Destiny of Civilization, Interview by Ben Norton

《文明的命運》,本·諾頓訪談:

MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, the Nobel Prize is given basically for junk economics. And probably the worst junk economist of the century was Paul Samuelson.
He made the absurd claim that he proved mathematically that, if you have free trade then, and don’t have tariffs, and don’t have any government protection, then everyone will become more equal. At least the proportions between labor and capital will be more equal. Well, the reality is just the opposite.
And the term “free-trade imperialism” was actually created by a British historian of trade theory who pointed out that, wait a minute, when England went for free trade, the idea was, if we have free trade, we can stifle other countries from being able to industrialize, because if we have free trade, then we can tell America, we will open our doors to your markets – meaning the markets of the slave South, that Britain supported – and in exchange, you will open your markets to our industrial goods.
And America followed that until the Civil War, which was fought not only over slavery, but by the Republican Party after 1853 that said very explicitly, if we’re going to win the election – the Whigs never could win – if we, the new party, are going to win the election and industrialize America, we’ve got to integrate ourselves with the anti-slavery issue, with emancipation, but for us, the economic war of America is a war of, either we’re going to have protective tariffs in the North, or we’re going to end up as a non-industrial, raw materials-producing society, as the South wants.

邁克爾·哈德森:
諾貝爾獎基本上是頒給垃圾經濟學的。本世紀最糟糕的垃圾經濟學家可能是保羅·薩繆爾森(Paul Samuelson)。他提出了一個荒謬的主張,他從數學上證明了,如果你有自由貿易,沒有關稅,沒有任何政府保護,那么每個人都會變得更平等,至少勞動力和資本的比例會更加平等。但事實恰恰相反。
“自由貿易帝國主義”一詞實際上是由一位研究貿易理論的英國歷史學家創造的。當英國追求自由貿易時,我們的想法是,如果我們有自由貿易,我們就可以扼殺其他國家的工業化,因為如果我們有自由貿易,我們就可以告訴美國,我們將向你們的市場——即英國支持的南方奴隸市場——敞開大門,作為交換,你們將向我們的工業產品開放市場。
美國聽從了建議,直到南北戰爭。這場戰爭不僅是為奴隸制而戰,而且在1853年后由共和黨發起。它非常明確地說,如果我們要贏得選舉,輝格黨就絕不能勝選。如果我們,這個新黨,要贏得選舉,實現美國工業化,我們就要把自己和反奴隸制以及解放運動結合起來。但對我們來說,美國的經濟戰爭是一場——要么我們在北方實施保護性關稅,要么我們將像南方所希望的那樣,成為一個非工業的、原材料生產的社會。

that was the debate from 1815, when the Napoleonic wars ended and world trade began again, until really the Civil War.
And America became strong in the way that Germany became strong too, by having protective tariffs, in order to have prices large enough to nurture what was called infant industry, to nurture American manufacturing.
And I wrote a long book about this, published some years ago based on my PhD dissertation, “America’s Protectionist Takeoff.”
Well, the English tried to fight against other countries protecting their economy, saying that if you just have free trade, you’ll get rich. Whereas the reality is, if we have free trade, you’ll get poor, if you’re not already able to have industrial and labor productivity and agricultural productivity on par with the most advanced countries.
Free trade was an attempt to prevent other countries from investing government money and building up their agriculture, and building up their industry, and building up their productivity, and creating a school system, to raise wages, to make wages more productive.

這種爭論從1815年開始,拿破侖戰爭結束,世界貿易重新開始,直到(美國)內戰爆發。美國變得強大,就像德國變得強大一樣,通過保護性關稅,為了讓價格足夠高來培育所謂的嬰兒工業,培育美國制造業。
關于這個問題,我寫了一本很長的書,幾年前以我的博士論文《美國的保護主義起飛》為基礎出版。
英國人試圖與其他國家對抗,保護他們的經濟,他們說,如果你有自由貿易,你就會變得富有。然而現實是,如果我們有自由貿易,你會變窮,你就不能擁有與最先進國家相當的工業、勞動和農業生產力。
自由貿易試圖阻止其他國家投入政府資金發展農業,發展工業,提高生產力,建立教育體系,提高工資,提高工資效率。

the American protectionists said, well, we’re going to have a high-wage economy because high-wage labor undersells pauper labor. And skilled, well-fed, well-rested American labor can produce much more than the pauper labor of other countries that have free trade.
Well, what the leading American protectionist economist, Erasmus Peshine Smith, went to Japan and helped industrial help Japan break away from British free trade, helped Japan industrialize.
And other American economists, other foreign economists, all picked up the ideas of the American protectionist, like Friedrich List went to Germany promoting protectionism.
And Peshine Smith’s book, “The Manual of Political Economy,” was translated into all the foreign languages – Japanese, Italian, French, German.
And you had Europe realizing that free trade polarizes economies. Well, it was this that after World War One, and especially World War Two, when you had orthodox economics turning into basically propaganda.

美國的保護主義者說,好吧,我們將會有一個高工資的經濟,因為高工資的勞動力(成本)低于貧窮的勞動力。有技能、吃得好、休息得好的美國勞動力可以比其他擁有自由貿易的國家的貧窮勞動力生產出更多的產品。
美國著名的保護主義經濟學家伊拉茲馬斯·佩辛·史密斯(Erasmus Peshine Smith),去了日本,幫助日本脫離英國的自由貿易并實現工業化。其他美國經濟學家,其他外國經濟學家,都接受了美國保護主義的觀點,比如弗里德里希·李斯特(Friedrich List)去德國提倡保護主義。
佩辛·史密斯的書《政治經濟學手冊》被翻譯成日語、意大利語、法語和德語。你讓歐洲意識到自由貿易使經濟兩極分化。正是在一戰之后,尤其是二戰之后,正統經濟學基本上變成了宣傳。

That’s where you and Samuelson and others try to convince other countries, governments are bad, leave everything to the wealthy people, to the finance people, trickle-down economies, it’s all going to trickle down, don’t worry, just give more money to the rich, and don’t have any government interference with markets. Whereas America had got rich by interfering with markets, to shape them in the years leading up to World War One. But after World War One, America had already achieved its industrial dominance. And it was after World War One that America said, ok, now our protective tariffs have enabled us to outproduce all the other countries, and our protectionist agriculture especially – the most protected sector in America, has always been agriculture, since the 1930s.
Basically it said, well, now we can outproduce other countries, we can undersell them, now we can tell them to go for free trade.
And after World War Two, the Americans created the World Bank for economic impoverishment, and the International Monetary Austerity Fund.

薩繆爾森等人試圖說服其他國家:政府是糟糕的,(應該)把一切都留給富人,留給金融家,這是涓滴經濟,它會涓滴下去,別擔心,把更多的錢給富人,政府不干預市場。而美國是通過干預市場致富的,在第一次世界大戰之前的幾年里對市場進行了塑造。
但在第一次世界大戰后,美國已經取得了工業主導地位。第一次世界大戰后,美國說:現在我們的保護性關稅使我們的產量超過了所有其他國家,尤其是我們的保護主義農業——自20世紀30年代以來,美國最受保護的部門一直是農業。基本上它在說,現在我們可以在生產上超過其他國家,我們可以在售價上低于他們,現在我們可以讓他們進行自由貿易。
第二次世界大戰后,美國人為解決經濟貧困創立了世界銀行和國際貨幣緊縮基金組織。

the World Bank’s leading obxtive was to prevent other countries from investing in their own food production.
The guiding line of the World Bank was, we’ve got to provide infrastructure for building up plantation agriculture in Latin America, and Africa, and other countries, so that they will grow tropical export crops, but they cannot be permitted to grow grain or wheat to feed themselves; they must be dependent on the United States.
And so the function of free trade, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund has been to finance dependency, backed up by the American support of dictatorships throughout Latin America who agree to have client oligarchies supporting pro-American trade patterns and avoiding any kind of self-reliance, so that the United States can do what it has recently done to Russia and other countries, impose sanctions – say, well, now that you depended on us for your grain, we can now impose sanctions, and you can’t feed yourself if you don’t follow the policies we want.

世界銀行的主要目標是阻止其他國家投資本國的糧食生產。世界銀行的指導方針是,我們必須為拉丁美洲、非洲和其他國家的種植園農業建設提供基礎設施,所以他們可以種植熱帶出口作物,但他們不能種植谷物或小麥來養活自己,他們必須依賴美國。
所以自由貿易的功能就是,世界銀行/國際貨幣基金組織一直在為依賴提供資金,美國支持整個拉丁美洲的獨裁政權,這些獨裁政權同意政治支持親美貿易模式,避免任何形式的自力更生。這樣美國就可以像它最近對俄羅斯和其他國家所做的那樣,施加制裁——比如說,好吧,現在你們的糧食依賴我們,我們現在可以施加制裁,如果你們不遵循我們想要的政策,你們就無法養活自己。

That was the policy that America tried to use against China after Mao’s revolution. And fortunately for China, Canada broke that monopoly, and said, well, we’re going to sell grain to China. And China was always very friendly to Canada in those earlier decades.
So basically, free trade means no government, no socialism. It means central planning essentially by Wall Street – countries should let American firms come in, buy control of their raw materials, resources, control of their oil and gas, and mineral rights, and forests and plantations, and basically let other countries send their whole economic surplus to the United States, where it will be duly financialized to buy out other countries’ raw materials and rent yielding resources.

這也是新中國成立后美國試圖用來對付中國的政策。幸運的是,加拿大打破了美國的壟斷,它說,我們要向中國出售糧食。在新中國成立后的幾十年里,中國一直對加拿大非常友好。
所以基本上,自由貿易意味著沒有政府,沒有社會主義,意味著由華爾街主導的中央計劃——各國應該讓美國公司進入,購買他們的原材料、資源、石油和天然氣的控制權、采礦權、森林和種植園的控制權,基本上是讓其他國家把他們的全部經濟盈余送到美國,在那里,這些盈余將被適當地融資來購買其他國家的原材料和租用產生收益的資源。
原創翻譯:龍騰網 http://www.elektroniksigara1.com 轉載請注明出處


BENJAMIN NORTON: Yeah, and in your book, you have a very funny passage that I think really encapsulates this ideology that you’re talking about here.
You referred to Charles Wilson, who was the secretary of defense under Eisenhower in the U.S., and he was also the former CEO of General Motors.
And he famously said, “What’s good for General Motors is good for the country.” And that idea has morphed into the idea that, “What’s good for Wall Street is good for America.”
And then you note that “this merged with evangelistic U.S. foreign policy that says ‘What’s good for America is good for the world.’ And therefore the logical syllogism is clear: ‘What’s good for Wall Street is good for the world.’”
And you describe this, you lix it to the new cold war, this idea that what’s good for the U.S. is good for the world and what’s good for Wall Street is good for the U.S., therefore, what’s good for Wall Street is good for the world.
You argue, “We must recognize how finance capitalism has gained power over industrial economies, above all in the United States, from which it seeks to project itself globally, led by the financialized U.S. economy. Today’s new Cold War is a fight to impose rentier-based finance capitalism on the entire world.”

本杰明·諾頓:
是的,在你的書中,你有一段非常有趣的段落,我認為它概括了你在這里談論的意識形態。你提到了查爾斯·威爾遜,他是美國艾森豪威爾時期的國防部長,他也是通用汽車公司的前首席執行官。
他有句名言:“對通用汽車有利的事,就是對國家有利。”這個想法已經演變成“對華爾街有利的就是對美國有利。” 然后你會注意到,“這與福音派的美國外交政策相結合,該政策認為“對美國有利的事情就是對世界有利。”
因此,邏輯上的三段論很清楚:“對華爾街有利的事,就是對世界有利。”
你描述了這一點,你把它與新冷戰聯系起來,這種觀點認為對美國有利的事情對世界有利,對華爾街有利的事情對美國有利,因此,對華爾街有利的事情就是對世界有利。
你認為,“我們必須認識到金融資本主義是如何在工業經濟中獲得力量的,尤其是在美國,它試圖從美國在金融化的美國經濟的領導下,在全球范圍內投射自己(的力量)。今天的新冷戰是一場將以食利者為基礎的金融資本主義強加給整個世界的戰斗。”

And this is such an important analysis. Because among those very few people of us who talk about this idea of the new cold war and how dangerous it is, there are very few people who frx it in economic terms.
Usually we frx it in political terms, right, the geopolitical interests between the US and the EU on one side, and China and Russia on the other.
And going back to Brzezinski and The Grand Chessboard, his 1997 book, where he talks about the importance of preventing near strategic competitors from emerging in Eurasia. That’s of course a geopolitical discussion and economics is part of it, but it’s often not at the forefront.
But your analysis I think is even more important, and more accurate, because your argument is not only is it geopolitical, but the geopolitical struggle is rooted in economics. And this is an economic struggle between systems.
So talk talk more about the new cold war and how you see it.

這是一個非常重要的分析。因為在我們當中很少有人談論新冷戰的概念以及它有多危險,很少有人從經濟角度來框定它。通常我們用政治術語來描述它,對吧,一邊是美國和歐盟,另一邊是中國和俄羅斯之間的地緣政治利益。
回到布熱津斯基和他1997年的著作《大棋局》(The Grand Chessboard),他在書中談到了防止戰略競爭對手在歐亞大陸崛起的重要性。這當然是事關地緣政治的討論,但經濟也是其中的一部分,盡管通常不是最重要的。
我認為你的分析更重要,更準確,因為你的論點不僅是地緣政治,而且地緣政治斗爭植根于經濟學。這是制度之間的經濟斗爭。
所以,這里談論更多的是關于新冷戰的話題以及你如何看待它。

MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, as we’re seeing now, the world is dividing into two parts. We can see that in the fight against Russia, which is also a fight against China, and against India, as you noted. And it seems Indonesia and other countries as well.
The United States is pushing a world that can be controlled by American investors. The ideal of the American neoliberal plan is to do to other countries what it did to Russia after 1991: take all of your public domain, your oil companies, your nickel mines, your electric utilities, give them all to the wealthy oligarchy, that can only make money once it’s taken control of these companies, by selling the stocks to the West.
The West will buy out oil, just like Mikhail Khodorkovsky tried to sell Yukos oil to Standard Oil in the West. And we’ve got to put an oligarchy that will sell all of the national domain, all of the patrimony and natural resources, and all the companies, to American investors on the cheap.
The Russian stock market led all the stock markets in the world from 1994 up to about 1998. This was a huge rip off. The United States wants to be able to do that to the rest of the world.

邁克爾·哈德森:
正如我們現在看到的,世界正被分成兩部分。我們可以從與俄羅斯的斗爭中看到這一點,正如你提到的,這也是與中國和印度的斗爭。印度尼西亞和其他國家也是如此。
美國正在推動一個由美國投資者控制的世界。美國新自由主義計劃的理想是對其他國家做它在1991年后對俄羅斯做過的事情: 把你所有的公有領域,你的石油公司,你的鎳礦,你的電力設施,都交給富裕的寡頭政治,他們只有控制了這些公司,才能賺錢,才能通過賣股票給西方。
西方會買下所有的石油,就像霍多爾科夫斯基試圖把尤科斯的石油賣給西方的標準石油一樣。我們必須建立一個寡頭政治,將所有的國家領土,所有的遺產和自然資源,以及所有的公司,廉價地賣給美國投資者。
從1994年到1998年,俄羅斯股市在全球股市中遙遙領先。但這是一場巨大的騙局。美國希望對世界其他國家也能這樣做。

And it was furious when Russia said, we’ve lost more population as a result of neoliberalism than we did in all of World War Two fighting against Nazism. We’ve got to stop.
And Russia began to say, we’ve got to use Russia’s population, and industry, and natural resources for Russia’s benefit, not for the United States’ benefit.
Well, the United States was absolutely furious with this. And the fury has erupted in the NATO war against Russia in the last few months, and what’s ongoing now.
And the United States says, U.S. State Department officials have said, what we want to do is carve up Russia into maybe four different countries: Siberia, western Russia, southern Russia or Central Asia, maybe northern Russia.

當俄羅斯說,我們因為新自由主義失去的人口比我們在二戰中與納粹主義作戰時失去的人口還要多時,這令人非常憤怒。我們必須停下來。
俄羅斯開始說,我們必須利用俄羅斯的人口、工業和自然資源來為俄羅斯造福,而不是為美國造福。美國對此當然非常憤怒。過去幾個月里,北約對俄羅斯的戰爭爆發了憤怒情緒,現在還在繼續。
美國說、美國國務院官員說,我們想要做的是把俄羅斯分成四個不同的國家:西伯利亞,俄羅斯西部,俄羅斯南部或中亞,也許還有俄羅斯北部。
原創翻譯:龍騰網 http://www.elektroniksigara1.com 轉載請注明出處


And once we’ve done that, we cut Russia off from China, then we go into China. We finance, we send ISIS and al-Qaeda into the Uyghur areas, the Muslim areas, and we start a color revolution there. And then we break up China, into a northern part, a southern part, a central part.
And once we break them up, we can more or less control them. And we can then come in, buy up their resources, and take over their industry, their labor, and their government, and get richer to obtain from China, Russia, India, Indonesia, and Iran the wealth that we’re no longer producing in the United States, now that we de-industrialized.
So the world is dividing into two parts. And it’s not simply the United States and its European satellites on the one hand versus the non-white population on the other hand; it’s finance capitalism versus the rest of the world, which is protecting itself by socialism, which in many ways fulfills what was the ideal of industrial capitalism during the 19th century, when industrial capitalism was actually progressive.
And it was progressive. That’s part of the whole theme of my book. It was revolutionary. It tried to free economies from the legacy of feudalism, from the legacy of hereditary landlords.

一旦我們成功,我們就切斷了俄羅斯和中國的聯系,然后我們會對準中國。我們會提供資金……一旦我們成功,我們就能或多或少地控制他們。然后我們就可以進入、買下他們的資源、接管他們的產業、他們的勞動力、他們的政府,
從中國、俄羅斯、印度、印度尼西亞和伊朗獲得財富,這些財富是我們在美國不再生產的,因為我們去工業化了。
所以世界分成了兩部分。這不僅僅是美國和它的歐洲衛星國與非白人人口的對抗。這是金融資本主義與世界其他國家的對抗,后者通過社會主義來保護自己,后者在很多方面實現了19世紀工業資本主義的理想,當時工業資本主義實際上是進步的。
進步,是我這本書的主題之一,它是革命性的。它試圖將經濟從封建主義和世襲地主的遺產中解放出來。

And now the financial class is no longer the landlord class, but the landlord class pays most of its rent to the financial class in the form of mortgage interest, as it borrows money to buy property and housing and commercial sites on credit.
And you have the kind of financialization that has increased housing prices in the United States to over 40% of income, that is officially guaranteed for mortgages. That has priced American labor out of the market.
Privatized health care, 18% of GDP, that is pricing America out of the world market. Debt, auto debt, student debt, which in other countries education is free; that’s pricing America out of the market.
So you have a basically un-competitive economy that’s committing financial suicide, following the same dynamic that destroyed the Roman empire, where a predatory oligarchy took over and maintained power by an assassination policy of its critics, just very similar to what America has been doing in Latin America and other countries.
So you’re having history repeat itself with this same kind of world split. And this split couldn’t have occurred back in the 1970s, with the Bandung Conference in Indonesia. There were other attempts by the Non-Aligned nations to break free of American imperialism, but they didn’t have a critical mass.

現在金融階層不再是地主階級,但地主階級以抵押貸款利息的形式向金融階層支付大部分租金,因為他們貸款購買房產、住房和商業用地。這種金融化將美國的房價提高到收入的40%以上,這是官方擔保的抵押貸款。這導致美國勞動力因價格過高而被擠出市場。
私有化的醫療保健,占GDP的18%,正把美國擠出世界市場。債務,汽車債務,學生債務,正將美國擠出市場。而在其他國家教育是免費的。
這是一個基本上沒有競爭力的經濟,這是在自尋死路,與摧毀羅馬帝國如出一轍。當時,掠奪性的寡頭政治通過對其批評者的暗殺,來接管并維持權力,這與美國在拉丁美洲和其他國家所做的非常相似。
所以歷史在重演同樣的世界分裂。這種分裂在20世紀70年代印度尼西亞萬隆會議時是不可能發生的。不結盟國家也曾試圖擺脫美帝國主義,但他們沒有達到臨界質量。
原創翻譯:龍騰網 http://www.elektroniksigara1.com 轉載請注明出處


So right now, for the first time, you have a critical mass. And you have the ability of China, Iran, Russia, India, other countries together to be self-sufficient. They don’t need relations with the United States.
They can handle their own; they can create their own monetary system outside of the International Monetary Fund, which is basically an arm of the Defense Department. They can give loans to build up the infrastructure of countries outside of the World Bank, which is basically an arm of the Defense Department, the deep state.
So you have the American economy – essentially a merger between the military-industrial complex and the Wall Street FIRE sector, finance, insurance, and real estate – really cannot develop any more than the Roman Empire could develop, by trying to obtain militarily what it could not produce at home anymore.

現在,第一次,你達到了臨界質量。中國,伊朗,俄羅斯,印度,還有其他國家都有能力自給自足。他們不需要與美國建立關系。他們能處理好自己的事情。他們可以在國際貨幣基金組織之外建立自己的貨幣體系,國際貨幣基金組織基本上是國防部的一個部門。他們可以向世界銀行以外的國家提供貸款來建設基礎設施,世界銀行基本上也是國防部的一個部門,深層國家。

So you have the American economy – essentially a merger between the military-industrial complex and the Wall Street FIRE sector, finance, insurance, and real estate – really cannot develop any more than the Roman Empire could develop, by trying to obtain militarily what it could not produce at home anymore.
Well, China and other countries, now that they have their industrial base, the raw materials, the food, the ability to feed themselves, the agriculture, and the technology, they can go their own way.
And so we’re seeing in the last few months the beginning of a war that is going to go on for, I think, 20 years, maybe 30 or 40 years. The world is splitting away.
And it won’t be a pretty sight, because the United States and its European satellites are trying to fight to prevent an inevitable break away they cannot prevent, any more than Europe’s landlord class could prevent industrial capitalism from developing in the 19th century.

這就是美國經濟——本質上是軍工復合體和華爾街FIRE部門,即金融、保險和房地產的結合,與羅馬帝國一樣,它無法獲得更多的發展,因為他們試圖通過軍事獲取國內無法生產的東西。
中國和其他國家,現在他們有了自己的工業基礎,原材料,食物,養活自己的能力,農業和技術,他們可以走自己的路。所以我們看到在過去的幾個月里,一場戰爭開始了,我認為這場戰爭將持續20年,可能30年或40年。世界正在分裂。
這將不會是一幅美好的景象,因為美國及其歐洲的衛星國正試圖阻止一場他們無法阻止的、不可避免的分裂,就像歐洲的地主階級在19世紀阻止工業資本主義的發展一樣。
(未完待續)