想進一步了解20世紀，拿出The Age of Extremes，幸得BBC的作者訪談。待補得是20世紀法國史。
Finland Station - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland_Station
St Petersburg–Finlyandsky (IATA: FVS), is a railway station in St. Petersburg, Russia, handling transport to northern destinations including Helsinki and VyborgTo the Finland Station - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_the_Finland_Station
To the Finland Station: A Study in the Writing and Acting of History (1940) is a book by American critic and historian Edmund Wilson. The work presents the ...The Historical Romance | The New Yorker
www.newyorker.com/magazine/2003/03/24/the-historical-romance
Mar 24, 2003 - The idea for “To the Finland Station” came to Edmund Wilson while he was walking down a street in the East Fifties one day, in the depths of ...紅色世紀
再給社會主義一次機會
BHASKAR SUNKARA 2017年6月28日
RIA Novosti/Sputnik, via Associated Press
1917年，俄國，來自Likinskaya織造廠的工人。
紅色世紀：十月革命100年後，探索共產主義的歷史與後世影響。
百年之前，列寧那輛封閉的列車抵達芬蘭火車站，由此觸發了一系列事件，最終引向史達林的古拉格，我們如今應該從那段歷史中汲取靈感，這個想法聽上去或許有些荒唐。但布爾什維克一度自稱「社會民主主義者」，這是有著充分理由的。當時，越來越多的黨派致力於爭取廣泛的政治民主，利用由資本主義催生的財富和新興工人階級，把民主權利拓展到社會和經濟領域——這種事沒有哪個資本家會認同——布爾什維克亦是這些黨派所開展的廣泛運動的組成部分。
早期共產主義運動從不排斥這個寬泛的前提。它脫胎於遭到第二國際中更為溫和的左翼黨派背叛之感——第二國際是由來自20個國家的社會黨和工黨組成的聯合組織，於1889年在巴黎成立。在歐洲各地，諸多黨派一個接一個地做出不可思議之事，背棄了全世界工人階級團結起來的承諾，在一戰中支持各自的政府。仍舊忠於舊有理念的人自稱共產主義者，以便和那些為一場奪走1600萬條性命的大屠殺推波助瀾的社會主義者劃清界線。（一戰期間，第二國際自身也於1916年解散。）
當然，共產主義者為結束戰爭，以及在落後的俄國開闢一條通往現代化的人道主義道路而採取的高尚策略，最終似乎證實了伯克的觀點：任何企圖顛覆一種不公正狀態的努力，只會以打造出另一種不公正狀態而告終。
大多數社會主義者已經學乖了，他們從20世紀的共產主義運動中汲取了教訓。現在，很多本來會為十月革命歡呼的人，不再那麼相信僅僅通過一代人的努力就可以讓世界發生根本性改變。他們把重點放在了政治多元論、異見和多樣性上。
不過，社會主義的幽靈正引發對一種新極權主義的恐懼。共產主義受害者紀念基金會(Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation report)最近發表的一份報告擔心：年輕人可能會對社會主義持正面看法，「伯尼·桑德斯(Bernie Sanders)大受歡迎」或許正起到促使千禧一代反對資本主義的作用。去年，美國商會(U.S. Chamber of Commerce)會長托馬斯·J·多諾霍(Thomas J. Donohue)甚至覺得有必要提醒讀者：「社會主義對於美國而言是一條危險的道路」。
右翼人士仍然把社會主義斥為一種會催生苦難和貧窮的經濟制度，但他們不太關注常常與社會主義當權如影隨形的政治威權主義。這或許是因為今天的精英並不把政治權利視為最重要的東西——可能是因為他們知道，他們所治理的社會在這些方面做得也沒有多好。
資本主義是一種經濟制度：一種藉助私人所有制和逐利動機組織生產、滿足市場需求的方式。它在一定程度上令民主的存在成為可能，但卻帶著極大的不情願。正因為如此，早期的工人運動（如19世紀初英國的憲章主義者組織的那些運動）首要的目標就是爭取政治權利。資本主義和社會主義領導人都認為：爭取普選權的鬥爭會促使工人利用他們在政治領域的投票權，要求建立一種將工人置於主導地位的經濟秩序。
然而事情並未完全如他們預料的那樣發展。在西方世界，工人接受了一種階級調和。私人企業會被馴服，而不是被征服；蛋糕越來越大，其中更大的份額會被慷慨的福利國家用於提供全民福利。隨著資本主義的進化和調整，民主的公民社會和帶有威權主義的經濟制度會出人意料地配成看似頗為成功的一對，而政治權利也將受到珍視。
時至2017年，這種調和業已死去多時。工人階級運動進入休眠狀態，資本橫行無忌，勾畫出一條帶有破壞性的路線，甚至並不承諾實現可持續增長。導致唐納德·川普當選美國總統、英國公投決定脫歐的那種憤怒顯而易見。人們覺得自己彷彿坐在一輛失控的列車上，奔向未知的目的地，他們有充分的理由希望回到自己熟悉的苦難中去。
在這種動盪不定之中，一些人擔心，只要桑德斯和法國的讓-呂克·梅朗雄(Jean-Luc Mélenchon)等以社會主義者自居的領導人慈愛地聳聳肩，我們就會重返芬蘭火車站。但現如今，民主面臨的威脅是來自右翼，而非左翼陣營。似乎有兩條前進道路在政壇呈現，二者都絕對是威權式集體主義道路的非史達林形式。
「新加坡火車站」是新自由主義中心的列車未經承認的目的地。在這個地方，所有人的信仰和膚色都受到尊重——只要他們知道自己的位置。畢竟，人民既愚鈍又不理性，沒有治理能力。就把新加坡火車站交給專家去運營吧。
在一些精英看來，這是一種可行的願景。他們正帶著合情合理的疑懼密切關注難以預測的右翼民粹主義的崛起。他們中的很多人都認為有必要採取嚴厲措施來維持脆弱的全球經濟，擔心選民不願以忍受一時的短痛來避免未來的長痛。迫在眉睫的氣候變化威脅與此類似：相關科學結論在科學界已無爭議，但在公共領域內還有待討論。
新加坡模式不是所有潛在終點當中最糟糕的一個。在這種模式中，專家可以當專家，資本家可以積累財富，普通工人可以有表面上的安穩。但它沒有留給列車上的乘客大聲喊「停」以及自行選擇目的地的權力。
「布達佩斯火車站」——名字取自眼下在匈牙利居於主導地位、極具影響力的各右翼黨派——是右翼民粹人士的終點站。布達佩斯至少會讓我們覺得我們又重新掌握了控制權。要抵達那裡，我們得跟一些沖在我們前面的汽車分道揚鑣，慢慢轉向。我們全都在這輛火車上，除非你是一個沒有車票的局外人，然後的運氣就不佳了。
「川普列車」正在駛向這條道路。川普總統無法通過挑戰精英為普通人提供有形的好處，但他可以提供「工人」表面上的增值，可以引得人們對所謂的導致美國衰落的因素——移民、糟糕的貿易協議、胸懷世界的全球主義者——滿懷憤怒。媒體、學界以及公民社會其他拒不合作的部分都會受到攻擊。與此同時，除了必須適應更多的保護主義和更受限制的移民政策，大多數公司都可以一切如常。
但還存在第三個選項：帶著過去汲取的所有經驗教訓重返芬蘭火車站。這一次，民眾要投票。好吧，先討論、仔細思考，再投票——並且相信民眾可以組織起來，為人類勾畫新目的地的藍圖。
追本溯源，社會主義是一種關於激進民主的意識型態。在自由受到攻擊的時代，它試圖賦予公民社會權力，讓公民社會得以參與到會影響我們生活的決策過程中去。當然，龐大的政府官僚機構可以像公司董事會一樣令人有疏離感，一樣不民主，因此我們需要好好想想社會所有制可以有哪些新形態。
大體輪廓應該已經很清楚了：工人所有的合作企業仍舊在受到調控的市場上開展競爭；政府服務與公民援助計劃合作；確保過上體面生活的基本所需（教育、住房和醫療）被視為社會權利。換句話說，在這個世界裡，不論人們出身如何，都可以自由地發揮自己的潛能。
只有在大多數人的支持下，我們才能抵達這樣一座芬蘭火車站；這也是社會主義者積極提倡民主和多元化的一個原因。但我們不能忽略，社會主義在過去的一個世紀裡遺失了純真。我們或許可以不再把列寧和布爾什維克們當成瘋狂的惡魔，而是選擇把他們當成用意良好的人，試圖在危機中打造出一個更好的世界，但我們必須弄清如何避免他們的失敗。
這就牽涉到重拾社會民主主義。不是弗朗索瓦·歐蘭德(François Hollande)的社會民主主義，而是第二國際成立之初的版本。這種社會民主主義包括：致力於建設自由的公民社會，尤其是容納那些反對的聲音；在制度上需要對權力進行制衡；以及一種向社會主義過渡，但卻無需與當下進行「零年」式決裂的願景。
我們21世紀的芬蘭火車站不會是伊甸園。身在其中的你或許會經受心碎和苦難。但這個地方會讓眼下正被不平等碾壓的許多人有機會參與創建一個新世界。
Bhaskar Sunkara (@sunraysunray)是雅各賓雜誌(Jacobin magazine)的編輯以及美國民主社會主義(Democratic Socialists of America)組織的副主席。
這是「紅色世紀(Red Century)」系列的一篇。十月革命100年之後，我們用這個系列探討共產主義的歷史和它對後世的影響。
翻譯：紐約時報中文網
One hundred years after Lenin’s sealed train arrived at Finland Station and set into motion the events that led to Stalin’s gulags, the idea that we should return to this history for inspiration might sound absurd. But there was good reason that the Bolsheviks once called themselves “social democrats.” They were part of a broad movement of growing parties that aimed to fight for greater political democracy and, using the wealth and the new working class created by capitalism, extend democratic rights into the social and economic spheres, which no capitalist would permit.
The early Communist movement never rejected this broad premise. It was born out of a sense of betrayal by the more moderate left-wing parties of the Second International, the alliance of socialist and labor parties from 20 countries that formed in Paris in 1889. Across Europe, party after party did the unthinkable, abandoned their pledges to working-class solidarity for all nations, and backed their respective governments in World War I. Those that remained loyal to the old ideas called themselves Communists to distance themselves from the socialists who had abetted a slaughter that claimed 16 million lives. (Amid the carnage, the Second International itself fell apart in 1916.)
Of course, the Communists’ noble gambit to stop the war and blaze a humane path to modernity in backward Russia ended up seemingly affirming the Burkean notion that any attempt to upturn an unjust order would end up only creating another.
Most socialists have been chastened by the lessons of 20th-century Communism. Today, many who would have cheered on the October Revolution have less confidence about the prospects for radically transforming the world in a single generation. They put an emphasis instead on political pluralism, dissent and diversity.
Still, the specter of socialism evokes fear of a new totalitarianism. A recent Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation report worries that young people are likely to view socialism favorably and that a “Bernie Sanders bounce” may be contributing to a millennial turn against capitalism. Last year, the president of the United States Chamber of Commerce, Thomas J. Donohue, even found it necessary to remind readers that “Socialism Is a Dangerous Path for America.”
The right still denounces socialism as an economic system that will lead to misery and privation, but with less emphasis on the political authoritarianism that often went hand in hand with socialism in power. This may be because elites today do not have democratic rights at the forefront of their minds — perhaps because they know that the societies they run are hard to justify on those terms.
Capitalism is an economic system: a way of organizing production for the market through private ownership and the profit motive. To the extent that it has permitted democracy, it has been with extreme reluctance. That’s why early workers’ movements like Britain’s Chartists in the early 19th century organized, first and foremost, for democratic rights. Capitalist and socialist leaders alike believed that the struggle for universal suffrage would encourage workers to use their votes in the political sphere to demand an economic order that put them in control.
It didn’t quite work out that way. Across the West, workers came to accept a sort of class compromise. Private enterprise would be tamed, not overcome, and a greater share of a growing pie would go to providing universal benefits through generous welfare states. Political rights would be enshrined, too, as capitalism evolved and adapted such that a democratic civil society and an authoritarian economic system made an unlikely, but seemingly successful, pairing.
In 2017, that arrangement is long dead. With working-class movements dormant, capital has run amok, charting a destructive course without even the promise of sustained growth. The anger that led to the election of Donald Trump in the United States and the Brexit vote in Britain is palpable. People feel as if they’re on a runaway train to an unknown destination and, for good reason, want back to familiar miseries.
Amid this turmoil, some fear a return to Finland Station via the avuncular shrugs of avowedly socialist leaders like Mr. Sanders and Jean-Luc Mélenchon in France. But the threat to democracy today is coming from the right, not the left. Politics seems to present two ways forward, both decidedly non-Stalinist forms of authoritarian collectivism.
“Singapore Station” is the unacknowledged destination of the neoliberal center’s train. It’s a place where people in all their creeds and colors are respected — so long as they know their place. After all, people are crass and irrational, incapable of governing. Leave running Singapore Station to the experts.
This is a workable vision for elites who look at the rise of an erratic right-wing populism with justified fear. Many of them argue the need for austerity measures to maintain a fragile global economy, and worry that voters won’t take their short-term pain to spare themselves long-term dysfunction. The same goes for the looming threat of climate change: The science is undisputed among scientists, but is still up for debate in the public sphere.
The Singapore model is not the worst of all possible end points. It’s one where experts are allowed to be experts, capitalists are allowed to accumulate, and ordinary workers are allowed a semblance of stability. But it leaves no room for the train’s passengers to yell “Stop!” and pick a destination of their own choosing.
“Budapest Station,” named after the powerful right-wing parties that dominate Hungary today, is the final stop for the populist right. Budapest allows us to at least feel like we’re back in charge. We get there by decoupling some of the cars hurtling us forward and slowly reversing. We’re all in this together, unless you’re an outsider who doesn’t have a ticket, and then tough luck.
The “Trump train” is headed this way. President Trump can’t offer tangible gains for ordinary people by challenging elites, but he can offer a surface-level valorization of “the worker” and stoke anger at the alleged causes of national decline — migrants, bad trade deals, cosmopolitan globalists. The press, academia and any other noncompliant parts of civil society are under attack. Meanwhile, other than having to adjust to more protectionism and restrictive immigration policies, it’s business as usual for most corporations.
But there is a third alternative: back to “Finland Station,” with all the lessons of the past. This time, people get to vote. Well, debate and deliberate and then vote — and have faith that people can organize together to chart new destinations for humanity.
Stripped down to its essence, and returned to its roots, socialism is an ideology of radical democracy. In an era when liberties are under attack, it seeks to empower civil society to allow participation in the decisions that affect our lives. A huge state bureaucracy, of course, can be just as alienating and undemocratic as corporate boardrooms, so we need to think hard about the new forms that social ownership could take.
Some broad outlines should already be clear: Worker-owned cooperatives, still competing in a regulated market; government services coordinated with the aid of citizen planning; and the provision of the basics necessary to live a good life (education, housing and health care) guaranteed as social rights. In other words, a world where people have the freedom to reach their potentials, whatever the circumstances of their birth.
We can get to this Finland Station only with the support of a majority; that’s one reason that socialists are such energetic advocates of democracy and pluralism. But we can’t ignore socialism’s loss of innocence over the past century. We may reject the version of Lenin and the Bolsheviks as crazed demons and choose to see them as well-intentioned people trying to build a better world out of a crisis, but we must work out how to avoid their failures.
That project entails a return to social democracy. Not the social democracy of François Hollande, but that of the early days of the Second International. This social democracy would involve a commitment to a free civil society, especially for oppositional voices; the need for institutional checks and balances on power; and a vision of a transition to socialism that does not require a “year zero” break with the present.
Our 21st-century Finland Station won’t be a paradise. You might feel heartbreak and misery there. But it will be a place that allows so many now crushed by inequity to participate in the creation of a new world.
沒有留言:
張貼留言