Slavery and capitalism

ABSTRACT

In this paper, I look at the relationship between slavery and capitalism through exploring the counterfactual of industrialization without slavery in the United States and by analyzing the deeper connection between slavery and capitalism. As we will see, slavery, and war capitalism more generally, played an important role in industrialization, and slavery and capitalism share an underlying connection that if obscured can facilitate higher levels of exploitation under capitalism at present.     

论文明的内涵及其特性

本揭示了明的内涵,并对明内容的普遍性与特殊性、明形态的多样性与互补性、明价值的正向性与共享性、明发展的连续性与阶段性、明关系的开放性与兼容性作了系统阐述。正确把握这些特性,是科学认识人类明发展规律的客观要求,也是加强社会主义明建设的基本前提。     

浅析经济伦理研究的三个误区

经济伦理的研究在近年来取得了长足发展,但是仍然存在一些研究误区,即:理论误区、逻辑误区和应用误区。纠正经济伦理的研究误区,目的是使经济伦理的研究能更好地为现代化经济的发展服务,使之步入健康研究的轨道。     

信息产业与人力资源开发:美国的成功模式

20世纪末美国经济持续高速增长,重要原因是以信息产业为中心的高科技产业的迅猛发展。高科技的发展,特别是信息产业的迅猛发展,提高和改造了传统的工业部门,同时美国又赋予了人力资源的开发以新的生命力。信息产业与人力资源开发互动发展,促进了美国经济发展,这是值得中国发展信息产业借鉴的地方。     

Multinationals and institutional competitiveness

This article discusses how institutional competitiveness and multinationals are mutually enriching concepts. Multinationals transfer capital, technology, and knowledge into new settings. They allow subsidiaries access to new markets, new resources, and new processes. Potentially, therefore, institutional competitiveness can be increased by the presence of multinational corporations (MNCs) and their subsidiaries. However, this depends on the type of multinational and the type of institutional context. By differentiating two types of MNC in terms of short‐term and long‐term orientations to investment, and two types of host institutional setting in terms of strength of institutional complementarities and interconnectedness, we develop a typology of four types of interaction between MNCs and institutional settings. We then analyze how each type influences institutional competitiveness. We conclude that these outcomes, while structurally shaped, are still dependent on how actors (individuals, firms, collective organizations, and governments) strategize to develop institutional frameworks in the context of highly competitive global markets.     

"数字资本主义"依然是资本主义

当代资本主义因建立健全了国家创新体系而获得生产力的超速发展,但是它的生产关系依然停留在资本主义制度的基本结构上,从而使当代资本主义的基本矛盾转化为知识的公有性与知识创新的私人占有之间的对立统一,因此数字资本主义依然是资本主义。     

Formal independence of regulatory agencies and Varieties of Capitalism: A case of institutional complementarity?

The Varieties of Capitalism literature posits that national economic institutions reflect the mode of coordination of a country's market actors. Despite the importance of this claim and a rich literature on the emergence of regulatory capitalism, few studies test such prediction for Independent Regulatory Agencies (IRAs). This article connects the two fields of research by analysing the impact of economic coordination on the formal independence of IRAs. The results show that, beyond issues of credible commitment and policy stability, the collective action capacity of market actors matters. In particular, regulators in Coordinated Market Economies enjoy less independence than in Liberal Market Economies, while intermediate regimes grant IRAs the least autonomy. The policy implications are nontrivial. Similar to other macroeconomic institutions, inappropriate combinations of economic coordination and IRA independence may engender Pareto‐suboptimal regulatory solutions. In such cases, policymakers should reconsider the rules governing national regulators.     

智能时代的数字劳动异化及其消解

伴随着数字智能技术的发展,数字劳动已在西方资本主义国家呈现出新的异化表征,主要表现 为资本家对数字劳动产品的无偿占有、数字劳动过程的非自我的加速与规训 、数字劳动主体类本质的异化以及 数字劳动关系的异化四个维度。这是多种成因共同作用的结果,数字生产资料的私人占有是根本原因,数字资 本的逐利本性是动力原因,数字智能技术资本化是技术原因,市场监管与劳动保障的缺失是外部原因。由于中 西方数字劳动问题存在本质差异,中国在新时代数字建设中,通过积极推进数字生产资料的共有共享、完善数 据生产要素参与的分配制度、加强数字智能技术治理、完善数字劳动治理体系等多方位举措,有效防范并化解 了数字劳动问题,为西方资本主义国家摆脱数字劳动异化困境、构建和谐数字劳动关系提供了中国智慧。     

论全球化浪潮中资本主义历史规律起作用的机制

全球化引发了一系列的新问题,使资本主义历史规律的作用机制和作用方式发生着引人注目的新变化,高度社会化生产力与国际化的生产关系的对立依然存在并具有尖锐化的趋向;资本主义国家自觉调整社会有机体的各个方面和环节,使之与高度社会化的生产力发展状况相适应,从而形成了一套积极应对全球化的运用自如的、全方位的自我调节和自我更新机制。     

Bank regulation and supervision in bank-dominated financial systems: a comparison between Japan and Germany

This paper compares bank regulation and supervision in Japan and Germany. We consider these countries because they both have bank-dominated financial systems and their banking systems are often lumped together as one model, yet, bank stability differs significantly. We show that Japan and Germany have chosen different approaches to bank regulation and supervision and ask why they made their choices. We argue that bank regulation and supervision were less efficient in Japan than in Germany and that these differences were decisive for bank behavior.