删节

苏菲的世界

原文413页内容有删节,本译文根据Paulette Moller的英文版本翻译而成。译者旨在还原作者的原意,供各位有兴趣的读者参考,内容并不代表本人观点,如发现文中有错误,或有更达雅的译法,希望赐教,共同进步。想讨论政治光谱问题的请自重绕道。

“可以说是,可也以说不是。时至今日,经济学家可以证实,除了他对资本主义危机的分析以外,马克思在许多重大问题上都犯了错误。而且,他没有足够重视人对自然环境的掠夺——今天我们正在面临其严重后果。然而……”
“然而?”
“马克思主义造成了社会上很大的变动。社会主义已经大致改善了社会上不人道的现象。至少在欧洲,我们已经生活在一个比马克思时代更加公平、更加团结的社会中。这很大程度上归功于马克思和整个社会运动。”
“发生了什么?”
“在马克思之后,社会主义运动分裂为两股主要潮流,即社会民主主义和列宁主义。社会民主主义主张以渐进的、和平的途径通往社会主义,是西欧国家采取的方式。我们可以称之为缓慢的革命。而列宁主义保持了马克思的信条,即革命是与旧阶级斗争的唯一方式,极大地影响着东欧、亚洲以及非洲国家。两个运动以不同的方式对抗苦难与压迫。”
“可是它本身不造成了一种新式的压迫么?比如在俄罗斯和东欧?”
“毫无疑问,这里我们再次看到,人类接触到的每样事物是善与恶的混合体。另外,在马克思辞世五十年或一百年后,把这些所谓的社会主义国家的消极因素都归咎于他也是不合理的。但是,他可能对共产主义社会的领导人考虑不足。可能永远没有‘理想之地’。人类总会创造出亟待解决的新问题。”
“我确定将会。”
“我们对马克思的讨论告一段落吧,苏菲。”
“嘿,等一下!你不是说什么公正只存在与平等之中吗?”
“不,那是守财奴说的。”
“你怎么知道他说了什么?”
“哦,好吧——你和我有同样的作者。事实上,我们彼此的联系更加紧密,而不同于看似漫不经心的旁观者。”
“你又在讨厌的反讽!”
“双重,苏菲,是双重反讽。”
“但是回归到正义上。你说,马克思认为资本主义是一种不公正的社会形态。你如何定义一个公正的社会?”
“一个叫约翰•罗尔斯的道德哲学家试图用下面的例子解释:假想你是一个特别议会的成员,这个议会的任务是为未来社会立法。”
“我一点都不介意在这个议会中。”
“他们有责任绝对地考虑每个细节,因为一旦他们达成协议,每个签署法律的人全都会立即死掉。”
“哦……”
“但是他们会立刻在他们立法的社会中再次复活。重要的是,他们不知道自己在这个社会中的地位。”
“啊,我明白了。”
“这个社会将会是公正的社会。它在平等中产生。”
“男人们和女人们!”
“那方面也没说。他们中没人知道醒来后是男人还是女人。因为几率是一半对一半,社会将对男女同样公正。”
“听起来充满希望。”
“所以请告诉我,卡尔马克斯的欧洲社会是不是像那样的?”
“完全不是!”
“但是今天你万一知道了一个这样的社会呢?”
“嗯……是个好问题。”
“考虑一下它吧。但现在我们不再讨论马克斯了。”
“刚才说什么?”
“下一章!”

独裁者手册

《独裁者手册》是一部解析权力–尤其是政治权力–运作机制的大作,这套机制适用于民主政府,也适用于独裁政府,还适用于一切有权力的场所,如公司、组织等等。总的来说,就是从如何获取权力,如何维持权力的角度来分析现有的政治制度、公司制度。
中文版由江苏文艺出版社出版,这样一本书能在中国出版实属不易,自然翻译过程中译者必须做一些和谐的功夫。坦白地说,这本书译文流畅,观点忠于原著,只有部分和中国相关的“敏感”论据被删除,其余都保留完整,实属佳品。鉴于很多人怀疑心重,我也有心一睹原著风貌,因此搜寻原文,将我找到的中英差异列在这里,让大家对这本删节书的质量心里有个谱。

英文版P12/190
The second stratum of politics consists of the real selectorate. This is the group that actually chooses the leader. In today’s China (as in the old Soviet Union), it consists of all voting members of the Communist Party; in Saudi Arabia’s monarchy it is the senior members of the royal family; in Great Britain, the voters backing members of parliament from the majority party.

中文版P30:处理方式删除。

英文版P14/190
Strange as it may seem, the same ideas and subtle differences that held true in San Francisco can be applied to illiberal governments like Zimbabwe, China, and Cuba, and even to the more ambiguous sorts of governments like current-day Russia or Venezuela or Singapore.

中文版P37:处理方式删除。

英文版P16/109
For example, a married couple in the United States pays no income tax on the first $17,000 they earn. At that same income, a Chinese couple’s marginal tax rate is 45 percent.

中文版P41:处理方式模糊化替代,一对其他某些国家的夫妻。

英文版P17/190
A few civic-minded autocrats slip a little into secret accounts, preferring to fend off the threat of revolt by using their discretionary funds (the leftover tax revenue not spent on buying coalition loyalty) to invest in public works. Those public works may prove successful, as was true for Lee Kwan Yew’s efforts in Singapore and Deng Xiaoping’s in China. They may also prove to be dismal failures, as was true for Kwame Nkrumah’s civic-minded industrial program in Ghana or Mao Zedong’s Great Leap Forward, which turned out to be a great leap backwards for China.

中文版P45:处理方式删除,Great Leap Forward 即大跃进。

英文版P40/190
Equally, he and many others must have known that it was much better to cross swords with Gorbachev, an intellectual reformer, than with such contemporaries as Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire or even Deng Xiaoping of China. Deng, after all, used ruthless force to end the prodemocracy uprising at Tiananmen Square in 1989.

中文版P106:处理方式删除。

英文版P48/190
In the United States, for example, a couple with one child and an income under about $32,400 pays no income tax. If their income were, say, $20,000 they would receive $1,000 from the federal government to help support their child. In China, a family with an income of $32,400 is expected to pay about $6,725 in income tax.

中文版P134:处理方式删除。

英文版P48/190
His Chinese counterpart, Huang Guangyu, also known as Wong Kwong Ku, fared little better. Starting with nothing but $500 and a street cart, Guangyu created Gome, the largest electrical retailer in China. He was repeatedly ranked as China’s richest individual—until he was sentenced to fourteen years in prison for bribery. It is likely that he was guilty since bribery is commonplace in Chinese business dealings. It is also likely that he and others who have been prosecuted for corruption in China were “chosen for political reasons.”

中文版P135:处理方式整段删除,本段”黄光裕被选择执法”本在“2004年霍尔多科夫斯基”与“在独裁国家,做个富人是不明智的”两段之间。

英文版P58/190
Hobbes was only half right. It is true, as Hobbes’s believed, that happy, well-cared-for people are unlikely to revolt. China’s prolonged economic growth seems to have verified that belief (at least for now). Keep them fat and happy and the masses are unlikely to rise up against you.

中文版P158:处理方式删除

英文版P60/190
Indeed, a common refrain among small-coalition rulers is that the very freedoms, like free speech, free press, and especially freedom of assembly, that promote welfare-improving government policies are luxuries to be doled out only after prosperity is achieved and not before. This seems to be the self-serving claim of leaders who keep their people poor and oppressed. The People’s Republic of China is the poster boy for this view. When Deng Xiaoping introduced economic liberalization to China in the 1980s, experts in wealthy Western countries contended that now China’s economy would grow and the growth would lead to rapid democratization. Today, more than thirty years into sustained rapid growth we still await these anticipated political reforms. Growth does not guarantee political improvement but neither does it preclude it. The Republic of China (aka Taiwan) and the Republic of Korea (aka South Korea) are models of building prosperity ahead of democracy. Needless to say, the People’s Republic of China certainly is not fond of promoting either of those countries’ experiences.

中文版P163:处理方式删除,删除内容用于列举中国政府宣扬只有经济繁荣之后才考虑民主与自由问题的观点。

英文版P61/190
A far better measure of leaders’ interest in education is the distribution of top universities. With the sole exceptions of China and Singapore, no nondemocratic country has even one university rated among the world’s top 200. Despite its size, and not counting universities in Hong Kong, which were established under British rule before Hong Kong’s return to China in 1997, the best-ranked Chinese university is only in 47th place despite China’s opportunity to draw top minds from its vast population. The highest ranking Russian university, with Russia’s long history of dictatorship, is 210th.

中文版P165:处理方式删除,删除内容说明中国高等教育不怎么样。

英文版P64/190
A smart democrat, of course, tries to avoid such troubles, using eminent domain only when it benefits many people, especially members of the democrat’s constituency (the influentials). It is incredible to see how easily leaders can take people’s property in the People’s Republic of China and how hard it is to do the same in Hong Kong. When essentials are few, pretty much anything goes.

中文版P178:处理方式删除。

英文版P64/190
Massive construction projects, like the Aswan Dam in Egypt and China’s Three Gorges Dam, are very much like Mobutu’s power grid.

中文版P178:处理方式删除,Three Gorges Dam 即三峡大坝。

英文版P67/190
The comparison of Iran and Chile is far from unusual. China, like Chile, suffered a 7.9 earthquake of its own. It struck in May 2008, bringing down many shoddily constructed schools and apartment buildings, killing nearly 70,000. Even accounting for variations in Chile’s and China’s populations and incomes, it is impossible to reconcile the difference between China’s death toll and Chile’s, except by reflecting on the incentives to enforce proper building standards in democratic Chile—incentives missing in autocratic China and Iran. And lest it is thought these are special cases, it is worth noting that democratic Honduras had a 7.1 earthquake in May 2009, with 6 deaths and Italy a 6.3 in April 2009 with 207 deaths.

中文版P184:处理方式删除,内容是2008年汶川大地震导致大量人口死亡。

英文版P80/190
Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping in China mirrored Khrushchev and Gorbachev, but with an important difference. All of these leaders seem to have been initially motivated by the sincere desire to improve their economy. All seemed to have recognized that failing to get their economy moving could pose a threat to their hold on power. But unlike Mao, Mikhail, and Nikita, Deng belongs squarely in the hall of fame. Like them, he was not accountable to the people and, like them, he was not hesitant to put down mass movements against his rule. The horrors of Tiananmen Square should not be forgotten. But unlike his fellow dictators, he actually had good ideas about how to improve economic performance.

Deng and Singapore’s Lee Kwan Yew are surely among the contemporary world’s two greatest icons of the authoritarian’s hall of fame. They did not sock fortunes away in secret bank accounts (to the best of our knowledge). They did not live the lavish lifestyles of Mobutu Sese Seko or Saddam Hussein. They used their discretionary power over revenue to institute successful, market-oriented economic reforms that made Singaporeans among the world’s wealthiest people and lifted millions of Chinese out of abject poverty.

中文版P228:处理方式第一段整段被张冠李戴删节为一句话“但与他们不同的是,李光耀确实知道如何改善经济”,实际是讲邓;紧接下来的一段原文邓李并举删节为只讲李一个人。

英文版P95/190
At first, a few especially bold individuals may rise up in revolt. They proclaim their intention to make their country a democracy. Every revolution and every mass movement begins with a promise of democratic reform, of a new government that will lift up the downtrodden and alleviate their suffering. That is an essential ingredient in getting the masses to take to the streets. Of course, it doesn’t always work.

The Chinese communists, for instance, declared the formation of a Chinese Soviet Republic on November 7, 1931. They said of their newly declared state,

It is the state of the suppressed workers, farmers, soldiers, and working mass. Its flag calls for the downfall of imperialism, the liquidation of landlords, the overthrow of the warlord government of the Nationalists. We shall establish a soviet government over the whole of China; we shall struggle for the interests of thousands of deprived workers, farmers, and soldiers and other suppressed masses; and to endeavor for peaceful unification of the whole of China.

Jomo Kenyatta, the leader of Kenya’s independence movement and its first head of state, likewise declared during a meeting of the Kenya African Union (KAU) on July 26, 1952:

中文版P280:处理方式整段删除,内容是讲毛的革命。

英文版P95/190
Many revolutions end up simply replacing one autocracy with another. On some occasions the successor regime can actually be worse than its predecessor. This might well have been the case with Sergeant Doe’s deposition of Liberia’s True Whig government or Mao’s success against Chiang Kai Shek’s Kuomintang government in China.

中文版P280:处理方式删除,Chiang Kai Shek 即蒋介石。

英文版P100/190
As might be expected, given these facts and the incentives they suggest, instances of 200 or more people dying in earthquakes is much more common in autocracies than democracies.

Not all disasters are equal in the eyes of autocrats. Dictators are particularly wary of natural disasters when they occur in politically and economically important centers. Disaster management in China emphasizes this point. When an earthquake struck the remote province of Qinghai in 2010, the Chinese government’s response was, at best, halfhearted. In contrast, its handling of disaster relief in the wake of a 2008 earthquake in Sichuan won the approval of much of the international community. The differences are stark and driven by politics. The Sichuan quake occurred in an economically and politically important center where a massed protest could potentially threaten the government. Qinghai is remote and of little political importance. Protest there would do little to threaten the government. The government did much less to assist people who could not threaten them.

中文版P280:处理方式整段删除,内容是讲对青海与汶川大地震的不同灾变处理。

英文版P102/190
Common threads run through each of these democratizers—common threads that are absent from revolutions that replaced one dictator with another, such as occurred under Mao Zedong in China, Fidel Castro in Cuba, Porfirio Diaz in Mexico, and Jomo Kenyatta in Kenya.

中文版P301:处理方式删除。

英文版P124/190
Sure, places like Singapore and parts of China prove that it is possible to have a good material life with limited freedom—yet the vast majority of the evidence suggests that these are exceptions and not the rule. Economic success can postpone the democratic moment but it ultimately cannot replace it.

中文版P386:处理方式删除。

发表评论