发新话题
打印

[翻译] 《社会主义和民主》(詹姆斯·坎农)1957

《社会主义和民主》(詹姆斯·坎农)1957

社会主义和民主

詹姆斯·坎农
Cannon gave the following talk to a meeting at the SWP’s West Coast Vacation School, September 1, 1957. It was first published in the Fall 1957 International Socialist Review.
1957年9月1日,在社会主义工人党(SWP)西海岸暑修学校的一次会议中,坎农做出如下发言。首次发表于1957年秋《国际社会主义评论》。

Comrades, I am glad to be here with you today, and to accept your invitation to speak on socialism and democracy. It is a most timely subject, and in the discussion of socialist regroupment it takes first place. Before we can make real headway in the discussion of other important parts of the program, we have to find agreement on what we mean by socialism and what we mean by democracy, and how they are related to each other, and what we are going to say to the American workers about them.
同志们,我很高兴今天至此接受你们的邀请,同你们一起谈谈社会主义和民主。这是最有时效性的话题,也是社会主义者联合这个议题的重中之重。在真正触及问题的其他方面前,有四点我们必须取得共识:何谓社会主义、何谓民主、它们关系如何,以及我们将如何同美国工人谈及这三者。

Strange as it may seem, an agreement on these two simple, elementary points, as experience has already demonstrated, will not be arrived at easily. The confusion and demoralisation created by Stalinism, and the successful exploitation of this confusion by the ruling capitalists of this country and all their agents and apologists, still hang heavily over all sections of the workers’ movement. We have to recognise that. Even in the ranks of people who call themselves socialists, we encounter a wide variety of understandings and misunderstandings about the real meaning of those simple terms, socialism and democracy. And in the great ranks of the American working class, the fog of misunderstanding and confusion is even thicker. All this makes the clarification of these questions a problem of burning importance and immediacy. In fact, it is first on the agenda in all circles of the radical movement.
尽管看上去很奇怪,人们对这两个简单基本概念的理解,正如经验揭示那般莫衷一是。工运的各层面笼罩在思想混乱和士气低落中,斯大林主义是迷雾的制造者,而美国资产阶级的鹰犬枪手们是成功的加工者。我们必须认清这一事实。即便在自称社会主义者的行列中,关于社会主义和民主的认识与误解仍五花八门。多数的美国工人则被更厚实的迷雾窒息。所有这些使得对这些问题的澄清工作成为燃眉之急。事实上,它被首次搬上了所有激进运动的议事日程。

The widespread misunderstanding and confusion about socialism and democracy has profound causes. These causes must be frankly stated and examined before they can be removed. And we must undertake to remove them, if we are to try in earnest to get to the root of the problem.
对社会主义及民主广泛存在着的误解和思想混乱有其深刻成因。在清除这些成因前,开诚布公的审查及描述是必须的。如果我们决心抵达问题的根本,就必须承担清理它们的责任。

Shakespeare’s Marc Antony reminded us that evil quite often outlives its authors. That is true in the present case also. Stalin is dead; but the crippling influence of Stalinism on the minds of a whole generation of people who considered themselves socialists or communists lives after Stalin. This is testified to most eloquently by those members and fellow travellers of the Communist Party who have formally disavowed Stalinism since the Twentieth Congress, while retaining some of its most perverted conceptions and definitions.
莎士比亚笔下的马克·安东尼提醒我们,邪恶常比它的始作俑者长寿。这用于形容当下恰如其分。斯大林主义对于整整一代自认为是社会主义者或共产主义者的精神所造成的恶劣影响,仍留存在一个死掉的斯大林身后。这被如下事实所雄辩证明——自从苏共二十大后,共产党的成员与同路人们正式否定了斯大林主义,却依旧固守它最堕落的概念和定义。

Socialism, in the old days that I can recall, was often called the society of the free and equal, and democracy was defined as the rule of the people. These simple definitions still ring true to me, as they did when I first heard them many years ago. But in later years we have heard different definitions which are far less attractive. These same people whom I have mentioned —leaders of the Communist Party and fellow travellers who have sworn off Stalin without really changing any of the Stalinist ideas they assimilated—still blandly describe the state of affairs in the Soviet Union, with all its most exaggerated social and economic inequality, ruled over by the barbarous dictatorship of a privileged minority, as a form of “socialism”. And they still manage to say, with straight faces, that the hideous police regimes in the satellite countries, propped up by Russian military force, are some kind of “people’s democracies”.
在我所能回忆的过去岁月中,社会主义通常被认为是一个自由平等的社会,而民主被定义为由人民统治。在我听来,这些简单概念仍真实可信,就像许多年前我首次听到它们时一样。但在近些年我们听到了令人生厌的新解。我刚才提到的那帮人——那些把斯大林搬下神坛却仍对斯大林主义的理念原封保留的共产党领袖及同路人们——依旧殷情把苏联种种现状——所有最夸张的社会与经济不平等、一小撮人的野蛮独裁统治——归于“社会主义”名下。他们依然有板有眼地宣称,那些卫星国里由苏联的刺刀所维持着的丑陋警察体制,是某种“人民民主”。

When such people say it would be a fine idea for all of us to get together in the struggle for socialism and democracy, it seems to me it would be appropriate to ask them, by way of preliminary inquiry: “Just what do you mean by socialism, and what do you mean by democracy? Do you mean what Marx and Engels and Lenin said? Or do you mean what Stalin did?” They are not the same thing as can be easily proved, and it is necessary to choose between one set of definitions and the other.
当这帮人以为社会主义与民主奋斗为名而向我们呼吁形成统一战线时,我认为理当适时向他们提问来作为初步摸底,“对于你们而言,究竟何谓社会主义、何谓民主?你们是否按马克思、恩格斯和列宁阐释的那样理解?或者你们遵循斯大林的训诫?”这两者并非能被轻易地判定为同一概念,在此种或彼种定义中选择其一是必须的。

This confusion of terminology has recently been illustrated by an article of Howard Fast, the well-known writer, who was once awarded the Stalin Prize. For a long time Fast supported what he called “socialism” in the Soviet Union, with his eyes shut. And then Khrushchev’s speech at the Twentieth Congress, and other revelations following that, opened Fast’s eyes, and he doesn’t like what he sees. That is to his credit. But he still calls it “socialism”. In an article in Masses and Mainstream he describes what he had found out about this peculiar “socialism” that had prevailed in the Soviet Union under Stalin and still prevails under Stalin’s successors.
概念的混乱程度可以用一位得过斯大林奖的知名作家,霍华德·法斯特的例子来说明。法斯特长期闭着眼睛支持苏联的他所谓“社会主义”。苏共二十大赫鲁晓夫的演讲以及接踵而至的真相揭露,撑开了法斯特的眼皮并让他对真相不满。这值得肯定,但他仍把那称作“社会主义”。对于苏联这一从斯大林治下延续至其继任者治下的畸形“社会主义”,在《主流与大众》中的一篇文章里他描述了他的看法。

This is what Howard Fast said: “In Russia, we have socialism without democracy. We have socialism without trial by jury, habeas corpus or ... protection against the abuse of confession by torture. We have socialism without civil liberty ... We have socialism without public avenues of protest. We have socialism without equality for minorities. We have socialism without any right of free artistic creation. In so many words, we have socialism without morality.”
霍华德·法斯特是这么说的:“在俄国,我们有缺乏民主的社会主义。我们有无陪审团、无人身保护或者其他能防范刑讯逼供泛滥的措施的社会主义。我们有缺乏公民自由的社会主义……我们有摒绝公民抗议途径的社会主义。我们有缺乏少数民族平等权利的社会主义。我们有剥夺任何自由艺术创作权利的社会主义。明确地讲,我们有道德破产的社会主义。”

These are the words of Howard Fast. I agree with everything he says there, except the preface he gives to all his qualifications—that we have “socialism” without this and that, we have “socialism” without any of the features that a socialist society was supposed to have in the conceptions of the movement before Stalinism. It is as though Fast has discovered different varieties of socialism. Like mushrooms. You go out and pick the right kind and you can cook a tasty dish. But if you gather up the kind commonly known as toadstools and call them mushrooms, you will poison yourself. Stalinist “socialism” is about as close to the real thing as a toadstool is to an edible mushroom.
这些是霍华德·法斯特的原话。我同意他提到的每一点,只要除开他所有限定所施加的同一对象——缺乏这缺乏那的“社会主义”。他言下的“社会主义”,是一个在前斯大林主义时代的工运理念里的任何社会主义社会应具备的特征统统消失不见的社会主义。仿佛是发现了一个社会主义的新品种。好比蘑菇,你外出采摘食用菌类并做了一顿美餐;但如果你收集了通常认为是毒蘑菇的品种,你只会毒害自己。要拿现实事物来将斯大林主义的“社会主义”与真货比较,最接近的莫过于毒蘑菇对比食用菌。

Now, of course, the Stalinists and their apologists have not created all the confusion in this country about the meaning of socialism, at least not directly. At every step for 30 years, the Stalinist work of befuddlement and demoralisation, of debasing words into their opposite meanings, has been supported by reciprocal action of the same kind by the ruling capitalists and their apologists. They have never failed to take the Stalinists at their word, and to point to the Stalinist regime in the Soviet Union, with all of its horrors, and to say: “That is socialism. The American way of life is better.”
当然,斯大林主义者及其辩护士们并非在这个国家里独家经营关于社会主义的所有误解,至少不能直接归于他们。在30年中,斯大林主义在混乱工人思想、挫败工人士气以及颠倒概念意义的工作上,一直受惠于同资产阶级统治者及他们辩护者的相互支持。后者从未误读过斯大林主义者的意思,并指着斯大林体制的所有恐怖说道:“那就是社会主义。美国的生活方式更好。”

It is these people who have given us, as their contribution to sowing confusion in the minds of people, the delightful definition of the capitalist sector of the globe, where the many toil in poverty for the benefit of the few, as “the free world”@. And they describe the United States, where the workers have a right to vote every four years, if they don’t move around too much, but have no say about the control of the shop and the factory; where all the means of mass information and communication are monopolised by a few—they describe all that as the ideal democracy, for which the workers should gladly fight and die.
这帮在人群心中散布混乱的人给这个资本主义世界的一隅下了一个亲民的定义,他们把这个劳苦大众因极少数人之故陷入贫困的地方,称为“自由世界”。在他们描绘外的真实美国,工人仅有在本分做人的情况下才有权每四年投票一次,还对工厂船只的管理毫无发言权;而所有的大众传媒手段则被少数人垄断——但如此情景的社会被称为理想的民主社会,一个工人们理应幸福地为之战死的社会。

It is true that Stalinism has been the primary cause of the demoralisation of a whole generation of American radical workers. There is no question of that. But the role of Stalinism in prejudicing the great American working class against socialism, and inducing them to accept the counterfeit democracy of American capitalism as the lesser evil, has been mainly indirect. The active role in this miseducation and befuddlement has been played by the American ruling minority, through all their monopolised means of communication and information.
斯大林主义是造成整整一代美国激进工人士气低落的主因,这是事实且毫无疑问。但在使美国工人阶级中的多数对社会主义产生偏见上、使他们把美国资本主义的虚伪民主作为较少的恶来接受上,斯大林主义主要负间接责任。进行误导和迷惑的关键角色是由统治美国的少数人扮演,并通过他们所掌控的大众传媒完成的。

They have cynically accepted the Stalinist definition and have obligingly advertised the Soviet Union, with its grinding poverty and glaring inequality, with its ubiquitous police terror, frame-ups, mass murders and slave-labour camps, as a “socialist” order of society. They have utilised the crimes of Stalinism to prejudice the American workers against the very name of socialism. And worst of all, comrades, we have to recognise that this campaign has been widely successful, and that we have to pay for it. We cannot build a strong socialist movement in this country until we overcome this confusion in the minds of the American workers about the real meaning of socialism.
他们讪笑着接过斯大林主义抛出的定义,并将有着极度贫困和显而易见的不平等、有着无处不在的警察恐吓、陷害、谋杀和奴工营地的苏联作为“社会主义”社会殷勤宣传。他们借斯大林主义的罪行去蛊惑美国工人反对社会主义固有的一系列概念。在歪曲中最严重的是“同志”这个词,我们不得不承认他们的工作获得了广泛的成功,而我们被迫咽下苦果。这个国家难以形成一个强大的社会主义运动,除非我们帮助美国工人消除他们心中对社会主义本意的曲解。

This game of confusing and misrepresenting has been facilitated for the capitalists and aided to a considerable extent by the social democrats and the labour bureaucracy, who are themselves privileged beneficiaries of the American system, and who give a socialist and labour colouring to the defence of American “democracy”. In addition to all that, we have to recognise that in this country, more than any other in the world, the tremendous pressures of imperialist prosperity and power and the witch-hunt persecution have deeply affected the thinking of many people who call themselves radicals or ex-radicals. These powerful pressures have brought many of them to a reconciliation with capitalist society and to the defence of capitalist democracy, if not as a paradise, at least as a lesser evil and the best that can be hoped for.
这场歪曲与迷惑的竞赛为资产阶级所推动,并很大程度上获益于社会民主党和工会官僚——一群自身受益于美国有产秩序的人,一群为捍卫美国“民主制”而为其抹上劳工和社会主义色彩的人。此外,我们必须认清这个国家相比世界其他地方,来自帝国主义的巨大压力:繁荣、力量和政治迫害的只会更加沉重,它们已经深深影响了许多自称激进分子或前激进分子的思想。这些巨大压力已经使他们中的许多人与资本主义社会达成了和解、并转而保卫资产阶级民主,即便不是把它当作天堂,至少也是当作较少的恶,填饱了他的“务实理想”。

There is no doubt that this drumfire of bourgeois propaganda, supplemented by the universal revulsion against Stalinism, has profoundly affected the sentiments of the American working class, including the bulk of its most progressive and militant and potentially revolutionary sectors.
无疑,资产阶级持续猛烈的宣传和对斯大林主义的普遍反感,已深刻影响了美国工人阶级的情感,包括它的最进步、最激进和具有潜在革命性的那部分中的多数。

After all that has happened in the past quarter of a century, the American workers have become more acutely sensitive than ever before to the value and importance of democratic rights. That, in my opinion, is the progressive side of their reaction, which we should fully share. The horrors of fascism, as they were revealed in the ’30s, and which were never dreamed of by the socialists in the old days, and the no less monstrous crimes of Stalinism, which became public knowledge later—all this has inspired a fear and hatred of any kind of dictatorship in the minds of the American working class. And to the extent that the Stalinist dictatorship in Russia has been identified with the name of socialism, and that this identification has been taken as a matter of course, the American workers have been prejudiced against socialism.
在事情过去四分之一个世纪后,对民主权利的价值和重要性,美国工人相比从前变得极度敏感。这是他们的反映在我眼中的积极一面,我们也从中受益。法西斯主义在20世纪30年代显露的暴戾,不亚于斯大林主义的罪行且从未被旧时的社会主义者想象过。它的恐怖特质在此后为公识,在美国工人阶级中激起了对任何形式专制独裁的恐惧与仇视。在某种程度上,在苏联存在着的斯大林主义独裁统治已被以社会主义之名定义,而这一冠名也被理所当然地接受,使美国工人产生对社会主义的偏见。

That’s the bitter truth, and it must be looked straight in the face. This barrier to the expansion and development of the American socialist movement will not be overcome, and even a regroupment of the woefully limited forces of those who at present consider themselves socialists will yield but little fruit, unless and until we find a way to break down this misunderstanding and prejudice against socialism, and convince at least the more advanced American workers that we socialists are the most aggressive and consistent advocates of democracy in all fields and that, in fact, we are completely devoted to the idea that socialism cannot be realised otherwise than by democracy.
这是令人痛苦的事实,并必须被正视。这道阻拦美国社会主义运动发展的障碍不能被摧毁,甚至连目前自称社会主义者的这些有限得可怜的力量都难在重组上结出硕果,直到我们找到一个办法破除对于社会主义的误解和歪曲,并至少让相对进步的工人确信我们社会主义者在所有领域都是最坚定与激进的民主拥护者。事实上,我们完全投身于一个理念,即没有民主就无从实现社会主义。

The socialist movement in America will not advance again significantly until it regains the initiative and takes the offensive against capitalism and all its agents in the labour movement precisely on the issue of democracy. What is needed is not a propaganda device or trick, but a formulation of the issue as it really stands; and, indeed, as it has always stood with real socialists ever since the modern movement was first proclaimed 109 years ago. For this counteroffensive against bourgeois propaganda we do not need to look for new formulations. Our task, as socialists living and fighting in this day and hour, is simply to restate what socialism and democracy meant to the founders of our movement, and to all the authentic disciples who followed them; to bring their formulations up to date and apply them to present conditions in the United States.
美国社会主义运动不会再次显著前进,直到它恰恰在民主这个问题上重获主动权,并对资本主义和其在劳工运动中的所有代理人展开攻势。所需的并非一个宣传策略或什么诡计,而是重复这个问题所具有的真义;一个由真正的社会主义者从109年前现代工人运动首次发起而秉持至今的真义。在对资产阶级宣传的反击中,我们不需要需找新的理念。我们作为社会主义者在当下时局生活和战斗的任务,仅仅是恪守我们的先驱们的定义,并根据美国的时下情况重新阐释何为社会主义和民主。

This restatement of basic aims and principles cannot wait; it is, in fact, the burning necessity of the hour. There is no room for misunderstanding among us as to what such a restatement of our position means and requires. It requires a clean break with all Stalinist and social democratic perversions and distortions of the real meaning of socialism and democracy and their relation to each other, and a return to the original formulations and definitions. Nothing short of this will do.
对基本目标和原则应进行的重申无暇蹉跎,事实上已成燃眉之急。重申我们立场的要求和意义都使得我们必须对存在于自身的误解零容忍。我们需要回归经典公式、定义中对于何谓社会主义、何谓民主以及它们相互关系的解释,并同所有来自斯大林主义者和社会民主党的歪曲一刀两断。这是我们至少应该做的。

The authentic socialist movement, as it was conceived by its founders and as it has developed over the past century, has been the most democratic movement in all history. No formulation of this question can improve on the classic statement of the Communist Manifesto, with which modern scientific socialism was proclaimed to the world in 1848. TheCommunist Manifesto said:
为先驱们所构想,并经过过往百年发展的经典社会主义运动,是全人类历史中最民主的运动。作为现代科学社会主义而在1848年向世界通告的《共产党宣言》在这一问题的论述上达到了尽善尽美。《共产党宣言》如此写道:

All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interest of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority.“过去的一切运动都是少数人的或者为少数人谋利益的运动。无产阶级的运动是绝大多数人的、为绝大多数人谋利益的自觉的独立的运动。”

The authors of the Communist Manifesto linked socialism and democracy together as end and means. The “self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority” cannot be anything else but democratic, if we understand by “democracy” the rule of the people, the majority. The Stalinist claim—that the task of reconstructing society on a socialist basis can be farmed out to a privileged and uncontrolled bureaucracy, while the workers remain without voice or vote in the process—is just as foreign to the thoughts of Marx and Engels, and of all their true disciples, as the reformist idea that socialism can be handed down to the workers by degrees by the capitalists who exploit them.
《共产党宣言》的作者将社会主义与民主作为互为目的、互为手段的事物联系在一起。“运动是绝大多数人的、为绝大多数人谋利益的自觉的独立的运动”如果我们把民主理解为人民的统治、多数人的统治,那么这里的运动不是它者而正是民主。斯大林主义宣称——在以社会主义为目标的基础上,重塑社会的任务可以托付给一个有特权无约束的官僚层,而工人却在这个过程中既无发言权也无选举权——这与马克思、恩格斯及其他先驱们的思想迥乎不同;而与此同时,改良主义认为社会主义能由剥削工人的资产阶级一点点地交回到工人手上。

All such fantastic conceptions were answered in advance by the reiterated statement of Marx and Engels that “the emancipation of the working class is the task of the workers themselves”.26 That is the language of Marx and Engels—“the task of the workers themselves”. That was just another way of saying—as they said explicitly many times—that the socialist reorganisation of society requires a workers’ revolution. Such a revolution is unthinkable without the active participation of the majority of the working class, which is itself the big majority of the population. Nothing could be more democratic than that.
所有这些乌托邦已被马克思和恩格斯预先的反复重申所回敬:“工人阶级的解放应当是工人阶级自己的事情”这是马克思和恩格斯的原话——“工人阶级自己的事情”。这如同换句话说——正如他们数次明确重申的那样——社会主义力量的重新凝聚所需要的是一场工人革命。这一场革命无疑需要工人阶级中大多数人的积极参与,而工人阶级本身正是人口中的大多数。没有什么比这更民主了。

Moreover, the great teachers did not limit the democratic action of the working class to the overthrow of bourgeois supremacy. They defined democracy as the form of governmental rule in the transition period between capitalism and socialism. It is explicitly stated in the Communist Manifesto—and I wonder how many people have forgotten this in recent years—“The first step”, said the Manifesto, “in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle of democracy.”27
此外,导师从未限制工人阶级与资产阶级霸权针锋相对的民主活动。他们将民主定义为从资本主义迈向社会主义的过渡时期内的一种国家统治形式的。这在《共产党宣言》中有明确表述——我想知道它已经被多少人在近几年遗忘——“工人革命的第一步”,宣言写道,“就是使无产阶级上升为统治阶级,争得民主。”

That is the way Marx and Engels formulated the first aim of the revolution—to make the workers the ruling class, to establish democracy, which, in their view, is the same thing. From this precise formulation it is clear that Marx and Engels did not consider the limited, formal democracy under capitalism, which screens the exploitation and the rule of the great majority by the few, as real democracy. In order to have real democracy, the workers must become the “ruling class”. Only the revolution that replaces the class rule of the capitalists by the class rule of the workers can really establish democracy, not in fiction, but in fact. So said Marx and Engels.
这是马克思和恩格斯对革命的首要目标的明确表达——使无产阶级上升为统治阶级、争得民主,这些在他们观点里,是同一件事。从这个严谨的论述上可以清楚知晓,马克思和恩格斯并不承认那在资本主义下掩盖了剥削和少数统治极大多数事实的有限而浮于形式的民主是真正的民主。为了争得真民主,工人必须成为“统治阶级”。只有用无产者的阶级统治取代资产阶级阶级统治的革命才能在事实上而非幻想上争得民主。马克思和恩格斯如是说。

They never taught that the simple nationalisation of the forces of production signified the establishment of socialism. That’s not stated by Marx and Engels anywhere. Nationalisation only lays the economic foundations for the transition to socialism. Still less could they have sanctioned, even if they had been able to imagine, the monstrous idea that socialism could be realised without freedom and without equality; that nationalised production and planned economy, controlled by a ruthless police dictatorship, complete with prisons, torture chambers and forced-labour camps, could be designated as a “socialist” society. That unspeakable perversion and contradiction of terms belongs to the Stalinists and their apologists.
他们从未教过人们,简单国有化生产能力即标志着社会主义的建立。马克思和恩格斯从未如此声称过。国有化仅仅为迈向社会主义的过渡奠定了经济基础。他们更未支持过如下荒谬的想法(哪怕他们设想过相关情景):一条无平等自由可言的道路能通向社会主义;一个被残忍的警察专制所控制、以监禁、虐待、强制劳动营来确立生产国有化和计划经济的社会,能被称作“社会主义”。这些糟透了的歪曲和矛盾的术语来自斯大林主义者及其枪手们。

All the great Marxists defined socialism as a classless society—with abundance, freedom and equality for all; a society in which there would be no state, not even a democratic workers’ state, to say nothing of a state in the monstrous form of a bureaucratic dictatorship of a privileged minority.
所有伟大的共产主义者都把社会主义定义为一个无阶级社会——一个对人人丰裕、自由、平等的社会,一个没有国家、甚至民主的工人国家也不存在的社会,更不用说不会存在由少数特权者的专制官僚们统治的可怕国家。

The Soviet Union today is a transitional order of society, in which the bureaucratic dictatorship of a privileged minority, far from serving as the agency to bridge the transition to socialism, stands as an obstacle to harmonious development in that direction. In the view of Marx and Engels, and of Lenin and Trotsky who came after them, the transition from capitalism to the classless society of socialism could only be carried out by an ever-expanding democracy, involving the masses of the workers more and more in all phases of social life, by direct participation and control.
今日的苏联处在一个社会秩序的过渡时期,那里存在着的极少数特权者的官僚专制,非但不能作为向社会主义过渡的桥梁,而是作为和谐发展之径上的巨大障碍。在马克思和恩格斯的观点中,和继起的列宁和托洛茨基的观点中,从资本主义向无阶级的社会主义过渡的阶段只能借助不断拓展的民主来实现,通过直接参与和管理,在社会生活的所有层面将普罗大众中越来越多的部分包含进来。

And, in the course of further progressive development in all fields, as Lenin expressed it, even this democracy, this workers’ democracy, as a form of class rule, will outlive itself. Lenin said: “Democracy will gradually change and become a habit, and finally wither away”, since democracy itself, properly understood, is a form of state, that is, an instrument of class rule, for which there will be no need and no place in the classless socialist society.
并且,在此后全方面进步发展的通途中,正如列宁表述的,这种民主、即便是一种工人民主,它作为阶级统治形式的那部分仍会消亡,而以另一种方式延续下去。列宁说:“民主制度会逐渐改变成为一种习惯,并最终消失”,因为在正确的理解中,民主制度本身也是国家的一个组成部分,一种阶级统治的工具,因而在无阶级的社会主义社会既无必要也无容身之所。

Forecasting the socialist future, the Communist Manifesto said: “In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association.” Mark that: “an association”, not a state—“an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all”.28
预测到社会主义的未来时,《共产党宣言》写道:“代替那存在着阶级和阶级对立的资产阶级旧社会的,将是这样一个联合体。”注意这里的“一个联合体”,而非一个国家——“在那里,每个人的自由发展是一切人的自由发展的条件”

Trotsky said the same thing in other words when he spoke of socialism as “a pure and limpid social system which is accommodated to the self-government of the toilers ... and uninterrupted growth of universal equality—all-sided flowering of human personality ... unselfish, honest and human relations between human beings”.29
托洛茨基在谈及社会主义时以另一种方式阐述了同一件事情:“由劳动自治协调下的一个纯粹、透明的社会系统……平等的普遍性不断拓展——人类个性,包括无私、真诚和其他珍贵人际关系的全面绽放……。”

The bloody abomination of Stalinism cannot be passed off as a substitute for this picture of the socialist future and the democratic transition period leading up to it, as it was drawn by the great Marxists.
这是一幅由伟大的共产主义先驱们描绘的、社会主义和在这之前民主过渡时期的画卷。斯大林主义制造出的惹人生厌的血腥怪物绝非它的替代品。

And I say we will not put the socialist movement of this country on the right track and restore its rightful appeal to the best sentiments of the working class of this country and above all to the young, until we begin to call socialism by its right name as the great teachers did. Until we make it clear that we stand for an ever-expanding workers’ democracy as the only road to socialism. Until we root out every vestige of Stalinist perversion and corruption of the meaning of socialism and democracy, and restate the thoughts and formulations of the authentic Marxist teachers.
此外,这个国家的社会主义运动将无法重回正轨,并恢复它对这个国家工人阶级中最积极的情感、尤其是对年轻人的感召,直到我们像先驱们一般以社会主义的真名呼其实,直到我们澄清我们支持不断扩展的工人民主是社会主义的必由之路,直到我们清算斯大林主义对社会主义和民主的每一处堕落歪曲,并重申共产主义先驱们的观点和设想

But the Stalinist definitions of socialism and democracy are not the only perversions that have to be rejected before we can find a sound basis for the regroupment of socialist forces in the United States. The definitions of the social democrats of all hues and gradations are just as false. And in this country they are a still more formidable obstacle because they have deeper roots, and they are tolerantly nourished by the ruling class itself.
然而在我们在找寻美国社会主义力量重聚的坚实基础前,斯大林主义对社会主义和民主的歪曲,并非唯一必须清算的对象。社会民主党在所有色调和层次上给出的定义同样虚假。他们是这个国家里更难以逾越的障碍,因为他们根扎得更深,并且他们被统治阶级本身所姑息

The liberals, the social democrats and the bureaucratic bosses of the American trade unions are red-hot supporters of “democracy”. At least, that is what they say. And they strive to herd the workers into the imperialist war camp under the general slogan of “democracy versus dictatorship”. That is their slippery and consciously deceptive substitute for the real “irrepressible conflict” of our age, the conflict between capitalism and socialism. They speak of democracy as something that stands by itself above the classes and the class struggle, and not as the form of rule of one class over another.
自由主义者、社会民主党人和美国工会官僚是“民主制”的狂热支持者。至少,这是他们自诩的。他们努力把工人驱赶进呼着“民主对独裁”口号的帝国主义战争机器。他们以这种狡猾的、充满刻意欺骗的借口来掩盖我们时代真正的“不可调和矛盾”,资本主义与社会主义之间的矛盾。他们宣称民主自身凌驾于阶级和阶级斗争之上,而非一个阶级统治另一个阶级的方式。

Lenin put his finger on this misrepresentation of reality in his polemic against Kautsky. Lenin said: “A liberal naturally speaks of 'democracy’ in general; but a Marxist will never forget to ask: 'for what class?’ Everyone knows, for instance (and Kautsky the 'historian’ knows it too), that rebellions, or even strong ferment, among the slaves in antiquity at once revealed the fact that the state of antiquity was essentially a dictatorship of the slaveowners. Did this dictatorship abolish democracy among, and for, the slaveowners? Everybody knows that it did not.”30
列宁在与考茨基的论战中指出这些对现实的不真切描述。列宁说:“自由主义者言必称‘民主’;但共产主义者从不忘记追问:‘为了哪个阶级?’。举例来说,谁都知道(考茨基作为“历史学家”同样也知道),在古代发生的奴隶叛乱甚至是大规模起义揭示了一个事实,古代社会的国家本质上是奴隶主的专政工具。那么这种专制工具是否废除了为奴隶主享有、为奴隶主服务的民主?谁都明白绝无此事。”

Capitalism, under any kind of government—whether bourgeois democracy or fascism or a military police state—under any kind of government, capitalism is a system of minority rule, and the principal beneficiaries of capitalist democracy are the small minority of exploiting capitalists; scarcely less so than the slaveowners of ancient times were the actual rulers and the real beneficiaries of the Athenian democracy.
在任何政府形式下的资本主义——无论是资产阶级民主或是法西斯或是警察国家——在任何政府形式下,资本主义是一个由少数人统治的社会,资产阶级民主的最大收益者是极少数有产剥削者;几乎可以类比于古代奴隶主是雅典民主制的真正受益者和真正的统治者。

To be sure, the workers in the United States have a right to vote periodically for one of two sets of candidates selected for them by the two capitalist parties. And if they can dodge the witch-hunters, they can exercise the right of free speech and free press. But this formal right of free speech and free press is outweighed rather heavily by the inconvenient circumstance that the small capitalist minority happens to enjoy a complete monopoly of ownership and control of all the big presses, and of television and radio, and of all other means of communication and information.
诚然,美国工人有选举权,可以周期性地在两个给定的资产阶级政党候选人中挑一个。如果他们能幸免于政治迫害,他们将在行使出版自由和言论自由中得到锻炼。然而工人对言论、出版自由的正当行使在同极少数资产阶级所掌握手段的较量中显得人微言轻,这群人彻底垄断了所有大型出版社、电视、收音机和所有其他传媒手段的所有

We who oppose the capitalist regime have a right to nominate our own candidates, if we’re not arrested under the Smith Act before we get to the city clerk’s office, and if we can comply with the laws that deliberately restrict the rights of minority parties. That is easier said than done in this country of democratic capitalism. In one state after another, no matter how many petitions you circulate, you can’t comply with the regulations and you can’t get on the ballot. This is the state of affairs in California, Ohio, Illinois, and an increasing number of other states. And if you succeed in complying with all the technicalities, as we did last year in New York, they just simply rule you out anyhow if it is not convenient to have a minority party on the ballot. But outside of all these and other difficulties and restrictions, we have free elections and full democracy.
如果我们在抵达城市职员办公室前不因《史密斯法案》而遭逮捕,如果我们能遵从那些对小众政党刻意限制的法律,我们这些反资本主义制度的人也有提名自己候选人的权利。但在这个民主资本主义国家,说要比做容易。在一个又一个的州里,无论你反复请愿多少次,你都不能依法行事权利也不能获得选票。加利福尼亚、俄亥俄州、伊利诺斯州是这种情况,而名单仍在增加。即便你成功遵循所有环节,就像我们去年在纽约做的那样,他们也会以小众政党在计票时不方便为由将你除名。但在所有这样那样的困难与限制之外,我们有自由选举和充分的民主。

It is true that the Negro people in the United States, 94 years after the Emancipation Proclamation, are still fighting for the right to vote in the South, and for the right to take a vacant seat on a public bus; or to send their children to a tax-supported public school, and things of that kind—which you may call restrictions of democracy in the United States.、
在《解放奴隶宣言》发表94年后,作为一个事实,美国黑人仍在为南方地区的选举权斗争,以及为公交上入座的权利、为把他们的孩子送进财政支持学校的权利,为诸如此类的权利斗争——你可以把这些称为美国民主的局限。

But even so, with all that, a little democracy is better than none. We socialists have never denied that. And after the experiences of fascism and McCarthyism, and of military and police dictatorships in many parts of the world, and of the horrors of Stalinism, we have all the more reason to value every democratic provision for the protection of human rights and human dignity; to fight for more democracy, not less.
即便在这种情况下,民主仍聊胜于无。我们社会主义者从不否认它。在经历了法西斯主义、麦卡锡主义、泛滥于世界的军警专制和斯大林主义的恐怖后,我们有更多理由珍惜保护人权和人格尊严的民主条款,为争取更多而非更少的民主而战。

Socialists should not argue with the American worker when he says he wants democracy and doesn’t want to be ruled by a dictatorship. Rather, we should recognise that his demand for human rights and democratic guarantees, now and in the future, is in itself progressive. The socialist task is not to deny democracy, but to expand it and make it more complete. That is the true socialist tradition. The Marxists, throughout the century-long history of our movement, have always valued and defended bourgeois democratic rights, restricted as they were; and have utilised them for the education and organisation of the workers in the struggle to establish full democracy by abolishing the capitalist rule altogether.
社会主义者不应该在美国工人表达他想要民主而非被独裁统治时进行反驳。相反,我们应该认识到他对人权和民主保障的要求,无论在现在和未来都具有进步意义。社会主义者的职责不在否认民主,而在于扩充其内容使它更完整。这是社会主义的真正传统。贯穿我们百年共产主义运动的共产主义者,始终珍惜并有局限性的保障资产阶级民主权利,并用他们作为教育组织在斗争中的工人去建立完整的民主通过完全铲除资本主义统治restricted as they were

The right of union organisation is a precious right, a democratic right, but it was not “given” to the workers in the United States. It took the mighty and irresistible labour upheaval of the ’30s, culminating in the great sit-down strikes—a semi-revolution of the American workers—to establish in reality the right of union organisation in mass-production industry.
组织工会的权利是项宝贵的权利、一项民主权利,但它并非直接“恩赐”于美国工人。以伟大的静坐罢工——美国工人的一次为期半周的革命——为顶峰,(20世纪)30年代的强大而不可抗拒的劳工抗争在实际上争取到了在广泛的产业领域中建立工会的权利。

And yet today—I am still speaking under the heading of democracy—20 years after the sit-down strikes firmly established the auto workers’ union, the automobile industry is still privately owned and ruled by a dictatorship of financial sharks. The auto workers have neither voice nor vote in the management of the industry which they have created, nor in regulating the speed of the assembly line which consumes their lives. Full control of production in auto and steel and everywhere, according to the specific terms of the union contract, is still the exclusive prerogative of “management”, that is, of the absentee owners, who contribute nothing to the production of automobiles or steel or anything else.
如今——我仍在继续民主这个话题——在通过静坐罢工坚定地建立起汽车工人工会的20年后,汽车业仍为金融大鳄所私有掌控。汽车业工人在他们创造的产业中不容置喙、无选举权,也无法使那吞噬他们生命的装配线减速。根据工会合同的具体条款所允诺的对汽车、钢铁及其他行业中生产环节的全权控制,仍垄断在特权下,被一帮对汽车、钢铁及其他生产毫无贡献的不劳者“管理”着。

What’s democratic about that? The claim that we have an almost perfect democracy in this country doesn’t stand up against the fact that the workers have no democratic rights in industry at all, as far as regulating production is concerned; that these rights are exclusively reserved for the parasitic owners, who never see the inside of a factory.
那些宣称我们在这个国家中拥有一个近乎完美的民主制度的言论,罔顾工人在一切产业生产管理中毫无民主权利的事实,罔顾这些权利是一些连工厂内部一眼也未瞥过的寄生虫独占的事实。

In the old days, the agitators of the Socialist Party and the IWW—who were real democrats—used to give a shorthand definition of socialism as “industrial democracy”. I don’t know how many of you have heard that. It was a common expression: “industrial democracy”, the extension of democracy to industry, the democratic control of industry by the workers themselves, with private ownership eliminated. That socialist demand for real democracy was taken for granted in the time of Debs and Haywood, when the American socialist movement was still young and uncorrupted.
在过去,世界产业工人联合会的鼓动者们——真正的民主主义者——曾给社会主义一个简短的定义“产业民主”。我不知道你们中的多少人听说过。这是一个常见的说法:“产业民主”,意味着民主在产业中的延伸、工人自己对产业的民主管理,私有制被铲除。这是德布斯和海伍德的时代,社会主义者们视之为理所当然的时代,那时美国社会主义运动尚年轻且未堕落。

You never hear a “democratic” labour leader say anything like that today. The defence of “democracy” by the social democrats and the labour bureaucrats always turns out in practice to be a defence of “democratic” capitalism, or as Beck and McDonald call it, “people’s capitalism”. And I admit they have a certain stake in it, and a certain justification for defending it, as far as their personal interests are concerned.
你从未听过一个“民主”工人领袖说过今天这样的话。社民党和工会官僚捍卫“民主”的结果实际上是捍卫“民主”资本主义,或是贝克和麦克唐纳所谓的“人民资本主义”。我承认他们在其中有一定股份,有保卫它的某种理由,均以他们所关注的个人利益为界。

And always, in time of crisis, these labour leaders—who talk about democracy all the time, as against dictatorship in the “socialist countries”, as they call them—easily excuse and defend all kinds of violations of even this limited bourgeois democracy. They are far more tolerant of lapses from the formal rules of democracy by the capitalists than by the workers. They demand that the class struggle of the workers against the exploiters be conducted by the formal rules of bourgeois democracy, at all stages of its development—up to and including the stage of social transformation and the defence of the new society against attempts at capitalist restoration. They say it has to be strictly “democratic” all the way. No emergency measures are tolerated; everything must be strictly and formally democratic according to the rules laid down by the capitalist minority. They burn incense to democracy as an immutable principle, an abstraction standing above the social antagonisms.
在危机时,那些在反对他们所谓的“社会主义国家”时把民主挂在嘴边的工会领袖们,为所有践踏有限的资产阶级民主的行为辩护。在对待违背民主规则的行为上,他们容忍资产阶级的程度远甚于工人。他们要求工人对剥削者的阶级斗争在每一个发展阶段服从资产阶级民主——包括即将改天换地的时期和防御资本主义复辟尝试的过渡时期。他们说必须自始至终严格贯彻“民主”。任何应急的激进措施能不被容忍;任何事情必须严格合乎程序地按照少数资本家预设的规矩进行。他们把民主当作不变的原则供奉,一个高耸于阶级对立的抽象存在。

But when the capitalist class, in its struggle for self-preservation, cuts corners around its own professed democratic principles, the liberals, the social democrats and the labour skates have a way of winking, or looking the other way, or finding excuses for it.
但当资产阶级为自保而挣扎,并将自己声称的民主原则当作累赘削减时,自由主义者、社会民主党和工会官僚或顾左右而言他,或寻找借口搪塞。

For example, they do not protest when the American imperialists wage war according to the rules of war, which are not quite the same thing as the rules of “democracy”. When the atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the most abominable atrocity in all history—the bombing of a defenceless civilian population and the wiping out of whole cities of men, women and children—the best these liberals, labour fakers and social democratic defenders of American democracy could offer was the plaintive bleat of Norman Thomas. You know, he was supporting the war, naturally, being a social democrat. But Norman Thomas rose up after Nagasaki and Hiroshima were wiped off the face of the Earth and said the bombs should not have been dropped “without warning”. The others said nothing.
例如,他们不反对美帝国主义者根据战争的规则发动战争,那与“民主”法则完全不是一回事。当在广岛长崎投下原子弹这一在所有——对手无寸铁的平民进行轰炸并把整个城市的妇女儿童男人抹去——的历史中最为卑劣的行径发生时,所有这些优秀的自由主义者、工会骗子和捍卫美国民主的社民党人卫队所能做的就是向诺曼·汤马斯哀嚎。你知道,他作为一个社会民主党,自然是支持战争的。在广岛长崎被从地球表面抹去后,诺曼·汤马斯只是起身谴责了炸弹不应该“警示前”扔下。其他人则无话可说。

These professional democrats have no objection to the authoritarian rule of the military forces of the capitalist state, which deprives the rank-and-file soldiers of all democratic rights in life-and-death matters, including the right to elect their own officers. The dictatorial rule of MacArthur in Japan, who acted as a  over a whole conquered country, was never questioned by these professional opponents of all other dictators. They are against the dictators in the Kremlin, but the dictator in Japan—that was a horse of another colour. All that, you see, concerns war; and nothing, not even the sacred principles of “democracy”, can be allowed to stand in the way of the victory of the American imperialists in the war and the cinching-up of the victory afterward in the occupation@.
这些职业民主党对资产阶级国家军事力量的独裁统治没有任何反对,它剥夺了普通士兵在性命攸关的事情上的所有民主权利,包括选举他们自己长官的权利。麦克阿瑟在日本的独裁统治,像极了统治整个征服之地的沙皇,却从未被这些专业选手从其他独裁者中挑出来质疑过。他们反对在克林姆林宫的独裁者,但在日本的独裁者完全是另外一码事。你瞧,所有这些都和战争有关,而且没有什么,包括“民主”的神圣原则能被允许阻挡在美帝国主义硝烟弥漫的求胜之旅中、和军事占领后的恣意妄为前。

But in the class struggle of the workers against the capitalists to transform society, which is the fiercest war of all, and in the transition period after the victory of the workers, the professional democrats demand that the formal rules of bourgeois democracy, as defined by the minority of exploiters, be scrupulously observed at every step. No emergency measures are allowed.
但在工人为改变社会而针对资本主义的阶级斗争中——其残酷程度居所有战斗之首——在工人革命胜利后的过渡时期内,那些职业民主党要求那些被少数剥削者所决定的资产阶级民主秩序必须被小心谨慎地遵守。任何应变措施都是不被允许的。

By these different responses in different situations of a class nature, the professional democrats simply show that their class bias determines their judgment in each case, and show at the same time that their professed devotion to the rules of formal democracy, at all times and under all conditions, is a fraud.
通过这些由同一阶级本性在不同的情况下形成的不同反映,职业民主党人暴露出他们的判断在每种情况下都受阶级偏见左右,同时也使暴露了他们在任何时候任何情况下献身于形式民主规则的宣言是种欺骗

And when it comes to the administration of workers’ organisations under their control, the social democrats and the reformist labour leaders pay very little respect to their own professed democratic principles. The trade unions in the United States today, as you all know, are administered and controlled by little cliques of richly privileged bureaucrats, who use the union machinery, and the union funds, and a private army of goon squads, and—whenever necessary—the help of the employers and the government, to keep their own “party” in control of the unions, and to suppress and beat down any attempt of the rank and file to form an opposition “party” to put up an opposition slate. And yet, without freedom of association and organisation, without the right to form groups and parties of different tendencies, there is and can be no real democracy anywhere.
当管理他们掌控下的工人组织时,社会民主党和改良主义工人领袖对他们自己创设的民主原则少有敬意。现在的美国工会,如你所知,在一小圈子的富有特权官僚层管控之下,他们私用工会设施、挪用工会基金,豢养一支打手作为私人军队,借助召之即来的雇主和政府的帮助,维持他们自己的“党”对工会的控制,并抑制打压普通工人任何试图成立一个反对“党”以争取发表反对言论的行为。可是,无结社自由、无成立不同倾向政党或反对派的权利,就无真正的民主可言。

In practice, the American labour bureaucrats, who piously demand democracy in the one-party totalitarian domain of Stalinism, come as close as they can to maintaining a total one-party rule in their own domain. Kipling said: “The colonel’s lady and Judy O’Grady are sisters under the skin.” The Stalinist bureaucrats in Russia and the trade-union bureaucrats in the United States are not sisters, but they are much more alike than different. They are essentially of the same breed, a privileged caste dominated above all by motives of self-benefit and self-preservation at the expense of the workers and against the workers.
实际上,这些渴盼一党极权主义治下的斯大林主义苏联重获民主的美国工会官僚,竭尽所能地在他们自己治下维持绝对的一党统治。吉卜林说:“上校夫人和朱迪·奥格雷迪在内心里是姐妹。”俄国的斯大林主义官僚和美国工会官僚并非姐妹,但他们的相似多于差异,他们本质上是同胞,首要身份都是由自利自保动机驱动下牺牲工人并与工人为敌的特权等级。

The privileged bureaucratic caste everywhere is the most formidable obstacle to democracy and socialism. The struggle of the working class in both sections of the now divided world has become, in the most profound meaning of the term, a struggle against the usurping privileged bureaucracy.
无处不在的特权官僚层是通往民主和社会主义的最大障碍。曾经分属两条战线上进行的工人阶级的斗争,从最深刻的意义上理解,已经合二为一指向篡夺权力的官僚层。

In the Soviet Union, it is a struggle to restore the genuine workers’ democracy established by the revolution of 1917. Workers’ democracy has become a burning necessity to assure the harmonious transition to socialism. That is the meaning of the political revolution against the bureaucracy now developing throughout the whole Soviet sphere, which every socialist worthy of the name unreservedly supports. There is no sense in talking about regroupment with people who don’t agree on that, on defence and support of the Soviet workers against the Soviet bureaucrats.
在苏联,存在着为恢复1917年革命所取得的真正的工人民主的斗争。工人民主已经成为确保苏联向社会主义平稳过渡的燃眉之需。这是政治革命指向正在开发苏联全境的官僚层的意义,值得每一个社会主义者毫无保留地支持。否认这点,否认并拒绝支持苏联工人应对苏联官僚采取防御的人,无资格谈及社会主义者联合。

In the United States, the struggle for workers’ democracy is preeminently a struggle of the rank and file to gain democratic control of their own organisations. That is the necessary condition to prepare the final struggle to abolish capitalism and “establish democracy” in the country as a whole@. No party in this country has a right to call itself socialist unless it stands foursquare for the rank-and-file workers of the United States against the bureaucrats.
在美国,显而易见,为工人民主奋斗是普罗大众为夺回对自己组织的掌控的斗争。总的来说,这是为在这个国家推翻资本主义、“争得民主”的决战所准备的必要条件。除非直截了当地站在美国的劳工大众一边向官僚宣战,否则没有一个美国政党有资格自称社会主义者。

In my opinion, effective and principled regroupment of socialist forces requires full agreement on these two points. That is the necessary starting point. Capitalism does not survive as a social system by its own strength, but by its influence within the workers’ movement, reflected and expressed by the labour aristocracy and the bureaucracy. So the fight for workers’ democracy is inseparable from the fight for socialism, and is the condition for its victory. Workers’ democracy is the only road to socialism, here in the United States and everywhere else, all the way from Moscow to Los Angeles, and from here to Budapest.
在我看来,社会主义者的力量必须以这两点取得统一认识为基础才能有效且有原则地聚集。这是必须的起点。资本主义作为一个社会系统的延续并不单纯取决于其自身的力量,更有赖于它以工人贵族和官僚机构为中介而对工人运动施加的影响。因此,为工人民主奋斗与为社会主义奋斗不可分离,前者是最终达成胜利的自我保障。无论在美国还是在世界其他地方,从莫斯科到洛杉矶,从这里到布达佩斯,工人民主是通向社会主义的必由之路。

原文:http://www.marxists.org/archive/cannon/works/1957/socialism.htm

[ 本帖最后由 姜晴信 于 2012-7-29 17:13 编辑 ]

TOP

发新话题