中国是不是第三次工业革命领袖?

reine02

本站元老
VIP
注册
2012-02-27
消息
9,437
荣誉分数
2,120
声望点数
373
The End of the Capitalist Era, and What Comes Next
Jeremy Rifkin

杰里米·里夫金,《第三次工业革命》一书作者、美国华盛顿特区经济趋势基金会主席
Author, 'The Zero Marginal Cost Society: The Internet of Things, the Collaborative Commons, and the Eclipse of Capitalism'

This post is excerpted from Jeremy Rifkin's new book, The Zero Marginal Cost Society: The Internet of Things, the Collaborative Commons, and the Eclipse of Capitalism, published today by Palgrave Macmillan.

The capitalist era is passing... not quickly, but inevitably. A new economic paradigm -- the Collaborative Commons -- is rising in its wake that will transform our way of life. We are already witnessing the emergence of a hybrid economy, part capitalist market and part Collaborative Commons. The two economic systems often work in tandem and sometimes compete. They are finding synergies along each other's perimeters, where they can add value to one another, while benefiting themselves. At other times, they are deeply adversarial, each attempting to absorb or replace the other.

Although the indicators of the great transformation to a new economic system are still soft and largely anecdotal, the Collaborative Commons is ascendant and, by 2050, it will likely settle in as the primary arbiter of economic life in most of the world. An increasingly streamlined and savvy capitalist system will continue to soldier on at the edges of the new economy, finding sufficient vulnerabilities to exploit, primarily as an aggregator of network services and solutions, allowing it to flourish as a powerful niche player in the new economic era, but it will no longer reign.

What's undermining the capitalist system is the dramatic success of the very operating assumptions that govern it. At the heart of capitalism there lies a contradiction in the driving mechanism that has propelled it ever upward to commanding heights, but now is speeding it to its death: the inherent dynamism of competitive markets that drives productivity up and marginal costs down, enabling businesses to reduce the price of their goods and services in order to win over consumers and market share. (Marginal cost is the cost of producing additional units of a good or service, if fixed costs are not counted.) While economists have always welcomed a reduction in marginal cost, they never anticipated the possibility of a technological revolution that might bring marginal costs to near zero, making goods and services priceless, nearly free, and abundant, and no longer subject to market forces.

The near zero marginal cost phenomenon has already wreaked havoc on the entertainment, communications, and publishing industries, as more and more information is being made available nearly free to billions of people. Today, more than forty percent of the human race is producing its own music, videos, news, and knowledge on relatively cheap cellphones and computers and sharing it at near zero marginal cost in a collaborative networked world. And now the zero marginal cost revolution is beginning to affect other commercial sectors, including renewable energy, 3D printing in manufacturing, and online higher education. There are already millions of "prosumers" -- consumers who have become their own producers -- generating their own green electricity at near zero marginal cost around the world. It's estimated that around 100,000 hobbyists are using open source software and recycled plastic feedstock to manufacture their own 3D printed goods at nearly zero marginal cost. Meanwhile, six million students are currently enrolled in free Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) that operate at near zero marginal cost and are taught by some of the most distinguished professors in the world, and receiving college credits.

The reluctance to come to grips with near zero marginal cost is understandable.

Many, though not all, of the old guard in the commercial arena can't imagine how economic life would proceed in a world where most goods and services are nearly free, profit is defunct, property is meaningless, and the market is superfluous. What then?

A powerful new technology platform is emerging with the potential of reducing marginal costs across large sectors of the capitalist economy, with far reaching implications for society in the first half of the 21st Century. The Communications Internet is converging with the fledgling Energy Internet and Logistics Internet in a seamless twenty-first-century intelligent infrastructure -- the Internet of Things (IoT). The IoT will connect every thing with everyone in an integrated global network. People, machines, natural resources, production lines, logistics networks, the electricity grid, consumption habits, recycling flows, and virtually every other aspect of economic and social life will be linked via sensors and software to the IoT platform, continually feeding Big Data to every node -- businesses, homes, vehicles -- moment to moment, in real time. Anyone will be able to access the IoT and use Big Data and analytics to develop predictive algorithms that can dramatically increase productivity and reduce the marginal cost of producing and delivering a full range of physical goods and services to near zero just like we now do with information goods.

Lost in all of the excitement over the prospect of the Internet of Things is that connecting everyone and everything in a global network driven by extreme productivity moves us ever faster toward an era of nearly free goods and services and, with it, the shrinking of capitalism in the next half century. The question is what kind of economic system would we need to organize economic activity that is nearly free and shareable?

We are so used to thinking of the capitalist market and government as the only two means of organizing economic life that we overlook the other organizing model in our midst that we depend on daily to deliver a range of goods and services that neither market nor government provides. The Commons predates both the capitalist market and representative government and is the oldest form of institutionalized, self-managed activity in the world.

The contemporary Commons is where billions of people engage in the deeply social aspects of life. It is made up of literally millions of self-managed, mostly democratically run organizations, including educational institutions, healthcare organizations, charities, religious bodies, arts and cultural groups, amateur sports clubs, producer and consumer cooperatives, credit unions, advocacy groups, and a near endless list of other formal and informal institutions that generate the social capital of society.

Currently, the social Commons is growing faster than the market economy in many countries around the world. Still, because what the social Commons creates is largely of social value, not pecuniary value, it is often dismissed by economists. Nonetheless, the social economy is an impressive force. According to a survey of 40 nations, the nonprofit Commons accounts for $2.2 trillion in operating expenditures. In eight countries surveyed--including the United States, Canada, Japan, and France--the nonprofit sector makes up, on average, 5 percent of the GDP. In the US, Canada, and the UK, the nonprofit sector already exceeds 10% of the workforce.
While the capitalist market is based on self-interest and driven by material gain, the social Commons is motivated by collaborative interests and driven by a deep desire to connect with others and share. If the former defends property rights, caveat emptor, and the search for autonomy, the latter promotes open-source innovation, transparency, and the search for community.

What makes the Commons more relevant today than at any other time in its long history is that we are now erecting a high-tech global technology platform whose defining characteristics potentially optimize the very values and operational principles that animate this age-old institution. The IoT is the technological "soul mate" of an emerging Collaborative Commons. The new infrastructure is configured to be distributed in nature in order to facilitate collaboration and the search for synergies, making it an ideal technological framework for advancing the social economy. The operating logic of the IoT is to optimize lateral peer production, universal access, and inclusion, the same sensibilities that are critical to the nurturing and creation of social capital in the civil society. The very purpose of the new technology platform is to encourage a sharing culture, which is what the Commons is all about. It is these design features of the IoT that bring the social Commons out of the shadows, giving it a high-tech platform to become the dominant economic paradigm of the twenty-first century.

The Collaborative Commons is already profoundly impacting economic life. Markets are beginning to give way to networks, ownership is becoming less important than access, and the traditional dream of rags to riches is being supplanted by a new dream of a sustainable quality of life.

Hundreds of millions of people are transferring bits and pieces of their economic life from capitalist markets to the global Collaborative Commons. Prosumers are not only producing and sharing their own information, entertainment, green energy and 3D-printed goods at near zero marginal cost and enrolling in massive open online college courses for nearly free, on the Collaborative Commons. They are also sharing cars, homes, clothes, tools, toys, and countless other items with one another via social media sites, rentals, redistribution clubs, and cooperatives, at low or near zero marginal cost. An increasing number of people are collaborating in "patient-driven" health-care networks to improve diagnoses and find new treatments and cures for diseases, again at near zero marginal cost. And young social entrepreneurs are establishing socially responsible businesses, crowdfunding new enterprises, and even creating alternative social currencies in the new economy. The result is that "exchange value" in the marketplace is increasingly being replaced by "shareable value" on the Collaborative Commons.

In the unfolding struggle between the exchange economy and the sharing economy, most economists argue that if everything were nearly free, there would be no incentive to innovate and bring new goods and services to the fore because inventors and entrepreneurs would have no way to recoup their up-front costs. Yet millions of prosumers are freely collaborating in social Commons, creating new IT and software, new forms of entertainment, new learning tools, new media outlets, new green energies, new 3D-printed manufactured products, new peer-to-peer health-research initiatives, and new nonprofit social entrepreneurial business ventures, using open-source legal agreements freed up from intellectual property restraints.


The upshot is a surge in creativity that is at least equal to the great innovative thrusts experienced by the capitalist market economy in the twentieth century.

While the capitalist market is not likely to disappear, it will no longer exclusively define the economic agenda for civilization. There will still be goods and services whose marginal costs are high enough to warrant their exchange in markets and sufficient profit to ensure a return on investment. But in a world in which more things are potentially nearly free and shareable, social capital is going to play a far more significant role than financial capital, and economic life is increasingly going to take place on a Collaborative Commons.

Jeremy Rifkin is the author of The Zero Marginal Cost Society: The Internet of Things, the Collaborative Commons, and the Eclipse of Capitalism. Rifkin is an advisor to the European Union and to heads of state around the world, and is the president of the Foundation on Economic Trends in Washington, DC. For more information, please go to www.thezeromarginalcostsociety.com.

MORE:

Marginal Cost SocietyCollaborative Commons3D PrintingDIY ProsumerismProsumer
 
最后编辑:
太长了,专业名词,相当于GRE。LZ翻译经济一下。
Uber之类算吗?
 
文章没看,太长,但中国一定不是第三次工业革命的领袖,因为中国的大部分东西都是山寨来的,不是自己发明创造的,怎么会成为工业革命的领袖?
 
杰里米·里夫金认为,在第三次工业革命中,中国将扮演领袖角色,因为在这场即将到来的革命所需的多数基础设施正在中国(或由中国)建设。阿里巴巴走向全球的例子充分诠释了协同共享型经济,在里夫金看来,拥有几千年“为彼此负责的儒家传统”的中国人民早已熟练地运用分享他们的经济和福利,以求个人与社会达成和谐统一。

杰里米·里夫金对资本主义行将灭亡的预言是准确的。其实这也不是什么新鲜的东西,马克思早就预言过的。但是,杰里米·里夫金有点过于乐观,认为技术的发展会使人类社会由资本主义直接进入生产零成本,精神和物质产品共享的各尽所能各取所需的共产主义社会(杰里米·里夫金用了一个叫做“Collaborative Commons”的词汇)。这一点上比马克思和毛泽东就差远了。我更赞同老毛的经过社会主义实践提出的“社会主义是一个相当长的历史阶段”的观点。 因为各种宗教,文化的差异和冲突不会象技术那样快的改变,中国的儒教和道教成为地球人类文化主流还需要一段不短的时间才能实现。

杰里米·里夫金把信息,IT,互联网, 3D打印等技术作为第三次工业革命基础有点忽悠。第三次工业革命应该是以1)核聚变能源;2)分子制造;3)星际旅行/外太空开发之一的实现为特征的。

第三次工业革命,世界向东看
杰里米·里夫金


21世纪将产生一种新的经济体系,我们可以称之为协同共享经济。我们的经济会因此而更加繁荣。

阿里巴巴公司就是一个很好的例子,因为它创造了一种协同共享型经济,数百万人可以因此以零边际成本来创造和分享娱乐内容、新闻、音乐和知识。我们会逐渐看到一个协同共享经济模型的发展,到2050年,一个成熟的混合经济系统将最终形成,这个系统既包括资本主义市场经济,也包括协同共享经济。我们正在进入一个部分超越市场的世界。

20150104084223514.jpg

我们正在进入一个部分超越市场的世界

如今,我们有了能够更高效地去管理经济活动的新的通信方式,能够更高效地启动经济活动的新型能源,以及更高效地推动经济活动的新的运输方式,因此,当新的通信技术融合了新的能源技术和新的运输技术,会完全改变整个经济平台。

在零边际成本社会里,部分产业将实现免费化,一些人将成为“产消者”。如今,我们有超过20亿人当过至少一次产消者——他们不是卖家,不是买家,不是所有者,不是工人。他们制作并共享音乐、视频、新闻、知识、工具、电子书等。

中国国家电网最近斥资820亿美元用于在未来4年时间建立一个遍布全国的数字化能源互联网,这样成百上千万的中国居民可以在自己的社区里靠太阳能光伏或者风能来发电,并将电能出售给国家电网。由此带来的巨大改变意味着,在中国,能源成本将趋近于零。

在第三次工业革命中,中国将扮演领袖角色,因为它正在建设这场即将到来的革命所需的多数基础设施。中国还拥有一个绝佳机遇,就是每个人都可能成为对社会福祉做出贡献的潜在创业者。一项最近的全球调查显示,在各个国家地区对协同共享经济的反应中,最好的是在亚太地区,中国因其94%的受调查者表示他们希望拥有分享型经济而居于首位。这或许是个令人惊讶的结果,其实这种思想深植于中国人的文化基因中。几千年来,中国人民就善于分享他们的经济和福利。这是一种为彼此负责的儒家传统,使个人与社会达成和谐统一。

当然,中国能够带领世界向零边际成本社会迈进,同时也因为中国国家主席习近平提出的“一带一路”计划,新丝绸之路经济带从上海延伸到柏林,将整个欧亚地区融入一个空间之内。这条高科技经济带要求各个社区推动复杂的通信技术和免费无线网络相结合,而后建立起数字能源互联网和无人驾驶的运输互联网。这样,零边际成本将覆盖整个欧亚地区。而且,中国拥有无尽的包括太阳能、风能、地热能、水能等在内的可再生能源。在第三次工业革命浪潮中,全世界都指望着中国。
 
最后编辑:
老觉得中国人的忍耐力不是西方能学到的。
 
另一个帖子说一个电话钱就骗没了,这种网上银行,网上付账,转账的小应用都做得漏洞百出,国内网上传骗子各种银行骗,都在谴责骗子,就不知是金融工具山寨的不到位,就这水平,还能领导世界?
 
做梦都想领导世界吧:D
 
另一个帖子说一个电话钱就骗没了,这种网上银行,网上付账,转账的小应用都做得漏洞百出,国内网上传骗子各种银行骗,都在谴责骗子,就不知是金融工具山寨的不到位,就这水平,还能领导世界?
那是国内有很多傻子开通了网上银行却不知道咋用的关系。有钱人太傻。got it?那个case,那个傻子把自己的银行账号,电话写在自己的名片上,你看看这里有人这么做的吗,有得话,看看这里黑客会不会动手偷钱。
中国的电子商务已经是全球领先了,淘宝的交易额是全球最大。网上银行可以免费给全国各个银行的个人客户汇款,没有限额,这里行吗。最多3000加币一天,还要收1.5元的email transfer fee。银行取点现钞,1万元要预约,开个draft还要收7.5,草,自己的钱,还要给他们手续费,啥天理。
但中国现在的缺点是信用卡不能全国推广,这跟国家的信用系统没有建立有关系。
 
老觉得中国人的忍耐力不是西方能学到的。

这个问题,斯坦福大学人类学教授鲁赫曼已经找到解决方法了:

我们应该学中国人吃大米,赶紧
鲁赫曼 斯坦福大学人类学教授
时间:2015-01-01 11:37:15

【去年年中,美国研究人员在《科学》上刊文指出,中国南北地区种植的主食与性格差异有联系,种稻米所产生的文化更倾向于相互依赖、整体性思考,离婚率更低,但创新较少(以专利数量为标准),美媒纷纷报道。半年后,《纽约时报》再次提及此研究,心态从猎奇转为进攻,意外的是,矛头指向了硅谷(对,就是刚刚在俄罗斯煽动反政府的谷歌与脸谱的总部所在地)与大玩“否决政治”的茶党。临近年底的这篇报道,虽不能称为对美国今年的总结,但或许多少反映了部分美国人对现状的无奈。】

美国人和欧洲人因为自我认知而与世界其他地方的人截然不同。我们喜欢认为自己独一无二、独立自主、自我激励,以及靠自己成功。但正如人类学家克利福德·格尔茨(Clifford Geertz)指出的,这种想法其实很怪异。

世界其他地方的人更容易认为自己和别人交织在一起——是相互依存,而不是独立存在。在这样一个社交世界,你的目标是调整自己适应他人,而不是与众不同。人们想象自己是更大整体的一部分——是作为网络组成部分的线,而非在边境上驭马的人。在美国,我们说,吱吱叫的轮子有油加。在日本,人们说枪打出头鸟。

这是粗线条的描述。不过研究证明,这其中的差异非常稳定且具深远影响。社会心理学家理查德·E·尼斯贝特(Richard E. Nisbett)和他的同事发现,这些相互独立和相互依赖的发展倾向会影响认知过程。比如,美国人更容易忽视背景情况,亚洲人则更在乎背景情况。看完一张一条大鱼在其他海生植物中间穿游的图片,美国人首先记住的将是处于中心位置的这条鱼,而日本人对这张图片的记忆将从背景开始,他们对海藻和其他东西的记忆也会更多。

社会心理学家海柔尔·罗斯·马库斯(Hazel Rose Markus)邀请刚刚抵达旧金山国际机场的乘客填写调查表,她为大家提供了一把笔,比如,包括4支橙色笔和1支绿色笔,欧洲人的后裔更容易去拿唯一那支与众不同的笔,而亚洲人则更可能选一支和其他笔更相像的笔。

马库斯博士和同事发现,这样的不同能影响健康。如果你是西方人,负面感受——自我感觉糟糕——将对你的身体产生较大的持续影响。而如果你是日本人,负面感受就不会那么强烈。这很可能是因为日本人更容易将自身的感觉与更大范围的环境联系起来,而不是责怪自己。

现代化假设中存在某些事实,那就是,社交世界随着互动更充分,变得更加个性化了,但那却无法解释日本人、韩国人和中国香港人仍然相互依存的行事风格。

20141208164512150.jpg


5月份,弗吉尼亚大学年轻的心理学家托马斯·托尔汉姆(Thomas Talhelm)主导的一项研究在《科学》杂志上发表。该文章将这种社交世界的不同倾向归因于种麦和种米导致的结果。大米是一种过分讲究的农作物。稻田为水环境,需要每年都重新灌排的复杂灌溉系统,农民自家的用水会影响邻居的收成。米农社区因此成为一个紧密合作的社区。

麦农的生活则并非如此。麦子只需雨水即可生长。种植和收获小麦所花费的精力比种植和收获大米要少一半,所需协调合作也要少去很多。历史上,欧洲人种麦子,亚洲人种大米。

《科学》杂志这篇文章的作者指出,过去数千年中,种植大米的社会和种植小麦的社会发展出了明显不同的文化:“继承大米的文化并不需要自己(真正)去种大米”。

上述研究以中国人为实验对象。在中国,长江以北种植小麦,以南种植大米。研究人员向长江南北不同地区的汉族人布置了一系列任务。比如,要求实验参与者从以下3样东西中挑出他们认为应该在一起的两样:公交车、火车和轨道。环境不敏感思维的人(小麦种植者)从更解析的角度把公交车和火车挑出来,因为它们属于同一抽象范畴;环境敏感思维的人(大米种植者)则从更功能完整的角度,把火车和轨道挑出来,因为二者共同工作。

在被要求画出自己的社交网络时,来自小麦种植区的人把自己画得比朋友大,来自大米种植区的人则把朋友画得比自己大。当一个朋友让自己做生意破了财,大米种植区的人自称会惩罚朋友的程度比小麦种植区的人要小。来自小麦种植省份的人拥有更多专利权,而来自大米种植省份的人离婚率更低。

我写这篇文章的地点是硅谷,在这里,大米很少。硅谷的生存智慧是,只要拥有一个车库,一个好主意外加足够能源,你就能找到一个公司改变这个世界。企业家们描绘的大胆图景乐观得令人激动,但却没给年长者、长期习俗,以及共同社会和互动留下什么空间。

茶党也没什么大米。得克萨斯州参议员泰德·克鲁兹(Ted Cruz)最近宣布,一个人只需要一匹马、一把枪和一片开放的土地,就能征服世界。

小麦不是到处都在种。富有冒险精神的创业者不能解决我们的所有问题。卡特里娜飓风之后,单枪匹马的英雄也好不到哪儿去。随着“自己干”这样的个人主义价值很可能主导我们的国会,记住以下这一点还是值得的:这种思维方式或许只是源于我们祖先种植食物的方式,而非全人类走向繁荣的真理。

(本文12月3日原载于《纽约时报》,标题为“Wheat People vs. Rice People:Why Are Some Cultures More Individualistic Than Others?” 王璐菲/译)
 
哦,这样子啊, 那看样子是真的, 美国人说的得信。


是不是真的先放一边, 现在至少已经有人提出这个问题了。
说明中国跟发达国家的差距在缩小。
就是说,无论你如何打压, 也无法阻挡中国人民发奋图强、 赶超先进国家的步伐。
 
是不是真的先放一边, 现在至少已经有人提出这个问题了。
说明中国跟发达国家的差距在缩小。
就是说,无论你如何打压, 也无法阻挡中国人民发奋图强、 赶超先进国家的步伐。
经济好了,人民富裕了,这是真的;但是说中国是第三次工业革命领袖,太不靠铺了,没有自己发明创造的东西,拿什么领导?
 
是不是真的先放一边, 现在至少已经有人提出这个问题了。
说明中国跟发达国家的差距在缩小。
就是说,无论你如何打压, 也无法阻挡中国人民发奋图强、 赶超先进国家的步伐。

我说美国人说得对, 您为什么说我在打压中国人民阿? 不知道您为什么觉得受打压?

就事论事的说, 我相信teksavvy不罚几个狠钱, 一定打压不了冲着无限流量去非法下载影片的积极性。
 
经济好了,人民富裕了,这是真的;但是说中国是第三次工业革命领袖,太不靠铺了,没有自己发明创造的东西,拿什么领导?

看您一定不读日人民报。

要有制度自信,中国的领导人是从基层培养,经过县省直辖市,和各个直辖部门的培训经过长时间的党的培养和实践中出来的最佳领导人。这个土洋结合的中国共产党, 实现了三十年的经济奇迹,难道不是发明创造?
 
后退
顶部
首页 论坛
消息
我的