批判的风暴

教育是行动的知识
Search…
序言·印度人民科学教育的故事及启发
一，BGVS印度学习与科学组织
BGVS的起源、使命和工作
M.P. PARAMESWARAN博士采访
走进更美好的明天
生存权
有关价值观教育的一些见解
参与制民主的建筑结构：从喀拉拉邦五年人民竞选计划的经验谈起
附录：线上夜聊－－教育的差异与有差异的教育
批判的风暴
A Tsunami of Criticisms
批判的风暴
作者：M.P. PARAMESWARAN
翻译：诸众之貌团队
＊＊＊＊
During the period from mid- 2003 to 2004-end , the term ‘Fourth World’ attracted much more media coverage than any other single issue. The total number of references will run into a couple of thousand. There are plain abuses and seemingly academic critiques from the so-called militant Left, media references to them, media’s own conjectures and occasional rejoinders. The abuses generally take the following tone: The author of the Fourth World is a revisionist, is an imperialist agent, has received crores of rupees from the CIA and betrayed the revolution, has penetrated the CPI(M) to subvert it ( he was not even a branch secretary, but only an ordinary member) has conspired with leaders like Dr. Thomas Isaac to destabilize the Party and so on. The people of Kerala know the author for the past three-four decades ; such abuses will not cut ice with them. However, criticisms of friends like Comrade P.Govinda Pillai, Dr. Thomas Isaac, etc. upset the public. Their chief criticism is that Fourth World is not a Marxian concept, that it is utopian and hence to be rejected, etc. Even they have not offered any substantive criticism of the economics, politics and culture of the future society as indicated in the book. Given below are the main points raised by them and the author’s rejoinder.
2003年中至2004年底，“第四世界”一词吸引了最多的媒体关注。引用总量高达数千次。有浅白的攻击，也有所谓激进左翼看似学术的批判，媒体的引用，媒体自身的推测和少量的反驳。攻击的腔调通常是：《第四世界》的作者是修正主义者，帝国主义的特工，他接受了中央情报局一千万卢比，背叛了革命，潜入并企图颠覆印度马克思主义共产党（他甚至算不上一个支部书记，仅仅是一个普通党员），还勾结托马斯·艾萨克博士等领导人来动摇共产党，等等。在过去30-40 年中，喀拉拉邦的人们一直都知道这位作者，所以这种攻击对他们不起作用。然而，对P.哥文达·皮莱同志和托马斯·艾萨克博士等友人的批评引起了公众的不满。他们主要的批判是，第四世界不是马克思主义理念，而是空想完美主义，应当予以摒弃，等等。他们甚至都没有就书中所描述未来社会的经济、政治、问题进行任何实质性的批判。以下是他们提出的主要观点以及作者的回答。
I
THERE IS NO MARXIAN PHILOSOPHY IN THE FOURTH WORLD CONCEPT THE ANALYSIS IS UN-MARXIAN
《第四世界》中没有马克思哲学其中的分析是非马克思主义
Marxism is not something which some ‘high priests’ declare it to be. Marx has been subjected to interpretation and enrichment. There have been ‘official’ interpretations like that of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc. There have been heretic interpretations like that of Rosa Luxumburg, Trotsky, Gramsci, etc. Mine may be counted as one more heretic interpretation. Marxism is a science and not a religion as the high priests make it to be. I maintain that the relationship between means and ends, as well as that between productive forces and productive relationships are dialectical. Dictatorship, even if it is of the proletariat, cannot lead to democracy. There is no democracy without participation. Very little participation is possible in giant enterprises, whether in economics or in politics.
马克思主义并非“最高领导人”所宣称的东西。马克思主义一直以其诠释和补充为尊。其中有列宁、斯大林、毛泽东等的”官方“诠释，也有罗莎·卢森伯格，托洛茨基、葛兰西等的异端诠释。我的解释可以算作异端的诠释之一。马克思主义是一种科学，而不是最高领导人们所塑造成的信仰。我始终认为，手段与目的之间，以及生产力与生产关系之间的关系是辩证的。专政，即便是无产阶级专政，也不可能带来民主。没有参与就没有民主。无论在经济还是政治方面，大型企业中的参与的可能性都微乎其微。
There is the following oft- quoted sentence in Marx’s preface to ‘A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy’: “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.” The social existence is defined by the mode of production consisting of both forces of production and relationships in production. There is a tendency to equate social existence to production relations and to disregard the role of productive forces. Productive forces are supposed to be autonomous, as if they grow almost on their own, either facilitated or obstructed by production relations. Their growth is considered linear and quantitative. The transformation from quantitative to qualitative is supposed to be confined to production relations. The official interpreters of Marx do not recognise any qualitative change in productive forces.
下面是马克思在《政治经济学批判导言》的前言中常被引用的一句话:“不是人的意识决定了他们的存在，但他们的社会存在决定了他们的意识。”生产力和生产关系构成的生产方式定义了社会存在。也有人倾向把社会存在等同于生产关系，以及无视生产力的作用。生产力应是自主的，仿佛是在生产关系的促进或阻碍作用下独立发展。它们的增长被视作线性的和定量的。从定量到定性的转变应仅限于生产关系。马克思的官方诠释者们不承认生产力有任何质变。
The linear growth of productive forces leads to larger and larger enterprises with less and less control by the workers, leading ultimately to the formation of a new class – the managerial class who soon graduates into the “owning class”, as it happened in the erstwhile USSR and other socialist countries. Increasing levels of control by the workers demand ‘production by the masses instead of mass production’ or, in the words of Marx, “network of associated producers,” instead of giant State-owned enterprises. This demands small-scale, yet efficient, production for consumption - strengthening of local economies. It demands technologies which make small powerful, not merely beautiful. It demands cent per cent recycling of resources and also transition to Sun as the only source of energy in the long run. These demand conscious intervention in the development of productive forces, both in its contents and in its direction. To argue that the growth of productive forces is totally controlled by the present capitalistic relations of production is to deny its revolutionary potential. This is what the critics are doing. This is not a Marxian approach. Further, the critics make consciousness a mechanical by- product of social existence and equates it to their own consciousness. They refuse to recognise that the social existence of humans have engendered not one official consciousness but several heretic consciousnesses –environmental, gender, marginalised, etc. They are transforming Marxism into ‘fatalism’ by denying the influence of ‘being’ on existence.
生产力的线性增长使企业越来越大，工人的控制水平越来越低，最终导致一个新阶级的形成——管理阶级，其很快便成为了“所有者阶级，”而这一现象在前苏联和其它社会主义国家都曾出现过。工人们更高控制水平需要“由群众生产，而不是批量生产”，或者如马克思所说，“联合生产者网络，“而不是大型国有企业。这就要求小规模，高效率，以及为消费生产——增强当地经济。它要求百分之百的资源回收，进而把太阳作为唯一的长期能量来源。这些需要对生产力发展的内容和方向进行有意识的干预。认为生产力的发展完全由现有资本主义生产关系控制，就 意味着拒绝其革命的可能性。而批评者正在这样做。这也不是马克思主义的方法。此外，批评者把意识当作社会存在的机械副产品，并把它等同于他们自己的意识。他们拒绝承认人类的社会存在并未造就一个官方意识，而是多个异端意识——环境、性别、边缘化等等。通过否认“是”对存在的影响，把马克思主义变成了“宿命论”。
II
THE FOURTH WORLD THEORY REJECTS CLASS STRUGGLES PROMOTE CLASS CPLLABORATION
第四世界理论反对阶级斗争宣扬阶级合作
Nothing can be fartherfrom truth than this statement. Here my detractors show least respect to facts. True, I have questioned their narrow concepts of class and class struggle. For them, the proletariat, in the phrase ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’, means only those organised workers in modern industries rallied under the CITU and the CPI(M). Peasants, agricultural workers, workers in unorganised traditional industries, teachers, clerks, and those rallying under other parties – none of them belong to the working class. Bringing all of them together is branded as “class collaboration.” The relevant sentence in the book is this: “Instead of fighting each other rallying under caste, religion, loyalty to leadership, etc., based on parties and movements, they should form a united platform or party of their own. Politics should reflect class interests more genuine1.There is no Marxian philosophy in the Fourth World concept. The analysis is un-Marxian.
这种说法荒谬至极。诋毁者们连对事实最起码的尊重都没有。是的，我对他们狭隘的阶级和阶级斗争观念提出了质疑。对他们来说，“无产阶级专政”所谓的无产阶级仅仅意味着印度中央工会和印度马克思主义共产党下聚集的的现代行业中有组织的工人。农民、农业工作者、无组织传统行业的工人、教师、职员、以及其它政党下聚集的人们都不属于工人阶级。把他们团结在一起称为“阶级合作”。本书中相关描述为：“他们不应基于政党和运动，在不同种姓、宗教信仰、所效忠领导等群体之间相互斗争，而应形成统一的平台或自己的党派。政治应更真实地体现阶级利益。
The concept of class struggle requires enrichment. Presently it is limited to protest rallies, bandhs, hartals and strikes. In a class conflict, the class enemy has to suffer and not the ally. Today, often the allies or the initiators of the fight themselves are getting hurt and not the enemy. Additional forms of struggle are indicated, such as boycott, strengthening local economy, using class rooms, offices, etc., as arenas of class struggle. All these are dismissed as revisionism, utopianism, etc. For them, the job security of the workers in Cola factories and other factories owned by transnationals and Indian big capital is more important and so boycotting their products is an anti-working class activity! I do not agree with this.
阶级斗争的概念需要进一步的充实。目前其仅限于反对集会和各种形式的罢工。在阶级冲突中，应该让阶级敌人受苦，而不是盟友。今天，斗争中受伤的人常常是盟友或发起者，而不是敌人。同时也需要其它斗争形式，例如，抵制、强化地方经济、利用阶级场地、办公室等作为阶级斗争的场所。这些形式却被当成修正主义、乌托邦主义等。对他们来说，可口可乐工厂，以及跨国集团和印度大企业工厂工人的工作保障更加重要，所以抵制它们的产品就是反工人阶级活动！我不同意这种看法。
III
ACCORDING TO THE CPI（M）CHINA IS A SOCIALIST COUNTRYI QUESTION THIS PARTY POSITIONG
印度马克思主义共产党称，中国是社会主义国家我对这种政党立场表示怀疑
I plead guilty. I do not consider China to be a socialist country. Neither do they claim it to be. Further, I do not believe that China is moving towards socialism. The opposite is the truth. I do not question their subjective intentions. But I do not accept that the ‘concept capitalism in economy and socialism in politics’ is Marxism. Objectively, they are driving towards capitalism. I agree with the analysis of Paul Burkett and Martin Hard Landsberg (‘China and Socialism’ – Analytical Monthly Review July-August 2004) that market socialism is an unstable formation whose internal logic tends to marginalize socialism in favour of the market and full restoration of capitalism, that by measuring progress in terms of mainstream criteria of success, leftists tend to discount the importance of various social ramifications of Chinese policy. The growing unemployment, inequality and insecurity, the cutbacks in communal health care and education, the worsening oppression of women, the marginalization of agriculture, and the multiplication of environmental crises, all of these have come to be treated as inessential side effects rather than essential preconditions and inevitable outcome of Chinas capitalist development. I plead guilty of agreeing with this analysis and of differing from the Party’s understanding.
我承认，我认为中国不是社会主义国家。它也不宣称自己是社会主义国家。此外，我认为中国并未朝着社会主义发展。事实就是如此。我不怀疑它的主观意图。但是我无法接受“经济上的社会主义和政治上的社会主义理念”也是马克思主义。客观上来说，它正朝着资本主义发展。我赞同伯克特和马丁·哈 德·兰兹伯格的分析（《中国和社会主义》——2004年6月至8月每月分析评论），其中认为，市场社会主义是一种不稳定的形式，其内在逻辑倾向于对市场有利和完全恢复资本主义，把社会主义边缘化，左翼通过主流成功标准来衡量进步，往往会低估中国政策的各种社会后果的重要性。失业率、不平等和不安定的增加，公共卫生保健和教育的缩减，女性被压迫的恶化，农业的边缘化、环境危机的增殖，所有这些都被当做中国资本主义发展无关紧要的副作用，而不是重要的前提条件和不可避免的结果。我承认，我赞同这一分析，不赞同与共产党的理解。
IV
I PROMOTEDE-POLITICISATION OF THE SOCIETY
我宣扬社会的去政治化
Equally far from truth. Today politics is reserved for politicians - leaders of political parties. Ordinary citizens and even the rank and file of the Party are supposed to vote, to contribute to fund collection, to swell the rallies in numbers and to ask no questions. I do not agree with this subconscious understanding. I consider the grama sabha(village gathering) as the battle ground for the people, I consider neighbourhood groups as ideal schools for the political education of the citizens. Politics is too important to be left alone with career politicians.
同样荒谬之至。当今的政治仅为政客，即政党的领导者们所用。普通公民，甚至连政党的普通成员都只能投票、为筹资捐款、扩大盟友数量、不问任何问题。我不同意这种潜意识的理解。我认为村庄集会是群众的战场，居民小组则是公民政治教育的理想学校。政治非常重要，不能只交给职业政客。
V
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS FOURTH WORLDIN THE CPI(M)PROGRAMME.ITS ECONOMEYAGENDA OF PEOPLE'S DEMOCRACY IS 'RAPID ECONOMIC GROWTH.'FOURTH WORLD ENVISAGES SOMETHING TOTALLY DIFFERENT
印度马克思主义共产党规划中根本不存在第四世界，它的经济和政治与政党规划都是相悖的，这不是群众的民主群众的民主的经济议程是“快速经济发展”，与第四世界所设想的完全不同
True, I agree that, there is no reference to Fourth World in the Programme. It is only quite natural. It is, also different from People’s Democracy – if the latter is defined as ‘rapid economic growth’ as its predominant major objective. But it is not against the spirit of the Programme which envisages an intermediary stage between capitalism and socialism. Fourth World is suggested as the generic name for such an intermediary post- capitalistic, pre-socialist society.
The Fourth world gives more importance to equity and sustainability than to ‘rapid growth.’ But, the Party programme too speaks about equity and sustainability. When this comes into conflict with ‘rapid growth,’ what position will be taken? Dr Thomas Isaac asserts that ‘rapid growth’ is the goal. I differ. Reducing inequity is the goal even if it leads to reduction in the growth rate.
是的，我同意，该规划没有提到过第四世界。它只是很自然地出现的。它也不同于群众民主——如果后来“快速经济发展”被定义为其首要目的。但是它并不违反该规划的精神，后者设想了资本主义和社会主义之间的一个中间状态。第四世界正是这一中间位置的属名，代表资本主义后、社会主义前的社会。
比起“快速发展”，第四世界更注重平等和可持续性。但是，该规划也主张平等和可持续性。当其与“快速发展”冲突时，应该采取什么立场？托马斯·艾萨克博士认为，目标是“快速发展”。但我并不认为如此。即使会减慢发展速度，目标仍是减少不平等。
VI
THECONCEPT OF 'WELFARE VALUE' IS ALIENTO MAXRXISMIT HAS ONLY USE VALUE AND EXCHANGE VALUE
"福利价值"的概念与马克思主义不符，只有使用价值和交换价值
True, there is no such term as ‘welfare value’ in Marxist or even in capitalist literature. But one can derive such a concept from his writings. I plead, again, guilty of introducing such a term. There is, however, nothing anti- Marxian and anti-people in it. Of the millions of separate and distinct consumer products and services, there are only a few which add to the welfare of human beings. A much larger number like war equipment, narcotics, etc., are positively harmful. By far, the majority belong to the category which are wasteful, which add nothing to welfare, but for the production of which humans spend a lot of time thereby reducing leisure and increasing alienated work. The people of the US can achieve even a higher quality of life if they reduce the production of such goods. They can reduce their working time to less than half of the present. This concept needs a more rigorous development, but it deserves such an effort.
是的，马克思主义、甚至是资本主义文献中都没有“福利价值”一说。但人可以从自己的著作中衍生出这一概念。我再次承认引入了该词。但其中没有任何反马克思主义和反群众的意味。千千万万独立和独特的消费品中，仅有一小部分增加了人类的福利。战争装备、麻醉剂等更多产品是明显有害的。迄今为止，大部分产品是浪费性的，没有增加丝毫福利，但是为了生产这些产品，人们花费了很多时间，减少了空闲时间，增加了异化的工作。如果减少这一类产品的生产，则美国人民的生活质量可以更高，他们也可以减少一大半的工作时间。这一理念需要更严谨的研究，但值得为此努力。
VII
THE CONCEPT OF PARTICIPATION IS A SUBJECTIVE ONE
参与是个主观概念
If the type of neighbourhood democracy as indicated in the book (somewhat similar to what is adopted in Cuba) is highly objectionable because it will pass on the initiative from a few self-appointed Party leaders to the people at large, there is every reason to fear objective participation.
如果因为把主动权从少数自封的共产党领导交到群众手中，那么书中所述社区民主类型就非常令人反感，也就有充分的理由来惧怕客观参与。
人们的科学运动和科学教育
几个问题
Last modified 4yr ago
Copy link
Outline
A Tsunami of Criticisms
批判的风暴