The Residential School System（加拿大的以“文明”为名的儿童古拉格，待翻译）

Residential Schools

Children’s dining room, Indian Residential School, Edmonton, Alberta. Between 1925-1936. United Church Archives, Toronto, From Mission to Partnership Collection.Prime Minister Stephen Harper, official apology, June 11, 2008

What was the Indian residential school system?

The term residential schools refers to an extensive school system set up by the Canadian government and administered by churches that had the nominal objective of educating Aboriginal children but also the more damaging and equally explicit objectives of indoctrinating them into Euro-Canadian and Christian ways of living and assimilating them into mainstream Canadian society. The residential school system operated from the 1880s into the closing decades of the 20th century. The system forcibly separated children from their families for extended periods of time and forbade them to acknowledge their Aboriginal heritage and culture or to speak their own languages. Children were severely punished if these, among other, strict rules were broken. Former students of residential schools have spoken of horrendous abuse at the hands of residential school staff: physical, sexual, emotional, and psychological. Residential schools provided Aboriginal students with an inferior education, often only up to grade five, that focused on training students for manual labour in agriculture, light industry such as woodworking, and domestic work such as laundry work and sewing.

Residential schools systematically undermined Aboriginal culture across Canada and disrupted families for generations, severing the ties through which Aboriginal culture is taught and sustained, and contributing to a general loss of language and culture. Because they were removed from their families, many students grew up without experiencing a nurturing family life and without the knowledge and skills to raise their own families. The devastating effects of the residential schools are far-reaching and continue to have significant impact on Aboriginal communities. Because the government’s and the churches’ intent was to eradicate all aspects of Aboriginal culture in these young people and interrupt its transmission from one generation to the next, the residential school system is commonly considered a form of cultural genocide.

From the 1990s onward, the government and the churches involved—Anglican, Presbyterian, United, and Roman Catholic—began to acknowledge their responsibility for an education scheme that was specifically designed to “kill the Indian in the child.” On June 11, 2008, the Canadian government issued a formal apology in Parliament for the damage done by the residential school system. In spite of this and other apologies, however, the effects remain.

What led to the residential schools?

European settlers in Canada brought with them the assumption that their own civilization was the pinnacle of human achievement. They interpreted the socio-cultural differences between themselves and the Aboriginal peoples as proof that Canada’s first inhabitants were ignorant, savage, and—like children—in need of guidance. They felt the need to “civilize” the Aboriginal peoples. Education—a federal responsibility—became the primary means to this end.

Prime Minister Sir John A. Macdonald commissioned journalist and politician Nicholas Flood Davin to study industrial schools for Aboriginal children in the United States. Davin’s recommendation to follow the U.S. example of “aggressive civilization” led to public funding for the residential school system. “If anything is to be done with the Indian, we must catch him very young. The children must be kept constantly within the circle of civilized conditions,” Davin wrote in his 1879 Report on Industrial Schools for Indians and Half-Breeds (Davin’s report can be read here.)

In the 1880s, in conjunction with other federal assimilation policies, the government began to establish residential schools across Canada. Authorities would frequently take children to schools far from their home communities, part of a strategy to alienate them from their families and familiar surroundings. In 1920, under the Indian Act, it became mandatory for every Indian child to attend a residential school and illegal for them to attend any other educational institution.¹

Male students in the assembly hall of the Alberni Indian Residential School, 1960s. United Church Archives, Toronto, from Mission to Partnership Collection.

Female students in the assembly hall of the Alberni Indian Residential School, 1960s. United Church Archives, Toronto, from Mission to Partnership Collection.

Living conditions at the residential schools

The purpose of the residential schools was to eliminate all aspects of Aboriginal culture. Students had their hair cut short, they were dressed in uniforms, and their days were strictly regimented by timetables. Boys and girls were kept separate, and even siblings rarely interacted, further weakening family ties.² Chief Bobby Joseph of the Indian Residential School Survivors Society recalls that he had no idea how to interact with girls and never even got to know his own sister “beyond a mere wave in the dining room.”³ In addition, students were strictly forbidden to speak their languages—even though many children knew no other—or to practise Aboriginal customs or traditions. Violations of these rules were severely punished.

Residential school students did not receive the same education as the general population in the public school system, and the schools were sorely underfunded. Teachings focused primarily on practical skills. Girls were primed for domestic service and taught to do laundry, sew, cook, and clean. Boys were taught carpentry, tinsmithing, and farming. Many students attended class part-time and worked for the school the rest of the time: girls did the housekeeping; boys, general maintenance and agriculture. This work, which was involuntary and unpaid, was presented as practical training for the students, but many of the residential schools could not run without it. With so little time spent in class, most students had only reached grade five by the time they were 18. At this point, students were sent away. Many were discouraged from pursuing further education.

Abuse at the schools was widespread: emotional and psychological abuse was constant, physical abuse was meted out as punishment, and sexual abuse was also common. Survivors recall being beaten and strapped; some students were shackled to their beds; some had needles shoved in their tongues for speaking their native languages.⁴ These abuses, along with overcrowding, poor sanitation, and severely inadequate food and health care, resulted in a shockingly high death toll. In 1907, government medical inspector P.H. Bryce reported that 24 percent of previously healthy Aboriginal children across Canada were dying in residential schools.⁵ This figure does not include children who died at home, where they were frequently sent when critically ill. Bryce reported that anywhere from 47 percent (on the Peigan Reserve in Alberta) to 75 percent (from File Hills Boarding School in Saskatchewan) of students discharged from residential schools died shortly after returning home.⁶

In addition to unhealthy conditions and corporal punishment, children were frequently assaulted, raped, or threatened by staff or other students. During the 2005 sentencing of Arthur Plint, a dorm supervisor at the Port Alberni Indian Residential School convicted of 16 counts of indecent assault, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Douglas Hogarth called Plint a “sexual terrorist.” Hogarth stated, “As far as the victims were concerned, the Indian residential school system was nothing more than institutionalized pedophilia.”⁷

The extent to which Department of Indian Affairs and church officials knew of these abuses has been debated. However, the Royal Commission of Aboriginal Peoples and Dr John Milloy, among others, concluded that church and state officials were fully aware of the abuses and tragedies at the schools. Some inspectors and officials at the time expressed alarm at the horrifying death rates, yet those who spoke out and called for reform were generally met with silence and lack of support.⁸ The Department of Indian Affairs would promise to improve the schools, but the deplorable conditions persisted.⁹

Some former students have fond memories of their time at residential schools, and certainly some of the priests and nuns who ran the schools treated the students as best they could given the circumstances. But even these “good” experiences occurred within a system aimed at destroying Aboriginal cultures and assimilating Aboriginal students.

The shift away from the residential school system

“Sister Marie Baptiste had a supply of sticks as long and thick as pool cues. When she heard me speak my language, she’d lift up her hands and bring the stick down on me. I’ve still got bumps and scars on my hands. I have to wear special gloves because the cold weather really hurts my hands. I tried very hard not to cry when I was being beaten and I can still just turn off my feelings…. And I’m lucky. Many of the men my age, they either didn’t make it, committed suicide or died violent deaths, or alcohol got them. And it wasn’t just my generation. My grandmother, who’s in her late nineties, to this day it’s too painful for her to talk about what happened to her at the school.”

– Musqueam Nation former chief George Guerin,
Kuper Island school
Stolen from our Embrace, p 62

European officials of the 19th century believed that Aboriginal societies were dying out and that the only hope for Aboriginal people was to convert them to Christianity, do away with their cultures, and turn them into “civilized” British subjects—in short, assimilate them. By the 1950s, it was clear that assimilation was not working. Aboriginal cultures survived, despite all the efforts to destroy them and despite all the damage done. The devastating effects of the residential schools and the particular needs and life experiences of Aboriginal students were becoming more widely recognized.¹⁰ The government also acknowledged that removing children from their families was severely detrimental to the health of the individuals and the communities involved. In 1951, with the amendments to the Indian Act, the half-day work/school system was abandoned.¹¹

The government decided to allow Aboriginal children to live with their families whenever possible, and the schools began hiring more qualified staff.¹² In 1969, the Department of Indian Affairs took exclusive control of the system, marking an end to church involvement. Yet the schools remained underfunded and abuse continued.¹³ Many teachers were still very much unqualified; in fact, some had not graduated high school themselves.¹⁴

In the meantime, the government decided to phase out segregation and begin incorporating Aboriginal students into public schools. Although these changes saw students reaching higher levels of education, problems persisted. Many Aboriginal students struggled in their adjustment to public school and to a Eurocentric system in which Aboriginal students faced discrimination by their non-Aboriginal peers. Post-secondary education was still considered out of reach for Aboriginal students, and those students who wanted to attend university were frequently discouraged from doing so.¹⁵

The process to phase out the residential school system and other assimilation tactics was slow and not without reversals. In the 1960s, the system’s closure gave way to the “Sixties Scoop,” during which thousands of Aboriginal children were “apprehended” by social services and removed from their families. The “Scoop” spanned roughly the two decades it took to phase out the residential schools, but child apprehensions from Aboriginal families continue to occur in disproportionate numbers. In part, this is the legacy of compromised families and communities left by the residential schools.

The last residential school did not close its doors until 1986.¹⁶

Long-term impacts

It is clear that the schools have been, arguably, the most damaging of the many elements of Canada’s colonization of this land’s original peoples and, as their consequences still affect the lives of Aboriginal people today, they remain so.

—John S. Milloy, A National Crime

The residential school system is viewed by much of the Canadian public as part of a distant past, disassociated from today’s events. In many ways, this is a misconception. The last residential school did not close its doors until 1986. Many of the leaders, teachers, parents, and grandparents of today’s Aboriginal communities are residential school survivors. There is, in addition, an intergenerational effect: many descendents of residential school survivors share the same burdens as their ancestors even if they did not attend the schools themselves. These include transmitted personal trauma and compromised family systems, as well as the loss in Aboriginal communities of language, culture, and the teaching of tradition from one generation to another.

According to the Manitoba Justice Institute, residential schools laid the foundation for the epidemic we see today of domestic abuse and violence against Aboriginal women and children.¹⁷ Generations of children have grown up without a nurturing family life. As adults, many of them lack adequate parenting skills and, having only experienced abuse, in turn abuse their children and family members. The high incidence of domestic violence among Aboriginal families results in many broken homes, perpetuating the cycle of abuse and dysfunction over generations.

Many observers have argued that the sense of worthlessness that was instilled in students by the residential school system contributed to extremely low self-esteem. This has manifested itself in self-abuse, resulting in high rates of alcoholism, substance abuse, and suicide. Among First Nations people aged 10 to 44, suicide and self-inflicted injury is the number one cause of death, responsible for almost 40 percent of mortalities.¹⁸ First Nations women attempt suicide eight times more often than other Canadian women, and First Nations men attempt suicide five times more often than other Canadian men.¹⁹ Some communities experience what have been called suicide epidemics.

Many Aboriginal children have grown up feeling that they do not belong in “either world”: they are neither truly Aboriginal nor part of the dominant society. They struggle to fit in but face discrimination from both societies, which makes it difficult to obtain education and skills. The result is poverty for many Aboriginal people. In addition, the residential schools and other negative experiences with state-sponsored education have fostered mistrust of education in general, making it difficult for Aboriginal communities and individuals to break the cycle of poverty.

In the 1980s, residential school survivors began to take the government and churches to court, suing them for damages resulting from the residential school experience. In 1988, eight former students of St. George’s Indian Residential School in Lytton, B.C., sued a priest, the government, and the Anglican Church of Canada in Mowatt v. Clarke. Both the Anglican Church and the government admitted fault and agreed to a settlement. Another successful case followed in 1990, made by eight survivors from St. Joseph’s school, in Williams Lake, against the Catholic Church and the federal government.²⁰

The court cases continued, and in 1995, thirty survivors from the Alberni Indian Residential School filed charges against Arthur Plint, a dorm supervisor who had sexually abused children under his care. In addition to convicting Plint, the court held the federal government and the United Church responsible for the wrongs committed.

The Anglican Church publicly apologized for its role in the residential school system in 1993, the Presbyterian Church in 1994, and the United Church in 1998. Most recently, in April 2009, Assembly of First Nations leader Phil Fontaine accepted an invitation from Pope Benedict XVI and travelled to Vatican City with the goal of obtaining an apology from the Catholic Church for its role in the residential school system. After the meeting, the Vatican issued a press release stating that “the Holy Father expressed his sorrow at the anguish caused by the deplorable conduct of some members of the Church and he offered his sympathy and prayerful solidarity.”²¹

Truth and Reconciliation Commissions

Truth and Reconciliation Commissions are used around the world in situations where countries want to reconcile and resolve policies or practices, typically of the state, that have left legacies of harm. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission is a non-adversarial way to allow residential school survivors to share their stories and experiences and, according to the Department of Indian Affairs, will “facilitate reconciliation among former students, their families, their communities and all Canadians” for “a collective journey toward a more unified Canada.

Meanwhile, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples had been interviewing Indigenous people across Canada about their experiences. The commission’s report, published in 1996, brought unprecedented attention to the residential school system—many non-Aboriginal Canadians did not know about this chapter in Canadian history. In 1998, based on the commission’s recommendations and in light of the court cases, the Canadian government publicly apologized to former students for the physical and sexual abuse they suffered in the residential schools. The Aboriginal Healing Fund was established as a $350 million government plan to aid communities affected by the residential schools. However, some Aboriginal people felt the government apology did not go far enough, since it addressed only the effects of physical and sexual abuse and not other damages caused by the residential school system.

In 2005, the Assembly of First Nations launched a class action lawsuit against the Canadian government for the long-lasting harm inflicted by the residential school system. In 2006, the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement was reached by the parties in conflict and became the largest class action settlement in Canadian history.22 In September 2007, the federal government and the churches involved agreed to pay individual and collective compensation to residential school survivors. The government also pledged to create measures and support for healing and to establish a Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

The Indian Residential School Survivors Society was formed in 1994 by the First Nations Summit in British Columbia and was officially incorporated in 2002 to provide support for survivors and communities in the province throughout the healing process and to educate the broader public. The Survivors Society provides crisis counselling, referrals, and healing initiatives, as well as acting as a resource for information, research, training, and workshops.²³ It was clear that a similar organization was needed at the national level, and in 2005, the National Residential School Survivors Society was incorporated.²⁴

Official government apology

I have just one last thing to say. To all of the leaders of the Liberals, the Bloc and NDP, thank you, as well, for your words because now it is about our responsibilities today, the decisions that we make today and how they will affect seven generations from now.

My ancestors did the same seven generations ago and they tried hard to fight against you because they knew what was happening. They knew what was coming, but we have had so much impact from colonization and that is what we are dealing with today.

Women have taken the brunt of it all.

Thank you for the opportunity to be here at this moment in time to talk about those realities that we are dealing with today.

What is it that this government is going to do in the future to help our people? Because we are dealing with major human rights violations that have occurred to many generations: my language, my culture and my spirituality. I know that I want to transfer those to my children and my grandchildren, and their children, and so on.

What is going to be provided? That is my question. I know that is the question from all of us. That is what we would like to continue to work on, in partnership.

Nia:wen. Thank you.

—Beverley Jacobs, President, Native Women’s Association of Canada, June 11, 2008

Read the full transcript and watch the video here.

We feel that the acceptability of the apology is very much a personal decision of residential school survivors. The Nisga’a Nation will consider the sincerity of the Prime Minister’s apology on the basis of the policies and actions of the government in the days and years to come. Only history will determine the degree of its sincerity.

—Kevin McKay, Chair of the Nisga’a Lisims Government, June 12, 2008

In September 2007, while the Settlement Agreement was being put into action, the Liberal government made a motion to issue a formal apology. The motion passed unanimously. On June 11, 2008, the House of Commons gathered in a solemn ceremony to publicly apologize for the government’s involvement in the residential school system and to acknowledge the widespread impact this system has had among Aboriginal peoples. You can read the official statement and responses to it by Aboriginal organizations here. The apology was broadcast live across Canada (watch it here).

The federal government’s apology was met with a range of responses. Some people felt that it marked a new era of positive federal government–Aboriginal relations based on mutual respect, while others felt that the apology was merely symbolic and doubted that it would change the government’s relationship with Aboriginal peoples.

Although the apologies and acknowledgements made by governments and churches are important steps forward in the healing process, Aboriginal leaders have said that such gestures are not enough without supportive action. Communities and residential school survivor societies are undertaking healing initiatives, both traditional and non-traditional, and providing opportunities for survivors to talk about their experiences and move forward to heal and to create a positive future for themselves, their families, and their communities.

We are on the threshold of a new beginning where we are in control of our own destinies. We must be careful and listen to the voices that have been silenced by fear and isolation. We must be careful not to repeat the patterns or create the oppressive system of the residential schools. We must build an understanding of what happened to those generations that came before us.

— Wayne Christian, Behind Closed Doors: Stories from the Kamloops Indian Residential School, 2000

By Erin Hanson

The Residential School System

2018/05/26

左翼為何少講「道德」？

左翼有其道德標準，知道世上有是非善惡，而道德的實踐端靠自由。為此，建立及維護一個可令所有人實現自主和展現精神的自由社會，可謂左翼根本的道德。

左翼較少宣揚道德原則，面對個別人士的是非善惡，很少有直接的反應。皆因一個人之行為、善惡，並不單是其人之決定。例如一個人犯案，罪名是否成立，端看其人的意圖。看其個人意志同時，量刑亦著重其人的成長和社會背景。如果是生活環境困難，犯案逼於無奈，往後再犯機會少的，刑罰就相應較少。此外，左翼認為道德勸說或譴責並不是引導人為善去惡的關鍵。譴責個別的惡行，不如改變社會條件，創造自由、互相尊重的空間。

在一個鼓勵惡性競爭的社會，為善的人被懲罰，為惡的人得獎勵。人的價值觀自然被扭曲。竊鈎者誅竊國者侯，一方面是個強烈的批判，另一方面卻也造成許多人對權力和施壓者的膜拜和寬容。我們欣賞面對強權誓不低頭的人，但在極權下苟且偷生也可體諒。然而苟安者為了心理的平衡，迴避自我的道德譴責，難免扭曲自己的價值觀甚至曲解事實。當扭曲者奉迎權力而得到獎勵，就更可能埋沒良心。獎勵不一定是榮華富貴，也可以是實踐精神的機會，對人類文明也可以有價值。例如在極權下的音樂家，以支持極權來換取繼續創作音樂的機會。而這就造成更複雜的考慮，為了人類的精神發展，變相得作出取捨，甚或幫忙打壓異端，到底是否合理？「良心」在這些處境，可以有非常不同的判斷。尤其是當你身處於在一個極其殘酷的社會，幾乎沒有依從良心而生活的空間，每日只是在不同的邪惡中選擇。

以為這是在講中共治下？可不止呢，活在資本主義下，要找沒有任何壓迫下生產的產品也不容易。喝一杯咖啡、買一件衫，可能就站到壓迫的一方。而想實踐精神與創造，只要埋沒良心換取幾個企業的資助，事情不就容易好多？

所以問題不在於我們能否在社會中守住道德，而是社會根本沒有機會讓我們過有道德的生活。面對這種社會條件，我們當然可以嘗試離群索居，與所有的邪惡和剝削的體制脫離關係。但在左翼，這不是真正的答案。真正的道德在於不朽，而不朽在於人類精神的實踐。任何人精神的不能發展，也是人文世界和所有人精神實踐的虧欠。我們見到戰亂中兒童流離、喪命，覺得特別心痛。一方面因為稚子何辜；另一方面也因為年輕的生命失去在世上建立和實踐自己的機會。難道不是所有人都有權尋找自己的幸福嗎？我們要做的是參與及促成這個自由與道德的世界。用了facebook、iphone，不是真正的問題。我們當然希望擺脫這些體制，但個人罷用不是關鍵。相反在各種政治關係的間隙中找尋和拓展自由的空間，累積反抗的力量才是重點。

如果我們向不自由社會下的人作道德譴責就更加是一種傲慢。一方面我們知道苟且偷生的艱難，另一方面我們也了解弱者向弱者抽刀，更多時是逼於無奈。在資本宰制的社會中，倒是越有資本的人越有條件去「為善」，例如罷吃連鎖快餐、罷買超市、血汗成衣，對基層可以是沉重的負擔。我們日常的道德判斷和說辭，不免受我們身處的資本主義生產關係的影響，就是會對權貴更推崇和寬容，而對弱勢者更嚴苛。道德判斷應該是要彰顯價值，揭露邪惡的，但我們慣常的道德往往變成自身的矛盾。在不自由的世界去講論個人道德，容易錯把批評落在弱者身上，隱沒了社會的不平等和不自由。

所有社會壓迫都來自體制，例如國家機器、極權、資本、自由市場，父權。體制之可怕不獨是因為它壓迫，而是它的生產力和創造力，讓人願意放棄一些自主自由，與之合謀，賺取生計，以至實現理想。既然我們了解道德與否是社會問題，那我們向個人宣揚道德，叫他們在「自己崗位」盡力為善、保持良心，就是叫人用一己之力去抗衡體制及其生產和創造的力量，難免離地。在極度壓迫之下，少數的道德堅持者可說是文明和自由的最後防線，也是所有社會改革的起點，但要促成改變，只靠少數人的努力怎可能足夠？

極權或資本主義，在今日已是社會的霸權/統識(hegemony)。以往獨裁者依靠強硬武力維持對社會的控制，一旦其武力被推翻，整個極權就瓦解。這是暴力革命在以往能成功的原因。但今日獨裁者已進化，其體制深入到社會的肌理中，媒體、商業運作、民間團體、宗教組織、學術界、工會、法庭、文藝，全都是體制要控制的對象。目的就是全面控制生產和創造，所有工業必須認同霸權才能生存。就算一時間用武力推翻獨裁者，利益集團還是會用盤根錯節的社會關係網維持控制，借屍還魂。

要對抗體制，必定要由個人結成組織。在各個層面奪回自主自由的空間。當自由自主的空間越多，整體社會實踐道德的條件就越好。我們要從將道德和自由從體制的綁架中解放，直至所有社會的構成都是自由自主的。左翼關注的是在切實的社會狀況中，如何增加自主的空間。就此舉幾個實際例子，作為運動方向。

在香港，雖然關注民主發展的人大多認為主流媒體如無綫新聞是偏頗的，但無綫仍然是大多數人接受政治世界、公共討論的媒介。偏頗的新聞取向，也是延續壓迫的關鍵。在尚有資訊自由的香港，有志者可以從兩方面挑戰。一是想用盡方法去顯露無綫的偏頗，令更多人意識到無綫新聞不是個可信的媒體，營造睇無綫就是睇假新聞的「常識」。另外就是提供別的資訊媒介，建立與無綫同樣的方便入屋的新媒體。當然在香港鬱悶的政治環境，更要回應政治疲勞和冷感的問題。但這也是有志之士組織和努力的方向。

又如，區議會已長期被建制派把持，變成體制控制資源、利益輸送的溫床。但大部分市民對區議會掌控的資源和真正的影響力仍是沒有了解。將建制派把持的區議會之腐敗公開，令人了解區議會用公帑資助建制的實況，是重奪區議會、截斷建建制派資源的關鍵。另外，建制派的區議會令市民認為社區政治是沒有實質效果的，不必在意的。這也從軟性一面形成更普遍的政治冷感。組織區內人士，發現真正的社區問題，用民間組織方式去解決，令市民發現社區政治及其力量，也是直接開拓政治自由自主的努力。

最後一例，近年學術界同時受政治和市場邏輯的打壓。新自由主義化令學校變成工廠，學位變成產品。真正本土有意義的學術空間狹窄。建制為了控制大學老師，削去其自由參與政治的空間，褫奪知識份子的光環，於是用行政手段逼走有志的學人，令其餘的學者更服從非政治的潛規則。結果是大學作為社會良心、理性和知識的聲音被禁絕。社會的道德和自由就在這過程中流失。有志之士，此時可以組織起來，力陳學術自主自由的重要，發起行動令大學的商業化、體制化減慢或中止。再不然，在民間建立自由的學術空間，令建制壟斷學術界的企圖落空。

以上只是一些開拓道德和自由的例子，重點是從具體的社會關係中開始組織和抗爭。左翼對道德的基本想法是，如果社會逼使我們不道德，我們就去奪回和擴充道德的空間。如果Facebook 和iphone 是邪惡的，個人罷買不是出路，而是提供新的選擇或集體罷買/用逼使這些企業轉變。面對國際難民問題也一樣，不是在接收和趕走難民中做抉擇，而是尋求國際社會停止戰亂和氣候變化，令難民不再出現，令所有人有家可歸。

組織是有效行動的關鍵，亦是保持個人道德的良方。在瘋狂的社會，保持理智的方式就是找到有理智的同伴一起前行。當我們找到有意義的方向，就從內在找到更多堅持道德的力量。不求結果的道德堅持是最崇高的理念，但在組織之中我們更能感受道德的力量叫我們邁步。

當然，這一切壓迫者早了然於胸，所以資本主義和極權都盡力地將人個體化、原子化。「成為孤立的個人吧！」絕大部份人好快就放棄道德的堅持，只關心個人的福樂。在香港，我們還是比中國大陸幸運的。我們的連結和組織尚未被嚴重打壓。我們還可以在不完整的公共領域進行推動和組織。把握機會吧，讓我們在寒冬未至前先生好火，也許可以成為春天的準備。

https://www.inmediahk.net/node/1057233

2018/05/26

專訪社會學家潘毅：離不開蘋果的我們，可以為富士康工人做什麼？

「之前有六七年主要都在北京。回到香港，發現原先的學生堅持把SACOM（大學師生監察無良企業行動）做了下來，我有點被學生感動到」，談及「回到香港」的感受，常年關注勞工問題的香港大學社會學系教授潘毅這樣說。

採訪時，潘毅剛看完蘋果新產品發布會：「還是老樣子，賣手機功能，多薄，科技多進步。我希望標榜自己是進步的高科技公司能重視一點環境保護、勞工、性別權益這些基本的東西。」

2010年，以代工蘋果產品聞名的台資富士康深圳工廠，發生全社會嘩然的工人連環跳樓事件。當時任職香港理工大學應用社會科學系的潘毅，組織起學生、同事，調研富士康工廠，發布了長達七萬字的調查報告，批判富士康用工中存在的種種不公。

1998年，潘毅從倫敦大學亞非學院博士畢業。2005年，她以博士論文《中國女工》獲得米爾斯獎（C. Wright Mills Award）——美國社會研究的大獎之一。然而回看這本成名作，潘毅並不滿意：「《中國女工》跟我現在的書寫風格差很遠。」

《中國女工》探討的更多是社會理論，而她其後的書寫，更多是分析、調研。2011年，潘毅和其他學者合作出版研究中國農民工的《大工地》，2015年則將富士康工人的故事寫入《蘋果背後的生與死》。她覺得這些寫作有點「土」，背後都是幾十頁上百頁紙的報告。

「都是非常令人苦惱的19世紀工匠作風」，潘毅說。

潘毅欣喜於學生一代採用的新媒體技術。但她也直言這些年「大環境不好」，推動關注勞工權益的運動「缺少資源」。

過去幾年，潘毅的主要精力，都在中國四處調研、走訪。回到香港，她有些失望：「小部分的學生仍然關心香港基層、底層問題，也關心國內的底層，但是這個數量越來越減少，這樣下去對推動整個社會發展沒有好處。本來兩邊力量都很弱，應該互相支持才對。」

但她認為自己也沒法批評他們：「我沒有努力過，沒有去跟香港普通學生做工作，沒有努力去做教育。」

訪談

端＝端傳媒，潘＝潘毅

端：你從最開始研究深圳工廠中的女工，到跟進富士康的連環跳樓事件，你覺得這些年中國工人的勞動條件和權益變化如何？

潘：我們整個研究隊伍從2010年到現在持續關注富士康，我只能說，從客觀條件來講，基於大家的努力和社會上的運動壓力，某一方面是有改善的。2010年工人連環跳之後，富士康從2011年開始加工資，加到2014年，但2015年之後，底薪已經三年沒有加了，一直停到現在。我們有十幾個工友的案例，他們在富士康打工超過十年。2014年時，如果他們加班加點，可以拿到三千多；如果他週六週日都加，可以拿到四千塊錢。現在的問題反而是，他們加班沒有以前那麼多。這是由於整個全球經濟已經開始下滑。淡季時，他們的工資可以跌到兩千塊錢。

我們的勞動者製做蘋果這麼高價值的產品，卻需要靠加班才能拿到能過活的工資。蘋果非常驕傲自己是做高科技的、高端的、影響人類未來的產品，一秒之內就能把整個世界連接在一起。可它一點都不重視背後是誰在幫它製造iPhone。這些勞動者一個月白班一個月晚班，很消耗身體；還有很多是離鄉別井，沒有家庭生活的。所以蘋果這麼強調人的連接，可事實上幫它製造iPhone的工人，連基本的生活水平都沒能夠達到。這不單是工資的問題，還有生活狀態的問題。

其實蘋果是有能力來處理這些問題的，其他的公司、企業可以說利潤率太薄了，邊際利潤太低，我們提出這些要求它們是達不到的，可是蘋果恰恰不是。蘋果基本上已經是世界五百強中每一年都能排前五名的，一部蘋果手機五六千塊錢，蘋果最少拿40%，工人才拿2.2%或者2.5%，根本達不到3%，所以它是根本有條件可以提高的。

端：蘋果跟其他生產手機、電子設備的企業相比，這方面有區別嗎？

潘：有的，像之前的諾基亞，一早就有CSR，就是企業社會責任部門。它們查廠查得比較認真，加班加點盡量少一點，還會照顧到宿舍裏面有沒有熱水可以喝之類很小的細節。可是蘋果很晚才成立CSR，要到了自殺事件後，很多報告出來之後才成立。

很多品牌是被「打」過的，它們已經有這些經驗，比如Nike，因為整個消費者運動在1990年代後期就是在不斷打Nike，所以它們就知道，到第三世界採購時，要有CSR跟着走。可是蘋果一開始就把整個精力全部拿去開發產品和形象，根本不照顧這一塊。到後來「被打」，才會知道說原來消費者對這一塊是有要求的。

2010年5月26日，富士康跳樓死亡的員工家屬在深圳廠房外陳情，要求賠償及找尋死因。攝：In Pictures Ltd./Corbis via Getty Images

端：連環跳樓之後，富士康有照顧工人的心理狀況嗎？

潘：它們搞了個排查，就是工人面試的時候，會有一個心理測試。

端：是請了專業機構？

潘：對，然後它們內部還會有關愛中心，有點像社工服務機構，但它們一旦發現了問題，就馬上讓工人的父母勸工人辭職離開。就是說，它們不是發現你的工作壓力太大，有適應問題，通過關愛中心讓你一步步適應下去，而是勸退工人，告訴工人的父母「生命是很寶貴的」，把他們的孩子帶走。

2010年自殺高峰期的時候，富士康就請了大量的心理專家，安排每一條生產線去見心理諮詢師，一組二三十個人見吧，每個人都會講話，問問題。如果發現某個工人的態度不夠好，或者講話有點情緒，諮詢師就馬上把他講的東西記錄下來，評估他們自殺的可能性，可能性最高的就會被勸回去。

後來不會說老是排查，因為不可能讓所有工人每次都見諮詢師，所以就安排在面試時，問很多問題，測試他們反應，發現工人會有點波動時，就不會要他，把他篩走。廠裏面呢？有兩個機構來處理這些問題，一個是關愛中心，一個是工會組織。

關愛中心是所謂的專業輔導，如果你有什麼投訴，比如說你對你生產線的線長有什麼不滿，發現工傷這個賠償不到位，打電話去投訴，中心會約見你。這裏的問題是什麼呢？就是它會把這些意見返回你的生產線的線長，本來你就是對你的生產線有意見，你在投訴你的生產線管理不公平，結果關愛中心把這些資訊轉回去，管理層就會知道說這個工友是在背後捅他。

端：就是說工人在面對諮詢師時，表達的對管理層的意見，會傳遞到管理層那裏去？

潘：是馬上記錄進來。它們有一個非常快速的電腦系統，會蒐集所有資訊，然後返回生產線上面，你在關愛中心講的每一句話都會被記錄，然後返回去。

端：所以有些工友會以為他們可以向諮詢師說真心話，但其實關愛中心不是對工人個體負責，而是對整條生產線和富士康負責？

潘：是，都是為了它們的管理和效率，可是它們是以關愛中心的名義出現。

另外一塊就是工會。我們寫了很多報告，然後給壓力蘋果、富士康，其中一個要求就是應該按中國的工會法來組建、選舉工會。富士康一直反對建立工會，一直等到2007年底，工會才建立起來；工會主席呢？這麼多年還是同一個人。

端：所以你認為富士康的工會是沒有什麼進展的？

潘：沒有的。自殺的事情，太多人關注，所以當時富士康答應媒體會按照中國的工會法律規定組建工會。我們追蹤了整個工會的發展史，做了兩次普查，發現現在比前幾年更退步了。富士康對外講它們的工會入會率已經超過90%，我們的問卷結果則是不到10%的人在工會裏。現在問題就是，整個工會都是虛假的，表面說我們真的會選工會主席，可事實上就是在生產線上面派信得過的管理層，走一個非常虛假的程序選上去，全部都是不規範的。我們訪談裏面有小部分工友有工會意識，他們跑去要求說我現在要登記，想參與選舉。富士康的工會就告訴他們，你們不需要，你們一進來就自動是工會會員了。有個工友說那我想要參與選舉啊，工會就說你以為你是誰啊，你以為隨便就可以選嗎？

所以說，在工會的問題上，消費者需要讓蘋果去履行責任，讓富士康跟中國政府把工會體制搞好。這種壓力，我們還是可以給出來的。

機械化、全球布局與產業轉移

端：富士康的管理層，以前是台灣人在上層，中層和下層是中國大陸的人，現在有分別嗎？

潘：沒有分別。因為整個資本的結構還是台灣的結構，它不可能相信中國的管理階層可以爬得太高。

端：這幾年新聞中，我們反覆看到富士康有很多大項目，比如說要用機器替代工人，在東南亞和包括像印度布局新的工廠，甚至在美國又有一筆投資。這些對中國勞工來說，意味着什麼？

潘：其實從自殺事件之後，富士康就一直講要高度機械化，要大量使用機器人，當時郭台銘也講過，到2014年，他會用100萬台機器人，可是到了2015年，才用了5萬台。我們整個研究下來，認為他還是雷聲大雨點小。

為什麼機器人沒有對外講得那麼多呢？還是因為蘋果的手機換代率太快，這不像我們做汽車，汽車其實是粗製造的作業，你就可以用機器人。可是到手機製作，裏面全都是很精細的，所以主體的勞動者其實還是人。而且手機模板也要換得很快，換一個模板要很高的成本，蘋果的換代率太快，所以造成它沒法用機器去代替工人。其實說機器換人就是威脅中國工人嘛——你們不要要求太高，不要老是鬧情緒、鬧自殺，如果這樣的話我就用機器人把你們所有的人都換掉。去年富士康主動接觸了BBC，說它們的崑山工廠已經高度機械化了，工人從11萬人減到了5萬人，這是它們到現在能講出來的最大影響。

我的理解是，中國工人以後會受很大的影響，因為大部分操作性的東西，用機器人是真的可以取代的。我的看法是在資本主義生產關係下，機器人的出現是必然的。第二是一定會傷害到我們勞動者的權益，而勞動者有沒有工作、能不能養活自己這件事，是與資本無關的。資本是不會考慮這件事情的。工人有沒有活幹，會不會被裁員，與資本的邏輯是無關的。只能是說我們調整了生產關係，進入到社會主義的關係下，使用機器人才是釋放勞動力出來。

近年富士康在中國的工人，已從高峰期接近一百二十萬，跌到現在一百萬左右。圖為2010年5月19日，深圳觀瀾富士康大水坑三村去上班的員工。攝：Imagine China

端：工人對機械化的判斷和反應是什麼樣的呢？

潘：富士康裏面碰到的工友對這方面感觸不深。反而東莞的工人，因為東莞政府搞了一個全面機械化的政策，還貸款給願意機械化的工廠，所以那些製作冰箱之類家電的企業直接就使用機器人了。電器不是蘋果產品，做工沒有那麼精細，所以有條件使用機器人。你東莞政府還給錢我，我為什麼不用呢？不用白不用。所以那些企業就會把工人裁出去，工人馬上受到衝擊，那些工人就會知道說，原來那些機器人對我的影響是可以很大的。可是工人也有兩極化，企業還是留下了小部分技工來操作這些機器人，而且把工資加上去，讓這些人分化，這是工人階級裏面小部分的精英，這些人是會維護使用機器人的。因為他們的工資加了，辛苦度也減少了。可是在富士康裏面，這個問題不嚴重。

端：那麼富士康的全球布局呢？對產業勞工影響大嗎？

潘：富士康在中國的工人，從高峰期接近120萬，跌到現在100萬左右，所以還是會有影響。可是這個影響不大，因為海外的工廠每個地方人都不多，比如說東歐，它們在匈牙利的一個工廠，也就是三五千人，沒辦法跟在中國的工廠比。又比如說印度，富士康總是講要在印度使用四萬人，但他們現在也就是上幾千人而已。它說要去美國，也就是創造三千多個職位，這些都是以千作為單位。而在中國，一個龍華富士康就有20萬人。鄭州現在更大，有二十幾萬。

世界布局在我理解中，生產方面不是重點，而是需要銷售網絡，需要接近它們的市場，比如人口也很龐大的印度，上層階級也會買蘋果手機。而富士康也不僅僅生產蘋果，還生產諸如小米這樣廉價的手機，所以也需要布局到東南亞。

端：那麼，富士康在中國的產業轉移對工人影響如何呢？比如說深圳富士康佔的比例已經下降了，富士康又把工廠轉移到河南，轉移到其他地方。

潘：其實中國的工人都希望能跑到沿海地區來工作，富士康往內地轉移，不是因為沿海招不到工人，而是因為廉價。

往內地去，最低工資低、勞動成本低。這種遷移對工人最主要的影響是什麼呢？我舉一個例子，比如說它要從深圳把一個專門生產蘋果的「單位」轉移去武漢，武漢的最低工資比深圳的低，想留在深圳的工人就由於企業生產的要求，硬性被派去了武漢。如果你不願意去，可能就面臨被裁員。結果工人的工資低了，可是做的工作內容一模一樣，時間也一樣，結果我一個月下來工資少了五六百。武漢工人就爬到工廠最高的一層威脅集體跳樓，逼得武漢市市長出來調停，才加了一點工資。

端：很多人說工廠遷移到內地，工人上班的地點就近了。

潘：對，富士康一直在講嘛，就轉到西部、內地，是為了照顧工人，可以讓他們更多回家，過上家庭生活。其實經過研究，這根本就是沒有用的，因為工廠跟工人家的距離，起碼也要坐兩三個小時車才能到。那假如工人週末回家呢？單程三個小時一趟，再回來一共六個小時，其實一年也只能回去兩、三趟，還是照顧不了他們的家庭生活的。然而工人的工資還比以前低了。

端：這種情況下，工人還會繼續留在工廠裏嗎？他們會離開嗎？

潘：從1988年到現在，差不多30年了，我們還真的能找到在富士康工作超過10年的工友的，可是大部分，大概90%以上的工人，都是在幹半年到一年後就走了。這一兩年，很多老工友其實都很不爽，不開心，想要轉走，但是因為經濟環境不好，他們就得停留在富士康長一點時間了。

另一點是，他們都是男工，年齡大了，又沒有其他的技術含量，想要跳也跳不走。你可以看看之前東莞裕元鞋廠，他們抗議中間有很多四十歲的女工。為什麼有那麼多四十歲的女工呢？因為鞋廠裏面有很多化學工序，對身體健康不好，年輕工人呆不住，可是當你已經三十多歲，走不掉，一直待在工廠裏面，還沒有社保，就得反抗了。富士康現在沒有說面臨所有工友都是四十來歲，像裕元一樣要去爭取社保要去罷工，還沒到那一步，可是你也能看到年齡偏向兩極化。

所以富士康也不斷在用「實習生」的方式招工，從職業學校直接拉人過來，以實習生的名義進工廠。一批一批地招，節省他們的成本。

三十年來，90%以上的富士康工人都是幹半年到一年就走，所以富士康也不斷用「實習生」的方式招工，從職業學校直接拉人過來，以實習生的名義進工廠。從職業學校招工的好處是一批一批地招，成本大大減少了。2010年10月16日，深圳龍華鎮富士康工業園區基層員工頒獎典禮。攝：China Photos/Getty Images

「我比較注重實踐，比較落地推動運動」

端：蘋果剛剛發布了最新的iPhone，作為一般消費者，很多人都覺得自己其實離不開蘋果的產品，但又發現它生產過程有那麼多勞工問題，這種心態該怎麼面對？

潘：其實外面的消費者真的還不是很清楚蘋果背後的這些勞動條件，富士康的自殺問題很嚴重，當時我們所有人都在關注，可是外面不是。我出去開會的時候還經常碰到有人說，原來富士康是這種情況！就等於說西方的消費者是不清楚的。像新的iPhone，同時發布好幾個版本，這就意味着更重的工人勞動，這些是需要更多人去關注的。

端：亞洲的消費者會比西方的消費者更清楚嗎？

潘：對。亞洲佔蘋果的整個市場已經超過35%，所以雖然說我們是離不開蘋果了，但蘋果也恰恰離不開我們了。我們消費者的群體還不斷在開發，所以我們其實是有討價還價的力量的。我們是知道這些勞動條件的，所以只要我們願意發點聲音，要求蘋果，蘋果還是要來回應這些問題的。而且在蘋果的理解中，使用蘋果的都是高端人士，這些人士是領導社會走向未來的人，所以只要它的消費群體發聲，它還是有條件去改善的。

端：改善的意思是蘋果可以讓出更多的利潤給勞動者嗎？

潘：對，絕對有條件。今天其他行業都比較蕭條、衰退，蘋果也開始衰退一點點，可是它的衰退跟別人的不一樣，查一下蘋果的利潤率表，你還是會看到一個非常驚人的數量，所以說它其實是有能力拿出來重新再分配的。

端：有人會說。假如督促蘋果改善工人的條件，富士康之類的廠家就會遷到別的地方去了，這樣會造成工人失業，或者工廠就直接上機器人了，因為它們覺得用工人太貴了。

潘：是，一定會這樣講的。可是剛才我們也說了，它到外面布局，看似一個非常宏偉的構圖，但實際上是很小的。之前中國勞動法出台，當時的美國總商會在媒體上刊登廣告，說如果勞動法出台，我們作為美國資本，就帶頭撤資離開中國，過了三年之後，我們給這些美國資本做了一個調研，它們離開了嗎？其實它們要是能出去早就出去了，根本出不去才會留下來，中國的工人對它們來說是「好使好用」的。

端：我們談到消費者的責任。之前有篇文章提過歐洲的公平貿易手機。當時有人批判說，這些公平貿易，怎麼搞都是歐洲人玩的，無論發達國家怎麼樣強調環保啊、公平貿易啊，低端的東西仍然是會轉移到第三世界，轉移到中國，轉移到東南亞的。你會認同這種批判嗎？

潘：我理解中，這是對整個全球生產鏈的批判，這是肯定需要的。至於說公平貿易、公平手機的出現，其實還是一些好的嘗試，就算可能做不到位。比如公平手機這件事，它是希望把更多的利潤分配給勞動者，也就是中國工人，它們也希望說中國工人能真正有一個工會組織。後來為什麼還沒有做到位呢？因為公平手機的量太少，就是說支持者還不夠多，這是雞跟雞蛋的問題。比如在歐洲那邊，是先有上萬人購買，然後下訂單的時候才能要求生產線不是像蘋果富士康這種剝削性的，但如果你的量太少，就做不到。有人批評說這些公平貿易手機應推到亞洲來，但亞洲使用的軟件、語言全部都不一樣，需要開發成本。

我的理解是這樣的，它認為歐洲的消費者水平比較高，先支持好，然後才慢慢開拓出去。所以我們沒有必要太快來批評這件事情。

端：但還是會有很多人批判消費者運動，說中產階級靠消費來獲得社會責任。比如齊澤克就會批判這是一種「廉價的正義」，批判說人們通過消費來獲得道德感，但一時的好心是沒法解決資本主義的問題的。你怎麼看這種批判？

潘：這要看我們是站在哪裏講話。如果我必須要否定掉整個資本主義生產關係，我要否定掉整個新自由主義的話，那我當然認為這種消費者的良心運動是在粉刷太平。這個層面的批判，我個人是接受的。可是今天又沒有革命，今天想要推動工人具體權益的話，我們就必須考慮我從哪裏能入手，就真的讓中國工人拿多一點東西。我今天就得利用蘋果很關心的品牌形象，利用消費者給出壓力。當然另一方面，我們也可以說，工人會自己組織起來，會通過罷工提出自己要求，但那是工人自己的事情，我在講的是我們這些人能做什麼。

所以我還是比較注重實踐，比較「落地」來理解這個事情，如果我不落地推動運動，站在一個高度，那我的批評肯定會接近齊澤克的批評，可是我是落地的那個。

「學者跟社會連接，是需要時間的」

端：那麼對你來說，落地意味着什麼？比如作為學者，該如何落地呢？

潘：一個例子就是香港的SACOM（大學師生監察無良企業行動），它的貢獻還是比較大的，不斷給蘋果壓力，不斷號召社會。每一年他們都會去拉橫幅，去香港銅鑼灣最大的蘋果店舉牌，這些照片全部都會送到蘋果的總部去，也確實改善了一些情況。比如以前學生工進富士康，要不就沒有錢，要不就很少錢，也不會上合同，後來基本上都能夠拿到同工同酬了，跟普通工人拿的工資一樣。我們應該不讓它使用學生工，是吧，從高口號上面是這樣，可我們還是能逼到它當下去做一些具體的改善。

作為學者的話，我們知道，整個學術的規範，所謂的國際化，造成的一個惡果就是學術跟社會是分離的，學術是學術自己的系統，有學術的規範，我是在學術的內部裏面追尋我自己的知識跟學術的進步，它其實可以跟社會一點關聯都沒有。

今天香港和中國的學術，在我看來都是退步的。十年前，我們的氣氛會寬鬆一點，是沒有今天這麼管理主義的東西的。你要培養一個好學者，不可以太心急，你可以說你給了很多資源下去，但是我最終可能只有一兩個好的學者出來。當然也是需要平衡的，我也同意不可以完全都不理，任由學者自由發揮，雖然我是一個社會主義者，但也不至於說理想化到那個地步。但現在我覺得完全是一個不理性的制度了。管理主義推行得太過分、太極端了。

學者跟社會連接是需要時間的，還需要非常具體事件的背景。有背景的、有很特殊性的地方，你去到國際的雜誌上是沒辦法對話的。所以現在做政策研究的人少，其中一個原因就是因為政策研究符合不了管理主義的要求，出不了高端的學術論文。所以很多人就做理論，要想一個新的理論出來，去反駁，或者去豐富，變成在理論上不斷創新，但跟現實社會是沒有關係的。

2011年5月7日，香港大學師生監察無良企業行動（SACOM）發起請願，指控蘋果及其代工廠富士康為血汗工廠，示威者戴上喬布斯面具在香港的蘋果專門店抗議。 — 2011年5月7日，香港大學師生監察無良企業行動（SACOM）發起請願，指控蘋果及其代工廠富士康為血汗工廠，示威者戴上喬布斯（賈伯斯）面具在香港的蘋果專門店抗議。攝： Antony Dickson /AFP/Getty Images

端：其實很多人這些年對你有些批評，說潘老師在理論上沒有創新。

潘：中國的這些問題有新東西嗎？一般來說，學者是不會犧牲時間去做我做的那些東西的，因為那些東西會消耗大量精力，是不斷在處理實際問題。比如勞動者的工傷問題，比如勞動者沒有勞動合同的問題，比如富士康裏面工資的提高問題，這些問題是很具體的。

我們的工作，大部分是學生參與的，今天的學術發表要算到個人頭上，所以它不鼓勵集體合作。其實如果我轉變精力不再去推動社會改革，我也會很快變成個體，你要我在理論上有貢獻的話，一兩個人就夠了。我覺得這是一個選擇，究竟你要選擇要做什麼，做什麼事更加有價值更加有意義。

所以當我們轉過理念來說，我希望學術生產或知識生產是在為更大的社會服務——不管是為女工、為環保或為了其他東西的時候，你就一定會慢慢落地的。而你希望說學術、研究做出來還能促進改變的時候，那就更落地一步了，因為每一個改變都很具體嘛，每一個改變都是只能在現有的條件底下一步步往前走的。所以這樣就不容易出現太空太虛的東西。對我來講，太空太虛表面上很激進，事實上我一眼就看得出來這個人還沒落地，還在空中飛。齊澤克那個問題就是個很好的例子。

有些人認為說我們之前要求說建築工人必須有勞動合同是「改良主義」，說潘老師訴求那麼低，一點都不革命，一點都不進步。可是對建築工人來說，他要組織起來，就必須是一步一步的。你必須要給他一個合法的論述和給他一套能組織起來的東西。

端：對改良主義的批評似乎是說，你幫工人在現有體制下爭取了權益，工人就會沒有革命性了，就可能安逸於個人生活了，不去改變社會了，會有這種情況嗎？

潘：我沒有看到。比如說富士康的工人，他們是有勞動合同的，你會看到富士康的工人今天就沒有抱怨嗎？富士康工人今天就不想組織起來嗎？因為主要的矛盾還是生產關係裏面的矛盾，是一個階級矛盾，這個階級矛盾不會因為有一個勞動合同和沒有一個勞動合同就取消掉的。

潘毅與其他學者的「富士康用工環境和勞工問題」的調研團隊。整個調研歷時近2年，參與成員近百人，其中近20人潛伏進廠，覆蓋富士康在中國大陸的19個廠區，共收集有效問卷2409份，採訪工人500多例，整理第一手採訪資料十萬餘字。攝：林振東/端傳媒

端：今天有很多人在說中國的「社會主義遺產」，你這些年也寫過很多有關於此的文章。今天的中國政府似乎也在某些程度上「往回轉」，比如重新定義房地產在經濟中的位置。但另一方面，政府未必是從社會主義的角度出發的，它可能是為了維護社會穩定，或者說是為了維護政治安全。很多時候這些「遺產」跟諸如維護家庭、維護社會穩定的內容結合在一起。在這樣一個環境下，左翼可以怎麼樣去看待或者處理這些社會主義遺產？

潘：我的做法是盡量把這些跟底層，包括農民跟工人的具體權益連接在一起，比如說今天在中國還有100萬富士康工人，中國作為一個社會主義國家為什麼會讓工人淪落到這樣的一個地位？中國工人到底還是不是國家的主人翁？這種連接，我認為對整個具體的爭取工人權益運動是有幫助的。這幾年我還是一直在強調建築工人。6000萬到8000萬的建築工人，在社會主義年代這些建築工人都是有身份有地位有驕傲的，今天他們在哪裏？所以我會不斷地用社會主義的東西來對比，讓今天的政策制定者聽到，也讓工人自我組織起來的時候更有底氣。為什麼說底層有很多是相信毛澤東的呢？是因為毛的整套論述對他們是有用的，這個有用不是說一下子就想要造反，還是在處理自己權益的問題。所以我的看法就是盡量跟具體的要求列在一起。

端：你之前有一次跟學者盧荻辯論，討論中國到底算不算是完全捲入了全球資本主義的邏輯。作為一個香港學者，你如何看待今天香港在全球政經體系中間的位置？

潘：我認為中國從來都沒有離開過全球的經濟體系，我是這樣理解的：當改革開放一開始，中國就已經嵌入到全球的資本主義經濟當中去了，到1990年代中後期變成世界工廠，對我來說，中國早就在資本主義的生產體系中，這是毋庸置疑的，我不知道為什麼眼前全世界都在用made in China 的產品時，這個問題還要拿出來辯論。當然雖然中國的產品在全世界流通，真正受益的還不是中國資本也不是中國老百姓。真正受益最大的還是跨國資本，因為所有這些都是跨國品牌。所以大部分份額還是被蘋果、UNIQLO大塊拿走了，小塊讓給中國的資本，利潤其實很低。但我並不認為說中國資本會比跨國資本更值得同情，或者更值得去保護，因為對我來講資本是沒有國界的，它在一個資本的邏輯裏面，這個所謂的種族概念是不是有效，對我來說是無效的。

所以今天中國資本在外面肯定是被跨國資本欺負，可是對我來講，我為什麼要站在中國資本的立場來講話，而不是站在中國工人的立場來講話呢？

至於香港也是一樣，中國資本代替了香港資本就覺得值得高興嗎？我是不會做這種事情的。對我來說，中國資本進來，把地價炒高。如果說中資進來之後房價真的低了，老百姓買得起房子了，那我也可以說多一句中國資本比以前香港資本以及再以前英國資本要好一些嘛。但現在的問題就是你沒有嘛，你反而進一步地抬高了地價，那我怎麼說你好話呢？我又應該站在哪一個立場說話呢？我不會在資本的立場上說話，資本對我來說是無國界的，就是說我沒有這樣的國族情結。

https://theinitium.com/article/20170915-opinion-foxconn/

2018/05/262018/05/26

罗马尼亚禁妇女堕胎设“月经警察”监控

独裁与荒诞就像是一对孪生兄弟。有什么样的专制独裁，就会有什么样的荒诞事情发生。

在前罗马尼亚共产党总书记齐奥塞斯库所推行的政策中，最恐怖、最荒诞的要算他的禁止节育和人口增长政策。为了提高人口数量，增强国力，1966年齐奥塞斯库废除了以前关于个人可以自由流产的法律，实施了禁止堕胎的政策。他宣称，胎儿是社会的财富，不生育孩子的人就是背叛国家的人。他规定，禁止离婚，每对罗马尼亚夫妻至少要生四个孩子。紧接着，国家颁布法令，节育和堕胎都属违法，不能受孕的女性要交纳税金，堕胎者将受到判刑和囚禁，妇女月经期要受到严格地检查与盘问。

为保证政令畅通，依据齐奥塞斯库的指令，执法者纷纷进驻机关、工厂、农村、学校以及各个单位，对妇女进行严格的监控，督促她们每月必须做妇科检查，以确保没有使用避孕工具；对那些避孕的妇女和默许堕胎的医生一经查出，严厉打击、处罚监禁。罗马尼亚的老百姓把这些执法者鄙夷地称作“月经警察”。在恐怖的高压下，许多绝望的妇女铤而走险，试图偷渡多瑙河，到邻国匈牙利寻求庇护，但在边境线往往被当作叛国者，遭到罗马尼亚士兵用机关枪的扫射。

前罗马尼亚共产党总书记齐奥塞斯库（图右）

在这项政策实施一年之后，罗马尼亚的婴儿出生率翻了一番，成绩显赫。但地下流产与堕胎的服务也随之出现，怀孕妇女的死亡率不断上升。更让齐奥塞斯库感到闹心和棘手的是，随着婴儿的大量出生，妇产医院的设备、妇产专家、产科医师、儿科医师以及妇幼保健工作者严重缺乏，这可不是单靠行政命令就能马上解决的。仅仅一年中，罗马尼亚的婴儿死亡率就增长了百分之一百四十五点六。消息传出，全世界哗然，各国政要、媒体纷纷谴责：这简直就是“现代社会的滥杀无辜”。面对国内外政治压力，为掩盖这种愚蠢而可怕的后果，齐奥塞斯库下令，婴儿出生一个月以后，再发出生证。如此一来，那些在未满月中夭折的婴儿就不会填写在死亡婴儿的统计当中了。正如一位罗马尼亚作家指出：“很多婴儿从来没有合法地生存过。”这项政策的恶果，还不仅局限于此。在罗马尼亚的儿童养育院及收容所中，有许多被遗弃或身体及精神残疾的孩子，他们的生存状况更加令人震惊。

对于这一段荒诞而悲惨的历史，罗马尼亚年轻的电影导演克里斯蒂安·蒙久（CristianMungiu），在他执导的影片《四月三周两天》，通过两个女大学生一天中所遭遇的堕胎经历，把独裁专制统治对人性的摧残和压迫，以及在这样的环境下，人性的丑陋、冷漠、甚至是邪恶，表现得淋漓尽致。

这部影片讲述的故事发生在1987年的寒冬，此时距离柏林墙倒塌、齐奥塞斯库的独裁政权垮台还有两年。

影片一开始，女大学生奥蒂莉亚（Ottila）正在为同一宿舍的同学嘉碧塔（Gabita）秘密准备行李。奥蒂莉亚匆忙地奔波在简陋的宿舍楼和肮脏的穷街陋巷，向男友借钱，购买走私进口香烟、食品、香皂，预订饭店。所做这一切，就是因为嘉碧塔怀孕了，而且要赶在期末考试之前堕胎。

婴儿

在当时的罗马尼亚，流产和堕胎都是违法行为，且要根据流产者或堕胎者怀孕的时间决定刑期和监禁的长短。为了躲避处罚，她们找到了一个叫毕比（Bebe）的医生私自堕胎，一场噩梦就此开始。

奥蒂莉亚几经周折最终找到一家廉价的旅馆，但医生毕比借口手术费太低，不愿承担犯法坐牢的风险。为了能使嘉碧塔尽快手术，面对毕比医生“任何错误都要付出代价”的要挟，奥蒂莉亚不得不承受羞辱，与毕比做爱，嘉碧塔躲在门外饮泪而泣。

死婴从嘉碧塔体内排出，被包裹在一块白色的浴巾里，手掌般大小，略具人形，上面沾满鲜血和污秽。奥蒂莉亚久久地凝视着尸体，沉默不语。

由于害怕和紧张，奥蒂莉亚迟迟没有找到丢弃死婴尸体的地方。最后，她跌跌撞撞地冲进一个居民楼，慌乱地把装着尸体的书包塞进了楼道里的垃圾箱内。在仅有的一点光亮里，奥蒂莉亚静静地站在那个垃圾箱前，仿佛为自己心灵的失落、为自己所做的一切忏悔。

处理掉死婴的尸体，一切的恐惧与不安都结束了，两个女孩坐在旅馆的餐厅里，默默地等待她们的晚餐。不远处，是一场婚宴的欢闹场面。而这一天，正是嘉碧塔怀孕整整四月三周两天。

自1966年避孕与堕胎被齐奥塞斯库政权明令禁止以来，罗马尼亚人民便丧失了一种基本权利。当人们摆脱不了性爱的天性，为自己种下的爱情之果面临抉择时，他们所遇到竟是罪与非罪的选择。到底国家有没有权力操纵人伦意向？到底能不能强行为私生活立法？对于这些，齐奥塞斯库自有主张。他是党的最高领导，因而他的意志就代表了党的意志，任何人都必须服从。在他统治的国度中，“国王不仅要坐在国王的位置上，而且还要坐在上帝的位置上”。

婴儿

其实，禁止堕胎的法令并非只有罗马尼亚一家，但为什么其他国家并未出现像齐奥塞斯库政权下这样极端、这样缺乏人性的残忍？

1991年，爱尔兰一位十四岁的女孩子被她朋友的父亲强奸后怀孕。罪犯受到了法律的严惩，但无辜受害的女孩也陷入法律对她的伤害。因为，法院援引宪法中“国家承认尚未出生的婴儿生命权”的条文，阻止女孩进行流产。于是，这个事件使整个爱尔兰陷入了一场政治和宗教上的危机。三分之二的爱尔兰人，包括当初投票支持宪法的人，都对女孩的遭遇表示同情。最终，政府支付了诉讼费用，女孩获准可以到爱尔兰以外地区自由旅行，以妥协方式结束了这场危机。

爱尔兰的妥协与齐奥塞斯库的僵硬，充分体现出两种制度的截然不同。美国历史学家鲁道夫·J·鲁梅尔在他1994年出版的《因政府而死》一书中估算了一个数字：在二十世纪，单是种族杀戮的死难者就达一点七亿人。这一数字中几乎不含政治迫害和战争所造成的“正常”死难者人数，同样也不含该书出版后发生的种族杀戮死难者人数，比如在卢旺达或者巴尔干地区发生的种族杀戮死难者。在人类历史中，如此多的人死于暴政，在此前是亘古未有的。

在《通往奴役之路》这本书中，哈耶克认为，坏事不一定是坏人干的，而往往是一些“高尚的”理想主义者干的，特别是，那些极权主义暴行的原则是由一些可尊敬的和心地善良的学者们奠定基础的；“自由”常常在“自由”的名义下被取消，“理性”则是在把“理性”推到至高无上的地步被摧毁的。因此，一种合理的政治制度一定是适应人性的政治制度，而不是强迫改变人性的政治制度，如果一种政治制度是建立在改变人性的基础上，这样的政治制度不可避免地会带来暴力与恐怖。

二十世纪八十年代初，齐奥塞斯库颁布了《大罗马尼亚打字机法》。根据该法，每一个罗马尼亚的公民、企业、事业、机关、学校等单位，凡拥有打字机必须要得到警方的许可，领取使用执照；要成为打字员也必须照此办理，并且要将所打字的样品同时上报。如果打字机需要修理，其使用者及其打字机都需要更新执照。任何继承打字机的罗马尼亚人，都必须将此上交政府当局，或寻求取得使用它的资格；如果不把打字机的键盘上交警方，即使损坏的打字机也不得私自处理，否则严加处罚。

罗马(rome)

自1965年齐奥塞斯库坐上罗共总书记这个职位后，便如钢梁上的铆钉——固定不动，一直到1989年被枪杀。除党的总书记外，他还担任罗马尼亚国务委员会主席、团结阵线主席、国防委员会主席、武装部队和爱国卫队总司令、经济社会发展最高委员会主席、罗马尼亚共和国总统，可谓至尊无上。据英国《经济学家》杂志统计，齐奥塞斯库家族成员在党政军界担任要职的不下三十人。其夫人埃列娜·齐奥塞斯库任罗共中央干部委员会主席，第一副总理，实际上是罗共二号人物；其兄马林·齐奥塞斯库，任国防部副部长兼罗军最高政委；其弟伊利埃·齐奥塞斯库和安德鲁察·齐奥塞斯库，分别任内务部干部培训中心主任和罗马尼亚驻奥地利使馆商务参赞；其妻弟格奥尔基·波特列斯库任全国工会主席；齐奥塞斯库的小儿子尼库·齐奥塞斯库任共青团中央第一书记

http://www.qw13.com/kaogufaxian/201805153343.html

2018/05/25

现代文明先进思想来源

看到有资本主义哈巴狗又把社会主义思想拿去给资本主义贴金，为此我专门写一篇打脸文章：

最早反对国族主义的：社会主义（共产党宣言说的：　工人没有祖国。决不能剥夺他们所没有的东西。人对人的剥削一消灭，民族对民族的剥削就会随之消灭。民族内部的阶级对立一消失，民族之间的敌对关系就会随之消失。全世界无产者，联合起来！恩格斯的致大不列颠工人阶级：我极其满意地看到你们已经摆脱了民族偏见和民族优越感。这些极端有害的东西归根到底只是大规模的利己主义［wholesale　selfishness］而已。我看到你们同情每一个为人类的进步而真诚地献出自己力量的人，不管他是不是英国人；我看到你们仰慕一切伟大的美好的事物，不论它是不是在你们祖国的土地上产生的。我确信，你们并不仅仅是普通的英国人，不仅仅是一个孤立的民族的成员；你们是意识到自己的利益和全人类的利益相一致的人，是一个伟大的大家庭中的成员。正是由于我把你们当做这个“统一而不可分的”人类大家庭中的成员，当做真正符合“人”这个字的含义的人，所以我和大陆上其他许多人一样，祝贺你们在各方面的进步，希望你们很快地获得成功。）

最早支持女性平权的：社会主义（恩格斯在家庭、私有制和国家的起源中揭示了男权压迫的私有制根源，并反对私有制，主张女权：母权制的被推翻，乃是女性的具有世界历史意义的失败。丈夫在家中也掌握了权柄，而妻子则被贬低，被奴役，变成丈夫淫欲的奴隶，变成单纯的生孩子的工具了。妇女的这种被贬低了的地位，在英雄时代，尤其是古典时代的希腊人中间，表现得特别露骨，虽然它逐渐被粉饰伪装起来，有些地方还披上了较温和的外衣，但是丝毫也没有消除。管理上的民主，社会中的博爱，权利的平等，普及的教育，将揭开社会的下一个更高的阶段，经验、理智和科学正在不断向这个阶段努力。这将是古代氏族的自由、平等和博爱的复活，但却是在更高级形式上的复活。

最早维护性少数人权的：社会主义（倍倍尔在1898年最早公开为同性恋者说话：This January marks the 80th anniversary of a landmark in our struggle: the first political speech ever given for homosexual rights. Bebel so far as we know was the first to speak out in public debate. 列宁和托洛茨基取消压迫同性恋者的法律：1918年，苏联通过了一部完整的《婚姻，家庭和监护法典》，彻底驱散了旧时代父权制的阴云，在法律上赋予了女性独立自由和平等的地位。法典规定民事婚姻中只需夫妻一方要求就允许离婚。结婚登记也被尽可能地简化。法典废除了婚生和非婚生儿童的区别，而过去私生子给母亲带来的只有屈辱和严厉惩罚。法典超时代的进步性在其对待同性恋的态度上更是可见一斑。它废除了所有反对同性恋和两愿的性行为的法律，并尽量对其去污名化。

最早支持福利国家这一基本人权的：社会主义（从马克思开始的社会主义者全都主张福利国家，马克思也在共产党宣言中表述了福利国家构想：2．征收高额累进税10．对所有儿童实行公共的和免费的教育。恩格斯对福利国家的表述（来自1891年社会民主党纲领草案批判）：6．学校的世俗性。公立国民学校实行义务就学。在一切公立教学机构中实行经费教育和经费供应教材教具。9．医疗和医药免费。10．为了支付一切应靠税收支付的国家开支，征收级差累进的所得税、资本税和遗产税。取消一切间接税、关税以及使社会整体利益服从于享有特权的少数人的利益的其他经济措施和政治措施。）

最早支持民主的：民主起源于古希腊雅典城邦，后来被古典自由主义者重新提出（托马斯潘恩的《人权》，卢梭的《社会契约论》，孟德斯鸠的三权分立），社会主义者在古典自由主义者的基础上增加了对普选权的支持：如果说有什么是勿庸置疑的，那就是，我们的党和工人阶级只有在民主共和国这种政治形式下，才能取得统治。民主共和国甚至是无产阶级专政的特殊形式，法国大革命已经证明了这一点。　1．凡年满二十岁的帝国公民，不分性别，在选举和投票的所有阶段，均可在秘密投票的情况下享有普遍的、平等的、直接的选举权和投票权。实行比例选举制。规定选举和投票在星期日和假日举行。对选出的代表支给薪金。2．人民根据提出法案和否决法案的权利直接参加立法。在帝国、各邦、各省和各市镇实行人民自治。税收每年提付表决。来自恩格斯的1891年社会民主党纲领草案批判

最早支持政教分离的：古典自由主义（启蒙运动先贤，托马斯潘恩，伏尔泰等），社会主义继承了政教分离思想，并进一步揭露了宗教的愚民奴役本质：马克思的哥达纲领批判：但是工人党本来应当乘此机会说出自己的看法：资产阶级的“信仰自由”不过是容忍各种各样的宗教信仰自由而已，而工人党却力求把信仰从宗教的妖术中解放出来。但是他们不愿越过“资产阶级的”水平。恩格斯的1891年社会民主党纲领草案批判：（5）教会和国家完全分离。国家无例外地把一切宗教团体视为私人的团体。停止用国家资金对宗教团体提供任何补助，排除宗教团体对公立学校的一切影响。

最早提出人权概念的：古波斯帝国居鲁士大帝，写出世界上第一份人权宣言，后来古典自由主义者（洛克批驳君权神授，卢梭主张人民主权，弥尔顿主张出版自由）和社会主义者（马克思主张新闻自由，恩格斯明确支持福利国家和普选权并支持女性平权，倍倍尔支持同性恋平权）共同继承并发展了人权概念。

最早提出自决权的：社会主义（列宁提出民族自决，主张殖民地有权独立，后来这一点被其他社会主义者所认可并继承，包括社会民主主义者也支持自决。）

最早反对种族主义的：社会主义（参见共产党宣言：全世界无产者（不分民族种族国籍宗教信仰），联合起来！而考茨基则在《社会民主主义对抗共产主义》中明确指出：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。）

最早明确反对殖民压迫的：社会主义（马克思在资本论中揭露资本主义通过殖民进行原始积累的暴行，列宁明确提出殖民地有权独立，并被其他社会主义者所认可）

最早主张劳工权利和独立工会的：社会主义（参见第一国际）

看到了吧，这世界上最先进文明的思想，大部分都是由社会主义者首先提出的，而少数则是社会主义者和古典自由主义者共同努力的结果。所以，资本主义哈巴狗们有什么资格把现代文明说成是资本主义塑造的？你亲爱的资本主义唯一的价值观就是为了剥削压榨剩余价值不择手段，有什么文明可言？

2018/05/25

北欧模式研究论文和书籍介绍

To create and share – the remarkable success and contested future of the Nordic Social-Democratic Model：http://www.fafo.no/images/pub/2014/20372.pdf

The Nordic model towards 2030. A new chapter?：http://www.fafo.no/images/pub/2015/20412.pdf

The Nordic Model: Scandinavia since 1945：http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=59A7B7750B98881C38A624B47F08247F

The Nordic Model of Social Democracy：http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=58794319034F8A8779D08FA91458A4C0

2018/05/252018/05/25

What Can We Learn From The Nordic Model?（待翻译）

The neoliberal era started in the eighties as a revolt against the welfare state. It was a reassertion of the fundamentalist belief in market infallibility. It turned out to be a repeat version of history: Essentially it leads to casino capitalism, in the thrall of high finance, just as in the stock exchange crash in 1929. Austerity-like policies to deal with the consequences deepened the crisis, then as now, and ended in a decade-long Great Depression.

The bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers in 2008 signified the end of that neoliberal era. Once more, this version of unregulated capitalism crashed. It ended in the biggest rescue operation by the state in history. Stimulus packages by the state and quantitative leasing (printing money) by central banks on a massive scale rescued us from a new Great Depression.

Instead, we are now experiencing the Great Recession. What is the difference? A massive bail-out of the financial system by tax-payers. Once again, unregulated capitalism had to be saved from the capitalists – by the state. This has revealed neoliberalism to be what it is: pseudo-science in the service of the super-rich. Just like Soviet communism it is a fundamentalist dogma, which has utterly failed the test of implementation. And in so far as it is in the service of privileged elites and rejects the role of the democratic state in taking care of the public interest it is in essence anti-democratic.

Dying neoliberalism

Underlying the demise of neoliberalism is a financial system out of control. In the years 1980-2014 the financial system grew six times faster than the real economy. The fundamentalist belief driving it is that the sole duty of corporate CEOs is to maximize short-term profits, share prices and dividends. Those perverse incentives are used to justify executive salaries more than 300 times higher than those of average workers; and obscene bonuses.

This is many times more than in any other sectors, although managing money creates no comparable value. As such, this financial system has turned out to be the main conduit for moving streams of income and wealth from the productive sectors of society to the financial elite: from the 99% to the 1%. The share of labor in global GDP has fallen by hundreds of billions annually, while the share of income/wealth enriching the 1% has increased dramatically.

Small and medium-sized companies (SMEs) account for 67% of job creation in our societies, but receive only a fraction of total bank lending. In their single-minded pursuit of short-term profit the banks concentrate their lending on stock exchange speculation and real estate, increasing the nominal value of existing assets – creating bubbles and busts – and further enriching the rich.

This is why inequality has reached exorbitant levels in our societies. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer by the day. This is why long-term unemployment is built into the system. This is why poverty is increasing amidst plenty. This is why social cohesion is dwindling and polarisation growing. Since our leaders seem to be offering no convincing solutions, feelings of disappointment, resentment, anger and distrust are rising. Our democracy is under siege by the plutocratic elite.

Footloose finances and solidarity

This unsustainable financial system is footloose and fickle and prone to panic at the slightest sign of trouble, leaving behind scorched earth: collapsed currencies, bankrupted banks, sovereign defaults and mountains of debt to be paid by others. There is a complete disconnect between freedom and responsibility. After the crash of 2008 the system has been rebuilt on the same model. That means that we are stuck in a prolonged recession, even awaiting a new crisis. The people out there, who are suffering the consequences, are waiting for trustworthy solutions – radical reform.

What is our social democratic response to this existentialist crisis of unregulated capitalism? The basic elements of the Nordic model took shape as a response to the great socio-economic upheavals of the interwar period of the last century. In the West we observed the market failure of unregulated capitalism and the Great Depression. In the East we observed the Soviet experiment with communism: a centralized command economy run by a police state, which enforced the abolition of human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

We rejected both. We decided that we would follow the third way. We recognized the usefulness of a competitive market system, where applicable, to allocate resources and create wealth. But we put markets under strict democratic control to avoid market distortions (monopolies, booms and busts and extreme concentration of wealth). We insisted on public provision of education, healthcare and general utilities (energy, water, public transport, etc).

The means are familiar. Social insurance (sickness, accident, old age, and unemployment insurance), free access to quality healthcare and education, paid for by progressive taxation; active labour market policy to get rid of unemployment; and provide affordable housing for all. We emphasize equality of the sexes and strong support for families with children. These are redistributive policies aimed at increasing equality and social mobility – as a matter of human rights not as charity.

The result is a society where equality of income and wealth is greater than elsewhere. This means that individual freedom is not a privilege of the few, but a matter of emancipation for the many. Social mobility – the ability to advance in society, if you work hard and play by the rules – is de facto greater in the Nordic countries than elsewhere. The Nordic model has by now replaced the United States of America as the land of opportunity.

This is the only socio-economic model, emerging in the last century, that has withstood the test of time in the era of globalization in the 21st century.

Why the Nordic model works

The neoliberal creed is that the welfare state, with its high progressive taxes and strong public sector, is uncompetitive. State intervention hampers growth and innovation and results in stagnation. The bottom line: owing to its lack of dynamism, the welfare state is said to be unsustainable in the long run. And the proliferation of state bureaucracy is even said to threaten individual freedom and ultimately end in a totalitarian state (Hayek).

Now we know better. The facts speak for themselves. No matter what criteria we apply, the Nordic model is invariably at the top of the league.

This applies no less to economic performance than other criteria: Economic growth, research and developement, technological innovation, productivity per hour of work, job creation, participation in the labour market, (especially women), equality of the sexes, level of education, social mobility, absence of poverty, health and longevity, quality of infrastructure, access to unspoilt nature, the overall quality of life. Less inequality than in most places. And a vibrant democracy. What more do you want?

What tasks lie ahead? An all-out effort against the financial elite to restrain the forces of inequality and to reclaim the power of democracy. An unyielding solidarity with Europe’s youth, who have been left to fend for themselves in the queues of the unemployed, bereft of hope. And take up the fight for the preservation of the environment and our common future on this planet.

There are three major challenges that lie ahead in the immediate and near future:

Sanitise the corrupt financial system and put it back firmly under democratic control
Massive investment in clean and renewable energy to replace fossil fuels as the life-blood of our economies. This is an urgent task which calls for social democrats and environmentalists to work together to save our planet
Start planning now how to tackle the consequences of the technological revolution which is ongoing all around us (IT, digitization and automation)

The prospect of massive and systemic unemployment through automation calls for radical thinking about the distribution of income and the responsibilities of the democratic state in such a society. On the agenda should be proposals for a minimum basic income for all. This is a gigantic task that calls for well-designed redistributive policies in the spirit of social democracy, utterly beyond the capacity of unregulated capitalism to solve.

These three major problems, as well as relevant solutions, are inter-related.. A precondition for success in meeting them is a political alliance between social democrats, trade unions, environmentalists and the radical left among Europe´s neglected youth. The road signs are already there.

Remember the motto of Tage Erlander, the long-time leader of Sweden’s social democrats, and arguably the greatest reformer of the last century. He said: “The market is a useful servant, but an intolerable master”. And the spiritual leader of the Catholic faith, Pope Francis, agreed, when he said:

The worship of the golden calf of old has found a new and heartless image in the cult of money and the dictatorship of financial markets, which are faceless and lacking any humane goal. Money has to serve, not rule.

This is an edited version of a speech given at the celebratory 120th anniversary of the Lithuanian Social-Demcorati Party in Vilnius.

https://www.socialeurope.eu/what-can-we-learn-from-the-nordic-model

2018/05/25

The Nordic Model Is No Longer A Holy Grail（待翻译）

The European social model, virtually forgotten since the 2000s, is making a long-overdue comeback as the effects of the 2008 financial crisis continue to damage European society and exacerbate inequality levels. But this welcome change coincides with significant upheavals in the Nordic model, always seen as “best-in-class”. This has elemental consequences for Europe’s trade unions.

We’ve had a spate of reports on Europe’s “social contract” recently. Marine Boisson-Cohen and Bruno Palier argue for three priorities in the face of public spending pressures on the welfare state, persistent macro-economic imbalances in the eurozone and social tensions linked to free movement of labour. These are: adding a social dimension to the single currency, adapting the common rules framework to take account of the new era of worker mobility, and re-establishing the social model’s sustainability.

Jean Pisani-Ferry and Henrik Enderlein, in a report for the French and German economic minsters, urge cross-border investments, labour reforms in France, greater integration of skilled migrant and women workers in Germany, in a bid to avert a “lost decade” for a stagnant EU economy undermined by joblessness.

Now we’ve just had a study on the Nordic model(s) from a team of Nordic researchers who looked at the prospects for renewing the model – or, at worst, witnessing its decline – in Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Iceland and Norway itself up to 2030. It makes for tough reading.

For starters, they show that the crisis is hurting still in terms of increased unemployment – especially among Swedish young people. Second, employment rates have fallen quite dramatically since the 1990s. They were around 80% then and getting back to that level would require 1.3m new jobs between now and 2030 – a tall order. So, a key pillar of the Nordic model is showing symptoms of collapse – and, with rising inequality, its philosophical fundaments are undermined.

In fact, there are so many obvious variations as well as similarities in the Nordic model that it’s better to talk of a “family”. Finland, a Eurozone member, and Denmark, a de facto member if not de jure, have both shown negative growth between 2008 and 2014 – around minus 4% accumulatively. But both Norway (up 4%) and Sweden (up 6%) have done well relatively – and they’re not members.

The Nordic Model is runnig into trouble as union membership is falling across Scandinavia.

This group of countries has, however, shared common experiences – and lessons. One is how the political landscape has become fragmented and fractured, with its domination by social democratic parties – the glue holding the Nordic social pact together – at an end. Parties of the far right and right-wing populist groupings have been scoring between 12 and 20% of votes in recent elections, securing a solid base within that landscape. Even so, the welfare state remains intact and continues to enjoy the support of these right-wing and populist parties – although there is evidence that social generosity is being eroded.

But the second shared experience is more worrying from a trade union point of view. Nordic countries traditionally enjoy high rates of union density – up to 80%. These remain pretty high by European standards but are down to around 65% on average. If this continues, only half the labour force will be unionised by 2030. Indeed, if the Norwegian trend is followed generally, membership among wage- and salary-earners would be down to 45% and the unions would have lost a collective 2.1m members.

What’s especially alarming is that it will be an uphill struggle to recoup those membership levels. Young people are turning away from unions in their droves; joining a union is no longer axiomatic on getting a job. Not surprisingly, then, Nordic unions are focussing their efforts on recruitment. At the same time, northern Europe – especially Norway and Sweden – is proving more and more attractive to migrant labour.

One effect of this increased immigration is that there are large numbers of low-skilled workers on the fringes of the labour market or employed in sectors with low unionisation levels, creating a kind of two-tier labour market hitherto unknown in these countries.

One might conclude that the Scandinavian countries may retain some genuine advantages but are no longer quite so exceptional in European terms. But this equalisation with other European countries may bring a small consolation. We and they may now be able to learn from each other in a much richer vein than was possible when the Nordic model was viewed from afar as an unreachable Holy Grail.

The Nordic Model Is No Longer A Holy Grail

2018/05/25

The Nordic Model – A Life Lived with Liberty and Happiness（待翻译）

Societies are usually founded on a set of values and beliefs while holding a vision of the type of future they wish to create. These basic premises, to a large extent, determine the world in which they live. So with our focus on the Nordic Model, what may we learn from the ‘happiest people on earth?’

No one lives in Scandinavia for the weather or the tax system; however, if one wants a safe, reliable, healthy and sustainable life it presents an excellent option.

The Nordic Model is the Scandinavian countries unique model for organizing society. This model combines free market capitalism with a comprehensive welfare state and collective bargaining at the national level.

The countries are small, everyone closely connected and thus interpersonal trust is high. Everyone is perceived as equal and society is non-heretical so, one might easily meet the minister of foreign affairs while bicycling through the streets of Copenhagen.

Wealth is more evenly distributed, with a factor 40 differential between high and low incomes, compared to a factor 300 in America. When a progressive tax is applied, the difference between rich and poor is the difference between driving a Kia or a BMW.

The government model functions well and is largely trusted by the citizens. Childcare, infrastructure and educational systems are excellent, which attracts international businesses and multinational corporations such as Microsoft, Apple and IBM.

Citizens have an unusually high-risk willingness and even more important are unusually comfortable with ambiguity. This makes them excellent business people and entrepreneurs and both Stockholm and Copenhagen have become rising startup ecosystems that have resulted in six Unicorns.

So, where did the Nordic Model come from and how did it develop? The short answer is through the nasty Viking habit of raping, pillaging and plundering, along with wars, international travel and commerce. Although the Vikings may have developed an infamous reputation during their extensive travels throughout the world, to their credit, they were also fine tradesmen and great collaborators.

They engaged in extensive trading networks throughout the known world to the benefit of economic development in Europe. In fact, Scandinavia’s economic position in the world today would not have been the same without the seafaring Viking’s influence, since eighteen percent of all the world’s goods and oil is still transported on Danish ships.

Interestingly enough, the makeup of a modern day Viking starts with the educational system, collaborative problem solving, critical reasoning, and the international perspectives that characterize the Nordic Model of Education.

Their fundamental belief is that, “It is better to stand on each other’s shoulders than to step on each other’s toes.” This means that collaboration is better than competition and this belief has been incorporated into the Nordic Model of Education. It seeds project-based education where groups of students solve a problem by applying theories obtained in the classroom and it strengthens the student’s critical reasoning because only strong arguments count. International perspectives are also incorporated into everyday Nordic teachings and challenges are seen from a broader perspective.

These fundamentals make up the strong cocktail known as the Nordic Model of Education that is now being expanded outside the boundaries of Scandinavia. Recently, Niels Brock, a hundred and thirty year old business school in Copenhagen, acquired the California International Business University (CIBU) a non-profit, private university in San Diego, California, known for its culturally diverse student body. In addition to applying the Nordic Model of Education, it will leverage Scandinavian Design, as well as innovation and entrepreneurship with a Scandinavian twist providing a unique hybrid model to a business education. In other words, the Vikings have once again returned to the New World.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/soren-petersen/the-nordic-model—a-life_b_11817538.html

2018/05/25

瑞挪两国“离婚”百年之后

（瑞典）茉莉

最近邻国挪威的庆典一个接一个，令人目不暇接。

5月17日是挪威的国庆日，那一天奥斯陆阳光绚丽，红地蓝十字国旗飞扬，数万名在校学生，由穿着漂亮制服的乐队带领，沿着大街经过王宫，热热闹闹地游行。 1814年的这一天，挪威国民议会通过了自由宪法，宣布挪威为独立的君主国，但那次闹独立遭受失败。在同年签署的《基尔和约》中，丹麦把挪威割让给瑞典，挪威人被迫在瑞典的控制下生活了91年，直到1905年6月瑞挪联盟解体。

6月7日，奥斯陆又庆祝挪威脱离瑞典独立100周年。因为感念瑞典当年放弃战争手段，让挪威和平地获得独立，挪威最大的电信公司Telenor决定，所有在独立纪念日这一天打向瑞典的电话予以免费，以发展两国兄弟般的深厚情义。挪威国歌《是的，我们热爱这片土地》，在这一天也唱得特别嘹亮。

历史上一个无与伦比的典范

今天因为石油而富裕起来挪威人，大张旗鼓地庆祝从瑞典独立100周年，对此，瑞典人并不是一点都不犯酸，小小的嫉妒心还是有一点的。但六月是北欧最美丽的季节，蓝地黄十字的瑞典国旗飘扬在森林间的红色木屋，酷爱大自然的瑞典人，今天已经不再有大国民族主义和沙文主义，而只有健康正常的爱国情怀。

有人在瑞典报纸上做了一个统计，说如果当初瑞典不让挪威独立出去，瑞挪联盟继续发展，将在今天成为世界经济第十三强。那样的话，虽然斯堪地纳维亚的这个联盟进入不了G8（全球8大工业国）之列，但经济势力之强大，绝不敢让世界轻视。

说这话的人可能不太清楚，一百年前挪威人要求独立的情绪是何等强烈，除非当时的瑞典使用武力，否则绝不可能把挪威留在联盟里。而一旦使用武力，这宁静的斯堪地纳维亚半岛，也许就沦为今天的中东火药库，百年来国无宁日，哪里还谈得上经济发展和强大？

而放弃武力和平“离婚”，倒是为两国赢得了发展的时机。尽管1905年挪威闹分裂时，两国关系曾一度紧张，在瑞挪联盟解体后，两国关系也一度冷淡，但时间使分裂的伤口渐渐愈合，瑞挪之间友好联系从未中断。至今为止，两个邻国已经和平相处了90年，这在世界历史上，是一个无与伦比的典范。

不是“百年孤独”是“百年团结”

分离了一百年，瑞典人总结说：瑞挪两国不是马尔克斯笔下的“百年孤独”，而是令人欣慰的百年团结。

由于历史原因，北欧各国选择了不同的国际合作，例如挪威参加了北约组织，而瑞典却仍然保持它的中立政策；挪威至今仍然不愿加入欧盟，瑞典已经是多年的欧盟成员国。但瑞挪两国之间的联系纽带非常强大，由于拥有共同的历史，相近的语言，以及共同的价值观，没有任何国家像瑞挪两国一样相互了解。

合作是全方位的。官方的政治对话在各种层次上广泛交流，两国互相学习对方的社会经验，从政治、军事和环境保护，到企业联合、商业贸易和交通旅游，两国都有建设性的合作。在文化交流上，由于语言不是障碍，不少挪威人看瑞典电视，这无疑加深了理解和共识。两国的国家剧院也经常合作上演剧目，合作拍摄电影电视也是很平常的事情。

瑞挪之间长长的边界线没有设防，人民享受自由来往的乐趣。两国人民互相移民，他们连姓名都相同，例如菲利普、奥斯卡之类。“斯德哥尔摩婚姻方式”也在挪威盛行，这种不结婚只同居，却有一定法律意义的男女生活家庭方式，早在一百多年前就开始了。在男女平等方面，目前这两个国家都居于联合国的顶尖地位。唯一的不同是酒类的消费，据统计，瑞典人喝酒比挪威人多，以致瑞典至今还必须对国民饮酒设有限制。

在联合国，北欧几个国家经常一致表态，因为它们既有共同的利益，也都具有相同的民主人权价值观。不少国际性的和平项目，都有北欧国家的卓越贡献。

而北欧国家模范的安全政策合作，更是世界上其他骚乱地区的人们梦寐以求的。由于瑞典当年宁愿放弃挪威也不要战争，今天北欧国家之间的战争，已经成为不可想象的事情。

民主在和平解体中的作用

在前几年的《从瑞典和平运动看人民争取和平权》一文中，笔者曾经谈到瑞典和平主义者在促进联盟解体中所起的作用。当时，挪威议会制定了一个独立的领事馆制度，激怒了瑞典。瑞典国王命令挪威政府下台，挪威政府拒绝受命。挪威议会通知瑞典国王：“我们已经废除了联邦国王的制度。”由于挪威人实际上是在间接地宣布脱离瑞典联盟，瑞典国王因此准备大动干戈教训他们。在战争有一触即发之势之时，瑞典和平主义者开展了一个规模浩大的和平运动，他们反对兄弟相残的口号获得广泛的支持。原来打算以武力教训挪威的瑞典当局，只好改变态度。

现在看来，把瑞挪和平分家的结果仅仅归功于瑞典和平运动，是很不够的，我们还应该看到，挪威方面在当时的紧张局势中，也是比较克制的，他们不直接提出“独立”的口号，以避免刺激瑞典。更深层更关键的原因却是：在瑞挪联盟91年的漫长时期，两个国家都向现代化民主迈出了一大步。

正是当时具有现代民主雏形的社会制度，导致两国领导人在面对激烈冲突时，必须听取人民的意见。瑞典方面，联盟君主奥斯卡二世，将此事提交瑞典议会去讨论，因为早在1723年，瑞典就废除了君主专制，增强了议会的权力。而在代表社会各阶层的议会里，和平主义者占了上风，他们做出的决议可想而知。

挪威方面与瑞典君主抗衡的真正力量，也是它的议会制度。挪威议会根据宪法和当时的法律，一致决定结束挪威和瑞典在统一君主制下的联邦关系。

为了了解挪威人民是否真的想要脱离瑞典，奥斯卡二世要求挪威举行全民公决。全民公决于1905年8月举行，共有368 392名挪威人投票赞成结束联盟，只有184人投反对票。

接下来事情就顺利了。1905年8月31日，两国在边境小城卡尔斯塔谈判了将近一个月之后，签订了协议。1905年10月26日，瑞典国王宣布挪威从此脱离瑞典，挪威人有权拥有自己的国王。11月12日至13日，挪威再次举行全民公决，决定未来的国体。由于有78，9％的挪威人赞成君主立宪制，挪威议会投票选举丹麦的卡尔王子为挪威国王。

一百年过去了，斯堪地纳维亚半岛“闹离婚”的两个国家，已经成为“世界上相处最好的邻居”。前不久，瑞典首相佩尔松应邀到挪威参加国庆盛典，在人民集会上发表讲话说：“100年前瑞挪联盟的和平解体推动了北欧民主制度的发展，和平取代战争是顺从民心的表现。”

http://blog.creaders.net/u/4775/201805/321776.html