论庸俗唯物主义On Vulgar Materialism

The most stubborn facts are those of the spirit, not those of the physical world. — Jean Gottmann, Geography and International Relations

In 1914, before the First World War, there was this belief: “a European war would be economically disastrous, the moneyed classes won’t let it happen”. Europe went to war anyways, and the war was in fact an economic disaster as everyone knew it would be. Why were those people wrong? Because the rich were not in control: the Tsar and the Kaiser and the Emperor were in control.

I thought of this in 2022, in the lead up to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, whenever I would read someone argue: “Russia invading Ukraine would be economic suicide, the oligarchs won’t let Putin do it, they want to keep their yachts and villas”. Then Putin did it anyways, and the oligarchs had their assets in the West seized. Because the oligarchs are mis-named. They have no political power whatever and live and die by Putin, who appoints them to run stuff, and they get to live well, as long as they are loyal. They are the recipients of political patronage, not the source of it. When the wars start anyways, the same cynical people change their tune, suddenly it’s the armaments industry that’s behind it all, the war was profitable after all.

The default lens through which modern people look at the world is vulgar materialism: a stylized, populist version of historical materialism where everything is explained by money, states are weak, democracy is a fiction, corporations and the rich run the world, ideology and religion and nationalism and language have no explanatory power and are merely covers for secret, underlying material motives.

Once you notice it, you see it everywhere: you’ll hear people say that the Rwandan genocide was a scam to sell machetes or the war in Gaza is about oil or ISIS beheadings are caused by a lack of economic opportunity. People on the right justify skepticism of medicine by invoking Big Pharma, and climate skepticism on climate scientists seeking grant money. Glyphosate is probably the most studied molecule in history at this point, but no amount of studies will convince people it’s safe, because corporations are evil.

In fiction—if you think this is a valid way to sense the cultural consensus—the trope of the evil corporation has been done to death and beyond. Just this week I finished a novel and watched a movie where the central bad guys are private corporations with quasi-state powers. Seemingly no-one notices that never, not once in all of human history, has there been anything like “corporate state” of science fiction. No, not the VoC or the EIC, which were “companies” in the sense of bodies corporate, the old medieval sense of the word: power was delegated to them, and they ruled on behalf of the states that chartered them. Not Venice either: you couldn’t buy your way into the Golden Book until the republic was well into the decline. The EIC once controlled 25% of world GDP, yet, when Parliament decided it had delegated too much power, they simply neutered it. And you think Jeff Bezos has power?

Now, why is vulgar materialism false?

首先，作为一种解释事件的方式，追问“谁受益？”（cui bono?）的问题在于：无论发生什么——毫不夸张地说在任何情况下——总有人会受益。如果没发生坏事，和平时期的经济就会受益。如果发生了坏事，那么，由于救济手段是通过市场获取的，提供这些手段的公司就会受益。因此，战争让军火商受益，瘟疫让制药公司受益，地震让玻璃工受益。而且，从减轻危害中获益并没有错。COVID 疫苗拯救了数百万人的生命：制药公司为什么不应该受益呢？从使危害长期化中获益才是错误的，但公司这样做的能力是有限的，下文将对此进行更多阐述。

所以，“谁受益？”这个问题总是有答案的，但这往往什么也证明不了。而且，如果从受益者到事件之间没有明显的因果链条，那反而成了整件事极其隐蔽和腐败的证明。

其次，我们可以问：在现实世界中，金钱能让你对国家产生影响吗？在某种程度上，是的。一些游说努力确实成功了。例如，美国是世界上少数几个允许向公众投放处方药广告合法的国家之一。但企业对国家没有否决权。如果，比如说，Pfizer 在临床试验上花费了数十亿美元，而 FDA 的某个人说不，从而抹去了那笔投资，谁赢了？FDA 赢了。Pfizer 毫无办法。

这里还有一个“隐形墓地”问题：游说的成功非常引人注目，因为它们往往极其令人反感。但有许多相反的案例不那么引人注目，因为，好吧，如果你禁止某件事，它就不会发生。美国核能管理委员会（Nuclear Regulatory Commission）从 1975 年成立直到批准 Vogtle 3+4 期间，没有批准过任何一个核反应堆。Westinghouse 对此做了什么？显然没有成功的举动。这可不像他们能因为不建反应堆而拿到钱。

Big Tech 有很多聪明人和很多钱。科技亿万富翁们是否像经营私人领地一样统治着加利福尼亚州？读者朋友们，他们甚至连旧金山都管不了。他们能做的极限，可能也就是帮助一个稍微温和一点的民主党人当选市长。

也许用第一人称视角来尝试会有所帮助。假设你是一个亿万富翁，你想做出某种政治改变。在一个民主社会中，这意味着花钱雇人去：

也就是说，你创办或资助一个撰写政策提案的智库，或者一个倡导你观点的媒体机构。但是，每一个能有效且忠实地做到这一点的人背后，都有一百个人乐意拿你的钱然后挥霍一空，这要么是因为无能，要么是因为价值观不合。从庸才中筛选出有效的组织者、政策专家、说客、倡导者等，这项工作是无法完全委托给别人的，因为那样你就会陷入无限倒退：至少你需要花费大量的时间、金钱和机会成本，去雇佣一个人来代为执行组建有效组织的任务。一个甩手掌柜式的亿万富翁只会把他们的财富扔掉。许多人正是这么做的，事实上，这也是慈善事业的默认形式。

在一个非民主社会中，你可以尝试通过贿赂、恐吓等手段来购买政治权力。但当权者可以直接没收你的资产。所以你需要先拥有权力，才能保护财富。

最后：政府就是暴力和胁迫。对某一空间区域的主权，意味着有权对该区域的居民征税、逮捕、监禁等并能免受惩罚，并且在理想状态下（但并非必然），这种暴力会被认可为合法。那么：Google 能发动无人机空袭吗？Amazon 能组建一支空军、任命法官、征收税款吗？当然不能。如果一家公司或一位亿万富翁试图获取哪怕只有国家合法暴力能力万亿分之一的权力，国家都会让他们灰飞烟灭。