The collapse of the middle class is driving the abandonment of a system we believed was here to stay

中產(chǎn)階級的崩潰，正在推動我們拋棄一個我們相信會繼續(xù)存在的體系

We can already see that modern states are facing such serious challenges that foreign policy is being subordinated to domestic considerations everywhere. This is true of Western countries, Russia, China, India, and everyone else. Indeed, it highlights what existing academic theories are unable to understand simply because of their methodology.

我們已經(jīng)可以看到，現(xiàn)代國家正面臨著如此嚴(yán)峻的挑戰(zhàn)，以至于各國的外交政策都從屬于國內(nèi)考慮。西方國家、俄羅斯、中國、印度和其他所有國家都是如此。事實上，它強(qiáng)調(diào)了現(xiàn)有的學(xué)術(shù)理論僅僅因為其方法論而無法理解的內(nèi)容。

One of the curious effects of the two world wars of the last century, and in particular of the emergence of incredibly power weapons in the possession of several powers – the mass use of which could lead to the cessation of sentient life on the planet – has been to increase the importance of the foreign policy activities of states in the broad sense. The horror that a military catastrophe would be universal and irreversible in its consequences, which gradually became apparent and finally became firmly rooted in the minds of people, has firmly placed questions of international stability among the first priorities for the public.

上個世紀(jì)的兩次世界大戰(zhàn)，特別是幾個大國所擁有的威力驚人的武器的出現(xiàn)——大規(guī)模使用這種武器可能導(dǎo)致地球上有知覺的生命的滅絕——產(chǎn)生了一個奇怪的影響，那就是在廣義上提高了各國外交政策活動的重要性。一場軍事災(zāi)難的后果將是普遍的和不可逆轉(zhuǎn)的，這種恐懼逐漸變得明顯，并最終在人們的頭腦中根深蒂固，這使國際穩(wěn)定問題成為公眾的首要優(yōu)先事項之一。

In addition, industrial-scale warfare and economic globalization have contributed to the growing importance of issues directly related to external factors. The latter has, to a certain extent, lixed the development and even the very existence of any given state to the tasks it undertakes in the international arena. This has especially been true for medium-sized and small countries for which the waters of the modern world are too shark-infested to offer the possibility of a fully independent existence. But even in the case of the great powers, foreign policy issues have become so important over the past century that they are almost on a par with domestic concerns.

此外，工業(yè)規(guī)模的戰(zhàn)爭和經(jīng)濟(jì)全球化使與外部因素直接相關(guān)的問題日益重要。后者在一定程度上把任何國家的發(fā)展甚至存在本身同它在國際舞臺上承擔(dān)的任務(wù)聯(lián)系起來。對于中小型國家來說尤其如此，對這些國家來說，現(xiàn)代世界的水域鯊魚太多，無法提供完全獨立存在的可能性。但即使對大國來說，外交政策問題在過去一個世紀(jì)里也變得如此重要，幾乎與國內(nèi)問題同等重要。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處


Moreover, the now universal market economy and comparative openness have indeed reduced the ability of different governments to fully determine the parameters of domestic development on their own. This has reinforced the perception that success or failure in the crucial task of keeping citizens happy will be decided via a country’s integration in the global system, which will solve most problems by itself. The practical consequence of this has been a historically unimaginable expansion of the diplomatic apparatus and, more generally, of the institutions that manage foreign relations. Huge numbers of officials, imbued with a sense of the importance of their work and their profession, are now responsible for their countries’ external affairs.

此外，現(xiàn)在普遍的市場經(jīng)濟(jì)和相對開放確實降低了各國政府完全自行決定國內(nèi)發(fā)展參數(shù)的能力。這強(qiáng)化了一種看法，即在讓公民幸福這一關(guān)鍵任務(wù)上的成敗，將取決于一個國家融入全球體系的程度，而這將自行解決大多數(shù)問題。這種情況的實際后果是，外交機(jī)構(gòu)以及更廣泛地說，管理外交關(guān)系的機(jī)構(gòu)出現(xiàn)了歷史上難以想象的擴(kuò)張。如今，大批官員對自己的工作和職業(yè)的重要性深信不疑，他們負(fù)責(zé)本國的對外事務(wù)。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處


And in this sense the global system of states has indeed been moving towards the European medi model, in which the government could interfere little in the daily lives of its subjects, especially in the spiritual life, and was happy to concern itself exclusively with foreign policy tasks. Only those powers that have most preserved the primacy of the national over the global could afford to retain sovereignty in the traditional sense of the word. First of all, this describes the United States, whose prioritizing of domestic policy over foreign policy gradually became a unique feature that has distinguished the superpower from all other countries in the world. But this order, which suited everyone, is now beginning to break down.

從這個意義上說，全球國家體系確實正在向歐洲中世紀(jì)模式發(fā)展，在這種模式下，政府很少干涉其臣民的日常生活，尤其是精神生活，并且樂于只關(guān)注外交政策任務(wù)。只有那些最能維護(hù)國家高于全球的首要地位的國家，才有能力維持傳統(tǒng)意義上的主權(quán)。首先，這描述了美國，其國內(nèi)政策優(yōu)先于外交政策逐漸成為一個獨特的特點，使超級大國區(qū)別于世界上所有其他國家。但這種適合所有人的秩序現(xiàn)在開始瓦解。

The first signs that things were moving towards something fundamentally new came with the emergence of such “universal” problems as various manifestations of climate change, plus the internet and the information revolution, and artificial intelligence. Some ten to fifteen years ago, the late Henry Kissinger was the first of the great thinkers of our time to point out that “problems are global, but their solutions remain national.” With this statement, the eminent statesman wanted to draw attention to the fact that the international community was not ready to develop consolidated approaches to solving problems that affect everyone.

隨著氣候變化等“普遍”問題的出現(xiàn)，以及互聯(lián)網(wǎng)、信息革命和人工智能的出現(xiàn)，首次出現(xiàn)了事物正朝著全新的方向發(fā)展的跡象。大約10到15年前，已故的亨利·基辛格是我們這個時代的偉大思想家中第一個指出“問題是全球性的，但它們的解決方案仍然是各國的”。這位著名的政治家在發(fā)言中要提請注意這樣一個事實，即國際社會還沒有準(zhǔn)備好制定統(tǒng)一的辦法來解決影響到每個人的問題。

Rich, poor, and developing countries alike have been unable to make decisions based on a strategy of minimizing the losses of each while achieving a comparative good for all. The most striking example has been the development of international cooperation on climate change. In the space of a few years, it has evolved into a series of transactions between states based on the interests of their corporate sectors and related governmental preferences, or, as in the case of Russia, on scientifically based public policies in this area that also take into account national economic interests. Thus, even during the period of Western dominance in world affairs, and indeed at its expense, states have failed to create a single “supranational” program to deal with the consequences of a phenomenon that threatens to seriously disrupt individual regions.

富國、窮國和發(fā)展中國家都無法根據(jù)一種戰(zhàn)略作出決定，即盡量減少各自的損失，同時實現(xiàn)所有國家的相對利益。最突出的例子就是發(fā)展應(yīng)對氣候變化的國際合作。在幾年的時間里，它已經(jīng)演變?yōu)閲抑g基于企業(yè)部門利益和相關(guān)政府偏好的一系列交易，或者像俄羅斯一樣，在這一領(lǐng)域基于科學(xué)的公共政策，同時考慮到國家經(jīng)濟(jì)利益。因此，即使是在西方主導(dǎo)世界事務(wù)的時期(實際上是以西方為代價)，各國也未能制定一個單一的“超國家”計劃，來應(yīng)對可能嚴(yán)重擾亂個別地區(qū)的現(xiàn)象所帶來的后果。

However, the problem is not limited to those issues, which have become relevant precisely as a result of recent changes and technological advances by mankind. The most important issue has been the growth of inequality, a concrete manifestation of which has been the decline in the incomes of large sections of the population and the gradual disappearance of the phenomenon of the “middle class” in most Western countries.

然而，問題并不限于這些問題，這些問題正是由于人類最近的變化和技術(shù)進(jìn)步而變得相關(guān)的。最重要的問題是不平等的增長，其具體表現(xiàn)是大部分人口收入的下降和大多數(shù)西方國家“中產(chǎn)階級”現(xiàn)象的逐漸消失。

The problem was most pronounced during the coronavirus pandemic, when the least well-off suffered the most. In the United States, this resulted in huge human losses that no one really cared about because of the peculiarities of the local socio-economic structure. In Russia, and most of the rest of Europe, the deaths of citizens from Covid were added to the already enormous costs of various types of social programs and health care. As a result of the intensive work of states to mitigate the immediate effects of the 2008-2009 crisis and the 2020-2022 pandemic, and at the same time to continue measures to stabilize budgets, the greatest concern now is the future of social programs that were the basis of welfare in the 20th century and the source of the wellbeing of the expansive middle class.

這個問題在新冠疫情期間最為突出，當(dāng)時最不富裕的人受害最深。在美國，由于當(dāng)?shù)厣鐣?jīng)濟(jì)結(jié)構(gòu)的特殊性，這導(dǎo)致了沒有人真正關(guān)心的巨大人員損失。在俄羅斯和歐洲大部分其他國家，新冠肺炎造成的公民死亡，使各類社會項目和醫(yī)療保健的成本本已巨大。由于各國為減輕2008-2009年危機(jī)和2020-2022年大流行的直接影響而進(jìn)行的密集工作，同時繼續(xù)采取措施穩(wěn)定預(yù)算，現(xiàn)在最令人擔(dān)憂的是社會方案的未來，這些方案是20世紀(jì)福利的基礎(chǔ)，也是不斷擴(kuò)大的中產(chǎn)階級福利的來源。

But soon this will lead to a general crisis of a system that has provided stability in the form of a middle class that relies on savings. Thus, we will see a general decline in the economic basis for citizens’ consent to the existing domestic political order. This applies primarily to Western countries, but Russia will not be spared the negative consequences of the collapse of a way of life that was at the center of the modern global economy and was the source of legitimacy for state intervention in the free market. All the more so because the consequences of the globalization of information, such as a certain erosion of control over the lives of subjects, have not disappeared. Even China, where the state’s information policy is the most consistent and subordinate to the tasks of the government and elites, faces this problem.

但很快，這將導(dǎo)致一個以依賴儲蓄的中產(chǎn)階級形式提供穩(wěn)定的體系的普遍危機(jī)。因此，我們將看到公民對現(xiàn)有國內(nèi)政治秩序的認(rèn)同的經(jīng)濟(jì)基礎(chǔ)普遍下降。這主要適用于西方國家，但俄羅斯也不能幸免于這種生活方式崩潰的負(fù)面后果，這種生活方式曾是現(xiàn)代全球經(jīng)濟(jì)的中心，也是國家干預(yù)自由市場的合法性來源。尤其如此，因為信息全球化的后果，例如對主體生活的某種控制的侵蝕，并沒有消失。即使在中國，國家的信息政策是最一致的，服從于政府和精英的任務(wù)，也面臨著這個問題。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處


As a result, states have to focus more and more on their immediate tasks, such as maintaining public peace among citizens. In the case of growing international political powers such as China or India, their sheer demographic size puts domestic issues at the top of the agenda. As a result, foreign policy activities take a back seat and are only considered in the context of internal struggles for unity (Russia, China, India) or the retention of power by elites that have become virtually irremovable in recent decades (the United States and major European countries).

因此，各國不得不越來越多地把注意力集中在他們的眼前任務(wù)上，比如維持公民之間的公共和平。就中國或印度等日益增長的國際政治大國而言，其龐大的人口規(guī)模使國內(nèi)問題成為議程的重中之重。因此，外交政策活動退居次要地位，只有在內(nèi)部團(tuán)結(jié)斗爭(俄羅斯、中國、印度)或近幾十年來幾乎不可動搖的精英階層(美國和主要歐洲國家)保留權(quán)力的背景下才會被考慮。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處


This process has two interesting implications at a theoretical and practical level.
First, there is growing confusion among those whose professional responsibility it is to analyze international politics. One of America’s most prominent realists, Stephen Walt, in his recent articles has angrily drawn attention to the way in which the US government’s foreign policy decisions deviate from the logic of international life. It is also not uncommon to hear claims from Russian analysts about politics as such being dominated by purely foreign policy rationality.

這個過程在理論和實踐層面上有兩個有趣的含義。
首先，在那些以分析國際政治為專業(yè)職責(zé)的人士中，出現(xiàn)了越來越多的混亂。美國最著名的現(xiàn)實主義者之一斯蒂芬·沃爾特在最近的文章中憤怒地提請人們注意，美國政府的外交政策決定偏離了國際生活的邏輯。俄羅斯分析人士聲稱，政治本身被純粹的外交政策理性所主導(dǎo)，這也并不罕見。

Second, there is a purely practical risk that governments preoccupied with domestic concerns will in fact pay insufficient attention to those issues of international life that remain fundamentally important. So far, the leading nuclear powers have shown themselves capable of looking after the survival of humanity, despite some shifts in their own priorities. One suspects, however, that it would be a little foolhardy to place all hope in the wisdom of our statesmen alone.

其次，存在一種純粹實際的風(fēng)險，即全神貫注于國內(nèi)問題的政府實際上對那些仍然至關(guān)重要的國際生活問題重視不足。到目前為止，主要核大國已經(jīng)表明，它們有能力照顧人類的生存，盡管它們自己的優(yōu)先事項發(fā)生了一些變化。然而，有人懷疑，把所有希望都寄托在我們政治家的智慧上是有點魯莽的。