資本主義不再受民主束縛

To whom will monuments be built a century from now? Among them, perhaps, will be Lee Kuan Yew. He will be remembered not only as the first prime minister of Singapore, but also as the creator of authoritarian capitalism, an ideology set to shape the next century much as democracy shaped the last.

百年之後，人們會爲誰樹起紀念碑？在這許多座豐碑之中，或許有一座會屬於李光耀。人們銘記他，將不僅因爲他是新加坡第一任總理，還因爲他創造了威權資本主義——這一思想將決定下一世紀的面貌，就像民主決定上一世紀的面貌那樣。

It was, after all, to Singapore that Deng Xiaoping came before enacting his far-reaching economic reforms in China. Until then, capitalism and democracy had seemed inextricably linked. Now the link is broken.

畢竟，在中國實施影響深遠的經濟改革之前，鄧小平訪問的是新加坡。在那之前，資本主義和民主彷彿有着千絲萬縷的聯繫。如今，這種聯繫已蕩然無存。

It is often said that the west has failed in its attempt to export its civilisation to the rest of the world. That is only part right. No one dreams any longer of a global liberal democracy that marks the end of history. But economic models have proved more portable than political ideas, and capitalism has triumphed. Poor countries that endorsed it are growing at spectacular rates.

人們常說，西方沒能實現向世界其他地方輸出自己的文明。這句話只說對了一部分。已不再有人夢想代表歷史終結（end of history，福山的“歷史終結論”——譯者注）的自由民主制度在全球取得勝利。現實已證明經濟模式比政治理念更容易推廣，資本主義也取得了勝利。接受了資本主義的貧窮國家正在以驚人的速度增長。

Market-based economics has no problem accommodating local religions, cultures or traditions. It is easily reconciled with the primacy of an authoritarian state. No longer wedded to western cultural values, it is arguably divorced from them; critically reinterpreted, many of the ideas that westerners hold dear — egalitarianism, fundamental rights, a generous and universal welfare-state — can be deployed as weapons against capitalism.

市場經濟適應起當地宗教、文化或傳統來毫無問題。它很容易地實現了與威權國家和諧共處。市場經濟與西方文化價值觀不再是一對兒，兩者可以說已經分道揚鑣。以批判的眼光重新解讀，西方人所珍視的許多理念，比如平等主義、基本權利、慷慨且普惠的的福利國家，都可以被用作反對資本主義的武器。

It is not that free enterprise automatically pushes its people towards the single-minded pursuit of hedonic pleasure. Consider India, a country that has single-mindedly followed the capitalist path. Yet there has been no universal rejection there of traditional social structures. People give preference to community ties over individual achievement. Respect for one’s elders remains a powerful check on the autonomy of the young.

這並不是說自由事業必然促使人們一心追求享樂。想想印度吧，這個國家一心一意地走着資本主義道路。但印度迄今未出現對傳統社會結構的普遍排斥。相比個人成就，印度人更看重社會關係。尊重長輩仍有力地制約着年輕人的自由思想。

Some see in the persistence of these traditions a form of resistance against global capitalism. They are wrong. Fidelity to such values is, paradoxically, the reason why the harsh logic of capitalism has been embraced even more radically in countries such as China, Singapore and India than it has in the west.

有些人認爲，這些傳統的繼續存在是反抗全球資本主義的一種形式。他們錯了。弔詭的是，正是因爲忠實於傳統價值觀，中國、新加坡和印度等國家才更徹底地接受了資本主義的殘酷邏輯。

The market is a ruthless place where people sustain grievous injuries. It is hard to reconcile yourself to this, if all you are offered in return is the opportunity to satisfy your whims. It is far easier if you can fall back on traditional values to justify your indifference to other people’s fate in ethical terms. “I did it for my parents.” “I did it so my cousins will be able to study.” Such rationales are far more palatable than “I did it for myself”.

市場是個無情的地方，在這裏人們要忍受嚴重的傷害。如果所能得到的全部回報，不過是有機會滿足你的任性想法，那麼你很難說服自己。如果你能用傳統價值觀來證明，你對他人命運的冷漠在道德上是站得住腳的，那麼你心裏會好過得多。“我這麼做是爲了父母。”“我這麼做是爲了讓兄弟能上學。”這樣的理由遠比“我這麼做是爲了我自己”容易接受。

It is no accident that freedom is a weak foundation for capitalism in the west, for it is also a hollow one. Liberty survives there, but in a strangely twisted form. Since free choice has been elevated into a supreme value, social control can no longer appear as infringing on it. Often, however, the accommodation is merely rhetorical.

西方資本主義以自由爲基礎是不牢固的，這並不令人意外，因爲這自由也是空洞的。西方雖有自由，卻是一種奇怪的、扭曲的自由。由於自由選擇已經被擡高成一種至高無上的價值觀，社會控制再也不能顯示出在侵犯自由。然而，這種對自由的容忍往往僅是口頭上的。

When the hope of long-term employment is taken away, it is sold as a “flexible” labour market, one that offers the perpetual opportunity to reinvent ourselves. When state provision for retirement is taken away, it is to give us the freedom to plan our old age. We are constantly forced to make “free” choices — decisions we must make alone, though we do not know enough to make them wisely. If this is freedom, it is a burden.

長期僱傭的希望被拿走，被包裝爲“靈活的”勞動力市場，這個市場爲我們提供永久的自我重塑機會。國家的養老保障被拿走，被說成給了我們自己規劃老年生活的“自由”。我們不斷被迫作出“自由”的選擇，即我們必須自己做出的選擇，儘管我們缺乏做出明智選擇所需的知識。如果這就是自由，那麼它是個負擔。

Many westerners sense there is something defective about this freedom. We sense it most when we witness the choices of people who are not free, yet who take control of their futures in ways that we cannot. What was fascinating about the protesters in Maidan Square who demanded a new political order for Ukraine was not that they stood up for the mirage of the European way of life. It was simply that they stood up.

許多西方人都感覺到這種自由存在某些缺陷。尤其當我們看到，那些並沒有自由、卻能以我們做不到的方式掌控自己未來的人，做出了怎樣的選擇。烏克蘭獨立廣場(Maidan square)上的示威者要求烏克蘭有新的政治秩序，他們的吸引人之處並不在於他們爲過上幻想中的歐式生活站起來反抗，而僅在於反抗本身。

They acted. They made things change. They were not free, and yet they had powers of agency that westerners, for all their freedom, lack.

他們採取了行動。他們改變了局面。他們不自由，然而他們的行動力是西方人所缺乏的，儘管後者擁有一切自由。