美越贸易恊议：共生史观的全球化3.0典范

The U.S.–Vietnam Trade Agreement: A Symbionomic Historical Milestone of Globalization 3.0

美越贸易恊议：共生史观的全球化3.0典范

Archer Hong Qian

美越贸易恊议于2025年7月2日达成，美国对越南直接出口商品从原计划对等减半46%大幅降低至征收20%关税，对通过越南转运的第三国商品征收40%关税，越南对美国商品从原来90%降为0关税（原本为90%），开放市场。

我想说的是，以共生经济学的历史视角观之，美越贸易恊议率先亚欧美签订了，美国对越南产品征收20%关税对转口贸易征收40%关税，而越南对美国全开放0%关税，似乎不对等而越南吃亏了，但对于越对美贸易拥有1230多亿顺差的越南来说，实则“双向赋能”——既回应了美方“赤字焦虑”，又给越南留出升级空间——典型的“互利减压”而非零和惩罚。因而可以说，这是一个基于“生命自组织连接平衡与再平衡”理念，既正视历史现实又富有“产业链、供应链、价值链”三链趋势，驱动“零交税、零壁垒、零歧视”三零规则全球化3.0交互主体共生（Intersubjective Syambiosism）智慧的阶段性世界贸易恊议范本：

二战以来全球化2.0原本对世界各贸易国实行优惠（非对等）关税政策的美国与受惠国，总体上取得显著经济成就，但全球化2.0这种非对等关税政策在存在不同制度主权（民族）国家世界秩序条件下，出现了严重的“互害机制”，导致各自不同的“结构性失衡”態，包括美越在内的各自都亟需恢复“个人、社会（社区）、政府三大生命自组织力与外连接平衡/再平衡力”！

X上的正面反馈：用户（如@101bioC）盛赞恊议为“美国企业与农民的巨大胜利”，越南市场开放为全球化注入新动能；@zhihui999强调恊议促进双边贸易，激发双方经济活力，点燃“你中有我，我中有他，他中有你”的共生繁荣；@GlobalTradeNow称恊议为“全球化3.0的里程碑”，展现美越恊作的典范力量。

在这个意义上，果断对美国率先欧亚美实行“零关税”的越南领导人苏林，无疑是一位富有历史眼光的有担当的大智者！

让我们从共生史观的视角作如下分析。

一、三种历史观的分野

所谓“共生史观”，（Archer Hong Qian’s Symbionomic Historical View ），是相对于梯叶里斗争（冲突）史观（Augustin Thierry’s conflict-driven historical view）与布罗代尔文明（工具）史观（Fernand Braudel’s civilizational longue durée perspective）而言的全新历史哲学。

二、在三种视角下解读美越协议

斗争史观会把 20% 关税视为美国对越“压价”与对华“迂回围堵”的又一轮较量——本质仍是霸权逻辑的延伸。

长时段史观强调更深层的路径：供应链自 2018 以来从中国转移至越南，现行税率只是对这一趋势的制度化“定格”。

共生史观则聚焦协议如何 同步修复 双方在全球化 2.0 中形成的 “互害”失衡：

美方：以差异化税率遏制了转运套利行为，保护国内制造业与农场收益，同时通过零关税打开1亿人口新兴市场。

越方：用主动“零关税”换取长期市场准入、航空订单和技术资本，倒逼本国产业升级而非停留在低端代工。

在共生史观里，这种“不对称却互补”的条件交换，是美越各自三大自组织主体——个人/企业、社区/社会、政府——协同调节成本-收益曲线的具体表现，符合“生产回归生活，生活呈现生态，生态成全生命”共生经济学的全球化3.0方向。

三、为何称之为全球化 3.0 的“典范”

这种“分级关税 + 零关税准入”的组合，把 惩罚、激励、合作 三种工具放在同一政策包内，凸显 交互主体共生 的设计思维：既矫正旧失衡，又预设新协调。正因如此，X 平台用户才会用“你中有我，我中有他，他中有你”的修辞来点赞。

四、对中国与其他新兴经济体的示范效应

避免“顺差依赖症”——越南以零关税换市场，而非固守巨额顺差；

按“真实增值”征税——40% 针对转运而非原产越南品，鼓励自组织产业链、供应链、价值链深耕；

“三网叠加”机会——在互联网、物联网之外，开启 Minds Networking （孞態网）的伦理与数据互信尝试，为后续“数字贸易”和“交互三零”交易铺路。

五、共生史观的创新价值

与“谁压过谁”的斗争叙事不同，共生史观强调“优势生活方式的示范—扩散—再平衡”。美越协议之所以被视为全球化3.0里程碑，不仅因其关税数字，更因为它让两国在自我修复与互惠共生上同时迈步——这正是Augustin Thierry式斗争（冲突）史观无法解释、Fernand Braudel式文明（工具）史观尚难捕捉的动态互创过程。

在世界多极与多危叠加的 2025，历史新篇不再由“老大”一味攀高写就，而是由多主体在彼此成全中共写。美越协议留给各国的启示是：

谁能率先设计出“结构性互利纠偏”机制，谁就能在全球化 3.0 中赢得真正的战略主动。

这，正是Archer Hong Qian式“共生史观”的当代历史使命。

六、三大史观框架简析

我们将继续剖析这三种史观的差异、关联，特别是“共生史观”的独特创新意义。

七、从奥古斯丹·梯叶里到共生：斗争逻辑的超越

梯叶里斗争（冲突）史观，源自《伯罗奔尼撒战争史》中的著名三原则：

强者做他们所能做的，弱者忍他们必须忍的；

权力是历史的第一推动力；

战争与冲突是秩序演化的必经过程。

这种史观支配了从马基雅维利、霍布斯、到20世纪“冷战思维”的整个现实主义国际关系学科。

钱宏“共生史观”是一种系统性回应：

不再把“国家”或“文明体”作为封闭主权单位来设定“自我—他者”的对抗边界，而是同时把个体、社会、政府生命性成长，作为交互主体网络中的共生结点，具有共存共演的可能。

在这个意义上，共生史观对奥古斯丹·梯叶里历史观的回应就像生态系统对达尔文竞争进化论的回应——强调互助、协同、自组织和平衡机制，而不是单一生存斗争。

八、从布罗代尔到共生：结构演化的跃迁

布罗代尔的三层时间结构：

事件史（histoire événementielle）：表层历史，快速但无决定性。

结构史（conjoncture）：经济、技术、社会结构的中期波动。

地理时间/文明史（longue durée）：最底层、最缓慢，但最根本的决定力量。

这是20世纪历史学对“政治史中心主义”的一次革命，转向对地理、气候、技术、农业、日常生活结构的关注。

共生史观的深化之处：

布罗代尔强调慢变的“结构制约”，但共生史观提出：

真正的历史演进不仅是结构，而是“结构之间的交互”与“内生自组织连接带来的平衡与再平衡”。

布罗代尔倾向于“观察者”的视角，而共生史观强调“主体间的交互参与性”。

共生史观不仅描述文明演化，还主张主动参与文明的重构——是“介入性史观”。

因此，共生史观可视为布罗代尔视角的系统性升级：从大结构+慢演进 → 动态网络+多维互动+生態重建。

九、共生史观的理论支点

共生史观具有如下哲学—理论基础：

十、共生史观的五大特点（建构式总结）

十一、思想贡献与未来展望

共生史观的关键贡献：

它让历史认识回归“生命感”与“互动感”，不再是冷冰冰的制度演变或权力谱系；

它提供一种超越霸权更替循环的第三条道路；

它特别适合当前AI时代、生态危机时代、多极网络时代的宏观治理建构。

在国际关系上，超越“修昔底德陷阱”，认清主客二元对立统一的斗争-工具历史局限，将你、我、他，家、国、世界全生態交互主体。所谓“老大”，不再是以一切他者（她、它、祂）为代价（Object）换来的单一功利、功名支配者荣耀者（Subject），更不是“将军夸宝剑，功在杀人多”“留岛不留人”式的僭越者、侵略者，而是在一定的时空意间生长——生命自组织连接平衡再平衡的交互主体共生——出来的优势生活方式、生产方式、思维方式创新与纠偏示范者。

有人说“一心想当世界老大的迷思阻碍了这个国家踏踏实实的发展”，道出了“老大迷思”注定陷入“循环取而代之”斗争历史可能的当代重演的情势，让人想起晚唐诗人曹松的《己亥岁》：

泽国江山入战图，

生民何计乐樵苏。

凭君莫话封侯事，

一将功成万骨枯。

传闻一战百神愁，

两岸强兵过未休。

谁道沧江总无事，

近来长共血争流。

当代中国人，真的要“身子进了21世纪，脑袋还停留在过去”，而重蹈斗争历史的覆辙吗？

未来可能的学术工作方向：

1. 写一部：《共生史观：重建全球史的新哲学结构》

2. 制作一份：“斗争史观、文明史观与共生史观对照图谱”

3. 结合费正清“冲突与和谐的东亚传统”对中美关系进行新型思辨

4. 将世界历史大事件（如冷战、欧盟、WTO、气候协定等）纳入“共生-断裂-再平衡”周期模型

                                                          2025年7月4日晨于温哥华       

The U.S.–Vietnam Trade Agreement:A Symbionomic Historical Milestone of Globalization 3.0

By Archer Hong Qian

On July 2, 2025, the United States and Vietnam reached a landmark trade agreement. The U.S. imposed a 20% tariff on goods directly exported from Vietnam—down significantly from the originally planned 46%—and a 40% tariff on third-country goods transshipped through Vietnam. In return, Vietnam reduced its tariffs on U.S. goods from the previous 90% to 0%, opening its markets fully.

From the perspective of Symbionomic Economics, this agreement—concluded before any similar pact among Asia, Europe, or the Americas—may appear asymmetrical. The U.S. levies 20% and 40% tariffs, while Vietnam eliminates all tariffs. At first glance, this seems like a loss for Vietnam. However, given Vietnam’s trade surplus of over $123 billion with the U.S. in 2024, this is in fact a case of mutual empowerment. The agreement addresses the U.S.’s "deficit anxiety" while allowing Vietnam space to upgrade its industries—a classic example of "mutual relief" rather than a zero-sum punishment.

This stage-setting global trade pact exemplifies the principles of Intersubjective Symbiosism. It confronts historical realities while aligning with the evolving trends of industrial, supply, and value chains, thus propelling Globalization 3.0’s three-zero rule: zero tariffs, zero barriers, and zero discrimination.

Since World War II, Globalization 2.0 was marked by the U.S. providing preferential (non-reciprocal) tariff policies to various trade partners, leading to significant global economic growth. However, under differing national systems and sovereign regimes, these policies also produced a "mutual harm mechanism," resulting in structural imbalances. The U.S. and Vietnam, like many others, now urgently need to restore the self-organizing vitality and external rebalancing capacity of three main actors: individuals, communities, and governments.

Positive feedback on X: Users such as @101bioC praised the deal as "a great victory for American businesses and farmers," noting that Vietnam’s market opening brings new momentum to globalization. @zhihui999 emphasized the bilateral trade boost and the symbiotic prosperity it inspires—"I am in you, you are in him, he is in me." @GlobalTradeNow hailed the deal as "a milestone for Globalization 3.0," showcasing exemplary cooperation between the U.S. and Vietnam.

From this vantage, Prime Minister Pham Minh Chinh’s decisive move to implement zero tariffs ahead of the EU, Asia, or the Americas demonstrates historic vision and courageous leadership.

Let us now analyze this from the lens of Symbionomic Historical View.

1. Three Divergent Historical Views

The so-called Symbionomic Historical View (Archer Hong Qian’s Symbionomic Historical View) offers a new philosophy of history that stands in contrast to Augustin Thierry’s conflict-driven historical view and Fernand Braudel’s civilizational longue durée perspective.

1. Interpreting the U.S.–Vietnam Deal Through Three Lenses

• The conflict-driven view interprets the 20% tariff as U.S. pressure on Vietnam and indirect containment of China—an extension of hegemonic logic.

• The longue durée perspective sees it as a formalization of the post-2018 shift in supply chains from China to Vietnam.

• The Symbionomic perspective focuses on how the deal simultaneously repairs the structural imbalances inherited from Globalization 2.0:

• The U.S. uses differentiated tariffs to curb transshipment arbitrage, protect domestic manufacturing and agriculture, and access a 100-million-person market.

• Vietnam adopts zero tariffs to gain long-term access, attract Boeing orders, and secure technical capital—compelling domestic industry upgrades.

In this light, the “asymmetric but complementary” terms reflect collaborative cost-benefit adjustment by each side’s three self-organizing entities: individuals/businesses, communities/society, and government. This model aligns with the Globalization 3.0 direction of Symbionomics: "Production returns to life, life reveals ecology, ecology fulfills life."

1. Why It’s a Prototype of Globalization 3.0

This policy mix—tiered tariffs + zero-tariff access—blends punishment, incentive, and cooperation. It illustrates the logic of intersubjective symbiosis: correcting old imbalances while preemptively setting new equilibriums. No surprise X users celebrated it as “I in you, you in him, he in me.”

1. Implications for China and Emerging Economies

• Avoid surplus dependency: Vietnam traded tariff-free access for sustainable growth.

• Tax real added value: 40% targets rerouted third-country goods, not original Vietnamese exports—fostering deeper supply/value chains.

• Triple-network opportunity: Beyond internet and IoT, this opens ethical and data trust infrastructure for the Minds Network (MindsNetworking), preparing for digital trade and the “three-zero” ecosystem.

1. The Symbionomic Innovation

Unlike conflict narratives that glorify domination, the Symbionomic Historical View emphasizes “demonstration of superior lifestyles → diffusion → rebalancing.” This agreement is a milestone not only in tariffs but in mutual restoration and symbiotic cooperation—something Thierry’s power-focused view cannot explain and Braudel’s structural lens struggles to capture.

In 2025’s multipolar, multi-crisis world, history is no longer written by the highest climber alone. It is co-created by interdependent agents. The lesson of the U.S.–Vietnam pact:

He who first designs a structural mechanism of mutual correction will gain true strategic initiative in Globalization 3.0.

This is the mission of Archer Hong Qian’s Symbionomic Historical View.

The U.S.–Vietnam Trade Agreement: A Symbionomic Historical Milestone of Globalization 3.0

By Archer Hong Qian

[...] (Sections 1–5 remain unchanged)

1. Three Historical Paradigms Compared

1. From Thierry to Symbiosis: Transcending Conflict Logic

Thierry’s conflict view draws heavily on Thucydides’ three tenets:

• The strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must.

• Power is the prime mover of history.

• War and conflict are inevitable stages of order evolution.

This framework dominated political realism from Machiavelli and Hobbes to Cold War strategy.

Symbionomic Historical View offers a systematic response:

• It no longer defines nations or civilizations as self-contained sovereign units in opposition to Others.

• Instead, it considers the self-organizing growth of individuals, societies, and governments as symbiotic nodes in a broader interactive network.

Just as ecological theory responded to Darwinian survival-of-the-fittest with models of cooperation, mutualism, and systemic equilibrium, Symbionomic history reframes progress as intersubjective rather than combative.

1. From Braudel to Symbiosis: Leaping Beyond Structuralism

Braudel’s tripartite temporal model:

• Event-history (histoire événementielle): superficial, fast-moving, non-decisive.

• Conjunctural history: mid-term waves in economics, technology, and society.

• Longue durée: deep, slow, enduring geographical and civilizational patterns.

Braudel’s great contribution was de-centering political history and emphasizing the slow grind of environment, technology, and daily life. Yet:

• Symbionomic history proposes that real evolution occurs not in structures alone, but in their interactions.

• Braudel observed; Symbiosism participates.

Thus, Symbionomic Historical View is a systemic upgrade:

From grand structures + slow change → to dynamic networks + multidimensional interaction + ecological reconfiguration.

1. Theoretical Foundations of Symbionomic History

1. Five Defining Features of Symbionomic History

1. Contributions and Future Directions

The critical contribution of the Symbionomic Historical View lies in reanimating history with the sense of life and interaction:

• It avoids sterile institutionalism or brute power narratives.

• It proposes a third path beyond cycles of hegemony.

• It fits the AI era, ecological collapse, and a multipolar world seeking new ethical scaffolds.

In international relations, it transcends the so-called "Thucydides Trap" and the subject-object binary of conflict-tool histories. Under this view, the notion of "superpower" no longer rests on subjugating the Other (he/she/it), but on pioneering superior ways of living, producing, and thinking that invite co-creation and correction.

A Chinese proverb warns: “Those obsessed with becoming No.1 prevent themselves from solid development.” This myth of supremacy only repeats the tragedy of cyclical domination.

As the late Tang poet Cao Song wrote:

The rivers and mountains are drawn into war’s map,
Common folk cannot dream of firewood peace.
Boast not of noble titles won,
One general’s glory costs myriad bones.

It’s said a battle darkens the gods,
And soldiers cross the straits unceasingly.
Who dares say the river runs bloodless?
These days it often flows with grief.

Are modern nations destined to relive such cycles—with minds in the past while feet step into the 21st century?

Possible future academic initiatives:

• A full-length book: Symbionomic Historical View: Reconstructing the Philosophical Structure of Global History

• Comparative chart of Conflict, Civilizational, and Symbionomic paradigms

• A new interpretation of U.S.–China relations using Fairbank’s “East Asian Tradition of Conflict and Harmony”

• Modeling world events (e.g., Cold War, EU, WTO, climate pacts) as cycles of symbiosis–disruption–rebalance

—Written on the morning of July 4, 2025, in Vancouver