In the West,

民主。

we make a colossal mistake taking it for granted.

在西方社會，

We see democracy

我們犯了一個巨大的錯誤， 視其為理所當然。

not as the most fragile of flowers that it really is,

我們並非將民主視為 最易凋零的花朵，

but we see it as part of our society's furniture.

其實它是如此脆弱，

We tend to think of it as an intransigent given.

卻將其視為我們社會的家具。

We mistakenly believe that capitalism begets inevitably democracy.

我們常認為民主是既有的賦予。

It doesn't.

我們錯誤地相信資本主義 必會孕育出民主。

Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew and his great imitators in Beijing

其實不然。

have demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt

新加坡的李光耀 和他在北京的眾偉大模仿者，

that it is perfectly possible to have a flourishing capitalism,

證據確鑿地闡明了，

spectacular growth,

完全有可能在 沒有民主的政治情況下，

while politics remains democracy-free.

資本主義能以驚人的速度

Indeed, democracy is receding in our neck of the woods,

繁榮起來。

here in Europe.

事實上，我們附近區域的 民主正在退步，

Earlier this year, while I was representing Greece --

就在歐洲。

the newly elected Greek government --

今年初，我以財政部長身分代表希臘

in the Eurogroup as its Finance Minister,

新選舉產生的政府，

I was told in no uncertain terms that our nation's democratic process --

去歐元集團參加會議。

our elections --

我被明確地告知 我們國家的民主進程──

could not be allowed to interfere

我們的選舉──

with economic policies that were being implemented in Greece.

不容干預

At that moment,

當時正在希臘實施的經濟政策。

I felt that there could be no greater vindication of Lee Kuan Yew,

那一刻，

or the Chinese Communist Party,

我感到那是對李光耀，

indeed of some recalcitrant friends of mine who kept telling me

或者對中國共產黨來說 一份無上的認證，

that democracy would be banned if it ever threatened to change anything.

事實上我一些桀驁不馴的朋友 不斷地告訴我，

Tonight, here, I want to present to you

民主會被禁止， 當它一旦威脅到要改變現狀。

an economic case for an authentic democracy.

今晚，在這裡，我希望向你們展示，

I want to ask you to join me in believing again

一個真正民主的經濟案例。

that Lee Kuan Yew,

我想邀請你們，跟我一起重新相信，

the Chinese Communist Party

李光耀、

and indeed the Eurogroup

中國共產黨、

are wrong in believing that we can dispense with democracy --

還有歐元集團

that we need an authentic, boisterous democracy.

他們都錯了， 錯在相信我們可以去掉民主──

And without democracy,

其實我們需要不折不扣 和生機勃勃的民主。

our societies will be nastier,

沒有民主的話，

our future bleak

我們的社會會更糟糕，

and our great, new technologies wasted.

我們的未來會黯淡，

Speaking of waste,

而我們偉大 創新的科技會被浪費掉。

allow me to point out an interesting paradox

說到浪費，

that is threatening our economies as we speak.

請允許我指出一個 滿有意思的吊詭之處，

I call it the twin peaks paradox.

它當下就在威脅著 我們的經濟。

One peak you understand --

我稱其為雙峰吊詭。

you know it, you recognize it --

第一個高峰你們理解──

is the mountain of debts that has been casting a long shadow

你們知道，你們認識它──

over the United States, Europe, the whole world.

那是一座堆積如山的債務， 投射出一道巨大的陰影，

We all recognize the mountain of debts.

籠罩著美國、歐洲，以至全球。

But few people discern its twin.

我們全都認識這座堆積如山的債務，

A mountain of idle cash

卻沒有多少人辨識到 它有一個雙胞胎。

belonging to rich savers and to corporations,

一座堆積如山的閒置現金，

too terrified to invest it

歸屬於富有的存款者和企業，

into the productive activities that can generate the incomes

過於恐懼而不將其投資

from which you can extinguish the mountain of debts

在那些可以衍生收入的生產力活動，

and which can produce all those things that humanity desperately needs,

透過這些活動，可以消弭那座 堆積如山的債務，

like green energy.

還可以製造出人類亟需的物品，

Now let me give you two numbers.

例如環保能源。

Over the last three months,

現在，讓我向你們展示兩個數字。

in the United States, in Britain and in the Eurozone,

在過去的三個月裡，

we have invested, collectively, 3.4 trillion dollars

在美國、英國和歐元區，

on all the wealth-producing goods --

我們總共投資了 3.4 兆美元

things like industrial plants, machinery,

在那些可以創造財富的物品──

office blocks, schools,

例如工業廠房、機械、

roads, railways, machinery, and so on and so forth.

辦公大樓、學校、

$3.4 trillion sounds like a lot of money

道路、鐵路、機器，諸如此類。

until you compare it to the $5.1 trillion

3.4 兆美元聽起來是很大一筆錢，

that has been slushing around in the same countries,

直到你拿去跟在同樣的那些國家裡、

in our financial institutions,

就是在我們的金融機構中，

doing absolutely nothing during the same period

閒置的 5.1 兆美元比較，

except inflating stock exchanges and bidding up house prices.

在同樣的時段內， 白白的擺放著在那裡，

So a mountain of debt and a mountain of idle cash

只讓股票市場膨脹，房產價格上漲。

form twin peaks, failing to cancel each other out

所以一座堆積如山的債務， 和一座堆積如山的閒置現金，

through the normal operation of the markets.

形成了兩座山峰， 不能透過正常的市場運營

The result is stagnant wages,

相互抵銷。

more than a quarter of 25- to 54-year-olds in America, in Japan and in Europe

這樣下來，就是薪酬停滯，

out of work.

過四分之一的 25-54 歲的 美國人、日本人、和歐洲人

And consequently, low aggregate demand,

沒有工作。

which in a never-ending cycle,

隨之而來，造成了總需求的降低，

reinforces the pessimism of the investors,

周而復始，

who, fearing low demand, reproduce it by not investing --

加劇了投資者對前景的悲觀，

exactly like Oedipus' father,

投資者就是怕低需求量， 而不再投資──

who, terrified by the prophecy of the oracle

正像伊底帕斯的父親，

that his son would grow up to kill him,

神諭他會被長大後的兒子所殺，

unwittingly engineered the conditions

他對此感到害怕，

that ensured that Oedipus, his son, would kill him.

於是在不知不覺間創造了各種條件，

This is my quarrel with capitalism.

導致了自己真的被自己的兒子， 伊底帕斯，殺了。

Its gross wastefulness,

這是我對資本主義有爭議的地方。

all this idle cash,

它那種碩大的浪費，

should be energized to improve lives,

所有閒置的現金，

to develop human talents,

其實應該用於改善人民的生活，

and indeed to finance all these technologies,

發展人類的才能，

green technologies,

以及去資助所有的科技，

which are absolutely essential for saving planet Earth.

環保科技，

Am I right in believing that democracy might be the answer?

這對於拯救地球來說 絕對是很重要的。

I believe so,

我相信民主可能就是答案， 這信念對嗎？

but before we move on,

我相信是對的，

what do we mean by democracy?

但在我們繼續談下去之前，

Aristotle defined democracy

我們所說的民主是什麼？

as the constitution in which the free and the poor,

亞里斯多德將民主定義為

being in the majority, control government.

一個體制，在其中， 政府是由佔大比數的

Now, of course Athenian democracy excluded too many.

自由人和窮人來掌控的。

Women, migrants and, of course, the slaves.

當然，雅典時代的民主 把很多人排除在外。

But it would be a mistake

女人、移民，當然還有奴隸 都排除在外。

to dismiss the significance of ancient Athenian democracy

但是，如果僅僅由於 有多少人被排除在外，

on the basis of whom it excluded.

就否定古老的雅典民主制度 其重要性的話，

What was more pertinent,

那當然是錯誤的。

and continues to be so about ancient Athenian democracy,

古老的雅典民主值得肯定之處，

was the inclusion of the working poor,

且時至今日仍然受到肯定的，

who not only acquired the right to free speech,

是它包括了貧窮的勞工，

but more importantly, crucially,

他們擁有的不僅是言論自由的權利，

they acquired the rights to political judgments

更重要、更關鍵的是，

that were afforded equal weight

他們擁有政治批判的權利，

in the decision-making concerning matters of state.

他們在國家事務政策的 制定過程中，

Now, of course, Athenian democracy didn't last long.

擁有同等的權利。

Like a candle that burns brightly, it burned out quickly.

當然，雅典民主沒有延續下去。

And indeed,

就像燃燒得十分明亮的蠟燭， 很快就燃燒殆盡。

our liberal democracies today do not have their roots in ancient Athens.

確實，

They have their roots in the Magna Carta,

我們當今的自由民主制度 並不是源起於古代雅典。

in the 1688 Glorious Revolution,

他們源起於大憲章、

indeed in the American constitution.

源起於 1688 年的光榮革命、

Whereas Athenian democracy was focusing on the masterless citizen

還有源起於美國憲法。

and empowering the working poor,

雅典民主集中於平民平權， 沒有所謂的主人，

our liberal democracies are founded on the Magna Carta tradition,

以及賦予貧窮的勞工權力，

which was, after all, a charter for masters.

我們的自由民主制度卻是 建基於大憲章的傳統上，

And indeed, liberal democracy only surfaced when it was possible

大憲章到底是一份 為主人所建立的憲章。

to separate fully the political sphere from the economic sphere,

確實，自由民主只能在

so as to confine the democratic process fully in the political sphere,

政治領域完全從 經濟領域分離時浮現，

leaving the economic sphere --

從而把民主過程限定在政治領域，

the corporate world, if you want --

使經濟領域──

as a democracy-free zone.

你要稱它為企業界也可以──

Now, in our democracies today,

成為一處沒有民主的區域。

this separation of the economic from the political sphere,

現在，我們當今的民主，

the moment it started happening,

經濟領域和政治領域的分離，

it gave rise to an inexorable, epic struggle between the two,

從它開始發生的瞬間，

with the economic sphere colonizing the political sphere,

就引發了兩者間 無情、史詩般的較量，

eating into its power.

經濟領域侵佔了政治領域，

Have you wondered why politicians are not what they used to be?

把政治領域的權力吞噬掉。

It's not because their DNA has degenerated.

你們有沒有想過， 為什麼政治人物不再是原來的樣子？

(Laughter)

這並不是因為他們 DNA 退化了。

It is rather because one can be in government today and not in power,

（笑聲）

because power has migrated from the political to the economic sphere,

而是因為今天， 人雖說是在政府裡面，

which is separate.

卻沒有權力，

Indeed,

因為權力已經從政治領域轉移到

I spoke about my quarrel with capitalism.

分離了的經濟領域中。

If you think about it,

事實上，

it is a little bit like a population of predators,

剛才提到我對資本主義有爭論。

that are so successful in decimating the prey that they must feed on,

如果你們想一想，

that in the end they starve.

這有點像一群肉食動物，

Similarly,

成功地大批殺害 牠們賴以生存的獵物，

the economic sphere has been colonizing and cannibalizing the political sphere

而最終自己挨餓。

to such an extent that it is undermining itself,

同樣的情況，

causing economic crisis.

經濟領域殖民統治 並噬食了政治領域，

Corporate power is increasing,

到了一個程度削弱了自己，

political goods are devaluing,

造成了經濟危機。

inequality is rising,

企業的力量正在增加，

aggregate demand is falling

政治的產出正在貶值，

and CEOs of corporations are too scared to invest the cash of their corporations.

不平等正在上升，

So the more capitalism succeeds in taking the demos out of democracy,

總需求正在降低，

the taller the twin peaks

企業的總裁都不敢 用他們公司的現金進行投資。

and the greater the waste of human resources

資本主義愈是成功地 把「民」從「民主」中剔除，

and humanity's wealth.

兩座山峰也就愈來愈高，

Clearly, if this is right,

人力資源和人類的財富

we must reunite the political and economic spheres

也就更多地被浪費掉了。

and better do it with a demos being in control,

情況很清楚，如果這是正確的，

like in ancient Athens except without the slaves

我們必須重新把 政治和經濟領域團聚起來，

or the exclusion of women and migrants.

更好的是讓人民來掌控，

Now, this is not an original idea.

就正如古老的雅典民主， 當然要在沒有奴隸，

The Marxist left had that idea 100 years ago

也不把女人和移民排除 在外的前提下。

and it didn't go very well, did it?

其實，這不是一個新穎的想法。

The lesson that we learned from the Soviet debacle

馬克思左派在 100 多年前 就已經有這樣的想法，

is that only by a miracle will the working poor be reempowered,

只是不太成功，對不對？

as they were in ancient Athens,

我們從蘇聯解體吸取到的教訓是，

without creating new forms of brutality and waste.

只有奇蹟發生， 貧窮的勞工才能被重新賦權，

But there is a solution:

就像古老雅典時代那樣，

eliminate the working poor.

而不會創造新形式的暴行和浪費。

Capitalism's doing it

但有另外的一個解決方案：

by replacing low-wage workers with automata, androids, robots.

去掉貧窮的勞工。

The problem is

資本主義正在這樣做，

that as long as the economic and the political spheres are separate,

通過自動裝置、機器人 來取代低薪的勞工。

automation makes the twin peaks taller,

問題是，

the waste loftier

只要經濟和政治領域是分離的，

and the social conflicts deeper,

自動化只會讓這兩座山峰愈來愈高，

including --

浪費會更加巨大，

soon, I believe --

社會矛盾愈形加劇，

in places like China.

包括──

So we need to reconfigure,

很快，我相信──

we need to reunite the economic and the political spheres,

會發生在像中國這樣的地方。

but we'd better do it by democratizing the reunified sphere,

因此，我們需要重新配置，

lest we end up with a surveillance-mad hyperautocracy

我們需要使經濟和政治領域 重新統一起來，

that makes The Matrix, the movie, look like a documentary.

但是我們最好是將 重新統一起來的領域民主化，

(Laughter)

以免我們最終落入 監視狂一樣的超級獨裁政權，

So the question is not whether capitalism will survive

讓電影駭客帝國， 看起來像是紀錄片。

the technological innovations it is spawning.

（笑聲）

The more interesting question

所以，問題並不是資本主義能否在

is whether capitalism will be succeeded by something resembling a Matrix dystopia

在它推動的科技創新中存活下來。

or something much closer to a Star Trek-like society,

更有趣的問題是，

where machines serve the humans

資本主義是否會被像是駭客帝國 這樣的反烏托邦所取代，

and the humans expend their energies exploring the universe

或是被更類似於 星際迷航的社會取代，

and indulging in long debates about the meaning of life

由機器來服務人類，

in some ancient, Athenian-like, high tech agora.

人們把精力投放在探索宇宙，

I think we can afford to be optimistic.

且在像古代、 雅典時代般的高科技廣場，

But what would it take,

享受著有關生命意義的冗長辯論。

what would it look like

我想，我們可以樂觀起來。

to have this Star Trek-like utopia, instead of the Matrix-like dystopia?

但是像星際迷航一樣的烏托邦，

In practical terms,

而不是駭客帝國那樣的反烏托邦，

allow me to share just briefly,

創造它需要些什麼呢？ 誕生後又會是怎麼樣呢？

a couple of examples.

從實際方面來說，

At the level of the enterprise,

請容許我簡略地

imagine a capital market,

分享一些例子。

where you earn capital as you work,

在企業層面，

and where your capital follows you from one job to another,

試想一個資本市場，

from one company to another,

在其中你以工作賺取資本，

and the company --

你的資本跟著你， 從一個工作到下一個工作，

whichever one you happen to work at at that time --

從一家公司到下一家公司，

is solely owned by those who happen to work in it at that moment.

而這家公司──

Then all income stems from capital, from profits,

你正巧在那時工作的那家公司──

and the very concept of wage labor becomes obsolete.

其所有權都歸屬於那時候 正巧在那裡工作的人。

No more separation between those who own but do not work in the company

所有的收益流，從資本，到利潤，

and those who work but do not own the company;

以至於最基本的 支薪勞工的概念都被廢棄。

no more tug-of-war between capital and labor;

不在公司工作卻擁有著公司，

no great gap between investment and saving;

和在公司工作卻不擁有這間公司， 這兩方的人不再有區分，

indeed, no towering twin peaks.

資本和勞動之間，也不再拔河；

At the level of the global political economy,

投資和存款之間， 沒有了巨大的缺口；

imagine for a moment

事實上，也不會存在 兩座高聳的山峰。

that our national currencies have a free-floating exchange rate,

在全球政治經濟層面，

with a universal, global, digital currency,

現在試想一下，

one that is issued by the International Monetary Fund,

我們的國家貨幣 有一個自由浮動的兌換匯率，

the G-20,

伴隨著一種全球通用的電子貨幣，

on behalf of all humanity.

由國際貨幣基金組織，

And imagine further

二十國集團 G20，

that all international trade is denominated in this currency --

代表全人類所發行的貨幣。

let's call it "the cosmos,"

再進一步想像一下，

in units of cosmos --

所有的國際貿易 都以這種貨幣計價──

with every government agreeing to be paying into a common fund

我們且稱它為「宇宙幣」，

a sum of cosmos units proportional to the country's trade deficit,

用宇宙幣為單元──

or indeed to a country's trade surplus.

每個政府都會同意 根據他們國家的貿易逆差，

And imagine that that fund is utilized to invest in green technologies,

或是根據他們國家的貿易順差，

especially in parts of the world where investment funding is scarce.

來向一個共同基金投入 按比例的宇宙幣。

This is not a new idea.

試想這個基金應用於 投資在環保科技，

It's what, effectively, John Maynard Keynes proposed

尤其是在世界上 某些缺乏投資基金的地方。

in 1944 at the Bretton Woods Conference.

這不是一個新的主意。

The problem is

實際上，這是約翰‧梅納德‧凱恩斯

that back then, they didn't have the technology to implement it.

在 1944 年的 布萊頓森林會議上所提出來的。

Now we do,

但問題是，

especially in the context of a reunified political-economic sphere.

在那個時候， 他們沒有科技去實現它。