英译汉

Stephen Hanson, Time and Revolution: Marxism and the ①Design of Soviet Institutions (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2013), 258 pp. Reviewed by Ana Siljak, Harvard University

斯蒂芬 汉森，时间与革命：马克思主义与苏联体制设定 （Chapel Hill:北卡罗来纳大学出版，2013），258pp. 评论者Ana Siljak，哈佛大学

It has long been the practice of historians and social scientists to ignore the effects of ideas and ideologies on the design of political institutions. In particular, some scholars have argued that Communism had a negligible influence on the behavior of Soviet leaders. Instead, scholars have preferred to explain the decisions and policies of world leaders on the basis of② rational calculation, interest group pressure, or bureaucratic politics. It is therefore refreshing to come across books like Stephen Hanson’s Time and Revolution that seek to focus our attention on the importance of Communist ideology for the making (and unmaking) of the Soviet Union. Hanson ③isolates and describes the Marxist understanding of the concept of time, persuasively demonstrating its significance for Soviet politics. He argues, ④quite rightly, that it is necessary for scholars to show “concretely, rather than speculatively, how ideological visions get translated into institutional outcomes” (p. xiii). Nonetheless, because the book relies almost exclusively on published material, it too remains somewhat in the realm of the “speculative” Valuable as Hanson’s contribution is, future scholars will need to use the newly available archival sources to trace more concretely the effects of ideology on Soviet institutions.

思想和意识形态对政治体制造成影响，而历史学家和社会科学人员对此采取忽视的做法已由来已久。尤其是，一些学者认为共产主义对苏联领导者的行为只起到了无足轻重的影响。相反，学者们更偏向于在合理计算，利益集团带来的压力和当局政策的基础上来解释世界领导人的决议和政策。因此，能偶遇诸如斯蒂芬 汉森的时间与革命这类著作，给人以耳目一新的感觉，该书旨在使我们关注共产主义意识形态对苏联的建立（或解体）有着重大意义。汉森从马克思主义的角度，划分并描述了对时间概念的理解，同时论证了时间概念对苏联政策的意义，说服力十足。他义正言辞地认为，学者们对意识形态构想是如何转化为体制而作出具体而非臆测的证实是十分必要的。然而，该书几乎只基于市面出版物，因而在某种程度上也存在猜想成分。尽管汉森做出的贡献十分具有价值，后继者仍需要运用最新的可用档案资源更具体地查寻意识形态对苏联体制的影响。

Explicitly borrowing Max Weber’s categories of “⑤legitimate domination,” Hanson distinguishes three general categories of attitudes toward time: traditional, rational, and charismatic. Traditional conceptions of time, Hanson explains, measure time according to the occurrence of certain events (such as festivals on a religious calendar) or according to the duration of certain processes (harvesttime, summertime, the length of a day). Rational time, which emerges in modern, industrial societies, is defined as “⑥an abstract grid outside all concrete events” (p. 11). It becomes a regulated system of reference, according to which all other events and processes are scheduled, and it is considered impersonal because it is seen as⑦ lying beyond all subjective interpretations.

Finally, there is charismatic time, which, ⑧like Weber’s “charismatic leadership, ”emerges during crises or revolutionary situations and claims to transcend all ordinary rational and traditional conceptions of time. According to Hanson, revolutionaries wish to manipulate time so that their actions can exist “in the unpredictable realm of the extraordinary” (p. 12). Charismatic groups and leaders claim that they can rearrange time to suit their own purposes and ⑨for the greater good, and they often argue that they are able to “start time over again” (p. 13).

汉森直接借鉴了Max Weber的合理支配范畴，在对待时间态度上，划分了三大类别：传统式时间观念，合理时间观念和人物感召式时间观念。汉森解释说，传统时间观念依据某些事件的发生进行计时（例如宗教日历上的盛大节日）或者依据某一进程的持续时间（丰收时节，夏日时节，昼夜长短）合理时间观念出现在现代工业社会，被定义为所有具体事件之外的抽象网格。它成为一支可供参考的管理系统，所以其他事件及进程据此得以编排，而人们认为这一时间观念不具人情味儿，因为它不能进行主观解释。最后就是人物感召式时间观念，如同Weber提出的“感召力领导”一样，出现在危机和革命之际，声称超越所有普通的合理式和传统式时间观念。汉森认为，革命者们希望操控时间，使他们的行为活动存在于无法预测的惊人领域中。独具感召力集团和领导人声称，为了达到目的并获取最大利益，他们可以重新设定时间，并认为他们可以“将时间从头开始”。

Hanson traces the development of this last, charismatic, conception of time through the work of Immanuel Kant, Georg Hegel, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Vladimir Lenin, and Josif Stalin, all the way through the Gorbachev era. The book is clever and convincing in its interpretation of Marx’s revolutionary philosophy, arguing that in calling for revolution Marx desired to transcend “rational” time. For Marx, the capitalist mode of production used rational time as another means of exploiting labor: By measuring productivity in work hours,⑩ it failed to respect the intrinsic value of a worker’s product. The Communist revolution, according to Marx, would smash the tyranny of the abstract, impersonal chaining of humans to time lines and, ?in apocalyptic fashion, would thrust the power to control time back into human hands. Marx was, however, simultaneously fascinated with the efficiency of rationally organized modern industry. In his view, only the assembly line, with its timesaving methods, would allow workers to find the leisure time needed for their own fulfillment. Hanson labels Marx’s desire to combine these two opposed approaches to time as “charismatic rational” (p. 33). For Hanson, Marx’s problem in reconciling the rational and charismatic notions of time was analogous to other major contradictions in his revolutionary theory, and his successors inherited these difficulties.

汉森查寻了最后这种感召式时间观念的发展，从Immanuel Kant, Georg Hegel, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Vladimir Lenin和 Josif Stalin时期直到戈尔巴乔夫时期的著作。这本书在阐述马克思的革命哲学上巧妙明智，使人信服，书中倡导为了召唤革命，马克思试图想超越合理时间。马克思认为，资本主义生产方式利用合理时间作为剥削劳动力的另一种方式，通过测量工作时间的生产率，它没有尊重工人所生产产品的固有价值。马克思认为，共产主义革命将会打破人类与时间形成的抽象冷漠的专制锁链，并决定性地将掌控时间的权利转交于人类手中。然而，马克思同时对合理有序的现代工业生产效率兴趣浓厚。在他看来，只有省

时的流水线生产方式才能给予工人自我实现所需的闲暇时间。马克思想要将这两种相反的方式结合起来度量时间，汉森将其称为“感召式合理时间观念”汉森认为，马克思在调和合理时间观念和感召时间观念中遇到的困难类似于他的革命理论中其它重大矛盾，他的后继者们沿袭了这些困难。

In what is arguably the most interesting and convincing part of his book, Hanson reveals how Lenin and Stalin shared Marx’s dilemma, seeking to avoid overreliance on either the charismatic or the rational ?in their approaches to time. According to Hanson, Lenin insisted that rationalism and charisma be balanced in all approaches to the revolutionary struggle. The difficulty of balancing these two conceptions of time caused Lenin to adopt contradictory economic policies at the start of the Soviet era. On the one hand, as Hanson demonstrates, Lenin was fascinated by the precision of Henry Ford’s and Frederick Taylor’s attempts to organize work. Lenin wished to use all of the modern approaches to production, ?including the precise timing of worker movements on the assembly line, to maximize the productivity of Russian industry—a necessity if the Soviet Union was to compensate for its economic backwardness. On the other hand, this mastering of the rational approach to time was, for Lenin, simply not sufficient. Another step could be taken by Communist workers, one that would use revolutionary enthusiasm to transcend the limits of the ordinary workweek. Lenin supported the creation of subbotniki, in which workers came to work on Saturdays; he was particularly pleased that workers who took part were often willing to expend twice their normal effort.

该书最为生动有趣，使人信服的部分就是汉森揭示了，列宁和斯大林以何种形式与马克思的两难境地相一致的，在他们度量时间时，试图避免过分依赖感召式或合理时间观念。汉森认为，列宁在革命斗争的方式上，坚持理性主义与个人感召力的平衡。维系这两种时间观念达到平衡的困境使列宁在苏联时代之初采取相反的经济政策。一方面，正如汉森所证实的那样，列宁对Henry Ford 和Frederick Taylor组织工作的精细程度深为着迷。为了使俄罗斯工业生产效率最大化，列宁希望运用所有的现代生产方式，包括流水线上工人运动的精确计时——倘若苏联想要弥补其经济落后的局面，以上做法是必要的。另一方面列宁认为，掌握合理计时方式是远远不够的。共产主义工人应另谋策略，利用革命热情延长普通工作周的限制。列宁支持创建subbotniki，在这里，工人周六工作。参与其中的工人通常十分愿意加倍工作，对此列宁格外满意。

?No less interesting is Hanson’s analysis of Stalin’s contradictory goals in implementing the first Five-Year Plan, which he describes as part of Stalin’s attempt to bring charisma back into a social and economic system that lost its revolutionary edge during the New Economic Policy (NEP) in the 1920s. ?The tension between charismatic and rational reappeared and was expressed, as Hanson points out, in Stalin’s stated aim to combine “American efficiency” with “Russian revolutionary sweep” and in his use of the term “planned heroism” to describe what was required of the Soviet worker (p. 149). In particular, the slogan “Fulfill the Five-Year Plan in Four Years!” is a perfect illustration of Hanson’s point that Stalin set up a series of rational,

abstract norms and targets and then expected them to be transcended or “overfulfilled”. As Hanson explains, “If five years could be compressed into four, then, in principle, four years could be compressed into three, three into one, and so on. . . . The socialist economy would, in theory, thus give rise to an upward spiral of achievement beyond anything witnessed before in human history” (p. 149). Those who sought to fulfill Stalin’s wishes by challenging the limits of human productive effort were rewarded. It was, however, extremely dangerous to misunderstand the ?difficult combination of charisma and rationality. Many of Stalin’s victims were accused of being “bourgeois wreckers” when they did not adhere to a revolutionary “heroic” approach to industrial production (p. 154).

同样引人注目的是汉森对斯大林在实施第一个五年计划时制定的矛盾性目标分析，汉森将其描述为，斯大林将个人感召力带回社会经济体制进行尝试的一部分，20世纪20 年代个人感召力在新经济政策中曾丧失了其革命性。汉森指出，感召式和合理式时间观念的激烈矛盾再次出现，并体现在斯大林所宣称地将“美国效率”与“俄国革命”相结合的目标中，显现在他用“计划英雄主义”这一名词来描述苏联工人的规定性任务中。特别是，“四年内完成五年计划”完美地说明了汉森的观点，即：斯大林建立一系列合理而抽象的标准及目标，并期望它们得到超越和“超额完成”。如汉森解释那样，“倘若五年的任务能压缩至四年完成，那么按这个规律，四年就能压缩至三年，三年压缩至一年等等，从理论上看，社会经济所取得的成就将成螺旋上升式，超越人类史前所看到的任何事物。试图通过挑战人类生产力极限来满足斯大林期望的那些人将会得到奖赏。然而，若误解了感召力和合理性的艰难结合，是极其危险的。倘若在工业生产上不坚持革命英雄主义方式，人们将会指责许多受斯大林所害的人们是“资产阶级破坏者”。 Hanson ends his book with a novel interpretation of Mikhail Gorbachev’s policy of perestroika as an attempt to inject “charisma” back into the Soviet economy. According to Hanson, Gorbachev knew that it was necessary to reinvigorate the now stagnant Soviet economic system to forestall the total collapse of the Communist state.

在该书的结尾，汉森全新的解释了戈尔巴乔夫的改革政策，试图将“个人感召力”重新注入苏联经济。汉森认为，戈尔巴乔夫深知重新激活当下停滞的苏联经济体制，从而预先防止共产主义国家的彻底覆灭这一举措是十分必要的。

Despite the original and insightful qualities of the book, there are a few significant difficulties. In the first place, Hanson?overreaches in the implications of his thesis. In certain parts of the book, he suggests that conceptions of time determine all other religious and philosophical concepts. When he describes various religious approaches to time, for example, he overemphasizes the importance of the question, arguing in one place that the entire history of Protestantism was determined by debates over time. Similarly, in the sections on Kant and Hegel, Hanson seems to argue that attitudes toward time shaped the philosophers’ approaches to other philosophical questions, such as morality or freedom. In his explication of the ideas of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin, he also often conflates attitudes toward history with attitudes toward time, even though history and time are distinct concepts.

尽管该书创作新颖，见解深邃，但仍有一些重大缺陷。首先，汉森超出了该书所涵盖的内容。在书中的某些部分，他认为时间观念决定了所有宗教和哲学观念。例如，他描述各种教派式计时方法时，他过分强调质疑的重要性。书中某处指出，整个基督教历史是通过对时间的探讨争论决定的。同样，在记述Kant和Hegel那部分，汉森似乎认为对待时间的态度决定了哲学家们解决其它哲学问题的方法，例如道德和自由问题。在解释马克思，列宁及斯大林的思想时，他通常也混合了历史态度和时间态度，即便历史和时间是两种截然不同的观念。