台灣資本主義研究的問題：評論《誰統治台灣》、《台灣戰後經濟分析》與《台灣的依附發展》

本文以書評評論的方式，提出兩個論點。其一，台灣資本主義的特殊性質與歷史發展，是研究台灣社會各領域的關鍵參照因素與論證前提；因此，台灣社會科學界需要對於台灣資本主義提出一套完整而深入的政治經濟學之理論解釋。筆者將以《誰統治台灣》，這本探討台灣政治統治權力演變的論述為例，來論證以下的論點，即使在分析獨立政治領域程的策略行動之論述，都預設了台灣資本主義的結構制約因素；後者顯然為前者的論證前提。其二，要確切地論證台灣資本主義，必須以一致與一貫的論證邏輯與理論概念來進行；而資本主義的總體結構與歷史階段，可作為政治經濟學論證的兩大分析範疇。以此標凖，筆者將以《台灣戰後經濟分析》與《台灣的依附發展》兩書為例，來檢討這兩部著作的理論論證的缺失。雖然這兩本著作秉持政治經濟學的大方向，以總體結構與歷史階段的分析範疇來討論台灣資本主義，有其不可忽視的貢獻。但針對前者，筆者分析了其作者並未對其基本理論概念提出解釋，而這些概念也不符合台灣的歷史發展與客觀現實。針對後者，筆者論證了其作者的關鍵概念並未精確地掌握台灣的經濟現實，因此無法一貫地分析台灣實本主義的發展。

關鍵字

台灣資本主義；政治經濟學；依附

並列摘要

As a critical review, this essay proposes two theses. First, the specific nature and the historical development of Taiwan Capitalism are the basic referential points and the presupposition for the study of various fields of Taiwan society. The discourse of social sciences in Taiwan thus needs to have a coherent and profound political economy's theoretical explanation of Taiwan capitalism. We will take Who Rules as an example, which discusses the recent transformation of Taiwan ruling power structure, to argue that even in the analysis of the strategic actions in the autonomous sphere of politics, this analysis inevitably presupposes the structural conditions of Taiwan capitalism. It is obviously the later is the argumentative presupposition of the former. Secondly, in order to characterize the nature of Taiwan Capitalism precisely, we have to follow a coherent and consistent argumentative logic so as to employ the theoretical concepts logically. Also we could use the structural totality and historical phrase of capitalism as two main analytical categories of political economy. Seen in this light, we will take Economical Analysis of Post-War Taiwan and Dependent Development of Taiwan as two examples to discuss their merits and flaws. The two works follow a general perspective of political economy's discourse and employ the structural totality and historical phrase as the basic analytical categories to discuss Taiwan Capitalism-all of which are remarkable achievements. However, we will argue, the first author dose not provide substantial explanation of his theoretical concepts and those concepts does not correspond to the historical development and the reality of Taiwan Capitalism. To the second author, we will point out that the author's crucial concepts does not precisely reflect Taiwan economical reality; and his argument therefore could not analyze the development of Taiwan Capitalism coherently and consistently.