亚当·斯密在北京经典读后感10篇

　　《亚当·斯密在北京》是一本由（意）阿里吉著作，社会科学文献出版社出版的平装图书，本书定价：39.00元，页数：470，文章吧小编精心整理的一些读者的读后感，希望对大家能有帮助。

　　《亚当·斯密在北京》读后感(一)：重新认识中国的小农经济——阿里吉《亚当·斯密在北京》的一种解

　　文：姚洋

　　今年年初在纽约大学教学期间，在朋友处看到阿里吉的新著《亚当·斯密在北京》，我便马上从亚马逊网上书店买来，并一口气读完,深深为阿里吉宏大而深邃的思想所折服。本来想通过黄平邀请他来参加今年11月份的北京论坛，但近日却收到黄平的手机短信，告知阿里吉已于前一日去世。一代大师随风而去，扼腕之余，聊以此文作为对大师的纪念。

　　《亚当·斯密在北京》结构宏大，思想自成系统，对世界体系以及中国在其中的地位进行了独到的分析。在这篇小文里，我只讨论本期摘译的第十二章中所涉及的和中国的小农经济结构相关的一个思想。

　　就我的阅读而言，阿里吉在本章的核心思想是，中国的崛起是中国重视人力资本积累的结果。这个结论本身就惊世骇俗，因为普遍被接受的说法是，中国在过去三十年之所以能够取得高速的经济增长，很大程度上是因为采纳了出口导向的发展模式，而这个模式之所以成功，是因为中国有低成本的劳动力优势。无论是对中国的发展模式持肯定态度的人（如林毅夫及其比较优势理论），还是对这个模式持否定态度的人（如秦晖及其更一般化的“低人权”说），在这一点上却是一致的。

　　阿里吉否认这种说法，认为中国在当下以美国为主导的世界体系里之所以能够取得成功，不是因为中国的劳动力成本低，而恰恰是因为中国的劳动力素质比其他发展中国家的高。他在文中给出了许多证据，无需我在这里赘述。我想讨论的，是阿里吉结论中所隐含的下面这个经济学悖论：中国的劳动力数量巨大，而资本相对稀缺，按照经济学原理，中国应该提高资本产出效率、而不是提高劳动力产出效率（如提高人力资本水平），因此，阿里吉的结论违背通常的经济原理。阿里吉本人没有在书中对这个悖论给出明确的解答，但是，根据他在多处所表达的思想，我们可以揣摩出他的一些思路。

　　阿里吉在多处强调，中国和西欧在18世纪末“大分岔”时期的差别在于，西欧发生了工业革命，而东亚、特别是中国和日本发生的是“勤劳革命”。东亚的自然条件的共同特点是有限的土地资源和密集的人口，在这种条件下，两个国家都出现了以小农为主的经济结构。为什么人多地少就会出现小农呢？因为历史上的非农就业机会有限，小农会在土地上投入比大农更多的劳动力，从而他们的单位面积产量高于大农，而这有利于养活大量的人口。正是由于对土地的劳动投入更多，阿里吉才称中国和日本发生的是“勤劳革命”。

　　然而，如果仅仅是勤劳，革命就无从发生。阿里吉的重点不是在强调“勤劳”，而是强调“勤劳”所引起的“革命”。这个革命就是东亚对人力资本积累的重视，但这也正是我上面所说的经济学悖论之所在：既然勤劳就可以解决问题，为什么还要提高人的素质？这明显不符合贝克尔关于人口的数量-质量消长理论——根据这个理论，一个国家的人口数量多了，人口的质量就会下降。解答这个悖论的钥匙，在于理解小农体系下不同的劳动分工格局。

　　亚当.斯密认为，经济发展的动力来自劳动分工。但是，东亚小农体系下的劳动分工却不是很明显。一个小农家庭就是一个完整的生产单位，就像当代企业一样，它要预测未来的市场行情，制定作物生产计划，理解生产的全过程以及影响生产的外在因素、特别是气候，规划劳动力投入，然后掌握在市场上出售产品的时机。不仅如此，它还是一个完整的消费单位，在生产技术低下、产量不高的情况下，它必须谨慎地计划一年的消费，保证在青黄不接的时候一家人不至于挨饿。在经济学上，这叫做多任务问题。要解决这样的多任务问题，需要极丰厚的人力资本积累。这里的人力资本不一定是教育，更多的是从中学得到的经验。直到很晚近的时候，一个目不识丁的老农会打算盘，并对气候和作物的生长周期了如指掌，并不是一件意外的事情。当然，能够识字更好，所以中国人重教育、重知识。

　　不仅如此，小农经济在面对资本主义资本积累的时候还有另外一个优势，就是“无剥夺的积累”。这是阿里吉从吉莉安.哈特《去全球化》（Disabling Globalization）一书中借用的观点。在这本书里，哈特比较了南非和中国的工业化过程。她发现，在南非，大量没有土地的黑人离乡背井，当他们变成产业工人的时候，由于没有了土地的保障，要保证他们的生计，工厂就必须支付较高的工资；在中国，由于农民拥有土地，他们对工资的要求就较低，因此中国工业化的成本比较低。南非的工业化是一个黑人遭受剥夺条件下的资本积累过程，而中国的工业化是一个无剥夺的资本积累过程。

　　由此，我们可能需要重新思考中国的小农经济。直到今天，小农经济还是通常被认为是中国落后的标志，那些被认为是落后的思想，往往被冠以“小农意识”。阿里吉的理论提醒我们，这种观点如果不是错误的，至少也是片面的。小农经济是回应中国紧张的人地关系的自然结果。它看似落后的生产关系，却孕育了中国社会对知识的重视，当中国融入当代资本主义体系之后，这个趋势的优势显现出来，成为促成中国经济赶超的重要原因。

　　另一方面，无剥夺的积累使得中国的工业化过程没有像发达国家早期以及当代发展中国家的工业化那样残酷。中国的城市没有大规模的贫民窟，这当然和政府的整治有关，但是，小农经济对农民的保护也可能是一个重要原因。实际上，以小农经济为主导的东亚各国都没有太多的贫民窟。在小农经济条件下，农民安土重迁，不会轻易放弃他们在乡村所拥有的社会网络，不会随意地把自己撂到陌生的城市中去。无剥夺的积累让乡村人口比较缓慢地释放到城市中去，避免了移民到达城市之后的贫困化。

　　当然，阿里吉观点的理论推演成分大于经验论证，要证实他的观点，还需要比较严格的经验数据支持。阿里吉的贡献，在于让我们开始重新认识中国小农经济及其当代意义。伟大的思想家之所以伟大，往往不是因为他们解决了问题，而是因为他们提出了问题。阿里吉为我们打开了一扇重新认识中国的大门，我们的任务是跨入门槛，并试图打开更多的大门。

　　乔万尼·阿里吉（Giovanni Arrighi）

　　1937年出生于意大利。从上个世纪70年代末开始，任教于美国。2009年6月19日逝世。

　　主要著作有《罗得西亚政治经济》（1967）、《全球危机的动力》（合著，1981）、《半边缘的发展：20世纪南欧政治》（主编，1958）、《反体系运动》（合著，1989）等。

　　1994年出版了《漫长的20世纪：金钱、权力和我们时代的根源》，着力研究风云起伏的20世纪；中译本由江苏人民出版社2001年出版。1999年，阿里吉邀集一批来自各方面的学者，分四个层面透视近10余年的种种动荡，由此产生了一部力作《现代世界体系的混沌与治理》，中译本由三联书店2006年出版。

　　世界体系理论在近二三十年来风行一时。这一理论的基础是马克思对于资本主义经济体制的批判。20世纪中叶以来，英美的一些马克思主义经济学人和历史学家，试图对资本主义长期发展的历史做出系统的分析。与此同时，法国历史学“年鉴学派”进一步提出“长时段”和“总体历史”等概念，力图全方位地理解现代世界的历史。“年鉴学派”历史学家布罗代尔的三大卷巨著《15至18世纪的物质文明、经济与资本主义》，引发了现代历史研究的深刻震荡。美国历史学家沃勒斯坦1974年推出《现代世界体系》第一卷，标志着世界体系理论的正式成型。

　　作为世界体系理论研究的新一代领军人物，乔万尼.阿里吉延续沃勒斯坦的各项主题，把精力主要集中于近两百年的历史演变。

　　乔万尼.阿里吉2007年出版《亚当.斯密在北京》一书，复活斯密的“自然增长”发展理论，并以此揭示中国近三十年的崛起。

　　《亚当·斯密在北京》读后感(二)：关于《亚当·斯密在北京》的通信

　　文·佩里·安德森 海裔

　　亲爱的安德森教授：

　　几天前，我听说阿里吉教授去世，甚为震惊。我当时正准备给他写一封邮件，讨论他的《亚当·斯密在北京》。现在，他再也不可能读我的信了。这是一个多大的遗憾！

　　上个星期，我们进行了讨论。朋友们逐句阅读了我对该书第十二章的翻译稿，并发表了意见。我在这里的评论，实际上是“集体智慧的结晶”。

　　对我们来说，这本书成功颠覆了对于亚当·斯密作为自由放任资本主义的鼓吹者这一流俗印象。作者将注意力放在斯密在“自然的发展路径”和“非自然的发展路径”之间的区分，并利用这一区分组织起一本关于世界市场经济历史的著作。他对西方数轮资本主义扩张的分析，是对斯密“非自然的发展路径”的观察的进一步展开；他对东亚发展的分析对应着斯密“自然的发展路径”的想法。对于阿里吉来说，东亚模式之所以诱人，是因为它并不像西方的发展模式和殖民主义帝国主义之间有如此根本的关联。对于全球南方来说，这一模式有可能提供一种可供模仿的典范，而西方模式并不能做到这一点。

　　但我对他的分析还存在如下疑问：

　　第一，我没有被他的“东亚模式”所说服。东亚不仅包括中国，也有日本等国家。但日本遵循的是一条“自然的发展路径”吗？我并不这样认为。日本的工业化很大程度上依赖于1895年中日甲午海战之后清政府的赔款。后来，在日本侵占朝鲜和中国东北之后，这两个地方在日本的经济中扮演了重要的角色。也许有人说，日本在战后的发展和军国主义没有这样的关联吧？但是，日本二战之后的发展是在二战之前的工业基础上进行的，而这个基础显然不是“自然发展路径”的结果。如果情况是这样的话，阿里吉还能如此笼而统之地谈“东亚模式”吗？

　　第二，将阿里吉的亚当·斯密解释和惯常的亚当·斯密解释放在一起，可以看到双方侧重点不同。惯常解释强调亚当·斯密对于自由贸易的赞成和对重商主义的反对，阿里吉试图超越这一解释，从亚当·斯密的“自然发展路径”中发掘更多东西。自然的发展路径，是先从农业发展开始，再发展工业，最后再到海外贸易。在这样一个视野中，重商主义构成对于这种“自然发展路径”的一种干扰。亚当·斯密在其论欧洲农业的一章中连篇累牍地论证，欧洲十几个世纪以来，很多做法都错了，抑制了农业的发展。这里的问题是，贸易自由化和废除重商主义是否足以导致资本回流到农业领域，从而使得欧洲的经济发展路径回归到“自然发展路径”？如果不足够的话，是否还需要采取进一步的保护农业的做法，比如今天世界发达国家的高额农业补贴？很遗憾，亚当·斯密似乎忙着和重商主义作斗争，没能回答这个问题。而阿里吉也没有说清楚这个问题。

　　为什么我要提这个问题呢？阿里吉在分析清朝中期的经济政策的时候，没有提一项重要的制度设置：清朝仍然坚持了历代以来对于商人政治地位的限制。商人和他们的子弟不能考科举，不能成为政府官员，如果想当官，他们只能转为地主。在中国，这是一项非常重要的政策，它鼓励资本回流到农业领域，而这正是亚当·斯密想要的效果。但亚当·斯密会支持这样一项制度吗？显然，他不是资本家的同盟军。他警告他的读者，要小心资本的使用者（capital holders）忽悠公众，将小集团的利益说成公共利益；他甚至建议，法律上必须抑制他们抱团搞垄断，甚至对他们搞慈善事业都要提防，因为一旦互通声气，就有搞垄断的可能。但是，他会建议限制商人们获得政治权力吗？他会赞成让地主而非资本家来掌控政治权力吗？这点似乎并不明朗。

　　我的读书小组在这一点上意见并不一致。一位朋友认为，从亚当·斯密对于资本家和地主的态度来看，他可能会赞成限制商人的政治权力。阿里吉所采取的“资本主义”概念似乎也支持这一点。阿里吉的“资本主义”观是布罗代尔式的：有资本家并不一定是资本主义，关键是国家权力有没有被资本家所俘获并服务于他们的利益。如果亚当·斯密所赞成的是非资本主义的市场经济，他必然反对将国家政权变成资本家的共同事务管理委员会。因而，对于资本家获取政治权力，必然有某些限制。而我在这一点上不大拿得准，因为斯密自身的思想似乎还没有达到这样的清晰度。并没有充分的证据证明，亚当·斯密会支持中华帝国时期对于商人政治身份的限制。而他对于生产力的热衷以及对于地主乡绅治国才能的消极评论，指向的倒可能是相反的方向。

　　此外，阿里吉也没有明确认定资本主义国家的门槛标准。他承认对于本届中国政府很难判断。首先是时间太短，资料不够。但是更为关键的问题是，他没有给出一个操作性的门槛标准（operational threshold），去认定一个政府是否已经被资本家所“俘获”。他对于“社会主义新农村建设”的讨论也比较简单。对于一个认定当今中国政府已经被资本家“俘获”的人来说，“社会主义新农村建设”何尝不可以解释为资本家为了“可持续剥削”而采取的做法呢？

　　第三，阿里吉对于斯密反对“休克疗法”强调甚多，这当然是为了回应新自由主义，但强调太多了，可能会错失重点。从根本的方法论上，斯密当然不像是个赞成“休克疗法”的人。在论殖民地的一章里，他尖锐地批评宗主国垄断殖民地贸易。但他建议贸易自由化要缓慢和逐步进行。休克疗法之所以行不通，是因为经济已经被重商主义绑架到了这样一个程度，以至于突然放开限制并不能马上恢复经济的健康。不过，“休克疗法”只是个手段，关键是斯密赞成不赞成华盛顿共识所给出的理想图景，后者才是最重要的。有许多人可能完全赞成华盛顿共识所给出的理想图景，他们只是在做法上更为谨慎一点，不主张“休克疗法”而已。斯密不是新自由主义激进派，但他是新自由主义务实派吗？恐怕两者都不是，因为斯密对于“看得见的手”的作用非常重视。但如果把华盛顿共识的手段和目的混在一起，然后再把斯密对于它们的回应混在一起，就无法深入到这么一层，大家只得到一个“新自由主义务实派”的印象而已。

　　第四，在《亚当·斯密在北京》第12章中，阿里吉对于“无剥夺积累”和剥夺式积累导致的社会骚乱的分析，并不能让人满意。这两种积累形式之间的关系，他还并没有清晰的分析。他的叙事给人这样的印象，“乡镇企业”所体现的无剥夺积累是先发生的，而剥夺式积累是在90年代后期发生的。但这样一幅图景是误导性的。80年代当然是有剥夺式积累的。他没有分析集体所有制的乡镇企业在中国是怎么衰落的。这个步骤没解释清楚，就无法说明剥夺式积累何以会变得越来越普遍。

　　第五，阿里吉引用了汪晖对于文革的分析，但其实他完全可以进一步引用汪晖对于中国改革更为微妙的分析。改革从总体上没有遵循新自由主义思路，但这是思想斗争的结果。新自由主义在思想界和实务界曾经是很有势力的，但受到其他力量的牵制，因而其主张没能马上转化为现实。如果把这一层给揭示出来，他对于中国改革的分析就会更有吸引力。但毕竟他对中国知识界的讨论不太熟悉，这个期望是有点苛求了。

　　请让我知道您对这些评论的看法。

　　祝好!

　　海裔

　　2009年6月27日，星期六

　　亲爱的海裔：

　　非常感谢你关于阿里吉以及他的《亚当·斯密在北京》的评论。他的死亡的确是一个悲剧性的损失。去年10月，他已被诊断出重症不治，但仍然以超凡的激情和勇敢坚持斗争到底，著述不止。很遗憾你没有机会和他会面。他是一个卓越的人，一个卓越的思想家和学者。我们成为朋友已达四十载。一个月前，一个向他致敬的大型国际研讨会在马德里举行，他本是要参加的。但动身前两天，他病魔缠身，无法旅行。最后，悲伤的一幕发生了，对我们所有人来说都是如此。

　　你和你的集体对于《亚当·斯密在北京》的评论让我印象极其深刻，所有观察都很敏锐。我非常同意你的如下几点：1.日本；2.科举制度——斯密肯定会批评这个考试制度需要太多的非实践性的学识；3.剥夺式积累；4. 你非常精彩地以“门槛”这个词提出来的“资本主义”认定标准问题，这一说法我以前从没有看过。至于5. 休克疗法，我想斯密对于它的反对表明了斯密的保守个性。在他一生中，他从逻辑上会支持的重大治疗是废除奴隶制，但从政治上来看，很明显他并没有这样做——我们不应该将他理想化。至于5. 改革时代，我怀疑人们可以将你的“操作性门槛”的概念也用于思考新自由主义概念在多大程度上可用于分析改革整体。

　　等我来中国后，我们可以继续讨论这一切。就现在来说，我想补充一点，是关于斯密自身的。在我看来，阿里吉对于斯密的思考有两个局限。第一，它绕开了几乎所有斯密直接描写中国的文字，而这些文字和阿里吉所建构起来的斯密形象并不是那么吻合。具体来说，他并没有提及或者处理那些段落。在其中，斯密反复描写中华帝国并不是他的“自然发展路径”的积极典范，而是一个比欧洲更为落后的社会的消极例子，这是因为中国社会制度的压迫性：第一，它抛弃海外贸易；第二，它的低工资；第三，贫富对立（参见《国富论》卷一，第8，9，11章；卷四，第9章；卷五，第1章）。当然，斯密的视野（以及知识范围）在一定程度上是欧洲中心主义的，但我会认为如果250年之前，或者25年之前，斯密在北京醒过来，发现阿里吉暗示他会对中国的景象明显表示满意，他会感到非常惊讶的。

　　第二个困难是，斯密写作的世界是在工业革命或者现代公司（更不用说当代金融机构了）出现之前。而这些东西完全改变了斯密所认知的市场的性质。因而从对那个时候的市场的描述中引出对今天世界的建议，正如阿里吉（和其他一些人）所做的那样，是一种知识上的冒险，我想对此阿里吉也是承认的。

　　祝好!

　　佩里·安德森

　　2009年6月29日， 星期一

　　（佩里·安德森，加州大学洛杉矶分校历史系教授 。海裔，加州大学洛杉矶分校政治学博士、北京大学法学院讲师)

　　《亚当·斯密在北京》读后感(三)：一种动力学模型

　　前阵子看了秦晖关于”中国模式“的一组文章，当时感觉是其中的某些话题似乎早在十年前就在韩松的《2066年之西行漫记》里涉及到了，于是推荐给广益看，广益看后批判了秦晖，我们就此进行了几次讨论——说是讨论，其实我自知自己到底是个不着调的伪学院派，在真学院派面前冒充作家，在作家面前冒充学院派，而广益是正经的学院派，在思想的道路上远远走在我前面，我跟他谈不上理论的论辩，不过是有点浅薄的困惑向他讨教罢了。后来他把他的观点整理成文发布，题目里还留了我的名字。

　　恰好这学期选了汪晖老师的”现代思想史专题“这门课，接受了许多全新的冲击，特别是方法论上的。我选择了最后一讲——“大转折：什么终结了？”做报告，主要讨论阿瑞吉的《亚当·斯密在中国》的第十二章“中国崛起的动力与根源”和《现代中国思想的兴起·总论》“公理世界观及其瓦解”。于是想到把对阿瑞吉部分的读书笔记贴出来，权当是对当时和广益讨教时意见的一点总结吧。

　　豆瓣删了我两次书评，只好发链接了

　　《亚当·斯密在北京》读后感(四)：资本主义大故事下的中国崛起

　　在《漫长的20世纪里》，阿瑞基主要对历史资本主义的体系积累周期（国际体系的变化）及其规律作了描述，并对其间所包含的物质扩张和金融扩张、资本和民族国家之间的关系等做了描述。而在《亚当•斯密在北京》中，阿瑞基的基本观点和历史背景并没有发生改变，而是对整个体系周期的具体运作机制做了更为明确的表述。本书的核心问题，就是在资本主义大故事的背景下看中国崛起。中国能不能崛起？靠什么崛起？有什么特点？将对世界体系和资本主义大故事产生何种影响？

　　斯密将“自然道路”和“非自然道路”与中国和欧洲的发展模式相对应。马克思其实就是对“非自然道路”的再解释，他与斯密的最大差别在于对货币（或资本的理解），马克思和熊彼特对资本的“创造性破坏”的解释，深刻指出了资本主义道路的核心，但是他没有解释军国主义、工业主义、资本主义之间的相互关系。“大分流”的根源一方面在于马克思对资本的解释，根本而言还是资产阶级能在何种意义上将阶级利益置于国家利益之上，这才是两条道路之间的根本差别。而中国崛起使得用斯密去解读中国成为了趋势。

　　中国崛起根源于美国体系的失败，阿瑞基从资本主义经济危机和全球动荡的机制展开其论述。布伦纳把20世纪70年代的经济危机解释成生产过剩的危机（生产过剩危机和资本积累危机的前提是有区别，前者是将资本竞争导致的结果转嫁到劳动力上，后者就是资本的竞争导致资本价格的低下），即资本家之间相互竞争的结果，他主要是基于美、德、日之间从70年代开始的相互关系上来阐述这个问题的，他认为生产过剩的矛盾没法消除。阿瑞基则通过将70年代的经济危机和1873-1896的经济危机做对比，发现两者的延续性和差异性，从而发现美国霸权的危机所在。盖言之，两者的延续性体现在资本之间的竞争上，但是阶级斗争（劳动力杠杆导致成本上升和通胀，1870s是金本位下的通缩）、南北矛盾（尤其是越战，该矛盾对阶级关系亦有影响）在此次危机中的显现体现了其不同。事实上，70年代的经济危机是基于冷战政治结构之下的，这使得美国心甘情愿地通过扶持潜在竞争对手（日德）的方式对抗共产主义。80年代的货币革命和之后美国经济的再次腾飞实际上埋下了美国霸权危机的祸根：高额的长期性外债、通过牺牲其他国家以维护自身的手段。伴随着霸权危机而来的就是美国新保守主义者的反弹，但阿富汗战争和伊拉克战争的失败实际上加剧了美国的衰落，这使得美国即便再次使用80年代的政策，也一定会受到悲剧性的结果；因为随着经济增长力量的多极化和国际各种储备货币的发展，美国的制造业霸主（早已失去）和金融霸主地位必遭失去，国际体系将转移到东亚（中国）。

　　当然，美国必然会通过各种方式维护自身霸权。为了预测美国可能采取的手段，阿瑞基通过叙述历史资本主义的大故事，指出了世界体系转换过程中的一些规律。资本正是通过不断突破其为自己设置的障碍的方式求得自我繁殖，其扩展的方式，按照斯密的说法是国家对法律和制度的更改；按照马克思的说法是扩大资本规模、扩大国际劳动分工、寻找更大的积累中心；按照阿瑞基的说法就是时间-空间的固定（类似马克思）。换言之，资本必然不断突破地理限制（即其为自身设立的限制）去新的、更大的地理空间中固定下来（化为资产），并开展新一轮的资本积累（其必然结果是旧中心的衰落和新中心的崛起，这是资本的理性），这就是一种资本地形学，即资本必然制造政治经济不平衡的内在机理；阿瑞基对生产扩张和金融扩张（对流动资本的竞争、与军事有关）的描述其实就建立在这种资本地形学的基础上，从热那亚到荷兰到英国到美国，资本和领土之间的相互作用（资本通过均势和向外扩张不断扩大自身领地）使得资本积累中心的规模不断扩大。其具体的方式就是（旧中心的）过度积累、资本金融化和（新中心的）剥夺性积累，这是资本从生产和贸易中撤出并投入新的积累中心的必经过程，而美国除外（从热那亚到英国都如此，但美国作为体系中心居然是债务国）！这就可能说明资本旧有的（利用均势和向外扩张的）扩张方式（和资本主义“传统”的世界体系）走到了高峰，那么中国崛起便可能是历史的新起点（更大的权力容器和新的积累方式）。

　　在这一背景下，旧的体系中心必然对新的体系中心进行压制（在历史资本主义的体系转化中，金融扩张的结果一般是战争），但美国对中国的整体战略没有延续性，这很大程度上是因为美国不了解中国的特殊性。中国的特殊性，一方面植根于历史上形成的内向扩张的市场模式（斯密道路），资本始终是一个附属性的事物；华人资本在旧有体系破坏和新体系的建立过程中起着重要的网络作用（包括日本的崛起）。中国崛起的根源之二则是革命传统中的群众路线和农民（重要的是非剥夺性积累的概念，中国劳动力的特殊性和华人资本的助益），斯密和弗里德曼之间的关系是中国政府所必须把握的。

　　《亚当·斯密在北京》读后感(五)：Critical Book Review

　　OLS 1120 Introduction to Political Economy

　　Instructed by Professor Michael E. DeGolyer

　　Critical Book Review

　　lt;Adam Smith in Beijing:Lineages of Twenty-first Cenury>

　　y Giovanni Arrighi

　　(Publ Info:London;NewYork: Verso, 2007

　　Call:330.951 Ar694A 2007)

　　Reviewed by

　　Jiang TianYi Peterson

　　11050454

　　Hong Kong Baptist University

　　ov 2013

　　*Special Thanks to Mehmet SOYLEMEZ for his kind and informative instructions

　　Introduction

　　lt;Adam Smith in Beijing:Lineages of the Twenty First Century> is a book written by Giovanni Arrighi in the year of 2007. It widely received recognition from both inside and outside of the field of political economy ever since its publication. Giovanni Arrighi was an Italian scholar with interest in geopolitics and used to be the professor of sociology at the University of John Hopkins.. In this book, he mainly argued the following thesis, China has undertaken a distinct developmental path as opposed to the western one, which is more in line with the natural path that Adam Smith has described in his book <The Wealth of Nations>. Some scholars claimed it to be “the best book yet on what he rightly sees as the most significant development in this century”[ Richard Lachmann, “A Chinese World System, Agian？” Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 39, No. 2 (March 2010).p. 135

　　] while others thought the original theory developed in his book based on Adam Smith was “too optimistic”[ Fabio Massimo Parenti, “ Book review: Arrighi, G. 2007: Adam Smith in beijing: Lineages of the Twenty-First Century.” Progress in Human Geography, 34(2) (2010), p. 268

　　].

　　The following passage will be a critical review of this book and it will be divided into four sections: In the first section, I tried to recount the main points that Giovanni has made in 4 parts of the book. More attention would be put on the first part, the “Adam Smith” part, and the last part, the “Beijing” part. The second section is the comparative analysis in which I chose a chapter from David Harvey’s book to compare it with the last chapter in <Adam Smith in Beijing>.The third section would be the footnotes check part, I traced the original works from Adam Smith, Henry Kissinger, E.G. West, R.J Samuelson and Rober D. Kaplan respectively to check the accuracy of Giovanni’s citations. The last section would be dedicated to the review of the reviews from LinSun Cheng, Peter R. Moody and Eric Sheppard.

　　1. General review of the book

　　art I Adam Smith and the New Asian Age

　　This part laid down the theoretical underpinnings for the whole book. Giovanni first began by surveying the theory of Brenner, Harvey,Wong, Frank, and Pomeranz to provide the basis for understanding Great Divergence. However, Giovanni finally chose the theory by Sugihara as the foundation for his argument, “The central argument of this book is a revised and expanded version of this thesis”. The primary reason propelled him to choose Sugihara’s thesis was that it pointed out the “distinct technological and institutional path “ which China had undertaken for its own development . The following chapters of the this part focused on the reexamination of Adam Smith’s thoughts. In relation to the “distinct path” identified by Sugihara , Adam Smith actually claimed even before him that the East Asian developmental path represented by China is in strict contract with that of the Western developmental path represented by Holland. Adam Smith termed the former developmental path with “natural” , the latter with “unnatural”.It was natural in the sense that “the greater capital is first directed to agriculture, afterwards to manufactures, and last of all to foreign commerce”. By the same token, from the historical viewpoint, western developmental path was an path with an inverse developmental order. It is largely based on this notion that Giovanni claimed Adam Smith was in Beijing. Apart from this central contention, Giovanni also moved on to pointed out several common mistakes in understanding the contentions made in <The Wealth of Nations> : (a) In contrary to what most people think, Adam Smith was not an advocate of self-regulating markets. He holds the market as instrument of government . (b) “Falling rate of profit” was not Marx’s idea but Smith’s . (c) He was not the advocate of the division of labor described in the first chapter of <The wealth of nations> [ Giovanni Arrighi, Adam Smith in Beijing: Lineages of the Twenty-First Century., (London;New York: Verso, 2007) pp.22,27,39,33,57,42,50]. (d) As mentioned above, the distinction between “natural” and “unnatural” developmental path. (e) National defense should override national economic development. The writer concluded the this part by incorporating the theory of Sugihara with that of Adam Smith into his own original thesis which he will further elaborate with empirical examples in the final part of the book.

　　art II Tracking global turbulence

　　Just as the title of the chapter signified, this part mainly tracks the historical period preceded the proclamation of the Project for a New American Century and China’s economic ascent. Giovanni traced the growing turbulence of that stage mainly to “over-production” which led to the later crisis of hegemony, though he claimed this attribution was “far from perfect”. Here he distinguished “signal crisis” of hegemony with “terminal crisis” of hegemony. Based on these two notions, he claimed that “in the wake of September 11, have precipitated the terminal crisis of US hegemony and consolidated China’s leadership of the East Asian economic renaissance”

　　art III Hegemony Unraveling

　　This part analyzes the debacle of Bush administration’s adoption of the Project for a New American Century. It identified China as the true winner of the terror war on Iraq (P261)[ Ibid., pp 63,166,151,261]

　　art IV Lineages of the New Asian Age

　　In this part, Giovanni first identified three representative prediction on future Sino-US relations. Respectively, I summarized them as: “Cold War”, “Strategic Confrontation” and “Happy Third”. Giovanni argued that their conclusions are all derived from a weak premise which assumed China has undertaken the same path as western countries did to develop. However, as what he have established in the Part I of the book, The purpose of this chapter is to show that, not just China, but the “entire East Asian system of interstate relations has been characterized by a long-term dynamic that contrasts sharply with the Western dynamic on which Mearsheimer’s theory is based “.

　　There are two fundamental differences between Eastern path and the Western one: First, “near absence of intra-systemic military competition and extra-systemic geographical expansion” Second, “The absence of any tendency among East Asian states to build overseas empires in competition with one another and to engage in an armament race in any way comparable to the European” Later in the chapter, apart from the “natural” characteristics stated in the earlier parts of the book, Giovanni mainly made three important contentions: first, as opposed to the reasons neo-liberalism economists have given for the rise of China, Giovanni attributed the ascent to the “high quality” of the labor force. Second, the market system was formed naturally in China and with it as the center, it developed well into a coherent structure across the broader East Asia, before the intrusion of western imperials. Third, though Chinese capitalist diasporas contributed largely to the shape of initial capitalist development in China, Giovanni rejected the inference that it could be taken as a prove of emergence of capitalist development path within the country. “unless the state has been subordinated to their class interest, the market economy remains non-capitalist. “According to him, this subordination did not happen in history. But I think this assertion is too assertive since Giovanni did not come up with concrete criteria of this subordination, say, the method that could be undertaken to measure the extent to which the state has subordinated to the class interest.[ Ibid., pp 313,316,332]

　　In the next part, I will focus on the last chapter of Part IV and compare it with another chapter written by a leading Neo-liberalism economist David Harvey.

　　2 Comparative analysis

　　For the comparative analysis part, I selected a chapter “Neoliberalism ‘with Chinese Characteristics’” from David Harvey’s book <A Brief History of Neoliberalism>. Two reasons made me choose this chapter, first , Giovanni mentioned specifically this chapter in his book but later battled it down with his own analysis. So I am curious about what David Harvey have said in his original work. The second reason is that David Harvey is a representative figure for a group of western economists employing neo-liberalism viewpoints at understanding Chinese ascent, and their voice has increasingly become the dominant one within the field of the subject.

　　Let me commence the analysis with David Harvey, who traced the driving force of Chinese ascent back to the “Reform and open” policy in which three factors, “market forces”, “open to foreign trade” and “cheap labor” played significant roles in shaping the developmental path of China. Based on the identifications with these features, David further claimed that neo-liberalism has found its place in China.[ David Harvey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism, (Oxford;GBR: Oxford University Press, 2007) pp. 120,130]

　　Giovanni admitted the presence of open market in China, especially when compared to to its neighbor Japan, but he rejected the inference that “China has thereby adhered to the neo-liberal preｓｃｒｉｐｔions of the Washington Consensus”. Instead, Giovanni attributed to the “High quality labor reserves”[ Giovanni Arrighi, Adam Smith in Beijing: Lineages of the Twenty-First Century., (London;New York: Verso, 2007) pp.351,354] for the rise of China.One important thing needs to be noted here is that he agreed with David that the pool of labor is relatively large in China, but he distinguished his argument from David’s in that it was not because of the quantity of the labor but the quality of the labor that made China a special case. He argued that countries in Africa, Latin America or India all have pretty huge reserve of labor, but none of them could emulate the development of China. In the later part of the chapter, Giovanni attached a

　　Figure 1 Adult Literacy rate, 1970-2000 [ Source: calculation based on adult literacy rates from United Nations Population Divison 2005.]

　　figure graph (Above, figure 1) to show the disparities of the literacy rate between the countries or regions mentioned above in opposition to China.

　　Rural migrants, for David, is the major component of the pool of labor reserve. He traced back the historical accumulation of the population of this group with concrete supportive data as well as their corresponding developing stages. But as for the quality of this labor force, he does not analyze it as detailed as Giovanni does. So from this point I tend to be for Giovanni over him.

　　However, as for the general approach, or the quality of evidence, I am certainly with David instead of Giovanni, for two things. One is that Giovanni adopted a relatively theoretical approach in which the Smithian model he created in the Part I of the book nearly dominated his whole thinking in Part IV. On the contrary, David adopted a rather empirical approach with many concrete examples and figures to support his argument. Within this chapter, David attached four related graphs or charts but Giovanni only got two. I think David’s method is more appropriate here since they are not arguing for a theoretical problem but a real case in contemporary world, so necessary figures and examples should be more convincing to the readers and more integral to the argument. The other reason is that David integrated a large group of factors influenced the development of China into a coherent dynamic while Giovanni seemed to be locked in his own theoretical model only searching for empirical examples in line with his established model instead of approaching the case from an objective stance.In consequence, it inevitably deteriorated the balance of the research.

　　3. Footnotes Check

　　The first footnote check goes to Robert Kaplan’s journal article “How we would fight China？” published in 2005. Giovanni nearly copied precisely word by word what Rober have said in this article, however, he omitted a sentence “But they are seeking a liberated First World lifestyle for many of their 1.3 billion people”. But I think the deletion of sentence does not deflect the citation from its original meaning, especially in the context of Giovanni’s argument, this sentence is not an integral part of it.[ Robert D. Kaplan, “How We Would Fight China,” Atlantic Monthly (June, 2005), p. 51]

　　The second footnote check moves to Adam Smith’s <Wealth of nations>, Giovanni cited Adam’s deｓｃｒｉｐｔion of “natural path” as the foundation for his thesis. I searched the original version of <Wealth of Nations> for the accordingly different developing paths. In the Book III “of the different progress of opulence in different nations” chapter I “of the natural progress of opulence”. However Giovanni here lacked a necessary clarification when referring back to Smith, since in the <Wealth of Nations> Adam Smith wrote “this order of things is so very natural, that in every society that had any territory, it has always, I believe, been in some degree observed.” So the validity of this naturalness of developmental path, Adam Smith implied, derived at least in part from the observation of the economic situations at that time. It was proper for Adam Smith to claim so because of the historical limitation which prevented him from seeing the later Industrial Revolution. But there is no such limitation for Giovanni , so he should at least point out this “observation” as a source of validity for Adam’s theory and tried to figure out how does Adam’s theory, after Industrial Revolution still relate to the present world state. Unfortunately, he did not mention it.[ Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, (New York: Modern Library, 1994), pp 310]

　　I chose the article “Great Wall of Unknowns” written by R.J. Samuelson published in 2004 as the third footnote to check. Among the three up until now, this source remains the highest fidelity to the original article. Though, I think the conclusion “All we know for certain is that we really don’t know” adds nothing to our understanding of the current situation .[ R.J. Samuelson, “Great Wall of Unknowns,” Washington Post, May 26, 2004]

　　The fourth source comes from H.A. Kissinger, the famous former US diplomat and one of the expertises in the field of Sino-US relations. Giovanni remained the general spirit in his citation, but he had omitted two challenging issues ,which Henry Kissinger had pointed out in the essay, for this Sino-US cooperative policy: one is the Taiwan issue, “the task now is to keep the Taiwan issue in a negotiating framework ”, the other is the nuclear weapon in North Korea, “The issue of nuclear weapon in North Korea is an important testing case”. [ H.A. Kissinger, “China; Containment Won’t Work,” Washington Post, June 13, 2005]

　　The fifth source is from E.G. West’s paper “Adam Smith two views on the division of labor” published in 1964. E.G West’s finds a “striking inconsistency” between the disparate views that Smith has on the division of labor. Respectively, they are observed from economic perspective and sociological perspective. Giovanni grasped the whole idea of E.G. West, it is a nearly perfect citation.[ E.G. West, “Adam Smith’s Two Views on the Division of Labour,” Economica,31,122 (1964), p.26]

　　4. Review of reviews

　　1 Review by LinSun Cheng

　　LinSun Cheng is the Professor at University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth. He received his M.A degree from Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences in economics, and later received his Ph.D degree in history at Washington University. [ Curriculum Vitae (2013 Nov 27th) “Professor LinSun Cheng” (University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth), para. 1]With regard to the historical and economical analysis that Giovanni has employed in <Adam Smith>, I think he is fully qualified for this review. Also as a Chinese scholar working in US, he has experiences in dual environments.

　　The review is a relatively comprehensive one in nature which recounted the main points that Giovanni has made in the books in the order of sections. In the end of the review, he provided his own comments on some shortcomings of the book, “It would be much more convincing, however, if the author had explained whether and how China can solve the serious problems that lie ahead, such as ‘the huge increase in income inequality and growing popular discontent with the procedures and outcomes of the reforms’ as the author briefly notes.” In spite of this short implicit criticism, he generally viewed highly of Giovanni’s work, at the very beginning, he claimed Giovanni’s work to be “fresh and challenging” and later on in the fifth paragraph, “The author succeeds in providing a theoretical and historical perspective on the causes of an East Asian, particularly Chinese, economic renaissance”. In the last paragraph, He wrote this “Undoubtedly, this brilliant and informative book will benefit various scholars.”[ LinSun Cheng, Book Review:Giovanni Arrighi. Adam Smith in Beijing: Lineages of the Twenty-First Century, The American Historical Review, Vol 114(5), (2009), p.1423-1424]

　　everal citations were used in this book review precisely.

　　2 Review by Peter R. Moody

　　eter Moody is the Professor of Political Science at The University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Indiana. Moody specializes in Chinese politics. He received his Ph.D from Yale University. And he acts as the editor of “Review of Politics” from 1983 until now. He had won numerous academic awards and honors so far. <Conservative Thought in Contemporary China> published in 2007 was one of his more recent books. [ Brief Biography (2013 Nov 27th), “Professor Peter R. Moody Jr.” (University of Notre Dame), para. 1.]

　　In his book review, he first placed Giovanni’s book in both scholar and contemporary contexts. With short deｓｃｒｉｐｔions over the recent development of these two contexts, he introduced Giovanni Arrighi as “a noted proponent of world systems theory.” In the contrary to LinSun Cheng he did not repeat the main points in the book. Instead, his whole review is generally dedicated to the criticism of Giovanni. Mainly he raised two points, first was that he thought Giovanni lacked rebuttal of some necessary symmetrical counterarguments. “The author shows little evident interest in bringing along those who do not share his paradigm.”. Second point was that he thought that Giovanni’s attribution of the failure of Iraq war to the arrogance and incompetence of the Bush administration was not fair for the president. From his point of view, the situation facing before George W. Bush was too complicated that “suggested few obviously good responses.” Besides, countering to what Giovanni has said in his book, he did not regard the failure of America as “a cause for celebration, either by Arrighi, China, or anyone else.”[ Peter R. Moody, . “Adam smith in beijing: Lineages of the twenty-first century.” Political Science Quarterly, 123(3), (2008) p.533-535. ]

　　The reviewer provided zero direct citations in this review, however the central points in Giovanni’s book to which he referred are all accurate.

　　3 Review by Eric Sheppard

　　Eric Sheppard is the Professor under the department of geography, environment and society at the University of Minnesota, His specialties include “trade and uneven geographies of globalization”, “geography of economic development”, “the spatial dynamics of capitalism”, “neoliberalism and its contestations” etc.[ Specialties (2013 Nov 27th), “Prof. Eric Sheppard”,(University of Minnesota) para.1] From his specialties, he could be seen as an expert on the field of geopolitics to which Giovanni is also affiliated with. Together with his professorship in a prestige university, I think it is fully qualified for him to make his review.

　　imilar to LinSun Cheng, Eric analyzed the book in a rather detailed way, sections by sections. But in comparison with LinSun, Eric focused more on the theoretical part, which is the first part in <Adam Smith in Beijing>, and identified three major aspects of Smith’s thinking. Among the three book reviews I have selected, Eric’s review is the most balanced one, on the one hand, he praised Giovanni for his “fascinating summary of the thinking of critical China specialists.” and even claimed his book as a book “should be required reading for anyone who is concerned with shifting global geopolitics and geoeconomics”. On the other hand, he criticized Arrighi’s reliance on overarching categories whose “inadequacies have also been identified within political economy: family and community are hardly utopian, variegated Western capitalism embraces state regulatory traditions not unlike that described for China, and the north-south distinction is overly simplistic.”

　　In difference with all the other reviewers, Eric implicitly raised an alternative prediction on future Sino-US relation as “the scenario that China may both challenge the long history of European hegemony and exploit African and Latin American (and Chinese) ecological and human resources.”[ Eric Sheppard, Adam Smith in Beijing: Lineages of the Twenty-first Century, Economic Geography, Vol 86(1),(2010),p.99-101]

　　ibliography

　　Articles

　　Cheng, LinSun (2009) “Book Review:Giovanni Arrighi. Adam Smith in Beijing: Lineages of the

　　Twenty-First Century”, The American Historical Review, Vol 114(5), p.1423-1424

　　Kaplan, Robert D.(2005) “How We Would Fight China,” Atlantic Monthly , p. 51

　　Kissinger, H.A.(2005) “China; Containment Won’t Work,” Washington Post

　　Lachmann,Richard (2010) “A Chinese World System, Again？” Contemporary Sociology, Vol. 39,

　　o.2.p.135

　　Moody, Peter R. (2008) “Adam smith in Beijing: Lineages of the twenty-first century.” Political

　　cience Quarterly, 123(3), p.533-535.

　　arenti,Fabio Massimo (2010) “ Book review: Arrighi, G. 2007: Adam Smith in Beijing:

　　Lineages of the Twenty-First Century.” Progress in Human Geography, 34(2) , p. 268

　　amuelson, R.J. (2004) “Great Wall of Unknowns,” Washington Post

　　heppard, Eric (2010), “Adam Smith in Beijing: Lineages of the Twenty-first Century, “Economic

　　Geography, Vol 86(1),p.99-101

　　West, E.G. (1964)“Adam Smith’s Two Views on the Division of Labour,” Economica,31,122 , p.26

　　ooks

　　Arrighi, Giovanni (2007) Adam Smith in Beijing: Lineages of the Twenty-First Century., (London;

　　ew York: Verso)

　　Harvey, David (2007)A Brief History of Neoliberalism, (Oxford;GBR: Oxford University Press)

　　mith, Adam (1994) An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, (New York:

　　Modern Library)

　　Websites

　　Curriculum Vitae (2013 Nov 27th) “Professor LinSun Cheng” (University of Massachusetts,

　　Dartmouth), para. 1, from

　　rief Biography (2013 Nov 27th), “Professor Peter R. Moody Jr.” (University of Notre Dame),

　　ara. 1, from

　　ecialties (2013 Nov 27th), “Prof. Eric Sheppard”,(University of Minnesota) para.1, from

　　ibliography (other related sources)

　　Articles

　　Auerbach, A(2001).”The dragon millennium: Chinese business in the coming world economy.” Personnel

　　ychology, 54(2), 539-541.

　　Kim, J. C. (2006).” The political economy of chinese investment in north korea: A preliminary assessment. “

　　Asian Survey, 46(6), 898-916.

　　Liang-Xin, L. (2011). “Chinese economy after global crisis. “International Journal of Business and Social

　　cience, 2(2)

　　earson, M. M. (2007). “Governing the chinese economy: Regulatory reform in the service of the state. “

　　ublic Administration Review, 67(4), 718-730.

　　elden, M. (2006).” Jack gray, mao zedong and the political economy of chinese development. “The China

　　Quarterly, (187), 680-692.

　　echler, M. C. (2010). “The five biggest questions about the chinese economy. “Comparative Economic

　　tudies, 52(1), 1-17.

　　Wan, M. (2012). “Discourses on salt and iron: A first century B.C. chinese debate over the political

　　economy of empire. “Journal of Chinese Political Science, 17(2), 143-163.

　　Zhu, Z. (2007). “Two diasporas: Overseas chinese and non-resident indians in their homelands' political

　　economy. “Journal of Chinese Political Science, 12(3), 281-296.

　　ooks

　　Aglietta, Michel (2013), China's development : capitalism and empire (Abingdon, Oxon ; New York : Routledge)

　　CALL:330.951 Ag55C 201

　　Collins, Neil (2012), UnderstandingChinesepolitics : an introduction to government in the People's Republic of

　　China (Manchester ; New York : Manchester University Press) CALL: 320.951 C695U 2012

　　Guthrie, Doug (2012),China and globalization : the social, economic, andpoliticaltransformation

　　ofChinesesociety (New York : Routledge) CALL: 337.51 G984C 2012

　　Hong, Yu (2011), Labor, class formation, and China's informationized policy of economic development (Lanham,

　　Md. : Lexington Books) CALL:303.4833 H757L 2011

　　Lam, Lai Sing (2000), Mao Tse-Tung's ch'i and theChinesepoliticaleconomy: with special reference to the

　　ost-Mao modernization revolution (Lewiston, N.Y. : E. Mellen Press) CALL:951.050924 M32LMA 2000

　　Lanteigne, Marc(2013), Chineseforeign policy : an introduction (Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon ; New York :

　　Routledge) CALL:327.51 L293CF 2013

　　olan, Peter (2012), Is China buying the world？ (Cambridge, UK ; Malden, MA : Polity Press)

　　CALL:332.67351 N711i 2012

　　earce, Robert D (2011), China and the multinationals : international business and the entry of China into the

　　global economy (Cheltenham, UK ; Northampton, MA : Edward Elgar) CALL:338.88851 C441A 2011

　　ower, Marcus (2012), China's resource diplomacy in Africa : powering development？ (Houndmills, Basingstoke ;

　　ew York, NY : Palgrave Macmillan) CALL:333.79 P871C 2012

　　elden, Mark (1993), ThepoliticaleconomyofChinesedevelopment (Armonk, N.Y. : M.E. Sharpe)

　　CALL:338.951 SE48PD

　　Websites

　　(a debate between David Harvey and Giovanni Arrighi)

　　《亚当·斯密在北京》读后感(六)：与此书书评的故事

　　北京大学《中国经济》杂志是全国经济类核心期刊，我社《亚当斯密在北京》出版后，《中国经济》杂志相继于7月和8月刊登本书的一篇书摘和两片书评。其中，书摘部分选载了本书第十二章，由北京大学法学院学术英才海裔老师翻译。关于书评的来历，有些故事值得一说。

　　本人在对海裔的关注中，发现他在学术网站上发表了对该书的断章评论，便积极与之接触，在与他交谈中得知其与英国著名新左学者同时也是《新左派评论》的主编佩里 安德森（我社也即将出版他的新书）交往密切，可喜的是他们曾专就此书有过书信往来。于是，有了新的书评，也即二人关于《亚当斯密在北京》的书信，海裔信中说，“几天前，我听说阿里吉教授去世，甚为震惊。我当时正准备给他写一封邮件，讨论他的《亚当·斯密在北京》。现在，他再也不可能读我的信了。这是一个多大的遗憾！”学人对阿里吉的尊重与认可可见一斑。佩里安德森的回信则说，“他（阿里吉）的死亡的确是一个悲剧性的损失。去年10月，他已被诊断出重症不治，但仍然以超凡的激情和勇敢坚持斗争到底，著述不止。很遗憾你没有机会和他会面。他是一个卓越的人，一个卓越的思想家和学者。我们成为朋友已达四十载。一个月前，一个向他致敬的大型国际研讨会在马德里举行，他本是要参加的。但动身前两天，他病魔缠身，无法旅行。最后，悲伤的一幕发生了，对我们所有人来说都是如此。”尽管在海裔和安德森看来，阿里吉在《亚当斯密在北京》中的论述，有或可商榷之处，但毫无疑问的是，二人都无法不承认阿里吉创作了一部杰作。

　　北京大学经济学系著名教授姚洋对该书的评论，实际上是我刚刚发现的。之前一直在等《中国经济》的编辑老师把杂志寄来，但是时至今日仍不见杂志来意。“踏破铁鞋无觅处，得来全不费功夫”，好似某种恩赐，在网络搜寻中如见珍宝一样发现了姚洋教授的书评。实际上，我之前在《文化纵横》杂志上，就看到姚洋在其《体制的社会主义与道义的社会主义》一文就崔之元的“社会主义市场经济”和阿里吉的“中国式资本主义”的对比中，提及了阿里吉和《亚当斯密在北京》。于是我琢磨着这位教授一定读过该书了，想必有其他文字，于是在与其学生（也是网上搜得）通信中，“妄图”其请动姚洋。不想今天竟发现其已经写就，并在《中国经济》中发表。猛然有了工作之外的感慨，经意与不经意都在寻觅之中发生，只在坚持。

　　以上赘语提及的文章，见以下链接：

　　《亚当·斯密在北京》读后感(七)：澎湃的理论和惨淡的实际

　　我其实是写感想的...

　　我是08年读这本书的。读着这书，我在美国经历了西藏暴乱，奥运火炬被劫，核弹头运至台湾，台湾选举马娘娘获胜，大地震，成功奥运，西方的经济危机开始...我也走过了最小将的那段时光

　　刚读完它时，CNN采访温，温就昭示他在重读亚当斯密...当时热泪盈眶我把这个采访video转发给了Dr. Arrighi。几分钟后，得到了他的回信。简单的thank you两字。虽然很想造访他老人家，最终近在咫尺却最终天涯两隔。

　　18大前。我的心态已经跟小将这个称号没有丁点关系，已经远离这个领域，几乎连baudrillard的名字都拼不出了。却又不知不觉地翻出了这书。湍流里，我一丁点也看不到他老人家说的equalibrium trap，但是又一厢情愿地认定冥冥中真的有这么一个东西。

　　搜出他老人家的照片，笑容淡得好像要化去。请保佑吃饱了饭的人民...