按:最近想看以赛亚·伯林的这本唯一专著,发现有人写的英文书评,便想既读书评又当作练习英语翻译。可惜英语太差,中国语文也学得不好,专业上缺陷更多,词不达意或不能理解的地方许多。勉强译出一份,希望任何有意见的朋友都敞开了地批评指正,感谢万分。

关于马克思生平的有趣细节,没有更多好的传记真是种遗憾:他之被从一个城市驱逐到另一个,他参加1848年革命,他与其他19世纪的革命者的无数小规模辩论,他参与的国际政治,以及他最后与巴枯宁的巨大对抗。

许多传记关注于哲学上的而不是历史的方面,以赛亚·伯林的《卡尔·马克思:他的生平和环境》正是这一类传记的最好例子。对于任何想要一本更关注于其故事的传记的人,我愿意推荐弗朗西斯·惠恩(Francis Wheen)的《卡尔·马克思:一种人生》(”Karl Marx:a life”)。

以赛亚·伯林在300页之内很好地概述了马克思的生平,只是书的大部分却踯躅于马克思的哲学发展上,全部的长章节都专注在例如“青年黑格尔派”和“历史唯物主义”等主题上。

伯林做的一件我认为非常有趣的事是他强调了马克思理想中的矛盾。例如马克思生活在浪漫[主义]革命时期,这个时期著名的革命人物如赫尔岑(Herzen)、马志尼(Mazzini)、布朗基(Blanqui)和拉萨尔(Lassalle)几乎控制了宗教僧侣成为他们的追随者。马克思一生的大部分时间默默无闻地在大英图书馆里,然而如今他的名字仍为这个星球上的几乎每个人所知。马克思的核心命题,即历史的唯物的条件以及“并非观念影响历史”,已经为其非凡成功所削弱/淡化(undercut)。

或者,听从马克思关于自下而上地组织的意见的德国和奥地利的共产主义者是怎样地被法西斯主义者最终压制的,而相反,领导进行了最非马克思主义者式行动的革命一击的布尔什维克却成了第一次(也是一段时期中唯一的一次)成功的马克思主义者革命。

巴枯宁——似乎在任何传记中的情况都是对马克思有点隐晦的同情——在这里表现得有点差劲。我认为这是可以预料到的。在大部分的巴枯宁传记里,马克思都表现得很差。

不否认巴枯宁有他的缺点。读过巴枯宁任何一篇分析作品的人会知道他连马克思小指头大的辉煌都没有。他是一个没有清晰意识形态的浪漫主义者,而且他不能为了没有成功机会的状况不明的革命而去分担马克思的恐惧。并且,正如每一部马克思传记所指出的,他是一个反犹分子。

然而,他是对的(嗯,不是关于反犹的部分)。如同历史所示,所有巴枯宁对马克思的批判是正确的。并且,值得赞扬的是,以赛亚·伯林确实引用了巴枯宁众多语录中的一些:

我们相信,权力使那些执掌它的人腐化,就像它使一些人被迫遵从一般。受其影响,一些人成为贪婪和充满野心的暴君,在他们自己或他们阶级的利益上来利用社会,而别的人则变成悲惨的奴隶。知识分子、实证主义者、空想理论家 ,所有那些把科学置于生命面前的人,理所当然地在作为唯一可能的社会拯救方面捍卫国家的观念及权威,因为从他们的虚假大前提——思想在生活之先,只有抽象理论能成为社会实践的起点——中,他们得出必然结论,既然这些理论知识目前只被极少数人掌握,,则这些少数人必须被置于社会生活控制之中,这不仅是为了激励,而且还要指引所有普遍的运动,并且,革命一结束一个新的社会组织就必须马上建立;根据人们的需求和天性,并非普通大众的自由联合、而是一个集中于少数知识分子手中的中央集权的独裁权力更能起作用,就好像他们真的表达了民意。这种革命独裁政权与现代国家之间的不同只是外部标志之一。实际上二者都是一种以人民的名义——以大多数人的愚蠢和少数人的出众智慧之名——施行的少数人对多数人的统治,因此,在设计成为获得政治和经济特权的少数当权者以及对群众的奴役方面,在摧毁现存秩序只是为了在其废墟上建立他们自己的僵化独裁政权方面,他们是同样的反动派。

伯林对巴黎公社给出了一个令人惊讶的满怀敌意的报告,这方面他似乎完全根据背离了资产阶级媒体宣传的基本立场。而且他还提出了一个有趣的观点,即马克思事实上反对巴黎公社,因为它(巴黎公社)更多地是沿着巴枯宁的革命意识形态路线,但一当巴黎公社明显地将要败落时,马克思又出于渴望将他的名字与那时候欧洲最臭名昭著的革命联系起来的愤世嫉俗原因而支持它。伯林是我发现的第一个指出这一点的作家。而这当然不是一个不可能的结论,如果他能给出关于这点的更多证据就好了。

原文见下半部分


Karl Marx: His Life and Environment
March 7 2007
http://www.mediamouse.org/reviews/030707karl_.php

Given the interesting details of Marx’s life, it’s a shame there are not more good biographies about him: his banishment from one country to another, his participation in the 1848 revolutions, the numerous petty squabbles he had with other 19th century revolutionaries, his involvement in the politics of the International, and his last great fight against Bakunin.Many biograpphies focus on the philosophical instead of the historical, and Isaiah Berlin’s “Karl Marx: His Life and Environment” is a good example of this. For anyone who wants a biography that focuses more on the narrative, I would recommend Francis Wheen’s book, “Karl Marx: a life.”Isaiah Berlin does a good job of summarizing Marx’s life in under 300 pages, but most of the book lingers on Marx’s philosophical development, with whole long chapters devoted to topics such as “The Young Hegelians” and “Historical Materialism.”One thing Berlin does which I thought was very interesting was that he emphasized the paradoxes in Marx’s legend. For example Marx lived during the age of romantic revolutions in which popular revolutionary figures like Herzen, Mazzini, Blanqui, and Lassalle commanded almost religious like followings. Marx spent most of his life in obscurity in the London library, and yet today his name is still known by almost everyone on the planet. Marx’s central thesis, that historical material conditions and not ideas influence history, has been undercut by its very success.

Or how the German and Austrian communists, who followed Marx’s advice about organizing from the bottom up, were eventually overwhelmed by the fascists, where as the Bolsheviks, who committed the most un-Marxist act of a revolutionary coup, was the first (and for a time the only) successful Marxist revolution.

Bakunin, as seems to be the case with any biography vaguely sympathetic towards Marx, comes off a bit badly here. I suppose that’s to be expected. In most biographies of Bakunin, Marx comes off badly.

There is no denying that Bakunin had his flaws. Anyone who has read any piece of analysis by Bakunin knows he didn’t have the brilliance of Marx’s pinky. He was a romantic without a clear ideology, and he didn’t share Marx’s horror for Revolutions that went off half-cocked with no chance of succeeding. And, as every biography of Marx makes clear, he was an anti-Semite.

And yet, he was right (well, not about the anti-Semite part). But history has shown all of Bakunin’s criticisms of Marx to be true. And, to his credit, Isaiah Berlin does include some of Bakunin’s extended quotations:

We believe power corrupts those who wield it as much as those who are forced to obey it. Under its influence, some become greedy and ambitious tyrants, exploiting society in their own interest, or in that of their class, while others are turned into abject slaves. Intellectuals, positivists, doctrinaires, all those who put science before life defend the idea of the state and its authority as being the only possible salvation of society-quite logically, since from their false premises that thought comes before life, that only abstract theory can form the starting-point of social practice they draw the inevitable conclusion that since such theoretical knowledge is at present possessed by very few, these few must be put in control of social life, not only to inspire, but to direct all popular movements, and that no sooner is the revolution over than a new social organization must be at once be set up; not a free association of popular bodies working in accordance with the needs and instincts of the people but a centralized dictatorial power concentrated in the hands of this academic minority, as if they really expressed the popular will .The difference between such revolutionary dictatorship and the modern State is only one of external trappings. In substance both are a tyranny of the minority over the majority in the name of the people-in the name of the stupidity of the many and the superior wisdom of the few-and so they are equally reactionary, devising to secure political and economic privilege to the ruling minority, and the enslavement of the masses, to destroy the present order only to erect their own rigid dictatorship on its ruins.

Berlin gives a surprisingly hostile account of the Paris Commune, which he appears to have based completely off the Bourgesious press. And he also advances the interesting idea that Marx actually opposed the Paris Commune because it was more along the lines of Bakunin’s revolutionary ideology, but once it was clear the Commune was going to fall, Marx embraced it for the cynical reasons of the desire to link his name with the most infamous revolution in Europe at the time. Berlin is the first writer I have come across who claims this, and while it certainly is not an impossible conclusion, it would be nice if he gave some more evidence for it.

Isaiah Berlin, Karl Marx: His Life and Environment, (Oxford University Press, 1963)



4 Responses to “《卡尔·马克思:他的生平与环境》书评”

  1. 1
    georgexsh
    2007-11-22- 星期四 2:40    @reply     

    翻译出来给我们看吧

  2. 2
    asiapan
    2007-11-23- 星期五 16:43    @reply     

    To georgexsh:你竟然想看关于马克思的东西?你是啥专业的?

  3. 3
    georgexsh
    2007-11-24- 星期六 1:52    @reply     

    信管
    大约是考研政治复习的太郁闷
    ps:可否给我一个为链。不过mt4的blogroll插件还有点问题,暂时不能链你

Trackbacks

  1. This month in GeoWHY [2007-11] at Bookish dArktEmpLaR (2007年12月3日)

Leave a Comment

Tags allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

提示/Tips可使用Ctrl+Enter快速提交留言出口成脏一律垃圾处理。

blank