經(jīng)管專業(yè)外文翻譯----全球化的威脅

1、<p>　　畢業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)（論文）外文資料翻譯</p><p>　　The Threat of Globalization</p><p>　　By Edward S. Herman</p><p>　　New Politics</p><p>　　vol. 7, no. 2 (new series), whole no. 26 <

2、/p><p>　　Winter 1999 </p><p>　　Globalization is both an active process of corporate expansion across borders and a structure of cross-border facilities and economic linkages that has been steadily

3、growing and changing as the process gathers steam. Like its conceptual partner "free trade," globalization is also an ideology, whose function is to reduce any resistance to the process by making it seem both h

4、ighly beneficent and unstoppable. </p><p>　　And as with free trade, while globalization may sometimes yield economic benefits, both the process and economic-political regime it is helping bring about threate

5、n progressive ends, and should be recognized as such and fought at every level. Admittedly this is a formidable task, as the economic and political power of its beneficiaries, and its momentum, are great and contesting i

6、t seems an almost utopian undertaking. But globalization has its vulnerabilities, and attacking it intellectually, at</p><p>　　Globalization as Ideology</p><p>　　Globalization is just one of an

7、array of concepts and arguing points that have been mobilized to advance the corporate agenda. Others have been deregulation and getting government off our backs, balancing the budget, cutting back entitlements (non-corp

8、orate), and free trade. </p><p>　　Like free trade, globalization has an aura of virtue. Just as "freedom" must be good, so globalization hints at internationalism and solidarity between countries,

9、as opposed to nationalism and protectionism, which have negative connotations. The possibility that cross-border trade and investment might be economically damaging to the weaker party, or that they might erode democrati

10、c controls in both the stronger and weaker countries, is excluded from consideration by mainstream economists and pun</p><p>　　As an ideology, globalization connotes not only freedom and internationalism, bu

11、t, as it helps realize the benefits of free trade, and thus comparative advantage and the division of labor, it also supposedly enhances efficiency and productivity. Because of these virtues, and the alleged inability of

12、 governments to halt "progress," globalization is widely perceived as beyond human control, which further weakens resistance. </p><p>　　The Economic Failure of Globalization</p><p>　　A

13、s the globalization process has been engineered by corporate elites, and serves their interests, they have successfully conveyed the impression that globalization is not only inevitable but has been a great success. This

14、 is fallacious. Even ignoring for the moment its distributional effects, globalization has been marked by substantial declines in rates of output, productivity, and investment growth. Under the new regime of enhanced fin

15、ancial mobility and power, with greater volatility of finan</p><p>　　But the elites have done well despite the slackened productivity growth. Because globalization has helped keep wages down, while increasin

16、g real interest rates, the upper 5 percent of households have been able to skim off a large fraction of the reduced productivity gains, thereby permitting elite incomes and stock market values to rise rapidly. But it was

17、 a different story for the global majority. Income inequality rose markedly both within and between countries. In the United States, despite a</p><p>　　The gap in incomes between the 20 percent of the world&

18、#39;s population in the richest and poorest countries has grown from 30 to 1 in 1960 to 82 to 1 in 1995, and Third World conditions have in many respects worsened. Per capita incomes have fallen in more than 70 countries

19、 over the past 20 years; some 3 billion people--half the world's population, live on under two dollars a day; and 800 million suffer from malnutrition. In the Third World unemployment and underemployment are rampant,

20、 massive pove</p><p>　　The new global order has also been characterized by increased financial volatility, and from the Third World debt crisis of the early 1980s to the Mexican breakdown of 1994-95 to the c

21、urrent Asian debacle, financial crises have become more and more threatening. With increasing privatization and deregulation, the discrepancy between the power of unregulated financial forces and that of governments and

22、regulatory bodies increases and the potential for a global breakdown steadily enlarges. </p><p>　　Only an elite perspective permits this record to be regarded as an economic success. </p><p>　　G

23、lobalization as an Attack on Democracy </p><p>　　The globalization of recent decades was never a democratic choice by the peoples of the world--the process has been business driven, by business strategies an

24、d tactics, for business ends. Governments have helped, by incremental policy actions, and by larger actions that were often taken in secret, without national debate and discussion of where the entire process was taking t

25、he community. In the case of some major actions advancing the globalization process, like passing the North American Free </p><p>　　This undemocratic process, carried out within a democratic facade, is consi

26、stent with the distribution of benefits and costs of globalization, and the fact that globalization has been a tool serving elite interests. Globalization has also steadily weakened democracy, partly as a result of unpla

27、nned effects, but also because the containment of labor costs and scaling down of the welfare state has required the business minority to establish firm control of the state and remove its capacity to resp</p><

28、;p>　　The assault on labor</p><p>　　One of the main objectives of TNC movement abroad has been to tap cheaper labor sources. Labor is often cheapest, and least prone to cause employer problems, in authorit

29、arian states that curb unions and enter into virtual joint venture arrangements with foreign capital, as in Suharto's Indonesia and PRI's Mexico. Capital moves to such friendly investment climes in an arbitrage p

30、rocess, shifting resources from the more expensive to the less costly locale, in a process that penalizes and thereby w</p><p>　　The actual shift of capital abroad, and the use of the external option to driv

31、e hard bargains at home, has weakened labor. Labor has also been weakened by deliberate government policies of tight money and restrictive budget policies to contain inflation, at the expense of high unemployment. These

32、policies, and the incessant focus on labor market "flexibility" as the solution to the unemployment problem, reflect a corporate and antilabor policy agenda, fully institutionalized. There have even bee</p&g

33、t;<p>　　The ideological campaign</p><p>　　In the United States, Britain, Canada, and other countries the business community has also mounted a sustained ideological campaign to make their preferred po

34、licies part of common understanding. These campaigns have proceeded in parallel with globalization and have been remarkably similar, reflecting the global flow of ideology and overlapping sources of funding. The favored

35、neoliberal ideology pushes the idea that the market can do it all, that government is a burden and threat, and that deregu</p><p>　　Capturing or immobilizing governments. The business community has also moun

36、ted a powerful effort to dominate governments--either by capture or by limiting their ability to serve ordinary citizens. Globalization has contributed to this effort, partly by the arbitraging process mentioned earlier,

37、 which favors authoritarian rule. Apart from this, by enlarging business profits and weakening labor it has shifted the balance of power further toward business, so that political parties have been even mo</p><

38、;p>　　Another well-known and important antidemocratic force is the power of global financial markets to limit political options. Social democratic policies make for an unfavorable investment climate. Businesses will th

39、erefore respond to politicians and acts serving ordinary citizens with threatened or actual exit. Financial market effects on exchange and interest rates can be extremely rapid and damaging to the economy. Spokespersons

40、for the new global economy actually brag about the ability of capita</p><p>　　These business efforts, aided and validated by the IMF and by media support, regularly cause social democrats to retreat to polic

41、ies acceptable to the rulers. Thus, in country after country social democratic parties have accepted neoliberalism, despite the contrary preferences of great majorities of their voting constituencies. But this means that

42、 nominal democracy is no longer able to serve ordinary citizens, making elections meaningless and democracy empty of substance. This helps explain why </p><p>　　Supra-national limits on democracy--the New (T

43、NC) Protectionism. Not satisfied with this level of political control, the business community has pushed for international agreements, and policy actions by the IMF and World Bank, that further encroach on the ability of

44、 democratic polities to act on behalf of their constituencies. </p><p>　　These agreements and the demands of the international financial institutions invariably call for precisely the policies desired by the

45、 TNC community. The EMU conditions give primacy to budget constraints and inflation control, in accord with the neoliberal and corporate agenda. GATT, the WTO, and the NAFTA agreement also give top priority to corporate

46、investor and intellectual property rights, to which all other considerations must give way. In the early 1980s, the IMF and World Bank took advant</p><p>　　A second characteristic of the new agreements and I

47、MF-World Bank actions is their denial of democratic rights to non-corporate citizens and elected governments. These are subordinated to the rights of corporate investors, the superior class of global citizens with priori

48、ty over all others and beneficiaries of the New TNC Protectionism. In the NAFTA agreement, governments are denied in advance the right to take on new functions; any not asserted now are left to the private sector and to

49、the super</p><p>　　A third characteristic of the new agreements and IMF-World Bank actions is that they rest not only on neoliberal theory but on a false reading of recent experience and economic history. As

50、 noted earlier, globalization so far has been a productivity failure, a social disaster, and a threat to stability. The claim of its proponents that free trade is the route to economic growth is also confuted by longer h

51、istoric experience: no country, past or present, has taken off into sustained economic growt</p><p>　　Concluding Note </p><p>　　In sum, we are in the midst of an antidemocratic counterrevolution

52、 in which globalization and its imperatives are being used to weaken popular and elected authority in favor of a system of domination by super-citizens, the TNCs. This process sows the seeds of its own destruction, as it

53、 serves a small global minority, damages the majority, breeds financial instability, and exacerbates the environmental crisis. Its destructive tendencies are likely to produce an explosion if the process is not con</p

54、><p>　　Halting this antidemocratic juggernaut will be difficult, not only because of the power of its beneficiaries, but also because it operates within the framework of nominally democratic structures and must

55、ers plausible arguments. But these arguments are self- serving and wrong, and should be vigorously contested. An agenda should be advanced that serves ordinary citizens rather than the TNCs and financial institutions. Ne

56、gatively, this agenda will include strenuous opposition to all supranational </p><p>　　*Edward S. Herman, Professor Emeritus of Finance, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, is the author of a number

57、of books, including Manufacturing Consent (1988, with Noam Chomsky), Triumph of the Market (1996), and The Global Media (1997, with Robert McChesney). </p><p><b>　　【譯文】</b></p><p>&l

58、t;b>　　全球化的威脅</b></p><p><b>　　愛德華·E·赫爾曼</b></p><p><b>　　新行政 </b></p><p>　　第七卷第二期（新版），總第二十六期</p><p><b>　　1999年冬</b>

59、</p><p>　　全球化作為跨國擴(kuò)張合作與構(gòu)筑區(qū)域經(jīng)濟(jì)聯(lián)系的積極進(jìn)程，已經(jīng)獲得長足發(fā)展并繼續(xù)蒸蒸日上。正如與生俱來的“自由貿(mào)易”的理念一樣，全球化也是一種意識(shí)形態(tài)，并致力于依仗它的豐厚效益和不可阻擋的潮流來削弱任何試圖抵抗這一過程的障礙。</p><p>　　通過自由貿(mào)易，全球化有時(shí)候能夠產(chǎn)生巨大的經(jīng)濟(jì)效益，它協(xié)助處理了威脅社會(huì)進(jìn)步的處于末端的進(jìn)程和經(jīng)濟(jì)政治制度，并在各個(gè)水平層面上向著

60、它所被承認(rèn)的那樣前進(jìn)。誠然，這是一個(gè)艱巨的任務(wù)，作為受益人的經(jīng)濟(jì)和政治力量亦呈現(xiàn)出與全球化相互爭奪領(lǐng)土的勢(shì)頭，使得這一理想似乎成為一個(gè)烏托邦似的許諾。但是全球化也有其弱點(diǎn)，它容易喪失理智，在國家范圍內(nèi)幫助建立起更大的有助于對(duì)立雙方相互理解的機(jī)制的同時(shí)，也使得地方政府贏得更多的主導(dǎo)權(quán)，</p><p>　　意識(shí)形態(tài)視野內(nèi)的全球化</p><p>　　全球化是推動(dòng)了合作進(jìn)程的、飽受爭議的觀點(diǎn)和

61、理念的綜合，這是是其中的一個(gè)方面。而另一方面，其他力量違反法規(guī)、平衡預(yù)算、削減權(quán)利（非企業(yè)）和自由貿(mào)易。</p><p>　　像自由貿(mào)易一樣，全球化擁有道德的光環(huán)。正如“自由”必須是正確的，全球化暗示了國家間的合作與協(xié)力，甚至不惜與民族主義和貿(mào)易保護(hù)主義分庭抗禮，勢(shì)必具有一定的消極意義?？鐕Q(mào)易和投資在經(jīng)濟(jì)上打擊相對(duì)較弱的國家（或經(jīng)濟(jì)體）的可能性，或?qū)摇獰o論強(qiáng)弱——的內(nèi)部的民主控制產(chǎn)生侵蝕的后果，都被經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)

62、家和學(xué)者們忽略和排除掉了。這些缺陷同樣沒有被介乎自由貿(mào)易與全球化和保護(hù)主義之間的主流辯論考慮在內(nèi)，這可能將演變?yōu)閭鹘y(tǒng)合作模式與民主政治下的自由模式之間的爭斗，進(jìn)而影響到選民對(duì)非企業(yè)的民主促進(jìn)的興趣。</p><p>　　作為一種意識(shí)形態(tài)，全球化所暗示的不僅是自由與多國合作，而且它還幫助人們認(rèn)識(shí)到自由貿(mào)易帶來的好處，以及勞動(dòng)分工所產(chǎn)生的比較優(yōu)勢(shì)，這被看做是提高效率和生產(chǎn)力的表現(xiàn)。由于這些美德，以及各國政府聲稱無法組

63、織社會(huì)進(jìn)步，全球化被廣泛認(rèn)為削弱任何遇到的抵抗，超出了人類所能控制的范圍。</p><p><b>　　全球化的經(jīng)濟(jì)失敗</b></p><p>　　隨著全球化由上層人物和社會(huì)精英持續(xù)推動(dòng)并為他們提供利益，他們確立了一個(gè)有關(guān)全球化的印象，即全球化不僅是不可避免的，而且它是異乎尋常成功的范本。這是一個(gè)荒謬的看法。即使暫時(shí)忽略其分配效應(yīng)，全球化也依舊呈現(xiàn)出產(chǎn)量、生產(chǎn)率和投

64、資增長的大幅下降這一基本特征。鼓動(dòng)金融流通和擴(kuò)大其影響力的新政治制度，與更富波動(dòng)性的金融市場和不斷增加的金融風(fēng)險(xiǎn)一道，在實(shí)質(zhì)上大大提高了利率。七國集團(tuán)（美國、英國、法國、意大利、德國、加拿大和日本）的平均利率由1971-1982年的0.4%，增加為1983-1994年期間的4.6%。這對(duì)長期以來對(duì)新工廠和裝備的投資是個(gè)巨大打擊，使得經(jīng)濟(jì)體更傾向于投資給原有的企業(yè)和裝備部門，伴隨這一過程的，還有大批基本金融部門的兼并重組，股票的回購，金融

65、操縱，以及投機(jī)活動(dòng)。這可能有助于解釋經(jīng)濟(jì)合作組織成員國的總體生產(chǎn)率為何會(huì)從1960-1973年的3.3%跌至1973-1995年的0.8%，下降約75%。固定投資總額由1959-1970年的6.1%跌至自此之后的約3.1%，下降了一半。經(jīng)過組織成員國的實(shí)際國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)總值由1959-1970年的4.8%跌至1971-1994年的2.8%，下降</p><p>　　盡管生產(chǎn)率增長放緩，但精英們做得不錯(cuò)。因?yàn)槿蚧谔岣?/p>

66、利率的同時(shí)也幫助降低了工資水平，只有約5%的家庭能夠享受到生產(chǎn)率降低帶來的收益，這就使得精英群體的收入和證券市場的市值獲得較快的增長。但這與全球大多數(shù)人扯不上一丁點(diǎn)兒關(guān)系。收入增長的不均在各國國內(nèi)和國與國之間都引人注目。在美國，除了1973年和1995年35%的生產(chǎn)率增長以外，其余年份薪酬水平的中位數(shù)都要低很多。不均等上升到七十年前的水平，就業(yè)不足，就業(yè)無保障，福利損失以及從事生產(chǎn)率低下行業(yè)的勞動(dòng)者，這類狀況都在增加。不穩(wěn)定和無保障是罪

67、魁禍?zhǔn)住Ｕ绺窳炙古嗽?997年得意洋洋的向國會(huì)解釋的那樣，工資水平停滯不前是因?yàn)椴环€(wěn)定因素更多。這種極為使人震驚的高水平的不穩(wěn)定所導(dǎo)致的工人福利水平的降低，并沒有引起格林斯潘的興趣，也未打動(dòng)國會(huì)和主要媒體。</p><p>　　占世界人口百分之二十的極富群體和赤貧群體之間的收入差距由1960年的30:1上升到1995年的82:1，第三世界的許多情況更為惡化，70多個(gè)國家的人均收入在過去二十年里直線下降；約三十億

68、人——占世界人口的一半——生活在每天不足兩美元的條件下；約八億人營養(yǎng)不良。在第三世界，失業(yè)和就業(yè)不充分的問題愈發(fā)嚴(yán)重，大規(guī)模的貧困就這樣和日益賦予的精英們并行不悖，每年有7500萬人甚至更多在北半球?qū)で蟊幼o(hù)或就業(yè)，第三世界國家的政府幾乎放任資本外流并允許特權(quán)以吸引外商投資。</p><p>　　新全球秩序也通過不斷增加的金融動(dòng)蕩表現(xiàn)出來，從80年代第三世界的債務(wù)危機(jī)，到1994-1995年的墨西哥經(jīng)濟(jì)崩潰，再到目

69、前的亞洲的災(zāi)難，金融危機(jī)的威脅越來越大。伴隨著私有化和無節(jié)制，缺乏監(jiān)管的金融力量和政府權(quán)力與不斷調(diào)整的監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)之間的差異將會(huì)激化金融危機(jī)的破壞潛力。</p><p>　　全球化只有在精英們看來才是經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)意義上的成功——忽略掉以上那些記錄不算的話。</p><p><b>　　全球化對(duì)民主的沖擊</b></p><p>　　近十年來的全球化進(jìn)程絕

70、對(duì)不是世界人民的民主選擇——通過實(shí)施經(jīng)營戰(zhàn)略和戰(zhàn)術(shù)，全球化被商業(yè)驅(qū)使，用以實(shí)現(xiàn)自身的目的。政府在向公眾拋售這些建議之前未采取任何辯論和討論，通過秘密增加政策以及開展更廣泛的活動(dòng)為這一進(jìn)程提供了幫助。就向全球化進(jìn)程邁步的主要行動(dòng)來說，諸如北美自由貿(mào)易協(xié)定（NAFTA）以及參與歐洲貨幣聯(lián)盟（EMU），公眾受到了來自對(duì)此饒有興趣的商業(yè)媒體精英的宣傳造勢(shì)的層層包圍。在美國，民意調(diào)查顯示盡管宣傳攻勢(shì)不減，一般民眾仍然反對(duì)加入北美自由貿(mào)易協(xié)定，但是

71、大部分媒體都支持美國政府的決定，這一決議最終獲得通過。歐洲也同樣如此，雖然大部分民眾不贊成引入歐元作為貨幣，但強(qiáng)有力的精英集團(tuán)鼎力支持這一行動(dòng)，其過程就顯得異乎尋常的順利。</p><p>　　這種不民主的過程披著民主的外衣被運(yùn)作出來，它符合全球化的利益和價(jià)值分布，也符合全球化是為精英集團(tuán)利益服務(wù)的工具這一事實(shí)。全球化還大大削弱了民主體制，這部分地是由于意外所造成的后果，而且還因?yàn)閷?duì)于勞動(dòng)力成本的控制和對(duì)福利的削

72、減的態(tài)度，這要求從事商業(yè)的一小部分人實(shí)行最嚴(yán)格的控制來移動(dòng)資源以回應(yīng)大多數(shù)人的需求。在其各個(gè)肆意攻擊的方面都可以找到包括主管故意和籌劃不足在內(nèi)的全球化的反民主的勢(shì)頭。</p><p><b>　　對(duì)勞動(dòng)的沖擊</b></p><p>　　在國外運(yùn)作的跨國公司的主要目標(biāo)之一就是挖掘廉價(jià)勞動(dòng)力的來源。勞動(dòng)力總是最便宜的，而且不會(huì)輕易找雇主的麻煩，在獨(dú)裁國家，政府參與外商投

73、資的虛擬合資企業(yè)的同時(shí)，工會(huì)卻遭到遏制，就像印度尼西亞的蘇哈托和墨西哥的革命制度黨一樣。在對(duì)民主實(shí)施懲罰和削弱的過程中，通過套利將資本轉(zhuǎn)移到投資環(huán)境較為寬松的國家，將資源從費(fèi)用較為昂貴的地方轉(zhuǎn)移到相對(duì)廉價(jià)的地方。</p><p>　　資本在國外的實(shí)際運(yùn)轉(zhuǎn)以及外部選擇在國內(nèi)討價(jià)還價(jià)的使用都削弱了勞動(dòng)力。勞動(dòng)力還通過政府有計(jì)劃的收緊銀根和包括遏制通脹所采取的限制預(yù)算政策得到了削弱，其代價(jià)就是驚人的高失業(yè)率。這些政策，

74、以及為應(yīng)對(duì)失業(yè)問題對(duì)勞動(dòng)力市場的一系列靈活性改革，均反映了利益集團(tuán)和反勞工組織的政策議程，并業(yè)已充分制度化。對(duì)于隸屬工會(huì)的勞動(dòng)者們，甚至有更為明目張膽和確切指向性的攻擊，里根政府和撒切爾政府都熱衷于破壞工會(huì)，而后者更為明確地希望通過政治強(qiáng)力來弱化勞工組織。民主制度，根據(jù)多元理論學(xué)說，極為需要依賴于牢固的中間派，比如勞動(dòng)組織，他們能夠?yàn)榱俗约旱睦婀ぷ骱陀憙r(jià)還價(jià)。而蓄意攻擊這樣組織的行動(dòng)就是在攻擊民主制度。</p><

75、p><b>　　意識(shí)形態(tài)的斗爭</b></p><p>　　在美國、英國、加拿大和其他許多國家工商業(yè)界也掀起意識(shí)形態(tài)斗爭來向大部分公眾宣傳它們所偏好的政策方案。這些行動(dòng)與全球化同行，并有著驚人的相似，它們都反映了全球意識(shí)形態(tài)和資金資源的重疊流動(dòng)。新自由主義所主張并推動(dòng)的理念，是市場能夠做到一切，政府則是巨大的負(fù)擔(dān)和威脅，放松管制和私有化是卓有成效的和不可避免的。其結(jié)果就是產(chǎn)生極端個(gè)人主

76、義和個(gè)人責(zé)任價(jià)值，這對(duì)于企業(yè)擴(kuò)張力量來說非常有利，使得大公司可以和孤立的個(gè)人進(jìn)行談判。集體和社會(huì)價(jià)值，由不受約束增長的商業(yè)帶來的外在的和生態(tài)的沖擊，以及自由市場的波動(dòng)性——在這個(gè)理想的體系里都變得不那么重要了。這場意識(shí)形態(tài)的斗爭取得了巨大成功，因?yàn)槠髽I(yè)把更多的美元投給了知識(shí)分子和占有統(tǒng)治地位的智囊團(tuán)和新聞媒體，使它們的意見占了上風(fēng)。赫里蒂奇基金會(huì)的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者費(fèi)納文證明了企業(yè)資助策略和全球化智庫之間的聯(lián)系，比如幫助寶潔公司推銷肥皂——信息飽和

77、的市場會(huì)吞噬掉任何缺少資助的企業(yè)。但這正是民主的腐敗所在；它是買方市場的思想，而非自由市場的思想。</p><p>　　俘獲或僵化政府。工商業(yè)集團(tuán)還施加更多的影響力用在對(duì)政府的控制上——要么俘虜或限制政府為更廣大普通民眾服務(wù)的能力。全球化之所以做到這些，部分地是由于上文中提到的，它對(duì)獨(dú)裁制度有特別的好感，二者臭味相投。除此之外，通過擴(kuò)張商業(yè)收益和壓榨工人，全球化使得天平向商業(yè)所在的一端偏離，因此政治團(tuán)體在選舉中也

78、就更加堅(jiān)定地依賴于商業(yè)金錢的資助。在美國，克林頓先生為了尋求政治獻(xiàn)金不惜實(shí)行純粹迎合商業(yè)利益團(tuán)體的獨(dú)占性政策，而對(duì)那些民主黨的非商業(yè)團(tuán)體的期許則只是做些象征性的努力，這件事已經(jīng)臭名昭著。全球化合作的媒體將更多的精力放在為新自由主義搖旗吶喊的行動(dòng)中去，并不遺余力的對(duì)抗任何民主社會(huì)進(jìn)步的現(xiàn)實(shí)，使得社會(huì)民主政策難以執(zhí)行。默多克對(duì)英國選舉的影響，以及默多克和布萊爾的聯(lián)系都說明了這一點(diǎn)。</p><p>　　另一個(gè)廣為人知

79、的重要的反民主力量是全球化金融市場對(duì)政府選擇的限制。社會(huì)民主政策的制定導(dǎo)致了并不吸引人的投資環(huán)境，工商業(yè)者就會(huì)對(duì)政治家施加影響，以勒索的形式向客服提供服務(wù)，甚至直接撤出投資。金融市場對(duì)匯率和利率的影響非常迅疾，這嚴(yán)重的損害了經(jīng)濟(jì)實(shí)體。新全球化經(jīng)濟(jì)的代言人吹噓資本的能力，懲罰那些“不聽話”的政治家，事實(shí)上，現(xiàn)在是金錢資本在掌控一切。</p><p>　　商業(yè)界所做的這些努力在國際貨幣基金組織和新聞媒體那里得到了證實(shí)

80、，它使得民主主義者經(jīng)常撤退到操控者們可以接受的政策范圍內(nèi)。因此，盡管在它們的選區(qū)內(nèi)部反對(duì)聲此起彼伏，還是有一個(gè)又一個(gè)的國家接受了新自由主義。但這意味著名義上的民主不能再為普通百姓服務(wù)，選舉喪失意義成為一個(gè)空殼。這可以幫助解釋為什么有一半或者更多的具有選舉資格的美國選民不再參加全國選舉。</p><p>　　超級(jí)國家限制民主——新（跨國公司）貿(mào)易保護(hù)主義。商界對(duì)現(xiàn)有政治控制的水平感到不滿，一直致力于推動(dòng)國際協(xié)定和國

81、家貨幣基金組織以及世界銀行的政策措施，這是對(duì)民主政體代表其選區(qū)采取政策措施的行動(dòng)能力的進(jìn)一步踐踏。</p><p>　　這些國際金融機(jī)構(gòu)的需要和協(xié)定總是精確地迎合了跨國公司利益團(tuán)體的要求。歐洲貨幣聯(lián)盟的條件首先考慮到預(yù)算限制和控制通貨膨脹，在與新自由主義和公司的議程之間達(dá)成妥協(xié)。關(guān)貿(mào)總協(xié)定，世貿(mào)組織和北美自由貿(mào)易協(xié)定還把企業(yè)投資者和知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)放在首位，所有其他方面的考慮必須讓位。在八十年代初，國際貨幣基金組織和世界

82、銀行利用第三世界遭受債務(wù)危機(jī)的機(jī)會(huì)，和眾多第三世界貸款人一道脅迫其接受結(jié)構(gòu)調(diào)整方案。這迫使借款國同意像政府那樣優(yōu)先償還外債和私人債務(wù)；他們還不得不適應(yīng)收緊銀根的節(jié)衣縮食的日子，以及削減用于惠及窮人和普通百姓的預(yù)算；調(diào)整方案還對(duì)這些國家的出口施壓，這有助于創(chuàng)造外匯，以便償還債務(wù)，從而使第三世界國家更為緊密的融入到全球化的借款人經(jīng)濟(jì)體系之中；它強(qiáng)調(diào)私有化，聲稱效率至上，平衡預(yù)算而不必增加稅收，在動(dòng)蕩的國家為跨國公司開放投資環(huán)境，這些方案都起

83、到了至關(guān)重要的作用。，國際貨幣基金組織正在亞洲從事著相同的事情。</p><p>　　新協(xié)議以及國際貨幣基金組織和世界銀行的行動(dòng)的第二個(gè)特點(diǎn)是他們拒絕給予非企業(yè)的公民和民選政府以民主權(quán)利。這是為了服從于企業(yè)投資者的權(quán)利，他們是優(yōu)越于其他所有公民的擁有特權(quán)的全球化階級(jí)，以及新跨國公司貿(mào)易保護(hù)主義的受益者。在北美自由貿(mào)易協(xié)定中，政府預(yù)先被拒絕實(shí)施新的治理職能，任何現(xiàn)在還未宣稱的新職能留給了私人和特權(quán)階層。在這些協(xié)議當(dāng)

84、中，有關(guān)于投資的更為積極的多方協(xié)議正在考慮，全球跨國公司不必?fù)?dān)負(fù)任何責(zé)任，誰也不能把這些責(zé)任強(qiáng)加給它們。他們可以解雇員工，放棄社區(qū)，肆無忌憚的破壞環(huán)境，推動(dòng)本地公司的業(yè)務(wù)，并毫無限制地散布大量文化垃圾。他們現(xiàn)在或?qū)砜梢云鹪V政府，而分歧的解決機(jī)制是通過超越民主政府控制的非民選機(jī)構(gòu)來實(shí)現(xiàn)的。</p><p>　　新協(xié)議以及國際貨幣基金組織和世界銀行的行動(dòng)的的第三個(gè)特點(diǎn)是，他們不僅依靠新自由主義的理論，而且還誤讀了近

85、期的經(jīng)驗(yàn)和經(jīng)濟(jì)史。如前所述，全球化迄今為止一直是生產(chǎn)力的失敗，是社會(huì)災(zāi)難，是對(duì)穩(wěn)定的威脅。其支持者所聲稱的自由貿(mào)易是經(jīng)濟(jì)增長的途徑的說法也被歷史經(jīng)驗(yàn)駁倒了：無論過去和現(xiàn)在，沒有任何國家能夠不通過大規(guī)模的政府保護(hù)、對(duì)初級(jí)工業(yè)實(shí)行補(bǔ)貼和隔離管控外來的較強(qiáng)競爭者，來實(shí)現(xiàn)脫離經(jīng)濟(jì)放緩實(shí)現(xiàn)經(jīng)濟(jì)騰飛和現(xiàn)代化。這包括英國，美國，日本，德國，韓國和臺(tái)灣，它們都在其成長過程中較早的起飛階段實(shí)行高度保護(hù)主義。今天政府和跨國公司的代表機(jī)構(gòu)通過國際貨幣基金組織

86、、世界銀行、世界貿(mào)易組織和北美自由貿(mào)易協(xié)定展開的利益談判，使得欠發(fā)達(dá)國家的政府保護(hù)行為形同虛設(shè)。這使得眾多海外的收購者們成為了巨大威脅，欠發(fā)達(dá)國家將被整合進(jìn)入外國經(jīng)濟(jì)體系作為“分支經(jīng)濟(jì)體”，維持了政府的非獨(dú)立性和不發(fā)達(dá)的狀況，他們尤其難于抵御來自高度發(fā)達(dá)組織嚴(yán)密的新自由主義的攻擊以使自己的人民免受侵害。</p><p><b>　　結(jié)論</b></p><p>　　總

87、之，我們處在一個(gè)反民主的反革命時(shí)期的中葉，在全球化及其專制壟斷正被用來削弱民眾和民選權(quán)利，塑造出迎合諸如跨國公司那樣特權(quán)階層管控的體制。這個(gè)過程播種著自身毀滅的種子，因?yàn)樗鼮槿驑O少數(shù)人服務(wù)，而使多數(shù)人蒙受損失，帶來嚴(yán)重的金融不穩(wěn)定，并加劇了環(huán)境危機(jī)。如果這一過程仍然不為民主平反的話，Its destructive tendencies are likely to produce an explosion if the process

88、is not contained and democracy is not rehabilitated.它的破壞性傾向有可能產(chǎn)生爆炸性后果。 </p><p>　　制止這種反民主對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)的沖擊將是異常困難的，這不僅是因?yàn)樗氖芤嬲叩臋?quán)力強(qiáng)大，而且還因?yàn)樗x上的在民主結(jié)構(gòu)內(nèi)部的運(yùn)作和召集似是而非的爭斗辯論。但是，這些觀點(diǎn)是自私的和錯(cuò)誤的，應(yīng)當(dāng)付諸激烈辯論。一項(xiàng)議程應(yīng)是先進(jìn)的，為普通百姓而不是跨國公司和金融機(jī)構(gòu)服務(wù)。

89、從負(fù)面影響考慮，該議程將包括艱苦反對(duì)一切超國家的安排，掠奪民主政府的手中的權(quán)力去為一些所謂的經(jīng)濟(jì)需要服務(wù)。而要實(shí)現(xiàn)積極影響，該議程就需要對(duì)嚴(yán)格限制和落實(shí)跨國公司的責(zé)任，包括實(shí)行資本管制和支持其他的對(duì)于金融投機(jī)的威懾。這個(gè)議程追求的是讓占大多數(shù)的全球化的受害者們結(jié)合成為一個(gè)相互理解和極富成效的團(tuán)體。 </p><p>　　*愛德華·E赫爾曼，賓夕法尼亞大學(xué)沃頓商學(xué)院金融學(xué)名譽(yù)教授，著有《制造同意者》（19