马克思主义基本理论译文.docx

Marxism is finished. It might conceivably have had some relevance to a world of factories and food riots, coal miners and chimney sweeps, widespread misery and massed working classes. But it certainly has no bearing on the increasingly classless, socially mobile, postindustrial Western societies of the present. It is the creed of those who are too stubborn, fearful or deluded to accept that the world has changed for good, in both senses of the term.
That Marxism is finished would be music to the ears of Marxists everywhere. They could pack in their marching and picketing, return to the bosom of their grieving families and enjoy an evening at home instead of yet another tedious committee meeting. Marxists want nothing more than to stop being Marxists. In this respect, being a Marxist is nothing like being a Buddhist or a billionaire. It is more like being a medic. Medics are perverse, self-thwarting creatures who do themselves out of a job by curing patients who then no longer need them. The task of political radicals, similarly, is to get to the point where they would no longer be necessary because their goals would have been accomplished. They would then be free to bow out, burn their Guevara posters, take up that long-neglected cello again and talk about something more intriguing than the Asiatic mode of production. If there are still Marxists or feminists around in twenty years’ time, it will be a sorry prospect. Marxism is meant to be a strictly provisional affair, which is why anyone who invests the whole of their identity in it has missed the point. That there is a life after Marxism is the whole point of Marxism.
There is only one problem with this otherwise alluring vision. Marxism is a critique of capitalism—the most searching, rigorous, comprehensive critique of its kind ever to be launched. It is also the only such critique that has transformed large sectors of the globe. It follows, then, that as long as capitalism is still in business, Marxism must be as well. Only by superannuating its opponent can it superannuate itself. And on the last sighting, capitalism appeared as feisty as ever.
Most critics of Marxism today do not dispute the point. Their claim, rather, is that the system has altered almost unrecognizably since the days of Marx, and that this is why his ideas are no longer relevant. Before we examine this claim in more detail, it is worth noting that Marx himself was perfectly aware of the ever-changing nature of the system he challenged. It is to Marxism itself that we owe the concept of different historical forms of capital: mercantile, agrarian, industrial, monopoly, financial, imperial and so on. So why should the fact that capitalism has changed its shape in recent decades discredit a theory that sees change as being of its very essence? Besides, Marx himself predicted a decline of the working class and a steep increase in white-collar work. We shall be looking at this a little later. He also foresaw so-called globalisation—odd for a man whose thought is supposed to be archaic. Though perhaps Marx’s ‘‘archaic’’ quality is what makes him still relevant today. He is accused of being outdated by the champions of a capitalism rapidly reverting to Victorian levels of inequality.
In 1976, a good many people in the West thought that Marxism had a reasonable case to argue. By 1986, many of them no longer considered that it had. What exactly had happened in the meanwhile? Was it simply that these people were now buried under a pile of toddlers? Had Marxist theory been unmasked as bogus by some world-shaking new research? Did we stumble upon a long-lost manuscript by Marx confessing that it was all a joke? It was not that we discovered to our dismay that Marx was in the pay of capitalism. This is because we knew it all along. Without the Ermen & Engels mill in Salford, owned by Friedrich Engels’s textile-manufacturing father, the chronically impoverished Marx might well have not survived to pen polemics against textile manufacturers.
Something had indeed happened in the period in question. From the mid-1970s onwards, the Western system underwent some vital changes. There was a shift from traditional industrial manufacture to a ‘‘postindustrial’’ culture of consumerism, communications, information technology and the service industry. Small-scale, decentralised, versatile, nonhierarchical enterprises were the order of the day. Markets were deregulated, and the working-class movement subjected to savage legal and political assault. Traditional class allegiances were weakened, while local, gender and ethnic identities grew more insistent. Politics became increasingly managed and manipulated.
The new information technologies played a key role in the increasing globalisation of the system, as a handful of transnational corporations distributed production and investment across the planet in pursuit of the readiest profits. A good deal of manufacturing was outsourced to cheap wage locations in the ‘‘underdeveloped’’ world, leading some parochially minded Westerners to conclude that heavy industry had disappeared from the planet altogether. Massive international migrations of labour followed in the wake of this global mobility, and with them a resurgence of racism and fascism as impoverished immigrants poured into the more advanced economies. While ‘‘peripheral’’ countries were subject to sweated labour, privatized facilities, slashed welfare and surreally inequitable terms of trade, the bestubbled executives of the metropolitan nations tore off their ties, threw open their shirt necks and fretted about their employees’ spiritual well-being.
None of this happened because the capitalist system was in blithe, buoyant mood. On the contrary, its newly pugnacious posture, like most forms of aggression, sprang from deep anxiety. If the system became manic, it was because it was latently depressed. What drove this reorganisation above all was the sudden fade-out of the postwar boom. Intensified international competition was forcing down rates of profits, drying up sources of investment and slowing the rate of growth. Even social democracy was now too radical and expensive a political option. The stage was thus set for Reagan and Thatcher, who would help to dismantle traditional manufacture, shackle the labour movement, let the market rip, strengthen the repressive arm of the state and champion a new social philosophy known as barefaced greed. The displacement of investment from manufacture to the service, financial and communications industries was a reaction to a protracted economic crisis, not a leap out of a bad old world into a brave new one.

翻译：
马克思结束了。在那个工厂林立、到处充满饥饿暴动的世界里，那个以数量众多的工人阶级为标志的世界里，那个到处都是痛苦和不幸的世界里，马克思主义还多少有些用处。但马克思主义在今天这个阶级分化日益淡化、社会流动性日益加强的后工业化西方社会里，绝对没有一点用武之地。如今，仍然坚持支持马克思主义的都是些老顽固。他们不肯接受这样一个事实：我们的世界已经取得了极大地进步，而过去的那个世界再也不会回来了。
“马克思的时代过去了”这样的话使一些马克思主义者如释重负。这意味着他们终于可以离开罢工游行与纠察队伍，回到心急如焚的家人们温暖的怀抱中，在家里度过一个平静的夜晚，而不用去准备冗长的会议发言或者激情喧嚣的演讲了。马克思主义者的最大愿望不见得就是永远做马克思主义者。从这个意义上讲，这完全不同于做一个佛教徒或者亿万富翁。马克思主义者更像一名医生。在一般人眼里，医生都是跟自己过不去的人，虽然他们深知病人痊愈后自己将失去价值，但他们还是竭尽全力地救治每一个病人。同样，政治激进分子的任务就是努力让自己早点退出历史舞台，因为那样就意味着他们为之奋斗的目标已经实现了。这时候他们就可以放心的退休，烧掉他们的格瓦拉海报，拿起已经放了很久没碰的大提琴，聊聊比亚细亚生产方式更有意思的话题。如果二十年之后，这个世界还有暴动的马克思主义者或者女权主义者的话，那将是一件令人遗憾的事情。马克思主义应该仅仅适用于一个临时性的阶段，所以那些将全部身心都奉献给马克思主义事业的人恰恰没有抓住马克思主义的本质。马克思的时代终将过去，但之后的生活会更加美好。这正是马克思主义的要义之所在。
不过这个看上去十分吸引人的想法有一个问题，那就是马克思主义对资本主义制度的批判。作为有史以来对资本主义制度最彻底、最严厉、最全面的批判，马克思主义大大改变了我们的世界。由此可以判定，只要资本主义制度还存在一天，马克思主义就不会消亡。只有在资本主义结束后，马克思主义才会退出历史的舞台。而从这些年的情况看，资本主义看上去衰退的迹象并不明显。
今天，大多数马克思主义批判者都对此表示认同。不过他们宣称，资本主义制度已经发生了根本的变化，早已不是马克思当年描绘的那个样子了，如果不与时俱进，马克思的思想就会失去价值。在认真地审视这样的说法之前，我们必须清楚的看到，马克思本人是十分清楚资本主义在不断发展变化这样一个事实。资本主义不同历史阶段的划分更是来自马克思主义：商业资本主义，农业资本主义，工业资本主义，垄断资本主义，金融资本主义，帝国资本主义等。既然马克思早已洞察了资本主义不断变化的本质，最近几十年中资本主义的形态变化又怎能影响马克思主义理论的可信度呢？另外，马克思本人曾经预言工人阶级数量的减少和白领工人的增加。他还预见到了所谓的全球化—一个真正思想陈旧的人是做不到这一点的。而且，马克思的这种“陈旧”恰恰是他的观点仍然适用于当今世界的关键之处。资本主义的捍卫者在批评马克思主义陈旧过时的时候却忽视了一点，那就是当今资本主义世界的不平等程度甚至可以与古老的维多利亚时代相提并论。
一九七六年，马克思主义在西方有很多拥护者；而到了一九八六年，马克思主义就已经失势。在这十年的时间里究竟发生了什么？难道真的只是马克思主义昔日的支持者们为了养家糊口疲于奔命，而放弃了当初的理想？还是因为某项震撼世界的新发现证明了马克思主义的谬误？抑或是我们偶然中发现了一份失落已久的马克思手稿，马克思亲口承认这一切都只是一个玩笑？马克思主义的衰落并不是因为我们失望地发现马克思其实是为资本主义制度服务的。事实上，我们一直都清楚这一点。如果没有恩格斯那从事纺织品制造业的父亲开设的磨坊，马克思恐怕根本活不到能对织布厂老板进行口诛笔伐的那天。
在这十年里确实发生了一些事情。从二十世纪七十年代中期开始，西方的制度经历了至关重要的变革。传统的工业制造业逐渐淡出人们的视野，取而代之的是消费主义的“后工业时代”—文化、通讯、信息技术和服务业。小规模的、分散的、多功能的和摒弃了等级结构的企业成为了这一时期的主流。各国政府纷纷放宽了对市场的限制，工人阶级运动无论从法律上还是政治上均收到了猛烈的攻击。传统的阶级忠诚日益淡化，区域、性别和名族的身份问题日趋突出。对政治的管理和操纵也都渐渐得到加强。
新的信息科技在资本主义制度的全球化过程中发挥了关键的作用，而全球化进程本身就是一部分具有强大实力的跨国企业为追求利益而在世界各地进行生产和投资活动的过程。大量加工业被外包给“欠发达国家”劳动力价格低廉的地区，让一些鼠目寸光的西方人误以为重工业已经从这个星球上消失了。随着国际人口流动性不断增加，大量贫困国家的劳动力涌向发达经济体，造成了种族主义和法西斯主义的抬头。一方面是“边缘”国家不得不接受血汗工厂、公共设施私有化、社会福利锐减和不公平的贸易条款，在残酷的环境中为生存而苦苦挣扎，而另一方面则是发达国家衣冠楚楚的经理们摘掉了领带，解开了衬衣领口，开始为员工的精神生活而操劳。
发生这样的变化，并不是因为资本主义制度高枕无忧。相反，正如大多数攻击性行为一样，资本主义制度这种强硬的姿态源于一种深层次的焦虑。深度的担忧往往会使一种体制变得疯狂。造成这种重组的首要原因就是战后经济繁荣的消退。愈演愈烈的国际竞争不断压低利润率，并消耗大量的资金，使全球经济增长的速度大大放缓。连社会民主主义如今也已经成了过于激进而昂贵的政治选项。在这样的背景下，里根和撒切尔得以横空出世，他们破坏传统的制造业，遏制劳工运动，放任市场巧取豪夺，并着手增强国家机器压迫人民的能力。他们提倡的社会哲学正是厚颜无耻的贪婪。资金源源不断的从制造业涌向服务业、金融业和通讯产业，这只是对长时间经济危机的应急反应，而不是除旧布新的完美跨越。
5