Friday 16 January 2015

關於本博的名字


(按︰本來有時間是想繼續寫自由主義的,但今日在讀 Montaigne 的懷疑論時,就不自覺地寫成這篇。不是什麼好文章,也不是嚴謹的哲學思考,但可以當作遲來的自我介紹。)

不知道是哲學影響性格,還是性格影響哲學,我寫的文章範疇很廣,有政治有科學有電影,每篇的寫作動機不盡相同,但常常又不約而同地指向同一個主題︰「懷疑」。我會說自己是個 skeptic ,但當然不是指我懷疑外在世界的真實性,也不是像笛卡兒那樣主張透過懷疑去尋找穩固不變的真理,而是說在我的世界觀之中,對人類有限性的意識,對世事複雜變幻的意識,這兩者扮演了很重要的角色。所以這種懷疑論,並不是智力遊戲而已,而是一種生活方式。

本博的名字 "Niether/Nor" 就是想要捕捉這種懷疑論的多層意義。首先,世事遠比我們的語言系統複雜,我不相信人類可以尋找到一個內部一致的統一論述,將所有世事通通塞進去。理論思考就像盲人摸象,彼此矛盾的理論可以互相補足,來呈現事物的不同面向,理論的運用更是要因時制宜,不對應所有事都用一樣的分析。因此我不認為思想的一致性比思想的多樣性優先,如果一致性的代價是過度簡化,那我情願當一個自相矛盾的人。矛盾--如果這是出於我們理性和語言的限制,我們就最好誠實地接納。所以我不希望為自己教條式地貼上某個立場或身份︰我既不是這個立場,也不是那個立場;我既不是xx主義者,也不是yy主義者。但有時標籤和自我標籤是協助讀者理解的必要之惡(溝通避免不了簡化),於是我會盡量附帶點 self-conscious irony ,例如說自己「自稱」左翼(用很文學理論很唬人的講法,就是在文本當中把文本自身的限制呈現出來)。如果我的寫作有一個貫徹始終的目標(其實沒有[1]),那就是用不同理論觀點去向常識和成見提出懷疑,希望迫使人注意到某單一立場的限制,意識到我們知識和視野的有限,世事比我們想像的複雜,這樣我們就能謙和一點,更開放地探索不同觀點,尊重差異。

其實在寫上一段的文字時,已經處處感到語言的限制。謙虛和尊重差異是否真的那麼重要?我們有必要避免簡化嗎?有時我好像在 preach 一些東西,但這些問題,其實我並沒有肯定的答案。我對很多事情都存疑,都有所保留,並認為大原則的運用應該配合特定脈絡。但要是對太多事情有所保留,就很難寫得成文章,因為一篇文章總要有句號,不能全是問號。 "Neither/Nor" 的另一層意思,就是想捕捉我這種寫作上的懊惱。我跟自己寫的東西有一段距離,我總是無法完全 commit to 自己的文字,這樣也不能表達我,那樣也不能表達我。我很喜歡 Dostoevsky 的小說 Notes From Underground ,原因之一,就是在於小說對言語本身強烈的自我意識。小說的上半卷是「我」寫的一篇告白,向「讀者」解釋為什麼「我」收到了一筆遺產後決定把自己關在地下室,下半生與世隔絕,從此不見天日。這種告白體常見的一種現象,就是告白者往往會有意無意地扭曲記憶,或發明些巧妙的方式來為自己的失敗與過錯辯護。 Notes From Underground 最 modern 的地方就在於,告白中的「我」無時無刻都注意到自己文字的欺騙/自我欺騙性質,所以我們可以看見在「我」的告白當中,「我」會不斷懷疑自己之前的講法,提出新的說法,然後又有所保留,這就造成了這篇告白非常混亂的結構,使得讀者很難有一個一致的理解。 Dostoevsky 透過寫作本身,說明了寫作是何等 paradoxical 的一件事。

"Neither/Nor" 對我來講也有很多其他意思,有指人生上的兩難,也指身份危機。或者是這個名字本身的負面著色,才是最重要的(這個名字是在讀 Kierkegaard 時想出來的[2])。但再寫下去就會變成很冗長的夫子自道了,太煞有介事,我很怕這樣,所以就此暫住吧。

--

[1]這也是 self-conscious irony ︰我意識到我在簡化和理想化自己的動機。
[2]Either/Or 是存在主義哲學家 Søren Kierkegaard 的第一本重要著作。

Monday 5 January 2015

自由主義是什麼




讀書又讀到有趣的地方,這段歷史可謂跟現代相映成趣︰

研究黑奴歷史的歷史學家 David Davis 告誡我們不要「混淆自由主義原則和反奴隸制的決心」。[1]

歷史上,自由主義運動中最具代表性的哲學家和政治家,有很多都支持奴隸制,並認為它合符自由主義原則。例如著名的十七世紀英國哲學家 John Locke 就認為奴隸制是不證自明且不容爭議的,因為奴隸是主人的私有財產,而私有財產,在這個哲學家眼中,是神聖的。[2]不過,自由主義的思潮之中也不是沒有譴責奴隸制的善良之聲。不過這些善良之聲總是溫溫吞吞之餘,也往往在面臨實踐時走音變調。

在美國內戰即將爆發之際, Lord Acton 譴責了「美國奴隸制的恐怖」,但同時又毫不猶豫地反對「斷然地禁止奴隸制」,因為這種要求是「抽象、空想的絕對主義」,跟「英國的精神」相悖,也不合講究彈性、務實和常識的自由主義精神。

再早幾年前, Francis Lieber 譴責廢除主義者,稱他們為「雅各賓派」(Jacobins),是不可救藥的空想家和狂熱者︰「如果人家要畜奴,那是人家的事。」

著有《民主在美國》的著名法國思想家,自由主義的代表人物, de Tocqueville ,稱他「從來都不是通常意義下的廢除主義者」,「我從不認為在舊有州份粉碎奴隸制是可能的」。他在理論上堅定反對奴隸制,但在實踐上卻不支持任何清除奴隸制的行動,因為美國南方的處境只能透過由上至下、集中式的威權來改變,而這樣會把「自治政府的偉大實驗」丟進危機之中。所以?維持原狀是必要的,我們可以防止新州份引入奴隸制,但在奴隸制業已存在的南方,人民必須繼續接受奴隸制的延續。

說是這樣說,但事實上,當美國合併了從墨西哥搶回來的德州,並重新引入奴隸制時, de Tocqueville 卻進一步退讓,指廢除主義者為了美國當前利益的大局,必須要容忍一個新的奴隸制州份。奴隸制在擴張的同時,他的容忍能力似乎也一併在擴張。

這位思想家解釋了為什麼廢除主義者不但要容忍奴隸制,還要容忍它的擴張︰如果美國這個自由的化身遭到分裂,就「全人類都要承受嚴重的損傷,在這片和平的大陸挑起戰火。」

而在法國,這些自由主義者反對奴隸制,又同時反對廢除奴隸制的理由還有「為了自治原則,黑人的議題應該由殖民地地方議會自行決定。」(而當時的議會由白人組成);「奴隸是財產,如將之充公則必須加以補償,但我們沒有足夠的資金。」[3]

這種結不出果實的 Liberal Humanism ,其實到了現在還是大同小異。 1848 之後,這些自由主義者還是持續地指責社會主義者的抽象、空想、狂熱和絕對主義。他們譴責資本主義的種種不人道,但在實踐上卻堅決認為我們要守護資本主義;他們同情工人的被奴役狀態,但又堅決支持生產資料的私有制;他們批評議會的無能,但又堅持透過議會進行改革。這種花開但不結果的立場,就是其受到左翼激進主義者猛烈攻擊的原因。

這種狀況在當代也沒太大改變,主流的自由派繼續走議會路線,「開明」的資本家一手剝削在越南的勞工,另一手捐錢到蘇丹成為人道英雄,而左翼則繼續批評自由派與資本主義的合謀,人道主義者的偽善。

有朋友問為什麼要區分開左翼和自由派?除了歷史上的對立之外,更大的問題是左翼很清楚,即使左翼和自由派在普世關懷這點上一致,只要一旦發生任何動搖現時體制的革命,自由派就必然會站到左翼的對立面,抵制他們的激進主義。而這不只是溫和性格與急進性格的衝突,自由主義的原則本身就有反對革命的保守傾向︰受壓迫階級武裝起來革命的話,就會危害到剝削階級的「人權」和「自由」,更會破壞「民主」的議會,而革命,則無可避免就是一種「專制主義」。強調「程序正義」的自由主義難以容忍階級鬥爭路線,於是自由主義不但從本質上是改良主義的,更是反革命的,支持延續資本主義的。所以左翼會說自由主義是資產階級的意識形態(bourgeois ideology)。



傳統上一貫的論述,就是把自由主義看成是「歷史的進步力量」,或許偶有砂石,但自由主義的思想終會掃清那些舊時代的偏見。很多人都會這樣想,但 Liberalism: A Counter-History 的作者 Domenico Losurdo 可不這樣認為。

書中指出十七、十八世紀的自由主義者,例如非常具代表性的 John Locke 、 Edmund Burke 、 Jeremy Bentham 、 Emmanuel Sieyès 等,都是奴隸制、殖民主義、種族屠殺等惡行的支持者。據稱「自由」的英國和美國,內部也是分裂成嚴如貴族的有產階級,和自由被完全剝奪的奴隸和工人。

可能有人會說,這也只是舊時代遺留下的偏見吧,那個年代的人無法超越歷史,不能怪罪自由主義本身。

但書中還講了個有趣的事實︰荷蘭的自由派代表 Hugo Grotius ,是奴隸制的忠實支持者;而他同年代的保皇派對手 Jean Bodin ,支持君主的絕對權力,同時反對任何形式的奴隸制。在十七世紀到十九年紀,代表「進步」的自由主義者支持奴隸制、殖民主義、屠殺原住民、強制勞動,而代表「落後」的保守主義者則成為這些現代災難的熱心批評者,這種有違直覺的例子,書中還舉了很多。類似的對立,還有自由派跟大公教會︰自由派支持蓄養黑奴,而教會則反對之。

其實,在中世紀的歐洲,大公教會憑藉它的力量已經將奴隸制清除[4]。本來無一物,是資本家和殖民者將奴隸制重新引入的。奴隸制、殖民主義、種族主義等等都是資本主義世界的新產物,而並非「黑暗時代」的封建遺物。在這個角度下,到底誰是「進步」?誰是「保守」?

主流的歷史都是由勝利者所編的,如今我們已經很習慣把所謂啟蒙運動視為理性戰勝迷信的過程,但事實卻比意識形態複雜,當我們把注意力放在這些被刻意遺忘的歷史「砂石」上,就會開始懷疑我們所說的歷史,究竟是一個理性進步的過程,還是一個新興階級(bourgeoisie)借用「自由」、「人權」、「理性」和「科學」等名號來奪取權力的過程而已?歷史上自由派所擁護的「自由」,是「人類的自由」,還是「資產階級的自由」?

我們應該把自由主義理解為資產階級的意識形態,在歷史上,它被用作資產階級推翻封建貴族的工具,也被用作建立財產私有制的基礎,有必要時,它更會為資產階級的殘酷剝削辯護;而在現代,它則提供一種美好的人道主義理想供大眾仰望,但當有任何人打算從根本地挑戰跨國企業在第三世界的剝削時,它就會搖身一變成為 status quo 的守護神。自由主義的面貌一直在變,但始終如一的是,它一直在尋找最有效的方式來延續資本主義。當情況容許時,他會把資產階級建立的剝削性制度說成是自然而神聖的,情況變壞時,它會讓步承認現狀確是不人道,但妄想改變它卻會危害我們寶貴的政治自由。

我們不能單純地把自由主義當成是「進步力量」。當然,自由主義也有其進步的地方,但這並不就代表自由主義本身就是進步的化身。最貼切的說法是,自由主義是維繫資本主義的統治意識形態(governing ideology)。它可以進步,也可以保守,視乎資產階級的需要。例如資本主義的生產模式要求資本家不斷提高生產效率,因此就需要科技的發展,而自由主義服務於這種利益,就會為科學研究爭取一個言論足夠自由的環境,這就是為什麼自由主義會有進步的地方;但是在革命的力量面前,在會動搖資產階級的重大利益時,它就一定是保守反動的。你或許會認為資本主義應該千秋萬代,但這是兩回事,不能因為支持資本主義就把自由主義簡化成進步的化身,要恰如其分地分析自由主義,就不能無視它與資本主義的主僕關係。

“The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas.” -- Karl Marx, The German Ideology

--

[1]David B. Davis, The Problem of Slavery in the Age of Revolution, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1975, p.255
[2]為奴隸制、殖民主義、屠殺原住民、種族主義、強奪農民土地、強制勞動和/或針對窮人盜竊等小罪判死刑等專橫法律而辯護的自由主義代表人物還有 J. S. Mill, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Edmund Burke, Hugo Grotius, Montesquieu, Abraham Lincoln, William Blackstone, Adam Smith, Emmanuel Sieyès, Bernard Mandeville, Benjamin Constant, Algermon Sidney, Antoine Barnave, John Calhoun 等等。
[3]Losurdo, Domenico, Liberalism: A Counter-History, 2014, Verso, p.153-157
[4]中世紀的農奴(serfdom)跟奴隸(slave)是兩回事,農奴比奴隸享有大得多的自由和權利。可參考 wiki

Saturday 3 January 2015

書摘︰《歷史資本主義》


Immanuel Wallerstein (就是在政治經濟學和國際關係裡非常著名的「世界體系理論」的創始人)的小書 "Historical Capitalism" 之前在日本旅行時讀完,書雖小,但理論卻非常宏大。 Wallerstein 雖然深受馬克思的政治經濟學影響,但他的學說對傳統的左
翼理論作出了很多修正,例如他認為過往所發生過的社會主義革命/反體制運動都只左右了國際間的權力平衡,並沒有脫離資本主義這個歷史體系,甚至反而加固了資本主義。我把較重要的修正抄下來,嫌太長的可以根據中文詮腳選段來讀。


(一)帝國主義


對於帝國主義擴張的解釋, Wallerstein 認為一般的說法「過剩商品需要尋找新市場」並不合乎事實,較恰當的解釋是資本家需要開發更廉價的勞動力︰
"Areas external to historical capitalism have on the whole been reluctant purchasers of its products, in part because they didn't 'need' them in terms of their own economic system and in part because they often lacked the relevant wherewithal to purchase them. To be sure there were exceptions. But by and large it was the capitalist world that sought out the products of the external arena and not the other way around. Whenever particular loci were militarily conquered, capitalist entrepreneurs regularly complained of the absence of real markets there and operated through colonial governments to 'create tastes'.

The search for markets as an explanation simply does not hold. A much more plausible explanation is the search for low-cost labour forces. It is historically the case that virtually every new zone incorporated into the world-economy established levels of real remuneration which were at the bottom of the world-system's hierarchy of wage-levels."

(二)資本主義革命

對於由封建主義到資本主義的過渡, Wallerstein 認為是同一個統治階級的內鬥和自我轉型,而並非一個新階級推翻舊階級的過程

"The economic arena of feudal Europe was going through a very fundamental, internally generated, crisis in this period that was shaking its social foundations. Its ruling classes were destroying each other at a great rate, while its land-system (the basis of its economic structure) was coming loose, with considerable reorganization moving in the direction of a far more egalitarian distribution than had been the norm. [...] Things were indeed falling apart. Had Europe continued on the path along which it was going, it is difficult to believe that the patterns of medieval feudal Europe with its highly structured system of 'orders' could have been reconsolidated. Far more probable is that the European feudal social structure would have evolved towards a system of relatively equal small-scale producers, further flattening out the aristocracies and decentralizing the political structures.
... But it is clear that the prospect must have appalled Europe's upper strata --- appalled and frightened them, especially as they felt their ideological armour was disintegrating too. Without suggesting that anyone consciously verbalized any such attempt, we can see by comparing the Europe of 1650 with 1450 that the following things had occurred. By 1650, the basic structures of historical capitalism as a viable social system had been established and consolidated. The trend towards egalitarianization of reward had been drastically reversed. The upper strata were once again in firm control politically and ideologically. There was a reasonably high level of continuity between the families that had been high strata in 1450 and those that were high strata in 1650."

讀者應該會留意到 Wallerstein 比馬克思主義者更強調政治力量的角色,他認為技術的發展並非資本主義的原因而是其結果,是資本主義為發展科技帶來誘因,因為新發明意味著可以獨市的新商品。

Wallerstein 也談到資本家的內鬥會以「民主」、「自由」等口號包裝甚至以「革命」形式呈現︰

"Sometimes, however, they have been over larger 'constitutional' issues which determine the rules governing the conduct of shorter-run struggles, and thus the likelihood of one fraction or another prevailing. Whenever these struggles were 'constitutional' in nature, they required greater ideological mobilization. In these cases, we heard talk of 'revolutions' and 'great reforms' and the losing sides were often given opprobrious (but analytically inappropriate) labels. To the extent that the political struggles for, say, 'democracy' or 'liberty' against 'feudalism' or 'traditon' have not been struggles of the working classes against capitalism, they have been essentially struggles among the accumulators of capital for the accumulation of capital. Such struggles were not the triumph of a 'progressive' bourgeoisie against reactionary strata but intro-bourgeois struggles. 
Of course, using 'universalizing' ideological slogans about progress has been politically useful. It has been a way of associating class struggle mobilization to one side of intra-accumulator struggles. But such ideological advantage has often been a double-edged sword, unleashing passions and weakening repressive restraints in the class struggle."

(三)社會主義革命

他也解釋了在資本主義世界中革命造反為何比在先前的歷史階段更困難︰

"...generally speaking, rebellion as a technique has worked only at the margins of central authority, particularly when central bureaucracies were in phases of disintegration." 
"The fact that states were located in an interstate system meant that the repercussions of rebellions or uprisings were felt, often quite rapidly, beyond the confines of the immediate political jurisdiction within which they occurred. So-called 'outside' forces therefore had strong motives to come to the aid of assailed state-machineries. This made rebellions more difficult. On the other hand, the intrusion of the accumulators of capital, and hence of state-machineries, into the daily life of the work-forces was far more intensive in general under historical capitalism than under previous historical systems."

過往的反體制運動,無論是左翼的工人運動,還是右翼的民族運動,都脫離不了一個基本策略,就是奪取國家櫂力。然而, Wallerstein 認為這種策略不可能達到反體制的目的,而只會令後革命的國家再一次落入世界體系的資本主義分工上

"The key to the problem may in fact lie in the basic strategic decision to make the seizure of state power the pivot of the movement's activities. The strategy had two fundamental consequences. In the phase of mobilization, it pushed each movement towards entering into tactical alliances with groups that were in no way 'anti-systemic' in order to reach its strategic objective. These alliances modified the structure of the anti systemic movements themselves, even in the mobilization stage. Even more importantly, the strategy eventually succeeded in many cases. Many of the movements achieved partial or even total state power. These successful movements were then confronted with the realities of the limitations of state power within the capitalist world-economy. They found that they were constrained by the functioning of the interstate system to exercise their power in ways that muted the 'anti-systemic' objectives that were their raison d'etre."

「革命黨」奪取國家權力,在整個資本主義體系下,代表的是一場改革,而非革命︰

"This seems so obvious that one must then wonder why the movements based their strategy on such a seemingly self-defeating objective. The answer was quite simple: given the political structure of historical capitalism, they had little choice. There seemed to be no more promising alternative strategy. The seizure of state power at least promised to change the balance of power between contending groups somewhat. This is to say, the seizure of power represented a reform of the system. The reforms in fact did improve the situation, but always at the price of also strengthening the system."

又因為所謂的後革命國家無一倖免都跳不出歷史資本主義的體系之外,其結局往往就是重新啟動資本積累的引擊,繼續剝削工人,於是這些所謂革過命的國家,又會重新出現新的反體制運動︰

"...the so-called post-revolutionary regimes continue to function as part of the social division of labour of historical capitalism. They have thereby operated, willy-nilly, under the relentless pressures of the drive for the endless accumulation of capital. The political consequence internally has been the continued exploitation of the labour-force, if in a reduced and ameliorated form in many in stances. This has led to internal tensions paralleling those found in states that were not 'post-revolutionary', and this in turn has bred the emergence of new anti-systemic movements within these states."

對於國家在資本主義的意義,可以如此總結︰"Changes in state structures have altered the politics of accumulation; they have not yet been able to end them."

--

後半本的 "Historical Capitalism" ,主要處理兩個議題︰意識形態和歷史進步論,而我認為後者尤其重要。跟正統的馬克思主義者不同, Wallerstein 懷疑歷史進步論,他質疑進步論中的兩個觀點--(1)歷史資本主義比先前的歷史系統較為進步;(2)歷史資本主義終會被更進步的歷史系統(社會主義)所取代--這兩個觀點彼此相關、互相證成,而 Wallerstein 則透過攻擊觀點(1),解釋進步並非必然,繼而動搖我們對(2)的信仰--我們決不能只坐等資本主義滅亡,在歷史的交叉點上,我們的行動將會影響歷史的走向。

嫌太長的話可以按中文詮腳選段閱讀。

(四)種族主義

Wallerstein 認為前資本主義時代的恐外情緒跟現代的種族主義是不同的東西,種族主義是資本主義底下的意識形態,被用以合理化不平等的經濟分配。

"What we mean by racism has little to do with the xenophobia that existd in various prior historical systems. Xenophobia was literally fear of the 'stranger'. Racism within historical capitalism was the mode by which various segments of the work-force within the same economic structure were constrained to relate to each other. Racism was the ideological justification for the hierarchization of the work-force and its highly unequal distributions of reward." 
"The ideological statements have been in the form of allegations that genetic and/or long-lasting 'cultural' traits of various groups are the major cause of differential allocation to positions in the economic structures. However, the beliefs that certain groups were 'superior' to others in certain characteristics relevant to performance in the economic arena always came into being after, rather than before, the location of these groups in the work-force. Racism has always been post hoc. It has been asserted that those who have been economically and politically oppressed are culturally 'inferior'. If, for any reason, the locus in the economic hierarchy changed, the locus in the social hierarchy tended to follow."

種族主義除了有利規限受害者對階級流動的期待,也有利分化中層和底層的勞動軍,就像利用囚犯來監管囚犯。

"[Racism] has served to socialize groups into their own role in the economy... Racism, just like sexism, functioned as a self-suppressive ideology, fashioning expectations and limiting them." 
"[Racism] served to keep low-ranking groups in line, and utilize middle-ranking groups as the unpaid soldiers of the world police system. In this way, not only were the financial costs of the political structures reduced significantly, but the ability of anti-systemic groups to mobilize wide populations was rendered more difficult, since racism structurally set victims against victims."

(五)普世主義

Wallerstein 認為資本主義中的兩大意識形態︰種族主義和普世主義,看似互相矛盾,但其實都是依資本主義運作的需要在同一個系統下製造出來的。普世主義主要是菁英的信仰,有利於各國的上層及中層階級的整合。

"Work-forces could not be expected to perform efficiently and continuously unless they were managed by cadres. Cadres too have had to be created, socialized, reproduced. The primary ideology that operated to create, socialize, and reproduce them was not the ideology of racism. It was that of universalism."
"Whereas racism served as a mechanism of world-wide control of direct producers, universalism served to direct the activities of the bourgeoisie of other states and various middle strata world-wide into channels that would maximize the close integration of production processes and the smooth operation of the interstate system, thereby facilitating the accumulation of capital."
"Scientific culture... was a form of socialization of the diverse elements that were the cadres of all the institutional structures that were needed. As a language common to cadres but not directly to the labour-force, it became also a means of class cohesion for the upper stratum, limiting the prospects or extent of rebellious activity on the part of cadres who might be so tempted."

(六)歷史進步論

然後 Wallerstein 也討論了歷史進步論這個意識形態,他先指出左翼的歷史進步論合理化了社會主義,但同時也合理化了資本主義。而根據過往幾十年的經驗,比較蘇聯和美國的物質生活水平,唯物主義進步觀也可以反咬「社會主義實驗」一口,這成了當代左翼其中一個意識形態危機。

至於對進步論本身, Wallerstein 持否定的態度,指出它最大的問題在於 "the one-sidedness of all measures proposed" ,並逐一質疑進步論者提出的各種測量指標︰

1) 科學/科技進步 v.s. 被丟失遺忘的傳統知識

"...we never seriously discuss how much knowledge we have lost in the world-wide sweep of the ideology of universalism. Or if we do, we categorize such lost knowledge as mere (?) wisdom. Yet, at the simple technical levels of agricultural productivity and biological wholeness, we have been discovering of late that methods of human action discarded a century or two ago (a process enforced by enlightened elites upon backward masses) often need to be revived because they turn out to be more, not less, efficacious."
2) 生產效率進步 v.s. 工作負擔增加
"Each input of human energy has been rewarded with steadily greater outputs of products, which is surely true as well. But we do not calculate to what degree this has meant that humanity has reduced or increased the total inputs of energy that individuals separately, or all people within the capitalist world-economy collectively, have been called upon to invest, whether per unit of time or per lifetime. Can we be so sure that the world is less burdensome under historical capitalism than under prior systems?"
3) 物質生活提升 v.s 精神生活墜落
"...doubts in this domain have grown steadily throughout the twentieth century, as our now frequent references to 'quality of life' and mounting concern with anomie, alienation, and psychic maladies indicate."
4) 對人類更安全的環境 v.s. 現代戰爭與核威脅
"Once again this is incontestable at a micro level... But has this really been true at a macro level, even up to now, and even omitting the Damoclean sword of nuclear war?"

Wallerstein 更指出,要說今日的世界對比一千年前有更多的自由、平等和友愛,也至少不是不證自明的。但不要搞錯,他並沒有把前現代的生活想像成田園牧歌,它們也是沒有多少自由平等友愛,但問題是在比較之下資本主義世界真的比以前多嗎?還有一個說法就是殘忍行為(Cruelties)的減少, Wallerstein 回應說,即使不考慮歷史上資本主義對窮人的殘酷,二十世紀的歷史也足以顯示今人的 "unusual talents of refinement in these ancient arts."

提出了對進步論的種種質疑後,Wallerstein 打算要為一種少有的說法辯護︰"the absolute (not relative) immiseration of the proletariat" ,今日的資本主義比二百年前的更差,生活相對改善了的工人只是世界人口的一小部份。

"Surely you can't be serious; surely you mean relative immiseration? Is not the industrial worker strikingly better off today than in 1800? The industrial worker, yes, or at least many industrial workers. But industrial workers still comprise a relatively small part of the world's population. 
The overwhelming proportion of the world's work-forces, who lives in rural zones or move between them and urban slums, are worse off than their ancestors five hundred years ago."
"They unquestionably work harder -- more hours per day, per year, per lifetime. And since they do this for less total reward, the rate of exploitation has escalated very sharply."
他也提到資本主義對社區的破壞,小型的社區結構被大型的政治經濟結構取代,名義上的個人主義和自由主義並沒有為鄉區的窮人帶來「解放」,而是更多的操控和壓迫。
"In many areas, and for long periods, the prior role of the community structures has been assumed by 'plantations', that is, by the oppressive control of large-scale politico-economic structures controlled by 'entrepreneurs'. The 'plantations' of the capitalist world-economy -- whether based on slavery, imprisonment, share-cropping (forced or contractual), or wage-labour -- can scarcely be said to have provide more leeway for 'individuality'." 
"Even where one form or another of direct authoritarian control of agricultural activity (what we have just labelled 'plantations') was not substituted for the prior laxer community structure of control, the disintegration of the community structures in rural zones was not experienced as a 'liberation', since it was inevitably accompanied, indeed frequently directly caused, by a constantly growing control by the emergent state structures which increasingly have been unwilling to leave the direct producer to his autonomous, local decision-making processes."
那為什麼活在城市的我們很容易覺得「世界在變好」?那是因為我們都是受惠於資本主義的中層成員︰

"A good deal of the 'progressive' politics of the past several hundred years of historical capitalism has resulted in the steady diminution of the unequal distribution of the world surplus-value among that small group who have shared in it. The shouts of triumph of this 'middle' sector over the reduction of their gap with the upper one per cent have masked the realities of the growing gap between them and the other eighty-five per cent."

(七)革命的問題

進步論的另一個原素,就是認為在歷史的演化當中,一個新的階級會取代一個舊的階級,而正如上回都指出過, Wallerstein 認為正確的歷史圖像是封建時代的貴族地主階級將自己轉化為布爾喬亞(bourgeoisie),這個轉化是為了維持及擴大他們剝削勞動力的能力。

馬克思主義者對「無產階級革命」的想像一直都是建基於歷史上的「布爾喬亞革命」,但由於「布爾喬亞革命」並不是一個階級推倒另一個階級的革命,馬克思主義者的基本戰略就大有問題了。

更重要的是, Wallerstein 雖然同意資本主義會因其內在矛盾而最終解體,但他提醒我們資本主義的滅亡不一定會帶來社會主義,我們的資產階級可能會透過轉化自身來發展出另一種更有效的階級社會(class society)︰

"Progress is not inevitable. We are struggling for it. And the form the struggle is taking is not that of socialism versus capitalism, but that of a transition to a relatively classless society versus a transition to some new class-based mode of production (different from historical capitalism but not necessarily better).
"The choice for the world bourgeoisie is not between maintaining historical capitalism and suicide. It is between on the one hand a 'conservative' stance, which would result in the continued disintegration of the system and its resultant transformation into an uncertain but probably more egalitarian world order; and, on the other hand, a bold attempt to seize control of the process of transition, in which the bourgeoisie itself would assume 'socialist' clothing, and seek to create thereby an alternative historical system which would leave intact the process of exploitation of the world's work-force, to the benefit of a minority."

這一點尤其重要︰一個新的階級社會可以以「社會主義」的裝扮登場,繼續服務於同一批統治階級,抗爭者決不可以因為資本主義被取代就急於慶祝。

在這一節的最後, Wallerstein 提醒我們無論在分析評價各種反體制運動時,不要忘記這些運動,包括「社會主義國家」,都並非外在於歷史資本主義,它們的存在本身就是歷史資本主義的矛盾展現,他們的負面影響應該歸咎於資本主義,而不是一個尚未存在過的社會主義;「社會主義國家」對工人的剝削,也應該歸咎於他們處於世界資本主義分工的邊陲位置,而跟他們是由共產黨還是親資政黨領導,關係較小。

"The first and most important thing to remember in any such assessment is that the world socialist movement, indeed all forms of anti-systemic movements, as well as all revolutionary and/or socialist states, have themselves been integral products of historical capitalism. They were not structures external to the historical system but the excretion of processes internal to it. Hence they have reflected all the contradictions and constraints of the system. They could not and cannot do otherwise.
"Their faults, their limitations, their negative effects are part of the balance-sheet of historical capitalism, not of a hypothetical historical system, of a socialist world-order, that does not yet exist. The intensity of the exploitation of labour in revolutionary and/or socialist states, the denial of political freedoms, the persistence of sexism and racism all have to do far more with the fact that these states continue to be located in peripheral and semi-peripheral zones of the capitalist world-system."
"They can only be sensibly evaluated by asking how much they have contributed to the world-wide struggle to ensure that the transition from capitalism is towards an egalitarian socialist world-order."

(八)資本主義的矛盾與終結


本書的最後一部份-- "Future Prospects" --繼續闡述資本主義的內在矛盾,並嘗試勾劃這個歷史系統的未來。

針對資本主義的內在矛盾, Wallerstein 的分析跟傳統馬克思主義大同小異︰在企業的彼此競爭之下,企業要維持利潤率,就必須降低勞動力成本。但如果降低工人薪資,又會導致市場的消費力減弱,總需求下降。這就是資本主義的內在矛盾之一。 Wallerstein 認為,這矛盾在歷史上的解決方式,是透過地域區隔(geographical disjuncture)來達成的。任何時候,世界體系中受特別思典的地區採取了提升總需求的政治措施(例如定立最低工資、提高福利等),在世界體系的邊陲地區就會同時增加一堆新的廉價勞動力。可以是將更多效區農民轉化為城市工廠工人,也可以是將整個世界資本主義體系擴展到之前所未包括的地方,例如一些自給自足的郊區經濟體。也就是說,企業透過尋找未開拓的地區,將其轉化為廉價勞動力市場,從而降低了生產成本,而又同時能維持到本國消費市場的總需求。

而 Wallerstein 認為,這種策略有其極限︰未被世界
資本主義體系編入的地區有限,而且在不斷縮小。實際上,在八十年代,這個極限已經碰頂,資本家再沒有更廉價的勞動力可供開發,在利潤率下跌的情況下,資本家和國家合力向本國人民開刀︰把國有資產私有化,撤銷本國的福利政策,並透過信貸擴張之類手段維持總需求。 Wallerstein 認為廿一世紀將會見證資本主義的矛盾走到極限,進入系統性危機,政治將變得非常不穩定,並有機會向任何一個方向前進。

這個系統性危機將會以什麼方式呈現呢? Wallerstein 認為其中一個可能,就是來自第三世界的新移民跟核心國家的社會發生「內戰」

"...the massive, relentless drive of households to migrate illegally to wealthier climes, to escape from the South to the North. [...] Over the coming twenty-five years, we may expect enormous numbers to succeed in this South-North migration. The double reality of the material conditions gap and the demographic gap makes it highly improbable that any state policy in the North can be seriously effective in stemming the flow."
"The phenomenon of the 'Third World within' in the core zones of the capitalist world-economy will become massive as the demographic balance shifts. "
"The demographic transformation, caused by weakening state structures, will in turn weaken them further. Social disorder will once again become normal in the core zones. In the last twenty years there has been much discussion on this under the false label of increased crime. What we shall be seeing is increased civil warfare. This is the face of the time of troubles. The scramble for protection has already begun. The states cannot provide it. For one thing they do not have the money; for another they do not have the legitimation. We shall see instead the expansion of private protection armies and police structures, by local communities, by religious bodies, and of course by crime syndicates."

(九)資本主義後的未來

這種情況下,歷史將何去何從? Wallerstein 認為我們頂多可以粗略勾勒出未來的幾種可能性,至於當中的細節,則無從預測。他勾勒了三種可能走向︰

A, 新封建主義

One is a sort of neo-feudalism that would reproduce in a far more equilibrated form the developments of the time of troubles --- a world of parcellized sovereignties, of considerably more autarkic regions, of local hierarchies. This might be made compatible with maintaining (but probably not furthering) the current relatively high level of technology. Endless accumulation of capital could no longer function as the mainspring of such a system, but it would certainly be an inegalitarian system. What would legitimate it? Perhaps a return to a belief in natural hierarchies.
B. 民主法西斯主義
A second formula might be a sort of democratic fascism. Such a formula would involve a caste-like division of the world into two strata, the top one incorporating perhaps a fifth of the world's population. Within this stratum, there could be a high degree of egalitarian distribution. On the basis of such a community of interests within such a large group, they might have the strength to keep the other 80 per cent in the position of a totally disarmed working proletariat.
C. 社會主義
A third formula might be a still more radical worldwide highly decentralized, highly egalitarian world order. [...] The increased political sophistication and technological expertise we now have makes it doable, but not at all certain. It would require accepting certain real limitations in consumption expenditures. But it does not mean merely a socialization of poverty, for then it would be politically impossible to realize.
最後, Wallerstein 提醒我們,歷史還有很多可能,最重要的是我們認清這些可能都存在,而歷史的選擇將會取決於我們未來五十年的集體努力。

Thursday 1 January 2015

新一年,踢走 smart-ass 建築


新年流流,朋友 send 來一篇批評當代建築的好文章(New year's resolutions for architects in 2015),文中記載的其中一件事,就是最近 Zaha Hadid 設計的東京奧運體育場,遭到日本建築師聯合反對,32,000 人聯署要求撤消她的設計,她卻回應說這些當地人只是妒忌她贏出了比賽,指責他們偽善。這件事實在太有象徵意義,我在此也想跟大家分享看法,希望在 2015 年城市人可以重新獲得他們應有的 public space 。

除了些少 David Harvey ,我沒讀過多少建築理論和城市規劃,或許不應在這個題目上發言太多,不過有時有些說話就是要外行人才能講。早兩個禮拜前我才去了金澤 21 世紀美術館,參觀了兩個展覽,一個講日本自戰後到當代的建築發展,另一個講 3.11 大海嘯以來的最新發展。兩個展覽都不約而同地指向同一個思想︰反思現代主義,重拾建築與環境和居民的聯繫。 3.11 大海嘯的發生,迫使了很多日本建築師思考自身專業的意義︰在這種時刻,建築能為社會貢獻什麼?於是有建築師為災區設計了很多簡易搭建的臨時居所,更考慮了如何在空間的設計上同時保障災民的私隱,又鼓勵守望相助的小社區生活。 3.11 之後,更多的日本建築師開始放下自己的身段,走入社區跟居民學習,聆聽他們的聲音,了解他們的困難。更有建築師跟居民組織會議,跟幾十個居民一同討論,建築師在每次會議後會根據居民的意見更改設計,然後再把設計圖呈上會議繼續討論,這樣來來回回,要舉行十幾次,甚至幾十次會議才能最終拍板。私有化的信徒大概又要嚷著說什麼效率不彰,但這樣的民主參與過程本身不也是目的嗎?城市空間的發展是以數十年,甚至以過百年的影響為尺度,難道不值得我們慢慢來嗎? 3.11 之後的日本人,已經懂得反省高速發展的迷思︰發展利及了什麼人?又奪取了什麼人的城市景觀和公共空間?一場大災難讓人看到真正重要的,不是一下就會被摧毀的石屎玻璃,而是人與人的關係。在這個思潮底下,怪不得日本建築師會群起反對 Zaha Hadid 那種不顧社區脈絡的空降怪物。而她只是贏了比賽就傲慢地鄙視當地人的反對聲音,也正好突顯了當代建築界的體制性問題︰這是一個以大型資本和極度個人主義的設計比賽為中心的世界,居民的利益,民主的精神通通都不在主流建築師的意識之中。

有說藝術不能搞民主,聽一大堆外行人的意見,還哪有可能創新?其實我本人也是熱愛著現代主義的,我不在品味原則上反對奇型怪狀的玻璃樓,但現代主義的最核心精神是對藝術媒介自身的反省,對藝術家角色身份的反思︰藝術是為了什麼?在客觀的層面上,藝術家服務了誰的利益?是大資本家的利益,還是大眾的利益?當我代替發展商把越來越多的公共空間收編為嚴密監管的「私有-公共空間」(private-public space)時,我認為我是在藝術上創新,但客觀的層面上我是誰的僕人?當我將大樓分開兩個入口,有錢人用豪華的前門,工人則要用寒酸的後門時,我這個設計者的腦袋是在想什麼?(這些問題上述的文章都有提及)

相對於傳統認為知識份子外在於社會,並能高高在上的引領社會發展的想像,左翼思想家 Antonio Gramsci 提出了「有機知識份子」(organic intellectual)的概念,他首先指出傳統的知識份子以專業為名,往往卻是以教育機構和媒體為手段去代替統治階級操控群眾;而「有機知識份子」則是他提倡的新身份,他指出大眾並非缺乏對其生活經驗的掌握,而只是未必具有把這些經驗充分表達出來的能力,有機知識份子的責任就是游走於普羅大眾之間,跟他們學習,並協助他們清晰表達出自己的經驗。到頭來,誰會比居民自己更清楚日常生活中的需要和不便呢?與其空降,想當然爾地認為自己比居民更了解他們需要什麼,倒不如好好跟他們學習,然後協助他們構想出點子,設計出一個真正屬於他們的空間。

或許現代主義的那種讓個性和想像力奔馳的機會很難叫人割捨,但現代主義決不只是形式創新而已,形式的創新只是對形式的反思的一個表現,真正重要的不是形式,而是批判意識,把自己放在更大的脈絡之中思考。建築不是單純放在白箱子(white cube)的東西,影響的是整個城市,而整個建築界的運作,又要比任何藝術媒介都要受資本操控。當你以為自己是個反叛的藝術家時,你其實也只是在替資本家賺錢而已,個人主義是一種幻覺。真正的反抗,是爭取開放大眾的參與,協助市民重奪規劃城市的權力,反對一少撮人為了一少撮人的利益而把我們的家當成 Sim City 。這才是真正的反叛,真正的批判。