Contemporary Sociology 8(3) (May 1979):441—42. Fred Block has written an outstanding book, a major contribution to modern sociological inquiry. Leapfrogging over contemporary excursions into number crunching and concept mongering, Block has planted his roots firmly in the tradition of thinkers like Joseph Schumpeter and Karl Polanyi. The result is an investigation into the effects that the international order, particularly the international monetary system, can have on domestic social organization. At a time when inflation has led to the disintegration of a harmonious social order in the United States, one would think that a prime concern of sociologists would be to examine the causes of inflation. At a time when unemployment has become a permanent feature of American life, and with it pervasive social decay, one would think that the causes of unemployment would cry out for attention by sociologists. At a time when the whole international economic system is in disarray, such that events in the Middle East can have immediate ramifications in the Middle West, a concern with international economics would seem to be imperative for modern sociology. Yet, there are few books that treat these issues in a rigorous way, which is why Block’s effort is so significant. Between 1944 and 1946, a world order was created that seemed genuinely international but was actually under the domination of the United States. As they first created and then managed this order, U.S. policy makers faced a number of contradictions. If they kept trade free, they risked unemployment at home. If they devaluated the dollar to stimulate exports, they risked inflation. If they sought to rearm both their own country and Europe against the Soviet Union, they risked a balance of trade deficit. In short, American policy makers faced a choice: either they created a genuine international order, in which case the U.S. would have to forego some of its autonomy, or they opted for U.S. autonomy, in which case the international system would never, in fact, be international. For most of the postwar period, U.S. policy makers essentially fudged this issue. They attempted to use the threat of the Soviet Union to create a system in which European recovery would enable the world to absorb excess American products. Such an approach was remarkably shortsighted, for all it did was push to a later period the inherent flaws in the international system. When the period of rapid economic growth slowed down in the 1960s, the chaos and imbalances that were set in motion at Bretton Woods were revealed for all to see. Block’s book is an attempt to tell the story of how the order created in the 1940s both came into being and then fell apart. The story has been told many times, mostly by economists and increasingly by historians. The significance of the

中文翻译：

---

国际经济混乱的根源：第二次世界大战到现在的美国国际货币政策研究

当代社会学8（3）（1979年5月）：441-42。弗雷德·布洛克（Fred Block）写了一本出色的书，对现代社会学探究做出了重大贡献。跨越现代旅行，进入数字运算和概念传播，Block扎根于约瑟夫·熊彼特（Joseph Schumpeter）和卡尔·波拉尼（Karl Polanyi）等思想家的传统。结果是调查了国际秩序，特别是国际货币体系可能对国内社会组织产生的影响。在通货膨胀导致美国和谐社会秩序瓦解的时候，人们会认为社会学家的首要关切是研究通货膨胀的原因。在失业已成为美国人生活的永久特征以及随之而来的普遍的社会衰败之时，有人会认为失业的原因会引起社会学家的关注。在整个国际经济体系混乱不堪之时，以致中东事件可能在中东立即产生后果，对国际经济学的关注似乎对于现代社会学来说是当务之急。但是，很少有书能严格地处理这些问题，这就是为什么Block如此努力的原因。在1944年至1946年之间，世界秩序被创造出来，看起来似乎是真正的国际性，但实际上是在美国的统治之下。在他们首先创建并管理该命令时，美国决策者面临着许多矛盾。如果他们保持自由贸易，他们就有可能在国内失业。如果他们让美元贬值以刺激出口，那么他们就有通货膨胀的风险。如果他们试图使自己的国家和欧洲都对付苏联，那么他们就有可能出现贸易逆差的平衡。简而言之，美国决策者面临一个选择：要么建立一个真正的国际秩序，在这种情况下，美国将不得不放弃其部分自治权；要么，他们选择了美国的自治权；在这种情况下，国际制度将永远不会，国际化。在战后的大部分时间里，美国政策制定者基本上都对这个问题持怀疑态度。他们试图利用苏联的威胁建立一个体系，欧洲的复苏将使世界能够吸收过量的美国产品。这种方法显然是短视的，因为它所做的一切只是将国际体系的固有缺陷推向了后期。当1960年代经济快速增长时期放慢时，布雷顿森林（Bretton Woods）引发的混乱和不平衡被揭露了。布洛克的书试图讲述1940年代创造的秩序如何产生，然后瓦解的故事。这个故事已经被讲了很多遍了，大多数是经济学家讲的，历史学家讲的也越来越多。的意义