社会民主主义对抗共产主义(Social Democracy versus Communism)

原作者:Karl Kautsky

3. The Beginning of Bolshevism

3,布尔什维克的起源

Russia, too, could not remain closed to the rise of Marxism and of a Socialist working class party founded upon its ideas. These met with even greater obstacles from the czarist regime than did the earlier socialist parties of non-Marxian character. Another obstacle to Marxian ideas in Russia was her economic backwardness, which delayed considerably the development of large, capitalist, mass industry and with it the growth of an industrial proletariat in the large cities. No less a barrier to the development of a park of working class struggle was the absence of democracy, which made impossible the development of any party activity, any legal mass-organization and a free press.

1,俄国并没有马克思主义的崛起和建立在马克思主义思想上的工人阶级社会主义政党建立。对于马克思主义者来说,沙皇政权带来的障碍比早期非马克思社会主义政党带来的障碍更大。对于马克思思想来说,另一个障碍是俄国在经济上很落后,这一点相当程度上推迟了发展大规模工业而产生大量资本家和在大城市中出现工业无产阶级。对于发展工人阶级斗争的另一个不小的障碍是民主的缺乏,这使得发展任何政党都变得不可能,也没有组织合法大规模组织的自由或出版自由。

Added to this was the fact that due to her backwardness Russia retained until about the end of the last century more pronounced traces of a primitive village communism than were to be found anywhere in Europe. Due to these factors, socialist ideas in Russia continued to bear pre-Marxian characteristics for a longer period than in the West. The Russian fighters for liberty and equality inherited socialist tendencies from Western Europe. It was natural for them to see the power for a socialist regeneration of czarist Russia not in the numerically weak city workers but in the great masses of the peasantry. Moreover, the city workers themselves came largely from the village, the bulk of them remaining peasant in their thinking and feeling.

2,还有个事实是由于俄国的落后,直到19世纪末,还有不少原始村落共产主义的痕迹,而这些痕迹在欧洲其他地方已经消失了。由于这些因素,俄国的社会主义思想比西方更长时间的停留在前马克思时代。俄国的战士们继承了西欧的社会主义趋势,为自由和平等而战。他们很自然的看到社会主义力量在沙皇俄国的大量农民中再生而不是在弱小的城市工人中再生。更多情况下,城市工人大量来自于农村,他们的思想和感受还停留在农民时期。

The working masses in the cities and the champions of their interests among the intellectuals, namely the students, were influenced much more by the ideas of a peasant socialism than by Marxism. The development of Marxism in Russia came later than in Western Europe, and the growth of its influence upon the Russian city workers was slow and difficult.

3,城市中大量的工人和在知识分子中的工人利益的代言人,例如学生们,受到农民社会主义的影响大过马克思主义的影响。马克思主义在俄国的发展要比在西欧的发展更迟,而马克思主义在俄国城市工人中的影响增长的非常缓慢和困难。

Not until 1898 did the groups who embraced Marxian ideas become sufficiently numerous to venture upon the establishment of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party.

4,直到1898年,俄国社会民主工人党才作为一个马克思主义政党被足够多的拥抱马克思主义的组织冒险建立起来。

This was a thoroughly Marxian party and brought forth leaders and thinkers who have enriched mightily Marxian thought not only in Russia but throughout the world.

5,这是一个非常马克思主义的政党,而其中的领导人和思想者不仅为俄国更为世界大大丰富了马克思主义的思考。

Nevertheless, the peculiar conditions prevailing in Russia remained unfavorable for the development of a consistent Marxism. In Germany, too, it made itself felt effectively only with the rise of her heavy industry and after her political constitution had provided ample opportunity for the creation of free working class organizations, a socialist mass literature, as well as the participation of the masses in strikes and electoral battles. In Russia, even after the establishment of the Social Democratic Labor Party, the industrial workers remained relatively small in numbers, while retaining their peasant viewpoint, without any working class consciousness of their own. Added to this was the fact that only a secret press and secret organizations were possible, which, naturally, could not be developed beyond painfully restricted proportions.

6,多多少少的,广泛存在于俄国的特别的局势对马克思主义的发展不利。在德国也是如此,直到重工业兴起和德国宪法提供了创立自由的工人阶级组织的机会和大量的社会主义文学和大规模斗争的参与和选战才使得马克思主义变得有效。在俄国,即使是社会民主工人党成立之后,工人的数量还是很少,而他们还维持着农民思想,并没有工人阶级的意识。还有个事实是只有秘密出版和秘密组织是可能的,很自然的,秘密组织无法超越一定限度的规模。

The conditions unfavorable to the development of Marxian socialism remained. Even many of those who considered themselves Marxists fell victim to these conditions. They interpreted Marxism frequently in a rather fanatical sense. And involuntarily they injected into it in increasing measure ideas of a pre-Marxian, Blanquist or Bakuninist coloration.

7,不适合马克思的社会主义发展的局势一直持续。甚至很多认为自己是马克思主义者的人也成为了这种局势的受害者。他们经常狂热的解读马克思主义,并且他们不由自主的越来越多的插入了前马克思的,布朗基的和巴枯宁的思想。

Outstanding among the Marxists of this character was Vladimir Ulianov, better known as Lenin. He joined the Social Democratic Labor Party at its inception. He accepted its program, having helped formulate it. What first brought him into conflict with the consistent Marxists in the party was the question of party organization. Under the conditions prevailing in czarist Russia this organization was of necessity a secret one. Nevertheless, the intention was to give it a form conducive to the highest possible development of the intellectual and spiritual powers of its members and the promotion of independent thinking among the greatest possible number of the workers. This could be achieved only through closest participation of all party comrades in party work, their intimate contact with the labor movement, i.e. only through the widest possible measure of democracy within the party This was entirely in accord with the ideas of Marx, who at the beginning of the movement regarded democracy less as a means of gaining political power and more as an instrument of education of the masses.

8,在这些马克思主义者中,有一个人非常出众,他是Vladimir Ulianov,以列宁这一名字出名。他在社会民主工人党成立时加入。他接受了党的计划,并帮助制定计划。他和那些一贯坚持马克思主义的人第一次发生冲突是在关于党的组织形式这一问题上。在沙皇俄国的局势下,秘密组织是有优势的和必要的。虽说党的目标是尽可能的发展成员的知识和精神力量和推进尽可能多的工人进行独立思考,这一切只能在所有党内战友们紧密参与党的工作和紧密联系工人运动的基础上实现,但根据马克思主义思想,只有在最广泛的民主的基础上党才能完全参与进去。在运动的开始,民主的含义更多的是教育大众的工具,而不是夺取政权。

The Communist League, which Marx and Engels joined in 1847, was obliged to be a secret organization under the political circumstances then prevailing on the continent of Europe. And such, indeed, it was at the beginning. Such an organization presupposes the vesting of its leadership with dictatorial power. Marx and Engels declined to accept this, however. They joined the League only after it had ceased to be a conspiracy, although it had been obliged to remain a secret organization due to the absence of all freedom of organization. Engels reports about it as follows:

9,马克思和恩格斯在1847年参加的共产主义军团是在欧洲大陆的政治局势下被迫成为一个秘密组织的。当然,这是在一开始的时候。这样一个组织要求授予它的领导者独裁的权力。马克思和恩格斯拒绝接受这一点,然而,他们只在这一组织停止密谋之后加入,虽然它因为组织自由的缺乏而被迫成为秘密组织。恩格斯在下面如此报告:

“The organization of the Communist League itself was entirely democratic, with elected officials, always subject to removal, thereby putting an end to all urge for conspiracy, which requires dictatorship.” (Introduction to K. Marx, The Cologne Trial, Zurich 1885, p.10)

10,共产主义军团这一组织是完全民主的,选举官员,而且总是可以下台的,因此终结了任何对阴谋的需要,而阴谋是需要独裁的。((Introduction to K. Marx, The Cologne Trial, Zurich 1885, p.10)

The First International of 1864, like its predecessor, the Communist League, was also compelled to maintain secret organizations in some countries. Nevertheless, Marx and Engels fought repeatedly against transforming the International into a conspiratory organization, as Mazzini would have it. Marx won over Mazzini. The first International was organized not dictatorially but democractically. Marx was also opposed to the manner in which the General Workingmen’s Association was organized in Germany in 1863, in which Lassalle wielded dictatorial power. In contrast to the Lassalleans, the Eisenach group under Bebel and Liebknecht, who had Marx’s support, was organized in 1869 democratically. The dictatorial form of organization in Germany gave way to the democratic form.

11,1864年成立的第一国际,就像它的前身共产主义军团一样,在一些国家也被迫成为秘密组织。虽然,马克思和恩格斯反复反对将第一国际转变为密谋组织,但Mazzini 坚持要这么做。马克思胜过了Mazzini 。第一国际不是独裁组织而是民主组织。马克思也反对普通工人联合会这一于1863年在德国成立的组织的架构,因为Lassalle在这一组织中有独裁权力。与Lassalleans相反,由倍倍尔和李卜克内西建立的Eisenach组织在1869年民主的形成,而马克思支持这一组织。在德国,独裁结构让位于民主结构。

Nevertheless, the urge for a conspiratory organization with unlimited dictatorial power for the leader and blind obedience of the members continued to manifest itself wherever the organization had to be a secret one, where the masses did not as yet possess their own movement and where the political organization was regarded not as a means of educating the proletariat to independence but as a means of obtaining political power at one stroke. Not the class struggle but the putsch, the coup d’etat is thus brought into the foreground of interest, and together with this a form of militarist thinking there is carried into the party organization the kind of thinking which relies upon victory in civil war rather than upon intellectual and economic elevation of the masses. The latter are regarded as mere cannon fodder, whose utilization can be made all the easier the more obedient they are to any command, without independent thought and will of their own.

12,虽然,对密谋组织的领导者的无限制独裁权力的要求和成员的盲目服从持续表现它自己,无论这一组织是否必须为秘密组织,而大众还没有发动他们自己的运动,以及政治组织不是用来教育无产阶级独立的而是用来不惜一切代价维持政治权力的。但是,对于这种组织来说,不是阶级斗争,而是政变成了最重要的目标,与此同时军国主义的思想将党组织带入一种思维中:不是依赖提升大众的知识和经济水平,而是依赖在内战中取得胜利以赢得革命。后者就像炮灰一样,采用这一思维可以把党的成员变得更容易服从任何命令,没有独立的思维和意志。

The Social Democracy of Russia was conceived as a democratic organization, in accordance with Marxian principles. But Lenin soon discovered that this was a mistake. He began to demand ever greater powers for the central organ of the party and increasingly circumscribed powers for the membership.

13,俄国的社会民主党的构想是成立一个民主组织,依据马克思的原则。但是列宁很快发现这是一个错误。他开始要求更大的权力以成为党的重要器官,并限制成员的权力。

Paul Axelrod, Vera Zassulitch, Alexander Potresov, Julius Martov and, later, George Plekhanov opposed him. Even Rosa Luxemburg, who was more inclined to side with him in other matters, expressed misgivings on the score of dictatorship which Lenin sought to introduce in the party.

14,Paul Axelrod, Vera Zassulitch, Alexander Potresov, Julius Martov,和后来的George Plekhanov反对他。甚至罗莎卢森堡,她在其他方面和列宁站在同一战线上,当列宁试图将独裁带入党内时她也表示了担忧。

In his pamphlet One Step Forward, Two Steps Back (1904) Lenin went so far as to assert:

15,在他的小册子《前进一步,后退两步》(1904)中列宁走的太远以至于如此宣称:

“Bureaucratism against democracy – that must be the organizational principle of the revolutionary Social-Democracy against the organizational principle of the opportunists.” (p.51.)

16,“官僚主义对抗民主——这必须成为革命的社会民主党的组织原则以对抗机会主义者的组织原则。”

I take the following from a criticism of Lenin by Rosa Luxemburg in Die Neue Zeit (XXII.2). She declared:

17,我从《新时代》(XXII.2)中摘取了罗莎卢森堡对列宁的批评。她说:

“The establishment of centralization in the Social Democracy on the basis of blind obedience, to the very smallest detail, to a central authority, in all matters of party organization and activity; a central authority which does all the thinking, attends to everything and decides everything; a central authority isolating the centre of the party from the surrounding revolutionary milieu-as demanded by Lenin-appears to us as an attempt to transfer mechanically the organizational principles of Blanquist conspiratory workmen’s circles to the Social Democratic mass movement. (p.488, 489.)

18,“在社会民主党中建立基于盲目服从的中心化,一个中心权威在最小的细节上控制了所有的党组织和活动;一个中心化的权威思考一切,参与一切,决定一切;一个中心化的权威将党的中心与周围隔绝,革命性的中心——被列宁命令——试图机械的将布朗基主义的密谋工人圈的组织原则转变为社会民主党的大规模运动的组织原则。(p.488, 489.)”

“Lenin’s ideas are calculated principally to promote control of party activity and not its development, to foster the limitation rather than the growth, the strangulation rather than the solidarity and expansion of the movement.” (p.492.)

19,“列宁的思想总结一下就是推进控制党的活动而不是发展,增强限制而不是增长,绞杀运动而不是团结和扩大运动。”(p.492.)

That was how Rosa Luxemburg characterized Leninism from its very beginning

20,这就是罗莎卢森堡在一开始对列宁主义的评价。

Already in 1904, Rosa Luxemburg discovered that all that dictatorship in the party could accomplish was to stem and stifle the intellectual development of the workers. Yet, it is precisely in the early stages of a labor movement, in which alone a voluntary recognition of the dictatorship of any of its leaders is possible, that the education of the workers to independent thinking and action is far more important than the winning of power by the leaders.

21,早在1904年,罗莎卢森堡就发现所有政党内的独裁只能实现阻止和窒息工人们的知识水平的发展。虽然在劳工运动的早期自愿认可任何政党领导人的独裁是可能的,但对工人们的独立思考和行动的教育比领导者获得权力重要得多。

For this reason, as early as 1904, Rosa Luxemburg perceived Leninism as an element inimical to the higher development of the working class. Naturally, she could not then foresee all the destructive influences it carried within itself.

22,因为上述原因,在1904年,罗莎卢森堡指出列宁主义是一个和更高程度上发展工人阶级这一目标相抵触的元素。很自然的,她不能预见列宁主义所带来的所有破坏性的影响。

In the meantime, at the very beginning of Leninism, another extremely injurious element became apparent side by side with its strangulations and stifling of the movement.

23,与此同时,在列宁主义的一开始,另一种伤害性极大的元素开始随着它对运动的绞杀和窒息一起出现。

Like the God of monotheists, the dictator is a very jealous god. He tolerates no other gods but himself. Those in the party who do not believe in his divine infallibility provoke his fierce hatred. Lenin demanded that the entire working class submit meekly to his leadership. Those in the party who were inclined to show more confidence in other leaders or to defend opinions of their own were regarded by Lenin as the worst possible enemies, to be fought with any and all means.

24,就如同一神教的上帝,独裁者是一个很爱妒忌的神。他不会容忍除了他自己之外的任何神。那些党内不肯相信他的神性的人错误的刺激了他,增强了他的憎恨。列宁命令整个工人阶级忠实的顺服他的领导。那些显示出了超越其他领导者的自信的人,或者那些坚持他们自己的观点的人,被列宁当成最坏的敌人,而这些敌人是需要被以任何方式进行对抗的。

Hence it was impossible for Lenin, as it is impossible for anyone who would be dictator of a party, to work together with comrades who occasionally differed from him. Hence the impossibility of working at all for any length of time on a level of equality with comrades of character and independence of thought.

25,于是列宁不可能,同样对于其他政党内的独裁者来说也不可能和那些和他有少数不同的战友一起工作。同样,也不可能实现任何一段时间内的战友们的平等合作和独立思考。

Whenever dictatorship assumes powers in a party organism, that organism is bound to deteriorate intellectually, for dictatorship either degrades the best elements, compelling them to surrender their independence, or expels them from the party.

26,无论何时独裁成为政党内的有机组成力量,这一有机组成绑定了知识的退化,因为独裁将最好的元素退化了,强迫他们放弃他们的独立性,或者被开除出党。

Dictatorship in the party starts out with the idea of bringing about a split in the party. This is apparent in the very nature of dictatorship. The dictator not only declines to combine his organization with other, independent working class organizations into a higher general organism, but he does not even think of cooperating at least occasionally with other socialist parties against the common enemy. Leninism had hardly begun to manifest itself in the Russian Social Democracy when it brought about a split into Mensheviks and Bolsheviks.

27,政党内的独裁开始促进党内分裂思想的出现。这是独裁的本性。独裁者不仅拒绝将他的组织和其他组织合并,将独立工人组织转变为更大规模的有机体,而且他甚至拒绝思考至少偶尔和其他社会主义政党合作以对抗共同的敌人。列宁主义在俄国社会民主党中几乎没有展现出来,直到党分裂为孟什维克和布尔什维克。

Intellectual impoverishment of its own party, obstruction of the intellectual development of the workers, their weakening by prolonged internecine conflict – these were the consequences of the Leninist party dictatorship even before the Russian Revolution of 1917.

28,他们自己的政党的知识上的贫乏,提升工人们的知识水平的阻碍,持续很久的自相残杀导致的削弱——这些都是列宁主义政党独裁造成的后果,这些后果甚至在1917年的俄国革命之前就已经存在了。

That revolution brought with it a fundamental change in all social and political relations.

29,这场革命带来了在所有社会和政治关系上的根本的改变。

https://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1930s/demvscom/ch03.htm

聊聊芝加哥学派和他们的信徒们的无耻以及新自由主义的阴谋(更新)

话说中国的反共名人最喜欢吹捧芝加哥学派了,而芝加哥学派又是新自由主义最主要的吹鼓手。也许很多人并不清楚芝加哥学派到底是什么又做了什么,但要提起一本书,大概是反对派中最多人读过或听说过的一本了:《通往奴役之路》,而这是芝加哥学派代表人物之一的哈耶克的大作。

我先介绍一下芝加哥学派到底是什么:芝加哥經濟學派是一個柔性的經濟學論述集團,其成員以美國芝加哥大學經濟系的師生所組成,其學派捍衛的核心價值是經濟學的新古典派经济学,相信市場機制自由放任,反對任何形式的干預,反對社會主義計劃經濟凱恩斯主義

奧地利學派認為「企業家精神」是發展經濟的主導力量,主張私人財產是為了有效運用資源所不可或缺的,並主張政府對於市場過程的干預將會導致不良後果。

如同新古典主義經濟學,奧地利學派否定有關生產成本的理論—亦即被稱為劳动价值的理論。相反的他們認為價值是由個人的主觀偏好所決定的,這項由門格爾在1世紀前提出的心理學觀點也象徵了奧地利學派的成立。奧地利學派認為供给和需求是取決於個人的各種決定,亦即方法論的個人主義的原則,強調經濟的決定是由個人而非集體所達成的,同時也包括边际主义的理論,以此來比較成本和利潤的增長改變[6]

来源:https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh/%E8%8A%9D%E5%8A%A0%E5%93%A5%E7%B6%93%E6%BF%9F%E5%AD%B8%E6%B4%BE

https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%A5%A7%E5%9C%B0%E5%88%A9%E7%B6%93%E6%BF%9F%E5%AD%B8%E6%B4%BE

奥地利学派和芝加哥学派的成员有所不同,但主张是相同的,所以这两者可以视为同一个学派,我在下文中都称为芝加哥学派。

现在诸位应该对芝加哥学派的主张有一个大致了解了。哦,当然,芝加哥学派是非常反对社会主义的,特别是那本通往奴役之路,不过关于这本书我后面再去分析。

先看看芝加哥学派最核心的观点:政府不能去干涉市场,一干涉就会坏事,必须放任企业做企业想做的任何事,财富是拥有企业家精神的企业家创造的。

很好,政府不能干涉市场对吧?一干涉就会坏事对吧?必须放任企业做企业想做的任何事对吧?财富是拥有企业家精神的企业家创造的对吧?

信徒们说:对对对对!

很好,信徒们,请你们“欣赏”如下事实,不准装瞎

1,津巴布韦:制烟工作有害儿童:2018年 04月 05日

“人权观察在今天发布的报告中指出,津巴布韦烟草农场的儿童与成年劳工不仅健康遭受威胁,劳动权利也受到侵害。津巴布韦烟草农场的童工和其他人权侵犯,使烟草业对该国经济成长与生活改善的贡献蒙尘。

这份105页的报告,《苦涩的丰收:津巴布韦烟草农场的童工与人权侵害》,记录儿童在危险条件下工作,其所承担的业务可能损害他们的健康与生命安全,或妨碍其接受教育。童工接触到尼古丁和含毒杀虫剂,许多儿童因处理烟叶而发生疑似尼古丁中毒症状。烟草农场的成年劳工同样面临健康危害和劳权侵犯。”

来源:https://www.hrw.org/zh-hans/news/2018/04/05/316588

2,情人节:珠宝供应链的人权瑕疵:2018年 02月 08日

“该报告并说明稀有矿物和金属开采可能涉及的侵权情况。儿童因为在小型黄金或钻石矿场从事危险工作而受伤甚至死亡。社区因为矿场毒性化学物污染河川而面临健康和环境损害。平民也因为横暴的武装团体通过采矿获利而遭受更大苦难。”

来源:https://www.hrw.org/zh-hans/news/2018/02/08/314965

3,莫桑比克:不负责任的中国采矿作业令沿海村落濒临灭绝:March 28, 2018

《“我们的生命一文不值”:中国在莫桑比克纳贡哈的采矿作业让当地人付出的代价》揭示出,海域公司的采矿作业可能在很大程度上导致了2015年纳贡哈村(Nagonha)的一场突发性洪水,是次洪水摧毁了48间房屋,令270人无家可归。此外,莫桑比克当局在此次灾难后对采矿业疏于规管,使得该村庄面临海域公司持续采矿作业的威胁。”

来源:https://zh.amnesty.org/more-resources/chinese-mining-operation-threaten-mozambique-coastal-village/

4,中国苹果用户的《1984》:“苹果极具影响力的广告《1984》挑战反乌托邦的未来,但该公司在2018年却协助创造这样的一个世界:苹果失信于数以百万计的中国iCloud用户,不计后果地使他们的个人资料更易遭到中国政府的随意审查。国际特赦组织为此发起了全新的社交媒体倡导行动。”

来源:https://zh.amnesty.org/more-resources/apple-privacy-betrayal-chinese-icloud-users/

5,外卖小哥好欺负?全欧洲的送餐员已经联合起来了!:Sep 27 2017 03:10

“不论欧洲哪里的送餐公司,它们都基于相同的基本商业模式。它们使用一个平台作为食物提供者、送餐工人和顾客的媒介。每一方都使用一个App与另外两方互动,而劳动过程则被“算法”管理控制。这意味着,他们大多数时候收到的都是来自一个自动化的系统产生的消息,这个自动化的系统被劳工学者特雷波·肖尔兹(Trebor Scholz)叫做“黑箱”(“black box”)。平台本身拥有的固定资产很少,它把所有的送餐成本外包给骑手,即骑手需要提供他们自己的单车、数据等等。不论怎么看,这些工人已经拥有了送餐过程所需的所有生产资料——除了重要的协调平台及其它的算法,而这些资料则完全被老板掌握。

这些工人是非正式的雇佣工,虽然不同的国家对非正式工人有着不同的确切定义,然而这些非正式用工普遍都有一个相同点:你是一名工人,但可以付你不到一个工人的工资。这是为了降低劳工成本。同时,非正式用工基本上成功破坏了此前工人运动的和社会民主主义运动的胜利果实。非正式用工是现有资本-国家关系的产物,而这种资本-国家关系也使得劳动力市场结构进一步改革,更加严重地压榨劳工:例如意大利伦齐总理的工作法、英国修改工会法律、英国的学徒身份和福利、法国的劳动法、德国长期地压低工资、西班牙2012年劳动法等等。像优步这样的平台经常使用从风投获得的资金去大力游说,以此改变法律和监管框架,并在这个过程中创造这种商业模式得以繁荣的条件。”

来源:https://libcom.org/blog/cant-couriers-zh

6,为什么要暴乱?Mar 15 2017 06:28

“最近的经济崩溃给我们造成了最严重的伤害 。Pew研究中心的一项研究表明 ,35岁以下人口净资产中位数从2005年到2009年之间下跌了55个百分点。于此同时,65岁以上人口的下跌比例只有6个百分点,这只占年轻人下跌的一小部分 。这个结果表明,我们计算收入时将债务考虑进去的话,财富不平等的代际化趋势越发明显。65岁以上人口的净资产中位数是170,494美元,比1984年增长了42个百分点。相比同一时期内的情况,35岁以下人口的净资产中位数下跌了68个百分点,使得现在年轻人的净资产中位数只有3,662美元 。

尽管有把懒惰与权利关联起来的文化叙述传统,这种代际差异并不能归因于教育和努力的缺乏(我的这一代人是受教育程度最好的一代人,同时也是工作时间最长而工资最低的一代人)。刚才提到的Pew中心的那份研究还提及到,美国老年白人就是这个“好时代”的直接受益者。他们在一个有着便宜的住宅和教育的年代成长起来,享受着国家的各种大众福利,以及享受紧跟在大萧条和两次世界大战的“创造型毁灭”之后的史无前例的经济增长——他们自己并没有经历过那些战争和危机。

然而我们并没有继承到老一代美国人的工作却继承了他们的债务 。现存少有的保障,例如他们的最低生活工资和在工会中的位置,当他们退休以后将会被取消掉。他们以前工种将会被拆分成三到四个不同的非熟练工的功能模块,并由临时工来完成。自从“复苏”以来,伴随着持续变高的失业率,所谓的就业增长整体上以低工资、工作临时性高或风险高的形式存在着 。”

来源:https://libcom.org/blog/why-riot-zh

OK,信徒们,以上这些事实“欣赏”完了没有?没有?那就请给我滚去仔细“欣赏”一下再说话。哦,千万不要说什么“个别现象”,我引用的只是上面这些网站收录的千千万万事实的冰山一角,而这些网站所收录的事实也只不过是这个世界上已发生的同类事实的冰山一角而已。

政府不能干涉市场对吧?一干涉就会坏事对吧?必须放任企业做企业想做的任何事对吧?财富是拥有企业家精神的企业家创造的对吧?我想请问一下,你们还能更无耻一点吗?

政府不能干涉市场,好的,我炒卖抬高房价,我把学校变成公司从学生身上骗钱,我市场化医疗然后把医疗费抬高到几十万,我做毒奶粉,我做毒疫苗,我做毒药酒,我做黑砖窑,我奴役童工,我奴役学生工,我和独裁政权勾结镇压工人反抗,我污染环境,我把一切都毁了然后拿着血钱到避税天堂逍遥自在,这就是你们亲爱的“企业家精神”。

既然你们认为经济发展是企业家个人的功劳,那就请这些企业家滚到南极去,不要依靠任何人,不要找任何人给你们干活,不要使用任何人发明的知识技术,不要去申请政府贷款,不要要求政府补贴减税,什么都不要要求,然后给我从零开始在南极创造财富出来。能不能做到啊,信徒们?企业家的功劳是吧,工人们活该被你们奴役压榨是吧,这种为独裁者洗地的逻辑怎么这么奴才呢?

无耻的把工人们创造的财富说成是所谓的“企业家精神”创造的,然后给不出任何可靠证据证明所谓的“企业家精神”实实在在的创造出了这些财富,呵呵,这种白痴逻辑等同于说中国人创造的财富都是来自于“中国共产党精神”,朝鲜人民创造的财富都是来自于“主体思想”。

注意我给出的事实的时间,都是今年和去年的事实哦。如果要算算从你们亲爱的资本主义出现开始的那些烂账,嗯…….:

圈地运动羊吃人,血腥抢掠农民的土地,然后再立法强迫失地农民当你们的奴工,不肯者会直接被鞭打和杀害;

为了掠夺黄金,屠杀印地安人并且故意传播疾病,造成人类历史上规模最大的种族灭绝,五千万至一亿印地安人惨死95%;

为了利润进行黑奴贸易,造成超过一亿黑人惨死;

四处殖民侵略制造的死亡…….至少数亿,至于那些被饿死冻死病死的人,多得无法统计了。

体罚虐待工人……嗯,数不清了。

顺便推荐一本书:《美国人民的历史》,作者霍华德·津恩,“欢迎”信徒们前去“欣赏”。链接:https://www.marxists.org/chinese/reference-books/howard-zinn/index.htm

说到这里,信徒们会说:我承认资本主义的确有不干净的地方,可是你说的那些不是竞争,是犯罪,犯罪政府当然要管,更何况社会主义不是更不干净吗?

犯罪?搞没搞错,谁告诉你犯罪就不是竞争了?为了利润最大化而不择手段,采取伤害别人的犯罪行为,这不就是一种竞争吗?而且这些都是企业行为,你们前面不是还在说政府不该干预企业,怎么现在又开始自打脸了呢?

至于“社会主义”更不干净,呵呵,请问社会主义是什么?我引用一下考茨基的话吧:社会主义和资本主义的区别不在于是否获取利润,而在于获取到的利润是被个人占有还是被人民的社区所有。

简单来说,社会主义就是:没人有权霸占财富,财富应当被其创造者(很明显创造者是劳工们和农民们而不是你所谓的企业家们)民主的分配,为社会服务,而不是被少数人霸占,政府的职责是捍卫所有人的基本人权。

很显然,只有在民主的基础上才能实现社会主义,因为独裁者(们)必然会霸占财富。所以,没有任何独裁政权是社会主义的,包括那些自称“社会主义”的斯大林和毛贼政权。哦,对了,朝鲜的全名是“朝鲜民主主义人民共和国”,但朝鲜可不是民主国家。

至于中央计划经济,《通往奴役之路》的说法是政府是因为要实行中央计划经济而变得独裁的,但事实可不是如此。事实上,无论是苏联还是毛贼时期的中国,都是先建立独裁政权,然后才开始实行中央计划经济。布尔什维克于1917年的十月革命中夺权,但直到1927年斯大林才开始推动中央计划经济;而共匪于1949年夺权,但直到1953年才开始推行中央计划经济。换句话说,这些政权本来就没打算民主,无论是否实行中央计划经济都只会独裁到死,哈耶克的鬼扯是因果倒置。

至于所谓的价格由供求决定,对不起,供求本身是可以通过饥饿营销广告洗脑(例如钻石代表爱情的谎言)炒卖(例如温州炒房团)等手段进行扭曲和操纵的,所以价格根本不是消费者决定的,而是企业老板们决定的。

哦,说到独裁,信徒们,你们亲爱的芝加哥学派是支持独裁的哦:

哈耶克雖然強調經濟自由但卻對政治自由不夠重視,甚至反對將政治慘與擴大到社會中下層,在他的《通往奴役之路》中說:「民主本質上紙是一種手段,一種保障國內安定和個人自由的實用措施。它本身絕不是一貫正確和可靠無疑的。我們絕不能忘記,在一個專制統治下往往比在某些民主制度下存在更多文化和精神自由——至少可以想像一個高度同質化和教條的多數民主政府其統治的壓迫程度,或許並不亞於最壞的獨裁統治。」這洋的思想傾向使得他對皮諾切特薩拉查佛朗哥等右翼獨裁者持贊賞態度,[90]南非種族隔離制度辯護,[91]甚至將《自由憲章》贈送給薩拉查並附言:妳看了我這本書,妳就知道怎麼對付那些喜歡講民主的人了。[90][92]這與古典自由主義支持民主和人權的理念相差甚遠。[93]

在哈耶克的學說傳入中國大陆以後,由於中國大陆所存在的問題並不是工會過於強大、社會福利過多,而是根本沒有獨立的工會、高稅收低福利,於是其學說被一些經濟學家扭曲和利用,反而變成了為權貴資本主義洗地的借口。中國大陆的“左派”為政府擴大管制權和稅收卻不提高社會福利,“右派”則以哈耶克的名義反對社會福利卻不真正追求政治自由,於是也就形成了尺蠖效應。中國大陆學者高連奎則認為“當今中國最需要的就是加強公民權利,完善社會保障和社會福利制度,而這都是哈耶克所極力反對的,哈耶克主義是中國走向文明最大的敵人。中國老百姓所痛恨、痛罵的那些經濟學家絕大部分屬於哈耶克主義者”。[92]

来源:https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh/%E5%BC%97%E9%87%8C%E5%BE%B7%E9%87%8C%E5%B8%8C%C2%B7%E5%93%88%E8%80%B6%E5%85%8B#%E9%80%9A%E5%BE%80%E5%A5%B4%E5%BD%B9%E4%B9%8B%E8%B7%AF

哈耶克为独裁洗地,敌视独立工会:https://www.opendemocracy.net/benjamin-selwyn/friedrich-hayek-dictatorship

哈耶克为种族隔离洗地:http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=82629

“我记得最清楚的一回是他在刚刚筹办的第一次朝圣山学社上的发言:“你们统统是社会主义份子。”我们那时正在讨论收入的分配问题,以及是否应该设立累进收入税。在那次会议上有些人认为应该能找到一个公平的方案。”(备注:嗯,不能讨论分配收入的问题,一讨论就是给该死的社会主义分子,很好,这专制霸道程度堪比共匪。)

许多米塞斯的批评者,包括经济学家J. Bradford DeLong和社会学家Richard Seymour,都曾批评过米塞斯在1972年出版的《自由主义》一书中肯定过法西斯主义:

“不能否认,法西斯以及类似的运动旨在建立的独裁国家满怀着最良好的愿望,并且他们的干预的确拯救了欧洲文明于一时。为了这一功绩,法西斯主义将彪炳史册。(备注:米塞斯在这里洗的是墨索里尼政权的地,至于墨索里尼干了些什么,我想我不用多说,不清楚的人自己去补二战史的课。而纳粹则是法西斯的一个分支,核心都是“个人服从集体,集体服从领袖”。集体主义是吧?呵呵,爱国主义和民族主义都是一种集体主义,这锅社会主义不背。)

来源:https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-hans/%E8%B7%AF%E5%BE%B7%E7%B6%AD%E5%B8%8C%C2%B7%E9%A6%AE%C2%B7%E7%B1%B3%E5%A1%9E%E6%96%AF

“许多人特地到现场观察智利实验室,包括哈耶克本人,他前往皮诺切特统治下的智利数次,并在1981年选择在比尼亚德尔马市(策划政变的城市),举行反革命智囊团朝圣山学会的区域会议。哈耶克为了给皮诺切特的经济自由化站台,曾经有如下的奇谈怪论:”我个人更愿要一位自由主义的独裁者,而不愿要一个缺乏自由主义的民主政府。””(智利军政府)个人自由比民主制度下更安全。”哈氏经济自由的正义性是来源于对个人自由的保障,他在文宣册子里也写道私有财产是保卫公民自由的最好武器。我无法理解,哈氏可以一边无视军政府做出每天把人从街上抓走投进大海这种严重侵犯个人自由的恶行,一边却可以大言不惭地说出”(智利军政府统治下)个人自由比民主制度下更安全”这等瞎话。这种无视经济自由同个人自由在智利发生的分裂,睁眼说瞎话的本领我赵日天也是服。哈耶克一直致力于对”共产主义限制自由导致极权”口诛笔伐,然而,为了一部分人的自由就需要去剥夺另一部分人的自由乃至生命?呵呵呵,作为一个学者,哈大师满嘴跑火车的本领比起政客来也是不遑多让。”

“在1982年,虽然智利严格遵守芝加哥教条,经济仍无法幸免于崩溃:债务激增,恶性通货膨胀复发,失业率飙高到30%–是阿连德时代的十倍。主要原因是食人鱼–芝加哥男孩解除所有管制所释放出来的安然(Enron)式金融机构–以借贷的钱买光智利的资产,累积高达140亿美元的庞大债务。”

“弗兰克Andre Gunder Frank原来是弗里德曼的学生,他在芝加哥大学老是听人讲智利的左翼政策多么多么地失败,最后他感到很好奇,一定要跑到智利亲眼看看。当他到了智利之后,马上喜欢上了这个国家,留下来在智利大学教书。弗兰克目睹“芝加哥小子”给智利经济带来的痛苦,写了一封致弗里德曼和哈伯格的公开信,里面就写到:在阿连德时代,一个普通的工薪阶层,用其17%的收入就足够支付食物和交通费,但在皮诺切特时代,普通工薪阶层用其收入的74%,只够购买面包一项支出。家里买不起牛奶,孩子们饿着肚子到学校,学校里也没有牛奶,因为这项公共福利被砍掉了,很多孩子晕倒在学校,还有很多孩子索性退学了。”

来源:https://plus.google.com/109790703964908675921/posts/8VTe6fmZ3vR

而新自由主义本身就是一个阴谋:

一批以“芝加哥帮”(the Chicago boys)著称于世的经济学家(因为他们和当时在芝加哥大学任教的米尔顿·弗里德曼[Milton Friedman]的新自由主义理论关系密切)被召集起来帮助重建智利经济。他们被选拔的过程很有趣。美国自1950年代起便资助智利经济学家,让他们到芝加哥大学进行培训,这项目是为平衡拉丁美洲左翼势力的冷战计划中的一部分。在芝大受到培训的经济学家逐渐在圣地亚哥的天主教私立大学占据主导。1970年代初期,经济精英通过一个名为“星期一俱乐部”(the Monday Club)的团体组织起来,反对阿连德政府,并与这些经济学家建立了工作关系,由研究机构资助他们的工作。在皮诺切特政治上的对手、凯恩斯主义者古斯塔夫·雷将军(General Gustavo Leigh)于1975年被逐出政府后,皮诺切特将这些经济学家引入政府,他们的首要工作就是与国际货币基金组织谈判贷款。在与国际货币基金组织展开工作的过程中,这些经济学家根据他们的理论重组了智利的经济结构。他们中断了国有化进程并将公共财产私有化、开放自然资源(水产业、木材等等)给私人开采且对剥削不加管制(在很多情况下对当地居民的要求置之不理)将社会保险私有化、促进国外直接投资和更自由的贸易。这保障了外国公司有权将其在智利的获利转回本国。出口导向型发展取代了进口替代型发展。保留给国家的仅有部分是主要资源铜(正如伊拉克的石油)。这被证明对国家财政预算的稳定非常关键,因为铜收入完全流人国库。智利经济在增长率、资本积累、外资的高盈利率等方面的快速复苏只是昙花一现。它在1982年拉丁美洲债务危机上就出了大问题。结果,在接下来的几年里,出于更为实际的目的而非意识形态考虑,诸种新自由主义政策得以实施。所有这些,包括实用主义在内,为随后(撒切尔领导的)英国和(里根领导的)美国在1980年代转向新自由主义提供了有益的借鉴。

然而,在这一过渡期中有一项因素值得特别关注。每个人都因失业率上升和快速通胀而受到了1970年代资本积累危机的影响(图1.1)。不满情绪广泛蔓延,许多发达资本主义国家中劳工和城市社会运动的结合似乎隐约暗示着一种社会主义替代性方案的出现,以取代资本家和劳工之间的社会妥协——这种妥协在战后曾成功地为资本积累打下基础。在欧洲许多地方,甚至在美国,共产党和社会党开始发展壮大(如果不是开始夺权的话),群众力量激烈要求大规模的改革和政府干预。这一回,所有经济精英与统治阶级都感到了一种明显的政治威胁,不管是在发达资本主义国家(像意大利、法国、西班牙和葡萄牙)还是在许多发展中国家(像智利、墨西哥和阿根廷)。例如,瑞典提出了“雷恩-梅德纳计划”(Rehn—Meidner plan),逐步收购企业主拥有的股份,并逐步将国家转为工人民主制或集体所有民主制。但除此之外,对统治精英和统治阶级地位的经济威胁也愈加明显。几乎所有国家在战后安排上都有一个特点,即上层阶级的经济权力受到限制,而劳工则在经济馅饼上分得很大一块。例如,美国收入最高的1%人口收人从战前占国民收入的16%跌落到二战结束时的8%不到,这个水平几乎保持了三十年。经济增长稳定的时候,这种限制似乎无伤大雅。在一个越来越大的馅饼上占有稳定的份额,这是一回事。但是,当经济发展在1970年代崩溃、实际利率呈负增长、股息和利润少得可怜时,各地的上层阶级都感到了威胁。在美国,人口中收入最高的1%对财富(与收入相对)的控制在整个二十世纪都保持了相对稳定(图1.2)。但在1970年代这一控制却随着资产价值(股份、地产、储蓄)的下跌而迅速跳水。上层阶级不得不做出决断以保护自己免于政治和经济的失利。

在这方面美国不是特例:英国收入最高的1%人口,其收人在国民收入中占的份额从1982年起翻了一倍,从6.5%到13%。如果我们看得更远一些,就会发现世界各地的财富和权力都出现了惊人的集中现象。俄罗斯在1990年代实施新自由主义“休克疗法”后,出现了一个规模虽小却非常强势的寡头集团。中国在开始自由市场导向的实践后,极大的收入和财富不平等现象也开始产生。墨西哥1992年后的私有化浪潮使一小撮人(例如卡洛斯·斯里姆[Carlos Slim])几乎一夜之间登上福布斯世界富人榜。就全球来说,“东欧国家和独联体国家在社会不平等方面呈现出急剧增加。经济合作发展组织诸国也在1980年代后呈现出巨大的不平等”,而“生活在最富裕国家的五分之一人口与生活在最贫穷国家的五分之一人口之间的收人比,从1960年的30:1和1990年的60:1,上升到1997年的74:1”。尽管这一趋势存在例外(一些东亚和东南亚国家仍然将收入不平等控制在合理范围内——像法国那样——见图1.3),这一证据有力表明新自由主义转向在某种程度上与经济精英力量的恢复或重建密切相关。

正如一些论者指出,这种理论框架并不完全自洽。其新古典主义经济学的科学严密性并非严丝合缝地与其政治上的个人自由理念相合,而其对一切政府力量的不信任前提,也与如下要求不合:要求一个强大且在必要时具强制性的政府,保护私人财产、个人自由和企业自由。在法律面前将企业规定为个人,这一法律伎俩使铭刻在纽约市洛克菲勒中心铜牌上的约翰·洛克菲勒信条显得颇为反讽,上面第一条写着“个人价值至上”。

朝圣山学社获得了财政和政治上的支持。特别是在美国,一个由那些心底里反对一切形式政府干预和管制,甚至反对国际主义的富人和企业领导所组成的力量集团,力图组织起来反对一种他们视之为寻求混合经济的新兴共识。由于担心二战期间与苏联的联合以及美国内部建立起来的指令型经济可能会在战后政治格局中破产,他们准备将麦卡锡主义(McCarthyism)完全纳入到新自由主义智囊中,以保护和提升自己的权力。

简言之,新自由主义化就是将一切都金融化。这一过程深化了金融,后者从此不仅掌控其他一切经济领域,而且掌控国家机器和——如兰迪·马丁(Randy Martin)所说——日常生活。这一过程还使全球交易关系发生剧烈波动。

https://www.marxists.org/chinese/reference-books/david-harvey2007/01.htm

在1982年的经济最萧条时期,企业破产的进程逐渐加快,并扩大到国家经济的所有部门。一年内智利的国内生产总值下降14%,仅仅在纺织业估计有35%—45%的公司倒闭。虽然有“芝加哥弟子”一再吹嘘“不成功工便成仁”的理论,也大吹大擂一些幸存者的成功,但政府以前推崇的教条式的不受保护的市场和货币纯粹主义的政策开始发生变化:关税从10%提高到20%—35%,比索迅速贬值,从而在防止进口商品的大量涌入方面起到了保护作用。一些业主面对这种冲击,对生产过程采取了“合理化”的改革步骤。如一些公司购买新的设备和技术,以提高效率和产品的质量;另一些则采用新的营销技巧,还有一些则更多地依靠进口产品的零部件。到目前为止,最合理化的措施是降低劳动成本。达到这一目标的途径是大规模裁减冗员,提高剩余工人的工作量,并把工人工资压低到最低水平。例如,通过购买新设备,减员和提高工作进度等一系列综合措施,一家名为苏玛的纺织公司在维持现有生产力水平的同时,将其1970年的2600名员工裁减到了1800人。
裁员在智利造成了大批工人的失业。据官方的统计,1974—1987年的平均失业率为20%。这种积重难返的高失业率使雇主在确定工作条件和工资水平时享有很大的活动余地。通过宣布破产,公司可以不需给予任何补偿就能解聘资历高的工人。公司重组后,再以更低的工资雇佣他们。皮诺切特政府统治时期的前10年里接连不断的破产使工人们提心吊胆。那些遭到解聘的工人被迫失业,或者至多只能找一些临时的活计来谋生。一位30岁的失业工人害怕找不到一份稳定的工作而陷入窘境。人们经常在圣地亚哥看到许多失业的工人去开出租车或在智利南部的捕鱼船上打工。无怪乎那些勉强保留工作的工人愿意在雇主的苛刻条件面前作出让步,而且为了得到一份工作往往逆来顺受。

https://www.marxists.org/chinese/reference-books/chilean-revolution-1995.htm

“天安门事件揭露的真相之一是,极权共产主义与芝加哥学派资本主义采用的策略有着鲜明的雷同──它们都乐于让反对者失踪,使抗拒者变回空白石板,以便重新来过。

虽然傅利曼鼓励中国官员推动痛苦而不受欢迎的自由市场政策几个月后就发生屠杀事件,但他从未「为提供建议给一个如此邪恶的政府,面对像雪崩般的抗议」。和以前一样,他不认为他提供的建议,与执行它所需要的暴力有任何关联。尽管谴责中国使用镇压,傅利曼仍继续以中国当作「自由市场的安排能有效促进繁荣与自由」的例子。

就像许多有关国家转型的故事,这一则故事同样大部分是神话。但它比真相更动听:在波兰,民主被用作武器,用来对抗街道上的「自由市场」,也被用在选举中。在同一时期的中国,自由放任的资本主义背后的势力辗过天安门广场上的民主,震撼与恐怖开启了现代史上获利最丰厚也最长久的投资热潮。又一个在屠杀中诞生的奇迹”

http://closerworld.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=17111

芝加哥学派们还有一个观点:劳工权利越被削弱,那么创业难度就越低,然后就能提供更多的工作岗位。这是完全的胡扯。资本主义压榨剩余价值靠的就是制造失业大军以压低工资外加控制工人,资产阶级们怎么可能允许失业大军的数目变少?至于所谓的创业难度更是扯淡,劳工权利被削弱,大公司能从中多压榨的剩余价值远多于小公司,只会导致大公司更轻易的把小公司和创业公司踢出局。最重要的是,老板们开公司是为了最大程度的压榨剩余价值(而利润是剩余价值的一部分,和剩余价值是正相关),如果失业大军的人数不够多,那么就不能获取到让老板们满意的利润,那么老板们就根本不会选择开公司或招人,也就是说失业大军必然会在资本主义下维持在一个让老板们觉得利益最大化的水平上。

接下来,信徒们,你们打算如何洗地?还是装瞎?

你说具体理论?对不起,驳倒你们的核心观点就够了,既然芝加哥学派们的核心观点是垃圾,那么支持核心观点的那些扯淡理论一样是垃圾,对不对啊?

顺便补充说明一点:哈耶克还提出了一个“自发秩序”理论,其本质就是丛林哲学,为压迫和奴役洗地用的。事实上人类社会从来没有什么“自发秩序”,一切秩序皆人为制造。

总结一下:从芝加哥学派们获得的政治和经济支持以及其代表人物对政治的积极主动参与这些事实可以看出,新自由主义从一开始就不是什么书斋学者拍脑袋想出的纯粹的乌托邦理论,而是为资产阶级们精心准备的洗地理论,这一理论唯一的作用就是帮助资本主义对抗社会主义,实现政客和财团们的利润最大化。

 

社会民主主义对抗共产主义(Social Democracy versus Communism)

原作者:Karl Kautsky

2. Marxism and the “Dictatorship of the Proletariat”

2,马克思主义和“无产阶级专政”

There was nothing that Marx feared so much as the degeneration of his school into a rigid sect The same fear was entertained by Engels, whose scientific work is indissolubly linked with that of his friend Marx, so that we always keep in mind both Marx and Engels whenever we speak of the Marxist theory.

1,马克思最害怕的是他的学派退化为一种僵化的教派。恩格斯也有相同的恐慌,他的科学工作与他的朋友马克思有着不可分割的联系,所以我们经常会在说起马克思理论的时候同时提到马克思和恩格斯。

The worst reproach that Engels could make against the first English Marxists was that they were applying Marxism in a sectarian spirit What would he have said, had he lived to see it about a school of Marxists, who, having captured the state power proceeded to make a state religion, of Marxism, a religion whose articles of faith and their interpretation are watched over by the government, a religion, the criticism of which, nay the slightest deviation from which is sternly punished by the State; a Marxism ruling by the methods of the Spanish Inquisition, propagated by fire and sword, practicing a theatrical ritual (as illustrated by the embalmed body of Lenin); a Marxism reduced to the status not only of a state religion but of a medieval or oriental faith? Such a Marxism may indeed be called doctrinaire fanaticism.

2,恩格斯对英国的马克思主义者们的最严厉的斥责是:他们把马克思主义当成了一种宗教,他看到马克思主义者的一个流派夺取了政权之后把马克思主义当成了国家宗教,一种主张信仰的宗教,同时对这一宗教的解释被政府所监控,而任何对这种宗教的批判,即使是最轻微的批评都会招致国家的最严厉的惩罚;一种马克思主义的通过西班牙宗教裁判所模式进行的统治,通过火与剑传播教义,实践一种戏剧化的仪式(例如对列宁尸体的防腐处理);一种蜕变为不仅是国家宗教而且还是中世纪或东方信仰的马克思主义?这样的马克思主义被叫做狂热的教条更为合适。(备注:这一段考茨基批评有些马克思主义者把马克思主义当成宗教。)

To Marx there was no ultimate knowledge, only an infinite process of learning. Therefore, his own theory is not to be conceive as a collection of tenets which we must accept on faith. Marxism itself is nothing but a definite process of learning; founded upon a definite method introduced by Marx and Engels. This method itself, which Marx and Engels called the materialist conception of history, is not unalterable. It is constantly being improved, like a machine, through continued gain in experience accumulated in its application. The principles underlying a given method of intellectual activity often do not change as rapidly as do the results of that activity. The views of people under the influence of constantly changing experiences tend to change more easily than do the methods and forms o f thought by which they are attained. Both however, are regarded as in constant process of development. Even the materialistic conception of history did not, like Athena, spring fully armed from the head of its procreator; as a matter of fact it had two such procreators. These two were constantly developing it throughout their lives and to the Marxists bequeathed the task of continuing the process.

3,对于马克思来说,没有什么终极知识(宇宙真理),只有不断的学习。因此,他自己的理论并不是被构想来成为一堆我们必须信仰的戒律的。马克思主义本身只是一种确定的学习进程;由马克思和恩格斯在确定的模式上建立。这种模式被马克思和恩格斯称作对历史的唯物主义描述,这并不是不可修改的。它经常被改进,就像一台机器,持续不断的在运用中积累经验。依赖一种被给出的智力活动模式的原则并不会像这种活动的结果一样经常改变。在经常改变的经验下,人们的观点比起他们所接受的思想方法和形式更容易改变。然而,这两者都被发展的进程所决定。即使是对历史的唯物主义描述也无法向雅典娜一样从它的生育者的脑中弹出全副武装;事实上它有两个生育者。(备注:这句话是说,唯物主义本身是马克思和恩格斯首先提出的,但是并不是提出之后就已经是完全体了。)他们两个在他们的生活中经常发展这一理论,对于马克思主义者来说,他们遗留下了继续发展理论的任务。

To know and understand the line of this development is of the highest importance to every Marxist as well as to any one who wishes to make a critical study of Marx, prompted by a sincere desire for knowledge, and not by the motives of the trickster lawyer who seeks to obtain a conviction of his opponent’s client at any cost.

4,知道和理解发展的脉络对于每个马克思主义者来说都是最重要的,对于任何想要对马克思进行批判性学习的人来说也是最重要的。前提是这些人是被对知识的渴望所驱使的而不是像一个狡猾的想要不惜代价的维持对他的对手的定罪的律师。

Every form of doctrinaire fanaticism, every attempt to turn Marxism into an unalterable dogma is contrary to Marxist thought, which recognizes no absolute truth but only relative truth. This is not scepticism, which denies the very possibility of absolute perception of the world, but only a recognition of the limitations of our perception. All the truths which we recognize are not truths in themselves, independent of time and places but truths only as far as we are concerned, valid only for us, for our time, for the space in which we live. Every such truth must govern our actions until more advanced perception has exposed and removed the bit of error residing in the previously accepted truth.

5,任何形式的狂热教条,任何想要把马克思主义变成无法被修改的教条的努力,都与马克思主义者的思考相反,马克思主义者认识到没有绝对真理,只有相对真理。这并不是怀疑论,怀疑论否认我们有绝对感知这世界的可能性,只是我们承认我们的感知是有限制的。所有我们认识到的真理实际上不是他们自己的独立于时间和空间的真理,而是只是我们所考虑的,对于我们是可行的,在我们生活的时间和空间中的真理。每个这样的真理必须统治我们的行动,直到更先进的感知出现,并纠正在之前接受的真理中的错误。

Quite early in his career Marx realized, and in this he proved superior to other Socialists of his day, that the liberation of the working class could be achieved only by the working class itself, that no paternalistic friend from the bourgeoisie, no select proletarian vanguard could accomplish this task for the masses. But like other Socialists he had to admit that the masses were not yet ripe for the struggle. How was this ripeness to be achieved? Through well meaning tutors from above? Grown-up people will not submit to the guardianship of tutors. Where this attempt is made either by Christians or by atheists, it usually degenerates into a loathsome, priestly presumptuousness on the part of the tutor and a hypocritical submission of the tutored.

6,马克思在他的事业早期就意识到工人阶级的解放只能通过他们自己实现,无法通过资产阶级的家长式的朋友们实现,也无法通过选定的无产阶级先锋队实现,这是他超越了同时期其他社会主义者们的地方。但是像其他社会主义者一样,他不得不承认大众还没有成熟得适合斗争。那么大众如何才能变得成熟呢?通过导师们的教导?成长起来的人民将不会服从导师们的指令。无论这一努力是基督徒做的还是非信神者做的,通常会蜕变得令人做呕,他们会像祭司一样自以为是,而被教导者们虚伪的服从他们。

Grown-ups can be taught by life alone. Marx expected the education of the working class to come from life, that is to say, he expected it to come from capitalist development and its effect upon the workers. Marx pointed this out already in the Communist Manifesto. Industry draws the workers together in large numbers and thereby increases their class consciousness. At the same time that conflicts with the employers grow, trade unions develop. The extension of the conflicts to all industry transforms the occasional local clashes into a class struggle. This class struggle becomes political, finding expression in political changes. But the working class was not strong enough to overcome the forces tending toward the pauperization of the masses, which was the predominant feature of capitalism everywhere. The Communist Manifesto had yet to prove the absolute impoverishment of the industrial proletariat.

7,人民可以在生活的教导中成长。马克思期望对于工人阶级的教育来自生活,也就是说,他期望教育来自资本主义的发展和资本主义对工人的影响。马克思早就在共产党宣言中指出这一点了。工厂把工人们大量聚集在了一起,同时增加了他们的阶级意识。与此同时,冲突也伴随着雇员的成长和独立工会的发展而发生了。冲突扩展到了所有工厂,将偶发的冲突转变为阶级斗争。这一阶级斗争变得政治化,表达了对政治变革的要求。但是工人阶级并没有足够强大到克服试图将大众变得贫困的力量,而这是所有地方的资本主义统治的特征。共产党宣言证明了工业化的无产阶级会陷入绝对贫困中。

“The modern worker, instead of improving his condition with the progress of industry, sinks deeper and deeper under the circumstances affecting his own class. The worker becomes a pauper and pauperism develops even faster than population and wealth.”

8,“现代化的工人,不仅在工业进步中提升他的处境,而且深刻的思考了影响他所在的阶级的形势。工人成为了贫民,而贫困速度比人口和财富的增长速度更快。”

Under such conditions, whence could come that moral and intellectual advancement which alone could make possible the self-liberation of the working class?

9,在这样的处境下,什么时候工人阶级才能拥有足够的道德和知识的成长以解放自己呢?

Marx expected it to come as a result of revolution, the advent of which he correctly foresaw. He had studied the French Revolution. It bore at the beginning a purely bourgeois character but grew more and more radical and finally led to the rule, only for a short time, to be sure, of the working class. The revolution developed enormously not only the political courage but also the political understanding of the masses of the people, until then inert and ignorant. Opposed as Marx already was at the time of the Communist Manifesto to the policy of plots and coups des mains preached by the Blanquists, he was still strongly influenced by their Jacobin traditions. In the first months of 1850, in his articles on The Class Struggles in France, published in 1895 by Engels in pamphlet form, he regarded the Blanquists as properly the workers’ party of France. They, above all others, held his sympathies.

10,马克思期待着革命,而他也成功预见了革命的到来。他研究了法国大革命。法国大革命起源于纯粹的资产阶级的怒火,但是成长得越来越激进,最终实现了短期的工人阶级的统治。这一革命不仅极大的发展了政治信心,而且发展了政治上的对人民大众的理解,直到之后变得懒惰和无知。与马克思在共产党宣言中提出的政策相反的是布朗基主义者的宣讲,但马克思还是被他们的雅各宾传统在很大程度上影响了。在1850年的第一个月里,在他的《法国的阶级斗争》这一文章中(这篇文章在1895年由恩格斯以小册子的形式出版),他将布朗基主义者形容为法国的合适的工人阶级政党。他们,以及其他所有人,被他所同情。

In 1847 Marx assumed that the forthcoming revolution would run the same course as did the Great Revolution but with a working class “much further advanced” by the growth of large industries. The revolution was to last long enough to lift the working class quickly to the necessary mental level. Hence “the German bourgeois revolution could serve only as a direct prelude to a proletarian revolution.”

11,在1847年马克思假设未来会发生的革命会和大革命有相同的模式,但拥有一个因为大工业的发展而“更先进”的工人阶级。这一革命会持续很久以至于足够将工人阶级举入必须的心理级别中。因此“德国的资产阶级革命只会成为无产阶级革命的序幕”。

This expectation was not realized. The force of the German revolution of 1848 spent itself within a few months and the working class as an independent factor played no part in it. What happened then was the same thing that was to happen to Marx often enough later. He correctly foresaw the direction in which events were moving but h misjudged the rate at which they were moving.

12,这一期待并没有成为现实。1848年德国革命的力量只坚持了几个月,而工人阶级并没有参与进去。在此之后发生的和迟些在马克思身上发生的是同一回事。他正确的预见到了事件进展方向,但误判了进展速度。

Yet none learned so readily from experience as did Marx, even when the experience ran counter to his innermost wishes. Already in September 1850 he came out against the view that “we must strive to gain power immediately” and declared that the workers might have to go through “15, 20, 30 years of civil strife and foreign wars in order to change not only conditions but to change yourselves, to qualify yourselves for rulership.”

13,没有人像马克思一样这么容易的从经验中学习,即使这经验与他内心中的期望相反。在1850年9月,他反对认为“我们必须努力以尽快获取权力”的观点,宣称工人们必须经历“15,20,30年的公民辩论和对外战争以改变处境和改变你们自己,从而给你们自己统治的资格”。

This sounded quite different from the expectation that the coming bourgeois revolution would be the “direct prelude to a proletarian revolution.” Yet, even this new, more prudent hope proved too sanguine. Since it was first uttered not only 15, 20, 30 years but 80 years have passed. To be sure, these have not been years of stagnation, The strides made by the working class toward the achievement of political independence and skill during the intervening period have been enormous.

14,这听起来和认为资产阶级革命会“直接成为无产阶级革命的序幕”的期待非常不同。事实上,即使这个新的希望也被证明过于乐观了。不仅仅是15,20,30年,80年过去了。可以确定的是,这些年工人阶级并没有停滞,工人阶级努力实现的迈向政治独立的进步和干预诉讼的技巧有了很大提升。

Though Marx in 1850 rose superior to the majority of his communist comrades who at the time were still dreaming of the immediate seizure of political power by the proletariat, he had not yet fully rid himself of his old Jacobin-Blanquist traditions. In armed struggle, in “civil strife and foreign wars” he still saw the means of lifting the proletariat to a higher level. He had not yet realized that every bloody struggle, including a popular war, inspiring and uplifting as it may appear at the beginning, in the long run demoralizes its participants, and, far from increasing, actually reduces their capacity for constructive effort in the field of production as well as in political life.

15,虽然马克思在1850年超越了大部分共产主义战友,他们当时还梦想着无产阶级直接夺得政权,他并没有完全从雅各宾-布朗基传统中解脱出来。在武装斗争中,在“公民斗争和外部战争”他始终希望这些能将无产阶级推向一个更高层次。他还没有意识到,任何血腥斗争,包括大型战争,在一开始也许会有鼓舞和推动作用,但长期来看,参与者会堕落,最终会降低他们在生产和政治生活中建设的能力。

During the decade following 1850, Marx had opportunity to study the laws underlying commodity production in England, namely its capitalist form, and expounded them more clearly than had been done by any student before him. But he also perceived the opportunity for effective action by the English working class under the democratic political institutions prevailing in England. He saw that under such freedom it was possible for the proletariat to overcome the tendency under capitalism to absolute impoverishment of the workers. In his Inaugural Address (1864) as well as in Capital (1867) he welcomed the salutary results of the ten-hour work-day, as an improvement over the longer hours prevailing in English factories and plants. Of course, this did not blind him to the fact that the propertied classes in England were able to show an amazing gam in wealth and power, while at the same time the absolute pauperization of those proletarian groups which were not protected either by state laws or by strong trade unions advanced still further, and that among those protected by the law the improvement in conditions lagged behind the increase in the wealth of capital, so that their position became relatively if not absolutely worse.

16,在1850年之后的时间里,马克思有机会研究了英国商品生产的规律,命名为资本主义模式,然后比他之前的任何研究者们都更清晰的描述了这一规律。但是他也察觉到了英国工人阶级在民主政治机构下进行有效行动的机会和优势。他看到在这样的自由下无产阶级有可能克服资本主义下工人陷入绝对贫困的趋势。在他的《就职演说》(1864)和《资本论》(1867)中他对十小时工作制的有益结果表示欢迎,因为这是一种在英国的工厂和农场中发生的改进。当然,他没有被蒙蔽,他清楚的认识到事实上英国的资产阶级展示了令人惊讶的众多财富和权力,同时被绝对贫困化了的无产阶级团体们没有被政府法律保护,也没有成立强大的独立工会,而被法律保护的那些人,他们处境的改善滞后于资本的增长,因此他们的处境变得相当糟糕,如果不是绝对糟糕。

Nevertheless, the proof was furnished that under conditions of adequate freedom the workers could by their own efforts lift themselves to a high enough level to be able finally to achieve political power not through “civil strife and foreign wars” but through the class struggle waged by their political and economic mass organizations. The condition prerequisite for such a struggle is an adequate measure of political freedom. Where this is lacking, where it has yet to be won, “civil strife and foreign wars” may be necessary to achieve democracy as essential to the rise of the working class. Where democracy exists, ` it is not necessary for the working class to resort to armed, force as a means of attaining power.

17,无论如何,这证明了工人们在充足的自由下可以在他们自己的努力下将自己提升到一个足够高的水准从而最终得到政治权力,这不是通过“公民斗争和外部战争”而实现的,而是通过在政治和经济上的大规模组织的阶级斗争而实现的。实现这一斗争的条件是拥有充足的政治自由。当缺乏政治自由时,当政治自由还需要被赢取时,“公民斗争和外部战争”对于实现民主这一关键性的帮助工人阶级崛起的元素也许是必须的。当民主存在时,对于工人阶级来说没有必要再组织武装力量以夺取政权了。

Here is what Marx said in 1872 at a public meeting in Amsterdam following the Congress of the International at the Hague (as reported by the Leipziger Volkstaat of October 2,1872)

18,这是马克思在1872年的时候在一场在阿姆斯特丹举行的会议上的发言,同时这一会议被海牙的国际代表大会所参与(Leipziger Volkstaat 在1872年10月2日报道了这一会议)。

“The worker must some day achieve political power, in order to found the new organization of labor; he must overthrow the old political machine upon which the old institutions are based, if, like the old Christians, who neglected and despised such matters, he does not wish to renounce the kingdom of this world.

19,”工人必须在未来获取政权,这是为了建立一个新的工人组织;他必须抛弃旧的政治机器,旧的政府机构,就像那些老基督徒一样忽视和鄙视这些,但他不会希望放弃这个世界的王国。”

“But we do not maintain that the means of attaining this objective are everywhere the same.

20,“但是我们并不会在每个地方都试图实现这一目标。”

“We know that we must take into consideration the institutions, the habits and the customs of different regions, arid we do not deny that there are countries like America, England and – if I knew your institutions better I would perhaps add Holland – where the workers can attain their objective by peaceful means. But such is not the case in all other countries.”

21,“我们知道我们必须深入考虑这些机构,以及不同地区的习俗和传统,我们不否认像美国,英国和——如果我更了解你们的机构我也许会加上荷兰——这些地方工人们可以和平实现他们的目标。但这并不适用于其他所有国家。”

By “other countries” Marx evidently meant first of all, the great centralized police and military states of continental Europe as they existed at that time. On April 12, 1871, in a letter to Kugelman at the time of the Paris Commune, Marx pointed out that the objective in next attempt of revolution in France would be “no longer as heretofore to effect a change of hands of the bureaucratic military apparatus, but to demolish it, and that is the prerequisite for every true popular revolution on the continent.”

22,马克思所说的“其他国家”指的是那些欧洲大陆上的拥有被中央控制的的警察和军队的国家,这些国家那时是存在的。在1871年4月12日,在一封写给巴黎公社的Kugelman的信中,马克思指出在法国的革命的下一个目标是“不再像从前一样去影响官僚化的军事机器,而是去消灭它,这是每个在大陆上发生的大众革命所必须去做的。”

It was not granted to Marx to witness a third phase of the labor movement, besides the two indicated by him, and which was already shaping itself about the time of his death. The “civil strife and foreign wars” of 1789-1871 were not sufficient to destroy the bureaucratic-military apparatus of the continental powers, but their effects were nevertheless strong enough to wrest from these powers a certain measure of freedom for the toiling masses, which enabled them to acquire not only great political skill but also to build strong trade unions and proletarian parties. Unfortunately, this new phase was characterized by great obstacles at the beginning. In prance the revolution of September 4, 1870, was followed by the bloody suppression of the Commune in May 1871, and thereafter by a period of dark reaction and oppression of the proletariat which lasted almost until Marx’s death. In Austria after 1866 came an era of liberalism which, however, did not last long. Nor did the liberal era that set in in Germany after 1866 prove of long duration. It ended with the anti-Socialist law of Bismarck.

23,马克思没有保证能看到工人运动的第三阶段,包括他指出的这两个阶段,在他死的时候已经改变形态了。在1789-1871发生的“公民斗争和外部战争”并没有显著的毁灭大陆政权的官僚化的军事机器,但是这些斗争多多少少的逼迫这些政权做出让步,劳苦大众们得到了更多自由,这使得他们不仅获得了政治技巧,而且建立了强大的独立工会和无产阶级政党。不幸的是,这一新的进展在一开始就被当作大型障碍。在1870年9月4日爆发的大型革命,在1871年5月公社就被血腥镇压了,在此之后黑暗行动和对无产阶级的压迫持续到了马克思去世。在奥地利,1866年之后进入了一个自由主义的新时代,然而这并没有长期持续。1866年之后德国的自由时代也没能持续下去,而是以俾斯麦的反社会主义法律终结。

Marx thus had little opportunity to observe the effects of democracy on the development of labor in the military bureaucratic countries of continental Europe.

24,因此马克思几乎没有机会去观察在欧洲大陆上的军事官僚国家中的民主对劳工发展的影响。

Engels survived his great friend. He lived to witness the abolition of the Exception Laws in Austria, the rescinding of the Anti-Socialist Law in Germany, the beginning of the rapid growth of the labor movement all over Europe. He was thus in a position to sum up the results of this particular phase of development for Marxism. He did this in his famous introduction to Marx’s Class Struggles in France.

25,恩格斯比他的朋友活得更久。他活着看到了奥地利的排除者法案的取消,德国的反社会主义法律的废除,在整个欧洲的工人运动开始飞速发展。因此他总结了在这一阶段中的成果,发展了马克思主义。他在他著名的对马克思的《法国的阶级斗争》中介绍了这些。

Marx had never believed in the possibility of bringing about a revolution at will. Therein he differed already in his early works from the Blanquists. But as long as there was no political freedom for the proletariat, he was compelled to wish ardently for the speediest possible coming of the revolution, first as a democratic bourgeois revolution, which would bring the necessary political freedom. During the fifties and sixties he eagerly looked for signs of the coming revolution arising either from war or civil conflicts.

26,马克思从不相信革命能够被有意的带来。这是他在早期著作中就展现出的与布朗基主义者的不同之处。但是只要无产阶级们还没有政治自由,他就被迫希望革命能够尽快到来,从资产阶级民主革命开始,这一革命能带来必须的政治自由。在19世纪50年代和60年代时,他热切的寻找革命到来的迹象,无论是战争还是公民冲突。

But now the situation was quite different. Engels, too, saw the coming of the revolution, but he hoped it might be postponed. And he feared new wars. They might bring on the revolution but they threatened to ruin the working class, the only revolutionary class that still existed. They might destroy the revolution and impair the ability of the working class to utilize it, for what was expected from the revolution was that it would bring not merely political freedom, but power itself.

27,但是现在局势不同了。恩格斯也看到了革命的到来,但是他希望革命被推迟。他也害怕新的战争。他们也许会带来革命,但他们更会威胁并毁灭工人阶级,而工人阶级是唯一存在的革命性的阶级了。他们也许会毁灭革命,削弱工人阶级联合的能力,而革命中被期望带来的也许不是政治自由,而是权力本身。

The expression “dictatorship of the proletariat” has been widely used in the past by many who are obviously confused as to its meaning. Most people assume that it connotes a political aim the meaning of which is self-evident and requires no explanation. Unfortunately this is not so.

28,“无产阶级专政”这一表述在过去被许多人广泛使用,但他们并不知道它的意义。大部分人假设它意味着一个不言而喻的政治目标,而且不需要解释。不幸的是事实并非如此。

The expression comes from Marx. In 1875, in his Critique of the Gotha Program, he wrote:

29,这一表述来自于马克思。在1875年,在他的《哥达计划批判》中,他写道:

“Between the capitalist and Communist society lies the period of change of one into the other. This corresponds to a political transition period in which the state can be nothing else than a revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.”

30,“在资本主义社会和共产主义社会之间,有一个将一个转变为另一个的中间阶段。这对应一个政治改变阶段,这一阶段中政府只能是革命无产阶级专政的。”

Unfortunately, Marx failed to elucidate the momentous expression. He used it in a private letter to the executive committee of the Eisenach party, assuming the committee would understand what the dictatorship of the proletariat was without further comment. That this expression in no way signified either repudiation of democracy for absolute power in the state is quite clear from the one fact alone that in the very same letter Marx characterized the democratic republic as the form of government in which “the class struggle is to be fought out,” saying:

31,不幸的是,马克思没能对这一重要表述进行解释。他在一封寄给爱森纳赫党的执行委员会的私人信件中用了这一表述,假设这一委员会能够在没有后续内容的情况下理解到底什么是无产阶级的专政。这一表述从来没有表示说要拒绝民主建立极权,因为事实清晰显示马克思在同一封信中明确表示民主共和国这一政府形式是“阶级斗争的目标”,他说:

“Freedom consists in the transformation of the state from an organ dominant over society into an organ subordinate to society. And today, too, the various existing forms of state are free or not free in the measure in which they circumscribe the freedom of the state.”

32,“在政权转变的过程中,自由由主宰社会的器官变为社会的附属器官。在今天,这些多种多样的存在的政府形式,无论是自由的还是不自由的,他们都限制了国家的自由。”(备注:从这段内容来看,实际上考茨基也有点强行解释了,因为马克思并没有明确表示支持政治民主,但可以肯定的是马克思不支持极权独裁,因为极权独裁无论怎样都是不可能有自由的。)

Engels, at a later date, spoke in like manner. In 1891, the executive committee of the German Social Democratic Party, having formulated the draft of a new program, submitted it to him for his opinion. Engels expressed his criticism in a long monograph (published in the Neue Zeit, Vol.XX). Among other things he wrote:

33,恩格斯在之后的日子里以类似的方式说话。在1891年,德国社会民主党的执行委员会起草了一份关于新计划的草案,然后交给恩格斯。恩格斯以专著的形式表述了他的批评(在Neue Zeit上发表)。他写道:

“If anything is certain it is that our party and the working class can triumph only under the form of the democratic republic. This is precisely the specific form of the dictatorship of the proletariat.”

34,“可以确定的是,我们的政党和工人阶级只能在民主共和国的形式下赢取胜利。这是对于无产阶级专政的特定形式的精确解释。”

And, indeed it was the democratic parliamentary republic that Engels had in mind, for he added that under all circumstances the program must include “the demand for the concentration of all political power in the hands of a representative assembly of the people.” (Underscored by Engels himself.)

35,很显然恩格斯脑中的是民主代议制共和国,他补充说在所有情况下革命计划必须包括“专注于要求所有政治权力都被代表性的人民议会所控制。”(恩格斯自己强调的)

Even Rosa Luxemburg, who was close to the Bolsheviks and fought so insistently for the dictatorship of the proletariat, held to the end of her days to the conviction that such a dictatorship must be founded upon a democracy. In The Russian Revolution she wrote:

36,甚至罗莎卢森堡,她与布尔什维克靠的很近,并且为了尽快实现无产阶级专政而战,在她的生命终结之前的日子里也后悔了,认为这样一种专政必须在民主的基础上建立。在《俄国革命》中她写道:

“To be sure, every democratic institution has its ‘faults and limitations, which it has in common with all human institutions. But the remedy discovered by Lenin and Trotsky, the abolition of democracy, is worse than the evil it is supposed to cure, for it shuts off the lifespring from which can come the cure for all the inadequacies of social institutions.”

37,“可以确定的是,每个民主的机构都有失败和限制之处,就像所有人类组成的机构一样。但是列宁和托洛茨基发现的补救措施是抛弃民主,这比他们想要治愈的那个恶魔还要糟糕,因为这关闭了诞生对所有的社会机构的不足之处的治愈手段的生命之泉。”

The idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat proclaimed by Marx and Engels does not therefore constitute in any way a repudiation of the idea of democracy. On the contrary, it goes hand in hand with the demand for the abolition of the bureaucratic-military state apparatus and not the strengthening of its absolute power.

38,无产阶级专政这一被马克思和恩格斯宣称的思想并不是要抛弃民主。相反的是,它要求终结官僚化的军事政权机器,而不是增强它们的绝对权力。

In 1891 Engels concluded his preface to the new edition of Marx’s Civil War in France with the following words:

39,在1891年恩格斯在马克思的《法国内战》的新版本中总结了他的序言:

“The German philistines have of late again fallen into wholesome fear of the expression ‘dictatorship of the proletariat.’ Very well, gentlemen, do you wish to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the dictatorship of the proletariat.”

40,“德国的庸俗之人们又陷入了对‘无产阶级专政’这一表述的恐惧中了。很好,绅士们,你们想知道这种专政是怎样的吗?看看巴黎公社吧。那就是无产阶级专政。”

But Marx characterized the Paris Commune of 1871 as an attempt “no longer, as heretofore, to transfer the bureaucratic-military machine from one hand to another, but to destroy it, and this was the prerequisite for every true revolution of the people on the comment.” (Letter to Kugelman. )

41,但是马克思将1871年的巴黎公社描述为一种尝试:“不再是将官僚化的军事机器从一个人的手中转移到另一个人手中,而是毁灭它,而这是所有真正的人民革命的先决条件。”(给Kugelman的信)

The destruction of this type of state machine was, in truth, the only thing the Paris Commune undertook to achieve. It did not live long enough to embark upon any Socialist measures.

42,将这种国家机器毁灭是巴黎公社唯一实现的承诺。它没能存在得足够长久以搭建其他社会主义的措施。

The maintenance of a strong bureaucratic-military state machine constitutes, however, the prerequisite of any dictatorship as a political order. Its destruction signifies complete anarchy or complete democracy, but never dictatorship. For Marx and Engels the all important aim in the destruction of the centralized state apparatus was solely the establishment of democracy.

43,然而,对一个强大的官僚化的国家机器的维持,是构成任何政治独裁所必须的。它的毁灭意味着完全的无政府或完全的民主,但不会是独裁。对于马克思和恩格斯来说,所有重要的毁灭这一中心化的国家机器的目标都是为了建立民主。

Marx and Engels never explained why they characterized this condition as a “dictatorship,” although it was to spring from democracy. I assume they used the expression to denote a strong government.

44,马克思和恩格斯从来没有解释过为什么他们把这种状态叫做“专政”,虽然这是民主的源泉。我的假设是他们用这种表述形容一个强大的政府。

Karl Marx was not the only one to speak of the dictatorship of the proletariat. This idea is much older than Marxism. It represents the oldest, most primitive form of a revolutionary Socialism which sought to emancipate the working people from exploitation and slavery not through peaceful socialistic settlements, colonies or mutual aid associations (another form of primitive Socialism) but by means of forcible seizure of power. This idea is related to the Jacobin reign of terror in the French Revolution.

45,卡尔马克思不是唯一一个提出无产阶级专政的。这一思想比起马克思主义早很多。最古老的,原始的革命社会主义用它表达这种思想:工人阶级的解放无法通过建立和平的社会主义定居点,殖民地或互助组织(另一种原始社会主义形式)实现,只能通过夺取政权实现。这一思想和雅各宾派在法国大革命中的恐怖统治是相关联的。

It was François (“Gracchus”) Babeuf who after the overthrow of Robespierre sought to rally the remnants of the Montagards to combat the rising capitalist regime and to supplant it with a socialism of “crude levelling” (Marx). He organized “The Conspiracy of the Equals,” which set before itself the task of overthrowing the capitalist government by means of an uprising of the propertyless and putting a Communist regime in its place. Such a regime was to bring about complete democracy, but not immediately. Experience had shown that the workers permitted themselves to be led by the nose by men of property and education.

46,François (“Gracchus”) Babeuf 在抛弃罗伯斯庇尔之后寻求和山里人的残余联盟以与正在崛起的资本主义政权作战,取代以一种“水准粗野”(马克思)的社会主义。他组织了“平等的阴谋”,这一组织的任务是通过无产者的起义以推翻资本主义政府,然后建立一个共产主义政权。这样一个政权会带来完全民主,但不是马上带来。经验表明工人们允许他们自己被拥有财产和教育的人所领导。

The conspirators feared that through democracy the poor, ignorant people would once more fall victim to these influences. For this reason a dictatorship was to be established by means of a popular revolution. Freedom of the press was to be abolished, and no publications were to be tolerated “which contradicted the sacred principles of equality and the sovereignty of the people,” the steering committee, of course, being empowered to determine what was in contradiction with these principles. There were to be popular elections, but only after equality had been thoroughly established.

47,这些阴谋家们害怕穷困无知的人民会通过民主成为这些影响的受害者。因此一种专政需要通过大众革命被建立起来。出版自由会被剥夺,没有“威胁到平等与人民主权原则”的出版物被容忍,当然,领导委员会,会被赋予决定什么是与这些原则相冲突的权力。会有大众选举,但是只能在平等被广泛建立之后进行。(备注:考茨基说他们是阴谋家,我非常认同,因为他们的诉求很明显是自己当独裁者,他们嘴里的平等不过是骗人用的。)

This was intended to be a dictatorship for “the transition period between the capitalist and Communist society.” It was to be a proletarian dictatorship, but not the dictatorship of the proletariat, since the proletariat was as yet too ignorant and unable to defend its own interests. It was to be a dictatorship of “little fathers” and spokesmen of the proletariat. The recently coined expression “an educational dictatorship” (Erziehungsdikatur) characterizes well this form of government.

48,这将会成为一种在“将资本主义社会转变为共产主义社会的中间阶段”中的专政。这是对无产阶级的专政,但不是无产阶级专政,因为无产阶级此时还太无知以至于无法维护他们自己的利益。这是一种“小父亲”的和无产阶级代言人的专政。最近创造出的“一种教育专政”的表述(Erziehungsdikatur)很好的表述了这种政府形式。

The dictatorship of Babeuf was not designed to be a political state emanating from democracy, the offspring of an adequate high level of working class development, but a form of government which, in view of the backwardness of the proletariat, would seek at all costs to defend the interests of the workers, ruthlessly and in the most extreme manner possible. It emanated from the conviction that democracy as a means of emancipation of the workers must fail because the proletariat itself had failed, because it was incapable of emancipating itself.

49,Babeuf 的专政并不是要设计一个民主的政权,也不是充分的高级别的发展工人阶级,而是一种认为无产阶级是落后的,会不惜代价的维护工人的利益,无情的以及态度极端的政府形式。它展示了这样一种信念:为了解放工人们的民主必然失败,因为无产阶级自身就是失败的,他们没有解放自己的能力。(备注:很显然这是一种素质论,当然现在已经有足够事实打脸这种白痴观点了。)

The “Conspiracy of Equals” was uncovered and Babeuf was executed (1797). But his conception of the dictatorship of spokesmen of the proletariat as the sole instrument for the realization of Socialism did not die with him. It was the product of certain specific conditions. Capitalist production left the masses of the working people no escape from their misery other than a transition to a Socialist mode of production. Only the power of the state could cope with capital. But under the rule of capital the proletariat found itself immersed in such misery that it lacked the capacity to achieve and to hold political power.

50,“平等的阴谋”最终暴露了,而Babeuf 也被处决了(1797)。但是他的这种无产阶级代言人专政,以及把无产阶级当成纯粹的实现社会主义的工具的思想并没有随着他的死亡而死亡。它是特定场景的结果。资本主义的生产模式导致大量工人无法逃离苦难,除非转变为社会主义的生产模式。只有政府的力量才能对抗资本。但是在资本的统治下,无产阶级们发现他们自己陷入了一种悲哀中,他们缺乏夺取并维持政权的能力。

Wherever such conditions have existed and an opportunity arose, or appeared to exist, for the overthrow of the prevailing regime by insurrection, the idea of such a dictatorship made itself manifest, taking its root from the backwardness and helplessness of the working masses, not from any high degree of the proletariat’s intellectual and moral power and independence.

51,无论这样的情形是否存在,机会是否围绕或存在,因为它主张通过起义推翻占据优势的政权,这样一个专政思想变得明确,在那些落后的和无力帮助自己的工人大众中扎根,而不是从更高级的无产阶级的知识和道德力量中独立而来。

When the labor movement began to develop in France after the revolution of July 1830, the workers turned to the same problem of how to put an immediate end to their misery. Most of them agreed that they had nothing to expect from the bourgeoisie. They wanted to bring about Socialism immediately, by means of their own efforts.

52,当1830年7月发生革命之后,工人运动开始在法国发展起来,这些工人们面对同一个问题:如何立刻终结他们的苦难。绝大多数人认为他们无法对资产阶级有任何期待。他们想要立刻实现社会主义,通过他们自己的努力实现。

The July revolution stimulated in the workers of Paris the belief in the power of the barricade. This led to a revival of Babeuf’s idea in Blanquism.

53,在掩体的威力下,七月革命激发了巴黎工人们的信念。这导致了布朗基主义中的对Babeuf的思想的复兴。

But not all Socialists were Blanquistically inclined. Some affiliated themselves with Louis Blanc, who believed fervently in the democratic republic. Were not the poor and disinherited a great majority of the nation? All that was necessary was to provide them with universal, free and equal suffrage, a sovereign parliament and complete freedom of press and organization, and no power in the state could stem their march to Socialism. Louis Blanc failed to perceive, however, that this achievement required a highly developed proletariat, for the development of which there had been little impetus before 1848.

54,但并不是所有社会主义者都向布朗基主义那样倾向于Babeuf思想。一些人从属于Louis Blanc,他们热情的相信着民主共和。那些穷人和被剥夺继承权的人难道不是国家中的主流吗?给他们提供普选权,全民议会,完全的出版和组织自由是非常必要的,没有任何政府中的权力能够阻止他们实现社会主义的努力。 Louis Blanc没有察觉到的是要实现这些是需要高度发展的无产阶级的,而在1848之前几乎没有足够的发展力量。

Proudhon was opposed to both these tendencies. He perceived that under the then existing conditions the proletariat could not achieve victory through democracy, but he feared no less the dictatorship of a Socialist minority ruling through an all-powerful state apparatus. He, too, considered the proletariat as he found it, rather than as it might become. He regarded it as incapable of influencing the policy of the state and to master it, and yet he felt that the emancipation of the workers could be accomplished only by the workers themselves. To make this possible he sought to simplify the problem. The workers, he argued, could not pursue an independent state policy of their own; on the other hand, they could master the problem of the individual communities. He thus sought to arrive at Socialism by dissolution of the state into a network of sovereign communities.

55,普鲁东同时反对这两种流派。他察觉到在现有的处境下无产阶级无法通过民主实现胜利,但他对少数社会主义者通过一架强力的国家机器进行独裁统治也感到害怕。他也将无产阶级当成好像是他建立的而不是本来就有的。他认为无产阶级不适合影响国家政策,更不适合掌握政权,但同时他感觉到工人们的解放只能通过工人自己实现。为了将这一切变为可能,他简化了问题。他争论说工人们无法独自推行一个独立的国家政策;另一方面,他们能够在解决社区内的问题。因此,他寻求一个不要政府,而要被人民控制的主权社区形成的网络的社会主义。(备注:也就是无政府主义,而普鲁东是个著名的无政府主义者。)

These in brief, were the various tendencies dominant among Socialists when Marx began to think as a Socialist. He had never been in doubt as to the hopelessness of bourgeois-philanthropic utopianism. The only Socialism he took seriously was the Socialism emanating from the labor movement. Very soon, however, he saw also the inadequacy of the three tendencies outlined above. He perceived this inadequacy in the fact that the adherents of each of these tendencies sought to bring about Socialism with the proletariat as they found it a task that was obviously unrealizable.

56,简单来说,当马克思像社会主义者一样思考的时候,社会主义者之间有许多不同的流派。他从来没有怀疑过资产阶级慈善家的乌托邦主义是多么没有希望。他唯一严肃思考过的社会主义是来自工人运动的社会主义。然而,很快他也看到上面提到的三种流派的不足之处。他察觉到这种不足实际上来自于他们的信徒们试图把无产阶级当成他们建立的,这一任务很显然是无法实现的。

The utopians and Blanquists likewise realized the inability of the proletariat to bring about Socialism. They saw the need of educating the proletariat to this task, but this education was to be undertaken by leaders superior to and standing above the proletariat. Only with the realization of Socialism would it became possible for the working people to rise to a higher level of development, and thus learn how to govern themselves democratically. The expression “true democracy is possible only under complete Socialism” is not a new revelation but primitive pre-Marxian conception.

57,乌托邦主义者们和布朗基主义者们意识到了无产阶级缺乏带来社会主义的能力。他们看到为了完成这一任务,对无产阶级的教育是很有必要的,但他们认为这种教育应该被站在无产阶级之上的领导人完成。只有他们有了社会主义觉悟,工人们才会有可能进行更高级别的发展,从而学会如何民主的治理他们自己。“真正的民主只有在完全的社会主义下才有可能”这一表述并不是新的启示,而是在马克思之前的原始概念。

Marx discerned the weakness of this form of education of the proletariat by educators self-appointed to the role of Fuehrers, or lifted to dominance and absolute power over itself by an ignorant proletariat through insurrection or in some other way. This would mean making the emancipation of the workers dependent upon historical accidents, quite improbable accidents. For, as a general rule, it was not to be expected that a few Socialist conspirators, supported by a weak, ignorant proletariat, could attain that absolute power necessary for the expropriation of capital, to say nothing of coping with the difficulties of Socialist construction.

58,马克思看清了这一由自封的教育者们充当领导者的角色对无产阶级进行教育的模式的弱点,或者一个无知的无产阶级通过起义或其他方式主宰并取得绝对权力。这意味着工人们的解放依赖于历史的偶然事件,不可能的偶然事件。一个通行的规律是,无法期待几个社会主义阴谋家通过软弱无知的无产阶级的支持而取得没收资本所需要的绝对权力,然后完全不说如何应对社会主义建设面临的困难。

Marx perceived that the education required by the proletariat could be made secure not through abnormal circumstances but only as it developed from a phenomenon characteristic of all capitalist states, a phenomenon inexorable in its force and powerful in its effects. This phenomenon was the class contradiction between capital and labor, the class struggle arising inevitably from this contradiction. This class struggle was an incontrovertible fact, regardless of its characterization by liberals and fascists as a Marxian “invention. “

59,马克思察觉到了无产阶级所需要的教育不仅能在不正常的情况下进行,而且能在所有资本主义国家中作为一种现象发展,一种在力量上残酷的和影响上有力的现象。这种现象是资本家和工人之间的阶级矛盾,阶级斗争必将从这种矛盾中崛起。阶级斗争是一种不容置疑的事实,不管那些自由主义者们和法西斯主义者们如何把这种事实描述成马克思的“发明”。(备注:无论是右派还是极右派,或者说任何不承认阶级斗争切实存在的人,总是会把阶级斗争说成马克思的“发明”,考茨基时代如此,现在还是如此。)

Marx did not invent it. He did not demand it. He merely registered its existence and pointed out its inherent, inescapable consequences. And, as one of those consequences he emphasized the education of the proletariat to democracy and Socialism, which cannot prosper without democracy.

60,马克思没有发明阶级斗争。他也没有要求阶级斗争。他仅仅是指出了阶级斗争的存在,以及指出阶级斗争是固有的, 并且会产生不可避免的结果。作为其中一种结果,他强调了要教育无产阶级走向民主和社会主义,以及社会主义无法在没有民主的情况下实现。

Marx in 1872 divided the countries of Europe into two groups. In one – essentially Anglo-Saxon – it seemed possible that the working class would attain power without violence. In the other group Marx included most of the countries of the continent where the attainment of power without a revolution appeared impossible.

61,马克思在1872年将欧洲国家分为两组。一组——关键成员为盎格鲁—撒克逊国家——看起来工人阶级可以通过非暴力方式获取政权。马克思的另一组包括了大部分在大陆上的欧洲国家,在这些国家中不通过革命获取政权看起来是不可能的。(备注:马克思的年代是没有非暴力革命的,非暴力革命在二战后才出现。)

After the rescinding of the Anti-Socialist Law in Germany there came into view a third sub-division. As heretofore it still appeared impossible for the proletariat in the military countries of the continent to come into power without a revolution. But in most of these countries it was now highly desirable to postpone the decisive clash with the state as long as possible. In Russia, on the other hand, it was most imperative that the uprising of the people against the absolutist regime should take place as soon as possible.

62,在德国的反社会主义法律被废除后,出现了一种第三方的分支视野。从过去来看对于大陆上的军国主义国家的无产阶级来说在不革命的情况下获取政权还是不可能的。但是对于这些国家中的大部分,对推迟与政权的冲突的呼声很高。另一方面,在俄国,人民反抗极权的起义应该会尽快发生。

We find, therefore, in the Second International, founded in 1889, whose period covered this new phase of development, three well defined currents. They are geographically distinct and spring from the different types of government prevailing on the continent. Each of them represents an adaptation to conditions, and from a Marxist point of view each was fully justified. Each of them could and did exist alongside the others, but not without some friction.

63,因此,我们发现,在1889年建立的第二国际中,这一期间涵盖了这一新的发展阶段,包括三个被完好定义的趋势。他们是地理上的区分和大陆上不同类型的政府的优势的源泉。他们中的每一个都代表了对局势的适应,以及在马克思主义的观察角度下每个都是完全有道理的。他们中的每一个都能以及切实与其他几个共存,而不会出现摩擦。

The human mind craves absolute solutions. It is against its nature to contend with relativities. And so, in each of the three above-mentioned divisions, there were many Socialists who regarded the particular stand on the question of revolution which was suited to their own countries as something that had an absolute validity, independent of space and time. This was enhanced by the brisk international intercourse which made it possible for ideas to circulate even faster than commodities. Born of the three views representing the different sub-divisions, all of which were reconcilable with Marxism, came three factions which opposed one another not only within the International but in some of the separate countries as well.

64,人类的思维渴望一个绝对的解决方案。与对比关系竞争和它的天性相反。所以,在上面提到的三个不同的维度中,许多社会主义者表现出了对革命问题的特别爱好,这与他们自身所在的国家相适应,就像有独立于时间和空间的绝对可行性一样。这被快速的国际间往来所增强了,思想的流通甚至可能比商品流通的速度都快。从这三种观点中诞生出了不同的分支视野,所以这些都与马克思主义兼容,同时出现了三种相互反对的派别,不仅在国际中出现,而且在一些分裂的国家中也出现了。

Nevertheless, from year to year the Socialist parties grew in size, in unity and in intellectual power.

65,多多少少的,社会主义政党随着时间过去慢慢在规模上,团结上和知识力量上都成长了。

https://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1930s/demvscom/ch02.htm

社会民主主义对抗共产主义(Social Democracy versus Communism)

原作者:Karl Kautsky(卡尔考茨基,社会民主主义创始人之一)

          1. The Origin of Socialism

             1,社会主义的起源

What is it that divides the Social Democrats from the Communists? Like the Socialists, they are a working class party. The emancipation of the workers is their common aim.

1,将社会民主主义者和共产主义者(备注:这里的共产主义者,包括下文中的共产主义,都是特指主张先锋队独裁的列宁教主派)区分开来的是什么?就像社会主义者一样,他们都是工人阶级政党。解放工人是他们共同的目标。

There was a time when both had a common theoretical basis. But later a gulf developed between them, which cannot be bridged, however much we may desire and consider this necessary. This gulf arises neither from a misunderstanding nor from a mere difference of opinion.

2,曾经社会民主主义者和共产主义者们都有相同的理论基础。但是之后他们之间产生了隔阂,这隔阂无法被消除,然而这是我们所渴望以及认为很有必要的。这一隔阂并不是因为误解产生,也不只是观点不同。

To realize how absolutely irreconcilable are Communism and Socialism, we must first look into the history of the origin of Socialism. It springs from two roots, one ethical and the other economic. The first emanates from the natural instinct of man, the second from the nature of capitalist society and the position of the workers as a class.

3,为了认识到社会主义和共产主义之间是如何不可调和,我们必须要看看社会主义诞生的历史。社会主义的源泉来自两个方面:道德和经济。道德来自于人类本性,而经济则来自于资本主义社会的本质和工人作为阶级的位置。

The demand “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity” advanced by the men of the French Revolution antedates all written history. It reflects the desire of all oppressed, exploited and their friends ever since there have been oppression and exploitation. But this demand merely poses a problem. It does not indicate the road to its solution. What this road should be has been variously conceived, depending upon varied social conditions and the classes who have sought to find it. Only under the capitalist mode of production has the solution of this problem, through the establishment of a democratic social economy of the workers, become possible and necessary. Only through economic research, not through ethical indignation, can this solution be achieved. Certainly it can never be achieved by mere impassioned desire for what, since 1789, has been termed “liberty, equality, fraternity.”

4,法国大革命中的人们要求“自由,平等,博爱”,这早于所有历史记载。这反映了所有被压迫和被剥削的人们和他们的朋友们的渴望,自从这世界有了压迫和剥削开始。但是这一要求也指出了一个问题:它没有指出解决方案。关于解决方案应该是怎样的产生了很多构想,构想本身取决于构想者的不同的社会处境和阶级。只有在资本主义的生产模式下这一问题才有解决方案,而建立一个民主的工人控制的社会经济模式是可能的和必要的(备注:这句话的意思是市场本身是有必要存在的,而公司需要民主的被工人们所控制。)。只有通过经济研究而不是道德愤怒,这一解决方案才能实现。显然这无法通过仅仅充满激情的从1789年开始的对“自由,平等,博爱”的渴望而实现。

All socialist thinkers were rebels against any kind of enslavement and exploitation. But they were also research workers in the domain of economics.

5,所有社会主义思想者都是对任何形式的奴役和剥削的反抗者。但是他们同时也是在经济领域工作的研究者。

The revolt-provoking study of the mass impoverishment generated by capitalist industry gave birth to socialist ideas. It was precisely this impoverishment, however, which by its very frightfulness so held the workers down, that they were frequently rendered incapable of resistance. Whenever some few did revolt, they knew nothing better to do than to destroy machines and burn factories. By such outbursts of indignation they succeeded only in multiplying their own misery.

6,对在资本主义工业中产生的大规模贫困的反抗的令人深省的研究中诞生了社会主义思想。然而,恰恰就是这些吓人的将工人们压制在底层的贫困,是无法被抵抗的。当其中少数人开始反抗时,他们除了砸烂机器和烧毁工厂之外其他什么都不做。这些出于愤怒的爆发最终只是成功的加深了他们的苦难。(备注:这句话的背景是卢德运动,卢德运动因为机器的使用导致工人失业而起)

The early socialists, therefore believed that the working class could not emancipate itself by its own efforts. It was to be emancipated through the efforts of humanitarians, superior to the workers. It soon became clear, however, that little was to be expected from the statesmen and millionaires of the bourgeois world. Side by side with the utopians who relied upon the well meaning bourgeoisie were socialists who perceived that the power necessary for the realization of socialism could come only from the working class itself. But they, too, despaired of the masses. They addressed themselves to the small group of the elite among the working class, those enjoying more favorable conditions than the average worker. Together with professional revolutionists they were to enter into a conspiracy to capture political power, and bring about socialism by means of armed revolt. Finally, there were socialists who, permitting themselves to be deceived by the prospects aroused by the early labor movements, overestimated the numbers and intellectual power of the workers of their period and believed that the working class needed only to bring about democracy, namely, the universal franchise, in order to win immediately the power of government and transform society in line with their desires.

7,因此,早期的社会主义者们认为工人阶级是无法通过自己的努力解放自己的。只有通过那些人道主义者们的努力,那些高过工人们的人,才能解放工人。(备注:这里指那些空想社会主义者)然而,很快事实就清晰的表明那些资产阶级世界的政府官僚和百万富翁们是无法指望的。和那些试图依赖资产阶级的良知的乌托邦主义者们并列的是那些认为社会主义只能通过工人阶级们的努力实现的社会主义者。但是他们也对大众绝望。他们把他们自己称作工人阶级中的小部分先锋,他们比工人们的平均处境要好一些。他们和专业革命者一起进入了一个夺取政治权力的阴谋中,将社会主义带入了武装暴动中。最终,这些承认他们自己被早期劳工运动的激昂前景所欺骗从而高估了工人们的数量和知识的社会主义者们相信工人阶级只是在带来民主,另一个名称是普选权的过程中有用,这是为了能成功夺取政权然后将社会改造成他们所渴望的模样。

All these schools, however they appeared to differ from each other, had this common characteristic: they looked upon the working class as they found it, and sought a means for the immediate “solution of the social question,” i.e. for the immediate abolition of the misery and enslavement of the working class. Every one of these schools criticized severly the other socialists, each perceiving clearly the illusions of the others. Each was right and all succumbed to the criticism of time, which wrecked every one of them.

8,然而,所有这些派别,虽然他们表现的和其他派别不同,但他们有一点是相同的:他们高高在上的俯视者工人阶级,好像工人阶级是他们建立的似的,然后谋求一个能够即时“解决社会问题的办法”,例如立刻终结工人阶级的苦难和奴役。每个在这些派别中的人都会对其他社会主义者严厉批判,每个人都认为对方是在幻想。每个人都是正确的,都屈服于批判,那么他们中间的每个人都会毁灭。(备注:这句话应该是考茨基的讽刺,讽刺他们都认为自己是正确的别人是错误的,但如果他们同时都正确,那么他们中的每个人都不正确。)

Then came Marx and Engels who introduced the idea of development into socialist thought, and perceived the working class not only as it was but also as it was becoming. In their Communist Manifesto they realized that the working class had not yet advanced far enough to achieve immediately its own emancipation and, further, that this could not be achieved through the universal franchise, the efforts of the well-meaning portion of the bourgeoisie, or by the armed action of an advanced guard of energetic conspirators. At the same time they also perceived that through the development of industry the working class would grow in numbers and organization, while gaining constantly in intellectual and moral power. In this way labor would achieve the power to emancipate itself. To be sure it would have to be educated to this. But this education, as Marx and Engels realized, could not be brought about by men who proclaimed themselves .the schoolmasters of the workers, but through the experience of the class struggle, forced upon the wage earners, by the conditions under which, they lived.

9,然后,马克思和恩格斯向社会主义思想中添加了发展的理念,同时觉察出了工人阶级不仅是工人阶级,而且工人阶级也会发生改变。在他们的共产党宣言中,他们意识到工人阶级现在还没有足够先进到直接完成对他们自己的解放,以及这一目标无法通过普选权实现,也无法通过资产阶级发善心实现或者通过有能量的阴谋家们的武装行动实现。同时他们也觉察到随着工业的发展,工人阶级在数量和组织上都会增长,同时得到更多的知识和道德力量。在这一过程中,劳工们将会得到足以实现自我解放的力量。但要实现这一点,他们必须被教育。但是这一教育,就像马克思和恩格斯所意识到的,无法被那些宣称他们自己的人所带来(备注:这里指那些自称自己是工人先锋的人)。劳工们的老师是阶级斗争中的经验,被强加“打工仔”身份的人从他们的生活环境中学习。

The-more the class struggle proceeds in a democratic environment, all other things being equal, i.e. in an environment of universal education, freedom of press and organization and of universal suffrage, the greater its educational influence. Long before the instruments of democracy become the means for acquisition of power by the workers, they constituted the means of its education in the task not only of how to attain power but also of how to keep it and apply it successfully in the building of a higher social order.

10,阶级斗争在民主环境下持续的越久,其他事情也会变得平等,例如在一个实现普遍免费教育,出版自由,组织自由,普选权的环境中,教育的影响就会越来越大。在民主这一工具成为工人获得力量的渠道之前,构成教育的内容不仅是如何获取权力,而且还有如何维持权力以及如何成功建立一个更好的社会秩序。

As Marx and Engels saw it, the task for Socialists was not to bring about the immediate solution of “the social question” and the realization of socialism, but, first, to support the workers in the class struggle, to help it understand the nature of capitalist society, its power relationships and processes of production, and promote the organization of Labor.

11,就像马克思和恩格斯所看到的,社会主义者的任务不是带来一个对于“社会问题”的即时解决方案或社会主义觉悟,而是首先在阶级斗争中支持工人,并帮助他们理解资本主义社会的本质,资本主义社会中的权力关系和生产进程,以及推进劳工组织。(备注:这里隐藏了一个前提:政治民主,因为在极权独裁下独裁政权会压制一切阶级斗争运动,以及破坏独立组织。所以在极权独裁下,社会主义者的首要任务是推翻独裁建立民主,当然这其中阶级斗争会成为一种重要的辅助力量。)

Proceeding from this point of view, Marx and Engels sought to bring about the union of all elements participating in the class struggle for the liberation of the working class into a strong mass party. Before their arrival upon the scene, each of the various socialist leaders and thinkers had put forward their own distinct method for the solution of the social question and opposed all other socialists who would follow other methods. So it had come about that socialism had served only to divide the working class. Marx and Engels tried to unite it, not to add a Marxian sect to those already in the field.

12,在这一观点上,马克思和恩格斯更进一步,去寻求将所有参与阶级斗争的元素联合起来以形成一个解放工人的大型政党。在他们带来这一切之前,每个不同的社会主义领导人和思想者将他们自己的方案当成解决社会问题的方案,同时反对任何追随其他方案的社会主义者们。结果就是,社会主义只起到了分裂工人阶级的作用。马克思和恩格斯试图去联合社会主义,而不是在这里面添加一个马克思主义派别。

We find emphasis of this already in the Communist Manifesto (1847). Speaking to their adherents, who called themselves communists, Marx and Engels said:

13,我们看到这一重点早就在共产党宣言(1847)中了,对那些自称共产主义着的信徒们,马克思和恩格斯说:

“The communists do not constitute a separate party, distinct from other working class parties.”

14,“共产主义者们不会去组成一个和其他工人阶级政党所分离的政党。”

They demanded only that their adherents within the working class parties strive to develop “in advance of the rest of the masses of the proletariat an understanding of the conditions, the process and the general consequences of the movement of the proletariat.”

15,他们要求他们的信徒们在工人阶级政党内努力发展“帮助多数无产阶级们理解他们的处境,以及无产阶级运动的进展和普遍成果。”

Their actions were in line with this idea, as for example in the First International, which had very few Marxists but plenty of Proudhonists and, later, also Blanquists as well as British trade unionists, who knew little of socialism.

16,他们的行动在这一思想的范围内,例如在第一国际中,马克思主义者很少而普鲁东主义者(备注:普鲁东是无政府主义者)很多,此后布朗基主义者(备注:布朗基是巴黎公社议会主席)也加入了,英国的工团主义者们也加入了,而他们几乎不了解社会主义。(备注:工团主义是无政府主义的分支之一)

Marx and Engels understood well how to bring about a firm union between the world of socialist ideas and the labor movement. All truly working class parties of our time, which have arisen since the final quarter of the last century to take the place of preceding seas, rest upon this union. As working class parties they fight for the interests of the working class; as Socialist parties they wage the class struggle as a means of emancipation of all the oppressed and exploited, not of the wage earners alone.

17,马克思和恩格斯对于如何联合这世界上的社会主义思想和劳工运动有着很清晰的理解。所有真正的工人阶级政党,那些在19世纪的最后四分之一时间里崛起的政党,都在这一联盟下联合起来了。作为工人阶级政党,他们为了工人阶级的利益而战;作为社会主义政党,他们将阶级斗争的目标变为为了所有被压迫和被剥削的人民的解放而战,而不仅仅是为了打工仔。

The Socialist parties fight not only for shorter working hours and higher wages, unemployment insurance and shop councils, but also for the liberty, equality, fraternity of all human beings, regardless of race, color or creed.

18,社会主义政党不仅只为了缩短工时,提高工资,失业保险和商店议会而战,而是为了所有人类的自由,平等,和博爱而战,无论他们的种族(备注:从种族和肤色并列来看,这里的种族应当指的是民族),肤色或信仰是什么。

Such Socialist parties are bringing about the realization of Marxist ideas even when they themselves are not conscious of them. Every place where the capitalist mode of production exists, with few exceptions, they have been irresistibly on the march since the end of the last century.

19,这样的社会主义政党带来了对马克思主义思想的认识,即使他们自己并没有意识到这一点。每一个资本主义生产模式存在的地方,几乎毫无例外的,他们从19世纪末开始在斗争中变得势不可挡。

原始链接:https://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1930s/demvscom/ch01.htm

流氓的版权,版权的流氓

版权,或者说知识产权,是一个很常见的资本主义概念(社会主义是否定版权的)。其支持者最常用的说辞是:“没有版权,那么原作者就得不到足够的收入以维持创作动力!”

听起来,似乎是有几分道理。但是,现行版权法律是保护原作者的吗?版权真的是为了原作者的利益服务的吗?

事实上,绝大多数版权都并不被原作者所掌握,而是被雇佣(奴役)原作者的公司老板们所掌握,例如游戏迷们非常熟悉的合金装备系列,其版权就被KONAMI公司的老板们而不是被系列原核心作者小岛秀夫所掌握,而小岛秀夫被KONAMI踢走,然后KONAMI找了其他一些人做了个垃圾作品:合金装备生存,至于死在EA手下的被收购工作室都不知有多少了,而这些工作室虽然死了,但其作品版权却被EA霸占,也就是说EA的老板们可以出大批顶着作品名号的垃圾骗钱了。

更不要说在原作者死后,版权还持续,公司们还拿着死人的作品卖钱,请问,按照版权吹鼓手们的逻辑,这时候不该用冥币付钱吗?否则你怎么能保证原作者收到钱呢?

严格来说,没有完全原创的知识,因为所有知识都是在别人的免费知识的基础上创造出来的,当然有人说即使如此原创者也花费了时间精力应当收费,但收费有理可不等于垄断有理,没有人有权垄断知识,把知识隔绝在金钱柏林墙外,理由很简单:一个人垄断了知识,其他人要么不得不重新发明轮子,浪费资源降低效率(那些最喜欢鼓吹效率的,这时候通常会闭嘴),要么其他人也学着垄断知识,结果就是整个人类社会分裂为一个个知识孤岛,最终除了少数垄断者之外,其他绝大部分人都深受其害!

特别是当版权被独裁政权所把持时,就会直接变成践踏人权的借口,例如共匪就在墙内以版权为名删除禁书和相关视频。事实上,版权本身的垄断性就意味着如果不与政府合作,那么任何知识都别想进入社会。同时,支付方式也会将大部分人挡在柏林墙外(很显然现在没有一种世界通用的支付手段,而且支付本身就意味着破坏匿名,方便政府追踪迫害)。

受害?是的,这世界上的版权流氓们可不少,我举两个例子说明一下:

1,超级版权流氓苏州思杰马克丁公司:

“为什么微软更新了数字签名补丁,中国地区的会声会影就无法使用了,而其他地区的会声会影却能不受影响?答案显而易见,原来,马克丁公司对会声会影的数字签名进行了修改,嵌入了自己公司的数字签名,把软件安装完成后指向的官方地址修改成了自己做的“官方网站”,同时还对里面诸多版权信息等签名信息完完全全修改成了自己的信息。至于是否还加入了其他后门程序,我们就不得而知了,但是可以确定的是,这次补丁,完善了数字签名认证系统,马克丁对数字签名进行了修改,直接导致了微软认证数字签名发生了错误,所以软件无法安装。而这个问题,直到下一个版本更新后,才得到了解决。

随之而来的,是更多的数字签名事件,在马克丁旗下代理的所有软件中,均发现了数字签名被篡改的情况,这也不由得引人深思,你丫是谁你就把这软件签上你自己的名字?还要不要点碧莲?

马克丁再次以维权斗士的形象站了起来,马克丁的律师团队如明朝时候的锦衣卫,哪里有软件哪里就有他们,马克丁到处招蜂引蝶,拳打南山敬老院,脚踢北海幼儿园,抓shi如泥,大街有人谁怕他,大街无人他怕谁?总之,虽然引得骂声一片,但是充分体现了自己维权斗士的形象,还雇佣大批水军,企图淹没对其讨伐的声音。

然而,他对数字签名更改的同时除了侵犯到软件制作方的著作权以外,还同时已经侵犯到了软件使用者的各种权益,由于中国只对版权法律有明确的规定,在关于数字签名的法律问题上并没有完善的法律条款,而马克丁的这种做法,实质上在国外已属违法行为。一个侵犯着制作方与使用方双方权利的人站起来维权?这种做法难道不是贼喊捉贼?“

你知道思杰马克丁是怎么赚钱的么?他们代理软件销售权,篡改软件数字签名的目的为的是不让用户接触到软件真正的官方网站,他们代理的软件官网售价是199美元,和约1400人民币,他们的售价却高达1900元乃至2000元,远超汇率的同时,还拿着高额的代理反水。不让用户接触到真正的官网原因就是这个。通过用破解软件手段的威胁,很多给他代理的软件无法撕破脸皮,但是不少软件厂商已经停止了对思杰马克丁代理的软件的售后服务,换句话说,你从他那里买来的软件,在官网很可能是享受不到售后保障的。不过马克丁并不担心,万一哪家软件不给他代理了,他依然会继续销售,只不过数字签名,秘钥全都换成他自己的,国外起诉也起诉不到这里来,他在国内依然活的逍遥自在。

来源:http://www.carrotchou.blog/3572.html

”因为我在贴吧、博客、Q群上发布Deep Freeze相关资源,思杰马克丁在无任何代理权、版权的情况下,他的法务部给我发来维权通知,而且邮件内容还发错了,竟然说成Zbrush软件。

上mathtype的英文官网 MathType – Equation Editor 下载mathtype,是可以输入序列号的(用google或bing找序列号)。英文官网的售价是:商版$97(97×6.6=¥640.2),教育版$57(57×6.6=¥376.2),而思杰马克丁卖的价格是:商业版¥788(原价¥1088),另一个不确定是不是教育版卖¥498(原价¥688)。

由于我已经安装了不便截图了,大家可以打开链接自己体验一下,英文官网安装包安装可以选择30天试用或是输入激活码,而“正版授权”的中文版则是强制只能试用,而且强制勾选同意软件收集信息,这不是流氓软件的标志吗!真正的正版会这么做?

所以这家公司的实质其实是盗版软件的垄断者,采用流氓的方式(律师函、举报、假盗版链接)迫使或欺骗用户使用收费的盗版软件。无奈国内的很多热门软件被他血洗了,若想用正版请务必使用开发商的购买渠道,千万别上当受骗。“

来源:https://www.zhihu.com/question/46746200

”发布一款mounty这款软件被疯狂举报,这款软件本身是免费的,用于ntfs格式的硬盘写入的,难道就因为这款软件免费,影响他们的销量了吗?“

来源:https://www.zhihu.com/question/60166627

这里还有个视频链接:用事实说话,看清苏州思杰马克丁公司的真实面目

总结一下,这家流氓公司通过欺骗和破解威胁骗取代理权(事实上还有大批所谓被其代理的软件根本没有授权),然后篡改软件本身,不让用户看到软件的真正作者和官网,目的就是为了高价欺诈用户购买其”正版“(篡改数字签名属于破解行为,所以这所谓的正版实际上和破解版无异,当然这是从技术角度说的,从法律角度,这垃圾的所谓正版还真是正版),对于敢发布其他软件获取渠道者一律进行恶意举报和威胁,而且这些流氓行径还是合法的!对,合狗屁版权法!

2,为防盗版不择手段的starforce防copy软件(默认状态下的软件是能自由copy的,这也是使用者的基本权利,但是老板们为了利益最大化,就搞出防copy软件这种用来搭建柏林墙的垃圾):

“1998年,俄罗斯的程序员开发了这一软件加密程序,针对当时市面上多数游戏采用光盘作为载体,starforce通过测量CD中第一个和最后一个写入扇区之间的物理角度来工作。
遗憾的是,starforce采用的加密方式,会使用Ring0级别权限(系统层),此后除非将硬盘格式化,否则即便是卸载了starforce软件,但是对系统设置的改变却不会撤销。
这就让starforce取得了硬件的最高权限,只要玩家的电脑开着,就被随时、永远、监控着。一旦starforce发现你的计算机有可疑行为,不管你是不是在玩游戏,它会强制计算机重启,打断可疑的程序进程。
此外,由于要频繁读取光盘,对于光盘和光驱的伤害是所有玩家最直接感受到的。最可怕的是,当starforce程序的运作发生错误时,会将电脑完整诊断信息传送给starforce公司,资料多达3千7百多行,这其中包括了私人信息。有鉴于此,starforce在国外被当成了一个流氓工具,长期出于舆论的风口浪尖,在美国还被法院判决禁止使用。”

Starforce 要求安装后重新启动,它要对你的计算机进行最高级别的控制,当然需要这样做。为了取得最高权限,大部分杀毒软件都会要求重启,但目的与SF有所不同
如果做了系统的 Ghost光盘,事后格掉重做系统就行了,就当一切都没有发生过。不过,如果它窃取了你的个人信息,并传出去,就不是能轻易挽回的了。好像一个人在大街上被人扒光了衣服,春光外泄之后穿好衣物就能当没事一样么(SF并不会将这些信息与你本人相关联)?
Starforce 在验证失败后点击“信息”会收集系统信息送至SF公司进行分析,在获取信息的过程中过程中硬盘狂转,看来读取了不少信息,来看看它都干了些什么。在报错后生成了信息文件,我把这个文件保存下来,这是个将要发送给Protection Technology的文件。真是不看不知道,一看吓一跳。这个文本文件竟有 288,214 字节,3467 行之多,详细记录了系统的全部信息。
文件首先记录了系统的详细信息,包括 Windows序列号、安装位置、用户名称、常规设置信息等等。然后是硬件信息,包括所有的硬件设备的资源信息、运行状况、驱动的全部详细信息等等,网络信息,包括 IP 地址、MAC 地址、全部使用协议资料等等,随后是硬盘的信息,包括所有分区的设置和使用状况、分区起始字节等等,接着是光驱和外设的全部信息,全部的驱动信息、动态链接库、所有进程的详细信息、所安装全部软件的信息…….总之,这些个人隐私,只有你想不到的,没有它不窃取的。不知道这个流氓软件有没有把我的资料外泄,还好,使用该光盘的时候我在断网状态,随后 Ghost 恢复了系统。
估计 Starforce 可以打着验证正版的幌子为自己辩护,但我很想知道,窃取用户的全部个人资料,就是为了验证光盘是否正版?我安装了哪些应用软件你也需要全部知道么?我安装了些什么游戏你也这么感兴趣?我的IP地址对验证光盘正版也有用?
流氓就是流氓,无论批什么外衣,本质都是流氓。

来源: 为了正义不则手段的防盗版软件

这两个臭流氓不过是流氓世界的冰山一角,关于商业软件的流氓事迹,可以看一下自由软件协会提供的信息:Proprietary Software Is Often Malware(商业软件经常是恶意软件)

关于自由软件运动,我要介绍一下:自由软件运动的创始人是Richard Stallman,自由软件运动致力于通过自由软件使计算机用户获得自由权利。自由软件的用户可以自主控制自己的计算。非自由软件使用户受制于软件开发者。

自由软件意味着使用者有运行、复制、发布、研究、修改和改进该软件的自由。

自由软件是权利问题,不是价格问题。要理解这个概念,你应该考虑“自由”是“言论自由”中的“自由”;而不是“免费啤酒”中的“免费”。

更精确地说,自由软件赋予软件使用者四项基本自由

  • 不论目的为何,有运行该软件的自由(自由之零)。
  • 有研究该软件如何运行,以及按需改写该软件的自由(自由之一)。取得该软件源代码为达成此目的之前提。
  • 有重新发布拷贝的自由,这样你可以借此来敦亲睦邻(自由之二)。
  • 有改进该软件,以及向公众发布改进的自由,这样整个社群都可受惠(自由之三)。取得该软件源码为达成此目的之前提。

来源:GNU是什么?

为了对抗版权(copyright),Stallman发明了Copyleft(拒绝版权):

一个人所做的每个决定都源自这个人的价值观和目标。人们有很多不同的价值观和目标;名誉、利益、爱情、生存、快乐和自由,这些只是常人会有的部分目标。当目标是原则性问题的时候,我们称之为理想主义。

一个理想主义的目标激励着我从事自由软件的工作:弘扬自由和合作。我要鼓励自由软件的转播,让它替代禁止合作的专属软件,从而使我们的社会变得更好。

这就是为什么GNU通用公共许可证按照—copyleft那样写的基本原因。所有为遵循GPL的程序而添加的代码都必须是自由软件,即使这些代码是单独的文件。我把我的代码给自由软件使用,而不给专属软件使用。我认为专属软件开发者使用版权来禁止我们分享,那么我们就使用版权来给予互相合作的程序员自己的优势:他们可以使用我们的代码。

如果嘲笑者挖苦自由、讽刺社区…如果“顽固的现实主义者”说利益是唯一的理想…只需忽略他们,并一如既往地使用copyleft。

来源:Copyleft:实用的理想主义

可以看到,自由软件运动实际上就是软件界的共产主义运动(digital communism),软件的代码,运行软件的权利,分发的权利,二次修改的权利,这些都公平的为所有人所共有,而利润至上捞钱第一不管其他任何后果的商业软件是无法做到赋予软件使用者这些基本人权的,事实上,商业软件还经常盗窃用户隐私,强行塞给用户洗脑广告,拿着用户的隐私去掠取巨额利润(例如FB的精准推广)但用户却毫不知情更分不到一分钱,活生生的把用户们变成了数字奴工(digital labor)!而这无法通过更换其他商业软件解决,因为商业软件为了逐利必然会伤害用户以实现利润最大化!

为了贪欲去伤害别人的人,很多很多,但幸运的是,这世界不是所有人都像思杰马克丁和starforce一样去当”精致的利己主义者“的,像Stallman(顺便说一句,Stallman是个非信神者)这样的为了一个把人当成人而不是商品的社会而战斗的人们,都是英雄!

PS:最近我无意中看到了一篇无耻的文章,为什么说无耻,因为这无耻的作者把自由软件当成”市场提供的福利“(原文翻不到了,诸位可自行用google查找,文章主题是引号中内容),请允许我说一声:呸!

逝世八十年后,葛兰西如何帮我们理解当代政治

张跃然/政见观察员 骆斯航/政见特约作者

本文原载于澎湃新闻“思想市场”栏目,原标题为《逝世八十年之后的今天,葛兰西的思想为何仍然重要?》,转载已获授权。

八十年前的1937年4月27日,意大利共产党创始人之一、著名马克思主义思想家安东尼奥·葛兰西在罗马逝世,年仅46岁。与列宁、托洛茨基、罗莎-卢森堡等同时代的马克思主义者一样,葛兰西终其一生践行实践与理论的有机结合,在两方面均做出了伟大贡献。

出生于撒丁尼亚岛的葛兰西,青年时代在都灵见证了资本主义下阶级斗争的迅速激化,他投身激进左翼政治,1913年加入意大利社会党,全身心投入到工人动员和舆论宣传工作中,成为社会党的重要领导人之一。

然而,1919-1920年意大利工人占领工厂运动失败,使葛兰西开始反思斗争策略,逐渐意识到一个列宁主义政党的必要性。1921年,在葛兰西推动下,意大利共产党成立。然而,在工人运动低潮、法西斯主义兴起、第三国际和苏联施加压力、党内不断的路线斗争之下,这个新政党一直风雨飘摇。

1926年,随着墨索里尼政权对反对党的镇压升级,葛兰西被判以监禁。在极为匮乏的物质条件、异常严酷的政治环境和不断恶化的健康状况之下,他撰写了大量笔记。这些笔记被陆续从监狱中偷运出来,并在1950年代之后以《狱中笔记》的名义出版。这些艰难写就的零散笔记,成就了他的理论地位。

作为20世纪最重要的马克思主义思想家之一,葛兰西极大拓展了马克思主义的理论边界,并被广泛认为是西方马克思主义流派的奠基性人物。逝世八十年之后的今天,葛兰西的思想为何仍然重要?它是否还能帮我们理解当代的重大政治问题?这要从葛兰西如何理解国家和社会之间的关系,如何理解理解意识形态的微观基础谈起。

祛魅“国家 vs 社会”想象

今天的知识界和舆论界,往往把公民社会想象成是一个独立于国家之外的存在。这种主流想象告诉我们:国家和社会之间有一条泾渭分明的界限,在那些国家权力所无法企及的场域,人们主动组织起来、自发开展行动、自由表达观点。

这种想象,使我们倾向于把社会与国家对立起来,将社会视作国家权力的潜在挑战者和制衡者。不管是1980年代东欧国家的反对派,还是今天许多威权国家的自由派知识分子,都将对抗政权的希望寄托在一个独立而强大的公民社会上。比如特朗普就任美国总统前夕,著名经济学家阿西莫格鲁(Daron Acemoglu)撰文表示,美国的政治制度无法有效限制特朗普的所作所为,真正能对抗特朗普的最后一道屏障,就是公民社会的自主动员。

而葛兰西对此的分析,恰恰推翻了这种想象。他告诉我们:在资本主义国家,社会相对于国家的独立性,往往只是表面的假象;事实上,国家权力通过各种软性、间接、不易察觉的活动,向社会渗透自身的影响力。也许看起来,国家并没有禁止人们发表他们自己的观点,但人们自己的观点,恰恰在很大程度上被国家舆论机器的宣传所塑造;也许看起来,国家并没有干预非政府组织的具体运作,但非政府组织为了争取更大的活动空间,却在自觉地根据国家的政策议程来调整自己的活动重心;也许看起来,国家没有干涉研究机构的学术自由,但国家对于大量研究经费拨款的掌控,使得学者主动地把自己的研究向国家的政策目标靠近。

这种渗透所导致的结果是,国家根本不需要对社会进行直接的强力干预。社会的大部分“自发”行动,不断延续、巩固、再生产着国家的权威;社会中大部分被“自由”表达的观点,实质上强化了国家统治的合法性。社会成了拱卫国家的一道道屏障,虽然看起来,国家并没有出现在社会中。

葛兰西曾经在批判历史学家哈拉维时写道:“……(他)认为,国家是代议机关, 并且他发现,从1870年起直到当下,法国历史上的最重要事件不是由根据普选产生的政治机关决定的,而是由私人机构或不广为人知的公务人员所决定的。但这难道不是表明了,所谓的国家应该被理解为是既包含了政府机关、也包含了行使领导权的私人机关和公民社会吗?”

在这里,葛兰西极富创造地拓展了国家的定义。他眼中的国家机器,是由政府机关和社会共同组成的。社会是国家的触角和延伸。并不是只有在那些政府机关将社会生活的方方面面全都管起来的极权主义体制中,国家才是无处不在的。即使国家在法律上承认了不对某些社会生活场域进行干涉,它依然是无处不在的,区别只不过是这种存在是直接的还是间接的、显性的还是隐形的——换句话说,区别只不过是社会和国家之间是否有“名义上的”独立性。

葛兰西进一步指出,高度发达、同时又被国家高度渗透的社会的出现,是资本主义政治形态的重大发展。他对比了沙俄和西欧资本主义国家:“在俄国,国家就是一切,公民社会处于原始状态,尚未开化。在西方,国家与社会之间有一种适宜的关系,国家一旦动摇,就露出了其背后稳定的社会结构。”葛兰西所说的“适宜”的关系,就是指国家看起来和社会保持独立甚至对立、但实际上向社会高度渗透的关系。

当表面上独立于国家、实则是国家延伸的公民社会出现时,它昭示着一个政权的统治方式发生了重大转变。葛兰西敏锐地认识到,一个只靠强迫和压制来维持统治的政权,是不可能长久牢固的。具有稳定性和弹性的政权,需要同时将统治基础建立在人们的“同意”之上:人们不仅对国家的权威表示认可,同时还通过“自发”的行动和“自由”的表达来强化、传播对于国家权威的认可。然而,对国家权威的认可并不真是自然而然产生的,而是国家通过持续向社会进行间接、隐性渗透而制造出来的。但另一方面,这种认可却又确确实实看起来是自然而然产生的,表面上的自然而然,恰是“同意”的力量所在。

这并不是说葛兰西认为强迫和压制对于西欧资本主义政权不再重要。强迫和压制,依然是一个资本主义政权运行的重要环节。但是,政权能否有效使用强迫和压制,取决于这些强迫手段是否被广泛认为是合理的、正当的。换句话说,“同意”变成了支撑国家使用强迫和压制的基础。反过来说,强迫和压制,也为国家通过渗透公民社会而“制造同意”提供了必要条件。因此,“强迫”和“同意”变成了互相补充、互相支撑、你中有我、水乳交融的关系。这种由强迫和同意所共同支撑的统治方式,构成了葛兰西理论体系中最为核心的概念——“领导权(hegemony)”。

在今天,无论什么国家、什么政体,都很难仅仅将“强迫”作为统治的基础,因此大多需要一个社会作为表达、传播、再生产“同意”的场域。相应的,在今天,任何看起来独立于国家、甚至对立于国家的社会组织场域和舆论空间,首先是作为国家权力渗透的对象、作为拱卫国家权力的战壕和工事存在的。

当然,国家对社会的掌控方式,并不是只有隐性渗透。在必要的时候,国家权力同样会用强迫性的干预手段直接压制公民社会中的某些活动,就像美国政府在麦卡锡主义时期对左翼社会组织和激进言论的镇压一样。但是,美国政府越是使用强迫手段干预社会,就越需要培育“自发”的组织和“自由”的表达,来证明一个“不受国家干预”的公民社会的的确确是存在的——只有不愿意老老实实待在公民社会边界之内的组织和言论,才会被强制干预。

在这一思想脉络下,我们可以看到:当威权国家的自由派知识分子将政治变革的希望寄托在公民社会上时,许多威权国家却涌现出了较大规模的亲政权社会运动和言论表达——这些社会运动,确实在很大程度上是参与成员“自发”组织的结果;这些言论表达,也确实在很大程度上是人们“自己的”观点的反映。也许我们应该承认,这些社运和言论不仅就是公民社会的一部分,更是任何公民社会最本质特征的典型表现。

在葛兰西眼中,那个完全超脱于国家权力范围之外、还能反过来有效制衡国家权力的公民社会,是一种必须被抛弃的浪漫幻想。和国家权力纠缠不清、一唱一和的公民社会,才是一个正常的公民社会应该有的样子。任何寻求政治变革的努力,只能在这个“丑陋”的公民社会中展开。

葛兰西的洞见在于,他一方面说明了在资本主义国家,社会本质上是被国家渗透、强化国家权威的场域,另一方面又指出:社会依然为各种运动提供了宝贵的可能性。当权力用间接、隐性的手段向社会渗透时,这种渗透不可能百分之百覆盖其全部角落,那些被遗漏的角落,就成了孕育反抗的土壤。

在葛兰西看来,任何斗争首先必须在社会这个空间里组织和展开,但这个空间本质上不是中立的,而是高度偏向国家权力的。只有意识到这一点,才能真正理解在当代资本主义社会的政治反抗运动是多么艰难、才能理解为什么葛兰西要为这种反抗运动发明一个新的概念——“阵地战(war of position)”。这些斗争运动,要依托于在点点滴滴之间塑造、或者改造人们对于国家、政治、日常生活的理解。这种微观基础,葛兰西称之为“常识(common sense)”。

“常识”与意识形态

葛兰西意识到,所有人认识、理解社会,都依赖于“常识”。常识是结合了人们经验观察和逻辑反思的产物。然而,一方面,人们的逻辑反思总是有限的,而并不会真的去层层深入推演逻辑,它只是一些“道理”,而不是成体系的思想系统;另一方面,人们的经验观察也是有限的,它源于日常生活中周围的情境,也只能用来帮人们理解周围的情境。

这使得常识体现出一种内在冲突:它本身随着社会历史的变化而变化,因此是流动的、而非固定的;但身处常识当中的我们,未必能明确意识到这一点。在新的社会历史状况下,我们常常不能意识到眼前的状况新在何处,而是会转向“我们以为”的旧常识,试图为新现象提供符合常识的解读。

因此,常识的力量,并不来自于理性反思。恰恰相反,它深深地根植于我们的思考方式之中,使我们觉得一些事情是无需反驳、显而易见、不容置疑的。这样一来,常识将一些议题移出了我们日常讨论的范畴之外,使它们不需要接受事实证据或者理性思辨的检验。

这种“理所当然”的感觉具有重大的政治力量——它为各种各样的意识形态提供了操作空间。比如,在一个以自由主义为核心意识形态的社会里,人们经常很难回答“为什么人要自由”这样的问题。即便可以,人们的说理经常也是浅尝辄止,转而诉诸“理所当然”,反问“人怎么可以不自由呢”。同样地,在一个以爱国主义为主流的社会里,我们也很难要求人们对“我们为什么要爱国”提出系统的解释。

在葛兰西看来,意识形态之所以具有力量,正是因为它通过常识化,把很多未必经得住仔细推敲的问题,转移到了根本无需推敲、全靠“理所当然”的常识领域。葛兰西敏锐地察觉到,不同的常识系统之间,往往是缺乏对话基础的,因为他们诉诸完全不同的“理所当然”和“显而易见”。更有甚者,当人们接触到新的常识系统时,总是更倾向于固守自己的常识系统,而将那些不遵循自己常识系统行事的人视为不可理喻的,甚至敌意地将他们理解为“非我族类”。

当一种新的意识形态试图进入一个社会时,它所面对的永远都不是一个空白的思想环境,而是这个社会中人们已经潜移默化习得的常识系统。正因为此,葛兰西强调,意识形态的社会动员能力并不仅仅取决于其逻辑层面的自洽性,因为任何一种新的意识形态,都无法无视社会中已经存在的常识结构、直接取而代之,都无法凭空捏造出一套全新的理念加以推广、使人们信服。

因此,任何一种新的意识形态想要获得受众,都需要和社会中既有的常识有机结合——它需要重新阐释旧常识,为旧的常识系统中已有的共同意识、记忆和价值观念提供符合新的意识形态的解读,从而悄无声息地扭转这些常识的内在意义,使之为新的意识形态服务。葛兰西说:

每种哲学流派都留下了“常识”的沉淀,这就是其历史效力的证明。常识不是固定不动的,而是持续地自我发展的。一些科学理念和哲学概念进入了日常生活,常识就与之结合,发展得更加丰富。常识是民俗化的哲学,且总是处在纯粹的民俗和专业化的哲学、科学和经济学之间。常识创造了未来的民俗,民俗就是某个具体的时间地点上的相对固定的通俗知识。

在人类历史上我们每每看到,一种意识形态——不管这种意识形态的内容是什么——的成功塑造和动员,往往是通过借用、转译、重新阐释社会中的旧常识来实现的。在二十世纪的南非,废除种族隔离运动时期的社会动员,使得人们养成了两种“常识”来理解种族问题:对白人而言,他们面对种族关系的时候怀有负罪感;对黑人而言,他们对白人抱有仇恨。但在废除种族隔离后,南非当局推动“真相与和解”,希望建立一套有利于种族和解的意识形态来重建南非的社会秩序。面对这种情况,南非的中学历史教师一方面循循善诱地重新阐释白人学生的负罪感——种族隔离时期施暴的白人是少数,大多数白人对此并不知情、甚至也是种族隔离的受害者;另一方面努力将黑人学生的愤怒向一个特定的方向“引导”——愤怒的对象应该是万恶的旧社会,今天的种族关系已经完全不同,“过去的事已经过去了”。这样一来,旧的常识被赋予了新的意义,而通过与旧常识的有机结合,一种淡化种族矛盾、强调种族和解的意识形态被传播到学生中间。

在一个完全不同的时空——1920年代的中国,一种完全不同的意识形态——马克思主义——的传播过程也遵循相同的逻辑。1921年,李立三在安源动员工人时,就着重留意了安源当地的风俗,尤其是工人中流行的秘密会党结社的习惯。李立三没有直接举着外来的马克思主义大旗发动工人,而是深入到工人之中,开办夜校帮工人识字,和当地工人拜把子,在工人之中树立了威信,潜移默化地将马克思主义的革命信条与安源工人的社会习俗有机结合,最终取得了1922年路矿工人罢工的胜利。这两个例子虽然发生的情境迥异、意识形态的内容也相差甚大,但都佐证了葛兰西的观点:即使是截然不同的意识形态,它们的成功动员都有赖于相同的过程:总是需要与社会现存的常识系统相结合,为旧常识提供新的解读。

和一些左翼社会理论家不同,葛兰西并不认为社会意识形态全面压制了人的能动性、让人在意识形态面前完全无能为力。在葛兰西眼中,人的能动性恰恰在意识形态的塑造、传播、再生产过程中扮演着重要角色。在南非的例子中,我们看到,中学历史教师通过转化“旧常识”来传播“种族和解”意识形态的工作,并非出于官方要求,而是教师自发的行为。在李立三的例子中我们看到,革命者主观采取的不同革命策略可能对运动的结果产生根本的影响。这说明了,意识形态如果要在一个社会中传播开来、甚至成为一个社会的主流意识形态,恰恰要借用千千万万个体的能动性。

很多人以为,意识形态是一元化的,是通过自上而下的机械方式推行的。然而事实并非如此。现代社会中,个人生活经验逐渐多样化,个人与个人之间的常识系统很难完全一致。而正如上文所说,一种意识形态如果想要在社会中有效推行,势必要和每个人已有的常识有机地结合在一起。这就意味着,一元化的意识形态和机械的宣传,描绘不出对所有人都具说服力的图景。

相反,只有让每个人发挥自己的能动性、主动地用自己的常识来理解意识形态、让同一种意识形态适应每个人不同的生活体验,才会让意识形态发挥最大的效用。基于自己的常识,每个南非人对“种族和解”意识形态的理解都不是完全相同的,但正因为每个人都在“种族和解”中体会到了他们想体会的东西,才使他们真正拥抱了这一意识形态。

这也意味着,在现代社会中最容易获得成功的意识形态,恐怕不是单一的、明确的教条式意识形态,而是那些充满不同解读可能性的意识形态。这些意识形态,往往是一些观念碎片的松散拼接,包含着巨大的多面性、模糊性甚至是不自洽——这不仅不会阻碍这些意识形态的传播,反而正是它们成功的关键。

葛兰西认为,公民社会中展开的“阵地战”,在很大程度上是意识形态领域的斗争,是关于如何塑造、转化、争夺“常识”的斗争。即使这一斗争难度巨大,葛兰西依然保有一份希望:一方面,统治阶级意识形态的巩固,靠得不是消除个人能动性、而恰恰是通过个人能动性实现的;而另一方面,只要个人还有能动性,就还有反抗的可能。

葛兰西由衷相信,尽管不是每个人都有学者的专业知识,但每个人都有超越自身常识的潜能——在这个意义上,每个人都是“哲学家”。意识形态领域的斗争,靠的就是让每个人意识到自己成为“自己的哲学家”的潜力,靠的就是让每个人在自身常识的基础上批判常识、超越常识。

特别要注意的是,这种批判,并非象牙塔内知识分子的批判——那只不过是用受过良好教育的知识分子内部的有限常识,来批判他人的常识,是用自己的“理所当然”和“显而易见”来批判他人的“不可理喻”和“顽固不化”。葛兰西所呼唤的批判,是每个人在持续不断反思自身常识的过程中所实现的批判。 这响应了马克思在《关于费尔巴哈的提纲》中的说法,将这种来源于常识、又超越常识的哲学称为“实践哲学”——只有在实践的过程中,我们才能真的成为“哲学家”。

http://cnpolitics.org/2017/04/gramsci/

我看见

我看见

资本主义者们

描述了一个美好的世界:

在那个世界里

每个人生而自由

在法律上是平等的

自由的在市场上选择自己想要的

自由的在市场上与其他人签订合约

自由的获取财富

自由的通过自己的努力,成为富翁,成为成功人士

 

但是我看见

资本主义在这个地球上带来了

无尽的灾难

贪婪的政客和财团们

为了自己那永远无法被满足的贪欲

残忍的剥夺了别人的一切

他们夺走了农民的土地(1)

他们毁灭了手工作坊

他们颁布法律,鞭打流浪者

强迫那些失去一切的人们

在他们的呵斥与体罚下

工作到筋疲力尽

却不敢停下来,喘口气

 

我看见

你们宣称人人平等(2)

却拒绝给穷人选票

你们说

穷人们愚蠢

无法统治自己

可是,穷人们再愚蠢

也不会愚蠢过

贪婪残暴的你们

污染地球的你们

发动战争的你们

毁灭社会的你们

 

我看见

官僚和富商们

垄断了知识

以版权的名义

压榨可怜的原作者(3)

即使原作者死了几十年

他们还是不肯放过

那残余的价值

 

我看见

政客,财团,教士和贵族们垄断了国家

垄断了民族

把所有不堪忍受压迫的反抗者们

都诬蔑为国家的叛徒

都诬蔑为民族的败类

呵呵,奴隶们

从来就

没有祖国!

 

我看见

你们所谓的自由合约

不过是不平等的双方之间的

不平等条约

一个高度组织,资产丰厚

一个一无所有,只能出卖劳力

这样的两方签订的合约

又怎么可能有

丝毫的公平?

 

我看见

你们以私有化的名义

霸占了大片土地

然后为了获取最大利润

将土地荒废

你们以私有化的名义

霸占了水源

然后向那些没有选择的穷人们

索取巨额水费

你们以私有化的名义

霸占了矿山

然后不顾一切的

虐死无数矿工

再扔下堆满尸骨的矿山

带着沾满鲜血的金钱

来到避税天堂里(4)

逍遥自在

 

我看见

你们鼓吹的先进文明的公司制

实际上却是极权独裁

你们独裁压迫着员工们

强迫员工为你们创造利润

源源不断的利润

然后塞到自己的腰包里

员工们在你们的压迫下

变得痛苦

变得忧郁

变得对这个社会

没有任何希望(5)

而你们却无耻的宣称

这一切的一切

都是员工们

自己的问题

 

我看见

你们霸占大量财富

你们制造无数贫穷

却拼命的否认

阶级的存在

拼命的否认

阶级斗争的存在

你们说:

阶级斗争只不过是

那些卑鄙无耻的左派们

捏造出来的概念(6)

但是你们忘了

阶级斗争只不过是

说了一个简单不过的道理:

哪里有压迫

哪里就有反抗!

 

我看见

你们为了自己的贪欲

为了能继续攫取血汗

不惜扯下民主自由的伪装

推翻阻止他们剥削掠夺的

民选左派政府们(7)

然后你们说:

我们是为了

对抗共产主义

共产主义造成了

超过一亿人的死亡

哦,是吗?

可是我怎么看到

你们所指责的“共产主义”

除了实行中央计划经济之外

其他一切的做法

都和贪婪残暴的你们

一模一样呢?(8)

 

我看见

你们因为贪婪

疯狂的寻找黄金

从而开始几百年的

对全世界的

殖民压迫与杀戮

你们的贪婪

造成的死亡

早已超过了

纳粹和你们嘴里的“共产主义”的总和(9)

但是你们却

把这段残忍的历史

伪装成浪漫的冒险

鼓吹所谓的冒险精神

鼓吹所谓的企业家精神

直至今日

 

我看见

你们控制学校

把小小的学生们

洗脑成你们

最忠诚的拥护者

你们强调竞争

你们在学校排名

你们告诉小小的学生们

他们不应该和其他人合作

而应该将其他人

看成可恨的

看成该死的

竞争对手

当小小的学生们长大了

进入公司时

你们告诉他们:

他们的竞争对手

是其他和他们一样

被你们压迫的奴隶

 

我看见

你们鼓吹竞争

你们说竞争创造财富

却不说

你们之间为了相互竞争(10)

把食品变成了毒药

把疫苗变成了凶器

把矿山变成了坟地

把河流变成了臭水沟

你们还欺骗学生们

然后将他们奴役

你们以版权的名义

将知识圈入了高墙

柏林墙早就倒塌了

但你们制造的金钱柏林墙

却到处都是

 

我看见

你们诞生于血腥

你们成长于恐怖

你们和独裁者们(11)

愉快的勾结

双手沾满鲜血

但是却对哭泣的人民

没有任何同情

 

我看见

你们所做的一切

我不会相信

你们的任何宣传

你们没有公平

你们没有正义

你们鼓吹法治

但在你们的法律里:

富人不承担任何义务

穷人的权利是一句空谈!(12)

如果人民没有束缚住你们

那么你们就一定会

残忍的伤害人民

 

你们是公司,是教会,是政府,是法院,是军队

但这一切不过是表象

你们的真实身份是

建立在压迫和贪婪之上的

资本主义制度

和文化

 

而我相信

联合起来的

被压迫的奴隶们

最终能够成功的

终结你们!

 

备注:1,指圈地运动,最早在英国从15世纪开始,领主贵族们为了生产羊毛掠夺农民们的土地,强迫失地农民们去恶劣的工厂工作,史称“羊吃人”运动。此外,也泛指一切富人掠夺穷人土地的行径,例如共匪的强拆。

2,美国独立宣言中宣称人人平等,但实际上对投票权进行财产限制,穷人没有投票权。

3,现行版权制度下版权属于公司而不是原作者,结果导致原作者被公司压榨完毕后就直接被一脚踢开,而版权在作者死后继续延续的制度使得即使作者死了老板们还是能以版权的名义垄断知识抢掠财富。

4,参考ICIJ的巴拿马文件和天堂文件对富人精英逃税状况的披露。

5,新自由主义鼓吹的奋斗文化在世界范围内崩溃,而在中国也出现了反奋斗文化的丧文化。

6,和马克思同时代的右派经济学家巴师夏最早否认阶级斗争,鼓吹阶级和谐,此后芝加哥学派完美继承这一观点,而芝加哥学派是新自由主义最主要的吹鼓手。

7,危地马拉的阿本斯政府,智利的阿兰德政府,刚果的卢蒙巴政府,尼加拉瓜的桑地诺民族解放阵线政府,都是因为实行左派政策被美国政府扶植当地右翼势力推翻,而除了尼加拉瓜政府保持民主之外,其他几个民主政府都被右翼独裁政权取代。

8,他们的所谓“共产主义”政府指斯大林和毛贼政权,但斯大林和毛贼政权都是中央计划经济下的国家资本主义政权,政府成为公司,以国家为单位对外贸易,除了中央计划经济这一点,其他所有暴行都是右翼独裁者们早就干过的,例如在南非发明集中营和制造印度大饥荒的大英帝国。至于大清洗等政治方面的屠杀,也不过是基督教宗教裁判所和宗教法庭的翻版。

9,仅仅几百年殖民历史中,五千万至一亿印地安人就在欧洲人的杀戮和故意传播的疾病下惨死95%,而黑奴贸易更是造成超过一亿死亡,至于几大殖民帝国制造的饥荒压迫杀戮,造成的死亡至少数亿,实际上已经多得无法统计了。

10,为了竞争而不择手段造成的灾难全世界都有,中国的食品安全问题就是一例,而大赦国际有更多报告,例如津巴布韦的奴隶烟草种植园,例如泰国的渔业奴工。

11,跨国公司和所在国独裁者勾结已经不是新闻了,除了中国的富士康,还有尼日利亚的壳牌石油,对普京政权主动出卖源代码的硅谷…….

12,引用自国际歌第三段。

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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。

Achieving this diversity and opportunity necessitates a fundamental restructuring of our socioeconomic order. While the freedoms that exist under democratic capitalism are gains of popular struggle to be cherished, democratic socialists argue that the values of liberal democracy can only be fulfilled when the economy as well as the government is democratically controlled.

2,要实现多元化和机会平等,必须对我们的社会经济秩序进行重建。当存在于民主资本主义社会里的自由中诞生了值得珍惜的大众抗争时,民主社会主义者们认为自由民主的价值只有当经济像政府一样被民主控制的时候才能真正体现出来。

We cannot accept capitalism’s conception of economic relations as “free and private,” because contracts are not made among economic equals and because they give rise to social structures which undemocratically confer power upon some over others. Such relationships are undemocratic in that the citizens involved have not freely deliberated upon the structure of those institutions and how social roles should be distributed within them (e.g., the relationship between capital and labor in the workplace or men and women in child rearing). We do not imagine that all institutional relations would wither away under socialism, but we do believe that the basic contours of society must be democratically constructed by the free deliberation of its members.

3,我们无法接受资本主义自称其经济关系是“自由和私人”,因为合约并不是在经济平等的前提下签订的,也因为资本主义的社会架构是不民主的,一些人压迫另一些人。这种不民主的关系导致身在其中的公民们无法自由的商讨社会结构中的机构应当是怎样的,以及社会角色如何在其中分配(例如,资本和劳工在工作场所的关系,男人和女人在照顾儿童上各自承担怎样的责任)。我们并不幻想所有这些关系(备注:联系上下文,这里指不平等的关系)会在社会主义中消亡,但我们相信社会的基础轮廓必须是在社会成员自由的商讨下民主的建立。

The democratic socialist vision does not rest upon one sole tradition; it draws upon Marxism, religious and ethical socialism, feminism, and other theories that critique human domination. Nor does it contend that any laws of history preordain the achievement of socialism. The choice for socialism is both moral and political, and the fullness of its vision will never be permanently secured.

4,民主社会主义者的视野并不局限于某个单独的传统;它建立在马克思主义,宗教和民族社会主义,女权主义和其他批判人类压迫的理论。它也不认为任何历史规律决定了社会主义一定会被实现。社会主义的选择是道德的和政治的,社会主义的视野永远也不会被充满(备注:这是直译,意思应该是社会主义的探索永无止境)。

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。

The democratic revolutions of the 18th century envisioned a world characterized by “liberty, equality, and fraternity.” The inequalities of power and wealth perpetuated by capitalism frustrated that vision. Democratic socialism proposes nothing less than to complete that long revolution.

45,18世纪开始的民主革命设想了一个充满“自由,平等和博爱”的世界。被资本主义所延续的在权力和财富上的不平等损害了这一设想。民主社会主义只是在倡议完成这个长久的革命而已。

http://www.dsausa.org/toward_freedom

妇女节过成玛丽苏,女权先辈的棺材怕是压不住了

导语:如今的三八妇女节,人们关心的不是放假,就是购物。作为新时代的女性,如果你仍然在生活中常被拉回大清,那么三八妇女节的缔造者可以回答我们内心的疑惑,她们告诉我们,女性的人生与理想,可以如宇宙那样广阔。

今年的三八节,还是那么无聊

今年的三八节与过去几年相比并无新意。天猫“女王节”、当当“闺蜜节”、京东“蝴蝶节”、1号店“3月女人节”……“三八”妇女节俨然成了电商年后开门的第一战。当然,这并没什么可意外的,和双十一、圣诞节都变成了毫无新意的购物节一样,三八节不过是没有幸免罢了。

妇女节过成玛丽苏,女权先辈的棺材怕是压不住了

某电商平台打出的三八节广告。

三八节的祝福总显得过于热情:过三八妇女节的女性同胞们,你们是买买买的主力军,你们是带内需的战斗机,你们最棒!(Welcome to资本主义社会!)是的,在社会主义革命与女性解放运动双双褪色之后,重新掌握了绝对话语权的资本成为了节日文化的书写人,连哄带骗地,将女性打造成消费的主体。

在此环境中,人们不仅淡忘“三八妇女节”充满魅力的历史(才不是香奈儿、Gucci的那种昂贵的“魅力”),甚至将女权先驱争取的成果加以“侮辱”——“三八”、“妇女”这些几代女权主义者的努力斗争出来的用语成了脏话;女权主义、女权运动成了敏感词。三八节之外,女性被赶回家庭,性别歧视与性别暴力总是发生,各种厌女和反女权言论甚嚣尘上,二十一世纪的新时代,女性却常被迫回到大清。

看到今日之况,那些一生不羁爱自由的女性解放先驱恐怕该掀棺材盖子了。

“妇女节”缔造者的激情人生

在我们回顾妇女节的诞生时,克拉拉·蔡特金是一个绕不过去的名字。与今天的许多女权活动家不同的是,蔡特金,作为德国社会民主党和第二国际左派领袖之一,也是德国共产党创始人之一,她所发起的女权运动更加“草根”,也更加政治化。

我们不会忘记她受柏林女工所托,在第二国际第一次代表大会做的那场开启社会主义妇女运动的光辉演讲。

“我们妇女从原则立场出发,最坚决地反对限制妇女劳动。由于我们绝不想把我们的事业同一般的工人事业分割开来,所以我们不提特殊的要求;我们除了劳动在反对资本的过程中要求的一般保护外不要求其他保护……妇女的解放同全人类的解放一样,最终必将是劳动从资本中解放出来的事业。只有在社会主义社会里,妇女和男工一样,才能享受到她们的充分权利。”

——《第二国际第一次代表大会文件》

妇女节过成玛丽苏,女权先辈的棺材怕是压不住了

克拉拉·蔡特金

“劳动”与“社会主义”是蔡特金女权运动生涯中的的两个关键词。不过,在蔡特金年轻的时候,她也曾着迷于基督教式资产阶级的人道主义女权,虽同情受苦难的劳动妇女,但强调的是社会救济与博爱精神。但是,抽象的和感情上的解释并不能除去克拉拉心头的疑问: 劳动妇女遭受剥削和压迫的深刻根源到底是什么? 正是这种疑问使得克拉拉没有停留在资产阶级女权主义的层次上。德国社会民主党的领袖奥古斯特·倍倍尔于1879年出版的《妇女与社会主义》一书深刻地影响了蔡特金的妇女解放运动蓝图,在接触了该党之后,她选择深入了解并接受社会主义思想。

另一个对蔡特金产生重大影响的是她的爱人、同志、革命的伴侣——俄国职业革命家奥西勃·蔡特金。出身于优越家庭、受到过当时最好教育的蔡特金,其与众不同的政治事业及与婚姻选择遭到原生家庭的极力反对——他们希望克拉拉成为资产阶级上层社会的知识⼥性,⽽不是与社会最下层的⼯⼈在⼀起的劳动妇⼥; 希望她能够具有⼥权意识, 以提⾼⼥性在资本主义社会中的地位, ⽽不是成为反对现存社会制度的社会主义者; 希望她成为上流社会的贵夫⼈, ⽽不是做⼀贫如洗的外国“流浪汉”的妻⼦。人生的岔路口,蔡特金选择抛弃自己优渥的上层生活,与自己的灵魂伴侣一同投入到底层劳动妇女的解放与社会主义革命中。

1878年,灾难来临。德国政府颁布《镇压社会民主党企图危害社会治安的法令》,奥西勃遭到驱逐,克拉拉义无反顾随之踏上流亡的坎途。在流亡途中,蔡特金没有放弃与社民党的联系,终于在1881年于国外摆脱德国对妇女参政的禁令,加入德国社民党。

1883年与奥西勃在巴黎结成伉俪后,蔡特金开始着手打通马克思主义与妇女解放之间隔阂。在许多无产阶级劳动妇女的支持下,在路易斯·米歇尔,燕妮·马克思,劳拉·马克思等革命同志的帮助下,蔡特金不断修正党内对妇女问题的错误认识,激烈反对社会党一直以来阻止妇女参加社会劳动的观点,终于在第二国际成立大会上促使党将妇女解放运动纳入到世界无产阶级革命中。直到今天,女权运动仍然是左翼运动重要的组成部分。

妇女节过成玛丽苏,女权先辈的棺材怕是压不住了

第二国际社会主义妇女大会代表。

1891年,蔡特金接手了以欧洲妇女运动为目标的《平等报》,并承担了所有的编辑工作。利用这份报纸,蔡特金面向广大劳动妇女,教育她们与男人们一道为改变生活而斗争,为社会主义而奋斗。也正是利用这份报纸,蔡特金抵制住了德国社会民主党内层出不穷的改良主义妇女路线,明确区分了资产阶级女权改良与无产阶级女权革命。

1907年8月,蔡特金推动了第一届国际社会主义妇女代表大会在德国的斯图加特召开。会上决定成立国际民主妇女联合会,把《平等报》作为机关报,蔡特金当选为书记处书记。这是史上第一个国际性的社会主义女性联合组织,争取女性选举权成为这一国际组织的首要奋斗目标。

1910年,第二届国际社会主义妇女代表大会召开,在否决了英国代表提出的有限选举权提案后,蔡特金又与主张取消革命式话语的德国改良派进行了坚决斗争,最终议案重申了第一次代表大会对妇女选举权的要求,同时规定了若干争取平权与政治解放的鼓动措施,其中最重要的一项,即“各国社会主义妇女都要有一个节日。”

妇女节过成玛丽苏,女权先辈的棺材怕是压不住了

1910年8月,在第二国际的哥本哈根会议国际社会主义妇女大会上,Luise Ziets倡议来年举办世界妇女节,当时作为妇女大会主席的蔡特金支持了这项提议(但并没有确定妇女节的具体日期)

这就是国际妇女节的诞生。

三八妇女节最初的理想就是世界性的,它虽与资本主义女性共同争取“政治权利”,却始终强调女性劳动的价值,并最终挑战男权资本主义制度。就像1913年3月8日首次庆祝“国际无产阶级女性团结日”前夕,列宁的政府中唯一的一名妇女委员科伦泰所说:

“女权主义者的目的是什么?是在男权统治的资本主义社会争取和男性同等的利益和权力。女性工人的目的是什么?是为了废除一切出身和财富带来的特权。对于女性工人来说,谁是领导者并不重要,是男是女都可以。她只想和整个阶级的群众一起,安安静静地当一名劳动者。对资产阶级女性而言,政治权利仅仅是她们在这个剥削工人阶级的世界里更方便开路的手段。对于女性工人而言,政治权利则是通往劳动人民理想国的坎坷之路的一小步。

——《国际妇女节的真实含义》

“反资本主义”本是三八节历史百年来最核心的议题,三八妇女节的全称其实是“国际劳动妇女节”。如果蔡特金若还活着,不会允许资本主义如此肆无忌惮地侵犯女性,不会看到广大女性在劳动与消费、工作与家庭的N重剥削中沉默不语。

妇女节过成玛丽苏,女权先辈的棺材怕是压不住了

老年蔡特金,未忘革命理想。

那些年的“三八”有多燃

在之后的日子里,妇女节成功动员、组织了大批女性加⼊妇⼥解放⽃争与社会主义运动,妇女成为了改变世界的力量。

1915年3月7日,瑞士,蔡特金将中立国和参战国的妇女组织起来,进行反战示威。国际妇女节成为第一次世界大战中妇女的反战平台。同年妇女节当日,纽约的社会主义妇女游行以推动市政府对肉铺施行价格管控:“我们孩子所需要的粮食已经渐渐消失了。我们现在要为受苦的全人类有所行动。放下武器吧。我们也是国家的一部分。我们想要和平。我们必须显示妇女也可以保护那些依靠她们的人。

1917年,沙俄物价飞涨,俄历2月23日(公历3月6日),妇女们组织工厂工人和领救济粮的无业者,发动了游行,抗议日益恶劣的生存环境和沙皇专政。两天之后,也就是国际妇女节当天,沙皇下令军队武力镇压妇女革命,拉开了二月革命的序幕。

妇女节过成玛丽苏,女权先辈的棺材怕是压不住了

在俄国上街的女人们。

中国社会主义女性同样拥有激情燃烧的岁月。1922年,在蔡特金的帮助下,列宁将国际妇女节设定为共产主义节日。同年,中国共产党首先开始庆祝妇女节。

1924年,第一次国共合作开始。时任广东省妇女部长的何香凝经由共产国际委派来华的鲍罗廷(Mikhail Borodin)夫妇第一次了解到国际妇女节,是年3月8日,何香凝于在广州主持了全国第一次“三八”妇女节庆祝大会,为深受封建压迫的女性呐喊:“散会以后,我们挺起胸膛、踏着大步在大街上游行示威,数百名妇女成群结队地喊出了:‘打倒封建主义、打倒帝国主义’、‘保护童工孕妇,革除童养媳、革除多妻制,禁止蓄婢纳妾,废除娼妓制度’,‘争取妇女解放’等响亮口号。”(何香凝回忆)

女权主义者没有忘记妇女节反资本主义的初心。1925年3月8日。活动当天,北京妇女国民会议主席台上悬挂“国际劳动妇女节万岁”横幅,周边墙上张贴着“争回人格”、“向民家妇女方面做去” 、“同等工值”等标语。当天的《妇女周报》写道:“……国际妇女节……的目标在于反抗一切压迫和剥削;反抗资本制度的统治,而力争解放无权利受压迫之妇女,尤其是无权利最受压迫的劳动妇女——女工和农妇。”

妇女节过成玛丽苏,女权先辈的棺材怕是压不住了

广州劳动妇女参加国际妇女节大会。

1927年的妇女节,四万余人与日、苏、美等国的妇女代表以及国际妇女组织的代表齐聚中山大学操场,发表《告女同胞书》,鼓励妇女参与到浩浩荡荡的革命运动中去

“姊妹们和女同志们:……你们除了受五千年来宗法社会的支配,使你们在政治上、经济上、教育上等等都得不到平等待遇之外,还要加受帝国主义和军阀压迫的痛苦。……你们想自求解放,惟有起来奋斗,更当一致团结,然后才可望完全成功!”

1941年,重庆举办了妇女节游行和妇女家庭工作竞赛。女性劳动的价值被充分肯定。

妇女节过成玛丽苏,女权先辈的棺材怕是压不住了

中华人民共和国成立后,中央人民政府政务院于1949年12月通令全国,正式定3月8日为妇女节。在这一批女权革命者的推动下,国际妇女节成为中国法定节日,作为在一个男权文化根深蒂固的国家里推进男女平等的重要措施之一。

“‘妇女’这两个字,将在什么时代才不需要特别的被提出呢?” 1943年,知名社会主义女权革命家丁玲发表了著名的《三八节有感》:“年年都有这一天。每年在这一天的时候,几乎是全世界的地方都开着会,检阅着她们的队伍……世界上从没有无能的人,有资格去获取一切的。所以女人要取得平等,得首先强己。

妇女节过成玛丽苏,女权先辈的棺材怕是压不住了

1938年,丁玲在西安国际妇女节大会讲话。

国际妇女节诞生于残酷的斗争中,改良主义、资产阶级妇女参政论、左翼党派内部的男权思想、社民党的错误路线等等都是它的敌人。但它自诞生伊始,在它的母亲,蔡特金的坚持下,全世界的妇女运动者们已经学会依靠无产阶级进行坚决的政治斗争。

今天消费主义的糖衣炮弹和不事生产的小公主宣传,包括ayawawa、咪蒙之流的精英好女人的教育,要么是资本主义女权的沉渣泛起,要么根本就是披着性别压迫之皮的假女权。

当我们回到妇女节诞生的源头,一切再清晰不过了,妇女节,就是要让广大妇女认清自己劳动者的身份,看到自己被剥削的现状,联合起来,斗争、再斗争。

https://www.toutiao.com/i6530448938258924036/