书籍

李斯特 OAPE：物质资本、自然资本与精神资本

作者

这是李斯特在1827年的《美国政治经济学纲要》（Outlines of American Political Economy）中的一些精彩论述。全书共40页，涵盖13篇letters。

文献来源：List, Friedrich. 1827. Outlines of American political economy. Philadelphia: Samuel Parker.

text 1

这些理论家将世界主义原则（cosmopolitical principles）与政治原则（political principles）混淆，因此完全误解了政治经济学的目的（ the object of political economy）。

政治经济学的目的并非像个人主义和世界主义经济学（ individual and cosmopolitical economy），特别是商人的贸易（the trade of a merchant）那样，通过物质交换（exchanging matter for matter）来获取物质（gain matter），而是通过与其他国家交换（exchange with other nations）来获取生产力和政治力量（gain productive and political power），或者通过限制这种交换（restricting that exchange）来防止生产力和政治力量的衰退（prevent the depression of productive and political power）。

因此，他们主要讨论的是物质交换（ the exchange of matter ）的影响，而不是生产力（productive power）本身。

由于他们没有将生产力（productive power）及其在一个国家兴衰的原因（the causes of its rise and fall）作为研究的主要对象（principal object），他们既没有认识到生产力各个组成部分（ the different component parts）的真正作用，也没有认识到物质交换（the exchange of matter）和物质消耗（consumption）的真正作用。

他们将人类工业（human industry）生产的现有物质存量（the existing stock of matter）统称为资本（capital），并赋予（ascribed）这一存量的各个组成部分（the different component parts）一种共同的（common）、平等的（equal），甚至是无所不能（omnipotent）的作用（effect）。

他们认为，一个民族的工业（industry）取决于其资本（the amount of capital）或生产资料的存量（stock of produced matter）；他们没有考虑到，这类资本的生产力（the productiveness of this capital），既取决于自然赋予的资源禀赋（the means afforded by nature），也取决于一个国家的智识发展水平与社会整体状况（the intellectual and social conditions of a nation）。

下文将阐明，如果科学需要用“资本”（capital）这一通用术语来指代现有的生产资料存量（the existing stock of produced matter），那么同样有必要为现有的自然资源存量（the existing stock of natural means）以及现有的社会和智力状况（the existing state of social and intellectual conditions）创造一个通用术语：换言之，存在着自然资本（a capital of nature）、智力资本（a capital of mind）和生产物质资本（and a capital of productive matter），一个民族的生产力（the productive powers）不仅取决于后者，而且主要（principally）取决于前两者。

As these theorists confounded cosmopolitical principles with political principles, so they entirely misapprehended the object of political economy. This object is not to gain matter in exchanging matter for matter as it is in individual and cosmopolitical economy, and particularly in the trade of a merchant. But it is to gain productive and political power by means of exchange with other nations, or to prevent the depression of productive and political power, by restricting that exchange. They treat, therefore, principally of the effects of the exchange of matter instead of treating of productive power. And as they made not the productive power, and the causes of its rise and fall in a nation, the principal object of their inquiry, they neither appreciated the true effect of the different component parts of productive power, nor the true effect of the exchange of matter, nor of the consumption of it. They called the existing stock of matter produced by human industry by the general name of capital, and ascribed to the different component parts of this stock not only a common and equal, but an omnipotent effect. The industry of a people is, according to them, restricted to the amount of capital, or stock of produced matter; they did not consider that the productiveness of this capital depends upon the means afforded by nature, and upon the intellectual and social conditions of a nation. It will be shown hereafter that if the science requires for the existing stock of produced matter the general term of capital, it is equally necessary to create for the existing stock of natural means, as well as for the existing state of social and intellectual conditions, a general term: in other words, there are a capital of nature, a capital of mind, and a capital of productive matter, and the productive powers of a nation depend not only upon the latter, but also and principally upon the two former. （List，1827：18-19）

text 2

认为一个国家的生产力（the productive power of a nation）受限于其物质资本（capital of matter）的说法是不成立的。

萨伊和斯密只关注物质之间的交换（the exchange of matter for matter），即获取物质（gain matter），他们赋予了物质一种它并不具备的全能性（an omnipotent effect）。

生产力的绝大部分在于个人的智力和社会条件（the intellectual and social conditions of the individuals），我称之为精神资本（capital of mind）。

假设全国有十位单干的毛织工，每人拥有一千美元的资本；他们用纺车纺纱，工具简陋，不擅长染色，每个人都是自己生产，事事亲力亲为，因此每人每年只能生产价值不超过一千美元的布匹。现在假设这十位织工联合起来，共同研发纺纱机和更先进的织布机，学习染色技术，分工合作，这样他们每月就能生产并销售价值一万美元的粗呢布。同样价值1万美元的物质资本，过去每年只能生产价值1万美元的粗布；如今，由于社会和知识条件的改善（the improved social and intellectual conditions），或者说由于精神资本的积累（the acquired capital of mind），可以生产价值10万美元的粗布。

同样，一个国家如果拥有同样的物质资本（the same existing matter），只要改善社会和知识条件（ social and intellectual conditions），其生产力（productive power）就能提高十倍。

It is not true that the productive power of a nation is restricted by its capital of matter. Say and Smith having only in view the exchange of matter for matter, to gain matter, ascribe to the matter an omnipotent effect which it has not. Greater part of the productive power consists in the intellectual and social conditions of the individuals, which I call capital of mind. Suppose ten single woollen weavers in the country possess a thousand dollars capital each; they spin the wool by the wheel, they possess very inferior tools, they are not skilled in the art of dyeing, each of them manufacturing for himself, must do everything himself, and therefore each produces not more than one thousand dollars of cloth a year. Suppose now the ten manufacturers unite their capital and their labour, they invent a spinning machine, a more perfect weaving machine, they are instructed in the art of dyeing, they divide the labour amongst them, and in this way they are enabled to manufacture and to sell every month ten thousand dollars’ worth of broad cloth. The same capital of matter amounting to $10,000 produced formerly only $10,000 worth of broad cloth a year, produces now by the improved social and intellectual conditions, or by the acquired capital of mind, $100,000 worth of broad cloth. So can a nation with the same existing matter improve its productive power tenfold in improving its social and intellectual conditions.（List，1827：20-21）

text 3

第三，问题的关键是：美国究竟是否能够：

（1）通过发展棉纺织和毛纺织业等自然手段来提高生产力？（自然资本）。

By its natural means to increase its productive power, by fostering cotton and woollen manufactories? (capital of nature).

（2）凭借其现有的勤劳、教育、进取精神、毅力、军队、海军力量、政府（精神资本），可以合理地预期它能够获得必要的技能，在短时间内通过这些工厂完成其生产力，并且如果获得了政治权力，它能否保护这些工厂。

Whether by its present industry, instruction, enterprising spirit, perseverance, armies, naval power, government (capital of mind), it is reasonably to be expected that it can acquire the necessary skill to complete in a short time its productive power by these manufactories, and whether it can protect them by political power if acquired.

（3）是否存在如此之多的食物、器皿、材料、原材料等（物质资本），以至于能够公平地利用自然资本和精神资本继续发展？

Whether there exists so much superabundance of food, utensils, materials, raw stuff, etc. (capital of matter), as to go on fairly by using the capital of nature and employing the capital of mind.（List，1827：21）

text 4

先生，从这个例子您就能明白，斯密和萨伊关于物质资本增长缓慢（capital of matter increases but slowly）的论断错得多么离谱。
这在过去工业发展受到种种限制、化学、机械等新技术尚未出现的时候或许成立；在那些几乎所有自然资源都已被利用的古老定居国家，这或许也成立；但在一个新兴国家，情况就截然不同了。

在这个国家，自然资本（the capital of nature）的利用率不足十分之一，新的发明（new inventions）创造层出不穷，工业摆脱了一切阻碍，简而言之，一个全新的社会状态（a new state of society）已经形成了前所未有的精神资本（a capital of mind）。

如果这样一个国家的人口以前所未有的速度增长，那么只要社会足够明智（wise），能够运用（employ）其精神资本（capital of mind）去开发和利用（develop and use）其所拥有的自然资本（the capital of nature），物质资本（capital of matter）的增长速度甚至会超过人口的增长速度。

From this example, sir, you may learn how far wrong Smith and Say are in asserting that capital of matter increases but slowly. This was true in former times when industry was checked in every way, when the new powers of chemistry, of mechanics, etc., were not yet in existence: it was true in old settled countries, where nearly all natural means were already used; but it is not true in a new country, where not the tenth part of the capital of nature is in use, where new inventions do wonders, where industry is delivered of all hindrances, where, in short, a new state of society has formed a capital of mind never experienced. If population increases in such a country in a degree never experienced, the increase of capital of matter will outstrip even the increase of population, if the community be wise enough to employ its capital of mind in order to develop and use the capital of nature with which it is blessed.（List，1827：22）

text 5

在国民经济中，各项措施（measures）和事件（events）、个人的条件（condition）和技能（arts）所产生的影响，与不同国家所处的具体环境一样千差万别；总的来说，如果这些措施和事件能够促进（promoting）国家的生产力发展，那么它们就是有益的；反之则不然。

每个国家都必须遵循自身发展生产力的道路（its own course）；换言之，每个国家都有其独特的政治经济模式（ particular political economy）。

In national economy, the effect of measures and of events, of the condition and of the arts of individuals, is as different as the circumstances are, in which the different nations are existing; and all that in general can be said is this, that if they are promoting the productive power of the nation, they are beneficial; if not—not. Every nation must follow its own course in developing its productive powers; or, in other words, every nation has its particular political economy.（List，1827：24）

凡勃伦 TLC chap.01：有闲阶级论 第一章 Introductory

作者

这是凡勃伦《有闲阶级论》第一章中的一些精彩片段。

文献来源：

Veblen, T. 1899. The theory of the leisure class. New York : Macmillan.

text 1

评判标准（standards）与分析视角（points of view）的转变是循序渐进（gradual only）的，极少（seldom）会彻底颠覆（subversion）或完全摒弃（suppression）一套业已被接受的认知立场（standpoint）。

时至今日，人们仍习惯性（habitually）区分生产性职业（industrial occupations）与非生产性职业（non-industrial occupations）；这种现代社会的划分方式（modern distinction），正是野蛮时代区分掠夺劳作（exploit）与苦力劳作（drudgery）演变（transmuted）而来的形态。

在大众普遍认知（popular apprehension）中，战争、政务、公共祭祀（public worship）、公共娱乐活动（public merrymaking）这类事务，和加工制造生存物资（elaborating the material means of life）的劳动有着本质上（intrinsically）的区别。

二者清晰的分界（precise line of demarcation）虽和早期野蛮社会的划分框架（early barbarian scheme）不尽相同，但这种宏观层面的区分标准（the broad distinction）并未被废弃（disuse）。

But the change of standards and points of view is gradual only, and it seldom results in the subversion or entire suppression of a standpoint once accepted. A distinction is still habitually made between industrial and non-industrial occupations; and this modern distinction is a transmuted form of the barbarian distinction between exploit and drudgery. Such employments as warfare, politics, public worship, and public merrymaking, are felt, in the popular apprehension, to differ intrinsically from the labour that has to do with elaborating the material means of life. The precise line of demarcation is not the same as it was in the early barbarian scheme, but the broad distinction has not fallen into disuse.【pp.9-10】

text 2

如今人们心照不宣（tacit）、基于常识（common-sense）形成的划分标准（distinction），实质上（in effect）可以概括为：只有最终目的（ultimate purpose）是利用（utilisation）非人事物的活动（ non-human things），才能被视作生产性（industrial）努力（effort）。

人与人之间带有强制性质的支配利用（coercive utilisation of man by man ），并不会被认为具有生产职能（ an industrial function）；

而一切借助非人外部环境（the non-human environment）改善人类生存条件（enhance human life）的劳动，都统一归为生产活动（industrial activity）。

那些完整继承并改良古典理论传统（classical tradition）的经济学家，普遍将人类 “支配自然的能力（man’s power over nature）” 设定（postulated）为生产产出能力/工业生产力（industrial productivity）的核心特征（characteristic fact）。

这种改造自然的生产能力（ industrial power over nature），涵盖人类驯养动物、掌控各类自然基础力量（elemental forces）的本领。通过这套界定方式，人类与野兽生灵（brute creation）之间被划出一道明确界限。

The tacit, common-sense distinction today is, in effect, that any effort is to be accounted industrial only so far as its ultimate purpose is the utilisation of non-human things. The coercive utilisation of man by man is not felt to be an industrial function; but all effort directed to enhance human life by taking advantage of the non-human environment is classed together as industrial activity. By the economists who have best retained and adapted the classical tradition, man’s“power over nature” is currently postulated as the characteristic fact of industrial productivity. This industrial power over nature is taken to include man’s power over the life of the beasts and over all the elemental forces. A line is in this way drawn between mankind and brute creation.【pp.10】

text 3

在这种对无生命之物（inert）和有生命之物（animate）的朴素区分（naïve discrimination）的指引（guidance）之下，原始社会群体（primitive social group）的各类活动倾向于被分为两大类别，用现代措辞来讲就是掠夺（exploit）与生产劳作（industry）。

生产劳作是付出精力（effort）去创造全新事物（create a new thing），制作者依靠加工之手（the fashioning hand ），从被动的（passive）（“原始粗野的”brute）原材料（material）之中，为这一事物赋予全新的用途（a new purpose）；

而掠夺，就是把此前由另一个主体（another agent）为其他目标（some other end ）所付出的力量（energies），转化为（conversion）服务于其（ps：掠夺者）自身目的（ his own end）的资源，只要这种掠夺能给行为主体（agent）带来有用的（useful）结果（outcome）。

我们至今仍会提及 “原始粗野的物质（brute matter）”，其中多少带有野蛮人当初赋予这个词汇的深层意义（profound significance）。

Under the guidance of this naïve discrimination between the inert and the animate, the activities of the primitive social group tend to fall into two classes, which would in modern phrase be called exploit and industry. Industry is effort that goes to create a new thing, with a new purpose given it by the fashioning hand of its maker out of passive (“brute”) material; while exploit, so far as it results in an outcome useful to the agent, is the conversion to his own ends of energies previously directed to some other end by another agent. We still speak of “brute matter” with something of the barbarian’s realisation of a profound significance in the term.【pp.12-13】

text 4

正如已经指出（indicated）的那样，掠夺（exploit）与苦役（drudgery）之间的划分，是各类职业（employments）之间带有尊卑歧视属性的区分（invidious distinction）。

那些可以被归为掠夺类（exploit）的职业是有价值的（worthy）、光荣的（honourable）、高贵的（noble）；

另一些不包含掠夺成分的职业，尤其是那些暗含顺从（subservience）或臣服（submission）意味的职业，则是无价值的（unworthy）、有损尊严的（debasing）、卑贱的（ignoble）。

尊严（dignity）、价值（worth）或是荣誉（honour）这一概念，无论用于形容人（persons）还是行为（conduct），在阶层（classes）以及阶层划分（class distinctions）的演化过程（development）中具备头等重要的意义（first-rate consequence），因此有必要阐述它的起源（derivation）与内涵（meaning）。支撑这一概念的心理基础（psychological ground）可以大致概述（indicated in outline）如下。

As has already been indicated, the distinction between exploit and drudgery is an invidious distinction between employments. Those employments which are to be classed as exploit are worthy, hon- ourable, noble; other employments, which do not contain this element of exploit, and especially those which imply subservience or submis- sion, are unworthy, debasing, ignoble. The concept of dignity, worth, or honour, as applied either to persons or conduct, is of first-rate consequence in the development of classes and of class distinctions, and it is therefore necessary to say something of its derivation and meaning. Its psychological ground may be indicated in outline as follows. 【pp.15】

text 5

出于筛选层面的必然（selective necessity），男子是行为主体（agent）。

在他自身的认知（apprehension）当中，他是展开冲动性活动（impulsive activity）的核心 —— 也就是 “目的论式的（teleological）” 活动。

他作为行为主体，在每一次行动之中都追求某个具体（concrete）、客观（objective）、非个人化（impersonal）目标（end）的达成（accomplishment）。

正是由于具备这样的主体属性，他天生喜爱富有成效的劳作（effective work），厌恶徒劳无功的付出（futile effort）。

他能够感知有用性（serviceability）或效率（efficiency）所具备的价值（merit），也能察觉无用（futility）、浪费（waste）或是无能（incapacity）所带来的缺陷（demerit）。

这种先天倾向（aptitude）或固有习性（propensity）可以被称作技艺本能（instinct of workmanship）。

只要生活环境（circumstances）或是生活传统（traditions）使人习惯性（habitual）地在效率（efficiency）层面将人与人相互对比（comparison），技艺本能（the instinct of workmanship）就会演变为带有竞争意味或是尊卑歧视性的人际攀比（an emulative or invidious comparison of persons）。

这一结果的显现程度，在很大程度上取决于族群的性格气质（temperament of the population）。

在任何一个习惯于开展这种歧视性人际对比（ invidious comparison of persons）的社群（community）里，外在可见的成功（visible success ）本身就会成为追求目标，因为它能作为获取他人尊重（esteem）的依据。

人们通过展现自身的办事效率来收获尊重（Esteem）、规避非议（dispraise）。

最终，技艺本能（the instinct of workmanship）会转化为带有竞争性质的实力展示（ an emulative demonstration of force）。

As a matter of selective necessity, man is an agent. He is, in his own apprehension, a centre of unfolding impulsive activity—“teleological” activity. He is an agent seeking in every act the accomplishment of some concrete, objective, impersonal end. By force of his being such an agent he is possessed of a taste for effective work, and a distaste for futile effort. He has a sense of the merit of serviceability or efficiency and of the demerit of futility, waste, or incapacity. This aptitude or propensity may be called the instinct of workmanship. Wherever the circumstances or traditions of life lead to an habitual comparison of one person with another in point of efficiency, the instinct of workmanship works out in an emulative or invidious comparison of persons. The extent to which this result follows depends in some considerable degree on the temperament of the population. In any community where such an invidious comparison of persons is habitually made, visible success becomes an end sought for its own utility as a basis of esteem. Esteem is gained and dispraise is avoided by putting one’s efficiency in evidence. The result is that the instinct of workmanship works out in an emulative demonstration of force.【pp.15-16】

text 6

因此，平和（peaceable）文化阶段与掠夺性（predatory）文化阶段之间实质性的区别（substantial difference），是精神层面（spiritual）的区别，而非物质工具层面（mechanical）的区别。

精神心态（spiritual attitude）的转变，是群体生活物质现实（material facts）发生改变所衍生的结果（outgrowth）；当有利于掠夺心态（favourable to a predatory attitude ）形成的物质环境（material circumstances）逐步出现（supervene）时，这种精神转变便会缓慢发生。

掠夺文化（the predatory culture）的下限（inferior limit）是生产限度（an industrial limit）。

只有当生产方式（industrial methods）的效率（efficiency）发展到一定水平，在维持谋生者基本生存（subsistence）之外，还能留出值得争夺的剩余物资（margin worth fighting for），掠夺才能成为任何群体或阶层习惯性（habitual）、常规性（conventional）的手段（resource）。

所以，从平和阶段向掠夺阶段的过渡（transition），依托于技术知识（technical knowledge）的发展与工具的使用（the use of tools）。

在远古时期，掠夺型文明无法形成，除非武器（weapons）发展到足以让人类具备强大威慑力（formidable）的程度。

当然，工具与武器的早期发展，只是同一客观事实从两种不同视角（points of view）观察得出的两种表述。

The substantial difference between the peaceable and the predatory phase of culture, therefore, is a spiritual difference, not a mechanical one. The change in spiritual attitude is the outgrowth of a change in the material facts of the life of the group, and it comes on gradually as the material circumstances favourable to a predatory attitude supervene. The inferior limit of the predatory culture is an industrial limit. Predation cannot become the habitual, conventional resource of any group or any class until industrial methods have been developed to such a degree of efficiency as to leave a margin worth fighting for, above the subsistence of those engaged in getting a living. The transition from peace to predation therefore depends on the growth of technical knowledge and the use of tools. A predatory culture is similarly impracticable in early times, until weapons have been developed to such a point as to make man a formidable animal. The early development of tools and of weapons is of course the same fact seen from two different points of view.【pp.20】

text 7

只要习惯性的争斗（habitual recourse to combat）没有使争斗成为人们日常思想的焦点（foreground in men’s everyday thoughts），成为人类生活的主导特征（dominant feature），那么一个群体的生活就可以被描述为和平的。

显然，一个群体可能在不同程度上达到这种掠夺性的态度，以至于其生活方式（scheme of life）和行为准则（canons of conduct ）在不同程度上受到掠夺本能（predatory animus）的控制。

因此，文化的掠夺阶段（The predatory phase of culture）被认为是逐渐形成的，是通过掠夺能力（predatory aptitudes）、习惯（habits）和传统（traditions）的累积增长（cumulative growth ）而实现的。

这种增长源于群体生活环境（circumstances）的变化，这种变化发展（develop）并保留（conserve）了那些使人走向掠夺而非和平生活的人性特征（ traits of human nature ）以及传统和行为规范（traditions and norms of conduct）。

The life of a given group would be characterised as peaceable so long as habitual recourse to combat has not brought the fight into the foreground in men’s everyday thoughts, as a dominant feature of the life of man. A group may evidently attain such a predatory attitude with a greater or less degree of completeness, so that its scheme of life and canons of conduct may be controlled to a greater or less extent by the predatory animus. The predatory phase of culture is therefore conceived to come on gradually, through a cumulative growth of predatory aptitudes, habits, and traditions, this growth being due to a change in the circumstances of the group’s life, of such a kind as to develop and conserve those traits of human nature and those traditions and norms of conduct that make for a predatory rather than a peaceable life.【pp.20-21】

李斯特 NationalSPE chap.13：政治经济学与世界主义经济学

作者

以下内容选自李斯特1841年作品《政治经济学的国民体系》（the national system of political economy）（Das nationale System der politischen Oekonomie）

第二编【理论】部分 第十三章 政治经济学与世界主义经济学 political and cosmopolitical economy (Die politische und die kosmopolitische Ökonomie)

英译本：List, Friedrich. 1904. The national system of political economy. translated by Llyod S. S. London: Longmans, Green, and Co.

部分采用机器翻译，不妥之处，请回溯原文。

text 1

倘若我们想要恪守（remain true to）逻辑法则（laws of logic）与事物本质规律（nature of things），就必须将个体经济（economy of individuals）与社会经济（economy of societies）区分开来；针对后者，还要进一步做出辨析（discriminate）：

其一为真正的政治经济学或国家经济学（true political or national economy），该学说源自（emanating from）国家的理念与本质（ the idea and nature of the nation），阐释在当下世界格局（ the present state of the world ）、本国特有对外关系（its own special national relations）下，特定国家（a given nation）该如何维系并改善自身的经济状况（economical conditions）；

其二为世界主义经济学（cosmopolitical economy），这一理论建立在如下预设（assumption）之上：地球上所有国家（all nations of the earth）共同构成单一社会（one society），永久处于和平共处的状态（perpetual state of peace）。

If we wish to remain true to the laws of logic and of the nature of things, we must set the economy of individuals against the economy of societies, and discriminate in respect to the latter I between true political or national economy (which, emanating from the idea and nature of the nation, teaches how a given nation in the present state of the world and its own special national relations can maintain and improve its economical conditions) and cosmopolitical economy, which originates in the assumption that all nations of the earth form but one society living in a perpetual state of peace.【from 英译本 pp.99-100】

text 2

从这一视角（point of view）来看，国家经济学（national economy）便是这样一门科学（science）：它准确地认知（correctly appreciating）各国当下的利益（existing interests）与独特国情（individual circumstances ），阐明每一个独立国家（every separate nation）该如何发展至这样一种产业发展阶段（stage of industrial development）—— 待到本国与其他同等发达的国家开展合作（union）时，自由贸易（freedom of trade）才能够落地推行，并为本国带来实际益处（useful）。

And national economy appears from this point of view to be that science which, correctly appreciating the existing interests and the individual circumstances of nations, teaches how every separate nation can be raised to that stage of industrial development in which union with other nations equally well developed, and consequently freedom of trade, can become possible and useful to it.【from 英译本 pp.103】

text 3

但主流学派（popular school）却将两套理论（doctrines）混为一谈（mixed up）；该学派犯下了严重的（grave）谬误（error）：单纯依据世界主义理论准则（purely cosmopolitical principles）评判各国发展现状，同时又仅出于本国政治层面（ political reasons）的考量，忽视（ignoring）生产力（productive powers）本身具备的世界化发展趋势（cosmopolitical tendency）。

The popular school, however, has mixed up both doctrines with one another; it has fallen into the grave error of judging of the conditions of nations according to purely cosmopolitical principles, and of ignoring from merely political reasons the cosmopolitical tendency of the productive powers.【from 英译本 pp.103】