Thoughts arising from Martin Wolf’s Essay on Capitalism and Democracy | 對金融時報《資本主義與自由民主》一文的思考

Champions of local communities and those of globalisation are never fellow travellers, unless they confront the same enemy. Liberal democracies are invariably within national boundaries. One task of nation-states is to draw the boundaries for the sovereign rulers or citizenry. Never is Poland willing to share democracy with Russia, unless the Polish nation no longer exists.

共同體至上的擁護者和全球化的擁護者從來不是同路人，除非他們遇見了共同的敵人。自由民主從來都是有邊界的，民族國家的任務就是為人民主權者划定邊界。波蘭人什麼時候願意跟俄羅斯人一起民主？除非波蘭民族不復存在。

The rise of nation-states in the 19th century caused two simultaneous reactions: one reacting to international communism and anarchism; another reacting to international capitalism and financiers. France, the archetype of nation-states, are particularly prominent in both regards. On the one hand, the French patriots praised the agrarian society created by the Napoleonic Code and derided the internationalism of the sordid British merchants and Jewish bankers; on the other, they vaunted the sanctity of property and savings, denouncing the acts of barbarity to undermine the foundation of civilisation by the Paris Commune and foreign demagogues.

民族國家在十九世紀興起的時候，同時出現了兩種排斥反應。一種針對國際共產主義和無政府主義，另一種針對國際資本主義和金融家。法蘭西作為民族國家模式的原型，在這兩方面都非常突出。法蘭西的愛國者一面歌頌拿破侖法典創造的小農社會，嘲笑英國市儈和猶太銀行家的世界主義；一面炫耀財產和儲蓄的神聖性，痛斥巴黎公社和外國浪人煽動家動搖文明基礎的暴行。

Although capitalism and communism are irreconcilable, both are inclined to rootless internationalism. Those small property owners the French patriots sought to protect are similar to the lower middle classes Donald Trump is wooing. They are both devoted to nation-states and private property. In their minds, international communists are blatant looters, and international capitalists shameless swindlers. Communists and capitalists might differ in approaches, yet they are seen to be united by the same pursuit.

國際資本主義和國際共產主義雖然水火不容，但雙方都傾向於無根的世界主義。法蘭西愛國者企圖保護的小有產者，跟今天特朗普企圖保護的下層中產階級非常相似。他們都無比熱愛民族國家和私有財產，覺得國際共產主義是赤裸裸的搶劫者，國際資本主義是厚顏無恥的詐騙犯，手段的不同並不妨礙目標的一致。

When communism was at its peak, all anti-communist forces were united under liberal democracies. When communist threat receded, old rifts resurfaced. Why did the Soviet Union perish? Was it because its stagnant planned economy was inferior to the progressive forces of international capitalism? Or was it because it could not suppress rising nationalism among its constituent republics? The answer is both. Supporters of the European Union and Hilary Clinton are more inclined towards the former, whereas supporters of Viktor Orban and Donald Trump are in favour of the latter. Should we love our tangible neighbours more than the abstract humanity? To this the answer is never going to be definitive, nor will the struggle be conclusive.

共產主義佔據半壁江山的時候，一切反共勢力都在自由民主的旗號下團結起來。共產主義威脅消退後，原有的裂痕自然會重新浮出水面。蘇聯因何滅亡？是因為在固步自封的計劃經濟鬥不過國際資本主義的進步浪潮，還是因為無法壓制民族共同體的反攻倒算？顯然兩者都有。歐盟和希拉里的支持者更傾向於前者，奧爾班和特朗普的支持者更傾向於後者。你應該愛具體的鄰居，還是愛抽象的人類。這個問題永遠不會有最終的答案，這樣的鬥爭永遠不會結束。