公平：資本主義的一個悖論

所謂的資本主義的核心構架就是它的民主政體和市場經濟。不論是民主政治還是市場經濟，它的核心理念又都離不開公平二字。民主的基本意義是與獨裁或集權相對立，所以包括推選領導人在內的一切重大決定在原則上應該反映社會大眾的聲音及利益，一定不能是某個人或某些沒有代表性的極少數人說了算，而任何事隻要一涉及到社會大眾就一定存在公平的問題。因此，公平一定是民主政治所要堅持的一個原則。至於市場經濟更是建立在公平的概念之上的，它不但要求買賣之間在價錢和成本上及買賣意願上的公平，而且要求不同的買方及不同的賣方之間也能夠有公平競爭的條件。由於公平對於資本主義體製的重要性，甚至出現了把理想與現實混為一談而將公平當成是民主政治和市場經濟的基本特點的說法，進而得出結論說公平是資本主義的基本特點。

與曆史上各種貴族王朝不同，資本主義這場遊戲在名義上是全民性的遊戲，也就是說在最基本的法理名義上每個人都有資格參與扮演這場遊戲中的任何角色。在這種情況下，它需要一個至少在原理上能夠讓大多數人感到公平的一個遊戲規則，這就是各國的憲法。在憲法的基礎之上建立起來的法律體係一個重要的職責就是為了要保證在這場遊戲中的公平性。不同於曆史上曾出現過的以武力進行掠奪式的財富積累，對於比較成熟的資本主義經濟來說，它的財富的積累的主要來源是市場銷售。因此，市場的擴大及占有對於資本主義經濟來說有著至關重要的意義。這也決定了資本主義市場經濟的遊戲必然是要跨越國界走向世界，所以跨國經濟也就成為了資本主義市場經濟的一個基本的現象。在這種跨國的遊戲中，為了最大限度而且也是最有效地保證遊戲的公平性，遊戲的參與者們自然希望遊戲規則的變動越小越好，這就是為什麽資本主義者比人類曆史上任何一種意識形態的持有者們更希望世界各國都接受自己的意識形態（資本主義的意識形態）的原因。與這種意識形態的擴張相對應的就是將資本主義成為世界統一的政治體製；相應地，資本主義發展的最高理想境界就是所謂的全球一體化：所有的人都按同樣的規則來玩資本主義者們最善於玩的同一種的遊戲。

我們知道，在國際事務中不論是資本主義國家還是非資本主義國家通常都會把本國的利益置於他國利益之上；為了本國的商業利益，各國政府甚至可以不惜派出商業間諜，采取各種非法手段為本國的企業獲取在海外的最大利益。但是，也有很多發達的資本主義國家又都明確立法，禁止本國企業在海外為了商業利益進行賄賂。這種在道義上自相矛盾的現象是不能用獨立於行政的立法的超然正義來解釋的，因為在資本主義存在的幾百年曆史上，資本主義國家的立法院站在本國利益上投票通過包括戰爭在內的在海外以維護本國利益而不是他國利益為目的的法案不是什麽罕見的事。對於象禁止本國企業在海外為了商業利益進行賄賂的這樣的情況的比較合理的解釋應該是在本國不同的公司的海外利益之間維持公平。就算是再冠冕堂皇一點地說是為了維護本國與其它國家之間的貿易關係的話，說到底還是為了維持本國的不同企業之間的公平而已。

從另一方麵來說，當資本主義的企業在海外擴大市場時，從很多方麵來說，他們各自的國家政府都是他們的一個後盾。但是，資本主義的遊戲規則決定了當在海外的企業家們要得到各自國家政府的支持的時候，他們需要符合本國的法律規範，也就是說他們在道德和技術的層麵上會受到本國所製定的諸如禁止海外行賄法這樣的法律的限製。在這種情況下如果其它國家的商人不需要受到類似法規的約束的話，那麽就會形成對於他們的不公平的競爭。所以，在公平原則的驅動下，資本主義的民主憲政加市場經濟的遊戲規則會使得遊戲的參與者們有一種希望資本主義在全世界範圍內得到實現的本能欲望。

但是，資本主義的民主政治和市場經濟卻又是直接導致資本主義遊戲向不公平發生異化的直接原因，而在這異化過程中扮演關鍵性角色的就是金錢。金錢是市場經濟的基本媒介，離開了金錢就無法維持資本主義的市場經濟。正是由於這個原因，與世襲或貴族特權製不同，在資本主義社會裏，除了少數特權官僚之外，能夠調動社會和自然資源的主要力量是金錢的力量，而資本主義的公平原則在很大程度上就體現為對於金錢調動社會和自然資源的力量的尊重。在這種情況下，金錢的力量就會自然而然地通過各種合法的形式介入到民主政治方方麵麵中去。首先，一方麵，在民主選舉中一個候選人的成敗在很大程度上取決於他的包括策略智囊在內的競選團隊，而競選團隊的規模和水準在很大程度上又取決於競選經費的多少；另一方麵現代化的網絡媒體為政客們最大限度地影響和吸引選民提供了條件，而在公平的商業環境下，對網絡媒體的使用的程度又取決於可用於進行文宣的資金。所以民主的選舉便因此而蒙上了金錢的陰影。再則，在資本主義的法製體係裏，通過律師的市場價格而使金錢與公平正義劃上了等號。

金錢給民主政治的公平性所帶來的負麵作用主要在於金錢在社會上的不平等的分布，而造成這種不平等的分布的一個重要的原因恰恰是被認為是公平的市場經濟。市場經濟自身所具有的一個被公認為不同於其它經濟模式的優勢是它的優勝劣汰的競爭機製，這種機製的一個必然的邏輯結果就是財富在社會上的不平等的分布。這種不平等的分配又會通過它所對應的對於社會及自然的資源的不平等的調動能力而得到逐級的放大，使得資本主義社會的財富日趨兩極分化。任何由科技的發展或管理方法的改進所帶來的人類對於社會及自然資源的利用的效率的提高都很快會轉化為資本方對於勞工（藍白領勞工）方的支配能力，進而加大社會財富的不平等分配。

所以說，資本主義的遊戲一方麵是基於公平的原則而且要求在全球範圍內最大限度地保證這種公平，而另一方麵卻在它自身所謂的公平競爭的邏輯的驅動下導致社會的不公平。如果沒有在資本主義內在邏輯之外的因素（例如稅收及相應的再分配）的有效製約，資本主義的發展將導致社會趨於嚴重的兩極分化，這種兩極分化的結果將會最終威脅到資本主義的基本，也就是民主政治和市場經濟，從而最終使得資本主義遊戲本身由於其公平性所受到的嚴重破壞而無法繼續正常進行。所以，為了使得資本主義經濟能夠健康地發展，人們需要對於資本主義如何在自身內在邏輯的驅使之下導致不公平的產生的機製有較好的認識，並且找出能夠有效地製約這種不公平的內在邏輯的外在的社會機製。。。。。。

[慕容青草]

本文的英文版：

Fairness: A paradox of capitalism

Democratic political framework and market economy have been deemed as the core of a capitalist system, while fairness is the cornerstone for both democratic politics and market economy. Democracy stands against the dictatorship of very few over the majority and demands the reflection of the voices and interests of the majority on important issues including election of leaders of the community; accordingly, fairness would be the fundamental principle for democracy since fairness is the utmost concern for anything involving a multitude of people. Fairness is even more critical for market economy. Not only would the fair pricing and fair respect of the wills to do transactions be essential for market economy, but also would the environment of fair competition be critical for any market based economy.
This ultimate importance of fairness for capitalism actually has created some confusion between the ideal principle and the social reality and thus so much often we might hear someone claim that fairness is the fundamental characteristic of capitalism. As a matter of fact, while capitalism as a social logic demands fairness in everyday life, it also is an immense source of unfairness for people living within a capitalist society. A better understanding of the paradoxical nature of capitalism in terms of fairness would help us to better deal with many crises we are facing today around the world.
An ideal capitalist society is a system that offers a game which is nominally fair to everyone in the sense that every person in principle could play any role in this game (As we all know that even the nominal fairness for every single person could be very questionable in the early stage of a capitalist society). Obviously, that game would be very big in its size since it involves everyone in the society, and thus it would require a clear common rule of game that would sound fair to all (or most significant) players, which is the constitution of each country. One of the essential roles of the whole legal system of any country that is constructed on top the constitution is to guarantee a fair play of this capitalist game. This clear awareness and demand of systematic fairness would function as a driving force behind the social evolution in capitalist systems, which would differentiate the social games in a capitalist system from those in its preceding hierarchical social systems. For example, personal or collective wealth accumulation by the big guys in a capitalist society is mainly achieved through legal market transactions instead of predatory deprivation by force. In this sense, the so called democratic political processes and market economy, the core of capitalism, are indeed all entailed consequences of this demand of general fairness within the grand social game that is then titled as capitalism due to the decisive role of capital (i.e. money) in the game.
Because of their dependence upon market for wealth accumulation, capitalist businessmen would not be refrained by the geopolitical borders of their countries and they would go to the world to sell their products, and to obtain their raw materials as well. Consequently multinational economy would become a basic phenomenon of capitalist economy. In order to have a maximal fairness to everyone in this multinational economy, it would be desired that the uncertainties or variations of the rule of the game across the world market could be restrained at a minimal level. This determines that capitalism by nature is outward aggressive in the sense that capitalists or players of the capitalist game would naturally be eager to propagate capitalism as ideology throughout the whole world, not only for the expansion of its market, but also for the desire of fairness that everyone in this world would play by the same rule of game. The need of multinational economy and the desire to have capitalism all over the world would then logically lead to an endeavor of so called globalization: people all over the world would play the same game based upon the same capitalist rule.
It is a common knowledge that in international affairs governments of different nations (capitalist or noncapitalist) would normally place the interests of their countries above the interests of other countries; sometimes they might even go extreme in order to protect the commercial interests of their own countries through espionage or other illegal measures. However, many developed capitalist countries have established laws to prohibit their own people from bribery practices in their overseas business activities. This kind of moral self-contradiction could not be solely explained by the separation of legislative and executive powers. It is not uncommon in world history for the legislative houses to vote for some extreme approaches including wars to protect the interests of their own countries above others. The rationale of prohibiting enterprises from overseas bribery practices might be best interpreted as protecting the fairness between different domestic enterprises in their overseas business activities. Consequently capitalism not only regulates domestic capitalist games played within each capitalist country but also regulates the business activities of their own people in overseas market of capitalist or noncapitalist countries. As a result, people from capitalist countries might face some unfair competition from noncapitalist countries where business morality is less regulated. This would also turn the demand of fairness by people from capitalist countries into a desire to change the social system of noncapitalist countries into capitalist regime all over the world.
Therefore, it is quite fair to say that capitalist system is formed in the history by the demand of fairness and acquires its enormous competitive power from its relative respect of the fairness in capitalist games. However, capitalism as a social logic is indeed also a monstrous source of unfairness in this world which could potentially hinder or even destroy capitalist system itself. As we have seen from the above discussion that capitalism is a social game driven by the demand of fairness and structured as democratic political scheme plus market economic system. The very common essence of all games of capitalism, as the name literally tells, is capital or more generally speaking money. This essence leads to another fundamental logic, which might be simply called the logic of capitalism, that money (i.e. capital) determines the consequence of social events (and thus the political and economical status) of a society.
Money is the basic media in market economy, and without money there wouldn’t be capitalist economy. For this reason, different from hierarchical social schemes with privileged classes, in a capitalist society, except for very few governmental bureaucratic officials, money is the main power for mobilizing social and natural resources. In fact, the principle of fairness in a capitalist society is also reflected through the respect of the possession and function of money. Therefore, the power of money would naturally sneak into various areas of democratic processes. This might be best demonstrated through the influence of money upon democratic election process and the constitutional legal process. First of all, democratic election is normally influenced by the power of money. As we know that the success of a public campaign would depend largely upon the quality and size of the campaign team. It would be fair to the campaign team members, especially those of high quality, to be well compensated for their hard work, which means the candidate needs to have enough money available to pay for the members of the team. Besides, nowadays high-tech media and internet provides huge opportunities for candidates to maximize their influences over and attractions to the voters. Those who could have better access to the media and internet campaign might have better chance to win in the election. It would be fair to the media workers to profit from the services they provide to the candidates. As a result, the democratic election process would be under the mercy of money. Second of all, within a capitalist legal system, an equal sign would be simply drawn between the meaning of justice and the prices of lawyers in the free legal market, in addition to various legal fees charged by the court. Money could actually influence the justice in a capitalist society through many more approaches as well.
The root cause of social unfairness created by the influence of money is indeed the unequal distribution of money (wealth) across the society. If everyone owns the same amount of money, they could have the fair equal influence in capitalist social life; however, difference, especially severe disparity, in the distribution of social wealth would inevitably have great impact upon social life in an unfair manner. It might be a surprise to many people that market economy, which is formed upon the demand of fairness and is widely deemed as a fair economic system, is indeed the main reason to cause the unequal distribution of social wealth in a capitalist society.
There are two important attributes of a capitalist market economy: 1) it promotes (nominally) fair trading and respects private interests of people; 2) it encourages market based competitions. These two attributes are commonly acknowledged by economists and many ordinary people as the fundamental strengths that differentiate capitalist economy from other economic systems. The first of these two attributes is responsible for producing more to this world and the second is the key factor of rewarding the winner through favored distribution of wealth within the capitalist market system. Because of the free trading, capitalist economy could enjoy the greatest productivity over human history; however, because of the competition, the logic of capitalist economy alone would cause unequal distribution of wealth among people. This unequal distribution of wealth would then be further self-amplified due to the unequal power of utilizing social and natural resources, which would eventually lead to social polarization of wealth among people. Even worse, any technical progress of human civilization, in terms of the efficiency in leveraging natural and social resources as the result of scientific and managerial development, would soon be converted into the controlling power of capital over labor (of both blue and white collars), which would further magnify the gap between rich and poor.
Consequently, capitalism is such a paradox of fairness: on one hand, capitalism is constructed on the principle of fairness, and even demands a maximal fairness all over the world for capitalist games; on the other hand, it would drive the whole world into an unequal and unfair society by its own logic of so called fair competition. This paradox is an important cause of many crises we are facing today around the world. Obviously, we could not solve this paradoxical problem of fairness caused by capitalism with capitalist logic alone; rather, we need to use something outside the capitalism itself to solve the paradox of capitalism. This means that we need some mechanism that would have the power to redistribute social wealth so that it could counteract the polarizing effect of capitalism, meanwhile it should also not be part of the capitalism for otherwise it would bring the game back to the original paradoxical cycle.
Taxation is a good example for this role, which could be very well utilized to help offset the trend of polarization created by the nominal fair competition within a capitalist system, and taxation itself is not part of capitalism. However, traditionally the main functionality of taxation has been considered as the means to collect money from the society for centralized usage. Even though fairness has been a consideration during the making of taxation policies in different countries, it has usually not been considered in the sense that taxation should be used as a main mechanism to counteract the polarizing effect of the capitalism.
Once we have a better understanding of the paradoxical nature of capitalism in terms of fairness, philosophically we might need to review many of our social policies including our taxation policies. We need to have a clear idea in the process of policy making that we need maintain the positive power of capitalism as a result of demanding fairness and in the mean time we also need to systematically work against the polarizing effect of capitalist logic. Otherwise, the intrinsic paradoxical nature of capitalism would not only harm the world economy and stability, but might bring capitalism itself to an end in a suicidal manner.