Posts

Posted on

Never a force for good (美军从来不是正义之师)

（写在前面：先是看着西班牙帝国主义的暴行导致几十万古巴人惨死而无动于衷拒绝提供帮助，然后又在革命者快要胜利时宣布干预来摘桃子，美国帝国主义真是无耻啊。）

No struggle for liberation and democracy has ever benefited from U.S. military intervention–because Washington’s wars come at the price of perverting those aims.

没有任何争取自由和民主的斗争从美国的军事干预中获益过—因为华盛顿的战争是以扭曲这些目标为代价的。

THE UNITED States has a history of presenting its motives for military intervention in a good light–spreading democracy, fighting terrorism, deposing unpopular tyrants, protecting civilians and saving lives.

美国一直都有美化其军事干预动机的历史传统—传播民主，打击恐怖主义，推翻不受欢迎的暴君，保护平民和拯救生命。

In each case, the reasons the U.S. has concocted for public consumption to explain its decision to take military action differ substantially from the real aims of the operation.

在每个案例下，美国为公共消费而编造的以解释其采取军事行动的决定的原因都与该行动的真正目的非常不同。

Much can be learned from the way the U.S. behaved toward the Cuban independence movement against Spain in the late 1890s–which culminated in 1898 in the “splendid little war” that made the Philippines and Puerto Rico colonies of the U.S., and Cuba a protectorate.

从1890s后期美国对付对抗西班牙的古巴独立运动的方式可以学到很多东西—最终导致在1898年将菲律宾和波多黎各变成美国殖民地以及古巴成为保护国的“精彩小战争”中达到高潮。

AFTER THE Civil War, the U.S. emerged as a world economic powerhouse–though as a latecomer, its military power, political clout and colonial interests lagged far behind that of the European powers, particularly Britain and France.

在内战之后，美国成为世界经济强国—尽管作为后来者，其军事力量，政治影响力和殖民地利益远远落后于欧洲大国，特别是英国和法国。

As the end of the 19th century approached, the European powers were busy carving up the world into colonies and spheres of influence in an effort to secure sources of raw materials, cheap labor and protected markets. U.S. officials, politicians and business interests began clamoring for a foreign policy that would assert American naval and military power, particularly in the Caribbean, Latin America and the Pacific.

随着19世纪末的临近，欧洲大国们正在忙着将世界划分为殖民地和势力范围，以确保其原材料，廉价劳动力和受保护的市场的来源。美国的官员，政界人士和商业利益集团开始呼吁维护美国海军和军事力量的外交政策，特别是在加勒比海，拉丁美洲和太平洋地区。

“It makes the water come to my mouth when I think of the state of Cuba as one in our family,” wrote Frederick R. Coudert, a leading Wall Street figure, in 1895.

“当我把古巴的状态看作是我们家中的一员时，它会让水进入我的口中，”1895年华尔街主要人物Frederick R. Coudert写道。

A number of American investors were coming to dominate the lucrative Cuban sugar industry, and Cuba was seen as a strategically important island for controlling the Caribbean.

一些美国投资者开始主宰利润丰厚的古巴制糖业，古巴被视为控制加勒比地区的重要战略岛屿。

The famed Cuban revolutionary, José Martí, who had spent some time in the U.S. organizing a movement in exile against Spanish domination, welcomed the political and financial support of U.S. citizens for the Cuban cause.

着名的古巴革命家何塞·马蒂曾在美国组织流亡运动反对西班牙统治，同时欢迎美国公民对古巴事业的政治和财政支持。

But he was suspicious of U.S. designs on the island, writing in his last letter, not long before his death at the hands of his Spanish enemies in 1895: “It is my duty, inasmuch as I realize it and have the spirit to fulfill it–to prevent, by the independence of Cuba, the United States from spreading over the West Indies and falling, with that added weight, upon other lands of our America. All I have done up to now, and shall do hereafter, is to that end.”

但他怀疑美国在岛上的设计，写在他的最后一封信中，这距他在1895年在他的西班牙敌人手中死去不久：“这是我的责任，因为我意识到这一点并且有实现它的精神—通过古巴的独立，防止美国在西印度群岛蔓延，并以此增加的重量落在我们美洲的其他土地上。我迄今为止所做的一切，以及以后所做的一切，都是为了那个终结。“

U.S. soldiers during the Spanish American War
U.S. soldiers during the Spanish American War（美西战争中的美国士兵）

“I have lived inside the monster,” he continued, referring to the U.S., “and know its insides–and my weapon is only the slingshot of David.”

“我一直住在怪物里面，”他继续指着美国说，“并且知道它的内部——而我的武器只有大卫的弹弓。”

The revolutionary war for Cuban independence begun by Martí and his cohorts in 1895 had widespread support in the U.S., fanned in part by the “yellow press” owned by media moguls like William Randolph Hearst, who supported U.S. intervention in Cuba and used his newspapers to press for it.

马丁及其同伙于1895年开始的古巴独立革命战争得到了美国的广泛支持，部分原因是像William Randolph Hearst这样的媒体巨头所拥有的“黄色新闻”，它支持美国对古巴的干预，并利用他的报纸推动这一切。

No doubt, the press had much to work with in making the case against Spain. After the triumphal march of the revolutionary armies through Cuba, Spain put Gen. Valeriano Wyler in charge: he immediately implemented his now infamous reconcentration plan. This decree gave eight days for all inhabitants of Cuba to move into towns occupied by Spanish troops and forbade the transfer of food from one place to another. The policy led to the deaths by disease and starvation of as many as half, and possibly more, of the 500,000 to 600,000 people affected by the transfer policy.

毫无疑问，媒体在制造反对西班牙的事件中做了很多。在革命军队通过古巴的胜利游行之后，西班牙让Valeriano Wyler将军负责：他立即实施了他现在臭名昭著的重新集中计划。 这项法令规定，古巴所有居民都只有八天时间迁入被西班牙军队占领的城镇，并禁止将食物从一个地方转移到另一个地方。 该政策导致受转移政策影响的50万至60万人中多达一半甚至更多的人由于疾病和饥饿死亡。

Throughout the war, however, the U.S. under President Grover Cleveland refused to recognize the Cuban revolutionary armies, and used its powers to prevent the flow of men, arms and supplies to them–in effect, aiding the Spanish. Many commentators at the time wrote of the fact that the revolutionaries could have easily defeated the Spanish before the U.S. invasion if they had been able to purchase munitions, food and medical supplies from America.

然而，在整个战争期间，美国总统格罗弗·克利夫兰拒绝承认古巴革命军队，并利用其权力阻止人员，武器和物资流入他们—这实际上是在帮助西班牙人。 当时许多评论员写道，如果革命者们能够从美国购买弹药，食品和医疗用品，那么在美国入侵之前，这些人可以很容易地击败西班牙人。

Nevertheless, these under-equipped, half-starving armies of guerrilla fighters, never totaling more than 30,000, but ably led by the likes of Máximo Gómez and Antonio Maceo, ran the Spanish ragged and seized control of dozens of towns and most of the countryside. By the time the U.S. made its decision to intervene, it was widely believed that it was only a matter of time before the Spanish were defeated anyway.

尽管如此，这些缺乏装备的，半饥饿的游击军队，总共不超过30,000人，但是由MáximoGómez和Antonio Maceo等人干练地领导，赶走了西班牙人并控制了几十个城镇和大部分乡村地区。 当美国决定进行干预时，人们普遍认为，无论如何西班牙人被击败只是时间问题而已。

There was a minority in the Cuban independence movement, such as Tómas Estrada Palma, the delegate of the Cuban Revolutionary Party stationed in the U.S., who supported some kind of American intervention on the grounds that only the U.S. could establish the conditions for stability and “law and order” necessary for Cuban business interests on the island. In the words of historian Philip Foner, Estrada “came to favor American intervention to prevent the revolution from becoming too revolutionary.”

古巴独立运动中有少数人，例如驻扎在美国的古巴革命党代表Tómas Estrada Palma，他支持某种形式的美国干预，理由是只有美国才能建立古巴岛上的商业利益需要的稳定的环境和“ 法律与秩序“。用历史学家Philip Foner的话说，Estrada“赞成美国的干预，以防止革命变得过于革命。”

This argument that independence would produce chaos–and in particular, a “race war,” which was a code phrase for the dominance of Blacks–was one of the reasons the U.S. justified both non-intervention, and then later, its right to assert control over Cuba.

这种认为独立将产生混乱的论点—特别是“种族战争”，这是对黑人统治的代码短语—是美国合理化不干预的理由之一，后来又成为了对主张对古巴的控制的合理化。

“There are…strong reasons to fear,” wrote Cleveland’s Secretary of State Richard Olney, “that, once Spain were withdrawn from the island, the sold bond of union between the different factions of the insurgents would disappear [and] that a war of races would be precipitated.”

克里夫兰的国务卿 Richard Olney写道：“有……强烈的理由担心，”一旦西班牙退出该岛，叛乱分子不同派别之间的联盟将会消失[和] 种族之战将会爆发。“

But Estrada’s support for U.S. intervention was not the position of the majority, especially those on the ground fighting in Cuba.

但Estrada对美国的干预的支持并不是大多数人的立场，特别是那些在古巴进行实地战斗的人们。

“We do not need any intervention to obtain victory in more or less time,” Antonio Maceo wrote eight months before he was killed, in December 1896, by Wyler’s troops. “Bring Cuba 25,000 to 35,000 rifles and a million bullets…We Cubans do not need any other help.”

“我们不需要任何干预就可以在更长或更短的时间内获得胜利，”Antonio Maceo在1896年12月被西班牙军队杀害前八个月写道。 “给古巴带来25,000至35,000支步枪和100万发子弹……我们古巴人不需要任何其他帮助。”

MACEO’S WORDS were prophetic. President William McKinley, who replaced Cleveland, began planning a war against Spain, not to aid the Cuban independence movement, but to gain hold of Cuba before independence could be achieved.

“MACEO’的言论”是预言性的。取代克利夫兰的总统威廉麦金利开始计划对西班牙进行一场战争，不是为了援助古巴独立运动，而是为了在实现独立之前控制古巴。

The U.S. government was willing to let Spain rule so long as it guaranteed U.S. business interests on the island. When it became clear that Spain was no longer able to do so, that was when the U.S. decided to intervene.

只要西班牙政府保证美国在该岛的商业利益，美国政府就愿意让西班牙统治。 当西班牙再也无法做到这一点时，美国决定进行干预。

The invasion was presented publicly as a humanitarian effort–“for the purposes of extending succor,” in McKinley’s words–though the explosion of the USS Maine off the coast of Havana was also milked to arouse pro-war sentiment.

这次入侵是作为一项人道主义努力公开提出的——“以扩大救助为目标”，用麦金利的话说—虽然哈瓦那沿海的缅因号航空母舰爆炸也被拿来煽动主战情绪。

But as Foner notes, everything known about Cuba at the time pointed to the fact that the rebels’ victory was only delayed by lack of arms. If McKinley was so concerned about the interests of humanity, he need only allow weapons to get to the rebels. However, “such a policy would mean that Cuba would be truly independent–independent of the United States as well as Spain–and this was something that the administration would under no circumstances countenance,” Foner wrote.

但正如Foner所指出的那样，当时所有关于古巴的事情都表明，反抗者的胜利只是因为缺乏武器而被推迟。 如果麦金利如此关心人类的利益，他只需要允许武器到达反抗者手中。 然而，“这样的政策意味着古巴将真正独立—独立于美国和西班牙—这是政府在任何情况下都不会支持的事情，”Foner写道。

McKinley’s April 11 speech to congress announcing war with Spain was fairly explicit in its opposition to Cuban independence: “To commit this country now to the recognition of any particular government in Cuba may subject us to embarrassing conditions of international obligations toward the organization so recognized. In case of intervention, our conduct would be subjected to the approval or disapproval of that government.”

麦金利4月11日向西班牙宣布与西班牙发生战争的演讲在反对古巴独立方面是相当明确的：“现在承诺这个国家对古巴的任何特定政府的承认都可能使我们面临对如此认可的组织的国际义务的尴尬条件。在干预的情况下，我们的行为将受到该政府的允许或不允许的限制。“

Even the way McKinley framed the issue of humanitarian intervention indicated a desire to cut out the revolutionaries from any say in the outcome: “The forcible intervention of the United States as a neutral to stop the war, according to the large dictates of humanity and following many historical precedents where neighboring states have interfered to check the hopeless sacrifices of life by internecine conflicts beyond their borders, is justifiable on rational grounds. It involves, however, hostile constraint upon both the parties to the contest as well to enforce a truce as to guide the eventual settlement.”

甚至麦金利建构人道主义干预议题的方式表明他们希望在结果中切断革命者的任何发言权：“根据人权的大规模的和随之而来的美国的中立的强制干预是用来制止战争的。 许多历史先例表明邻国在干预除边界以外的国际冲突中进行干预以阻止生命的绝望牺牲，这在理性的基础上是合理的。然而，它涉及对敌对各方的限制以及强制执行停战协议作为对最终解决问题的指导。“

The Cubans insisted that without any recognition by the U.S. of Cuba’s independence, they would consider any American invasion a “declaration of war by the United States against Cuban revolutionists.”

古巴人坚持认为，如果美国不承认古巴的独立，他们会认为任何美国入侵都是“美国对古巴革命者们的战争宣告”。

But the revolutionaries were somewhat mollified by the Teller amendment, which stated that the U.S. “hereby disclaims any disposition or intention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction or control over said island, except for the pacification thereof, and asserts its determination when that is accomplished to leave the government and control of the island to its people.”

但是，革命者们在某种程度上通过Teller修正案得到了安抚，该修正案指出美国“特此否认对该岛屿行使主权，管辖权或控制权的任何行动或意图，除非为了维持和平，并宣告其决定独立成功时将政府和对岛的控制权留给岛上的人民。“

This statement proved meaningless when it came to the subsequent invasion and occupation of Cuba.

在随后对古巴的入侵和占领中，这一声明被证明是毫无意义的。

The U.S. was able to land its forces in the southeastern part of Cuba in large part with the help of Cuban revolutionary troops under Gen. Calixto Garcia, which prevented Spanish reinforcements from being able to move toward the area.

美国能够在古巴东南部地区部署其部队，很大程度上是在Calixto Garcia将军指挥的古巴革命军队的帮助下，他阻止了西班牙增援部队向该地区移动。

Despite the indispensable role played by Cuban troops in the U.S. victory, the U.S. press, aided by military officials, began a campaign of slander against the rebels, saying that they were lazy, ineffective and unhelpful–all in attempt to elevate the role of the U.S. as the sole victor in the war.

尽管古巴军队在美国的胜利中发挥了不可或缺的作用，但在军方官员的帮助下，美国媒体开始对反抗者进行诽谤运动，称他们是懒惰，无效和没有帮助的—所有这一切都是为了宣扬美国是战争的唯一胜利者这一角色。

Adding salt to the wound, Gen. William Shafter, the head of the expeditionary forces, did not invite Gen. Garcia or any rebel officers to the official celebration after the city of Santiago de Cuba fell. Indeed, the U.S. allowed the Spanish administrators to continue at their posts, and forbid any Cuban rebels from entering into the town. Garcia was so incensed that he resigned.

在古巴圣地亚哥市被攻下之后，远征军队长William Shafter将军在伤口撒盐，没有邀请Garcia将军或任何反抗军军官参加官方庆祝活动。事实上，美国允许西班牙管理人员继续保持他们的职位，并禁止任何古巴反抗者进入该镇。 Garcia非常愤怒，他辞职了。

The same thing happened in December when the Spanish handed power over to the Americans in Havana. The Cuban popular committees planned a five-day celebration to congratulate the joint Cuban-American victory, complete with a parade of Cuban revolutionary troops. The celebration was canceled by the American general in charge, and Cuban troops were forbidden from entering the city.

同样的事情发生在12月，当时西班牙人将权力交给了哈瓦那的美国人。 古巴人民委员会计划举行为期五天的庆祝活动，祝贺古巴—美国人的共同胜利，并举行古巴革命军队的游行。 庆祝活动被美国的将军负责人取消，古巴军队被禁止进入该城市。

THE U.S. army stayed in Cuba. Under Gen. Leonard Wood, the island was divided up into military districts, each ruled by an officer and policed by a contingent of U.S. troops.

美国军队留在了古巴。 在Leonard Wood将军的统治下，该岛被划分为军区，每个军区由一名军官统治，并由一支美国军队监管。

As a condition for withdrawal (which took place in 1902), Wood insisted that an amendment–known as the Platt Amendment–be written into the Cuban constitution stipulating that the “the United States may exercise the right to intervene for the preservation of Cuban independence, the maintenance of a government adequate for the protection of life, property and individual liberty, and for discharging the obligations with respect to Cuba imposed by the Treaty of Paris on the United States.”

作为退出的条件（这发生在1902年），Wood持要求将一项修正案—被称为 Platt修正案—写入古巴宪法，规定“美国可以行使干预权，以保护古巴独立，维护一个足以保护生命，财产和个人自由的政府，以及履行巴黎合约规定的美国对古巴的义务。“

In short, the amendment gave the U.S. the right to invade Cuba whenever it wasn’t pleased with developments there. U.S. troops occupied Cuba in 1906, 1909, 1912 and between 1917 and 1923. After that, the U.S. largely protected its interests by backing friendly dictators.

简而言之，该修正案赋予美国入侵古巴的权利，只要它对那里的发展不满意。 美国军队在1906年，1909年，1912年和1917年至1923年之间占领了古巴。此后，美国在很大程度上通过支持友好的独裁者来保护其利益。

There are many important lessons to be drawn from this experience. While no historical parallels are exact, the story of the U.S. in Cuba provides a useful framework for understanding its intervention more than 100 years later in Libya–and stopping us from the facile and historically unjustifiable belief that the world’s biggest, most violent, imperialist powers are capable of exerting military force for the good of humanity.

从这次经历中可以得出许多重要的教训。 虽然没有确切的历史相似之处，但美国在古巴的故事提供了一个有用的框架以用于理解其在100多年后对利比亚的干预—并阻止我们相信世界上最大，最暴力的帝国主义势力有能力为人类的利益使用军事力量这一轻率的和被历史证明是毫无道理的信念。

No revolutionary movement has ever benefited from accepting military intervention from an imperialist power–because such “support” comes at the price of perverting the aims of the movement itself. In the words of Antonio Maceo, “It is better to rise or fall without help than to contract debts of gratitude to a neighbor so powerful.”

任何革命运动都没有从接受帝国主义势力的军事干预中获益——因为这种“支持”的代价是扭曲了运动本身的目标。用Antonio Maceo的话来说，“比起对一个如此强大的邻居充满感激的欠下债务，在没有帮助的情况下崛起或衰落更好。”

https://socialistworker.org/2011/04/05/never-a-force-for-good

Posted on

Against mirror world: fascists were not socialists(反对相反世界：法西斯主义者不是社会主义者)

Black Book of Communism
（标题：国家资本主义黑皮书 ； 中间说明：将国家资本主义官僚政权说成“共产主义”以为资本主义和法西斯主义洗地 ；   最下方署名：一个读者：极右纳粹们屁都不知道。）

A couple of excerpts from the work of scholars of fascism against the notion that the fascists were socialists.

来自法西斯主义学者的一部分工作摘要反对法西斯主义者是社会主义者这一观点。

Anyone who has ever argued in person or online with Republican, alt-right, fascist, white nationalist, or the myriad overlapping identities of the Right today will recognize a few standard ahistorical moves they use to “win debates.” One is to bring out the “Black Book of Communism” whereby the body counts of state-capitalist, Stalinist, and Maoist, regimes are held up to show that “communism” has killed elevendy jillion people while capitalism has saved an equal amount, and simultaneously spread freedom, democracy, and wealth. The intent is never really to criticize these (state capitalist) regimes, but to prove capitalism is the only possible system a sane person would choose. A supporting argument notes that “capitalism is human nature” so stop pretending anyone who was not brainwashed by cultural Marxists at the University has a legitimate gripe with it. The vast majority of the people defending capitalism as freedom cannot tell you how capitalism works.

任何曾经与共和党，右翼，法西斯，白人民族主义者或今天的右派们的无数重叠身份进行过面对面或在线辩论的人都会认识到他们用来“赢得辩论”的一些标准的非历史性举动。一个是拿出记录国家资本主义者，斯大林主义者和毛主义政权的“共产主义黑皮书”展示“共产主义”已经杀死了数十亿人，而资本主义拯救了同等数量的人，同时传播了自由，民主和财富。 他们的意图从来不是真正批评这些（国家资本主义）政权，而是证明资本主义是一个理智的人唯一可能选择的制度。一个支持性的论点指出“资本主义是人类本性”，所以不要假装成任何没有被大学里的文化马克思主义者洗脑过的人会对此有合理的抱怨。 绝大多数以自由为名捍卫资本主义的人无法告诉你资本主义是如何运作的。

Especially popular these days are what I think of as the “mirror world” arguments. In our world we know capitalism is a system in which a ruling/owning class expropriates the surplus value of the labor power of the working class. Capitalism is a redistribution of value and wealth upward to a small dominating class. In mirror world, genius entrepreneurs and business people are “creatives,” “job creators” and “risk takers” whose “work” creates all wealth. The rest of us benefit from the hard work of this “John Galt” class. If you work hard you can be a boss someday, or a useful person like Kylie Jenner or Steve Jobs. Socialists “spend other people’s money” so they can drive the economy into the ground by giving out free stuff no one earned. It’s the people in urban areas, illegal immigrants, spoiled college students, feminists, and intellectuals who contribute nothing to society who get in the way of the normal functioning of such a perfect system.

这些天特别流行的是我认为的“相反世界”理论。 在我们的世界中，我们知道资本主义是一个统治/所有阶级剥夺工人阶级劳动力剩余价值的制度。 资本主义是将价值和财富重新分配到一个小型的主宰阶级手上。在相反世界中，天才企业家和商人是“创造者”，“创造就业者”和“冒险者”，他们的“工作”创造了所有财富。我们其他人受益于这个“John Galt”课程的辛勤工作。 如果你努力工作，你有一天可以成为老板，或者像凯莉詹纳或史蒂夫乔布斯那样有用的人。 社会主义者“花其他人的钱”，这样他们就可以通过赠送没有人获得的免费物品来毁灭经济。城市地区的人民，非法移民，被宠坏的大学生，女权主义者和知识分子，他们对社会没有任何贡献，妨碍了这种完美体系的正常运作。

Coming back to the subject of fascism, today the mirror world arguments depict antifa as violent thugs attacking peaceful marchers who only wanted to celebrate free speech. Antifa, or anyone in the street confronting white-nationalist wildings are the “real fascists.” Stormfronters, KKK, American Guard, Sons of Odin, Proud Boys, Rise Above Movement, White Aryan Resistance, Identity Evropa, Patriot Prayer and other groups who, together, mobilize fighting units to attack cities, terrorize and beat leftists, and demonize immigrants while calling for their deaths, are the Enlightened pro-democracy forces pushing against censorship and for civility. And aren’t the Proud Boys multi-ethnic, thereby proving they can’t be fascists? Never mind that Imperial Japan’s leaders were fascist, or that today’s Hindutva nationalists in India are fascists. Proud Boy Tiny Toese is Samoan! Who cares that he wears a “Pinochet Did Nothing Wrong” shirt? The “Right Wing Death Squad” line of clothing, is of course also not fascist in any way. “Pinochet killed zero people because communists aren’t people” is the Proud Boy line. If you see interviews with Proud Boy fighters, they usually portray themselves as under attack by hysterical communists, with themselves in the familiar Chris Kyle (“American Sniper”) role of the “sheep dog” fighting off the wolves to protect the herd (good, normal, Americans).

回到法西斯主义的主题，今天相反世界的论点将antifa描述为袭击那些只想庆祝言论自由的和平游行者的暴力的暴徒。 Antifa，或街上抗议白人民族主义者的人都是“真正的法西斯主义者”。风暴者，KKK，美国卫队，奥丁之子，骄傲男孩，崛起高于运动，白色雅利安抵抗，身份Evropa，爱国者祈祷和其他团体谁一起，动员战斗部队攻击城市，恐吓和殴打左翼，并在要求他们死亡的同时妖魔化移民，这些是开明的推动反对审查和文明的民主力量。并不是因为骄傲男孩是多种族的，从而证明他们不能成为法西斯主义者？没关系，日本帝国的领导人是法西斯主义者，或者今天印度的印度教民族主义者是法西斯主义者。骄傲男孩成员Tiny Toese是萨摩亚人！谁在乎他穿着“皮诺切特什么都没做错”的衬衫？ “右翼敢死队”系列的服装，当然也不是任何法西斯的方式。 “皮诺切特谁也没杀死，因为共产主义者不是人”是骄傲男孩的底线。如果你看到对骄傲男孩战士的采访，他们通常将自己描绘成遭到歇斯底里的共产主义者的攻击，他们自己也熟悉Chris Kyle（“美国狙击手”）扮演的“牧羊犬”角色，与狼群作战以保护羊群（好，正常，美国人）。

One of the most popular mirror world arguments posits that fascism has always been a leftist movement, anti-capitalist, and even socialist. These arguments often cite Nazi rhetoric used to appeal to the working class in the 1930s (and Trump also appeals to them today) from speeches on “the workers” or against bankers. They also like to bring up that Mussolini was a socialist (but leave out the part where he rejected socialism for nationalism) as evidence that fascism has always been socialist.

最受欢迎的相反世界论点之一认为，法西斯主义一直是左翼运动，反资本主义的，甚至是社会主义的。 这些论点经常引用纳粹的修辞，用于在20世纪30年代吸引工人阶级（特朗普今天也如此吸引他们）的来自“工人”或反对银行家的演讲。他们还想提出墨索里尼是一个社会主义者（但忽略了他拒绝社会主义以追求民族主义的部分），作为法西斯主义一直是社会主义的证据。

Here is Dinesh D’Souza whose anti-historical “research” often reads like a manifesto from a mass shooter, cherry picking data from left and right sources to make completely unhinged arguments:

这里是Dinesh D’Souza，他的反历史“研究”经常读起来像一个大规模枪击案的射手的宣言，从左右来源采摘数据，以制作完全无关的论点：

“But the most notable thing about, not only Mussolini’s Black Shirts, but about the National Socialists in Germany is that above all, They. Were. Socialists! They were socialists. Mussolini started out as a Marxist. He was the editor of the socialist journal in Italy. And so again, on the issue of fascism, in the 1930s and 40s, fascism and Nazism were widely understood to be left wing. They were understood that way by Mussolini, by Hitler, they were understood that way by FDR and by the New Deal. They were understood that way by reporters writing about the period. But after World War II a very interesting thing happens. Fascism becomes right wing. Right wing. This I want to suggest is another big lie. It is essentially the result of a kind of an intellectual sleight of hand in which after the war, when the horrors of National Socialism are now manifest for the world to see it becomes imperative to move fascism into the right wing column and pretend like it was some sort of excrescence of capitalism. That fascism was some sort of invention of the business community. Whereas in reality it arose out of an argument within socialism.”

这一大段胡搅蛮缠我懒得翻译了，由毫无逻辑的另类事实组成，大致意思就是“墨索里尼和希特勒自称社会主义，所以法西斯主义是社会主义”，呵呵呵呵，按照这种傻逼逻辑，共匪也是民主自由的，看看《历史的先声》中的那些对民主自由的鼓吹吧。当然，其中把法西斯主义等同于罗斯福新政，就更是完全在放屁了（罗斯福新政的一个重要改革是承认并法律保护独立工会，而法西斯主义禁止独立工会）。

-Dinesh D’Souza, “Socialism Into Fascism – The Left Is And Always Was The Problem” from Youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jPaq86OnJs

So I thought it might be useful just to post what a couple of historical scholars of fascism have to say about whether fascism is either anti-capitalist or socialist. I don’t expect people on the far right to be persuaded by historically grounded arguments, but with such grounded sources, those on the left can better define our own goals in opposition to fascism and its progenitor, capitalism.

因此，我认为仅仅发表一些法西斯主义的历史学者对法西斯主义是反资本主义的还是社会主义的的说法可能是有用的。 我不认为极右纳粹们会被历史上有根据的论据所说服，但是如果有这样的根源，左派们可以更好地确定我们自己的目标，反对法西斯主义及其祖先，资本主义。

Excerpt from Robert O. Paxton’s The Anatomy of Fascism:

来自Robert O. Paxton的“法西斯主义剖析”摘录：

Another supposed essential character of fascism is its anticapitalist, antibourgeois animus. Early fascist movements flaunted their contempt for bourgeois values and for those who wanted only “to earn money, money, filthy money.” They attacked “international finance capitalism” almost as loudly as they attacked socialists. They even promised to expropriate department-store owners in favor of patriotic artisans, and large landowners in favor of peasants.

法西斯主义的另一个本质特征是它的反资本主义，反资产阶级的敌意。 早期的法西斯运动展现他们对资产阶级价值观以及那些只想“赚钱，赚钱，肮脏的钱”的人的蔑视。他们抨击“国际金融资本主义”几乎和他们攻击社会主义者一样大声。 他们甚至承诺征收百货商店所有者，支持爱国工匠和支持农民的大地主。

Whenever fascist parties acquired power, however, they did nothing to carry out these anticapitalist threats. By contrast, they enforced with the utmost violence and thoroughness their threats against socialism. Street fights over turf with young communists were among their most powerful propaganda images. Once in power, fascist regimes banned strikes, dissolved independent labor unions, lowered wage earners’ purchasing power, and showered money on armaments industries, to the immense satisfaction of employers. Faced with these conflicts between words and actions concerning capitalism, scholars have drawn opposite conclusions. Some, taking the words literally, consider fascism a form of radical anticapitalism. Others, and not only Marxists, take the diametrically opposite position that fascists came to the aid of capitalism in trouble, and propped up by emergency means the existing system of property distribution and social hierarchy.

然而，每当法西斯政党获得权力时，他们就没有采取任何措施来实施这些反资本主义威胁。 相比之下，他们以最大的暴力和彻底的态度对社会主义进行威胁。 在街头与年轻共产党人争夺阵地是他们最强大的宣传形象之一。 一旦掌权，法西斯政权就禁止罢工，解散独立工会，降低工人阶级的购买力，以及向军工提供资金，以满足极大的满足雇主。面对对资本主义的言论和行动之间的这些冲突，学者们得出了相反的结论。 有些人从字面上看，认为法西斯主义是一种激进的反资本主义。 其他人，而不仅仅是马克思主义者，采取截然相反的立场，认为法西斯主义者来帮助陷入困境的资本主义，而支持紧急情况则意味着支持现有的财产分配制度和社会等级制度。

This book takes the position that what fascists did tells us at least as much as what they said. What they said cannot be ignored, of course, for it helps explain their appeal. Even at its most radical, however, fascists’ anticapitalist rhetoric was selective. While they denounced speculative international finance (along with all other forms of internationalism, cosmopolitanism, or globalization—capitalist as well as socialist), they respected the property of national producers, who were to form the social base of the reinvigorated nation. When they denounced the bourgeoisie, it was for being too flabby and individualistic to make a nation strong, not for robbing workers of the value they added. What they criticized in capitalism was not its exploitation but its materialism, its indifference to the nation, its inability to stir souls. More deeply, fascists rejected the notion that economic forces are the prime movers of history. For fascists, the dysfunctional capitalism of the interwar period did not need fundamental reordering; its ills could be cured simply by applying sufficient political will to the creation of full employment and productivity. Once in power, fascist regimes confiscated property only from political opponents, foreigners, or Jews. None altered the social hierarchy, except to catapult a few adventurers into high places. At most, they replaced market forces with state economic management, but, in the trough of the Great Depression, most businessmen initially approved of that. If fascism was “revolutionary,” it was so in a special sense, far removed from the word’s meaning as usually understood from 1789 to 1917, as a profound overturning of the social order and the redistribution of social, political, and economic power. (Paxton. The Anatomy of Fascism, P.10-11)

这本书采取的立场是法西斯主义者所做的告诉我们的至少与他们所说的一样多。当然，他们所说的不容忽视，因为它有助于解释他们的吸引力。然而，即使在最激进的情况下，法西斯主义者的反资本主义言论也是有选择性的。虽然他们谴责国际金融投机（以及所有其他形式的国际主义，世界主义，或全球化——资本主义的或社会主义的），但他们尊重国家生产者的财产，他们将成为重振国家的社会基础。当他们谴责资产阶级时，他们是在谴责过于松散和个人主义使国家不够强大，而不是谴责剥夺工人的剩余价值。他们批评资本主义不是批评它的剥削，而是它的唯物主义，对国家的冷漠，无法激发灵魂。更为深刻的是，法西斯主义者拒绝接受经济力量是历史的主要推动者的观点。对于法西斯主义者来说，两次世界大战期间功能失调的资本主义并不需要根本性的重塑；只要将充分的政治意愿用于创造充分就业和生产力，就可以治愈其弊病。法西斯政权一旦掌权，就只从政治对手，外国人或犹太人那里没收财产。没有改变社会等级，除了将一些冒险者弹射到高处之外。最多，他们用国家经济管理取代了市场力量，但是，在大萧条的低谷，大多数商人最初允许了这一点。如果法西斯主义是“革命性的”，那么它就是一种特殊的意义，远离1789年至1917年通常理解的词义：对社会秩序和社会，政治和经济权力进行推翻和重新分配。（Paxton。法西斯主义剖析，P.10-11）

Excerpt from Ian Kershaw’s The Nazi Dictatorship dealing with the continuity of the class system under Nazis:

摘自Ian Kershaw的“纳粹独裁统治”，论述纳粹统治下的阶级制度的连续性：

The emphasis has, therefore, been far more heavily laid upon the essential continuities in the class structure of Nazi Germany, rather than upon incisive changes.

因此，重点更多地在纳粹德国阶级结构的基本连续性上，而不是强烈的变化上。

Schoenbaum himself had accepted that the social position of the elites remained relatively unscathed down to the last phase of the war. He may, however, have rather exaggerated the extent of the fluidity in social structures and the amount of upward mobility which took place. Of course, it is true that thrusting, energetic, ruthless, and often highly efficient ‘technocrats of power’ such as Heydrich or Speer pushed their way to the top. And the war certainly accelerated changes in the high ranks of the Wehrmacht. But the new political elite co-existed and merged with the old elites rather than supplanting them.

Schoenbaum本人已经接受了精英的社会地位相对毫发无损这一事实，直至战争的最后阶段。 然而，他可能会夸大社会结构的流动程度和发生了的向上流动的程度。 当然，像Heydrich或Speer这样的强势，精力充沛，无情，而且经常是高效的“权力技术官僚”确实被推向了顶峰。 战争肯定加速了国防军高层的变化。 但是，新的政治精英与老精英们共存并整合，而不是取代他们。

Non-Party preserves such as big business, the civil service, and the army recruited their leadership for the most part from the same social strata as before 1933. Education remained overwhelmingly dominated by the middle and upper classes. The most important and powerful Party affiliation, the SS, recruited heavily from the elite sectors of society. If the traditional ruling class had to make some room for social upstarts from lower ranks of society who had gained advancement through positions of power and political influence, such changes amounted to little more than a slight acceleration of changes already perceptible in the Weimar Republic.

大企业，公务员和军队等非党派代表在1933年以前从同一社会阶层中招募了他们的领导者。教育仍然被中产阶级和上层阶级的绝大部分所主宰。最重要和最强大的党派，纳粹党，从社会精英阶层进行大量招募。如果传统的统治阶级不得不为新贵们提供一些空间，这些社会新贵通过权力和政治影响力获得晋升，那么这种变化只不过是在魏玛共和国时期已经可以感受到的变化的微小加速。

At the other end of the social scale, the working class– deprived of a political voice, its social gains of the Weimar Republic reversed, and exposed in the shadow of mass unemployment to the brutal exploitation of employers backed by the repressive apparatus of the police state– had its living standard reduced in the first years of the Third Reich even from the lowly level of the depression era. The slight rise in real wages in the later 1930s was a by-product of the armaments boom, and was accompanied by intensified pressure– physical and mental– upon the industrial workforce. The class position of workers remained basically unchanged into the middle of the war– except that the most extreme exploitation now fell upon foreign workers.

在社会的另一端，工人阶级—被剥夺了政治声音，其在魏玛共和国得到的社会收益发生逆转，并暴露在大规模失业的阴影下被有警察国家这一压迫工具的暴虐的雇主剥削—在第三帝国的头几年，即使相比萧条时期的低水平，其生活水平也有所降低。1930s后期实际工资的小幅上涨是军备爆炸性增长的副产品，并伴随着对工业劳工的增强压力—身体和精神上的压力。 在战争中期，工人的阶级地位基本保持不变—除了最极端的剥削现在落在外国工人身上之外。

The most significant changes in the nature and composition of German labour occurred in the last phase of the war and were, in the main, the consequences of military service, losses at the Front, destruction of industries, dislocation of the workforce, evacuation and homelessness, and ultimately foreign conquest. Whatever changes had taken place by 1945 were, therefore, a product of Nazism’s collapse more than of its policies while in power. (Ian Kershaw, Nazi Dictatorship, 175-176)

德国劳工的性质和构成的最明显变化发生在战争的最后阶段，主要是军事服务造成的后果，前线的损失，工业的破坏，劳动力的错位，疏散和无家可归 ，最终是外国征服。 因此，1945年发生的任何变化都是纳粹主义崩溃的结果，而不是其执政时的政策。 （Ian Kershaw，Nazi Dictatorship，175-176）

I had written this up as a response to various online tallies of communism’s death count which were listed as a defense of capitalism. It’s from memory, jotted down, and so any quibbles or qualifications, even disagreements are welcome:

我写这些是为了回应关于共产主义死亡统计的各种在线记录，这些记录被列为资本主义的辩护材料之一。 它来自记忆，个人记录，所以任何狡辩或资格质疑，甚至不赞同都是受欢迎的：

A very partial list of deaths caused by capitalism. It’s more than ever in vogue to go to the “Black Book of Communism” and whip out ahistorical decontextualized statistics and body counts for “communism.” It’s not that I have any desire to defend Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot or others, but that in historical context we can’t come to the conclusion that the “antidote” to tyranny and death is capitalism, a system completely intertwined with those deaths and many many more.

一个非常局限的资本主义造成的死亡人数列表。 拿出“共产主义黑皮书”，并用脱离历史背景的统计数据指责“共产主义”，这比以往任何时候都更加流行。 并不是说我有任何想要为毛泽东，斯大林，波尔布特或其他人洗地的想法，但在历史背景下，我们无法得出这样的结论：对暴政和死亡的“治疗”是资本主义，这种制度与死亡完全交织在一起， 还有更多更多。

Just a very partial tip of the iceberg listing of some capitalist caused deaths. I’ll leave off the roughly 9 million people who die of hunger every year in the capitalist global system, an obviously failed system.

只是一些资本主义导致的死亡冰山上的一小部分。 资本主义全球系统中每年死于饥饿的大约有900万人，这显然是一个失败的系统。

First, neither Stalin’s Russia, nor Mao’s China were communist. If you define communism as workers control over production, abolition of wages as a tool of the owning class extracting the value of workers, abolition of classes, and of markets, obviously we haven’t seen a communist society yet, except in brief moments like Paris 1871, Spain 1936, and a few others. So your totals from State capitalist regimes are sad and horrifying but have little to do with communism. What we have in the Soviet Union for example was a state bureaucracy functioning as a ruling class, extracting value from labor of a working class inside a hideous totalitarian gulag/police state. That was state capitalism, and now Russia is just extreme western style capitalism with more open gangsterism and state control overlaid. The revolutionaries were successful in crushing the repressive monarchy of the Tsar, but the Bolsheviks then took over the revolution and ushered in a one party state capitalist regime with Stalin as the final symbol of defeat. Mao’s “Cultural Revolution was neither cultural nor a revolution and you can read Simon Leys, the foremost critic of Maoism to see that Mao ruthlessly crushed communist formations inside China as he attempted to industrialize the country to compete with capitalist powers.

首先，斯大林的俄国和毛泽东的中国都不是共产主义的。如果你把共产主义定义为工人控制生产，废除作为一种剥削阶级占有工人价值的工具的工资，废除阶级和市场，显然我们还没有看到过共产主义社会，除了在短暂的时刻之外，像是1871年的巴黎，1936年的西班牙，以及其他几个。所以你们的来自国家资本主义政权的死亡总数是令人悲伤的和可怕的，但与共产主义没关系。例如，我们在苏联所拥有的是一个作为统治阶级的国家官僚机构，从一个可怕的极权主义的古拉格/警察国家内占有工人阶级的劳动以获取价值。那就是国家资本主义，现在的俄罗斯只是极端的西方式资本主义，更加开放的黑帮主义和与政府控制权重叠。革命者成功地粉碎了沙皇的压制性的君主制，但布尔什维克随后控制了革命并带来了一个一党制的国家资本主义政权，斯大林是最后的失败象征。毛泽东的“文化大革命“既不是文化的也不是革命的，你可以阅读毛泽东最重要的批评家Simon Leys，看到毛泽东企图工业化整个国家用来与资本主义国家竞争，并因此无情地粉碎了中国的共产党组织。

There are other important totals to look at as well. Mike Davis has written about “Late Victorian Holocausts,” with the example of the British Raj killing 30 million Indians from the mid 19th century to 1900. This was due to the destruction of traditional systems of emergency distribution that existed under the Mughals. Production had been forced into mono-crops, and exported to ports for the world market via British built rail systems. The British ruling class saw the mass famine as “Darwinian winnowing” of a subhuman species.

还有其他重要的总数可供考虑。 Mike Davis写过关于“维多利亚晚期大屠杀”的文章，其中英国的殖民从19世纪中叶到1900年杀死了3000万印度人。这是由于穆加尔人之间存在的传统紧急分配系统的破坏。 生产被迫进入单作物的，并通过英国建造的铁路系统出口到世界市场的港口。 英国的统治阶级将大规模饥荒视为一种比人类低等的物种的“达尔文式颠簸”。

A bit earlier, the British capitalists had killed a million Irish in a potato famine, even though there was more than enough food being produced to feed them and millions more. It had to be shipped out to markets for profit though, so it was ok just to let them die.

更早一点，英国的资本家们在马铃薯饥荒中杀死了一百万爱尔兰人，尽管有足够的粮食生产来喂养他们以及数百万更多的人。它必须被运到市场以获取利润，所以让爱尔兰人死掉是可以的。

David Stannard and countless other historians put the Native American genocide at around 100 million. If we look at other scholars estimates of non-disease related deaths they go down to about 15 million in “democide”, mostly in Latin America a great center of capitalist encomienda production by the first major capitalist colonial power, Spain, and also Portugal.

David Stannard和无数其他历史学家将美洲原住民的种族灭绝数置于1亿左右。 如果我们看看其他学者对非疾病相关死亡的估计，他们的“民主灭绝”大约有1500万，其中大部分在拉丁美洲的是第一大资本主义殖民大国西班牙和葡萄牙的资本主义生产中心。

At least 2 million black slaves were killed directly in the Atlantic middle passage of the early emerging capitalist economy, but the devastation created inside Africa, as is well known, destabilized much of that continent down to the present day. Hard to calculate the suffering or body count there.

至少有200万黑人奴隶直接在早期新兴资本主义经济的大西洋中段被杀，但众所周知，对非洲内部造成的破坏使该大陆的大部分地区一直不稳定至今。 难以计算那里的痛苦或死亡数量。

Adam Hoschild’s King Leopold’s Ghost showed 10 million Congolese killed in his “Free State of Congo” to supply rubber to the west for bicycle tires.

Adam Hoschild的国王利奥波德的鬼魂在他的“刚果自由邦”中杀害了1000万刚果人，他们向西方供应用于自行车轮胎的橡胶。

World War 1, was as is not in dispute, a war between imperialist powers to control colonies, labor, resource, trade routes, etc. 41 million casualties and of those, 18 million were deaths. World War II, the continuation and settling of that war saw 70 to 85 million. World War 2 would never have happened were it not for the capitalist Great Depression which saw the rise of the previously disappearing Nazi Party in Germany, which started the war under Hitler, in a series of invasions that brought another total war with the reaction to the invasion of Poland. It was mostly between belligerent capitalist empires as was World War I. All of the empires had already racked up millions of corpses, and sadly, the fascists were not exceptional in that regard. But there’s no question that fascism is a defense of the capitalist state, and that it’s main enemy was “communism.” Fascists crushed workers unions and brought them under control of the party and capitalist state.

第一次世界大战，没有争议的，一场帝国主义列强控制殖民地，劳工，资源，贸易路线等之间的战争，造成了4100万人伤亡，其中1800万人死亡。 第二次世界大战，这场战争的持续和解决造成的伤亡达到了7000-8500万。 如果不是资本主义的大萧条造成了先前在德国消失的纳粹党的崛起，纳粹党在希特勒的控制下发动了战争，对波兰的入侵带来了另一场全面的战争，第二次世界大战根本就不会发生。它主要发生在好战的资本主义帝国之间，就像第一次世界大战。所有的帝国都已经占据了数百万的尸体，遗憾的是，法西斯在这方面并不是特例。 但毫无疑问，法西斯主义是对资本主义国家的捍卫，而它的主要敌人是“共产主义”。 法西斯主义者摧毁工人工会，并将他们置于党和资本主义国家的控制之下。

The US invasion of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, killed roughly 3 million, mostly from illegal secret bombings. The resulting destruction of civil society in Cambodia led directly to the rise of the Khmer Rouge. Unless you think those things are somehow unrelated?

美国入侵越南，老挝和柬埔寨，造成约300万人死亡，其中大部分是非法的秘密轰炸。由此造成的对柬埔寨公民社会的破坏直接导致了红色高棉的崛起。 除非你认为那些事情在某种程度上是无关的？

The US led UN Security Council sanctions against Iraq killed one million including 575,000 children, according to Unicef. The 2003 invasion has since created about a million more “excess deaths,” according to the British Medical Journal the Lancet and many other studies.

据联合国儿童基金会称，美国领导的联合国安理会对伊拉克的制裁造成一百万人死亡，其中包括57.5万名儿童 根据英国医学杂志柳叶刀和其他许多研究，2003年的入侵已经造成了大约100万“额外的死亡”。

About 250,000 Filipinos died in the war of American invasion of 1899-1902.

大约250,000名菲律宾人在1899年至1902年的美国侵略战争中丧生。

Renowned economist Amartya Sen’s research concluded that about 100 million “extra deaths” resulted since the implementation of the “capitalist experiment” in India in 1947 up to 1979.

著名经济学家Amartya Sen的研究得出的结论是，自1947年至1979年在印度实施“资本主义实验”以来，已造成约1亿的“额外死亡”。

I’ll stop there.

我在这里停止。

https://libcom.org/blog/against-mirror-world-fascists-were-not-socialists-26082018

Posted on

A Blueprint for Universal Childhood（一份普世童年的蓝图）

Children deserve to spend their days in the company of peers, having fun, and discovering the world with the help of loving, well-compensated adults.

小孩们应该在同伴的陪伴下度过他们的日子，享受乐趣，并在充满爱心的，被好好补偿的成年人的帮助下探索这个世界。

In September 2017, feeling the first twinges of labor, I walked beyond the ten-block radius my ob-gyn had prescribed me, defying her bed-rest orders for one reason: to tour day-care centers and get my unborn kid on as many wait lists as possible.
2017年9月，感受到了第一批劳动力的痛苦，我走出了我的妇科医生给我规定的十寸半径，因为一个原因违抗了她的卧床休息命令：去日间护理中心，让我未出生的孩子出现在尽可能多的等待名单上。I knew I had to take the risk only because I’d worked for three years on youth and family programs at a high-quality New York nonprofit.

我知道我必须承担风险，这只是因为我在一个高质量的纽约非营利组织为青年和家庭项目工作了三年。

When I’d started in 2012, our preschool had a two-year wait list. By the time I left, the wait list had swelled to almost four years, which meant that most children who had been added to the list never got into the program. We had at least twenty applications for children in utero, and two for children who hadn’t yet been conceived. Sometimes mothers mentioned to me that they’d miscarried, but would like to keep their application open, and did in fact conceive again before receiving an offer of admission. One baby died while on the list.

当我在2012年开始时，我们的幼儿园有两年的等待名单。 当我离开时，等待名单已经膨胀到将近四年，这意味着大多数已被添加到列表中的小孩从未进入该项目。我们在至少有20份还在子宫内的儿童的申请，还有2份尚未怀孕的儿童的申请。有时母亲向我提到他们已经流产，但是希望保持他们的申请公开，并且在收到录取通知之前确实再次怀孕。 一名婴儿在名单上的时候死了。

My program was unusual in that it featured a first-come/first-serve “need blind” admissions process and substantial tuition assistance to families who could prove that they needed it — but its $37,000 a year price tag was all too typical for American childcare.

我的项目的不同寻常之处在于它以先到先得的“支付能力无关”的入学流程为特色，并为能够证明自己需要服务的家庭提供大量学费援助—但每年37,000美元的价格标签对美国儿童抚养来说太典型了。

For the Church, life begins at the moment of conception. For an American baby, life starts much sooner — the moment a parent (almost always a mother) begins to think about how and when she can afford to have a child, and who will care for the child when she returns to work, as the vast majority of parents must do. If she has been in the same job for a year and worked at least 1,250 hours for an employer who also happens to employ at least fifty people within a seventy-five-mile radius of her workplace, then she will be eligible for twelve weeks of unpaid time off and continuation of health benefits under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). She may be able to extend that slightly further with unused sick time — assuming she has any.

对于教会来说，生命始于受孕的那一刻。 对于一个美国婴儿来说，生命开始得更早—在父母（几乎总是母亲）开始思考如何以及何时能够生育小孩，以及在她重返工作岗位时谁将照顾小孩， 绝大多数父母必须这样做。如果她在同一份工作中工作了一年，并且至少为在工作场所七十五英里范围内雇用至少五十人的雇主工作了至少1,250小时，那么她将有资格在家庭医疗休假法（FMLA）下获得十二周的无薪休假和继续享受健康福利。她可能会用未使用的病假稍微延长一点—假设她有。

FMLA is an accommodating piece of legislation passed during the labor-punishing Clinton era, which applies to a little over half of US workers. It was the Democrats’ polite throat-clearing sigh, a gentle nudge in the general direction of our bosses, asking “Please sir, can I have my job back after taking care of my dying daughter?” when working families needed a paid family leave program comparable to the rest of the world’s, and a universal, federally funded childcare program. Since 1985, the majority of mothers of preschool children have participated in the workforce, and in the thirty years since, unprecedented growth in wealth inequality has transformed an urgent need into a moral and economic crisis. Now, as Baby Boomers age and a smaller percentage of the population has young children, there are fewer adult advocates for their needs.

FMLA是惩罚劳工的克劳顿时代通过的一项适应性立法，适用于美国一半以上的工人。这是民主党人礼貌的清醒叹息，在我们老板的大方向上轻轻推动，问道：“先生，在照顾我快要死去的女儿之后，我可以找回工作吗？” 当工人家庭需要带薪的家庭假时，这能与世界其他地区相当的计划，以及由联邦政府资助的全球儿童保育计划相提并论。自1985年以来，大多数学龄前儿童的母亲都进入了劳动力队伍，在此后的三十年里，财富不平等的空前增长将迫切的需求转变为道德和经济危机。 现在，随着婴儿潮一代的长大，拥有小孩的人数比例越来越低，成年人的需求也越来越少。

There is no reason we can’t have nationally subsidized, paid parental leave and childcare today. At present, public spending on early childhood education and care in the United States represents less than 0.5 percent of GDP, less than any OECD country besides Croatia, Latvia, and Turkey.我们没有理由今天不能享受全国性的补贴，带薪育儿假和儿童照料服务。目前，美国的儿童早期教育和护理方面的公共支出不到GDP的0.5％，低于除了克罗地亚，拉脱维亚和土耳其以外的任何OCED国家。

At the time of its bipartisan passage in 1993, the Chamber of Commerce warned that FMLA set a “dangerous precedent,” and John Boehner muttered something about “the light of freedom growing dimmer,” but twenty-five years later, a vast majority of employers report that complying with FMLA is easy and has had a positive or neutral effect on their workplaces. It is the sole non-means-tested federal provision for American families in the first few weeks of their children’s lives. Still, the burden is on parents to obtain doctor’s notes and coordinate it — and even it can hardly be called universal.

在1993年两党通过法案时，商人联合会警告说，FMLA设置了一个“危险的先例”，John Boehner嘀咕着“自由之光越来越暗淡”，但二十五年后，绝大多数雇主报告说遵守FMLA很容易，并且对他们的工作场所产生了积极或中立的影响。在小孩生命的最初几周内，这是美国家庭唯一的免入息审查的联邦供给。尽管如此，父母仍有责任获得医生的记录并进行协调 —甚至它也很难被称为普遍的。

Employers approve, but how has it turned out for families? Many of those who are eligible can’t actually afford to take it. A full quarter of American mothers return to work less than two weeks after giving birth. Marissa Mayer aside, those who return soonest are most likely to be working class. Mothers who do not have housekeepers or nannies are constrained in their parenting choices, such as whether and how to breastfeed, and are more susceptible to depression.

雇主接受了，但对于家庭来说结果如何呢？ 许多有资格的人实际上无法负担得起。四分之一的美国母亲在分娩后不到两周就重返工作岗位。除了Marissa Mayer，那些最快回来的人最有可能是工人阶级。没有管家或保姆的母亲在育儿选择方面受到限制，例如是否以及如何进行母乳喂养，以及更容易患上抑郁症。

One factory worker described breaking down in tears of exhaustion while pumping in a parking lot after a twelve-hour shift. The cheerful slogan “breast is best” is more likely to produce heart pangs than an eye-roll in the 88 percent of women who have no paid time off.

一名工厂工人描述了在十二小时轮班后在停车场抽水时，在精疲力竭中崩溃了。在88％没有带薪休假的女性中，令人振奋的口号“乳房是最好的”更容易产生的是心脏痛而不是吸引眼球。

Nurri Latef, an early childhood teacher who I spoke to about her experience returning to school when her son was two months old, says, “I hated it. I felt like I was leaving my child at such a critical bonding time for the two of us, and he was premature. He spent a month in the hospital, so … I was only at home for one month with Nasir before I had to jump back into toddler-teacher mode so I could keep a roof over our heads.” No parent in any job should have to feel this way, but there’s a unique cruelty to forcing women to leave their own children before they feel ready to take care of other people’s children.

Nurri Latef是一位幼儿教师，我和她讨论了她在她的儿子两个月大时回到了学校的经历，“我讨厌它。我觉得我要在我们两个人的关键时期离开我的孩子，这为时过早。他在医院度过了一个月，所以……在我不得不重新回到幼儿教师模式以保住头顶上的瓦片之前，我只在家里待了一个月。“无论做什么工作，没有哪个父母应该遭受这些，但是在她们准备好照顾别人的孩子之前强迫女性离开自己的孩子是一种独特的残忍。

Meanwhile, Apple and Google employees get eighteen weeks of paid leave and backup or on-site day care. Googlers are awarded $500 cash referred to as “Baby Bonding Bucks.” Of course, not every worker shares in the benefits even at these seemingly enlightened firms: tech companies often outsource security, food service, and janitorial work by hiring private contractors, who are not eligible. Overall, about a third of American workers in management and other professional jobs have paid parental leave, while just over 5 percent in service occupations do.

与此同时，Apple和Google的员工获得了18周的带薪休假和帮助或现场日托。Google员工被奖励500美元的现金，这被称为“Baby Bonding Bucks”。当然，并不是每个工人都能分享到这些看似开明的公司的福利：科技公司经常通过雇用私人承包商来外包安全，食品服务和清洁工作，这不容忽视。总的来说，大约三分之一的美国管理和其他专业工作者已经有了带薪育儿假，而服务职业只有5％左右。

Here’s how Julia Roitfeld, the daughter of the editor of French Vogue, describes impending motherhood: “It was like a detox — I ate healthy, I slept a lot, and I didn’t drink. All of my hormones were at the perfect levels. I was super-happy, and I really didn’t give a shit about work. Usually I’m so on top of work, but I was in a little cloud. But in August I thought, ‘Okay, I need to go back to work and start making a living again.’”

以下是French Vogue的编辑的女儿Julia Roitfeld如何描述即将到来的母亲生活：“这就像一个排毒—我吃得健康，我睡了很多，而且我没有喝酒。 我所有的荷尔蒙都处在完美的水平上。我非常高兴，我真的没有对工作嗤之以鼻。 通常我是在工作之上，但我在一点点阴云中。但在八月，我想，“好吧，我需要回去工作并重新开始谋生。“

How long can a parent stay in that “little cloud” and “not give a shit” about the cost of diapers, formula, and rent? That depends both on one’s class and nationality. Brazilian mothers get seventeen weeks of leave to take care of their little ones at their full salary; Canadian parental leave was recently extended from one year to eighteen months at about 55 percent pay; Russia offers mothers twenty-four weeks paid. I could go on. The United States, Papua New Guinea, and Lesotho are the only countries in the world that don’t guarantee all workers paid time off to care for a new child — here, parental leave is a luxury reserved for the rich.

如果父母在尿布，配方奶粉和租金的成本方面停留在“小小的阴云”和“什么都不给”，他们能维持多久？ 这取决于一个人的阶级和国籍。 巴西母亲得到17周的假期，以全薪照顾他们的小孩; 加拿大育儿假最近从一年延长到十八个月，薪酬约为55％; 俄罗斯为母亲提供二十四周的报酬。我可以继续 。美国，巴布亚新几内亚和莱索托是世界上唯一不保证所有工人都有时间照顾新生儿的国家—在这里，育儿假是为富人保留的奢侈品。

At the same time we thrust new parents back into the labor market, we also insist that they comparison shop for childcare in a country with no national standards for quality, accessibility or safety. Nearly 11 million children, including over half of children below the age of one, spend an average of twenty-seven hours a week in some kind of childcare setting, yet the burden is on individual parents to assess the risks and benefits of a confusing, unaccountable, generally private system pieced together state by state for the care of our littlest and most vulnerable children. In essence, giving birth or adopting a child in America means you also take on the job of government regulator. It’s an impossible task, with occasionally tragic consequences.

与此同时，我们将新父母扔回劳动力市场，我们也坚持他们在一个没有国家级别的质量，可获得性或安全的标准的国家比较购买儿童照料服务。 近一千万儿童，包括超过一半的一岁以下儿童，平均每周在某种儿童照料环境中度过二十七小时，但让个体父母去负担评估风险和好处是令人迷惑的，不负责任的，通常是由国家将私人系统拼凑在一起来照顾我们最小的和最脆弱的小孩。本质上来说，在美国生育或收养小孩意味着你也要接手政府监管机构的工作。这是一项不可能完成的任务，偶尔会产生悲剧性的后果。

In 2013, a day-care worker in Mississippi handed a ten-week-old baby boy over to his father at pickup time without noticing that the child’s skin was blue and he was unresponsive. The father directed the staff to call 911 while he performed CPR — none of the staff knew how — and his son was finally rushed to the emergency room, where he died. After an investigation, the state concluded that the childcare center met all legal requirements for operation. It remains open.

2013年，密西西比州的一名日托工作人员在接送时间将一名10周大的男婴交给他的父亲，却没有注意到孩子的皮肤是蓝色的并且他没有反应。当父亲指示工作人员拨打911时，他进行CPR—没有一个工作人员知道如何做—他的儿子最后被送往急诊室，在那里他去世了。经过调查，该州得出结论，儿童照料中心符合所有法律要求。 它仍然开放。

In 2014, Kellie Rynn Martin suffocated at the age of three months in a day-care center run out of a middle-class suburban home in South Carolina, where her mother suspects she was put to sleep in a bassinet with a blanket or even another infant. When forensics searched the house, they found fourteen children playing “the quiet game” in the eighty-five-degree basement under the supervision of the owner’s daughter. In an interview, Martin’s mother stressed that the day-care owner’s home had appeared clean and the owner appeared competent when she toured the program only a few weeks earlier.

2014年，Kellie Rynn Martin在南卡罗来纳州一个中产阶级郊区住宅中运营的一个日托中心里窒息了，在那里她的母亲怀疑她是被毯子包裹然后被丢在摇篮里或者甚至是和另一个婴儿一起。 当法医搜查这所房子时，他们发现有十四个小孩在主人的女儿的监视下，在八十五度（这是华氏温标，换算成摄氏温度是29.4度）的地下室玩“安静游戏”。 在一次采访中，Martin的母亲强调说日托所有者的房子看起来很干净，而且主人在几周前她参观这个项目时表现得很有竞争力。

On March 22, 2016, three infants died in three different unlicensed and illegally operating day-care programs in Connecticut, one from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), another from an overdose of Benadryl, and the third from a blunt injury to the head. One of the providers had had her license revoked by the state the previous year for failure to comply with safety regulations — and yet continued to operate her center. The Connecticut assistant child advocate Faith Vos Winkel blamed parents, telling the Hartford Courant that they have ample opportunities to find licensed providers through the Office of Early Childhood’s website and the 211 Infoline.

2016年3月22日，三个婴儿在康涅狄格州的三个不同的无证和非法经营的日托项目中死亡，一个是因为婴儿猝死综合症（SIDS），另一个是因为被使用了过量的镇静剂，第三个是因为头部的钝伤。其中一家供应商因前一年因未遵守安全规定而被政府吊销许可证—但仍继续经营其中心。 康涅狄格州助理儿童权利倡导者Faith Vos Winkel指责家长，告诉Hartford Courant他们有充分的机会通过早期儿童办公室的网站和211 Infoline找到有执照的提供者。（明明是政府失职，由着奸商无证经营，却指责家长？那么是不是买到假货了也是因为消费者没有自带质检实验室？）

The death rate of children enrolled in home-based day care — which is far more likely to be unlicensed than a center-based program — is twelve times that of center-based care. But home-based and unlicensed childcare is simply more plentiful and affordable. Licensed childcare centers are either geographically or financially out of reach for the majority of families.

参加以家庭为基础的日托护理的儿童的死亡率——比基于中心的护理计划更可能没有执照—是基于中心的护理的12倍。 但是，以家庭为基础的无证儿童保育服务更加多且可承担。有执照的托儿中心在地理上或经济上都不适合大多数家庭。

Nearly half of American children under five live in areas where the demand for openings in childcare centers surpasses availability. (Spots for infants and toddlers in childcare centers are even more limited than those for three-to-four year olds, since the low teacher-to-child ratio necessary to ensure safety also make them difficult to profit from.) Where licensed, high-quality care is available, individual families shoulder most of the cost — and it is often prohibitively expensive.

近五分之一的五岁以下的美国儿童生活在对开放的儿童保育中心的需求超过供应的地区。 （儿童保育中心的为婴儿和幼儿的提供服务的机构甚至比为三到四岁儿童提供服务的机构更有限，因为确保安全所需的低教师—儿童比也使他们难以从中获利。）当有执照的，高质量的照料服务可以获得时，个人家庭承担了大部分费用—而且往往极其昂贵。

Nationally, the average cost of tuition at a childcare center is over $10,000 per year — nearly 20 percent of the median household income. In the majority of states, childcare costs more than college tuition. Because it is largely private, our system is deeply inefficient, placing parents in competition against each other for coveted spots, instead of allowing them to negotiate prices collectively. Families in the United States spend 25.6 percent of their income on childcare, compared to an OEDC average of 13 percent, while getting significantly lower quality care.

在全国范围内，儿童保育中心的平均学费每年超过10,000美元—几乎占家庭收入中位数的20％。在大多数州，儿童保育费用高于大学学费。 因为它主要是私人的，所以我们的系统效率非常低，让父母相互竞争以争夺令人垂涎的地方，而不是让他们集体谈判价格。 美国的家庭将其收入的25.6％用于托儿服务，而OEDC国家的平均数据为13％，同时获得的护理质量显着降低。

Further, the grossly inadequate twelve weeks of job protection offered by FMLA means that many American children start day care at the exact time that the risk of dying from SIDS is highest: two to three months of age. Experts theorize that the reason why day-care deaths often happen in the first week or so that a child attends a new program is because children whose parents practice safe sleep practices at home are especially susceptible to SIDS when they are moved to unsafe sleep environments.

此外，FMLA提供的十二周工作保护严重不足意味着许多美国儿童在SIDS死亡风险最高的确切时间开始日托：两到三个月大。专家推测，日托死亡经常发生在小孩参加新项目的第一周左右是因为父母在家中实行安全睡眠操作的小孩在被转移到不安全的睡眠环境时特别容易感染SIDS。

Derek Dodd relied on the recommendation of a friend when looking for childcare for his eleven-week-old son. But despite having been cited by the Department of Health just ten days earlier for unsafe sleep practices, the home-based provider “put our child in an unbuckled car seat on the floor, swaddled, where he wiggled down until he lost his airway and suffocated to death.” The baby was left unmonitored for two hours behind a closet door before the provider checked on him and found him blue.

Derek Dodd在为十一周大的儿子寻找托儿所时依赖了朋友的推荐。 但是，尽管在十天之前因为不安全的睡眠习惯而被卫生部提及，但基于家庭的服务提供者“把我们的孩子放在地板上的一个未扣紧的汽车座椅上，被包裹着，一直抽搐，直到他失去呼吸并窒息。”在服务提供者检查他并发现他是蓝色的之前，婴儿被丢在衣柜门后面两小时没人照看。

Amber Scorah, whose son died on his first day in an unlicensed program in New York City, writes, “It’s possible that even in a different system, Karl still might not have lived a day longer; but had he been with me, where I wanted him, I wouldn’t be sitting here, living with the nearly incapacitating anguish of a question that has no answer.” Neither family wanted their child to be in day care so young — both were refused additional unpaid leave by their employers, and could not afford to quit.

Amber Scorah的儿子在纽约市一个无执照项目的第一天死了，他写道：“即使在不同的系统中，卡尔仍然可能不会再活一天; 但如果他和我在一起，我想要他，我就不会坐在这里，和一个没有答案的问题生活在一起，这是一种几乎无能为力的痛苦生活。“两个家庭都不希望他们的孩子在如此年幼的时候被交给日托机构—他们的雇主拒绝了额外的无薪假，他们也无力退出。

Simply put, the deaths of these children must be counted as casualties of capitalism, an economic system which prioritizes profit over human life, especially those who do not yet add tangible value to the societies in which they live.

简而言之，这些儿童的死亡必须被视为资本主义的牺牲品，资本主义是一种利润优先而非人类生活的经济体系，特别是那些尚未为其所生活的社会增加有形的价值的人。

It’s easy to imagine negligent and abusive providers as monsters, but childcare is an exceptionally difficult job, demanding patience, creativity, compassion, self-control, and sometimes, selflessness. To consistently provide safe, quality care requires serious social investment in the well-being of children. For the most part, childcare workers and day-care directors devote an extraordinary amount of time and energy to filling in the immense gaps left by lack of federal guidance, funding, and support. The first year I worked as a teacher, I subsisted entirely on Red Bull and smoked-turkey slices I kept in my purse, so I could use the twenty-five minutes students were given for lunch to talk to them about things other than “content.” I do not know a single teacher who hasn’t routinely given up lunch breaks or taken work home to do into the wee hours of the morning, after putting their own kids to bed.

将疏忽和虐待的服务提供者视为怪物很容易，但儿童照料是一项异常艰巨的工作，需要耐心，创造力，同情心，自我控制，有时甚至是无私。 为了始终如一地提供安全，优质的护理，需要对儿童的福祉进行认真的社会投资。 在大多数情况下，儿童照料工作者和日托主任投入了大量的时间和精力来填补由于缺乏联邦指导，资金和支持而留下的巨大空白。我作为一名教师工作的第一年中，我完全依靠红牛和存放在我的包里的烟熏火鸡切片，所以我可以利用二十五分钟的学生午饭时间与他们谈论“内容“以外的事情。 我不认识一位老师在自己的小孩上床睡觉之后，没有经常放弃午休或将工作带回家做到凌晨。

It’s a hell of a lot to demand of people making $20,320 a year, the national median wage for early childhood teachers, which is below the poverty threshold for a family of four. These working-class women and men are increasingly being required to pay thousands of dollars out of their own pockets for college classes and state exams, while receiving wages far lower than the value they are providing — and lower than those of teachers who work with older kids. In essence, we are subsidizing our current system of early childhood education on their backs. It’s unfair, and it leads to high turnover — which can be dangerous. It’s also inefficient: there is a strong and well-documented relationship between higher teacher salaries and higher childcare program quality.

对于年收入20,320美元的人来说，这是一个很大的问题，这是全国幼儿教师的工资中位数，低于一个四口之家的贫困线。 这些工人阶级的女性和男性越来越多地被要求自费支付数千美元用于大学课程和州考试，同时获得的工资远低于他们提供的价值—并且低于和年龄较大的小孩一起的教师的工资。从本质上讲，我们正在补贴我们目前的幼儿教育制度。这是不公平的，它导致高流动率—这可能是危险的。这也是效率低下的：更高的教师工资与更高的儿童照料项目质量之间存在着明确的且记录良好的关联。

Yet all human beings are fallible, which is why we need consistent federal regulations in place for the protection of both children and the day-care workers who care for them. Systems like those used effectively in the community-based early childcare center I ran are critical to ensure that no child experiences the tragic negligence endured by Dodd’s son.

然而，所有人都是会犯错误的，这就是为什么我们需要一致的联邦法规来保护儿童和那些照顾儿童们的日托工作者。 在我所运作的以社区为基础的早期儿童照料中心有效使用的系统对于确保没有小孩经历Dodd的儿子所遭受的悲惨疏忽至关重要。

Our infant/toddler classroom consisted of ten children cared for by four teachers, who supported each other and kept each other responsible with extraordinary grace and effort in a demanding job. Every single teacher was trained annually in CPR and safe sleep practices, even though it meant closing the school for a couple days a year. We hired two substitute teachers who showed up every day to enable us to meet the child/teacher ratios suggested by experts, even when teachers were out sick. The presence of a program director and assistant director — as well as regular unannounced visits from the state — ensured that teachers followed guidelines at all times. Infant/toddler teachers kept a log (as required by New York state law) in which teachers initialed that they had checked on a baby in its sleep every fifteen minutes. The inspectors always examined the logs when they came to visit.

我们的婴儿/幼儿教室由十名由四名教师照顾的儿童组成，这些教师们互相支持，并在一份要求很高的工作中保持彼此的非凡的优雅和努力。每年都有一名教师接受过心肺复苏和安全睡眠训练，尽管这意味着每年会关闭学校几天。 我们聘请了两名代课教师，他们每天都出现，以便我们能够达到专家建议的儿童/教师比例，即使教师生病了。项目主任和助理主任的出席—以及政府的定期暗访—确保教师始终遵循指导方针。 婴儿/幼儿教师保留了一份记录（按照纽约州法律的要求），教师们每隔十五分钟就会在检查一个在睡眠中的婴儿。检查员在访问时总是会检查日志。

Unfortunately — and contrary to the suggestion of Connecticut’s assistant child advocate — even regulated childcare in America is not uniformly high quality. In a recent report on childcare quality and oversight of regulated centers compiled by the advocacy organization Child Care Aware of America, not one state earned an “A.” The only program to earn a “B” was the Department of Defense’s, which is run by the federal government. Ten, including New York, earned a “C,” twenty-one states earned a “D,” and nineteen failed.

不幸的是—与康涅狄格州助理儿童倡导者的建议相反—即使在美国受到监管的儿童照料服务也不是一贯的高质量。在最近由倡导组织Child Care Aware of America编制的关于儿童照料质量和监管中心的监督质量的报告中，没有一个州获得“A”。唯一获得“B”的项目是国防部的，该项目由联邦政府运作。包括纽约在内的十个州获得了“C”，二十一个州获得了“D”，十九个州失败了。

It was a simple survey: the organization used fifteen basic benchmarks representing research-backed criteria. It revealed that only thirty-one states plus the dod require a fingerprint check for childcare center staff, and just twenty-three require a check of the sex-offender registry. Thirty states plus the dod inspect centers two or more times per year, but nine states do not require any type of annual inspection. Only sixteen states addressed each of ten basic health and safety requirements recommended by pediatric experts in their licensing requirements. Just thirty-nine states in the wealthiest country in the world even have a program that rates the quality of day-care centers.

这是一项简单的调查：该组织使用了十五个代表了基于研究的标准的基础标准。据透露，只有三十一个州加上dod需要对儿童照料中心的工作人员进行指纹检查，而只有二十三个州需要在性犯罪者登记处进行检查。30个州加上dod每年两次或更多次检查中心，但9个州不要求任何类型的年检。 只有十六个州要求了儿科专家在许可要求方面建议的十项基本健康和安全要求。世界上最富有的国家中只有三十九个州甚至有一个项目来评估日托中心的质量。

Privatized Care

被私有化的照料服务

No wonder day care has a bad name in this country. But why do we fault the idea itself, rather than the well-documented failures in executing it?

难怪日托在这个国家有一个坏名声。 但是，为什么我们责怪这个想法本身，而不是在执行它时有效记录失败？

When a National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) study found a link between long hours in day care and behavioral problems, some headlines crowed with perverse joy, “Sorry Working Moms, Daycare is Bad For Your Kid.” The New York Times took a more concerned tone (“Poor Behavior is Linked to Time in Daycare”), and then there was the gleeful, literary, “A generation of ‘little savages’ raised in nurseries as daycare is linked to aggression in toddlers.”

当国家儿童健康与人类发展研究所（NICHD）的一项研究发现长时间的日间照料与行为问题之间存在联系时，一些头条新闻中充满了不正常的喜悦，“抱歉工作妈妈，日托对你的孩子不好。”纽约时报采取了更为关注的语气（“不良行为与日托时间相关联”），然后有一种欢乐的文学修饰，“托儿所养育了一代’小野人’，日托与幼儿的侵略有关。”

What few reporters stopped to mention was that the quality of childcare is an essential piece of the puzzle. It was children in low-quality care who experienced behavioral problems later in life — and even those problems seemed to disappear over time. In fact, by middle school, researchers were able to detect little difference between kids who went to day care and those who didn’t. Not a single one wrote about the fact that the percentage of childcare-center classes observed by the NICHD meeting guidelines for adult-to-child ratio was 36 percent for children aged six months, 20 percent for children aged 1.5 years, and 26 percent for children aged 2 years.

几乎没有记者提到，儿童照料的质量是这个难题的关键部分之一。被低质量护理的小孩在以后的生活中经历过行为问题—甚至那些似乎随着时间的推移而消失的问题。事实上，通过初中，研究人员能够发现去日托的小孩与没有上过日托的小孩之间的区别很小。没有一个人写过这样一个事实，即NICHD观察的儿童照料中心课程中的达到指导标准的成人与儿童比例的对于6个月的儿童为36％，对于1.5岁的儿童为20％，对于2岁儿童为26％。

More significantly, and equally underreported: family characteristics such as income and access to “emotionally supportive and cognitively rich” environments where “mothers experienced little psychological distress” — in other words, social class — were far more predictive of developmental outcomes than who cared for a child and for how long. And of course, no one questioned the long hours parents put in at work, which necessitated those long hours logged by kids at day-care centers in the first place.

更重要的，同样不被报道的是：家庭特征，如收入和获得“情感支持和认知丰富”的环境，其中“母亲经历过很少的心理困扰” —换句话说，社会阶级—比谁照顾儿童和照顾多久更对发展结果具有预测性。当然，没有人质疑父母的工作时间太长，这决定了日托中心记录下了这些关于儿童的长时间工作。

Well, not exactly no one. The Norwegians were on it. In a study of 75,000 children, researchers from the United States and Norway not only found zero link between childcare and behavioral problems, but noticed that when they examined their sample using the same methods as the NICHD researchers, their own results were skewed as well. “Norway takes a very different approach to childcare than we do in the United States and that may play a role in our findings,” one of the report’s authors delicately noted.

好吧，不是完全没有人。 挪威人做了。 在一项针对75,000名儿童的研究中，来自美国和挪威的研究人员不仅发现儿童照料与行为问题之间没有任何联系，而且注意到当这些人使用与NICHD的研究人员相同的方法检查这些样本时，这些人自己的结果也是有偏差的。 “挪威对儿童照料的态度与我们在美国采取的方式截然不同，这可能在我们的研究结果中发挥作用，”该报告的一位作者明确指出。

Children are legally entitled to early childhood care in Norway, like most advanced capitalist countries. Where childcare programs are seen as a universal right, austerity measures cannot erode them into oblivion as has happened with the means-tested Head Start program in the United States.

与大多数进步资本主义国家一样，儿童在挪威依法有权享受幼儿照料。 在将儿童照料项目视为普世人权的情况下，紧缩措施不能像美国的经过经济状况调查的“头部启动”计划那样将儿童照料项目扔进湮灭中。

Congress doesn’t hesitate to use the full power of the state to force fathers to pay child support. Child protective services commonly takes unsupervised children into custody and deems them “abandoned” — which happened recently to a South Carolina mother who could not afford the cost of summer camp and left her nine-year-old daughter to play in a park while she worked at a local McDonald’s. (The mother was jailed.) Already this year, a Chicago mother has been arrested for allowing her children to walk to the Dollar Store alone while she was at work — as well as for allowing her family to live in “deplorable conditions.” In other words, for being poor.

国会毫不犹豫地利用政府的全部权力迫使父亲支付子女抚养费。儿童照料服务通常将无人监管的儿童拘留并认为他们“被遗弃”—这最近发生在南卡罗来纳州的一位母亲身上，她无力承担夏令营的费用，并让她九岁的女儿在她在当地的麦当劳工作时在公园里玩耍。（母亲被判入狱。）今年，一名芝加哥母亲因为允许她的孩子在她工作期间独自走到美元商店而被捕—以及允许她的家人生活在“悲惨的环境中”。 换句话说，因为穷。（把被剥削压迫的人扔进监狱，资本主义，呵呵。）

Meanwhile, the federal government owes practically nothing to children younger than five or any child outside of the school year. The result of this system is clear: young children in America are more likely to live in poverty than any other age group.

与此同时，联邦政府几乎没有对五岁以下的孩子或学龄以外的任何孩子付过任何责任。该系统的结果很明确：美国的儿童比任何其他年龄组的人更容易生活在贫困中。

In contrast to Europe, where unions agitated for and won comprehensive, federally subsidized social programs, the weakness of unions in the United States meant that the only social programs on offer here were those offered by bourgeois nongovernmental institutions. Instead of solidarity, the poor got sympathy; progressives were more concerned about vagrants running wild in the streets than they were about the suffering kids experienced as laborers in factories.

与工会凶猛的争取并赢得了全面的联邦补贴社会项目的欧洲相反的是，美国工会的衰弱意味着这里提供的唯一社会项目是资产阶级的非政府机构提供的。与团结相反的是，穷人得到了同情; 进步右派们更关心在街头狂奔的流浪者，而不是在工厂工作的童工遭受的苦难。

The plight of mothers whose children were taken from them in Chicago and South Carolina is an echo from a time when “child savers” rounded up children off the streets and forcibly sent them away to labor on western farms on “orphan trains,” whether or not they already had homes. In the nineteenth century, poverty was viewed as a contagious disease, and being poor was justification for having your children taken from you.

在芝加哥和南卡罗来纳州的被带走孩子的母亲的困境是从“儿童拯救者”围捕街头儿童并强迫他们通过“孤儿列车”去西部农场工作的时代的回音，无论这些小孩是不是已经有了家。在十九世纪，贫穷被视为一种传染病，而贫穷是让你的孩子从你身边被带走的理由。

This viewpoint began to shift in the 1970s when Congress passed the Comprehensive Child Development Act, which would have provided federally funded, universal childcare and education. But conservatives echoed Progressive-era private charitable organizations in their objections: Nixon vetoed the bill, coming down on the side of “the family-centered approach” rather than committing “the vast moral authority of the National Government to the side of communal approaches.” Nixon continued the conservative viewpoint of earlier reformers like Lydia Maria Child, sentimentalizing mothers, while denying them economic support.

这种观点在1970s开始转变，当时国会通过了“综合儿童发展法案”，该法案将提供联邦政府资助的普世儿童照料和教育。 但是，保守派反对进步时代，主张私人慈善组织：尼克松否决了该法案，采取了“以家庭为中心的方法”，而不是将“国民政府的巨大道德权威置于公众的一边。 “尼克松继续比如Lydia Maria Child这样的早期改革者的保守观点，对母亲情感化，同时拒绝对她们提供经济支持。

In the famous “kitchen table” debate, in which he debated Khrushchev while they toured a model American suburban home, Nixon points to a dishwasher, “built in thousands of units” because, “In America, we like to make life easier for women.” Khrushchev shuts down this line of thinking with a simple, “Your capitalistic attitude toward women does not occur under communism.… We build firmly, we build for our children and grandchildren.” Actually, that’s the point, Nixon responds: consumption drives the economy. But, says Khrushchev, “In Russia, all you have to do to get a house is to be born in the Soviet Union. You are entitled to housing. In America, if you don’t have a dollar, you have a right to choose between sleeping in a house or on the pavement.”

在着名的“厨房餐桌”辩论中，尼克松在他们参观模范美国郊区住宅时和赫鲁晓夫进行了辩论，尼克松指向洗碗机，“这建造了数千个单元”，因为“在美国，我们希望让女性的生活更轻松。 “赫鲁晓夫用一种简单的方式关闭了这种思路，”在共产主义下，你们资本主义的女性态度不会发生……我们坚定地建设，我们为子孙后代建设。“实际上，这是关键所在，尼克松的回应是：消费驱动经济。但是，赫鲁晓夫说，“在俄罗斯，你为了得到住房所要做的就是在苏联出生。你有权获得住房。在美国，如果你没有美元，你有权选择在房子里睡觉或在人行道上睡觉。“（赫鲁晓夫说美国说对了，但他并没有在苏联做到这一点。）

Most women took on work outside the home in the 1970s not because their values had changed, but because it became economically necessary to do so. But mainstream feminists did little to challenge the idea that having children is an individual choice, which must be paid for individually. In contrast to Europe, where women’s emancipation was spearheaded by workers, many liberal American second-wavers ignored or were openly hostile to mothers. Little urban zines called them “oppressors”; others viewed them as retrograde traditionalists or bad role models for their kids.

在1970s，大多数女性在家外工作并不是因为她们的价值观发生了变化，而是因为经济上有必要这样做。 但是，主流女权主义者几乎没有挑战这样的想法，即生孩子是个人选择，必须被单独支付。与女性的解放是由工人带头的欧洲相比，许多自由派的美国第二波人士忽视或公开对母亲怀有敌意。 小城市的杂志们称她们为“压迫者”; 其他人认为她们是逆行的传统主义者或小孩们的坏榜样。

Wages for Housework, an international campaign which was far more grounded in economic demands and challenging the family wage than say, Ms. magazine, brought visibility to cooking, cleaning, and caring for children as labor and sparked debate. But it failed to successfully transform itself into a broad working-class movement. Mainstream Americans were never forced to reckon with the fundamental reason women are devalued and discriminated against in the public workplace, or stuck at home: we are the presumed primary caregivers of children. Whether we plan on having children or not, until we live in a country with adequate social provisions, we will walk into any job interview with the weight of the expectation that we will one day become less productive workers or leave the workforce altogether.

争取家务劳动的工资是一项国际运动，它更多地基于经济需求和挑战家庭工资，而不是像杂志女士那样，将烹饪，清洁和照顾孩子变得可见，作为劳动和激发辩论。但它未能成功地转变为广泛的工人阶级运动。 主流美国人从未被迫考虑女性在公共场所的被贬值和歧视，或被困在家中的根本原因：我们是被假定的儿童的主要照顾者。无论我们是否计划生育小孩，在我们生活在一个有充分社会条件的国家之前，我们都会参加任何面试，期望我们有朝一日会成为生产力较低的工人或完全离开劳动力队伍。

Some American feminists even shared Nixon’s predilection for constructing private solutions to collective problems. They may not have been moving to suburban houses and stroking their dishwashers fondly while thanking the free market, but they did retreat into private enclaves, founding parent cooperatives on college campuses with volunteer schedules that were doable for artists and the self-employed, but not for the vast majority of parents with full-time work schedules. While these programs may have been personally necessary, they were certainly not political — and access to them was limited by race and class.

一些美国女权主义者甚至认为尼克松偏爱建立私人解决集体问题的方法。 他们可能没有搬到郊区的房子，并且在感谢自由市场的同时深情地抚摸他们的洗碗机，但是他们确实撤退到了私人飞地，在大学校园里建立了家长合作社，其中志愿者时间表对艺术家和自雇职业者来说是可行的，但不是针对绝大多数有全职工作的家长的。 虽然这些计划可能对个人来说是必要的，但它们肯定不是政治性的—而且对他们的采纳受到种族和阶级的限制。

Historian Christine Stansell quotes one woman whose son was enrolled in a feminist center: “one Black mother did join the group,” but left “because she didn’t feel at ease with the other mothers who seemed like hippies to her.” If, as Stansell writes, hostility towards motherhood was “a white woman’s sentiment,” obliviousness to the pressing need for subsidized day care was a rich woman’s privilege.

历史学家Christine Stansell引用了一位女人，她的儿子参加了一个女权主义中心：“一位黑人母亲确实加入了该组织”，但是“因为她对其他看起来像嬉皮士的母亲感到不安。而离开。”如果， 正如Stansell 所写，对母亲的敌意是“白人女性的情绪”，那么将补贴日托的迫切需要的遗忘是富裕女性的特权。

Recollecting that heady time, Ellen Willis writes in an essay about finding a nanny for her daughter, “as feminist activists we, along with the thousands of other young, childless women who dominated the movement, had of course understood that sexual equality required a new system of child-rearing, but the issue remained abstract, unconnected with our most urgent needs; as mothers in the political vacuum of the eighties, along with millions of working parents, we pursue our individual solutions as best we can. The political has devolved into the personal with a vengeance.”

回忆起那段令人兴奋的时光，Ellen Willis写了一篇关于为女儿寻找保姆的文章，“作为女权主义活动者，我们和成千上万的其他年轻无子女的女性一起主宰这一运动，性别平等需要一个新的养育儿童的制度，但这个问题仍然是抽象的，与我们最紧迫的需求无关; 作为八十年代政治真空中的母亲，以及数百万工人父母，我们尽最大努力追求个性化的解决方案。 政治已经转变为个人的报复。“

How to Build a Public Day-Care System

如何建立一个公共日托系统

Today, Americans are finally beginning to understand that our seemingly personal struggles in finding childcare are actually a political problem. Universal childcare is wildly popular among the entire electorate, regardless of political affiliation, and people are willing to pay for it. At least 70 percent of Americans favor using federal money to make sure high-quality preschool education programs are available for every child in America. Eighty-two percent say mothers and 69 percent say fathers should receive paid family leave upon the birth of a child.

今天，美国人终于开始明白，我们在寻找儿童照料服务方面看似是个人的斗争，实际上是一个政治问题。普世儿童照料服务在整个选民中广受欢迎，无论其政治派别如何，人们愿意为此付钱。至少有70％的美国人倾向于使用联邦资金来确保为美国的每个儿童提供高质量的学前教育课程。82％的人说母亲和69％的人说父亲应该在孩子出生时领受带薪的育儿假。

It’s certainly feasible. We’ve done it before when it became necessary to prevent working-class revolt or to go to war. The Works Progress Administration (WPA) opened “emergency” nurseries in 1933 under the control of local and state agencies (and sometimes, the public school system) through the Federal Emergency Relief Agency. Their explicit function was to serve first as a jobs program for teachers, nutritionists, janitors, and nurses, and second, to educate children. The women who became teachers observed profound improvements in those they taught, such as the disappearance of a stutter in one child, as well as their own lives (“I never knew before that it was fun to work,” historian Barbara Beatty quotes one staff member exclaiming). Enrollment by race reflected the general population at the time, but because it was primarily working-class families who used them, the stigma of the schools as anti-poverty measures meant that most of them did not endure beyond the Depression, despite the best efforts of many.

这当然是可行的。我们之前已经完成了它，以防止工人阶级的暴动或开战。工程进展管理局（WPA）于1933年在地方和州机构（有时是公立学校系统）的控制下通过联邦紧急救济局开设了“紧急”托儿所。它们的明确功能是首先为教师，营养师，门卫和护士提供就业计划，其次是教育儿童。成为教师的女性观察到他们所教导的人的明显的进步，例如一个儿童的口吃的消失，以及他们自己的生活（“我以前从未知道工作很有趣”，历史学家Barbara Beatty引用一名工作人员的感叹）。基于种族入学反映了当时的一般人口，但由于主要是工人阶级家庭使用它们，将学校作为反贫困措施的耻辱意味着尽管做出了最大的努力，但大多数学校并没有在大萧条之后被继续保持。

When women flocked to factory jobs during World War II, the federal government approved funding for 3,102 childcare centers under the Lanham Act. These programs were even better than the centers, with teachers trying out various responsive pedagogical approaches, and administrators ensuring that teachers and families worked together to ensure the happiness and success of the children enrolled. They hoped the schools would serve as models for a free, public, universal early childhood education program that could continue after the war, but the government shuttered it when men returned from overseas and took back their jobs. Beatty records one government official justifying the closures: “To some it connotes an inability to care for one’s own; to some it has a vague incompatibility with the traditional idea of the American home; to others it has a taint of socialism.”

当第二次世界大战期间女性蜂拥到工厂工作时，联邦政府根据“兰哈姆法案”批准了3,102个儿童照料中心的资金。这些项目甚至比中心更好，教师尝试各种启发式教学方法，管理人员确保教师和家庭共同努力以确保入学儿童的幸福和成功。 他们希望这些成为免费，公开，普世的早期儿童教育项目的模板的学校能在战争之后继续存在，但是当男性从海外归来并收回工作时，政府就关闭了它。 Beatty记录了一位政府官员合理化关闭的理由：“对一些人来说，它意味着无法照顾自己; 对某些人来说，它与美国家庭的传统观念模糊不清; 对其他人来说，它有一种社会主义的污点。“

More recently, we have the example of the military’s childcare centers — consistently the highest-rated program in the United States — and the only non-means-tested program that is federally subsidized and regulated. In the 1980s, when a report found that Department of Defense centers were failing to meet safety codes, Congress took action, passing the Military Child Care Act, which raised teacher salaries and provided funding for increased training, subsidized tuition, and rigorous and quarterly inspections — assessing teacher qualifications and pedagogical approaches as well as health and safety.

最近，我们举了军队儿童照料中心的例子—一直是在美国评价最高的项目—也是联邦政府补贴和监管的唯一经过非经济状况调查的计划。 在1980s，当一份报告发现国防部中心未能达到安全法规时，国会采取了行动，通过了“军事育儿法”，该法提高了教师工资，并为增加培训，补贴学费以及为严格的季度检查提供资金—以评估教师资格和教学方法以及健康和安全。

A parent I spoke to with two children in a DOD childcare center told me that she initially chose the program based on its cost. Her family falls into the highest bracket of its sliding tuition scale and pays $600 per month per child, below the national average and far below the average for the area where she lives. She was also drawn to its reliable coverage: the program operates year-round, Monday-Friday, from 6 am to 6 pm, and is only closed on federal holidays — unheard of in the world of early childhood care. But above and beyond these practical benefits, she’s come to appreciate the experience, skill, and communicativeness of the teachers. They keep portfolios of her children’s work, and discuss developmental milestones they’ve reached in regular conferences. One teacher is so beloved by the children that they “erupt into joyful shouting” when she arrives to the classroom.

我在国防部儿童照料中心与一个拥有两个小孩的家长交谈时告诉我，她最初根据费用选择了该计划。她的家庭成为其滑动的学费规模的最高级别，每个孩子每月支付600美元，低于全国平均水平，远低于她所居住地区的平均水平。 她也被宣传其可靠的报道所吸引：该计划全年开放，周一至周五，早上6点至下午6点，并且仅在联邦假期时关闭—在儿童照料领域闻所未闻。 但除了这些实际的好处之外，她还欣赏老师们的经验，技巧和交际能力。他们保留了小孩的工作组合，并讨论了他们在常规会议中达到的发展里程碑。 一位老师深受小孩们的喜爱，当她到达教室时，小孩们“爆发出快乐的喊叫”。

Teachers provide daily reports of children’s activities, which are developmentally appropriate and play-based, and the school has a nutritionist who coordinates meals with whole grains, vegetables, and healthy snacks like hummus.

教师每天都会提供有关儿童活动的报告，这些活动在发展方面是合适的，基于游戏，学校里有一名营养师，他们用全麦，蔬菜和例如鹰嘴豆泥的健康零食协调膳食。

If we can offer this high-quality, affordable program to military families, why can’t we offer it to all families? Aside from the benefits to her children’s well-being and her family’s finances, the parent notes:

如果我们能够为军人家庭提供这种高质量的，价格合理的计划，为什么我们不能将它提供给所有家庭呢？ 除了对儿童的幸福和家庭财务的好处外，家长还指出：

It has drastically improved my mental health and marital health, which I didn’t foresee. I am no longer losing sleep or spending the same mental energy coordinating not just my own work schedule but my children’s care schedule also. I’m not constantly wondering whether I need to choose between my job and my family.

它大大改善了我的心理健康和婚姻健康，这是我没有预见到的。我不再失眠或花费同样的心理能量以配合不仅仅是我自己的工作时间表，还有儿童的照顾时间表。我不是经常想知道我是否需要在工作和家庭之间做出选择。

She also adds, if paid parental leave and universal childcare were available nationally, “I’d probably be pregnant with a third child.”

她还补充说，如果在全国范围内有带薪育儿假和全民托儿服务，“我可能会怀有第三个孩子。”

New York provides an interesting case study of what can happen to teachers’ working conditions — and children’s learning conditions — when early childhood programs are integrated into the public education system. Recently, the state-subsidized, free, universal pre-K system went from serving a tiny number of families, to being open to all families in New York. In the next few years, coverage will expand to include all of the city’s three year olds, rich or poor. Now, certified early childhood educators can share in the higher wages, benefits, and collective bargaining powers of unionized K-12 educators, which has led to an exodus from lower-paying private or nonprofit community centers to the public system. Program directors at lower-paying private schools have accused the Department of Education of “poaching” employees.

纽约提供了一个有趣的案例研究，说明了当幼儿教育计划融入公共教育系统时，教师的工作条件——儿童的学习条件会发生什么变化。最近，政府补贴的，免费的，普遍的学前教育系统从为少数家庭服务，到向纽约的所有家庭开放。 在接下来的几年里，覆盖范围将扩大到包括所有城市的三岁儿童，无论贫富。现在，经过认证的幼儿教育工作者可以分享和组合工会的K-12教育工作者相同的更高工资，福利和集体谈判能力，从而从低薪私人或非营利社区中心迁移到公共系统。低薪私立学校的项目负责人指责教育部“偷猎”员工。

What if this happened on a national level? I asked Nurri if and how America’s early childcare could improve. “It will take some backbone,” she said. “We need to ask more questions and not be afraid to defend ourselves respectfully and professionally without fear of losing our jobs. The more educators become aware of how powerful we are, the more we can band together and fight for fair and equal wages, emergent curriculums, and make access to receiving certifications and degrees more accessible to employees. We need to feel like our work matters to people and makes a difference.”

如果这发生在全国范围内怎么办？ 我问Nurri美国早期儿童照料服务是否需要改善以及如何改善。 “这需要一些支柱，”她说。 “我们需要提出更多问题，不要害怕在尊重和专业方面为自己辩护，不必担心失去工作。意识到我们有多么强大的教育工作者越多，我们就越能团结一致并争取公平和平等的工资和紧急课程，并使员工更容易获得接受证书和学位。 我们需要觉得我们的工作对人们很重要并且有所作为。“

Banding together is key. Recently, when parents at one NYC childcare center advocated for an increase in wages for their children’s teachers, the center warned them that tuition would rise — an obvious attempt to divide the interests of the parents and teachers once they united against management.

联合在一起是关键。 最近，当一个纽约市儿童照料中心的家长们主张增加孩子教师的工资时，该中心警告他们学费会上升—这显然一旦他们团结起来反对管理就分裂父母和老师的利益的企图。

History reveals that paid parental leave and universal childcare will not be won on the basis of liberal appeals to fairness, equal opportunity for women, or demands for a more diverse elite — and that Sheryl Sandberg’s benefits do not trickle down to factory workers, garbage collectors, and the nannies and early childhood workers whose underpaid labor keeps our society running. Corporations may offer these benefits to attract highly educated and skilled workers, but they will not provide them for all workers at the expense of their bottom line. By definition, capitalism seeks to maximize profit, not the quality of life of workers.

历史表明，带薪育儿假和普世儿童照料不会在自由派诉求公平，女性机会均等或要求更多元化的精英的基础上被赢得——而且Sheryl Sandberg的好处不会渗透给工厂工人，垃圾收集者以及那些用过低的工资使得我们的社会保持运转的保姆和幼儿工人。公司可以提供这些好处来吸引受过高等教育的和技术熟练的工人，但他们不会以牺牲自己的利润为代价为所有工人提供这些福利。 根据定义，资本主义寻求最大化利润，而不是工人的生活质量。

But having a child is not just a personal choice — it’s a matter of reproducing the species. It is not an act of selfishness that one should pay for, but an act of optimism and investment in society. Until the United States can do what the rest of the world has done and commit its vast resources to child welfare, the ties that bind families together will be as tenuous as their employment status.

但生孩子不仅仅是一个个人选择—这是一个再生产这一物种的问题。 这不是人们应该为之自己付出成本的自私行为，而是一种乐观的表现和对社会的投资。 除非在美国能够做到世界其他地方所做的事情并将其巨大的资源用于儿童福利之前，将家庭联系在一起的关系将与其就业状况一样脆弱。

It doesn’t matter whether early childhood education would make the American economy stronger. What matters is that we need it. Parents need to know that their children are safe and happy while they’re at work, without spending a fortune. They deserve to enjoy their children, not lie awake at night worrying about how to afford them. And children deserve to spend their days in the company of peers, having fun, and discovering the world with the help of loving, well-compensated adults.

幼儿教育是否会使美国经济更加强大并不重要。 重要的是我们需要它。 家长们需要知道孩子们在家长工作时是安全的和快乐的，不用花钱。他们应该享受他们的小孩，而不是在晚上醒着担心如何负担他们。小孩们应该在同伴的陪伴下度过他们的日子，享受乐趣，并在充满爱心，得到良好补偿的成年人的帮助下发现这个世界。

Some liberals try to justify the expense of childcare as a social program that will save us money down the line. Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania notes on his website that early childhood education is “critical to our nation’s economic strength.” Invest in children today, exploit them as toothless workers with no collective bargaining tomorrow.

一些自由主义者试图用将会节省金钱作为对儿童保育费用作为一项社会项目的合理化。宾夕法尼亚州的参议员Bob Casey在他的网站上指出，幼儿教育“对我们国家的经济实力至关重要。”今天投资于儿童，将他们剥削为明天不会进行集体谈判的无牙工人。

This is a mistake. Evidence abounds that redistribution is a far more effective way of reducing poverty and improving academic outcomes for children from low-income families than childhood education.

这是个错误。 有证据表明，与儿童教育相比，再分配是减少贫困和改善低收入家庭儿童的学业成果的一种更有效的方法。

And when education is seen as compensatory — when it is directed at poor children and intended to make up for the inadequacies of a child’s background — it becomes a thing that we do to children, which must be quantified, rather than a lifelong process that they get to be part of. These types of programs teach children that they are beneficiaries, not citizens, and they have no place in a democracy.

当教育被认为是补偿性的—当它针对贫困儿童并且旨在弥补儿童背景的不足时—我们对儿童做了一件必须被量化的事情，而不是他们成为其中一部分的终身过程。 这些类型的项目教育儿童们是受益者，而不是公民，儿童们在民主中没有地位。

https://jacobinmag.com/2018/08/a-blueprint-for-universal-childhood

Posted on

新自由主义（奥地利芝加哥学派）洗脑术分析

最近有些事情让我想起了一些很不愉快的回忆，不过我已经作出了承诺，所以我这里就不把具体的人拿来当反面教材了，这已经是我对一个奥派的最大的仁慈了。

不过这事也促使我重新思考了一下奥派，然后我发现：奥派洗脑术和共匪洗脑术是很相似的，但相比共匪，奥派欺骗性更强，因为其利用了一些没有公认定义的概念，蓄意进行误导。接下来，我就来好好分析一下，奥派是如何把人洗脑成纳粹的。

奥派的主张说起来并不复杂，也就这几点：主张私有产权，主张自由市场，鼓吹企业家精神，鼓吹财富来自自愿交易，鼓吹资本主义伟大光荣正确，敌视社会主义，敌视福利国家，敌视独立工会，反对政府干预经济，反对大政府。

当然，主张本身不是来自空气中的，而是搭配着相应的推导逻辑。而奥派的推导逻辑是这样的：自愿的交易增加财富，老板和工人间的交易也是自愿交易，没有剥削没有压迫（所以独立工会没用），企业的财富来自老板们的企业家精神，在此基础上产生的是自由市场，政府什么也别管是最好的（所以反对大政府），而对平等的要求（例如福利国家）会损害自由市场，而否定私有产权（私有制）的社会主义更是不可接受的，会通往奴役之路。

相信我博客的读者都能看出奥派的逻辑是有很大问题的。但请注意，奥派在大部分时候并不会明说其推导逻辑（因为很容易被反驳），而是抓住几个主张说事，基本上是以“自由市场”“自愿交易”打头，然后带你游花园（香港俗语，意思是把你带到对方的逻辑中进行误导）。

而奥派是如何吹捧资本主义的呢？我们先看看共匪的新闻联播吧。有个段子很好的概括了新闻联播的内容：前十分钟领导很辛苦，中间十分钟人民生活很美好，最后十分钟外国人民生活在水深火热中。

而奥派也是如此吹捧资本主义的：一部分说辞是老板很辛苦，老板们辛苦冒险创业，非常非常非常不容易，管理大批员工更不容易之类的；另一部分说辞是资本主义创造了财富，创造了我们这个丰富多彩的世界，人民在资本主义的美好生活之下非常快乐，然后举出一些例子，通常是通过个人奋斗成为中产阶级的例子，例如那部美国电影《当幸福来敲门》以及各路鸡汤成功学；最后一部分是社会主义下人民生活在水深火热中，例如“共产主义造成了一亿人的死亡”“社会主义的委内瑞拉爆发了经济危机”之类的。简单概括一下就是：老板很辛苦，中产很美好，社会主义下的人民生活在水深火热中。

直接批判上面这些吹捧的资料文章我的博客上有很多，我这里就不再重复了，不过你是否觉得这些说辞和共匪五毛狗的洗脑说辞很像呢？事实是，不是很像，而是一模一样：

奥派：独裁专制的老板很辛苦，要冒险，管理不容易，所以工人理应服从；五毛狗：独裁专制的政府很辛苦（也要冒险，冒着被推翻被内斗做掉的风险），党中央在下一盘大棋，政府管理这么大个国家不容易，所以人民理应服从。（多数时候奥派和五毛狗都是连独裁专制这点也不承认的，呵呵。）

奥派：老板用企业家精神创造出了财富，工人应该感恩；五毛狗：政府养活了14亿中国人民，所以人民应该感恩。（请政府和老板们都单独演示一下如何创造出财富的，呵呵。）

奥派：老板和工人是命运共同体，不是敌人；五毛狗：党和人民是命运共同体，生死与共。（老板给工人提供了工作机会，党给人民提供了和平环境，呵呵。）

奥派：老板们的暴行（例如性侵犯）与资本主义无关，是老板们的个人素质问题；五毛狗：官员们的贪污腐败是个人作风问题，与中央无关。（都是反贪官不反皇帝的逻辑。）

奥派：富人富有是因为其个人奋斗，看看某某某某某某，而穷人穷困说明其没有努力奋斗，所以穷人活该（有些奥派为了掩饰其纳粹本质不会说出“穷人穷困说明其没有努力奋斗”这句，但“富人富有是因为其个人奋斗”=“穷人穷困说明其没有努力奋斗”，理由如下：富人富有是因为其个人奋斗=因为个人奋斗，所以富人富有，其命题格式为因为p（个人奋斗），所以q（富人富有），而其逆否命题为因为非q（穷人穷困），所以非p（没有努力奋斗），也就是“穷人穷困说明其没有努力奋斗”；而原命题和逆否命题的真假必然是同时成立的，所以肯定前者为真等于肯定后者为真。而如果承认要推出富人富有除了个人奋斗之外还有其他必要条件需要满足，那么“富人富有是因为其个人奋斗”这一命题逻辑上就不成立了。顺便，拿个体来等价整体，在逻辑上也是不成立的。）；五毛狗：那些抱怨的都是些不肯奋斗的Loser，他们活该。（奥派和五毛狗共享丛林哲学，呵呵。）

奥派：（实在招架不住了）我没说资本主义是完美无缺的，但要是因此就否定资本主义，那等于说因为民主制度出了问题而否定民主；五毛狗：（也是实在招架不住了）我没说中国政府是完美无缺的，但这么大的国家出现问题很正常，要慢慢解决，而不是直接粗暴的要推翻政府。（奥派和五毛狗都在偷换概念，“民主制度出了问题”都是因为代议制本身不够民主造成的，并不是民主制度本身造成的问题，而资本主义和中国政府的问题，都是其本身造成的，不推翻如何解决问题？）

奥派：社会主义要求大公无私，这不符合人性，所以行不通；五毛狗：中国人素质太差，不适合民主。（社会主义从来不要求大公无私，倒是资本主义一直在无耻的要求员工将劳动果实大公无私的奉献给老板，例如“公司是你家”“工人要感恩”之类的纳粹狗屁。而民主是基本人权，没有额外要求，呵呵。）

奥派：老板和工人是自愿交易；五毛狗：人民选择了中国共产党。（既然不被剥削就得饿死是“自愿交易”，那么在内战的暴力之下被迫接受也是“自由选择”。）

奥派：政府是低效的，私人公司是高效的；五毛狗：民主是低效的，独裁是高效的。（在说效率如何之前，先明确一下是怎样的效率：私人公司在剥削压迫上当然是非常高效的，但是在满足人类的基本需求上是根本没效率可言的，还制造了大批根本就不创造财富的狗屁工作出来，例如把资源浪费在广告洗脑而不是改善工人待遇上；而独裁政府也是类似的 ，在剥削和镇压时相当高效，但捍卫人权的效率就别指望了。）

奥派：自由市场上人民可以进行自由选择（但前提是你要足够有钱，而奥派基本不会明确指出这一前提）；五毛狗：中国很自由，可以让你干这个干那个（但前提是你要足够有权或有钱，而五毛狗也不会明确指出这一前提）。（这里涉及到如何定义自由，引用一下大卫哈维的话：“自由是匹好马，但要看骑向何处”，而骑向何处由骑马的人决定，奥派鼓吹让老板骑马，结果就是马蹄践踏人权，骑向法西斯主义；五毛狗鼓吹让独裁政府骑马，结果也是马蹄践踏人权，骑向法西斯主义。）

奥派：你质疑资本主义，就是反对自由，开启通往奴役之路，看看苏联中国朝鲜越南古巴委内瑞拉…….社会主义更糟！；五毛狗：你质疑政府，就是反对中国/中华民族，看看阿富汗伊拉克叙利亚…….民主更糟！（五毛狗的上帝是中国和中华民族，奥派的上帝是自由（当然是他们自定义的老板们胡作非为的自由），只要没词了，就会把各自的上帝丢出来压人。阿富汗伊拉克叙利亚一秒钟的民主都没有过，同样苏联中国朝鲜越南古巴委内瑞拉也一秒钟的社会主义都没有过。）

奥派：老板们相互之间竞争，就会去讨好消费者，争抢工人；五毛狗：党中央从来都是为人民服务的，因为国家崩溃了对它也不利啊。（嗯，完美的老板，完美的党中央，而事实是老板们的竞争是为了获取更多利润，为此会残忍的制造出更多的失业大军以提升利润率和控制工人（一般来说，市场越小，经济越萧条，竞争就越激烈），并且使用假冒伪劣原料来降低成本，把资源花在广告洗脑上以操纵消费欲望；而党中央也早就在避税天堂找好了后路。至于“老板争抢工人”，这和中国梦一样是白日做梦，老板才不会允许自己沦落到争抢工人的地步呢。）

奥派：政府最好什么也别管；五毛狗：别给政府添麻烦。（所以说奥派和五毛狗都主张小政府，不管人民的死活，呵呵。）

奥派：福利国家会导致人民依赖政府；五毛狗：高福利养懒人。（穷人的基本人权得到捍卫就会“养懒人”“依赖政府”，富人掠夺亿万甚至万亿却没有懒死，傻逼们就是不承认人类的贪欲是无限的，呵呵。）

奥派：老板们根据种族性取向性别认同等天生属性拒绝提供服务是老板们的自由，政府不应干涉（参见安兰德）；五毛狗：国家大事，由政府自由决策，人民不该评论。（奥派和五毛狗都把践踏人权和自由等同，呵呵。）

奥派：独裁比民主对自由市场更有利，反对自由市场的民主就是多数人的暴政（参见米塞斯哈耶克弗里德曼们是如何为右翼独裁者们和法西斯主义洗地的）；五毛狗：独裁比民主更能让国家强大。（奥派和五毛狗都反民主，亲独裁，当然，民主和老板们胡作非为的自由市场以及政府胡作非为的强大国家的确是冲突的。）

奥派：独立工会会破坏正常的经济秩序（参见铅笔纳粹社和哈耶克的狗屁）；五毛狗：上街抗议是破坏社会秩序。（都是“你反抗我就是寻衅滋事”的逻辑，呵呵。）

奥派：社会主义就是苏联和中国那种计划经济（实际上更准确的称呼是指令经济），这是让政府控制一切，通往奴役之路；五毛狗：民主就是乱，就是枪击，就是穷困，就是弱小。（奥派和五毛狗这扎稻草人的技术都很娴熟啊，呵呵。顺便说一句，苏联和中国不仅没有任何平等，反而处在世界上最不平等的国家之列。至于朝鲜，那基尼系数都逼近1了，因为全国只有三胖子这么一头霸占了大部分财富的肥猪。）

奥派：平等和自由是冲突的；五毛狗：民主和和平幸福的生活是冲突的。（都是假命题，平等是自由的保障（当然和奥派那种老板们胡作非为的自由是冲突的），民主也是和平幸福的生活的保障（中国那几亿被饿死病死冻死打死的人有个屁的和平幸福生活）。）

总结一下，奥派的洗脑术和共匪是基本一致的，但奥派比共匪高明的地方在于利用“自由”“效率”“平等”这些没有公认定义的概念蓄意进行混淆，把无知的人误导进他们的脑残逻辑中。而且不到必要时刻，奥派多数不会露出反民主的真面目，而是会虚构“某些情况下民主会和自由冲突”这种假命题以进行洗脑。

最后，诸位应该也看出来了，奥派的理论逻辑是建立在反人权的基础之上的，根本就不管别人的死活，所以奥派和反女权反LGBTQIA平权这些搭配出现是符合逻辑的，情理之中的，反倒是如果一个奥派宣称支持平权，那么此人很可能是个无耻的骗徒，至少是不值得信任的。

Posted on

习近平：内外受敌的“强人”

中美冲突、经济放缓以及对政治的不满，正在动摇习近平的铁腕统治

Vincent Kolo 中国劳工论坛

美国华裔学者裴敏欣说：“事情发生了很大变化”。中国“强人”习近平现在面临诸多难题，突然之间他已不像过去那么强大。包括裴敏欣在内，海外的一众中国观察家都注意到，一系列挑战和危机已经削弱了习近平看似不可动摇的权力。

有迹象表明中共高层内部出现了政策分歧，而且其中部分已经公开显露出来。自6年前习近平上台之后这是很罕见的。最重要的分歧是关于，以多大的力度刺激中国正在放缓的经济，以及如何应对特朗普的关税政策。如预想的一样，习近平在3月份取消任期限制的做法越来越可能是搬起石头砸自己的脚。

当全国人大全票同意取消任期限制时，习近平看似无懈可击。但是现在，尽管习近平已经贬黜了大部分竞争对手，瓦解了所有敌对派系，他却面临着上台6年以来最严重的挑战。虽然在政权内部没有人敢公开反对他，但是他也变得更加孤立。现在已没有过去那么多地方势力为他唱赞歌。统治精英们小心翼翼地和这位“核心领导人”保持着距离。

群众抗议

从数万P2P网络信贷受害者抗议，到宁夏回族穆斯林反对拆除清真寺的三天静坐抗议，再到波及90万名儿童的假疫苗事件，各地群众抗议彼伏此起，这也与习近平刚上台时相对平静的局面大不相同。中国的公共医疗丑闻层出不穷，假疫苗事件只不过是其中最新的一例。它让人们看到，所谓“中华人民共和国史上最大规模的”反腐运动实际上几乎没有改善普通群众的生活。

最重要的是工人罢工的兴起。跨省联合罢工的出现表明工人的组织水平上了一个新台阶。过去4个深圳佳士工人争取独立工会的斗争尽管规模不是很大，但是它和新一轮左翼学生行动结合起来，踏出中国新兴工人运动的关键一步。

这些事件开始动摇习近平政权的统治基础。自由派专栏作家邓聿文在《南华早报》上说：“大众对当局的信任降到了冰点”。他还说道：“整个社会已经开始躁动，大众正急切要求改变现在的制度。”（《南华早报》，2018年8月15日）

而该报的前主编王向伟则像是为了安抚中共领导层，说道：“说中国不稳定是言过其实，但不满是普遍存在的。”

贸易战

清华大学的自由派学者许章润对中国局势的估计也是同样黯淡。他在一封大胆批评习近平的公开信中写道：“特别是此次中美贸易战争，将国力的虚弱与制度软肋暴露无遗”，“包括整个官僚集团在内，当下全体国民对于国家发展方向和个人身家性命安危，再度深感迷惘，担忧日甚，已然引发全民范围一定程度的恐慌”。许章润还在公开信里要求恢复国家主席任期限制以及平反六四。

7月，中美贸易战正式爆发。这场贸易战实际上不仅仅关乎贸易，而且标志着世界上最大的两个帝国主义国家开始爆发地缘政治冲突。它可能造成灾难性的后果，而且已经开始改变中国的政治局势。

习近平政权显然没有准备好应对特朗普的攻势。这令中国的政商精英感到怀疑和不安并互相指责。政权的威信和自信形象受到打击，在当前其后果远超过美国关税在短期内有限的经济影响。不过贸易冲突升级的可能性越来越高，如果爆发更大的冲突，可能会严重打击中国经济，而且这场冲突不太可能在短期内结束。它可能会长期以不同形式持续下去，间中或有一些暂时的协议缓和局势，接着又爆发新的对抗。

这些事件已经开始动摇习近平“永远正确”的形象。过去个人崇拜的形象工程已经降低了调门，似乎证实了公众情绪的深刻转变。许多城市撤下了习近平的画像，歌颂习近平的文章也不像过去那么多了。中共宣传部门察觉到群众的不满正在增长，所以想要降低人们对“核心领导人”的关注度。

自去年年底以来群众的不满就在增长，现在贸易战爆发，加上国内经济低迷（例如下跌的股市和汇率）更是火上浇油。习近平取消任期限制的做法成了群众发泄不满的焦点。我们当时就解释过，取消任期限制对习近平来说是一场豪赌。它未能达到习近平预期的效果，反而加剧了政治不稳定。

领导人“好像被吓倒了”

尽管在贸易战爆发前中共的困境就已经在加深，但贸易战进一步严重打击了习近平的权威。习近平政权没有像过去那样展现出力量和决心，反而显得迟钝、犹豫不决。《经济学人》杂志说：“在特朗普的贸易攻势面前，中国领导人好像被吓倒了。”

可靠消息称，习近平及其手下被特朗普打了个措手不及。他们估错了特朗普的意图，以为这次也只要多进口一些美国商品就能平息冲突。中国社科院的顶尖经济学家余永定承认，7月6日美国开征第一批关税之前，没有多人认为真会爆发贸易战。

可见中共严重低估了华府的意图。不过在资本主义之下，中共几乎也没什么办法避开这场冲突，因为这场冲突根植于饱受危机的全球资本主义的内部矛盾，以及美国资本主义的危机。在危机时代，帝国主义冲突是不可避免的。

现在中共政权内部有许多人责怪习近平当局太过自大，结果作茧自缚，招致贸易战和其他国际冲突。就像特朗普的“让美国再次伟大”一样，习近平用所谓的“中华民族伟大复兴”来维持国内的支持。他大肆煽动民族主义，采取“一带一路”等强硬的外交政策，并在南海建设军事设施。

中国人民大学“习近平思想研究院”副院长王义桅说：“我们应该保持低调……贸易战已使中国变得更谦逊。”王义桅告诉彭博社，他认为政府应该“重新考虑”一带一路计划。官方媒体现在重新开始广泛宣传“韬光养晦”。不久前中共的第一喉舌《人民日报》警告媒体不要“浮夸自大”，不要夸大中国崛起和技术进步，不要大肆鼓吹中国已超越美国。

中美贸易战是习近平上台以来第一场重大国际危机。《彭博社》评论说，这场贸易战最清晰地揭露了习近平的失误和困局。

刺激，还是紧缩？

但是贸易战不会是习近平的最后一个难题。首先，中国当然不能幸免。中国将会在全球经济中遭遇更大的阻力，这不单单是指与特朗普的贸易争端。10年前爆发全球资本主义危机尚未过去，仍继续着动摇着各国政治制度，加剧资本主义民族国家间的紧张局势。现在“一带一路”全面受挫。不仅美国、日本、澳大利亚、印度和欧盟各国政府因担心失去对“一带一路”沿线国家的政治经济影响力而大力阻挠，而且马来西亚、巴基斯坦、缅甸等“一带一路”国家的群众和反对派也表示反对。

其次，在贸易战正式启动前，中国经济就已开始急剧放缓。自2017年开始，习近平为了打击“金融风险”、打击失控的影子银行而收紧信贷，而拉低了经济增长。这暴露了中国经济对债务的严重依赖。

政府现在不得不在一定程度上重新采取经济刺激策略，向银行注入更多资金，推动地方政府发行更多债券为新的基建项目融资。不过其规模远不如过去的刺激方案。《南华早报》的汤姆·霍伦德（Tom Holland）评论说：“政府没有踩油门，它只是稍微松开了煞车器”。

同时采取这两种相互矛盾的政策（经济刺激和金融紧缩）有多种原因。原因之一还是关乎习近平的权威。霍伦德说到，如果现在采取180度的转弯，会让中国领导人在政治上颜面无存。部分官员支持更坚决的刺激措施，而其他一些人则担心完全放弃去杠杆（金融紧缩）政策会加剧未来几年爆发金融危机的风险。这两派正为实行何种政策展开政治斗争。

不过法国兴业银行的经济学家姚伟指出，自2008年以来中国的经济回升无不是依靠基建刺激。所以姚伟等经济学家不认为中共政府现在的政策能避免未来一年GDP增速更严重地放缓，特别在贸易战升级的情况下。

习近平政权现在在经济政策方面也表现出内部分歧和犹豫不决。中国今年的确是进入了“新时代”，不过并不是习近平在中共十九大上所指的那样。习近平称帝和他的“宏伟计划”都是为了解决中共政权和中国社会的危机，但越来越明显的是，这些“解决方案”反而令危机更加深重。

http://chinaworker.info/cn/2018/09/02/18524/

Posted on

“掛逼面、修車、女大神”：三和住民的愛、性與人生

（写在前面：被踩在底层，被剥削压迫，一无所有，连基本的性欲都被压迫殆尽，伴侣和小孩更是连想的条件都没有，他们和她们意识到了资本主义对他们和她们做了什么，却不知如何反抗，更不知如何解决。）

摘要：他們也許隱隱發現了：在醫療、教育、住房和司法上，在人生的方方面面，他們的父親並非是城邦的自由民。為了逃離巨大齒輪的暴力碾壓，年輕人們終日聚集在三和，徘徊，張望，流離失所。

三和大神，指的是聚集於深圳市的三和人才市場旁邊打日結零工的“遊民無產者”，由於他們往往年齡較小，熟悉互聯網文化，所以通過網絡創造出了屬於自己的一整套亞文化符號系統。

三和地區周圍是一片普通的住宅樓和一些並不太低檔的商場，人才市場就像一個異物，突兀地插入了小市民生活區內。三和的生存條件毫無疑問糟糕到了極限，這裡的街道垃圾遍地，深圳多雨的天氣使三和小巷臭氣熏天。

大神們就在這樣的環境裡活動，經常不得不在糞水堆旁邊聊天、玩手機乃至吃飯，衛生狀況非常堪憂。這裡的食物也都是最廉價的快餐，5元的“掛逼面”[1]是最流行的。

而晚上，大神們如果願意花15元，可以去睡8人一間的大廳，更多時候則是直接睡在三和附近的廣場或者臺階上。

充斥黑廠和黑中介的世界還會好嗎？

這次我們詢問了幾位大神，為什麼不願意進入工廠拿穩定的工資，過一般打工青年的日子？

據一位大神說：“中介黑廠多。”輾轉打工期間，他們遇到過各種各樣的不人道待遇。

有導致工人不孕不育的“毒車間”：“我當時聽說了，就沒去，不知道的人也就這樣進去了。”

有變相禁止請假的工廠，病假需要層層手續，通常處理結果就是“工頭給你扔一包退燒藥，讓你繼續幹活”。

管理層用各種理由剋扣工資，“一封警告信200塊”，並以工資為要挾限制工人行動，“一不小心一個月的工資就沒了。”

有的廠宿舍條件極差，盜竊頻發，也聽說過強姦案，甚至有好幾起“女的就在宿舍就生了”的事件。

扣押身份證等變相監禁行為也遇到過，他們也只能：“沒辦法，認了，只能幹完趕緊走，最多下次不去了。”

更別提一些工廠最常見的問題：伙食差，“吃豬食”；工資低；工作環境充滿噪音、熱浪；還有日復一日的流水線生活中的無力感。

比起在黑廠忍受非人待遇，“做一天可以玩三天”的日結人生更加自由。

日結工資在200左右，通常是一些苦力工作，大神們拿了一天的工資，可以在網吧或者旅館過三天什麼都不用做的日子。

“做長期工的話受約束，上班有壓力一樣，日結就不一樣了。”

雖然他們出身底層，但並不能以此默認他們就應該忍受普遍的不人道待遇和對人身尊嚴和權利的隨意侵害。從根本上說，他們過上大神的生活，正是因為不願意完成主流社會對體力勞動者的規劃和期望，不願被奴役。

在三和，我有幸請到兩位老哥吃飯。

一位老哥告訴我，16歲的他不懂事，剛出來被黑中介騙去幹活，一個月只有1000塊錢工資，每天工作12小時。流水線工人、木工、地鐵工人和環衛清潔工他都做過。每個月寄錢回家，用於還債和弟弟妹妹的學費，就沒有留給自己的錢了，還好工廠包吃包住。

這樣的日子，他過了兩年。

18歲他進了大廠，一個月工資3500。自己生活費漲到了500，其他都貢獻給父母、弟弟妹妹的生活費和回家的車票。

直到20歲，弟弟妹妹都有了不錯的工作，但他的工資仍然是3500。父母開始嫌棄他了，他們說他沒有用，賺不到錢，沒有女朋友沒有車。“打罵是常有的事。”

2016年，他的食品批發生意虧本，向弟弟妹妹求助8000元，卻遭到了拒絕。他說，他們現在都有了工作和家庭，嫌棄自己賺不了錢，卻忘記了哥哥曾把青春奉獻給了他們。

他心涼了，一氣之下來到了三和，幹日結，打遊戲，睡掛逼床，日復一日，一轉眼已經兩年了。

三和日結零工的性與愛

在三和，老哥們談論最多的話題就是“修車”（性交易）和賭博。

作為一名女性，其實我很難融入他們關於性的談話，在長達一個月的微信群聊中，我才得以瞭解到三和獨特的性“文化”。

談論龍華附近的性工作者，比如以價格低廉口碑好聞名的“紅姐”和白富美的“高傲妹”；偷拍路過三和的女性和中介女性（如“黑妹”），並加以調侃；在群內傳閱黃色圖片和視頻……這些都是老哥們喜歡的發洩方式。

但是他們大多沒有那麼多錢，“在三和，百分之七十的大神幾個月都沒有性生活的，可能百分之八十。”老哥們表示：“修一次可以掛好幾個月，還是擼好。”性工作者服務一次的價格是300元左右，日結工作很難存下錢，所以他們也只限於口頭調侃。

三和不是沒有女大神，流離失所的年輕女性來到三和後，更願意兼職性服務業，因為比起黑廠和缺乏保障的日結人生，出賣身體是一種成本低廉、代價不高、容易堅持的工作。

據老哥們說，天黑以後，在三和旁邊的龍華公園的隱蔽處，曾有30~50元一次的“快炮”服務：也就是女方只“脫一截褲子”，不脫上衣的速戰速決交易。

由於安全措施的缺乏，這些女性很容易沾染疾病，“只有到最後都破罐破摔的，才願意幹快炮，一般女的不幹的。”這些女性為了幾包煙或者一個月的話費，就要承擔起染上各種棘手性病的風險。如果不是徹底走投無路，很難想象任何人會願意這樣生活。

30元，在龍華公園的黑夜裡，從一個走投無路的人那裡，交到另一個走投無路的人手中。

其實，三和附近的性工作者一般都不是專職者，性服務對她們來說是一個暫時提升生活條件的“外快”。很多時候，她們還是深圳最普通的工廠女工。

　在更深入瞭解幾位大神後，我發現了一些意料之外的事：在本該性慾充沛的年齡，更多的人卻對性持一種消極，甚至是迴避的態度。他們告訴我，其實自己並沒有那麼大的性慾，“在那地方待久了都沒性慾”，睡不好，吃不飽，缺乏隱私，工作疲勞都是原因。

不管是對於“紅姐”還是其他三和女神，在私底下，大神們保持一種淡漠的姿態，他們說：“其實沒那麼大興趣了，也就那回事兒。”問到心儀的廠妹“小潘”，老哥說：“不太可能了，沒想那麼遠。”問是否嚮往婚姻家庭，他們總是回答“沒想過”，老哥們認為，其實在三和也挺好的，如果住宿條件再好一點，肯定會有更多人來當大神。

三和像一個空氣不清新的避難所，擁擠的視線，惡劣的環境，在這裡，連動手解決的念頭也一天天減少。

圍在一起開黃腔，可以說一部分是出於一種文化慣性。

這是一個在性這一層面上充滿矛盾的群體，一方面他們和大部分底層男性一樣“飢渴”，不受主流性道德的束縛；一方面他們好像又是禁慾主義的擁躉，從他們身上感受不到年輕人的迫切的幻想和真誠的渴望，彷彿一個被暴晒乾癟的陳年絲瓜。長期的壓抑使他們的性慾支離破碎，一方面無限膨脹而得不到滿足，一方面這一原始的、本能的衝動竟然在漸漸消失。

性的壓抑和扭曲的禁慾感，像三和空氣中的複雜臭味一般無時無刻不籠罩著他們。

徘徊、張望和流離失所的三和年輕人

三和大神們所受的教育決定了他們註定只能成為最底層的體力勞動者，而他們的階級地位決定了他們在婚姻市場幾乎不可能找到交易對象。

主流社會期望他們像自己的父輩一樣，年復一年，任勞任怨地裝手機、擰螺絲，在喪失壓榨價值之後回到農村、養豬、蓋房子、生孩子、老去，就此消失於主流視野之外。

可是在深圳——這個資本主義極度發達的超級城市，年輕一代工人可以比父輩獲取到更多的信息，這條道路由此喪失了吸引力，並展現出它的原貌：貧困、陰暗又汙濁的底層人生。

他們也許隱隱發現了：在醫療、教育、住房和司法上，在人生的方方面面，他們的父親並非是城邦的自由民。

為了逃離巨大齒輪的暴力碾壓，年輕人們終日聚集在三和，徘徊，張望，流離失所。

註釋：

[1]掛逼：三和的日結零工不再進廠打工，靠日結度日。日結並非每天都有，當連日結都沒得做、飯也沒得吃之時，大神們稱這種狀態為“掛逼”。

https://www.gooread.com/article/20128175133/

Posted on

对佳士运动如何蜕变为毛派秀场以及年轻学生成为毛派的原因分析

最近关于佳士运动，最显眼的新闻是：

今天是9月9日，部分佳士工人声援团成员奔赴韶山拜祭毛泽东。

基本上这新闻一来，之前很多持部分支持或中立态度的人被气得骂街，有不少人更是直接骂这群学生奴才。而我要说的是，这条新闻一出，其实已经正式宣告佳士运动的失败了。当然，在此之前，佳士运动就已经被毛派严重渗透了，但之前尚可用“打着红旗反红旗”解释，但这祭拜行为是没法解释的，因为这不是在抗争，而是在投诚：你看，我们不是反贼，不是境外势力，我们是忠于党魁毛主席的，我们非常忠心，请老爷们手下留情啊！

但为什么会如此？首先让我们回顾一下整个事件：

wiki的介绍：2018年5月10日，佳士员工余浚聪被开除。5月10日，佳士科技有限公司工人向坪山区总工会反映情况，区总工会表示可以组建工会解决问题[10]。6月，深圳佳士科技管理层组建“职工代表大会”，實質上將要求組建工會的工人所提出的候選人排除在外[11]。6月7日，员工向坪山区总工会和下属的龙田街道总工会提交了组建工会的申请，区总工会的意见是员工可以先去发展会员。6月29日，工人们写下《致佳士科技职工代表换届选举筹备组的一封信》。7月12日，在区总工会指示下，筹建工会的员工广泛传播《申请加入佳士工会意愿表》，有89名员工签字。7月16日，组建工会的员工代表刘鹏华被两个陌生人殴打。7月18日，另一位员工代表米久平被扔出厂外。[12]

BBC的报道：抗议发生在中国广东省深圳市佳士科技工厂。工厂工人指公司存在超时加班、严苛罚款、欠缴公积金等违法行为，希望通过组建工会来维护自己的权益。今年5月，数名佳士工人开始筹备组建工会，但随后有积极组建工会的工人代表遭到不明身份人士殴打，也有涉事工人被开除。

可以看到，一开始佳士事件完全就是工人自发的维权行动，但与之前的维权行动不同的是，这次佳士工人明确提出了要建立独立工会。

而毛派是什么时候开始干涉的呢？

wiki介绍：7月27日下午，30名前往燕子岭派出所抗议的工人、声援者，共23男7女再次被警方拘捕，其中至少六人被燕子岭派出所以“尋釁滋事”的罪名刑事拘留[14][15]。29日，各地声援的学生、左派人士来到派出所，這些聲援者以年輕人為主，或席地而坐，或站成一圈，高喊口号并齐唱《国际歌》[16]。社交媒體上的視頻顯示，包括工人、學生等15名代表，在廣州工運人士沈夢雨的帶領下於30日下午四點半向坪山區委書記遞交了公開信。在宣讀完公開信之後，聲援者試圖進入區政府但被阻攔。約30分鐘後，警方又强制传唤了這15名声援者[11]。有消息稱這些聲援者在當晚9時許獲釋[17]。

BBC报道：7月27日事件进一步发酵，一些佳士工人及其支持者前往工厂要求复工，但遭到警方逮捕。工人们和到现场支援的学生自发组成了现场声援团，呼吁释放被捕工人。现场声援团成员岳昕表示，有29人遭到深圳坪山当地警方逮捕，目前仍有14名工人未被释放。

声援团在深圳坪山燕子岭派出所门前举行集会抗议，还向深圳市坪山区检察院递交公开信。26岁的声援团核心成员、中山大学统计系硕士毕业生沈梦雨在街头演讲的视频在推特、微信等社交媒体上广泛流传。

不过，上周六声援团称，沈梦雨遭到自称她叔叔伯伯的人绑架，目前下落不明，另外也有一名叫小胡的声援团成员失联。

而自从毛派开始干涉，事件就开始变味了：在社交媒体上出境的主角们由工人变成了由毛派学生主导的声援团，声援团成员的消息占据了绝大部分版面，而工人却被丢在一边，只是偶尔当个配角而已。

而自从8月24日声援团驻地被共匪暴力清场之后，几乎所有的相关新闻都是关于毛派声援团成员的了，被关押的工人却被绝大部分人遗忘。
工人们的诉求其实很简单：建立属于我们自己的独立工会。而毛派借机宣扬毛贼神教，实在是令人不齿，事实是他们也根本就没帮到工人，光顾着自己出风头了。
乌有之乡的那些老毛派没什么可分析的，他们就是想回到毛贼极权时代而已。但这些年轻的学生们，他们从小受的可不是毛贼语录洗脑，而是铅笔纳粹社洗脑，为什么铅笔纳粹社的洗脑之下会出现他们呢？
我不清楚他们的心路历程，但看过之前和他们接近的广州八青年的自述，看得出来，这些青年同情底层穷人，拒绝接受铅笔纳粹社逻辑，但他们在墙内唯一能接触到的看起来帮穷人说话的，就是毛贼语录了。他们并不清楚毛贼的真面目，不清楚毛贼时代发生的灾难和惨死的几千万人，不清楚毛贼是个说一套做一套，挂羊头卖狗肉的大骗徒，更不清楚毛贼根本不允许独立工会和反对派的存在。还有，铅笔纳粹社是反毛的，这也导致他们错误的认为“敌人的敌人就是朋友”，从而相信了毛贼那套。
而自由派们也有责任，你们的经济学是奥地利芝加哥新自由主义经济学，这套垃圾是完全和劳工为敌的，这些青年如果看清了毛贼的真面目，也不会反过来接受奥地利芝加哥垃圾的。当然，工人们也不会接受，结果就是给毛派钻了空子。
最后送给这些青年几句话：想清楚你们到底想要什么？你们如果真的是想要工人阶级的解放，那么就记住：从来都没有什么救世主，也不靠神仙皇帝！要创造人类的幸福，全靠我们自己！幻想毛贼帮你们解决问题，真是奴性！以及，你们信奉的毛贼神教不是社会主义，社会主义主张政治民主+经济民主，而你们的毛贼神教主张先锋队极权独裁（以“带领”，“指导”等名义），而这是列宁和布朗基学的，被马克思反对的纳粹破烂！
Posted on

推文合集12

经常在推上看到这样一种傻逼说法：“共匪指标杀人是计划经济思维造成的。”呵呵，这种傻逼一定没混过销售公司，因为私人销售公司的剥削模式就是老板给销售员工下达指标，达不到就要受惩罚甚至直接走人的。

实际上老板给员工下指标是自由资本主义下的常态，而国家资本主义下，政府成了最大的老板，所以高层给下层下指标就会成为常态，这不是什么“计划经济思维”，恰恰是本应公有的政府接受了私人公司的模式造成的恶果。

顺便说一句，苏联和毛贼中国的经济模式，常见称呼是中央计划经济，但这种独裁者拍脑袋的经济模式，更准确的称呼是指令经济。说起独裁者拍脑袋这点，指令经济和市场经济是一致的，不同之处只在于指令经济下只有一个老板，就是政府，而市场经济下老板比较多而已。
共匪的指标实际上就是私人老板发明的KPI，有人说KPI效率高，呵呵，你想要什么样的效率？你是想要为了追求破案率而四处制造冤案的效率呢，还是想要慢一些但捍卫人权的效率？
对我来说，“传统”是一种需要被扔进博物馆展览柜，然后锁好，防止逃出来的东西，而不是被四处拿出来践踏人权。
最讨厌那些指责欺诈受害者的傻逼了，按照他们的逻辑，有人买到假货是因为此人没有自带质检实验室，这什么傻逼逻辑？骗子都要受害者自己去识别，那要政府干什么？
关于最近的那个自杀的P2P骗局受害者，推上有些声音真是恶心，不得不说几句：1，共匪政府和国企都为P2P骗局站台，所以这根本不是什么单纯的投资项目，这也是为什么这一骗局能骗到那么多人的原因所在；2，有人说她自己不看事实，呵呵，你有什么证据下这种结论？如果她的确是那种看到事实也不认的战狼，那她的确活该，但现在有证据证明她是个战狼吗？没有，恰恰相反的是，她很可能根本就没有看到过事实，完全活在谎言中，所以亲自遭受真相之后就马上受不了崩溃了。3，关于是否看到事实这个问题，我想说的是，每个人的资源，条件，运气，经历，教育，社交，这些都是不同的，她有你的资源条件运气？
我的态度很明确，真正该骂的，是那些什么都知道但为了自己的利益愚弄民众的独裁者和其走狗（我敢说剥削阶级十个有十个都知道这国的真相，但为了利益选择合谋），和把事实扔到面前也死活不看非要活在臆想中的战狼（以及唐纳德希特勒粉丝，郭粉，姨粉，基督徒），而不是这些被骗的受害者。
既然傻逼纳粹们认为有人玩游戏的时间太长是游戏的错，那么全世界的乌龟都得去死了：因为有人玩乌龟的时间也很长。
军队和警察都是剥削阶级的镇压机器，没有例外。
这个世界上只要有剥削压迫存在，那么就有战争存在，no war but class war，和平？剥削压迫之下不可能有和平。
总是有傻逼把其他人，特别是儿童的大脑看做大水坑，别人往里面倒什么就会是什么，所以才会嚷嚷“啊，道德沦丧啊”“啊，这样让我怎么教小孩啊”。
几乎所有的右翼对社会主义的指责——它奖励懒惰，它奖励有权者，它造成大规模的灾难，之类的——实际上都在非常非常明显的指责资本主义和发达市场经济。
一个国家的文明程度取决于其人民对社会主义的态度。
爱国主义和民族主义的本质是：只有我认定的本国人和本族人是人，其他人都不是人，可以随便虐杀。我不可能接受这种纳粹逻辑。
新自由主义必然会演变为法西斯主义，就如同纳粹必然走向战争。
爱国爱民族和爱人是冲突的。
同理心是人类本性，但资本主义埋葬了它。资本主义鼓励竞争和贪婪，贬损合作和平等，所以资本主义者们比起帮助其他人更愿意去填满自己的口袋。
声称“人性”意味着人类太自私以至于无法实现社会主义的人，同时也是声称因为人们会足够慷慨捐赠从而不需要福利项目的人。

共匪对非洲的“援助”是和当地剥削阶级勾结进行经济侵略，标准的帝国主义行径，傻逼民逗们竟然还以为是给当地人民撒币去了，真是傻逼。

我前几天说中国的儿童都是易碎玻璃做的，现在需要补充一下：不仅是易碎玻璃做的，而且没有脑子，别人说什么就是什么，所以才会总是“受到不良影响”，呵呵。
很多纳粹嚷嚷穆斯林生育率高，事实上亚洲和中东的穆斯林国家生育率普遍是2.3左右，而且一直在下降，过个几十年也会进入老龄化社会，因为这些国家普遍接受了新自由主义，所以生育率慢慢和资本主义高度发展的欧美接近了。
生育率取决于生育抚养成本以及后代能带来的收益，农业社会生育抚养成本很低，后代很小就能干农活产生收益，所以生育率高；资本主义社会生育抚养成本很高（而且越来越高），后代需要等到成年才可能产生收益（也可能根本没有收益），所以资本主义越发达的社会生育率就越低。

私生子被污名化也是私有制父权压迫制度造成的。

对付那些天天拉大旗的傻逼纳粹（拉国家，民族，人类大旗），最有效的回应是要他自己去牺牲。 有个讽刺这类纳粹的笑话： 某农民接受采访。记者：如果你有幢别墅，你愿意贡献给祖国吗？ 农民：愿意！ 记者：那么如果你有两头牛呢？ 农民：不愿意！ 记者：为什么？ 农民：因为我真的有两头牛。

经常被纳粹们抹黑的法国大革命是1848革命的序曲，没有法国大革命，就不会有席卷欧洲的1848革命，也就不会有现代民主，呵呵。
最近正在美国发生的监狱囚犯反抗奴隶劳动的大起义，美国的主流媒体又是集体装瞎。别天真了，没有哪个国家是不和意识形态绑定的，不同之处只在于绑定哪个意识形态。
麦凯恩是帝国主义者，他支持每一场侵略战争；他是新自由主义者，敌视劳工攻击独立工会；他是父权主义者，反对堕胎这一基本人权。而现在，他被一群进步右派们吹捧为英雄，真是可笑。
在美国黑人被扔进监狱的比例比在中国维吾尔人被扔进集中营的比例还高，呵呵。
任何劳工权利得到保护的国家都绝不可能是自由市场的，因为创造“自由市场”概念的奥地利芝加哥哈巴狗们说得很清楚了，工会是自由市场的死敌。
不过其实没必要和资本主义哈巴狗纠缠概念，只要搞清楚一点：他们不会承认资本主义的任何罪行。
毛派中有一个分支可以被称作“原教旨共产主义”，他们把任何目的不是直接改变生产关系的行动都称作“右派的”，这种我认为不是纯傻逼就是故意来捣乱的间谍。这种其实类似于推上那些“口头暴力革命派”，别人一表达对共匪的不满，他们就嚷嚷“你怎么不拿枪干”之类的，实际效果就是维稳。
如果天天嚷嚷“穆斯林用子宫征服世界”“恐怖分子大部分都是穆斯林”“必须限制穆斯林移民”这些纳粹狗屁都只是“批评伊斯兰教”，那当年希特勒的宣传也不过是在“批评犹太教”，对了，当年元首的仇恨宣传之一是“犹太人都是共产主义者”，呵呵。
加拿大共产党纪念胡志明，资本主义哈巴狗又开始嚷嚷了。胡志明在1969年就死了（越共夺取政权是1975年），而在此之前，他参与了抗日和抗击法国殖民，纪念一下有什么问题？
非要说越南的事，也好，由于胡志明参与了抗日和反抗法国殖民，他和越共在越南人民中的支持率是很高的，结果美国政府不干了，空降了一个独裁专制的南越政府，1960年联合国试图调停双方，结果民选总统是胡志明，然后美国政府不肯承认大选结果，后来又主动发动战争，毁了越南的民主希望。
资本主义哈巴狗们同情麦凯恩，呵呵，谁先发动战争的？谁不承认民选政府的？谁向越南撒的橙剂毒害了几百万越南人民的？谁制造美莱大屠杀，连儿童都不放过的？谁把反对南越独裁政权的人扔进集中营里折磨虐待的？越南人民的命就不是命了？
evil这个白痴真是一点长进也没有啊，到现在都没能分清楚社会主义内部的流派，天天拿着个毛派文章攻击社会主义，呵呵。哦，他还说要为小孩指明方向，看来他女儿要被他指到资本主义的深沟里去了，真是可怜啊。哦，顺便说一下，委内瑞拉属于委内瑞拉人民，不属于马杜罗国家资本主义黑帮，也不属于你亲爱的美国政府，所以，马杜罗滚，你亲爱的美军也要滚。
C：资本主义尊重私有产权，而共匪不尊重，所以共匪不是资本主义。 S：哈哈哈哈，共匪当然尊重私有产权了，而且太尊重以至于认为只有他们自己才有资格控制生产资料和资本。
缅甸的现状证明了国族主义和民主是不兼容的。
共匪的所谓援助，不过是利用债务控制非洲各国的经济帝国主义。

问：为什么TERF们容不下跨性别女性？答：想要当皇帝的奴才能接受民主？

战争不会使资产阶级受到损害，恰恰相反，战争给资产阶级提供了大发横财的好机会。而死在战场上的，都是无产阶级。

问：为什么私有制父权压迫制度容不下和顺性别异性恋家庭不同的性少数家庭？答：你什么时候看见独裁对民主的态度好过？

右派中也就是一小部分ancap（无政府资本主义）算是有那么一点理想主义色彩（虽然他们的理想非常白痴），而主流的芝加哥孙子，从来都是非常现实主义的，他们的那套理论就是为资本主义洗地用的，没有其他目的。资本主义憎恨福利国家，他们就鼓吹小政府；社会主义者上台了，他们就支持右翼独裁政权。
政府拿穷人的钱补贴大公司，他们从不反对；政府要是拿大公司的钱补贴穷人，他们蹦哒的比谁都高。政府约束疯狂的资本，他们嚷嚷破坏自由；政府肆意践踏人权，他们完全当没看见。
有人鼓吹“国家与意识形态分离”，但这是幻想，这世界上所有自称没有意识形态的国家，实际上都是以资本主义为国家意识形态的，看看那保护私有制的宪法就知道。
我曾经的香港朋友吹捧美国的法治，然后我嘲笑说：美国的监狱关押的基本上都是穷人，其中黑人又远多过白人，这叫法治？
那些歧视攻击性少数的顺性别异性恋，其实他们自己是非常没自信的，他们对自己的性别和性取向毫无信心，所以才会如此恐惧和他们不一样的人。
父权下的“男子气概”和儒家的“君君臣臣父父子子”本质上是一样的，人造出压迫者的模板和被压迫者的模板，然后强迫不同的人遵循这些模板。
我曾经那个香港朋友基本上就是个安兰德转世，他嘴上说支持性少数平权，但一旦碰到老板歧视，他就马上站在老板一边。事实上，他甚至还支持以宗教信仰为由拒绝提供服务。
哈哈，你搞错了，这就是右派嘴脸，看看右派的祖师爷奥地利芝加哥学派对右翼独裁者的支持就知道，要说大政府，独裁政府必然是大政府，但为什么右派支持呢？因为他们嘴里的小政府只是针对福利国家的，至于政府肆意践踏人权，他们根本不在乎。
事实是成功者绝大部分都是不吃苦的剥削阶级，吃苦的无产阶级无论吃几百年还是几千年的苦，都被踩在金字塔底部。傻逼吃苦逻辑如果成立，那么这世界上最成功的国家非朝鲜莫属了，朝鲜人民吃的苦还不够多吗？
中共是一家公司，伪装成了政府。

有句话很流行：曾经的屠龙勇士变成了恶龙。但事实上，能变成恶龙只能说明一点：这屠龙勇士本来就是恶龙假装的。

警察无法解决人民提出的问题，警察只会解决提出问题的人民。

没脑子的傻逼才信基督教，信了之后傻逼程度又上升了一个台阶，呵呵。

父母爱子女，呵呵，我一点都不相信这句屁话。看看那漫山遍野的遗弃案件，虐待案件，看看那漫山遍野的对儿童的控制和迫害，说爱？骗鬼去吧。要知道海豚可是在小海豚死了之后都不放弃，一次次把小海豚顶到海面上的。

奥派最脑残的地方在于一厢情愿的以为竞争就会带来好事，事实是，竞争是为了做掉其他对手从而实现利润最大化，利润最大化才是第一目的，为了利润最大化，欺诈抢劫游说污染掠夺屠杀什么都能做，好事个屁。

教育私有化的恶果。还有傻逼是不是觉得私有化会有竞争？呵呵，看看那些骗子培训机构就知道教育私有化的唯一结果是什么。

“个人的”意味着决定自己； “私人的”意味着决定别人。

曾经看到过某个奥派的高论：皇权独裁不是私有制，因为皇帝虽然实际私人占有全国，但却没有相应的法律保护和救济措施来保护皇帝。 按照这种逻辑，中国也不是独裁国家，君不见宪法里写着最高权力机构是人大吗？只要不是朝鲜那种直接写白头山血统的，都不是独裁国家了？真是可笑！
看到有人问“为什么老板不能打员工”，实际上，老板肆意体罚员工的事在纯粹资本主义国家一点都不少（例如中国，越南，印尼，刚果，中非等），今天的欧美老板不体罚员工是被社会主义者们给逼的。
如果有人生了小孩却不想养，或者没知识和耐心教育，那还是把小孩送给有知识和耐心以及想养的人比较好。
用一个简单的比喻形容进步右派：一群想要用创可贴治疗深伤口的人。很明显，创可贴是治不好的，但比起那些连创可贴都不用甚至连伤口的存在都不承认的纳粹们，进步右派强太多了。
政权不能私有，从而有了民主； 人身自由不能私有，从而奴隶制消失； 法律不能私有，从而有了法治； 人权不能私有，从而有了人权宣言； 正是因为越来越多的东西都不能私有，人类才变得越来越文明。 接下来呢？社会主义主张，公司不能私有。
社会主义者说，农业社会儿童是经济资产，又有很多人不爱听，可父母把儿童看成私产就是源于农业社会把儿童当家庭的经济资产。说到底，私有制下私人财产可被主人随意处置，而儿童被当成了私有财产，这才是家庭暴力的根源。

这世界上很多人都近视，乍一看这非常不符合自然选择：那些连周围环境都看不清的人为什么没有被恶劣的自然环境干掉？但实际上，近视基因要在儿童需要长期近距离读书的环境下才会表达出来，而人类的公共教育普及也就是最近一百年的事。和很多人的认识不同的是，近视绝大部分是先天决定的。而穷小孩很多都没钱配眼镜，然后什么也看不清，更谈不上学习了，而无耻的资本主义哈巴狗还在那里嚷嚷他们“不努力”，呸。

我曾经的香港朋友曾经对我说，中国文化最大的问题在于不尊重没权力的人的人权。这话本身是没什么问题，但从一个资本主义辩护士嘴里说出来就很可笑了：资本主义本身就是一种不尊重人权的制度。

一群不是儿童的人嚷嚷“保护未成年人”，真是可笑，你们的狗屁“保护”征求儿童的同意了没？

独裁官僚系统的特点是：如果推行某个能让他们的口袋里的钱增多的政策，那么他们会借机抢劫更多；如果推行某个让利给民的政策，那么他们必然各种钻空子阳奉阴违，基本上只会演变为另一种抢劫。

需要狗屁安检的政府都该被推翻。

我曾经讽刺说，在中国，儿童都是玻璃做的，还是那种易碎玻璃，一点刺激都受不得，一点真相都看不得，所以要把他们捧在手里，捂上眼睛和耳朵。 如果我有小孩，那么我一定会从小就告诉他或她这个世界的真相，告诉他或她这是一个纳粹们到处蹦哒的狗屁世界，而只有社会主义才能让这个世界变得不那么狗屁。

我曾经的香港朋友对儿童玩游戏并不支持，然后我回了他一句：如果有儿童分不清虚拟和现实，控制不了自己，那是他父母的教育问题，关游戏屁事。我玩刺客信条很久了，我也没跑去信仰之跃啊；我玩GTA通关了，我也没上大街抢车开啊。

不玩单机游戏的人很难理解为什么共匪这类纳粹总是和游戏过不去，其实原因没别的，只因为单机游戏中的价值观是反纳粹的，例如刺客信条。

共匪是标准的保守主义政权，保守主义的本质就是经过粉饰的纳粹。

如果你发现你的某些价值观和独裁政权的主张相似或相同，那么你需要重新审视一下你的价值观了。除了挂羊头卖狗肉这种情况之外，独裁政权的价值观不会是什么好东西。我这里说的独裁政权不限于中共。

马克思曾经说，法律代表了统治阶级的意志。这话很多人都不爱听，他们一厢情愿的主张“完美”“公正”的法律，但事实是马克思所说的是大实话，而“完美”“公正”的法律是不存在的。

我很讨厌决定论类的描述，例如“客观真理”“不变规律”这些，首先，是不是存在“客观真理”“不变规律”都是个问题，其次，就算这些是存在的，那么你能确定你的思想就是“客观真理”“不变规律”吗？不能！

资本主义哈巴狗们总是把穷人穷困说成是穷人自己的问题，但如果社会主义者问他们为什么老板们不肯提高工资时，他们又会开始嚷嚷老板们多么多么有难处不容易之类的，不嫌自打脸吗？

如果这世界上所有人都能明白一个道理：别人有权做任何不伤害别人人权的事，即使这事你认为不是好事，你不喜欢，你讨厌，你不想看见；那么这世界上就不会有专制独裁和由专制独裁制造的古拉格了。例如，我不会去吸毒，我也不认为吸毒是好事，但我反对将吸毒当作犯罪。

逻辑：贝佐斯没有为政府福利付钱，那么就应该给他和他的公司加税； 纳粹逻辑：贝佐斯没有为政府福利付钱，让我们取消福利吧！

独裁和民主是对立的，但实际上两者之间并没有明确的分界，民主国家会有不同的民主程度，有民主之处也有独裁之处，而独裁国家也有着不同的独裁程度。基本上，发生在民主国家的问题，都是其独裁之处闹的，而傻逼纳粹就借此攻击民主，真是傻逼。

C：你总是嚷嚷的福利国家根本就不可行，香港的福利制度就够好了。 S：开什么玩笑？自己看新闻，香港的麦难民是怎么回事？ C：啊，那是因为他们自己不肯去领福利。 S：他们自己不肯去领然后冻死在麦当劳？ C：我们香港人很多都是主动不领福利的，不想靠政府生活。 S：然后宁可冻死？骗鬼啊。

说实在，麦当劳没去驱赶那些麦难民，说明这公司还是有良心的，但要一个快餐公司来为穷人提供过夜的地方，政府死哪去了？

几年前刚翻墙的时候，看匿名者的理念，其中有这样两句话：we are capitalists , we are socialists; we are atheists ,and we are religious. 当时我很奇怪为什么这两句并列，现在我明白了：因为这两句话的前半句和后半句说的价值观是互斥的，也就是说一个人不可能同时拥有前半句和后半句的价值观。如果谁声称同时拥有两种互斥的价值观，那么这必然是个骗子。

傻逼纳粹，“非法”移民就不是人了？就能被肆意虐待驱逐了？而且你这傻逼不知道的是，“非法”移民是你亲爱的美国帝国主义一手制造出来的，自己的屁股当然应该自己擦了，是不是啊，纳粹？顺便免费给你这种傻逼纳粹补补课：很多支持捍卫“非法”移民人权的人是进步右派，我这种满嘴帝国主义要资本主义去死的才是左派，别左右不分。

在黄纳粹们的人权被践踏的时候装瞎，这不叫没有同情心，这叫尊重其个人意愿，反正你们不要人权，那么我就随你们的意思，不好吗？

大家族和专制帝国没什么区别。

社会主义者不讲道德，因为道德只是统治阶级拿来愚民的工具。

战狼和支黑都是井底之蛙，都只能看到中国，不同之处在于，一个以为中国是厉害国，一个以为中国发生的一切都是中国特色。

纳粹有什么资格嚷嚷社会责任，你亲爱的社会管人的死活了吗？捍卫人的基本人权了吗？

龙虾教授把人比作龙虾，但龙虾在中国是一道美味菜肴，哪个傻逼想把自己做成菜肴，就去支持龙虾教授好了。

就我个人而言，从挺共到反共并不痛苦，事实就是事实，我没战狼那种臭毛病和狂热，真正痛苦的是把共匪灌输给我的纳粹价值观一个个清洗出大脑，然后换成社会主义价值观。共匪灌输给我的价值观，我一个都不会留！

吸毒是个人自由，没伤害到其他人，有什么问题？

代议制民主的确很容易被金钱腐蚀，但共匪这种独裁政权没资格指责； 进步右派有很多不足之处，但纳粹更没资格指责。

资本主义从来没支持过性少数平权，有的只是无耻的蹭热度和商业化利用而已。

傻逼纳粹：不生育反自然。 我：为了自然，你赶快滚去生一个班，顺便为人类做贡献，怎么，你不愿意吗？

傻逼纳粹：合法化同性婚姻会导致人口减少； 我：放开生育会导致人口爆炸从而毁灭地球，呵呵。

问：为什么私有制父权压迫制度要给男人和女人都设立不可逾越的模板？ 答：参考一下封建时代的贵族和平民的不同服饰和礼仪规定。

墙内的“社会主义者”，如果你自称“社会主义者”但却拿道德之类的狗屁来反对性少数，那么还是赶快滚到纳粹那边去吧，因为你丫就是个纳粹。

我在和evil吵殖民问题的时候，曾经有过这样一段对话： evil：你说来说去，就是殖民者如何如何奴役杀戮，那么如果殖民者没有奴役杀戮，相反给你提供了一个天堂呢？ 我：那我也不会要的。因为，没有自由的天堂对我来说就是地狱。 evil：你这么爱好历史，想必知道有的时候自决并不一定能得到好结果吧。我：我当然知道，但即使如此，当地人民还是有权自己选择，无论结果是什么。因为这是自己的选择。

极右傻逼纳粹：杀共产党不算杀，至于谁是共产党，我说了算。
爱国主义，民族主义，种族主义，都会导向侵略战争。
对最近滴滴强奸杀人案的评论：滴滴是个无耻的通过父权压迫攫取利润的独裁公司，而共匪的走狗则一如既往的是资本家的好友。
如果《底特律：成为人类》中的场景成为现实，那么社会主义者应该站在仿生人那边。
不是一党导致独裁，而是独裁必然只能一党。
城管和小贩过不去，不是因为市容，市容这种东西又不能卖钱，而是为了强迫小贩成为地产商的奴隶。
很多民逗看起来根本不观察墙内的社交平台，天天幻想墙内是革命前夜。事实刚好相反。
资本主义玩家：老子终于玩上正版了，盗版党都去死吧！ 社会主义玩家：盗版党很多都是买不起游戏的穷学生，他们一样有权玩游戏。
如果不承认过去，就无法面对现在。
制造污染的企业，工人们被扔在被污染的环境中，而老板们则躲在没被污染的地方。
铅笔纳粹社在墙内的两个平台上最有市场：微博和知乎。
汉纳粹们为了鼓吹民族主义，连非洲起源都不承认，恶心。
这个世界上所有被压迫的民族都有权独立。
很多傻逼民逗天天盼着经济危机爆发，呵呵，经济危机一旦爆发那就是生灵涂炭，他们真的在乎中国人民的死活吗？
汉纳粹们一边攻击难民，一边又要求国际上关心中国人，不觉得自打脸吗？
成为汉人不是我自己的选择； 成为中国人不是我自己的选择； 成为女人不是我自己的选择； 成为异性恋不是我自己的选择； 成为顺性别不是我自己的选择； 处在一个恶心的纳粹国家中不是我自己的选择； 被战狼和红海行动包围不是我自己的选择； 但，成为社会主义者， 是我自己的选择。
极权独裁都是不讲理的，没错； 资本主义一样不讲理，或者说，资本主义下钱就是理。
我经常观察墙内平台上的舆论，主要观察微博，微信，贴吧和知乎，然后我发现，这些平台上到处都飘散着浓浓的国族主义和帝国主义臭味，到处都是那些臭骂政治正确臭骂白左的纳粹们，以及恶心的皇汉。
如果把极左等同于毛派，那么的确如此，因为毛派本来就是披着极左外衣骗人的极右；但如果把极左等同于无政府主义，那么极左和极右的距离是最遥远的。
“境外势力”就是典型的基于国族主义的洗地说辞。
和性少数为敌的不是性多数，而是私有制父权压迫制度。
判断是否是帝国主义者的关键标准，不是是否支持别国的侵略，而是是否支持本国的侵略。如果支持本国对外发动战争，无论借口是什么，都是帝国主义。
我从小就对性别刻板印象极其厌恶，所以没有恶心的性别主义。
按照资本主义每五年屠杀一亿人的速度，我之前说的资本主义害死了十几亿人都说少了，呵呵。
A国实现民主不能证明B国也能实现民主，因为A和B的不同变量很多，这也是社会科学的特点，无法进行严密的重复实验去证明结论，所以要支持民主，拿其他再多的国家说事也不是论证，只有承认民主是基本人权和该国条件如何无关，才是论证。
支那是和nigger一样的种族主义纳粹词汇。哦，别和我说支那曾经不是，nigger曾经也不是。
google高层想要重新进入中国一点也不奇怪，十多亿人的市场摆在那里，对资本家来说，这么大个市场不去争取才是傻逼呢。话说，民逗们是不是以为开公司是为了做慈善而不是为了最大限度的获取利润？你们既然这么讨厌社会主义，那么就不该要求google如何如何，只有社会主义者才会认为公司不能把利润放在第一位。
有傻逼民逗臭骂一个女google华裔科学家。这种傻逼是没在公司待过吗？公司是典型的自上而下的独裁架构团体，科技工作者不过是高级打工仔，真正做决定的是google的高管和股东，区区一个高级打工仔什么时候能左右公司决策了？不去骂高管和股东，去攻击一个打工仔，脑子呢？
纳粹们最喜欢说“纳粹不杀自己人”，事实是至少2500万德国人因纳粹发动的二战而死，呵呵。
有人用部落主义形容排外。其实这很侮辱部落，部落这种前文明形态大部分都是公有制的，男女平等生死与共，现在的这批纳粹哪个能做到这些？他们嘴上嚷嚷本国人本族人如何如何，实际却站在剥削阶级一边，对被压迫的本国人视而不见（视而不见都算好的，很多直接参与压迫），唐纳德希特勒对穷人开战，大肆给富豪减税，削减本来就几乎没有的福利，哪个川粉出来反对了？还不是社会主义者在抗议？
经常看见有人说中国人被独裁几千年如何如何所以如何如何，真是可笑，这世界上哪个文明不是被独裁几千年的？现代民主满打满算不过两百多年的历史好吧？
有很多人认为“公平竞争”是资本主义价值观的一部分，但事实并非如此，19世纪的历史记载显示，当时的纯粹资本主义根本就不讲公平，而奥地利芝加哥学派早期也根本毫无公平概念，直到被社会主义威胁之后，资本主义的辩护士们才编出“公平竞争”和“机会公平”出来。事实上从资本主义的本质出发，是根本推不出公平的，同样也推不出民主推不出自由（除了老板们胡作非为的自由）推不出人权。

吹捧满洲国的日奴总是拿基础建设和GDP说事，这和共匪CCAV有什么狗屁区别吗？
人当然是按照阶级划分的，但马克思也同时指出种族和宗教会干扰阶级意识的形成，而这是剥削阶级花大力气故意洗脑造成的结果。
扭曲？中华民族本来就是梁启超人造的狗屁，目的不过是为了在清帝国灭亡之后继续维持对清帝国的殖民地新疆的占领，要不是民国单方面宣布主权，共匪又怎找得到机会？
别搞错了：算法什么都不决定，下决定的是写算法的人，而写算法的人是不可能中立的，所以算法也不可能中立。
给还是学生的推友提几个关于社会的建议：1，最好找符合自己兴趣的工作，不过大部分人都基于各种条件限制做不到；2，如果做不到，那么在条件允许的情况下，尽可能找轻松的工作，这样至少能有空闲时间做自己真正想做的事。千万别被奋斗鸡汤的“年轻时辛苦老年就轻松”给骗了，老人基本干不动任何事的。
3，有人很抵触共匪公务员这类工作，但我要说的是，除非是镇压部门的走狗工作，当个普通公务员（和官员不同，公务员没有实权）和在私企工作并没有本质区别，你说公务员是在为共匪政府工作？你私企一样为共匪政府提供税收技术监控和洗脑维稳，没差别的。
4，不要去碰镇压部门（军队，警察，城管）的工作，这点不难做到。5，公司也好政府机构也好，基本都不是什么能讲理的地方，有些事情也只能睁一只眼闭一只眼，但无论怎样，别主动作恶。6，NGO志愿者这些，也不是什么净土，心理准备和必要的防范意识是需要有的。7，别被培训机构忽悠，尽可能别借贷。
8，如果是进入私人公司，事实上无论进入哪里，都别被“家人”“共同体”之类的说辞忽悠，剥削阶级可不会把你当成他们的一员，特别是如果你生病了或者出意外了，政府机构和学校之类多少还残留点公共味道的部门还有周转余地，私企那就是第一时间把你踢出去的。
10，对同事，说安全无害的话，除非此人的确值得信任，否则任何时候都别说心里话。11，信任是在了解之后才能给的，而且只有个人才可能值得信任，如果说信任某个公司，某个机构，那么只能得到失望和背叛。有信任才有背叛，而在中国，不值得信任的人很多很多。
技术决定论是最傻逼的理论，因为这种傻逼理论认为给奴才发枪奴才们就会主动开始反抗了，事实是奴才们连拿枪的勇气都没有。
今天读了一篇关于家政工人的田野调查。其中有一个细节：雇主家庭的三岁小孩过生日的时候，这小孩主动给保姆切了一片蛋糕，但女雇主却因此非常生气。 三岁小孩主动给保姆分享蛋糕——人类本性；女雇主对此很生气——被资本主义腐蚀之后的人性。
别随便投诉底层劳动者，因为很多时候你的麻烦是他们或她们的老板和上司造成的，不是他们或她们自己造成的。
对于那些被迫隐瞒自己的性取向和性别认同的性少数朋友，我是感同身受的，因为我也被迫当地下党，隐瞒着社会主义的自己。
女教授性骚扰男学生一点也不奇怪，因为性骚扰的本质是权力压迫。
共匪的“对外援助”就两个目的：1，洗钱；2，和当地独裁者联合剥削当地人民。
Posted on

It’s Okay to Have Children（生小孩是没问题的）

（写在前面：资本主义一边一毛不拔导致广大想生小孩的穷人生不起小孩，一边又无耻的以没有小孩为由攻击性少数，真是恶心。想生的生不起，不想生的被逼着生，一边是卖不出去的鬼城，一边是住不起房的人民，被扭曲的社会。）

Instead of challenging the pressures that capitalism puts on child-rearing, liberals surrender to it.

自由主义者没有挑战资本主义对抚养儿童造成的压力，而是向它投降了。

Having kids is bad for the environment.

生小孩对环境有害。

Or is it the deficit? Or wait, no, it’s selfish because the world has gone to hell. Whichever one you choose, the important thing to remember is that, according to a growing number of liberals, reproducing the species is the equivalent of buying a McMansion and running the A/C with all the windows open.

或者是亏损？ 或者等等，不，这是自私的，因为这个世界已经成为地狱了。无论你选择哪一个，重要的是要记住，根据越来越多的自由主义者，再生产这一物种相当于购买奢华豪宅并在所有窗户打开的情况下运行空调。

Or maybe having babies is more like, say, pouring the concrete on an illegal Israeli settlement? “The egoism of child-bearing is like the egoism of colonizing a country,” says the narrator of Sheila Heti’s critically acclaimed novel Motherhood. “How assaulted I feel when I hear that a person has had three children, four, five, more. . . . It feels greedy, overbearing, rude.”

或者，也许生下婴儿更像是将混凝土倒在非法的以色列定居点上？ “生育的利己主义就像殖民一个国家的利己主义一样，”Sheila Heti的广受好评的小说“母亲”的叙述者说道。 “当我听说一个人有三个孩子，四个，五个，甚至更多时，我感觉是被侮辱…….感觉贪婪，咄咄逼人，粗鲁。“

In the Guardian alone, the past two years have seen headlines such as “Would you give up having children to save the planet? Meet the couples who have”; “Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children”; “‘It’s the breaking of a taboo’: the parents who regret having children,” “Want to save your marriage? Don’t have kids.” In the New York Times, “No Children Because of Climate Change? Some People Are Considering It.” At Business Insider, “7 reasons people shouldn’t have children, according to science.” And this new logic is quickly making its way through liberal culture writ large: “Feminist funnywoman Caitlin Moran says the planet doesn’t need your babies.”

仅在卫报中，过去两年中就出现了诸如“你会放弃生小孩以拯救地球吗？ 看看那些这么做的家庭“; “想要反抗气候变化？ 少生小孩“; “’这是打破禁忌’：后悔生小孩的父母，”“想要挽救你的婚姻？ 别生小孩。“在纽约时报，”因气候变化而不要小孩？ 一些人正在考虑它。“在商业内幕”，根据科学，人们不应该生小孩的7个理由。“这种新的逻辑正在迅速通过自由主义文化变大：”女权主义者滑稽女人Caitlin Moran 说这个星球不需要你的宝宝。“

It’s hard not to get the message. Yet it seems to be falling on deaf ears.

很难不看到相关消息。 但它似乎被置若罔闻。

According to a recent CDC study, the gap between the number of children American women want to have and the number they’re likely to have “has risen to the highest level in forty years.” The number of women who want a child in the future has only increased since 2002. And the only age group that’s seen a slight uptick in fertility rates are women between forty and forty-four.

根据美国疾病预防控制中心最近的一项研究，美国女性想要拥有的小孩数量与她们可能实际拥有的孩子数量之间的差距“已经上升到四十年来的最高水平。” 自2002年以来，未来想要有小孩的女性数量一直在增长。而同时生育率略有上升的唯一年龄组是四十岁至四十四岁的女性。

“Americans are improving their ability to avoid unwanted pregnancies far faster than they are improving the ability to achieve desired pregnancy,” as the New York Times put it. With the most expensive health care in the world (and tens of millions still uninsured), decades of stagnant wages, and skyrocketing education and housing costs, having kids has never been so expensive. The Department of Agriculture estimates that it’ll cost an average of $233,000 to raise a child born in 2015 through her seventeenth birthday — and that doesn’t even include college tuition, another uniquely American exorbitance. More and more, bringing a child into the world is a dream many simply can’t afford.

“正如”纽约时报“所说，”美国人正在提高的他们避免意外怀孕的能力远远超过他们提高实现想要的怀孕的能力“。由于世界上最昂贵的医疗保险（数千万人仍然没有保险），几十年停滞的工资，以及暴涨的教育和住房成本，生小孩从未变得如此昂贵。 农业部估计，在2015年养育一名孩子到她的17岁生日，平均花费为233,000美元—这甚至不包括大学学费，这是另一种独特的美国式高等教育。越来越多的人发现带一个小孩进入这个世界是一个许多人根本无法承担的梦想。

It’s here in this misanthropic anti-natalism that liberalism finds an ally in conservatism. The Brookings Institute put deferring parenthood as one of their “Three Simple Rules Poor Teens Should Follow to Join the Middle Class.” It’s a line no different than what we’ve heard from conservatives like George Will for decades now: you’re poor because of the immoral choices you’ve made.

正是在这种讨厌人类的反生育主义中，自由主义在保守主义中找到了盟友。 布鲁金斯学会把延迟父母身份作为他们的“贫困青少年应该遵循以加入中产阶级的三个简单规则”之一。这与我们几十年来从像George Will这样的保守派所听到的没有什么不同：你穷是因为你做出的不道德的选择。

It recalls the unabashedly racist mid-1990s campaign when both Republicans and the Clinton administration joined together to denounce the scourge of “unwed teen mothers” as a mortal threat to children’s health and family values — “a bedrock issue of character and personal responsibility,” as Clinton’s own 1994 proposal put it. At the time, another set of Democrats went even further and attempted to include a provision that denied all food stamp benefits and Aid to Families with Dependent Children to unwed mothers (and their children) under age twenty-one.

它让我们回忆起1990s中期的一场毫不掩饰的种族主义运动，当时共和党和克林顿政府联合起来谴责“未婚青少年母亲”的祸害，声称这是对儿童健康和家庭价值观的致命威胁—“一个关于性格和个人责任的基石问题”，正如克林顿自己在1994年提出的那样。当时，另一组民主党人甚至走得更远，并试图将一项禁止所有食品券福利和援助有需要抚养的儿童的家庭的条款包括未满21岁的未婚母亲（及其子女）。

Despite the fearmongering over these supposedly shameful and selfish young mothers, these women were in fact making the best decisions for their families. Dr Arline T. Geronimus has argued that, contra both conservative and liberal shaming of “poor teen moms,” the choice of low-income women to have children at a young age represents a logical decision when faced with the constraints of being poor in America:

尽管有着对这些被认为是可耻的和自私的年轻母亲的恐惧，但这些女性实际上是为了家人做出最好的决定。 Arline T. Geronimus博士认为，和对“贫穷的青少年妈妈”的保守主义和自由主义羞辱相反的是，低收入女性选择在年轻时生育小孩，在面对成为美国穷人之后所遇到的限制时，是一个合乎逻辑的决定。：

If she finds employment, the wages and benefits she can command may not offset the costs of being a working mother. She cannot expect maternity leave; nor is accessible or affordable day care available that would free her from reliance on kin for childcare once she does return to work . . . her greatest chance of long-term labor force attachment will be if her children’s pre-school years coincide with her years of peak access to social and practical support provided by relatively healthy kin.

如果她找到工作，她所能获得的工资和补贴可能无法抵消作为工作母亲的成本。 她不能指望产假; 并且无法获得负担得起的一旦她重返工作岗位就可以帮她从对亲属的依赖中摆脱出来的日间儿童照料….. 她小孩的学前时期是她最需要社会的和来自亲属的实际的支持的时期。（后面这段是意译的，直译意思太别扭）

With this enormous gap between the desires of women and the grueling realities of being a working-class mother in America, what could possibly explain so many liberals’ strange new anti-natalism?

由于女性的愿望与在美国成为工人阶级母亲的艰苦现实之间存在巨大差距，有什么能够解释这么多自由主义者的奇怪的新反生育主义？

Even in France, long known for their generous natalist welfare state, their new thirty-five-year-old minister for gender equality is signaling a willingness to rewrite commitments to mothers down to threadbare American levels. “I always notice the energy and the volunteerism that exist in America,” France’s Marlène Schiappa recently told the New Yorker. “Regarding the place of women, the reflex in France is to say, ‘What’s the state going to do for me?’” Quelle horreur!

即使在长期以其慷慨的生育福利国家闻名的法国，他们的新的三十五岁的性别平等部长也表示愿意重写对母亲的承诺，将其降到美国的水平。 “我总是注意到美国存在的能量和志愿精神，”法国的MarlèneSchiappa最近告诉纽约客。 “关于女性的地位，法国的反应就是说，’国家要为我做什么？’”这真恐怖！

Diminished horizons, lowered expectations, and doing more with less — this is the twenty-first-century liberal program for the toiling masses. In other words, it’s a continuation of liberalism’s forty-year program of austerity, a result of its total abandonment of the trade union movement. A decent living, a home of your own, and a comfy retirement — a meager share in our society’s immense collective wealth — are all long-abandoned promises. Now, apparently, so is having kids.

减少视野，降低期望，用更少的钱做更多的事— 这是二十一世纪的为劳苦大众设计的自由主义计划。换句话说，这是自由主义四十年紧缩计划的延续，这是其彻底放弃工会运动的结果。一个体面的生活，一个属于你自己的家，一个舒适的退休生活—一份我们社会中的巨大的集体财富中的微薄份额—都是长期被抛弃的承诺。现在，显然，生小孩也是如此。

More and more, liberalism finds itself unable to imagine any way out of the hell of life on the margins in 2018. Instead, they’ve begun to see their role as something like moral sentinels: piously observing and managing the collapse. It’s a liberal-left that no longer believes it can change the world and instead, in the words of Adolph Reed, finds its most important mission in simply “bearing witness to suffering.” They either believe a mass political challenge to capital and climate collapse is impossible, or simply undesirable. Either way, their answer is the same — not a revived labor movement but a new moralism of austerity and self-sacrifice.

自由主义越来越多地发现自己无法想象在2018年边缘人群摆脱地狱生活的任何出路。相反，他们开始将自己的角色视为道德哨兵：虔诚地观察和管理崩溃。 这是一个自由主义的左派，他不再相信它可以改变世界，相反的是，用Adolph Reed的话来说，发现其最重要的任务就是“见证痛苦。”他们要么相信对资本和气候崩溃的大规模政治挑战是不可能的，或者只是不想要的。无论哪种方式，他们的答案都是一样的 —不是复兴工人运动，而是紧缩和自我牺牲的新道德主义。

That inevitably means asking women to adapt to the logic of raising children under the dictates of the market instead of challenging those strictures. “Lean In” and call it victory.

这不可避免地意味着要求女性适应在市场独裁下抚养小孩的逻辑，而不是挑战那些刁难。“屈服它”并称这为胜利。

It’s an attitude that would have bewildered men and women alike in East Germany. Women in the German Democratic Republic (GDR) had both a robust welfare state to help them raise children — free daycare started just weeks after a child’s birth and included breakfast and lunch — as well as a much higher workforce participation rate. Abortion was legalized in 1972, years before West Germany. For women in the East, divorce too was quick, easy, and cost nothing. They were also more likely to feel confident in their physical appearance and reported higher rates of sexual satisfaction than their cousins in the West. For all its political authoritarianism, the ability to raise kids in the GDR didn’t hinge on the ability to keep a nuclear family together.

这种态度让东德的男人和女人都感到困惑。 德意志民主共和国（GDR）的女性有一个强大的福利国家来帮助她们抚养孩子—在孩子出生后几周开始提供免费日间照料服务，包括早餐和午餐—以及更高的劳动力参与率。 堕胎在1972年合法化，比西德早几年。对于东德女性来说，离婚既快捷又简单，而且不需要任何费用。她们也更可能对自己的外貌充满信心，并且报告显示性满意度高于她们在西方的堂兄妹。对于其所有政治威权主义而言，在德意志民主共和国抚养子女的能力并不取决于将核心家庭聚集在一起的能力。

Now, in a unified Germany, daycare openings are expensive and competitive, with a national shortage of 120,000 nursery workers — all low-paid work, of course. In the East, birth rates plunged immediately after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Yet today, women in the eastern half of the country still have children significantly younger than their western sisters and boast a smaller pay gap between men — in the western half of the country, that gap is comparable to ours in the United States.

现在，在一个统一的德国，日间照料是昂贵的和竞争激烈的，全国短缺12万名托儿工人—当然，所有低薪工作都是如此。在东部，柏林墙倒塌后，出生率立即暴跌。 然而今天，该国东部地区的女性仍在比西部姐妹年轻得多时生小孩，并且与男性之间的薪酬差距更小—在该国西半部，这一差距与我们在美国的差距相当。

Today, the only nations that come close to East Germany’s commitment to providing women this kind of freedom are the countries where the organized working classes have made successful incursions against capitalism’s imperatives. Dutch women — not “Lean In” American women — are, according to studies, the happiest in the world. And hardly any of them work full time. Thanks to trade union mobilization, their working class won the ability to prioritize their freedom over any “duty” to the job market or husbands.

今天，接近东德致力于为女性提供的这种自由的唯一国家是有组织的工人阶级成功对抗了资本主义的关键的国家。根据研究，荷兰女性—不是“屈服它”的美国女性—是世界上最幸福的女性。几乎没有任何一个人全职工作。 由于工会动员，她们的工人阶级赢得了将自由优先于对工作市场或丈夫的任何“义务”的能力。

Here, then, we have the root of liberalism’s newfound anti-natalism — the very logic of capital. Capitalism needs new workers and consumers; it just doesn’t want to pay for their upbringing. Those costs, in the logic of capital, should be passed off onto the individual and the household.

在这里，我们拥有自由主义新发现的反生育主义的根源—资本的逻辑。资本主义需要新的工人和消费者; 它只是不想为他们的增长付出代价。在资本逻辑中，这些成本应该被转嫁给个人和家庭。

Which is why today in the United States, the FBI and ICE are called in to prevent baby formula theft — locking it behind glass cases in the grocery store is preferable to simply socializing it and distributing it for free. Instead of the state providing collectively for the upbringing of children, our police literally chase down biological fathers to collect child support. In this view, it’s better to coerce a nuclear family into staying together than for the state to collectively provide childcare, education, and health care services to parents and their children. It’s shotgun marriage as public policy.

这就是为什么今天在美国，FBI和ICE被要求防止婴儿配方奶粉被盗—将它锁在杂货店的玻璃柜后面，比简单的社会化和免费分发它更可取。我们的警察实际上是追捕亲生父亲以收集儿童抚养费，而不是政府集体提供儿童抚养。在这种观点中，最好是强迫核心家庭待在一起，而不是政府集体为父母及其小孩提供儿童照料，教育和医疗保障服务。 它瞄准婚姻作为公共政策。

We’ve gone from the conservative postwar view of women as dutiful baby-factories, to telling them that they should delay pregnancy as long as it takes for them to get a career off the ground and build their brand — possibly forever. While reproductive medicine is currently making enormous strides, in vitro fertilization (IVF), ovulation-enhancing medicines, egg storage, and artificial insemination are prohibitively expensive. Without a truly universal health care system, these scientific advances will always be reserved for the affluent.

我们已经从保守的把女性当作孝顺的婴儿工厂的战后观点，变成告诉她们应该延迟怀孕，只要他们能够实现职业生涯并建立自己的品牌—这可能永远也不会实现。 虽然生殖医学目前正在取得巨大进步，但体外受精（IVF），促排卵药物，卵子储存和人工授精都非常昂贵。如果没有一个真正普适的医疗保障系统，这些科学进步将总是被留给富人。

Asking women to wait to have kids until they have launched a career and saved up enough money is just the obverse of commanding women to stay at home and make babies for their husbands. Both ask women to defer not to their desires, but to an all-powerful abstraction: the market, the environment, patriarchy, or even a twisted faux feminism.

要求女性等到直到她们开始了职业生涯并节省了足够的钱才能生小孩，这只是和要求女性留在家里为丈夫生孩子互为镜像。两者都要求女性不要追求自己的愿望，而是服从一种全能的抽象：市场，环境，父权制，甚至是扭曲的人造女权主义。

It’s important for those of us in the professional classes to remember that, for the vast majority of working people, the labor market is not a potential site of self-realization and never will be. Instead, it’s a brutal arena where you’re forced to trade a third of your life in order to survive. In 2018, a “do what you love” career is far out of reach for all but the affluent. What the professional classes will never understand — both conservatives who shame young single mothers or liberals who demand that women defer parenthood until they can afford Baby Bjorn — is just how rewarding child-rearing is for those who are under no delusions that capitalism will ever provide validation.

对于我们这些处在专业阶级的人来说，重要的是要记住，对于绝大多数工人来说，劳动力市场不是一个进行自我实现的潜在场所，而且永远不会。相反，它是一个暴虐的竞技场，你为了生存而被迫交易你生命的三分之一。在2018年，除了富豪之外，所有人都无法实现“做你喜欢做的事”。专业阶级永远无法理解—保守派羞辱年轻的单身母亲或自由主义者要求女性推迟父母身份直到她们能够负担得起养育小孩—这只是在鼓励这种想法：儿童抚养只适合那些没有幻想资本主义会提供帮助的人。

How can we ever win a program that socializes the costs of bringing children into the world if so many liberals still see the desire to have kids as something like a timeshare in Vegas — a costly, foolish, and tacky investment mostly for the rubes? Instead of parroting this gross and misanthropic politics, we should demand that capital stop shirking off the costs of childhood onto workers and instead socialize them — free Finnish baby boxes and a Medicare for All program that covers not only all prenatal and pediatric care, but that makes IVF a right and not a luxury. A program that hires and trains hundreds of thousands to work in high-quality state day cares. The only way we’re going to get any of this is through a revived labor movement — not creepy (and inevitably racist) “population control” thinkpieces.

如果有这么多自由主义者仍然把想要小孩的愿望看做是像拉斯维加斯的分时度假一样的事，那么我们怎么能够赢得一个社会化将孩子带入世界的成本的计划—这对于无知者们来说是一项昂贵，愚蠢和俗气的投资？与重复这个恶心的和敌视人类的政策相反，我们应该要求资本停止将照顾儿童的成本转移到工人身上—免费的芬兰婴儿用品盒和全民医保计划不仅涵盖了所有产前和儿科护理，而且还使IVF成为人权而非奢侈品。 这项计划雇用并培训数十万人在高质量的国立日间照料机构中工作。我们要做到这一点的唯一方法是通过复兴劳工运动—而不是令人毛骨悚然的（并且不可避免地是种族主义）的“人口控制”思想。

Why shouldn’t a twenty-something be able to have a kid and still have the freedom to embark on a career? Why shouldn’t a young single mother be able to go to college while leaving her child safely in the care of the state? And why should she need to find or “keep” a relationship with a man just to be able to provide for her kids?

为什么一个二十几岁的人不能拥有一个小孩并且仍然可以自由地开始职业生涯？ 为什么一个年轻的单身母亲不能上大学，同时让孩子安全地被政府照顾？ 为什么她需要找到或“保持”与一个男人的关系才能为她的孩子提供服务？

A true freedom for women would mean the ability to walk away from the false choice of “babies, education, or career?” altogether. Right now, however, only the affluent can truly have it all.

真正的女性自由意味着能够完全摆脱“婴儿，教育或职业？”的错误选择。 然而，现在只有富豪才能真正拥有这一切。

That’s anything but just.

这不公正。

https://jacobinmag.com/2018/08/its-okay-to-have-children

Posted on

A hero for their class, not for ours(一个他们阶级的英雄，不是我们的)

SINCE ARIZONA Sen. John McCain’s death, the American political establishment has staged a succession of patriotic and militarist commemorations of his life that implicitly attack the billionaire bigot in the White House, Donald Trump, who was told not to attend any of them.

自从亚利桑那州参议员约翰麦凯恩去世以来，美国的政治机构已经举行了一系列爱国主义和军国主义的生涯纪念活动，这些活动暗中攻击了白宫里的亿万富翁流氓，唐纳德特朗普，他被告知不要加入他们中的任何一个。

McCain planned these events in collaboration with other leaders of both parties to send a political message.

麦凯恩与两个政党的其他领导人合作策划了这些活动，以发出政治信息。

Their goal was to not only to rebuke Trump, but to celebrate the old order in Washington — the so-called “Washington consensus,” where the U.S. government presided over neoliberal globalization through diplomacy and a system of alliances, while reserving the right to use unilateral force against “rogue states” that buck American dictates.

他们的目标不仅是要谴责特朗普，而且要庆祝华盛顿的旧秩序 – 即所谓的“华盛顿共识”，美国政府通过外交和联盟制度主导新自由主义全球化，同时保留对那些反对美国的独裁的“流氓国家”使用单方面力量的权利。

Trump’s hard-right politics, economic nationalism, attacks on the FBI and CIA, and undermining of various U.S. alliances are a challenge to this consensus. His slogan of “Making America Great Again” by putting “America First” has disrupted political and trade relations with almost every state in the world, whether or not they are a U.S. ally or enemy.

特朗普的硬右翼政治，经济民族主义，对联邦调查局和中央情报局的攻击，以及对各种美国的联盟的破坏都是对这一共识的挑战。 他的口号“让美国再次伟大”通过“把美国放到第一位”，已经破坏了与世界上几乎每个国家的政治和贸易关系，无论他们是否是美国的盟友或敌人。

Thus, at each ceremony for McCain, from Arizona to Washington, D.C., a Who’s Who of ruling-class politicians, from Barack Obama to George W. Bush, took the opportunity to celebrate McCain as a hero willing to buck his own party, take supposedly principled positions and stand up to Trump.

因此，在每一个为了纪念麦凯恩而举行的仪式上，从亚利桑那州到华盛顿特区，统治阶级政客的名人堂，从巴拉克奥巴马到乔治W.布什，都借此机会赞美麦凯恩，作为一个愿意为自己的政党效力的英雄， 据称是有原则的立场，并与特朗普敌对。

At the Washington commemoration, Obama declared, in an obvious reference to Trump: “So much of our politics, our public life, our public discourse, can seem small and mean and petty, trafficking in bombast and insult, in phony controversies and manufactured outrage. It’s a politics that pretends to be brave, but in fact is born of fear. John called us to be bigger than that. He called us to be better than that.”

在华盛顿纪念活动中，奥巴马明确提到了特朗普：“我们的政治，我们的公共生活，我们的公共话语，看起来都很小，吝啬和琐碎，贩卖轰炸和侮辱，虚假的争议和制造的愤怒。 这是一种假装勇敢，但实际上是出于恐惧的政治。 约翰呼吁我们比那更大。 他呼吁我们做得更好。“

Many liberal commentators followed this lead, seeing the funeral tour as the long-awaited birth of bipartisan opposition to Trump. Writing in the New Yorker, Susan Glasser even called it “a meeting of the Resistance, under vaulted ceilings and stained-glass windows.”

许多自由派评论家都遵循这一主张，将葬礼看作期待已久的两党联合反对特朗普的诞生。 Susan Glasser在“纽约客”中写道，甚至称其为“一场抵抗运动的会议，在拱形天花板和彩色玻璃窗下。”

But McCain’s political positions and legacy are the opposite of everything claimed by his eulogists, as Mehdi Hassan (at the Intercept), Tom Bramble (for Red Flag and Socialist Worker) and Branko Marcetic (at Jacobin) have amply documented. Certainly, they offer no basis for galvanizing the resistance to Trump.

但麦凯恩的政治立场和遗产与他的赞颂者所声称的一切相反，正如Mehdi Hassan（在Intercept），Tom Bramble（在Red Flag 和 Socialist Worker）和Branko Marcetic（在Jacobin）的充分记录。 当然，他们没有提供激励抵抗特朗普的基础。

DESPITE THE many tributes to his military service, McCain was no war hero, but a war criminal. He started his career bombing the people of Vietnam and followed it up as a mouthpiece for the Pentagon in the Senate, ramming through massive defense expenditures and supporting every U.S. military operation, right up through Afghanistan, Iraq and Yemen today.

尽管许多人对他的服兵役表示敬意，麦凯恩不是战争英雄，而是战争罪犯。 他的职业生涯开始于轰炸越南人民，并随后成为五角大楼在参议院的喉舌，通过大规模的国防开支，支持美国的每一次军事行动，直到阿富汗，伊拉克和今天的也门。

He infamously bastardized a Beach Boys song, turning it into a call for the U.S. to bomb Iran. And he despised any and all opponents of the U.S. military machine, going so far as to call Medea Benjamin and Code Pink activists “low life scum” for protesting war criminal Henry Kissinger.

他臭名昭著的污染了海滩男孩这首歌曲，将其变成了美国轰炸伊朗的号召。而且他鄙视所有反对美国军事机器的人，甚至称抗议战争罪犯亨利基辛格的Medea Benjamin和Code Pink活动者为“低等败类”。

McCain was also a devoted representative of capital and enemy of workers in the Senate. Like other politicians before him, he got caught fleecing working-class people who lost their retirement savings when the savings-and-loan industry collapsed in the 1980s.

麦凯恩也是参议院里的资本和工人的敌人的忠实代表。与他之前的其他政治家一样，他在1980s时储蓄和贷款业崩溃时，被发现搜刮了那些失去退休储蓄的工人阶级人民。

McCain survived this scandal, but he never stopped serving the bosses, ending his career by supporting Trump’s tax cut for the rich. Unsurprisingly, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce gave him an 80 percent grade on his voting record, while the AFL-CIO ranked him at 16 percent over his Senate career.

麦凯恩在这场丑闻中幸免于难，但他从未停止为老板服务，通过支持特朗普对富人的减税来结束他的职业生涯。 不出所料，美国商会在他的投票记录中给了他80％的评分，而AFL-CIO对他的参议院职业生涯评分为16％。

Like most fellow Republicans, McCain had a long history of bigoted statements and positions. He repeatedly used the racist term “gooks” to describe Vietnamese, opposed divestment and sanctions against apartheid South Africa, voted against Martin Luther King Day becoming a national holiday, supported a ban on abortion and verbally unleashed his temper on his own wife in the crudest misogynist language imaginable.

像大多数共和党人一样，麦凯恩有着悠久的狂信的声明和立场。 他多次用种族主义术语“gooks”来描述越南人，反对撤资和对种族隔离的南非进行制裁，投票反对马丁路德金日成为国定假日，支持禁止堕胎，并口头上用可以想象的厌恶女性的语言对他自己的妻子发脾气。

Even McCain’s opposition to Trump is exaggerated. Despite his sometimes sharp disagreements with Trump, McCain is responsible for helping open the way for him when he pandered to the Republican right by selecting Sarah Palin as his running mate in 2008.

甚至麦凯恩对特朗普的反对也被夸大了。 尽管他与特朗普有时会产生尖锐的分歧，但麦凯恩在2008年选择Sarah Palin作为他的竞选搭档时，在帮助特朗普开道进入共和党右翼内是有责任的。

And even though McCain and Trump traded shots over the past two years, McCain voted for Trump-supported legislation 83 percent of the time in the Senate.

即使麦凯恩和特朗普在过去两年中相互敌对，麦凯恩在参议院的83％的时间里都投票支持特朗普支持的立法。

His most famous moment of actual opposition to the Trump regime was his vote that doomed Republican attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act in July 2017. But he undermined this action with his support for a provision in last year’s tax-cut legislation that further gutted Obamacare by ending the individual mandate without any mechanism to replace it.

他最有名的地反对特朗普政权的那一刻是他的投票毁灭了共和党人在2017年7月废除“可负担医疗法案”的企图。但他支持去年减税立法中的一项规定，通过结束个人授权而没有任何机制来取代它进一步扼杀了奥巴马保障，从而破坏了这一行动。

BACK IN 2008, when McCain ran for president against Barack Obama, his reactionary record led liberal Democrats and many on the left to describe him as the greatest threat to peace, justice and democracy yet.

回到2008年，当麦凯恩与巴拉克•奥巴马竞争总统时，他的保守记录导致自由派民主党人和左派将他描述为对和平，正义和民主的最大威胁。

But all that has been flushed down the memory hole in the many tributes to him since his death.

但自从他去世以来，许多向他致敬的人的记忆中所有这一切都被冲刷掉了。

The Democratic and Republican Party establishments have more in common than differences, and they both defend a wretched status quo. For readers of this website, it’s not surprising when McCain is praised by the likes of Obama, Joe Biden or Chuck Schumer.

民主党和共和党的机构有更多的共同而不是不同，它们都捍卫了一种悲惨的现状。 对于本网站的读者来说，麦凯恩受到奥巴马，乔拜登或Chuck Schumer等人的称赞并不奇怪。

But what was shocking was to read statements from socialists Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez that echoed the same themes. Sanders, the senator from Vermont and 2016 candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, called McCain “an American hero, a man of decency and a friend of mine,” while Ocasio-Cortez, the surprise primary winner for a congressional seat from New York City, tweeted praise for his legacy as “an unparalleled example of human decency and American service” and for his friendship with the late Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy.

但令人震惊的是阅读社会主义者伯尼·桑德斯和Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez的声明，这些声明呼应了同样的主题。来自佛蒙特州的参议员和2016年民主党总统候选人候选人桑德斯称麦凯恩是“一个美国英雄，一个体面的人和我的朋友之一”，而Ocasio-Cortez，纽约市国会席位的令人惊讶的初选赢家，在推特上称赞他的遗产是“人类尊严和美国服务的无与伦比的榜样”以及他与已故民主党参议员特德肯尼迪的友谊。

Not only are these statements praising McCain groundless, but they do nothing to challenge — as socialists must — the patriotism and militarism that is being celebrated as a “lesser evil” to Trump among liberals and the Democratic Party.

这些声明不仅在毫无根据的赞扬麦凯恩，而且他们没有采取任何措施来挑战—作为社会主义者所必须的—爱国主义和军国主义在自由主义者和民主党中被称为相对于特朗普的“较小的邪恶”。

Was this simply a matter of Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez issuing a standard statement on the death of another politician? In a critical article in The Call, Joe Allen argues that the root of their mistake was falling into adoption of ritual expressions of condolence.

这只是桑德斯和Ocasio-Cortez关于另一位政治家死亡的标准声明吗？ 在The Call中的一篇重要文章中，Joe Allen争论说他们错误的根源在于陷入了对哀悼的仪式性表达中。

By contrast, journalist Arun Gupta argues that their praise for McCain flows from their participation in the Democratic Party, where “the gravitational force of the media, lobbyists and Democratic Party honchos will pull them ever closer to elites.”

相比之下，记者Arun Gupta认为，他们对麦凯恩的赞扬源于他们参与民主党的活动，“媒体的引力，游说者和民主党的荣誉将把他们推向更接近精英”。

Gupta makes the case that there is a logic of accommodation at work: “In all likelihood, as soon as Ocasio-Cortez won, Sanders and other political insiders told her, “You must ‘moderate’ to win. If you don’t, elites will destroy you. You will never get elected to Congress.”

Gupta认为工作中存在着适应性逻辑：“很有可能，一旦Ocasio-Cortez获胜，桑德斯和其他政治内部人士告诉她，”你必须’温和’才能获胜。 如果你不这样做，精英们会摧毁你。 你永远不会被选入国会。“

THE LIBERAL establishment denounced McCain as the very incarnation of the “greater evil” in 2008. Now he is seen as an ally in defending the good old days of Washington bipartisanship against Trump.

自由派在2008年谴责麦凯恩是“更大的邪恶”的化身。现在，他被视为华盛顿两党同盟对抗特朗普，捍卫美好旧日时光的盟友。

Nothing could be worse for the resistance to Trump than to accept the idea that the alternative to him and his right-wing agenda is the bipartisan U.S. political establishment and its two capitalist parties.

对抵抗特朗普来说，没有什么比选择两党美国政治机构及其两个资本主义政党的观点更糟糕，除了接受他和他的右翼议程之外。

Both the Republicans and Democrats are responsible for precipitating the rise of Trump and Trumpism. Their “Washington consensus” immiserated workers at home and abroad, deepened institutionalized oppression, led the U.S. into unending wars for global domination and drove the world economy into the Great Recession.

共和党人和民主党人都对促成特朗普和特朗普主义的崛起负有责任。 他们的“华盛顿共识”使国内外的工人受到伤害，加剧了制度化的压迫，导致美国陷入无休止的全球统治战争中，并推动世界经济陷入大衰退。

Trump and the new right — encouraged by McCain when he selected Palin as his running mate — took advantage of the real crises in our world to put forward reactionary solutions. Trump was able to win because the Democrats ran the very embodiment of the neoliberal status quo against him: Hillary “America is already great” Clinton.

特朗普和新右派—被麦凯恩选择佩林作为竞选伙伴所鼓舞—利用我们世界真正的危机来提出保守的解决方案。特朗普之所以能够获胜，是因为民主党人用可见的新自由主义现状反对他：希拉里“美国已经很伟大了”克林顿。

Now, watching the commemorations for McCain, there was no question that members of both parties wanted to use the flag-waving to rally support for a different brand of nationalism to Trump’s. As The New York Times described it: “The two-and-a-half-hour ceremony blended the majesty of the officially designated national house of prayer, the discipline of his cherished Naval Academy and the unabashed, unapologetic patriotism of a Fourth of July fireworks display.”

现在，看看为麦凯恩举办的纪念活动，毫无疑问两党成员都希望利用这一旗帜来支持和特朗普的品牌所不同的民族主义品牌。正如纽约时报所描述的那样：“两个半小时的仪式融合了官方指定的国家祈祷殿堂的威严，他珍视的海军学院的纪律以及七月四日烟火表演中展现的毫不掩饰的，毫无歉意的爱国主义精神。 ”

Daughter Megan McCain took advantage of this atmosphere to resuscitate Hillary Clinton’s campaign slogan: “The America of John McCain has no need to be made great again because America was always great.”

他的女儿梅根麦凯恩利用这种气氛来复苏希拉里克林顿的竞选口号：“约翰麦凯恩的美国没有必要再次变得伟大，因为美国总是伟大的。”

Socialists ask: For whom has America ever been great? Certainly, it has been a great ride for the rulers of America, from the slaveholders and architects of Native genocide who founded the nation to today’s robber barons like Jeff Bezos.

社会主义者问：谁的美国已经很伟大了？ 当然，对于美国的统治者们来说，这是一个伟大的旅程，从建立国家时对原住民的种族灭绝的奴隶主和建筑师到今天像杰夫贝佐斯这样的强盗贵族。

But the same can’t be said for the exploited workers and oppressed peoples who have paid for this wealth in blood, sweat and tears. Even more obviously, America has never been great for the countries it has occupied and bombed, beginning with the Philippines in 1898 and extending to “war on terror” of the 21st century.

但对于那些以血，汗和眼泪为这笔财富付出代价的被剥削的工人和被压迫的人民来说，情况并非如此。更为明显的是，从1898年的菲律宾开始到21世纪的“反恐战争”，对于那些被它所占领和轰炸的国家来说，美国从未伟大过。

As in every country, the American ruling class has always used patriotism to bind workers and the oppressed to them — to encourage the idea that U.S. workers have more in common with their bosses and political leaders than with the people of countries that are deemed to be enemies of America.

和其他所有国家一样，美国的统治阶级一直利用爱国主义将工人和压迫他们或她们的人捆绑在一起—鼓励这种观点，即美国工人与他们的老板和政治领袖有更多共同点而不是那些被认为是美国的敌人的国家的人民。

THUS, AT the heart of socialism is internationalism: the idea that the international working class has a common interest of opposing their own rulers in every country.

因此，社会主义的核心是国际主义：一个这样的观点，即国际工人阶级拥有一个共同利益：在每个国家反对他们或她们自己的统治者。

For Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez to call McCain “an American hero” and praise his “American service” compromises this fundamental cornerstone of socialism.

桑德斯和Ocasio-Cortez称麦凯恩为“美国英雄”并称赞他的“美国服务”破坏了这一社会主义的基本基石。

The rejection of nationalist fealty is all the more important given the intensifying inter-imperial rivalries taking place today — most importantly with China, but also with Russia and regional powers like Iran.

鉴于今天发生的帝国主义之间的激烈争斗—最重要的是与中国的争斗，以及与俄罗斯和像伊朗这样的地区大国的争斗，拒绝民族主义崇拜更加重要。

Trump has obviously used nationalism to whip up support for his confrontations with those powers, but the party leaders of both the Democrats and Republicans do exactly the same. McCain made an art of that during his decades of beating the drums of war, and far from dissenting, the Democratic Party has always been a devoted servant of U.S. imperialism.

特朗普显然煽动民族主义来发动支持他与这些大国的对抗，但民主党和共和党的党派领导人也是这么做的。 麦凯恩在几十年中创造了一种打响战鼓的艺术，并且离异议很远，民主党一直是美国帝国主义的忠实仆人。

Today, Trump often finds more support for his policies toward China among Democrats than Republicans.

今天，特朗普经常发现民主党人对他对中国的政策的支持度比共和党人更高。

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, for example, echoed Trump’s talking points in praising the administration’s imposition of new tariffs: “China takes total advantage of the United States. They steal our intellectual property using cyber theft…China will bark back. But they need us more than we need them — President Trump is right about that — and we should be strong. So I thought what he did on China is right.”

例如，参议院少数派领袖Chuck Schumer，在赞扬政府实施新的关税时重复了特朗普的谈话要点：“中国完全在利用美国的优势。 他们利用网络窃取窃取了我们的知识产权……中国将咬回来。但他们需要我们超过我们需要他们—特朗普总统是对的—我们应该坚强。所以我认为他对中国所做的是对的。“

On Russia, the Democrats have staked out an even more hawkish position than Trump, using alleged interference in the 2016 election to whip up the conflicts. In general, their criticism of Trump is that he has upset the U.S. imperialist alliance structure, compromising relationships with states like Canada and Germany.

对俄罗斯，民主党人比特朗普更加强硬，使用据称对2016年大选的干涉来煽动冲突。 总的来说，他们对特朗普的批评是，他打乱了美国帝国主义的联盟结构，破坏了与加拿大和德国等国家的关系。

In this regard, Sanders falls short of where socialists need to stand.

在这方面，桑德斯没有做到社会主义者所需要坚持的。

By comparison to other officeholders in Washington, including many liberal Democrats, Sanders has voiced greater opposition to national chauvinism and imperialist policies. His comments are often a welcome contrast to the hawkish Democratic Party leadership.

与华盛顿的其他公职人员（包括许多自由民主党人）相比，桑德斯表达了对国家沙文主义和帝国主义政策的更大反对。 他的言论常常与鹰派民主党领导层形成鲜明对比。

But his record is not consistently anti-imperialist. Sanders supported Bill Clinton’s war on Serbia in 1999, voted in favor of Bush’s war in Afghanistan and cast a “yes” vote on many military budgets, including those that funded the Iraq War. Sanders is also an endorser of boondoggle military program in his home state: the basing of the F-35 fighter at the airport in Burlington.

但他的记录并非始终是反帝国主义的。 桑德斯支持比尔克林顿发动的1999年对塞尔维亚的战争，投票支持布什在阿富汗的战争，并对许多军事预算投了赞成票，包括那些资助伊拉克战争的预算。桑德斯也是他所在州的军事计划的代言人：伯灵顿机场的F-35战斗机基地。

On trade issues, Sanders has lined up with Trump’s trade protectionism, tweeting, “I strongly support imposing penalties on countries like China, Russia, South Korea and Vietnam to stop illegal dumping of steel and aluminum.”

在贸易问题上，桑德斯已经与特朗普的贸易保护主义联系在一起，他发推文说：“我强烈支持对中国，俄罗斯，韩国和越南等国家实施处罚，以阻止非法倾销钢铁和铝。”

His position echoes the labor movement’s support for protectionism over many years, which has disastrously deflected attention from the real culprits for U.S. poverty and job losses — the American bosses who laid off workers in the U.S. and super-exploited them internationally — by making workers taking “American jobs” in other countries into the “enemy.”

多年来，他的立场与劳工运动对保护主义的支持相呼应，这种做法灾难性的摧毁了对美国的贫困和失业的真正罪魁祸首的关注—美国老板在解雇了美国的工人并在国际上超级剥削他们—通过让工人接受 “美国的工作”陷入了其他国家的“敌人”手中。

ALL THIS is important background for understanding the controversy over Sanders’ and Ocasio-Cortez’s statements honoring McCain. They are more than a ritual — the ideas they represent should be confronted and challenged by the left.

所有这些都是了解桑德斯和Ocasio-Cortez关于纪念麦凯恩的声明的争议的重要背景。 它们不仅仅是一种仪式—它们所代表的思想应该被左派们对抗和挑战。

By contrast, Seattle City Councilor and Socialist Alternative member Kshama Sawant sent a very different message with her statement on McCain:

相比之下，西雅图市议员和”社会主义选择“成员Kshama Sawant在她对麦凯恩的发言中发出了一个非常不同的信息：

A politician’s legacy is a political not personal question. An enthusiastic supporter of every imperialist war while in office, John McCain shares responsibility for hundreds of thousands of deaths. To whitewash that is to disrespect those who died in Iraq, Afghanistan, elsewhere…Not to mention the countless working people’s lives damaged by McCain’s support, as a Senator, for brutal neoliberal social and economic policies in the United States. Our solidarity belongs with the millions of families suffering under such policies here and abroad.

政治家的遗产是一个政治问题而非个人问题。 作为每一次帝国主义战争的热情支持者，约翰麦凯恩共享了对数十万人死亡所负有的责任。 粉饰这些是不尊重那些在伊拉克，阿富汗和其他地方死亡的人……更不用说麦凯恩作为参议员支持美国野蛮的新自由主义社会和经济政策而损害了无数劳动人民的生活。我们的团结属于数百万受国内外此类政策影响的家庭。

The new socialist left should follow this example in challenging McCain as a lesser evil and protesting the supposedly kinder, gentler form of imperialism put forward by the bipartisan establishment against Trump’s version.

新的社会主义左派应该效仿这一榜样，挑战将麦凯恩视为一种较小的罪恶的观点，并抗议两党为了对抗特朗普的版本所提出的更为温和，更绅士的帝国主义形式。

We should argue for an entirely different kind of politics and strategy, one of working class independence from both capitalist parties, international solidarity with workers and oppressed people around the world, and opposition across the board to U.S. imperialism as, in Martin Luther King Jr.’s words, the “greatest purveyor of violence in our world today.”

我们应该争论一种完全不同的政治和战略，一种是工人阶级独立于两个资本主义政党，和世界各地的工人们和被压迫的人民进行国际团结，以及全面反对美国帝国主义。 用马丁路德金的话来说，“今天世界上最大的暴力传播者”。

The resistance to Trump — in all its forms, from the Women’s Marches to Black Lives Matter, to the immigrant rights movement, to the teachers’ strike wave — can’t take its lead from the eulogies at McCain’s funeral, but from a left-wing politics that opposes all forms of exploitation, oppression and injustice.

对特朗普的抵抗 – 在所有的形式中，从妇女游行到黑人的命也是命，到移民权利运动，到教师的罢工浪潮—都不能从麦凯恩葬礼上的颂词中得到指引，而是从反对一切形式的剥削，压迫和不公正的左派政治中得到指引。

https://socialistworker.org/2018/09/04/a-hero-for-their-class-not-for-ours