迈向自由：民主社会主义者的理论和实践（Toward Freedom: Democratic Socialist Theory and Practice）

The Democratic Socialist Vision

民主社会主义者的视野

by Joseph Schwartz and Jason Schulman

Democratic socialists believe that the individuality of each human being can only be developed in a society embodying the values of liberty, equality, and solidarity. These beliefs do not entail a crude conception of equality that conceives of human beings as equal in all respects. Rather, if human beings are to develop their distinct capacities they must be accorded equal respect and opportunities denied them by the inequalities of capitalist society, in which the life opportunities of a child born in the inner city are starkly less than that of a child born in an affluent suburb. A democratic community committed to the equal moral worth of each citizen will socially provide the cultural and economic necessities—food, housing, quality education, healthcare, childcare—for the development of human individuality.

1，民主社会主义者认为每个人只有在一个认可自由，平等和团结的社会里才能发展自己的个性。这些信念并不意味着只是一种认为人类在尊严上是平等的粗糙概念。事实上，如果人类想要发展他们的相互不同的天赋能力，他们必须被给予平等的尊严和机会，但这却被资本主义社会中的不平等给否定了，例如一个出生在内城（备注：美国城市中的内城是穷人区，可以看成贫民窟）的小孩的改变命运的机会绝对少于一个出生在富裕的郊区的小孩。一个民主的社区的宗旨是：任何公民社会化的提供文化和经济必需品——食物，住房，优质的教育，医疗，儿童抚养——为了人类个性的发展。

Marx’s Analysis of Capitalism: Social Production Versus Private Control

马克思对资本主义的分析：社会生产 VS 私人控制

Karl Marx—whose work is particularly relevant in our era of “globalization”—recognized that capitalism represented an increase in human freedom and productive power. Under feudalism, political and economic life had been merged. Born a serf, one remained a serf, subject to the political and economic domination of one’s lord. Capitalism freed the economic sphere from the domination of the political. Under capitalism, the worker and capitalist contracted with one another free of the burdens of traditional religious or status relations.

5，卡尔马克思——他的工作和我们的“全球化”时代有特别紧密的联系——意识到资本主义提升了人类的自由和生产力。在封建社会下，政治和经济生活是合一的。生下来是农奴，一个人就一直是农奴，在经济和政治上都被他或她的领主压迫。资本主义将经济领域从政治压迫下解放出来。在资本主义下，工人和资本家签定合约，同时摆脱了传统宗教或其他地位关系的重担。

Though the rise of capitalist economic relations in Europe predates political democracy by over two centuries, the rhetoric of freedom of contract and legal equality that arose during capitalism’s infancy in the 17th century contributed to the growth of movements for political democracy. In a capitalist democracy, one’s economic status, in theory, does not affect one’s political and legal status. All members of society are to be judged equally before the law and have the equal right to participate politically (one person, one vote). But Marx illustrated that the inequalities in “civil society” (or economic life) undercut the promise of political equality. In the political “free market” for votes, capital has more influence than labor, and this structural inequality erodes the promise of political democracy. But Marx argued against authoritarian socialists who dismissed political democracy as merely “bourgeois,” as it is the existence of political democracy that enables the working class to mobilize its numbers against concentrated economic power.

6，资本主义的经济关系在欧洲崛起从而实现政治民主已经两百多年了，关于自由合约和法律平等的修辞在资本主义初期，也就是17世纪的时候对争取政治民主的运动是有贡献的。在资本主义民主下，一个人的经济地位，理论上不会影响这个人的政治和法律地位。所有社会成员在法律面前都是平等的，同时也有平等的参与政治决策的权利（一人一票）。但是马克思指出，在“公民社会（或者说经济生活）”上的不平等损害了承诺的政治平等。在政治上的选举“自由市场”中，资本比劳工的影响力更大，这种结构性的不平等侵蚀了承诺的政治民主。但是马克思同时也反驳了威权社会主义者把政治民主贬低为“资产阶级的”，认为政治民主的存在使得工人阶级有能力动员其成员以反对集权资本力量。

In retrospect, however, Marx did not make clear his commitment to political democracy. Marx often implied that under advanced socialism—communism—control of production by the “free association of producers” would end the need for politics. But even a society characterized by worker self-management of production and distribution would need political pluralism; there is no reason to think that there is one exact “right” answer as to how socialism should be constructed, or that there is no politics apart from economic issues. Democratic debates over policy are, therefore, inevitable.

7，然而，回想起来，马克思并没有明确在其表述中支持政治民主。马克思经常说在先进社会主义——共产主义——下生产由“自由生产者的联合体”控制，而这会终结对政治的需求。但是即使是一个实现了工人对生产和分配自我管理的社会也需要政治多数。没有理由认为对于如何建设社会主义有一个完全“正确”的答案，或者认为对于经济问题不会再有政治上的不同派别。对政策的民主辩论是必然会有的。

Marx did not only argue that capitalism undermined democracy. He argued against the very essence of it as an economic system. In his analysis, capitalism was an exploitative mode of production in which the capitalist class extracted “surplus value” from the working class. For the first time in human history, labor power itself was sold as a free commodity on the market. No longer were people slaves or serfs to their masters. Workers were free to sell their labor power to whatever capitalist chose to employ them. But the asymmetry of power in this alleged “free exchange” is that while the capitalist class owns the means of production, the working class only has their labor power to sell. This asymmetry means that while capitalists pay labor a “living wage,” the value of this wage (the value of labor power) is always less than the value of the commodities produced by the workers’ labor—if capital could not make a profit it would not employ labor. Workers’ needs under capitalism are always subordinate to the bottom line.

8，马克思不仅质疑资本主义破坏民主，他对资本主义这一经济系统本身是否有存在必要也进行了质疑。在他的分析中，资本主义是一种对生产的剥削，资产阶级从工人身上榨取“剩余价值”。在人类历史上，劳动力第一次在市场上作为商品被出售。人们不再是奴隶或主子的奴才。工人们自由的向那些选择雇佣他们的资本家售卖劳动力。但是经济力量的不对等使得号称的“自由交易”变成了资产阶级拥有生产资料，工人阶级却只有劳动力可卖。这一不对等意味着当资本家付给劳工“可供生活的薪水”时，薪水的价值（劳动力的价值）总是少于工人的劳力实际生产出的价值——如果资本家无法获得利润那么他们就不会雇佣劳工。劳工们的需求在资本主义下总是被压制在底线附近。

Marx explained that capitalism required a high level of organization and direction, which the profit motive alone could not provide. Production was becoming a more “social” enterprise, touching all of society’s diverse interests. Yet these social forces of production are still controlled by private capitalists, and now also by top-level corporate managers who share an interest in long-run profitability.

9，马克思解释了资本主义要求高度组织和导向，这是利润动机本身所不能提供的。企业的生产变得更“社会”了，触碰到了社会上的多种利益。（备注：这句话是说，企业行为不仅只影响到本企业的老板和员工，同时也影响到了社会上的其他人）。迄今为止，这些社会生产力量还是被私人资本家们控制着，最顶端的企业管理者在长期利润获取上共享利益（备注：这是在说企业主之间为了利润会相互勾结，形成企业联盟之类的组织）。

Socialists therefore argue that private corporate property is not only wrong, but also nonsensical. Wealth is a social creation and should be controlled by society as a whole. Of course, socialists must take seriously objections that there would be a need for expertise (say, for surgeons and engineers) and job specialization under socialism. The division of labor might well be eroded by the rotation of menial tasks, frequent sabbaticals, job retraining, shortening the workweek, and increasing the creativity of “leisure” activity. But however we organize the division of labor—the structure of careers and life opportunities—it should be decided democratically and not by the accident of chance or of opportunities conferred or denied by one’s class position.

10，社会主义者因此认为私有企业财产不仅是错误的，而且是无厘头的。财富是社会创造的，那么就应该被全社会控制。当然，社会主义者必须清楚的认识到在社会主义下专家（例如外科医生和工程师）和特殊工作是有存在的必要的。劳工的差异也许会被卑鄙的任务，频繁的休假，工作再培训，工作时间的缩短，和“闲暇”活动的创造所造成（备注：这句话的意思是这些因素会制造劳工之间的差异）。但是无论我们如何组织起有差异的劳工——事业的结构和生活的机会——这些都应该被民主的决定，而不是依靠偶然因素授予或否定一个人的阶级位置。

Class Structure and Political Agency: The Imperative of a Coalition Strategy

阶级结构和政治机构：联盟战略的必要性

Marx did not believe that workers’ revolution would occur because of socialism’s moral desirability or the wisdom of socialists. Rather, he posited that the increasingly interdependent nature of capitalist production would come into conflict with the private ownership and control of economic resources. For Marx, only the working class had a common interest in revolution and the structural power within the mode of production to carry it out. But it would take political organization for the working class to fulfill its potential as the social agent of revolution.

11，马克思并不相信工人革命会因为社会主义的道德吸引力或社会主义者们的智慧而发生。相反，他指出资本生产的相互依存的本性会导致在私有制和和对经济资源的控制中产生冲突。对于马克思来说，只有工人阶级共同的革命利益，才能实现生产模式中的结构性力量。但是，只有代表工人阶级的政治组织才能作为社会革命机构发挥出工人阶级的潜能。

It turned out that Marx was overly optimistic about the development of class-consciousness and revolutionary activity on the part of the working class. Though Marx recognized that the working class was divided by functional tasks, ethnicity, and race, he believed that trade union struggle and political activity would engender a universal identity on the part of the working class committed to socialism. But the paradox of mature capitalism is its coexistence with universal suffrage. In no country has there yet been mobilized a conscious majority for socialism. This is not to deny the significant popular support for social democratic and labor parties that favor a mixed economy and greater socioeconomic equality. But even in Sweden there has yet to develop a conscious electoral majority for a cooperatively-run economy.

12，事实表明，马克思对于工人阶级的阶级意识和革命行动的发展过于乐观了。虽然马克思意识到工人阶级被功能性工作，民族，种族这些所分裂，他相信独立工会的抗争和政治活动会赋予工人阶级一个全民的身份认同，从而实现社会主义。不过成熟资本主义和普选权共存了，这导致了悖论的出现。迄今为止，没有任何一个国家实现社会主义。这不是否定显著的大众对社会民主和工人政党的支持，对混合经济的喜爱，对社会经济平等的进一步追求。但是即使在瑞典，对于合作经济的选举支持还是需要进一步的发展（备注：意思是合作经济还没有在瑞典变成主流）。

Why is it that in the 20th century there never emerged a conscious majority for socialism under liberal democracy? It is partially due to socialism’s identification with authoritarian Communism. It may also be because prosperity after World War II enabled capitalist welfare states to satisfy the material needs of most of their populations. What’s more, the “capital strike” by business, which has confronted ambitious Socialist governments such as the Allende regime in Chile and the Mitterrand regime in France, makes clear the risks governments take when they try to limit the rights of capital.

13，为什么在20世纪没有国家在自由民主下实现社会主义呢？部分原因是社会主义的定义被威权共产主义者（备注：指主张先锋队独裁的毛派）霸占了。同时，也因为二战之后的繁荣使得资本主义下的福利国家可以满足绝大部分人口的物质需求。还有，生意人的“资本攻击”，袭击了有野心的社会主义政府，例如智利的阿兰德政权和法国的米特兰德政权，使得政府试图限制资本权利的危险变得明显。

Marxists have often underestimated the functional differentiation among working people and the growth of a “middle strata” made up of those who are neither professionals nor blue-collar manual laborers. Today the number of working people who exercise some control over their labor and over others but who are not top-level managers is large (e.g., legal, financial, and medical professions). Socialists must also address the changing nature of capitalist production, which has led to a proliferation of low-skilled workers in the clerical and service sectors. These workers have difficulty organizing into unions because of the decentralized nature of their workplaces. The trade union movement is only beginning to adjust to an increasingly female and minority workforce, with different needs than male blue-collar workers. Organizing this “new working class” is critical to the future of socialism.

14，马克思主义者经常低估工人和不断增长的“中间阶层”的区别，中间阶层由那些既不是专家也不是蓝领工人的人组成。今天，那些对他们的劳动力和其他人有一定控制权但又不是顶层管理的人的人数很多（例如法律，金融和制药专家）。社会主义者们必须意识到资本生产的本性在改变，这导致了低技术劳工在办公室职员和服务业中的扩散。对这些劳工们进行组织是有困难的，因为他们的工作场所是分散的。工会运动只是刚刚开始适应女性和少数群体的工作力量的增长，而他们和男蓝领工人们的需求是不同的。如何把这些“新工人阶级”组织起来，对于社会主义的未来来说非常关键。

One way of appealing both to the “middle strata” and the working class is to stress democratic control over consumption and social provision, in addition to Marxism’s traditional focus on democratic control over production. In the United States today, large sectors of the middle class cannot afford decent healthcare, housing, education, and childcare. The challenge for the left is to unite these sectors with the working class and poor in favor of universal, progressively financed, public provision. Providing these goods for the middle class through tax credits and private insurance will only insure the further impoverishment of social services for the bottom third of society. Thus, building a majority coalition between the middle strata and lower-income people becomes not only a moral imperative, but also a political necessity. The large number of workers in the helping professions and the public sector provides the structural basis for such a coalition, particularly if these sectors are increasingly unionized. But middle class opposition to an expanded public sector will decrease only if progressive taxation is restored and democracy and efficiency increasingly characterizes social welfare provision.

15，一种对于“中间阶层”和工人阶级来说都很吸引人的设想是对社会供应和消费都进行民主控制，作为对于马克思主义传统的集中于民主控制生产的补充。在今天的美国，大批中产阶级无法负担基本的医疗，住房，教育和儿童抚养。对左派们来说，将这些人和工人阶级以及穷人联合起来对普世的，进步的金融，公共的供应产生兴趣是个挑战。通过税收优惠和私人保险为中产阶级提供这些服务只会导致针对底层第三世界的社会服务的缺乏。因此，在中间阶层和低收入人权之间建立联合已经不仅是一个道德上迫切的选择，而是一个政治上的必须选项。帮助专业人士的大批工人和公共部门为这样一种联合提供了结构基础，特别是如果这些部门之间增强联合。但是只有进步的税收制度（备注：这里应该指的是多重累进税率制）被恢复，社会福利供应被显著增加，中产阶级对于扩大公共部门的反感才会降低。

Some Marxists have also overestimated the centrality of work to identity. Community, ethnic, and regional identities have often competed with class loyalties. Racial divisions and the initial organization of immigrants into ethnic-based political machines rather than class-conscious parties have weakened class identity in the United States. Democratic socialists recognize the pre-capitalist origins of racism and sexism. While capitalism clearly structures these forms of oppression (for example, the use of racism and sexism to channel women and minorities into low-paying, service sector jobs), there is a relatively autonomous cultural and psychological dimension to these forms of domination. Socialist-feminists analyze how the sexual division of labor in child rearing produces different gendered attitudes towards nurturing and moral judgment. Socialist analyses of racism examine the psychological underpinnings of racism in cultural fears of “the other” and anxieties about group identity and status.

16，一些马克思主义者高估了工作的身份认同作用。社区，民族，地区这些身份认同经常会与阶级忠诚竞争。极端的分裂和初始的移民组织被卷入基于民族的政治机器中而不是基于阶级的政党，这削弱了美国人的阶级认同。社会民主主义者认识到前资本主义时代的种族主义和性别歧视传统。当资本主义明显的结构化了这些压迫（例如，利用种族主义和性别歧视来强迫女性和少数群体接受服务部门的低工资），对于这些形式的压迫，就形成了一种文化和心理学的自治维度（备注：这句话意思是资本主义会设法利用文化和心理学说辞合理化这些压迫）。社会女权主义者对种族主义进行了分析，检验了种族主义的心理学基础，种族主义是一种文化上的对“其他人”的害怕和对团体认同和团体状态的焦虑。

Democratic socialists, influenced by the Black Liberation, Women’s Liberation, and Gay and Lesbian Liberation movements, also recognize that “different” identities provide meaning for people. The orthodox Marxist desire to subsume all ethnic, racial, and cultural groups under the universal identity of “the working class” threatens the particular communities that provide sustenance to individuals. A democratic socialist society would facilitate the autonomy and enrichment of various cultural and ethnic traditions. But some “post-modern” theorists go too far in celebrating “particularity.” While particular identities and the autonomy of movements against oppression are central to a free, pluralist society, so is the development of a sense of common citizenship. Vibrant political life and a strong welfare society must be grounded in a strong sense of communal membership. Citizenship should not be viewed as a “homogenizing” category that reduces all to the pursuit of the same interests and needs. Rather, if human beings and the particular communities with which they identify are to be accorded equal respect they need to live in a society that guarantees that all members will be able to fulfill their unique potential.

17，民主社会主义者，在黑人解放运动，女性解放运动，男同性恋和女同性恋解放运动的影响下，也认识到了“不同的”身份认同为人提供了意义。正统马克思主义者试图将所有民族，种族，文化团体包括在同一个“工人阶级”认同下，这威胁到了那些对个人提供营养的社区（备注：意思应该是威胁到了多元社会）。一个民主社会主义社会应当促进自治和丰富多种多样的文化和民族传统。但是一些“前现代”理论家在庆祝“特别”上走得太远了。当不同的认同和反抗压迫的自治运动成为一个自由，多数决定的社会的重要组成部分的时候，正常的公民权才能被发展起来。公民权不应被看作一个“均质”的分类，把不同的追求都降级为相同的利益和需要。相反，如果人类和那些特别的社区想要他们的身份认同被平等的尊重，他们需要生活在一个保证所有成员都能满足他们独一无二的潜能的社会中。

Strategy: The Role of the Party and the State

战略：政党和国家的角色

While Marx never adequately described how socialism would be achieved by crossing the terrain of a democratic capitalist society, V. I. Lenin claimed there was no choice but insurrection. Socialists could not use the capitalist state to abolish capitalism; they would have to overthrow the state and then “smash” its machinery. What institutions of government would take its place Lenin never made fully clear, except for vague references to the self-governance of workers’ councils (soviets) in The State and Revolution. Obviously the Bolshevik party rapidly supplanted the councils as the main governing institution in Lenin’s Soviet Union.

18，当马克思并没有明确表述社会主义如何在资本主义民主社会下实现时，列宁认为除了起义之外没有其他选择。社会主义者无法利用资本主义国家终结资本主义；他们不得不推翻政权然后“砸烂”社会机器。列宁并没有明确说明替代的政府机构是怎样的，除了在《国家与革命》中模糊提到了自我治理的工人议会（苏维埃）。很明显，布尔什维克党很快抛弃了在列宁的苏联作为主要政府机构的议会。

In What Is To Be Done, Lenin claimed that trade union activity would produce only a reformist desire for “more” economic goods rather than revolutionary consciousness. Lenin may not have inaccurately predicted the nature of predominant working class consciousness during “normal” periods of capitalist development. Workers under capitalism have more to lose than just their chains. But Lenin’s belief in the privilege of the “vanguard” party—that it can do whatever it wants once it takes power because it represents the workers’ “true” interests—contradicts Marx’s belief in working-class self- emancipation. Though an effective strategy for clandestine organization in repressive societies, Leninism’s track record in democratic capitalist societies is dismal, perhaps because self-described Leninist parties are usually thoroughly authoritarian.

19，在《怎么办》中，列宁宣称工会活动会产生一种改良主义的对“更多”经济资源的诉求而不是革命诉求。列宁准确预测到工人阶级在“正常”资本主义发展阶段的对统治的意识是自然形成的。资本主义下的工人们除了锁链之外没有什么可失去的了。但是列宁对“先锋队”政党特权的信仰——当他们得到政治权力时，他们会做任何他们想要的，因为这体现了工人们的“真正”利益——这和马克思相信的工人阶级的自我解放刚好相反。尽管在一个压迫性的社会里，成立一个秘密组织是很有效的策略，列宁主义在资本主义民主社会里的追踪记录是惨淡的（备注：意思是列宁主义的名声很差），也许是因为自称列宁主义的政党经常从根本上来说是独裁的。

Any possible transition to socialism would necessitate mass mobilization and the democratic legitimacy garnered by having demonstrated majority support. Only a strong majority movement that affected the consciousness of the army rank-and-file could forestall an armed coup by the right. Even when a repressive regime necessitates a minority road to revolution, democratic socialists stand with Rosa Luxemburg—revolutionary Marxist leader in Germany a century ago—in her advocacy of the restoration of civil rights and liberties once the authoritarian regime has been overthrown. There has yet to be a “Communist” revolution in which the “vanguard” party then allows itself to be voted out of office. The end of Communism in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, and the inspiring struggles against “Communist capitalism” in China, will hopefully lead to movements for democratic socialism in these countries.

20，任何可能的向社会主义的过渡都必须动员多数人，以及在民主下得到多数支持以获取合法性。只有一个强大的主流运动才能影响到军队的意识，反抗者才能将军队控制在正确的一边。即使在一个压迫性的独裁政权下一小部分人能发动革命，社会民主主义者和罗莎卢森堡站在一起——一个世纪之前在德国的革命马克思主义者领导人——她认为当一个独裁政权被推翻后恢复公民权利和自由是很有必要的。迄今为止，还没有哪个“共产主义”革命中“先锋队”政党允许自己被选下台的。苏联和东欧的共产主义的终结，令人鼓舞的在中国发生的对“共产党的资本主义”的反抗，将会在这些国家中产生对民主社会主义运动的希望和追求。

Leninists often argued the state under capitalism was nothing more than a tool of the capitalist class. What this “instrumentalist” view of the state cannot explain is why numerous reforms have been implemented under democratic capitalism against the fierce resistance of capitalists. Nor can it explain why some capitalist societies have stronger welfare states and greater democratic controls over capital than do others. Certainly structural dependence upon corporate investment to reproduce conditions of prosperity constrains democratic governments. The flight of capital has hindered liberal and social democratic reforms. But in times of depression, war, or mass political mobilization (e.g., the 1930s, World War II, the 1960s), the state has implemented reforms that have curtailed the rights of capital and increased popular power. To preserve the legitimacy of democratic government (and, in the long run, democratic capitalism itself), the state must respond to popular mobilization.

21，列宁主义者经常说资本主义国家只是资产阶级的工具。这种对于国家的“乐器”视角无法解释为什么不少社会变革发生在资本主义民主国家内反抗资本家压迫的过程中。同样这种说辞也无法解释为什么一些资本主义社会比另一些资本主义社会的福利国家更强大，对资本的民主控制也更有力。当然，对公司投资以提供繁荣的结构化依赖束缚住了民主政府。资本的外逃妨碍了自由和社会民主变革。但是，在衰退，战争，或多数政治动员（例如1930s，二战，1960s），政权接受了缩减资本权利的变革，增强了多数的力量。为了实现民主政府（长远来说，实现社会民主主义）的合法性，政权必须响应多数动员。

In part, this is possible because the capitalist class does not directly rule under capitalism. While the demands of corporate and defense industry lobbyists heavily influence politicians and state bureaucrats, the major goal of politicians is to guarantee reelection through steady economic growth. Capitalist interests are often divided among themselves (importers versus exporters, finance versus manufacturing, etc.), thus providing state officials with a certain degree of autonomy. In times of economic crisis and/or popular mobilization, state managers and political elites will sometimes advocate programs for economic recovery which are initially opposed by most capitalists. Politicians need to win elections and capitalists simply do not have enough votes to guarantee victory.

22，部分来说，这一切成为可能是因为在资本主义下，资产阶级并不直接统治。尽管公司的要求和工业游说者对政客和政府官僚产生很大影响，政客的主要目标是通过稳定的经济增长保证再次被选上。资本家的利益通常会在他们自己中发生分裂（进口者VS出口者，金融VS制造业，等等），因此提供给政府官员一定程度上的自治。在经济危机或大众动员中，政权管理者和政治精英有时会支持那些和大部分资本家的利益都冲突的为了实现经济恢复的计划。政客们需要在选举中获胜，但资本家们没有足够选票保证获胜。

In the long run, however, if popular mobilization does not persist, reforms will often be restructured to shift the balance of power back towards capital (e.g., the reintroduction of regressive taxation; cutting of benefits; deregulation; weaker enforcement of labor laws, and so on). State officials are always constrained by the need for business confidence and continued private investment. State policy results from class and political conflict, but the asymmetry of the capital-labor relationship stacks the deck against popular movements. Only by building strong trade unions, community organizations, and socialist parties can the left redress this imbalance of forces.

23，然而，长远来说，如果大众动员不被坚持下去，那么就会发生将权力重新返回给资本的改变（例如，压迫性的税收制度被重新使用，削减福利，放松对资本的管制，对劳工的法律保护的削弱，以及类似的）。政府官员总是会被私人投资和商业信心所束缚住，但是资本和劳工的不对等关系会威胁大众动员。只有建立了强大的独立工会，社区组织和社会主义政党，左派们才能将不平衡的力量重新拉扯平衡。

Class Consciousness and Struggle in Civil Society

在公民社会中的阶级意识和阶级斗争

Marx believed that capitalist ideology would have a powerful sway over the working class (“The ruling ideas of the day are the ideas of the ruling class”). But Marx underestimated the predominance of ideas of individualism and competition in popular culture. In part, this is because such ideologies are not completely false. There is more political freedom and social mobility under Western capitalism than in all previous societies. The early 20th century Italian Marxist theoretician Antonio Gramsci better understood how bourgeois ideology underpinned the “common sense” of capitalist culture. The capitalist class not only disproportionately influences the state, but ideas of “consumer sovereignty,” “freedom” and “choice” also dominate public opinion in the institutions of civil society, such as schools, religion, and the media.

24，马克思相信资本主义意识形态会对强烈动摇工人阶级（“毁灭性的思想会毁灭阶级”）。但是马克思低估了个人主义思想的统治地位和大众文化中的竞争。部分原因是，这些意识形态并不是完全错误的。在西方资本主义下，人们拥有的政治自由和社会流动性比所有在此之前的社会都要多。在20世纪早期，意大利马克思主义理论家Antonio Gramsci（葛兰西）更好的理解了资产阶级的意识形态是如何以“常识”的形式巩固在资本主义文化中的。资产阶级不仅对政权产生了不成比例的影响（备注：这里是说资产阶级对政府的影响远大于他们所拥有的选票数产生的影响），而且“消费主权”，“自由”和“选择”这些思想也在公民社会的机构中主导了大众观点，例如学校，宗教和媒体。

Gramsci believed that the dominance of capitalist modes of thought could be countered by a conscious, “counter hegemonic,” leftist cultural presence throughout civil society. The left would have to organize not only in the formal political arena, but also in the workplace, the neighborhood, the church, and the PTA. Though those who hold electoral state power set the boundaries within which political struggle occurs, organizing in civil society (at the grassroots) is critical for the growth of the left. Cultural, educational, and ideological work is as “political” as are elections.

25，葛兰西认为资本主义模式对思想的主导能够被一种意识所反驳，“文化霸权”，左翼文化始终在公民社会中存在着。左派们不仅必须在形式上的政治竞技场（备注：意思是政党之间的竞争）上组织起来，而且必须在工作场所，邻居之间，教会里，以及家长委员会中组织起来。虽然那些控制选举政权权力的人对政治斗争设立了边界，在公民社会（草根）中的组织对于左派力量的发展是非常关键的。文化上的，教育上的以及意识形态上的工作和选举是同样政治化的。（备注：意思是政治本身不仅只存在于选举中，而且存在于生活中的各个方面。）

In order to affect state power and to change the balance of forces in civil society, democratic socialists believe it is necessary to work both in electoral politics and in community and trade union organizing. In light of the peculiar structure of the American political system (the absence of proportional representation; the absence of coalition governments because of an executive rather than parliamentary system; open party membership and open primaries; single district, winner-take-all electoral districts), most progressive forces, when doing electoral work, pragmatically choose to work in the left wing of the Democratic Party. Hence, electoral class conflict runs through the Democratic Party, not around it.

26，为了影响政权和改变公民社会中的力量平衡，民主社会主义者认为在选举政治中开展工作和在社区与独立工会中进行组织都是很有必要的。根据美国政治系统的奇特架构（比例代表制的缺席；联合政府的缺席，因为总统取代了议会系统；政党成员资格的开放和初选的开放；单区域，赢者在选区通吃（备注：这几句的意思是美国的政治系统属于总统制搭配最高票当选制，这导致没有议会代议制下那种政党合组政府，也没有比例代表制下的小政党也能在议会拥有席位）），绝大多数进步力量，在进行选举工作的时候，都务实的选择为民主党中的左翼工作。于是，阶级冲突在选举上表现在民主党内部，而不是围绕民主党。（备注：民主党主流是右派，而共和党是极右派）

Given the structure of the US government, any third party in the United States rapidly has to become a second or first party to survive. The critical question facing socialists in the United States today is not whether to form a nation-wide third party. Rather, it is how best to build those progressive constituencies which alone can push politicians—whatever their party affiliation—to the left. Forming a party is pointless if few will join it. If and when the mass constituencies of the American democratic left decide to leave the Democratic Party, only then will a credible national third party be on the political agenda.

27，在美国政府的架构中，任何第三政党不得不成为第二或第一大党才能生存下去（备注：在最高票当选制下，必然会变成两党争霸，因为赢者通吃的制度导致小党派根本无法进入议会）。对于美国的社会主义者来说，关键问题并不在于如何建立一个全国性的第三政党。相反的是，如何建设进步选区使得政客们——无论他们属于哪个政党——偏向左派。如果几乎没有人会加入，那么建立政党就是没用的。只有在大量美国民主左派所属的选区决定离开民主党时，一个可靠的全国性的第三政党才会被提上政治议程。

The Transition to Socialism

过渡到社会主义

Hopes for a rapid democratic transition to socialism were shattered by the horrors of Stalinism and the failure of social democratic governments to discern a socialist road out of the Great Depression. After World War II, “democratic socialism” increasingly became identified with the “Keynesian” welfare state. Post-war growth and the concomitant expansion of welfare provision enabled governing working class parties to put socialization of ownership on the back burner. As British Labor Party leader Tony Crosland argued in 1956 in his book The Future of Socialism, a state-regulated capitalism could respond to the needs of the people if income was equitably distributed. But even if the stronger welfare states of Northern Europe did significantly redistribute income across classes, with the crisis of the welfare state due to the end of post-WWII growth in the 1970s, the mainstream left again faced a crisis of vision and program.

28，对于在民主制度下快速过渡到社会主义的希望被斯大林主义的恐怖所粉碎了，同时民主社会主义政府辨识大萧条之外的社会主义道路的努力失败了（备注：这是直译，但看起来很难理解，结合下文，作者的意思大概是社会民主主义在大萧条之后被等同于凯恩斯主义了）。在二战之后，“民主社会主义”越来越多的被等同于“凯恩斯式”的福利国家。战后增长和福利供应作为附属使得主导政府的工人阶级政党将所有权的社会化抛之脑后。英国工党领导人Tony Crosland在1956年出版的《社会主义的未来》中宣称，一个国家控制的资本主义社会中如果做到收入公平分配，那么就能满足人民的需求。但是即使在最强大的对不同阶级的收入进行显著再分配的北欧福利国家中，由于1970s时战后增长的终结危机，占据主流的左派们又开始在视野和方案上面临危机。

While expanded public provision and a strong infrastructure increases long-run productivity, it is impossible to achieve this when not only capital, but also significant populist movements (based both among the middle class and skilled unionized workers) demand that taxation and public provision be curtailed. Again, the left’s task is both moral and programmatic. It must reintroduce the values of equality and solidarity which support universal public provision through progressive taxation. And it must also advance a compelling vision of economic growth through greater democratic control over capital. A strategy of gradually encroaching upon the prerogatives of capital will involve creative experiments in workers’ buy-outs, democratic control over pension funds, and mandated worker and consumer representation on corporate boards. But these can only occur through the growth of trade union and socialist political power. Socialism will be the achievement of an epoch in which the power of labor vis-à-vis capital will be constantly contested. If the relative power of labor grows, this terrain will take on increasingly favorable contours.

29，增长的公共供应和强壮的基础架构长期来看提高了生产率，但是当不仅资本而且典型的民粹运动（基于中产阶级和联合起来的技术工人）要求缩减税收和公共供应时，要实现这些是不可能的。再说一次，左派们的任务是道德的和纲领性的。平等和团结的价值必须被重新介绍，因为这些支持建立在进步的税收制度上的全体性的公共供应。还有，必须进一步拥有一个对经济增长的强迫性的视野：增强对资本的民主控制。一种慢慢削除资本特权的战略会包括创造性的工人赎买企业的试验，对养老金的民主控制，经过授权的劳工和消费者代表在公司董事会中拥有位置。但是，这一切只有在独立工会的成长和社会主义政治力量的增长下才会发生。社会主义会在一个劳工和资本力量不断竞争的时代里实现。如果劳工的力量增长了，形势会变得令人高兴。

Transitional Strategy: Strengthening Public Provision and Democratic Control over Production

过渡战略：增强公共供应和对生产的民主控制

The strategy outlined above is borne out by sociologist John Stephens’ historical argument that the stronger the “counter- hegemonic” strength of unions and left parties, the stronger the welfare state and the more egalitarian the distribution of economic and political power. There is a reason why health and safety regulations are much stricter in the Scandinavian countries than in the United States; why Sweden and West Germany, under social democratic governments, funneled almost half of their respective GNPs through the public sector while the United States only transfers 25 percent; why social democratic welfare states are financed through progressive taxation while others (the United States and Japan) are financed by regressive taxation. The structure of the welfare state is profoundly affected by relative trade union and political party strength. As the fight for reforms usually involves struggle “from below,” in liberal democratic capitalist societies there is no radical divergence between strategies for reforms or revolution. Welfare state reforms that redistribute income and radical structural reforms that increase workers’ control both necessitate stronger political and union organization.

30，这一战略的提纲已经被社会学家John Stephen的历史性的论证所支持：联合团体和左派政党的“反霸权”力量越强大，福利国家才会越强大，经济和政治力量的分配才会越平均。为什么健康和安全法令在斯堪迪那维亚国家（备注：也就是北欧国家）比在美国更严格；为什么瑞典和西德，在社会民主主义政府下，将几乎一半的GNP花费在公共领域上，而在美国却只有四分之一；为什么民主社会主义福利国家都有着进步的税收制度而其他国家（美国和日本）的税收制度是压迫性的，这些都是有原因的。福利国家的架构被相互关联的独立工会和政党力量深深影响着。要求改变的抗争经常包括“来自下层”的斗争，在自由民主的资本主义社会里，改变或革命的战略并没有明显分歧。建立福利国家的改变：重新分配收入和激进的增强劳工们的控制力的结构改变都需要建立在增强的政治和联合团体组织的力量上。

Young radicals today often act as though street protest and direct-action tactics—even confrontation with the police—could bring about revolution. While direct action has its place in left politics, achieving serious social reform—let alone “full” socialism—requires movement-building and mass action. To refrain from struggles for reform (living wages, union organizing rights, police accountability, defense of reproductive rights and affirmative action) is to ensure marginality.

31，年轻的激进者们今天经常在街上抗争，策略是直接性的——甚至和警察对抗——会带来革命。直接行动的确在左派政治上有一席之地，但是要实现严肃的社会变革——“填满”社会主义——需要建设运动和大规模行动。为了避免要求变革的斗争（得以维生的工资，组织独立工会的权利，对警察的问责，捍卫再生产的权利和正面行动），维持边缘化是必要的。（备注：这句话是说，压迫者们为了消除被压迫者的反抗，会选择将被压迫者们边缘化）

Socialists must take part in concrete struggles to improve peoples’ living conditions—and do so in ways that increase their self-organization, political consciousness and capacity for collective action.

32，社会主义者们必须参与具体的斗争以提升人民的生活质量——然后通过这些增加他们的自组织程度，政治意识和集体行动的能力。

Towards a Vision of Democratic Production and Social Provision

展现一个民主生产和社会供应视野

When socialists argue for “decommodifying”—taking out of private market provision—such basic human needs as healthcare, childcare, education, transport, and housing, we have in mind a decentralized and more fully accountable welfare state than exists in Western democracies. While state financing of such goods is necessary to insure equity, decentralized social provision through community-based institutions must make welfare provision more human-scale and accessible. Democratic control of consumption should be as central to the socialist vision as democratic control over production, particularly given popular mistrust that socialism would be a bureaucratic nightmare which treated people as clients rather than citizens.

33，当社会主义者们争论“改造”——取消私有市场供应——例如人类基本需求：医疗，儿童抚养，教育，交通，住房这些，我们有个想法：一个分布式的问责制福利国家比存在于西方民主下的福利国家更好。政府对于这些服务的拨款对确保公平是非常有必要的，但是分布式的通过基于社区的机构实现的社会供应必然会使得福利供应更人性化和无障碍。对资源消耗的民主控制应当在社会主义者的视野中和对生产的民主控制同等重要，特别是社会主义给了公众这样一种怀疑：社会主义会成为一个官僚主义的噩梦，将人民当成客户而不是公民。（备注：这一怀疑很显然是由斯大林和毛贼的官僚控制的指令经济下的国家资本主义模式所引发的。）

While the exact details of a socialist economy are open to debate, it will most likely be a mixture of democratic planning of major investments (e.g., expenditure on infrastructure, investment in natural monopolies such as telecommunications, utilities, transport) and market exchange of consumer goods. Large, concentrated industries such as energy and steel would be publicly owned and managed by worker and consumer representatives. Many consumer-goods industries would be run as cooperatives. Workers would design the division of labor within their workplaces and thus overcome the authoritarianism of the traditional capitalist firm. Economic planning would set a guiding strategy by means of fiscal and monetary policy, with the daily coordination of supply and demand left to the market. But this market would be socialized by rendering it transparent. Enterprises would be obliged to divulge information about the design, production processes, price formation, wage conditions, and environmental consequences of the goods that they make. Publicly supported collectives—consumers’ unions—would analyze this data and propose norms to govern various aspects of these practices. Information about actual production processes and proposed norms would then be disseminated via universal, publicly supported communication networks such as the Internet. This would encourage dialogue between producers and consumers over what is socially needed.

34，尽管社会主义经济模式的具体细节还有待辩论，这一模式最可能像是一个对主要投资的民主计划（例如，在基础建设上的支出，对自然垄断领域的投资，比如说电信，公益事业，交通）模式和对消耗性服务的市场交换模式。往大了说，集中性的工业，例如能源和钢铁工业会被公有，同时被劳工们和消费者们的代表所管理。许多消费性工业会以合作方式运营（备注：就是民主合作社模式）。劳工们将会亲自在他们的工作场所设计劳动分工，从而克服传统资本主义模式下的威权主义（备注：指老板们对员工们的独裁专制和老板们对利润的独裁支配）。经济计划会制定一个财务和金融方面的战略方向，同时日常的供应上的协作和需求留给市场。但是，这个市场通过透明化实现了社会化。企业将会被强制透露其设计，生产进程，价格制定，工资状况，和他们提供的产品服务所造成的环境后果等信息。公共支持的集体——消费者联合会——会分析这些数据，然后提出用于指导不同方面的实践的规范。关于实际生产进程的信息和提出的规范将会通过覆盖所有人的，被公共支持的通信网络传播，例如互联网。这会鼓励生产者和消费者之间的关于什么是被社会需要的的对话。

Again, there is no final blueprint for socialism. But only under socialism will fully democratic debate over the use of society’s wealth be possible and the satisfaction of people’s basic needs assured. Productive activity will become not merely a way to acquire money, but a means to develop the whole creative potential of all working women and men.

35，再次说明一下，并没有什么关于社会主义的最终蓝图。但是只有在社会主义下，完全民主的关于如何使用社会财富的辩论才会成为可能，对人民的基本需求的满足才能被保证。生产活动将会变得不仅是一个获得金钱的方式，而且更意味着发展所有工作的女人们和男人们的创造潜能。

Socialist Internationalism versus Capitalist Globalization

社会国际主义VS资本主义全球化

Marx may have underestimated the capitalist state’s ability to regulate the business cycle, but the stagnation and restructuring of capitalism since the 1970s demonstrates that the system is less stable than its apologists contend. The growing internationalization of capital (which Marx envisioned) erodes the ability of nation-states to control their economic destiny. Thus, if socialism is to be a viable movement in the twenty-first century it must become as international as is capital. How to maintain living standards in the First World while promoting equitable development in the (former) Third World poses a major challenge for democratic socialists.

36，马克思也许低估了资本主义国家对商业循环的调节能力，但从1970s开始资本主义的停滞和重构显示出这个系统比他们的辩护士所宣称的更不稳定。资本全球化的增长（马克思预见到了这一点）侵蚀了民族国家控制他们经济命运的能力。因此，如果社会主义要在21世纪成为一个可行的运动，就必须和资本主义一样国际化。如何在维持第一世界生活标准的同时促进（前）第三世界的公平发展是摆在社会民主主义者面前的一个挑战。

Lenin’s theory of imperialism was dominant on the socialist left until the 1960s. His theory held that the advanced capitalist nations would export their surplus capital to the less developed world. While the developed capitalist nations would control this capital, Lenin envisioned rapid development in the colonized nations and the eventual rebellion of their emerging working classes. In fact, few Third World countries experienced vigorous industrial growth until the 1960s and most overseas capital investment went to other First World nations. In the post-war period, as radical economists acknowledged the relative stagnation of less developed economies and the overall flow of capital out of the developing countries to the First World, the theory of “the development of underdevelopment” (or “dependency theory”) emerged. Rather than industrializing the Third World, First World imperialism, according to dependency theory, relegated developing countries to producers of cheap raw materials and agricultural products. If industrialization occurred it was limited to “export platforms” producing relatively cheap goods for export to the imperial country.

37，列宁关于帝国主义的理论在社会主义左派内部都是主导性的，直到1960s。他的理论认为一个先进的资本主义国家会将剩余价值出口到不发达世界。当发达资本主义国家会控制他们的资本时，列宁预言被殖民国家会得到迅速发展，而他们的工人阶级的革命也会在这一过程中产生。事实上，直到1960s，几乎没有第三世界国家的工业积极发展了，而大部分海外资本投资都流向了其他第一世界国家。在战后时期，激进经济学家确认了非发达经济的停滞和发展中国家的资本大量流向第一世界，“基于发展中的发展”（或“依赖理论”）理论出现了。比起工业化第三世界，第一世界的帝国主义们，依据依赖理论，将发展中国家贬为便宜的新鲜原料和农产品产地。如果工业化发生了，那么它也是被限制在“出口平台”，提供便宜的商品用于向帝国主义国家出口。

While dependency theory partly explained the evolution of the poorest Third World nations (though it ascribed too much causal power to the world market and too little to internal class relations), it could not explain the emergence of significant industrial producers in East Asia and parts of Latin America. Nor could it explain how abject poverty could coexist with advanced industrial production. “Post-dependency” analysis explained how a strong state bureaucracy could ally with foreign and domestic capital to foster industrial growth. But such development rarely served the needs of the local economy for light industry and agricultural development. In addition, as it was heavily financed by foreign borrowing, this industrialization’s “success” was often based on low-wage production guaranteed by state repression of labor unions. In “newly industrializing countries” such as Brazil, Mexico, and South Korea, industrialization is no longer the question. The question is whether this industrialization can benefit domestic workers rather than domestic elites and foreign consumers.

38，依赖理论部分的解释了最穷困的第三世界国家的演化（即使它过多的归咎于世界市场的相关力量，而对内部阶级关系关注过少），但它无法解释在东亚和部分拉美国家中显著的工业生产者们的出现。它也无法解释极度贫困和先进的工业生产是如何共存的。“后依赖”分析解释了强大的政府官僚如何能够和外国资本勾结以助长工业增长。但是这种发展几乎不为本地经济对轻工业和农业发展的需求服务。补充说明一下，这种发展被外国借贷所大力资助，这种工业化的“成功”经常建立在由政府对独立工会压迫而导致的低工资生产的确保上。在“新工业化国家”里，例如巴西，墨西哥和韩国，工业化不再是个问题。问题在于，这种工业化什么时候才能对工人有利，而不是对那些精英和外国消费者有利。

Democratic socialists favor an industrialization that will not repeat the social and ecological horrors of recent industrial experiences. We want ecologically sound growth of “qualitative gross national product,” not simply quantitative product. Expending funds on environmentally sound technology is one way of increasing the qualitative product. Improvements in human services and growth in leisure time would also enhance the quality of life. There may well be ecological limits to strictly “quantitative” growth, but socialism will prove attractive to the world’s population only if it both quantitatively and qualitatively enhances the standard of living of people in the less developed world.

39，民主社会主义者认可的是一种不会继续重复在最近的工业化经历中发生的社会和生态灾难的工业化。我们想要生态化的关于“全国总体生产性质上”的增长，而不仅仅是生产量。在环境科技上增加投入是一种增加这种高质量生产的方法。对人类服务的提升和空闲时间的增加同时也会增加生活质量。也许会有一个生态限制严格限制了“高质量的”增长，但是对于这个世界上的人来说，只有质量和数量上的对于非发达世界的人民生活标准的提升，才会使社会主义对他们具有吸引力。

Over twenty-five years of a “deregulated” world economy, imposed by conservative and “Third Way” center-left governments in the developed world and by the International Monetary Fund throughout the rest of the planet, has severely increased global inequality. Masked in the rhetoric of “comparative advantage” and economic efficiency, “free market” policies impose the gutting of living standards and labor rights. By demanding that all nation-states remove regulatory constraints on corporations, cut social welfare programs, enact fiscal austerity, and declare war on unions, the World Trade Organization ensures that capital will be able to move labor-intensive forms of production to the “lowest cost producers” in the developing world. While more knowledge-intensive production remains in advanced industrial nations, such as software design and computerized tool production, the disproportionate share of the benefits of productivity increases goes to the top twenty percent of the population, the “symbolic manipulators” who organize production itself.

40，超过25年的对于世界经济的“放松管制”，被保守主义的和“第三条道路”的中左派在发达国家的政府，还有国际货币基金组织在这个星球上的其他地方所推行。被“比较优势”和经济效率的修辞所掩盖的是，“自由市场”政策强加了对生活标准的降低和对劳工权利的损害。通过命令所有民族国家移除对公司的限制，削减社会福利投入，制定财政紧缩政策，对独立工会宣战，WTO保证了资本可以流向劳动密集型生产模式下的拥有“最低生产成本”的发展中世界。当知识密集型生产留在先进工业国家时，例如软件设计和计算工具生产，不成比例的对于生产利润的分享使得增长的利润流向了这世界最顶层的20%人口，这些“符号化的操纵者”自己组织生产。

Contrary to mainstream propaganda, nation-states can still influence corporate behavior. To do so they must engage in regional and international cooperation aimed at instituting a new global social contract that would level up living standards, impose labor and environmental regulations upon transnational corporations, and regulate global financial actors in the interests of equitable and sustainable development. A rebuilt international socialist movement must work towards international cooperation among states to re-institute capital controls and reverse the unfavorable economic conditions of developing nations. If the social democratic welfare state can no longer be sustained strictly on a national level, it must be created on an international level. Absent a worldwide New Deal, even the “privileged” workers of the advanced industrial nations may join the global majority in poverty and hunger. If global social democratic capitalism proves impossible, there will be no chance for an international movement towards the full socialization of the world economy.

41，与主流宣传相反的是，民族国家还是能影响公司行为。为了做到这点，他们必须联合地区性的和国际性的目标为建立一个新的全球性的社会合约以提升生活标准，强迫跨国公司遵守劳工和环境保护法律，和为了实现公平和可持续发展对全球性金融活动立法的合作组织。一个重新建立的国际性的社会主义运动必须努力实现政府间的国际合作以从资本手中夺回控制权，以及逆转发展中国家不受欢迎的经济状况。如果社会民主主义福利国家无法严格的在国家这一级别上实现，那么它必须在国际级别上被创造。由于世界范围内的新政的缺席，即使是那些在先进工业国家的“有特权的”工人们也会加入全球主流的的贫困和饥饿中。如果说全球性的资本主义民主社会被证明是无法实现的，那么就更没机会去实现一个国际性的通往对世界经济进行社会化的运动。

The Promise of Socialism

社会主义的承诺

Socialism is no longer a pure, innocent ideal. Its appeal has been tarnished by the authoritarian, statist regimes that have ruled in its name. In the name of social equality (which they did not achieve), these regimes abolished formal political equality. To fulfill the promise of political democracy, which is eviscerated by economic inequality, democratic socialists work towards a society characterized by equality, solidarity, and participation. Participation will not be orchestrated from above by a paternalist state, but will occur from below in the workplaces, neighborhoods, and schools of civil society.

42，社会主义并不是一个纯洁无辜的理想。它的呼吁被独裁者所玷污了，中央集权的独裁政权用它的名义统治。在社会公平的名义下（事实上他们并没有实现），这些独裁政权抛弃了形式上的政治平等。为了履行政治民主的承诺，而政治民主被经济不平等破坏了，民主社会主义者为了缔造一个平等，团结和参与的社会而工作着。政治参与不会被家长式政权自上而下设计，只会发生在工作场所，邻居之间，以及公民社会的学校中。

This democratic commitment to social pluralism does not negate the need for a democratic state that would ensure the rule of law, protect the environment, and insure a basic level of equity for each citizen. It is predominantly through cooperative, voluntary relationships that people will develop the social bonds that render life meaningful. In these institutions, there will be different roles conforming to the varied talents citizens bring to different pursuits. The subjugation of authoritarian collectivism has little to do with the liberty of democratic socialism.

43，这一民主的对于社会多数的承诺并不否定对民主政府的需求会保证法治，环境保护，对每个公民的基本生活质量的保障。统治建立在合作的基础上，人与人之间自愿的关系会发展为将生活变得有意义的社会连结。在这些机构中，拥有不同天赋的公民们会扮演不同的角色，进行不同的追求。独裁集体主义的征服比起社会民主主义中的自由几乎毫无吸引力。

Democratic socialism only promises the possibility of human fulfillment. It cannot guarantee human happiness. Human failure will exist under democratic socialism, but suffering will not be imposed by institutions over which we have no control. We will finally eliminate the gross inequalities engendered by a capitalist social order. No longer will the accident of a child’s class, race, or sex influence his or her life opportunities.

44，民主社会主义只承诺人类自我实现的可能性，它无法保证人类获得快乐。在社会民主主义下，人们还是会失败，但是痛苦不会被我们无法控制的机构所强加（备注：例如宗教压迫，例如资本鼓吹的成功文化的压迫）。我们最终会终结资本主义社会秩序造成的严重的不平等。一个小孩的阶级，种族，性别再也不会影响他或她的生活机会。