Introduction: The Contemporary Value of Braudel's Theory and the Anti-Hegemony Proposition
1.1 Statement of the Problem: Global Governance Imbalance and the Distortion of Market Ideals
The current global economic system is facing profound structural contradictions: on the one hand, the dominant ideology tirelessly promotes the benefits of free markets, open competition, and globalization; on the other hand, global economic activity is increasingly constrained by unilateral policies, the weaponization of finance, and technology monopolies dominated by a handful of countries. The result of this contradiction is that the market rules, which should form the basis of efficiency and fairness, are being systematically eroded by political power.
Against the backdrop of this global governance imbalance, it is necessary to conduct an ontological re-examination of the concepts of "market economy" and "capitalism." The core thesis of this paper is to argue that the true freedom of the market economy—an economic order characterized by fair competition and transparent rules—is not a tool for the existing hegemonic structure to serve its own interests; rather, it represents a fundamental resistance to monopolistic privilege and the hegemonic system. American-style hegemony, with its destruction of rules and monopolistic control over the financial system, precisely embodies the "anti-market" structure in the sense described by the historian Fernand Braudel.
1.2 Braudel's Intervention: Reconstructing the Theoretical Tools
The meticulous research conducted by French historian Braudel on the history of capitalism from the 15th to the 18th century provides a powerful theoretical tool to distinguish between the "market economy" (mid-level, competitive, transparent) and "capitalism" (top-level, monopolistic, privileged). Braudel's theory challenges the traditional narrative that equates capitalism with the market economy, revealing that monopolistic privilege was the destroyer of market economy rules from the very beginning.
Therefore, defending the freedom of the market economy, at its core, involves exposing the ideological camouflage of monopolistic capitalism. Anti-hegemony is fundamentally a struggle against monopolistic privilege. This forms the theoretical cornerstone for maintaining the global economic order and promoting multipolar development in the contemporary era.
1.3 Report Structure and Argumentative Path
This report will first reconstruct Braudel's ontological distinction between the market and capitalism. Next, the report will map this theoretical framework onto the contemporary destructive actions of US hegemony toward the global market, focusing on the analysis of financial weaponization, unilateral sanctions, and rule-breaking. Finally, the report will deeply analyze how the Socialist Market Economy under the leadership of Xi Jinping, through institutional commitment to principles in high-level market-oriented reform, becomes a practical inheritance of Braudel’s insights, and, based on this, calls for unity against the hegemony that invades the world in the name of democracy.
Chapter 2 The Ontological Divide Between Market and Capitalism: Braudel's "Anti-Market" Theory
2.1 The Three-Tier Structure of Economic Life: Material, Market, and Capitalism
Braudel is one of the most influential historians of the 20th century. The Annales School he led advocated breaking away from traditional narratives and integrating social sciences into historical research. In his epoch-making work, Civilization and Capitalism, 15th–18th Century, Braudel defined a three-tiered structure of human economic activity (oikonomia).
The first is Material Life,located at the bottom of the economic structure, involving daily, subsistence economic activities such as local production and direct consumption. This level is a long-term structure rooted in local, cultural, and historical factors.
Second is Economic Life / Market Economy,located in the middle tier. This level represents local, competitive commodity exchange that follows the laws of supply and demand and flexible price mechanisms. This level emphasizes transparency, the universality of transactions, and the fairness of rules, serving as the ideal realization of the free market concept.
Finally, there is Capitalism, located at the top tier. It engages in long-distance trade, high-risk financial speculation, and large-scale accumulation, with its activities often transcending national political boundaries. Braudel argued that capitalism is characterized by exclusivity, monopoly, and the circumvention of market rules.
2.2 The Essence of Capitalism: Monopoly and the "Anti-Market"
Braudel's core argument is that capitalism is not a natural upgrade or perfected version of the market economy. He pointed out that refusing to distinguish between capitalism and the market economy in both the capitalist and socialist worlds is a mistake. Capitalism does not operate within the competitive "free market," but rather within the anti-market, where the keys to success are exclusivity and privileged access to information .
The surplus profit of capitalism (i.e., monopoly rent ) does not come from efficiency or competitive advantage, but from controlling the market and suppressing competition. Braudel emphasized that in capitalist countries, the role of the state is the "guarantor of monopolists," not the protector of competition as commonly portrayed . This collusion between the state and monopolistic capital grants capitalism structural power, enabling it to operate against the majority of the population through information asymmetry and speculation .
The ideological narrative that equates capitalism with the market economy is the foundation of "consensual domination" by which modern hegemonic structures are maintained. This packaging of monopolistic privilege as "free competition" constitutes a structural deception. Therefore, defending true market economy rules centers on exposing the ideological camouflage of monopolistic capitalism, inevitably linking the anti-monopoly struggle with the anti-hegemony struggle.
2.3 Core Cities and the Leapfrog Hegemony of the World-Economy
Braudel's view of the world-economy offers a crucial understanding of the nature of hegemony. He believed that the world-economy is characterized by a core capitalist city whose commercial and financial influence can extend far beyond its national political boundaries . However, this hegemony is not permanently fixed. Braudel observed that the hegemony of any specific core city (such as the Italian city-states, Amsterdam, London) would "leap" and "wane" over time .
This structural change indicates that the succession of hegemony is a historical process, a part of the "world-economy" structure. The decline or change in the current US hegemony (Pax Americana) is a manifestation of this structural transition. Defending the market economy means accelerating the natural turnover of the hegemonic core, or ending the unipolar center, and returning to a multipolar, more stable "market equilibrium." Therefore, anti-hegemony is not against the market, but rather a pursuit of a pluralistic market order that no longer relies on a single national power to guarantee monopolistic profits.
Chapter 3 The Economic Form of "New Hegemonism": The Erosion of Global Markets by the Dollar and Financial Monopoly
3.1 The Construction of the Post-War System and the Origin of Dollar Hegemony
Following World War II, the United States established the dollar-centered international monetary system by leading the creation of the Bretton Woods System, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Bank. This system, along with the Marshall Plan, set the "bones of international business" and global finance as a US-centric system.
This institutional arrangement granted the United States powerful structural monopolistic power. Through manipulating weighted voting systems and "85% majority approval" rules in international organizations, the US established institutional hegemony in the global economic and financial sectors. The dollar, as the global reserve currency, provides the US with the "exorbitant privilege" to finance its massive fiscal and current account deficits at low interest rates. This financial centralization is precisely the monopolistic privilege in the contemporary Braudelian sense.
3.2 Systemic Destruction of Competitive Principles by Modern Hegemony
The systemic destruction of market competition principles by contemporary US hegemony primarily manifests in the abuse of the dollar's dominant position, turning the financial system into a geopolitical "weapon". This financial weaponization is the most significant contemporary "anti-market" behavior. Critics contend that unilateral sanctions imposed by the US without the support of its allies are leading to global market fragmentation, rising financial volatility, and ultimately undermining global economic stability.
This hegemonic behavior directly reflects how monopolistic power uses the state apparatus to violently encroach upon the property of market actors, which is the violent realization of monopoly rent. Braudel’s capitalism captures "monopoly rent" through monopoly. In the contemporary era, the US controls the international financial infrastructure, transforming the rent-seeking mechanism into a geopolitical tool. For instance, the freezing of approximately $9.5 billion in assets belonging to the Afghan central bank by the US was considered "pure looting". This action directly violates the requirement of "strict protection of property rights" essential for a free market economy, making the property safety of any nation dependent on the political willingness not to provoke US hegemony, rather than predictable rule of law.
3.3 The Paradox of Hegemonic Stability Theory and the Need for Counteraction
Traditional theories, such as Hegemonic Stability Theory (HST), argue that the international system is more likely to remain stable under the dominance of a single hegemon (such as the US post-WWII), as the hegemon provides "public goods" like open markets and international security. However, the current US abuse of power through unilateral sanctions and trade protectionism (i.e., the "America First" policy ) is systematically dismantling the very public goods it established (free trade rules and international governance mechanisms).
This behavior degrades the US from a provider of market rules to a predator of monopolistic privilege. When the hegemon ceases to maintain market public goods, anti-hegemony becomes the rational response of global market participants seeking to restore market fairness. The goal of anti-hegemony is to establish a market order guaranteed by multiple parties, reducing the political risks associated with dependence on a single hegemon and ending the monopolistic order.
Chapter 4 The Instrumentalization of US Hegemony: Empirical Analysis of Sanctions, Technology Barriers, and Rule Destruction
4.1 The Abuse of Unilateral Sanctions: Infringement on Global Market Order
The US frequently employs economic sanctions as its foreign policy tool of choice to advance a broad range of objectives. Statistically, the previous US administration implemented over 3,900 sanction measures cumulatively over a certain period, equating to wielding the "sanctions stick" three times per day. This high-frequency weaponization of sanctions injects highly political risks into international trade and financial activities, forcing global market participants to shift their focus from economic efficiency to geopolitical compliance.
Furthermore, the US has "revived" pre-WTO "zombie" trade remedy tools in its trade protectionism, systematically disrupting the international trade order. This demonstrates that its original intention in promoting global trade "liberalization" was to expand its own economic advantage and secure global economic hegemony, and today, it similarly destroys market rules to maintain that hegemony. Despite the low effectiveness of unilateral sanctions (historical studies show a success rate of less than one in five cases) , as a political tool, they inflict widespread damage on the international market, including harming US economic interests and triggering counteraction from third-party states (such as OECD members).
4.2 Economic Predation under the Guise of "Democracy" Narrative and Ideological Concealment
The US closely ties its foreign policy to a narrative of "democracy promotion" , but this is often interpreted by foreign governments and observers as a moral cover for military intervention and economic coercion . US accusations against other economies, such as "non-market economy," are merely pretexts for economic bullying, fundamentally rooted in the self-serving nature of "America First".
In cases of military intervention, such as the long war in Afghanistan, despite the emphasis on "democracy promotion," the actual economic outcome was the destruction of local development foundations and ultimately the predatory freezing of a sovereign nation's assets. This behavior renders any non-discriminatory market rule based on the rule of law meaningless, completely politicizing market risk. This political risk compels nations to seek "external balancing" strategies. Concerns over dollar weaponization have prompted leaders of the BRICS alliance, including China and Russia, to push for de-dollarization and the development of alternative trade and financial systems. These decentralization efforts are essentially anti-monopoly actions taken by market participants for self-preservation.
Chapter 5 The Theoretical Transcendence of the China Model: Upholding Market Principles and Breaking the Ideological Dilemma
5.1 The Socialist Market Economy: Breakthrough of the Ideological Dilemma
Braudel once pointed out that the refusal to distinguish between the market economy and capitalism was a common mistake in both the socialist and capitalist worlds. In historical practice, the Soviet-style planned economy failed to achieve efficiency and prosperity, leading to a theoretical stalemate. China's formal adoption of the concept of the "Socialist Market Economy" in 1992 marked a significant ideological breakthrough, clarifying that the market system and socialist ideals are not incompatible . This decision allowed China to avoid the rigid dilemma of the former Soviet Union and define the market as a means to achieve socialist goals (such as Common Prosperity) , rather than the ultimate goal of Western liberalism.
In Xi Jinping's economic thought, "adhering to and improving the basic socialist economic system" is listed as the institutional foundation of China's economic development. Although Western criticism of the Chinese economy often focuses on state intervention and the role of State-Owned Enterprises (SOE) , from Braudel’s perspective, the true danger lies in monopoly, not government intervention itself. The institutional goal of the China model is to construct a "high-standard" market economy system , which requires promoting reform on the track of the rule of law.
5.2 Upholding Market Principles: The Institutional Blueprint for a High-Standard Socialist Market Economy
The Socialist Market Economy System in the New Era, under the leadership of Xi Jinping, is institutionally designed to establish a framework consistent with Braudel's ideal state of "Economic Life"—a market based on competition and rules.
Rule of Law and Standardization: China emphasizes that the "socialist market economy is essentially a rule of law economy". This principle requires the unity of reform and the rule of law, ensuring that major reforms are legally based and that reform achievements are promptly elevated to legal systems. This emphasis on the rule of law is a powerful counter to the US hegemony's arbitrary destruction of property rights and rules through political power.
Dialectical Unity of Anti-Monopoly and Marketization: Official Chinese documents explicitly require the "comprehensive implementation of the fair competition review system" and the strengthening of anti-monopoly and anti-unfair competition enforcement. The reform goal is to "steadily advance the reform of natural monopoly industries," effectively breaking administrative monopolies and preventing market monopolies. Through this mechanism, the China model is, in principle, more committed to maintaining the competitiveness required by "Economic Life" (the middle-tier market) to dismantle the power base of the "Capitalism" (top-tier monopoly) described by Braudel.
Property Rights Protection and Institutional Guarantee for the Non-Public Economy: The China model is committed to strengthening the fundamental institutions of the market economy, especially the property rights system. In stark contrast to the US's "anti-market" behavior of arbitrarily freezing other nations' assets, China demands "fully and legally protecting the property rights of the private economy equally" and severely punishing acts that infringe upon the legitimate rights and interests of private enterprises. By fully implementing the market access negative list system and the "not prohibited is permitted" principle , the China model provides a level playing field for all ownership entities. This institutionalized, rule-of-law-based protection of property rights and competition offers international investors and market actors a system that is more reliable and more compliant with market rules than the dollar system threatened by sanction risk.
Chapter 6 The Construction of a High-Standard Market Economy: China's Practice in Anti-Monopoly and Factor Reform
6.1 Strengthening the Foundational Market Institutions: Property Rights and Fair Competition
The construction of a high-standard Socialist Market Economy System, as emphasized by Xi Jinping, centers on enhancing the effectiveness of market mechanisms, the vitality of micro-subjects, and the moderateness of macro-control. At the level of foundational institutions, China is dedicated to establishing and improving a modern property rights system characterized by "clear ownership, definite rights and responsibilities, strict protection, and smooth circulation" to strengthen property rights incentives.
In terms of market access, the "market access negative list system" is fully implemented , and the "nationwide single list" management model ensures its authority, further relaxing access restrictions in the service industry. Regarding competition policy, the system mandates strengthening the fundamental status of competition policy, increasing the intensity of anti-monopoly and anti-unfair competition enforcement, raising the cost of illegal activities, and clearing and abolishing existing policies that impede the national unified market and fair competition. These measures are designed to break down various obstacles and implicit barriers, ensuring that all ownership entities can "equally use resources, openly and fairly participate in competition, and receive equal legal protection".
6.2 Deepening the Marketized Allocation of Factors and High-Standard Opening Up
To further unleash the creativity and market vitality of the entire society, China is building a more complete system and mechanism for the market-based allocation of factors.
In high-standard opening up, the New Era emphasizes advancing from traditional opening up based on the flow of goods and factors to institutional opening up based on rules, regulations, management, and standards. This requires China to proactively align with and reference international mature market economic system experience, promoting the convergence of domestic institutional rules with international standards, and using high-level opening up to promote deep-level market-oriented reform. This alignment with international rules is an active effort to establish a just and transparent international market order, aimed at confronting the exclusive and discriminatory rules dominated by hegemony.
Chapter 7 The Logical Basis for the Anti-Hegemony Alliance: Centered on Upholding Global Market Fairness
7.1 Anti-Hegemony: A Necessary Means to Restore Market Justice
Resistance to US hegemony is no longer merely a geopolitical conflict; it is an economic rationality for global market participants seeking to restore market justice and reduce transaction risks. Unilateral sanctions, financial long-arm jurisdiction, and the selective application of international law constitute severe infringements on national economic sovereignty and international economic rule of law.
The logical foundation for an anti-hegemony coalition is that when a single hegemon privatizes and instrumentalizes international governance mechanisms , market participants must collectively counter to restore market predictability and non-discriminatory principles. The essence of this resistance is the demand for a multilateral, rules-based order, rather than one arbitrarily dictated by the "guarantor of monopolists." This collective action aims to reduce global transaction political risks, thereby restoring the efficiency and logic of resource allocation, which is a return to the competitive "Economic Life" middle tier described by Braudel.
7.2 Building a Market Order for a Multipolar World
The weaponization of dollar hegemony by the US is accelerating the global demand for a decentralized monetary system. Multipolarity is not just the restructuring of the political landscape; it is an economic system's self-protection mechanism against unipolar monopoly risks. This decentralization helps prevent any single economy from again utilizing its currency and financial system for large-scale economic coercion.
China, through promoting the Belt and Road Initiative, advocating a concept of common, comprehensive, cooperative, and sustainable security , and encouraging the use of the RMB in trade and development finance , offers the world an alternative model of market governance based on development and rules rather than monopoly and coercion. This model aims to establish a more equal, open, and inclusive international economic environment, thereby supporting a more stable, more market-principle-compliant multipolar world market system.
Chapter 8 Conclusion: Market Freedom is the Contemporary Symbol of Collective Anti-Hegemony
8.1 Theoretical Summary and Response
Braudel's profound insights into capitalism carry strong contemporary relevance. He revealed that the top-level operations of capitalism are monopolistic "anti-market" behaviors, relying on state privilege and exclusivity. Contemporary US hegemony, through its monopoly over the global financial system (dollar weaponization), high-frequency unilateral sanctions, and economic coercion concealed by the "democracy" narrative, precisely embodies this highest form of "anti-market" operation.
The freedom of the market economy, as a symbol of competition, transparency, rule of law, and property security, fundamentally opposes the monopoly, privilege, and rule destruction inherent in hegemonic structures. Therefore, defending true market freedom is, in essence, resistance to US hegemony.
8.2 The Enlightenment of the China Model and Future Outlook
The Socialist Market Economy System under the leadership of Xi Jinping, through institutional breakthroughs such as defining its nature as a "rule of law economy," comprehensively implementing anti-monopoly and fair competition review systems, and equally protecting private property rights , has successfully avoided the Soviet-style ideological dilemma. This model, in principle, represents an adherence to the "Economic Life" principles advocated by Braudel, committed to constructing a high-standard market system based on rules and competition.
To protect the fairness and stability of the global economy, nations must unite to collectively resist the systematic destruction of international market rules by US hegemony. This struggle for collective anti-hegemony, centered on maintaining market fairness and the rule of law, is the contemporary symbol driving the establishment of a truly multilateral world market system based on equality, rules, and competition, achieving shared global economic prosperity and sustainable development.