它是一个我们之前从没见过的东西

彭丽芳

【按】从2020年武汉疫病到前天的水灾，事实是越来越证明一篇2002年的华尔街日报的观点文章，是多么的准确和有前瞻性啊。‘ 当时只道是寻常’。这个比我定义的贵方社会是以‘资本主义生产方式运行的奴隶社会’ 视乎高大上些，更理性而不那么情绪化。



本文作者，乐登（Michael A. Ledeen）是偏向共和党的民间研究机构“美国企业研究所”（AEI）研究员、“中美安全评估委员会”（ U.S.-China Security Review Commission）成员。

2002年的文章“从共产主义走向法西斯主义？”（From Communism to Fascism?），指中国正走向法西斯主义。




英文原文转载如下：

From Communism to Fascism? 从共产主义走向法西斯主义

By Michael A. Ledeen
Feb. 22, 2002 12:01 am ET

As President Bush, now in Beijing, gets up close to the rulers of China, he must have conflicting feelings.

We are told that the Chinese have helped us fight terror, which is cause for satisfaction. On the other hand, the CIA has recently revised sharply upwards its estimate of Chinese military power in the near future, which is cause for concern. As he ponders what China is and may be, Mr. Bush might reflect that the People's Republic is something quite unique, and therefore very difficult to understand.

China is not, as is invariably said, in transition from communism to a freer and more democratic state. It is, instead, something we have never seen before: a maturing fascist regime. This new phenomenon is hard to recognize, both because Chinese leaders continue to call themselves communists, and also because the fascist states of the first half of the 20th century were young, governed by charismatic and revolutionary leaders, and destroyed in World War II. China is anything but young, and it is governed by a third or fourth generation of leaders who are anything but charismatic.

彭丽芳

The current and past generations of Chinese leaders, from Deng Xiaoping to Jiang Zemin, may have scrapped the communist economic system, but they have not embraced capitalism. To be sure, the state no longer owns "the means of production." There is now private property, and, early last June, businessmen were formally admitted to the Communist Party. Profit is no longer taboo; it is actively encouraged at all levels of Chinese society, in public and private sectors. And the state is fully engaged in business enterprise, from the vast corporations owned wholly or in part by the armed forces, to others with top management and large shareholders simultaneously holding government jobs.
This is neither socialism nor capitalism; it is the infamous "third way" of the corporate state, first institutionalized in the 1920s by the founder of fascism, Benito Mussolini, then copied by other fascists in Europe.

下载 (122.31 KB)

2021-7-25 17:10

Like the earlier fascist regimes, China ruthlessly maintains a single-party dictatorship; and although there is greater diversity of opinion in public discourse and in the media than there was a generation ago, there is very little wiggle room for critics of the system, and no toleration of advocates of Western-style freedom and democracy. Like the early fascist regimes, China uses nationalism -- not the standard communist slogans of "proletarian internationalism" -- to rally the masses. And, like the early fascisms, the rulers of the People's Republic insist that virtue consists in sublimating individual interests to the greater good of the nation. Indeed, as we have seen recently in the intimidation and incarceration of overseas Chinese, the regime asserts its right to dominate all Chinese, everywhere. China's leaders believe they command a people, not merely a geographic entity.

彭丽芳

Unlike communist leaders, who extirpated traditional culture and replaced it with a sterile Marxist-Leninism, the Chinese enthusiastically mine the millennia of Chinese thought to provide legitimacy for their own actions. No socialist realism here! Indeed, this open embrace of ancient Chinese culture is one of the things that has most entranced Western observers. Many believe that a country with such ancient roots will inevitably demonstrate its profound humanity in social and political practice. Yet the fascist leaders of the 1920s and '30s did the same. Mussolini rebuilt Rome to provide a dramatic visual reminder of ancient glory, and Hitler's favorite architect built neoclassical buildings throughout the Third Reich.

Like their European predecessors, the Chinese claim a major role in the world because of their history and culture, not because of their current power, or scientific or cultural accomplishments. Just like Germany and Italy in the inter-war period, China feels betrayed and humiliated, and seeks to avenge historic wounds. China even toys with some of the more bizarre notions of the earlier fascisms, like the program to make the country self-sufficient in wheat production -- the same quest for "autarky" that obsessed both Hitler and Mussolini.

It is therefore wrong to think of contemporary China as an intensely unstable system, riven by the democratic impulses of capitalism on the one hand, and the repressive instincts of communism on the other. Fascism may well have been a potentially stable system, despite the frenzied energies of Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy. After all, fascism did not fall as the result of internal crisis; it was destroyed by superior force of arms. Fascism was alarmingly popular; Hitler and Mussolini swept to power atop genuine mass movements, and neither Italians nor Germans produced more than token resistance until the war began to be lost.

彭丽芳

Since classical fascism had such a brief lifespan, it is hard to know whether or not a stable, durable fascist state is possible. Economically, the corporate state may prove more flexible and adaptable than the rigid central planning that doomed communism in the Soviet empire and elsewhere (although the travails of Japan, which also tried to combine capitalist enterprise with government guidance, show the kinds of problems China will likely face). And our brief experience with fascism also makes it difficult to evaluate the possibilities of political evolution.

Although Hitler liked to speak of himself as primus inter pares, the first among racial equals, he would not have contemplated the democratization of the Third Reich, nor would Mussolini have yielded power to the freely-expressed will of the Italian people. It seems unlikely that the leaders of the People's Republic will be willing to make such a change either. If they were, they would not be so palpably concerned that the Chinese people might seek to emulate the democratic transformation of Taiwan.

To be sure, the past is not a reliable guide to the future. China has already amazed the world with its ability to transform itself in record time. Many scholars believe that China's entry into the World Trade Organization will bring further dramatic change, as the Chinese have to cope with freer competition and a greatly enhanced foreign presence. They may be right, but I have doubts. For the most part, politics trumps economics when the survival of a powerful regime is at stake, and the Chinese leaders have often said they have no intention of following Mikhail Gorbachev's example.

彭丽芳

Meanwhile, Mr. Bush has to contend with the present state of affairs, and must evaluate the risks and challenges of contemporary China. Classical fascism was the product of war, and its leaders praised military virtues and embarked upon military expansion. Chinese leaders often proclaim a peaceful intent, yet they are clearly preparing for war, and have been for many years. Optimists insist that China is not expansionist, but optimists pooh-poohed Hitler's imperialist speeches too, and there is a lot of Chinese rhetoric that stresses Beijing's historic role, as if there were an historic entitlement to superpower status.

Thus, classical fascism should be the starting-point for our efforts to understand the People's Republic. Imagine Italy 50 years after the Fascist revolution, Mussolini dead and buried, the corporate state intact, the party still firmly in control, the nation governed by professional politicians and a corrupt elite rather than the true believers. No longer a system based on charisma, but on political repression, cynical not idealistic, and formulaic appeals to the grandeur of the "great Italian people," endlessly summoned to emulate the greatness of its ancestors.

That is China today. It may be with us quite a while.

Mr. Ledeen, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a member of the U.S.-China Security Review Commission, is author of "The War Against the Terror Masters," forthcoming from St. Martin's Press.

彭丽芳

文章说，布什在和中国的统治者们近距离的交往中，很可能会有矛盾心理，一方面，满足于那种中国在反恐战争中帮助了我们的说法；另一方面，中央情报局对中国军力的看法有相当改变，认为它在不远的将来会有大幅度提升，这点则令人担懮。在他思考中国到底是怎么回事儿，到底会怎么样的时候，他或许会得出这个“人民共和国”很特殊、很难懂的结论。

中国并不像人民一直所说的那样是一个从共产主义走向自由和民主的国家。事实上，它是一个我们以前从没有见过的东西：一个成熟的法西斯政权。这种新的现象并不是很容易被认识到，主要由于两点原因：第一，中国领导人继续称他们自己为共产主义者；第二，由于法西斯产生在二十世纪初，是一个新兴的东西，它的领导人又非常具有革命者的特色，并在二战中被摧毁了。而中国则完全没有任何新意，它的统治者是没有任何特色的第三、第四代领导人。

下载 (170.94 KB)

2021-7-25 17:38

注：本楼的题目就是选取这句话的前一半。“它是一个我们以前从没有见过的东西：一个成熟的法西斯政权”[/size]

彭丽芳

从邓小平到江泽民这些中国的过去和现任领导人们或许摧毁了一些共产主义的经济制度，但是，他们并没有拥抱资本主义制度。国有制已经有所改变，有了私人财产，商人也被吸收入党，盈利不仅不是禁忌，而且是公有和私营企业都鼓励的。整个国家都成了一个商业公司：军队整个或者部分拥有企业、公司大股东同时是政府官员。
。
这既不是社会主义也不是资本主义，这是臭名昭著的“第三条道路”的“公司国家”（corporate state），最早在二十年代有法西斯份子墨索里尼实行，然后被欧洲的其他法西斯主义者搬了过去。

就像最早的法西斯政权，中国残酷地实行一党专制。虽然和十多年前相比，在民间和媒体上都有了一些各种各样的观点，但是批评那个制度和支持西方式民主自由的声音是没有多少空间的。

下载 (58.28 KB)

2021-7-25 17:58

就像最早的法西斯主义，中国政府利用民族主义去煽动它的大众，而不是用共产主义的“全世界无产者联合起来”的口号。

彭丽芳

就像最早的法西斯主义，“人民共和国”的统治者们悄然地利用个人的利益来达到国家的更大目的。就像我们最近所见到的，这个政府用关押和恐吓海外华人来表示它要主宰在任何地方的华人。中国统治者们相信他们统治的这群人并不是按地理划分的。

现在的中国领导人不是像过去那些共产主义领导人那样用纯粹的马列主义代替传统文化，而是用中国传统把他们自己的统治合法化。而正是这种对传统中国文化的拥抱令西方观察家们沉迷。很多人相信，像这样一个有深厚传统的国家一定会在社会和政治中证明他们深沉的人性。但是法西斯领袖们在二、三十年代做过同样的事情。墨索里尼重建了罗马，提供了一个用视觉回忆古代辉煌的机会；希特勒最欣赏的传统式建筑布满第三帝国。

就像他们的欧洲前辈，中国要在世界扮演重要的角色并不是靠他们现在的实力，或科技、文化成就，而是他们的历史和文化。正像德国和意大利在走向战争时期，中国感觉被欺骗和羞辱了，所以要发泄历史之怨气。中国甚至模仿早期法西斯的某些不可思议概念，比如要推行粮食自给制的项目。希特勒和墨索里尼都曾为这个想法着迷。

所以，那种认为由于中国一方面发展资本主义，一方面实行共产主义专制，所以是一个不稳定的制度的想法是错误的。尽管希特勒的德国和墨索里尼的意大利都曾疯狂，但法西斯主义也有可能成为一个稳定的制度。不管怎么说，法西斯主义并没有因为内部问题而垮台，它是被更强的军力摧垮的。

彭丽芳

法西斯主义极为受欢迎。希特勒和墨索里尼横扫了民心得到权力，并天才地利用了大众运动，他们无论在德国还是在意大利，都没有面对任何反抗，直到他们在战争中开始失败。
由于法西斯主义的寿命太短，所以人们很难弄明白一个稳定、持久的法西斯国家是否可以长久。从经济上来说，公司国家比僵硬的的共产国家的中央计划经济要有弹性和适应性（虽然中国也很可能面临日本那种在国家指导下的资本主义经济所带来的麻烦）。我们和法西斯交往的短暂经历，也给我们判断其政治发展趋势带来困难。

虽然希特勒强调他和大家都是平等的，但是他无论如何不肯在他的“第三帝国”实行民主化，墨索里尼也同样不遵从意大利人民的自由意愿。“人民共和国”的领导人们也很难情愿在这方面做出改变。如果他们想的话，就不会那么担心人民期待像台湾那样往民主自由方面的发展。

当然，用历史解释未来并不可靠。中国在这么短的时间里的转变意见令世界吃惊。很多学者认为，中国加入世贸后，就必须遵守自由竞争的原则，于是会带来更令人刮目的变化。他们或许正确，但是我怀疑。在眼见的过去，当一个政权危机的时候，政治是赢得过经济的。中国的领导人经常说，他们无意效仿戈尔巴乔夫的样板。

彭丽芳

布什目前必须考虑到现今中国的危险和挑战。传统的法西斯主义赞美战争，用军事进行扩张。虽然中国领导人声称他们追求和平，但是，他们清楚地在准备战争，并且已经准备了多年。乐观主义者强调中国不是扩张主义者，但是乐观主义也曾嘲笑过希特勒的帝国主义演讲。有很多中国的赞美者强调北京的历史角色，好像它有过开明的超级强国历史。

假设意大利在法西斯革命之后五十年，墨索里尼死了，被埋葬了，但那个“公司国家”没有损伤，它的党仍在强有力的统治中，这种对传统的法西斯主义的理解必须是我们理解中国的出发点。

国家被专职政治家和腐败的“精英”主导，但不是真正的信仰者。这个制度并没有特色，而是政治压迫，犬儒主义代替了理想主义，它的秘诀是“伟大的意大利人民”，无穷无尽地效仿他们古人的伟大之处。

彭丽芳

这就是今天的中国。我们或许得在相当长的时间里与其共存

下载 (184.78 KB)

2021-7-25 17:40

[fin]

chunyexue

你能不能照着原文翻译。

chunyexue

第一句就不一样。in Beijing翻译在哪里了？

chunyexue

你这叫人怎么看？这叫人怎么知道你接下来翻译对还是不对，有没有漏。

塞北西南月如霜

没有共产主义之前的资本主义是什么样子大家都知道的，没有资本主义的共产主义是什么样子大家都不知道，现在，是两种理论共存的时代，且行且珍惜吧！