题目：中国采用了我们的资本主义模式——我们将采用它的专制统治吗？
作者：斯拉沃热·齐泽克
The explosion of capitalism in China has many Westerners asking when political democracy -- as the "natural" accompaniment of capitalism -- will emerge. But a closer look quickly dispels any such hope.
当资本主义在中国蓬勃发展的时候，很多西方的观察者都会问，政治上的民主（作为资本主义“自然伴随物”）何时才会到来。然而，当我们仔细看清中国的现状时，基本上很快就会打消这种希望。
Modern-day China is not an oriental-despotic distortion of capitalism, but rather the repetition of capitalism's development in Europe itself. In the early modern era, most European states were far from democratic. And if they were democratic (as was the case of the Netherlands during the 17th century), it was only a democracy of the propertied liberal elite, not of the workers. Conditions for capitalism were created and sustained by a brutal state dictatorship, very much like today's China. The state legalized violent expropriations of the common people, which turned them proletarian. The state then disciplined them, teaching them to conform to their new ancilliary role.
现代中国，并不是一个资本主义的东方专制的扭曲版本，而是一个欧洲资本主义自身发展的翻版。在近代早期，大部分的欧洲国家离民主还有一段距离。而且那时候，如果它们是民主国家的话（如17世纪荷兰的），也只不过是有财产的自由主义精英的民主，而不是工人的民主，而发展资本主义所需要的条件当时就是由野蛮粗暴的国家专断权力创造，并维持下去的。这一点，与今天的中国非常相似。过去，中国合法化了各种剥夺老百姓财产权的野蛮暴力，使普通老百姓成为了无产阶级，然后，国家再对其进行规训，教育他们去适应新的辅助型角色。
The features we identify today with liberal democracy and freedom (trade unions, universal vote, freedom of the press, etc.) are far from natural fruits of capitalism. The lower classes won them by waging long, difficult struggles throughout the 19th century. Recall the list of demands that Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels made in the conclusion of The Communist Manifesto. With the exception of the abolition of private property, most of them -- such as a progressive income tax, free public education and abolishing child labor -- are today widely accepted in "bourgeois" democracies, and all were gained as the result of popular struggles.
那些今天我们所熟知自由民主的特征（工会，普选，出版自由等）其实都远非是资本主义的自然结果。中下阶层在19世纪当中，通过发动长期而又艰苦的斗争才争取到这些权利。我们不妨回忆一下马克思和恩格斯在《共产党宣言》当中提出的那一系列的要求，除了要废除私有产权以外，大部分的这些要求——如累进所得税，免费的公共教育，禁止使用童工等——这些在今日的“资产阶级”民主当中经已被广泛采纳和接受的权利，实际上全都是普通老百姓一直以来斗争的结果。
So there is nothing exotic in today's China: It is merely repeating our own forgotten past. But what about the afterthought of some Western liberal critics who ask how much faster China's development would have been had the country grown within the context of a political democracy? The German-British philosopher Ralf Dahrendorf has linked the increasing distrust in democracy to the fact that, after every revolutionary change, the road to new prosperity leads through a "valley of tears." In other words, after the breakdown of state socialism, a country cannot immediately become a successful market economy. The limited -- but real -- socialist welfare and security have to be dismantled, and these first steps are necessary and painful. For Dahrendorf, this passage through the "valley of tears" lasts longer than the average period between democratic elections. As a result, the temptation is great for leaders of a democratic country to postpone difficult changes for short-term electoral gains.
所以，在今天中国也不例外：它只是在重复我们早已忘却的过去。然而，一些西方自由主义的批评者曾经提出疑问说假如中国进入到政治民主的状态时它的发展会可能会有多快，后来他们又是怎么想的呢？哲学家达伦多夫曾经把民主当中日益增长的不信任与以下的这个现实联系在一起：在每一次革命以后，通往新的繁荣之路都必须要经过一个“眼泪谷”。也就是说，在国家社会主义崩溃以后，一个国家是很难迅速地成为一个良好运作的市场经济体。那些有限的却又真实存在的社会福利以及保障将被迫先要清除，这些往前迈出第一步的行动都是必需的，同时也是痛苦的。达伦多夫说，穿越“眼泪谷”的这段旅程所花的时间往往比两次民主选举间的平均周期要长。因此，对于那些民主国家的领导人来说，就会受到某种诱惑，令他们推迟重大的改革，而谋求短期的选举收益。
In Western Europe, the move from welfare state to the new global economy has involved painful renunciations, less security and less guaranteed social care. In post-Communist nations, the economic results of this new democratic order have disappointed a large strata of the population, who, in the glorious days of 1989, equated democracy with the abundance of the Western consumerist societies. And now, 20 years later, when the abundance is still missing, they blame democracy itself.
在西欧，从福利国家迈向崭新的全球化经济时代的过程中，包含着痛苦的放弃，被减少的安全措施以及难以保证的社会保障。在那些后共产主义国家里面，新的民主秩序下的经济成果让社会当中的大多数阶层失望，这些阶层在1989年左右曾有某些辉煌岁月，当时，他们把民主与西方富饶的消费主义社会混为一谈。但如今，20年过去，被预期会出现的经济富庶却一直没有出现，于是这些阶层就转过头来去责怪民主。
Dahrendorf, however, fails to note the opposite temptation: The belief that, if the majority of a population resists structural changes in the economy, an enlightened elite should take power, even by non-democratic means, to lay the foundations for a truly stable democracy. Along these lines, Newsweek columnist Fareed Zakaria points out how democracy can only "catch on" in economically developed countries. He says that if developing countries are "prematurely democratized," then economic catastrophe and political despotism will soon follow. It's no wonder, then, that today's most economically successful developing countries (Taiwan, South Korea, Chile) have embraced full democracy only after a period of authoritarian rule.
然而，达伦多夫没有注意到另一种相反的诱惑：这种观点就是，假如大多数的民众拒绝经济上的结构性转型的话，那么那些较早觉悟的精英就应该去掌握公权力，即使是通过一种非民主的手段，从而为真正意义上稳定的民主打下基础。按照这种观点，新闻周刊专栏专家Fareed Zakaria为我们指出，民主是如何只在经济上的发展中国家里面得到理解的。他说，如果一个发展中国家处于“早熟的民主状态”，那么经济上的灾难和政治上的专断就会随之而来。所以，毫无疑问，今天经济上最成功的一些发展中国家和地区（台北省，南韩，智利），它们都在经历了一段威权主义统治以后，才获得充分发展的民主制度。
Isn't this line of reasoning the best argument for the Chinese way to capitalism as opposed to the Russian way? In Russia, after the collapse of Communism, the government adopted "shock therapy" and threw itself directly into democracy and the fast track to capitalism -- with economic bankruptcy as the result. (There are good reasons to be modestly paranoid here: Were the Western economic advisers to President Boris Yeltsin who proposed this approach really as innocent as they appeared? Or were they serving U.S. strategic interests by weakening Russia economically?)
这种说法，是否就是对于为何中国会采纳一条有别于俄罗斯模式的资本主义道路最好的回答呢？在俄罗斯，在共产主义崩溃以后，它们采取了“休克疗法”而直接进入民主制度以及通向资本主义的快速通道——当然，也伴随着经济上的破产。（在这里，我们有很好的理由去成为一个温和的偏执狂：那些向俄罗斯前总统叶利钦建言让其采纳“休克疗法”的西方经济学家是否就真的是如他们看起来的那样纯真呢？又或者说，他们是否服务于美国的利益而有心削弱俄罗斯的经济呢？）
China, on the other hand, has followed the path of Chile and South Korea in its passage to capitalism, using unencumbered authoritarian state power to control the social costs and thus avoid chaos. The weird combination of capitalism and Communist rule proved to be a blessing (not even) in disguise for China.
在另一方面，中国则采纳了之前智利和南韩的资本主义道路，使用毫无监管和约束的威权主义国家权力控制社会成本，从而避免社会骚乱。这种资本主义和共产主义离奇的结合对于中国来说，被证明是个伪装的幸福，甚至还不能算是个幸福。
The country has developed fast, not in spite of authoritarian rule, but because of it. With Stalinist-sounding paranoia, we are left to wonder, "Maybe those who worry about China's lack of democracy are actually worried that its fast development could make it the next global superpower, thereby threatening Western primacy."
中国之所以发展得如此地快，不是因为其脱离了威权主义的统治，相反，而是由于这种威权主义统治所带来的。假如我们用斯大林式貌似合理的偏执想法来思考的话，那么的确还有很多值得我们思考的问题，“那些担心中国缺乏民主的人，可能实际上是在担心中国的高速发展，从而形成一个新的全球超级力量，最终威胁到西方的利益。”
Today, the tragedy of the Great Leap Forward is repeating itself as a comedy. It has become the rapid capitalist Great Leap Forward into modernization, with the old slogan "iron foundry into every village" re-emerging as "a skyscraper into every street." The supreme irony of history is that Mao Zedong himself created the ideological conditions for rapid capitalist development. What was his call to the people, especially the young ones, in the Cultural Revolution? Don't wait for someone else to tell you what to do, you have the right to rebel! So think and act for yourselves, destroy cultural relics, denounce and attack not only your elders, but also government and party officials! Swipe away the repressive state mechanisms and organize yourself in communes!
今天，在中国，昔日“大跃进运动”的悲剧以一种喜剧的形式重新上演。它变成了一场高速地奔向现代化的资本主义大跃进运动，当年“大跃进运动”当中的口号“每个乡村都要有一个炼钢厂”如今变成了“每条街道上都要有一座摩天大楼”。但该段历史最大的讽刺却是毛泽东为资本主义的迅猛发展创造了意识形态上的条件。还记得毛泽东在“文化大革命”中说了什么，尤其是对青年人说了什么吗？不要等其他人告诉你你要去做什么，你有反抗的权利！所以，为自己去打算和行动吧，破坏文化遗迹，不仅要去谴责和攻击你的长辈，还包括政府和政党的领导人！推翻这种压迫人的体制吧，到在人民公社当中实现自我管理吧！
And Mao's call was heard. What followed was such an explosion of unrestrained passion to delegitimize all forms of authority that, at the end, Mao had to call in the army to restore order. The paradox is that the key battle during the Cultural Revolution was not between the Communist Party apparatus and the denounced traditionalist enemies, but between the Communist Party and the forces that Mao himself called into being.
很多人响应了毛泽东的号召。于是接下来就是一场无法压制的热情爆发，他们把所有形式的权力机构通通认为是不合法的，到了文化大革命的后期，毛泽东不得不召来军队恢复了社会秩序。这里面有一个重要的悖论，这不是一场发生在共产党机构和被谴责的传统主义敌人之间的重大战争，而是一场发生在共产党和被毛泽东所鼓动的那股力量之间的重大战争。
A similar dynamic is discernible in today's China. The Party resuscitates big ideological traditions in order to contain the disintegrative consequences of the capitalist explosion that the Party itself created. It is with this in mind that one should read the recent campaign in China to revive Marxism as an efficient state ideology. (Literally hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars are spent on this venture.)
而在今日中国，我们通过能够清晰地发现到仍旧存在着某种相似的力量。共产党重新激活了大型的意识形态传统，用它们来抑制共产党自己创造的资本主义高速发展所带来的分裂恶果。我们心中必须以下这一点：即最近中国开始了一场重新把马克思主义作为有效率的国家意识形态的运动。（从官方文件上，我们知道有数十亿美元将会用于这个计划上面。）
Those who see this as a threat to capitalist liberalization totally miss the point. Strange as it may sound, this return of Marxism is the sign of the ultimate triumph of capitalism, the sign of its full institutionalization. For example, China has taken recent legal measures to guarantee private property, a move that the West has hailed as a crucial step toward legal stability.
那些把这场复兴马克思主义的运动视为是一种对资本主义自由化威胁的人基本上是看错了。可能听起来会有点奇怪，实际上，这次马克思主义的回归的确是资本主义的最后胜利，是资本主义完全制度化的标志。举个例说，中国最近已经采取立法手段来保障私有产权，这一举动被西方国家赞其是迈向法律稳定性上的重要一步。
But what kind of Marxism is as appropriate for today's China? First, let's look at the difference between Marxism and Leftism. Leftism is a term that refers to any talk of workers' liberation -- from free trade unions to overcoming capitalism. But the Marxist thesis says that developing the forces of production is the key to social progress, and it is this type of Marxist development that fosters the conditions for the continuing fast "modernization."
但哪一类型的马克思主义最适合今天的中国呢？第一，先让我们来看一下马克思主义和左派之间的差别，左派指的是关于工人解放的一切言论——从自由组建工会到推翻资本主义。但马克思主义却认为发展生产力才是社会进步的关键，而正是这种类型的马克思主义的发展才能为持续而快速的“现代化”进程培养土壤。
In today's China, only the Communist Party's leading role can sustain rapid modernization. The official (Confucian) term is that China should become a "harmonious society."
在今天的中国，只有共产党的领导地位才能维持快速的现代化进程。而官方（儒家）的主题则是中国应该变成一个“和谐社会”。
To put it in old Maoist terms, the main enemy may appear to be the "bourgeois" threat. But, in the eyes of the ruling elite, the main enemies are instead the "principal contradiction" between unfettered capitalist development that the Communist Party rulers profit from and the threat of revolt by the workers and peasants.
把这一点放进旧的毛泽东主义里面去看，主要的敌人可能会是“资产阶级”的威胁。然而，在统治精英的眼中，主要的敌人已经发生了改变，其“主要矛盾”已经变成了“共产党领导人想要利用的不受约束的资本主义发展”与“工人和农民企图革命的威胁”这两者之间的矛盾。
Last year, the Chinese government strengthened some of its oppressive apparatuses -- including forming special units of riot police to crush popular unrest. These police are the actual social expression of what, in ideology, appears as a revival of Marxism. In 1905, Trotsky characterized tsarist Russia as "the vicious combination of the Asian knout [whip] and the European stock market." Doesn't this characterization still hold for modern-day China?
去年，中国政府加强了它某些具有压制性功能的机构的力量——包括成立特种防暴警察来压制民众的骚动。这些防暴警察的设置其实在意识形态上马克思主义的复兴落实到现实社会层面的一种表达。在1905年，托洛茨基就指出沙皇统治下俄罗斯的几个特征，包括“亚洲皮鞭与欧洲股票市场的残暴混合”。这一点，是否也能够概括今天中国的特征呢？
But what if the promised democratic second act that follows the authoritarian valley of tears never arrives? That is what is so unsettling about today's China: Its authoritarian capitalism may not be merely a remainder of our past but a portent of our future.
但是，假如在眼泪谷之后，威权主义国家没有迎来民主的第二波运动的话， 那怎么办呢？这就是为什么大家对于今天中国会感到如此不安的地方：它的威权资本主义不单单是我们过去的某个剩余物，还可能是我们未来的预兆。
Slavoj Žižek, a philosopher and psychoanalyst, is a senior researcher at the Institute for Advanced Study in the Humanities, in Essen, Germany. He is the author of, among many other books, The Fragile Absolute and Did Somebody Say Totalitarianism?
斯拉沃热·齐泽克，哲学家和精神分析师，德国埃森高级人文研究所的高级研究员。著有大量书籍，其中包括《易碎的绝对》以及《有没有人说过集权主义？》
