The Anarchist Banker | The Anarchist Library

全文 summary: 由于不可能在一个团体里解放全人类，他决定独自解放自己（通过搞钱）

1) 通过暴力夺取政权进行的革命，将带来暴力的社会，因为它的进步一面会被军事独裁完全泯灭

— As I was saying, in the area of material adaptation there is still one further hypothesis. And that is a revolutionary dictatorship.

— What do you mean by that?

— As I explained, there can be no material adaptation to something that does not exist materially. However, were there suddenly to be a social revolution, there would exist, not a free society (because humanity is not as yet prepared for that), but the kind of dictatorship that wishes to institute a free society. Something like a free society would then already exist, albeit in a very sketchy, rudimentary form. There would then be something in material existence to which humanity could adapt itself. Were they capable of argument or thought, that is the argument that would be used by the fools who defend a dictatorship of the proletariat. That argument is, of course, not theirs but mine. I propose it as an objection to myself. And, as I will show you, it is false.

While it exists and whatever its aims or its main ideas, a revolutionary regime is materially only one thing, a revolutionary regime. Now a revolutionary regime means a dictatorship of war or, to be blunt, a despotic military regime, because a state of war is imposed on society by a part of that same society, the part that took power by revolutionary means. And what happens? Anyone adapting themselves to that regime, to its immediate, material reality, that of a despotic military regime, is becoming adapted to just that: a despotic military regime. The idea that inspired the revolutionaries, the aims they espoused, have vanished completely from the social reality which is now occupied exclusively by a warrior mentality. So what emerges from a revolutionary dictatorship, and will emerge more fully the longer that dictatorship lasts, is a dictatorial warrior society—that is, military despotism. It couldn’t be anything else. And it has always been like that. I don’t know a lot about history, but what I do know only confirms my theory; how could it not? What emerged from the political troubles in Rome? The Roman Empire and its military despotism. What emerged from the French Revolution? Napoleon and his military despotism. And you just wait and see what emerges from the Russian Revolution... Something that will set back the creation of a free society by decades, but then what can you expect from a country of illiterates and mystics?

— 正如我所说，在物质改进方面，还有一个假设。那就是革命的独裁统治。

— 你这样说是什么意思？

— 正如我所解释的，物质上不存在的东西（译注：这里指社会制度），不可能向它进行任何物质上的改进。然而，如果突然发生了社会革命，出现的并不是自由社会（因为人类还没有为此做好准备），而是希望建立自由社会的那种独裁政权。这样一来，类似自由社会的东西似乎就已经存在了，尽管是以一种非常粗略的、不成熟的形式。那么，在物质存在中好像就会有一些人类可以改进的东西。这就是那些为无产阶级专政辩护的傻瓜们（如果他们有能力争论或思考）所使用的论据。当然，这个论点不是他们的，而是我的。我把它作为对自己的反对意见提出来。而且，正如我将告诉你们的那样，它是错误的。

只要革命政权存在，不管目标或主要思想是什么，它在实质上只是一种东西，即革命政权。现在，革命政权意味着战争独裁，或者直截了当地说，意味着专制的军事政权，因为战争状态是由同一社会的一部分，即通过革命手段夺取政权的那一部分强加给社会的。那会发生什么呢？任何试图向这个政权——一个专制的军事政权的直接的、物质的现实——改进的人，都会被“改进”为这个专制的军事政权本身。激励革命者的思想、他们所支持的目标，已经从社会现实中完全消失了，现在完全被一种战士心态所占据。因此，从革命独裁政权中出现的——而且独裁政权持续的时间越长，出现的就越充分——是一个独裁的战士社会，也就是军事独裁主义。它不可能是别的东西。而且它一直都是这样的。我对历史了解不多，但我所知道的只是证实了我的理论；不是吗？在罗马的政治麻烦中出现了什么？罗马帝国和它的军事专制主义。法国大革命中出现了什么？拿破仑和他的军事专制主义。你就等着看俄国革命中出现的东西吧...... 一些将使自由社会的建立倒退几十年的东西，但你能从一个由文盲和神秘主义者组成的国家期待什么？

通过www.DeepL.com/Translator（免费版）翻译（微调）

简评：共产主义的核心问题在于思想的强制统一，这是后续一切恐怖极权奴役和不自由之起源。即使他能供给平均的口粮，他也会残暴杀灭一切头脑。而正因此，它不可能供给平均的口粮。

---

Obviously, that fragile freedom is a future freedom, and in present-day terms, it is the freedom of those oppressed by social fictions. We need have no qualms about crushing the ‘freedom’ of the powerful, of the well-to-do, of all those who represent the social fictions and benefit from them. That is not freedom; that is merely the freedom to tyrannize, which is the opposite of freedom. Indeed, that is what we must strive to combat and destroy. That seems to me self-evident.

显然，这种脆弱的自由是一种未来的自由，用现在的话来说，它是那些被社会虚构压迫的人的自由。我们不需要有任何顾虑来粉碎有权有势的人、富裕的人、所有代表社会虚构并从中受益的人的'自由'。这不是自由；这只是施加暴政的自由，是自由的反面。事实上，这就是我们必须努力打击和摧毁的东西。这在我看来是不言而喻的。

---

2) 独自努力，及所谓“战士”团体内部的暴政

One thing is then clear. In the present social situation, however well-intentioned a group of people might be, however concerned they all are with combating social fictions and working for freedom, it is not possible for such a group to work together without the spontaneous creation amongst them of a tyranny, a new tyranny, in addition to that of the existing social fictions; without destroying in practice everything they love in theory; without involuntarily standing in the way of the very thing they wish to promote. What can be done? It’s very simple. We should all work for the same end, but separately.

— Separately!

— Yes, haven’t you been following my argument?

— I have.

— And don’t you find it logical? Don’t you find that conclusion inevitable?

— I do, yes. What I don’t quite see is how...

— I’ll explain. I said that we should all work for the same end, but separately. If we all work for the same anarchist aim, we each contribute with our own efforts to the destruction of social fictions which is what we’re aiming for, and to the creation of a free society in the future. Working separately we cannot, in any way, create a new tyranny, because no one has any influence on anyone else and cannot, therefore, either diminish someone else’s freedom by domination or extinguish that freedom by solicitude.

By working separately and for the same anarchist aims, we have two advantages: it will still be a joint effort, and we will avoid the creation of a new tyranny. We will remain united because we are morally united and we are working in the same way for the same end, we will still be anarchists because each of us is working for a free society, but we will no longer be either voluntary or involuntary traitors to our cause—we cannot be—because by continuing our anarchist work alone, we place ourselves beyond the detrimental influence of social fictions and the hereditary effect they have on the qualities given to us by Nature.

— 那么有一点就很清楚了。在目前的社会形势下，无论一群人多么用心良苦，无论他们多么关心打击社会虚构和争取自由，这样的一群人都不可能在他们中间不自发地产生一种暴政，一种在现有社会虚构之外的新的暴政；不在实践中破坏他们在理论上所热爱的一切；不在不由自主地挡住他们希望促进的东西的道路。可以做什么呢？这很简单。我们都应该为同一个目的而努力，但要分开。

— 分开!

— 是的，你不是一直在跟着我的思路吗？

— 确实。

— 你不觉得这符合逻辑吗？你不觉得这个结论是不可避免的吗？

— 是的，我觉得。我不太明白的是如何...

— 我来解释。我说过，我们都应该为同一个目的而工作，但要分开。如果我们都为同一个无政府主义目标而工作，我们就会以自己的努力为破坏社会虚构做出贡献，而这正是我们的目标，并为在未来建立一个自由社会做出贡献。分开工作，我们不可能以任何方式创造一个新的暴政，因为没有人对其他人有任何影响，因此，既不能通过支配来减少别人的自由，也不能通过索取来消灭这种自由。 通过分别为相同的无政府主义目标工作，我们有两个好处：它仍将是一个联合的努力，我们将避免创造一个新的暴政。我们将保持团结，因为我们在道德上是一致的，我们以同样的方式为同一个目标而工作，我们仍然是无政府主义者，因为我们每个人都在为一个自由社会而工作，但我们将不再是我们事业的自愿或非自愿的叛徒—我们不能这样，因为通过单独继续我们的无政府主义工作，我们将自己置于社会虚构的有害影响以及它们对自然赋予我们的品质的遗传效应之外。

通过www.DeepL.com/Translator（免费版）翻译

追求自由的团体内部总是出现暴政 — 这是因为人性已经被制度扭曲 — 但是无法证明人性在自然状态下是否能不扭曲 — 结论：追求自由应当各自为政，为同个目标努力，而不是结成团体

---

评论： 这篇小说有点虎头蛇尾，结尾主角的 argument 是他解放也仅解放自己——从钱的暴政中。然而我仍没有看出银行业带来的财富怎么解放了他，反而好像是奴役了他？我比较认同的是“团体中的暴政”这个段落。团体始终是一种妥协，妥协不代表没必要存在，也可以从较坏的妥协改进到较好的妥协。然而，指出“不必要有团体”这一点，让人精神一振。 再一次引用荷尔德林：

Eine Welt ist jeder von euch, wie die Sterne des Himmels Lebt ihr, jeder ein Gott, in freiem Bunde zusammen.

你们每人是一个世界，如天上的星辰 你们结成自由的联盟，个个皆是神