米中対抗の本質――中国は資本主義を変えてしなった [世界ニュース]
スポンサーリンク
マルコ・アントニオ・ルビオ（Marco Antonio Rubio、1971年5月28日 - ）上院議員の演説
https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2023/3/rubio-capitalism-didn-t-change-china-china-changed-capitalism
Rubio: “Capitalism Didn't Change China—China Changed Capitalism”
MAR 02 2023
U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) spoke on the Senate floor to discuss the challenges our nation is facing and what we can do to make things right. See below for the full transcript. Watch on YouTube and Rumble.
Mr. President, no issue dominates our attention more these days than our growing rivalry with China, and rightly so. It's a historic challenge. It's one that I think we waited way too long to recognize, and now we're scrambling to make up for that.
But I think it's important that we remember that the core and central issue here is not China per se. The core issue here is a decades-old bipartisan consensus that's entrenched in our economics and in our politics. A consensus that said that economic globalization would deliver wealth and freedom and peace.
It was almost a religious faith in the power of the free flow of people and money and goods across borders as the answer to virtually every problem that faced the world. And that's how we built our politics. That's how we build our foreign policy.
And you know what? For about 50 years after World War II, it generally worked. The reason why it generally worked is that we didn't actually have a global market. If you look at the economy that we were engaged in, even through free trade and the like during that period of time, it was primarily a market made up of democratic allies, countries that shared common values and common priorities for the future.
Even when the outcomes were not always in our benefit, when some industry left to a country in Europe, or during the time that Japan challenged us in some sectors, at least the beneficiary of that outcome was not the Soviet Union or some geopolitical competitor. The beneficiary was another democracy and an ally in our confrontation with communism.
It generally worked during that time because, by and large, the interest of the global market and the interest of our country never got out of balance too far.
And then the Cold War ended. And our leaders became intoxicated with hubris. I remember the lexicon was that it's the end of history, and the world will now be flat, and every country is now going to naturally become a free enterprise.
Democracy and economic liberalization would always result in political freedom. You flood a country with capitalism, and that country will not just get rich, but they're going to turn into us or some version of one of our democratic allies.
In pursuit of that gamble, which had no historic precedent, we entered into all kinds of trade deals and treaties and rules and regulations on an international scale. And we invited all kinds of countries that were not democracies, did not share our values, and did not have the same long-term goals for the world as we did. Their long term goals, in fact, were incompatible with ours.
Of all the deals that were made, none has had a greater impact than the decision that was made in the first year of this century to admit China into the World Trade Organization.
They opened up our economy to the most populous nation on earth, controlled by a communist regime. And they did it, not because anybody argued that it would be good for American workers. They made the argument that eventually it would be, but they weren't arguing this is going to help us in the short term, this is good for our industries.
The argument behind doing this with China was we think capitalism will change them. They're going to eat Big Macs and drink Coca-Cola, and they're going to literally ingest democracy, and it will transform them.
They argued that capitalism was going to change China. Now we stand here 23 years later and realize capitalism didn't change China—China changed capitalism.
They opened up their doors and said come on in. They said we have cheap labor, cheap workers. And millions of American jobs, important industries, and factories flooded into China. They did it with the promise that you can make a lot of money in this huge market very quickly, with huge rates of return, and therefore make more profits for companies.
We lost jobs, factories closed, and towns were gutted. But the leaders at that time said don't worry, they're only taking the bad jobs. Those bad jobs are going to be replaced by good jobs, better jobs. Americans are going to be able to have those good jobs.
And they said those Chinese workers that took your jobs are going to get richer now, and with that money they're going to do two things. They're going to start buying American products, and they are going to demand democracy and freedom. They're going to change China.
Well, I don't think I'm going to spend a lot of time today explaining that that did not work out. That is not how it played out.
China allowed our companies in, but you know what they did? They forced every one of these companies to partner with a Chinese company, a small one at the time. They forced you to partner with them, and they stole your trade secrets.
So they invited them in, they learned how to do whatever it is you did, and when they no longer needed you, they kicked you out. Their company took over. And in many cases, they put the company that taught them how to do it or that they stole the secrets from out of business.
That's what they did. They used it to build up their own economy, their own companies. The Chinese middle class also grew at a historic rate. But ours collapsed in an almost inverse effect. The numbers are stunning. If you look at the destruction of these American working-class jobs and the rise of the middle class in China, they happen at the same time and on almost the same scale.
China did get rich. They most certainly got rich, but they didn't use that money to buy our products. They used that money to buy the products that are made in China. And they didn't become a democracy either. Now you have a rich Chinese Communist Party that has tightened its grip on the country.
And it’s actually started going around the world trying to export their authoritarian model.
They literally go around telling countries democracy cannot solve problems. “Our system is so much better at solving problems. We can move quicker, we don't have to have a town hall meeting before we do everything, we can have strategic 20-year plans, and we can solve your problems.”
And for developing countries around the world, that potentially has some appeal. The fact is that we're now confronted with the consequences of this historic and catastrophic mistake. And it's important to understand what some of these are and they'll be familiar to you because we see them every day. They play out not just on the floor of the Senate. They play out in our society and our politics on television.
First of all, we're a nation that's bitterly divided. It's easy and lazy to say we're Republicans, Democrats, Liberals, Conservatives. The biggest divisions are not even ideological per se. They seem to be attitudinal.
Largely, they seem to be along the lines of an affluent class of people that work in jobs and careers and in industries and live in places that have benefited from this rearrangement of the global economy. They do jobs that pay well and that work in a system like this.
They are divided against the millions of working people who were left behind by all these changes and live in places that are literally hollowed out, once-vibrant communities that have been gutted.
By the way, remember when they would say don't worry, those people will move to somewhere else in the country for those new jobs? They didn't move, because people don't like to leave their community. They don't like to leave their extended family. They don't like to leave all the things they've ever known and supported them. That didn't work that way.
We are addicted to cheap exports from China. And we are dependent on Chinese supply chains for everything from food to medicine to advanced technology. We just had a pandemic that reminded us of this. And what does that mean—these long supply chains dependent on a geopolitical competitor? It means we're vulnerable. Vulnerable to blackmail, vulnerable to coercion.
You know what else it left us with? An economy that is highly concentrated and fragile. Our economy is primarily based today on two sectors. What's all the news about? Turn on the financial networks. You'll see what all the discussion is about. Primarily two sectors—finance, meaning people that take your money and invest it somewhere else—and Big Tech.
And those two industries that are now the pillar of our economy are controlled by just a small number of giant multinational corporations, the same ones that, by the way, outsourced our jobs. These multinational corporations, in many cases, have more power than the government. And they have no loyalty to our people or to our country. Their interest is not the national interest, because they’re multinationals. In fact, they're owned by shareholders and investment funds from all over the world.
This idea that globalizing our economy would prevent great power competition between nations was always a delusion. And I think the people of Hong Kong, Taiwan and Ukraine can tell you that this idea that free trade always and automatically leads to peace isn’t true either.
You know, none of us have ever lived in a world where America was not the most powerful nation on earth. I was born into and grew up in a world where two superpowers faced off in this long and dangerous Cold War between communism and freedom, between the free world and people who lived enslaved behind the iron curtain.
And then I came of age, and suddenly I watched the Berlin Wall fall, and I saw the Soviet Union collapse. Let me tell you, if you had told me 10 years earlier that the Soviet Union is going to vanish off the face of the earth, I wouldn't have believed it. It was a time truly historic and unprecedented.
But now, three decades later, we find ourselves once again in a rivalry with another great power, and this rivalry is far more dangerous. Our rival is far more sophisticated than the Soviet Union ever was.
The Soviet Union was never an industrial competitor. The Soviet Union was never a technological competitor. The Soviet Union was a geopolitical and a military competitor. But the near-peer rival in China that we have now? They have leverage over our economy. They have influence over our society. They have an army of unpaid lobbyists here in Washington.
These are the companies and the individuals that are benefiting from doing business in China. And they don't care if five years from now they won't even be able to work there anymore. They're making so much money off their investments, their factories, and their engagement there now that they lobby here for free on China’s behalf.
This is a rival that has perfected the tactic of using our own media, our own universities, our own investment funds, our own corporations against us. They've used them against us every day.
But this is not the story of what China has done to us. China saw a system that we created, they took advantage of its benefits, and they didn't live up to its obligations. You know why? Because China was trying to build their country. They were making decisions that were in China's national interest, not in the interest of the global economy or some fantasy about how if two nations are in business, and there's a McDonald's in both countries, they'll never go to war.
This is not the story of what China's done to us. This is the story of what we've done to ourselves. Because we've allowed the system of globalization to drive our economic policies and our politics.
And it remains entrenched. Even now, people who agree that we have to do something about this will tell you, ‘We can't do that, because it will hurt exports. They'll put a tariff on some industry. China will kick us off.’
None of this is going to matter in 5 or 6 years. They won't need to tariff farm goods from the United States. They’ll own the farm. They're already buying up farmland. You don't have to worry about the investment funds that won't be able to make a return on their investment. In five years, they won't need their money anymore.
The system of globalization was a disaster, and the result of the system was not global peace and global prosperity. The result was not the world without walls, in which we were all part of one big happy human family.
The reality is people live in nations, and nations have interests. And, by and large, for almost all of human history, nations have acted in their own interests. Now we see what happens when one nation does that and another does not.
The result has been the rise of China and big business, the two big winners in all of this—the consolidation of corporate power in the hands of a handful of companies in key industries, and the rapid and historic rise of China at our expense.
China is a populous country. They're always going to be a superpower. They were always going to be one. But they did it faster because they did it at our expense. They didn't create these jobs. They moved them. They didn't create these industries. They took them.
We buy solar panels from China. Who invented solar panels? We did. They lead the world now in battery production for these electric vehicles. We invented it. I can go on and on. They're building more coal-fired plants than any country on earth. Today, China has more surplus refining capacity for oil than any nation on the planet.
This era has to end now. It's not about just taking on China. It is about changing the way we think. It's not 2000 anymore. It's not 1999 anymore. This is a different world.
In a series of speeches over the next few weeks, I'm going to attempt to outline a coherent alternative moving forward, in the hope that we don't just sit around here all day trying to outdo each other about who's going to ban this and who's going to block that going to China.
This is about a lot more than just banning this and stopping that. It is about a coherent approach to a difficult and historic challenge. And look, it's a complicated one, and complicated problems rarely have ever have simple solutions.
But the simplest way I can describe how I think we should move forward is we need to fundamentally realign the assumptions and the ideas behind our economic and foreign policies. We need a new system of global economics where we enter into global trade agreements, not with the goal of doing what's good for the global economy, but with the goal of doing what's good for us.
If a trade deal creates American jobs or strengthens a key American industry, we do that deal. If it undermines us, we don't do the deal just because it would be good for the global economy or because in the free market lab experiment, it's the right thing to do.
We don't live in a lab. We're human beings, flesh and blood, who live in the real world. In economic theory, when a factory leaves and a job is lost, it's just a number on a spreadsheet. In real life, when a factory leaves and a job is lost, a dad loses his job. A single mom loses the ability to support her family. A community is gutted.
We'll need to enter into global trade agreements. We're not talking about isolationism here. But the criteria for every agreement needs to be, is it good for our industries and workers or is it bad?
It sounds pretty simplistic. I don't know how anyone could disagree that we should not enter into trade agreements that are bad for American workers and bad for key industries.
We also, by the way, need to enter into foreign policy alliances that reward our allies and strengthen those who share our values and our principles. If we can’t make something here, then we should strengthen the ability of an ally to be the source of our supplies.
But I will tell you this at the outset—it will not be easy. Because those who have prospered and flourished under the status quo—they still have a lot of power, and they will use it to protect that status quo. But we have no choice but to change direction. Because our success or our failure is going to define the 21st century.
中国改变了资本主义，美国必须刀刃向内
“当今世界最大的问题是中美日益激烈的竞争， 这是个历史性挑战，美国认识到这个挑战花了太多时间。”
“但我认为当美国聚焦在中美竞争时，我们应该知道最核心的问题，根本不是中国，而是美国自己。”
“核心问题是，美国几十年来的两党共识，这种深入美国经济和政治，深信全球化会带来财富与和平的共识，几乎成了美国的国家信仰”
“美国认为当人员、商品、资金在全球自由流动后，就能解决世界所面临的几乎所有问题。”
“这种深信全球化的观点，构筑了美国的政治体系，构建了美国外交政策的根基”
“你别说，这套观点在二战后50年里还挺有用，基于这观点美国构建了一个二战后的西方自由市场。”
“像是西欧，日本等国家，二战后从一片废墟中繁荣起来，全都仰赖于美国深信的这套自由市场理念。”
“这些国家繁荣起来后，反过来会成为美国的重要市场，这也让美国持续繁荣，这是种良性循环。”
“而更重要的是，美国通过这种自由贸易的良性循环，塑造了这些国家的价值观，让这些国家拥有和美国一样的价值观，成为美国的坚定盟友。”
“总体来看，二战后50年，也就是1945-1995这段时间，美国的这套'自由贸易，传递价值观'的运转体系，是成功的。”
“然后冷战结束了，苏联垮了，而总统们，我这里说‘总统们’，因为这是美国两党总统的共同问题。”
“我们这些‘总统们’，变得狂妄自大，目中无人，我记得当时流行的说法叫，‘历史终结论’，美国战胜了苏联，资本主义战胜了共产主义”
“未来全世界都将是如美国这般的自由的资本主义国家，经济自由化必然改变社会主义。”
“美国总统们相信，任何国家只要浸泡在资本主义里，不仅会变得繁荣，而且也会变成美国朋友”
“所以狂妄自大的总统们，开始疯狂的支持全球化，因为他们相信全球化就是传播资本主义，传播资本主义美国就将持续繁荣，美国开始在世界签订大量的贸易协议，支持组建了大量国际贸易机构，制定各种自由贸易规则。”
“美国疯狂邀请全世界各个国家参与到全球化来，即便那些国家和美国三观不合，也没有和美国相同的长期战略目标。”
“而在美国支持的所有贸易协议里，没有哪个比2001年支持中国加入世贸组织，对今天的影响更大了”
“中国当时是人口第一大国，美国积极拥抱中国，总统这么做不是因为这对美国工人有好处，更不是因为美国能获得多大好处。”
“当时美国支持中国加入世贸的唯一重要理由是，美国相信，资本主义能改变中国。”
“苏联都被美国打败了，美国的体系已然称霸世界，改变中国也易如反掌，中国难道还会比苏联强吗？”
“正是基于这种狂妄的认知，资本主义必然改变中国，美国大力支持中国加入全球化，总统相信，中国人吃着巨无霸喝着可口可乐，就会慢慢的接受美国的价值观，成为一个真正的美国朋友。”
“总统们深信，资本主义能改变中国，可现在怎么样了呢？过去整整23年，资本主义没有改变中国，反而是中国改变了资本主义。”
“我再重复一遍，资本主义没有改变中国，是中国改变了资本主义。”
“美国输了，我们输了，我们勇敢承认吧”
“中国敞开大门，热烈欢迎美国，中国用廉价的劳动力和制造成本吸引外资涌入，数百万美国工作，美国的重要产业，美国的工厂，大举进入中国。”
“美国资金疯狂进入中国，以获取超高的回报，可美国的工人们得到了什么？”
“美国工人们失业了，工厂倒闭了，城镇荒芜了，但美国总统们还在那信心十足的告诉我们，别担心，流失的不是什么好工作，都是底层工作，这些流失的底层岗位，会被更好的岗位取代。”
“底层岗位就让它去中国吧，美国工人会有更好工作，而且你们要往远了想想，美国把底层工作送给中国后，中国人会比以前富有，然后中国人就会买美国的商品，他们会买美国手机，看美国电影，吃美国食物，他们会在方方面面深受美国文化的影响。”
“再然后，他们就会从一个社会主义国家，变成资本主义式的美国朋友。”
“这是当时总统们的幻想，可今天不用我多说大家也知道，这屁话根本没有实现”
“中国制造高速发展，中国在方方面面都取得很大成功，中国成为了世界工厂，世界产业链，根本离不开中国。”
“再看看可悲的美国，我不用说别的，你们打开每年的中美贸易额，这还不清楚吗？”
“2022年，中美贸易总额6926亿美元，其中美国买中国商品5388亿，中国买美国商品1538亿，逆差达到历史记录的3850亿。”
“这不是一年，是每一年，每一年都这样，你告诉我说中国人会大买美国货，然后美国会改变中国？”
“这明明是美国人大买中国货，然后中国改变美国啊。”
“请问中美到底是谁改变谁呢？太失败了”
“中国的中产阶级以历史性的速度增长，但美国中产阶级，完蛋了”
“这就是此消彼长，数据触目惊心，如果你比较美国工人的岗位流失，和中国中产崛起，两者发生在同一时间，幅度几乎相当”
“美国的衰落，成就了中国的繁荣，可这怪中国吗？这不怪中国，这全是那群冷战后狂妄自大的总统们的责任。”
“现在中国富有了，很富有了，但中国人没用钱来买美国产品，他们用钱买中国制造，中国人对中国货的支持，要远大于美国人对美国货的支持”
“有人说不对，中国人都买苹果，都买特斯拉，但是苹果和特斯拉是美国制造的吗？”
“中国人买的每一部苹果，每一辆特斯拉，没有一个是美国制造的，全是中国人自己制造的，美国工人们没有从中国人买的苹果或者特斯拉里，拿到任何一分的好处”
“但苹果和特斯拉却为中国提供了庞大的岗位和强大的供应链，你要知道在中国生产的特斯拉，上下游的所有供应链，全都是中国自己的，这让中国现在的电动车制造领先世界。”
“这就是中国的策略，利用庞大市场和低廉成本，吸引美国制造业，帮助中国产业升级，构筑中国完整的产业链，然后中国再一脚把美国踢开。”
“现在你看到一个富有的中国，他们有钱后开始走向世界，开始输出中国模式，这对美国模式构成巨大挑战。”
“中国走遍世界，告诉其他国家，美国模式不能解决很多问题，中国模式比美国模式好用的多，有效得多。”
“中国可以制定决策后快速行动，集中全力办一件事，而不像美国这般，一个政策要反复争论，反复扯皮，一条公路中国修一个月，美国修三年。”
“中国告诉第三世界国家，这就是中美的区别，而这对不少第三世界国家，很有吸引力，第三世界国家想要的是快速发展，而不是整天在决策上虚耗时间。”
“事实上美国正面临这一历史性灾难错误的严重后果，也就是资本主义没改变中国，中国却改变了资本主义。”
“我们每天都在面对被中国改变后的资本主义，不仅在我们身处的国会，也在我们的社会，我们的电视和媒体里”
“美国内部已高度分裂，民主党和共和党争吵不休，这种争吵已经不是观念之争，而是态度之争了，我们只针对不同党派，而不针对不同事”
“只要是对手党提出的事，不管什么事，我们都反对，我们要想方设法的去破坏对手党的成绩，即便那破坏不会对本党带来好处，但我们就是要去破坏。”
“美国的体系正在高度分裂，同样分裂的还有美国的上下阶层。”
“中美合作三十年，美国工人输的一塌糊涂，可美国商人却赚的一塌糊涂，一边是企业利润屡创新高，一边是铁锈带成百万的蓝领工人失去工作，失去收入。”
“曾经富有的美国蓝领阶层，现在每月领救济金，曾经充满活力的美国社区，现在一派萧条。”
“美国已经成了一个瘾君子，我们对‘中国上瘾’，每天不抽两口中国的毒品，美国就会毒瘾发作，浑身难受。”
“当然我指的是美国已经对中国的商品上瘾，这不仅仅是廉价商品，你知道吗，大量中国的零部件已经充斥美国市场，没有中国零部件，美国制造寸步难行。”
“中国更主导着全球供应链，从食品到药品，再到工业产品，所有的一切都离不开中国，疫情时期美国的商品大缺货已经印证了这一点。”
“美国离不开中国，美国对中国上瘾，可中国是美国最大的竞争对手啊，你怎么可以对你最大的竞争对手上瘾呢？”
“难道未来美国要像一个瘾君子一样，对中国摇尾乞怜，乞求中国再给美国一点毒品吗？”
“这太可怕了，中美3850亿美元的贸易逆差，太可怕了，这意味着美国很脆弱，很容易被中国勒索和胁迫。”
“当中国掌控世界供应链时，反观美国自己，今天美国的经济高度集中于两个领域，打开电视看看吧，所有财经媒体整天只讨论这两个领域。”
“一个是金融，华尔街，期货，买空卖空，虚假的金钱游戏，不制造任何产品。”
“一个是大型科技公司，苹果，谷歌，微软，亚马逊，特斯拉，这些巨型跨国企业，同样不制造任何实物产品，就算制造也大多在中国制造。”
“这些企业创造了最大的财富，却提供着美国工人最少的工作，更可怕的是，这些巨型跨国企业，拥有着比美国政府更多更大的权力。”
“在很多情况下，美国政府都要听命于他们，而这些跨国企业对我们国家，对我们人民，毫无忠诚可言。”
“跨国企业的利益，不是美国国家利益，他们只在乎企业股东的利益，只要能为企业股东牟利，他们会毫不犹豫的牺牲美国国家利益。”
“可中国呢？你告诉我哪个中国的大型企业不是为中国国家利益服务的？有吗？你告诉我一个？”
“中国有庞大的国企，全都为中国国家利益服务，还有数量繁多的民企，华为，抖音，也全都为中国国家利益服务”
“差别太大了，美国难以集中力量和中国竞争。”
“现在我们该认清了，所谓经济全球化能让美国更繁荣，完全是一个幻想，我们更该认清，和苏联相比，中国这个对手要强大得多，危险得多，也困难得多。”
“哪怕是鼎盛时期的苏联，都不像中国这般对美国威胁这么大。”
“苏联从来不是美国的产业竞争对手，但中国是。”
“苏联从来不是美国的科技竞争对手，但中国是。”
“苏联从来无法让美国成为一个上瘾的瘾君子，但中国能，”
“美国对中国上瘾，中国对美国的经济有很大制约，对美国的社会有很大影响，那些出卖美国利益的美国企业，更在华盛顿拥有一支免费的游说大军。”
“这些免费游说大军，都不是中国花钱雇的，而是在和中国合作中能获得巨大好处，他们都心甘情愿的去替中国说话。”
“他们从不关心美国人五年后还有没有工作，从不关心美国在竞争中会败给中国，他们只关心他们的钱包，他们的企业财富，他们无偿的帮助中国，削弱美国。”
“这套模式有效而持久，让美国人反对美国政府，让美国企业反对美国政府，从内部瓦解我们，分裂我们，让我们自己打自己。”
“但这怪中国吗？各位这是我今天演讲的核心，这怪中国吗？”
“这不怪中国，是美国自己制造了这一系列的系统漏洞和政治沟壑，中国只是看到了我们的漏洞，然后利用。”
“根本问题不在中国，而在美国体系本身，美国现在这个政治体系，不是为美国国家利益服务的，而是为美国企业资本服务的，这才是关键。”
“核心不是中国对我们做了什么，核心是我们要对自己做什么，美国想要赢得和中国的竞争，就必须改变如今国家为企业资本服务的本质。”
“我们要管控那些不为美国国家利益服务的企业，我们要改变主导我们经济政策和政治体系的运转模式。”
“我天天在国会，天天听到那些话，噢你不能这样对中国，因为这会伤害美国的贸易，噢你不能那样对中国，因为这会伤害美国的利益。”
“拜托，这不是美国的贸易，这是你们企业的贸易，这不是美国的利益，这是你们跨国企业的利益。”
“我受够了这些，这是一整个美国体系的灾难，现在不是1991年，现在不是2000年，我们面对的是一个强大的，而我们却沾沾自喜的对手。”
“美国真的会赢吗？以美国现在灾难般的国家体系，和中国竞争越久，对美国越不利，和中国拖越久，美国优势越小。”
“各位，我会在接下来几周的国会演讲里，勾画出一幅清晰的替代蓝图，这比我整天坐在国会争论要禁止中国这个，禁止中国那个要强得多。”
“请你们记住，我们要做的不是禁止中国的哪个产品，或者打击中国的哪个产业，我们要做的是改变美国这运转了30年的全球化灾难体系”
“打击中国产业，禁售中国产品，赢不了中国。”
“但是彻底改变三十年来美国自身的灾难体系，可以。”
“但我也要丑话说在前面，改变美国自身灾难体系，绝非易事，因为那些靠着旧模式混的风生水起的人，仍然在美国有着庞大权力，他们会想尽办法来阻挠我们改变美国，他们会用尽他们的权力来维护这个旧系统。”
“但我的美国朋友们，我们别无选择，必须和旧势力的阻碍者斗争到底，因为这场中美竞争的胜败，将定义全世界整个二十一世纪”
マルコ・アントニオ・ルビオ（Marco Antonio Rubio、1971年5月28日 - ）上院議員の演説
https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2023/3/rubio-capitalism-didn-t-change-china-china-changed-capitalism
Rubio: “Capitalism Didn't Change China—China Changed Capitalism”
MAR 02 2023
U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) spoke on the Senate floor to discuss the challenges our nation is facing and what we can do to make things right. See below for the full transcript. Watch on YouTube and Rumble.
Mr. President, no issue dominates our attention more these days than our growing rivalry with China, and rightly so. It's a historic challenge. It's one that I think we waited way too long to recognize, and now we're scrambling to make up for that.
But I think it's important that we remember that the core and central issue here is not China per se. The core issue here is a decades-old bipartisan consensus that's entrenched in our economics and in our politics. A consensus that said that economic globalization would deliver wealth and freedom and peace.
It was almost a religious faith in the power of the free flow of people and money and goods across borders as the answer to virtually every problem that faced the world. And that's how we built our politics. That's how we build our foreign policy.
And you know what? For about 50 years after World War II, it generally worked. The reason why it generally worked is that we didn't actually have a global market. If you look at the economy that we were engaged in, even through free trade and the like during that period of time, it was primarily a market made up of democratic allies, countries that shared common values and common priorities for the future.
Even when the outcomes were not always in our benefit, when some industry left to a country in Europe, or during the time that Japan challenged us in some sectors, at least the beneficiary of that outcome was not the Soviet Union or some geopolitical competitor. The beneficiary was another democracy and an ally in our confrontation with communism.
It generally worked during that time because, by and large, the interest of the global market and the interest of our country never got out of balance too far.
And then the Cold War ended. And our leaders became intoxicated with hubris. I remember the lexicon was that it's the end of history, and the world will now be flat, and every country is now going to naturally become a free enterprise.
Democracy and economic liberalization would always result in political freedom. You flood a country with capitalism, and that country will not just get rich, but they're going to turn into us or some version of one of our democratic allies.
In pursuit of that gamble, which had no historic precedent, we entered into all kinds of trade deals and treaties and rules and regulations on an international scale. And we invited all kinds of countries that were not democracies, did not share our values, and did not have the same long-term goals for the world as we did. Their long term goals, in fact, were incompatible with ours.
Of all the deals that were made, none has had a greater impact than the decision that was made in the first year of this century to admit China into the World Trade Organization.
They opened up our economy to the most populous nation on earth, controlled by a communist regime. And they did it, not because anybody argued that it would be good for American workers. They made the argument that eventually it would be, but they weren't arguing this is going to help us in the short term, this is good for our industries.
The argument behind doing this with China was we think capitalism will change them. They're going to eat Big Macs and drink Coca-Cola, and they're going to literally ingest democracy, and it will transform them.
They argued that capitalism was going to change China. Now we stand here 23 years later and realize capitalism didn't change China—China changed capitalism.
They opened up their doors and said come on in. They said we have cheap labor, cheap workers. And millions of American jobs, important industries, and factories flooded into China. They did it with the promise that you can make a lot of money in this huge market very quickly, with huge rates of return, and therefore make more profits for companies.
We lost jobs, factories closed, and towns were gutted. But the leaders at that time said don't worry, they're only taking the bad jobs. Those bad jobs are going to be replaced by good jobs, better jobs. Americans are going to be able to have those good jobs.
And they said those Chinese workers that took your jobs are going to get richer now, and with that money they're going to do two things. They're going to start buying American products, and they are going to demand democracy and freedom. They're going to change China.
Well, I don't think I'm going to spend a lot of time today explaining that that did not work out. That is not how it played out.
China allowed our companies in, but you know what they did? They forced every one of these companies to partner with a Chinese company, a small one at the time. They forced you to partner with them, and they stole your trade secrets.
So they invited them in, they learned how to do whatever it is you did, and when they no longer needed you, they kicked you out. Their company took over. And in many cases, they put the company that taught them how to do it or that they stole the secrets from out of business.
That's what they did. They used it to build up their own economy, their own companies. The Chinese middle class also grew at a historic rate. But ours collapsed in an almost inverse effect. The numbers are stunning. If you look at the destruction of these American working-class jobs and the rise of the middle class in China, they happen at the same time and on almost the same scale.
China did get rich. They most certainly got rich, but they didn't use that money to buy our products. They used that money to buy the products that are made in China. And they didn't become a democracy either. Now you have a rich Chinese Communist Party that has tightened its grip on the country.
And it’s actually started going around the world trying to export their authoritarian model.
They literally go around telling countries democracy cannot solve problems. “Our system is so much better at solving problems. We can move quicker, we don't have to have a town hall meeting before we do everything, we can have strategic 20-year plans, and we can solve your problems.”
And for developing countries around the world, that potentially has some appeal. The fact is that we're now confronted with the consequences of this historic and catastrophic mistake. And it's important to understand what some of these are and they'll be familiar to you because we see them every day. They play out not just on the floor of the Senate. They play out in our society and our politics on television.
First of all, we're a nation that's bitterly divided. It's easy and lazy to say we're Republicans, Democrats, Liberals, Conservatives. The biggest divisions are not even ideological per se. They seem to be attitudinal.
Largely, they seem to be along the lines of an affluent class of people that work in jobs and careers and in industries and live in places that have benefited from this rearrangement of the global economy. They do jobs that pay well and that work in a system like this.
They are divided against the millions of working people who were left behind by all these changes and live in places that are literally hollowed out, once-vibrant communities that have been gutted.
By the way, remember when they would say don't worry, those people will move to somewhere else in the country for those new jobs? They didn't move, because people don't like to leave their community. They don't like to leave their extended family. They don't like to leave all the things they've ever known and supported them. That didn't work that way.
We are addicted to cheap exports from China. And we are dependent on Chinese supply chains for everything from food to medicine to advanced technology. We just had a pandemic that reminded us of this. And what does that mean—these long supply chains dependent on a geopolitical competitor? It means we're vulnerable. Vulnerable to blackmail, vulnerable to coercion.
You know what else it left us with? An economy that is highly concentrated and fragile. Our economy is primarily based today on two sectors. What's all the news about? Turn on the financial networks. You'll see what all the discussion is about. Primarily two sectors—finance, meaning people that take your money and invest it somewhere else—and Big Tech.
And those two industries that are now the pillar of our economy are controlled by just a small number of giant multinational corporations, the same ones that, by the way, outsourced our jobs. These multinational corporations, in many cases, have more power than the government. And they have no loyalty to our people or to our country. Their interest is not the national interest, because they’re multinationals. In fact, they're owned by shareholders and investment funds from all over the world.
This idea that globalizing our economy would prevent great power competition between nations was always a delusion. And I think the people of Hong Kong, Taiwan and Ukraine can tell you that this idea that free trade always and automatically leads to peace isn’t true either.
You know, none of us have ever lived in a world where America was not the most powerful nation on earth. I was born into and grew up in a world where two superpowers faced off in this long and dangerous Cold War between communism and freedom, between the free world and people who lived enslaved behind the iron curtain.
And then I came of age, and suddenly I watched the Berlin Wall fall, and I saw the Soviet Union collapse. Let me tell you, if you had told me 10 years earlier that the Soviet Union is going to vanish off the face of the earth, I wouldn't have believed it. It was a time truly historic and unprecedented.
But now, three decades later, we find ourselves once again in a rivalry with another great power, and this rivalry is far more dangerous. Our rival is far more sophisticated than the Soviet Union ever was.
The Soviet Union was never an industrial competitor. The Soviet Union was never a technological competitor. The Soviet Union was a geopolitical and a military competitor. But the near-peer rival in China that we have now? They have leverage over our economy. They have influence over our society. They have an army of unpaid lobbyists here in Washington.
These are the companies and the individuals that are benefiting from doing business in China. And they don't care if five years from now they won't even be able to work there anymore. They're making so much money off their investments, their factories, and their engagement there now that they lobby here for free on China’s behalf.
This is a rival that has perfected the tactic of using our own media, our own universities, our own investment funds, our own corporations against us. They've used them against us every day.
But this is not the story of what China has done to us. China saw a system that we created, they took advantage of its benefits, and they didn't live up to its obligations. You know why? Because China was trying to build their country. They were making decisions that were in China's national interest, not in the interest of the global economy or some fantasy about how if two nations are in business, and there's a McDonald's in both countries, they'll never go to war.
This is not the story of what China's done to us. This is the story of what we've done to ourselves. Because we've allowed the system of globalization to drive our economic policies and our politics.
And it remains entrenched. Even now, people who agree that we have to do something about this will tell you, ‘We can't do that, because it will hurt exports. They'll put a tariff on some industry. China will kick us off.’
None of this is going to matter in 5 or 6 years. They won't need to tariff farm goods from the United States. They’ll own the farm. They're already buying up farmland. You don't have to worry about the investment funds that won't be able to make a return on their investment. In five years, they won't need their money anymore.
The system of globalization was a disaster, and the result of the system was not global peace and global prosperity. The result was not the world without walls, in which we were all part of one big happy human family.
The reality is people live in nations, and nations have interests. And, by and large, for almost all of human history, nations have acted in their own interests. Now we see what happens when one nation does that and another does not.
The result has been the rise of China and big business, the two big winners in all of this—the consolidation of corporate power in the hands of a handful of companies in key industries, and the rapid and historic rise of China at our expense.
China is a populous country. They're always going to be a superpower. They were always going to be one. But they did it faster because they did it at our expense. They didn't create these jobs. They moved them. They didn't create these industries. They took them.
We buy solar panels from China. Who invented solar panels? We did. They lead the world now in battery production for these electric vehicles. We invented it. I can go on and on. They're building more coal-fired plants than any country on earth. Today, China has more surplus refining capacity for oil than any nation on the planet.
This era has to end now. It's not about just taking on China. It is about changing the way we think. It's not 2000 anymore. It's not 1999 anymore. This is a different world.
In a series of speeches over the next few weeks, I'm going to attempt to outline a coherent alternative moving forward, in the hope that we don't just sit around here all day trying to outdo each other about who's going to ban this and who's going to block that going to China.
This is about a lot more than just banning this and stopping that. It is about a coherent approach to a difficult and historic challenge. And look, it's a complicated one, and complicated problems rarely have ever have simple solutions.
But the simplest way I can describe how I think we should move forward is we need to fundamentally realign the assumptions and the ideas behind our economic and foreign policies. We need a new system of global economics where we enter into global trade agreements, not with the goal of doing what's good for the global economy, but with the goal of doing what's good for us.
If a trade deal creates American jobs or strengthens a key American industry, we do that deal. If it undermines us, we don't do the deal just because it would be good for the global economy or because in the free market lab experiment, it's the right thing to do.
We don't live in a lab. We're human beings, flesh and blood, who live in the real world. In economic theory, when a factory leaves and a job is lost, it's just a number on a spreadsheet. In real life, when a factory leaves and a job is lost, a dad loses his job. A single mom loses the ability to support her family. A community is gutted.
We'll need to enter into global trade agreements. We're not talking about isolationism here. But the criteria for every agreement needs to be, is it good for our industries and workers or is it bad?
It sounds pretty simplistic. I don't know how anyone could disagree that we should not enter into trade agreements that are bad for American workers and bad for key industries.
We also, by the way, need to enter into foreign policy alliances that reward our allies and strengthen those who share our values and our principles. If we can’t make something here, then we should strengthen the ability of an ally to be the source of our supplies.
But I will tell you this at the outset—it will not be easy. Because those who have prospered and flourished under the status quo—they still have a lot of power, and they will use it to protect that status quo. But we have no choice but to change direction. Because our success or our failure is going to define the 21st century.
中国改变了资本主义，美国必须刀刃向内
“当今世界最大的问题是中美日益激烈的竞争， 这是个历史性挑战，美国认识到这个挑战花了太多时间。”
“但我认为当美国聚焦在中美竞争时，我们应该知道最核心的问题，根本不是中国，而是美国自己。”
“核心问题是，美国几十年来的两党共识，这种深入美国经济和政治，深信全球化会带来财富与和平的共识，几乎成了美国的国家信仰”
“美国认为当人员、商品、资金在全球自由流动后，就能解决世界所面临的几乎所有问题。”
“这种深信全球化的观点，构筑了美国的政治体系，构建了美国外交政策的根基”
“你别说，这套观点在二战后50年里还挺有用，基于这观点美国构建了一个二战后的西方自由市场。”
“像是西欧，日本等国家，二战后从一片废墟中繁荣起来，全都仰赖于美国深信的这套自由市场理念。”
“这些国家繁荣起来后，反过来会成为美国的重要市场，这也让美国持续繁荣，这是种良性循环。”
“而更重要的是，美国通过这种自由贸易的良性循环，塑造了这些国家的价值观，让这些国家拥有和美国一样的价值观，成为美国的坚定盟友。”
“总体来看，二战后50年，也就是1945-1995这段时间，美国的这套'自由贸易，传递价值观'的运转体系，是成功的。”
“然后冷战结束了，苏联垮了，而总统们，我这里说‘总统们’，因为这是美国两党总统的共同问题。”
“我们这些‘总统们’，变得狂妄自大，目中无人，我记得当时流行的说法叫，‘历史终结论’，美国战胜了苏联，资本主义战胜了共产主义”
“未来全世界都将是如美国这般的自由的资本主义国家，经济自由化必然改变社会主义。”
“美国总统们相信，任何国家只要浸泡在资本主义里，不仅会变得繁荣，而且也会变成美国朋友”
“所以狂妄自大的总统们，开始疯狂的支持全球化，因为他们相信全球化就是传播资本主义，传播资本主义美国就将持续繁荣，美国开始在世界签订大量的贸易协议，支持组建了大量国际贸易机构，制定各种自由贸易规则。”
“美国疯狂邀请全世界各个国家参与到全球化来，即便那些国家和美国三观不合，也没有和美国相同的长期战略目标。”
“而在美国支持的所有贸易协议里，没有哪个比2001年支持中国加入世贸组织，对今天的影响更大了”
“中国当时是人口第一大国，美国积极拥抱中国，总统这么做不是因为这对美国工人有好处，更不是因为美国能获得多大好处。”
“当时美国支持中国加入世贸的唯一重要理由是，美国相信，资本主义能改变中国。”
“苏联都被美国打败了，美国的体系已然称霸世界，改变中国也易如反掌，中国难道还会比苏联强吗？”
“正是基于这种狂妄的认知，资本主义必然改变中国，美国大力支持中国加入全球化，总统相信，中国人吃着巨无霸喝着可口可乐，就会慢慢的接受美国的价值观，成为一个真正的美国朋友。”
“总统们深信，资本主义能改变中国，可现在怎么样了呢？过去整整23年，资本主义没有改变中国，反而是中国改变了资本主义。”
“我再重复一遍，资本主义没有改变中国，是中国改变了资本主义。”
“美国输了，我们输了，我们勇敢承认吧”
“中国敞开大门，热烈欢迎美国，中国用廉价的劳动力和制造成本吸引外资涌入，数百万美国工作，美国的重要产业，美国的工厂，大举进入中国。”
“美国资金疯狂进入中国，以获取超高的回报，可美国的工人们得到了什么？”
“美国工人们失业了，工厂倒闭了，城镇荒芜了，但美国总统们还在那信心十足的告诉我们，别担心，流失的不是什么好工作，都是底层工作，这些流失的底层岗位，会被更好的岗位取代。”
“底层岗位就让它去中国吧，美国工人会有更好工作，而且你们要往远了想想，美国把底层工作送给中国后，中国人会比以前富有，然后中国人就会买美国的商品，他们会买美国手机，看美国电影，吃美国食物，他们会在方方面面深受美国文化的影响。”
“再然后，他们就会从一个社会主义国家，变成资本主义式的美国朋友。”
“这是当时总统们的幻想，可今天不用我多说大家也知道，这屁话根本没有实现”
“中国制造高速发展，中国在方方面面都取得很大成功，中国成为了世界工厂，世界产业链，根本离不开中国。”
“再看看可悲的美国，我不用说别的，你们打开每年的中美贸易额，这还不清楚吗？”
“2022年，中美贸易总额6926亿美元，其中美国买中国商品5388亿，中国买美国商品1538亿，逆差达到历史记录的3850亿。”
“这不是一年，是每一年，每一年都这样，你告诉我说中国人会大买美国货，然后美国会改变中国？”
“这明明是美国人大买中国货，然后中国改变美国啊。”
“请问中美到底是谁改变谁呢？太失败了”
“中国的中产阶级以历史性的速度增长，但美国中产阶级，完蛋了”
“这就是此消彼长，数据触目惊心，如果你比较美国工人的岗位流失，和中国中产崛起，两者发生在同一时间，幅度几乎相当”
“美国的衰落，成就了中国的繁荣，可这怪中国吗？这不怪中国，这全是那群冷战后狂妄自大的总统们的责任。”
“现在中国富有了，很富有了，但中国人没用钱来买美国产品，他们用钱买中国制造，中国人对中国货的支持，要远大于美国人对美国货的支持”
“有人说不对，中国人都买苹果，都买特斯拉，但是苹果和特斯拉是美国制造的吗？”
“中国人买的每一部苹果，每一辆特斯拉，没有一个是美国制造的，全是中国人自己制造的，美国工人们没有从中国人买的苹果或者特斯拉里，拿到任何一分的好处”
“但苹果和特斯拉却为中国提供了庞大的岗位和强大的供应链，你要知道在中国生产的特斯拉，上下游的所有供应链，全都是中国自己的，这让中国现在的电动车制造领先世界。”
“这就是中国的策略，利用庞大市场和低廉成本，吸引美国制造业，帮助中国产业升级，构筑中国完整的产业链，然后中国再一脚把美国踢开。”
“现在你看到一个富有的中国，他们有钱后开始走向世界，开始输出中国模式，这对美国模式构成巨大挑战。”
“中国走遍世界，告诉其他国家，美国模式不能解决很多问题，中国模式比美国模式好用的多，有效得多。”
“中国可以制定决策后快速行动，集中全力办一件事，而不像美国这般，一个政策要反复争论，反复扯皮，一条公路中国修一个月，美国修三年。”
“中国告诉第三世界国家，这就是中美的区别，而这对不少第三世界国家，很有吸引力，第三世界国家想要的是快速发展，而不是整天在决策上虚耗时间。”
“事实上美国正面临这一历史性灾难错误的严重后果，也就是资本主义没改变中国，中国却改变了资本主义。”
“我们每天都在面对被中国改变后的资本主义，不仅在我们身处的国会，也在我们的社会，我们的电视和媒体里”
“美国内部已高度分裂，民主党和共和党争吵不休，这种争吵已经不是观念之争，而是态度之争了，我们只针对不同党派，而不针对不同事”
“只要是对手党提出的事，不管什么事，我们都反对，我们要想方设法的去破坏对手党的成绩，即便那破坏不会对本党带来好处，但我们就是要去破坏。”
“美国的体系正在高度分裂，同样分裂的还有美国的上下阶层。”
“中美合作三十年，美国工人输的一塌糊涂，可美国商人却赚的一塌糊涂，一边是企业利润屡创新高，一边是铁锈带成百万的蓝领工人失去工作，失去收入。”
“曾经富有的美国蓝领阶层，现在每月领救济金，曾经充满活力的美国社区，现在一派萧条。”
“美国已经成了一个瘾君子，我们对‘中国上瘾’，每天不抽两口中国的毒品，美国就会毒瘾发作，浑身难受。”
“当然我指的是美国已经对中国的商品上瘾，这不仅仅是廉价商品，你知道吗，大量中国的零部件已经充斥美国市场，没有中国零部件，美国制造寸步难行。”
“中国更主导着全球供应链，从食品到药品，再到工业产品，所有的一切都离不开中国，疫情时期美国的商品大缺货已经印证了这一点。”
“美国离不开中国，美国对中国上瘾，可中国是美国最大的竞争对手啊，你怎么可以对你最大的竞争对手上瘾呢？”
“难道未来美国要像一个瘾君子一样，对中国摇尾乞怜，乞求中国再给美国一点毒品吗？”
“这太可怕了，中美3850亿美元的贸易逆差，太可怕了，这意味着美国很脆弱，很容易被中国勒索和胁迫。”
“当中国掌控世界供应链时，反观美国自己，今天美国的经济高度集中于两个领域，打开电视看看吧，所有财经媒体整天只讨论这两个领域。”
“一个是金融，华尔街，期货，买空卖空，虚假的金钱游戏，不制造任何产品。”
“一个是大型科技公司，苹果，谷歌，微软，亚马逊，特斯拉，这些巨型跨国企业，同样不制造任何实物产品，就算制造也大多在中国制造。”
“这些企业创造了最大的财富，却提供着美国工人最少的工作，更可怕的是，这些巨型跨国企业，拥有着比美国政府更多更大的权力。”
“在很多情况下，美国政府都要听命于他们，而这些跨国企业对我们国家，对我们人民，毫无忠诚可言。”
“跨国企业的利益，不是美国国家利益，他们只在乎企业股东的利益，只要能为企业股东牟利，他们会毫不犹豫的牺牲美国国家利益。”
“可中国呢？你告诉我哪个中国的大型企业不是为中国国家利益服务的？有吗？你告诉我一个？”
“中国有庞大的国企，全都为中国国家利益服务，还有数量繁多的民企，华为，抖音，也全都为中国国家利益服务”
“差别太大了，美国难以集中力量和中国竞争。”
“现在我们该认清了，所谓经济全球化能让美国更繁荣，完全是一个幻想，我们更该认清，和苏联相比，中国这个对手要强大得多，危险得多，也困难得多。”
“哪怕是鼎盛时期的苏联，都不像中国这般对美国威胁这么大。”
“苏联从来不是美国的产业竞争对手，但中国是。”
“苏联从来不是美国的科技竞争对手，但中国是。”
“苏联从来无法让美国成为一个上瘾的瘾君子，但中国能，”
“美国对中国上瘾，中国对美国的经济有很大制约，对美国的社会有很大影响，那些出卖美国利益的美国企业，更在华盛顿拥有一支免费的游说大军。”
“这些免费游说大军，都不是中国花钱雇的，而是在和中国合作中能获得巨大好处，他们都心甘情愿的去替中国说话。”
“他们从不关心美国人五年后还有没有工作，从不关心美国在竞争中会败给中国，他们只关心他们的钱包，他们的企业财富，他们无偿的帮助中国，削弱美国。”
“这套模式有效而持久，让美国人反对美国政府，让美国企业反对美国政府，从内部瓦解我们，分裂我们，让我们自己打自己。”
“但这怪中国吗？各位这是我今天演讲的核心，这怪中国吗？”
“这不怪中国，是美国自己制造了这一系列的系统漏洞和政治沟壑，中国只是看到了我们的漏洞，然后利用。”
“根本问题不在中国，而在美国体系本身，美国现在这个政治体系，不是为美国国家利益服务的，而是为美国企业资本服务的，这才是关键。”
“核心不是中国对我们做了什么，核心是我们要对自己做什么，美国想要赢得和中国的竞争，就必须改变如今国家为企业资本服务的本质。”
“我们要管控那些不为美国国家利益服务的企业，我们要改变主导我们经济政策和政治体系的运转模式。”
“我天天在国会，天天听到那些话，噢你不能这样对中国，因为这会伤害美国的贸易，噢你不能那样对中国，因为这会伤害美国的利益。”
“拜托，这不是美国的贸易，这是你们企业的贸易，这不是美国的利益，这是你们跨国企业的利益。”
“我受够了这些，这是一整个美国体系的灾难，现在不是1991年，现在不是2000年，我们面对的是一个强大的，而我们却沾沾自喜的对手。”
“美国真的会赢吗？以美国现在灾难般的国家体系，和中国竞争越久，对美国越不利，和中国拖越久，美国优势越小。”
“各位，我会在接下来几周的国会演讲里，勾画出一幅清晰的替代蓝图，这比我整天坐在国会争论要禁止中国这个，禁止中国那个要强得多。”
“请你们记住，我们要做的不是禁止中国的哪个产品，或者打击中国的哪个产业，我们要做的是改变美国这运转了30年的全球化灾难体系”
“打击中国产业，禁售中国产品，赢不了中国。”
“但是彻底改变三十年来美国自身的灾难体系，可以。”
“但我也要丑话说在前面，改变美国自身灾难体系，绝非易事，因为那些靠着旧模式混的风生水起的人，仍然在美国有着庞大权力，他们会想尽办法来阻挠我们改变美国，他们会用尽他们的权力来维护这个旧系统。”
“但我的美国朋友们，我们别无选择，必须和旧势力的阻碍者斗争到底，因为这场中美竞争的胜败，将定义全世界整个二十一世纪”
2023-03-17 04:42
nice!(0)
コメント(0)
コメント 0