欢迎品偿自由主义“自助餐”

以色列历史学家 尤瓦尔•诺厄•赫拉利 为英国《金融时报》撰稿
2019.05.15 12:00

在20世纪,有三大理论曾试图解释整个人类历史,并为世界的未来提供一个愿景。

法西斯主义将历史解释为不同国家之间的斗争,并设想由一个族群统治全世界,这个族群以暴力征服其他所有族群。共产主义将历史解释为不同阶级之间的斗争,其设想的世界是:所有群体都由一个中央集权的社会体系团结在一起,这个体系确保了平等,即使是以牺牲自由为代价。

自由主义将历史解释为自由与暴政之间的斗争,并将世界设想为:所有人都能自由、和平地合作,将中央集权程度控制在最低,即使以产生一些不平等为代价。

第二次世界大战和冷战将法西斯主义和共产主义的愿景淘汰出局,留下自由主义作为指引我们理解人类历史的主导理论、和引领我们走向未来不可缺少的指南——至少看起来如此。现在,民粹主义者和威权政权对自由主义的关键要素发起挑战。自由主义是否会同法西斯主义和共产主义一样,也被扫进历史的垃圾箱?

截至2019年,这个问题还很难有答案。毫无疑问,自由主义正处于危机之中,但没有哪个政权愿意完全放弃自由主义。相反,我们正在见证从“自由主义套餐”向“自由主义自助餐”的转变。当前的事态之所以令人费解,部分原因是自由主义从来就不是由单一要素组成。

自由主义珍视自由,但自由在不同情景中有不同的含义。对一个人来说,自由主义意味着民主和法治。另一个人可能认为,自由意味着全球化、私有化、小政府和低税收。第三个人将自由主义与枪支管制和同性婚姻联系在一起。巴西总统雅伊尔•梅西亚斯•博索纳罗(Jair Messias Bolsonaro)是自由主义者吗?对于这个问题,你会从LGBT(女同性恋、男同性恋、双性恋与跨性别人士)活动家和马克思主义经济学家那里得到截然不同的答案。

简而言之,自由主义包括6大要素。在经济领域,它支持国家内部的自由市场和国家之间的自由贸易。在政治领域,自由主义者支持国家内部的自由选举和国家之间的和平合作。在私人领域,自由主义捍卫国家内部的个人自由和国家之间的自由迁移。

在1990年代和2000年代初,人们普遍认为,所有6大要素之间都存在紧密而不可或缺的联系。如果一个国家想要享用自由主义套餐中的一道菜,比如经济自由化,它别无选择,只能将套餐中的其他菜品一并勾选。你不能只点一道菜而放弃其他几道,因为任何一个领域的进步都需要并刺激其他领域的进步。民主对自由市场的成功至关重要;个人自由对民主不可或缺;而自由市场反过来又会促进个人自由。

尽管当今世界上许多民粹主义和威权主义政权都将自己描述为“反自由主义”,但没有一个政权将自由主义全盘抛弃。相反,他们只是拒绝接受套餐方式,想从自由主义的自助餐中挑选自己喜欢的菜品。因此,唐纳德•特朗普(Donald Trump)强烈支持美国国内的自由市场,同时却抵制全球自由贸易。中国支持自由贸易,其“一带一路”倡议(BRI)是有史以来最雄心勃勃的全球基础设施项目之一——但它对自由选举的热情却低得多。

意大利政府花大力气让欧洲对移民关上大门——但同时却铺红毯欢迎“一带一路”倡议。英国退欧派坚持民主,但他们不信任国际合作。匈牙利的欧尔班•维克托(Viktor Orban)将自己的政权定义为“非自由主义民主”,并声称,在削弱个人自由的同时,也可以举行自由选举。

几乎每个人都想要的一道菜是和平,至少在理论上是如此。和平是自由主义自助餐中的巧克力蛋糕。相比之下,几乎没人喜欢的一道菜——芹菜——就是移民。就连民主、多边主义和个人自由的一些最忠实拥趸,对允许过多移民入境也明显地不感冒。

这种自助餐方式能否奏效还有待观察。以食物作类比可能有误导作用。在餐馆里,套餐是独立菜品的固定组合。然而,全球自由秩序的缔造者们始终坚持认为,他们的体系是一个由相互依赖的器官组成的生命体。你可以很容易地把汤和甜点分开,但你不能把心脏和肺分开。

特朗普真的能在本国推进自由市场的同时,在全球层面抵制自由贸易吗?中国共产党能在政治自由化原地踏步的情况下,继续享受经济自由化的成果吗?匈牙利人能在没有个人自由的情况下拥有民主吗?或者说,欧尔班的“非自由民主”只是“独裁”的一种更好听的叫法?在一个边境墙不断加高、贸易战愈演愈烈的世界里,世界和平能否幸存下来?自助餐式的做法很可能导致自由主义体系在国家和国际层面彻底崩溃——而什么体系可能将它取而代之,目前还远远不明朗。

本文作者是耶路撒冷希伯来大学(Hebrew University of Jerusalem)教授,著作有《人类简史》(Sapiens)和《21世纪的21堂课》(21 Lessons for the 21st century)。

译者/何黎

以下为此文英文原文:Welcome to the liberal buffet

By Yuval Noah Harari

During the 20th century, three big stories tried to explain the whole of human history and offer a vision for the future of the world.

The fascist story explained history as a struggle among different nations, and envisioned a world dominated by one human group that violently subdues all others. The communist story explained history as a struggle among different classes, and envisioned a world in which all groups are united by a centralised social system that ensures equality even at the price of freedom.

The liberal story explained history as a struggle between liberty and tyranny, and envisioned a world in which all people co-operate freely and peacefully, with minimum central control even at the price of some inequality.

The second world war and the cold war knocked out the fascist and communist versions, leaving the liberal story as the dominant guide to the human past and the indispensable manual for the future — or so it seemed. Now populists and authoritarian regimes are challenging key elements of liberalism. Will the liberal story join fascism and communism in the dustbin of history?

As of 2019, it is hard to say. Liberalism is certainly in crisis, but few regimes are willing to completely abandon the liberal story. Rather, we are witnessing a shift from a “liberal set menu” to a “liberal buffet”. It is difficult to understand current developments partly because liberalism was never a single thing.

Liberalism cherishes liberty, but liberty has different meanings in different contexts. For one person, liberalism implies democracy and the rule of law. Another may think that it means globalisation, privatisation, small government and low taxes. A third associates liberalism with gun control and gay marriage. Is Jair Bolsonaro a liberal? You will get very different answers from an LGBT activist and a Marxist economist.

In brief, liberalism has six main components. In the economic sphere, it upholds free markets within countries, and free trade between countries. In the political sphere, liberalism supports free elections within countries, and peaceful co-operation between countries. In the private sphere, liberalism defends personal freedom within countries, and freedom of movement between countries.

In the 1990s and early 2000s, it was common to argue that there are strong and essential links between all six components. If a country wanted to enjoy one dish from the liberal set menu, such as economic liberalisation, it had no choice but to take the other dishes too. You couldn’t have one without the others, because progress in any one sphere both necessitated and stimulated progress in other spheres. Democracy was crucial for the success of free markets; personal freedom was essential for democracy; and free markets in turn fostered personal freedom.

Even though many of today’s populist and authoritarian regimes throughout the world describe themselves as “anti-liberal”, none of them rejects liberalism wholesale. Rather, they reject the set menu approach, and want to pick and choose their own dishes from a liberal buffet. Thus Donald Trump strongly supports free markets inside the US, while undermining global free trade. China is in favour of free trade, and its Belt and Road Initiative is one of the most ambitious global infrastructure projects ever envisioned — but it is far less enthusiastic about free elections.

The Italian government strives to close Europe’s door to immigrants — while simultaneously rolling out the red carpet for the BRI. British Brexiters uphold democracy, but they distrust international co-operation. Hungary’s Viktor Orban has defined his regime as an “illiberal democracy”, arguing that you can have free elections while chipping away at personal freedoms.

The one dish that almost everybody wants, at least in theory, is peace. This is the chocolate cake of the liberal buffet. In contrast, the one dish that almost nobody desires — the global celery — is immigration. Even some of the staunchest supporters of democracy, multilateralism and personal freedom have become decidedly lukewarm about allowing in too many immigrants.

It remains to be seen whether the buffet approach can work. The food analogy might be misleading. In restaurants, set menus are an arbitrary assemblage of independent dishes. Yet the architects of the global liberal order always insisted that their system is a living organism made of mutually dependent organs. While you can easily separate the soup from the dessert, you cannot separate the heart from the lungs.

Can Mr Trump really promote free markets inside his country while undermining free trade on the global level? Can the Chinese Communist party continue to enjoy the fruits of economic liberalisation without making any movement towards political liberalisation? Can Hungarians have democracy without personal liberties, or is Mr Orban’s “illiberal democracy” just a nicer way of saying “dictatorship”? Can international peace survive in a world of rising border walls and intensifying trade wars? The buffet approach might well result in the utter breakdown of the liberal system on both the national and international levels — and it is far from clear what might replace it.

The writer, a lecturer at Hebrew University of Jerusalem, is the author of ‘Sapiens’ and ‘21 Lessons for the 21st century’

发帖时间: news

发表评论

电子邮件地址不会被公开。