Rosa Luxemburg makes clear that the two concepts “Reform” and “Revolution” are joined at the hip, something all wings of the socialist left tend to forget.
罗莎·卢森堡明确指出，“改良”和“革命”这两个概念是时髦的，也是社会主义左派的所有分支都倾向于忘记的。
By Michael Hirsch
If one thing was clear coming out of the New York City Democratic Socialists of America’s boisterous convention in May, it was that most delegates uniformly consider themselves socialists and aspire to build an anticorporate resistance movement nationwide. So far, so good.
如果美国纽约市民主社会主义者组织在5月份的喧闹的会议中明确表达了一件事，那就是大多数代表一致认为自己是社会主义者，并渴望在全国范围内建立一个反财团抵抗运动。 到现在为止还挺好。
It was also clear a solid majority—including this writer—think some range of electoral activity in support of left-leaning Democratic Party electeds and aspirants is called for, though too few offer even a dollop of sympathy for insurgent independent and third party efforts, which are no less tactical interventions that should never be proscribed. Yet when it comes to propounding a socialist—read anticapitalist—program, those Reds among us who have ever worked in Democratic clubs or in independent electoral efforts rarely if ever push the kinds of demands that challenge the capitalist system at its root. We hesitate at our peril.
同时，明显的是，绝大多数人——包括作者在内——认为支持左倾民主党候选人和有志者的选举活动范围很广，但是很少有人对暴动的独立和第三方的努力表示同情， 认为对这些的战术干预不应该被禁止。 然而，当谈到提出一个社会主义——读做反资本主义——计划时，我们中间曾经在民主俱乐部或独立选举中工作过的那些社会主义者很少能够从根本上推动挑战资本主义制度的各种需要。我们对自己的冒险犹豫不决。
Our reticence is explained in part because the range of the permissible is so circumscribed it becomes self-censorship. We want to appear practical and not alienate allies who agree with us on shorter-term issues and avoid our being caricatured as dreamers and vocal dilettantes, or being larding on by the old rib “resolutionary socialists” or worse.
我们的沉默在一定程度上得到了解释，因为允许的范围是如此受限制，它变成了自我审查。 我们希望看起来切合实际，不要疏远那些在短期问题上与我们达成一致的盟友，避免我们被讽刺为梦想家和不专业的人，或者被形容成老旧的“革命社会主义者”(备注：没有resolutionary这词，强烈怀疑作者笔误，原词是revolutionary)或者更糟。
Add to the fact that the leadership of most unions has no perspective beyond the next election cycle—witness their near total prostration in New York State before the vindictive, corporate-bought Andrew Cuomo and the studied indifference by labor for the excellent Gayle McLaughlin’s uphill fight for Golden State lieutenant governor—or even a potential internal union challenge, and swimming against the current comes with a price. In fact, despite our socialist coloration, we lefties add precious little in actual mass work to programmatic arguments that could spur movements and legislation in an anti-capitalist and genuinely “social” direction.
再加上大多数工会的领导层没有任何超越下一个选举周期的视角的事实—见证他们之前在纽约州面对憎恨的，公司收买的Andrew Cuomo几乎完全衰竭，以及对优秀的Gayle McLaughlin为了金州副州长的艰苦战斗付出的劳动—甚至是潜在的内部联盟挑战漠不关心，而反抗现状是需要付出代价的。事实上，尽管我们有社会主义色彩，我们左派在实际的群众工作中几乎没有添加珍贵的时间表论点，这些论点可以刺激运动和立法进入反资本主义和真正“社会”的方向。
Despite the brave words espoused by two insurgent Democrats addressing the concluding session of the DSA conference, nothing they said was radical in regards to rooting out corporate domination of everyday life. Neither even hinted at systemic challenges to property or social relations.The fault was not theirs, IMO. They were framing in militant terms the short-term bounds of the electorally possible when not playing to the expectations of the crowd. DSA has a higher purpose, but sadly they and we are not meeting it.
尽管两位反叛的民主党人在DSA的会议的总结阶段上提出了勇敢的言论，但他们所说的一切都没有激进到针对根除企业对日常生活的统治。甚至都没有暗示对生产关系或社会关系的系统性挑战。在我看来，这个错误不是他们的。 当他们没有达到人群的期望时，他们在激进的条件下构成了选举可能的短期界限。 DSA有更高的目标，但遗憾的是他们和我们没有达成一致。
Note that everything does not depend on us. Mass movements often are sparked by rank and file leaders with only the most casual relationships to socialist groups or even theory. The old joke that spontaneity means somebody else did the organizing—a good riposte to stage-managed orthodox Leninist preaching—is true enough, but it doesn’t deny the crying need for anti-capitalist theorizing and for political programs whose winning would transcend capitalism. The much vaunted “base building” won’t come from electoral activity alone, nor will extraparliamentary activism writ large without confronting the question of activism for what ends.
请注意，并不是任何事都取决与我们。大众运动往往是由组织中的反对者引发的，他们只与社会主义团体甚至理论有着松散的关系。自发性意味着其他人进行组织是一个古老的笑话—对舞台管理的正统列宁主义讲道的优秀反击—是真实的，但它并不否认对反资本主义理论化和一旦胜利就会超越资本主义的政治纲领的迫切需要。 被大肆吹嘘的“基础建设”不会单独来自选举活动，也不会在没有面对活动主义提出的终点是什么问题的情况下大规模地举行议会外活动。
We can’t just be the best builders of the movements, as worthy a goal as that is. We need a turn toward theory and socialist—read anti-capitalist—program.
我们不能只是这些运动的最佳建设者，虽然这是有价值的目标。 我们需要转向理论和社会主义——读做反资本主义——的计划。
Neither is a blanket demand for “democracy” of much utility, even in the age of a demented Trump and regressive neoliberalism. Of course the mass of people should choose, but choose what? What are the choices? What is the left offering in the way of choice?
公众对“民主”的全面要求也不见得有多大效果，即使在一个疯狂的特朗普和反动的新自由主义时代。当然大众应该选择，但选择什么？ 有什么选择？ 选择方式中剩下的是什么？
A turn toward theory—actually a course correction, and not initially a major one, I believe—points to the necessity of doing what electoral work ignores and contemporary mass movements miss: a move toward not only advocating for policy solutions but also identifying and addressing root cause, intersectionality and fundamental change.
转向理论——实际上是一个过程修正，而不是最初的主要修正——我认为——指出选举工作忽视的和当代大众运动错失的必要性在于：不仅要倡导政策解决方案，还要确定和解决根本原因，实现交叉性和根本性的变化。
Take the salutary demand for free education from pre-K through college. It’s a good demand—who but a right-wing elitist would oppose it?—but it doesn’t in itself begin a critique of capitalist education, whether in furthering its democratic nature or in challenging curricula. What is gained if business school pedagogy remains unchanged, if economics remains the terrain of free-market ideology, if the social sciences remain compartmentalized, if vocational education is widely available but limited to business’ quotidian needs, and if schooling is largely hermetically sealed from creative work in all but the arts and experimental colleges?
以要求从幼儿园到大学的免费教育为例。这是一个很好的要求—但右翼精英主义者会反对它吗？—但它本身并不是对资本主义教育的批判，无论是在推进其民主性质还是在挑战课程安排方面。 如果商业化的学校教育方式保持不变，如果经济学仍然是自由市场意识形态的领域，如果社会科学仍然被划分为不同分类，如果职业教育可以广泛使用但仅限于商业的“日常需求”，并且如果学校教育在很大程度上与除了艺术和实验学院以外的所有创意工作隔绝？
Or consider the crisis in housing. Sure, we can rightly abrade electeds for not vigorously supporting rent control or get outraged at the rise of luxury housing treated as a trading commodity that leads to hundreds of thousands of vacant lux apartments in cities waiting for high-income buyers even as homelessness swells. Yet at a mass statewide New York housing rally in mid-June demanding rent-stabilization, just-cause eviction laws and lambasting the state’s laggard governor as a witting tool of his real-estate funders, just one speaker made the sage intersectional connect between the housing crisis and related social ills, noting how insufficient housing is a healthcare issue, too.
或者考虑住房危机。 当然，我们可以正确地反对那些并没有大力支持租金管制的或没有对被视为一种交易商品导致在无家可归的情况大量出现时数十万空置的豪华公寓在等待高收入买家的情况出现的奢侈品房屋的增长感到愤怒的被选举者。然而，在6月中旬纽约全州范围内的大规模要求房屋市场稳定租金，针对驱逐法律并谴责该州落后的州长成为他的地产商金主的工具，只有一位发言人将住房危机和相关的社会弊病联系起来，并指出住房不足也是一个医疗保障问题。
In New York City, we can and should blast the City Council for limiting its oversight to housing authority headaches after the fact and for favoring land use/zoning and public-private development schemes as the sharp edges of housing policy, but we leave buried the old socialist chestnut of nationalizing large private holdings. Our housing crisis stems from corporate control. Who if not us will address that programmatically?
在纽约市，我们可以而且应该鼓励市议会在事后限制其对房屋管理局的头痛的疏忽，并将土地使用/分区和公私合作发展计划作为住房政策的尖锐边缘，但我们埋葬了旧社会主义板栗主张的国有化大型私人持有者。我们的住房危机源于公司控制。谁，如果不是我们将以逐步的方式解决这一问题？
The same weakness persists in the righteous demand of Medicare for All, a policy that is itself a vast improvement over single-payer, but only the beginning of wisdom. Of course Medicare for All would be a body blow to the insurance industry and bring accessible, quality care to many more millions. That’s reason enough to support it, not to mention its capacity to engage millions more in a struggle to win it. But in itself it will do nothing to democratize medicine or collapse the insane specializations that plague the disabled and older, retired Americans for whom primary care physicians are only traffic cops on the road to a plethora of specialists. Much of leisure time is barely leisurely for many seniors, who are on a first-name basis with as many as a dozen of their widely scattered healers. Without de-emphasizing the demand of Medicare for All, a vital and winnable reform, we must advocate for true Socialized Medicine, which includes reducing private practices to the bare minimum.
同样的弱点仍然存在于对全民医保的正义要求中，这一政策本身就是在单支付者之上的巨大进步，但这只是智慧的开端。当然，全民医保将对保险业构成打击，然后为数百万人提供无障碍的，优质的医疗服务。这足以支持它，更不用说它有能力让数百万人参与赢得它的斗争。但就其本身而言，它无法使医学民主化或摧毁困扰残疾人和老年退休美国人的疯狂专业化，对他们来说初级保健医生只是通往过多专家的道路上的交通警察。对于许多老年人来说，大部分的闲暇时间都不是悠闲的，他们依赖着十几个广泛分布的治疗师。在强调人人享有医疗保险的需求的同时，我们必须倡导真正的社会化医学，其中包括将私人诊所减少到最低限度，这是一项至关重要且可以赢得的改革。
Here’s the problem: it’s as if our socialist politics are religiously understood but inapplicable to “mainstream” politics except as the most moderate of ethical reforms. It’s as though we self-described socialists are Marxists in faith but not so much in fact. At our best we are radicals capable in many admirable cases of critiquing the system sharply enough in thought and on the page, but moving against it only hesitantly and under heavy restraint, explained as realpolitik and excused in some extreme cases as transactional politics, or what is in reality “too little, too late.”
这就是问题所在：就好像我们的社会主义政治被宗教般的理解，但不适用于“主流”政治，除非是最温和的道德改革。就好像我们自我描述的社会主义者在信仰上是马克思主义者，但事实上不是。在我们最好的情况下，我们是能够在许多令人钦佩的案例中激进的在思想和书页上对系统进行了足够严厉的批评，但是只是犹豫不决的并且在严格克制下进行反对行动，被解释为现实政治和在一些极端情况下借口作为交易政治，或者事实上“太少，太晚”了。
We say among ourselves—at least those of us honest enough to say it and not afraid of being branding as sectarians—that Bernie is barely a socialist. We know that while his domestic politics are a breath of fresh air in a fetid clime (though his foreign policy planks are not much removed from the Clintonesque) they are at best rehashed New Deal liberalism. ome sections of the Left are already thinking of how to integrate their work with a possible Bernie boomlet in 2020. That preparatory move may even be tactically wise, facilitating outreach, etc, but it also abrogates any possibility of these Bernie-entranced boosters acting as articulators of an anti-capitalist point of view except over coffee. We indeed have things in common with Our Revolution, the staff-dominated Sanders operation, but our many differences can’t be submerged.
我们在我们之间说—至少我们这些人足够诚实地说出来并且不怕被打上宗派主义者的烙印—伯尼几乎不是社会主义者。我们知道虽然他的国内政治在恶劣的气候中是新鲜空气（尽管他的外交政策板块并没有从克林顿主义那里消除太多），但他们充其量只是新政自由主义。左派的部分人员已经在考虑如何在2020年将他们的工作与可能的伯尼风暴相结合。这种准备行动甚至可能在战术上更加明智，促进展开等，但它也消除了这些伯尼进入的助推器作为反资本主义观点的发生者的任何可能性，除了喝咖啡。我们确实与“我们的革命”，工作人员主导的桑德斯行动有共同之处，但我们的许多分歧不能被淹没。
Note that in my calling for a course correction toward theorizing our politics to develop a rigorous socialist platform for the 21st century, I’m not advocating taking the exit ramp to terminal program mongering, the disease of small sects. I am suggesting that socialists must look at how a systemic critique of capital can be hammered into a popular political program, one that encompasses what Occupy and Podemos did so well(at least symbolically). Our reall action critique of the depredations of vampire capitalism can instrumentally connect reform to revolution—Andre Gorz’s radical reform, if you will. Otherwise all our work, whether as inside or outside of the Democratic party or a mix of the two–will be just window dressing.
请注意，在我要求修正我们的理论化的政治以发展21世纪的严格的社会主义平台的过程中，我并不主张采用退出坡道进行终端计划贩卖，这是小派别的疾病。 我建议社会主义者们必须考虑如何在一个受欢迎的政治计划中加入系统的对资本的批评，Occupy和Podemos在这方面做得很好的（至少是象征性的）。如果你愿意的话，我们对吸血鬼资本主义掠夺行动的批评可以将改良与革命—Andre Gorz的激进改革联系起来。否则我们所有的工作，无论是在民主党内部还是外部，或两者兼而有之的—都将只是装饰而已。
This means putting more of an emphasis on developing programs, both to complement organizing work and to spur basic education. I’m talking about an internal education effort by DSA and other left organizations that goes beyond trainings to developing critical theory. A lot of discussion at the aforementioned NYDSA convention seemed to be battling shadows. Some comrades chastised others for being insufficiently Marxist by tamping down class struggle ideas and mistakenly heralding reform as of prime value in and of itself. Others treated Marxist categories as so much empty rhetoric that got in the way of real organizing and was blind to the needs of reform, something eminently winnable and capable of a mass following.
这意味着更多地强调发展计划，以补充组织工作和促进基础教育。 我在谈论DSA和其他左派组织的内部教育工作，这些工作超越了培训，发展了批判理论。 上述NYDSA大会上的许多讨论似乎都在与阴影作斗争。 一些战友通过夯实阶级斗争思想，错误地宣称改良本身就是最重要的价值观，从而谴责其他人不够马克思主义。其他人把马克思主义的分类看作是空洞的修辞，妨碍了真正的组织，并且对改革的需求视而不见，而这些需求显然是可以赢得的，并且能够得到大众追随的。
In a less confrontational moment, I believe comrades would agree—or should agree—that “reform” and “revolution” are not counterpoised, and that the revolutionary pantheon from Marx, Engels, Kautsky, Luxemberg, Debs,Gramsci, Lukacs, Alexandra Kollontai, Dubois, C.L.R. James and Michael Harrington (at least the young Michael Harrington) would all agree. Like the arc of the universe, the list is long, but it bends toward justice.
在一个不那么具有对抗性的时刻，我相信战友们会同意—或者应该同意—“改良”和“革命”并不是平衡的，以及来自马克思，恩格斯，考茨基，卢森堡，Debs，葛兰西，Lukacs，Alexandra Kollontai，Dubois，C.L.R. James和Michael Harrington（至少是年轻的Michael Harrington）都同意。 就像宇宙的弧线一样，这个清单很长，但却向正义倾斜。
We can even learn from the ventures of Britain’s Jeremy Corbyn, who, while no revolutionary either in theory or inclination, can be credited with contributing to the objective conditions for a nationwide upsurge by building a mass extraparliamentary movement as a catalyst for, and an adjunct to, a future left Labour government.
我们甚至可以从英国的Jeremy Corbyn的冒险中学习，他虽然在理论上或倾向上都不是革命的，但可以通过建立一个大规模的议会外运动作为催化剂和附属物来促进全国范围内的高潮需要的客观条件， 最终在未来形成一个左派工党政府。
Where to begin? We needn’t reinvent the wheel. Reintegrating Rosa Luxemberg’s pioneering work is no stretch, either. Her writing is largely in print, and the second volume of her projected multi-volume collected works has just been realized, which is fortuitous, given that January 2019 will mark the 100th anniversary of her murder by the proto-Fascist Freikorps under the direction of Germany’s then governing right Social Democrats.
从哪里开始？ 我们不需要重新发明轮子。 重新整合罗莎卢森堡的开创性工作也没有什么进展。她的作品大部分都是印刷品，她的预计有多卷的整合作品的第二卷刚刚出现，这是偶然的，2019年1月将是她被法西斯主义的Freikorps在当时的右派德国社会民主党的指使下谋杀100周年纪念。
The sublime socialist makes clear that the two concepts “Reform” and “Revolution” are joined at the hip, something all wings of the socialist left tend to forget. The tragedy of social democracy for her was the Second International’s disengaging of reform from revolution in practice if not in theory, resulting in the horror of all but three member parties supporting their own national bourgeoisies’ murderous land grab efforts in the catastrophic World War One.
这个崇高的社会主义者清楚地表明，“改良”和“革命”这两个概念是时髦的，也是社会主义左派的所有分支都倾向于遗忘的。对她而言，社会民主的悲剧是第二国际在实践中将改良与革命脱离，如果不是理论上的话，导致除了三个成员党之外的所有人都支持他们自己的民族资产阶级在灾难性的第一次世界大战中为了争抢土地而屠杀。
If revolution absent reform is fools’ gold, reform absent an anticapitalist end is species extinction.
如果没有改良的革命就是傻瓜的黄金，那么没有反资本主义终点的改良就是物种灭绝。
As Marx and Engels put it in The Manifesto, the outcome of class struggle was “either a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large or the common ruin of the contending classes.” Pick one!
正如马克思和恩格斯在共产党宣言中所说的那样，阶级斗争的结果“要么是整个社会的革命性的重建，要么是相互竞争的阶级的共同毁灭。”选一个！
Luxemburg put it another way: “Bourgeois society stands at the crossroads, either transition to socialism or regression into barbarism.”
卢森堡用另一种方式说：“资产阶级社会站在十字路口，要么过渡到社会主义，要么退回到野蛮。”
True that! We 21st century Reds must do better.
的确如此！ 我们21世纪的社会主义者们必须做得更好。
https://www.dsausa.org/op_ed_reconnecting_reform_and_revolution_socialists_in_the_mist