THEOLOGY  神学
OF
M O N E Y

All rights reserved.  保留所有权利。
Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper ©
在美国使用无酸纸印刷©。
Designed by Jennifer Hill
设计：詹妮弗-希尔
Typeset in Arno Pro by Tseng Information Systems, Inc.
由 Tseng Information Systems, Inc. 使用 Arno Pro 进行排版。
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
美国国会图书馆编目-出版数据
appear on the last printed page of this book.
出现在本书最后一页。

Money, which represents the prose of life, and which is hardly spoken of in parlors without an apology, is, in its effects and laws, as beautiful as roses.
金钱代表着生活的散文，在客厅里说起它，几乎没有不带歉意的，但就其效果和规律而言，它却像玫瑰花一样美丽。

RALPH WALDO EMERSON, 1844
拉尔夫-沃尔多-埃默森，1844 年

Would you know what money is, go borrow some.
你知道钱是什么吗？

PARTI OF POLITICS  政治党
One Power 29  一个电源 29
Two The End of Modernity 43
二 现代性的终结 43

Three Ecology of Money 73
货币的三种生态 73
Four Politics of Money 123
四种金钱政治 123
Five Theology of Money 165
五种货币神学 165

PART III OF THEOLOGY
神学第三部分

Seven The Price of Credit 225
七 信贷的代价 225
Eight A Modest Proposal: Evaluative Credit 241
8 最低限度的建议：评价性学分 241
Conclusion Of Redemption 257
救赎的结论 257

A PARABLE—  一则寓言
ON THE WISH TO BE IMMORTAL
愿得一人心，白首不相离
If one were only rich, in a luxury mansion, surrounded by gardens and servants, enjoying the finest of foods, the most subtle of wines, the warmest of friends, the most generous of lovers, freed from care over maintenance of property, for all could be instantly replaced, freed from work, there being no need to work, freed from obligations, there being no need to seek favor, until one dismissed the servants, for there needed no servants, sold the mansion, for there needed no mansion, abandoned friends and lovers, for there needed no friends and lovers, and renounced even the knowledge that one was a homeless wanderer before one’s last penny had already gone.
如果一个人只是有钱，住在豪宅里，周围有花园和仆人，享受着最美味的食物、最精致的美酒、最热情的朋友、最慷慨的情人，不用关心财产的维护，因为所有的东西都可以立即更换，不用工作，因为不需要工作，不用承担义务，直到辞退仆人，因为不需要仆人，卖掉豪宅，因为不需要豪宅，抛弃朋友和情人，因为不需要朋友和情人，甚至放弃、直到辞退仆人（因为根本不需要仆人），卖掉豪宅（因为根本不需要豪宅），抛弃朋友和爱人（因为根本不需要朋友和爱人），甚至在最后一分钱花光之前，也不再知道自己是个无家可归的流浪者。

ALL HUMAN LIFE and endeavor aims at some form of human flourishing, welfare, or wealth. A distinctive feature of religious life is that flourishing is normally attained by means of a renunciation: time spent on productive activity or enjoyment is interrupted by ritual or sacred activity. Spiritual bonds and goals take precedence over worldly bonds and goals. Duty takes precedence over desire, or love of God takes precedence over love of self and others. Indeed, in religious life it is believed that flourishing does not lie within human power alone. It is achieved through the aid of some special divine grace, ancestral blessing, or sacred power. This detour in the path toward wealth opens up a realm for the transcendent, conceived perhaps in terms of grace, mystery, the sacred, special insight, authority, spiritual presence, or another world. Flourishing has a transcendent source that is activated only through a prior renunciation.
人类的一切生活和努力都旨在实现某种形式的繁荣、福利或财富。宗教生活的一个显著特点是，繁荣通常是通过放弃来实现的：用于生产活动或享受的时间被仪式或神圣活动所打断。精神纽带和目标优先于世俗纽带和目标。责任高于欲望，爱神高于爱自己和他人。事实上，在宗教生活中，人们相信繁荣并不单单依靠人的力量。它需要借助某种特殊的神恩、祖先的祝福或神圣的力量才能实现。在通往富裕的道路上，这种迂回为超验者开辟了一个领域，或许可以从恩典、神秘、神圣、特殊洞察力、权威、精神存在或另一个世界的角度来理解。富裕有一个超然的源泉，只有通过事先的放弃才能激活。

The distinctive feature of a secular age, as Charles Taylor has recently pointed out (in A Secular Age), would appear to be the removal of any collectively agreed on goals beyond human flourishing. Enlightenment would appear to be the liberation of human activity from superstitious observances and regulations. There is only work, enjoyment, and recuperation, all in the service of flourishing. What most concerns humanity are the conditions under which flourishing may take place, and if there is any postponement of pleasure, this is merely to ensure that these conditions can be preserved and enhanced. The religious detour is replaced by an economic detour. Attention is turned from the divine to the mundane. Human fulfillment, moral practice, and social cohesion are no longer founded on
正如查尔斯-泰勒（Charles Taylor）最近在《世俗时代》（A Secular Age）一书中指出的那样，世俗时代的显著特征似乎是除了人类繁荣之外，不再有任何集体商定的目标。启蒙似乎是将人类活动从迷信戒律和规章制度中解放出来。只有工作、享乐和休养生息，这一切都是为了人类的繁荣。人类最关心的是繁衍生息的条件，如果要推迟享乐，那也只是为了确保这些条件能够得到维护和改善。宗教迂回被经济迂回所取代。注意力从神圣转向世俗。人的成就感、道德实践和社会凝聚力不再建立在以下基础之上
divine authority and grace. They are founded on human endeavor and agreement.
神的权威和恩典。它们建立在人类的努力和协议之上。

This is a familiar story. Whether religious or not, we now all live in a secular age insofar as the practical conditions for our wealth are purely mundane. This story can be explained in terms of a series of contrasts: between spiritual authority and natural law, between transcendent order and immanent system, between duty and freedom, between hierarchy and democracy, between faith and science, between spiritual and material progress. Historical progress from the first term of the contrast to the second may be narrated in two ways: either as the removal of old illusions or as the construction of new knowledge and institutions. In either case, it is a story of the self-liberation of humanity.
这是一个耳熟能详的故事。无论是否信仰宗教，我们现在都生活在一个世俗的时代，因为我们财富的实际条件纯粹是世俗的。这个故事可以用一系列对比来解释：精神权威与自然法则之间的对比，超越秩序与内在制度之间的对比，责任与自由之间的对比，等级制度与民主之间的对比，信仰与科学之间的对比，精神进步与物质进步之间的对比。从第一种对比到第二种对比的历史进程可以用两种方式来叙述：要么是旧幻想的破除，要么是新知识和新制度的构建。无论哪种方式，都是人类自我解放的故事。

There is something unconvincing about these narratives of emancipation. Most lives remain preoccupied with material needs and social obligations. Perhaps these are obligations to clients, employers, landlords, or creditors. Emancipation is not yet complete in practice, and it never will be in a society of mutual dependence. Moreover, emancipation itself requires faith. The self-liberation of humanity presupposes that the natural order behaves in a stable way, that human decision has the power to manipulate this order to its will, and that the authority ensuring social cohesion and cooperation can be decided by human contract. In premodern society, there was insufficient evidence for such faith: the stability of nature, the power to shape the world, and confidence in human cooperation were all too fragile, subject to the dangers of accident, disease, aggression, or curse. Only religious faith provided the hope of security. Whence, then, came the confidence for humanity to venture out of the protective order of religious faith that was the only source of stability and authority? Was it merely a matter of sifting, through experience, the true conditions of stability and prosperity from the false? Was it purely a matter of turning attention from ideas to real interactions within the world? Or was the rise of modernity a transformation rather than a rejection of faith? If there is no purely immanent system, then are the dichotomies that structure narratives of progress and emancipation anything more than illusory?
这些关于解放的叙述有些难以令人信服。大多数人的生活仍然被物质需求和社会义务所困扰。这些义务可能是对客户、雇主、房东或债权人的义务。解放在实践中尚未完成，在一个相互依存的社会中也永远不会完成。此外，解放本身需要信仰。人类自我解放的前提是，自然秩序的行为方式是稳定的，人类的决定有能力按照自己的意愿操纵这种秩序，确保社会团结与合作的权威可以通过人类契约来决定。在前现代社会，这种信仰没有足够的证据：自然的稳定性、塑造世界的力量以及对人类合作的信心都太脆弱了，会受到意外、疾病、侵略或诅咒等危险的影响。只有宗教信仰才能带来安全的希望。宗教信仰是稳定和权威的唯一源泉，那么，人类从何而来的信心敢于走出宗教信仰的保护秩序呢？难道仅仅是通过经验从虚假中筛选出稳定和繁荣的真实条件吗？这是否纯粹是将注意力从思想转向世界内部的真实互动？或者说，现代性的崛起是对信仰的转变而非否定？如果不存在纯粹的内在体系，那么构建进步与解放叙事的二分法是否只是虚幻的？

One may question the dichotomy between the religious and the economic. Of course, the great preoccupation of human life and endeavor has been with procuring its own survival and flourishing, and the basic cate-
人们可能会质疑宗教与经济之间的对立。当然，人类生活和事业的主要关注点一直是确保自身的生存和繁荣，而基本的 "经济 "和 "宗教 "则是人类生活和事业的基础。
gories through which the world is experienced are furnished daily by these habits and practices. Yet this preoccupation cannot simply be contrasted with religious preoccupations. When the greatest contributor as well as the greatest threat to human welfare is humanity itself, then the conditions that enable collective welfare must include those observances which regulate human conduct. An economy that ensures effective distribution is the source of human flourishing, and a religious life that authorizes the obligations and regulations through which this distribution occurs is the guarantor of economic life. Religious preoccupations have been, in past societies, a major part of the conservation of economic life and practice, for human flourishing is not obtained simply by material means. Human welfare is dependent on cooperation and material distribution, and in most societies the authority that lends credit to such practices has ultimately been religious. Those who renounce the world in favor of the transcendent are in practice just as concerned with the source of material welfare as those who labor in the fields, for they are concerned with the conditions of trust and authority. A religious age is no less concerned with the conditions of its existence than a secular age.
这些习惯和做法每天都在为人们提供体验世界的理论。然而，这种关注不能简单地与宗教关注相提并论。当人类福祉的最大贡献者和最大威胁都是人类自身时，那么促成集体福祉的条件就必须包括那些规范人类行为的准则。确保有效分配的经济是人类繁荣的源泉，而授权义务和规定进行分配的宗教生活则是经济生活的保障。在过去的社会中，宗教关怀一直是经济生活和实践的重要组成部分，因为人类的繁荣并不只是通过物质手段获得的。人类的福祉取决于合作和物质分配，而在大多数社会中，为这种做法提供信用的权威最终是宗教。那些放弃世俗而追求超然的人，实际上与那些在田间劳作的人一样关心物质福利的来源，因为他们关心的是信任和权威的条件。一个宗教时代对其生存条件的关注并不亚于一个世俗时代。

The great transformation of modernity, then, involves a change that is at once both religious and economic and should be conceived under both registers simultaneously. The effective basis for trust and authority that daily ensures material and economic cooperation is no longer local custom or authoritative religious prescription. Distribution has to be effected by its own immanent, independent, or self-regulating order-the market. The story of modernity has been narrated by the economic historian Karl Polanyi (in The Great Transformation) as the reorganization of society according to the ideal of the self-regulating market. Indeed, the separation of the economic sphere of life from the political and religious spheres is what the notion of a self-regulating market means. Just as the independent order of nature is the basis for science separate from faith, and so the theoretical condition for atheism, the independent sphere of the market is the practical condition for atheism. While it is possible to imagine a godless universe in theory, it is impossible to live without effective distribution. Therefore, it is only when a self-ordering system of distribution is achieved that atheism becomes a live option. Only under these conditions are religious observances made redundant in economic life.
因此，现代性的伟大变革涉及宗教和经济的双重变革，应同时在这两个方面加以考虑。日常确保物质和经济合作的信任和权威的有效基础不再是地方习俗或权威性的宗教规定。分配必须由其自身内在的、独立的或自我调节的秩序--市场--来实现。经济史学家卡尔-波兰尼（Karl Polanyi）在《大变革》一书中将现代性的故事描述为按照自我调节市场的理想重组社会。事实上，经济生活领域与政治和宗教领域的分离正是自我调节市场概念的含义所在。正如独立的自然秩序是科学与信仰分离的基础，也是无神论的理论条件一样，独立的市场领域是无神论的实践条件。虽然在理论上可以想象一个无神的宇宙，但没有有效的分配是不可能生活下去的。因此，只有实现了自我排序的分配制度，无神论才成为一种可行的选择。只有在这些条件下，宗教仪式在经济生活中才显得多余。

Several historical impulses came together to create the conditions for a secular age. One impulse was the industrial development of mechanical inventions and the use of fossil fuels. This increased the productive power of humanity so that it could make the natural order stable and manipulable. Yet the motive for increasing production was not for the individual producer’s use but, rather, for exchange: industrialization could not have occurred without a commercial society organized for trade. A second impulse, then, was the promotion of market relations, developed primarily for long-distance trade, as the principal means of distribution within a society. This was achieved by deregulation - the active intervention of sovereign authority against prior customs and observances. Yet the question remains as to whether a market, once liberated and promoted by state power, will itself grow to infiltrate and regulate the other spheres of social interaction. While there may be no limits to the desire for gain and pleasure that drives growth, production and consumption remain restricted by effective demand. Desire has no economic power in a market without money or credit. Indeed, a market that regulates production and distribution through prices exists only on the basis of money as the common commodity against which values are compared and through which exchanges are enacted.
若干历史推动力共同为世俗时代创造了条件。推动力之一是机械发明和化石燃料的使用带来的工业发展。这提高了人类的生产力，从而使自然秩序变得稳定和可操控。然而，增加生产的动机并不是为了供生产者个人使用，而是为了交换：如果没有一个为贸易而组织的商业社会，工业化就不可能发生。因此，第二个推动力是促进市场关系，这种关系主要是为远距离贸易而发展的，是社会内部的主要分配手段。这是通过放松管制来实现的，即主权当局对先前的习俗和惯例进行积极干预。然而，市场一旦被国家权力解放和推动，其本身是否会发展到渗透和调节社会互动的其他领域，这个问题依然存在。虽然推动经济增长的利益和快乐的欲望可能是无止境的，但生产和消费仍然受到有效需求的限制。在一个没有货币或信贷的市场中，欲望没有经济力量。事实上，一个通过价格来调节生产和分配的市场，其存在的唯一基础就是货币，它是用来比较价值和进行交换的共同商品。

There is, therefore, a third impulse alongside production and consumption that drives the transformation of economic life: the authority of money. Nevertheless, a market is not simply grown by more money, since demand becomes less effective resulting in inflation. Similarly, a society as a whole cannot increase in wealth through increased production if there is insufficient demand, expressed in the form of money, for additional products. The third impulse is the invention of a new kind of money, one that is created as a debt. A debt is an obligation, a commitment to economic activity, and a commitment to repay in money. It is a promise, and money holds its value as long as this promise is trusted. Once debt becomes a medium of exchange, a widely circulating form of money, then the entire nature of the market changes with it. A market based on debt money is an immanent system of credits and liabilities, of debts and obligations, and it is capable of unlimited growth. It ensures participation and cohesion, with promises of wealth and threats of exclusion, through a system of social obligations. Debt takes over the role of religion in economic life.
因此，除了生产和消费之外，还有第三个推动经济生活变革的动力：货币的权威。然而，市场并不是靠增加货币就能增长的，因为需求的有效性会降低，从而导致通货膨胀。同样，如果以货币形式表现的对额外产品的需求不足，整个社会就无法通过增加生产来增加财富。第三种冲动是发明一种新的货币，一种以债务形式产生的货币。债务是一种义务，是对经济活动的承诺，也是以货币偿还的承诺。它是一种承诺，只要这种承诺被信任，货币就会保持其价值。一旦债务成为一种交换媒介，一种广泛流通的货币形式，那么整个市场的性质也会随之改变。以债务货币为基础的市场是一个信用与负债、债务与义务的内在系统，它能够无限增长。它通过社会义务体系，以财富承诺和排斥威胁来确保参与和凝聚力。债务取代了宗教在经济生活中的作用。

Money is the condition for liberty and prosperity. Without money, one
金钱是自由和繁荣的条件。没有钱，人
is dependent on others; with money, one can demand their service. Money calls forth increased production by opening the possibility of unlimited accumulation, by enabling investment in the means of production, and by giving an effective authority to demand. Yet money does not provide a source for social cohesion until it brings with it an obligation: the obligation of debt. If in religious life people renounce enjoyment to achieve spiritual goals, then in modern economic life people renounce their property, labor, and time in the pursuit of money. Modern secular life is ascetic like religious life, even if it has its moments of hedonism. Human flourishing is still ensured by a detour. A preoccupation with the conditions of one’s life is now a preoccupation with money. Through its use in structuring everyday life and practice, money lends its shape to the categories of modern life and thought.
有了货币，人们就可以要求他人提供服务。货币提供了无限积累的可能性，使人们能够投资于生产资料，并赋予需求有效的权力，从而促进了生产。然而，只有当金钱带来义务：债务义务时，它才是社会凝聚力的源泉。如果说在宗教生活中，人们为了实现精神目标而放弃享受，那么在现代经济生活中，人们为了追求金钱而放弃财产、劳动和时间。现代世俗生活与宗教生活一样是禁欲主义的，即使它也有享乐主义的时候。人类的繁衍生息仍然需要绕道而行。现在，对生活条件的关注就是对金钱的关注。通过对日常生活和实践的结构化使用，金钱为现代生活和思想的范畴提供了形状。

Local cult, transcendent God, or mobile debt: each may function as the basis of authority and the source of sustenance in daily life. There is, however, a decisive difference between traditional religions and the use of money. While the transcendent remains shrouded in mystery, a source of power and authority that is not subject to human manipulation, money remains rather mundane. If one thinks of money at all, it is as an object of human control, a tool expressing human will. One does not consider the nature of its power. While the goal of spiritual life is to attain consciousness of the divine order and meaning of things, the goal of economic life is merely wealth and enjoyment. Money is regarded as the means, human flourishing as the end. It is in modern life that alienation is complete and the consciousness of humanity departs entirely from the conditions of its existence. It is in modern life, rather than religious life, where ideology is most fully instantiated. If modern economic life differs essentially from religious life, it does so not because it possesses a truer understanding of its conditions of existence or of practical efficacy. The essential difference lies in its lack of consciousness. There is no need to venerate or even consider money, the source of the modern age. There is merely a practical need to make money. The economic detour is seen as purely a detour. At the same time, the quest for profit and the growth of debt are unlimited. The only end for human life, which in practice is the making of money, is misperceived as human flourishing.
地方崇拜、超验的神或流动的债务：每一种都可以作为权威的基础和日常生活的寄托。然而，传统宗教与金钱的使用之间存在着决定性的区别。超验的东西仍然笼罩在神秘之中，是不受人类操纵的力量和权威的源泉，而金钱则仍然相当世俗。如果说人们对金钱有什么想法的话，那也只是把它当作人类控制的对象、表达人类意志的工具。人们不会考虑其力量的本质。精神生活的目标是意识到事物的神圣秩序和意义，而经济生活的目标仅仅是财富和享受。金钱被视为手段，人类的繁荣才是目的。在现代生活中，异化是完全的，人类的意识完全脱离了其生存的条件。正是在现代生活中，而不是在宗教生活中，意识形态得到了最充分的体现。如果说现代经济生活在本质上有别于宗教生活，那并不是因为它对自身的存在条件或实际功效有更真切的理解。本质区别在于它缺乏意识。我们没有必要崇敬甚至考虑现代社会的源泉--金钱。只有赚钱的实际需要。经济上的弯路纯粹被视为弯路。同时，对利润的追求和债务的增长是无限的。人类生活的唯一目的实际上就是赚钱，这被误认为是人类的繁荣。

This book, on the theology of money, is therefore an anachronism: it
因此，这本关于货币神学的书是不合时宜的：它
is written to bring our collective faith back to consciousness. This is not a task for economists, for there is no practical economic need for it. Such an understanding is itself an interruption of practical life, for it is not the case that by raising our consciousness we can simply choose to be different. We are dependent on a complex web of needs and obligations, mediated by money, over which no one is master-evident from the numerous financial crises that afflict us all. Instead, the quest to understand the power of the beliefs enshrined in money is an attempt to pursue a traditional theological quest, to understand the conditions of existence within our contemporary age. In so doing, the aim is to show how human life and endeavor are shaped by practices of contracting, accounting, and evaluating. The purpose is to expose such practices in all their contingency, irrationality, arbitrariness, and violence; to enable us to ridicule their pretensions, marvel over their powers, and weep over their ultimate consequences. For the dangers of chaos, instability, and possessive spectral forces have not departed from the modern world. The aim is to show what devotions, sacrifices, and convictions lie at the basis of contemporary existence, and to call for a new effort of devotion, sacrifice, and conviction that may evoke another social order.
写这本书的目的是为了让我们的集体信仰重获觉醒。这不是经济学家的任务，因为没有实际的经济需要。这种理解本身就是对实际生活的干扰，因为我们并不能通过提高我们的意识来简单地选择与众不同。我们依赖于以金钱为媒介的复杂的需求和义务网络，没有人能够主宰它--这一点从困扰我们所有人的无数金融危机中可见一斑。相反，对金钱所蕴含的信仰力量的探索，是对传统神学的追求，是对当代生存条件的理解。这样做的目的是为了说明人类的生活和努力是如何被契约、会计和评估的实践所塑造的。目的是揭露这些做法的偶然性、不合理性、任意性和暴力性；使我们能够嘲笑它们的自命不凡，惊叹它们的力量，并为它们的最终后果而哭泣。因为混乱、不稳定和占有性幽灵力量的危险并没有离开现代世界。本书的目的在于说明当代人的生存基础是什么，并呼吁人们在奉献、牺牲和信念方面做出新的努力，从而唤起另一种社会秩序。

The global order of credit capitalism found its birthplace in England and this book has been written within the economic context of a contemporary English university. Among other things this has necessitated an early publication in England to meet the requirements of the national Research Assessment Exercise, and so to contribute to the economic viability of my institution, department, and position. In the contemporary English university, thought is regulated by its price in the form of the funding it can attract. Yet the global order of credit capitalism has been propagated most forthrightly by the United States, and I am therefore delighted to commend the book’s publication and distribution to a global audience through Duke University Press. My thanks are due to the conscientious readers for the Press, to Reynolds Smith and his editorial team, and to all who have shown and will show patience with this book and with the future of its ideas.
全球信贷资本主义秩序的发源地在英国，本书就是在当代英国大学的经济背景下撰写的。为了满足国家研究评估工作的要求，这本书必须尽早在英国出版，从而为我所在的机构、院系和职位的经济可行性做出贡献。在当代英国大学中，思想的价格是由其所能吸引的资金来决定的。然而，信贷资本主义的全球秩序是由美国最直截了当地传播的，因此，我很高兴通过杜克大学出版社向全球读者推荐本书的出版和发行。我感谢出版社认真负责的读者，感谢雷诺兹-史密斯和他的编辑团队，感谢所有已经和将要对本书及其思想的未来表现出耐心的人。

And the Spirit immediately drove Jesus out into the wilderness. He was in the wilderness forty days, and he was with the wild beasts, and the angels waited on him. He fasted forty days and forty nights, and afterwards he was famished. Money came and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become bread. For I would do as much for the least of masters whom I serve.” But he answered, “It is written, ‘One does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”
圣灵立刻把耶稣赶到旷野。他在旷野四十天，与野兽同在，天使伺候他。他禁食四十个昼夜，后来饥肠辘辘。钱来对他说："你若是神的儿子，求你吩咐这些石头变成饼。因为我愿意为我所侍奉的最小的主人做同样的事。"但他回答说："经上记着：'人活着，不是单靠食物，乃是靠神口里所出的一切话'"。

Then Money took him to the holy city and placed him on the pinnacle of the temple, saying to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down, for you can command your angels to bear you up, so that you do not dash your foot against a stone. For I would do this much for the greatest of masters whom I serve.” Jesus said to him, “Again it is written, ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’”
钱把他带到圣城，把他放在殿顶上，对他说："你若是神的儿子，就俯伏在地，因为你可以吩咐你的天使把你托起来，免得你的脚撞在石头上。因为我愿意为我所事奉的最伟大的主人做这样的事。"耶稣对他说："经上又记着：'不可试探主你的神'"。

Again, Money took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor, and said to him, “To you I will give their glory and all this authority, for it has been given over to me, and I give it to anyone I please. If you, then, choose to master me, it will all be yours.” Jesus said to him, “Be gone, Money! For it is written, ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve only him.’ One cannot serve God and Mammon.”
钱又把他带到一座很高的山上，向他展示了世界上所有的王国和它们的辉煌，并对他说："我要把它们的荣耀和这一切权力都交给你，因为它已经交给了我，我想交给谁就交给谁。如果你选择做我的主人，这一切就都是你的了"。耶稣对他说："钱啊，你走吧！因为经上记着：'你们要敬拜耶和华你们的神，只事奉他。人不能侍奉上帝和玛门"

As Money departed, he replied, “If the owner is unwilling to sell, one may always pay someone to remove him. I will go seek out Judas Iscariot. For though some seek bread, some seek power, some seek the world, and some seek to leave it, most will accept money instead.”
钱离开时，他回答说："如果主人不愿意卖，可以花钱雇人把他带走。我要去找加略人犹大。"虽然有人追求面包，有人追求权力，有人追求世界，有人追求离开世界，但大多数人都会接受金钱"。

And suddenly the earth was opened, and the fire of the infernal mint was seen rising up to touch Money so that his face shone like the sun, and the voice of Mammon came from the depths, saying, “This is my son, my beloved, upon whom my fire rests. Whosoever eats of his flesh and blood will have life in all its fullness.”
突然，大地被打开了，人们看到无间地狱的火苗升起，触到了钱，使他的脸像太阳一样闪亮，玛门的声音从深处传来，说："这是我的儿子，我的爱子，我的火在他身上。"吃他血肉的人都将获得丰盛的生命"

the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth on wealth stand out as distinct within the history of religions. Many others have taught and practiced asceticism, the renunciation of worldly ways and pleasures. Jesus, by contrast, warned against wealth while feasting and drinking himself. The kingdom of God was a feast promised for those without wealth. Such teachings on wealth make sense within the tradition of Hebrew prophets who protested against theft, exploitation, and the appropriation of property. The warnings against riches are economic: the true meaning of corruption of the soul through avarice is the debasement of the lives of others. This economic meaning of Jesus’s sayings may be evaded if they are interpreted individually; when surveyed together, however, the meaning is both radical and transparent.
拿撒勒人耶稣关于财富的教诲在宗教史上独树一帜。许多其他宗教都教导并实践禁欲主义，即放弃世俗的生活方式和享乐。与此形成鲜明对比的是，耶稣在大吃大喝的同时却警告人们不要为富不仁。上帝的国度是应许给那些没有财富的人的盛宴。在希伯来先知抗议偷窃、剥削和侵占财产的传统中，这些关于财富的教诲是有意义的。对财富的警告是经济性的：贪婪使灵魂堕落的真正含义是贬低他人的生命。如果单独解读耶稣箴言中的经济学含义，可能会被回避；但如果将它们放在一起看，其含义则既激进又透明。

Jesus announced a gospel of good news to the poor (Luke 4.18). ${}^1$${}^1$^(1){ }^{1} Woes were proclaimed to the rich and blessings to the poor (Luke 6.20-26). Jesus’s followers were enjoined to sell their possessions and give to the poor (Luke 12.33). Keeping the Ten Commandments was insufficient for a landowner; selling possessions and giving to the poor were also required (Mark 10.21). It was impossible for the rich to enter the kingdom of God (Mark 10.25). Jesus sent out his followers to travel without money (Mark 6.8). He did not habitually carry spare money (Matt. 17.27, 22.19), and his disciples had a common purse carried by the traitor Judas Iscariot, who was accused of stealing from it (John 12.6). Wealth was described as “un-
耶稣向穷人宣布了福音的好消息（路加福音 4.18）。 ${}^1$${}^1$^(1){ }^{1} 耶稣向富人宣告了祸，向穷人宣告了福（《路加福音》6.20-26）。耶稣的追随者被要求变卖家产分给穷人（路加福音 12.33）。对于地主来说，遵守十诫是不够的，还必须变卖家产并施舍穷人（马可福音 10.21）。富人不可能进神的国（马可福音 10.25）。耶稣差遣他的跟随者旅行时不带钱（马可福音 6.8）。他没有携带备用钱的习惯（《马太福音》17.27，22.19），他的门徒有一个共同的钱包，由叛徒加略人犹大携带，他被指控从钱包里偷钱（《约翰福音》12.6）。财富被描述为 "不
righteous” (Luke 16.9). Prudent economic behavior such as planning and accumulation were rejected (Luke 12.13-21, 13.22-31). The use of wealth was regarded as minor in contrast to the ways of God (Luke 16.11). The extraction of taxes, the fundamental activity that maintained the political power of the Roman Empire and the Herodians, belonged to a different sphere from the service of God (Mark 12.17). Similarly, the children of God were regarded as free from paying the temple tax (Matt. 17.26). When Jesus attacked the center of religious power in his society, it was the tables of the moneychangers that he overthrew (Mark 11.15). All debts were to be forgiven (Matt. 6.12); hence, even the principle of contract, the fundamental political power of civil society, was to be laid aside. In declaring that one cannot serve God and wealth (Matt. 6.24), Jesus set the divine power of the Kingdom of God in the starkest opposition to one of the most fundamental principles of both worldly and religious power - the power of money. Such is the radical significance of his teaching. Jesus’s betrayal by Judas for the sake of money (Matt. 26.15) was a poignant rejection of the heart of his teaching.
义人"（路加福音 16.9）。谨慎的经济行为，如计划和积累，遭到拒绝（《路加福音》12.13-21，13.22-31）。与神的道路相比，财富的使用被视为次要的（《路加福音》16.11）。征税是维持罗马帝国和希律王政治权力的基本活动，与侍奉上帝属于不同的领域（马可福音 12.17）。同样，神的儿女也被视为无需缴纳圣殿税（《马太福音》17.26）。当耶稣攻击社会中的宗教权力中心时，他推翻的是钱庄的桌子（马可福音 11.15）。所有的债务都应被免除（《马太福音》6.12）；因此，甚至契约原则--公民社会的基本政治权力--也应被搁置一旁。耶稣宣称，人不能侍奉上帝，也不能侍奉财富（《马太福音》6.24），他将天国的神圣力量与世俗和宗教权力的最基本原则之一--金钱的力量--截然对立起来。这就是耶稣教导的根本意义。犹大为了金钱出卖了耶稣（《马太福音》26.15），这是对耶稣教诲核心的强烈否定。

Jesus may therefore be regarded as among the most radical of religious political thinkers. The fifth-century British heretic Pelagius explained such teaching with the observation that the chief sources of wealth in the ancient world were extortion, robbery, and the inheritance of the benefits of extortion and robbery. ${}^2$${}^2$^(2){ }^{2} Jesus’s protest was at once political, moral, and religious. In a precapitalist economy, it was evident to all that inequalities in wealth largely arose from the accumulation of the products of others’ labor, whether through theft, slavery, tribute, patronage, taxation, or debt. Accumulated wealth was stored and exchanged in the form of money; without money, there is less scope for such unequal accumulation. Christian theology has attempted to evade the uncomfortable legacy of the social significance of money by internalizing Jesus’s message: it is love of money, not money itself, that has been regarded as the root of all evil (1 Tim. 6.10). Christian theology has preferred to concentrate on the opposition of the world to Jesus, expressed in his execution as a criminal or in the scandal of proclaiming a crucified itinerant preacher as the son of God. In doing so, it has tended to overlook the radical opposition of God to the world, or divine judgment, proclaimed by Jesus himself: “Woe to you who are rich” (Luke 6.24). The proclamation of a new savior belonged well within the
因此，耶稣可被视为最激进的宗教政治思想家之一。五世纪英国异端学家佩拉吉乌斯（Pelagius）解释这种教义时指出，古代世界财富的主要来源是勒索、抢劫以及勒索和抢劫所得利益的继承。 ${}^2$${}^2$^(2){ }^{2} 耶稣的抗议同时具有政治、道德和宗教意义。在前资本主义经济时代，所有人都清楚，财富的不平等主要源于他人劳动产品的积累，无论是通过盗窃、奴役、进贡、赞助、税收还是债务。积累的财富以货币的形式储存和交换；没有货币，这种不平等积累的空间就更小了。基督教神学试图通过内化耶稣的信息来回避金钱的社会意义这一令人不安的遗产：被视为万恶之源的是对金钱的爱，而不是金钱本身（提摩太前书 6.10）。基督教神学更倾向于将注意力集中在世人对耶稣的反对上，这种反对表现在将耶稣作为罪犯处死，或将一个被钉在十字架上的巡回传教士宣扬为上帝之子的丑闻上。在这样做的过程中，人们往往忽略了耶稣本人所宣称的上帝对这个世界的彻底反对，或者说是神圣的审判："你们这富足的人有祸了"（路加福音 6.24）。对新救世主的宣告完全属于《圣经》的范畴。
hopes, desires, and political norms of the ancient world, even if the specific choice of a humble and crucified savior gave offence. By contrast, a proclamation against the most fundamental and pervasive ways of the world was nothing less than a claim to reveal a different underlying principle or power: the rule or kingdom of God. Jesus opposed the power of God to the power of money. Every time Christianity has worshiped Christ enthroned as a heavenly Caesar, it has repeated Iscariot’s betrayal of Jesus.
即使选择一位谦卑的、被钉在十字架上的救世主会冒犯古代世界的希望、欲望和政治准则。相比之下，宣称反对世界最根本、最普遍的方式，无异于宣称揭示一种不同的基本原则或力量：上帝的统治或王国。耶稣将上帝的权力与金钱的权力对立起来。每当基督教把基督当作天上的凯撒来崇拜时，它就重复了加略人对耶稣的背叛。

Theology cannot be neutral here. As Saint Paul well understood, the central question of theology is that of the essence of the power to be used in final judgment (e.g., 1 Cor. 15.24). If theology is to judge the ways of the world by the power of truth and goodness, then it must explain truth and goodness in accordance with their own specific power. Theology, concerned with the ultimate criteria of life, is the most fundamental and radical inquiry. It attempts to discern how truth, goodness, and life come to be constituted. It offers to the world a vision of life interpreted according to the richest categories of meaning. It has the duty to invest life with the deepest layers of spiritual wealth-that is, it has to determine what is the nature of true wealth. This is the vocation for theology, whether Christian or not, and it is the most fundamental inquiry, whether pursued by believers, nonbelievers, or no one at all. Worldly wealth, which can only measure exchange value in terms of money, is to be judged against a new revelation of divine power.
神学在这里不可能是中立的。正如圣保罗所理解的，神学的核心问题是在最终审判中使用的力量的本质（如林前 15.24）。如果神学要以真理和良善的力量来评判世道，那么它就必须根据真理和良善的具体力量来解释它们。神学关注生命的终极标准，是最根本、最激进的探索。它试图揭示真、善和生命是如何构成的。它根据最丰富的意义范畴，为世界提供了一种诠释生命的愿景。它有责任为生命注入最深层次的精神财富，也就是说，它必须确定真正财富的本质是什么。这是神学的天职，无论它是否是基督教的，它都是最根本的探索，无论它是由信徒、非信徒或任何人来追求。世俗的财富只能用金钱来衡量交换价值，而神圣力量的新启示则是对世俗财富的评判标准。

Such a judgment is inevitably surprising: divine power is an eschatological replacement of all fundamental principles. In this life, material wealth is the source of all benefits, all delights, all investments, all sustenance, all welfare, and all charity. Few ascetics have questioned its necessity for those who remain in the world. To question its benefits risks charges of insanity. The quest for wealth is the one practical activity that unites the diverse people of the contemporary world. It is the means or precondition for undertaking all subsequent worthy ventures or enjoying all pleasures. As George Bernard Shaw put it, "Money is indeed the most important thing in the world; and all sound and successful personal and national morality should have this fact for its basis. Every teacher or twaddler who denies it or suppresses it, is an enemy of life. Money controls morality."3 In a capitalist economy, where accumulation occurs through the use of money, the moral and political relations from which wealth derives are no longer di-
这样的判断难免令人惊讶：神力是所有基本原则的末世替代品。在今生，物质财富是一切利益、一切乐趣、一切投资、一切生计、一切福利和一切慈善的源泉。很少有苦行僧会质疑物质财富对那些留在世上的人的必要性。质疑它的益处有可能被指控为精神错乱。追求财富是将当代世界不同的人们团结在一起的一项实践活动。它是从事一切有价值的事业或享受一切快乐的手段或前提。正如萧伯纳所说："金钱确实是世界上最重要的东西；所有健全和成功的个人和国家道德都应以这一事实为基础。每一个否认或压制这一事实的教师或迂腐者都是生活的敌人。金钱控制着道德。"3 在资本主义经济中，财富的积累是通过使用金钱来实现的，因此，作为财富来源的道德和政治关系不再是二元对立的。
rectly evident. The equitable relation of voluntary trade appears to embody justice. To oppose money as the fundamental principle of the social order is therefore deeply immoral and unjust from the perspective of that order. This opposition is hostile to just standards of measure and hinders opportunities for accumulation. To question the pursuit of wealth is to set oneself against all common sense, all agreement, all political power, and all practicality. Moreover, since wealth gives access to power, to question the pursuit of wealth is to abandon all power, dooming oneself to a futile quest. It is little wonder that Christian theologians have sought to accommodate themselves to the world rather than risk their entire heritage by abandoning all power.
这是显而易见的。自愿交易的公平关系似乎体现了正义。因此，从社会秩序的角度来看，反对货币作为社会秩序的基本原则是极不道德和不公正的。这种反对敌视公正的衡量标准，阻碍了积累的机会。质疑对财富的追求，就是违背所有常识、所有约定、所有政治权力和所有实用性。此外，由于财富带来权力，质疑对财富的追求就等于放弃一切权力，使自己的追求徒劳无益。这就难怪基督教神学家们要努力使自己适应这个世界，而不是冒着放弃所有权力的风险来继承他们的全部遗产。

Nevertheless, the strategy of internalization to accommodate oneself to wealth betrays an infidelity. Jesus appears to have been quite content to enjoy the hospitality of the wealthy, to allow others to provide for him out of their wealth, and to consume to the extent that he and his followers were accused of gluttony (Matt. 9.10-11; Luke 8.3; Matt. 11.19). Feasting provides the paradigmatic symbol for the arrival of the Kingdom of God. It was not, however, the subjective enjoyment of wealth that was his target; it was wealth as a principle of power or judgment. Jesus’s opposition to the service of wealth marked the greatest differentiation from the ways of the world. In this difference lies an opportunity to explore how the value of values may be determined. Jesus’s announcements raise the most fundamental of theological problems: what is the value of values? Do our scales of evaluation express true values? The true nature of theological inquiry perhaps only became clear after Friedrich Nietzsche, the self-proclaimed Antichrist, raised the problem of the revaluation of all values.
然而，内化的策略是为了适应财富，这暴露了一种不忠。耶稣似乎很满足于享受富人的款待，允许别人用财富来供养他，他和他的追随者被指责为贪吃（《马太福音》9.10-11；《路加福音》8.3；《马太福音》11.19）。宴饮是天国到来的典型象征。然而，他所针对的并不是主观上对财富的享受，而是作为权力或审判原则的财富。耶稣反对为财富服务，这是他与世人最大的不同之处。在这种差异中，我们有机会探索如何确定价值观的价值。耶稣的宣告提出了最根本的神学问题：什么是价值观的价值？我们的评价尺度是否表达了真正的价值？神学探究的真正本质也许只有在自称为反基督者的弗里德里希-尼采提出重估所有价值的问题之后才会变得清晰。

It is nothing less than a revaluation of all values that Jesus himself proclaimed. Money, as the measure against which all things are priced, is the contemporary principle of the value of values. A revaluation of all values may start by exploring money. It need be a question not of deciding in advance for or against money, or for or against Jesus, but of noting the significance of money in the determination of the value of values and inquiring into its true nature. Money, above all else, has seemed to be indispensable: while Jesus’s following was initially formed as a community of shared possessions, voluntary poverty, and gift exchange, it has repeatedly abandoned this central practical ideal. Perhaps his followers were right to do so. A the-
这不亚于耶稣本人所宣称的对所有价值的重新估价。金钱作为衡量万物价值的尺度，是当代价值观的价值原则。对所有价值的重新评估可以从探索金钱开始。这不是一个事先决定支持或反对金钱、支持或反对耶稣的问题，而是一个注意到金钱在决定价值观价值中的意义并探究其真正本质的问题。金钱，最重要的似乎是不可或缺的：虽然耶稣的追随者最初是作为一个分享财产、自愿贫穷和交换礼物的群体而形成的，但他们却一再放弃了这一核心的实际理想。也许他的追随者们这样做是对的。一个
ology of money must determine the principles, the value of values, through which judgments of economic behavior can be formulated. For this, Jesus did more than proclaim an opposition; he also illuminated some of its principles:
货币学必须确定原则，即价值中的价值，通过这些原则才能对经济行为做出判断。为此，耶稣所做的不仅仅是宣布一种对立，他还阐明了其中的一些原则：

Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal; but store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
你们不要积攒财宝在地上，地上有虫子咬，锈蚀了，也有贼撬开偷盗；只要积攒财宝在天上，天上没有虫子咬，锈蚀了，也没有贼撬开偷盗。因为你们的财宝在哪里，你们的心也在哪里。

The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light; but if your eye is unhealthy, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!
眼睛是人体的明灯。因此，如果你的眼睛是健康的，你的整个身体就会充满光明；但如果你的眼睛是不健康的，你的整个身体就会充满黑暗。如果你身上的光是黑暗的，那么黑暗有多大！

No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth. (Matt. 6.19-24)
没有人可以侍奉两个主人；因为奴隶要么憎恨一个主人而喜爱另一个主人，要么忠于一个主人而轻视另一个主人。你不能侍奉上帝，也不能侍奉财富。(马太福音 6.19-24）

God and wealth are set in competition; for time, in terms of “storing up treasure”; for attention, in terms of the health of the eye; and for devotion, in terms of service. Our evaluations are primarily expressed not by what we say or simply by what we do, but by how we pray - the determination of our time, attention, and devotion. ${}^4$${}^4$^(4){ }^{4} This is where the power of money is to be sought: not simply in the worship or accumulation of wealth for its own sake, but in the way time, attention, and devotion are shaped by the demands of the social institution of money.
上帝和财富被设定为竞争关系；对时间的竞争，表现为 "储存财宝"；对注意力的竞争，表现为眼睛的健康；对奉献的竞争，表现为服务。我们的评价主要不是通过我们说了什么或简单地通过我们做了什么来表达，而是通过我们如何祈祷来表达--决定我们的时间、注意力和奉献。 ${}^4$${}^4$^(4){ }^{4} 这就是金钱的力量所在：不是简单地为了财富而崇拜或积累财富，而是时间、注意力和奉献精神被金钱社会制度的要求所左右。

All religions, in essence, direct and distribute time, attention, and devotion. Religions enrich life by establishing patterns for living. If there is an opposition between God and money, then fundamentally it comes down to this: wealth contains its own principles according to which time, attention, and devotion are allocated. In a society organized primarily for the pursuit of wealth, nothing could seem more evident and unquestionable than that time, attention, and devotion should be allocated to the pursuit of wealth. It is the very obligation to do so that constitutes the spiritual power of money. It is the very obligation to do so that is the object of a theology of money.
从本质上讲，所有宗教都在引导和分配时间、注意力和奉献精神。宗教通过建立生活模式来丰富生活。如果说上帝与金钱是对立的，那么从根本上说，这可以归结为：财富包含其自身的原则，根据这些原则来分配时间、注意力和奉献精神。在一个主要为追求财富而组织的社会中，没有什么比把时间、注意力和奉献精神分配给追求财富更明显、更不容置疑的了。正是这种义务构成了金钱的精神力量。正是这样做的义务才是金钱神学的目标。

The human sciences of wealth do not study how time is spent; they merely observe the effects of allocations of time, attention, and devotion. While they study the outcome of economic activity, the investigation of the powers and principles by which time, attention, and devotion are distrib-
关于财富的人文科学并不研究时间是如何度过的；它们只是观察时间、注意力和奉献的分配效果。虽然它们研究的是经济活动的结果，但对分配时间、注意力和奉献精神的力量和原则的研究，则是对时间、注意力和奉献精神的研究。
uted should belong, by contrast, to the discipline of theology. A theology of money is an exploration of the nature and effects of money’s mysterious power.
相比之下，货币神学应属于神学学科。金钱神学是对金钱神秘力量的性质和影响的探索。

The problem that lies before us is whether there is something intrinsic to the nature of money that directly opposes God, justice, or nature. “God” may be invoked here as a symbol for the order of nature - the ultimate criteria of power, truth, and goodness; the source of the value of values. Theists and atheists may disagree over the unity, logic, and metaphysics of such a symbol, and over the value of values itself. However, they rarely disagree that something plays the role of the source of the value of values, whether or not the symbol “God” is used. Once it is discovered that money does indeed veil the source of the value of values, a second problem results: how may the value of values become manifest in human life? These two problems form the agenda for this study.
摆在我们面前的问题是，金钱的本质中是否存在着某种直接与上帝、正义或自然对立的东西。在这里，"上帝 "可以作为自然秩序的象征--权力、真理和善的终极标准；价值的源泉。有神论者和无神论者可能会对这种象征的统一性、逻辑性和形而上学以及价值本身存在分歧。但是，无论是否使用了 "上帝 "这个符号，他们很少会不同意某种东西扮演着价值之源的角色。一旦发现金钱确实掩盖了价值的源泉，就会产生第二个问题：价值如何在人类生活中体现出来？这两个问题构成了本研究的议程。

In 1694, when printed tracts declaring the content of true belief were circulating throughout England, a new gospel was announced. It was a gospel of such significance that its tracts are even now carried on a daily basis by most English (and Welsh) subjects: “I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of twenty pounds.” The Bank of England, formed by an act of Parliament at the instigation of William Paterson, provided a permanent loan of 1.2 million pounds at 8 percent interest to King William III for his religious wars. At the same time, the Bank also provided a note issue, in units of 20 pounds, of the same amount, guaranteed by the security of the government’s promise to pay through taxation. Such notes were issued as loans to worthy private borrowers. The original subscribers to the Bank would receive interest on these loans, as well as on the loan to the king. Money was effectively created in excess of the original deposit.
1694 年，当宣称真正信仰内容的印刷小册子在全英格兰流传时，一个新的福音宣告诞生。这是一个意义非凡的福音，甚至现在大多数英国（和威尔士）人每天都会随身携带它的小册子："我承诺在持票人提出要求时支付20英镑"在威廉-帕特森（William Paterson）的推动下，英格兰银行根据议会法案成立，以 8% 的利息向威廉三世国王提供了 120 万英镑的永久贷款，用于他的宗教战争。与此同时，英格兰银行还以 20 英镑为单位发行了相同金额的票据，并以政府承诺通过税收支付为担保。这些票据作为贷款发放给有价值的私人借款人。银行的原始认购人将从这些贷款以及向国王的贷款中获得利息。货币实际上是在原始存款之外创造出来的。

The establishment of the Bank of England inaugurated the period when credit effectively functioned as money. Since metal coins had always been tokens of value, the creation of money as credit does not so much change as reveal the essence of money. The credit theory of money, propounded by Mitchell Innes at the beginning of the twentieth century, states that “a sale and purchase is the exchange of a commodity for a credit. From this
英格兰银行的成立开启了信用作为货币有效发挥作用的时期。由于金属硬币一直是价值的象征，货币作为信用的产生与其说是改变了货币，不如说是揭示了货币的本质。米切尔-英尼斯在 20 世纪初提出的货币信用理论指出："买卖是商品与信用的交换。由此
main theory springs the sub-theory that the value of credit or money does not depend on the value of any metal or metals, but on the right which the creditor acquires to ‘payment,’ that is to say, to the satisfaction of credit, and on the obligation of the debtor to ‘pay’ his debt, and conversely on the right of the debtor to release himself from his debt by the tender of an equivalent debt owed by the creditor, and the obligation of the creditor to accept this tender in satisfaction of credit.” ${}^5$${}^5$^(5){ }^{5}
主要理论的分支理论认为，信用或货币的价值并不取决于任何一种或几种金属的价值，而是取决于债权人获得'支付'的权利，也就是说，取决于债务人'偿还'其债务的义务，反过来说，也取决于债务人通过提供债权人所欠的等价债务而解除其债务的权利，以及债权人接受这种提供以清偿债务的义务"。 ${}^5$${}^5$^(5){ }^{5}

The creation of money has been notably explained, in the context of Holland rather than England, by the economist John Kenneth Galbraith:
经济学家约翰-肯尼斯-加尔布雷思（John Kenneth Galbraith）在荷兰而非英国的背景下对货币的创造进行了著名的解释：

The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent. The deposits of the Bank of Amsterdam . . . were, according to the instruction of the owner, subject to transfer to others in settlement of accounts. (This had long been a convenience provided by the Bank’s private precursors.) The coin on deposit served no less as money by being in a bank and being subject to transfer by the stroke of a pen.
银行创造货币的过程是如此简单，以至于人们对其产生了排斥心理。在涉及如此重要的事情时，更深层次的神秘似乎才是正经事。阿姆斯特丹银行的存款......根据所有者的指示，可以在结算时转移给其他人。(这早已成为阿姆斯特丹银行的私人前身提供的一种便利。）存入银行的钱币也同样可以作为货币使用，只需动笔即可转让。

Inevitably it was discovered - as it was by the conservative burghers of Amsterdam as they reflected incestuously on their own needs as directors of the Dutch East India Company - that another stroke of the pen would give a borrower from the bank, as distinct from a creditor of the original depositor, a loan from the original and idle deposit. It was not a detail that the bank would have the interest on the loan so made. The original depositor could be told that his deposit was subject to such use - and perhaps be paid for it. The original deposit still stood to the credit of the original depositor. But there was now also a new deposit from the proceeds of the loan. Both deposits could be used to make payments, be used as money. Money had thus been created. The discovery that the banks could so create money came very early in the development of banking. There was that interest to be earned. Where such reward is waiting, men have a natural instinct for innovation.
阿姆斯特丹保守的布尔乔亚人在反思自己作为荷兰东印度公司董事的需要时，不可避免地发现，银行的借款人（有别于原始存款人的债权人）可以从原始的闲置存款中获得贷款。银行将获得贷款利息并不是一个细节。原存款人可以被告知他的存款可以这样使用--也许还可以因此得到报酬。原来的存款仍然归原来的存款人所有。但现在还有一笔来自贷款收益的新存款。这两笔存款都可以用来支付款项，作为货币使用。货币就这样被创造出来了。在银行业发展的早期，人们就发现银行可以这样创造货币。有利息可赚。只要有这样的回报，人们就会有创新的本能。

There was an alternative opportunity involving bank notes, one that was to be wonderfully exploited in the eventual American Republic. That was to give the borrower not a deposit but a note redeemable in the hard currency that had been placed in the bank as capital or as a sedentary deposit. With this note the borrower could make his payment: the recipient of such payment might, instead of redeeming the note for cash, use it for his payments, and so on ad infinitum. Meanwhile
还有一个涉及银行票据的机会，这个机会在最终的美利坚共和国得到了很好的利用。那就是给借款人的不是存款，而是一张可兑换硬通货的票据，硬通货作为资本或定期存款存入银行。借款人可以用这张票据付款：收款人可以用这张票据付款，而不是兑换成现金，以此类推，无穷无尽。同时
back at the bank interest was being received on the original loan. One day, perhaps, the note would be returned and redeemed for the hard cash of the original deposit. But by then the borrower would have repaid his loan, also in hard money. All would be well, and interest would have been earned. There was a chance also that the note would continue its passage from hand to hand and never be returned for collection. The loan which led to its emission would earn interest and in due course be repaid. The note meanwhile would continue its rounds. Against the original coin that allowed of the original loan, no claim would ever be entered. ${}^6$${}^6$^(6){ }^{6}
在银行，原始贷款的利息正在被收取。也许有一天，借条会被归还，并以原始存款的硬通货赎回。但到那时，借款人已经偿还了他的贷款，也是硬通货。一切都会好起来，利息也会赚到。此外，票据还有可能继续在手中流转，永远不会被归还收回。导致其发放的贷款会产生利息，并在适当的时候得到偿还。与此同时，纸币将继续流通。对于允许原始贷款的原始硬币，永远不会有任何索偿要求。 ${}^6$${}^6$^(6){ }^{6}

Such banking practices emerged in Florence, Genoa, Venice, and Amsterdam. They were inevitably the cause of cycles of euphoria and panic, dependent on the fluctuations of confidence in the bank. The Bank of England was exceptional in providing monetary stability. ${}^7$${}^7$^(7){ }^{7} The value of money was underwritten by the power of the state to raise taxes, and since the Bank’s notes were readily and promptly redeemed in hard coin, they were not presented for redemption. Credit came to occupy the secure monetary space formerly occupied by coinage alone. ${}^8$${}^8$^(8){ }^{8} The Bank gradually took over the money supply and the responsibility to stabilize the value of money. In the words of Galbraith, the Bank of England is, “in all respects, to money as St. Peter’s is to the Faith.” ${}^9$${}^9$^(9){ }^{9} It became the model on which all other central banks were based and was pivotal in Great Britain’s rise to global dominance during the eighteenth century and nineteenth century, just as the U.S. Federal Reserve became pivotal in the twentieth century.
佛罗伦萨、热那亚、威尼斯和阿姆斯特丹都出现过此类银行业务。这种做法不可避免地导致了兴奋和恐慌的循环，这取决于人们对银行的信心波动。英格兰银行在提供货币稳定性方面是个例外。 ${}^7$${}^7$^(7){ }^{7} 货币的价值由国家增税的权力来保证，由于英格兰银行的纸币可以随时、迅速地用硬通货赎回，因此不需要提出赎回。信贷占据了以前仅由硬币占据的安全货币空间。 ${}^8$${}^8$^(8){ }^{8} 银行逐渐接管了货币供应和稳定币值的责任。用加尔布雷思的话来说，英格兰银行 "在所有方面对于货币来说，就像圣彼得教堂对于信仰一样"。 ${}^9$${}^9$^(9){ }^{9} 英格兰银行成为所有其他中央银行效仿的榜样，在18世纪和19世纪英国崛起为全球霸主的过程中发挥了关键作用，正如美国联邦储备局在20世纪发挥的关键作用一样。

Note the confluence of counterbalancing and cooperating forces in such a system. First, there is the demand for unproductive government expenditure in forms such as warfare, which open up new regions for profit and exploitation. Destruction and excessive consumption become preconditions for the creation of wealth by contributing to demand. Second, in warfare there is the comparative strategic advantage of having a secure source of funding to pay for soldiers, equipment, and invention. Transportable and convertible wealth, in the form of a currency whose value extends beyond the political territory of issue, is the “sinews of war.” Government expenditure, then, may be balanced by the greater profits enabled by strategic advantage recovered through taxation. Such growth in the public-sector economy may also be balanced by growth in the private sector. Third, there is the ongoing demand for capital to engage in productive investment. Such
请注意，在这样一个体系中，各种力量既相互制衡，又相互合作。首先是对战争等形式的非生产性政府支出的需求，这为牟利和剥削开辟了新的领域。破坏和过度消费成为创造财富的先决条件，促进了需求。其次，在战争中，有一个可靠的资金来源来支付士兵、装备和发明，这是相对的战略优势。以货币形式存在的可运输和可兑换的财富，其价值超越了发行的政治领土，是 "战争的筋骨"。因此，通过税收收回的战略优势所带来的更大利润可以平衡政府支出。公共部门经济的这种增长也可能被私营部门的增长所平衡。第三，参与生产性投资对资本的持续需求。这种
demand is present wherever opportunities for profit emerge. Fourth, there is the payment of interest on capital as a result of increased profitability due to new opportunities created. While assets and liabilities cancel themselves out in such a system, the absolute size of the economy grows. In short, both supply and demand increase in the public and private sectors in such a system. The original investors in the Bank of England lent the same money to the state and to civil society. The security of the loan to civil society was guaranteed by the state in the form of future taxation; the security of the loan to the state was guaranteed by economic growth in civil society. It was a brilliant, self-confirming system of mutual dependence and benefit.
只要出现盈利机会，需求就会出现。第四，由于创造了新的机会，利润率提高，因此需要支付资本利息。在这种体系中，资产和负债相互抵消，经济的绝对规模却在增长。简而言之，在这种体系中，公共和私营部门的供求都会增加。英格兰银行的原始投资者将同样的钱借给了国家和民间社会。借给民间社会的资金由国家以未来税收的形式提供担保；借给国家的资金由民间社会的经济增长提供担保。这是一个出色的、自我确认的相互依存和互惠互利的体系。

The public creation of money is the source of prosperity, stimulating growth. Indeed, the creation of new money is regarded by some commentators as one of the principal causes of the industrial revolution and the emergence of modernity. ${}^{10}$${}^{10}$^(10){ }^{10} Joseph Schumpeter has explained what is essential here: the entrepreneur is not necessarily a possessor of wealth. Indeed, the entrepreneur is the typical debtor in capitalist society. ${}^{11}$${}^{11}$^(11){ }^{11} Schumpeter goes so far as to say that credit is such a central part of the capitalist engine that the rest of the system cannot be understood without it. ${}^{12}$${}^{12}$^(12){ }^{12} Moreover:
公开创造货币是繁荣的源泉，可以刺激经济增长。事实上，一些评论家认为，创造新货币是工业革命和现代性出现的主要原因之一。 ${}^{10}$${}^{10}$^(10){ }^{10} 约瑟夫-熊彼特（Joseph Schumpeter）解释了其中的要义：企业家并不一定是财富的拥有者。事实上，企业家是资本主义社会中典型的债务人。 ${}^{11}$${}^{11}$^(11){ }^{11} 熊彼特甚至说，信贷是资本主义引擎的核心部分，没有信贷，就无法理解资本主义体系的其他部分。 ${}^{12}$${}^{12}$^(12){ }^{12} 此外：

The practically unlimited demand for credit is matched by a practically unlimited supply of credit. . . . The banks can always grant further loans, since the larger amounts going out are then matched by larger amounts coming in. The demand for credit makes possible not only itself, but also a corresponding supply; and every supply makes possible a corresponding demand, so that supply and demand in this case do not confront each other as independent forces. . . . The productive demand for any commodity, e.g. wool, is limited, at constant quantity of money, by the falling probability of processing continually increasing quantities; by contrast, demand for credit is self-propagating, in that the consequences of its expansion and increasing satisfaction go on creating the economic conditions for even more credit demand. ${}^{13}$${}^{13}$^(13){ }^{13}
信贷需求实际上是无限的，而信贷供应实际上也是无限的。. . .银行总是可以发放更多的贷款，因为有更多的贷款出去，就会有更多的贷款进来。信贷需求不仅使信贷本身成为可能，而且使相应的供应成为可能；而每一种供应都使相应的需求成为可能，因此，在这种情况下，供应和需求并不作为独立的力量而相互对抗。. . .对任何商品（如羊毛）的生产性需求，在货币数量不变的情况下，都会受到加工数量不断增加的概率下降的限制；与此相反，对信贷的需求则是自我膨胀的，因为其膨胀和满足程度不断提高的后果，会不断为更多的信贷需求创造经济条件。 ${}^{13}$${}^{13}$^(13){ }^{13}

Capital growth begins with borrowing for investment, for all economic activity is limited by the supply of money. There is always so much more that could be done if only more money were available. As Samuel Butler put it, “It has been said that the love of money is the root of all evil. The want of money is so quite as truly.” 14 If money can be created in the form of loans for the purpose of profitable activity, then effective limits to economic
资本增长始于借贷投资，因为所有经济活动都受到货币供应量的限制。只要有更多的钱，就有更多的事情可以做。正如塞缪尔-巴特勒所说："有人说，爱财是万恶之源。缺钱也是如此。14 如果可以以贷款的形式创造金钱来从事营利活动，那么对经济的有效限制就是
growth are removed. There is no shortage of money when it can be replaced by credit and repaid at a profit. The consequence was nothing less than Karl Polanyi’s “great transformation.” ${}^{15}$${}^{15}$^(15){ }^{15} Production for the sake of profit rather than use became the dominant motivation for social activity and interaction. Capitalism - its growth and its globalization-is explained by banking. Economic activity, formerly a limited segment of social life, came to predominate over all other aspects of social life, including religion. The preachers’ declamations against the evils of usury and the love of money were unheeded by those who saw the evidence of prosperity brought about through profit. ${}^{16}$${}^{16}$^(16){ }^{16} As William Cobbett was to observe in 1829:
增长的因素被消除。当货币可以被信贷取代并以利润偿还时，货币就不会短缺。其结果不亚于卡尔-波兰尼的 "伟大变革"。 ${}^{15}$${}^{15}$^(15){ }^{15} 为利润而不是为使用而生产成为社会活动和互动的主要动机。资本主义--其增长和全球化--是由银行业解释的。经济活动原本只是社会生活中有限的一部分，但后来却超越了社会生活的所有其他方面，包括宗教。传教士们对高利贷和爱财之恶的宣扬，对于那些看到了利润带来的繁荣证据的人来说，根本无动于衷。 ${}^{16}$${}^{16}$^(16){ }^{16} 正如威廉-科贝特（William Cobbett）在 1829 年观察到的那样：

Time has taught me that public credit means the contracting of debts which a nation never can pay; and I have lived to see this goddess produce effects, in my country, which Satan himself never could have produced. It is a very bewitching goddess; and not less fatal for her influence in private than in public affairs. It has been carried in this latter respect to such a pitch, that scarcely any transaction, however low and inconsiderable, takes place in any other way. ${}^{17}$${}^{17}$^(17){ }^{17}
时间告诉我，公共信贷意味着签订一个国家永远无法偿还的债务；我亲眼看到这个女神在我的国家产生了撒旦自己都无法产生的效果。这是一个非常迷人的女神；她在私人事务中的影响比在公共事务中的影响同样致命。在公共事务中，她的影响力已经达到了如此程度，以至于几乎没有任何交易，无论多么微不足道，都会以其他方式进行。 ${}^{17}$${}^{17}$^(17){ }^{17}

Prior to the modern world, the economic sphere was bounded by the limits of the production of value by human labor, on the one hand, and the finite amount of money in circulation, on the other. In the modern world, however, the limits of production have been partially overcome by harnessing the energy stored in fossil fuels and the elements. At the same time, the finitude of currency has been overcome by treating signs of monetary value as themselves valuable, ensuring the value of newly created money by issuing it in the form of loans, attached to debts. Rates of production and rates of interest escape finitude by compound growth. Production for the sake of profit replaces production for the sake of use.
在现代世界之前，经济领域一方面受到人类劳动生产价值的限制，另一方面受到流通中货币数量有限的限制。然而，在现代社会，通过利用化石燃料和各种元素中储存的能量，生产的局限性已被部分克服。与此同时，货币的有限性也被克服了，方法是将货币价值符号本身视为有价值的，通过以贷款形式发行货币，确保新创造货币的价值，并将其与债务挂钩。生产率和利率通过复合增长摆脱了有限性。为利润而生产取代了为使用而生产。

It is easy to observe how this shift naturally leads to secularization and a direct opposition between God and money. Where God promises eternity, money promises the world. Where God offers a delayed reward, money offers a reward in advance. Where God offers himself as grace, money offers itself as a loan. Where God offers spiritual benefits, money offers tangible benefits. Where God accepts all repentant sinners who truly believe, money may be accepted by all who are willing to trust in its value. Where God requires conversion of the soul, money empowers the existing desires and plans of the soul. Money has the advantages of immediacy, universality,
我们不难发现，这种转变自然而然地导致了世俗化以及上帝与金钱的直接对立。上帝承诺的是永恒，而金钱承诺的是世界。上帝提供的是延迟的奖赏，而金钱提供的是提前的奖赏。上帝提供的是恩典，而金钱提供的是贷款。上帝提供的是精神上的利益，而金钱提供的是物质上的利益。上帝接纳所有真心悔改的罪人，而金钱则可以被所有愿意相信其价值的人接受。在上帝要求灵魂皈依的地方，金钱可以增强灵魂现有的欲望和计划。金钱具有直接性和普遍性的优势、
tangibility, and utility. Money promises freedom and gives a down payment on the promise of prosperity.
有形性和实用性。货币承诺自由，并为繁荣的承诺支付首付款。

Money exercises a spectral power that exceeds all merely human powers. Adapting itself to any desire, it also shapes desire. First, the value of money is transcendent. It is a promise, taken on faith, and only realized to the extent that this faith is acted out in exchange. One cannot hold the value of money in one’s hand, even if one can use that value to pay for things. “The eye has never seen, nor the hand touched a dollar. All that we can touch or see is a promise to pay or satisfy a debt due for an amount called a dollar.” ${}^{18}$${}^{18}$^(18){ }^{18}
金钱具有一种幽灵般的力量，它超越了人类的一切力量。它适应任何欲望，也塑造欲望。首先，金钱的价值是超越性的。它是一种承诺，是一种信仰，只有当这种信仰在交换中得以实现时，它才会实现。一个人无法将金钱的价值握在手中，即使他可以用这种价值来支付东西。"眼睛从未见过，手也从未摸过一块钱。我们所能触摸到或看到的，只是一个支付或清偿债务的承诺，这个承诺的金额叫做一美元"。 ${}^{18}$${}^{18}$^(18){ }^{18}

Second, money is both a means of payment and a measure of prices. As a measure of prices, money endows all things with a universal value: the price is the same, whoever is the buyer. Yet as a means of payment, money grants the power of effective demand only to those with money. To achieve what one values, one must value money first as the means of access to what one desires. Since it is the means by which all other social values may be realized, it posits itself as the supreme value. Nothing is more liquid, more exchangeable, or more valuable than money. Whatever one’s own values, one must value money first as the means of access to all other values. ${}^{19}$${}^{19}$^(19){ }^{19}
其次，货币既是支付手段，也是衡量价格的尺度。作为一种价格尺度，货币赋予所有物品以普遍价值：无论买方是谁，价格都是一样的。然而，作为一种支付手段，货币只赋予有钱人有效需求的权力。要实现自己的价值，首先必须重视金钱，因为它是获得自己想要的东西的手段。既然货币是实现所有其他社会价值的手段，那么它本身就是至高无上的价值。没有什么比金钱更具流动性、更易交换、更有价值。无论一个人的价值观如何，他都必须首先重视金钱，因为它是获得所有其他价值的手段。 ${}^{19}$${}^{19}$^(19){ }^{19}

Third, money is only “value in motion.” One cannot achieve profitability without investing one’s money. The value of assets is determined not by their intrinsic worth but by their expected yield, their anticipated rate of return. The value of assets is determined by speculative projections. Moreover, even if these anticipations prove misguided, at every stage the value of assets is determined by the next wave of anticipations about the future. Thus, the future never ultimately arrives: it is purely ideal. Financial value is essentially a degree of hope, expectation, trust, or credibility. Just as paper currency is never cashed in, so the value of assets is never realized. It is future or transcendent. Being transcendent to material and social reality, yet also being the pivot around which material and social reality is continually reconstructed, financial value is essentially religious. ${}^{20}$${}^{20}$^(20){ }^{20}
第三，金钱只是 "运动中的价值"。不投入资金，就无法实现盈利。资产的价值不是由其内在价值决定的，而是由其预期收益率、预期回报率决定的。资产的价值是由投机预测决定的。此外，即使这些预测被证明是错误的，在每个阶段，资产的价值都是由对未来的下一波预测决定的。因此，未来从未最终到来：它纯粹是一种理想。金融价值本质上是一种希望、预期、信任或可信度。正如纸币永远不会兑现一样，资产的价值也永远不会实现。它是未来的或超越的。金融价值既超越物质和社会现实，又是不断重构物质和社会现实的枢纽，因此金融价值本质上是宗教性的。 ${}^{20}$${}^{20}$^(20){ }^{20}

Fourth, wealth brings access to power: extrinsically through military superiority, access to information, sway over public consciousness, political influence, and selective funding; and intrinsically through investments, profits, growth, favorably negotiated contracts, and liberation from the constraints of the natural necessity and social responsibility that limit
第四，财富带来了权力：外在表现为军事优势、获取信息的机会、对公众意识的控制、政治影响力和有选择的资助；内在表现为投资、利润、增长、有利的合同谈判，以及摆脱自然需要和社会责任的限制。
the economic freedom of those without wealth. As a result, the power of wealth grows exponentially in a cycle of profitability. Yet since wealth can grow only if it devotes itself to making profits and paying back debts, it necessarily depletes the resources required to meet natural necessities and social responsibilities - in particular, the needs of subsistence and sustainability. As the condition for all social activity, the imperative of sustaining the money system and creating wealth take priority over the need for sustaining the environment, population, or religion.
的经济自由。因此，财富的力量在盈利的循环中呈指数增长。然而，由于财富只有在致力于盈利和偿还债务的情况下才能增长，它必然会耗尽满足自然需要和社会责任所需的资源，特别是生存和可持续发展的需要。作为所有社会活动的条件，维持货币体系和创造财富的必要性优先于维持环境、人口或宗教的必要性。

Fifth, speculative profits can be made only on the basis of profits extracted from production and consumption, and to achieve this, an increasing quantity of the world’s physical resources must be appropriated for production, exchange, and consumption through the colonization and commodification of the world.
第五，只有在从生产和消费中攫取利润的基础上才能获得投机利润，而要实现这一点，就必须通过对世界的殖民化和商品化，将越来越多的世界物质资源用于生产、交换和消费。

Sixth, increased production and profits require increased investment and debt. While production is of commodities, debts and interest are repaid in the form of money. Increased production can lead to the repayment of debts only if there is more money to pay for them; yet money can be created only in the form of further loans or else it is inflationary. As a result, the global economy, since the founding of the Bank of England, has been progressively enslaved to an increasing spiral of debt. The global economy is driven by a spiral of debt, constrained to seek further profits and always dependent on future expansion. The spectral power of money lies ultimately in its nature as debt.
第六，增加生产和利润需要增加投资和债务。生产的是商品，债务和利息则以货币的形式偿还。只有有更多的货币来偿还债务，生产的增加才能导致债务的偿还；然而，货币只能以进一步贷款的形式创造出来，否则就会造成通货膨胀。因此，自英格兰银行成立以来，全球经济就逐渐被日益螺旋式上升的债务所奴役。全球经济受债务螺旋式上升的驱动，受制于寻求更多利润，并始终依赖于未来的扩张。货币的幽灵力量归根结底在于其作为债务的本质。

An anthropologist’s judgment on the nature of modernity would identify the value of money as the modern religion, the transcendent principle of the social order. ${}^{21}$${}^{21}$^(21){ }^{21} As Mary Douglas explains, money is ritual activity:
人类学家对现代性本质的判断是，金钱的价值是现代宗教，是社会秩序的超越原则。 ${}^{21}$${}^{21}$^(21){ }^{21} 正如玛丽-道格拉斯（Mary Douglas）所解释的，金钱是一种仪式活动：

The metaphor of money admirably sums up what we want to assert of ritual. Money provides a fixed, external, recognisable sign for what would be confused, contradictable operations; ritual makes visible external signs of internal states. Money mediates transactions; ritual mediates experience, including social experience. Money provides a standard for measuring worth; ritual standardizes situations, and so helps to evaluate them. Money makes a link between the present and the future, so does ritual. The more we reflect on the richness of the metaphor, the more it becomes clear that this is no metaphor. Money is only an extreme and specialised type of ritual. ${}^{22}$${}^{22}$^(22){ }^{22}
金钱的隐喻很好地概括了我们对仪式的主张。金钱为原本混乱、矛盾的运作提供了一个固定的、外部的、可识别的标志；仪式则使内部状态的外部标志清晰可见。金钱是交易的中介；仪式则是经验（包括社会经验）的中介。金钱提供了衡量价值的标准；仪式则使情境标准化，从而有助于对情境进行评估。金钱连接现在与未来，仪式也是如此。我们越是思考这个隐喻的丰富内涵，就越会发现这不是一个隐喻。金钱只是仪式的一种极端和特殊类型。 ${}^{22}$${}^{22}$^(22){ }^{22}

Since the value of money is a purely ideal construct, the religion of money has its own theology. Its principles are fourfold: money is the promise of value on which actual value may be advanced; money is the supreme value against which all other values may be measured; money is a speculative value whose intrinsic worth waits to be demonstrated; and money is a debt or social obligation that requires that social activity be continually reordered around increasing profit and the repayment of debt, while also continually expanding the debt and the obligation. Economic globalization is the universalization of this religion through its drive for growth and power, its progressive colonization of all dimensions of life, and its commitment to growing debt. A theology of money is required to explain the distinctive nature of this spectral power in the modern world.
由于货币的价值纯粹是一种理想的构建，因此货币宗教也有自己的神学。它的原则有四个方面：货币是价值的承诺，在此基础上可以推进实际价值；货币是最高价值，在此基础上可以衡量所有其他价值；货币是一种投机价值，其内在价值有待证明；货币是一种债务或社会义务，要求社会活动不断围绕增加利润和偿还债务进行重新安排，同时不断扩大债务和义务。经济全球化是这种宗教的普遍化，它追求增长和权力，逐步殖民化生活的各个方面，并致力于不断增加债务。需要一种货币神学来解释这种幽灵般的力量在现代世界中的独特性质。

A true theology of money, a systematic inquiry into the force of money as a system for universal evaluation, has perhaps never before been undertaken. The history of Christian reflection on money is of limited service insofar as it concentrates on subjective attitudes toward wealth; ${}^{23}$${}^{23}$^(23){ }^{23} the history of economic science is of limited service insofar as it concentrates on an objective science of money as a functional instrument. Money as a source of evaluation transcends distinctions between subject and object, and problematizes what we have come to expect from science. Our method must be philosophical, and a philosophical digression on the nature of modern reason is required to orient our image of thought so that it may become capable of disclosing the theology of money.
真正的货币神学，即对货币作为一种普遍评价体系的力量进行系统的探究，也许从未有人进行过。基督教对金钱的反思史，如果集中于对财富的主观态度，那么它的作用是有限的； ${}^{23}$${}^{23}$^(23){ }^{23} 经济科学史，如果集中于把金钱作为一种功能工具的客观科学，那么它的作用也是有限的。作为评价来源的货币超越了主体与客体之间的区别，并使我们对科学的期望成为问题。我们的方法必须是哲学的，需要对现代理性的本质进行哲学上的深入探讨，以确定我们思想形象的方向，使其能够揭示货币神学。

Modern thought established a threefold division between objects, subjects, and knowledge. Material reality, including functional instruments, is considered to be independent of human agency, with its desires and projects. Object and subject, however, may be mediated by a third independent term, a science that guides human agents to a more effective realization of their projects through the use of functional instruments. Nothing reinforces this threefold division between instrument, agent, and science more than the everyday use of money. Money is a passive instrument, held in one’s hand, subject entirely to the use of the free human agent, yet money is easily lost unless it is used wisely, and the science of the use of money
现代思想在客体、主体和知识之间进行了三重划分。物质现实，包括功能性工具，被认为独立于人类机构及其欲望和计划。然而，客体和主体可以由第三个独立的术语来中介，即通过使用功能性工具来指导人类行为主体更有效地实现其计划的科学。没有什么比货币的日常使用更能强化工具、主体和科学之间的三重划分了。金钱是一种被动的工具，它握在人的手中，完全由自由的人类行为者使用，然而，如果不加以明智使用，金钱很容易流失，而使用金钱的科学就是
determines the most effective means to realize desires and projects. The person with money to spend enjoys a liberty and mastery over the material world. The separation of instrument, agent, and science depends on the experience of freedom of those with access to wealth and physical power. At the same time, nothing calls this threefold division into question more than the everyday struggle to acquire money, where choices are driven by material necessity and evaluations are formed on the basis of opinions about ways to acquire money. Material need and social dependence express themselves through human agency. The subject does not stand apart from matter and culture; the subject is formed and guided through matter and culture.
决定了实现愿望和计划的最有效手段。有钱花的人享受自由，掌握物质世界。工具、代理人和科学的分离取决于那些拥有财富和物质力量的人对自由的体验。与此同时，对这种三重划分提出质疑的莫过于每天为获取金钱而进行的斗争，在这种斗争中，选择是由物质需求驱动的，而评价则是根据对获取金钱的方式的看法形成的。物质需求和社会依赖通过人的能动性表现出来。主体并非独立于物质和文化之外；主体是通过物质和文化形成并引导的。

The mystery of how subject relates to object, how personal preference affects material reality, and how knowledge facilitates and mediates their interaction provides endless labor for philosophers. Beneath this modern division between instrument, agent, and science lie some ancient philosophical assumptions. The science of money does not claim to present money itself; it claims to present the truth about money. An Epicurean assumption is that truth consists of discrete atomic facts, rather like commodities available in a market. Truth is assumed to be individual, objective, egalitarian, passive, and relatively permanent. It is presented through independent units of evidence or data. Evidence is repeatable, public, and exchangeable; it remains the same, whoever considers it. There are, however, two striking paradoxes concerning such an assumption about truth. First, the objectivity of truth is not itself objective, for such truths are never exhibited in their individuality and permanence. No truth can be demonstrated independently of a system of thinking enacted at a particular time. The properties of individuality, objectivity, and permanence attributed to truths by induction can never be known, for truth cannot be known independently of thought. The objectivity of truth is thus a subjective presupposition. Second, the independence of truth and value imposes an evaluation. Truths based on evidence are potentially universal because they can be acknowledged at all times and in all places. Truths are for anyone or about anything. They are entirely neutral in relation to value - or, more precisely, they are independent of value or without value. Such truths, then, hold neither objectivity nor value in themselves but must be attributed objectivity and value by the thinking subject. While the objectivity, universality, and value of truth are never presented in themselves, they can be inferred
主体如何与客体发生关系，个人偏好如何影响物质现实，以及知识如何促进和调解它们之间的互动，这些谜团为哲学家提供了无尽的劳动。在工具、媒介和科学之间的现代划分之下，隐藏着一些古老的哲学假设。货币科学并不是要展示货币本身，而是要展示关于货币的真相。伊壁鸠鲁的一个假设是，真理由离散的原子事实组成，就像市场上的商品一样。真理被假定为个体的、客观的、平等的、被动的和相对永久的。真理是通过独立的证据或数据单元呈现出来的。证据是可重复的、公开的和可交换的；无论谁考虑它，它都是一样的。然而，这种关于真理的假设存在两个显著的悖论。首先，真理的客观性本身并不客观，因为这种真理从未展示过其个性和永恒性。任何真理都无法脱离特定时期的思维体系而得到证明。归纳法赋予真理的个别性、客观性和永恒性永远无法被认识，因为真理无法脱离思维而被认识。因此，真理的客观性是一种主观预设。其次，真理与价值的独立性意味着一种评价。基于证据的真理具有潜在的普遍性，因为它们可以在任何时间、任何地点得到承认。真理适用于任何人或任何事。与价值相比，真理是完全中立的，或者更确切地说，真理独立于价值或没有价值。 因此，这些真理本身既不具有客观性，也不具有价值，而必须由思维主体赋予其客观性和价值。虽然真理的客观性、普遍性和价值本身从未呈现，但它们可以被推论出来
by induction when evidence is repeatable, public, and exchangeable. Science, as a social practice, repeats and exchanges thought in order to lend such thoughts an exchange value. Potential truths that cannot be repeated or exchanged are devalued. Only public truths are valuable.
当证据具有可重复性、公开性和可交换性时，就可以通过归纳法得出结论。科学作为一种社会实践，重复和交换思想，以使这些思想具有交换价值。不能重复或交换的潜在真理是贬值的。只有公开的真理才是有价值的。

These paradoxes reach an acute form when one considers the science of wealth. The science of wealth concerns itself with the effects of money on value, and yet value itself is only measured in terms of money. Far from being objective, the science of wealth is constructed from the perspective of those who use money for the sake of making more money. While the science of wealth would appear to be a neutral discourse on value, it selects for an object of study only that which is exchangeable, imposing exchangeability as a value as well as a form of evaluation. Far from being neutral in relation to value, it imposes an evaluation of the benefits of exchangeability.
当我们考虑财富科学时，这些悖论就会变得尖锐起来。财富科学关注的是金钱对价值的影响，而价值本身却只能用金钱来衡量。财富科学远非客观，而是从那些为了赚更多钱而使用金钱的人的角度构建的。财富科学看似是对价值的中立论述，但它只选择可交换的价值作为研究对象，将可交换性作为一种价值和一种评价形式强加于人。在价值问题上，财富学远非中立，而是强加了对可交换性利益的评价。

A Cartesian assumption underlying modern thought is that thinking the truth is independent of being true. Immanuel Kant remarked, in regard to the ontological argument for the existence of God, that his financial position was affected very differently by a hundred real dollars than by the mere concept of them. ${}^{24}$${}^{24}$^(24){ }^{24} Truth is meant to be grounded in evidence, not speculation. The paradox here, however, is that money itself can be created through speculation, out of pure thought. A bank may create money as a loan to a speculative investor; speculation in general raises the prices of assets; the investor can then sell his assets, repay the loan, and keep the difference in money. Thinking is no longer independent from being when both take time. When it comes to money, then, the Cartesian assumption no longer holds true. Money seems to have a dual nature. On the one hand, at any particular time it holds a determinate value; on the other hand, when invested for a period of time it may gain or lose value. It is both fixed and in motion. Similarly, in practice the construction of knowledge takes place over time. Where thinking takes time, the truth of things is proposed by projecting a time when the work of thinking is complete and truth is known. The truth is represented as an atemporal symbol that substitutes for the temporal work of thought. In practice, this symbolization of the completed work of thinking is economic. It is formed in order to save time. The essence of modern reason is saving time. Yet since the work of thought is never completed, the future in which truth is given remains a speculative
现代思想所依据的一个笛卡尔假设是，思考真理与存在真理无关。康德（Immanuel Kant）在论证上帝存在的本体论时曾说过，一百美元对他的财务状况的影响，与仅仅受到一百美元概念的影响是截然不同的。 ${}^{24}$${}^{24}$^(24){ }^{24} 真理应该建立在证据之上，而不是臆测。然而，这里的悖论在于，货币本身也可以通过投机，通过纯粹的思维来创造。银行可以通过贷款给投机的投资者来创造货币；投机一般会抬高资产的价格；然后投资者可以出售资产，偿还贷款，并把差价换成货币。当两者都需要时间时，思维就不再独立于存在。因此，在货币问题上，笛卡尔假设不再成立。金钱似乎具有双重性质。一方面，在任何特定时间，它都具有确定的价值；另一方面，当投资一段时间后，它可能增值，也可能贬值。它既是固定的，又是运动的。同样，在实践中，知识的构建也需要时间。思考需要时间，而事物的真相则是通过预测思考工作完成和真相大白的时间来提出的。真理被表述为一种非时间性的符号，代替了时间性的思考工作。实际上，这种已完成的思维工作的符号化是经济的。它的形成是为了节省时间。现代理性的本质就是节约时间。然而，由于思维的工作永远不会完成，真理被赋予的未来仍然是一种推测。
projection. Where thinking takes time, this model of truth is timeless. Since such truth is independent of time and thought, it is thoughtless. It cannot express the movement of thought or the movement of money.
预测。思考需要时间，而这种模式的真理是永恒的。由于这种真理独立于时间和思维，因此它是无思维的。它无法表达思想的运动或金钱的运动。

A Parmenidean assumption concerning the truth of things is that the truth of things is true. This is a tautology, and like all tautologies it identifies a subject with a predicate. Nevertheless, subject and predicate differ precisely as subject and predicate; for them to be identical, there would have to be a third term to which they both refer. The same thing is then for thinking and for being. We return to the problem of the mediation between thought and reality. The truth of money is that which is the same in thought and in reality. If we locate this truth on the side of reality, then the truth of this truth can never be given within thought. If we locate this truth on the side of thought, then the truth of this truth can never be given within reality. In the case of money, if we understand it as essentially a commodity, then we cannot explain its appearance within thought, both as a measure of values and as an object of creation. If, by contrast, we take money to be essentially a standard of measure or comparison, then we cannot explain its real force and value. Money is a promise or sign of value, and as such the truth of money is not self-identically true. The value of a promise is not the same as the promised value.
帕门尼德关于事物真理的一个假设是：事物的真理是真实的。这是一个同义反复，与所有同义反复一样，它把主语与谓语相提并论。然而，主语和谓语作为主语和谓语恰恰是不同的；要使它们相同，就必须有一个它们都指向的第三个术语。那么，思维和存在也是一样的。我们回到思维与现实之间的中介问题。金钱的真理就是在思维和现实中相同的东西。如果我们将这一真理置于现实的一边，那么这一真理的真相就永远无法在思维中给出。如果我们将这一真理置于思想的一边，那么这一真理的真理就永远无法在现实中得到体现。就货币而言，如果我们把它理解为本质上的商品，那么我们就无法解释它作为价值尺度和创造对象在思想中的出现。相反，如果我们把货币本质上理解为衡量或比较的标准，那么我们就无法解释其真正的力量和价值。货币是价值的承诺或标志，因此，货币的真理并不自洽。承诺的价值与承诺的价值并不相同。

In the case of money, then, the neat division between instrument, agent, and science is disrupted. ${}^{25}$${}^{25}$^(25){ }^{25} Money circulates between and participates in all three dimensions. It is an instrument of exchange, a promise of value, and a measure of value. Moreover, while money is a symptom that exposes the artificiality of such a division, it is not the only one. Truth itself is a reality, a thought, and a promise of value. One could perhaps say the same of time, or even of God. The modern metaphysical division between material reality, subjective desire, and knowledge cannot be maintained on philosophical grounds without invoking a deus ex machina to coordinate the separate domains. Awaiting the appearance of such a deus ex machina-since in the meantime, reality, thought, and knowledge do indeed interact-one can rely on money to effect their interaction.
就货币而言，工具、代理人和科学之间的明确划分被打破了。 ${}^{25}$${}^{25}$^(25){ }^{25} 货币在所有三个维度之间流通并参与其中。它是交换工具、价值承诺和价值尺度。此外，尽管货币是揭示这种划分的人为性的表征，但它并不是唯一的表征。真理本身就是一种现实、一种思想和一种价值承诺。时间甚至上帝也是如此。现代形而上学对物质现实、主观欲望和知识的划分，如果不借助神的力量来协调这些独立的领域，就无法在哲学的基础上维持下去。在等待这种神灵出现的同时，现实、思想和知识确实是相互作用的，因此我们可以依靠金钱来实现它们之间的相互作用。

The purpose of this sketch of the problematics of modern notions of truth is to explain why the normal procedures for the scientific construction of knowledge do not form a part of the theology of money. ${}^{26}$${}^{26}$^(26){ }^{26} The Epicurean, Cartesian, and Parmenidean assumptions will not be adopted here,
这篇关于现代真理概念问题学的草图旨在解释为什么科学建构知识的正常程序并不构成金钱神学的一部分。 ${}^{26}$${}^{26}$^(26){ }^{26} 这里不采用伊壁鸠鲁、笛卡尔和巴门尼德的假设、
since they veil what is most interesting about money. Moreover, precisely the reverse assumptions will be explored. First, instead of assuming that the truth about money can be composed from a series of discrete, atomic facts - or that the truth about money is itself a fact-it will be assumed that what are of most interest about money are the concrete relations it forms and mediates within specific contexts. In particular, money takes on significance in relation to the accumulated means of production, or capital; the social institutions of market and contract in which it is used; and frameworks of credit out of which it is constructed. In relation to money, one must always ask about the concrete relations it participates in. It is necessary to construct an ecology of money.
因为它们掩盖了货币最有趣的地方。此外，我们还将探讨恰恰相反的假设。首先，我们不会假定关于货币的真相可以由一系列离散的、原子式的事实构成--或者说关于货币的真相本身就是一个事实--而是会假定，关于货币最令人感兴趣的是它在特定环境中形成和中介的具体关系。具体而言，货币的意义在于它与积累起来的生产资料（或资本）、使用货币的市场和契约社会机构以及构建货币的信用框架之间的关系。对于货币，我们必须始终追问它所参与的具体关系。有必要构建货币生态学。

Second, instead of assuming that the truth about money is independent of thought and time, it will be assumed that what is of most interest about money is interest and speculation itself: its temporal nature. In relation to money, one must always ask about the tendencies, processes, and orientations that are under way. Such tendencies are veritable social forces. It is necessary to construct a politics of money.
其次，我们不会假定关于货币的真相与思想和时间无关，而是会假定，人们对货币最感兴趣的是兴趣和投机本身：它的时间性。关于货币，我们必须始终追问正在发生的趋势、过程和方向。这些趋势是名副其实的社会力量。有必要构建货币政治。

Third, instead of assuming that the truth disclosed about money is already true, it will be assumed that what is of most interest about money is what is promised by the truth of money. The essence of money will be explored as credit or debt. It belongs within an objective social sphere of obligation and belief, the sphere of religion. It is necessary to construct a theology of money.
第三，我们不会假定所揭示的关于金钱的真相已经是真的，而是会假定，关于金钱最令人感兴趣的是金钱的真相所承诺的东西。货币的本质将作为信用或债务来探讨。它属于义务和信仰的客观社会范畴，即宗教范畴。有必要构建货币神学。

The truth of money to be disclosed will consist not in a linear chain of inferences on the basis of evidence, but in a resolution and condensation of a multiplicity of heterogeneous considerations into a point of view. The aim is to imagine the nature of money in such a way that what matters, the truth that drives thinking, becomes perceptible. The truth of money to be disclosed will not consist in a series of propositions so much as in a series of promises - promises that, like money itself, do not merely ask to be taken on faith but express their own active potency to reorient thinking. Instead of using reason to master reality, the aim is to allow truth to determine reason as a quality of vision or awareness that shapes time, attention, and devotion. Truth has a triple orientation in a theology of money: it is a relation with what is outside thought, or that which matters; it is an orientation toward the future, or what is potential; and it is an expression of a vision
所要揭示的金钱真相，不是基于证据的一连串线性推论，而是将多种不同的考虑因素化解和浓缩为一个观点。这样做的目的是对金钱的本质进行想象，使重要的东西、推动思考的真理变得可感知。所要揭示的货币真理，与其说是一系列命题，不如说是一系列承诺--就像货币本身一样，这些承诺不仅要求人们相信，而且还表达了其自身重新定向思维的积极力量。我们的目的不是用理性来驾驭现实，而是让真理来决定理性，使之成为一种塑造时间、注意力和奉献精神的视觉或意识品质。在金钱神学中，真理具有三重取向：它是与思想之外的事物或重要事物的关系；它是面向未来或潜在事物的取向；它是愿景的表达。
and awareness. ${}^{27}$${}^{27}$^(27){ }^{27} These are the methodological ambitions of this study. If this practice of thought seems unclear at this stage, it may become more concrete in the study that follows. Only at the end will the reader be able to assess whether such methodological ambitions have been achieved.
和认识。 ${}^{27}$${}^{27}$^(27){ }^{27} 这些就是本研究在方法论上的抱负。如果这种思想实践在现阶段似乎还不明确，那么在接下来的研究中可能会变得更加具体。只有到最后，读者才能评估这种方法论上的抱负是否已经实现。

The current global economic system did not derive from the founding of the Bank of England alone. The actual causes are so varied as to call into question notions of linear causality. However, the original invention of money itself was an indispensable condition. The Bank’s immediate political condition was the seizure of the state by a class of English agrarian capitalists in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The values of this class became enshrined in political concepts of the right to own property, the liberty to form contracts, and the separation of social and economic life from religious control. The work of the English philosopher John Locke was crucial in articulating and preserving these values in a number of respects. His work in epistemology established empiricism as the basis for the pursuit of a purely technical reason; his work on political philosophy provided the theory and theological legitimation for the modern capitalist state; and his work on toleration separated the commonwealth, and the sphere of political economy, from the residual theological influence of the church. ${}^{28}$${}^{28}$^(28){ }^{28} Locke also contributed significantly to the emergence of economics through the study of money. ${}^{29}$${}^{29}$^(29){ }^{29} Even though he opposed the establishment of the Bank of England on political grounds, he was one of the original subscribers, with an investment of 500 pounds. While much of Locke’s work has been criticized from a number of perspectives, the conceptual framework that he established for considering knowledge, right, liberty, and money has remained dominant precisely because it has successfully lent itself to the making of money. The value of a philosophy becomes reduced to its price.
当前的全球经济体系并非仅仅源于英格兰银行的成立。实际原因多种多样，令人对线性因果关系产生怀疑。然而，货币的最初发明本身就是一个不可或缺的条件。英格兰银行的直接政治条件是 1688 年光荣革命中英国农业资本家阶级夺取了国家政权。这个阶级的价值观被载入了拥有财产的权利、订立契约的自由以及社会和经济生活与宗教控制分离的政治概念中。英国哲学家约翰-洛克（John Locke）的著作在多个方面对阐明和维护这些价值观起到了至关重要的作用。他在认识论方面的工作确立了经验主义，将其作为追求纯技术理性的基础；他在政治哲学方面的工作为现代资本主义国家提供了理论和神学合法性；他在宽容方面的工作将联邦和政治经济领域从教会残余的神学影响中分离出来。 ${}^{28}$${}^{28}$^(28){ }^{28} 洛克还通过对货币的研究对经济学的出现做出了重大贡献。 ${}^{29}$${}^{29}$^(29){ }^{29} 尽管他出于政治原因反对英格兰银行的建立，但他是最初的认购者之一，投资了500英镑。虽然洛克的许多著作受到了多方面的批评，但他为思考知识、权利、自由和货币而建立的概念框架却一直占据主导地位，这正是因为它成功地借助于货币的制造。哲学的价值被简化为其价格。

Not only is this history written into the concepts of a philosopher such as John Locke; it is also written into money itself. Inscribed on each note issued by a central bank or deposit issued as a loan is a trace of the chaos of England in the fifteenth century, sixteenth century, and seventeenth century: of warfare between nobles within and beyond England’s borders; of enclosures, rack-renting, and “sheep devouring men”; ${}^{30}$${}^{30}$^(30){ }^{30} of peasant uprisings against taxation and enclosure; of religious dissent, conflict, and martyrdom; of dissolved monasteries and stripped altars; of seafaring,
这段历史不仅写进了约翰-洛克等哲学家的观念中，也写进了货币本身。中央银行发行的每张纸币或作为贷款发放的每笔存款上，都刻有15世纪、16世纪和17世纪英格兰混乱的痕迹：英格兰境内外贵族之间的战争；圈地、租借和 "羊吃人"； ${}^{30}$${}^{30}$^(30){ }^{30} 农民起义反对征税和圈地；宗教异见、冲突和殉教；修道院解散和祭坛被剥离；航海、
trade, piracy, and slavery; of renaissance learning and stinging social criticism; of the agrarian capitalist triangle of landowners, tenant farmers, and wage laborers; of the rising urban classes of merchants and craftspeople, with their mutual obligations; of the ferment of radical religious and political ideas. In the case of money, such a history is encoded not as information but as a set of spectral forces. Each time money is used, an epistemology, a metaphysics, a politics, an ethics, and even a theology is evoked. Money condenses the spirit of capitalism. Money did not create capitalism - the early factories and mills were rarely funded by bank loans - yet money transmits, propagates, and vivifies it.
这些历史包括：贸易、海盗和奴隶制；文艺复兴时期的学习和尖锐的社会批判；由地主、佃农和雇佣劳动者组成的农业资本主义三角关系；商人和手工业者等城市阶层的崛起及其相互义务；激进宗教和政治思想的发酵。就货币而言，这种历史不是以信息的形式，而是以一系列幽灵力量的形式编码的。每次使用货币，都会唤起一种认识论、形而上学、政治学、伦理学甚至神学。金钱浓缩了资本主义的精神。货币并没有创造资本主义--早期的工厂和磨坊很少通过银行贷款获得资金--但货币却传递、传播并激活了资本主义。

The present work bears the imprint of England at the opening of the twenty-first century. Regarding modernity with hindsight rather than anticipation, it endeavors to challenge the legacy of John Locke by means of a reintegration of epistemology, politics, religion, and economics, the very disciplines he succeeded in separating. While there is currently no political institution to embody and safeguard the concepts established here, the imminent collapse of the global economic order will create a demand for new concepts and evaluations. The only authority accompanying such concepts and evaluations will be the credit they attract by means of the potential they offer. The exploration of the nature of money that follows is purely philosophical: it endeavors to remove false problems by establishing concepts and differentiations. ${}^{31}$${}^{31}$^(31){ }^{31} Since the aim is to condense, crystallize, unfold, and perceive - rather than to argue on the basis of authority and evidence - the final result will not always indicate where influence and engagement with other writers have taken place. In particular, the intellectual giants on the subject of money who stand over this work are Adam Smith and Karl Marx. It is the philosophical nature of their work, their capacity to explore implications and unfold tendencies, that has set them apart from pure economists, as well as from more empiricist philosophers, such as John Maynard Keynes and Amartya Sen. ${}^{32}$${}^{32}$^(32){ }^{32} At appropriate points, I have sought to indicate my differences from Smith and Marx. I find neither the model of money as “the great wheel of circulation” nor the structural analysis of money as “the general equivalent” at all convincing. Since the aim of this inquiry is to construct a theological understanding of money, rather than to infer from or debate with authorities, I do not feel it appropriate to force the presentation of this work into the hegemonic modern model
本著作带有二十一世纪初英国的印记。该书以事后而非预见的眼光看待现代性，试图通过重新整合认识论、政治学、宗教学和经济学（约翰-洛克曾成功地将这些学科分离开来）来挑战洛克的遗产。虽然目前还没有政治体制来体现和维护这里所确立的概念，但全球经济秩序的即将崩溃将产生对新概念和新评价的需求。伴随着这些概念和评价的唯一权威将是它们通过提供潜力而吸引的信用。接下来对货币本质的探讨纯粹是哲学性的：它试图通过建立概念和区分来消除错误的问题。 ${}^{31}$${}^{31}$^(31){ }^{31} 由于目的在于凝练、结晶、展开和感知--而不是基于权威和证据进行论证--最终的结果并不总能表明在哪些方面受到了其他作家的影响和参与。尤其是，亚当-斯密和卡尔-马克思是站在这部著作之上的货币问题思想巨匠。正是由于他们的著作具有哲学性质，他们有能力探讨影响和展开趋势，这使他们有别于纯粹的经济学家，也有别于约翰-梅纳德-凯恩斯和阿马蒂亚-森等经验主义哲学家。 ${}^{32}$${}^{32}$^(32){ }^{32} 在适当的地方，我试图表明我与斯密和马克思的不同之处。我认为，无论是将货币视为 "流通的巨轮 "的模式，还是将货币视为 "一般等价物 "的结构分析，都完全没有说服力。 由于本次探究的目的是构建对金钱的神学理解，而不是从权威中推论或与权威辩论，因此我认为将这部作品的表述强行纳入霸权的现代模式并不合适
of reason. It is not a question of working dialectically toward a correct point of view by means of critical engagement with the works of others. This book is not written to advise political or economic subjects as to the opinions they should hold about money. It is written to criticize established opinions, to create new concepts and values, and to lend credit to future institutions that might embody these new concepts and values.
理性。这不是一个通过批判性地接触他人作品，辩证地朝着正确观点努力的问题。写这本书并不是为了向政治或经济界人士建议他们应该对货币持有何种观点。本书旨在批判既有观点，创造新的概念和价值观，并为未来可能体现这些新概念和价值观的机构提供借鉴。

The range of my reading while working on this project is indicated in the bibliography. Important influences that I feel should be mentioned include theoretical and sociological studies involving money, such as those of Michel Aglietta and André Orléan, Elmar Altvater, Geoffrey Ingham, Maria Mies, and Georg Simmel. ${}^{33}$${}^{33}$^(33){ }^{33} In addition, a variety of more radical and popular thinkers and writers on money and its contemporary implications have also stimulated my thought, including Peter Challen, Clifford Hugh Douglas, Richard Douthwaite, Silvio Gesell, Frances Hutchinson, John McMurtry, Kamran Mofid, and Michael Rowbotham. A more theological example of such radical work, focusing on property rather than money, is given by Ulrich Duchrow and Franz Hinkelammert. ${}^{34}$${}^{34}$^(34){ }^{34} In addition, I recall benefiting from conversations with Angus Cameron, Peter Challen, Frances Hutchinson, Lars Iyer, Karen Kilby, Will Large, David Loy, Lissa McCullough, John Milbank, Michael Northcott, Kathryn Tanner, Neil Turnbull, and Jessica Wiskus, among the many others who have responded to presentations of aspects of this argument on numerous occasions over the past ten years. None of these was presented with the full argument of the book, so none can be blamed for failing to counsel restraint.
参考书目中列出了我在本项目工作期间的阅读范围。我认为应该提及的重要影响包括涉及货币的理论和社会学研究，如米歇尔-阿格利埃塔和安德烈-奥尔良、埃尔马-阿尔特瓦特、杰弗里-英格汉、玛丽亚-密斯和格奥尔格-西美尔的研究。 ${}^{33}$${}^{33}$^(33){ }^{33} 此外，彼得-查伦（Peter Challen）、克利福德-休-道格拉斯（Clifford Hugh Douglas）、理查德-杜斯韦特（Richard Douthwaite）、西尔维奥-格塞尔（Silvio Gesell）、弗朗西丝-哈钦森（Frances Hutchinson）、约翰-麦克默特里（John McMurtry）、卡姆兰-莫菲德（Kamran Mofid）和迈克尔-罗伯瑟姆（Michael Rowbotham）等关于货币及其当代影响的各种更为激进和流行的思想家和作家也激发了我的思考。乌尔里希-杜克罗（Ulrich Duchrow）和弗朗茨-辛克拉默特（Franz Hinkelammert）在神学方面的研究更为激进，他们的研究重点是财产而非金钱。 ${}^{34}$${}^{34}$^(34){ }^{34} 此外，我还记得与安格斯-卡梅伦（Angus Cameron）、彼得-查伦（Peter Challen）、弗朗西斯-哈钦森（Frances Hutchinson）、拉尔斯-伊耶（Lars Iyer）、卡伦-基尔比（Karen Kilby）、威尔-拉奇（Will Large）、大卫-洛伊（David Loy）、莉萨-麦卡洛（Lissa McCullough）、约翰-米尔班克（John Milbank）、迈克尔-诺斯考特（Michael Northcott）、凯瑟琳-坦纳（Kathryn Tanner）、尼尔-特恩布尔（Neil Turnbull）和杰西卡-维斯库斯（Jessica Wiskus）等人的对话，他们在过去十年中多次对这一论点的各个方面做出回应。这些人都没有得到该书的全部论点，因此不能责怪他们未能保持克制。

The book is divided into three parts. Part I, “Of Politics,” is introductory. It explores the context for contemporary reflection to give the discussion concrete relevance; introduces the theory of money that follows by explaining its significance for political life; and argues that the modern conception of politics, concerned primarily with the power of agency - whether in the form of the state, the individual, or the corporation - has outlived its usefulness. Drawing on Carl Schmitt’s analysis of the political, it proposes that there is an overlooked element of “political energy,” supplementary to human decision and physical force, that determines any actual distribution of power. This element may be filled by religious or moral motivations, or by money. Material reality has brought modernity to a state of imminent collapse due to the ecological crisis in the form of abrupt climate change
本书分为三个部分。第一部分 "关于政治 "是导言。它探讨了当代反思的背景，使讨论具有具体的现实意义；通过解释金钱对政治生活的意义，介绍了接下来的金钱理论；并论证了现代政治概念主要关注的是代理权--无论是以国家、个人还是公司的形式--已经过时。该书借鉴卡尔-施米特（Carl Schmitt）对政治的分析，提出除了人的决定和物质力量之外，还有一个被忽视的 "政治能量 "要素，决定着任何实际的权力分配。这个因素可以由宗教或道德动机或金钱来填补。由于以气候骤变为表现形式的生态危机，物质现实已将现代性带入濒临崩溃的境地
and the exhaustion of supplies of fossil fuels. Part I also argues a strong form of the “end of politics” thesis - the supersession of the autonomy of the state by finance capital. This argument locates money, credit, and debt as the principal incarnations of power in the contemporary world. What is at stake here is the nature of political theory as such, which, when written to advise a democratic subject, implicitly appeals to the illusion of subjective sovereignty. Political theology, by contrast, aims to describe or modify the authority or political energy that makes decisions effective. Once political energy has been subsumed into the power of money, then an emancipatory politics can proceed only by modifying the institution of money.
以及化石燃料的枯竭。第一部分还论证了 "政治终结 "论的一种有力形式--金融资本取代国家自主权。这一论点将货币、信贷和债务定位为当代世界权力的主要化身。这里的关键在于政治理论本身的性质，当政治理论为民主主体提供建议时，就会暗中诉诸主观主权的幻想。相比之下，政治神学旨在描述或改变使决策有效的权威或政治能量。一旦政治能量被归结为金钱的力量，那么解放政治就只能通过修改金钱制度来实现。

Part II, “A Treatise on Money,” forms the body of the book and is a philosophical investigation into the nature, function, and promise of money in relation to the means of production or capital, the social institutions of market and contract, and the formation of knowledge through accounting. It proceeds systematically by the elucidation of concepts, explicating the reasoning that underlies the theory of money presented here. Its purpose is twofold: to diagnose the errors and illusions that are the source of the most significant threats humanity faces and to illuminate the principles necessary for reforming money as a social institution.
第二部分 "货币论 "是全书的主体，从哲学角度探讨了货币的性质、职能和承诺与生产资料或资本、市场和契约等社会制度以及通过会计形成的知识之间的关系。它通过对概念的阐释，系统地阐述了本文提出的货币理论所依据的推理。其目的有二：一是诊断作为人类面临的最重大威胁根源的错误和幻觉，二是阐明改革货币这一社会制度的必要原则。

In Chapter 3, money is explored in relation to productive capital, which is the source of all wealth. Capital, defined as the means of production that has itself been produced, includes natural as well as human-produced capital. Since money measures value in exchange rather than productive capacity, and rates of profit may be enhanced in the short term by consumption of productive capacity as well as by its accumulation, and because economic growth, survival, and victory over competitors is achieved solely through rates of profit, then an economic system based on profit and debt will necessarily deplete its own conditions of survival. This is clear from the contrast between compound rates of growth, interest, and debt; the finitude of efficiency gains; and the finite possibilities of a single planet. Economy and ecology are mathematically incompatible. Moreover, money is a form of social or constructive capital that facilitates exchange and substitution. It therefore necessarily replaces preceding social orders that facilitated and stabilized production, thereby eroding society alongside ecology. Money flows in the opposite direction to produced value in mar-
第 3 章探讨了货币与生产资本的关系，生产资本是一切财富的源泉。资本被定义为生产出来的生产资料，包括自然资本和人力资本。由于货币衡量的是交换价值而非生产能力，利润率可以通过消耗生产能力和积累生产能力在短期内提高，而且经济增长、生存和战胜竞争者完全是通过利润率实现的，因此，以利润和债务为基础的经济体系必然会耗尽其自身的生存条件。这一点从复合增长率、利息和债务之间的对比、效率收益的有限性以及单个星球的有限可能性中可以清楚地看出。经济与生态在数学上是不相容的。此外，货币是一种促进交换和替代的社会资本或建设性资本。因此，它必然会取代之前促进和稳定生产的社会秩序，从而侵蚀社会和生态。货币在市场中的流动方向与生产价值相反。
ket exchange. Adam Smith’s metaphor of the “great wheel of circulation,” on which modern economics is largely based, is erroneous since prices have no absolute value. The conditions of the production and consumption of goods differ from the conditions of the creation and cancellation of money as debt. The money economy parasitically inhabits the “real” economy of produced goods, determining its growth and flow. The global economy is driven by the cooperation of differing drives: a drive for survival that demands the necessities of life; a drive for pleasure that seeks the benefits of produced wealth; a will to power that seeks profits alone; and the obligation of debt that enforces an increase in production and profits. Yet money, as the principle of mediation of all demands, ensures that priority is given to the creation, acquisition, maintenance, and investment of money.
价格交换。亚当-斯密关于 "流通巨轮 "的比喻是错误的，因为价格没有绝对价值。商品生产和消费的条件与作为债务的货币的创造和取消的条件不同。货币经济寄生在商品生产的 "实体 "经济中，决定着它的增长和流动。全球经济是由不同的驱动力共同推动的：生存驱动力要求提供生活必需品；享乐驱动力追求生产财富带来的利益；权力意志只追求利润；债务义务强制增加生产和利润。然而，货币作为调解所有需求的原则，确保优先考虑货币的创造、获取、维护和投资。

In Chapter 4, money is explored in relation to the institutions of the market, private property, and contract-from which it is inseparable and which it makes possible. The market is often regarded as a paradigmatic social scene of peace, equity, balance, justice, and freedom, and yet it is dependent on the sovereign threat of the use of force to ensure that contracts are honored. Since contracts represent only the demands of those with money, sovereign force is enacted via the market against all interests not explicitly represented within contracts. The market is therefore an agent of exclusion, exploitation, and destruction. All social formations that do not honor the rights of property and contract enshrined within the market are necessarily regarded as a threat to property, peace, and justice, and so the sovereign force associated with market society must necessarily be in a state of total war against all other social forces that resist its expansionary claims. The illusions of private property, right, and exchange value derive from treating exchange atemporally instead of in the social and temporal terms of contract. It produces the illusion that a market could operate in the absence of some state, religious, or other force that ensures the honoring of contracts.
在第四章中，我们将探讨货币与市场、私有财产和契约等制度的关系--货币与这些制度密不可分，也是这些制度使货币成为可能。市场通常被视为和平、公平、平衡、正义和自由的典型社会场景，然而它却依赖于使用武力的主权威胁来确保契约的履行。由于契约只代表有钱人的要求，因此主权力量通过市场来对抗契约中没有明确代表的所有利益。因此，市场是排斥、剥削和破坏的媒介。所有不尊重市场所体现的财产权和契约权的社会形态都必然被视为对财产、和平和正义的威胁，因此，与市场社会相关的主权力量必然处于对所有其他抵制其扩张性要求的社会力量的全面战争状态。私有财产、权利和交换价值的幻觉源于对交换的时间性而非契约的社会性和时间性的处理。它产生了一种错觉，即如果没有国家、宗教或其他力量来确保契约的履行，市场是可以运作的。

Money, regarded as an implicit contract rather than as an object of private property, is no longer analyzed purely in terms of exchange value. It is analyzed, instead, in terms of the demand for nutritional value as well as an objective social evaluation that inheres within each contract. The formal economy of exchange is understood more fully against the background of an informal economy of nutrition and time, provision and care. The result
货币被视为一种隐含的契约，而非私有财产的客体，不再单纯从交换价值的角度进行分析。取而代之的是，从对营养价值的需求以及每份契约中固有的客观社会评价的角度对其进行分析。正规的交换经济在非正规的营养和时间经济、供应和照料经济的背景下得到了更全面的理解。结果
is a reconsideration of economic class, no longer in terms of relations of production, but of diverse modes of appropriation of relations of provision and time. Householders, merchants, capitalists, bankers, and speculators emerge as fundamentally different economic classes. While all classes ultimately depend on bankers for the creation of credit, bankers themselves depend on speculators who take risks on the basis of non-measurable economic opportunities. In credit capitalism, therefore, the speculators are the only truly free class who are absolved from the demands of economic necessity.
是对经济阶级的重新思考，不再是生产关系，而是对供给和时间关系的不同占有方式的重新思考。家庭主妇、商人、资本家、银行家和投机者作为根本不同的经济阶级出现了。虽然所有阶级最终都依赖银行家创造信贷，但银行家本身也依赖投机者，他们根据不可计量的经济机会承担风险。因此，在信贷资本主义中，投机者是唯一真正自由的阶级，他们不受经济必然性的影响。

The distribution of credit and absolution from social obligation are religious matters. An economic system that only distributes credit to opportunities for profit is bound for destruction. The distribution of credit, however, is the one free activity through which the social order can be transformed. Political emancipation from the power of money can come only when institutions are created to distribute credit along lines of socially accepted evaluations rather than purely according to the demands of money. Liberation may occur through the subordination of money to credit - and credit to evaluation - through the emergence of a new kind of social institution that expresses effective evaluations.
分配信贷和免除社会义务是宗教问题。一个只为盈利机会分配信贷的经济体系必将走向毁灭。然而，信用的分配是可以改变社会秩序的一种自由活动。只有建立起制度，按照社会公认的评价标准分配信贷，而不是纯粹按照金钱的要求分配信贷，才能从金钱的权力中获得政治解放。通过建立一种能够表达有效评价的新型社会机构，使金钱从属于信用，使信用从属于评价，从而实现解放。

In Chapter 5, money is explored through the institution of accounting that gives it substance. It is demonstrated, through a version of transcendental argument, that exchange value does not pre-exist its recording by means of accounts but is itself a product of such accounting. Accounting, then, may best be regarded as a moral self-discipline that demonstrates that one is capable of paying debts and fulfilling obligations and so makes one worthy of the trust enshrined in contracts. It is the basis for credibility and credit. Accounting is essentially a system for saving time and directing attention. Nevertheless, economic opportunities and externalities have no agreed price. They cannot be properly counted. The paradox of accounting is that it directs attention to what is counted rather than to what matters. It propagates a morality of self-mastery and the pursuit of self-interest that is incompatible with the physical and spiritual realities of most people’s lives.
在第 5 章中，我们通过赋予货币实质的会计制度来探讨货币。通过一个超越论证的版本，我们证明了交换价值并不先于账目记录，其本身就是这种账目的产物。因此，最好将会计视为一种道德自律，它证明一个人有能力偿还债务和履行义务，从而使其值得契约所赋予的信任。它是信誉和信用的基础。会计本质上是一种节省时间和引导注意力的系统。然而，经济机会和外部因素没有商定的价格。它们无法被正确计算。会计的悖论在于，它将人们的注意力引向被计算的东西，而不是重要的东西。它宣扬的自我管理和追求自身利益的道德观与大多数人生活中的物质和精神现实格格不入。

Accounting produces a fundamental misrepresentation insofar as it counts only what can be exchanged instead of the conditions of exchange as such. In practice, it fails to effectively count land, labor, and capital be-
会计只计算可以交换的东西，而不计算交换的条件本身，因而产生了根本性的失实。实际上，它未能有效地计算土地、劳动力和资本的价值。
cause it only treats these as objects of exchange rather than as conditions of production. A revaluation of all values must begin with a reversal of the moral assumptions embodied in accounting. What is truly valuable always escapes representation and counting. It cannot be manipulated according to the sovereignty of human self-mastery but must be accorded a religious respect. The evaluation of values and the distribution of credit must come to take priority over accounting.
因为它只是将这些物品视为交换对象，而不是生产条件。重估所有价值必须从扭转会计所体现的道德假设开始。真正有价值的东西总是摆脱不了表象和计算。它不能按照人类自我主宰的主权来操纵，而必须得到宗教上的尊重。价值评估和信用分配必须优先于会计。

Part III, “Of Theology,” is a conclusion. It recapitulates the theory of money presented earlier to unfold the spectral force present in money. It explores the nature and significance of a political theology of money. The theological problem overlooked by much modern thought is that perspectives on true wealth and true power are formed by commitments enacted through practices of attention. Perspectives presuppose a metaphysics, and the currency of any given metaphysics depends on its acceptability in daily life. Far from being the abstract concern of philosophers alone, solutions to the metaphysical problem of the nature of being - whether in the form of God, truth, or money - have in practice functioned as supreme political forces in history as well as in the contemporary world. Conversely, money becomes the pivotal object for the consideration of both the philosopher and the theologian. ${}^{35}$${}^{35}$^(35){ }^{35} Credit is the indispensable source of the creation of wealth, and the source of all political authority. Emancipation from the power of money can be achieved only by inventing a new institution for the distribution of credit that evokes a different metaphysics, politics, ethics, and theology. Such an institution may be formed by subordinating credit to evaluation. The task is to develop an institution that enables credit to be given to what is worthy of credit. Yet true credit can arise only from the commitment of flesh and blood, from the gift of time, attention, and devotion. The divorce between the religious and the secular can be overcome by a consideration of how attention, credit, and evaluation are to be ordered. The book concludes with some tentative recommendations of how principles designed to emancipate evaluation from the power of debt could be embodied in concrete institutions.
第三部分 "神学 "是一个结论。它重述了前面提出的货币理论，展现了货币中存在的幽灵力量。它探讨了货币政治神学的性质和意义。许多现代思想所忽视的神学问题是，关于真正财富和真正权力的观点是通过关注实践中的承诺形成的。观点以形而上学为先决条件，而任何特定形而上学的货币取决于其在日常生活中的可接受性。对存在本质这一形而上学问题的解决--无论是以上帝、真理还是金钱的形式--绝不仅仅是哲学家们的抽象关注，在历史上以及在当代世界中，它们实际上都发挥着最高政治力量的作用。反之，金钱则成为哲学家和神学家思考的关键对象。 ${}^{35}$${}^{35}$^(35){ }^{35} 信用是创造财富不可或缺的源泉，也是一切政治权力的源泉。要想摆脱金钱的力量，只有发明一种新的信用分配制度，唤起不同的形而上学、政治学、伦理学和神学。这种制度可以通过使信用从属于评价来形成。我们的任务是建立一种制度，使值得信用的东西得到信用。然而，真正的信用只能产生于有血有肉的承诺，产生于时间、注意力和奉献精神的馈赠。宗教与世俗之间的分裂可以通过考虑如何安排注意力、信用和评价来克服。 本书最后就如何在具体机构中体现旨在将评价从债务权力中解放出来的原则提出了一些初步建议。

A PARABLE  寓言故事
Imagine-if one were only out of debt, owing nothing to anyone, free to do as one pleased, wishing this blessing upon all others, so that one could cancel all debts owing to oneself, so that one’s debtors could in turn cancel all debts owing to themselves, until all debts were cleared, nothing more was owed, all people were free, with no employment, no money, no society, no religion, no life. Imagine. Just imagine.
想象一下--如果一个人只是没有了债务，不欠任何人任何东西，可以自由地做自己想做的事，希望所有其他人都能得到这种祝福，这样他就可以取消欠自己的所有债务，这样他的债务人也可以反过来取消欠自己的所有债务，直到所有债务都被清偿，再也没有任何欠款，所有的人都是自由的，没有工作，没有金钱，没有社会，没有宗教，没有生活。想象一下。想象一下。

MODERN THOUGHT, with its Cartesian heritage, has distinguished two kinds of power. There is the purely physical power deriving from gravity, solar radiation, and chemical and atomic bonds. It is released through combustion and muscular exertion and is found in power stations and military hardware. Then there is the purely human power of the will. It is expressed in speech and in action and is found in markets and in nation-states. Modern understandings of politics normally require both conceptions of power. Human will may act on human will through the image or threat of physical power. This is evident above all in Carl Schmitt’s definition of the political, which is concerned with the distinction between friend and enemy. For Schmitt, war is the most extreme political means, and as such, it discloses the conceptual distinction that underlies every political idea: the possibility of distinguishing between friend and enemy. ${}^1$${}^1$^(1){ }^{1} Political concepts have a polemical character because they ultimately refer to the real possibility of physical killing. ${}^2$${}^2$^(2){ }^{2} The decisive political power is the authority to make war and so to publicly dispose of the lives of people, whether of the lives of the enemy or of one’s own people, in sacrifice. ${}^3$${}^3$^(3){ }^{3} The authority of will over will here derives from no other foundation than the exercise of physical power.
具有笛卡尔传统的现代思想区分了两种力量。一种是来自重力、太阳辐射、化学键和原子键的纯物理动力。它通过燃烧和肌肉运动释放出来，存在于发电站和军事设备中。还有纯粹的人类意志力。它表现在言语和行动中，存在于市场和民族国家中。现代对政治的理解通常需要两种权力概念。人的意志可以通过物质力量的形象或威胁作用于人的意志。卡尔-施米特（Carl Schmitt）对政治的定义首先体现了这一点，他关注的是敌友之间的区别。在施米特看来，战争是最极端的政治手段，因此，它揭示了每一种政治理念背后的概念区别：区分敌友的可能性。 ${}^1$${}^1$^(1){ }^{1} 政治概念之所以具有论战性，是因为它们最终指向肉体杀戮的现实可能性。 ${}^2$${}^2$^(2){ }^{2} 决定性的政治权力是发动战争的权力，因此也是公开处置人民生命的权力，无论是敌人的生命还是自己人民的生命，都可以作为牺牲品。 ${}^3$${}^3$^(3){ }^{3} 在这里，意志凌驾于意志之上的权威，除了行使肉体的力量之外，别无其他基础。

It is necessary to complicate this duality with a third kind of power. War involves the concentrated disposal of physical power and its outcome is generally determined by an accurate distribution or restriction of such power. As General Erwin Rommel remarked in North Africa in 1942: "The first essential condition for an army to stand the strain of battle is an ade-
有必要用第三种力量来使这种二元性复杂化。战争涉及对有形力量的集中使用，其结果通常取决于对这种力量的准确分配或限制。正如埃尔温-隆美尔将军 1942 年在北非所言："一支军队要想经受住战斗的考验，首要的基本条件就是要有一支强大的军队。
quate stock of weapons, petrol and ammunition. In fact, the battle is fought and decided by the quartermasters before the shooting begins. The bravest men can do nothing without guns, the guns nothing without plenty of ammunition; and neither guns nor ammunition are of much use in mobile warfare unless there are vehicles with sufficient petrol to haul them around. ${}^4$${}^4$^(4){ }^{4} War may be regarded as a particular case of the power to distribute and exercise physical force. Such a distribution is at once physical and ideal in that it concerns the location and orientation of force. The political, more broadly, may take as its foundation the determination of the use of resources. While war enables the possibility of an enemy, sharing resources enables the possibility of a friend. While economics concerns the most profitable distribution of scarce resources, political economy concerns just distribution. Politics, as the exercise of human will on human will, is grounded on political economy through which the other is determined as a member of a class or as a friend or enemy. Collective physical force depends on a prior appeal to “right” that unites friends against enemies. Prior to the distinction between friend and enemy, political economy must also appeal to principles through which distribution will be ordered and limited, perhaps principles of ownership, right, or justice. Beneath the strength of physical force lie customs, traditions, and markets that determine concentrations of resources. Privileged distributions may occur through kinship, regions, language groups, currency areas, or nation-states, for example. The political, as Schmitt concedes, can derive its energy from the most varied human endeavors, including religious, economic, and moral dimensions. ${}^5$${}^5$^(5){ }^{5} Here we have a third kind of power, the intangible “energy” of the political, irreducible to physical force. It is the authority that guides and authorizes the action of will on will. ${}^6$${}^6$^(6){ }^{6} It is this energy that is the subject matter of a political theology.
武器、汽油和弹药储备充足。事实上，在射击开始之前，战斗就已经打响并由军需官决定了。没有枪支，最勇敢的人也无能为力；没有充足的弹药，枪支也无能为力；在机动作战中，除非有足够汽油的车辆来运输枪支弹药，否则枪支弹药都没有什么用处。 ${}^4$${}^4$^(4){ }^{4} 战争可以被看作是分配和行使有形力量的一种特殊情况。这种分配既是有形的，也是理想的，因为它涉及到武力的位置和方向。更广义地说，政治可将决定资源的使用作为其基础。战争使我们有可能成为敌人，而资源共享则使我们有可能成为朋友。经济学关注稀缺资源最有利的分配，而政治经济学则关注公正的分配。政治，作为人类意志对人类意志的行使，是以政治经济学为基础的，通过政治经济学，他人被确定为一个阶级的成员或朋友或敌人。集体的身体力量取决于事先对 "权利 "的诉求，这种诉求将朋友与敌人团结在一起。在区分敌人和朋友之前，政治经济学还必须诉诸一些原则，通过这些原则，或许是所有权原则、权利原则或正义原则，对分配进行排序和限制。在物质力量的力量之下，是决定资源集中的习俗、传统和市场。例如，特权分配可以通过亲属关系、地区、语言群体、货币区域或民族国家等方式实现。正如施米特所承认的，政治可以从最多样的人类活动中获得能量，包括宗教、经济和道德层面。 ${}^5$${}^5$^(5){ }^{5} 在这里，我们有第三种权力，即政治的无形 "能量"，它与物质力量不可分割。它是指导和授权意志对意志采取行动的权威。 ${}^6$${}^6$^(6){ }^{6} 政治神学的主题正是这种能量。

Such energy, as a supplement to the will, cannot be encompassed within modernity’s conception of humanity as universal political subjects. As soon as the will is given priority, any claims of the “authority” that energizes the will must be dismissed by the will. ${}^7$${}^7$^(7){ }^{7} Schmitt himself exposed the consequences of such universalism: in its effort to include all, it remains an exclusive category. He argued that the political entity cannot by its very nature be universal in the sense of embracing all of humanity and the entire world, for the political entity presupposes the real existence of an enemy
这种能量作为意志的补充，无法被现代性关于人类作为普遍政治主体的概念所涵盖。一旦意志被置于优先地位，任何赋予意志以活力的 "权威 "的主张都必须被意志所否定。 ${}^7$${}^7$^(7){ }^{7} 施米特自己也揭露了这种普遍主义的后果：在努力包容一切的同时，它仍然是一个排他性的范畴。他认为，政治实体就其本质而言，不可能在包容全人类和全世界的意义上具有普遍性，因为政治实体的前提是敌人的真实存在
and thus of another political entity. As a consequence, “To confiscate the word humanity, to invoke and monopolize such a term probably has certain incalculable effects, such as denying the enemy the quality of being human and declaring him to be an outlaw of humanity; and a war can therefore be driven to the most extreme inhumanity.” ${}^8$${}^8$^(8){ }^{8} In a similar way, modern political thought, when it makes the political subject the universal category, excludes consideration of the energy of the political. While appealing to such energy in the name of universality, peace, justice, progress, civilization, democracy, or humanity, it deploys such energy purely in the name of the will. It becomes both arbitrary and totalitarian. Excluding deference to the authority or energy that lends validity to the democratic subject, it becomes a totalitarian denunciation of all authoritarianisms, drawing on its own repressed reservoir of ideological energy. It neglects the bases of the political in the influence over the human will of both physical power and the energy of the political. Authority, far from being abolished by democracy, recurs in a disguised form where its power is unlimited. The nature of such power in the contemporary world remains a theological-political problem.
因此，"没收'人道'一词，援引并垄断这个词，可能会产生某些不可估量的影响，例如剥夺敌 人作为人的品质，并宣布他是另一个政治实体。因此，"没收人性一词，援引并垄断这样一个词，很可能会产生某些不可估量的影响，比如剥夺敌人作为人的品质，宣布他为人性的亡命之徒；战争也会因此被推向最极端的非人道"。 ${}^8$${}^8$^(8){ }^{8} 同样，现代政治思想在把政治主体作为普遍范畴时，也排除了对政治能量的考虑。在以普遍性、和平、正义、进步、文明、民主或人性的名义呼吁这种能量的同时，它却纯粹以意志的名义部署这种能量。它变得既专横又极权。它摒弃了对赋予民主主体有效性的权威或能量的尊重，成为对所有专制主义的极权斥责，汲取自身被压抑的意识形态能量。它忽视了政治的基础，即物质力量和政治能量对人类意志的影响。权威非但没有被民主所废除，反而以一种变相的形式重新出现，其权力是无限的。在当代世界，这种权力的性质仍然是一个神学政治问题。

Modern political thought has been humanistic in three related senses. First, the human is constituted as independent of the divine. True power is not to be absorbed from sacred places, persons, objects, or rituals. The claims of theocracies or mythical cosmologies to embody the good are rejected as superstition. Spectral and occult powers are regarded as illusion. The will must be liberated from beliefs concerning participation in the good in nature just as it is liberated from the need to ward off spectral powers. In a secular polity, the good is something that must be willed. Such an emancipation or enlightenment occurs through the second sense of humanism: the human subject is constituted as such through rational self-reflection as a self-determining agent. The human at once distinguishes itself from the animal and liberates itself from superstitious hopes and fears through its reason. By means of reason, it represents the order in nature and imposes order on nature. The power of the will is exercised through representation. Yet the power of the will may only be confirmed as a power through the third sense of humanism: the human subject demonstrates its mastery over
现代政治思想在三个相关的意义上是人文主义的。首先，人的构成独立于神。真正的权力不能从神圣的地方、人、物或仪式中吸收。神权或神话宇宙论所宣称的善被视为迷信而遭到反对。幽灵和神秘的力量被视为幻觉。意志必须从有关参与自然之善的信仰中解放出来，就像从抵御幽灵力量的需要中解放出来一样。在世俗政体中，善是一种必须以意志为转移的东西。这种解放或启蒙是通过人文主义的第二种意义实现的：人的主体是通过理性的自我反思构成的，是自我决定的主体。人通过理性将自己与动物区分开来，并从迷信的希望和恐惧中解放出来。通过理性，人代表了自然中的秩序，并将秩序强加于自然。意志的力量是通过表象来实现的。然而，只有通过人文主义的第三种意义，意志的力量才能被确认为一种力量：人类主体展示了其对自然的驾驭能力。
an external nature. The subject becomes a subject by exercising itself on an object, and the success of humanism depends on the continuation of this power of mastery. The fate of modern political thought rests on demonstrations of its effectiveness; it rests on a conception of power as mastery; it rests on the nonexistence of invisible powers beyond those of physics and the will.
外在本质。主体通过在客体上发挥自身的作用而成为主体，人文主义的成功取决于这种主宰力量的延续。现代政治思想的命运取决于对其有效性的证明；取决于将权力视为主宰的观念；取决于在物理和意志之外不存在无形的力量。

Three key elements have characterized the modern Western attempt to dominate the unruly forces of nature. The scientific revolution aimed at extracting the ideal form of physical law from the behavior of matter to subject matter to abstract prediction and control; the technological-industrial revolution aimed at subjecting production to the force of the combustion of preserved organic power, together with management by rational recording, calculation, and communication, to maximize efficiency and output; and the capitalist and free-market revolutions aimed at liberating human choice from subordination to traditional or natural ends. The natural world has been mastered by science, technology, and economics. Should this mastery come to an end, one would have to inquire whether modern man is truly reasonable or truly secular.
现代西方试图主宰不羁的自然力量有三个关键因素。科学革命的目的是从物质的行为中提取物理规律的理想形式，使物质服从于抽象的预测和控制；技术-工业革命的目的是使生产服从于保存有机力量的燃烧力，同时通过理性的记录、计算和通信进行管理，以实现效率和产出的最大化；资本主义革命和自由市场革命的目的是将人类的选择从传统或自然目的的从属地位中解放出来。自然世界已被科学、技术和经济学所掌控。如果这种掌控终结，人们就不得不探究现代人是否真正合理或真正世俗。

At the turn of the millennium, the progress of humanism has run up against insuperable limits in each of these domains. The new sciences of chaos and complexity demonstrate how the behavior of matter frequently exceeds all powers of prediction. Science no longer gives mastery. The ecological crisis demonstrates how economic production is dependent on a broader framework of ecological cycles to supply its resources and absorb its waste, cycles that can easily become unstable. Technology no longer gives mastery. The globalization of the capitalist free-market economy demonstrates how social and personal choices are governed by autonomous processes driven by debt, profit, and the control of consumer desire rather than ordered by humane values and a substantive rationality. Economics no longer gives mastery.
在千年之交，人文主义的进步在每一个领域都遇到了难以逾越的极限。新的混沌科学和复杂性科学表明，物质的行为经常超出所有的预测能力。科学不再是万能的。生态危机表明，经济生产是如何依赖于更广泛的生态循环框架来提供资源和吸收废物的，而这种循环很容易变得不稳定。技术不再是主宰。资本主义自由市场经济的全球化表明，社会和个人的选择是如何被债务、利润和消费欲望控制所驱动的自主过程所支配，而不是被人道价值观和实质理性所安排。经济学不再是主宰。

Such practical impotence exposes the limits of modern political theory. Committed to a notion of power as mastery - humanity exerting its own intrinsic force rather than appealing to authority-it confines its own operation to representation. As pure theory or reflective knowledge, it aims to represent faithfully the actual or desired political constitution of reality so that a sovereign will may exercise its judgments. Theory is written on be-
这种实际的无能暴露了现代政治理论的局限性。现代政治理论奉行权力即主宰的理念--人类发挥自身内在的力量，而不是诉诸权威--它将自身的运作局限于表象。作为纯粹的理论或反思性知识，它旨在忠实地再现现实的实际或理想的政治构成，以便主权意志可以行使其判断力。理论的写作基础是
half of a judging will, whether this is the governing agent of a nation-state, the private will of a democratic subject within civil society, or the collective force of a revolutionary organization. ${}^9$${}^9$^(9){ }^{9} Theory informs sovereign speech and action. But it is doubtful whether this notion of power should constitute the norm for politics. As Pierre Manent points out, the deliberate and rational constitution of the modern liberal state has been exceptional in the history of politics. ${}^{10}$${}^{10}$^(10){ }^{10} It is by no means clear that the primary vectors of power continue to pass through sovereign human agency. There are many other thoughtful modes of exercising power in human relations apart from the alliance between representation and sovereignty found in judgment to name just a few, provision, production, reproduction, possession, association, legislation, normalization, violence, promise, threat, selection, suggestion, persuasion, information, funding, moralizing, praying, or even simply giving attention. Yet power cannot be restricted to human relations. Beyond human agency, human life is also shaped by the agency of nonhuman powers, such as material flows of heat, clean air, fresh water, fertile soil, electricity, fossilized energy, pollution, genetic mutation, disease, and nutrition. Human populations are dependent on the powers of populations of domestic farm animals. The human will may only operate in alliance with these other human and nonhuman powers. It is doubtful whether this alliance between the will and the host of other powers can ever be reduced to representation and mastery. There is, however, a third domain of relative impotence of the will. The subject is afflicted from the inside by beliefs and desires. While the subject may flatter itself that it has selected its beliefs and desires through its own sovereign and rational choice, beliefs and desires exert their own specific power of attraction. Flowing through populations as cultures, political opinions, religions, fashions, ideals, goals, or anxieties, for example, these autonomous flows of beliefs and desires may speak through the political subject like a ventriloquist. Reason may insulate itself against some of these flows when it finds inconsistencies between the order that derives from them and the order of perception. It has little power against the rationalizations that emerge from beliefs and desires when they act as subjects themselves, ordering representation according to their aims. Then, as David Hume remarked, reason is only a slave of the passions. ${}^{11}$${}^{11}$^(11){ }^{11} It is necessary to explore this third, meta-human dimension of power, for authority and right belong within the realm of belief.
判断意志的一半，无论是民族国家的治理者、公民社会中民主主体的私人意志，还是革命组织的集体力量。 ${}^9$${}^9$^(9){ }^{9} 理论指导主权者的言论和行动。但这种权力概念是否应成为政治的准则，这一点值得怀疑。正如皮埃尔-马南特（Pierre Manent）所指出的，现代自由主义国家的深思熟虑和理性构成在政治史上是一个例外。 ${}^{10}$${}^{10}$^(10){ }^{10} 权力的主要载体仍然是人的主权机构，这一点绝不清楚。在人际关系中行使权力，除了代表权与主权之间的联盟之外，还有许多其他深思熟虑的方式，例如提供、生产、再生产、占有、联合、立法、正常化、暴力、承诺、威胁、选择、建议、说服、信息、资助、道德化、祈祷，甚至仅仅是给予关注。然而，权力不能仅限于人与人之间的关系。除了人的力量之外，人类生活还受到非人类力量的影响，如热量、洁净空气、淡水、肥沃土壤、电力、化石能源、污染、基因突变、疾病和营养等物质流。人类依赖于家畜的力量。人类的意志只能与这些其他人类和非人类的力量结成联盟。这种意志与其他力量之间的联盟能否简化为代表和主宰，令人怀疑。然而，还有第三个意志相对无能的领域。主体从内心深处受到信念和欲望的困扰。 虽然政治主体可能会自以为是地认为，它是通过自己的主权和理性选择来选择自己的信念和欲望的，但信念和欲望也有其特定的吸引力。例如，信仰和欲望以文化、政治观点、宗教、时尚、理想、目标或焦虑的形式在人群中流动，这些自主的信仰和欲望可能会像腹语表演者一样通过政治主体说话。当理性发现源自这些信仰和欲望的秩序与感知的秩序不一致时，它可能会使自己免受其中一些信仰和欲望的影响。当信仰和欲望本身作为主体，根据其目的对表象进行排序时，理性就很难抵御由信仰和欲望产生的合理化。那么，正如大卫-休谟所说，理性只是激情的奴隶。 ${}^{11}$${}^{11}$^(11){ }^{11} 我们有必要探讨权力的第三种超人类维度，因为权威和权利属于信仰的范畴。

An awakening to the active forces of these three broad ranges of power exposes the limits of subjective sovereignty. The mastery achieved through representation is an illusory mastery, for the quality - selectivity - through which representation achieves its power is also the cause of its impotence. In the presentation of the world to the mind, the mind is subjected to each perception, impulse, and orientation. It is helpless before the arising of each image, reaction, and desire. Yet in the representation of the world to the mind, the mind associates ideas, whether in accordance with their intrinsic nature or in accordance with its own understanding. In representation, ideas are liberated from the conditions of their arising in the course of time. They may be reproduced in the mind at will. In the act of selection, they are freed from external powers and subjected to the power of the mind alone. The mind imposes order on the represented world. Passing through an order of reasons, an association of representations, the mind may determine its own will. Reproducing objects in its own imagination, the mind invests and fixes its own desire. In short, through representation the mind becomes a subject to itself. In imagination it constructs its own sovereignty in reason, will, and desire. This selectivity is at once the construction of a limited domain of sovereignty and a broader domain of ignorance and impotence. The failure to represent and respond to every force in the order of the mind leads to its impotence before that which exceeds representation. There is always a remainder, epitomized by the force of the course of time itself, for if representation is a reproduction of images in the mind, it cannot include the contemporary presentation of perceptions, impulses, and orientations. Modern reason is a hesitation, a membrane, an interruption; it reproduces the world in the theater of the imagination, where the order of the sovereign subject is maintained. Yet the sovereignty of reason exists in the imagination alone. There is one thing that must be excluded a priori from the representation of the sovereign subject: its impotence. This is not to say that one cannot represent oneself as impotent, but this very representation of oneself as impotent is generated from within the mind. It is in practice an expression of the mind’s power.
对这三种广泛权力的积极力量的觉醒暴露了主观主权的局限性。通过表象实现的主宰是一种虚幻的主宰，因为表象实现其力量的质量--选择性--也是其无能的原因。在向心灵呈现世界的过程中，心灵受制于每一种感知、冲动和取向。在每一个形象、反应和欲望的产生面前，它都束手无策。然而，在向心灵呈现世界的过程中，心灵会联想到各种观念，无论是按照观念的内在本质，还是按照自己的理解。在表象中，观念从它们在时间中产生的条件中解放出来。它们可以在头脑中随意再现。在选择过程中，它们摆脱了外部力量的束缚，只服从于心灵的力量。心灵将秩序强加于表象世界。通过理性的秩序、表象的关联，心灵可以决定自己的意志。心灵在自己的想象中再现对象，投入并固定自己的欲望。简言之，通过表象，心灵成为自身的主体。在想象中，它在理性、意志和欲望中构建了自己的主权。这种选择性既是对有限主权领域的建构，也是对无知和无能的更广泛领域的建构。由于无法表征和回应心灵秩序中的每一种力量，导致它在超越表征的力量面前无能为力。 因为如果表象是头脑中图像的再现，它就不可能包括感知、冲动和方向的当代呈现。现代理性是一种犹豫、一层薄膜、一种中断；它在想象的剧场中再现世界，在那里主权主体的秩序得以维持。然而，理性的主权只存在于想象之中。有一种东西必须先验地排除在主权主体的表象之外：它的无能。这并不是说人不能把自己表述为无能，而是说这种把自己表述为无能的表象是由心灵内部产生的。它实际上是心灵力量的一种表达。

A belief in the sovereignty of the subject through its rational ordering of representation does not emerge without some external support or confirmation. Several social roles may serve as a model for imagining the mastery
如果没有某种外部支持或确认，就不会产生主体通过合理的表象排序而享有主权的信念。几种社会角色可以作为想象主宰的模式
of the sovereign subject: the patriarchal father, the absolute despot, the chief executive officer, the owner of property, the artist, the animal trainer, the craftsperson, or the wealthy consumer, for example. Each may form the basis for imagining an unfettered liberty and power over a specific domain. On closer inspection, however, each of these social roles exists in a complex web of mutual influence and interaction with its correlative field. To attain true mastery in each case, it is necessary to hold the capacity to break off the relation with the mastered object. Thus, the owner of property is absolved from the corresponding obligations for care and maintenance of property by disposing of it, selling it in exchange, or allowing it to decay. Ownership is the right to dispose of property. The consumer exercises sovereignty in the selection of products by refusing to purchase others on offer. Choice is rejection. The craftsperson rejects recalcitrant materials. The despot exercises sovereignty through power over life and death. Sovereignty is destruction. Sovereignty is a relation that exists only in its suspension. It is exercised primarily as a threat, but the execution of the threat consists in dissolving the relation. Such power may be exercised through violence, through severance, or through flight. Yet as the image of negation, sovereign power exists only in the imagination. In practice, the mind may be subjected to both physical force and the force of authority.
例如，宗法父亲、绝对专制者、首席执行官、财产所有者、艺术家、驯兽师、手工艺者或富有的消费者。每一种人都可能构成对特定领域不受约束的自由和权力的想象基础。然而，仔细观察，这些社会角色中的每一种都存在于与其相关领域相互影响和相互作用的复杂网络中。在每一种情况下，要达到真正的掌握，就必须有能力切断与被掌握对象的关系。因此，财产的所有者可以通过处置财产、出售交换或任由其腐烂而免除相应的照顾和维护财产的义务。所有权是处置财产的权利。消费者通过拒绝购买所提供的其他产品来行使选择产品的主权。选择就是拒绝。手工艺者拒绝顽固不化的材料。暴君通过生杀大权行使主权。主权就是毁灭。主权是一种关系，只存在于它的中止之中。它的行使主要是一种威胁，而威胁的实施则是要解除这种关系。这种权力可以通过暴力、切断或逃离来行使。然而，作为否定的形象，主权权力只存在于想象之中。在实践中，心灵既可能受到肉体力量的制约，也可能受到权威力量的制约。

As a result, a political theory that takes sovereign self-determination as the primary expression of power suffers from a bad conscience. If power is to be demonstrated beyond the confines of imagination, it must be demonstrated in practice. Acts of violence, severance, suspension, negation, or flight must continually be repeated to demonstrate the reality of power. If the sovereignty of reason exists in the imagination alone, it must be supplemented by an exercise of will. The will demonstrates sovereignty when it converts representation into reality. It is a question of moving from the theater of imagination to the theater of life. Yet the body through which the will is exercised is less supple than the mind and is determined by physical forces and other subjects. The sovereign will can only act on the narrow stage where it concurs with or overpowers other wills. The sovereign subject pays little heed to the vast sphere of its impotence or to the construction of the stage where its action is possible. The causality of the will is only
因此，将主权自决作为权力的主要表现形式的政治理论良心不安。如果要超越想象的局限来证明权力，就必须在实践中证明权力。暴力、割裂、中止、否定或逃离等行为必须不断重复，以证明权力的真实性。如果理性的主权只存在于想象之中，那么它必须辅之以意志的行使。当意志将表象转化为现实时，它就展示了主权。这是一个从想象剧场走向生活剧场的问题。然而，行使意志的躯体却没有心灵那么柔软，它是由身体力量和其他主体决定的。主权意志只能在与其他意志一致或压倒其他意志的狭窄舞台上行动。主宰主体很少关注它无能为力的广阔领域，也很少关注它有可能采取行动的舞台的构建。意志的因果性只是
possible on the basis of cooperation or even a consensus between other wills and forces. Selection and consensuality form the basis for the illusion of sovereignty. There is a physical, social, and ecological coordination that enables all acts of will. It appeals, beyond sovereign representation, to physical, human, and meta-human configurations of power.
在其他意志和力量合作甚至达成共识的基础上才有可能实现。选择和共识构成了主权幻觉的基础。有一种物理、社会和生态协调使所有意志行为成为可能。在主权代表之外，它呼吁物理、人类和元人类的权力配置。

This mediation calls into question established notions of subjectivity, causality, and power. The essence of the political is at stake here. If there is active mediation in all human relations, involving the activity of a multiplicity of nonhuman powers, of human reactions and reciprocities, and of currents of belief and desire, then mastery provides a very poor model, ideal, or goal for power. The relation between subject and object is mediated by a host of powers, both past and present; its underlying orientation may be determined by belief and desire.
这种中介作用对既定的主体性、因果性和权力概念提出了质疑。政治的本质在此岌岌可危。如果所有人类关系中都存在着积极的中介作用，涉及多种非人类力量的活动、人类的反应和互惠，以及信仰和欲望的潮流，那么主宰就为权力提供了一个非常糟糕的模式、理想或目标。主体与客体之间的关系是以过去和现在的一系列权力为中介的；其基本取向可能是由信念和欲望决定的。

In addition, the essence of reason is at stake here, because mediation brings into question the dichotomy between the discovery and representation of order, on the one hand, and the imposition of order, on the other. If action is mediated by a host of additional active forces, then there is a sense in which order is both disclosed and emergent. Reason, far from trying to represent or master reality, would then be an attempt to cooperate with, nourish, and reorient reality. Far from being invested in the abstract and universal, reason would be invested in the concrete and local.
此外，理性的本质在这里也岌岌可危，因为中介使秩序的发现和表述与秩序的强加之间的二分法受到质疑。如果说行动是以一系列额外的积极力量为中介的，那么在某种意义上，秩序既是显现的，也是产生的。这样，理性就不再是试图代表或主宰现实，而是试图与现实合作、滋养现实并重新定位现实。理性不再是抽象和普遍的，而是具体和地方的。

Finally, at stake here is the essence of theology, for absolute sovereign power is a theological notion. ${}^{12}$${}^{12}$^(12){ }^{12} Where even the tyrant depends on the credulity of his subjects, only the divine is supposed to possess absolute selfsufficiency. Short of true social models, the notion of unrestrained power is encountered, to varying degrees, in forms of monotheistic belief. The divine is the model for the essence of power and the essence of reason. Only the power of the creator can be unmediated. The sovereign subject of modern political thought - the basis for freedom and democracy - is not free from the constraints of belief and desire. Instead, it contains its own theological presuppositions deriving from the history of its emergence. Whether the subject is separated from divine power, as for the somewhat Arminian John Locke, or identified with divine power, as for the somewhat Calvinist Benedict de Spinoza, a theological model of power is the implicit heart of sovereignty and reason. The modern notion of the political remains contaminated by a theological problematic inherent in its very notion of power. Power rests on meta-human flows of beliefs and desires.
最后，这关系到神学的本质，因为绝对的主权权力是一个神学概念。 ${}^{12}$${}^{12}$^(12){ }^{12} 即使是暴君也要依靠臣民的信任，只有神灵才应该拥有绝对的自给自足。由于缺乏真正的社会模式，在不同程度上，一神论信仰中都会出现权力不受制约的概念。神灵是权力本质和理性本质的典范。只有造物主的权力才是无中介的。现代政治思想中的主权主体--自由与民主的基础--并没有摆脱信仰与欲望的束缚。相反，它包含了自己的神学预设，这些预设源自其产生的历史。无论是像有些阿民念主义色彩的约翰-洛克（John Locke）那样将主体与神权分离，还是像有些加尔文主义色彩的本尼迪克特-德-斯宾诺莎（Benedict de Spinoza）那样将主体与神权相提并论，权力的神学模式都是主权与理性的隐含核心。现代政治概念仍然受到其权力概念本身所固有的神学问题的污染。权力依赖于信仰和欲望的元人类流动。

This notion of power as mastery should therefore be subjected to ontological, political, and theological critique. In essence, one may ask whether such a notion of power is true, powerful, or divine. This is not a simple inquiry, for at stake is also the practice of critique. What ideal or criterion can be used to assess this notion of power? What principle can take precedence? And what is the nature of the precedence of such a principle if it is not to be conceived in terms of a theology of sovereignty (understood as originality, independence, or mastery)? Any attempt to retreat to first principles leads to a vicious circle of self-presupposition. The meaning of being, of power, and of divinity is presupposed in modern models of rational, critical inquiry. Indeed, a theology of sovereignty, expressed in the exaltation of originality, independence, and mastery, is implicit within the entire tradition of thought deriving from Greek reason, whether this thought is classical philosophy, medieval theology, or modern critical reason.
因此，权力作为主宰的概念应受到本体论、政治学和神学的批判。从本质上讲，我们可以问这样一种权力概念是否真实、强大或神圣。这不是一个简单的问题，因为这也关系到批判的实践。有什么理想或标准可以用来评估这种权力概念？什么原则可以优先？如果不从主权神学（被理解为独创性、独立性或主宰性）的角度来构想，那么这种原则的优先性又是什么性质呢？任何退回到第一原则的尝试都会导致自我预设的恶性循环。存在、权力和神性的意义在现代理性批判的探究模式中被预设了。事实上，在源于希腊理性的整个思想传统中，无论是古典哲学、中世纪神学还是现代批判理性，都隐含着一种主权神学，表现为对独创性、独立性和主宰性的推崇。

There is, however, an alternative direction of thought. It is possible to enter the mediation of the concrete. The move from representation to reality requires the mediation of the theater of life. One may escape the theology of sovereignty by engaging with immanent problems. ${}^{13}$${}^{13}$^(13){ }^{13} The selection and coordination of active processes of nonhuman powers, of human interactions, and of orientations of belief and desire occurs in reality as well as in the mind. There is a social body that corresponds directly to the power of the imagination in representation. It proceeds similarly through selection and mediation and is a catalyst enabling physical, human, and meta-human configurations of power to interact. We are concerned here with a different kind of causality, a power external to both physical process and human will. It is here that a truly incarnate political theology is to be sought.
然而，还有另一种思考方向。可以进入对具体事物的中介。从表象走向现实需要生活剧场的中介。我们可以通过处理内在问题来摆脱主权神学。 ${}^{13}$${}^{13}$^(13){ }^{13} 非人类力量、人与人之间的互动、信仰与欲望的取向等活动过程的选择与协调，既发生在现实中，也发生在头脑中。有一种社会主体直接对应于表象中的想象力。它同样通过选择和中介进行，是一种催化剂，使物质、人类和超人类的力量配置能够相互作用。在这里，我们关注的是一种不同的因果关系，一种外在于物理过程和人类意志的力量。在这里，我们要寻求的是一种真正意义上的政治神学。

A specifically social form of power is necessary to support the public representations on which the will acts. Such a political body could be the marked and appropriated body of property, or the body of the sovereign, or money itself. ${}^{14}$${}^{14}$^(14){ }^{14} It is a material instance invested with ontological, economic, and theological presuppositions. It forms a stage for the collective exercise of will in the public theater of representation. It mediates causality. It is the body of power. Without this political body, little public exercise of power is possible. One may try to dispose violently of as much property as one wishes, but if one has no title to such property, one risks meeting resistance from counter-violence. One may issue as many decrees as one chooses, yet if one has no authority, this exercise of will comes to nothing.
一种特殊的社会形式的权力是必要的，以支持意志赖以行动的公共表征。这种政治体可以是财产的标记和占有体，也可以是主权者的身体，还可以是货币本身。 ${}^{14}$${}^{14}$^(14){ }^{14} 它是一个被赋予了本体论、经济学和神学预设的物质实例。它构成了在公共表象剧场中集体行使意志的舞台。它是因果关系的中介。它是权力的主体。没有这个政治机构，几乎不可能公开行使权力。人们可以随心所欲地以暴力手段处置财产，但如果对这些财产没有所有权，就有可能遭到反暴力的抵抗。一个人可以随心所欲地发布命令，但如果他没有权力，这种意志的行使就会落空。

One may make as many demands as one pleases, but if one has no money, then one will be unable to purchase. Political power is thus unthinkable without a body that supports it, whether such a body is a weapon of violence, a sovereign authority, or money itself. As Edward Leigh remarked in 1715, “Money, or that which supplies it, is the Sinews of Government both in War and Peace: where that is wanting, nothing can move regularly, the want of Money being the Root of all Political Evil.” ${}^{15}$${}^{15}$^(15){ }^{15}
人们可以随心所欲地提出要求，但如果没有钱，就无法购买。因此，如果没有支持政治权力的机构，政治权力是不可想象的，无论这种机构是暴力武器、主权机构还是金钱本身。正如爱德华-利（Edward Leigh）在 1715 年所说的那样："无论在战争还是和平时期，金钱或提供金钱的东西都是政府的筋骨：如果缺乏金钱，任何事情都无法正常运转，而缺乏金钱则是一切政治罪恶的根源"。 ${}^{15}$${}^{15}$^(15){ }^{15}

The conversion of thought toward concrete reason, by means of a consideration of these political bodies, has a dual effect: it changes the content of reason, turning away from laws and first principles toward concrete problems and mediations, and it changes the nature of reason, since reason no longer stands over and above the concrete but must itself pass through concrete mediation. Reason must go further than representation. The immediate relation of representation to consciousness is a product of the fantasy of omnipotence of an isolated subject, but power is always mediated by selection and by a body. Each political body may operate its own particular kind of causality. Then it is not only the case that a political body is invested with ontological, political, and theological presuppositions. Being itself, power itself, and the divine itself are not immediate representations. One cannot simply claim that being is, that power is powerful, or that God is divine. One cannot discover what such concepts might mean without the mediation of a concrete, political body. Ontological, political, and theological inquiries cannot proceed directly to impose their order, will, and desire on representation without being caught up in a narcissistic fantasy. Indeed, there is no reality or verification, no power or representation, no divinity or credibility without mediation. All ontological, political, and theological inquiries - concerning truth, power, and divinity - need to pass through the mediation of some kind of body that gives substance to their claims. As Jacques Lacan once said, “Man thinks with his object.” ${}^{16}$${}^{16}$^(16){ }^{16} Contemporary philosophy, political theory, and theology can make no further progress without a consideration of money.
通过对这些政治体的思考，思想向具体理性的转化具有双重效果：它改变了理性的内容，从规律和第一性原则转向具体问题和中介；它也改变了理性的性质，因为理性不再凌驾于具体之上，而是本身必须通过具体的中介。理性必须比表象更进一步。表象与意识的直接关系是孤立主体幻想全能的产物，但权力总是以选择和机构为中介。每个政治机构都可以运作自己特定的因果关系。那么，政治机构就不仅仅是被赋予了本体论、政治学和神学的预设。存在本身、权力本身和神性本身都不是直接的表征。我们不能简单地宣称存在是、权力是强大的或上帝是神圣的。如果没有一个具体的政治机构作为中介，人们就无法发现这些概念可能意味着什么。本体论、政治学和神学研究不能直接将自己的秩序、意志和愿望强加于表象，否则就会陷入自恋的幻想之中。事实上，没有中介，就没有现实或验证，没有权力或表征，没有神性或可信性。所有关于真理、权力和神性的本体论、政治学和神学探究，都需要通过某种主体的中介，使其主张具有实质内容。雅克-拉康曾经说过："人与他的对象一起思考"。 ${}^{16}$${}^{16}$^(16){ }^{16} 如果不考虑金钱，当代哲学、政治理论和神学就无法取得更大的进步。

In modernity, money mediates property and sovereignty: one comes into sovereign possession through exchange. Money is itself property belonging to an individual account. Money is also dispersed sovereignty: the capacity
在现代性中，货币是财产和主权的中介：人们通过交换获得主权。货币本身就是属于个人账户的财产。货币也是分散的主权：有能力
of the sovereign to repay debts through future taxation underwrites the value of money. The sovereign body itself, now in the form of the symbols of sovereign power, has become multiplied and dispersed among individuals. Each time money is spent, whether inside or beyond the limits of the particular nation-state, it expresses the sovereign power of the nation whose symbols it bears. Property, sovereignty, and credit become united in the body of money. Money participates in and brings together the realms of the nonhuman, the human, and belief and desire. In modernity, money is the political body par excellence.
主权国家通过未来征税来偿还债务，这也是货币价值的基础。主权主体本身，现在以主权权力象征的形式，变得成倍增加并分散在个人之间。每次花钱，无论是在特定民族国家境内还是境外，都表达了其所象征的国家主权权力。财产、主权和信用在货币的躯体中融为一体。货币参与并汇集了非人、人、信仰和欲望的领域。在现代性中，货币是卓越的政治体。

Money acts as the living symbol of the sovereign individual. It expresses individual power as nothing else can. If the right to dispose of property is exercised to the full, and property is exchanged, then the value of that property is expressed in terms of money as its price. Money substitutes for property after severance of the bonds of ownership. Similarly, the liberty of the sovereign individual to enter into any obligation or contract at will is expressed in terms of money. It is only money that may trade for all other things. Money, in Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s phrase, is “coined liberty.” ${}^{17}$${}^{17}$^(17){ }^{17} Furthermore, money is effective demand, or, in James Buchan’s phrase, “frozen desire.” ${}^{18}$${}^{18}$^(18){ }^{18} It commands order. Without money, there would be no production in a society based on the division of labor. Money gives the motive for production. Money effectively symbolizes the value of property, the sovereignty of freedom, and the power of desire. It is the political body that stands before and represents the individual. Money is the tool through which democracy is realized. Money is the supreme instrument of political expression.
货币是个人主权的活生生的象征。它所表达的个人权力是其他任何东西都无法比拟的。如果充分行使处置财产的权利，并进行财产交换，那么该财产的价值就以货币作为其价格。割断所有权的纽带后，货币取代了财产。同样，主权个人随意签订任何义务或契约的自由也是用货币来表示的。只有货币才能交换所有其他东西。用费奥多尔-陀思妥耶夫斯基的话来说，货币就是 "被创造出来的自由"。 ${}^{17}$${}^{17}$^(17){ }^{17} 此外，货币是有效需求，用詹姆斯-布坎的话说，就是 "冻结的欲望"。 ${}^{18}$${}^{18}$^(18){ }^{18} 它命令秩序。没有货币，以分工为基础的社会就不会有生产。货币提供了生产的动力。货币有效地象征着财产的价值、自由的主权和欲望的力量。它是站在个人面前并代表个人的政治机构。货币是实现民主的工具。货币是政治表达的最高工具。

According to the old saying by George Savile, “They who are of the opinion that Money will do every thing, may very well be suspected to do everything for Money.” ${}^{19}$${}^{19}$^(19){ }^{19} One must consider not only whether money effectively symbolizes the sovereign individual, but also whether the sovereign individual may not be the imaginary reflection of money. One must consider whether power in modernity operates primarily through the sovereignty of the will, or whether power in modernity operates primarily through the active force of money. One must consider whether the beliefs and desires that flow through individuals are not made possible by social institutions such as the market and the nation-state in which the individual’s sovereign will can be exercised. One must consider whether the market itself is not founded on money as the basis for exchange and whether the state itself is not founded on money as the basis for taxation.
乔治-萨维尔有句老话说得好："认为金钱可以做任何事情的人，很可能会被怀疑为金钱做任何事情"。 ${}^{19}$${}^{19}$^(19){ }^{19} 我们不仅要考虑金钱是否有效地象征着主权个人，还要考虑主权个人是否可能是金钱的想象反映。我们必须考虑，现代性的权力是否主要通过意志的主权来运作，或者现代性的权力是否主要通过金钱的积极力量来运作。我们必须思考，流淌在个人身上的信念和欲望是否不是由市场和民族国家等社会机构促成的，在这些机构中，个人的主权意志得以行使。我们必须思考，市场本身是否不是建立在作为交换基础的货币之上，国家本身是否不是建立在作为征税基础的货币之上。

The turn of thought to the mediation of the concrete, therefore, has very little to do with the scientific study of empirical reality, which selects and analyzes reality on the basis of principles, concepts, and formulas embedded in the imagination. Life itself is deprived of its own embodiment, mediation, and fecundity. The consideration of money as a political body is a matter of theology rather than of economic science. This can be explained by means of a concrete example. In his introduction to Grundrisse, Karl Marx famously argued that “civil society,” the society of free individuals detached from natural bonds in free competition, is itself a historical product. The producing individual, using tools and language, is a product of the family and communal society. Only in the eighteenth century did social relations confront the individual as a mere means toward private purposes. ${}^{20}$${}^{20}$^(20){ }^{20} For Marx, if everything - including social forms such as individuals and money - is produced historically, then the social structure is entirely determined by the structure of production. ${}^{21}$${}^{21}$^(21){ }^{21} The individual is itself a representation, a product. Marx attributed primacy to production because everything is produced historically. This seems to be the primacy of temporal order: process comes before product just as subject comes before object. Where the other classical economists took the individual as a presupposition, Marx argued that the individual possessed of property and liberty is itself a historical product - a product of collective labor.
因此，思想转向对具体事物的中介，与对经验现实的科学研究关系不大，后者是根据蕴含在想象中的原则、概念和公式来选择和分析现实的。生活本身被剥夺了其自身的体现性、中介性和丰富性。将货币视为政治体是神学而非经济学的问题。这可以通过一个具体的例子来解释。卡尔-马克思在《基础原理》的导言中提出了一个著名的观点："市民社会"，即脱离自然束缚的自由个体在自由竞争中形成的社会，本身就是一种历史产物。使用工具和语言的生产个人是家庭和公社的产物。只有到了 18 世纪，社会关系才将个人视为实现私人目的的手段。 ${}^{20}$${}^{20}$^(20){ }^{20} 在马克思看来，如果一切--包括个人和货币等社会形式--都是历史地生产出来的，那么社会结构就完全是由生产结构决定的。 ${}^{21}$${}^{21}$^(21){ }^{21} 个人本身就是一种表象，一种产品。马克思把首要地位归于生产，因为一切都是历史地生产出来的。这似乎是时间顺序的优先性：过程先于产品，正如主体先于客体。其他古典经济学家以个人为前提，而马克思则认为，拥有财产和自由的个人本身就是历史的产物--集体劳动的产物。

It is not clear that “social production” or “historical production” are any less derivative than the individual will. Social production, of course, is dependent on tradition, command, or money. ${}^{22}$${}^{22}$^(22){ }^{22} We need to consider whether historical production is dependent on some mediating term that gives it orientation and direction. A few pages later, Marx answered the question differently:
不清楚 "社会生产 "或 "历史生产 "是否比个人意志更少衍生性。社会生产当然依赖于传统、命令或金钱。 ${}^{22}$${}^{22}$^(22){ }^{22} 我们需要考虑的是，历史生产是否依赖于某个中介词，而这个中介词赋予历史生产以方向和指引。几页之后，马克思以不同的方式回答了这个问题：

Nothing seems more natural than to begin with ground rent, with landed property, since this is bound up with the earth, the source of all production and all being, and with the first form of production of all more or less settled societies - agriculture. But nothing would be more erroneous. In all forms of society there is one specific kind of production which predominates over the rest, whose relations thus assign rank and influence to the others. . . . In bourgeois society . . . agriculture more and more becomes merely a branch of industry, and is entirely dominated by capital. Ground rent likewise. In all forms where landed property rules, the natural relation [is] still predominant. In those where capital rules, the social, historically created
没有什么比从地租和土地财产入手更自然的了，因为这与大地--一切生产和一切存在的源泉--以及与所有或多或少定居的社会的第一种生产形式--农业息息相关。但是，没有比这更错误的了。在所有的社会形式中，都有一种特殊的生产方式占主导地位，其关系决定了其他生产方式的地位和影响力。. . .在资产阶级社会中......农业越来越多地仅仅成为工业的一个分支，完全被资本所支配。地租也是如此。在土地财产占统治地位的所有形式中，自然关系仍然占主导地位。在资本统治的地方，社会的、历史创造的
element [is]. Ground rent cannot be understood without capital. But capital can certainly be understood without ground rent. ${}^{23}$${}^{23}$^(23){ }^{23}
要素[是]。没有资本就无法理解地租。但是，没有地租当然也可以理解资本。 ${}^{23}$${}^{23}$^(23){ }^{23} .

The primacy of a natural or temporal order, implicit in the notion of “historical production,” is undermined. ${}^{24}$${}^{24}$^(24){ }^{24} Three principles are enunciated here against what one might consider a “naturalistic fallacy.” First, capital predominates - it exercises a sovereign power. Second, it does so as the historically created element, since social production now organizes natural production. This is only because of the first principle: that capital rules. Third, capital can be understood without ground rent; it is thus based on independent principles of the understanding. Capital is supposed to be independent of agriculture. It is capable of ruling, therefore, because of its independence. Sovereignty derives from a severance of relation.
历史生产 "概念中隐含的自然或时间秩序的首要地位受到了削弱。 ${}^{24}$${}^{24}$^(24){ }^{24} 这里针对人们可能认为的 "自然主义谬论 "阐述了三条原则。第一，资本占主导地位--它行使主权。其次，它是历史上创造出来的要素，因为社会生产现在组织着自然生产。这只是因为第一条原则：资本统治。第三，对资本的理解离不开地租；因此，资本是建立在独立的理解原则之上的。资本应该独立于农业。因此，由于其独立性，它能够进行统治。主权源于关系的分离。

What is at stake here is the specific power of capital, its mode of ruling. This power has something to do with independence, although it is in reality inconceivable that there could be capital without agriculture, just as it is inconceivable that there could be city-states without agriculture. The power would therefore seem to be independence in an order of principles or reasons. Yet this power also has something to do with offering itself as a representative body, “a general illumination which bathes all the other colours . . . a particular ether which determines the specific gravity of every being.” ${}^{25}$${}^{25}$^(25){ }^{25} Indeed, the activity of historical production as well as the exercise of sovereign power may be impossible without such a representative body that mediates all causation. Marx himself broke with historical determinism: “It would therefore be unfeasible and wrong to let the economic categories follow one another in the same sequence as that in which they were historically decisive. Their sequence is determined, rather, by their relation to one another in modern bourgeois society, which is precisely the opposite of that which seems to be their natural order or which corresponds to historical development.” ${}^{26}$${}^{26}$^(26){ }^{26} In bourgeois society, private property as a social reality is a product of money, since landed property is enclosed for the purpose of obtaining money through trade rather than simply obtaining grain through agriculture. Property is only private property when it is capable of being exchanged. Similarly, the liberty of the individual is a product of money, since an individual may be freed from the demands of community, tradition, and authority only by finding other sources to provide for needs, through trading for money. Furthermore, the individual becomes a
这里的关键是资本的特殊权力，即资本的统治模式。这种权力与独立性有关，尽管实际上无法想象没有农业会有资本，正如无法想象没有农业会有城邦一样。因此，这种力量似乎是原则或理由秩序中的独立性。然而，这种力量也与将自身作为一个代表机构有关，它是 "一种普遍的光辉，沐浴着所有其他的色彩......一种特殊的乙醚，决定着一切"。......一种特殊的乙醚，它决定着每个生命的比重"。 ${}^{25}$${}^{25}$^(25){ }^{25} 事实上，如果没有这样一个中介一切因果关系的代表体，历史生产活动以及主权权力的行使可能都是不可能的。马克思本人也打破了历史决定论："因此，让经济范畴按照它们在历史上起决定性作用的相同顺序相继出现是不可行的，也是错误的。相反，它们的先后顺序是由它们在现代资产阶级社会中的相互关系决定的，而这种关系恰恰与似乎是它们的自然顺序或符合历史发展的顺序相反"。 ${}^{26}$${}^{26}$^(26){ }^{26} 在资产阶级社会中，私有财产作为一种社会现实是货币的产物，因为土地财产被圈起来的目的是通过贸易获得货币，而不是简单地通过农业获得粮食。只有当财产能够进行交换时，它才是私有财产。同样，个人的自由也是货币的产物，因为个人只有通过交易换取货币，找到满足需求的其他来源，才能从社区、传统和权威的要求中解放出来。 此外，个人成为
subject of desire, capable of ordering production through demands, only when such demands are made effective through money. The abstract social relations of property, liberty, and desire, removed from their formation in a physical and social context, gain social consistency through money.
欲望的主体，能够通过需求来安排生产，但只有当这种需求通过货币变得有效时才会如此。财产、自由和欲望这些抽象的社会关系脱离了它们在物质和社会环境中的形成，通过货币获得了社会一致性。

One can no longer consider the vital political problem to be that of political subjectivity. It is no longer a question of conscious self-determination, whether as an individual or as a collective. The sovereignty required for such a subject is itself an illusion. Instead, the concrete manifestation of physical and meta-human powers at the end of modernity requires elucidation. Once the context for contemporary intervention is clarified, two subsequent problems become urgent. The first concerns the way in which capital or money predominates, or the mode of exercise of a power that does not appear to be constrained by competing powers. It concerns the essence and exercise of power itself. The second concerns the possibility of bodies of representation. What political bodies can still be created that will attribute a different hue or gravity to all particular things represented under their light? What further concretions can be enabled? How may the value of such values be assessed?
我们不能再把重要的政治问题视为政治主体性问题。无论是作为个人还是作为集体，这都不再是一个有意识的自决问题。这种主体所需的主权本身就是一种幻觉。相反，现代性终结时物质和超人类力量的具体表现需要加以阐明。一旦明确了当代干预的背景，随后的两个问题就变得迫在眉睫。第一个问题涉及资本或金钱占主导地位的方式，或似乎不受竞争权力制约的权力的行使方式。这涉及权力本身的本质和行使。其次是代表机构的可能性。我们还能创造出什么样的政治机构，使在其光照下被代表的所有特定事物具有不同的色调或严重程度？还有哪些具体化的东西可以实现？如何评估这些价值观的价值？

MODERNITY HAS ALWAYS been a utopian myth. The unique reordering of the surface of the planet over the past two hundred years, and especially over the past sixty years, has not occurred through acts of human will and knowledge alone. The contributions of physical processes and other life forms, of instinctive human care and provision, of captivating ideas, and even of money have been immense. One may even wonder whether the human will is a product of such a broader range of processes. Discussion of this point is somewhat academic, however. The end of modernity or the disclosure of modernity as an illusion, whichever is the case, does not arrive as a change in intellectual fashion. It is a brutal, physical, overwhelming reality. It is the breakdown of stable alliances between environmental, human, and meta-human processes. For those afflicted as a result of modernity - by war, contagious disease, loss of land and access to fresh water, loss of networks of social provision, and loss of employment and means of subsistence - modernity has always meant instability and impotence. Modernity has fed off and propagated geographical inequality. ${}^1$${}^1$^(1){ }^{1} And, as will be demonstrated in the chapters that follow, wealth is built on poverty, and knowledge is built on ignorance.
现代性始终是一个乌托邦式的神话。在过去的两百年里，特别是在过去的六十年里，地球表面独一无二的秩序重整，并不是仅仅依靠人类的意志和知识就能实现的。物理过程和其他生命形式、人类本能的照顾和供给、迷人的思想，甚至金钱，都做出了巨大的贡献。人们甚至会怀疑，人类的意志是否是这些更广泛过程的产物。不过，对这一点的讨论多少有些学术性。现代性的终结或现代性作为一种幻象的揭示，无论哪种情况，都不是作为一种思想时尚的变化而到来的。它是一种残酷的、有形的、压倒性的现实。它是环境、人类和超人类进程之间稳定联盟的瓦解。对于那些受现代性影响的人来说--战争、传染病、失去土地和淡水、失去社会供应网络、失去就业和生存手段--现代性总是意味着不稳定和无能。现代性助长了地域不平等。 ${}^1$${}^1$^(1){ }^{1} 而且，正如以下各章所表明的，财富建立在贫困之上，知识建立在无知之上。

The impotence of the modern, rational subject is exposed by instabilities in both physical and meta-human powers. Modernity comes to a final end in the collision between economy and ecology. At the time of first writing (in November 2005), the vast majority of informed opinion has little sense of the inevitability or impact of such a collision. By the time this book reaches many readers, the end of modernity may be so evident
现代理性主体的无能在物质和超人类力量的不稳定中暴露无遗。现代性在经济与生态的碰撞中走向终结。在本书写作之初（2005 年 11 月），绝大多数有识之士对这一碰撞的必然性和影响都知之甚少。当这本书到达许多读者手中时，现代性的终结可能已经非常明显了
that it is pointless to attempt to predict or explain it. For example, the end of modernity engulfed New Orleans in early September 2005 in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. The environment ceased to behave in a stable way necessary for prediction and control; damage was inflicted on the primary source of power for modernity, oil production and refining; the human bonds of modern society evaporated with the flooding of the energy and transportation infrastructure; and, most significant, a climate of fear invaded the otherwise undamaged public institutions responding to the crisis - the media, military, and emergency-management authorities leaving many of them paralyzed and useless, at best, or positively harmful, at worst, for several days. Such is the end of modernity: a generalized state of emergency in which the stability of normal, modern life proves to be the exception rather than the rule. Indeed, the stability of modernity has always been exceptional. The emergency and chaos that are its inevitable by-product are the norm.
因此，试图预测或解释它是毫无意义的。例如，2005 年 9 月初，卡特里娜飓风过后，现代性的终结席卷了新奥尔良。环境不再以预测和控制所需的稳定方式运行；现代性的主要动力源--石油生产和提炼受到破坏；现代社会的人际纽带随着能源和交通基础设施的淹没而烟消云散；最重要的是，恐惧气氛侵袭了应对危机的公共机构--媒体、军队和应急管理机构，使其中许多机构瘫痪数日，轻则毫无用处，重则有害无益。这就是现代性的终结：一种普遍的紧急状态，在这种状态下，正常的现代生活的稳定被证明是例外而非规则。事实上，现代性的稳定一直都是例外。其必然的副产品--紧急和混乱才是常态。

Human agency can achieve mastery only if the physical world behaves predictably. Assumptions of continuity and gradual change have been axiomatic in the development of science from Newton up through the twentieth century, whether in physics, biology, or geology. At the limits, however, discontinuities arise. What is difficult to predict in a complex world, as opposed to an isolated laboratory, is where the thresholds of stable behavior might lie.
只有当物理世界的行为具有可预测性时，人类才能掌握主动。从牛顿到二十世纪的科学发展，无论是物理学、生物学还是地质学，连续性和渐变性的假设都是不言而喻的。然而，在极限处会出现不连续性。与孤立的实验室相比，复杂世界中难以预测的是稳定行为的临界点在哪里。

Dominant narratives of climate change designed to inform policy have until recently focused on the detection of trends rather than the prediction of possibilities. The narrative of abrupt climate change, by contrast, implies that surprises are inevitable. ${}^2$${}^2$^(2){ }^{2} The past ten thousand years (in geologic terms, the Holocene era) have shown a remarkable level of global climatic stability, but even during this period abrupt regional climate changes have been sufficient to wipe out civilizations. ${}^3$${}^3$^(3){ }^{3} Prior to the Holocene era, global average temperatures oscillated much more sharply, according to evidence from the Greenland ice core and from ocean sediments. Abrupt oscillations between colder and milder conditions lasting ten or twenty years were common; vast changes of temperature took place within five
直到最近，旨在为政策提供信息的关于气候变化的主流说法一直侧重于发现趋势，而不是预测可能性。与此相反，关于气候突变的叙述则暗示意外是不可避免的。 ${}^2$${}^2$^(2){ }^{2} 过去的一万年（从地质学的角度看，即全新世时期）显示了全球气候的显著稳定性，但即使在这一时期，地区性的气候突变也足以毁灭文明。 ${}^3$${}^3$^(3){ }^{3} 根据格陵兰冰芯和海洋沉积物的证据，在全新世时代之前，全球平均气温的振荡要剧烈得多。持续十年或二十年的较冷和较温和条件之间的突然振荡很常见；气温的巨大变化发生在五年之内
years. ${}^4$${}^4$^(4){ }^{4} The last warm age, the Eemian period of $135,000-110,000$$135,000-110,000$135,000-110,000135,000-110,000 years ago, had sudden plunges toward ice-age temperatures; only its last two thousand years were stable. ${}^5$${}^5$^(5){ }^{5} In comparison, the past eight thousand years have been strangely stable. Human agricultural and industrial activities have not yet faced the large and rapid climate oscillations typical for most of the last 110,000 years.
年。 ${}^4$${}^4$^(4){ }^{4} 上一个温暖时期，即 $135,000-110,000$$135,000-110,000$135,000-110,000135,000-110,000 年前的埃米时期，气温突然骤降至冰河时期；只有最后两千年是稳定的。 ${}^5$${}^5$^(5){ }^{5} 相比之下，过去的八千年却异常稳定。在过去的 11 万年中，人类的农业和工业活动尚未面临典型的大规模快速气候振荡。

Projections of temperature rises over the coming century depend on the rate of anthropogenic forcing through the emission of greenhouse gases. The mechanisms that trigger abrupt change or establish global stability are as yet poorly understood and can easily escape detection. An abrupt climate change occurs when a threshold is crossed, triggering a transition to a new state at a rate determined by the climate system rather than by the initial cause. For example, the last ice age was followed by another cold spell that lasted for about thirteen centuries. The Younger Dryas period, as that cold spell is known, may have been caused by the melting of a glacier and the resultant change in the drainage pattern of a large freshwater lake in Canada from the Mississippi River basin to the St. Lawrence estuary. This change in route, in turn, redistributed salinity in the North Atlantic and disrupted the prevailing pattern of thermohaline circulation, changing the global climate. Such is the delicacy of the overall climate system. Anthropogenic triggers are potentially more significant. There are many potential candidates for positive feedback processes that trigger abrupt climate change. Greater evaporation from rising sea temperatures near the equator may disrupt the thermohaline circulation of ocean currents through increased precipitation and runoff, causing lower salinity in the Arctic. These changes have been postulated as a potential cause of past dramatic oscillations in the Earth’s climate. The melting of the Greenland and Arctic ice sheets may have a similar effect. Rising sea temperatures in the Arctic may reduce the coverage of the Arctic with ice and, consequently, reduce the albedo effect by which solar radiation is reflected, leading to a self-perpetuating process. Methane gas, released from soils and bogs in the Northern Hemisphere as the permafrost melts, would intensify the greenhouse effect. The drying out of rainforests such as the Amazon as the temperature rises may lead to increased forest fires and the release of carbon dioxide. It has been estimated that small temperature increases would turn forests, oceans, and soils into net sources rather than sinks of greenhouse gases. ${}^6$${}^6$^(6){ }^{6} Increasing
对未来一个世纪气温上升的预测取决于人为温室气体排放的速度。目前，人们对引发突变或建立全球稳定的机制还知之甚少，而且很容易逃避检测。气候骤变发生时，一个临界点被跨越，引发向一个新状态的过渡，过渡速度由气候系统决定，而不是由最初的原因决定。例如，在上一个冰河时期之后，又出现了持续约 13 个世纪的寒流。那次寒流可能是由于冰川融化以及由此导致的加拿大一个大型淡水湖从密西西比河流域到圣劳伦斯河口的排水模式改变而造成的。这种路线的改变反过来又重新分配了北大西洋的盐度，扰乱了当时的温盐环流模式，改变了全球气候。这就是整个气候系统的微妙之处。人为触发因素可能更为重要。引发气候突变的正反馈过程有许多潜在的候选者。赤道附近海温升高导致蒸发量增加，可能会通过增加降水和径流破坏洋流的温盐环流，导致北极地区盐度降低。这些变化被认为是过去地球气候剧烈波动的潜在原因。格陵兰和北极冰原的融化也可能产生类似的影响。北极海温上升可能会减少北极冰的覆盖范围，从而减少反射太阳辐射的反照率效应，导致一个自我循环的过程。 随着永久冻土融化，北半球土壤和沼泽释放的甲烷气体将加剧温室效应。随着气温升高，亚马逊河流域等地的雨林干枯，可能导致森林火灾和二氧化碳释放增加。据估计，气温的小幅上升将使森林、海洋和土壤成为温室气体的净来源而不是吸收汇。 ${}^6$${}^6$^(6){ }^{6} 增加
differences in temperature between ocean beds and surfaces could lead to greater stratification of temperature layers, reducing the flow to the surface of nutrients that feed the phytoplankton on which all sea life depends and that act as a major sink of carbon dioxide. News reports in 2005 and 2006 stated that most of these processes are already under way: Downward currents in the Arctic to drive the Gulf Stream have significantly decreased; levels of ice cover in the Arctic after the summer melt are significantly reduced; the defrosting of the western Siberian peat bog, the size of France and Germany combined, is releasing bubbles of methane; numerous forest fires have broken out; and the Amazon is suffering droughts. ${}^7$${}^7$^(7){ }^{7} In short, if the global climate is normally unstable, and anthropogenically induced climate change triggers a much larger release of carbon, methane, and nitrous oxides - whether from fossil fuels, industrial agriculture, forests, or degradation of the soil-then dramatic changes in temperature are inevitable. Less predictable are the extremes of regional temperature changes that will occur over a period of instability and whether a new stability will be achieved at a much hotter temperature or, as a result of processes yet unknown, a much colder one than the present. Climate models have not yet succeeded in simulating the abrupt climate changes of the past, and the summaries of scientific papers speak only in terms of uncertainties. The results of anthropogenically induced climate change may well include droughts, famines, floods, hurricanes, and forest fires. They may well include the permanent flooding of low-lying countries and coastal cities, which contain a significant proportion of the global population, as well as frequent flooding of a third of agricultural lands. They may result in dramatic and rapid oscillations in temperature or even another ice age. Prediction of the most basic conditions for continued human existence becomes impossible. ${}^8$${}^8$^(8){ }^{8}
海床和海面之间的温差可能导致温度层的分层，减少营养物质向海面的流动，而营养物质是所有海洋生物赖以生存的浮游植物的养料，也是二氧化碳的主要吸收汇。2005 年和 2006 年的新闻报道指出，这些过程大多已经开始：北极地区推动墨西哥湾流的下行气流明显减少；北极地区夏季融化后的冰覆盖水平显著降低；西伯利亚西部泥炭沼泽（面积相当于法国和德国的总和）的解冻正在释放出甲烷气泡；许多森林火灾已经爆发；亚马逊河流域正在遭受干旱。 ${}^7$${}^7$^(7){ }^{7} 简而言之，如果全球气候通常是不稳定的，而人为因素引起的气候变化会引发碳、甲烷和氧化亚氮的大量释放--无论是来自化石燃料、工业化农业、森林还是土壤退化--那么气温的剧烈变化将不可避免。较难预测的是，在一段不稳定时期内会出现哪些极端的区域温度变化，以及新的稳定是否会在一个更热的温度下实现，或者由于尚不清楚的过程，会在一个比现在更冷的温度下实现。气候模型尚未成功模拟过去的气候骤变，科学论文的摘要也只是谈论不确定性。人类引起的气候变化的结果很可能包括干旱、饥荒、洪水、飓风和森林火灾。 它们很可能包括长期淹没低洼国家和沿海城市，而这些地方的人口占全球人口的很大比例，以及经常淹没三分之一的农田。它们还可能导致气温急剧波动，甚至再次出现冰河时期。预测人类继续生存的最基本条件变得不可能。 ${}^8$${}^8$^(8){ }^{8}

At the end of modernity, a second, perhaps more imminent, catastrophe is also waiting to happen. The finitude of environmental resources such as fossil fuels, fresh water, fertile soil, forests, biodiversity, and pollution sinks threatens to destabilize the global economy. It is already possible to gain a sense of the scale of this collision course, if not its ultimate consequences. A paper presented in 2002 to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, “Tracking the Ecological Overshoot of the Human Economy,” aggregated the area needed for cropland, grazing, forestry, fishing, and human habitation, as
在现代性的尽头，第二场或许更加迫在眉睫的灾难也在等待着发生。化石燃料、淡水、肥沃土壤、森林、生物多样性和污染汇等环境资源的有限性威胁着全球经济的稳定。我们已经可以感受到这一碰撞的规模，甚至其最终后果。2002 年提交给美国国家科学院的一篇题为 "追踪人类经济的生态过剩 "的论文将耕地、放牧、林业、渔业和人类居住所需的面积合计为
well as for the absorption of carbon dioxide, and concluded that the human economy has exceeded the carrying capacity of the planet since 1980. In 2002, some 1.2 Planet Earths were needed to sustain levels of consumption. Moreover, if 12 percent of the planet were set aside for the preservation of biodiversity, which contributes to a wide variety of essential environmental services, then the figure would be closer to 1.4 Earths. ${}^9$${}^9$^(9){ }^{9}
该研究得出的结论是，自 1980 年以来，人类经济已经超过了地球的承载能力。2002 年，大约需要 1.2 个地球才能维持消费水平。此外，如果将地球上 12% 的面积用于保护生物多样性，那么这个数字将接近 1.4 个地球。 ${}^9$${}^9$^(9){ }^{9}

We are consuming our own collective body. Because wealth is inevitably perceived in terms of physical consumption by embodied human beings, economic growth necessitates an increase in consumption. A global growth in wealth and consumption of 2.8 percent per annum (the average in 2000-2004) would be sufficient to double this load within twenty-five years. For low-income countries, with a total population of 2.3 billion and a growth rate in the gross domestic product (GDP) of 5.1 percent over this period, consumption would double in merely fourteen years. ${}^{10}$${}^{10}$^(10){ }^{10} Clearly, vital instabilities will arise at a global level within twenty-five years. Most of the effects of overshoot will be regional, since fertile soil, fresh water, forests, and even natural gas have limited transportability. The effects have comparatively little impact on the lives of the wealthy. The global crisis emerging from the collision between economic growth and ecological finitude must therefore arise from a deficiency of oil supplies. While an intelligent layman could have predicted this some years ago (it was in early 2001 that this reasoning led me to check the data on the remaining years of oil reserves at the current rates of production) there is now a burgeoning literature on the fossil-fuel crisis as the end of modernity. ${}^{11}$${}^{11}$^(11){ }^{11}
我们正在消费自己的集体身体。由于财富不可避免地体现为人类的物质消费，因此经济增长必然导致消费增长。如果全球财富和消费每年增长 2.8%（2000-2004 年的平均水平），就足以在二十五年内将这一负担翻一番。低收入国家的总人口为 23 亿，这一时期的国内生产总值（GDP）增长率为 5.1%，仅需 14 年，消费就会翻一番。 ${}^{10}$${}^{10}$^(10){ }^{10} 显然，在二十五年内，全球范围内将出现重大的不稳定因素。由于肥沃的土壤、淡水、森林，甚至天然气的运输能力有限，因此过度膨胀的大部分影响将是区域性的。这些影响对富人的生活影响相对较小。因此，经济增长与生态有限性之间的碰撞所产生的全球危机一定是由石油供应不足引起的。尽管一个聪明的门外汉早在几年前就能预测到这一点（2001 年初，这一推理促使我查看了以目前的生产率计算的剩余石油储量年限的数据），但现在关于化石燃料危机是现代性终结的文献却在不断涌现。 ${}^{11}$${}^{11}$^(11){ }^{11} .

The carbon burned in fossil fuels amounts to the consumption of four centuries’ worth of total primary plant growth each year. Oil deposits derive from a few epochs of extreme global warming when the atmosphere was filled with carbon dioxide, which fostered prolific algal growth that effectively poisoned the seas and lakes. Deposits of algae were later converted into oil. The geology of oil is well understood, and there are few deposits left to find; extrapolation from the rate of past finds suggests that 90 percent of recoverable reserves have already been discovered. Indeed, more oil has been produced than discovered for each of the past thirty years. With the peak of discovery in the early 1960s, and cumulative production lagging discovery by thirty-eight years, the final peak of oil production is approaching very shortly. For example, rates of oil and natural-gas produc-
化石燃料中燃烧的碳相当于每年消耗四个世纪植物原始生长的总量。石油沉积源于全球极度变暖的几个时代，当时大气中充满了二氧化碳，促进了藻类的大量生长，这实际上毒害了海洋和湖泊。藻类沉积物后来转化成了石油。人们对石油的地质学已经有了很好的了解，现在已经没有什么矿藏可以找到了；根据过去的发现速度推断，90% 的可采储量已经被发现。事实上，在过去的三十年中，每年生产的石油都多于发现的石油。石油发现的高峰期在 20 世纪 60 年代初，累计产量比石油发现的高峰期晚了 38 年，因此石油产量的最终高峰期很快就会到来。例如，石油和天然气的生产率
tion in the United States and United Kingdom are set to fall sharply over the next ten years. While some estimates of the date of oil’s peak place it as far away as 2037, these are largely speculative. ${}^{12}$${}^{12}$^(12){ }^{12} Credible estimates place it in the current decade. Whatever the precise date, the peak of fossil-fuel production signals the end of modernity. During the twentieth century, the global population expanded sixfold, exactly in parallel with oil production. ${}^{13}$${}^{13}$^(13){ }^{13} Fossil fuels are an essential part of most aspects of food production, including transport, the construction and operation of farm machinery, the production and use of fertilizer and pesticides, the generation of electricity for refrigeration and storage, and cooking. Given the ease of storing and transporting fossil fuels, and the small amount of energy required to extract them from the ground, there are no effective alternatives for use on a similar scale. ${}^{14}$${}^{14}$^(14){ }^{14} At the same time, the world’s level of energy consumption will double in a mere twenty-eight years, driven by population growth, industrial development, and increasing per capita energy use. The collision between supply and demand will take place within a decade. ${}^{15}$${}^{15}$^(15){ }^{15} (Indeed, I now regard the credit crisis of 2008 as the first phase of the collision: the rise in oil prices and consequent inflation led to the rise of interest rates, triggering the failure of subprime loans.) Given the extent of the degradation of the soil by industrial agriculture over the past century, the global population looks set to plummet toward preindustrial levels over the next thirty years. ${}^{16}$${}^{16}$^(16){ }^{16} The consequences will be worst in countries with poor soils and dense populations, as well as in countries heavily affected by climate change.
未来十年，美国和英国的石油产量将急剧下降。虽然一些关于石油峰值日期的估计远至 2037 年，但这在很大程度上是推测。 ${}^{12}$${}^{12}$^(12){ }^{12} 可靠的估计是在本十年内。无论确切日期如何，化石燃料生产的峰值都预示着现代性的终结。在 20 世纪，全球人口增长了六倍，与石油生产正好同步。 ${}^{13}$${}^{13}$^(13){ }^{13} 化石燃料是粮食生产大部分环节的重要组成部分，包括运输、农业机械的制造和操作、化肥和杀虫剂的生产和使用、用于冷藏和储存的发电以及烹饪。鉴于化石燃料易于储存和运输，而且从地下开采化石燃料所需的能源很少，因此没有有效的替代品可用于类似的规模。 ${}^{14}$${}^{14}$^(14){ }^{14} 与此同时，在人口增长、工业发展和人均能源使用量增加的推动下，世界能源消耗水平将在短短二十八年内翻一番。供需之间的碰撞将在十年内发生。 ${}^{15}$${}^{15}$^(15){ }^{15} （事实上，我现在将 2008 年的信贷危机视为碰撞的第一阶段：石油价格上涨和随之而来的通货膨胀导致利率上升，引发了次级贷款的失败）。鉴于工业化农业在过去一个世纪中造成的土壤退化程度，全球人口在未来三十年中将急剧下降到工业化前的水平。 ${}^{16}$${}^{16}$^(16){ }^{16} 在土壤贫瘠、人口稠密的国家以及受气候变化影响严重的国家，后果将最为严重。

The end of modernity will be met by climatic instability, fuel poverty, food shortages, disease, social unrest, conflict, and war. In a time of shrinking rather than growing resources, few of the economic and political values of modernity can be preserved. A social order propagated through mass communications rather than personal relations will demonstrate very little resilience. Catastrophes and abominations of hitherto unimagined proportions are almost inevitable.
气候不稳定、燃料匮乏、粮食短缺、疾病、社会动荡、冲突和战争将是现代性的终结。在资源不断减少而不是增加的时代，现代性的经济和政治价值几乎无法保留。通过大众传播而非人际关系传播的社会秩序将表现出极小的适应力。前所未有的灾难和灾难几乎不可避免。

The aim of this summary is not to persuade people of the coming catastrophe of the end of modernity, as events themselves will do this more rapidly and effectively. The argument is, rather, that the modern age has been built on the power of fossil fuels rather than the human will alone. It is difficult to summon up political will when one is afflicted by physical in-
这篇摘要的目的不是要说服人们现代性终结的灾难即将来临，因为事件本身会更迅速、更有效地做到这一点。我们的论点是，现代性是建立在化石燃料的力量之上，而不仅仅是人类的意愿。当一个人的身体出现问题时，是很难唤起政治意愿的。
stabilities, whether in the environment, in access to essential resources, or in health. Any account of the political that begins with the will alone must be deficient. Any account of the economy that begins with human labor, as opposed to the labor of the soil, of domestic animals, and of fossil fuels, is deficient. Moreover, once the self-referential circle of the human will is breached, the way is opened for other interventions and forces.
无论是在环境、获得基本资源方面，还是在健康方面。任何仅从意志出发的政治论述都是有缺陷的。任何以人类劳动为出发点，而不是以土壤、家畜和化石燃料的劳动为出发点的经济学说都是有缺陷的。此外，一旦人类意志的自我反思圈子被打破，就会为其他干预和力量开辟道路。

In modern thought, concepts are formed by a process of abstraction and representation. Humanity can only achieve mastery if concepts retain their identities through this process. Should concepts dissimulate and nature prove to be unnatural, power prove to be subservience, wealth prove to be poverty, democracy prove to be tyranny, or freedom prove to be constraint, then concepts will be insufficiently stable to inform the will.
在现代思想中，概念是通过抽象和表象的过程形成的。只有当概念在这一过程中保持其特性时，人类才能成为主宰。如果概念发生异化，自然被证明是不自然的，权力被证明是顺从的，财富被证明是贫穷的，民主被证明是专制的，自由被证明是约束的，那么概念就会不够稳定，无法为意志提供依据。

The normal procedure is to attempt to stabilize concepts through the sovereign decree of definition. Definition may establish a network of conceptual relations, but it does little to guarantee the authenticity of representation, as the existence of relatively more and less useful definitions shows. Instead, it is essential that the process of abstraction and representation preserve the nature of the abstraction designated by the concept. Abstraction cannot be allowed to compromise fidelity. Herein lies a peculiar difficulty: abstraction is a selective procedure. In the representations of the sovereign subject, the selection cannot be performed by the nature that is to be selected; it must therefore be performed in representation itself, with the abstraction as its own criterion. Abstract concepts precede the sovereignty of the thinking subject as the conditions and criteria for representation. They are at once what is represented and what enables representation. They are like the courtiers who flatter their sovereign as to the wisdom and originality of his decisions while at the same time they serve as his sole sources of information, manipulating an inevitable outcome. They are like the bureaucrats who govern elected politicians without those politicians’ knowledge. This self-referentiality has the effect of self-confirmation, excluding all that is different from consideration. There is no longer a test of fidelity to the matter at hand.
通常的做法是试图通过定义的主权法令来稳定概念。定义可以建立一个概念关系网络，但却无法保证表征的真实性，正如存在着相对更有用和更没用的定义所表明的那样。相反，抽象和表征的过程必须保持概念所指定的抽象的性质。不能让抽象损害忠实性。这里存在着一个特殊的困难：抽象是一个选择性的过程。在主权主体的表象中，选择不能由要被选择的性质来完成；因此，它必须在表象本身中完成，以抽象作为自己的标准。抽象概念先于思维主体的主权，是表象的条件和标准。抽象概念既是被表象的东西，也是使表象成为可能的东西。它们就像谄媚君主的廷臣，一方面奉承君主的决策英明独到，另一方面又充当君主唯一的信息来源，操纵着不可避免的结果。他们就像官僚，在民选政治家不知情的情况下管理这些政治家。这种自我参照产生了自我确认的效果，将所有不同的东西都排除在考虑之外。不再有检验是否忠实于手头事务的标准。

The manipulation of concepts to appeal to immediate interests and pas-
操纵概念以迎合眼前利益和过往经验
sions is a perennial and widely acknowledged tool of propaganda. It is rarely acknowledged that reason will inevitably be supplanted in such a process. For if consciousness is informed by a process of representation, then one will only select for representation that which contributes to a judgment that will continue such representation. Imagination has its own process of natural selection, its own economy of survival. The vividness of concepts depends more on their conceptual coherence and self-referentiality in specific circumstances than it does on the nature of those circumstances. These paradoxes are well illustrated by the concept of democracy. Democracy consists in the identity of the governed and the governing. It is a reactive conceptual formulation, taking its notion of “governing” from the sovereign institutions, such as absolute monarchy, that it historically opposes. Carl Schmitt noted the paradox here: in a democracy, the sovereign, whether an assembly composed of or representing all citizens, can change laws and constitutions at will, without the limitations imposed on monarchy or aristocracy. ${}^{17}$${}^{17}$^(17){ }^{17} Indeed, in a democracy, where each consents to be governed by the collective will, there is a capacity for unrestricted domination. As Schmitt points out, it matters little whether the collective will is determined by the majority or whether it is determined only by a minority, perhaps even the executive, as in the case of war. The collective will must be obeyed without appeal. For Schmitt, the “people” - referring to those who govern and are governed - is a public category. Note the self-referentiality here. How can one have a public without a people or a people without a public? For Schmitt, then, ballots and opinion polls are insufficient to form the will of the people. The “unanimous opinion of one hundred million private persons is neither the will of the people nor public opinion.” ${}^{18}$${}^{18}$^(18){ }^{18} The key issue is neither the will of the people nor the will of the executive but the process by which the public will is formed, both as a general will through a constitutional process and as public opinion through information and discussion. Democracy is fated to destroy itself in the formation of the will. ${}^{19}$${}^{19}$^(19){ }^{19} In the last instance, it is neither the people nor the executive that govern but the processes of formation of a public will. The public will is compatible with dictatorship or almost any other kind of government. Every significant political power can hope to form the people’s will and so identify with the will of the people. ${}^{20}$${}^{20}$^(20){ }^{20}
在这个过程中，理性将不可避免地被取代。人们很少意识到，在这一过程中，理性将不可避免地被取代。因为，如果意识是通过表象过程获得的，那么人们只会选择那些有助于作出判断的表象，从而使这种表象得以延续。想象有其自身的自然选择过程，有其自身的生存经济。概念的生动性更多地取决于它们在特定环境中的概念一致性和自我参照性，而不是这些环境的性质。民主概念很好地说明了这些悖论。民主包括被统治者和统治者的同一性。它是一种被动的概念表述，其 "统治 "概念来自于它在历史上所反对的主权体制，如绝对君主制。卡尔-施米特（Carl Schmitt）指出了这里的悖论：在民主制度中，主权者，无论是由全体公民组成的议会，还是代表全体公民的议会，都可以随意修改法律和宪法，而不受君主制或贵族制的限制。 ${}^{17}$${}^{17}$^(17){ }^{17} 事实上，在民主制中，每个人都同意接受集体意志的支配，因此就有了不受限制的支配能力。正如施米特所指出的，集体意志是由多数人决定，还是只由少数人决定，甚至是由行政部门决定，这并不重要，就像在战争中一样。集体意志必须服从，不得上诉。在施米特看来，"人民"--指那些统治者和被统治者--是一个公共范畴。请注意这里的自我暗示。没有人民，何来公共；没有公共，何来人民？ 因此，在施米特看来，选票和民意调查不足以形成人民的意志。一亿私人的一致意见既不是人民的意志，也不是民意。 ${}^{18}$${}^{18}$^(18){ }^{18} 问题的关键既不在于人民的意志，也不在于行政的意志，而在于公众意志的形成过程，既包括通过宪法程序形成的普遍意志，也包括通过信息和讨论形成的公众意见。民主注定要在意志的形成过程中自我毁灭。 ${}^{19}$${}^{19}$^(19){ }^{19} 最后，治理国家的既不是人民，也不是行政部门，而是公共意志的形成过程。公共意志与独裁或几乎任何其他类型的政府都是兼容的。每一个重要的政治力量都希望形成人民的意志，从而认同人民的意志。 ${}^{20}$${}^{20}$^(20){ }^{20}

Joseph Schumpeter has similarly pointed out that the will of the people
约瑟夫-熊彼特同样指出，人民的意愿
requires a conception of a common good around which the will of the people can be unified. ${}^{21}$${}^{21}$^(21){ }^{21} For the collective will to be public, it must be represented, and in that respect it requires a determinate object. The problem for democracy here is that such a conception of the common good appears to be lacking. The mechanisms of liberal democracy, including freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of discussion, produce an unrestrained clash of opinions. The role of mediation comes to the fore once more. It is one thing to have an abstract freedom of speech and another to be effectively heard. In the clash of opinion, opinions are not heard more vividly if they speak the truth, for the truth can be verified only by the confirmation of further vivid opinions. Instead, opinions must flatter the audience they attempt to attract; they must appeal to passions and immediate interests. The resolution of this competition - where liberal-democratic mechanisms give weight to the majority-must be a utilitarian conception of the common good, the greatest happiness of the greatest number. This is not the triumph of liberal ideology but the effect of mechanisms of conflict and competition. Moreover, this utilitarian conception can be little other than a materialistic conception of the common good as the creation of wealth, for no other conception can survive the test of liberal discussion. The creation of wealth alone has universal appeal to immediate interests.
${}^{21}$${}^{21}$^(21){ }^{21} 要使集体意志具有公共性，就必须代表集体意志，这就需要一个确定的对象。 ${}^{21}$${}^{21}$^(21){ }^{21} 要使集体意志具有公共性，它就必须被代表，在这方面，它需要一个确定的对象。民主在这方面的问题在于，似乎缺乏这样一种共同利益的概念。自由民主的机制，包括言论自由、新闻自由、集会自由和讨论自由，产生了无拘无束的意见冲突。调解的作用再次凸显。抽象的言论自由是一回事，有效地听取意见又是另一回事。在意见冲突中，如果意见说的是真话，就不会被更生动地听到，因为只有通过更生动的意见的证实才能验证真话。相反，观点必须奉承它们试图吸引的听众；它们必须迎合激情和切身利益。解决这种竞争的办法--在自由民主机制中，大多数人的权重--必须是共同利益的功利主义理念，即最大多数人的最大幸福。这不是自由主义意识形态的胜利，而是冲突和竞争机制的结果。此外，这种功利主义观念只能是一种将共同利益视为创造财富的唯物主义观念，因为任何其他观念都经不起自由主义讨论的考验。只有创造财富才对眼前利益具有普遍的吸引力。

The stability of liberal democracy depends on the stability of its concept of wealth. In a liberal democracy, the consumer appears to be sovereign. The people, governed by the vision of the common good of consumption, are fated to serve the creation of wealth. This vision might not, without considerable advertising propaganda and institutional conditioning, correspond to the private will. Yet no other outcome is possible. Capitalism is a process of continual restructuring for the sake of maximizing consumption. Consumption, of course, rests on production, and production rests on machines, resources, people, and organizations. The sovereignty of consumption results in the subservience of production; for each act of consumption there is an extended network of producers engaged in production, often beyond the confines of the democratic state. The inevitable outcome of a liberal democracy, lacking a collective determination of higher goods, is subjection to consumer desire. Production no longer has a universal representation like consumption; it cannot form the basis for agreement
自由民主的稳定性取决于其财富概念的稳定性。在自由民主制度中，消费者似乎是至高无上的。人民受消费的共同利益愿景支配，注定要为创造财富服务。如果没有大量的广告宣传和制度约束，这一愿景可能并不符合私人意愿。然而，不可能有其他结果。资本主义是一个为实现消费最大化而不断重组的过程。当然，消费依赖于生产，而生产依赖于机器、资源、人和组织。消费的主权导致生产的从属；每一个消费行为都有一个从事生产的生产者的扩展网络，往往超出了民主国家的范围。自由民主缺乏对高级商品的集体决定权，其必然结果就是屈从于消费欲望。生产不再像消费那样具有普遍的代表性，它无法成为达成协议的基础。
on the common good. Wealth is necessarily dualistic and unequal. It involves domination and poverty. The stability of democracy depends on keeping this poverty beyond the confines of expression in a political will. As Schmitt noted, if democracy requires the equality of the homogeneous on the basis of, for example, membership in a nation, it also necessarily requires the elimination of the heterogeneous from political representation. ${}^{22}$${}^{22}$^(22){ }^{22} The foreign and unequal, but also the animal and nonhuman, as well as higher values or spectral forces, are excluded from political representation. Democracy constructs the homogeneity of the collective will to which it appeals. In sum, the concept of democracy dissimulates. Beneath the ideals that it conjures up, it facilitates the domination of the people by consumer desire and money.
共同利益。财富必然是二元的、不平等的。它涉及统治和贫困。民主的稳定性取决于将这种贫困保持在政治意愿表达的范围之外。正如施米特所指出的，如果民主要求同质者在国家成员资格等基础上平等，那么它也必然要求异质者被排除在政治代表之外。 ${}^{22}$${}^{22}$^(22){ }^{22} 外来的、不平等的、动物的、非人类的，以及更高的价值或幽灵力量，都被排除在政治代表之外。民主建构了它所诉求的集体意志的同一性。总之，民主的概念是异化的。在它所唤起的理想之下，它助长了消费欲望和金钱对人民的支配。

Democracy is merely a polemical principle, an organizational form without political content. ${}^{23}$${}^{23}$^(23){ }^{23} Historically, it has often been supplemented by liberal norms of discussion and openness: persuading an opponent or allowing oneself to be persuaded of the truth or justice of something. The assumption is that truth or justice will predominate in free and open discussion. The problem of representation recurs here once again. Representation necessarily isolates an individual from its context. It separates the object from its environment. It imposes a hierarchical dualism between object and environment. The environment is treated as background, excluded from the value of the object, defined and explained in terms of the object, stereotyped, and homogenized. ${}^{24}$${}^{24}$^(24){ }^{24} All representation is partial, obscuring truth and propagating injustice. All representation is misrepresentation; all representation imposes its own values in advance. Representation has little facility for propagating truth and justice, because truth and justice are independent of opinion and representation. The paradox of representation is that, although matters that are true and right may be represented, the truth or justice of such matters cannot be represented in their independence from representation. Truth and justice exceed all representation. If one attempts to represent them, then they are produced by thought and are no longer independent of representation. If one merely appeals to their independence, then they are not represented at all. In short, democratic discussion is doomed to fail - not because people are insufficiently ascetic to pursue truth at the expense of their own interests, but because the interests of reason already exist that determine the conditions of representation. All of the common complaints about democracy in practice emerge from
民主只是一种论战原则，一种没有政治内容的组织形式。 ${}^{23}$${}^{23}$^(23){ }^{23} 从历史上看，民主常常辅之以自由主义的讨论和开放准则：说服对手或允许自己被说服，以证明某事的真理或正义。其假设是，在自由和公开的讨论中，真理或正义将占主导地位。这里再次出现了代表性问题。表象必然会将个体与其环境隔离开来。它将对象与其环境分离开来。它在对象与环境之间强加了一种等级森严的二元论。环境被视为背景，被排除在对象的价值之外，根据对象来定义和解释，被定型，被同质化。 ${}^{24}$${}^{24}$^(24){ }^{24} 所有的表象都是片面的，掩盖了真相，传播了不公正。所有的表象都是错误的表象；所有的表象都事先强加了自己的价值观。表象在传播真理和正义方面没有什么便利条件，因为真理和正义是独立于观点和表象的。表述的悖论在于，尽管真实和正确的事物可以被表述，但这些事物的真理或正义却无法脱离表述而独立存在。真理和正义超越一切表象。如果人们试图表征它们，那么它们就是由思想产生的，不再独立于表征。如果人们只是呼吁它们的独立性，那么它们就根本没有代表性。简而言之，民主讨论注定要失败--不是因为人们不够禁欲，不能以牺牲自身利益为代价来追求真理，而是因为理性的利益已经存在，决定了表征的条件。 对民主实践的所有常见抱怨都源于
this structural problem: the degeneration of democracy into a struggle of party interests, the banality of debate, the politics of personalities, the irrationality of human behavior, the manipulation of opinion by propaganda, the secrecy of real decision making outside public debate, and the determination of politics by economic realities. None of these failings are new. Democracy is corrupted at the origin because it subscribes to an impossible ideal.
这一结构性问题是：民主沦为党派利益之争、辩论的平庸化、个人政治、人类行为的非理性、宣传对舆论的操纵、公开辩论之外真正决策的秘密性以及经济现实对政治的决定。这些弊端都不是新出现的。民主之所以堕落，根源在于它信奉的是一种不可能实现的理想。

Similarly, the political ideal of freedom echoes modern humanism. It is freedom from public representations of divine command or the sacred common good; it is freedom to determine one’s will by entering into contracts in the marketplace; and it is freedom to master a portion of nature or dispose of one’s property as one pleases. Lacking public representations or manifestations of a common good, free and open debate must necessarily settle on such individual freedom as its lowest common denominator. Once guarding against threats to the individual or property becomes the essence of the common good, then manipulation of fear becomes the pre-eminent tool of governance, and absolute rule by the state may be sanctioned to defend against an emergency. Yet this very perception of the primacy of threat and consequent absolutism derives not from taking freedom and property as ontological points of departure. Instead, the positing of freedom and property as a basis derives from the mechanisms of representation and discussion themselves. For freedom and property alone have universal appeal to immediate interests.
同样，自由的政治理想与现代人文主义遥相呼应。它是不受神谕或神圣的共同利益的公开表述的自由；它是通过在市场上签订合同来决定自己意愿的自由；它是随心所欲地掌握自然的一部分或处置自己财产的自由。由于缺乏对共同利益的公开表述或体现，自由和公开的辩论必然以这种个人自由作为其最小公分母。一旦防范对个人或财产的威胁成为共同利益的本质，那么操纵恐惧就成了最重要的治理工具，国家的绝对统治就可能被认可来抵御紧急情况。然而，这种威胁至上的观念以及随之而来的专制主义，并非源于将自由和财产作为本体论的出发点。相反，以自由和财产为基础的假设源于表述和讨论机制本身。因为只有自由和财产才对切身利益具有普遍的吸引力。

Just as the collective will of democracy requires the creation of wealth as the object that makes it possible, it also requires an assumption of the free individual as subject of this will. Failing the public representation of truth and justice, however, there is no other form of persuasion than the manipulation of opinion. Just as in the sphere of economics, where freedom to consume is dependent on the constraint on others to produce, so also in politics, freedom of expression is dependent on the constraint on others to be persuaded. Universal freedom is only possible in an ideal world without context. The modern quest for wealth - the increasing domination of the natural world - and freedom - the separation from natural constraint and social obligation - are illusions, impossible ideals born of representation and abstraction, projections of an idealized condition in which humanity cannot survive or flourish.
正如民主的集体意志要求以创造财富为目标，它也要求假定自由的个人是这一意志的主体。然而，如果真理和正义不能被公众所代表，那么除了操纵舆论之外，就别无其他说服方式了。正如在经济领域，消费自由取决于对他人生产的约束一样，在政治领域，表达自由也取决于对他人被说服的约束。普遍自由只有在没有背景的理想世界中才有可能实现。现代人对财富的追求--对自然世界的日益支配--以及对自由的追求--摆脱自然约束和社会义务--都是幻想，是由表象和抽象产生的不可能的理想，是人类无法生存或繁荣的理想化状态的投射。

In the last instance, representation rests on a utopian faith. Modern
在最后一种情况下，代表性建立在乌托邦式的信仰之上。现代
values are supported not by nature or reason but by nothing less than a secular theology. Theological questions may be reintroduced as soon as one places representation - that which abstracts from time - back within time. Saving time forms the essence of the modern project of emancipation. Only when one is liberated from the constraints of natural necessity that may foreshorten our life spans, and one is liberated from the constraints of social obligation that occupy our time, does one have the freedom to become what one wishes to be. The aspiration is for a condition of atheism where one is finally unconditioned by God or nature. Economic rationality depends on a symbolization of time so that a calculation can be performed that minimizes relative expenditure while maximizing control over nature through technology and maximizing control over social obligation through money. The certainty that attaches to economic rationality derives from its proofs in practice: technological invention and acquisition of wealth. Yet the knowledge, power, and wealth acquired are always local and partial. Projecting a future when liberation will be complete, economic rationality is faith seeking understanding. In this total future, abstract symbols of time will effectively represent time as open, empty, and undetermined in a glorious, heavenly future where the passage of time is no longer constrained by natural necessity or social obligation. Trust in the transcendent will vanish only when one finally attains the complete repeatability and universality required for scientific certainty, and when all knowledge is grounded on evidence. Only as such will the secular sphere be constituted, the sphere of the present age untrammeled by obligation to repeat the past or anxious expectation of the judgments of the future, where all causes are mediated to their consequences by knowledge.
价值观的支撑不是自然或理性，而是世俗神学。只要我们将抽象出时间的表象重新置于时间之中，神学问题就会重新出现。节约时间构成了现代解放计划的精髓。只有当一个人从可能缩短我们寿命的自然需要的束缚中解放出来，从占据我们时间的社会义务的束缚中解放出来，他才有自由成为他希望成为的人。人们渴望的是一种无神论状态，即最终不受上帝或自然的制约。经济理性依赖于时间的符号化，这样就可以进行计算，使相对支出最小化，同时通过技术最大限度地控制自然，通过金钱最大限度地控制社会义务。经济理性的确定性来自于其在实践中的证明：技术发明和财富获取。然而，获得的知识、权力和财富总是局部的、片面的。经济理性是一种寻求理解的信仰，它预测的是一个完全解放的未来。在这个完全的未来，抽象的时间符号将有效地代表开放、空洞和不确定的时间，在这个光辉灿烂的天堂般的未来，时间的流逝不再受制于自然的必然性或社会的义务。只有当人们最终达到科学确定性所要求的完全可重复性和普遍性，当所有知识都建立在证据的基础上时，对超验者的信任才会消失。 只有这样，才能构成世俗的领域，才能构成不受重复过去的义务或对未来判断的焦虑期待所束缚的当代领域，在这个领域中，所有的原因都以知识为中介而产生结果。

To attain such a condition, however, it is necessary to short-circuit expectations and treat the secular age as though it were present, here and now. One projects hypotheses about the natural world before one can test and correct them. Similarly, in the sphere of value, one estimates the price of a commodity in relation to other commodities, needs, and interests. This very anticipation, this very faith, introduces a distortion into emancipatory practice, producing ignorance and slavery. For one has to project the secular utopia as already attained in order to construct the world of nature or the sphere of value. The result is a totalization that attempts to effect both a formal and a real subsumption of reality. Concepts of nature, value, so-
然而，要达到这样的境界，就必须缩短期望的时间，把世俗时代当作此时此地的现实来对待。人们在对自然世界做出假设之前，先要对其进行检验和修正。同样，在价值领域，人们根据其他商品、需求和利益来估算商品的价格。这种预测，这种信仰，给解放实践带来了扭曲，产生了无知和奴役。因为人们必须预测已经实现的世俗乌托邦，以构建自然世界或价值领域。其结果是一种总体化，试图对现实进行形式上和实际上的归纳。自然的概念、价值的概念、......
ciety, necessity, power, wealth, freedom, and even money are abstractions that depend on a prior totalization, as though the system of exchange and relation that constitutes the world were universal. In each case, a representation of material life, which functions as a medium of social interaction, assumes an autonomy from social interaction as soon as it is posited as existing in itself. It maintains such an autonomy only by attempting to realize itself, by effecting first a formal and then a real subsumption of material life under its organizing categories. In short, the material, secular, natural, and social worlds have no ontological purchase. They are representations that exist only insofar as they attempt to realize themselves. They possess an abstract unity that can never be realized in practice.
社会、必要性、权力、财富、自由甚至金钱都是抽象概念，它们依赖于先验的总体化，就好像构成世界的交换和关系体系是普遍的一样。在每一种情况下，作为社会互动媒介的物质生活表征，一旦被假定为存在于自身之中，就会从社会互动中获得自主性。它只有通过试图实现自身，通过首先在形式上、然后在实质上将物质生活归入其组织范畴，才能保持这种自主性。简而言之，物质世界、世俗世界、自然世界和社会世界都没有本体论上的购买力。它们是表象，只有在它们试图实现自身时才会存在。它们具有一种抽象的统一性，但在实践中却永远无法实现。

The mechanism for the constitution of the secular order of nature, or the “novo ordo seclorum” celebrated on the dollar bill, is explained by money. We return to the problem of the specific power of money to venture a preliminary exposition. This mechanism, the dominant political “energy” of modernity, can be summarized briefly here. It will be elaborated subsequently. Failing the arrival of the universal, secular utopia, one substitutes a particular for the universal in anticipation of the universal. In Grundrisse, Marx noticed the “contradiction” that occurs between money as the universal unit of account and money as a particular commodity that can be exchanged: “Money - the common form into which all commodities as exchange values are transformed, i.e. the universal commodity-must itself exist as a particular commodity alongside the others, since what is required is not only that they can be measured against it in the head, but that they can be changed and exchanged for it in the actual exchange process. The contradiction which thereby enters, to be developed elsewhere.” ${}^{25}$${}^{25}$^(25){ }^{25} The consequence of such a contradiction is that there is no longer such a thing as nature, society, or even history. No such universal terms are ever achieved or explained. One always substitutes a particular for the universal: a natural process for nature as a whole; a social institution for society; a historical event for history. Lacking access to knowledge of the full order of nature, one projects partial and particular images to substitute for the universal. Yet what are rendered invisible in a commodified, naturalistic, secular ontology based on evidence and information are not merely social forces, but temporal forces. In the very act of saving time, one loses time altogether. In the construction of secular knowledge, a knowledge of the
构成世俗自然秩序的机制，或者说一美元钞票上所颂扬的 "新秩序"，是由货币来解释的。我们回到货币的特殊力量问题，大胆地进行初步阐述。这一机制是现代性的主导政治 "能量"，在此可以简要概括。随后我们将对其进行详细阐述。如果普遍的、世俗的乌托邦没有到来，人们就会用特殊性来代替普遍性，以期待普遍性的到来。在《基础论》中，马克思注意到了作为普遍记账单位的货币与作为可以交换的特殊商品的货币之间的 "矛盾"："货币--作为交换价值的一切商品所转化成的共同形式，即普遍商品--本身必须作为特殊商品与其他商品并存，因为所需要的不仅是它们可以在头脑中用它来衡量，而且是它们可以在实际交换过程中被改变和交换。由此产生的矛盾，将在别处展开"。 ${}^{25}$${}^{25}$^(25){ }^{25} 这种矛盾的后果是，不再有自然、社会甚至历史这样的东西。这种普遍性的术语从来没有实现过，也没有解释过。人们总是用特殊性来代替普遍性：用自然过程来代替整个自然；用社会制度来代替社会；用历史事件来代替历史。由于缺乏对自然整体秩序的了解，人们只能用局部的、特殊的图像来替代普遍的图像。然而，在以证据和信息为基础的商品化、自然主义和世俗本体论中，看不见的不仅仅是社会力量，还有时间力量。在节约时间的行为中，人们完全失去了时间。 在世俗知识的建构中，关于
“present age,” one excludes the past and the future in favor of an imagined eschaton of perfect knowledge. This attempt to save time by attaining a partial vision of perfect knowledge in advance of the eschaton is the very move that at once eliminates all possibility of true knowledge of time and allows the entry of diabolical forces into human thought.
在 "现时代"，人们排除了过去和未来，转而追求想象中的完美知识的末世。这种试图通过在末世到来之前获得部分完美知识来节省时间的做法，恰恰消除了真正了解时间的所有可能性，并使邪恶势力得以进入人类思想。

The consequences of the substitution of the particular for a projected universal have a significance that amounts to both the origin and the end of modernity. First, since there is no necessity that governs which particular should be substituted for the universal, this structure of thinking can capture all desires. All points of view can be represented here, for the substitution of the particular for the universal is a purely formal structure. It does not initially seem to matter which content will come to fill it. Progress toward the universal offers the promise of limitless possibility. In the secular eschaton, once progress has been achieved, people will have the freedom to do as they please with their time and money, since they will no longer be subjected to natural necessity or social obligation. As a commodity, then, money stands in for any specific will or desire; it is the material representation of a universal form. Second, however, those particulars that are best suited to occupying the place of the universal are those that are capable of universalizing themselves. A conception of the people as supreme power, for example, or a conception of human identity as self-consciousness, or a conception of truth as founded on empirical evidence, or a conception of money as supreme value - it is astonishing to consider the extent to which human activity has been regulated by such autopoietic ideas. The relevant characteristics of such ideas include both an openness to relation, so that the rest of the world is judged from their perspective, and a closed interior generated by self-reference, so that they become the sole measures of themselves. In the case of money, since it is both means of payment and unit of account, the best way to acquire what one wishes is to make money first. Thus, money posits itself as the universal, supreme value and the means of access to all other values. At the same time, money becomes a kind of encompassing membrane that determines what will count as valuable, just as empirical truth determines what counts as real, or self-consciousness determines what counts as experience, or the will of the people determines what happens in the course of history. Third, once significance has been delegated to the universalized particular, it then becomes the source of all
以特殊性取代普遍性的后果，其意义既是现代性的起源，也是现代性的终结。首先，由于没有任何必然性规定哪种特殊性应被普遍性所取代，这种思维结构可以捕捉到所有的欲望。所有观点都可以在这里得到体现，因为用特殊性代替普遍性是一种纯粹的形式结构。最初似乎并不重要，重要的是哪种内容会填充其中。向普遍性迈进提供了无限的可能性。在世俗的末世，一旦实现了进步，人们就可以自由支配自己的时间和金钱，因为他们不再受制于自然需要或社会义务。因此，作为一种商品，金钱代表了任何特定的意愿或欲望；它是一种普遍形式的物质代表。其次，最适合占据普遍性位置的特殊性是那些能够使自身普遍化的特殊性。例如，人民是最高权力的概念，人类身份是自我意识的概念，真理是建立在实证基础上的概念，金钱是最高价值的概念--想想人类活动在多大程度上受到这种自生自灭的观念的制约，就会令人吃惊。这些观念的相关特征既包括对关系的开放性，因此世界上的其他事物都是从它们的角度来判断的，也包括由自我参照产生的封闭的内部，因此它们成为衡量自身的唯一标准。 就货币而言，由于它既是支付手段，又是记账单位，要想获得想要的东西，最好的办法就是先赚钱。因此，货币将自己定位为普遍的、至高无上的价值以及获取所有其他价值的手段。与此同时，金钱成为了一种包罗万象的薄膜，它决定了什么才算有价值，就像经验真理决定了什么才算真实，自我意识决定了什么才算经验，人民的意志决定了历史进程中会发生什么一样。第三，一旦意义被赋予普遍化的特殊性，它就会成为一切的源泉。
benefits, wealth, and significance. By saving time and borrowing a particular postulate from a future secular utopia, one owes a debt of gratitude. One is under an obligation to demonstrate that one’s idol will indeed appear in the secular utopia. In this respect, the extreme vulnerability of the monetary system constitutes the very source of its power. Not only are economic agents committed to making future profits to pay off current debts, but governments are committed to preserving and restoring a fragile monetary system as the very condition of all social activity. The devastating effects of financial crises demonstrate how dependent the “real economy” is on monetary systems. ${}^{26}$${}^{26}$^(26){ }^{26} Moreover, such devastating effects tend to impoverish and disempower ordinary people, while international bodies ensure that reconstruction gives prime importance to the re-stabilization of the monetary system in the interests of international capital as the precondition for any political action. ${}^{27}$${}^{27}$^(27){ }^{27} Volatility and instability, the result of the “internal contradictions” of capital, only strengthen the system as a whole. The analogies hold with other universalized particulars. The absence of clarity concerning the will of the people makes the determination of public opinion all the more necessary. Failures of human self-consciousness make self-knowledge all the more important. Errors and prejudices make empirical verification of the truth more urgent. The freedom of modernity entails an unlimited debt to the future that it has created. Within the illusion of modernity, life is determined by eschatology.
利益、财富和意义。通过节省时间，从未来的世俗乌托邦中借用一个特定的假设，人们欠下了一笔感激债。人们有义务证明自己的偶像确实会出现在世俗乌托邦中。在这方面，货币体系的极端脆弱性正是其力量的源泉。不仅经济行为主体致力于赚取未来的利润来偿还当前的债务，而且政府也致力于维护和恢复脆弱的货币体系，将其作为所有社会活动的根本条件。金融危机的破坏性影响表明，"实体经济 "是多么依赖货币体系。 ${}^{26}$${}^{26}$^(26){ }^{26} 此外，这种破坏性影响往往会使普通人陷入贫困，丧失权力，而国际机构则会确保重建工作将重新稳定货币体系放在首位，以维护国际资本的利益，并将此作为任何政治行动的前提条件。 ${}^{27}$${}^{27}$^(27){ }^{27} 资本 "内部矛盾 "造成的波动和不稳定只会加强整个体系。其他普遍化的特殊情况也是如此。由于人民的意志不明确，因此更有必要确定公众舆论。人类自我意识的缺失使得自我认识变得更加重要。错误和偏见使得对真理的经验验证变得更加迫切。现代性的自由意味着对它所创造的未来的无限亏欠。在现代性的幻觉中，生活是由末世论决定的。

The end of modernity is a crisis of representation. Once nature is no longer stable, it cannot be effectively represented and mastered; once concepts are no longer stable, political decisions can no longer be taken according to principles or pragmatic considerations. The humanistic representation of two kinds of power - of the body and of the will - proves to be an illusion. Humanity has always been at the mercy of other principles and powers.
现代性的终结是一场表象危机。一旦自然不再稳定，它就无法被有效地表现和掌握；一旦概念不再稳定，政治决策就无法再根据原则或实用主义的考虑来做出。事实证明，人本主义关于身体和意志两种力量的表述是一种幻觉。人类始终受制于其他原则和力量。

The problem of the relation between the economic and the political should be considered in relation to the crisis of representation. Where political power relies on a qualitative representation of nature and society, economic power relies on a quantitative representation of exchange value. This difference in representation is decisive. Debates about whether eco-
经济与政治之间的关系问题应与表征危机联系起来考虑。政治权力依赖于自然和社会的定性表征，而经济权力则依赖于交换价值的定量表征。这种代表性的差异是决定性的。关于生态与政治关系的辩论
nomic globalization leads to the “end of politics” or the subjection of the nation-state to the power of finance capital may be resolved at an ontological level. If the principal power of the nation-state is sovereign legislation, or a restriction of liberty, then its power is limited. One may restrict the movement of bodies through force and shape the determination of the will through threats, but one can no longer legislate for rates of exchange value. Although the state may attempt to act in the economic field by controlling interest rates, the money supply, rates of taxation, borrowing, and spending, it remains one economic agent alongside others. The state merely has a power of economic intervention. Of course, the economy cannot operate very effectively without a set of market regulations enforced by the state and a currency supported by the state. Yet the state cannot operate very effectively without the economy as its source of wealth and power. There is a mutual dependence between economic and political power. This dependence is asymmetrical in one vital respect: where state power is localized in a people and territory, economic power is localized in money. One is static, the other is mobile. States may be heterogeneous, but capital is relatively homogeneous. Where capital can choose which states it does business with, a state cannot easily choose which capital will benefit its polity (leaving aside, for now, considerations of a hegemony of currencies). A state may regulate the movement of capital, in theory and in the past, subordinating economic power to political ends. Once the movement of capital is deregulated, however, it is like gas that has been let out of a bottle. ${}^{28}$${}^{28}$^(28){ }^{28} Capital cannot be restored without some stronger force of attraction drawing back inward investment. Once capital has been liberated, it will be reluctant to commit itself permanently to the economic fate of a particular nation and currency; exchange in search of better prices and profits is the essential power of money. In this respect, economic globalization is irreversible short of a breakdown in transport, communications, banking, or energy infrastructures. States that have released the movement of capital have little choice but to subordinate all other political aims to the attraction of investment or risk losing the source of their power. Money is the supreme political authority in modernity. It constitutes and expresses the will of the people. It forms the illusory autonomy of the political subject at the same time that such autonomy is undermined.
全球化导致 "政治的终结 "或民族国家屈从于金融资本的权力，这些问题都可以在本体论的层面上得到解决。如果民族国家的主要权力是主权立法或对自由的限制，那么它的权力就是有限的。人们可以通过武力来限制身体的移动，通过威胁来塑造意志的决定，但却不能再为汇率立法。尽管国家可以通过控制利率、货币供应量、税率、借贷和支出来试图在经济领域采取行动，但它仍然是与其他经济主体并列的一个经济主体。国家只是拥有经济干预的权力。当然，如果没有一套由国家强制执行的市场规则和一种由国家支持的货币，经济就不可能非常有效地运行。然而，如果没有经济作为其财富和权力的来源，国家也无法非常有效地运作。经济权力与政治权力之间存在着相互依存的关系。这种依赖在一个重要方面是不对称的：国家权力集中在一个民族和领土上，而经济权力则集中在货币上。一个是静态的，另一个是流动的。国家可能是异质的，但资本是相对同质的。资本可以选择与哪些国家做生意，而国家却不能轻易选择哪些资本有利于其政体（暂且不考虑货币霸权）。在理论上和过去，国家可以对资本的流动进行管制，使经济权力服从于政治目的。然而，一旦放松对资本流动的管制，它就会像从瓶子里放出的气体一样。 ${}^{28}$${}^{28}$^(28){ }^{28} 如果没有更强大的吸引力吸引外来投资，资本就不可能恢复。一旦资本获得解放，它就不愿意永远屈从于某个特定国家和货币的经济命运；为寻求更好的价格和利润而进行的交换是货币的基本力量。在这方面，经济全球化是不可逆转的，除非交通、通信、银行或能源基础设施发生故障。放开资本流动的国家别无选择，只能将所有其他政治目标置于吸引投资之下，否则就有可能失去权力的源泉。货币是现代性的最高政治权威。它构成并表达了人民的意志。它形成了政治主体虚幻的自主性，同时这种自主性也遭到了破坏。

Money, in its essence, responds to the crisis of representation. For where
从本质上讲，货币是对代表性危机的回应。因为
representation within a polity corresponds to perceptions of truth or right, to observation or to habits, customs, and laws, money provides a medium for the representation of exchange value. The value that money represents, then, is merely the value that could be exchanged for it-in other words, a value that is represented by others. This, in turn, represents the value of other exchanges and other representations. There is no grounding of exchange value outside the specular realm of representation, in which representations can only represent other representations. Whereas political representation is constructed internally in relation to a culture where everything has a determinate place and value, economic representation reflects the activity of a set of exterior evaluations. Exchange value is never the value of an object in itself or the use value of an object to a particular person or culture. It is the value that may be substituted for the object in exchange. It is the value that remains when the internal relations of a polity or culture are broken by the alienation of property.
在一个政体中，代表与真理或权利的认知、观察或习惯、风俗和法律相对应，而货币则为交换价值的代表提供了媒介。因此，货币所代表的价值仅仅是可以交换的价值，换句话说，是由他人所代表的价值。这反过来又代表了其他交换和其他表征的价值。在表征的镜像领域之外没有交换价值的基础，表征只能表征其他表征。政治表征是在内部建构的，与一切事物都有确定地位和价值的文化相关，而经济表征则反映了一系列外部评价的活动。交换价值从来都不是物品本身的价值，也不是物品对特定的人或文化的使用价值。它是可以替代交换物品的价值。它是当一个政体或文化的内部关系因财产的异化而被打破时仍然存在的价值。

If politics concerns the construction of a public space of representation, economics concerns the construction of a different kind of public space: the market. In the market, goods can be found that have traveled some considerable distance from their sites of production. Such markets operate inefficiently by means of barter exchange; they operate far more effectively with the use of money. In Aristotle’s account of the invention of money, metal was adopted because of its mobility and ease of transportation, and was stamped with a sign to save the trouble of weighing, for the purpose of long-distance trade. ${}^{29}$${}^{29}$^(29){ }^{29} In such trade, value is carried beyond the polis and its representation of values. In spite of the sovereign’s stamp on the coinage, the value of money is determined by possibilities of exchange in other markets, not simply those within the polis itself. Even when used within a political space, money represents value that belongs outside. It is a representation of value that continues to function when all internal representations break down. Indifferent to the particular goods and values with which it may be exchanged, money represents the abstract quantity of an exchange value. Money is apparently neutral in exchange, indifferent to buying or selling, production or consumption. It merely facilitates exchange by measuring and storing value, having no intrinsic interest on its own account. Money has political and ethical neutrality. It produces and destroys nothing; it is indifferent to any exploitation, violence, appropria-
如果说政治学关注的是代表公共空间的建设，那么经济学关注的则是另一种公共空间的建设：市场。在市场上，人们可以找到从生产地远道而来的商品。这种市场通过以物易物的方式进行交易，效率很低；而使用货币则会有效得多。在亚里士多德关于货币发明的论述中，金属因其流动性强、便于运输而被采用，并且为了长途贸易的目的，金属上还印有标志，以省去称重的麻烦。 ${}^{29}$${}^{29}$^(29){ }^{29} 在这种贸易中，价值超越了政体及其价值代表。尽管货币上有君主的印记，但货币的价值是由其他市场的交换可能性决定的，而不仅仅是由政体本身决定的。即使是在政治空间内使用，货币也代表着属于外部的价值。它是一种价值表征，在所有内部表征都瓦解的情况下仍能继续发挥作用。货币代表的是交换价值的抽象数量，它对与之交换的特定商品和价值无动于衷。在交换中，货币显然是中立的，对买卖、生产或消费都无动于衷。它只是通过衡量和储存价值来促进交换，本身并没有内在的利益。货币具有政治和道德中立性。它既不生产也不毁灭任何东西；它对任何剥削、暴力、侵占、掠夺、贿赂、贿赂和贿赂都漠不关心。
tion, or exclusion carried out in order to obtain its services. Money continues to bear value through political crises and through nihilism.
货币的价值在于它是一种 "服务"，是为了获得其服务而进行的 "剥削 "或 "排斥"。在政治危机和虚无主义中，货币依然具有价值。

Aristotle was prescient here. The use of money to make money, money that bears interest, and the quest for profits for their own sake have no determinate value and so no place within the polis. The condemnation of usury derives from this principle. For money that makes money leads to the acquisition of a power that has no political essence or limits. The power of accumulated money threatens chaos and nihilism by overpowering all existing values. It threatens to dismantle the social order piece by piece through appropriation, substitution, and exchange. Economic globalization is the completion of this anti-political process throughout the world through millions of minor acts of alienation between people and people, people and land, and land and its products or resources. It fragments the world of public representation through substitution and exchange.
亚里士多德在这方面是有先见之明的。以钱生钱，以钱生息，为追求利润而追求利润，这些都没有确定的价值，因此在政体中也没有立足之地。对高利贷的谴责就源于这一原则。因为赚钱的钱会导致获得一种没有政治本质或限制的权力。积累起来的金钱的力量压倒了所有现存的价值观，从而威胁着混乱和虚无主义。它通过占有、替代和交换，威胁着社会秩序的逐一瓦解。经济全球化通过人与人之间、人与土地之间、土地与其产品或资源之间千百万次微小的异化行为，在全世界完成了这一反政治进程。它通过替代和交换，使公共表征的世界支离破碎。

Nevertheless, exchange value does not dissolve prior social relations without reconstituting its own public space of representation. As Adam Smith explained at the opening of The Wealth of Nations, trade is the condition of possibility of the division of labor and of economic interdependence. ${}^{30}$${}^{30}$^(30){ }^{30} Money facilitates the growth of a new social network of public representation. The market is the social form that replaces public representation. Values become local, variable, and purely quantitative in an extended system of markets.
尽管如此，交换价值并不会消解先前的社会关系，而不会重建其自身的公共表征空间。正如亚当-斯密在《国富论》开篇所解释的，贸易是劳动分工和经济相互依存的可能性条件。 ${}^{30}$${}^{30}$^(30){ }^{30} 货币促进了新的公共代表社会网络的发展。市场是取代公共代表的社会形式。在一个扩展的市场体系中，价值变得局部、可变和纯粹量化。

Money mediates between representation and reality. While exchange value is represented in terms of a quantity of money, a quantity of money also represents demand. The degree of one’s desire for any good or service is represented publicly in terms of the sum of money one is willing to pay for it. Of course, one’s desire may exceed the money one has available for payment, but such desire is not publicly represented. In a market society, political values are irrelevant. If public representation occurs only in the form of abstract quantities, then evaluation can be represented only in the quantitative form of a degree of desire. There is no effective public representation apart from as a degree of desire. In the market, then, all evaluations must be invested with a degree of desire to become public; they must further be backed by a sum of money. Money, which renders demands effective, is a reality principle that realizes desire. It makes exchange possible. It does so, however, by being desirable itself. Money is acceptable
货币是表象与现实之间的中介。虽然交换价值以货币数量来表示，但货币数量也代表需求。一个人对任何商品或服务的渴望程度，公开地表现为他愿意为之支付的金额。当然，一个人的欲望可能超过他所能支付的金钱，但这种欲望并不公开。在市场社会中，政治价值观是无关紧要的。如果公共代表只是以抽象数量的形式出现，那么评价就只能以欲望程度的数量形式体现。除了欲望程度之外，不存在有效的公共表征。因此，在市场中，所有的评价都必须投入一定程度的欲望才能成为公共评价；它们还必须得到一笔钱的支持。货币使需求有效，是实现欲望的现实原则。它使交换成为可能。然而，它是通过自身的欲望来实现这一点的。货币是可接受的
in exchange because it is the means of exchange itself. Since it may be exchanged for anything, money mediates between and coordinates desires. As the means of access to the realization of desire, money is supremely to be desired; as that which is supremely desired, money is acceptable in exchange and so becomes the means of access to the realization of desire. It is this vicious circle that underlies the trust in money. Money has a dual role in representation. On the one hand, it represents the objective social value that could be obtained in exchange for it; on the other hand, it represents a degree of subjective desire for that value. It joins desire to satisfaction in representation itself. As such, it constitutes the very texture of market society. Market society is constituted not simply by exchange, therefore, but by the representation of exchange as a satisfaction of desire.
因为它本身就是交换的手段。由于金钱可以交换任何东西，所以它是欲望之间的中介和协调者。作为实现欲望的手段，金钱是至高无上的欲望；作为至高无上的欲望，金钱在交换中是可接受的，因此成为实现欲望的手段。这种恶性循环正是金钱信任的基础。金钱在表象中具有双重作用。一方面，它代表着可以用来交换的客观社会价值；另一方面，它代表着对这种价值的某种程度的主观欲望。它在表象本身中将欲望与满足结合在一起。因此，它构成了市场社会的本质。因此，市场社会不仅是由交换构成的，而且是由作为欲望满足的交换的表征构成的。

Representation takes on a different form in the market from that found in politics. In politics, representation reproduces a form or concept. In economics, representation reproduces a value or quantity. Nevertheless, there is a sense in which representation in money is already fractured and not itself. For money is at once, according to the economists, a means of payment, a measure of value, and a store of value. ${}^{31}$${}^{31}$^(31){ }^{31} Exchange value is at once acquired through money, represented by money, and preserved in money. While other commodities may be taken as representing their exchange value, money remains distinct from other commodities in a number of respects. It has a socially validated monopoly of equivalence, expressed both in its status as legal tender and in its being uniquely required for the payment of wages, taxes, interest, and dividends, and for the repayment of loans. Moreover, where other commodities have to be sold to realize their exchange value, money represents its exchange value without needing to be exchanged. As such, money is the object of an unlimited desire for accumulation. Furthermore, money is the measure of profits, yet it can yield a profit only through investment, flowing out and back through exchange.
市场中的表征与政治中的表征形式不同。在政治领域，表征再现的是一种形式或概念。在经济学中，表征再现的是价值或数量。然而，在某种意义上，货币的表征已经支离破碎，其本身并不存在。因为根据经济学家的观点，货币既是支付手段，也是价值尺度和价值储藏。 ${}^{31}$${}^{31}$^(31){ }^{31} 交换价值既是通过货币获得的，又是由货币表现出来的，而且还保存在货币中。虽然其他商品可以代表其交换价值，但货币在许多方面仍有别于其他商品。它具有社会认可的等价垄断权，这表现在它是法定货币，也表现在它是支付工资、税收、利息和红利以及偿还贷款的唯一必需品。此外，在其他商品必须出售才能实现其交换价值的情况下，货币无需交换就能体现其交换价值。因此，货币是人们无限渴望积累的对象。此外，货币是衡量利润的尺度，但它只有通过投资才能产生利润，并通过交换流出和流回。

To represent exchange value as a price in terms of money, therefore, is to synthesize three different considerations into a single quantity. In the first place, a price represents a sum of money, which represents the value of all sorts of other goods that may be acquired through money. Value is formed through an imagination of exchange, generated by all kinds of desire. In the second place, a price represents a sum of money, which represents a specific degree of the demand for money. In the third place, a price rep-
因此，把交换价值用货币表示为价格，就是把三个不同的因素综合为一个单一的量。首先，价格代表的是一笔货币，它代表的是可以通过货币获得的其他各种商品的价值。价值是通过交换的想象形成的，由各种欲望产生。其次，价格代表着一笔货币，它代表着对货币需求的特定程度。第三，价格代表
resents a sum of money, which represents a certain degree of power for making profits through investment. All three of these desires find public expression in a price: a desire for goods, a desire for money, and a desire for profits. Money is a source of perpetual dissimulation and equivocation. At one and the same time, money is that which makes desires effective through exchange, that which makes desires achievable through accumulation, and that which makes desires more effective through profits. As a means of payment, money participates in the sphere of objective reality through circulation; as a measure of value, it participates in the sphere of subjective reality as a degree of desire; as a store of value, it participates in an impersonal sphere of credit or the possibility of expressing desire and realizing value. As the universal mediator, money substitutes its own desire as the secret essence of every heart’s desire.
对金钱的渴望代表着一定程度的通过投资获利的能力。所有这三种欲望都在价格中得到了公开表达：对商品的欲望、对金钱的欲望和对利润的欲望。金钱是永恒的伪装和模棱两可的来源。同时，货币通过交换使欲望生效，通过积累使欲望得以实现，通过利润使欲望更加有效。作为支付手段，货币通过流通参与客观现实领域；作为价值尺度，货币作为欲望的程度参与主观现实领域；作为价值储藏，货币参与信用或表达欲望和实现价值的可能性的非个人领域。作为普遍的中介，货币以其自身的欲望取代了每个人内心欲望的秘密本质。

Money therefore reconstitutes the social order as an order of interdependence, of desire, and of credit. As the means of realization of the social order, facilitating interdependence, desire, and credit, it is that which is the supreme principle of reality. In a market society, there is no higher aim than making money, for money is the reality principle. Within a market society, there is an unlimited demand for profits. This power of realization and this demand are purely social forces, subsisting outside the human will in society itself. It is an impersonal and abstract force, beyond the pleasure principle. Indeed, as the means of access to pleasure, the means of making desire effective, money must be acquired through profits or hoarding. One passes through that which has no intrinsic desirability-the acquisition of money - to gain access to pleasure. This is the profound link between capitalism and the structure of the Oedipus complex. More than this, it calls on desire as the only mode of evaluation capable of structuring market society. It constructs an abstract and impersonal politics in the interstices, faults, and ruins of existing political orders: a politics of desire. Economic flows destabilize politics by fracturing existing relationships by means of appropriation, substitution, and exchange. Modernity is always already anachronistic, constructing its ineffectual representations on a base that is economically destabilized. Economic flows, then, re-stabilize a market society, using representations that may be ineffective from a political point of view within an economy of desire.
因此，货币将社会秩序重建为相互依存、欲望和信用的秩序。货币作为社会秩序的实现手段，促进了相互依存、欲望和信用，是现实的最高原则。在市场社会中，没有比赚钱更高的目标了，因为金钱就是现实原则。在市场社会中，对利润的需求是无限的。这种实现的力量和需求纯粹是社会力量，存在于社会本身的人类意志之外。它是一种非个人的抽象力量，超越了快乐原则。事实上，作为获得快乐的手段，使欲望生效的手段，金钱必须通过利润或囤积才能获得。人们通过没有内在欲望的东西--获取金钱--来获得快乐。这就是资本主义与俄狄浦斯情结结构之间的深刻联系。不仅如此，资本主义还将欲望作为构建市场社会的唯一评价方式。它在现有政治秩序的夹缝、缺陷和废墟中构建了一种抽象和非个人化的政治：欲望政治。经济流动通过占有、替代和交换等手段破坏现有关系，从而破坏政治的稳定性。现代性总是已经不合时宜，在经济不稳定的基础上构建其无效的表征。因此，经济流动重新稳定了市场社会，在欲望经济中使用从政治角度来看可能无效的表征。

It is vital to differentiate, therefore, between the self-representation of
因此，区分以下两种情况至关重要
modern political society as deliberately ordered according to the rationality of the collective will and a market society shaped by irrational flows of desire and money. Of course, the two forms only exist together and in mutual presupposition. Yet modern political society is purely formal; economic society is real. If there are cases of successful subsuming of actual societies beneath rational political projects, they are exceptions rather than the rule. They are islands of stability in an ocean of instability. The extraordinary consequence is that political judgments - whether of the state, of the citizen, or of a revolutionary minority - remain largely impotent. An entire model of political thought and action remains anachronistic. In the face of money, even sovereignty lacks power. Modernity is at an end.
现代政治社会是按照集体意志的合理性刻意安排的，而市场社会则是由非理性的欲望和金钱流动所塑造的。当然，这两种形式只能同时存在，互为前提。然而，现代政治社会纯粹是形式上的，而经济社会才是真实的。如果说有成功地将现实社会置于理性政治项目之下的案例，那也只是例外而非普遍现象。它们是不稳定汪洋中的稳定之岛。非同寻常的后果是，政治判断--无论是国家的、公民的，还是革命少数派的--在很大程度上依然无能为力。整个政治思想和政治行动的模式仍然不合时宜。在金钱面前，即使是主权也缺乏力量。现代性走到了尽头。

Economic society does, of course, also have its own intrinsic instabilities. In a purely market society, a degree of wealth can be measured by one’s accumulated assets. Assets gain their value from exchange. When a market society is inhabited by a capitalist society, by contrast, assets may be regarded as capital stock and therefore as factors for the production of value. The value of an asset is no longer given by exchange alone. Rather, it is given by speculation on a rate of profit. Value no longer measures an accumulated stock in relation to desire. It measures a differential rate of profit. Fixed quantities are destabilized by underlying rates of return; asset values fluctuate wildly and become subject to speculation; speculation inflates values in a self-perpetuating cycle, guaranteeing the short-term success of speculation as a further form of destabilization and re-stabilization. On the one hand, money is a determinate quantity, entered on bank statements and balance sheets, circulating in finite units; on the other hand, capital is a rate of profit or credit, a differential rate, value in motion, independent of the material form that it assumes. Capital destabilizes the representation of value in terms of money from within. Under normal conditions of capitalist representation, all knowledge is quantifiable information. Science and management become purely matters of bookkeeping, as though the world were under the sovereign control of the rational subject. Yet all movement, creation, and selection happen elsewhere. Every step in the construction of knowledge may be rational, but the whole enterprise is entirely delirious,
当然，经济社会也有其内在的不稳定性。在一个纯粹的市场社会中，财富的程度可以用一个人积累的资产来衡量。资产的价值来自于交换。与此相反，当市场社会中存在资本主义社会时，资产可被视为资本存量，因此也是生产价值的要素。资产的价值不再仅仅由交换产生。相反，它是通过对利润率的投机而产生的。价值不再衡量与欲望相关的累积存量。它衡量的是不同的利润率。固定的数量因潜在的收益率而不稳定；资产价值剧烈波动，成为投机的对象；投机在自我循环中抬高价值，保证投机的短期成功，成为破坏稳定和重新稳定的另一种形式。一方面，货币是一个确定的数量，记入银行对账单和资产负债表，以有限单位流通；另一方面，资本是一种利润率或信贷率，是一种差额率，是运动中的价值，与它所采取的物质形式无关。资本从内部动摇了以货币为单位的价值表征。在资本主义表征的正常条件下，所有知识都是可量化的信息。科学和管理成为纯粹的记账事项，仿佛世界处于理性主体的主权控制之下。然而，所有的运动、创造和选择都发生在别处。知识建构的每一步都可能是理性的，但整个事业却完全是谵妄的、
shaped by interdependence and flows of desire, belief, speculation, and credit. In spite of popular assumptions, however, speculation effects a limited degree of destabilization because it tends to enclose unstable positive feedbacks within stabilizing negative feedbacks. If prices rise too high, it is time to sell; if prices fall too low, it is time to buy. The principal forms of economic instability lie elsewhere.
在欲望、信念、投机和信贷的相互依存和流动下形成的。然而，尽管人们普遍认为，投机所造成的不稳定程度是有限的，因为它往往将不稳定的正反馈封闭在稳定的负反馈之中。如果价格涨得太高，就该卖出；如果价格跌得太低，就该买进。经济不稳定的主要形式在于其他方面。

In the first place, there is the relative strength or weakness of currencies insofar as this exceeds political control. Instability may be expressed in comparisons with other currencies in the form of devaluation or in comparison with the same currency across time in the form of inflation or deflation. Such effects are central to economic analyses of the politics of money. Such crises are geographically determined; they may be the principal form of expression through which the absolute limits of capitalism are actualized. They may also be the principal forms through which contemporary warfare is threatened or enacted. The dangers of the use of force may be avoided by achieving economic domination of another nation-state. Even the U.S. military remains helpless before the buyers and sellers of U.S. Treasury bonds: devaluation of a currency is at once devaluation of that nation’s purchasing power and a partial enhancement of its productive power. It is also a devaluation of the entire nation’s assets, leading to an initial flight of foreign capital investment, followed by the purchase of a nation’s assets at bargain prices, eventually resulting in a continual economic drain in the repatriation of profits. Currency crises are good for speculative investors who may reap the benefits several times over.
首先，货币的相对强弱超出了政治控制范围。不稳定性可能表现为与其他货币的比较，即货币贬值；也可能表现为与同一货币在不同时期的比较，即通货膨胀或通货紧缩。这些影响是货币政治经济分析的核心。这种危机是由地域决定的；它们可能是资本主义绝对极限得以实现的主要表现形式。它们也可能是当代战争受到威胁或得以实施的主要形式。通过实现对另一个民族国家的经济统治，可以避免使用武力的危险。即使是美国军队，在美国国债的买卖双方面前也是束手无策：货币贬值既是该国购买力的贬值，也是其生产力的部分提升。它也是整个国家资产的贬值，导致最初的外国资本投资外逃，随后是以低廉的价格购买国家资产，最终在利润汇回本国的过程中造成持续的经济流失。货币危机对投机投资者有利，他们可能会获得数倍的收益。

More significant for our purposes, however, are the absolute economic crises. In the second place, there is the unlimited quest for profits characteristic of capitalist society, with its consequent requirement of increased consumption. As previously mentioned, the mechanism for the creation of wealth depends on a quest for monetary value driven by the threat of exclusion or poverty, by the self-positing of money as the supreme bearer of power, by the enhanced power of those institutions that habitually acquire money, and by the exploitation of those who are compelled to labor for subsistence. This process of continual growth or economic colonization drives the increase in both production and consumption. It produces instability when consumption uses up resources and reaches its physical limits. As previously discussed, economic crisis results from physical instability.
然而，对我们而言，更重要的是绝对的经济危机。其次是资本主义社会特有的对利润的无限追求，以及随之而来的对消费增长的要求。如前所述，创造财富的机制取决于对货币价值的追求，这种追求的动力来自于排斥或贫困的威胁，来自于货币作为最高权力承载者的自我定位，来自于那些惯于获取货币的机构权力的增强，以及来自于对那些被迫为生存而劳动的人的剥削。这种持续增长或经济殖民化的过程推动了生产和消费的增长。当消费耗尽资源并达到其物理极限时，就会产生不稳定因素。如前所述，经济危机源于物质的不稳定。

The physical limits to the growth in capital as the means of production are absolute, although capitalism itself may survive and prosper even within a context of rapidly shrinking GDP. Here, again, speculators may profit from the rise in commodity prices as well as from shorting the stock markets.
尽管资本主义本身即使在国内生产总值迅速萎缩的情况下也能生存和繁荣，但作为生产资料的资本的增长受到了绝对的物理限制。在这方面，投机者同样可以从商品价格上涨和做空股票市场中获利。

In the third place, money is gradually replaced by credit, or credit comes to take the form of money itself, for it is necessary to produce both goods and money. An unlimited quest for profits is made possible both by the production of value through industry and enterprise and by the production of money for circulation and reserves. For every quantity of exchange value produced, it is necessary that sufficient money be available that can be exchanged for it. In large part, this problem is solved by recirculation, since what is produced is later consumed, whereas money can continue to circulate. Economic growth, however, does result in an increased demand for money, since the timing of the production and distribution of goods and services may not match entirely with the timing of their consumption. In practice, such accumulated stocks may be immense but such inefficiencies are mitigated by all the varieties of financial intermediation. Financial intermediation places a value in purely nominal assets in order to facilitate the temporal process of market exchange. Credit here functions effectively as money, as a store of value that has perfect liquidity and can be exchanged at will. Growth in production is therefore matched or even exceeded by a growth in credit. A capitalist economy is supplemented by a credit economy. Money itself is largely displaced by credit; indeed, as a mere token of exchange value, money itself is revealed in its essence to derive from credit rather than from a hypothetical and unlimited process of exchange. ${}^{32}$${}^{32}$^(32){ }^{32} As Geoffrey Ingham concludes, “Capitalist credit-money is nothing more than a network of claims backed by banks’ and states’ promises to pay that are fabricated into a hierarchy of credibility by foreign exchange markets and global credit-rating agencies.” ${}^{33}$${}^{33}$^(33){ }^{33}
第三，货币逐渐被信用所取代，或者说，信用开始以货币的形式出现，因为既要生产商品，又要生产货币。通过工业和企业生产价值以及生产用于流通和储备的货币，可以无限地追求利润。每生产出一定量的交换价值，就必须有足够的货币来进行交换。这个问题在很大程度上可以通过再循环来解决，因为生产出来的东西随后会被消耗掉，而货币则可以继续流通。然而，经济增长确实会导致对货币的需求增加，因为商品和服务的生产和分配时间可能与消费时间不完全一致。在实践中，这种积累的存量可能是巨大的，但各种金融中介活动缓解了这种低效率。金融中介为纯粹的名义资产赋予价值，以促进市场交换的时间进程。信贷在这里有效地发挥了货币的作用，是一种具有完美流动性并可随意交换的价值储存。因此，生产的增长与信贷的增长相匹配，甚至超过信贷的增长。资本主义经济得到了信贷经济的补充。货币本身在很大程度上被信贷所取代；事实上，作为交换价值的一种象征，货币本身在本质上是源于信贷，而不是源于一种假设的、无限的交换过程。 ${}^{32}$${}^{32}$^(32){ }^{32} 正如杰弗里-英厄姆总结的那样，"资本主义信用货币只不过是一个由银行和国家的支付承诺所支持的债权网络，而这些承诺被外汇市场和全球信用评级机构捏造成一个信誉等级"。 ${}^{33}$${}^{33}$^(33){ }^{33}

The creation of credit has a curious effect on production, for it marks the emergence of a further layer of spectral financial power. Money as credit, whether in the form of paper money or an electronic record in a bank account, is created as a simultaneous asset and liability. Money is created in the form of loans as a claim against property. Such loans have limited inflationary effects that apply to speculative assets such as property; they are guaranteed by an undertaking to make sufficient money to pay back
信贷的产生对生产产生了奇特的影响，因为它标志着又一层幽灵金融力量的出现。作为信用的货币，无论是纸币还是银行账户中的电子记录，都是作为资产和负债同时产生的。货币以贷款的形式产生，作为对财产的债权。这种贷款的通货膨胀效应有限，只适用于投机性资产，如房地产；贷款有承诺保证赚取足够的钱来偿还债务。
the loan. The money added to the economy must be withdrawn; economic agents who have taken out loans must act as economic deflators, seeking to withdraw money from the economy, for loans are repaid in the currency of their issues, not in terms of pure exchange value. If they are repaid at interest, then more money eventually must be withdrawn from the economy than was originally added. Since the money was newly created, then it must be replaced by the creation of further money elsewhere in the form of a loan. The entire economic system functions as a spiral of increasing debt, with individuals, businesses, and governments committed to ever increasing levels of overall debt in the system as a whole. Such has been the case throughout the history of modernity, even if concentrations of debts have always been localized. The result is that the quest for profits is less an aspiration than an obligation. The global economy, within capitalism, has always already been destabilized by a credit economy that functions as its internal milieu and condition of possibility. The spiral of debt can increase indefinitely, progressively enslaving democratic citizens to contracted debts until the physical limits to economic growth are reached. Debt will then need to be redeemed by massive levels of inflation, devaluation, and impoverishment. The illusion of accumulated wealth is displaced by the reality of accumulated debt. Economic collapse, often regional in its most intense effects, is the outcome of the end of modernity.
贷款。增加到经济中的货币必须收回；贷款的经济行为主体必须充当经济紧缩者，设法从经济中收回货币，因为贷款是以其发行的货币偿还的，而不是以纯粹的交换价值偿还的。如果贷款是按利息偿还的，那么最终从经济中撤出的货币必须多于最初增加的货币。由于货币是新创造出来的，因此必须以贷款的形式在其他地方创造更多的货币来取代。整个经济体系的运作就像一个债务不断增加的螺旋，个人、企业和政府在整个体系中的总体债务水平不断增加。这种情况贯穿了整个现代史，尽管债务的集中总是局部的。其结果是，追求利润与其说是一种愿望，不如说是一种义务。在资本主义内部，全球经济一直受到信贷经济的影响而不稳定，信贷经济是其内部环境和可能性的条件。债务的螺旋式上升可以无限期，逐步使民主公民受契约债务的奴役，直至达到经济增长的物理极限。届时，需要通过大规模的通货膨胀、货币贬值和贫困化来赎回债务。累积财富的幻想被累积债务的现实所取代。经济崩溃是现代性终结的结果，其最强烈的影响往往是区域性的。

In the fourth place, there is also a more subtle form in which the economy is undermined from within. While a market society gives birth to capitalism, and this in turn is driven by a credit society, the credit society opens the possibility of a further economic form. This may be considered under the unprepossessing rubric of financial disintermediation: the separation of forms of credit and speculative value from their productive roles within capitalism and intermediary roles within a market. While the trade in derivatives may facilitate market activity by providing a means to hedge against risk, it may also become a means of profit seeking in its own right. While buying shares may contribute to investment, betting on the movement of share prices has a limited effect on production. Speculation on derivatives and currencies, despite the vast profits and sums involved, may be considered a specialist activity, the prerogative of expert investment funds. The common wisdom is that it is nearly impossible for amateur traders to beat the general rate of return in the market. About 90 percent of amateur
第四，还有一种更微妙的形式，即经济从内部受到破坏。虽然市场社会催生了资本主义，而资本主义又受到信用社会的推动，但信用社会为进一步的经济形式提供了可能性。这可以归结为金融脱媒（financial disintermediation）：将信贷和投机价值的形式从其在资本主义中的生产作用和市场中的中介作用中分离出来。虽然衍生品交易可以通过提供对冲风险的手段来促进市场活动，但其本身也可能成为寻求利润的手段。虽然购买股票可能有助于投资，但对股价走势的押注对生产的影响有限。对金融衍生品和货币的投机，尽管涉及巨额利润和金额，却可能被视为专家活动，是专家投资基金的特权。人们普遍认为，业余交易者几乎不可能超越市场的一般回报率。大约 90% 的业余
traders fail to make profits. As such, derivatives trading has little impact on wider society, however lucrative it may be for the successful few. The advent of Internet communications and of speculative tools such as contracts for difference, options, and covered warrants, however, allow the opportunities provided by disintermediation to become available to the ordinary investor who is willing to take large risks. By means of charting, or the technical analysis of price movements; short-term trading; high rates of gearing; and compound interest, extraordinary rates of speculative profit may soon be available to the privileged common person. Even if considerable expertise is required to trade successfully, such expertise is already for sale at affordable prices. This process is significant for a number of reasons. By means of selling short - that is, agreeing to sell an asset one does not possess at the current price so that one can later buy it at a lower price before delivery - one can make large profits when the markets are falling. Profitmaking becomes detached from the productive economy. Once this means of making a living becomes available to a large class of people apart from the productive economy, it signifies the emergence of a new economic class beyond capitalist relations of production-a class of unlimited power that can thrive when all other classes do not. Capitalism therefore undermines itself from the inside with the growth of derivatives trading. Rates of profit from rapid price fluctuations, amplified by gearing and compound interest, far exceed the rates of profit achieved by production and investment. The productive, capitalist economy is becoming subservient to the speculative economy of casino capitalism. Capitalism is evolving once more. It is becoming a society of speculation and credit operating in the service of a parasitic class who control access to profits. The full implications of such an evolution are not yet clear. Such a class requires only a conventional economy of sufficient size to fulfill its demand for consumption and to provide a spectacle of predictable price movements from which it can reap a profit. Its continued existence is otherwise autonomous. ${}^{34}$${}^{34}$^(34){ }^{34}
交易者无法获利。因此，衍生品交易对更广泛的社会几乎没有影响，无论它对少数成功者来说是多么有利可图。然而，互联网通信的出现，以及差价合约、期权和备兑权证等投机工具的出现，使愿意承担巨大风险的普通投资者也能利用脱媒带来的机会。通过图表或价格走势技术分析、短期交易、高杠杆率和复利等手段，享有特权的普通人可能很快就能获得超高的投机利润率。即使成功地进行交易需要大量的专业知识，但这些专业知识已经可以以低廉的价格出售。这一过程意义重大，原因有很多。通过卖空--即同意以当前价格卖出自己并不拥有的资产，以便日后在交割前以较低价格买入--人们可以在市场下跌时赚取巨额利润。牟利脱离了生产性经济。这种谋生手段一旦脱离生产经济而为一大批人所掌握，就意味着在资本主义生产关系之外出现了一个新的经济阶级--一个拥有无限权力的阶级，当所有其他阶级都无法发展壮大时，这个阶级却可以发展壮大。因此，随着衍生品交易的发展，资本主义从内部削弱了自身。在资产负债率和复利的作用下，价格快速波动所带来的利润率远远超过了生产和投资所带来的利润率。生产性的资本主义经济正在成为赌场资本主义投机经济的附庸。资本主义正在再次演变。 它正在成为一个投机和信贷社会，为控制利润的寄生阶级服务。这种演变的全部影响尚不清楚。这样一个阶级只需要一个足够大的传统经济来满足其消费需求，并提供可预测的价格变动景象，从中获取利润。除此之外，它的继续存在是独立自主的。 ${}^{34}$${}^{34}$^(34){ }^{34}

Modernity has never achieved human mastery of nature or the liberation of the human will. Striving for wealth and freedom has had the effect of subordinating humanity to the impersonal and abstract force of money. Once
现代性从未实现人类对自然的驾驭或人类意志的解放。追求财富和自由的结果是，人类屈从于非个人的、抽象的金钱力量。曾经
money becomes the condition of possibility of society as such, whether in the form of market exchange, capital accumulation, credit intermediation, or speculative disintermediation, then the value of money, however fragile, must be maintained at all costs. Indeed, the very fragility of the financial system, its vulnerability to frequent regional crises, is the very source of its power. Traditional political means have no force against its spectral power. No institution, whether in the form of a state, a revolutionary vanguard, or a people, is able to control it. The power of money cannot be seized by physical force, even if a finite quantity of valuable assets can. The power of money cannot be restrained by legislation or an act of will, for the locus of its value is always reflected elsewhere in future exchange. Attempting to control money is like attempting to seize hold of an image in a mirror or a ghost. The spectral power of money, for all its ephemerality, is no less real. It is even invulnerable to enlightened critique, for there is no mode of social representation that escapes its power. The specter of money hangs over democracy as its inner principle or truth. Only money gives effective public representation to the expression of desire.
无论是以市场交换、资本积累、信贷中介还是投机性脱媒的形式，货币成为社会本身的可能性条件，那么货币的价值，无论多么脆弱，都必须不惜一切代价加以维护。事实上，金融体系的脆弱性，它在频繁的地区性危机面前的脆弱性，正是其力量的源泉。传统的政治手段根本无法对抗其幽灵般的力量。任何机构，无论是国家、革命先锋还是人民，都无法控制它。金钱的力量是无法用武力夺取的，即使有限数量的有价值的资产可以。货币的力量无法通过立法或意志行为来约束，因为其价值所在总是反映在未来交换的其他地方。试图控制货币就像试图控制镜子中的影像或幽灵。货币的幽灵力量虽然短暂，却同样真实。它甚至不受开明批判的影响，因为没有任何一种社会表征模式能逃脱它的力量。金钱的幽灵作为民主的内在原则或真理笼罩着民主。只有金钱才能有效地公开代表欲望的表达。

Money is not the sole principle of social reality. In contemporary society, however, it does have a peculiar dominance, a spectral power. It mediates between representation and reality. Attempts to counterpoise a different social order to the present are therefore caught in a dilemma. It is one thing to represent a different social order; it is another to make that order effective and real. It is one thing to will that an alternative be realized; it is another for that will to be effective. Politics cannot circumnavigate the problem of money without acquiring its own political “energy,” without acquiring the authority to make a political will effective. In the economic world of natural selection, capitalism expands because of its own internal dynamism, its own spectral power. Any challengers would have to demonstrate a greater capacity for survival, colonization, and appropriation than that present within capitalism. The unique advantage of a society mediated by money is that it represents value in an external milieu, in a form that may be reflected and appropriated by all others, independently of their own political preferences. Money succeeds in shaping society because it is the element of the exterior, beyond political representation. No genuine political alternatives are possible without a new mode of representation, a new political body - one capable of redemption from debt at the same time as
金钱不是社会现实的唯一原则。然而，在当代社会中，它确实具有一种特殊的支配力，一种幽灵般的力量。它介于表象与现实之间。因此，试图将不同的社会秩序与当下社会相抗衡的努力陷入了两难境地。表述不同的社会秩序是一回事，而让这种秩序生效并成为现实则是另一回事。实现另一种社会秩序的意愿是一回事，但这种意愿是否有效又是另一回事。政治如果没有自身的政治 "能量"，没有使政治意愿生效的权威，就无法绕过金钱问题。在自然选择的经济世界中，资本主义的扩张是由于其自身的内在动力，自身的幽灵力量。任何挑战者都必须表现出比资本主义更强的生存、殖民和占有能力。以货币为媒介的社会的独特优势在于，它代表了外部环境中的价值，这种形式可以被所有其他人所反映和占有，而与他们自身的政治偏好无关。货币之所以能成功塑造社会，是因为它是政治代表之外的外部元素。如果没有一种新的代表模式，没有一个新的政治机构，就不可能有真正的政治替代方案。
that it constitutes the texture of an entirely different social order. Progress cannot be achieved by turning back to older, pre-market society models for these will remain forever vulnerable to the market’s corrosive power. Political progress can come only from passing through the internal logic of the political body of money, appropriating its soul and distinctive power while subordinating it to newly created ends. Such a political problem requires a careful analysis of the theology of money.
它构成了一种完全不同的社会秩序。回到旧有的、市场化之前的社会模式是无法实现进步的，因为这些模式在市场的腐蚀力量面前永远是脆弱的。政治的进步只能来自于通过货币政治体的内在逻辑，占有其灵魂和独特的力量，同时使其服从于新创造的目的。这样的政治问题需要对货币神学进行仔细的分析。

A first radical conclusion is ontological. It is no longer sufficient to oppose will and matter, representation and production, being and becoming, the one and the many, transcendence and immanence, for the relations between these dualisms are always mediated by a spectral power that authorizes their realization. It is a question of belief and desire. Belief and desire are everywhere. Even if no one really wants money-it is always a means, never an end-everyone believes in money, everyone desires money, or, rather, money is the reality, the interiority of belief and desire in which we dwell. It is not we who desire money; it is money that desires in us. For where thought as representation is an abstraction from time, an attempt to master a given space, money as credit is an abstraction from space, an appropriation of time. Credit offers value in advance; in doing so, it functions as the condition of the creation of that future value. Credit posits itself as a spectral, temporal force. In addition to the determination of bodies in space through physical power and the representation by means of concepts in imagination through the power of the will, there is also the power to determine time. It is the power to determine attention. Money produces nothing - not even desire. It gives credit. It appeals to the future. To put it another way, it prays. Ontology is determined by eschatology. Life is determined by a possible future that attempts to actualize itself in us, even if the outcome of this actualization bears little resemblance to the future as conceived.
第一个激进的结论是本体论的。将意志与物质、表象与生产、存在与成为、一与多、超越与内在对立起来已经不够了，因为这些二元对立之间的关系总是以一种授权实现它们的幽灵力量为中介。这是一个信仰与欲望的问题。信仰和欲望无处不在。即使没有人真正想要金钱--金钱永远是手段，而非目的--但每个人都相信金钱，每个人都渴望金钱，或者说，金钱是现实，是我们所处的信仰与欲望的内在性。不是我们渴望金钱，而是金钱渴望我们。作为表象的思想是对时间的抽象，是对特定空间的驾驭，而作为信用的金钱则是对空间的抽象，是对时间的占有。信用提前提供了价值；这样，它就成为创造未来价值的条件。信贷将自身定位为一种幽灵般的时间力量。除了通过身体的力量决定空间中的身体，以及通过意志的力量在想象中以概念的方式进行表述之外，还有一种决定时间的力量。这是决定注意力的力量。金钱不产生任何东西，甚至不产生欲望。它给予信用。它诉诸未来。换一种说法，它在祈祷。本体论由末世论决定。生活是由可能的未来决定的，它试图在我们身上实现自己，即使这种实现的结果与设想的未来几乎没有相似之处。

A second radical conclusion is political. It is no longer sufficient to oppose political forces of the state in the name of autonomy or self-determination. At present, the powers of inhuman ecological forces and meta-human forces of demand and debt are rapidly growing, leaving little scope for selfdetermination through political activity. The sphere of human freedom has narrowed. Even at this level, possibilities of resistance to a dominant credit capitalism are confronted by more formidable powers than ever be-
第二个激进的结论是政治性的。以自治或自决的名义反对国家的政治力量已不再足够。目前，非人类的生态力量以及元人类的需求和债务力量正在迅速增长，通过政治活动实现自决的空间已所剩无几。人类的自由空间已经缩小。即使在这个层面上，抵制占主导地位的信贷资本主义的可能性也面临着比以往任何时候都更为强大的力量--这就是："人类的自由"。
fore in the alliance between the military, industry, finance capital, corporate media, informationalized knowledge, and consumerized subjectivity. Any successful resistance to the dominant power structure would have to face destabilization by external forces, economic sanctions, direct military opposition, or simple exclusion from the means of production. The global history of modernity, and especially the history of the twentieth century, has repeated the same drama throughout the world with almost a single outcome. When dealing with ecological and spectral powers, it is useless to aim at seizing or abolishing the power of the state. Powers have to be engaged at their own level: ecological adaptation to new environmental circumstances, for example, or the creation of new structures and practices of belief and desire.
在军事、工业、金融资本、企业媒体、信息化知识和消费主观性之间的联盟中，这一点尤为重要。任何对主导权力结构的成功反抗，都必须面对外部力量的颠覆、经济制裁、直接的军事对抗，或者干脆被排除在生产资料之外。现代性的全球历史，尤其是 20 世纪的历史，在世界各地重复上演着同样的戏剧，而结果却几乎千篇一律。面对生态权力和幽灵权力，以夺取或废除国家权力为目标是毫无用处的。权力必须在其自身的层面上发挥作用：例如，在生态上适应新的环境条件，或创造新的信仰和欲望结构与实践。

A third radical conclusion is that the “energy” of the political is inhuman. It is a spectral power that may insert itself into human life through belief and desire. Such may be the political significance of the world religions; such may be the political significance of money. The question is no longer one of a transcendent power of divinity intervening in nature; nor is it of immanent powers that are produced entirely within nature. For “nature” itself is indeterminate and incomplete, opening itself out onto temporal and spectral forces wherever the complexity of life opens itself onto multiple possible connections and determinations. Such virtual potencies, while absolutely prohibited in modern thought, may form the substance of a politics of the future. Such a politics must begin with an ontological, political, and theological inquiry into money.
第三个激进的结论是，政治的 "能量 "是非人的。它是一种幽灵般的力量，可以通过信仰和欲望介入人类生活。世界宗教的政治意义可能如此，金钱的政治意义也可能如此。问题不再是超越自然的神力干预自然，也不再是完全在自然中产生的内在力量。因为 "自然 "本身就是不确定的、不完整的，无论生命的复杂性在哪里，它都会向时间力量和幽灵力量敞开大门，从而产生多种可能的联系和决定。这种虚拟的力量虽然在现代思想中是绝对禁止的，但却可以构成未来政治的实质。这种政治必须从对金钱的本体论、政治学和神学探究开始。

A PARABLE  寓言故事
The nature of money is not generally understood; it is accessible only to the exceptionally wealthy. We are convinced that economic governance is scrupulously determined in accordance with the nature of money; nevertheless, it is an extremely painful thing to build our cities upon a substance whose nature we do not understand. I am not thinking of the disadvantages involved when only a few and not the whole people understand the nature of money, and the opportunities this affords for deception. Such disadvantages are perhaps of no great importance. For the wealthy have obviously no cause to be influenced by personal interests inimical to us into deceiving us about money, for the nature of money was made to their advantage from the beginning, and they themselves stand above the need for money since they can rely on mutual credit. This seems to be why the understanding of the nature of money is entrusted exclusively into their hands. Of course, there is prudence in that, but also hardship for us. Such hardship is probably unavoidable.
一般人并不了解货币的本质，只有特别富有的人才能接触到它。我们深信，经济治理是严格按照货币的本质来决定的；然而，把我们的城市建立在我们不了解其本质的物质之上，是一件极其痛苦的事情。我并不是在考虑只有少数人而不是全体人民了解货币的本质所带来的弊端，以及由此带来的欺骗机会。这些弊端也许并不重要。因为富人显然没有理由受不利于我们的个人利益的影响，在金钱问题上欺骗我们，因为金钱的本质从一开始就对他们有利，而且他们本身也不需要金钱，因为他们可以依靠相互信任。这似乎就是为什么对货币本质的理解完全交托给了他们。当然，这样做是谨慎的，但也会给我们带来困难。这种困难也许是不可避免的。

The very existence of economic laws deriving from the nature of money, however, is at most a matter of presumption. Some of us have attentively scrutinized the behaviour of the wealthy, and claim to recognize among the countless number of transactions certain main tendencies which permit of formulation in terms of principles. Yet when in accordance with these scrupulously tested and logically ordered conclusions we seek to adjust ourselves somewhat for the present or the future, everything becomes uncertain, and our work seems only an intellectual game, for perhaps these laws that we are trying to unravel do not exist at all. There are actually some who are of the opinion that if there is any economic law, it is simply this: the laws of economics are what the wealthy do. The overwhelming majority of the people, however, account for discrepancies and failed forecasts by the fact that the science of economics is far from complete, and that the material available, prodigious as it looks, is still too meager. This view, so comfortless as far as the present is concerned, is lightened only by the belief that the time will eventually come when the science of economics is complete, and the nature of money is fully understood. Then wealth will belong to the people as a whole. It is not that the wealthy are despised; on the contrary, we are more inclined to despise ourselves for our failure to understand and acquire money. And this is the real reason why those who doubt the existence of economic laws remain so few-even though their doctrine is so attractive - since it unequivocally recognizes the right of the wealthy to do as they please.
然而，从货币的本质中衍生出的经济规律的存在，充其量只是一种推测。我们中的一些人仔细研究了富人的行为，并声称在无数的交易中发现了某些可以用原则来表述的主要趋势。然而，当我们根据这些经过严格检验、符合逻辑顺序的结论，试图对自己进行某种程度的调整，以适应现在或未来的需要时，一切都变得不确定了，我们的工作似乎只是一种智力游戏，因为也许我们试图揭示的这些规律根本就不存在。实际上，有些人认为，如果有什么经济规律的话，那就是：经济规律就是富人的行为。然而，绝大多数人都认为，经济学还远远不够完善，现有的材料虽然看起来很丰富，但仍然太少，因此才会出现偏差和预测失败。这种观点，就目前而言，是如此的令人不安，只是因为人们相信，当经济学科学完备、货币的本质被完全理解的时候终将到来。到那时，财富将属于全体人民。并不是富人被鄙视，相反，我们更倾向于鄙视我们自己，因为我们未能理解和获得金钱。这就是为什么怀疑经济规律存在的人仍然很少的真正原因--尽管他们的学说如此吸引人--因为它明确承认富人有权为所欲为。

The problem can be expressed in a sort of paradox: any party that would repudiate all belief not only in the laws of economics, but also in the necessity for money as such, would have the whole people behind it. Yet no such party can come into existence, for nobody would dare to repudiate money. The sole indubitable law that is imposed on us is the need for money, and must we deprive ourselves of that one law?
这个问题可以用一个悖论来表述：任何一个政党，如果不仅不相信经济规律，而且不相信货币本身的必要性，那么它就会得到全体人民的支持。然而，这样的政党不可能出现，因为没有人敢否定货币。强加给我们的唯一不可否认的法则就是对金钱的需求，难道我们一定要剥夺这唯一的法则吗？

Adapted from franz kafka, “The Problem of Our Laws,” in The Collected Short Stories of Franz Kafka, 437-38.
改编自弗朗茨-卡夫卡：《我们的法律问题》，载于《弗朗茨-卡夫卡短篇小说集》，437-38 页。

C A P ITAL
3.1.1 CAPITAL IS THE MEANS of production that has itself been produced. Since everything has been produced, all means of production are capital.
3.1.1 资本是生产出来的生产资料。既然一切都被生产出来了，那么所有生产资料都是资本。

Production is inherent in the natural order. Stars, planets, elements, compounds, cells, genetic codes and living bodies, for example, form the means of production for more complex forms. Natural capital is produced independently of human activity. Human activity modifies existing processes of production by selection and extraction, by juxtaposition and assembly, and by fueling and catalysis. All economic production involves the cooperation of natural and human-produced capital.
生产是自然界固有的秩序。例如，恒星、行星、元素、化合物、细胞、遗传密码和生命体构成了更复杂形式的生产资料。自然资本的生产与人类活动无关。人类活动通过选择和提取、并置和组装以及燃料和催化来改变现有的生产过程。所有经济生产都涉及自然资本和人类生产的资本之间的合作。

The production of capital involves accumulation, invention, and assembly. It is one thing to produce and accumulate; it is another to produce a means of production. An accumulated stock of product does not become a means of production until a productive machine is invented into which it may be assembled as a part. Stock is only potentially capital in reference to a determinate machine or productive process. Potential capital only becomes capital when it is actually assembled into a productive machine.
资本的生产涉及积累、发明和组装。生产和积累是一回事，生产生产资料又是另一回事。只有在发明了生产机器并将其组装成部件之后，积累起来的产品库存才会成为生产资料。存货只有在涉及到确定的机器或生产过程时才是潜在的资本。潜在资本只有在实际组装成生产机器时才成为资本。

Nevertheless, it is insufficient to simply accumulate stock, to invent form, and to assemble parts. The machine, to become productive, has to be switched on. It has to be powered, whether by electricity, combustion, human skill, animal strength, or solar power. Production consumes a flow of energy. If a common modern metaphysics represents the world in terms of matter, information, space-time, and energy, then these dimensions are represented in the production of capital as the accumulation of stock, the invention of form, the assembly of parts, and the supply of energy.
然而，仅仅积累库存、发明形式和组装部件是不够的。这台机器要想具有生产力，就必须启动。它必须由电力、燃烧、人类技能、动物力量或太阳能提供动力。生产需要消耗能量流。如果常用的现代形而上学用物质、信息、时空和能量来表示世界，那么这些维度在资本生产中就表现为存量的积累、形式的发明、部件的组装和能量的供应。

Money is a form of capital. An ecology of money explains the role of money as a means of production in terms of the relations it forms with other modes of capital. Yet a difficulty arises when one tries to represent money in relation to capital. Money is an accumulated stock. It is not, however, assembled as a material part of a productive machine. Instead, it is exchanged for an accumulated stock, for an invented form, for the labor involved in assembly, or for a supply of energy. Money is also an invented form. It does not, however, govern the arrangement of parts. Instead, it is a form that measures the value of the stock, form, labor, and energy used in production. Money also plays a decisive role in assembly. The availability of money determines whether investment in capital can take place. Money does not, of course, stand alongside the workers to assemble the parts. Instead, it promises value and so enables itself to be exchanged for stock, for plans, for labor, or for energy. Moreover, money is invested for the sake of a profit. The value promised by money may take the form of products that fulfill needs and desires or the form of profits in money.
货币是资本的一种形式。货币生态学从货币与其他资本形式的关系来解释货币作为生产资料的作用。然而，当我们试图将货币与资本联系起来时，就会遇到困难。货币是一种累积的存量。然而，它并不是作为生产机器的物质部分被组装起来的。相反，它被用来交换积累的存量、被用来交换发明的形式、被用来交换装配的劳动或能源供应。货币也是一种发明的形式。然而，它并不支配部件的排列。相反，它是一种衡量生产中所使用的存量、形式、劳动和能源价值的形式。货币在装配中也起着决定性作用。货币的可获得性决定了资本投资能否进行。当然，货币并不是与工人并肩组装零件。相反，它承诺价值，因此可以用来交换股票、计划、劳动力或能源。此外，货币是为了利润而投资的。货币承诺的价值可以是满足需求和欲望的产品，也可以是货币利润。

Money may therefore be differentiated from other forms of capital as a stock that is not assembled or consumed, as a form that does not order or arrange, and as an act that accomplishes nothing other than promising. As an object of pure exchange, it is not an object of use. As a pure quantity, it imposes no conditions on form. As a passive instrument, it takes no active role in directing assembly. Money is a condition of production that is not itself productive. It defies the metaphysical categories of representation by means of its anomalous participation in each category. The question of whether money participates in the category of energy is more perplexing. Money is inert; it contains no physical or potential energy. The role of money in capital production remains a philosophical conundrum.
因此，货币可以与其他形式的资本区分开来，它是一种不组装也不消费的存量，是一种不排序也不安排的形式，是一种除了许诺之外什么也不做的行为。作为纯粹的交换对象，它不是使用对象。作为一个纯粹的数量，它不对形式施加任何条件。作为一种被动的工具，它在指导集会方面不发挥任何积极作用。货币是一种生产条件，其本身并不具有生产性。它通过反常地参与到每一个范畴中来，从而藐视形而上学的表象范畴。货币是否参与能量范畴的问题更令人困惑。货币是惰性的，它不包含任何物理或潜在的能量。货币在资本生产中的作用仍然是一个哲学难题。

The common solution is to regard money as a symbol of human evaluation and desire. ${}^1$${}^1$^(1){ }^{1} Money is treated as an ambassador for the private human will in the public and material world. Money expresses the effective demands of the sovereign, rational subject. If money leads to accumulation, invention and assembly, this is because it expresses the agency of the human subject. Money is the instrument of desire; desire is required, alongside energy, to realize capital production.
常见的解决办法是将金钱视为人类评价和欲望的象征。 ${}^1$${}^1$^(1){ }^{1} 货币被视为人类私人意志在公共和物质世界中的使者。货币表达了主权、理性主体的有效需求。如果说货币导致了积累、发明和组装，那是因为它表达了人类主体的能动性。货币是欲望的工具；实现资本生产需要欲望和能量。

Such a solution leaves open the question of how human capital, itself a product of processes of reproduction, nutrition, and evolution, can become
这样的解决方案留下了这样一个问题：人力资本本身是繁衍、营养和进化过程的产物，如何才能成为
a human subject. Moreover, these subjects are inaccessible apart from their material and symbolic expressions and their representations in consciousness. There is a weight of philosophical argumentation that questions the existence and autonomy of such a subject. ${}^2$${}^2$^(2){ }^{2} Although one might observe agreement between private consciousness and material and symbolic expression, one cannot observe a strict order of causality between these in either direction. One cannot therefore be confident whether money expresses desire or desire expresses money. The common assumption that money expresses desire arises from the observation that one can desire without money, and money itself evidently lacks energy, qualitative form, or active will. The human subject is invoked to explain how money can accumulate value, measure value, and promise value. Money is treated as a substance, a standard, and an instrument. The problem that remains to be explained, however, is that of the objective nature of the value that the subject is supposed to act on through the symbol of money. ${}^3$${}^3$^(3){ }^{3}
人类主体。此外，除了物质和符号表现形式及其在意识中的表征之外，这些主体是不可触及的。哲学上有大量论证质疑这种主体的存在和自主性。 ${}^2$${}^2$^(2){ }^{2} 尽管我们可以观察到私人意识与物质和符号表达之间的一致性，但我们无法观察到它们之间在任一方向上的严格因果顺序。因此，我们无法确定到底是金钱表达了欲望，还是欲望表达了金钱。人们之所以普遍认为金钱表达了欲望，是因为人们发现没有金钱也能产生欲望，而金钱本身显然缺乏能量、质的形式或积极的意志。人类主体被用来解释货币如何积累价值、衡量价值和承诺价值。货币被视为一种物质、一种标准和一种工具。然而，有待解释的问题是，主体应该通过货币符号对价值的客观性质采取行动。 ${}^3$${}^3$^(3){ }^{3}

Nevertheless, we need to decide in advance whether such value is the precondition or the product of money. This problem can be easily resolved by a consideration of the difference between representation and production. ${}^4$${}^4$^(4){ }^{4} A productive machine can be represented in imagination in terms of its accumulated stock, invented form, and assembled parts. It may even, by extension, be represented in some malleable material or symbolic medium. A represented machine, however, will never function to produce because its new medium lacks its own source of energy. Indeed, media of representation are chosen precisely for their malleability, which involves inertness and a lack of energetic process. An imagined machine is reproduced under the force of the imagination alone: instead of bearing its own energy, it bears the energy lent to it by the vividness of the imagination; instead of bearing its own force of attraction and selection, it is subject to the force of attraction and selection by which the contents of the imagination are composed; instead of bearing its own power of evolution and invention, invention is regarded after the fact as a product of a fertile mind. Thus, when the world is reproduced in imagination, it is no longer reproduced as productive capital but as passive and inert. Such is the source of the theology of the human subject as creator. Since the world is only known as represented, it must be supplemented by the transcendent decrees of a human subject.
然而，我们需要事先确定这种价值是货币的前提还是货币的产物。只要考虑到表象与生产之间的区别，这个问题就能迎刃而解。 ${}^4$${}^4$^(4){ }^{4} 一台生产机器可以在想象中以其积累的存量、发明的形式和组装的部件来表现。推而广之，它甚至可以用某种可塑的物质或符号媒介来表现。然而，被表征的机器永远不会发挥生产功能，因为它的新媒介缺乏自身的能量来源。事实上，表象媒介正是因其可塑性而被选中的，这就意味着惰性和缺乏能量过程。一台想象中的机器仅在想象力的作用下再生产出来：它不具有自身的能量，而是具有想象力的生动性所赋予它的能量；它不具有自身的吸引和选择的力量，而是受制于想象内容所构成的吸引和选择的力量；它不具有自身的进化和发明的力量，而是在事后被视为富于创造力的头脑的产物。因此，当世界在想象中被再现时，它不再是作为生产资本被再现，而是作为被动和惰性的资本被再现。这就是人类主体作为创造者的神学来源。既然世界只是作为表象而被认识，那么它就必须得到人类主体的超越性法令的补充。

There is no reason to extend the power that a mind exercises over the imagination, or that a hand exercises over malleable materials and symbols, to the relation that humanity has with the world as a whole. The notion that the production of capital occurs outside the sphere of human activity is sufficient to dispel this modern myth. Energy, force, attraction, selection, and invention are not the sole preserve of human culture. Representation itself must be explained. Representation is a process of abstraction that reproduces forms without their material substance. It separates forms from the context in which they dwell and function; it separates forms from the passage of time and from their own productive processes; it separates forms from the forces that impinge on them to give them orientation and direction.
我们没有理由将头脑对想象力的支配力，或双手对可塑材料和符号的支配力，延伸到人类与整个世界的关系中。资本的生产发生在人类活动之外，这一概念足以打破这一现代神话。能量、力量、吸引力、选择和发明并非人类文化的专利。必须解释表象本身。表象是一个抽象的过程，它再现了形式，却没有物质内容。它将形式与它们所处的环境和功能分离开来；它将形式与时间的流逝和它们自身的生产过程分离开来；它将形式与影响它们的力量分离开来，这些力量赋予它们方位和方向。

When money is represented apart from its context, then the accumulation of relations that give it meaning is neglected in favor of its residue of a material or symbolic substance. When money is represented apart from time, then its role as an agent of investment is neglected in favor of its role as a store of value. When money is represented apart from credit, then its role as producer of value is neglected in favor of its role as a standard measure of value. In short, the entire nature of money as productive capital is occluded by representation. Since the mystery of capital production remains unexplained, the human imagination merely extends its own power, a free power of imagination, so that it appears as though the human subject exercises its power through the malleable instrument of money. Such a power is extended in imagination only. The one who believes that he can do anything through money ends up doing anything for money.
当货币的表述脱离其背景时，赋予其意义的关系的积累就会被忽视，而只剩下物质或符号的残余。当货币的表现形式脱离了时间，那么它作为投资媒介的作用就会被忽视，而它作为价值储藏的作用则会被忽视。当货币的表现形式脱离了信用，那么它作为价值生产者的作用就会被忽视，转而成为价值的标准尺度。简而言之，货币作为生产资本的整个本质被表象所掩盖。由于资本生产的奥秘仍未得到解释，人类的想象力只是扩展了自己的力量，一种自由的想象力，因此看起来好像人类主体通过货币这一可塑工具行使了自己的力量。这种力量只是在想象中延伸。相信自己可以通过金钱做任何事情的人，最终会为了金钱而做任何事情。

It is not necessary to assume the imposition of value as a transcendent form on nature. Value is an abstraction that derives from representing nature in terms of money - or at least, in terms of a form that is assumed to be composed of discreet, inert units, independent of the temporal work of thinking or representation and entirely passive, subject to the sovereign decisions of the will. Value is represented in a form that is taken to be independent of evaluation. If it emerges that such a form has an active role in evaluation, as is the case with money, then even the highest values are devalued.
我们没有必要把价值作为一种超越自然的形式强加给自然。价值是一种抽象概念，它源于用金钱来表现自然--或者至少是用一种形式来表现自然，而这种形式被假定为由谨慎的、惰性的单位组成，独立于思考或表现的时间性工作，完全被动，服从于意志的主权决定。价值是以一种独立于评价的形式表现出来的。如果这种形式在评价中发挥了积极作用，就像货币一样，那么即使是最高的价值也会贬值。

An alternative is to represent nature in terms of productive capital. This does not eliminate the dangers of illusion. It does, however, liberate thought
另一种方法是用生产资本来代表自然。这并不能消除幻想的危险。但它确实解放了思想
from subservience to the form of representation by enabling the direction of attention to relational context, to temporal process, and to orientation to the future. For, as we shall see, money contributes its own specific determination as a promise of value. The power of such a promise exists in addition to energy and desire. Consideration of money as productive capital enables the elaboration of an ontology, a politics, and a theology of money.
通过将注意力引向关系背景、时间进程和未来方向，使货币不再屈从于表征形式。因为，正如我们将要看到的，金钱作为一种价值承诺，有其自身的特殊决定性。除了能量和欲望之外，这种承诺的力量也是存在的。将货币视为生产性资本，可以使我们对货币的本体论、政治学和神学进行阐述。
3.1.2 Capital is the source of all wealth. Wealth derives from accumulation, invention and assembly. It also requires a supply of energy, instigation by desire, and facilitation by the promise of money. Wealth is poorly understood when it is considered in terms of products alone. An accumulation of stock or assets provides a very limited conception of wealth. Accumulated stock is subject to consumption and depletion. The process is entropic: it begins in wealth and ends in poverty. If, by contrast, accumulated stock is assembled into a productive machine, then the output may be consumed without harming the integrity of the machine. Machines may continue to produce so long as they draw their inputs from the outputs of other machines. While the entire system may be entropic, drawing energy from the sun, machines may continue to produce in a sustainable process for as long as the required inputs can be produced by other machines, and all products can be inputs for further machines. Sustainable economic production concentrates on the production of capital rather than the consumption of accumulated stock. Capital itself is negentropic: it is the production rather than the depletion of wealth.
3.1.2 资本是一切财富的源泉。财富源于积累、发明和组装。它还需要能量的供应、欲望的煽动和金钱承诺的推动。如果仅仅从产品的角度来考虑财富，那么人们对财富的理解就会大打折扣。库存或资产的积累提供了一个非常有限的财富概念。积累的存量会消耗和耗尽。这一过程是熵式的：始于富裕，终于贫穷。与此相反，如果将积累的存量组装成一台生产机器，那么产出可以在不损害机器完整性的情况下被消耗。机器只要从其他机器的产出中获取输入，就可以继续生产。虽然整个系统可能会熵化，从太阳中汲取能量，但只要其他机器能够生产出所需的输入，所有产品都可以成为其他机器的输入，机器就可以在可持续的过程中继续生产。可持续的经济生产集中于资本的生产，而不是累积存量的消耗。资本本身是负熵的：它是财富的生产，而不是财富的消耗。

Accumulated stock, therefore, cannot be considered capital until it has the potential to be incorporated into a productive machine. Nothing in itself may be considered a means of production; it becomes a means of production only in relation to the machine that may incorporate it. Capital is therefore a relative notion. The value of capital appreciates to the extent that capital becomes capable of entering into viable processes of production. The invention of new processes of production and the assembly of productive machines make vital contributions to the creation of wealth. An increase in wealth occurs through accumulation, invention, and assembly. Capital also involves energy, desire, and promise. It is a process of intermediation. Capital is the site and occasion where parts of a machine can interact productively. It cannot be reduced to a set of material parts, an
因此，积累的存货在有可能被纳入生产机器之前，不能被视为资本。任何事物本身都不能被视为生产资料；只有与可能将其纳入其中的机器相关联时，它才能成为生产资料。因此，资本是一个相对概念。资本增值的程度取决于资本是否能够进入可行的生产过程。新的生产工艺的发明和生产机器的组装为财富的创造做出了重要贡献。财富的增长是通过积累、发明和组装实现的。资本还涉及能量、欲望和承诺。这是一个中介过程。资本是一台机器的各个部分进行生产性互动的场所和场合。它不能简化为一套物质部件，也不能简化为一台机器。
ideal form, or spatial contiguity. Capital has the mysterious power to convert assembled parts into an active process.
理想形式或空间连续性。资本有一种神秘的力量，可以将组装好的部件转化为一个活跃的过程。

The creation of wealth, therefore, is poorly understood in terms of an accumulation of value. The creation of wealth is more properly considered the creation of capital. While the creation of wealth expends energy, it may be understood in terms of the accumulation of resources, the invention of forms, the assembly of machines, the intensification of desire, and the increase in the credit of promise.
因此，从价值积累的角度来理解财富的创造并不恰当。财富的创造更应该被视为资本的创造。虽然创造财富需要消耗能量，但可以从资源的积累、形式的发明、机器的组装、欲望的强化以及承诺信用的增加等方面来理解。
3.1.3 Capital can be exchanged for money, just as money can be exchanged for capital. This process of exchange facilitates the assembly of capital and so contributes to the process of production. Exchangeability itself is part of the means of production, even though the process of circulation involves products that are not in themselves part of a productive process while in circulation. Money may therefore be regarded as capital insofar as it stimulates production through facilitating exchange.
3.1.3 资本可以兑换货币，货币也可以兑换资本。这种交换过程促进了资本的组合，从而推动了生产过程。可交换性本身就是生产资料的一部分，尽管流通过程涉及的产品在流通过程中本身并不属于生产过程的一部分。因此，货币可以被视为资本，因为它通过促进交换来刺激生产。

The exchange of capital for money has another effect: capital may be represented as having a determinate value in terms of the quantity of money that is exchanged for it. Moreover, to be exchanged, capital, like anything else, must be represented in this way as having a determinate price. A price, like a hoard of money, produces nothing. Yet the act of pricing, through considerations of exchange, facilitates exchange and therefore production. Then as a represented quantity, money has no productive role. Yet as a quantitative representation, money facilitates production. In precisely the same role, money is both unproductive and productive. Money becomes active and productive through making itself into a passive body for representation.
资本与货币的交换还有另一个作用：资本可以被表述为具有确定的价值，即与之交换的货币数量。此外，资本要想被交换，就必须像其他任何东西一样，以这种方式表现为具有确定的价格。价格就像囤积的货币一样，不产生任何东西。然而，定价行为通过对交换的考虑，促进了交换，从而促进了生产。那么，作为一种表征的数量，货币并不具有生产作用。然而，作为一种数量表征，货币促进了生产。正是在同样的作用下，货币既是非生产性的，又是生产性的。货币通过使自己成为被动的表征体而变得积极和具有生产性。

This paradoxical nature of money is the source of some significant illusions. On the one hand, the representation of capital in terms of money as an exchange value obscures its specific nature as capital. When capital is represented in terms of money as an exchange value, it is represented as already sold. In other words, it has been disappropriated or alienated. It is no longer part of a productive machine. It is reduced to an accumulated stock. Capital is represented, then, in terms of the product of a process of production rather than in terms of the productive process itself. It is represented without energy, desire, or belief. The distinctive element that makes it capital has been removed; even the product or accumulated stock
货币的这种自相矛盾的性质是一些重大错觉的根源。一方面，以货币作为交换价值来表现资本，掩盖了资本作为资本的特殊性质。当资本以作为交换价值的货币来表示时，它就被表示为已经出售。换句话说，它已经被非占有化或异化了。它不再是生产机器的一部分。它已沦为累积的存货。因此，资本的表现形式是生产过程的产品，而不是生产过程本身。资本是没有能量、欲望或信念的。使其成为资本的独特要素已被去除；甚至连产品或积累的存量
has been removed. All that remains in representation is a sum of money. To measure capital in terms of an accumulation of exchange value is to miss the decisive ingredient of capital as capital.
已被删除。在表象上只剩下货币的总和。用交换价值的积累来衡量资本，就是忽略了资本作为资本的决定性要素。

On the other hand, the representation of capital in terms of money facilitates its nature as capital. For the purchaser of capital, such a representation holds out the promise that capital may be acquired and assembled and so become productive. The representation of capital in terms of money increases its promise, its capacity to be incorporated into new assemblages. Money promises production. It delivers this promise through the illusory representation of exchange value. Money effectively functions by concealing its nature as capital. It is therefore hardly surprising that it is normally treated as an accumulated stock.
另一方面，资本以货币的形式表现有利于其作为资本的性质。对于资本的购买者来说，这种表征提供了一种承诺，即资本可以被购买和组合，从而成为生产力。资本以货币的形式表现，增加了资本的承诺，增加了资本融入新组合的能力。货币承诺生产。它通过交换价值的虚幻表现来实现这一承诺。货币通过掩盖其作为资本的本质而有效地发挥作用。因此，货币通常被视为一种累积的存量，这一点不足为奇。
3.1.4 It is not essential to identify capital with money. Money may indicate the presence and operation of capital in terms of its effects. A rate of production indicates the activity of capital. A rate of profit, or the difference between the exchange value of outputs and the exchange value of inputs, measures the effects of capital. Instead of valuing capital assets according to their past accumulation of value, therefore, it may be preferable to value capital assets according to their rates of profit. Assets may be valued according to the time taken to earn their purchase price. If capital is regarded as a value that increases, or as money that makes money, then the value of capital may be regarded as a rate of profit.
3.1.4 并非必须将资本与货币相提并论。货币可以说明资本的存在和运作效果。生产率表明资本的活动。利润率或产出的交换价值与投入的交换价值之间的差额可以衡量资本的效果。因此，与其根据资本资产过去的价值积累对其进行估值，不如根据其利润率对其进行估值。可以根据赚取购买价所需的时间对资产进行估值。如果把资本看作是一种会增值的价值，或者说是一种会赚钱的货币，那么资本的价值就可以看作是一种利润率。

Such a move is not altogether sufficient to escape from illusion. Inputs and outputs are only priced according to their exchange values. Their value in the process of production is irrelevant except insofar as it contributes to the market price as a whole. What is measured by a rate of profit is not the value produced by capital production but the outcome of a particular trading strategy of buying one set of goods and selling another. Capital is valued, by this means, in terms of external measures of exchange rather than in terms of intrinsic productive power and significance. When rates of profit are taken as indicators of the operation of productive capacity, there is a danger of a fundamental dissimulation: income may derive from the consumption of capital as well as from new production. An enterprise may destroy the conditions that make it possible in the very process of production. For capital itself includes all the means of production, including the prevailing conditions that make production possible. If these conditions are provided
这样做并不能完全摆脱幻想。投入和产出只是根据其交换价值来定价的。它们在生产过程中的价值无关紧要，除非它对整个市场价格有贡献。用利润率衡量的不是资本生产所产生的价值，而是买一套商品卖另一套商品的特定交易策略的结果。通过这种方式，资本的价值是以外部交换衡量的，而不是以内在生产力和意义来衡量的。当利润率被视为生产能力运作的指标时，就有可能出现根本性的虚假：收入可能来自资本消费，也可能来自新的生产。企业在生产过程中可能会破坏使其成为可能的条件。因为资本本身包括所有生产资料，包括使生产成为可能的现有条件。如果提供了这些条件
by nature and society, then they may not need to be regularly purchased. If they are not represented as internal costs of production, capital may be consumed and depleted. Without an independent measure of capital, it is impossible to tell from the rate of profit whether wealth is being generated or depleted by any particular process. Indeed, all processes generate some forms of wealth while destroying others. When reduced to a single rate of profit, this ambivalence is no longer represented. All economic activity is accounted as positive if it yields a profit. An increase in stock of exchange value replaces all measures of the increase of capital. ${}^5$${}^5$^(5){ }^{5}
如果资本是由自然和社会赋予的，那么它们可能不需要定期购买。如果不把它们作为生产的内部成本，资本就可能被消耗和耗尽。如果没有独立的资本衡量标准，就不可能从利润率中看出任何特定过程是在创造财富还是在消耗财富。事实上，所有生产过程都会产生某些形式的财富，同时也会破坏其他形式的财富。当简化为单一的利润率时，这种矛盾性就不复存在了。所有的经济活动，只要产生利润，就都是积极的。交换价值存量的增加取代了资本增加的所有衡量标准。 ${}^5$${}^5$^(5){ }^{5}

This dissimulation is the crucial error of modern economic activity. Modern economic activity only measures rates of profit. Since it is more profitable, in the short term, to consume the means of production than to preserve them, then economic activities that do so will outstrip economic activities that aim for sustainability. Since they are more profitable, they will survive, grow, and prosper in the short term, forcing their sustainable competitors to adapt or be forced out of business. In such an environment, sustainable practices in ecological terms are not sustainable in economic terms; similarly, sustainable practices in economic terms are not sustainable in ecological terms. An economic system that is constructed around the maximization of short-term profits will necessarily consume its capital. For in such a system, consumption of inherited and accumulated assets is measured only as an increase in wealth. Such a system will necessarily destroy its long-term conditions for survival. It is inevitably bound for crisis.
这种假象是现代经济活动的关键错误。现代经济活动只衡量利润率。由于在短期内消费生产资料比保护生产资料更有利可图，因此，这样做的经济活动将超过以可持续发展为目标的经济活动。由于它们更有利可图，它们将在短期内生存、发展和繁荣，迫使其可持续发展的竞争对手进行调整，否则就会被淘汰出局。在这样的环境中，生态方面的可持续做法在经济方面是不可持续的；同样，经济方面的可持续做法在生态方面也是不可持续的。围绕短期利润最大化而构建的经济体系必然会消耗其资本。因为在这种体系中，对继承和积累的资产的消耗只能作为财富的增长来衡量。这样的体系必然会破坏其长期的生存条件。它必然会陷入危机。

All social systems involve the production of means of production. Capitalism may be regarded as the social system in which capital is measured as an accumulated quantity in terms of exchange value. It matters little whether the means of production are privately owned, or owned by the state, or owned by workers’ or buyers’ cooperatives. Each is a form of capitalism. Each measures the means of production in terms of its exchange value. Each will necessarily deplete its capital insofar as it seeks to maximize profits. In capitalism, investment itself, guided by the maximization of profits, is directed toward the maximization of rates of depletion. Such is the inevitable contradiction of capitalism: it is necessarily self-destructive.
所有社会制度都涉及生产资料的生产。资本主义可以被视为一种社会制度，在这种制度中，资本是以交换价值作为积累数量来衡量的。至于生产资料是私人所有、国家所有，还是工人合作社或买方合作社所有，这并不重要。每一种都是资本主义的一种形式。每一种资本主义都以其交换价值来衡量生产资料。只要追求利润最大化，每种资本主义都必然会耗尽其资本。在资本主义中，以利润最大化为导向的投资本身也是以损耗率最大化为导向的。这就是资本主义不可避免的矛盾：它必然是自我毁灭的。
3.1.5 The production of natural capital depends on the finite rate of flow of nuclear energy from solar radiation. This energy may be stored in highly
3.1.5 自然资本的生产取决于太阳辐射核能的有限流动率。这种能量可以储存在高度
fissible or fusible chemical elements; it may also be stored in fossil fuels. Such stores are finite. Once depleted, the overall rate of energy for production is that which can be captured from renewable sources. Natural capital imposes limits of past accumulation and present rate of flow on the energy use of any economy.
它可以储存在可裂变或可熔化的化学元素中，也可以储存在化石燃料中。这些储存是有限的。一旦耗尽，用于生产的总能源率就是可从可再生资源中获取的能源率。自然资本对任何经济体的能源使用都施加了过去积累和现在流量的限制。

Natural capital uses this energy for the circular flow of matter. The hydrological cycle, carbon cycle, and nitrogen cycle are the most basic and significant circular flows. The waste products of one part of each cycle are the nutrients of another. Similarly, metabolic oxidation in living creatures is balanced by photosynthesis. The rates of recirculation within such cycles also place limits on the rate at which any organic or economic system can function. If such cycles are not maintained, the result is the depletion of natural capital. Within such bounds, however, organic systems have evolved an unlimited proliferation of forms adapted to specific environmental niches. The limits on flows of energy and matter do not impose limits on the creation of forms. Such is the accumulation of natural capital.
自然资本将这种能量用于物质的循环流动。水文循环、碳循环和氮循环是最基本、最重要的循环流动。每个循环中一个环节的废物都是另一个环节的养分。同样，生物体内的新陈代谢氧化作用与光合作用相平衡。这种循环内的再循环速度也限制了任何有机或经济系统的运作速度。如果不能维持这种循环，自然资本就会枯竭。然而，在这种限制范围内，有机系统进化出了无限的适应特定环境的形式。能量和物质流动的限制并不限制形式的创造。这就是自然资本的积累。

Capitalist economic systems, by contrast, aim at a single primary product: exchange value. Exchange value, once reinvested, aims at the production of an unlimited quantity of exchange value. The motive power of capitalist reproduction is compound interest. A national economy that grows at a rate of 4 percent per annum over three centuries would increase in size more than one hundred thousand times. A capital sum invested at a 6 percent rate of interest per annum would increase in size nearly four million times. A successful day trader who earns an average daily profit of .6 percent from small variations in asset prices would, if starting with a sum of $\mathrm{\$}1,000$$\mathrm{\$}1,000$$1,000\$ 1,000, be capable of buying the entirety of global assets within twenty years. Material production cannot keep up with such rates of growth.
相比之下，资本主义经济体系的目标是单一的初级产品：交换价值。交换价值一旦再投资，就会生产出无限量的交换价值。资本主义再生产的动力是复利。一个国家的经济在三个世纪中以每年 4% 的速度增长，其规模将扩大十万倍以上。以年利率 6% 投资的资本总额将增长近 400 万倍。一个成功的日间交易者，如果能从资产价格的微小变化中平均每天赚取 0.6% 的利润，那么，如果他的起始资金是 $\mathrm{\$}1,000$$\mathrm{\$}1,000$$1,000\$ 1,000 ，他就有能力在二十年内买下全球的全部资产。物质生产跟不上这样的增长速度。

Economy and ecology are mathematically incompatible. ${}^6$${}^6$^(6){ }^{6} Economic growth is incompatible with ecological finitude. It must necessarily reach its limits and collapse before rising again to a lesser extent in an oscillating pattern of decay. Capitalism is unsustainable. Global capitalist development is impossible. Such a logical fact strikes at the heart of faith in capitalism.
经济与生态在数学上是不相容的。 ${}^6$${}^6$^(6){ }^{6} 经济增长与生态有限性不相容。它必然会达到极限并崩溃，然后在衰退的振荡模式中以较小的程度再次上升。资本主义是不可持续的。全球资本主义发展是不可能的。这一逻辑事实直击资本主义信仰的核心。
3.1.6 The incompatibility of economy and ecology meets with much resistance. One strategy of denial is to attempt to mitigate the depletion of energy and resources by means of efficiency gains through technological
3.1.6 经济与生态的不相容遭到了许多抵制。一种拒绝的策略是试图通过技术提高效率来缓解能源和资源的消耗。
improvements. Yet since large and unnecessary inefficiencies may be removed first, levels of efficiency gain tend to decrease with each successive stage. Compound interest, by contrast, increases exponentially. The collision cannot be postponed for long. Moreover, efficiency gains reduce overall costs and improve profits. The additional income will be used for consumption and investment. Both consumption and investment stimulate production, resulting in an overall utilization of energy and resources at a similar rate to the previous one. Efficiency gains, in themselves, contribute nothing toward ecological sustainability. ${}^7$${}^7$^(7){ }^{7}
效率的提高。然而，由于大量不必要的低效可能会首先被消除，效率提高的水平往往会随着每个阶段的连续进行而降低。相比之下，复利则以指数形式增长。碰撞不能被推迟太久。此外，效率的提高会降低总体成本，提高利润。额外的收入将用于消费和投资。消费和投资都会刺激生产，从而使能源和资源的总体利用率与之前相近。效率的提高本身对生态可持续性毫无助益。 ${}^7$${}^7$^(7){ }^{7}

In practice, efficiency gains have to be enforced by a rise in prices of the relevant energy and resources. The suppliers of energy and resources, especially the oil, gas, and mining sectors, gain a greater share of the relevant wealth. This wealth, again, will be used either for investment or for consumption. The same is true for government taxation, which supplies an additional source of revenue to increase government spending, leading to a multiplier effect throughout the economy. ${}^8$${}^8$^(8){ }^{8} In short, neither efficiency, prices, nor taxes can significantly reduce energy use. Energy consumption can only be reduced in the system as a whole by “demand destruction” through economic recession.
在实践中，必须通过提高相关能源和资源的价格来提高效率。能源和资源的供应方，尤其是石油、天然气和采矿部门，将从相关财富中获得更大份额。同样，这些财富将被用于投资或消费。政府税收也是如此，它为增加政府支出提供了额外的收入来源，从而在整个经济中产生乘数效应。 ${}^8$${}^8$^(8){ }^{8} 简而言之，无论是效率、价格还是税收，都无法大幅减少能源的使用。只有通过经济衰退的 "需求破坏"，才能在整个系统中减少能源消耗。

A second strategy of denial is to attempt to separate non-material from material production. There is no absolute limit to the production of ideal forms. Economic growth can continue through the production of ideas, knowledge, and virtual or silicon-based entities, as well as through growth in the nominal value of speculative assets. Economic growth can and does continue on a shrinking ecological base. Nominal economic growth can and does continue on a shrinking base of material production and consumption. Non-material economic entities can continue to thrive under conditions of material scarcity. Nevertheless, this strategy does not reckon with the material reality of consumption: consumption remains an essential part of economic growth. A human consumer, possessing money, will possess a free choice as to what he or she consumes. Being material beings, people will wish to consume material goods, should they be at all available. Price signals derived from depletion rates may do something to restrict material consumption. Yet prices reflect costs of production, as well as overall demand. They do not directly signal absolute rates of depletion. Moreover, if compound rates of economic growth continue, they will be matched by
第二种否定策略是试图将非物质生产与物质生产分开。理想形式的生产并没有绝对的限制。经济增长可以通过思想、知识、虚拟实体或硅基实体的生产，以及投机资产名义价值的增长来继续。经济增长可以而且确实在不断缩小的生态基础上继续。在物质生产和消费不断萎缩的基础上，名义经济增长可以而且确实在继续。非物质经济实体可以在物质匮乏的条件下继续蓬勃发展。然而，这一战略并没有考虑到消费的物质现实：消费仍然是经济增长的重要组成部分。拥有金钱的人类消费者可以自由选择消费内容。作为物质存在的人，人们希望消费物质产品，如果有的话。从损耗率得出的价格信号可能会限制物质消费。然而，价格反映的是生产成本和总体需求。它们并不直接反映绝对损耗率。此外，如果复合经济增长率继续保持，那么与之相匹配的将是
compound rates of consumer-spending power. To reduce consumption, prices of material goods would have to rise sufficiently to destroy demand. In practice, this would mean that those with little spending power would be unable to afford the necessities of life, while those with plenty of spending power would be able to continue to consume at a similar rate. Demand destruction is also tantamount to reducing production and thus reducing economic growth as a whole. It means economic collapse. While some nonmaterial sectors of the economy may in theory continue to thrive, they will in practice be inhibited by a lack of wealth in the rest of the economy. In short, there are two fundamental restrictions on the dematerialization of the economy. Embodied human consumers will find that material consumption takes priority over other forms of consumption, leaving it as the last form to suffer from demand destruction. In addition, there are very few real forms of non-material production. Even the computing, entertainment, research, and education sectors require an ever increasing throughput of material resources to sustain their non-material production. Any continuation of nominal economic growth on a shrinking material base can only be accompanied by the material impoverishment of the majority.
消费者消费能力的复合增长率。为了减少消费，物质产品的价格必须上涨到足以破坏需求的程度。实际上，这意味着消费能力低的人将无力购买生活必需品，而消费能力强的人则可以继续以类似的速度消费。破坏需求也等于减少生产，从而降低整体经济增长。这意味着经济崩溃。虽然理论上经济中的某些非物质部门可以继续繁荣发展，但实际上它们会受到经济其他部门财富不足的抑制。简而言之，经济的非物质化有两个基本限制。有形的人类消费者会发现，物质消费优先于其他形式的消费，使其成为最后一种遭受需求破坏的消费形式。此外，真正的非物质生产形式很少。即使是计算机、娱乐、研究和教育部门，也需要不断增加的物质资源来维持其非物质生产。在物质基础不断萎缩的情况下，任何名义上的经济增长都只能伴随着大多数人的物质贫困。

A third strategy of denial is to argue that the market will take account of ecological limits through price signals. Yet prices respond to the scarcity of supply, not to absolute rates of depletion. Prices do not distinguish whether supply derives from sustainable production or a depletion of finite reserves. For example, natural gas remains cheap while it is forced out of the ground under pressure; when the pressure drops through depletion, the fall in production rates is rapid and terminal. Price signals only come into force at crisis levels of depletion, when demand exceeds supply. It is too late by then to conserve natural gas. Indeed, when production levels fall and prices rise due to continued demand, it becomes much more profitable to engage in further and more rapid depletion of the remaining stocks. The ultimate result is demand destruction, with a consequent shrinkage in the economy.
第三种否认策略是认为市场会通过价格信号来考虑生态限制。然而，价格反应的是供应的稀缺性，而不是消耗的绝对速度。价格不会区分供应是来自可持续生产还是有限储量的耗竭。例如，当天然气在压力下从地下开采出来时，价格仍然很低；而当压力因耗竭而下降时，生产率的下降是快速和终极的。价格信号只有在耗竭到危机程度、供不应求时才会生效。那时再想节约天然气就为时已晚了。事实上，当生产水平下降，价格因持续需求而上涨时，进一步、更快地消耗剩余库存就会变得更加有利可图。最终的结果是需求被破坏，经济随之萎缩。

A market economy necessarily leads to a deficit in capital growth. In a market economy, capital is measured by prices and therefore in relation to effective demand expressed in money. The only demands measured are from those who have money. Those who control the most money are those who invest money for the sake of a profit. Capital is therefore priced in
市场经济必然导致资本增长赤字。在市场经济中，资本是通过价格来衡量的，因此与以货币表示的有效需求相关。衡量的唯一需求来自那些有钱的人。那些控制着最多资金的人就是那些为了利润而投资的人。因此，资本的价格是
relation to its profitability. It is priced in relation to a set of competing investments in terms of the single quantity of a rate of return, measured against risk. Measurements of capital, then, do not take into account the distinctive varieties of capital and their need for maintenance. For example, the renewal of depleted resources and the recycling of waste may be restricted in important respects by physical limits. Without infinitely powerful technology, price signals will be insufficient to achieve substitution and recirculation.
与盈利能力有关。资本的定价是相对于一系列竞争性投资而言的，以收益率的单一数量来衡量风险。因此，对资本的衡量没有考虑到资本的不同种类及其维护需求。例如，枯竭资源的再生和废弃物的循环利用可能在某些重要方面受到物理限制。如果没有无限强大的技术，价格信号将不足以实现替代和再循环。

Moreover, positive feedback effects arising from the destabilization of capital may outpace the growth in the relevant forms of economic activity that respond to such change. Only in limited circumstances does supply rise to meet demand. For example, the high demand for good governance and social stability does not express itself, at times of extreme instability, in terms of available money for investment in governance.
此外，资本不稳定所产生的正反馈效应可能会超过对这种变化做出反应的相关经济活动形式的增长速度。只有在有限的情况下，供应才能满足需求。例如，在极端不稳定的情况下，对良好治理和社会稳定的高需求并不表现为用于治理投资的可用资金。

Furthermore, markets are unable to deal with the free-rider problem. ${}^9$${}^9$^(9){ }^{9} Waste is discharged; its toxic effects are not restricted to the economic entities that generate it. While the removal, recycling, and disinfecting of waste is a public good, the costs of waste are widely distributed across the public. For any economic entity that generates waste, then, the costs of toxicity may be relatively minor compared with the potential benefits of the toxic process of production. A cost-benefit analysis at a microeconomic level is incapable of accounting for the external costs of toxicity. ${}^{10}$${}^{10}$^(10){ }^{10}
此外，市场无法解决搭便车问题。 ${}^9$${}^9$^(9){ }^{9} 废物是排放出来的；其毒性影响并不局限于产生废物的经济实体。虽然废物的清除、回收和消毒是一种公共产品，但废物的成本在公众中广泛分布。因此，对于任何产生废物的经济实体来说，与有毒生产过程的潜在利益相比，毒性成本可能相对较小。微观经济层面的成本效益分析无法考虑毒性的外部成本。 ${}^{10}$${}^{10}$^(10){ }^{10} .

Finally, price signals only give value to activities of detoxification to the extent that toxicity reduces profits. The total amount available to be spent on detoxification, whether by the private sector or by governments, is limited to a perceived potential reduction in profits should toxicity be allowed to continue. It bears no relation to the costs of the actual work of detoxification needed to maintain capital. Indeed, as long as similar profits may be acquired through substituting new areas of capital for depletion, leaving behind exhausted capital and polluted ecosystems, a market economy will necessarily prefer such substitution over efforts toward detoxification. Exhaustion and substitution is more profitable than maintenance. In short, a market economy will necessarily produce successive and increasing toxic effects.
最后，价格信号只有在毒性降低利润的情况下才会赋予解毒活动价值。无论是私营部门还是政府，可用于解毒的总金额仅限于如果允许毒性继续存在而可能减少的利润。它与维持资本所需的实际解毒工作成本没有任何关系。事实上，只要可以通过用新的资本领域替代枯竭的资本领域来获得类似的利润，留下枯竭的资本和被污染的生态系统，市场经济就必然会倾向于这种替代，而不是努力解毒。耗竭和替代比维护更有利可图。简而言之，市场经济必然会产生连续和不断增加的毒性效应。

The problem of the clash between economic growth and ecological finitude derives from a capitalist system that is based on perpetual growth.
经济增长与生态有限性之间的冲突问题源于以永久增长为基础的资本主义制度。

All growth is represented positively as a profit. Little account can be taken of the need for conservation and recycling material. A market economy is a monoculture aimed at the growth of profits alone; it does not facilitate the development of reciprocal and complementary systems that recycle its products. A market economy is necessarily toxic. It matters little which political system is imposed to support such a market economy or the extent of its redistribution of wealth. Once capitalism reaches its limits, it will necessarily shrink as a sphere of circulation, leaving those who are now outside its parameters bereft of essential resources.
所有的增长都被正面表述为利润。几乎没有考虑到保护和回收材料的需要。市场经济是一种以利润增长为唯一目标的单一经济，它不利于发展互惠互补的系统，无法循环利用其产品。市场经济必然是有毒的。强加哪种政治制度来支持这种市场经济或其财富再分配的程度并不重要。一旦资本主义达到其极限，它作为一个流通领域必然会萎缩，使那些现在处于其参数之外的人失去必要的资源。

The error derives from a simple illusion: if capital is measured in terms of exchange value as an object of accumulation, then no account is taken of capital as a differentiated and interdependent means of production. An alternative economy will be required by those who live outside the margins of a rapidly shrinking capitalist mode of production.
这种错误源于一个简单的错觉：如果资本是以交换价值作为积累对象来衡量的，那么就没有考虑到资本是一种有区别的、相互依存的生产资料。那些生活在迅速萎缩的资本主义生产方式边缘之外的人们需要另一种经济。
3.1.7 Means of production can be divided into four approximate categories: those that contribute primarily to the accumulation of stock, or physical capital; those that contribute primarily to the invention of processes, or creative capital; those that contribute primarily to the assembly of processes, or constructive capital; and those that contribute primarily to the execution of processes, or dynamic capital. Physical capacities for production include natural resources, such as fresh water, sunlight, air, fertile soil, fossil fuels, minerals, seeds, and livestock, and artificial resources, such as roads, buildings, and machines. Creative capacities for production include human capital, which is itself dependent on health, knowledge, skills, adaptability, and motivation. Constructive capacities for production include human labor, institutions that facilitate cooperation, shared cultural practices, mutual obligations and interdependence. Dynamic capital includes physical energy, desire, and credit. In a complex, interdependent world, accumulation, invention, assembly, and execution are all necessary for economic production. Physical, creative, constructive, and dynamic capital must be combined.
3.1.7 生产资料大致可分为四类：主要促进存量积累的生产资料，即物质资本；主要促 进工艺发明的生产资料，即创造资本；主要促进工艺组装的生产资料，即建设性资本； 以及主要促进工艺执行的生产资料，即动态资本。物质生产能力包括自然资源，如淡水、阳光、空气、肥沃的土壤、化石燃料、矿物、种子和牲畜，以及人工资源，如道路、建筑物和机器。创造性生产能力包括人力资本，人力资本本身取决于健康、知识、技能、适应能力和动力。建设性生产能力包括人类劳动、促进合作的机构、共同的文化习俗、相互义务和相互依存。动态资本包括体力、欲望和信用。在一个复杂、相互依存的世界中，积累、发明、组装和执行都是经济生产所必需的。有形资本、创造性资本、建设性资本和动态资本必须结合起来。

Capital necessarily exceeds capitalist representation. Representation is the product of a process combining physical capital as the medium of representation, creative capital as the invention of forms of representation, constructive capital as the practice of representation, and dynamic
资本必然超越资本主义表象。表征是一个过程的产物，这个过程结合了作为表征媒介的物质资本、作为表征形式发明的创造性资本、作为表征实践的建设性资本，以及作为表征的动态资本。
capital as the power of representation. Representation is itself a form of produced wealth. It is not its own capital production. Representation is a simple product of a complex process of synthesis. It does not disclose its own substance, form, construction, or energy since it directs attention to the substance, form, construction, and energy of that which it represents. Moreover, even when the power of the object of representation is represented, the power of the representation is not identical to the represented power. As an active force of mediation, capital is inherently unrepresentable. Hence, the true nature of money exceeds all possible representation. It is a dynamic power, not an object of knowledge.
资本是代表的力量。代表权本身就是一种生产财富。它本身并不是资本生产。表象是复杂综合过程的简单产物。它并不揭示自身的实质、形式、构造或能量，因为它将人们的注意力引向了它所表征对象的实质、形式、构造和能量。此外，即使表征对象的力量被表征，表征的力量也不等同于被表征的力量。作为一种积极的中介力量，资本本质上是不可表征的。因此，货币的真正本质超越了一切可能的表征。它是一种动态的力量，而不是知识的对象。

Capital necessarily exceeds measurement. It is less significant that capital should be measured than that it should be sustained, enhanced, and developed. If wealth consists primarily in capital, in capacities for accumulation, invention, and assembly, then it does not consist in the speculative value of assets, in prices determined by demand, or in rates of income or profit. The speculative value of assets reflects the behavior of traders in the market more than it reflects the accumulation of capital. Prices reflect demands for consumption more than they reflect possibilities of invention. Rates of profit and income reflect the consumption of capital more than they reflect its construction. Money that is represented is not money in itself. In short, wealth cannot be properly assessed by an experience of available pleasures or by an evaluation of assets, income, or prices. Capital generates prices and pleasures. It cannot be assessed by them.
资本必然超越衡量。对资本进行计量的意义远小于维持、提高和发展资本的意义。如果财富主要是资本，是积累、发明和组装的能力，那么它就不包括资产的投机价值、由需求决定的价格或收入或利润率。资产的投机价值更多地反映了市场上交易者的行为，而不是资本的积累。价格反映消费需求多于反映发明的可能性。利润率和收入率反映的是资本的消费，而不是资本的建设。被代表的货币本身并不是货币。简而言之，财富不能通过对现有快乐的体验或对资产、收入或价格的评估来正确评价。资本产生价格和快乐。资本不能通过价格和快乐来评估。

A price is formed within a market by comparison with the prices of other commodities or assets that could be substituted for the one in question. Such representation depends on a dissimulation: it assumes that all capital can be appropriated, exchanged, and substituted. It assumes that the complex relations between physical capital, human capital, constructive capital, and dynamic capital can be reproduced by the logic of market relations. It assumes that there is always an alternative or a substitute. It assumes that value only appears insofar as it is replaceable. It assumes an infinitely disposable world. It assumes that everything that contributes to wealth can be given a price - that is, that it can be appropriated, exchanged, and substituted.
在市场中，价格是通过与可以替代相关商品或资产的其他商品或资产的价格进行比较而形成的。这种表述依赖于一种假象：它假定所有资本都可以被占有、交换和替代。它假定物质资本、人力资本、建设性资本和动态资本之间的复杂关系可以通过市场关系的逻辑再现。它假定总有替代品或替代物。它假定价值只有在可替代的范围内才会出现。它假定世界是无限可支配的。它假定，一切有助于财富的东西都可以被赋予价格，即可以被占有、交换和替代。

Nevertheless, appropriation, exchange, and substitution involve the removal of the thing from its networks of physical, personal, and social rela-
然而，挪用、交换和替代涉及到将事物从其物理、个人和社会关系网络中移除。
tions. They involve the disassembly of capital. Adaptation for the market by rendering all things in the form of exchangeable property is essentially antithetical to the production of capital. Market relations may be the condition for new forms of assembly and invention; they always come at the cost of existing relations of production.
它们涉及资本的拆解。它们涉及资本的分解。通过使万物成为可交换财产的形式来适应市场，本质上与资本生产是对立的。市场关系可能是新的组装和发明形式的条件，但它们总是以现有的生产关系为代价。

The generation of wealth cannot, therefore, be reduced to the generation of quantities and prices, for wealth is generated by the set of natural, personal, and social processes that compose the entirety of human experience.
因此，财富的产生不能归结为数量和价格的产生，因为财富是由构成人类全部经验的一系列自然、个人和社会过程产生的。

3.2.1 In economic representation, money is considered in terms of value. The subjective process of evaluation is accorded priority; money merely represents the values given by subjective choices. According to Georg Simmel, the subjective estimate of value becomes representable through exchange: “The value of an object acquires such visibility and tangibility as it possesses through the fact that one object is offered for another. This reciprocal balancing, through which each economic object expresses its value in another object, removes both objects from the sphere of merely subjective significance. The relativity of valuation signifies its objectification.” ${}^{11}$${}^{11}$^(11){ }^{11} Money expresses this value of exchangeability: “If the economic value of objects is constituted by their mutual relationship of exchangeability, then money is the autonomous expression of this relationship. Money is the representative of abstract value.” ${}^{12}$${}^{12}$^(12){ }^{12} One may observe that money represents such value in a triple sense. It represents or symbolizes actual value when it functions as a means of exchange; it represents or measures ideal value when it functions as a standard unit of account; and it represents or promises potential value when it functions as a store of value.
3.2.1 在经济表述中，货币是从价值的角度来考虑的。主观评价过程被置于优先地位；货币只是代表主观选择所赋予的价值。格奥尔格-西美尔（Georg Simmel）认为，对价值的主观评价通过交换变得可以表征："一个物品的价值通过一个物品与另一个物品的交换而获得可见性和有形性。通过这种相互平衡，每个经济物品都能在另一个物品中体现其价值，从而使两个物品都脱离了主观意义的范畴。估价的相对性意味着它的客观化"。 ${}^{11}$${}^{11}$^(11){ }^{11} 货币表达了这种可交换的价值："如果物体的经济价值是由它们之间的相互交换关系构成的，那么货币就是这种关系的自主表达。货币是抽象价值的代表"。 ${}^{12}$${}^{12}$^(12){ }^{12} 我们可以看到，货币在三重意义上代表了这种价值。当货币作为交换手段时，它代表或象征实际价值；当货币作为标准记账单位时，它代表或衡量理想价值；当货币作为价值储藏手段时，它代表或承诺潜在价值。

No market, or institution of exchange, can function without subjective choices being represented in some kind of object or symbolic medium. One cannot presuppose, however, that such subjective choices are independent of the operations of the market. Even if desires pre-exist their expression in a price or an exchange, it is doubtful whether subjective evaluations pre-exist their expression in a price. ${}^{13}$${}^{13}$^(13){ }^{13} For values cannot enter consciousness without some symbolic medium of representation through
任何市场或交换机构的运作都离不开主观选择在某种客体或符号媒介中的体现。然而，我们不能预先假定这种主观选择与市场运作无关。即使欲望先于价格或交换表现出来，主观评价是否先于价格表现出来也是值得怀疑的。 ${}^{13}$${}^{13}$^(13){ }^{13} 因为如果没有某种符号媒介的表征，价值就不可能进入意识。
which desires may be expressed. Such a scale of comparison is provided by money. The market effects its own disciplining and ordering of desire, just as language effects a disciplining and ordering of thought, providing the condition for what is thinkable. There are desires that are not represented in the market because the bearer has insufficient money to make demands effective. If the realization of desires is entirely unrealistic, then little attention will be paid to them, and they may hardly figure in consciousness at all. Someone who participates in a lottery can imagine how he or she would spend the winnings and so nourishes his or her desire for the benefits of wealth. Since the market offers the possibility of the realization of some desires, it has an effect on desire and subjective choices and so on represented value. The value represented by money is not independent of money itself. Money makes certain evaluations effective. This effective power of money demands a reconsideration of the role of money in representation. It will be necessary to critically examine the standard functions of money in exchange discussed in the textbooks of economics.
可以表达欲望。货币提供了这样一个比较的尺度。市场对欲望有自己的约束和安排，就像语言对思想有约束和安排一样，为可思考的事物提供条件。有些欲望无法在市场中得到体现，因为持有者没有足够的金钱来有效地提出要求。如果欲望的实现是完全不现实的，那么人们对它们的关注就会很少，它们可能根本不会出现在意识中。参加彩票的人可以想象自己将如何花掉彩票奖金，从而滋养自己对财富利益的渴望。由于市场提供了实现某些欲望的可能性，它对欲望和主观选择产生了影响，因此也对所代表的价值产生了影响。货币所代表的价值并非独立于货币本身。货币使某些评价变得有效。货币的这种有效力量要求我们重新考虑货币在表征中的作用。有必要对经济学教科书中讨论的货币在交换中的标准功能进行批判性研究。
3.2.2 As a means of payment or medium of exchange, money is believed to facilitate a process of exchange that already exists in the form of barter. ${}^{14}$${}^{14}$^(14){ }^{14} Money is able to mediate between differing demands that exist in different places. Money makes transactions between two parties possible that would not be otherwise because money is able to represent an unspecified demand. Money is acceptable because it can later be turned into a particular demand: it represents all available objects of desire. It may be exchanged for all things. There are, however, significant differences between purchase with money and barter exchange. ${}^{15}\mathrm{A}$${}^{15}\mathrm{A}$^(15)A{ }^{15} \mathrm{~A} barter exchange takes place between two parties. Barter is comparable to a reciprocal gift, where the obligation to return a gift is effected immediately. Each gift is of a dual nature: a present is given at the same time as an honor and an obligation. Giving has both a physical and a social significance. Depending on relative status, such an honor may be regarded as tribute, patronage, or a bond initiating an obligation to give back. Indeed, if the relative status is uncertain or flexible, the choice of returning a gift, including its nature and timing, may be elements of political strategy. ${}^{16}$${}^{16}$^(16){ }^{16} The exchange of gifts is inseparable from a relation of power.
3.2.2 作为一种支付手段或交换媒介，货币被认为能够促进以物易物形式存在的交换过程。 ${}^{14}$${}^{14}$^(14){ }^{14} 货币能够调和不同地方的不同需求。货币使双方之间的交易成为可能，而如果没有货币，这种交易是不可能进行的，因为货币能够代表一种不明确的需求。货币是可以接受的，因为它以后可以转化为特定的需求：它代表了所有可用的欲望对象。它可以交换所有东西。然而，用货币购买和以物易物之间有很大的不同。 ${}^{15}\mathrm{A}$${}^{15}\mathrm{A}$^(15)A{ }^{15} \mathrm{~A} 易货交换发生在双方之间。以物易物类似于互赠礼物，在这种情况下，回赠礼物的义务立即生效。每份礼物都具有双重性质：一份礼物既是荣誉，也是义务。馈赠既有物质意义，也有社会意义。根据相对地位的不同，这种荣誉可以被视为贡品、恩惠，也可以被视为一种纽带，从而产生回赠的义务。事实上，如果相对地位不确定或具有弹性，那么选择回赠礼物，包括其性质和时机，都可能是政治策略的要素。 ${}^{16}$${}^{16}$^(16){ }^{16} 礼物的交换与权力关系密不可分。

Here lies the significant difference between the social form of value and
价值的社会形式与价值的社会形式之间的重要区别就在于此。
the social form of honor. Values are estimates constructed by autonomous subjects. Even if a subject accepts or imitates received values, the work of evaluation is still an expression of the subject’s power. Honors and obligations, by contrast, must be given or acknowledged where they are due. ${}^{17}$${}^{17}$^(17){ }^{17} They express the incorporation of the subject into an existing social form of representation. They express a mode of piety. Power lies outside the subject in social customs, and although these may admit some flexibility, any transgression risks punitive measures, exclusion, or the wrath of the gods.
荣誉的社会形式。价值观是由自主的主体建构的。即使主体接受或模仿了接受的价值观，评价工作仍然是主体权力的体现。相比之下，荣誉和义务必须得到应有的给予或承认。 ${}^{17}$${}^{17}$^(17){ }^{17} 它们表达了主体对现有社会表征形式的融入。它们表达了一种虔诚的方式。在社会习俗中，权力处于主体之外，尽管这些习俗可以有一定的灵活性，但任何违反习俗的行为都有可能受到惩罚、排斥或神灵的愤怒。

In barter exchange, by contrast with gift, the obligation to return is effected immediately. Barter exchange may presuppose a relation of relative equality; alternatively, barter exchange may be conducted to construct relations of relative equality, averting potential hostilities. Yet if each gift is regarded as the equivalent of the other, such equivalence may not signal an absence of social difference so much as the limit of a process of negotiation through which differences of potential are enacted. The actual exchange may be the outcome of differences in relative power and status. Only after the event may the gifts be regarded as equivalent in value because they were indeed exchanged for each other. Prior to the agreement of exchange, however, the resolution of a bargain may be the expression of differing levels of power. Barter exchange is not neutral in relation to other systems of social power; it may be an expression of it when such power is enacted to the full in exchange. Although both parties may gain what they wish in barter exchange, the relative quantities of what they gain may be augmented or diminished by the exercise of social power.
在易货交换中，与赠与相比，归还的义务是立即生效的。易货交换可能以相对平等的关系为前提；或者，易货交换可能是为了构建相对平等的关系，避免潜在的敌对。然而，如果每份礼物都被视为等同于另一份礼物，那么这种等同性可能并不意味着社会差异的消失，而更多的是一种协商过程的限制，通过这种协商过程，潜在的差异得以体现。实际交换可能是相对权力和地位差异的结果。只有在事件发生后，礼物才可能被视为等价物，因为它们确实是相互交换的。然而，在达成交换协议之前，讨价还价的解决可能是不同权力水平的体现。易货交换相对于其他社会权力体系而言并不是中立的；当这种权力在交换中得到充分发挥时，易货交换可能就是这种权力的一种体现。尽管在易货贸易中双方都能如愿以偿，但他们所获得的相对数量可能会因社会权力的行使而增加或减少。

The social elements of power and status call on factors external to the simple relation between two parties. In the same way, monetary purchase is not simply a physical exchange of goods. It also has a social dimension that is compressed into the actual values agreed while obscured by the notion of value itself. For exchange never takes place between two parties alone. Barter exchange may only be possible in the rare coincidence of complementary demands. Monetary exchange changes this significantly. By vastly augmenting the occurrence of possible exchanges, it also enables each transaction to be compared with a set of alternative transactions that could be substituted for it. In addition to the two parties, there is a range of possible exchange relations with third parties that each of the two parties has preferred not to pursue. These have an impact on the actual
权力和地位的社会要素需要双方之间简单关系之外的因素。同样，货币购买也不仅仅是实物交换。它还有一个社会维度，这个维度被压缩在实际商定的价值中，而被价值概念本身所掩盖。因为交换从来都不只是发生在双方之间。易货交换只有在需求互补的罕见巧合下才有可能。货币交换则大大改变了这种情况。货币交换大大增加了交换的可能性，也使每笔交易都可以与一系列可以替代它的交易进行比较。除了双方之外，还有一系列可能与第三方发生的交换关系，而双方中的任何一方都不愿意追求这些关系。这些关系对实际的
exchange insofar as they determine the agreed price. The logic of exchange is not complete as a two-way transaction; it also includes comparison and substitution. In every monetary exchange there remains a third, inactive party whose presence determines the outcome. In this respect, monetary exchange remains a social relation. The possibility of transferring one’s business to a third party tends to neutralize effects of social power. Social power is not entirely removed, however, for it is now assumed by those who have the highest mobility or the option of transferring their business. Those who have access to the most markets, whose assets are most liquid or in demand, have the opportunity for a greater degree of comparison and substitution. They have the most social power.
交换的逻辑并不完全是双向交易，还包括比较和替代。作为一种双向交易，交换的逻辑并不完整；它还包括比较和替代。在每一次货币交换中，都有一个不活跃的第三方，它的存在决定了交换的结果。在这方面，货币交换仍然是一种社会关系。将自己的业务转让给第三方的可能性往往会抵消社会权力的影响。然而，社会权力并没有完全消失，因为现在社会权力是由那些拥有最高流动性或可以选择转让其业务的人承担的。那些能够进入最多市场、其资产流动性最强或需求量最大的人，有机会进行更大程度的比较和替代。他们拥有最大的社会权力。

The possibility of a transfer of business enables those who buy to choose a partner who has the weakest level of social power and will therefore be willing to offer the most advantageous terms of trade. As a result, all trading partners will be reduced in power to the weakest available on the market. Exchange effects a stripping away of invested social powers, dissolving prior inequalities. It leaves one principal inequality between those who have the power to transfer business and those who have the most urgent demands for the trade to take place. Power lies with money, in the hands of the buyer. Money dissolves other social powers, therefore, but it retains its own social power. The power to transfer business - whether this reflects the social properties of the commodity for sale or pertains to the reputation, mobility, or knowledge of the market actor - trumps all other social relations in exchange. It is the power of disassembly or flight, abandoning one set of mutual dependencies for the sake of establishing an equivalent elsewhere.
商业转让的可能性使购买者能够选择一个社会力量最弱的伙伴，从而愿意提供最有利的贸易条件。因此，所有贸易伙伴的实力都将下降到市场上最弱的一方。交换的效果是剥离投入的社会权力，消解先前的不平等。它在那些有权力进行商业转让的人和那些对贸易有最迫切需求的人之间留下了一个主要的不平等。权力掌握在金钱和买方手中。因此，货币消解了其他社会权力，但保留了自身的社会权力。商业转让的权力--无论它反映的是待售商品的社会属性，还是与市场行为者的声誉、流动性或知识有关--超越了交换中的所有其他社会关系。这是一种拆卸或逃离的力量，为了在其他地方建立同等的关系而放弃一套相互依存的关系。

The overall effect of exchange, then, is not merely to dissolve all previous social powers, leaving equality in exchange. It is to remove the reciprocal balances on social power so that one party who profits most from transactions because of his or her superior mobility can act with progressively less restraint. Market exchange creates the illusion of social equality at the same time that it brings about the reality of social inequality. Yet social power circulates through exchange. The seller acquires both the exchange value of money and its social value of liquidity. Patterns of circulation and recirculation, then, will be more significant in determining the overall balance of power expressed in money than will the accumulation of money at any one time.
因此，交换的总体效果并不仅仅是消解先前所有的社会权力，让交换中的平等成为现实。它消除了社会权力的相互制衡，使因其优越的流动性而从交易中获利最多的一方可以逐渐减少对自己行为的约束。市场交换在制造社会平等假象的同时，也带来了社会不平等的现实。然而，社会权力是通过交换流通的。卖方既获得了货币的交换价值，也获得了货币流动性的社会价值。因此，流通和再流通的模式在决定以货币表现的整体权力平衡方面，将比任何时候货币的积累更为重要。

Money does, however, have a considerable effect on the nature of ex-
然而，金钱对前者的性质有相当大的影响。
changes. What might be considered a delicate social negotiation within barter takes on the appearance of a simple exchange within the market. Yet money does not simply facilitate exchange. It also dissolves a prior social order, with its obligations, reciprocities, and interdependencies, and replaces it with the social order of the market. Money generates markets at the same time that it facilitates exchange. The function of money is not, therefore, reducible to a medium of exchange. Money is an active principle of social change. It has effects that are not reducible to its designed function. Money cannot be represented fully by the function of a medium of exchange or means of payment. It does more than merely symbolize value. It imposes its own scale of evaluation through which profitable activity, as the source of social power and means toward all other ends, is valued more highly than other activities.
变化。以物易物中可能被视为微妙的社会谈判，在市场中却呈现出简单交换的面貌。然而，货币并不只是促进交换。它还消解了先前的社会秩序，包括义务、互惠和相互依存关系，取而代之的是市场的社会秩序。货币在促进交换的同时也产生了市场。因此，货币的功能不能简化为交换媒介。货币是社会变革的积极原则。它所产生的影响并不能归结为它所设计的功能。货币不能完全由交换媒介或支付手段的功能来代表。它不仅仅是价值的象征。它强制推行自己的评价尺度，通过这种尺度，作为社会权力来源和实现所有其他目的的手段，盈利活动比其他活动更受重视。
3.2.3 Money may also be represented in terms of its function as a unit of account. Money facilitates the representation of exchange value. In relation to this function, money also acts as both condition of the market and product of the market.
3.2.3 货币还可以从其作为记账单位的职能来表示。货币有助于交换价值的体现。就这一职能而言，货币既是市场的条件，也是市场的产品。

Markets are not given in advance. Like all forms of constructive capital, they have to be invented, assembled, and accumulated. Markets may be accumulated when a particular location acquires a reputation for the buying and selling of certain assets, goods or resources. Such a market is open to those who have access to that location, as well as to the assets, goods, or resources that may be traded there. There is therefore no such thing as a single, global market. Markets are differentiated by location, reputation, and what is bought and sold.
市场不是预先给予的。与所有形式的建设性资本一样，它们必须被发明、组合和积累。当某一地点因买卖某些资产、商品或资源而声名鹊起时，市场就可能积累起来。这样的市场对那些可以进入该地点的人开放，也对可以在那里交易的资产、商品或资源开放。因此，不存在单一的全球市场。市场因地点、声誉和买卖内容的不同而有所区别。

Markets are also facilitated by the acceptability of a single commodity or asset in exchange for all other items traded there. Money enables goods within a market to be compared directly with each other in terms of a price. In addition, money mediates between markets, joining them together, crossing boundaries of location and types of items traded. Money facilitates exchange between markets that are differentiated in respect to distance, time, reputation, and category. As the single principle that enables markets to interact, money enables values within markets to be measured in relation to values in other markets. By enabling trade and comparison between markets, money effectively functions as the medium for the invention of markets.
单一商品或资产可用于交换市场上交易的所有其他物品，这也促进了市场的发展。货币使市场中的商品可以直接进行价格比较。此外，货币还在市场之间发挥中介作用，将它们连接在一起，跨越地点和交易物品类型的界限。货币促进了因距离、时间、声誉和类别而不同的市场之间的交换。作为市场互动的唯一原则，货币使市场内的价值能够与其他市场的价值进行衡量。通过促成市场之间的交易和比较，货币有效地发挥了市场发明媒介的作用。

Markets may be facilitated further when a dealer undertakes to buy and sell a particular asset or commodity to anyone who wishes to sell or buy it. While all traders may buy and sell money, some traders take it upon themselves to buy and sell another asset or commodity. Such dealers aim to balance quantities bought and sold by controlling the price. These dealers are market makers. To facilitate throughput in the market, and thus to increase the profits achieved through a small spread between bid and offer price, such dealers need to hold a certain reserve of the asset in question. The dealer makes the market by controlling a reserve, a spread, and a price.
当交易商承诺向任何希望出售或购买某一资产或商品的人买卖该资产或商品时，市场可能会得到进一步促进。虽然所有交易商都可以买卖货币，但有些交易商会自行买卖另一种资产或商品。这些交易商旨在通过控制价格来平衡买卖数量。这些交易商就是做市商。为了促进市场吞吐量，从而通过买卖价格之间的微小价差增加利润，这类交易商需要持有一定的相关资产储备。交易商通过控制储备、价差和价格来做市。

In practice, therefore, markets are not simply composed of a large number of two-way barter transactions. One cannot fully represent the form of the market by the exchanges that take place within it. Markets are made possible by their own distinctive infrastructure. Such an infrastructure is not itself an object of demand within the market. The location and reputation of the market differ from what is traded there; the money used within the market is acquired not for its own intrinsic use, but simply for the purpose of further exchanges; and the dealer’s reserve must be maintained overall, not accumulated or depleted. Reputation, money, and reserve are the factors that facilitate markets.
因此，在实践中，市场并不只是由大量的双向易货交易组成。在市场中进行的交换并不能完全代表市场的形式。市场因其自身独特的基础设施而成为可能。这种基础设施本身并不是市场的需求对象。市场的位置和声誉不同于市场中的交易内容；市场中使用的货币不是为了其本身的用途而获得，而只是为了进一步的交换；交易商的储备必须总体保持，而不是累积或耗尽。信誉、货币和储备是促进市场发展的因素。

Money, in its role of generating exchange between markets, acts as a vital component of constructive capital. Since money, unlike other products, is not consumed, it provides a sustainable vehicle of circulation. In this way it differs from reputation, which is not alienable but accumulates, and from reserves, which do not circulate as reserves. Exchange values are represented in terms of money rather than in terms of reputation or reserves of stock, since money may actually be exchanged for them. In this way, money becomes a unit of account.
货币在市场间进行交换，是建设性资本的重要组成部分。与其他产品不同，货币不会被消耗，因此它提供了一种可持续的流通工具。因此，它不同于名誉，名誉不可转让，但可以积累；也不同于储备，储备不能作为储备流通。交换价值是用货币而不是信誉或储备来表示的，因为货币实际上可以用来交换它们。这样，货币就成了记账单位。

Money does not merely circulate, however. While reputation and reserves are not money, money contains within itself the functions of reputation and reserves. It is portable reputation and portable reserves. Indeed, it has to retain these properties to function as a unit of account. Values have to be measured in terms of some reputable standard of measure. Values also have to be measured in relation to a value that is stored or reserved. Neither a two-way exchange nor circulation alone therefore explains the true nature of money.
然而，货币不仅仅是流通的。虽然信誉和储备金不是货币，但货币本身包含信誉和储备金的功能。它是可移动的信誉和可移动的储备。事实上，货币必须保留这些属性才能作为记账单位发挥作用。价值必须以某种有信誉的衡量标准来衡量。价值还必须与存储或储备的价值相关联。因此，无论是双向兑换还是流通都无法解释货币的真正本质。

Debates over the true nature of money derive from emphasizing only
关于货币真正性质的争论源于只强调
one of its characteristics. ${}^{18}$${}^{18}$^(18){ }^{18} If the value of money is taken as deriving from its intrinsic content, as in metalist theories of money, then its function as a reserve of value is exaggerated at the expense of other functions. If the value of money is taken as deriving from its reputation as a means of circulation, as for those who derive money from banking and credit, then its reputation is exaggerated at the expense of other functions. Yet money cannot be acceptable in exchange, possessing a real value, unless it is capable of reserving value. Money cannot reserve real value without being acceptable in exchange. Reputation and reserve are mutually dependent; neither explains how money acquires value and becomes capable of generating a market.
货币的特征之一。 ${}^{18}$${}^{18}$^(18){ }^{18} 如果像金属货币理论那样，认为货币的价值来自于其内在内容，那么它作为价值储备的功能就会被夸大，而牺牲其他功能。如果货币的价值来自于它作为流通手段的声誉，就像那些从银行和信贷中获得货币的人一样，那么它的声誉就会被夸大，而牺牲其他功能。然而，除非货币能够保留价值，否则它就不可能在交换中被接受，不可能拥有真正的价值。货币如果不能在交换中被接受，就不能储备实际价值。声誉和储备是相互依存的；二者都不能解释货币如何获得价值并能够产生市场。

There are two main approaches to explaining the value of money: money is regarded either as a commodity or as a unit of account. Commodity theories of money derive money as an emergent product of barter. In barter exchange, one seeks to acquire goods not only for immediate use but also for their liquidity or exchangeability. The commodity that is most widely accepted in exchange plays the role of money. Faith in its acceptability enables it to become an effective store of value. There is a logical circularity here: money is a means of payment because it is a store of value, yet money is a store of value because it is a means of payment. ${}^{19}$${}^{19}$^(19){ }^{19} The most exchanged commodity may still have multiple exchange ratios in different circumstances. It does not become a standard unit of account.
解释货币价值的方法主要有两种：货币被视为商品或记账单位。商品货币理论认为货币是易货贸易的产物。在易货贸易中，人们获取商品的目的不仅是为了立即使用，也是为了商品的流动性或可交换性。在交换中被最广泛接受的商品就扮演了货币的角色。对其可接受性的信任使其成为有效的价值储藏手段。这里有一个逻辑循环：货币是一种支付手段，因为它是一种价值储藏手段；而货币又是一种价值储藏手段，因为它是一种支付手段。 ${}^{19}$${}^{19}$^(19){ }^{19} 在不同的情况下，交换量最大的商品仍然可能有多种交换比率。它不会成为标准记账单位。

Unit of account theories of money explain money in terms of its extrinsic imposition on the market by a political agency such as a state. According to state theories of money, money is issued by the state in the form of payments and demanded by the state in the form of taxes. ${}^{20}$${}^{20}$^(20){ }^{20} The endless, circular flow of the market is replaced by a model of efflux and reflux. ${}^{21}$${}^{21}$^(21){ }^{21} Money maintains its reputation in line with the power, prestige, and prudence of the issuing state. It is acceptable in exchange as legal tender, supported by authority. The difficulty here lies in explaining how money tends to circulate freely beyond the territorial boundaries of the state. Beyond political boundaries, money embodies the economic prestige of the respective state. It has a market value only where it becomes a means of payment because its reputation stores value, and its reputation stores value because it is a means of payment.
货币单位理论从国家等政治机构对市场的外在强加来解释货币。根据国家货币理论，货币由国家以支付的形式发行，并由国家以税收的形式索取。 ${}^{20}$${}^{20}$^(20){ }^{20} 市场无休止的循环流动被流出和回流模式所取代。 ${}^{21}$${}^{21}$^(21){ }^{21} 货币根据发行国的权力、威望和谨慎程度来维持其声誉。货币作为法定货币，在权威的支持下，在交换中是可以接受的。这里的难点在于解释货币如何在国家领土边界之外自由流通。在政治疆界之外，货币体现了各自国家的经济声望。只有在货币成为支付手段的情况下，货币才具有市场价值，因为货币的声誉可以储存价值，而货币的声誉可以储存价值，因为货币是支付手段。

The commodity and unit of account theories of money are not mutually
货币的商品理论和记账单位理论并不是相互对立的。
incompatible. Indeed, they are complementary, each supplying the deficits in the other. ${}^{22}$${}^{22}$^(22){ }^{22} Money does not belong solely to the market or to the state, because each institution is incomplete without the other. The question is: to what extent do the two together explain the function of money as a unit of account? A third factor, in addition to market and state, will also need to be invoked.
不相容。事实上，它们是相辅相成的，各自弥补对方的不足。 ${}^{22}$${}^{22}$^(22){ }^{22} 货币既不只属于市场，也不只属于国家，因为每一种制度离开了另一种制度都是不完整的。问题是：二者在多大程度上共同解释了货币作为记账单位的功能？除了市场和国家之外，还需要引用第三个因素。

As a medium of exchange, the value of money is thought to derive from the quantity in circulation relative to size and speed of the market as a whole. ${}^{23}$${}^{23}$^(23){ }^{23} Yet since it possesses a reputation, money also accumulates or depreciates in value apart from changes in circulation. Indeed, the “market as a whole” is an abstract ideal. There is no possible way in practice for prices to be assessed in relation to the market as a whole. ${}^{24}$${}^{24}$^(24){ }^{24} The value of money does not depend on the quantity in circulation alone. It is not an absolute standard of measure or even a measure internal to a closed system. The value of money also derives from beyond its territory in associated markets. Moreover, money is a reserve of value that promises the delivery of a certain quantity of value at a future date. The value of money, as a reserve, depends on future expectations. It embodies a degree of credit. The nature and value of money therefore do not derive solely from factors within a market or from factors provided by a state. The value of money as a unit of account depends on its acceptability in external markets and in future markets. The use of money as a unit of account is not simply a means of valuing commodities against other commodities within the market as a universal equivalent. There is no universal market. The pure market is itself a utopian abstraction. Such a process of comparison is never completed; commodities are not compared in value directly with each other through the medium of money. Instead, commodities are valued in terms of moneythat is, in relation to expectations of evaluations in external and future markets. Money is not simply a unit of account because it also embodies reputation and credit. The nature of money is not properly explained as a unit of account within a closed market. While money may function as a unit of account, it also opens evaluation up to exterior and future factors.
作为一种交换媒介，货币的价值被认为来自于相对于整个市场的规模和速度的流通量。 ${}^{23}$${}^{23}$^(23){ }^{23} 然而，由于货币具有信誉，它的价值也会随着流通量的变化而积累或贬值。事实上，"市场整体 "只是一个抽象的理想。在实践中，价格不可能根据市场整体来评估。 ${}^{24}$${}^{24}$^(24){ }^{24} 货币的价值不仅仅取决于流通中的数量。它不是一个绝对的衡量标准，甚至不是一个封闭系统内部的衡量标准。货币的价值还来自于其领土之外的相关市场。此外，货币是一种价值储备，它承诺在未来某个日期交付一定数量的价值。作为一种储备，货币的价值取决于对未来的预期。它体现了一定程度的信用。因此，货币的性质和价值并不完全来自市场内的因素或国家提供的因素。货币作为记账单位的价值取决于其在外部市场和未来市场的可接受性。使用货币作为记账单位并不只是将市场中的商品与其他商品作为普遍等价物来估价。不存在普遍的市场。纯粹的市场本身就是乌托邦式的抽象概念。这种比较过程永远不会完成；商品之间的价值比较不是通过货币媒介直接进行的。相反，商品的价值是以货币的形式体现的，即与外部市场和未来市场的评价预期相关联。货币不仅仅是一种记账单位，因为它还体现了信誉和信用。 货币作为封闭市场中的记账单位，其本质并没有得到恰当的解释。货币在作为记账单位发挥作用的同时，也会受到外部和未来因素的影响。
3.2.4 Money also represents value through its function as a store of value. Money is regarded as storing or reserving the exchange value of goods, assets, and services. As a reserve of value, money is a passive object of human
3.2.4 货币还通过其价值储存功能代表价值。货币被视为储存或储备商品、资产和服务的交换价值。作为一种价值储备，货币是人类的被动客体。
control. Money is comprehended under the form of property. For the one who possesses money, money is a passive instrument of desire. Yet for one who seeks to acquire money, money has an active power of command. The value of money as a reserve of value lies in its capacity to express an active power. Once again, this active power is not comprehended when money is treated as a passive object of exchange. Money proves to be more than a machine designed for the preservation of value.
控制。金钱属于财产的范畴。对于拥有金钱的人来说，金钱是欲望的被动工具。然而，对于想要获得金钱的人来说，金钱却具有主动的支配力。货币作为价值储备的价值在于它能够表达一种主动的力量。同样，当货币被视为一种被动的交换对象时，这种主动的力量是无法被理解的。事实证明，货币不仅仅是为保值而设计的机器。

In reality, value is not reducible to the situation of exchange alone. In exchange, value circulates. In reality, the value of goods, assets, and services may undergo significant transformations outside exchange. It is important to distinguish between goods and services acquired for the sake of consumption and assets appropriated to be held. Reserved assets may be property or stock and therefore subject to subsequent exchanges; they may be capital that produces additional value; or they may be speculative assets whose value is expected to rise as demand outstrips supply. Whereas consumption cancels out the value of production, appropriation preserves or even increases value. Whereas in exchange, value is preserved by definition, since the market value is determined by the price paid for it, such exchanges take place for the sake of consumption, production, or speculation. Market value is subordinate to other processes that affect value. The value arrived at in exchange will depend on intentions and expectations regarding the future progress of value. Money enters into relation with the value of the goods, assets, or services for which it is exchanged. Money also enters into relation with activities of consumption, production, and speculation that it makes possible. In relation to exchange, money is a passive store of value. In relation to consumption, production, and speculation, money is constructive capital.
实际上，价值不能仅仅归结为交换。在交换的过程中，价值是流通的。在现实中，商品、资产和服务的价值可能会在交换之外发生重大变化。重要的是要区分为消费而获取的商品和服务与为持有而划拨的资产。储备资产可能是财产或股票，因此需要进行后续交换；也可能是产生额外价值的资本；还可能是投机资产，其价值预计会随着供不应求而上升。消费抵消了生产的价值，而占有则保留甚至增加了价值。而在交换中，价值顾名思义是保留的，因为市场价值是由支付的价格决定的，这种交换是为了消费、生产或投机而进行的。市场价值从属于影响价值的其他过程。交换得出的价值取决于对未来价值发展的意图和预期。货币与所交换的商品、资产或服务的价值发生关系。货币还与它所促成的消费、生产和投机活动发生关系。就交换而言，货币是一种被动的价值储藏。就消费、生产和投机而言，货币是建设性资本。

The true nature of money, as constructive capital, has to be uncovered from beneath the illusion that money functions purely for the preservation of value. Money as an active force exceeds its apparent functions. It makes a difference whether money is used to purchase goods and services or for production or investment. If money is used for purchase, it is simply a means of payment; if money is used to pay for production, whether in the form of rent for physical capital, wages for labor, or interest on financing, then it actively stimulates production. There is a significant difference between production and distribution: production adds an absolute value,
货币作为建设性资本的真正本质，必须从货币纯粹为保值而发挥作用的假象中揭示出来。货币作为一种积极的力量，它的作用超出了其表面功能。货币是用于购买商品和服务，还是用于生产或投资，这是有区别的。如果货币用于购买，那么它只是一种支付手段；如果货币用于支付生产，无论是以实物资本的租金、劳动力的工资还是融资利息的形式，那么它就会积极地刺激生产。生产和分配之间有一个显著的区别：生产增加了绝对价值、
a stock of product, whereas distribution adds a relative value, expressed as an increase in price. When all values are expressed as exchange values, this distinction is concealed. Moreover, distribution is itself part of the activity of constructive capital, since it facilitates the assembly of the means of production. Nevertheless, absolute values are heterogeneous, expressed in terms of various stocks of product, while relative values are homogeneous, expressed in terms of prices. When money is exchanged for existing goods and services, then it merely functions as a means of distribution. When money, by contrast, is used for rent, wages, or interest, then it stimulates the creation of value. Such value would not be created if money were not paid for it. Money, therefore, has an active role in the process of production. It is a mode of dynamic capital.
而分配则增加了相对价值，表现为价格的上涨。当所有价值都表现为交换价值时，这种区别就被掩盖了。此外，分配本身也是建设性资本活动的一部分，因为它促进了生产资料的组装。然而，绝对价值是异质的，用各种产品存量来表示，而相对价值是同质的，用价格来表示。当货币被用来交换现存的商品和服务时，它只是一种分配手段。相反，当货币被用于支付租金、工资或利息时，它就会刺激价值的创造。如果不支付货币，这些价值就不会被创造出来。因此，货币在生产过程中发挥着积极作用。它是一种动态资本模式。

It has been assumed that it is demand, rather than money, that stimulates production. The productive power of money would then be merely an instrument in the transmission of demand. One can distinguish between demand itself, which originates with people, and money, which is the signal of such demand. Nevertheless, however strong people’s demands may be, they remain ineffective until they are supported by money. Demands are only effective to the extent that they are expressed in money. Money has the distinctive power of making demand effective. The active power of money is a power of purchasing, of making demands effective. This active power has a different nature when it constitutes physical capital as capital by means of the payment of rent; when it commands human capital as labor in the form of wages; and when it enriches constructive capital in the form of interest. The metaphor of exchange for these forms of payment conceals the active power of money in making demands effective and stimulating production. For money facilitates the release of potential. There is always an excess of productive capacity that could be released if money became available. Rather than an exchange, the relation is more like a contract or mutual obligation. Rent is paid if capital is constituted for production. There is always an excess of potential demand over effective demand. Labor is contracted rather than purchased. Wages are paid if labor gives itself to be commanded. Similarly, money capital is borrowed rather than purchased. It is given to be invested and spent in return for an agreed payment of interest. Indeed, in this process capital does not strictly leave the original owner, even if money does, for capital is converted from
人们假定，刺激生产的是需求，而不是货币。因此，货币的生产力只是传递需求的工具。我们可以将需求本身与货币区分开来，前者源于人们的需求，而货币则是这种需求的信号。然而，无论人们的需求多么强烈，在得到货币的支持之前都是无效的。只有当需求以货币的形式表现出来时，它们才是有效的。货币具有使需求生效的独特力量。货币的积极力量是一种购买力，是使需求生效的力量。当货币通过支付地租将实物资本转化为资本时，当货币以工资的形式将人力资本转化为劳动力时，当货币以利息的形式充实构造资本时，这种主动权就具有了不同的性质。这些支付形式的交换隐喻掩盖了货币在使需求有效和刺激生产方面的积极力量。因为货币有利于释放潜能。如果有了钱，就可以释放过剩的生产能力。与其说这种关系是一种交换，不如说是一种契约或相互义务。如果资本用于生产，就需要支付租金。潜在需求总是大于有效需求。劳动力是承包的，而不是购买的。如果劳动本身是被命令的，则要支付工资。同样，货币资本是借来的，而不是买来的。它被用来投资和消费，以换取约定的利息支付。事实上，在这一过程中，资本并没有严格地离开原所有者，即使货币也是如此，因为资本是从
money into an asset such as a share, bond, or loan. Such assets are often highly liquid and can be exchanged as easily as money. Investment therefore should be regarded not in terms of an exchange but in terms of the contracting of assets and liabilities.
将货币转化为资产，如股票、债券或贷款。这类资产通常具有很强的流动性，可以像货币一样方便地进行交换。因此，不应将投资视为交换，而应视为资产与负债的契约。

An essential difference remains between exchange and contract. Exchange is an instantaneous swap of private property; contract is the agreement of mutual obligations that endure for a period of time. Property itself rests on permanent implicit or explicit contracts. A village market where products are exchanged as property provides a poor paradigm for the comprehension of economic behavior. ${}^{25}$${}^{25}$^(25){ }^{25} Most economic behavior endures over time rather than consisting of a series of instantaneous transactions. Most economic behavior involves the agreement of contracts. Where exchange retains the physical dimension of gift giving, contract belongs to the sphere of social power and obligations. Where exchange is subjected to the sovereign choice of the owner of property or the consumer, contract imposes obligations. Money, as dynamic capital, has to be understood in terms of the social sphere of contractual obligations rather than in terms of a village market where products are exchanged.
交换与契约之间仍存在本质区别。交换是私有财产的瞬时交换，而契约则是持续一段时间的相互义务协议。财产本身依赖于永久性的隐性或显性契约。将产品作为财产进行交换的乡村市场，为理解经济行为提供了一个糟糕的范例。 ${}^{25}$${}^{25}$^(25){ }^{25} 大多数经济行为都是长期存在的，而不是由一系列即时交易组成的。大多数经济行为涉及合同协议。交换保留了礼物赠送的物理维度，而契约则属于社会权力和义务的范畴。当交换受制于财产所有者或消费者的主权选择时，契约就意味着义务。货币作为动态资本，必须从契约义务的社会领域来理解，而不是从产品交换的乡村市场来理解。
3.2.5 In a productive economy, capital is heterogeneous yet interdependent. Land, labor, and finance are not constituted as capital until they are assembled for production by the intermediation of money for the payment of rent, wages, and interest. Capital is composed of absolute and heterogeneous values, yet it is paid in terms of a homogeneous value. There is no way to determine a just division of payments between rent, wages, and interest, since the contributions of land, labor, and capital are absolute rather than relative. Production would not take place without each of them. Instead, rates and proportions may be determined in practice through the market, in terms of exchange and substitution, according to supply and demand. In practice, then, the price paid for capital has little relation to its intrinsic capacity or productivity. It is determined in relation to exchange, in which the original capital is no longer constituted as capital, since an alternative is substituted for it. Capital as capital disappears from the measure of prices to the extent that it is treated as an object of comparison and substitution. Relative values take priority over absolute values. Relative values are formed by substituting anticipated profits from future constitutions of
3.2.5 在生产性经济中，资本是异质的，但又是相互依存的。土地、劳动力和资金只有在通过货币支付地租、工资和利息的中介组合起来用于生产时，才构成资本。资本是由绝对价值和异质价值构成的，但它是以同质价值来支付的。由于土地、劳动和资本的贡献是绝对的而非相对的，因此无法确定地租、工资和利息之间的合理分配。没有它们中的每一个，生产就不会进行。相反，在实践中，可以通过市场，从交换和替代的角度，根据供求关系来确定比率和比例。因此，在实践中，为资本支付的价格与其内在能力或生产率关系不大。它是根据交换来决定的，在交换过程中，原有的资本不再构成资本，因为有替代品取代了它。作为资本的资本从价格衡量中消失，因为它被当作比较和替代的对象。相对价值优先于绝对价值。相对价值的形成是将未来资本构成的预期利润替代为绝对价值。
capital for those modes of capital that are already actually constituted in a determinate location. Relative values are anticipated; they do not assess values that exist in reality except in relation to anticipation.
资本是指那些已经在确定地点实际构成的资本模式。相对价值是预期的；它们并不评估现实中存在的价值，除非与预期相关。

The power of money is effectively neutralized when money is regarded as a passive instrument of exchange. When an asset is exchanged for a quantity of money, the exchange values of the asset and the quantity of money are equated. An asset is worth a certain price because it may be exchanged for that particular quantity of money; the money is also worth that price because it may be exchanged for the same quantity of money. As pure liquidity, $\mathrm{\$}1,000$$\mathrm{\$}1,000$$1,000\$ 1,000 is tautologously worth $\mathrm{\$}1,000$$\mathrm{\$}1,000$$1,000\$ 1,000. The illusion here is to treat the unit of account as a commodity. As a commodity or object of exchange, money has no distinctive power in exchange. It appears to be neutral. Yet as a unit of account, money has an active power of pricing. Money is not neutral in exchange because it has an active power of intermediation. It makes exchanges possible.
当货币被视为一种被动的交换工具时，货币的力量就被有效地抵消了。当资产与一定数量的货币进行交换时，资产的交换价值与货币的交换价值是相等的。资产之所以值某个价格，是因为它可以换取特定数量的货币；货币之所以值这个价格，也是因为它可以换取相同数量的货币。作为纯粹的流动性， $\mathrm{\$}1,000$$\mathrm{\$}1,000$$1,000\$ 1,000 与 $\mathrm{\$}1,000$$\mathrm{\$}1,000$$1,000\$ 1,000 同义。这里的错觉是把记账单位当成了商品。作为一种商品或交换对象，货币在交换中没有独特的力量。它似乎是中性的。然而，作为记账单位，货币具有主动定价权。货币在交换中不是中立的，因为它具有积极的中介力量。它使交换成为可能。