在巴黎恐袭三日后，斯洛文尼亚哲学家在左翼的《In These Times》网刊发表了长文《尾随着巴黎袭击，左派必须拥抱其西方激进根源了》，对巴黎事件进行了评论，并回应了一系列针对他此前文章《挪威不存在》的批评。
In the Wake of Paris Attacks the Left Must Embrace Its Radical tern Roots《尾随着巴黎袭击，左派必须拥抱其西方激进根源了》
In the first half of 2015, Europe was preoccupied by radical emancipatory movements (Syriza and Podemos), while in the second half the attention shifted to the “humanitarian” topic of the refugees. Class struggle was literally repressed and replaced by the liberal-cultural topic of tolerance and solidarity. With the Paris terror killings on Friday, November 13, even this topic (which still refers to large socio-economic issues) is now eclipsed by the simple opposition of all democratic forces caught in a merciless war with forces of terror.
2015年上半年的欧洲被激进的解放运动思想（左翼联盟和我们）所占据，而在下半年，关注点切换为难民的“人道主义”。阶级斗争实在是被压抑了，并被宽容和团结的自由主义文化主题替代。随着11月13日上周五巴黎的恐怖屠杀，现在这个话题（仍然是重大的社会经济话题）也黯然失色，陷入了简单的全民民主力量与恐怖势力的无情战争之中。
It is easy to imagine what will follow: paranoiac search for ISIS agents among the refugees. (Media already gleefully reported that two of the terrorists entered Europe through Greece as refugees.) The greatest victims of the Paris terror attacks will be refugees themselves, and the true winners, behind the platitudes in the style of je suis Paris, will be simply the partisans of total war on both sides. This is how we should really condemn the Paris killings: not just to engage in shows of anti-terrorist solidarity but to insist on the simple cui bono (for whose benefit?) question.
接下来的事很容易猜想：偏执的在难民中搜索ISIS成员（媒体已经欢呼雀跃地报道了两名恐怖分子以难民的身份通过希腊进入了欧洲）。巴黎恐怖袭击最大的受害者将是难民自己，而真正的赢家，躲在卿本巴黎佳人之陈词滥调后面的，将是双方全面战争的伙帮。这就是我们本应谴责巴黎杀戮的方式：不只是着手声援反对的团结，而且坚持于为何目的（为了谁的利益）这种简单的问题。
There should be no “deeper understanding” of the ISIS terrorists (in the sense of “their deplorable acts are nonetheless reactions to European brutal interventions”); they should be characterized as what they are: the Islamo-Fascist counterpart of the European anti-immigrant racists—the two are the two sides of the same coin. Let’s bring class struggle back—and the only way to do it is to insist on global solidarity of the exploited.
（在“尽管他们可悲的行为是对欧洲野蛮干预的反应”的话语中）本不应该有对ISIS恐怖分子“更深刻的理解”；他们应该被定性为：伊斯兰法西斯主义遭遇了欧洲反移民的种族主义——两者是同一枚硬币的两面。让我们召回阶级斗争，并且，唯一的途径就是坚持团结全球的被剥削者。
The deadlock that global capitalism finds itself in is more and more palpable. How to break out of it? Fredric Jameson recently proposed global militarization of society as a mode of emancipation: Democratically motivated grassroots movements are seemingly doomed to failure, so perhaps it’s best to break global capitalism’s vicious cycle through “militarization,” which means suspending the power of self-regulating economies. Perhaps the ongoing refugee crisis in Europe provides an opportunity to test this option.
全球资本主义发现自己处于僵局之中是越发明显了。这如何破？詹姆森最近提出的作为一种解放方式的全球军事化社会：民主化动机的草根运动看似注定要失败的，所以通过“军事化”也许是冲破全球资本主义的恶性循环的最好方式，这意味着调节经济能力的暂缓。也许，目前欧洲的难民危机为这一选项提供了测试的机会。
It is at least clear that what is needed to stop the chaos is large-scale coordination and organization, which includes but is not limited to: reception centers near to the crisis (Turkey, Lebanon, the Libyan coast), transportation of those granted entrance to European way stations, and their redistribution to potential settlements. The military is the only agent that can do such a big task in an organized way. To claim that such a role for the military smells of a state of emergency is redundant. When you have tens of thousands of people passing through densely populated areas without organization you have an emergency state—and it is in a state of emergency that parts of Europe are right now. Therefore, it is madness to think that such a process can be left to unwind freely. If nothing else, refugees need provisions and medical care.
停止混乱的状态再明白不过了，这是一场大规模的协调和组织，包括但不限于：危机入口（土耳其，黎巴嫩，利比亚海岸）的接待中心，那些获准进入欧洲的中转运输以及潜在定居点的重新分配。军队是唯一可以有组织地完成如此巨大任务的机构。称这样紧急状态角色的军事气味是多余的。当成千上万的人无组织的通过人口稠密地区，就需要紧急状态——部分欧洲目前就处在紧急状态之中。因此，认为这样一个过程可以自由散漫地放松下来是疯狂的，即便只是因为难民需要粮食和医疗服务。
Taking control of the refugee crisis will mean breaking leftist taboos.获得难民危机的控制权意味着打破左派禁忌。
For instance, the right to “free movement” should be limited, if for no other reason than the fact that it doesn’t exist among the refugees, whose freedom of movement is already dependent on their class. Thus, the criteria of acceptance and settlement have to be formulated in a clear and explicit way—whom and how many to accept, where to relocate them, etc. The art here is to find the middle road between following the desires of the refugees (taking into account their wish to move to countries where they already have relatives, etc.) and the capacities of different countries.
举例来说，如果没有其他不存在于难民中的事实，“自由移动”的权利应该被限制，他们迁徙的自由已经依赖于他们的阶级。因此必须有一个清晰明确的接受与安置的标准——谁接受多少，如何接受，如何安置他们等等。这里的窍门是要在难民的愿望（考虑到他们要移动的地方，他们已经有亲人等）和不同国家的能力之间找到中间道路。
Another taboo we must address concerns norms and rules. It is a fact that most of the refugees come from a culture that is incompatible with Western European notions of human rights. Tolerance as a solution (mutual respect of each other’s sensitivities) obviously doesn’t work: fundamentalist Muslims find it impossible to bear our blasphemous images and reckless humor, which we consider a part of our freedoms. Western liberals, likewise, find it impossible to bear many practices of Muslim culture.
另一个我们必须解决的禁忌是规范和规则。事实是，大多数难民来自于与西欧人权观念格格不入的文化。宽容作为一个解决方案（相互尊重对方的敏感性），显然是行不通的：原教旨主义的穆斯林觉得无法忍受我们亵渎神明图像和鲁莽的幽默，而这些又被我们视为自由的一部分。同样地，西方的自由主义者觉得无法容忍穆斯林文化的许多做法。
In short, things explode when members of a religious community consider the very way of life of another community as blasphemous or injurious, whether or not it constitutes a direct attack on their religion. This is the case when Muslim extremists attack gays and lesbians in the Netherlands and Germany, and it is the case when traditional French citizens view a woman covered by a burka as an attack on their French identity, which is exactly why they find it impossible to remain silent when they encounter a covered woman in their midst.
总之，事情发生爆炸时，一个社区的成员认为其他社区的生活方式是亵渎或有害的，无论其是否构成了对他们的宗教的直接攻击。出现这种情况时，穆斯林极端分子攻击在荷兰和德国同性恋者，在这种情形下，传统的法国公民认为被黑袍包裹的女人是对自己法国身份的攻击，这就是为什么当他们遭遇到包裹严实的妇女就在他们中间时，几乎是不可能保持沉默的原因。
To curb this propensity, one has to do two things. First, formulate a minimum set of norms obligatory for everyone that includes religious freedom, protection of individual freedom against group pressure, the rights of women, etc.—without fear that such norms will appear “Eurocentric.” Second, within these limits, unconditionally insist on the tolerance of different ways of life. And if norms and communication don’t work, then the force of law should be applied in all its forms.
要遏制这种倾向，必须做两件事情。首先，为每个人制定一套最低限度的强制性规范，包括宗教自由、保护个人自由以对抗群体压力、妇女权利等，而不用担心这样的规范将出现“欧洲中心主义”。其次，在这些限制范围内，无条件地坚持对不同生活方式的容忍。同时，如果规范和沟通不起作用时，法律的效力应适用于所有形式。
Another taboo that must be overcome involves the equation of any reference to the European emancipatory legacy to cultural imperialism and racism. In spite of the (partial) responsibility of Europe for the situation from which refugees are fleeing, the time has come to drop leftist mantras critiquing Eurocentrism.
另一个禁忌，必须克服参考任何欧洲对文化帝国主义和种族主义解放的遗产之配方。尽管欧洲对难民逃离现状负有（部分的）责任，时间已经到了放弃左翼批判欧洲中心主义咒语的时候了。
The lessons of the post-9/11 world are that the Francis Fukuyama dream of global liberal democracy is at an end and that, at the level of the world economy, corporate capitalism has triumphed worldwide. In fact, the Third World nations that embrace this world order are those now growing at a spectacular rate. The mask of cultural diversity is sustained by the actual universalism of global capital; even better if global capitalism’s political supplement relies on so-called “Asian values.”
后911时代的主要教训是，弗朗西斯·福山的全球自由民主的梦想已经结束，并且，公司资本主义已经在世界经济水平中战胜了世界。事实上，拥抱这个世界秩序的第三世界国家目前正以惊人的速度成长着。文化多样性的面具仰仗全球资本的实际普遍性；如果全球资本主义政治的补充依赖于所谓的“亚洲价值观”那就更好了。
Global capitalism has no problem in accommodating itself to a plurality of local religions, cultures and traditions. So the irony of anti-Eurocentrism is that, on behalf of anti-colonialism, one criticizes the West at the very historical moment when global capitalism no longer needs Western cultural values in order to smoothly function. In short, one tends to reject Western cultural values at the very time when, critically reinterpreted, many of those values (egalitarianism, fundamental rights, freedom of the press, the welfare-state, etc.) can serve as a weapon against capitalist globalization. Did we already forget that the entire idea of Communist emancipation as envisaged by Marx is a thoroughly “Eurocentric” one?
全球资本主义将其自身融合到多数当地宗教、文化和传统中是没有问题的。因此具有讽刺意味的是，反欧洲中心主义，在反殖民主义的立场上，在全球资本主义不再需要西方文化价值观的时候，对西方的批判才能顺利运作。总之，人们往往在非常时期拒绝西方的文化价值，批判性的重新诠释，许多这样的价值观（平均主义，基本权利，出版自由，国家福利等）都可以作为反对资本主义全球化的武器。我们是否已经忘记了由马克思设想的整个共产主义思想的解放是一个彻底的“欧洲中心论”的吗？
The next taboo worth leaving behind is that any critique of the Islamic right is an example of “Islamophobia.” Enough of this pathological fear of many Western liberal leftists who worry about being deemed guilty of Islamophobia. For example, Salman Rushdie was denounced for unnecessarily provoking Muslims and thus (partially, at least) responsible for the fatwa condemning him to death. The result of such a stance is what one can expect in such cases: The more Western liberal leftists wallow in their guilt, the more they are accused by Muslim fundamentalists of being hypocrites who try to conceal their hatred of Islam.
接下来值得抛下的禁忌是：任何对伊斯兰权利的批判是“伊斯兰恐惧症”的代表。受够了西方自由主义左派们担心自己被视为伊斯兰恐惧症的病理性恐惧。例如萨尔曼·拉什迪因为针穆斯林的不必要的挑衅而被谴责，因此（部分，至少）需要对谴责他死刑的追杀令负责。在这样的情况下，如此立场可期待的结果是：西方自由主义左派越是沉浸于他们的罪行之中，他们越是被穆斯林原教旨主义者指责为试图掩盖他们对伊斯兰教仇恨的伪君子。
This constellation perfectly reproduces the paradox of the superego: The more you obey what the pseudo-moral agency that the sadistic and primitive superego demands of you, the more guilty you are of moral masochism and identification with the aggressor. Thus, it is as if the more you tolerate Islamic fundamentalism, the stronger its pressure on you will be.
这一组合完美的再现了超我悖论：越是顺从于施虐的和你的原始超我需求之伪道德的部分，越是对道德受虐和认同攻击者感到愧疚。因此，这似乎是，如果你越容忍伊斯兰原教旨主义，你的压力就越大。
And one can be sure that the same holds for the influx of immigrants: The more Western Europe will be open to them, the more it will be made to feel guilty that it did not accept even more of them. There will never be enough of them. And with those who are here, the more tolerance one displays towards their way of life, the more one will be made guilty for not practicing enough tolerance.
而且可以肯定，同样适用于新移民的涌入：西欧越是对他们开放，未接受更多的移民就越会致使其感到内疚。他们永远不会适可而止。而对于那些在这里的人，对他们生活方式展现更多的宽容，更多的人就因为没有实行足够的宽容而犯罪。
www.nmgpsy.com内蒙古心理网
