社会主义农夫与中间派毒蛇:新农夫与蛇(更新)

写在前面:这是一份给主动送上门的死妈货拉的清单,凡是主动惹我毫无下限的死妈货,都会被我挂在这里,一个都不放过,哈哈哈哈!

补充第三条毒蛇:https://twitter.com/hino__tamako/status/1063058792689139712

此人原名珠玖,加拿大留学生,自称中左,不过实际上,呵呵呵呵,看到了吧,和傻逼纳粹一起骂人的货色,有什么资格自称左派?亏得我之前还答应过此人不再追究傻逼杜小玲冒犯我的事,行行行,对垃圾纳粹有什么可承诺的!傻逼毒蛇就一起在我的blog上被拉清单吧!

最近我碰到了些非常令人生气的事,不过鉴于我之前做过承诺,我先不说具体的蛇的身份,我就先说说我这个农夫碰到的事情,当然,我也对他们说了,如果再有类似的事发生,我就直接把他们拿过来当反面教材。当然,我可以随时更新博客文章,把他们的身份公开。(他们都不知道我的真实身份,至于个人信息,一个我就从来没告诉过,还有一个我告诉他的信息是根本无法用于定位的,呵呵。自从和evil吵翻之后,我就多了个心眼,不再随意相信别人。)

毒蛇总共有两条,这两条的共同点是都自认左派,但实际上是中间派(Centrist),不过相比之下一条比另一条更右。不过今天我不是来讨论中间派这一意识形态如何的,实际上令我生气的也不是这点。我生气的是,这两条毒蛇之前都来主动找我,向我请求帮助,而我的确也提供帮助了,但我得到了什么?感谢?笑脸?你想多了,我得到的是无耻的攻击!

先说相对比较左的那条毒蛇吧。这条在一开始以新人的面目出现,自称左派,对社会主义和社会党抱有好感,然后我帮其解答了很多疑问(对新人我的态度一向很好,除了太傻逼的),也和他一起嘲笑过极右纳粹。但后来此人不再和我交流,我也没在意,和谁交流本来就是别人的自由。

但这个混蛋最近有两件事令我非常生气:第一件事和另一条毒蛇有关,另一条毒蛇惹到了一些专门负责人肉别人的垃圾,然后他来找我商量对策,此时还没什么问题。但是,后来那些人肉垃圾人肉了另一个其憎恨的人,而他此时跑去支持这些人肉垃圾,并且和极右纳粹们一起落井下石,看着那些纳粹们借机抹黑左派(实际上那个被憎恨的人并非左派)而无动于衷。我提醒他这点,但是没有用。呵呵,此等做法无异于看到共匪的坦克碾死了一个憎恨的人而为坦克叫好,却不顾坦克本身就是暴虐的极权。落井下石切割批斗,这种混蛋还真的没资格指责文革。

然后,落井下石之后,这个混蛋又来无耻的抹黑我,私信骂我是脑残,还无中生有的指责我支持“物物交易”。别逗了,我怎么可能去支持这个?捏造谎言也请动动脑子好吗?意识形态不同没什么关系,但私信骂我?无中生有抹黑?落井下石?此等下作手段真是令我不齿!

像evil那种意识形态不同,选择公开对垒,不捏造谎言,不攻击辱骂的,在右派中真是稀有动物啊,呵呵。当然,如果他不是这样有原则的人,我也不会和他成为几年的朋友。但很显然这条意识形态比evil左(仅限经济)的毒蛇是没有原则的。

刚才看到毒蛇一号又在骂我,很好,那么我就公开其身份:  ,https://twitter.com/KurodaMasaki324/with_replies ,这是其推特主页,欢迎有兴趣者前去欣赏,呵呵。哦,这傻逼纳粹自称天主教徒,反对堕胎这一基本人权,他可真应该滚去萨尔瓦多这个完全禁止堕胎的天主教国家啊。PS:萨尔瓦多是美国难民来源地之一的“北方三角”国家之一,人权状况极为糟糕(大赦国际有专栏报告,人权状况惨不忍睹),贫富悬殊,女性和性少数被肆意歧视压迫虐待甚至被黑帮屠杀。上世纪后期该国曾经发生内战,亲苏偏左的农民反抗军起来反抗右翼独裁政府,结果美国政府支持右翼独裁政权大肆屠杀平民,最终这一独裁政府也没被推翻,呵呵。

然后该说说另一条毒蛇了。另一条毒蛇也是一开始自称左派,主动找到我,然后我也真心当此人是战友。结果后来我无意中提到了一些左派观点,说了些工人运动相关的话,此人就直接把我拉黑,还无耻的嘲笑我。有个第三方看不下去,为我说了几句公道话,就被此人撒泼打滚的威胁,第三方一怒之下找到我,告诉我此人的嘴脸,然后我把此人反拉黑了,就当自己当初眼瞎;

但几个月之后,此人主动通过朋友找到我,请求原谅;我取消拉黑之后试探了一些问题,结果发现此人概念混乱左右不分,更无法理解我的意识形态;不过此人的朋友也同时告诉我此人有严重的心理疾病,所以我也不打算计较了。

而此人有严重的心理疾病这点不假,后来我也通过公开推文看出了这点,所以决定把意识形态放在一边,一起安慰此人,稳定此人的情绪。

看到这里,你是不是觉得此人应该至少表示个感谢什么的?你想多了,此人不仅没有任何反应(其实没有任何反应也不是不可以理解),反而还主动再次攻击我,想要纠集一群人开我的批斗会!

幸亏我主动发现,出言警告此人要把她也放到我的博客上,以其人之道还治其人之身,此人才删除攻击我的文字。调侃?呵呵,我不接受任何调侃,更别说是一个奥派的了。

此傻逼纳粹叫杜小玲,推特账号:https://twitter.com/kosuzu_to/ ,欢迎参观,呵呵。以及,更新一下杜傻逼的无耻嘴脸:https://twitter.com/kosuzu_to/status/1063037842132209664

这三条毒蛇不过是中国特色右们的缩影而已。把资本主义当作宇宙真理,反对民主自由人权,但又不敢公开捍卫自己的宇宙真理,于是只能使用一些下作手段,例如在背后断章取义抹黑,公开人肉等等。不过这也不是什么新手段了,他们的前辈们在马克思和恩格斯时代就已经对当时的社会主义者,包括马克思和恩格斯本人无数次使用这类下作手段了。马克思和恩格斯不会被这些下作手段吓退,我也不会。同时我也不会相信以及进入他们的任何圈子,无论他们套话的时候说得有多好听。

 

聊聊共匪的经济政策

如果去查询关于共匪经济政策的资料,你会发现一个很奇怪的现象:哪边都不认共匪是属于他们的,凯恩斯主义者骂共匪各种私有化不管人民死活,奥派骂共匪天天大搞基建放水造成严重资源浪费。(凯恩斯主义者:你共匪把基本人权都私有化了,禁止独立工会,由着老板们胡作非为,这种自由真是恶心!奥派:你共匪四处政府主导基建,大肆放水,弄了大堆没人住的鬼城,欠下巨量债务,疯狂的凯恩斯怪兽!)

其实两边都有道理,因为现在的共匪的确是混合的,但并非一开始就如此。前三十年共匪是和苏联学的指令经济,后来我们都知道,独裁者拍脑袋的指令经济最终导致了全国范围内的经济崩溃以及极度的贫困,然后共匪就开始私有化了。准确的说,共匪一直都是私有化的,只是将被党官僚实际私人占有的生产资料和资本慢慢交给了非赵家人(当然,只有一小部分)。

而共匪从80年代开始,就逐渐将教育医疗住房养老这些基本人权都私有化了,拒绝福利制度,而当时的人民上街反对,却被坦克屠杀(也就是六四大屠杀),然后“改革的浪潮将中国变成了世界的血汗工厂,………震撼与恐怖开启了世界上规模最大的投资热潮。又一个在屠杀中诞生的奇迹——《休克主义——灾难资本主义的兴起》”。90年代的“国企改革”造成几千万“国企”(实际上是党官僚私企)工人失去生活来源,外加本应属于人民的财产被私人权贵和其白手套们侵吞;至于房地产经济是如何造成房价暴涨,制造无数房奴的,也不用我多说了;而教育医疗住房养老等基本人权被私有化造成了超过2亿人饿死冻死病死,独立工会被禁止导致工人们被残忍的剥削压迫,还有共匪放任企业肆意的污染环境造成的损失已经多到无法统计了。而这一切,都是奥派的主张,当年亲自担任邓坦克国师的就是奥派代表人物之一的米尔顿弗里德曼!

但有一个问题是共匪不得不面对的:尽管共匪从疯狂的私有化和自由放任经济中掠夺了大量财富,但这一切是不可持续的,资本主义在扩张的过程中不断制造的过剩商品和过剩劳工最终会造成经济危机的爆发,而这是资本主义的固有缺陷,不是共匪能够左右的。而对于靠经济发展提供合法性(至少共匪一直如此进行宣传)的共匪来说,经济危机的爆发是无法被容忍的。

但是,2008年,世界范围内的经济危机爆发了,起因是华尔街自由的投机赌博引发的次贷危机,而对于已经严重依赖世界市场的中国来说,如果像奥派主张的那样不采取任何措施,继续自由放任,那么经济危机必然会在中国同步爆发。可是共匪不可能容忍这种情况的出现,那么怎么办呢?

像社会主义者主张的那样开启政治民主化和经济民主化进程?你想多了,共匪的所有政策都有一个前提,就是绝不能威胁到其统治,所以社会主义者的主张共匪是绝不可能考虑的。那就只有一个选择了:使用凯恩斯主义主张的通过政府投资创造就业带动经济,也就是共匪经常在党媒上重复说的“宏观调控”。

共匪投入了四万亿(实际上到现在远远不止四万亿了)在全国范围内大规模进行基建,例如修高铁,修公路,进行疯狂城市化,天天拆楼再建楼,并且为此不停借贷,成功避免了经济危机的同步爆发,但是其中同时也出现了严重的寻租和资源浪费(独裁之下必然会出现这些),而且这一过程不可避免的重新扩大了“国企”的控制范围,有些奥派就因此哭丧“国进民退”。而凯恩斯主义的这一主张很容易令人上瘾,当年西欧二战之后转向凯恩斯主义,也是一宏观调控就停不下来,结果最终引发了严重的滞胀(不过根本上来说还是因为凯恩斯主义无法解决资本主义的固有缺陷)。很明显,共匪也上瘾了,陷进去了。奥派们对此自然是极为不满,把中国称做“凯恩斯怪兽”,包括我曾经的朋友evil也指责过共匪的宏观调控政策。当然,中国的奥派们,特别是铅笔纳粹社之流,是从来都不会指责政府的(从这一点上说,说中国的铅笔纳粹社之流是别有用心,也没什么问题,但铅笔纳粹社的价值观是奥派的,这是奥派没法否定的事实。)。

当然凯恩斯主义没法解决资本主义的固有缺陷,所以滞胀或经济危机最终还是会在中国爆发,只是时间无法预测。共匪清楚这一点吗?我认为清楚,否则这些混蛋也不会早早的把家人财产都离岸了。

那么共匪到底是哪派的?从经济政策来说,现在的共匪是混合的,哪派都不是;从价值观来说,共匪是标准的,纯粹的奥派。

 

聊聊成功学这一资本主义的毒果

右派编程随想写过一篇批判成功学的文章,我也一直在考虑是不是也从社会主义的角度对成功学进行批判,但实际上,整个社会主义意识形态都是在批判成功学的理论和逻辑的,所以看起来没必要单独再写一篇批判文章了。

其实的确,成功学的理论和逻辑我在批判新自由主义时已经多次批判过了,特别是只要掌握了逻辑学,成功学的白痴逻辑就会不攻自破。

但有一个比批判成功学本身更重要的问题还没有得到回答:为什么会出现成功学这种垃圾?

如果一个垃圾只是被少数个别人相信,那这是这些人自己脑子搭错筋,但如果一个垃圾成为潮流成为风气,被广泛欢迎,更有人借机大发其财,那么问题就不出在信徒个人身上,而是出在社会身上了。

而成功学在哪里最流行呢?中国,美国。

一个是资本主义大本营,一个是国家资本主义与纯粹资本主义的混合体。成功学的源头是美国,后来进入亚洲,并在中国和台湾火爆,而台湾也是个新自由主义国家。

但成功学也并不是在资本主义诞生的一开始就出现了,实际上早期的纯粹资本主义根本就不承认公平的存在,而是主张“虽然我人穷地位低,但如果我谦和干净又整洁,挨屌时我能逆来顺受,我也能感动富人来爱我,富人住在宫殿里,穷人站在他门口,造物主安排他们分等级,地位有贵也有贱”。可以看到,早期的纯粹资本主义和之前的所有私有制(封建制,中央集权的皇权独裁)一样,都试图在压迫阶级和被压迫阶级之间划出一条不可逾越的鸿沟。这里需要批评一下有些左派,资本主义和其他类型的私有制之间的差距远没你们想象的大,现代民主资本主义国家的那些能看的价值观基本上都是被社会主义者强迫接受的,而资本主义的很多洗地说辞也是在社会主义的逼迫之下才变得不那么恶心的。

但后来我们都知道这么做造成了什么:社会主义出现了,并且影响力越来越大。这时候剥削阶级们发现,再不承认公平的存在,工人们就要掀桌了!所以他们不得不改变策略:我们承认公平,但承认的是“机会公平”,而什么是机会公平呢?就是“只要你努力,你就能成功,成为资产阶级的一员”。

翻译一下:只要你乖乖被赵老爷压迫,有一天你终将成为赵老爷。当然事实并非如此,所以剥削阶级们为了制造假象,就需要鼓吹成功学这种“另类事实”。

不妨看看成功学是如何自吹自擂的吧:成功学的起源是为了完善自我和培养他人,促使人们积极进取,推动社会完善进步而自然产生的学问。实际上是一门关于自我管理的学问,是理想信念与目标行动教育方面的内容,是多种因素相互作用的产物。(来源:百度百科

一堆废话和屁话。还“自然产生”,呵呵,成功学这种垃圾是树上结出来的还是自然选择产生的物种啊?

然后再看看这个:一、为什么一般人会失败 1、缺乏目标。 2、目标没有写下来。 3、目标不明确。 4、目标没有设定期限。 5、时常更改目标。 6、目标太多  7、缺乏核心目标。 8、忘了设定短期目标、中期目标和长期目标。 9、不愿意对自己负责任  10、缺乏行动力。 11、自我设限。 12、无法掌控自己的情绪  13、不愿意好好地努力工作。 14、结交错误的朋友。 15、不请教成功者。  16、缺乏时间管理。  17、用错了方法和策略。  18、缺乏自我成长 19、没有百分之百地下定决心而且全力以赴地去做。  20、没有集中在单一目标。(来源:陈安之成功学

我说,你知道这傻逼在说些什么吗?怎样算目标太多?怎样算自我设限?怎样算结交错误的朋友?怎样算用错了方法和策略?怎样算缺乏自我成长?最重要的是,设立怎样的目标才算是对的目标啊?

不需要继续罗列了,都是类似的废话和屁话,我之前已经在批判新自由主义的时候批判过多次了,问题是,为什么这些废话和屁话会那么有市场?

其实很多成功学的信徒也未必就多么相信这些废话和屁话,他们信奉成功学的原因只有一个:有人这么做,然后成功了。而这个“有人”则是剥削阶级们精心准备的一些个例,他们蓄意抹去细节,制造出一种“他们的成功你也可以复制”的假象,同时屏蔽了真实的社会(这个屏蔽可不是说共匪那种粗糙的删帖封号砌墙,而是直接把穷人剥削掠夺得一无所有连发声的条件都没有,同时用雇佣的水军五毛狗辩护士垄断媒体),使得信徒们相信了上帝的说辞。

我们可以看出这其中的“把个例当整体”是一种很明显的逻辑谬误,所以资本主义也是憎恨逻辑学的。而资本主义鼓吹竞争,强迫所有人在暴虐的竞技场内互相残杀,也促使相当一些人寻找迅速获胜的法宝,而成功学就以这种法宝的名义顺理成章的出现了。

所以,成功学是资本主义结出的一颗毒果,当然资本主义结出的毒果不止这一颗,还有法西斯主义和帝国主义等等。而要阻止毒果毒害别人,就必须要推倒毒树。

公益人,怎么就变成营销官了?

导语:公益市场化不仅将公民身份降格为消费者,公民参与社会议题的内涵与结构性反思也被极大地斧斫。公益市场化最大悖缪就是,面对源于政治压迫与经济剥削所产生的社会疾苦,社会组织却只能接受商业殖民或与权力媾和,而仅仅起到改良的作用。

消费的兴起是公民的堕落,越是有技术的消费者,越是愚蠢的公民。——齐格蒙特·鲍曼

平台化的公益捐款成了冷漠的买买买? 

腾讯公益基金会发起的99公益日刚刚落下帷幕。许多99公益日的捐赠者形容自己捐赠的过程就像在淘宝上买买买,唯一不同的是“付款后”,并不会收到快递。

99公益日至今已经持续四年,无论是公众捐款与参与、企业捐款、在公益行业的影响力都逐年增长。同时,互联网公司的产品逻辑,也凭借其资本力量植入到公益领域。而腾讯,已然成为公益市场化的代表。

500

今年99公益日的公众捐款总额与去年基本持平,而捐款人次较2017年增加50%。也就是说,99公益日为更多人所了解,但人均捐款的减少。图片来源:微信公众号 公益资本论

注意力刺激、饥饿营销、制造紧迫感拼抢配捐,就像是拼抢优惠卷一样……运营的手法上,99公益日的与双十一狂欢节并无二致。素材的呈现上,99公益日制造了一种消费他者苦难叙事的巨大景观堆叠:社会疾苦被扁平化地投射为荧幕上的消费景观,环境污染的创伤,留守儿童/流动儿童通红淳朴的笑颜,人们被诱导着认为,消费这些公益商品,就能减少这个社会的苦难。

就算是作为筹款主体的一线服务者也感到被戏弄了。2017年的99公益募捐活动,许多社会组织一线服务者本能地感受到侮辱与宰制:“今年对腾讯99的好感与期待明显不如往年……配捐结果太意外,我们马上决定中止、放弃……感觉被玩弄了”。( 详见《99公益日:公益人有话讲》)今年,除去那些对腾讯失望而放弃参与的机构,腾讯设置的复杂的游戏规则占去了一线行动者们大量的工作时间,但最终的筹款效果却不如人意。

讽刺的是,近几年99公益日筹款总额排行榜前排基本都是大资本或官方背景的基金会,而不少扎根基层,关注性别、劳工、残障等议题的草根行动者反而因为文化和社会资本的不足而筹款艰难,2018年99公益期间,两个以“反性骚扰”为主题的筹款项目被平台方下架。

是的,实际筹款过程中,能否雇佣专业的传播官员做出精美的文案影像来打动消费者,能否设计策划专业的营销方案、邀请明星大V来扩大传播力,或能够调用足够多的“熟人”社群,以及是否在官方划定的敏感线以上,都决定了其最终的筹款能力——而以上的一切,却和公益行动本身对接的社会议题、社会群体并没有多大的关系。

这是一场消费式的公益狂欢。在公益市场化或产品化的叙述中:公益活动被转化为一种商业模式,强调效率,并量化成本收益。社会组织被迫加入商品-生产-消费的市场逻辑,即:社会组织的公益项目被设计、包装、上架、推广,最终出售给捐赠者。

公益实践,根本上是要站在弱势群体立场,在具体的社会条件下改善人的处境,对多样可能性个体的体恤与善待。实践来源于一线行动者的社会互动经验,从具体的生命经验和困惑出发,用自己的经验理解别人的经验,用别人的经验想象自己另一种生活的可能。

而互联网产品逻辑却天生反公益之道而行之。它把人作为用户,作为可操作的对象,成为单向度的由有限个参数定义的用户群体画像,琢磨其痛点痒点,榨取欲望,收割流量,忽视个体在具体社会关系中的困境。

最终,99公益日在社交媒体上创制了一种迷人/吊诡的后人类数码景观。供应商(社会组织)要将社会疾苦打包转化为可识别的文件格式上传到唯一的垄断平台,成为其流量的一部分,用户(捐助人)的操作不断被腾讯捕捉与挖掘。而他者的苦难横亘于冰冷屏幕之中,人们目睹资本算法推送到面前的精美公益宣传,却与贫苦大众的真实境遇渐行渐远。

商业精英掌握了公益,社会矛盾就会“被消失” 

如果说,社会组织是生产者,公益项目是产品(消费品),捐赠人(企业、政府部门、市民…)是消费者,那么底层所承受的社会疾苦就是用于制造“公益产品”的原材料。在平台资本开始进军公益圈之后,在地的社会组织显然成为了社会疾苦的搬运工——为了满足企业社会责任CSR、政府主导的社会治理、市民公益消费等等“消费方”的需求,他们开发、包装社会苦难,将之变为符合市场口味的商品。

不知不觉中,对社会问题的关注被边缘化,更快的中介、更高的销量、更好的顾客评价却重要起来。公益市场化置换了公益组织真正的服务对象,即由面向被压迫者服务,转而为向付费者负责。同时,严肃的公共议题被消解了,有关社会正义的诉求被转化为技术官僚与管理官僚可以解决的、自上而下的治理问题。

而被忽略的是,现代社会中日常生活的种种苦难其实来源于诸多权力关系下的经济与政治结构。2018年1月22日,国际扶贫发展机构乐施会的最新报告《请回报劳动,不要酬谢财富》指出:全球贫富差距正在加速扩大。2017年,全球所创造的财富总值中,高达82%流向了顶层1% 的人口,而全球财富底层50%人口的财富却几乎颗粒无收。危险的是,正是那些工资低廉、人数庞大的劳动者们支撑起了少数富豪的巨额财富。妇女们从事着最糟糕的工作,而超级富豪几乎全为男性。正是大公司在资本积累过程,把诸如劳动剥削与资源环境破坏的问题转嫁给整个社会。 

500

图片来源:绿色和平贫困报告

而NGO的主要社会工作议题,如流动儿童、留守儿童、农村孤寡老人、环境污染等不正是资本主义生产方式造成的么?正是资本制造了空间、地理上的不平衡,把个体从原来的社会土壤中连根拔起,驱逐到城市出卖劳动力。资本主义文明不断强化空间发展的不平衡的,用以维持其利润来源——资本主义核心地区剥削外围地区,发达国家剥削发展中国家,城市剥削乡村,优势产业剥削基础产业……只要根植于全球资本主义体系,社会疾苦就会源源不断的生产出来,即使局部个案获得了关注,底层的社会苦难不会从根本上得到改善。然而,精美的公益传播作品却往往对那些问题的根源只字不提。

而景观化、市场化的明星慈善机制成为压迫性结构的减压阀与润滑剂,并巩固着少数富人主导的全球资本主义体系。自20世纪90年代末以来,索罗斯、比尔·盖茨等超级富豪就宣称,将自己的财产捐赠给慈善事业。2010年,比尔·盖茨发起了一项慈善活动——“捐赠承诺”(Giving Pledge),这项运动以全球亿万富豪为目标群体,鼓励他们捐出大部分财富。夸张的个人财富带来了夸张的捐赠,经媒体报道,这些超级富豪的道德光环异常耀眼。

而明星慈善话语本身就是为自身服务的,目的往往是为了积累明星企业家的声望与企业利益。相关研究表明,企业拿出总利润一部分进行慈善事业与宣传能大幅提高消费者对其产品的好感,其本质上是一种品牌营销。

真正的行动者面临被商业收编的命运 

值得注意的是,企业社会责任的发展也不是企业“良心发现”的结果,而是20世纪80年代以来, 在政府未能有效监管大公司的背景下,媒体、NGO、受害人团体和工会这些社会力量针对“血汗工厂”斥责、抗议,不断倒逼跨国企业,令其承担责任的结果。1984年,印度博帕尔联合碳化物化工厂发生爆炸,造成约2.5万人死亡。波士顿大学管理学教授詹姆斯·波斯特(James Post)说,灾难发生后,“全球化学工业认识到,在公众对工业安全标准缺乏信心的情况下,要获得经营许可证几乎是不可能的。化学制造商协会( CMA )通过了一项行为准则,对产品管理、披露和社区参与都制定了新的标准。”

500

2014年,博帕尔事故发生30年,未获得赔偿的受害者举行抗议。

到了90年代中期,企业社会责任运动逐渐形成。许多跨国企业如Nike(耐克)、Adidas(阿迪达斯)、沃尔玛、麦当劳等为了避免品牌形象受影响,不得不采取拿出资金,改善工人待遇、生产流程等等。不过近年来,明星慈善模式盛行,企业家、演艺明星、新闻记者等诸多跨界精英凭借自己拥有的经济资本、文化资本、社会资本摇身一变,成为创业梦想导师、公益合伙人、青年领袖。籍由其掌握的媒介权力,一种精英式的意识形态塑造了大众对公益的认知,而真正的社会矛盾被那些披上了真善美袈裟的资本权力精英掩盖起来。

这样的风潮也渗透到了年轻人中。如今,许多年轻人加入了短期志愿服务或者大型国际NGO实习,但其中不少人却对底层社会经验、批判性的公共讨论一无所知。实际上,他们参与公益实习往往成为其留学申请的镀金手段——借由公益项目,一群精致的利己主义者化身为富有社会责任感的青年领袖,为他们日后成为政商学媒界的权力精英做准备。

当今,社会创新、社会创业、社会设计等等时髦华丽的公益话语不断翻新,意图与草根NGO与一线社会服务划清界限,但极少有公众注意到,这些话语是去政治化的,它们遮蔽了真实的议题,消解了改变社会结构的诉求,是一种伪装的“行动主义”。

去年冬天的北京,我在一家高档酒店的慈善晚宴现场打杂,慈善晚宴的贵宾通过VR眼镜观看大凉山/肯尼亚贫困人口的生活,这场景彷佛《景观社会》的封面,那个冬天,还有一场大火,我永远无法忘记。

NGO行动,如何突破商业的围剿? 

资本权力对公益的殖民,不仅改造公益行业资源配置,生产机制,更制造了一种臣服于资本的意识形态,即市场化的慈善公益话语成为NGO场域的霸权意识形态。

背后,新自由主义政策的影响不可忽视。社会学家布迪厄指出,新自由主义之下,公共服务形式正在从集体福利到针对个体的救济方式转变,这意味着直接针对分配结构的政策正在转化为简单地纠正社会风险个案,加上工会衰弱、组织群体弱化等原因,具有动员潜力的民众变成了由碎片化的、孤立的穷人组成的、充满异质性的乌合之众,用官方说法,即弱势群体。因此,NGO发展的思路要重新破题,不得不将受压迫者的重新联结提上日程。

面对NGO行业今天的诸多困境,不得不重新审视中国妇联举办的95世界妇女大会之后那段被遮蔽的历史。当时,国际NGO进入所倡导的参与式发展理念,促进了中国现代公益行业的萌芽,这段实践经验也启发着今天NGO理念的另类可能。

500

1995年世界妇女大会在中国召开。图片来源:网易新闻

所谓的“参与式发展”,是指二战以后,伴随着“国际援助项目”的兴起,国际NGO成为了国际援助项目的主要执行方而登上国际政治舞台,同时伴随着国际援助项目和国际NGO工作的推进,“发展”这个概念作为国际援助的目标、国际NGO工作的总议程而成为主流叙事。但是,随着国际NGO工作的推进,许多困难、挑战、障碍和不足都显现了出来。

在马克思主义学者葛兰西关于“有机知识分子”的论述和反科学主义流派学者费耶阿本德对于“知识和文化多元论”的论述影响下,在拉丁美洲反帝国主义、反殖民主义的斗争实践中,由缪尔达尔在《亚洲的戏剧》、舒马赫在《小的便是好的》、弗里埃在《受压迫者教育学》等一系列著作的深入讨论的启发下,强调反对外来专家干预、否思社会现象的规律性和客观性、强调尊重本土知识和强调多元价值-文化视角的工作理念开始进入到NGO的实践中。并最终在Norman Long和Robert Chambers等一大批发展学家的系统梳理下,成为一整套关于NGO应该如何尊重本地知识、如何发掘本地经验、如何觉察外来专家和本地村民之间的权力关系、如何基于本地人真实意愿开展在地工作的范式。(刘滔,2017)

现代发展理论强调的是尊重差异、平等协商,在外来者的协助下,通过社区成员积极主动的广泛参与,实现社区可持续的有效益的发展,使社区人员能够共享发展的成果。其关键在于,激起社区和社群自身的动力、愿景和行动自信。

只有当社区与社区成员参与发展项目的计划决策过程,被授权管理和控制他们自己的资源和未来时,平等发展才有可能实现。本地人不仅是研究的对象,而应是研究工作各个阶段的参与者、是自己的信息的生产者和主人。如此,才能够保证那些已经在第一次与第二次分配中被剥夺的人,免于在那些带着假面的“第三次分配”中再次受到伤害。

参考文献:

布迪厄,《反思社会学导引》

鲍曼,《工作,消费,新穷人》

格奥尔格·卢卡奇 ,《历史与阶级意识》

张和清,《社会转型与社区为本的社会工作》

http://gwww.tagtic.cn/tech/29440651/“两光之争”的背后: 公益事业、资本主义和意识形态|文化纵横

http://www.chinadevelopmentbrief.org.cn/news-20271.html从“参与式发展”到“公益市场化”:中国NGO场域的范式转移

https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/gMRoCCHZRXoAv2o9ItevYg99公益日:公益人有话讲 | 公益反思专栏

https://36kr.com/p/5139328.html打着慈善的名号,扎克伯格等富豪们正在疯狂赚钱

https://user.guancha.cn/main/content?id=40629&s=fwtjgzwz

But at least capitalism is free and democratic, right?(但是至少资本主义是自由和民主的,对吧?)

It might seem that way, but genuine freedom and democracy aren’t compatible with capitalism.

看起来似乎如此,但真正的自由和民主与资本主义是不兼容的。

In the United States, many take for granted that freedom and democracy are inextricably connected with capitalism. Milton Friedman, in his book Capitalism and Freedom, went so far as to argue that capitalism was a necessary condition for both. It is certainly true that the appearance and spread of capitalism brought with it a tremendous expansion of individual freedoms and, eventually, popular struggles for more democratic forms of political organization. The claim that capitalism fundamentally obstructs both freedom and democracy will then sound strange to many.

在美国,许多人理所当然的认为自由和民主与资本主义是密不可分的。 米尔顿弗里德曼在他的“资本主义与自由”一书中,甚至认为资本主义是实现两者的必要条件。当然,资本主义的出现和传播带来了个人自由的巨大扩张,并最终促进了为更民主的政治组织形式进行的民众斗争。 资本主义从根本上是阻碍自由和民主的说法对许多人来说听起来很奇怪。

To say that capitalism restricts the flourishing of these values is not to argue that capitalism has run counter to freedom and democracy in every instance. Rather, through the functioning of its most basic processes, capitalism generates severe deficits of both freedom and democracy that it can never remedy. Capitalism has promoted the emergence of certain limited forms of freedom and democracy, but it imposes a bow ceiling on their further realization.

要说资本主义限制了这些价值观的蓬勃发展,并不是说资本主义在任何情况下都与自由和民主背道而驰。相反,通过其最基本的进程的运作,资本主义会在自由和民主方面产生严重缺陷,而这些缺陷永远无法被弥补。 资本主义促进了某些有限形式的自由和民主的出现,但它对它们的进一步实现制造了天花板。

At the core of these values is self-determination: the belief that people should be able to decide the conditions of their own lives to the fullest extent possible. When an action by a person affects only that person, then he or she ought to be able to engage in that activity without asking permission from anyone else. This is the context of freedom. But when an action affects the lives of others, then these other people should have a say in the activity.

这些价值观的核心是自决:相信人们应该能够尽可能地决定自己生活的环境。当某人的行为仅影响该人自己时,他或她应该能够在未经其他任何人同意的情况下参与该活动。这是自由的必要条件。但是当一个行动影响他人的生活时,这些其他人应该在活动中有发言权。

This is the context of democracy. In both, the paramount concern is that people retain as much control as possible over the shape their lives will take. In practice, virtually every choice a person makes will have some effect on others. It is impossible for everyone to contribute to every decision that concerns them, and any social system that insisted on such comprehensive democratic participation would impose an unbearable burden on people. What we need, therefore, is a set of rules to distinguish between questions of freedom and those of democracy. In our society, such a distinction is usually made with reference to the boundary between the private and public spheres.

这是民主的必要条件。在这两者中,最重要的是人们对塑造他们的生活所采取的决定保持尽可能多的控制。在实践中,几乎人的每一个选择都会对其他人产生一些影响。 每个人都不可能为涉及他们的每一个决定做出贡献,任何坚持这种完全民主参与的社会制度都会给人们带来无法承受的负担。 因此,我们需要的是一套区分自由问题和民主问题的规则。在我们的社会中,这种区分通常是参考私人领域和公共领域之间的界限。

There is nothing natural or spontaneous about this line between the private and the public; it is forged and maintained by social processes. The tasks entailed by these processes are complex and often contested. The state vigorously enforces some public/private boundaries and leaves others to be upheld or dissolved as social norms. Often the boundary between the public and the private remains fuzzy.

私人和公众之间的这条界线没有任何自然或自发的东西; 它是由社会进程锻造和维护的。这些进程所带来的任务很复杂,而且经常被质疑。 政权大力强制执行一些公共/私人界限,并将其他的作为社会规范予以维护或打击。通常,公共和私人之间的界限仍然很模糊。

In a fully democratic society, the boundary itself is subject to democratic deliberation.Capitalism constructs the boundary between the public and private spheres in a way that constrains the realization of true individual freedom and reduces the scope of meaningful democracy. There are five ways in which this is readily apparent.

在一个完全民主的社会中,边界本身受制于民主审议(我的看法是只要是不践踏别人的人权的事,都是私人领域的事,包括自虐自残自杀)。资本主义以限制实现真正的个人自由和缩小有意义的民主的范围的方式构建公共领域和私人领域之间的界限。 有五种方式可以很明显地显示出这点。

1. “Work or Starve” Isn’t Freedom

“工作或饿死”不是自由

Capitalism is anchored in the private accumulation of wealth and the pursuit of income through the market. The economic inequalities that result from these “private” activities are intrinsic to capitalism and create inequalities in what the philosopher Philippe van Parijs calls “real freedom.”

资本主义以私有财富积累和通过市场追求收入为基础。 这些“私有”活动产生的经济不平等是资本主义所固有的,并且在哲学家Philippe van Parijs所称呼的“真正的自由”中制造了不平等。

Whatever else we might mean by freedom, it must include the ability to say “no.” A wealthy person can freely decide not to work for wages; a poor person without an independent means of livelihood cannot do so easily. But the value of freedom goes deeper than this. It is also the ability to act positively on one’s life plans — to choose not just an answer, but the question itself. The children of wealthy parents can take unpaid internships to advance their careers; the children of poor parents cannot.

无论自由对我们意味着什么,它必须包括说“不”的能力。富人可以自由决定不工作; 没有独立谋生手段的穷人不能轻易做到这一点。但是,自由的价值比这更深。 它也是对一个人的生活计划采取积极行动的能力—不仅只是选择答案,而且选择问题本身。富裕父母的后代可以通过无薪实习来推进自己的职业生涯; 贫穷父母的后代不能。

Capitalism deprives many people of real freedom in this sense. Poverty in the midst of plenty exists because of a direct equation between material resources and the resources needed for self-determination.

在这个意义上,资本主义剥夺了许多人的真正的自由。由于物质资源与自决所需资源之间是直接等价的,很多人都很贫困。

2. Capitalists Decide

资本家们决定一切

The way the boundary between the public and private spheres is drawn in capitalism excludes crucial decisions, which affect large numbers of people, from democratic control. Perhaps the most fundamental right that accompanies private ownership of capital is the right to decide to invest and disinvest strictly on the basis of self-interest.

公共和私人领域之间的边界在资本主义中被划分的方式将影响大量人口的关键决策排除在民主控制之外。也许伴随私人资本所有权的最基本权利是决定严格依据自身利益进行投资和撤资的权利。

A corporation’s decision to move production from one place to another is a private matter, even though it makes a radical impact on the lives of everyone in both places. Even if one argues that this concentration of power in private hands is necessary for the efficient allocation of resources, the exclusion of these kinds of decisions from democratic control unequivocally decimates the capacity for self-determination by all except the owners of capital.

公司决定将生产从一个地方转移到另一个地方是一件私事,尽管它会对这两个地方的每个人的生活产生极大影响。即使有人争辩说私人手中的权力集中对于资源的有效配置是必要的,但将这些决定排除在民主控制之外,明确地毁灭了所有人的自决能力,除了资本所有者。(Job is a right,一个人做自己想要做的工作是一种人权,而私人独裁公司在老板的独裁命令之下肆意转移侵犯了工人的人权。)

3. Nine to Five Is Tyranny

朝九晚五是暴政

Capitalist firms are allowed to be organizedas workplace dictatorships. An essential component of a business owner’s power is the right to tell employees what to do. That is the basis of the employment contract: the job seeker agrees to follow the employer’s orders in exchange for a wage. Of course, an employer is also free to grant workers considerable autonomy, and in some situations this is the profit-maximizing way of organizing work. But such autonomy is given or withheld at the owner’s pleasure. No robust conception of self-determination would allow autonomy to depend on the private preferences of elites.

资本主义公司被允许组织成工作场所独裁。企业主权力的一个关键组成部分是告诉员工做什么的权利。这是雇佣合同的基础:求职者同意遵循雇主的命令以换取工资。当然,雇主也可以自由地给予工人可观的自主权,在某些情况下,这是将利润最大化的组织工作的方式。 但是,给予或拒绝这种自主权取决于老板的心情。没有强有力的自决概念会让自治依赖于精英们的私人偏好。

A defender of capitalism might reply that a worker who doesn’t like the boss’s rule can always quit. But since workers by definition lack an independent means of livelihood, if they quit they will have to look for a new job and, to the extent that the available employment is in capitalist firms, they will still be subject to a boss’s dictates.

一个资本主义的辩护士可能会回答说,不喜欢老板独裁的工人总能选择退出。但是,由于工人的定义是缺乏独立的维生手段,如果他们辞职,他们将不得不寻找新的工作,并且,如果可用的就业是在资本主义公司,他们仍然会受到老板的独裁。

4. Governments Have to Serve the Interests of Private Capitalists

政府不得不服务于私人资本家们的利益

Private control over major investment decisions creates a constant pressure on public authorities to enact rules favorable to the interests of capitalists. The threat of disinvestment and capital mobility is always in the background of public policy discussions, and thus politicians, whatever their ideological orientation, are forced to worry about sustaining a “good business climate.”Democratic values are hollow so long as one class of citizens takes priority over all others.

对重大投资决策的私人控制不断给公共当局施加压力,要求制定有利于资本家利益的规则。 撤资和资本流动的威胁总是在公共政策讨论的背景下,因此政治家们,无论他们的意识形态取向如何,都被迫担心维持“良好的商业环境”。只要有一个阶级的公民优先于其他所有阶级,民主价值观就是空洞的。(所有人一律平等,但资产阶级比其他阶级更平等。)

5. Elites Control the Political System

精英们控制政治系统

Finally, wealthy people have greater access than others to political power. This is the case in all capitalist democracies, although wealth-based inequality of political power is much greater in some countries than in others. The specific mechanisms for this greater access are quite varied: contributions to political campaigns; financing lobbying efforts; elite social networks of various sorts; and outright bribes and other forms of corruption.

最后,富人比其他人更有机会获得政治权力。 所有资本主义民主国家都是如此,尽管在某些国家,基于财富的政治权力不平等要比其他国家严重得多。这种更大机会的具体机制是多种多样的:对政治运动的献金; 资助游说活动; 各种精英社交网络; 和彻头彻尾的贿赂以及其他形式的腐败。(还有对媒体的控制,以及在社交媒体上雇佣水军五毛狗。)

In the United States it is not only wealthy individuals, but also capitalist corporations, that face no meaningful restriction on their ability to deploy private resources for politcal purposes. This differential access to political power voids the most basic principle of democracy.

在美国,不仅有富裕的个人,而且还有资本主义公司,它们的为政治目的部署私有资源的能力没有受到任何有意义的限制。这种对政治权力的不同的获取途径使得最基本的民主原则变得无效。

These consequences are endemic to capitalism as an economic system. This does not mean that they cannot sometimes be mitigated in capitalist societies. In different times and places, many policies have been erected to compensate for capitalism’s deformation of freedom and democracy.

这些后果是资本主义作为经济系统时所特有的。 这并不意味着它们不能有时在资本主义社会中得到缓解。 在不同的时间和地点,已经建立了许多政策来弥补资本主义造成的对自由和民主的扭曲。

Public constraints can be imposed on private investment in ways that erode the rigid boundary between the public and private; a strong public sector and active forms of state investment can weaken the threat of capital mobility; restrictions on the use of private wealth in elections and the public finance of political campaigns can reduce the privileged access of the wealthy to political power; labor law can strengthen the collective power of workers in both the political arena and the workplace; and a wide variety of welfare policies can increase the real freedom of those without access to private wealth.

公共限制可以通过侵蚀公共和私人之间的僵硬边界的方式强加到私人投资上; 强大的公共部门和积极的政府投资形式可以削弱资本流动的威胁; 限制在选举中使用私人财富和增加对政治运动的公共财政支持可以减少富人用来获得政治权力的特权; 劳工法律可以增强工人们在政治舞台和工作场所的集体力量;各种各样的福利政策可以增加那些无法获得私有财富的人的真正的自由。

When the political conditions are right, the anti-democratic and freedom-impeding features of capitalism can be palliated, but they cannot be eliminated. Taming capitalism in this way has been the central objective of the policies advocated by socialists within capitalist economies the world over. But if freedom and democracy are to be fully realized, capitalism must not merely be tamed. It must be overcome.

当政治条件合适时,资本主义的反民主和阻碍自由的特征可以被缓和,但不能被消除。以这种方式驯服资本主义一直是全世界资本主义经济体内的社会主义者所倡导的政策的核心目标。但是,如果要充分实现自由和民主,就不能仅仅驯服资本主义。 资本主义必须被克服。

 

Never a force for good (美军从来不是正义之师)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

在随后对古巴的入侵和占领中,这一声明被证明是毫无意义的。

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

来自法西斯主义学者的一部分工作摘要反对法西斯主义者是社会主义者这一观点。

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

来自Robert O. Paxton的“法西斯主义剖析”摘录:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

因此,重点更多地在纳粹德国阶级结构的基本连续性上,而不是强烈的变化上。

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

大约250,000名菲律宾人在1899年至1902年的美国侵略战争中丧生。

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

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

I’ll stop there.

我在这里停止。

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Privatized Care

被私有化的照料服务

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to Build a Public Day-Care System

如何建立一个公共日托系统

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

新自由主义(奥地利芝加哥学派)洗脑术分析

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

习近平:内外受敌的“强人”

中美冲突、经济放缓以及对政治的不满,正在动摇习近平的铁腕统治

Vincent Kolo 中国劳工论坛

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

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

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

群众抗议

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

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

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

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

贸易战

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

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

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

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

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

领导人“好像被吓倒了”

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

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

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

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

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

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

刺激,还是紧缩?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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