对David Harvey两篇文章的翻译 2021.04.07 地理，读书笔记

这篇文章发表于 1106 天前，可能其部分内容已经发生变化，如有疑问可询问作者。

David Harvey是个深受马克思主义影响的地理学家。某种机缘巧合下我看了篇他的文章，瞬间就着迷了。这里翻译的文章有《THE GEOGRAPHY OF CAPITALIST ACCUMULATION: A RECONSTRUCTION OF THE MARXIAN THEORY *》和《Globalization and the “Spatial Fix”》。共花了二十个小时左右机翻+手翻+整理，肯定有不少错误，但就这样了。

我把这篇文章放在个人推荐里面纯粹是因为他的这两篇作品打开了新世界的大门（于我而言），即便一些视角可能存在小瑕疵。另外，他列出的参考文献我就不放了。

THE GEOGRAPHY OF CAPITALIST ACCUMULATION…

The spatial dimension to Marx’s theory of accumulation under the capitalist mode of production has for too long been ignored. This is, in part, Marx’s fault since his writings on the matter are fragmentary and often only sketchily developed. But careful scrutiny of his works reveals that Marx recognized that capital accumulation took place in a geographical context and that it in turn created specific kinds of geographical structures. Marx further develops a novel approach to location theory (in which dynamics are at the center of things) and shows that it is possible to connect, theoretically, the general processes of economic growth with an explicit understanding of an emergent structure of spatial relationships. And it further transpires that this locational analysis provides, in albeit a limited form, a crucial link between Marx’s theory of accumulation and the Marxian theory of imperialism – a link which many have sought but none have so far found with any certainty, in part, I shall argue, because the mediating factor of Marx’s location theory has been overlooked.

长期以来，人们忽视了马克思在资本主义生产方式下积累理论的空间维度。这在一定程度上是马克思的错，因为他关于这个问题的著作是零碎且粗略的。但仔细审视他的作品可以发现，马克思认识到资本积累是在地理环境中发生的，资本积累反过来又创造了特定的地理结构。马克思进一步发展了区位理论的一种新方法（在这种方法中，动态是事物的中心），并从理论上揭示了——经济增长的一般过程与新兴空间结构的联系。它进一步说明，尽管这种区位分析形式有限，但在马克思的积累理论和马克思的帝国主义理论之间提供了一个关键的联系，许多人都在寻找这种联系，但迄今为止还没有找到任何确定的联系，不过我要说的是，因为马克思区位理论的中介因素被人们忽视了。

In this paper I shall try to demonstrate how the theory of accumulation relates to an understanding of spatial structure and how the particular form of locational analysis which Marx creates provides the missing link between the theory of accumulation and the theory of imperialism.

在本文中，我将试图说明积累理论如何与对空间结构的理解相联系，以及马克思所创造的特定的区位分析形式如何提供积累理论与帝国主义理论之间缺失的联系。

1. THE THEORY OF ACCUMULATION

Marx’s theory of growth under capitalism places accumulation of capital at the center of things. Accumulation is the engine which powers growth under the capitalist mode of production. The capitalist system is therefore highly dynamic and inevitably expansionary; it forms a permanently revolutionary force which continuously and constantly reshapes the world we live in. A stationary state of simple reproduction is, for Marx, logically incompatible with the perpetuation of the capitalist mode of production. “The historical mission of the bourgeoisie,” is expressed in the formula “accumulation for accumulation’s sake, production for production’s sake” (Capital, l, p. 595). Yet this historical mission does not stem from the inherent greed of the capitalist; it arises, rather, out of forces entirely independent of the capitalist’s individual will:

马克思的资本主义增长理论把资本积累放在事物的中心。积累是资本主义生产方式下增长的动力。因此，资本主义制度具有高度的动态性和必然的扩张性，它形成了一种永久的革命力量，它不断地、不断地改造着我们所生活的世界。对马克思来说，简单再生产的静止状态在逻辑上与资本主义生产方式的永存是不相容的。“资产阶级的历史使命”用公式表述就是“为了积累而积累，为了生产而生产”（见《资本论》第一卷，第595页）。然而，这一历史使命并非源于资本家固有的贪婪，而是源于完全独立于资本家个人意志的力量：

Only as personified capital is the capitalist respectable. As such, he shares with the miser the passion for wealth as wealth. But that which in the miser is mere idiosyncrasy, is, in the capitalist, the effect of the social mechanism, of which he is but one of the wheels. Moreover, the development of Capitalist production makes it constantly necessary to keep increasing the amount of capital laid out in a given industrial undertaking, and competition makes the immanent laws of capitalist production to be felt by each individual capitalist, as external coercive laws. It compels him to keep constantly extending his capital, in order to preserve it, but extend it he cannot, except by means of progressive accumulation (Ibid., p. 592).

只有作为人格化资本的资本家才是受人尊敬的。同样地，他（资本家）与守财奴一样，把对财富的热情视为财富。但是，对守财奴而言这仅是种癖好，而对资本家而言这只是社会机制的作用，他只是其中的一个轮子。此外，在一个特定的工业企业中，资本主义生产的发展使得保持资本增加始终有着重要的地位，竞争使每个资本家都能感受到资本主义生产的内在规律，具有外在的强制性。它迫使他不断地扩展他的资本以维护成果，但扩展资本只能通过逐步积累（同上，第592页）。

Economic growth under capitalism is, as Marx usually dubs it, a process of internal contradictions which frequently erupt as crises. Harmonious or balanced growth under capitalism is, in Marx’s view, purely accidental because of the spontaneous and chaotic nature of commodity production under competitive Capitalism (Capital, 2, p. 495). Marx’s analyses of this system of commodity production led him to the view that there were innumerable possibilities for crises to occur as well as certain tendencies inherent within capitalism which were bound to produce serious stresses within the accumulation process. We can understand these stresses more easily if we recognize that the progress of accumulation depends upon and presupposes:

正如马克思常说的那样，资本主义下的经济增长是一个内部矛盾的过程，这种矛盾经常以危机的形式爆发。在马克思看来，资本主义下的和谐或平衡增长纯粹是偶然的，因为竞争资本主义下商品生产具有自发性和混乱性（见《资本论》第二卷，第495页）。马克思对这一商品生产体系的分析使他认为，危机发生的可能性是非常大的，资本主义内在的某些倾向必然在积累过程中产生严重的压力。如果我们认识到积累的过程依赖于一些前提：

(1) The existence of a surplus of labor – an industrial reserve army which can feed the expansion of production. Mechanisms must therefore exist to increase the supply of labor power by, for example, stimulating population growth, generating migration streams, drawing “latent elements” – labor power employed in non-capitalist situations, women and children, and the like – into the workforce, or by creating unemployment by the application of labor-saving innovations.

(2) The existence in the market place of requisite quantities of, or opportunities to obtain, means of production – machines, raw materials, physical infrastructures, and the like – to permit the expansion of production as capital is reinvested.

(3) The existence of a market to absorb the increasing quantities of commodities produced – If uses cannot be found for goods or if an effective demand (need backed by ability to pay) does not exist, then the conditions for capitalist accumulation disappear.

（1）存在剩余劳动力 – 这是一种能支持生产扩展的工业“预备役部队”。因此必须存在机制来增加劳动力的供应，例如，刺激人口增长、产生迁移流、吸引“潜在的元素（劳动力）” – 应用于非资本主义情形的劳动力、女性和儿童诸如此类进入劳动力市场，或通过在劳动节约的创新中创造失业。

（2）在市场中存在必要数量的生产资料或者获得生产资料的机会 – 机器、原材料、基础设施建设等等 – 以保证生产的扩展能作为资本再投入。

（3）存在一个市场能够吸收增加的商品数量 – 如果无法找到商品的利用价值，或者如果有效的需求（需要支付的能力）不存在，那么资本主义积累的条件消失了。

In each of these respects the progress of accumulation may encounter a serious barrier which, once reached, will likely precipitate a crisis of some sort. Since, in well-developed capitalist economies, the supply of labor power, the supply of means of production and of necessary infrastructures, and the structure of demand are all “produced” under the capitalist mode of production, Marx concludes that capitalism tends actively to produce some of the barriers to its own development. This means that crises are endemic to the capitalist accumulation process.

在资本积累进程的每一个方面，都可能遇到严重的障碍，一旦达到这一障碍，就可能引发某种危机。因为在发达的资本主义国家，劳动力的供给、生产资料的供应和必要的基础设施以及需求的结构都是在资本主义生产方式下“被生产的”，马克思认为资本主义往往“积极地”创造出一些自身发展的障碍。这意味着，危机是资本积累过程的地方病。

Crises can be manifest in a variety of ways, however, depending on the conditions of circulation and production at the time. We can see more clearly how this can be so by examining, briefly, how Marx looks at production, distribution, consumption and reinvestment as separate phases (or moments”) within the totality of the capitalist production process. He argues, for example, that:

危机可以以多种方式显现，但这取决于当时的流通和生产条件。只要简单地考察一下马克思对生产、分配和消费的看法，我们就能更清楚地看到这一点。在整个资本主义生产过程中，投资和再投资是两个独立的阶段（或时刻）。例如，他认为:

not only is production immediately consumption and consumption immediately production, not only is production a means for Consumption and consumption the aim of production… but also, each of them… creates the other in completing itself and creates itself as the other (Grundrisse, p. 93).

不仅生产紧跟消费，消费紧跟生产；不仅生产是消费的手段，消费是生产的目的……而且两者……在完成自己的过程中创造他者，并作为他者创造自己（《经济学批判》，第93页）。

If production and consumption are necessarily dialectically integrated with each other within production as a totality, then it follows that the crises which arise from structural barriers to accumulation can be manifest in each and any of the phases in the circulation and production of value.

如果生产和消费在生产中作为一个整体必然地相互辩证地结合起来，由此可见结构性积累障碍引起的危机，可以表现在流通和价值生产的各个阶段。

Consider, for example, a typical realization crisis which arises because accumulation for accumulation’s sake means, inevitably, the “tendency to produce without regard to the limits of the market” (Theories-of Surplus Value, 2, p. 522). Capitalists constantly tend to expand the mass and total value of commodities on the market at the same time as they try to maximize their profits by keeping wages down which restricts the purchasing power of the masses (Ibid., p. 492; Capital, 3, p. 484). There is a contradiction here which periodically produces a realization crisis – a mass of commodities on the market with no purchasers in sight. This overproduction is relative only, of course, and it has nothing to do with absolute human needs – “it is only concerned with demand backed by ability to pay” (Theories of Surplus Value, 2, p. 506). Absolute overproduction in relation to all human wants and needs is, in Marx’s view, impossible under capitalism.

例如，现实中的一个典型的危机产生之原因是为了积累而积累，这不可避免地意味着“不考虑市场限制的生产倾向”(《剩余价值理论》第二卷，522页)。资本家不断地倾向于扩大市场上商品的质量和总价值，同时他们试图通过压低工资来最大化自己的利润，这限制了大众的购买力（同上，492页；第三卷，第484页）。这里有一个矛盾，它周期性地在现实中产生一种危机——大量的商品在市场上找不到买家。当然，这种生产过剩只是相对的，它与人类的绝对需求无关——“它只与支付能力支持的需求有关”(《剩余价值理论》第二卷，第506页)。按照马克思的观点，在资本主义制度下，相对于人类所有的欲望和需要的绝对生产过剩是不可能存在的。

But such relative overproduction may appear also as underconsumption or as an overproduction of capital (a capital surplus). Marx regards these forms as manifestations of the same basic overaccumulation problem (Ibid., pp. 497-9). The fact that there is a surfeit of capital relative to opportunities to employ that capital means that there has been an overproduction of capital (in the form of an overproduction of commodities) at a preceeding stage and that capitalists are over-investing and underconsuming the surplus at the present stage. In all of these cases, overproduction:

但这种相对生产过剩也可能表现为消费不足或资本生产过剩（资本盈余）。马克思认为这些形式是同一种基本的过度积累问题的表现（同上，第497-9页）。相对于雇用资本的机会而言，资本过剩这一事实意味着在前一阶段资本生产过剩（以商品生产过剩的形式出现）而且资本家在现阶段过度投资但对盈余的消费不足。在所有这些情况下，生产过剩：

is specifically conditioned by the general law of the production of capital: to produce to the limit set by the productive forces, that is to say, to exploit the maximum amount of labour with a given amount of capital, without any consideration for the actual limits of the market or the needs backed by ability to pay (Ibid., pp. 534-5).

是一般资本生产在特定情况下的产物：生产能力到达了生产力的极限，也就是说，以一定量的资本来利用最大数量的劳动力，却没有考虑到市场的实际限制或支付能力所支持的需求（同上，第534 - 5页）。

This same general law produces, periodically, a:

同样的一般规律会周期性地产生:

plethora of capital [which] arises from the same causes as those which call forth a relative overpopulation, and is, therefore, a phenomenon supplementing the latter, although they stand at opposite poles one pole, and unemployed worker population at the other (Capital, 3, p. 251).

资本过剩和相对的人口过剩原因是一样的，因此资本过剩是对人口过剩的补充，虽然资本过剩的现象和失业人口是对立的两极（《资本论》第三卷，第251页）。

The various manifestations of crisis in the capitalist system – chronic unemployment and underemployment, capital surpluses and lack of investment opportunities, falling rates of profit, lack of effective demand in the market, and so on, can therefore be traced back to the basic tendency to overaccumulate. Since there are no other equilibriating forces at work within the competitive anarchy of the capitalist economic system, crises have an important function – they enforce some kind of order and rationality onto capitalist economic development. This is not to say that crises are themselves orderly or logical – they merely create the conditions which force some kind of arbitrary rationalization of the capitalist production system. This rationalization extracts a social cost and has its tragic human consequences in the form of bankruptcies, financial collapse, forced devaluation of capital assets and personal savings, inflation, increasing concentration of economic and political power in a few hands, falling real wages, and unemployment. Forced periodic corrections to the course of capital accumulation can all too easily get out of hand, however, and spawn class struggles, revolutionary movements and the chaos which typically provides the breeding ground for fascism. The social reaction to crises can affect the way in which the crisis is resolved so that there is no necessary unique outcome to this forced rationalization process. All that has to happen is that appropriate conditions for renewed accumulation have to be created if the capitalist system is to be sustained.

资本主义制度危机的各种表现形式 – 长期失业和就业不足、资本盈余和缺乏投资机会、利润率下降、市场缺乏有效需求等等，可追溯到过度积累的基本趋势。由于在资本主义经济体制的竞争无政府状态下，没有其他平衡力量在起作用，危机就起着重要的作用——它们对资本主义经济发展强加了某种秩序和合理性。这并不是说危机本身是有序的或合乎逻辑的，它们只是创造了迫使资本主义生产系统某种任意合理化的条件。这种合理化会产生社会成本，并产生其悲惨的人类后果，其形式包括破产、金融崩溃、资本资产和个人储蓄被迫贬值、通货膨胀、经济和政治权力日益集中、实际工资下降和失业。然而，对资本积累过程的强制定期修正很容易失控，并引发阶级斗争、革命运动和混乱，这些通常为法西斯主义提供了滋生地。社会对危机的反应会影响危机的解决方式，因此这种被迫的合理化进程没有必要的独特结果。若要维持资本主义制度，就必须创造适当的条件来重新积累。

Periodic crises must in general have the effect of expanding the productive capacity and renewing the conditions of further accumulation. We can conceive of each crisis as shifting the accumulation process onto a new and higher plane. This “new plane” will likely exhibit certain combined characteristics of the following sorts:

周期性危机一般必须具有扩大生产能力和更新进一步积累条件的效果。我们可以把每一次危机想象成将积累过程转移到一个新的更高的平面上。这种”新平面”可能会表现出以下几种组合特征：

(1) The productivity of labor will be much enhanced by the employment of more sophisticated machinery and equipment while older fixed capital equipment will, during the course of the crisis, have become much cheaper through a forced devaluation.

(2) The cost of labor will be much reduced because of the widespread unemployment during the crisis and, consequently, a larger surplus can be gained for further accumulation.

(3) The surplus capital which lacked opportunities for investment in the crisis will be drawn into new and high profit lines of production.

(4) An expanding effective demand for product – at first in the capital goods industry but subsequently in final consumption – will easily clear the market of all goods produced.

（1）使用更复杂先进的机械和设备将大大提高劳动生产率，而在危机期间，旧的固定资本设备将因被迫贬值而变得便宜得多。

（2）由于危机期间普遍失业，劳动力成本将大大降低，因此，可以增加更大的盈余，以便进一步积累。

（3）在危机中缺乏投资机会的盈余资本将被吸引到新的高利润生产线上。

（4）扩大对产品的有效需求 – 首先是资本货物行业，但随后是在最终消费 – 将很容易清除所有生产的商品的市场。

It is, perhaps, useful to pick up on the last element and consider how a new plane of effective demand, which can increase the capacity to absorb products, can be constructed. Analysis suggests that it can be constructed out of a complex mix of four overlapping elements:

也许，拿起最后一个要素并考虑如何构建一个新的、能提高吸收产品的能力的有效需求平面是有益的。分析表明，它可以通过四个重叠元素的复杂组合来构建：

(1) The penetration of capital into new spheres of activity by (i) organizing preexisting forms of activity along capitalist lines (e.g., the transformation of peasant subsistence agriculture into corporate farming), or by (ii) expanding the points of interchange within the system of production and diversifying the division of labor (new specialist businesses emerge to take care of some aspect of production which was once all carried on within the same factory or firm).

(2) Creating new social wants and needs, developing entirely new product-lines (automobiles and electronic goods are excellent twentieth century examples) and organizing consumption so that it becomes “rational” with respect to the accumulation process (working class demands for good housing may, for example, be coopted into a public housing program which serves to stabilize the economy and expand the demand for construction products of a certain sort).

(3) Facilitating and encouraging the expansion of population at a rate consistent with long-run accumulation (this obviously is not a short-run solution but there appears to be a strong justification for Marx’s comment (Theories of Surplus Value, 2, p. 47; cf. Grundrisse, p. 764 and p. 771) that “an increasing population appears as the basis of accumulation as a continuous process” from the standpoint of expanding the labor supply and the market for products).

(4) Expanding geographically into new regions, increasing foreign trade, exporting capital and in general expanding towards the creation of what Marx called “the world market.”

（1）资本的渗透进入新领域的活动通过（i）按照资本主义路线组织原有的活动形式（例如农民自给农业的转变为农业企业），或（ii）或扩大系统内的交换点，使得生产和劳动分工多元化（新的专业企业出现并照顾在同一家工厂或公司内的一些产品）。

（2）创造新的社会需求，开发全新的产品线（20世纪汽车和电子产品都是很好的例子）和组织消费，为的是使之变成“合理”的积累过程（比如工人阶级要求良好的住房可被吸取到一个公共住房项目以在某种意义上提供稳定经济和扩大建设产品的需求）。

（3）促进和鼓励人口以与长期积累相一致的速度扩张（这显然不是一个短期的解决办法，但似乎有一个强有力的理由来支持马克思的评论（《剩余价值理论》第二卷，第47页；《政治经济学批判》，第764页和第771页），从扩大劳动力供应和产品市场的角度来看，“人口增长是作为积累的基础，作为一个持续的过程”）。

（4）在地理上向新的地区扩张，增加对外贸易，输出资本，总的来说朝着马克思所说的“世界市场”的方向扩张。

In each of these respects, or by some combination of them, capitalism can create fresh room for accumulation. The first three items can be viewed really as a matter of intensification of social activity, of markets, of people within a particular spatial structure. The last item brings us, of course, to the question of spatial organization and geographical expansion as a necessary product of the accumulation process. In what follows we shall consider this last aspect in isolation from the others. But it is crucial to realize that in practice various trade-offs exist between intensification and spatial extension – a rapid rate of population growth and the easy creation of new social wants and needs within a country may render capital export and an expansion of foreign trade unnecessary for the expansion of accumulation. The more difficult, intensification becomes, the more important geographical extension is for sustaining capital accumulation. Bearing this in mind, we will proceed to examine the way in which the theory of accumulation relates to the production of spatial structures.

在每一个方面，或者通过它们的某种组合，资本主义可以为积累创造新的空间。前三个项目实际上可以被看作是一个在特定空间结构内强化社会活动、市场、人的问题。当然，最后一项给我们带来了空间组织问题和地理扩张作为积累过程的必要产物。接下来，我们将与其他方面分开考虑最后一个方面。但必须认识到在现实中，在集聚和空间扩展之间存在着各种权衡 – 人口快速增长和在一个国家内容易创造新的社会需要和需求，可能使资本输出和扩大对外贸易对扩大积累变得没有必要。越是困难，越是强化，越是重要的地域延伸，就是保持资本积累。考虑到这一点，我们将着手研究积累理论与空间结构产生的关系。

2. TRANSPORTATION RELATIONS, SPATIAL INTEGRATION AND THE “ANNIHILATION OF SPACE BY TIME”

We will start from the proposition that the “circulation of capital realizes value while living labour creates value” (Grundrisse, p. 543). Circulation has two aspects; the actual physical movement of commodities from point of production to point of consumption and the actual or implicit costs that attach to the time taken up and to the social mediations (the chain of wholesalers, retailers, banking operations, and the like) which are necessary in order for the produced commodity to find its ultimate user. Marx regards the former as integral to the production process and therefore productive of value (Capital, 2. p. 150; Grundrisse, p. 533-4). The latter are regarded as necessary costs of circulation which are not, however, productive of value – they are to be regarded, therefore, as necessary deductions out of surplus, because the capitalist has to pay for them.

我们将从“资本流通实现价值，生活劳动创造价值”的命题入手（《政治经济学批判》，第543页）。流通有两个方面：商品从生产地到消费点的实际物理移动，以及为生产商品找到其最终用户的必要的显性和隐性的成本附着于时间和社会中介（批发商、零售商的供应链、银行业务等）。马克思认为前者是生产过程中不可或缺的组成部分，因此具有价值（《资本论》第二卷，第150页;《政治经济学批判》，第533-4页）。后者被认为是流通的必要成本，但却不能产生价值——因此，它们被认为是盈余中必需扣除的部分，因为资本家必须为它们买单。

The transportation and communications industry which “sells change in location” (Capital, 2, p. 52) is directly productive of value because “economically considered, the spatial condition, the bringing of the product to market, belongs to the production process itself. The product is really finished only when it is on the market” (Grundrisse, pp. 533-4). However, the means of transportation and communication, because they are made up almost entirely of fixed capital, have their own peculiar laws of realization (Ibid., p. 523) – laws which stem from the fact that transportation is simultaneously produced and consumed at the moment of its use. Although the transport industry is potentially a source of surplus value, there are good reasons for capital not to engage in its production except under certain favorable circumstances. The state is often, therefore, very active in this sphere of production (Ibid., pp. 531-3).

“销售地点变化”（《资本论》第二卷，第52页）的运输和通信行业是直接富有成效的价值，因为“从经济上考虑，利用空间条件将产品带到市场上，属于生产过程本身。该产品只有在市场上时才完全完成”（《政治经济学批判》，第533-4页）。但是，运输和沟通的手段，因为它们几乎完全由固定资本组成，有自己的特殊实现定律（同上，第523页）。法则就是交通在使用时同时生产和消费。虽然交通工业可能是剩余价值的来源，但除了在某些有利的情况下，对于资本而言并不会进行生产。因此，该状态通常在该生产领域非常活跃（同上，第531-3页）。

The cost of transportation “is important insofar as the expansion of the market and the exchangeability of the product are connected with it” (Ibid., p. 534). Prices, both of raw materials and finished goods, are sensitive to the costs of transportation and the ability to draw in raw materials over long distances and to dispatch the finished product to a distant market is obviously affected by these costs. The costs of circulation “can be reduced by improved, cheaper and more rapid transportation” (Capital, 2, p. 142). One by-product of this is a cheapening of many elements of constant capital (raw material inputs) and the extension of the geographical market. Viewed from the standpoint of production as a totality, “the reduction of the costs of real circulation [in space] belongs to the development of the forces of production by capital” (Grundrisse, pp. 533-4).

运输成本“对于扩大市场和产品的可交换性都很重要”（同上，第534页）。原材料和成品的价格对运输成本都很敏感，长途提取原材料和将成品运往遥远市场的能力显然受到这些成本的影响。流通成本“可以通过改进、更便宜和更快的运输来降低”（《资本论》第二章，第142页）。其中的一个次要产品是不断的资本要素（原材料投入）的廉价化和地理市场的延伸。将生产作为整体来看，“（空间）实际流通成本的降低属于资本生产力的发展”（《政治经济学批判》，第533-4页）。

Placed in the context of accumulatfon in general, improvements in transportation and communication are seen to be inevitable and necessary. “The revolution in the modes of production of industry and agriculture made necessary a revolution… in the means of communication and transport” so that they “became gradually adapted to the modes of production of mechanical industry, by the creation of a system of river steamers, railways, ocean steamers and telegraphs” (Capital, 1, p. 384). The imperative to accumulate consequently implies the imperative to overcome spatial barriers:

放在通常的积累背景下，改善交通和沟通被认为是不可避免的和必要的。“工农业生产方式的革命使一场在通信和运输手段方面革命显得必要”，通过建立河轮、铁路、远洋轮船和电报系统，使他们”逐渐适应机械工业的生产模式”（《资本论》第一卷，第384页）。因此，积累就意味着必须克服空间障碍：

The more production comes to rest on exchange value, hence on exchange, the more important do the physical conditions of exchange – the means of communication and transport – become for the costs of circulation. Capital by its nature drives beyond every spatial barrier. Thus the creation of the physical conditions of exchange… becomes an extraordinary necessity for it (Grundrisse, p. 524).

生产越依赖于交换价值，因此在交换上，交换的物理条件 – 通信和运输手段 – 对流通成本而言更加重要。资本的性质超越了每一个空间障碍，从而创造了交换的物理条件……成为一个非同寻常的必要性 （《政治经济学批判》，第524页）。

The capitalist mode of production promotes the production of cheap and rapid forms of communication and transportation in order that “the direct product can be realized in distant markets in mass quantities” at the same time as new “spheres of realization for labour, driven by capital” can be opened up (loc. cit.). The reduction in realization and circulation costs helps to create, therefore, fresh room for capital accumulation. Put the other way around, capital accumulation is bound to be geographically expansionary and to be so by progressive reductions in the costs of communication and transportation.

资本主义的生产模式促进了廉价和快速的通信和运输形式的生产，以便“直接生产的产品（的价值）可以在遥远的市场得到大规模实现”，同时可以开辟新的“以资本为动力的劳动实现领域”（loc. cit.）。因此实现和流通成本的降低有助于创造新的资本积累空间。换句话说，资本积累必然在地理上是扩张性的并且通信和运输费用会逐渐减少。

The opening up of more distant markets, new sources of raw materials and of new opportunities for the employment of labor under the social relations of capitalism, has the effect, however, of increasing the turnover time of capital unless there are compensating improvements in the speed of circulation. The turnover time of a given capital is equal to the production time plus the circulation time (Capital, 2, p. 248). The longer the turnover time of a given capital, the smaller is its annual yield of surplus value. More distant markets tie capital up in the circulation process for longer time periods and therefore have the effect of reducing the realization of surplus value for a particular capital. By the same token, any reduction in circulation time increases surplus production and enhances the accumulation process. Speeding up “the velocity of circulation of capital” contributes to the accumulation process. Under these conditions “even spatial distance reduces itself to time: the important thing is not the market’s distance in space, but the speed… with which it can be reached” (Grundrisse, p. 538). There is thus a strong incentive to reduce the circulation time to a minimum for to do so is to minimize “the wandering period of commodities” (Capital, 2, p. 249). A dual need, both to reduce the cost and the time involved in movement, thus emanates from the imperative to accumulate:

然而，在资本主义的社会关系下，开放更遥远的市场、新的原材料来源和新的劳动力就业机会，除非有补偿性地提高流通速度，否则将增加资本的周转时间。给定资本的周转时间等于生产时间和流通时间（《资本论》第二章，第248页）。给定资本的周转时间越长，其盈余价值的年收益率越小。较远的市场将资本在流通过程中长期捆绑在一起，从而具有降低特定资本剩余价值的实现效果。同样，任何流通时间的减少都增加了剩余产量，并增强了积累过程。加快“资本流动速度”有助于积累过程。在这种情况下，“甚至空间距离会缩短到时间：重要的不是市场在空间上的距离，而是可以达到市场的速度”（《政治经济学批判》，第538页）。因此，资本家有强大的动机将流通时间减少到最低限度，以尽可能减少“商品的徘徊期”（《资本论》第二卷，第249页）。降低成本与减少运动时间的双重需要就源自于积累的迫切性：

“while capital must on one side strive to tear down every spatial barrier to intercourse, i.e., to exchange, and conquer the whole earth for its market, it strives on the other side to annihilate this space with time… The more developed the capital… the more does it strive simultaneously for an even greater extension of the market and for greater annihilation of space by time” (Grundrisse, p. 539).

“一方面，资本必须努力突破空间障碍。为跨过整个地球实现交换以获得它的市场，资本必须努力用时间消灭这个空间……资本越发达……它就越努力同时争取市场的更大扩展和时间对空间的更大毁灭”(《政治经济学批判》，第539页)。

Long distance trade, because it separates production and realization by a long time interval, may still be characterized by a long turnover period and a lack of continuity in the employment of capital. This kind of trade, and “overseas commerce in general” thus forms “one of the material bases,… one of the sources of the credit system” (Capital, 2, pp. 251-2). In the Grundrisse (p. 535) Marx develops this argument at greater length:

长距离贸易由于生产与实现时间间隔较长，其特点仍然是周转期长，资本使用缺乏连续性。这种贸易与“一般的海外贸易”形成了“物质基础之一和信用系统的来源之一”（《资本论》第二章，第251-2页）。在《政治经济学批判》（第535页）中，马克思更详细地发展了这一论点：

It is clear… that circulation appears as an essential process of capital. The production process cannot be begun anew before the transformation of the commidity into money. The constant continuity of this process, the unobstructed and fluid transition of value from one form into the other, or from one phase of the process into the next, appears as a fundamental condition for production based on capital to a much greater degree than for all earlier forms of production. [But] while the necessity of this continuity is given, its phases are separate in time and space… It thus appears as a matter of chance… whether or not its essential condition, the continuity of the different processes which constitute its process as a whole, is actually brought about. The suspension of this chance element by capital itself is credit.

很明显……流通是资本的一个基本过程。在把商品转变为金钱之前，生产过程不能重新开始。这一过程的连续性、价值从一种形式向另一种形式或从过程的一个阶段向另一个阶段的顺畅过渡，相比于所有早期的生产形式，它是以资本为基础的生产的更为基本条件。【但是】虽然这种连续性的必要性被赋予， 它的阶段在时间和空间上是分开的……因此，这似乎是一个机会的问题……不论它的基本条件是什么，即构成它的整个过程的不同过程的连续性实际上是产生了的。资本中止的偶然因素是信用。（这一句翻译应该有问题，因为我不知道该怎么理解，tcl）

The credit system allows of a geographical extension of the market by establishing continuity where there was none before. The necessity to annihilate space by time can in part be compensated for by an emerging system of credit.

信用体系通过建立以前没有的连续性来扩大市场的地域。按时间消灭空间的必要性，可以得到新兴信用体系的部分补偿。

The need to minimize circulation costs as well as turnover times promotes agglomeration of production within a few large urban centres which become, in effect, the workshops of capitalist production (Capital, 1, p. 352; Grundrisse, p. 587). The “annihilation of space by time” is here accomplished by a “rational” location of activities with respect to each other so as to minimize the costs of movement of intermediate products in particular. “Along with this concentration of masses of men and capital thus accelerated at certain points, there is the concentration of these masses of capital in the hands of the few” (Capital, 2, p. 250). The ability to economize on circulation costs depends, however, on the nature of the transportation relations established and here there appears to be a dynamic tendency towards concentration. Improvements in the means of transportation tend:

最小化流通成本和周转时间的需要促进了生产在几个大型城市中心的聚集，这些城市中心实际上成为资本主义生产的车间（《资本论》第一卷，第352页；《政治经济学批判》，第587页）。“按时间消灭空间”是通过“理性”的活动地点来实现的，以便将中间产品的流动成本降到最低。“随着大量人力和资本在某些特定点加速集中，这些大量资本也会集中到少数人手中”（《资本论》第二卷，第250页）。然而，节约流通费用的能力取决于所建立的运输关系的性质，在这方面似乎有一种趋向集中的动态趋势。交通工具的改进能使：

in the direction of the already existing market, that is to say, towards the great centres of production and population, towards ports of export, etc…. These particularly great traffic facilities and the resultant acceleration of the capital turnover … give rise to quicker concentration of both the centres of production and the markets” (CapitaZ, 2, p. 250).

朝着业已存在的市场的方向，也就是说朝着生产和人口的大中心、出口港口等方向前进……这些特别庞大的交通设施以及由此带来的加速资金周转……加速了生产中心和市场中心的集中”（《资本论》第二章，第250页）。

This tendency towards agglomeration in large urban centers may be diminished or enhanced by special circumstances. On the one hand we find that “the territorial division of labour… confines special branches of flroduction to special districts of a country“ (Capikal, 1, p. 353). On the other hand, “all branches of production which by the nature of their product are dependent mainly on local consumption, such as breweries, are… developed to the greatest extent in the principle centres of population” (Capital, 2, p. 251).

这种在大型城市中心聚集的趋势可能因特殊情况而减弱或加强。一方面，我们发现“地域分工……将特殊的生产部门限制在一个国家的特殊地区”(《资本论》第1卷，第353页)。另一方面，“产品性质主要依赖本地消费的所有生产分支，如啤酒厂，是……在人口的主要中心繁荣发展”(《资本论》第二卷，第251页)。

The geographical rationalization of the processes of production is in part dependent upon the changing structure of transport facilities, the raw material and marketing demands of the industry and the inherent tendency towards agglomeration and concentration on the part of capital itself. The latter required a technological innovation to sustain it, however. Hence the importance of the steam engine which “permitted production to be concentrated in towns” and which “was of universal application, and, relatively speaking, little affected in its choice of residence by local circumstances” (Capital, 1, p. 378).

生产过程的地理合理化部分取决于运输设施结构的变化、工业的原材料和营销需求以及资本本身的集聚和集中的内在趋势。但后者需要技术创新来维持它。因此，蒸汽机的重要性“致使生产集中在城镇”且“普遍适用，相对而言在选择居住地点时几乎不受当地情况的影响”（《资本论》第一卷，第378页）。

Innovations of this sort, which relatively speaking free production from local power sources and which permit the concentration of production in large urban agglomerations accomplish the same purpose as those transport innovations which serve to annihilate space with time. Geographical expansion and geographical concentration are both to be regarded as the product of the same striving to create new opportunities for capital accumulation. In general, it appears that the imperative to accumulate produces concentration of production and of capital at the same time as it creates an expansion of the market for realization. As a consequence, “flows in space” increase remarkably, while the “market expands spatially, and the periphery in relation to the centre… is circumscribed by a constantly expanding radius” (Theories of Surplus Value, 3, p. 288). Some sort of centre-periphery relation is bound to arise out of the tension between concentration and geographical expansion. We will examine certain aspects of this relation further in the section on foreign trade.

这类创新，相对而言，电力从当地获取、允许生产集中在大型城市群与用时间消灭空间上的障碍的运输创新都是有着同样的目的——地理扩张和地理集中都被认为是同一种努力创造资本积累新机会的产物。一般来说，似乎积累的必要性产生了生产和资本的集中，同时它创造了市场的扩张。其结果是，空间流动显著增加，而“市场扩大”和相对于中心的外围……被一个不断扩张的半径所限制（《剩余价值理论》第三卷，第288页）。在集中化与地理扩张的张力下，必然会产生某种中心-边缘关系。我们将在关于对外贸易的一节中进一步研究这种关系的某些方面。

Since the structure of transport ftcilities does not remain constarit, we find “a shifting and relocation of places of production and of markets as a result of the changes in their relative positions caused by the transformation in transport facilities” (Capital, 2, p. 250). These transformations alter “the relative distances of places of production from the larger markets” and consequently bring about “the deterioration of old and the rise of new centres of production” (Ibid., p. 249).

由于运输设施的结构并不固定，我们发现“产地与市场的转移相当于交通运输设备的转型的结果”（《资本论》第二卷，第250页）。这些转变改变了产地与市场相对距离，从而导致“旧生产中心的衰落和新生产中心的崛起”（同上，第249页）。

The emergence of a distinct spatial structure with the rise of capitalism is not a contradiction-free process. In order to overcome spatial barriers and to annihilate space with time, spatial structures are created which themselves ultimately act as a barrier to further accumulation. These spatial structures are expressed, of course, in the fixed and immovable form of transport facilities, plant, and other means of production and consumption which cannot be moved without being destroyed. Once the mode of production of capital is brought into being, it “establishes its residence on the land itself and the seemingly solid presuppositions given by nature themselves [appear] in landed property as merely posited by industry” (Grundrisse, p. 740). Capital thus comes to represent itself in the form of a physical landscape created in its own image, created as use values to enhance the progressive accumulation of capital on an expanding scale. The geographical landscape which fixed and immobile capital comprises is both a crowning glory of past capital development and a prison which inhibits the further progress of accumulation because the very building of this landscape is antithetical to the “tearing down of spatial barriers” and ultimately even to the “annihilation of space by time.”

随着资本主义的兴起，一个独特的空间结构的出现并不是一个没有矛盾的过程。为了克服空间障碍并用时间消灭空间距离，空间结构被创造出来，而空间结构本身最终却会成为进一步积累的障碍。当然，这些空间结构就是固定和不可移动的运输设施、工厂和其他生产和消费手段，这些生产和消费手段若要移动就必须被破坏。一旦资本的生产模式形成，它“在土地上建立其住所，以及自然本身给出的看似坚实的预设【出现】在仅仅被工业安置的土地财产中”（《剩余价值理论》，第740页）。因此，资本以自身形象创造的物理景观的形式来表现自己，这种景观被创造为利用价值来增强资本在不断扩大的规模上的逐步积累。固定和固定资本构成的地理景观既是过去资本发展的光荣，也是阻碍积累进一步进步的监狱，因为这种景观的构建与“拆除空间屏障”相对立，甚至最终与“时间毁灭空间”背道而驰。

This contradiction is characteristic of the growing dependency of capitalism on fixed caoital of all kinds. With “fixed capital the value is imprisoned within a specific use value” (Grundrisse. p. 728) while the degree of fixity increases with durability, other things being equal (Capital, 2, p. 160). The necessary increase in the use of fixed capital of the immobile sort which the imperative to accumulate implies imposes a further imperative:

这种矛盾是资本主义日益依赖各种固定资本的特点。“固定资本的价值被囚禁在一个特定的使用价值内”（《政治经济学批判》，第728页）。在其他条件不变的情况下，固定度随耐久性的增加而增加（《资本论》第二卷，第160页）。固定资本利用的必要且相当重要的增加意味着加给了更进一步的规则：

The value of fixed capital is reproduced only insofar as it is used up in the production process. Through disuse it loses its value without its value passing on to the product. Hence the greater the scale on which fixed capital develops… the more does the continuity of the production process or the constant flow of reproduction become an externally compelling condition for the mode of production founded on capital (Grundrisse, p, 703).

固定资本的价值只有在生产过程结束之际才会被复制。如果不将其价值传递给产品，它就会失去其价值。因此，固定资本发展的规模越大……生产过程的连续性或再生产的持续流动就越成为建立在资本基础上的生产方式的外部强制条件（《政治经济学批判》，第703页）。

Capitalist development has to negotiate a knife-edge path between preserving the values of past capital investments in the built environment and destroying these investments in order to open up fresh room for accumulation (for a specific example of this see Harvey, 1975). As a consequence we can expect to witness a perpetual struggle in which capitalism builds a physical landscape appropriate to its own condition at a particular moment in time, only to have to destroy it, usually in the course of a crisis, at a subsequent point in time. Temporal crisis in fixed capital investment, often expressed as “long-waves” in economic development (see, e.g., Kuznets, 1961, Brinley Thomas, 1972) are therefore usually expressed as periodic re-shapings of the geographic environment to adapt it to the needs of further accumulation.

资本主义的发展必须顺利通过一条狭窄的路径——在保持过去在建筑环境中的资本投资价值和摧毁这些投资之间，开辟新的积累空间（具体例子见哈维，1975年）。因此，我们可以看到一场永久的斗争——资本主义在特定时间点建立一个适合自身状况的物理景观，而不得不在随后的时间点摧毁它，尤其是在危机期间。固定资本投资的暂时性危机，通常表现为经济发展中的”长波”（见库兹涅茨，1961年，布林利·托马斯，1972年），因此通常被表示为定期重塑地理环境，使其适应进一步积累的需要。

This contradiction has a further dimension. In part the drive to overcome spatial barriers and to annihilate space with time is designed to counteract what Marx saw as a pervasive tendency under capitalism for the profit rate to fall. The creation of built environments in the service of capitalism means “a growth of that portion of social wealth which, instead of serving as direct means of production, is invested in means of transportation and communication and in the fixed and circulating capital required for their operation” (Capital, 2, p. 251). Investment in the means of transportation is bound to increase the organic composition of social capital which tends to generate a fall in the rate of profit at the same time as its effects are supposed to increase the rate of profit. Again, capitalist development has to negotiate a knife-edge between these two contradictory tendencies.

这种矛盾还有更深的层面。在某种程度上，克服空间障碍和用时间消灭空间的动力，是为了对抗马克思所认为的资本主义下普遍存在的利润率下降趋势。建成环境的创建服务于资本主义意味着“增长的那部分社会财富，不是作为直接的生产资料，而是投资的交通工具和通讯所需的固定和流动资本”（《资本论》第二章，第251页）。对交通工具的投资必然会增加社会资本的有机构成，而社会资本的有机构成往往会在提高利润率的同时导致利润率的下降。同样，资本主义的发展必须在这两种矛盾倾向之间找到一个平衡点。

The location theory in Marx is not much more specific than this (although there is much in the analysis of fixed and immovable capital investment which is of interest but which space precludes from considering here). The virtue of these fragmentary analyses lies not in their sophistication. It lies, rather, in the way in which they can be tightly integrated into the fundamental insights into the production of value and the dynamics of accumulation. In this the Marxian approach is fundamentally different to that typical of bourgeois economic analysis of locational phenomena. The latter typically specifies an optimal configuration under a specific set of conditions and presents a partial static equilibrium analysis. Dynamics are considered at the end of the analysis – usually as an afterthought – and the dynamics never get much beyond comparative statics. Consequently, it is generally acknowledged that bourgeois location theory has failed to develop a satisfactory dynamic representation of itself. The Marxian theory, on the other hand, commences with the dynamics of accumulation and seeks to derive out of this analysis certain necessities with respect to geographical structures. The landscape which capitalism creates is also seen as the locus of contradiction and tension, rather than as an expression of harmonious equilibrium. And crises in fixed capital investments are seen as synonymous in many respects with the dialectical transformation of geographical space. The contrast between the two theoretical stances is important. It suggests that the two theories are really concerned with quite different things. Bourgeois locational analysis is only adequate as an expression of optimal configurations under set conditions. The Marxian theory teaches us how to relate, theoretically, accumulation and the transformation of spatial structures and ultimately, of course, it provides us with the kind of theoretical and material understanding which will allow us to understand the reciprocal relationships between geography and history.

马克思的区位理论并没有比这更具体（尽管在对固定和固定资本投资的分析中有很多值得关注的地方，但空间在这里排除了这些）。这些支离破碎的分析的优点不在于其复杂程度。相反，关键在于如何将它们紧密地整合到对价值生产和积累动力的基本认识中。在这一点上，马克思主义的方法与典型的资产阶级对地点现象的经济分析方法有根本的不同。后者通常指定了在特定条件下的最优配置，并提出了局部静态平衡分析的方法。动力学是在分析的最后考虑的 – 通常是事后考虑的 – 而且动力学永远不会超出比较静态的范围。因此，人们普遍认为资产阶级区位理论未能发展出令人满意的对自身的动态表征（的理论）。另一方面，马克思主义的理论则从积累的动力出发，力图从这种分析中得出地理结构的某些必然性。资本主义创造的景观也被视为矛盾和紧张的中心，而不是和谐平衡的表现。固定资本投资中的危机在许多方面被看作是地理空间辩证转变的代名词。这两种理论关注的重点完全不同。这表明这两种理论所关注的是完全不同的事情。资产阶级的区位分析仅适用于作为在一定条件下最优配置的表达。马克思主义理论教会我们如何在理论上联系空间结构的积累和转化，当然，最终它为我们提供了一种理论和物质上的理解使我们能够理解地理和历史之间的相互关系。

3. FOREIGN TRADE

Marx considers foreign trade from two rather different standpoints; first, as an attribute of the capitalist mode of production and second, as an historical phenomenon relating an evolving capitalist social formation with pre-capitalist societies and generating various intermediate social forms (such as colonies, plantation economies, dependent economies, and the like).

马克思从两个相当不同的角度考虑对外贸易：首先，作为资本主义生产方式的属性；其次，作为一种历史现象，它与前资本主义社会一起形成不断演变的资本主义社会形态，并产生各种中间社会形式（如殖民地、种植园经济、依赖经济等）。

Marx invariably abstracts from questions of foreign trade in his analysis of the capitalist mode of production (Capital, 1, p. 581). He concedes, of course, that “capitalist production does not exist at all without foreign commerce” but suggests that consideration of the latter merely serves to “confuse without contributing any new element of the problem [of accumulation], or of its solution” (Capital, 2, p. 470). He also accepts that foreign trade may counteract the tendency to a falling rate of profit because it cheapens the elements of constant capital as well as necessities and so permits a rising surplus value to be appropriated. But since this raises the rate of accumulation, it merely hastens the fall in the rate of profit in the long run (Capital, 3, p. 237). The increase in foreign, which inevitably arises with the expansion of accumulation, merely “transfers the contradictions to a wider sphere and gives them greater latitude” (Capital, 2, p. 408).

马克思在分析资本主义生产方式时总是从对外贸易的问题中抽象化（《资本论》第一卷，第581页）。当然他承认“没有外国贸易，资本主义生产就不存在”，但他认为，考虑外国贸易只会“混淆事实，而不会对积累问题或解决办法产生任何新的影响”（《资本论》第二卷，第470页）。他还认为，对外贸易可以抵消利润率下降的趋势，因为它降低了固定资本要素和必需品的价格，从而允许增加的剩余价值被占用。但从长期来看，由于这提高了积累的速度，它只是加速了利润率的下降（《资本论》第三卷，第237页）。外国资本的增加，必然伴随着积累的扩大而出现，不过是“把矛盾转移到更广阔的范围，给予矛盾更大的空间”（《资本论》第二卷，第408页）。

Most of Marx’s comments on foreign trade relate to it as an historical phenomenon and are therefore peripheral to his main purpose in Capital. Foreign trade is treated as a pre-condition for capitalist accumulation as well as a consequence of the expansion of the market. Since consequences at one stage become pre-conditions at the next, the development of foreign trade and capitalist social formations are seen as integrally related. “Special factors” also arise in relation to foreign trade which can confuse, conceal and distort matters. The significance of such factors to actual historical situations is not denied – they are just not regarded as crucial for understanding the inner logic of the capitalist mode of production.

马克思关于对外贸易的大多数评论都将其作为一种历史现象，因此与他在《资本论》中的主要目的无关。对外贸易既是资本积累的前提，也是市场扩张的结果。由于一个阶段的后果成为下一个阶段的先决条件，对外贸易的发展与资本主义社会形态紧密相关。在对外贸易方面也会出现“特殊因素”，这些因素会混淆、隐瞒和歪曲事实。这些因素对实际历史情况的重要性是不容否认的，只是它们对于理解资本主义生产方式的内在逻辑并不是至关重要的。

The theoretical and historical analyses intersect at certain points, however. Some of Marx’s statements on foreign trade can be interpreted as logical extensions of his theoretical views on how the accumulation process generates transportation relations and locational structures. These views are usually projected into a pre-existing structure of nation states, territories with different natural productive capacities and non-capitalist production systems.

然而，理论分析和历史分析在某些方面存在交叉。马克思关于对外贸易的一些论述可以被解释为他关于积累过程如何产生运输关系和区位结构的理论观点的逻辑延伸。这些观点通常被投射到原有的民族国家结构、具有不同自然生产能力的领土和非资本主义生产体系中。

Marx recognizes, for example, that “the productiveness of labour is fettered by physical conditions” (Capital, 1, p. 512). In agriculture he expects unequal returns on capital advanced to result from differences in both fertility and relative location (Capital 3, p. 650). Natural differences form, therefore, a “physical basis for the social division of labour” (Capital, 1, p. 514), although they present possibilities only (and not unmodifiable ones at that) because in the last instance the productiveness of labour “is a gift, not of Nature, but of a history embracing thousands of centuries” (Ibid., p. 512).

例如，马克思认识到“劳动的生产力受到物质条件的束缚”（《资本论》第一卷，第512页）。在农业方面，他预计，由于生育率和相对位置的差异（《资本论》第三卷，第650页），资本回报率的不平等将有所提高。因此，自然差异形成了“社会分工的物质基础”（《资本论》第一卷，第514页），虽然它们只提出可能性（而不是不可改变的可能性），因为在最后一种情况下，劳动者的生产力“是一种礼物，但它不是自然形成的，而是一段经历数个世纪的历史才形成的”（同上，第512页）。

Capitalist production and circulation tends to transform these possibilities into an integrated geographical system of production and exchange which serves the purposes of capitalist accumulation. In the process certain countries may establish a monopoly over the production of particular commodities (Capital, 3, p. 119), while center-periphery relations will be produced on a global scale:

资本主义的生产和流通倾向于把这些可能性转变成一个为资本积累服务的生产和交换的地理一体化系统。在这一过程中，某些国家可能对特定商品的生产建立垄断（《资本论》第三卷，第119页），而中心-外围关系将在全球范围内产生：

“A new and international division of labour, a division suited to the requirements of the chief centres of modern industry springs up, and converts one part of the globe into a chiefly agricultural field of production, for supplying the other part which remains a chiefly industrial field” (Capital, 1, p. 451).

“新的国际分工，一个适应现代工业主要中心要求的部门如雨后春笋般涌现，并将地球的一部分转变为主要农业生产领域，为供养仍主要是工业领域的另一部分世界”（《资本论》第一卷 ，第451页）。

Capitalists in the advanced countries may also gain a higher rate of profit by selling their goods above their value in competition with “commodities produced in other countries with inferior production facilities… in the same way that a manufacturer exploits a new invention before it has become general” (Capital, 3, p. 238). Relative productive advantages yield excess profits and if they are perpetuated in the form of a permanent “technology-gap” it follows (although Marx did not apparently make the point) that technology-rich regions always have the capacity to earn higher profits within a given line of production compared to technology-poor regions.

发达国家的资本家也能通过在与其他国家的劣质设备生产出的商品的竞争中售卖他们的货物获得高额利润，就好比制造商在一项新发明普及前利用它一样（《资本论》第三卷，第238页）。相对生产优势产生超额利润，如果这样一个永久的“技术差距”延续下去的话，它遵循（尽管马克思没有明显指出）高科技地区总是有能力赚取更高的利润，相对于技术欠佳的地区。

The international credit system also has a vital role to play in creating the world market and fashioning its structure:

国际信用体系在创造世界方面也发挥着至关重要的作用市场和结构的形成：

“The entire credit system… rests on the necessity of expanding and leaping over the barrier to circulation and the sphere of exchange. This appears more colossally, classically, in the relations between people than in the relations between individuals. Thus, e.g., the English [are] forced to lend to foreign nations in order to have them as customers” (Grundrisse, p. 416; cf., Theories of Surplus Value, 3, p. 122).

“整个信用体系……依赖于扩大交流领域和越过流通障碍的必要性。从民族间的关系相对于分散个人间的关系来看，更明显并且经典。例如，英国人被迫向外国提供贷款，以使他们成为英国人的客户”(《政治经济学批判》第416页；参见《剩余价值理论》第三卷，第122页)。

Capital export – a theme which Lenin (1963, pp. 715-19) elaborates on as crucial to the theory of imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism – can, in Marx’s view, provide temporary opportunities for surplus capital. But capital export can take different forms as we will shortly see and be engaged in for quite different reasons.

资本输出 – 列宁（1963，第715-19页）详述的一个主题，对作为资本主义的最高阶段的帝国主义理论至关重要 – 在马克思看来，可以为剩余资本提供暂时性的机会。但是资本输出可以采取不同的形式，我们马上就会看到这些不同原因导致的形式。

The general drive to overcome all spatial barriers produces a variety of results in relation to non-capitalist forms of production and social organization:

克服所有空间障碍的普遍动力产生了一系列不同的非资本主义生产和社会组织形式：

“When an industrial people, producing on the foundation of capital, such as the English, e.g., exchange with the Chinese, and absorb value… by drawing the latter within the sphere of circulation of capital, then one sees right away that the Chinese do not therefore need to produce as capitalists” (Grundrisse, p. 729).

“当一个在资本的基础上投身于工业的人，如英国人，用中国人替代，并利用其价值……通过在资本流通领域吸引后者，人们就会立刻看到中国人不需要以资本家的身份生产产品”（《政治经济学批判》，第729页）。

The interaction of capitalist and non-capitalist modes of production within the sphere of circulation creates strong interdependencies. The circulation of value within the capitalist system becomes dependent on the continued contribution of products and money from non-capitalist societies – “to this extent the capitalist mode of production is conditional on modes of production lying outside of its own stage of development” (Capital, 2, p. 110). This is a theme which Luxemburg (1968) develops at great length in her “The Accumulation of Capital” – she argues, in effect, that the fresh room for accumulation which capitalism must define can exist only in the form of pre-capitalist societies which provide untapped markets to absorb what is a perpetual tendency for the overproduction of commodities under capitalism. Once these societies are all brought into the capitalist network then, in her view, accumulation must cease.

在流通领域内，资本主义和非资本主义生产方式的相互作用产生了强烈的相互依赖性。在资本主义制度内的价值循环变得依赖于非资本主义社会的产品和货币的持续贡献 – “在这种程度上，资本主义的生产方式取决于其自身发展阶段之外的生产方式”（《资本论》第二卷，第110页）。这是卢森堡（1968）在她的《资本积累》一书中详细阐述的一个主题。资本主义必须定义的新的积累空间只能以前资本主义社会的形式存在，而这些社会提供未开发的市场，以吸收资本主义下商品生产过剩的永恒趋势。在她看来，一旦这些社会都被纳入资本主义网络，那么积累就必然停止。

Marx also argued that the historic tendency of capitalism is to destroy and absorb non-capitalist modes of production at the same time as it uses them to create fresh room for capital accumulation. Initially, the mere penetration of the money form has a disrupting influence – “where money is not the community, it must dissolve the community” and “draw new continents into the metabolism of circulation” (Grundrisse, pp. 224-5). In the early stages capital is accumulated out of this “metabolism of circulation” – indeed, such accumulation is an historical premise for the development of capitalist production. The towns accumulate use values and hence values from the countryside while merchant’s capital, as an historically prior form of organization to producer’s capital:

马克思还认为，资本主义的历史趋势是摧毁和吸收非资本主义的生产方式，但在同时利用非资本主义生产方式为资本积累创造新的空间。最初，仅仅渗透货币形式就产生了破坏性的影响 – “若金钱不是社区，它必须解散社区”和“将新大陆吸引到流通的新陈代谢中”（《政治经济学批判》，第224-5页）。在早期阶段，资本就是从这种“流通的新陈代谢”中积累出来的 – 事实上，这种积累是资本主义生产发展的历史前提。因此，城镇积累了使用价值与从农村来的价值，当商人的资本，作为一种历史上先于生产者资本的组织形式：

“appropriates an overwhelming portion of the surplus product partly as a mediator between commodities which still substantially produce for use value… and partly because under those earlier modes of production the principle owners of the surplus product with whom the merchant dealt, namely, the slave-owner, the feudal lord, and the state (for instance, the oriental despot) represent the consuming wealth and luxury which the merchant seeks to trap…. Merchant’s capital, when it holds a position of dominance, stands everywhere for a system of robbery, so that its development among the trading nations of old and modern times is always directly connected with plundering, piracy, kidnapping, slavery and colonial conquest…. The development of merchant’s capital gives rise everywhere to the tendency towards production of exchange values…. Commerce, therefore, has a more or less dissolving influence everywhere on the producing organization which it finds at hand and whose different forms are mainly carried on with a view to use value” (Capital, 3, pp. 331-2).

“占绝大多数剩余产品的一部分，作为一种大体上仍生产着具有使用价值的商品间的媒介……一些是因为在早期的生产模式下，由商人经手的剩余产品的主要拥有者，即奴隶主、封建领主和国家（例如东方暴君）代表了商人追求的财富和奢侈品。当商人的资本占据统治地位时，所到之处均支持着一种掠夺的制度，因此无论是在旧时代还是在近代，贸易国之间的发展总是与掠夺、海盗、绑架、奴役、殖民征服等等直接相关。商人资本的发展，使各地产生了交换价值的趋势……因此，商业或多或少地化解了它手头的生产组织的影响，其不同形式主要是从使用价值的角度进行的”（《资本论》第三章，第331-2页）。

The resultant forms which emerge from such disruptions depend, however, upon the form of the pre-existing society and the extent of capitalist penetration. One effect, for example, is to create scarcities in the non-capitalist society where there were none before. Necessaries are thereby transformed into luxuries and this:

然而，从这种破坏中产生的结果之形式，取决于原有社会的形式和资本主义渗透的程度。例如，影响之一是必需品在非资本主义社会造成了前所未有的稀缺而变成了奢侈品：

“determines the whole social pattern of backward nations… which are associated with a world market based on capitalist production. No matter how large the surplus product, they (the non-capitalist producers) extract from the surplus labour of their slaves in the simple form of cotton or corn, they can adhere to this simple undifferentiated labour because foreign trade enables them to convert these simple products into any kind of use value” (Theories of Surplus Value, 3, p. 243).

“决定落后国家的整体社会格局……这与以资本主义生产为基础的世界市场有关。无论剩余产品量有多大，他们（非资本主义生产者）都以棉花或玉米的简单形式从奴隶的剩余劳动力中提取，他们可以坚持这种简单（单一）的无差别劳动，因为对外贸易使他们能够将这些简单的产品转化为任何类型的使用价值”（《盈余价值理论》第三卷，第243页）。

The creation of “underdevelopment” by means of a capitalist penetration which transforms non-capitalist societies from relatively self-sufficient organizations for the production of use-values to specialized and dependent units producing exchange values, is a theme which has been explored by contemporary writers such as Baran (1957) and Frank (1969). The latter, for example, coins the phrase “the development of underdevelopment” to call attention to the kinds of processes that Marx had in mind.

通过资本主义渗透手段创造一个“欠发达”的概念，将生产使用价值的相对自给自足的非资本主义社会转变为生产价值和交换价值的专业化和具有依赖性的单位，这已经被同年代的巴兰（1957）和弗兰克（1969年）探索过了。例如，后者创造了“欠发达的发展”这一短语以唤起人们对马克思所认为的各种过程的注意。

These forms of dependency are possible only after capitalist production had come to dominate merchant’s capital so that the latter now basically serves the purposes of the former. We then find:

只有在资本主义生产开始主导商人的资本之后，这些形式的依赖才有可能，以至于后者现在基本上能满足前者的目的。然后我们发现：

“the cheapness of the articles produced by machinery, and the improved means of transport and communication furnish the weapons for conquering foreign markets. By ruining handicraft production in other countries, machinery forcibly converts them into fields for the supply of its raw material. In this way, East India was compelled to produce cotton, wool, hemp, jute and indigo for Great Britain” (Capital, 1, p. 451).

“机器制造的廉价物品，以及改进的运输和通讯手段，为征服外国市场提供了武器。通过破坏其他国家的手工业生产，用机器强行把它们变成田地并为其提供原材料。通过这种方式，东印度被迫为英国生产棉花、羊毛、麻、黄麻和靛蓝。”（《资本论》第一卷，第451页）。

The manner of such a transformation is of interest and India provides a good example. Originally a field for “direct exploitation” – the direct appropriation of use values – India was transformed after 1815 into a market for British textile products:

这种转变的方式令人感兴趣，印度就是一个很好的例子。最初是一个“直接开发”领域 – 直接侵吞其使用价值 – 印度在1815年之后转变为英国纺织品市场：

“But the more the industrial interest became dependent on the Indian market, the more it felt the necessity of creating fresh productive powers in India, after having ruined her native industry. You cannot continue to inundate a country with your manufactures, unless you enable it to give you some produce in return” (On Colonialism, p. 52).

“但工业利益越是依赖印度市场，（英国）在印度的本土工业崩溃之后，就感到越有必要在印度创造新的生产力。你不能继续用你的制造业来使一个国家难以招架，除非你允许它给你一些产品作为回报”（《关于殖民主义》，第52页）。

Capital export in this case served a different purpose from the mere loan of money to finance imports of manufactures. Capital was exported to India to promote commodity production which could, via foreign trade, provide the wherewithal to pay for the goods which were being imported from Britain. Britain had to build up commodity production for exchanges in India if it was to maintain India as an important market.

在这种情况下，资本出口的目的与单纯的为制造品进口提供资金的贷款不同。资本出口到印度是为了促进商品生产，通过对外贸易为从英国进口的商品提供必要的资金。如果英国要保持印度作为一个重要市场的地位，就必须在印度建立商品生产的交易所。

The same sort of logic, operating under rather different conditions, applies to the development of colonies through settlement. Marx insists here on drawing a distinction:

同样的逻辑，在截然不同的条件下运作，也适用于通过殖民来发展殖民地。马克思在这里坚持做出区分:

“There are the colonies proper, such as the United States, Australia, etc. Here the mass of the farming colonists, although they bring with them a larger or smaller amount of capital from the motherland, are not capitalists, nor do they carry on capitalist production. They are more or less peasants who work themselves and whose main object, in the first place, is to produce their own livelihood…. In the second type of colonies – plantations – where commercial speculations figure from the start and production is intended for the world market, the capitalist mode of production exists, although only in a formal sense, since the slavery of Negroes precludes free wage labour, which is the basis of capitalist production. But the business in which slaves are used is conducted by capitalists” (Theories of Surplus Value, 2, pp. 302-3).

“有适当的殖民地，如美国，澳大利亚等。在这里，大批农业殖民者虽然从祖国带来了或多或少的资本，但他们不是资本家，也不是资本主义的生产者。他们或多或少是自己工作的农民，他们的主要目标是在第一类地点为自己的生计而生产。在第二类殖民地 – 种植园 – 中，商业投机一开始就存在而且产品面向世界市场，资本主义的生产模式存在，尽管只是从形式上讲，因为黑人的奴役排除了自由工资劳动，而自由工资劳动是资本主义生产的基础。但奴隶的使用是由资本家安排的”（《剩余价值理论》第二卷，第302-3页）。

Colonies of the latter sort hold out the prospect for high profits because of the higher rates of exploitation, the lower price of necessaries and, usually, higher natural productivity. Capital may move into such colonies and in the process reduce the excess profit there, but in the process the average rate of profit will rise (Ibid., pp. 436-7). There exists here a positive inducement to the export of capital :

由于开发率较高、必需品价格较低，并且自然生产率通常较高，后者的殖民地具有高利润的前景。资本可能会进入这样的殖民地，并且超额利润在这个过程中减少，但在这个过程中，平均利润率将上升（同上，第436-7页）。这里存在着对资本出口的积极诱因：

“If capital is sent abroad, this is not done because it absolutely could not be applied at home, but because it can be employed at a higher rate of profit in a foreign country” (Capital, 3, p. 256).

“如果资本被输送到国外，这绝对不是因为它不能在国内使用，而是因为它可以在国外以更高的利润率使用”(《资本论》第三卷，第256页)。

With complete mobility, of course, the profit rate will ultimately be equalized although at a higher average rate than before. But colonies of this second sort are still advantageous because they permit the importation of cheap raw materials on the basis of a higher rate of exploitation (which presumes, by the way, certain immobilities to labour power, such as that imposed by slavery).

当然，在完全流动性的情况下，利润率最终会趋于平衡，尽管平均利润率比以前要高。但这第二种殖民地仍然是有利的，因为它们允许以较高的剥削率为基础的廉价原材料的进口（顺便说一下，这假定了劳动力是稳定，如奴隶制所强加的）。

Colonies of the first sort exist in a very different relation to the capitalist mode of production, however:

第一种殖民地的存在与资本主义生产模式有着非常不同的关系:

“There the capitalist regime everywhere comes into collision with the resistance of the producer, who, as owner of his own conditions of labour, employs that labour to enrich himself, instead of the capitalist. The contradiction of these two diametrically opposed economic systems, manifests itself here practically in a struggle between them. Where the capitalist has at his back the power of the mother-country, he tries to clear out of his way by force, the modes of production and appropriation, based on the independent labour of the producer” (Capital, 1, p. 765).

“在这里，资本主义制度会被生产者所反抗，生产者作为自己劳动条件的主人通过自己的劳动来致富，而不是像资本家那样。这两种截然相反的经济制度之间的矛盾，在这里实际上表现为它们之间的斗争。在资本家拥有母国权力的地方，他就会试图用武力清除以生产者独立劳动为基础的生产方式和拨款”（《资本论》第一卷，第765页）。

Colonies made up of small independent producers, trading some surplus into the market, are typically characterized by labor shortages and a high wage rate which is not attractive to the capitalist form of exploitation (this is particularly the case where there is an abundance of free land for settlement). Commodity production does not exist in the complete capitalist sense. Colonial forms of this sort may be, therefore, just as resistant to the penetration of the capitalist mode of production as traditional more long-established non-capitalist societies. But since such non-capitalist colonies are created by spin-offs of surplus population and small quantities of capital from the centres of accumulation, and since they also form markets for capitalist production, they are to be viewed as both the result of past accumulation and a precondition for further capital accumulation. The United States prior to the Civil War, for example, provided an important, largely non-capitalist market for the realization of commodities produced under capitalist social relations in Britain.

由小型独立生产者组成的、并将一些盈余交易到市场的殖民地，其特点通常是劳动力短缺和高工资率，对资本主义的剥削形式没有吸引力（特别是在有大量免费土地供居住的情况下）。商品生产并非完全资本主义意义上的存在。因此，这种殖民形式可能与传统的、更悠久的非资本主义社会一样，抵制资本主义生产模式的渗透。但是，由于这些非资本主义殖民地是由剩余人口和少量资本从积累中心分拆而形成的，而且它们也形成了资本主义生产市场，因此它们既被视为过去积累的结果，也是进一步资本积累的先决条件。例如，内战前的美国为英国资本主义社会关系下生产的商品提供了一个重要的、主要是非资本主义的市场。

The final stage of capitalist penetration is that which comes with the organization of production along capitalist lines. In 1867 Marx noted how the United States was being transformed from an independent, largely non-capitalist, production system into a new centre for capital accumulation. “Capitalistic production advances there with giant strides, even though the lowering of wages and the dependence of the wage worker are yet far from being down to the European level” (Capital, 1, p. 773). Marx expected a similar transformation in India:*

资本主义渗透的最后阶段随着资本主义路线生产的组织。1867年马克思指出，美国正从一个独立的、主要是非资本主义的生产系统转变为一个新的资本积累中心。“尽管工资的降低和工资工人的依赖程度远未达到欧洲的水平，但资本主义生产却取得了长足的进步。”（《资本论》第一卷，第773页）。马克思预计印度将进行类似的变革：

“when you have once introduced machinery into the locomotion of a country, which possesses iron and coals, you are unable to withhold it from its fabrication. You cannot maintain a net of railways over an immense country without introducing all those industrial processes necessary to meet the immediate and current wants of railway locomotion, and out of which there must grow the application of machinery to those branches of industry not immediately connected with railways. The railways syetem will therefore become, in India, truly the forerunner of modern industry…(which) will dissolve the hereditary divisions of labour, upon which rest the Indian castes, those decisive impediments to Indian progress and Indian power…. The bourgeois period of history has to create the material basis of the new world… Bourgeois industry and commerce create these material conditions of a new world in the same way that geological revolutions have created the surface of the earth” (On Colonialism, pp. 85-7).

“当你一旦将机械引入一个拥有铁和煤的国家的运行进程中时，你就无法阻止它的制造。如果不引入当前所需的所有工业流程和铁路运行的需要，就无法维持一个庞大的国家的铁路网，而且必须增加那些不与铁路相关的分支工业的机器制造。因此在印度，铁路系统将成为现代工业的真正先行者……（这）将消除印度种姓的世袭劳动分工，这是印度进步和印度变强的决定性障碍。资产阶级的历史时期必须创造新世界的物质基础……资产阶级工商业创造这些物质条件的新世界，就像地质运动创造了地球表面一样”（《关于殖民主义》，第85-7页）。

Such a transformation did not occur in India but it did in the United States. The failure to predict correctly in the Indian case has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of the Marxian theory of accumulation under the capitalist mode of production. All the theory says is that capitalism is bound to expand through both an intenslficatfon of relationships in the centres of capitalist production and a geographical extension of those relationships in space. The theory does not pretend to predict where, when and exactly how these intensifications and geographical extensions will occur – the latter are a matter for concrete historical analyses. Marx’s failure to predict correctly in the case of India was a failure of historical analysis, not of theory.

这种转变在印度没有发生，但在美国确实发生了。印度情况下未能正确预测，与资本主义生产模式下的马克思积累理论的有效性没有任何关系。所有的理论都表明，资本主义必然会通过资本主义生产中心关系的强化和这些关系在空间的地理延伸而扩张。该理论并不假装预测这些强化和地理扩展将发生在何处、何时以及具体如何发生 – 后者是具体历史分析的问题。马克思未能正确预测印度的情况是历史分析的失败，而不是理论的失败。

But it so happens that there are also good theoretical reasons for believing that the capitalist production system could not and connot become universal in its scope. For this to be the case would require the equalization of profits, through competition, on a global scale. To begin with, of course, there are all kinds of barriers to be overcome before such an equalization in profit rates could occur. We would have to presume the complete mobility of capital and labour (Capital 3, p. 196) and adequate institutional arrangements (free trade, universal money and credit system, “the abolition of all laws preventing the labourers from transferring from one sphere to production to another and from one locality to another,” and so on). Under capitalism, there are always tendencies pushing in these directions. For example:

但恰巧也有充分的理论理由相信资本主义生产体系不能在其范围内具有普遍性。要使情况如此，就需要通过竞争在全球范围内实现利润的均等化。当然，首先在实现这种利润率均衡之前，就有各种各样的障碍需要被克服。我们必须假定资本和劳动力的完全流动（《资本论》第三卷，第196页）且体制安排得当（自由贸易、通用货币和信贷制度、“废除所有阻止劳动者从一个领域转移到另一个领域、从一个地方转移到另一个地方的法律”等等）。在资本主义下，总有朝这些方向发展的趋势。例如：

“it is only foreign trade, the development of the market to a world market, which causes money to develop into world money and abstract labour into social labour. Abstract wealth, value, money, hence abstract labour, develop in the measure that concrete labour becomes a totality of different modes of labour embracing the world market. Capitalist production rests on the value or the transformation of the labour embodied in the product into social labour. But this is only possible on the basis of foreign trade and the world market. This is at once the pre-condition and the result of capitalist production” (Theories of Surplus Value, 3, p. 253).

“只有对外贸易，发展到世界市场，才能使货币发展为世界货币，使抽象劳动发展为社会劳动。抽象的财富、价值、金钱，因此抽象劳动是在具体劳动成为拥抱世界市场的不同劳动模式的总和的尺度中发展起来的。资本主义生产是建立在价值或将产品中体现的劳动转化为社会劳动的基础上的。但这只有在对外贸易和世界市场的基础上才能实现。这既是资本主义生产的前提条件，也是其结果”(《剩余价值理论》第三卷，第253页)。

The tendency of capitalism, therefore, is to establish a universal set of values, founded on “abstract social labour” as defined on a global scale. There is, in like manner, a tendency for capital export to equalize the rate of profit on a global scale. An accumulation process implies a tendency for the penetration of capitalist social relations into all aspects of production and exchange throughout the world.

因此，资本主义的趋势是在全球范围内定义的“抽象社会劳动”的基础上建立一套普遍的价值观。同样，资本的输出也有在全球范围内使利润率趋于平衡的趋势。积累过程意味着资本主义社会关系渗透到全世界生产和交换的各个方面的趋势。

But different organic compositions of capital between countries, different productivities of labour according to natural differences, the different definition of “necessities” according to natural and cultural situation, mean that these equalizations will not be accompanied by an eoualization in the rate of exploitation between countries (Capital, 3, pp. 150-1). It follows that “the favoured country recovers more labour in exchange for less labour, although this difference, this excess is pocketed, as in any exchange between capital and labour, by a certain class” (Ibid., p. 238). Marx then notes that:

但各国资本的有机构成不同，劳动力因自然差异而生产的产品不同，根据自然和文化状况对”必要性”的定义不同，这意味着这些均衡不会伴随着国家间剥削率的等同化而出现（《资本论》第三卷，第150-1页）。由此可见，“受青睐的国家收回更多的劳动力，以换取更少的劳动力，尽管这种差异、这种过剩就像在资本和劳动之间的任何交换中一样，被某一阶层收入囊中”（同上，第238页）。马克思然后指出：

“Here the law of value undergoes essential modification. The relationship between labour days of different countries may be similar to that existing between skilled, complex labour and unskilled, simple labour within a country. In this case the richer country exploits the poorer one, even where the latter gains by the exchange” (Theories of Surplus Value, 3, pp. 105-6).

“价值规律在此经历了本质的改变。不同国家工作日的关系可能类似于一个国家内存在的熟练、复杂的劳动力和非熟练、简单的劳动力之间的关系。在这种情况下，较富裕的国家剥削较贫穷的国家，即使后者能够通过交换获得利益”(《剩余价值理论》第3卷，第105-6页)。

These complexities do not derive from the failure of capitalist development to overcome the social and cultural barriers to its penetration (although these barriers can be exceedingly resistant). They stem, rather, from the inherent contradictory and hence imperfect character of the capitalist mode of production itself. They are to be interpreted, therefore, as global manifestations of the internal contradictions of capitalism. And underlying all of these manifestations is the fact that capitalism ultimately becomes the greatest barrier to its own development. Let us consider how this is manifest on the world stage.

这些复杂性并非源于资本主义发展未能克服其渗透的社会和文化障碍（尽管这些障碍可能具有极强的抵抗力）。相反，它们源于资本主义生产模式本身固有的矛盾性、资本主义自身生产方式的不完美性。因此，它们将被解释为资本主义内部矛盾的全球表现。所有这些表现的基础是资本主义最终成为自身发展的最大障碍。让我们考虑一下，这在世界舞台上是如何体现的。

Capitalism can escape its own contradiction only through expanding. Expansion is simultaneously intensification (of social wants and needs, of population totals, and the like) and geographical extension. Fresh room for accumufation must exist or be created if capitalism is to survive. If the capitalist mode of production dominated in every respect, in every sphere and in all parts of the world, there would be little or no room left for further accumulation (population growth and the creation of new social wants and needs would be the only options). Long before such a situation was reached the accumulation process would slow. Stagnation would set in attended by a whole gamut of economic and social problems. Internal checks within the capitalist mode of production would begin to be felt particularly in the sphere of competition:

资本主义只有通过扩张才能摆脱自身的矛盾。扩张同时加剧（社会需求、人口总数等）和地理扩展。如果资本主义要生存下去，就必须存在或创造新的积累空间。如果资本主义的生产模式在各个领域、各个领域和世界各地都占主导地位，那么几乎没有或根本没有进一步积累的余地（人口增长和创造新的社会需要和需求将是唯一的选择）。早在这种情况出现之前，积累过程就会放缓。停滞将引发一系列经济和社会问题。资本主义生产方式的内部制约将开始显现，特别是存在着竞争的领域：

“As long as capital is weak, it still itself relies on the crutches of past modes of production, or of those which will pass with its rise. As soon as it feels strong, it throws away the crutches and moves in accordance with its own laws. As soon as it begins to sense itself and becomes conscious of itself as a barrier to development, it seeks refuge in forms which, by restricting free competition, seem to make the rule of capital more perfect, but are at the same time the heralds of its dissolution and of the dissolution of the mode of production resting on it” (Grundrisse, p. 651).

“只要资本虚弱，它自己仍会依赖于过去的生产方式，或者那些将随着它的崛起而过去的生产方式。一旦它感觉强壮，便会扔掉拐杖而且按照自己的规律移动。不久就会感觉到自己即一个发展的障碍，它以限制自由竞争看似使资本的统治更完美的形式寻找栖身之所，但于此同时也预示着它的解体，预示着依附于它的生产方式的解体”(政治经济学批判》，第651页)。

4. SOME COMMENTS ON THE THEORY OF IMPERIALISM

Marx himself never proposed a theory of imperialism. In his comments on transportation relations, location theory and foreign trade he clearly indicates, however, that he has in mind some sort of general theory of capital accumulation on an expanding and intensifying geographical scale. We have, in the preceeding two sections, already sketched in some of the main features of that general theory, to the extent that Marx articulated it.

马克思本人从未提出过帝国主义理论。然而，在他对运输关系、区位理论和对外贸易的评论中，他清楚地表明，他心中有一种在不断扩大和强化的地理尺度上的资本积累的一般理论。在前面的两节中，我们已经概述了这个一般理论的一些主要特征，在某种程度上，马克思已经阐明了它。

The theory of imperialism which has emerged post-Marx obviously has something to contribute towards an understanding of that general theory and therefore to an understanding of the ways in which capitalism creates fresh room for accumulation. The trouble is, however, that there is not one theory of imperialism, but a whole host of representations of the matter – Marxist, neo-Marxist, Keynesian, neo-classical and so on. And there are innumerable divergences and differences within each school (Barratt Brown, 1974, provides a general overview). I shall confine myself to some general comments.

马克思之后出现的帝国主义理论显然有助于理解这一一般理论，从而有助于理解资本主义如何创造新的积累空间。然而问题在于，帝国主义理论并不多，而有马克思主义、新马克思主义、凯恩斯主义、新古典主义等一系列代表。每个学派间都有无数的不同和分歧（巴拉特·布朗，1974年，提供了一个概述）。我将仅限于一些一般性的评论。

The problem for the Marxists and neo-Marxists, it is generally argued, is to derive a theory of imperialism out of Marx. And it is generally agreed that no one has yet succeeded in doing so although many have tried. There is a fairly simple explanation for this state of affairs. Marx constructed a theory of accumulatifn for a capitalist mode of production in a “pure” state without reference to any particular historical situation. On this basis, as we have seen, he demonstrates the necessity for intensification and expansion as a concomitant of accumulation. The theory of imperialism, as it is usually conceived of in the literature is, by way of contrast, a theory of history. It is to be used to explain the historical development of capitalist social formations on the world stage. It has to address the way in which conflicting forces and class interests relate to each other in specific historical situations, determine outcomes through their interactions and thereby set the preconditions for the next stage in the evolution of capitalist social formations. Marx never constructed such a historical theory, although there is some evidence that he intended to do so in unwritten books on the State, Foreign Trade and the World Market (Marx-Engels Correspondence, pp. 112-3).

人们普遍认为，马克思主义者和新马克思主义者的问题是从马克思中得出帝国主义理论。尽管许多人已经尝试过，但还没有人成功。对于这种状况，有一个相当简单的解释。马克思在没有提及任何特定历史情况的情况下，为资本主义生产方式构建了”纯”状态的积累理论。在此基础上，正如我们所看到的，他指出必须加强和扩大对积累的必要性。与此相反，文学中通常设想的帝国主义理论是一种历史理论。它被用来解释资本主义社会形态在世界舞台上的历史发展。它必须解决在特定历史条件下相互冲突的力量和阶级利益相互联系的方式，通过相互作用确定结果，从而为资本主义社会形态演变的下一阶段设定先决条件。马克思从未构建过这样的历史理论，尽管有一些证据表明他打算在关于国家、外贸和世界市场的不成文书籍中这样做（《马克思恩格斯通讯》，第112-3页）。

Marx’s theory of the capitalist mode of production plainly cannot be used as the basis for deriving an historically specific theory of imperialism in any direct manner. Yet, as we have seen in the preceeding section on foreign trade, Marx’s theoretical insights intersect with historical analyses at certain points. And the crucial mediating influence, which most of the writers on imperialism ignore, is the necessary tendency to overcome spatial barriers and to annihilate space with time – tendencies which Marx derives directly from the theory of accumulation. Marx’s theories of transportation relations, location and geographical concentration, expanding spheres of realization – in short the general theory of accumulation on an expanding and intensifying geographical scale – in fact comprise Marx’s own theory of imperialism (although he did not call it that). Since most writers ignore this general theory embedded in Marx it would appear that this provides us with the missing link between Marx’s theory of accumulation and the various theories of imperialism that have been put forward since.

马克思的资本主义生产方式理论显然不能作为直接得出帝国主义历史特定理论的基础。然而，正如我们在关于对外贸易的前奏部分所看到的那样，马克思的理论见解在某些方面与历史分析相交。而大多数论帝国主义的作家忽视的关键中介影响，是克服空间障碍、与时俱灭空间的必然趋势——马克思的倾向直接源于积累理论。马克思关于交通关系、地理位置和地理集中、扩大实现范围的理论 – 简言之，在不断扩大和加强的地理尺度上积累的一般理论 – 实际上包括马克思自己的帝国主义理论（尽管他不这样称呼它）。由于大多数作家忽视了马克思所蕴含的这一一般理论，这似乎为我们提供了马克思积累理论与此后提出的各种帝国主义理论之间的缺失联系。

But even here we cannot make direct derivations. Marx’s general theory tells us of the necessity to expand and intensify geographically. But it does not tell us exactly how, when or where. Looking at the intersection of these general arguments with concrete historical analyses, we will usually be able to identify the underlying logic dictated by capital accumulation at work. But the underlying logic does not, and indeed cannot uniquely determine outcomes. The latter have to be understood in terms of the balance of forces – economic, social, political, ideological, competitive, legal, military, and the like – through which interest groups and classes become conscious of the contradictory underlying logic and seek by their actions to “fight it out” to some sort of resolution (cf. A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, p. 21). To specify the relationships between the Marxian theory of accumulation and the theory of imperialism as it is usually construed poses, therefore, a double difficulty. We have to specify how the “inner logic” of the capitalist mode of production, abstractly conceived, relates to the concrete realities, the phenomenal forms, of the historical process. And we also have to take account of the mediating influence of political, ideological, military and other structures which, although they must be generally organized so as to be coherent with the course of capital accumulation, are not uniquely determined by it.

但即便到了这一步，我们也不能直接推导。马克思的一般理论告诉我们在地理上扩张和强化的必要性，但并没有确切地告诉我们如何、何时、何地。着眼于这些一般论点与具体历史分析的交集，我们通常能够识别资本积累在工作中所支配的潜在逻辑；但潜在的逻辑不能，也确实不能唯一地决定结果。后者必须从各种力量的平衡来理解——经济、社会、政治、意识形态、竞争、法律、军事等等——通过这些力量利益集团和阶级开始意识到潜在的矛盾逻辑，并通过他们的行动寻求某种解决办法（参见《政治经济学批判的贡献》，第21页）。因此，要具体说明马克思积累理论和通常被解释的帝国主义理论之间的关系，是一个双重的困难。我们必须说明抽象构想的资本主义生产方式的“内在逻辑”如何与历史过程的具体现实、现象形式相联系。我们还必须考虑到政治、意识形态、军事和其他结构的中介影响，这些结构虽然必须大体组织起来，以便与资本积累的过程相一致，但并不是由资本积累唯一决定的。

Most analyses of imperialism usually start in fact from the analysis of actual historical situations. This is particularly true in the work of Third World writers, such as Fanon (1967), Amin (1973) and Frank (1969), whose starting point is the experience of domination and exploitation by the advanced capitalist countries. This experience is then projected into the Marxian framework for understanding exploitation in general. The consequence of this is a variety of representations of the Marxian theory of imperialism. Each representation may be accurate for its own place and time, but each ends up drawing upon just one or two facets of Marx’s own theory of capital accumulation for support. By implication, and sometimes quite explicitly, it is suggested that other facets of Marx’s theory of accumulation are either irrelevant or wrong.

大多数对帝国主义的分析通常从对实际历史情况的分析开始。在第三世界作家的作品中尤其如此，如法农（1967年）、阿明（1973年）和弗兰克（1969年），他们的出发点是先进资本主义国家的统治和剥削之经验。然后，这一经验被投射到马克思主义框架中，以理解一般剥削。其结果是马克思帝国主义理论的各种表现。每个表述对于它自己的位置和时间来说可能是准确的，但每个陈述最终都只借鉴了马克思自身资本积累理论的一两个方面来寻求支持。言外之意，有时相当明确地表明，马克思积累理论的其他方面要么无关紧要，要么是错误的。

Luxemburg (1968) is an excellent case in point. She begins her analysis with a concentrated criticism of Marx’s reproduction schemes in Volume 2 of Capital and, reacting very strongly to the idea implied there that capitalist accumulation can continue in perpetuity, she seeks to show that Marx had failed to demonstrate where the effective demand for commodities was to come from if accumulation was to be sustained. Luxemburg’s own solution is that the effective demand has to be found outside of the capitalist system in pre-capitalist economic formations. Imperialism is to be explained as “the political expression of the accumulation of capital in its competitive struggle for what still remains open of the non-capitalist environment” (Luxemburg, 1968, p. 446). As evidence, Luxemburg assembles descriptions of the violent penetration of non-capitalist societies, such as China, by capitalists in search of markets as well as descriptions of the various imperialist rivalries amongst the capitalist powers throughout the world.

卢森堡（1968年）就是一个很好的例子。她首先在《资本论》第2卷中对马克思的再生产计划进行了集中批评，她对资本主义积累可以长期存在的想法反应非常强烈，她试图表明马克思未能证明，当积累得以维持时的商品有效需求从何而来。卢森堡自己的解决办法是在资本主义前的经济形态中，必须找到资本主义制度之外的有效需求。帝国主义被解释为“资本在非资本主义环境中仍然开放的竞争斗争中积累资本的政治表现”（卢森堡，1968年，第446页）。作为证据，卢森堡汇集了资本家为寻找市场而暴力渗透非资本主义社会（如中国）的描述，以及世界各地资本主义列强之间的各种帝国主义竞争的描述。

Luxemburg’s argument is, in many respects, both compelling and brilliant. But her analysis amounts to a one-sided development out of Marx. The objection is not that she is wrong – indeed, we have already seen that capitalist development may become contingent upon other modes of production, that the penetration and disruption of non-capitalist societies are implied by the imperative to “tear down spatial barriers,” and that violence, making use of state power, can easily be resorted to. The objection is that Luxemburg sees the consequences of the imperative to accumulate solely in these terms. The other means whereby capitalism can create fresh room for accumulation are ignored.

卢森堡的论点在许多方面都是令人信服的和绝妙的。但她的分析相当于马克思的片面发展。反对意见并不是说她错了 – 事实上，我们已经看到资本主义的发展可能取决于其他生产方式，非资本主义社会的渗透和破坏意味着必须“拆除空间障碍”，而且这容易诉诸于国家权力产生的暴力。反对意见是，卢森堡认为必须仅仅以这些术语积累的后果。资本主义可以创造新的积累空间的另一种手段被忽视了。

Read as a theoretical treatise on what must happen if all other means for creating fresh room for accumulation are sealed off, Luxemburg’s work is a brilliant exposition. Read as a documentation of how the logic of capitalist accumulation underlies the penetration and disruption of non-capitalist societies, the work is compelling. But read as a derivation of the necessity for imperialism out of a correction of Marx’s errors in his specification of capitalist reproduction, Luxemburg’s work is both erroneous and misconceived. To put the criticism this way is not to say, however, that the processes to which Luxemburg draws attention may not become, at a certain stage in capitalist history, vital to the perpetuation of the capitalist order. Whether or not this turns out to be the case depends, however, upon the capacity of the capitalist system to create fresh room for accumulation by other means.

如果所有其他为积累创造新的空间的方法都被封锁，那么卢森堡的作品是一篇精彩的论述。作为一本关于资本主义积累的逻辑是如何渗透和破坏非资本主义社会的文献，这本书是令人信服的。但如果把卢森堡的著作看作是对马克思在说明资本主义再生产方面的错误的纠正而引出帝国主义的必要性，那么就误解了它。但这样的批评并不是说卢森堡所提及的过程，在资本主义历史的某个阶段，对资本主义秩序的延续是至关重要。然而，这种情况是否属实取决于资本主义制度是否有能力通过其他方式创造新的积累空间。

The representation of imperialism in the works of Baran (1957) and Frank (1969) can be considered in a similar way. Clearly implied in Marx’s location theory is the emergence of a general structure of center-periphery relations in production and exchange, while the tearing down of spatial barriers to exchange may create dependencr and “transform necessaries into luxuries for the economy newly brought into the metabolism of exchange. These kinds of relationships are examined in detail in the work of Baran and Frank and they can relatively easily be integrated into the Marxian frame when the logic of accumulation is projected into an actual historical situation. Baran and Frank are therefore on strong theoretical grounds when they claim that backwardness and underdevelopment can and must be produced and perpetuated by the penetration of capitalist social relations into non-capitalist economles. They may also be on strong factual grounds when they claim that this is the general relationship which exists between the Third World and the metropolitan centres of accumulation. But, as with the work of Luxemburg, the analysis has to be regarded as a single-faceted development out of Marx’s theory of accumulation. It would be both erroneous and misconceived to regard this development either as a correction to or a unique derivation out of Marx. Fresh room for accumulation can be created by a variety of strategems in actual historical situations. Whether or not a different structure of relations to that explored by Baran and Frank is possible depends not on the theory but on the possibilities contained in actual historical situations.

在巴兰（1957年）和弗兰克（1969年）的作品中，帝国主义可以以类似的方式考虑。马克思的定位理论中明确隐含着生产与交流中中心外围关系的总体结构，而空间交换障碍的消除可能会产生依赖和“将必需品转化为新进入交流新陈代谢的经济的奢侈品”。在巴兰和弗兰克的作品中详细研究了这些关系，当积累的逻辑被投射到实际的历史情境中时，它们相对容易地被融入到马克思的框架中。因此，巴兰和弗兰克声称，落后和不发达可以且必须通过资本主义社会关系渗透到非资本主义经济中而产生和延续是有充分理论依据的。当他们声称这是第三世界和大都市积累中心之间存在的一般关系时，他们也可能以强烈的事实为由。但与卢森堡的工作一样，这些分析必须被视为马克思积累理论的单方面发展。将这一发展视为对马克思的修正或独特的衍生，是错误而且不妥的。在实际历史条件下，各种策略可以创造新的积累空间。与巴兰和弗兰克所探讨的关系结构是否可能不同，这并不取决于理论，而取决于实际历史条件下的可能性。

Lenin’s contribution to the Marxist theory of imperialism is, of course, fundamental. And in some respects it is the most interesting both with respect to its content and its method. Lenin did not attempt to derive the theory out of Marx. He regarded the phenomena of imperialism as something to be revealed by materialist historical analysis. Specifically, he was concerned to explain the 1914-18 war as an imperialist war “for the division of the world, for the partition and repartition of colonies and spheres of influence of finance capital, etc.” (Lenin, 1963, p. 673). The method is therefore historical and Lenin uses the term “imperialism” to describe the general characteristics of the phenomenal form assumed by capitalism during a particular stage of its development – specifically, during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In this he relies very heavily on the work of a non-Marxist, Hobson (1938). Yet Lenin also seeks to uncover “the economic essence of imperialism” and to relate the understanding of the phenomenal appearance of imperialism to Marx’s theoretical insights into the nature of the capitalist mode of production.

当然，列宁对马克思帝国主义理论的贡献是根本的。在某些方面，它的内容和方法都是最有趣的。列宁没有试图从马克思中得出这一理论。他认为帝国主义现象是唯物史分析所揭示的。具体来说，他关心的是将1914-18年的战争解释为帝国主义战争，“为了世界的分裂，为了殖民地的划分和金融资本等领域的洗牌。”（列宁，1963年，第673页）。因此，这种方法具有历史意义，列宁使用“帝国主义”一词来描述资本主义在其发展的特定阶段 – 特别是十九世纪末和二十世纪初 – 所假定的惊人形式的一般特征。在这方面，他非常依赖非马克思主义者霍布森（1938年）的工作。然而列宁也试图揭示“帝国主义的经济本质”并用马克思的理论来理解资本主义生产模式的天性。

The phenomenal appearance of capitalism in the imperialist stage of its development is summarized in terms of five basic features:

资本主义在帝国主义发展阶段的惊人面貌，概括为五个基本特征：

(1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital,” of a financial oligarchy; (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; (4) the formation of international monopolist associations which share the world among themselves, and (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the big capitalist powers is completed (Lenin, 1963, p. 737).

（1）生产和资本集中度已发展到很高的阶段，形成了在经济生活中起决定性作用的垄断企业；（2）银行资本与工业资本的合并，并在此基础上建立金融寡头政治的“金融资本”；（3）不同于商品出口，资本出口特别重要；（4）建立相互“分享世界”的国际垄断协会；（5）完成了整个世界资本主义大国之间的领土划分（列宁，1963年，第737页）。

The tendency towards concentration and centralization of capital is, in Marx’s analysis, integral to the general process of accumulation (Capital, 1, Chapter 25). The physical concentration of production to achieve economies of scale in a locational sense is also, in Marx’s theory, paralleled by a growing centralization of capital. Lenin also grounds the logic of capital export in Marx’s theory. He rebuts the argument that capitalism could ever achieve an equal development in all spheres of production or alleviate the misery of the mass of workers:

在马克思的分析中，资本集中和中心化的趋势是一般积累过程的组成部分（《资本论》第一章，第25章）。在马克思的理论中，为实现规模经济，生产在地理意义上的集中，也与资本的日益集中并行。列宁还用马克思的理论来推论资本输出的逻辑。他驳斥了资本主义可以在所有生产领域实现平等发展或减轻大量工人苦难的论点：

“If capitalism did these things it would not be capitalism; for both uneven development and a semi-starvation level of existence of the masses are fundamental and inevitable conditions and constitute the premises of this mode of production. As long as capitalism remains what it is, surplus capital will be utilized not for the purpose of raising the standard of living of the masses in a given country, for this would mean a decline in profits for the capitalists, but for the purpose of increasing profits by exporting capital abroad to the backward countries. In these backward countries profits are usually high, for capital is scarce, the price of land is relatively low, wages are low, raw materials are cheap… The export of capital influences and greatly accelerates the development of capitalism in those countries to which it is exported. While, therefore, the export of capital may tend to a certain extent to arrest development in the capital-exporting countries, it can only do so by expanding and deepening the further development of capitalism throughout the world” (Lenin, 1963, pp. 716-8).

“如果资本主义做了这些事情，它就不会是资本主义：发展不平衡和群众生存水平半饥饿是根本和必然的条件，是这种生产方式的前提。只要资本主义仍然保持其本性，盈余资本将不会用于提高某一国家人民生活水平而是通过向落后国家输出资本来增加利润，因为前者将意味着资本家所得利润的下降。这些落后国家利润通常很高，因为资金稀缺、地价相对较低、工资低、原材料便宜……资本出口影响并大大加快了资本主义出口国的发展。因此，资本出口可能在一定程度上能阻止资本输出国的发展，但它只能通过扩大和深化资本主义在世界各地的进一步发展来达到这一目标”（列宁，1963年，第716-8页）。

Lenin is here emphasizing certain of the possibilities contained in the Marxian theory of capitalist accumulation when projected into an actual historical situation. Plainly, he is not excluding the development of capitalist production in new centres, although the carving up of the world into spheres of influence with centres of accumulation and spheres of realization is regarded as a “managed” rationalization, accomplished by finance capitalism through political manipulations, of the inevitable uneven development of capitalism. But Lenin also argues that imperialism “can and must be defined differently if we bear in mind not only the basic, purely economic concepts… but also the historical place of this stage of capitalism in relation to capitalism in general, or the relation between imperialism and the two main trends in the working class movement” (Ibid., p. 737). Imperialism thus has the effect of “exporting” some of the tensions created by the class struggle within the centres of accumulation to peripheral areas. The “superprofits” of imperialist exploitation make it “possible to bribe the labour leaders and the upper stratum of the labour aristocracy. And that is just what the capitalists of the “advanced” countries are doing” (Ibid., p. 677). This last aspect of imperialism has to be regarded as the joint outcome of the inevitable uneven development of capitalism on a world scale and a corresponding uneven development of the class struggle. Capital becomes mobile in order to escape the consequences of a class struggle waged at a particular place and time or else it repatriates superprofits to buy off its home labour force with material advancement. In either case a geographical expansion of development must occur.

列宁在这里强调的是当马克思主义资本积累理论被投射到实际的历史情境中去时所包含的某些可能性。很显然，他不排除资本主义生产在新的中心发展，尽管瓜分世界的势力范围被认为是一种通过“管理”、通过结合政治手段的金融资本主义来尝试使不均衡的资本主义发展合理化的方法。但列宁也认为，帝国主义“可以而且必须用不同的方式来定义，如果我们不仅牢记着基本的、纯粹的经济概念……也知道这个阶段的资本主义在一般资本主义中所处的历史地位，或者帝国主义与工人阶级运动两大趋势之间的关系”（同上，第737页）。因此，帝国主义的作用是将积累中心的阶级斗争所造成的一些紧张局势“输出”到周边地区。帝国主义剥削产生的“超额利润”使“贿赂劳工领袖和劳动贵族上层成为可能”。而这正是“发达”国家的资本家正在做的事情（同上，第677页）。帝国主义的最后一面，是资本主义在世界范围内不可避免地不均衡发展的结果，同时也是阶级斗争不平衡发展的结果。资本变得具有流动性，是为了逃避在特定地点和时间进行的阶级斗争的后果，或者将超额利润汇回本国，用物质进步来收买本国劳动力。无论哪种情况，地理扩张都必然会发生。

Lenin blends concrete historical analysis, based on the principles of historical materialism, with some fundamental insights from Marx’s theory. An evaluation of Lenin’s theory must rest, therefore, on an assessment of his historical accuracy and a critical evaluation of the way in which the Marxian theory intersects with the historical materials. On the former score there are grounds for thinking that Lenin’s reliance on Hobson and Hilferding led him into some factual errors. In the latter respect, Lenin, like most other writers on imperialism, develops Marx’s general theory in a one-sided rather than an all-embracing manner. As a consequence the connection to the theory of capitalist accumulation is partially obscured from view.

列宁根据唯物史观的原则，把具体的历史分析与马克思理论的一些基本见解结合起来。因此，对列宁理论的评价必须建立在对其历史准确性的评价和对马克思主义理论与历史资料的交叉方式的批判性评价的基础上。对于前者，我们有理由认为列宁对霍布森和希尔弗丁的依赖导致他犯了一些错误。而后者，列宁和其他大多数帝国主义作家一样，只是片面地发展马克思的一般理论，而不是包罗万象地发展马克思的一般理论。结果与资本积累理论的联系部分地被遮蔽了。

The problem with the Marxist theory of imperialism in general, is that it has become a theory “unto itself,” divorced from Marx’s theory of capital accumulation. As a consequence, the argument over what imperialism is, has degenerated into an argument over which of several competing principles should be used to define it. markets? The attainment of cheaper raw materials? The searching out of a more easily exploited and a more docile labour force? Is it primitive accumulation at the expense of non-capitalist societies? Does it involve cheating through exchange? Is it the necessary export of capital to set up new centres of industrial accumulation? Is it the concentration of relative surplus value on a localized basis? Is it the manifestation of monopoly power, expressed through the political organization of a system of nation states? Is it finance capital operating through multinational corporations and government cooptation? Is it simply the international division of labour? Is it a particular combination of any of the above? Under Marx’s general theory all of the above are possible and none are to be excluded. It is, therefore, the task of careful historical analysis to discover which of these manifestations is dominant at a particular stage of development of capitalist social formations. Marx’s general theory does not pretend to predict particular forms and manifestations. All it does is to indicate the underlying imperative, contained within the capitalist system, to accumulate capital and to do it, of necessity, on an expanding and intensifying geographical scale.

马克思主义帝国主义理论的一般问题在于，它已成为一种“自我”的理论，脱离了马克思的资本积累理论。因此关于什么是帝国主义的争论已经演变成一场争论，争论中应该用几个相互竞争的原则来定义它。市场？获得更便宜的原材料？寻找一个更容易被剥削和更温顺的劳动力？是以牺牲非资本主义社会为代价的原始积累吗？是否涉及通过交换作弊？建立新的工业积累中心是否有必要输出资本？是相对剩余值在本地化基础上的集中吗？是垄断权力的表现，通过民族国家制度的政治组织来表达吗？是通过跨国公司和政府合作运营的融资资本吗？这仅仅是国际分工吗？它是上述任何部分的特别组合吗？根据马克思的一般理论，以上一切都是可能的，没有一项是排除在外的。因此在资本主义社会形态发展的特定阶段，发现哪些表现形式占主导地位是进行历史分析任务的负责表现。马克思的一般理论并不能预测特定的形式和表现。它所做的只是指出资本主义制度所包含的潜在的必要条件，即积累资本，并且必须在地理范围内扩大和强化资本。

This is not to say that a theoretical analysis of these various manifestations in relation to capital accumulation is impossible. Indeed, a great deal can be done here. And we can also place one bet. The survival of capitalism is predicted on the continued ability to accumulate, by whatever means is easiest. The path of capitalist accumulation will move to wherever the resistance is weakest. It is the task of historical and theoretical analyses to identify these points of least resistance, of greatest weakness. Lenin once advised all revolutionary movements to look for the weakest link in capitalism. Ironically, capitalism manages, by trial and error and persistant pressure, to discover the weakest links in the forces opposed to continued accumulation and by exploiting those links to open up fresh pasture for the bourgeoisie to accomplish its historical mission – the accumulation of capital.

这并意味着对这些与资本积累有关的各种表现形式进行理论分析是不可能的，事实上这里可以做很多工作，我们也可以打赌。资本主义的生存取决于持续积累的能力，无论以何种手段是最容易的。资本主义积累的道路将走向阻力最弱的地方。历史和理论分析的任务是确定这些阻力最小、最为薄弱的点。列宁曾经建议所有革命运动寻找资本主义中最薄弱的环节。具有讽刺意味的是，资本主义通过反复试验和持续的压力，设法发现阻碍持续积累之力量中最薄弱的环节，并利用这些环节为资产阶级开辟新的发展机遇，以完成其历史使命——也就是资本的积累。

5. MARX’S THEORY OF CAPITAL ACCUMULATION ON AN EXPANDING GEOGRAPHICAL SCALE AS A WHOLE

Marx’s theory of capital accumulation on an expanding geographical scale is quite complex. We have delved into Marx to try to discover in his writings some of its basic components. But to be appreciated properly these components have to be seen in relation both one to each other and to the various models which Marx devised to understand capitalist production, exchange and realization as a totality. In a rather spendid passage in the Grundrisse (pp. 407-10), Marx provides a kind of “overview sketch” of his general theory:

马克思关于扩大地理范围的资本积累的理论十分复杂。我们深入研究了马克思，试图在他的著作中发现它的一些基本成分。但要正确地欣赏这些组成部分，就必须把它们相互联系起来，并把它们与马克思设计的各种模型联系起来，这些模型是为了把资本主义的生产、交换和实现作为一个整体来理解。在《政治经济学批判》（第407-10页）中，马克思为他的一般理论提供了一种“概括性描述”:

The creation by capital of absolute surplus value … is conditional upon an expansion, specifically a constant expansion, of the sphere of circulation…. A precondition of production based on capital is therefore the production of a constantly widening sphere of circulation. Hence, just as capital has the tendency on one side to create ever more surplus labour, so it has the complementary tendency to create more points of exchange.

资本创造的绝对剩余价值……是以扩张为条件的，特别是持续扩张……因此，以资本为基础的生产的前提是生产不断扩大的流通范围。因此，正如资本一方面有创造更多剩余劳动力的趋势，亦有创造更多交换点的互补趋势。

From this, of course, we can derive “the tendency to create the world market [which] is directly given in the concept of capital itself” and the need, initially at least, “to subjugate every moment of production itself to exchange and to suspend the production of direct use values not entering into exchange.” Marx then goes on to say that:

当然，我们可以推出“创造世界市场的趋势直接体现在资本本身的概念上”，最初至少是“为征服生产本身的交换并暂停生产直接的使用价值而不进入交换。”马克思还说：

the production of relative surplus value… requires the production of new consumption; requires that consuming circle within circulation expands as did the productive circle previously. Firstly quantitative expansion of existing consumption; secondly, creation of new needs by propagating existing ones in a wide circle; thirdly, production of new needs and discovery and creation of new use values.

相对剩余价值的生产……需要生产新的消费；需要循环中的消费循环像之前的生产循环一样扩大。一是现有消费的定量扩张；二是在大范围内传播现有需求以创造新的需求；三是从产品中发现和创造新的需求与使用价值。

As a result of these expansionary tendencies, capitalism creates:

由于这些扩张性倾向，资本主义创造了：

a system of general exploitation of the natural and human qualities …. Hence the great civilizing influence of capital; its production of a stage of society in comparison to which all earlier ones appear as mere local developments of humanity and as nature idolatory. For the first time, nature becomes purely an object for humankind, purely a matter of utility…. In accord with this tendency, capital drives beyond national barriers and prejudices as much as beyond nature worship, as well as all traditional, confined, encrusted satisfactions of present needs, and reproductions of old ways of life. It is destructive towards all of this, and constantly revolutionizes it, tearing down all the barriers which hem in the development of the forces of production, the expansion of needs, the allsided development of production, and the exploitation and exchange of natural and mental forces….

自然素质和人的素质的综合开发体系……因此，资本对文明产生了巨大的影响；它创造了一个社会阶段，与之相比，所有早期的社会阶段都只是人类的局部发展和对自然的盲目崇拜。这是第一次，自然成为人类纯粹的对象并具备纯粹的用途……与这种趋势相一致的是，资本超越了民族障碍和偏见，也超越了自然崇拜，超越了对当前需求的所有传统的、封闭的、固化的满足，以及旧的生活方式的复制。它对这一切都是破坏性的，并不断地使之发生革命，摧毁一切阻碍生产力发展、需求扩大、生产全面发展、自然力量和精神力量的开发和交换的障碍……

But… since every such barrier contradicts its character, its production moves in contradictions which are constantly overcome but just as constantly posited. Furthermore, the universality towards which it irresistably strives encounters barriers in its own nature, which will, at a certain stage of its development, allow it to be recognized as being itself the greatest barrier to this tendency, and hence will drive towards its own suspension.”

但是……由于每一个这样的障碍都与其性质相矛盾，而它的生产活动就在矛盾中进行，这种矛盾不断地被克服，但也在不断出现。此外，这种普遍性地努力遭遇自身性质的障碍，在某个发展阶段，这将会被认为是这种趋势的最大障碍，因而导致了自身发展的暂停。

Marx’s sketch does not incorporate all of the elements which we have identified in this paper but it does convey a feeling for what he had in mind in constructing a theory of accumulation on an expanding geographical scale. Plainly, the drive to accumulate lies at the center of the theory. This drive is expressed primarily in the production process through the creation of absolute and relative surplus value. But the creation of value is contingent upon the ability to realize it through circulation. Failure to realize value means, quite simply, the negation of the value created potentially in production. Thus, if the sphere of circulation does not expand then accumulation comes to a halt. Capital, Marx never tires of emphasizing, is not a thing or a set of institutions; it is a process of circulation between production and realization. This process, which must expand, must accumulate, constantly re-shapes the work process and the social relationships within production as it constantly changes the dimensions and forms of circulation. Marx helps us to understand these processes theoretically. But ultimately we have to bring this theory to bear on existing situations within the structure of capitalist social relations at this point in history. We have to force an intersection between the theoretical abstractions, on the one hand, and the materialist investigations of actual historical configurations on the other. To construct and re-construct Marx’s theory of accumulation on an expanding geographical scale as a totality requires such an intersection. We have indeed to derive the theory of imperialism out of the Marxian theory of accumulation. But to do so we have to move carefully through the intermediate steps. In Marx’s own thought it appears that the crucial intermediate steps encompass a theory of location and an analysis of fixed and immobile investment; the necessary creation of a geographical landscape to facilitate accumulation through production and circulation. But the steps from the theory of accumulation to the theory of imperialism, or more generally to a theory of history, are not simple mechanical derivations because down this path we have to accomplish also that transformation from the general to the concrete which comprised the central thrust of Marx’s unfinished work. We have to learn, in short, to complete the project which Marx underscores at the beginning of Volume 3 of Capital – we have to bring a synthetic understanding of the processes of production and circulation under capitalism to bear on capitalist history and “thus approach step by step the form which they assume on the surface of society.”

马克思的概述并未包含我们在本文中所指出的所有要素，但它确实传达出一种感觉，即他在不断扩大的地理范围内构建了一个积累理论。显然，积累的动力是该理论的核心。这种驱动力主要表现在生产过程中——通过创造绝对和相对剩余价值。但是创造出的价值取决于通过流通实现价值的能力。很简单，未能实现价值就意味着对生产过程中潜在创造的价值的否定。因此，如果影响的领域不扩张，那么累积就会停止。马克思一直强调：资本不是一件东西，也不是一套制度；它是一个生产与实现之间往复的过程。这一过程必须不断扩大，不断积累，不断重塑生产中的工作过程和社会关系，不断改变流通的规模和形式。马克思帮助我们从理论上理解了这些过程，但最终我们必须把这个理论应用到资本主义社会关系结构中在历史上的某点。我们必须在理论的抽象和唯物主义对实际历史形态的研究之间建立一个交集。在一个整体的地理尺度上对马克思积累理论进行建构和再建构，就需要这样一种交叉。帝国主义理论确实是能从马克思的积累理论中推导出来的。但要做到这一点，我们必须小心地经过些中间步骤。在马克思的思想中，关键的中间步骤似乎包括了区位理论和对固定和固定投资的分析；通过生产和流通来促进积累的必要的地理景观的创造。但从积累理论到帝国主义理论，或者更普遍地说，到历史理论的步骤，并不是简单的机械推导，因为在这条道路上我们还必须完成从一般到具体的转变，这包括马克思未完成工作的核心内容。简而言之，我们必须学习完成马克思在《资本论》第三卷中所强调的内容，必须对资本主义下的生产和流通（对资本主义历史产生影响的）过程综合地进行认识，“从而逐步接近他们所认为的社会形式”。

Globalization and the “Spatial Fix”

Macro-economists, even those with interests in development, have a weak grasp of how to handle the production of space in their theories and models. The best they can usually do, is to see the world as partitioned into geographical entities (hence the importance of the state in their analyses and policies) each undergoing some kind of temporal process of development. The target of their thinking is how to understand different temporal trajectories (why and how national economies develop in the way they do and how to theorize and model these developments) and perhaps intervene so as to promote a healthier or more beneficial (usually defined as more profitable) pathway of development within that territorial entity.

宏观经济学家，即使是那些对发展感兴趣的经济学家，在理论和模型上对如何处理生产空间也缺乏把握。他们通常能做的最好的事就是把世界分割成地理实体（因此国家在分析和政策中的重要性），每个实体都经历了一定的发展过程。他们思考的目标是如何理解不同的时间轨迹（国民经济为什么以及如何以其方式发展，如何理论化和模拟这些发展），或进行干预以便在该领土实体中促进一条更健康或更有益的（通常定义为更有利可图的）发展道路。

This style of thinking, never wholly satisfactory, has become somewhat of a liability in the face of the complex processes lumped together under the umbrella term of “globalization”. If, for example, the state has become less relevant as a coherent and all-powerful entity in political-economic affairs (as many now maintain) then some other way to handle space has to be defined. And there are indeed some serious attempts within economics to confront that difficulty. Paul Krugman, for example, is attempting to build what is called a “new economic geography” which focuses on how selforganizing spatial principles of economic activity play an important role in political-economic life and how the principles of comparative geographical advantage might better be theorized both in terms of regional development and international trade. Jeffrey Sachs, on the other hand, wishes us to focus on regional complexes (defined in terms of some mix of environmental and cultural endowments) rather than states as more significant entities within which to understand how development occurs (the tropical regions differ from temperate with respect to endowments and environmental conditions and a state such as Brazil should be partitioned, he argues, between a “technology rich” and better endowed south and a “technology poor” and environmentally and culturally impoverished north). The material processes at work under contemporary conditions of globalization have, it seems, provoked some kind of conceptual shift among at least a subset of economists (thus do shifts in the economic basis demand conceptual and ideological shifts, as Marx long ago observed).

在“全球化”这一总括性术语下，这种从未完全令人满意的思维方式在面对复杂过程时已变得有些累赘。例如，如果国家在政治经济事务中作为一个一体和全能的实体的相关性降低，那么必须确定别的处理空间的方法。经济学界确实有一些认真的尝试来面对这一困难。例如，保罗·克鲁格曼正试图建立所谓的“新经济地理”，重点是经济活动的自我组织空间原则如何在政治经济生活中发挥重要作用，以及比较地理优势原则如何更好地在区域发展和国际贸易方面得到理论化。另一方面，杰弗里·萨克斯希望我们关注（根据环境和文化的某种组合来定义）区域综合体，而不是将国家作为更重要的实体来了解发展如何发生（热带地区在环境条件方面与温带地区不同，像巴西等国家应该被划分，他认为， 在“技术富裕”且相对发达的南方、“技术贫乏”且环境和文化贫困的北方之间）。在当代全球化条件下，材料的加工过程似乎在一部分经济学家中引发了某种概念上的转变（因此正如马克思很久以前所观察到的，经济基础需求概念和意识形态转变确实发生了转变）。

For geographers like myself, however, the production, reproduction and reconfiguration of space have always been central to understanding the political economy of capitalism. For us, the contemporary form of globalization is nothing more than yet another round in the capitalist production and reconstruction of space. It entails a further diminution in the friction of distance (what Marx referred to as “the annihilation of space through time” as a fundamental law of capitalist development) through yet another round of innovation in the technologies of transport and communications. It consequently entails a geographical restructuring of capitalist activity (deindustrialization here and reindustrialization there, for example) across the face of planet earth, the production of new forms of uneven geographical development, a recalibration and even recentering of global power (with far greater emphasis upon the Pacific and newly industrializing countries) and a shift in the geographical scale at which capitalism is organized (symbolized by the growth of supra-state organizational forms such as the European Union and a more prominent role for institutions of global governance such as the WTO, the IMF, the G8, the UN and the like). Contemporary globalization has been, we can argue, the product of these specific geographically grounded processes. The question is not, therefore, how globalization has affected geography but how these distinctive geographical processes of the production and reconfiguration of space have created the specific conditions of contemporary globalization.

然而，对于像我这样的地理学家来说，空间的生产、再生产和重新配置一直是理解资本主义政治经济学的核心。对我们来说，当代的全球化形式无非是资本主义对空间的又一轮生产与重构。它需要通过运输和通讯技术的又一轮创新，进一步减少距离摩擦（马克思称之为“时空湮灭”，即资本主义发展的基本法则）。因此，它需要对整个地球表面的资本主义活动进行地理上的重组（例如，这里去工业化，那里再工业化），产生新的不均衡的地理发展形式，重新调整甚至重新定位全球力量（更强调太平洋国家和新兴工业化国家）和资本主义转变的地理范围内组织（象征超国家组织形式的发展，如欧盟和更具突出的作用的全球治理机构，如世贸组织，国际货币基金组织、八国集团、联合国等）。我们可以说，当代全球化是这些特定地理基础过程的产物。因此问题不在于全球化如何影响地理，而在于这些独特的空间生产和重新配置的地理过程如何创造了当代全球化的具体条件。

In my own work, globalization has largely been interpreted in terms of a theory of “the spatial fix”. This term (and the theory it centers) is in need of clarification, however, since different interpretations have been offered leading to confusions if not serious errors. In part the differences reflect an ambiguity of language. In English, the word “fix” has multiple meanings. One meaning, as in “the pole was fixed in the hole”, refers to something being pinned down and secured in a particular locus. The idea is that something is secured in space: it cannot be moved or modified. Another, as in “fix a problem”, is to resolve a difficulty, take care of a problem. Again, the sense is that things are made secure, but by returning things to normal functioning again (as in “he fixed the car’s engine so that it ran smoothly”). This second meaning has a metaphorical derivative, as in “the drug addict needs a fix”, in which it is the burning desire to relieve a chronic or pervasive problem that is the focus of meaning. Once the “fix” is found or achieved then the problem is resolved and the desire evaporates. But, as in the case of the drug addict, it is implied that the resolution is temporary rather than permanent, since the craving soon returns. It is sometimes said, for example, that “technological fixes” have counteracted the Malthusian dilemma of population growth outrunning resources. The implication is that continuous technological progress and rising productivity are necessary conditions to prevent the dismal Malthusian scenario of mass starvation and social disruption becoming a reality.

在我自己的作品中，全球化在很大程度上被解释为“空间修复”（空间出路）理论。然而，这一术语（及其中心理论）需要澄清，因为不同的解释导致了混淆，如果不是严重的错误。在某种程度上，这些差异反映了语言的模糊性。在英语中，“fix”这个词有多种含义：其中一种意思，如“the pole was fixed in the hole”，指的是某物被固定在特定的位置上。这个概念是指某物被固定在空间中：它不能被移动或修改；另一种用法，如“fix a problem”，是解决一个困难，处理一个问题。同样，这意味着一切都是安全的，但要让一切恢复正常运转（比如“他修好了汽车的引擎，让它平稳运行”）。第二个意思有一个隐喻的衍生，如“the drug addict needs a fix（毒瘾需要治疗）”，其中缓解一个慢性或普遍问题的强烈愿望是意义的焦点。一旦找到或实现了“修复”，那么问题就解决了，愿望也就消失了。但是，就像吸毒成瘾的情况一样，这暗示着这种戒断是暂时的而不是永久的，因为这种渴望很快就会回来。例如，人们有时会说，“技术修复”抵消了人口增长超过资源消耗的马尔萨斯困境。这意味着持续的技术进步和不断提高的生产率是防止大规模饥饿和社会混乱成为现实的马尔萨斯（Malthusian）悲观设想的必要条件。

It was primarily in this last sense that I first deployed the term “spatial fix” to describe capitalism’s insatiable drive to resolve its inner crisis tendencies by geographical expansion and geographical restructuring. The parallel with the idea of a “technological fix” was deliberate. Capitalism, we might say, is addicted to geographical expansion much as it is addicted to technological change and endless expansion through economic growth. Globalization is the contemporary version of capitalism’s long-standing and never-ending search for a spatial fix to its crisis tendencies. Since there is a long history to these spatial fixes, there is a deep continuity (as I and many others have insisted) in the production of space under capitalist social relations and imperatives. There is, from this perspective, nothing particularly new or surprising about globalization since it has been going on since at least 1492 if not before.

主要是在最后一个意义上，我首先运用了“空间修复”一词来描述贪得无厌的资本主义通过地理扩张和地理重组来解决其内部危机倾向的动力。与“技术修复”理念的相似之处是经过深思熟虑的。我们可能会说资本主义沉迷于地理扩张，因为它沉迷于技术变革和通过经济增长无休止的扩张。全球化是资本主义长期和永无止境地寻求解决其危机倾向的空间的当代版本。由于这些空间修复具有悠久的历史，因此在资本主义社会关系和必要性下，在空间的产生方面存在着深刻的连续性（正如我和其他许多人所坚持的那样）。从这个角度看，全球化没有什么特别新或令人惊讶的，因为它至少从1492年就已经开始了，如果不是更早的话。

While these disparate meanings of “to fix” appear contradictory, they are all internally related by the idea that something (a thing, a problem, a craving) can be pinned down and secured. In my own use of the term, the contradictory meanings can be played out to reveal something important about the geographical dynamics of capitalism and the crisis tendencies that attach thereto. In particular, I use it to focus on the particular problem of “fixity” (in the first sense of being secured in place) versus motion and mobility of capital. I note, for example, that capitalism has to fix space (in immoveable structures of transport and communication nets, as well as in built environments of factories, roads, houses, water supplies, and other physical infrastructures) in order to overcome space (achieve a liberty of movement through low transport and communication costs). This leads to one of the central contradictions of capital: that it has to build a fixed space (or “landscape”) necessary for its own functioning at a certain point in its history only to have to destroy that space (and devalue much of the capital invested therein) at a later point in order to make way for a new “spatial fix” (openings for fresh accumulation in new spaces and territories) at a later point in its history.

虽然这些不同的含义“修复”看起来矛盾，但它们都是内部相关的想法：某种东西（一件事，一个问题，一种渴求）可以被固定。当我自己使用时，矛盾的含义可以被发挥出来，揭示一些与资本主义的地理动态和随之而来的危机倾向有关的重要东西。特别是我用它专注于“固定性”的特定问题（在第一个被固定的意义上）与资本的运动和流动性。例如，我注意到，资本主义必须修复空间（在运输和通信网的不可移动结构中，以及工厂、道路、房屋、供水等的建造环境）来克服空间（以实现通过低运输和通信成本的运动自由）。这导致了资本的中心矛盾之一：它必须在它的历史的某一时刻建立一个运作所必需的、固定的空间（或“景观”），但这不得不摧毁该空间（并贬值其中投资的大部分资本），以便在其历史的后期让位给一个新的“空间修复”（开放新的空间和领土的新积累）。

The idea of “the spatial fix” initially came out of attempts to reconstruct Marx’s theory of the geography of capitalist accumulation. In the first essay on this topic, published in Antipode in 1975, I showed that Marx’s fragmentary writings on the geography of capitalist accumulation could be consolidated into a reasonably consistent account that depicted the spatial as well as the temporal dynamics of capitalism. I later sought to deepen the argument through an examination of the relation between Hegel’s views on imperialism, von Thünen’s arguments concerning the frontier wage (a precursor to key formulations on marginal pricing in neoclassical economics) and Marx’s arguments on colonialism (most particularly the peculiarity of closing the first volume of Capital with a chapter on colonial land policies). It was in this article, entitled “The Spatial Fix: Hegel, von Thunen and Marx” that I first used the term “spatial fix” directly. It was later deployed as a fundamental concept in The Limits to Capital (1982) and in a summary essay on “The Geopolitics of Capitalism” (1985). (These earlier essays will all appear shortly in a volume entitled Spaces of Capital: Towards a Critical Geography to be published by Edinburgh University Press and Routledge (USA)).

“空间修复”的概念最初来源于对马克思资本积累地理学理论的重构。在1975年发表在《对地论》（Antipode）上的第一篇关于这一主题的文章中，我指出马克思关于资本主义积累地理学的零散著作可以整合成一种合理一致的描述，既描述了资本主义的空间动态，也描述了资本主义的时间动态。后来我试图通过仔细研究黑格尔对帝国主义的看法、冯·屠能对frontier wage（新古典经济学中边际定价关键公式的前身）的看法和马克思对殖民主义（特别是《资本论》第一卷的结尾有一章是关于殖民地土地政策的）的论证。正是在这篇题为《The Spatial Fix: Hegel, von Thunen and Marx》的文章中，我第一次直接使用了“空间修复”这个术语。后来它在《资本的极限》（1982）和《资本主义的地缘政治》（1985）的摘要短文中被作为一个基本概念使用。（这些早期的文章都会出现在爱丁堡大学出版社和劳特利奇（美国）出版的《资本空间：走向批判地理学》一书中。）

The primary result of these enquiries was to show that (a) capitalism could not survive without being geographically expansionary (and perpetually seeking out “spatial fixes” for its problems), (b) that major innovations in transport and communication technologies were necessary conditions for that expansion to occur (hence the emphasis in capitalism’s evolution on technologies that facilitated speed up and the progressive diminution of spatial barriers to movement of commodities, people, information and ideas over space) and (c) its modes of geographical expansion depended crucially upon whether it was the search for markets, fresh labor powers, resources (raw materials) or fresh opportunities to invest in new production facilities that was chiefly at stake.

这些调查的主要结果是：（a） 资本主义如果不在地理上扩张（并永远寻求解决其问题的“空间解决办法”），就无法生存；（b） 运输和通信技术的重大创新是实现这种扩张的必要条件（因此，资本主义的演变重点是促进加速和逐步消除商品、人员、信息和空间观念流动的空间障碍）和（c）其地理扩张模式至关重要，这取决于它寻找市场、新的劳动力力量、资源（原材料）或者投资有风险的生产设备的新机会。

On this latter point there is a strong connection between how the overaccumulation of capital (the central indicator of crisis in Marx’s theory) is manifest and how the spatial fix gets pursued. Overaccumulation, in its most virulent form (as occurred in the 1930s, for example) is registered as surpluses of labor and capital side by side with seemingly no way to put them together in productive, i.e. “profitable” as opposed to socially useful ways. If the crisis cannot be resolved, then the result is massive devaluation of both capital and labor (bankruptcies, idle factories and machines, unsold commodities, and unemployed laborers). Devaluation can sometimes lead to physical destruction (surplus commodities get burned and laborers die of starvation) and even war (the whole sequence of events that occurred in the 1930s and 1940s came close to such a scenario). But there are ways to stave off such an outcome. In practice, most crisis phases combine selective devaluations with strategies to alleviate the difficulties. One such strategy is to seek out some “spatial fix” to the problem. If, for example, a crisis of localized overaccumulation occurs within a particular region or territory then the export of capital and labor surpluses to some new territory to start up new production would make most sense (as, for example, in the migration of both labor and capital across the Atlantic from Britain to North America in the crisis years of the nineteenth century). If, on the other hand, overaccumulation is chiefly registered as lack of effective demand for commodities then opening up new markets in non-capitalist territories appears the best strategy (the China market has been a favorite “imagined” goal for North American capital whenever it has run into difficulties for a century or more, hence the current commercial interest in the USA for integrating China into the WTO). Surpluses of capital and shortages of labor (or rigidity in labor markets because of political and institutional barriers) can be “fixed” either by the movement of capital to areas of labor surpluses and/or weak labor organization (hence North American capital moving into the maquillas along the Mexican border) or importation of cheap labor (as with guest worker programs in Europe) into centers of capitalist development. Surpluses of wage labor and shortages of capital often generate strong migratory currents (legal and illegal, as with the movement of Mexicans into the USA).

后一点体现出资本的过度积累（马克思理论中危机的核心指标）和如何实现空间修复之间的联系。过度积累，以最恶毒的形式（例如发生在1930年代的）与劳动力过剩和资本剩余共存，但似乎没有办法把它们放在一起投入生产，即“有利可图”。如果危机不能解决，那么结果就是资本和劳动力（破产、闲置的工厂和机器、未售出的商品和失业工人）的大量贬值。货币贬值有时会导致物质破坏（剩余商品被烧毁、劳工饿死），甚至战争（1930年代和1940年代发生的一系列事件都接近这种情况）。但有一些办法避免这样的结果：事实上在大多数危机阶段的时候，人们利用选择性贬值结合策略以克服困难。其中一种策略是寻求“空间修复”。例如，如果在特定地区内局部发生过度积累危机，那么向这些新地区出口资本和剩余劳动力以启动新生产将最有意义（例如在十九世纪年代的危机时，劳动力和资本从英国向北美跨越大西洋的迁移）。另一方面，如果过度积累主要表现为对商品缺乏有效需求，那么在非资本主义地区开拓新市场似乎是最佳策略（在过去一个世纪中，每当美国陷入困境时，中国市场一直是北美资本的“理想的”目标，因此目前美国对中国加入WTO抱着商业上的兴趣）。资本过剩和劳动力短缺（或由于政治和体制障碍导致劳动力市场僵化）可以通过资本流向劳动力过剩和/或薄弱的劳工组织（因此北美资本进入墨西哥边境的马奎利亚地区）或将廉价劳动力（如欧洲的外籍劳工计划）引入资本主义发展中心来进行“修复”。雇佣劳工的过剩和资本的短缺往往产生强大的移民流动（合法和非法的，如墨西哥人进入美国）。

The impulse of expansion in any or all of these modes can be interpreted in Hegelian terms as each being a specific manifestation of a general relation between an “inner dialectic” of crisis formation manifest as overaccumulation within a space (most virulently as surpluses of capital and labor side by side) and an “outer dialectic” of geographical (spatial) release of these surpluses. This was roughly how Hegel envisioned it in The Philosophy of Right. The effect is to allow capital accumulation on a world scale to continue its problematic temporal trajectory through continuous and sometimes disruptive geographical adjustments and reconfigurations. But the effect is also to project and replicate the contradictions of capital onto an ever-broadening geographical terrain. Closer analysis also show how a whole series of contradictions arise within the production of space. These need to be unravelled. Not only are the contradictions of capitalism worked through and embedded in the production of the geographical landscape, but these contradictions can and manifestly have at certain historical points been the locus of political-economic earthquakes that have shaken the prospects for further capital accumulation to their very core. We now turn to consider how this typically happens.

在任何或所有这些模式中扩张的冲动可以用黑格尔的术语解释，每一种都是危机形成的“内在辩证法”间一般关系的具体表现，表现为空间内的过度积累（最致命的是资本盈余和劳动力盈余并存）和这些盈余的地理 （空间） 释放的“外部辩证法”。这大致就是黑格尔在《法哲学》中所设想的。其效果是允许全球规模的资本积累，通过持续的、有时具有破坏性的地理调整和重新配置，继续行进在未定的暂时性轨迹上。但其效果还在于将资本矛盾投射和复制到日益扩大的地理区域。更进一步的分析也揭示了一系列的矛盾是如何在空间生产中产生的。这些问题需要解决。资本主义的矛盾不仅贯穿和嵌入在地理景观里面，而且这些矛盾在某些历史点上能够而且明显地成为政治-经济地震的中心，动摇了资本进一步积累的核心。我们现在开始考虑这种情况通常是如何发生的。

There are two dimensions to the problem that require separate treatment. Both, incidentally, track back to the complicated meanings of the word “fix”. The first concerns the difficulties posed by the circulation of fixed capital and the contradictions that attach thereto. The second deals more broadly with the whole problem of the territorial structures, spatial forms and uneven geographical development of capital accumulation. The category of fixed capital in Marxian theory refers to capital that is embedded in some asset or thing (such as machinery) which is not directly or even indirectly consumed in production (as are raw materials or energy inputs) but which gets used up (and worn out) over several production cycles. The lifetime of the fixed capital determines the rate at which it is used up (amortized) and the rate its value (e.g. that embodied in the machine) has to be transferred to the final product (e.g. the shirt). The lifetime is not only determined by rates of physical deterioration. Physically viable machinery can be replaced by new or less costly machines so that obsolescence through technological change plays a key role. Obsolescence can destroy the value remaining in existing fixed capital well before its physical lifetime is up (I still have an old Remington typewriter in my study, though I never use it). The devaluation of fixed capital is a serious problem for capitalists. It locates a potential crisis point for capital accumulation (hence the connection between business cycles and cycles of fixed capital investment and the importance of real-estate crashes in triggering crises, as, for example, in 1973). Note that the term “fixed” in this case refers to the way capital is locked up and committed to a particular physical form for a certain time-period. But a distinction must be drawn between fixed capital that is mobile and that which is not. Some fixed capital is embedded in the land (primarily in the form of the built environment or more broadly as ‘second nature’) and therefore fixed in place. This capital is “fixed” in a double sense (tied up in a particular object like a machine and pinned down in place). There is a relationship between the two forms. Aircrafts (a highly mobile form of fixed capital) require investments in immobile airport facilities if they are to function. The dialectic between fixity and motion then comes into play even within the category of fixed capital. While jumbo-jets can in principle fly anywhere, in practice they are confined to landing at fixed sites. In order for the capital invested in airport facilities to be realised, aircraft must fly in and out fully laden. In order for the capital invested in the aircraft to be paid off, the airports must encourage as much traffic as possible which means that the places they serve must be attractive sites for the convergence of commodities, people, ideas, information, cultural activities, and the like. Plainly there are multiple opportunities here for mismatches, localised crises (perhaps building into regional and even global crises) as well as abundant opportunities to absorb surplus capital in mutually reinforcing structures of investment (airlines need airports and vice versa). Much of what we call “globalization” has been produced through innumerable symbiotic and mutually reinforcing activities of this kind (airline expansion and airport building). The “spatial fix” (in the sense of geographical expansion to resolve problems of overaccumulation) is in part achieved through fixing investments spatially, embedding them in the land, to create an entirely new landscape (of airports and of cities, for example) for capital accumulation. Finance capital and its derivative forms of “fictitious capital” have a vital role to play in reallocating investments across space and time (an important topic in itself which I must lay aside since it would take too long to elaborate upon here, but see my Limits to Capital, particularly chapters 8, 9 and 10). Suffice it to remark that the much vaunted hypermobility of finance and fictitious capital exists in a dialectical relation with, among other things, fixed capital investments of both the mobile and immobile sort. On the immobile front, the infrastructures of urbanization are crucial, both as foci of investment to absorb surpluses of capital and labor (providing localized/regional forms of the “spatial fix” as through the dynamics of suburbanization or the building of airport complexes) and as the necessary fixed capital of an immobile sort to facilitate spatial movement and the temporal dynamics of continued capital accumulation.

这个问题有两个方面需要单独处理。顺便说一句，这两个词都可以追溯到“fix”这个词的复杂含义。第一个问题涉及固定资本的流通所造成的困难以及随之而来的矛盾。第二部分更广泛地讨论了资本积累的地域结构、空间形式和不均衡的地理发展的整个问题。固定资本的范畴在马克思主义理论是指资本是嵌入在某些资产或事物（如机器）不直接或者间接消耗的生产（如原材料或能源输入），但被使用在几个生产周期（磨损）。固定资本的生命周期决定了它被消耗（摊销）的比率，以及它的价值（如体现在机器上的）转移到最终产品（如衬衫）的比率。其寿命不仅取决于物理上的退化速度。可用的机器可以被新的或更便宜的机器所取代，因此技术变革起着关键作用。（技术一旦）过时其剩余价值就会在现有固定资本的物理寿命还没到之前被摧毁（我的书房里还有一台旧的雷明顿打字机，可我从来没用过它）。固定资本的贬值对资本家来说是一个严重的问题。它为资本积累定位了一个潜在的危机点（因此体现出商业周期和固定资本投资周期之间的联系以及房地产崩溃在触发危机中的重要性，例如1973年）。请注意，在这种情况下，术语“fixed”指的是资本在一定时期内被锁定并以特定的物理形式承诺的方式。但我们必须区分可移动的固定资本和不可移动的固定资本。一些固定资本嵌入土地（主要以建筑环境的形式，或更广泛地称为“第二天性”），因而固定在一个地方。这个资本在双重意义上是“fixed”(固定在像机器一样的特定物体上，并固定在合适的位置上)。这两种形式之间存在着一种关系。飞机（一种高度可移动的固定资本形式）需要对固定的机场设施进行投资才能正常运转。因此，固定与运动之间的辩证法甚至在固定资本的范畴内也起着作用。虽然大型喷气式飞机原则上可以飞到任何地方，但实际上它们只能在固定地点降落。为了实现投资于机场设施的资金，飞机必须满载进出。为了让投资在飞机上的资金得到回报，机场必须尽可能地鼓励更多的交通，这意味着其所服务的地方必须是商品、人员、思想、信息、文化活动等聚集的且具有吸引力的场所。显然这里存在着多种机会，包括不匹配、局部危机(可能导致区域性甚至全球性危机)以及通过相互强化的投资结构吸收过剩资本的大量机会（航空公司需要机场，反之亦然）。我们所称的“全球化”，很多都是通过无数这种共生和相辅相成的活动（航空公司扩张和机场建设）产生的。“空间修复”（在地理扩张的意义上解决过度积累的问题）是通过在空间上固定投资，将其嵌入土地，为资本积累创造一个全新的景观（例如机场和城市）来实现的。金融资本及其衍生形式的“虚拟资本”在跨时空的投资再分配中起着至关重要的作用（一个重要的话题本身，但我必须放下，因为它要花很长时间精心准备，可参见《资本的极限》第8，9，10章）。足以说明的是，金融和虚构资本的过度流动存在于一种辩证的关系中，其中包括移动资本和固定资本投资。在固定方面，城市化是至关重要的基础设施，可作为吸收过剩的资本和劳动力（提供局部/区域“空间修复”的形式通过郊区化的动力或建设机场复合物）的投资焦点和作为不可移动的固定资本，促进了空间运动和资本持续积累的时序动态。

In much of my own work, I have focussed upon the production of space through urbanization as a key site where the contradictions of capital are always at work. Many of these studies focus upon the tension between the two kinds of “fixes” – that which is perpetually seeking to resolve the crisis tendencies of capitalism (overaccumulation) through the production of space (consider, as an example, the key role of suburbanization in the United States after 1945 in absorbing surpluses of capital and labor); and that version of the fix which is about the tying up and the pinning down of large amounts of capital in place through the production of fixed and immobile capital in the built environment (e.g. the highways systems needed to facilitate suburbanization). Here, the two kinds of fixes both feed off each other to stimulate symbiotic forms of accumulation (suburbs need cars and vice versa) and collide to form a potentially serious contradiction. Globalization in its present guise has entailed, among other things, the pursuit of a whole series of spatial fixes to the crisis that erupted around 1973. Capital, most would agree, has since become much more global in all of its forms of production, commerce, merchanting, and finance. It has shifted rapidly (and often with considerable volatility) from one location to another. At the same time massive amounts of capital and labor have been invested in the sorts of immobile fixed capital we see in airports, commercial centers, office complexes, highways, suburbs, container terminals, and the like. Global flows have been in part guided by such investments but at the same time these investments are speculative developments that depend for their profitability upon a certain expansionary pattern of global flows of commodities, capital, and people. If the flows fail to materialize, then the fixed capital stands to be devalued and lost (the bankruptcy of Canary Wharf in London in the 1990s is a case in point, though, as often happens, the devaluation worked through in such a way as to provide profitable opportunities for the banks that ended up holding the physical asset). The production of space under capitalism proceeds under the shadow of this contradiction.

在我自己的很多作品中，我关注的是通过城市化来生产空间（城市是一个资本矛盾总在发挥作用的关键性场所）。许多这样的研究聚焦于之间的紧张关系两种“修复”——通过生产空间以寻求解决资本主义的危机倾向（过度积累）（考虑一个例子，美国郊区化的关键作用在1945年之后在吸收盈余资本和劳动力）；该版本的补充是通过在建筑环境中生产固定和不流动的资本（例如促进郊区化所需的高速公路系统）来捆绑和固定大量的资本。在这里，这两种固定模式相互依存，激发了共生的积累形式（郊区需要汽车，反之亦然），并相互碰撞，形成了潜在的严重矛盾。除了别的，目前伪装下的全球化需要对1973年左右爆发的危机进行一系列的空间修复。大多数人都认同：从那以后，资本在其生产、贸易、商业和金融的所有形式中都变得更加全球化。它从一个地方迅速地转移到另一个地方（而且往往具有相当大的波动性）。与此同时，大量的资本和劳动力被投入到机场、商业中心、写字楼、高速公路、郊区、集装箱码头等各种固定资本中。全球流动在一定程度上是由这种投资引导的，但与此同时，这些投资是取决于全球商品、资本和人员流动的某种扩张性模式的投机性发展。如果流无法物化，那么固定资本会贬值和损失（1990年伦敦金丝雀码头的破产是一个典型的例子，不过正如经常发生的那样，货币贬值的方式为最终持有实物资产的银行提供了有利可图的机会）。资本主义的空间生产始终笼罩在这种矛盾的阴影下。

But there are also some more general arguments concerning the production of uneven geographical development that need to be integrated into this account. Capital is always in motion and much of that motion is spatial: commodity exchange (as opposed to the buying and selling of assets) always entails change of location and spatial movement. The market is spatialized (as Krugman now recognizes) and how that spatiality works has consequences for uneven geographical development. One of the laws of the market, for example, is that “there is nothing more unequal than the equal treatment of unequals”. The equality presupposed in market exchange produces spiraling inequalities between regions and spaces insofar as these regions and spaces possess differential endowments. The outcome is that rich regions grow richer and poor regions grow relatively poorer. The relaxation of state regulatory controls throughout the capitalist world (unevenly according to political circumstances) has produced a “neo-liberal” phase of capitalist development in which the inequalities of wealth and power have grown markedly.

但是，也有一些关于产生不平衡的地理发展的更普遍的论点需要纳入到这一考虑中。资本总是在运动，而且大部分运动是空间的：商品交换（相对于资产的买卖）总是伴随着位置和空间运动的变化。市场是空间化的（正如克鲁格曼现在认识到的那样），空间性如何运作会对不均衡的地理发展产生影响。例如，市场法则之一就是“没有什么比平等对待不平等者更不平等”。以市场交换为前提的平等，只要这些区域和空间的禀赋有差异，区域和空间之间的不平等就会日益加剧。其结果自然是——富裕地区变得更加富裕，贫穷地区变得更加贫穷。在整个资本主义世界，国家监管的放松（根据政治环境的不平衡）产生了资本主义发展的“新自由主义”阶段，在这个阶段，财富和权力的不平等显著增长。

But the end result of fierce competition, as Marx long ago observed, is monopoly or oligopoly as the strong drive out the weak in a Darwinian struggle for survival. While, therefore, the virtues of market competition are perpetually being extolled by the ruling classes, an astonishing trend towards monopoly and oligopoly has been taking place in all sorts of arenas, varying from mass media to airlines and even into traditional sectors such as autos. It is also said that the power of the state has been undermined when in fact the state has increasingly been restructured politically and economically as “an executive committee for the ruling class” as Marx long ago suggested. Here, too, the neoliberal phase of globalization has been characterized by a reconfiguration of state powers and the geographical concentration and centralization of political-economic powers within regional alliances of immense strength (with, of course, the USA very much leading the way). The geopolitical consequences are marked by a certain spatial fluidity but also by competitive fights between evolving territorial complexes.

但正如马克思很久以前所观察到的，激烈竞争的最终结果是垄断或寡头垄断，因为在达尔文的生存斗争中强者会将弱者赶出去。因此，尽管统治阶级一直颂扬市场竞争的优点，但从大众媒体到航空公司，甚至汽车等传统行业，各种领域都出现了垄断和寡头垄断的惊人趋势。也有人说国家的权力已经受到损害，而事实上，国家在政治和经济上已经越来越多地进行了重组，就像马克思很久以前所暗示的那样，成为了“统治阶级的执行委员会”。在这里，全球化的新自由主义阶段的特点也是国家权力的重新配置，以及政治经济力量在强大区域联盟中的集中（当然，美国非常领先）。地缘政治后果不仅产生了空间流动性，而且在不断发展领土综合体间产生竞争。

The spatial fixes of recent globalization have therefore been occurring in a distinctive setting and have been shaped by the reconfiguration of institutional structures. This has entailed a transformation in spatial scale, so that global institutions like the IMF, the WTO and the World Bank have become much more powerful and significant, while supra-national arrangements such as the European Union, NAFTA and Mercosur have become more salient. The underlying addiction for spatial and technological fixes is being expressed through these rather more complex processes of uneven geographical development.

因此，最近全球化的空间修复是在一个独特的环境中发生的，是由体制结构的重新配置所塑造的。这需要空间规模的改变，这使得货币基金组织、世贸组织和世界银行等全球机构变得更加强大和重要，而欧洲联盟、北美自由贸易协定和南方共同市场等超国家安排则更加突出。对空间和技术修复的潜在依赖通过更为复杂的不平衡的地理发展现状表现出来。

In conclusion, I want to re-emphasize the value of the geographical standpoint in understanding contemporary processes of globalization. Far too often in the literature (both popular and academic) we find places depicted as victims or victors of some ethereal process called globalization. A well-grounded historical-geographical materialism teaches us that globalization is the product of these distinctive processes of the production of space on the ground under capitalism. The question is not, therefore, what can an understanding of globalization tell us about geography but what can an understanding of geographical principles tell us about globalization, its successes and its failures, its specific forms of creative destruction, and the political discontents and resistances to which it gives rise. Above all, a better understanding of those geographical principles can surely help bring together the vast array of oppositional movements, currently geographically fragmented as well as unevenly developed, that offer hope for and aspire to some alternative.

总之，我想再次强调地理立场在理解当代全球化进程中的价值。在文学作品（无论是通俗的还是学术的）中，我们经常发现一些地方被描绘成被称为全球化这一难以捉摸过程的受害者或胜利者。有充分根据的历史地理唯物主义告诉我们，全球化是资本主义下这些独特的空间生产过程的产物。因此，问题不是对全球化的理解能告诉我们关于地理学的什么，而是对地理学原则的理解能告诉我们关于全球化的什么，它的成功和失败，其创造性破坏的具体形式，以及它所引起的政治上的不满和抵抗。最重要的是，更好地理解这些地理学原则肯定有助于把目前在地理上分散且发展不均衡的大量反对运动汇集在一起，而这些运动给人们带来了对某些替代方案的希望和渴望。