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1981年12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1844年25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）