作者罗思义为观察者网特约作者，中国人民大学重阳金融研究院高级研究员，本文刊于7月16日观察者网。

       从六月底到七月初的这轮股市危机中，中国特色社会主义的经济结构帮助这个国家免于经济灾难，更确切地说，这是从近期的金融事件中获得的重要经验。如果中国听从数年前某些圈子里流行的新自由主义，或者那些支持资本主义制度的人的建议，那么中国现在将面临金融崩溃、民众生活水平大幅下降，和重大的经济危机。
    

       中国政府遏制股市问题演变成严重经济危机的首选机制，只不过是运用了政府的“有形之手”——政府全面掌握重要经济指标，并能自发运用这一手段。如果政府对大股东减持所持股票束手无策、不能暂停IPO（首次公开募股）、在某些情况下不能够强制过去的卖方回购股票、关闭一些公司的交易，不具备提供充足的市场流动性的直接能力，那么股价下跌的势头将会变得难以控制。
   
       但在没有经济资源支持的情况下，即使政府有运用政府“有形之手”的政治意愿，那么也只会无能为力。
   
       以私营企业为主导的银行体系会被客户的股市亏损、融资融券交易的潜在要求与随之而来的金融公司破产压垮，私营银行步入大幅衰退也正是缘于此，并因此而无法解决股价下跌所带来的负面结果——由于取消IPO或者其他的原因，在一段时间之内企业通过股市发行股票增加资本将会变得更难。但幸运的是，中国以国有制银行为主导的银行体系有实力和能力，阻止这种危机演变成重大的宏观经济问题。
   
       如果中国已全面开放资本账户，股价大幅下跌在一些地区引起的恐慌情绪，必定会造成中国资本外流大幅加剧。当金融体系出现问题时，类似机制导致1997年东南亚债务危机演变为经济崩溃。至少，中国将因试图应对资本外逃和可能爆发的更严重金融危机，而面临巨大的外汇储备损失。

       但只要不产生这种重大、甚至灾难性的经济后果，金融形势就能得到控制，宏观经济所受影响也将相当有限。当然，中国股市问题可能还没有完全结束，也可能还会持续一段时间。但中国的社会主义宏观经济优势已显示，中国能应对这轮股市危机。

       如果中国采纳了一些新自由主义者和支持资本主义政策的人士的主张，那么中国现在的形势会完全不同。数以万计的中国公民将会由于股价失控性下跌损失掉他们的大部分积蓄，中国企业将会缺乏资金，中国将面临资本大量外流和严重的经济危机。

       令人遗憾的是，新自由主义和亲资本主义制度的经济思想有时被视为某种流行的智力游戏。但中国近来的股市危机显示，如果中国引入它们，那将代表灾难：数亿中国人民将因为新自由主义和亲资本主义制度的经济主张，付出生活水平严重下降的代价，中国的民族复兴将遭受严重挫折。相反地，只要中国坚持特色社会主义经济结构，这种情况就能得到控制。

       当然，中国坚持走社会主义道路可帮助其应对比股市危机更严重的问题，比如确保民族独自主独立、摆脱外国对中国的占领，以及确保中国的全面复兴等。正如习近平总结：

       1911年，孙中山先生领导的辛亥革命，推翻了统治中国几千年的君主专制制度。旧的制度推翻了，中国向何处去？中国人苦苦寻找适合中国国情的道路。君主立宪制、复辟帝制、议会制、多党制、总统制都想过了、试过了，结果都行不通。最后，中国选择了社会主义道路。

       股市问题非常生动地证明了这一点：中国的社会主义结构可确保其经济问题得到控制，新自由主义和资本主义思想则会导致中国陷入灾难。（欢迎关注人大重阳新浪微博：@人大重阳，微信公众号：rdcy2013)

In the share market crisis socialism saved China again

         In June and early July, during the share market crisis, China’s socialist economic structure saved the country from an economic catastrophe - that is the decisive lesson to be drawn from recent financial events. If China had followed the advice of neo-liberals, and those supporting capitalism, who were fashionable in some circles a few years ago, China would today be facing financial meltdown, a sharp fall in its setback population’s living standards, and major economic crisis.

        The first mechanism which prevented the share market problems from turning into a deep economic crisis in recent events wassimply use of the state’s ‘visible hand’ - the overall grip of the state on key economic parameters and the willingness to use it. Without the state’s direct ability to ensure major shareholders did not sell their holdings, thecancellation of IPOs, in some cases forced buybacks by past sellers, closingof trading in some companies, and providingample liquidity for the market the momentum of the share price fall would have become uncontrollable.

        But even a political willingness to use the state’s ‘visible hand’ would have been powerless without the economic resources to support this. A private company dominated banking system would have been overwhelmed by clientslosses on the share market, by potential calls on margin trading, and by consequent financial company bankruptcies. This great weakening of private banks, at best,that would have followed from this meltdown would have  then prevented solving what is now a negative outcome of the share market falls – for a period companies raising capital via the share market will be more difficult due to the cancelling of IPOs and other reasons. But fortunately the strength and stability of China’s state owned banking system is adequate to prevent this major macro-economic problem from developing.

         If full liberalisation of China’s capital account had existed the sharp downward fall in share prices, creating elements of panic in some quarters, would undoubtedly have been transformed into a massive exodus of capital from the country. Similar mechanisms, when there had been problems in the financial system, turned the 1997 South East Asian debt crisis into economic collapse. At a minimum China would have faced huge losses to its foreign reserves attempting to deal with such capital flight and possibly a far worse financial crisis.

        But instead of such major, even disastrous, economic consequences the financial situation was brought under control and the macro-economic consequences will be quite limited. Of course problems in the share market may not yet be fully over – oscillations may continue for a further period. But the strength of China’s socialist macro-economy has already shown it can deal with them.

        The situation would be completely different today if the ideas of neo-liberalism and pro-capitalist policies advocated by some had been pursued.If that had occurred tens of millions of Chinese citizens would already have lost the bulk of their savings due to an uncontrolled share price fall, Chinese companies would be starved of finance, a huge exit of capital from China would have occurred and deep economic crisis would be gripping China.

        Neo-liberalism and pro-capitalist economic ideas were regrettably sometimes treated as though they were some sort of silly or even fashionable intellectual game. Recent events show the catastrophe they would have represented for China. Hundreds of millions of people in China would have paid for neo-liberal and pro-capitalist economic proposals with major falls in living standards and China’s national regeneration would have suffered a severe setback. Instead, due to China’s socialist economic structure, the situation could be brought under control.

         Of course China embarked on the path of socialism to deal with far more serious issues than share market problems – it was to secure national independence, throw out foreign occupation from the country, and ensure China’s all round national regeneration. As Xi Jinping summarised:
 
  

        ‘In 1911, the revolution led by Sun Yat-sen overthrew the autocratic monarchy that had ruled China for several thousand years. But once the old system was gone, where China would go became the question. The Chinese people then started exploring long and hard for a path that would suit China`s national conditions. They experimented with constitutional monarchy, imperial restoration, parliamentarism, multi-party system and presidential government, yet nothing really worked. Finally, China took the path of socialism.’

       But, nevertheless, on a more limited scale the share market problems very vividly illustrate the same issue. China’s socialist structure allowed it to bring an economic problem under control. The ideas of neo-liberalism and capitalism would have led China to a catastrophe.