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放棄一個我們相信會繼續(xù)存在的制度

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)看到，現(xiàn)代國家面臨著如此嚴(yán)峻的挑戰(zhàn)，以至于外交政策在任何地方都服從于國內(nèi)考慮。西方國家、俄羅斯、中國、印度和其他國家都是如此。事實(shí)上，這凸顯了現(xiàn)有學(xué)術(shù)理論僅僅因?yàn)槠浞椒ㄕ摱鵁o法理解的東西。

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)兩次世界大戰(zhàn)的一個奇怪影響是，尤其是幾個大國都擁有了威力巨大的武器（大規(guī)模使用這些武器可能導(dǎo)致地球上有意識的生命的滅絕），從廣義上來說，增加了各國外交政策活動的重要性。一場軍事災(zāi)難將帶來普遍性和不可逆轉(zhuǎn)的后果，這種恐懼逐漸顯現(xiàn)出來并最終在人們心中扎根，使國際穩(wěn)定問題成為公眾關(guān)注的首要問題。

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)全球化使得與外部因素直接相關(guān)的問題變得越來越重要。外部因素在一定程度上將一個國家的發(fā)展甚至生存與其在國際舞臺上承擔(dān)的任務(wù)聯(lián)系在一起。對于中小國家來說尤其如此，因?yàn)楝F(xiàn)代世界的水域中鯊魚泛濫，無法為它們提供完全獨(dú)立生存的可能性。但即使是大國，在過去一個世紀(jì)中，外交政策問題也變得如此重要，幾乎與國內(nèi)問題同等重要。

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，如今的普遍市場經(jīng)濟(jì)和相對開放確實(shí)降低了各國政府完全自主決定國內(nèi)發(fā)展參數(shù)的能力。這強(qiáng)化了人們的看法：讓公民幸福這一關(guān)鍵任務(wù)的成敗將取決于一個國家是否融入全球體系，而大多數(shù)問題將由全球體系自行解決。這一做法的實(shí)際后果是外交機(jī)構(gòu)以及管理外交關(guān)系的機(jī)構(gòu)出現(xiàn)了歷史上難以想象的擴(kuò)張。大量官員深知自己的工作和職業(yè)的重要性，如今負(fù)責(zé)本國的對外事務(wù)。

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.

從這個意義上來說，全球國家體系確實(shí)正在向歐洲中世紀(jì)模式邁進(jìn)，政府幾乎不干涉國民的日常生活，特別是精神生活，而樂于專注于外交政策任務(wù)。只有那些最能保持國家高于全球的權(quán)力的強(qiáng)國，才有能力保留傳統(tǒng)意義上的主權(quán)。首先，這描述了美國，其將國內(nèi)政策置于外交政策之上逐漸成為其與世界所有其他國家區(qū)別開來的一個獨(dú)特特征。但這種適合所有人的秩序現(xiàn)在開始崩潰。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處


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.

隨著各種氣候變化表現(xiàn)、互聯(lián)網(wǎng)和信息革命以及人工智能等“普遍”問題的出現(xiàn)，事情開始朝著全新的方向發(fā)展。大約 10 到 15 年前，已故的亨利·基辛格是當(dāng)代第一位指出“問題都是全球性的，但解決方案卻只能由各國解決”的偉大思想家。這位杰出的政治家發(fā)表此言，是為了提醒人們注意這樣一個事實(shí)：國際社會尚未準(zhǔn)備好制定綜合方案來解決影響所有人的問題。

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)展中國家都無法做出基于“盡量減少各自損失，同時實(shí)現(xiàn)所有國家相對利益”的決策。最突出的例子就是國際氣候變化合作的發(fā)展。在短短幾年的時間里，它已演變?yōu)閲抑g基于企業(yè)部門利益和相關(guān)政府偏好而進(jìn)行的一系列交易，或者像俄羅斯的情況那樣，基于該領(lǐng)域的科學(xué)公共政策，同時也考慮到國家經(jīng)濟(jì)利益。因此，即使在西方主導(dǎo)世界事務(wù)的時期（甚至是以西方為代價），各國也未能制定出一個單一的“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，問題并不局限于這些問題，這些問題正是由于人類最近的變化和技術(shù)進(jìn)步而變得重要。其中最重要的問題是貧富不均現(xiàn)象的加劇，具體表現(xiàn)是多數(shù)西方國家大量民眾收入下降和“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.

這一問題在新冠疫情期間最為明顯，最貧困的群體受害最嚴(yán)重。在美國，疫情造成了巨大的人員傷亡，但由于當(dāng)?shù)厣鐣?jīng)濟(jì)結(jié)構(gòu)的特殊性，沒有人真正關(guān)心此事。在俄羅斯和歐洲大部分地區(qū)，公民因新冠病毒死亡增加了各類社會計劃和醫(yī)療保健原本就巨大的成本。由于各國大力努力減輕2008-2009年危機(jī)和2020-2022年疫情的直接影響，同時繼續(xù)采取措施穩(wěn)定預(yù)算，現(xiàn)在最大的擔(dān)憂是社會計劃的未來，這些計劃是20世紀(jì)福利的基礎(chǔ)，也是廣大中產(chǎn)階級福祉的源泉。

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)定的體系出現(xiàn)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，但俄羅斯也無法幸免于現(xiàn)代全球經(jīng)濟(jì)核心生活方式崩潰所帶來的負(fù)面后果，而這種生活方式也是國家干預(yù)自由市場的合法性來源。尤其如此，因?yàn)樾畔⑷蚧暮蠊鐚χ黧w生活的控制在一定程度上受到侵蝕，并沒有消失。即使是中國，這個國家的信息政策最為一致，且服從于政府和精英的任務(wù)的國家，也面臨著這個問題。

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，各國必須越來越多地關(guān)注其當(dāng)務(wù)之急，例如維護(hù)公民之間的社會和平。對于中國或印度等日益壯大的國際政治大國而言，其龐大的人口規(guī)模使國內(nèi)問題成為首要議題。結(jié)果，外交政策活動被置于次要地位，只在內(nèi)部爭取統(tǒng)一（俄羅斯、中國、印度）或近幾十年來幾乎不可撼動的精英階層保留權(quán)力（美國和歐洲主要國家）的背景下才予以考慮。

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(shí)踐層面有兩個有趣的含義。首先，專業(yè)負(fù)責(zé)國際政治分析的人們的困惑日益加深。首先，專業(yè)負(fù)責(zé)國際政治分析的人們的困惑日益加深。美國最著名的現(xiàn)實(shí)主義者之一斯蒂芬·沃爾特在其最近的文章中憤怒地指出，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受純粹的外交政策理性所主導(dǎo)的說法也并不罕見。

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，存在一個純粹實(shí)際的風(fēng)險，即專注于國內(nèi)事務(wù)的政府實(shí)際上將對那些仍然至關(guān)重要的國際生活問題關(guān)注不夠。到目前為止，盡管核大國的優(yōu)先事項(xiàng)發(fā)生了一些變化，但它們已經(jīng)證明自己有能力照顧人類的生存。然而，有人懷疑，把所有的希望都寄托在我們政治家的智慧上，未免有些魯莽。