網路城邦
回本城市首頁 中國星火論壇
市長:古士塔夫  副市長: lukacsGuoding
加入本城市推薦本城市加入我的最愛訂閱最新文章
udn城市政治社會公共議題【中國星火論壇】城市/討論區/
討論區意識形態、話語 字體:
看回應文章  上一個討論主題 回文章列表 下一個討論主題
英報書評:馬克思思想歷經150年仍不絕於耳
 瀏覽1,560|回應5推薦1

Guoding
等級:8
留言加入好友
文章推薦人 (1)

lukacs

轉載這篇文章是想到:如果要了解當代中國,或許最基本的常識之一是中國除了被一個叫共產黨的黨統治之外,共產主義沒有影響;可是西方對共產主義還有影響力的文章,又多會得到譯介,而且如下面這篇譯文一樣,傳遞一點自由主義思想...

新華登出的翻譯很糟(當然刪節之處也不少),例如"革命是如何一直在美國爭取獲勝的"這句話很費解,當改譯為"革命在美國要怎麼勝利?"巴庫寧通常譯為巴枯寧

Red alert

By Tony Barber

2009-05-16

The Rise and Fall of Communism
By Archie Brown
The Bodley Head £25, 736 pages
FT Bookshop price: £20

The Frock-Coated Communist:The Revolutionary Life of Friedrich Engels
By Tristram Hunt
Allen Lane £25, 416 pages
FT Bookshop price: £20

Marx
By Vincent Barnett
Routledge £13.99, 258 pages
FT Bookshop price: £11.19

When liberal western values were under siege in the cold war, there were two ways to hit back at the Marxist foe.

One was to observe that communism, far from producing a prosperous, class-free society where human beings developed their potential to the utmost, had brought repression and modest living standards at best, tyranny and famine at worst. Whatever the theory, the practice stank. The second riposte was to point out that the theory stank too. As a prophecy of mankind’s future, supposedly based on scientifically discovered laws of historical development, Marxism-Leninism was pure twaddle.

Capitalism in advanced countries had not succumbed to socialist revolution. It had, in fact, gone from strength to strength. Workers had not grown increasingly impoverished. Indeed, they had become healthier and wealthier. In countries such as Russia and China where self-styled communists had seized power, the state had not “withered away”, as Marx and Engels predicted, but had evolved into an instrument of supremely vicious political control.

How do matters stand today? Capitalism is in its worst shape since the Great Depression of the 1930s. Are Marx and Engels about to be proved right after all? It would be rash to bet on it. Still, the three books considered here serve as a reminder that, almost 20 years after the fall of the Berlin wall and the demise of Soviet communism (though not the unusual Chinese version), some of the criticisms that Marx and Engels levelled at mid-19th century capitalist economic systems do not appear out of place 150 years later.

Archie Brown’s The Rise and Fall of Communism is comprehensive and impressive, as we would expect from a scholar who has been one of Britain’s foremost experts on communism for the past 40 years. The book covers the same ground as Robert Service’s 2007 work, Comrades!: A History of World Communism, but it offers a stronger interpretation of the factors affecting communism’s rise, ability to stay in power and downfall.

Communism, Brown notes, tended to have a greater appeal in peasant societies such as China and Vietnam than in the world’s advanced industrial countries. How was the revolution ever going to triumph in the US when, as happened in the interwar years, an American communist agitator would begin his speeches in New York with the immortal words: “Workers and peasants of Brooklyn!”

Russia was a largely peasant society when the Bolsheviks seized power in 1917 – a condition that changed only after Josef Stalin carried out a crash industrialisation plan in the 1930s. Millions of peasants were exterminated or died in the famine, and millions of citizens of all types were sent to labour camps and into exile. Still more millions, however, benefited from Stalin’s terror by filling the jobs and school places left empty by the dead and the incarcerated. They used the opportunity to climb the urban social ladder.

An eye for the telling anecdote characterises Brown’s prose. Illustrating the Soviet practice of wiping out disgraced people from the historical record, he recalls the 1952 arrest by Stalin’s security police of Vladimir Zelenin, a prominent medical scientist. Zelenin’s disappearance made it necessary for the compilers of the Great Soviet Encyclopaedia to replace the entry on Zelenin with an article on something else beginning with Zel-. With their options limited, they hit upon zelenaya lyagushka (the green frog), a choice that permitted the British scholar Alec Nove to comment years later that this was “the only known instance of a professor actually turning into a frog”.

As Brown shows, the communist era was replete with such incidents, sinister and grimly hilarious. At the peak of his dictatorship Stalin delighted in making the stocky Nikita Khrushchev, his successor as Soviet leader, dance the gopak, a vigorous Ukrainian folk dance. “When Stalin says dance, a wise man dances,” Khrushchev glumly told a fellow Politburo member.

Khrushchev was likewise humiliated in 1958 by Mao Zedong, a powerful swimmer who insisted to the less aquatically proficient Soviet leader that they should hold their discussions in the swimming pool. As Mao swam effortlessly around expounding his radical political theories, Khrushchev spluttered his answers between mouthfuls of water.

Although Brown covers the communist experience in China, south-east Asia and Cuba, he is at his most fluent and convincing when he analyses the Soviet Union and eastern Europe between 1945 and 1989. He contends that, no matter how economically inefficient and politically unpopular the Soviet and eastern European regimes were, it required reformers from within – above all, Mikhail Gorbachev – to make the moves that would prompt the system’s collapse.

“There is no automatic link between economic failure and collapse of a communist regime if all the resources of an oppressive state are brought to bear to keep its rulers in office,” Brown writes. The tight grip on power held in North Korea by Kim Jong-il and, before him, by his father Kim Il-sung support Brown’s argument.

Even Poland’s Solidarity free trade union, a mass anti-communist movement if ever there was one, stood no chance in December 1981 when the Polish communist party and armed forces imposed martial law. Brown’s chapter on the Prague spring, meanwhile, shows how easy it was for the Soviet Union to crush a reform movement whose origins lay largely in the ruling party itself.

Only the intervention of western powers might have made a difference but President Dwight Eisenhower had signalled in 1956, during the Hungarian uprising, that the US – for all its rhetoric about freedom – would not risk a world war in order to “roll back” communism in eastern Europe.

One issue that deserves more attention than it receives from Brown concerns the leadership styles of men such as Wladyslaw Gomulka of Poland, Gustav Husak of Czechoslovakia and Janos Kadar of Hungary. All suffered at the hands of their fellow communists after 1945; all were thrown into prison before returning to hold power for long spells in their respective countries. All witnessed the Soviet Union apply armed force, or menacing political pressure, to halt steps towards liberalisation.

In what way did Soviet intimidation and the experience of persecution by their own colleagues shape their understanding of how to govern a one-party state? Kadar, and to a lesser extent Gomulka, eased the suffocating political conditions in their countries but Husak decidedly did not. What is certain is that none of them lost their faith in communism.

One wonders what Marx and Engels would have made of the murderous Stalin, the megalomaniac Nicolae Ceausescu of Romania, the paranoid Enver Hoxha of Albania and other blood-stained despots who claimed to be putting their theories into practice. As Tristram Hunt, a British historian, makes clear in his excellent, lively biography, The Frock-Coated Communist, Engels could hardly have been a more different personality: “A raffish, high-living, heavy-drinking devotee of the good things in life: lobster salad, Château Margaux, Pilsener beer and expensive women.”

Hunt correctly portrays Engels as not merely Marx’s right-hand man but an important political philosopher in his own right, a gifted writer whose savage analysis of Victorian social conditions sounds remarkably fresh to this day. “As our post-1989 liberal utopia of free trade and western democracy totters under the strain of both religious orthodoxy and free-market fundamentalism, his critique speaks down the ages,” writes Hunt. “The cosy collusion of government and capital; the corporate flight for cheap labour and low skills; the restructuring of family life around the proclivities of the market; the inevitable retreat of tradition in the face of modernity, and the vital interstices of colonialism and capitalism; the military as a component of the industrial complex; and even the design of our cities as dictated by the demands of capital.”

Yet as Hunt observes, the contradictions between Engels’ communist ideology and personal circumstances were glaring. Engels spent much of his life as a wealthy textile manufacturer in Manchester, a typical capitalist extracting the surplus labour value of the downtrodden proletariat. At his death Engels owned thousands of bottles of fine champagne, claret and port.

One defence was that he made regular transfers of large sums of money to Marx in London. Marx, labouring away in the British Museum and stuck with a family with impeccably bourgeois tastes, needed Engels’ help because, if anything, he was even worse at managing his personal finances than he was at predicting the future.

What Marx and Engels excelled at was political polemics. At the age of 25 in 1844, Engels wrote The Condition of the Working Class in England, an indictment of Victorian capitalism. Three years later, he and Marx published the even more inspirational Manifesto of the Communist Party, with its unforgettable opening line: “A spectre is haunting Europe – the spectre of communism.”

Of course, the impact of the Communist manifesto down the generations might not have been quite the same if English-language versions had stuck with the quirky translation used in the first edition: “A frightful hobgoblin stalks through Europe.”

As Vincent Barnett points out in his concise and reliable introduction to Marx’s thought, understanding Marx requires us to grasp that his ideas were neither static nor a coherent, empirically proven set of laws about economics, social systems and history. He revised and reshaped his ideas throughout his lifetime. In 1877 he even wrote that Russia had a chance to bypass the capitalist stage of development and move straight to socialism – a suggestion that, taken at face value, completely blew apart his previous theories of economically determined historical progress.

Barnett organises his book into pairs of chapters: the first of each pair deals with Marx’s life and practical work; the second with his political thought. This structure is useful in conveying to readers how Marx’s ideas were constantly evolving.

How dangerous was Marxism as an ideology in its heyday? Do Marx and Engels bear responsibility for how communism turned out in practice? Hunt and Barnett are in agreement that one cannot blame the appalling Soviet and Chinese utopian experiments on two German-born intellectuals writing 50 to 100 years earlier.

That is surely correct. Nevertheless, Marx’s vision of a “dictatorship of the proletariat” that would usher in communism was wide open to abuse by fanatics such as Vladimir Lenin, Stalin and Mao.

Mikhail Bakunin, the 19th-century Russian anarchist whom Marx regarded with contempt, sensed this better than any of his contemporaries. With a prescience that turned out to be tragically accurate, Bakunin denounced Marx’s pronouncements on the rule of the proletariat as “lies, behind which lurks the despotism of a governing minority”. It is a lesson for which Russia and China are still paying the price today.

Tony Barber is the FT’s Brussels bureau chief

英報書評:馬克思思想歷經150年仍不絕於耳

http://news.xinhuanet.com/world/2009-05/21/content_11413071.htm

新華網消息: 英國《金融時報》駐布魯塞爾分社首席記者托尼·巴伯就《共産主義的興衰》、《衣冠楚楚的共産主義者:弗雷德里希·恩格斯的革命生涯》和《馬克思》三部著作撰寫的書評說:馬克思思想是不斷發展的,它歷經150年仍不絕於耳,而且在中國更具吸引力。該報16日以《紅色警報》爲題,刊發了這篇書評。

在冷戰期間,當西方的自由價值觀頻頻受到抨擊時,可以對馬克思這個敵人發起反擊。 

    今天的情況又如何呢?資本主義正處在自上世紀30年代的大蕭條以來最糟糕的境地之中。難道馬克思和恩格斯的理論將被證明是正確的嗎?匆匆得出這樣的結論是草率的。儘管如此,筆者在此評論的這三本書將提醒人們:柏林牆倒塌和蘇聯共産主義(儘管不是中國不同尋常的共産主義)的崩潰已經快過去20年了,但馬克思和恩格斯當年抨擊19世紀中葉的資本主義經濟體系的某些批評言論在150年之後似乎仍然不絕於耳。 

    共産主義在中國等更具吸引力 

    阿奇·布朗撰寫的《共産主義的興衰》一書包羅萬象,給人留下深刻印象,我們將從過去40年英國最著名的一位共産主義問題專家的著作中獲益匪淺。此書較透徹地解釋了關係到共産主義崛起、長期執政的能力和衰落的各種因素。 

    布朗指出,與先進的工業化國家相比,共産主義往往在像中國和越南這樣的農業國家中更具吸引力。正如在兩次世界大戰期間發生的一種情況,當美國一名共產黨鼓動家在紐約發表演講時以一句不朽名言"布魯克林的工人和農民們"作爲其開場白時,革命是如何一直在美國爭取獲勝的。 

    當布爾什維克於1917年奪取政權時,俄羅斯基本上是一個農業國家---這一狀況只是在約瑟夫·史達林在上世紀30年代實施工業化應急計劃之後才得到改變。數以百萬計的農民被消滅或死於饑荒,數以百萬計各階層的公民被送往勞改營或流亡國外。然而,又有數以百萬計的人從中受益,他們利用了這種機會,在城市社會階梯中一級一級往上爬。 

    儘管布朗在其新著中也寫到了有關中國、東南亞和古巴的共産主義經歷,但他最擅長和最令人信服的描述莫過於他對1945年至1989年期間蘇聯和東歐國家狀況的分析。他指出,不管蘇聯和東歐國家政權在經濟上的效率是如何低下,在政治上是如何不受歡迎,但它們需要來自內部的改革家---首先是米哈伊爾·戈爾巴喬夫---來採取促使這種制度崩潰的行動。 

    布朗寫道:"如果一個國家動用一切資源來確保其統治者繼續當政的話,那麽經濟失敗與政權垮臺之間並不存在必然聯繫。"朝鮮的金正日以及他的父親金日成對政權的牢固控制足以證明,布朗的這一觀點是站得住腳的。 

    就連波蘭的團結工會這個如果還算得上是大規模反共運動的組織在198112月波蘭共產黨和武裝部隊實施戒嚴令後也沒有成功的機會。與此同時,布朗關於布拉格之春的章節說明了對於蘇聯來說,鎮壓主要源自執政黨本身的改革運動是多麽容易。 

    只有西方國家的干預也許會讓局面發生改變,但是艾森豪威爾總統在1956年匈牙利起義期間就表示,美國---儘管它經常大談自由---不會爲了"擊退"東歐的共産主義運動而去冒險挑起世界大戰。 

    在布朗看來,有一個問題應該獲得比實際更多的關注,那就是像波蘭的哥穆爾卡、捷克斯洛伐克的胡薩克和匈牙利的卡達爾這些人的領導風格。他們都在1945年後受到折磨;他們都是先被投入監獄,之後才在各自的國家重新掌權很長一段時間。他們都見證了蘇聯使用武裝部隊或通過恐嚇手段實施政治壓力來阻止自由化的舉措。 

    蘇聯的恐嚇手段和他們本人遭同道迫害的經歷對他們理解如何治理一黨制國家産生了何種影響?卡達爾緩和了國內令人窒息的政治環境,哥穆爾卡也作出了這樣的努力,不過力度要小一些,但是胡薩克堅決沒有這樣做。毋庸置疑的一點是,他們都沒有喪失共産主義的信仰。 

恩格斯是政治哲學家作家 

    對於史達林、齊奧塞斯庫和霍查,不知道馬克思和恩格斯會如何看待他們。正如英國歷史學家特里斯特拉姆·亨特在關於恩格斯的自傳---《衣冠楚楚的共産主義者:弗雷德裏希·恩格斯的革命生涯》一書中明確指出的,恩格斯和他們的不同再大不過了:"喜歡生活中的一切好東西:龍蝦沙拉、瑪歌堡紅酒和奢侈的女人。"

    亨特正確地將恩格斯描繪爲不僅是馬克思的得力助手,也是一位當之無愧的政治哲學家、一位才華橫溢的作家,他對維多利亞時代的社會環境所作的一針見血的分析至今聽來依然令人耳目一新。亨特寫道:"在宗教正統學說和自由市場極端主義的雙重牽絆下,我們在1989年以後看到的由自由貿易和西方民主組成的自由主義烏托邦步履蹣跚,在這種情況下,他的評論歷經這麽多年依然具有感染力。政府與資本的同流合污;公司對廉價勞動力和低級技能的追逐;家庭生活圍繞市場傾向所作的調整;傳統的東西在面對現代事物時不可避免的退卻,以及殖民主義和資本主義必不可少的'裂縫';軍隊成爲大工業中心的組成部分;甚至我們城市的佈局也是由資本的要求所決定。"

    然而,正如亨特所看到的,恩格斯的共産主義思想與他本人生活環境之間的反差極其強烈。恩格斯一生中大部分時候都是曼徹斯特的一名富裕的紡織品製造商,從受壓迫的工人階級身上榨取剩餘勞動價值的典型資本家。恩格斯去世時,家中還收藏著成千上萬瓶上等香檳和紅酒。 

    爲他辯解的一種說法是,他定期將大筆的錢轉到身在倫敦的馬克思的名下。正在大英博物館苦讀的馬克思當時拖家帶口,而且家人完全是中產階級的品味,他需要恩格斯的幫助,因爲如果非要比較的話,他理財的能力甚至還不如預測未來的能力。 

    馬克思思想是不斷發展的 

    馬克思和恩格斯高人一等的地方在於撰寫政治辯論文章。恩格斯184425歲時寫了《英國工人階級的狀況》一書,控訴了維多利亞時代的資本主義制度。4年後,他和馬克思共同出版了甚至更鼓舞人心的《共產黨宣言》,開篇就令人難忘:"一個幽靈---共産主義的幽靈正在歐洲上空盤旋。"

    當然,如果《共產黨宣言》的英譯本使用的是第一版當中的詭異譯法:"可怕的妖魔正在歐洲昂首闊步。"那麽100多年來,它所産生的影響也許會與現在不完全相同。 

    正如文森特·巴尼特在對馬克思思想作出的簡明可信的介紹中所說的,我們要瞭解馬克思就需要明白他的觀點既不是一成不變的,也不是通過經驗證明的一套關於經濟學、社會體系和歷史的前後連貫的規則。馬克思在一生中多次修改並調整自己的觀點。1877年,他甚至寫道,沙俄有可能繞開發展過程中的資本主義階段,直接進入社會主義,這樣的說法從表面上看,與他先前關於經濟決定歷史進程的理論完全相左 

    巴尼特的書分爲一些兩兩組合的章節,每對章節的第一章都是關於馬克思的生活和實際工作,第二章則是關於他的政治思想。這樣的架構對於向讀者傳達馬克思思想的不斷發展變化是很有必要的。 

    馬克思主義思想在全盛時期有多危險?馬克思和恩格斯是否應該爲共産主義思想在實踐中的表現承擔責任?亨特和巴尼特都認爲,不能將蘇聯和中國令人震驚的嘗試歸咎於這兩位出生於德國、在100多年前撰寫著作的學者身上。 

    19世紀時沙俄的無政府主義者巴庫寧比同時代的其他人更深刻地體會到了這一點,馬克思對他不屑一顧。巴庫寧指責馬克思發表的關於無產階級執政的觀點是"謊言,背後潛藏的是少數人執政的專制統治"。(編輯:陶志彭)

回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘

引用
引用網址:http://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=53732&aid=3446228
 回應文章
共產黨之間也搞尷尬(杜念中)
推薦0


沙包
等級:8
留言加入好友

 

毛澤東故鄉湖南韶山一度是反對鄧小平改革的老幹部必遊之地。不過他們並非前往遊山玩水,而是去控訴鄧小平對革命的背叛。這些年老幹部們如今凋謝殆盡,韶山逐漸也從革命聖地變旅遊名勝,到此一遊的新世代多已不清楚毛的成就與劣跡。

十月中旬,韶山來了一群特別的外國訪客;他們對毛澤東懷抱的景仰之情恐怕遠超過胡錦濤、溫家寶和數千萬中國共產黨員。由尼泊爾毛派共產黨主席普拉昌達、副主席以及國際部長等人組成的這支參訪團,經歷了不少曲折才得訪韶山,主要原因是中國並不歡迎這樣的革命者。
文革結束後,中國共產黨終結「輸出革命」的政策,停止了對第三世界左翼革命運動的支持。中共這番理論與政策上的大調整,遭到西方與第三世界左派的強烈批評,但是也取得各國主流政黨的信任。尼泊爾的毛派是個不折不扣的激進革命政黨和武裝組織,自始至今都以推翻尼泊爾「半封建半殖民」的社會政治秩序、建立人民民主為目標。中國很擔心,突然邀訪這樣的革命組織會引發國際上的疑慮,認為中國又走上扶植外國第五縱隊的老路線。

毛派與革命漸行漸遠

其實普拉昌達去年春天也曾訪問中國,不過那時他是尼泊爾聯合政府總理,而非毛派共產黨的主席。而且他訪中的目的之一是參加奧運閉幕典禮,理由堂而皇之。但是普拉昌達擔任總理僅只8個月,就為了毛派武裝力量如何融入政府軍等問題與軍方和其他政黨發生衝突而辭職,使尼國政局益發波濤洶湧。普拉昌達在此情勢下訪問中國必然引起尼泊爾政府疑慮,極可能誤解中國將支持毛派對政府的鬥爭,尤其目前尼國政府也亟欲改善與中國的關係,總理並計劃訪問中國。
中共為了安排普拉昌達的訪問,還秘密派代表先在香港與毛派磋商,詳情外界難以知悉,但不外是訪問的規格,以及對外說明的口徑。毛派現在是尼國最大的政黨,也是最具實力的武裝運動,已控制了三分之二的領土。中國不敢輕視毛派的力量,但又不願疏離其他政黨,因此選擇了低調處理普拉昌達的造訪。普拉昌達應中國共產黨之邀,在濟南見到了胡錦濤總書記,但是中國媒體根本不提見胡之事。兩黨關係變得如此隱諱,對中共來說也是少見的。
去年西藏抗爭事件發生後,中國一直認為抗爭的國際指揮中心在尼泊爾,因此對西藏和尼泊爾邊界格外防範。普拉昌達擔任總理期間再三應允中國,絕不讓尼泊爾發生任何反中行動,並加強對尼國境內西藏人的控制與監視。中國對此固然心懷感激,但最重要的還是看準毛派的實力和毛派反印度的意識形態。
對印度來說,尼國毛派雖是個潛在敵手,但在現實考慮下仍然盡力拉攏。這也是為什麼普拉昌達2008年訪問了中國之後,突然宣布他的印度之行才算是他首次官式出訪。尼泊爾夾在中印兩大國之間,希望能左右逢源,卻往往陷入左右為難的情境,即使實力堅強如毛派亦難例外。
尼國毛派雖還做著革命之夢,但印度不樂見尼泊爾發生毛澤東式的革命,毛澤東的祖國也不願見到尼國發生巨變。尼泊爾做為兩強之間的緩衝國,尼國毛派在未來選擇將越來越有限。它或許可蛻變為社會民主黨,或成為中國式的新權威主義政黨,但恐怕注定與毛澤東式的革命漸行漸遠,這樣的趨勢既是毛派的宿命,又何嘗不是尼泊爾的宿命。

回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:http://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=53732&aid=3676254
俄領導人將中國看作執政樣板
推薦0


沙包
等級:8
留言加入好友

 
《紐約時報》:俄領導人將中國看作執政樣板

http://www.chinareviewnews.com   2009-10-19 16:00:17  


  中評社北京10月19日電/美國《紐約時報》10月18日刊文說,在蘇聯的共產黨垮近20年後,俄羅斯的統治者發現了未來成功的榜樣:共產黨,或者至少是鄰國執政的那個共產黨。

  文章指出,普京的統一俄羅斯黨正越來越多地思考它能如何仿效中國共產黨,特別是它在相對未屈服的情況下帶領中國走出金融危機的技巧。統一俄羅斯黨的領導人甚至在本月和中國共產黨高級官員召開了特別會議,洗耳恭聽他們是如何運用權力的。

  俄羅斯人並不想回到作為馬克思-列寧主義意識形態的共產主義,不管是蘇聯模式還是北京的這種形式。他們敬佩的是中國使用一黨制度保持對國家緊密控制、同時還能推動快速經濟增長的能力。

  這是一個歷史性的轉變,因為中國的共產主義者在兩國交惡前曾從蘇聯人那裡得到靈感。

  對俄羅斯人來說,重要的是這兩國在最近幾十年截然不同的發展道路。他們敏銳地意識到,儘管俄羅斯已經在向市場經濟轉型的過程中經歷了許多黑暗的日子,但是中國似乎更加巧妙地實現了類似轉變。

  俄羅斯人還對他們經濟高度依賴石油、天然氣和其他自然資源感到羞恥,好像俄羅斯是個第三世界國家,而中國在製造全世界都需要的產品方面勝過他人。

  俄羅斯副總理、普京的高級助手亞歷山大-茹科夫10月9日在中國邊境城市綏芬河和中國官員舉行的會議上宣布,“中國共產黨發展其政府上的成就應該得最高分。他們擁有的實踐經驗應該被認真研究”。

  茹科夫邀請中國國家主席、中共中央總書記胡錦濤參加統一俄羅斯黨11月在聖彼得堡舉行的大會。

  綏芬河的會議是中俄政黨之間幾個月來越發頻繁接觸的高潮。今年春天,一個統一俄羅斯黨的高級代表團訪問北京,進行了數天的會談,統一俄羅斯黨宣布它將為其調研部門在北京開設一個辦公室。

  對於中國共產黨的著迷凸顯統一俄羅斯黨缺乏核心理念。不管出於何種動機,俄羅斯在最近幾年開始朝中國的政治和經濟模式邁進。

  俄羅斯國家通訊社的政治評論員德米特裡-科瑟列夫說,克裡姆林宮向東看是很自然的事情。

  科瑟列關說,“當他們發現,有一種方式能夠將曾經的社會主義國家改革得更好、更有效率,他們當然會予以關注。這裡的每個人都將中國看作榜樣,因為俄羅斯不是榜樣。”
回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:http://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=53732&aid=3658953
中国需要去马克思主义化
推薦0


沙包
等級:8
留言加入好友

 

中国需要去马克思主义化

(2009-10-19)http://www.zaobao.com/yl/tx091019_001.shtml

张雪忠(上海)

在中国大陆,官方一直强调应该坚持马克思主义在意识形态领域的指导地位,反对搞指导思想的多元化。由于这一问题事关中国社会的未来和中国人精神上的发展,笔者愿就此发表一些个人浅见。

  辩证唯物主义是马克思主义的哲学理论,它被一些人视为将唯物主义和辩证法有机统一起来的科学世界观。谈到科学,人们总是指关于“世界是什么样子”以及“世界为什么是其所是”的各种知识体系。而关于“世界应该成为什么样子”,以及“人们应如何改变世界”的陈述可能需要一定的知识前提,但它们本身并不是为了提供知识,而是为了提供包含道德评价的社会行动纲领。

哲学上的独断

  当马克思宣称“哲学家们只是用不同的方式解释世界,而问题在于改变世界”时,就等于告诉人们,他感兴趣的与其说是知识问题,不如说是政策问题。对于认识的来源与途径这一根本性的哲学问题,马克思主义只不过是利用含糊其辞的“实践”概念复活了唯物主义的独断论。

  康德以其特有的审慎而承认,经验只能告诉人们关于现象的知识。马克思则认为人们可以通过实践而抵达“物自体”,从而实现“主体与客体的同一”。但实际上,实践并不是一种独立于视觉、听觉、味觉、嗅觉及触觉之外的神秘的第六感。就其认识作用而言,实践不过是五种通常的感知方式的统称,本身并不是什么比感官知觉更高级的认知途径。除了扩展人类经验的范围外,实践的意义并不在于提供高于经验的知识,而是在于实现人的自由。

  在物质与意识的关系上,马克思主义认为,物质是独立于意识的客观存在,意识则是高度发展的物质(人脑)的机能,是客观物质世界在人脑中的反映。一方面把物质定义为“独立于意识的客观存在”,另一方面又将意识定义为“物质在物质中的反映”,这种循环定义恰恰是哲学独断论的典型特征。

  如果意识只是物质与物质相互作用的产物,人们难免要问:意识是否也属于物质呢?如果是,马克思主义者怎能通过与一种具体的物质的区别,来定义普遍的物质呢?如果不是,那么物质与物质的相互作用,如何能产生非物质的东西呢?如果毕竟存在非物质的东西,那怎么能将存在视为物质“唯一的本质属性”呢?

  直到今天,一个人学会了一件事情意味着什么,或者说大脑里发生了什么变化,人们都不知道。在这样一个重要的问题根本未能解决时,就武断地认为,意识是由物质决定的,这难道不是一种哲学上的独断吗?

  独断的哲学思想有一种直截了当的简洁感和力量感。正是这种简洁感和力量感,才使得狂妄的谬误往往比谦逊的真理,更容易打动那些不习惯思考又缺乏耐心的人。辩证唯物主义正是以一种不容分辩的独断,突破了康德以其特有的谦卑所看到的人类理性的限度,并侵入康德通过批判哲学为信仰空出的地盘。

避免暴政未必得消灭宗教

  马克思对待宗教的态度很能说明问题。他宣称要“废除作为人民的虚幻幸福的宗教,并要求人民的现实幸福”。宗教确实曾被用于维护绝对的政治权力,并经常成为暴政和社会压迫的帮凶。但完全消灭宗教并将幸福视为纯粹现实和客观的东西,则等于在将旧神学从政治生活中驱除出去的同时,又迎来了一种新神学。

  一旦幸福被视为完全客观的东西,人们就必须承认,有些人比其他人更能“认识”到什么是幸福,从而应该掌握绝对的政治权力。据马克思看来,在摧毁了真理的彼岸世界之后,“历史的任务就是确立此岸世界的真理”。此岸之神急不可耐地要取代彼岸之神的位置!“先进阶级论”作为一种政治哲学的返祖现象,使人不免想起亚里士多德在《政治学》的高论:人之所以必须分为主人和奴隶,就在于主人对双方的共同利益有着特别的洞察力。

  马克思在其哲学理论中所表现对弱者的同情以及对社会不公的义愤,理应得到人们的尊敬。但强烈的道德情感并不特别有利于使一种理论成为真正的科学,马克思提出的各种社会政治主张,也不会因此就具备等同于客观规律的不可易变的必然性。但正是凭借着这种臆想的必然性,许多马克思主义者固执地认为,马克思的社会政治主张不是解决现实问题的可能途径之一,而是解决现实问题的唯一可能的途径。

  但这种臆想的必然性往往经不起辩驳。例如,要避免宗教成为暴政的借口,并不必然要求彻底消灭宗教。洛克曾对绝对君权的神学基础进行最为系统和彻底的批判,但他并不认为避免暴政就一定要消灭宗教。通过将宗教信仰私人化,既可以涤除政治中的神学因素,又可以为人们保留据以获得心灵慰籍和追求道德完善的依归。

解放生产力未必须摧毁私有制

  应该承认,马克思主义剩余价值理论在英国古典政治经济学的基础上,从某个方面阐述了19世纪欧洲社会过度的财富集中和极度的社会分化,与资本主义生产关系(私有财产和市场体制)之间的联系。但消除一种生产关系的有害结果,并不必然要求消除这种生产关系本身。

  马克思认为,资本主义社会高度发达的生产力,为人类社会迈入共产主义准备了物质条件。但马克思主义中的生产力概念,显然是源于对物理学中力的概念的错误理解。生产力和力一样,都只不过是一个描述性的概念,并不代表什么实在性的东西。生产力并不是比生产关系更基础的东西,它只不过是对生产工具、生产对象以及生产关系这一组合的评价,或者说是这一组合的因变函数。

  马克思主义政治经济学断言,在摧毁私有制和市场经济之后,资本主义社会原有的生产力将获得解放,从而实现按需分配的共产主义社会。但它并未为此提供任何有说服力的保证,更没有告诉人们,如果这种做法最终没有解放生产力而是毁灭了生产力,人们该用什么办法来补救。

  实际上,在保留促使社会财富不断涌现的私有制和市场经济的条件下,劳工阶层通过参与基于普选权之上的议会政治,完全有可能制定合适的税收与福利政策,防止社会财富的过度集中和严重的贫富差距。这一途径有一种显而易见的优势:人们不用冒孤注一掷的风险,只需通过一种逐步试错和灵活调整的过程,就有可能实现一种明智和人道的社会主义。

  在马克思眼里,资本主义社会化大生产和生产资料私有制之间的矛盾,非经社会革命则不可克服。但这一矛盾其实早已被人们通过企业制度的创新(如采用股份公司制度)予以解决。由于对革命的强烈嗜好,马克思主义者从来就不愿认真考虑解决各种社会问题的技术手段。对于马克思主义者们而言,技术手段对知识和耐心的要求也许是太高了。

取消马克思在中国的神学地位

  其实,任何理论的观点只要停留在超验的领域,都不会对人有害。但一种梦呓般的观点一旦通过强权予以实践,则必然会破坏人们的生活与福利。如果不可检验的东西获得了现实的权力,以致要控制和左右其他可检验的东西,那么最可怕的人类惨剧便会发生。

  在经历公有制和计划经济的惨败之后,中国已经在经济领域进行了三十年去马克思主义化的过程。但在政治和思想领域,为了维护一种越来越不适应社会发展的政治体制,马克思主义仍被用于将一代又一代中国人扭曲成学舌的鹦鹉和理智的侏儒。

  当前的中国,迫切需要在政治、文化和教育领域启动去马克思主义化的进程,但这并不是要禁止马克思主义的传播,而是要取消其在中国的神学地位,以恢复中国人理性和良知的至高无上的权利。让13亿中国人,以一种全民族集体自虐的方式,彻底臣服于一个西方人的哲学体系,并成为一种终其一生也无法实现的幻想的奴仆,这既不合乎理性,也不合乎道德。

作者任教于中国华东政法大学,文章仅代表个人观点

回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:http://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=53732&aid=3657143
"馬克思主義的主流"作者辭世
推薦1


Guoding
等級:8
留言加入好友

 
文章推薦人 (1)

古士塔夫

和余英時一樣獲Kluge獎

Leszek Kolakowski, Polish Philosopher, Dies at 81

By NICHOLAS KULISH

WARSAW — Leszek Kolakowski, a Polish philosopher who rejected Marxism and helped inspire the Solidarity movement in his native land while living in exile, died Friday in Oxford, England. He was 81.

His family announced his death in the Polish newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza, saying he had died in an Oxford hospital “after a sudden, short illness.” No other details were provided.

In Warsaw, Parliament held a moment of silence in his honor, for his service to Poland’s freedom.

In a long and wide-ranging career, Mr. Kolakowski most famously dissected the intellectual underpinnings of the Communist system he had supported as a young man, at the height of the cold war’s ideological and military arms race. He was an academic whose influence reached far beyond the academy’s gates and a scholar whose writings could be playful and satirical, but most of all, accessible.

Adam Michnik, one of the leaders of the Polish opposition, writing from a Gdansk prison cell in 1985, referred to Mr. Kolakowski as “one of the most prominent creators of contemporary Polish culture.”

His most influential work, the three-volume “Main Currents of Marxism: Its Rise, Growth and Dissolution,” published in the 1970s, was a history and critique that called the philosophy “the greatest fantasy of our century.” He argued that Stalinism was not a perversion of Marxist thought, but rather its natural conclusion.

In addition to more serious texts, he was known for writing plays and fables, and even a book, “Conversations With the Devil,” in which Satan debates a series of prominent mythical and historical figures.

Mr. Kolakowski published more than 30 books in a career spanning more than five decades. He was awarded the Order of the White Eagle, Poland’s highest honor, and the MacArthur Foundation fellowship known widely as the genius grant.

In 2003 he became the first recipient of the United States Library of Congress’s $1 million John W. Kluge Prize for Lifetime Achievement in the Humanities and Social Sciences, given in fields where there are no Nobel Prizes. In announcing the prize, James H. Billington, the librarian of Congress, noted not only Mr. Kolakowski’s scholarship but also his “demonstrable importance to major political events in his own time,” adding that “his voice was fundamental for the fate of Poland, and influential in Europe as a whole.”

Leszek Kolakowski was born Oct. 23, 1927, in the city of Radom, south of Warsaw. Like most Poles of his generation, Mr. Kolakowski knew hardship early. Under the German occupation of Poland during World War II, Mr. Kolakowski and his family were forcibly relocated to different towns and villages.

Because the Germans had closed Polish schools, young Leszek had to teach himself and take exams in the underground school system that was created. After the war, he studied philosophy first at the University of Lodz and later earned a doctorate at the University of Warsaw. He took a teaching position there, rising to chairman of the history of philosophy section.

Early in his life he embraced Communism as a reaction to the destruction inflicted upon his country by Nazism, greeting the Red Army as liberators after years of German oppression. But a trip to Moscow intended as a reward for promising young Marxist intellectuals proved instead to be a turning point, exposing for him what he described as “the enormity of material and spiritual desolation caused by the Stalinist system.”

In an interview with The New York Times in 2004, Mr. Kolakowski said, “This ideology was supposed to mold the thinking of people, but at a certain moment it became so weak and so ridiculous that nobody believed in it, neither the ruled nor the rulers.”

After the 1956 worker riots in Poznan, Mr. Kolakowski’s increasingly critical writings began to run afoul of the censors. His critique of Stalinism, “What Is Socialism?”, was banned, among other works. Mr. Kolakowski was expelled from the Polish United Workers’ Party in 1966 and lost his position at Warsaw University in 1968. He went into exile the same year.

Mr. Kolakowski taught at top-rank institutions after leaving Poland, including McGill University in Montreal; the University of California, Berkeley; Yale; and the Committee on Social Thought at the University of Chicago. But Oxford became his home.

Mr. Kolakowski is survived by his wife, Tamara, and a daughter, Agnieszka.

In a noted lecture in 1982, Mr. Kolakowski said the cultural role of philosophy was “never to let the inquisitive energy of mind go to sleep, never to stop questioning what appears to be obvious and definitive, always to defy the seemingly intact resources of common sense” and “never to forget that there are questions that lie beyond the legitimate horizon of science and are nonetheless crucially important to the survival of humanity as we know it.”

回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:http://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=53732&aid=3537448
David Harvey 談資本論
推薦0


周世瑀
等級:7
留言加入好友

 






"Interview: David
Harvey - Exploring the logic of capital"
 
& "Reading Capital"



 



 
回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘
引用網址:http://city.udn.com/forum/trackback.jsp?no=53732&aid=3448188