Democracy Matters:

An Interview with Sam Webb

民主事务：采访山姆· 韦伯

By Sam Webb   Published on on-line Political Affairs, January 2004

作者：山姆.韦伯，2004年1月发表于〈政治事务〉网络版

■翻译/一刺

Interview with Sam Webb, Chair of the Communist Party USA on the subjects of the struggle for democracy and socialism conducted by Joe Sims.

对美国共产党主席山姆.韦伯关于民主与社会主义斗争的主题采访，由乔.西蒙斯主持。

PA: A discussion of socialism seems a little remote from the struggle to defeat Bush. Isn’t it a diversion?
《政治事务》：讨论社会主义好像有点偏离击败布什的斗争。这是否离题？
Webb: We see the struggle to defeat Bush and his ultra-right counterparts as the main task in the coming period. It’s going to occupy our attention as well as the attention of tens of millions from now until Election Day. Nothing will set the stage for a broader struggle for people’s needs in the post-election period than defeating Bush and his right wing counterparts in Congress. At the same time, we don’t see any reason to warehouse the subject of socialism. Whether we like it or not, world developments are bringing socialism back into the political discourse in our country and worldwide. Why? Because it’s becoming apparent that problems such as environmental degradation, the health care and unemployment crises, inequality and racism, the issue of war and peace, can’t be resolved under capitalism. Keep in mind, capitalism is a global system, and rather than solving these problems, it greatly aggravates them. In some ways, capitalism at its present stage of development threatens the future of humankind. Whole regions of the globe are being ravaged（毁坏，掠夺）. Given these circumstances, it is necessary to take a fresh look at socialism, while understanding that it is not on the people’s action agenda.

韦伯：我们把击败布什及其极右势力的斗争视为最近时期的主要任务。在选举日之前，这个任务将占去我们的注意力，也将占去千百万人民的注意力。没有什么能比击败布什及其国会右翼势力的斗争更能为人民在选举期之后的需求提供更广阔的斗争舞台了。但同时，我们也觉得没有理由为此而搁置社会主义的问题。不管我们是否喜欢，世界发展形势正将社会主义带回我国及世界范围的政治课题中。为什么？因为诸如环境恶化、医疗保健、失业危机、不平等、种族主义及战争与和平等问题已很难在资本主义制度下进行解决，这已变得越来越明显。记住，资本主义是一种全球系统。它不是解决这些问题，反而是大大地加剧这些问题。在某些方面，处于当前发展阶段的资本主义威胁着人类的将来。地球中有整片区域被毁坏。鉴于这些状况，虽然我们明白社会主义还不处于人民的主要行动日程中，但有必要以新的视觉来看待它。

PA: Many countries that have a socialist orientation are in the developing world: China, Vietnam, Cuba. Several have adopted a concept of socialism called market socialism. I know we have said there are no models, but is the socialist market economy the new model?

《政治事务》：有许多以社会主义为发展方向的国家都处于发展中的世界：中国、越南与古巴等。有几个国家已采用了被称为市场社会主义的社会主义概念。我知道，我们说过不存在榜样问题，但社会主义市场经济是否为新榜样？

Webb: These countries are in the early stages of socialism – they are developing countries and the productive forces are at a low level – so they are employing market mechanisms to assist in their economic development. This doesn’t contradict the thinking of Marx, Engels or Lenin. Even if we were dealing with more advanced countries – take our country for example - if this were the day after, the week after, the year after, the decade after the socialist revolution, we would employ market mechanisms in the construction of the socialist economy. There was a tendency in the communist movement to expect that market relations would disappear almost overnight, in the early stages of socialism. I’m not convinced that was an accurate reading of the classical literature or a lesson that we should draw from the experience of socialist construction in the 20th century. Some socialist countries tried to make too quick a leap from one stage of socialist development, in which market relations were employed, to a more advanced stage, in which commodity-money relations were marginal, and, as a result, experienced very negative consequences.

韦伯：这些国家正处于社会主义初级阶段。它们是发展中国家，生产力处于较低水平，所以正采用市场机制来促进经济发展。这与马克思、恩格斯与列宁的想法并不矛盾。即使我们所面对的是较为发达的国家，比如我国，如果这是处于社会主义革命之后的第一天、第一周、第一年乃至第十年，我们也仍需在社会主义经济建设中采取市场机制。在共产主义运动中曾有一种倾向，就是期待市场关系会在社会主义初级阶段中一夜之间消失。我不相信这是对经典著作的准确阅读与理解，或者这是我们从20世纪的社会主义建设经验中应该吸取的教训。有些社会主义国家曾试图从一个采用市场关系的社会主义发展阶段急速跨越至一个商品货币关系已边缘化的高级阶段，结果带来了非常消极的后果。

The example that comes most readily to mind is China. At the core of Mao’s economic policies was not simply the acceleration of the pace of development, but rather leaping over whole stages. Unfortunately, China pursued that policy at a very dear price. There’s a lot of controversy now about the current economic policies of the Communist Party of China. Many people are critical, but in my short stay there (I visited about a year and a half ago), it was apparent that the opening up of the country and the employment of market mechanisms has led to the acceleration of growth. Some say there is greater inequality, and that’s true, but at the same time they are lifting tens of millions out of poverty. Simply because the Chinese are utilizing market mechanisms and inserting themselves into the global economy is not reason enough to conclude that China is moving away from socialism.

我们最经常想到的例子就是中国。处于毛泽东经济政策核心的不仅仅是加速发展的步伐，而是跨越整个阶段。不幸的是，中国为追求这种政策付出了高昂的代价。现在，对中国共产党当前的经济政策又存在许多争议。许多人表示批评，而我在那里的短暂停留——我一年半以前到过中国——却明显地使我感到，这个国家的对外开放与市场机制政策加速了发展。有些人说这造成了更大的不平等，这是事实。但同时，他们也使千百万人脱贫。不能仅仅因为中国人运用市场机制并将自身隔入全球经济便有理由下结论说中国正脱离社会主义。

Why do I say this? First of all, no country can develop apart from the global economy? While it is no simple task for the socialist and developing countries to insert themselves into a world economy that is dominated by and structured in the interests of the most powerful capitalist countries, do these countries have any other feasible option? Secondly, market mechanisms are not by definition at war with socialist construction. Whether they are utilized and how they contribute to socialist construction of one or another country can’t be solved abstractly in the realm of high theory. It has to be answered by examining the concrete political and economic circumstances in any given country.

我为什么这样说？首先，没有哪个国家能离开全球经济而发展自身。当社会主义国家与发展中国家要将自身隔入被强大的资本主义国家所统治并按照资本主义利益进行组织的世界经济已很不容易时，这些国家还有别的可行性选择吗？其次，从定义上说，市场机制与社会主义建设并不对立。是否采用这些机制以及这些机制如何有助于一国或他国的社会主义建设这类问题并不能通过高深的理论范畴进行抽象地解决，而应通过考察一国的具体的政治与经济状况来回答。

Finally, we should study the experience of socialism in the 20th century as well as revisit both the early literature and more recent discussions on the socialist economy before we draw hard and fast conclusions with respect to the use of market criteria and tools in a socialist society. Lenin once said (and I’m paraphrasing（解释）him here) that the economic policies of the post-civil war Soviet state had to be adjusted to the mentality of the peasants, which led to the adoption of the New Economic Policy in the early 1920s. Not only was this necessary to revive an economy that was in shambles（废墟，混乱的地方）after the civil war, but it was the glue that maintained the strategic alliance between a tiny working class and huge peasantry. This alliance, Lenin argued time and again, was the essential political requirement for the forward movement of socialism in a very backward country.

最后，在针对社会主义社会中采用市场准则与市场工具而作出仓促与刻薄的结论之前，我们应研究一下20世纪的社会主义经历，并重新参考一下有关社会主义经济的早期文献与最新研讨。列宁说过——我正引用他，内战后苏维埃国家的经济政策应按照农民的思维来进行调整，这最终带来了20年代早期的新经济政策的采用。这不但对于复兴内战后处于废墟中的经济是必要的，而且成为维持弱小的工人阶级与庞大的农民阶级之间战略联盟的粘合剂。列宁反复强调，这种联盟成为落后国家社会主义前进运动中关键性的政治需求。

PA: How do you distinguish or emphasize what is unique about the US experience that it different from not only China but also a similar country like Great Britain or France? How do you determine what is general and what is particular or unique to our own experience?

《政治事务》：与中国或与我国较相似的国家如英国、法国相比，你如何区分美国经验的独特之处？你如何确定我们的经验中什么是普遍的，什么是特殊或具体的？

Webb: There is a tendency to think that the Bolshevik experience constituted a model of socialist revolution. On a very general level some of the experiences of revolutionary Russia do have some application to other countries. But if we are seriously interested in finding a path to socialism in our country, we have to give more attention to its unique historical features. Marx, Engels and Lenin on many occasions stressed the need to seek out what is peculiar in the national development of a given country. That has not been deeply appreciated enough.

韦伯：有一种倾向认为，布尔什维克经验构成了社会主义革命的榜样。在某种普遍的程度上，俄国革命的某些经验确实适用于其他国家。但如果我们要认真地探索我国的社会主义道路，便应注意其独特的历史特性。马克思、恩格斯与列宁曾多次强调在一国中寻求独特的民族发展道路的必要性。但在这方面还没有较深刻的认识。

To put it another way, if we were to write a book on our path to socialism, a section on what is peculiar and unique in our nation’s experience should not be an addendum or an appendix to the main text, but rather it should be a main thread woven into that text. We have, for example, a long democratic tradition, as do other countries. Although many on the left say our democracy is partial and incomplete, the fact is that democratic notions and sentiments are deeply ingrained in our thinking and have drawn millions into struggle at various turning points in our nation’s history. Therefore, our vision of socialism has to have democracy at its core. Indeed, even the slightest duing of this concept and practice will condemn socialists and the socialist struggle to the periphery of our nation’s political life.

换句话说，如果我们为社会主义道路写一本书，关于我国经验的具体与独特之处的章节不应该成为正文的增补或附录，而应该是交织于正文的主线索。比如，像其它国家一样，我们具有悠久的民主传统。虽然许多左翼力量说我们的民主是不全面、不完整的，但毕竟民主观念与心理已深入我们的思想中，并在我国历史的各个转折点中引导了千百万人投入斗争。因此，我们规划中的社会主义应以民主为核心。确实，哪怕是对这一观念与实践的轻微忽略都会把社会主义者与社会主义斗争推向我国政治生活的边缘。

PA: You emphasize the importance of democratic struggles, suggesting that the path to socialism is paved with the struggle for democracy.

《政治事务》：你强调民主斗争的重要性，表示社会主义是在民主斗争铺就的道路上前进的。

Webb: Yes, we can say that with complete certainty. In the past, we did not always see things like this. There was a competing notion of the transition to socialism, which held an economic collapse would be followed by the seizure of power by the working class and then a relatively short transitional period to socialism. This was very simplistic. We could have a major economic downturn tomorrow, and it wouldn’t automatically result in a sudden turn of millions to socialism. We had a depression 80 years ago. The working class did step on the stage and the class struggle intensified, but even then socialism wasn’t the main item of the working class and people’s agenda.

韦伯：是的，我们完全肯定地这样说。过去，我们并不总是这样看问题。有一种关于社会主义过渡的竞争性观念认为，一场经济崩溃之后便伴随着工人阶级夺取政权，然后就是社会主义的短暂过渡期。这太简单了。也许在明天我们就会有一种经济倒退，但这并不会自动地导致千百万人立即转向社会主义。80年前我们就有一场大萧条。那时工人阶级确实登上了舞台，阶级斗争也激化了，但即使在那时，社会主义也没有成为工人阶级与人民的主要行动日程。

Conditions have to be created for socialism – both objective and subjective – and that takes place over time. It’s only in the course of the struggle for democracy – understood in the broadest sense – that people come to see the necessity of a new society that puts people before profits. And this is a more protracted and complex process, stretching out over time and going through different phases and stages leading up to a socialist transition and continuing in the transition itself. In other words, the approach to socialism is not direct and straightforward struggle.

应创造实现社会主义的主观与客观条件，这需要时间。只有在最广泛意义上的民主斗争的进程中，人民才会看到实现一个“人民先于利润”的新社会的必要性。这是一个长期而复杂的过程，随着时间的轮回，经历各个发展阶段，最终走向社会主义的过渡期，并在过渡的自身中继续下去。换言之，通向社会主义的途径不是径直的，不是简单直接的斗争。

On a related matter, at one time we believed that as we approached socialism, its support base would narrow and some forces would peel away. Perhaps there is an element of truth in this notion, but if taken too far could gravely weaken the revolutionary process to socialism. In fact, I would argue that as we approach socialism in our country the task of the left forces is to win more millions to the socialist struggle. Socialism has to be a mass social upheaval in which all the discontented in society participates, including those who hold backward notions. Socialism is not just a project of the left; it has to be a mass project of millions and of diverse social forces. Without such a concept and practice, there’s no possibility of bringing about a transition to a new society. Lenin argued with great passion and insistence to the early communist movement that ts task was to win the absolute majority of the working class and oppressed peoples to socialism. This advice is still timely and even more necessary today.

有一件类似的事情，就是我们曾经在某个时候认为，当接近社会主义时，其支撑基础会变得萎缩，有些力量会分离出去。也许这种观念有一定的道理，但如果强调得太过份就会严重削弱社会主义的革命进程。其实，我倒认为当我们接近我国的社会主义时，左翼力量的任务就是蠃得更多的千百万人投入社会主义斗争。社会主义应当成为一场群众的社会变动，社会的所有不满力量都参与其中，包括持落后观念者。社会主义不仅是左翼的工程，更是千百万人与各种不同社会力量的群体工程。没有这种观念与实践，就没有向新社会过渡的可能性。列宁曾以极大的热情与决心向早期共产主义运动强调，其任务就是蠃得绝大多数的工人阶级与被压迫民族对社会主义的支持。这种建议在今天仍然显得极时，甚至更为必要。

《政治事务》：鉴于我们当前的政府形式，你如何引导千百万人参与？或者，换句话说，当你闭上眼睛时，你梦想中的新社会是什么样子？

Webb: I don’t think that the political structures that currently exist will be dismantled. Nor do I think that a socialist movement will sideline the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence or a system of checks and balances on concentrated political power. It may want to extend, deepen or modify them based on both experience and the needs of socialist construction. The main thing is not the institutional forms but the transformation of their class content. At the same time, I suspect that new popular institutions will emerge. Today millions of people feel alienated from the institutions and structures of government. People see government as disconnected from their day-to-day life, even an obstacle to their aspirations and to a decent life. Nearly one-half of the people don’t go to the polls on Election Day. And the ultra-right has demagogically preyed on this political alienation.

韦伯：我不认为现存的政治结构会遭到摧毁，我也不认为社会主义运动会把《权利法案》《宪法》《独立宣言》或集中政治权力的制衡体系推向一边。也许会根据经验与社会主义需要对它们进行延伸、深化或修改。主要问题不在于体制的形式，而在于阶级实质的转化。同时，我想会出现新的大众化体制。今天，有千百万人对政府体制与结构感到疏远。人民觉得政府与他们的日常生活无关，甚至成为他们追求理想与美好生活的障碍。几乎有一半的人不愿在选举日走向投票箱。于是极右势力利用这种政治疏远感大捞了一笔。

To overcome this, socialism will probably have to find new institutional forms that draw millions into political and economic life, that turn politically discontented people into active citizens. Or to put it differently, socialism has to be a liberatory and emancipatory project for tens of millions. It must empower people; it must bring them into the center of political and economic life. For socialism to fulfill its promise, the people themselves have to be its real authors and architects. For many reasons, that is not the image that the US people have of socialism. Instead, its representation in the popular mind is of a regimented, undemocratic and economically challenged society. This we have to change.

为了克服这点，社会主义可能要寻求新的体制形式以引导千百万人投入政治与经济生活，从而将不满的人民变成积极的公民。或者，换句话说，社会主义应成为千百万人的自由解放的工程。它应赋予人民以权力，将他们带入政治与经济生活的中心。为了让社会主义实现其承诺，人民自身应成为真正的创作者和建筑师。由于种种原因，这并不是美国人对于社会主义的形象感。相反，大众思想中的社会主义是一个严格划一、不民主与陷入经济困难的社会。我们要改变这点。

PA: The Communist Party has called its concept Bill of Rights socialism. Is that still valid?

《政治事务》：共产党已有权利法案社会主义的概念。这仍然可行吗？

Webb: Gus Hall, our former national chairman, introduced that phrase and it still resonates for a lot of reasons. Of course, it is of little value if we keep it to ourselves. Communists and other partisans of socialism have to engage others in this discussion, and especially in light of what happened in the socialist countries between 1989 and 1991. That was an earthshaking upheaval and moment. In examining this experience, and we should do it carefully and thoughtfully, we may find that some of the notions that we embraced over the last 50 or 60 years are no longer adequate. Some may have to be modified, refurbished and refit to new circumstances; others jettisoned（抛弃）. Marxism, its main theoreticians tell us, has to be developed in all directions and applied in a creative manner.

韦伯：我们的前主席格斯.霍尔引进了这种提法，由于多种原因它至今仍然有着共鸣。当然，如果我们只把它用于我们自身，它并无多大价值。鉴于1989至1991年发生在社会主义国家的情况，共产党人以及其它社会主义党派力量尤其应发动别人加入这种讨论中。那是一个地震式的大动荡时期。考察了这种经历，并经过了谨慎的思索之后，我们可能会发现，我们50或60年前所拥护的某些观念已不再恰当。有些观念应加以修改、补充以适应新的条件，另外的某些观念则应被抛弃。马克思主义的主要理论家告诉我们，马克思主义应在各个方向进行发展，以创造性方式加以应用。

PA: What kinds of notions from the 20th century experience need to be re-examined?

《政治事务》：从20世纪的经历中，应重新考察哪类观念？

Webb: To take one example that I mentioned earlier, we have to think about the path to socialism differently, given the economic and political circumstances of our country. In some ways we were prisoners of the experience of Russia in 1917. It was a world-historic event to be sure. And it will continue to reverberate for decades to come. Nevertheless, while that experience fit Russia in 1917, it doesn’t fit the US in 2003. Perhaps we can learn as much from Allende’s Chile as we can Lenin’s Russia. We have to draw lessons from the whole experience of the working class for the last 90 years – but not mechanically, but rather we have to have an eye to adapting and modifying them to what is new and peculiar to our country and to this century.

韦伯：比如我早先提到的例子，鉴于我国的政治与经济状况，我们应以不同的方式来思考社会主义道路。在某些方面我们成了1917年俄国革命经验的囚徒。不错，这是一个世界性历史事件。在未来的几十年，它仍将持续地产生反响。然而，虽然那种经验适用于1917年的俄国，却不适用于2003年的美国。也许我们同样可以学习Allende在智利的情况，正如我们学习列宁在俄国的情况一样。我们应从工人阶级在过去90多年的整个经验中吸取教训，不是机械地照搬，而是以适应的眼光来修改或调整它们，以适应我国与这个世纪的新情况和独特形势。

PA: What about the form of rule? Some people feel that Communists take one position before we get to power and another after we get it? How do you deal with that?

《政治事务》：执政形式是怎样的？有人觉得共产党人在取得权力前采取一种立场，而取得权力后又采取另一种立场？你如何看待这点？

Webb: Both in the transition to socialism and in its construction, I don’t foresee Communists being the sole decision makers. We will be one political force within a much larger coalition. We are getting away from the notion that the Communists are the "top dog" in the struggle for socialism while other political forces will either merge or come in behind us. In our view, we will be one component of a very diverse coalition, at the center of which is the working class, the racially and nationally oppressed, and women. Of course, in such a varied coalition, there will be competing views and we will forthrightly express ours, but our emphasis will be on cooperation, on finding common ground, on unity.

韦伯：不管是在社会主义过渡期内，还是在社会主义建设中，我都不设想共产党人会是唯一的决策者。我们将作为一个政治力量而处于一个更大的联盟中。我们正在远离这样一种观念，即认为共产党人在社会主义斗争中是“胜者”，而其它政治力量则会兼并或处于我们之后。按我们的观点，我们会是一种多样化联盟中的一份子，其中工人阶级、民族与种族被压迫者及妇女处于中心地位。当然，在这种多样化联盟中，会有竞争性意见，而我们也会全力表达我们自己的意见。但我们的重点在于合作、共识与团结。

Our emphasis will be on deepening and extending democracy as a condition for the creation of a humane socialist society. There may be situations in the early stages of the socialist struggle where it may seem expedient

我们的重点在于对民主进行深化与延伸，从而为一个人性化的社会主义社会创造条件。也许在社会主义斗争的早期阶段会存在削弱和限制民主权利的权宜之计的希望，但一个领导社会过渡的政治联盟会抵制这种选择。社会主义建设中各个阶段（包括初级阶段）的民主斗争都是迫切的。如果人们违反法律，他应受制于任何相应的法律惩罚。但认为在社会主义革命之后应当——或者更糟糕的是认为会自动地——限制民主权利而不是扩大民主权利的观念实在是个大问题。在那些前社会主义国家，民主缺乏必要的反响的原因之一就是执政党对普通人的创造力和智慧缺乏信心。而这种思维定势一旦得到强化——这种强化也是由80多年来资本主义国家极端而持续的敌视态度造成的，自然也就不可避免地造成这些国家的人民在处理社会主义建设的问题和困难中没有受到信任的情况，而权力与决策方式也没有下放给他们。结果，他们的民主生活只具有形式特征。但古巴给我不同的印象，尽管它处于美国帝国主义的不断威胁、颠覆与封锁之下。那里的共产党看来很信任人民，极力使人民成为社会主义建设的积极参与者。这也是我国领导社会主义过渡的政治力量应该做的。