資本主義精神，河觴，民族主義

Anthony Giddens 在為《新教倫理與資本主義精神》所作序言中總結， Max Webber 分析歐洲資本主義起源的視角和方法也被他用在對其它文明的分析，包括中國。 Giddens 的序裏這樣講：

An ethic which stresses rational adjustment to the world “as it is” could not have generated a moral dynamism in economic activity comparable to that characteristic of the spirit of European capitalism.

這段話吸引我的地方除了對 Webber 的思想和方法的反思，還讓我忽然想到 80 年代看過的一部電視記錄片《河觴》，以及其後中國社會的走向。

河觴將中國的社會發展概括為 “ 黃色 ” 的農業文明，與歐洲的藍色的海洋文明相對，並以這兩者在文化上的差異來解釋東西方社會發展方向的不同，其中所強調的中國文化的轉型也正是基於此類反思。

必須承認，當年上高中的我對此書此片還是非常崇拜的。但是以現在的眼光重新審視，我發現河觴對於文化的總結，無論中西，都粗糙之極。而這種 Webber 式的以文化特征解釋社會結構轉型的方法一旦用於比較研究，它的潛在的危險實在大於它對我們理解中西文化的貢獻。具體的說，危險有二。

一是資本主義化，借用官方的詞語，就是全盤西化。

To speculate for a moment, given the Chinese government was already leaning toward a liberal corporate regime (however hard it was to be observed at the time being), could it be possible that even without the advocacy of the Chinese liberal intellectuals, or even without the 1989 students movement, China would still move toward what those intellectuals were advocating, i.e., a state controlled capitalist regime? In other words, the tightened control between 1989 and 1992 was only a hesitation, while the speeding up after 1992 only resumed what was interrupted in 1989.

Note: so what China has gone through was exactly what Gramsci described as the "Americanization". In the process of becoming a corporate regime, i.e., a state controlled capitalism, the very first step and sign of transformation is the unemployment of large amount of workers from former state owned enterprises, so as to create the “free” labour required by capitalism. Before this, Chinese intellectuals were already advocating values associated with capitalist free market (something very similar to Webber’s analysis of the origin of capitalism). The 1989 incident only slowed down an already ongoing process, which the participants obviously did not recognize.

也就是說，當年黨內外批資產階級自由化和全盤西化，隻是權利機構內部的勢力對抗，和資本主義或西化無關。由後來的實踐看，當年所批判的後來十幾年間一一實現。實踐是檢驗真理的唯一標準，這句話至少在世紀末的中國顯示了它不無諷刺的絕對性。

二是本土文化在經曆了文革的毀滅後在向資本主義轉型階段被大肆製造古代神話的狂熱的民族主義所代替。此時我們看到的民族主義的複興其實是經濟軍事日漸強大後對於能夠象征自己不斷膨脹的自信心的象征物的找尋。說白了，就是精神空虛下的一場文化複辟。

資本主義化 / 西化，與民族主義隻是表麵上矛盾，他們實際上是同一種心理的兩種表現。民族主義作為對西化的回應與西化建立在同樣的邏輯基礎之上，可以說，民族主義實際上是偽民族主義，在利益相關時可以立刻轉化為它的對立麵：西方資本主義。這一點，可以從無數高舉愛國主義擁護共產黨而又不願意留在家鄉做貢獻的海外“小將”身上清楚看到。

細想一下，中國的知識分子在這個過程中都做了些什麽呢？