与他人合作翻译。本文脚注[1]对应原文的脚注[13]。
These ideas grew out of the Enlightenment; their roots are in Rousseau’s Discourse on Inequality, Humboldt’s Limits of State Action, Kant’s insistence, in his defense of the French Revolution,that freedom is the precondition for acquiring the maturity for freedom, not a gift to be grantedwhen such maturity is achieved.
这些思想源于启蒙运动；根系深植，在卢梭对《人类不平等之根源》的论述里，在洪堡对《国家行动之限度》的界定里，在康德对法国大革命辩护里——他坚持，自由是实现自由之“成熟”的先决条件，而不是在它“长成”时给予的馈赠。
With the development of industrial capitalism, a new and unanticipated system of injustice, it is libertarian socialism that has preserved and extended the radicalhumanist message of the Enlightenment and the classical liberal ideals that were perverted intoan ideology to sustain the emerging social order.
随着工业资本主义的发展，古典自由主义理想被扭曲为意识形态以维持资本主义新奇多变的非正义制度，所幸，自由意志社会主义还保留并扩展了启蒙运动的激进人文主义信念和自由主义理想。
In fact, on the very same assumptions that ledclassical liberalism to oppose the intervention of the state in social life, capitalist social relationsare also intolerable.
事实上，即便在古典自由主义反对国家干预社会生活的假设下，资本主义社会关系也是不可容忍的。
This is clear, for example, from the classic work of Humboldt, The Limits of State Action, which anticipated and perhaps inspired Mill.
例如，从洪堡的经典著作《国家行动的限度》中可以清楚地看出这一点。
This classic of liberal thought, completed in 1792, is in its essence profoundly, though prematurely, anticapitalist.
这一自由主义思想的经典，于1792年便已完成，即便像个早产儿，但其本质的确是反资本主义。
Its ideas must beattenuated beyond recognition to be transmuted into an ideology of industrial capitalism.
除非把它的思想删改得面目全非，否则休想将其转变成工业资本主义的意识形态。
Humboldt’s vision of a society in which social fetters are replaced by social bonds and labor is freely undertaken suggests the early Marx., with his discussion of the “alienation of labor when work is external to the worker…not part of his nature…[so that] he does not fulfill himself in his work but denies himself…[and is] physically exhausted and mentally debased,” alienated labor that “casts some of the workers back into a barbarous kind of work and turns others into machines,” thus depriving man of his “species character” of “free conscious activity” and “productive life.” Similarly, Marx conceives of “a new type of human being who needs his fellowmen…[The workers’ association becomes] the real constructive effort to create the social texture of future human relations.”[1]
洪堡对社会“纽带”取代社会“枷锁”、劳动力自由择业的看法表明了马克思早期的观点：“工作时的异化劳动是外部性的……不是工人本性的一部分……所以，他在工作中并未实现自身而是否定自我……并且，导致身体上的疲惫和精神上的堕落”，异化的劳动“把一些工人重新投到野蛮的工作中，把另一些工人变成机器”，从而剥夺了人的“物种性格”，剥夺了他的“自由意识活动”和“生产性生活”。同样，马克思设想“一种新型的人，与他的同伴互相需要……工人之联合体是创造未来人际关系社会结构的真正有建设性的努力。”[1]
It is true that classical libertarian thought is opposed to state intervention in social life, as a consequence of deeper assumptions about the human need for liberty,diversity, and free association.
诚然，古典自由意志主义反对国家干预社会生活，因为它关于自由、多样性和自由结社这些人类需要包含着更深层次的假设
On the same assumptions, capitalist relations of production, wagelabor, competitiveness, the ideology of “possessive individualism” — all must be regarded as fundamentally antihuman.
在同样的假设下，资本主义生产关系、工资、竞争力、“占有性个人主义”的意识形态——全都应当被视为是本质上反人类的。
Libertarian socialism is properly to be regarded as the inheritor of theliberal ideals of the Enlightenment.Rudolf Rocker describes modern anarchism as “the confluence of the two great currents whichduring and since the French revolution have found such characteristic expression in the intellectual life of Europe: Socialism and Liberalism.” The classical liberal ideals, he argues, were wrecked on the realities of capitalist economic forms.
自由意志社会主义应该被视为启蒙运动自由主义理想的继承者。鲁多夫·洛克尔把现代无政府主义描述为“法国大革命期间和其后两股伟大潮流的汇合点，在欧洲的知识分子生活中找到了这种独特的表现：社会主义和自由主义。”他认为，资本主义经济形式的现实破坏了古典自由意志主义理想。
Anarchism is necessarily anticapitalist in that it “opposes the exploitation of man by man.” But anarchism also opposes “the dominion of man over man.” It insists that “socialism will be free or it will not be at all.
无政府主义必然是反资本主义的，因为它“反对人对人的剥削压迫”。但是无政府主义也反对“人居于人上的统治”。它坚持“社会主义要么是自由的，要么就不是社会主义”。
In its recognition of this lies the genuine and profound justification for the existence of anarchism.”[2] From this point of view,anarchism may be regarded as the libertarian wing of socialism.
正是有因于此，无政府主义才有其不得不存在的理由”[2]从这个角度来看，无政府主义可以被看作是社会主义思潮中偏向自由意志主义的一翼。
It is in this spirit that Daniel Guérin has approached the study of anarchism in Anarchism and other works.[3] Guérin quotes Adolph Fischer, who said that “every anarchist is a socialist but not every socialist is necessarily an anarchist.” Similarly Bakunin, in his “anarchist manifesto” of 1865, the program of his projected international revolutionary fraternity, laid down the principle that each member must be,to begin with, a socialist.A consistent anarchist must oppose private ownership of the means of production and the wage slavery which is a component of this system, as incompatible with the principle that labor must be freely undertaken and under the control of the producer.
正是本着这种精神，达尼埃尔·介朗在《无政府主义》和其他著作中着手对此进行研究。[3]介朗引用阿道夫·费舍尔的话说：“每个无政府主义者都是社会主义者，但并非每一个社会主义者都必然是无政府主义者。”同样，巴枯宁在1865年的“无政府主义宣言”中提出了一个原则，即每个成员首先必须是一个社会主义者。一个一贯的无政府主义者必须反对私人拥有生产资料和工资奴隶制，他所反对的是资本主义的基础组成部分，这种制度与劳动必须自由进行且由生产者控制的原则是不相容的。
As Marx put it, socialists look forward to a society in which labor will “become not only a means of life, but also the highest want in life,”[4] an impossibility when the worker is driven by external authority or need rather than inner impulse: “no form of wage-labor, even though one may be less obnoxious that another,can do away with the misery of wage-labor itself.”[5] A consistent anarchist must oppose not only alienated labor but also the stupefying specialization of labor that takes place when the means for developing production mutilate the worker into a fragment of a human being, degrade him to become amere appurtenance of the machine, make his work such a torment that its essential meaning is destroyed; estrange from him the intellectual potentialities of the laborprocess in very proportion to the extent to which science is incorporated into it as an independent power…[6]Marx saw this not as an inevitable concomitant of industrialization, but rather as a feature ofcapitalist relations of production.
正如马克思所说，社会主义者期待着这样一个社会，在这个社会里，劳动将“不再只是谋生的手段，而且将成为生活的最高需要”。[4]而当工人被外部权威或需要驱使却非由内在的冲动驱动，以上情况是不可能出现的：“没有任何形式的工资劳动——即便是不那么令人讨厌的一种——能够消除工资劳动本身的痛苦。”[5]一个一贯的无政府主义者不仅必须反对异化的劳动，而且必须反对那种令人咋舌的劳动专业化——这种专业化的劳动作为一种发展生产的手段，却“把工人打碎成人的残渣，将他降格为机器的附庸，使他的工作痛苦不堪以致其本质意义都被破坏；同，时令他迷惑惊奇的是，这种劳动过程的智力潜力在很大程度上与作为一种独立力量的科学，结合在了一起”[6]马克思认为这不是工业化的必然产物，而是资本主义生产关系的一个特征。
The society of the future must be concerned to “replace the detail-worker of today…reduced to a mere fragment of a man, by the fully developed individual, fit for a variety of labours…to whom the different social function…are but so many modes of giving free scope to his own natural powers.”[7] The prerequisite is the abolition of capital and wage labor as social categories (not to speak of the industrial armies of the “labor state” or the various modern forms of totalitarianism since capitalism).
未来的社会必须关注如何“将今日的被降格为‘人’之残渣的细节劳动者（detail-worker）替换为全面发展的个体，这样的个体能适应于丰富多样的劳动……对他而言，多样的社会功能便是丰富的让自己自由发挥人的自然力量的场域。“[7]这一切的前提，是废除资本和工资劳动这样的社会范畴(更不用说”劳动国家“的工业大军或资本主义以来各种现代形式的极权主义)。
The reduction of man to an appurtenance of the machine, a specialized tool of production, might in principle be overcome, ratherthan enhanced, with the proper development and use of technology, but not under the conditions of autocratic control of production by those who make man an instrument to serve their ends, overlooking his individual purposes, in Humboldt’s phrase.
这种降格，把人变为机器的附属品、变为专业的生产工具，原则上，应当克服这种降格，而不是通过适当发展和使用技术来加强它——但绝不可能在一种专制控制下克服——用洪堡的话说，这种专制使人变成为某个目的服务的工具，而完全忽视了每个个体的目的。
Anarchosyndicalists sought, even under capitalism, to create “free associations of free producers” that would engage in militant struggle and prepare to take over the organization of production on a democratic basis.
无政府工团主义者，即便在资本主义下，也寻求建立“自由生产者的自由联合体”，从事军事斗争，并准备在民主基础上接管生产组织。
These associations would serve as “a practical school of anarchism.”[8]
这些组织将成为“无政府主义的实践派”[8]。
If private ownership of the means of production is, in Proudhon’s often quoted phrase, merely a form of “theft” — “the exploitation of the weak by the strong”[9] — control of production by a state bureaucracy, no matter how benevolent its intentions, also does not create the conditions underwhich labor, manual and intellectual, can become the highest want in life.
如果私人拥有生产资料，用蒲鲁东常说的话来说，只不过是一种“偷窃”——“强者剥削弱者”[9]——若生产仍处于国家官僚制的控制下，无论其意图多么仁善，也不会使得劳动，无论是体力的还是智力的，成为人民生活的第一需要。
Both, then, must be overcome.
这两者（译注：“劳动专业化”与国家官僚制），届时必然要被克服。
In his attack on the right of private or bureaucratic control over the means of production the anarchist takes his stand with those who struggle to bring about “the third and last emancipatoryphase of history,” the first having made serfs out of slaves, the second having made wage earner sout of serfs, and the third which abolishes the proletariat in a final act of liberation that places control over the economy in the hands of free and voluntary associations of producers (Fourier,1848).[10] The imminent danger to “civilization” was noted by de Tocqueville, also in 1848:
在对生产资料的私人或官僚控制之权利所进行的攻讦中，无政府主义者所站的立场，始终是那些为实现“最后解放”而斗争之人的立场，这是“历史的第三次也是最后的解放阶段”——第一次解放奴隶为农奴，第二次使农奴作为工人挣得工资，第三次——最后一次，在这次解放中则要彻底废除“普罗列塔利亚特”（译者注：被压迫阶级），而代之以自由和自愿的生产者协会对经济的控制(傅立叶，1848)。[10]也是在1848年，托克维尔指出了“文明”迫在眉睫的危险：
As long as the right of property was the origin and ground work of many other rights,it was easily defended — or rather it was not attacked; it was then the citadel of society while all the other rights were its outworks; it did not bear the brunt of attackand, indeed, there was no serious attempt to assail it.
只要财产权仍是其它诸权利的起源和基础，它就很容易保卫——或者，更确切地，它根本不会受到攻击；当时，它是社会的堡垒，而所有其他权利都是它的延伸；它从未顶在前面遭受攻击，事实上，也不曾有猛烈攻击它的企图。
but today, when the right ofproperty is regarded as the last undestroyed remnant of the aristocratic world, when it alone is left standing, the sole privilege in an equalized society, it is a differentmatter.
但在今日，财产权被视为贵族世界最后的遗物，它独行踽踽，在这个平等的社会中，它是唯一的特权，它成了“异物”。
Consider what is happening in the hearts of the working-classes, although I admit they are quiet as yet.
想想工人阶级的内心（in the hearts）所发生的事情吧，尽管——我承认，他们现在尚且沉默。
It is true that they are less inflamed than formerly by political passions properly speaking; but do you not see that their passions, far from being political, have become social? Do you not see that, little by little, ideasand opinions are spreading amongst them which aim not merely at removing suchand such laws, such a ministry or such a government, but at breaking up the veryfoundations of society itself?[11] The workers of Paris, in 1871, broke the silence, and proceeded to abolish property, the basis of all civilization! Yes, gentlemen, the Commune intended to abolish that class property which makes the labor of the many the wealth of the few.
正确地说，他们确实没有像以前那样被政治激情所激怒，但你难道不知道他们的激情远不是政治的，而是社会化的吗（译者注：改变社会的根基，而不只是政客贵族们的“光荣革命”）？你难道没有看到，一点一点地，思想和意见在他们中间传播开来，不仅是为了废除某条法律，某个部门或政府，而且是为了打破文明社会本身的根基？[11]巴黎的工人们在1871年打破了沉默，开始废除财产权——一切文明的基础！是的，先生们，公社打算废除那种使许多人的劳动成为少数人的财富的阶级财产。
It aimed at the expropriation of the expropriators.
它的目的正是征用征用者们（expropriation of the expropriators）。
It wanted to make individual property a truth by transforming the means of production, land and capital,now chiefly the means of enslaving and exploiting labor, into mere instruments of free and associated labor.[12]The Commune, of course, was drowned in blood.
它想通过把生产资料、土地和资本——现在主要是奴役和剥削劳动的手段——变成纯粹的工具以及自由而联合的劳动，从而使“每个人的财产权”真正成为事实。[12]当然，公社被鲜血淹没了。
The nature of the “civilization” that the workers of Paris sought to overcome in their attack on “the very foundations of society itself” was revealed, once again, when the troops of the Versailles government reconquered Paris from itspopulation.
当凡尔赛政府的军队再次褫夺巴黎时，巴黎工人在攻击“社会本身的基础”时试图克服的“文明”之本质也再次被揭示出来。
As Marx wrote, bitterly but accurately:
正如马克思所写的，痛苦但准确：
-
Shlomo Avineri, The Social and Political Thought of Karl Marx, p. 142, referring to comments in The Holy Family.
Avineri states that within the socialist movement only the Israeli kibbutzim “have perceived that the modes and forms of present social organization will determine the structure of future society.” This, however, was a characteristic position of anarchosyndicalism, as noted earlier.
《Shlomo Avineri，“卡尔·马克思的社会和政治思想”》，第142页，指的是《神圣家庭》中的评论，阿维内里说，在社会主义运动中，只有以色列的集体组织“认识到当前社会组织的模式和形式将决定未来社会的结构”。然而，正如前面所指出的，这是无政府主义的特有立场。 ↩ ↩ -
Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme.
卡尔·马克思，哥达纲领批判 ↩ ↩ -
Karl Marx, Grundrisse der Kritik der Politischen Ökonomie, cited by Mattick, Marx and Keynes, p. 306. In this connection, see also Mattick’s essay “Workers’ Control,” in Priscilla Long, ed., The New Left; and Avineri, Social and
Political Thought of Marx.
卡尔·马克思，Grundrisse der Kritik der Politischen konomie，马蒂克引用，《马克思和凯恩斯》，第306页。在这方面，也见马蒂克的文章“工人的控制”，在普里西拉龙，编辑，新左派；和阿维内里，社会和政治思想的马克思。 ↩ ↩ -
Karl Marx, Capital, quoted by Robert Tucker, who rightly emphasizes that Marx sees the revolutionary more as a
“frustrated producer” than a “dissatisfied consumer” (The Marxian Revolutionary Idea). This more radical critique
of capitalist relations of production is a direct outgrowth of the libertarian thought of the Enlightenment.
罗伯特·塔克引用《资本论》中卡尔·马克思的话，他正确地强调，马克思更多地把革命看作是“失望的生产者”，而不是“不满意的消费者”(马克思革命思想)。这种对资本主义生产关系的更为激进的批判，是启蒙运动自由主义思想的直接产物。 ↩ ↩ -
Marx, Capital, cited by Avineri, Social and Political Thought of Marx, p. 83.
马克思，“资本论”，阿维内里引用，《马克思的社会和政治思想》，第83页。 ↩ ↩ -
Qu’est-ce que la propriété?” The phrase “property is theft” displeased Marx, who saw in its use a logical problem, theft presupposing the legitimate existence of property. See Avineri, Social and Political Thought of Marx.
“什么是财产？”，“财产就是盗窃”这一短语使马克思感到不快，他在使用中看到了一个逻辑问题，认为盗窃罪是假定财产合法存在的前提。见阿维内里，《马克思的社会和政治思想》。 ↩ ↩ -
Cited in Buber’s Paths in Utopia, p. 19.
引自Buber的“乌托邦之路”，第19页。 ↩ ↩ -
Cited in J. Hampden Jackson, Marx, Proudhon and European Socialism, p. 60.
引自J·汉普顿·杰克逊，马克思，《普鲁登与欧洲社会主义》，第60页。 ↩ ↩ -
Karl Marx, The Civil War in France, p. 24. Avineri observes that this and other comments of Marx about the Commune refer pointedly to intentions and plans. As Marx made plain elsewhere, his considered assessment was more critical than in this address.
卡尔·马克思，《法兰西内战》，第24页。阿维内里注意到，马克思关于公社的这一评论和其他评论尖锐地指的是意图和计划。正如马克思在其他地方明确指出的那样，他经过深思熟虑的评估比这份报告更具有批判性。 ↩ ↩
网友评论