The equal right of all to the goods and enjoyment of this world, the destruction of all authority, the negation of all moral restraints – these, at bottom, are the raison d’etre of the March 18th insurrection and the charter of the fearsome organization that furnished it with an army.
——Enquête parlementaire, sur l’insurrection du 18 mars
对这一世界所有商品和娱乐的平等权利的要求, 对所有权威的毁灭, 对全部道德约束的否定——总之, 这些就是目的, 就是在三月十八日起义和由军队装备起来的恐怖组织的宪章产生之后所要求的目的。
——《关于三月十八日起义(巴黎公社)的议会调查报告》
73. The real movement which suppresses existing conditions rules over society from the moment of the bourgeoisie’s victory in the economy, and visibly after the political translation of this victory. The development of productive forces shatters the old relations of production and all static order turns to dust. Whatever was absolute becomes historical.
自从资产阶级在经济领域取得胜利, 改革现存环境的真实运动就成为统治性的往会力量, 一旦这一胜利转入政治领域, 这一统治就变得更加明显。生产力的发展粉碎了古老的生产关系, 全部固定不变的旧秩序也烟消云散。一切绝对的东西都变成历史性的了。
74. By being thrown into history, by having to participate in the labor and struggles which make up history, men find themselves obliged to view their relations in a clear manner. This history has no object distinct from what takes place within it, even though the last unconscious metaphysical vision of the historical epoch could look at the productive progression through which history has unfolded as the very object of history. The subject of history can be none other than the living producing himself, becoming master and possessor of his world which is history, and existing as consciousness of his game.
当人被推进历史并被迫参加构成历史的劳动与斗争时, 他们发现, 他们不得不以一种清晰与省悟的方式观察他们的关系。尽管通过作为历史客体自身的历史的展开, 历史纪元最后的无意识的形而上学的想象被认为是生产的迸步, 但是除了在其自身内部发生的东西外, 历史没有目标。至于历史的主体: 它可能只不过是生活的自我生产——生活的人们变成了他们自己历史世界的统治者与占有者, 成为了他们自己全部意识冒险的统治者和占有者。
75. The class struggles of the long revolutionary epoch inaugurated by the rise of the bourgeoisie, develop together with the thought of history, the dialectic, the thought which no longer stops to look for the meaning of what is, but rises to a knowledge of the dissolution of all that is, and in its movement dissolves all separation.
在资产阶级的上升阶段启动的漫长革命时代的阶级斗争与辩证的”历史的思想(pensée de l’histoire)”协力发展——历史的思想不再简单地满足于寻求现存的意义, 相反, 它努力追求理解现存在事物消亡的意义, 换句话说, 在这一过程中它要打碎全部分裂。
76. Hegel no longer had to interpret the world, but the transformation of the world. By only interpreting the transformation, Hegel is only the philosophical completion of philosophy. He wants to understand a world which makes itself. This historical thought is as yet only the consciousness which always arrives too late, and which pronounces the justification after the fact. Thus it has gone beyond separation only in thought. The paradox which consists of making the meaning of all reality depend on its historical completion, and at the same time of revealing this meaning as it makes itself the completion of history, flows from the simple fact that the thinker of the bourgeois revolutions of the 17th and 18th centuries sought in his philosophy only a reconciliation with the results of these revolutions. Even as a philosophy of the bourgeois revolution, it does not express the entire process of this revolution, but only its final conclusion. In this sense, it is “not a philosophy of the revolution, but of the restoration” (Karl Korsch, Theses on Hegel and Revolution). Hegel did, for the last time, the work of the philosopher, “the glorification of what exists”; but what existed for him could already be nothing less than the totality of historical movement. The external position of thought having in fact been preserved, it could he masked only by the identification of thought with an earlier project of Spirit, absolute hero who did what he wanted and wanted what he did, and whose accomplishment coincides with the present. Thus philosophy, which dies in the thought of history, can now glorify its world only by renouncing it, since in order to speak, it must presuppose that this total history to which it has reduced everything is already complete, and that the only tribunal where the judgment of truth could be given is closed.
对黑格尔而言, 要点不再是解释世界, 而是解释世界的变化。但由于他将自己仅仅局限于解释这一变化, 黑格尔只不过代表了哲学的哲学之顶峰, 他寻求理解这个世界的自我生成。这一历史的思想仍然是一种总是迟到的意识, 并总是事后才宣布其正当性。所以它只是在思想中超越了分离。黑格尔自相矛盾的姿态——他使全部现实的意义屈从于它的历史的顶点, 与此同时他又宣称他的体系代表这一历史的顶点——这种情况产生于这一简单的事实: 即这一17-18世纪资产阶级革命的思想家, 只是在向己的哲学中寻求与那些革命结果的妥协。”即使作为资严阶级革命的哲学, 它也没有表达这一革命的全部过程, 而是这一革命的结束阶段。在这一意义上, 黑格尔的哲学不是革命的哲学, 而是一种复辟的哲学。”(卡尔· 柯尔施《关于黑格尔和革命的提纲》)黑格尔最后一次履行了哲学家的任务——对现存一切的赞美; 但对他来说, 已现存的一切可能正好是全部历史运动。因为他仍然坚持思想的客观立场, 只是通过将这一思想认同为绝对精神的一种先在的计划, 这一客观性才可能被隐蔽下来。绝对精神这一绝对的英雄力量做它想要做的事, 并想要它所做过的事, 它的最终目标是与当时存在的事情协调一致。因此, 在被历史的思想所取代的过程中, 哲学巳这到这样一点: 它只有通过拒绝哲学来赞扬哲学的世界。因为, 为了表达意见, 它必须预先假定已将万事万物托付给它的这个总体的历史已经终结, 并且唯一的法庭——只有在那里真理才可能被裁判的唯一法庭已被关闭。
77. When the proletariat demonstrates by its own existence, through acts, that this thought of history is not forgotten, the exposure of the conclusion is at the same time the confirmation of the method.
当无产阶级通过行动展示自己的存在时, 历史的思想不会被忘却。这一思想的结论被否定, 但同时它的方法有效性却被证实。
78. The thought of history can be saved only by becoming practical thought; and the practice of the proletariat as a revolutionary class cannot be less than historical consciousness operating on the totality of its world. All the theoretical currents of the revolutionary workers’ movement grew out of a critical confrontation with Hegelian thought–Stirner and Bakunin as well as Marx.
只有通过变成思想实践(pensée pratique), 历史的思想才能被保留; 作为革命阶级的无产阶级的实践, 只不过是影响它的世界整体的历史意识。所有革命工人运动的理论潮流——施蒂纳、巴枯宁及马克思——都产生于与黑格尔思想的批评性对质。
79. The inseparability of Marx’s theory from the Hegelian method is itself inseparable from the revolutionary character of this theory, namely from its truth. This first relationship has been generally ignored, misunderstood, and even denounced as the weakness of what fallaciously became a marxist doctrine. Bernstein, in his Evolutionary Socialism: A Criticism and Affirmation (Die Voraussetzungen des Sozialismus und die Aufgaben der Sozialdemokratie), perfectly reveals the connection between the dialectical method and historical partisanship, by deploring the unscientific forecasts of the 1847 Manifesto on the imminence of proletarian revolution in Germany: “This historical self-deception, so erroneous that any political visionary could hardly have improved on it, would be incomprehensible in a Marx, who at that time had already seriously studied economics, if we did not see in this the product of a relic of the antithetical Hegelian dialectic from which Marx, no less than Engels, could never completely free himself. In those times of general effervescence, this was all the more fatal to him.”
马克思的理论与黑格尔的方法的不可分离性, 是与这一理论自身的革命特征不可分离的, 是与这一理论的真理性不可分离的。正是马克思与黑格尔之间的这一关系, 常常被人们忽视、误解甚至错误地当成马克思主义学说的缺点而公然指责。伯恩斯坦在他的《进化的社会主义》一书中, 在对1848年《共产党宣言》对德国无产阶级革命即将来临的非科学预言表示悲痛时, 十分含蓄地揭示了在辩证法和历史的党派偏见之间的这一联系: “这种历史的自残欺骗, 如此荒谬以致最天真政治空想家都不可能比这做得更坏, 如果我们不能认识到在这篇宣言反映出的反黑格尔辩证法痕迹的影响, 马克思这一做法简直让人不能理解, 因为那时他已认真研究经济学。对于马克思, 恩格斯也是一样, 他们当时还没有完全解放自己, 考虑到那个时代的普遍动荡, 这一影响对他是很不幸的。”
80. The inversion carried out by Marx to “recover through transfer” the thought of the bourgeois revolutions does not trivially consist of putting the materialist development of productive forces in the place of the journey of the Hegelian Spirit moving towards its encounter with itself in time, its objectification being identical to its alienation, and its historical wounds leaving no scars. History become real no longer has an end. Marx ruined Hegel’s position as separate from what happens, as well as contemplation by any supreme external agent whatever. From now on, theory has to know only what it does. As opposed to this, contemplation of the economy’s movement within the dominant thought of the present society is the untranscended heritage of the undialectical part of Hegel’s search for a circular system: it is an approval which has lost the dimension of the concept and which no longer needs a Hegelianism to justify itself, because the movement which it praises is no more than a sector without a world view, a sector whose mechanical development effectively dominates the whole. Marx’s project is the project of a conscious history. The quantitative which arises in the blind development of merely economic productive forces must be transformed into a qualitative historical appropriation. The critique of political economy is the first act of this end of prehistory: “Of all the instruments of production the greatest productive power is the revolutionary class itself.”
为了通过”移植”, 挽救资产阶级革命的思想而由马克思完成的这一颠倒, 绝不是无足轻重的以黑格尔绝对精神最终走向自身冲突的旅程去替代生产力的唯物主义的发展, 绝对精神的对象化与其异化是一致的, 它历史的伤口没留下任何伤疤。因为历史一旦变成现实就不再有终结。马克思摧毁了黑格尔与现实发生的一切相分离的立场, 同样也摧毁了各种类型的终极客观力量消极静观的思想。从此以后, 理论关注的只是它自己正做的事情。相反, 在现代社会主导思想中经济运动的静观, 恰恰是黑格尔努力创造的封闭思想体系的非辩证法部分的非颠倒的遗产; 这是一种赞美, 一种对失去了观念维度和不再需要黑格尔主义证明白身正当性的赞美, 因为这种得到赞扬的运动是世界的一部分, 这一部分是没有世界观, 没有思想的部分, 这部分的机械发展绝对有效的统治了世界发展的全部。马克思的事业是有意识的历史的事业。在那里, 产生于存粹经济生产力的盲目发展的量必须转变为对历史的质的占有。政治经济学的批判是史前终结的第一个行动, “在全部生产工具中最伟大的生产力是革命的阶级自身”
81. What closely links Marx’s theory with scientific thought is the rational understanding of the forces which really operate in society. But Marx’s theory is fundamentally beyond scientific thought, and it preserves scientific thought only by superseding it: what is in question is an understanding of struggle, and not of law. “We know only one science: the science of history” (The German Ideology).
在寻求真正管理社会的理性理解力的范围内, 马克思的理论与科学思想紧密相联, 但它通过扬弃科学思想又保留了科学思想, 并从而从根本上超越了科学思想。它寻求理解社会斗争, 而不仅仅是社会学的规律。”我们只知道唯一的一门科学: 历史科学(《德意志意识形态》)。”
82. The bourgeois epoch, which wants to give a scientific foundation to history, overlooks the fact that this available science needed a historical foundation along with the economy. Inversely, history directly depends on economic knowledge only to the extent that it remains economic history. The extent to which the viewpoint of scientific observation could overlook the role of history in the economy (the global process which modifies its own basic scientific premises) is shown by the vanity of those socialist calculations which thought they had established the exact periodicity of crises. Now that the constant intervention of the State has succeeded in compensating for the effect of tendencies toward crisis, the same type of reasoning sees in this equilibrium a definitive economic harmony’. The project of mastering the economy, the project of appropriating history, if it must know–and absorb–the science of society, cannot itself be scientific. The revolutionary viewpoint of a movement which thinks it can dominate current history by means of scientific knowledge remains bourgeois.
要求给历史一个科学基础的资产阶级的时代, 忽视了应用于它的科学和经济一道需要历史基础这个事实。但是只要历史仅仅保持为一种经济史, 那么历史从根本上就只能依赖这种经济知识。在科学观察观点的范围内, 忽视历史对经济的影响作用(寻求修改自己的基本科学前键的全球化过程), 通过那些社会主义者们思考的自负显示出来, 他们认为他们制定了精确的经济危机周期理论。既然持续的政府干预已成功地抵消了倾向危机的趋势, 同样的思想模式也见于这一明显的经济和谐的脆弱平衡之中。超越经济和控制历史的计划必须掌握并联合社会科学, 但它自身不可能是一种科学的计划。从革命的观点看, 只要它认为依靠科学的知识就能够掌握现在的历史, 那么这种革命运动就不可能摆脱掉资产阶级的特性。
83. The utopian currents of socialism, although themselves historically grounded in the critique of the existing social organization, can rightly be called utopian to the extent that they reject history–namely the real struggle taking place, as well as the passage of time beyond the immutable perfection of their picture of a happy society–but not because they reject science. On the contrary. the utopian thinkers are completely dominated by the scientific thought of earlier centuries. They sought the completion of this general rational system: they did not in any way consider themselves disarmed prophets, since they believed in the social power of scientific proof and even, in the case of Saint-Simonism, in the seizure of power by science. “How did they want to seize through struggle what must be proved?” asked Sombart. The scientific conception of the utopians did not extend to the knowledge that some social groups have interests in the existing situation, forces to maintain it, and also forms of false consciousness corresponding to such positions. This conception did not even reach the historical reality of the development of science itself, which was oriented largely by the social demand of agents who selected not only what could be admitted, but also what could be studied. The utopian socialists, remaining prisoners of the mode of exposition of scientific truth, conceived this truth in terms of its pure abstract image–an image which had been imposed at a much earlier stage of society. As Sorel observed, it is on the model of astronomy that the utopians thought they would discover and demonstrate the laws of society. The harmony envisaged by them, hostile to history, grows out of the attempt to apply to society the science least dependent on history. This harmony is introduced with the experimental innocence of Newtonianism, and the happy destiny which is constantly postulated “plays in their social science a role analogous to the role of inertia in rational” (Materiaux pour une theorie du proletariat).
虽然他们在对现存社会组织的批判方面有其历史的基础, 空想社会主义潮流之所以被或接称为乌托邦, 是因为他们拒绝历史, 即: 拒绝现实发生的真实斗争, 拒绝时间的推移将超越永恒不变的完美的幸福社会的图画——但他们不拒绝科学。相反, 乌托邦思想家完全被早期世纪的科学思想所支配, 他们寻找一种普通理性体系的实现和完成。他们不认为自己是徒手的预言家, 因为他们坚定地相信科学证明的社会力量, 甚至在圣西门主义的案例中, 他们认为只有通过科学才能抓住权力。桑巴特(Sombart)曾问道: “为什么将通过斗争去夺取那些需要被证明的东西？”但是乌托邦的科学理解力不包括这一意识: 若干社会集团将他们的利益托付给维持现状, 并大力促进这一维持, 甚至为了进一步强化它而设计虚假意识形式。他们对现实的理解远远落后于科学自身发展的历史现实, 到现在为止, 科学自身的发展在很大程度上还被产生于各种因素的社会需要所控制, 正如以上提到的那样, 这些因素不仅决定了按照科学方法被考虑接受的东西, 而且还决定了什么样的东西可以成为或者不成为科学研究的对象。乌托邦社会主义者仍然是为真理辩护的科学样式的囚徒, 他们将这一真理看作一种纯粹抽象的形象——在社会发展早期阶段这一形式已建立起来。正像索列尔(Sorel)所注意到的, 乌托邦为了发现和展示社会的法则将天文学作为他们的思考范式: 他们非历史的和谐概念, 是他们试图将其运用于几乎不依赖于历史的社会科学的必然结果。他们描绘的这种和谐好像是牛顿发现的宇宙科学法则和圆满结局, 他们不断地提醒: 它”在他们的社会科学中所起的作用类似于惯性在经典物理学中的作用”。(《无产阶级理论资料》)
84. The deterministic-scientific facet in Marx’s thought was precisely the gap through which the process of “ideologization” penetrated, during his own lifetime, into the theoretical heritage left to the workers’ movement. The arrival of the historical subject continues to be postponed, and it is economics, the historical science par excellence, which tends increasingly to guarantee the necessity of its own future negation. But what is pushed out of the field of theoretical vision in this manner is revolutionary practice, the only truth of this negation. What becomes important is to study economic development with patience, and to continue to accept suffering with a Hegelian tranquility, so that the result remains “a graveyard of good intentions.” It is suddenly discovered that, according to the science of revolution, consciousness always comes too soon, and has to be taught. “History has shown that we, and all who thought as we did, were wrong. History has clearly shown that the state of economic development on the continent at that time was far from being ripe” Engels was to say in 1895. Throughout his life, Marx had maintained a unitary point of view in his theory, but the exposition of the theory was carried out on the terrain of the dominant thought and became precise in the form of critiques of particular disciplines, principally the critique of the fundamental science of bourgeois society, political economy. It is this mutilation, later accepted as definitive, which has constituted “marxism.”
不但在其整个一生, 而且在其留给工人运动的理论遗产中, 马克思思想的科学的——决定论的一面, 正好使它容易被攻击为”意识形态化”。历史主体的到来一直被延迟, 马克思主义是卓越的经济学和历史科学, 它日益被看作是保证自己未来否定的必然性。这样, 革命实践——这一否定的唯一真实的动因就被逐出理论视野。变得重要的是耐心地研究经济发展, 以黑格尔式的宁静再次接受被强加的苦难, 这一苦难的结果是留下了”美好意图的坟墓”。根据”革命的科学”人们突然发现, 意识总是来得很快, 并必须被训练。”历史已证明: 我们和像我们一样思考的人都错了, 历史清楚地显示在大陆那时经济发展的状况远没有成熟”, 恩格斯在1895年这样说道。终其一生, 马克思在其理论中坚持一元论的观点, 但是其理论的阐释在主导思想领域被贯彻, 在这个范围内它采取了特殊学科批判的形式, 最显著的是采取了资产阶级社会基础科学批判——政治经济学批判的形式。这一败坏, 后来作为权威被接受并将马克思的理论变成为”马克思主义”。
85. The weakness of Marx’s theory is naturally the weakness of the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat of his time. The working class did not set off the permanent revolution in the Germany of 1848; the Commune was defeated in isolation. Revolutionary theory thus could not yet achieve its own total existence. The fact that Marx was reduced to defending and clarifying it with cloistered, scholarly work, in the British Museum, caused a loss in the theory itself. The scientific justifications Marx elaborated about the future development of the working class and the organizational practice that went with them became obstacles to proletarian consciousness at a later stage.
马克思主义理论的缺点自然也是马克思时代无产阶级革命斗争的缺点。1848年的德国工人阶级没有触发持久的革命, 巴黎公社也被孤立所击败。结果, 革命理论至今也没能完全完成。马克思被迫在大英博物馆以隐居的、学者式的工作来阐明和精炼其理论这一事实对其理论自身的影响是微弱的。马克思精心阐释的关于无产阶级未来发展及其建立在它的基础之上组织实践的科学结论, 随着时间的流逝, 在后来阶段成为无产阶级意识的障碍。
86. All the theoretical insufficiencies of content as well as form of exposition of the scientific defense of proletarian revolution can be traced to the identification of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie from the standpoint of the revolutionary seizure of power.
就夺取革命政权的方面看, 无产阶级革命科学防御的全部理论缺点(不但就其内容来说而且就其说明形式来说)最终都产生于无产阶级将自己等同于资产阶级。
87. By grounding the proof of the scientific validity of proletarian power on repeated past attempts, Marx obscured his historical thought, from the Manifesto on, and was forced to support a linear image of the development of modes of production brought on by class struggles which end, each time, “with a revolutionary transformation of the entire society or with mutual destruction of the classes in struggle.” But in the observable reality of history, as Marx pointed out elsewhere, the “Asiatic mode of production” preserved its immobility in spite of all class confrontations, just as the serf uprisings never defeated the landlords, nor the slave revolts of Antiquity the free men. The linear schema loses sight of the fact that the bourgeoisie is the only revolutionary class that ever won; at the same time it is the only class for which the development of the economy was the cause and the consequence of its taking hold of society. The same simplification led Marx to neglect the economic role of the State in the management of a class society. If the rising bourgeoisie seemed to liberate the economy from the State, this took place only to the extent that the former State was an instrument of class oppression in a static economy. The bourgeoisie developed its autonomous economic power in the medieval period of the weakening of the State, at the moment of feudal fragmentation of balanced powers. But the modern State which, through Mercantilism, began to support the development of the bourgeoisie, and which finally became its State at the time of “laisser faire, laisser passer,” was to reveal later that it was endowed with the central power of calculated management of the economic process. With the concept of Bonapartism, Marx was nevertheless able to describe the shape of the modern statist bureaucracy, the fusion of capital and State, the formation of a “national power of capital over labor, a public force organized for social enslavement,” where the bourgeoisie renounces all historical life which is not reduced to the economic history of things and would like to “be condemned to the same political nothingness as other classes.” Here the socio-political foundations of the modern spectacle are already established, negatively defining the proletariat as the only pretender to historical life.
早在《共产党宣言》时期, 通过大量反复引用以往先例来自证明无产阶级力量合法性的马克思之努力, 导致他将自己的历史分析过分简单化为一种生产方式发展的线性模式, 在这一模式中阶级斗争总是导致”或者是整个社会的革命性变革, 或者是斗争着阶级的共同毁灭”。但显而易见的历史事实是(正如马克思在别处指出的), 不管它的全部阶级如何冲突, “亚细亚生产方式”依然保持其静止稳定; 不存在农奴起义不断地推翻封建地主; 在古代社会没有那个奴隶造反终结了自由人的统治。这种线性图式没有考虑到这一事实: 资产阶级是唯一取得胜利的革命阶级; 同时, 它也是唯一以经济发展作为控制社会的原因和结果的阶级。同样的简单化导致马克思忽视了在阶级社会管理中的国家的经济作用。如果说处于上升时期的资产阶级似乎从国家中解放了经济, 它也只是就这方面来说是真的, 即在静态经济(economie stalique)中, 以前的国家只是一种阶级压迫工具。资产阶级在中世纪时期发展了它的独立经济力量, 当时国家受到弱化, 各种封建主义稳定力量正处于碎裂之中。相反, 中世纪通过其商业政策开始支持资产阶级的发展, 在”货物通行, 放任自流”时期已把自己发展成为资产阶级自己的国家的现代国家, 最终在经济过程的计划管理中, 作为一种中心力量脱颖而出。然而马克思也描述了那种现代中央集权官僚政治”独裁者”的原型, 一种资本与国家的融合, 一种”资本统治劳动的国家权力, 一种为了社会奴役被组织起来的公共暴力”的形式, 在这种社会秩序形式中, 资产阶级除了被归结为物的经济历史外, 还宣称与全部历史生活断绝了关系, 它乐意被”指责为像其他阶级一样的政治虚无”。在这里现代景观的社会政治基础已消晰可辨, 这些基础已否定性地暗示了无产阶级是历史生活唯一的觊觎者(pretendant)。
88. The only two classes which effectively correspond to Marx’s theory, the two pure classes towards which the entire analysis of Capital leads, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, are also the only two revolutionary classes in history, but in very different conditions: the bourgeois revolution is over; the proletarian revolution is a project born on the foundation of the preceding revolution but differing from it qualitatively. By neglecting the originality of the historical role of the bourgeoisie, one masks the concrete originality of the proletarian project, which can attain nothing unless it carries its own banners and knows the “immensity of its tasks.” The bourgeoisie came to power because it is the class of the developing economy. The proletariat cannot itself come to power except by becoming the class of consciousness. The growth of productive forces cannot guarantee such power, even by way of the increasing dispossession which it brings about. A Jacobin seizure of power cannot be its instrument. No ideology can help the proletariat disguise its partial goals as general goals, because the proletariat cannot preserve any partial reality which is really its own.
只有两个阶级和马克思的理论真正相关, 这两个在《资本论》的全面分析中处于显要地位的纯粹的阶级就是无产阶级和资产阶级。它们也是历史上唯一两个革命的阶级, 但在极为不同条件下行动。资产阶级革命业已结束, 而无产阶级革命是至今未有实现的规划(projet), 它产生于资产阶级革命基础之上, 但与其性质截然不同。如果人们忽视资产阶级历史作用的独创性, 那么人们自然也就忽视了无产阶级规划的特定独创性, 除非无产阶级高举自己的旗帜并认识到”自己任务之艰巨”, 无产阶级将什么也不能得到。资产阶级获得权力是因为它是发展经济的阶级。无产阶级除非变成有意识的阶级, 否则它不可能获得权力。生产力的增长本质上不能保证这一的权力自动出现, 甚至也不能间接地保证由它所导致的日益增加的剥夺。对其目的而言, 雅各宾派夺取国家权力不只是它的手段。无产阶级不能使用任何有意将自己局部目标伪装成整体目标的意识形态, 因为无产阶级不能保持任何属于它自身的部分现实性。
89. If Marx, in a given period of his participation in the struggle of the proletariat, expected too much from scientific forecasting, to the point of creating the intellectual foundation for the illusions of economism, it is known that he did not personally succumb to those illusions. In a well-known letter of December 7, 1867, accompanying an article where he himself criticized Capital, an article which Engels would later present to the press as the work of an adversary, Marx clearly disclosed the limits of his own science: ” . . . The subjective tendency of the author (which was perhaps imposed on him by his political position and his past), namely the manner in which he views and presents to others the ultimate results of the real movement, the real social process, has no relation to his own actual analysis.” Thus Marx, by denouncing the “tendentious conclusions” of his own objective analysis, and by the irony of the “perhaps” with reference to the extra-scientific choices imposed on him, at the same time shows the methodological key to the fusion of the two aspects.
如果说马克思在他参加无产阶级斗争的特定时期如此信赖科学预测, 以致达到为了经济主义幻想而创造理性基础的地步, 那么同样十分清楚的是, 马克思本人从没屈从过这些幻想。在那一封众所周知的1867年12月7日的信中附带批判他自己所写的《资本论》文章中, 马克思要求恩格斯将这篇文章作为反面著作加到出版物中, 马克思消楚地揭示了自己科学的局限: “……作者的主观倾向(也许是由于作者的政治立场和其过去的历史强加在他身上的), 也就是说, 他的观察方式和呈现在他人面前的现实运动和真实的社会过程的最终结果, 与他自己的真正的分析没有关系。”因此, 通过指责他自己的客观分析的”有偏见的结论”, 通过想象的强加在他自己身上的非科学选择的”也许”式的嘲讽, 马克思实际上揭示出了将事物的两个方面融合于一起的方法论钥匙。
90. The fusion of knowledge and action must be realized in the historical struggle itself, in such a way that each of these terms guarantees the truth of the other. The formation of the proletarian class into a subject means the organization of revolutionary struggles and the organization of society at the revolutionary moment: it is then that the practical conditions of consciousness must exist, conditions in which the theory of praxis is confirmed by becoming practical theory. However, this central question of organization was the question least developed by revolutionary theory at the time when the workers’ movement was founded, namely when this theory still had the unitary character which came from the thought of history. (Theory had undertaken precisely this task in order to develop a unitary historical practice.) This question is in fact the locus of inconsistency of this theory, allowing the return of statist and hierarchic methods of application borrowed from the bourgeois revolution. The forms of organization of the workers’ movement which were developed on the basis of this renunciation of theory have in turn prevented the maintenance of a unitary theory, breaking it up into varied specialized and partial disciplines. Due to the betrayal of unitary historical thought, this ideological estrangement from theory can no longer recognize the practical verification of this thought when such verification emerges in spontaneous struggles of workers; all it can do is repress every manifestation and memory of such verification. Yet these historical forms which appeared in struggle are precisely the practical milieu which the theory needed in order to be true. They are requirements of the theory which have not been formulated theoretically. The soviet was not a theoretical discovery; yet its existence in practice was already the highest theoretical truth of the International Workingmen’s Association.
知识和行动的融合一定会在历史斗争自身内部实现, 为了相互证明自身, 每一极都以这样的方式彼此依赖。在革命时刻社会的重组和组织革命斗争的过程中, 无产阶级被构成为主体。正是在这一时刻, 正是在这里, 意识的实践条件一定会存在, 正是在这一条件中实践的理论生成的实践理论所证实。但这种组织的关键问题在工人运功的创立期间实际上被革命理论所忽视, 那时理论仍然拥有从历史思想承继来的整体性质(并且它曾公正地宣称发展成为一种整体的历史实践)。组织问题成为激进理论最薄弱的一个方面, 并成为适宜于资产阶级革命的中央集权主义者策略和等级方法复兴的令人困惑的场所。在这一理论失职基础之上发展起来的工人运动组织形式, 反过来禁止一种整体理论的建构, 并粉碎整体理论代之以各种各样的专门化的和碎片式的知识样式。当这一证据在自发工人斗争中出现时, 这一在意识形态上异化了的理论, 就不再能认可它已背叛了的整体历史思想的实践证明了; 相反, 它所能做的只是镇压这一整体历史思想的每一次表现和记忆。然而为了验证这一理论, 在斗争中体现的这些历史形式正好是必需的实践领域。他们正是理论需要的, 然而这一需要在理论上不能被阐明。例如, 苏维埃就不是一个理论的发现。国际劳动工人协会最高级的真理实际上不过是它自己的存在。
91. The first successes of the struggle of the International led it to free itself from the confused influences of the dominant ideology which survived in it. But the defeat and repression which it soon encountered brought to the foreground a conflict between two conceptions of the proletarian revolution. Both of these conceptions contain an authoritarian dimension and thus abandon the conscious self-emancipation of the working class. In effect, the quarrel between Marxists and Bakuninists (which became irreconcilable) was two-edged, referring at once to power in the revolutionary society and to the organization of the present movement, and when the positions of the adversaries passed from one aspect to the other, they reversed themselves. Bakunin fought the illusion of abolishing classes by the authoritarian use of state power, foreseeing the reconstitution of a dominant bureaucratic class and the dictatorship of the most knowledgeable, or those who would be reputed to be such. Marx thought that the growth of economic contradictions inseparable from democratic education of the workers would reduce the role of the proletarian State to a simple phase of legalizing the new social relations imposing themselves objectively, and denounced Bakunin and his followers for the authoritarianism of a conspiratorial elite which deliberately placed itself above the International and formulated the extravagant design of imposing on society the irresponsible dictatorship of those who are most revolutionary, or those who would designate themselves to be such. Bakunin, in fact, recruited followers on the basis of such a perspective: “Invisible pilots in the center of the popular storm, we must direct it, not with a visible power, but with the collective dictatorship of all the allies. A dictatorship without badge, without title, without official right, yet all the more powerful because it will have none of the appearances of power.” Thus two ideologies of the workers’ revolution opposed each other, each containing a partially true critique, but losing the unity of the thought of history, and instituting themselves into ideological authorities. Powerful organizations, like German Social-Democracy and the Iberian Anarchist Federation faithfully served one or the other of these ideologies; and everywhere the result was very different from what had been desired.
第一国际的最初成功, 能够使它在存在于其内部的占统治地位的意识形态的混乱影响中解放出采。但迅速遭遇的失败和压抑又带来了两种无产阶级革命观念的之间的冲突, 每一方都包含导致工人阶级自我解放意识放弃的独裁主义向度。在马克思主义者和巴枯宁主义者之间的裂缝最终变得不可调和, 并集中在未来革命的社会权力问题和当前运动的组织问题两个方面; 当他们从一个极端走向另一个极端时, 两个对立的派别在运动中各自翻转了自己的立场。巴枯宁指责依靠国家权力的独裁运用能够消灭阶级的幻想, 并警告说这个过程将导致官僚统治阶级的形成和最有知识的人的独裁(或者是那些被冠以最有的知识的人)。一方面坚持经济矛盾的成熟, 另一方面又坚持工人民主教育成熟的马克思, 认为要将无产阶级国家的作用减至轻小状态, 必须对通过客观因素产生的新的社会关系给出合法的标记, 他指责巴枯宁及其支持者作为独裁主义阴谋的精英分子, 故意用他们强加于社会之上的、貌似革最革命的(或者自认为自己是最革命的等等)、不负责任的专政之轻率目标, 将他们自己置于国际之上。巴枯宁在以下的基础上招募了他的信徒: “在流行的动乱中, 我们必须是引导革命的无形导航员, 不借助于任何明显的权力而通过我们同盟的集体专政——这个专政没有特定证章, 没有正式名称, 没有任何官方身份, 正因为它不曾佩戴象征官位的任何服饰它却是最强有力的权力。” 因此两种工人革命的意识形态相互冲突; 任何一方都体现了部分正确的批判, 但任何一方都丢失了历史思想的整体性, 热望把自己建为一种意识形态权威。像德国社会民主党和利比利亚无政府主义者联盟这些强大的组织, 随后都忠实地服务于这些意识形态中的这一个或那一个; 但在任何一种情况下所产生的结果都极大地区别于他们之追求。
92. The strength and the weakness of the real anarchist struggle resides in its viewing the goal of proletarian revolution as immediately present (the pretensions of anarchism in its individualist variants have always been laughable). From the historical thought of modern class struggles collectivist anarchism retains only the conclusion, and its exclusive insistence on this conclusion is accompanied by deliberate contempt for method. Thus its critique of the political struggle has remained abstract, while its choice of economic struggle is affirmed only as a function of the illusion of a definitive solution brought about by one single blow on this terrain–on the day of the general strike or the insurrection. The anarchists have an ideal to realize. Anarchism remains a merely ideological negation of the State and of classes, namely of the social conditions of separate ideology. It is the ideology of pure liberty which equalizes everything and dismisses the very idea of historical evil. This viewpoint which fuses all partial desires has given anarchism the merit of representing the rejection of existing conditions in favor of the whole of life, and not of a privileged critical specialization; but this fusion is considered in the absolute, according to individual caprice, before its actual realization, thus condemning anarchism to an incoherence too easily seen through. Anarchism has merely to repeat and to replay the same simple, total conclusion in every single struggle, because this first conclusion was from the beginning identified with the entire outcome of the movement. Thus Bakunin could write in 1873, when he left the Federation Jurassiene: “During the past nine years, more ideas have been developed within the International than would be needed to save the world, if ideas alone could save it, and I challenge anyone to invent a new one. It is no longer the time for ideas, but for facts and acts.” There is no doubt that this conception retains an element of the historical thought of the proletariat, the certainty that ideas must become practice, but it leaves the historical terrain by assuming that the adequate forms for this passage to practice have already been found and will never change.
无政府主义者认为无产阶级革命的目标是直接在场的, 这一事实既是现实无政府主义者斗争的层大的力量, 又是其最大的弱点(我提及的是集体主义者的无政府主义; 在其个人主义者的变体中无政府主义的自负是可笑的)。集体主义者的无政府主义只保留了现代阶级斗争历史思想的结论, 它在这一结论上的喋喋不休伴随它对方法论的故意蔑视。因此, 它的政治斗争批判保持了一种抽象形式, 同时它经济斗争的承诺被导向银后解决的海市蜃楼, 根据想象, 这种最后的解决将会在经济战场上的一次猛击, 在总罢工和起义的某一天一举这到。无政府主义者是使自己履行理想的人。无政府主义还是对国家和阶级的意识形态的否定, 也就是说, 是对任何分离的意识形态真正社会前提的否定。它是一种纯粹自由的意识形态, 这一意识形态将每一件事情都放在同一水平上并丧失了任何”历史的邪恶”的概念(这是一种在历史内部运转的否定)。从生活整体的观点而不是从某些特殊批判专门化的观点来看, 融合所有部分需要为单一需要的这一立场, 赋予无政府主义表现拒绝现存环境的最大优点。依照个体的怪想, 在其实际实现之前, 这一绝对设想的需要之融合就已注定了无政府主义如此缺乏内聚力的命运。无政府主义通过重做和重播同样简单的事情及其全部结论, 对每一次特殊的斗争都做出了反应, 因为这一重做和重播同样简单的事情及其全部结论, 从一开始就被认为是运动的要义。这反映在巴枯宁1873年写的侏罗纪同盟辞职的信中: “在过去九年足够多的拯救这个世界的思想在国际(如果这个世界通过思想能够被拯救)中发展起来, 我反对任何人提出的这种新思想。这是一个行动的时代, 行为的时代而不是思想的时代。”毋庸置疑这一观念包含着无产阶级历史思想的因素, 这一思想也一定能实现, 但通过假定实践的道路的已经被发现并将永不变化这一所谓恰当的形式, 它离开了历史的领域。
93. The anarchists, who distinguish themselves explicitly from the rest of the workers’ movement by their ideological conviction, reproduce this separation of competences among themselves; they provide a terrain favorable to informal domination over all anarchist organizations by propagandists and defenders of their ideology, specialists who are in general more mediocre the more their intellectual activity consists of the repetition of certain definitive truths. Ideological respect for unanimity of decision has on the whole been favorable to the uncontrolled authority, within the organization itself, of specialists in freedom; and revolutionary anarchism expects the same type of unanimity from the liberated population, obtained by the same means. Furthermore, the refusal to take into account the opposition between the conditions of a minority grouped in the present struggle and of a society of free individuals, has nourished a permanent separation among anarchists at the moment of common decision, as is shown by an infinity of anarchist insurrections in Spain, confined and destroyed on a local level.
通过他们的意识形态信念将自己明显区别于其他工人运动的无政府主义者, 在他们内部重新生产出一种权能的分离; 通过他们的意识形态、宣传活功家和拥护者, 通过那些将自己普普通通的智力活动局限于对几个永恒不变真理的进行反刍的所谓专家, 他们提供了一个对所有无政府主义组织进行非正式控制的宜人场地。无政府主义者对全体一致决策的敬重, 通过具有自由权的专家倾向于支持在自己组织内部对极力的无限制的行使; 革命的无政府主义期望通过同样的手段获得的一种来自被解放了的大众的同一类型的整体一致, 另外, 当集体决定的时刻到来时, 无政府主义拒绝考虑, 在现在斗争中联合少数派的条件和一个自由个体的后革命社会再三导致的无政府主义者孤独条件之间的巨大区别, 这已在无数的无政府主义者在西班牙的起义中被展示过, 它们在地方性水平上被遏制和粉碎。
94. The illusion entertained more or less explicitly by genuine anarchism is the permanent imminence of an instantaneously accomplished revolution which will prove the truth of the ideology and of the mode of practical organization derived from the ideology. In 1936, anarchism in fact led a social revolution, the most advanced model of proletarian power in all time. In this context it should be noted that the signal for a general insurrection had been imposed by a pronunciamiento of the army. Furthermore, to the extent that this revolution was not completed during the first days (because of the existence of Franco’s power in half the country, strongly supported from abroad while the rest of the international proletarian movement was already defeated, and because of remains of bourgeois forces or other statist workers’ parties within the camp of the Republic) the organized anarchist movement showed itself unable to extend the demi-victories of the revolution, or even to defend them. Its known leaders became ministers and hostages of the bourgeois State which destroyed the revolution only to lose the civil war.
全部真正的无政府主义或多或少明确地赞成的错觉是: 革命永远都在不断迫近, 因为它会瞬时被创造, 并一定不但在无政府主义的意识形态, 而且在产生于它的实践组织形式中给予证明。1936年的无政府主义真正发动了一场社会革命, 这一革命是曾经实现的无产阶级权力的最先进的模型。但是即使在这一例子中, 总体起义的开始只是作为对军队试图政变的防御性反应这一点而被注意到, 而且, 由于在革命的开幕日革命并没有被完成(因为佛朗哥控制了半个国家, 并受到外国势力的强有力支待, 因为其他无产阶级运动已经被击败, 因为反对佛朗哥的阵营包活各种各样资产阶级力量和国家主义的工人阶级政党), 组织起来的无政府主义运动证明了它们拓展局部革命胜利的无能及其保卫他们的无能。这一运动的领导者变成了政府的部长和抵押给资产阶级国家的人质, 正是资产阶级的国家毁灭了革命, 恰值此时, 它接着又失去了国内战争。
95. The “orthodox Marxism” of the Second International is the scientific ideology of the socialist revolution: it identifies its whole truth with objective processes in the economy and with the progress of a recognition of this necessity by the working class educated by the organization. This ideology rediscovers the confidence in pedagogical demonstration which had characterized utopian socialism, but mixes it with a contemplative reference to the course of history: this attitude has lost as much of the Hegelian dimension of a total history as it has lost the immobile image of totality in the utopian critique (most highly developed by Fourier). This scientific attitude can do no more than revive a symmetry of ethical choices; it is from this attitude that the nonsense of Hilferding springs when he states that recognizing the necessity of socialism gives “no indication of the practical attitude to be adopted. For it is one thing to recognize a necessity, and it is quite another thing to put oneself at the service of this necessity” (Finanzkapital). Those who failed to recognize that for Marx and for the revolutionary proletariat the unitary thought of history was in no way distinct from the practical attitude to be adopted, regularly became victims of the practice they adopted.
第二国际的”正统马克思主义”是社会主义革命的科学意识形态, 这种意识形态宣称它的全部真理居于客观经济发展过程中, 居于组织对工人阶级进行教育的渐进的必然性认识之中。这种意识形态在其教学宣传中挖掘了乌托邦社会主义的信仰, 并将这一信仰与一种历史过程的冥想乞灵相结合。所以, 这一态度与黑格尔主义的总体历史向度相脱离, 并丢失了在乌托邦(在傅立叶思想中)批判中的现存总体的静态形象。这一只不过在对称的伦理学选择间复活了传统二难困境的科学态度类型, 是希尔夫丁(Hilferding)荒谬结论的根本, 这一认识到社会主义必然性的荒谬结论是”就应该采取的实践态度没有给出任何指示和线索。因为认识某事的必然性是一回事，将自己置于必然性之中是完全不同的另外一回事”。因为那些不能认识马克思, 不能认识革命的无产阶级和整体性历史思想的人正好就是采取这一实践态度的人, 他们普遍地成为他们所选择的实践的牺牲品。
96. The ideology of the social-democratic organization gave power to professors who educated the working class, and the form of organization which was adopted was the form most suitable for this passive apprenticeship. The participation of socialists of the Second International in political and economic struggles was admittedly concrete but profoundly uncritical. It was conducted in the name of revolutionary illusion by means of an obviously reformist practice. The revolutionary ideology was to be shattered by the very success of those who held it. The separate position of the movement’s deputies and journalists attracted the already recruited bourgeois intellectuals toward a bourgeois mode of life. Even those who had been recruited from the struggles of industrial workers and who were themselves workers, were transformed by the union bureaucracy into brokers of labor power who sold labor as a commodity, for a just price. If their activity was to retain some appearance of being revolutionary, capitalism would have had to be conveniently unable to support economically this reformism which it tolerated politically (in the legalistic agitation of the social-democrats). But such an antagonism, guaranteed by their science, was constantly belied by history.
社会民主主义组织的意识形态，将其组织置于教育工人阶级的教授手中, 同时其组织形式又与这一被动学徒身份相一致。第二国际社会主义者实实在在地参加了当时的政治和经济斗争, 但却是完全非批判的。他们的参与是以幻象革命的名义进行的明显的改良主义者的实践。非常明显的是, 革命的意识形态沉没于一种他们自己宣布的所谓成功之上。社会主义者新闻记者地位的晋升, 特别是运动中的议会代表地位的上升, 怂恿他们开始习惯于资产阶级的生活方式(无论如何, 他们中的大多数人都是从资产阶级知识分子中被招募来的)。甚至在工厂斗争之外被招募的产业工人届已被贸易协会的官僚改变为劳动力的掮客, 他们的任务就是确定以”公平的”价格出售劳动力这种商品。如果所有这些人的行为无论怎样都保留了部分革命的外表, 资本主义将不能支持在经济上的改良主义, 尽管通过社会民主党合法鼓动的形式, 这种改良在政治上完全能够被接受。社会民主党的科学意识形态十分自信的断言: 资本主义不能容忍这些经济的对抗性; 但是历史再三证明他们错了。
97. Bernstein, the social-democrat furthest from political ideology and most openly attached to the methodology of bourgeois science, had the honesty to want to demonstrate the reality of this contradiction; the English workers’ reformist movement had also demonstrated it, by doing without revolutionary ideology. But the contradiction was definitively demonstrated only by historical development itself. Although full of illusions in other respects, Bernstein had denied that a crisis of capitalist production would miraculously force the hand of socialists who wanted to inherit the revolution only by this legitimate rite. The profound social upheaval which arose with the first world war, though fertile with the awakening of consciousness, twice demonstrated that the social-democratic hierarchy had not educated revolutionarily; and had in no way transformed the German workers into theoreticians: first when the vast majority of the party rallied to the imperialist war; next when, in defeat, it squashed the Spartakist revolutionaries. The ex-worker Ebert still believed in sin, since he admitted that he hated revolution “like sin.” The same leader showed himself a precursor of the socialist representation which soon after confronted the Russian proletariat as its absolute enemy; he even formulated exactly the same program for this new alienation: “Socialism means working a lot”.
伯恩施坦, 最大程度远离政治意识形态并不知羞耻地拥抱资产阶级科学方法论的民主党人, 如此诚实地指出了这一引人注意的矛盾; 而完全没有革命意识形态的英国工人运动的改良主义也证实了这一点; 但这一矛盾最终只能由历史发展自身决定性地给予证明。尽管在其他领域充满了幻想, 但伯恩施坦否定资本主义生产的危机一定会不可思议地发生, 所以必须强迫社会主义者行动的观念, 在合法活动缺乏的情况下, 社会主义者应拒绝采取任何革命的形式。深刻的社会剧变到第一次世界大战时已一触即发, 尽管这一剧烈变革已导致一种激进意识的广泛觉醒, 但事实证明, 社会民主党集团在将德国工人转变成理论家的革命教育方面, 两次都失败了。第一次是当党的压倒性多数支持帝国主义战争时; 第二次是伴随着德国的失败, 党粉碎了斯巴达克斯同盟革命家时。成为社会民主党领袖之一的编外工人艾伯特仍然信仰原罪, 因为他承认他痛恨革命”像痛恨原罪一样。”他证明了他自己是那种社会主义形象的合适先驱, 那种将迅速出现的、作为苏联及世界其他地方的无产阶级致命敌人的、社会主义形象的先驱, 那时他精确地概括了这一新的异化形式的本质: “社会主义意味着辛苦劳动。”
98. Lenin, as a Marxist thinker, was no more than a consistent and faithful Kautskyist who applied the revolutionary ideology of “orthodox Marxism” to Russian conditions, conditions unfavorable to the reformist practice carried on elsewhere by the Second International. In the Russian context, the external management of the proletariat, acting by means of a disciplined clandestine party subordinated to intellectuals transformed into “professional revolutionaries,” becomes a profession which refuses to deal with the ruling professions of capitalist society (the Czarist political regime being in any case unable to offer such opportunities which are based on an advanced stage of bourgeois power). It therefore became the profession of the absolute management of society.
因为马克思主义思想家——列宁简直是一个忠实的、一贯的考茨基主义者, 他运用”正统马克思主义”的革命意识形态于俄国的现存条件, 这些条件不适宜于那种第二国际所追求样式的改良主义实践。在俄国的环境中, 指导布尔什维克实践的任务, 依靠在变成了”职业革命家”的知识分子控制之下的纪律严明的秘密政党, 这引起了一个真正的职业——这一职业拒绝同资本主义社会的任何职业统治阶层达成妥协(在俄国帝制的政治政体内部, 在任何情况下都不能提供这样一种妥协的机会, 因为这一机会是以资本主义发展的高级阶段为基础的)。作为这一毫不妥协的结果, 布尔什维克最终成为极权主义社会统治职业的唯一从业者。
99. With the war and the collapse of the social-democratic international in the face of the war, the authoritarian ideological radicalism of the Bolsheviks spread all over the world. The bloody end of the democratic illusions of the workers’ movement transformed the entire world into a Russia, and Bolshevism, reigning over the first revolutionary breach brought on by this epoch of crisis, offered to proletarians of all lands its hierarchic and ideological model, so that they could “speak Russian” to the ruling class. Lenin did not reproach the Marxism of the Second International for being a revolutionary ideology, but for ceasing to be one.
随着战争的来临及其国际社会民主党的垮台, 布尔什维克独裁意识形态的激进主义, 得以在全世界扩张。工人运动的民主幻想的血腥终结导致整个世界的俄国化和布尔什维克化, 并控制了由这个时期危机所造成的第一次革命的突破口, 向所有国家的无产阶级输入了它的等级制和意识形态的模式, 促使他们接受”俄语”并向他们的统治阶级”说俄语”。列宁从来没有因为第二国际的马克思主义变成革命的意识形态而责备它——他只是因为它终止了革命的意识形态而责备它。
100. The historical moment when Bolshevism triumphed for itself in Russia and when social-democracy fought victoriously for the old world marks the inauguration of the state of affairs which is at the heart of the domination of the modern spectacle: the representation of the working class radically opposes itself to the working class.
布尔什维克主义在俄国独自获胜的时刻, 与社会民主主义为旧世界的胜利而战的时刻, 是同一历史时刻, 它也标志着居于现代景观统治核心的事物秩序的决定性的开幕: 工人阶级的代表变成了工人阶级的敌人。
101. “In all previous revolutions,” wrote Rosa Luxemburg in Rote Fahne of December 21, 1918, “the combatants faced each other directly: class against class, program against program. In the present revolution, the troops protecting the old order do not intervene under the insignia of the ruling class, but under the flag of a ‘social-democratic party.’ If the central question of revolution had been posed openly and honestly: capitalism or socialism? the great mass of the proletariat would today have no doubts or hesitations.” Thus, a few days before its destruction, the radical current of the German proletariat discovered the secret of the new conditions which had been created by the preceding process (toward which the representation of the working class had greatly contributed): the spectacular organization of defense of the existing order, the social reign of appearances where no ” “central question” can any longer be posed “openly and honestly.” The revolutionary representation of the proletariat had at this stage become both the main factor and the central result of the general falsification of society.
罗莎·卢森堡在1918年12月21日的《红旗(Die Rote Fahne)》中写道: “在所有早期革命中, 相互敌对的对手面对面: 阶级反对阶级, 纲领反对纲领。在现在革命中, 保护旧秩序的军队不是在统治阶级的名义下而战, 而是在’社会民主党’的旗帜下而战。如果革命的中心问题’公开和坦白的’被陈述——以’资本主义或社会主义’的形式——那么今天全部无产阶级大众将不会有怀疑或犹豫不决。”所以, 在德国革命被扑灭的前几天, 德国无产阶级的激进潮流发现了由走在前面的整个过程(主要是工人阶级的代表所促成的这一发展)所造成的这一新情形的秘密: 在景观组织统治秩序的防卫和社会表象统治中, 没有任何”中心问题”的陈述再是”公开和坦白的”。在这一阶段, 无产阶级革命的代表不但变成了一种社会普遍弄虚作假的主要原因, 而且还是其主要结果。
102. The organization of the proletariat on the Bolshevik model which emerged from Russian backwardness and from the abandonment of revolutionary struggle by the workers’ movement of advanced countries, found in this backwardness all the conditions which carried this form of organization toward the counter-revolutionary inversion which it unconsciously contained at its source. The continuing retreat of the mass of the European workers’ movement in the face of the Hic Rhodus, hic salta of the 1918-1920 period, a retreat which included the violent destruction of its radical minority, favored the completion of the Bolshevik development and let this fraudulent outcome present itself to the world as the only proletarian solution. By seizing state monopoly over representation and defense of workers’ power, the Bolshevik party justified itself and became what it was: the party of the proprietors of the proletariat (essentially eliminating earlier forms of property).
与布尔什维克模式相一致的无产阶级组织形式源于俄国的后进性, 源于先进国家工人运动革命斗争的弃权。这些同样的后进性也往往培育出从一开始就不知不觉包含在这一组织形式中的反革命的方面。这一组织利用1918-1920年黄金时期的大规模欧洲工人运动的再三失败(这一失败包括它自己激进少数派的迅速毁灭), 促进了布尔什维克发展的巩固, 并强化了把自己作为唯一可能的无产阶级答案展现于世界面前的那种欺骗性结果。通过攫取国家的垄断权作为工人阶级力量的保护者和唯一代表, 布尔什维克政党证明了自己的正当性, 并变成了它之所是: 即无产阶级业主的政党, 这就从本质上清除了早期政党的全部所有权性质。
103. During twenty years of unresolved theoretical debate, the varied tendencies of Russian social-democracy had examined all the conditions for the liquidation of Czarism: the weakness of the bourgeoisie, the weight of the peasant majority and the decisive role of a concentrated and combative but hardly numerous proletariat. The debate was resolved in practice by means of a factor which had not been present in the hypotheses: a revolutionary bureaucracy which directed the proletariat seized State power and gave society a new class domination. Strictly bourgeois revolution had been impossible; the “democratic dictatorship of workers and peasants” was meaningless; the proletarian power of the Soviets could not maintain itself simultaneously against the class of small landowners, against the national and international White reaction, and against its own representation externalized and alienated in the form of a workers’ party of absolute masters of State economy, expression, and soon of thought. The theory of permanent revolution of Trotsky and Parvus, which Lenin adopted in April 1917, was the only theory which became true for countries where the social development of the bourgeoisie was retarded, but this theory became true only after the introduction of the unknown factor: the class power of the bureaucracy. In the numerous arguments among the Bolshevik directors, Lenin was the most consistent defender of the concentration of dictatorial power in the hands of the supreme representatives of ideology. Lenin was right every time against his adversaries in that be supported the solution implied by earlier choices of absolute minority Power: the democracy which was kept from peasants by means of the state would have to be kept from workers as well, which led to keeping it from communist leaders of unions, from the entire party, and finally from leading party bureaucrats. At the Tenth Congress, when the Kronstadt Soviet had been defeated by arms and buried under calumny, Lenin pronounced against the leftist bureaucrats of the “Workers’ Opposition” the following conclusion (the logic of which Stalin later extended to a complete division of the world): “Here or there with a rifle, but not with opposition. … We’ve had enough opposition.”
二十年来, 俄国社会民主主义各种各样的趋势是从事了关于推翻专制主义所有条件的一种意见不一的论争: 资产阶级的不足, 在力量对比上小农阶级的绝对优势, 集中好战的无产阶级扮演的决定性作用等等。但这一争论, 最终在实践中被一种没有以任何臆想形式考虑过的因素所解决: 革命的官僚机构将自己置于无产阶级的最前面, 夺取了国家权力并着手将一种新的阶级统治的形式强加于社会。绝对的资产阶级革命是不可能的; 谈论”工农民主专政”是没有实际意义的空话; 至于苏维埃无产阶级权力, 它不可能同时使自己反对小地主阶级, 反对国内和国际的白人反动派, 反对它自己的以工人政党形式对象化和异化的代表, 而这一政党则坚持对国家、经济、表达手段的总体控制, 甚至坚持对人民思想的全面控制。列宁在1917年采用的托洛茨基的不断革命理论的小处方, 只是在那些资产阶级社会发展缓慢的国家被证明为真的理论, 但是即使在这里, 这一理论被证明正确, 也只是在官僚阶级的权力成为了未知因素的一部分之后。在布尔什维克领导层的多次争论中, 列宁是坚持这一最高意识形态陈述控制的最坚定的集中独裁权力的倡导者。在这一意义上列宁每一次都胜利了, 因为总是支持那种少数派的早期选择所暗示的是——现在就是要行使绝对权力的解决方案: 一种在国家层面拒绝农民的民主, 出于同样的原因也会拒绝工人, 它将导致这一民主远离共产主义同盟的领导人, 远离普通政党成员, 甚至最后远离政党阶层这一最高等级。在第十次代表大会, 由于克朗施塔德苏维埃通过武力和诽谤被镇压和埋葬, 列宁通过了一个关于”工人反对派”的左翼官僚主义者的决定, 这一逻辑被斯大林随后扩大成一个世界的绝对分裂: “我们在这里, 或者你们在远处手里拿着枪——但不是作为反对派。我们受够了反对派。”
104. After Kronstadt, the bureaucracy–sole proprietor of a State Capitalism–consolidated its power internally by means of a temporary alliance with the peasantry (with the “new economic policy”) and externally by using workers regimented into the bureaucratic parties of the Third International as supports for Russian diplomacy, thus sabotaging the entire revolutionary movement and supporting bourgeois governments whose aid it needed in international politics (the power of the Kuonmintang in China in 1925-27, the Popular Front in Spain and in France, etc.). The bureaucratic society continued the consolidation by terrorizing the peasantry in order to implement the mast brutal primitive capitalist accumulation in history. The industrialization of the Stalin epoch revealed the reality behind the bureaucracy: the continuation of the power of the economy and the preservation of the essence of the market society commodity labor. The independent economy, which dominates society to the extent of reinstituting the class domination it needs for its own ends, is thus confirmed. Which is to say that the bourgeoisie created an autonomous power which, so long as its autonomy lasts, can even do without a bourgeoisie. The totalitarian bureaucracy is not “the last owning class in history” in the sense of Bruna Rizzi; it is only a substitute ruling class for the commodity economy. Capitalist private property in decline is replaced by a simplified, less diversified surrogate which is condensed as collective property of the bureaucratic class. This underdeveloped ruling class is the expression of economic underdevelopment, and has no perspective other than to overcome the retardation of this development in certain regions of the world. It was the workers’ party organized according to the bourgeois model of separation which furnished the hierarchical-statist cadre for this supplementary edition of a ruling class. While in one of Stalin’s prisons, Anton Ciliga observed that “technical questions of organization turned out to be social questions”(Lenin and the Revolution).
克朗施塔德以后, 作为国家资本主义制度唯一所有者的官僚机构进一步强化了它的权力——对内借助于与农民的暂时联盟(“新经济政策”), 对外利用作为俄国外交政策后备力量的第三国际官僚政党管辖编组的工人, 这些官僚政党或从事破坏整个革命的活动, 或支持资产阶级政府, 这种支持主要是在他们认为有价值的国际政治领域(1925-1927年的中国国民党, 西班牙和法国的联合阵线等等)。通过使农民屈从恐怖统治, 通过执行历史上最残酷的资本原始积累, 俄国官僚机构又把它的权力向前大大推进了。斯大林时期的工业化显示了官僚政治的真实本性: 通过保持市场社会的本质——商品化劳动——来延长经济的统治。它也展示了一种经济的独立: 经济开始统治社会如此彻底以致它已证明有能力重新创造一种阶级统治(它需要自己不断的运转); 换句话说, 资产阶级已创造了一种即使没有资产阶级它也仍然有能力维持自身独立的力量。在布鲁诺·里兹(Bruno Rizzi)的意义上, 极权主义官僚政治不是”历史上最后拥有财产的阶级”; 对于市场经济而言它只是一个统治阶级的替代品。动摇不定的资本主义财产制度被它自己更粗糙的版本所代替, 即简单化的、较少变化的、作为官僚阶级的集体财产被集中的版本。这种统治阶级不发达的类型也是经济不发达的反映, 它从没有改造世界特别落后地区的议事日程。这一资本主义统治阶级简单翻版的等级制的中央集权主义的结构由工人政党所提供, 并且它又是对资产阶级组织等级分离的一种仿制。正像安东 · 希勒哥(Anton Ciliga)在斯大林的一座监狱中所写的: “组织的技术上的问题结果证明是社会问题”(《列宁和革命》)。
105. Revolutionary ideology, the coherence of the separate, of which Leninism represents the greatest voluntaristic attempt, supervising a reality which rejects it, with Stalinism returns to its truth in incoherence. At that paint ideology is no longer a weapon, but a goal. The lie which is no longer challenged becomes lunacy. Reality as well as the goal dissolve in the totalitarian ideological proclamation: all it says is all there is. This is a local primitivism of the spectacle, whose role is nevertheless essential in the development of the world spectacle. The ideology which is materialized in this context has not economically transformed the world, as has capitalism which reached the stage of abundance; it has merely transformed perception by means of the police.
列宁主义是革命意识形态的最高的唯意志论的表达, 是与控制反对它的现实的一种分离的一致。伴随着斯大林主义的到来, 革命的意识形态又返回到它根本上的支离破碎。意识形态不再是一种武器, 它本质上已变成了一种目的。不再被挑战的谎言只能变成一种疯狂。极权主义的意识形态公告, 删除了现实也删除了意义; 除了它所说的存在的东西之外不存在任何东西。尽管这一景观的拙劣形式仅限于特定的不发达地区, 但它在景观的全球发展中起到了重要作用。像发达资本主义已做得那样, 这一意识形态的物化并没有从经济上改造世界; 它只是运用警察国家的方法改变了人们关于世界的感觉。
106. The totalitarian-ideological class in power is the power of a topsy-turvy world: the stranger it is, the more it claims not to exist, and its force serves above all to affirm its nonexistence. It is modest only on this point, because its official nonexistence must also coincide with the nec plus ultra of historical development which must at the same time be attributed to its infallible command. Extended everywhere, the bureaucracy must be the class invisible to consciousness; as a result all social life becomes insane. The social organization of the absolute lie flows from this fundamental contradiction.
占统治地位的意识形态的极权阶级, 是完全颠倒的这一世界的统治者。这一阶级越强大, 越是更有力地宣告其不存在, 它的力量首先是被用来强化这一宣告的。也正是在这一点上它是谦虚的, 因为无论如何, 官方声明的这一不存在的官僚机构, 同时将历史的最高成就归因于它自己一贯正确的领导阶层。尽管非常明显它到处存在, 但作为一个阶级的官僚机构一定是看不见的, 结果, 全部社会生活变得精神错乱起来。社会组织的总体荒谬产生于这一基本矛盾。
107. Stalinism was the reign of terror within the bureaucratic class itself. The terrorism at the base of this class’s power must also strike this class because it possesses no juridical guarantee, no recognized existence as owning class, which it could extend to every one of its members. Its real property being hidden, the bureaucracy became proprietor by way of false consciousness. False consciousness can maintain its absolute power only by means of absolute terror, where all real motives are ultimately lost. The members of the bureaucratic class in power have a right of ownership over society only collectively, as participants in a fundamental lie: they have to play the role of the proletariat directing a socialist society; they have to be actors loyal to a script of ideological disloyalty. But effective participation in this falsehood requires that it be recognized as actual participation. No bureaucrat can support his right to power individually, since proving that he’s a socialist proletarian would mean presenting himself as the opposite of a bureaucrat, and proving that he’s a bureaucrat is impossible since the official truth of the bureaucracy is that it does not exist. Thus every bureaucrat depends absolutely on the central guarantee of the ideology which recognizes the collective participation in its “socialist power” of all the bureaucrats it does not annihilate. If all the bureaucrats taken together decide everything, the cohesion of their own class can be assured only by the concentration of their terrorist power in a single person. In this person resides the only practical truth of falsehood in power: the indisputable permanence of its constantly adjusted frontier. Stalin decides without appeal who is ultimately to be a possessing bureaucrat; in other words, who should be named “a proletarian in power” and who “a traitor in the pay of the Mikado or of Wall Street.” The bureaucratic atoms find the common essence of their right only in the person of Stalin. Stalin is the world sovereign who in this manner knows himself as the absolute person for whose consciousness there is no higher spirit. “The sovereign of the world has effective consciousness of what he is–the universal power of efficacy–in the destructive violence which he exerts against the Self of his subjects, the contrasting others.” Just as he is the power that defines the terrain of domination, he is “the power which ravages this terrain.”
斯大林主义是一种在官僚政治阶级内部的恐怖统治。建立在官僚政治权力之上的恐怖主义一定会打击这个阶级自身, 因为这个阶级没有司法合法性, 没有能够分别地扩展到他的每一个成员的财产拥有阶级的法律地位。它的真实所有权不得不被掩盖起来, 因为它以伪意识为基础。伪意识只能通过绝对的恐怖保持其绝对的权力, 在那里所有真实的动机立即消失。官僚统治阶级的成员通过全体有超越社会之上的权利, 同时, 作为这一权力的共享者有这样一个基本谎言: 他们必须在无产阶级统治的社会主义社会起重要作用; 他们是背叛意识形态本文的忠实行动者。然而除非他们的法律地位是正当的, 在这一虚假统一体中他们不可能是真正的参与者。没有一个官僚主义者会个别地向权力声称他的权利, 因为为了证明他自己是一个社会主义无产者, 他不得不将自己表现为一个反官僚主义者, 然而证明自己为官僚主义者是不可能的, 因为官僚政治的官方真理是官僚政治不存在。所以, 每一个官僚主义者整体上都依赖由意识形态提供的重要的合法性印章, 它确认了在所有官僚主义者不会被清算的“社会主义者政体”中集体参与的有效性。尽管官僚主义者共同被授权做出全部社会决定, 但他们阶级的凝聚力只能通过将他们恐怖主义力量集中于某一单个人身上来保证。在这个人身上寄居的只是统治谎言的实用真理: 权力制定了一个无人能挑战的边界线、并永远处于调整之中。所以, 斯大林没有请求裁判裁决就有权决定谁是或不是官僚主义的成员、谁应该是”当家作主无产阶级”、谁是受雇于日本天皇和华尔街的”叛国者”等。原子化的官僚主义者发现他的司法地位的共享本质只在斯大林这个人身上——这个上帝和世界的主人就这样把自己变成了绝对的人, 对他来说不存在更高类型的精神: “世界的主人认识了他自己的本性——无所不在的力量——通过他行使的毁灭性力量它竭力反对自己无能的主体自我。”他是定义这一统治领域的力量, 同时它也是毁坏这一领域的力量。
108. When ideology, having become absolute through the possession of absolute power, changes from partial knowledge into totalitarian falsehood, the thought of history is so perfectly annihilated that history itself, even at the level of the most empirical knowledge, can no longer exist. The totalitarian bureaucratic society lives in a perpetual present where everything that happened exists for it only as a place accessible to its police. The project already formulated by Napoleon of “the ruler directing the energy of memory” has found its total concretization in a permanent manipulation of the past, not only of meanings but of facts as well. But the price paid for this emancipation from all historical reality is the loss of the rational reference which is indispensable to the historical society, capitalism. It is known how much the scientific application of insane ideology has cost the Russian economy, if only through the imposture of Lysenko. The contradiction of the totalitarian bureaucracy administering an industrialized society, caught between its need for rationality and its rejection of the rational, is one of its main deficiencies with regard to normal capitalist development. Just as the bureaucracy cannot resolve the question of agriculture the way capitalism had done, it is ultimately inferior to capitalism in industrial production, planned from the top and based on unreality and generalized falsehood.
当通过占有绝对权力变成绝对的意识形态, 并由局部的真理变为极权主义的谎言时, 历史的思想已被如此彻底的歼灭, 以致历史本身即使在最经验主义知识的层面上, 也不可能再存在。极权主义官僚社会住进一种永久在场, 在那里先前发生的每一件事情都只是被警察所决定。被”控制记忆能力的统治者”拿破仑所设想的计划, 已在斯大林主义对过去无休止的重写中实现, 这一重写不仅改变了对过去事件的解释, 而且还改变了这些事件本身。从全部历史现实中解放出来的代价, 对作为一种历史社会制度的资本主义来说, 是失去了不可或缺的理性方向。但我们知道, 趋于疯狂的一种意识形态的科学运用使苏联付出了怎样的代价——人们只要考虑李森科的大失败就可以了。在它必需的理性和对理性的拒绝之间, 发现了极权主义官僚政治管理工业化社会的矛盾, 与常态资本主义发展一样这也是它的主要缺点之一。作为一种官僚政治它不可能像一般资本主义所做的那样解决农业问题, 在工业生产方面它也证明了自己低于资本主义, 它不切实际的独裁主义的规划是以其无所不在的弄虚作假为基础的。
109. Between the two world wars, the revolutionary workers’ movement was annihilated by the joint action of the Stalinist bureaucracy and of fascist totalitarianism which had borrowed its form of organization from the totalitarian party tried out in Russia. Fascism was an extremist defense of the bourgeois economy threatened by crisis and by proletarian subversion. Fascism is a state of siege in capitalist society, by means of which this society saves itself and gives itself stop-gap rationalization by making the State intervene massively in its management. But this rationalization is itself burdened by the immense irrationality of its means. Although fascism rallies to the defense of the main points of bourgeois ideology which has become conservative (the family, property, the moral order, the nation), reuniting the petty-bourgeoisie and the unemployed routed by crisis or deceived by the impotence of socialist revolution, it is not itself fundamentally ideological. It presents itself as it is: a violent resurrection of myth which demands participation in a community defined by archaic pseudo-values: race, blood, the leader. Fascism is technically-equipped archaism. Its decomposed ersatz of myth is revived in the spectacular context of the most modern means of conditioning and illusion. Thus it is one of the factors in the formation of the modern spectacle, and its role in the destruction of the old workers’ movement makes it one of the fundamental forces of present-day society. However, since fascism is also the most costly form of preserving the capitalist order, it usually had to leave the front of the stage to the great roles played by the capitalist States; it is eliminated by stronger and more rational forms of the same order.
在两次世界大战期间, 工人阶级的革命运动被斯大林官僚主义政治和法西斯极权主义横行的联合行动所摧毁, 后者的组织形式还从在苏联试验并发展了的极权主义政党那里得到了灵感。法西斯主义是一种保卫来自无产阶级的颠覆和危机的双重威胁的资产阶级经济的孤注一掷的尝试, 法西斯主义在资本主义社会是一种进攻的政体(l’ètat de siège), 而这一资本主义社会以大规模政府干涉的方式, 通过给予自己以合理化的紧急状态的管理方法而挽救了自己。然而, 这一合理化又被其方法上的极端非理性所妨碍。尽管法西斯主义重新振作起来去保卫资产阶级意识形态已变得保守的一些主要偶像(家庭、私有财产、道德秩序、爱国精神), 虽然它有效动员了被经济危机和社会主义运动失败搞得惊慌失措的小资产阶级和失业工人, 但这不是它自己根本的意识形态。它将自己展示如下: 一种神话的强力复苏, 一种倡导参加古老虚假价值规定的共同体的神话之复苏: 种族、血统、领导者。法西斯主义是一种由现代技术装备起来的原始主义。它是神话退化的代用品在幻象和环境最现代手段的景观情境中的复活。因此它是现代景观构成的一个重要因素, 它的毁灭旧工人运动的作用, 也使它成为今天社会的基础性力量之一。但由于它也是维持资本主义秩序最昂贵的手段, 一般来说, 它将以被主要资本主义国家的取代为终结, 这一资本主义国家将表现出这一秩序更强壮、更理性的形式。
110. Now that the Russian bureaucracy has finally succeeded in doing away with the remains of bourgeois property which hampered its rule over the economy, in developing this property for its own use, and in being recognized externally among the great powers, it wants to enjoy its world calmly and to suppress the arbitrary element which had been exerted over it: it denounces the Stalinism of its origin. But the denunciation remains Stalinist, arbitrary, unexplained and continually corrected, because the ideological lie at its origin can never be revealed. Thus the bureaucracy can liberalize neither culturally nor politically because its existence as a class depends on its ideological monopoly which, with all its weight, is its only title to property. The ideology has no doubt lost the passion of its positive affirmation, but the indifferent triviality which survives still has the repressive function of prohibiting the slightest competition, of holding captive the totality of thought. Thus the bureaucracy is bound to an ideology which is no longer believed by anyone. What used to be terrorist has become a laughing matter, but this laughing matter can maintain itself only by preserving, as a last resort, the terrorism it would like to be rid of. Thus precisely at the moment when the bureaucracy wants to demonstrate its superiority on the terrain of capitalism it reveals itself to be a poor relation of capitalism. Just as its actual history contradicts its claims and its vulgarly entertained ignorance contradicts its scientific pretentions, so its project of becoming a rival to the bourgeoisie in the production of commodity abundance is blocked by the fact that this abundance carries its implicit ideology within itself, and is usually accompanied by an indefinitely extended freedom of spectacular false choices, a pseudo-freedom which remains irreconcilable with the bureaucratic ideology.
当苏联官僚政治最后成功地摆脱了阻碍它统治经济的资产阶级经济的所有权遗迹, 成功地为了自己的目的发展了这一经济, 成功地被认可为世界强国俱乐部的一员时, 它就要求安静地享受它自己的世界, 并要求摆脱自己仍然遭受着的任性; 所以它公开谴责其源头上的斯大林主义。然而这样一种谴责一定会保留斯大林主义的武断、不可理解和服从于不间断的调整的任性, 因为, 源头上的意识形态谎言是不可能被揭露出来的。官僚机构无论在政治方面还是在文化方面都不能自由化自己, 因为它作为一个阶级的存在, 依靠其意识形态的垄断权——因为所有麻烦是来自于它的所有权这一唯一的名号。这种意识形态已失去了其原初激情, 但它毫无激情的惯例化, 对控制全部思想和禁止无论什么形式的竞争都仍然具有抑制作用。因此, 官僚机构无望地依靠的意识形态不再为任何人相信。过去激发恐怖的力量, 也就是今天激发嘲弄力量, 但这一嘲弄的力量仍然要以诉诸于恐怖力量的威胁来保卫自己, 而这一恐怖的力量将会被清除。所以正是在官僚政治试图在资本主义的土地上展示其优越性的时候, 它不过显示自己为资本主义的穷堂兄妹而已。正像它真实的历史与它的合法性外表相冲突, 它粗俗坚持的无知和它的科学借口相矛盾, 它与资产阶级在商品丰裕生产中竞争的计划被这一事实所阻碍, 这一商品的丰富包含有它自己固有的意识形态, 并且这一计划一般地还伴随着一种自由, 一种在景观虚假选择的无限制范围中的自由选择——一种与官僚政治的意识形态保持矛盾的伪自由。
111. At the present moment of its development, the bureaucracy’s title to ideological property is already collapsing internationally. The power which established itself nationally as a fundamentally internationalist model must admit that it can no longer pretend to maintain its false cohesion over and above every national frontier. The unequal economic development of some bureaucracies with competing interests, who succeeded in acquiring their “socialism” beyond the single country, has led to the public and total confrontation between the Russian lie and the Chinese lie. From this point on, every bureaucracy in power, or every totalitarian party which is a candidate to the power left behind by the Stalinist period in some national working classes, must follow its own path. The global decomposition of the alliance of bureaucratic mystification is further aggravated by manifestations of internal negation which began to be visible to the world with the East Berlin workers’ revolt, opposing the bureaucrats with the demand for “a government of steel workers,” manifestations which already once led all the way to the power of workers’ councils in Hungary. However, the global decomposition of the bureaucratic alliance is in the last analysis the least favorable factor for the present development of capitalist society. The bourgeoisie is in the process of losing the adversary which objectively supported it by providing an illusory unification of all negation of the existing order. This division of labor within the spectacle comes to an end when the pseudo-revolutionary role in turn divides. The spectacular element of the collapse of the workers’ movement will itself collapse.
在官僚政治发展的现阶段, 它的意识形态所有权资格已在国际间崩溃。以基本国际主义模式在国家内部自我建立起来的权力, 现在必须承认它不能在每一个国家边界之上假装还坚持一种虚假凝聚力。伴随着利益竞争的不同, 官僚政治机构不平等的经济发展, 已成功在一个国家以上建立起了他们自己的”社会主义”, 而这导致在中国人的谎言和苏联人的谎言之间公开的、全面的对质。从此以后, 每一个执政的官僚机构都不得不寻找它自己的道路; 对每一个渴望这一权力的极权主义政党(特别是在斯大林时期在特定国家的工人阶级中幸存在下来的那些政党)来说, 它同样是真实的。这一官僚政治联盟的瓦解被来自其内部否定性的示威进一步加剧, 这在东柏林的反抗官僚主义者的工人起义要求一个”金属制造工的政府”时, 被整个世界首次所看到, 这一内部否定甚至达到这样的程度: 即在匈牙利又发展为建立工人委员会。但归根到底, 虚假社会主义官僚政治全球联盟的碎裂, 对资本主义社会未来发展是不祥之兆。因为资产阶级现在已处于失去其对手的危险之中, 这一对手通过提供反对现存秩序幻想的统一, 客观地支持了它。当虚假革命的作用依次分离时, 在两种互相强化着的景观之间的劳动分工将终结。工人运动失败的景观因素也将是它自己的失败。
112. The Leninist illusion has no contemporary base outside of the various Trotskyist tendencies. Here the identification of the proletarian project with a hierarchic organization of ideology stubbornly survives the experience of all its results. The distance which separates Trotskyism from a revolutionary critique of the present society allows Trotskyism to maintain a deferential attitude toward positions which were already false when they were used in a real combat. Trotsky remained basically in solidarity with the high bureaucracy until 1927, seeking to capture it so as to make it resume genuinely Bolshevik action externally (it is known that in order to conceal Lenin’s famous “testament” he went so far as to slanderously disavow his supporter Max Eastman, who had made it public). Trotsky was condemned by his basic perspective, because as soon as the bureaucracy recognizes itself in its result as a counterrevolutionary class internally, it must also choose, in the name of revolution, to be effectively counter-revolutionary externally, just as it is at home. Trotsky’s subsequent struggle for the Fourth International contains the same inconsistency. All his life he refused to recognize the bureaucracy as the power of a separate class, because during the second Russian revolution he became an unconditional supporter of the Bolshevik form of organization. When Lukacs, in 1923, showed that this form was the long-sought mediation between theory and practice, in which the proletarians are no longer “spectators” of the events which happen in their organization, but consciously choose and live these events, he described as actual merits of the Bolshevik party everything that the Bolshevik party was not. Except for his profound theoretical work, Lukacs was still an ideologue speaking in the name of the power most grossly external to the proletarian movement, believing and making believe that he, himself, with his entire personality, was within this power as if it were his own. But the sequel showed just how this power disowns and suppresses its lackeys; in Lukacs’ endless self-repudiations, just what he had identified with became visible and clear as a caricature: he had identified with the opposite of himself and of what he had supported in History and Class Consciousness. Lukacs is the best proof of the fundamental rule which judges all the intellectuals of this century: what they respect is an exact measure of their own despicable reality. Yet Lenin had hardly encouraged this type of illusion about his activity, considering that “a political party cannot examine its members to see if there are contradictions between their philosophy and the party program.” The real party whose imaginary portrait Lukacs had inopportunely drawn was coherent for only one precise and partial task: to seize State power.
目前列宁主义幻想的唯一党徒就是各种各样托洛茨基主义的趋势, 它顽固地坚持将无产阶级的方案等同于一种以意识形态为基础的等级制组织, 尽管全部历史的经验都已反驳了这一观点。将现代社会革命批判与托洛茨基主义分开的距离, 与一种恭顺的距离相关, 这种恭顺的距离就是当他们在现实斗争中已经起作用时, 托洛茨基主义还坚持已经错误的立场。直到1927年托洛茨基对高层官僚还保持着基本的忠诚, 虽然他努力获得对这一官僚政治的控制, 并促使它重新开始一种适当的布尔什维克外交政策。(众所周知在那时他走得如此之远, 为了帮助隐瞒列宁的著名的”政治遗嘱”, 以致诽谤性地否认他的支持者马克斯 · 伊斯曼(Max Eastman)——公开这一秘密的人。)托洛茨基被他的基本观点所判决; 因为官僚政治一旦认识到自己在国内的政治阵线变成了反革命的阶级, 那么它一定会在国际舞台上选择作一个相似的反革命的角色(虽然它假定以革命的名义)。托洛茨基后来为建立第四国际所作的努力昭示了同样的矛盾。一旦他变成了一个布尔什维克组织形式的无条件的党徒(如他在第二次俄国革命时期所做的那样), 托洛茨基的整个余生就拒绝认识官僚政治阶级是一个新的统治阶级。当卢卡奇在1923年指出, 作为长期追求的理论和实践之间媒介的这一同样的组织形式, 由于无产阶级不是他们自己组织中发生事件的纯粹”观众”, 而是自觉地意识和经历了这些事件时, 他所描述这一组织正是以布尔什维克为范本, 并是布尔什维克政党的真正优点, 但实际上在每一件事情上这个政党都没有做到。不论他深刻的理论著作如何, 卢卡奇是一个代表权力讲话的思想家, 这一权力以最粗糙的方式外在化无产阶级运动, 相信并假设他的听众相信他自己, 他的完整的人格存在, 他分享这一权力就像它真是自己的一样。当后来的事件展示了这一权力怎样否认和抑制了它的马屁精时, 卢卡奇的永不休止的自我否定以一种精确漫画式的透明性, 揭露了他所认同的东西是完全与他自己相反的东西, 是完全与他在《历史与阶级意识》赞成的一切相反的东西。没有人比卢卡奇更好地阐明了评价这个世纪所有知识分子的一个基本原理的合法性: 他们所尊敬的东西恰好就是他们自己鄙视的现实的度量。这当然不能说列宁鼓励了这一种关于他的行动的幻想, 相反, 列宁承认”为了弄清在他们的哲学和政党纲领之间是否存在矛盾, 政治性政党不可能审查它的每一成员。”卢卡奇如此不合时宜地描绘的这一理想化了的政党肖像, 实际上只适宜于一种特定和有限的任务: 即夺取国家权力。
113. The neo-Leninist illusion of present-day Trotskyism, constantly exposed by the reality of modern bourgeois as well as bureaucratic capitalist societies, naturally finds a favored field of application in “underdeveloped” countries which are formally independent. Here the illusion of some variant of state and bureaucratic socialism is consciously manipulated by local ruling classes as simply the ideology of economic development. The hybrid composition of these classes is more or less clearly related to their standing along the bourgeois-bureaucratic spectrum. Their games on an international scale with the two poles of existing capitalist power, as well as their ideological compromises (notably with Islam), express the hybrid reality of their social base and remove from this final byproduct of ideological socialism everything serious except the police. A bureaucracy establishes itself by staffing a national struggle and an agrarian peasant revolt; from that point on, as in China, it tends to apply the Stalinist model of industrialization in societies less developed than Russia was in 1917. A bureaucracy able to industrialize the nation can set itself up from among the petty-bourgeoisie, or out of army cadres who seize power, as in Egypt. A bureaucracy which sets itself up as a para-statist leadership during the struggle can, on certain questions, seek the equilibrium point of a compromise in order to fuse with a weak national bourgeoisie, as in Algeria at the beginning of its war of independence. Finally, in the former colonies of black Africa which remain openly tied to the American and European bourgeoisie, a bourgeoisie constitutes itself (usually on the basis of the power of traditional tribal chiefs) by seizing the State. These countries, where foreign imperialism remains the real master of the economy, enter a stage where the compradores have gotten an indigenous State as compensation for their sale of indigenous products, a State which is independent in the face of the local masses but not in the face of imperialism. This is an artificial bourgeoisie which is not able to accumulate, but which simply squanders the share of surplus value from local labor which reaches it as well as the foreign subsidies from the States or monopolies which protect it. Because of the obvious incapacity of these bourgeois classes to fulfill the normal economic function of a bourgeoisie, each of them faces a subversion based on the bureaucratic model, more or less adapted to local peculiarities, and eager to seize the heritage of this bourgeoisie. But the very success of a bureaucracy in its fundamental project of industrialization necessarily contains the perspective of its historical defeat: by accumulating capital it accumulates a proletariat and thus creates its own negation in a country where it did not yet exist.
为现在托洛茨基主义所接受的新列宁主义的幻想与现代资本主义的现实(无论就资产阶级而言还是就官僚政治类型而言), 在每一刻都是矛盾的。它在名义上独立的”不发达”国家中获得最好的接受, 这并不值得惊讶, 在那里各种各样欺骗性的国家和官僚社会主义的样式, 被统治阶级当作非常简单地经济发展的意识形态有意识地加以控制。这些统治阶级的混血本质或多或少地和他们的资产阶级——官僚政治体系的立场直接相联系。他们在这些现存资本主义力量两极中的国际性移动, 与各种各样不同社会基础的意识形态的妥协(特别是和伊斯兰教)相并列, 一起清除了除他们的警察以外的意识形态社会主义的各种退化版本。通过提供民族主义斗争和农民土地革命这一共同架构, 官僚政治的一种类型已确立了自身; 这种情况下, 像在中国, 斯大林主义工业化的模式已倾向于应用于全社会, 尽管它并不比1917年的俄国更先进。伴随着权力被军官所攫取, 一个能够使国家工业化的官僚机构也可能起因于小资产阶级, 正像在埃及碰巧发生的那样。在其他地方, 如在阿尔及利亚的独立战争中, 作为超国家权威在斗争过程中建立起来的官僚政治, 通过妥协, 寻求稳定并融合了软弱的民族资产阶级。最后, 在那些前殖民地的黑非洲, 它们显然保持了对西方资产阶级的依赖, 无论这一西方资产阶级是欧洲人还是美洲人, 一种地方性资产阶级通过对国家的占有已经形成(通常建立在传统部落首领权力的基础上)。在这样的国家, 外国帝国主义仍然是经济的真正主人, 并已达到这样阶段, 出售地方产品对买办的补偿就是地方政府的主权, 这一权力尽管不是帝国主义的权力, 但也不依赖于人民大众。结果是这种虚假仿造的资本主义没有能力积累资本, 它只是浪费它的国家收入——它从地方劳动中榨取的剩余价值、从保护者政府或国际垄断中收到补助金。履行正式资产阶级经济功能的这一资产阶级的明显无能, 迅速导致了它自己为其颠覆性的对立面所反对, 它们建立在官僚政治模式之上, 并或多或少的、更好的适合了地方性环境, 它渴望篡夺资产阶级曾遗传得来的东西。但是如果这样的官僚政治机构在它的基本工业化方案方面取得成功的话, 那么它同时也制造了它失败的历史条件: 因为当它在积累资本时它也在积聚无产阶级, 因此, 它在国家内部不知不觉创造了自我否定的力量, 而这在先前是不存在的。
114. In this complex and terrible development which has carried the epoch of class struggles toward new conditions, the proletariat of the industrial countries has completely lost the affirmation of its autonomous perspective and also, in the last analysis, its illusions, but not its being. It has not been suppressed. It remains irreducibly in existence within the intensified alienation of modern capitalism: it is the immense majority of workers who have lost all power over the use of their lives and who, once they know this, redefine themselves as the proletariat, as negation at work within this society. The proletariat is objectively reinforced by the progressive disappearance of the peasantry and by the extension of the logic of factory labor to a large sector of “services” and intellectual professions. Subjectively the proletariat is still far removed from its practical class consciousness, not only among white collar workers but also among wage workers who have as yet discovered only the impotence and mystification of the old politics. Nevertheless, when the proletariat discovers that its own externalized power collaborates in the constant reinforcement of capitalist society, not only in the form of its labor but also in the form of unions, of parties, or of the state power it had built to emancipate itself, it also discovers from concrete historical experience that it is the class totally opposed to all congealed externalization and all specialization of power. It carries the revolution which cannot let anything remain outside of itself, the demand for the permanent domination of the present over the past, and the total critique of separation. It is this that must find its suitable form in action. No quantitative amelioration of its misery, no illusion of hierarchic integration is a lasting cure for its dissatisfaction, because the proletariat cannot truly recognize itself in a particular wrong it suffered nor in the righting of a particular wrong. It cannot recognize itself in the righting of a large number of wrongs either, but only in the absolute wrong of being relegated to the margin of life.
在一系列新的情况下, 在带来阶级斗争新纪元的复杂的可怕的进化过程中, 工业化国家的无产阶级丧失了宣称自己独立观点的能力, 在最基本的意义上也丧失了其幻想, 但没有丧失其存在。无产阶级没有被抹除, 相反, 在现代资本主义不断强化的异化之下, 它以工人大众的形式保持了其不可缩减的现存。工人已失去了控制自己生命的权力, 一旦他们意识到这点, 他们将重新将自己定义为无产阶级, 一种在这一社会内部运行的否定力量。这一无产阶级正通过农民阶级的真实消失不断客观地强化着, 正通过屈从于工厂劳动逻辑的”服务”行业和知识产业的日益增加而被强化着。然而, 主观地看, 这个无产阶级仍然远离任何实际的阶级意识, 不仅对于白领工人而且对于工薪族来说, 至今他们除了无能为力和对古老政治的神秘之外什么也不知道。但是当无产阶级发现它自己客观化的权力与资本主义社会达成了持续稳固的共谋, 不但不再仅仅以它的劳动异化的形式, 而且还以他自己创造的解放自己的协会、政党和国家权力机构的形式强化着这种共谋时, 它也会发现它必须通过具体的、历史的经历发现自己是真正的阶级, 是总体上反对具体化、客观化和所有权力专门化的阶级。无产阶级是不会留下任何不变社会空间的革命搬运工, 这一革命不但要体现现在对过去的永久性统治, 而且要求对分离的普遍批判; 它必须要发现执行这一革命的适宜的行动形式。没有什么关于它贫穷的大量安慰, 没有什么在这一等级体系中幻想的参与能够对无产阶级的不公提供一种永久性的治疗, 因为无产阶级不能以它所经历的任何特殊的不公来真正的认识自己, 它也不能纠正这种特殊的不公, 他甚至也不能在纠正许多这样的不公中认识自己, 它只能在那种绝对不公——那种将他排除于任何真实生活之外的绝对不公中认识自己。
115. The new signs of negation multiplying in the economically developed countries, signs which are misunderstood and falsified by spectacular arrangement, already enable us to draw the conclusion that a new epoch has begun: now, after the workers’ first attempt at subversion, it is capitalist abundance which has failed. When anti-union struggles of Western workers are repressed first of all by unions, and when the first amorphous protests launched by rebellious currents of youth directly imply the rejection of the old specialized politics, of art and of daily life, we see two sides of a new spontaneous struggle which begins under a criminal guise. These are the portents of a second proletarian assault against class society. When the last children of this still immobile army reappear on this battleground which was altered and yet remains the same, they follow a new “General Ludd” who, this time, urges them to destroy the machines of permitted consumption.
在大多数经济发达的国家, 一种不断增长的否定迹象正在增生扩散。尽管这些迹象被景观所误解或篡改, 但他们充分证明一个新时期已经开始了。我们已经见证了工人阶级对资本主义第一轮攻击的失败; 现在我们是资本主义丰裕失败的见证人。一方面, 西方工人反工会的斗争首先被工会所镇压; 另一方面, 反抗青年正在发出新的抗议, 这一抗议尽管是含糊的、试验性的但它非常清楚地暗示了一种对艺术、日常生活和旧政治专门化领域的拒绝。如同一枚硬币的两面, 这是新的自发斗争的两面, 它起初只是采取了犯法的外观, 它预示了无产阶级对阶级社会第二轮进攻。当这群至今稳定的”孩童敢死队”再次出现于这一战场时——这一战场已经变化然而又仍保持同一——他们将跟随一个新的路德将军, 但这次, 他鼓励他们进攻的是放任消费的机器。
116. “The political form at last discovered in which the economic emancipation of labor could be realized” has in this century acquired a clear outline in the revolutionary workers’ Councils which concentrate in themselves all the functions of decision and execution, and federate with each other by means of delegates responsible to the base and revocable at any moment. Their actual existence has as yet been no more than a brief sketch, quickly opposed and defeated by various defensive forces of class society, among which their own false consciousness must often be included. Pannekoek rightly insisted that choosing the power of workers’ Councils “poses problems” rather than providing a solution. Yet it is precisely in this power where the problems of the proletarian revolution can find their real solution. This is where the objective conditions of historical consciousness are reunited. This is where direct active communication is realized, where specialization, hierarchy and separation end, where the existing conditions have been transformed “into conditions of unity.” Here the proletarian subject can emerge from his struggle against contemplation: his consciousness is equal to the practical organization which it undertakes because this consciousness is itself inseparable from coherent intervention in history.
“通过工人阶级能够实行的、它自己的、经济解放长期寻求的政治形式”, 在二十世纪采取了一种清晰的形式, 这就是革命工人委员会。革命工人委员会集中了全部决策权和执行权, 并通过代表彼此联合, 这些代表必须对人民负责并随时可以撤换。其实革命工人委员会的真实存在, 至今不过是一个简略的草图, 因为它们很快被阶级社会的各种各样的防御性力量所反对和击败, 这其中常常包括委员会内部的伪意识。像潘涅库克(Pannekoek)恰当地强调的建立工人委员会的决定, 本质上不是提供解决方案而是”提出问题”。然而工人委员会正是这样一种社会组织形式, 在这里无产阶级革命的问题能够真正被解决, 在这里历史意识的客观前提已经被组合, 在这里主动的直接交往的已实现, 它标志着所有分离、所有阶层、所有专门化的结束, 因为现存环境已被改革为”整体的环境。”在这一过程中无产阶级主体能够出现在反对他们静观立场的斗争中: 他们的意识已经等于它独自选择的实践组织, 因为这一意识已经与历史中的一致性干涉不能分离。
117. In the power of the Councils, which must internationally supplant all other power, the proletarian movement is its own product and this product is the producer himself. He is to himself his own goal. Only there is the spectacular negation of life negated in its turn.
曾经具体化了的工人委员会的权力——注定要被世界范围内所有其他的权力所替代——无产阶级的运动变成了它自己的产物; 这个产物不过就是生产者自己, 生产者的目标不过变成了他自己的实现。只有这样, 生活的景观否定这一次才能被否定。
118. The appearance of the Councils was the highest reality of the proletarian movement in the first quarter of this century, a reality which was not seen or was travestied because it disappeared along with the rest of the movement that was negated and eliminated by the entire historical experience of the time. At the new moment of proletarian critique, this result returns as the only undefeated point of the defeated movement. Historical consciousness, which knows that this is the only milieu where it can exist, can now recognize this reality, no longer at the periphery of what is ebbing, but at the center of what is rising.
在二十世纪的第一个四分之一期间出现的工人委员会, 是无产阶级运动的一个至高点, 但是这个现实已悄悄远去, 除非它以漫画式的形式出现, 因为与这一运动其他一切相并列, 它已不可避免地被镇压和毁灭了。然而, 从无产阶级批判事业复兴的观点看, 委员会也许能够仅仅作为一场失败运动的未失败的方面, 在他们真实的光亮中被看到: 意识到这是它唯一可能成功的环境的历史意识, 现在觉察到位于历史境遇中的委员会不是处于正在衰退的运动的外围, 相反它处于正在上升的运动的中心。
119. A revolutionary organization existing before the power of the Councils (it will find its own farm through struggle), for all these historical reasons, already knows that it does not represent the working class. It must recognize itself as no more than a radical separation from the world of separation.
在工人委员会权力确立之前存在的革命的组织, 必须通过斗争发现它自己的合适形式; 但这些历史的经验已清楚地说明它不能代表工人阶级。它必须朴素地认识到它自己作为激进的分离来自于分离的世界。
120. The revolutionary organization is the coherent expression of the theory of praxis entering into non-unilateral communication with practical struggles, in the process of becoming practical theory. Its own practice is the generalization of communication and of coherence in these struggles. At the revolutionary moment of dissolution of social separation, this organization must recognize its own dissolution as a separate organization.
在生成实践的理论的过程中, 革命的组织是伴随实际斗争进入双向交往的实践理论的一致表达。革命组织的实践是培育交往的普遍化和这些斗争的一致性。在革命的时刻当社会分裂消失, 组织作为一种分离的组织也必须结束自己。
121. The revolutionary organization can be nothing less than a unitary critique of society, namely a critique which does not compromise with any form of separate power anywhere in the world, and a critique proclaimed globally against all the aspects of alienated social life. In the struggle between the revolutionary organization and class society, the weapons are nothing other than the essence of the combatants themselves: the revolutionary organization cannot reproduce within itself the dominant society’s conditions of separation and hierarchy. It must struggle constantly against its deformation in the ruling spectacle. The only limit to participation in the total democracy of the revolutionary organization is the recognition and self-appropriation of the coherence of its critique by all its members, a coherence which must be proved in the critical theory as such and in the relation between the theory and practical activity.
革命的组织必然要建立一种社会的整体批判——也就是说这一批判拒绝与任何分离权力的妥协, 并直接反对全球范围内所有社会生活的异化。在革命组织同阶级社会的斗争中, 斗争武器只能是参加战斗的他们自己: 因此, 革命组织必须注意不能使占主导地位的分裂的社会条件和等级制度在自身内部再生自己, 它必须不断地斗争反对自己被统治性的景观所扭曲。在革命组织的总体民主中, 对参与的唯一限制是它的每一个成员一定要认识和占有组织批判的一致性, 这种一致性不但必须在批判理论中被证明, 且还要在理论和实践行动的关系中被证明。
122. When constantly growing capitalist alienation at all levels makes it increasingly difficult for workers to recognize and name their own misery, forcing them to face the alternative of rejecting the totality of their misery or nothing, the revolutionary organization has to learn that it can no longer combat alienation with alienated forms.
由于资本主义不断在所有层面上强化异化的负担, 对工人来说它日益增加了工人认识和命名自己贫困的难度, 并且最终将工人阶级置于或在整体中拒绝异化或者什么也不能做的境地, 所以革命组织必须明白它不能够再依靠斗争的异化形式去与异化战斗。
123. Proletarian revolution depends entirely on the condition that, for the first time, theory as intelligence of human practice be recognized and lived by the masses. It requires workers to become dialecticians and to inscribe their thought into practice. Thus it demands of men without quality more than the bourgeois revolution demanded of the qualified men which it delegated to carry out its tasks (since the partial ideological consciousness constructed by a part of the bourgeois class was based on the economy, this central part of social life in which this class was already in power). The very development of class society to the stage of spectacular organization of non-life thus leads the revolutionary project to become visibly what it already was essentially.
无产阶级革命的完全以这一条件为基础, 即人类第一次把理论作为人类实践的知性来认识, 并依人民大众为生。它要求工人成为辩证法家并将他们的思想付诸实践; 所以, 与资产阶级革命要求的那些委派他们去执行其任务的有资格的人相比(因为通过部分资产阶级建立的局部意识形态化的自觉, 像它的基础一样, 这一社会有一个社会生活的关键部分, 即经济, 在那里这个阶级已经掌权), 它更加要求它的人没有身分地位。因此, 阶级社会的发展已进入无生命的景观组织阶段, 导致革命的事业明显变成了本质上总是其所是的东西。
124. Revolutionary theory is now the enemy of all revolutionary ideology and knows it.
革命的理论现在是所有革命意识形态不共戴天的仇敌——并且它知道这一点。
Published by