Democracy Matters:

An Interview with Sam Webb

民主事務：采訪山姆· 韋伯

By Sam Webb  Published on on-line Political Affairs, January 2004

作者：山姆.韋伯，2004年1月發(fā)表于〈政治事務〉網(wǎng)絡版

■翻譯/一刺

Interview with Sam Webb, Chair of the Communist Party USA on the subjects of the struggle for democracy and socialism conducted by Joe Sims.

對美國共產(chǎn)黨主席山姆.韋伯關于民主與社會主義斗爭的主題采訪，由喬.西蒙斯主持。

PA: A discussion of socialism seems a little remote from the struggle to defeat Bush. Isn’t it a diversion?
《政治事務》：討論社會主義好像有點偏離擊敗布什的斗爭。這是否離題？
Webb: We see the struggle to defeat Bush and his ultra-right counterparts as the main task in the coming period. It’s going to occupy our attention as well as the attention of tens of millions from now until Election Day. Nothing will set the stage for a broader struggle for people’s needs in the post-election period than defeating Bush and his right wing counterparts in Congress. At the same time, we don’t see any reason to warehouse the subject of socialism. Whether we like it or not, world developments are bringing socialism back into the political discourse in our country and worldwide. Why? Because it’s becoming apparent that problems such as environmental degradation, the health care and unemployment crises, inequality and racism, the issue of war and peace, can’t be resolved under capitalism. Keep in mind, capitalism is a global system, and rather than solving these problems, it greatly aggravates them. In some ways, capitalism at its present stage of development threatens the future of humankind. Whole regions of the globe are being ravaged（毀壞，掠奪）. Given these circumstances, it is necessary to take a fresh look at socialism, while understanding that it is not on the people’s action agenda.

韋伯：我們把擊敗布什及其極右勢力的斗爭視為最近時期的主要任務。在選舉日之前，這個任務將占去我們的注意力，也將占去千百萬人民的注意力。沒有什么能比擊敗布什及其國會右翼勢力的斗爭更能為人民在選舉期之后的需求提供更廣闊的斗爭舞臺了。但同時，我們也覺得沒有理由為此而擱置社會主義的問題。不管我們是否喜歡，世界發(fā)展形勢正將社會主義帶回我國及世界范圍的政治課題中。為什么？因為諸如環(huán)境惡化、醫(yī)療保健、失業(yè)危機、不平等、種族主義及戰(zhàn)爭與和平等問題已很難在資本主義制度下進行解決，這已變得越來越明顯。記住，資本主義是一種全球系統(tǒng)。它不是解決這些問題，反而是大大地加劇這些問題。在某些方面，處于當前發(fā)展階段的資本主義威脅著人類的將來。地球中有整片區(qū)域被毀壞。鑒于這些狀況，雖然我們明白社會主義還不處于人民的主要行動日程中，但有必要以新的視覺來看待它。

PA: Many countries that have a socialist orientation are in the developing world: China, Vietnam, Cuba. Several have adopted a concept of socialism called market socialism. I know we have said there are no models, but is the socialist market economy the new model?

《政治事務》：有許多以社會主義為發(fā)展方向的國家都處于發(fā)展中的世界：中國、越南與古巴等。有幾個國家已采用了被稱為市場社會主義的社會主義概念。我知道，我們說過不存在榜樣問題，但社會主義市場經(jīng)濟是否為新榜樣？

Webb: These countries are in the early stages of socialism – they are developing countries and the productive forces are at a low level – so they are employing market mechanisms to assist in their economic development. This doesn’t contradict the thinking of Marx, Engels or Lenin. Even if we were dealing with more advanced countries – take our country for example - if this were the day after, the week after, the year after, the decade after the socialist revolution, we would employ market mechanisms in the construction of the socialist economy. There was a tendency in the communist movement to expect that market relations would disappear almost overnight, in the early stages of socialism. I’m not convinced that was an accurate reading of the classical literature or a lesson that we should draw from the experience of socialist construction in the 20th century. Some socialist countries tried to make too quick a leap from one stage of socialist development, in which market relations were employed, to a more advanced stage, in which commodity-money relations were marginal, and, as a result, experienced very negative consequences.

韋伯：這些國家正處于社會主義初級階段。它們是發(fā)展中國家，生產(chǎn)力處于較低水平，所以正采用市場機制來促進經(jīng)濟發(fā)展。這與馬克思、恩格斯與列寧的想法并不矛盾。即使我們所面對的是較為發(fā)達的國家，比如我國，如果這是處于社會主義革命之后的第一天、第一周、第一年乃至第十年，我們也仍需在社會主義經(jīng)濟建設中采取市場機制。在共產(chǎn)主義運動中曾有一種傾向，就是期待市場關系會在社會主義初級階段中一夜之間消失。我不相信這是對經(jīng)典著作的準確閱讀與理解，或者這是我們從20世紀的社會主義建設經(jīng)驗中應該吸取的教訓。有些社會主義國家曾試圖從一個采用市場關系的社會主義發(fā)展階段急速跨越至一個商品貨幣關系已邊緣化的高級階段，結(jié)果帶來了非常消極的后果。

The example that comes most readily to mind is China. At the core of Mao’s economic policies was not simply the acceleration of the pace of development, but rather leaping over whole stages. Unfortunately, China pursued that policy at a very dear price. There’s a lot of controversy now about the current economic policies of the Communist Party of China. Many people are critical, but in my short stay there (I visited about a year and a half ago), it was apparent that the opening up of the country and the employment of market mechanisms has led to the acceleration of growth. Some say there is greater inequality, and that’s true, but at the same time they are lifting tens of millions out of poverty. Simply because the Chinese are utilizing market mechanisms and inserting themselves into the global economy is not reason enough to conclude that China is moving away from socialism.

我們最經(jīng)常想到的例子就是中國。處于毛澤東經(jīng)濟政策核心的不僅僅是加速發(fā)展的步伐，而是跨越整個階段。不幸的是，中國為追求這種政策付出了高昂的代價。現(xiàn)在，對中國共產(chǎn)黨當前的經(jīng)濟政策又存在許多爭議。許多人表示批評，而我在那里的短暫停留——我一年半以前到過中國——卻明顯地使我感到，這個國家的對外開放與市場機制政策加速了發(fā)展。有些人說這造成了更大的不平等，這是事實。但同時，他們也使千百萬人脫貧。不能僅僅因為中國人運用市場機制并將自身隔入全球經(jīng)濟便有理由下結(jié)論說中國正脫離社會主義。

Why do I say this? First of all, no country can develop apart from the global economy? While it is no simple task for the socialist and developing countries to insert themselves into a world economy that is dominated by and structured in the interests of the most powerful capitalist countries, do these countries have any other feasible option? Secondly, market mechanisms are not by definition at war with socialist construction. Whether they are utilized and how they contribute to socialist construction of one or another country can’t be solved abstractly in the realm of high theory. It has to be answered by examining the concrete political and economic circumstances in any given country.

我為什么這樣說？首先，沒有哪個國家能離開全球經(jīng)濟而發(fā)展自身。當社會主義國家與發(fā)展中國家要將自身隔入被強大的資本主義國家所統(tǒng)治并按照資本主義利益進行組織的世界經(jīng)濟已很不容易時，這些國家還有別的可行性選擇嗎？其次，從定義上說，市場機制與社會主義建設并不對立。是否采用這些機制以及這些機制如何有助于一國或他國的社會主義建設這類問題并不能通過高深的理論范疇進行抽象地解決，而應通過考察一國的具體的政治與經(jīng)濟狀況來回答。

Finally, we should study the experience of socialism in the 20th century as well as revisit both the early literature and more recent discussions on the socialist economy before we draw hard and fast conclusions with respect to the use of market criteria and tools in a socialist society. Lenin once said (and I’m paraphrasing（解釋）him here) that the economic policies of the post-civil war Soviet state had to be adjusted to the mentality of the peasants, which led to the adoption of the New Economic Policy in the early 1920s. Not only was this necessary to revive an economy that was in shambles（廢墟，混亂的地方）after the civil war, but it was the glue that maintained the strategic alliance between a tiny working class and huge peasantry. This alliance, Lenin argued time and again, was the essential political requirement for the forward movement of socialism in a very backward country.

最后，在針對社會主義社會中采用市場準則與市場工具而作出倉促與刻薄的結(jié)論之前，我們應研究一下20世紀的社會主義經(jīng)歷，并重新參考一下有關社會主義經(jīng)濟的早期文獻與最新研討。列寧說過——我正引用他，內(nèi)戰(zhàn)后蘇維埃國家的經(jīng)濟政策應按照農(nóng)民的思維來進行調(diào)整，這最終帶來了20年代早期的新經(jīng)濟政策的采用。這不但對于復興內(nèi)戰(zhàn)后處于廢墟中的經(jīng)濟是必要的，而且成為維持弱小的工人階級與龐大的農(nóng)民階級之間戰(zhàn)略聯(lián)盟的粘合劑。列寧反復強調(diào)，這種聯(lián)盟成為落后國家社會主義前進運動中關鍵性的政治需求。

PA: How do you distinguish or emphasize what is unique about the US experience that it different from not only China but also a similar country like Great Britain or France? How do you determine what is general and what is particular or unique to our own experience?

《政治事務》：與中國或與我國較相似的國家如英國、法國相比，你如何區(qū)分美國經(jīng)驗的獨特之處？你如何確定我們的經(jīng)驗中什么是普遍的，什么是特殊或具體的？

Webb: There is a tendency to think that the Bolshevik experience constituted a model of socialist revolution. On a very general level some of the experiences of revolutionary Russia do have some application to other countries. But if we are seriously interested in finding a path to socialism in our country, we have to give more attention to its unique historical features. Marx, Engels and Lenin on many occasions stressed the need to seek out what is peculiar in the national development of a given country. That has not been deeply appreciated enough.

韋伯：有一種傾向認為，布爾什維克經(jīng)驗構(gòu)成了社會主義革命的榜樣。在某種普遍的程度上，俄國革命的某些經(jīng)驗確實適用于其他國家。但如果我們要認真地探索我國的社會主義道路，便應注意其獨特的歷史特性。馬克思、恩格斯與列寧曾多次強調(diào)在一國中尋求獨特的民族發(fā)展道路的必要性。但在這方面還沒有較深刻的認識。

To put it another way, if we were to write a book on our path to socialism, a section on what is peculiar and unique in our nation’s experience should not be an addendum or an appendix to the main text, but rather it should be a main thread woven into that text. We have, for example, a long democratic tradition, as do other countries. Although many on the left say our democracy is partial and incomplete, the fact is that democratic notions and sentiments are deeply ingrained in our thinking and have drawn millions into struggle at various turning points in our nation’s history. Therefore, our vision of socialism has to have democracy at its core. Indeed, even the slightest duing of this concept and practice will condemn socialists and the socialist struggle to the periphery of our nation’s political life.

換句話說，如果我們?yōu)樯鐣髁x道路寫一本書，關于我國經(jīng)驗的具體與獨特之處的章節(jié)不應該成為正文的增補或附錄，而應該是交織于正文的主線索。比如，像其它國家一樣，我們具有悠久的民主傳統(tǒng)。雖然許多左翼力量說我們的民主是不全面、不完整的，但畢竟民主觀念與心理已深入我們的思想中，并在我國歷史的各個轉(zhuǎn)折點中引導了千百萬人投入斗爭。因此，我們規(guī)劃中的社會主義應以民主為核心。確實，哪怕是對這一觀念與實踐的輕微忽略都會把社會主義者與社會主義斗爭推向我國政治生活的邊緣。

PA: You emphasize the importance of democratic struggles, suggesting that the path to socialism is paved with the struggle for democracy.

《政治事務》：你強調(diào)民主斗爭的重要性，表示社會主義是在民主斗爭鋪就的道路上前進的。

Webb: Yes, we can say that with complete certainty. In the past, we did not always see things like this. There was a competing notion of the transition to socialism, which held an economic collapse would be followed by the seizure of power by the working class and then a relatively short transitional period to socialism. This was very simplistic. We could have a major economic downturn tomorrow, and it wouldn’t automatically result in a sudden turn of millions to socialism. We had a depression 80 years ago. The working class did step on the stage and the class struggle intensified, but even then socialism wasn’t the main item of the working class and people’s agenda.

韋伯：是的，我們完全肯定地這樣說。過去，我們并不總是這樣看問題。有一種關于社會主義過渡的競爭性觀念認為，一場經(jīng)濟崩潰之后便伴隨著工人階級奪取政權(quán)，然后就是社會主義的短暫過渡期。這太簡單了。也許在明天我們就會有一種經(jīng)濟倒退，但這并不會自動地導致千百萬人立即轉(zhuǎn)向社會主義。80年前我們就有一場大蕭條。那時工人階級確實登上了舞臺，階級斗爭也激化了，但即使在那時，社會主義也沒有成為工人階級與人民的主要行動日程。

Conditions have to be created for socialism – both objective and subjective – and that takes place over time. It’s only in the course of the struggle for democracy – understood in the broadest sense – that people come to see the necessity of a new society that puts people before profits. And this is a more protracted and complex process, stretching out over time and going through different phases and stages leading up to a socialist transition and continuing in the transition itself. In other words, the approach to socialism is not direct and straightforward struggle.

應創(chuàng)造實現(xiàn)社會主義的主觀與客觀條件，這需要時間。只有在最廣泛意義上的民主斗爭的進程中，人民才會看到實現(xiàn)一個“人民先于利潤”的新社會的必要性。這是一個長期而復雜的過程，隨著時間的輪回，經(jīng)歷各個發(fā)展階段，最終走向社會主義的過渡期，并在過渡的自身中繼續(xù)下去。換言之，通向社會主義的途徑不是徑直的，不是簡單直接的斗爭。

On a related matter, at one time we believed that as we approached socialism, its support base would narrow and some forces would peel away. Perhaps there is an element of truth in this notion, but if taken too far could gravely weaken the revolutionary process to socialism. In fact, I would argue that as we approach socialism in our country the task of the left forces is to win more millions to the socialist struggle. Socialism has to be a mass social upheaval in which all the discontented in society participates, including those who hold backward notions. Socialism is not just a project of the left; it has to be a mass project of millions and of diverse social forces. Without such a concept and practice, there’s no possibility of bringing about a transition to a new society. Lenin argued with great passion and insistence to the early communist movement that ts task was to win the absolute majority of the working class and oppressed peoples to socialism. This advice is still timely and even more necessary today.

有一件類似的事情，就是我們曾經(jīng)在某個時候認為，當接近社會主義時，其支撐基礎會變得萎縮，有些力量會分離出去。也許這種觀念有一定的道理，但如果強調(diào)得太過份就會嚴重削弱社會主義的革命進程。其實，我倒認為當我們接近我國的社會主義時，左翼力量的任務就是蠃得更多的千百萬人投入社會主義斗爭。社會主義應當成為一場群眾的社會變動，社會的所有不滿力量都參與其中，包括持落后觀念者。社會主義不僅是左翼的工程，更是千百萬人與各種不同社會力量的群體工程。沒有這種觀念與實踐，就沒有向新社會過渡的可能性。列寧曾以極大的熱情與決心向早期共產(chǎn)主義運動強調(diào)，其任務就是蠃得絕大多數(shù)的工人階級與被壓迫民族對社會主義的支持。這種建議在今天仍然顯得極時，甚至更為必要。

《政治事務》：鑒于我們當前的政府形式，你如何引導千百萬人參與？或者，換句話說，當你閉上眼睛時，你夢想中的新社會是什么樣子？

Webb: I don’t think that the political structures that currently exist will be dismantled. Nor do I think that a socialist movement will sideline the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence or a system of checks and balances on concentrated political power. It may want to extend, deepen or modify them based on both experience and the needs of socialist construction. The main thing is not the institutional forms but the transformation of their class content. At the same time, I suspect that new popular institutions will emerge. Today millions of people feel alienated from the institutions and structures of government. People see government as disconnected from their day-to-day life, even an obstacle to their aspirations and to a decent life. Nearly one-half of the people don’t go to the polls on Election Day. And the ultra-right has demagogically preyed on this political alienation.

韋伯：我不認為現(xiàn)存的政治結(jié)構(gòu)會遭到摧毀，我也不認為社會主義運動會把《權(quán)利法案》《憲法》《獨立宣言》或集中政治權(quán)力的制衡體系推向一邊。也許會根據(jù)經(jīng)驗與社會主義需要對它們進行延伸、深化或修改。主要問題不在于體制的形式，而在于階級實質(zhì)的轉(zhuǎn)化。同時，我想會出現(xiàn)新的大眾化體制。今天，有千百萬人對政府體制與結(jié)構(gòu)感到疏遠。人民覺得政府與他們的日常生活無關，甚至成為他們追求理想與美好生活的障礙。幾乎有一半的人不愿在選舉日走向投票箱。于是極右勢力利用這種政治疏遠感大撈了一筆。

To overcome this, socialism will probably have to find new institutional forms that draw millions into political and economic life, that turn politically discontented people into active citizens. Or to put it differently, socialism has to be a liberatory and emancipatory project for tens of millions. It must empower people; it must bring them into the center of political and economic life. For socialism to fulfill its promise, the people themselves have to be its real authors and architects. For many reasons, that is not the image that the US people have of socialism. Instead, its representation in the popular mind is of a regimented, undemocratic and economically challenged society. This we have to change.

為了克服這點，社會主義可能要尋求新的體制形式以引導千百萬人投入政治與經(jīng)濟生活，從而將不滿的人民變成積極的公民。或者，換句話說，社會主義應成為千百萬人的自由解放的工程。它應賦予人民以權(quán)力，將他們帶入政治與經(jīng)濟生活的中心。為了讓社會主義實現(xiàn)其承諾，人民自身應成為真正的創(chuàng)作者和建筑師。由于種種原因，這并不是美國人對于社會主義的形象感。相反，大眾思想中的社會主義是一個嚴格劃一、不民主與陷入經(jīng)濟困難的社會。我們要改變這點。

PA: The Communist Party has called its concept Bill of Rights socialism. Is that still valid?

《政治事務》：共產(chǎn)黨已有權(quán)利法案社會主義的概念。這仍然可行嗎？

Webb: Gus Hall, our former national chairman, introduced that phrase and it still resonates for a lot of reasons. Of course, it is of little value if we keep it to ourselves. Communists and other partisans of socialism have to engage others in this discussion, and especially in light of what happened in the socialist countries between 1989 and 1991. That was an earthshaking upheaval and moment. In examining this experience, and we should do it carefully and thoughtfully, we may find that some of the notions that we embraced over the last 50 or 60 years are no longer adequate. Some may have to be modified, refurbished and refit to new circumstances; others jettisoned（拋棄）. Marxism, its main theoreticians tell us, has to be developed in all directions and applied in a creative manner.

韋伯：我們的前主席格斯.霍爾引進了這種提法，由于多種原因它至今仍然有著共鳴。當然，如果我們只把它用于我們自身，它并無多大價值。鑒于1989至1991年發(fā)生在社會主義國家的情況，共產(chǎn)黨人以及其它社會主義黨派力量尤其應發(fā)動別人加入這種討論中。那是一個地震式的大動蕩時期。考察了這種經(jīng)歷，并經(jīng)過了謹慎的思索之后，我們可能會發(fā)現(xiàn)，我們50或60年前所擁護的某些觀念已不再恰當。有些觀念應加以修改、補充以適應新的條件，另外的某些觀念則應被拋棄。馬克思主義的主要理論家告訴我們，馬克思主義應在各個方向進行發(fā)展，以創(chuàng)造性方式加以應用。

PA: What kinds of notions from the 20th century experience need to be re-examined?

《政治事務》：從20世紀的經(jīng)歷中，應重新考察哪類觀念？

Webb: To take one example that I mentioned earlier, we have to think about the path to socialism differently, given the economic and political circumstances of our country. In some ways we were prisoners of the experience of Russia in 1917. It was a world-historic event to be sure. And it will continue to reverberate for decades to come. Nevertheless, while that experience fit Russia in 1917, it doesn’t fit the US in 2003. Perhaps we can learn as much from Allende’s Chile as we can Lenin’s Russia. We have to draw lessons from the whole experience of the working class for the last 90 years – but not mechanically, but rather we have to have an eye to adapting and modifying them to what is new and peculiar to our country and to this century.

韋伯：比如我早先提到的例子，鑒于我國的政治與經(jīng)濟狀況，我們應以不同的方式來思考社會主義道路。在某些方面我們成了1917年俄國革命經(jīng)驗的囚徒。不錯，這是一個世界性歷史事件。在未來的幾十年，它仍將持續(xù)地產(chǎn)生反響。然而，雖然那種經(jīng)驗適用于1917年的俄國，卻不適用于2003年的美國。也許我們同樣可以學習Allende在智利的情況，正如我們學習列寧在俄國的情況一樣。我們應從工人階級在過去90多年的整個經(jīng)驗中吸取教訓，不是機械地照搬，而是以適應的眼光來修改或調(diào)整它們，以適應我國與這個世紀的新情況和獨特形勢。

PA: What about the form of rule? Some people feel that Communists take one position before we get to power and another after we get it? How do you deal with that?

《政治事務》：執(zhí)政形式是怎樣的？有人覺得共產(chǎn)黨人在取得權(quán)力前采取一種立場，而取得權(quán)力后又采取另一種立場？你如何看待這點？

Webb: Both in the transition to socialism and in its construction, I don’t foresee Communists being the sole decision makers. We will be one political force within a much larger coalition. We are getting away from the notion that the Communists are the "top dog" in the struggle for socialism while other political forces will either merge or come in behind us. In our view, we will be one component of a very diverse coalition, at the center of which is the working class, the racially and nationally oppressed, and women. Of course, in such a varied coalition, there will be competing views and we will forthrightly express ours, but our emphasis will be on cooperation, on finding common ground, on unity.

韋伯：不管是在社會主義過渡期內(nèi)，還是在社會主義建設中，我都不設想共產(chǎn)黨人會是唯一的決策者。我們將作為一個政治力量而處于一個更大的聯(lián)盟中。我們正在遠離這樣一種觀念，即認為共產(chǎn)黨人在社會主義斗爭中是“勝者”，而其它政治力量則會兼并或處于我們之后。按我們的觀點，我們會是一種多樣化聯(lián)盟中的一份子，其中工人階級、民族與種族被壓迫者及婦女處于中心地位。當然，在這種多樣化聯(lián)盟中，會有競爭性意見，而我們也會全力表達我們自己的意見。但我們的重點在于合作、共識與團結(jié)。

Our emphasis will be on deepening and extending democracy as a condition for the creation of a humane socialist society. There may be situations in the early stages of the socialist struggle where it may seem expedient

我們的重點在于對民主進行深化與延伸，從而為一個人性化的社會主義社會創(chuàng)造條件。也許在社會主義斗爭的早期階段會存在削弱和限制民主權(quán)利的權(quán)宜之計的希望，但一個領導社會過渡的政治聯(lián)盟會抵制這種選擇。社會主義建設中各個階段（包括初級階段）的民主斗爭都是迫切的。如果人們違反法律，他應受制于任何相應的法律懲罰。但認為在社會主義革命之后應當——或者更糟糕的是認為會自動地——限制民主權(quán)利而不是擴大民主權(quán)利的觀念實在是個大問題。在那些前社會主義國家，民主缺乏必要的反響的原因之一就是執(zhí)政黨對普通人的創(chuàng)造力和智慧缺乏信心。而這種思維定勢一旦得到強化——這種強化也是由80多年來資本主義國家極端而持續(xù)的敵視態(tài)度造成的，自然也就不可避免地造成這些國家的人民在處理社會主義建設的問題和困難中沒有受到信任的情況，而權(quán)力與決策方式也沒有下放給他們。結(jié)果，他們的民主生活只具有形式特征。但古巴給我不同的印象，盡管它處于美國帝國主義的不斷威脅、顛覆與封鎖之下。那里的共產(chǎn)黨看來很信任人民，極力使人民成為社會主義建設的積極參與者。這也是我國領導社會主義過渡的政治力量應該做的。