跳转至

多元论：后政治 (Pluralistic: Post-political)

文章背景与核心概要

本文由科里·多克托罗（Cory Doctorow）撰写，深入解构了当前流行的“后政治”温和主义，指出将左翼与右翼的分歧归结为“部落主义”是对生死攸关现实的漠视。核心结论在于：政治的根本分歧不在于文化符号，而在于“财产权究竟是人权，还是实现人权的工具”。真正的温和主义不过是右翼的伪装，其本质是将财产权凌驾于人类尊严与自由之上。

  • 后政治：什么是“左翼”。
  • 嘿，快看这个：令人愉悦的赏心乐事。
  • 客体恒存：微软与OSCON；家长间谍软件；《复活人》（Resurrection Man）；英国脱欧重投请愿书；职场电子邮件监视；唱片公司互联网死刑；新闻应当廉价、免费而混乱；《小安吉》（Jughead）。
  • 近期行程：伦敦、爱丁堡、悉尼、墨尔本、布赖顿、伦敦、南本德。
  • 往期活动：我去过的地方。
  • 最新图书：你们继续读，我继续写。
  • 即将出版的书籍：正如我所说，我会继续写下去。
  • 版式说明：其余种种。

后政治 (Post-political) (Permalink)

[我们有充分的理由去怀疑那些哀叹“政治极化”并呼吁抛弃“左右翼部落主义”的温和派。]

There's plenty of reasons to be skeptical of centrists who bemoan "political polarization" and call for a politics that abandons the "tribalism of left and right."

[显而易见，这是一种虚假的对等：在右翼，你会看到法西斯分子希望派遣蒙面、武装的暴徒走上街头，去殴打、绑架和谋杀你的邻居；而在左翼，人们则在呼吁增加税收、成立工会、对数据中心进行环境影响评估，以及结束加沙地带的种族灭绝。]

Obviously there's the false equivalence: on the right, you have fascists who want to send masked, armed goons into the streets to beat, kidnap and murder your neighbors. On the left, you have calls for higher taxes, unions, environmental impact reviews for data-centers, and an end to the genocide in Gaza.

[所谓的“左翼极端主义”不过是搬弄几本小册子：]

"Leftist extremism" is moving some zines around:

The Guardian: Prairieland, Texas ICE Protests Zines

[而右翼极端主义则试图推翻政府、在古拉格中谋杀棕色人种，并且世界上最富有的人为了取乐而屠杀全世界最贫穷的儿童：]

Right wing extremism is attempting the overthrow of the government, murdering brown people in gulags, and the earth's richest man slaughtering the world's poorest children for the lulz:

Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health

[“马蹄铁理论”（即极右翼和极左翼最终会弯曲并在另一端相遇的观点）简直是一派胡言：]

"Horseshoe theory" (the idea that the far right and the far left actually bend around to meet each other) is bullshit:

Pluralistic: Horseshoe Crab

[现实情况是，左右翼之间存在着巨大而实质性的分歧，这些分歧关乎生死。任何将这些分歧贬低为“部落主义”的人，根本不知道“左翼”和“右翼”意味着什么。充其量，他们是将一堆文化符号——代词、综合格斗、啤酒品牌——误当作了政治。]

The reality is that the right and left have large, substantive disagreements that are matters of life and death. Anyone dismissing these as "tribalism" doesn't know what "left" and "right" mean. At best, they have mistaken a collection of cultural signifiers – pronouns, MMA, brands of beer – for politics.

[将文化符号和身份标记误认为政治，是温和主义最危险的病理，正是这一点让温和主义成为了右翼的帮凶。如果你认为身份标记就是政治，那么你就会倾向于认为：面对一个由150名富有、白人、顺性别异性恋男性统治的世界，解决问题的办法就是把其中一半人换成女性、有色人种和酷儿。左翼与右翼的区别不在于统治阶级的身份——而在于我们是否还要一个统治阶级。]

Mistaking cultural signifiers and identity markers for politics is centrism's most dangerous pathology, the thing that makes centrism the handmaiden of the right. If you think identity markers are politics, then you'll be tempted to think the answer to a world run by 150 rich, white, cis straight guys is to replace half of them with women, POCs and queer people. The difference between the left and the right isn't the identities of the ruling class – it's whether we have a ruling class at all.

[我收集了关于“右翼”和“左翼”的各种定义。柯里·罗宾（Corey Robin）在其著作《反动思维》（The Reactionary Mind）中曾这样定义保守主义：保守主义坚信某些人天生就该统治，而另企图将后一群人提升到权力地位（通过民权运动、平权行动等）的任何尝试，都将导致可怕的误政和灾难：]

I collect definitions of "right" and "left." There's Corey Robin's definition from The Reactionary Mind, that conservatism is the belief that some people were born to rule, and others to be ruled over, and that any attempt to elevate the latter group to positions of power (through civil rights movements, affirmative action, etc) will result in dire misrule and disaster:

Pluralistic: All Day Suckers

[这就解释了为什么右翼能够将白人民族主义者（由白人统治）、印度教民族主义者（由高种姓印度教徒统治）、自由意志主义者（由老板统治）、帝国主义者（由军事侵略者统治）等各种势力包容在一起。这也解释了右翼为何痴迷于探究飞机失事或其他灾难中涉事人员的种族和性别标签：“你看，那艘油轮撞上桥梁时，开船的是个DEI招聘的人！”]

This explains how the right can encompass white nationalists (rule by white people), Hindu nationalists (rule by high-caste Hindus), libertarians (rule by bosses), imperialists (rule by military aggressors), etc. It also explains the right's obsession with learning the racial and gender markers of anyone involved in a plane crash or other disaster: "See, the oil tanker was being piloted by a DEI hire when it crashed into that bridge!"

[另一个重要的定义是威霍伊特法则（Wilhoit's Law）：]

Another important definition is Wilhoit's Law:

保守主义恰好由一个命题组成，即：法律必须存在两类群体——其中一类群体受到法律保护却不受其约束，而另一类群体则受到法律约束却不受其保护。 Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

Pluralistic: Sole and Despotic Dominion

[在这个“如果总统做这事就不算犯罪”的时代，这个法则几乎不需要过多的解释——就像亚历克斯·琼斯（Alex Jones）可以欠下数十名被谋杀儿童父母数十亿美元的债务，却不知何故不必偿还也无需交出资产一样：]

This one hardly needs explanation in this era of "it's not a crime if the president does it," where Alex Jones can owe billions to the parents of dozens of murdered children and somehow not have to pay or give up his assets:

Status News: Infowars, The Onion, Alex Jones

[但当谈到那种“既非右翼也非左翼的后政治”时，我最常引用的定义来自于科幻作家史蒂芬·布鲁斯特（Steven Brust），他曾对我说过：]

But when it comes to a "post-politics that is neither right nor left," the definition I turn to most often comes from science fiction writer Steven Brust, who once told me:

“自法国大革命以来，‘左翼’和‘右翼’的含义就一直没有变。如果你想知道某人是左翼还是右翼，去问他：‘什么更重要：人权还是财产权？’如果他们回答‘财产权就是人权’，那他们就是右翼。” "Left" and "right" have had the same meaning since the French Revolution. If you want to know if someone is on the left or the right, ask them, "What is more important: human rights or property rights?" If they say "Property rights are a human right," then they are on the right.

Pluralistic: Wage Theft

[就是这样。这就是核心所在。如果你认为财产权是实现人权的工具，那么你就是左翼。你可能会支持农民有权阻止为了建造数据中心而通过国家征用权（eminent domain）征收土地的企图，或者支持人们免受警察搜查住宅或设备的权利，或者支持图书馆拥有和归档数字图书的权利——即便出版商坚称电子书从不被“出售”、而仅仅被“许可”。]

That's it. That's the crux. If you think that property rights are a tool for achieving human rights, then you're on the left. You might support the right of farmers to block attempts to expropriate them via eminent domain in order to build a data center, or the right of people to not have their homes or devices searched by cops, or a library's right to own and archive digital books, even if the publishers insist that ebooks are never "sold," merely "licensed."

[如果财产权是实现人权的工具，那么当财产权阻碍其他权利时，它们就可以被搁置。人类有权获得医疗保健，这就是为什么我们应该剥夺制药公司的专利和版权，结束疫苗种族隔离，让贫穷的世界能够制造自己的疫苗：]

If property rights are a tool to achieve human rights, then property rights can be set aside when they impede other rights. Human beings have the right to health care, which is why we should have taken away the pharma companies' patents and copyrights, ending vaccine apartheid and letting the poor world make its own vaccines:

Pluralistic: The Other Shoe Drops

[人类有权获得住所。如果你所在的城镇有一百万套空置的房屋和一百万个无家可归的人，那么答案是显而易见的。至少，你可以对空置房屋征收重税，以遏制荒废、空置的烂尾现象的蔓延：]

Human beings have the right to shelter. If your town has a million empty homes and a million homeless people, there's an obvious solution. At the very least, you can tax the shit out of empty homes to discourage the creation of derelict, empty blights:

Liverpool Echo

[人类有权获得食物。如果某个卡特尔垄断组织宣称你不得合法出售你的10万磅油桃，你完全可以把它们免费送人，并让那个卡特尔滚蛋：]

Human beings have the right to food. If a cartel claims that you may not legally sell your 100,000lbs of nectarines, you can just give them away and tell the cartel to fuck off:

AP News

[正如布鲁斯特所说，这场斗争和法国大革命一样古老。这简直就是《悲惨世界》的剧情（“昔日岁月里，我曾为了生存偷过一条面包”）。]

As Brust says, this fight is as old as the French Revolution. It's literally the plot of Les Mis ("In days gone by, I stole a loaf of bread in order to live").

[需要注意的是，这种框架为左翼内部的分歧留出了充足的空间：我们可以就谁应该纳税以及如何纳税、何时应责令一家公司销毁其不义之财以及何时应将这些财物分给受害者、如何处理空置房屋和无家可归者等问题产生分歧。我们可以就赔偿、集体化和合作社、土地改革等议题争论不休。极少数（极少数！）左翼分子想要废除财产，但要做一个左翼分子，就必须认同财产永远只是一种手段，绝非目的。]

Note that this framework leaves plenty of room for disagreement among leftists: we can disagree about who should get taxed and how, when a company should be ordered to destroy its ill-gotten loot and when that loot should be divided up among its victims, and what to do about empty houses and homeless people. We can disagree about reparations, about collectivization and co-operatives, about land reform. Very (very!) few leftists want to abolish property, but to be a leftist is to agree that property is only ever a means, and never an end.

[在系统思维中，我们被告知，最深远、最持久的变化来自于范式（paradigms）的转变，所有的规则、法律和安排都源于这些范式：]

In systems thinking, we are counseled that the most profound and durable changes come from shifts in paradigms, from which all rules, laws and arrangements flow:

Pluralistic: Donella Meadows

[“左翼”和“右翼”代表着两种截然不同的范式。右翼的范式是：财产权就是人权，这最终演变为“财产权是唯一的人权”。如果财产权就是人权，那么我就可以烧掉自己的果园，并在你饿死在门外时放声大笑。如果财产权就是人权，我就可以让一栋公寓楼空置，而你在其人行道上冻死。如果财产权就是人权，我可以在我的工厂里布满夺命的陷阱，并坚信我所杀害的工人们是自愿承担这种风险的（正如经济学家所说，他们在工作中有“显示的偏好”（revealed preference）被杀死）：]

"Left" and "right" represent two radically different paradigms. The right's paradigm is that property rights are human rights, which cashes out to "property rights are the only human right." If property rights are a human right, then I can burn down my orchard and laugh as you starve outside the gates. If property rights are human rights, I can leave an apartment building empty while you freeze to death on its sidewalk. If property rights are human rights, I can fill my factory with death-traps and insist that the workers I kill freely chose to assume that risk (as economists would say, they have a "revealed preference" for being killed at work):

Pluralistic: Players of Games

[左翼则将财产权视为一种工具，就像法律、规章、民意调查或投票一样。运用得当，这些工具能够为所有人带来繁荣。但“投票”和“法律”本身并非至善。瑞士通过投票决定你的邻居是否具备公民资格的做法是野蛮的：]

Leftists view property rights as a tool, like laws, or regulations, or polls, or voting. Used well, these tools can produce prosperity for all. But "voting" and "laws" aren't good unto themselves. The Swiss practice of voting on whether your neighbors qualify for citizenship is barbaric:

BBC News

优秀的规章和法律固然是好事，但盲目通过任何法律则是愚蠢的，这会让你陷入极大的麻烦，即便你通过的那条愚蠢法律旨在解决一个真正的问题：]

Good regulations and laws are good, but simply passing any law is stupid and gets you into terrible trouble, even if the stupid law you've passed is designed to solve a real problem:

Pluralistic: Destroy the Village

[如果将财产权视为工具，它们便是实现文明核心宗旨——保障人民人权——的极其有用的方式。如果将财产权视为自身的目的，那么它们对我们的文明和物种将是可怕的威胁。]

Viewed as tools, property rights are perfectly useful ways of achieving the primary purpose of a civilization: to safeguard the human rights of its people. Viewed as ends unto themselves, property rights are a terrible danger to our civilization and species.

[如果你认为财产权是工具，你就可以通过法律禁止企业进行选举宣传：]

If you believe property rights are tools, then you can pass laws banning corporations from electioneering:

Minnesota Election Laws

[如果你认为财产权是人权，你最终就会支持在选举中进行无限制的黑金（dark money）政治捐款：]

If you believe property rights are human rights, then you end up supporting unlimited dark money spending in elections:

Supreme Court Opinion

[如果你认为财产权是工具，你就可以命令那些想禁止租户安装阳台太阳能电池板的房东滚蛋。如果你认为财产权是人权，那么房东就可以强迫其租客支付化石燃料行业所要求的每一分钱。“财产权作为工具”的观点，既能让你捍卫农民安装风力发电场的权利，又能阻止数据中心在自己的土地上安装燃气轮机。]

If you believe property rights are tools, you can order landlords who want to ban their tenants from installing balcony solar to fuck off. If you believe property rights are human rights, then landlords can force their tenants to pay every dime the fossil fuel industry demands of them. "Property right as tool" allows you to defend a farmer's right to install a wind-farm, and still, to block a data-center from installing a gas turbine on its own land.

[“后政治”运动由那些根本不懂什么是政治的人组成。“温和派”归根结底就是右翼，因为右翼的基石是财产至上。正是这种意识形态滋生了世袭贵族制（“财产权是人权”意味着，如果你从一个幸运的器官里出生，却期望你靠工作谋生，那就是对你人权的侵犯）。正是这种意识形态滋生了寡头政治。]

"Post-political" movements are made up of people who don't know what politics are. A "centrist" is ultimately a rightist, because the foundation of rightism is the supremacy of property. It is the ideology that breeds hereditary aristocracy ("property is a human right" means that it's a violation of your human rights to expect you to work for a living if you emerged from a lucky orifice). It's the ideology that breeds oligarchy.

[政治不是一堆文化符号或身份标记。政治无关乎谁在统治——而关乎我们是否受到统治，或者我们是否自由。]

Politics aren't a bunch of cultural signifiers or identity markers. Politics aren't about who rules – it's about whether we are ruled at all, or whether we are free.

(图片：刘易斯·克拉克，CC BY-SA 2.0，经修改)

  • 伦敦： 闲人节（Idler Festival），7月11日 (Idler Festival)
  • 爱丁堡： 与吉米·威尔斯一同出席国际图书节，8月17日 (Edinburgh Book Festival)
  • 悉尼： 危险思想节（The Festival of Dangerous Ideas），8月23日–24日 (Festival of Dangerous Ideas)
  • 墨尔本： 惠勒中心“巧取豪夺化”（Enshittification），8月25日 (Wheeler Centre)
  • 布赖顿： 与卡罗尔·卡德瓦拉共同主持“反向半人马的人工智能后生活指南”（布赖顿圆顶剧场），9月8日 (Brighton Dome)
  • 伦敦： 与赖利·奎因共同主持“反向半人马的人工智能后生活指南”（皮卡迪利福伊尔书店），9月9日 (Foyles)
  • 南本德： 与科里·多克托罗的夜晚（圣母大学），10月6日 (Notre Dame)
  • 《反向半人马的人工智能指南》（"The Reverse-Centaur's Guide to AI,"），一本关于如何成为更好的人工智能批评者的短小读物，法勒、斯特劳斯暨吉鲁出版社，2026年6月 (Macmillan)
  • 《坎尼山谷》（"Canny Valley"）：为《多元论》创作的拼贴画限量版合集，独立出版，2025年9月 (Pluralistic)
  • 《巧取豪夺化：为什么一切突然变得更糟以及该怎么办》（"Enshittification: Why Everything Suddenly Got Worse and What to Do About It,"），法勒、斯特劳斯暨吉鲁出版社，2025年10月7日 (Macmillan)
  • 《铁铲与金矿》（"Picks and Shovels"）：《红队蓝调》的续集，讲述个人电脑的英雄时代，托尔图书/宙斯之首出版社，2025年2月 (Macmillan)
  • 《骗局》（"The Bezzle"）：《红队蓝调》的续集，关于监狱科技和其他骗局，托尔图书/宙斯之首出版社，2024年2月 (The Bezzle)
  • 《迷失的事业》（"The Lost Cause"）：一部在气候紧急情况下充满希望的太阳朋克小说，托尔图书/宙斯之首出版社，2023年11月 (Lost Cause)
  • 《互联网骗局》（"The Internet Con"）：一本关于互操作性与大型科技公司的非虚构著作，韦索出版社，2023年9月 (Seize the Means of Computation)
  • 《红队蓝调》（"Red Team Blues"）：“一部引人入胜、让人欲罢不能惊悚小说，读完后你会比以前更了解世界的运作方式。”托尔图书 (Red Team Blues)
  • 《卡脖子资本主义：如何击败科技巨头、驯服内容巨头并让艺术家获得报酬》（"Chokepoint Capitalism: How to Beat Big Tech, Tame Big Content, and Get Artists Paid,"），与丽贝卡·吉布林（Rebecca Giblin）合著，灯塔出版社/书吏出版社，2022年 (Chokepoint Capitalism)
  • 《后美国互联网》（"The Post-American Internet,"），可以看作是《巧取豪夺化》的某种地缘政治续集，法勒、斯特劳斯暨吉鲁出版社，2027年
  • 《未经授权的面包》（"Unauthorized Bread"）：一部中级读者图画小说，改编自关于难民、烤面包机和数字版权管理（DRM）的中篇小说，第一第二出版社，2027年4月20日
  • 《巧取豪夺化：为什么一切突然变得更糟以及该怎么办》（图画小说版），第一第二出版社，2027年
  • 《梅米克斯方法》（"The Memex Method,"），法勒、斯特劳斯暨吉鲁出版社，2027年

当前写作： 《后美国互联网》（"The Post-American Internet,"），《巧取豪夺化》的续集，讲述在特朗普焚毁美国之后，我们其他人所拥有的更好世界。第四稿已完成。已提交给编辑。

  • 一篇关于DIY胰岛素的《小兄弟》（Little Brother）短篇小说（筹备中）

除任何连载小说外，本作品采用知识共享署名 4.0 国际许可协议进行许可。您可以将其用于商业或其他用途，前提是署名科里·多克托罗并包含指向 pluralistic.net 的链接。引文和图片在注明处除外。

如何获取《多元论》

"当生活给你SARS（非典）时，你就做沙士汽水（sarsaparilla）" – 乔伊·“手风琴家伙”·德维拉（Joey "Accordion Guy" DeVilla）

ISSN： 3066-764X