×提示

您已经赞过此文了。

确定

《明镜》采访弗朗西斯福山:“左派该从何处起义?”

译者: wrangler 原作者:SPIEGEL ONLINE
发表时间:2012-02-06浏览量:2504评论数:1挑错数:0
德国明镜周刊专访福山
'Where Is the Uprising from the Left?'

“左派该从何处起义?” Obama arriving at Andrews Airforce Base last week after a five-state trip. Obama and his advisers Zoom

AFP

Obama arriving at Andrews Airforce Base last week after a five-state trip. Obama and his advisers "are obviously part of the 1 percent," argues Fukuyama.

奥巴马在上周五国访问行程结束后抵达安德鲁斯空军基地。福山宣称奥巴马和他的幕僚“显然是那1%中的一部分”。

Political scientist Francis Fukuyama was once the darling of American neo-conservatives. In a SPIEGEL interview, the author of "The End of History" explains why he now believes that the excesses of capitalism are a threat to democracy and asks why there is no "Tea Party on the left."

政治科学家弗朗西斯福山曾经是美国新保守主义的宠儿。在《明镜》的采访中,这位《历史的终结》的作者解释了为什么他现在认为过度的资本主义是对民主的一个威胁同时发出了为什么没有“左派的茶党”的出现。

For reasons of data protection and privacy, your IP address will only be stored if you are a registered user of Facebook and you are currently logged in to the service. For more detailed information, please click on the "i" symbol.

SPIEGEL: Professor Fukuyama, you are best known for your essay "The End of History," in which you declared that, after the demise of the Soviet Union, liberal democracy had emerged as the triumphant global model. Now, your latest research claims that the flaws of capitalism and globalization could endanger this democratic model. How do you explain this shift?

《明镜》:福山教授,在你最出名的文章《历史的终结》中你宣称随着前苏联的奔溃,自由主义的民主模式必将在全球得到胜利。现在,你在你的最新的研究中宣称资本主义与全球化的缺陷会危及到这个民主模式。你怎样解释你的这个转变?

Fukuyama: Capitalism is the wrong word to use here, because there is not a viable alternative to capitalism. What we are really talking about is just economic growth and the development of modern economic societies. A combination of factors is beginning to challenge their progress in the United States. We have had a lot of technological change that substituted for low-skill labor and made many people in Western democracies lose their jobs.

福山:资本主义在这里得到了错误的使用,因为这里对资本主义没有一个切实可行的替代词汇。我们现在真正谈论的仅仅是经济的增长还有先到经济社会的发展。这些因素的叠加开始改变他们在美国的过程。我们用很多的科技来替代低技能劳工,从而使在西方民主国家里的许多人失去了他们的工作。

SPIEGEL: Which is why countries such as the United States or Britain wanted to turn themselves into "service-oriented" economies.

《明镜》:为什么像美国或英国这样的国家想让他们转变为“服务导向型”的经济。

Fukuyama: We have unthinkingly embraced a certain version of globalization that assumed we had to move very quickly into this post-industrial, post-manufacturing world. Doing so, we forgot that the whole reason real socialism never took off in the US was the fact that the modern economy seemed to produce middle-class societies in which the bulk of the population could enjoy a middle-class status. They worked in industries that were abolished in our countries and transferred to countries like China.

福山:我们不加思索的接受全球化中的一个版本即假设我们不得不快速的向后工业,后制造世界转移。这样做的话,我们已经忘了在美国为什么社会主义从来没有兴起过的原因,那就是现代经济使中产阶级社会中大量人口能够成为中产阶级这样一个事实。他们工作的工业行业在我们国家遭到了废弃而转移到了像中国这样的国家。

SPIEGEL: Even if members of the middle class held on to their jobs, they saw their income stagnate or even decline, while a few of globalization's winners at the top reaped outsize rewards. The level of income inequality in advanced nations is greater than ever before. What effect does that have on our societies?

《明镜》:即使中产阶级中的人员保住了他们的工作,他们也会看到他们的收入停滞不前甚至有所减少,与此同时全球化的少数赢家却获得了巨大的收益。发达国家中的收入不平衡比以往更加巨大。这会对我们的社会产生什么样的影响?

Fukuyama: It is not good for democracy. If income is relatively evenly distributed and there are not very sharp differences between rich and poor, you have a greater sense of community. You have a greater sense of trust. You do not have parts of the community that have superior access to the political system that they can use to advance their own interests ...

福山:这对民主不会有好处。如果收入能够相对的平均分配那么在贫富之间不会有这么大的区别,你会有更强烈的共同感。你会更有信任感。你不会有在这个社会存在优先通过政治体系使他们能够优先他们自己的利益的共同感觉...

SPIEGEL: … all of which undermines the democratic process.

《明镜》:所有这些都破坏了民主化进程。

Fukuyama: What you are going to see in a democracy with a weaker middle class is much more populism, more internal conflict, an inability to resolve distributional issues in an orderly way. In the United States right now, you do have this return of populism. It should be on the left, but actually most of it is on the right. If you talk to Tea Party members about their feelings regarding the government, they are very passionate. They hate the government. They think they have been betrayed by elites.

福山:在那些中产阶级弱小的民主国家你会看到更多的民粹主义,更多的内部冲突,缺乏以一种有序的方式解决分歧问题的方式。在现在的美国,你会发现民粹主义的回归。民粹主义一般常见于左派,但现在大多数的民粹主义集中在右派。如果你和茶党的人谈论他们对于政府的感觉,他们会非常怒不可遏。他们厌恶政府。他们认为他们被精英们出卖了。

SPIEGEL: Americans, however, are beginning to discuss the problem of social inequality much more openly.

《明镜》:然而,美国人现在开始更公开的讨论社会不平等的问题了。

Fukuyama: They are slowly beginning to realize it. The recent public focus on inequality and the Occupy Wall Street movement are harbingers of change in that direction. The trouble is that in the United States it is extremely difficult to mobilize people around pure class issues. President Barack Obama was ostracized as a "European socialist" when he brought up the idea of higher taxes on the rich. These class debates are historically unpopular -- except for a very brief period in the 1930s during the Great Depression.

福山:他们渐渐开始认识到这个问题了。最近公众关注不平等的问题和占领华尔街运动是这个方向的改变预兆。美国的问题是在美国国内极难用纯粹的阶级问题调动民众。巴拉克奥巴马总统被排斥为“欧洲的社会主义者”当他提出对富人征收更高的税时。这些阶级辩论历史以来都不受欢迎——除了在1930年代大萧条时期中的很短一段时间。

SPIEGEL: The latest financial crisis was often compared to the Great Depression: Why did we not see another case of the left wing rising up against the rich?

《明镜》:最新的金融危机常被与大萧条时期相比较:为什么我们没有看到左翼起来反抗富人这样的情形?

Fukuyama: I am at a loss, too. Where is this uprising from the left? This is a crisis that began on Wall Street. It really was rooted in the particular American model of liberalized finance. It hurt ordinary people tremendously, and it benefited the richest part of the country -- the finance sector -- which came through the crisis very well, thanks to government bailouts. You would have thought that this would pave the way for a rise of left-wing populism as seen in the 1930s. A Tea Party on the left, so to speak.

福山:我现在也很困惑。左派该从何处起义呢?这场危机启于华尔街。它其实根值与特殊的美国自由主义金融模式。它巨大的伤害了普通民众,同时是这个国家最富的一部分受益——金融领域——很好的度过了危及,感谢政府的援助。你会想到这会为左翼民粹主义的兴起铺起道路如同可见的1930年代一样。可以说这是左派的茶党。

SPIEGEL: Could the Occupy Wall Street movement fill this void on the left?

《明镜》:占领华尔街运动可以填补左派的空缺吗?

Fukuyama: I really do not take this movement seriously, because its social base is extremely narrow. It consists mostly of the same kids that were protesting in 1999 in Seattle against the World Trade Organization -- anti-capitalists. The big problem sociologically for the left in the United States is that the white working class and lower middle class, that in Europe would be reliably social democratic in their political behavior, tends to vote Republican or is easily brought into the Republican camp. Until the Occupy Wall Street people can connect up with that demographic group, there is not going to be a big left-wing populist base of support in the US.

福山:我真的不把这次运动当回事,因为它的社会根基极其狭窄。它包括了1999年在西雅图抗议世界贸易组织——反资本主义,同一批人中的大部分。对于美国的左派来说一个大的社会学问题是美国的白人工人阶级与较低的中产阶级,不同于欧洲明显的在他们政治行为中有社会民主行为,趋向于把他们选票投给共和党人或者容易被带入共和党阵营。

SPIEGEL: Has the crisis simply not been deep enough to achieve that?

《明镜》:危机是否根本就没有足够深来实现这一现象?

Fukuyama: Ironically, because the Federal Reserve and the US Treasury acted to support the financial sector, the crisis did not develop into a deep depression with unemployment up to 20 percent like in the 1930s. Back then, President Franklin D. Roosevelt could restructure the big banks. I believe that the only solution to our current problems is to restructure all these big banks, Goldman Sachs and Citigroup and Bank of America, and turn them into smaller entities that could then be allowed to go bankrupt. They would no longer be "too big to fail." But this has not happened so far.

福山:具有讽刺意味的​​是,因为美联储和美国财政部采取支持金融界得措施,使得这次危机没有发展到深度萧条就像1930年代那样失业率到达20%。在那时,富兰克林罗斯福总统可以重建大银行。我相信解决我们现在问题的唯一解决方法是重组所有这些大型银行,如高盛,花旗和美洲银行,把他们变成小的实体,这样就能接受他们的破产。他们不会再大到不能倒但是这到现在还没发生。

SPIEGEL: One could also make the case that President Obama was simply not as tough as Roosevelt.

《明镜》:人们认为奥巴马总统根本没有罗斯福那么强硬。

Fukuyama: Obama had a big opportunity right at the middle of the crisis. That was around the time Newsweek carried the title: "We Are All Socialists Now." Obama's team could have nationalized the banks and then sold them off piecemeal. But their whole view of what is possible and desirable is still very much shaped by the needs of these big banks.

福山:奥巴马曾在危机过程中有很大的机会。最近《新闻周刊》刊登了题为”我们现在都是社会主义者“。奥巴马团队本可以把银行国有化然后把他们一点一点的卖掉。但是他们所有的关于什么是可行与可能的观点都被这些大型银行的需求所影响。

SPIEGEL: In other words, Obama and his influential advisors, like Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, are themselves part of the "1 percent" that the Occupy Wall Street movement rails against.

《明镜》:换句话说,奥巴马和他有影响力的幕僚,如财政部长盖特纳,本身就是占领华尔街运动反对的”1%“中的一部分。

Fukuyama: They are obviously part of the 1 percent. They socialize with these Wall Street gurus. Goldman Sachs boss Lloyd Blankfein met with Geithner many times during the crisis. Such close contact clearly influences the world view of the White House.

福山:他们显然都属于那1%。他们与这些华尔街大师交往。高盛老板劳埃德·布兰克费恩在金融危机期间与盖特纳会过几次面。这么密切联系很明显的影响了白宫的世界观。

SPIEGEL: But would you seriously argue that Republicans are any less close to Wall Street?

《明镜》:但你真的认为共和党人与华尔街接触的就少吗?

Fukuyama: Oh no. Republican politicians are completely bought by Wall Street. But the real question is: Why do their working class supporters continue to vote for them? My explanation is partly this deep distrust of any form of government that goes back very far in American politics, and is today reflected in political figures like Sarah Palin, which holds against Obama primarily the fact that he went to Harvard. There is a kind of populist resentment in US politics against being ruled by elites.

福山:哦,不。共和党的政客完全被华尔街收买了。但真的问题是:为什么他们的劳动阶级支持者会继续投票给他们?我的解释是部分源于对任何形式政府的深深不信任着可以在美国政治中追溯到很远。今天政治人物如萨拉佩林,仅仅因为奥巴马在哈佛上学而反对他。这是民粹主义者对由精英所主导政治的不满。

SPIEGEL: Even the Tea Party movement is largely financed by billionaires who represent everything regular Tea Party members are opposed to.

《明镜》:即使是茶党运动的主要由亿万富翁资助,但他们确是茶党成员所反对的代表。

Part 2: 'Tea Party Activists Mobilize Against Their Own Economic Interests'

Fukuyama: The Tea Party is a genuine grassroots movement, so I do not buy into these conspiracy theories that rich billionaires initiated it. When you go to one of these rallies of Ron Paul supporters, they are very passionate. They all tend to be young, and they have just got this libertarian idea in their minds that the government is really the source of all of our problems. So I think the convictions of Tea Party activists are sincere, they are not manipulated by billionaires. But it is true that they mobilize against their own economic interests and for the interests of elites they should despise. I still do not fully understand why they do that.

SPIEGEL: Why can't Obama reach these frustrated people?

Fukuyama: The president never annunciated a vision of a different kind of economic order that did not just look like a return to a kind of classic big spending, liberal Democratic formula. The Democrats have never articulated an economic philosophy that is not just the return to the 1970s, big government and so forth, or the position of the labor unions which is very hostile to globalization.

SPIEGEL: What else should he do?

Fukuyama: I actually think that the German model should be a very interesting one from an American perspective, because Germany is still the second-largest exporter, but has done a much better job in protecting its manufacturing base and its working class compared to the United States. Somebody needs to articulate a strategy in the US that will say our goal is not to maximize aggregate income. It is to protect the middle class through an engagement with the world with globalization, but one that benefits the broad mass of people. No Democrat has really been able to do this.

SPIEGEL: Do you want the American left to draw lessons from former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's "Agenda 2010," a controversial package of labor and welfare reforms which overturned the classic social democratic model?

Fukuyama: What the Social Democrats in Germany have done is increase the degree of flexibility in labor markets and make the German welfare state more friendly to capitalist competition. The old traditional agenda that we are just going to have more and more social protection no longer rules in Germany, and that is a good thing. Part of the problem in Europe is that similar reforms have not happened in France and Italy.

SPIEGEL: Would that protection of the middle class include a new form of global protectionism?

Fukuyama: We should never have permitted the Chinese to deindustrialize a large part of the world. The Chinese have managed to play one Western country against another, stealing their technology basically. They succeeded because everybody in the West has got this short-term view saying: "I may be clobbered by the Chinese down the road, but if I do not make my money now, somebody else will get in. So I make business with them even if they rip me off." This view is very short-sighted. We should have been much tougher with China.

SPIEGEL: Could that trend still be reversed?

Fukuyama: It is too late, at least in the United States. We have lost all crucial manufacturing industries to China.

SPIEGEL: A feeling of helplessness also prevails in Europe. Every time EU politicians try to present new solutions to the euro crisis, they fail to convince the financial players around the world. Is political leadership still possible, given the outsize power of global financial markets?

Fukuyama: The political leadership problem stems not simply from the pressure by the markets. All modern democracies have a disease, which is that the democratic process tends to be captured by well-organized groups that are not representative of the general public. This is the whole problem with Greece. The pharmacists and the doctors and the civil servants and the architects, and every other social group in that country, has organized itself into a closed corporation that controls prices while largely avoiding taxation. They make a fortune, but the national bankruptcy is bound to happen.

SPIEGEL: Unelected technocrats and advisers from outside are now being brought in to reform the Greek system. What does that mean for democracy?

Fukuyama: If I had to bet my own money on this, Greece is going to leave the euro, because ultimately any outside intervention is going to be regarded by the Greek public as a non-democratic imposition of policies that they do not want. Greeks are just never going to behave like Germans, right?

SPIEGEL: Can Europe, in its desperate attempts to rescue the euro, still be democratic?

Fukuyama: The entire European project was very elite-driven from the beginning. The evidence of this was every time a country held a referendum where they voted against signing on to further EU regulation ...

SPIEGEL: ... that referendum was simply repeated.

Fukuyama: The EU elites said: "Oh, you just got it wrong this time. We will keep voting until you get it right." Virtually every European country now has got a right-wing populist party. They are anti-EU, anti-immigrant, and it has exactly the same cause, because there is a perception that the elites in Europe do not really address their issues.

SPIEGEL: Authoritarian systems, on the other hand, appear to be getting more and more popular. When German businesspeople travel to communist China, for example, they are enamored with the system there. They rave about how quickly important decisions can be made.

Fukuyama: I hear that from American businesspeople too. The Chinese system is particularly striking when you contrast it with Europe and the United States where you currently just cannot get a decision made.

SPIEGEL: So authoritarian China will emerge as the new global model -- which would totally contradict your thesis from "The End of History" that democracy has become the default option around the world.

Fukuyama: No. China is never going to be a global model. Our current Western system is really broken in some fundamental ways, but the Chinese system is not going to work either. It is a deeply unfair and immoral system where everything can be taken away from anyone in a split second, where people die in train accidents because of a rampant lack of public oversight and transparency, where corruption rules. We are already seeing huge protests in all parts of China ...

SPIEGEL: ... which Communist Party officials fear are reminiscent of the Arab Spring.

Fukuyama: When its leadership stops delivering the current level of economic growth, it has got this huge moral vulnerability. Liberal democracy still really is the only game in town worldwide, in spite of all of its shortcomings.

SPIEGEL: Professor Fukuyama, we thank you for this interview.

Interview conducted by Hans Hoyng and Gregor Peter Schmitz

相关译文来自无觅插件
akidtongtong
2012-02-06 13:45
今天政治人物如萨拉佩林,仅仅因为奥巴马在哈佛上学而反对他

这吐槽……
评论:
  • 5
  • 还没有人赞过这篇文章
来自小组
汇集天下名刊,展现思想精萃。本项目组致力于将国外各大期刊的精华内容汇总并呈现给广大读者。本项目组参与译文“佳文共赏”活动,欢迎广大译言人的加入!
译者信息
版权声明:
本译文仅用于学习和交流目的。
非商业转载请注明译者、出处,并保留文章在译言的完整链接。商业合作请联系 biz@yeeyan.com