一次人口普查，四百万人；到1930年他们又做了一次普查，两百五十万人 英国殖民主义在一个小国里就杀死了数百万人 如果你想做那种死亡人数分析的话，把这个数字乘一乘——我觉得那种分析很荒唐——你站在非常站不住脚的立场上，用资本主义的标准去攻击社会主义 同样那种挑挑拣拣的例子，吉恩说的以色列基布兹也是一样 合作社有时候会失败，当然会 资本主义企业有时候会失败吗？那还用说，天天都在失败 这是什么奇怪的、隔靴搔痒的选例方式？我给你举个反例 1956年，西班牙北部的一群工人和一位天主教神父，在一个叫蒙德拉贡的小镇上办了一家工人合作社 神父带着他们，六个工人，1956年 今天，这个叫蒙德拉贡合作社集团的机构有十多万名工人，是地球上最大的工人合作社，非常成功，是西班牙第七大企业 它
64:11
planet it is a great success at the seventh largest corporation in Spain it is a successful worker co-op two American corporations pay the Mondragon Corporation to have their scientists working alongside the scientists in this worker co-op and the name of the two American corporations is General Motors and Microsoft they understand what those worker coops can do even if people here have to pick an example where it didn't work out it's as if I said well capitalism just look at the Ford Edsel make two quick comments to be discounted again again I like what Richard just said again go for it I only mentioned the kibbutz scene because obviously the kibbutzim were a well-known socialist phenomenon it didn't work out Mondragon did I was a part I was very interested in the worker ownership movement in the 1980s ironically by the way when I was senior economist in the New York Stock Exchange I was going to all the meetings we were hearing they loved Mondragon all the time in the 1980s thirty years have passed and we
是一家成功的工人合作社 有两家美国公司付钱给蒙德拉贡集团，让自己的科学家去和这家工人合作社里的科学家一起工作，这两家美国公司的名字是通用汽车和微软 他们明白这些工人合作社能做到什么，而这里有些人却非要挑一个没成功的例子 这就好比我说，资本主义嘛，你看看福特的Edsel就知道了 我快速说两点再一次，我很喜欢理查德刚才说的，再说一次，去干吧 我提到基布兹只是因为，显然基布兹是一个众所周知的社会主义现象，它没成功，而蒙德拉贡成功了 我曾经参与过，我在1980年代对工人所有制运动非常感兴趣，顺便说一句，很讽刺的是，当时我是纽约证券交易所的高级经济学家，我参加了所有那些会议，我们听到大家都特别推崇蒙德拉贡，那是在1980年代 三十年过去了，美国还是没有出现一个蒙德拉贡 所以我鼓励理查德去干
65:20
don't have a mondo con in the US so I encouraged Richard to go for it build it capitalism will love it why not so again I'm not trying to discourage Richard about going for it I'm just saying that he has the means to do it he can start that revolution right away within the context of capitalism with respect to the body-count point the only point that's being made in this case and again I honestly apologize to Richard for backing him in the core in a sense that he seems to be now defending the state capitalism the objective he wrote a whole book collaborated in a whole book in which he condemned the Soviet Union as state capitalist so he doesn't really want Fenne those old line social and social isms but the difference in terms of body count is that this was what governments did to their own citizens these famines because they couldn't run the agriculture right the the worst getting on top lunatics sociopaths like Joe Stalin and Mao Zedong and Pol Pot taking over and murdering their own people either through the sin of
把它建起来，资本主义会喜欢它的，为什么不呢？所以再说一次，我不是想劝阻理查德去做，我只是说他有条件去做他完全可以在资本主义的框架内马上开始那场革命 至于死亡人数这一点，这里要说的唯一一点是——再一次，我真心向理查德道歉，把他逼到墙角，弄得他现在好像在为国家资本主义辩护，而他其实写过一整本书、参与合著过一整本书，在书里他谴责苏联是国家资本主义 所以他其实并不想为那些老派的社会主义辩护 但在死亡人数上的区别在于，这是政府对本国公民做的事，那些饥荒是因为他们没法把农业搞好 最糟糕的是像约瑟夫·斯大林、毛泽东、波尔布特这样的疯子、反社会人格者爬到了上面，掌了权，然后通过作为之罪或者不作为之罪谋杀自己的人民，这就是区别 天哪，当然，
11增长、工时与医疗产业复合体
66:30
commission or omission that's the difference oh god of course the body count with respect to war two million people you know killed in Iraq and Vietnam yeah of course our body can't with respect to wars abroad horrible Richard and I completely agree about that we're talking about the body count of governments against their own people under socialism ok that's the bad record we're talking about question sir and by the way if if there are in fact any women in the room it would be nice to hear from you ok scoot up to the front of line sir you've got you've got a man bond that's close enough we're transitioning here yeah I do identify as male and I suspect I will continue to do so I hope that doesn't discipline thank you very much to both of you this has been very thought-provoking I have two short questions primarily Nick what this is Sophie's Choice time pick one of those questions because the other one is not gonna make it is economic growth ever undesirable ie does it ever lead to increase suffering either domestically
战争造成的死亡人数，在伊拉克和越南死了两百万人，是啊，当然，我们在海外战争上的死亡人数很可怕理查德和我在这一点上完全一致 我们在说的是社会主义下政府对本国人民造成的死亡人数，那才是我们说的那笔糟糕的账 提问，先生 顺便说一句，如果在场真的有女性的话，很希望能听到你们的声音 好往前挪一挪，先生 你留着个丸子头，差不多也算了，我们这儿正在过渡 是的，我确实认同自己是男性，而且我估计以后也会继续这样，希望这不算什么问题 非常感谢你们两位，今天这场非常发人深省 我有两个简短的问题 主要是问尼克——现在是苏菲的抉择时刻，选一个问题吧，另一个就没机会了 经济增长有没有可能是不可取的，也就是说，它会不会导致国内或者国外更多的苦难？还有，等大约二三十年后AI真的来了、
67:35
or abroad and what are we gonna do with AI when it happens in about 20 or 30 years and nobody has jobs very good very good sir okay either of you Richard absolutely we do not prioritize or we ought not if that's your question to prioritize economic growth as if it's a uni-dimensional plus it can be as we learned from ecological sensitivities built up over the last thirty years that it can be a very dangerous and negative phenomena but in a society that allows the decision of what to produce and what to invest in to be done on the basis of a private profit calculation you are hardly in a position to bring in all of those other issues that have to be dealt with I remember in my education I was taught of bizarre language which gives it away that there are we should remember our teachers told us externalities what a wonderful term something that isn't central to what we're dealing with it's an externality only slowly to discover that the externality can be more negative than what's internal is positive capitalism sanctifies the
所有人都没工作了，我们该怎么办？很好，很好，先生 好，你们谁来？理查德 绝对是的，我们不应该优先考虑——如果你问的是这个的话——不应该把经济增长当成一个单一维度的好事来优先考虑 正如过去三十年积累起来的生态意识让我们认识到的，它可能是一种非常危险、非常负面的现象 但是在一个允许“生产什么”和“投资什么”的决策完全建立在私人利润计算基础上的社会里，你根本没有余地去把所有那些必须处理的其他问题纳入考虑 我记得在我受教育的过程中，我被教了一种很荒唐的说法，这个说法本身就露了馅——我们的老师告诉我们，有一种东西叫“外部性”，多妙的词啊，意思是某种不属于我们讨论核心的东西，那叫外部性 然后才慢慢发现，外部性带来的负面影响可能比内部的正面收益还要大 资本主义把利润动机神圣化，而社会主义这个替代方案一直说，利润只是
68:46
profit motive that socialism alternative has always said profit is one among a whole range of objectives and no decisions should be made based on any one when all the others are equally important to the quality of life I guess then I won't answer the question about artificial intelligence since that was the second question be again obviously to me well it was we'll talk later sir okay it'd be fun to talk about AI but with it look with respect to economic growth again I first of all know this obviously I am an individual I'm a libertarian I don't believe there's anything the least bit sacred about economic growth if people do if people are basically by the way if we all decided that would prefer to work 20 hours a week then that labor leisure choice would begin to prevail capitalists would only get us to work for them we'd be willing to only work part-time and we'd say well it will work for a little bit less so that it's advantageous to deploy to employ two of us for 20 hours a week rather than one person for 40 so then we would have a
众多目标中的一个，任何决策都不该只根据其中某一个来做，因为其他所有目标对生活质量同样重要 那我猜关于人工智能的那个问题我就不回答了，因为那是第二个问题 显然对我来说……好吧，行 我们回头再聊，先生好的，聊AI会挺有意思的 不过，关于经济增长，首先要说明，很明显我是个个人主义者，我是个自由意志主义者，我不认为经济增长有任何一丁点神圣的地方 如果人们……顺便说一句，如果我们都决定宁愿每周只工作20小时，那么这种劳动与闲暇的取舍就会开始占上风 资本家要想让我们为他们干活，我们只愿意做兼职，我们会说，那我们少拿一点钱，这样雇两个人每周各干20小时，反而比雇一个人干40小时更划算 于是我们的资源产出就会减少，经济就会萎缩，太好了，为什么
70:05
diminution of resources we would have a shrinkage of the economy wonderful why not if people only want to work 20 hours a week then we don't have we can compete we can compete I'd perhaps and want to explain to Richard because the simple math is that if if full-time workers get to $20 an hour then then we'll just work for $18 part-time look at two of us for less so therefore we can opt for living less we make those choices all the time I you know what what's a what's a Jewish lawyer kiddo couldn't get into Medical School well I'm Jewish I didn't become a lawyer or a doctor I chose to be a sloppy-ass journalist I dropped that so therefore we make those choices all the time it's an individual choice there is nothing sacred about economic growth with respect to diseconomy externalities we are individuals we have individual freedom you can't throw garbage on your neighbor's lawn however my right to move my fist stops at your chin and if a capitalist is polluting your backyard and causing that harm you should sue
不行呢？如果人们只想每周工作20小时，那我们就……我们可以竞争，我们可以竞争 我大概想跟理查德解释一下，因为这个简单的算术就是：如果全职工人拿到每小时20美元，那我们就以每小时18美元做兼职，雇我们两个人成本更低，因此我们可以选择过得简朴一些 我们一直都在做这种选择 我，你知道，什么叫犹太律师？就是那些考不上医学院的孩子……学校嘛，我是犹太人，我没去当律师也没去当医生，我选择当一个邋里邋遢的记者，我放弃了那条路，所以说我们一直在做这样的选择，这是个人的选择，经济增长本身没什么神圣不可侵犯的，至于外部不经济性，我们是个体，我们有个人自由，你不能把垃圾扔到邻居家草坪上，不过——我挥拳的权利止于你的下巴，如果一个资本家在污染你家后院、造成了这种损害，你就应该起诉他们，所以我们确实需要一套侵权法体系，用来防范任何
71:09
them so therefore we do need a tort system in order to protect against any individual a choice anything that a firm does or indeed that an individual to us in order to make sure that they don't harm us in the in the process of pursuing their own goals that's the best view answer okay thank you Richard quick quick rebuttal robot I really find it extraordinary this sort of commentary if we would like to work only shorter hours the history of capitalism is the history of the struggle of the mass of working people to reduce the length of the working-day from the 16 hours it was in early capitalism in england to 14 to 12 to 10 to 8 it's been a struggle at every point capital is driving people children as well as adults to work incredible hours workers having to mobilize and fight this is not a matter of the libertarian notion let's just choose that's not the way the world worked it hasn't worked that way in the past and it doesn't work now that's a system that imposed those struggles and all the suffering that went into it until people said no more
个人的选择，防范企业的任何行为，乃至个人对我们做的任何事，以确保他们在追求自己目标的过程中不会伤害到我们，这就是最好的答案。好，谢谢你，Richard，很快地做个简短反驳。我真觉得这类说法太离奇了，说什么如果我们想少工作几个小时就能少工作。资本主义的历史，就是广大劳动者为缩短工作日而斗争的历史，从早期英国资本主义时期的16小时，缩短到14小时、12小时、10小时、8小时，每一步都是斗争出来的，资本驱使人们——包括儿童和成年人——去干难以想象的长工时，工人不得不组织起来抗争，这根本不是自由意志主义者说的那种“我们自己选择就好”的事，世界不是那样运转的，过去不是，现在也不是，是这个制度强加了那些斗争，以及其中所有的苦难，直到人们说“够了，我们不会干那么长时间，我们不会让你把我们六岁的孩子
72:21
we won't work that many hours we won't let you have our children when they're six that's the history of capitalism and we're not even counting all the injuries and all the deaths in that game of counting human suffering from a system I suggested Richard read a book by Stanley a leprechaun which is a whole history of the labor markets of the of the capitalist markets and it's got a lot of good facts in it now I believe that one of the things that that Richard should try to answer is and how was there a whole lot of progress why was there so much immense progress by Labor's from them from 1870 to 1925 or indeed he says that wages were rising for decades and the unions are statistically were negligible government was under when that wasn't honest no I want to win with one fact there was a 49 hour work week capitalists have 49 hour work week as of the 1920s as labor as labor got shows the work week fell the work week fell because in order to get workers to work for you to bid for workers their labor law at leisure choice was such that they wanted there
抓去干活”，这就是资本主义的历史，而我们甚至还没把所有工伤和死亡算进去——在这场衡量一个制度造成多少人类苦难的账里。我建议 Richard 读一读 Stanley Lebergott 写的一本书，那是一部关于劳动力市场、关于资本主义市场的完整历史，里面有很多很好的事实。我认为 Richard 应该试着回答的一个问题是：为什么会有那么多进步？为什么从1870年到1925年，劳工阶层取得了那么巨大的进步？他自己也说了工资连续几十年在上涨，而当时工会在统计上微不足道，政府也没怎么介入——那时候这话可不老实。不，我想用一个事实来说明：当时是一周49小时工时，资本家在1920年代实行的是一周49小时工时，随着劳工——随着劳工的状况改善，工时下降了，工时之所以下降，是因为要让工人为你干活、要去竞价争取工人，他们在劳动与闲暇之间的选择正是他们想要的。有一个马克思主义的神话，说劳资双方在议价上
73:35
is a Marxist myth that there is an inequality no equality between bargaining between laborers and workers well that's relied by about a hundred years of history okay for unions became the least bit of a presence in this economy thank you okay ma'am please question we're currently in an opioid crisis and the World Health Organization ranks our health care system 37th in the world do you think it's still possible for our current system to fix this and how would you using socialism fix us okay Richard I guess take the first whack at that picture one of the charming features of the capitalist system has been the endless effort on the part of virtually all capitalists to try to get more than the normal surplus out of their workers the difference between the value added by a worker and what the employer pays the worker that normal surplus if you like they've always tried to do better by controlling the market or what we used to call monopolization becoming strong enough to jack the price even
存在不平等、不对等，可这被大约一百年的历史推翻了——那是在工会在这个经济体中有一丁点存在感之前。谢谢。好，这位女士请提问。我们现在正处在阿片类药物危机中，而世界卫生组织把我们的医疗体系排在世界第37位。你认为我们现有的制度还有可能解决这个问题吗？你会如何用社会主义来解决我们的问题？好，Richard，我想你先来谈这个。资本主义制度一个“迷人”的特征，就是几乎所有资本家都在不停地努力，想从工人身上榨出比正常剩余更多的东西——也就是工人所创造的增加值与雇主付给工人的报酬之间的差额，如果你愿意，就叫它正常剩余。他们总想做得更好，办法就是控制市场，或者我们过去所说的垄断化，变得足够强大就能把价格抬得更高，赚更多利润，而做到这一点的方式之一，就是控制
74:44
higher to make more profits and one of the ways you do that is to control a market in this country one the most successful examples is the medical industrial complex for industries that work together the insurers the drug companies the doctors and the hospitals and the producers of medical devices are with it the drugs they've gotten together and they've produced this situation a where we pay more for medical care than any other advanced industrial country and the quality of our healthcare is at best mediocre as the young woman pointed out in our ranking number 37 the solution to the problem in our medical care is not another law another special federal program another stop it is a problem in which you have taken something as important as human health a subjected it to the capitalist profit motive and be allowed that monopoly to function to coordinate its behavior and to rip this society off from A to Z and laugh all the way to the bank first of all we this the solo form in a few months is going to have a debate so
某个市场。在这个国家，最成功的例子之一就是医疗产业复合体，四个行业联手：保险公司、制药公司、医生和医院，还有医疗器械生产商，都在里面，还有药品，他们抱成一团，造出了今天这个局面：我们为医疗支付的费用比任何其他发达工业国都高，而我们的医疗质量顶多算平庸，正如这位年轻女士指出的，排名第37。我们医疗体系问题的解决办法，不是再出一部法律、再搞一个特别的联邦项目、再来一个补丁，问题在于你把人类健康这样重要的东西，一是让它服从于资本主义的逐利动机，二是允许那种垄断运作、协调行动，把这个社会从头到尾狠狠敲一笔，然后一路笑着去银行数钱。首先，我们索罗论坛几个月后会办一场辩论，就阿片类药物危机办一场论坛辩论，我邀请 Richard 来，给你一张免费票，
76:02
forum debate on the opioid crisis I invite Richard to come free ticket for you Richard and a free ticket for the young lady who asked question to that debate basically Richard and I agree about 90% of the way about the medical care system it's a crony capitalist system it has to be unraveled you say your your solution though is not to make it fully socialized but rather to put more market forces in yeah through workers self directed enterprises if indeed that's the way they want to construct it because I'm all for those WS des which is by the way what Richard calls okay very quickly Richard 10 seconds yeah one one theoretical confusion when I talk about mark capitalism I'm talking about arranging production with employers and employees as different people in an endless struggle I'm not talking about markets the confusion between a capitalist organization and a market is something we ought to get beyond slavery had markets remember we bought and sold slaves feudalism had markets the market isn't
Richard，也给刚才提问的这位女士一张免费票。基本上，Richard 和我在医疗体系问题上有大约90%的看法是一致的，它是一个裙带资本主义体系，必须把它拆解开。不过你说你的解决办法不是让它完全国有化，而是引入更多市场力量，是的，通过工人自主管理企业，如果他们真的想那样组织的话，因为我完全支持那些 WSDE——顺便说一句，这是 Richard 的叫法。好，很快，Richard，10秒钟。是的，有一个理论上的混淆：当我谈资本主义时，我说的是这样一种生产安排——雇主和雇员是不同的人，处在无休止的斗争中，我说的不是市场。把资本主义组织和市场混为一谈，这一点我们应该早就跨过去了，奴隶制也有市场，别忘了我们买卖过奴隶，封建制也有市场，市场不是我们这个制度的独特之处，资本主义才是独特的，而它关乎的是
12国家角色与技术决定论
77:08
what's unique about us capitalism is what's unique and that has to do with the organization of production which is why that's what we go after and that's the focus of socialism not some dead old stale debate about whether the government should have more or less influence on the market that's a different subject okay we have a couple of minutes left I want to enforce brutally quick question quick answers let's get to through two or three more of these things sir go ahead Richard can you be more specific about what you're advocating and can you equivocally say that your vision of socialism will or will not be mandated by the state absolutely socialism always understood whatever its moments whatever its aberrations if you really want to understand where that the notion of the state being powerful came in a brief summary of the history in the 19th century socialism basically was born it was the shadow of capitalism it's capitalism self criticism whenever there's capitalism it produces socialism
生产的组织方式，所以那才是我们要针对的，那才是社会主义的焦点，而不是那种陈腐老旧的争论——政府对市场的影响该多一点还是少一点，那是另一个话题。好，我们还剩几分钟，我要严格要求：问题要快，回答也要快，我们再过两三个问题。这位先生，请讲。Richard，你能不能更具体地说明你在主张什么？你能不能明确回答，你所设想的社会主义会不会由国家强制推行？当然。社会主义无论有过什么时刻、什么偏差，一直都明白这一点。如果你真想弄清楚“国家应当强大”这个观念是从哪来的，我简要说一下历史：在19世纪，社会主义基本上诞生了，它是资本主义的影子，是资本主义的自我批判，只要有资本主义，就会产生社会主义。
78:18
the notion that you're going to get out of capitalism by somehow eliminating socialism reminds me of what Mark Twain said when he read his obituary in the newspaper the reports of my death are greatly exaggerated he wrote the reports of the death of socialism are absurd because capitalism reproduces it so here's my idea we don't need the state because the whole role is to transform the base of society but just like ever every other emerging system like capitalism and feudalism the state it was thought can help the process so the focus of socialists became capture the state either with parliamentary or revolution and then use it to make the transformation what happened in the Soviet Union understandably and in China too was you focused on grabbing the state you managed it you took the state but then that next step that got delayed and posts onde and therein lies the problem whose solution is to transform the base of society which is why there is the focus on the workers becoming their own bosses
以为可以通过某种方式消灭社会主义来摆脱资本主义，这让我想起马克·吐温读到报纸上自己的讣告时说的那句话——他写道，关于我死亡的报道被大大夸张了。关于社会主义已死的报道是荒谬的，因为资本主义在不断重新产生它。所以我的想法是：我们不需要国家，因为整个任务是改造社会的基础，但就像其他每一个新兴的制度一样，比如资本主义和封建制，人们认为国家可以帮助推进这个过程，于是社会主义者的重心变成了夺取国家政权，要么通过议会，要么通过革命，然后用它来完成转变。在苏联发生的情况——这也可以理解——在中国也一样，就是你专注于夺取国家，你掌控了它，你拿到了国家政权，但接下来那一步却被拖延、被推迟了，问题就出在这里。而它的解决之道是改造社会的基础，这正是为什么重心在于让工人
79:30
in the workplace okay thank you quick let's do one maybe two more questions sir hi this is a question for mr. Epstein I was just wondering on our federal domestic tax is the only major way to fund federal spending repeat the questions on our federal domestic tax is the only major way to fund federal spending our federal domestic tax is the only way to tax a way to fund well well empirically no I mean a lot of federal spending is comes from printing money from the Federal Reserve and obviously a lot of federal spending comes from borrowing money okay we have time for one final question we got a couple of kibitzers over here okay ask a quick question no you're not paying for this microphone okay no I don't well you know Reagan Reagan take a hike here to ask a question now yeah please thank you my question is if we're talking about economics how can we have a debate about which system is better and I've been listening and I new gentlemen once the word computers and how that impacts on everything I felt like I was listening
在工作场所成为自己的老板。好，谢谢。快一点，我们再来一到两个问题。这位先生，请。你好，这个问题是问 Epstein 先生的，我只是想知道，我们的联邦国内税是不是为联邦支出提供资金的唯一主要方式？把问题重复一下。我们的联邦国内税是不是为联邦支出提供资金的唯一主要方式？我们的联邦国内税是不是唯一的征税方式、唯一的筹资方式？嗯，从经验上看，不是。我是说，很多联邦支出来自美联储印钞，而且显然很多联邦支出来自借钱。好，我们还有时间问最后一个问题。我们这边有几位爱插话的观众。好，快问一个问题。不，这话筒可不是你出钱买的。好吧，我不——你知道，里根、里根，一边去。现在来提个问题吧，好，请讲。谢谢。我的问题是：如果我们谈的是经济学，我们怎么能在哪个制度更好这个问题上辩论呢？我一直在听，你们两位先生提到过“计算机”这个词，以及它如何影响一切，我却感觉自己像在听
80:43
to a debate about the mechanical age and I was the bait really was which platitudes are better socialist platitudes or capitalist platitudes could you discuss and incorporate a little bit about how the computers and the electronic age work on the feelings that you have about socialism and the feelings that you have about capitalism okay let's and that thank you very much sir and we're going to boot into the computer age right before we go to the rebuttal we are done with questions so thank you all for standing up you may now sit down Richard why don't you begin with that right this is not the answer you probably want but you're gonna get it anyway you know that's one of the like both capitalism and social what one of one of the remarkable things in this debate between capitalism and socialism is the easy way folks who are rendered uncomfortable by it find another way a tangential argument to focus on as if they can somehow thereby escape these basic system questions you can't every major technological change has led to people doing something which if I were
一场关于机械时代的辩论，而真正在争的其实是：哪种陈词滥调更好，社会主义的陈词滥调还是资本主义的陈词滥调？你们能不能谈一谈，把计算机和电子时代如何作用于你们对社会主义的看法、以及你们对资本主义的看法这一点也纳入进来？好，就到这里，非常感谢这位先生。我们要启动进入计算机时代了。在进入总结陈词之前，提问环节到此结束，谢谢大家起立提问，现在可以坐下了。Richard，你先来回答这个问题吧。好，这可能不是你想要的答案，但你还是会听到它。你知道，这是……不管是资本主义还是社会……在这场资本主义与社会主义的辩论中，一个很值得注意的现象是：那些对它感到不自在的人，总能轻易地找到另一个话题、一个旁枝末节的论点去聚焦，好像这样就能逃开这些根本性的制度问题，可你逃不掉。每一次重大技术变革，都会让人们说出一些——如果我刻薄一点的话——我会称之为陈词滥调的东西：一切都将被
81:58
mean-spirited I would call a platitude it's everything is going to be changed by the jet engine everything is gonna be changed by electricity everything is gonna be changed by temas tree everything's gonna be you've finished the technological determinism it used to be called each new invention is going to radically try no it doesn't it changes things for sure but it doesn't alter the basic systemic questions that we're talking about they're not platitudes they're not evasions the focus on the new technology as if it is magically going to lift us out of these problems it's a mirage it has been that through the last 200 years of technical breakthroughs and AI and computers don't change that story thank you may I comment that fat I don't know if there's a syllable of what Richard said that I do not fully agree with us now in fact indeed look we've had a computer age for three decades we have ATMs we have automatic tellers once are infinite and as Richard is indeed is absolutely correct in saying the way we run our economy is the way we run our economy
喷气发动机改变，一切都将被电力改变，一切都将被化学改变，一切都将——你说完了吧，这以前叫技术决定论，说每一项新发明都会彻底改变……不，它不会。它当然会改变一些事情，但它不会改变我们正在讨论的那些根本的制度问题。这些不是陈词滥调，也不是回避。把注意力放在新技术上，好像它会神奇地把我们从这些问题里解救出来，这是一种幻象。过去200年的技术突破一直如此，人工智能和计算机也不会改变这个故事。谢谢。我能说一句吗？我不知道 Richard 刚才说的话里有哪一个字是我不完全同意的。事实上，确实如此。你看，我们已经有三十年的计算机时代了，我们有自动取款机，我们有自动柜员机，例子举不完。正如 Richard 说得完全正确的那样：我们怎么运行我们的经济，就是我们怎么运行我们的经济。Richard 和我在这一点上是一致的，没什么可辩的。好，我们现在要
13结语：社会主义复数形态 vs 对照实验
83:15
Richard and I we agree we have no debating you know what we're going to let we're gonna stop this phase this was the audience Q&A we now have the people the two debaters Richard Wolffe and Jean Epstein going into their final statements they each have seven and a half minutes and again remember that the proposition the resolution before us is socialism is preferable to capitalism as an economic system that promotes freedom equality and prosperity Richard Wolffe you have seven and a half minutes to seal the deal the first sign that socialism is on its way is that we're having this debate that we have Bernie Sanders running and he has the name socialist and he doesn't give it up he doesn't turn away Elizabeth Warren who has very similar programs she still feels the need to reassure everybody she likes capitalism Bernie doesn't the reality is up until six years ago my presence on American media scene was so tiny none of you whatever have heard of me I've done more public speaking at the invitation of American audiences in the
结束这个环节了，这是观众问答部分。接下来两位辩手 Richard Wolff 和 Gene Epstein 将进入他们的总结陈词，每人七分半钟。再次提醒，今晚的命题、我们面前的辩题是：作为一种促进自由、平等与繁荣的经济制度，社会主义优于资本主义。Richard Wolff，你有七分半钟来锁定胜局。社会主义正在到来的第一个迹象，就是我们正在进行这场辩论，就是伯尼·桑德斯参选了，而且他顶着社会主义者这个名号，他也不放弃这个名号，他不回避。伊丽莎白·沃伦的政纲和他非常相似，但她仍然觉得有必要向所有人保证她喜欢资本主义，伯尼可不这样。事实是，直到六年前，我在美国媒体上的存在感还小到你们没有一个人听说过我。过去四年里我应美国听众邀请所做的公开演讲，比之前50年加起来还多。是的，公众的注意力
84:45
last four years that I did in the previous 50 yeah the public awareness is to the right because of the last years of neoliberalism and the orange clown I understand that but beneath that is a shift to the left in the United States nothing illustrates it in my mind any better than the remarkable number of times Jean Epstein told you how he agreed with me
因为过去这些年的新自由主义和那个橙色小丑而偏向了右边，这我明白，但在这之下，美国正在发生一场向左的转变，在我看来，最能说明这一点的，莫过于 Gene Epstein 今晚告诉你们他同意我的次数之多。
85:26
I don't run away from the label socialist and I don't want to away from the label Marxist either I'm proud of what I've learned from those traditions but I'm also very clear and I really hope I've gotten that across that the way the question for this evening was posed is a problem there is no singular socialism there never was socialism is a large complex tradition of multiple different notions that are often at great odds with one another and have had long and bitter disputes what in the world do you mean by socialism is it that social democracy of Scandinavia and German and Western European countries is it a socialism that China or Russia or Cuba talk about is it the focus on transforming workplaces into worker coops instead of undemocratic hierarchical workplace kingdoms what do you mean when you talk about socialism the very idea of using the singular reflects what I tried to say at the beginning we have to understand we are emerging from a 75 year period in which we didn't learn about it think about it or discuss it or if we did it was in dismissive cursory
我不回避“社会主义者”这个标签，我也不想回避“马克思主义者”这个标签，我为自己从这些传统中学到的东西感到自豪。但我也想说得很清楚——我真心希望我已经把这一点讲明白了——今晚这个辩题的提法本身是有问题的：根本不存在单数意义上的“社会主义”，从来就没有。社会主义是一个庞大而复杂的传统，包含许多彼此常常严重对立的观念，它们之间有过长期而激烈的争论。你说社会主义，到底指什么？是指斯堪的纳维亚、德国和西欧国家的那种社会民主主义？是中国、俄罗斯或古巴所说的那种社会主义？还是指把工作场所改造成工人合作社、而不是不民主的等级制职场王国？你说社会主义的时候，究竟指什么？光是用单数这个做法，就反映了我一开始想说的：我们必须明白，我们正在走出一个长达75年的时期，在那段时间里我们没有去了解它、思考它或讨论它，就算讨论了，也是以轻蔑草率的方式，什么也没教给我们。每次都很尴尬——
86:54
manner that didn't teach Miko anything it's always been an awkward moment when American tourists go to Europe and discover that in every single European country socialist parties are big important political institutions I won't embarrass you by asking you how many of you know that the government in Portugal today is a coalition of the Portuguese Socialist Party the Portuguese Communist Party and the Portuguese Green Party and that they've been the government for quite a few years now I won't embarrass you the last thing I would say is because of this peculiar fetish Americans about the government as either being something that's gonna save us all which is crazy or which is gonna crush us all which is equally crazy governments do what they do in large part because of the pressure from those who have the position to shape them one of the problems with the liberal in the old British sense or the libertarian if you like is that the argument always starts with the government as if it were a deus ex machina that just has some qualities
美国游客去欧洲，发现每一个欧洲国家的社会主义政党都是重要的大政党。我就不让你们难堪去问，你们有多少人知道，今天葡萄牙的政府是葡萄牙社会党、葡萄牙共产党和葡萄牙绿党的联合政府，而且他们已经执政好几年了。我就不让你们难堪了。我最后想说的是，由于美国人对政府有一种奇特的执念——要么把它当成能拯救我们所有人的东西，那是疯了；要么把它当成会碾碎我们所有人的东西，那同样是疯了。政府之所以做它所做的事，很大程度上是因为那些有能力塑造它的人所施加的压力。老式英国意义上的自由主义者、或者你愿意说自由意志主义者，他们的一个问题是，论证总是从政府开始，好像政府是个天降神兵，天生就具备某些特性、就会做某些事，却从不问那个显而易见的问题：政府为什么
88:09
of things it does without asking the obvious question why does the government do this or that or the next thing we're supposed to believe it's built into the genes of the government that it does certain things the government does what the press pressure of the society and the way it's organized make it do every bit as much as what the government does influences the rest of this society let me conclude by correcting Jean about Jeremy Corbyn because he's the future in terms of what we're talking about the British Labour Party the second party in England by the way a party most of whose members identify as socialists in the British Labour Party there's a commitment they've made and the commitment goes like this when we're elected one of the first laws we'll pass is the following any company organised in Great Britain can continue the way it is as a capitalist enterprise but if it comes to the following decision either shut down or to move out of Great Britain or to sell itself to another company or to go public with a with an IPO issuing shares
会做这件事、那件事或别的事？我们被要求相信，政府做某些事是刻在它基因里的。政府所做的，是由社会的压力和社会的组织方式决定的，这种影响一点不亚于政府反过来对社会其余部分的影响。让我以纠正 Gene 关于杰里米·科尔宾的说法来作结，因为就我们讨论的问题而言，他代表着未来。英国工党，顺便说一句是英格兰的第二大党，一个大多数党员都自认为是社会主义者的政党，在英国工党内部有一项承诺，这项承诺是这样的：我们一旦当选，要通过的头几部法律之一就是——任何在英国注册的公司都可以继续作为资本主义企业运营，但如果它要做出以下决定：关闭、迁出英国、把自己卖给另一家公司，或者通过发行股票上市，那么在这么做之前，它必须先给自己的工人优先购买权，
89:30
before it can do that it must give its own workers the right of first refusal that's the law that the workers can buy the company and convert it into a democratically run worker cooperative and when everyone says well where in the world will the workers get the money to do that mr. McDonald the closest advisor mr. Corbyn has smiles and says the government will lend it to them why because for the British people to have freedom of choice between a capitalist undemocratic enterprise on the one hand and a worker co-op democratic enterprise on the other they have to have some experience of what they're like both to buy from and to work in and the only way they can have that experience so they can choose freely between them or what mix they want of them is if there's a sector that they can buy from and work at so we as the leaders of Britain have to create the sector so that the free choice of our people between systems can finally happen that's the role of the government expanding free choice rather than being represented is imposing something in
这就是那部法律——工人可以买下这家公司，把它转变成民主管理的工人合作社。当所有人都问，工人到底上哪儿去弄这笔钱呢？科尔宾先生最亲近的顾问麦克唐纳先生会笑着说：政府会借给他们。为什么？因为要让英国人民有选择的自由——一边是资本主义的、不民主的企业，另一边是工人合作社式的、民主的企业——他们必须先有一些亲身体验，既作为顾客去买它的东西，也作为劳动者去里面工作。而他们要获得这种体验、从而能在两者之间自由选择、或者决定自己想要什么样的组合，唯一的办法就是存在这样一个部门，他们可以从中购买、可以在其中工作。所以我们作为英国的领导者，必须去创造这个部门，好让我们的人民在不同制度之间的自由选择终于成为可能。这才是政府的角色：扩大自由选择，而不是像我们脑中那种
90:58
that fearful imagery that we all have as if the government is like those nasty people at the post office who make us wait before they sell us the stamps thank you well I agree with Richard that he and I agree with a about a great deal and I think that's wonderful why do we agree about a great deal because we're both radicals and radical people do see a lot of evil in our current society even though I think Richard basically wants to march in the wrong direction and tonight I've been a little bit troubled that he often times abandons his own book written seven years ago and occasionally lapses into defending the old-style socialism's and into falling back into the mode of saying you know well social does a lot of things let's just do it and again ignoring the fact that we need to focus focus I guess again on the old socialism's well take a controlled experiment Society who the world in history gives us very few East Germany versus West Germany West Germany mainly capitalist East Germany socialist
可怕的想象那样去强加什么，好像政府就是邮局里那些讨厌的家伙，卖张邮票还非要让我们排队等。谢谢。好吧，我同意 Richard 的说法，他和我在很多问题上是一致的，我觉得这非常好。我们为什么在很多问题上一致？因为我们都是激进派，而激进的人确实看到了当今社会中大量的恶。不过我认为 Richard 基本上是想朝错误的方向前进。今晚我还有点困扰的是，他常常抛开自己七年前写的那本书，时不时又回过头去为老式的各种社会主义辩护，退回到那种“社会主义嘛能干很多事，我们就这么干吧”的说法，又一次忽略了我们需要聚焦的问题，我想又回到那些老社会主义上去了。那么，我们来看一个对照实验——历史给我们的对照实验非常少——东德对西德：西德基本上是资本主义的，东德是社会主义的，
92:28
impoverished in East Germany under the font foot of the oven of the stassi's in West Germany capitalist much more affluent much more comfortable in the democratic society North Korea versus South Korea I need an elaborate on the differences there Taiwan and Hong Kong versus most of China until China began to go capitalist so we have the record staring us in the face of the awful failures of these societies so we want to say goodbye to all that they were disastrous then we have the social democracies of Europe maybe that's a waste of time to talk about because they are for most for the most part capitalist anyway but then we side-scan the Scandinavian countries even though Norway is there is a country of 5 million people sitting on a huge oil well basically selling oil to the rest of the world and by the way apparently worsening global warming and the but we wanted to offend Norway in Denmark well let's not cherry pick let's look at the whole range of of economies and the experience in Europe and let's include Portugal Spain Italy Greece
东德一贫如洗，处在斯塔西的高压统治之下；而在资本主义的西德，人们要富裕得多、舒适得多。民主社会——朝鲜对比韩国，我不需要详细说明其中的差别；台湾和香港对比中国大部分地区，直到中国开始走向资本主义。所以这些社会惨痛失败的记录就摆在我们眼前，我们要跟那一切说再见，它们是灾难性的。然后还有欧洲的社会民主国家，也许谈这个是浪费时间，因为它们大体上无论如何都是资本主义国家。但接着我们又只盯着斯堪的纳维亚国家看，尽管挪威只是一个五百万人口的国家，坐拥巨大的石油财富，基本上就是把石油卖给世界其他地方，顺便说一句，显然还在加剧全球变暖。我们并不是想冒犯挪威和丹麦，但我们别只挑好的说，让我们看看整个范围的经济体和欧洲的经验，把葡萄牙、西班牙、意大利、希腊也算进来，
93:42
where it's gone very badly the average is very very unimpressive they used to talk about euro slicker sclerosis very troubled economies by and large so we want to say goodbye to all that so now again I want to take Richard literally and talk about his workers self-directed enterprises well I imagine when you hear him saying employees becoming their own bosses well you know there are millions of people who are their own bosses I know I didn't make that up Richard didn't make that up form a co-op a family-run business all of those things are possible under socialism and the problem that Richard faces is that by enlarge it hasn't caught on maybe it has hope so now Richard is resorting to cheering on out of desperation out of unfortunately not taking seriously the fact that you want to work there are people by the way who still are fostering a worker democracy oh god I know I met a lot of those people they want to start these firms they want to run it that way they think it's better people are happier doing it wonderful let's do it so now he's now
那些地方情况非常糟糕。平均水平非常非常不起眼。人们过去常说欧洲硬化症，总体而言是很有问题的经济体。所以我们要跟那一切说再见。那么现在，我还是想按字面意思理解理查德的话，谈谈他说的工人自主管理企业。我想当你听到他说雇员成为自己的老板时——你知道，有几百万人本来就是自己的老板。我知道，这不是我编的，理查德也不是编的。组建合作社、家族企业，所有这些在社会主义下都是可能的。而理查德面临的问题是，这种模式大体上并没有流行开来。也许它有希望。所以现在理查德是出于绝望而在为它摇旗呐喊，不幸的是，他没有认真对待这个事实。顺便说一句，确实还有人在推动工人民主，天哪，我认识很多这样的人。他们想创办这类企业，他们想那样经营，他们认为这样更好，人们做起来更快乐。太好了，那就去做吧。所以现在他
94:54
Richard is championing the plan of Jeremy Corbyn where where where the government is going to start lending money on advantageous terms to companies that want to go that wanna go workers self-directed enterprise how advantageous is that going to be Jeremy Corbyn a very ambitious politician who by the way is on record as admiring a lot of hard fisted a strong men like you go shabbos in his and a successor nicolas maduro he might just start giving it away capitalists might start selling these firms to people again Richard is looking for the top-down solution to a bottom-up revolution and I implore him to abandon all that and go to capitalist route with his plans now then finally I tried to take seriously what he wrote book he wants to socialize finance he wants to put it on under a political thumb he wants to he wants to socialize labor allocation he wants to tighten the the government's control over those two sources of enterprise expansion so that dissident publications would suffer but innovation would suffer all of those
——理查德——在支持杰里米·科尔宾的计划，也就是政府将以优惠条件向那些想要转型为工人自主管理企业的公司放贷。那会有多优惠呢？杰里米·科尔宾是一位野心勃勃的政治家，顺便说一句，他有公开赞赏不少铁腕强人的记录，比如查韦斯和他的继任者尼古拉斯·马杜罗。他可能干脆就把钱白送出去了。资本家也可能开始把这些企业卖给员工。理查德又一次在为一场自下而上的革命寻找自上而下的解决方案，我恳请他放弃那一套，带着他的计划走资本主义道路。那么最后，我试着认真对待他在书里写的东西。他想把金融社会化，想把它置于政治的拇指之下；他想把劳动力配置社会化，他想收紧政府对企业扩张这两大来源的控制。这样一来，异见出版物会遭殃，创新也会遭殃，所有这些
96:03
things would set us back in terms of prosperity and freedom and and again I guess you know I mentioned equality I might ask you the old you know 1020 question would you prefer a society in which the top 1% gets 20% richer and the other 99% the rest of us get 10% richer or would you prefer that's more inequality or would you prefer a society in which the top 20% get poorer and the bottom I know suits me yeah yeah the top 20% get poor and the 99% get 10% poorer we all get poorer but then since the top 1% is getting 20% poor that narrows equality well we want actually because extremes touch and Richard and I believe in individual rights I want people to make their own choices about how they live their lives the professions they lead where they want to work and what they do and capitalism offers that potential but it can indeed evolve we do need to free up the housing markets that which are under the thumb of the crony capitalist we do indeed and that is hurting poor people preventing them from
都会让我们在繁荣和自由上倒退。还有，我想我提到过平等，我可能会问你那个老套的、你知道的“10-20”问题：你更愿意生活在一个最富有的1%变富20%、而其余99%——我们这些人——变富10%的社会里吗？还是说你更愿意——那样不平等更大——还是说你更愿意生活在一个最富的20%变穷、而底层……我知道，这对我合适，是啊，是啊，最富的20%变穷、99%的人变穷10%的社会里？我们都变穷了，但既然最富的1%穷了20%，那就缩小了不平等。其实我们想要的是——因为极端会相通——理查德和我都相信个人权利。我希望人们能自己选择如何过自己的生活、从事什么职业、在哪里工作、做什么事情，而资本主义提供了这种可能性。但它确实可以演进。我们确实需要放开住房市场，它现在被裙带资本家攥在手里。我们确实需要，而这正在伤害穷人，阻止他们迁入纽约、洛杉矶和旧金山这样的高工资
97:11
moving into high wage cities like New York and Los and Los Angeles and San Francisco we need to free up the guild systems that make it hard for poor people to get other kinds of jobs the licensing system that protects people that that prevents poor people from moving into better jobs there are a whole lot of radical things we need to do to change our economy but we need to keep keep the fundamental freedoms under capitalism capitalism private property is necessary although not sufficient to a free and open society it's not sufficient because government can always come in and jail you the day after you publish something you don't like just like Obama tried but but it's necessary it's necessary because if you give somebody like Obama some political leader control over your property over the means of production then you make it hard even to function in the first place you make it hard for Richard to sell those books you make it hard for the sole form to operate you make it hard for Jacobin magazine to operate and that's why you
城市。我们需要打破那些让穷人难以获得其他工作的行会式体系，那种保护既得者的执照制度，它阻止穷人进入更好的工作。我们需要做很多激进的事情来改变我们的经济，但我们必须保住资本主义下的那些根本自由。资本主义、私有产权对于一个自由开放的社会是必要的，尽管并不充分。它不充分，是因为政府总可以在你发表了它不喜欢的东西的第二天就把你关起来，就像奥巴马试图做的那样。但它是必要的，之所以必要，是因为如果你把你的财产、把生产资料的控制权交给奥巴马这样的某个政治领导人，那你连最基本的运转都会变得困难。你会让理查德很难卖出那些书，你会让唯一的平台很难运作，你会让《雅各宾》杂志很难运作。这就是为什么你必须投票反对理查德的动议。但理查德确实提出了工人自主
98:21
have to vote against Richards resolution but Richard does 7 out workers self directed enterprises capitalist and offers it to you Richard I say go for it thanks very much
管理企业，把它作为资本主义的一种形式提供给你。理查德，我说，放手去做吧。非常感谢。
视频总结 · 一句话概括与核心要点
一句话概括
这场Soho论坛辩论中，马克思主义经济学家Richard Wolff主张以"工人自主管理企业"（工作场所民主化）为核心的"新社会主义"优于资本主义，而自由意志主义者Gene Epstein则反驳称：工人合作社本就可在资本主义框架内自由建立，Wolff书中主张的金融与劳动力分配社会化才是真正威胁自由与繁荣的部分，真正的问题是"裙带资本主义"而非资本主义本身。
核心要点
- Wolff的三大指控：资本主义不稳定、不平等、不民主。 不稳定：每4–7年一次商业周期，数百万人失业；不平等：引用乐施会数据，全球最富的80–90人财富超过底层35亿人；不民主：政治上废除了国王，但每个企业内部仍有"小国王"（老板、董事会）决定生产什么、如何生产、利润如何分配，员工无发言权。
- Wolff将社会主义重新定义为"工作场所民主"而非国家控制。 他承认苏联、中国等20世纪实验"把权力集中在少数人手中"，称新社会主义已从中吸取教训，把重心从夺取国家转向改造"社会基础"——让所有员工共同决策，这样就不会出现一人拥有1500亿美元而另一些人要借钱供孩子上大学。他强调资本主义的本质是"雇主与雇员"的关系（如同奴隶主与奴隶、领主与农奴），而非市场本身——奴隶制和封建制也有市场。
- Wolff以"75年禁忌"解释美国人对社会主义的无知。 1930年代社会主义者与共产主义者推动了社会保障、失业保险、最低工资和雇佣1500万人的公共就业计划；1945年后经1947年《塔夫脱-哈特莱法》等被清洗出工会与教职。他本人在哈佛、斯坦福、耶鲁读经济学，从未被布置过一字马克思。他还指出美国目前已不存在马克思主义经济系（圣母大学的项目被撤销，麻省大学阿默斯特校区已驱逐大部分马克思主义学者）。
- Epstein的核心反击：合作社完全兼容资本主义，无需社会主义。 他"完全支持"员工成为自己的雇主，只要是自愿选择；资本主义保护财产权，工人合作社的产权同样受保护。他指出美国底层一半人口占消费支出三分之一、工会养老基金国内超1万亿美元、全球约40万亿美元，这些"金融火力"足以自下而上建立合作社——问题在于工人们并不想要：Wolff自己也承认工人所有者极少真正转为集体管理，以色列基布兹已瓦解，Mondragon在美国30年也没有复制品。
- Epstein引用Wolff七年前著作《Democracy at Work》，指出其真正主张远超合作社。 书中提出"社会化银行"取代现有金融（将扼杀每年近500亿美元众筹与数千亿风险投资），以及一个"持续监控"1.6亿工人技能与需求的"专门机构"来分配劳动力。他认为这必然导致：参与式民主在算术上不可行（Robert Dahl：60人每人发言10分钟，一个议题需10小时）；实际权力落入代表与官员手中，正如哈耶克预言"最坏的人爬到顶端"；多数暴政可威胁少数群体（如穆斯林祈祷毯、避孕药、异见新闻的资金来源）；创造性破坏被既得利益阻挠（乔布斯的智能手机会因威胁手表、相机、GPS等行业而被否决）。
- Wolff的回应是否认书中内容代表其主张，被Epstein抓住反复攻击。 Wolff称"四分之三的引述我认不出来"，并说预测未来社会的人"只在嘉年华上见得到"；Epstein则指出Wolff"忽视自己的书"，退回到"社会主义总比现在的烂摊子好"的百年老调，并偶尔为旧式社会主义辩护。
- 死亡人数之争暴露双方框架差异。 Epstein提及社会主义政权造成数千万人死亡；Wolff反击称两次世界大战是资本主义国家竞争的产物，400年殖民主义摧毁了三分之二的世界，其首部著作研究英属肯尼亚：1895年人口400万，1930年仅剩250万。Epstein区分：他指的是政府对本国公民的屠杀（斯大林、毛、波尔布特），对外战争的死亡双方都谴责。
- Epstein自称"激进的资本主义者"，把矛头指向裙带资本主义。 他认为大衰退源于美联储的货币政策而非"消费者透支"（2007年第四季度消费仍在增长），美联储"利润私有化、损失社会化"；主张废除职业许可制、放开住房市场、削弱美联储，并以废除民航委员会后机票降价一半为例说明反垄断胜利可以实现。对医疗体系，两人约90%一致认为是垄断的"医疗产业复合体"。
- 工作时长之争体现两种历史观。 Epstein称工人可自由选择每周工作20小时，市场会自动调整；Wolff反驳：工作日从16小时降到8小时是几个世纪工人斗争的结果，包括禁止6岁童工，而非自由选择。Epstein则引1920年代工会尚微弱时工作周已降至49小时作证。
- Wolff以科尔宾计划作为"政府扩大自由选择"的范本。 英国工党承诺：企业若要关闭、外迁、出售或IPO，须先给员工优先购买权，政府贷款支持工人转为合作社——理由是人民只有亲身体验过两种企业形式才能"自由选择"。Epstein称这是"用自上而下的手段搞自下而上的革命"，且科尔宾崇拜查韦斯、马杜罗等强人，政府可能变相白送。
结论与值得注意的细节
- 辩论最终呈现出奇特的收敛：双方多次公开表示"同意对方"（对学术界经济学的僵化、医疗垄断、经济增长不神圣、技术决定论是幻觉等），Wolff甚至以"Epstein同意我的次数"作为美国左转的证据；但根本分歧仍在——Wolff认为雇主-雇员结构本身是问题，Epstein认为只要不动用国家强制力，合作社与资本主义并无冲突。
- Epstein对"平等"的质问颇具代表性：你更愿意生活在顶层1%富20%、其余99%富10%的社会，还是所有人都变穷但差距缩小的社会？并引乔姆斯基"监狱里也有收入平等"。
- Wolff最后承认"社会主义"这一单数概念本身有问题——北欧社会民主、中苏古模式、工人合作社三者截然不同，并以葡萄牙由社会党、共产党、绿党联合执政为例说明欧洲常态。
- Epstein的对照实验清单：东德vs西德、朝韩、台湾香港vs改革前大陆；并指出中国印度转向资本主义使数亿人脱贫、缩小了全球不平等。
- 两人个人背景形成镜像：Epstein母亲是美共党员（有FBI档案为证），他曾任纽交所高级经济学家，1980年代参与工人所有制运动并在《国家评论》撰文支持；Wolff则说过去四年公开演讲次数超过此前50年总和，Bernie Sanders是75年来首位不放弃"社会主义者"标签的主要候选人。
- 现场曾有观众打断Wolff发言，主持人为此道歉；提问环节Wolff拒绝回答AI问题，称新技术"不会改变基本系统问题"，Epstein对此完全赞同。
核心句型 · 10
1. X is necessary although not sufficient to Y
“Capitalism, private property, is necessary although not sufficient to a free and open society”
「必要但不充分」是学术辩论中界定条件关系的标准句式，先承认限度再强调不可或缺，可用于任何需要精确划定因果强度的论证。
2. If you know the history you'll know that …
“If you know the history you'll know that capitalism started in this town in that town”
以「你若了解历史就会知道」引出论据，兼具铺垫与轻微施压的效果，适合演讲中引入历史事实支撑观点。
3. What an amazing thing to accept a system that …
“What an amazing thing to accept a system that every four to seven years threatens millions of people with unemployment”
感叹句 + 定语从句，用反讽表达批评。「What a … to do …」结构适合口头论辩中制造情绪张力，避免平铺直叙。
4. X bears a heavy burden of proof because …
“Richard bears a very heavy burden of proof because his socialism has never existed”
「举证责任」是辩论中转移压力的常用框架：先指出对方主张缺乏先例，再要求对方证明。可迁移到任何评估新方案的场合。
5. Let's go all the way with X and assume that …
“Let's go all the way with Richard and assume that a socialist political party wins at the ballot box”
「先让步、再归谬」的经典开头：接受对方最有利假设，然后推演其后果。适合说服性写作中拆解对方逻辑。
6. Would you prefer a society in which … or would you prefer a society in which …
“Would you prefer a socialist society in which birth control is available if and only if a majority … or would you prefer a society in which private businesses can produce birth control”
二选一思想实验句式，用平行结构对比两种制度的具体后果，使抽象原则具象化，是政治哲学论辩的标配。
7. That's not the way the world worked; it hasn't worked that way in the past and it doesn't work now
“That's not the way the world worked it hasn't worked that way in the past and it doesn't work now”
三段递进否定（过去/现在），节奏感强，用于驳斥对方过于理想化的模型。仿写时注意时态变化带来的层次。
8. The reports of the death of X are greatly exaggerated
“The reports of the death of socialism are absurd because capitalism reproduces it”
化用马克·吐温名言的套语，用于反驳「X 已死」的论断，带幽默色彩，英语公共演讲中极常见。
9. X is looking for a top-down solution to a bottom-up revolution
“Richard is looking for the top-down solution to a bottom-up revolution”
用一组对立形容词（top-down/bottom-up）点出内在矛盾，简洁有力。可仿写为「a centralized answer to a decentralized problem」等。
10. go for it
“Go for it turn everybody onto worker self-directed enterprises”
口语化的「放手去做」，爱泼斯坦全场反复使用，把对手的方案「收编」为己方允许的选项，是一种以退为进的修辞策略。
生词精讲 · 150 · 按出现顺序
in the prime of their lives
phr.
0:41
正值壮年、人生巅峰期（此处为反讽，两人均已年长）
rebuttal
/rɪˈbʌtl/
n.
0:41
反驳，驳论（辩论环节术语）
prerogative
/prɪˈrɑːɡətɪv/
n.
1:24
特权，专有权利
without further ado
phr.
1:58
闲话少说，言归正传
invert
/ɪnˈvɜːrt/
v.
2:25
颠倒，倒推（此处指从价格反推价值）
hibernation
/ˌhaɪbərˈneɪʃn/
n.
2:25
冬眠；（比喻）长期蛰伏
unionists
/ˈjuːniənɪsts/
n.
3:57
工会成员，工会主义者
forerunners
/ˈfɔːrrʌnərz/
n.
3:57
先驱，前身
freaked out
phr.
3:57
（口语）吓坏了，惊慌失措
finished off
phr.
5:24
彻底解决、了结（某人/某事）
militants
/ˈmɪlɪtənts/
n.
5:24
激进分子，斗争派
Vanguard
/ˈvænɡɑːrd/
n.
5:24
先锋，前卫（政治运动用语）
terrorized
/ˈterəraɪzd/
v.
6:44
恐吓，使恐惧
excusable
/ɪkˈskjuːzəbl/
adj.
6:44
可原谅的，情有可原的
out of date
phr.
8:09
过时的，陈旧的
fraternity
/frəˈtɜːrnəti/
n.
8:09
博爱，兄弟情谊（法国大革命口号之一）
yearning
/ˈjɜːrnɪŋ/
n.
9:32
渴望，向往
empathize with
phr.
9:32
与……共情，同情
business cycle
n.
9:32
商业周期，经济周期（经济学术语）
financial press
n.
11:01
财经媒体
you name it
phr.
11:01
凡是你能想到的，应有尽有
subjects
/ˈsʌbdʒɪkts/
n.
12:29
臣民（君主制下的被统治者）
Board of Directors
n.
13:52
董事会
recuperating
/rɪˈkuːpəreɪtɪŋ/
v.
13:52
恢复（体力、精力）
have no say over
phr.
13:52
对……没有发言权
taboo
/təˈbuː/
n.
15:24
禁忌
set aside
phr.
15:24
搁置，放到一边
reigns
/reɪnz/
v.
16:39
统治，当家作主（reign 引申义）
irrationality
/ɪˌræʃəˈnæləti/
n.
16:39
非理性，荒谬
in one swell foop
phr.
17:59
（故意颠倒 in one fell swoop）一举，一下子
animated
/ˈænɪmeɪtɪd/
v.
17:59
激励，赋予活力
inference
/ˈɪnfərəns/
n.
19:19
推断，推论
outburst
/ˈaʊtbɜːrst/
n.
20:10
（情绪的）爆发，突然叫嚷
gracious
/ˈɡreɪʃəs/
adj.
20:10
大度的，宽厚的
alter ego
/ˌɔːltər ˈiːɡoʊ/
n.
20:10
另一个自我，化身
came of age
phr.
20:10
成年，成长起来
card-carrying
/ˈkɑːrd ˌkæriɪŋ/
adj.
20:10
正式登记的（党员）；（引申）铁杆的
paid their dues
phr.
20:10
交会费；（引申）付出应有的努力和代价
bleeding-heart
/ˈbliːdɪŋ hɑːrt/
adj.
20:10
（常带贬义）心肠软的、悲天悯人的
burden of proof
n.
21:30
举证责任
repudiates
/rɪˈpjuːdieɪts/
v.
21:30
否认，拒绝承认，与……划清界限
surplus
/ˈsɜːrplʌs/
n.
21:30
剩余（马克思经济学中的剩余价值）
skin-deep
/ˌskɪn ˈdiːp/
adj.
22:50
肤浅的，表面的
concedes
/kənˈsiːdz/
v.
22:50
承认（不情愿地），让步
marshaled
/ˈmɑːrʃld/
v.
24:04
调集，集结（资源）
embodiment
/ɪmˈbɑːdimənt/
n.
24:04
化身，体现
get off the ground
phr.
24:04
起步，启动成功
jumpstart
/ˈdʒʌmpstɑːrt/
v.
24:04
（用外力）启动，助推
rigs the game
phr.
24:04
操纵游戏规则，作弊
full-blown
/ˌfʊl ˈbloʊn/
adj.
25:21
全面的，彻头彻尾的
under siege
phr.
25:21
被围困，遭受围攻
mandate
/ˈmændeɪt/
n.
25:21
（选民的）授权，委托
ominously
/ˈɑːmɪnəsli/
adv.
26:35
不祥地，令人不安地
crowdfunding
/ˈkraʊdfʌndɪŋ/
n.
26:35
众筹
relegate
/ˈrelɪɡeɪt/
v.
26:35
交付、下放（到较低地位）
the butt of jokes
phr.
27:49
笑柄，被取笑的对象
pour over
phr.
27:49
（应为 pore over）仔细研读
dystopian
/dɪsˈtoʊpiən/
adj.
27:49
反乌托邦的
participatory democracy
n.
28:56
参与式民主
unworkability
/ʌnˌwɜːrkəˈbɪləti/
n.
28:56
不可行性
circumscribed
/ˈsɜːrkəmskraɪbd/
v.
31:25
限制，约束
tyranny of the majority
n.
31:25
多数人的暴政（政治哲学术语）
archaic
/ɑːrˈkeɪɪk/
adj.
31:25
过时的，古旧的
stifle
/ˈstaɪfl/
v.
32:39
扼杀，压制
stealthily
/ˈstelθɪli/
adv.
32:39
暗中地，偷偷地
creative destruction
n.
32:39
创造性破坏（熊彼特术语）
thwarted
/θwɔːrtɪd/
v.
32:39
阻挠，挫败
emboldened
/ɪmˈboʊldənd/
v.
33:55
使更大胆，壮胆
voted with their dollars
phr.
33:55
用钱包投票（以消费选择表达偏好）
scarcity
/ˈskersəti/
n.
33:55
稀缺（经济学基本概念）
dissident
/ˈdɪsɪdənt/
adj.
35:01
持异见的，异议的
grinding poverty
n.
35:01
赤贫，令人难以忍受的贫困
riddled with
phr.
35:01
充斥着，布满（问题）
crony capitalism
n.
35:01
裙带资本主义（政商勾结的资本主义）
tapped out
phr.
36:17
（口语）钱花光了，被榨干了
reining in
phr.
36:17
勒住，约束，控制
cartel
/kɑːrˈtel/
n.
36:17
卡特尔，垄断联盟
tinker with
phr.
39:02
小修小补，摆弄
get a pass
phr.
39:02
被放过，免于审查
predicated on
phr.
41:30
以……为前提
thrust
/θrʌst/
n.
41:30
要旨，主攻方向
sacrosanct
/ˈsækroʊsæŋkt/
adj.
41:30
神圣不可侵犯的
spinning out of control
phr.
42:49
失控
commendably
/kəˈmendəbli/
adv.
42:49
值得称赞地
copiously
/ˈkoʊpiəsli/
adv.
42:49
大量地
the straight and narrow
phr.
44:18
正道，正轨
nuts and bolts
phr.
44:18
具体细节，基本要素
prudence
/ˈpruːdns/
n.
45:27
审慎
abrogate
/ˈæbrəɡeɪt/
v.
45:27
废除，取消
shafts
/ʃæfts/
v.
46:36
（俚语）坑害，亏待
of limited means
phr.
46:36
收入有限的，不富裕的
caught on
phr.
47:50
流行起来，被广泛接受
tax breaks
n.
47:50
税收优惠
neoclassical economics
n.
52:05
新古典经济学（主流经济学范式）
fortitude
/ˈfɔːrtɪtuːd/
n.
53:16
坚毅，毅力
disown
/dɪsˈoʊn/
v.
53:16
否认与……的关系，撇清
mind rot
n.
54:34
（口语）思想腐坏，脑子坏掉
laissez-faire
/ˌleseɪ ˈfer/
adj.
56:50
自由放任的（经济政策）
band together
phr.
56:50
联合起来
non-aggression principle
n.
59:03
不侵犯原则（自由意志主义核心伦理）
out of left field
phr.
60:16
出人意料地，不按常理出牌
colonialism
/kəˈloʊniəlɪzəm/
n.
61:30
殖民主义
cherry-picking
/ˈtʃeri pɪkɪŋ/
n.
62:53
挑选对己有利的例证（逻辑谬误）
on very shaky ground
phr.
62:53
立场站不住脚
body-count
/ˈbɑːdi kaʊnt/
n.
65:20
死亡人数统计
sociopaths
/ˈsoʊsioʊpæθs/
n.
65:20
反社会人格者
commission or omission
phr.
66:30
作为或不作为（法律用语：sin of commission/omission）
thought-provoking
/ˈθɔːt prəˌvoʊkɪŋ/
adj.
66:30
发人深省的
externalities
/ˌekstɜːrˈnælətiz/
n.
67:35
外部性（经济学：未被市场定价的第三方影响）
sanctifies
/ˈsæŋktɪfaɪz/
v.
67:35
使神圣化
diminution
/ˌdɪmɪˈnuːʃn/
n.
70:05
减少，缩减
tort system
n.
71:09
侵权法体系
negligible
/ˈneɡlɪdʒəbl/
adj.
72:21
微不足道的
bargaining
/ˈbɑːrɡənɪŋ/
n.
73:35
议价，谈判
take the first whack at
phr.
73:35
（口语）先来试一下，先回答
monopolization
/məˌnɑːpələˈzeɪʃn/
n.
73:35
垄断化
jack the price
phr.
73:35
（口语）抬高价格
medical industrial complex
n.
74:44
医疗产业复合体（仿「军工复合体」）
mediocre
/ˌmiːdiˈoʊkər/
adj.
74:44
平庸的
rip off
phr.
74:44
敲诈，宰客
laugh all the way to the bank
phr.
74:44
轻松大赚一笔（含讽刺）
unraveled
/ʌnˈrævld/
v.
76:02
拆解，解开
unequivocally
/ˌʌnɪˈkwɪvəkli/
adv.
77:08
明确无误地（原文误作 equivocally）
aberrations
/ˌæbəˈreɪʃnz/
n.
77:08
偏差，反常
obituary
/oʊˈbɪtʃueri/
n.
78:18
讣告
parliamentary
/ˌpɑːrləˈmentri/
adj.
78:18
议会的
kibitzers
/ˈkɪbɪtsərz/
n.
79:30
（意第绪语借词）爱插嘴的旁观者
platitudes
/ˈplætɪtuːdz/
n.
80:43
陈词滥调
tangential
/tænˈdʒenʃl/
adj.
80:43
离题的，旁枝末节的
technological determinism
n.
81:58
技术决定论
mirage
/məˈrɑːʒ/
n.
81:58
海市蜃楼，幻象
seal the deal
phr.
83:15
锁定胜局，一锤定音
neoliberalism
/ˌniːoʊˈlɪbərəlɪzəm/
n.
84:45
新自由主义
at great odds with
phr.
85:26
与……严重对立
cursory
/ˈkɜːrsəri/
adj.
85:26
草率的，粗略的
fetish
/ˈfetɪʃ/
n.
86:54
执念，迷恋
deus ex machina
/ˌdeɪəs eks ˈmɑːkɪnə/
n.
86:54
天降神兵，机械降神（突然出现解决一切的力量）
go public
phr.
88:09
上市
right of first refusal
n.
89:30
优先购买权（法律术语）
lapses into
phr.
90:58
退回到，陷入（某种状态）
impoverished
/ɪmˈpɑːvərɪʃt/
adj.
92:28
贫困的
affluent
/ˈæfluənt/
adj.
92:28
富裕的
sclerosis
/skləˈroʊsɪs/
n.
93:42
硬化症；（喻）僵化（Eurosclerosis 欧洲硬化症）
out of desperation
phr.
93:42
出于绝望
hard fisted
adj.
94:54
铁腕的，强硬的
implore
/ɪmˈplɔːr/
v.
94:54
恳求
under a political thumb
phr.
94:54
受政治控制（under one's thumb 受人摆布）
extremes touch
phr.
96:03
物极必反，两极相通
guild systems
n.
97:11
行会制度
licensing system
n.
97:11
执照制度，职业许可制度
理解自测 · 11 题 · 是真懂了，还是以为自己懂
1. 沃尔夫概括的资本主义「三宗罪」是什么？他分别用了什么论据？
三宗罪是：不稳定、不平等、不民主。不稳定的论据是商业周期——每个资本主义国家平均每四到七年就有一次衰退，且不是由天灾或战争造成，而是内嵌于体制；他用「室友这么不稳定你早搬走了」作类比。不平等的论据是乐施会数据：全球最富的八九十人财富超过底层 35 亿人。不民主的论据分两层：政治上金钱收买选举是常识，更关键的是经济上「我们废除了国王，却在每家企业里保留了小国王」——老板、经理、董事会决定生产什么、怎么生产、利润归谁，员工毫无发言权。这三条出现在他的开篇立论（第 9–12 段）。
2. 爱泼斯坦引用沃尔夫的书，指出其方案除了工人合作社之外还包含哪两项制度设计？他为何认为这两项才是真正的分歧所在？
两项是「社会化银行业」（由工人和社区共同运营的银行取代私人金融）和「专门的劳动力配置机构」（持续监测全国企业的用工需求与工人技能）。爱泼斯坦认为工人合作社本身与资本主义完全兼容，他不反对；但这两项要求消灭众筹、风险投资等私人融资渠道，并让一个中央机构掌握 1.6 亿工人的信息，实质是把企业扩张的两大资源——资金和劳动力——置于政治控制之下。这才是他说「这就是为什么我们站在对立面」的原因（第 22–24 段）。
3. 辩论中蒙德拉贡和基布兹分别被哪一方用作例证？各自要说明什么？
基布兹（以色列集体农庄）由爱泼斯坦提出，用来说明自愿的、自下而上的社会主义实验在没有强制的情况下会因成员失去兴趣而瓦解——「工人似乎并不想要」。蒙德拉贡由沃尔夫提出作为反例：1956 年一位神父带六个工人创办的合作社，如今有十万余员工，是西班牙第七大企业，通用汽车和微软还付费让科学家去那里合作研究；他指责爱泼斯坦挑失败案例是「cherry-picking」，就像用福特 Edsel 否定资本主义。爱泼斯坦随即反收编：蒙德拉贡正是在资本主义西班牙成长的，「资本主义会喜欢它」（第 37、52–54 段）。
4. 沃尔夫如何定义「资本主义」？这一定义为什么使他认为爱泼斯坦关于政府权力的攻击「不再相关」？
沃尔夫明确说，他谈的资本主义「不是关于市场，也不是关于政府」，而是生产的组织方式——雇主与雇员作为不同的人处于无休止的斗争中，正如奴隶制是主奴、封建制是领主农奴。他强调奴隶制和封建制都有市场，市场并非资本主义独有。由此，爱泼斯坦所有关于「政府扩权会压制异见、阻碍创新」的论证，在他看来都是针对「国家社会主义」的老论点；而「新社会主义」的着力点在社会基层的工作场所而非政府层面，所以那些论点「打偏了」（第 34–35、63–64 段）。这实际上暴露了两人在用不同定义辩论。
5. 爱泼斯坦用哈耶克的「知识问题」和达尔的算术分别攻击沃尔夫方案的哪一环？两者的逻辑关系是什么？
哈耶克式论证针对「劳动力配置机构」：分散在数十万家企业、1.6 亿工人身上的技能与需求信息是默会的、动态的，中央机构不可能「持续监测、始终知晓」，监测者只会得到浮于表面甚至误导的信息。达尔的算术针对「参与式民主」：60 人各发言 10 分钟需 10 小时，规模稍大就无法运作。两者合起来构成一个两难：若真让所有人参与决策，时间上不可行；若不可行，权力必然落到民选代表和任命者手中，特殊利益集团围绕权力中心形成，「最坏的人爬到最上面」——于是又回到了旧社会主义的老问题（第 24–27 段）。
6. 为什么爱泼斯坦说沃尔夫「为自下而上的革命寻找自上而下的解法」是一个内在矛盾？沃尔夫的回应是什么？
爱泼斯坦的推理链：沃尔夫声称新社会主义「不需要国家」、重心在基层；但工人合作社在资本主义下早已合法且有养老基金等万亿资本可用，却「极少发生」，说明工人并不想要；于是沃尔夫最终只能拥抱科尔宾方案——政府立法赋予工人优先购买权并由政府放贷——这恰恰是靠国家强制推动。沃尔夫的回应是把政府干预重新包装为「扩大自由选择」：只有当经济中存在一个合作社部门，人们才能通过购买和工作亲身体验两种制度，从而真正自由选择；政府的角色是创造这个部门，而非强加。这场交锋出现在两人的结语（第 73–74、78 段）。
7. 关于「死亡人数」的争论，双方各自的归因逻辑是什么？这一争论为什么难以有结论？
爱泼斯坦引用斯大林、毛、波尔布特治下的饥荒与屠杀，强调这是「政府对本国公民」的作为或不作为之罪，是制度性指控。沃尔夫拒绝「数尸体」的论证方式，反指两次世界大战是资本主义经济体竞争的产物，四百年殖民主义摧毁了三分之二的世界，并以自己研究的肯尼亚为例：英国殖民 35 年间人口从 400 万降到 250 万。爱泼斯坦回应说战争死亡他也承认可怕，但那是「对外」而非「对内」。难以有结论的原因在于归因边界：战争和殖民是否应算到「资本主义」头上，饥荒是否应算到「社会主义」而非「极权」头上，取决于各自对制度的定义——而两人的定义恰恰不同（第 50–55 段）。
8. 从「工时缩短」的争论看，两人对劳动力市场的基本假设有何不同？
爱泼斯坦持主流经济学的「劳动–闲暇选择」假设：若工人普遍偏好更短工时，雇主为争夺劳动力会自动提供，1870–1925 年工资上涨、工时下降而工会几乎不存在，就是市场竞争自发改善劳工条件的证据；他认为「劳资议价不对等」是马克思主义神话。沃尔夫持结构性强迫假设：英国早期资本主义 16 小时工作日、童工普遍，每一次缩短都是工人组织起来斗争的结果，「不是自由选择，是制度强加了斗争」。差异的核心在于：个体在劳动力市场上是否真正拥有「退出」的自由——这与前面「饿死的自由是否算侵犯」的争论一脉相承（第 57–61 段）。
9. 沃尔夫在结语中说「辩题的提法本身有问题」，他的理由是什么？这是有效的辩护还是回避？
他的理由是：不存在单数的「社会主义」，它是一个庞大传统，包含北欧社会民主、苏中古模式、工人合作社模式等彼此常常严重对立的流派；用单数提问反映了美国 75 年来对这一传统的无知。作为学术判断，这是准确的。但作为辩护，它有回避之嫌：爱泼斯坦已经明确「按字面意思」只针对沃尔夫自己书中的 WSDE 方案，而非笼统的社会主义；沃尔夫既出版了详细蓝图，又在辩论中说「我不预测未来蓝图」「听不出他引的是我的书」，被爱泼斯坦指为「抛开自己的书」。可以说，沃尔夫的多元论在定义层面有效，但在为具体方案辩护的层面失效——观众投票结果（沃尔夫方净流失）也印证了这一点（第 32、36、71、75 段）。
10. 假设有人向爱泼斯坦提出：「Uber、外卖平台的零工没有议价能力，这不正是沃尔夫说的『饿死的自由』吗？」他会如何回应？
根据他在辩论中的一贯立场，他大概会分三步回应。第一，重申结构性问题多来自「裙带资本主义」而非资本主义本身：他在结语列举的执照制度、住房管制、行会式壁垒，正是阻止低收入者进入更好工作的元凶，解法是「更多资本主义」——拆除这些壁垒。第二，援引劳动–闲暇选择模型：零工工作本身就是许多人对灵活性的自愿选择，若平台条件真的劣于替代选项，劳动力会流向别处。第三，用「go for it」策略收编：如果零工想组建合作社平台（现实中确有 Drivers Cooperative 等尝试），资本主义完全允许，甚至有税收优惠。但他可能难以回答的是：沃尔夫关于「退出自由」的质疑——当所有替代选项都是雇佣关系时，「选择」是否真实（参考第 50、57–60、80 段）。
11. 把沃尔夫的「工作场所民主」放到今天的 AI 公司情境下，他的论点还成立吗？爱泼斯坦的「创新受阻」反驳会更强还是更弱？
沃尔夫的核心论点——员工对「生产什么、如何生产、利润归谁」毫无发言权——在 AI 公司情境下反而更尖锐：训练数据、安全边界、部署对象等决策影响远超企业内部，而普通员工（甚至公众）几乎无法参与；OpenAI 2023 年董事会风波中员工集体施压的事件，可视作对「工作场所民主」需求的一次真实显现。但爱泼斯坦的「创新受阻」反驳也会更强：AI 研发依赖数百亿美元风险资本和极高失败率的押注，若融资需经「民主运作的金融机构」多数批准，受威胁行业的工人有动机否决（他的 iPhone 例子的放大版）；哈耶克的知识问题在技术迭代以月计的领域尤为突出。沃尔夫在第 67–68 段的回应会是：技术决定论是幻象，AI 不改变「谁决定」这一系统问题。两人的分歧最终仍落在「集体决策的成本」与「集中决策的风险」孰轻孰重（参考第 24–28、56、67–68 段）。
下载便签
手机：长按图片保存
← 上一期 · REC_023Manuel Castells: Power and counter-power in the digital society
下一期 · REC_025 →Jeff Dean: The 1% Rule for Building in AI
苏菲拉底
THE SOPHIE LAB · ASK THE BEST MINDS THE BIG QUESTIONS
内容仅供学习 · thesophielab.com