推荐美国《时代》周刊2013年3月25日刊登的舒曼的文章 在这里我把美国《时代》周刊2013年3月25日刊登的舒曼的文章 《马克思也许在复仇：看阶级斗争正怎样刺激这个世界》 《Marx's Revenge: How Class Struggle Is Shaping the World》 推荐给读者。有兴趣的读者，可以阅读后面附录的英文原文［8］，也可以在《参考消息网》上阅读中文（摘要）［7］。 同样，我不想发表我自己对这篇文章的看法。但毫无疑问，这篇文章涉及到我前面所写的两篇小文章的核心内容。这篇文章为我们或者明显或者隐含地提出了很好的值得认真结合社会实际进行实事求是认真思考的关键问题。顺便，也借这个机会将《参考消息网》上这一年多来介绍的另外6篇发自世界上其它国家的有关马克思主义理论和社会现实的文章要点罗列于后［1－6］，供有兴趣的读者查阅。 ******************************************* 附录： http://column.cankaoxiaoxi.com/2012/0208/12472.shtml 约翰·费弗：世界期待现代马克思 2012-02-08 12:07 来源：参考消息网 作者：名家专论 美国外交政策聚焦研究计划网站日前发表题为《下一个马克思》的文章，作者为美国政策研究所外交政策聚焦研究计划负责人约翰·费弗。文章称，金融危机和“占领”运动从不同的层面上改变了政治光谱，在资本主义面临信任危机的情况下，人们在等待一位现代马克思，期望他可以拿出对现有经济正统观念的尖锐批评意见和变革计划。 http://column.cankaoxiaoxi.com/2012/0709/58748.shtml 卫报：为什么马克思主义再次兴起？ 2012-07-09 19:12 来源：参考消息网 作者：名家专论 核心提示： 在全球资本主义陷入危机之时，人们重新对马克思和马克思主义思想产生兴趣，尤其是西方的年轻一代。 http://column.cankaoxiaoxi.com/2012/0724/64493.shtml 日本时报：伟人马克思强势回归 2012-07-24 18:36 来源：参考消息网 作者：名家专论 核心提示： 马克思理论再次成为时下备受关注的话题，关于马克思的研讨会和大学课程重新流行起来。 http://column.cankaoxiaoxi.com/2012/0305/15275.shtml 西报：阶级斗争思想在西方回归 2012-03-05 19:34 来源：参考消息网 作者：资本主义危机纵横谈 核心提示： 不仅是劳动者阶层，美国和欧洲的中产阶层也感到自己成了全球化和新技术的失败者。 http://column.cankaoxiaoxi.com/2012/0314/17933.shtml 日本《经济学人》周刊近日刊发署名文章，作者神奈川大学教授的场昭弘认为，马克思准确指出当今资本主义的弊端。 2012-03-14 10:49 来源：参考消息网 作者：资本主义危机纵横谈 核心提示： 如果继续以政府出面并将国内的过剩生产依赖于通过出口解决，资本主义经济终将难以为继。 http://column.cankaoxiaoxi.com/2013/0314/177783.shtml 俄报：马克思的预言是正确的 2013-03-14 11:37 来源：参考消息网 作者：名家专论 核心提示： 2008年爆发的全球危机证实了马克思的预言，即金融投机、金融信贷泡沫膨胀、“虚拟资本”都很危险。 http://world.cankaoxiaoxi.com/2013/0329/185994.shtml 《时代》周刊：阶级斗争或卷土重来 2013-03-29 17:06 来源：参考消息网 核心提示： 马克思对资本主义的犀利批判——即这套制度天生不公，有自我毁灭的倾向——无法被轻易摒弃。 Marx’s Revenge: How Class Struggle Is Shaping the World By Michael Schuman March 25, 2013, Times http://business.time.com/2013/03/25/marxs-revenge-how-class-struggle-is-shaping-the-world/ Karl Marx was supposed to be dead and buried. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and China’s Great Leap Forward into capitalism, communism faded into the quaint backdrop of James Bond movies or the deviant mantra of Kim Jong Un. The class conflict that Marx believed determined the course of history seemed to melt away in a prosperous era of free trade and free enterprise. The far-reaching power of globalization, linking the most remote corners of the planet in lucrative bonds of finance, outsourcing and “borderless” manufacturing, offered everybody from Silicon Valley tech gurus to Chinese farm girls ample opportunities to get rich. Asia in the latter decades of the 20th century witnessed perhaps the most remarkable record of poverty alleviation in human history — all thanks to the very capitalist tools of trade, entrepreneurship and foreign investment. Capitalism appeared to be fulfilling its promise — to uplift everyone to new heights of wealth and welfare. Or so we thought. With the global economy in a protracted crisis, and workers around the world burdened by joblessness, debt and stagnant incomes, Marx’s biting critique of capitalism — that the system is inherently unjust and self-destructive — cannot be so easily dismissed. Marx theorized that the capitalist system would inevitably impoverish the masses as the world’s wealth became concentrated in the hands of a greedy few, causing economic crises and heightened conflict between the rich and working classes. “Accumulation of wealth at one pole is at the same time accumulation of misery, agony of toil, slavery, ignorance, brutality, mental degradation, at the opposite pole,” Marx wrote. A growing dossier of evidence suggests that he may have been right. It is sadly all too easy to find statistics that show the rich are getting richer while the middle class and poor are not. A September study from the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) in Washington noted that the median annual earnings of a full-time, male worker in the U.S. in 2011, at $48,202, were smaller than in 1973. Between 1983 and 2010, 74% of the gains in wealth in the U.S. went to the richest 5%, while the bottom 60% suffered a decline, the EPI calculated. No wonder some have given the 19th century German philosopher a second look. In China, the Marxist country that turned its back on Marx, Yu Rongjun was inspired by world events to pen a musical based on Marx’s classic Das Kapital. “You can find reality matches what is described in the book,” says the playwright. That’s not to say Marx was entirely correct. His “dictatorship of the proletariat” didn’t quite work out as planned. But the consequence of this widening inequality is just what Marx had predicted: class struggle is back. Workers of the world are growing angrier and demanding their fair share of the global economy. From the floor of the U.S. Congress to the streets of Athens to the assembly lines of southern China, political and economic events are being shaped by escalating tensions between capital and labor to a degree unseen since the communist revolutions of the 20th century. How this struggle plays out will influence the direction of global economic policy, the future of the welfare state, political stability in China, and who governs from Washington to Rome. What would Marx say today? “Some variation of: ‘I told you so,’” says Richard Wolff, a Marxist economist at the New School in New York. “The income gap is producing a level of tension that I have not seen in my lifetime.” Tensions between economic classes in the U.S. are clearly on the rise. Society has been perceived as split between the “99%” (the regular folk, struggling to get by) and the “1%” (the connected and privileged superrich getting richer every day). In a Pew Research Center poll released last year, two-thirds of the respondents believed the U.S. suffered from “strong” or “very strong” conflict between rich and poor, a significant 19-percentage-point increase from 2009, ranking it as the No. 1 division in society. The heightened conflict has dominated American politics. The partisan battle over how to fix the nation’s budget deficit has been, to a great degree, a class struggle. Whenever President Barack Obama talks of raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans to close the budget gap, conservatives scream he is launching a “class war” against the affluent. Yet the Republicans are engaged in some class struggle of their own. The GOP’s plan for fiscal health effectively hoists the burden of adjustment onto the middle and poorer economic classes through cuts to social services. Obama based a big part of his re-election campaign on characterizing the Republicans as insensitive to the working classes. GOP nominee Mitt Romney, the President charged, had only a “one-point plan” for the U.S. economy — “to make sure that folks at the top play by a different set of rules.” Amid the rhetoric, though, there are signs that this new American classism has shifted the debate over the nation’s economic policy. Trickle-down economics, which insists that the success of the 1% will benefit the 99%, has come under heavy scrutiny. David Madland, a director at the Center for American Progress, a Washington-based think tank, believes that the 2012 presidential campaign has brought about a renewed focus on rebuilding the middle class, and a search for a different economic agenda to achieve that goal. “The whole way of thinking about the economy is being turned on its head,” he says. “I sense a fundamental shift taking place.” The ferocity of the new class struggle is even more pronounced in France. Last May, as the pain of the financial crisis and budget cuts made the rich-poor divide starker to many ordinary citizens, they voted in the Socialist Party’s François Hollande, who had once proclaimed: “I don’t like the rich.” He has proved true to his word. Key to his victory was a campaign pledge to extract more from the wealthy to maintain France’s welfare state. To avoid the drastic spending cuts other policymakers in Europe have instituted to close yawning budget deficits, Hollande planned to hike the income tax rate to as high as 75%. Though that idea got shot down by the country’s Constitutional Council, Hollande is scheming ways to introduce a similar measure. At the same time, Hollande has tilted government back toward the common man. He reversed an unpopular decision by his predecessor to increase France’s retirement age by lowering it back down to the original 60 for some workers. Many in France want Hollande to go even further. “Hollande’s tax proposal has to be the first step in the government acknowledging capitalism in its current form has become so unfair and dysfunctional it risks imploding without deep reform,” says Charlotte Boulanger, a development official for NGOs. His tactics, however, are sparking a backlash from the capitalist class. Mao Zedong might have insisted that “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun,” but in a world where das kapital is more and more mobile, the weapons of class struggle have changed. Rather than paying out to Hollande, some of France’s wealthy are moving out — taking badly needed jobs and investment with them. Jean-émile Rosenblum, founder of online retailer Pixmania.com, is setting up both his life and new venture in the U.S., where he feels the climate is far more hospitable for businessmen. “Increased class conflict is a normal consequence of any economic crisis, but the political exploitation of that has been demagogic and discriminatory,” Rosenblum says. “Rather than relying on (entrepreneurs) to create the companies and jobs we need, France is hounding them away.” The rich-poor divide is perhaps most volatile in China. Ironically, Obama and the newly installed President of Communist China, Xi Jinping, face the same challenge. Intensifying class struggle is not just a phenomenon of the slow-growth, debt-ridden industrialized world. Even in rapidly expanding emerging markets, tension between rich and poor is becoming a primary concern for policymakers. Contrary to what many disgruntled Americans and Europeans believe, China has not been a workers’ paradise. The “iron rice bowl” — the Mao-era practice of guaranteeing workers jobs for life — faded with Maoism, and during the reform era, workers have had few rights. Even though wage income in China’s cities is growing substantially, the rich-poor gap is extremely wide. Another Pew study revealed that nearly half of the Chinese surveyed consider the rich-poor divide a very big problem, while 8 out of 10 agreed with the proposition that the “rich just get richer while the poor get poorer” in China. Resentment is reaching a boiling point in China’s factory towns. “People from the outside see our lives as very bountiful, but the real life in the factory is very different,” says factory worker Peng Ming in the southern industrial enclave of Shenzhen. Facing long hours, rising costs, indifferent managers and often late pay, workers are beginning to sound like true proletariat. “The way the rich get money is through exploiting the workers,” says Guan Guohau, another Shenzhen factory employee. “Communism is what we are looking forward to.” Unless the government takes greater action to improve their welfare, they say, the laborers will become more and more willing to take action themselves. “Workers will organize more,” Peng predicts. “All the workers should be united.” That may already be happening. Tracking the level of labor unrest in China is difficult, but experts believe it has been on the rise. A new generation of factory workers — better informed than their parents, thanks to the Internet — has become more outspoken in its demands for better wages and working conditions. So far, the government’s response has been mixed. Policymakers have raised minimum wages to boost incomes, toughened up labor laws to give workers more protection, and in some cases, allowed them to strike. But the government still discourages independent worker activism, often with force. Such tactics have left China’s proletariat distrustful of their proletarian dictatorship. “The government thinks more about the companies than us,” says Guan. If Xi doesn’t reform the economy so the ordinary Chinese benefit more from the nation’s growth, he runs the risk of fueling social unrest. Marx would have predicted just such an outcome. As the proletariat woke to their common class interests, they’d overthrow the unjust capitalist system and replace it with a new, socialist wonderland. Communists “openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions,” Marx wrote. “The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains.” There are signs that the world’s laborers are increasingly impatient with their feeble prospects. Tens of thousands have taken to the streets of cities like Madrid and Athens, protesting stratospheric unemployment and the austerity measures that are making matters even worse. So far, though, Marx’s revolution has yet to materialize. Workers may have common problems, but they aren’t banding together to resolve them. Union membership in the U.S., for example, has continued to decline through the economic crisis, while the Occupy Wall Street movement fizzled. Protesters, says Jacques Rancière, an expert in Marxism at the University of Paris, aren’t aiming to replace capitalism, as Marx had forecast, but merely to reform it. “We’re not seeing protesting classes call for an overthrow or destruction of socioeconomic systems in place,” he explains. “What class conflict is producing today are calls to fix systems so they become more viable and sustainable for the long run by redistributing the wealth created.” Despite such calls, however, current economic policy continues to fuel class tensions. In China, senior officials have paid lip service to narrowing the income gap but in practice have dodged the reforms (fighting corruption, liberalizing the finance sector) that could make that happen. Debt-burdened governments in Europe have slashed welfare programs even as joblessness has risen and growth sagged. In most cases, the solution chosen to repair capitalism has been more capitalism. Policymakers in Rome, Madrid and Athens are being pressured by bondholders to dismantle protection for workers and further deregulate domestic markets. Owen Jones, the British author of Chavs: The Demonization of the Working Class, calls this “a class war from above.” There are few to stand in the way. The emergence of a global labor market has defanged unions throughout the developed world. The political left, dragged rightward since the free-market onslaught of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, has not devised a credible alternative course. “Virtually all progressive or leftist parties contributed at some point to the rise and reach of financial markets, and rolling back of welfare systems in order to prove they were capable of reform,” Rancière notes. “I’d say the prospects of Labor or Socialists parties or governments anywhere significantly reconfiguring — much less turning over — current economic systems to be pretty faint.” That leaves open a scary possibility: that Marx not only diagnosed capitalism’s flaws but also the outcome of those flaws. If policymakers don’t discover new methods of ensuring fair economic opportunity, the workers of the world may just unite. Marx may yet have his revenge. — With reporting by Bruce Crumley / Paris; Chengcheng Jiang / Beijing; Shan-shan Wang / Shenzhen by Taboola
文化大革命四十周年了，网上有很多纪念文章，也勾起了我的一些回忆。 记得大概是70年左右，小学四五年级的时候，老师带领我们参观一个“阶级斗争展览馆”，对学生进行活生生的教育。展览馆里面有讲解、图示和实物，让我们感觉到阶级斗争就在身边，需要年年讲，月月讲，天天讲。 首先看到的是地主份子的变天账。这是从一家地主家地窖里面搜查出来的老地契。保留地契，当然是想变天，将来好对贫下中农反攻倒算。讲解词说，这个老地主，平时见人点头哈腰，其实是老奸巨猾，罪该万死。 还有另外一份“漏网右派”的日记，解说词说，这个道貌岸然的教师，心理阴暗，查抄出来的几大本日记，充满了卿卿我我的资产阶级腐朽没落的情调（日记记录了当事人的恋爱感受），更可恶的是还有向往国民党反动派的诗词。展出的部分就是这样一首题目叫做“海恋”的诗歌。我看到的是字迹娟秀的一首抒情散文诗，隐约记得的部分有，大海啊，我的故乡，我的归宿，我的向往，我的盼望！通篇就是大海这个主题。解说词说，漏网右派为什么如此肉麻地讴歌大海呢？很显然，他是向往大海那边的台湾国民党蒋匪，盼望他们反攻大陆。 展品中最具有爆炸力的是一份现行反革命的材料－地下反革命组织“民主正义党”的党纲草案。两名主犯就是前不久公审宣判死刑被游街示众、当众枪毙的党的主席和副主席。党纲宗旨是推翻共产党的独裁统治，建立民主政治。这当然是十恶不赦的异端，罪大恶极，不杀不足以平民愤。 一年一度的公审那天烈日炎炎，我们这个皖南山区的小县城，象过节一样热闹。公审在本城最大的操场（号称“中山公园”）举行。几千人把操场挤得水泄不通。罪犯们剃光头，挂着大牌子被押上来，死刑犯的牌子上在宣判后游街时被划上红叉。大家最感兴趣的还是死刑这种可以给公众带来兴奋的事件。有七八个罪犯被当场宣判死刑，其中包括那两个年轻的现行反革命，还有其他杀人犯和一个严重破坏上山下乡的生产队长（破坏上山下乡罪是指利用职权强奸或诱奸下乡女青年，罪大恶极者判处死刑）。每当宣判一个死刑，台上那个死刑犯就被身后两个彪形大汉摁住头颅，并往口中塞进物件，防止他们临死挣扎，呼喊反动口号。死刑犯表现各异，是一大看点。有的软瘫在地上，需要连踢带拉，才能勉强跪在台上示众。也有的竭力挣扎，头摁下去，又抬起来，这种人如果不封口，最可能呼喊反动口号。 公审大会结束后，是游街示众，每辆卡车前端押四五个罪犯，缓缓从县城大街上通过。全城能出来的人几乎都出来了，没有机会来操场看公审实况的，早早在家附近大街边上找好位置等待游街的车队。对于精力充沛、兴奋莫名的年轻人，干脆随着车队前行，有聪明的带上自行车，好赶上最精彩的执行枪毙的现场。虽然是公开处决，允许围观，但枪毙现场保密，大概是怕人满为患，影响公务。一般在游街以后一小时内执行枪决。根据以往经验，城外十里地左右，有两三个最可能的行刑现场，各处都有人守株待兔。我比较笨，随着人流东赶西赶，最后好不容易来到现场，除了人头还是人头，而且过程已经结束。人们围成一圈一圈，听亲眼目睹枪决现场的人描述每一个细节。行刑之后，有穿白大褂的法医现场验尸，签署死亡报告。后来有传言，说专政机构要求向被枪毙的反革命分子家属收取子弹费。我们当时觉得理所当然，子弹虽然不值钱，但这是对反革命家属的正当惩罚。 很多年过去，我一直怀疑，嗜血是否源于人的本性，否则如何解释行刑场上看客的兴奋和疯狂呢。当年就有这么个说法，革命群众的狂欢之日，就是阶级敌人的受难之时。 记于2006年5月18日 ［补记1］ 反正我们是毫不怀疑《海恋》作者的大海象征着不能明说的国民党。他是臭老九，又有资产阶级情调，肯定对现实不满，自然向往国民党。这难道不是「 司马昭之心」路人皆知么？ 那个年头，说你是，你就是，不是也是；说你不是，你就不是，是也不是。 我们学校就有一个右派，被下放到校办工厂（制造粉笔）监督劳动，灰溜溜的。我们不但和他划清界限，不得不在工作时接触时，吆喝他就象吆喝狗一样。这还不算，总想恶作剧刺激他，知道监督右派最忌讳这个右字，所以刺激他的办法是，故意用学军练习方步时候的腔调高声齐喊：左，左，左右左！这个右派心内怎么想我们这些学生，从来不知道。也许在想，“救救孩子”。也许被社会压垮了，什么也不会想，可听说他以前可是才子，反右时候特别猖狂。 ［补记2］ 提到嗜血，想起世界语创始人Zamenhof的《希望之歌》。这首诗歌成为全世界世界语者的《国际歌》，我曾经“机器翻译”过这首歌： (099) LA ESPERO : ESPERANTISTA HIMNO ( POEMO FAR ZAMENHOF ) . (100) EN LA MONDON VENIS NOVA SENTO , TRA LA MONDO IRAS FORTA VOKO ; (101) PER FLUGILOJ DE FACILA VENTO , NUN DE LOKO FLUGU GHI AL LOKO . (102) NE AL GLAVO SANGONSOIFANTA , GHI LA HOMAN TIRAS FAMILION ; (103) AL LA MOND' ETERNE MILITANTA , GHI PROMESAS SANKTAN HARMONION . (099) THE HOPE : ESPERANTIST'S HYMN ( POEM BY ZAMENHOF ) . (100) INTO THE WORLD CAME NEW FEELING , OVER THE WORLD GOES STRONG VOICE ; (101) BY WINGS OF EASY WIND , NOW FROM PLACE LET IT FLY TO PLACE . (102) NOT TO SWORD BLOODTHIRSTY , IT PULLS THE MAN FAMILY ; (103) TO THE WORLD EVER FIGHTING , IT PROMISES SACRED HARMONY . (099) 希望: 世界语者的颂歌 (柴门霍夫所作的诗歌)。 (100) 新感觉来到了世界, 有力的声音走遍世界; (101) 用顺风的翅膀, 现在让它从一个地方飞到另一个地方吧。 (102) 它不把人的家庭 引到渴血的刀剑; (103) 向永远战争着的世界, 它允诺神圣的和谐。 《朝华午拾》总目录（置顶）
标签: 阶级斗争
